Logo DBNL
The Modern Devotion (1968)

The Modern Devotion

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

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism


Vorige Volgende

Chapter Thirteen
Thomas a Kempis, the Author of The Imitation. The Methodical Meditation. Wessel Gansfort's ascetic works. John Mombaer.

The most famous work on the ascetic life as it was practised by the Devotionalists and held up to many as an ideal, was written during this period by Thomas a Kempis. He was himself a Windesheimer, that is, a Canon Regular of the monastery of St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle, which formed part of the Windesheim congregation. As we have mentioned before, this boy from the Rhineland town of Kempen had come to Deventer in order to be educated at the city school. His brother John had done the same ten years earlier as did many others from the same place. The school was the attraction, not the Modern Devotion, but several of the school's pupils soon came in contact with the Brothers and subsequently became zealous adepts of the Modern Devotion. In this way Thomas, who must have been born around 1379, arrived in Deventer c. 1392 and attended the school there until 1399. At least, he still speaks of himself as a schoolboy in that year, which does not mean that he cannot already have been living with the Brothers. In this year he travelled to Zwolle in order to gain a special indulgence and at the same time visit his elder brother John who was then prior of the recently founded monastery on the St. Agnietenberg. He probably already intended joining the monastery. He appears in fact to have become a member of the monastery then, although it was not until 1406 that he was actually invested. He was about twenty years old at his entry in 1399, and had probably followed all the classes in Deventer, including the second and first, the two top classes. He was certainly well grounded in Latin and had some knowledge of philosophy, but he was entirely ignorant of theology. He was ordained priest in 1413-14 and fulfilled certain monastic functions, including that of procurator. This, however, lasted only a short time, since he proved unsuited for the post. He had more success as sub-prior and held this position for a considerable period. Unlike his brother and many canons of his monastery and order, he was never sent out to help set a new house on its feet or to reform an

old. He virtually never left the monastery, except from 1429 to 1431 when the monastics were exiled and found refuge in Ludingakerk near Harlingen in Friesland, and shortly afterwards when he spent some time in Mariaborn near Arnhem. On this occasion John, the prior, was seriously ill and died soon after. From then on until his death in 1471 he remained in the St. Agnietenberg. His superiors evidently respected his desire for an uninterrupted sojourn in his cell, and at the same time gave him the opportunity to introduce the novices to the Modern Devotion and to write his ascetic works. Thomas also achieved an immense amount of copying work - his talent for this had already been discovered in his youth. Among other things he copied two Bibles, each in ten volumes; one of these is now in the library in Darmstadt1 and the other in Utrecht. He was also responsible for various missals and choir books. In addition, however, he was the author of a series of treatises or books, preached frequently for the novices, composed a number of hymns and wrote historical works: the Vitae of Geert Groote, Florens Radewijns, John van de Gronde, John Brinckerinck and of various other fraters; a chronicle of the monastery on the St. Agnietenberg; the life of St. Lidwina of Schiedam. His chief claim to fame, however, lies in his pious treatises, all written in Latin with the exception of one small work.2 The most important of these works, whose authenticity is generally accepted are: Orationes et Meditationes de Vita Christi3 and Meditationes de Incarnatione Christi, with sermons and prayers having reference to this subject4: De tribus tabernaculis (poverty, humility and patience); De vera compunctione cordis; Soliloquium animae5: Hortulus Rosarum; Vallis Liliorum; Consolatio pauperum.6 The four books or treatises which later came to be known as the Imitatio Christi7 are preserved with nine other small treatises in an autograph which Thomas completed in 1441 and which is now in the Royal Library in Brussels. These latter include: De elevatione mentis and Brevis admonitio spiritualis exercitii.8 All these works deal with the subjects on which the Devotionalists like to think, to meditate and to write, and in which they found comfort in their cells and at their work; the life and passion of Christ, the moral virtue and the spiritual exercises. Some are related to subjects which have

already been discussed here, like the three tabernacles and the Soliloquium. Others reveal the late medieval fondness for allegory: the Garden of Roses; the Valley of Lilies.

Like the writings of the Brothers Florens Radewijns and Gerard Zerbolt, all these works are concerned with practical asceticism. Thomas thus did not continue in the path embarked upon by Henry Mande and Gerlach Peters. Should one be tempted to conclude from the works of these two writers that any contrast existed between the spirituality of the Windesheimers and that of the fraters, a perusal of Thomas's writings would show the fallacy of such a conclusion, as indeed his contemporary John of Heusden, prior of Windesheim, had already done before. Thomas indicates in many ways how the devout man must order his life so as to do God's will and gain heaven. The way of purification and the way of illumination are given in all their variations, but Thomas is silent on the complete union of the mystic with God while still on earth, the contemplation of a mystic. No matter how sublime the dialogue of the soul with God in the third book of the Imitatio and in the Soliloquium, it is not yet the language of the mystic in ecstasy as in Ruusbroec or in Henry Mande and Gerlach Peters. There does however, seem to be one exception. In the small work De elevatione mentis, Thomas does appear to speak the language of the exalted mystic, of the soul in contemplation of God, and that from his own experience. However, in my opinion, there are valid grounds for disputing this presumed exception.

What we now know as the Imitation of Christ is a collection of four treatises which Thomas intended as separate opuscula. They were circulated separately and also appeared in different manuscripts, or at least in a sequence different from that with which we are familiar. The content accords with the other works of Thomas a Kempis and in general with what we know of the Devotionalists. The first three treatises are exhortations to a retreat from the world, to the practice of humility, obedience, purity and poverty, perpetual communication with God, with Christ and with the saints, and the keeping alive of the good intention by repeated or constant reflection on Christ's life and passion and on the four last things. These treatises, however, and especially the first three, are more successful than Thomas's other works. They excel by their depth of thought, by the ardour of the love expressed therein, and by their varied and unaffected, comparatively simple but rhythmical style. Everything is set down without any thought-out system, but only as it seemed good to the author. The

beauty of the style, the simplicity of the language, the depth of thought and the loftiness of the ideal, which is made to seem within easy reach - all these factors have contributed to making these treatise into one of the masterpieces of the religious literature of the world. It is a book which is constantly in demand and is thus continually being republished and translated. The very excellence of this work has helped to give rise to and sustain the doubt about the authorship of Thomas a Kempis, a simple canon of the St. Agnietenberg, living in a barbarous country which at this time had produced so little academic, religious or literary work. The author himself did nothing to dispel this doubt, for he never published this or any of his other treatises in his own name. When he had finished the work, or even before, a fellow Brother was allowed to copy it, use it for meditation, or even pass it on to friends who copied it in their turn. Who could stop the dissemination of the book after this. The work was thus published in the medieval fashion. Thomas did not even sign his autograph, an unsightly little book written in tiny script, as being from his own hand, but only certified that it was completed and ready, thereby leaving even modern critics doubtful. On the other hand the appreciation for this work aroused the desire to know who had written it - and this problem is still being debated up to the present day. When Thomas's name was mentioned as author during his lifetime, many will have found this difficult to accept, since people were so accustomed to ascribe certain successful works to people like Augustine, Bernard and Bonaventure. These were moreover the first offerings from this unknown author, for we must assume that Thomas had completed the treatises of the Imitation before his fiftieth year. The first book appears in a dated manuscript of 1424 and in another of 1425, while all four treatises occur in two dated manuscripts of 1427 (those of Gaesdonk and Nijmegen).1 It may perhaps be said that Thomas wrote his best works while in the prime of life. The doubts entertained by some scholars concerning the authenticity of various treatises is no world-shaking matter, but the question of the authorship of what we now call the Imitation of Christ has been disputed for centuries. Towards the end of the Middle Ages this book, or these four treatises, were attributed to various authors, but gradually three parties emerged. One was composed principally of Italians (and later

