1

Sermon-Writing Women: Fifteenth-Century Vernacular Sermons from the Augustinian

Convent of Jericho in Brussels*

Patricia Stoop

Some 550 years ago, on December 8, 1459, Maria van Pee, canoness regular in the

Brussels convent Onze Lieve Vrouw ter Rosen gheplant in Jericho [Our Lady of the Rose

Planted in Jericho], decided to write down the sermon which she heard her confessor Jan

Storm deliver in the convent’s church. At that moment, she could not have expected that her

initiative would lay the foundation of a long and carefully maintained tradition, which had its

peak in the second half of the fifteenth century, and would endure until the beginning of the

eighteenth century. In this article, I intend to demonstrate how the Jericho sister scribes

handled the sermons they heard their confessors preach in order to preserve them, and how

they thereby designed a creative and collective “authorship” for themselves that was unusual

for the Middle Ages. This research also shows that previous scholars have misunderstood

how the canonesses must have worked. The sisters were not simply recording but re-

authoring these sermons, after interiorizing them to the point that they became part of their

thinking and consciousness and with that, the boundaries between the words by the priest and

their own absorption of them became indistinct. Therefore, the sisters’ contributions to the

sermons must be reconsidered. Before discussing the sisters’ role in the genesis of the Jericho

sermons and sermon collections, I will offer a brief introduction to the Brussels convent in

order to put the sermons and the people who were involved in writing them in their historical

context.

Our Lady of the Rose Planted in Jericho

2

Jericho was founded on May 10, 1456 through the direct intervention of the Duke of

Burgundy, Philip III the Good (1396–1467), and his wife Isabella of Portugal (1397–1472).1

In fact, the convent was the result of the merger of two communities: St. Catherine’s convent

of the White Sisters of the Order of St. Victor, which since approximately 1235 had been

situated just outside the first city walls at the Old Corn Market in Brussels, and the

Augustinian convent of Onze Lieve Vrouw Ter Cluysen [Our Lady of the Hermitage] in

Braine-l’Alleud, which since 1399 had been located in the Forêt de Soignes, some eighteen

miles south of Brussels.2 When the latter convent was destroyed in a fire as a result of a

stroke of lightning on April 5, 1456 (only the chapel survived), a new residence was needed

for the homeless sisters. St. Catherine’s convent was chosen. On September 17, 1456, the

sisters were officially installed, and several months later the new founding received its new

name: Monasterium Rose Beate Marie plantata in Jericho. In 1783, the long history of

Jericho came to its end: on March 17, the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II (1741–1790)

promulgated a decree abolishing over 160 contemplative cloisters in the Low Countries.

Jericho was one of them.

As were (virtually) all convents of canonesses regular in the Netherlands, Jericho was

within the direct sphere of influence of the Chapter of Windesheim, the monastic branch of

the devotio moderna, the influential reform movement in the late medieval Low Countries.3

Formally the convent was not a member of this umbrella organization of convents regular.

After 1437 the Chapter no longer accepted women’s convents: due to the massive increase of

women religious the organization did not have enough priests to provide pastoral care for the

women (cura monialium). Nevertheless Jericho inherited from its predecessor Ter Cluysen all

the privileges, permissions, and favors that were—or ever would be—adjudged to the

Windesheim Chapter ac si capitulo generali de Vindeshem incorporate essent (“as if they had

been incorporated in the General Chapter of Windesheim”).4 In this way, Jericho was able to

3

adopt the Chapter’s way of living, without belonging to it in the legal sense. In practice this

meant that the convent was supervised by the commissioners of the Chapter (who in the

second half of the fifteenth century usually were the priors of Onze Lieve Vrouw Ten Troon

[Our Lady of the Throne] in Grobbendonk, located about twenty miles east of Antwerp), and

it also meant that the rectors and inspecting priests (visitatores) belonged to various male

convents of Windesheim as well (for example Our Lady of the Throne, Groenendaal,

Rooklooster near Brussels, and Bethlehem near Louvain).5

Shortly after the foundation of Jericho in 1457, the talented canon Jan Storm was

appointed rector and confessor. In his own convent Ten Troon Storm was highly regarded for

his capacities as prior, as well as for his abilities as an illuminator of manuscripts.6 He was in

charge of Jericho for no less than thirty-two years, until his death on May 3, 1488. His

influence on the course of the new institution was enormous, and he was held in high regard

by the sisters, as is apparent from the fact that they preserved no less than 121 of his sermons.

The election of Maria van Pee as prioress in November 1465 was of major importance

for the convent as well. Maria was probably born in or shortly before 1435, the illegitimate

daughter of the knight Aert van Pee.7 In 1450 she took her vows in Ter Cluysen.

8 After Ter

Cluysen was closed, she was one of the sisters who came to Jericho. In 1459 she started

recording sermons she had heard Jan Storm deliver and she continued doing so until 1464.

Her way of writing—she wrote the sermons from memory—shows her large intellectual

capacities. That she must have written the sermons in her leisure time testifies to a

considerable spiritual diligence. Probably these very qualities made her the perfect prioress.

Maria governed the convent for fifteen years, until about 1482, when she was elected prioress

of the newly founded convent Mons Pacis [Mountain of Peace] in Breda, which today is

located in the southern part of the Netherlands. In this convent Maria celebrated her Jubilee,

or her fiftieth year in the order, in 1500. Undoubtedly as a result of her impressive record of

4

service—Maria had been in charge of a convent for over forty years—she was buried in front

of the high altar in the choir of Mons Pacis on December 31, 1511.9

Literary Production

Under the (spiritual) guidance of rector Jan Storm and prioress Maria van Pee, Jericho

produced a number of books. In the scriptorium, which had been refurbished in the autumn of

1466, some four or five scribes were active, and the sisters themselves produced a large

number of carefully written manuscripts (illuminated with pen drawings) for their own use,

most of them in the vernacular.10

Thirty-six manuscripts survive, thirty of them produced

before 1550.11

This collection of manusripts is the third largest from a medieval women’s

convent in the Low Countries12

and focuses on sermons in general and on convent sermons

(i.e. sermons preached by confessors in convents and written down by their female

inhabitants) in particular: fourteen manuscripts almost exclusively contain sermons, and eight

of these feature original convent sermons.13

No other religious community in the Low

Countries has preserved this number of vernacular sermons.

