The Modern Devotion

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism

[p. 632]

Chapter Fifteen
The Windesheimers After C. 1485
Confrontation with the Reformation and Humanism

Towards the beginning of this period, the Windesheim Congregation consisted of eighty houses for men and thirteen for women.¹ The number of these houses and their distribution indicate sufficiently that the Modern Devotion had extended over a wide terrain, even if we exclude those monasteries which were not associated with the congregation but had been led to observantism under its influence. This expansion did not immediately cease after 1485. The general chapter of 1491 incorporated the Domus B. Mariae at Bordesholm in Holstein, in the diocese of Bremen,² that of 1493 the house of St. John the Baptist at Merkeshusen in Hessen, in the diocese of Mainz,³ and the succeeding one of 1494 the house of St. George at Sambach or Schamhapt in the diocese of Regensburg.⁴ This is the full quota for the fifteenth century. The next incorporation, that of Domus Montis B. Mariae near the river Jason in the diocese of Camin or Pommeren⁵ did not follow until 1509. This was a late foundation and the last to be incorporated before the Reformation or indeed in the whole of the 16th century. The fact that the growth of the congregation first slows down and then ceases entirely shows that the foundation was ageing and losing its vitality. There was room enough for new foundations further away in Germany and Switzerland, and also a number of monasteries of the Canons Regular which needed reform and perhaps aspired to a stricter observance. But they no longer made the effort to seek contact with the Windesheimers, perhaps because other congregations had also sprung up. What then was to prevent the Windesheimers from crossing the frontiers of France?

The opportunity seemed to be presented when, in the spring of 1495, the president of the general chapter received a letter from none other than

1 On the Windesheim lists of monasteries see Acquoy III, 1-7. To the lists mentioned here must be added that of 1530, preserved in the Acte Capituli of 1530, 137. It agrees entirely with Acquoy's reconstruction; only Reimerswaal is not mentioned and, naturally enough, the seventeenth century foundations.

2 Acta Capituli 89.

3 Ibid., 91.

4 Ibid., 92.

5 Ibid., 105.

[p. 633]

the Duchess of Burgundy, Margaretha of York, the widow of Charles the Bold, requesting that a visit be paid to a house near Paris.¹ The chapter of 1495 entrusted the required investigation to the priors of the St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle, Marienborn in Arnhem and to an anonymous prior from Brabant, probably Jan Keynaerts, prior of Groendaal.²

This is the only mention in the Acta Capituli of this important French undertaking, although its successes and failures, its hopes and fears, continued to preoccupy the prior superior and the small chapter for many years. Nevertheless, despite the significance of this affair, it did not lead to any of the French monasteries joining the Windesheim chapter. No further decree on the part of the chapter was therefore necessary and the acta are silent. Fortunately many of the letters exchanged have been preserved³ and these have enabled P. Debongnie, among others, to deduce and describe in detail what must have happened.⁴

The man behind the plan, who was tireless in his attempts to interest extremely exalted and well-to-do gentlemen in the reform of a number of French monasteries, was undoubtedly the Belgian Jean Standonck, who had probably become acquainted with the Modern Devotionalists as a boy in one of the hostels. One of his ideals was the founding or enlarging of such houses with strict discipline for schoolboys or students. He was also interested in promoting the Windesheim type of observantism in French monasteries. There was reason enough for this, although one cannot speak of a prevailing demoralization. Some of the monasteries were practically empty, very many had been given in commendam to high members of the clergy or worldly persons. Usually the rule against personal possessions was not taken too seriously, so that the monks had their own books, their own hobbies and frequently their own money, some of which they used to buy clothing and food. The rule of the ‘enclosure’ which applied to some, was loosely interpreted, just as some monks easily found excuses for not taking part in the night office. Certain monasteries were stricter than those of Windesheim on some points, and the authority of the diocesan bishops over these institutions was certainly greater than with the almost completely exempt Windesheim foundations.

1 It is usually assumed that this refers to St. Victor in Paris, but in actual fact the Brothers did not go to Paris but to Saint-Severin de Château Landon. This going to Paris might mean simply to consult with John Standonck in Paris.

2 P. Debongnie, Jean Mombaer de Bruxelles, abbé de Livry, ses écrits et ses réformes, Louvain 1928, 81.

3 Particularly in the Bibliothèque S. Geneviève at Parijs.

4 P. Debongnie, Jean Mombaer etc., Louvain 1928, 68-149.

[p. 634]

In the summer of 1495 thus, the above-named commission, led by Reinier Koetgen, prior of St. Agnietenberg, set off for Paris and district in order to take stock of the situation. As a result of their report, which seems to have been compiled rather carelessly and optimistically, the prior superior in September 1496 sent a delegation to Château-Landon by way of Paris. This delegation consisted of no less than eight persons, with John Mombaer of Brussels at their head. He had already acquired some reputation as a writer, although he had not had much success when in charge of the house of Gaesdonck near Cleves. However, as a native of Brussels he probably spoke French well. The company which took up residence on September 29th 1496 consisted of three priests, three clerics and two lay persons, of whom at least one had a good command of French. This was twice as many as were usually sent to new foundations.

From the preliminary discussions the prior superior was well aware that there was no question of incorporating the monastery of Château Landon in the Windesheim congregation. The aim was to reform a monastery of Canons Regular in the Windesheim spirit, just as John Busch had led many to a stricter observance in Germany. In addition the delegates were to introduce some moderation in certain strict regulations, for example in the matter of fasting. The bishop of the diocese would continue to exercise his spiritual authority over the monasteries.

A heavy task confronted the Windesheimers in Château-Landon; decayed and dirty buildings, the obstinate opposition of the old canons, and incomes too low to provide the canons with sufficient livelihood. But although some of the ‘newcomers’ lost heart, they finally succeeded in bringing about the reformation, thanks to Standonck's support and the encouragement of certain exalted personages.

Despite the fact that the reformation in Château-Landon had not yet completely succeeded in 1498, John Mombaer was charged with reforming other monasteries, including St. Victor in Paris, Nôtre Dame de Livry, and Sainte Callixte de Cysoing. The first attempt failed, since it appeared that some customs were stricter in St. Victor than the Windesheimers had anticipated. The other two ventures succeeded, however, in 1499 and 1500, in the face of great difficulties. Prime mover in these successes was the canon of St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle, Reinier Koetgen. This led in 1500 to the founding of a reformed congregation in France, whereby the Windesheim customs were applied and the Windesheim ideals aspired to. This congre-

[p. 635]

gation, however, had its own life, distinct from Windesheim, and each separate institution remained under the jurisdiction of its own bishop. John Mombaer, who was responsible for all this, was appointed abbot of Livry, where he had worked for some time, on April 9th, 1501. He was fortunate in overcoming the first main difficulties in Livry and in seeing the congregation expanding with the addition of the monastery of St. Saveur of Melun, but then died in the year of his appointment, on December 29th.¹ Besides the nucleus of a small congregation living according to the Windesheimer customs, he also left behind a number of writings which influenced the Modern Devotion of around 1490. Erasmus, who was in Paris at this time, took an interest in these attempts at reform and worked to foster them.² The Humanist, Cornelius Aurelius, canon and in 1494 prior of the monastery of H(a)emsdonk near Schoonhoven, who was a friend of Erasmus, took part in the reform of St. Victor in Paris.³

In addition to the steady decline in the congregation's impulse to expand, and in its contribution to the reform of monasteries outside the congregation, the rules of the general chapter also reveal a diminishing of the former zeal. Some persons were lukewarm in the performance of their monastic duties while certain others even showed a rebellious spirit. The members of the chapter did not hesitate to adopt strong measures to combat this trend, which to my mind proves that there was no question of decline, at least before Luther began to preach openly. This would only be so if the leaders allowed all sorts of transgressions against the rule and against the custom to go unpunished.

The general chapters had to take measures against the disturbers of the peace and discipline⁴ and against others who stayed away from the monastery without the prior's permission.⁵ These would be considered as ‘fugitivi’, men who had left the monastery. Some refused to make amends in their own monastery, relying on their family's influence. These had to be sent to other houses.⁶ It was found necessary to construct very strong prisons in four places (Bethlehem in Zwolle,

1 P. Debongnie, Jean Mombaer etc., Louvain 1928, 100-120, 272-278.

2 P.S. Allen, Opus epistolarum Des Erasmi Roterodami, Oxonii 1906 I 200 no. 73. Debongnie 90.

3 Opus epistolarum etc. p. 205, no. 78. Debongnie 91, Nederl. Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis, n. serie XVII (1922-23) 161.

4 Acta Capituli 1488, p. 35.

5 Ibid., 1489, p. 86, 1513 p. 110, 1514 p. 110, 1519 p. 117.

6 Ibid., 1492, p. 90.

[p. 636]

Groenendaal, Bodiken, and Cologne), there to incarcerate those apostates, fugitives and rebels who could be apprehended. It would have been difficult to imprison them in their own monasteries.¹ Mention is made of anonymous letters destined for the general chapter in which the writers complained of treatment by their own prior;² of disobedience and running away.³ Those members of the order who served churches had to account for their incomes and outgoings, otherwise they would be considered as proprietarii.⁴ There are fraters who are slipshod and lazy in singing the office.⁵ It is difficult to collect enough money for the expenses of the general chapters.⁶ The priors must not allow the primitia (first Mass) to be held outside the monastery and they must oppose too much display and too many guests.⁷

These chapter decrees date from a period which was too early for there to have been any question of Luther's influence. His name first crops up at the general chapter of 1522 in Neuss.

In the case of the convents, the retention of the enclosure involves certain difficulties for the rectors. The chapter wished to maintain control of the institution of these pastors⁸ and particularly to retain the enclosure.⁹ It forbade the admittance of girls to the convent at too early an age, but ten for clothing and twelve for admittance to the enclosure still seems very young.¹⁰ The Sisters were ordered by the chapter to confess at least twice a year and to pay a pension to those who had acted as their rectors.¹¹ The general chapter of 1509 authorised the ‘visitors’ in Eindhoven to recall all fraters who resided with the Sisters without socii.¹² The fraters and Sisters had also to be forbidden to receive money or ornaments.¹³

Apart from the increase of measures against the apostatae, fugitivi and rebels and concerning the prisons constructed on their account, most of the regulations contain reproofs and not very radical steps to be

1 Acta Capituli, 1494, p. 93.

2 Ibid., 1498, p. 96; 1499, p. 96.

3 Ibid., 1501, p. 100.

4 Ibid., 1510, p. 106.

5 Ibid., 1513, p. 109.

6 Ibid., 1514, p. 110.

7 Ibid., 1517, p. 115.

8 Ibid., 1488, p. 85; 1490, p. 88; 1499, p. 97; 1500, p. 98.

9 Ibid., 1488, p. 85; 1491, p. 89; 1510, p. 106; 1512, p. 108; 1519, p. 118.

10 Ibid., 1492, p. 90.

11 Ibid., 1503, p. 100; 1507, p. 103.

12 Ibid., p. 105.

13 Ibid., 1517, p. 115.

[p. 637]

taken against shortcomings and faults which occur in every community and must occasionally be pointed out.

In the beginning of this period vocations seem to be still quite numerous. With regard to the convents it is significant that in 1512 Bethany near Malines was forbidden by the general chapter to admit any more girls or other persons since the house was overburdened by the great number of people.¹ The same order was issued in 1518 to the prioresses of Diepenveen, Bronopia near Kampen and Bethany near Arnhem, until the prohibition should be relaxed.² There is no trace of heresy among the canons before 1523. Just as in the preceding period, an average of rather less than one novice a year took his vows in the chief monastery at Windesheim. It is not known how many left the monastery before Luther began to preach openly. Thirty-four novices made their profession between 1490 and 1517.³ After this, as in other orders, the decline set in. The list published by Acquoy mentions profession only in 1533, 1535, 1539 (he actually says 1529 but this must be a printing error) and 1541, that is, six professions altogether from 1518 to 1541.⁴ This situation was to be expected, for in 1522 the general chapter held in Neuss decided that no one should be allowed to take the monastic habit until the times had grown more peaceful.⁵ They would have quite a while to wait.

The aforementioned chapter of 1522 which could not be held in Windesheim on account of the war in Overijssel, but met in Neuss, was the first to react to Luther's preaching. This does not mean of course that this was the first the Windesheimers had heard of the great events in the German empire. No measures taken by the highest authority of this congregation have been preserved, but in 1522 it felt itself already threatened. Some of the houses had so few inmates that it was scarcely possible to sing all the horae in the choir. This led to the decree that in such monasteries the Mass, vespers and compline must none the less still be sung.⁶ After the aforementioned prohibition from accepting novices came the warning: ‘Since it is not our task to instruct the people openly, we admonish all who are bound to us by obedience, to refrain from various strange doctrinal opinions held by certain people, and to abide by the decision of the Holy Roman

1 Acta Capituli, 109.

2 Ibid., 116.

3 Acquoy, III 270-271.

4 Ibid., 272.

5 Acta Capituli 123.

6 Ibid., 122. Windesheim and Albergen, G. Kuiper. Huis en klooster St. Antonius te Albergen, Diss. Nijmegen 1959, 103-104.

