Logo DBNL
The Modern Devotion (1968)

The Modern Devotion

(1968)–R.R. Post–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism


Vorige Volgende

Chapter Twelve
The Windesheimers from 1425 to 1486

This important period, which can be said to commence with the priorate of William Vornken (1425-1454) and to end with that of Dirk de Graaf (1459-1486), is characterized by a continual expansion of the congregation, and by a promoting of the observance, both within and without the Windesheim circle, not only among the Canons and Canonesses Regular but also among the Benedictines and Cistercians and their female branches. In some cases the expansion of the congregation is directly linked with the carrying through of the observance in certain monasteries, sometimes it is unconnected. The maintaining of the observance of the pious customs and principles within the congregation was one of the tasks of the general chapter, which in this period regularly met once a year,1 and of its organs the visitatores and commissarii for the convents, who in their turn collaborated with the rectors of the individual houses. The Acta of this general chapter were kept so restrained that they tell us nothing of the outside activities of the Windesheim congregation in promoting the observance. The name of John Busch, who between 1440 and 1454 and from 1459 to 1479 initiated an exceptionally large and successful reformatory programme in Saxony, is not mentioned in the Acta capituli. Regarding cardinal Nicolas of Cusa's stay in the Netherlands and notably in Windesheim in 1451, the Acta give only the two bulletins published by the cardinal in favour of the Windesheimers, one in Zwolle and one in Louvain.2 Fortunately these Acta can be supplemented by the Chronicon Windeshemense and especially the Liber de Reformatione Monasteriorum3 which it includes. We also possess a few chronicles of the individual monasteries.

This period is also the time of the important, indeed renowned, publications of Thomas a Kempis, who lived through a large part of it, and of John Mombaer who lived towards the end. He was a witness

and leader of one of the last great efforts to expand made by the Windesheim congregation.

There are thus three main aspects which demand our attention: first the expansion, the preservation or introduction of the observance, inside and outside their own circle, and finally the writings, which are all of an ascetic nature.

The men upon whose shoulders the main burden rested throughout this period were the priores superiores. As the title indicates, they were the priors of the Windesheim monastery who were at the same time superiors of the congregation. Windesheim was fortunate in having excellent priors who enjoyed a very long priorate. The period of William Vornken and Dirk de Graaf is interrupted only by the short priorate of John of Naaldwyk (1455-1459). These superiors were assisted, however, by several of their canons who were always willing to be transferred in order to introduce to a related monastery by word and example the Windesheim observance, customs and exercises. This was no easy task. Happily these persons received help from enthusiastic colleagues who desired union with Windesheim. Often, however, there was also a hostile group, or at least certain people who were indifferent or who opposed this move on principle. They wished to retain the old customs, since they had bound themselves to keep them and found them in no way worthy of condemnation. In addition the new or renewed foundations were usually or often poverty-stricken, a condition to which the Windesheim representatives had to resign themselves. For these men the cella dulcis lay elsewhere and they must often have felt like strangers or lodgers, unable to work in their new surroundings as well as they did at home. Men like John of Kempen, John Broechuis, Henry Loder, John Busch and various others showed themselves constantly prepared for these expeditions, and their work was often crowned with success. The members of the four oldest monasteries also made their contribution, just as did the more recent foundations, notably Frenswegen near Nordhorn and St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle. For more distant monasteries, members of the nearest foundation were called in. For example, the chronicle of St Agnietenberg mentions that in 1444, after August 24th, three priests of this monastery were sent to the new house at Roermond.1

The men usually entered the monastery in their 18th, 19th or 20th year, were made canons after a year or eighteen months' probationary

period, and were entirely steeped in the ideals and practices of Windesheim. Several of them, moreover, were gifted with a natural insight into human nature. They carried out important work in their circle, but they were not scholars, theologians or lawyers. No more than any of the Brothers had these men, celebrated in the literature of the Devotionalists, attended university. Several of these prominent persons can be shown to have attended no higher institute of learning than the city school, usually that of Deventer or Zwolle. This is expressly stated of John Vos of Heusden, who had learned chiefly Latin in Deventer at the schola particularis, i.e., the city school as distinguished from the schola generalis, the university. He joined the Windesheimers straight from school.1 Similarly we have Arnold Kalkar, later superior in Windesheim2 and Gerard of Delft, later procurator in the same monastery,3 John of Kempen, brother of Thomas, prior successively of Mariaborn near Arnhem and St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle, who put St. Peterswiel near Zaltbommel on its feet, was later rector with the Sisters of Bronopia near Kampen and of the Visitation of our Lady near Haarlem, and finally first rector of the convent of Bethany near Arnhem. He died and was buried here (4th November 1422).4 His brother Thomas had followed him to the school of Deventer and both gained their education there.5 Thomas was not the only famous author produced by these schools. John Busch had passed through all the classes of the school in Zwolle, including the two top classes, and had also taught for a while there, first in the fifth class and for a time even in the third. When he was ripe for the university, he entered at Windesheim.6