In addition to manuscripts for their own convent, the sisters quite often produced texts

and books for individual, prosperous lay patrons, as well as for religious persons and

institutions, generally during the daily time allotted for handicrafts. According to the

convent’s records, the sisters wrote for pay, and most likely on commission, as writing in the

Middle Ages was an extremely expensive venture. Although a description of this aspect of

the manuscript production in Jericho far exceeds the scope of this article, it should be noted

that the data on manuscript production in the convent’s archive are unusually detailed and

numerous and thus could add greatly to our knowledge about the production of books by

women’s convents, and, by extension, of the commercial aspects of late medieval writing

culture in general.14

5

Convent Sermons

The Jericho scribes attached great importance to recording their confessors’ spiritual

legacy, a fact witnessed by the large number of sermons they saved for posterity. As

mentioned before, Maria van Pee inaugurated this practice: she wrote down from memory as

many as seventy-seven of Jan Storm’s sermons, which were originally delivered in the period

between December 8, 1459 and December 27, 1464. These sermons are preserved in two

manuscripts. The first codex, MS. Brussels, Royal Library, 4367–68was completed in two

stages. The first part of the codex was finished on August 10, 1466 (fols. 5r–299r):

Hier ynden die sermoenen ons eerweerdeghen paters, welke ic van velen een weynich

vergadert hebbe tot mijns selfs orbore ende der gheendere dier in believen sal te

studeren. Ende sij waren volscreven int jaer ons heren M IIIIc ende LXVI op sinte

Laureis des gloriosen maerteleers dach voer vesperen (fol. 299r).

(Here end the sermons by our reverend father. From many [sermons] I have collected

a few to the benefit of myself and those who wish to study them. And they were

completed in the year of our Lord 1466 on the day of the holy martyr St. Laurence

before vespers).

The second part, which in addition to Storm’s sermons contains eight sermons by other

preachers, was completed on September 6, 1467 (fols. 300r–330v): “This book was

completed in year of our Lord 1467 on a Sunday, the sixth day of September)”

6

This colophon appears after the sermons by Jan Storm on fol. 299r. In the second

instance, Maria van Pee added eight more sermons by other father confessors to the

collection. This part was completed in 1467, according to the colophon on fol. 330v: “This

book was completed in year of our Lord 1467 on a Sunday, the sixth day of September” [Dit

boeck was volscreven int jaer ons heren doemen screef dusent vierhondert seven ende

tsestich des sesten daeghs in septembri op enen sondach]. The second manuscript, MS.

Brussels, Royal Library, IV 402, is a nearly exact copy of the first one and was completed in

1486:

Hier ynden die sermoenen ons eerweerdeghen paters welke ic van velen een weynich

vergadert hebbe tot mijns selfs orbore ende der gheendere dier in believen sal te

studeren. Ende sij waren volscreven int jaer ons heren M CCCC ende LXXXVI op den

XXIIII dach in mey dat doen was des heilichs sacrament avent” (fol. 319v).

(Here end the sermons by our reverend father. From many [sermons] I have collected

a few to the benefit of myself and those who wish to study them. And they were

completed in the year of our Lord 1486 on 24 May which was the day of the Blessed

Sacrament).

Maria set an example for her community, for several other sisters recorded their confessors’

sermons as well. Canonesses Barbara Cuyermans (d. 1507) and Elisabeth van Poylc (d.

1499), for instance, wrote down forty-one sermons, as well as four excerpts based on

preaching delivered in the convent by visiting priests (mostly of the Dominican and

Franciscan orders) in the period between 1466 and 1468 as well as 1474 and 1476. Lay sister

Mergriete van Steenberge (d. 1504) copied her sisters’ writings in MS. Ghent, University

7

Library, 902, the so-called “Jericho-collection,” before June 6, 1479.15

The manuscript

consists of two parts. The first part was completed in 1475, according to the colophon on fol.

106r: “May God be blessed forever. This was written on the octave of St Catherine’s feast in

the year of our Lord 1475. Pray that I may rest in peace and rejoice with her forever” [God sij

ghebenedijt ewijlijc. Dit es screven op sinte Katherine octave int jaer ons heren dusent CCCC

ende LXXV. Bid dat ic moet rusten in vreden ende met haer ewijlijc verblijden. Amen]. The

latter part was finished four years later (colophon on f. 255v): “This book was completed on

the eve of Holy Trinity in the year of our Lord 1479. May God be blessed and loved forever”

[Desen boeck es volscreven opden heileghen trinitijt avent inden jaer ons heren dusent CCCC

ende LXXIX. God sij gheloeft ende ghemint ewijlijck. Amen]. In the same period Janne Colijns

(d. 30 April 1491) copied the first of forty-four sermons Jan Storm preached between 1468

and 1474 in MS. Brussels, Royal Library, II 298, which was finished after Storm’s death in

1488 and her own, in 1507 according to the colophon on fol. 385r:16

“Desen boeck heeft ghescreven suster Janne Colijns in tijden die haer te goede hadde

moeghen werden ende sij bidt eenen yegheliken dier sijn profijt uut doen sal om haers

voer gode te ghedinckenne op dat haer ziele in rusten metten zalighen verblijden

moeghe. Sij begonsten in jaer ons heeren XVc ende VII op den XVIII

sten dach van

januario. Ende hij was uut opt selve jaer inden mey op den IXsten

dach, al soe wert hij

ghescreven binnen drie maent ende XXIII daghen. Deo gracias”

(This book has written sister Janne Colijns from times of which she might have

received some benefit, and she prays for anybody who will profit from remembering

her in front of God, so that her soul may rejoice in rest with the Blessed. She started it

in the year of our Lord 1507 on the eighteenth day of January, and it was finished in

8

the same year on 9 May. Therefore it was written within three months and twenty-

three days. Deo gracias).

The final collection of late medieval convent sermons, contained in MS. Brussels, Royal

Library, 4287, records twenty-five sermons preached by Paul van Someren (d. 1503) in 1479

and 1480, three anonymous sermons, and some short treatises. It was written by canoness

Anne Jordaens (d. 1495) between 1480 and 1495 (see the colophon on fol. 254v): “This book

has written sister Anne Joerdaens, bless her soul, and it belongs to the convent of Jericho at

St. Catherine’s [convent]” [Dit boeck heeft ghescreven suster Anne Joerdaens zalegher

ghedachten ende het hoert toe den cloester van Jericho bij sinte Katherinen].17

Although Van

Someren served the convent for only two years, the Jericho sisters were clearly keen on

preserving his sermons, undoubtedly because of his reputation. The heading of the first

sermon in MS. Brussels, Royal Library, 15130 (fol. 1r)—a precise copy from 1520–1550 of

the manuscript written by Anne Jordaens (without the anonymous sermons and the

treatises)—mentions that the priest was so enlightened that he was asked to preach in front of

the general chapter (annual meeting) of priors and rectors of the Windesheim congregation

convents. Thus in the period between the convent’s foundation in 1456 until 1550 four

different collections were written, containing over two hundred different sermons.18

Prologues

The large number of sermons is not the only reason why the sermon collections from

Jericho are extraordinary. More than is usual in sermon collections from other late medieval

convents in the Low Countries, the manuscripts offer us explicit data on the occasions of

preaching and the preachers and sermon-writing women who were involved. This

information can be found in colophons and in the headings of sermons. Even more unusual

9

are the four extensive prologues that precede the three Middle Dutch collections (the two

containing Jan Storm’s sermons by Maria van Pee and Janne Colijns, and the “Jericho-

collection”), and the seventeenth-century collection by Maria de la Folije (1622–1695).19 In

these prologues the sister scribes give detailed accounts of their contribution to the writing

and editing of the sermons and the composition of the manuscripts.