[p. 638]

Catholic Church of God.’¹ In the following year, 1523, part of the chapter (from twelve provinces) met in Amersfoort, while fourteen assembled in Bethlehem in Zwolle. These latter soon joined those from Amersfoort. There can be no doubt that priors from Germany attended this meeting and were able to inform the others of what was happening in the German monasteries. In the opinion of those present, the people had been sufficiently warned by a mandate from the pope and an edict from the Emperor - probably that issued in Worms in May 1521. But since some showed themselves averse to the monastic disciplines and left the monasteries, the chapter ordered the priors earnestly to forbid the reading of Luther's books and to punish those found guilty of doing so. In harmony with this anti-Lutheran conviction is the Bull of Adrian VI, promulgated by Clement VII on November 26th 1523, in which the general chapter was authorized to bring back those who unlawfully resided outside the monastery, with the aid of the civil powers if necessary.² This medieval notion would soon prove to be old-fashioned in Germany.

From 1523 onwards the question of Luther and Lutheranism crops up repeatedly in the general chapters. The delegates prayed for the unity of the Church, strictly forbade the canons to read Luther's works³ and ordered the imprisonment of those who propagated and defended Luther's teaching.⁴ Those who had left the monastery on account of Luther's doctrines and later returned might only be readmitted on the favourable advice of the prior superior. Lutheranism seems already to constitute an important threat. Peter Taborita (in Friesland) also mentioned the danger around 1524 in his Historie van Vriesland.⁵ In 1528 the definitors drew up rules concerning the punishment of the rebellious fraters, tainted by the ‘Lutheran sect’ in certain houses of Friesland, Holland and Flanders.⁶ The alms given to the monasteries were also diminishing.⁷ The chapter decided in 1529, in accordance with the edict issued at that time by the imperial majesty, to act firmly against the Lutheran supporters within their order by means of dungeon and chains, and by tracking down and imprisoning

1 Acta Capituli, 123.

2 Ibid., 124.

3 Ibid., 125, 127, 128.

4 Ibid., 127, 128.

5 3de stuk 427-42; Fredericq, Corpus Inq. IV 246; Acta Capituli 128.

6 Acta Capituli 129.

7 1528, Ibid., 129.

[p. 639]

their ‘apostatae.’ There were several monasteries in which the ‘visitors’ had to deal with such persons.¹

The entire institution began to disintegrate; the vitium proprietarii, the retention of private possessions by the canons, crept in to some monasteries almost unnoticed. In addition, the fraters attached to convents began to make unnecessary excursions outside. They would henceforth be allotted a socius by the prior and each would have to be content with his partner whether he liked him or no.

The General chapter fought tirelessly against such diminishing of the original zeal. But worse was to come. In 1535 the chapter had to protest against the holding of eating and drinking parties in some monasteries,² against the requesting of privileges from the Holy See to be allowed to doff the habit and walk round the city in lay costume. The chapter decided to consider those guilty of such infringements of the rule as apostatae and to imprison them, with the help of the civil authorities if necessary.³ The discontent in Heilo, where the canons had been obliged to house the Amsterdammers from the burnt-out monastery of St. John the Evangelist, may be considered a chance phenomenon, but the admittance of lay people inside the convents and eating and drinking within the enclosure seem to be signs of degeneration in keeping with the spirit of the times.⁴ At this period the leaders were still opposed to the use of organs in the Church. This was permitted only in certain large abbeys. One reason for this may have been the fear of a further decline in the monasteries' economic affairs. It certainly lay behind the prohibition from selling real estate.⁵

Up to this time - so far as we can judge what really happened from those acta which survive or were published - the chapters make no mention of the crumbling away of the congregations through the dissolution of various monasteries in Germany. Several members of the chapter must have been aware that this situation existed, but no decisions were taken on the matter. In 1538 the prior of Eemsteyn, John Gislen of Balen, gave the customary address to the chapter. In this he pointed out how the congregation was declining: ‘Where now are those famous houses, those chosen members of our magnificent chapter in Germany? Where is the once renowned monastery of Basle? Where Iterwik near Strasbourg? Where is that famed mountain of God, that fruitful mountain, that mountain of Turgau in the diocese

1 Acta Capituli, 130.

2 Ibid., 142.

3 1536, p. 143.

4 1538, p. 145.

5 Ibid., 145.

[p. 640]

of Constance? Where is the excellent monastery at Hisse?¹ Where the flourishing Vredendaal? And others still which it would take too long to name?’

They lived indeed in the middle of the first phase of the decline of the Windesheim monasteries which took place around 1525-1540. Germany was particularly affected as the Protestant movement gained ground, with a sequel in the Palatinate around 1560. A second phase lasted roughly from 1560-70 to 1580-90, the period of the disturbances in the Netherlands which made existence impossible for all monasteries in the northern Netherlands and several in Belgium. Those institutions which escaped these two phases or eventually recovered (in Germany for example, after the peace of Ratisbon in 1629), managed to eke out an existence until the end of the eighteenth century, that is until they succumbed to the measures of Emperor Joseph II or to the French Revolution. There were several whose history extended to this period.

The general chapter long cherished the conviction, or vain hope, that some of the Windesheim institutions would soon recover after the calamitous happenings in Germany. The official list of Windesheim monasteries, compiled after 1530, contains all the houses which had ever been associated with the chapter, with the exception of Reimerswaal which had had to be abandoned shortly before on account of floods. Of the eighty-three monasteries listed, sixteen had certainly perished or could scarcely be said to exist. These are numbers 30, 34, 43, 45, 46, 48, 52, 58, 66, 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 83. I have not included Vredendaal near Utrecht. The buildings here had been burned down in 1528 as a result of the war, but the community continued in the monastic life in the monastery of St. John in Amersfoort.² I do include, however, Marienkamp near Esens in East Friesland, burned down in 1530, although some of the canons persisted for a time in the monastic life elsewhere.³ I list also Domus beatae Mariae in Wittenburg in Lower Saxony, in the diocese of Hildesheim, although this house revived in 1629;⁴ Domus B. Mariae at Hertzenhage, near Frankfurt; Domus Sancti Dionisii in Molenbeke in the diocese of Minden, which revived in 1629;⁵ Domus horti beatae Mariae virginis near Worms;⁶ Domus B. Mariae et Joannis Evangelistae near Segenberg in

1 Acquoy II 146-147.

2 Acquoy III 77.

3 Ibid., 83.

4 Ibid., 108.

5 Ibid., 111.

6 Ibid., 114.

[p. 641]

Holstein;¹ Domus B. Mariae in Sylo (Sylmonniken) near Embden;² Domus S. Nicolai at Trutenheim in the diocese of Strasburg, which seems to have continued for a time after its destruction in 1525;³ Domus B. Mariae at Birckling in the diocese of Würzburg;⁴ and the house of St. Leonard at Basle. According to a document dated 1525 this house was secularized so that the six inmates could continue to live there as secular priests, remunerated by the city, and fulfil parish duties in the church attached. They would abandon their habit and receive the garb of the secular priest. The building and all that went with it was transferred to the city. The pretext for this agreement was the decision taken by the general chapter in 1522 and 1523 that no new novices would be admitted for the time being.⁵ It is interesting to see how Erasmus reacted to this change, which he observed at first hand. He says in his account: ‘On Candlemas Day (February 2nd) all the members of the monastery of Canons Regular of St. Leonard, including the prior, renounced their habit. After this exchange of clothing all those who wished could continue to live there. The magistrate gave each one an annuity of sixty guilders, with the prior receiving a little more. No one was astonished at this and I fear that the same will happen often. The bishops wish to take stern measures to suppress the question, but I am afraid they will have little success. Other means are necessary. I issue frequent warnings and they admit later that my warnings were not without foundation.’ I include too the monastery Domus Beatae Christinae in Yterwijk, diocese of Strasburg⁶, which van Balen mentions as having disappeared; the reportedly vanished monastery of St. Martin in Zürich, diocese of Constance; Domus Venerabilis corporis Christi at Blomberg, dissolved in 1538 or shortly afterwards as a result of the introduction of the Evangelical church order;⁷ Domus S. Martini of Sindelfingen in the diocese of Constance, which disappeared when the Reformation came to Würtemburg in 1534;⁸ Domus beatae Mariae Montisfragorum, Beren-

1 Acquoy III, 119.

2 Ibid., 125.

3 Ibid., 140.

4 Ibid., 160.

5 Acta Capituli, 123, 124. M.P. van Buytenen, Windesheimers in Bazel, Postillen over kerk en staat in de vijftiende en zestiende eeuw, aangeboden aan R.R. Post, Utrecht-Nijmegen 1964, 220-224, 228-233. Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami ed. P.S. Allen VI, 1926 Oxford, no. 1547, p. 23.

6 Acquoy III 164.

7 Ibid., 178.

8 Ibid., 179.

[p. 642]

berch in the diocese of Constance, mentioned by van Balen as having disappeared in 1538,¹ like St. Laurentius at Hesse near Saarburg in the diocese of Metz;² Domus Montis Maria, near the river Jason in the diocese of Camin, dissolved in 1535 when the church was reformed.³

Throughout the years that followed, from 1538 to 1555, the various general chapters were constantly preoccupied with the great questions of the period, and they tried to keep all in order by administering punishments. Even now no mention is made of the losses in Germany, although they do discuss personal possessions or merits⁴ and simony, which is so easily associated with these. The chapter also forbade the profession of girls under seventeen.⁵ The members of the general chapter complain that the authority of the institution has suffered greatly, that it is even despised.⁶

The chapter fathers carried on the struggle against personal property, the reading of Luther's books, the violation of the enclosure in the convents⁷ and repeatedly threatened offenders with imprisonment.⁸ The issuing by the Emperor (Charles V) of the Formula reformationis in Augsburg, provided them with a solution, since their actions would now receive the support of the temporal powers.⁹ This was probably quite necessary, since the word rebelles occurs frequently in the documents. A fresh complaint concerns drinking with others¹⁰ and play-acting on the occasion of a first Mass, clothing or profession.¹¹

One gains the impression that the chapter at its annual assembly anxiously watched over the welfare of the congregation and adopted forceful measures to promote this welfare. However, the Brabant priors, heads of seven monasteries, thought differently. In a document dated 1555 and addressed to the General chapter which was then meeting in Neuss, they say that they had already urged a reform of the chapter in 1548, but without success. Now (in 1555) they are once

1 Acquoy III, 181.

2 Ibid., 182.

3 Ibid., 187.

4 Acta Capituli 146, 147, 149.

5 Ibid., 148.

6 Ibid., 148.

7 Ibid., 149, 152, 153, 166.

8 Ibid., 150, 154.

9 R. Post, Formula Reformationis en haar toepassing in Nederland 1548-49. Meded. der Kon. Ned. Ak. van Wet. afd. Letteren 10 (1947) 173 sq.

10 Acta Capituli 153, 155.

11 Ibid., 155.

[p. 643]

again placing on record their desire for a change.¹ They point out that piety and religious feeling are everywhere declining, and notably in Overijssel and Friesland; the houses there have very few Brothers. They thus consider(ed) it wrong that the prior of Windesheim, elected by the canons there, should automatically become prior superior and head of the entire congregation. They proposed that henceforward they should have the right not to accept the elected prior of Windesheim as prior superior and that they themselves should then choose another prior superior. They allege that this too had been promised them. Moreover they consider that the chapter should not always meet in Windesheim, situated in an outlying corner of the congregation, but make the rounds of the various monasteries. In Windesheim the assembly had degenerated into a veritable fair with traders crying their wares and various groups drinking and joking in corners and even making fun of the monastics. On top of all this, the members of the general chapter who were not definitors, visited the neighbouring towns and villages, stayed there drinking until the evening was far advanced, and returned home late.

It is not entirely clear whether the proposal regarding the position of the prior of Windesheim was ever accepted. It is admittedly stated that the ordinationes capituli generalis of 1555 received the necessary confirmation in 1557, but one wonders whether the letter of the Brabant priors must be included among the ordinationes. It emerges from the chapter of 1559 that what had been decided was difficult to put into execution, since the definitores had a free hand in deciding either to leave the highest authority in the order (the superioritas) to the prior of Windesheim, or to transfer it to another prior. It was also they who decided whether the chapter should be held in Windesheim or elsewhere. In connection with this question, the chapter of 1559 - with confirmation in 1561 - decided to divide up the congregation into seven provinces. A prior provincialis was placed at the head of each province, while the prior of Windesheim would have a vicar in each province, with the exception of Overijssel where he exercised the power himself.²

Apart from certain decrees which will be mentioned later, the division of the order into seven provinces, with mention of which monasteries belonged to which province, is interesting for the history of the Windesheim congregation. With this report the question again

1 Acta Capituli 162-165.

2 Ibid., 167 sq.

[p. 644]

arises of how far the heads of the congregations realized that various foundations had virtually disappeared. The document reflects the situation in 1559. The first province - that of Overijssel - consisted of twelve houses for men and three for women. So far as we know all these still existed. The province of Lower Germany was apparently made up of 14 monasteries and one convent; of the first only Hertzenhagen had disappeared. The province of Brabant had 17 monasteries and four convents, all still extant at the time of the report. Holland was the fourth province, with seven monasteries and two convents - all very much alive. The fifth was that of Gelderland. Its eleven monasteries and three convents were all still in existence. The sixth or Frisian province consisted of seven houses for men, of which two, Esingen and Sylmonniken near Embden, had disappeared. The seventh or Saxon province had been the most severely hit. Five of the nine monasteries listed had vanished.

