Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands (Bibliotheque De La Revue D'histoire Ecclesiastique) (Bibliotheque De La Revue D'histoire Ecclesiastique, 101) 9782503567518, 2503567517

Citation preview

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands

bibliothèque de la revue d’histoire ecclésiastique fascicule 101

Edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands

louvain-la-neuve collège érasme

leuven maurits sabbebibliotheek

H

F

Cover Illustration: Arcabas, Autodafé (Maurits Sabbe Library, KU Leuven) © 2017, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2017/0095/121 ISBN 978-2-503-56751-8 e-ISBN 978-2-503-56752-5 DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.109689 Printed on acid-free paper.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents...............................................................................................................  v Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François Church, Censorship and Reform: Questions and New Answers Regarding the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands............................................   1 Part I: Censorship and Religion Renaud Adam The Profession of Printer in the Southern Netherlands before the Reformation: Considerations on Professional, Religious and State Legislations (1473–1520).......................................................   13 Grantley McDonald ‘Burned to Dust’: Censorship and Repression of Theological Literature in the Habsburg Netherlands during the 1520s.....................................................   27 Arjan van Dixhoorn The Claim to Expertise and Doctrinal Authority in the Struggle for Anti-Heresy Policies in the Habsburg Netherlands (1520s–60s)................   53 Els Agten Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, First Papal Nuncio to Flanders (1596–1606) and His Thoughts on Book Censorship..................................................................   73 Gerrit Vanden Bosch Censorship in the Archdiocese of Malines (1559–1795)....................................   97 César Manrique Figueroa Sixteenth-Century Spanish Editions Printed in Antwerp Facing Censorship in the Hispanic World: The Case of the Antwerp Printers Nutius and Steelsius...................................................................................... 107 Part II: Church and Reform Violet Soen and Aurelie Van de Meulebroucke Vanguard Tridentine Reform in the Habsburg Netherlands: The Episcopacy of Robert de Croÿ, Bishop of Cambrai (1519–56)................. 125 Dries Vanysacker The Church Province of Malines and its Official Printings (1559/1607–13): A State of the Art of the Implementation of the Council of Trent in the Netherlands............................................................. 145

vi 

table of contents Michal Bauwens Restoration and Reform of the Parish after Trent: The Case of St James in Ghent (1561–1630)......................................................... 167 Annelies Somers Making a Virtue out of Necessity? The Chapter of St Pharahild in Ghent and the Decrees of the Council of Trent (1584–1614)........................................ 187 Nicolas Simon The Council of Trent and its Impact on Philip II’s Legislation in the Habsburg Netherlands (1580–98)................................................................ 201 Tom Bervoets Caught between Compromise and Conflict: The Establishment and Institutional Development of the Ecclesiastical Court(s) in the Early Modern Archdiocese of Malines.......................................................... 217 Index..................................................................................................................................... 235

Church, Censorship and Reform:Questions and New Answers Regarding the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands

Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François

In recent years, historiography has come to rethink and reformulate the traditional account of a Counter-Reformation in the early modern Habsburg Netherlands that was said to be State-backed.1 As such, the resilience and persistence of Catholicism has long been attributed to the strategies and patronage of the Habsburg dynasty. The religious convictions of Emperor Charles V (1515–55), King Philip II (1555–98) and the Archdukes Albert and Isabella (1598–1621) were too easily thought to account for the actual development of Catholicism during the tumultuous events sparked by the Reformation in the first half of the sixteenth century and the Revolt in its second half. At this moment when most of the ‘grand narratives’ of the Reformation and the Revolt are being rewritten,2 the contributions in this volume equally bear witness to the multi-faceted process of the repressive policies towards the Reformation and the revival of Catholicism, revealing the many actors and motives behind these complex developments.3 1 We will use the terms ‘the Netherlands’ and ‘Low Countries’ as synonyms. 2  L . Cruz, Reworking the Grand Narrative. A Review of Recent Books in the Dutch Revolt, Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden (henceforth BMGN), 125 (2010), 29– 38; J.  Pollmann, Internationalisering en de Nederlandse Opstand, BMGN 124  (2009), 515–35; H. Van Nierop, ‘Alba’s Throne, Making Sense of the Revolt of the Netherlands’, in: G. Darby (ed.), The Origins and Development of the Dutch Revolt (London, 2001), pp. 29–47. 3 V.  Soen, Which Religious History for the (Two) Early Modern Netherlands before 1648? Questions, Trends and Perspectives, Revue d’ histoire ecclésiastique. Louvain Journal of Church History 112 (2017), 758–88; V.  Soen and P.  Knevel, ‘Slingerbewegingen. Controverse en geschiedschrijving over religie in de zestiende-eeuwse Nederlanden’, in: V. Soen and P. Knevel (eds), Religie, hervorming en controverse in de zestiende-eeuwse Nederlanden (Publicaties van de Vlaams-Nederlandse Vereniging voor Nieuwe Geschiedenis, 12) (Herzogenrath, 2013), pp. 3–19.

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François, Turnhout, 2017 (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire ­Ecclésiastique, 101), pp. 1–9

F H G

DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.113398

2 

violet soen, dries vanysacker and wim françois

Hence, this volume takes a refreshing perspective on the themes of Church and Reform in the area of the Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt delta from the late fifteenth ­century onwards, dealing both with repression of heterodoxy as well as with the impulses for reform. The first part interrogates the dynamics of repression and censorship in matters of religion. Six chapters in this first part underline that this c­ ensorship was executed by a multitude of officials, both inside and outside of Church and State administrations. Throughout the ancien régime, this resulted in an i­nstitutionally and regionally fragmented policy, opening margins of manoeuver for those concerned in the Low Countries. A second part focuses on more internal impulses for Catholic Reform, especially those created by the Council of Trent (1545–63). As such, this volume helps to contextualise the Counter-Reformation and the Catholic Reform of the seventeenth century by providing a long-term perspective, identifying new actors and motives behind the Catholic revival.

Censorship & Religion With the first part of this volume dealing with questions on censorship in matters of religion, six chapters illustrate that the censorship in the Low Countries was not limited to State or Church officials alone; rather, as elsewhere in Europe, censorship was performed by a myriad of institutions, reaching from corporative associations to chambers of rhetoric, from university theologians to local printers, from town magistrates over episcopal censors, to papal nuncios. As such, the Habsburg Netherlands confirm the pattern that censorship in Early Modern Times was institutionally fragmented, and certainly not carried out by a monolithic Church or State. All authors unanimously point at the often inefficient legislative and jurisdictional framework in the so-called ‘Seventeen Provinces’, in which the Prince or his Governor-General was not able to impose a uniform law for all territories or provinces under Habsburg rule. In the first article of this volume, Renaud Adam stresses that regulation of the printing industry started years before the spread of the Reformation in the Netherlands, and happened right at its advent in the 1470s-1520s. In the three cities under scrutiny – in Antwerp, Bruges and Louvain – the printing business was originally controlled by local guilds, such as Saint Luke or Saint John, or through local institutions such as the University, respectively. It seems that in these places, the Low Countries followed the more general European pattern in which the printers, as crafts and guildsmen, managed to protect themselves against interferences from outside, while also regulating their internal functioning through corporative regulations. Still, as the case studies show, the concrete measures of professional mediation and censorship could differ greatly between nearby cities within the Habsburg Low Countries. As Adam underlines, it took until 1512 for the Habsburg authorities to regulate the book market, a much later date than what happened in Paris, Lyon or Venice. On this occasion, in fact, they only came to interfere in order to settle a dispute amongst the printers themselves, of which one party had filed appeal. The concrete outcome of this precedent was that henceforth the Habsburg authorities became responsible for granting privileges for the production of (printed) texts. With the spread of the Reformation, however, the Habsburg authorities clearly preferred to put restrictions

church, censorship and reform

 3

on the activities of printers in the Netherlands, by forbidding the printing, sale, purchase, storage and reading of heterodox books under threat of confiscation and other punishments. Such ‘repressive’ censorship was even put into action before the famous Edict of Worms of 1521, and was likely better coordinated then elsewhere in Europe at that time. Apart from this ‘repressive’ censorship, local Church officials imposed ‘preventive’ censorship on the printing business requiring printers to submit their works to the competent book censors prior to publication, measures that may have been inspired by the prescriptions of Lateran V (1512–17) and papal bulls. The advent of the Reformation would induce civil and ecclesiastical authorities to further their collaboration in the combat against heresy, a collaboration that often proved very difficult to accomplish. The chapter by Grantley McDonald also illustrates how players from the realms of both State and Church manifested themselves in questions of censorship. It goes without saying that professional theologians claimed a special authority in the debate on the question of orthodoxy, given their longstanding tradition and expertise in the field. In fact, the different legislations issued by the Habsburg authorities from the 1520s onwards took the activities of the Louvain Faculty of Theology gradually into account. At the beginning of the 1520s, the ordinances issued by the councils and administrations in Brussels expressed themselves only in general terms when prohibiting a broad array of activities, like the printing of heterodox (viz. Lutheran) books, and the spread of blaspheming propositions. While the famous Edict of Worms of 1521 excluded activities such as reading, possessing, printing and transcribing ‘texts’ of Luther in general terms, the Edict as such marked the definitive interference of the Habsburg authorities into the field of ‘repressive’ and – later – ‘preventive’ censorship, which had (also) been the domain of Church officials from the late fifteenth century onwards. In less than five years, the legislative framework issued for the Low Countries by the Emperor’s aunt and Governess Margaret of Austria (r. 1519–30), adopted, integrated and copied more and more the lists of forbidden books established by the Louvain theologians. The repetitive promulgation of ordinances clearly show that the State authorities felt that the book market remained beyond their control. With the assistance of theological experts, they aspired to give more concrete guidelines to printers, preachers and readers regarding which books were allowed and which were forbidden. By 1529, a cumulative legislation for all Seventeen Provinces codified the penalties (death and confiscation) at which e­ arlier edicts had only hinted. Arjan van Dixhoorn’s chapter is highly original since it introduces literate laymen into the discussion on what was to be seen as heterodox, and what was not. Especially in the urbanised Netherlands, where rates of literacy and alphabetisation were among the highest in Europe, the claim to expertise in matters of religion became a disputed ground between theologians, lawyers and rhetoricians. These members of the local ‘chambers of rhetoric’ claimed a role as experts regarding issues of religious life and even doctrine, alongside the established scholarship of professional theologians at universities. The fact that they succeeded in this claim to some degree, is reflected by the very same anti-heresy edicts studied by McDonald, which eventually forbade the spread of heterodox teachings as well as the activities of rhetoricians in this respect.

4 

violet soen, dries vanysacker and wim françois

The tug-of-war between the authorities and the chambers of rhetoric dates back to the 1520s, but it was especially by the 1560s, that the theologians managed to convince the legal councilors in Brussels to silence the rhetoricians’ claims to expertise in matters religious. However, when theologians and State officials were united in their opposition against rhetoricians, they remained divided over the ­question of who had which authority when it came down to the actual persecution of heretics. Once again, this contribution points out how fragmented anti-heresy policies in the Habsburg Netherlands were, and how the many conflicts over questions of precedence, privileges and jurisdiction often complicated, delayed or prevented repression altogether. By pointing at the importance of the papal nuncio at the end of the sixteenth century, Els Agten brings another actor onto the scene of multi-level censorship in the early modern Netherlands. As the first papal nuncio to ‘Flanders’ between 1596 and 1606, Ottavio Mirto Frangipani had clear opinions about the role of Church and Papacy in the field of regulating the book market. Already during his stay in Cologne (from 1587 onwards), he became indirectly involved in the preparatory work for a new Index in Rome, which was to substitute the ‘Tridentine Index’ of 1564. More specifically, he had to inform the Roman dicasteries about the working method of the Louvain theologians who had previously published a reliable Index of Forbidden Books for the Habsburg Netherlands. Frangipani, however, expressed doubts about the direction of the new ‘Clementine Index’ of 1596, especially regarding its prohibition – unless dispensation by the Roman Inquisition was given – of Bible reading in the vernacular. The nuncio made no secret of the fact that he preferred the Regula Quarta of the Tridentine Index: although not particularly positive with respect to lay reading of vernacular Bibles, it did allow the practice when the laity wishing such, were deemed capable and when they obtained written permission from their local bishop or inquisitor. The all too severe Clementine Index was not officially promulgated in the Habsburg Low Countries, which Frangipani had to explain to the Roman instances with reference to the peculiar religious situation of these regions and the circumspection this required from the Archdukes. At the same time, the nuncio assured Rome that there was an efficient system of book censorship at work in the Habsburg Netherlands, and that this system came close to what the Index envisaged. Continuing the first part, Gerrit Vanden Bosch brings a last player into the picture, viz. the Archbischop of Malines, who was invested with the title of Primate of the Belgian Church. From 1559 onwards, this Archbishop became one of the privileged interlocutors of the State’s administration in matters of censorship. Vanden Bosch’s contribution is based on the rich archives that are preserved in the archives of the archbishopric of Malines-Brussels up till today. Most often in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Archbishop and State authorities worked together in combatting Protestantism, with both carefully defending their own privileges and jurisdictions. During the intense Jansenist controversy, interests of Brussels and Malines were mostly different. Here, it becomes clear again that censorship was mostly a game with changing interests and changing coalitions; authors and printers were not only victims of a repressive system, but were active players who used the space left by negotiation and compromise to develop innovative methods to spread their

church, censorship and reform

 5

message. By the end of the eighteenth century, however, collaboration seems to have vanished completely, especially when Emperor Joseph II was no longer keen on any ­intervention of the Malines Archbishop in questions of book censorship and the regulation of the book market. As such, censorship of heterodoxy in the Habsburg Low Countries relied on an interplay of internal guild regulations, interventions of chambers of rhetoric, mediations of Church officials (as diverse as bishops, papal nuncios, and censors), and University professors (chiefly theologians). These chapters correct the preponderance of historiographical studies devoted to the intrusions of Habsburg officials and local courts in the Netherlands. This multi-leveled censorship opened considerable margins of negotiation, allowing writers, performers, and printers to spread and smuggle less orthodox prints within and beyond the borders of the Habsburg Netherlands. For, in the Low Countries, censorship was not limited to the written or printed word only, but it extended to performances of rhetoricians’ plays, to oral university disputes, and to the activity of reading. Even if a synthesis on these themes still needs to be written, the contributions collected here offer a fine start for further reflection on the origin, nature, structure and impact of censorship in these regions. Moreover, César Manrique Figueroa invites us to widen the geographical scope of the reflections of this first part. He recalls that censorship measures not only applied in the Low Countries under Habsburg rule, but that different sets of rules were promulgated in Castile and Aragon, extending to the viceroyalties in Latin-America. As a result, printer-publishers in the Low Countries also faced censorship measures issued in other parts of the composite and polycentric Habsburg monarchy: Spanish books printed in Antwerp not only had to comply with the book regulations issued in Antwerp and/or Brussels, but, when entering the Iberian Peninsula, were subject to indexes and legislations that were in force there. As such, the successful editions of Joannes Steelsius and Martinus Nutius had to face different mechanisms of preventive and repressive censorship. First, locally, these editions had come into being in the space left as a result of the (silent) compromise between Antwerp economic interests and the anti-heresy policy of the central authorities in Brussels – a mechanism that has a pivotal place in this introduction and this volume; second, when imported on the Iberian Peninsula, the editions were subject to further inquisitorial examination in ports and cities, in accordance with the extensive Castilian legislation and the indexes drafted by theologians there; and finally, when exported to the Latin American world, further inquisitorial procedures were applicable. And although Steelsius and Nutius never ventured into publishing outspoken heterodox Spanish materials, to the degree that some of their colleagues in Antwerp and elsewhere in Europe did, some of their books that were permitted in the Netherlands were forbidden in Spain. Among these prohibited books, works by Erasmus and vernacular biblical material, amongst others, should be cited. Still, despite this Spanish inquisitorial efforts, Steelsius’ and Nutius’ editions circulated in and beyond the Iberian Peninsula. Even if there are few extant copies of prohibited books in Latin American libraries, the old records of local inquisitions still reveal the impact of such editions. In this case, it becomes apparent that despite the multi-level action of Habsburg authorities to limit and control the book market in their transatlantic realms, the practice of smuggling and contrabande continued to occur.

6 

violet soen, dries vanysacker and wim françois Church & Reform

Leaving aside the theme of repression, the six chapters of the second part focus on the implementation of the Catholic Reform in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, especially in the wake of the Council of Trent (1545–63) and its famous decrees. As such, they aim to provide an update to the classic work of F. Willocx, L’ introduction des décrets du Concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principauté de Liège, which dates back to 1929 and in which the author complains about the delayed introduction of Tridentine Reform, heralding the Archdukes Albert and Isabella (1598–1621) for bringing better times.4 And indeed, all of these contributions discuss the difficult situation that the regions between the Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt had to cope with on an institutional, political, religious and socio-economic level from the second half of the sixteenth century onwards. The tribulations of the Dutch Revolt, now sometimes equated as the counterpart of the French guerres civiles et religieuses, were, for contemporaries especially, highly unpredictable and capricious, and several circumstances and players hindered the efficient implementation of the decisions of the Council of Trent. Nevertheless, all contributions attest that Tridentine reform started before the closure of the Council in 1563 and was continued by different groups and individuals in the remaining decades of the sixteenth century. The first two chapters deal with the role of bishops and Archbishops, both before and after the important reorganization of the bishoprics in the Low Countries in 1559 which heralded the establishment of fourteen new bishoprics, taking them out of the ancient bishoprics of Tournai, Cambrai, Liège and Utrecht.5 Violet Soen and Aurelie Van de Meulebroucke reflect on the pre-1559 period, which is usually portrayed as a period of decay under the regime of noble bishops from leading families. Still, even then, Tridentine reform could come from an influential noble bishop like Robert de Croÿ (1519–56) who was born into one of the most prominent aristocratic dynasties of his times. These noble families have too often been neglected for their role in instigating Tridentine reforms, with many scholars even holding them to be opponents of such reforms. Heading the delegation of the Netherlands at the Council of Trent during its first period, Robert de Croÿ later engaged in convoking a Provincial Council as early as 1548, promulgating on that occasion the imperial Formula Reformationis. As the Cambrai bishopric was situated along the eastern bank of the river Scheldt up to Antwerp in Brabant, covering Brussels as well as most of the 4 5

F. Willocx, L’ introduction des décrets du Concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principauté de Liège (Recueil des travaux publiés par les membres des conférences d’Histoire et de Philologie, 2eme série 14), Leuven, 1929. M. Dierickx, De oprichting der nieuwe bisdommen in de Nederlanden onder Filips II (1559–1570), Antwerpen and Utrecht, 1950; Idem, Documents inédits sur l’ érection des nouveaux diocèses aux Pays-Bas (1521–1570) (Académie Royale de Belgique. Commission royale d’histoire = Koninklijke Belgische Academie. Koninklijke commissie voor geschiedenis), 3 vols, Brussels, 1960–62; Idem, L’ érection des nouveaux diocèses aux Pays-Bas (1559–1570) (Collection ‘Notre passé’), Brussels, 1967; F. Postma, Nieuw licht op een oude zaak. De oprichting van de nieuwe bisdommen in 1559, Tijdschrift voor geschiedenis 103 (1990), 10–27; G. Gielis, Zeldzaeme, nuttige en curieuse boeken. Onbekende bronnen over de oprichting van de bisdommen in de Nederlanden en de invoering van de Tridentijnse decreten in het fonds Van de Velde? (Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Medieval and Renaissance Studies), Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculteit Letteren, Subfaculteit Geschiedenis, 2007.

church, censorship and reform

 7

County of Hainaut, these early attempts from a noble bishop covered large swathes of territory of the Habsburg Netherlands. Analyzing the post-1559 period, Dries Vanysacker looks at the agency of (arch) bishops in the new Church province of Malines (created alongside those of Cambrai and Utrecht). He assesses the implementation of the Council of Trent by studying the official prints in the first half century after 1559. Not everything went smoothly: only in 1570 did Malines hold its first Provincial Council, while the Calvinistic ­Republics in Flanders and Brabant (1577–85) disrupted profoundly the ecclesiastical life. The years 1595–96 brought a positive change within ecclesiastical life. Of great impor­ tance was Mathias Hovius’ decision to convoke in 1607 a new Provincial Council, after more than thirty years of troubles had prevented such an ecclesiastical meeting. Only after the Provincial Synods of the early seventeenth century, can one identify the continuous reprinting of the Tridentine decrees, the Missale romanum, the Brevi­ arium romanum, a new Graduale romanum and a Psalterium romanum, but also the Roman Catechism in Latin, and the new catechism in Dutch as well. It demonstrates that Malines only half a century after its foundation engaged in an offensive of mass propaganda regarding the Tridentine Catholic Reform. It could only do this thanks to the hard labor of its bishops of the first generation who had to cope with anything but rewarding circumstances. The quantity of official printings that appeared in the period 1559–1607/1613 is the most convincing evidence of this perseverance. Appropriately for the highly urbanized early modern Low Countries, two chapters focus on Ghent, a powerful city in the County of Flanders with a rich tradition of revolt, which played a key protagonist role during the Dutch Revolt when a Calvinist Republic was installed between 1578 and 1584. Michal Bauwens invites us to reflect upon the restoration and reform of a city parish after Trent, focusing on the case of Saint James in Ghent during the years 1561–1640. Due to the political and religious instability between 1566 and 1580, the Catholic Church in the County of Flanders witnessed a rather slow institutional reform. Iconoclasm and the measures of the Calvinist Republic had a very destructive impact on parish life. Nevertheless, once Catholic rule was restored under Governor-General Alexander Farnese from 1584 onwards, parish activity blossomed as never before. The parishioners of Saint James generously donated from 1584 onwards for repairs to the church and they paid for increasingly more expensive funerals. Likewise, the embellishment of the church structures and music during high mass became more and more important, which added greatly to the sacrality and solemnity of the ceremony. This development obviously matched the ideas proclaimed in Trent, but it does not seem to have been implemented topdown by Farnese and his successors; rather it stemmed from the parishioners themselves. Although more research is needed to understand the dynamics of the Catholic Reformation, this case study of Saint James parish in Ghent reaffirms the importance of bottom-up processes and the role of the laity in the (re)formation of Catholicism. Simultaneously, this study shows that political events were crucial in creating opportunities for new religious ideas and the formation of a confessional identity. In the same city of Ghent, Annelies Somers studies the secular chapter of Saint Pharahild from 1584 to 1614, that is, from the end of the Calvinist Republic until the translation of the chapter to the church of Saint Nicholas. After the ­Iconoclast Fury and the establishment of a Calvinist Republic, Saint Pharahild’s very ­survival

8 

violet soen, dries vanysacker and wim françois

was threatened since it did not possess sufficient means to continue on its own. As a consequence, the chapter went through a period of crises at which the most ‘practical’ Tridentine measures became ‘hot topics’. Based upon the available sources, Somers argues that by making a virtue out of necessity, the chapter adopted the decrees of the Council of Trent, and thus gave up on the opposition of most chapters towards Trent and the conciliar imposition of visitations and the duty of residence. Saint Pharahild’s attempts to implement the latter are evident, for example, from the numerous reprimands given to canons and chaplains who were negligent and absent. The importance ascribed to the solemn celebration of the office is illustrated by the missals, antiphonals, breviaries, graduals and other books related to liturgy that were ordered, bought or restored during the period investigated. According to Somers, these were more than just a means of spiritual revival since the decrees and the Tridentine texts offered Saint Pharahild a strategy and arguments that could be used to overcome material hardships and ensure its survival. The willingness of some chapters to embrace Tridentine prescription of residence and visitation, despite the fierce opposition of others, should invite us to further research on the theme. Two last chapters reflect upon the importance of legislation and the practice of ecclesiastical courts in the processes of Catholic Reform and Counter-Reformation. By unravelling the impact of the Council of Trent on Philip II’s legislation in the Habsburg Netherlands during the period 1580–98, Nicolas Simon documents the government’s decision to enact Trent’s decisions and prescriptions. The new regulations which found their roots in ordinances promulgated sometimes well before Trent, were after 1580 renewed in a passionate context of confessional opposition between Catholics and Calvinists. The laws under scrutiny demonstrate how legislation in the Tridentine spirit was used to stop the tensions that arose from political and religious opposition, while aiming to create and impose ‘order’ on society. This discipline became visible when the authorities were suspicious of popular customs and traditions thought to be irreconcilable with the (post-)Tridentine logic. Hence, the advent and the success of the Reformation was used as a fulcrum to promulgate new dispositions or to reactivate old ones concerning the social discipline of the subjects. Still, even in the regions remaining loyal to Habsburg authority, local and particularist obstructions towards implementing Tridentine decrees throughout the territory persisted. Tom Bervoets, finally, concentrates on the development of the ecclesiastical courts, the ‘officialities’, in the archdiocese of Malines after 1559. Analyzing the changes in its configuration and base of operation throughout the seventeenth cen­ tury, Bervoets argues that the various dislocations of (part of) the tribunal reflected the difficulties successive Archbishops had in striking a balance between the regard for old prerogatives, especially those of Brabant and its inhabitants, as well as local sensitivities on the one hand, and the pursuit of a strong policy based on the Catholic reform program on the other hand. Officials – chosen among the canons of the chapters of Saint Rumbold (Malines), as well as among those of Saint Gudule (Brussels) – proved to be valuable collaborators to the administration of the archdiocese. While the old administrative and juridical structures of the dioceses of Cambrai and Liège remained for a certain time in vigor, albeit under the Archbishop of Malines, Mathias Hovius put in place new structures in 1596. The ecclesiastical court was located

church, censorship and reform

 9

in Hombeek, on the territory of a small Brabantine enclave, in the proximity of the Archbishop and his Malines residence, but without violating the standing privilegium de non evocando the inhabitants of the Duchy of Brabant enjoyed. The official also held court in the archiepiscopal palace, within the Malines city walls, not only for the inhabitants of the seigniory of Malines, but also for the people of the western part of the archdiocese, which geographically belonged to the County of Flanders. Even so, for long periods in the history of the archdiocese, a second ecclesiastical court was active in Brussels. The collaboration with the secular authorities did not, however, always go smoothly. Provincial and collateral councils under Habsburg administration often disrupted the functioning of the ecclesiastical court, either by dawdling over the required execution of sentences or by undermining its jurisdiction. After the Austrian rulers had succeeded the Spanish Habsburg regime, conflicts arose over the jurisdiction enjoyed by different ecclesiastical courts. While in the seventeenth century the Church could still navigate between compromise and conflict in her relations with the State concerning the limits of her jurisdiction, from the eighteenth century onwards, this maneuvering became obsolete with a State seeking absolute supremacy. In regards to Catholic Reform as such, the pessimistic views and the chronology of Willocx in 1929 seem to have been modified in substantial respects. The first Tridentine reform measures are now documented in the first half of the sixteenth century, with Robert de Croÿ as Bishop of Cambrai promulgating both Trent and the Formula Reforma­ tionis in 1549 within his jurisdiction ranging from Antwerp to the southern frontier of the Habsburg Netherlands, and comprehending both Dutch-speaking and Francophone regions. The other contributions underlined that bishops, episcopal courts, and chapters took on the task of implementing Tridentine Reform for different reasons and with different rhythms, navigating the tides of revolt and war in the Netherlands. By introducing this perspective ‘somewhere from the middle’, the second part of this volume de-centres agency in the revival of Catholicism, attenuating the importance of the Habsburg dynas­­ ty  and stressing the importance of bishops, local chapters, ecclesiastical courts, and the reactions of local parishioners in these highly urbanised regions. Still, foremost, these contributions remind us of the fact that a new synthesis on the implementation of Trent in the (two) early modern Netherlands is maybe more necessary now than ever before.

Perspectives Taken together, the contributions in this volume by chiefly junior and some senior researchers in Belgium and the Netherlands show that the field of religious studies is thriving. Apart from theological ideas and ecclesiastical structures, cultural and socio-economic contexts are also being taken into consideration, focussing on existence of top-down as well as bottom-up developments, and studying the influence of new sources such as prints, pamphlets, plays, laws and accounts. And gradually, the Habsburg Low Countries seem to fit in the general European pattern where the agency of the faithful mattered as much as that of the hierarchy, and where Catholic Princes and Popes had to rely on the myriad of intermediate institutions joining them in the battle against Protestantism. Still, the actions of these intermediate institutions were not ephemeral nor peripheral, rather, for most believers, they constituted a more tangible reality than the laws and wishes of the rulers of Church and State.

Part I: Censorship and Religion

The Profession of Printer in the Southern Netherlands before the Reformation Considerations on Professional, Religious and State Legislations (1473–1520)

Renaud Adam*

In his famous adage Festina lente, Erasmus criticizes the lack of legal supervision regarding the profession of printer.1 According to him, this absence of legislation resulted in the multiplication of editions philologically corrupted by ignorant people. The humanist is particularly horrified by the freedoms which the profession of typographer enjoys in comparison with the restrictions imposed on other trades. He says ‘laws ensure that no one sews shoes or manufactures boxes without a licence accorded by a guild’.2 He also mentions ‘while not everyone is allowed to become a baker, no human being is prohibited from trading books’.3 Does the opinion of the Dutch humanist reflect the reality? To answer to this question, we will focus on the living situation of printers in the Low Countries. We will examine three specific aspects of the legal framework governing the handpress book industry: (1) legislation at the corporative level, (2) the regulations developed by the political authorities and (3) relations with the religious authorities. This will help to see if Erasmus was right when he said there were no rules framing this particular job. Abbreviations: EDIT-16  = Censimento nazionale delle edizioni italiane del XVI secolo (http:// edit16.iccu.sbn.it/); ISTC  = Incunabula Short-Title Catalogue (http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/ istc/); NK  = W.  Nijhoff and M.  E. Kronenberg, Nederlandsche bibliographie van 1500 tot 1540, 3 vols, The Hague, 1923–71. 1  Erasmus Roterodamus, Adagiorum chilias secunda, ed. M. Szymański (Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi II, 3: Adagiorum chilias II, centuriae I–V [Adagia 1001–1500]) (Amsterdam, 2005), pp. 18–20 (=ASD II, 3). 2  Curatum est legibus, ne quis consuat calceum, ne quis faciat scrinium, nisi fuerit ab eius opificiis sodalitio comprobatus (Erasmus Roterodamus, Adagia [ASD II, 3] [see n. 1], p. 18). 3  Non licet cuivis pistorem esse, typographia quaestus est nulli mortalium interdictus (ibidem, p. 19). *

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François, Turnhout, 2017 (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire ­Ecclésiastique, 101), pp. 13–25

F H G

DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.113399

14 

renaud adam

We will also assess the nature of book censorship. When did this censorship ­occur? Was it preventive and/ or repressive? What were the risks? As a reminder, one should bear in mind that printing was introduced into the ­Burgundian and late Habsburg Low Countries less than twenty years after ­Gutenberg’s invention. The earliest printed books were produced in the year 1473. By including this date in the colophons of their first books, the workshops of Nicolaus Ketelaer and Gerard de Leempt at Utrecht, and Johannes de Westphalia and Dirk Martens at Aalst (in the County of Flanders), unwittingly permitted each respective city to bestow upon themselves the honorary title of ‘cradle of the printing press in the Low Countries’. Within a decade, the printing art spread throughout the major cities of the region: Aalst (1473), Utrecht (1473), Bruges (1473?), Louvain (1473?), Brussels (1475), Delft (1477), Deventer (1477), Gouda (1477), Zwolle (1478), Nijmegen (1479), Oudenaarde (1480), Antwerp (1481), Ghent (1483) and ‘s-Hertogenbosch (1484).4 We will concentrate our investigation on the ‘Southern’ Netherlands in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century, especially on Bruges in the County of ­Flanders, and on Louvain and Antwerp in the Duchy of Brabant. These three cities were s­ elected because of their specificities. Bruges, a commercial city, had a great port with an ­economic peak in the mid-fifteenth century and was a great centre for the ­production of luxury manuscripts, a city that had a long tradition in production of the book. Louvain was the main intellectual centre of the region, since the ­foundation of a university in 1425. The harbour city of Antwerp was not yet the printing and ­commercial centre it would become by the mid-sixteenth century, but it is interesting to see how the Antwerp handpress book industry took shape in this rising metropolis. This study covers the first phase of printing history; the terminus ad quem being the early 1520s, before the spread of Reformation ideas in the Low Countries.

Professional Legislation Typographers in other Southern Netherlandish cities did not affiliate with any ­professional guilds, but in the three cities under consideration they did. In Louvain, the exact nature of the measures taken by local authorities with regard to the first printers remains unknown because of the loss of the Acta universitatis at the beginning of the t­ ypographic era. However, their registration in one of the four faculties of the U ­ niversity proves that printers conformed to the legislation in place to regulate the 4 About its early development and its actors before the Reformation, see inter alia: A. Vincent, ‘La typographie en Belgique au XVe siècle’, in: Histoire du livre et de l’ imprimerie en Belgique des origines à nos jours, vol. 1 (Brussels, 1924), pp. 55–90; A. Rouzet, Dictionnaire des imprimeurs, libraires et éditeurs belges des xve et xvie siècles dans les limites géographiques de la Belgique actuelle (Collection du Centre national de l’archéologie et de l’histoire du livre – Nationaal Centrum voor de Archeologie en de Geschiedenis van het Boek, 3), Nieuwkoop, 1975; A. Pettegree, ‘Printing in the Low Countries in the Early Sixteenth Century’, in: G.  Kemp and M.  Walsby, The Book Triumphant. Print in Transition in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Library of the Written Word, 15) (Leiden and Boston, MA, 2011), pp.  3–25; R.  Adam, Imprimeurs et société dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux et en principauté de Liège (1473-ca 1520), 2 vols, Liège, 2010–11 (Unpublished PhD dissertation); H. Meeus, ‘Printing in the Shadow of a Metropolis’, in: B. Rial Costas (ed.), Print Culture and Peripheries in Early Modern Europe. A Contribution to the History of Printing and the Book Trade in Small European and Spanish Cities (Library of the Written Word, 24) (Leiden and Boston, MA, 2011), pp. 147–70; X. Hermand, E. Ornato and Ch. Ruzzier, Les stratégies éditoriales à l’ époque de l’ incunable. Le cas des anciens Pays-Bas (Bibliologia: Elementa ad librorum studia pertinentia, 33), Turnhout, 2012.

the profession of printer

 15

­

profession of b­ ookseller.5 The revision of the first statutes – today lost – of the U ­ niversity in 1429 specifies that booksellers were obliged to join the congregatio ­universitatis after ­swearing an oath in the rector’s hands that they would exercise their business without ruse or fraud (absque dolo et fraude).6 This requirement appears to have been very ­advantageous for printers because it gave them the same rights as the members of the academic c­ ommunity and the students (the suppositi), namely legal immunity, exemption from the salt tax, exemption from tolls and entrance fees and the concession of civic rights for the duration of their stay in Louvain.7 In return, the granting of such privileges allowed academic authorities to have some kind of control over the activities of their subjects. Two indirect testimonies provide valuable information on the nature of the ­a cademic authorities’ intervention in the regulation of the profession of typographer. In 1478, during the crisis of the calendar reform, the University prohibited its medical doctors from writing almanacs and printers from publishing prognostications with ‘printed at Louvain’ in the front matter.8 This measure seems to have been applied unevenly. Paul of Middelburg’s Prognostica ad viginti annos published in 1484 by ­Johannes de Westphalia bears the inscription in 5 Rodolphus Loeffs matriculated in the Faculty of Arts (1472); Johannes Veldener (1473) and Conradus de Westphalia (1477) in Medecine; Ludovicus Ravescot (1468), Johannes de Westphalia (1474), Conrad Braem (1474) and Aegidius van der Heerstraten (1478) in Canon Law (Matricule de l’Université de Louvain, ed. J. Wils, vol. 2, Brussels, 1946, p. 211, n. 61; p. 265, n. 6; p. 288, n. 110; p. 304, n. 70; p. 306, n. 129; p. 357, n. 128; p. 368, n. 71). The registration of Dirk Martens in 1497 does not specify his choice of a faculty (Matricule de l’Université de Louvain, vol. 3, ed. A. Schillings, Brussels, 1958, p. 156, n. 75). 6  A .  Van Hove, Statuts de l’Université de Louvain antérieures à l’année 1459, Bulletin de la Commission royale d’Histoire 76  (1907), 630–31. See also: J.  Roegiers, ‘De reglementering van het boekbedrijf aan de oude universiteit Leuven’, in: J.  Van Borm and L.  Simons (eds), Het oude en het nieuwe boek. De oude en de nieuwe bibliotheek. Liber amicorum H.  D.  L. Vervliet (Kapellen, 1988), pp. 75–87 (esp. pp. 75–77). On the relationship between the University and the book trade, see: A. Van Belle, ‘Het boekwezen aan de Leuvense Universiteit in de xvde eeuw’, in: Contributions à l’Histoire des Bibliothèques et de la Lecture aux Pays-Bas avant 1600 (Archives et bibliothèques de Belgiques, special no 11) (Brussels, 1974), pp. 543–62; P. Delsaerdt, ‘Suam quisque bibliothecam’. Boekhandel en particulier boekenbezit aan de oude Leuvense universiteit 16de18de eeuw (Symbolae Facultatis litterarum Lovaniensis. Series A / Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Faculteit van de Wijsbegeerte en Letteren, 27), Leuven, 2001; Idem, ‘Printers and Printing Policy at Leuven University, 15th-18th Centuries’, in: M. van Delft, F. de Glas and J. Salman (eds), New Perspectives in Book History. Contributions from the Low Countries (Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse boekhandel. Nieuwe reeks, 7) (Zutphen, 2006), pp. 49–64. 7 The three acts of transfer of sovereignty from the city magistrate, the chapter of Saint  Peter and the Duke of Brabant (1426) are published in: Actes ou Procès-verbaux des séances tenues par le conseil de l’Université de Louvain, vol. 1, ed. E. Reusens Brussels, 1903, pp. 3–12. The Leuven City Archives retain traces of the purchase of beer barrels at a reduced rate by Johannes de Westphalia for his employees (E. Van Even, Renseignements inédits sur les imprimeurs de Louvain, au XVe siècle, Le Bibliophile belge 1 [1866], pp. 50–51). On the fiscal advantages granted to members of the university community, see: R. Van Uytven, Stadsfinanciën en stadsekonomie te Leuven van de XIIe tot het einde der XVIe eeuw, Brussels, 1961, pp. 83–92. 8  Unius anni libellus, qui arabica voce Almanack dicuntur, doctores medici nostrae universitate scribere didignantur. Non enim absque causa huiusmodi kalendaria passim appelantur […]. Universitas anno 1478 prohibuit impressoribus, ne Almanack imprimant cum hac adjectione: impressum Lovanii (Les quatorze livres sur l’ histoire de la ville de Louvain du docteur et professeur en théologie Jean Molanus, vol. 1, ed. P. F. X. De Ram, Brussels, 1861, p. 751). On the attitude of the Faculty of Theology in these debates, see: H. De Jongh, L’ancienne Faculté de Théologie de Louvain au premier siècle de son existence (1432–1540). Ses débuts, son organisation, son enseignement, sa lutte contre Érasme et Luther, Leuven and Paris, 1911, pp. 83–87.

16 

renaud adam

Alma universitate Lovaniensi, while the prognostication by the same author for the year 1486 was reproduced by Aegidius van der Heerstraten without any mention of the date or of the place of printing.9 The particularities found in the two impressions of Jan Beets’ Super Commentum decem praeceptis decalogi printed by the same Heerstraten also indicate the existence of a regulation concerning the use of the title magister artis impressoriae. The formula had been systematically crossed out in ink in the colophon of all copies of the first series still preserved.10 In the second version, these words were removed. The ­t ypographer thus abused the use of this title and was forced to delete it afterwards. This is the only case we can document in Louvain.11 Many years after the spread of the Reformation in the Low Countries, the Alma Mater adopted a new constitution in 1565 which contained a special chapter d­ evoted to impressoribus et venditoribus ac etiam compactoribus librorum (Ch. 18). 12 This ­document ref lects the societal evolution of academic authorities codifying the ­prohibition of selling or possessing books placed on the Index. 13 In addition of this clause, an other one specifies that holding a university degree is not necessary for registration in a faculty. Those who prius intitulati non erunt simply had to take an oath before the rector. 14 With this new chapter of its constitution, the University had officially regulated the situation of the profession of printer. The case of Bruges is quite different. Book artisans did not depend on a c­ entral institution, but on a professional guild independent of the municipal a­ uthorities: the guild of Saint John. The first Bruges printers were already members of this guild b­ efore opening their print shops.15 Founded on 27 June 1454, the guild i­ ncluded b­ ooksellers,

Paul of Middelburgo, Prognosticon 1484–1504, Leuven: Johannes de Westphalia, 31 Aug. 1484,  4°, fol.  23v (ISTC ip00187550); Idem, Prognosticon anni 1486, [Leuven: Aegidius van der Heerstraten, between 1485 and 19 Apr. 1486], 4° (ISTC ip00185450). 10 Jan Beets, Commentum super decem praeceptis decalogi. With additions by Jodocus Beissel, Leuven: Aegidius van der Heerstraten, 19 Apr. 1486, 2°, fol. 297r (ISTC ib00296000). 11 Johannes Veldener used it for the first time in 1474 (ISTC ij00065500), Conradus de Westphalia in 1476 (ISTC im00176580), Johannes de Westphalia the next year (ISTC ib00341850) and Dirk Martens in 1501 (NK 462). 12 Les quatorze livres sur l’ histoire de la ville de Louvain (see n. 8), pp. 914–18. 13 See comments in: Jan Roegiers, ‘De reglementering’ (see n. 6), pp. 79–81. 14 Les quatorze livres sur l’ histoire de la ville de Louvain (see n. 8), p. 914. 15 Doubts remain about Colard Mansion’s registration year. Many authors believe that the typographer was registered in 1457 (G.  Colin and R.  Robbrecht, Notes sur l’origine et la disparition de Colard Mansion, De Gulden Passer 44 (1966), 218–28 (p. 221). We think that his membership dates to earlier and that it goes back to the creation of the guild. According to us, the Colinet Malchien who pays his dues in 1454 could in fact be Colard Mansion (W. Weale, Documents inédits sur les enlumineurs de Bruges, Le Beffroi 4 (1872–73), 238–337 (p. 254). Malchien is an altered form of Mansion and Colinet is – just as Colard – an apheresis of the name Nicolas (J. Germain and J. Herbillon, Dictionnaire des noms de familles en Belgique romane et dans les régions limitrophes (Flandre, France du Nord, Luxembourg), vol. 1, Brussels, 1996, p. 180). The membership of Johannes Brito in the guild of Saint  John also dates from its origins in 1454 (Weale, Documents inédits, p. 254). Heyndericus van den Dale joined it in 1506 (J. Van Praet, Notice sur Colard Mansion, libraire et imprimeur de la ville de Bruges en Flandre dans le quinzième siècle, Paris, 1829, p. 12). Only William Caxton, the first printer in Bruges, did not register himself in any guild.

9

the profession of printer

 17

copyists, painters, bookbinders and engravers.16 Citizenship (­poorterschap) was ­required for registration. The status of poorter (burgher) is e­ quivalent to the ­Latin ­notion of civis and was defined in urban constitution. Poorter was also related to many political and social privileges such as the right to take part in municipal ­administration. No foreign er was admitted if he did not previously ­acquire this status on the recommendation of another burgher who could attest to his identity as well as to his morality.17 Antwerp’s printers bear strong similarities to those of Bruges. Many of them joined the professional guild, namely that of Saint  Luke. Founded in the late ­fourteenth c­ entury, the guild hosted different crafts (painters, sculptors, goldsmiths, glaziers…) as well as book artisans (scribes, illuminators, bookbinders and so on).18 The direction of the guild was bicephalous: two deans were elected for a period of one year. According to one of its oldest regulations, no one was authorized by the guild to practice a profession under its supervision unless he possessed or acquired ­citizenship (een poertere moeten worde ofte poertere sijn).19 A  foreigner wishing to ­obtain guild status had to pay a fee after swearing allegiance to the Duke of Brabant in the presence of the Sheriff and the aldermen of the city.20 This right also included legal exemptions and tax privileges.21 The guild of Saint  Luke tried to extend its influence over printers as it had on ­illuminators. The trial which opposed printer Adriaen van Liesvelt to the guild, ­perfectly summarizes its attempt. In 1495, the aldermen of the city accused Liesvelt of using oil and varnish for his own illustrations, that is to say the material of a p­ ainter, 16 On the guild of Saint John, see: L. Gilliodts-Van Severen, L’œuvre de Jean Brito, prototypographe brugeois, Bruges, 1897, pp. 252–319; A. Vandewalle, ‘Het librariërsgilde te Brugge in zijn vroege periode’, in: Vlaamse kunst op perkament. Handschriften en miniaturen te Brugge van de 12de tot de 16de eeuw (Bruges, 1981), pp. 39–43; D. Vanwijnsberghe, ‘De fin or et d’azur’. Les commanditaires de livres et le métier de l’enluminure à Tournai à la fin du Moyen Age (xive–xve siècles), Leuven, 2001, pp. 102–05; P. Stabel, Organisation corporative et production d’œuvres d’art à Bruges à la fin du Moyen Âge et au début des Temps modernes, Le Moyen Âge 113 (2007), 91–134. 17  A .  Jamees, Brugse poorters, vol.  1: 1281–1417, Handzame, 1974, pp.  v–xxx; J.  Dumolyn, Population et structures professionnelles à Bruges aux XIVe et XVe siècles, Revue du Nord 81 (1999), 43–63 (pp. 47–48). 18  J. B. Van der Straelen, Jaerboek der vermaerde en kunstryke gilde van sint Lucas binnen de stad Antwerpen, Antwerp, 1855; Ph. Rombouts and Th. Van Lerius, Les « Liggeren » et autres archives historiques de la gilde anversoise de saint Luc, vol. 1, Amsterdam, 1961, pp. i–vii; J. Van der Stock, ‘De Antwerpse Sint-Lucasgilde en de drukkers-uitgevers. “Middeleeuws” achterhoedegevecht of paradigma van cultureel-politieke machtsverschuivingen?’, in: J. M. M. Hermans and Kl. van der Hoek (eds), Boeken in de late Middeleeuwen. Verslag van de Groningse Codicologendagen 1992 (Groningen, 1994), pp. 155–65; Idem, Printing Images in Antwerp. The Introduction of Printmaking in a City. Fifteenth Century to 1585, Rotterdam, 1998, pp.  27–57; K.  Van der Stighelen and F. Vermeylen, ‘The Antwerp Guild of St Luke and the Marketing of Paintings, 1400–1700’, in: H. Van Miegroet and N. De Marchi (eds), Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe, 1450– 1700 (Turnhout, 2006), pp. 189–208; M. P. J. Martens and N. Peeters, ‘Artists by Numbers. Quantifying Artists’ Trades in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp’, in: M.  Faries (ed.), Making and Marketing. Studies of Painting Process in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Netherlandish Workshops (Turnhout, 2006), pp. 211–22; P. Stabel, Organisation corporative (see n. 16), pp. 97–103. 19 Van der Straelen, Jaerboek (see n. 18), p. 2. 20  Coutumes du Pays et duché de Brabant. Quartier d’Anvers, vol. 1: Coutume de la ville d’Anvers, ed. G. De Longé, Brussels, 1870, pp. 274–75. 21  Ibidem, pp. 274–95.

18 

renaud adam

and he was therefore obliged to affiliate himself with the guild. Liesvelt, in his defence, ­replied that he used no colours or brushes, but only paper and ink. The guild’s case was dismissed; Liesvelt could continue his activities without any interference.22 This trial had serious consequences for the Saint Luke guild because it formalized the possibility for anyone to exercise freely the art of printing, on the condition that the printer did not use the tools of illuminators. Despite this relative independence, more than half of the active typographers in the city before 1520 affiliated themselves with the Saint Luke guild.23 Few of them even served as dean, as Govaert Bac, Willem Vorsterman and Jan Dingelsche; Vorsterman occupied this function twice.24 The legal framework surrounding the profession of typographer is thus characterized by a kind of local particularism. While the academic authorities supervised printers in a relatively strict way in Louvain, the printing trade benefited from great freedom in Antwerp. This situation is similar to other printing centres in Europe. In the university cities of Cologne and Paris, printers were forced to join the congregatio universitatis.25 In Nuremberg, the practice of printing did not suffer, in the first decades, from any corporate restriction.26 The common point among the cities of the Low Countries is certainly the acquisition of citizenship by all representatives of the typographic community, giving this community valuable benefits both legal and financial, as elsewhere in Europe. Another parallel concerns the attitude of printers. Too few to organize themselves into a guild, they turned to associations that other ‘professions of the book’ had already joined. The first genuine guild of printers in the Habsburg Netherlands did not appear until the seventeenth century, founded in Brussels in 1662. The ­Ordinance of 1662 established a guild of printers and booksellers in Brussels. Members then enjoyed a monopoly on printing and book sales in the capital. Anyone who was not a member of the guild was thus prohibited from selling printed books. Member recruitment involved strict formalities: a preliminary admission by the Council of Brabant as well as a training period of four-year duration with a master residing in Brussels. The guild was placed under the jurisdiction of the Council of Brabant.27

22 Antwerp, City Archives, Vonnisboek 1232 (1494–1502), fol. 22r. Edited in J. Van der Stock, ‘De Antwerpse Sint-Lucasgilde en de drukkers-uitgegevers’ (see n. 18), pp. 162–63, n. 1–2. 23 Dates of Antwerp printers’ registration: Govaert Bac (1493), Adriaen van Berghen (before 1505), Symon Cock (1557), Jan Dingelsche (before 1532), Henrick Eckert (1520), Mathias van der Goes (1487), Gheraert Leeu (1485), Jacob van Liesvelt (1536) and Willem Vorsterman (1512) (Rombouts and Van Lerius, Les « Liggeren » [see n. 18], vol. 1, pp. 37, 39, 45, 63, 76, 94, 117, 127, 203). 24 Ibidem, pp. 83, 108, 117, 142. 25 The statutes of the University of Louvain are modelled on those of Cologne and Paris (J. Goossens, De oudste algemene statuten van de Universiteit van Keulen en Leuven. Een vergelijkende tekstanalyse, Archives et Bibliothèques de Belgique 48 [1977], 42–78). 26 O. von Hase, Die Koberger. Eine Darstellung des Buchändlerischen Geschäftsbetriebes in der Zeit des Überganges vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1884, p. 56. 27 J.-B.  Vincent, Essai sur l’ histoire de l’ imprimerie en Belgique, depuis le xvme jusqu’ à la fin du xviiime siècle, Brussels, 1867, pp.  77–80,  190–93; A.  Vincent, ‘La typographie bruxelloise aux xviie et xviiie siècles’, in: Histoire du livre et de l’ imprimerie en Belgique. Des origines à nos jours, vol. 4 (Brussels, 1925–26), pp. 9–41 (pp. 12–14).

the profession of printer

 19

Privilege and State Censorship Until 1512, the Habsburg authorities did not interfere in the regulation of the book market. The first intervention by the civil government resulted from a commercial ­dispute between the printer Claes de Grave and Henrick Eckert and his associates (­ zijnen­ adherenten). This dispute concerned the printing of a prognostication written by the ­astrologer Jaspar Laet. Claes de Grave filed a complaint before an Antwerp court r­egarding the Laet’s desire to sell his text to multiple printers. Following the judgment of 7 November 1511, the typographer obtained the rights of reproduction for a period of one month. The judges decided that the astrologer had indeed the right to choose his printer, but that he should return the sum of twenty Rhine gulden he received from Eckert and his associates as payment for the book. De Grave received from Laet the sum of twelve Rhine gulden as compensation.28 Around Christmas, after the period of thirty days imposed by the court, Henrick Eckert hired some colleagues and worked with four or five presses and fifteen or sixteen apprentices (met vier oft vyf perssen ende vyfthien oft xvi gesellen). They aimed to publish the Laet’s prognostication as soon as possible. E ­ ckert hoped to overtake Claes de Grave. Forewarned, Claes de Grave complained to the Council of Brabant, the sovereign court of the duchy. On 5 January 1512, the Council of Brabant decided to allow to Claes de Grave to print all books not yet published in the duchy and prohibited any of his colleagues from reprinting these books during a period of six years.29 It was the first privilege given to a printer by the civil government in the Low Countries. In the de Grave decision, the Council of Brabant took inspiration from ­regulations already in effect in diverse places (in diversen Plaetsen), such as Paris, Venice and Lyon. The City of the Doges showed a great precocity by giving a ­five-year privilege to Johannes de Spira, a proto-typographer of Venice, on 18 September 1469. ­Shortly afterwards, the Venetian government considered this privilege to be a ­significant obstacle to the economic development of the city. So, after the death of Johannes de Spira, during the winter of 1469–70, they decided to no longer allow monopolies of this kind. Privileges granted thereafter applied only to particular ­editions.30 In France, the Royal Chancery adopted a similar legislation and for the first time in 1498 28  A ntwerp, City Archives, Vonnisboek, 1234 (1509–18), fol.  73r. Edited in P.  Verheyden, De Antwerpsche boekdrukker Henrick Eckert van Homberch alias Butzbach, ‘Bosbas’, en zijn ‘herdoopte’ weduwe, De Gulden Passer 16–17 (1938–39), 103–21 (p. 107). The Niedersächsische Staatsund Universitätsbibliothek has several fragments of Laet’s prognostication for the year 1512 attributed to Willem Vorsterman (NK 4514). Is it one of the copies of the controversial almanac? About this, see: W. and L. Hellinga, Eclipses and Early Printing, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch, 1971, 99–102. 29 […] van zesse jaren te rekenen van der daten van desen, sal mogen opstellen ende printen alle alsulcke nyeuwen volumen van boucken, ende anderen dingen alsmen hier bynnen onse lande ende hertochdom van Brabant […] (Brussels, State Archive, CC, 635, fol. 210r–212v; 20.785 [1511–12], fol. 10v). This document is edited in: P. Verheyden, ‘De Antwerpsche boekdrukker Henrick Eckert’ (see n. 28), pp. 104–06. See also: A. Wauters, Histoire des livres. Documents pour servir à l’histoire de l’imprimerie dans l’ancien Brabant, Bulletin du bibliophile belge 12  (1856), 73–84 (p.  74); P.  Verheyden, Drukkersoctrooien in de 16e eeuw, Tijdschrift voor Boek- en Bibliotheekwezen 8  (1910), 203–26,  269–78 (pp.  208–09, n.  1); L. van den Branden, Drukoctrooien toegekend door de Raad van Brabant tot 1600, De Gulden Passer 68 (1990), 55–88 (p. 13, n. 1). 30 Marcus Antonius Sabellicus was the first to get an individual privilege for his Decades rerum venetarum published in 1487 (ISTC is00005000). For more details, see: H. F. Brown, The Venetian Printing Press (see n. 27), pp. 50–53; M. Lowry, Nicholas Jenson and the Rise of Venetian Publishing in Renaissance Europe, Oxford and Cambridge, MA, 1991, pp. 18–20.

20 

renaud adam

conferred a three-year privilege on the Lyon printer Jean Trechsel for Explanatio in Avicenna canonem by Jacobus de Partibus. A similar favour was given a second time in 1507 to the publisher Antoine Verard for a French translation of the Epistles of Saint Paul printed the following year.31 The ‘delay’ of implementing legislation in the Habsburg Netherlands can be explained by the absence of commercial dispute, until the case of Claes de Grave. The first typographers of the Netherlands thus benefited from advantageous regulation until 1512 – viz. without the restrictions of a privileged printer – which were imposed on their French and Venetian colleagues much earlier. On 30 January 1512 (n.st.) – less than a month after the Claes de Grave decision–, Brussels typographer Thomas van der Noot received a three-year privilege, the second ever granted in the Netherlands. Van der Noot’s request was motivated by the defence of his interests, but also by a plea for the recognition of the quality of his work and his part in the diffusion of knowledge (ses merites et prouffiz).32 Shortly after, Symon Cock and Judocus Petri received a printing privilege of three years for Super Distinctiones Digesto veteris by Lambertus Salinensis and printed in Ghent on 11 September 1513.33 The records of the Chamber of Accounts do not preserve any trace of their petition. The information is provided in the colophon of their book which contains a warning addressed to anyone who wanted to reprint the text or to sell it in Brabant.34 Other printers also solicited protection from the authorities for their impressions yet unpublished in the duchy: Willem Vorsterman (1514), Jan van Doesborch (1515), Michiel Hillen (1516), Doen Pieterszoon from Amsterdam (1516), Laurens Hayen from ‘s-Hertogenbosch (1517), Dirk Martens from Louvain (1519).35 Legal persons also submitted requests to the Council of Brabant for specific impressions. The dean and the chapter of Saint Servatius in Maastricht received an exclusive privilege on 9 August 1519 to print a life of their patron saint in Dutch and in French (in Duytsche ende in Walsche).36 31 E.  Armstrong, Before Copyright. The French Book-Privilege System 1498–1526 (Cambridge Studies in Publishing and Printing History, 8), Cambridge, 1990. 32 Brussels, State Archive, CC, 635, fol. 212v–214r; 20.785 (1511–12), fol. 11r (Wauters, Histoire des livres [see n. 29], p. 74; Verheyden, Drukkersoctrooien in de 16e eeuw [see n. 29], p. 209, n. 2; van den Branden, Drukoctrooien [see n. 29], p. 13, n. 2). 33  NK 3784. 34  Opus impressum Gandavi anno Domini .m.cccc.xiii.xi. septembris industria et labore Simonis Cock et Iudoci Petri de Hallis ex Brabantica originem sumentium cum privilegio illustrissimi arciducis Austriae ducis Brugundie, Brabancie et ceterae. Ne quis audeat idipsum imprimere nec alio in loco impressum in Brabantia et aliis patriis Brabantiae appendentibus vendere intra triennum sub pena confiscationis eorundem librorum et aliis penis in dicto privilegio contentis (fol. 63r). 35  Brussels, State Archive, CC, 635, fol.  315v–316v, 377v–378v; 636, fol.  70v–71v, 157v–158v, 219v–221r, 317r–318v; 20.785 (1513–14), fol.  15r, (1513–14), fol.  17v; 20.786 (1515–16), fol.  5v, 6v, (1517–18), fol. 3v, (1518–19), fol. 6r, 7v (Wauters, Histoire des livres [see n. 29], p. 74;Verheyden, Drukkersoctrooien in de 16e eeuw [see n. 29], pp. 210–11, n° 4–10; van den Branden, Drukoctrooien [see n. 29], 13–14, n° 4–10). 36 Brussels, State Archive, CC, 636, fol.  342v–343r; 20.786 (1518–19), fol.  15r (Wauters, Histoire des livres [see n. 29], p. 74; van den Branden, Drukoctrooien [see n. 29], p. 15, n. 12). Alphonse Wauters mistakenly thought that the chapter which requested this privilege was the one of Utrecht. We have found no copy of this 1519 life of Saint  Servatius. In the fifteenth century, c. 1460, the chapter of Saint Servatius already financed a bilingual life of its patron saint, reproduced by the technique of xylography (A. M. Koldeweij and P. N. G. Pesch [eds], Le livre xylographique de saint Servais. Fac-similé avec commentaire sur le livre xylographique du quinzième siècle, sur la légende de S. Servais et sur l’ostension des reliques à Maestricht, Utrecht and Zutphen, 1984.

the profession of printer

 21

Although the Council of Brabant was a sovereign court, it was still under the scrutiny of princes, so even if printers asked for protection from the Council the central government still maintained some rights of inspecting the request of a printer. This is a medieval heritage: when the Duchy of Brabant came under the domination of the Dukes of Burgundy, and later of the Habsburg dynasty, they managed to keep a certain form of autonomy. However, before granting any privilege, the Council of Brabant made sure to take advice and deliberation from notre tres cher et tresaimee fille de Monseigneur Empereur dame et tante de Monseigneur Charles larchiduchesse Marguerite d’Autriche, régente des Pays-Bas.37 Unlike his colleagues, Dirk Martens first addressed a petition to the central government to obtain protection beyond the limits of Brabant. The verso of the title-page of Richard of Saint Victor’s Septem libri in Johannis Apocalypsim, published on 7 September 1513, prohibited unauthorised reprinting for three years following its publication under threat of prosecution.38 This injunction came from Emperor Maximilian as well as from Archduke Charles and extended to the entire territory of the Low Countries (in Terris and principatibus eorum citra Rhenum). Adrian of Utrecht’s Quaestiones quodlibeticae, printed in 1518, contains a similar warning on the title-page, but for a period of four years.39 Dirk Martens finally addressed his requests to the Council of Brabant at the beginning of February 1519. The proximity between that date and the death of Maximilian (12 January 1519) is suggestive. Did the death of the Emperor put an end to the privilege obtained by Martens, forcing him to address his request to the Brabant institution? For Martens and his colleagues, the granting of a privilege for a book was normally indicated by the addition of the expression cum gratia et privilegio either on its title-page or following its colophon. Some printers, like Willem Vorsterman, even reinforced this formula with a woodcut representing the imperial eagle. The authorities closely watched the attitude of printers in matters of privilege. In June 1523, the Great Council of Mechelen asked Michiel Hillen to explain where he had obtained a privilege of three years to publish the Bulla induciarum of Pope Adrian VI.40 The government wanted to know which authority had conferred this right on him. The printer evidently showed the six-year privilege he had obtained from the Council of Brabant on 5 October 1521.41 His arguments were apparently accepted because Michiel Hillen was afterwards no longer being sued by the court. 37 Quoted from Thomas van der Noot’s privilege: Brussels, State Archive, CC, 635, fol. 213r. 38 NK 1803: Casaris semper Augusti ac serenissimi Caroli Archiducis Austriae ducis Burgundiae et Brabantiae principis Castellae,  etc. eius nepotis privilegio cautum est: ne cui hoc opus ante qua driennum imprimere in terris et principatibus eorum citra rhenum liceat sub poena amissionis librorum imprimendorum et aliarum poenarum arbitrariarum (fol. 1v). 39 NK 10: Iussu mandatoque Domini Maximiliani Augusti eiusque nepotis Caroli potentissimi Hispaniarum regis quisquis es, nobilis, plebeie, impressor, mercator, mercenarie, hunc librum intra eorum ditiones quadriennum ne imprimito, neve impresso vendito, si quis huiusce iussionis ergo adversus ierit feceritue, penas statutas pendito, impunitatem ne sperato, sin speraverit, prorsus frustator (fol. 1r). 40 NK 6. Brussels, State Archive, CC, 21459–21485, fol. 98r; A. Pinchart, De tout et de rien, Bulletin du bibliophile belge 7  (1850), 388–96 (p.  392); L.  Le Clercq, Antverpia Typographica. Documents inédits touchant les imprimeurs anversois, De Gulden Passer 14 (1936), 28–42 (28–29). 41 Brussels, State Archive, CC, 20.786 (1520–21), fol.  1v (Wauters, Histoire des livres [see n.  29], p.  74; Verheyden, Drukkersoctrooien in de 16e eeuw [see n.  30], p.  211, n° 12; van den Branden, Drukoctrooien [see n. 29], p. 15, n° 13).

