The Modern Devout and the Inquisition

Koen Goudriaan

The Devotio Moderna is generally recognized now as a thoroughly orthodox movement.1 It is also a well known fact, however, that in its early days the adherents met with ecclesiastical opposition, sharing the fate of so many champions of renewal of the Church and of religious life. In the 1390s they felt obliged to assemble legal material in order to underpin their status. In doing so they gave a more precise definition of the way of life they propagated. At some point in time the New Devout even attracted the attention of the inquisitor. Because of the importance attached to this episode in explaining the direction taken by the movement, it has received the attention of researchers repeat- edly. Recent contributions have greatly increased our understanding of the writings the New Devout produced during this period.2 In his Sisters and Brothers of the Common Life, John Van Engen reserved an important section to the turbulent decade preceding the recognition.3 And in this periodical Michael Raley published new findings on the chronology of the inquisitorial activities against the New Devout,4 which necessitate a thorough rethinking of the whole episode. Both last mentioned publications give occasion to some contradiction at several points. Sources for this period are not really scanty, but a substantial part of them lack exact dating. They are partly hostile: a couple of documents produced by the Inquisition; partly in favour of the Devout: a series of consilia (legal advices). The sources have been assembled a century ago by Paul Fredericq in his collection of texts on the Inquisition in the Low Countries.5 He published them in – what he supposed to be – the correct chronological order. To the present day, the convenience of having this seemingly coherent dossier at hand makes this tool particularly attractive to historians, as has been well argued by Raley.6 Nevertheless, the inaccuracy of some of Fredericq’s dates has become apparent by now.

1 The classical treatment is Post, Modern Devotion. 2 See, among other publications, the volume edited by Nikolaus Staubach, Kirchenreform von unten. Gerhard Zerbolt von Zutphen und die Brüder vom gemeinsamen Leben (Frankfurt am Main etcetera 2004); the contributions to this volume originated in papers given at a colloquium in Münster (Germany) in 1998 to commemorate the 600th anniversary of the death of Gerhard Zerbolt. Other treatments of this episode: Post, Modern Devotion, 276-288, which is outdated now; Rehm, Schwestern, 149-157; Klausmann, Consuetudo, 106-109; Makowski, “A Pernicious sort of Woman”, 115-135; and Hildo van Engen, Derde orde, 85-110. 3 John Van Engen, Sisters, 91-115. 4 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’. 5 Fredericq, Corpus. 6 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 57.

Generally speaking, scholars have been remarkably willing to accept the threatened position of the New Devout as self-evident. Partly, they were prevailed upon by general considerations concerning the suspicion which was the fate of every new religious movement since the prohibition of new orders issued by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), and especially after the severe decrees of the Council of Vienne (1311, published 1317). Apart from that, the peculiar course of historiography on the Modern Devotion does much to explain this attitude. It is of such a nature as to invite scholars to give a maximum interpretation of the evidence concerning the opposition to the movement in its early phase. Individual documents are read in this specific light and the con- nections between them are construed according to a paradigm dominated by the twin notions of threat and protection. The present contribution focuses on the decade ending in 1400. This was not the only period in the early development of the Modern Devotion in which it had to cope with opposition. To start with, Geert Grote felt obliged to take precau- tions lest the sisters of the community in Deventer he had assembled from 1374 onwards, fell victim to the suspicion of heresy.7 And although the Common Life of the Brethren and Sisters was approved by the bishop of Utrecht in 1401,8 and despite the fact that their close kindred, the Tertiaries of the diocese of Utrecht, had received papal recognition already in 1399,9 an attack was launched by the Dominican lector Matthew Grabow in the years 1415-1419.10 But the danger perceived in the 1370s and the events of the 1410s are not directly related to the episode in the 1390s; therefore they will be left out of account here. Instead, this article concentrates wholly on the period immediately preceding the recognition. The key argument will be that during this decade there was no overall threat to the New Devout by the Inquisition. Arguments will be adduced against the hypothesis that the recognition of the Devout in the years 1399- 1401 was the outcome of the opposition of the preceding decade. In order to create the necessary distance to the topic a long term view will be taken on historiographical developments within modern scholarship on the Devotio Moderna; the next two sections will be devoted to this task. Following this, the main pieces of evidence – the inquisitorial documents and the legal consilia – will be treated separately and assigned their proper place whenever that is possible. Eventually, an effort will be made to reconstruct the course of events,

7 The main source for this episode is the long version of the statutes of the so-called Master Geert’s House, dated 1379. Edition of both the long and the short version of the statutes: Post, ‘De statuten’. New critical edition: Marinus van den Berg, in: Van Dijk, Salome Sticken, 307-333. Recent discussions: Weiler, ‘Geert Grote en begijnen’; Bollmann, Frauenleben und Frauenlite ratur, 56-79; Klausmann, ‘Die ältesten Satzungen’; Hildo van Engen, Derde orde, 87 note 3; John Van Engen, Sisters, 65. 8 Decree by bishop Frederick of Blankenheim (30 April 1401). Editions: Hofman, ‘Broeders van ’t gemeene leven’, 229-235; Schoengen, Narratio, 512-514. 9 Bull Ad ea quae divini cultus (26 September 1399). Edition: De Kok, Bijdragen, 169-170. 10 Recent treatment of this episode: Staubach, ‘Zwischen Kloster und Welt?’; John Van Engen, Sisters, 212-218. 52 KOEN GOUDRIAAN making use not only of dates mentioned explicitly, but also of the clues to events and to their relative chronology contained within the various documents.

Threat and protection: the mendicants

From the moment serious study of the history of the Modern Devotion started in the nineteenth century, the conviction has prevailed that the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life were in urgent need of protection against the attacks of malevolent ecclesiastics. The origins of this idea reach at least as far back as the work of the Dutch church historians Willem Moll and his pupil J.G.R. Acquoy. These two scholars, more than anybody else, succeeded in put- ting the Modern Devotion on the agenda of historical research.11 Both were Protestants, but they were relatively free from the tendency to interpret the Modern Devotion as essentially a kind of Pre-reformation.12 This did not prevent them from introducing contemporary items in their interpretation of the Modern Devotion and its opponents. Moll, in particular, adhered to the modern- izing, liberal strand in nineteenth-century theological thought and combated what he considered to be ‘dead’ orthodoxy. In studying the late medieval religious revival in the Netherlands, he gave a fair treatment to the monastic branch of the Modern Devotion, the Chapter of Windesheim, but he did not conceal his preference for the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life.13 In addition to their practical piety (as opposed to mysticism), he stressed the ‘free’ character of their gatherings, which distinguished them clearly from regular canons and other monastics who were bound by vows and obedience to a rule. That freedom was interpreted by Moll in his Kerkgeschiedenis as both in accordance with the Dutch ‘national’ character and as innovative in comparison with traditional narrow and sterile orthodoxy. In Moll’s view, the mendicants reflected exactly the type of orthodoxy he rejected.14 They opposed the renewal introduced by the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life, and could not have done otherwise. In his earlier work on Johannes Brugman, Moll’s position was slightly more nuanced: he allowed for ‘narrowness’ among the Brethren and Sisters more fully. But here, too, the mendicants figure as representatives of a devotion which had degenerated into ‘dogmatism’ and ‘methodism’,15 two phenomena which Moll detested in their nineteenth-century appearance. And though Acquoy, due to the choice of his

11 Moll, Brugman. Idem, Kerkgeschiedenis. Acquoy, Windesheim. 12 As did their contemporary C. Ullmann, Reformatoren vor der Reformation (1866) and later scholars such as A. Hyma, The Christian Renaissance (1924). Critical examinations of this tendency: Post, Modern Devotion, 1-49; Roelink, ‘Moderne Devotie en Reformatie’; Jelsma, ‘Door- werking van de Moderne Devotie’. 13 On Moll as a Protestant medievalist who was appreciated by his Roman Catholic compatriots see Brom, Romantiek en katholicisme in Nederland. II: Wetenschap en staatkunde, 101-118. 14 Moll, Kerkgeschiedenis, II, 2, 166-167; 3, 95. 15 Moll, Brugman, I, 56-59. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 53 topic, focused on the monasteries of the Chapter of Windesheim rather than on the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life, he shared the general apprecia- tions of his master.16 In later historiography, the Modern Devout turned into precursors of Human- ism and Protestantism, but that could only reinforce the role of the mendicants as the villains of the story. Reporting on the success of Florentius Radewijnsz and his companions, Hyma writes: ‘It was not long before the mendicant monks and their friends heard of the growing repute of the Brethren of the Common Life. Groote’s fear had not been ill-founded.’17 Understandably, the prevailing Protestant view which contrasted a forward looking Devotio Moderna with reactionary forces led by the mendicants, meant a challenge to scholars of Roman Catholic conviction. In an extensive article, published in five instalments in 1940-1942, the Franciscan friar Fidentius van den Borne refuted the idea of a general opposition of the mendicants to the movement of Geert Grote.18 The results of his detailed, source-oriented treatment of the subject were endorsed by Post in his The Modern Devotion of 1968, which for long would be the standard work in English on this issue.19 But though the treatment of the role of the mendicants has become more nuanced in recent scholarship, the full consequences of Van den Borne’s study have never been realised. The general atmosphere surrounding the initial phase of the Modern Devotion has remained that of opposition, threat and imminent danger. Three episodes from the life of Geert Grote in particular, transmitted by historiography, have influenced the gloomy picture of the early beginnings of the Devotio Moderna. They are reported by Johannes Busch, the main historian emanating from the Modern Devotion, in his De origine devotionis moder nae. The first episode revolves around the foundation of the brotherhood of the common life in the House of Florentius Radewijnsz (‘Heer Florenshuis’). Grote employed a group of clerics as copyists of the books he needed, whom he lodged in the House of Florentius Radewijnsz. This suggested to Florentius the idea of asking permission from Grote to pool their resources and to start common life. At first – so Busch says – Grote hesitated, because of the resis tance he expected from the mendicants, but then he gave in, promising Floren tius to give the newly founded community his personal protection.20 Grote’s forebodings proved to be correct: once the community had started, the mendicants assembled in an effort to thwart its developments, thus occasioning the second critical moment. Thereupon, Grote climbed the pulpit in the Deventer parish church and held a long sermon in which he adduced arguments from

16 Acquoy, Windesheim, I 55-56. 17 Hyma, Christian Renaissance, 62-63. 18 Van den Borne, ‘Geert Groote en de Moderne Devotie’. See also Lambermond, ‘Geert Grote’. 19 Post, Modern Devotion, 273; also by Rehm, Schwestern, 148-149. 20 Busch, Chronicon Windeshemense, 253-256 ed. Grube. De origine devotionis modernae is part of the Chronicon Windeshemense. 54 KOEN GOUDRIAAN canon law to defend the right of existence of the brotherhood.21 In doing so, he was true to the promise he had made to Florentius before the start of the confraternity.The third episode occurred when Grote fell victim to the plague. Laying on his deathbed, he was asked by Florentius quite naturally what was to become of the brotherhood now that the loss of its protector was imminent. Grote gave the advice that he should found a monastery of Regular Canons, which could take over the role of protector of the community of brethren hitherto played by Grote himself. In due time, this gave rise to the foundation of Windesheim.22 The three episodes are inserted in a coherent and carefully built up argument by Busch, circling around the notions of ‘threat by the mendicants’ and ‘protection’. That is exactly the point Van den Borne was making in his lengthy argument. He considered Busch to be the author of the idea that the mendicants were the great opponents of the revolution caused by Geert Grote in the landscape of medieval monastic orders. Part of the refutation of Busch by Van den Borne had been anticipated by other scholars.23 The authenticity of the deathbed scene, in particular, had been doubted by Acquoy already. Acquoy confronted Busch’s version with the one given by Thomas a Kempis, who makes no mention of the danger constituted by the mendicants, nor of the protection by a monastery still to be founded. In the account by Thomas Grote simply desig- nates Florentius as his successor.24 Acquoy concluded that the story about Grote’s deathbed was legendary. Curiously, this did not prevent him from retaining the general idea of the need for protection by the brotherhood, which was provided by the Windesheim monastery.25 Van den Borne himself concentrated his efforts on a refutation of Busch’s account on Grote’s sermon in Deventer.26 In retrospect, not all his arguments appear to be equally convincing. Contrary to what Van den Borne thought, the use of reasoning based on canon law does not plead against the authenticity of the words put in Grote’s mouth, but rather in favour of it.27 But on the whole, his argumentation that the ‘sermon’ is anachronistic makes sense. The latter point may be illustrated by the use the ‘sermon’ makes of the term ‘lollard’ to conjure up the heresy of which the brethren were suspected. This term was not introduced into the public debate until the bull Sedis apostolicae providentia of 1395.28 Van den Borne proved satisfactorily that Busch’s picture of the early

21 Busch, Chronicon Windeshemense, 256-259 ed. Grube. 22 Busch, Chronicon Windeshemense, 262-265 ed. Grube. 23 Such as Gerretsen, Florentius Radewijns, 55-62. 24 Acquoy, Windesheim, 46-49. Thomas a Kempis, Opera omnia ed. Pohl, VII, 78. 25 Acquoy, Windesheim, 56. 26 Van den Borne 18 (1942) 26-31. 27 This is the strongest argument in defense of Busch put forward in the doctoral thesis of S. van der Woude, Johannes Busch, 183-188. The other points Van der Woude raised had been dealt with beforehand by Van den Borne. It is not true that Van den Borne ascribes the argumentation in the sermon to ‘phantasy’ (p. 186-187). 28 Fredericq, Corpus I nr. 241. For this bull I refer to the sequel of this article. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 55 days of the Modern Devotion results from the succesful arrangement of dispa- rate material according to a premeditated pattern. As an example of this procedure he adduced the way Busch handles the tradition about Grote’s conflicts with certain heretics. Busch subsumes these heretics under the general category of mendicants, presents their activities as a reaction to Grote’s sermon and Grote’s dealings with them as part of his defense of the brotherhood.29

Threat and protection: the Inquisition

The logical consequence of accepting (at least the gist of) Van den Borne’s analysis of Busch’s method would have been to question the historian’s core concepts of ‘threat by the mendicants’ and ‘protection’. But exactly this did not take place.30 To explain why, a second line of argument has to be introduced. Part of the plausibility of the idea of a general opposition by the mendicants to the Devotio Moderna lies in the ease with which they could be associated with the Inquisition. Undeniably, the popes entrusted members of the Dominican order with the task of investigating suspicions of heresy. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the period that saw the first flowering of research in the field of Modern Devotion, the study of the Inquisition prospered as well. But this, too, was influenced by contemporary ideological debates. Its results could easily be grafted upon the historiography of the Modern Devotion with its negative role for the mendicants. As is made clear by their correspondence, both the Belgian historian of the Inquisition Paul Fredericq and his American colleague Henry Charles Lea approached their topic with the intention to present the Inquisition as the negative counterpart to the rule of Reason and Enlightenment which they advocat- ed.31 Fredericq belonged to the liberal Catholic aristocracy of the city of Ghent and sided – also politically – with the opponents of Catholic confessionalism and ‘ultra-montanism’. In the course of his intellectual development he con- verted to protestantism.32 In the light of these ideological affiliations, it is not surprising that he tried to make the best of the particular subject of his historical interest. In assembling the materials for his Corpus Inquisitionis, he cast his net wide and included evidence which strictly speaking should have been rejected, because it did not refer to the Inquisition proper. This is true for the 1395 notarial deed containing the declaration in favour of the Deventer Breth- ren by the Windesheim canons.33 It is true, especially, for the passage from Busch’s De origine devotionis modernae, discussed above, which presents