From Maria’s prologue (MS. Brussels, Royal Library, 4367–68, fols. 3r–4r), we learn

that she was responsible for the collection as it has been preserved: she “tried to compile the

following book from many collations which were preached in our house of God within five

years by a worthy priest who was our commissary and stood confessor to us” [soe hebic dit

navolgende boec ghepijnt te vergaderen uut veel collacien die in onsen godshuyse gepredict

sijn binnen vijf jaren van eenen weerdigen priester die ons commissarijs was ende

biechtvader bi ons stont]. Maria apologized for the fact that she only wrote down a certain

number of Storm’s sermons, conceding that this does not do justice to the effort that the

confessor made on behalf of the sisters, despite his many day-to-day worries. She also

lamented that she was unable to remember his sermons verbatim and merely tried to represent

their “bare sense” as accurately as possible:

Maer dat ic uuten gronde mijns herten beclage, es dat ic soe plomp van begripe ben dat ic

alle die scoene redenen ende auctorijteyten der heilegen welke hi in sinen sermoenen

alligeerde, niet en heb connen van woerde te woerde onthouden om te scriven soe hi se

schoen uutleide. Maer alleen soe heb ic den bloeten sin daer af ghepijnt te onthouden soe

ic naest conste (fol. 3v).

(But what I do lament from the bottom of my heart is that I am so dull in my wits that all

the beautiful reasonings, and the authorities of the saints which he adduced in his sermons,

10

I have not been able to retain word for word so as to write them down as he explained

them so beautifully. But I only tried to retain the bare sense of them as best I could.)

Additionally, she asked her readers to forgive her for her “dull-wittedness” [plompheit]

should they not approve of her rendering of the sermons, because she had not been able to

write everything as beautifully and as skillfully as it had been explained and preached.

Moreover, Maria indicated that she initially wrote down the sermons for her own benefit and

spiritual welfare, in order to assist her “dispersed thoughts” [vliteger ghedachten] by

rereading these sermons many times. In other words, she noted down the sermons in order to

be able to memorize them:

Hier om soe biddic eenen yegeliken die in dit boeck selen lesen dat sijt mijnre plompheit

vergeven als si die poenten op recht niet en vinden overgeset, want minen sinnen veel te

hoege was alle dingen soe schoene ende cuystelic te bescriven als sij uutgeleit ende

gepredict waren, noch oec voer gheen vermetelheit en houden dat ic mi bestaen hebbe des

ic op recht niet volbringen en mochte, want ict noyt en begonste om yemen daer met te

believen dan alleen tot mijns selfs orbore ende salicheit. Want ons heere in der evangelien,

sprekende “Salich sijnse die dat woert gods hoeren ende behouden” [Luke 11:28], heeft mi

dicke hier toe beweeght dit uut te worpen om mijnder vliteger ghedachten te hulpen soe

dat ict bi dicken overlesene onthouden mochte (fols. 3v–4r).

(Therefore I bid anyone who will read this book that they will forgive my dull-wittedness

if they do not find the points put across properly, because it was too high for my mind to

write everything as beautifully and as skillfully as they were explained and preached, and

that they will not take it as presumption that I started something which I could not

11

properly complete, because I never began it to please anyone, but only for my own

improvement and salvation. Because our Lord in the gospels, saying: “Blessed are they

that hear the word of God, and keep it” often moved me to express this, in order to help

my dispersed thoughts, so that by frequent re-reading I might retain it).

Only later did Maria make these sermons available to the convent community, so that, as she

puts it, “I may make use of the virtue of those who will profit from it, and that by those

women I may attain what is lacking through my own weakness” [ic ghenieten mach der

gheender dueght die hier haer profijt in doen selen ende dat ic bi haren vercrigen mach dat

mi uut mijns selfs crancheit ontbrect].

In the second prologue by Mergriete van Steenbergen to the “Jericho-collection” (fols.

1r–2r), we read similar comments. Mergriete mentioned that these sermons, like those in the

volume by Maria van Pee, were written down “from the preacher’s mouth” [uut der

predicaren monde] by sisters Barbara Cuyermans and Elizabeth van Poylc, who she says

were extremely clever and virtuous, and, moreover, blessed with a good memory. Mergriete

herself played only a modest role in the production of the manuscript: she collected part of

the sermons already written down; arranged them in accordance with the ecclesiastical

calendar, regardless of the order in which they had been delivered; and copied the

manuscript.20

The third prologue precedes the second volume of sermons by Jan Storm and was

written by Janne Colijns. She called herself the mere compiler of the volume: she collected a

number of sermons from diverse sources, mostly from scrolls, letters, and old quires in the

hand of the preacher:

12

Ic begheere oec dat nyement en meyne maer zeekerlijc weete dat ic, scriverse dees boecks,

dese weerdighe sermoenen som selve hoerende niet en hebben uutghecopiert, want dat en

is in der waerheit mijnre plomper verstennisse niet verleent myts dat ic leyder mijn yonghe

domheit tot selker gracien niet en hebbe bereyt. Maer ic hebse alleene vergadert eens deel

ende oec des meesten deel uuyt rollen, brieven ende ouden quaternen ghescreven metter

hant des selven predicaers (fols. 4v–5r).

(I also desire that no-one should assume, but should know for certain that I, the woman

who writes this book, did not copy out any of these worthy sermons from listening to them

myself, because in truth that is not granted to my dull understanding, considering that

unfortunately I did not prepare my young stupidity for such grace. But I merely gathered

them together, in part—and in the main part—from rolls, letters and old quires written by

the hand of the preacher himself).

Four other sermons had been copied out [uutghecopieert] by sister Barbara Cuyermans, who,

as we remember, was also referred to in the previous prologue by Mergriete van Steenbergen.

Janne Colijns emphasized again that more sermons were delivered than she was able to

collect.

The women not only reported what they did but also left no doubt about their

motivations. First of all, they wrote out of respect for their confessors in hope that, by doing

so, their work would not be lost; second, the canonesses’ own devotion was enhanced by

their acts of writing and reading; and third, they hoped to guarantee the salvation of their

souls by the fact that other sisters would be able to benefit from their industry.

The sisters showed great humility in relation to their writing: Maria and Janne

explicitly apologized for the fact that they were only able to write down or copy out a limited

13

number of the sermons delivered; moreover, they were also unable to write them down as

eloquently as Jan Storm had delivered them.21

Nevertheless, the sister scribes did not in fact

hide behind the preachers of these sermons. On the contrary, the sisters took over the

preachers’ roles and wrote in their name, as it were. This is apparent from the fact that the

preserved texts—generally speaking—do not look like notes or reports that were made

afterward, as one might expect. They are elaborate texts, which have been formulated from a

first person (“I” or “we”) perspective, from which the writers address a group of sisters as if

they were preaching directly to them in a liturgical context. The second sermon on the

occasion of the Feast of the Visitation in the collection by Janne Colijns (MS. Brussels, Royal

Library, II 298, fols. 212r–216v), for example, starts as follows:

“Unde hoc mihi ut veniat mater domini mei ad me?” Luce primo capitulo. “Waneer comt

my dat die moeder mijns heeren comt tot mij?” [Luke 1:43]. Van desen woerden soude ic

gheerne uut begheerten der sommighere wat segghen, ende oec ter werdicheit deser liever

feesten van onser alder moeder Marien, die als heden is opghegaen int gheberchte met

haesten, soe dat evangelium in hout soe ghi alle wel weet, mijn alder liefste kinderen.