the Frenchman Puyot) who propose Giovanni Gersen (Gesen or Gessen) as the author, a man who is thought to have been abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Santo Stefano in Vercelli, Northern Italy. Others, Frenchmen in the main, suggested the chancellor of the University of Paris in the beginning of the 14th century, Jean Gerson, whose name is suspiciously like that of the Italian candidate. The south and north Netherlands, and many Germans, consider Thomas a Kempis as the author, although he has had competition in the past forty years from Geert Groote. Since the French are no longer so active in recent times, and Geert Groote has lost ground to his pupil, Thomas a Kempis, one may now speak of two fronts-Italians backing Giovanni Gersen and the Kempists, as they are called, who support Thomas a Kempis.

It will not be out of place here to give a short summary of the present state of affairs. Although these two fronts had long been opposed, the struggle flared up anew in 1924. Now, however, the situation and the issue were completely different. On the basis of a comparison of the Imitation with other works by Thomas a Kempis, J. van Ginneken, S.J. professor of the University of Nijmegen and a well known philologist, found that Thomas could not possibly be the author of the four books of the Imitation, and that no one among the Devotionalists would have been capable of such an achievement but Geert Groote, the founder of the Modern Devotion. Soon afterwards his thesis received support in the form of the announcement, and subsequent publication, of a manuscript from Lübeck by Paul Hagen. This manuscript contained Books II and III as a whole in a shortened form and written in Low German. For van Ginneken and others this was the original, ‘die Urschrift’, of the Imitation. Van Ginneken knew precisely how the whole thing had come about. During the period which Geert Groote spent in the monastery of Monnikhuizen, he was under the spiritual direction of Henry Egher of Calcar. Here he wrote a journal, which is preserved in the first book of the Imitation. Afterwards he wrote Books II and III which were slightly corrected by Gerard Zerbolt and set in rhythmical prose by H. Egher. Thomas a Kempis, finally, would have given the finishing touches to the text, which would explain why he came to be considered as the author. Later, Thomas's role was confined to that of a simple copyist. A. Hyma, who had already displayed a particular preference for Gerard Zerbolt, modified van Ginneken's thesis by postulating Gerard Zerbolt as author of all three or four books. For him too, Thomas

had no longer any claim as author. He was a copyist of the Imitation. He had indeed shown particular skill as a copyist.1

Van Ginneken perfected his thesis by drawing up a stemma of texts with the aid of a list of variants previously compiled by Ed. Puyol. He did this first for the first book and later for the second and third. With the help of certain dated manuscripts and many derivations, he could show particular texts as proceeding directly from the hand of Geert Groote and others as being the work of Gerard Zerbold and Henry Egher.2 Finally he published the so-called pre-Kempist texts of the first book3 and also a biography of Geert Groote compiled from a series of sources or extracts from such documents. In this way his candidate's life was adapted to his theory.4

This all looked very imposing, but many scholars, both in the Netherlands and outside, remained unimpressed. Opposition arose from all quarters. It was pointed out that this theory did not accord with certain data from the life of Geert Groote; that the dates of van Ginneken's textual stemma were unacceptable; that the entire stemma relied much too much on subjective impressions; that the resemblance of the Imitation to Groote's other writings was much less than to those of Thomas a Kempis; that the theory had no historical basis in fact; that van Ginneken had suppressed all 15th century references to the authorship of Thomas a Kempis; that he had never studied Thomas's autograph; and more objections in this vein. Van Ginneken was not backward in answering his opponents. Until his death in 1946 he tirelessly carried on the fight through publications intended to confirm, adapt or modify his opinion and effectively silence all those who thought differently. No holds were barred. After his death some of his pupils, admirers and convinced supporters continued to defend, elucidate and modify van Ginneken's theory up to the years 1956 and 1957, when L.M.J. Delaissé published his codicological investigations on the autograph of Thomas a Kempis5 and P. Debongnie wrote and

published a comprehensive and detailed work - based on the foundations laid by J. Huyben which the latter's early death had prevented him from completing.1 By a very careful examination of the writing material, of the conjugation of the pages, of the script and of alterations made by Thomas a Kempis before 1441, Delaissé proved that Thomas considered the thirteen treatises in the manuscript in question as works of which he was the author. He was thus entitled to do as he wished with them and make any corrections he esteemed necessary. This holds good notably for the four books of the Imitation, which occur here as separate treatises and in a somewhat different sequence from that which later became common (Book IV comes before Book III). The plan and aim of the work of Huyben and Debongnie are entirely different from that of Delaissé, but perhaps even more convincing for many. As is usual in studies on disputed or unknown medieval authors, Debongnie begins by assembling, explaining and commenting on the testimony provided by various writers, manuscripts of library catalogues and the earliest bibliographers. At the outset, until around 1470, such testimony is rare, and not unanimous. Then, however, Thomas a Kempis begins to gain ground rapidly and appears to be in the lead, towards the end of the century, although Jean Gerson gained support in certain circles. To my mind these data provide sufficient proof that Thomas a Kempis must have been the author of the Imitation. I can, however, appreciate that not all moderns are convinced. There are two reasons for this. In the first place one might be tempted to assume the rapid growth of a legend, without sufficient historical foundation; secondly, due to the broken tradition and especially to the non-dating of these manuscripts, too much argument is necessary to explain why Thomas is mentioned as author only in this copy and not in another. If, however, one adds to the data and conclusions assembled and discussed by Huyben and Debongnie the results of Delaissé's investigation - as, indeed, Debongnie himself has already done, since Delaissé had allowed him to read the proofs of his book, the conclusion in favour of Thomas a Kempis appears reasonable.

The largest section of Debongnie's book is concerned with the modern theories of van Ginneken and Hyma, and the author repeatedly points out that these are based solely upon so-called internal critical

arguments, in which subjective perception or, as van Ginneken expressly states, intuition, plays, if not an essential, at least a considerable role. Spurred on by the methodical remarks of Udny Yule, concerning the application of variants and the conclusions to be drawn therefrom, Debongnie, like Yule, who had to some extent preceded him in this field, arrives at a different stemma of the Imitation texts and at more reliable dates. On the basis of these he denies that any texts of one of the Imitation treatises can be proved to have existed at the time of Geert Groote and Gerard Zerbolt. On the contrary, he can shift the terminus post quem to 1393, and prove moreover that the Lübeck manuscript published by P. Hagen is not the original of the second and third treatise of the Imitation but a ‘corrected version’ (remaniement). Utilizing Delaissé's conclusions, he has compared what he considers to be the earliest text with the autograph and was able to prove that they completely correspond. With this he has already made a beginning with Delaissé's desired comparison of his findings concerning the autograph with the existing manuscripts. This comparison reveals that some of the variants must not be attributed to slovenliness or mistakes on the part of the copyrist, but result from corrections made by Thomas himself. Debongnie finally, sees no resemblance between the ideas, style, language and manner of quotation of the Imitation and those of Geert Groote, and ends with a comparison of the Imitation with Thomas's other works. He recognises that the Imitation is far superior to Thomas's other works both in form and content, but feels that the difference should not be exaggerated. He then gives his own explanation of the distinction. Most of the other works were either commissioned or requested, or arose from the function which Thomas held. The treatises of the Imitation, on the other hand, proceed from a purely personal inner compulsion. They result from his own meditation on and with the many texts which Thomas had collected in his rapiarium. Debongnie also points out that a similar phenomenon - an inequlity of work in persons of world fame - occurs with such celebrated authors as Augustine and Dante.