29 Van den Borne 18 (1942) 31. Busch, Chronicon Windeshemense, 259-262. 30 A clear formulation of the idea of ‘threat and protection’ in Rehm, Schwestern, 149. 31 Tollebeek, Writing the Inquisition. 32 Tollebeek, Writing the Inquisition, xxvii-xxxi. 33 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 107. 56 KOEN GOUDRIAAN

Grote as preaching against the mendicants in defense of his brotherhood.34 Commenting on this passage, Fredericq remarks that it ‘represents the start of the insinuation against and persecution of the Brotherhood of the Common Life by the mendicants and the inquisitors’.35 Though the text gives no clue to inquisitors at all, Fredericq considers their involvement as completely self- evident. In later research, it has been difficult to escape from the powerful suggestion emanating from Fredericq’s ‘dossier’. This continued to exert its influence even after Van den Borne’s criticism had made it difficult to appeal to Busch for the idea of a threat posed by the mendicants. It was Post who, despite his acceptance of Van den Borne’s argumentation, adduced one more document in support of the idea of a young brother- and sisterhood confronted by danger. He pointed to the extensive clauses on the avoidance of heresy contained in the long version of the statutes of Master Geert’s House, the first congregation of sisters ‘of the common life’.36 These long statutes, as well as the short ones, have been transmitted under the name of Geert Grote himself and are dated to 1379. Post argued that the long version reflects the suspicion of heresy to which the sisters were exposed after Geert Grote’s death, and declared it to be a fabrication dating from the middle of the 1390’s. Later on, Weiler defended the authenticity of the long version, bringing back its date to 1379 again, while assigning the short version to the year 1374. Recently, Klausmann has plausibly restored both versions to the date which is given in the manuscript sources: 1379.37 This redating was not sufficient, however, to dispel the idea of prosecution threatening the Devout in the 1390s.38 In recent years, scholars have adduced (partly) new arguments in favour of it. In his contribution to the volume on Zerbolt, Nikolaus Staubach reviews the relationship between the various branches of the Modern Devotion. He pays due attention to the attack by the Dominican lector Matthew Grabow, which eventually resulted in his condem- nation in the wake of the Council of Constance (1414-1418). Staubach convinc- ingly argues that not Grabow, but the Devout themselves were the driving force in this affair, tricking the Dominican into making public what he had distrib- uted privately so far. Staubach ascribes this, plausibly, to the ‘hypersensibility of the Devout in their role as victims’.39 But he does not infer from this that this sensibility may have coloured the way they chose to remember the preceding decades.

34 Busch, Chronicon Windeshemense, 256-259 ed. Grube; Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 105. 35 Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 105 p. 152: ‘Hier vinden wij het begin der verdachtmaking en vervol- ging van de Broederschap des gemeenen levens door de bedelmonniken en inquisiteurs’. Cp. also Fredericq, Geschiedenis der inquisitie II, 150-157. 36 Post, ‘De statuten’. 37 Weiler, ‘Geert Grote en begijnen’; Klausmann, ‘Die ältesten Satzungen der Devotio moderna’. Cp. also the literature mentioned in note 7. 38 It is still accepted by Hildo van Engen, Derde orde, 88, for example. 39 Staubach, ‘Zwischen Kloster und Welt’, 380: ‘die in ihrer Opferrolle hypersensiblen Devoten’. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 57

Instead, he once more makes a case for the idea that the monastery of Win desheim was founded in order to give protection to the brotherhood. As evidence, he mentions the notarial deed of 19 March 139540 and a charter of 24 November 1396.41 In the 1395 deed a group of regular canons gives good testimony to the orthodoxy of the brotherhood. Possibly, this document was interpreted later as proof that protection of the brotherhood was the very raison d’être for Win desheim. As such, it may have played an important part in the debate on status between the various branches of the Modern Devotion. Staubach’s treatment of that debate is perfectly plausible. But the obvious inference would have been that this was a later reinterpretation of the document. That the Regular Canons, declar- ing their support for the brotherhood in 1395, were thereby giving a statement on the essence of their own institution, is inherently improbable. For the second document adduced by Staubach,42 the charter dated 24 Novem- ber 1396, I prefer an interpretation deviating from his. This, too, is a notarial deed, in which some Windesheim canons – including the prior Johannes Vos – explain the reason why the brotherhood in Florentius’ House had been founded. In doing so they also interpret the significance of the monastery of Windesheim in function of its role for the Brethren in Deventer. Apart from receiving those Brethren who wished to become ‘religious’ (in the monastic sense), it also could serve ‘as a refuge and for the benefit and recourse of those who remained in the world’.43 Here, at last, we come across a contemporary document that gives a clear statement on the protection which the regular branch of the Modern Devout extended to their endangered counterparts in the world. But closer inspection reveals that the danger is not expected from the mendicants but from quite a different angle. Earlier in the document the people who will be lodged in Florentius’ House are spoken of as ‘those who, remaining in the world for a longer time, would be imperilled by the many dangers in which the world abounds, as by the storms on the spacious ocean’.44 This of course is a formula for the temptations of the world and the inclination to relapse to which all devout are permanently exposed. Having refuge to the monastery of Windesheim (without really entering it) might offer an extra protection from this type of danger. Neither the mendicants nor the inquisitors have anything to do with it. Due attention is paid to this subject matter in the doctoral thesis by Bertram Lesser on Johannes Busch as historiographer of the Devotio moderna, in

40 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 107. Staubach, ‘Zwischen Kloster und Welt?’, 375. 41 Actually two documents, dating from 17 and 24 November respectively. Edition: Van der Wansem, Broederschap, 188-192. But for the point under discussion the document of 17 Novem- ber is irrelevant. 42 Staubach, ‘Zwischen Kloster und Welt?’, 376. 43 Van der Wansem, Broederschap, 191: ‘pro refugio, utilitate et aditu eorum, qui remanserunt in seculo’. 44 Van der Wansem, Broederschap, 191: ‘si diutius in seculo remanserint, periculis in ipso super- abundantibus, velut maris spaciosi procellis periclitarentur’. 58 KOEN GOUDRIAAN a chapter entitled ‘Die Konstruktion des “Mythos Windesheim”’.45 He makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of Busch’s work precisely by analysing it as a construction. All the same, he stresses two other aspects. Much in Busch’ historiographical work was an expansion of materials and ideas bor- rowed from predecessors within the Devotio moderna. And in his interpretation of the origin of the movement and of the relationship between the various branches of the Devotio moderna according to Lesser Busch was essentially true to the ideas the devout themselves had cherished from the start. Each of the three episodes – the start of the common life in Florentius’ House, Grote’s Deventer sermon and the words spoken on his deathbed – which together constitute the ‘myth’ of Windesheim as an institution founded according to canon law in order to protect the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life, is given a separate treatment by Lesser. With respect to Grote’s advice on his deathbed scene, he concedes its character as a literary device, in line with previous scholarship on spiritual testaments.46 But in the case of the two other elements, Lesser tends to defend more strongly the correspondence of Busch’s report with actual developments. As far as the motives for founding the brotherhood of Florentius’ House and Grote’s promise to take it under his protection are concerned, Lesser notices the differences between the reports by Busch and Rudolf Dier (the chron- icler of Florentius’s House), but he tries to explain them away.47 And he defends the authenticity of Grote’s sermon against the mendicants, invoking the possibil- ity that the notaries who accompanied Grote on his preaching tour may have written it down. In an extensive footnote, which almost reads like a retractatio, Lesser passes once more in review all arguments against authenticity.48 Central to Lesser’s analysis of Busch’ historiographical method is the conviction that Busch’s idea of Windesheim having been established for the purpose of protecting the Brethren reflects genuine ideas in circulation in the 1390s. He attaches fundamental value to the deed of 24 November 1396, inter- preting it in line with Staubach. Lesser stresses the role played by Johannes Vos, the prior of Windesheim, in procuring the 1396 testimony. This enables him to connect it with a second piece of evidence, the farewell speech Vos is supposed to have delivered in 1424 to the canons of Windesheim and the rectors of the communities of Brethren in the vicinity. This speech has been inserted by Busch in his De viris illustribus.49 Other sources exhibiting awareness of the idea that it was the function of the canons to protect the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life, are the Dictamen rigmicum (1421), the first biographical hymn on Geert Grote – transmitted anonymously but attributed by

45 Lesser, Johannes Busch, 209-258. The ‘Myth of Windesheim’ as told by Busch is also discussed in Jostes, Historisierung, 110-134. 46 Lesser, Johannes Busch, 247-251. 47 Lesser, Johannes Busch, 237-240. 48 Lesser, Johannes Busch, 240-245 and see note 123. 49 Busch, Chronicon Windeshemense, 48-52 ed. Grube, esp. 49. Goudriaan, ‘De derde orde als onderdeel van de Moderne Devotie’, 27-28. Lesser, Johannes Busch, 83-86. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 59

Lesser to Johannes Scutken;50 the Aliud Dictamen (after 1429), the second biographical hymn on Grote;51 and the fifteenth chapter of Willem Vorncken’s Epistola de prima institutione monasterii in Windesem (ca. 1450-55).52 Finally, apart from Busch, the idea is found in the Scriptum de magistro Gherardo Grote, domino Florencio et multis aliis devotis fratribus by Rudolf Dier.53 It is absent from the historiographical work of Thomas a Kempis, however.54 In this way, Lesser construes an uninterrupted continuity for the circulation of the idea of threat and protection right from the 1390s until its canonization in Busch’ Chronicon Windeshemense. His proof that the idea can be found in the two hymns on Grote is impeccable, and the same is true for Vorncken’s Epistola. But both sources connected with the person of Johannes Vos offer more problems. That the notarial deed of November 1396 does not contain the concept of ‘threat by the mendicants and protection against it by the canons’, has been argued above. Vos’s farewell speech (his spiritual testament) is given by Busch in a redaction by his own hand, in forma meliori, as he explicitly states. This means that there is every reason to be more sceptical about the trustworthiness of the details contained in it than Lesser is inclined to be.55 In the last resort, Lesser does not succeed to date back the concept of threat and protection beyond the 1420s. So far we may conclude that the idea of threat (by the mendicants, including the inquisitors) and protection (by the canons of Windesheim offered to the Brethren and Sisters) originated in Windesheim circles in the 1420s, possibly as a reflection both of the conflict which had opposed the New Devout and the Dominican Grabow during the Council of Constance and of the internal debate between the different branches of the Devotio Moderna. It was grafted onto the reports by the Devout on the first years of their movement and canonized by its adoption as a core concept in Johannes Busch’s De origine devotionis moder nae. Due to two characteristics of modern scholarship about the early years of the Modern Devotion, Busch has convinced historians till the present day of the essential correctness of the picture he gives. These peculiarities are the tendency to interpret the New Devout as the champions of modernity as against the reactionary forces represented by the mendicants, and the equally protes- tantizing approach of the history of the Inquisition. Firm evidence that the contemporaries of the 1390s already interpreted their situation according to the general scheme of threat and protection is lacking.56 In the remainder of this article, the sources strictly contemporaneous with the events of the 1390s will be interpreted without working backwards from the reinterpretation given to them by the Devout in later decades.

50 Edition: Brandsma, ‘Twee berijmde levens’, esp. p. 35 lines 161-172. Lesser, Johannes Busch, 86-89. 51 Brandsma, ‘Twee berijmde levens’, p. 48 lines 439-454. Lesser, Johannes Busch, 89-91. 52 Edition: Acquoy, Windesheim III, 235-255, esp. 244-245. Lesser, Johannes Busch, 92-95. 53 Edition: Dumbar, Analecta I 1-87, esp. 13. 54 Lesser, Johannes Busch, 101. 55 Lesser, Johannes Busch, 83-84. 56 Opinion to the contrary: Rehm, Schwestern, 149. 60 KOEN GOUDRIAAN

The Acts of the Inquisition

Now that he scholarly background has been sketched, it is time to analyse the developments during the last decade of the fourteenth century afresh on the basis of contemporary sources. At first, two documents will be examined which emanated without any doubt from the office of the inquisitor. For this section, Raley’s 2012 article will serve as point of reference.57 Raley’s criticism of Fredericq’s datings has to be taken into full account. However, a more thorough investigation of the composition and content of the two documents will suggest a correction of his analysis on an essential point. The documents in question allude to abuses which have been signalled in sisterhouses in the episcopal city of Utrecht and in the small town of Rhenen, twenty miles to the east near the border with Guelders. These communities move within the orbit of a priest called Werimboldus of Buscop.58 The documents have been edited by Fredericq in his second volume as numbers 106 and 114 under the dates 1393/4 and ‘after 1398’ respectively.59 For convenience’s sake they will be called documents A and B. Document A contains an elaborate picture of the way of life in the sisterhouses as reported to the inquisitor by ‘trustworthy witnesses’, including a couple of apostate sisters.60 Document B more or less repeats this disfavourable description, giving the name of the inquisitor as Eylard Schoeneveld and adding to it a few more details as well as a refutation of the validity of the legal advices these sisters obtained from Cologne jurists in defense of their cause.61 A convenient starting point for the examination of the documents is their transmission. Text A was edited for the first time in 1888 by Ribbeck from a manuscript in the archives of the Westphalian town of Soest.62 Fredericq’s edition (II nr. 106) was a reprint of Ribbeck’s. Meanwhile, the manuscript has been identified as Wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek Soest nr. 14b, where text A is found at f. 98v-100r.63 This manuscript is a formulary book (Formulare inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis) which once was in the possession of Jakob of Soest, a well-known Dominican inquisitor. Jakob did not enter office as inquisitor before 1409 and he is not known to have had direct dealings with the

57 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’. 58 I.e. originating from the present-day Boskoop, a village in South-Holland north of Gouda. 59 Fredericq, Corpus II 106 and 114. John Van Engen, Sisters, 104 note 115 announces an edition. 60 Recent discussions: Post, Modern Devotion, 279-280; Rehm, Schwestern, 149-150; Klaus- mann, Consuetudo, 97-98; John Van Engen, ‘Devout communities’, 57; Staubach, ‘Zwischen Kloster und Welt?’, 404-405 note; Makowski, “A Pernicious Sort of Woman”, 121-123; Hildo van Engen, Derde orde, 91; John Van Engen, Sisters, 104-105; Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 62; 72-78. 61 Recent discussions: Post, Modern Devotion, 279-280; Rehm, Schwestern, 152; John Van Engen, ‘Devout communities’, 58; Staubach, ‘Zwischen Kloster und Welt?’, 404-405 note; Hildo van Engen, Derde orde, 92-93; John Van Engen, Sisters, 104; Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 62-66; 72-78. 62 Ribbeck, ‘Beiträge’, 138-143. 63 Michael, Die mittelalterlichen Handschriften, 106-110. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 61