It is to such persons that the Windesheim congregation owed its greatness. Not only did they promote its increase and expansion, they also enhanced the quality of its spiritual life, rendering it attractive for the devout men of the 15th century. During this period the head monastery could rejoice in a steady increase in members. During the period of 61 years with which we are here concerned, 43 canons were clothed; this, however, is still less than one a year, rather less than under John Vos of Heusden (31 in 32 years). But the small community

suffered few losses1 so that we hear no complaints about too few members.

 

One of the first important problems which the prior superior William Vornken was called upon to resolve was the plan to incorporate the entire chapter of Neuss in the Windesheim union. The Neuss chapter comprised the monastery of B. Maria of Neuss, B. Maria in great Bethlehem near Doetinchem,2 B. Maria in little Bethlehem at Zwolle, B. Maria and twelve Apostles (‘Zakkenbroeders’ monastery at Utrecht), B. Maria in Gaesdonk, B. Catherine near Nijmegen, St. Meinulf in Bodeken, B. Maria in Reimerswaal, B. John the Baptist in Aachen, Marienberg in Böddingen near Sieberg, S. Salvator in Ewyck, B. Maria in Insula near Koblenz, Engelendaal in Bonn, B. Agnes in Dordrecht and Marienburg near Nijmegen. The desire for union does seem to have existed, but there appear to have been opponents here and there among the Neuss chapter. The members of Neuss, moreover, made conditions, or at least put forward certain requests. The discussions floundered somewhat at the outset, but the parties reached agreement at the chapter of 1427. Pope Martin V attempted to move things along by appointing three provosts to further the matter, and after a commission drawn from both parties had been set up, the last difficulties were resolved in 1429. The agreement was signed at Brielle where the general chapter was being held on account of the ecclesiastical disputes in Overijssel. The conditions formulated in 1427 were accepted, namely that the title of provost held by the heads of the Neuss monasteries should be changed into that of prior; that all members of the monasteries involved should give notice of their agreement in a sealed letter; that the aforementioned house of Utrecht and that of Zwolle (Bethlehem) should be free of the monastery of Bethlehem in Doetinchem; that they must relinquish those privileges which conflicted with the Windesheim statutes and not attempt to obtain similar privileges from the Holy See in the future; that on the contrary they must observe the Windesheim statutes, especially regarding the severity of the order, and also conform to the dress of the order. They might only retain their own distinctive cloak. At subsequent discussions it was also decided that the monastery of Neuss

should be placed immediately after the head monastery of Windesheim in the official list of monasteries, even before Groenendaal. These last points have been termed, quite justifiably, rather petty-minded, but the essential thing is that they accepted the main issue, the severe life of Windesheim. The decisions taken at the chapter of Brielle in 1429 were confirmed at the next chapter meeting in 1430, again held in Brielle, so that this date, 1430, is considered as the official date of incorporation.1 This was according to the usual custom: all decisions by the chapter were dealt with in three successive meetings: first came the decree (here in 1427: ordinata), then the approval (approbata; here in 1429) and finally the confirmation (confirmata: here in 1430).

At the same time proceedings were going on for the admission of four other existing monasteries, St. Martin in Achlum (Ludingerkerk) and the newly founded Beverwyk officially incorporated in 1431; and Bethania of Malines, admitted in 1430 after the three phases. The incorporation of Bethania near Arnhem was accepted for the first time in 1430 and approved in 1431, but was confirmed only in 1433.

During this period several of the associated monasteries evinced the desire for a somewhat stricter enclosure, following the method of the Carthusians. The general chapters about this time had repeatedly to deal with such requests. The monastery's desire was usually granted, but not always with the same severity. In 1431, for example, the question arose of what grounds would permit the enclosed Sisters to break the enclosure, but it is not clear what answer was given. In 1434, however, permission was given to the canons at Tongeren to initiate an enclosure, but one which would limit them only to the city walls.2 Korsendonk and Elsinghem were enclosed in 1433.