I should not care to say that these books have silenced all opposition. B. Slaapen1 especially has put forward various reasons why it is impossible to deduce Thomas's authorship from his work on the autograph. In my opinion one should not splinter the problem into

too many separate questions, but review and judge as a whole the conclusions of the two aforementioned Belgian authors. In any case the struggle died down after 1957, although the last word has not been said by any means. The theories of v. Ginneken still have fervent supporters, including Mr. and Mrs. F. and L. Kern, and Louisa Veldhuis.

The advocates of Giovanni Gersen consider their position to be at least as strong. This appears from the two-volume work of Pier-Giovanni Bonardi, C.P. and Tiburzio Lupo, S.D.B. which appeared in 1965.1 This book is a completely revised edition of an earlier work by Bonardi which came out in 1938.2 The author, unfortunately, died while it was being printed. The finishing touches thus became the sole responsibility of Tiburzio Lupo S.D.B., who wrote a small work in 1960 on the same subject.3

Both authors are well acquainted with the questions under dispute and with what has been written on the subject in various countries during the past few years. They are convinced that the Imitation is not a collection of four treatises, but one work consisting of four books forming a coherent whole. It is indeed noteworthy how the earliest manuscripts found in Italy give the four treatises in their modern sequence. This being so, it is understandable that the two authors begin their book with an exposition of the Imitation as containing the purifying, illuminating and unifying ways of the soul with God - whereby the Eucharist strengthens the unity of the third book. It is also important to stress that a Benedictine spirit breathes from the Imitation, since in their opinion the author was a Benedictine. They devote a chapter to the Benedictine character, just as they favour similar opinions, most of them partly expressed in words, by certain writers who share their views. Some of these opinions are unsympathetic, sometimes even arousing mistrust of the authors' learning. It is scarcely fair to the Devotio Moderna to repeat frequently that this movement did not produce any canonized saint. Here the authors are confusing canonization with spiritual sanctity and suggesting that such a movement was incapable of bringing forth a devout work like the Imitation. The following passage also gives cause for mistrust: Noi aggiungiamo che la Devotio Moderna è oggi da parecchi studiosi con-

siderata come l'humus da cui germoglio la Riforma luterana. Lutero del resto era stato allievo Fratelli della Vita comune a Magdeburgo e ad Eisenach; da tali scuole uscirono pure Erasmo, che fu poi per quattro anni canonico regolare a Steyn; Wessel Gansfort, da cui Lutero ebbe a dire che concordava pienamente in tutto con lui; Alberto Risaeus, detto Hardenberg, autore di una vita Wesseli, che negli ultimi suoi anni passo al protestantismo. Si sa inoltre che le cosidette idee conciliari furono patrocinati dai priori de Windesheim nei concili di Costanza e di Basilea.1

A considerable amount of argument is necessary to render in any way acceptable the idea not only that Giovanni Gersen is the author of the Imitatio but even that he ever existed, and occupied the position of abbot of the monastery of Santo Stefano in Vercelli. Lupo and Bonardi attempt to bolster up their theory by proving that the name Gersen was fairly common in a place near Vercelli (Cavaglia) and that there is a space left blank in the list of abbots between 1220 and 1243. It would thus be possible for a Giovanni Gersen to have existed and even to have been abbot of Santo Stefano in Vercelli between 1220 and 1243. His name is first mentioned as abbot outside the codices around 1500, when some already attributed the Imitation to this hypothetical man. If he ever did exist and become abbot, the modern writers appear to be able to mould this unknown Benedictine into a suitable author of the Imitation: he is a Benedictine, devout and possessing a fluent style, averse to philosophy at a time when philosophy was blooming. This is in contrast to Thomas a Kempis whose life and background are reasonably familiar, so that it is possible to compare them with what we learn from the Imitation. It is thus that the two Italians raise all sorts of objections to the arguments employed by Huyben and Debongnie and by Delaissé, by making use of details from the Imitation which cannot be reconciled with what Thomas a Kempis writes in other books. Generally speaking, Bonardi and Lupo seem surer of their ground in fighting the Kempists than in proving that Giovanni Gersen is the real author. For this last theory they have no other proof than that twelve codices name him as the author, while eighteen mention Thomas a Kempis or at least a Canon Regular. Are there any grounds for believing the first group rather than the second? Not surely the fact that Bonardi and Lupo succeed in detecting more Italianisms in the Imitation than the Kempists Dutch linguistic influ-

ences! One of the Italians' great difficulties is their insistence that the Imitation must already have been written before 1243, whereas there are no manuscripts of the work dated earlier than a century and a half after the death of this writer. They can of course cite the example of other books, with which something similar occurred, but in so doing they omit to take into account the nature of the work, a pious work written in the period when many libraries were being founded in universities and monasteries, and in which there was considerable interest in this sort of literature. How did it happen then that the book remained in obscurity for a century and a half, and then suddenly sprang into prominence? How is it that the spiritual writers of the thirteenth and the first three-quarters of the fourteenth century never quote the Imitation?

Finally, the Italians emerge from the realm of speculation to give facts, or what they esteem as facts. Everything depends on the period in which some undated manuscripts were written. They reproach Huyben and Debongnie with keeping only to the dated manuscripts. In their opinion it is possible to put a certain date on several undated manuscripts with the aid of paleography and textual notes and they proceed to do so in their second volume, which gives the Documentazioni. They first publish a list of the Codici Italiani, dating the first nine, which are all undated, as follows: De Advocatis (Vercelli) Archivio Capitolare (Metropolitano) 1280-1330; Cavensis, fourteenth century; then one between 1330-1360 and five for which the first year suggested is before 1400.1 It is clear that Thomas a Kempis cannot be the author of the Imitation, if any one of the dates suggested by the authors for these nine manuscripts can be proved correct. For Thomas was not born until 1379-80 and can certainly not have written anything of the Imitation before 1400. The two Italian authors state precisely and honestly which persons have studied the script of the undated manuscripts. The fact emerges that a considerable difference of opinion exists among extremely well-known paleographers. It will not do, however, to state uncompromisingly in the list of manuscripts that a particular manuscript dates from the fourteenth century. If certain specialists say that such and such a document was written, for example, between 1380 and 1420, then the possibility is not entirely excluded that Thomas a Kempis might be the author. There are really only three manuscripts to be considered according to the dating given by