The whole was thought to consist of eighty monasteries, but in actual fact several of these had disappeared or were on the point of doing so. It was not yet realized that the greatest trial of all was still to come, and was indeed imminent. Meanwhile the chapter was aware that all the houses suffered from a lack of vocations. It was decided that the other provinces should help on condition that board was provided. The visitation could not be carried out properly in Westphalia, Holstein and Upper Germany, and the chapter decided to send messengers annually. No one might attempt to obtain an alteration in the habit either in Rome or by application to a ruler.¹

In the years to come, which were critical for the history of the Windesheim congregation, these same problems and phenomena recurred, supplemented by new ones. Old, yet characteristic of the Windesheim mentality in 1560, is the chapter's decision vigorously to oppose the praecaria, a tax required from the monasteries for the joyful entry of the bishop.² More understandable is the chapter's decision to use every means possible in an attempt to reverse the pope's decree - which will be discussed later - which suggested employing a number of monasteries of the Canons Regular to support the new dioceses and their heads.³ They would also attempt to enlist the emperor's aid in preventing the plunder of their houses in Westphalia and Holstein and in punishing the plunderers. New, however, is the further decision concerning the provincial organization, the definition of the rights of

1 Acta Capituli 170.

2 Ibid., 171.

3 Ibid., 174.

[p. 645]

the priores provincialis, their election, and the meetings in the various provinces.¹ New too is the chapter's insistence that the priests should celebrate oftener and fulfil the Missae privatae.² In addition the priors decided to hold the provincial synods after the ending of the Council of Trent, to attend these, and there to defend their exemption and privileges.³ Meanwhile the priors were being increasingly called upon to deal with heretics, apostatae and fugitivi, even with notorious whoremongers, adulterers, thieves, blasphemers and those who had more than once defected from the order.⁴ The punishments meted out by the monasteries were no longer of any use against these - they were only laughed at. Now, however, the priors begin officially to expel such persons from the order (dismembrari)⁵ and to hand them over to the civil authorities to be lodged in the state prisons or even sent to the galleys.⁶ The convents too were giving cause for unease. The priors considered it excessive that the rectors should possess keys of such houses⁷ and that all sorts of men should be allowed inside the enclosure. They were even obliged to make a rule forbidding the nuns to lead dances at clothings or professions, or to put on plays in the presence of lay people. Some Sisters on these occasions doffed their habits and wore masks.⁸

At about the same time as the palsgrave launched an attack on the monasteries of the Canons Regular in his region, the pope took action against certain Dutch houses, five of them in the Windesheim congregation. In 1561 Pius IV issued the so-called dotation letters for the recently founded dioceses in the Netherlands. Hereby the monastery of St. John the Evangelist in Heilo was allocated to the episcopal table of Haarlem, to Deventer was given the St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle, to Leeuwarden, St. Nicolas at Bergum, to Groningen, Marienkamp at Esinge and to Roermond, St. Jerome in the same city.⁹ From any point of view this is a strange measure, only comprehensible for its useful effect. It seems to me even worse that the motive for this measure was stated to be the fact that the rules were no longer strictly observed in the monasteries and, in the case of the monastery of Heilo, that the canons had set it on fire. Although the first charge may well have been wholly or partly true in this trouble-torn period, the

1 Acta Capituli, 175-177.

2 Ibid., 179, 187.

3 Ibid., 179-180.

4 Ibid., 181.

5 Ibid., 180.

6 Ibid., 187, 191.

7 Ibid., 181.

8 Ibid., 183.

9 Acquoy II 151.

[p. 646]

reproach appears to me too general, while the accusation against Heilo was patently untrue - which must have been well known to Sonnius, the man behind this measure. On the other hand there was reason enough to act for two of the monasteries. The house of Esinge for example, in East Friesland, no longer existed as such. As early as 14th April 1555, St. Agnietenberg had sent a petition to Brussels asking to be allowed to exchange the regular state for the secular. The number of members had grown too small to perform the choir prayers in the proper manner. The King granted the request on Feb. 14th 1556, so that a request dealing with this matter could be sent to Rome on April 2nd 1556.¹ The pope's reply was in fact the incorporation with the diocese of Deventer. Since there was already a chapter in Deventer, there was no place for the St. Agnietenberg canons there. They probably became canons at Bethlehem in Zwolle, since the monks there also asked to be secularized in 1560. The fact that two of these Windesheim monasteries aspired to secularization in these years was an inauspicious sign for the glorious institution.

The monastery of St. Jerome did indeed become part of the diocese of Roermond, after having furnished two martyrs at the attack by William of Orange in 1572.² In the monastery at Bergum the rights of the prior and the canons were redeemed for a sum of money, which also amounted to secularization.³ However, a preceding report had supplied the authorities acting as advisors to Rome with sufficient data to motivate the incorporation, although this data was probably grossly exaggerated.⁴ Finally, the incorporation of St. John the Evangelist in Heilo was based on false motives. The Canons Regular were to become members of the still to be founded chapter at the cathedral of St. Bavo in Haarlem, but at the outset they firmly refused. It was not until 1571 that six priests of the Heilo house became secular canons in Haarlem under pressure from the Duke of Alva.⁵

The chapter held in Windesheim in 1569 decided to make known the decrees of the Council of Trent; it also passed a resolution to found

1 Miraeus, Foppens IV 660. R.R. Post, Kerkelijke verhondingen in Nederland vóór de Reformatie van ± 1500 tot ± 1580, Utrecht 1954, 315-316.

2 M. Dierickx S.J., De oprichting der nieuwe bisdommen in de Nederlanden onder Filips II 1559-1570. Utrecht 1950, 106.

3 Ibid., 281-282.

4 R.R. Post, Kerkelijke verhoudingen, 238-239.

5 M. Dierickx 204. A.Th. Mous, Geschiedenis van het voormalig kapittel van de kathedrale kerk van St. Bavo te Haarlem 1561-1616, I-IV, Archief voor de geschiedenis van de katholieke kerk in Nederland IV (1962) 77, 184, VIII (1966) 257-286.

[p. 647]

schools at three places in the king's domain in order to train up young people to piety and the monastic life. These institutions would function as seminaries to come to the aid of those monasteries with too few members. Furthermore, in every monastery, so far as income would allow, they proposed to appoint a theologian as lector, to give private lessons to the monastics.¹ Such was the short report of the general chapter of May 4th 1569.²

However, to judge from the correspondence which followed upon the meeting, the chapter went somewhat further. Apart from the above mentioned question of the schools and of a lector for the various houses, the chapter intended to gain the pope's support for a reform of the Windesheim constitutions. The most radical proposal concerned the appointment of a prior superior who would no longer be at the same time head of the monastery of Windesheim, or of any other monastery, but would be entirely free to take general charge. He would act as circulating head for the entire congregation, appointed originally for five years, but free to be re-elected. Since, however, there was no money available for this function, or for some of its subordinates, the chapter requested the pope to incorporate for this purpose four or five monasteries outside the territory of the king (Philip II) and the general chapter, since these foundations were no longer run by monastics but had been taken over by princes or city corporations.

This proposal corresponded to the step taken by pope Pius IV in 1561, the incorporation of monasteries and newly founded dioceses which the general chapter had opposed so violently. At the same time the chapter asked the pope to allow the monks and sisters to inherit. Anything thus obtained would be passed on to the community, so avoiding the abuse of the proprietas.

In addition, the priors requested the pope's approval of the division of the congregation into provinces, each under its own prior provincialis, and finally that the monasteries' wrong-doers might be lodged in the state prison.³ In an accompanying letter to the Duke of Alva they recalled the unlawful incorporation with the diocese of Leeuwarden, thereby condemning their own initiative in Rome.⁴

The document is dated from the assembly of the general chapter at

1 Acta Capituli 186-188.

2 Ibid., 187.

3 Hervormingsbesluiten van het kapittel van Windesheim in 1569. Archief voor de geschiedenis aartsb. Utrecht, 58 (1934) 220-228.

4 Ibid., 229-230.

[p. 648]

Windesheim, on May 4th 1569; the accompanying missive to Alva on April 20th 1570. In this it is mentioned that the sending of the petition to Rome was delayed by the illness of the legate. His commission was approved on May 6th 1569.¹ It is not known when the document reached Rome, but the reply was given first by pope Gregory XIII who succeeded Pius V on May 13th 1572. It is dated Dec. 16th 1573.² All the requests were granted. The petition evidently served as basis for the papal document. The style is adapted to it with a few minor alterations. The additional point is made that the Windesheimers are not obliged to admit anyone on the archbishop's recommendation - a privilege he received at the joyful entry.³ The prior superior might be elected for a term of three years only and is then eligible for one more period of office. The incomes of the monasteries at Eemsteyn and the Hasker house, which had been destroyed, were allocated to the prior superior. The city of Amersfoort was suggested for the seminaries.⁴

It will have been well into 1574 when the papal letter arrived at its destination in Windesheim. The copy is in the acta capituli after the meeting of March 1st 1573 and before that of September 15th 1574.⁵ The king's confirmation was requested on July 14th 1574, but the placet was only granted in Brussels on August 16th 1580.⁶ The situation had completely changed in the intervening six years, especially since the general chapter had not met between 1575 and 1585. Probably the members saw no opportunity of putting the decree into execution between 1575 and 1580, or even before 1586; perhaps they considered it unnecessary since the monastery of Windesheim no longer existed in 1586 and the entire congregation had shrunk to a small number of monasteries. These years were the most critical for the Windesheim congregation, since it was during this time that all the ‘Netherlands’ monasteries were lost. It is possible to deduce from the acta to what extent the congregation was a Dutch concern. Whereas the decline of the German monasteries had few or no repercussions in the acta of the chapters, the chapter was directly confronted with the decay of the Dutch houses and the consequences thereof.

The following monasteries were dissolved as a result of the reformation in the Palatinate: Domus S. Petri at Hegene in the diocese of Worms (1568);⁷ great Frankendaal in the diocese of Worms

1 Archief ... Utrecht 58 (1934), 231.

2 Acquoy III Bijl. IX p. 306-314.

3 Ibid., 308-309.

4 Ibid., 311.

5 Acta Capituli 211.

6 Ibid., 213-214.

7 Acquoy III 122.

[p. 649]

(1562);¹ Schwabenheim in the diocese of Mainz;² Domus S. Christophori at Ravensberg in 1558, after an agreement with the prior.³ There is no trace of any of this in the acta. On the other hand, when some Dutch monasteries were threatened by the heretics and the Gueux, the prior was allowed to seek safety for the Brothers in citadels or towns.⁴

The first victim was the monastery of St. Elizabeth at Rugge near Den Briel, which was completely destroyed in a Gueux attack on April 1st 1572.⁵ The prior and nine fraters were obliged to seek shelter and since they had lost everything they had to be provided with various necessities. They went first to Eemsteyn, but later went on to different houses. They attempted to obtain money for their lands, probably with little success. The inmates of Eemsteyn - a prior with nine Brothers - left the monastery for fear of the Gueux and it was in effect burnt down by the Gueux on June 14th. Here the paters were at least able to save the ornaments and turn them into money.⁶ The house at Zalt-Bommel was ordered to gather together as much ready money as possible when it too was menaced with destruction.⁷ Yet despite this threat which came from the sea, and which caused various regulars to flee to more inland monasteries, a spirit of discontent, even revolt, continued to grow in some of the monasteries. This revolutionary spirit increasingly pervaded these Windesheim houses. Strong measures had to be taken against several persons, and the monastery superiors did not hesitate to act forcefully. Meanwhile the chapter urged that the refugees, who usually arrived destitute in other monasteries, should be lovingly admitted, while holding out the prospect that the hosts would be reimbursed for any expense incurred. Several people had fled from Eemsteyn, from Nieuwlicht near Hoorn, from Leiderdorp, Brielle, Haarlem, Zalt-Bommel, Beverwijk, Elizabethdal in Roermond and from Bredevoort.⁸ The private chapter which met in 1574 in Amersfoort and elected a new prior of Windesheim, Marcellus Lentius, former prior of Mariahof in Amersfoort, consisted

1 Acquoy III, 168.

2 Ibid., 170.

3 Ibid., 173.

4 1577, Acta Capituli 195.