22 

renaud adam

In the same times, the policy of the government towards printers would become more and more restrictive, mainly because of the rise of the Reformation. The first ­repressive edict in matters of heresy was published on 28 September 1520, preceding even the Edict of Worms. This was followed by a new edict in March 1521 which prohibited the printing, sale, purchase, storage and reading of Lutheran books under threat of confiscation of all property and of other unspecified punishments. Less than two months later, on 8 May, Charles V signed the famous Edict of Worms, which extended the ban to books attacking the Roman Church, the Pope and the University of L ­ ouvain. As a corollary, the Council of Brabant stopped granting general monopolies to ­typographers and restricted itself to granting privileges for specific editions. The legislation against heretics intensified with the edicts of 1526, 1529 (1531), 1540, 1546 and 1550, and subsequently, during the reign of Philip II, with those of 1556, 1562, 1570 and 1572.42 A major development for the printing trade occurred on 10 June 1570 when Christopher Plantin was appointed King’s proto-typographer pour avoir superintendance sur le fait de l’imprimerie. His mission consisted in testing all those who wished to exercise whatever trade related to the printing art. Assisted by one or two master-printers, Plantin issued certificates, drawn up later by a notary and confirmed by either the King himself or his lieutenant and Governor-General. This grant for admission to the profession is the last step in a regulatory process set in motion by the monopoly request made by Claes de Grave in 1512. The function was de facto abolished in 1576 after the Pacification of Ghent during the Dutch Revolt. It would not be renewed after the restoration of the power of Philip II subsequent to the Reconquista by Alexander Farnese.43

Religious Authorities, Censorship, and the Printing Trade Measures to control the orthodoxy of printed books were taken by the Church from the last third of the fifteenth century in cities like Cologne and Mainz. In 1479, the University of Cologne obtained from Pope Sixtus  IV a bull giving it supervisory power over all the works published in the city. A case of censorship was judged two years earlier. In Mainz, the Archbishop Berthold von Henneberg proclaimed in 1485 42 A. Puttemans, La censure dans les Pays-Bas autrichiens, Brussels, 1935, pp. 13–22; J. Machiels, Privilège, censure et index dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux jusqu’au début du XVIIIe siècle (Service éducatif. Première série  / Archives générales du Royaume, 17), Brussels, 1997, pp.  59–113; A. Goosens, Les inquisitions modernes dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux (1520–1633), vol. 1, Brussels, 1997, pp.  47–112. Also: J.  A. Fühner, Die kirchen- und die antireformatorische Religionspolitik Kaiser Karls  V. in den siebzehn Provinzen der Niederlande 1515–1555 (Brill’s Series in Church History, 23), Leiden, Brill, 2004. 43 Ph. Rombouts, Certificats délivrés aux imprimeurs des Pays-Bas par Christophe Plantin et autres documents se rapportant à la charge du Prototypographe, Antwerp and Ghent, 1881; M.  Rooses, Christophe Plantin, imprimeur anversois, Antwerp, 1882, pp. 199–209; A. Vincent, ‘La typographie en Belgique (sauf Anvers) au xvie siècle’, in: Histoire du livre et de l’ imprimerie en Belgique des origines à nos jours, vol. 3, Brussels, 1925, pp. 67–103 (pp. 70–72); M. Baelde, De toekenning van drukkersoctrooien door de Geheime Raad in de zestiende eeuw, De Gulden Passer 40 (1962), 19–58; M.  Soenen, Impression et commerce des livres aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles. Réflexions en marge d’un inventaire de cartons du Conseil privé espagnol, Archives et Bibliothèques de Belgique 56 (1985), 72–92; Goosens, Les inquisitions modernes (see n. 42), vol. 1, pp. 47–112.

the profession of printer

 23

one of the first edicts on censorship.44 It is not a coincidence that such measures were taken in cities where the handpress book industry had its earliest developments. The Papacy took its first measure on 17 November 1487 with the publication by Innocent  VIII of the Bull Inter multiplices which condemns, under pain of ­excommunication, printing books considered contrary to Catholic doctrine (­ varios errores ac perniciosa dogmata).45 The Pope recognized the importance of the ­t ypographic art for the diffusion of authorized and useful books (librorum ­probatorum et ­utilium), but he criticized its perversion which facilitated the multiplication of heterodox books. The papal decision was universal; it applied to the Roman Curia, to the rest of Italy, and in principle also to Germany, France, Spain, England, Scotland and other nations (tam in Romana Curia quam in reliquis Italiae, Germaniae, ­Franciae, ­Hispaniarum, Angliae et Scotiae aliarumque nationum). His successor Alexander  VI issued a new bull on 1 June 1501, which not only adopted the content of the previous text, but also its incipit. One difference, however, resides in the regions targeted by this version: it had been reported to the pontiff that prohibited books were printed in diversis partibus mundi, especially in the provinces of Cologne, Mainz, Trier, and Magdeburg.46 The last pre-Reformation printing intervention by a pope occurred in the wake of the Fifth Lateran Council in 1515.47 On this occasion, the Bishop of Nantes, François Hamon, got the approval of the Assembly for the promulgation of the bull Inter sollicitudines of Leo X. This text prohibits the publication of books throughout the Christian world unless they first receive an approval from the diocesan bishop and the inquisitor. In Rome, the approval is given by the Cardinal Vicar. All books published without such authorization were to be burned. It is interesting to note that this text takes into account the recent developments in the field of philology and theology: the prohibition on heterodox books concerns also those translated into Latin from Greek, Hebrew, Arabic and Chaldean, and the others written in Latin or in the vernacular. It is difficult to perceive the degree of effectiveness papal decisions had in the Low Countries. By their nature ephemeral, very few copies of these bulls have been preserved.

44 He asked the Frankfurt City Council to carefully consider all the works sold at the Fair in 1485 and collaborate with the Episcopal authorities to ban dangerous publications. E. Voullième, Der Buchdruck Kölns bis zum Ende des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts, Bonn, 1903, pp.  lxxx–lxxxvii; S. Corsten, ‘Universität und Buchdruck in Köln. Versuch eines Überblicks für das 15. Jahrhundert’, in: L. Hellinga and H. Härtel (eds), Buch und Text in 15. Jahrhundert. Book and Text in the Fifteenth Century (Wolfenbütteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung, 2) (Hamburg, 1981), pp. 189–99 (pp. 189–90); O. Zaretzky, Der erste Kölner Zensurprozess. Ein Beitrag zur Kölner Geschichte und Inkunabelkunde, Cologne, 1906; H.  Pallmann, Des Erzbischofs Berthold von Mainz ältestes Censuredict, Archiv für Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels 9 (1884), 238–41. 45   A n edition of this text can be found in: Voullième, Der Buchdruck Kölns (see n.  44), pp. lxxxviii–xci. 46  L . von Pastor, Histoire des papes depuis la fin du Moyen Âge, vol. 6, Paris, 1898, pp. 144–46; P. de Roo, Material for a History of Pope Alexander VI, His Relatives and His Time, vol. 3, Bruges, 1924, pp. 4–9 (the bull is edited on pages 467–70). 47  von Pastor, Histoire des papes (see n.  46), vol.  8, Paris, 1909, pp.  248–49; R.  Hirsch, Bulla super impressione librorum, 1515, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 1973,  248–51; G.  Dumeige (ed.), Histoire des conciles œcuméniques, vol. 10: Latran V et Trente, Paris, 1975, pp. 83–86 (a French translation is available on pages 425–26).

24 

renaud adam

The text printed in Rome in 1487 by Eucharius Silber survives in only two copies.48 This edition of Silber is also the only version preserved. This also applies to the Bulla ­super impressione librorum (the better-known title of Inter sollicitudines), printed a­ nonymously in Rome in 1515 and kept in two copies now held in Italian libraries.49 Moreover, an examination of the synodal statutes printed in the Southern Netherlands yields no better results; none of them included any one of these three texts. In the Southern Netherlands, the first trace of the intervention of the Church in matters of censorship appeared in 1515. The Council of Brabant granted the privilege to Jan van Doesborch on 18 September 1515, an accompanying clause required him to present his first publications to the parish priest of the church of Our Lady in Antwerp and to the magistrate of the city (te thoenen den prochiaen oft pastoir van onser vrouwe kerke, ende de wethouder onser voers. stat van antwerpen).50 A few months later, on 18 February 1516, Michiel Hillen received a similar directive.51 These measures imposed by the Council of Brabant on Jan van Doesborch and Michiel Hillen thus reflect the application of papal conciliar injunctions. The political and religious clash occurring after the Reformation generated the direct intervention of the religious authorities in the form of the bull Exsurge Domine, promulgated on 15 June 1520. It resulted in the banning of all books with Lutheran content. The text was reproduced by two printers in the Southern Netherlands, namely Willem Vorsterman in Antwerp and Dirk Martens in Louvain.52 Examination of the context raises the question of whether Dirk Martens had some some sympathy for Luther’s ideas or at least to the ‘new’ ideas of that period? In a letter of Erasmus, dated 1520, we learn that Martens refused to print a text of the theologian John or Johannes Driedo refuting Luther’s theses. In a letter of the papal nuncio Girolamo Aleandro dated 27 June 1521 and addressed to Cardinal Giulio de Medici, (the future Pope Clement VIII), with an accompanying copy of the Edict of Worms printed by Martens, Aleandro complains that the typographer deliberately slowed the printing of the edict, even forcing him, the papal legate, to officiate as corrector. In addition, Martens had used too much paper to increase the printing costs. Finally, the nuncio reported that he had to seize heretical books stored in Martens’ shop.53 On the other hand, Antwerp typographers seemed to enjoy relative freedom ­regarding religious matters during the 1520s and the 1530s. Despite the efforts of the Louvain theologians and attempts by central authorities, Antwerp was quite liberal, especially with regard to the vernacular Bible market. The city council tried to safeguard its image of ‘open’ port and its local economy’s commercial interest.54 But the 1540s are 48 ISTC ii00110000: Freiburg im Breisgau, Universitätsbibliothek, Ink. A 1403; New York, Hispanic Society of America. 49 EDIT-16 5599: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica vaticana, Stamp.Ross.4315 (int.4); Venice, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, MISC 2551. 031. 50 Brussels, State Archive, CC, 635, fol. 378r. 51  Brussels, State Archive, CC, 636, fol. 71r. 52 NK 1342, O778. 53  R . Adam and A. Vanautgaerden, Thierry Martens et la figure de l’ imprimeur humaniste (une nouvelle biographie) (Nugae humanisticae: sub signo Erasmi, 11), Brussels and Turnhout, 2009, pp. 124–25. 54  W. François, ‘Vernacular Bible Reading and Censorship in Early Sixteenth Century. The Position of the Louvain Theologians’, in: M. Lamberigts and A. den Hollander (eds), Lay Bibles in

the profession of printer

 25

marked by a harsh repression, especially in the Southern Low Countries. For example, Steven Mierdmans went to exile to England in 1546 and the leading printers of heterodox texts Adriaen van Berghen and Jacob van Liesvelt were executed, the first beheaded in The Hague in 1542, the second had the same fate in Antwerp three years later.55

Conclusion In conclusion, the introduction of the printing art in the cities of the Southern Netherlands did not provoke an immediate revolution in the regulations of the book trade, as elsewhere in Europe. Typographers came to fit in without causing deep modifications in the existing legal frameworks. In the university city of Louvain they became members of the academic community, which implied both privileges from and supervision by the university authorities; in the commercial port cities Bruges and Antwerp, they had to acquire the status of citizen. In these towns, printers affiliated themselves with professional guilds that their colleagues working in the field of the book and manuscripts had already joined. However, the situation in Antwerp was more ambiguous: after the trial between Adriaen van Liesvelt and the guild of Saint Luke, the practice of printing was considered free under certain circumstances. In the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century, the civil and religious authorities did not closely watch typographers. The full impact of the effects of the Reformation would only be felt later. Because of the subversive potential of the printing business, ecclesiastical and civil authorities – in their concord concern for orthodoxy – treated them with suspicion. These authorities, however, faced attempts to sort of local protec tionism, trying to maintain some autonomy and anxious to protect their commercial interests. The book policy in the 1520s-30s demonstrates a gap between promulgated laws and the reality on the ground, resulting in compromises between a variety of printing interests and local and regional authorities. However, from the 1540s until the end of the sixteenth century, the central government promulgated laws that were more and more re strictive; the offenders were even exposed to the death penalty. At least two printers were beheaded in the beginning of the 1540s. Philip II issued the last major censorship edict in 1570 in which he ratified the decrees of the Council of Trent and its Index. The legislation would no longer change significantly thereafter.

Europe 1450–1800 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 198) (Leuven, 2006), pp.  69–96; Idem, The Antwerp Printers Christoffel and Hans (I) van Ruremond, Their Dutch and English Bibles, and the Intervention of the Authorities in the 1520s and 1530s, Archive for Reformation History 101 (2010), 7–28. 55  F. de Nave, La Réforme et l’imprimerie à Anvers, Bulletin de la Société d’ histoire du protestantisme belge 10 (1985), 85–94; A. G. Johnson and J.-F. Gilmont, ‘L’imprimerie et la Réforme à Anvers’, in: J.-F.  Gilmont, La Réforme et le Livre. L’Europe de l’ imprimé (1517-v. 1570) (Paris, 1990), pp. 191–216; D. Imhof, G. Tournoy and F. de Nave, Antwerpen, dissident drukkerscentrum. De rol van de Antwerpse drukkers in de godsdienststrijd in Engeland (16de eeuw). Tentoonstelling in het Museum Plantin-Moretus te Antwerpen 1 Oktober-31 December 1994, Antwerp, 1994.

‘Burned to Dust’: Censorship and Repression of Theological Literature in the Habsburg Netherlands during the 1520s

Grantley McDonald

The Index of Forbidden Books, first issued by the faculty of theology at the Sorbonne in 1544 and reissued in ever-swelling editions until 1966, was an omnivorous furnace into which controversial written matter of all kinds was shovelled for over four centuries.1 As the primary instrument for publishing the results of inquisitions into * I have made extensive use of the VD16 and bibliasacra.be databases. In my transcriptions, I have expanded abbreviations silently. All translations are my own. Many thanks to Wim François, Henk Jan de Jonge, Herbert Wurster, Klaas van der Hoek and Violet Soen for their assistance, comments and corrections. Abbreviations: NB  = A.  Pettegree and M.  Walsby, Netherlandish Books: Books Published in the Low Countries and Dutch Books Printed Abroad before 1601, 2  vols, Leiden: Brill, 2010. NK  = W.  Nijhoff and M.  E. Kronenberg, Nederlandsche Bibliographie van 1500 tot 1540,  3  vols, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1923–66. STC  = A.  W. Pollard and G.  R. Redgrave (eds), A  Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland and Ireland, and of English Books Printed Abroad 1475–1640. 2nd ed. 3 vols, London: The Bibliographical Society, 1976–1991. VD16 = Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts. https://opacplus.bib-bvb.de. 1 On the history of the Index and on censorship in the Low Countries, see especially Fr. H. Reusch, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher, Bonn: Max Cohen, 1883; P.  Frédéricq, Corpus documentorum Inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis Neerlandicae, Ghent: Vuylsteke, 1889–1906 (henceforth Frédéricq); M. E. Kronenberg, Verboden boeken en opstandige drukkers in de Hervormingstijd, Amsterdam: P. N. van Kampen en Zoon, 1948; C. Ch. G. Visser, Luthers geschriften in de Nederlanden tot 1546, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1969 (henceforth Visser); Index des livres interdits, ed. J. Martínez de Bujanda et  al., 11  vols, Geneva: Droz, 1985–2002 (henceforth Bujanda); A.  Goosens, Les inquisitions modernes dans les Pays-Bas Méridionaux 1520–1633, 2 vols, Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1997–98, on whose useful chronology of legislation (1:203–12) I have relied; W. François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ Kaiser Karls in den Niederlanden und ihre Bedeutung für Bibelübersetzungen in der Volkssprache: Der ‘Proto-Index’ von 1529 als vorläufiger Endpunkt, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis/Dutch Review of Church History (henceforth NAKG) 84 (2004), 198–247; H. Wolf, Index: Der Vatikan und die verbotenen Bücher, Munich: Beck, 2007.

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François, Turnhout, 2017 (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire ­Ecclésiastique, 101), pp. 27–52

F H G

DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.113400

28 

grantley mcdonald

the doctrinal fitness of literature of all kinds, the index occupies a central place in the history of official censorship and suppression. The present paper will examine the predecessors of the printed index in the 1520s, and the ways in which specific condemnations were disseminated before the rise of the printed indices. We shall focus primarily on the situation in the Habsburg Netherlands, using a comparative approach to throw the situation there into sharper relief. Unlike the later indices, the Netherlands edicts from the 1520s do not often identify offensive books with much precision. By way of comparison, we shall briefly ­examine a recently discovered document from the diocese of Vienna, at the other end of the Habsburg territories, which provides contrasting lists of authors whose works were either condemned or recommended. Comparing proscription lists from different parts of the Habsburg lands permits us to identify which works were considered dangerous only locally, and those whose notoriety was more widespread. A comparison of the rather vague edicts from the Netherlands and the more precise list from Vienna also suggests differences in purpose and execution. Opportunities for a comparative approach are also offered by a Dutch book that became popular outside the Netherlands. Although the Lutheran Reformation was usually considered a foreign import in the Netherlands, one ‘evangelical’ book ­written in the Netherlands, The Sum of the Holy Scripture, became a popular e­ xport. This work highlights some of the difficulties that faced attempts to control ­theological literature. Firstly, The Sum of the Holy Scripture was published a­ nonymously. It t­ herefore escaped the blanket condemnation of prominent i­ ndividual authors such as Luther. When it was condemned, it had to be named separately. Secondly, its c­ ontent cannot be identified neatly with well-known theological positions such as Lutheranism. The condemnation of this book therefore shows that censors in the 1520s were sensitive to the gradations of dissent that existed within the penumbra of early sixteenth-century evangelical literature. Thirdly, The Sum of the Holy Scripture was translated into many languages and printed in many countries, and therefore spilled out into a number of jurisdictions. Examining the fate of this work in a ­number of places allows us to observe the ways in which various governments attempted to control the circulation of heterodox literature. This will give further profile to our examination of the situation within the Habsburg Netherlands. We shall also pay attention to the techniques employed to control dissenting literature. While some early edicts specify mere confiscation of heretical books, subsequent proclamations called for their annihilation. The incineration of books was intended not simply to prevent people from reading them. It was an extension of, or a monitory substitute for, the execution of criminals. Such executions were a semi-improvised drama in which the condemned was expected to perform the role of contrition, repentance and submission, and the repressive capabilities of the State were enacted to public view. The act of burning books symbolically purified the community from the infectious evil of lèse-majesté divine, and emphasised the State’s disapproval and power to repress.2 It also stood as an implicit threat that human offenders might be treated in the same way. The association between the burning of heretical writings and the burning of heretical persons may be observed 2 See D. Nicholls, The Theatre of Martyrdom in the French Reformation, Past & Present 121 (1988), 49–73.

‘burned to dust’

 29

in the similarity of the language used in each case. The imperial edict of 20 March 1520 ordered that Lutheran books be ‘reduced to ash’ (mis en cendres). Similar formulations are to be found in the reports of the executions of two heretical Augustinians burned to dust (verbrandt te polvere) at Brussels on 1 July 1523, of the heretical priest Jan Janssen, burned to dust (verbrant tot polvere toe) at The Hague on 15 September 1525, of Wendelmoet Claesdochtere, burned to dust (gebrant tot polveren toe) at the Hague on 20 November 1527, and of the Bruges milliner Hector van Dommenne, whose body was ‘consumed to ash and nothingness that nothing of it might remain’ (consommé […] en cendre et à neant que riens ne y demoura).3 Thus dangerous books and dangerous people alike were cast into the flames by the public executioner and reduced to the same harmless and insubstantial matter.

First Reactions to Luther’s Writings From the outset of Luther’s struggle against the authority of the Roman church, the ­imperial and ecclesiastical authorities employed their temporal power to root out his books as a pestiferous poison that threatened the health of the body politic. At the ­request of the theological faculty at Louvain, the university of Cologne ­condemned Luther’s writings on 30 August 1519.4 On 29 January 1520, Margaret of Austria passed an ordinance against blasphemers, a category wide enough to include religious d­ issidents of all kinds.5 The papal bull Exsurge domine (15 June 1520) contained a ban against books by Luther and any others who promoted his errors. Any books found to contain such heresies were to be burned.6 The papal legate Girolamo Aleandro was sent north to oversee the promulgation of Exsurge domine. The bull was reprinted by Willem Vorsterman at Antwerp and by Dirk Martens at Louvain.7 ­Accordingly, Charles V promulgated an ordinance against heresy in the Low Countries on 28 September 1520.8 On 23 October 1520, Aleandro reported to  Leo X that Charles V had ratified the bull, and that Lutheran tracts had been burned in the presence of the ­imperial party as it stopped at Louvain on 8 October. The city magistrates s­ olemnly turned out in their robes, the public executioner stoked the fire, and a herald p­ roclaimed the condemnation of Luther’s works to the assembled townsfolk and ­ambassadors a­ ttending the court. In total, more than eighty books were burned that day. ­Another fire was held at Liège on 17 October.9 More books were burned at Cologne on 12 November. On 3 January 1521, Leo X excommunicated Luther and his followers with the bull Decet Romanum pontificem.10 Once again, Charles V threw his weight behind the p­ apal condemnation of Luther’s work. On 17 February he ordered that blasphemers were to 3 Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 44, 192, 496; vol. 5, pp. 273–74, 277, 281, 355, 388. 4 Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 12–14. 5  Ch.  Laurent and J.  Lameere, Recueil des ordonnances des Pays-Bas, deuxième série, 1506– 1700, 7 vols, Brussels: Goemare, 1893–97 (henceforth Laurent and Lameere), vol. 2, pp. 1–2. 6  E xsurge domine (1520), §10, Latin text edited in Frédéricq, vol.  4, pp.  23–33, at 30. See also Visser, pp. 5–6. 7 NK 1342, 0778; Visser, p. 5, points out that the dating of the bull in Frédéricq (17 July 1520) is due to a misreading of the date at the end (XVII Kalen. Iulii). 8 On this ordinance, which has been lost, but which is mentioned in the correspondence of Aleander, see Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1), vol. 1, pp. 48, 75. 9 Aleander to Leo  X, [23 October 1520], Vatican City, Archivio Segreto, Cod. 3918,  181, ed. Frédéricq, vol. 4, p. 34. See also Visser, p. 5. 10 Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 37–40; Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1), vol. 1, p. 48.

30 

grantley mcdonald

be driven from his territories.11 On 10 March he ordered the confiscation of Luther’s writings throughout the Empire, though this edict seems to have had little immediate effect.12 On about 20 March, he directed an even more pointed edict to the Council of Flanders. This document asserted that Luther promoted errors espoused by Hus and condemned at Constance. His books spread incorrect opinions about the sacraments and about the church’s right to grant indulgences and impose excommunication or other censures. They were thus to be ‘abolished and incinerated as false, damnable and heretical’ (abboliz et mis en cendres comme faulx, damnables et heritiques). Printing, sale, purchase and even possession of such works were henceforth prohibited. Those who contravened this regulation were to be punished with confiscation of the books and a fine at the discretion of the judges (autre peine arbitraire), of which two thirds would be rendered to the crown, and a third given to the informant. The execution of this edict was entrusted not to ecclesiastical officers, but to imperial and civil ones.13 In early April 1521, both Pope Leo X and his future successor, cardinal Adrian of Utrecht, wrote to exhort Charles V, now attending the diet of Worms, to repress the further spread of Luther’s ideas. Following Luther’s refusal to recant at the diet in late April 1521, Charles V released a further edict on 8 May in which he f­ orbade the buying, selling, p­ ossession, reading, transcription, printing, p­ ublication, defence or preaching of Luther’s works, notwithstanding anything good mixed in with the bad to fool simple minds. Such works could destroy society like a ­poison. For this ­reason, any copies of his work that were found, whether in German or Latin, printed or ­manuscript, were to be torn up publicly and burned, so that their ­memory might ­perish entirely and they might do no further harm. Images m ­ ocking the pope and the Holy See were to be destroyed in the same way. Those who presumed to ­contravene this order were to be punished with confiscation of their goods. Henceforth, printers were to submit a copy of all prospective books to the nearest university for approval (in the Habsburg Netherlands, that meant Louvain), and all prospective pictures were to be submitted to the bishop or his delegate. Thus r­ etrospective repression was joined by preventive censorship. Failure to conform with these instructions constituted lèse-majesté, to be punished with imperial p­ roscription, ban and interdict, as well as further, unspecified penalties. Although the edict does not explicitly mention the threat of capital punishment, it is implicit in the ­invocation of lèse-majesté, as Aline ­Goosens has pointed out.14 This edict r­ epresents the first 11 Laurent and Lameere, vol. 2, pp. 69–70. 12  Deutsche Reichstagsakten, jüngere Reihe, Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl  V, Gotha: Perthes, 1893–, vol. 2, pp. 529–33, (p. 532). Further, see Jochen A. Fühner, Die kirchen- und die antireformatorische Religionspolitik Kaiser Karls V. in den siebzehn Provinzen der Niederlande 1515– 1555, Leiden: Brill, 2004, p. 187. 13  L aurent and Lameere, vol. 2, pp. 70–71; Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 43–45. Cf. Visser, pp. 6–7. Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1), vol. 1, p. 49, writes that those who contravened this edict were threatened with ‘confiscation de tous les biens’, but the edict specifies only ‘confiscation desdits livres’ besides the other unspecified penalties. 14  Frédéricq, vol.  4, pp.  55–57. This edict was reprinted with further proscriptions in Antwerp: Vorstermann, 1521; Rome: Iacobus Mazochius, [1521]; and Cologne: Cervicornus, 1521. Further, see Visser, pp. 5–7; Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1), vol. 1, pp. 49–50, vol. 2, p. 187; François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n. 1), pp. 199–201. Fühner, Die kirchen- (see n. 12), pp. 185–96, analyses the differences between the Latin original of the edict and the Flemish translation, which in turn served as the basis for the French translation.

‘burned to dust’

 31

real a­ ttempt of the Habsburg regime to interfere significantly with the printing industry by taking upon itself regulatory and preventive functions exercised by ecclesiastical authorities since the fifteenth century, and mandated by the fifth Lateran Council in 1515.15 On Saturday 13 July 1521, the imperial edict was read aloud before the town hall of Antwerp in the presence of the city magistrates, the imperial lieutenant, who held the sceptre of justice, and the papal inquisitor Nicolaas van Egmond, a Carmelite from Louvain. It was market day, and the square was full of farmers and merchants. The reading of the edict took about an hour. Then about four hundred heretical books were burned by the public executioner. About three hundred had been seized from the booksellers of the city. The rest were brought by private individuals, either from obedience or fear. But then things started to get out of hand. Members of the crowd began to heckle the officials. One shouted that they would do better to sell the books and send the proceeds to Rome to buy wood for a bonfire of sodomites. Public mockery of this ceremony reached a climax when members of the crowd began to place bids on the charred remains of the books.16 Aleandro’s letter back to Rome failed to mention the public mockery of the ceremony, and Leo X wrote to the margrave of Antwerp in late July 1521 to express his delight and gratitude at these successful measures to extirpate the Lutheran heresy.17 The fires continued. Another three hundred books were burned at Ghent on 25 July 1521, before a crowd which Aleandro estimated – or certainly overestimated – at fifty thousand people.18 Burnings at Utrecht and Bruges followed in August 1521. At Antwerp a second burning took place on 6 May 1522, and a third over three days in early October 1522. During this latter burning, four bookbinders – Merten Coevoet, Willeken van Brugge, Adriaen (van Berghen?) and Aerd (Lints?) – were tortured, and the Lutheran books in their possession were burned. Further fires and tortures took place at ’s-Hertogenbosch in 1525 and 1526. At Amsterdam there was a campaign in 1525 aimed specifically against an edition of Paul’s letters printed by Doen Pietersoen (‘zekere boucxkens van Sinte Pouwels episteleln geprent by Doen Pietersz.’), now lost without trace. In Kortrijk in 1526, Pieter Notebaert was pilloried while two of his books were burned at his feet. At Dunkirk in 1527, Lutheran books owned by Jan Corbel were destroyed. At Bruges, the milliner Hector van Dommenne was burned in early August 1528 along with thirty-six suspicious books in his possession.19 These measures took places while the legal competence of various judicial bodies was reconfigured to deal with the threat of heresy. On 6 December 1521, R ­ obert de Croÿ, bishop of Cambrai, gave Jacobus Latomus and Nicolaas van Egmond full inquisitorial powers.20 On 27 January 1522, François Vander Hulst was charged 15 See the contribution of Renaud Adam in this collection for details of earlier judicial decisions in the Habsburg territories relating to individual cases, as well as attempts on the part of the papacy to regulate the printing industry before the reformation. 16  Aleander to Giulio de’ Medici, 16 July 1521, ed.  Frédéricq, vol.  5, pp.  403–04. Gerard Geldenhauer, Collectanea, ed. J. Prinsen (Amsterdam: Müller, 1901), pp. 12–13: ‘Libri combusti empti sunt’. Kronenberg, Verboden boeken (see n. 1), pp. 33–35; Visser, p. 13. 17 Frédéricq, vol. 5, pp. 406–07. 18 Aleander to Giulio de’ Medici, 27 July 1521, ed. Frédéricq, vol. 5, pp. 405–06: ‘[…] fussero ad tal sermon et incendio più di cinquanta millia persone’. 19 Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 139–40; vol. 5, pp. 63, 96–97, 150, 267, 355; Visser, pp. 13–15. 20 Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 80–81.

32 

grantley mcdonald

with extirpating the Lutheran heresy from the Low Countries.21 On 23 April 1522, Charles  V appointed Vander Hulst as inquisitor general of the Low Countries.22 This appointment was made public in a placard on 29 April 1522, though not ratified by the pope until 1 June 1523.23 On 7 May 1522, Charles  V sent instructions to Vander Hulst and his assessor Joost Laurenszoon.24 However, Vander Hulst’s tactless conduct led Margaret of Austria to limit the power of the inquisitors in the duchy of Holland on 4 September 1523, and finally to dismiss Vander Hulst the following January.25 In his place, Clement VII appointed cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio to extirpate heretics in the Low Countries on 17 January 1524.26 On 12 February, the pope appointed Erard de la Marck, bishop of Liège, as inquisitor general of the Low Countries.27 On 21 April, he sent instructions to De la Marck, authorising him to use all means necessary to compel heretics to repent of their crime, or to ‘check them with appropriate punishments’ (‘dignis suppliciis cohibeantur’).28 But despite these attempts to empower judges to deal with the problem of dissent, edicts often foundered because they failed to distinguish between two different kinds of offences: on one hand, the holding of heretical beliefs, which strictly came under the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts; and on the other, the possession or dealing in prohibited goods, which strictly came under the jurisdiction of secular courts. By placing the imposition of religious uniformity into the hands of secular powers, the Habsburg edicts blurred regular distinctions between ecclesiastical and secular courts. This meant that ‘spiritual’ crimes were sometimes punished by the secular arm more harshly than they would have been under ecclesiastical law.29

Resistance to Censorship The mockery of the first book burning at Antwerp shows that official measures to control the circulation of theological literature failed to command universal support or respect. This lack of success is reflected in the fact that the authorities felt compelled to repeat previous edicts at regular intervals. On 14 February 1525, the city council of Antwerp released an edict that complained that the printers of the city simply ignored the imperial edicts of 1521. In response, the council insisted that the all books printed henceforth in the city must bear the name of the author, the year, the name, mark and address of the printer, as well as the approval of the university of Louvain in the case of religious works, and of the margrave in the case of secular ones. Failure to comply with these directives, or dealing in books supplied with 21 Brussels, AGR, PEA 1177, 640–44; Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1), vol. 1, p. 203; See G. Gielis and V.  Soen, The Inquisitorial Office in the Sixteenth-Century Low Countries. A  Dynamic Perspective, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 66 (2015), 47–66; A. Duke, Dissident Identities in the Early Modern Low Countries, Farnham: Ashgate, 2009, pp. 103–04. 22 Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 101–05; Laurent and Lameere, vol. 2, pp. 188–90. 23 Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 118–20, 186–89; Laurent and Lameere, vol. 2, pp. 171–73. 24 Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 123–27; Laurent and Lameere, vol. 2, pp. 189–91. 25 Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 228–29; Duke, Dissident Identities (see n. 21), pp. 103–04. 26 Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 248–49. 27 Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 307–08. 28 Frédéricq, vol. 4, p. 418. 29 Duke, Dissident Identities (see n. 21), pp. 107–08.

‘burned to dust’

 33

false names of author or printer, would attract even stricter punishments than those threatened by the edict of Worms: loss of citizenship, banishment for ten years, or other penalties.30 But even this edict was ineffective, and Margaret of Austria felt it necessary to repeat the same measures in 1528.31 There are many reasons why these proclamations met with such resistance. Scholars bridled at these restrictions. Although Erasmus was no friend to the Lutheran reformation, he recognised that the bonfires were a dangerous threat to public discourse.32 Secondly, the book trade was an important part of the economy of Antwerp, and those who made their living from this industry were willing to give up neither control nor profits. Moreover, some officials were sympathetic to Luther’s message, and were reluctant either to conform to the edicts, or to enforce them upon others. This was demonstrably the case in Hainault. On 7 March 1527, Margaret of Austria complained that officials there had failed to enforce her edicts. She threatened them with loss of office and further punishment if they continued to neglect their duties.33 On 20 March 1527, Jacob van Gaver, grand bailiff of Hainault, distributed Margaret’s edict along with a copy of Charles’ first edict against Lutheran books (20 March 1521), to remind the local officials of their responsibilities.34 A further reason why these edicts failed was that judges rarely imposed the full extent of punishment threatened by the edict. In fact, officials knew that infrequent, dramatic burnings were more effective than a complete bloodbath, and recantations were better yet.35 As a consequence, many ‘heretics’ clearly thought they could do what they liked, at least in some places. Although the Council of Flanders and the Court of Frisia punished heretics quite harshly, only two Lutherans were burned in Holland between 1521 and 1529.36 Indeed, the fact that printers in Antwerp continued to defy the imperial edicts by producing vernacular bibles that contained ostensibly heretical additions as late as 1545 suggests that the occasional fines or punishments to which printers were subject were insufficient to discourage them.37 Some printers tried to skirt around the restrictions by omitting the title page from potentially suspect works, or by giving opprobrious works seemingly i­ nnocuous ­titles such as Gospel of Saint Matthew (tEwangelie van Ste Matheus) or Sum of the Holy ­Scripture (Die Somme van die godlycke gescriften). It did not take long for the officials to come down on such measures, and an edict issued by Margaret of Austria at Mechelen on 23 March 1524 condemned a book entitled (tEwangelie van Saint Matheus) both for the alleged poor quality of the translation, and because of its ­‘commentary’ (glose), which contained various errors that had been condemned p­ reviously in the Low Countries (diversche dwaelingen hier voortijts gecondempneert), that is, in the edict of Worms. Henceforth, printers could no longer defend t­ hemselves by maintaining that 30 Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 309–10; Fühner, Die kirchen- (see n. 12), pp. 200–01. 31 Brussels, AGR, Audience 818, 112–13; Fühner, Die kirchen- (see n. 12), p. 201. 32 Erasmus to Jodocus Jonas, Cologne, 11 November 1520, in: Opus Epistolarum Des.  Erasmi Roterodami, ed. P. S. Allen, H. M. Allen and H. W. Garrod, 11 vols (Oxford: OUP, 1906–47), 4:375, Ep. 1157. 33 Frédéricq, vol. 5, pp. 186–87; Fühner, Die kirchen- (see n. 12), p. 208. 34 Frédéricq, vol. 5, p. 191; Fühner, Die kirchen- (see n. 12), p. 208. 35 Nicholls, The Theatre (see n. 2), pp. 50–51. 36 Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1), vol. 1, p. 52; Fühner, Die kirchen- (see n. 12), p. 209. 37 Visser, p. 16; François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n. 1), pp. 200, 203–04, 236–43, 246.

34 

grantley mcdonald

a suspect work had previously been approved by the authorities, or had at least never been explicitly condemned. But this amounted to an implicit admission that previous censorship measures had been cursory or ineffectual. This edict threatened not merely the destruction of the offending books, as before, but physical punishment (groote peijnen) of those who defied the ruler’s will.38 The first book proscribed by this edict was almost certainly the Dutch translation of the Gospel of Matthew published in 1522 at Amsterdam by Doen Pietersoen. The translator was probably Johan Pelt, guardian of the Franciscan monastery in Amsterdam, a supporter of Luther who was driven from the city in 1524-25, moving first to Bremen and later to Braunschweig and East Frisia. The title page reads: Here begin the Gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is, the good news of the forgiveness of sins and of eternal bliss, translated into Dutch, written by Saint Matthew. With a short commentary to help all Christians better to realise that they are obliged to read the Gospels of Christ and to bear them in their hearts to the exclusion of all other doctrine and writings.39 The commentary or gloss that the censors found so objectionable was Pelt’s paratexts, particularly his ‘Conclusion’ to the translation. Pelt, moved by Erasmus’ dream that piety would be nourished by widespread access to the Scriptures, wrote that his translation was based not merely on the Latin Vulgate, but also on Erasmus’ Greek text. He also assured his readers that he had not added or subtracted any detail, but had merely followed the sense of the Greek original.40 Yet beside this Erasmian strain, Pelt also recalls some of Luther’s ideas. He assured his readers that they are justified ‘solely through the grace and merits of Jesus Christ’ (alleen doer die gratie 38  Bij den Keyser roerende niewe bouxkens, als dat Evangelie van St Matheus ende Somme der Theologie ende diergelijke, 23 March 1524, ed.  Frédéricq, vol.  4, pp.  265–66. Further, see Fühner, Die kirchen- (see n. 12), pp. 201–02. 39  Hier beghinnen die Euangelien ons heren Jhesu xpi Dats dye goede boetschappe. vander vergiffenisse der sonden. ende vander eewiger salicheit. Inder duytscer sprake. getranslateert. Die welcke sinte Matheus die Apostel ende Euangelist Jhesu Christi bescreuen heeft. Met een corte glosacie. om die te badt te verstaen. Op datmen weten mach dat elc kerstenmensce schuldich is. die Euangelien Cristi te lesen ende dye in sijn herte te dragen bouen alle andere leringhen schrifturen Ende daer in vrijlijc lieflijc ende ghetroulijc te leuene ende te steruene, Amsterdam: Doen Pietersoen, 1522; Utrecht, UB D. oct. 16722 Rariora. Further, see Visser, p. 111; François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n. 1), pp. 201–02; P.  Arblaster, ‘“Totius Mundi Emporium”. Antwerp as a Centre for Vernacular Bible Translations, 1523–1545’, in: A.-J.  Gelderblom, J.  L.  de Jong and M.  van Vaeck (eds), The Low Countries as a Crossroads of Religious Beliefs (Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 9–31 (pp. 13–14); W. François, ‘Vernacular Bible Reading and Censorship in Early Sixteenth Century. The Position of the Louvain Theologians’, in: M. Lamberigts and A. den Hollander (eds), Lay Bibles in Europe 1450–1800 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 198) (Leuven, Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2006), pp. 69–96 (p. 80). 40  J.  Pelt, ‘Conclusie des Translatoers oft Overstelders’, in: Hier beghinnen die Euangelien (Amsterdam: Doen Pietersoen, 1522), 1:O2v–3r: ‘Daer om is hier alder eerst in die duytsce sprake ouergestelt. die euangelie  / die welcke Matheus int Ioetsche lant beschreuen heeft ¶ Ende dese [O3r] ouerstellinge heeft die translatuer volbracht. na dat 
hem mogelijc was. Accorderende den ouden text [i.e. the Latin Vulgate].
 metten niewe Griecschen text. den welcken Erasmus met groter neersticheyt ons in latijn ghegheuen heeft. Ende in dese translacie. en is niet toe ghedaen of genomen eenigen sin. oft eenighe bisonder woorden. Oft oock enigen sin verandert. Maer den sin vanden griecschen text is somtijden geuolcht’. See also F. S. Knipscheer, Hendrik Van Bommel ‘Translatoer’ van Ste Matheus, Februari 1522, NAKG 36 (1948), 125–34; J. Alton Templin, PreReformation Religious Dissent in The Netherlands, 1518–1530, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2006, pp. 137–54.

‘burned to dust’

 35

ende verdiensten Jhesu cristi) and not through any virtue of their own inadequate and sinful works. This formulation clearly smacked too heavily of the Wittenberg heresy for the censors’ liking.41 Pelt also criticised endemic problems in monastic life, the Roman Catholic doctrine of penance, and the papal claim to be the rock on which God had built his church. But in other respects, such as his insistence that humans must co-operate with divine grace in order to be saved, Pelt stood closer to Erasmus than to Luther.

The Sum of the Holy Scripture: The First Book Banned in the Low Countries The other book proscribed in the edict of 23 March 1524, The Sum of the Holy Scripture, was an anonymous work first published in Dutch in 1523.42 It deals with the relationship between faith and baptism, between faith and works, with monastic life and vows, and the life of the laity. It combines elements of traditional Catholic piety with ideas derived from Erasmus, Luther and the Anabaptists to form an ‘evangelical’ alloy sui generis. The Dutch version was apparently a translation of the Latin original, though the earliest known Latin edition was printed in 1527. In the 1524 edict, Margaret ordered the authorities in Holland, Zeeland and Frisia to destroy all such books, in line with the edict of Worms. There is evidence that the governments of Holland and Zeeland had already acted to confiscate this book in 1523, months before the Mechelen edict, presumably because it contained a digest of Luther’s tract Von weltlicher Obrigkeit (first published in January 1523). The Leiden printer-publisher Jan Zevertszoon was suspected of having printed the work, and in November 1523 he was summoned to appear before the Court of Holland in The Hague. He ignored this summons, and three more that followed over the next six months.43 Prompted both by the intransigence of printers such as Zevertszoon and by the passing of the edict at Mechelen on 23 March 1524, the imperial council in Holland released an edict on 1 April 1524 which banned the printing of ‘certain new books’ (this edict named no titles or authors) that contained errors that would draw believers away from the Christian faith, on pain of confiscation or execution.44 Zevertszoon was found guilty of selling copies of The Sum of the Holy Scripture on 13 July 1524. Accordingly, he was banished from Holland, Zeeland and Frisia, and his goods were confiscated and surrendered to the emperor, just as the Mechelen edict had threatened.45 Despite the edicts and the punishments suffered by Zevertszoon, The Sum of the Holy Scripture was reprinted several times in the Low Countries, though in each 41  Pelt, ‘Conclusie’ (see n. 40), 1:O2r–v. Further, see J. Trapman, Le rôle des ‘sacramentaires’ des origines de la réforme jusqu’en 1530 aux Pays-Bas, NAKG 63 (1983), 1–24. 42  J. Trapman, Summa der godliker schrifturen (1523), Leiden: Elve, 1978, pp. 48–56, has questioned the traditional attribution of this work to Henricus Bomelius. 43  P. Valkema Blouw, ‘Het eerste in de Lage Landen verboden boek’, in: Chris Coppens et al. (eds), E codicibus impressisque (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), pp. 365–77, now in P. Valkema Blouw, Dutch Typography in the Sixteenth Century, ed.  P.  Dijstelberge and A.  R.  A. Croiset van Uchelen (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 913–24 (pp. 914–15). 44 Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 268–69. 45  Frédéricq, vol. 4, pp. 282–83. Blouw, Dutch Typography (see n. 43), p. 916, tentatively ascribed the Luther editions NK4259, 4260 to Zevertszoon, and these may likewise have been brought in evidence against him.

36 

grantley mcdonald

case with the printer’s name and location disguised (see the list of editions below in Appendix II).46 The translation of The Sum of the Holy Scripture into English, French, and Italian brought it into the hands of new readers, and into the repressive structures of further jurisdictions. The reactions of various regimes depended on their own religious alignments, which themselves were sometimes unstable. In England, a commission including Thomas More, William Warham, Cuthbert Tunstall and Stephen Gardiner drew up a list of forty-one heretical articles they found in The Sum of the Holy Scripture.47 Henry VIII formally banned Simon Fish’s English translation of The Sum of the Holy Scripture (first printed at Antwerp in 1529) as soon as it was published.48 Henry’s decree was printed as a broadsheet to be posted in public places. Moreover, preachers were to address the crowds in public places with the following formula: Wherfore you that haue the bookes called the obedience of a christen man, The summe of scripture, The Reuelation of Antichrist, The supplication of beggers, Mammona iniquitatis, The matrimonye of Tindal, The new testament in english, of the translation which is now printed, and such other bookes in English, the authors whereof either dare not, or do not put to their names, be pernicious bookes, detest them, abhorre them, keepe them not in your handes, deliuer them to the superiors suche as call for them.49 John Longland, bishop of Lincoln, charged Simon Wisedom of Burford in 1529 for possessing a copy of Fish’s translation of The Sum of the Holy Scripture, as well as the Gospels and Psalms in English.50 Another proclamation made in the name of Henry VIII in June 1530 was intended to prevent the diffusion of heretical books printed in the Low Countries and imported into England. The works it proscribes include the English version of The Sum of the Holy Scripture.51 The Benedictine monk Robert Bayfield, who distributed books by Tyndale and other Lutherans in London, confessed in 1531 that he had read The Sum of the Holy Scripture ‘amonge companye’, and copies of the work were amongst those impounded at his arrest and listed in the documents generated by his trial.52 But by 1536, the London printer 46 On the fate of one early owner of the Sum of the Holy Scripture in Antwerp, see V. Christman, Pragmatic Toleration. The Politics of Religious Heterodoxy in Early Reformation Antwerp, 1515–1555, Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2015, pp. 46, 168. 47  John Foxe, THE FIRST || Volume of the Ecclesiasticall History, London: John Daye, 1576; STC 11224, pp. 1225–27. 48  The only surviving copy of the original proclamation, ¶ A proclamation for resystyng and withstandyng of most dampnable Heresyes, [London]: [Robert Pynson], [1529]; STC 7772, in the library of the Society of Antiquaries of London, only has the first of the two pages, but the complete text is reproduced by John Foxe, THE FIRST || Volume of the || Ecclesiasticall history, London: John Daye, 1570; STC 11223, p. 1160. 49 John Foxe, ACTES || and Monuments, London: John Daye, 1563; STC 11222, p. 1342. 50 Foxe (1576), p. 959. 51  A proclamation made and diuysed by the kyngis highnes, with the aduise of his honorable counsaile, for dampning of erronious bokes and heresies, and prohibitinge the hauinge of holy scripture translated into the vulgar tonges of englische, frenche, or duche, in suche maner as within this proclamation is expressed, [London]: [n. p.], [1530]; STC 7775. 52  Foxe (1563), p. 482. Foxe (1570), p. 1157, reprints an edict given on 23 October 1526 by Cuthbert Tunstall, bishop of London, forbidding the distribution of the New Testament in English. Following this Foxe gives a list of ‘the bookes that were forbidden at this tyme, together with

‘burned to dust’

 37

John Redman felt that the situation in England had become sufficiently friendly to such works that he could publish an edition of the English translation with his name and the address of his shop in the colophon. His fellow printer John Wayland read the situation better. Although at least two editions issued from Wayland’s presses in about 1538, Wayland nowhere identified himself as the printer. His instinct was correct, for Henry VIII was to repeat the ban against this book in a 1539 statute.53 By contrast, The Sum of the Holy Scripture was not only tolerated during the reign of Edward VI, it was even published with royal privileges by John Day (1547) and William Hill (1548).54

Restrictions on ‘Lutheran’ Biblical Translations There had been a tradition of vernacular biblical translation in the middle ages, but the debates begun by humanists and reformers in the first half of the sixteenth century over the language and manner in which lay readers might encounter the bible demanded an official reaction from qualified representatives of the Roman Catholic church. Several theologians from the University of Louvain, the only university in the Habsburg Netherlands, offered opinions on this important matter, but their conclusions varied widely. Martin Dorpius encouraged laymen and women to study the Scriptures. By contrast, Jacobus Latomus insisted on the primacy of the Vulgate and the scholastic commentators, though he conceded that the study of vernacular translations, so long as it took place in proper deference to the interpretive authority of the Roman church, would provide laypeople with the knowledge to reject and refute the arguments of heretics.55 The imperial placcaat against the Lutherans of 24 September 1525 complained that uneducated people read the Scriptures in the vernacular, and came to their own conclusions without reference to the teachings of the doctors of the church. Some then preached these unlettered opinions in secret, without the permission of their bishop, thus bringing other simple people into error and confusion. This edict therefore proscribed conventicles in which Scripture was read aloud and discussed by laypeople. Those who infringed this article were to be fined twenty Carolus gulden or placed under house arrest for three months. Repeat offences would attract higher fines or terms of house arrest, or even banishment in extreme cases. The edict also forbade schoolmasters from spreading such ideas to their students. When expounding the epistle set down in the lectionary, schoolmasters were to employ only the literal sense, not any allegorical sense (grammaticaliter et non mistice). This edict repeated the previous ordinances concerning the surrender and incineration of heretical books.56 the new Testament’. This list includes a book entitled Oeconomicae Christianae. It is not however certain whether ‘at this tyme’ means 1526 or a little later, for this list also includes The reuelation of Antichrist, of Luther, which is probably Simon Fish’s translation, STC 11394. 53  Certain Iniunctions geuen out the xxx. yeare of kinges Henries raigne, the vi. daye of Nouembre, in the yeare of our Lorde, 1539, repr. Foxe (1563), p. 630: ‘Item the summe of holy scripture’. 54 See S.  Peyronel Rambaldi, Dai Paesi Bassi all’Italia. «Il Sommario della Sacra scrittura», Florence: Olschki, 1997 on the reaction to this work in Italy. 55 Further, see Arblaster, ‘Totius Mundi’ (see n. 39); François, ‘Vernacular’ (see n. 39). 56 Frédéricq, vol. 5, pp. 1–5.

38 

grantley mcdonald

These ordinances specifically targeted Dutch translations prepared with reference to Luther’s 1523 September Testament. Some of these contained commentaries or glosses redolent of Lutheran beliefs. This focus became more explicit in subsequent ordinances. On 3 December 1525, the citizens of Kampen (then part of the Habsburg territory) were instructed to bring to the town hall ‘any book by Martin Luther or any of his disciples or followers, such as the German Theology [i.e. the Sum of the Holy Scripture], likewise the New Testament printed recently with glosses, likewise the Pater Noster with glosses, since both these glosses are false, and all other such books in Dutch and in Latin, which have been forbidden and condemned by the Holy See’. Failure to do so would attract a fine of 25 gulden.57 The New Testament edition targeted by this edict was probably that published by Albert Pafraet at Deventer in 1525, which contained a great deal of material taken directly from Luther’s prefaces to the individual books and notes on the text.58 The Kampen regulation was clearly framed with the 1524 edict in mind, but in response to the proliferation of heretical materials, it covered all eventualities with a more general ban on suspicious literature. Many printers reacted to these provisions by becoming more circumspect. In 1525, the Antwerp printer Christoffel van Ruremund had produced a Dutch translation of the New Testament which contained translations of Luther’s prologues to each of the books. In 1526 or shortly thereafter, evidently reacting to the recent ordinances, he produced another edition of the Dutch New Testament whose title page proclaims that it did not contain any suspicious glosses or prologues (Dat heylich Euangelium dat leuende woort Godts wtghesproken door onsen salichmaker Iesum Christum […] ghedruct sonder glo||sen ende prologhen).59 Yet even such transparent protestations of innocence were insufficient to keep Christoffel out of trouble. These edicts do not indicate that the secular and ecclesiastical governments wished to prevent the laity from reading the bible, even in the vernacular. After all, a tradition of reading vernacular bible translations had existed in the Low C ­ ountries since the late Middle Ages. Rather, these provisions were intended to prevent discussion and interpretation of the Scriptures by those not properly trained to do so. Through such measures, the authorities hoped to stop the spread of injurious interpretations of Scripture by those who had been led into error. Bible translations that met the official requirements were readily granted permissions and privileges.60 Yet such legislation also affected yet another means by which lay audiences encountered Scriptural narratives: religious drama. An edict passed on 4 February 1528, and valid for Holland, Zeeland and Frisia, banned the performance of plays unless they had been expressly approved by the censor. This measure was intended to ­prevent 57 Frédéricq, vol. 5, pp. 71–72. Further, see François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n. 1), p. 212. 58 François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n. 1), pp. 212–13. 59 Antwerp: Christoffel van Ruremund, [1526?], Stuttgart, WLB B niederländ. 1526 01. Further on Ruremund, see A.  Rouzet (ed.), Dictionnaire des imprimeurs, libraires et éditeurs des XVe et XVIe siècles dans les limites géographiques de la Belgique, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1975, pp. 193– 94; W. François, The Antwerp Printers Christoffel and Hans (I) van Ruremund, Their Dutch and English Bibles, and the Intervention of the Authorities in the 1520s and 1530s, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 101  (2010), 7–28. On this edition, see Arblaster, ‘Totius Mundi’ (see n. 39), pp. 18–19. 60 François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n. 1), pp. 216, 230–31, 236, 243–44.

‘burned to dust’

 39

the dissemination of erroneous beliefs, or criticism and mockery of the church from the stage.61

The Growing Need for Lists of Censored Books The first edicts from the Habsburg Netherlands do not clearly identify those who had followed Luther’s errors. This may be because censors did not wish to limit their own powers by being too specific. But before long, preachers, printers, booksellers and readers demanded more guidance as to which authors were acceptable and which not, or even which works of particular authors were allowed and which had been proscribed. Accordingly, the edict given at The Hague on 24 September 1525 provided a more detailed list, proscribing ‘all the books of Martin Luther, Pomeranus [i.e. Johannes Bugenhagen], Karlstadt, Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, François Lambert, [Justus] Jonas and those who share Luther’s opinions on the Holy Scriptures, and also all those books printed without title pages’. All such books were ‘to be brought to a public place and there burned to dust’ (tot polvere verbrant). Those who were found still to possess the named literature after the enforced incineration of these books were to be banished for life from the territory, and all their property was to be forfeit. Henceforth, all books to be printed, purchased or sold within the said territory were to be subject to official inspection and approval. Printers who failed to submit their planned publications to censorship, and those who bought or sold books that had not been approved, were to be punished with permanent expulsion from the territory and the loss of a third of their property.62 These proscriptions were repeated in edicts issued at Mechelen on 17 July 1526, Leeuwarden on 22 D ­ ecember 1526, and The Hague on 14 March 1527, under threat of yet stiffer penalties, which could be determined by the presiding judge according to the seriousness of the offence.63 On 7 August 1528, the magistrate of Amsterdam again repeated the requirement that printers submit proposed publications for official approval.64 The need to identify authors whose works could safely be read and those to be avoided was also felt in other parts of the Habsburg territories. A  comprehensive proto-index of forbidden books was included in a set of instructions for itinerant preachers in Austria, issued at Vienna on 2 November 1528 (Ill. 1–2). There is a certain overlap between this list and those promulgated in the Habsburg Netherlands, though the Vienna documents is more detailed, and more closely resembles the later indices of forbidden books. This document, predating the first printed index by over a decade and a half, has escaped notice until now, probably because it was apparently never printed. The list, which contains two lists of authors – those banned and those approved by the Church – was probably drawn up by (or for) Johann Heigerlin (Fabri, 1478–1541), coadjutor of the diocese of Wiener Neustadt from 1524 until 1530, and subsequently Bishop of Vienna from 1530 until his death. Fabri’s involvement is suggested by the fact that the preachers are instructed to read his recently published 61 Frédéricq, vol. 5, pp. 324–25; François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n. 1), pp. 215–16. 62 Frédéricq, vol. 5, pp. 1–5. See François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n. 1), pp. 204–05. 63  L aurent and Lameere, vol. 2, pp. 402–05; Frédéricq, vol. 5, pp. 146–47, 164, 190. Further, see François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n. 1), pp. 204–10; Fühner, Die kirchen- (see n. 12), pp. 205–07. 64 Frédéricq, vol. 5, p. 354; François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n. 1), p. 216.

40 

grantley mcdonald

Ill.  1: Directio predicatorum in Austria conclusa Wienne die 2  Novembris Anno &c 28, Passau, Archiv des Bistums Passau, Ordinariatsarchiv, Generalakten, 2107, 40.

Ill.  2: Directio predicatorum in Austria conclusa Wienne die 2  Novembris Anno &c 28, Passau, Archiv des Bistums Passau, Ordinariatsarchiv, Generalakten, 2107, 41.

‘burned to dust’

 41

book on the invocation of the saints, and to contact him should they encounter resistance from secular or local Church authorities.65 Moreover, Fabri’s name appears in a prominent place in the list of approved authors, preceded only by Erasmus, John Fisher and Henry VIII.66 The list of condemned works reads as follows: The books banned by imperial decree from being printed, sold and given away. All books by Martin Luther. All books by Andreas Karlstadt. All books by Huldrych Zwingli. All books by Johannes Oecolampadius except his index to the works of Saint Jerome. The works of François Lambert. The works of Otto Brunfels. The works of Bugenhagen. The works of Johannes Pellicanus. The works of Johannes Brenz. The works of Wolfgang Capito. The works of Philipp Melanchthon. The works of Johannes Bucer. The works of Urbanus Regius. The works of Johannes Hessius. The works of Balthasar Hubmair. The works of Osiander. The works of Justus Jonas. The works of Johannes Zinck. The Karsthans books. The works of Johannes Eberlin. The Disputation and order from Bern. The works of Johannes Platner of Constance.67 This list derives its authority from ‘imperial decree’, that is, the edict of Worms. Unlike the edicts from the Netherlands, this document does not threaten any punishments. Rather, it was evidently intended to help local and itinerant clergy to distinguish good books from bad, for pastoral rather than disciplinary purposes. The author of the document aimed not merely to provide a comprehensive list of banned authors, but also a blanket coverage of the various ways books might change hands, envisaging that some might seek to evade the regulation by bartering or lending banned books rather than exchanging them for money, or at least claiming that they

65  Directio predicatorum in Austria conclusa Wienne die 2 Novembris Anno &c 28, Passau, Archiv des Bistums, Ordinariatsarchiv, Generalakten, 2107, pp.  38–39: ‘Der furnembst articl wiert sein de veritate corporis et sanguinis christi deshalben si ire predig super virtute et veritate verborum christi ausfueren pro cuius vlteriori copia mugen sie doctoris fabri sermones de eucharistia contra anabaptistas vnd das buechl de Inuocatione .S. kauffen  […]. Wo der prediger ainer ain enormen excessum bey welltlichen vnd geistlichen erfueren solle er den selben in gehaim seinen herren oder doctor fabri zuschreiben’. The books in question are: Johannes Fabri, Sermones aliquot salubres, Vienna: Johann Singriener the Elder, 1528; VD16 F 206, and Idem, Epistola ἀπολογητικὴ de invocatione et intercessione beatissimæ, perpetuæ ac immaculatæ Virginis Matris Dei Mariæ […], Vienna: Johann Singriener the Elder, 1528; VD16 F202. 66  H enning Feuerhahn, Θρενόστιχον, de iacturis sacrosanctæ relligionis Christianæ […], Leipzig: Valentin Schumann, [1530]; VD16 F873/878/79/883, F6v, names ‘Ioannes faber Episcopus Vienensis uir singulari eruditione conspicuus’ (‘Johannes Fabri, bishop of Vienna, a man distinguished by singular erudition’) in second place in his list of those who had defended Catholic orthodoxy. 67  Directio predicatorum, p. 40: ‘Die buecher so durch kayserliche majestet zu drucken zuverkauffen und zuverschencken verboten sind.  || Alle buecher Martini Lutheri  || Alle puecher Andree Karlstat || Alle buecher Udalrici Zwinglii || Alle buecher Joannis Oecolampadii præter indicem in opera S. Hieronymi || Opera Francisci Lamperti || Opera Ottonis Prunfelsii || Opera Pomerani || Opera Joannis Pellicani  || Opera Joannis Prentzii  || Opera Wolfgangen Capitonis  || Opera Philippi Melanchtonis  || Opera Joannis Putzer  || Opera Urbani Regii  || Opera Joannis Hessii  || Opera Baldasaris Hiebmair || Opera Osiandri || Opera Justi Jone || Opera Joannis Zinck || Opera Karsthans  || Opera Joannis Eberlin  || Disputatio und ordnung der von Pern  || Opera Joannis Platner Constatiensis’.

42 

grantley mcdonald

had done so. Although it proscribed these various ways of trading prohibited literature, it had no legal force to prevent them. The 1528 Directio predicatorum is unusual amongst sixteenth-century indices in including a list of approved works besides those that were specifically condemned: The books by recent writers and theologians which are approved for sale. The works of Erasmus of Rotterdam. The works of John Fisher, bishop of ­Rochester. The works of King Henry of England. The works of Dr Fabri. The works of Dr Johannes Eck. The works of Dr Johannes Cochlaeus. The works of Johannes Emser. The works of Dr Caspar Schatzgeyer. The works of Johann Dietenberger. The works of Johannes Mensing. The works of Thomas Murner. The works of Conrad Treger, provincial of the Augustinian order. The works of Giovanni Camers. The works of Johann Sichard. The works of Johannes Fundling. The works of Racek Dubravský. The works of Ambrosius Pelargus. The books of Amerbach. The works of Josse Clichtove. The works of Johannes Montanus. The works of Jacob van Hoogstraaten. The works of the preachers of Halberstadt. The works of Melchior ­[Fattlin], ­suffragan bishop of Konstanz. The works of ­Augustinus Marius, suffragan bishop of Basel. The works of Berthold [Pirstinger], bishop of Chiemsee. The works of the Spaniard Diego López de Zúñiga. The works of the Englishman Thomas Mirs [More?]. The works of the Spaniard Juan Luis Vives. The works of the Dominican Friedrich Nausea of Mainz. The works of Otmar Nachtigall. The works of Johannes Alveldt. The works of Catharinus.68 In naming approved works as well as condemned ones, this list resembles the Decretum Gelasiani. This may betray a conviction that the modern heresy-hunter was continuing the work of his patristic forebears. This list of approved authors also corresponds in many details to Henning Feuerhahn’s Encomium of certain illustrious men who assert Catholic truths in this most grim age (Encomion aliquot virorum illustrium, hac lugubri tempestate, catholicas ueritates asserentium), which was published soon after.69 There are discernible similarities between the 1528 Vienna proscriptions and a list of banned books given in an ordinance proclaimed in French at Brussels on 14 October 1529, and in a revised Dutch version on 31 December 1529. This proto-index (as it has been dubbed by Wim François) was probably written by members of 68  Directio predicatorum, p. 41: ‘Die buecher so von den Newen scribenten und theologen zugelassen sind zuverkauffen  || Opera Erasmi Rothorodami  || Opera Joannis episcopi Rofensis  || Opera Hainrici Anglie Regis  || Opera d.  Fabri  || Opera d.  Joannis Eckii  || Opera d.  Joannis Coclei  || Opera Joannis Embser || Opera d. Casparis Schatzger || Opera d. Joannis Diettenpergii || Opera d. Joannis Mensueck || Opera d. Thome Murneri || Opera d. Chonradi Treer provincialis ordinis S.  Augustini  || Opera d.  Joannis Chamers  || Opera Joannis Sichardi  || Opera fratris Joannis Stauronesii || Opera Dubrantii Bohemi || Opera Ambrosii Pelargii || Opera Amerbachii || Opera d.  Iodoci Clitovei  || Opera Joannis Montani  || Opera d.  Hochstrat  || Opera Predicatorum in ecclesia Halberstadensi  || Opera d.  Melchioris suffraganei Constantiensis  || Opera d.  Augustini Marii suffraganei Basiliensis  || Opera Berchtoldi episcopi Chiemensis  || Opera Jacobi Lapidis Stunice Hispani || Opera d. Thome Mirs Angli || Opera d. Joannis Ludovici Vives Hispani || Opera d. Friderici Nausee Concionatorum Moguntinensium || Opera Ottmari Luscinii || Opera fratris Joannis Alfeldensis || Opera Catharini’. 69 Feuerhahn (1530), E2r–F8v.