Lupo and Bonardi: De Advocatis (1280-1330), Cavensis (14th century), and Aronensis (1330-1360). The dating of Cavensis is based on a seventeenth century witness and upon the testimony of the librarian of the Abbey of Cavense, but Denifle is of the opinion that the manuscript dates from the second half of the 15th century.1 The Aronensis is a very disputed case; Huyben and Debongnie speak of ‘écriture archaisante’ - which is not very satisfactory. Udny Yule has devoted particular study to this manuscript and considers it later than the Transalpine. In his opinion it can not be dated before 1436.2 Bonardi and Lupo, however, disagree. The history of the De Advocatis manuscript is not entirely clear. Moreover, when this codex was found and published in 1830, some pages from a diary (Diario) were discovered in which it was stated that Joseph de Advocatis presented this codex to his brother on Sunday, the fifteenth of February, 1349.3 If this statement is true it would mean that this codex with all four books of the Imitation is earlier than 1349, which would disqualify Thomas a Kempis altogether! This report affected public opinion in 1833 like a bolt from the blue. Several feared that they would have to abandon their Kempist convictions. Closer investigation in Paris, however, revealed that some would be more inclined to place the codex in the sixteenth than in the fourteenth century.4 Several consider the Diario to be a modern forgery,5 but Bonardi and Lupo violently contest this opinion. Without entering into particulars I can merely say that the facsimile published by them gives a deliberately clumsy impression, chiefly because certain letters and even entire words project either above the normal line or below it. Furthermore, I can find no grounds in the arguments of the two Italian authors for ignoring the objections of certain eminent French scholars: J.B. Gence, Librarian of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, and J.B. Malou. In any case it is impossible to accept the list given by the two Italians6 without constantly having to refer back to what the book says about these codices. The list is naturally specific and the dates express what Bonardi and Lupo have gleaned from the opinions of others. This entire question proves once again how slight is our knowledge of the history of writing in the late Middle Ages and how little certainty exists in this field.

Within the scope of their two volumes, Lupo and Bonardi have

completely initiated us into the controversy surrounding the authorship of the Imitation and put forward what appear to me quite feasible objections to the works of Huyben, Debongnie and Delaissé. It is not sufficient, however, to forsake Thomas a Kempis and accept the completely unknown Giovanni Gersen as author. It has not even been proved with certainty that the latter ever existed and that he was abbot of Santo Stefano in Vercelli between 1220 and 1243; there is no place for him in the list of abbots any later than this. A few codices, mostly preserved in Italy, which mention a Giovanni Gersen as author, are not sufficient grounds for accepting that the Imitation was written at such an early date, with all the resultant difficulties. The possibility indeed exists that this abbot Giovanni Gersen only appeared as an incorrect reading of Jean Gerson who is also proposed as author in the 15th century codices. I thus feel justified in considering the Imitation, originally consisting of four treatises, to be a work of the Modern Devotion. It can therefore be used to describe the devotion and ideas of the Devotio Moderna, in this case, of the Canons Regular.

Nevertheless, the contents of the Imitation of Christ are difficult to analyse or to evaluate properly. The first three books differ considerably and yet there is an underlying unity. All four were written for monastics and specifically for monastics of the contemplative life. From the negative point of view this means that the reader finds no exhortation to pastoral care, to preaching for the faithful or for particular groups of the faithful, for example, schoolboys. R. Cruysberghs, however, has rightly pointed out that much that is given in the first books can be of value in active pastoral work and is thus profitable.1 From the positive point of view, the monastic virtues are described and recommended. For the most part these are the same virtues that we find among the Brothers: humility, prudence, obedience, mutual love, diligence. The author gives in addition the means to practise these virtues insofar as this is dependent on human effort: the reading of holy books (the Bible, the Fathers, and later religious writers), various religious exercises, meditation and ‘rumination’ on the life and passion of Christ, on death, judgment and punishment for sin. Not to delight in vanities, not to speak overmuch, to bear with the faults of fellow Brothers. All this is clear in the first book or the treatise, qui sequitur me. The second book, or the treatise, Regnum Dei intra nos est, undoubtedly devotes more attention to the inner devotion

and conversation with Christ, but here too he speaks of humble submission, consideration of self, the good intention and the pure conscience. Love of Christ, however, is more positively evinced than in the first book, even above all things; friendship with Jesus, but also love of His cross; the carrying of the cross is the via regia.1 In the third book or treatise, the book on interior consolation, he (the author) begins by calling happy the soul and the senses which hear the Lord spoken of and which are intent only on interior things. God's word must be hearkened to with humility. The effect of the divine love can be great, but not without humility and contempt for man himself. The world too must be despised, which requires that human desires should be suppressed. Obedience too is a condition for understanding the divine dictates. Man must seek all his consolation in God and rely on God alone in every human difficulty. All temporal wretchedness and the injustice done to us is nothing compared with Christ's suffering. We must be gratefully mindful of God's benefits, but not be excessively curious about the life hereafter. Then follow considerations on prayer, hope, and again on controlling the desires, on giving oneself to God, on humiliation, on contempt for temporal honours, on the rejection of worldly learning, on forbearance, and again the exhortation not to rely on one's own works but only on the grace of God. Chapter XLIII, against vain and wordly learning, has met with a fair amount of criticism among modern scholars (including P. Mesnard). This pessimism would be fatal to human activities in the field of learning.2 Everything is indeed attributed to God, who will teach all things: to despise earthly things, to loathe things present, to seek and relish things eternal, to flee honours, to avoid scandals, to place all hope in God, to desire nothing outside Him and above all things to love Him ardently, for anyone who loves Him entirely learns wonderful things. He makes more progress by forsaking all things than by studying subtleties.3 This text is not the only one in which Thomas speaks of learning as inferior to self-knowledge and contempt for the world.4 Thomas indeed, was in no way an academic. He had only completed the Latin school and had no more personal experience than the Brothers of university theological studies. And even if he knew

from hearsay what theology was about or had read a few books, the actual practice of learning lay outside him. Love of God and with it contempt for the world were for him the true life. For him learning distracted from God and showed that the world was not sufficiently despised, although he admitted that learning or some simple knowledge of reality was in itself good and ordained by God.1 Statements like: ‘If thou didst know the whole Bible by heart, and the sayings of all the philosophers, what would it all profit thee without the love of God and His grace?’ prove that he had little esteem for such knowledge. It is noteworthy that he seems to delight in employing the concept of learning in a pejorative context, for example: ‘Learning without love and grace’ or ‘Learning without the fear of God,’ or ‘if I should know everything that was in the world,’ etc. and had not love, what would it help me for God. But what if learning should be linked with the love of God? Thomas never speaks of this - perhaps he does not consider it possible. This depreciation of the practice of learning is according to the spirit expressed by Geert Groote in his resolutions, but which he did not apply in his life. This standpoint expressed by Thomas a Kempis and which the Brothers shared, rendered them less than receptive to Humanism. The amazing thing is that this monastic devotion, this essentially medieval contemptus mundi, should have found so much appreciation in the christian world that the Imitation has remained constantly in demand, being translated and published again and again. It is probably the simplicity, the matter-of-factness with which this after all difficult way of life is presented, which makes it so attractive to reflect upon. It is indeed easier to agree with the way of life proposed and to see in it one's own ideal, than to put into practice these seemingly simple rules. Many too who are in spiritual distress find support in the consolation, peace, the love and hope which breathe from the Imitation of Christ.