Ende soe en is des van gheenen noede al te vertellen, maer ic herhale alleen dat woert

mijnre themen: Wanneer comt mij, dat die moeder mijns heeren comt tot mij (B.II

298/022, fol. 212r–212v; emphasis mine).

(“Unde hoc mihi ut veniat mater domini mei ad me?” Luce primo capitulo. “Whence is

this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” At the request of some I

would like to say some things about these words, and also in honour of this beloved feast

of all our mother Mary, who like today went into the hill country with haste, as the gospel

tells like you all know well. That is why it is not necessary to narrate it completely, but I

14

repeat only the word of my theme: “Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord

should come to me”).

As is apparent from the example, Janne wrote down the sermon as if it had been written by

Jan Storm. And so did the other sister scribes. Thus they arrogate to themselves the genre of

the written sermon, and gained some authority over the texts, which they reproduced,

although preaching itself was reserved for persons with higher ordinations, such as deacons,

priests and bishops, and therefore men. It is likely, however, that the priests must have known

of the sisters’ activities, as most written sermons were noted down and copied out during

their residence in the convent.

The convent sermons of Jericho show a participatory female authorship unusual for

the Middle Ages. We are dealing with educated, self-conscious (but modest) women who

play their own role in the creative writing process. Most likely, it is no coincidence that not

only Maria van Pee, but also Elisabeth van Poylc and Janne Colijns would be elected

prioresses later on. Barbara Cuyermans, the fourth sister who recorded sermons, did not

become prioress, but she was the writing mistress, and in that capacity she was probably

responsible for the convent’s writing production, which certainly included serving as liaison

with laity and other religious.22

Status questionis

In the last decades there has been much debate about whether these women actually

transcribed the sermons and, if so, how they did it. The German scholar Wolfgang Stammler

argued that women copied sermons out after hearing them, but he supposed the sermons

written by sisters would be rather corrupt and therefore should be approached with great

care.23

Paul-Gerhard Völker, however, found that the preserved sermons, which had been

15

noted down by listeners afterward, were not actually inferior to most authentic vernacular

treatises.24

He therefore supposed it was impossible for listeners to have written down

complete sermons, bringing forward two arguments: in the Middle Ages no stenography

system was available that would have made it possible to write along during the preaching.

Additionally, it is thought that the medieval art of memory was only suitable for retaining

written texts, not oral ones in which the subject and the argument were unknown to

listeners.25

Völker argued that the preachers themselves must have transformed their sermons

into written texts, especially because they would not have tolerated that their preaching—

which formed the center of spiritual life—would be put on paper in a corrupt form. Völker’s

ideas were adopted by such prominent scholars as Kurt Ruh and Hans-Jochen Schiewer.26

As

a result, in the German scholarly world the consensus was that sermons in general were

written down and expanded by the preachers themselves. Schiewer even argued that the

explicit data in manuscripts which stated that sisters with strong memories actually did write

sermons by their confessors should be distrusted: those statements were just a form of literary

imagery.27

In other words, the sermons copied by the canonesses were not reliable, and if the

sermons were reliable, they could not have been written by listeners.

In the Dutch-speaking world, scholars have also studied the question of how female

listeners could have written down sermons by their priests (so far as we know no convent

sermons have been written down by men).28

When considering this question, scholars have

restricted themselves to the external information in manuscripts and to the sisters’ own words

in the prologues.29

In my research, I thoroughly study the written sermons and subsequently

consider them in relation to the detailed information provided in the prologues. The central

question is: What is the contribution of the sisters to the textualization of the sermons and

sermon collections? As every manuscript has its own specific nature and style and therefore

makes the picture more complicated, discussing all of the collections in detail would have to

16

be the subject of a much longer study. However, the manuscripts as a group represent the

same general impulse. Therefore, I will use only the oldest sermon collection by Maria van

Pee as an example to present the most important results of my research, which demonstrates

how the sisters as a group designed the written versions of the sermons of their confessors,

and how they, in accomplishing that, had a considerably larger creative share in the texts than

has been assumed up to now.

Sermons by Maria van Pee

The average length of the sermons written down by Maria van Pee is three to three-

and-a-half folios (approximately two thousand words). Compared to the sermons in the other

collections, Maria’s texts are extremely short.30

Many of her sermons have a sober,

rudimentary form: generally speaking they consist of a number of points (divisiones), which

are related to the biblical pericope of the liturgical day, as is usual for (Middle Dutch)

sermons.31

The forty-fifth sermon in Brussels, Royal Library, 4367–68, fols. 170r–172r, for

example, is related to the feast of St. John the Baptist (June 24). Its theme is Psalms 8:5:

Minuisti eum paulo minus ab angelis gloria et honore coronasti eum [You have made them a

little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor]. The sermon’s focus is

on the crown that the Lord placed upon John’s head and especially on the precious stones on

it (these are the first six gemstones which according to Revelations 21:18–20 form the

foundation of the wall of the New Jerusalem: jasper, sapphire, chalcedony, emerald,

sardonyx, and sardius) and on the four pearls surrounding each gem. Each gem and pearl is

provided with a short, rather basic explanation: the jaspis for instance, stands for the state of

the angels, because John was called an angel in Matthew 11:10: “Behold, I send my

messenger before thy face.” This stone protects one from the devil, insanity, and labor pain.

The gems surrounding the jaspis stand for the four privileges of John: his birth was

17

proclaimed by Gabriel (Luke 1:13), his mother was visited by Jesus’s mother (Luke 1:39–

40), by Mary’s salutation he was filled by the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:41),32

and Elisabeth was

filled by the spirit of prophecy (Luke 1:42). Most of the time Maria thus confined herself

briefly to mentioning some quotations from the Bible and/or other auctoritates. Only now

and then are the elements of the divisio provided with exempla or anecdotes.

If we compare these sermons by Maria to what she relates in her prologue, we may

conclude that her texts meet the expectations she raised there.33

The sermons do give the

impression that they are no verbatim rendering of Storm’s preachings, but “only” the

reflection of their content, namely in the elements of the division. Maria’s inability “to write

everything as beautifully and as skillfully as it had been explained and preached” [alle dingen

soe schoene ende cuystelic te bescriven als sij uutgeleit ende gepredict waren], as she

explains is also evident from the preserved texts: in a number of sermons rationes and

auctoritates are lacking in parts of the division, and not all the sermons are worked out

consistently either. These elements also contribute to the impression that Maria van Pee wrote

sermons from memory.34

Additionally, the fact that Maria copied or recorded the sermons by her confessor

according to the instructions of the medieval art of memory (consciously or not), increases

the credibility of her claim in the prologue. Many treatises on the ars memorativa aim at

rehearsing written texts in preparation for a speech. The Brussels’ author Goswinus de Ryt (d.