Netherlands in that quality.64 He was not personally involved in the formulation of text A. His interest in it was derived from the fact that it could serve as a reference for similar cases he might come across.65 The circumstances under which text B has been handed down are compara- ble. It was first published in Mosheim’s De beghardis et beguinabus commen tarius (1790)66 and reprinted by Fredericq (II nr. 114). As Mosheim’s source for this document Patschovsky proposed the early-fifteenth-century manuscript Wolfenbüttel 315 Helmstedt f. 216r-217r.67 This is slightly incorrect, however. Mosheim’s work was edited by J.H. Martini, who indicated a considerable number of textual variants on the basis of a manuscript he had consulted personally. Patschovsky, followed recently by Raley, thinks that Mosheim and Martini both used the Helmstedt manuscript.68 Martini states, however, that he compared Mosheim’s text, based on a vetus codex which he (Martini) was unable to identify, with a codex he could get hold of himself. In his Introduc- tion69 Martini states clearly that the manuscript he had seen was Wolfenbüttel 315 Helmstedt. This implies that Mosheim used a different manuscript, which is now lost. The Helmstedt manuscript is a compendium of texts for use by an inquisitor, headed by Nicolaus Eymericus’ tract Directorium inquisitorum. Its compiler must have been Hinrich Schoeneveld, Eylard’s nephew and an inquisitor and member of the Dominican order himself. In this compilation, text B is preceded (f. 214v-216) by the Summary of the consilia given to the New Devout by the jurists of Cologne, to which text B is a negative comment.70 In the second volume of his Corpus, Fredericq assigns text A as nr. 106 to the year 1393/4, whereas he places text B as nr. 114 to a date ‘after 1398’, on the plausible ground that it presupposes the consilia of the jurists of Cologne. By this decision he suggested that the two documents refer to two separate actions of the inquisitor. This disconnection is followed in an important part of recent scholarship.71 Nikolaus Staubach, however, resolutely connects both documents with the same action of inquisitor Eylard Schoeneveld.72 The position of John Van Engen is more nuanced. He assigns text A to an incipient phase of Eylard’s inquisitorial investigation, but text B to a date after his

64 Beckmann, Studien, 19-20; Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 123. 65 Neither Post, Modern Devotion, 279-280, nor Rehm, Schwestern, 149, nor Makowski, “A pernicious sort of woman”, 121 have noticed this. 66 Mosheim, De beghardis, 443-450. 67 Patschovsky, ‘Zeugnisse’, 247-275, followed by Staubach, ‘Zwischen Kloster und Welt?’, 404-405. 68 Patschovsky, ‘Zeugnisse’, 247; Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 69. 69 Mosheim, De beghardis ed. Martini, viii. 70 Patschovsky, ‘Zeugnisse’, 262 even thinks that these parts of the manuscripts are in Hinrich’s own handwriting. See also Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 65-66, who goes one step further in arguing that Eylard already may have assembled the older legislative texts in the manuscript. For these consilia see the next section. 71 Post, Modern Devotion, 280; Rehm, Schwestern, 152; Klausmann, Consuetudo, 97-99; Hildo van Engen, Derde orde, 91-95; Makowski, “A pernicious Sort of Woman”, 121-123. 72 Staubach, ‘Zwischen Kloster und Welt?’, 404-405 note 127. 62 KOEN GOUDRIAAN attempt at launching a trial had failed.73 More recently, he speaks of ‘two over- lapping but distinct reports’.74 Finally, the elaborate recent discussion by Michael Raley results in a full separation between the two documents.75 Obvi- ously, the relationship between texts A and B and their datings are two sides of the same medal. Fredericq’s decision to assign document A to 1393/4 has impressed itself on a large part of later scholarship.76 So it is relevant to explain on what grounds Fredericq decided for that year, and why this was wrong. Fredericq had already published an excerpt from B in his first volume, as number 237.77 The documents themselves are not dated; in volume I Fredericq placed text B at the year 1393/4 (not ‘after 1398’ as he would do when he resumed it in his second volume). As has been explained already, from our inquisitorial sources text B is the only one to refer to the inquisitor Eylard Schoeneveld by name.78 Fredericq connected this text to a report in the chron- icle of Rudolf Dier on the actions taken by the inquisitor Eylard against the New Devout, which were repelled by the joint efforts of Florentius (Radewijnsz) and Werimboldus (of Buscop).79 So, the coupling of the excerpt from Dier with text B (I nrs. 236 and 237) suggests that Fredericq based his dating on Dier. In reality, however, this cannot have been his argument. The chronological structure of Dier’s history of the Deventer Brethren’s House is very loose. His report on the inquisitor’s attack is one in a series of anecdotes revolving around the person of Werim- boldus. It is connected with the preceding episode by the vague words ‘at that time’,80 which only allow to date the incident roughly around 1400. In fact, Fredericq took the clue for his dating from Willem Moll.81 The reasoning was as follows. In document B an event is reported in which Werim- boldus and his sisterhouse in Utrecht refused to cede their place to a group of thirty girls of notable extraction (‘notabiles puellae’) who wanted to found a monastery. This event is purported to have taken place ‘ten years ago’, and it is added that at that moment Werimboldus and his sisters had ‘recently’ built their house and started to inhabit it.82 This Moll took to mean that the founding of Werimboldus’s convent of St Caecilia and the attempt by others to construct a women’s monastery had taken place more or less in the same year. Another

73 John Van Engen, ‘Devout Communities’, 58. 74 John Van Engen, Sisters, 104. 75 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 67; 72ff. 76 Apart from the publications mentioned in note 60 see also Lerner, Heresy of the Free Spirit, 149; 198-199. Post, Modern Devotion, wavers between 1393/4 (p. 280) and 1396/8 (p. 285). John Van Engen, ‘Devout Communities’, 55, still mentioned the year 1393, but cp. already his note 38, where he rightly notices the dependence on Sedis apostolicae providentia, which dates from January 1395. In Sisters, 104 with note 112, he corrected this view. 77 Fredericq, Corpus I nr. 237. 78 Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 114 p. 182. 79 Dier, ‘Scriptum’, 29-30; included by Fredericq in his Corpus as I nr. 236. 80 Dier, ‘Scriptum’, 29-30: ‘Tunc temporis’. 81 Moll, Kerkgeschiedenis II, 3, 91; see also Kerkhistorisch Archief 4 (1866) 215. 82 Fredericq, Corpus, II 114 p. 184: resp. ‘ante decennium’ and ‘noviter’. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 63 source states that when Werimboldus died (in 1413), he had governed his sisters’ community for thirty years.83 This would bring back the founding of his convent to the year 1383, and consequently also the event involving the thirty girls. And because that incident had taken place ten years before the inquisitor wrote his report, we arrive at the year 1393 for the latter. But the notice about the thirty girls is suspect. Apart from the inquisitor’s report, nothing is ever heard again of the thirty elite girls. All cloisters starting in Utrecht around 1400 were inspired by Werimboldus in one way or another, except the Carthusians’ monastery of Nieuwlicht, which was founded in 1392. The determination of the girls to execute their wish cannot have been very firm, if they allowed themselves to be discouraged definitively by Werimboldus’s resistance. In short, there is reason to doubt the story altogether. Apart from that the dates given in the sources are approximative. If the clash with the thirty girls had the first housing of Werimboldus’s convent as its object, the remark about the sisters having built it recently is incorrect. They first gathered in an almshouse which existed in 1359 already and which did not need to be built from scratch.84 Not until 1397 did they abandon this house to build a convent of their own at a different locality in Utrecht.85 When he edited a more complete version of text B in the second volume of his Corpus, Fredericq corrected its dating to ‘after 1398’ because it mentions the legal consilia acquired by Werimboldus and his following.86 However, for the additional text A – published for the first time in 1888 by Ribbeck – he maintained the dating which he had calculated for text B originally.87 Apparently, he took Jakob of Soest for the inquisitor to which text A refers, which enabled him to disconnect this document from text B. But he failed to realise that the incident with the thirty noble girls, which was the basis for his earlier calculation, does not occur in text A. The conclusion must be that there is no basis at all for the assignment of text A to the year 1393/4.

Analysis of the Acts

Let us now analyse the two inquisitorial documents in more detail. Text A consists of two parts.88 The first part is a series of grievances against the

83 Matthaeus, Fundationes et fata, 289, from an ‘anniversarius’ of St. Caecile’s convent. 84 Muller, Geschiedenis der fundatiën , 7-16. Monasticon Trajectense nr. 146: http://www2.fgw. vu.nl/oz/monasticon/detail.php?ID=146 (accessed 5 December 2017). 85 Monasticon Trajectense [http://www2.fgw.vu.nl/oz/monasticon/zoek.php; accessed 21 Decem- ber 2017] nr. 146 § 2.1. 86 Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 114. 87 Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 106. 88 Ribbeck, ‘Beiträge’, 143-144, continues his edition with a series of anti-beguine statements sup- ported by quotations from canon law. Both Makowski, “A pernicious sort of woman”, 123 and Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 62; 76 consider these statements as an appendix belonging to the inquisitor’s report. Autopsy of the manuscript ( f. 99v) reveals, however, that they are clearly detached from that report. So, Fredericq was justified in excluding this ‘third part’ from his edition. 64 KOEN GOUDRIAAN

communities in Utrecht and Rhenen directed by Werimboldus and his female counterpart Aleydis Cluten. The complaints are quoted without any formal introduction or indication of source. They have been lodged under oath with the inquisitor (singular) by trustworthy persons.89 Twice it is stated that sisters left the congregation out of dissatisfaction with what was going on. One sister ended her membership after things entrusted to the ‘martha’ – the female head of the community – under the secrecy of a confession, had been communicated to all the sisters during meal. Some elderly members quitted the convent after they had developed doubts about the legitimacy under canon law of the ordinances which governed the life of the community. These doubts had been triggered by the criticism on their way of life expressed by the Carthusian prior of Arnheim.90 The same sisters also made a trip to Utrecht and presented their observances in writing to some legal experts. Werimboldus sent Aleydis Cluten as his deputee in order to convince the sisters to remain under obedience to him. Though it is not explicitly stated so, it is a fair guess that these renegades were prominent among the witnesses heard by the inquisitor. The points raised in the first part of text A relate to the community life conducted by the sisters in obedience to their ‘martha’. They have meal together, accompanied by lectures from the Scripture in the vernacular. They mutually proclaim their trespasses in a meeting resembling a chapter of faults chaired by the martha; if a sister conceals her fault, someone else who has knowledge of it, proclaims it.91 The martha supervises sacramental confession by obliging the sisters to tell her in advance what they are going to confess.92 Although they deny to have done profession, they stick to a set of ordinances for the house, the content of which they keep secret from outsiders. The sisters who leave the congregation are considered by Werimboldus as apostates. The martha of

89 Soest ms. 14b f. 98v; Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 106 p. 153: ‘Ista sunt nuntiata inquisitori a diversis fide dignis personis sub juramento’. 90 Soest ms. 14b f. 98v: ‘prioris Carthusiensis Arveniensis’ (the reading in Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 106 p. 154, following Ribbeck: ‘Arvernonensis’ is wrong). Hildo van Engen suggested that ‘Arveniensis’ palaeographically represents ‘Arnemensis’, for which I am very grateful. Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 74 note 41 reads the manuscript as ‘Arnemensis’; the result is the same. Rhenen and Arnheim are only a few miles apart. The prior of Monichusen near Arnheim was either William Vroede (prior 1383-1394) or, more probably, Giselbertus of Eymeren (prior 1394- 1408), dependent on the date of the criticism. Cp. Scholtens, ‘Hendrik van Eger uit Kalkar’, 393-397; De Backer, ‘De kartuize Monichusen bij Arnhem’, 91; 115-116. William Vroede had been in contact with Geert Grote. Five letters to him have been preserved: W. Mulders (ed.), Gerardi Magni Epistolae (Antwerpen 1933) nrs. 7, 8, 16, 17 and 18. As is well known, Geert Grote himself had spent some years in Monichusen after his conversion. It is difficult to believe that the criticism directed against Werimboldus’ congregations sprang from a hostile attitude towards the Modern Devotion. 91 Fredericq’s text – Corpus II nr. 106 p. 153 – has to be corrected after Soest ms. 14b f. 98v: ‘dicunt culpas suas una post aliam. Et si aliqua aliquid commisit de quo aliis vel alteri constet, et non dixerit, proclamatur per aliam. Et Martha iniungit …’. 92 Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 106 p. 154. Soest ms. 14b f. 98v reads: ‘Item quando licentiantur ire ad confessionem, interdum Martha vult scire quid habeant confiteri. Et cum ipsa prius audiverit, tunc informat eas qualiter hoc sacerdoti confiteri debeant et non aliter’. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 65

Utrecht also exerts a kind of supervision in Rhenen. Moreover, she gives spiritual guidance to people living outside the congregations, including even mar- ried people. The offensive points appear to be the communal lifestyle, which in all respects equals the monastic life,93 the undermining of priestly authority and the extraordinary role played by Aleydis Cluten as martha. There is no hint at doctrinal error. The transition to the second part is made by the remark: ‘According to the foregoing the inquisitor may arrange himself in the investigation of Lollards, Beghards and Swestriones. Therefore, the interrogation should deal with the following points.’94 The names applied to the suspects clearly refer to the papal constitution Sedis apostolicae providentia of 31 January 1395, the first bull to denote those suspected of heresy as ‘Lollards, Beghards and Swestriones’.95 The interrogation form is opened with an oath formula, which is given both in Latin and in the vernacular. Next comes a series of questions, which correspond imperfectly to the first part of text A. The most obvious discrepancy deals with mendicancy. A sharp question is formulated about the suspect going around begging to the detriment of the real poor and, healthy though ‘he’ is, refusing to work, which is against the public interest.96 Nothing is said about the sisters’ livelihood in the first part of text A: there is no hint at all to the practice of begging. The first part of A opens with a general reference to ‘the congregations of the priest Werimboldus of Utrecht’.97 This term is glossed secondarily with the precise term ‘swestriones’,98 but in the remainder of the first part the terminology of Sedis apostolicae providentia does not occur. How to interpret the relationship between this bull and the inquisitor’s document? Post99 suggested that Sedis apostolicae providentia was a general answer to a petition concerning specifically the Rhenen affair. This, however,