The fourth book2 or the fourth treatise has a completely different theme: the Last Supper, communion, the Mass and the sacraments in general, whereas the Sacraments are scarcely mentioned in the other books. It has even been said that here a Catholic devotion is contrasted with the other, which might be esteemed as Protestant. This, however, is to push matters to extremes and to introduce distinctions that do not in reality exist. Just as outward ceremony is not excluded

in the first book, so must inner devotion be present at the receiving of the Sacrament. Thomas therefore begins his remarks on Communion with a description of the reverence with which Christ must be received: after an examination of conscience and mindful of God's goodness and love. The fruits of the Sacrament must incite the faithful to prepare themselves well. Thomas respects the status of the priest and recognises in the Mass a definite link with Christ's sacrifice on the cross, the commemoration of the mysteries of salvation from Christ's life. This explains why the Devotionalists were recommended to meditate during the Mass on Christ's life and passion, and why Thomas urges frequent communion. The Devotionalists were accustomed to communicate about every fortnight and on various feast days. Thomas says that Holy Communion is not lightly to be omitted, but that on the contrary they should ardently desire it, precisely for the sake of union with Christ and the blessings which this confers. This purely sacramental attitude on Thomas's part does not prevent him from reiterating in this treatise that the grace of devotion is obtained through humility and rejection of self. He ends by warning that men should not search too curiously into this Sacrament, but humbly imitate Christ by submitting the senses to holy faith. This is typically Thomas: humility, curiosity to be restrained, faith to predominate.

Although Thomas a Kempis lived a retired life in the St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle and as sub-prior devoted himself to fostering and intensifying the piety of his Brothers, he was not so cut off from the world that he did not receive visits from the neighbouring city - notably from the few intellectuals then resident in Zwolle.

Among these was Wessel Gansfort, who taught in the city school between 1440 and 1449, and displayed great interest in anything which might enrich his youthful heart and mind. A youth with a fresh and enquiring mind, knowing little more than the Latin school with the two top classes, joined in friendship with a sixty year old monk, ignorant of philosophy and theology but full of experience of the monastic life, innately devout, meditative and detached from the world. It is not to be assumed that Wessel learned much from Thomas, but he was deeply impressed by him and remained so all his life. When he returned to the Netherlands after twenty-five years of study in Cologne, Heidelberg, Louvain and Paris, and having conversed with the most eminent scholars of the time, he again visited the monastery on the St. Agnietenberg. There he now met a young canon from Brussels, John Mombaer, intellectually curious and diligent, a tireless collector

of texts and thoughts. Now the roles are reversed. Wessel is the master and the young monk pays heed to him. They were not concerned with theology and philosophy, but with the necessity for devotion, the difficulty of acquiring and retaining it which demanded greater knowledge and a method of meditation. A youth of a twenty-five (born in 1460), before 1486 or 1483, (since Wessel included a text from Mombaer in a book published in one of those years), John Mombaer was able to show Wessel a certain method of prayer and meditation which was called scalae - ladders.1 Wessel was already acquainted with these ‘ladders’ in the development of theological reflection and meditation. Earlier authors, notably John Climachus, had set the Devotionalists an example in this. It was a good method of reviewing the various aspects of a fact or thesis step by step. Wessel also discovered these scalae in the Holy Scriptures. As we shall shortly see, he drew up a rather complicated Scala Meditatoria, as he says in the foreword of an Exemplum, before he had seen the ladders and the Chiropsalterum of John Mombaer. His scala must have been compiled later than January 25th 1486, and naturally, before his death on October 4th, 1489.2 Wessel seems at that time to have seen Mombaer's projects and been influenced by them in completing his other books while conversely, John Mombaer included Wessel's scala meditatoria in his Rosetum, which appeared for the first time in 1491. Thus they underwent a mutual influence through personal contact on the St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle and through an exchange of writings.3

Wessel wrote four works which might be described as ascetic, being concerned with prayer and in particular with meditative prayer.4 To take first: De oratione et modo orandi.5 This comprehensive work consists of eleven volumes, of which ten deal with the meaning of the Our Father. Part I serves as an introduction in which Wessel discusses prayer in general and the purity of prayer. The first point he takes is distraction in prayer. It consists of a wandering of the mind which is preoccupied with all sorts of things other than prayer. Involuntary

distraction can promote humility and thus be a means of acquiring grace. It can be fought by the use of numbers, but particularly by love. The purity of prayer requires a good intention and attentiveness, which need not be expressed. Too many psalms and long prayers are bad and in conflict with the first requirement. Attentive prayer requires the activity of the memory, the understanding and the will. An excess of words is fatal to this activity. Prayer achieves much that is good, but certain conditions are necessary: desire, expectation and examination; distinguishing and rejecting all that is extraneous. There are degrees of desire which must finally attain to a longing for heaven. Only good things should be asked for: best of all is to ask nothing and accept God's will. Christ has exhorted us to have confidence and persevere; we must pray always in His name, knowing ourselves to be worthy of nothing. Humility brings confidence and a childlike affection for the Father. Linked with these theoretical considerations is a detailed exposition on the Our Father. This prayer provides much upon which the soul may meditate. Wessel gives the meaning of this prayer which was instituted by Christ, which can be pronounced vocaliter, in words, but upon which, and this was Christ's intention, it is possible to meditate. Wessel describes the connection between the seven prayers and the meaning of the form of address: Our Father. This prayer is addressed to God, to the Father, but also to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. Some of the invocations are addressed more directly to the Father, others to the Son or Holy Ghost. He expounds upon the meaning and intention of each of the seven prayers.

Anyone who studies this treatise and absorbs it, is enriched with much matter for meditation. He is inspired to reflect upon these prayers which are so simple, yet so full of meaning. Here we have no tall ladders, only small. They serve more to amplify the contents than to keep the thoughts from straying. It was not Wessel's intention to expound or make propaganda for his own personal ideas on dogma, but it is not surprising that they find expression here and there. Persijn points out the Ockhamist note in the explanation of God's arbitrariness in granting prayers and in Wessel's presumed cooperation of man in the process of salvation, whereby grace, in fact, is the decisive factor. The sharply divergent standpoint of sanctity through works also emerges1, which is a specific art of cooperation. He gives further his ideas on indulgences and on the Eucharist.2 He

might have added that God so works in all things that the second causes lost their peculiar efficacy.1