According to Busch this desire for closer association arose from the monastics' discontent at the frequent visiting in the monasteries, which disturbed the peace and led to the receiving of guests and the taking of meals outside the monastery. The prior then had to make the difficult decision whether to allow the visits or not. Several prominent members, however, considered that such an enclosure was not in the spirit of the rule of St. Augustine. It was finally decided that each application should be considered on its own merits, but the opportunity of taking the daily walk must be retained. Especially on those days on which the monks were bled they had to be able to restore

their physical forces by movement and recreation, so that the canons would still be capable of visiting neighbouring and even more distant places. Yet still the desire for a stricter form of monastic life persisted so strongly that fifteen monasteries accepted the ‘enclosure’.1 The number was later increased. (See p. 511)

The pastoral care of the Sisters constituted a problem for the fathers. It was not considered advisable that too many of the priests should reside outside their own monasteries. For this reason a resolution was passed by the chapter in 1431 forbidding all who were subject to the chapter to propose that convents should be admitted to or incorporated in the order.2 This prohibition was approved in 1432 and confirmed in 1433.3

On November 8th 1436, Pope Eugenius IV, probably at their own request, forbade the Windesheimers to admit convents in the future. An exception was made for B. Maria at Ghent and Facons in Antwerp (Ghent was admitted in 1438, Antwerp in 1441).4

Meanwhile the expansion continued. A new field of activity opened in Saxony. Here lay the Regular monasteries of Wittenburg and Riechenberg near Goslar, both in the diocese of Hildesheim. In both the canons were allowed to retain their personal property which, as Groote had already predicted, led to the impoverishment of the whole. The leaders and members came to hear of Windesheim and wished to adopt this ‘reformation’. The reform of Wittenburg was brought about in 1423, after a visitation of Henry Loder of Frenswegen, by a group of Windesheim canons and lay Brothers. Riechenberg was reformed in 1426, but we are not told by whom. Both at first remained outside the Windesheim union, but in 1429 the bishop of Hildesheim gave permission to incorporate, and the general chapter at Windesheim informed the visitatores of the two houses in 1432 that they would be received into the union provided they were willing to exchange the title of provost for that of prior.5 This seems to have been done, for they later appear as members of the congregation.

Meanwhile the monastery of St. Elizabeth near Roermond (Nunhem), in the county of Horn, was incorporated in 1436.6 Requests for

admission to the union became more frequent: Hertzenhagen near Frankfurt and Anjum (Marienberg) in Friesland in 1438-39; the convent of Galilaea in Ghent (1438) and the monastery of Nazareth, near Bredevoort1 (1439), the convent of Faconshof at Antwerp (1441) and Melle, near Ghent, also in 1441.2

During this same period John Busch, the Windesheim canon and chronicler, was working in Saxony. He had gone to Wittenburg near Hildesheim around 1437 and had done very good work there as subprior.3 Having been there for two years he transferred on August 20th 1439 to the house of the Canons Regular at Sulta, also near Hildesheim.4

This was naturally followed by the admission of the monastery of Sulta to the Windesheim congregation as early as 1441-42.5 Busch was the first provost, taking the title of prior, which was customary at least to the west of Münster. We shall return to Busch's reforming activities later. The admission of the monastery of St. Dionysius in Molenbeke, in the diocese of Minden, which was entrusted to the visitatores of Saxony in 1442 and certainly took place,6 was entirely unconnected with Busch's activities in Saxony. Molenbeke was a worn out and decrepit monastery from the time of the crusades. Arnold Huls, prior at Bodiken, was invited there in the hope that he would obtain some improvement. He bought out the persons he found there and populated the monastery with Canons Regular of the Windesheim group, with the result that it revived and soon flourished,7 just like the Domus B. Mariae in Insula (Niederwerth) near Koblenz.8 This was a relic of the exile of the canons of the Zwolle Bethlehem during the Utrecht schism in 1429-30, when they took refuge in this monastery.9 In 1443 the union gained Domus Busci Domini Isaac, the master Isaac's house near Nivelles, a monastery recently founded from Melle for the care of a chapel in which a miracle of the Blessed Sacrament is said to have taken place in 1405.10 Then came the monastery of St. Jerome at