5 Ibid., 199.

6 Ibid., 200. It is remarkable that the Acta Capituli make no mention of the martyrdom of their fellow Brother John of Oosterwijk, Acquoy III 41. The notary of this chapter has John of Oosterwijk transfer to Rooklooster. Or is this James of Oosterwijck?

7 Acta Capituli 201.

8 Ibid., 207-208.

[p. 650]

almost entirely of delegates from Dutch monasteries, with representatives only from Aachen and Oudenaarde.¹ The entire meeting was devoted to the problem of refugees from destroyed or threatened monasteries. The members agreed that those houses which were still intact had a duty to admit the refugees. Some were shocked at the thought that certain nuns who had always lived enclosed, those of Renkum and Bethany of Arnhem for example, now walked freely in the streets.² The chapter tried to remedy such situations as well as possible and maintained its uncompromising attitude.

The reformation continued to gain ground in the Netherlands, taking over the provinces of Holland and Zeeland in 1572, Gelderland, Utrecht and Friesland around 1580-81, and Overijssel with the exception of the region round Oldenzaal. In consequence all Windesheim monasteries and convents in the Netherlands were dissolved and partly destroyed before the year 1600, as were all institutions belonging to other orders.

The property was usually confiscated, while the inmates either fled or enjoyed an annuity which the city authorities paid the monastics, especially the sisters, from the proceeds of the confiscated monastic property.

Among the institutions which disappeared are the twelve monasteries and three convents of the province of Overijssel, founded in 1559, and the twelve houses (ten for men and two for women) of the province of Hollandia. Eight of the monasteries in the province of Gelderland disappeared, together with the three convents. Finally, five of the seven Frisian monasteries went - two had already disappeared. Altogether, forty-three houses were dissolved, eight of them convents. If one adds to these those which had already gone, they form by far and away the largest part of all the Windesheim houses. Less than thirty remained of the original eighty-three and only four of the thirteen convents. It is true that a number of houses were founded or incorporated later, and that Germany made some sort of recovery in 1629. However, it was only in those regions of Germany which remained Catholic, principally in Westphalia (province of Saxony) and in the Rhinelands (Germania) that the monasteries survived in any numbers. In the province of Brabantia on the other hand, that is, in North Brabant and the southern Netherlands, all the religious houses survived.

1 Acea Capituli, 215.

2 Ibid., 217.

[p. 651]

Throughout the war in the Netherlands, which lasted for years, the surviving priors and canons, and especially the heads of the still existing monasteries, began to hold meetings again. For this purpose the houses in the southern Netherlands were found most suitable. Private or general chapters were accordingly held in Antwerp (1586), Brussels (1587, 1589, 1593, 1606), Louvain (1604), Liège (1608), Stralen (1610) Groenendaal (1611) and Tongeren (1611), so that the life of the congregation continued, although the acta of the later meetings were not published.¹ According to the published acts of the first assemblies, the confusion was considerable and the brothers were generally disheartened by the calamities which the congregation had suffered. Nevertheless, they courageously set about the work of restoration. The governing body was reorganized by the appointment of several priors and ‘visitors’, and measures were taken regarding the houses and property. These chiefly consisted of taking an inventory of what remained, notably of the lands and ornaments which had often been given to certain brothers or trusted lay people for safe keeping. A considerable amount appears to have been saved. Furthermore, an effort was made to gather the members together as far as possible in certain houses and to imbue them again with the aims and aspirations of the order. The statutes were revised, chiefly by confirming the decisions of previous chapters, for example those of 1572 in 1593, those of 1586-93 in the latter year.²

Gradually the situation appeared to be returning to normal, and there even seemed a reasonable hope of recovering some of the old position, when eleven Windesheim monasteries were restored to their former owners under Emperor Ferdinand II at the peace of Lübeck and according to the restitution edict of 1629. Some of these revived completely, while others had only a brief existence. Several of the monasteries managed to survive, either until the measures adopted by Emperor Joseph II, or until the French Revolution when practically all were lost.

The fact that in 1611 the Windesheimers decided to found a seminary for their order in Cologne may be taken as a sign that they had adapted themselves to the changed circumstances. It is interesting to note that the effects of the following Dutch monasteries, Nazareth near Bredevoort, Bethlehem in Doetinchem and St. Jerome in Roermond, were utilized for this purpose.³ In addition to the one in Cologne

1 Acta Capituli 220-276.

2 Ibid., 238-239.

3 Ibid., 274-275.

[p. 652]

they also founded a seminary in Louvain in 1618, here too making use of the income from the property of dissolved monasteries.¹ Five surviving German monasteries each contributed 50 imperials a year.² They also sent students from their monastery at Louvain causa studii, evidently in order to study at the university.³

All this forms part of the history of the monasteries. While an offshoot of the Devotio Moderna, it has naturally little in common any longer with the undertaking begun by Geert Groote. I shall therefore content myself with a brief indication of the principal facts from the further history of the congregation.

These can be largely deduced from the decrees of the later chapter meetings, transmitted in books which have been described by S. van de Woude.⁴ From the so-called Hague manuscript, preserved in the Royal Library at The Hague (133, c.12), it appears that soon after 1611 the chapter meetings were held every two years and after 1630 every three years. These were sometimes supplemented or to a certain extent replaced by provincial chapters. As in former times these meetings were presided over by the head of the congregation, now called prior generalis, who usually did not remain long in function. At this period the congregation was divided into two provinces, each under a commissioner, who administered the whole, together with the prior general, and attended all the chapter meetings. These meetings were usually held in one of the south Netherlands monasteries, in Cologne or in Aachen. After 1629 there was a reasonable attendance at these meetings - between twenty and thirty persons. Part III gives a better insight into the situation, since the writer repeatedly gives the number of absentees. In 1728 there were 27 priors present and 6 absent,⁵ in 1731 respectively 23 and 8,⁶ in 1734 16 and 16,⁷ in 1737 20 and 13⁸, in 1740 20 and 7⁹ and in 1752 18 present and 15 absentees.¹⁰

In 1663 thirty-two monasteries (with a few small changes) remained of the former ninety-six. They were listed then in roughly the same sequence as in 1530: St. Marie of Neuss, Bloemendaal near Brussels, Rooklooster near Brussels, Frenswegen, Korsendonck, Gaesdonck, Bethlehem near Louvain, Bodiken, Grobbendonck, St. John the Baptist of Aachen, Elsegemen or Mariendaal near Oudenaarde, Weert

1 Acquoy II 167.

2 Acta Capituli 278.

3 Ibid., 277.

4 Den Haag 1953, 1-4.

5 Hague ms., 306.

6 Ibid., 310.

7 Ibid., 314.

8 Ibid., 319.

9 Ibid., 325.

10 Ibid., 328.

[p. 653]

(= Maria in Duomo near Eindhoven), Böddingen, Ewijck (diocese of Cologne), Tongeren, Riechenberg, Elizabeth near Roermond, Liège, Sulta, Melle, Domus Busci domini Isaac, Domus corporis domini in Cologne, Daelhem, Hamersleben, Udem, Rebdorf, Clus, Marbach, St. Baptist in Halberstadt, Schwabenheim, St. Maria in 't Zandt near Straelen, and St. Georgerberg.

The subjects submitted to the general chapters resemble those of former days. In general they reveal a tireless striving to preserve the monastic life in a good state, while adapting it to the new times. In addition to what we have already mentioned concerning the improved intellectual training and education, this also emerges particularly from two facts: the incorporation of the Windesheim congregation with that of the Lateran, in 1628, and the chapter's urging of an intensification of the inner life. The first step had no noticeable results,¹ while the second led to a renewed interest in the early sources of the congregation, the chronicon Windesheimense, Thomas a Kempis and others. This inner life could be fostered by meditation.²

Like the Brethren of the Common Life, the Windesheimers in this period were also confronted with Humanism and with the Reformation, and there are various questions which must preoccupy the historian. Did they pave the way for this new phenomenon in the domain of culture, church and christianity or did they foster it? Did they actively take part in it, since their ideas coincided with the new ideals and aspirations? In order to answer these questions it is as well to attempt to form some idea of the extent of the Windesheim monastic community at the beginning of this period, when the first signs of a humanistic culture could be detected in those regions where the Windesheimers had their monasteries. These included the greater part of the northern and southern Netherlands, the Rhineland, Westphalia and southern Germany. The farther away from Windesheim the fewer the number of monasteries. The most distant were in Zürich, Basle and Halberstadt. However, the influence of the Windesheimers on the monasteries extended much further than those which were incorporated in the congregation, since many Regular Benedictine and Cistercian monasteries and convents had experienced the beneficial effects of their reform work. Towards the end of the century even French houses in and near Paris were affected.

1 Hague ms., 98.

2 Ibid., 119.

[p. 654]

The Windesheimers were not pioneers in this observant movement, nor were they the only ones who supported and promoted it. In certain periods, however, and in particular regions, they may well have been the most successful leaders. Even where they were not directly involved, for example in the Observant movement of the Franciscans, Dominicans and Augustine Hermits, the Windesheimers contributed to producing and keeping alive a spiritual climate which required a strict observance.

In this way they also helped to further such observantist movements of reform, just as they also enjoyed the ideals which these latter orders put into practice. This may be said to constitute the sum of their outside work. They undertook no pastoral duties, had no parishes, preached only in their own monastery church for their fellow brethren and other persons associated with the monastery, such as the novices and donati. Naturally however, their ascetic works, especially those written in the second period, reached various other categories of people over a wide area: men or women in different monasteries, members of the clergy and very many lay people. In this the Windesheimers certainly surpassed the Brethren, yet their works formed only a small part of the considerable body of pious literature published towards the end of the Middle Ages and in the beginning of the sixteenth century.

The Windesheimers were directly concerned with the pastoral care of the nuns of the convents belonging to the congregation, but this was the limit of their pastoral activities. They found it difficult enough to organize and maintain this work in such a way that the religious needs of the nuns were taken care of, without the priests losing that monastic spirit which was so desired and considered so necessary. Life outside their own monastery and work among the nuns so easily led to independent comfort and superfluity, to the acquiring of personal possessions, to friendly relations with the Sisters and to the infringement of the rule of enclosure. The exalted monastic ideals on the other hand, which included contempt for the world, were conducive to a retreat from the world, to enclosure after the model of the Carthusians, hence blocking off any channels for exercising a religious influence on the world. An important factor is that they had no schools, and obtained their recruits either through personal contact in the parlour, through family relations, or through the brothers' hostels. Sometimes, however, the initiative came entirely from the side of the boys and their parents, since the monastery and monastic life not unnaturally held a great attraction for the people.

[p. 655]

Was there any link between the ideas, doctrinal concepts and piety of the Windesheimers and Lutheranism, in other words, with those of the leaders of the Reformation with whom they were first and most closely confronted? To my mind there was not sufficient similarity either in the field of dogma or of moral theology or in the quality of their spiritual life, except of course for the fact that both parties were Christian. Like the Brethren, the Windesheimers did not believe in justification by faith alone, or in under-estimating the value of human cooperation in the process of salvation. They accepted no other certainty of faith than their contemporaries. They esteemed the Bible certainly, but no more than it was esteemed in other theological circles and they certainly did not rely on the spirit of the Bible alone. So far as the spiritual element is concerned, there was rather a contrast between the spirituality of the Windesheimers and that of Luther. This is true indeed of most of the people of the late Middle Ages. The Windesheimers held the office, and the Holy Mass, in high regard. They placed value on a large number of prayers, despite their continued emphasis on inner prayer, on meditation and the constant awareness of the good intention. Just as Luther finally rejected observatism in his own order, and was driven to opposition by the opinions of his fellow brothers when the rigid observantists did not help him in his moral conflicts, so must those who felt any sympathy for the new theology have viewed the Windesheimers with a critical eye. These latter may indeed have felt the attraction of the Lutheran principles from time to time, but precisely because they were so opposed to their own ideals and not because they resembled them.

It goes without saying that some of the hundreds of canons defected to Lutheranism but they formed only a tiny percentage. There were also a couple of priors who went over to the Reformers, either from a spirit of sympathy towards the new doctrine or from pure religious indifference. Some, in order to obtain a livelihood for themselves and the brothers, may have come to an agreement with the city council whereby they received an annuity in return for handing over the monastery buildings and incomes to the city. Among such houses were St. Leonard in Basle in 1525,¹ Frankendaal in the Palatinate² and Domus S. Christophori at Ravensberg in the Palatinate, in the archdiocese of Mainz.³ The number, however, is so small as to be negligible.