1465), however, explained in the twelfth chapter of his Tractate de arte memorativa (1424)

how a text can be remembered after hearing it only once.35

As a strategy, Goswinus de Ryt

advised listeners to remember the coherence of the speech, but not every word of it [oportebit

omnium suarum coherenciarum et non numquam quorundam verborum habere memoriam].

This is possible by selecting five central points from each line of argument, and printing

these—by means of an image—in one’s mind [inscribende memorie].36

Goswinus de Ryt

18

cautions that it is important to try as hard as possible to distinguish the lines of thought from

the start: the listener who does not manage to do so will run into difficulties [et tota

difficultas, que in isto videtur accidere, non est alia, nisi que sepe non satis percipitur

coherenciarum distinctio].37

In order to remember the images and their most important words

and in order to fix them into memory properly, each should be repeated twice or thrice

afterwards. Goswinus’ Tractate de arte memorativa, thus, refutes the assumptions of modern

scholars that it is not possible for listeners to write down complete sermons after hearing

them only once. On the contrary, the treatise illustrates how the canonesses could have

retained the images and words heard and set them down in words. And even though it is

uncertain whether the Jericho sisters actually knew Goswinus’ treatise, the knowledge on

how to remember and reproduce spoken texts obviously circulated in the immediate

surroundings of the convent in the second half of the fifteenth century. Many of the sisters

may possibly have had access to his information, through the education they had before

entering the convent.

That Storm’s sermons were structured by means of images derived from pericopes

and other liturgical texts not only would have helped the preacher prepare his sermon, but

also it undoubtedly assisted Maria in writing down what she heard.38

The fact that the images

originate from text passages that recur regularly during the ecclesiastical year would have had

a strongly supportive effect. Due to their daily contact with these texts, conventuals must

have been so much acquainted with these texts and the images used in them that the latter

could function perfectly as memorial images. The combining of images with the divisio,

which formed the structure of the sermon (and which could be seen as an abstract variation

on the locus-principal), would have helped the sisters substantially to recall and interiorize

the outline of the sermons.

19

Memoria, however, was not only important for the recollection and reproduction of

texts; it played a substantial role in the composition (inventio) as well, serving as “a

construction machine for invention.”39

By engaging with texts in an intense, meditative way,

it was possible to interiorize them to the point that they became one’s own: they became part

of one’s thinking and consciousness and with that, the boundaries between “one’s own” and

“someone else’s” became blurred. This way of dealing with texts was very common in the

Middle Ages, as reading (lectio) was linked closely to meditation. Reading was not glancing

over a text, but a process of careful assimilation and reflection, until every word was

understood and could be stored in one’s memory. These interiorized words formed the basis

of meditation: by ruminating on and contemplating them over and over again one tried to

grasp the deeper sense of the words. The prologues to the sermon collections show that the

Jericho sister scribes aspired to such an intense way of dealing with the sermons. All three of

them use the term “study” [studeerne], and Mergriete van Steenbergen even states that she

copied many of the sermons “chewing this worthy food in daily ponderings and study” [dese

werdeghe spijse cuuwende in daecheliken voersiene ende studerende].

Many parts of Maria’s sermons are much more elaborate than previously mentioned in

this essay. In these cases the rationes are longer and developed in more detail. Not only the

outlines have been written down: the skeletons of the sermons have been furnished with more

“flesh.”40

In these passages, the sermons have been furnished with more extensive spiritual

explanations. If memoria is not just a skill for remembering texts and speeches, but also the

basis for the creation of new texts, we may assume that it played a significant role when

Maria recorded the sermons. Consequently, she may have worked out these more elaborate

passages herself. Through the rumination of the preaching of her confessor, who of course

provided the foundations for the writing, Maria and her sisters absorbed the content (i.e.

sentences, reasonings) as much as possible. Afterward, when they had interiorized the

20

elements by means of the images and the divisions in the sermons, they could write down the

texts in their own way.

Certainly Maria would have been helped with phrasing the sermons by her complete

familiarity with the preaching style of Jan Storm, as he had been delivering sermons to the

sisters on Sundays and other Holy days for many years (in any case in 1459–1464 and 1468–

1474, and most likely since his election as rector on October 25, 1457).41

Therefore, Maria

would have known very well which aspects of spiritual life her confessor emphasized.

Additionally, it should be borne in mind that Maria was an experienced canoness when she

started recording the sermons, as she had taken her vows already in 1450. She had been living

in the service of God for years and therefore must have been thoroughly well acquainted with

the religious life. She and her sisters strived for a daily contact with God through prayer,

meditation, and contemplation. It stands to reason that parts of the sermons that Maria

committed to paper would have stemmed from her own knowledge and from the natural

inspiration arising from this direct connection with God.

Conclusion

It is not very likely that Jan Storm helped Maria write down the sermons. After all,

she wrote them on her own initiative, first and foremost for “my own improvement and

salvation” [mijns selfs orbore ende salicheit].42

The women who followed Maria’s example,

however, wrote for the community from the very beginning and seem to have worked more

systematically. As a result, the sermons by Maria’s successors are strikingly more elaborate

and the reasoning much more sophisticated. The scribes seem to have worked together in

order to produce texts that could support and stimulate the sisters’ spiritual life: most likely,

the sermons were read during the meals.43

As most sermons were written down with the

approval of the confessors, it is quite conceivable that they gave some input as well: as

21

mentioned, Janne Colijns had some of Storm’s notes on scrolls, letters, and old quires at her

disposal.

Collaboration played a role in the genesis of the sermons written by Maria’s

successors; some aspects of teamwork can be found in her own collection as well. Its

prologue and colophon suggest that Maria was the actual copyist of the oldest manuscript in

which her sermons have been preserved. Subsequent codicological and paleographical

research has shown, however, that this is not true. A second, anonymous sister undertook the

physical effort of copying. She (or possibly Maria van Pee herself) abandoned the original

order of the sermons and arranged the texts according to the ecclesiastical year: the sermon

for Christmas 1459 was followed by sermons for Christmas in 1460, 1461, and 1462, and not

by the sermon for the feast of St. John the Evangelist on December 28, 1459, although

chronologically of course this sermon had been delivered earlier. In this way she created a

sermon book that could be used for reading in the refectory. After the sermons were put in the

“right order,” Maria’s anonymous assistant copied the texts. Now and then she made cross-

references between sermons (“as you have heard in the preceding sermon” [als ghi voer

ghehoort hebt in een ander sermoen]), and also some adjustments concerning content and

style. In this way, the sermons and the collections are the result of subtle teamwork by two

sisters, and it is not always clear who was responsible for which aspect of the work. Maria’s

sister remains hidden, as did the third sister who wrote the prologue to the collection in its

present form (she copied Maria’s prologue and added a short introduction to it). These

anonymous collaborators preserved the original prologue because Maria’s share was not only

the largest, but she also began the entire tradition of recording convent sermons. By her

initiative, the sermons of Jan Storm were put on paper. Additionally, the sisters who later

worked on the collection may have remained nameless out of respect for their sermon-writing

sister, who in the meantime had been chosen prioress.