93 Soest ms. 14b f. 98v; Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 106 p. 153: ‘per omnem modum religiosorum’. 94 Soest ms. 14b f. 99r; Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 106 p. 155: ‘Secundum predicta potest se regere inquisitor in inquisitionibus Lulardorum, Begardorum et Swestrionum. Fiat ergo de hiis articulis que secuntur interrogatio’. 95 Edition: Fredericq, Corpus I nr. 241, with wrong date, as has also been noted by Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 79. Cp. Patschovsky, ‘Zeugnisse’, 252; John Van Engen, ‘Devout communities’, 57-58 with note. According to Lerner, Heresy of the Free Spirit, 148, this severe bull marks a change in the policy of pope Boniface IX. 96 Soest ms. 14b f. 99r; Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 106 p. 155: ‘Item quare sanus existens victum per mendicitatem quesierit in detrimentum pauperum et laborare recusavit contra rempublicam’. The text applies the male form, which is standard even if those referred to are mainly of the female sex. In the sequel, the question of accountability for eleemosyne (alms) is raised, which I take to refer to the donation of rents etcetera, not to the fruits of begging. The statutes of the congregation in Rhenen – Het Utrecht Archief, St. Agnietenklooster inv. 31 – , which date from 1388, prohibit begging as a regular way of procuring livelihood, but allow it in case of emergency. 97 Soest ms. 14b f. 98v; Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 106 p. 153: ‘de congregationibus domini Werimboldi Traiectensis’. 98 Soest ms. 14 b f. 98v; Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 106 p. 153: ‘in illis congregationibus, scil. swestrionum’. 99 Post, Modern Devotion, 280 (with wrong date for the bull). He is followed by Makowski, “A pernicious sort of woman”, 121-124. 66 KOEN GOUDRIAAN is highly improbable. The bull contains several terms which were in use in circles of the incriminated. One of these, the title martha given to the mistress of the female congregation, returns in the document about the sisters of Utrecht and Rhenen. But it was generally in vogue among Beguines and cannot be considered as specific enough.100 The other designations are pauperes pueruli for the movement as a whole and servi fratrum for the rectors of the male congregations. Neither of these has a parallel among the early New Devout. So it is preferable to reverse the relationship as conceived by Post and to consider the bull as the source for some of the wordings in the second part of text A. And as our analysis has shown that the terms ‘Beghards, Lollards and Swestri- ones’ occur in the latter part of text A only, the connection between the inquisitor’s report and the papal bull of 31 January 1395 was made secondarily. The inquisitor who conducted the investigation did so on whatever occasion – probably as a reaction to complaints made by apostates – but had not set out delib- erately to search for suspects of the type mentioned in the papal bull. A poste- riori, the crime was subsumed under the terms of Sedis apostolicae providentia; whether by Eylard himself or by Jakob of Soest, is difficult to tell. We can guess, however, why it was done. The bull contains the clause that, under the outward appearance of the habit and lifestyle of the devout, already for a century various kinds of heresies had been hidden.101 This clause made it possible for the inquisitor to transform the case of a quasi-monastic lifestyle, raising the suspicion of the foundation of a novus ordo, into a question of heresy. By so doing, he underscored his own competence. Document B is no less composite than A, but its structure is different: it is a text within a text. By far the largest part of it is occupied by the encapsulated text, which is announced as an excerpt from the acta of the inquisition held by Eylard Schoeneveld in Utrecht and surroundings.102 The end of it is signalled by the statement that all the foregoing had been delated to the inquisitor (singular!) in the presence of a notary and witnesses and under oath by women who had been present at the activities described.103 The long passage in between may contain one gloss by the composer of the encapsulating text. When the framed text states that the accused adduce written information as a means of defense against the inquisitors (plural!), the comment is given ‘I presume these are the aforementioned determinations of the Cologne doctors’,104 referring to what is said about these consilia in the first part of the framing text.

100 Lerner, Heresy of the Free Spirit, passim. 101 Fredericq, Corpus I nr. 241: ‘sub quorum etiam habitu et ritu vivendi ante centum annos usque in praesentiarum semper haereses et haeretici latitarent’. 102 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 114 p. 182: ‘…extracta de Actis Inquisitionis per … Eylardum Schoeneveld … in Traiecto et locis circumjacentibus legitime factae’. 103 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 114 p. 184: ‘Prout haec omnia supradicta coram notario et testibus sunt inquisitori praedicto, mediante juramento, delata ab illis quae his omnibus praesentes inter- fuerant et consciae extiterant’. 104 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 114 p. 184: ‘quas reor esse supradictas doctorum Coloniensium determinationes’. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 67

A comparison between the content of the capsule in document B and the first part of document A reveals that they are largely parallel. The accusations launched against Werimboldus and his congregations in A nearly all return in B, though the wording in B is more formal, as may be expected from a notarial instrument. B, too, reports the incident with the women who left the congregation out of dissatisfaction with Werimboldus’ handling of the ordinances, whose illegitimate character had been pointed out to them by ‘learned Carthusians’, as it is phrased now in a generalized manner.105 The similarity between the capsule in B and the first part of A also extends to the absence of the specific terminology of Sedis apostolicae providentia. Document B is explicit about the way the women under suspicion earn their livelihood: ‘for the largest part by work of their hands, but partly also from alms in the manner of religious persons’.106 This complements the picture as given in the first part of A. But it is a far cry from the mendicancy alluded to in its second part.107 Near the end,108 the encapsulated text in B contains some additional accusations which have no counterparts in A. The most important ones are the use the congregations made of the written advice of the jurists – which had been translated into the vernacular by the priest who governed the congregations – , their refusal to adopt an approved rule and their resistance to the thirty girls who wanted to take hold of their abode in order to turn it into a real monastery.109 Though Werimboldus is not mentioned by name in document B, there can be no doubt that it is he who is meant by the reference to the governing priest. Other sources confirm his zeal in translating texts into the vernacular for the use of the women under his guidance.110 The similarities between the accusations in the first part of A and those in B are too important to be fortuitous. And also the geographical area – Utrecht and surroundings – is identical in both texts. So far, the conclusion must be that both texts refer clearly to the same

105 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 114 p. 183-184. The Carthusians: ‘quosdam literatos et famosos viros de ordine Carthusiensium’. 106 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 114 p. 182: ‘partim de laboribus manuum pro majori, aut de elee- mosynis ad modum religiosorum’. Elemosine are not the gifts reached out to beggars, but the (small) donations to religious institutions, see for instance Staubach, ‘Zwischen Kloster und Welt?’, 412. Cp. De Melker, ‘Structuur en genese’; Goudriaan, ‘Devotio Moderna and Com- memoration’, 124-125. 107 Text A, Soest ms. 14b f. 14b f. 99r: ‘mendicitatem’. 108 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 114 p. 184 ‘Errant autem in hoc’ etcetera. 109 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 76 gives a grossly distorted interpretation of this episode. According to him, Werimboldus and Aleyd Cluten succeeded in persuading the girls to enter St Caecilia’s convent instead of founding a monastery of their own. Later on, these same sisters were the ones who lodged the complaints against Werimboldus with the inquisitor. Nothing of the sort is said or even implied in text B. Instead, it maliciously comments that Werimboldus and his sisters wished to prevent the apparition of a religious institution whose inhabitants would be more virtuous and holier than themselves. 110 Thomas a Kempis, Chronicon Montis Sanctae Agnetis, 508-509. Cp. Warnar, ‘Tleven ons heren Jhesu Christi, 25-41. 68 KOEN GOUDRIAAN inquisitorial investigation. The inquisitor referred to in text A, after all, can be no other than Eylard Schoeneveld. What remains is the frame text in document B. This presents itself as a short comment on the summary of the consilia of the Cologne jurists which precedes text B in the manuscript. The author of the comment states that ‘the sect of the Gherardines’, which ‘daily increases in strength in the towns of the diocese of Utrecht’, tries to corroborate its position by referring to the opinion of the jurists. But wrongly so, as is evident – so the author contends – as soon as one compares the text of the consilia with what was really going on in the communities.111 As proof of the latter he adduces the findings of Eylard Schoene veld.112 We do not know who this author is; Patschovsky tentatively identifies him with Hinrich Schoeneveld.113 One more question with respect to the Acts of the Inquisition remains to be discussed. Text B explicitly states that Werimboldus refused to adopt a rule permitted by the Church. It attributes him the dictum that he preferred to ‘rule a stable of sheep rather than to guide his women if they adopted an approved rule’.114 It is difficult to imagine what induced the inquisitor to put such a statement in Werimboldus’ mouth. No doubt, Werimboldus was critical of traditional monastic institutions, much as Geert Grote was. But this not what the bon mot, as quoted by the inquisitor, says. It does not fit at all the picture of Werimboldus’ line of action as we get it on the basis of other sources. The man who persuaded his sisters to adopt the Third Rule of St Francis – approved since 1289 on the basis of the bull Supra montem –, cannot in the same time have spoken with such contempt about the ecclesiastical status of the women under his care. Werimbol- dus throughout appears to have been cautious to operate with respect for the rules set by the Church. To cite one piece of evidence: in the statutes for the congregation of Rhenen (1388), much care is taken to ensure that the sisters live in har- mony with the parochial clergy. It is expressly ruled that they are not allowed to adopt a new religious status unless approved by the Church.115 We owe the

111 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 114 p. 181-182: ‘…sectae Gherardinorum, quae per diocesim Traiec tensem in singulis civitatibus quotidie invalescit’. For ‘Gherardinorum’ as given in Mosheim’s vetus codex, Martini adds the varia lectio ‘Gherarditarum’ from Codex Wolfenbüttel 315 Helmstedt. Van Engen, Sisters, 104 with note 116 misinterprets the textual tradition. By the way, this may be the first time that the New Devout are identified as the followers of Geert (Grote). 112 In Mosheim’s edition, p. 443, a heading precedes text B which announces it as originating from the ‘inquisitor Belgicus’. This betrays humanist terminology. Manuscript Wolfenbüttel 315 Helmstedt, which was once in the possession of the sixteenth-century historian Flacius Illyricus – as J.H. Martini in his note ad locum and Patschovsky, ‘Zeugnisse’, 247-249, make clear – does not contain this phrase, however: see Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 63. It must have been added either by Mosheim himself or by his vetus codex. Probably, the phrase inaccurately refers to Eylard Schoeneveld in his function as inquisitor Saxoniae. 113 Patschovsky, ‘Zeugnisse’, 262. Staubach, ‘Zwischen Kloster und Welt?’, 405 takes this iden- tification for certain. 114 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 114 p. 184: ‘dicente se velle potius stabulum pecudum custodire quam eas, si omnino vellent aliquam approbatam regulam accipere’. 115 Het Utrechts Archief, St. Agnietenklooster inv. 31. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 69 inquisitor all the credit he deserves. But here, as well as in the case of the thirty notable girls, malice must have played a part, either the inquisitor’s own or that of his spokesmen. In the preceding, the preliminary conclusion has been that texts A and B refer to the same inquisitorial action. This contradicts the outcome of the recent investigation by Michael Raley, who disjoins the two texts and makes text A refer to an inquisitorial action preceding the action of text B by many years.116 It may be useful to review his arguments briefly. Raley acknowledges the par- allels between the two reports, and comments: ‘Yet they do not seem to derive from the same original manuscript or even from a single author.’117 As has been explained above, it is true that both texts differ considerably with respect to their redaction and transmission, text B being more formal than text A. This does not preclude, however, that they refer to the same historical action. According to Raley, in text A the focus is on the sisterhouse at Rhenen, whereas in text B the congregations at Utrecht are in the center.118 In reality, text A introduces the investigation as concerning the congregationes (plural) under the direction of Werimboldus Traiectensis;119 the narrowing down to Rhenen comes only in the sequel. Text B involves the incident with the sisters who undertake the travel to Utrecht for legal advice after having been confronted from Carthusian angle with objections to their status.120 This must refer to the contact of the Rhenen sisters with the nearby Charterhouse of Arnheim, narrated more precisely in text A. Secondly, the turmoil around the sisters is much greater in text A than in text B, so Raley states.121 His main argument is that in the Rhenen case (i.e. text A) sisters had left their sisterhouse out of fear for the inquisitor. So, Raley invokes an atmosphere of danger and martyrdom. But the text simply does not warrant such a thing. Instead it states the reasons why some sisters left the house out of dissatisfaction with the internal state of affairs; external pressure is not mentioned.122 It is true that Werimboldus and his female counterpart Aleydis Cluten are mentioned by name only in text A, as Raley says.123 But the profile of the legislator and gubernator of all the sisterhouses in the Utrecht area, as well as of the Martha principalis in Trajecto, leaves no doubt that Werimboldus and Aleydis are meant in text B as well.124 The observation that both the incident with the thirty noble girls and the circulation of translated consilia125 are mentioned in text B only, is not decisive. The second report is fuller than the

116 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’. 117 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 74. 118 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 73. 119 Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 106 p. 153. 120 Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 106 p. 183/4. 121 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 77; see also 58: ‘sisters who, fearing for their lives, had fled’. 122 See above p. 64. 123 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 73. 124 Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 114 p. 183. 125 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 75/6. 70 KOEN GOUDRIAAN first one, but this does not mean that they refer to different events. The argument is different with the Latin and vernacular oaths of renunciation, which occur in text A but not in text B.126 Raley fails to take account of the fact that these oaths are mentioned in the second part of text A, which is a later comment on the inquisitorial report, as has been explained above.127 Finally, Raley adduces the absence of papal legislation later than 1394 in the appendix to text A as proof that this text must antedate that year.128 However, as has been argued above,129 this appendix does not belong to text A proper and therefore cannot be taken as evidence for the date of the action reported in it. In sum, Raley’s argument for the disconnection between texts A and B does not stand up to closer scrutiny. Therefore, in the remaining part of this contribution they will be interpreted as belonging together. Can we finally attach a date to Eylard’s investigation as documented by texts A and B? This is possible, indeed, on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The original of text B must have given the date of Eylard’s Acta Inquisitionis. Mosheim’s vetus codex mentioned a year still in the 1300s, but the last two figures had been erased. The manuscript consulted by J.H. Martini (which is our Wolfenbüttel 315 Helmstedt) only contains the figures 13.. and leaves the last two figures blank. Already Mosheim suggested that 1399 must have been the correct year, because it was then only that Eylard started his activity as inquisitor.130 This date has been accepted by Patschovsky131 and defended con- vincingly now by Raley, who adduces proof of Eylard’s appointment as inquisitor for certain parts of Germany in that year.132 We have to take into account the recommendation of Eylard Schoeneveld as ‘papal inquisitor for certain parts of Germany’ by pope Boniface IX in a bull dating from 18 June 1399133 and add to it the fact that no activity of Eylard as inquisitor is known to antedate this recommendation.134 The other dates concerned agree with this. The Cologne consilia, which were prior to Eylard’s investigation, were formulated in the winter of 1397-1398.135 Florentius Radewijnsz, who came to assist Werimboldus in the defense, died 24 March 1400.136

126 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 76. 127 See pp. 65-66. 128 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 76/7. 129 See note 88. 130 Mosheim, De beghardis, 443 note * (the first part of this note originating with Mosheim himself, the second part added by Martini). 131 Patschovsky, ‘Zeugnisse’, 253. See also Staubach, ‘Zwischen Kloster und Welt?’, 404 note 127, and – with different conclusions – Hildo van Engen, Derde orde, 92-93. 132 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 69-70. 133 Fredericq, Corpus, I nr. 244: ‘in certis Alemanniae provinciis et partibus haereticae pravitatis inquisitori auctoritate apostolica deputato’. Fredericq has the date wrong; for the correct date see Lerner, Heresy of the Free Spirit, 149 note 54. 134 This refutes the objections against a date before 1399 raised by Hildo van Engen, Derde Orde, 92/3 note 25. 135 John Van Engen, ‘Devout Communities’, 50-51. 136 Dier, ‘Scriptum’, Analecta, 52. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 71