‘burned to dust’

 43

the Theological Faculty at Louvain, and it emphasises the role played by that university in the examination and condemnation of suspect works.70 Some of the authors named in the 1529 Brussels list appeared both in the 1525 ordinance from the Hague as well as on the 1528 Vienna list: Luther, Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, Bugenhagen, Jonas and Lambert. Two names on the 1529 Brussels list, Zwingli and Brunfels, had not appeared in earlier proscriptions from the Netherlands, but do appear on the 1528 Vienna list. Zwingli seems an obvious choice, but the appearance of Brunfels – better known as a botanist than as a theologian – on both the Vienna and Brussels lists may suggest that the imperial administrations in both places were aware of the ways in which the other was trying to deal with heretical literature.71 There are also differences between the Vienna and Brussels lists. The Vienna list contains literary titles, the Karsthans books. Although the Karsthans-craze lasted no longer than four years, one of its products, Dialogus Karsthans et Kegelhans (1521) by ‘Johannes Marcellus’ (Hermann von dem Busche) was proscribed by the Venetian Index of 1554, the Roman indices of 1559 and 1564, and the Spanish Index of 1583, though the book was by then long since a dead letter.72 Unlike the Vienna list, 1529 Brussels proto-index retrospectively proscribes the work of the mediaeval reformers Marsilius of Padua (c. 1275–c. 1342), John Wyclif (c. 1328–84), Jan Hus (1369–1415) and Johannes Pupper von Goch (c. 1400–75), who had been praised by Luther and were widely seen as his forebears. The proscription of the work of Pupper may have been prompted by the appearance of a collection of his previously unpublished fragments in about 1521.73 Like some of the earlier Netherlands edicts, the Brussels proto-index also proscribed any edition of the New Testament, Gospels, Epistles, Prophets or other books in French or Dutch that had been supplied with prefaces, prologues, postils or glosses that contained any hint of bad doctrine or error contrary to the Christian faith, the sacraments, the commandments of God and of the church, or the doctrines of the same. Finally, the Brussels ordinance proscribes the production or possession of any image intended to dishonour God, the Blessed Virgin or the saints, or the destruction of images approved by the church, probably in order to forestall iconoclastic episodes such as those that had occurred in Zürich (1524), Strasbourg (1524–30) and Basel (1528).74 This Brussels ordinance prescribed that the books it condemned were to be surrendered by 25 November 1529 for incineration. Those who failed to comply were liable to a range of punishments, from confiscations to execution, to serve an example to others. The 1529 ordinance thus made overt the extent 70  Placcat, en forme d’ordonnance, statut et edict, par lequel est deffendu à tous en general, d’ imprimer, lire, auoir ou soustenir les Escritz, liures ou doctrine de Martin Luther: ensemble de plusieurs autres heretiques & liures y nommez & aultres choses à ce propos. Donné à Bruxelles, le xiiij. jour d’octobre, l’an M. CCCCC. XXIX, in: Ordonnancien Statuten, Edicten ende Placcaten (Ghent: Jan van den Steene, 1559), 108–09. The transcription in Laurent and Lameere, vol. 2, pp. 578–83, is at times unreliable. The orthography Zwijnglius suggests that this French edict drew on materials originally written in Dutch. On this edict and its consequences, see François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n. 1), pp. 217–31; Idem, ‘Vernacular’ (see n. 39), pp. 81–85. 71 Brunfels also appears in some printed indices for his theological works, which were suspected of promoting the ideas of Hus; see Bujanda, vol. 10, pp. 99–100. 72  Bujanda, vol. 3, pp. 258–59 (nº 145); vol. 6, p. 278 (nº 457); vol. 8, pp. 436–37 (nº 223); vol. 10, p. 274. Further, see Herbert Burckhardt, Karsthans (1521), Leipzig: Haupt, 1910. 73  In Divine Gratie et  || Christianae fidei commendationem  […], [Zwolle or Hamburg]: [Simon Corver], [c. 1521]; NK 1012; see Visser, pp. 104–05, 150–51. 74 See L.  Palmer Wandel, Voracious Idols and Violent hands: Iconoclasm in Reformation Zurich, Strasbourg and Basel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

44 

grantley mcdonald

of the punishments at which earlier proclamations had simply hinted. While not as detailed as the Vienna list, it possessed far more legal force. The twofold character of Fabri’s list, proscribing of the works of Protestants and encouraging the publication of Catholic authors, was carried out in very practical ways. For example, on 15 May 1530, Ferdinand I issued a privilege to the printer Peter Quentel of Cologne to encourage him to continue releasing the work of Catholic authors. After acknowledging that Quentel had incurred significant personal expense by publishing the works of Catholic authors such as John Fisher, Johannes Fabri and Friedrich Nausea against Luther and his followers, Ferdinand granted him a privilege intended to prevent other printers from pirating his editions and thus affecting his ability to continue the fight against heresy. Those who infringed Quentel’s privilege would forfeit their books and receive a fine of ten gold Marks. This privilege shows how pre-existing mechanisms such as imperial printing privileges could act as the mirror-image of repressive measures like censorship.74a

74a  Vienna, HHStA, Reichsregisterbuch Ferdinand I, 2, 55r–v (Priuilegium De non imprimendo pro Petro Quentel): ‘Ferdinandus &c. Honesto nobis dilecto Petro Quentel Typographo ac Ciui Ciuitatis nostrę Coloniensis gratiam Regiam & omne bonum, Cum Maiestati nostrę tuo nomine expositum fuerit, quod iam multos annos artem Typographicam in edificationem ecclesię communemque vtilitatem & studiosorum commodum haud mediocribus impensis & non sine damno etiam tuo exercens variorum Catholicorum vel Johannis Episcopi Roffensis Angli, Johannis Fabri nunc Episcopi Viennensis, Friderici Nauseę Doctorum aliorumque libros aduersus Lutherum eiusque sequaces conscriptos excusseris & edideris, ac in futurum excudere & edere intendas, in quo te laborem non paruum impendere & impensas non mediocres subire oporteat, Subinde uero dubites ne eosdem libros per te sic editos etiam alij imprimant atque ita ipse laboris tui fructum reportent, tuque in expensis propterea factis defrauderis jndempnitati itaque tue circa hoc ex benignitate nostra Regia, qua eos maxime complectimur qui pro communi vtilitate continue desudant consulere & prouidere volentes, Omnibus & singulis cuiuscumque Conditionis existant Calcographis & librorum impressoribus, ac Bibliopolis, Venditoribus & institutoribus per Sacrum Romanum Imperium vniuersum vbilibet constitutis subinfrascripta pena jnhibemus ne ipsi aut aliquis eorum libros quos tuo prelo pro tempore edideris Catholicos & receptos atque prius non editos seu visos per Sexennium a data editionis eorum in quacunque Ciuitate & loco dicti Imperij quantumcumque etiam exempto imprimere seu aliunde adducere impressos atque venundare quouismodo aut quouis quesito colore studeant aut presumant, Mandantes iccirco omnibus & singulis nostris ac dicti jmperij Subditis & fidelibus nobis dilectis cuiuscunque status &c etiam Archiepiscopalis, Episcopalis, Ducalis &c Nobilitaris seu alterius cuiuscumque preeminentię Magistratus seu Offitij siue eccesiastici siue Secularis extiterint sub pena jndignationis nostrę atque amissionis omnium librorum suorum ac decem Marcharum auri puri pro vna fisco nostro & pro altera medietatibus tibi Petro toties quoties huic jnhibitioni voluntati & gratię nostrę contra factum fuerit per ipsos contrafacientes incurrendum, applicandum & irremisibiliter persoluendum vt in [55v] premissis tibi oportuno fauore assistant, ac omnes & singulos contra hanc gratiam & jnhibitionem nostram quicunque facere presumentes, huiusmodi indignationis nostrę & pene Sententiam nostro nomine incurrisse protinus declarent & cohibeant sub pena Quinquaginta Ducatorum & artificio impressorum perpetuo non vtendi, amissionis quoque illorum librorum (sic ut prefertur) contra hanc nostram concessionem gratiam & priuilegium impressorum & adductorum Teque vbi eos per te vel tuos requisiueris tenore presentium aut harum transumpto autentico cui eam fidem adhiberi voluimus, que ijs nostris presentibus adhiberi solet & debet prefata nostra gratia & priuilegio frui & gaudere sinant & ab alijs pariter obseruari faciant Inquantum & ipsi predictas penas maluerit euitare harum testimonio, Datum Prage Die xv Maij Anno 1530’.

‘burned to dust’

 45

Conclusion The protests of the Lutheran and Swiss reformers against the authority of ecclesiastical and secular authorities prompted these authorities to attempt to contain and eradicate their writings. The repressive mechanisms employed had been in use since the fifteenth century, as Renaud Adam has shown, but they were sharpened to meet the growing threat. The content of edicts released by various government officials in the Habsburg Netherlands during the 1520s was influenced to a significant degree by the university of Louvain. While decrees of the early 1520s were general and vague, edicts from 1525 onwards began to identify heretical authors and works more carefully. The situation in Vienna was a little different: the local bishop, Johannes Fabri, drew up a detailed list of proscribed and approved authors, but his list is diagnostic only, and seems not to have possessed any legal force. The situation in London was different again: the censorship of books there was undertaken both by ecclesiastical figures and by laymen such as Thomas More, and enforced by the crown. But despite these local differences of process, the Roman Catholic authorities of the 1520s, whether in Brussels, Vienna or London, whether secular or ecclesiastical, were united in their determination to reduce the threat of the Lutheran reformation to a pile of smouldering ashes.

46 

grantley mcdonald Appendix I ‘Ioannes Zel’

The 1529 Brussels proto-index condemns the New Testament editions produced by the printers ‘Adriaen de Berghes, Christoffels de Remonda & Ioannes Zel’, which were described as full of Lutheran and other heresies, ‘and as such reproved and condemned by the faculty of theology of the university of Louvain’. This detail provides further evidence of the involvement of the university of Louvain in the formal censure of books well before the publication of the 1546 Index. The editions condemned by this ban can be identified with some confidence. In the second half of 1523, the Antwerp printer-publisher Adrian van Berghen produced a Dutch New Testament in three parts. In the Gospels, Acts and Revelation, the translator used not only the Vulgate, but also Luther’s German version. He also provided short introductions to each chapter.75 Van Berghen’s edition was reissued later in 1523 by Doen Pietersoen of Amsterdam. In Pietersoen’s edition, the Epistles are also based on Luther’s translation. This edition also contains some of the short introductions from Van Berghen’s edition, as well as some of Luther’s introductions and glosses, and his preface to the entire New Testament. Another edition published by Van Berghen in 1524 contains variant readings taken from Erasmus’ text, as well as an introductory epistle (Een corte Epistole) based on Erasmus’ prologue to the New Testament.76 Christoffel van Ruremund printed four editions of the New Testament in Dutch between 1525 and about 1527, including some made directly from the Greek (nae de Griecksche waerheyt). In 1527 he was tried and found guilty of printing bibles that violated the imperial mandates.77 Accordingly, a third of his property was seized and he was banished from Holland, Flanders and Zeeland, in accordance with the punishments threatened by the edict given at Mechelen on 17 July 1526.78 75 Visser, pp. 110–11. 76  Die Evange||lien ons heeren Jesu xpi / in der duyt||scher sprake getranslateert […], Antwerp: Adriaen van Berghen, 28 August 1523; Le tressainct  || et sacres texte du nouuiaulx testa⸗||ment translates du latin  […], Antwerp and Tournai: Adriaen van Berghen, 1523; Dat nyeu⸗||vve Testa⸗||ment Ander||werf met grooter neersticheyt || gecorrigeert […], Antwerp: Adriaen van Berghen, 1524; Die Episto||len van den eerwaerdighen || Apostel sinte Pauwels / dat || wtuercoren vat Christi / metten || anderen Epistolen  […], Antwerp: Adriaen van Berghen, 1524; fol. q8r: Cum Gratia et Privilegio; another edition of which only one part (containing Acts) survives: ¶ Dat ander deel || des Euangelijs van sinte Lucas  / van  || die geschiedenisse oft werc⸗||ken der Apostelen, [Antwerp]: [Adriaen van Berghen], [1525?]; The Hague, KW 225 G 29. In each case I give only those editions that predate the Brussels edict of 1529. Further, see Visser, pp. 111–12. 77 ¶ Dat heylich Euange||lium, dat leuende woort gods […], [Antwerp]: [Christoffel van Ruremund], Anno 1525. den .xxvi. dach in September; The Hague, KB KW 230 G 40; NK 381; Hier beghint dat eerste  || boeck der Machabeen, [Antwerp]: Christoffel van Ruremund, 1525; no title page; Dat heylich Euan||gelium  […] ghedruct sonder glo||sen ende prologhen, Antwerp: Christoffel van Ruremund, [1526?]; Het Nieuwe || TESTAMENT: || Dat is / || Het nieuwe Verbondt onses || Heeren Jesu Christi. || In Nederduytsch nae de Griecksche || waerheyt overgheset, [Antwerp]: Christoffel van Ruremund [colophon: By my ghedruct Christoffel van Ruremund op dye Lombaerde viste], [1527?]. 78 Hackett to Thomas Wolsey, 12 January 1527, ed. E.  Frances Rogers, The Letters of Sir John Hackett, 1526–1534, Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Library, 1971, p.  65. See François, The Antwerp Printers (see n. 59), p. 13.

‘burned to dust’

 47

Ill. 3: Sample of Dutch bâtarde hand showing the similarity of G and Z.

The ‘Johannes Zel’ of the Brussels list has hitherto resisted identification. It is s­ uggested here that the orthography is an error for ‘Johannes Gel’, that is, the ­A ntwerp printer Jan van Ghelen, who produced at least five editions of the Dutch New ­Testament. The first was produced in about 1524, a reprint of Van Berghen’s e­ dition, which made an appeal to Catholic tradition by claiming to have been translated from Latin rather than Greek (wten latijn in onser duytscher spraken). This was followed by editions dated 1525, 1526 (two editions) and 1528. Some of these ­editions contained an exhortation encouraging the laity to read the bible, and all included handy t­ ables indicating the lessons read at mass throughout the year.79 ­A nother p­ roto-index drawn up at Leiden in 1530 specifically bans the editions of ‘Adriaen van Bergen, Christolf Remonde and Jan van Gheel’, except those that were ‘without annotations, glosses or prefaces’.80 Further support for this suggestion is found in the 1551 Index of the Portuguese Inquisition, which repeats the proscriptions from the 1529 Brussels and 1530 Leiden lists: ‘Novum Testamentum impressum ab Adriano de Bergies et a ­Christophoro de Remuda et Ioanne Gil’.81 The error evidently arose from the fact that G and Z can look very similar in Dutch bâtarde or secretary hands (see Ill. 3).

79 The first volume in the only extant copy of Van Ghelen’s five-volume New Testament of c.  1524 (Utrecht, UB D. oct. 1671 Rariora) lacks a title page. The title of the second part reads: Dit is dat tweede Euangelium  || dat sinte Lucas bescreuen he⸗||uet  […], Antwerp: Jan van Ghelen, [c.  1524]. Van Ghelen’s other editions are as follows: Dat Nieu⸗||vve Testament. || welc is dat leuende woort Gods […], Antwerp: Jan van Ghelen, 1525; Dat nieu⸗||we Testament || ons heren Jhesu Christi met alder naersticheyt || oversien / ende verduytst […], Antwerp: Jan van Ghelen, 1526; Dat gants || Nieuvve || Testament, || ons heren Jhesu christi […], Antwerp: Jan van Ghelen, 1526; Dat Nieu⸗||vve Testament || ons heeren Jhesu Christi  […], Antwerp: Jan van Ghelen, 1528. Further, see A.  A. Vorsterman van Oyen, Les van Ghelen, imprimeurs, Messager des Sciences Historiques ou Archives des Arts et de la Bibliographie de Belgique (1883), 16–38; Visser, p.  112. Isaac Le Long, Boek-zaal der Nederduytsche bybels, Amsterdam: Hendrik Vieroot, 1732, p. 512, listed a New Testament printed by ‘Johannes Zel’, but he had only conjectured the existence of this edition from the Placaat. 80 Cit. L. Knappert, De Index Librorum Prohibitorum te Leiden in 1530, Tijdschrift voor Boek- en Bibliotheekwezen 4 (1906), 224–27, p. 226. See Visser, p. 12; François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n. 1), pp. 219–22. 81  Bujanda, vol. 4, p. 299, nº 356. The Portuguese list confirms the suggested identification of ‘Zel’ with Van Ghelen made by C.  C.  de Bruin, De Statenbijbel en zijn voorgangers (Leiden: A.  W. Sijthoff, 1937), p. 192, and François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n. 1), p. 344. The same group of three printers appears in the 1559 Roman Index (nº 0129, 00117: ‘Novum Testamentum, per Adrianum de Bergis et Christophorum de Remunda et Zeel’), the 1559 Spanish Index (nº 327: ‘Novum Testamentum impressum per Adrianum de Vergis et Christophorum de Remuda et Ioannem Zel’), and the 1583 Spanish Index (nº 1350: ‘Novum Testamentum impressum per Adrianum de Bergis, Christophorum de Remuda et Ioannem Zel’), probably relying on the printed version of the Brussels Placcat. See Bujanda, vol. 5, p. 237; vol. 6, p. 483; vol. 8, pp. 235, 326.

48 

grantley mcdonald Appendix II Editions of the Summa der Godliker Scrifturen.82

· SVMMA · DER · || GODLIKER ❧ || SCRIFTVREN · || Oft een duytsche theologie \ leerende ende || onderwijsende alle menschen \ wat dat Chri||sten geloeue is waer doer wi alle gader sa⸗||lich worden \ ende wat dat doepsel || beduyt \ na die leeringe des heyli||gen Euangelijs \ ende sinte || Pouwels epistolen. || Hier navolcht die prologhe ([Leiden]: [Jan Zevertszoon], [1523]). Brussels, KBR II 25.904 A LP. NK 3910. Title block reused in NK 402 (attributed to Lettersnijder by Blouw) and in a Nieuwe Testament (Delft: Lettersnijder, 1533; not in NK). Title page repr. in Trapman, Summa (see n. 42), facing frontispiece; Blouw, Dutch Typography (see n. 43), pp. 919, 923. S❧MA DER || GODLIKER SCRIFTVREN, OFT || een duytsche Theologie, leerende ende onder||wijsende alle menschen, wat het Christen ghe||loue is, waer doer wi allegader salich wor||den, ende wat dat doepsel beduyt, nae || die leeringe des heiligen euangelijs,  || ende sinte Pauwels epistelen.  || [typographical ornament]  || Item een corte informacie, hoe dat alle staten || der menschen sullen leuen, nae dat Euan||gelium, ende sinte Pauwels leeringe || [typographical ornament] || Hier naer volcht die prologhe, declare⸗||rende dat inhout van dit boucxkin ([Antwerp]: [Willem Vorsterman], [1526]). Amsterdam, UB OTM: Ned. Inc. 499; and OTM: OK 65–1328. NK 1968. This edition contains the following appendix: DAT TESTAMENT IESV || Christi, datmen tot noch toe de || misse ghenoempt heeft / ver⸗||duyts duer Ioannem Oe⸗||colampadium to Ade⸗||lenburch. Zevertszoon worked with Vorsterman at Antwerp after being banished from Holland, Zeeland and Frisia in 1524, and from Utrecht on 17 June 1524 and for a second time on 17 May 1525; see Visser, pp. 147– 48. Repr. Blouw, Dutch Typography (see n. 43), p. 923. · SVMMA · DER || GODLIKER ❧ || SCRIFTVREN || Oft een duytsche Theologie / leerend || ende onderwijsende alle menschen / wat dat || Christen gheloue is / waer doer wij alle || gader salich worden / ende wat dat doop⸗||sel beduyt / na die leeringe des || heylighen Euangelijs / || ende sinte Pauwels || Epistolen. || ¶ Nv weder om zeer neerstelick || ghecorrigeert. || 1526 ([Antwerp]: [Adriaen van Berghen], 1526 [i.e. 1530/31]). Stuttgart, WLB Theol. oct. 17532; Stockholm, National Library 82 Further, see J.  J.  van Toorenenbergen, Het oudste Nederlandsche verboden boek. 1523. Oeconomica Christiana. Summa der Godliker Scrifturen, Leiden: Brill, 1882; the present list replaces Toorenenbergen’s inaccurate transcriptions of the title pages of the various editions; De Bruin (1937), p. 106; Trapman, Summa (see n. 42); J. Trapman, Überlegungen zu einer unbekannten Ausgabe des Summario de la Santa Scrittura, NAKG 67 (1987), 143–55; B. J. Spruyt, De zes in het grachtenpand te Delft gevonden boekjes, met name de Summa der godliker scrifturen, T. F. Blad van de Theologische Faculteit der Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 18 (1988–89), Nr. 2 (March 1989), 24–32; Paul Valkema Blouw, The Van Oldenborch and Vanden Merberghe Pseudonyms or Why Frans Fraet Had to Die, Quaerendo 22 (1992), 165–96, 245–72, esp. 184, 254; Peyronel Rambaldi, Dai Paesi Bassi all’Italia (see n.  54); François, Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ (see n.  1), pp. 202–03. Blouw, Dutch Typography (see n. 43), pp. 913–24, identified the printers of most of the anonymous editions.

‘burned to dust’

 49

of Sweden RAR: 173 R. NK 3911. Appended is a second part with the title: · Dat · || Ander deel van || die Summa der Godlijcker scriftue||ren oft duytscher Theologien || allen Christen || menschen zeer van nooden ende profitelick / Lee⸗||rende van die Gheboden Gods ende Ghe⸗||boden ende Raden der menschen.  || Psal. xviij.  || ¶ Die onbeulecte wet des Heeren / is bekee||rende die zielen / Die getuygenisse des || Heeren is ghetrouwe / verleenen⸗||de wijsheyt den cleynen; the title border and the three first lines of the title are recut in imitation of NK 3910. Blouw, Dutch Typography (see n. 43), p. 924, incorrectly reported the Stuttgart copy as lost, and did not know of the Stockholm exemplar. SVMMA · DER || GODLIKER ❧ || SCRIFTVREN || Oft een Duytsche Theologie, lerende || ende onderwijsende alle menschen, wat het || Christen ghelooue is, waer doer wi alle||gader salich worden, ende wat dat doop⸗||sel bediedt, na die leeringe des || heylighen Euangelijs, || ende sinte Pauwels || Epistelen. || Nv weder om seer neerstelick || ghecorrigiert ([Antwerp]: [Steven Mierdmans], [c. 1543/46]). Utrecht, UB E oct 437 (Rariora) dl 1–2. NK 1969. Appended is a second part with the title: Dat || Ander deel van || die Summa der godlicker scrif⸗||tueren oft Duytscher Theologien, allen Chri⸗||sten menschen seer van nooden ende profijtelijc: || Leerende van de gheboden Gods, ende ghebo⸗||den ende Raden der menschen. || Psalm. xviij. || De onbeulecte wet des Heeren is bekeeren||de de sielen. Dat getuyghenisse des || Heeren is ghetrouwe, verleenen⸗||de wijsheyt den cleynen.); the title border and the three first lines of the title were used previously in NK 3911. SVMMA · DER || GODLIKER ❧ || SCRIFTVREN || oft een duytsche Theolo⸗||gie leerende ende onderwijsende alle menschen || wat dat Christen ghelooue is / waer duer || wi alle gader salich worden / ende wat dat || doopsel bediet / nae die leeringhe des || heylighen Euangelijs / ende sinte || Pauwels Epistelen. || ¶ Nv wederom seer neerstelijck || ghecorrigiert. || ☞ ❧ •. Colophon: ¶ Ghedruckt by my Magnus vanden Mer⸗||berghe van Oesterhout / int Jaer ons Heerē. M. || CCCCC. LVII. in Aprijl volint. Blouw identified the printer as Frans Fraet of Antwerp. The title border and the three first lines of the title were used previously in NK 3911. The unique copy, in the Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, was destroyed in WWII. Photographs of the title page and colophon, are in the Special Collections of the University of Amsterdam, hs. XX L 1–6 (Apparaat F. S. Knipscheer), reproduced here as Ill. 4 and 5 with kind permission. Summa der  || Godtlijcker  || Scriftueren  || Oft een duytsche Theologie  / leren⸗||de ende onderwijsende alle Menschen  / wat  || dat Christen Ghelooue is  / waer duer wy || alle gader salich worden / ende wat || dat Doopsel bediet / nae die leeringe || des heyligen Euangelijs / eñ || sinte Pauwels Epistelen. || ¶ Nu weder om seer naerstelijck || ghecorrigiert. Colophon: Ghedruckt bi my Magnus vanden Merberge van Oesterhout / int Jaer ons Heren. M. CCCCC. LVII. in Aprijl volint [Kampen?]: [Steven Joessen?], [c. 1560/65]). NB 5407. The Hague, Royal Library KW 1715 G 5. NB 5407. ❧ OECO||NOMICA CRISTI||ANA IN REM CHRI||stianam instituens. Quidue  || creditum ingenue Christi||anum oportet. Ex euan||gelicis literis e­||ruta.  || ONVS VERBI DO⸗||MINI. CONVERTIMI||ni ad munitionem. duplicia red||dam

50 

grantley mcdonald

Ill.  4: Summa der godliker Scrifturen ­([Antwerp]: [Frans Fraet], 1557), title page. Photograph of the unique copy (Universität Hamburg, now destroyed), in the Special Collections of the U ­ niversity of ­Amsterdam, hs. XX L 1–6 (Apparaat F. S. Knipscheer).

Ill. 5: Summa der godliker Scrifturen ([Antwerp]: [Frans Fraet], 1557), colophon. Photograph of the unique copy (Universität Hamburg, now destroyed), in the Special Collections of the University of Amsterdam, hs. XX L 1–6 (Apparaat F. S. Knipscheer).

‘burned to dust’

 51

tibi Zachariæ nono (Strasbourg [i.e. Antwerp]: [Marten de Keyser], 7 A ­ ugust 1527. Amsterdam, UB OTM: OK 65–1073; Manchester, John Rylands R115955. The printer was identified by Blouw, Dutch Typography (see n. 43), p. 922. The sum||me of the holye scripture / || and ordinarye of the Christen teachyng / ||the true Christen faithe / by the whiche we || be all iustified. And of the vertue of bap⸗||tesme / after the teaching of the Gos||pell and of the Apostles / wi⸗||th an informacyon howe || all estates shulde ly||ve / accordynge || to the Gos⸗||pell. || Anno.M.CCCCC.XXIX., transl. Simon Fish ([Antwerp]: [Johannes Grapheus], 1529).STC 3036; NK 3912; NB 5405. Title page repr. in Trapman, Summa, 88. Further, see Blouw, Dutch Typography (see n. 43), p. 922. The sum⸗||me of the holye || scrypture / & ordynary || of the Christen teachyng / || the true Chrysten faythe / || by the whiche we be al iu⸗||stified. And of the vertue || of baptysme / after the tea⸗||chyng of the gospel and of || the apostles / with an infor||macyon howe all esta⸗||tes shulde lyue  / accor⸗||dynge to the  || gospell ([Antwerp]: [n. p.], [c. 1535]). STC 3036a; NB 5406. The sum⸗||me of the holy scryp⸗||ture / and ordynary of || the Christen teaching / the || trewe Christen faythe / by || the whiche we be all iusti⸗||fied. And of the vertue of || baptysme / after the tea⸗||chyng of the gospel and of || the apostles / with an infor||macyon howe all esta⸗||tes shulde lyue / ac⸗||cordynge to the || gospell (London: Robert Redman, [c. 1536]). STC 3037. The sum⸗||me of the holy scripture  || and ordynacye of the  || chrysten teachynge, the || true chrysten fayth, by || the whiche we be al iu⸗||stifyed, and of the ver⸗||tue of baptysme, after || the teachyng of the gos⸗||pel, and of the apostles || with an informacyon || howe all the estates || shulde lyue, accor⸗||dynge to the gospell ([London]: [John Wayland], [1538]). STC 3038.3. The Summe || of the holy Scrypture, || and ordenarye of the || Chrysten teachynge, || the true chrysten fayth || by the whiche we are || al Iustifyed. And of || the vertue of baptym || after the teachyng of || the Gospel, and of || the apostles, with || an informacyon || how all estates || shulde lyue, || accordynge to || the Gospell ([London]: [John Wayland], [1538]). STC 3038.5. The summe || of the holy Scripture, and ordi⸗||narye of the Chrystian teachyng, the true chri⸗||stian fayth, by the whyche we be all iustified. || And of the vertue of Baptisme, after the || teachynge of the Gospell and of the || Apostles, With an information || howe all estates shoulde lyue || accordyng to the Gospell, || very necessary for all || Christian people || to knowe […] Anno. M.d.xlvii. (London: John Daye, 1547). STC 3039. The summe  || of the Holy Scripture, and ordi⸗||narye of the Chrystian teachyng, the true chri⸗||stian fayth, by the whyche we be all iustified. || And of the vertue of Baptisme, after the || teachynge of the Gospell and of the || Apostles, With an information || howe all estates shoulde lyue || accordyng to the Gospell, || very necessary

52 

grantley mcdonald

for all || Christian people || to knowe […] Anno. M.d.xlvii. (London: William Hill, 11 December 1548). STC 3040. La Summe de lescripture || saincte / et lordinaire des Chrestiens / || enseignant la vraye foy Chre⸗||stienne: par laquelle nous || sommes tous iustifi⸗||ez. Et de la vertu || du baptesme / || selon la || doctri||ne || de Le⸗||uangile / || et des Apo⸗||stres. Auec vne || information com⸗||ment tous estatz doib⸗||uent viure selon || Leuangile. || ¶ Imprime a Basle par Thomas || Volff. Lan milcinqcens || vingt et trois ([i.e. Alençon]: [Simon du Bois], [1534]). London, BL C.37.a.20. Repr. in Trapman, Summa, 14. EL SVMMARIO  || DE LA SANTA SCRITTVRA ET LOR||dinario de Christiani ilqual demostra la || vera Fede Christiana mediante laqua⸗||le siamo giustificati. Et della virtu || del battismo secondo la dottrina || de l’Euangelio, & delli Aposto⸗||li, con vna informatione co⸗||me tutti gli stati debbono || viuere secondo lo Euangelio. || La tauola trouera nel fine del libretto ([n. p.]: [n. p.], [n. d.]). Munich, BSB Asc. 4796; Zürich, ZB MFA 2. Ill. in Trapman, Summa, facing p. 1; Trapman, Überlegungen (see Appendix II, n. 1), 152. El summario dela sancta Scriptura || & lordinario deli Christiani / qual demon-||stra la vera Fede Christiana mediante la||quale siamo iustificati. Et della virtu || del baptismo secondo la doctrina del || euangelio / & deli Apostoli: cum || vna informatione come || tutti li stati debbeno || viuere secondo lo || Euangelio. || La tauola trouerai nel fine del libretto ([n. p.]: [n. p.], [n. d.]). Wolfenbüttel, HAB A: 1124.12 Theol. Repr. Trapman, Überlegungen (see Appendix II, n. 1), 153.

The Claim to Expertise and Doctrinal Authority in the Struggle for Anti-Heresy Policies in the Habsburg Netherlands, 1520s–60s

Arjan van Dixhoorn*

While it seems self-evident that expertise in matters of religion, and of church and state, Scripture and tradition was the main issue at stake in the controversies of ­Reformation Europe, the claim to expertise and authority in doctrinal matters in the actual process of shaping anti-heresy policies seems to have received little ­attention. One explanation for this lacuna might be that many historians still seem to fall ­victim to a pro-Protestant narrative of the pre-Reformation Church as defined by a conservative, corrupted clergy and an oppressed, largely passive laity. At the same time, however, the favorable treatment of the Protestants in the older h ­ istoriography is increasingly giving away to the acknowledgement of the vitality of the Roman Catholic Church from which a great variety of Reform movements emerged. In the case of the Habsburg Netherlands, thorough re-assessments of the ­ anti-Protestant repression in law and in practice have nuanced the older view of an oppressive central government facing wide-spread opposition against its anti-heresy policies. The paradoxical situation on the ground was that anti-heresy policies were the result of continuous consultation and mediation and hence were co-produced by all the levels of government and larger social networks (theologians, informants, and Catholic faithful). Instead of harshness and rigor, it seems to have been the ­consensus that the application of clemency in the execution of anti-heresy policies was crucial.1 At the same time, in no other region in Europe would so many ‘heretics’ * The research for this article was funded by the Belgian Research Foundation Flanders (FWO). The author wishes to thank Susie Speakman Sutch and the reviewers for critical comments. 1 See in particular A. Goosens, Les inquisitions modernes dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux 1520–1633, vol. 1: La législation, Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1997; M. Vrolijk, Recht door gratie. Gratie bij doodslagen en andere delicten, Hilversum: Verloren, 2004; V. Soen, Geen pardon

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François, Turnhout, 2017 (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire ­Ecclésiastique, 101), pp. 53–71

F H G

DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.113401

54 

arjan van dixhoorn

be executed, which points to a second wide-spread consensus: the need to eradicate heresy root and branch.2 Most of the controversy used by earlier generations as evidence for a widespread dislike of anti-heresy policies turns out, on closer inspection, to have been part of the ‘normal’ practices of government. The Habsburg Netherlands, as is increasingly evident, was a polity driven increasingly by complex processes of consultation, negotiation and lobbying involving wide networks of all sorts of people claiming expertise and all levels of government. At the heart of the quarrels: no fundamental opposition, but debates on competence, both in the legal (according to custom and law) and the epistemic sense (according to experience and knowledge). This chapter explores the relationship among knowledge communities, ruling elites and the people in mid-sixteenth-century Netherlandish society, by studying how the acquisition and use of knowledge and the claim to expertise were central in shaping the way in which the struggles over anti-heresy policies developed. My approach has been inspired by debates in the history of science regarding the clash between traditional scholarly claims to theoretical authority and the claims to expertise that resulted from the ability to reach a practical end. In the history of science, the claim of the expert to have such abilities has been problematized as part of the striving of superior artisans to acquire social and political status. From this perspective the identification of heresy and the shaping of anti-heresy policies is the subject of a social history of differing knowledge communities, their clashing claims to expertise, and their status.3 Between 1520 and 1566, the local and provincial councils (courts), the local and regional clergy, and the Habsburg rulers and the councils of the central government would engage with the Faculty of Theology of Louvain and its networks in shaping harsh anti-heresy policies.4 While these groups and institutions were constantly negotiating and debating competences, jurisdictions and the necessary course of action to be taken, they agreed on the bottom line: the need to eradicate heresy and preserve orthodoxy. The censorship policies that were developed in order to reach that goal targeted largely two groups in society: Protestant leadership and believers and communities of printers, painters, and rhetoricians. The former were targeted zonder paus! Studie over de complementariteit van het koninklijk en pauselijk generaal pardon (1570– 1574) en over inquisiteur-generaal Michael Baius (1560–1576) (Verhandelingen van de KVABWK. Nieuwe reeks, 14), Brussels: KVAB, 2007; G.  Gielis and V.  Soen, The Inquisitorial Office in the Sixteenth-Century Low Countries. A  Dynamic Perspective, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 66 (2015), 47–66. 2 See F. E. Beemon, The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition and the Preconditions of the Dutch Revolt, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 85 (1994), 246–64. 3  S . Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-century England, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994; B. Dooley, ‘News and Doubt in Early Modern Culture. Or, Are We Having a Public Sphere Yet?’, in: B. Dooley and S. A. Baron (eds), The Politics of Information in Early Modern Europe (London and New York, 2001), pp. 275–90; P. Burke, A Social History of Knowledge. From Gutenberg to Diderot, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001, pp. 1–17, 53–80; P.  Dear, ‘Mysteries of State, Mysteries of Nature. Authority, Knowledge and Expertise in the Seventeenth Century’, in: Sh.  Jasanoff, States of Knowledge. The Co-production of Science and Social Order (London and New York: Routledge, 2004), pp. 206–24; P. H. Smith, Science on the Move: Recent Trends in the History of Early Modern Science, Renaissance Quarterly 62/2 (2009), 345–75; E. H. Ash, Introduction: Expertise and the Early Modern State, Osiris 25 (2010), 1–24. 4 See for example G.  Gielis, Verdoelde schaepkens, bytende wolven. Inquisitie in de Lage Landen, Leuven: Davidsfonds, 2009.

the claim to expertise and doctrinal authority

 55

for their role in shaping and disseminating new doctrines that opposed the teachings, ceremonies and institutions of the Church openly or in secret. The latter were targeted for printing Protestant texts, making anti-Roman images, or engaging in performances that were believed to promote Protestantism or criticize the Church or contravene the princely edicts.5 In sharp contrast to earlier and highly influential claims by historians such as Johan Decavele and Juliaan Woltjer, this chapter is grounded in the conviction that support for the fight against heresy was strong and widely uncontested in the Habsburg Netherlands, except obviously among dedicated Protestants.6 Yet, the means through which the fight had to be conducted and whose competence it was, remained highly controversial.7 A complicating factor was the dissension within the Catholic world over the need and ways to reform the Church and the life of the laity, an issue strongly favored by theologians from the Louvain Faculty of Theology.8 As we will see, the approach of some of them risked inflating the number of heretics simply by widening the attack on previously accepted forms of lay theology and anti-clericalism, thus restricting the space for open engagement with matters of Scripture and the Church. Aline Goosens pointed to another way of inflating the number of heretics: the anti-heresy edicts increasingly equated heresy with the transgression of anti-heresy law (and hence, as lese majestatis).9 This chapter will briefly discuss two different spheres of Netherlandish society where the aims of clerical and theologians’ claims to authority and knowledge in matters of religion clashed with lay elite culture: the world of Dutch rhetoric and the world of law.

5 See among others: J. Decavele, De dageraad van de reformatie in Vlaanderen (1520–1565), Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1975; G.  Marnef, Antwerpen in de tijd van de Reformatie. Ondergronds protestantisme in een handelsmetropool, 1550–1577, Amsterdam and Antwerpen: Meulenhoff and Kritak, 1996, chapter 3; C. Rooze-Stouthamer, Hervorming in Zeeland (ca. 1520–1572), Goes: De Koperen Tuin, 1996; A.-L. Van Bruaene, Om beters wille. Rederijkerskamers en de stedelijke cultuur in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden (1400–1650), Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008, chapter 4. 6 For the traditional view see J.  J.  Woltjer, ‘Political Moderates and Religious Moderates in the Revolt of the Netherlands’, in: P.  Benedict et al. (ed.), Reformation, Revolt and Civil War in France and the Netherlands, 1555–1585 (Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1999), pp. 185–200; A. Duke, ‘Patriotism and Liberty in the Low Countries, 1555–1576’, in: R. Stein and J. Pollmann (eds), Networks, Regions, and Nations. Shaping Identities in the Low Countries, 1300–1650 (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2010), pp. 217–40. 7 See in particular Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1). Even though Goosens’ conclusions often support the existing narrative, her evidence and arguments show a world of consultation and consent with the basic premises of anti-heresy policies. See also A. van Dixhoorn, ‘The Making of a Public Issue in Early Modern Europe. The Spanish Inquisition and Public Opinion in the Netherlands’, in: M. Rospocher (ed.), Beyond the Public Sphere. Opinions, Publics, Spaces in Early Modern Europe (16th-18th Centuries) (Jahrbuch des italienisch-deutschen historischen Instituts in Trient, 27) (Bologna and Berlin: Il Mulino and Duncker, 2012), pp. 249–70. 8 See for example, G. Gielis, ‘Een pleidooi voor klerikale herbronning: Ruard Tapper (1487–1559) en zijn ideeën over kerkhervorming’, in: V.  Soen and P.  Knevel (eds), Religie, hervorming en controverse in de zestiende-eeuwse Nederlanden (Publicaties van de Vlaams-Nederlandse vereniging voor Nieuwe Geschiedenis, 12) (Maastricht: Shaker Publishing, 2013), pp. 21–36; Idem, ‘Franciscus Sonnius “vader aller nieuwe bisschoppen” en eerste bisschop van ’s-Hertogenbosch en Antwerpen’, Post Factum. Jaarboek voor Geschiedenis en Volkskunde (2010) 2 bis, 37–60. 9 Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1).

56 

arjan van dixhoorn Clashing Claims to Expertise: Rhetoricians and Theologians

In the forty years between 1520 and 1560, attempts to control rhetorician speech became a controversial matter and a growing concern for the central and provincial institutions of government in the Habsburg Netherlands. With their public and private use of rhetorical expertise to explore matters of philosophy, theology and law, the chambers of rhetoric posed a particular challenge to those involved in the anti-heresy struggles in a society in which the laity had long been actively involved in the shaping of religious culture. While their claim to expertise could not, in practice, be easily denied, given their role in the organization of public ceremonies and festive disputations, nonetheless, policies were shaped in order to control the communicative practices of the rhetoricians. As a result, the clash between rhetoricians and their theological adversaries about the privilege to publicly teach religious truths intensified.10 By the 1520s the chambers of rhetoric had been established as the institutional core of a vernacular culture of knowledge that was as strongly involved in the shaping of a more Christian society as it was grounded in the festive, ceremonial and theatrical cultures of civic communities. Rhetoricians claimed and acquired an expert role as spokespersons for a more practical philosophy alongside the theoretical learning of traditional Latin scholarship. In response to the rise of heretical thought and expression, in the course of the sixteenth century, attempts were undertaken with an increasing intensity to undermine their claims in order to curtail the rhetoricians’ public engagement with matters of theology and church.11 It is perhaps helpful to note that the theatrical did not exist as a separate legal category, and plays and other forms of performative literature would normally be  classified with communicative practices from talk, to books and paintings. In Joos De Damhouder’s famous Practycke of 1555, theatrical practices are covered by a variety  of sections on written texts, speech, action, and imagery. Apart from the charge of contravening the edicts explicitly by openly discussing heretical opinion, theatrical per­ formances could be targeted for the far less unproblematic offense of being schandaleus, i.e. hurting people’s feelings or promoting controversial opinions. According to  De Damhouder, causing offense was a delicate matter to judge, because it was mainly in  the eye of the beholder. He cautioned lawyers to act very carefully in such cases by including the social context in their examination. For example, if someone from a company of friends should feel offended, his or her accusation would be very difficult to sustain because of the intimate and open nature of such gatherings.12 Although De 10  N.  Moser, De strijd voor rhetorica. Poëtica en positie van rederijkers in Vlaanderen, Brabant, Zeeland en Holland tussen 1450 en 1620, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2001. 11 See the earlier treatment in A.  van Dixhoorn, Lustige geesten. Rederijkers in de Noordelijke Nederlanden (1480–1650), Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, pp.  209–26. For rhetorician culture as knowledge culture see also: J. Vandommele, Als in een spiegel. Vrede, kennis en gemeenschap op het Antwerpse Landjuweel van 1561, Hilversum: Verloren, 2011. 12  J.  De Damhoudere, Practycke ende handbouck in criminele zaeken, verchiert met zommeghe schoone figuren ende beilden ter materie dienende […], Leuven: Steven Wouters and Ian Bathen, 1555, pp. 226–27 and 251–59. Cf. Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1), p. 65 (who claims the notion of ‘schandalisatie’ was newly introduced in the anti-heresy edict of 29 April 1550).

the claim to expertise and doctrinal authority

 57

Damhouder’s treatise was grounded in the legal tradition of the Council of Flanders, it became a standard textbook throughout Europe. We know from litigations against groups of rhetoricians that the ephemeral nature of their activities made it notoriously difficult to prove any accusation, whether it concerned an offense against the edicts or the even more problematic accusation of schandalisatie. If the accused denied the charges in a case of heresy or in the case of a problematic performance, accusers, witnesses and accused could only refer to what they had been part of, what they had heard and/or had seen. In practice, the examination would then often focus on finding forms of evidence that were more easily verifiable, in the case of heresy-accusations the ownership or authorship of a forbidden book, and in the case of problematic performances, the script of the performance. Finding a forbidden book of course could relatively easily conclude a case; finding a script of a play, a song or a poem however often could not, since the script and the performance were not identical.13 Many elements could be used to turn an otherwise innocent script of a play on the pants of Priapus into an anti-clerical jest.14 Conversely, a play that criticized the clergy and discussed themes also dear to the Protestants might in a certain reading context become problematic, whereas with the addition of orthodox Catholic visual elements, in a performative context, it could be perfectly in compliance with the law.15 The shaping of a censorship policy directly targeting the rhetoricians can be followed closely in the County of Holland because of the abundance of available sources that seem to reflect a stronger effort than elsewhere in the Habsburg Netherlands.16 The first attempts to increase control over the rhetorician movement date from 1527 and coincide with the period when historians believe that the Reformation movement was spreading from humanist and clerical circles to the wider population; they also coincide with the beginning of a cycle of rhetorician festivals in Holland, the first of which took place in The Hague in 1526, the second in Amsterdam in June 1527 and another in Haarlem in 1529. It was probably the plays performed at the Amsterdam festival of 1527 that caused problems. An officer of the Court of Holland was sent to the city with orders for council and court concerning ‘certain plays that 13 See the documents of the cases published in: P. Génard, Personen te Antwerpen in de XVIe eeuw voor het feit van religie gerechtelijk vervolgd. Lijst en ambtelijke bijbehoorige stukken, Antwerpsch Archievenblad 7 (s.d.), 469–72; ibidem 8 (s.d.), 322–472 (esp. pp. 322–36). See also, A.  L.  Van Bruaene, Printing Plays. The Publication of the Ghent Plays of 1539 and the Reaction of the Authorities, Dutch Crossing. Journal of Low Countries Studies 24/2 (2000), 265–84. 14 See also the sources published in: J.  Kleijntjes, Verslag over den godsdienstigen toestand in Holland en Friesland, Haarlemsche bijdragen 59 (1940/1941), 52–101; J. Bijlo, Kroniek van KapelleBiezelinge en Eversdijk, Middelburg: Zeeuws Genootschap der Wetenschappen, 1923, pp.  211–12 (bijlage 4). 15  B . A. M. Ramakers, ‘Eloquent Presence. Verbal and Visual Discourse in the Ghent Plays of 1539’, in: C. Brusati, K. Enenkel and W. Melion (eds), The Authority of the Word. Reflecting on Image and Text in Northern Europe, 1400–1700 (Intersections: Interdisciplinary Studies in Early Modern Culture, 20) (Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 218–61. 16  Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1), shows time and again the influential role of the Council of Holland and Lalaing (Count of Hoochstraten) in the shaping of the anti-heresy policies. For a more detailed account from a traditional, Hollandocentric perspective, focusing on resistance against the anti-heresy policies: S. ter Braake, Met recht en rekenschap. De ambtenaren bij het Hof van Holland en de Haagse Rekenkamer in de Habsburgse tijd (1483–1558), Hilversum: Verloren, 2007 and Vrolijk, Met recht en gratie (see n. 1).

58 

arjan van dixhoorn

had been performed in front of the city hall and in other houses by some rhetoricians causing offense and mockery of the sacraments of the holy church and other good institutions’. In 1529, another officer was sent to Amsterdam and Haarlem with orders to ban the rhetoricians from performing any play concerning the ‘heylige stoffen’ or sacred matters.17 The orders sent to Amsterdam, probably following the festival of June 1527, were likely based on an edict issued by the stadtholder, Antoine de Lalaing, on 4 February 1527, explicitly targeting the performance of plays in the counties of Holland, Zeeland and (West) Friesland. The edict was ordered to be published everywhere in these counties as an addition to an imperial edict of 18 January 1527, targeting heresy in general. The addition claims to be based on recent information that rhetoricians were publicly performing plays ‘daerduer t gemeen volck geschandaliseert wordt’ (offending/seducing the common people) in defiance of an imperial order that local governments should not allow any plays to be performed before they had been examined and approved (gevisiteert ende toegelaten). Consequently, the new edict ordered again that it should be publicly ordered (openbaer voor den volcken), in the name of the Emperor, that no-one would dare to perform any plays in public or in secret that were not examined and approved by the local courts. The courts were directed not to allow any plays to be performed that they had not examined.18 In the 1530s, attention would turn to the world of the rhetoricians in Amsterdam and their supposed connections with the Anabaptist movement. The basis of investigations seems to have been the edict of 1527 and its support for a secular form of censorship: the laymen of the local courts being responsible for monitoring the local companies of other laymen, the rhetoricians. A new order was however issued by Lalaing on 26 September 1539, that claimed to be based on evidence that many people were being offended and seduced (geschandaliseert ende ook ontsticht) by the plays of the rhetoricians, since they allegedly mingled Scripture with farce and mocked the religious estates and others (den geestelicken state ende andere staeten). By doing so, they caused discontent (murmuratie) among the people. Consequently, Lalaing ordered the officers and courts under his jurisdiction to ban the plays of the rhetoricians of whatever nature they were or whatever matter they treated (hoe dat die moegen zijn ende van wat materie dat sy souden sijn), until his Majesty, the Emperor, might decide otherwise.19 Apparently, the ban on religious plays of 1529 had not been enforced. The famous imperial edict of 10 July 1540, issued in Bruges, did not refer to the experiences in Holland, and not only targeted rhetoricians but also the book trade. The earlier bans on printing, buying, selling, keeping, lending, and communicating any books mentioned or others suspected of promoting false doctrines concerning 17 These sources have been published in: F.  C.  van Boheemen and Th.  C.  J. van der Heijden (eds), Retoricaal memoriaal. Bronnen voor de geschiedenis van de Hollandse rederijkerskamers van de middeleeuwen tot het begin van de achttiende eeuw (Delft: Eburon, 1999), pp. 41–42: National Archives The Hague (NATH), Hof van Holland (HvH), Grafelijkheidsrekenkamer, Rekeningen, inv.nr. 4449, fol. 51 and 52; ibidem, Rekeningen, inv.nr. 4452, fol. 58. 18  Van Boheemen and Van der Heijden, Retoricaal Memoriaal (see n.  17), pp.  10–11: NATH, HvH, Derde memoriaelboeck van Sandelin, fol. 202vo. 19  Van Boheemen and Van der Heijden, Retoricaal Memoriaal (see n.  17), p.  11: NATH, Ambtenaren van het Centraal Bestuur, inv.nr. 98.

the claim to expertise and doctrinal authority

 59

the Christian faith provided the juridical grounds for this edict. The practical rationale was the information that various bad and forbidden books were being sold daily in Louvain, in particular those books that the University of Louvain had recently not approved, of which the edict singled out the plays that had recently been performed by 19 chambers at the Ghent festival of 1539 and had been printed in Ghent. In addition, it referred to the many inappropriate plays, songs, refrains, and images scandaleux, dangereux, ende suspect van ketterie, attacking the Christian faith and the constitution and ordinances of the holy Church, dishonoring God, his blessed mother Mary, and the saints, and causing the great danger of the loss of many souls. Inspired by such bans and a historiographical tradition dating back to the late sixteenth century, the tendency to identify rhetorician literature with Protestantism too easily still vexes the field. However, as Bart Ramakers has convincingly demonstrated, at least from a perspective that takes their performative qualities into account, the plays at the Ghent festival cannot be classified as Protestant.20 The 1540 edict orders the officers and courts to inspect the workshops and halls of book printers, sellers and rhetoricians with the assistance of a man of learning well versed in the Holy Scriptures. The homes of private individuals were excluded, unless they were suspected of owning any suspicious books, texts, images, plays or refrains. If found, they should be burnt and the perpetrators should be punished. Although these are rigorous measures, they were in accordance with existing law. Yet, the measures against the rhetoricians were an important setback for their freedom of expression. The edict banned entirely the performance of any rhetorician plays dealing with the Holy Scriptures, the Sacraments, and the ordinances of the Holy Church, and the distribution of such texts through song or sale. On the other hand, the imperial ban on religious plays overruled the total ban issued by the Court of Holland in September 1539. Still, it was a severe attempt to curtail rhetorician claims to expertise in matters of Scripture, doctrine, ceremonies and institutions of the church. In Holland, however, even this less rigorous ban was largely ignored, but interestingly, the number of accusations against rhetoricians seems to have dwindled in the decade after 1540.21 In 1551, however, theologians in Holland would again take the lead in attempts to further undermine the claim to expertise in religious matters of rhetorician culture. This time, the analysis that informed a new policy designed in Brussels dug deeper than ever before. In 1551, the theologian and inquisitor Franciscus Sonnius forwarded to Viglius, President of the Great Council at Malines, a warning concerning a future local rhetorician festival by the parish priest of the village of Naaldwijk 20  Van Boheemen and Van der Heijden, Retoricaal Memoriaal (see n. 17), pp. 11–12. National Archives Brussels, Oostenrijkse Geheime Raad, register 670, fol. 46–47. See: Van Bruaene, Printing Plays (see n.  13); and B.  Ramakers, ‘In utramque partem vel in plures – Werte- und Deutungsdivergezen im Genter Bühnenwettkampf von 1539’, in: B.  Stollberg-Rilinger and Th.  Weller (eds), Wertekonflikte – Deutungskonflikte (Symbolische Kommunikation und gesellschaftliche Wertesysteme, 16) (Münster: Rhema, 2007), pp.  197–226. Both argue that the doctrinal problem of the plays seems to have emerged only when they were printed and stripped of their performative context. 21  Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1), p. 52, for a case in which the central government mitigated the execution of the general edict of 1526, upon the request of the Council of Holland (the principal influence on the edict).

60 

arjan van dixhoorn

(Merten van Montfert, a trained theologian). In the accompanying letter, Sonnius advised that such gatherings and contests of the rhetoricians should be banned, since they usually ended up dealing with matters of faith under the pretext of rhetoric. Once they became skilled rhetoricians, he contended, these people wanted to become ministers of the Word of God, even though they erred and deceived others, of which many examples had been seen at the time. He added that much money had been wasted in order to drain the rivers rather than block the source, clearly implying that rhetorical culture was such a source that should be rooted out utterly in order to eradicate heresy.22 Sonnius’ letter led to a remarkable move. In a letter dated 3 April, 1551, the government in Brussels ordered the entire community of rhetoricians of Holland to forward all the plays that they planned to perform to a committee of theologians for prior inspection. In the same letter, the committee was ordered to be established for that purpose at the Court of Holland. The letter referred to the intentions of the Naaldwijk chamber of rhetoric to organize a rhetorician festival, which, even though this might have been approved by the local officer, was argued to be in need of further inspection and control because of the dangers that in earlier times had been caused by such plays, since some tried to mingle their venom and bad doctrine in them. The letter also nominated a group of six ‘learned and considerate men’, including Sonnius, two canons of Saint Mary’s in Gouda, and the parish priests of Amsterdam, Wormer and Naaldwijk. They were all theologians.23 There is no evidence that this provincial committee ever functioned as such, and rhetorician life in Holland seems to have continued with few complaints, most likely on the basis of local forms of inspection.24 However, the motivation given and the fragments of the underlying decision-making process that survive suggest that the establishment of such a committee marked a true shift in the way in which a network of learned theologians in the Netherlands perceived the role of rhetoricians.25 They were increasingly framed as rival but unworthy claimants to theological knowledge in the public domain and as breeding grounds for the development of unorthodox interpretations of the Scriptures and the Christian faith.26 By aiming to curtail their reputation as expert interpreters of the Scriptures and Christian doctrine and ceremony, these theologians were now beginning to attack fundamental aspects of lay religious and knowledge culture as it had developed in the previous century. The fact that upon their advice 22  Van Boheemen and Van der Heijden, Retoricaal Memoriaal (see n. 17), pp. 677–78; for the Latin original see: P. Fredericq, De inquisiteur Sonnius over de rederijkers (1551), Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse taal en letterkunde 10 (1891), 32. See also Gielis, Franciscus Sonnius (see n. 8) 23 Their names according to the government order: two doctors of theology: Franciscus Sonnius, Maerten Herman (canon, dean of Saint Mary’s in Gouda), Mr Morles de Cestro (canon of Saint Mary’s), Mr Florent van Haerlem (parish priest of Amsterdam), Mr Maerten Doncke (parish priest of Wormer) and Mr Merten van Montfert (parish priest of Naaldwijk). 24  Van Boheemen and Van der Heijden, Retoricaal Memoriaal (see n. 17), p. 678; NA Brussels, Archives de l’Audience, inv.nr.1656/2. 25 See Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1); Soen, Geen pardon zonder paus (see n. 1); Gielis, ‘Een pleidooi’ (see n. 8); Idem, Franciscus Sonnius (see n. 8) for the role of theologians in the shaping of the anti-heresy policies. 26 The origins of this shift can already be traced to the edict of 1529 which limited the right to discuss the Gospels to theologians. See Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1), pp. 52–53.

the claim to expertise and doctrinal authority

 61

the central government ordered theologians, rather than local officers and courts, to inspect the plays could suggest that the balance was shifting in favor of the clergy and theologians over officials and secular lawyers in the execution of the anti-heresy law, based on the gradual accumulation of reports from these theologians and their associates.27 The shift also seems to prefigure a growing interest on the part of the central government in the Reformation of society from a Catholic, anti-Protestant perspective. We should however take care not to overstress the developments, and instead acknowledge the varying role of lobbying groups active at the court and in the various regional councils, as well as the decisive role of reports of events and arguments related to such events, that shaped policy measures. Also, the laws could be strict, but the implementation of the laws was always a matter of respect for customs and circumstances, also on the part of the central government.28 The succession of anti-heresy measures from Brussels targeting the rhetoricians thus followed a learning curve that however always led to policies that were less rigorous than those that were developed in Holland. At the same time, the arguments against the rhetoricians as experts in matters of religion from the side of the government in Brussels did follow the line of reasoning shaped among the rhetoricians’ theological adversaries. On 26 January 1560, a new edict by the King, based on advice from the Court of Holland (and possibly other provincial courts), specifically targeted the rhetoricians of the entire Netherlands, of both the French and the Dutch tongues. While on the one hand the edict used a stronger language to underline the practical dangers and theoretical problems of rhetorician claims to expertise in matters of faith, it was in fact a moderation of the more rigorous edict of 1540. Whereas the 1540 edict ordered a ban on rhetorician plays with religious content, that of 1560 was more nuanced and allowed for certain forms of religious plays, which probably resulted from the consulting process to which drafts of the text had been submitted.29 Referring to the knowledge that the court had acquired concerning the practice of writing and performing all sorts of plays and poems, which are listed with their technical terms, the edict goes on first to argue that these often cause offense (schandalisatie), a notion from the older discourse. It continues, however, by claiming that often these texts are mingled with Holy Scripture, the divine mysteries and the constitutions of the Church. These are then not only sometimes badly interpreted and explained, but might also mock clerical and religious persons, thus offending, seducing and deceiving the common people, which is unwise 27 The fact that heresy was increasingly being defined as transgression of the edicts (see Goosens, Les inquisitions [see n. 1], pp. 50–55) points to the fact that the anti-heresy policies were strongly shaped by the central and provincial councils. In the practical execution of the anti-heresy measures ecclesiastical inquisitors, sanctioned by the central government, were crucial. The role of the clergy in the repression was a source of constant friction and debate. 28  Goossens, Les inquisitions (see n. 1), passim. This was even the case during the repression following the Iconoclast Fury in 1566. For a nuanced discussion of the role of the Council of Troubles and the Court of Hainaut see C. Payen, Aux confins du Hainaut, de la Flandre et du Brabant: Le Bailliage d’Enghien dans la tourmente iconoclaste, 1566–1576. Étude de la répression des troubles religieux à la lumière des archives du conseil des troubles et des comptes de confiscation, Heule: UGA, 2013. 29 The edict of 26 January 1559 (O.S.) published in Van Boheemen and Van der Heijden, Retoricaal Memoriaal (see n. 17), pp. 13–15. Parma asked advice from the Court of Holland in a letter dated 15 November 1559. Ibidem, p. 13.

62 

arjan van dixhoorn

and detrimental to the common good. These problems of a lack of knowledge and wisdom are then contextualized by referring to the unprecedented corruption of the land, an assumption used to underpin the conclusion that these forms of literature needed greater inspection than had been practiced heretofore, in particular for the sake of the simple and the young. While the arguments did not accuse rhetoricians of heresy, they clearly undermined the claims of rhetorician expertise regarding religion. The edict went on to undermine other significant aspects of rhetorician culture as it had developed over the years, building on the decorum argument against mingling Scripture with farce that could be found in Lalaing’s earlier letter of 1539 ordering a full ban on rhetorician plays. The 1560 edict expands this point arguing that it is inappropriate to profane the sacred mysteries and abuse the Holy Scriptures, by mingling them with worldly and ridiculous affairs, while they ought to be treated with reverence and dignity, in the time and place and by those formally ordained. Based on these arguments, that do not target heresy so much as the very foundation of rhetorician culture and its claim to expertise in religious matters, the edict then forbids anyone, of whatever state, qualiteyt ofte conditie, to engage in the dissemination by means of performance in public or in secret of any plays, poems, songs, or other texts, in whatever matter or language, new or old, that deal with questions, propositions, or matters concerning the (Catholic) religion or religious persons. However, and remarkably, the edict concedes that spelen van sinne oft moraliteyt, or other plays that are performed for the honor of God or his saints, or for the honest recreation of the people, are allowed if they have been inspected and approved beforehand by the parish priest, officer or court of the town. These officials have the duty to investigate whether these texts contain anything that might directly or indirectly offend the Catholic religion. If so, they should be forbidden, in accordance with the law and current practice. These rules, the edict then continues, equally apply to the stomme spelen (that is, tableaux vivants) if these should contain anything dat soude mogen schandaliseren oft offenderen. Finally, in an explicit acknowledgement of the problem of preventive censorship in the case of performances and recitations, the 1560 edict adds that later adjustments that cause offense must likewise be punished, and the officials are admonished to pay attention to such changes. While the edict of 1560 does not explicitly accuse the rhetoricians of heresy, it does accuse them of a lack of knowledge, wisdom and decorum, thereby developing an argument that could be used to deny them any expertise in matters of religion. While not exactly banning them from claiming religious knowledge, their liberty to engage with religious matters in their playful and explorative manner was significantly curtailed. The evidence suggests that this approach could lead to the criminalization or folklorization of well-established practices, which might have been slightly damaging to the respected position rhetoricians had established as experts in vernacular learning formally independent of other institutions of learning. While these claims to independent expertise were attacked by certain members of the clergy, whose arguments were then codified by the central government, rhetorician culture remained as vibrant as ever, throughout the 1560s, until the advent of the Duke of Alba, and the arguments for its claims to an independent role as a culture of

the claim to expertise and doctrinal authority

 63

learning were further developed, probably in the face of the blow that the 1560 edict must have been to its reputation. First, however, the evidence does not allow us to conclude that rhetoricians refrained from treating religious matters, as the Rotterdam festival of 1561 and the Gouda festival of 1564 document. Second, the attacks were countered on many occasions. One such occasion was the publication of the Rethoricale wercken van Anthonis de Roovere Brugghelinck, edited by Eduard de Dene, a dedicated Catholic rhetorician from Bruges. Its title already reads as an argument for the expertise of rhetorician culture, featuring the mid-fifteenth-century De Roovere (d.1482) as a Vlaemsch Doctoor ende gheestich Poete (a Flemish Doctor and ingenious Poet).30 De Dene’s dedication to the lover of the art of rhetoric establishes the unique social role of rhetoric as a loffelijcke gheinspireerde onleerlijcke ende prijselijcke conste (a laudable, inspired, praiseworthy art that cannot be learned). He highlights De Roovere as the ‘honorable father and master, who freely exercised his craft of masonry, and without doubt through the abundant grace of God was so enlightened in his spirit’ that he could make many exemplary compositions.31 While poets of the French tongue grounded their work in their mastery of scholastic learning and doctrine, De Roovere, was just an idiot, a simply layman and unlearned artisan (een Idiotz ende simpel leeck ongheleert ambachtsman). Knowing only Flemish, De Dene claims, he was already highly skilled in oratory at the age of fifteen, when he won the title of Prince of Rhetoric at a rhetorician contest in Bruges. However, this should not mislead us into thinking that his editor construed De Roovere as an unlearned but inspired layman. Rather, he points out that from an early age his natural gift was apparent and De Roovere became highly knowledgeable in many forms of scholarly knowledge and many spiritual arguments and moral expositions (scientificque wetentheden van veelderhande gheestelijcke redenen ende morale exposition). His famous poem Lof vanden heylighen Sacramente (Praise of the holy Sacrament), at which scholars marveled, was examined, verclaert goet correct ende oprecht int gheloove and approved to be publicly displayed in the Church for everyone to read in his devotion (tot een yegelijcx devotie in gescriften gestelt te moghen zijne). In short, De Dene points out, De Roovere acquired such fameuse fame that he was called Vlaemsch Doctoor ende Poetich Rethorizien (Flemish Doctor and Poetical Rhetorician). Here the rhetorician emerges as an inspired thinker about religion, almost equal to his peers who had acquired formal training in the scholastic sciences. In his edition of De Roovere’s collected works, De Dene argues in favor of the theological expertise of the Flemish art of rhetoric, on the condition that it remains in agreement with the doctrines of the Church. His argument makes a case for the knowledge claims of rhetorician culture in the context of rising accusations of bad learning, insufficient decorum and deception. It should also be noted that De Dene’s claim for Anthonis de Roovere being a Doctoor ende geestich poete was approved by Sebastiaen Baers, parish priest of the church of Our Lady of Antwerp and sanctioned by the royal privilege. The printed edition then seems to present a consensus concerning the role of the Church represented by the clergy as a final arbiter in matters of 30  Eduard de Dene, Rethoricale wercken van Anthonis de Roovere Brugghelinck Vlaemsch Doctoor ende gheestich Poete, Antwerp: Jan van Ghelen, 1562. The following section is based on the preface. 31 ‘Dien eerwaerdighen vader ende meestere, a vry metselaer van zijnen ambachte […] die welcke sonder twijffele by godlijcker inghestorter gratie so inden gheest verlicht was’.

64 

arjan van dixhoorn

theology, while leaving a sufficient amount of space for those members of the laity endowed with natural gifts and sophisticated knowledge within these limitations of the preeminence of clerical expertise and authority. This is in accord with the subtleties of the edict of 1560, which, though clearly favoring the theologian’s privilege in matters of Scripture and the Church, seen in the perspective of earlier edicts, takes a nuanced position regarding the freedom of rhetoric in matters of religion. It suggests that the knowledge claims of the rhetoricians were raised in response to the attacks on their now traditional prerogatives.