That this work engaged the interest of Wessel's contemporaries appears from the several quotations from it in Mombaer, and from a letter from Brother Valckenisse from Rooklooster near Brussels, to Mombaer, in which he again requests him to send Wessel's Pater Noster, and the contemporary translation.2 Much more scholastic in tone is Wessel's treatise on keeping thoughts in check and on the manner of meditating. This book is also called Ladders of meditation and is dedicated to the Brothers of the Agnietenberg near Zwolle.3 The treatise consists of four parts or books. In the first he proves that the contemplative life is superior to the active, that Mary Magdalen earns greater praise than Martha. He is not, however, advocating any sort of quietism, but rather urging action. Examples are quoted from Solomon, from the Pythagoreans and from Pythagoras. In prayer as in everything else, we must always take care to keep our aim in view! The problem is, how to obtain sufficient matter to be able to ponder a subject well. Here the Loci rhetoricales (second book) are of considerable help; every sentence contains an abundance of ideas (copia). Much matter may also be derived from the dialectica as developed by Wessel in the third book. The ladder forms part of the auxiliary material. It is a rational ladder, as explained in the fourth book. It conduces to love, to enjoyment of the Lord, and is employed in the Holy Scriptures. It consists of various steps, by each of which it is possible to reflect on something different without departing from the ladder as a whole. Wessel first describes the rungs of the ladder, which all contain an act of meditation; then follow three rungs of the understanding and eight of the will or feelings, with another three to conclude. The book ends with the complesio, a linking together of the whole; a conclusion with intention. Unlike other writers, Wessel stresses the copia or locus, the means by which the mind discovers matter for meditation, by simply comparing the various rungs and pondering on them.4 The fact that Wessel dedicated this book to the canons of the St. Agnietenberg and that John Mombaer, at this time a canon in the aforementioned monastery included part of this scala

in his own work, to be discussed later, proves that he maintained close contact with the Devotionalists when writing. It seems to us that these scala not only conjure up thoughts and retain them in certain grooves, but also transform them into lifeless reflections incapable of stirring the emotions. They are also, in general, much too complicated. The monks of the St. Agnietenberg, however, were undoubtedly delighted with the three extremely detailed models for meditation with the aid of this ladder with rungs. They do indeed clarify Wessel's intention.

The broad study: De causis incarnationis; De magnitudine et amaritudine Dominicae passionis libri duo, is also an ascetic work intended to provide the believing man with matter for reflection, for meditation. It differs from the preceding work in that it does not offer either a method or a model for meditation. The book fills the christian spirit with revealed matter for meditation concerning the great question of the incarnation of Christ and his passion. It is, moreover, much more dogmatic, and this emerges clearly in Chapter VII and Chapter IX. In the first Wessel poses and proves the thesis, that the word would have become flesh, even if man, or Adam, had not sinned (VII and IX). He defends the thesis that the angels gained in righteousness and bliss through the passion and the sacrifice of the high priest Christ Jesus (X). The author does not deduce the magnitude of Christ's passion from the suffering, humiliation and shame of the way of the cross and crucifixion, but from the consequences and the merits of Christ; His glory and that of God. It is Christ's glory that by His passion He redeemed the world from sin and bore our sorrows. This the good thief confessed and the prophets foretold. Furthermore that He obtained justice and entered into glory. The magnitude of the passion also appears from the precept of the Father, from the great love and obedience shown, from the temptations overcome, from the participation in His sacrifice by many who carry His cross. Here he brings up the (apparent) difference of opinion between Paul and James on good works, proclaiming his Scotist and Ockhamist ideas on their value. Works of faith are worthless unless accompanied by grace and free acceptance on the part of God (Chapters XLV and XLVI). With this he links various chapters on faith, on piety, on the image of God in man, on the love of God and the love of Christ for us, concluding with the thought that it is good and useful to meditate on Christ's passion.

This is a very learned work filled with all kinds of unusual theological speculations, which in my opinion did not contribute to the

accomplishment of good meditation or to the simple devotion advocated by the Brothers. Unlike the other, this book is not dedicated to the canons of Windesheim.

Wessel prefaces his fourth ascetic treatise, on the sacrament of the Eucharist and the hearing of Mass,1 by a letter to a nun in which he outlines the aim of the work. The nun must not place too much reliance on her own work, for our own righteousness is worthless to God (pannus menstruatus). Nor must she be downhearted if she can only communicate once a week or once a fortnight. By meditating on Christ's passion she is also fulfilling Christ's command: ‘Unless you eat and drink you will not have life in you.’ Through this commemoration you will be joined with Christ. This is also the essential message of the treatise, which is more instructive than stimulating. One should not read during Mass, but meditate upon Christ's purpose in instituting this office. Christ has commanded us to receive and eat the body of the Lord, and this in commemoration of Him. Conversely thus in commemorating Him we eat, and are refreshed. Wessel devotes a number of chapters to this commemoration and this ‘rumination’. The Body of the Lord, the true bread, is man's nourishment and his life. But if this is received physically only and not spiritually, it does not give life. The sacrament must therefore be received with faith and in commemoration of Christ. The rewards are great for those who communicate in this spirit. One must therefore prepare for communion, but without relying on one's own righteousness. We truly receive Christ after such a preparation. Wessel recognizes the real presence in the reception of Christ's flesh and blood, but lays so much emphasis upon the commemoration that this alone seems sufficient to allow the believer to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood. In other words the spiritual communion seems to be equal to the actual physical reception of the body and blood of Christ.

Although Wessel Gansfort in his youth maintained constant contact with the Brothers in Zwolle and during the last years of his life with the canons of the St. Agnietenberg, although he shared with both the Devotionalist view of life, he none the less retained his own personal opinions on very many extremely essential Christian doctrines, opinions which we do not encounter at all among the Brothers and the Canons.2

Sometimes these individual ideas make their appearance in the ascetic works, as we have already indicated. In the book on the Eucharist and the hearing of Mass and in the introductory letter he rejects so violently reliance on one's own works, on individual merit, that it seems at least as if he opposed the excessively strict observantism practised by the Devotionalists, which they considered as their reformation. It seems to me that he differs from the Modern Devotionalists on this point, and also in his ‘singular’ ideas on dogma.

 

The writings of Florens Radewijns and Gerard Zerbolt, John Vos of Heusden's apportioning of the matter for meditation throughout the week,1 and most of the writings of Thomas a Kempis were all intended to serve as inspiration for the Brothers' meditation, which was supposed to continue with scarcely any interruption throughout the day. This was also the function of the rapiaria, the collections of texts from the Holy Scriptures, and from the Church Fathers and ecclesiastical writers; texts which appealed to the collector personally and could thus be pondered upon again. It remains remarkable indeed that the St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle had such a stimulating effect upon authors. Thomas a Kempis wrote his works there, evidently until his death in 1471; there Wessel Gansfort received his first impressions and later dedicated his treatise De cohibendis cogitationibus et de modo constituendarum meditationum to the Canons of the St. Agnietenberg.2 Finally John Mombaer (Mauburnus), born around 1460 in Brussels, who entered the monastery of the St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle about 1477-78, also wrote there.3 The modern biographer describes him as an indefatigable reader and a zealous collector of texts. His collection provided him with the material for his main work, the Rosetum. An extract from this, Exercitio, was published in 1491, and he was already able to show excerpts from it to Wessel Gansfort in 1486.4 The whole book includes smaller works which had a brief independent existence: the Mendicatorium, and the Chiropsalterium. When he later became implicated in a conflict between the Canons Regular of St. Augustine and the Augustinian Hermits he wrote the

Veneratorium, a collection of saints' lives from his order. This work has little value or significance. For our purposes therefore, his real work remains the Rosetum which was written with the same end in view as the books of Wessel Gansfort, that is, as an aid to meditation. Like so many of his fellow Brethren, John Mombaer was sent outside his monastery either to resolve a particular problem or to set a new monastery on its feet or to help carry out the Windesheim reformation. In 1495 for example, he was despatched to Gnadental, but his work was not successful. He personally asked to be recalled and his request was granted in 1496.