The legal documents

The second category of sources relevant for the history of the encounter between the nascent Devotio Moderna and the inquisition in the 1390s com- prises the consilia, those issued by the Cologne jurists as well as those given by other legal experts.137 The inquisition is mentioned in some of these advices, but not in all of them. The order in which Fredericq printed them is not sacro- sanct, because several of them have no date. These texts appear to represent a series of separate moments of opposition rather than one concerted attack.138 John Van Engen, however, prefers to interpret the consilia as a coherent whole, constituting a dossier presented to a tribunal.139 1. The first text that attracts our attention is the testimony by the Windesheim canons in favour of the Brethren of the Common Life in Deventer, dated 19 March 1395, which has been mentioned already.140 Although this is a notarial deed, not a consilium, and though it is not included in the collections of consi lia which have come down to us, it is akin to them in content. The canons declare that they are prepared to uphold their testimony even under oath, in order to beat and refute those who envy the Brethren and defame them.141 Who these people are and what the nature of their grievances is, is not made explicit, but something can be gleaned from the counterarguments the canons adduce. Their testimony is shaped as a series of quotations from papal constitutions. The Brethren do not form a sect or a secret conventicle, neither do they found a new religious order: they are not guilty of the crimes proscribed in Sancta Romana (pope John XXII; 1317).142 They do not preach outside churches about such theological issues as the Trinity, the divine essence or the articles of the faith, and therefore do not deserve to be condemned according to Cum de qui busdam (Clement V in the Council of Vienne; 1311/1317).143 Instead, they lead a common life in humility and honesty and in subjection to the prelates of the Roman Church, fulfilling all conditions for recognition mentioned by the bull Ex iniuncto of Gregory XI (1374). The quotations from the other bulls are implicit, but Ex iniuncto is mentioned with so many words. This bull had been directed by the pope to the archbishops of Cologne, Mayence and Treves and

137 An important recent treatment of these consilia and their textual tradition is John Van Engen, ‘Devout Communities’, 48-54 (announcing an edition). Cp. also Makowski, “A pernicious sort of woman”, 114-135; Hildo van Engen, Derde orde, 99-103. 138 This was also the approach by Rehm, Schwestern, 150ff. 139 John Van Engen, ‘Devout Communities’, 48-54; idem, Sisters, 103-118. 140 First edited by Hofman, ‘Broeders van ’t gemeene leven’, 225-229. Reprinted Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 107. Cp. Notes 33 and 40. 141 ‘stare juramento’; ‘ad convincendos et refutandos emulos et detractores’. 142 Extravag. Ioannis XXII 7 un. (30 December 1317). Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici II, 1213- 1214. 143 Clem. 3.11.1 (November 1311). Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici II, 1169. Also Fredericq, Corpus I nr. 171. 72 KOEN GOUDRIAAN their suffragans.144 In it he ordered them to apply Racio recta145 – a bull issued by John XXII in order to protect orthodox Beguines (1318) – to the honestly living devout persons in their dioceses after careful investigation. The legal texts quoted by the 1395 defenders and therefore probably also by the attackers belong to the standard corpus of canon law in circulation for some time, though Ex iniuncto had not been included in the Extravagantes. Interest- ingly, the notarial deed shows no awareness of the recent renewal of Ex iniuncto by pope Boniface IX (7 January 1394).146 That bull reactivated the clauses on eight doctrinal errors imputed to Beghards and Beguines which were contained in Ad nostrum (Clement V in the Council of Vienne; 1311/1317).147 The fact that the Windesheim canons expected a simple appeal to Ex iniuncto I – which declares the bishops to be competent – to suffice, is an indication that there was no challenge of the bishops’ authority by an inquisitor. The opposition was unpleasant, but not acutely dangerous. And, finally, it was local: it is because of their personal acquaintance with the Brethren of Deventer that the canons declared themselves entitled to defend them. This renders it improbable that the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life at large were involved. 2. More or less contemporaneous with the testimony given by the Windesheim canons in favour of the Brethren at Deventer were ‘controversies’ with which bishop Frederick of Blankenheim was confronted. They are alluded to in a notarized copy (a ‘transumpt’) of the bull Racio recta (1318) made on behalf of Gerard of Bronckhorst, a canon of the Utrecht Collegiate Church of St Sav- iour. The copy was given at Rome on 19 July 1395; Bronckhorst in his turn acted on the request of bishop Frederick. This canon is known to have been a great support for the Devout in the early decades of their movement.148 In addition to the copy of Racio recta, he brought back from his 1395 trip to Rome a privilege for the Chapter of Windesheim (16 May 1395).149 The copy of the 1318 bull was again ‘vidimated’ (authenticated) by Jan de Weent, Benedictine Abbot of Egmond (15 November 1395). This vidimus was discovered in the

144 Printed by Fredericq, Corpus I nr. 220. 145 Extravag. comm. 3.9.un. (13 August 1318). Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici II, 1279-1280. Also Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 44. 146 Fredericq, Corpus I nr. 239. Contrary opinion: John Van Engen, ‘Devout Communities’, 58-59. The reconstruction of the course of events has been complicated by the fact that Post, Modern Devotion, 279, considered the bull Ex iniuncto II – together with the petition of 7 January 1394 which triggered the bull (Fredericq, Corpus I nr. 238) which preceded it – as referring directly to the Modern Devout. Would that be correct, the ‘persecution’ must have started already before January 1394. In reality, however, both the petition and the bull are referring to an early manifestation of the Alexians, as is revealed by the mentioning of nursing activities and burial of the dead. For a parallel case compare the position of Sedis apostolicae providentia (Fredericq, Corpus I nr. 241) discussed earlier. 147 Clem. 5.3.3. Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici II, 1183-1184. Also in Fredericq, Corpus I nr. 172. 148 On Bronckhorst see Van den Hoven van Genderen, ‘Gerrit van Bronkhorst’; Hildo van Engen, Derde Orde, 405-406. 149 More details: Hildo van Engen, Derde Orde, 89. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 73 archives of Hoorn by Hildo van Engen: probably it had been made on behalf of one of the many Tertiary convents in that town.150 Additionally, John Van Engen found two transcripts of Bronckhorst’s copy in a couple of manuscripts at Liège.151 The controversies are mentioned specifically in the preamble to the notarized copy for Bronckhorst. The Utrecht authorities were in bad need of the document, in order to be able ‘to end in a sounder manner and with more ease some controversies which now and then occurred’ (pro aliquibus controversiis inter dum occurrentibus sanius et facilius terminandis), and to do so, it is added, ‘both in and out of court’ (in terminandis controversiis iudicialiter et extra).152 Because Racio recta was issued in the defense of orthodox Beguines who otherwise would have been hit severely by the Vienne legislation, we may infer that suspicion of heresy was at the heart of the matter. And because it was Bronckhorst who took it upon himself to procure the copy of this bull, it is a fair guess that the Devout were targeted. The situation – which is presented as repetitive: interdum occurrentibus – is akin to the one in the notarial deed of the Windesheim canons. 3. Among the consilia proper an undated one was given by Evert Foec (Fredericq II nr. 110). He was dean of the Collegiate Church of St Saviour in Utrecht, a lawyer who had made a brilliant ecclesiastical career.153 Geert Grote had already recommended him to the prior of the monastery of Eem- steyn, and though on that occasion he had stressed the importance of giving Foec a proper fee, in later times the dean appears to be acting in favour of the Modern Devotion out of sincere sympathy.154 The occasion for Foec’s advice is given by the activities of a certain priest, who in his sermons and his writings attacks the status of the ‘Beguines’, branding them as ruinous or defective.155 No hint is given at an inquisitorial procedure. Though the campaign of this priest was harmful to the Devout, the danger may not have been imminent. A remark near the end indicates that the opponent belonged to a

150 Westfries Archief, Old Town Archive of Hoorn inv. 770. Hildo van Engen, Derde orde, 89. 151 Liège, Grand Séminaire, ms. 6 F 2 f. 257v-259v and ms. 6 B 14 f. 220v-222v. John Van Engen, Sisters, 95 with note 61. 152 Westfries Archief, Old Town Archive of Hoorn inv. 770 l. 6-7. John Van Engen, Sisters, 95, followed by Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 68, reads – on the basis of the Liège manuscripts – aliquibus conversis interdum occurentibus sanius et facilius terminandis resp. in terminandis conversiis [sic] iudicialiter, and translates ‘adjudicate converts’. This is impossible. Terminare does not mean ‘adjudicate’ but ‘end’. The Devout are never called conversi / conversae in contemporary legal sources, neither does the term occur in Racio recta. The Hoorn copy reads con troversiis without any doubt. It might have been the case that some Devout were put on trial before the bishop’s court, but this is not what the document says. 153 Van den Hoven van Genderen, ‘Evert Foec’; Hildo van Engen, Derde Orde, 406-407. 154 Gerardi Magni Epistolae, ed. W. Mulder nr. 38 p. 153. The ‘decanus sancti Salvatoris’ in this letter is not Evert’s uncle, as Mulder thinks, but Evert himself: Van den Hoven van Genderen, ‘Evert Foec’, 72 and 75. 155 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 110 p. 168: ‘ille dominus, qui satagit in suis sermonibus vel scriptis statum Beghinarum tanquam perniciosum vel defectuosum reprobare’. 74 KOEN GOUDRIAAN position in the hierarchy below the bishop.156 The wordings of the consilium make it clear that the attack is based on the prohibition of the Beguines in the papal bull Cum de quibusdam. In his defense, Foec does not object to the application of the term ‘Beguines’ to the Devout he is defending. He refers to the final clause of Cum de quibusdam, which makes an exception for honestly living Beguines, to Racio recta157 which expands on that final clause in more detail, and to Ex iniuncto I. Foec stresses that the investigation implied by Ex iniuncto belongs to the competence of the bishops, not to their inferi- ors. Once more, the reference is to legal texts already in circulation for a long time, Cum de quibusdam and Racio recta having been included in the Clem- entines. Again, one could characterize the situation as worrying, but not urgent. 4. The situation changes when we move to a coherent group of consilia dating from the end of 1397 and the first months of 1398. These include a second consilium by Evert Foec (Fredericq II nr. 109); one by Arnold Willemsz – Abbot of the Benedictine Abbey of Dikninge (Drenthe) and a renowned jurist active in the bishop’s entourage158 – , preserved in a short and a long version (II nr. 112);159 four different consilia given by Cologne jurists;160 and a text which more or less summarizes the Cologne advices (II nr. 113). These consilia belong together, because they answer the same series of seven questions or at least part of them.161 Foec’s consilium, the first Cologne advice and the summary are undated. The short version of the advice given by Arnold of Dikninge is dated 2 December 1397, the long version is from 24 December of the same year. The second, third and fourth Cologne texts are from 18, 19 and 21 January 1398, respectively; in a Nuremberg manuscript they have been transmitted as insertions in a notarial deed from the end of

156 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 110 p. 169: ‘spectat ad officium ordinariorum locorum et non ad inferiores’. 157 The interest taken by the Devout in this bull is documented by the authentic copy of it discussed in note 150. 158 Arts, Dubbelklooster Dikninge, 86-105; Hildo van Engen, Derde Orde, 407-408. 159 Fredericq prints the long version according to The Hague, Royal Library ms. 70 H 78. The short text: City Archive Cologne, Haupt-Urkunden-Archiv nr. 6122a GB, edited by L. Korth, ‘Die ältesten Gutachten’, 14-17. 160 Not in Fredericq’s Corpus. For details about their transmission: John Van Engen, ‘Devout communities’, 50-53. The first and fourth of these consilia have not been printed so far. The second and third are included in the dossier which was compiled a decade later by the Brethren of the Common Life of Deventer, Zwolle and Münster on behalf of the papal legate Pierre d’Ailly; they have been edited by Schoengen, Jacobus Traiecti alias de Voecht, 501-511. 161 All seven: Evert Foec, Arnold of Dikninge (long version) and the first Cologne consilium. Arnold’s short version contains six answers, the summary five (in a different order), the three remaining Cologne consilia two answers only to questions which are related to those in the list of seven. Makowski, “A pernicious sort of woman”, 125-130 gives a beautiful account of the ‘selective citation and creative analysis’ with which Arnold of Dikninge builds his advice. But she interprets the consilia as a comment on the grievances adduced in the two inquisitorial documents. The whole of my argument makes clear why I disagree fundamentally. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 75

February.162 The first six questions deal with aspects such as the common life, mutual adhortation, the use of writings in the vernacular and the sharing of a day-to-day time schedule. For our purpose the seventh question is the most interesting one, because it focuses on the inquisition. Is the inquisitor competent to conduct an inquiry into the life of the people who are addressed by this advice and who live together in community of goods?163 It is this seventh question which makes the difference between the short and the long version of the consilium of Arnold of Dikninge. This suggests that the seventh question was added secondarily. The jurists argue that the inquisitor is not competent, because no heresy is involved and because the judgment on the conduct and lifestyle of the Devout belongs to the bishop.164 The advices give no indication of the grounds adduced by ‘the inquisitor’ for starting a procedure against the Devout. It is not clear whether a specific inquisitor is meant or whether the singular indicates that the argument concerns the inquisition generally and on a theoretical level. The Devout are referred to mostly in the generalizing male form, but once Evert Foec addresses them as ‘the aforesaid poor women’, indicating that female communities in particular are concerned.165 No mention of an actual process is made, nor is there any clue to a specific locality or region. Evidently, without some foreboding of a possible inquisitorial action the seventh question would not have been added to the six which had been formulated previously. 5. One consilium, formulated by an anonymous devout person, still remains to be mentioned (Fredericq II nr. 111). It is undated, and in contrast to the advices in the preceding group, it does not answer a series of questions. The advice begins with the remark that ‘they’ are willing to start a procedure on three grounds. In the sequel of the text it becomes clear without any doubt that inquisitors are meant: ‘They appear especially to defame the common life, which, however, falls outside their competence, because this is not heretical.’166 Contrary to the aforementioned consilia, this one is explicit on the arguments adduced by the inquisitors. They argue on the basis of Sancta Romana and of Ad nostrum. As has been observed already, these two bulls promulgate findings of the Council of Vienne and are contained in the Clementines. What adds acuteness to the attack by the inquisitors, however, is a third bull, the title of

162 Nuremberg, Stadtbibliothek Cent. II,10; Schneider, Die lateinischen mittelalterlichen Hand schriften I 137-140. An excerpt from the notarial deed was edited by Muther, ‘Kölner Gutachten’, 469-472; it exhibits the impossible date 30 February 1398. 163 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 109 p. 160: ‘Septimo, utrum inquisitor heretice pravitatis potest inquirere de vita et conversacione predictarum personarum sic extra religionem simul habitantium et vivencium in communi’. Cp. also John Van Engen, ‘Devout Communities’, 63. 164 This point is clearly explained by Post, Modern Devotion, 283. 165 Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 109 p. 162: ‘dicte pauperes’. 166 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 111 p. 170: ‘Ex tribus mediis videntur isti velle procedere contra istos pauperes’ and ‘Maxime videntur isti calumpniari communem victum; sed hoc non cadit in eorum officium, quia hoc non est hereticum’. The ‘inquisitores’ mentioned in the heading of ms. The Hague 70 H 78 are due to the composer of this manuscript, of course. 76 KOEN GOUDRIAAN which is not given by the adviser, evidently because everyone knew which bull was meant. This proves its actuality, so it must have been a recent one. The adviser states that this third bull is aimed at the execution of the two older bulls. This makes it probable that the renewed Ex iniuncto by pope Boniface IX, dating from 7 January 1394, is meant.167 Ex iniuncto II, as we saw, is an actualiza- tion of Ex iniuncto I. But contrary to Gregory XI’s Ex iniuncto, the renewed one contains explicit references to Ad nostrum and Sancta Romana, and besides the bishops it declares the inquisitors to be competent in investigating the conduct of the persons concerned. Another recent papal constitution, Sedis apos tolicae providentia (31 January 1395), is ruled out as a possible trigger of this consilium. It refers to Sancta Romana, but not to Ad nostrum. Moreover, the terminology peculiar for this bull (‘Lollards, Beghards, and Swestriones’) is not reflected in the consilium. How does the situation hinted at in this advice relate to the one supposed in the consilia discussed previously? True, the consilia in the Cologne group are silent about the legal weapons used by the opponents of the Devout, and they refer to ‘the inquisitor’ in a more detached way than the unnamed devout. But they do conduct their defense on the same basis as the anonymous consilium, viz. that no heresy is involved and that, consequently, the inquisitor is not competent. So, after all, the situation implied in II nr. 111 is not incompatible with the one in II nrs. 109 and 112. It fits in, moreover, with the evidence offered by the Acta Inquisitionis of Eylard Schoeneveld, which prove that the Utrecht congregations were armed with legal advices against inquisitors already before Eylard undertook action.168

A ‘dossier’?