Roermond in 1444,1 joined in the following year by the monastery of Segberg in Holstein which had been living according to the Windesheim customs for some time. The canons first asked for John Busch as rector, but when this met with difficulties in Windesheim, they chose another of the Windesheim canons.2 At this time the replacing of the Benedictine nuns by canonesses of the Windesheim group in the convent of Sylmonniken near Emden was already envisaged. This foundation was admitted to the congregation in 1446, after a thorough investigation.3 Something similar occurred with St. Peter at Hegene in the Worms diocese. This house had been reformed by the canons of Bodiken and was thus ripe for admission to the congregation. This took place in 1447.4 It was followed by Albergen which, as we have shown, was transformed in 1447 from a house of Brethren of the Common Life into a monastery, and was incorporated at the chapter of 1448.5 During the same period there were requests for incorporation from Corpus Christi, in Cologne, a monastery with a pilgrims' church (miracle of the B. Sacrament), from a monastery at Bergum near Leeuwarden, and from Daelhem in the diocese of Paderborn, inhabited by canons from Bodiken. The first two were admitted in 1453, and the date of the other admission is unknown. It must have been around the same time.6

After 1450 the new admissions seem to have slackened off a little, but in 1453 the convent of Marienburg in Nijmegen was incorporated, followed by the house of St. Pancratius at Hamersleben in the diocese of Halberstadt, and of the Holy Ghost in Udem. The first was an original foundation, the object of reformatory activities by John Busch in 1451, on the authority of cardinal Nicolas of Cusa.7 This reformation was continued by John Havekenschede of Coesfeld, prior in Riechenberg. The other house only developed in the fifties alongside an existing chapel.8

In 1457 applications were received from the old, but recently restored monastery of Rebdorf in the diocese of Eichstadt, and from Everhardsclausen in the diocese of Trèves. This latter was a small, new

institution, a little monastery near a recently built chapel which attracted quite a number of the faithful. The first monastery was already incorporated in 1458, but Everhardsclausen had to wait until 1461.1

A remarkable case was that of St. Jerome (Lopzen) in Leiden. This was a house of the Third Order of St. Francis, and we have already seen that several of these monasteries adopted the Rule of St. Augustine. The chapter of 1461 raised no objection to the incorporation of St. Jerome of Leiden, but at the same time it forbade all priors and persons of the chapter to encourage Brothers or Sisters of the Third Order in any way whatsoever, to adopt our order.2 Was the chapter somewhat intimidated by the large number of these Tertiaries - were the numerous members of the congregation beginning to oppress them? Or were they fearful of the many convents in this group which would impose upon them a considerable responsibility for the pastoral care of the Sisters.

They preferred to receive into their order the Louvain Brotherhouse, St. Martin of Louvain, which had adopted the Rule of St. Augustine in 1447.3

As many as four houses were incorporated in the chapter in the year 1464. These were the nearby Haske (Rosaevallis in Friesland) and three far away in the south of Germany: Birchling, St. Leonard in Basle and St. Irenaeus in Marbach in the Basle diocese.4 This shows that the influence of Windesheim continued to penetrate further towards the south. This impression is confirmed by the admission of the monastery of Iterwile, in the diocese of Strasbourg, to the south of the city, and of St. John the Baptist of Volckerdinckhusen in the south of the diocese of Paderborn. Both were united with Windesheim in 1467.5

In the following year the incorporation of Schaberheim in the diocese of Mainz was discussed, and the final decision was taken in 1470. There were two new admissions in 1469, the monastery founded by Count Adolf in memory of his victory over John of Cleves on June 23rd 1468, and finally the monastery of Ravensberg in the diocese of Mainz.6