A Clash between Officers of the Law and ­Theologians While the clash between rhetoricians and theologians focused on their authority in the public domain (based on their respective claims to expertise in matters of faith) reached its zenith in the 1560s, a very different clash was developing between theologians and the officers of the law. Here too, claims to expertise were raised to favor the role of either side in the actual, daily practice of the persecution of heretics. The debate further underscores that the struggle in the Netherlands was not so much a fight against the anti-heresy measures or just a fight over legal principles and jurisdiction, but that knowledge claims concerning the practice and effectiveness of persecution were an important part that needs to be taken much more seriously. The cases considered here focus attention on the role of the Flemish inquisitor Pieter Titelmans and the Antwerp city government in 1565. Early that year, by printing a letter to the governess Margaret of Parma, Titelmans intervened publicly in policy debates and internal lobbying activities that took place in the secrecy of councils, courts, and meetings of the government. The publication seems to have been provoked by public attacks on the Inquisition voiced during the factional strife between the supporters of Catholic Reform, headed by Cardinal Granvelle, and the Noble League in Brussels in 1563, and opposition to his role by the Estates of Flanders in 1564.32 Titelmans’ argument was countered in a lengthy petition against the introduction of an inquisitorial system in Brabant in 1565 submitted to the Council of Brabant by the Antwerp magistrates. Crucially, both letter and petition are strongly concerned with building claims to practical expertise in the day-to-day persecution of heretics. The letter attributed to Titelmans could thus very well be a public response to arguments that were being developed among officers of the law in general. It is also likely that the Flemish inquisitor knew of the arguments developed in Antwerp in particular, given his lengthy conflict with the Antwerp court in the case of the Antwerp couple Nicolas du Vivier and Anthonette de Behant in 1559 and 1560. The files of that case, including letters between Titelmans and the Antwerp court have been carefully preserved in the Antwerp archives among other files on the persecution of heretics that seem to have resulted from an aim to create local expertise.33 32 For Titelmans see Decavele, De dageraad (see n. 5), pp. 14–30. A summary of Titelmans’ views on the ecclesiastical prerogatives in the anti-heresy policies and the inquisition, see pp. 20–21. The opposition of 1564 is briefly mentioned on page 23. However, the opposition was not directed at the Council of Flanders, which from 1561 took an active role in the execution of the anti-heresy policy (ibidem, pp. 31–42). 33  Felix-archief Antwerp, Stadsarchief, Privilegekamer, inv.nr. 1556. Also Marnef, Antwerpen (see n. 5), p. 45.

the claim to expertise and doctrinal authority

 65

The Copye eens briefs van eenen inquisiteur gesonden uyt Gendt aende hertoginne van Parma claims to be a translation of a letter in French, signed and dated on the Achsten Januarij Anno een duysent vijfhondert vier ende tsestich sent from Ghent to the Duchess of Parma.34 Depending on whether the author of the letter or the copyist used the old (Easter) or the new (Year) style, the date poses a problem for identifying the year in which the letter was sent. If the letter is authentic, that is, was written by Titelmans, as it claims, and if we take into consideration that Flanders (from where it was sent) and Brabant (to which it was addressed) used the old Easter style, it seems likely that the letter was written on 8 January 1565, while the pamphlet was published later that year. There are no references to the Spanish Inquisition as such, which confirms the probability that the letter was published between the winter and autumn of 1565, before the public controversies of December 1565 began.35 Features such as the anonymity of the editor, the lack of a location or date, the absence of a printer’s or publisher’s name or of a privilege, and the genre itself of the copy of a private letter sent by a governmental official (a form used extensively by opponents of the regime in the years to come) might suggest that it was published by opponents of the inquisitor (either as a fake or a true warning); the content rather points to the contrary. The letter is a defense of the maniere ende treyn van onse Inquisitie (the ways and forms of our, i.e. the ecclesiastical, Inquisition) by stressing the skill, expertise, clemency, and practical knowledge of the inquisitor, who signs the letter as den ootmoedigen Orateur van uwer hoocheyt Pierre Titelmanus Inquisiteur (in humility, the Orator of your Highness). The letter claims to be the faithful translation into Dutch of a pragmatic report of the daily activities of an inquisitor while he was on a roundtrip through Flanders which followed a visit to Brussels on 24 October (1564?). The trip went from Ghent (where Titelmans met with the members of the Council of Flanders) to Lille where he examined and sentenced two heretics. From Lille he travelled to Ypres, for a meeting with the bishop. He then spent the entire month of November in Ronse or Renaix (he was dean of Ronse, his place of residence), which he claims to be seer gheinfectueert (highly infected). He took care of twelve trials of repentant persons and of a relapsed heretic. Adding that the latter had previously been judged by the secular officer of the law of Ronse, the inquisitor might well be suggesting a difference in expertise in successfully persuading heretics to repent. He then further avows to have dealt with many others who desired to be pardoned on the condition of abjuring their beliefs and repenting their sins. He also claims to have admonished the parents and friends of many who had fled to convince them to return before he might decide to summon them (another sign of clemency). 34 Note that this is not the letter to Parma dated June 1564. Neither is the Copye similar to the defamatory poem De claghe van den Inquisiteur Meester Pieter Titelmanus, possibly printed in Ghent and disseminated in October 1566 in Calvinist circles. See Decavele, De dageraad (see n. 5), pp. 29–31. 35 [Pierre Titelmanus], Copye eens briefs van eenen inquisiteur gesonden uyt Gendt aende hertoginne van Parma [s.n., s.l., s.d. (1565?]. Copy used: Erfgoed Bibliotheek Hendrik Conscience, 1643:(66,18). Take note that according to Decavele, De dageraad (see n. 5), p. 40, the Council of Flanders proposed creating a State inquisition after the Spanish model.

66 

arjan van dixhoorn

Being in Oudenaarde in December he discovered ballades full of filth and heresy (vol onreynicheydts ende ketteryes) for which two people were apprehended on his orders. On 16 December he met with the Council of Flanders at Ghent again, in order to interrogate an Anabaptist who had been absent for twelve years. From Ghent he travelled through Lille to Ypres again to meet with the bishop regarding Nieuwpoort. He then went to the city to become better informed (om my bet te informeren) in person since the case concerned some important people (eenighe van qualiteyt). By Christmas he was at Courtrai, soon travelling to Oudenaarde, to sentence the two prisoners, take information, and interrogate some repentant persons. From there he went from Lille to Armentieres to become informed and examine Anabaptist prisoners, two of whom apparently wanted to convert. Shaping the real or fictitious context of a letter sent from a business trip, the description concludes with a reference to the next day when Titelmans planned to travel to Dendermonde for the sake of three of his prisoners and in order to purge the city with God’s help (om voorts de plaetse met Godts hulpe te suyveren) and to the best of his ability. The travel account ends with a conclusion that clearly shows its intent: to convince the Governess, but through publication also the larger public, of the need, importance, good profit, and hard work of the Inquisition in Flanders. This has been his daily work for many years, Titelmans adds in claiming his expertise, acquired through hard work and a careful way of gathering, sharing, and reporting information. In defense of the inquisitor, the letter does not shy away from using the term onse Inquisitie (our Inquisition) positively in detailing how a Flemish inquisitor goes about his business every day. The letter-pamphlet thus effectively builds a case for a ‘Flemish’ Inquisition based on careful information gathering, examination and interrogation by the inquisitor, as well as on close cooperation with high clergy and secular authorities and lawyers. It also makes the case for an Inquisition based on patience, clemency, and on attempts to convince heretics to repent and even return from exile while at the same time showing a dedication to purging the region of ‘filth and heresy’. It does make this case by explicitly attacking the rumors spread by the enemies of the Church that ‘the Inquisition’ had been extinguished by the results of the (noble) Opposition that had taken place in Brussels. The letter claims to have shown the contrary: that is, an Inquisition in full swing and legitimacy, and admonishes the Governess (and by proxy the reading public) to assist in the work of the inquisitor to remedy much evil while it still can be done, even though the country was greatly infected. A prayer to God, the Creator, neatly sums up what this letter argues to be the task of the ecclesiastical Inquisition: it prays for the lost souls to find the straight path, for the protection of the poor sheep from the ravening wolves, and for the encouragement of the Governess to fight bravely the Prophets of Baal, the enemies of ‘our Holy Religion and Catholic Faith’.36 The collection of official documents regarding the case of Titelmans, dean of Ronse and inquisitor of Flanders and Tournai, against Nicolas du Vivier and ­A nthonette de Behant shows that the inquisitor and the city of Antwerp were 36 See also the evaluation of the role of Titelmans and the Council of Flanders in Decavele, De dageraad (see n. 5), pp. 14–42.

the claim to expertise and doctrinal authority

 67

a­ ctively debating his expertise, jurisdiction, and the privileges of Antwerp and Brabant, with the active involvement of King Philip. In a response by Titelmans dated 10 July 1559, to a petition that the Antwerp court submitted to the King, the inquisitor argues his case. He had done nothing that would bring him into conflict with the Antwerp privileges, since ‘heresy is an ecclesiastical matter’ and his office was for God and the King.37 The couple had been admonished to present themselves to the inquisitor in Tournai, from where they had fled his jurisdiction to Antwerp, under the promise that he would willingly listen to them and receive them in all humanity (goedwillichelycke horen ende met alder humaniteyt ontfaen). Despite another petition by the Antwerp city council and the Council of Brabant in 1562, the inquisitor did not back down and declared the couple to be heretics who as such had to be handed over to the arm of the law. As a result, the Council of Brabant had to lobby for the rights of the couple as citizens of Antwerp with the President of the Privy Council, Viglius. The city of Antwerp also informed the Council of Flanders of the actions of the inquisitor in Brabant.38 While in the case of Titelmans versus the couple Du Vivier-De Behant the weight of expertise in matters of heresy was invoked by the inquisitor, the officers of the law seem to have avoided the issue of expertise, turning to the problem of jurisdiction instead. In order to counter the case made by Titelmans, the court of Antwerp also took on the defense of the couple, which can be found outlined in a Mémoire that the Council of Brabant passed on in order to inform Viglius in 1562. Investigations of the Antwerp court and documentation provided by the couple apparently convinced the Antwerp officers of the law that the couple was in fact innocent. They had been able to provide a formal attestation of their conduct as good Christians from the priests of their Tournai and Antwerp parishes.39 However, by the end of 1565, the Antwerp court had been shaping another line of argumentation to supplement the problem of jurisdiction. Here, the claim to expertise in matters of heresy was crucial. This argumentation was then fully developed in a petition against the gheestelijcke inquisitie (clerical Inquisition) submitted to the Governess by the Estates of Brabant in December 1565. The petition argues at length that the central authorities should fear a collapse of wealth and tax income and the subsequent end of the King’s power, and hence, a threat to the protection of the Netherlands against foreign invasion, if the merchant communities were to emigrate. Claiming that this would happen if the clerical Inquisition were to be introduced, the petition builds its argument on the precise nature of the perceived dangers of a clerical Inquisition.40 Remarkably, however, the argument first turns to the expertise of the local clergy. The Estates argued that religion in Brabant was in a much better condition than it had been 20 or 30 years before or than it was in neighboring cities and provinces. That claim to knowledge of the public mood towards the Church was based on good 37 A similar argument in his memorandum to the Ghent magistrates c. 1560. Decavele, De dageraad (see n. 5), pp. 21–22. 38  See the documents concerning the case in Felix-archief Antwerp, Stadsarchief, Privilegekamer, inv.nr. 1556. 39 Ibidem. 40 See the petition among the papers collected in Felix-archief Antwerp, Stadsarchief, Privilegekamer, inv.nr. 1561 “1522–1609: heresie, preken, inquisitie”.

68 

arjan van dixhoorn

inquiry and the testimony of all the preachers, parish priests, confessors, and other clerical persons, who might be expected to have the best knowledge of these matters. The Estates also argued that the good state of the religion in Brabant could easily be judged from the frequency of sermons and other religious services, participation in the holy sacrament (mass), and the miraculous onrush of people. Moreover, should someone ‘show a lack in his or her religion’ (soe verre daer inne yemanden eenich gebreck waere), this could easily be remedied by lay people and secular justice according to the laws of the land, rather than by ruining the entire country and the good people who did not deserve to be punished. The Estates continue that if secular judges were found to be lacking in effort, this could also easily be remedied, without the need to superimpose a clerical jurisdiction, which would lead to an unjust burden for the inhabitants and a diminishment of the King’s authority. The problems that the introduction of a clerical jurisdiction would cause had been seen in the unwise actions of certain clerical persons in the past. The causes for the problems provoked by clergymen in matters of law are then attributed to the human nature of those individuals, who also fall victim to such passions and imperfections as ambition, hate, avarice, enmity, partisanship and favoritism. Furthermore, the Doctors in Theology and other clerical persons have also little knowledge (luttel kennisse) of the law and the right practice of justice. Nor are they experienced enough, the argument continues, to deal with the conditions of lay people and correct their faults. Their ignorance in those matters can easily lead to big mistakes. Following an exposition on the ancient privileges and customs of Brabant, the argument again turns to the problem of expertise in matters of heresy. The Estates claim that a clerical Inquisition has not been and should not be introduced. Clerical judges did not have superior knowledge to be able to judge in most cases, except for matters of ‘true heresy’. Moreover, the secular authorities had not only acquired jurisdiction in Brabant over the laity, but also over clerical persons, and in matters of religion too. Indeed, the secular authorities themselves had acquired knowledge of religious and spiritual matters in cases of heresy and blasphemy, as could be proven from the various good constitutions and ordinances that the secular judges and authorities had made, also in matters of the Church. Conversely, the Estates argue, putting such a new jurisdiction in the hands of the clergy would not sit well with the common people, since many of them lead irregular lives and have been the cause of the new doctrines that have infected the country. Hence, even if such an inquisition were not against the privileges and customs of the land, still, it would be ill-advised given the terror that its rigor would cause among the good and the bad alike, eventually leading to great unrest and the desolation of the land. The secular authorities, however, who are obeyed with love and respect, would be much better placed to remedy all faults in religion and the Christian faith should they occur. The problem with too much rigor in the correction of errors is, the Estates of Brabant further argue, that religion and its errors depend on the reason and judgment of the people. The use of utmost rigor in the correction of errors that were found has often proven to cause more obstinacy rather than improvement. Hence, a rigorous investigation might easily target the good with the bad, while it would be better to be merciful towards the good and create awe among the bad. A less rigorous application

the claim to expertise and doctrinal authority

 69

would also be more in line with the nature of the people of the land, who are always easily inclined to mercy and pity. Thus, they plead to correct with the utmost rigor according to the edicts those who mislead others and disturb the peace, while those who had simply erred without having committed any schandaleus or other acts should be treated with leniency and offered clemency. Such a policy, the Estates conclude, has worked marvelously in the recent past, in particular in Friesland, and should be continued rather than be replaced with a clerical Inquisition that will tend to more rigors. The issue at stake between Titelmans, the Antwerp council and the Estates of Brabant rests on claims to expertise and competence. While Titelmans claims to have the expertise and competence to act in matters of religion (which he believes belong to the Church), the Antwerp council and the Estates argue that their knowledge of the law and of the world is far superior. Hence, they are the ones who should judge when true heresy was the matter at hand, and only then should the defendants be handed over to clerical persons for investigation. Part of their argument rests on their claim that their superior knowledge of human reality includes knowledge of the passions and interests of the men of the Church. Based on that knowledge they express their fear that lack of knowledge on the part of the laity might be taken for obstinate heresy, that the number of heretics might thus be inflated, and a vicious cycle might come into play that through ignorance of the world on the part of the clerisy might clash with relative ignorance in religious matters on the part of the laity. The inflation of heresy and the growth of anti-heresy pressure as a result could then cause the foreign merchants to leave Antwerp. Titelmans on the other hand stresses the need for theological expertise, in order to teach the ignorant and identify the obstinate.

Conclusion James Simpson has recently argued that, rather than take the Protestant master narrative for granted, the claims to Scriptural and Ecclesiastical authority in religion should be problematized as part of a struggle over reading and interpretative practices, and the status of the reading community.41 Recent studies point out that the Roman Church was not a monolithic entity before the rise of the Protestant Reformation and would never be one afterwards. Rather than unify the Church under the attack, the rise of movements that were deemed heretical by the Church of Rome and Roman Catholic rulers led to a great variety of responses from clergy, laity and secular elites.42 Recent studies also show that the relations between laity and clergy regarding the reading of the Scriptures in the Catholic, pre-Reformation world were far less polarized than the Protestant narrative would have it.43 The two cases discussed here add to these trends by showing that claims to knowledge and competence were at the 41  J. Simpson, Burning to Read. English Fundamentalism and Its Reformation Opponents, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007. 42 For a recent re-evaluation of Catholic identity see J. Pollmann, Catholic Identity and the Revolt of the Netherlands, 1520–1635 (Past and Present Book Series), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. 43 See for example the work by Sabrina Corbellini and her research team, S.  Corbellini, ‘Instructing the Soul, Feeding the Spirit and Awakening the Passion. Holy Writ and Lay Readers in Late Medieval Europe’, in: B.  Gordon and M.  McLean (eds), Shaping the Bible in the Reformation. Books, Scholars and Readers in the Sixteenth Century (Library of the Written Word, 20 and The Handpress World, 14) (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2012), pp. 15–40.

70 

arjan van dixhoorn

heart of the controversies over the anti-heresy policies. The clash between rhetoricians and theologians resulted from different views on who had the right to speak in public about certain issues. The clash between theologians and the law centered on different views on who had the competence to discern true heretics from ignorant laity. Hence, at the heart of the controversies on the anti-heresy policies was the problem of speaking or discerning the truth. The ability to discern those who had knowledge of the truth from the ignorant strongly depended on matters of authority and expertise. Or, to put it more precisely, it depended on who could most successfully claim to know the truth in matters of religion, and have the right to act upon that knowledge or speak accordingly. If we compare the case of the rhetoricians versus the theologians with the case of the officers of the law versus the theologians, we might conclude that the problem of the detection of heresy was clearly perceived as a deeply political problem: since, if the number of heretics was amplified too much, this might cause unrest, fear, and eventually a resistance against Church and State, simply because innocent people were targeted. This might happen through persecuting all sorts of errors or perceived errors that people make in their innocence or through narrowly defining the space for interpretation and explication of the Scriptures and the institutions of the Church. The fear of exaggeration and an overly rigorous application of the criteria of heresy seems to have been as present as a fear of underestimating the number of heretics, which immediately leads to the rivaling claims of those who believed themselves to have the most effective tools for discerning the true heretic from the innocent erring Christian. Moreover, arguments that undercut claims to authority and expertise in discerning the true heretic not only focused on a true knowledge of the doctrines and ceremonies of the Church, but also included references to knowledge of the edicts, of legal practice and of the life and mindset of laymen. To be sure, Titelmans’ letter shows that the officers of the law were not the only ones who could lay claim to expertise in those non-theological areas. His letter makes a very sophisticated claim for his knowledge of all the difficulties involved in dealing with civilians. On the other hand, the case of the rhetoricians shows that theologians were not alone in their claims to expertise in matters of religion, Scripture, and Church. In shrinking the freedom of rhetoricians to act as lay experts in matters of religion, theologians and the law were in danger of inflating the number of heretics by targeting perfectly loyal members of the Catholic Church, who could potentially play a role in containing the spread of heresy. The nuanced nature of the 1560 edict and the publication of De Roovere’s collected works suggest that by then a consensus was in the making. The role of lay theology was confined to a space controlled by the law which ultimately recognized the supremacy of formal theologians as ‘sovereign’ arbiters in matters of religious truth.44 Titelmans also introduced an argument that seems strangely absent in texts from the juridical-political sphere. Whereas Antwerp points to the danger of inflating the number of heretics, Titelmans argues that persuading erring people could greatly 44 For an interesting example that confirms the development of such a paradoxical relationship between an active Catholic laity and ecclesiastical experts see the discussion of the anti-heresy poetry of the female rhetorician Anna Bijns in: J. Kessler, Princesse der rederijkers. Het oeuvre van Anna Bijns: argumentatieanalyse – structuuranalyse – beeldvorming, Hilversum: Verloren, 2013.

the claim to expertise and doctrinal authority

 71

d­ iminish the number of false heretics and leave only the true, obstinate heretics to be punished (the need to do so after all was a widespread consensus).45 The stress on clemency, which is present in both the political petitions and in Titelmans’ letter, also was grounded in the debate on the best way to discern and fight true heretics and teach the other citizens of good will to become better Christians. Hence, the clashing claims to the expertise of discerning and fighting heresy and the ability to spread and favor true religion stimulated an ever more complicated relationship between clergy, laity (represented here by the rhetoricians) and the secular authorities within Catholic society. It seems to have pressed society and polity in the Habsburg Netherlands to intensify the quest for expertise, by effectively acquiring knowledge and understanding through the use of all sorts of information and communication tools. Rather than creating more certainty, this quest contributed to growing instability within society, among clergy and lay people alike, regarding the best way for discerning the true heretic and the true Christian.

45 Similar concerns were raised in the anti-heresy poems of Anna Bijns, see Kessler, Princesse der rederijkers (see n. 44).

Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, First Papal Nuncio to Flanders ­(1596–1606) and His Thoughts on Book Censorship Els Agten

In 1596, the Italian nobleman Ottavio Mirto Frangipani arrived in Brussels to establish the nunciature of Flanders. Previously, the Habsburg Netherlands had resorted under the authority of the nunciature of Cologne, founded in 1584. In his capacity as papal nuncio, Frangipani was now literally an envoy serving as the equivalent of a permanent ambassador or diplomatic representative.1 During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a papal nuncio was much more than simply the ambassador of the Papal States and the representative of the Holy See. He was also an important instrument in the centralization politics of the papacy, defending its plenitudo potestatis or jurisdictional power. Accordingly, Frangipani was an example of a nuncio who not only served as the official contact person between the Roman Court and Archdukes Albert VII of Austria and Isabella, but also as the mediator between the Pope, who was the head of the Church, and the subjects of Albert and Isabella, the flock of the Church. In addition, the nuncio was entrusted with the task of implementing the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545–63). The nunciature of Flanders soon proved to be one of the most successful exponents in the development of the papal diplomacy, while contributing to the religious and social-political pacification of the Habsburg Netherlands. In this contribution, we examine a concrete and instant instrument in the process of Roman centralization through the nunciature of Flanders, namely the Index librorum prohibitorum or Index of Forbidden Books of which a new version was published in 1596.2 The index and resulting measures of book censorship proved 1 In this regard, it is important to underline that papal nuncios were only sent to countries and sovereigns that had been explicitly listed as catholic. See B. Wauters, De nuntiatuur en de staat in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden, vijftiende – achttiende eeuw, Trajecta 7 (1998), 193–207, p. 193. 2  I dem, ‘De opkomst en de ontwikkeling van de pauselijke nuntiatuur. Het voorbeeld van de Nederlanden in de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw’, in: P. van Kemseke (ed.), Diplomatieke cultuur (Alfred Cauchie reeks, 2) (Leuven: Universitaire Pers, 2000), pp.  87–103 (pp.  88–89 and p.  93). For more information on the centralization policy of the Papacy, see Idem, De controverse rond de

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François, Turnhout, 2017 (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire ­Ecclésiastique, 101), pp. 73–96

F H G

DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.113402

74 

els agten

to be an important means to strengthen the position of the Pope and to bring about the much-needed Catholic reform in this region. So far, however, little attention has been paid to Frangipani’s implementation of the Index of Forbidden Books in the Habsburg Netherlands, and on a related point, his thoughts on the reading of (­vernacular) books and Bibles. This contribution consists of two parts. First, we provide an overview of the various Indices of forbidden books that were published in the course of the sixteenth century in Rome and the Habsburg Netherlands. Indeed, Rome was not the only authority to undertake action against the printing, selling, possession and reading of works that propagated new (heretical) doctrines. Also in France and the Netherlands, the secular authorities and the universities undertook action. Secondly, we study the link between the establishment of the nunciature of Flanders and book censorship in the Habsburg Netherlands. We will do so on the basis of both the Directorium, a manual that Frangipani published in 1597, and a selection of his e­ xtensive correspondence.

Indices of Forbidden Books in Rome and the N ­ etherlands After Johannes Gutenberg had introduced printing to Europe in the first half of the fifteenth century by inventing a movable press, printing activities across Europe ­increased significantly. Henceforth, it was possible to print and produce books more rapidly in mass quantities and to distribute them among the people. Consequently, a larger audience in Europe had now access to written and learned culture. The Church and local governments soon considered printing as an efficient means to transfer i­nformation on a large scale. However, as heretical, immoral and polemical ideas could circulate relatively easy in various printed works, it is not surprising that both the Church and local governments tried to control printing, particularly after the rise of the Protestant Reformation in Europe in the first half of the sixteenth century. Governments required printers for instance to obtain official licenses and permissions to print and sell books. Likewise, the ecclesiastical authorities exercised reluctance with regard to the production of vernacular Bibles, as the reading of these Bibles was often considered as a source of heresy, viz. Protestantism.3 In o­ rder to cope with the spread of heretical ideas through printed books, the Catholic Church ­developed a system of control and defined a set of rules and prohibitions, including the application of an Index or Catalogue of Forbidden jurisdictie van de nuntius. Het placet op de geloofsbrieven van Spinelli, Valenti-Gonzaga, Tempi en Crivelli, 1725–1749, Leuven: Universitaire Pers, 2001, pp. 14–27. 3  W. François, ‘The Catholic Church and the Vernacular Bible in the Low Countries: A Paradigm Shift in the 1550s?’, in: S. Corbellini, M. Hoogvliet and B. Ramakers (eds), Discovering the Riches of the Word. Religious Reading in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Intersections, 38) (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2015), pp.  234–81; Idem, Die volkssprachliche Bibel in den Niederlanden des 16. Jahrhunderts. Zwischen Antwerpener Buchdruckern und Löwener Buchzensoren, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 120/1  (2009), 187–214; Idem, ‘Vernacular Bible Reading and Censorship in the Early Sixteenth Century’, in: M.  Lamberigts and A.  den Hollander (eds), Lay Bibles in Europe 1450–1800 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 198) (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2006), pp. 69–96 (pp. 79–89).

ottavio mirto frangipani

 75

Books. Although book ­censorship turned out to be an important instrument in the process of Roman centralization, this ­system of ­censorial practice was far from being univocal. Recent research by Gigliola ­Fragnito and others, has ‘demonstrated the existence of profound d­ isagreements, not only on what was to be condemned, but also on who should apply the censorial rules’.4 Although the first Index of Forbidden Books of the Roman Inquisition was only prom  ulgated in 1559 by Pope Paul  IV (1555–59), the systematic organization of ­ecclesiastical, viz. Roman, censorship had already started at the end of the fi ­ fteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century by Pope Innocent  VIII (1484–92) and Pope Alexander  VI (1492–1503) at the instigation of certain German bishops from the region of Mainz. These bishops had been confronted with works that they judged to contain propositions contrary to Catholic faith. On 17 November 1487, Innocent VIII issued the first papal bull on printing entitled Inter multiplices, ­stating that no book could be published, unless its orthodoxy had been examined by the bishops. This disposition was repeated by Alexander VI in 1501 and reissued by the Fifth L ­ ateran Council in 1515. At this point, inquisitors were appointed to help the ­ordinaries in approving books prior to publication. In other words, the Catholic Church tried to prevent the printing, selling, possession and reading of works that propagated new doctrines in order to win back the ‘heretics’ and to reinforce the faith of the remaining Catholics.5 On 21 July 1542, Pope Paul  III (1534–49) established the Congregation of the Inquisition, which would become the central and permanent institution directed against religious dissent.6 Through an edict issued on 12 July 1543, this Congregation was charged with the suppression, censorship and supervision of books, mainly in Rome and Italy. Henceforth, the ordinaries were excluded from the practice of censorship and this decision caused a long-lasting controversy. ‘Besides inflicting penalties on those who disseminated heretical works’, the delegates had ‘to inspect libraries, printing works and bookshops, private houses, churches and monasteries and to seize and burn any forbidden books that they might find’.7 Rome was not the only authority to undertake action. In France and the ­Netherlands, also secular authorities and the universities took several measures against suspected books. In the Netherlands, Emperor Charles V (1500–58) issued various ­imperial edicts censoring all kinds of books that proclaimed the ‘new’ ­doctrine, as well as forbidden vernacular Bible editions. Nevertheless, the production of (vernacular) Bibles in the Netherlands expanded enormously in the sixteenth century.8 4  G . Fragnito, ‘The Central and Peripheral Organization of Censorship’, in: Idem (ed.), Church, Censorship and Culture in Early Modern Italy (Cambridge: University Press, 2001), pp.  13–50 (pp. 13–15). 5  Fragnito, ‘The Central’ (see n. 4), p. 15; J. Martínez de Bujanda et al., Index de l’Université de Paris 1544, 1545, 1547, 1549, 1551, 1556 (Index des livres interdits, 1), Sherbrooke: Université de Sherbrooke. Centre d’études de la Renaissance, 1985, pp. 12–13. 6  M . C. Thomsett, Heresy in the Roman Catholic Church. A History, Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2011, p. 194. 7 Fragnito, ‘The Central’ (see n. 4), p. 16. 8 For an overview of these edicts, see J.  A. Fühner, Die kirchen- und die antireformatorische Religionspolitik Kaiser Karls  V. in den siebzehn Provinzen der Niederlandse 1515–1555 (Brill’s Series in Church History, 23), Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2004, pp. 287–348; A. Goosens, Les inquisitions modernes dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux (1520–1633), vol. 1, Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1997, pp. 47–85. See also François, ‘Vernacular Bible’, pp. 79–89; Idem,

76 

els agten

In France, the University of Paris issued an Index of Forbidden Books in 1544, which was ­reprinted several times (1545,  1547,  1549,  1551, and 1556). This initiative led to a similar one in Louvain. In order to comply with the orders of Charles V and Philip II (1527– 98), the theologians of the University of Louvain published three Bible-centered ­Indices of forbidden books, respectively in the years 1546, 1550 and 1558.9 ­A lthough the Louvain theologians must have been familiar with the Parisian Indices, they came up with original work and did not make extensive use of already existing catalogues of ­forbidden books. In addition, the Louvain Indices of 1546 and 1550 seem to have influenced the later Indices that came to being on the Iberian Peninsula.10 The preparations for the first Roman Index intensified from 1555 onwards, s­ timulated by Pope Paul IV, born Gian Pietro Carafa, who previously had played an important role in the setting up the Roman Inquisition and who had been one of the Inquisitors-General. The first Roman Index, also called the ‘Pauline Index’, was p­ romulgated in 1559 and was the first index to be promulgated by the Papacy for the entire Church, though local privileges often put impediments to its f­ unctioning. Moreover, it was the only catalogue to be drafted by the Congregation of the I­ nquisition.11 According to this extremely severe index, it was forbidden to print, read or possesses vernacular Bibles and translations of the New Testament without (the written) permission of the Roman Inquisition.12 Giorgio Caravale states in this context that the 1559 Index ‘contained the clearest condemnation of reading the Bible in the vernacular to be found in any index, whether ecclesiastic or civil’.13 It is therefore not surprising that the index caused considerable resistance, mainly because of the indiscriminate and summary nature of Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ Kaiser Karls in den Niederlanden und ihre Bedeutung für Bibelübersetzungen in der Volkssprache: Der ‘Proto-Index’ von 1529 als vorläufiger Endpunkt, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 84 (2004), 198–247. 9  W. François, De Leuvense theologen over de bijbel in de volkstaal. De discussie tussen 1546 en 1564, Tijdschrift voor Theologie 47 (2007), 340–62, 343–44, 347–48, 354–55; A. den Hollander, Verboden bijbels. Bijbelcensuur in de Nederlanden in de eerste helft van de 16de eeuw, Amsterdam: Vossiuspers, 2003, pp. 11–21; Bujanda et al., Index de l’Université de Louvain 1546, 1550, 1558 (Index des livres interdits, 2), Sherbrooke: Université de Sherbrooke. Centre d’études de la Renaissance, 1986, pp.  34–36,  46,  65–67,  106–30,  294–96,  345–46,  384–86,  408–12,  440–41,  450,  453– 54, 492–93. 10 Ibidem, pp. 59–62; Idem, Index de Paris (see n. 5), p. 14. 11 The Supreme Sacred Congregation for the Roman and Universal Inquisition or the Congregation of the Inquisition was founded in 1542, but was widely known by the shorter name of Holy Office (Sanctum Officium). In 1904, the Congregation was renamed the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office or Holy Office. Since 1965, the Holy Office has been called the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. See Thomsett, Heresy (see n. 6), pp. 195–97. 12 ‘Biblia omnia vulgari idiomate, Germanico, Gallico, Hispanico, Italico, Anglico sive Flandrico, etc. conscripta nullatenus vel imprimi vel legi vel teneri possint absque licentia sacri Officii  S. Ro. Inquisitionis’; ‘Novi Testamenti libri vulgari idiomate conscripti sine licentia in scriptis habita ab Officio Sanctae Rom. et universalis Inquisitionis nullatenus vel imprimi vel teneri possint’. See Bujanda et al., Index de Rome 1557, 1559, 1564. Les premiers Index romains et l’Index du Concile de Trente (Index des livres interdits, 8), Sherbrooke: Université de Sherbrooke. Centre d’études de la Renaissance, 1991, pp. 325, 331. See furthermore V. Frajese, Riforma e antiriforma nella storia dei volgarizzamenti biblici, Studi Storici 39/1 (1998), 23–40, p.  26; P.  F. Grendler, The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press, 1540–1605, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977, pp. 115–27, especially pp. 116–18. 13  G .  Caravale, Forbidden Prayer. Church Censorship and Devotional Literature in Renaissance Italy, Farnham: Ashgate, 2011, p. 72, n. 4.

ottavio mirto frangipani

 77

the prohibitions and the decision to entrust the implementation to the inquisitors alone and thus to exclude the bishops. Both the severe character of the first universal Roman Index and the ineffectual organization of the Congregation of the Inquisition for distant regions required the issue of an Instructio circa Indicem Librorum Prohibitorum in February 1559. This instruction mitigated the centralizing rigor of the Pauline Index and confirmed, among others, again the role of local bishops in book censorship in places where there were no inquisitors. Moreover, it tried to involve the Jesuits in order to win their support in the confiscation of books.14 It is important to note that the 1559 Index did not have any impact in the Netherlands. When Pope Paul  IV died in August 1559, the validity of the Pauline catalogue was put on hold by his successor Pius IV (1559–65). Pius IV ordered Inquisitor-General Michele Ghislieri, the later Pope Pius V (1566–72), and a commission to draft a Moderatio Indicis Librorum Prohibitorum. This Moderatio, published in June 1561, assigned the task of implementing the Pauline Index to the local bishops and confirmed the mitigation issued in February 1559. Furthermore, the document contained an important suggestion for the introduction of the principle of ‘expurgation’, a form of book censorship that involved only the removal of passages in books that were deemed offensive, objectionable or unsuitable, instead of merely banning entire books.15 In 1562, Pius IV decided to entrust the compilation of a new catalogue of forbidden books to the Council of Trent (1545–64) and he appointed a committee of bishops with a view to this. As a result, the bishops took over the task previously executed by the Congregation of the Inquisition, thus sidelining the Inquisition. Still, this commission of bishops was not able to conclude its work and presented its preparations to the Pope on the closing day of the Council on 4 December 1563. Some three months later, Pius IV promulgated the second universal Roman Index, also called the Index Tridentinus or ‘Tridentine Index’, through the bull Dominici gregis custodiae. ­Fausto Parente states that ‘the main innovation of the Tridentine Index […] was the creation of a special category of books prohibited only provisionally “until they have been expurgated”’.16 Besides a revision of the Pauline catalogue of 1559, this index contained ten general rules, also known as the Regulae Indicis or Tridentine rules. These rules specified the contours of the Roman book censorship and its main goal, namely preventing the spread of the so-called unacceptable and heretical doctrines. Moreover, 14  G .  Fragnito, Proibito Capire. La Chiesa e il volgare nella prima età moderna, Bologna: Il Mulino, 2005, pp. 29–32; Caravale, Forbidden Prayer (see n. 13), pp. 71–74; G. Fragnito, La Bibbia al rogo. La censura ecclesiastica e i volgarizzamenti della Scrittura (1471–1605), Bologna: Il Mulino, 1998, pp. 75–95; Idem, ‘La censura libraria tra congregazione dell’indice, congregazione dell’inquisizione e maestro del sacro palazzo (1571–1596)’, in: U. Rozzo (ed.), La censura libraria nell’Europa del secolo XVI (Libri e biblioteche, 5) (Udine: Forum, 1997), pp. 163–75 (pp. 163–64); Bujanda, Index de Rome (see n. 12), pp. 46–49. 15  Fragnito, Proibito Capire (see n.  14), pp.  32–37; Idem, ‘The Central’ (see n.  4), pp.  16–17; F.  Parente, ‘The Index, the Holy Office, the Condemnation of the Talmud and Publication of Clement  VIII’s Index’, in: G.  Fragnito (ed.), Church, Censorship and Culture in Early Modern Italy (see n.  4), pp.  163–93 (p.  167); Bujanda, Index de Rome (see n.  12), pp.  51–55. See furthermore Fragnito, ‘La censura libraria’ (see n. 14), p. 164; Idem, La Bibbia al rogo (see n. 14), pp. 95–97. 16 Parente, ‘The Index’ (see n. 15), p. 167.

78 

els agten

the Regula Quarta or fourth rule abolished the absolute prohibition on vernacular Bible translations unless they were admitted by the C ­ ongregation of the Inquisition. Instead, it authorized the reading of vernacular biblical texts by lay people if they were deemed capable according to the Catholic Tradition and – most importantly – it allowed bishops and inquisitors to authorize the reading of these biblical texts in the vernacular where they considered that such reading would increase the piety and the devotion of the faithful after advice of the parish priest or the confessor. In all cases an explicit, individual and written permission was required.17 In 1568, the Index Tridentinus was introduced in the prince-bishopric of Liège by way of a reprint of Gualterus Morberius on the request of Henricus Hovius, the sworn librarian of the then Prince-Bishop Gerard of Groesbeeck (1517–80).18 It was an exact reproduction of the Roman catalogue, including its ten rules, with only some minor variants in the order and formulation of the condemnations, as well as in the spelling.19 In the Habsburg Netherlands, Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alba and Governor-General (1507–82), was tasked with governance of this region between 1567 and 1573, promulgated another index.20 After the turbulent events of the 1566 ‘Wonder Year’, which witnessed the emergence of Calvinist preachers and the eruption of iconoclastic riots,21 Alba was sent to the Low Countries to restore 17 Regula Quarta: ‘Cum experimento manifestum sit, si sacra biblia vulgari lingua passim sine discrimine permittantur, plus inde ob hominum temeritatem detrimenti quam utilitas oriri, hac in parte judicio episcopi aut inquisitoris stetur, ut cum consilio parochi vel confessarii bibliorum a catholicis auctoribus versorum lectionem in vulgari lingua eis concedere possint, quos intellexerint ex hujusmodi lectione non damnum, sed fideí atque pietatis augmentum capere posse; quam facultatem in scriptis habeant. Qui autem absque tali facultate ea legere seu habere praesumpserit, nisi prius bibliis ordinario redditis peccatorum absolutionem percipere non possit.  Bibliopolae vero, qui praedictam facultatem non habenti biblia idiomate vulgari conscripta vendiderint vel alio quovis modo concesserint, librorum pretium in usus pios ab episcopo convertendum amittant, aliisque poenis pro delicti qualitate ejusdem episcopi arbitrio subjaceant. Regulares vero non nisi facultate a praelatis suis habita ea legere aut emere possint’ (Bujanda, Index de Rome [see n. 12], pp. 91–94, 816–17). See furthermore Caravale, Forbidden Prayer (see n. 13), p. 75; Fragnito, Proibito Capire (see n. 14), pp. 37–42; Idem, ‘The Central’ (see n. 4), pp. 17–18; Idem, La Bibbia al rogo (see n. 14), p. 98. 18 The prince-bishopric of Liège was ruled by the Bishop of Liège and was a state of the Holy Roman Empire. It was on friendly terms with the Habsburg Netherlands and remained more or less an independent state until its annexation to France in 1795. In 1568, Gerard of Groesbeeck was PrinceBishop of Liège (1564–80). He was not successful in implementing the decrees of the Council of Trent but succeeded in preventing Protestantism from spreading into the prince-bishopric. He was succeeded by Ernest of Bavaria (1581–1612) who was an ardent supporter of the CounterReformation. See B. Demoulin and J.-L. Kupper, Histoire de la principauté de Liège. De l’an mille à la Révolution, Toulouse: Privat, 2002, pp. 136–58. 19  J.  Martínez de Bujanda et  al., Index d’Anvers 1569,  1570,  1571 (Index des livres interdits,  7), Sherbrooke: Université de Sherbrooke. Centre d’études de la Renaissance, 1988, pp.  37–38,  44– 45, 560–61. See also G. Marnef, Repressie en censuur in het Antwerps boekbedrijf, 1567–1576, De zeventiende eeuw 8 (1992), 221–31 (pp. 224–25). 20 The passages on the indices of the Low Countries are largely extracted from the following contribution: E. Agten and W. François, The Reception of Trent’s Regula Quarta (1564) and Vernacular Bible Reading in the Low Countries, Trajecta. Religion, Culture and Society in the Low Countries 24/1 (2015), 33–60. 21 For background information on the relationship between the Spanish Court and the Netherlands, see J. E. Hortal Muñoz, Los asuntos de Flandes: las relaciones entre las Cortas de la Monarquía Hispaníca y de los Paises Bajos durante el siglo XVI, Saarbrücken: Académica española, 2011, pp. 98– 127.

ottavio mirto frangipani

 79

order and to, without delay, enforce attempts to re-Catholicize the country according to strict rules. It was in this capacity that he not only tightened policing of the book trade in Antwerp by organizing (nocturnal) raids on the printing offices, but also aimed to put together a new catalogue of forbidden books, as comprehensive as possible. His efforts and those of his collaborators – Benito Arias Montano and the Louvain theologians in particular – resulted in the publication of the three so-called Antwerp Indices in the years 1569, 1570 and 1571, all printed by Christopher Plantin.22 The 1569 Antwerp Index was compiled by Benito Arias Montano (1527–98),23 member of the Military Order of Saint  James, in close collaboration with ­Jodocus ­Tiletanus (Josse Ravesteyn) (1506–70), dean of the Faculty of Theology of the ­University of Louvain. The catalogue comprised the prohibitions of the Tridentine Index as well as additional condemnations specifically targeted at the Dutch market, which became inserted between the former titles. The Tridentine rules as such were not included in this edition. In the same year, a quasi-identical version of the 1569 Antwerp Index was also published by the presses of Gualterus Morberius in Liège at the request of printer Henricus Hovius, who maintained commercial relations with Plantin in the years 1568–69. According to the title page of the edition, the work was a reprint of the Tridentine Index, supplemented with new prohibitions from the Duke of Alba. However, the striking difference between the two 1569 Indices was that the Liège edition contained the aforementioned Tridentine rules on its eight first folios (probably as the already mentioned 1568 Liège print of the Index Tridentinus included them as well), while the Antwerp edition did not. Since the 1569 Antwerp Index was rather limited, the Duke of Alba decided to order a new catalogue of forbidden books. Following the advice of Arias Montano, he this time solicited the collaboration of the bishops of the Habsburg Netherlands and the Universities of Louvain and Douai by asking them to send a list of suspected books. The new index was published by Plantin in early 1570 for the first time and was reprinted in the course of the year, with the two editions counting ­respectively 112 pages and 120 pages. Both versions contained the same lines but there were some ­differences with regard to, amongst other things, the pagination. According to Voet, the ‘112 pp.-edition seems to be somewhat more hurriedly printed than the 120 pp.-edition and may therefore have been the first’.24 The catalogue was preceded 22  Bujanda, Index d’Anvers (see n. 19), pp. 37–38, 44–50. See also F. Willocx. L’ introduction des décrets du concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la Principauté de Liège, Leuven: Librairie universitaire, 1929, pp. 138–48. 23 Montano had been called to Christoper Plantin in Antwerp to supervise the edition of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible. The Antwerp Polyglot Bible, also called the Plantin Polyglot, the Biblia Regia or the King’s Bible, was an edition of the Bible in five languages (Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Syriac and Hebrew), subdivided in eight volumes and realized with the support of the Spanish King Philip II. See Fr. de Nave, ‘Christophe Plantin et le monde ibérique. Introduction à l’exposition’, in: C. Depauw, Fr. de Nave and D. Imhof (eds), Christoffel Plantijn en de Iberische Wereld / Christophe Plantin et le Monde Ibérique (Publikaties van het museum Plantin-Moretus en het Stedelijk prentenkabinet, 22) (Antwerpen: Stad Antwerpen, 1992), pp. 13–19 (pp. 14–15); L. Voet, ‘Christophe Plantin et la peninsule ibérique’, ibidem, pp. 55–77 (pp. 59–68). 24  L .  Voet, The Plantin Press (1555–1589). A  Bibliography of the Works Printed and Published by Christopher Plantin at Antwerp and Leiden, vol. 6, Amsterdam: Van Hoeve, 1983, p. 1236.

80 

els agten

by a trilingual edict from ­Philip II (1527–98), dated 15 February 1570,25 in which the King ordered strict o­ bservance of the Tridentine Index in the Low Countries. Moreover, all the books prohibited by the 1564 and 1570 Index were to be burned within three months after publication of the ordinance.26 The index was again a copy of the Tridentine Index of 1564, including the bull by Pius IV as well as the ten Tridentine rules, in addition to an appendix containing lists of works in Latin, French, Flemish and Spanish, to be banned in the Low Countries. As regards vernacular Bibles, the exact same editions were explicitly forbidden as those prohibited since the Index of Louvain of 1546, with a few additions in the Index of 1570, namely Protestant Dutch Bibles printed in Emden as well as several French Bibles considered to be of ­questionable orthodoxy.27 In addition to this index, in which the ten Tridentine rules were duly included, King Philip II issued an edict on 19 May 1570 with the aim of regulating the publication and trade of books. This ordinance was in line with the edicts previously issued during the reign of Charles V. In the edict, which was directed at printers, booksellers and schoolteachers, the King explicitly referred to the Tridentine rules and ordered that they be adhered to.28 Due to numerous remarks concerning enforcing of the dispositions of the 1570 Index, from censors especially, a revised version of this work soon became urgent. Alba consequently convened a commission at the explicit order of Philip II to compile a new catalogue of books that would contain the titles of books that were forbidden, pending revision or deletion of the contested parts. This index, also called the Index Expurgatorius, was printed in July 1571, again by ­Plantin. 29 However, according to the ordinance of Philip II contained in the index and dated 31 July 1571, copies of this index were not destined to be sold, but instead were to be distributed among censors.30 The catalogue included only a few of the Tridentine rules, namely rules 2, 5, 7 and 8 – the ones with implications for the e­ xpurgation of ‘heretical’ books.31 Meanwhile in Rome, Pope Pius V (1566–72), a former Inquisitor-General and one of the compilers of the Tridentine Index of 1564, set out the revision of this index. 25  Voet suggests that the ordinance was dated 15 February 1569, but that this date was very likely given in ‘Brabant style’ [o.s.] and was meant to be read as 15 February 1570. See Voet, The Plantin Press (see n. 24), p. 1234. 26  Voet, The Plantin Press (see n. 24), p. 1234. See also Fr. H. Reusch, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher. Ein Beitrag zur Kirchen- und Literaturgeschichte, vol. 1, Bonn: Cohen, 1884, p. 406. 27 Bujanda, Index d’Anvers (see n. 19), pp. 38–39, 74–77, 251–56, 259–68, 672–73. 28 ‘Et aussi de non vendre bibles en langues vulgaires, ny aultres livres en icelles langues, traittans de matières de foy controversées, sinon à ceulx qui auront congié par escript, de les pouvoir tenir, selon la rigle dudict sainct concille de Trente’. The edict is included in PH. Rombouts (ed.), Certificats délivrés aux imprimeurs des Pays-Bas par Christophe Plantin et autres documents se rapportant à  la charge du prototypographe. Antwerp: Buschmann, 1881, pp. 59–75. For the Dutch   version, see  Joannes De Bloys and Aegidius Stalins (eds), Tweeden Placaet–Bouck inhoudende diversche Ordonnancien, Edictẽ, Ende Placaetẽ […], Ghent: Anna vanden Steene, 1629, pp. 8–16. For  a discussion of the ordinance, see H. A. Enno Van Gelder, Vrijheid en onvrijheid in de Republiek. Geschiedenis der vrijheid van drukpers en godsdienst van 1572–1798, Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1947, pp. 17–19. See also Reusch, Der Index (see n. 26), pp. 401–03. 29 Rombouts, Certificats (see n. 28), pp. 76–78. 30 Voet, The Plantin Press (see n. 24), p. 1238; Reusch, Der Index (see n. 26), pp. 423–24. 31   Bujanda, Index d’Anvers (see n. 19), pp. 39–43, 718.

ottavio mirto frangipani

 81

Table 1. Lists of Forbidden Books in the Habsburg Netherlands Year

Index

Initiator(s)

1546 1550 1558

Indices of the Louvain University

Emperor Charles V and King Philip II Theologians from the Louvain Faculty of Theology

1568

Index librorum ­prohibitorum cum regulis (Liège Index 1)

Henricus Hovius and the Prince-Bishop of Liège

1569

Index librorum ­prohibitorum (Antwerp Index 1)

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alba

1569

Index librorum ­prohibitorum cum regulis (Liège Index 2)

Henricus Hovius and the Prince-Bishop of Liège

1570

Index librorum ­prohibitorum (Antwerp Index 2)

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alba

1571

Index expurgatorius librorum (Antwerp Index 3)

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alba

For this purpose, he founded the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 19 November 1570. His successor Gregory  XIII (1572–85) formally and solemnly confirmed the Congregation of the Index on 13 September 1572. Gigliola Fragnito states that the creation of this congregation marked ‘the beginning of the tortuous process of compiling the third Roman Index, which was only promulgated in 1596 after three unsuccessful attempts (in 1590, 1593 and 1596, sic)’.32 The Roman attitude towards vernacular Bible reading became more reluctant in these Roman Indices. This process was characterized by a profound authority conflict between the Pope, the Congregation of the Index and the Congregation of the Inquisition. Henceforth, the tasks of publishing a new index, condemning authors and works, and expurgating writings had been assigned to the newly founded Congregation of the Index, much against the wishes of the Congregation of the Inquisition, which previously had been in charge. Therefore, the Inquisition, and also the Master of the Sacred Palace,33 simply continued to interfere with the work 32  Fragnito, ‘The Central’ (see n.  4), p.  18. For detailed discussion of the coming-about of the Roman Indices, see W. François, La Iglesia Católica y la lectura de la Biblia en lengua vernácula antes y después de Trento, Mayéutica 39 (2013), 245–73, pp. 267–68. 33 Next to the Congregation of the Inquisition and the Congregation of the Index, the Master of the Sacred Palace or Maestro del Sacro Palazzo was the third instance that played an important role in book censorship. Having jurisdiction over Rome and the Roman district on the subject of book printing, the Master had to examine suspected books and prepare lists of forbidden books. See Fragnito, ‘La censura libraria’ (see n. 14), p. 167; Idem, La Bibbia al rogo (see n. 14), pp. 125–28.

82 

els agten

of the newly founded Congregation by expurgating books, condemning authors and works, and transmitting prohibitions of vernacular biblical books. The preparations for the 1590 Index had already started in the spring of 1584 but were deferred, probably because of the death of Pope Gregory XIII in 1585. Under the impulse of Sixtus V (1585–90), born Felice Peretti da Montalto and a former member of the Congregation of the Index, the preparations were resumed on 8 February 1587 and concluded in the beginning of 1590. Moreover, in 1588, Sixtus V decided to renew the composition of the Congregation of the Index by installing some prestigious and authoritative cardinals, for instance Federico Borromeo and William Allen, who were favourably disposed towards a more pastoral approach.34 As a consequence, this reorganisation brought about a wind of change and marked a new phase in the existence of the Congregation of the Index.35 While the attempts of the other offices concerning book censorship were defeated, the Congregation of the Index became a permanent body within the Catholic Church. It is not surprising that from this moment onwards, tensions started arising between the Rome-centred restrictive approach of the C ­ ongregation of the Inquisition, based on the severe Index of 1559, and the milder, more bishop-friendly approach of the Congregation of the Index, adopted from 1587 onwards. The 1590 Index, also called the ‘Sistine Index’ after its initiator, replaced the ten Tridentine rules by 22 stricter and more elaborate rules. The (forced) passive attitude of the Congregation of the Index in the redaction process of this catalogue was diametrically opposed to the active and preponderant role of Sixtus V who was determined to do his own will by installing the 22 new rules. The Regula Septima, which replaced the Regula Quarta, stated for instance that it was resolutely forbidden to read translations of (parts of) the Bible, even if the translation had been made by a Catholic author, unless this right was granted by the Holy See. Immediately after its publication in August 1590, the index was severely criticized, for instance by the Venetian orator Alberto Badoer (1540–92), who stood up for the interests of the (Venetian) printers and who took, among other things, offence at the prohibition of treatises written by eminent Catholic scholars. Sixtus V died on 27 August 1590 and the Congregation of the Inquisition ordered the immediate suspension of the Sistine Index on 26 September 1590.36 34  V. Frajese, La politica dell’ indice dal tridentino al clementino (1571–1596), Archivio italiano per la storia della pietà 11 (1998), 269–356, pp. 282–84. 35 On 26 February 1587, the Congregation of the Index decided to preserve the Tridentine Index of 1564 with its rules and to add an explanatory declaration to it. Moreover, a system of expurgation was elaborated. On 5 March 1587, the task of expurgating books was entrusted to the Congregation of the Index and it was decided that a set rules of expurgation, in imitation of the Tridentine rules, had to be formulated. The decision authority of local bishops and inquisitors on the subject of vernacular Bible reading was also reconfirmed. See G. Fragnito, ‘Per una geografia delle traduzioni bibliche nell’Europa cattolica (sedicesimo e diciasettesimo secolo)’, in: J.-Fr. Quantin and J.-Cl. Waquet (eds), Papes, princes et savants dans l’Europe moderne. Mélanges à la mémoire de Bruno Neveu (École pratique des hautes études. 4e section: Sciences historiques et philologiques, 5; Hautes études médiévales et modernes, 90) (Genève: Droz, 2007), pp. 51–77 (p. 58); Frajese, La politica (see n. 34), 284–88, 297–98; Frajese, Riforma e antiriforma (see n. 12), pp. 34–38. 36  François, La Iglesia (see n.  32), p. 267; Frajese, La politica (see n.  34), pp. 297–304,  308–12; Fragnito, La bibbia al rogo (see n. 14), pp. 143–56; V. Frajese, La revoca dell’Index sistino e la curia romana (1588–1596), Nouvelles de la République des Lettres 1 (1986), 15–49 (p. 21); Fragnito, ‘La censura libraria’ (see n. 14), pp. 169–75; Bujanda, Index de Rome: avec étude des Index de Parme

ottavio mirto frangipani

 83

Pope Clement VIII (1592–1605) reconvened the Congregation of the Index on 23 March 1592 in order to revise the Sistine Index of 1590 and approved the revision on 17 May 1593. The Sistine rules were replaced again by the Tridentine Rules and additional lists with vernacular book titles, originating from local and national Indices, were added. On 8 July 1593, the new catalogue, also called the ‘Sixto-Clementine Index’, was not only presented to the Pope, but also to the cardinals of the Congregation of the Inquisition and of the Congregation of the Index. The following day, however, the Congregation of the Inquisition succeeded in blocking the new index, mainly because of the omission of certain prohibitions with regard to vernacular Bible reading and the reinstallation of Tridentine Rule that the Congregation of the Inquisition had enforced in the preceding years. In addition, bishops again had received a central role in the process of censuring and expurgating books to the detriment of the inquisitors. After a profound examination, the Pope revoked the index in order to modify it meticulously, especially with regard to the list of works in the vernacular.37 The Congregation of the Index resumed its work in the autumn of 1594. Clement VIII approved the new index on 20 February 1596. On 8 March 1596, the s­ ecretary of the Congregation of the Index received a signed exemplar of the new index with the papal permission to publish it. However, the Congregation of the Inquisition again managed to suspend the index, transgressing not only the powers of Pope Clement VIII and but also imposing its intransigent line on the Congregation of the Index. Clement VIII eventually blocked the index on 13 April 1596. The main cause for this suspension was the fact that the Congregation of the Index again had replaced the 1559 prohibition on vernacular Bible reading, defended and repeated by the Congregation of the Inquisition from the 1570s onwards, by the Regula Quarta.38 Substantial changes were made to the already promulgated catalogue by adding an Instructio of eighteen paragraphs to the Tridentine rules, which contained detailed observations and strict guidelines on the prohibition (De prohibitione librorum), the expurgation (De correctione librorum) and the printing of books (De impressione librorum). These new rules amplified, clarified or reiterated the old inquisitorial prescriptions. Furthermore, observations to the Fourth and Ninth rule of Trent and on other Tridentine dispositions were added. The Observatio circa regulam quartam for instance not only deprived all ordinaries of the right to grant permission to the laity for the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, but also emphasized the primacy of the Roman authorities and the Roman Inquisition in this matter.39 Eventually Clement VIII promulgated the third Roman Index or Clementine Index on 17 May 1596.40 1580 et Munich 1582 (Index des livres interdits, 9), Sherbrooke: Université de Sherbrooke. Centre d’études de la Renaissance, 1994, pp. 275–80, 343–44. 37  Frajese, La política (see n. 34), pp. 314–24; Fragnito, La bibbia al rogo (see n. 14), pp. 156–71; Bujanda, Index de Rome (see n. 12), pp. 280–86. 38  François, La Iglesia (see n. 32), p. 267; Fragnito, ‘The Central’ (see n. 4), p. 19; Id., La Bibbia al rogo (see n. 14), pp. 173–78; Idem, ‘La censura libraria’ (see n. 14), pp. 171–72. 39 The local bishops and inquisitors had no longer the right ‘to allow the buying, reading or possession of vernacular versions of the OId and the New Testament by individual lay people requesting that favor’. Moreover, the Observatio ‘extended the prohibition to summaries and compendiums containing historical matter taken from Scripture’. See W. François, The Catholic Church and Vernacular Bible Reading, before and after Trent, Biblicum Jassyense 4  (2013), 5–37; Idem, La Iglesia Católica (see n. 32), p. 268. See also Bujanda, Index de Rome (see note 12), pp. 346, 929. 40  François, La Iglesia (see n. 32), p. 268; Fragnito, ‘Per una geografia’, p. 58; Frajese, La política (see n. 34), pp. 324–45; Fragnito, La Bibbia al rogo (see n. 14), pp. 179–93; Bujanda, Index de Rome (see n. 12), pp. 346, 929.

84 

els agten

Table 2. Lists of forbidden books in Rome Year Index

Compiler

Initiator(s)

1559

The Pauline Index (Universal Roman Index 1)

Congregation of the Inquisition

Paul IV

1564

The Tridentine Index with the 10 Tridentine rules (Universal Roman Index 2)

Committee of bishops

Pius IV

1590

The Sistine Index with the 22 Sistine rules41

Congregation of the Index

Sixtus V

1593

The Sixto-Clementine Index with the 10 Tridentine rules42

Congregation of the Index

Clement VIII

1596

The Clementine Index with the 10 Tridentine rules (Universal Roman Index 3) First promulgation on 27 March 1596 but blocked by the Congregation of the Inquisition on 7 April 1596 Second and final promulgation on 17 May 1596

Congregation of the Index

Clement VIII

Rome distributed copies of the 1596 Index throughout Catholic Europe. The index maintained its validity for almost 70 years, until the publication of the 1664 Index of Alexander VII, but was also reprinted long thereafter. Elisa Rebellato states that the Clementine Index was reprinted 137 times between 1596 and 1758. Besides separate reprints, the index also appeared as an appendix to other instruments of censorship that were not officially promulgated by the Congregation of the Index, for instance ­reprints of the Tridentine decrees. With regard to the period 1596–1664, Rebellato mentions 81 reprints in Italy, 23 reprints in France, 24 reprints in Germany (of which 21 in C ­ ologne), four in the Netherlands (of which 2 in Liège, in 1597 and 1607 respectively, and 2 in Antwerp, in 1617 and 1633), three in Poland, one in Portugal and one in the Czech R ­ epublic.421 3 However, the 1596 catalogue of forbidden books did not have the same impact in all parts of Europe. In the Northwestern and Central European countries ­situated north of the Alps, where Catholics lived next to ‘Bible-centered’ Protestants on a d­ aily basis, the decision to deprive the faithful of their Bible was considered very harmful. Due to the intervention of papal nuncios in the concerned countries, for instance ­Giovanni della Torre, the nuncio in Switzerland, Clement VIII offered 41 Suspended by the Congregation of the Inquisition on 26 September 1590. 42 Blocked by the Congregation of the Inquisition on 9 July 1593 and suspended by Clement VIII. 43  E . Rebellato, La fabbrica dei divieti. Gli Indici dei libri proibiti da Clemente VIII a Benedetto XIV, Milan: Sylvestre Bonnard, 2008, pp. 20–27. References to the reprints of the 1596 Index in the Liège and Antwerp can be found respectively on pp. 282 and 293 and on pp. 304 and 319.

ottavio mirto frangipani

 85

a dispensation in 1603–4 so that Catholics who had to live together with ‘heretics’ in pluriconfessional countries due to the stipulations of civil law (in regionibus ubi impune haeretici versantur cum catholicis) were granted the right to read the Bible in the vernacular. This decision implied that Catholics in those countries were not subject to the Observatio but to Trent’s Regula Quarta itself. In addition, vernacular Bibles were considered to be an efficient tool in the struggle against the widely circulating Protestant translations.44 With regard to the implementation of the 1596 Index in the Low Countries, Rebellato states that an intervention of the Congregation of the Index proved to be necessary in 1603.45 The papal nuncio Ottavio Mirto Frangipani also played a role in this process, as will be demonstrated in the second part of this contribution. In spite of these efforts, reprints of the 1596 catalogue in Antwerp only appeared in 1617 and 1633, contrary to Liège where the index was printed in 1597 and 1603, as stated above. In other words, the impact of the 1596 Index in the Habsburg Low Countries seems to have been rather limited in the turn from the sixteenth of the seventeenth century. It seems that even the Congregation of the Inquisition accepted the 1603–4 dispensation as a fait accompli, since it decreed at a meeting on 25 April 1608 that the ‘abuse’ of Bible translations in the vernacular should also be tolerated in ­Flanders – the entire Low Countries were most likely meant here. It stated that the ‘abuse’ was already widespread there and that the presence of ‘heretics’ in the c­ ountry ­demanded such an admission. Again, this should not be viewed as a ­blanket p­ ermission to read the Bible in the vernacular, but rather as a return to the system imposed by the fourth rule of the Tridentine Index, which left it to local bishops or inquisitors to grant permission in individual cases.46 In other words, the Roman authorities seem to have conceded permission to read the vernacular Bible to the Catholics of pluriconfessional countries situated north of the Alps in order to protect Catholic faith and doctrine against the Protestant ­attacks and threats. This open attitude of Rome towards vernacular Bibles only ­applied to these pluriconfessional contexts. In monoconfessional countries like Italy, Spain or Portugal, where the Inquisition was successful, Bible translations remained inaccessible for the faithful. In other words, as Gigliola Fragnito states, in ­certain countries of ‘divided’ Europe (Europa ‘ divisa’) vernacular Bible translations did circulate with the consent of Rome at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries.

The Papal Nunciature of Flanders (1596) and Book ­Censorship Frangipani and the Establishment of the Nunciature of Flanders Before the installation of the permanent nunciature of Flanders in 1596, the Habsburg Netherlands fell under the authority of the apostolic nunciature of C ­ ologne, 44 Fragnito, ‘Per una geografía’ (see n. 35), pp. 65–77. A general survey and further references also in François, La Iglesia (see n. 32), pp. 270–72. 45 ‘[…] nelle Fiandre fu necessario l’intervento della Congregazione’. See ibidem, pp. 35–36. 46 Fragnito, ‘Per una geografia’ (see n. 35), p. 71 n. 59.