In the year 1495, on receiving a letter from the Duchess of Burgundy (Margaretha of York, † Nov. 23rd, 1503) and probably at the request of John Standonck, the general chapter sent a delegation to look into the affairs of the monastery of Saint Severin of Château Landon, which wished to introduce the Windesheim custom. Shortly after the return of the delegation to the St. Agnietenberg, John Mombaer was sent as prior to France with five other canons of the congregation in order to accomplish this task. From this time onwards, until his death (29th December 1501 or a few days later) he worked in France. This work falls in a different period from the one to which we are confining ourselves here and will be dealt with later.1 However, the greater part of his main work, the Rosetum, was written before 1486 and can thus be included in this period. At the request of his colleagues John Mombaer published it in 1494, with no mention of place or printer (probably Peter of Os, in Zwolle), under the title: Rosetum exercitiorum spiritualium et sacrarum meditationum. In quo etiam habetur materia praedicabilis per totum anni circulum.2 A new, scarcely altered edition appeared in Basle in 1509 after Mombaer's death; then followed a rather changed edition in Paris in 1610. The work later had two more editions (Milan, in 1603 and Douai 1620).

The aim of the Rosetum was to foster the inner life, first of the writer himself, then of his fellow Brethren and of all those who might wish to study the book. It was intended to help them in the three principal spiritual functions which the Devotionalists had to perform in their devotional life: the praying of the hours, communion and meditation. These three important beds in the garden of Roses had to be particularly carefully tended. This could only be done by not allowing

the mind to wander during the pious exercises This did not mean that, when praying the hours, thought must be exclusively confined to the contents of the psalms and the readings. It would indeed be better if it were, but the writer expresses himself satisfied if those who pray the psalms do not allow themselves to be distracted, but reflect on all manner of events associated with Christ. This was the object of the chiropsalterium which Mombaer was already able to submit to Wessel in 1486 and which was included in the editions of the Rosetum. In praying the psalms the canon or Brother could stroke his thumb along the inside of his other fingers. Each articulation had a different meaning. On the four fingers of his left hand he indicated first a few, and in later editions twenty-eight very brief pious reflections or prayer intentions, that is, seven on each of the four fingers. Once the canon had learned these by heart and stroked along each finger in turn, the associated words or texts could arouse and maintain in him the desired pious thoughts and intentions. These were thoughts of repentance, asking forgiveness of sins, invoking God's help, praising God's glories, in order to reflect upon the ideas which recur constantly in all or many of the psalms, though differently expressed. All this could be brought to mind by anyone singing or reading the hours. But even if the text did not completely coincide, the person at prayer could keep himself devoutly occupied. This must be roughly the same as when we meditate upon the mysteries of Christ's life and passion while saying the Hail Marys of the rosary. The popular ladders, the scala communionis and the scala meditationis were again intended to assist, not in praying the hours, but in receiving communion and in meditating. The scala communionis served to receive the Holy Sacraments with devotion and to perform the thanksgiving in a fitting manner. The number of steps differs a little in the various editions of the exercitia and the Rosetum, but this does not alter the essential nature of the work. There also exists a contemporary translation of this work in medieval Dutch.1

The scala meditativa or meditationis which we already found in Wessel Gansfort is intended to help focus the thoughts on the matter for meditation, but also to assist the mind to develop thoughts on a particular subject. Mombaer adopts the scala from Wessel in its entirety. It is a schematic proposition: the middle column indicates what has

to be done, sometimes in the form of a question, while this is more closely defined by a word at each side; for example:

quaestio quam scilicet quisque quid cogito exsuscitatio
  a se requirat quid cogitandum  

So that this should not remain too schematic, John Mombaer makes use in this scala of the mnemotechnical verses so common in the Middle Ages and thus so effective and practical in this case. The essence of every part dealt with, or to be dealt with, is compressed into one or two points, so that the person using the scalae may recall it in the correct manner. One of the preparations for psalm singing was the intention to be reverent, attentive and devout. This idea was contained in the verse: sis reverens, simul attentus, devotus in horis. Unlike many of the others, this verse is easy to understand. A twentieth century reader sometimes has considerable difficulty with these verses, especially since some words are only half written and have to be counted in order not to distort the metre. Similar very brief indications of the subject matter can also be found on the hand of the Chiropsalterium and in general in the meditations. Here, as with the first Windesheimers, the life of Christ is divided into seven sections, one particular facet for each day. Similar mnemotechnical verses again served as reminders. For the Monday matins, we have for example: Jesus creator inclitus, coelestes firmans status. Mighty creator, who divided the good from the bad angels.1 We find such verses too in the scala communions. Combrobet an careat, quae sita habeat, pia signa. One must examine whether the obstacles have indeed disappeared and whether, on the contrary, the conditions are fulfilled and the signs of devotion apparent.

In the scala meditationis for instance, the conditions for a good meditation are given as: sis purus, fervens, humilis, tacitus, fugi. Be without sin, fervent, humble, silent and withdrawn (the derivative).2 It is not always clear what exactly the writer meant by the various steps and how the activities of the mind (mens) and the judgment (indicium) can be distinguished and follow upon each other. Fortunately both Wessel Gansfort and John Mombaer illustrate their method by various examples from the life of Christ. They also point out that users of this method need not keep too strictly to the models; they have a choice.

This method may well have required all a person's attention, thereby holding thoughts in check, so that the canon or Brother was entirely preoccupied with the subject. It is, however, complicated and artificial. One may even wonder if the disadvantages did not outweigh the advantages. Anyone who could not succeed in applying this method lost heart and abandoned both method and meditation. It is generally assumed that Wessel and Mombaer played their part in introducing methodical meditation to the Modern Devotion. As we have already shown, it did not exist in the beginning. A method must thus have developed in the course of the fifteenth century so that Wessel and Mombaer were able to propose this method or at least various artificial aids to meditation at roughly the same time, around 1485, although not entirely without contact with each other. It goes without saying that the problem of distraction had existed for a long time.