At this point we are able to evaluate the interpretation given to these legal sources by John Van Engen. In his ‘Devout Communities’, supplemented by the third chapter of his Sisters and Brothers,169 he carefully builds up the argument that all, or most, of these consilia were assembled so as to form a coherent dossier intended to serve in a trial. Normally, when the inquisition was involved, the inquisitor had to present his incriminating dossier to the bishop’s court in order to elicit a decision which would give him licence to pursue the matter. But in the case of the Devout, a concerted counteraction was staged. This came down to the composition of a dossier in their defense, which like- wise was presented to the bishop. The Devout were successful, the action of the inquisitor was blocked.170 Van Engen also connects the two inquisitorial

167 Fredericq, Corpus, I nr. 239. 168 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 114 p. 184. 169 John Van Engen, ‘Devout Communities’, 48-54; idem, Sisters, 103-118. 170 John Van Engen, Sisters, 107-116; cp. p. 115: ‘The Devout strategy succeeded. Friar Eylard was blocked, the decision about converts living a common life reserved to Bishop Frederick’. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 77 documents (texts A and B) to this affair, in such a way that text A shows the initial attack, before the inquisitor was stopped, whereas text B reflects the reaction after the inquisitor had failed.171 However, the very composition of the dossier casts considerable doubt on this hypothesis. As Van Engen defines it, this consisted of Zerbolt’ Circa modum vivendi, the summary of the Cologne consilia, the two advices written by Evert Foec, the anonymous advice and ‘occasionally’ one of the advices by Arnold of Dikninge.172 This corresponds with the transmission history of exactly this cluster of texts as reconstructed by Van Engen on the basis of six manuscripts.173 So, implicitly, Van Engen equates the dossier as presented during the hypothesized session at the bishop’s court with the group of texts preserved in the six manuscripts. But is this plausible? Among the texts included by Van Engen in the dossier, the first advice by Evert Foec (Fredericq II nr. 110) stands apart and reflects a situation in which the inquisition does not occur, as has been explained above. The anonymous advice (Fredericq II nr. 111) might have the same situational context as the remaining ones, but it is not structured according to the standard set of questions. However, this structuring principle is less stringent than one might think at first sight, because only a minority of the consilia answers all questions.174 A more serious problem is the fact that only three of them – Foec’s second consilium, the long version of the one by Arnold of Dikninge and the first Cologne consilium – contain the crucial seventh question about the competence of the inquisitor. This topic is also lacking in Zerbolt’s Circa modum vivendi.175 It is perfectly possible, of course, that this question was added at a late moment, when an inquisitorial investigation was pending. But then the implication is exactly that originally these consilia were assembled without reference to a controversy of jurisdiction between the bishop and the inquisition. On the other hand, the full text of the four Cologne consilia has been transmitted separately from the ‘dossier’, mainly through a manuscript preserved in Nuremberg.176 In the ‘dossier’ they are represented by a Summary only. This does not make much sense, if the dossier was intended to be presented during a trial. Would a court have contented itself with a second hand document if the originals were available?177 So the specific shape taken by the transmission has

171 John Van Engen, ‘Devout Communities’, 58; Sisters, 104-105. 172 John Van Engen, Sisters, 109. 173 John Van Engen, ‘Devout Communities’, 48ff. 174 Above, note 161. 175 John Van Engen, Sisters, 111. 176 John Van Engen, ‘Devout Communities’, 50-51. 177 Klausmann, Consuetudo, 108/9 suggests that the second Cologne consilium was put aside by the Devout because it gave a ‘wrong’ answer. But why wasn’t it suppressed by them altogether? Actually, the very habit of referring to the advices discussed here as consilia – a habit followed by me for convenience’s sake – might prejudice our interpretation. Consilium is the technical term, indeed, for a legal advice solicited by a tribunal or by one of the parties in a trial: Gar- cia y Garcia, ‘Faculties of law’, 396. But consilia are one genre only among many, and our 78 KOEN GOUDRIAAN been determined by later considerations – whatever they may have been – of the interested party (the Devout). It does not reflect a judicial dossier. Apart from the composition of the ‘dossier’, also the date proposed by Van Engen for the trial in which it had to serve is a stumbling block for his hypothesis. He assigns Eylard Schoeneveld the role of the protagonist in this trial, on the basis of the excerpts of his Acta as contained in texts A and B. This becomes problematic as soon as we accept Raley’s redating of Eylard’s action. If Eylard was not appointed inquisitor before 1399, his Acta cannot refer to an investigation which was under way already – say – in 1397.178 For a sequence of events leading from an initial inquisitorial investigation through a procedure before the episcopal court to the eventual blocking of the inquisitor our evidence is insufficient. Curiously enough, Raley accepts the episcopal trial as proposed by Van Engen without comment; he fails to draw the necessary conclusion from his own results with respect to Schoene veld.179 In fact, we do not know whether a trial ever took place. From the start, the imperfect correspondence between the issues raised in the consilia and those in the Acta Inquisitionis should have been a counterindication against connect- ing them to the same event. Points shared by the two categories of documents are the reading of Scripture in the vernacular, the practice of fraternal correp- tion between the Devout of a specific congregation, and in general their common life style, including the following of a collective ritual. They are outnum- bered, however, by the series of specific complaints included in the Acta which are not covered at all by the consilia. These include the secrecy with respect to the house ordinance, the supposed infringement of the priestly monopoly on sacramental confession as well as the violation of its secrecy, the rejection of part of the priestly personnel, the assumption of a pastoral role vis-à-vis outsiders, the treatment of run-away sisters as apostates, and the supra-local role played by the head martha. The seven questions on which the consilia are based do not discuss issues such as the relationship of the congregations to the local clergy, role division between the two genders or the lawfulness of an overarch- ing organization. Apart from this, the points raised in the consilia are general and do not specifically relate to the city of Utrecht and its surroundings. One advice is introduced even by a reference to the whole of the ecclesiastical province of Cologne.180

advices are indicated by other terms: scriptum (headings in the edition by Fredericq, who follows manuscript The Hague, RL 70 H 78); scripta causa consilii (in the 1401 approbation decree by bishop Frederick: Schoengen, Narratio, 512); determinatio (in the comment added to inquisitorial text B: Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 114 p. 182); determinaciones, declaraciones et diffiniciones (in the authentication of some of the advices by Pierre d’Ailly in 1413: Schoengen, Narratio, 502). 178 As John Van Engen implies, Sisters, 103-107. 179 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 58; 90. 180 Fredericq, Corpus, II nr. 111 p. 169: ‘in provincia Coloniensi’. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 79

Discontinuous opposition

If we now summarize our findings with respect to the historical incidence of the opposition against the Devout during the 1390s, the result is as follows:

(a) The Carthusian prior of Arnheim criticized the congregations of Werim- boldus in Utrecht and Rhenen specifically. His intervention targeted their communal way of life. It antedated Eylard’s 1399 investigation, but with how many years, we cannot tell. (b) The Brethren in Deventer suffered defamation by unknown detractors, on the basis of older constitutions contained in the Clementines and the Extravagantes, implying the suspicion of heresy and disobedience to ecclesiastical authorities. This was rebutted by a group of Windesheim canons in spring 1395. (c) The bishop had to deal with certain controversiae, alluded to in the notarized copy of the bull Racio recta acquired in Rome by Gerard van Bronk- horst, 19 July 1395. These controversies arose intermittently and were handled both in and out of court. Probably they circled around the suspicion of heresy; their incidence my have been the Holland – Utrecht region. (d) In his sermons and writings, an unknown but subordinate member of the diocesan clergy attacked the devout communities generally, branding them as ‘Beguines’ and therefore subsumed under Cum de quibusdam. They were answered by Evert Foec with reference, among others, to Racio recta. Possibly, this opposition just illustrates the aforementioned controversies. (e) Eventually, the Devout feared a more formal attack by inquisitors against their communities on the basis of Sancta Romana, Ad nostrum and a recent bull which probably is Ex iniuncto II. It was this threat that gave the occasion for the consilium by the anonymous devout. Forebodings of this same threat may be reflected in the advices by Foec (his second one), Arnold of Dikninge and the jurists responsible for the first Cologne consilium. The question at stake was the devout way of life in community. The common line of defense chosen by the jurists was that no heresy was involved and that for that reason the inquisitors were not competent. Some of these consilia are dated December 1397 and January 1398. We have no evidence that the procedure actually was started. Though the episode left no trace in later Modern Devout historiography, the fact that they took the trouble and undertook the costs to procure the consilia, proves that they considered the situation as serious. (f) Finally, complaints were filed by several apostate sisters to the attention of Eylard Schoeneveld, papal inquisitor for the region corresponding to the Dominican province of Saxony. Eylard conducted an inquiry among the communities in Utrecht and vicinity which were under the guidance of Werimboldus. Though Devout leaders from various regions cooperated and their movement was quickly gaining in cohesion, the documents do not contain any indication that Eylard’s inquiry concerned the Brethren 80 KOEN GOUDRIAAN

and Sisters of the Common Life outside the Utrecht area. The extrapolation of Eylard’s findings to the whole movement of the New Devout was made afterwards only, perhaps by Hinrich Schoeneveld.

In retrospect, Eylard may have based himself on the severe bull Sedis apos tolicae providentia of Boniface IX; it might as well be that a later inquisitor, such as Jakob of Soest, was responsible for this reinterpretation. This bull accumulated the weight of all preceding bulls to be brought to bear against the ‘Lollards, Beghards and Swestriones’ of the German Empire. It contained the phrase that under the outward appearance of the devout always various kinds of heresies had been hidden, a clause which enabled inquisitors to circumvent the objection of the Devout that the inquisition was not competent because only lifestyle and not heresy was at stake. Eylard’s intervention was the only one which made a lasting impression. The threat caused by his presence in Utrecht was great enough to induce Werimboldus to call in the help of Florentius Radewijnsz.181 We may infer from all of this that the opposition against the Devout was discontinuous and that each time they organized their defence on an ad hoc basis. At first, the key issue appears to have been the association of the Devout by some of their critics with the Beguines and, concomitantly, the suspicion that they were guilty of heresy. As the common life was introduced during the 1390s in more and more congregations,182 the centre of gravity of the criticism shifted to the communal lifestyle of the Devout. In the end, however, the focus was redirected towards the issue of heresy by appealing to Sedis apostolicae providentia, which enlarged the scope for investigation by the inquisitors. Whether Eylard himself already applied that device, we cannot tell. The conclusion that we are not confronted with one concerted attack but rather with a series of disconnected moments of opposition, is in basic agree- ment with Raley’s findings. But when he formulates: ‘On multiple occasions during the 1390s, papal inquisitors investigated accusations leveled against the Modern Devout’, we must disagree.183 Partly, of course, this is the consequence of our rejection of his doubling of the inquisitorial investigation against the Sisters at Utrecht and Rhenen by disconnecting texts A and B. As it appears now, out of six identifiable incidents, two only (the last ones) staged one or more inquisitors, and in one of these occasions the scope was at best regional. Scaring though these incidents may have been, it is not warranted to characterize the actions of the inquisition as ‘multiple’. The heroism of the Devout in the defense of their lifestyle has to be reduced to an appropriate size. The historiographical reasons for this reduction has been outlined in the first part of this contribution.