In the sixteenth century the Windesheim monasteries experienced

1 See p. 641.

2 Acquoy III, 168.

3 Ibid., 173.

[p. 656]

the harmful effects of the Reformation in two ways. In the first place, several of the houses were vacated or destroyed because the regional or city authorities either forbade the practice of the old religion or rendered it impossible, confiscating church property and especially that of the monasteries. In other words the monasteries suffered the effects of violent action on the part of the authorities or of the forces of war. Here and there they were the victims of the revolutionary activities of the citizens. Secondly, there prevailed at this time a sort of religious malaise, an attitude of coldness towards the old foundations of the Catholic Church. This phenomenon was apparent in an expressed contempt for monastic authority and monastic customs and in a desire for renewal in prayer, liturgy, training, novitiate and dress. There was also a decline in the financial affairs of the monasteries, coupled with an unprecedented burden of taxation and a progressive struggle against any increase of goods or property held in mortmain. Strong criticism was voiced against the monasteries owning land, which was claimed by the nobles for their sons and, especially, for their daughters. There was in addition an aversion to the feudal rights of landed proprietors. All this was accompanied by a sharp dropping off in vocations, the results of which can be clearly noted around 1540. This turning away from the monastic life and criticism of monastic practices and authority led to desertion by some of the monks, either to join the Reformers or, more usually, to seek freedom in the world or as a secular priest. This resulted in the recapture of these persons by forcible means, their incarceration, widespread discontent and rebellion, and neglect of the rules concerning personal possessions, the enclosure and perhaps also celibacy. This degeneration, this decline, was surely promoted by the religious conflict, the dogmatic disputes, the attacks on the Church. It is a phenomenon which revealed itself also in the Lutheran church, even among several of the first Calvinist ministers. A new era brought improvement and various Windesheim monasteries were quick to seize their opportunity. But this section of the Modern Devotion was certainly no preparation for the Reformation, unless to some degree in the negative sense-insofar as the Reformation signified a reaction against all that was inherent in the religious life of the time, and Windesheim was an important part of this religious life. Besides being a dogmatic renewal and a reaction against the relaxation of all religion, the Reformation was also a reaction against a very particular expression of religion which was to be found among the Windesheimers.

[p. 657]

The problem of the relationship between Windesheim and Humanism coincides with the question: did the Devotio Moderna promote the rise and success of Humanism in those regions where it was widespread, and if so to what extent? Naturally enough, in using the term Devotio Moderna, one thinks first of all of the Brethren who are considered as having had a great influence on education. We have therefore discussed this question too in relation to the Brothers and have arrived at a negative conclusion. Was it any different with the Windesheimers? Can these, the most widespread, the most active, the most literary and the most productive of the Modern Devotionalists be said to have fostered Humanism? Did any of their members win fame as Humanists in the first period of Humanism? Were they the pioneers of this new culture? Since they kept no Latin schools it is not possible to approach this question by way of teaching and the schools. Moreover, the first gatherings of Humanists from the Netherlands and the region of Münster took place, not with the Windesheimers nor with the fraters but in the Cistercian monastery in Aduard after 1480. These were attended by rectors and teachers from the city schools and some aristocrats but not by Brethren of the Common Life and still less by Windesheimers. Nevertheless it was not long before individual Humanists or persons inclined towards Humanism began to emerge in the monasteries of Windesheim, as had John Veghe in Münster, James Montanus in Herford and Massaeus in Ghent for the Brothers. One of these was from Lopsen near Leiden, a certain Cornelius Gerardi or Cornelius Aurelius, a native of Gouda, from which town he derived his name Aurelius (from aurum = goud (gold) a word which was presumed to be concealed in the name of Gouda). There were, in addition two other Canons Regular, the contemporaries Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, who had spent his childhood in Gouda, and Willem Hermans. Both were members of the house of Stein near Gouda. This monastery was not incorporated in the congregation of Windesheim but in the small chapter of Sion near Delft. This congregation subscribed to the ideas and methods of Windesheim, while remaining independent. It can however be considered as forming part of the Devotio Moderna. They proceeded from the same spirit, just as did the many houses of the Third Order. These, however, developed differently from the large group of Modern Devotionalists and have therefore not been dealt with in this book. Neither did the members of the congregation of Sion add anything new to the Modern Devotion.

[p. 658]

The three persons who worked together during Erasmus' period in the monastery and kept up a flourishing correspondence, pose the problem of Erasmus and the Devotio Moderna. This is a complicated question and much literature has been devoted to it. Did Erasmus, in his formative years in Deventer and 's-Hertogenbosch, and during his first years in the monastery, come into contact with, and absorb the combination of, devotion and humanism, enriching both and deriving from them an individual outlook on life which may perhaps be characterized with the general term philosophia Christi? Or did Erasmus absorb the principles or the spirit of the devotion in Deventer, Zwolle and Stein, later adding to these the humanism which scarcely existed in these circles, but which entered the Netherlands as a new culture, to some extent supplementing the existing school training? Must we assume that Erasmus, by his own efforts and utilizing what he already knew from the school, assimilated the new culture, afterwards developing it considerably, moulding it into a coherent system of thought, the philosophia Christi? It might also be that what he had seen with the Brothers of Deventer, found out to his cost in 's-Hertogenbosch and experienced somewhat reluctantly in Stein, had but little influence on him, since in all these places he retained his intellectual independence. He may indeed have gained the humanistic culture, as it was revealed in the Netherlands of this period, through his own great mental efforts and exceptional talent, and developed it without any fusion with the devotion which had been more or less imposed upon him in the early period. Only later would the link with Christian piety and the theological choice have occurred, inspired by his conversations with John Colet during his nine month's stay in England (May 1499-February 1500). It is certain that he there became acquainted with a philosophical Humanism after the model of Ficino and with a pious and learned theology. It was undoubtedly his stay in England which led him to resolve to devote his life henceforward to the study of the Bible and of theology.¹

Not all students of Erasmus resolve the problem of his relationship to the Modern Devotion in the same manner. The whole matter indeed is rather nebulous, although some facts are absolutely certain. The school of Deventer, which Erasmus attended at least from the beginning of 1478 until far into 1483, and where he learned Latin, was not run by the Brothers. It happened, however, that one of the fraters,

1 J. Huizinga, Erasmus, German transl. by Werner Kaegi, Basel 1936, 38-44.

[p. 659]

John Synthen, taught at Deventer during this period. He had a good reputation as a teacher, and despite his use of the old-fashioned grammar of Alexander de Villa Dei, was conscious of the need for improvement in the teaching of Latin. Since he taught in the fraters' own school, Erasmus was never one of his pupils, nor does he often mention him later. There are no data which suggest that Erasmus lived in the Brothers' hostel in Deventer - in contrast to his stay in 's-Hertogenbosch, he never speaks of it. In any case he would not have fitted in, since the fraters really only took boys who wished to enter a monastery or to become priests, neither of which vocations appealed to Erasmus at that time. Nevertheless it was in Deventer that Erasmus acquired his taste for the classics and his high opinion of the Humanistic culture. This appears clearly from his letters to Cornelius Gerard¹ and to an unnamed friend.² His feelings were expressed at this period in a desire for a better Latin, and for more Latin authors to read, and in criticism amounting to complete rejection of most of the medieval school books. This opinion he shared with most of the other northern Humanists in this first dawn of 1480-1500. It was probably Alexander Hegius, a good pupil of Rudolf Agricola, who introduced the new spirit to Deventer after his appointment as rector of the school in 1483. Although these ideals were only put into practice slowly and gradually at first, the change in the general outlook, which aroused both admiration and criticism, signified a revolution in the whole concept of education. It is therefore understandable that Erasmus held the rector Alexander Hegius in particular esteem, especially in the first years following his school days in Deventer. Later, however, his opinion changed. In 1523 Erasmus wrote in his Spongia that he owed little of his education to Alexander and Rudolf Agricola.³ Apart from the fact that Erasmus left Deventer shortly after Alexander Hegius' appointment to that town, there are other reasons for assuming that he is unlikely to have been taught by Hegius. The rector was an ambulant head, gave only a few lessons in the first class and sometimes addressed the boys on Sundays. However, Erasmus will presumably have listened to such addresses which will have exhorted to love of study and esteem for the Latin writers.

Nothing is therefore known of any particular contact between Erasmus and the Brothers or the Modern Devotion in Deventer,

1 Allen I, 23 line 60, 95.

2 L.B. X 1666, A.

3 I, 31 line 37, 48.

[p. 660]

although there is always the possibility that he heard the Brothers' Sunday sermon, that he received the sacraments there and even that he chose one of the fraters as his spiritual adviser. The only basis for this supposition, however, is the fact that the Brothers were responsible for the pastoral care of the schoolboys. The boys, for their part, were not obliged to make use of their spiritual guidance, except insofar as they went ‘in crocodile’ from the school to the Brotherhouse on Sunday afternoons to hear the sermon.

While the situation in Deventer is uncertain, there can be no doubt about what happened in 's-Hertogenbosch (1584-1587). There Erasmus lodged in the fraters' hostel, but unlike the other youthful inmates, did not attend the city school. He was thus dependent upon what he was able to learn from either of the two Brothers who were in charge of the hostel. He seems to have been unlucky in his masters. One of his superiors he considered the ultimate in stupidity, while the other in his opinion was merely a recruiting agent for the monastery. He wrote as much in 1516 in his extremely tendentious letter to Grunnius¹ and repeated this view in 1528-29.² Yet despite this exaggeration, his comments clearly describe the actual situation. Erasmus had been better taught and completely surpassed his master in his knowledge of Latin. It was for this reason that he later considered the years spent in 's-Hertogenbosch as wasted. He would have liked to go to the University, but his guardians sent him to the Brothers. Is the devotion of these fraters likely to have had much effect upon this sensitive boy, who was completely, and rightly, convinced that he far excelled his masters in his knowledge of Latin and in his talents as a writer - who indeed despised these masters? Will he not rather have seen their pious exercises and the perpetual renewing of their good intention as a hindrance to the development of his talents, rather than as objects of admiration and imitation?

His sojourn with the fraters and his monastic life offered various possibilities for penetrating more deeply into the ideals and practices of the Modern Devotion. Did Erasmus make use of this opportunity? His frame of mind during the monastery years of 1487-1493 must be deduced from the works which he wrote at that time, notably the prose works: De contemptu mundi and the Antibarbari, the verses and the letters.

In De contemptu mundi his aim is to persuade one of his friends,

1 Allen II p. 295-296.

2 L.B. I 921.

[p. 661]

a certain Jodocus, to accept the monastic life, just as he had done himself. He is well satisfied with his choice, and since he wishes others to share in this felicity he writes a treatise on the subject. He himself calls it an epistle. He hereby joins the ranks of the ascetic writers from Cassian to Dionysius the Carthusian, who have dealt with the same subject either in separate treatises or more or less incidentally in other works. These include Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory I, Peter Damian, Anselm, Bernard, Innocent III, Bonaventure, Geert Groote, Thomas a Kempis, John of Schoonhoven, Dionysius of Rijckel (the Carthusian) and several others. These writers influenced each other, and it is fortunate that after many monographs on the individual authors, a comprehensive work is being compiled on the majority of these writers under the general title Christianisme et valeurs humaines; A. La doctrine du mépris du monde en occident de S. Ambroise à Innocent III. B. Le thème de la dignité de l'homme au moyen âge et à la Renaissance.¹ Two sections of the part indicated under A have appeared. They have already clarified the problem considerably and have contributed important, although naturally not entirely new, information concerning the persons discussed. These works could be of great assistance to us in appreciating at their true value the contemptus mundi ideas of the Modern Devotionalists, as well as the book of Erasmus under discussion. It is curious, however, that those responsible for this publication have drastically curtailed its scope with reference to the late Middle Ages. They no longer intend to deal with the contempt for the world in the ascetic writers, but only that of the literary authors, and even here they confine themselves to France. Was their decision to introduce this limitation inspired by a conviction that the late medieval ascetic writers - including the Modern Devotionalists - the Carthusian Dionysius of Ryckel and the Windesheimer John of Schoonhoven, have really nothing fresh to contribute to this subject? In thinking this, of course, they would not be entirely wrong, yet even if these writers dealt with the same theme in a not strikingly original manner, it would still be important to round off the general picture. It is indeed already obvious from this study that the Modern Devotionalists, and also the Carthusian Dionysius, were able to draw upon an abundant heritage from the church Fathers and the medieval writers in dealing with this subject. The material was there for the taking and many will have

1 R. Bultot, Tome IV. Le XI^e siècle, Vol. 2 Hermann de Reichenau, Roger de Caen, Anselme de Canterbury. Louvain-Paris 1963.

[p. 662]

availed themselves of it. If therefore in this work De contemptu mundi, Erasmus sets down thoughts similar in style or content to those found in Thomas a Kempis or in other Devotionalists this does not necessarily mean that they were borrowed from them. Erasmus wrote in a monastery which, while not belonging to the Windesheim congregation, was yet fired by similar ideals. In every monastery he visited he must have experienced something of the contempt for the world which may have come straight to these canons from the followers of Geert Groote, but at the same time may simply be considered as the common property of the medieval monasteries. It may be directly derived from or motivated by certain Bible texts; such pious expressions are not lacking in Erasmus' treatise, but they form only a small part compared with themes derived from writers and examples taken from antiquity.