22

The other Jericho collections show similar signs of editing, and for the most part the

actual copying of the manuscripts was done by anonymous scribes. Thus, an even more

complex authorship than one would expect lies hidden behind the sermon collections as they

have been preserved. In addition to the collective authorship of these texts, it is clear that

several women worked together intensively in the production of the manuscripts. The

collections definitely are the result of writing in close collaboration. It is striking that the

sisters who performed the later stages of the process—the collecting, arranging, and

copying—are usually anonymous (the fascinating exception is Mergriete van Steenbergen,

who explicitly claimed her role in the entire process). Apparently, they operate to support

their prioresses, most likely out of respect for the women who designed the sermons initially.

Even though they kept themselves humbly out of sight, they also had a significant role in the

collaborative process that produced the written sermons, one creatively developed from the

memory of the women who heard these sermons.

* I am very grateful to Virginia Blanton (University of Missouri-Kansas City), Bram Caers

(University of Antwerp), and Barbara Zimbalist (University of California Davis) for their

comments on an earlier version of this article.

1 Ursmer Berlière et al., Monasticon Belge (Maredsous: Abbaye de Maredsous, 1964), 1254;

Thom Mertens, “Ghostwriting Sisters. The Preservation of Dutch Sermons of Father

Confessors in the Fifteenth and the Early Sixteenth Century,” in Seeing and Knowing:

Women and Learning in Medieval Europe 1200–1500, ed. Anneke Mulder-Bakker

(Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 121–141, at 126. A detailed account on the history of the convent,

its inhabitants, the production of manuscripts and the sermons that were written down, can be

found in Patricia Stoop, Schrijven in commissie. De zusters uit het Brusselse klooster Jericho

en de preken van hun biechtvaders (ca. 1456–1510) (Hilversum: Verloren, [2012]).

23

2 Ursmer Berlière, Monasticon Belge, 1211–1213 and 1247–1250.

3 Some important publications on the Chapter of Windesheim, which was founded on the

Augustinian rule, are: Johannes Acquoy, Het klooster te Windesheim en zijn invloed (Utrecht:

Van der Post, 1875); Monasticon Windeshemense, ed. Wilhelm Kohl, Ernest Persoons and

Anton G. Weiler (Brussel: Archief- en Bibliotheekwezen in België, 1976–1984); R.Th.M.

van Dijk, De constituties der Windesheimse vrouwenkloosters vóór 1559 (Nijmegen:

Centrum voor Middeleeuwse Studies / Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, 1986); Windesheim

1395–1995. Klooster, teksten, invloeden. Voordrachten gehouden tijdens het internationale

congres ‘600 jaar Kapittel van Windesheim, 27 mei 1995 te Zwolle, ed. Anton J.

Hendrikman, Patty Bange, and Rudolf Th.M. van Dijk (Nijmegen: KUN, Centrum voor

Middeleeuwse Studies, 1996). A brief and recent survey of the Devotio moderna and the

various branches within this movement is Koen Goudriaan, “Een beweging met allure,” in

Vernieuwde innigheid. Over de Moderne Devotie, Geert Grote en Deventer, ed. Koen

Goudriaan (Nieuwegein: Arko, 2008), 53–77. For a short introduction in English, see Wybren

Scheepsma, Medieval Religious Women in the Low Countries. The Modern Devotion, the

Canonesses of Windesheim, and Their Writings (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004), 2–16.

4 On April 14, 1447, Pope Nicholas V (1447–1455) confirmed the decision of his predecessor

Eugenius IV (1431–1447) to give Ter Cluysen permission to accede to the Chapter of

Windesheim. Although an actual entry was not longer possible at that moment, Nicholas of

Cusa (1401–1464), cardinal of San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome and delegate of the pope,

granted the convent the same rights and privileges as the Chapter of Windesheim had.

5 No systematic research has been done so far on the relationships between women’s

convents that were associated with the Chapter of Windesheim. The canonesses of Jericho

certainly had connections with other male and female convents, especially in the immediate

surroundings, as is apparent because they wrote books for them (see the articles mentioned in

24

n14). These contacts, however, were not limited to other convents that belonged to the

Chapter, such as (among others) the Augustinian priories of Groenendaal, Zevenborren, and

Rooklooster near Brussels; the women even had connections with men and women religious

from other orders, such as, for instance, the Norbertine nuns of Leliëndaal in Hombeek near

Mechelen and the Dominican Friars of Brussels and Antwerp.

6 Jacobus Thomas Bosmans, Chronicon Throno-Martinianum (Bruges: Great Seminary,

without signature), 139. For more information on Storm, see: Ursmer Berlière, “Storm

(Jean),” in Biographie Nationale (Brussels: Thiry-van Buggenhoudt, 1926–1929 (vol. XXIV)),

92–93; Floris Prims, “Drie Ascetische schrijvers der Troonpriorij, Jan Storm († 1488), Jacob

Roecx († 1527) en Cornelis Bellens (†1573),” Verslagen en medede(e)lingen van de

Koninklijke Vlaams(ch)e Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde (1932): 263–85, at 265–73;

Patricia Stoop, “Storm, Jan,” in Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek 20 (Brussels: Paleis der

Academiën, 2011), cols. 940–43.

7 A short biography can be found in Patricia Stoop, “Pe(d)e, Maria van,” in Nationaal

Biografisch Woordenboek 20 (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 2011), cols. 651–54.

8 The dates of Maria’s birth and profession can be deduced from the date of her election as

prioress and from her Jubilee. In order to be professed in convents that were related to the

Chapter of Windesheim, a girl had to be at least fourteen years old. Prioresses were chosen

from the group of canonesses older than thirty. See Wybren Scheepsma, Medieval religious

women, 34 and 38.

9 Antonii Sanderi presbyteri, Chorographia sacra Brabantiae, sive celebrium aliquot in ea

provincia. Abbatiarum, coenobiorum, monasteriorum, ecclesiarum, piarumque fundationum

descriptio. Ex monasteriorum Tabulis, & principum diplomatibus, suis locis insertis, eruta.

Et imaginibus Aeneis illustrata. Tomus secundus (The Hague: Christianum van

25

Lom/Bibliopolam, 1727), 139. [Reprint of 1659; copy of the University of Antwerp, Library

of the Ruusbroecgenootschap, 1055 A 5].