181 Dier, ‘Scriptum’, 29-30. 182 Van Luijk, Bruiden van Christus, 46-50. 183 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 58; see also 62; 67; 71. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 81

Approbation

In his second consilium Evert Foec passed in review a series of papal constitutions, the last of which was Ex iniuncto by pope Gregory XI (1374). His task in doing so was to answer the first question submitted to him, whether it was admis- sible for people extra religionem (without taking orders) to live together from their possessions, if they had any, and from the work of their hands. Though he declared these constitutions to be a sufficient basis for their lawful existence, he nevertheless advised the ‘poor women’ to be so cautious as to submit their congregation to the judgment of the bishop for approval. By doing so they would arm themselves against those who had a different opinion and avoid becoming a stumbling block for other people and an occasion for defamation.184 Foec’s advice is undated. Because of its connection with the advice given by the abbot of Dikninge and the first Cologne consilium, it must have been formulated late in 1397. The interesting point is that the bishop had already given his consent to individual communities long before that date. One of these communities was the sisterhouse in Utrecht in which Werimboldus served as confessor and which was to become St Caecilia’s convent. The document containing the licence of the bishop, dated 15 June 1394, has gone unnoticed so far. It was edited by A. Matthaeus early in the eighteenth century, not among the sources concerning St Caecilia’s, but among those pertaining to St Barbara’s Hospital.185 In these early days the sisters had assumed the duty of nursing the ill in this hospital. Thirteen names of members of the community are given, headed by Aleydis Cluten. The bishop grants them special licence to live together according to the conditions of Ex iniuncto I, which are quoted in full. In addition, they receive an indulgence of forty days as a stimulus for continuing their care for the sick in the hospital. Bishop Frederick of Blankenheim gave his permission to the Utrecht sisters shortly after his contested election to the Utrecht see had been confirmed by the pope.186 Before changing to Utrecht, he had been bishop of Strasbourg, and in that capacity he had won a certain renown for actions undertaken against Beguines suspected of heresy.187 It is not probable, therefore, that the favour he showed towards Werimboldus’s sisters reflects ingenuousness in his dealings with religious congregations in his new diocese. We can surmise – though we cannot prove it – that in 1394 he consulted Evert Foec on the matter. Though Foec had sided with Frederick’s opponent during the election campaign, this did not prevent him from regaining his position of influence at the bishop’s court as

184 Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 109 p. 162: ‘propter quorumdam opiniones in hac materia diversi modi suspirancium et ne dicte pauperes aliis sint lapis offensionis et occasio detractionis, utinam si quid saperem ad cautele studium, consulerem ipsis ut ab episcopo Traiectensi simul habitandi et in communi vivendi licenciam studeant impetrare’. Cp. Fredericq, Geschiedenis der inquisitie, 155-156. For the importance of this advice see John Van Engen, Sisters, 116. 185 Matthaeus, Fundationes et fata, 303-304. 186 Election 23 April 1393; confirmation 7 July 1393. 187 Lerner, Heresy of the Free Spirit, 99 (for ‘Blankenstein’ read ‘Blankenheim’). 82 KOEN GOUDRIAAN soon as the matter had been settled.188 In any case, the juridical solution applied to St Caecilia’s convent coincides fully with the advice given by Foec a few years later to the Devout generally in his answer to the first question, as well as with the base he then proposed for their legitimate existence. And in his first consilium, as we saw, he had expressly vindicated the bishop’s authority in deal- ing with the Devout.189 This early permission granted to Werimboldus’s sisterhood calls for some comment. Now that an early date for the attack contained in texts A and B (Fredericq, Corpus II nrs. 106 and 114) has been ruled out, we have no ground for supposing that the express permission given by the bishop in 1394 was a reaction to an inquisitorial procedure. No doubt, the Utrecht sisterhood pro- voked opposition from certain corners already in 1394, which made a request for approval to the bishop desirable as a general measure of precaution. But no acute danger was involved. That danger did come later, when apostate sisters denounced Werimboldus and his sisterhood to the newly appointed inquisitor for Saxony. On that occasion, not even the bishop’s consent proved to be a guarantee against attacks. Frederick’s intervention of 1394 in favour of the Utrecht sisters was not even the first one of this kind. In 1385, already, his predecessor Florentius of Weve- linchoven had ordered his subordinates to admit semi-religious to the sacra- ments if an investigation of their orthodoxy had turned out positively. He, too, based himself on Ex iniuncto I. This appears from a document to which Florence Koorn has drawn attention in 1992.190 Nor was the legalization of the Utrecht sisterhood in 1394 according to Ex iniuncto I to be the last one. On 19 January 1395, a newly founded community of male devout on the Neme lerberg outside Zwolle, which consisted of four clerics and fifteen lay people, had its existence formalized as a group of people who wished to live in poverty, chastity and obedience to the Roman Church in conformity with pope Gregory XI’s constitution.191 On 15 February 1398 bishop Frederick of Blankenheim awarded ecclesiastical liberty to the possessions of the Florentius’ House in Deventer, which amounted to an official recognition.192 During the summer and autumn of this same year 1398 Florentius Rade wijnsz and Werimboldus of Buscop, as well as several other leading figures among the Brethren of the Common Life, were occupied by – what they called – a magnum negotium. This affair is reflected in the well-known Amersfoort letters.193 The letters are a moving testimony to the mood of despair which

188 Van den Hoven van Genderen, ‘Evert Foec’, 72. 189 Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 110. 190 Koorn, ‘Hollandse nuchterheid?’, 106; Hildo van Engen, Derde orde, 87. 191 Weiler, Volgens de norm, 56. The Nemelerberg later became the site of the monastery of Mons Sancte Agnetis, of which Thomas a Kempis was an inmate. 192 Hofman, ‘Broeders van ’t gemeene leven’, 246-247; Van der Wansem, Broederschap, 182. Cp. Hildo van Engen, Derde orde, 102-103. 193 Reedited by John Van Engen, ‘Epistolae Fratrum’ in: Staubach, Kirchenreform von unten, 143- 161, with the correction of the order of appearance argued by Staubach, in: idem, Kirchenreform THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 83 gradually seized those involved, against the gloomy background of a raging outbreak of the plague. But they remain almost silent about the topic at stake. Somehow this must have been related to the recognition of their status. But the only concrete point mentioned is the licence to have oratories of their own. Nevertheless, shortly afterwards the series of incidental approbations was crowned by two privileges of a more general nature: the licence accorded by the pope to the Tertiaries of the diocese of Utrecht in 1399 and the episcopal approbation for the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life awarded in 1401. The western wing of the Brethren (and Sisters) adopted Tertiary status, a decision which was taken at a meeting in Amersfoort during Easter 1399; Werim- boldus was present at that meeting, but Florentius was not. The bull in favour of the Tertiaries, Ad ea quae divini cultus (26 September 1399), was not an approbation of the Tertiary status as such: recognition of the Third Order of St Francis went as far back as 1289 (bull Supra montem). Basically, the bull con- ceded the Utrecht Tertiaries to have oratories of their own. This was comple- mented early in 1401 by another bull, Hiis quae divini cultus, which permitted them to build a diocesan supra-local organisation, the future Chapter of Utre- cht.194 The 1399 bull does not contain any reference to the legal documents of the preceding decade. Near the end, the pope enjoins the bishop to protect the brethren and sisters of the Third Order against those who would venture to harass them.195 Probably, this refers to quibbles from the side of the parochial clergy, which was likely to see the erection of oratories and the concomitant detachment of the houses of Tertiaries from their parishes as a loss of authority and income. For a link between the threat of persecution by the inquisitor and the adoption of the Third Rule of St Francis the bull Ad ea quae divini cultus gives no clue. The chronology established now for the intervention of Eylard Schoeneveld in Utrecht and surroundings precludes a causal relationship between his action and the choice for Tertiary status. In its turn, the approbation decree of bishop Frederick of Blankenheim in favour of the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life (30 April 1401)196 makes no mention of opposition, let alone of inquisitorial intervention. The bishop may have had good reasons to be silent about activities within his diocese which threatened to undermine his authority. In his reinsurance that he was prepared to safeguard the ‘peace and tranquillity’197 of the Devout, tran- spires some awareness of the fact that their position might be challenged. How- ever, he does refer explicitly to the advice solicited from ‘doctors and licentiates

von unten, 162-164, and the analyses by Mertens, ‘Zerbolts letzter Sommer’ in: Staubach, Kirchen reform von unten, 120-142, and Hildo van Engen, Derde orde, 95-99; 103-105. 194 Wadding, Annales Minorum, IX, p. 569–570, nr. 44. 195 ‘Quocirca venerabili fratri nostro episcopo Traiectensi per apostolica scripta mandamus, quate- nus […] nec ipsos in premissis quomodolibet molestare permittat…’. 196 See note 8. 197 ‘pacem et tranquillitatem’. 84 KOEN GOUDRIAAN in Roman and canon law’.198 The text reads as a continuous chain of quotations from the consilia. Its main reference is, again, to Gregory XI’s 1374 bull Ex iniuncto. The policy of the authorities and the Devout during the 1390s to base the legal existence of individual houses on this bull is here brought to its logical conclusion. The episcopal decree is the culmination of the legal work done in the preceding decade, not only by the jurists who formulated their consilia, but also by Gerard Zerbolt.199

Epilogue

In the preceding, Raley’s revised chronology of the inquisitorial investigation by Eylard Schoeneveld of the devout congregations in Utrecht and vicinity has been supplemented by an argument that his investigation has to be disconnected from the legal consilia formulated in the late 1390s on the basis of the discrepancies between the contents of the two categories of sources. These results make it difficult to assign Eylard’s activities their logical place in the chain of events occurring in the years preceding 1400. Two important developments which have often been explained as reactions to the threat of his inquisition now prove to have antedated it: the lobby by the Brethren for the magnum negotium during the summer and autumn of 1398, and the Easter meeting at Amersfoort in 1399 during which part of the Brethren decided in favour of a transfer to the Tertiary status. A causal relationship between the latter event and the actions of the inquisition had been postulated for instance by Post: ‘Several (of those present at Amersfoort) wished to comply with the inquisitor’s demands by adopting the Third Rule of St Francis.’200 And in the third chapter of his Sisters and Broth ers of the Common Life201 John Van Engen arranges his argument systemati- cally into a causal nexus which leads from suspicion to inquisition and the eliciting of consilia by the Devout as a counter strategy, the initiation of a trial by Eylard before the bishop’s court, his blocking at that same court202 and the final decision of the bishop in favour of those Brethren and Sisters who continued leading a life without vow or ecclesiastically approved rule. In his view, the episode, thus reconstructed, was fundamental for the direction the movement was to take. The episcopal privilege of April 1401 ‘was effectively the foundation privilege for the Modern-Day Devout, and never rescinded, though challenged, and more than once’.203

198 ‘legum et decretorum doctoribus et licenciatis’. 199 For his role see the contributions by John Van Engen and Nikolaus Staubach in Staubach, Kirchenreform von unten. 200 Post, Modern Devotion, 287. 201 John Van Engen, Sisters, 84-118. 202 This notion of a trial is accepted without comment by Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 90. 203 In passing, Van Engen narrows down the Devotio Moderna to the Brethren and Sisters, excluding (the Tertiaries and) the monastic branch represented by the Chapters of Windesheim THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 85

In contrast, the interpretation proposed in the present contribution prefers not to assume a linear development from threat via defense towards protection by a legally defined statute. The process was much more erratic than that. The opposition was discontinuous: it came from diverse angles, often was confined to specific localities and did not have the character of a concerted attack. The way Fredericq assembled and presented his evidence for this opposition has made it look more massive than it really was. There is no basis for the conclusion that ‘during the 1390s, the Modern Devout faced the ever-present threat of an inquisition’.204 As far as we can tell, the actual interventions of the inquisition constituted a short and late episode only in a series of events. This does not alter the fact that the Devout felt uneasy about their position. Like Geert Grote, his successors in the next generation were very sensitive about the resistance their movement might provoke. Evert Foec’s advice to seek regulation of their status in conformity with the bishop in order to avoid scandal, was not lost on them.205 But it is important to observe that within his extensive consilium Foec formulated this particular advice not in response to the seventh question (on the competence of the inquisition) but at the end of his answer to the first question (about the lawfulness of living together extra religionem). It is doubtful whether the Devout have ever been in real danger during the 1390s. The opposition against their movement was counterbalanced – to say the least – by the fact that the bishop was in favour of them from an early moment. And the magnitude of the concessions they acquired in the end, both in the papal and the episcopal privileges, is not easily overestimated, whether or not they can be equated to the magnum negotium of the Amersfoort letters. The licence to have oratories of their own sanctioned their communal life and defined their relationship to the parochial clergy. The permission to organize themselves on a supra-local basis given to the Tertiaries by the 1401 bull brought them an important step nearer to the status of a new order. This even the pope in distant Rome must have realised. These successes were enormous, and put the counterattack by Eylard in the shadow. They prove the strength of the network of high ecclesiasticals and ‘learned acquaintances’206 that worked in favour of the Devout. And the charters into which their way of life crystallized were as much the expression of their own aspirations as the result of incentives coming from the outside world.

and Sion. He is followed in this by Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 57. This is not the place to go into the details of the grave consequences this changed definition of Devotio Moderna would have. I prefer to stick to the original circumscription given by John Busch (Chronicon Windeshe mense ed.Grube, 246), which extends the term to – at least – the Regular Canons and Canonesses, the Tertiaries and the Brethren and Sisters: Goudriaan, ‘Derde orde’. 204 Raley, ‘Revised Chronology’, 90. 205 Fredericq, Corpus II nr. 109 p. 162; above note 184. John Van Engen, Sisters, 116, agrees on the importance of exactly Foec’s advice. 206 Hildo van Engen, Derde orde, 405-409. 86 KOEN GOUDRIAAN

Sources and Literature

Sources Unedited207 Het Utrecht Archief, St. Agnietenklooster inv. 31: statutes of the sisterhouse at Rhenen. Westfries Archief, Old Town Archive of Hoorn inv. 770: vidimus by Jan de Weent of the notarized copy on behalf of Gerard of Bronckhorst d.d. 19 July 1395. Wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek Soest nr. 14b, f. 98v-100r: Acts of the Inquisition (“text A”).

Edited Amersfoort Letters: see Engen, John Van Arnold Willemsz, Consilium, see Korth, ‘Die ältesten Gutachten’; Fredericq, Corpus. Brandsma, Titus, ‘Twee berijmde levens van Geert Groote’, Ons Geestelijk Erf 16 (1942) 5-51 Busch, Johannes, Chronicon Windeshemense und Liber de reformatione monasterio rum, ed. Karl Grube (Halle 1886). Cologne consilia: see Fredericq, Corpus. Dier, Rudolf., ‘Scriptum de magistro Gherardo Grote, domino Florencio et multis aliis devotis fratribus’ in: G. Dumbar, Analecta seu vetera aliquot scripta inedita I (Deventer 1719) 1-87. Dijk, R.Th.M. van, Salome Sticken (1369-1449) en de oorsprong van de Moderne Devotie (Hilversum 2015). With the assistance of Rijcklof Hofman and with a first critical edition of the Statuten van het Meester Geertshuis by Marinus van den Berg. Engen, John Van, ‘Epistolae Fratrum’ in: Staubach, Kirchenreform von unten, 143-161: Amersfoort Letters. Foec, Evert: see Fredericq, Corpus. Fredericq, Paul, Corpus documentorum inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis Neerlandi cae. Verzameling van stukken betreffende de pauselijke en bisschoppelijke inquisitie in de Nederlanden. V volumes (Ghent 1889-1896). I nr. 171: bull Cum de quibusdam (1311/ 1317) I nr. 172: bull Ad nostrum (1311/ 1317) I nr. 220: bull Ex iniuncto I (1374) I nr. 239: bull Ex iniuncto II (1394) I nr. 241: bull Sedis apostolicae providentia (1396, read 1395) II nr. 44: bull Racio recta (1318) II nr. 106: Acts of the Inquisition (“text A”) II nr. 107: notarial deed by members of the Chapter of Windesheim, 19 March 1395 II nr. 109: second consilium by Evert Foec II nr. 110: first consilium by Evert Foec II nr. 111: anonymous consilium II nr. 112: consilium by Arnold Willemsz, long version II nr. 113: summary of Cologne consilia II nr. 114: Acts of the Inquisition (“text B”)