The most distant house, that of St. Martin, near Zürich, was incorporated in 1471. Then followed a period of calm, broken by the incorporation of two foundations. The first was Sindelfingen in Württemberg, the greater part of whose income had been granted to the University of Tübingen in 1477. The remainder was sufficient for the modest upkeep of a few simple Regulars of the Windesheim congregation.1 The second was Blomberg in the diocese of Paderborn, another pilgrimage church of fairly recent date, but where the offerings were large enough to support a small colony of Windesheimers.2 Finally, during the last years of the prior Dirk de Graaf († 1486) there were two new additions from the extreme south, Berenberg in the diocese of Constance (1485) and St. Lawrence in Hessa near Saarburg during the same year.3 According to Acquoy's calculations this completes the number 80, but the Acta capituli of 1530 sets the number at 79.4 Another 13 convents must be added to both totals. This gives us then 92 houses a hundred years after the foundation of Windesheim. This was undoubtedly an enormous success, far exceeding that of the Brethren. The territory covered by the houses extends from the north sea by way of Ghent, Brussels, Saarburg, Strasbourg to Basle, Zürich, Tübingen, Halberstadt and back again to Emden. The remarkable thing is that nowhere is a language frontier breached. Until the death of Dirk de Graaf, the Windesheim phenomenon was essentially Germanic (Dutch-German). In the period immediately following, however, the Windesheimers crossed the linguistic frontier and descended on Paris.

 

Throughout this period other phenomena make their appearance in the history of the Windesheimers. The already mentioned desire for a stricter enclosure persisted. Apart from the fifteen monasteries expressly mentioned by Busch, this enclosure was introduced in some form in the following foundations: Corsendonck, Elsinghem, Neuss, Nieuwlicht in Hoorn and Leiderdorp.5 This inclusio gave rise to various problems, which were resolved by the general chapter: for example, Brothers from enclosed monasteries who were transferred to houses which were not enclosed, had to retain the enclosure of their

own monastery, but the visitatores would determine the bounds of the enclosed space.1 The members of the chapter desired to be kept informed on this phenomenon and decreed in 1453 that all enclosed monasteries should acquaint the chapter before the next meeting with the form taken by their enclosure.2 In any case the enclosure, once granted, had to be strictly observed.3

A concept which did not occur officially among the fraters is that of the fugitivi or apostatae, monastics who abandoned the monastic life, who simply left to take up another post elsewhere, often as a secular priest. Here the difference between the canons and the fraters is revealed. From a legal point of view any member of the Brotherhood was free to leave if he wished, even though his departure was made financially difficult. According to the Annals of the Brotherhouse of Hildesheim several of the fraters left their house without anyone going in pursuit. They were not considered as fugitives or apostates. We can thus easily understand Erasmus when, speaking of the pressure exerted on him to remain with the Brothers of 's-Hertogenbosch, he sighed: ‘If only I had done so!’ He would then be free now, but a monastic vow was much more difficult to evade. Anyone leaving his monastery without permission was held to be a fugitive and had to be brought back forcibly and against his will and lodged in the monastery prison to await his punishment. This absconding was a fairly constant problem in the fifteenth century, and may be partly explained by the great numbers of monastics and by the ease with which people were admitted. The Windesheim monasteries did not escape this phenomenon and the fugitivi or apostatae regularly come up for discussion in the general chapter.4 The attitude towards these persons was expressed in 1442: ‘That the apostatae and profugi of our houses, wherever they are found, should be placed under strong custody at the expense of the house to which they belong.’ The monastery superiors, the priors and prioresses, had to provide a cella carceralis - a cell furnished as a prison.5 All vagi and fugitives who were unable to produce their prior's permission to be away, had to be placed under heavy guard and their names sent to the appropriate prior, who was responsible for the expenses; one French crown per week.6 The

monastery superiors considered themselves well rid of such persons and often acted as though they had never heard of such a profugus. The chapter, however, impressed upon them the wrongfulness of this attitude.1

The fugitivi lost their vote in the chapter of their own monastery and could only regain it by decree of the general chapter.2

Still worse were the rebels, those who wrote or complained in an unreasonable manner or opposed particular rules. They too could be thrown into prison and the general chapter decided on their fate.3

All this in no way signifies laxity or retrogression. Mistakes do occur in such an enormous complex; however, it sufficiently characterizes the spirit of the order. The chapter's authority is considerable and this partly explains the fear of the Hildesheim Brotherhouse that the colloquium of Münster and the rector of Münster would imitate the Windesheim chapter in these matters. The whole constituted an important power within the church and it is clear that they preferred to communicate directly with the pope,4 avoiding the episcopal authority as much as possible. They accordingly preferred privileges such as that which decreed that they need not admit anyone to their monastery on the recommendation of a prince, for example the bishop at his first entry.5 The prior of the monastery of Basle was not allowed to oppose the pope in 1484.6 It may be explained by their preoccupation with maintaining the proper spirit, which led them to hold themselves entirely aloof from the parish pastoral work. On the incorporation of the monastery of Hamersleben, in the diocese of Halberstadt, the visitatores had to ensure that the canons there relinquished their pastoral duties with the parish church and school to another institution (1456).7 The general chapter of 1483 forbade the priors and members to allow the incorporated parish churches to be served by Brothers from the monastery. They had to leave this work to the secular clergy.8 At the incorporation of the monastery of Hessenhuis it was also decreed that the parish church must be served by secular priests.9