86 

els agten

e­stablished in 1584 at the instigation of Emperor Rudolph  II (1552–1612) for the ­territory of Northwestern Germany and the Rhine in the Holy Roman Empire. Even before 1584, a­ postolic delegates had been sent to Cologne, not only to stop Protestantism from spreading in the Empire, but also to supervise the execution of the Tridentine decrees and the reform of ecclesiastical life. However, when in 1583 an armed revolt and tumult broke out in the diocese in the aftermath of the conversion to Calvinism and the marriage of the Archbishop-Elector of Cologne, Gebhard Truchsess von Waldburg (1547–1607), Rome sent Giovanni Francesco Bonomi (1536–87), Bishop of Vercelli, as a legate to the region.47 In an attempt to gain control of the situation, Bonomi helped to install the new and more orthodox Archbishop, Ernest of Bavaria (1554–1612), former Prince-Bishop of Liège. However, negotiations did not work out in Cologne and the revolt was eventually quelled by the use of force ordered by Alexander Farnese (1545–92), Governor-General for the Spanish-Habsburg Netherlands. Bonomi for his part became aware of the urgent need to establish a permanent nunciature in Cologne to cope with the difficult situation and advised that such a diplomatic post should also have jurisdiction over the Habsburg Netherlands. Rome followed up this advice and appointed Bonomi the first nuncio of Cologne in October 1584. The Bishop of Vercelli was very active in imposing the Tridentine reforms and organized various diocesan synods and visited the ecclesiastical benefices, also in the prince-bishopric of Liège and the Habsburg Netherlands, as will be demonstrated. Bonomi remained nuncio until his death in 1587 and was succeeded by Ottavio Mirto Frangipani.48 Ottavio Mirto Frangipani49 was born into an aristocratic family in Naples in April 1544 and graduated as doctor ‘in both laws’ (doctor in utroque jure) at the University of Naples. In 1565, at the age of 21, Frangipani was appointed secular abbot of the abbey of Saint  Benedict in Capua. This was the start of a lifelong ecclesiastical career during which Frangipani found patronage within the ­h igher ecclesiastical circles in Rome. On 9 November  1572, Frangipani was ordained Bishop of Caiazzo in succession of his uncle Fabio Frangipani. In June 1587, Pope Sixtus V named Frangipani papal nuncio to Cologne. He arrived in Cologne in August of that same year. 47 Contrary to a nuncio who held a permanent office, a legate was a temporary (papal) representative charged with a specific mission. 48  Wauters, ‘De opkomst’ (see n. 2), p. 96; A. Louant, ‘Frangipani (Ottavio Mirto)’, in: Dictionnaire d’ histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, vol. 18, 1977, col. 1002–1009 (col. 1003–1004). 49 For biographical information on Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, see St.  Andretta, ‘Frangipani, Ottavio Mirto’, in: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 50 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1998), pp. 249–52; Louant, ‘Frangipani’ (see n. 48), col. 1002–1009; A. Louant (ed.), Correspondance d’Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, premier nonce de Flandre (1596–1606) (Analecta Vaticano-Belgica. Série 2A: Nonciature de Flandre), vol.  3: Lettres (1599–1606) et tables, Rome: Institut historique belge, 1942, pp.  IX–XIV; L.Van der Essen (ed.), Correspondance d’Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, premier nonce de Flandre (1596–1606) (Analecta Vaticano-Belgica. Série 2A: Nonciature de Flandre), vol.  1: Lettres (1596–1598) et annexes, Rome: Institut historique belge, 1924, pp. XLVII–LXI; A. Cauchie and R. Maere, Recueil des instructions générales aux nonces de Flandre (1596–1635), Brussels: Librairie Kiessling et Cie, 1904, pp.  XXIV–XXVIII. There is also a 170 pages long handwritten biography in Latin of Frangipani, which is attributed to one of his secretaries, to know Henri Stravius and which is kept in the National Library of Paris under number 10165 of the Latin manuscripts. See Louant, ‘Frangipani’ (see n. 48), col. 1002.

ottavio mirto frangipani

 87

In line with his predecessor Bonomi, Frangipani also had to keep an eye on the situation in the Low Countries. Resistance against the strict religious policy of the Habsburg dynasty on the part of the nobility and the Calvinist opposition had led there to a religious and civil war, which eventually but unintendedly resulted in the foundation of the Dutch Republic, in which Calvinism became the privileged and public church, and the Habsburg Netherlands which remained under Catholic faith.50 In order to monitor the situation in both the southern part of the Netherlands and the Dutch Republic alike, Frangipani was assisted by several diplomatic agents and informers that had been sent by the Holy See. The Habsburg Netherlands were still considered to be an important international observatory for the situation in Western Europe.51 In June 1588 for instance, Frangipani was asked to intervene in a conflict on grace and free will between the Jesuits and the Louvain Faculty of Theology.52 That same year, he also settled a dispute between the Bishop of Antwerp, Laevinus Torrentius (1525–95), and the chapter of Liège. Following these two interventions, Frangipani sent a memorial to Rome in November 1588 in which he discussed the religious situation of the Habsburg Netherlands and in which he insisted, among others, on the continuation of the war against the Protestants and on the foundation of (Jesuit) colleges and seminaries. Upon his return to Cologne, the religious interests of the Habsburg Netherlands were pushed into the background and the region was left to fend for itself. On 9 March 1592, Pope Clement VIII appointed Frangipani Bishop of Tricarico but he did not take possession of his chair. It seems that the Tridentine decrees requiring episcopal residence remained dead letter.53 One of the main achievements of Frangipani in Cologne was the establishment of the apostolic vicariate of the so-called ‘Northern Netherlands’ in 1592. On 3 June 1592, he appointed Sasbout Vosmeer (1548–1614) as the first vicar apostolic of the Missio Hollandica.54 Vosmeer took over Frangipani’s jurisdiction over ‘Holland, 50  W. P. Blockmans, ‘The Formation of a Political Union’, in: J. C. H. Blom and E. Lamberts (eds), History of the Low Countries, translated by J. C. Kennedy (New York: Berghahn, 2009²), pp. 55–140 (pp. 114–40). 51  S . Giordano, ‘Aspetti di politica ecclesiastica e riforma religiosa nelle istruzioni generali di Paolo V’, in A. Koller (ed.), Kurie und Politik (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1998), pp. 239–59 (p. 249). 52 The conflict began in 1587 when the Louvain Faculty of Theology censured 34 propositions originating from the teachings of the Jesuit Fathers Leonard Lessius (1554–1623) and Joannes Hamelius (1554–89) on Scripture, grace and predestination as dogmata peregrina, offensiva et periculosa because they were contradictory to the Augustinian-Thomistic doctrine that had been universally accepted at the Faculty. This censure is known as the Censura Lovaniensis. See J. Roegiers, ‘Akward Neighbours. The Leuven Faculty of Theology and the Jesuit College (1542– 1773)’, in: R.  Faesen and L.  Kenis (eds), The Jesuits of the Low Countries. Identity and Impact (1540–1773) (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 251) (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), pp.  153–75 (pp.  159–61); B.  Boute, Academic Interests and Catholic Confessionalisation. The Louvain Privileges of Nomination to Ecclesiastical Benefices, Leiden: Brill, 2010, pp. 295–306; E. J. M. van Eijl, ‘La controverse louvaniste autour de la grâce et du libre arbitre à la fin du XVIe siècle’, in: M.  Lamberigts and L.  Kenis (eds), L’augustinisme à l’ancienne faculté de théologie de Louvain (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 111) (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994), pp. 207–82. 53 Andretta, ‘Frangipani’ (see n. 49), p. 250; Louant, ‘Frangipani’ (see n. 48), col. 1004. 54 In 1592, Pope Clement VIII decided to declare the northern part of the Netherlands to be a mission area, although without clearly defining the statute of this mission. This decision led to a complete reorganization of the Catholic Church in the northern provinces of the Netherlands. Henceforth the Church would no longer be conducted by an archbishop and bishops appointed by the Spanish

88 

els agten

­ eeland, and all remaining regions of Low Germany that had seceded from Catholic Z faith and from the obedience to their lawful King’.55 In the following four years, the apostolic vicariate fell under the authority of the papal nuncio of Cologne. When the Cologne nunciature was divided in 1596, the vicariate came under the authority of the nuncio in Brussels. Indeed, on 22 July 1596, Frangipani was transferred from his post in Cologne to Brussels where he was asked to set up a new nunciature in the political center of the Habsburg Netherlands, in spite of his wish to go to his diocese Tricarico in Italy because of the cold climate of the Netherlands and his weak health.56 The decision to establish a nunciature in Brussels corresponded with the wish of Philip II and his legists to withdraw the Seventeen Provinces from the jurisdiction of foreign envoys that resided in the Holy Roman Empire, in this case in Cologne. The new nunciature also had advantages for the papacy, for instance with regard to the implementation of the Catholic reform and/or the promulgation of the Tridentine decrees. Moreover, the nunciature in Brussels was a buffer against the Protestant Northern Netherlands.57 It is generally accepted that Frangipani was the first papal nuncio to hold the nunciature of Brussels as a permanent ‘embassy’, although from the fifteenth century onwards there had been papal representatives in Brussels for short periods of time.58 Another reason why the Roman curia decided to install a permanent representative in Brussels was the fact that the city was an important nodal point in the diplomacy of the sixteenth and seventeenth century.59 Bruno Boute affirms in this respect that ‘the Brussels nuncios [were] crucial elements in the peace policy of the Holy King, but by a vicar apostolic who received his authority from the papal nuncio and thus depended directly on the Holy See.  The Catholic missionary work of the vicar apostolic was described in the documents of the Roman Curia as a Missio Hollandica or Dutch mission. The name Missio Hollandica gives, however, a distorted picture of the situation. Although the ecclesiastical province of Utrecht, consisting of six dioceses, no longer possessed any bishops or church buildings, and only disposed of a few funds, a large part of the population had remained faithful to the Catholic Church. See Ch. H. Parker, Faith on the Margins. Catholics and Catholicism in the Dutch Golden Age, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008, pp. 24–66. 55  F.  Smit and J.  Jacobs, Van den Hogenheuvel gekomen. Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van de priesteropleiding in de kerk van Utrecht, 1683–1723 (Scripta van het Katholiek documentatie centrum en het Katholiek studiecentrum te Nijmegen, 6), Nijmegen: Valkhof, 1994, p. 24 (English translation mine). 56  B . Boute, ‘Que ceulx de Flandres se disoijent tant catholicques, et ce neantmoings les hereticques mesmes ne scauroijent faire pir: the multiplicity of Catholicism and Roman attitudes in the correspondence of the Nunciature of Flanders under Paul V (1605–1621)’, in: A. Koller (ed.), Die Aussenbeziehungen der römischen Kurie unter Paul V. Borghese (1605–1621) (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2008), pp.  457–92 (pp.  457–58); Louant, ‘Frangipani’ (see n.  48), col.  1006. For a general overview of the history of the nunciature in Brussels and the relation between Church and State, see Wauters, ‘De opkomst’, pp.  96–99; Louant, Correspondance (see n.  49), vol.  3, pp.  XIV– CLXVII; Van der Essen, Correspondance (see n. 49), vol. 1, pp. IX–XLVI. 57  Boute, ‘Que ceulx de Flandres’ (see n. 56), p. 459; Wauters, De controverse (see n. 2), pp. 36–37; Van der Essen, Correspondance (see n. 49), pp. IX–XI. 58 Wauters, De nuntiatuur en de staat (see n. 1), pp. 194–95. 59  L .  Duerloo, ‘Archducal Piety and Habsburg Power’, in: W.  Thomas and L.  Duerloo (eds), Albert and Isabella 1598–1621. Essais (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), pp. 267–83; Idem, Pietas Albertina. Dynastieke vroomheid en herbouw van het vorstelijk gezag, Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 112 (1997), 1–18; J. D. Mackie, Book review of Léon van der Essen, Correspondance d’Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, Premier Nonce de Flandre (1596–1606). Tome  I. Lettres (1596–1598) (Rome, 1924), The English Historical Review 43 (1928), 426–27.

ottavio mirto frangipani

 89

See towards the crowns of France and Spain’.60 In addition, Frangipani’s transfer to Brussels was probably conducive to Pope Clement VIII’s political and diplomatic maneuvers to bring about a Franco-Spanish reconciliation and to put an end to the civil wars in France. This way, the Pope could reinforce his position as head of the respublica christiana or Christian republic. Frangipani played for instance an important part in bringing about the Peace of Vervins, which was signed on 2 May 1598 by representatives of France and Spain.61 The nunciature of Flanders also served as a detached diplomatic post for the Holy See, evidenced by the fact that Frangipani was asked to keep an eye on the political and religious situation on the British Isles.62 Already familiarized with the situation in the Habsburg Netherlands because of his function as nuncio of Cologne, Frangipani did not receive special instructions upon his arrival in Flanders.63 He was charged with three tasks: ‘to maintain the unity between the papacy and the Archdukes (viz. Albert and Isabella), to support the conservation of Catholicism and to defend ecclesiastical liberty’.64 In practice, Frangipani first was expected to oversee the realization of the Catholic restoration and the execution of the Tridentine decrees in various visitations; second, he had to prevent the spread of heresies, and particularly that of Protestantism; third, he had to maintain good relations with the Archdukes and the court in Brussels while at the same time guarding the balance between the secular and ecclesiastical authorities. He was held in high esteem in both the political and ecclesiastical circles in the Habsburg Netherlands. Particularly his contacts with the secular and the regular clergy of various hierarchical levels were important for the success of his mission.65 Frangipani not only kept the Holy See informed about the situation in his nunciature, but also conducted a lively correspondence with several learned men of his time, for instance the humanist Justus Lipsius, the Antwerp printer Jan Moerentorf (Moretus), the English theologian Thomas Stapleton, the musician Jean de Castro or the vicar apostolic Sasbout Vosmeer.66 Frangipani left the nunciature of Brussels in October 1606 and went to his diocese Tricarico of which he had been appointed Archbishop on 20 June 1605. He died in Taranto on 9 August 1612.67 Decio Carafa (1556–1626), Archbishop of Damascus, succeeded him as nuncio.

Frangipani, Book Censorship and the Index of Forbidden Books In his capacity as nuncio of Cologne and Flanders, Frangipani was inevitably ­confronted with issues of book censorship, for instance the implementation of the Clementine Index of 1596 and the question of the legitimacy of vernacular Bible translations. This paragraph deals with three cases in which Frangipani was 60  Boute, ‘Que ceulx de Flandres’ (see n. 56), p. 462. 61  Wauters, De controverse (see n.  2), pp.  39–40; Andretta, ‘Frangipani’ (see n.  49), p.  251; Louant, ‘Frangipani’ (see n. 48), col. 1007. 62 The jurisdiction of Frangipani extended ‘ad comitatum Burgundiae et universas Belgicas ditiones earumque dominia’ (Cauchie and Maere, Recueil [see n. 49], p. 21). See furthermore Giordano, ‘Aspetti’ (see n. 51), p. 249; Louant, Correspondance (see n. 49), vol. 3, pp. XLVII–XLVIII. 63 Cauchie and Maere, Recueil (see n. 49), pp. 22–23. 64 Boute, ‘Que ceulx de Flandres’ (see n. 56), p. 459. 65 Cauchie and Maere, Recueil (see n. 49), pp. XXVII–XXX. 66 Louant, ‘Frangipani’ (see n. 48), col. 1008. 67 Andretta, ‘Frangipani’ (see n. 49), p. 251; Louant, ‘Frangipani’ (see n. 48), col. 1008–1009.

90 

els agten

c­ onfronted with book censorship, namely (1) during his stay in Cologne, (2) in the only work that he wrote, namely the Directorium ecclesiasticae disciplinae Coloniensi, published in Cologne in 159768 and (3) during his stay in Flanders. On 1 August 1587, when Frangipani had just arrived in Cologne, Alessandro Damasceni Peretti di Montalto, the Cardinal Secretary of State from 1587 until 1590, wrote a letter in order to inform the freshly appointed papal nuncio that the multiplication of heretical books directed against the Holy See urged the compilation of a new (universal) Index of Forbidden Books. Indeed, the preparations for this new catalogue had been resumed in February 1587 under the impulse of Pope Sixtus V and were concluded in the beginning of 1590. Montalto furthermore referred in his letter to an earlier brief, dated on 26 June 1587 and addressed to the most famous universities, which explicitly sought to inform the Holy See of their advice concerning books of heretics and Catholics to be corrected in one way or another. This brief had also been directed to the University of Louvain that was praised not only for the doctrine of her many eminent theologians, but also for their zeal towards the service of God and the Catholic faith. Montalto included a copy of the brief in his letter and asked Frangipani to enter into contact with the University of Louvain and its theologians. From his letter, it becomes clear that the Secretary of State was also acquainted with the fact that the theologians of this University had already published a reliable Index of Forbidden Books for the Habsburg Netherlands (viz. in 1546, 1550 and 1558). Therefore, he asked Frangipani to make inquiries about their working method and to ask them for useful advice. Montalto concluded his letter by expressing the wish of the Pope to have at his disposition all the Indices that had been published since the Frankfurt Book Fair of 1564 up to that day.69 On 3 September 1587, Frangipani answered Montalto’s letter and stated that he had sent the brief to the University of Louvain with an accompanying letter from his side to inform about their working method. With regard to the Pope’s wish to receive all the indices that had been published, Frangipani reported that he had not succeeded in this task.70 On 22 October 1587, Frangipani directed another letter to Montalto to inform him that he had not yet received an answer from the University of Louvain about the index. The only information he disposed of was based on a letter from the rector of the Antwerp Jesuit college at that time. This letter mentioned the two Indices of 1569, printed in Antwerp en Liège, and the catalogue of the last Frankfurt book fair. With regard to the question of collecting all Indices printed since 1564, Frangipani affirmed that the bookshops only sold the more recent v­ ersions of the index.71 References to Frangipani’s interest in the topic of book censorship can also be found in his Directorium ecclesiasticae disciplinae Coloniensi. This pastoral work on the reform of the clergy with practical advices appeared in a small in-quarto of 596 68 The publication of the Directorium was temporarily disallowed in 1596 by Coriolano Garzodoro (1543–18), Bishop of Ossero, who had been send to Cologne as an extraordinary representative of the Holy See. See Cauchie and Maere, Recueil (see n. 49), pp. XXV–XXVI. 69  St.  Ehses (ed.), Nuntius Ottavio Mirto Frangipani (Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland nebst ergänzenden Aktenstücken. Die Kölner Nuntiatur, 2), vol. 1: 1587 Juni-1590 September, Paderborn: Schöningh, 1969, pp. 2–3. 70 Ibidem, pp. 7–8. 71 Ibidem, p. 34.

ottavio mirto frangipani

 91

pages in Cologne in 1597.72 The treatise was dedicated to Ferdinand of Bavaria, the coadjutor of Cologne, and was approved by the Louvain Faculties of Theology and Canon Law. At that time, Frangipani had already become papal nuncio in Flanders. Previously, in his capacity of nuncio of Cologne (1587–96), he had devoted himself entirely to the implementation of the Tridentine decrees but this undertaking had soon proved to be unsuccessful. Therefore, he had proposed to organize meetings in order to discuss the promulgation of the conciliar decrees with the deans of the collegiate churches, most likely because they offered most resistance against the reforms. For various reasons, however, these meetings ran down rapidly. In the end, Frangipani with the help of his friend Georges Braun, canon of the Cologne cathedral, decided to publish the collection of laws and decrees that had been discussed during the few meetings that were actually organized. In other words, the Directiorum can be considered as ‘a collection of laws and decrees in conformity with the Council of Trent that had been translated into a number of practical councils’.73 In the Directorium, Frangipani discussed the books that canons and priests should read and possess. Canonists had to read the old and the more recent pious authors, focusing in particular on the Fathers of the Church. In this regard, Frangipani recommended the writings of Augustine, Ambrose, the letters of Jerome and the writings of Cyprian, Bernard of Clairvaux, Prosper of Aquitania and Bonaventure. These books would exhort to erudition and wisdom because canonists would get inspired by these authors in their daily life.74 With regard to priests, Frangipani urged them to carefully follow up the reading habits of the common people. Priests had to make clear that heretical books were dangerous and not worth reading.75 Furthermore, he charged all who had been entrusted with the office of preaching and teaching to discuss the forbidden books at length in their sermons in church. Particularly, the books that had been identified as either being read by or of interest to the laypeople should be dealt. Moreover, priests had to urge the laypeople not to keep these books in their houses or to buy them. With regard to the books that had not been inspected or examined by the pastors, as well as to the books that were permitted, laypeople should not be misled by the pious inscriptions of a book, by a somewhat different manifestation of piety, by the sweetness of the words, or by other deceiving tricks.76 The same went for printers, booksellers and bookbinders; they 72  The full title reads: Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, Directorivm ecclesiasticae disciplinae, Coloniensi præsertim ecclesiæ accommodatum. Varios ecclesiasticorvm hominum status, & functiones, cùm priuatas tum publicas, eiusdem ecclesiæ statutis, sacris; canonibus, & temporum nostrorum neceßitatibus conuenienter explicans  […] /  avctore  […] Octavio Frangipano, Mirtho  […], Cologne: Arnold Mylius, 1597. 73 Boute, Academic Interests (see n. 52), p. 249. 74 ‘Quos quidem libros, si attente legere inceperint, & perseueranter legere continuauerint, ea, ut considimus, Deo operante ipsis ingenerabitur eruditio & sapientia, qua in omni vita & actione sua, similes illis fiant, quorum spiritum libri, quos legerint, referunt’ (ibidem, pp. 241–42). 75 ‘Ne simplices in haereticorum libros ignoranter incidant, & incauti ex venenato eorum calice mortem suam bibant: curandum est, et sacerdotali diligentia pro videndum, ut haeretici codices, et a syncera veritate discordes, in nullo usu lectionis habeantur’ (ibidem, pp. 273–74). 76 ‘Iniungimus proinde omnibus, quibus predicandi & docendi munus creditum est, ut libros prohibitos aliquando in concionibus recenseant, eos maxime quos vident in usu esse apud populum, aut ab usu non procul abesse; eum qui frequenter admoneant, ne quos libros domi suae habeat, aut deinceps emat, quod Pastoribus suis inspiciendos et examinandos non exhibuerit, & habere, emere,

92 

els agten

too had to obey this ordinance and if not, they would be excommunicated. In short, priests and pastors had to examine the life of Christ and the saints, the writings of popes, bishops and pastors, as well as canonical and other pious writings.77 Frangipani went on by stating that a complete list of forbidden books could be found in the Index librorum prohibitorum and its accompanying rules that had been prepared by a commission of Tridentine fathers and approved by the authority of Pius IV in 1564.78 This statement seems to indicate that Frangipani considered the Tridentine Index of 1564 as valid, and not the Indices of 1590, 1593 or 1596. In fact, Frangipani continued the policy of his predecessor Bonomi who had been send by the Pope to the Cologne region to instigate the Catholic reform and the implementation of the Tridentine decrees. Bonomi for instance had implemented the Tridentine Index during the second Provincial Council of Cambrai in the fall of 1586.79 This council explicitly decreed full obedience to the above-mentioned Regula Quarta of the Tridentine Index, requesting the permission of the bishop to read the Bible in the vernacular.80 By way of example, Frangipani included an extensive and detailed list of books to his Directorium,81 mainly approved versions and editions of the Bible in both Latin and the vernacular that priests and pastors ought to read and purchase in order to broaden their perspective on divine things.82 To conclude the discussion on the Directorium, Frangipani dealt with the high number of printers in the city of Cologne and the surrounding area; they edited as many books as they could for pursuit of profit and without examining them, irrespective of their origin, their heretical character and the troubles their publication might lead to.83 Frangipani furthermore ac legere ab iis permissus fuerit, ut ne aliquando pia libri inscriptione, vel qualibet alia pietatis specie, aut verborum dulcedine & astutia decepti, latenter laqueis cuiuscumque involuantur erroris’ (ibidem, p. 274). 77 ‘Haec internam Dei locutionem, plurimum dilatabit ac certius examinabit, vitae Christi, Sanctorum Pontificum, Episcoporum ac Pastorum studiosa consideratio divinarumque Scripturarum Canonicarum que sanctionum, aliorumque piorum scriptorum lectio & meditatio’ (ibidem, p. 319). 78 ‘Praeterea ut pleniorem huiusmodi librorum demus catalogum, quemadmodum concilium illud desiderare & promittere visum fuit, Indicem librorum prohibitorum cum regulis confectis per patres, a Tridentina synodo delectos, et authoritate S.D.N.  Pii Quarti Pontificis Maximi comprobatum, hoc decreto nostro hic publicatum pronunciamus, ac omnibus huius dioecesis fidelibus recipiendum, & in librorum delectu servandum tradimus & mandamus’ (ibidem, p. 275). This allegation is in line with John O’Malley’s statement that the Tridentine rules were compiled by a conciliar commission during the Council and that the Pope had approved their work afterwards. See J. W. O’Malley, Trent. What Happened at the Council, Cambridge, MA and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013, p. 266. 79  J.  Hartzheim et  al. (ed.), Concilia Germaniae, vol.  7, Cologne: Widow of Johann Wilhelm Krakamp and successor Christian Simonis, 1, 1767, pp. 995–1031. 80 ‘Non permittantur cuivis de populo libri Scripturae Sacrae lingua vernacula, contra quartam regulam Indicis librorum prohibitorum, nisi de licentia episcoporum, aut deputatorum ab eis’. This was the first overt mention of the Regula Quarta in the ecclesiastical province of Cambrai. See Frangipani, Directorivm, p. 998. 81 Ibidem, pp. 320–23. 82 ‘Praescribimus ut singuli ex infra scriptis libris, quoscumque pro facultatibus suis potuerunt, comparare sibi studeant, & in eorum lectione omne quod poterunt tempus ponant videlicet’. See ibidem, p. 322. 83 ‘Porro cum in hisce Prouincijs, & praecipue in ciuitate Coloniensi multi sint Typographi, & ex illis nonnulli quibus est lucri odor bonus ex re qualibet, qui sine vllo indicio, examine ac circumspectione quoscunque libros edunt, vnde aliquod lucelli sperant, etiamsi sine offensione & magno animarum periculo, ac Reipu perturbatione, legi passim ab omnibus non possint, &

ottavio mirto frangipani

 93

incited his readership once more to respect the index that had been made by the Tridentine deputation and thus to censor all books before being printed.84 Finally, during his term of office as nuncio of Flanders, Frangipani was again confronted with the issue of book censorship. On 11 October 1603 he wrote a letter to Cardinal Simone Tagliavia de Terranova (1550–1604) of the Congregation for the Index in which he discussed the impossibility to promulgate the 1596 Index of Forbidden Books in the Habsburg Netherlands.85 In this letter, Frangipani first nuanced the cardinal’s previous complaint that ‘censorship was too lax in the South Netherlands – an assessment which would become an ever recurring post in the general instructions sent to the papal nuncios of Fiandra’.86 He emphasized that there was a system of control in the territory, although the solemn publication of the universal index was blocked.87 Moreover, he claimed that the organization of surveillance of the libraries in the Habsburg Netherlands came close to complying with the index. Booksellers and printers seemed to follow the rules and they contacted the censors when confronted with new suspected books. Moreover, older books could not be sold without a license that was assigned on the basis of the catalogue of forbidden books. However, it was not opportune to published the new index because of the large amount of private book collections in the region and the subsequent role of the Inquisition. Censors had to act with great caution because the citizens could think that the Inquisition, looking for books, intended to examine their conscience what they really disapproved. Moreover, it would be offensive towards the King who was resolute to make an end to the war and who did not want to oblige his citizens to obey the Church in this matter because it might disturb his plans.88 Frangipani admitted furthermore that the difficult war circumstances restricted the powers of the supreme spiritual and temporal authorities. In other words, the 1596 Index was not promulgated out of prudence as Frangipani called on to act with great caution and tried to justify the moderate behavior of the sovereigns. With regard to the printing of a special index for Flanders, Frangipani had contacted the University of Louvain, the bishops and prelates belonging to the jurisdiction of his nunciature.89 imagines saepe tales excudunt, quae suo obiectu intuentium mentem, a iustitiae rectitudine, per memoriam, imaginantem deformant, ac turbas etiam subinde in populo excitant […]’. See ibidem, pp. 551–52. 84 Ibidem, pp. 552–53. 85 For the text of this letter, see Louant, Correspondance (see n. 49), pp. 435–37. 86 Boute, Academic Interests (see n. 52), p. 333, n. 73. 87 ‘[…] anchor ch’in questi stati s’impedisca il publicare l’indice universale nell’anni passati publicato in Roma, vi se tiene con tutto ciò una cura singulare che senza quella publication solenne s’osserva in gran parte la sua sostanza […]’. See Louant, Correspondance (see n. 49), pp. 435–37. 88 ‘[…] quí se ne tiene senza la publicazione sudetta, atteso che l’indice non se potrebbe hoggi dì eseguir in questi stati n’i libri che sono d’i privati nelle lor case, et ciò per il sospetto del nome, che se gli daria d’inquisitione nel cercarse et investigarse le coscienze loro con la notitia d’i lor libri, cosa molto odiosa a questi popoli, et offensiva a queste Ser.me Maestà quali altro non bramando ch’il fine di cosi lunga guerra con ridur’i loro ribelli all’ubbedienza di Santa Chiesa et conseguentemente sott’il loro dominio, come loro Principi naturali, impederiano l’esecutione de qual si voglia ordini, che le sturbassero il pensiero grave, che ne teneno’. See Louant, Correspondance (see n. 49), p. 437. I  would like to thank prof. Gigliola Fragnito for providing me with this information. See also Fragnito, ‘Per una geografia’ (see n. 35), p. 63, n. 32. 89 ‘Ma quant’ al desiderio che qui se faccia un indice particolare d’i libri da prohibirse et sospendere, conforme alla commissione che Va Sa Ill ma et Revma ne dà nella seconda lettera, n’ho già ricercato (per

94 

els agten

On 15 November 1603, the Congregation of the Index, having taken note of Frangipani’s letter, decided to exercise pressure on the archducal representative in Rome. Cardinal Tagliavia de Terranova confidently stated in his answer to Frangipani that the index would certainly be published in Flanders.90 He also made a complaint in a letter to don Pedro de Toledo, the new archducal representative in Rome, dated 19 December 1603. In this letter, Tagliavia de Terranova stated that the Index of Forbidden Books that had been made in Trent was no longer observed in the Habsburg Netherlands.91 It is not surprising that Tagliavia de Terranova questioned the use of an index that had been prepared more than 40 years before. In the meantime, many potentially dangerous books had been published. In a letter dated 8 January 1604, the inquisitors and the censors of the University of Louvain were therefore prompted to inform Tagliavia de Terranova of the results of the conflict of the Faculty of Theology and the enemies of the Church.92 According to the correspondence, the catalogue that was used in the Netherlands dated from 1569 and was most probably the second Antwerp Index, a copy of the Tridentine Index of 1564, completed with a list of additional condemnations specifically for the Netherlands, as stated above.93 At the same time, the Pope and the Congregation of the Index submitted a request to the Archdukes to compile a new list of dangerous books that had been published in their territory.94 Following on Tagliavia de Terranova’s complaint, Hendrik J. Elias affirms that the Archdukes ordered the Louvain and Douai Faculties of Theology to report on the situation and, if necessary, to send their representatives to Brussels to confer on the matter with the members of the Secret Council.95 In sum, book censorship in the Habsburg Netherlands during Frangipani’s term of office still appeared to be based on the policy that an Index of Forbidden Books, the Tridentine Index of 1564 in particular, had to be considered as the basic principle for book censorship and Bible reading in the vernacular. Moreover, older ordinances concerning book censorship were also used, witness the fact that in the period November 1603–March 1604, the Archdukes set up an edition project that aimed at republishing all the ordinances on forbidden books and legal texts that had been published in 1550 and 1556, among others the 1550 anti-heresy edict (nicknamed B ­ loedplakkaat,

non essere negotio del giudicio mio solo) quello dell’ Università, d’i Vescovi et Prelati che sono nel distretto della mia nuntiatura, et sarà prima di publicarse communicato a Va Sa Ill ma et Revma’. See Louant, Correspondance (see n. 49), p. 437. 90 Fragnito, ‘Per una geografia’ (see n. 35), p. 63, n. 32 91 Algemeen Rijksarchief (ARA), Papiers d’État et de l’Audience, n° 439, ff.  203–04. This passage is also based on L.  V. Goemans, Het Belgisch gezantschap te Rome, onder de Aartshertogen Albrecht en Isabella, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis. Bijzonderlijk van het aloude Hertogdom Brabant 7 (1908), 66–84, 181–93, 206–12, 255–70, 350–58, 459–73, 505–18, 574–80, p. 354. Also in the general instruction to Decio Caraffa, Frangipani’s successor, it was stated that censorship in Flanders did not always happen according to the rules: ‘Si stampano facilmente libri in quelle parti et vi è copia grande di belli ingegni, ma occorre molte volte che non essendo corretti bene, vi resta qualche cosa di poca edificatione che merita censura […]’. See Cauchie and Maere, Recueil (see n. 49), p. 21. 92 ARA, Papiers d’État et de l’Audience, n° 439, ff. 216. 93 ARA, Papiers d’État et de l’Audience, n° 439, fol. 251. 94 ARA, Papiers d’État et de l’Audience, n° 439, ff. 251 and following. 95  H . J. Elias, Kerk en staat in de zuidelijke Nederlanden onder de regeering der aartshertogen Albrecht en Isabella (1598–1621), Antwerpen: De Sikkel, 1931, p. 56.

ottavio mirto frangipani

 95

placard of Blood)96 of Charles V and its reaffirmation by Philip II in August 1556.97 In order to do so, the Archdukes asked for the help of the Louvain and Douai Universities, the bishops, the Pope and the Congregation of the Index. They initiated this edition project because heresies apparently still subsisted in the Habsburg Netherlands in spite of the predominance of Catholicism, as Frangipani later witnessed in his description of the religious situation in Flanders, dated 2 July 1606.98 The Archdukes gave priority to the preservation of the Catholic religion and ­revealed themselves as vehement supporters of the Catholic renewal. The only surviving response to this initiative, dated 29 January 1604, comes from the University of Douai that approved the censorship of books but shrugged off the issue of the reinstallation of the harsh religious edicts of 1550 and 1556. It is not known whether this ordinance was published. On 10 April 1606, Archduke Albert appears to have reiterated his attempt to reinstall the 1550 and 1556 edicts. Moreover on 31 August 1608, an edict was published that dealt with the surveillance of schools and the printing and selling of books.99 This edict appeared as a result of the third Provincial Council of Malines that had taken place in 1607. The acts of this Provincial Council contained an extensive decree on forbidden books. Priests and pastors had for instance to announce frequently to their faithful the prohibitions contained in the various Indices that had been printed by Rome since the Tridentine Council.100

Conclusion This contribution focused on Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, the first papal nuncio to Flanders (1596–1606) and previously nuncio in Cologne (1587–96), and his thoughts on book censorship. Both Rome and local authorities in the Netherlands undertook action over the course of the sixteenth century against the printing, selling, possession and reading of works that propagated new (heretical) doctrines. Moreover, the Index librorum prohibitorum was used as an important means in the process of Roman centralization. Frangipani’s stand on the reading of (vernacular) books and Bibles and the implementation of the Index of Forbidden Books on the basis of both his Directorium, written during his time in Cologne and published with some delay in 1597, and a selection of his extensive correspondence was discussed here. 96 The Bloedplakkaat constitued an important means in Charles’ harsh policy with regard to heretics. 97 This passage is based on Goosens, Les inquisitions (see n. 8), pp. 126–27. 98 ‘In quelle parti li pastori sono vigilanti et il popolo obediente, et se ben da la continua guerre è nata gran libertà di vivere, nientedimeno la bontà de’ prencipi conserva in tutti il zelo de la religione cattolica, in modo che in può sperare ogni di maggior frutto, procurandosi massime la reparatione delle chiese rovinate et la restitutione de la disciplina ne’ monasterii, relassati in molti luoghi per causa della guerra’. See Cauchie and Maere, Recueil (see n. 49), p. 11. 99  P.-F.-X.  de Ram, Synodicon Belgicum sive acta omnium ecclesiarum Belgii a celebrato concilio Tridentino usque ad concordatum anni 1801, vol. 1: Archiepiscopatus Mechliniensis, Malines: Hanicq, 1828, pp. 412–23, especially p. 414. See also Liste chronologique des édits et ordonnances des Pays-Bas. Règne d’Albert et Isabelle (1598–1621), Brussels: Goemaere, 1908, p. 46. 100 ‘Moneant diligenter parochi sibi subditos, libros haereticos, vel ex professo lubricos, nullo modo legere vel habere licere; eisque prohibitiones, quae habentur in Indicibus librorum prohibitorum, Sedis Apostolicae auctoritate post Concilium editas, crebro insinuent’. See Hartzheim, Concilia (see n. 79), vol. 8, pp. 767–98, here p. 775. See also de Ram, Synodicon Belgicum (see n. 99), vol. 1, p. 367.

96 

els agten

Three conclusions can be drawn. First, Frangipani was acquainted with the fact that the preparations for a new universal Roman Index of Forbidden Books, in substitution of the 1564 Tridentine Index, were ongoing. Upon his arrival in Cologne in 1587, he was indirectly involved in the preparation of drafting this new index when he was asked by Cardinal Montalto to make inquiries about the working method of the Louvain theologians who had previously published a reliable Index of Forbidden Books for Flanders. Second, Frangipani had an outspoken preference for the 1564 Tridentine Index. In his Directorium, he urged his readership repeatedly to respect this index and he considered the catalogue as a valid instrument for book censorship. Third, Frangipani nuanced the Roman observation that book censorship in the Habsburg Netherlands was too lax when he affirmed that there was a system of control in the territory, even without the solemn publication of the universal index, and that this system came close to complying with the index. In addition, Frangipani’s letter to Cardinal Tagliavia de Terranova made clear that the promulgation of the 1596 Index did not go off without a hitch in the Habsburg Netherlands.

Censorship in the Archdiocese of Malines (1559–1795) Gerrit Vanden Bosch

Introduction In 1614 and again in 1617 – during the Twelve Years Truce between the Spanish Habsburg Netherlands and the Dutch Republic – the Archdukes Albert and I­ sabella urged the Archbishop of Malines, Mathias Hovius, to take all necessary measures in order to stop the divulgation of protestant heresy in the Church province of ­Malines, the core regions of their authority in the Low Countries.1 Obviously the Archdukes were concerned that Protestantism would spread from the Northern to the Southern Netherlands as a result of the fact that during the Truce people could move freely from North to South and vice versa. On 29 February 1616 the Archdukes published a placard forbidding printers and booksellers to print or sell new books without permission of the Archbishop.2 As an energetic and loyal ­Counter-Reformation bishop, Hovius had made great efforts to combat protestantism in his diocese. He was a ­reliable ally to the Archdukes in their defense of Catholic faith.3 A century and a half later the close collaboration between civil and ecclesiastical authorities in matters of censorship had changed completely. An incident between the leaders of Church and State that occurred in the last quarter of the eighteenth century makes this clear. During his journey through the Austrian Netherlands in 1781, the Emperor Joseph II visited the city of Malines. Cardinal Johannes Henricus von Franckenberg, Archbishop of Malines, seized the occasion to make an appeal to the Emperor, asking him to act severely against those who divulgated books written by the star authors of the Enlightenment. The cardinal especially disliked Voltaire. He considered the famous French philosopher to be no more than ‘un auteur qui a employé sa vie entière jusqu’au dernier soufle à blasphémer contre J­ésus-Christ, et à faire de 1 Archdiocesan Archives Mechelen (AAM), Acta Episcopalia Mechliniensia, 8, pp. 90–96. 2 AAM, Acta vicariatus, p. 305. 3 On Archbishop Hovius, see Cr. Harline and E. Put, A Bishop’s Tale. Mathias Hovius among His Flock in Seventeenth-Century Flanders, New Haven, CT and London, 2000.

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François, Turnhout, 2017 (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire ­Ecclésiastique, 101), pp. 97–106

F H G

DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.113403

98 

gerrit vanden bosch

criminels efforts pour renverser (…) l’autel, le trône, les moeurs, la vertu et la religion’.4 Joseph II was not impressed by this scathing judgment of the Archbishop on Voltaire. On the contrary, the only result for Franckenberg was that he himself was blamed by the government. By means of his minister plenipotentiary, the Emperor gave the cardinal the clear message that he was not in the least pleased with his initiative and that he could do very well without the interferences of the Archbishop of Malines.5 These two examples illustrating the relations between Church and State in the Southern Netherlands in matters of censorship are not very surprising. In Belgian national history the Archdukes Albert and Isabelle have a solid reputation for having been devoted Catholics, while Joseph  II is known for his sympathies towards the ideas of the Enlightenment. Church prelates for their sake were supposed to defend by all means the Catholic faith against opinions and ideas they believed could potentially be dangerous or even a threat for their flock. Nevertheless the above mentioned examples are interesting because they suggest that censorship in the archdiocese of Malines in premodern times was a story of continuously changing interests, of key figures who sometimes had identical, sometimes different agendas and of points of view that could differ according to historical circumstances. This chapter aims to point out how censorship in the archdiocese of Malines, the main diocese in the Spanish Habsburg Netherlands, developed between the end of the sixteenth and the late eighteenth century, that is between the age of confessionalism and the epoque of the Enlightenment.6 It will focus on two major questions: firstly, what were the ideas and opinions disqualified by Catholic censorship and, secondly, how did develop Church-State relationships in matters of supervision of what was produced by the printing presses and sold in bookshops? As such, it will also indicate the different stages that marked the history of censorship in the archdiocese of Malines during the premodern times. This chapter offers no full treatment of censorship in the Southern Netherlands between 1600 and 1800. It aims in the first place to present a survey on the subject for one particular diocese and is meant to encourage further research. The archives of the Archbishops of Malines will be my guide to explore this field of historical scholarship. To conclude I will formulate some suggestions on aspects of censorship in the Southern Netherlands that deserve to be investigated in detail and the possibilities offered by archival sources in diocesan archives to do so.

4  J.-F. Van de velde and P.-F.-X. De Ram, Nova et absoluta collectio synodorum tam provincialium quam dioecesanarum archiepiscopatus Mechliniensis, vol. 2, Malines, 1829, p. 513. 5  J.  Roegiers, ‘Routine, réorganisation et révolution (1759–1802)’, in: L’archevêché de MalinesBruxelles. 450 ans d’ histoire, vol. 1 (Antwerp, 2009), p. 255. 6 The Church province of Malines was erected in 1559 and consisted of the archdiocese of Malines along with the dioceses of Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp, Ypres, ’s-Hertogenbosch and Roermond. Since then, Malines was the ecclesiastical centre of the Spanish Habsburg Netherlands, while Brussels was the political capital. – G. Marnef, ‘Une mesure pour rien? Les épiscopats de Granvelle et de Hauchin (1559–1596)’, in: L’archevêché (see n. 5), pp. 63–69; M. Dierickx, De oprichting der nieuwe bisdommen in de Nederlanden onder Filips II 1559–1570, Antwerp and Utrecht, 1950; F. Postma, Nieuw licht op een oude zaak. De oprichting van de nieuwe bisdommen in 1559, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 103 (1990), 10–27.

censorship in the archdiocese of malines

 99

The Combat against Protestantism Legislation on censorship in the premodern Southern Netherlands came about d­ uring the governorship of the Duke of Alba (1567–73). The edicts issued on 15 February and 19 May 1570, along with the publication of the Index of 1570 and the Index ­purgatorius of 1571, created the legal frame to track down suspected or forbidden books. They also provided the rules printers and bookkeepers had to respect when practicing their profession of printing and selling books.7 Bishops and theologians had offered their scholarship in order to create the laws that should face Protestantism. In the newly erected archdiocese of Malines in 1559 the responsibility for recruiting competent censors who would be charged with censoring and purging books and controlling printers and booksellers fell upon the vicar-general, Maximilien Morillon, Cardinal Archbishop Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle being absent of his diocese because of political problems with his persona. A letter in that sense was addressed by Alba to Morillon on 19 May 1570.8 Shortly afterwards Morillon appointed for Brussels and Louvain, the two main cities in the newly erected archdiocese of Malines, a certain number of theologians who were charged with controlling and purging books that came from the printing press. For Brussels they were Ghislenus De Vroede, suffragan bishop of Cardinal Granvelle, Johannes Hauchin, judicial vicar who would later become Archbishop, and Martinus Coels, canon of the Brussels chapter of Saint Goedele.9 In Louvain six canons from the chapter of Saint Peter were appointed.10 These censors almost immediately assumed their task, as we learn from certificates delivered in July 1570 to the Brussels book printer Michiel Van Hamont and to some book printers and booksellers in Louvain.11 The regulations on censorship initiated and implemented by Alba and Morillon were further developed in the beginning of the seventeenth century, when Catholic Reform in the Southern Netherlands came at cruising speed. The bishops took the lead in this. During the third Provincial Council of Malines – convened in 1607 by Archbishop Hovius – they promulgated a document containing a set of rules in order to regulate the printing and selling of books.12 This Regulamentum consisted of a detailed series of instructions for booksellers, book printers and censors. The newly appointed nuncio Guido Bentivoglio, who arrived in Brussels at the end of the synod and had been charged among other things to supervise the publication of new books, would support this legislation on censorship.13 Among the most striking 7  F. Willocx, L’ introduction des décrets du Concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la Principauté de Liège, Leuven, 1929, pp. 138–48. 8 AAM, Verzameling Amatus Coriache, t. 3, fol. 582r-v. 9 AAM, Acta Episcopalia Mechliniensia, 1, fol. 146v–147r; Verzameling Amatus Coriache, 3, fol. 581rv, 585r (Dutch version); Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 7), p. 145, footnote 3. 10 AAM, Acta vicariatus, 308. These six canons were Thomas Gosaeus, Cornelius Goudanus, Henricus Gravius, Joannes Bievene, Nicolaus de Fraxinis and David Sexagius. 11 AAM, Verzameling Amatus Coriache, 3, fol. 583–84. 12  Van de velde and De Ram, Nova et absoluta collectio (see n. 4), vol. 1, pp. 338–43. The editors assumed the text of the Regulamentum to be written by the Bishop of Bruges, Charles Philippe de Rodoan (p. 338, footnote 2), referring to the acta of the provincial synod (p. 307). In his biography of this bishop the Louvain historian Michel Cloet doubted that presumption: M. Cloet, Karel-Filips de Rodoan en het bisdom Brugge tijdens zijn episcopaat (1602–1616), Brussels, 1970, pp. 109–10. 13 When setting out for Brussels, Bentivoglio had been instructed ‘ di vigilare sui libri novi’ – R. Belvederi, Guido Bentivoglio e la politica europea del suo tempo 1607–1621, Padua, 1962, p. 53.

100 

gerrit vanden bosch

stipulations was the obligation for book printers as well as booksellers to provide proof of their orthodoxy in order to obtain permission to exert their profession, along with the commitment to subdue every manuscript to be printed to previous control. Booksellers should also have at all times a full catalogue of available books on their counter. Wherever books and other printings were offered for sale, censors should be ready to exert control. In case there was no regular censor available this task should be assumed by the local priest. Censors were expected to visit at least once a year the bookshops of their jurisdiction. Forbidden books or books that were suspect or needed censorship were to be seized. Parish priests should admonish their flock repeatedly that the reading of heretical or in any other way suspected books was prohibited, referring to the Index of Forbidden Books published by the Council of Trent.14 The instructions given by the bishops in their Regulamentum were to inspire ­secular legislation concerning censorship. An ordinance published in 1608 by the Archdukes Albert and Isabella confirmed the regulations of the Provincial Council on book printing, bookselling and reading and made that they became law.15 Similar ­ordinances containing essentially the same legislation followed in 1612, 1616 and 1626.16 In matters of censorship the Archdukes clearly confined their own role to c­ onfirming and promulgating legislation conceived previously by the ecclesiastical authorities. This attitude was due to their excellent relationship with Archbishop Mathias Hovius and the eagerness they shared with him to implement the Catholic Reform program of the Council of Trent. The alliance with the nuncios during their reign was an a­ dditional support for their policy.17 How was regulation concerning censorhip that had been elaborated during the last decades of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century put into ­practice? Diocesan archives contain a wide range of sources that can provide answers to research questions related to the daily practice of censorship. Appointments of book censors by the Archbishop along with the instructions given to them, lists of ­forbidden books, correspondence and complaints about forbidden books, but also ­permissions to read them, given under severe conditions and for a limited period of time to priests and even laymen, are among the most interesting documents we can find in the d­ iocesan archives. By means of an example we take a closer look to an anonymous note, ­dated 1654, that sheds light on the practice of censorship in Brussels in the midst of the ­seventeenth century. The note is addressed to Archbishop Jacob Boonen and was ­presumably written by Amatus Coriache, his vicar-general. Coriache also presided the ecclesiastical court of the archdiocese. Combining these two major positions made him a real heavyweight in the inner circle of the Archbishop. ­According to Coriache, the local clergy of Brussels should be involved in order to prevent the spread of suspected books in the capital city of the Habsburg Netherlands. He therefore recommends the Archbishop to instruct the Brussels parish priests that in their sermons they should 14 Van de velde and De Ram, Nova et absoluta collectio (see n. 4), vol. 1, p. 367. 15  J. Machiels, Privilegie, censuur en indexen in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden tot aan het begin van de 18de eeuw, Brussels, 1997, pp. 122–23. 16  Ibidem, pp.  124–26; AAM, Verzameling Kerk en Staat, inv.nr 122 (ordonnantie 1612); AAM, Verzameling Amatus Coriache 3, fol. 595–98 (ordonnantie 1616); AAM, Acta vicariatus, inv.nr. 303 (ordonnantie 1626). 17  J.  Lefèvre and Pl.  F. Lefèvre (eds), Documents relatifs l’admission aux Pays-Bas des nonces et internonces des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Brussels and Rome, 1939, pp. 6–7.

censorship in the archdiocese of malines

 101

warn the faithful not to read or possess any heretical, dangerous or suspicious books.18 With his recommendation the v­ icar-general was completely in line with the Provincial Council of 1607. Moreover, the city dean of Brussels should give the booksellers in town the clear message they could not pretend not to be acquainted with the suspicious content of some of the books they were selling in their shops, for that would mean they had not examined their stock, as they ought to do.19 Inspection at any rate had to be encouraged, as the volume of books that were available in town, either in bookshops or forthcoming from libraries of deceased persons, raised steadily. Coriache suggests the Archbishop to intervene personally at the highest level by pleading with the Privy Council to appoint a higher number of competent book censors. Finally he urges the Archbishop to publish a decree in vernacular, containing the ecclesiastical legislation on censorship that had been elaborated at the Council of Trent and the Provincial Council of 1607, this legislation only being available in Latin made it indeed unknown to many people.20

The Jansenist Threat As a high-ranking cleric Coriache in 1654 clearly worried about censorship, and he had reasons to do so. Although by the middle of the seventeenth century Protestantism no longer represented a threat for Catholicism in the Southern Netherlands, the danger of religious conflict no longer came from outside, but from within. The well known Augustinus, written by the Bishop of Ypres Cornelius Jansenius (1585–1638) and published posthumously in Louvain in 1640, and its subsequent condemnation in Rome in 1642, would be responsible for major tensions in the Catholic Church and also for an important shift in matters of censorship. During the second half of the seventeenth and the first decades of the eighteenth century censorship would indeed become a weapon in the conflict between the so-called ‘Jansenists’ and their opponents. The Archbishops of Malines played a prominent role in this conflict, be it not always on the same side. Moreover, ‘Rome’ also interfered directly in the debates. The papal bulls that condemned the works of so-called Jansenist authors like Jansenius, Quesnel and Van Espen, always caused troubles in the archbishopric of Malines. The position of the internuncios, although they were eager to have Jansenist publications condemned, was too weak to counter successfully the resistance of the Privy Council, the Council of Brabant and the Great Council of Malines, who used the weapon of the placet to keep off Roman interference in matters of censorship.21 18 AAM, Verzameling Amatus Coriache, 3, fol. 88v: ‘Posset Illustrissimus Dominus mandare parochis huius civitatis ut aliquoties in concionibus admoneant fideles, ut libros hereticos vel lubricos vel ­suspectos nec legant’. 19  Ibidem, fol. 88r: ‘Posset dominus decanus (…) sero illos admonere, et exponere, quomodo coram Deo non excusentur a peccato, per hoc quod nescient se habere libros perniciosos in domo, si ignorantia sit voluntaria, qualis tunc censetur esse, quando ipsi non procurant, prout debent, omnes libros suos visitari’. 20 Ibidem, fol. 88v. 21  J.  Lefèvre (ed.), Documents relatifs à la juridiction des nonces et des internonces des Pays-Bas pendant le régime espagnol (1596–1706), Brussels and Rome, 1943, pp. 13, 18–20. For an inspiring overview on Jansenism and Catholic Reform in the Netherlands, see J.  Roegiers, ‘Jansenisme en katholieke hervorming in de Nederlanden’, in: E. Put, M.-J. Marinus and H. Storme (eds),

102 

gerrit vanden bosch

The complicated relationship between Jansenism and censorship in the archbishopric of Malines cannot be treated here in detail. However, we want to point out the role of two key players, being the Archbishops Humberto de Precipiano ­(1626–1711) and Thomas-Philippe d’Alsace (1679–1759).22 Both of them owed their ecclesiastical career for a great deal to their unremitting eagerness to eradicate all that they considered to be expressions of ‘Jansenism’. In order to do so they made use of the weapon of censorship. In his correspondence to Rome, De Precipiano repeatedly complained about Jansenist publications and the spread of forbidden books. He also accused his predecessor Alphonse de Berghes for having allowed this, surrounded as he was by Jansenist advisors.23 Precipiano energetically took action against theologians suspected from Jansenism. Among his victims was Joannes Opstraet, a renowned professor at the Grand Seminary in Malines. He was suspended from teaching after he had presided the public defense of theological theses that were considered not to correspond with Roman orthodoxy. Another theologian to be suspected was the Louvain professor Joannes Libertus Hennebel, who was relieved from his post as a royal censor because of his supposed Jansenist sympathies.24 In 1695 De Precipiano published himself a list containing 71 book titles that could no longer be sold or read, most of which were of Jansenist inspiration.25 In June 1703 he could proudly announce to Pope Clement XI that the French Jansenist leader Pasquier Quesnel had been arrested in Brussels and that a great amount of Jansenist papers and publications had been seized in his house.26 In 1707 the Archbishop had another list published of forbidden Jansenist printings.27 Meanwhile on the instigation of De Precipiano the magnum opus of the famous Louvain canonist Zeger-Bernard Van Espen, Jus Ecclesiasticum Universum, was put on the index in Rome in 1704.28 Cardinal Thomas-Philippe d’Alsace continued the anti-Jansenist policies of his predecessor. He became a notorious upholder of the papal bull Unigenitus, issued in 1713 by Clement  XI and condemning 101 propositions of the Réflexions morales of

Geloven in het verleden. Studies over het godsdienstig leven in de vroegmoderne tijd aangeboden aan Michel Cloet, Leuven, 1996, pp. 43–64. 22 For both Archbishops, see T.  Quaghebeur and J.  Roegiers, ‘Discorde et troubles internes (1690–1759)’, in: L’archevêché (see n.  5), pp.  189–95 and C.  De Clercq, Cinq archevêques de Malines. Tome 1:  1689–1759. Humbert-Guillaume de Precipiano, Thomas-Philippe d’Alsace et la liquidation du jansénisme, Paris, 1974. 23 L. Jadin (ed.), Relations des Pays-Bas, de Liège et de Franche-Comté avec le Saint-Siège d’après les «  lettere di vescovi  » conservées aux archives vaticanes (1566–1779), Brussels and Rome, pp.  236– 37, 273–74. On Archbishop Alphonse de Berghes and his presumed sympathies for Jansenism, see T.  Quaghebeur, ‘Catholicisme en vitesse de croisière (1648–1689)’, in: L’archevêché (see n.  5), pp. 149–50. 24  Quaghebeur and Roegiers, ‘Discorde’ (see n. 22), pp. 207–08. 25 AAM, Archives De Precipiano, III; Machiels, Privilegie (see n. 15), pp. 165–66. 26  Jadin, Relations des Pays-Bas (see n.  23), pp.  288–90. A  detailed account of this event by L.Ceyssens, Les papiers de Quesnel saisis à Bruxelles et transportés à Paris en 1703 et 1704, Revue d’ histoire ecclésiastique 44 (1949), 508–51. 27 AAM, Archives De Precipiano, III. 28  M . Nuttinck, La vie et l’œuvre de Zeger-Bernard Van Espen. Un canoniste janséniste, gallican et régalien à l’Université de Louvain (1646–1728), Leuven, 1969, pp. 301–07.

censorship in the archdiocese of malines

 103

Quesnel.29 In his own bishop’s town D’Alsace had to deal with canon Willem Van Roost, dean of the cathedral of Saint Rumbold in Malines and one of the opponents of the Archbishop’s anti-Jansenist policies. In an ordinance dated 29 August 1728 D’Alsace published a list of the writings of Van Roost, strongly forbidding to possess, to read or to distribute any of them. According to the Archbishop, it had always been the duty of popes and bishops alike ‘to eradicate the plague of pernicious books and to delete them from people’s memory’.30 The faithful had to be protected against ‘evil people who, while pretending to give bread to the children, deliver them a snake or a scorpion, or strew invisible poison on it with a malicious hand, the more difficult to remove as it is the finer’.31 That was exactly why the Jansenist writings of canon Van Roost, who obstinately refused to accept Unigenitus, had to be banned from the public and the private sphere.32 The anti-Jansenist policies of D’Alsace were supported by the Governess Mary Elisabeth of Austria, assisted by her confessor, the Hungarian Jesuit Stephan Amiodt. During the first quarter of the eighteenth century, the Cardinal-Archbishop, the Governess and her confessor constituted a triumvirate that aimed to make the influence of the Church in matters of censorship as great as possible. An ordinance on censorship published in 1729 corroborated the primacy of ecclesiastical censors with respect to the assessment of all books and other printings that were published in the Austrian Netherlands. Protests against this by the Council of Brabant remained without any result. In 1735 Amiodt prepared another ordinance on censorship, containing a list of books that had to be forbidden, dressed by Cornelis Hoynck van Papendrecht, the private secretary of Cardinal d’Alsace who had also been appointed as a book censor in 1733, and the Jesuit Charles Wouters.33 This list consisted of more than 2000 titles, mainly by Jansenist authors but also including some early representatives of the French Enlightenment. This time the heavy protestations of the Privy Council and the Council of Brabant against the tenor of the ordinance, giving the Church almost a complete monopoly relating to censorship, made that the ordinance was never published. A more restricted list presented by Amiodt in 1737 was not printed either.

A Shifting Power Balance After the Empress Maria-Theresa had taken over power in Vienna in 1740 and the Governess Maria-Elisabeth had passed away in 1741, the climate in the Aus­ trian Netherlands concerning censorship underwent another major shift. Driven by Charles de Cobenzl, Maria-Theresa’s minister-plenipotentiary in Brussels, and Patrice-François de Neny, president of the Privy Council, the Vienna government aimed at the establishment of a national Church, modeled after the French Gallican 29  L .  Ceyssens, ‘Le Cardinal d’Alsace (1679–1759)’, in: M.  Lamberigts (ed.), Le sort de la bulle Unigenitus. Recueil d’ études offert à Lucien Ceyssens à l’occasion de son 90e anniversaire (Leuven, 1992), pp. 567–603. 30 AAM, Archives D’Alsace, II: printed ordinance of Thomas-Philippe d’Alsace condemning the works of canon Guilielmus Van Roost, 29 August 1728, p. 1. 31 Ibidem, p. 6. 32 Ibidem, the list of condemned works on pp. 6–7. 33 For the appointment of Cornelis Hoynck van Papendrecht as a book censor, see: AAM, Archives of Saint Rumbold’s Cathedral, inv.nr. 1209.

104 

gerrit vanden bosch

Church.34 This aim inevitably also affected censorship and its functioning. Governments in Brussels and Vienna and the Councils of Justice in the Austrian Netherlands increasingly claimed primacy in matters of censorship at the disadvantage of the Archbishop of Malines.35 Striking in this respect was for example the rehabilitation of the formerly censored writings of Zeger-Bernard Van Espen. Ecclesiastical censors who wanted to maintain the interdiction of selling his works were overruled by the government. That was the case of canon Martinus Steyaert, the dean of Saint Rumbold’s chapter in Malines and also a book censor there. When Steyaert wanted to forbid in 1749 the selling of works by Van Espen forthcoming from the legacy of a deceased president of the Great Council, he was inhibited to do so. Van Espen’s posthumous rehabilitation was completed by the ordinance of 8 February 1755, allowing that his works could be sold freely again.36 On a more fundamental level this ordinance put an end to the vigorous anti-Jansenist legislation on censorship that had marked the first decades of the eighteenth century. In 1759 the government went even further by prohibiting the Index promulgated in 1758 by Pope Benedict XIV because it contained the works of Van Espen and other champions of regal rights.37 In the archdiocesan palace in Malines this evolution was regarded with sorrow. The long episcopate of Cardinal Johannes Henricus von Franckenberg, successor of Cardinal d’Alsace, was characterized by a difficult relationship between the Archbishop and the government, especially in matters of censorship.38 A proposal made by Franckenberg in 1768 to have all new books assessed by a secular as well as an ecclesiastical censor was rejected by the government.39 Presumably it was considered to be an attempt to regain some of the lost influence and to maintain as much as possible the authority of the Church on censorship. But the Archbishop did not renounce. In a memorandum delivered in 1777 to the Governor Charles of Lorraine he deplored the – according to him – inadequate legislation on censorship and pleaded for new measures in order to prevent the selling and reading of ‘bad books’.40 This time the government shared the concerns of the Archbishop and recognized the legislation on censorship should be reconsidered. In reality though nothing changed.41 When Franckenberg complained again in 1780, this time to charge the Enlightenment review Esprit des journaux for being a mouthpiece of anticlericalism, the government remained deaf to his complaints.42 Finally the Archbishop offered the Emperor in 1781 the above-mentioned petition in 34 J.  Roegiers, De jansenistische achtergronden van P.  F.  de Neny’s streven naar een Belgische kerk, Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden 91  (1976), 429–54; Idem, ‘Neny en de “Belgische” Kerk’, in: G. Van Dievoet (ed.), Patrice de Neny (1716–1784) et le gouvernement des Pays-Bas autrichiens (Brussels, 1987), pp. 171–88. 35  A . Puttemans, La censure dans les Pays-Bas autrichiens, Brussels, 1935, pp. 49–53. 36 Ibidem, pp. 180–81. 37 Ibidem, pp. 53, 307; Machiels, Privilegie (see n. 15), pp. 166–67. 38 For a recent survey of the life and career of Cardinal Franckenberg (1726–1804), see Roegiers, ‘Routine’ (see n. 5), pp. 236–96. 39 AAM, Acta vicariatus, inv.nr. 301 (copy); Puttemans, La censure (see n. 35), pp. 55–56. 40 AAM, Acta vicariatus, inv.nr. 290/j; Puttemans, La censure (see n. 35), p. 65. 41 Puttemans, La censure (see n. 35), pp. 66–68. 42 AAM, Acta vicariatus, inv.nr. 289–99; Puttemans, La censure (see n.  35), pp.  68–69. See also D. Droixhe (ed.), L’Esprit des journaux: un périodique européen au XVIIIe siècle. Actes du colloque

censorship in the archdiocese of malines

 105

which he pleaded once more for stronger action against the French philosophers and their writings, an imperial reprimand being his only share. Franckenberg himself also took direct action against books and other printings for which he could only feel repugnance as a Church leader. He therefore used all means that were at his disposal as an Archbishop. In a sermon preached in 1773 in Malines, Louvain and Brussels – the three main cities of his diocese – he not only lashed out against the philosophical modernism coming from France but also condemned the upcoming genre of the literary novel. At the end of his sermon the Archbishop denounced the authors of those writings as well as the book printers and book sellers distributing them. Each of them was also given a warning. Even if they managed to remain undiscovered by censorship, in the end they would not escape their final punishment: Thou shall find no means to escape the tremendous judgment of the revenging God, who shall once require from your hands the blood and soul of those men who had the horrible misfortune to lose faith (…), virtues and the salvation of their souls by reading the infamous books that thou has procured them.43 Obviously the Archbishop hoped that by using this powerful rhetoric he would be able to embank the stream of books and pamphlets considered to represent a danger to his flock. Except from sermons Franckenberg also made use of Lenten pastoral letters to inculcate the faithful not to read any books that had not received ecclesiastical approval. In 1782 he devoted a full pastoral letter to denounce the ever increasing interest for the French philosophers among the readership in his diocese. He qualified the former as ‘teachers of irrelegiosity’, whose intention it was to ruin Christianity. ‘These unfortunate times have been overwhelmed by their writings, which are truly the work of darkness’, according to the Archbishop. Without mentioning them by name he clearly aimed at Rousseau and Voltaire, ‘two well-known libertines, who earned a lifelong reputation for being sworn enemies of Jesus Christ, religion, virtue, good manners and all authority’. At the risk of committing great sin the Archbishop forbid the faithful to buy, read of distribute their works.44 This remarkable pastoral letter made it again very clear that the interests of Franckenberg in matters of censorship were at odds with those of the government officials in Brussels and Vienna. The response to the Archbishop’s diatribe came quickly. In autumn 1782 Joseph II had an ordinance published threatening with severe punishments those clerics who denied the people the lecture of certain books, pretending they contained false teachings.45 When Franckenberg defended in his Lenten pastoral letter of 1783 the primacy of the Pope and severely criticized the reading of the Bible in vernacular, he came into ‘Diffusion et transfert de la modernité dans l’Esprit des journaux’ organisé par le Groupe d’ étude du XVIIIe siècle de l’Université de Liège (Liège, 16–17 février 2009), Brussels, 2009. 43 AAM, Archives Franckenberg,  III, 2: Sermoon tegen het lezen der verderffelyke boeken, Malines: Hanicq, s.d. [1773]. 44 AAM, Archives Franckenberg, II, 1: Vasten-bulle 1782, pp. 2, 7,9,11. 45 Puttemans, La censure (see n. 35), p. 73.

106 

gerrit vanden bosch

c­ onflict again with the government. As a reply to the Archbishop’s polemical attitude a decree was promulgated on 28 September 1784 submitting henceforth pastoral letters to censorship by civil authorities.46 The communication of Church leaders with the faithful being placed under guardianship marked another important and symbolic shift in Church-State relationships in the Austrian Netherlands. Henceforward civil authorities set the tone of the discourse on censorship instead of ecclesiastical leaders. An instruction from 1786 in which Joseph II stated that printed sermons also were to be submitted to the control of civil authorities made it clear again that the power balance in matters of censorship had shifted once and for all.47 It is in a way ironical that when in 1788 the government was attempting to embank the growing amount of pamphlets criticizing the reform policies of Joseph II by a new series of censorship measures, the bishops were asked to collaborate by writing a pastoral letter. Franckenberg as well as the Bishops of Ghent and Antwerp responded to the appeal, albeit reluctantly.48 Meanwhile they recognized implicitly that censorship had to serve in the first place the interests of the government and not (anymore) those of the Church.

Some Conclusions The study of censorship in the archbishopric of Malines is an eye opener for g­ aining insight in the process of confession-building in the Southern Netherlands in the ­Early Modern Era. It also sheds light on Church-State relationships, the Archbishops of Malines being the main ecclesiastical leaders in the region and as such privileged interlocutors for civil authorities in Brussels, Madrid and Vienna. For ecclesiastical as well as civil authorities controlling and guiding the culture of reading was part of a long term strategy to anchor the faithful in a Catholic c­ onfessional environment as well as to make them loyal subjects of the State. C ­ ensorship was assumed to be an appropriate tool to implement that strategy. Although Church and State had common interests to assure the loyalty of their faithful and subjects, censorship was also a matter of disputes between them, e­ specially from 1740 onwards. Generally speaking, conflicts about censorship in the Southern Netherlands can be related to the antagonism between partisans of an ultramontane versus a Gallican Church and the assumed dominance of Church officials as far as legislation on censorship is concerned. In these conflicts the Archbishops of Malines and the Brussels government were the two protagonists, ‘Rome’ and ‘Vienna’ always remaining active players in the background. Protestantism, Jansenism and the Enlightenment subsequently were the main issues that book censors were concerned with and – as for the last two ones – of conflicting interests between ecclesiastical and civil authorities. The conflict between ‘Malines’ and ‘Brussels’ about who was to take the lead in matters of censorship was brought to an end by the end of the eighteenth century at the advantage of the ­supporters within the government of a national ‘Belgian’ Church. 46 Roegiers, ‘Routine’ (see n. 5), p. 258; Puttemans, La censure (see n. 35), pp. 234–37. 47 Puttemans, La censure (see n. 35), p. 239. 48 Ibidem, pp. 80–86.

sixteenth-century spanish editions printed in antwerp facing censorship in the hispanic world the case of the antwerp printers nutius and steelsius

César Manrique Figueroa

The printers Joannes Steelsius (Johannes Steels; Juan Steelsio) (active from 1533 to 1562) and Martinus Nutius (Martin Nucio) (active from 1539/1540 to 1558) have been traditionally linked to the rise of Antwerp as a major international centre of ­Spanish-language edition during the first half of the sixteenth century.1 As will be shown in this contribution, they were certainly aware of the lucrative ­possibilities that the coveted Iberian market might provide. Remarkably though, it was h ­ ighly ­possible that their output faced different degrees of censorship in the Spanish Habsburg ­monarchy, especially from the Philip II’s reign onwards. This article ­addresses the complicated relationship of censorship first on a local level in Antwerp, subsequently in the wider context of the Iberian Peninsula, and in the epilogue even in Spanish America.