It follows from this that Erasmus' treatise might be included among the ‘thèmes de la dignité de l'homme au moyen âge et à la Renaissance.’ In my opinion the work must be attributed to the Renaissance, but it gives no theory on the dignity of man, which in any case only evolved slowly in the Renaissance period. The Middle Ages too were aware that there were degrees in the Imitation of Christ. They knew that some of the Apostles were married, while others were not, that some lived from what the faithful collected and that the bachelor St. Paul provided for himself. Some admired Paul for this, but did not feel themselves obliged to imitate him. St. Thomas Aquinas valued human powers as natural gifts which had to be developed, and thus to some extent supplied the man of the Renaissance with the grounds for his appreciation. Was the preoccupation with the salvation of souls and love for one's fellow not a lack of appreciation of the great contempt for the world as formulated in particular by Peter Damian and his twelfth century contemporaries? Everything referred to in the New Testament under the terms ‘flesh’, ‘secular’ and ‘world’, they interpreted in the sense of sin, or at least as obstacles to the love of God. In so doing they obliged themselves to make the choice: the world, or the monastery. The choice was not a difficult one in theory, but in practice to choose Christ was to be compelled to renounce the world, marriage, family ties and all possessions, an ideal in fact which could only be realized in the monastery. Certain texts of Peter Damian and Anselm show that they wished to impose this burden of choice on some of their relations or well-loved persons living in the world. They considered these losses not as deprivations but as joys, and certainly as

[p. 663]

means to acquire the greatest or heavenly joy. Thus in the practical sense the choice was extremely difficult. Only a few could bring themselves literally to leave the world, which is perhaps just as well, or how would the world carry on? In actual fact the people of the Middle Ages did not embrace this stern conclusion en masse, yet they were certainly not persuaded that they were past redemption and would necessarily be relegated to the Lord's left hand on the last day.

The difficulty of the propounded dilemma led to the many treatises on the contemptus mundi, depicting on the one hand the world with its problems and dangers, and on the other the monastery with its spiritual joys. The world was a sea full of dangers - all was uncertain and short-lived. Of what significance were honour, riches, health, the family, office, when all could be lost in a moment through failure of crops, rebellion, war and death, which is the end of all? The monastic on the other hand, performed the service of God, was a stranger to fame and wealth and was always prepared for death. The life hereafter was merely a continuation of their life on earth. The author needed less imagination to describe the first than the second. As the term contemptus mundi already indicates, most attention was devoted to this, Anyone could testify to the brevity and precariousness of many things in the world, and the classical writers were in as good a position to do so as the Christian. These latter however, were able to contribute fresh concepts: original sin and personal sin; will of God, love for God, and for one's neighbour; reward and punishment; good works and merits. Jerome already pointed out that it was not sufficient to abandon all. Had not the philosopher Crates also done this? Many others despised wealth, but one must also follow Christ, and this was the privilege of the Apostles and the faithful.¹

It seems to me that on this point Erasmus' De contemptu mundi differs from the works of his predecessors, including the Netherlanders Dionysius the Carthusian and John of Schoonhoven.

John of Schoonhoven deals only with the first question: the reasons for despising the world, and not with the attractions of the monastic life. Nevertheless, in giving the seven reasons why it is comparatively easy to renounce the world, the love of God recurs again and again. The seven reasons are: the effort, which tires the lover of the world. He considers this effort vain, to a certain extent, unless it includes the knowledge of God. Only those who despise the world have the true

1 Hieronymus. Liber 3 in Mattheus, chap. 19.

[p. 664]

knowledge of Christ.¹ The second reason for despising the world is the neglect of the better, in other words, he who chooses to love the world, neglects the love of the eternal, hence the conclusion: take the way of Christ, serve Christ Jesus.² The third reason for fleeing the world is its vanity, which contrasts with a love for Christ and life in eternity.³ Viewing the transience of the world (fourth reason) the motto must be: follow Christ.⁴ The world is a dangerous sea, and only the grace of Christ is of any avail (fifth reason),⁵ so he continues: to the burdens of the world is opposed the attraction of the service of Christ. The mention of this attraction may perhaps be attributed to the fact that, in those chapters which give reasons for despising the world, the author does not make any separate recommendation of the service of Christ. He has combined what Erasmus dealt with in two separate sections. This is acceptable if one remembers that for Erasmus the monastic life is not attractive because its principal aim is the service of Christ, but for completely different reasons; for the liberty, the peace and the voluptas which can be found there.

The form of Erasmus' book⁶ already diverged from all the preceding works. In the first place he wrote a different Latin, less flexible than that of John of Schoonhoven, but completely classical. Furthermore, he does not argue in general, but employs the form of a letter to a certain Jodocus whom he wishes to persuade to enter a monastery. This renders the question more concrete and adapted to a particular person. It is especially evident in the introduction, but most of the true motives which are intended to lead to a decision to enter a monastery are of a general nature. In his introduction he says how he has finally overcome his reluctance to write. He was impelled by his love for Jodocus, the necessity of the matter, their youthful friendship and common study and affinity. He wishes to dissuade him from the noise and life of the world and lead him to the solitary and peaceful life of the monastery. He is confident that his effort will be well received by Jodocus. All sorts of dangers threaten him, which become more menacing the more he ignores them or denies their existence. He compares the dangers of the world with those of the sea and refutes a supposed remark by Jodocus. This comparison is not valid: ‘I feel safe on earth.’ Erasmus: ‘As a young man you do not perceive

1 Albert Cruys, Jean de Schoonhoven, De contemptu huius mundi, Bruxelles 1963, 51; Jean de Schoonhoven, Nimègue, 1967.

2 Ibid., 55.

3 Ibid., 56.

4 Ibid., 63.

5 Ibid., 65.

6 L.B. V 1239-1262.

[p. 665]

what dangers threaten you. David, Solomon and others also suffered shipwreck. See what measures Ulysses takes to avoid being enticed by the sirens. For you, Jodocus, there is little hope, since much contributes to your downfall; your exuberant youth, seductive beauty, wealth, freedom, dreams by night and songs by day. All this is endangered by the rocks, Charybdis, Syrtes; favourable and unfavourable winds, storms.’ Erasmus does not mean that the monks are saved while all others perish, but that he who loves danger will perish in it. (Chap. II). ‘Seek therefore the safest way. As Virgil has already said, men are blind to such dangers. The world holds many attractions for you, but look to the example of Ulysses. What could the world give you (Col. 1243)? Wealth? But the Holy Scriptures call this the root of all desires (theft, sacrilege, robbery). Incestus: see what Flaccus Horatius has to say on this subject, and how Eutrapelus renounced everything.’ Again he quotes a text from Horace and an example from antiquity, Vultreius. It seems that no one is satisfied with what he has, but always desires more, just as a dropsical man is always thirsty. But if the wheel of fortune spins, you are no longer a Croesus but an Irus, as has happened with many kings. But even assuming that your fortune stays constant, when you die you will have to leave it to another. Here he quotes the words of our Lord: Matth. VI, 19-20. Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt and where thieves do not break through nor steal.

He ends the third chapter: it is very scandalous for a Christian man to seek along evil paths for that which endangers his salvation, which it was not difficult for the pagan philosophers to despise on account of their learning and fame.

The fourth chapter deals with the theme, the pleasures of the flesh are deadly and bitter. Erasmus proves the first by referring to Plato and the (almost Christian) ethici like Cicero and Cato, on the basis of what they had learned from Pythagoras. Erasmus considers this pleasure as a foolish joy. Compare it with the eternal punishments. But, you will say: I am thinking of a lawful marriage. Erasmus is unwilling to condemn this: Melius est nubere quam uri. Marriage is not evil, but it is unfortunate. A celibate life undertaken out of love for pietas is much better and in many respects much happier.

In the fifth chapter Erasmus points out that honour is vain and uncertain. All the applause of followers means nothing, but even the

[p. 666]

honour which comes from the practice of virtue is uncertain. Consider Sisyphus who is condemned to roll a rock uphill forever. Hear what Juvenal says. And then death threatens! Where are the former tyrants? Where is Alexander, Paulus Aemilius, Julius, Pompey, where the princes of Greece, Rome, or of the Barbarians? He introduces Alexander, who laments and says that all the fame which he had gained has passed. ‘What use to me now are the marks of honour, the gilded monuments, the laboriously constructed pyramids?’

Erasmus devotes another separate chapter to the necessity of death, which renders everything short-lived (Chapter VI). He introduces this generally known fact, which is given so little thought, with Cicero's words and with a verse from Horace. Jodocus defends himself by saying: ‘I am still young, why should I trouble myself?’ which provides Erasmus with the material for the argument that many die extremely young or in middle age, and frequently just as they are on the verge of some important undertaking, for instance, marriage. In conclusion Erasmus refers to the seer, (Vates) who says: ‘Dispone domui tuae, morieris enim’ and to the Gospel: ‘Stulte, hac nocte animam tuam a te tollent et ista quae parasti cuius erunt.’ The words of Rudolf Agricola ‘omnia mors sternit, quod naturae est occidit. Una fine caret virtus, et bene facta manent’ (Death fells all and kills everything born; only virtue has no end and good deeds remain), give Erasmus the opportunity of describing the thoughts of a person on his deathbed: Where is my wealth gone? Where my own beauty? It is then that the uses of virtue appear.

That the world is unfortunate and evil is the theme of the seventh chapter. That it is unhappy is already evident from the many wars and calamities which Erasmus has already experienced, though he is not yet twenty-four (his birthday fell at the end of October 1493). Everything is so dear that one would need to be a Croesus to pay. This thought is clarified by a choice of texts. The world is not alone unhappy but also evil, full of perjury, deception, robbery. It is thus that St. Paul says: Totus mundus in maligno positus est. Jodocus, who evidently had means at his disposal, runs great moral danger in drinking bouts and gatherings. Hence the advice to flee the world.

With the eighth chapter begins the second and positive section of the work, being roughly the same length as the first, negative section. To the evil, unhappy and ephemeral world is contrasted the good, happy monastery, directly concerned with attaining the permanence of heaven.

[p. 667]

The eighth chapter is a warm, ardent and utterly convinced exhortation to Jodocus to decide now and quickly to enter a monastery. He mentions the service of God, which is so different from the service of the devil. The monastic places his faith in the word of Our Lord: ‘Take My yoke upon you and you shall find rest for your soul, for My yoke is sweet and My burden light.’ According to Erasmus the monastic life possesses three qualities which elevate it above the life in the world: it is free, it is peaceful and it has its ‘pleasure,’ voluptas. He elaborates the first in Chapter IX by refuting an objection based upon a definition of liberty given by Cicero: ‘Freedom consists in the power to live as one wishes.’ In the monastery, however, one may do nothing without the consent of the abbot, not even cough. Erasmus refutes this remark simply, but not very convincingly. The monk wishes for nothing that is not permitted, therefore he may do everything that he pleases. The remainder of his argument merely describes the lack of freedom in the world (authorities, married partner, passions, habits) without dealing in more detail with freedom in the monastery.

Chapter X bears the title: those who retire from the world (solitarii) enjoy a double peace, outward and inward. The first is the freedom from the noise and bustle of the world, which Erasmus skilfully describes. According to biblical and profane history, those who are accustomed to lead withdraw from the cities to mountains, caves, lonely or quiet places. Thus did Moses, John the Baptist, Christ, three Apostles, Pythagoras, Plato. A line from the philosopher Crates leads him to see the danger of this leading to laziness or crime.

Erasmus considers inner peace important, but he scarcely pauses to describe it. Again he confines himself to proving that the people in the world, whose evil ways he assumes, are deprived of this inward peace, since they are tormented by various fears. Here he refers to a text of Juvenal and to the example of Orestes, from the fables, to Lucius Sylla from Roman history and Cain from Biblical history. The monk need not fear either the human judge or God. He has his treasure in heaven, the thought of which imparts a great sense of peace. The monastery makes the bad good and the good better. The world on other hand makes evildoers of the good and rogues of evildoers.