A somewhat more joyful spirit among the heads of orders is evident from their anxiety to ensure that the monastics, even the enclosed, should have their daily walk and that they should be allowed recreation after bloodletting. This more cheerful mood may also perhaps be manifested in the holidays, which were held in 1458 and 1459.1 Only one day is mentioned, but three holidays are assumed in 1458.2 Three holidays of a day each is not expressly stated, but this will have been intended. In 1465 there is even mention of a holiday list (tabula vacantiarum), approved by the chapter.3

None the less, life must have been a pretty gloomy affair. Even organ accompaniment was forbidden during the many religious exercises,4 nor was it permissable to play the organ in the dormitory in order to wake the canons.

The large number of widely scattered monasteries of the Windesheim congregation may be viewed on the one hand as the fruits of the so-called aspiration to monastic reform, to union and collaboration with the already ‘reformed’ institutions, to observance of the monastic rule and stricter regulations, while on the other this desire for reformation and union is the force which impels the monastic movement and gives it direction. To the extent that Windesheim was implicated in this movement, this reformation can be considered to form part of the Modern Devotion and must therefore have its place in this book.

However, as we have, seen neither the first Windesheimers, nor the founders of the union of the first four monasteries, envisaged a campaign leading to the reformation of other monasteries. They took various measures to ensure that they themselves continued to observe the rule as well as possible. This must also have been the intention behind the collaboration and association of the Brabantine monasteries of Canons Regular, Groenendaal, Rooklooster, Korsendonck and Zeven Bronnen near Brussels in 1402 and the founding of the chapter of Neuss around the same time. Around 1400 it must also have become apparent to the leader of the Windesheim congregation that the observantism of the monasteries could be fostered, not only by the founding of new observant houses, but also by forming contacts with existing monasteries and by uniting these with their congregation. In this they were complying with the generally expressed desire for

reform in head and members. Their actions were henceforth directed towards this goal. One of the reasons why they received support and various privileges from the Council of Constance was certainly that the Council Fathers like Pierre d'Ailly and Gerson saw in these people a practical illustration and application of their ideals. Naturally enough, the Windesheimers confined themselves at first to their own order, and principally to monasteries which wished to be incorporated. In this they were not alone, even in the Netherlands. Something of the same aspiration revealed itself in the fourteenth century among the Dominicans, while the observance gained ground among the Franciscans. In addition Boyng, a Cistercian, Abbot of Ternunten, in his position as visitator, introduced a ‘monastic reform’1 in certain monasteries; in Schola Dei near Aurich in 1412, in Bloemkamp in 1424 and around the same time in Yesse, near Groningen, and Aduard. The events of 1414 and succeeding years in the double monastery of Dikninge in Drente, which belonged to the Benedictine order, are significant. In this year the Benedictine abbot of St. Paul in Utrecht, visitator of the Drente monastery, in the bishop's name, drew up certain reforming statutes for this institution. They were extremely flexible, however, leaving open the possibility of limited personal possessions and outings with visiting members of the family. These statutes, however, were not found satisfactory. John Wael, provost of the monastery of Bethlehem in Zwolle, which was associated with Neuss but not yet with Windesheim, was consulted. He then prescribed stricter statutes which may thus be indirectly attributed to the influence of the Modern Devotion.2

The canons of Windesheim and the associated monasteries did the same, thus paving the way for the union. This is clear from the history of the monastery of Wittenburg in Lower Saxony, where Henry Loder and his confrère from the monastery of Frenswegen brought about a reform as early as 1423, that is, ten years before the union with Windesheim. Similarly the monastery of Riechenberg near Goslar, which was also the work of Henry Loder of Frenswegen, was ‘reformed’ in 1419 and incorporated with Windesheim in 1432. The monastery Domus S. Meinulphi at Bodiken in the diocese of Paderborn likewise joined Neuss in 1412 and was there incorporated with Windesheim in 1430. Arnold Huls, prior of Frenswegen, was then appointed prior.3