Book Trade between the Low Countries and Spain The scholarly studies regarding the relations between the Low Countries and the ­Hispanic World during the Early Modern Period have routinely focused on different ­aspects, such as commercial, economic, political, religious, artistic, and cultural e­ xchange.2 After all, the links connecting the two regions were fabulously strengthened as the 1 I am most grateful to Violet Soen who offered helpful comments for this contribution. 2 In general, the vast majority of political and/or commercial studies focuses on the period that extends from the late fifteenth century to the Peace of Westphalia (1648). Remarkably, after the Treaty of Utrecht and the transference of the Southern Netherlands to the Austrian Habsburgs, the studies linking the two regions considerably diminish. This is partly due to the consequences of the War of the Spanish Succession, along with the increasing importance of the relations with France.

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François, Turnhout, 2017 (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire ­Ecclésiastique, 101), pp. 107–121

F H G

DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.113404

108 

césar manrique figueroa

Netherlands became part of the Habsburg Empire. Under Habsburg hegemony, two major Brabant cities were definitely the most important points of contact with the Iberian Peninsula: sixteenth-century Brussels as the centre of the political power in the region and Antwerp – and not any longer Bruges – as a trans-European centre of distribution for an extended range of products, knowledge, artisans, as well as the nucleus of a widely-branched European network of native and foreign merchants.3 A wide-ranging, high quality bibliographical production published ­mainly in Ant werp, either in Latin and Spanish was massively and seamlessly exported to the Ibe rian Peninsula, as part of the dynamic cultural and economic exchanges ­established between the two regions. Antwerp was indeed the major centre of print in sixteenth-century Netherlands. According to the models of national print cultures ­proposed by ­A ndrew Pettregree the Southern Netherlands fit into the ‘partially dispersed model’ which has a predominant centre of print (Antwerp), followed by ­other minor printing centres which carved out an independent existence at a rather modest level than the main one.4 The production of these other cities was directly linked to their main daily activities, such as the academic life of celebrated learning centres like Louvain and Douai; or the activity of the governing bodies established in Brussels.5 However, in terms of international book exportation Antwerp was entirely d­ ominant. The city located on the right bank of the Scheldt was actually a perfect place to start a fruitful printing shop of international scale in sixteenth-century Netherlands, given the movement of capital, the availability of materials, the abundance of craftspeople and last but not least the easy access to regional markets. As Werner Waterschoot observed, three distinctive features could be observed in the output of Antwerp printing houses prior to 1585: diversification, topicality and mass production.6 Several factors contributed to the production and exportation of vernacular ­Spanish titles, along with uncountable Latin editions from Antwerp to the ­Iberian World from the second quarter of the sixteenth century onwards. By the end of the 1520s the presence of Spanish speaking circles in the Netherlands, such as the ­dynamic Castilian merchant nation of Antwerp and Bruges was becoming i­ncreasingly ­important, and they were possibly the driving force behind the first Spanish e­ dition issued in Antwerp, the popular Libro Áureo de Marco Aurelio (Antwerp, Johannes Grapheus, 1529) by the famous preacher and spiritual advisor of the Emperor, the 3  H . Van der Wee and J. Materné, ‘Antwerp as a World Market in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, in: J.  Van der Stock (coord.), Antwerp, Story of a Metropolis, 16th-17th Century (Antwerp: Snoeck-Ducaju, 1993), p. 25. 4  France, Italy and the Swiss Confederation all conform to this partially dispersed model, A.  Pettegree, The Reformation and the Book. A  Reconsideration, The Historical Journal 47–4 (2004), 794. 5 Although from 1531 Brussels became the centre of the political power in the Low Countries, and one of the most important urban centres in the Duchy of Brabant, the city only attracted a limited number of printers and booksellers, namely about 20 during the sixteenth century, see: E.  Roobaert, ‘De zestiende-eeuwse Brussels boekhandelaars en hun klanten bij de Brusselse clerus’, in: A.  Tourneaux (ed.), Liber Amicorum Raphaël de Smedt. IV: Litterarum Historia (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), p. 68. 6  W.  Waterschoot, ‘Antwerp. Books Publishing and Cultural Production before 1585’, in: P. O’Brien (ed.), Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe. Golden Ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 234–35.

sixteenth-century spanish editions

 109

Franciscan Antonio de Guevara.7 This edition was issued just one year after the publication of the editio princeps (Seville, Jacobo Cromberger, 1528).8 The book had an extraordinary success among aristocratic circles, for it was destined to become one of the widely read books of the sixteenth century.9 The aforementioned Johannes Grapheus began his activity as a printer in Antwerp during the 1520s, working along with other printers, such as Gregorio de Bonte/Gregorius Bontius or Roelant Bollaert/Rollandi Bollaert.10 Grapheus had indeed contact with the humanist circles of the Netherlands, which included wellknown scholars such as Gemma Frisius or Joachim Sterck van Ringelbergh. This contact with the humanist entourage of the Emperor, along with the immediate success of the first editions of Guevara’s Libro Áureo, possibly explains the intention to publish it in Antwerp. Actually, the Spanish-speaking humanistic linked to the imperial court and the members of the Spanish nation established in Antwerp and Bruges formed a potential group of buyers/readers. In fact, a prominent member of the court might have suggested the printing of this particular book in Antwerp. By extension, it seems correct to point out that the book was originally intended to satisfy the reading needs of the Spanish public in the Netherlands, or even for those Spanish-speaking populations established in England, as Henry Thomas believed that a considerable proportion of the Spanish books printed in the Netherlands reached the island.11 What began as an early attempt to satisfy the needs of the Spanish speaking communities established in the Netherlands and beyond, or what can be considered the needs of a domestic, regional market, rapidly shift towards more distant markets such as the Iberian Peninsula from the 1530s and the 1540s. Two major factors allowed this evolution: First, the apparent lack of means of the Spanish typography, which allowed the inroad of international book from the late fifteenth century. In the words of Griffin, the scale of printing in Spain was rather modest and printers there were not able to compete with the mass-produced books coming from the presses of France, Italy and Germany.12 7  Fr. Robben, ‘L’Universe du livre à Anvers et ses relations avec l’Espagne’, in: Fr. De Nave (coord.), Christophe Plantin et le Monde Ibérique (Antwerp: Stad Antwerpen, 1992), p. 45. 8 J.  Moll, ‘Amberes y el mundo hispano del libro’, in: W.  Thomas and R.  Verdonk (eds), Encuentros en Flandes. Relaciones e intercambios hispanoflamencos a inicios de la Edad Moderna (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), p. 118. 9 Several editions followed in a few years: (Valencia, s.n., 1528), Paris (Galliot, 1529), Zaragoza (Jorge Coci, 1529) and Antwerp (Joannes Grapheus, 1529). The extended version of the Libro Áureo: Relox de Príncipes appeared simultaneously in Zaragoza (Jorge Coci, 1529) and Lisbon (Gemao Glarde, 1529). The two Guevara’s books were not only a success in Spain but throughout Europe, as they were rapidly translated into French, Italian, English, German, Latin, Russian, Swedish, Polish, Hungarian and even Armenian. Guevara was also the most popular Spanish author in sixteenthcentury England and, indeed, the first to be translated into English prose, see: Cl. Griffin, The Crombergers of Seville. The History of a Printing and Merchant Dynasty, Oxford: Clarendon, p. 154. 10 Gregorio de Bonte was active in Antwerp from 1528 to 1560 and Rolaent Bollaert was also active in Antwerp from 1526 to 1529. 11  A .  S. Wilkinson, Iberian Books/ Libros Ibéricos (IB). Books Published in Spanish or Portuguese or on the Iberian Peninsula before 1601, Leiden: Brill, 2010, p. xviii; H. Thomas, The Output of Spanish Books in the Sixteenth-Century, The Library IV/1 (1920–21), 86. 12 Griffin, The Crombergers of Seville (see n. 9), p. 3.

110 

césar manrique figueroa

Therefore, an inevitable demand for books issued abroad was generated, attracting other European publishers and booksellers able to exploit the need for books in the Spanish market, and to fill the vacuum left by the Spanish presses.13 In fact, fifteenth-century Italian booksellers did not hesitate to use previously established circuits in the traffic of other merchandise to circulate their books. As a result, the last decade of the fifteenth century was characterized by the entrepreneurial drive of Italian printer-booksellers who were increasingly associated with Spanish merchants.14 Italians were not the only foreigners interested to benefit from the growing Spanish market, French printers tailored their output to books of popular nature like Historia de la linda Melosina (Toulouse, Juan Parix & Estevan Clebat, 1489), which was one of the earliest chivalric romances destined for a Castilian readership and the first printed translation of a French roman into Castilian.15 In sum, in the Iberian Peninsula this early international book trade was largely in the hands of foreign book merchants as well.16 Second, the better knowledge of international markets displayed by foreign ­publishers. In fact, one of the distinctive features of the Antwerp publishers was ­precisely their awareness of the market by rapidly reprinting the books that sold best.17 ­Beardsley noted that by 1540 the production of books printed in Spanish outside the country overtook domestic output and a decline in the quality of Spanish ­printing also went along with this trend.18 Furthermore, Griffin remarked that it was ­significant that printers in Antwerp took advantage of their relatively low prices and the ­long-established trade links with Spain to make successful inroads into the Spanish market,19 particularly affecting local printers in a city like Seville, because of its character as a major port of entry of products of the Low Countries. To sum up, Antwerp become not only a significant centre in the printing of vernacular editions in Spanish, but also a major exporter of Latin titles extensively read in Iberian r­ eligious and civil corporations.

The Output of Steelsius and Nutius During Antwerp’s golden decades (1540–60) the careers of two Antwerp publishers stand out: those of Joannes Steelsius,20 and Martinus Nutius.21 These two printers developed strategies to cater their output to Iberian markets taking into account the needs, and tastes of the Spanish audience and the necessary requirements to export their books which had to be in conformity with the conventions of the Spanish Monarchy and its ideology. 13  M . de la Mano González, Mercaderes e Impresores del Libro en la Salamanca, Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, p. 39. 14  J.  García Oro and J.  Portela Silva, La Monarquía y los Libros en el Siglo de Oro,  Alcalá: Universidad de Alcalá, 1999, p. 39. 15  I . J. Rivera, The Historia de la linda Melosina and the Construction of Romance in Late Medieval Castile, Modern Language Notes 112/2 (1997), 131–35. 16  J. Martín Abad, Los primeros tiempos de la imprenta en España (c. 1471–1520), Madrid: Ediciones Laberinto, 2003, p. 50. 17 Waterschoot, ‘Antwerp’ (see n. 6), p. 240. 18 Th. Beardsley, Spanish printers and the Classics 1482–1599, Hispanic Review 47/1 (1979), 25–35. 19 Griffin, The Crombergers of Seville (see n. 9), p. 13. 20  P. R. León, Brief Notes on Some 16th Century Antwerp Printers with Special Reference to Jean Steelsius and His Hispanic Bibliography, De Gulden Passer 54 (1976), 78–81. 21 Martinus Nutius was active in Antwerp from 1539–40 to 1558, See: J.  Peeters-Fontainas, L’Officine espagnole de Martin Nutius à Anvers, De Gulden Passer 35 (1957), 1–104.

sixteenth-century spanish editions

 111

Joannes Steelsius started his fruitful career in 1533, he remained active in A ­ ntwerp until 1562 when his widow and heirs took over his print shop. From the very b­ eginning of his career, he targeted the cosmopolite merchant nation established in Antwerp as a p­ otential reading public, as proved by the publication of a m ­ ultilingual ­dictionary p­ ublished in ­Latin, German, French, Spanish and Italian, Diccionario Quinque ­linguarum, ­Latinae, Teuthonicae, Gallicae, Hispanicae, Italicae, dilucidissimus d­ictionarius (1534).22 The ­ ­dictionary is divided into chapters, each one dealing with different matters, such as the vocabulary used for different purposes, in different ­domains of life, in the aforementioned languages.23 This kind of multilingual ­dictionaries were published to facilitate the ­contact among the cosmopolite merchant communities e­stablished in the blooming port of ­Antwerp, where the knowledge and use of several languages was fundamental to e­ stablish contacts within the city and abroad. In the years following 1534, Steelsius clearly tailored his output to satisfy the needs of the Spanish market by printing or reprinting popular editions. In 1534 he republished (along with Grapheus) the Libro Áureo de Marco Aurelio, but unlike the previous edition of 1529 printed in quarto, Steelsius picked the pocket octavo format. The book did not hold privilege, nor license, possibly because Jacobo Cromberger was the privilege-holder for a period of ten years to print Guevara’s works.24 The Spanish bestseller was subsequently reprinted at least five times by Steelsius until 1546. (in 1539,  1540,  1543,  1545 and 1546). Finally, in 1550 the Libro Áureo containing its ­extended version Reloj de Príncipes was reprinted by Steelsius and by Martinus Nutius. These repeated Antwerp editions proved their great success and wide ­distribution. Meanwhile, early liturgical works in the vernacular were published, like the Oras en romance castellano según uso de la iglesia de Roma, en loor y alabanza de dios nuestro señor y de la gloriosa virgen santa María (1539). Martinus Nutius (active in Antwerp from 1539/1540 to 1558) became the second Antwerp publisher of the first half of the sixteenth century whose output was to a great extent focused on the Spanish nation established in the Netherlands, proving the increasing potential of this community. Because Nutius had previously worked in Steelsius’ shop, it is worth speculating whether he acquired his interest in Spanish-language books while he was Steelsius’ employee.25 In any case, inspired by the possibilities and benefits offered by the Spanish market, from his early career Nutius published almost exclusively for Spanish readers, or readers familiar with the language. In the end, ‘the student surpassed the teacher’ because in general historiography has considered Nutius’ Spanish output better in extent and quality than that of Steelsius.26 22  J. Moll, ‘Plantino y la industria editorial española’, in: F. Checa (coord.), Cristóbal Plantino. Un siglo de intercambios culturales entre Amberes y Madrid (Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 1995), p. 17. 23 Such as God, the Trinity, the power, the richness, the saints and their names, the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, the evil, the hell, the purgatory, the time, the months of the year, the days of the week, the human body and its different parts. The dictionary also included lists of substantives, adjectives, adverbs, ‘nicknames’, as well as practical idiomatic expressions currently used by native speakers. 24 Griffin, The Crombergers of Seville (see n. 9), p. 140. 25 León, Brief notes (see n. 20), p. 85. 26 León, Brief notes (see n. 20), p. 85.

112 

césar manrique figueroa

Among the several authors and different popular genres published in Spanish by Steelsius and Nutius were: Saint Augustine, the celebrated German mystic Thomas à Kempis, the Spanish Franciscans Antonio de Guevara, fray Alonso de Madrid, Juan de Dueñas and Ambrosio de Montesinos, the prestigious theologian Martín de Azpilcueta, also known as Doctor Navarro, the Spanish humanist and Charles V’ chronicler, Pedro Mexía. Regarding literature one can mention the works of the poets Juan Boscán, his friend Garcilaso de la Vega, or Juan de Mena. Among the Spanish novelists stand out, Juan de Flores, Diego de San Pedro, Fernando de Rojas and his influential Celestina, not to mention the picaresque novel Lazarillo de Tormes and its Segunda parte, as well as the Cancioneros de romances. Wide-spread Italian authors were also republished such as Ludovico Ariosto and Baldassare Castiglione. Examples of translations of Erasmus also abound, as well as contemporary historians such as Luis de Ávila y Zuñiga, Juan Calvete de la Estrella whose works dealt with European history. However, chroniclers of the Indies were also available like Pedro Cieza de León, Francisco López de Gómara, Agustín de Zárate and Portuguese historians such as Fernão Lopes da Castanheda, Francisco Alvares, as well as some works by Antonio de Nebrija and classical authors such as Aesop, Apuleius, Heliodorus, Homer, Cicero, Flavius Josephus, Sallust and Seneca. More significantly perhaps, was the fact that, the majority of the Spanish re-editions or first editions issued by Nutius and Steelsius virtually guaranteed commercial success and a rapid income in doing so; they clearly developed an editorial Spanish line intended to exportation. In fact, Spanish-language scholarly books were clearly not the target of the two Antwerp publishers, who rather focused on publishing popular devotional literature and history books, with a couple of exceptions published by other Antwerp printers, for instance, during the 1550s a couple of medical books were issued in Spanish by printers such as Hans de Laet or Arnold Birckman.27 However, as Karel Davids has recently remarked, ‘important contributions to the advancement of knowledge [within the Hispanic World] often did not appear in print, or at best only in an incomplete version’, which was partly explained by the deliberate policy of secrecy conducted by the Crown in areas like geography, cartography, and navigation technology.28 Thus, scholarly books published in Spanish were not really being published abroad. As a result, Nutius and Steelsius should be regarded as printers who were well aware of the Spanish market and its trends. This remarkable interest shown in the Spanish speaking market is not surprising, as by the mid-sixteenth century Spanish was already considered a major language, ­because of the fabulous expansion underwent by the Spanish Monarchy throughout the world. This trend is confirmed by the words of fray Tomás Padilla, translator of the Historia de las cosas de Etiopía written by the aforementioned Portuguese historian 27 For instance: Dioscorides, Acerca de la materia medicinal y de los venenos mortíferos / Pedacio Dioscorides anazarbeo, traduzido de lengua griega en la vulgar castellana & illustrado con claras y substantiales annotationes … por el doctor Andrés de Laguna, Antwerp, Hans de Laet, 1555; Leonard Fuchs, Historia de las yeruas y plantas: sacadas de Dioscoride anazarbeo y otros insígnes autores, con los nombres griegos, latinos y españoles  / traduzida nueuamente en español por Iuan Iaraua … con sus virtudes y propriedades y el vso dellas y juntamente con sus figuras pintadas al viuo, Antwerp: Arnold Birckman and Hans de Laet, 1557. 28  K . Davids, ‘Dutch and Spanish Global Networks of Knowledge in the Early Modern Period’, in: L. Roberts (ed.), Centres and Cycles of Accumulation in and Around the Netherlands during the Early Modern Period (Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2011), p. 42.

sixteenth-century spanish editions

 113

Francisco Alvares (Steelsius, 1557).29 In the dedication of this first edition, the translator shed some light on the motivations that moved Steelsius to print this particular title in Spanish. Padilla argued that Steelsius, bookseller of Antwerp and a very zealous man who always published books in benefit of the Catholic faith, had requested him to translate the book from Portuguese into Spanish. Padilla considered Portuguese a limited and rough language that was not widely spoken outside Portugal, while Spanish was not only spoken in Spain, but in Italy, Hungary, Germany and particularly in Flanders where only few gentleman and merchants could not speak it correctly. Even in France, England and Barbary many people proudly knew it. Moreover, Padilla remarked that in the Spanish Indies that represented a quarter of the known world, there were countless people who spoke Spanish stressing that throughout this vast geographical area no other language was spoken and no other laws were enforced than those of Castile.30 These revealing words illustrate that Steelsius wanted to publish the text in Spanish with the intention of having worldwide diffusion, using the language of Castile as a vehicle to reach several international readers. Therefore, Steelsius and Nutius favored this kind of publications, searching for an assured financial benefit. In contrast, their Latin output was more academic, more theological, and definitely more specialized, clearly intended to academic circuits. Accordingly, these editions can be extensively found in the Iberian World, particularly in libraries of religious institutions (diocesan seminars, mendicant monasteries, houses of the Society Of Jesus) since Latin was the lingua franca of the scholarly circles, these works in Latin included genres like theology, liturgy, history, linguistic, science, jurisprudence. Thus, by printing on the one hand, popular editions in the vernacular and by printing academic, specialized titles in Latin on the other, Steelsius and Nutius were able to reach a wide-spread range of markets and readers. They were by no means exceptional in their desire to reap the greatest rewards, because normally a pragmatic and mercantilist ideology marked to a greater or lesser extent the expectations of most European printers, publishers and booksellers involved with international book trade, not completely excluding motivations of a more personal character.31 Or in other words, the entrepreneurial spirit and impulse to make a profit was generally involved in the printing business.

Strategies to Improve the Quality and Distribution of their Spanish Output The commercialization of the Spanish output issued by Steelsius and Nutius required not only accurate knowledge of the market, but also the development of editorial strategies to ensure potential markets with their own particularities. One of the strategies developed was to resort to Spanish speaking scholars living in the Netherlands, 29 Francisco Alvares was the chaplain of King Manuel and member of the first Portuguese embassy sent to Ethiopia led by Duarte Galvao that remained in East Africa for six years. Alvares’ book was the result of a research and a compilation of materials that were later use to produce a welldocumented description about this African land. 30 See the dedication in Francisco Alvares, Historia de las Cosas de Etiopía, Antwerp: Joannes Steelsius, 1557. 31 De la Mano González, Mercaderes e Impresores del Libro (see n. 13), p. 38.

114 

césar manrique figueroa

who acted as translators or proof-readers, by extension the standards of the Spanish language were improved, assuring the linguistic accuracy and surely expecting that the result would secure a good reputation among Spanish readers, as well as economic profit.32 Examples of these learned men abound, such as Francisco de Thamara, who translated Erasmus’ Apotegmas into Spanish, as well as Martín Cordero de Valencia, Hernando de Jarava and his so-called nephew Juan de Jarava.33 In fact, the two Antwerp publishers reached a remarkable degree of specialization of their Spanish output. By the mid-1550s they clearly knew how to issue high quality editions of popular Spanish texts which favored successful inroads in the Spanish market in detriment to domestic shops. In this regard, the dedicatory letter of the edition of the Obras of the poets Juan Boscán and Garcilaso de la Vega (Nutius, 1556) is revealing. Here Nutius explained the reasons to publish these well-known authors, particularly since the book had been previously printed countless times. First, Nutius declared the quality and popularity of the authors. Then he explained that such celebrated authors deserved a better edition than all the previous ones. Therefore, he corrected and rectified it in many places. As a result, Nutius proudly remarked that anyone who wished to compare any of the previous editions would notice the difference. In fact, Nutius had made some adjustments to the text, therefore, he cautiously added, that he did not dare to make these amendments without the approbation of learned men skilled in the language of Castile (probably the aforementioned Martín Cordero de Valencia).34 This particular dedication suggests that the increasing degree of specialization reached by the Spanish editions issued in Antwerp by the mid-1550s was of a very high quality, since Nutius was not only publishing best-sellers, but also making amendments to a title that was already extremely popular. However, high-quality editions published under the supervision of native speaker scholars were not enough to sell these kinds of books on foreign markets. The books had to be in conformity with Catholic orthodoxy and Spanish censorship. In this respect publishers in the Netherlands started to include imperial or royal privileges in both their Spanish and Latin editions from the 1540s. The licenses were compulsory to distribute their books in the Netherlands but they certainly proved to be of great value to have the books circulated within the Hispanic World, because these privileges materialized the legal support given by centralized catholic Institutions.

32 Some printers in Lyon were doing the same, Guillaume Rouillé, considered it worth to employ a learned Spaniard as a proof-reader to ensure the accuracy of his Spanish-language books, see: Griffin, The Crombergers of Seville (see n. 9), p. 13. 33 Juan de Jarava was established in Louvain as a ‘médico y philosopho’, he has been considered a supporter of Erasmian ideals. The two Jarava scholars were actively working for both Steelsius and Nutius as translators of classical authors, yet Juan de Jarava also published his own titles see: J. M. López Piñero and M. L. López Terrada, La traducción por Juan de Jarava de Leonhart Fuchs, y la terminología botánica castellana del siglo XVI, Valencia: Instituto de Investigaciones Documentales e Históricos Sobre la Ciencia, Universitat de Valencia, 1994. 34 See the dedication of Juan Boscan and Garcilaso De la Vega, Las obras de Boscán y algunas de Garcilaso, Antwerp: Martin Nutius, 1556.

sixteenth-century spanish editions

 115

Books published in Brabantine cities like Antwerp, held privileges granted in Brussels by one of the governing bodies in the Netherlands, the Privy Council (Conseil Secret or Geheime Raad), established in 1531 during the reign of Charles V, this ­centralized organ directly supervised the legal and administrative matters in the Low Countries.35 However, early Spanish editions published in Antwerp in the 1530s did not hold any type of license or privilege granted by the Secret Council.36 It seems that Nutius was first concerned with this legal requirement, since he obtained from the Emperor a privilege dated in 1544 to print wide-read Spanish authors such as Juan de Guevara and Juan de Dueñas. Furthermore, Steelsius obtained in 1548 the imperial privilege to print Seneca’s Spanish translations.37 Thus, from the 1540s, the works issued by both Steelsius and Nutius hold a direct imperial privilege, such as the one granted for Luis de Ávila y Zúñiga’s Comentario de la guerra de Alemania (Steelsius, 1550). El Emperador Nuestro Señor, consintió y permitió a Iuan Steelsio, librero jurado y admisso por su M. que el solo pudiesse imprimir, vender, y distribuir por todos sus reynos y señoríos, el Comentario de la Guerra de Alemaña, compuesto por Don Luys de Ávila y Zúñiga, con defensa que ningún otro librero o impressor, lo atreve a imprimir dentro de quatro años primeros siguientes, so pena de 20 florines, como más largamente está contenido en el Privilegio. Fecho en Bruxellas. a. 16. de Mayo. 1549. Firmado P. Lens.38 The privilege basically grants Steelsius the exclusivity to print, sell and distribute throughout the Emperor’s dominions, this particular edition, refraining other printers from publishing it within the subsequent four years, under penalty of twenty guilders. Signed in Brussels by P. Lens. This concise license, which was an excerpt of the original document, allowed the edition to freely circulate throughout the territories under Habsburg rule. Accordingly, both Steelsius and Nutius realized the extraordinary advantage offered by this license, in benefit of a wide circulation within an Empire stretching from Italy to the Netherlands to the Iberian Peninsula and overseas. During the second half of the sixteenth century, the privileges of the Spanish editions were being granted in Brussels, under the acquiescence of Philip II, like the 1559 printed political treatise and mirror of princes, Concejo y consejeros del príncipe by Fadrique Furió Ceriol, in which Philip II granted the widow of Martinus Nutius the privilege to print this treaty during four years, refraininng other publishers to do the same.

35 Regarding these privileges see: M.  Baelde, De toekenning van drukkersoctrooien door de Geheime Raad in de zestiende eeuw, De Gulden Passer 40 (1962), 19–68. 36 For instance, Antonio De Guevara, Libro Áureo de Marco Aurelio, Antwerp: Joannes Steelsius, 1534, or the Quinque linguarum, Latinae, Teuthonicae, Gallicae, Hispanicae, Italicae, dilucidissimus dictionaries, Antwerp: Joannes Steelsius, 1534. 37 Moll, ‘Amberes’ (see n. 8), pp. 120–21. 38 This privilege was included at the end of the book, see: Luis De Ávila y Zuñiga, Comentario de la Guerra de Alemania, Antwerp: Widow of Martinus Nutius, 1549.

116 

césar manrique figueroa La magestad del rei don Felipe nuestro señor concede a la viuda de Martin Nucio, que por tiempo de quatro años ella sola pueda imprimir el libro intitulado. El Concejo i Consejeros del Principe: compuesto por Fadrique Furió Ceriol: i veda a todos los otros impresores hazer lo mismo so graves penas contenidas en el original privilegio. Dado en Brusselas y subsignado. P. de Lens.39

From the on and until the transference of the remaining Southern Netherlands to the Austrian Habsburgs after the Treaty of Utrecht, the privileges of books published in the Spanish Netherlands were granted in Brussels under the acquiescence of first the Archdukes Albert and Isabella and afterwards the subsequent Spanish Kings until Charles II.

Censorship of Non-Iberian Books in Spain Finally, to fully understand the importance of the privileges as a form to avoid ­censorship and to legalize the book itself before the governing bodies in the Hispanic World, it is worth to provide an overview in terms of Spanish censorship regarding foreign books from the time of the Catholic Kings to Philip II. With the arrival of the printing press, the multiplication of copies revolutionized the conditions of i­ ntellectual work, allowing the dissemination of texts and its tremendous consequences throughout Europe. Advantages offered by this highly innovative technology were considered favorable for public utility. As to the Iberian Peninsula, the Catholic Monarchs, ­Ferdinand and Isabella almost immediately stimulated the introduction and development of printing offices. Juan Parix of Heidelberg a German publisher established the first printing office on the Iberian Peninsula in 1471–72 in the city of Segovia. During the first decades of the introduction of the printing press in Spain, the government policy concerning the import of foreign books was in general rather open. Ferdinand and Isabella considered the printed book as a tool which facilitated the implementation of political ideas and the dissemination of legislative and administrative innovations. As a consequence, the liberal book trade legislation of 1480 exempted the import of printed books in their kingdoms from any taxes because of their importance for the intellectual training of clerics and officials. However, the Catholic Monarchs also began a gradual process of royal involvement in the field of book production and book marketing.40 A pragmatic issued in July 8,  1502 established preventive censorship of books ­published in the Spanish Kingdoms through licenses granted by both civil and ecclesiastical officials designated by the law.41 The licenses mentioned in the ­ 39  Fadrique Furió Ceriol, Concejo y consejeros del príncipe, Antwerp: Widow of Martinus Nutius, 1559. 40  N.  Maillard Álvarez, Circulación y Difusión de la Cultura Escrita en Sevilla, 1550–1660. Doctoral Thesis, University of Seville, Faculty of Modern History, 2007, p. 21. 41 The civil and ecclesiastical authorities authorized to grant the licenses were the Kings themselves; the presidents of the two chancelleries of Valladolid and Ciudad Real; the Archbishops of Toledo, Seville and Granada; and the Bishops of Burgos, Salamanca and Zamora, see: J. Torre Revello, El libro la imprenta y el periodismo en América, México: UNAM, 1991, pp. 22–24.

sixteenth-century spanish editions

 117

­pragmática were also imposed upon merchants and booksellers and their agents who were i­mporting and distributing foreign books into the kingdoms.42 The Crown was convinced that the import, distribution and sale of a growing number of incoming editions should be regulated. In the future, all imported books had to be submitted for examination and approval by the appointed authorities before they were put on sale. The actual problem for the importation of foreign books in Spain came along with the Reformation and the reaction of the Catholic world against Protestant ideas. Lutheran books were rapidly entering Spain in different ways. As Henry Kamen stated, by 1521 Lutheran books translated were using the Flanders trade route to enter Spain.43 Therefore, the decade of the 1520s marked a turning point in the scrutiny of foreign books. From these years on the Spanish Inquisition took upon itself the examination of imported books, indeed, the Holy Office considered that the importation of Lutheran books, and the ideas contained in them could infect the communities of conversos. As a result, among the inquisitorial procedures against Lutheranism was the confiscation and destruction of heretic books, with an aim to safeguard doctrinal content and to preserve orthodoxy. Subsequently the decade of 1540 witnessed an increase in the number of prosecutions against Lutherans in Spain. This wave of Lutheran cases led to a radicalization of orthodoxy and a growing religious conservatism. One of the measures against the Lutheran ideas in Catholic Europe was the publication of Indexes of Forbidden Books: The first one was the Index of 1544 issued by the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris, followed by the Indices of Louvain of 1546, 1550 and 1558.44 In Rome the first Roman Index was published in 1559 under Paul IV. Meanwhile in 1551, the Spanish Inquisition proceeded with the publication of its own catalogue in four different known editions (Valladolid, Seville, Valencia and Toledo).45 The accession of Philip II in 1556 was followed by a stern policy regarding books, introducing more restrictive measures. The discovery of Protestant circles in Seville and Valladolid between 1557–58 brought to light a complex international network of import and distribution of Reformation-minded books printed mainly in Geneva and Frankfurt. These events triggered an extremely severe inquisitorial offensive on all fronts. Put in the larger context, the severe and orthodox measures of these years should be regarded within the process of confessionalization of the Hispanic Monarchy.46 The public answer of Philip II was the enactment of the famous severe Pragmática of September 7, 1558. This decree is somehow the peak of all efforts made by the Spanish Crown during the first half of the sixteenth century to control the production and circulation of books.47 42 Those who violated the law faced confiscation of their books and their profits, plus financial penalties. 43 H. Kamen, Spain, 1469–1714. A Society of Conflict, Edinburgh: Pearson Education, 1983, p. 121. 44 Other indices were published in Venice in 1549, 1554. The Portuguese Inquisition published four lists between 1547 and 1561. 45  J. Martínez de Bujanda et al., Index de l’Inquisition Espagnole, 1551, 1554, 1559, Québec: Centre d’études de la Renaissance, 1984. 46 In the words of José Martínez Millán, ‘El Espíritu confesionalista de la monarquía filipina’, see: J. Martínez Millán, La corte de Felipe II, Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1999, p. 197. 47 Maillard Álvarez, Circulación (see n. 40), p. 23.

118 

césar manrique figueroa

The Pragmática of 1558 became the basis of all subsequent Spanish book legislation until the last third of the eighteenth century.48 Concerning non-Iberian books, this law threatened with death penalty and confiscation to any book seller who dared to import any vernacular book printed outside Castile, including Aragón, Valencia, Catalonia and Navarre, and required printers and booksellers to submit copies of each title to civil authorities for examination and potential censorship in order to be examined, approved and get a license of distribution.49 This broad Counter-Reformation program culminated with the publication of the 1559 Index, prepared by inquisitor general Fernando de Valdés and published in Valladolid. This strict compilation became the cornerstone of all subsequent Spanish indices and formalized the ban on various known heretical books. The list concentrated on theological works produced by the Reformers, vernacular translations of the Bible, as well as vernacular books of hours, and some other works on natural philosophy,50 as Martin A. Nesvig remarked, ‘the Index was the expression and culmination of the horror with which censors viewed heretical ideas expressed in print’.51

Affected Editions Issued by Steelsius and Nutius To what degree the rising tide of censorship in mid-sixteenth-century Spain affected both the vernacular and Latin output of two consolidated printers like Nutius and Steelsius? And how did they (or their heirs) react towards these eventualities? After all, the privileges issued in Brussels were not completely ‘censorship-proof’. For instance, some of Steelsius’ Latin re-editions of Erasmus and other humanists like Achilles Pirmin Gasser and Bartholomaeus Westhemerus were included in the Spanish Index of 1551.52 This is not surprising, in fact from the 1530s Erasmus’ books and ideas had come under fire principally from the Spanish conservative factions, who viewed both humanism and Erasmian ideas as heretical or at least highly suspicious. This hyper orthodox campaign practically put an end to the Spanish Erasmian movement, clearly reflecting a growing climate of religious tension and schism within the Spanish Church, where the humanist tradition was collpasing giving way to the advance of religious dogmatism.53 Furthermore, during the period 1552–54 a general censure of Bibles was carried out in Spain. On September 17 1552, the Council of the Supreme Inquisition demanded the Spanish tribunals to verify if copies of an attached list of several bibles printed in different European cities like Antwerp, Basel, Lyon or Paris were circulating in their 48  F.  De Los Reyes Gómez, ‘El control legislativo y los Index inquisitoriales’, in: V.  Infantes, Fr.  López and J.-Fr.  Botrel (dirs.), Historia de la Edición y Lectura en España 1472–1914 (Madrid: Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez, 2003), p. 97. 49  F. De Los Reyes Gómez, El Libro en España y América. Legislación y censura, Madrid: ARCO/ Libros, 2000, vol. 2, p. 801. 50  D.  C. Goodman, Philip II’s Patronage of Science and Engineering, The British Journal of the History of Science 16 (1983), 50. 51  M .  Austin Nesvig, Ideology and Inquisition. The World of the Censors in Early Mexico, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009, p. 5. 52 Bujanda, Index (see n. 45), pp. 217–75. 53 Concerning Erasmianism in Spain the classic study remains M. Bataillon, Érasme et l’Espagne, originally published in 1937 and subsequently translated into Spanish.

sixteenth-century spanish editions

 119

districts. If so, the tribunals had to send a copy of each volume. The list included two bibles of Steelsius published in 1538 and 1542, which were included in the Censura generalis bibliorum (issued in Valladolid by Francisco Fernández de Córdoba 1554).54 The severe Index of 1559 kept censoring some of Steelsius’ editions such as the Novum Testamentum (1544), this book contained text and annotations by the celebrated theologian of Trent, Isidorus Clarus Brixianus,55 as well as other Latin re-editions that had escaped censorship in 1551, such as Jordan Raymundus’ Contemplationes Idiotae (1535) and its vernacular translation Contemplaciones del idiota (1550).56 Controversial contemporary works published by Steelsius such as the Doctrina Christiana (1554) by Constantino Ponce de la Fuente were equally included in the index. On the other hand, Nutius’ Spanish biblical translations of Hernando de Jarava were regarded as influenced by Erasmian biblical scholarship. As a result, all these texts were included in the Indexes of 1559, 1583 and even in that of 1799.57 Additionally, Nutius first published one of the most controversial sixteenth-century Spanish-language books, the Comentarios al catecismo cristiano (1558) of the Archbishop of Toledo, Bartolomé de Carranza. The Catecismo was prepared during Carranza’s one-year stay in Antwerp. Two dozens were sent to Spain to some theologians to be further reviewed. However, when Carranza returned to Spain in June 1558, his work already aroused suspicion and concern. As a consequence, general inquisitor Valdés rapidly ordered Melchior Cano and Domingo de Soto the theological censorship of the Catecismo. Finally, the work was included in the Index of 1559, the bulk of the edition was blocked in Antwerp, his author was imprisoned and submitted to the most famous inquisitorial process in Spanish history.58 Neither Steelsius nor Nutius could foresee the annoying consequences of publishing apparently ‘innocent’ books, a good example is provided by the publication of the second part of Lazarillo de Tormes (Nutius, 1555), which resulted in the inclusion of the first and second parts in the Index of 1559. As Reyes Coll-Tellechea has convincingly shown, it was the publication of the 1555 sequel that caused the Inquisition to intervene in the case, because the Segunda parte, had taken a turn toward political criticism of the court, which the Spanish authorities could not tolerate.59 Indeed the Segunda Parte, was read as a political provocation in a time of increasing censorship. Nutius died in 1558 and Steelsius a few years later, in 1562. Their widows and heirs took over their respective shops, and continued the vernacular and Latin editorial lines of their publications. With regard to Spanish editions both families were still 54  Bujanda, Index (see n.  45), p.  83. The list did not only included the biblical works of Steelsius, but also Bibles issued by other Antwerp’s printers such as Jacob van Liesvelt, Willem Vorsterman, Merten de Keyser (Caesar Martinus). 55 Bujanda, Index (see n. 45), p. 418. 56 Actually the Contemplaciones del idiota, had been first published in 1536 by Willem Vorsterman in Antwerp. See: Bujanda, Index (see n. 45), p. 465. 57 Among the translations were: Siete Psalmos penitenciales, Los quinze salmos del canticugrado, Las lamentaciones de Jeremías (Antwerp, M. Nutius, 1543, 1546 and 1556) and Las liciones de Job con los nueve psalmos (Nutius, 1550). 58  S . Muñoz Machado and Á. Alcalá, Los grandes procesos de la historia de España, Barcelona: Crítica, 2002, pp. 248–49. 59  R .  Coll-Tellechea, ‘The Spanish Inquisition and the Battle for Lazarillo: 1554–1555,  1573’, in: R.  Coll-Tellechea and S.  McDaniel (eds), The Lazarillo Phenomenon. Essays on the Adventures of a Classic Text (Cranbury, NJ: Rosemont Publishing, 2010), p. 78.

120 

césar manrique figueroa

printing some of the Spanish best-sellers already issued in their printing shops: like the works of all the aforementioned Ludovico Ariosto, Martín de Azpilcueta, Juan Boscán and Garcilaso de la Vega, Castiglione, Dueñas, À Kempis, Mexía, among others. Additionally, the widows and heirs of Nutius and Steelsius certainly took the initiative to publish new Spanish titles. In the case of the widow of Martinus Nutius she published first editions since 1559 such as the work of the famous political thinker Fadrique Furió Ceriol, Concejo y consejeros del príncipe (1559). In general, the widow and heirs of Nutius remained more active than the Steelsius’ family in the maintenance of the Spanish editorial line. Yet, the Steelsius family also published first editions of literary works such as Pedro Hurtado de la Vera’s Comedia intitulada doleria d’el sueño del mundo (1572), as well as the translation by the same author of the popular Italian book Historia lastimera d’el príncipe Erasto, hijo del emperador Diocletiano (1573). As a direct consequence of the severe period of Spanish censorship displayed between 1558–59 the two families avoided publishing vernacular translations of the Bible such as those made earlier by Hernando and Juan de Jarava, as well as Erasmus’ works and controversial authors such as Bartolomé de Carranza and Constantino Ponce de la Fuente. Furthermore, historians dealing with the history of the Indies such as Cieza de León, Zárate and López de Gómara were not published any longer. One possible explanation is the impact of the law issued by Philip II, on September 21, 1556 and August 14, 1560, in which no book concerning the Indies was allowed to be published without the approbation of the Royal Council.

Conclusions All of this might be taken to show that the required knowledge of the Spanish market, the degree of specialization, along with the typographic quality of the editions and the licenses of the impression obtained beforehand did not prevent the eventual inclusion of some works of Steelsius and Nutius in the Indexes of 1551 and 1559. This is remarkable, because unlike other contemporary Antwerp printers, Steelsius and Nutius did not risk to print authors with Lutheran or Calvinist convictions. Additionally, since the 1540s they were certainly aware of the imperial and royal privileges necessary to distribute their books in Spain. Often other Spanish books published in Protestant cities did not hold any kind of privilege, or they just reprinted the first editions. And further not only publishers in Amsterdam, but also in Lyon and Geneva just published without license to distribute their books in Spain. Hence, the relevance of Joannes Steelsius and Martinus Nutius consisted in the development of editorial lines that made successful inroads in the Spanish market, in a period of severe censorship and distrust to non-Iberian books. In doing so, both publishers reached a fairly coherent vision of how to adapt their products to the required needs of other markets like the Iberian one, paving the way for the next generation of Flemish printers involved with the Spanish market. Thus, despite the censorship imposed by the Index of 1559 on several vernacular and Latin works, both the heirs of Nutius and Steelsius showed resilience, ongoing vitality, as they were able to turn calamity into opportunity. By avoiding printing ‘prohibited books’ they

sixteenth-century spanish editions

 121

prolonged for some more generations the legacy of the founders of their respective printing-shops, placing their output into the Iberian market.

Epilogue On a final note, it is worth highlighting the wide diffusion of these vernacular Spanish editions issued by Steelsius and Nutius. During a book inspection carried out in the small village of Acatlán (located between the city of Puebla and the Mixteca region in Mexico) in 1604, around 460 books were collected to be reviewed by the Mexican inquisitorial authorities.60 The inventory of the collected books was done in three steps, first by a certain bachelor Esteban de Castroverde at the end of 1603. Subsequently, the list was reviewed and corrected by a certain Gabriel de Arrieta in Puebla in January, 1604. Finally, the content of the two lists was compared by a corrector of the Inquisition, the bachelor Pedro de Ayala at the request of the Bishop of Tlaxcala, don Diego Romano. In the end, Ayala’s final list (462 items in total) was the final result of the comparison between the two former memorias of all the books collected in Acatlán.61 Ayala’s final list was divided according to discipline (juridical, theological, history, grammar, and editions issued in mexicano or Nahuatl (like vocabularies or doctrines). However, the problem is that the books were listed in general without adding further information about the identity of the owners. Among the editions identified there were surprisingly several Spanish editions printed by both Martinus Nutius and Joannes Steelsius. Such as historical accounts: Francisco Alvares’ Historia de las cosas de Etiopía (Joannes Steelsius, 1557), Juan Cristóbal Calvete de la Estrella’s Viaje del muy alto y muy poderoso príncipe Don Phelippe (Martinus Nutius, 1552), Fernão Lopes da Castanheda’s Historia del Descubrimiento y conquista de la India, por los portugueses (Martinus Nutius, 1553 or 1554). Spanish translations of classical authors like Flavius Josephus, and even one of the original works of the controversial Juan de Jarava’s Problemas, o preguntas problematicas, ansi de Amor, como naturales, y a çerca del vino (Leuven, Rutger Rescius, 1544). Unfortunately, it is not known if the copies were reviewed and seized or returned to their owners. I presume that they were certainly given to their owners except probably the work of Juan de Jarava which migh have been seized. Extant copies of these sixteenth-century vernacular editions published in Antwerp are hardly to be found in modern collections in Mexico. Therefore, the importance of archival records, particularly inquisitorial sources to locate them in private or public contexts and to prove the widespread diffusion of these editions. Thus, despite all inquisitorial efforts to limit circulation and consumption of books in the Iberian World, prohibited items like the abovementioned Juan de Jarava’s book were able to reach distant circles of readers located as far as small villages in Spanish America. In the end, all this complex juridical/inquisitorial frame was simply not able to control such a massive circulation of all the printed materials throughout these vast Iberian domains. 60 The Mexican Inquisition operated since 1572. 61 The document was published in E. O’Gorman (comp.), Bibliotecas y librerías coloniales, Boletín del Archivo General de la Nación X (1939), Document I.

part ii: church and reform

Vanguard Tridentine Reform in the Habsburg Netherlands the episcopacy of robert de croÿ, bishop of cambrai (1519–56)

Violet Soen and Aurelie Van de Meulebroucke

Most of the historiography on the ‘Tridentine moment’ begins at the closure of the Council in December 1563, which, after three tiresome periods, had lasted for eighteen years. During the scholarly discussions that celebrated the legacy of ‘450 years Trent’, Nicole Lemaitre urged historians to shift their focus from the post-1563 period, as religious reform in Western Europe had started at least a century earlier and ­regularly occurred during the Council at the hands of local bishops.1 Many historians have ­meanwhile ­attempted to reassess the alleged decadency of the pre-Tridentine ­episcopacy in Europe. By interpreting late-fifteenth and early-sixteenth-century religion ­within its specific historical context, scholars have underlined the fact that late medieval t­radition, the ­existence of noble bishops, and religious reform could be compatible and ­sometimes even went hand in hand.2 This chapter takes these appeals to heart by assessing the chronology of Catholic Reform in (and around) the Habsburg Netherlands, and the role of local bishops in this movement. In the past, the historiography dealing with Catholic Reform in the Low Countries has chiefly focused on the exploratory efforts of local bishops in implementing the conciliar decrees after 1563 and on the support they

1  N.  Lemaitre, ‘L’idéal pastoral de réforme et le Concile de Trente (XIVe–XVIe siècle), in: W.  François and V.  Soen (eds), The Council of Trent. Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1540–1700), vol. 2: Between Bishops and Princes (Göttingen, 2017), pp. 9-32. 2 J. M. DeSilva, ‘Introduction. A Living Example’, in: J. M. DeSilva (ed.), Episcopal Reform and Politics in Early Modern Europe (Kirksville, MO, 2012), p. ix; G. Deregnaucourt, ‘Diocèses et évêques dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux. Les difficultés d’une frontière religieuse et politique (XVIe– XVIIIe siècles)’, in: L.  Vaccaro (ed.), Storia della Chiesa in Europa tra ordinamento politicoamministrativo e strutture ecclesiastiche (Brescia, 2005), pp. 237–38, and D. Vanysacker, ‘Bilancio storiografico della storia delle diocesi nell’area Belga-Olandese dopo la riorganizzazione del 1559’, ibidem, pp. 121–38.

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François, Turnhout, 2017 (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire ­Ecclésiastique, 101), pp. 125–144

F H G

DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.113405

126 

violet soen and aurelie van de meulebroucke

received from the Habsburg dynasty.3 Furthermore, the alleged decadence and abuses of power displayed by many noble pre-Tridentine prelates has continued to dictate research conclusions. According to this kind of ‘traditional’ literature, noble descent inevitably caused the ‘medieval’ bishops of the Low Countries to become immoral and corrupt, as they chased wealth, power, and prestige at the expense of religious duties, such as pastoral care and necessary reform measures.4 The case of Robert de Croÿ, Bishop of Cambrai and one of the few participants of the Netherlands in the first period of Trent, illustrates how noble descent and political ambition could fluidly mix with the desire for Catholic Reform without resulting in contradictory policies.5 Born as a scion of the powerful house of Croÿ, an important noble dynasty, at the start of the sixteenth century, Robert was appointed Bishop of Cambrai in 1519 at a young age. His bishopric stretched from the episcopal city of Cambrai, located along the bank of the Scheldt, up to the river’s estuary at the North Sea, and contained large parts of Dutch- and French-speaking territories in the Habsburg provinces of Flanders, Brabant, Hainaut and Artois. Throughout his ­episcopate, R ­ obert de Croÿ never failed to emphasize either his noble lineage or his ­political and military aspirations. Nevertheless, he, perhaps surprisingly, became an ­important mediator of Catholic Reform after attending the first period of Trent, and made attempts to ­introduce these changes into his bishopric, introducing ­reformist diocesan statutes in 1550/1, which remained a source of inspiration for most of the Tridentine era. As such, his life and career show a fascinating versatility which may be integral in helping to re-assess the chronology of Catholic Reform in the Netherlands. This chapter therefore seeks to address how a unique confluence of events made the wellborn Cambraisien bishop eager to implement the outlines of Catholic Reform into his bishopric, an action that placed him at the vanguard of the Tridentine ­Reform in the Habsburg Netherlands, but did so without giving up the trappings of his sumptuous and noble lifestyle.

A.  Lottin, Lille. Citadelle de la Contre-Réforme (1598–1668)?, Villeneuve-d’Ascq, 2013  (19841), pp. 62–63; F. Willocx, L’ introduction des décrets du concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principauté de Liège, Leuven, 1929, p. 155. 4 For an overview of the literature: V.  Soen and P.  Knevel, ‘Slingerbewegingen. Controverse en geschiedschrijving over religie in de zestiende-eeuwse Nederlanden’, in: Iidem (eds), Religie, hervorming en controverse in de zestiende-eeuwse Nederlanden (Publicaties van de VlaamsNederlandse Vereniging voor Nieuwe Geschiedenis, 12) (Herzogenrath, 2013), pp.  3–19; Classic views about power and corruption in T.  De Hemptinne, ‘De geestelijken’, in: W.  Prevenier (ed.), Prinsen en Poorters. Beelden van de laat-middeleeuwse samenleving in de Bourgondische Nederlanden 1384–1530 (Antwerp, 1998), pp. 60–61. Since, the connection between nobility and the Church in the Low Countries has been explicitly been reassessed in H. Cools, Mannen met macht. Edellieden en de Moderne Staat in de Bourgondisch-Habsburgse Nederlanden (1475–1530), Zutphen, 2001. 5 G. Guillaume, ‘Croy, (Robert de)’, in: H. Thiry-Van Buggenhoudt and E. Bruylant (eds), Biographie Nationale, vol.  4 (Brussels, 1866–96), p.  566. R.  Born, Les Croy. Une grande lignée hennuyère d’ hommes de guerre, de diplomates, de conseillers secrets, dans les coulisses du pouvoir, sous les ducs de Bourgogne et la Maison d’Autriche (1390–1612), Brussels, 1981, p. 106; less correct, though recent: G. Hendrix, ‘Het Decretum Gratiani van bisschop Robert de Croy’, in: L. Kenis, V.  Verspeurt, Y.  Van Loon and H.  Storme (eds), Quadraginta margaritae. Veertig jaar Maurits Sabbebibliotheek. Faculteit Theologie en Religiewetenschappen, KU Leuven (Leuven, 2014), pp. 37– 38.

3

vanguard tridentine reform

 127

Croÿ & Cambrai At first glance, Robert de Croÿ perfectly reflects the stereotyped image of a p­ re-Tridentine noble bishop holding a see that had held impressive privileges, p­ ower and prestige since the Merovingian Middle Ages.6 By the advent of the sixteenth c­ entury, however, the episcopal city of Cambrai formed part of the disputed ­borderlands b­ etween the Holy Roman Emperor, the French King, and the Duke of Burgundy. Not only did this ­border position turn Cambrai into a crucial military enclave, it also endowed its b­ ishop with great political and strategical importance.7 A statute of neutrality, first granted in the fourteenth century and renewed over the course of each succeeding century, ­assigned the city the right of (limited) self-government: although the Holy Roman Emperor helped appointing the Bishops of Cambrai, he could not make any claim upon the t­ erritory of the bishopric during military campaigns. The see also came with secular jurisdiction and worldly power endowed by the Holy Roman Emperor, including the titles of the Duke of Cambrai and Count of Le Cambrésis. As a result, the see was sought after by the many noblemen of the region, while competing rulers often tried to advance and nominate their own protégées, leading to factional strife that extended to Rome. Not surprisingly, Robert was born to one of the leading noble dynasties within these borderlands.8 The family of Croÿ stemmed from Crouy-Saint-Pierre in Picardy, a region that often switched its allegiance between the French King and the ­Burgundian Duke throughout the Hundred Years War and subsequent Franco-Burgundian

6

7 8

Robert’s appointment as a bishop was confirmed by Pope Leo X on 17 August 1519. See: I. Strubbe and L.  Voet, De Chronologie van de Middeleeuwen en de Moderne Tijden in de Nederlanden, Antwerp, 1960, p.  266. With the epochal Treaty of Verdun in 843, Cambrai turned into the periphery of Lothringia, the Middle Kingdom in between the East- and West-Carolingian Empire, eventually scattered between different rulers and regions. L. Trenard, Histoire de Cambrai, Lille, 1982, p. 107; P. Pierrard, Les diocèses de Cambrai et de Lille, Paris, 1978; J. Ruiz Ibañez and S.  Raab, Théories et pratiques de la souveraineté dans la Monarchie hispanique. Un conflit de juridictions à Cambrai, Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 55 (2000), 623–44. Trenard, Histoire de Cambrai (see n. 6), pp. 106–07; V. Soen, Exile Encounters and Cross-border Mobility in Early Modern Borderlands. The Ecclesiastical Province of Cambrai as a Transregional Node (1559–1600), Belgeo. Revue Belge de Géographie – Belgian Journal of Geography (2015), 2–13. To this day, Robert’s date of birth remains uncertain. While current biographers often suggest the years between 1506 and 1510, contemporary sources mention earlier dates. First, a sixteenth-century source cites that the Joyous Entry could only occur when Robert had reached the age of 30, placing his birth in 1499 (Lille, ADN, 3G, nr. 362: pièce. 7941). Second, a portrait by the painter Willem Key of 1547 contained an inscription stating that Robert was 56 when he completed the piece. However, since Key did not include the inscription himself and it was only added apocryphally, it is possible that the author was mistaken (see image 1); K. Jonckheere, Willem Key (1516–1568). Portrait of a Humanist Painter, Turnhout, 2011, pp. 60–62. Finally, the birth dates of Robert’s four brothers could be used to clarify a lot as well. The third son of the Croÿ-Châteaubriand couple, Robert’s oldest brother Philippe, the future lord of Chateau-Porcien, was born in 1496; Guillaume, the future cardinal, followed in 1498. Robert’s younger brothers Charles (I) and Charles (II) were born in 1507 and approximately 1510. Thus, Robert must have been born after 1499 and before 1507 at the latest. (See the Croÿ section in P. Bietenholz and T. Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus. A  Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, vol.  1, Toronto, Buffalo and London, 2003, pp. 363–70). Nevertheless, since no source material has been found to confirm that Robert’s birth occurred between 1506 and 1510, it is most likely that he was born in or around 1500–02. Born, Les Croy (see n. 5), pp. 399–402.

128 

violet soen and aurelie van de meulebroucke

Map 1: The diocese of Cambrai before Super Universas (1559) © Map made by Andrew Lancaster, and made available through Wikimedia Commons

r­ ivalry.9 Although the family was clearly patronized by the Burgundian dynasty, it ‘hedged its bets’ by keeping influence, titles, lordships and estates in the Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire, making the Croÿ a quintessential t­ ransregional family.10 Both favored and feared by the Burgundian dukes and their offspring, 9

V. Soen and H. Cools, ‘L’aristocratie transrégionale et les frontières. Les processus d’identification politique dans les maisons de Luxembourg-Saint-Pol et de Croÿ (1470–1530)’, in: V.  Soen, Y. Junot and F. Mariage (eds), L’ identité au pluriel. Jeux et enjeux des appartenances autour des anciens Pays-Bas, XIVe–XVIIIe siècles/ Identity and Identities. Belonging at stake in and around the Low Countries, 14th-18th centuries (Villeneuve d’Ascq, 2014), pp. 209–28; V. Soen, ‘La Causa Croÿ et les limites du mythe bourguignon. La frontière, le lignage et la mémoire (1465–1475),, in:­ J.-M. Cauchies and P. Peporte (eds), Mémoires conflictuelles et mythes concurrents dans les pays bourguignons (ca. 1380–1580) (Neuchâtel, 2012), pp. 81–97. 10  J.  Spangler, ‘Those in Between. Princely Families on the Margins of the Great Powers – The Franco-German Frontier 1477–1830’, in: C. Johnson and D. W. Sabean (eds), Transregional and

vanguard tridentine reform

 129

Emperor Charles V, the Croÿ family could count on royal support in attainting a variety of powerful episcopal sees throughout the borderlands. Robert’s great-uncle, Ferry de Croÿ, for example, became Bishop of Saint-Omer from 1500 to 1524,11 while his cousin, Eustachius de Croÿ, was Bishop of Arras from 1523 to 1538 and his youngest brother, Charles, was Bishop of Tournai between 1521 and 1564. The Croÿ family, however, became most attached to the see of Cambrai, since it held seniority and prestige over the adjacent bishoprics of Saint-Omer, Arras, Thérouanne and Tournai, and because the family held an unofficial monopoly on the position, providing three consecutive bishops in the first half of the sixteenth century. This familial attachment to the bishopric likely began in 1438, with the appointment of a bastard son of Duke John the Fearless and his mistress from the Croÿ family.12 In 1502, Jacques de Croÿ was the first legitimate family member to hold the see, with his nephew Guillaume succeeding him in 1516. When Guillaume was appointed as Archbishop of Toledo shortly after his installation, the see fell into the hands of his younger brother, Robert, making him the third consecutive Croÿ Bishop in Cambrai.13 The powerful Guillaume de Croÿ, Lord of Chièvres, once thought to have been the alter ego of the young Emperor Charles V and who acted as guardian to his brother’s siblings since the latter’s death, had orchestrated this series of favorable appointments.14 Yet, Robert’s nomination seems to have been made rather ad hoc and took place only after the Spanish showed unrest towards Guillaume’s recent appointment in Toledo.15 His resignation in Cambrai was meant to keep the family’s interests intact, while providing a secure income for yet another sibling: the benefices of the episcopal office consisted of 18,000 florins each year, whereas a cardinal received 24,000 florins.16 Transnational Families in Europe and Beyond. Experiences since the Middle Ages (New York, 2011), p. 134. For the anchoring in Flanders see: F. Buylaert, Repertorium van de Vlaamse Adel (ca. 1350ca. 1500), Ghent, 2011, pp. 193–94. 11  G . Moreau, ‘Ferry de Croÿ’, in: Bietenholz and Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus (see n. 8), p. 365. 12 The mother of John of Burgundy was the Duke’s mistress, Agnes de Croÿ, sister to pater familias Antoine ‘le Grand’; see Cools, Mannen (see n. 4), p. 65. 13  A . Deloffre, ‘La cité de Cambrai et les pays de Cambrésis sous les trois Croy, 1502–1556’, Mémoires de la Société d’emulation de Cambrai 43 (1888), 243–316; Cools, Mannen (see n. 4), pp. 138–39; G.  Moreau, ‘Guillaume (II) de Croy’, in: Bietenholz and Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus (see n. 8), p. 367; C. J. Destombes, Histoire de l’ église de Cambrai, vol. 2, Rijsel, 1891, p. 239. 14  V. Soen, ‘The Chièvres Legacy, the Croÿ Family and Litigation in Paris. Dynastic Identities between the Low Countries and France (1519–1559)’, in: L.  Geevers and M.  Marini (eds), Dynastic Identity in Early Modern Europe. Rulers Aristocrats and the Formation of Identities (Dorchester, 2015), pp. 1–15. 15 Chièvres, whose own marriage had remained childless, still acted as the guardian of his brother’s children, Robert’s siblings. As such, Robert’s eldest brother, Philip, inherited the Chièvres’ estates in the Habsburg Netherlands, while his very youngest brother claimed those in France. Chièvres prepared the second eldest son Guillaume for an ecclesiastical career by sending him to the University of Louvain in 1511, arranging for him the see of Cambrai in 1516, a cardinal’s hat in 1517 and the see of Toledo in 1518. Opposition in Spain, resulting in the comuneros uprising, forced him to resign from his episcopacy in Cambrai, which he then passed on to Robert in 1519 (Spangler, ‘Those’ [see n. 10], p. 137; Cools, Mannen [see n. 4], p. 131). 16  L .Schmitz-Kallenberg (ed.), Hierarchia Catholica, vol.  3, Regensburg, 1914–2003, pp. 148, 160, 314–16.

130 

violet soen and aurelie van de meulebroucke

Figure 1: Portrait of Robert de Croÿ by William Key © Private collection

Some sources indicate that young Robert may have desired a military career, preferring to defend his honor on a battlefield rather than in the Church, which possibly explains why the family chose not to proceed to the inauguration right after his appointment. As Robert lacked the theological education of either his brother or uncle in 1519, the papal nomination bull commanded Robert to prepare himself ‘until the age of 27’, enabling him to study theology in Louvain.17 Thus, Robert’s youthful appointment as a substitute for his elder brother, who had moved to another see, perfectly corresponds with the image of pre-Tridentine bishops from noble descent, who had first imagined his life to be at court and on the battlefield, rather than proceeding from an urge to become pastor of his flock. However, Robert soon became acquainted with the challenges posed to the faith by Martin Luther during his study at the University in Louvain, and, through his preceptors, even engaged in the key theological debates of his time.

17 Lille, ADN, 3G, nr. 340 (7551).

vanguard tridentine reform

 131

Louvain against Luther Upon his matriculation at the University of Louvain on 16 March 1518,18 it is likely that Chièvres was already arranging for Guillaume’s promotion in Spain, with ­Robert being recommended as his successor in Cambrai. Their younger brother, Charles, who eventually became Bishop of Tournai, would join in Louvain in 1519.19 Present in ­Louvain from 1518/9 until 1525, Robert de Croÿ probably lived at the famous Hôtel de Chièvres, a luxurious mansion in the city owned by his uncle, while also frequently spending time in the recently refurbished Renaissance Croÿ palace in nearby H ­ everlee outside the city walls.20 Thus, the Croÿ family was working to anchor itself firmly not only in the borderlands, but also within the core of Brabant, which added great favor to attending the University of Louvain at the expense of Paris or Bourges, more common for noble sons born around the Habsburg-French border. It was in Louvain that Robert learned about the theological propositions made by Luther in 1517 and the subsequent condemnation of his teachings by the Faculty of Theology in 1519. He also probably attended one of the first Lutheran book burnings in the city square in 1520.21 The academic censorship of Luther, in its turn, inspired the Pope and the cardinals to threaten him with excommunication in the bull Exsurge Domine (15 June 1520), which papal legate Aleandro instructed Robert, as the bishop-elect to p­ romulgate and implement within his bishopric.22 Despite this clear request, it remains unclear ­whether or not Robert ever published the bull, although Lutheranism did spread steadily throughout the region and especially Antwerp, causing the Dominican ­Order to provide an inquisitor for the diocese of Cambrai by 1525.23 Still, ordinances regarding tax collection signed by the bishop ‘administrateur’ show that Robert was at least involved in the administration of his bishopric at this time.24 Moreover, he 18 E.-H.-J. Reusens, A.H. Schillings and J. Wils (eds), Matricule de l’Université de Louvain, vol. III-1, Brussels, 1903–80, p. 582. 19 Charles was sent to Louvain in 1519 to study under Jacobus Latomus, who also tutored Robert. Besides Latomus, Charles enjoyed classes from Petrus Barlandus and Johannes Driedo. He matriculated at the university on 3 February 1522 (see infra). G. Moreau, ‘Charles (II) de Croÿ’, in: Bietenholz and Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus (see n. 8), p. 364. 20 The house, which was also known as the hotel d’Arschot, is said to have been the finest house of Louvain throughout the sixteenth century. J.  Roegiers, ‘Leuven en Vives’, in: G.  Tournoy, J. Roegiers and C. Coppens (eds), Vives te Leuven. Catalogus van de tentoonstelling in de Centrale Bibliotheek te Leuven 28 juni – 20 augustus 1993 (Leuven, 1993), p. 11. A few years before Robert’s matriculation, Chièvres had demolished the medieval castle and replaced it with an illustrious renaissance buildings. R. D’Udekem de Guertechin, Le château d’Héverlé et ses seigneurs. Notes historiques, Leuven, 1948, pp. 38–41. 21 K. Blockx, De veroordeling van Maarten Luther door de theologische Faculteit te Leuven, Brussels, 1958, passim; V.  Soen, ‘Exsurge Domine/Arise O Lord’ in: M.  Lamport (ed.), Encyclopedia of Martin Luther and the Reformation, in print. 22  J.  Fühner, Die kirchen- und die antireformatorische Religionspolitiek Kaiser Karls  V. in den siebzehn Provinzen der Niederlande 1515–1555, Leiden, 2004, p. 187. 23 The first Lutherans in Cambrai were identified by 1525. As a result, Antoon van den Kerkhof was appointed as episcopal inquisitor on 8 July of the same year. Fühner, Die kirchen- (see n. 22), p. 245; G. Gielis, In Reparationem Scandali. Inquisitoriale praxis in een proces tegen Brusselse Lutheriaenen (1527), Eigen Schoon en de Brabander 98 (2015), 419–44; G. Deregnaucourt, De Fénélon à la Revolution. Le clergé paroissial de l’Archevêche de Cambrai, Lille, 1991, pp. 25–26. 24 Lille, ADN, 3G, nr. 127 (1271): act by Robert de Croÿ, 28 January 1521.