10 In another publication I have mentioned that many of these preserved manuscripts have

been written by well-trained scribes who tried their best to work in a similar style, as was not

uncommon in other women’s convents as well. Undoubtedly, the presence of a convent

school as well as a writing mistress must have influenced the writing style of the sisters to a

large extent. See Patricia Stoop, Schrijven in commissie, paragraph 3.2.1. In Jericho, writing

was not reserved for canonesses; some lay sisters were able—and allowed—to write as well.

One of them was Mergriete van Steenbergen; she even was involved in sermon writing, as

discussed in this article.

11 Detailed descriptions of these preserved manuscripts can be found in Patricia Stoop,

Schrijven in commissie, appendix 1. Additionally, short descriptions of four lost manuscripts

are included in this appendix.

12 Only from two convents have more manuscripts been preserved: 76 surviving manuscripts

can be attributed to the convent of canonesses regular of St. Agnes in Maaseik, located about

22 miles north of Maastricht, and 37 to the Birgittine convent of Mariënwater in Rosmalen

near ’s-Hertogenbosch. See Karl Stooker and Theo Verbeij, Collecties op orde.

Middelnederlandse handschriften uit kloosters en semi-religieuze gemeenschappen in de

Nederlanden (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), vol. II, 261–288 and 355–364.

13 The other important sermon collections from Jericho contain mainly (Middle) Dutch

translations of Latin or German sermons. The sisters copied for instance Gregory the Great’s

Homiliae in Evangelia (MS. Brussels, Royal Library, 15071) and the Sermones super Qui

habitat of Bernard of Clairvaux (MS. Brussels, Royal Library, 2555–58). They also

possessed two collections, containing 138 sermons, of Jordan of Quedlinburg’s Opus

26

postillarum et sermonum de tempore (MS. Vienna, Austrian National Library, Cod. 11.898

(summer part) and Cod. Series nova 12.753 (winter part).

14 See Patricia Stoop, “Schrijven pro pretio in het Brusselse regularissenklooster Jericho,” in

De letter levend maken. Opstellen aangeboden aan Guido de Baere bij zijn zeventigste

verjaardag, ed. Kees Schepers and Frans Hendrickx (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 557–76.

Another extensive article on the subject (in English) will be published in 2012: Patricia

Stoop, “Dits scrifte dat nu in der handen es. Writing for third parties in the Brussels convent

of Jericho,” Quaerendo. A Quarterly Journal from the Low Countries Devoted to

Manuscripts and Printed Books 42 (2012).

15 Short biographies of Barbara Cuyermans, Elisabeth van Poylc , and Mergriete van

Steenbergen can be found in Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek 20 (Brussels: Paleis der

Academiën, 2011), cols. 221–24, 654–56, and 928–29.

16 The colophon of this manuscript is misleading, as it suggests Janne Colijns wrote the

manuscript after her death. Possibly somebody copied the colophon verbatim from an older

layer, and adjusted the date (as was the case in Ms Brussels, Royal Library, IV 402).

Anyhow, codicological and palaeographical research on the manuscript has revealed that not

all parts of the manuscripts have been written by the same person, nor in the same period. See

Patricia Stoop, Schrijven in commissie, paragraph 5.2.2.

17 Short biographies of Anne Jordaens and Paul van Someren can be found in Nationaal

Biografisch Woordenboek 20 (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 2011), cols. 524–26 and 920–

22.

18 A fifth manuscript, in which seven medieval convent sermons are recorded, is the so-called

“Catharina collection” (MS. Brussels, Royal Library, 1683–87). All seven sermons and most

of the other texts (exemplas, miracles, etcetera) are related to the feast of St. Catherine

(November 25), who was one of the convent’s patronesses. Because the thematically

27

organized manuscript is not a full sermon collection, it is not considered in this article. In the

period after 1550 the Jericho scribes wrote three additional manuscripts containing at least

one hundred and fifty sermons. MS. Brussels, Royal Library, 614 contains fifty-one sermons

by Franciscus Costerus (1532–1619), an important pioneer of the Jesuit order. He preached

his sermons in the convent church of Jericho in 1592–1594. His sermons were composed and

written from his mouth [uut synen mont ghecomponeert ende ghescreven] (fol. 30v) by sister

Hester Malcoet (d. 1624), one of the convent’s subprioresses, and by an anonymous secular

lady [werlyke joffrouwe]. The sermons written by this lady were copied into the manuscript

by Catherina Moleman (d. 1621). The second early modern collection is MS. Ghent,

University Library, 1300. It contains sermons by several priests from 1555–1638. Another

very important collection is MS. Vienna, Austrian National Library, Cod. 13.690, which

holds sixty-seven sermons from 1634–1718 which have been held by several preachers

(among whom were Jericho’s own confessors, but also external priests) and noted down by

several canonesses. The collection is this important because canoness Maria de la Folije

wrote an extensive prologue, in which she made explicit the convent’s long tradition in

sermon writing. The prologue, preceded by a summary in English, has been published in:

Patricia Stoop, “The Writing Sisters of Jericho: Authors or Copyists?” in Constructing the

Medieval Sermon, ed. Roger Andersson (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), 275–308, at 288–308.

19 See n.18.

20 An edition of this prologue, accompanied by a translation in English, has been published in

Thom Mertens, “Ghostwriting sisters,” 138–41.

21 The expressions of the sisters about their incompetence are definitely humility topoi (at

least in part). As will be clear from this essay, almost all sermon writing sisters had large

intellectual capacities which qualified them for the leading positions in the convent. This

humility is less noticeable in the prologue by Mergriete van Steenbergen, as she did not

28

actually write down the sermons in her collection and was concerned primarily with

emphasizing the special qualities of Barbara Cuyermans and Elisabeth van Poylc.

22 The only sermon-writing sister who did not get an important function in the convent is

Anne Jordaens. Because she did not write a prologue to the sermons by Paul van Someren,

her exact role in writing Van Someren’s sermons remains unclear.

23 Wolfgang Stammler, Deutsche Philologie im Aufriss (Berlin: Schmidt, 1960), column 981–

83.

24 Paul-Gerhard Völker, “Die Überlieferungsformen mittelalterlicher deutscher Predigten,”

Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 92 (1963): 212–27.

25 Authoritative studies on the medieval art of memory are Frances A. Yates, The Art of

Memory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966); Mary J. Carruthers, The Book of

Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1990). A recent and important study on memoria and preaching is Kimberley A. Rivers,

Preaching the Memory of Virtue and Vice: Memory, Images, and Preaching in the Late

Middle Ages (Turnhout, Brepols, 2010).

26 Kurt Ruh, “Deutsche Predigtbücher des Mittelalters” in Kleine Schriften, ed. Kurt Ruh

(Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984), vol. II, 296–317. Hans-Jochen Schiewer,

“Spuren von Mundlichkeit in der mittelalterlichen Predigtüberlieferung. Ein Plädoyer für

exemplarisches und beschreibend-interpretierendes Edieren,” Editio 6 (1992): 64–79, at 65.