Apart from Windesheim, St. Agnietenberg and Frenswegen, the three aforementioned Saxon monasteries (Wittenburg, Reichenberg and Bodiken) were especially active in helping the Windesheim canon John Busch who became renowned as the ‘reformer of monasteries’ and propagandist of the Windesheim customs in Saxony, Thüringen and Brandenburg, through the publication of the accounts of his activities: Liber de reformatione monasteriorum.1

John Busch, a pupil of the Zwolle school under John Cele, clothed in Windesheim in 1419, was caught up in this work as early as 1424. From this year until 1428 he helped to found and guide the monastery of Böddingen in the archdiocese of Cologne. The years 1429 to 1431 saw him working in Ludingerkerk in Friesland and afterwards with the Sisters in Bronopia, a post which he resigned at his own request in order to return to Windesheim. Finally, in 1436/7, he found his best field of activity. He became sub-prior in Wittenburg, near Hildesheim, and in 1440 was made prior of this monastery. He then, with a reforming party in Hildesheim, reformed a number of monasteries, two in Hildesheim and Lauterberg near Halle. From 1440 to 1448 he was provost of Sulta. In this year he was made provost of the monastery of Neuwerk near Halle (1448-1454), a diocesan function which temporarily severed his connection with Windesheim, although he continued his work of reform. He took part in the provincial synod at Magdeburg, convened by cardinal Nicolas of Cusa, and obtained from him authority to reform the monasteries of his order, employing secular help.2 He had earlier relied upon a general commission from the Council of Basle, given to Rembert, first prior in Wittenburg and to the prior superior of Windesheim, to visit and reform the monasteries of the Canons Regular in the dioceses of Hildesheim and Halberstadt and also in the dukedom of Brünswick. His reforming activities were interrupted in 1454 by a journey and a stay in Windesheim, where he was once again entrusted with the care of the Sisters, first in Diepenveen and later in Bronopia. It is during this period that he wrote his account of the Devotio Moderna and his Windesheim chronicle. In 1459 he left again for Saxony, became for the second time provost of Sulta near Hildesheim, worked there until 1479 and died shortly afterwards. During these years he was preoccupied with the reform of various monasteries, including some outside his order. In this he received

powerful support from prior Paul of St. Maurice in Halle, and from various persons whom he had inspired with his ideal or who had come from the West, in Wittenburg, Riechenberg, Sulta and Bodiken. His account of these reforming activities provides a vivid description of conditions in various monasteries, of Busch's courageous and resourceful actions with regard to them, of the assistance he received from the bishops of Magdeburg, and Hildesheim, from duke Henry of Brunswick, from some canons and in certain places from the municipality. He met with considerable opposition, however, from the monks, Canons Regular and Sisters, especially from the Benedictinesses and Cistercianesses. His narrative is generally held to be reliable, although he will not have been above a certain distortion in his own favour! In the first place it is, to say the least, suspicious that he everywhere plays the principal and most sympathetic role. He is never at a loss in his dealings with princes, bishops, lawyers, theologians, preachers. Sometimes he seems to enter the realms of fantasy, when he writes of murder threats or of assaults prevented in the nick of time, of being lured into the cellar by nuns and their attempt to lock him up. Equally fantastic is his story of how Albrecht, Duke of Austria, later King of Bohemia and Rome's king-emperor from 1438 to 1439 as Albrecht II, himself helped to reform the monks of the Benedictine monasteries. This prince asked the abbot and the monks if they would keep the Rule of St. Benedict. Those who objected were allowed to go, but were taken by his soldiers outside the hall, led away and summarily hanged.1 Still, though despotism was capable of almost anything towards the end of the Middle Ages, and it was not unusual for rulers to intervene in church matters, Busch's story seems to me a little far-fetched.

Although we do not possess any other data with which to compare Busch's accounts, he appears to have painted a very dark picture of the situation before the introduction of his proposed reform. Once the monks or sisters have complied, not only piety and happiness return but prosperity as well. This last accords with Geert Groote's opinion that the monastics cost much more to keep separately, as individuals, than if the expenses of all are met as one community from the communal fund. Busch undoubtedly reformed many monasteries. He suggests in his reports that the three essential vows were neglected before the reform and kept after, but with few exceptions the details2

he mentions are concerned with personal property and matters which may be considered as externals of little significance: the introduction of the Windesheim customs and choir service; the same books, the same ceremonies; that the monks should wear the same clothes and perform the same gestures when praying before and after meals. No matter how obstinately the monks and nuns sometimes resisted, there seem to have been no great principles at stake, with the exception of communal possession which is essential for the continued survival of any monastic community.