Chapter XI is taken up with the ‘pleasure’ of the monastic life. This was originally the last chapter. It is strange that Erasmus employs the term ‘voluptas’ for the joys of the monastic life and that he defines these pleasures with reference to the ideas of Epicurus. He may have done so under the influence of Laurentius Valla, whose

[p. 668]

works he was already studying or had studied. Those in the world hate the monasteries, since they consider life there to be horrible, inhuman and devoid of all pleasures. According to Erasmus it is nothing of the sort, so that he would dare to invite all Sardanapalici to learn to know our joys. Epicurus himself thinks that one must not accept pleasures if the difficulty of attaining them is too great. In any case we renounce various worldly pleasures - unchastity, drunkenness - for they bring more difficulties than joys. In this we do not differ from Epicurus. According to him one must not seek pains in order to avoid greater sorrows. Pleasures must often be renounced in order to attain even greater joys. So it is with us. We keep vigil, we rest, we keep silence in order that we may be spared greater pains. We do not drink to the point of drunkenness, we do not dance, we do not go where our fancy impels us, but anything we lack we receive again with interest. Our pleasures far surpass those which resemble those of the animals. We renounce the pleasures of the body, receiving instead those of the soul (this is essentially the same as what Epicurus advises). The contemplation of the heavenly and immortal pleasures for which we hope already surpasses the pleasures of the body which the worldling esteems so highly. It is true that here we receive only a small foretaste of the joys of heaven, but this is so great that we gladly abandon all other pleasures for their sake. Here Erasmus mentions the rapture of the mystics to which contemplation can lead. He himself has not yet received this gift, but he has often heard those so privileged confess with tears that worldly pleasures signified nothing in comparison with what they experienced. Erasmus then describes the parting meal of a certain Margaretha, whom he loved as a sister. Here he shows his talent in capturing such little scenes. He went to lend his assistance in persuading the father to give his consent. They succeeded, but at the end they were all, except Margaretha, crying like children, as if she were on the point of being laid in the grave. Well, Erasmus concludes, the joys which the parents offered Margaretha could not have been overcome, had not greater joys awaited in the convent.

Finally he quotes St. Jerome who says that in the desert he felt the joys of Rome, even the presence of the choirs of angels. That is the supreme voluptas. For the scholar there exists in addition the opportunity for the studia sacra, the time and the library where the following books are to be found: books of the Old and New Testament; the Fathers Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian; the Christian Cicero, Lactantius Firmianus, and for those who desire a more sober repast:

[p. 669]

St. Thomas and St. Albert the Great. There too he will find various commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, and writings by philosophers and poets. You are completely free to use these as you will, and you have also at your disposition a park, a garden, delightful for walking in and musing. He therefore urges Jodocus to enter the monastery.

In an epilogue Erasmus briefly summarizes his argument, urgently repeats his message to Jodocus and attempts to clear up his last difficulties.

Erasmus first published the book in 1521. But in two editions of 1523 he added a twelfth chapter, the contents of which are so far different that he now proposes that Jodocus can best achieve the monastic ideal by living in the world. Suffice it to say that Erasmus strongly advises Jodocus against entering a monastery, for the monasteries have completely changed. They are no longer the places where a pure Christianity is practised, but where fugitives from the world often give themselves up to all kinds of sin and attempt to satisfy their own desires.

Erasmus' De contemptu mundi follows the same pattern as the previous works on the same subject to the extent that, like his predecessors, he speaks of the dangers of the world, of the vanity of honours and fame, of the precariousness and uncertainty of possessions and the brevity of all in the face of certain death, which can cut down the young and healthy without warning. He does not however define exactly which human qualities or spiritual possessions are threatened by the dangers he depicts. He seems to have been referring especially to human virtues and thus this work is an expression of Erasmus' moralism. There is no mention of any threat to man's belief or faith in God or attachment to the Church. Where this work does diverge completely from earlier, similar works, is in the fact that Erasmus derives many of his examples and illustrative texts from classical antiquity.

The second section is the weaker and at the same time the more distinctive, for the arguments employed in recommending the monastic life are those of a Humanist. The monastery offers freedom and tranquillity, not for introspection, meditation or prayer, but for study, of the classics as well as the Bible and the Fathers. These last are even mentioned before the medieval theologians. The joys of the monastic life are described according to the views of Epicurus. Erasmus is, however, convinced that mystical rapture can constitute the greatest happiness of the monk, the highest peak attainable in this world of which meditation is a foretaste. Even the hope of gaining this privilege is such a great joy that it compensates for all the deprivations.

[p. 670]

Here Erasmus' description touches the monastic life itself, which is more than can be said for his eulogies of freedom and tranquillity. In this connection he devotes more attention to the lack of liberty, the noise and clamour in the world, and to the inner distraction of the worldling. No matter how he urges Jodocus to choose the monastic life, there is no attempt to describe this life. He gives scarcely one religious motive for entering; the love of God or of one's neighbour is not mentioned, nor is there any question of monastic virtues such as obedience, humility, poverty. He ignores the devotional exercises, like the hours, singing, the Holy Mass and the holding of the chapter. It is as though he is entirely oblivious to all this, and his whole day is devoted to his Latin and his Latin histories. One can detect few characteristic traits of the Modern Devotion. The flight from the world and the eulogy on monastic life are commonplaces in the Middle Ages. Erasmus' innovation is his motivation from the classics.

Plato and Cicero are religious authorities for him. In the classics and in the Bible Erasmus feels the presence of the writers. According to Kohls this was the ground of his programme - back to the sources - and of his zeal for the study of the classical languages.¹

However, although these dominate the work, there is no trace of the humanistic praising of the world, or condemnation of the contemptus mundi, a glorification of human powers, the development of which contributes not only to joy in this world and to the progress of civilization, but even to the attainment of man's supernatural goal. In the eyes of Erasmus, human intellectual activity is a virtue, but not of more value than humility and mortification.

At about this same time Erasmus must have been working on his Antibarbarorum liber² which seems to have been almost completed shortly after his departure from Stein but which, like the previous work, he only published later (in 1521). In a conversation among four gentlemen, the new practice of Latin and poetry by the Dutch Humanists is defended against the attacks of ignorant schoolmasters and magistrates, various members of the mendicant orders and the theo-

1 E.W. Kohls, Die Theologie des Erasmus, I Textband, Basel 1966, Ibid., 30-32.

2 Opera omnia. X. 1261-1744. A. Hyma has found a manuscript at Gouda that probably goes back to the first version of Erasmus. He has edited this in The Youth of Erasmus. Ann Arbor 1930, 229-331. It is not entirely clear how far Erasmus revised the first text in 1520.

[p. 671]

logians. His criticism of the schools and teachers is sharp, sharper than that of the other groups. All opponents are donkeys and ignorant clods. The Humanists defend themselves by rejecting any accusation of heresy and by referring to history, for it appears that Augustine, Jerome, Lactantius and Ambrose are on their side. There is thus, in Erasmus' opinion, no conflict between his Humanism and Christianity, between erudition and knowledge. On the contrary, the old culture has prepared for Christianity and made this young again. But we have no certainty about the text of 1493.¹

There is also trace of this fusion in Erasmus' poems.² Like many other Humanists, Erasmus began his humanistic career, if one may call it such, as a poet, and it was as a poet that he experienced ‘for the first time the joy of seeing himself in print.³’ As a poet he obtained admission to Gaguin and Faustus Andrelini, and as such he was received and honoured for the first time in England. During the first year of his monastic life, 1487-88, he celebrated profane subjects, but in 1489 his attitude changed.⁴ Probably at the urging of Cornelius Aurelius, Erasmus resolved henceforward to sing only the praises of the saints and of sanctity. Huizinga considered this statement to be a spontaneous youthful pious resolve.⁵ C. Reedijk on the other hand thinks that it ‘has a ring of sincerity, but it remains difficult to establish to what extent Erasmus was subconsciously seeking both protection and justification under the banner of piety for purely aesthetic ambitions.’⁶ For the most part Erasmus kept to this resolution, notably in the monastic years which ended in 1493-4. Since he made this resolution either at the urging or following the example of Cornelius Aurelius, the Canon Regular of the Windesheim monastery of Lopsen, near Leiden, his change of heart might be attributed to the influence of the Devotio Moderna. William Hermans, who lived in the same monastery as Erasmus, also sang the praises of the saints and of holy things. It was certainly the expression of a pious mentality, but this did not exist only among the Modern Devotionalists. It may be considered as a general late-medieval attitude of mind. As early as 1489 Erasmus had composed

1 Kohls, 35-68.

2 C. Reedijk, The poems of Desiderius Erasmus, diss. Leiden 1956.

3 Ibid., 61.

4 Ibid., 54, 58.

5 J. Huizinga, Erasmus, German transl. by Werner Kaegi, Basel 1936, 43.

6 C. Reedijk, o.c. 58.

[p. 672]

a poem in which he had laid down the requirements of a truly Christian humanistic poetry:

Huc si quem pia, si pudica musa
Delectat; nihil hic vel inquinatum
Vel quod melle nocens tegat venenum
Christum tota sonat chelis guielmi.¹

It is the pious, pure muse which pleases, not uncleanness; and nothing which conceals the hurtful poison with honey; Christ is the object of praise. According to Reedijk a similar attitude is also apparent from other texts: ‘Here we have a strong reaction against those who maintain that literary refinement cannot but endanger Christianity and that a clumsy style is a guarantee of impeccable piety.’ Here Erasmus takes very much the same attitude as Gaguin,² (pure poetry is not necessarily a vehicle for impure and godless thought; bad Latin is not a guarantee of true piety; one can praise God and at the same time aspire to a classic purity of form.³)

Erasmus' correspondence with his friends does not treat of the life in the monastery, but especially the school programme, the training which he and his friends enjoyed in Deventer, the unsuitable school books which were in use there even then, but which had all to be discarded; the best authors, the eventual dangers associated with the reading of some of them, the value of these for moulding their own style, the modern Italians like Valla and Poggio.⁴ For these first Dutch Humanists, the purity and elegance of Latin and the form of prose and poetry are the burning questions of the day, the essence of the new culture and the subject of conflict between old and new. It was a struggle for the schools. Teaching too thus came under discussion, but only insofar as they insisted on suitable, easy-to-use grammars, adapted to the childrens' needs, and reliable dictionaries. This is the full extent of the preoccupation with teaching in the letters of these Humanists. They make no mention of training the boys to be upright young men, or to the practice of the Christian virtues. Later, however Erasmus went further in his Antibarbari,⁵ but only after he had made contact with the English Humanists in 1499, and particularly with John Colet. The transition took place gradually and erratically and was never complete.

1 C. Reedijk, o.c. 56.

2 Ibid., 58.

3 Ibid., 9.

4 Allen I no. 1-40.

5 Kohls 68-198.

[p. 673]

There was no violent crisis and there is no road to Damascus. ‘For many a long year yet, without our being able to reproach him with hypocrisy, Erasmus can play the literateur or the theologian at will and as it best suits him.’¹ Reedijk too notes a development. Up to this time it was Erasmus' dearest wish to be a poet among his peers, but just as his poetry gradually makes way for the prose writer, so ‘literature for its own sake lost his interest’.² His didactical ambitions are the first to be roused, the Familiarum colloquiorum formulae, De conscribendis epistolis and similar works begin to take shape, although they will not yet appear in print for some years to come. His defective knowledge of Greek has to be improved, theology begins to attract him, even if this attraction is not in the first place due to the lectures at the Sorbonne. The poet is on the way to become one of the most original thinkers of the Renaissance era.

With Erasmus however the impulse for this transition had to come from outside. This impulse he received in England. Huizinga explains this clearly. In all the years preceding the first journey to England, a worldly way of thinking can be detected in Erasmus' writings, and especially in his letters, which only leaves him in moments of sickness or weariness. Colet's words and example were the first to transform Erasmus' inclination towards theological studies into a firm and lasting resolve, a life purpose.³ A more penetrating study of the Holy Scriptures leads him to his philosophia Christi as basis for his view of life. This emerges for the first time clearly in his Enchiridion militis Christiani. It is more than the ‘Reform’ depicted by Paul Mestwerdt: ‘Reform die mit den von ihm (Erasmus) geplegten humanistischen literarischen interessen zum wenigsten nicht im Widerspruch stand’.⁴ On the contrary, the humanistic literary interests constitute the best means of arriving at the desired reform. This reform embraces in the first place theology, Bible study methods and hence a simpler dogmatic, ethic, devotion, liturgy and spirituality. Mestwerdt finds it difficult to abandon the theory of the influence of the Modern Devotion upon Humanism and Erasmus, since he still believes that all schools in cities where the Brothers had their houses were actually run by the Brethren. But this was only so in isolated cases and certainly not in Deventer and 's-Hertogenbosch, where Erasmus lived or went to school.