207 Only unedited sources I have consulted personally. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 87

Friedberg, Aemilius ed., Corpus iuris canonici II (Leipzig 1881) p. 1169: bull Cum de quibusdam (1311/ 137) p. 1183-1184: bull Ad nostrum (1311/ 1317) p. 1213-1214: bull Sancta Romana (1317) p. 1279-1280: bull Racio recta (1318) Gerardi Magni Epistolae, ed. W. Mulder (Antwerp 1933). Hofman, J.H. ‘De broeders van ’t gemeene leven en de Windesheimsche klooster- vereeniging I’, Archief Aartsbisdom Utrecht 2 (1875) 217-275. P. 225-229: notarial deed by Windesheim canons, dated 19 March 1395. Kok, David de Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Klarissen en Tertiaris sen vóór de Hervorming (Utrecht 1927) 169-170: bull Ad ea quae divini cultus (1399). Korth, L. ‘Die ältesten Gutachten über die Bruderschaft des gemeinsamen Lebens’, Mitteilungen aus dem Stadtarchiv von Köln 5 (1888) 1-27. P. 14-17: consilium by Arnold Willemsz. Matthaeus, A., Fundationes et fata ecclesiarum (Leiden 1704) 289: excerpt from an ‘anniversarius’ of St Caecilia’s convent. Mosheim, J.L. De beghardis et beguinabus commentarius, ed. by G.H. Martini (Leipzig 1790) 443-450: Acts of the Inquisition (“text B”). Muller, Samuel Fzn, Geschiedenis der fundatiën beheerd door het college van regenten der vereenigde gods- en gasthuizen te Utrecht (Utrecht 1900) 7-16: statutes for St Caecilia’s sisterhouse at Utrecht (1392). Muther, Th. ‘Kölner Gutachten über die Brüder und Schwestern vom gemeinsamen Leben aus dem Jahre 1398’, Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte 5 (1866) 469-472: notarial deed dated 30 February 1398. Ribbeck, W., ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der römischen Inquisition in Deutschland während des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts’, Zeitschrift für vaterländische Geschichte und Alterthumskunde 46 (1888) 138-143: Acts of the Inquisition (“text A”). Schoengen, Michael, Jacobus Traiecti alias de Voecht. Narratio de inchoatione domus clericorum in Zwollis. Met akten en bescheiden betreffende dit fraterhuis. Werken Historisch Genootschap 3e serie 13 (Amsterdam 1908) 501-511: dossier compiled on behalf of Pierre d’Ailly. Thomas a Kempis, Chronicon Montis Sanctae Agnetis, in: M.I.Pohl (ed.), Thomae Hemerken a Kempis Opera Omnia VII (Freiburg im Breisgau 1922). Wadding, Lucas, Annales Minorum (Lyons 1625-1628) IX, p. 569–570, nr. 44: bull Hiis quae divini cultus (1401). Wansem, C. van der, Het ontstaan en de geschiedenis der Broederschap van het Gemene Leven tot 1400 (Louvain 1958) 188-192: charters on behalf of Floren- tius’ House d.d. 17 and 24 November 1396.

Literature Acquoy, J.G.R., Het klooster te Windesheim en zijn invloed. III Parts (Utrecht 1875- 1880). Arts, M., Het dubbelklooster Dikninge (Assen 1945). Backer, Chr. de, ‘De kartuize Monichusen bij Arnhem. Prosopografie samen met de regesten van de zopas ontdekte oorkondenschat’ in: J. de Grauwe (ed.), Historia et spiritualitas Cartusiensis (Destelbergen 1983) 69-156. 88 KOEN GOUDRIAAN

Beckmann, J.H., Studien zum Leben und literarischen Nachlass Jakobs von Soest O.P. (1360-1440) (Leipzig 1929). Bollmann, Anne M., Frauenleben und Frauenliteratur in der Devotio moderna. Volkssprachige Schwesternbücher in literarhistorischer Perspektive (doct. thesis Groningen 2004). Borne, Fidentius van den ‘Geert Groote en de Moderne Devotie in de geschiedenis van het middeleeuwse ordewezen’, Studia Catholica 16 (1940) 397-414; 17 (1941) 120-133; 197-209; 18 (1942) 19-40; 203-224. Brom, G., Romantiek en katholicisme in Nederland. II: Wetenschap en staatkunde (Gro- ningen – The Hague 1926). Engen, Hildo van, De derde orde van Sint-Franciscus in het middeleeuwse bisdom Utrecht. Een bijdrage tot de institutionele geschiedenis van de Moderne Devotie (Hilversum 2006). Engen, John Van ‘Devout Communities and Inquisitorial Orders: The Legal Defense of the New Devout’ in: Staubach, Kirchenreform von Unten, 44-101. Engen, John Van, Sisters and Brothers of the Common Life. The Devotio Moderna and the World of the Later Middle Ages (Philadelphia 2008). Fredericq, Paul, Geschiedenis der inquisitie in de Nederlanden II (Ghent and The Hague 1897). García y García, A. ‘The faculties of law’, in: H. de Ridder-Symoens (ed.), A History of the University in Europe I: Universities in the Middle Ages (Cambridge 1992) 388-408. Gerretsen, J.H., Florentius Radewijns (Nijmegen 1891). Goudriaan, Koen, ‘De derde orde als onderdeel van de Moderne Devotie’, Ons Gees telijk Erf 74 (2000) 9-32. Goudriaan, Koen, ‘The Devotio Moderna and Commemoration. The Case of St Marga- ret’s Convent in Gouda’, The Medieval Low Countries 2 (2015 [2016]) 109-154. Hyma, A., The Christian Renaissance. A History of the ‘Devotio Moderna’ (Grand Rapids 1924). Hoven van Genderen, A.J. van den, ‘Evert Foec (ca. 1345/50-1418), kanunnik, jurist en stichter van armenuitkeringen’ in: Utrechtse biografieën IV (Utrecht 1997) 71-76. Hoven van Genderen, A.J. van den, ‘Gerrit van Bronkhorst (1320/1340-1412), kanunnik en steunpilaar van de Moderne Devotie’ in: Utrechtse biografieën I (Utrecht [1994]) 31-34. Jelsma, A.J. ‘Doorwerking van de Moderne Devotie’ in: P. Bange a.o. (eds.), De door werking van de Moderne Devotie. Windesheim 1387-1987 (Hilversum 1988) 9-28. Jostes, Aloysia Elisabeth, Die Historisierung der Devotio Moderna im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. Verbandsbewußtsein und Selbstverständnis in der Windesheimer Kongregation (doctoral thesis Groningen 2007). Klausmann, Theo, Consuetudo consuetudine vincitur. Die Hausordnungen der Brüder vom gemeinsamen Leben im Bildungs- und Sozialisationsprogramm der Devotio moderna (Frankfurt am Main 2003). Klausmann, Theo, ‘Die ältesten Satzungen der Devotio moderna’ in: Staubach (ed.), Kirchenreform von unten, 24-43. Koorn, Florence W.J., ‘Hollandse nuchterheid? De houding van de Moderne Devoten tegenover vrouwenmystiek en -ascese’, Ons Geestelijk Erf 66 (1992) 97-114. Lambermond, C.H., ‘Geert Grote, zijn stichtingen en zijn bestrijders’, Studiën op Gods dienstig, Wetenschappelijk en Letterkundig Gebied 73 (1941) 187-200. THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 89

Lerner, R.E. The Heresy of the Free Spirit in the Later Middle Ages (Berkeley etc. 1972). Lesser, Bertram, Johannes Busch: Chronist der Devotio moderna. Werkstruktur, Über lieferung, Rezeption (Frankfurt 2005). Luijk, Madelon van, Bruiden van Christus. De tweede religieuze vrouwenbeweging in Leiden en Zwolle, 1380 tot 1580 (Zutphen 2004). Makowski, E. “A pernicious sort of woman”. Quasi-religious women and canon law yers in the later Middle Ages ( Washington 2005). Melker, Bas de, ‘Structuur en genese van het liber benefactorum van het kartuizer klooster bij Amsterdam’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 81 (1989) 1-28. Mertens, Th., ‘Zerbolts letzter Sommer. Die Amersfoorter Briefe aus dem Jahr 1398’ in: Staubach, Kirchenreform von unten, 120-142. Michael, B., Die mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Wissenschaftlichen Stadtbibliothek Soest (Wiesbaden 1990) Moll, W., Johannes Brugman en het leven en het godsdienstig leven onzer vaderen in de vijftiende eeuw, grotendeels volgens handschriften geschetst (Amsterdam 1854). Moll, W., Kerkgeschiedenis van Nederland vóór de Hervorming. II Parts in VI Volumes (Arnhem 1864-1867; Utrecht 1869-1871). Mosheim, J.L., De beghardis et beguinabus commentarius. Ed. by G.H. Martini (Leip- zig 1790) Patschovsky, A., ‘Zeugnisse des Inquisitors Hinrich Schoenvelt in einer Nicolaus- Eymericus-Handschrift’ in: S. Jenks a.o. (eds.), Vera lex historiae. Festschrift D. Kurze (Cologne etc. 1993) 247-275. Post, R.R., ‘De statuten van het Mr. Geertshuis’, Archief Aartsbisdom Utrecht 71 (1952) 1-46. Post, R.R., The Modern Devotion. Confrontation with Reformation and humanism (Leiden 1968). Raley, J. Michael, ‘A Revised Chronology for the Inquisitors of the Brothers and Sisters of the Common Life, ca. 1393-1409’, Ons Geestelijk Erf 83.1 (2012) 57-95. Rehm, G., Die Schwestern vom gemeinsamen Leben im nordwestlichen Deutschland. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Devotio moderna und des weiblichen Reli giosentums (Berlin 1985). Roelink, J., ‘Moderne Devotie en Reformatie’, Serta Historica II (Kampen 1970) 5-43. Schneider, K., Die lateinischen mittelalterlichen Handschriften I: Theologische Hand schriften (Wiesbaden 1967) 137-140. Scholtens, H.J.J., ‘Hendrik van Eger uit Kalkar en zijn kring’ in: A. Ampe (ed.), Dr. L. Reypens-Album (Antwerp 1964) 383-408. Staubach, Nikolaus Kirchenreform von unten. Gerhard Zerbolt von Zutphen und die Brüder vom gemeinsamen Leben (Frankfurt am Main etcetera 2004). Staubach, Nikolaus, ‘Zwischen Kloster und Welt? Die Stellung der Brüder vom gemeinsamen Leben in der spätmittelalterlichen Gesellschaft. Mit einem Anhang: Neue Quellen zum Grabow-Konflikt’ in: idem, Kirchenreform von unten, 368-426. Tollebeek, Jo, Writing the Inquisition in Europe and America. The correspondence between Henry Charles Lea and Paul Fredericq (Brussels 2004). Ullmann, C., Reformatoren vor der Reformation (Gotha 1866). Warnar, G., ‘Tleven ons heren Jhesu Christi: Female readers and Dutch devotional literature in the fifteenth century’ in: M. van Dijk and R. Nip (eds.), Saints, scholars and politicians: gender as a tool in medieval studies (Turnhout 2005) 25-41. 90 KOEN GOUDRIAAN

Weiler, A.G., ‘Geert Grote en begijnen in de begintijd van de Moderne Devotie’, Ons Geestelijk Erf 69 (1995) 114-132. Weiler, Anton G., Volgens de norm van de vroege kerk. De geschiedenis van de huizen van de broeders van het Gemene leven in Nederland (Nijmegen 1997). Woude, S. van der, Johannes Busch. Windesheimer kloosterreformator en kroniek schrijver (Edam 1947).

Summary

This article investigates the opposition to the nascent Devotio Moderna during the last decade of the fourteenth century. Its main arguments are (1) that despite the fact that during two episodes inquisitors took some action against the new movement, opposition against the Devout as a whole was discontinuous and (2) that there was no linear development from opposition against the movement through legal defense towards ecclesiastical recognition, but that the process was rather erratic. This new analysis was occasioned, among other things, by the revised chronology of inquisitorial appoint- ments, published by Michael Raley in this same periodical (2012). As no new sources have become available recently, a fresh start can be made only by a preliminary analysis of the paradigm of ‘threat and protection’ dominating scholarship on this episode: threat of the Brethren and Sisters by the mendicants and protection of them by the regular canons of Windesheim. The first two sections of the article, therefore, analyse the vagaries of the debate conducted since the middle of the nineteenth century concerning the New Devout and their enemies at the turn of the fifteenth century. The initial stages of this debate were influenced by confessional loyalties, with liberal Protestants in the forefront and Catholics reacting against them. Factors playing a role were the tendency of historians such as Moll to consider the Devout, and especially those living together without vows, as the progressive and ‘national’ forces in late medieval history, as opposed to the ‘reactionary’ mendicants, and the connection that could easily be made between the members of the mendicant orders and the inquisition. A congenial witness was found in Johannes Busch, the great historian of the Devotio Moderna. Busch construed three episodes in the life of Geert Grote in such a way that they underscored the aforementioned ‘threat and protection’ paradigm. In two separate stages of the modern debate, Van den Borne (1940-42) and Lesser (2005) have contributed to the deconstruction of the ‘myth of Windesheim’. In the present article, this line of inquiry has been pursued further. As it appears now, the paradigm of ‘threat and protection’ started early in Modern Devout circles, indeed: in the 1420s. But it cannot be found before. In the remainder of the article, the sources contemporaneous to the events of the 1390s are studied. They fall apart in two categories, the Acts of the Inquisition and the consilia (legal advices). Though the two types of documents have been included together in Fredericq’s Corpus Inquisitionis, they are studied here separately. In the first category belong two documents (Fredericq II, 106 and 114), called here documents ‘A’ and ‘B’. They are analysed from the points of view of date, transmission, formal structure and content. Both documents consist of an original nucleus and a later addition, the first stemming from the original inquisitorial action itself. Analysis of the contents of these original parts suggests that they belong to the same incident, in which the sisterhouses of Utrecht and Rhenen were the target. This result partly contradicts the findings of Raley, who assigned document ‘A’ to an early date in THE MODERN DEVOUT AND THE INQUISITION 91 the 1390s, document ‘B’ to a late one, viz. summer 1399 at the earliest, because that is the date he found for the appointment of Eylard Schoneveld as inquisitor. It is proposed now that both documents emanated from the office of Eylard and so cannot be dated before mid-1399. This means that they postdate the consilia and also the magnum negotium of 1398 and the decision to adopt the Third Franciscan Rule of Easter 1399. Next, the legal advices (Fredericq II, 107-113 and some texts not included by Frede ricq) are studied one by one, with the focus on the clues they offer to the specific circumstances under which they were elicited. This results in the drawing up of a list of six separate moments of opposition, the last two of which involved the threat with resp. the reality of an inquisitorial investigation. One of the issues discussed in this section is the question whether, together, the consilia once constituted a ‘dossier’ serv- ing in a process before the bishop’s court. This has been suggested by John Van Engen in the third chapter of his Sisters and Brothers of the Common Life. The answer given is negative, because of the fact that they fit neither the content nor the date of the only inquisitorial procedure we have sure knowledge of. In the final section the approbation of the non-monastic branches of the Devotio Moderna is discussed briefly. Recognition of separate houses started already in the 1380s. It was crowned by the recognition of the transfer of an important number of houses to the Third Rule of Francis, followed by the foundation of the Chapter of Utrecht (1399-1401), and the licence to the sister- and brotherhood in 1401. The devout had succeeded in building up a good relationship with the hierarchy and in assembling a network of learned acquaintances. These counterbalanced, to say the least, the oppo- sitional forces such as the disfavour of the inquisitor. In the clauses of the approbations, some elements of the consilia reappear. Traces of the inquisitorial episode are absent.

Address of the author: Handweg 103, NL–1185 TV Amstelveen (Goudriaan50@gmail. com)