132 

violet soen and aurelie van de meulebroucke

signed some edicts regarding law and order ‘faicte a Cambrai’ in 1521, which might hint a sporadic presence in his episcopal city.25 In Louvain, the theologian Jacobus Latomus, a scholar who held a great interest in scholasticism and who became one of the fiercest opponents of Luther, eventually served as Robert’s tutor.26 Previously, both Robert and Charles studied under the famous humanist Juan Luis Vives, a protégée of Chièvres and former teacher of Guillaume.27 Robert and Charles, however, had less to offer Vives than their elder brother: they lacked a cardinal’s hat and, probably due to their young age, the many connections. When both Guillaume and Chièvres died in 1521, Vives gradually passed his tutorship of the Croÿ brothers on to the aforementioned Latomus. While it is unclear when exactly Juan Luis Vives left Louvain, his correspondence with Desiderius Erasmus shows that his last months in the city were troublesome.28 In a letter from January 1522, Vives described Latomus’s efforts as follows: ‘the Stomason [i.e. Jacobus Latomus] […] is very unpopular with his colleagues; he gives himself such airs since he got the entrée to the house of the Bishop of Cambrai and they think he must be very influential because he follows that young man around everywhere […] as though either the man he follows had any influence or any power that his master might have were his to use’.29 Although this quotation seems to suggest that Vives’s tutorship of Robert de Croÿ had ended, a statement in one of his letters to fellow humanist Frans Craenevelt on 22 November 1522 shows that Robert still figured among Vives’s students, although the tutor had become increasingly displeased by the ‘burdensome task’ of educating this young nobleman.30 By the end of January 1523, at the latest, he had handed the complete tutorship of Robert and Charles over to Latomus.31 Latomus’s tutorship of Robert appears to have shaped the young prelate to a much greater extent than that of Vives. Despite the fact that Latomus was a fiery opponent of both Erasmus and Luther, he also advocated for renewal and reform within the boundaries of the existing Catholic tradition. In a disputatio quodlibetica he ­orated in Louvain during the winter of 1516 or 1517, Latomus urged the need for better conduct within both pastoral and episcopal duties, especially when it came to the a­ ccumulation of ecclesiastical offices and residences.32 Although Robert de Croÿ ­probably did not ­attend this lecture, it is probable that Latomus instructed him to act in a ­similar fashion. Robert’s appreciation of Latomus became particularly clear on 16 25 Lille, ADN, 3G, nr. 127 (1271): act by Robert de Croÿ, signed 21 September 1521 in Cambrai and 127 (1274): act by Robert de Croÿ, signed 15 September 1521 in Cambrai. 26 M. Gielis, Scholastiek en Humanisme. De kritiek van de Leuvense theoloog Jacobus Latomus op de Erasmiaanse theologiehervorming (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tilburg), 1994. 27 Roegiers, ‘Leuven en Vives’ (see n. 20), p. 16. 28 Roegiers, ‘Leuven en Vives’ (see n. 20), p. 15. 29 ‘Letter from Guy Morillon to Desiderius Erasmus, 19 January 1522’, in: A. Dalzell and J. Estes (eds), The Correspondence of Erasmus (Toronto, 1989), vol. 9, p. 15. 30 ‘Letter from Juan Luis Vives to Franciscus van Cranevelt, 8 November 1522’, in: H.  De Vocht (ed.), Literae Virorum Eruditorum ad Franciscum Craneveldium 1522–1528. A Collection of Original Letters Edited from the Manuscripts and Illustrated with Notes and Commentaries, Leuven, 1928, p. 59. 31 Roegiers, ‘Leuven en Vives’ (see n. 20), p. 15.
 32  W. François and M. Gielis, ‘Een herbronning van het ambt van de zielzorgers. De visie van de Leuvense theoloog Jacobus Latomus (1516–18)’, in: W.  François, L.  Kenis and V.  Soen (eds), Bisdommen, seminaries en de Leuvense theologische Faculteit (16de–20ste eeuw) (Leuven, 2018), forthcoming.

vanguard tridentine reform

 133

August 1519, when the latter received a doctorate in theology at the expense of Robert and Charles de Croÿ and their family. In 1526, Robert also provided his former tutor with a ­canonry in Cambrai, where Latomus would stay later in his life in order to study and write.33 One of the sharpest minds of Louvain’s theologians, Latomus was actively e­ ngaged in the anti-Lutheran polemic of the early 1520s, and Luther regarded him as one of his most threatening and intelligent adversaries. When Luther responded to the ­Louvain censura in 1520, Latomus replied shortly after with a Ratio, which ­consisted of a c­ odified series of anti-Luther lectures that Latomus had given during the summer of 1521, and in which Robert de Croÿ probably took part. By 1524, Robert engaged in the anti-Lutheran polemic by acting as a patron for a local reprint of Pope Clemens VII’s apostolic brief Pastoralis Curae. He also added a short, but instructive, introduction entitled Universis et Singulis Christifidelibus, which emphasized the importance of frequent confession.34 This related to the ongoing debate on the sacrament of penance between Catholic and Lutheran controversialists: whereas the Lutherans had renounced most Catholic sacraments, they still believed in the usefulness of confession. As Latomus had joined that debate from the very beginning, he may have acted as his pupil’s ghostwriter, or at least assisted him in his introduction to the reprint of the papal brief.35 In any case, the edition was published in Antwerp by printer Michael van Hoogstraten, who had already printed several of Latomus’s earlier works. Although Universis et Singulis Christifidelibus lacks a detailed theological ­analysis, it provides the modern reader with insights into Robert’s formative years. It adds ­considerable nuance to a proposition made by Gerard Moreau, who wrote that the ­bishop ‘had an open mind towards the new learning’. To endorse this bold statement, he cited a letter from Louvain humanist Guy Morillon to Erasmus, that ‘the young B ­ ishop of Cambrai might easily be persuaded to restrain the friars opposing Erasmus’.36 In fact, the letter was a response to Erasmus’s complaints about anti-Erasmian sermons in the Low Countries. Morillon suggested that he should ask the Prince-Bishop of Liège for help, as well as ‘the young Bishop of Cambrai […] and all other bishops involved’.37 Thus, this particular passage from Morillon’s letter does not imply that Robert may have been a supporter of the ‘new’ Lutheran learning, since he merely gives some advice in order to stop the spread of anti-Erasmian writings. Rather than ­suggesting that the young bishop leaned towards Lutheranism, the letter shows that Robert was p­ robably inclined to follow the ‘new learnings’ of biblical humanism, which is ­unsurprising 33  G .  Tournoy, ‘Jacobus Latomus of Cambron’, in: G.  Bietenholz and T.  Deutscher (eds), Contemporaries of Erasmus (see n. 8), vol. 2, pp. 304–07. 34  R . de Croÿ, Universis et Singulis Christifidelibus [Litterae quibus in dioecesi sua indulgentiae, a papa Clemente  VII concessae, 04.06.1524, publicantur], Antwerp: Michael Hillenius Hoochstratanus, 1524 (USTC 437259). 35  M .  Gielis, Kritiek van de Leuvense theologen op Erasmus’ kerkopvatting. De conflicten tussen Erasmus en theologen van de Leuvense faculteit aangaande de structuur van de kerk 1521–1524, vol. 2, (unpublished master’s thesis, University of Leuven) 1976, p. 225; W. François and V. Soen, Het Concilie van Trente (1545–63). Een tussentijdse balans van 450 jaar onderzoek, Perspectief 23 (2014), 6. 36 G. Moreau, ‘Robert de Croy’, in: Bietenholz and Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus (see n. 8), p. 369. 37 ‘Letter from Guy Morillon to Desiderius Erasmus, May 27th 1522’, in: Dalzell and Estes, Erasmus (see n. 29), p. 101.

134 

violet soen and aurelie van de meulebroucke

when one considers that Robert was a former pupil of Vives, one of Erasmus’s closest contacts. While the records provide evidence of Robert’s actions during his first seven years of study, much less is known about the period between 1525 and his Joyous Entry four years later. It is possible that both Croÿ brothers left the city in 1525, as Charles could now take possession of the see in Tournai, although Robert did not yet take up his position (arguably as a result of the formulation of his nomination patent). During the spring of 1525, Robert left Louvain to stay with his oldest brother Philip II in the family castle of Havré in Hainaut, close to the French border. A contemporary diarist adds that the future bishop went there ‘to forget a girl with whom he was in love in Louvain’.38 This last fact, a cleric being in love, may be of some importance. Indeed, the anti-clerical author of these lines, Anthoine de Lusy, a notorious gossip, explicitly categorizes Robert as ‘a bad bishop’, providing modern historians with a well-cited argument that has frequently appeared within the historiography ever since.39 In 1528, the bishop-elect travelled to Hungary, asking the Roman King, Ferdinand  I, if he could join the latter’s army in the war against the Ottomans.40 Yet, as the conflict between the Emperor and the French King drew to a close, and with peace negotiations planned to take place in the ‘neutral’ enclave of Cambrai, Robert was ordered to return to take possession of his see, probably at the instigation of both his family and the imperial court.

Early Episcopacy The Joyous Entry of Robert de Croÿ into the city of Cambrai on 13 June 1529, marked the first important moment of his episcopacy, and contemporary observers noted in detail the pomp and circumstance of the event. As a result of his installation, he could now freely act as a formal host for the negotiations of the Ladies Peace. To conclude the celebrations that accompanied the signing of this treaty, Robert sang his first mass, and it was a sequence of events that he profited from in many ways. Firstly, the peace treaty brought three Princesses, as well as many diplomats and noblemen, to the city of Cambrai. Thus, by timing his Joyous Entry with the start of the peace treaty, his episcopacy received a fleeting moment of international importance, a clever design that many chroniclers did not fail to notice.41 Secondly, his presence at the negotiations for the Ladies Peace served family business, as the treaty also included the transaction of French Croÿ properties to a French family.42 Even if it remains unclear as to what extent Robert de Croÿ was able to shape the deal, the presence of a Croÿ family member inevitably influenced the transaction.43 38  A . De Lusy, Journal d’un bourgeois de Mons, ed. A. Louant, Brussels, 1969, p. 250. 39  De Lusy, Journal (see n. 38), p. lxxiii (Introduction). 40  Born, Les Croy (see n. 5), p. 106. 41  A . Van de Meulebroucke, ‘Sur l’ombre d’une bonne paix?’ Hertog-bisschop Robrecht van Croÿ en de retoriek van zijn Blijde Intrede in Kamerijk (1529), Handelingen van de Koninklijke ZuidNederlandse Maatschappij 69 (2016), 249–64. 42 Unlike his ancestors, Chièvres’ successor, Philip II de Croÿ, had little interest in ‘hedging the bets’ and aimed to turn the Croÿ’s allegiance fully towards the Habsburg dynasty: Soen, ‘Chièvres Legacy’ (see n. 14), pp. 9–10. 43  Soen, ‘Chièvres Legacy’ (see n. 14), p. 10.

vanguard tridentine reform

 135

Figure 2: Commemorative medal of Robert de Croÿ by the German black smith Friedrich Hagenauer © Staatliche Munzsammlung München

After taking possession of his see, Robert clearly invested in the construction of a new mansion, Montplaisir, which was built in his county town of Le Câteau during the 1530s, and it became his primary residence, as he chose to live here instead of in his episcopal city.44 Although there are very few sources left documenting its existence, the bishop ‘named every part’ of his luxurious country house ‘after one particular pleasure’.45 His absence from Cambrai, when combined with his wish to maintain his personal freedom, led to an open conflict with the cathedral chapter in 1541. The issue at stake was the location for the consecration of the Holy (anointing) Oil on White Thursday: whereas Robert wanted to consecrate the Holy Oil wherever he wanted within his diocese, the chapter insisted that this could only happen in the cathedral itself. In January 1542, Governess-General Mary of Hungary sent two mediators to Cambrai, who reached a compromise in which the bishop promised that he would henceforth try to celebrate the Holy Week in his archiepiscopal city, but, if it was not possible, he could proceed with the consecration of the Holy Oil in another location.46

44  J. Dupont, Histoire ecclésiastique et civile de la ville de Cambrai et du Cambrésis, comprenant la succession des évêques et les choses les plus remarquables arrivées dans ce pays, vol. 5, Samuel Berthoud, 1759, pp. 62–70. 45  J. A. De Thou, Histoire universelle, vol. 2, Basel and Cambrai: Jean Louis Brandmuller, 1742, p. 162; D. Cloëz, Le Câteau-Cambrésis avant la Revolution, vol. 1, Le Câteau, 1895, p. 52. 46  Fühner, Die kirchen- (see n. 22), p. 163.

136 

violet soen and aurelie van de meulebroucke

Overall, military and political events overshadowed the first decades of Robert’s episcopacy. As the Ladies Peace only lasted for a brief time, the French-Habsburg ­hostilities resumed after 1536 and inspired a constant fear in Cambrai of both French and Habsburg attacks upon the city.47 During these tense moments, Robert de Croÿ always seemed prepared for battle. A chronicle described Robert’s militancy as follows: ‘fully armed with a sword in both hands made him look fearless, as he spoke with the captains in a hardy way’.48 His ambitions as a military-crusader are also mentioned by Anthoine de Lusy in his diary, as he relates that in 1534 the bishop left for Venice, hoping to embark incognito on a ship that could take him to the Holy Land. In Venice, however, the journey ended due to the Italian wars, and Robert de Croÿ and his retinue were forced to return to Cambrai.49 If one recalls the wish the bishop had uttered six years earlier to fight the Turks, one gets the impression that Robert, third son of his parents’ marriage, was initially predestined for a military career, and refused to give up his aspirations for distinguishing himself on the battlefield. By travelling to Hungary in 1528 and to Venice in 1534, he seemed ready to act in the battle for the frontiers between Christianity and Islam, although he appeared less interested in deliberately acting against the spread of Protestantism in cities like Cambrai or Antwerp, despite the anti-Lutheran education he received at Louvain.50 Even so, it is remarkable to consider that upon the death of Eustachius de Croÿ, the Bishop of Arras, in 1538, the local cathedral chapter was ready to elect Robert as his successor, which would have granted the bishop a second episcopacy, against Latomus’ advice to prevent cumulation of offices. Both Charles V and Regent Mary of Hungary, however, made strong efforts to prevent this from occurring and eventually succeeded in appointing their protégée, Antoine de Granvelle, to the post. Although it remains unclear as to why Charles V opposed the chapter’s choice, his decision was motivated by his right of nomination, which meant that the Emperor was free to forward whoever he considered most suitable for the position.51 Afterwards, on his way from Madrid to suppress the Ghent Revolt in 1540, the Emperor still interrupted his journey for a Joyous Entry into the city of Cambrai, whilst staying at Robert’s Montplaisir mansion. Shortly after this visit, however, their relationship deteriorated. When the FrenchHabsburg Wars flared, the Emperor accused Robert of having permitted the French army access to (neutral) Cambrai territory, while refusing the same privilege for the Habsburg troops. Charles’s growing anger is widely documented in a correspondence with his sister Mary. A letter from 5 November 1543, for instance, m ­ entions ‘ung fou evesque de Cambray’, who denied the Habsburg army access through his ­territory.52 47  S . Gunn, D. Grummit and H. Cools, War, State and Society in England and the Netherlands 1477–1559, Oxford, 2007, p.  16; C.  Benoit, ‘Cateau-Cambrésis. Une tentative d’une paix universelle?’, in: D.  Clauzel, C.  Giry-Deloison and C.  Leduc (eds), Arras et la Diplomatie Européenne, XVe–XVIe siècles (Arras, 1999), p. 248. 48 Cambrai, MM, Manuscrits, m. 986  (884): François Dominique Tranchant, Recueil des chroniques des évêques de Cambrai, fol. 95: toute armé avec une épée à deux mains lequel se monstra vaillant et parla aux capitains bien et hardiment. 49  De Lusy, Journal (see n. 38), p. 319. 50  Born, Les Croy (see n. 5), p. 106. 51 The Right of Nomination was established at the Ladies Peace of 1529. Fühner, Die kirchen- (see n. 22), p. 117. 52  Deloffre, ‘La cité de Cambrai’ (see n. 13), pp. 282–83.


vanguard tridentine reform

 137

­A lthough it remains unclear as to whether French s­ oldiers actually crossed the C ­ ambrai t­erritory, the Emperor did, in any case, punish the city by constructing a Habsburg ­citadel within it that officially ended its century-old political ­neutrality. Even if Charles formally promised to guard the privileges of the bishop and the ­chapter, as he did on 19 November 1543, he gradually turned the former enclave into a satellite state of the Low Countries.53

The Council of Trent By the early 1540s, it would have been difficult to predict that Robert would turn out to become a supporter of Catholic Reform, though his Louvain teachers probably inspired him to pursue this path. When the peace treaty of Crépy (1544) finally made the longplanned ecumenical council possible in 1543, Emperor Charles V initially proposed to have Cambrai, Trent, or Metz as the host town.54 The suggestion of Cambrai did not come as a surprise, for it was a neutral city at a strategic border location, a part of the Holy Roman Empire, yet Francophone. Trent’s location, however, represented a better compromise for both sides and, with the contemporary construction of a Habsburg citadel hindering everyday life in Cambrai, eventually it was decided that Trent was the most appropriate host town closer to Rome.55 Shortly after Robert de Croÿ received the convocation letter for the Council in 1544, he undertook the steps necessary to attend in concertation with his younger brother Charles, Bishop of Tournai. Recently, doubts have been raised on Charles’ participation in Trent, for he never signed the council decrees of July 1546, whereas Robert did.56 As such, it may be argued that Robert and Charles formed separate delegations, but that Charles’s advisors eventually travelled along with Robert. Although the exact composition of the delegation of the Low Countries remains unclear, the Franciscan scholars John Consilius, Jacques Maillet and Thomas Hazaert are known to have taken part in it, probably on Robert’s invitation.57 The Croÿ bishops also invited Louvain theologians, including the famous Franciscus Sonnius, chosen as delegates based on their acquaintance with Robert and the prestige of the university.58 It was in this company that Robert de Croÿ attended the Council of Trent from 7 or 8 June until 28 August, 1546. His short stay there was not exceptional, for most clergymen only briefly visited the Council.59 Moreover, the number of bishops attending the first period of Trent was very small: there were only approximately sixty bishops present by the time that Robert arrived in the Italian host town (whereas during the third period this number would increase to more than three hundred).60 53  Trenard, Histoire de Cambrai (see n. 6), p. 106; Fühner, Die kirchen- (see n. 22), p. 116, note 101, referring to an additional ordinance for the governor of the citadel, 1 March 1546, in AGR, Aud., 70, fol. 103. 54  J. O’Malley, Trent. What Happened at the Council, London, 2013, p. 72. 55 Besides its strategic position in the Holy Roman Empire, Trent was populated by inhabitants of mostly Italian origin and was located at courier’s distance from Rome. 56  O’Malley, Trent (see n. 54), p. 72. 57  Born, Les Croy (see n. 5), p. 106. 58  G .  Gielis, Hemelbestormers. Leuvense theologen en hun streven naar geloofseenheid en kerkvernieuwing (1519–1578) (unpublished doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven), 2014, p. 354. 59  François and Soen, Het Concilie van Trente (see n. 35), p. 12. 60  O’Malley, Trent (see n. 54), p. 106.

138 

violet soen and aurelie van de meulebroucke

When the delegation from Low Countries entered Trent, the fifth so-called sessio had already begun. It dealt with the doctrine of Justification, which, together with the concept of original sin, represented the core of sixteenth-century religious debate. In the general congregation of 17 July, Robert de Croÿ held an oration on the reception and augmentation of Justification, in which he emphasized the necessity and value of God’s grace, while also highlighting the significance of good works to retain a state of justification.61 Given the fact that most bishops shared this theological view, Robert’s comments were not unusual, but they provide further evidence that he continued to actively engage in religious debates.62 It is again likely that the Louvain theologians acted as his advisors and ghost-writers. Although Robert de Croÿ was not the only bishop to address the Council, a speech from him was neither obligatory nor even expected. If Robert’s brother Charles was present at Trent, he never delivered one.

Vanguard Catholic Reform Four years after visiting Trent, Robert de Croÿ convoked a synod in his own diocese, as prescribed by the decrees of the first period. Still, Trent represented only a tacit motivation for the Cambrai assembly, for it was primarily a request from the Emperor that caused Robert to convoke the clergymen of his diocese. After a rather disappointing end to the first period of Trent, Charles V took the religious matters of his Empire into his own hands after his victory at Mühlberg over the Protestant Schmalkaldian League. He forced the promulgation of two sets of agreements, namely the so-called Augsburg Interim and the Formula Reformationis.63 While he addressed the first document to German Protestants, the second consisted of a list of reform propositions intended for both the Catholic clergy and their flock in general. These imperial texts touched upon practical issues to a far greater extent than the doctrine and discipline of the Tridentine decrees, as they introduced new ecclesiastical procedures and abolished certain old practices. Besides the general command for rigor and chastity, Charles V emphasized the need for the frequent organization of (diocesan) synods, which were to be called to evaluate the religious conditions in a specific diocese.64 By the beginning of July 1548, copies of the Formula Reformationis had been sent out to all bishops of the Holy Roman Empire.65 To implement this wide-ranging reform scheme, Charles V first addressed the prelates of the ecclesiastical province of Cologne, including the Prince-Bishop of Liège, as Lutheran Reformers had initially found much support in the eastern dominions of Saxony, Hesse and Mansfeld. This resulted in a 61  Gielis, Hemelbestormers (see n. 58), p. 354; The original Latin edition of this speech was printed in ‘Sententia  R.  D. Cavensis in Generali Congregatione die 17. iulii 1546 super 2. et 3. statu iustificationis’, in: Concilium Tridentinum. Diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum nova collection, vol. 5 (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1901), pp. 350–52. 62  O’Malley, Trent (see n. 54), pp. 108–09. 63  A . Jans, De ‘Formula Reformationis’ van Karel V en haar toepassing in het bisdom Kamerijk. I, Provinciale commissie voor geschiedenis en volkskunde 11 (2001), 318; R. R. Post, Karel V’ Formula Reformationis en haar toepassing in Nederland 1548–1549, Amsterdam, 1947, pp.  1–3; V.  Soen, ‘From the Interim to the Peace of Augsburg (1548–1555)’, in: A. Melloni (ed.), Luther-encyclopedia (Berlin, 2017) (forthcoming). 64  Jans, De ‘Formula Reformationis’ (see n. 63), pp. 318–20. 65  Jans, De ‘Formula Reformationis’ (see n. 63), p. 320.

vanguard tridentine reform

 139

week-long synod in Liège.66 Following this, the Emperor also addressed the dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of Reims (outside his formal influence), namely Cambrai and Tournai, and incited them ‘to follow the Liège example’.67 Approximately two months later, Robert sent out the convocation letter for a synod to all clergy residing in Cambrai, although his brother failed to do the same for Tournai.68 It should be noted, however, that Robert’s eagerness to organize the synod may have been influenced by the contemporary course of events. Indeed, as the Cambrai Bishop had fallen into disfavor with the Emperor during the early 1540s, it is possible that Robert did not want to enrage him any further and instead tried to please him as much as possible. This hypothesis is confirmed by the printed edition of the diocesan statutes (cf. infra), which contained a very elaborate eulogy for Charles V. Although such an acclamation can be considered as a rather common captatio benevolentiae, it does seem plausible that by doing this, Robert de Croÿ implicitly aimed to win back the Emperor’s favor. The synod in Cambrai took place from 1 until 8 October 1550. Among its participants were the Carmelite auxiliary bishop Martinus Cuperus69 and Norbertine Arnoldus Streyers, abbot of the abbey of Tongerlo in Brabant. The mystic Ludovic Blosius is also said to have attended.70 The synod aimed for the reformation of the ancient Cambrai statutes, which were composed by Cambrai’s fourteenth-century Bishop Pierre D’Ailly (1351–1420) as a response to ‘contemporary religious quarrels’.71 Although it is very hard to unravel the agenda, the printed edition of the Acta & Decreta Synodi Diocesanae Cameracensis offers some insights into how the Cambrai Church assembly was organized. While a brief first edition of this work was published shortly after the synod ended in 1550, a second extended edition appeared in Paris the following year, in which Robert de Croÿ used heraldic devices to self-fashion himself as a member of a leading French dynasty.72 Whereas the first edition of the Acta & Decreta only consisted of the new statutes, the second edition also included the ancient statutes and a copy of the Formula ­Reformationis.73 66  François and Soen, Het Concilie van Trente (see n. 35), p. 10. 67 Brussels, AGR, Audiëntie, nr. 1177/4: letter of Charles V to Robert de Croÿ, 7 May 1550; Jans, De Formula Reformationis (see n. 63), p. 320. 68  Destombes, Histoire (see n. 13), pp. 248–50; Jans, De ‘Formula Reformationis’ (see n. 63), p. 321. 69 Martin de Cuper, latinised Martinus Cuperus, was born in Mechelen (Malines) around 1498. After becoming a doctor in theology at the University of Louvain in 1535 and holding several ecclesiastical positions in the Carmelite Order, Robert appointed him as his auxiliary bishop in 1541. During his career, Cuperus proved to be very devout, as he took part in the Low Countries’ delegation to Trent in 1546 and contributed to the organization of the Cambrai synod four years later. He is said to have delivered an oration at the synod, as well. After Robert’s death in 1556, Cuperus remained auxiliary bishop to Robert’s successors, Maximilien de Berghes and Louis de Berlaymont. As such, he assumedly also assisted and took part in the Cambrai Provincial Council of 1565. Destombes, Histoire (see n. 13), p. 251; P. De Ram, Mémoire sur la part que le clergé de Belgique, et spécialement le docteurs de l’université de Louvain, ont prise au concile de Trente, Brussels, 1841; Mémoires pour servir à l’ histoire littéraire des dix-sept provinces des Pays-Bas, de la principauté de Liège et de quelques contrées voisines, vol. 2, Leuven, 1768, pp. 501–02; A. Le Glay, Recherches sur l’ église métropolitaine de Cambrai, Lille, 1825, pp. 129–30. 70  Moreau, ‘Robert de Croy’ (see n. 36), p. 369; De Ram, Mémoire (see n. 69), p. 16. 71  Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 3), pp. 11–12. 72 [R. de Croÿ], Acta & Decreta Synodi dioecesanae Cameracensis, s.l., s.n., 1550 (USTC 408618); its existence is confirmed in A. Artonne, L. Guizard and O. Pontal (eds), Répertoire des Statuts Synodaux des Diocèses de L’Ancienne France du XIIIe à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1969, p. 173. 73 [R. de Croÿ] Acta & decreta Synodi dioecesanae Cameracensis, Paris: Mathieu David, 1551 (USTC 154117), the copy in Leuven: Maurits Sabbe Library, P262.45/Q° CROY Acta reproduced here and

140 

violet soen and aurelie van de meulebroucke

The second edition also contained a thorough introduction signed by Robert de Croÿ himself. Supported by an impressive number of biblical citations, the text consisted of an extensive condemnation of the ‘terrible virus of Luther’ and also contained a plea for the protection of the true, Catholic faith.74 Taken together, the Acta & Decreta Synodi Diocesanae Cameracensis are impressive examples of early counter-reformation rhetoric, and certainly swayed many contemporary opinions. Furthermore, Robert’s intentions and actions struck a powerful chord, as the multiple reprints in Mainz (1559), Douai (1604, 1614), Cambrai (1614) and Mons (1686) showed the long-lasting public favor for his reform decrees.75 In 1551, a publisher planned an edition in Louvain, but, for unknown reasons, it was never printed.76 During the first years after the synod, Robert de Croÿ made a great effort to implement reform in his diocese. In 1550, for example, he convinced the chapters of A ­ nderlecht, Dendermonde and Turnhout to promise to carry out the synodical statutes, while he summoned the chapter of Antwerp the following year to chastise them for not attending the synod and neglecting the Acta & Decreta.77 Furthermore, the b­ ishop sent a petition to Charles V that asked for support in the execution of his reform m ­ easures, which ­ owever, had also been included in the Formula Reformationis.78 It remains ­unclear, h whether the Emperor ever responded to Robert’s request. The next year, h ­ owever, represented a turning point in Robert’s involvement in religious affairs. Aloïs Jans, in a survey article, states that ‘a clear decrease of diligence is visible between 1551 and 1554’, referring to the declining amount of episcopal reform initiatives implemented by Robert as the years passed.79 Indeed, records from the city of Antwerp show that its powerful chapter and the inquisitor-generals, as opposed to the Cambrai Bishop, were given the responsibility of repressing and persecuting heretics.80 Despite the fact that Jans rightly suggests a possible connection with the outbreak of the French-Habsburg War in 1551, he seems to underestimate the burden of this conflict for Cambrai. Indeed, after the construction of the Habsburg citadel in the 1540s, Cambrai was, for the first time in more than two centuries, no longer a neutral enclave. Consequently, the strategically situated city once again became an appealing base of operations for monarchs and rulers. During 1552–53, the French army occupied Cambrai and burnt large parts of the town.81 The war lasted six more years until the signing of the peace treaty of Le Cateau-Cambresis officially ended the conflict in 1559.82 Thus, due to this military crisis, Robert de Croÿ discussed in V.  Soen, ‘Noblesse oblige? Adellijke bisschoppen en hervorming in de zestiendeeeuwse Nederlanden’, in: Kenis, Verspeurt, Van Loon and Storme, Quadraginta margaritae (see n. 5), pp. 38–39. 74  Croÿ, Acta & Decreta, fol. [E.i v]. 75  A rtonne, Guizard and Pontal, Répertoire (see n.  72), p.  173; A.  Labarre, Répertoire Bibliographique des livres imprimés en France au XVIIe siècle, Baden-Baden, 1982, p. 121. We thank Alexander Soetaert for providing this information. 76  Jans, De ‘Formula Reformationis’ (see n. 63), p. 89. 77 Mechelen, Arvichum Archiepiscopale Mechliniae (hereafter abbreviated A.A.M.), C3: fol. 69v–71r. 78 Mechelen, A.A.M., C3: fol. 76v. 79  Jans, De ‘Formula Reformationis’ (see n. 63), p. 91. 80  G .  Marnef, Antwerp in the Age of Reformation. Underground Protestantism in a Commercial Metropolis, 1550–1577, London, 1996, pp. 61–87, especially pp. 82–87. 81  Trenard, Histoire de Cambrai (see n. 6), p. 107. 82  G .  Deregnaucourt, La joyeuse entrée à Cambrai de Mgr Maximilien de Berghes (21 octobre 1559), Revue du Nord 400–01 (2013), p. 699.

vanguard tridentine reform

 141

Figure 3: Title page & Verso pages Acta & decreta Synodi dioecesanae Cameracensis, Paris: Mathieu David, 1551 © Leuven, Maurits Sabbe Library, P262.45/Q° CROY Acta

142 

violet soen and aurelie van de meulebroucke

likely put his religious ambitions on temporary hold because Cambrai needed a leader to safeguard the wellbeing of its citizens far more than a Reform-minded bishop. At the same time, however, Calvinists and Anabaptists joined itinerant Lutheran preachers in Cambrai and took advantage of Robert’s numerous distractions to continue spreading the m ­ essage of the Reformation.83 Very little is known about the last years of Robert’s episcopacy. The bishop p­ robably spent most of his time combatting both the French army and the rise of P ­ rotestantism, although he failed in his attempts to successfully stop either of them.84 He died on 31 August 1556, shortly after the end of the second period of Trent, in which he did not participate. An eighteenth-century chronicle records that, in a­ ccordance with the C ­ ambrai tradition, Robert’s body was dressed in his episcopal habit b­ efore being exposed on a bed of state for fifteen days. His funeral subsequently took place on 1 October, after his successor Maximilien de Berghes (from a rival family), had been ­ otre Dame ­appointed.85 Being the only bishop of his family buried in the Cathedral of N in Cambrai, French revolutionaries destroyed his mausoleum during the R ­ evolution.86 However, a drawing of his tomb has made it possible to roughly outline the original appearance of what must have been a very impressive tomb. Statutes of two (as yet unidentified) saints flanked the high mausoleum, with the resting bishop in his habit lying across the top of the sarcophagus. His epitaph read ‘Here lies the most ­Reverend and Illustrious, // The Lord Prince Robert de Croy // Whilst living Bishop and Duke of Cambrai, // Prince of the Holy Roman Empire, Count of C ­ ambrésis, etc. // Who died on the last day of August, in the year 1556 // Pray to God for his soul’.87 The center piece was a large coat of arms engraved with his devise ‘A Iamais Croy’, which ­connected Robert de Croÿ eternally to his beloved and glorious family.88

83  P ierrard, Les diocèses (see n. 6), pp. 101–02. 84  A . Duke, Reformation and Revolt in the Low Countries, London, 2003, pp. 72–73. Although the primary source material on the Protestant issue is rather limited, letters from Robert’s successor, Maximilien de Berghes, show that, by 1560, Calvinism had appeared in both the city of Valenciennes in Hainaut and the county of Le Câteau-Cambrésis. V.  Soen, ‘The Loyal Opposition of Jean Vendeville (1527–1592)’, in: D. Vanysacker, P. Delsaerdt, J.-P. Delville and H. Schwall (eds), The Quintessence of Lives. Intellectual Biographies in the Low Countries, presented to Jan Roegiers (Turnhout, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve: Brepols, 2010), pp.  43–62; A.  Spicer, ‘Iconoclasm on the Frontier. Le Cateau-Cambrésis, 1566’, in: K. Kolrud and M. Prusac (eds), Iconoclasm from Antiquity to Modernity (Farnham, 2014), p. 122. 85  V. Soen and L. Hollevoet, Le Borromée des anciens Pays-Bas? Maximilien de Berghes, (arch) évêque de Cambrai et l’application du Concile de Trente (1564–1567), Revue du Nord 420 (2017). 86  Dupont, Histoire (see n. 44), vol. 5, pp. 112–14. 87  R . Faille, Iconographie des évêques et archevêques de Cambrai, Cambrai, 1974, pp. 223–28 (with reproduction of the tomb). The original Latin epitaph read ‘HIC IACET REVERENDISSIMVS ET ILLVSTRISSIMVS  // PRINCEPS DOMINVS ROBERT DE CROY // DVM VIXIT EPISCOPVS ET DVX CAMERACENSIS // PRINCEPS ST. IMPERII, COMES CAMERACESII, ETC., QVI OBIIT DIE VLTIMA MENSIS AUGUSTI 1556’. E. Berteaux, Étude historique sur l’ancienne cathédrale, les évêques et les archevêques, les églises de la ville de Cambrai de l’an 500 à l’an 1798, vol. 1, Cambrai, 1908, p. 166; A. Bourgeois, Histoire Synchronologique des souverains pontifes et évêques et archévêques de Cambrai, Tournai, 1875, p. 441. 88  D. Merveille, Le Tombeau de Robert de Croÿ, évêque-duc de Cambrai, Mémoires de la Société d’Emulation de Cambrai. Agriculture, Séance et des Arts 66 (1911), 1–31.

vanguard tridentine reform

 143

Conclusions Having reassessed the episcopacy of Robert de Croÿ in Cambrai, it may be argued that he, perhaps unintentionally, represented the vanguard of Catholic Reform initiated by the local bishops of the Low Countries. Confronted with the Lutheran controversy during his formative years at the University of Louvain, the newly-appointed bishop engaged in the many challenges posed by the Reformation over the remainder of his ecclesiastical career. In 1524, for example, he patronized the publication of a papal bull regarding the need of penance. Moreover, he also headed the delegation of the Low Countries once the Council of Trent finally convened in 1545-6. Upon returning to his own episcopal seat to continue his efforts of reform at the request of the Emperor, he convoked a diocesan synod in 1550, promulgated the imperial Formula Reformationis to remedy Church life, and engaged in episcopal visits as far north as Antwerp. He even codified his reforms through a series of ecclesiastical statues that he even put into print in Paris in 1551. Yet, the difficult logistics of his time meant that he could neither forbid itinerant Protestant preachers to visit his diocese nor enforce his reform plans upon all parts of his overstretched bishopric. As noblesse oblige, Robert de Croÿ loved to boast that he originated from a powerful dynasty – a jamais Croÿ – and, being bishop in contested borderlands, he often took advantage of the opportunity to pursue his crusader ambitions as well. His life thus illustrates the complicated interplay between religious and political motivations during the Council of Trent. In this respect, Robert’s episcopacy was a very different experience from his brother’s efforts in Tournai, even though they both shared a similar theological education. As previously mentioned, Charles joined Robert in Louvain in 1519, where Latomus, Adrianus Barlandus, and Johannes Driedo all tutored him.89 He was appointed as a Bishop of Tournai in 1521 and matriculated at the University of Louvain during the following year. Early records of his episcopacy in Tournai show that he did not sympathize with biblical humanism, as he fiercely opposed Erasmus’ Colloquia as a handbook for school children, for it would ‘push the youth straight in the arms of Protestantism’.90 After his college years in Louvain, Charles went on to study in Padua, Bologna, and Rome. Yet, even though his theological education was more extensive than Robert’s, his actual engagement with the religious affairs was rather limited. As such, he probably did not join his brother in Trent and he refused to follow up on the Emperor’s request for a diocesan synod in Tournai. Charles, however, was the first bishop of the Low Countries to found a Jesuit school in his episcopal city of Tournai, an action possibly viewed as a means of countering the humanistic influence in contemporary education. Finally, his struggle against humanism continued until the end of his lifetime, as, in 1555, he complained about young councilors and lawyers ‘who just finished their studies and were completely imbued with the ideas of Erasmus’ Colloquia’. Nevertheless, Charles refused to attach himself to the vanguard of Tridentine Reform like his brother Robert.91 89  Moreau, ‘Charles (II) de Croÿ’ (see n. 19), p. 364. 90  G .  Marnef, Erasmus of Rotterdam and His Influence on the Development of the Protestant Reformation in the Southern Netherlands, Erasmus Studies 36  (2016), 35–36; J.  Decavele, De Dageraad van de Reformatie in Vlaanderen, Brussels, 1975, pp. 53–55. 91  M arnef, Erasmus (see n. 90), p. 36.

144 

violet soen and aurelie van de meulebroucke

Ultimately, this case study of Robert de Croÿ shows that studying the pre1563 period, as recommended by Nicole Lemaitre, can shed new light on the chronology of Catholic Reform in the Habsburg Low Countries. During the first fifteen years of his episcopacy, Robert de Croÿ was not pro-actively interested in changing or reforming Church life in his diocese, unlike the Southern French bishops described by Lemaitre. Yet, this reluctance changed with the convocation of the Council of Trent. At a crucial crossroads between the Holy Roman Empire, France, and the Netherlands, Robert de Croÿ used Tridentine Reform as a means for both aggrandizing his personal role as a local bishop and pastor, and through this, his family’s status. The early Tridentine-inspired reform measures introduced under his episcopacy would eventually be reprinted many times in the Cambrai diocese, and greatly influence religion in the early modern period. More immediately, Robert’s diocesan synod inspired his successor, Maximilien de Berghes, to convoke the first provincial council in the Habsburg Netherlands after the closure of Trent in 1565.92 As such, the career and fate of Robert de Croÿ proves that the elite groups remained resilient within Church infrastructures both before and after Trent, but without this ­contradicting concrete Catholic reforms within their jurisdictions.

92  A . Lottin, ‘La mise en œuvre de la réforme catholique, à travers les conciles provinciaux de Cambrai (1565, 1586, 1631)’, in: M. Aoun and J.-M. Tuffery-Andrieu (eds), Conciles provinciaux et synodes diocésains du Concile de Trente à la Révolution française. Défis ecclésiaux et enjeux politiques? Actes du colloque tenu à Strasbourg les 4 et 5 mai 2009, organisé par l’Institut de droit canonique de l’Université de Strasbourg. Collection de l’Université de Strasbourg (Straatsburg, 2010), pp. 167–86; Soen and Hollevoet, Le Borromée (see n. 45), passim.

The Church Province of Malines and Its Official Printings (1559/1607–13): A State of the Art of the Implementation of the Council of Trent in the Netherlands Dries Vanysacker Introduction This contribution assesses the implementation of the Council of Trent (1545–63) ­within the territory of the Netherlands by studying the official printings of the Church province of Malines. Until now little or nothing has been done to inventory the o­ fficial printings concerning the Tridentine decisions within the newly ­established (in 1559) Church province of Malines. Exceptions are, among others, the all too often forgotten nineteenth-century editions by J. F. Van de Velde (the tripartite ­Synopsis monumentorum collectionis proxime edendae conciliorum omnium Archiepiscopatus Mechliniensis, 1821–22)1 and by P.  F.  X.  de Ram (the tetramerous Synodicon Belgicum, 1828–32).2 In the year 2000 I did a first attempt to i­ nventory the concerned official printings in Malines3 and six years later T. Quaghebeur ­started a more c­ omprehensive but unfinished project in which he attempted to study the ­confessionalisation within the Southern Netherlands by ­examining how State and 1

2

3

J.  F.  Van de Velde, Synopsis monumentorum collectionis proxime edendae conciliorum omnium Archiepiscopatus Mechliniensis. Qua, praeter horum Conciliorum historiam, cum Provinciae, tum maxime Archidioeceseos Mechliniensis hierarchicus status, ab anno 1559, ad annum 1802. Nec non pro re nata etiam politicus, summatim exhibetur, Ghent, 1821–22. P. F. X. de Ram, Synodicon Belgicum, Malines, 1828–29; 1839; Leuven, 1858. Besides one has to mention the studies by J. Hartzheim, Concilia Germaniae, vols VII–IX, Cologne, 1767–70; Th. Gousset, Les Actes de la Province ecclésiastique de Reims, 4 vols, Reims, 1842–44 and – concerning the dioceses of Bruges, Ghent, Ypres, Antwerp and Malines – A. Artonne, L. Guizard and O. Pontal, Répertoire des statuts synodaux des diocèses de l’ancienne France, du XIIIe à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1963. D. Vanysacker, ‘De Mechelse Kerkprovincie en haar officiële drukken (1559–1607/13). Een status quaestionis’, in: K. De Jonge and G. Janssens (eds), Les Granvelle et les anciens Pays-Bas. Liber doctori Mauricio Van Durme dedicatus (Leuven, 2000), pp. 209–32.

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François, Turnhout, 2017 (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire ­Ecclésiastique, 101), pp. 145–165

F H G

DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.113406

146 

dries vanysacker

Church used communication tools to develop a confessional identity and a social ­discipline within the Church province of Malines.4 Based on the printings mentioned in the Belgica Typographica 1541–1600 (BT),5 in the Short Title Catalogue Flanders (STCV)6 and in the Universal Short Title Catalogue (USTC)7 as well as those present in the Maurits Sabbe Library of the Louvain Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies (KUL-G) and the Central Library of Louvain (KUL-C) that have not yet been inventoried within the BT and the STCV,8 and further on copies kept in the Libraries of the Abbey of Park at Heverlee (Park), the Augustinian H ­ istorical Institute at Heverlee (AugHI), the Faculty of Theology at Tilburg (Tilburg) and the ­Diocesan Seminary of Ghent (GBS), we will try to fill up this lacuna. The timespan we study here starts with the reform of the Netherlandish dioceses and ends half a century later.

The Reform of the Netherlandish Dioceses (1559)9 The ecclesiastical division of the Netherlands, which dated from the Roman period and the early Middle Ages, did not correspond any more in the sixteenth century 4  T. Quaghebeur, Communicatie en confessionalisering in de Mechelse Kerkprovincie, 1559–1713, Trajecta 15 (2006), 257–66. 5 E.  Cockx-Indestege, G.  Glorieux and B.  Op de Beeck, Belgica Typographica 1541–1600. Catalogus librorum impressorum ab anno MDXLI ad annum MDC in regionibus quae nunc Regni Belgarum partes sunt, 4 vols, Nieuwkoop, 1968–94. 6 http://www.vlaamse-erfgoedbibliotheek.be/en/stcv. We use the abbreviations as mentioned in the STCV: AAM = Mechelen - Aartsbisschoppelijk Archief; EHC = Antwerpen - Erfgoedbibliotheek Hendrik Conscience; MPM = Antwerpen - Museum Plantin-Moretus; OB-Brugge = Brugge - Openbare Bibliotheek; PBL = Hasselt - Provinciale Bibliotheek; SA-Oudenaarde = Oudenaarde - Stadsarchief; SA-Turnhout = Turnhout - Stadsarchief; SESA-Mechelen = Mechelen - Stedelijke Erfgoedbibliotheek & Stadsarchief; UA-CST = Antwerpen - Universiteit Antwerpen - Bibliotheek Stadscampus & Ruusbroecgenootschap; UGENT-CB = Gent - Universiteit Gent - Centrale Bibliotheek. 7 For the USTC, a collective database of all books published in Europe between the invention of printing and the end of the Sixteenth century, see: http://ustc.ac.uk/index.php. 8 Since some books only were obtained or inventoried after the projects ended, they could not have been implemented. 9 For a recent overview, see G. Marnef, ‘Een maat voor niets? De episcopaten van Granvelle en Hauchin (1559–1596’, in: Het aartsbisdom Mechelen-Brussel. 450 jaar geschiedenis, vol. 1: Het aartsbisdom Mechelen van de katholieke hervorming tot de revolutietijd 1559–1802 (Antwerp, 2009), pp.  63–97 (especially pp. 63–90). Further: J. Decavele, ‘Reformatie en begin katholieke restauratie 1555–1568’, in: Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden (henceforth AGN), vol. 6, 1979, (especially) pp. 181–84; M. Dierickx, De oprichting der nieuwe bisdommen in de Nederlanden onder Filips II, Antwerp and Utrecht, 1950; Idem, Documents inédits sur l’ éréction des nouveaux diocèses aux Pays-Bas, 1521–1570, 3 vols, Brussels, 1960–62; Idem, La réorganisation de la hiérarchie ecclésiastique des Pays Bas par la bulle de 1559 fût élaborée pendant la seconde période du Concile de Trente, en 1551–52, Revue d’ histoire ecclésiastique 59 (1964), 489–99; Idem, L’ érection des nouveaux diocèses aux Pays-Bas, Brussels, 1967; E. de Moreau, Histoire de l’Église en Belgique, vol. 5: L’Église des Pays-Bas 1559–1633, Brussels, 1952; Idem, ‘L’Église des Pays-Bas catholiques (1559–1795)’, in: Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques (henceforth DHGE), vol. 7, 1934, col. 621–26; G. Gielis, ‘Utinam magnam eorum haberemus’. Franciscus Sonnius en de oprichting van de nieuwe bisdommen in 1559, Communio/ Internationaal Katholiek Tijdschrift 34 (2009), 194–207; Idem, ‘Een werk van lange adem. Franciscus Sonnius, de oprichting van de nieuwe bisdommen en de incorporatie van de abdij van Tongerlo’, in: De oprichting van de nieuwe bisdommen (1559) en de weerslag op de Kempen (Herentals and Roosendaal, 2010), pp. 43–59; D. Vanysacker, ‘De historiografie met betrekking tot de invoering van de nieuwe bisdommen in de Nederlanden met bijzondere aandacht voor de historiografie betreffende ’s-Hertogenbosch, Antwerpen en Luik’, ibidem, pp. 9–24. For a general historiographical overview, see D. Vanysacker, ‘Bilancio storiografico della storia delle diocesi nell’aria belga-olandese dopo la riorganizzazione del 1559’, in: L. Vaccaro (ed.), Storia della Chiesa in Europa (Brescia, 2005), pp. 121–38.

malines and its official printings

 147

to the meanwhile strongly changed political borders, the linguistic border, and the immense increase of population. Until that period some parts were ruled by German and French bishops, while the entire part belonged to the foreign Church provinces of Cologne and Reims. Already in the years 1525–30 and 1551–52 the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V had intensely negotiated over a fundamental change of diocesan borders in the region between Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt. But one had to wait until 1559, the year in which the plan of reform that canon Franciscus Sonnius brought to Rome in 1558 was ratified by Pope Paul IV in the papal bull Super universas. On 12 May 1559 the Netherlands, with the exception of Luxemburg, were divided into three archbishoprics and fifteen bishoprics. The North-Netherlandish ecclesiastical province of Utrecht had as suffragan dioceses the dioceses of Middelburg, Haarlem, Leeuwarden, Groningen and Deventer; the French speaking ecclesiastical province of Cambrai was composed of the dioceses of Saint-Omer, Tournai, Arras and Namur. The Flemish-Brabantine Church province under the Archbishop of Malines10 was composed of the dioceses of Ypres, Bruges,11 Ghent,12 Antwerp,13 ’s-Hertogenbosch14 and Roermond.15 The Archbishop of Malines obtained the dignity of cardinal as a primate of the Netherlands. The bull mentions the motivations of the reform. First of all there are the problems of the increase of the population, and the differences of language and administration in one and the same diocese. The latter had its impact on religious education. There were also the inconvenient legal privileges, the absence of a controlling power above the bishops (own archbishops), and the ever present danger to the lay faithful, from surrounding heretic countries. The papal bull stipulated that the Prince would nominate the bishops, except for Cambrai, and that the Pope would ratify them in their dignity on the condition that they had obtained a doctorate in theology or a licentiate or doctorate in canon law. The reform of the Netherlandish dioceses, still aroused the discontent of the nobility whose relatives without university degrees could not qualify as candidates for an episcopal see. Moreover the nobility feared potential royal interference and a ­decline of its own political power within the assemblies of the Estates by the a­ dmission of bishops in the provincial Estates. Granvelle, appointed to this reorganization as Archbishop of Malines since 1560, with the title of primate and cardinal since 1561 was especially considered as figure-head of the Spanish royal absolutism by the 10 See, above all, Het aartsbisdom Mechelen-Brussel. 450 jaar geschiedenis. Deel 1(see n. 9) and the older works of P. Claessens, Histoire des archevêques de Malines, Leuven, 1881; Mechelen. Vier eeuwen aartsbisschoppelijke stad, Malines, 1961. 11 Het bisdom Brugge (1559–1984). Bisschoppen, priesters, gelovigen, Bruges, 1984. 12 Het bisdom Gent (1559–1991). Vier eeuwen geschiedenis, Ghent, 1991, 13 M. Gielis, L. Kenis, G. Marnef and K. Schelkens, In de stroom van de tijd. (4)50 jaar bisdom Antwerpen, Leuven, 2012 and C. De Clercq, Het bisdom Antwerpen 1559–1962, Antwerp, 1962. 14 J. A. Coppens, Nieuwe Beschrijving van het Bisdom van ’s Hertogenbosch, ’s-Hertogenbosch, 1840; P.  Polman, ‘Bois-le-Duc’, in: DHGE, vol.  9, 1937, col.  536–43; L.  H.  C.  Schutjes, Kerkelijke Geschiedenis van het bisdom ’s Hertogenbosch, 5 vols, ’s-Hertogenbosch, 1870–76; A. C. M. Koolen, ‘De Bossche bisschoppen 1559–1648’, in: A.  M.  Koldewij (ed.), In Buscoductis. Kunst uit de Bourgondische tijd te ’s-Hertogenbosch. De cultuur van late middeleeuwen en renaissance. Bijdragen (Maarssen, 1960), pp. 532–39; J. Peijnenburg, Zij maakten Brabant katholiek. De geschiedenis van het bisdom ’s-Hertogenbosch, vol. 1: Van evangelisatie tot schuurkerk, ’s-Hertogenbosch, 1987. 15 P. A. van den Baar, W. A. Munier and W. J. Prick, ‘De Bisschopszetel van Roermond van 1559 tot 1801. Limburgs verleden’, in: Geschiedenis van Nederlands Limburg, vol. 2 (Maastricht, 1967), pp. 531–667; P. W. F. M. Hamans, Geschiedenis van het seminarie van het eerste bisdom Roermond (1570–1813), Bruges, 1986.

148 

dries vanysacker

­ oblemen William the Silent (William of Orange), Lamoraal Count of Egmont and n Filips de Montmorency-Nivelle, Count of Horne. Granvelle was forced to leave the ­Netherlands in March 1564.16 As such, the new dioceses were criticized from the beginning. There were ­several ecclesiastical adversaries: First of all, the neighboring Archbishops of Reims and ­Cologne, and the Prince-Bishop of Liège all lost a part of their territory or j­ urisdiction. This was also the case with the archdeacons, the provosts and the canons, which saw their privileges and incomes substantially diminished. But the heaviest opposition came from the abbots and monks who saw their abbeys incorporated within the new created diocese as well as from the nobility that got competition within the provincial Estates and saw many of their sons excluded from an episcopal function or from a remunerative canonship within the cathedral chapters. Besides, the non-patrimonial regions within the north-eastern part of the new dioceses – among others Roermond – saw an increase of the royal power, while a trading-town such as Antwerp feared that severe tests of faith would keep away the merchants. Brabant lived the battle concerning the autonomy of the abbeys of ­A ffligem, Saint-Bernard (Hemiksem) and Tongerlo, that for financial reasons had been incorporated to the newly created episcopal sees of Malines, Antwerp and ­ ­’s-Hertogenbosch, respectively. Moreover the Protestant party profiled themselves more radically. The severe attitude of Philip II, the rejection of tolerance, an o­ ppression combined with the famine winter of 1565 and a disastrous financial situation of the country led to the violent iconoclastic movement on 10 August 1566.17 The f­ollowing repression by the Duke of Alba was counterproductive: those who did not leave the country resorted in disapproval and had to face armed resistance, but a general ­pardon was issued for those repentants wanting to reconcile with King and Church. ­Notwithstanding all that opposition, on 26 April 1570, all the bishops had occupied their sees within the Church province of Malines.

The Significance of the New Church Administration and of Its Official Printings for the Implementation of the Tridentine Decrees (1559–95)18 In 1925 the Church historian  A. Pasture already stated that one could not o­ verestimate the meaning of the establishment of the new dioceses in the light of the implementation of the decrees of the Council of Trent.19 On 10 March 1561, two years before the closing of the Council, Pope Paul IV appointed ten new bishops. By such an infrastructure new avenues were opened up for a fast diffusion of the ­Tridentine ideas 16 V. Soen, Between Dissent and Peacemaking. Nobility at the Eve of the Dutch Revolt (1564–1567), Revue belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 86 (2008), 735–58. 17 For a new interpretation, see A.-L.  Van Bruaene, K.  Jonckheere and R.  Suykerbuyk (eds), Beeldenstorm. Iconoclasm in the Low Countries, BMGN- Low Countries Historical Review 131/1 (2016), 1–176. 18 See, among others, E.  de Moreau, ‘L’Église des Pays-Bas catholiques (1559–1795)’, in: DHGE, vol. 7, 1934, col. 636–44: “Le Concile de Trente. Sa réception aux Pays-Bas. Diocèses, évêques et synodes sous Philippe II”. 19 A. Pasture, La restauration religieuse aux Pays-Bas catholiques sous les archiducs Albert et Isabelle (1596–1633), Leuven, 1925, p. v.

malines and its official printings

 149

and ideals, which gave greater power precisely to the bishops. The decrees and prescriptions of the ­Council of Trent were printed early and ­frequently in the ­territory of the Netherlands. After the early Latin, Dutch and French p­ rintings of the T ­ ridentine regulations concerning marriage in 1546 and 1563–64 and the ­publication of an ­Oration held by François Richardot in the eighth session of the Council by the Antwerp printer Willem Silvius,20 the first Latin printings of the Council were published by Petrus Zangrius,21 Johannes Bogardus22 and Merten ­Verhasselt23 in ­Louvain, as well by Sil­ utius26 in Antwerp. In 1565 vius,24 Johan Steelsius25 and the widow of  ­Martinus I. N 27 ­ ntwerp and by the menthere followed Latin printings by Philippus Nutius in A tioned Silvius.28 The latter were edited respectively in 1565 and in 1564–66 followed printings in Dutch29 and French.30 Still in 1565 a Dutch version of the ­Tridentine 20 Decreta, de sacramento matrimonii, et de reformatione: publicata in sessione octava … concilii Tridentini. Sub … Pio  IIII … Die  XI. novemb. M.D.LXIII., Antwerp, 1563 (MPM, R2811(5), see BT, no  5570; STCV, no  12919480 and USTC, no  409415 and 409478); Decreten ende bevelen vanden sacramente des houwelijcx. Ende vander reformatie. Aldus gheordonneert … in … Trenten. Den XI. novemb. M.D. LXIII., Antwerp, 1563 (BT, no 836) and Decrets, du sacrement de mariage. Et de reformation, publiee en la session huitiesme du sainct Concile de Trente. Sous … Pius  IIII … De XI. de novembr. M.D.LXIII., Antwerp, 1563 (BT, no 8146; USTC no 401134). [Franciscus Richardotus,] Oratio habita in sessione octava Sacrosancti Concilii oecumenici Tridentini  […] M.D.LXIII, Antwerp, �ex officina Gulielmi Silvij᾽, 1563 (MPM R28.11 (3), see STCV, no 12919479; USTC, no 409477). 21 Canones et Decreta sacrosancti et generalis concilii Tridentini. Sub Paulo  III. Iulio  III. Pio  IIII. Pontificibus. Omnia Sancte Sedis Apostolicae auctoritate confirmata, Leuven, 1564 (KUL-G, P262.529.3/Q° CANO; see also BT, no 552; USTC, no 409497). 22 Canones, et decreta sacrosancti oecvmenici et generalis concilii Tridentini. Sub Paulo III. Iulio III. Pio  IIII. Pontificibus Max. cvm Pii. IIII. Pontificis Max. confirmatione quam ad calcem reperies, Leuven, 1564 (BT, no 8015 and Tilburg, TFK-A 13.658). Bogardus also printed Decreta, publicata in sessione nona et ultima … concilii Tridentini … Diebus III & IIII. decemb. M.D.LXIII., Leuven, 1564 (BT, no 835; USTC, no 407221). The same printer had edited an Oration by Petrus Fontidonius at Trente: Oratio habita ad patres Tridentinos, Leuven, 1563 (USTC, no 409425). 23 Canones et decreta sacrosancti et generalis concilii Tridentini. Sub Paulo  III. Julio  III. Pio  III. … In hac nostra editione romanum exemplar, cum ipso originali summa fide collatum, ac Pii  IIII. … auctoritate in lucem editum …, Leuven, 1564 (KUL-C, BRES-R2A13473 and Tilburg, TFH-A 4761, see also BT, no 8016; USTC, no 409496). 24 Canones, et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici et generalis concilii Tridentini. Sub Paulo III. Julio III. Pio IIII. … Cum Pii IIII. … confirmatione …, Antwerp, 1564 (BT, no 8014; USTC, no 409496). 25 Universum sacrosanctum concilium Tridentinum, oecumenicum, ac generale, legitimè tum inductum, tum congregatum …, Antwerp, 1564 (BT, no 6932; USTC, no 404438 and 409511). 26 Universum sacrosanctum concilium Tridentinum oecumenicum, ac generale, legitimè tum indictum, tum congregatum. Sub … Paulo III. Anno 1545. 1546. et 1547. Et sub Julio III. anno 1551. et 1552. Et sub … Pio quarto. an. 1562 et 1563 …, Antwerp, 1564 (BT, no 9214; USTC, no 401183). 27 Canones et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici et generalis concilii Tridentini, sub Paulo III., Julio III., et Pio IIII. …, Antwerp, 1565 (BT, no 553; USTC, no 415457). 28 Canones et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici et generalis concilii Tridentini sub Paulo  III., Iulio  III. et Pio  IIII. pontificibus max., Antwerp, 1565 (KUL-C, BRES-7A3154; KULG, P262.529.3/Q°* 3 CANO 1565; Tilburg, TFK-A 13.704; see als BT, no 554 and no 8017; USTC, no 401227 and 407223). Also in 1566 a Latin version was published by Silvius (BT, no 555; USTC, no 409680). 29 Ordonnancien, ende Decreten vanden heylighen Concilie generael gehouden tot Trenten. Onder onsen alderheylichste vaders Paulus de III. Julius de III. ende Pius de vierde, Paeusen van Romen. Hier by is gevoecht de confirmatie van desen concilie solemnelijk ghedaen by Pius de vierde …, Antwerp, 1565 (KUL-C, BRES-RA54379; KUL-G, P262.529.3 ORDO; Tilburg, TFH-A 1239; see BT, no 2266 and no 6449; USTC, no 401221 and 409581). 30 Le sainct, sacré, universel, et general concile de Trente Legitimement signifié et assemblé soubs nos Saincts Peres les Papes, Paul III. Iules III. Et soubs nostre Sainct Père Pius quatriesme, 1562. et 1563.