27 Hans-Jochen Schiewer, “Spuren von Mundlichkeit,” 67. In Schiewers’ view the sermon-

writing women meet with the same fate as many other medieval women who wrote: in the

eyes of modern scholars their work is often “reduced to rhetoric rather than life, even their

rhetoric credited to clerical ‘handlers’ or ‘impersonators’” (John van Engen, “The Voices of

Women in Twelfth-Century Europe,” in Voices in Dialogue. Reading Women in the Middle

29

Ages, ed. Linda Olson and Katryn Kerby-Fulton (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame

Press, 2005), 199–211, at 204.

28 Most relevant articles on the subject have been published in Dutch or German by G. C.

Zieleman and Thom Mertens (for example: G.C. Zieleman, “Overleveringsvormen van

Middeleeuwse preken in de landstaal,” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 59 (1978–

1979): 11–20; Thom Mertens, “Postuum auteurschap. De collaties van Johannes

Brinckerinck,” in Windesheim 1395–1995. Klooster, teksten, invloeden. Voordrachten

gehouden tijdens het internationale congres ‘600 jaar Kapittel van Windesheim’, 27 mei

1995 te Zwolle, ed. Anton J. Hendrikman, Patty Bange, and Rudolf Th.M. van Dijk

(Nijmegen: KUN, Centrum voor Middeleeuwse Studies, 1996), 85–97; Thom Mertens, “De

Middelnederlandse preek: een voorbarige synthese,” in De Middelnederlandse preek, ed.

Thom Mertens, Patricia Stoop, and Christoph Burger (Hilversum: Verloren, 2009), 9–66.

Their most significant arguments, however, can be found in Gerrit Cornelis Zieleman, “Das

Studium der deutschen und niederländischen Predigten des Mittelalters,” in Sô predigent

etelîche. Beiträge zur deutschen und niederländischen Predigt im Mittelalter, ed. Kurt Otto

Seidel (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1982), 5–48; Thom Mertens, “Ghostwriting Sisters,” 126 and

further; Thom Mertens, “Relic or Strategy: The Middle Dutch Sermon as a Literary

Phenomenon,” in Speculum Sermonis. Interdisciplinary Reflections on the Medieval Sermon,

ed. Georgiana Donavin, Gary J. Nederman, and Richard Utz (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 293–

314, at 300–308.

29 Thom Mertens not only researched the Jericho prologues but he also studied the collations

[collacies] originating from Deventer sisterhouses of the Devotio moderna. In particular he

explored the sermons by Johannes Brinckerinck (ca. 1359–1419) and Claus van Euskerken

(d. 1520). See Thom Mertens, “Ghostwriting Sisters,” 122–26 and Thom Mertens, “Relic or

Strategy,” 300–304.

30

30

Sermons which cover five or more folios are exceptional. The sermons written by Janne

Colijns are, on average, twice as long.

31 More information on the characteristics of Middle Dutch sermons can be found in

Repertorium of Middle Dutch Sermons preserved in manuscripts from before 1550, ed.

Daniël Ermens and Willemien van Dijk (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 27.

32 Actually, in the Bible Elisabeth was filled by the Holy Ghost.

33 In an earlier article on the Jericho corpus, I have argued that the content of the prologues

should be taken seriously. The argument is based on comparison of the ways Maria van Pee

and Janne Colijns deal with biblical quotations in their sermons. See Patricia Stoop, “Uit het

geheugen. Het gebruik van de Bijbel in biechtvaderpreken van Jan Storm” in De

Middelnederlandse preek, ed. Thom Mertens, Patricia Stoop and Christoph Burger

(Hilversum: Verloren, 2009), 133–181. Editions of two sermons by Maria van Pee and two

by Janne Colijns can be found on page 161–81. A preliminary comparison of the literary style

in sermons written down by Maria van Pee, Barbara Cuyermans, and Janne Colijns can be

found in Patricia Stoop, “Nuns as writers? On the Contribution of the Nuns of the Brussels

Jericho Convent to the Construction of Written Sermons” in A Place of their Own. Women

Writers and Their Social Environments (1450–1700), ed. Anne Bollmann (Frankfurt am

Main, etc.: Peter Lang, 2010), 197–214.

34 The recurrence of exempla in Maria’s sermons does not contradict this conclusion, for they

generally are well known evocative stories, which for these reasons can be remembered

easily. Whether Maria remembered them from Storm’s preachings or added them out of her

own knowledge can not be determined. Additionally, the possibility that Maria supplemented

the sermons with exempla from books she had to her disposal should be taken into account.

35 Sabine Heimann-Seelbach, Ars und scientia. Genese, Überlieferung und Funktionen der

mnemotechnischen Traktatliteratur im 15. Jahrhundert. Mit Edition und Untersuchung dreier

31

deutscher Traktate und ihrer lateinischen Vorlagen (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2000), p. 66–69

and 180–202, at 196–97.

36 Sed quoniam in ipsis coherencijs plurima verba continentur ad sentenciam seruiencia, que

nichil notabilitatis continent, quoniam satis sit in coherencie sentencia comprehensum, non

erit neccessarium illorum verborum ingeminari memoriam, alla tamen inseruntur in ipsis

coherencijs verba quinque, que non nichil notabilitatis designant, quod possit in nuda

coherencie memoria non complecti. Quo circa talium verborum ymagines sunt eciam

inscribende memorie (Sabine Heimann-Seelbach, Ars und scientia, 197). The classical art of

memory recommends linking such memory-images to previously fixed memory places (loci).

37 Sabine Heimann-Seelbach, Ars und scientia, 197.

38 Kimberley A. Rivers, Preaching the Memory, 335–36.

39 Mary Carruthers, The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of Images,

400–1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 81.

40 See Thom Mertens, “Ghostwriting sisters,” 39. It is quite possible that Maria could have

remembered arguments from Storm’s sermons better than others and that these link up more

closely with his preachings. In my view, however, we must assume that the elaboration

should be ascribed to the later prioress. In n.34, I mention that Maria may have used written

sources for noting down exempla. It is also plausible that she used books (eg. florilegia) for

the citation of quotes from the Bible or other auctoritates. However, there is no indication

whatsoever that Maria used written sources to elaborate on the divisio.

41 See Alison I. Beach, “Listening for the Voices of Admont’s Twelfth-Century Nuns” in

Voices in Dialogue: Reading Women in the Middle Ages, ed. Linda Olson and Katryn Kerby-

Fulton (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 187–98, at 195. Beach

points at the similarities between the Latin sermons which the Benedictine nuns of Admont

wrote in collaboration with their confessor abbot Irimbert (d. 1176), and the commentaries on

32

the Bible which the abbot wrote himself. Beach explains these resemblances from the close

interaction between the parties and the familiarity of the nuns with the preaching style and

method of their confessor.

42 See citation on <<insert endnote number>>.

43 On fol. 256r in MS. Brussels, Royal Library, II 298 (collection by Janne Colijns) a note in

the margin states that “this [passage] is not to be read in the refectory” [Nota. Dit en leest

men niet ten refter]. This strongly suggests that the rest of the manuscript actually was

intended for lecture during mealtime.