C. Groote and the Brethren and Sisters

‘In various places many left the false and evil life and turned to the Lord, and virginal blossoms unfolded on the field of the Lord. Then there are the chaste widows and those who chose poverty of their own accord; those who forsook the world, or, who gave back what they had taken. Then too was achieved the return of the heretics, of the usurers in Salland, of those who erred through love and the priests who kept focariae.’ This somewhat broad and vague summary of the fruits of Groote's labours is intended chiefly to distinguish three groups; those who changed their way of life but remained in the world, those who entered a monastery, among whom he perhaps included his direct followers, the Brethren of the Common Life and the women he had received into his house and for whom statutes had been drawn up. Communities of women may also perhaps have been formed in cities other than Deventer, more or less under influence of Groote's sermons. In any case some could be observed shortly after Groote's death.

It is striking that Groote in his letters speaks so little of the Brethren of the Common Life. So far as is known from the sources a divergent tradition existed about 60 years after Groote's death concerning the origin of the Brotherhood. One writer attributes its foundation chiefly to Florens Radewyns, the other (Busch) stresses the activity of Geert Groote. We cannot deal with this question in isolation from the later sources and solely on the basis of Groote's letters and works. We have to supplement these latter with data from other documents (see Chapter III). However the Brotherhood originated, it appears from Groote's letters that it already existed before his death. Groote demonstrates his love and care for this institution, but since he lived close to the first Brethren he did not write them letters. Florens Radewyns is mentioned a few times in Groote's correspondence, but we do not know whether Groote ever wrote to him. No letter addressed to him has been preserved.

The first letter which is applied to him, already presents certain problems. It is letter No. 6, in which Groote besought Herman of Deventer, a Carthusian of Koblenz, to recommend magister N, the bearer of the letter (socius meus) to the bishop of Worms, to be ordained a priest.1 According to Thomas a Kempis2 and Rudolf Dier, this magister N. must refer to Florens Radewyns.3 This is confirmed by the title magister, since only Florens among the first Brethren had a right to it, and by the words ‘socius meus’ by which Groote indicates his particular connection with him. These points are not without significance for the origin of the Brethren of the Common Life. For after gaining his Masters' degree in Prague, Radewyns had become a canon in Utrecht. He exchanged this benefice to become vicar of the altar of St. Paul in the church of St. Lebwin in Deventer. For his prebend as canon it was not necessary for Radewyns to be a priest, but it was for the vicarship. The transfer from Utrecht to Deventer will thus have been the reason for his ordination, and since letter No. 6, which mentions Florens' ordination, was only written in 1383,4 this ordination and the move to the vicarage can only have occurred in 1383. Now the Brethren are thought to have originated in the vicarage. If this is so, then letter 19

which Mulder, without sufficient grounds, has dated in 1381, must be transferred to 1383 or 13841 for it seems to me that this letter already assumes that the Brethren were living together in Deventer, Zwolle and Kampen.

The letter in question contains advice concerning the punishment to be imposed by the episcopal commissioner on a priest who has been guilty of simony and has thus entered in bonis. After proposing a particular destination for the various goods which the priest must relinquish, Groote finally comes to the priest's house in Deventer. This house no longer belongs to the priest, and Groote advises that its ownership should pass to the ‘holy servants of God.’ Let us not now dwell upon the house or the question of its disposal, but rather on those who were to receive it. Who were the ‘holy servants of God?’

In my opinion, they are the Brethren of the Common Life. These servitores Dei et plene conversi would not be able to occupy it for the present. For so long as they were not living there, the rent could be paid to the homines spirituales. The money might also be deposited in Kampen. The ownership of the house could be transferred to the homines presentes et futuri Deo servientes layci et clerici, or be used for their benefit. After the death of the condemned man, certain books would become the property of the servitores Dei et manifeste ad Deum conversi. The ownership of the household effects (utensilia) and beds would pass to the above mentioned Dei servitores in Deventer and Kampen. Two-thirds could be used at once, and a third retained for the man's use. The remainder of the money - insofar as it has not to be given to the priest John - can pass to the servitores Dei of Kampen and there be put at the disposal of Henry and Celia or of Florens and Gerard according to whether it is allotted to the servitores in Kampen or Deventer. These servitores Dei, these spirituales, these servientes layci et clerici who are to receive books, who accept beds and household effects, who live in Deventer under Florens and Gerard (Groote?) and in Kampen under a man and woman, these are the first beginnings of the Brethren of the Common Life. They have a direction, communal funds, incomes and property and live together.

It is, for the rest, a somewhat range idea that Groote advises so unashamedly to promote his own foundation. The fact that a married couple were included among the first followers in Kampen presents no difficulty. This also occurred in Zwolle, where the mother of the