Although Busch is careful to present his activities in a favourable light, he gives the impression of being a man obsessed, blind to all but one possibility and one goal. His ideal was Windesheim, the customs and the rule as applied there. He saw everything in black and white. Monks, canons and sisters who had lived their whole monastic life in a manner not approved by Busch, were forcibly driven on to the streets and left apparently without a roof over their heads, without a source of income. There may have been some among them who had made a mockery of the monastic life, or who even lived in sin. Busch is very reticent on this last point. His action had the general approval. Everywhere people were crying out for reform, which will, indeed, have been long overdue. But had this to be accomplished through the might of the temporal rulers and with no discrimination? It might have been a long, even an impossible task, to win over the monks and gradually persuade them to mend their ways. None the less, it seems to me a dangerous thing to have placed so much power in the hands of two persons, John Busch of Neuwerk and Paul, rector of St. Moritz, both small town monastery rectors. Where was the curb to this power? Was there a court of appeal, a well considered answer to the proposals?

Where lay the dividing line between what was necessary for the decree and what may be considered incidental? What were the permanent consequences of such compulsion? Up to the end of this period Windesheim and its ever-increasing congregations command respect for its consistent campaign for observance and monastic severity and integrity.

When, on April 11th, 1486, Pope Innocent VIII granted the privileges of the Lateran congregation to the congregation of Windesheim - which will probably not have been done motu proprio - the highest leaders of the chapter were considerably alarmed. They feared that the privileges granted in this bull would offer some the opportunity to

slacken the reins of monastic observance. They introduced the desired change.1 This may prove the seriousness of their intentions and their care for their monasteries, but it also shows that their idea cannot be considered as the only right one. Variis modis bene fit might also hold good here. There were in the Netherlands two other chapters - Delft and Venlo - which owed their existence to the Modern Devotionalists but were not associated with Windesheim and still followed an extremely good observance. In addition there were numerous other foundations which remained independent. The reforming activity of the Benedictine monastery of Bursfeld may have had some contact with Windesheim in the very beginning, through John Dederoth in 1430, but it later followed its separate way. In Frenswegen, Windesheim and Haarlem, cardinal Nicolas of Cusa showed a distinct preference for the regulars, but he did not enlist their help in his admittedly half-hearted attempts to reform Egmond and various convents.

This zeal for observantism continued to preoccupy the monastic world in the 15th and 16th centuries. Nearly all the orders saw the rise of groups of observants, with separate unions forming here and there congregations with their own administration. Windesheim's influence on all this, however, was slight. Scenes such as Busch witnesses or provoked in Saxony also occurred in other orders. The desire for a stricter life appeared strong and vigorous everywhere, but in most cases the supporters of reform could only gain their way with the help of forcible measures on the part of the secular authorities. Their powers of conviction appeared negligible - whether they lacked sufficient appeal or simply because their opponents refused to allow themselves to be convinced. This shows the weakness of the movement. Most of the observants tended to paint their opponents as black as possible. In Egmond they did not scruple to alter the chronicle in their own favour.

As appears from Busch's reports and other accounts of the forcible introduction of the observance, this observantism not only led to an extremely small-minded preoccupation with externals, like the shape and colour of the habit and various niggling details in the daily routine, but often too to an exaggeration of the number of oral prayers and an over-estimation of the value of human effort and collaboration in the process of salvation. This is the attitude which accords with a

theological concept which many then called ‘Pelagianism’. It is known that the Reformers opposed this supposed Pelagianism of the theologians of their time. Luther notably attacked observantism in the Augustinian monasteries, although he had originally been a supporter and even a leader of this movement before becoming disillusioned. This observantism as advocated by Busch and applied by him in various monasteries, even outside his own order, which also received support from the other Windesheimers, contributed to the growth of a rather Pelagian mentality and one which it was reasonable to oppose. To this extent John Busch's activities in this matter come within the scope of our investigation, as do those of the leaders of the order elsewhere, notably in the Netherlands. Moreover, his work in Germany led several monasteries to apply for incorporation in the Windesheim chapter.


Vorige Volgende

Over dit hoofdstuk/artikel

auteurs


plaatsen