1 Huizinga, Kaegi 42.

2 C. Reedijk 62-63.

3 Huizinga, Kaegi 43.

4 P. Mestwerdt, Die Anfänge des Erasmus, Humanismus und ‘Devotio Moderna’ Leipzig 1917, 303; see Kohls 68-198.

[p. 674]

On the other hand Cornelius Gerards or Aurelius (i.e. from Gouda), who corresponded with Erasmus from 1489 onwards, was a person well known in the circles of the Modern Devotionalists. There are indications that he attended school in Deventer and knew Erasmus there. In any case he was a relative of William Hermans who had certainly gone to school in Deventer, at which time he became friendly with Erasmus. They met again in the monastery of Stein, both Canons Regular of this monastery which belonged to the Sion chapter, and both fired with similar humanistic ideals. It appears that Cornelius Gerards too had been in a monastery, in Hieronymusdal or Lopsen near Leiden. He left this monastery in 1497 in order to join others in reforming the abbey of St. Victor in Paris, an activity in which Erasmus took a lively interest, visiting his friend there. When it became apparent that the goal was not achieved, Cornelius Aurelius also returned to his monastery, after having first described the catalogue of the abbey. This work is now lost, but became known about forty years later from Rabelais' burlesque catalogue. He wrote Latin verses (Alphabeticum Redemptorum, and Mariad), and received the poet's crown from Emperor Maximilian I in 1508.¹ Cornelius Aurelius was deeply interested in the history of the Netherlands and wrote the following historical works: Defensio gloriae Batavinae, Elucidarium Variarum quaestionum super Batavina regione et differentia, Die cronijcke van Hollandt-Zeelandt ende Vrisland, the so-called divisie-kroniek.² The fact that he wrote this last in the vernacular is extremely significant for a Dutch Humanist in this early period. In his Apocalipsis Adriani VI,³ written after the election of this pope who was a native of Utrecht (1521-22), he shows a certain predilection for the pure Gospel and a critical attitude towards conditions existing in the Church. Among other things he disapproved of church benefices being given to non-educated persons. The conflictus Thaliae et Barbarei, usually attributed to Erasmus, may also be his work. It is indeed found under the name of our Aurelius in the library of the canon Jan van der Haer, transferred to the court of Holland in 1531.⁴ Cornelius Aurelius had much

1 C. Reedijk, 50.

2 J. Romein, Geschiedenis van de Noord-Nederlandsche geschiedschrijving in de middeleeuwen, Haarlem 1932, 208.

3 C. Burmannum, Ultrajecti 1727, 270-273.

4 M.E. Kronenberg, Werken van Cornelius Aurelius in the library of canon Mr. Jan Dircsen van Der Haer, Het Boek 36 (1963) 69-79.

[p. 675]

earlier lost all contact with Erasmus. He died after 1523 (perhaps in 1529).¹

Cornelius' cousin, the older William Hermans or Goudanus, a fellow student of Erasmus in Deventer and his fellow brother in the monastery at Stein, joined Erasmus in studying Latin and ancient history in the monastery. Apart from his historical interests - he wrote the Hollandiae Gelriaeque Bellum 1507-1510 - he also shared Erasmus' love for Latin verse. But his friendship with Erasmus was not based solely on their similar ideals, - there was also a close personal relationship. William was childishly hurt by Erasmus' sudden departure from Stein, but the correspondence continued. Together they wrote: Certamen Erasmi atque Guilielmi de tempore vernali, quod per viridantia prata alternis ex tempore luserunt anno eorum decimo nono (i.e. 1487). Erasmus made William Hermans one of the participants in the conversation at Halsteren in defence of the new culture, later published as the Antibarbarorum Liber, and visited him at Stein in 1496-7, taking away with him the Silva odarum which he published in Paris on the twentieth of January 1497, with an introductory letter he had succeeded in obtaining from Gaguin. However, as Erasmus' circle of friends grew wider his relationship with William Hermans cooled off. He died in 1510.²

C. Reedijk has compiled a list of Dutch Humanists who flourished between 1520 and 1540. To this might be added a preceding generation from around 1480 (85) to 1520. We should then see that with the exception of Erasmus and the cousins Cornelius and William, it contained no names which could conceivably be linked with the Modern Devotion as it had then developed. Georgius Macropedius, who entered the Brotherhouse in 's-Hertogenbosch in 1502 and whom we have already mentioned, would certainly find a place on it,³ but Humanists associated with and proceeding from the foundations of the Modern Devotion are very few in number.

In the case of Erasmus and William Hermans the concept ‘Modern Devotion’ must be very loosely interpreted. Erasmus had no further connection with the Brothers after his departure from 's-Hertogenbosch. They are scarcely mentioned in his letters. One could almost count the references on the fingers of one hand. Apart from the well-

1 P.C. Molhuysen, Cornelius Aurelius in Nederl. archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis, nieuwe serie 11 (1903) 1-35 and IV (1907) 54-73.

2 C. Reedijk, o.c. 54-57. J. Romein o.c. 206.

3 Analecta Gijsberti Coeverincx, II, 115.

[p. 676]

known attacks in his autobiographical letters of 1516 and 1524¹ and the statement made in 1517 that they in no way resemble Jerome, whose name they often bear², there are only three instances. On 18th December Gerard Listrius, the recently appointed rector of the Zwolle school, wrote that the prior of St. Agnietenberg had openly declared himself a supporter of Erasmus, and that John Koeckman, rector of the Brotherhouse at Zwolle, sent greetings to Erasmus.³ In addition John Goswin of Halen, rector of the Brotherhouse of Groningen, conveyed a letter and present to Erasmus in 1521, in the name of William Frederiks, parish priest of St. Martin in Groningen. He also carried back Erasmus' letter of thanks to the parish priest.⁴ Finally, Conrad Goclinus, attached to the trilingual college of Louvain, informed Erasmus that according to current rumours, Theodore of Heze, a former assistant of pope Adrian VI had, after a thorough investigation, ordered all Erasmus' books to be removed from the hands of the pupils of their school, which is the principal school in Liège (August 28th 1530).⁵

One must not take it for granted that everyone who showed any signs of piety at the end of the Middle Ages, or who was assumed to be devout, belonged to the Modern Devotion, or that any pupil from the schools of Deventer or Zwolle who achieved something in later life was a product of the Brothers.

1 Allen, Opus epistolarum II, no. 447, p. 295.

2 16 September (1517) Allen, III no. 665, p. 91.

3 Allen, II no. 504, p. 422.

4 Allen, IV no. 1200, p. 483.

5 Allen IX, no. 2369, p. 17, r. 35-40.

General Conclusions

In his letters Geert Groote, the founder of the Modern Devotion, reveals himself as a very erudite and extremely active man, preoccupied with various questions of the day, a dauntless preacher with a rigoristic turn of mind. The later Vitae have the tendency to forget his academic work, making of him a simple monastic or an ascetic, somewhat scrupulous and rather small-minded frater, as an example of what the author of the Vita himself considers to be the most exalted attitude to life. Groote's three foundations, the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life and the congregation of Windesheim continue his work, but only up to a certain point. The Brothers are the closest to him.

[p. 677]

Some of the earliest of them preached in the parish churches, but lacked their master's élan. Soon they confined their attentions to two groups, the schoolboys, and the Sisters. Without doubt the first group had their especial affection. From beginning to end, in all the places where the Brothers settled, they devoted their care to the schoolboys. Some they admitted to their hostels, a privileged group whom they prepared for the monastic life and for the priesthood. It was from these that they drew most of their recruits. Apart from providing them with board and lodging, they attempted to train them in religious matters and help them with their studies, supplementing and going over the lessons which these boys received at the city schools. Until about 1480 this was the limit of their work as teachers. Around this time, however, their attitude changed, probably as a result of the menacing competition from the printing houses which to a large extent rendered the copying of books unpractical. Until this they had devoted the greater part of the day to copying. Their intentions in doing so were threefold: to earn their living by their own work, as a change from their pious exercises, and to further the distribution of religious literature. Some of the Brotherhouses even started up printing themselves, while others sought to expand their educational activities. Neither of these undertakings was entirely successful. Only in a few towns (Liège, Utrecht and Trèves) did the Brothers' school flourish, and then due to favourable circumstances outside their control. Even in these towns they lacked sufficient well-trained teachers of their own. Several attempts to found schools had to be abandoned because of civic ordinances against the schools, and their printing houses were no match for the competition. The schools would in fact be the only means by which the Brothers might foster Humanism in the early period. Since these educational institutions were not at their disposal, their influence on the origins and development of this new culture was negligible.

The aforementioned flourishing schools of Liège, Utrecht and Trèves were indeed run in the humanistic spirit, but they were too late to count as pioneers. Since the Brothers did not attend universities, they were completely outside the academic world and accordingly their theological training was not of the slightest significance. Academics like John Pupper, Wessel Gansfort and Gabriel Biel can not in fact be considered as exceptions to this general rule. The first was a secular priest, and the second was only on friendly terms with the Devotionalists. He acquired his learning in circles far removed from them, although his ascetic writings agree with those of some of the

[p. 678]

Devotionalists, more of the Windesheimers than the Brothers. Gabriel Biel only entered the Brotherhood after he had already received his academic training, as an adult man who had already been a preacher in the cathedral. Those houses he did live in, moreover, had a somewhat peculiar character. The members of his Brotherhouses were canons and formed chapters, while retaining the communal life and community of possessions. From 1440 onwards this form had been recommended from Rome to all the Brothers and most of the German houses and several in the Netherlands adopted it in the course of time, but not, however, those of Deventer, Zwolle, Doesburg and others. This new method facilitated the transition to the secular state, as happened in Delft and Doesburg before the Reformation. If the Brothers cannot be called pioneers of Humanism, still less can they be considered as having furthered the Reformation. Admittedly the inmates of a couple of houses did go over to Lutheranism, more or less under compulsion, but nearly everywhere else they opposed this new doctrine and perished on this account in many German cities. In general they ceased to attract the young people and in the sixteenth century led a languishing existence, so that it was easy to commandeer their houses for use as seminaries. In some places the Brothers' communities survived the Reformation. Apart from their pastoral work among the school boys and the Sisters, they derive their historical importance from their inner devotion, which they had in common with the Sisters and the Windesheimers, gaining many outsiders by their example.

From the very beginning the Sisters of the Common Life, who only received their special character c. 1392, attracted many young girls. The rapidity with which their various foundations sprang into existence is very striking, as is also the number of sisters they comprised, many more than the Brotherhouses. However, with the exception of a few houses, particularly in the Yssel region, they already changed character around 1400. Most of the houses adopted the Third Rule of St. Francis and became incorporated in a separate union, the chapter of Utrecht. It is remarkable to note in this connection that several friends and adherents of Geert Groote promoted this aspiration to the monastic life. The Brothers too did not entirely escape this trend. Throughout the entire century, however, the Sisters displayed a desire for a stricter life, so that several groups, having adopted the Order of St. Francis, went on to take that of St. Augustine, afterwards demanding the ‘enclosure’ after the model of the Carthusians.

[p. 679]

The Windesheimers, the congregation (or chapter) of houses of Canons Regular, with the rule of St. Augustine, owed their existence to the Brothers insofar as the latter, on the advice of Geert Groote, founded a monastery at Windesheim three years after his death. This was quickly followed by others. The first fact of importance is the rapid spread of their monasteries over a wide terrain, which recalls the great orders of the previous century, although several existing monasteries also joined this congregation. Evidently general opinion was still more in favour of the monastic life, in preference to communities without vows. Their especial character consisted in the strict observance of the rule and the custom they had adopted. They were thus in sympathy with the move towards observantism, which to some extent characterized the monastic life of the time. This was largely a reaction against what had gone before, and against what was customary in many institutions in that period. The desire for an artior vita, a stricter life, which we have noted among the Sisters, also motivated these Canons Regular, who attempted to introduce it as much as possible and often indeed by force, into other monasteries and even other orders. In this work they often obtained the support of the civil authorities. No particular influence on Humanism or the Reformation has ever been attributed to the Windesheimers, unless with regard to the latter, in a negative sense. Observantism could lead to what is called legalism and thus provoke a reaction from Luther, helping to render his doctrine acceptable.

All these groups practised what they called inner devotion. It is from this that their name is derived. By this they understood, in general, deep consciousness of the personal relationship with God and a perpetual and intensive striving to direct all their work, prayer and spiritual exercises to God. This presupposes, however the practice of the virtues of humility, obedience, purity, mutual love and mortification, out of love of God. With two of the Windesheimers this latter was intensified to an exalted mysticism, a ‘contemplation’ of God, insofar as this was possible in this world. The imitation of Christ helps us to make progress along this road, hence the constant meditation on Christ's life and passion. In the beginning this meditation consisted of a brief reflection, repeated several times during the day whenever a new activity was embarked upon. This ‘rumination’ developed with Wessel and Mombaer into a complicated system of meditation methods destined to focus the mind on the desired subject. This more resembles meditation in the modern sense. The fraters, Sisters and

[p. 680]

Windesheimers attempted to put these religious ideals into practice. In addition, they described them in various treatises of which one, the Imitation of Christ by the Canon Regular Thomas a Kempis, has achieved world renown.

Their emphasis upon ‘inward fervour, conscious inner devotion’ did not, however, lead these Modern Devotionalists to reject or criticize the oral prayers such as the hours, the rosary, the psalms and vigils. They also held the Holy Mass in high esteem, although they strove, through their inward meditation, to prevent these exercises from becoming too formalistic. ‘It is our highest duty to meditate on the life of Christ.’ (Cor. I, 1.1.)

In all this they made use of the traditional Christian heritage which they collected in their rapiaria, without imparting to it any new character, unless by the intensity of their experience. Their devotion was modern only in the manner in which they put it into practice, reacting against the prevailing spirit of relaxation. In this way the Devotionalists brought a most necessary renewal to a wide area. They may indeed have propagated the contemptus mundi over too wide a field, permeating religious life with a pessimism, against which the optimism of the Renaissance and the evangelical freedom of the Reformation came as a reaction.