first rector, John of Ommen, lived with the Brethren.1 According to the contracts of purchase of July 1384 Gerard Groote, Florens Radewyns and John van de Gronde acquired the joint ownership of a house in the Begijnenstraat in Zwolle. The foundation on the Nemelerberg dates from sometime earlier.2 Groote's later letters confirm that the servitores of Deventer refers to the Brethren. Letter no. 30 is addressed to one of the two groups (of Zwolle or Kampen). This may be assumed on the basis of the mode of address, fratres, and the fact that the warning against ‘your enemies and mine,’ Groote's, is used indiscriminately.3 In a letter addressed to William Oude Scutte, Gysbert Dou and John van de Gronde, Groote's friends and collaborators in Amsterdam, he calls them patres and fratres.4 They were priests and helped Groote in his work. He besought one of them, preferably John van de Gronde, to come to Deventer to help Florens Radewyns in hearing the confessions of the spirituales, the veraciter conversis ad Dominum. These must be in the first place the fratres, but also the women who lived in the Master Geert's house. John van de Gronde did indeed work there later in this capacity. In all probability Groote takes an even broader view of the concept ‘spirituales,’ i.e. in this sense of followers or supporters including those who wrote for him and the school-boys who lived in the vicarage or received material or spiritual benefits from Florens Radewyns. In another letter, which in my opinion must be transferred to 1384 (not long after Easter), Groote speaks of one of our members, unus sociorum nostrorum.5 Florens, as the head of this community (under Geert Groote) paid ten guilders for Groote for a future bull whereby pope Urban would again permit him to preach. Groote requested in addition the privilege of having an altar stone upon which Mass could be celebrated in the presence of himself and his socii and on which he might say Mass should he become a priest.6

This group, no matter how few and uncertain, was vividly present in Groote's mind as his men, his socii and brothers, who must in the

first place be moulded according to his ideals of piety. The leaders among them would help him in his work. This work, however, was suddenly cut short in August 1384, without the group of spirituales and entirely-converted-in-God having attained complete development, not to speak of a proper organization. He also had similar communal groups in Zwolle, Kampen and Deventer. Those in Zwolle were perhaps the furthest developed, since they had received a permanent dwelling place in a house in the Begijnenstraat which was held in the name of Geert Groote and his principal friends from Deventer. These, who were later to be called fratres vitae communis, had to be moulded into pious people and animated with Groote's principles on religion, pastoral care, the monastic life, study, teaching and education. They were, in short, to become so many Geert Grootes, to work and pray as he did.

Comparable to these male communities was the society of women, for whom Groote (20th Sept. 1374) had destined his paternal house, with the exception of a small apartment which he retained for himself.1 While retaining the administration of the house, he threw open its doors to women, single or widowed. It would be, not a convent or a Beguine house, but an almshouse, so that the women only lodged there and were free to leave as they wished, if for example they wanted to get married.

The deed of foundation was given in the presence of the city magistrates who took clear measures to ensure that property held in mortmain would not increase through this foundation. Although in the beginning Groote remained responsible for the administration, it eventually passed into the hands of the magistrates, as was the case with the ‘Stappenhuis’ and the Hospital. They could ensure that the daughters of the city made use of it. Shortly after this deed was signed, Groote retired to the monastery of Monnikhuizen. When he returned there were so many women living in the house that statutes had to be drawn up. The regulations embodied in these statutes typify not only the situation of the women of Master Geert's house but also Master Geert himself. They are often quoted as proof of Groote's anti-monastic anti-clerical attitude, since Groote is considered to have composed them. At the same time several of the regulations show how suspect Groote's creation was from the very beginning to the inquisition, and how it was opposed, notably by the Dominicans, who were, the in-

quisitors par excellence. Two texts of these statutes exist - one short and one long. I have shown in an former publication that the long text is an elaboration of the short and not the other way round. In other words that the short is not a précis of the long. I proved subsequently that both the long and the short were composed by the magistrates, not, it goes without saying, unaided, and that the long text is a forgery, drawn up in the years between 1393 and 1398. The long text, therefore, is not a work of Geert Groote, but it does touch upon the struggle endured by the Sisters (and Brethren) in the years 1394-98. If one wishes to deduce anything about Geert Groote from the statutes, one must use only the short text, and then only bearing in mind that it was composed by the magistrates of Deventer. Groote will have agreed to it, but naturally in the sense in which the magistrates intended it and not in the meaning imputed by modern authors, without taking into consideration the position of 14th and 15th century civil administration. We must assume that this short text was drawn up by the magistrates because they say so themselves1 and because the document has been preserved in the city archives.2 ‘All these matters were decided with the knowledge and consent of the magistrates, unanimously at their meeting.’

It is a sound document. It purports to embody regulations concerning the house which Geert Groote has given in honour of God. The house is not intended to found any new spiritual order or new religion, for no one may do this without the Pope's permission. This is one of the anti-monastic decrees for which one can find counterparts in various cities.3 In actual fact they were framed by extremely pious and church-loving persons who, however, were responsible for the wellbeing of the city, which implied in their opinion the curtailing of property held in mortmain. This is why they were opposed to new monasteries in the city, since their property finally became amortised and acquired exemption from taxation. The women who were admitted into this house would serve God, but join no religious order, - they will not be required to take vows. They are free to leave the house, but if they do, they may not return. They will remain lay persons and not become

members of a religious order. This decree sounds anti-clerical, but is merely the negative side of the first. Those persons dwelling in the house are not religious - they remain under the jurisdiction of the magistrates. Accordingly they must not wear a religious habit. They may not take on mortgages, nor extend the house, which has the same purpose. The duties and rights of the matron (‘meesteres’) are then described, but these are of little value in assessing the character of Geert Groote. It is, however, characteristic of him that everyone must work. Begging is not allowed. Geert Groote laid it upon the conscience of the magistrates and the ‘meesteres’ not to allow the members of the society to travel for trivial or dangerous affairs, or to visit chapters. Finally there will be an anniversary Mass for Groote's parents and grandparents and for himself when he dies.

It was not difficult for Groote to testify his agreement with these regulations. He was well aware of the intention behind the seemingly anti-monastic and anti-clerical decrees. It is noteworthy that these statutes contain no mention of a community of life, funds or incomes. This was first introduced in 1393.1