If indeed, the Devotionalists wished to meditate according to the scala meditativa, they had to have a considerable amount of time at their disposal, time which was difficult to come by in the obligatory order of the day of the Brothers and Sisters and canons, unless during Holy Mass. The first Devotionalists already urged meditation on Christ's passion during the Mass, as Mombaer expressly testifies.1 He employs the method in the so-called ‘rumination’, short bursts of meditation during preparation for the hours, for study, for a meal, for the collation and for the examination of conscience. The mnemotechnical verse came into its own in the repetition of the reflection. Anyone who had meditated on some detail from the life or passion of Christ in the morning at Mass, could recall it to mind during the day with the aid of the verses. That this was Mombaer's intention may be deduced from the following facts. The verses he gives in preparation for matins are different from those for prime. Thus these metrical verses succeed each other from hour to hour, from day to day, so that in a week the entire evangelical cycle is covered. This is - the author remarks - the most practical and easiest method of the saints.2 These statements hold good equally for the chiropsalterium, as for the scala meditativa and the rosary of meditations. Mombaer advises that his method should be employed at idle moments during the day; while waiting for a sign to go or to come.3 Oral prayer must be pre-

ceded or accompanied by meditation.1 At this time the word ‘meditation’ becomes ambiguous among the Devotionalists. In the first place it was taken to mean to meditate for a time, to reflect on Christ's life or passion or on one of the four last things; it ended in the complicated method of Wessel Gansfort, adopted by Mombaer. The Devotionalists will have applied it particularly during Holy Mass, perhaps too during the hour reserved for the study of the Holy Scriptures and other religious works. In the second place they classify their so-called ‘rumination’ as meditation. This meditation has been described by Debongnie as: ‘une méditation attentive, une activité vigoureuse de l'ésprit, des réflections vives et appuyées nécessaires pour exciter la dévotion affectueuse.’2 This is not a methodical, well deliberated activity, but a perpetual and constantly active state of being mindful of God or of Christ, a constant searching of the heart intended to ensure that the Devotionalists carried out their prayers, hours, study, work, eating and any recreation in the proper spirit. This form of meditation existed from the very beginning, but the first type only developed in this second period and owes much to Wessel Gansfort. He too was a much fiercer critic of oral prayers than the Modern Devotionalists. The Brothers and canons retained the choir prayers but tried to perform them inwardly and devoutly.

The fact that Mombaer frequently quotes Wessel's Oratio Dominica and adopts the scala meditativa in its entirety, leads one to wonder whether he and his followers did not also adopt several of Wessel's distinctive theological ideas. As we have already observed, these ideas were expressed not only in Wessel's Farrago theologicorum, but even in his explanation of the Oratio Dominica. In Debongnie's opinion John Mombaer and his followers completely dissociated themselves from these opinions. Whereas Wessel Gansfort entirely rejected the system of indulgences, Mombaer was well aware that various opinions existed on this subject, and found this no reason to ignore or belittle the idea of indulgences. It was important, however, not to gain too many of them.3 For Mombaer, meditative, inner prayer was of more value than spoken prayer. He even went as far as Wessel in considering meditation necessary for salvation. His school, the Windesheimers, did not follow him in this.4 Mombaer also diverged from the Windesheim tradition with regard to spiritual communion. Many theologians,

including St. Thomas, admittedly placed great value on spiritual communion, without thereby esteeming sacramental communion less highly. According to Mombaer and Wessel, however, there was little advantage in sacramental communion. It was even detrimental, if not accompanied by inner meditation. Spiritual communion, on the other hand, can be attained at all places and in all times, and gives all the advantages of sacramental communion, including (again according to St. Thomas) forgiveness of sins, preservation from eternal death and a sharing in Christ.1 Mombaer adopted this idea from Wessel Gansfort.2

Finally the problem remains of whether this meditation, which some already detect in Gerard Zerbolt, was much employed. There is also the question of whether the method was introduced into Spain by the Benedictine Garcia de Cisneros, and perhaps influenced the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. The practical effect of the Rosetum was not significant. It was not particularly recommended in the order, and soon had to make way for other exercises, notably those of St. Ignatius. It was not popular in France, where it was introduced by Mombaer himself, despite the Paris edition of 1510. The exercises of St. Ignatius were introduced in St. Victor in 1602/3. Admittedly, the afore-mentioned Spanish Benedictine, on his visit to Paris during Mombaer's lifetime, acquired books of the Modern Devotion, including the treatises of Gerard Zerbolt and Mombaer's Rosetum, and took them back to Spain. The abbot of the famous abbey of Montserrat wrote two small treatises with the aid of these works. Both of these aspired to the aim of the Rosetum, inner participation during the singing of the hours3 and the employment of a strict method during meditation.4 Now it is known that St. Ignatius of Loyola followed certain spiritual exercises in the abbey of Montserrat after his conversion in 1522. What he heard then seems to have been derived from Cisneros and indirectly from the Modern Devotion. This may have influenced the famous Spiritual Exercises which Ignatius later drew up, after first having practised them himself. The resemblance, however, is slight and the intention behind them even seems to be different. Nevertheless, the attempt to draw up a suitable method for use in daily meditation - an attempt which Ignatius must have appreciated,

is a remarkable one, and of great significance in the development of the spiritual life of the Church. The link, which the Modern Devotionalists form in this history, is concerned principally with practical ascetism. This they adopted in part from their predecessors, selected from it what was suitable to their purpose, improved it, and handed it on to posterity chiefly through their books, through their example and through their emphasis on the inner nature of the spiritual experience. It may be that on this last point they set too high an ideal, but none the less the development of spirituality, unlike mysticism, did not pass them by. The later Dutch mystics are linked more directly with Ruusbroec than with the masters of the Modern Devotion.1

 

On reviewing this period we find very few signs that Europe is on the threshold of a new era, unless we count the general lamentation on the world's decay, found in Geert Groote, and the attempt to bring some improvement into the life of the Church and especially of the monasteries. During this period the Brothers show no sign of participating in or even being aware of the new culture, the Renaissance and Humanism which had been flourishing in Italy for the past century and which had been introduced to the Netherlands towards the end of this period, around 1480, by people like Rudolf Agricola who had studied in Italy. There is no mention of any contact between these persons and the Brothers. They did not influence the Windesheimers, who confined their outside activities to the reformation of monasteries and gave no indication of knowing or even caring what went on in the world. Wessel Gansfort is a case in point. In spite of his two visits to Rome, he was less of a Humanist than someone like Rudolf Agricola. He was certainly more interested in the late medieval theological conflict between the supporters of the old and new way. He met several Humanists at the gatherings in the abbey of Aduard near Groningen, but there too his especial interest went out to theological questions. As Rudolf Stadelmann rightly remarks: ‘es ist darum irreführend, wenn Nikolaus Cusanus und Wessel so häufig als Humanisten schlechtweg bezeichnet werden...neuerdings hat G. Ritter sich ausdrücklich korrigiert und ins besonders Wessel trotz dessen Italiën Reise entscheiden abgerückt vom Humanismus.’2 There is the additional point that Wessel cannot be entirely counted as a Devotionalist.

It is equally impossible to detect any preparation for the 16th century Reformation among the Brothers or canons. They scarcely practised theology and certainly showed no critical spirit. The only possible exception was perhaps Peter Dieburg. This rector of the Brotherhouse of Hildesheim, who also wrote the annals of this house, struck a somewhat critical note in a few of the Excurses which we have already discussed. The spirit of the first leaders still lived on in the Windesheimers. These were chiefly preoccupied with intensifying the inner devotion through meditation and rumination, while retaining all hours and ceremonies. They repeatedly showed themselves extremely dependent on the pope and the bishops, which did not prevent them from trying to escape the jurisdiction of the latter. Wessel Gansfort alone openly proclaimed opinions which were contrary to several church doctrines, concepts and customs. He, however, was not a Windesheimer, not a monastic and not a Brother of the Common Life, nor did he press his opinions in his ascetic writings, although he did not refrain from expressing them. Mombaer, who was most indebted to his writings, was very reserved on this point. The confrontation between Humanism and Reformation was yet to come.


Vorige Volgende

Over dit hoofdstuk/artikel

auteurs