150 

dries vanysacker

d­ ecrees was published by the Antwerp printer Emanuel Philippus T ­ ronesius.31 The Louvain Bogardus already had published a French translation of these in 1564.32 In 1567 Petrus Zangrius of Louvain printed another Latin version of the Canones et ­decreta.33 In 1568 the same Zangrius printed an Apology of the Decrees of Trent.34

Problem of Polarization because of Trent But not everything went smoothly. First of all, due to the pressure of the ­regional Councils of Justice and of the State Council, no integral promulgation of the ­Tridentine decrees was possible within the Netherlands. The problem was not of a doctrinal nature, but disciplinary measures. Philip II had to give in to the Councils of Justice and the State Council, and in 1565 it was stipulated that Trent would not be solemnly promulgated by a placard, but would be distributed only in printings with a royal imprimatur.35 The Governess Margaret of Parma mentions these restrictions on the implementation in her correspondence with the bishops, considering the rights of the Prince and his subjects. She went beyond that and urged the bishops to guard against any kind of encroachment of the existing civil privileges and jurisdictions on the occasion of the promulgation of the decrees.36 Secondly, one has to qualify the optimism of A. Pasture concerning the ­diocesan infrastructure. With  F. Willocx37 one can advance that during the ­publication of the decrees of Trent only two bishops really were installed and enjoyed ­entirely their jurisdiction, Maarten van Riethoven (Rythovius) in Ypres ­(1562–83)38 and Petrus De Corte (Curtius) in Bruges (1562–67).39 In contrast to what Traduit de Latin en François, par Gentian Heruet d’Orleans, Chanoine de Rheims, Antwerp, 1564 (KUL-G, P262.529.3 SAIN; BT, no 4217; USTC, no 13072) and Le Saint, Sacré, Universel, et General Concile de Trente, Sous Paul III. Iules III. et Pius IIII. Papes de Rome. Avec la Confirmation dudict Concile, Antwerp, 1566 (KUL-G, P262.529.3 SAIN; Tilburg, TFH-A 4347; see also BT, no 4218). 31 Ordonnancien ende decreten, vanden heylighen concilie generael ghehouden tot Trenten …, Antwerp, 1565 (BT, no 2267; USTC, no 409633). 32 Le sainct, sacré, universel, et general concile de Trente … Traduit de latin en françois … Avec la confirmation dudict concile …, Leuven, 1564 (BT, no 6682; USTC, no 60362). 33 Canones et decreta sacrosancti oecvmenici et generalis Concilij Tridentini […]. Concilivm Tridentinvm, hoc est, canones & decreta sacrosancti œcumenici & generalis Concilii Tridentini: sacræ scripturæ, & sanctorum canonum concordantiis illustrata, Lovanii, �apud Petrum Zangrium Tiletanum᾽, 1567 (KUL-C, BRES-7B1083; for the copies OB-Brugge 1597 and 1597b, see STCV, no  12917325 and no 12917329; USTC, no 403147). 34 Apologiae, sev Defensionis decretorum sacrosancti concilii Tridentini […], adversus censuras & examen Martini Kemnity, Leuven, ‘apud Petrum Zangrium Tiletanum’, 1568 (OB-Brugge 1587, see STCV, no 12917307; USTC, no 440793). 35 V.  Soen, ‘The Council of Trent and the Preconditions of the Dutch Revolt (1563–1566)’, in: W.  François and V.  Soen (ed.) The Council of Trent. Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1540–1700) , vol. 2: Between Bishops and Princes (Göttingen, 2017), pp. 255–78. 36 Decavele, ‘Reformatie’ (see n. 9), p. 184. 37 F. Willocx, L’ introduction des décrets du concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principauté de Liège, Leuven, 1929, pp. 249–63. 38 P.  H.  Verhoeven, Maarten van Riethoven, eerste bisschop van Ieper, Wetteren, 1961; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 802–05. 39 E.  Van Mingroot, ‘Pieter de Corte (1562–1567)’, in: Het bisdom Brugge (see n.  11), pp.  33–39; Idem, ‘Corte (Curtius), Pieter de (Petrus)’, in: NBW, vol. 12, 1987, col. 163–69; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 759–60.

malines and its official printings

 151

the C ­ ouncil fathers had decided with a view to propagate the decrees to organize within the year after the Council in each Church province a Provincial Council, it was only in 1570 that Malines could hold its first Council. The main reasons were two: the absence of Archbishop Granvelle and the fact that several bishops still had to be ­installed. Although, the Bishops of Ypres and Bruges, and later on, Franciscus Sonnius (Van de Velde) of ‘s-Hertogenbosch (1562–70),40 and, Lindanus (Willem Van Lind) of Roermond (1562–88),41 would each publish (on his own) during the years 1564–69 the decrees within their dioceses. Two of the most zealous bishops, Rythovius and Lindanus, even organized a diocesan Synod: in Ypres in 1564 and in Roermond in 1569.42 The mentioned Lindanus had published in 1566 a catechism in Dutch (Cleyne Catechismus) for the benefit of the youth of Roermond.43 Before the first Provincial Council was organized, there were already three seminaries in the Church province of Malines:44 Ypres (since 1565), Ghent since 156945 (under Bishop Cornelius ­Jansenius, 1568–7646), and in Malines since 1570.47 The first Provincial Council Malines was held in the city of Malines.48 It ­started on 11 June and finished on 14 July 1570, more than 5 years after Cambrai49 and not coincidently, just after the proclamation of the General Pardon.50 As Granvelle was absent, the council was presided over by Rythovius of Ypres, the oldest of all ­bishops and ‘Vir omni exceptione major’. Three decrees, divided into 24 rubrics, concern the Tridentine Catholic Reformation ideas, and strikingly, restrict themselves to mere ecclesiastical matters. Every possible matter in dispute with existing civil privileges and jurisdictions is avoided. After omitting two passages where the Duke of Alba intended to include some changes, the decrees were printed by P ­ lantin

40 G.  Gielis, Franciscus Sonnius, ‘vader aller nieuwe bisschoppen’ en eerste bisschop van ’s-Hertogenbosch en Antwerpen, Post Factum. Jaarboek voor Geschiedenis en Volkskunde 2bis (2010), 37–60; J.  A.  Coppens, Nieuwe Beschrijving (see n.  14), pp.  218–23; T.  F.  Goossens, Franciscus Sonnius, Bossche Bijdragen 25 (1960–61); Schutjes, Kerkelijke (see n. 14), vol. 2, pp. 97– 105; C. F. X. Smits, ‘Sonnius (Franciscus)’, in: NNBW, vol. 2, 1912, col. 1346–1348; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 833–36. 41 P.Th.  van Beuningen, Wilhelm Lindanus als inquisiteur en bisschop, Assen, 1966; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 818–21. 42 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 37), pp. 252–63. 43 De Cleyne Catechismus dat is het Christelijck onderwijs der Kinderen wat sy ghelooven moeten: om Christen te wesen ende Godt den heere te behaghen. Item wat sy voorts doen oft laten moeten om by Godt den heere int eeuwighe leven sekerlyck hiernamaels te gheraken. Allen Catholisschen Christen sonderlinck die van Thesselt ter liefden gheschreven deur Wilhelmum Damasi Lindanum, Bischop der H. Kercke Godts te Remunde, Antwerp, W. Silvius, 1566 (Tilburg, TFH-A 12.405). 44 P.  Declerck, De priesteropleiding in de Mechelse kerkprovincie na Trente (1563–1790), Collationes Brugenses et Gandavenses 13 (1967), 487–517; 14 (1968), 82–102. 45 J. Roegiers, ‘Cornelius Jansenius (1565–1576)’, in: Het bisdom Gent (see n. 12), pp. 35–40; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 776–79. 46 J. Roegiers, De oprichting en de beginjaren van het bisschoppelijk seminarie te Gent (1569–1624), Handelingen der Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent 27 (1973), 3–192. 47 Decavele, ‘Reformatie’ (see n. 9), p. 184. 48 Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 50–116 and Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 37), pp. 263–69. 49 Printed in Paris, as well as Mons later, see contribution of Nicolas Simon. 50 See  V.  Soen, Geen pardon zonder paus! Studie over de complementariteit van het koninklijk en pauselijk generaal pardon (1570–1574) en over inquisiteur-generaal Michael Baius (1560–1576), Brussels, 2007.

152 

dries vanysacker

in Antwerp in 1571.51 Meanwhile in 1570 and 1571 were published, at the same time with the Index librorum prohibitorum52 and the Index expurgatorius librorum,53 in Antwerp and in Louvain new Latin54 and Dutch55 editions of the decrees of the Council of Trent. From 1567 onwards this was also the case with the Latin Catechismus romanus, that was imposed by the Council of Trent.56 In the period 1569–77 and 1571–77 Christopher Plantin printed the Breviarium romanum, that was revised by the Council of Trent,57 and the Missale romanum.58 They were illustrated by Pieter 51 Decreta et statuta synodi provincialis Mechliniensis, die undecima mensis iunii, anni millesimi, quingentesimi, septuagesimi; Pontificatus Sanctissimi in Christo Patris ac Domini Nostri D.  Pij divina providentia Papae Quinti, Anno quinto inchoatae, et decima quarta die mensis Iulij eiusdem anni conclusiae; Praesidente in ea reverendiss. in Christo Patre ac Domino D.  Martino Rythovio Episcopo Iprensi, tanquâ seniori comprovinciali, nomine et loco illustriss. et Reverendiss. In Christo Patris ac Domini Nostri  D. Antonii Perrenot, Archiepiscopi Mechliniensis, et tituli S.  Petri ad vincula Cardinalis Granvellani, Antwerp, 1571, in-4° (KULG, 89 T MECHL. 1570 D; Tilburg, TFK-A 13.687; Tilburg, TFH-A 3178; TFH-A 3811; TFH-A 5235; TFH-C 899). For versions in8°, see BT, no 8544; in-12°, see BT, no 832 and no 833 (Park, GPAR- DI/4; KUL-G, P F1604 and KUL-G, P270.169.1 DECR). See also KUL-G, P F832; KUL-G, P F834; KUL-G, P270.169.1/Qo DECR; KUL-C, BRES-RA54427 (BT, no 834). More copies in OB-Brugge, 1599a2, SA-Turnhout, Convoluut ODA390 and SESA-Mechelen, M.01629 (a) /(b) (see STCV, no 7038080 and USTC, no 401478, 411592 and 411690). 52 Index librorum prohibitorum cum regulis confectis per patres a Tridentina Synodo delectos … Cum appendice in Belgio, Antwerp, Chr. Plantin, 1570 (KUL-C, BRES-RA54216; KUL-G, P348.416.4* EDIC; BT, no  8548). See also: Tilburg, TF PRE 18; Tilburg, TFH-A 3808; BT, no  1559, no  1560, no 8549 and no 8550; USTC, no 401447, 404613, 404614, 411514, 411517, 411537, 440435, 59593 and 84226. 53 Index expurgatorius librorum qui hoc seculo prodierunt … juxta sacri concilii Tridentini decretum: Philippi II … jussu … atque Albani ducis … concinnatus, anno M.D.LXXI., Antwerp, Chr. Plantin, 1571 (KUL-C, BRES-RA54389; BT, no 8544). See also BT, no 1561; BT, no 8545; STCV, no 12919205 (copies MPM A46 and R24.2); USTC, no 411615, 411616 and 84227. 54 Canones, et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici et generalis concilii Tridentini. Index dogmatum et reformationis, Leuven, H. Wellaeus, 1570 (Tilburg, TFK-A 13.665; KUL-G, 2–015018/A.  See also BT, no 5363; USTC, no 411560). Canones et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici, et generalis concilii Tridentini, sub Paulo III. Julio III. et Pio IIII. …, Antwerp, W. Silvius, 1570 (BT, no 5362; USTC, no 411559) and Sacrosancti et oecumenici concilii Tridentini, Paulo III. Julio III. et Pio IIII. … celebrati, canones decreta … Additae … Pii IIII … bullae, Antwerp, Chr. Plantin, 1571 (Tilburg, TFK-A 13.684, KUL-C, BRES-RA55098. See BT, no 557; USTC, no 404647 and 452631). 55 Ordonnancien, ende Decreten van den heylighen Concilie generael ghehouden tot Trenten …, Antwerp, W. Silvius, 1570 (Park, GPAR-DI/18; KUL-G, P262.529.3 ORDO; BT, no 2268; USTC, no 411579). 56 Catechismus ex decreto concilii Tridentini, ad parochos, Pii V … jussu editus …, Leuven, J. Bogardus, 1567 (KUL-C, BRES-R5A180; BT, no 590; USTC, no 405340; see also BT, no 5391 (1570) and Tilburg, TFH-A 1830 (1570)); Catechismus romanus, ex decreto concilii Tridentini & Pii V … jussu … editus …, Antwerp, Chr. Plantin, 1572 (KUL-G, P268.115 FABR Cate; BT, no 592; USTC, no 401542). There was also an edition in 1574: Catechismus romanus, ex decreto Concilii Tridentini & Pii V … iussu primum editus, nunc vero … elucidatus, studio et industria Andreae Fabricii …, Antwerp, ‘ex officina Christophori Plantini’, 1574 (Park, GPAR-PrFIII/11; KUL-C, BRES-7A536; see BT, no 593; USTC, no 406057). 57 Breviarium romanum … Pii  V … jussu editum, Antwerp, 1569 (BT, no  411, no  5307 and no  5308; USTC, no  404589,  411433–41136). Breviarivm Romanvm, ex decreto sacrosancto concilii Tridentini restitutum Pii  V. … iussu editum, Antwerp, ‘ex officina Christophori Plantini’, 1572 (KUL-G, P264.13 BREV 1572). For the editions of 1570–1575 and of 1577, see, among others, BT, no  5309–5319; USTC, no  404656,  405700,  406262,  406361,  411556,  411557,  411613,  411739– 411741, 411840, 411948, 411949, 412660, 416234 and 416235. 58 Missale romanum, ex decreto … concilii Tridentini restitutum. Pii V … jussu editum, Antwerp, 1571 (SESA-Mechelen A: 03234, see STCV, n°7no 7035667; BT, n°8no 8755; USTC, no 411662). Missale

malines and its official printings

 153

van der Borcht, Antoon Van Leest and one even by Maarten van Heemskerck. In 1570 and 1572 an Officium diurnum59 and an Ordo, seu ritus celebrandi missas60 were distributed by this same printing house, and from 1572–73 onwards followed registers on the Roman Missal61 and Offices of the Holy Virgin.62 The Office of the Holy Virgin was edited in 1561 by Christopher Plantin63 and in 1572 by Philippus Nutius.64 In 1573 Christopher Plantin printed an Antiphonary for the canons of the chapter of the Saint Rumbold’s cathedral of Malines.65 The first Provincial Council actuated several diocesan Synods. Lindanus, Bishop of Roermond, excelled in organizing such ecclesiastical assemblies: 1570,66 1571, 1572 and 1573.67 Laurentius Metsius (de Mets), Bishop of ’s-Hertogenbosch (1570–80)68 organized a diocesan Synod on 8 May 157169 and established a seminary.70 In 1572 his Manuale Pastorum was published, a manual aiming at the conformity of the ­administration of the sacraments.71 Franciscus Sonnius organized his first Synod as

59 60 61

62

63 64 65 66

67 68 69

70 71

Romanvm, ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum. Pii  V. pont. max. ivssv editvm, Antwerp, ‘ex officina Christophori Plantini’, 1572 (KUL-G, PN00025*/F° and SESA-Mechelen, A:03235. See STCV, n°7no 7035635; BT, n°2no 2129; USTC, no 411774–411777). Missale romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti concilii Tridentini restitutum, Pii V. Pont. Max. iussu editum, Antwerp, ‘ex officina Christophori Plantini’, 1577 (KUL-G, P264.12 MISS; USTC, no 406374, 412666, 412667). For the editions of 1573–77, see BT, n°2no 2129, n°6no 6328–6332 and BT, n°8no 8756–8759. Officium diurnium ad usum romanum, officium … Mariae, officium defunctorum, septem psalmi poenitentiales … Omnia ex decreto … concilii Tridentini restituta, Antwerp, 1570 (BT, no  6422; USTC, no 411539–411542). Ordo, seu ritus celebrandi missas, et solennes, et privatas, una cum rubricis missalis, et defectibus circa missam occurrentibus, necnon praeparatione missae, juxta missale romanum, ex decreto concilii Tridentini, Pii V … restitutum, Antwerp, 1572 (BT, no 6444; USTC, no 411700). Indices romani missalis: compendio quicquid in eodem continetur … [Antwerp, 1573] (BT, no 8552; USTC, no 411856) and Index ordinem eorum omnium, quo Missale romanum ex decreto … concilii Tridentini restitutum … comprehendens [Antwerp, 1574] (BT, no  6037; BT, no  8551; USTC, no 408156). Officium b.  Mariae virginis, nuper reformatum et Pii  V … jussa editum, Antwerp, 1573 (see BT, no  2241, no  6428,  8847 and BT, no  2242–2243  (1575); USTC, no  401587,  407242,  411896– 411898,  430642,  430644). Officium beatae Mariae virginis, [Antwerp?], [Chr.  Plantin?], 1572: KUL-C, BRES- A53801 (see also USTC, no 411799, 411800, 411899). USTC, no 409297. BT, no 6427; USTC, no 411778. Antiphonarii, iuxta Breviarium Romanum restitutum, pars hyemalis, Antwerp, ‘Ex Officina Christoph. Plantini’, 1573 (AAM A001:1.1 and A001:2.1. See STCV, no 6890208). Oratio Synodica, De instauranda Domo Dei, Si Sacerdotes Suam induantur Justiciam. Habita ad clerum, In Synodo alterâ Ruraemundensi. Anno LXX, die VI. Septembris, per Reverendiss. Dominum Wilhelmum Damasi Lindanum Episcopum Ruraemundensem, Cologne, ‘Excudebatur primùm apud Maternum Cholinum’, 1571, (KUL-G, P279.118.4 LIND Orat; KUL-G, P279.118.4* 4 LIND Orat; Tilburg, TFK-A 13.645 and TFH-A 3743). Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 37), p. 270. Coppens, Nieuwe Beschrijving (see n.  14), pp.  224–31; Schutjes, Kerkelijke (see n.  14), vol.  2, pp. 105–10; C. F. X. Smits, ‘Metzius (Laurentius) Mets of Metz’, in: NNBW, vol. 1, 1911, col. 1329; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 836–38. Statvta primæ synodi dioecesanæ Buscoducensis anno Domini M.D.LXXI. mensis verò maij die octauo & duobus sequentibus celebratæ. Præsidente […] Laurentio Metsio […], ’s-Hertogenbosch, ‘ex officina Ioannis à Turnhout’, 1571 (KUL-C, BRES-RA54333; KUL-C, BRES-RA20433; KUL-G, P F1567). See also USTC, no 411608. Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 1), p. 270. Manvale Pastorvm, sive formvlae, avt ritvs administrandi sacramenta pro Diocesi Buscoducensi. Cvm qvibvsdam svccinctis instrvctionibus circa singulorum Sacramentorum administrationem,

154 

dries vanysacker

a Bishop of Antwerp (1570–76)72 on 4 February 1571.73 He emphasized that all his clergy only had to follow the prescriptions of the Council of Trent and of the Provincial Council of Malines,74 and that the parish-priests had to teach their parishioners on the seven sacraments.75 Rythovius opened his second Synod of Ypres on 29 May 1571.76 The zealous Bishop of Bruges, Remi Drieux (Driutius) (1569–94)77 organized his first Synod from 13 to 16 February 1571. The regulations, printed in April,78 deal with the use and the administration of baptism, confession and Eucharist, with the behavior of the clergy, with worship on Sun- and Feast days, with the tasks of the parish-priests and the deacons. Still in 1571 Drieux established the seminary of Bruges.79 Bishop Jansenius of Ghent80 organized his first diocesan Synod from 5 until 7 February 1571, where he promulgated the decrees of the Council of Malines. For the benefit of the parish-priests he published the decrees of his Synod81 and the Liber Ecclesiae Gandavensis,82 a diocesan Pastoral with the aim to make uniform the customs in his new diocese that gathered parishes from three former dioceses, Tournai, Cambrai and Utrecht. After a meeting with the chapter and the deacons he published some addenda on the decisions made by the Synod on 5 May iuxta Sacrosancti Concilij Tridentini praescriptum, necessario adhibendis, s’-Hertogenbosch, ‘apud Ioannem à Turnhout’, 1572 (Tilburg, TFH-A 9353). See USTC, no 415245. 72 Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 744–45. 73 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 37), pp. 270–71. 74 Franciscus Sonnius … omnibus membris cleri sui … Cum statutorum multitudo subinde inducat magis confusionem … consultum putavimus, vestris humeris nihil aliud pro hac vice imponere, quàm quod in sacris canonibus et … conciliis oecumenico Tridentino, et provinciali Mechliniensi decretum est, omnibusque praescriptum… [Antwerp, Chr. Plantin, 1571] (cf. BT, no 6767). 75 [Sonnius, Fr.], Instructie voor die pastoren, om tonderwysen haer ondersaten van die seven sacramenten …, Antwerp, A.  Tilens, 1571 (KUL-G, P279.131.8 SONN Inst; KUL-C, BRESCaaA1634; Tilburg, TFH-A 3103. See BT, no 9114; USTC, no 411678, 411679). 76 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 37),p. 278. 77 E. Van Mingroot, ‘Remi Drieux (1569–1594)’, in: Het bisdom Brugge (see n. 11), pp. 40–49; Idem, ‘Drieux (Driutius), Remi (Remigius)’, in: NBW, vol. 12, 1987, col. 248–54; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 760–62. 78 Decreta et Statuta Primae Synodi Dioecesanae Brugensis. Praesidente reverendissimo in Christo patre ac dno D. Remigio Driutio Episcopo Brugensi Secundo, celebratae die xiij. Februarij et tribus diebus sequentibus Anno à nativitate redemptoris nostri Iesv Christi millesimo quingentesimo septuagesimo primo. Quibus additae sunt literae indictionis et convocationis eiusdem Synodi dioecesanae necnon summarium actorum in eadem synodo, Bruges, Petrus Clericus [Pieter De Clerck], 1571 (KUL-G, P F1605; see BT, no 830; USTC, no 401477). 79 M.  Cloet, Karel-Filips de Rodoan en het bisdom Brugge tijdens zijn episcopaat (1602–1616), Brussels, 1970, p. 5. On the seminary, see A. C. De Schrevel, Histoire du séminaire de Bruges, vol. 1: Première partie, Bruges, 1895; vol. 2: Documents, Bruges, 1883. 80 J. Roegiers, ‘Cornelius Jansenius (1565–1576)’, in: Het bisdom Gent (see n. 12), pp. 35–40. 81 Statvta Primae Synodi Dioecesis Gandavensis sub Reverendissimo D. Cornelio Iansenio primo eivsdem Dioecesis Episcopo, Ghent, Gislenus Manilius, 1571 (KUL-C, BRES-RA54424; KUL-G, P262.45 STAT Gand; KUL-G, P F1509*; Tilburg, TFH-A 4700. See BT, no  6800; USTC, no  404649; 411620). 82 Liber Ecclesiae Gandavensis ritus, formulas, atque succinctas quasdam instructiones continens, ad Dei sacramentorum administrationem, & ad aque salisque benedictionem atque puerperarum purificationem spectantes: in usum Parochorum editus. Auctoritate R.D. Domini Cornelij Iansenij primi Episcopi Gandavensis, [Ghent], Ghislenus Manilius, 1571 [=1572] (KUL-G, P F1509*; Tilburg, TFH-A 9403. See BT, no 9011; USTC, no 411658). There is also a print from 1576 by Petrus Clericus (Pieter De Clerck) (BT, no 4177).

malines and its official printings

 155

1573.83 In the diocese of Malines vicar-general Maximilien Morillon quickly organized a first diocesan Synod from 18 until 21 April 1574.84 Only three weeks later, from 8 until 20 May 1574, the second Provincial C ­ ouncil of Malines was held in Louvain.85 On the agenda was the continuation of the ­initiated reform, the acceptance of the decrees of the first Provincial Council of 1570, while Bishop Jansenius was asked to rework his Pastoral into an instrument for the whole Church province, which he unfortunately could not realize. The acts of this second Council were only published in print in the eighteenth century.86 In the wake of the second Provincial Council, the diocese of Ypres, Ghent, ­Bruges and Antwerp soon organized diocesan Synods. Rythovius even presided two Synods in Ypres: on 7 July 157487 and on 21 May 1577,88 on which occasion he offered the ­parish-priests the tripartite Manuale Pastorum he had printed in Paris in 1576 on his own expense.89 The work contains among others an interesting tool to act against ‘attacks from the devil and against the evil of sorcery’. On 30 August 1574 Jansenius convoked his second Synod in Ghent. Two years later he died.90 His colleague of ­Bruges, Drieux, organized his Synod on 31 August and 1 September 1574. The resolutions were not printed.91 Bishop Sonnius of Antwerp gathered a Synod on 22 May 1576 and died a month later.92 In 1574 and 1576 several Dutch versions of his catechism were published (Ondersoeckinghe der jonghers, oft sy kerstelijck onderwesen sijn …).93 Still in 1576 he published an appeal to hold perpetual 83 Additiones Statutorum factae & publicatae, per R.D. Cornelium Episcop. Gandaven. feria tertia ante Pentecosten, Anno 1573, praesente Dno Clemente Crabbeels, Archidiacono & officiali, Petro Simons Archipresbytero, omnibus item Decanis Christianitatis Dioecesis Gandaven. adiecto singulis uno Pastore sui Decanatus, Ghent, Gislenus Manilius, 1573 (KULG 3214B6 (handwritten); Tilburg, TFH-A 4700. See BT, no 9134; USTC, no 411831). 84 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 37), pp. 272–73. In GBS is preserved an 18th-century manuscript entitled: Acta prima Synodi secundae Mechliniensis quae Prima Provincialis est, habita Mechliniae die 18. Aprilis Anno 1574. Praesidente in ea Rev.  Adm. & Praeclaro Domino Maximiliano Morillon  I.U.L.  Ecclesiae Metrop. S.  Rumoldi Archidiacono, & Illust.mi ac Rev.mi Domini Cardinalis Granvellani, in Spiritualibus & temporalibus Vicario Generali. 85 Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 117–42; Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 37), pp. 274–78. 86 Van de Velde, Synopsis (sse n.  1), pp.  125–26. Besides there is preserved an 18th-century (?) manuscript, entitled Acta Synodi Provincialis Mechliniensis Lovanii Habitae mense Majo Anno Domini 1574. Quibus accedunt moderations et additions decretorum ejusdem Synodi, s.l., s.d., 46 [+ 1] ff. (KULG, 89T MECHL 1570 D). 87 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 37), p. 278. 88 Statvta Synodi Dioecesanae Yprensis, celebratae feria tertia ante Pentecosten, vigesima prima May, Anno Millesimo Quingentesimo, Septuagesimo Septimo. Praesidente in ea Reverendis. in Christo patre ac Domino  D. Martino Rythovio Episcopo Yprensi, Ypres, ‘in Aedibus Episcopi & Sumptv eiusdem’, 1577 (KUL-G, P F1073; Tilburg, TFH-B 4837; Tilburg, TFH-B 7138. See BT, no 4422). 89 Manvale Pastorum, ad vniformem administrationem Sacramentorum aliorumque Officiorum Ecclesiasticorum, per civitatem & Dioeces. Ypren. distinctum in tres partes, Paris, Petrus le Voirrier, 1576. The second part contains an ‘Officium Defunctorum’, the third an ‘instructionem pastorum, adversus infestationes Doemonum, et incantationum maleficia’ (Tilburg, TFH-B 7158). 90 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 37), pp. 278–79. 91 Cloet, Rodoan (see n. 79), p. 5. 92 Statuta synodalia a’ Reverendissimo Domino Episcopo Antverpiensi in Synodo Diocesana celebrata vigesimasecunda Maij, Anno M.D. LXXVI. praelecta et publicata, [Antwerp, Chr. Plantin, 17 May 1576] (KULG, 3211 D24; BT, no 4416; USTC, no 407785). 93 They were published by the Antwerp printers Matthias van Roye (1574) (BT, no  6768; USTC, no 415929) and Jan II. van Ghelen (BT, no 6769; USTC, no 412609).

156 

dries vanysacker

prayers in all collegial and parish churches of his diocese in order to implore God’s mercy during the uncertain times of his days.94 In the dioceses of ’s-Hertogenbosch and Roermond little or nothing was realized due to clash of arms with the insurgents, who invaded a lot of the dioceses and killed clergy. Due to the increasing insecurity every form of central religious administration was impossible. Lindanus had to flee three times his diocese of Roermond. In November 1576 the Pacification of Ghent was signed as an agreement between the Estates party of the Southern Provinces and the insurgent regions. But that was only a provisional agreement between Calvinistic radicals and Catholic loyalists. At the end of 1577 the Calvinists took the power in Ghent and other cities. The Reconquista of Alexander Farnese, son of Margaret of Parma, who recovered in 1583–85 Flanders and Brabant, except Ostend, Sluis and minor places, ended in a deadlock and led to the division of the Netherlands. During the succeeding years a new war with France broke out. The Southern Netherlands only could breathe again under the governance of the Archduke Albert of Austria and Archduchess Isabella. Although the war against the Northern Provinces continued until 1607–09, the Archdukes immediately started a systematic policy of restoration. They gained the confidence of the South-Netherlandish nobility and political class, and they advocated the introduction of Catholic Reform based on Tridentine prescriptions. On 9 April 1609 the Twelve Years’ Truce was signed. After a very stirring half-century the cessation of hostilities between the Catholic Habsburg Netherlands and the Protestant Dutch Republic was achieved. Yet Christopher Plantin continued his printing activities: between 1575 and 1582/87, he put several editions of the Offices of Mary95 on the market, while in 1577 he printed a Latin version of the decrees of Trent.96 The dramatic breaking-point came in that same year 1577 with the putsch of the Calvinistic government: on 28 October the Flemish Bishops Drieux and Rythovius were arrested in Ghent.97 With J. Decavele one can say that ‘that night the whole Catholic summit of Flanders was gagged’.98 The silence would last at least until 1584–85.99 94 [Sonnius, Fr.] Venerande domine pastor, placuit Regiae Catholicae Majestati nobis injungere ut fiant per dioecesim nostram … precationes assiduae per omnes ecclesias collegiatas et parochiales … Quoniam igitur hic Antwerpiae in ecclesia cathedrali coeperunt hujusmodi precationes fieri …et sic deinceps, donec omnes compleantur ecclesiae civitatis Antwerpiensis … in hoc modum … [Antwerp, Chr. Plantin, 1576) (BT, no 6770; USTC, no 412619). 95 See USTC, no  406296  (1575), 411935  (1575), 411936  (1575), 411955  (1575), 430639–430641  (1575), 415014 (1578), 415015 (1578), 430669 (1578–79), 415134 (1579), 415135 (1579), 414355–41457 (1580), 414045–414047 (1581–87) and 406602 (1582). 96 Sacrosancti et oecumenici concilii Tridentini, Paulo III. Julio III. et Pio IIII. … canones et decreta. Hinc nunc recens accesserunt … annotationes … Additae praeterea … Pii IIII … bullae …, Antwerp, Chr. Plantin, 1577 (KUL-G, P262.529.3 SACR 1577; BT, no 8019; USTC, no 406383). 97 See the contribution by Michal Bauwens. 98 J. Decavele, ‘Het calvinistische Gent (1577–1584)’, in: Het bisdom Gent (see n. 12), p. 41. 99 For Brussels, Malines and Antwerp, see above all the publications by G.  Marnef, Het Protestantisme te Brussel, ca. 1567–1585, Tijdschrift voor Brusselse Geschiedenis 1  (1984), 57–82; Idem, ‘Het Protestantisme te Brussel onder de Calvinistische Republiek, ca. 1577–1585’, in: W. P. Blockmans and H. Van Nuffels (eds), État et religion aux XVe et XVIe siècles – Staat en religie in de 15e en 16e eeuw (Brussels, 1986), pp. 231–99; Idem, Brabants calvinisme in opmars. De weg naar de calvinistische republieken te Antwerpen, Brussel en Mechelen, 1577–80, Bijdragen tot de Geschiedenis 70 (1987), 7–21; Idem, Het Calvinistisch Bewind te Mechelen 1580–1585, Kortrijk, 1987;

malines and its official printings

 157

When the Calvinistic regimes in Flanders ended in 1584–85 and the bishops could again occupy their sees, a lot had changed.100 The ecclesiastical life was disrupted, a great deal of material damage was inflicted, and there was a huge lack of priests. But also the ecclesiastical hierarchical landscape had changed: in 1583 Cardinal Granvelle had resigned as Archbishop. His successor, Johannes Hauchin (1583–89), did not hesitate to take the lead.101 He immediately had published a creed in Dutch for his ‘genuine Catholic subjects’,102 he instructed Jacobus Janssonius in 1586 to spread an instruction about excommunication (Catholici ecclesiastae instructio),103 and in 1589 he gave Malines a new Pastorale.104 Still in 1589 a totally reworked Officium was published for funeral services in the churches of the diocese.105 Since 1577 two other important bishops of the Netherlands had died: Rythovius and Metsius. Together with the already departed Jansenius and Sonnius, this meant that several episcopal sees stayed vacant during the following years. In the diocese of Ghent it would be three years before Lindanus, until then Bishop of Roermond, would be appointed. His episcopacy did not last for long: only installed officially on 22 July 1588, he died on 2 November of the same year.106 His successor, Pieter Damant (1590–1609), fortunately got more time to rebuild the ecclesiastical life within the diocese of Ghent.107

Idem, Antwerpen in de tijd van de Reformatie. Ondergronds protestantisme in een handelsmetropool, 1550–1577, Amsterdam and Antwerp, 1996; Idem, ‘The Netherlands’, in: A. Pettegree (ed.), The Reformation World (London and New York, 2000), pp. 344–64. See also J. J. Woltjer, Tussen vrijheidsstrijd en burgeroorlog. Over de Nederlandse Opstand 1555–1580, Amsterdam, 1994. 100 See the contributions by Michal Bauwens and Annelies Somers. 101 Marnef, ‘Een maat voor niets?’ (see n. 9), pp. 91–97; L. Jadin, ‘Hauchin (Haussin, Hauchinus), Joannes’, in: NBW, vol. 2, 1966, col. 281–85; A. Tihon, ‘Hauchin (Jean)’, in: DHGE, vol. 23, 1990, col. 535–36; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 635–36. 102 Clare Belijdinghe des Christen gheloofs, twelck alle oprechte catholijcke menschen … schuldich zijn te belyden. Deur ordinantie ende bevel van … Jan Hauchin eertsbisschop van Mechelen … Dit gheloove doet den Prince van Perma sweyren … tot … plaetsen, di hy onder zijn jock heeft, tegen de waerachtige christelicke evangelische, apostolische religie … Van woorde te woorde, na de copie ghedruckt tot Loven, by J. Maes, 1585, Antwerp, 1585 (BT, no 8617; see BT, no 1710, no 1711 and no 6117; USTC, no 414821, 414839, 414840). 103 Catholici Ecclesiastae Instructio. Iussu Rever.mi & Illust.mi Archiepiscopi Mechliniensis in lucem edita. II. TIMOTH. II. Solicitè cura teipsum probabilem exhibere Deo, operarium inconfusibilem, recte tractantem verbum veritatis, Leuven, Johannes Masius, 1586 (Tilburg, TFK-A 13.686) (see USTC, no 403609). The same Instruction was also printed by Johannes Masius in 1594 (Tilburg, TFK-A 16.077) (USTC, no 412951). 104 Pastorale, canones et ritus ecclesiasticos, Qui ad Sacramentorum administrationem aliaque Pastoralia officia ritè obeunda pertinent, complectens. Iussu & auctoritate Reverend.mi & Illust.mi Domini, Domini Ioannis Havchini, Mechliniensis Archiepiscopi, pro uniformi Pastoralium officiorum exercitio in hanc formam redactum, & in lucem emissum, Antwerp, Chr. Plantin, 1589 (Park, GPAR-PrFIV/12; AugHI, GOSA-G.HC.82; Tilburg, TF-B 22.100. See BT, no 3945; USTC, no 406851, 442707). 105 Officium sepeliendi mortuos, secundum usum ecclesiarum dioecesis Mechliniensis, novissimè repurgatum, cum cantu in pastorali requisito. Adjectae sunt … duae antiphonae, quae cantuntur in officio consecrandarum campanarum, Antwerp, The widow Chr. Plantin, 1589 (KUL-G, P264.15/ Q°* 2 PAST; KUL-G, P F1094*; BT, no 6435; USTC, no 406846). 106 M.-J. Marinus, ‘Willem Lindanus (1587–1588)’, in: Het bisdom Gent (see n. 12), pp. 49–50. 107 Idem, ‘Pieter Damant (1590–1609)’, in: Het bisdom Gent (see n.  12), pp.  51–54; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 779–80.

158 

dries vanysacker

Nevertheless, this little dynamic shepherd only published an extended re-edition of Jansenius’ Liber ecclesiae.108 The six years of Calvinistic governance had also left their marks on the diocese of Bruges. Bishop Drieux had to completely restart his work. The seminary stayed closed until 1591, there was a shortage of priests, and many church-buildings were demolished. The area around Ostend and Sluis was continuously occupied by ‘privateers’ called vrijbuyters.109 In the diocese of Ypres, Petrus Simons (1585–1605)110 succeeded Rythovius. He had a new seminary opened in 1585111 and in 1606 he had a Manuale printed which aimed to unify the administration of the sacraments and other functions of the ecclesiastics in the city and diocese of Ypres.112 He was on his turn succeeded by Karel Maes (Masius) (1607–10).113 The diocese of Antwerp was headed from 1585 onwards by the humanist Laevinus Torrentius (van der Beken) (1586–95).114 Just like his successor Guilielmus de Berghes (1597–1601)115 he had to lead his diocese in very difficult circumstances. Only under Bishop Joannes Miraeus (1602–11),116 Antwerp got its own seminary in 1605. Roermond lost its Bishop Lindanus to Ghent,  after he had installed a seminary in 1587. The see was vacant for ten years. It was only in 1596 that Henric van Cuyck (Cuyckius) (1596–1609)117 occupied the see. The situation in ’s-Hertogenbosch  was not any easier. The new Bishops Clemens Crabeels (1584– 92)118 and Gisbert Maes (1594–1614)119 had in 1600 still one third of their parishes occupied by the Protestants. A  lack of parish-priests endangered the ecclesiastical life of the other parishes. It would only have a seminary from 1620 onwards.120 108 Liber ecclesiae Gandavensis, ritus, formulas, atque succinctas quasdam instructiones continens, ad Dei sacramentorum administrationem, et ad aquae salisque benedictionem, atque puerperarum purificationem spectantes, in usum parochorum aeditus per … Cornelium Jansenium … episcoporum ac denuo recusus de mandato … Petri Damant tertii … episcopi, adjectis è manuali romano sepeliendi fidelium mortuorum corpora, exorcizandique … formulis, Ghent, G. Manilius, 1595 (Tilburg, TFH-A 4700; BT, no 6639; USTC, no 413201). 109 Cloet, Rodoan (see n. 79), pp. 7–10. 110 Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 805–06. 111 Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 805–06. 112 Manvale pastorum, ad vniformem administrationem sacramentorum aliorumq‘ue officiorum ecclesiasticorum, per ciuitatem & diœces. Ipren. editum iußu […] Petri Simons episcopi Iprensis, SaintOmer, ‘excvdebat Franciscus Bellet’, 1606 (KUL-G, 264.15 Manu IPRE). 113 Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 806–07. 114 M.-J. Marinus, Laevinus Torrentius als tweede bisschop van Antwerpen, 1587–1595, Brussels, 1989; M.-J. Marinus, ‘Torrentius (Beke), Laevinus (Lieven van der)’, in: NBW, vol. 13, 1990, col. 779– 85; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 743–44. 115 Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), p. 744. 116 See, among others, C. De Clercq, ‘Miraeus (Mire) Joannes senior (le)’, in: NBW, vol. 9, 1981, col.  537–39; K. Bekers, Joannes Miraeus, vierde bisschop van Antwerpen (1604–1611). Contrareformatie in een belaagd bisdom, Leuven, 1987; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 745–46. 117 A. J. A. Flament, ‘Cuyck (Hendrik van)’, in: NNBW, vol. 2, 1912, col. 358–59; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 821–23. 118 Coppens, Nieuwe Beschrijving (see n.  14), pp.  231–33; Schutjes, Kerkelijke (see n.  14), vol.  2, pp. 111–13; C. F. X. Smits, ‘Crabbeels (Clemens)’, in: NNBW, vol. 1, 1911, col. 648; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 839–40. 119 Coppens, Nieuwe Beschrijving (see n.  14), pp.  234–44; Schutjes, Kerkelijke (see n.  14), vol.  2, pp. 113–18; C. F. X. Smits, ‘Masius (Ghisbertus) Maes’, in: NNBW, vol. 1, 1911, col. 1313–1314; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 840–41. 120 Pasture, La restauration (see n. 19), p. 194.

malines and its official printings

 159

These events notwithstanding, from 1584 onwards official printings of (and as a result of) the Council of Trent, were published on the territory of the Church province of Malines, often in the wake of the Tridentine Reform program behind the Reconquista of Farnese.121 In Antwerp, the decrees of Trent were published in Latin in 1584 by Nutius122 and by Plantin in 1586123 and 1589.124 Plantin and his successor Moretus printed respectively from 1585 onwards and from 1587 onwards the Missale romanum125 and the Breviarium romanum,126 each of them with magnificent wood engravings by Pieter Van der Borcht and Antoon Van Leest. In 1580 and 1584 the same printing house had published the Roman Calendar of Saints with illustrations by Pieter Van der Borcht and Paulus Uutewael,127 while from 1580 onwards followed ‘Diurnum’ Offices128 and ‘Nocturnum’ Offices,129 Offices of Mary,130 daily Offices for 121 See Soen, ‘The Council’ (see n. 35). 122 Sacrosancti et oecumenici concilii Tridentini, Paulo III. Julio III. et Pio IIII. … celebrati, canones et decreta. His nunc recens accesserunt … annotationes … Additae … sunt ad finem, Pii IIII. … bullae …, Antwerp, 1584 (KUL-G, P262.529.3 SACR 1584; BT, no 8020; USTC, no 406676). 123 Sacrosancti et oecumenici concilii Tridentini, Paulo III. Julio III. et Pio IIII. … celebrati, canones et decreta … Additae …, Pii IIII. … bullae …, Antwerp, 1586 (Park, GPAR-ADIV/19; BT, no 559). See also USTC, no 442701 and 406770. 124 Sacrosancti et oecumenici concilii Tridentini, Paulo III. Julio III. et Pio IIII. … canones et decreta … Additae … Pii IIII. … bullae …, Antwerp, 1589 (BT, no 5365; USTC, no 406855). 125 Missale romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti concilii Tridentini restitutum, Pii  V. Pont. Max. iussu editum, Antwerp, ‘apud Petrum Bellerum’, 1585 (AugHI, GOSA-G.HC.5; BT, no  6333; USTC, no  406718 and 414815); Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum. Pii V. … iussu editum. Additis aliquot SS. officiis, ex praecepto … Sixti Papae Quinti, Antwerp, ‘ex officina Christophori Plantini’, 1587 (KUL-C, BRES-7A1943; KUL-G, P264.12 MISS Roma); Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum, Pii  V. … iussu editum. Additis aliquot sanctorum officijs, ex praecepto … Sixti PP. V., Antwerp, ‘ex officina Christophori Plantini’, 1589 (KUL-G, P264.12/Fo MISS Roma). For the prints of 1587, 1589, 1590, 1593 and 1594 (Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum, Pii  V. … iussu editum. Additis aliquot SS. officiis, ex praecepto … Sixti PP. V., Antwerp, ‘ex officina Plantiniana, apud Viduam, & Ioannem Moretum’, 1594, KUL-G, P264.12 MISS Roma), see, among others, BT, no 6334–6339, no 8760–8761 n.°2132; USTC, no 406791, 413736–413738 (1587), 413929, 413930 (1589), 406868 (1590), 413108 (1593), 412969, 440849 (1594). 126 Breviarium romanum … Pii  V. … jussu editum. Cum kalendario Gregoriano … Pars hiemalis (pars aestivalis), Antwerp, 1587 (BT, no 5320; USTC, no 413742, 413743, 416238, 416239). For the prints of 1588,  1589,  1590,  1592 (Breviarium Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilij Tridentini restitutum. Pii V. … iussu editum. Additis aliquot SS. officiis, ex praecepto … Sixti Papae V., Antwerp, ‘ex officina Plantiniana, apud Viduam, & Ioannem Moretum’, 1592 (KUL-G, P264.13/Qo BREV Roma) and 1593, see BT, no  5321–5328 and USTC, no  413837–413839,  416240,  416241  (1588), 406850, 413929, 412930 (1589), 406868 (1590), 413108, 413109 (1593) and 412969, 440849 (1594). 127 Sanctorum kalendarii Romani, juxta concilium Tridentinum restituti, imagines in aere excisae, Antwerp, 1580 (BT, no 5354; USTC, no 414230) and Antwerp, 1584 (KUL-G, P246.5* EVAN; BT, no 5356; see also MPM,! 129(1) and STCV, no 12913506; USTC, no 406677). 128 See, among others, Officium diurnium, ex decreto … concilii Tridentini …, Antwerp, 1580 (USTC, no 414358, 414359) edition 1584 (USTC, no 414808), edition 1585 (USTC, no 414889), edition 1587 (BT, no 2240; USTC, no 413773, 413774), edition 1588 (USTC, no 413916), edition 1589 (USTC, no 413993), edition 1590 (USTC, no 430625) and editions of 1594 (BT, no 6423; USTC, no 413021) and of 1595 (BT, no 6424; USTC, no 413208). 129 See, among others, Officium nocturnum ad usum romanum, ex decreto … concilii Tridentini restitutum. In quo continentur breviarii romani lectiones, et responsoria in diurno officio desiderata, Antwerp, 1594 (BT, no 6433; USTC, no 413022). 130 See, among others, Officium B. Mariae virginis nuper reformatum, et Pii V … jussu editum, Antwerp, 1588 (BT, no  6429; USTC, no  413873,  413874,  415909,  415910). See also BT, no  6430–6431 and

160 

dries vanysacker

Saints,131 and in 1583, 1587 and 1591 Latin printings of the Roman Catechism.132 The printer Masius of Louvain specialized from 1589 onwards in the publication of the Directorium of the Holy Hours of the Roman Breviary.133

The Proper Start of the Catholic Reform within the Church Province of Malines (1595–1613)134 The years 1595–96 brought a positive change-over within the ecclesiastical life of the Spanish Habsburg Netherlands. Archduke Albert of Austria was appointed Governor in 1595 and in 1596 a permanent apostolic nuncio was installed in Brussels. Before, the apostolic nuncio of Cologne, installed since 1584, exercised his jurisdiction over the Netherlands and the prince-bishopric of Liège. The first nuncio, Ottavio Mirto Frangipani (1596–1606) and his successor Decio Carafa (1606–07), and certainly Guido Bentivoglio (1607–15) played an important role as coordinators of the work of the bishops within the Provincial Councils and as bishop-diplomats of Rome in the gradual implementation of the conciliar prescriptions. Together with the zealous Archdukes Albert and Isabella they devoted themselves to the re-Catholisation of the Southern Netherlands.135 Another prominent role was played by Mathias Hovius (Van den Hove), who was appointed vicar-general after the death of Archbishop Hauchin in 1589.136 In 1591 he had published in Dutch a short explanation of the Christian doctrine for the region of Brussels.137 After a vacancy of six years, due to the refusal of Laevinus ­Torrentius to USTC, no 406845 (1589), 406888 (1591), 406939 (1593), 413292 (1596), 413443 (1598). 131 See, among others, Officium hebdomadae sanctae. Secundum breviarium et missale romanum, ex decreto concilii Tridentini, jussu Pii  V. restitutum. Una cum officio corporis Christi et nativitatis Domini, ac benedictione candelarum, et cinerum. Septem psalmi poenitentiales, Antwerp, 1586 (KUL-G, P264.13 OFFI; BT, no 6426). 132 Catechismus romanus, ex decreto concilii Tridentini, & Pii  V … jussu … editus …, Antwerp, 1583 (USTC, no 406622). For the edition 1587, see BT, no 594 and USTC, no 406776. For the edition 1591 (KUL-G, P268.115 CATE; KUL-C, BRES-RA37848; BT, no 595; USTC, no 406878). 133 Directorium ad legendas horas canonicas secundum usum Romanum pro anno Domini M.D.LXXXIX. Additae sunt stationes et reliquae sanctorum quibus … Belgicas olim decoravit ecclesias, Leuven, 1589 (BT, no 8198; USTC, no 416125). For the prints of 1590 until 1597, see BT, no 8199–8206 and USTC, no 416126, 412781, 412860, 416110–416114. 134 See, among others, E. de Moreau, ‘L’Église des Pays-Bas catholiques (1559–1795)’, in: DHGE, vol. 7, 1934, col. 644–73 and the recent overview by E. Put: ‘Het elan van de katholieke hervorming. Nieuwe structuren, nieuwe standaarden (1596–1648)’, in: Het aartsbisdom Mechelen-Brussel (see n. 9), pp. 99–143. 135 L. E. Halkin, ‘Het katholiek herstel in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden 1579–1609’, in: AGN, vol. 6, 1979, p. 351. For more information on the papal nuncios, see the contribution of Els Agten. 136 For biographical information, see: Cr.  Harline and E.  Put, ‘Hovius (Matthias), archevêque de Malines (1596–1620)’, in: DHGE, vol. 24, 1993, col.  1297–99; Claessens, Histoire (see n. 10), pp. 209–36; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 637–41. Also interesting: E. Put and Cr.  Harline, Dagboek van een aartsbisschop. Een portretstudie van Matthias Hovius (1542– 1620), Trajecta 3 (1994), 19–33; Cr. Harline and E. Put, A Bishop’s Tale: Mathias Hovius Among His Flock in Seventeenth-Century Flanders, New Haven, CT, 2000. 137 Die Christelycke Leeringhe. Tot Bruessel. By Rutgeert Velpius, Gesworen Boecvercooper en[de] Drucker inden Gulden Arent by tHoff. 1591. Ook getiteld: Corte Uutlegginge der Christelijker Leeringe. In manire va[n] tsamensprekinge tusschen den Meester ende den Discipel. Gemaeckt by bevel vanden Vicarius des Aertsbisdoms van Mechelen, int quartier van Bruessel, [Brussels, 1591] (Tilburg, TFH-A 11.672) (compare with BT, no 618; USTC, no 402372).

malines and its official printings

 161

occupy the See of Malines and the death of Cardinal William Allen, Hovius was appointed Archbishop in 1595.138 Under his guidance, we can speak of the proper start of the Catholic restoration within the Spanish Netherlands.139 His first realization was the foundation of a seminary in 1595. In a prescription of 9 September 1598 he prohibited any kind of hard labor on Sundays, high-days, Feast days, days dedicated to the Holy Virgin Mary or to the Apostles.140 In 1598 and 1607 he had printed an extended and well revised edition of the former Pastorale of Malines of Hauchin141 and he had printed a new Graduale romanum by Joachim Trognesius in Antwerp.142 He was also the man who gave the archdiocese a solid financial base after a years’ long conflict with the abbey of Affligem.143 Of great importance was Hovius’ decision to convoke in 1607 a new Provincial Council. Over more than thirty years the troubled times had prevented such an ecclesiastical meeting. The Council that gathered in Malines from 26 June to 20 July 1607, aimed to raise the level of the spiritual life of both the clergy and the flock.144 Thus the Council decided to publish a catechism within the Church province in French and in Dutch, eventually the catechism of the Jesuit father Ludovicus Makeblijde of 1609–10, which had to replace the widespread catechism of Petrus Canisius.145 Other decisions were the foundation of seminaries and Sunday schools. Finally the bishops were obliged to organize diocesan Synods and meeting with deacons. The Archdukes 138 Put, ‘Het elan’ (see n. 134), pp. 100–11; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), p. 637. 139 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 37), pp. 282–83. 140 Mathias, aertsbisschop van Mechelen … wy … binnen onsen aertsbisdomme van Mechelen … verbieden op eenighe der sondaghen, hoochtijden, onse L. Vrouwe daghen, apostel daghen … ende opden … dach … heylich dach zijnde, te doene eenighe slavelijcke wercken … Aldus ghedaen … binnen Mechelen den 9. van September 1598, Brussels, R.  Velpius, [1598] (BT, no  6011; see also BT, no  1535; USTC, no 413497, 413498). 141 Pastorale ad usum romanum accomodatum, canones et ritus ecclesiasticos qui ad sacram administrationem aliaque pastoralis officia ritè obeunda pertinent, complectens Ioannis Hauchini … iussu olim editum. Nunc vero … Matthiae Hovii … auctoritate, multis locis auctum et recognitum, Antwerp, Plantin apud Moretum, 1598 (AugHI, GOSA-G.HC.81; KUL-C, BRES-CaaA670; Tilburg, TF-B, 22.100; BT, no 3946; USTC, no 406851, 407050, 442707). For the Edition edited at Antwerp, ‘ex officinal Plantiniana apud Ioannem Moretum’ of 1607, see: KUL-G, 2–005770/C; KUL-G, P264.15/Q° PAST; KUL-G, 264.15 PAST; KUL-G, 264.15 RITU 1607; Park, GPARAGVII/10; KUL-G, 27 P 1 1607 P; Tilburg, TFH-B 7153. 142 Gradvale Romanvm ivxta novvm missale recognitvm et ivssv […] archiepiscopi Mechliniensis editvm, Antwerp, ‘apvd Ioach. Trognaesivm’, 1607 (KUL-C, BRES-R5B3032; KUL-C, BRES-RB9011; AAM B014; see CTCV, no 6879515). 143 Put and Harline, Dagboek (see n. 136), p. 21. 144 Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 143–258 and Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 37), pp. 284– 90. 145 Den Schat der Christelicker leeringhe tot verklaringhe van den catechismus. Uutghegheven voor de Catholijcke Ionckheyt van de provincie des Artsbischdoms van Mechelen. Door Ludovicum Makeblude Priester der Societeyt Iesu, Antwerp, Joachim Trognesius, 1610 (See, among others, KULG, P. 268.114 MAKE Scha 1610; KUL-G, 2–001236/A; Tilburg, TFH-A 1302; Tilburg, TFH-A 11.868; Tilburg, TFK-A 15.162). Besides, there are the Catechismus dat is de Christelucke leeringhe Gedeylt in neghen-en-viertich Lessen. Voor de Catholijcke Ionckheyde van de Provincie des Artschbisdoms van Mechelen. Achtervolghende d’ordonantie van het Concilie Provinciael Ghehouden aldaer anno 1607, Antwerp, Joachim Trognesius, 1609 (see, among others, KULG, P. 268.114 MAKE Cate 1609) and the Catechismus. Dat is de christelijke Leeringhe in 49 lessen: voor de Catholycke Jonckheydt van de Prov. des Aertsbisdom Mechelen (volgens Concilie Provinciaal Mechelen 1609), Brussels, 1609 (see, among others, KULG, 3216 B 14).

162 

dries vanysacker

refused to abolish the former restrictions of Margareta of Parma, but fully approved the resolutions of the Council and generously supported them.146 The Decreta et Statuta were published in 1608147 and 1609.148 It was the start of many consecutive diocesan Synods. But first we have to underscore the zeal of Henric van Cuyck, Bishop of Roermond, who after a very hard period, already had organized two Synods in 1604 and 1606, after more than thirty years of silence!149 Besides, he had provided his diocese with a lot of publications, among others a manual in Latin150 and Dutch151 on the sacrament of confirmation, a Latin edict on the tasks of the archpriests and parish-priests, an edict on the synod of archpriests in his diocese,152 and a tripartite Pastorale printed in Cologne.153 In 1609, the year of his death, a Book of Hours, Horae Canonicae Dicendae, was published for the saint’s days peculiar of his diocese Roermond.154 Finally he had diffused a catechism by order of the Provincial Council of 1607.155 146 See Willocx, L’ introduction (see n.  37), pp.  284–90 and Halkin, ‘Het katholiek herstel’ (see n. 135), p. 348. 147 Decreta et Statuta Synodi Provincialis Mechliniensis. Die vigesima sexta mensis Iunij anni millesimi sexcentesimi septimi, Pontificatus S.mi in Christo Patris ac D.N.D. Pavli Divina providentia Papae V. anno tertio inchoatae, et vigesima die mensis Iulij eiusdem anni conclusae. Preasidente in ea R.mo et Ill.mo in Christo Patre ac Domino D. Matthia Hovio Archiepiscopo Mechliniensi, praesentibusque omnibus Episcopis comprovincialibus, Antwerp, ‘ex officina Plantiniana apud Ioannem Moretum’, 1608 (see, among others, Park, GPAR-DI/17; GBS, ‘Provinciale Concilies Synodicon’; Tilburg, TF-B 5798; Tilburg, TFH-A 5744). See also the copies EHC, K156789; SESA-Mechelen, M.01206(b)/B; UGENT-CB, Hist.003901 and Th. 000652 (CTCV, no 6624737) and OB-Brugge, 1599a1 and 1599b; UGENT-CB, Th. 001196/1 and Th. 002509 (STCV, no 6689723). 148 Decreta et Statuta Synodi Provincialis Mechliniensis. Die vigesima sexta mensis Iunij anni millesimi sexcentesimi septimi, Pontificatus S.mi in Christo Patris ac D.N.D. Pavli Divina providentia Papae V. anno tertio inchoatae, et vigesima die mensis Iulij eiusdem anni conclusae. Preasidente in ea R.mo et Ill.mo in Christo Patre ac Domino D. Matthia Hovio Archiepiscopo Mechliniensi, praesentibusque omnibus Episcopis comprovincialibus, Antwerp, �ex off. Plantiniana, apud Ioannem Moretum᾽, 1609 (See, among others, Park, GPAR-DI/4; KUL-C, BRES-R3A11351/1; KUL-C, BRES-RA 20433/4; KUL-G, 89 T MECH 1607 D; KUL-G, P 270.169 1° DECR; Tilburg, TFK-A 13.687; Tilburg, TFK-A 15.176; Tilburg, TFK-A 16.093). See also EHC, E 83550 (STCV, no 6619731). 149 Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 821–23. 150 De Confirmationis Sacramento pro Dioecesi Ruraemundensi, ab Episcopo in lucem edita, brevis & catholica instructio, Leuven, Johannes Masius, 1598 (Tilburg, TFH-A 6545). 151 Catholische onderrichtinge van het sacrament des Vermsels, voor het bisdom van Ruremunde durch den bisschop uutgegeven, [Leuven?], [ J.  Masius?], [1598?] (see, among others, KUL-G, P F1216 2; Tilburg, TFH-A 6545; BT, no 8118; USTC, no 413459). 152 Edictum de Archipresbyterorum et Parochorum Officiis, et de Synode Archipresbyterali pro diocesi Rvraemvndensi (Actum Geldriae Postridie Calendarum Septembrium, Anno 1598), Leuven, Johannes Masius, 1598 (see, among others, KUL-G, P F1216; Tilburg, TFH-A 6545; BT, no 8119; USTC, no 413465). 153 Pastorale Ecclesiae Rvraemvndensis. Ab Henrico Cvyckio Ruraemundensi Episcopo in tres partes distinctum & in lucem emissum. Singularum partium catalogi, singulis partibus praemittuntur, Cologne, Petrus Keschedt, 1599 (see, among others, Tilburg, TF-A 4608; Tilburg, TFH-A 6545; USTC, no 683212). 154 Horae Canonicae dicendae in propriis Dioecesis Rvraemvndensis festivitatibvs. Vna cum Litanijs euiusdem Ecclesiae, & Selectis aliquot aliarum Ecclesiarum Hymnis, Leuven, Joannes Masius, 1609 (see, among others, Tilburg, TFH-A 9347). 155 See Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), p. 822. Could we be dealing here with one of the three other Catechisms mentioned in note 145?  The fact that the copy preserved in KULG, P 268.114 MAKE Cate 1609 is part of a convolute which contains three other printings by Cuyck, might point to this hypothesis (see also Pasture, La restauration [see n. 19], p. 369, note 2).

malines and its official printings

 163

Archbishop Hovius had organized on 5 and 6 May 1609 a Synod in Malines. Within the same year the Decrees and Acts were published.156 Bishop Karel Maes did the same in Ypres on 4 November 1609. The Constitutiones et Decreta were published in 1610.157 His attention concerned above all the monastic life and the organization of the episcopal seminary. The diocese of Antwerp had its diocesan Synod within the cathedral on 10 May 1610. Bishop Miraeus presided. The decrees158 and the address of the bishop to his clergy159 were published the same year. Bishop Gisbert Maes and his ecclesiastical subjects had their Synod in ’s-Hertogenbosch on 9 and 10 October 1612. The Statutes160 and the speech of the bishop161 were published in Cologne in 1613. In 1611 the bishop had published an adapted version of the catechism of Makeblijde for his diocese. According to M. G. Spiertz he had added two lessons to accentuate the papal primacy and the authority of ecclesiastical doctrine.162 Bishop Hendrik Frans van der Burch (1613–16)163 had organized a diocesan Synod in Ghent on 10 and 11 September 1613, which already was planned and prepared by his predecessors Damant and Maes. Special topics were the regulation of the ecclesiastical life in the parishes, the different sacraments and the conduct,

156 Decreta et statuta synodi dioecesanae Mechliniensis. Die quinta Maij anni millesimi sexcentesimi noni inchoatae, et die sexta eiusdem anni et mensis absolutae. Praesidente in ea R.mo et Ill .mo in Christo Patre ac Domino D. Matthia Hovio Archiepiscopo Mechliniensi, Antwerp, �ex off. Plantiniana, apud Ioannem Moretum᾽, 1609 (see, among others, Park, GPAR-DI/4; KUL-G, P270.169.1* DECR; KUL-G, 89 T MECH 1607 D; KUL-C, BRES-R3A11351/2; Tilburg, TFH-A 5744; Tilburg, TFK-A 16.093 and also EHC, E77606; OB-Brugge, 1599a3; SESA-Mechelen, M.01171(a); UGENTCB, Th.001196/2; Th. 002184/1, Th. 002509/1; STCV, no 6619726). 157 Constitutiones et Decreta Synodi Dioecesanae Iprensis celebratae die quarta mensis Novembris anno CI DC.IX. Praesidente in ea R.mo in Christo Patre ac Domino, D. Carolo Masio Episcopo Iprensi, Ypres, Franciscus Belletus, 1610 (see, among others, GBS; Tilburg, TFH-A 4630). 158 Decreta Synodi Dioecesanae Antverpiensis, Mense Maio anni M.DC.X  . celebrata: Praesidente in ea R.mo in Christo Patre & Domino Ioanne Miraeo Episcopo Antverpiensi, Antwerp, ‘ex officina Plantiniana apud Ioannem Moretum’, 1610 (see, among others, Park, GPAR-DI/5; AugHI, GOSA-G.XD.47; KUL-C, BRES-RA20433/1; KUL-C, BRES- R4A7596; KUL-G, P F1302; KUL-G, P F1590; KUL-G, 89 T ANTV 1610 D; Tilburg, TFH-A 4699; Tilburg, TFH-A 4779; Tilburg, TFK-A 16.093). See also the copies SA-Turnhout, Kast 6b; UGENT-CB, Acc. 039688/1; Th. 002184; Th. 002188/3; Th. 002478/2 and Th. 002810, mentioned in STCV, no 668901. 159 Ioannis Miraei Episcopi Antverpiensis Oratio Ad clerum habita in Synodo Dioecesana, Antwerp, [‘ex officina Plantiniana apud Ioannem Moretum’], 1610 (see, among others, Park, GPAR-DI/5; AugHI, GOSA-G.XD.47; KUL-C, BRES-RA20433; KUL-C, BRES-R4A7596; KUL-G, P F1302; KUL-G, P F1590; KUL-G, 89 T ANTV 1610 D; Tilburg, TFH-A 4699; Tilburg, TFH-A 4779; Tilburg, TFK-A 16.093). 160 Statuta Synodi Dioecesanae Bvscodvcensis, Anno Domini 1612. Mensis Octobris die 9. & 10. celebratae. Praesidente in ea Reverendissimo in Christo Patre ac Domino D. Gisberto Masio, Episcopo Buscoducens., Cologne, Ioannes Kinckius ‘sub Monocerote’, 1613 (see, among others, KUL-G, P F1591a; KUL-G, 2–014024/A; KUL-G, 89 T BUSC 1613 S; Tilburg, TFH-A 4779; Tilburg, TFH-A 8855; Tilburg, TFK-A 13.687; Tilburg, TFK-A 15.176). 161 Oratio a R.mo Domino Episcopo Bvscodvcensi habita ad Clerum Buscoducensem in Synodo Dioecesana 9. Octob. 1612, [Cologne, Ioannes Kinckius ‘sub Monocerote’, 1613] (see, among others, KUL-G, P F1591a; KUL-G, 2–014024/A; KUL-G, 89 T BUSC 1613 S; Tilburg, TFH-A 4779; Tilburg, TFH-A 8855; Tilburg, TFK-A 13.687; Tilburg, TFK-A 15.176). 162 M. G. Spiertz, ‘Godsdienstig leven van de katholieken in de 17de eeuw’, in: AGN, vol. 8, 1979, p. 349. 163 Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 781–83.

164 

dries vanysacker

way of living and function of the clergy.164 The Decreta et Statuta were published in 1614.165 The only exception was the diocese of Bruges under Bishop Karel-Filips de Rodoan (1604–16).166 Bruges did neither respond to the obligation of a diocesan Synod, nor to yearly meeting of bishop and deacons. In 1615 there were preparations for a Synod, but this meeting was never convoked.167 Rodoan had published around 1610 a catechism for his diocese.168

Conclusion What is striking about the Provincial Councils of the beginning of the seventeenth century, is the consistently repeated official acceptance of the decrees of the Council of Trent. In Malines in all parishes the decrees on marriage were re-edited. The continuous reprinting of the decrees of Trent (between 1596 and 1611),169 the Missale romanum (between 1596 and 1613),170 the Breviarium romanum (between 1597

164 M.-J. Marinus, ‘K. Maes, H. F. van der Busch en J. Boonen (1610–1621). Drie bisschoppen tijdens het Twaalfjarig Bestand’, in: Het bisdom Gent (see n. 12), pp. 60–62. 165 Decreta et Statuta Synodi Dioecesanae Gandavensis: Die decimâ Septembris Anni Millesimi Sexcentesimi decimi-tertij inchoatae, & die vndecimâ eiusdem mensis & anni absolutae, Praesidente in eâ R.mo in Christo Patre ac Domino  D. Henrico Francisco vander Bvrch Episcopo Gandavensi, Ghent, Gualterus Manilius, 1614 (see, among others, KULG, 89T GAND 1613D; KULG, 3211 D23; Tilburg, TFH-A 4700). 166 Cloet, Rodoan (see n.  79); Idem, ‘Karel-Filips de Rodoan (1604–1616)’, in: Het bisdom Brugge (see n. 11), pp. 54–57; Idem, ‘Rodoan, Karel Filips de’, in: NBW, vol. 1, 1964, col. 775–82; Van de Velde, Synopsis (see n. 1), pp. 762–63. 167 Cloet, Rodoan (see n. 79), pp. 110–13; Idem, ‘Karel-Filips de Rodoan’ (see n. 166), p. 56. 168 M.  Cloet, ‘Een onbekende catechismus van bisschop de Rodoan (1602–1616) ontdekt in The British Library’, in: Vriendenboek Jozef Penninck (Bruges, 1983), pp. 177–97. 169 See, among others, Park, GPAR -DI/26 and KUL-G, P262.529.3 SACR 1596; BT, no 5366; USTC, no  407003  (1596); Tilburg, TFK-A 22.255; Tilburg, TFH-A 3755; EHC, E77605 (c2–552e) (see STCV, no 6619720) (1604); Tilburg, TFH-A 3755 and TFK-A 14.228 (1606). For the 1611-Edition, entitled: Sacrosancti et oecvmenici concilii Tridentini … canones et decreta Recèns accesserunt … D.  Ioannis Sotealli theologi, & Horatii Lvtii iurisconsulti, vtilissimæ ad marginem annotationes … Additæ prætereà sunt ad finem Pii  IIII. … Bullæ, unà cum triplici utilissimo indice. Antwerp, ‘ex officina Plantiniana, apud viduam & filios Io.  Moreti’, 1611 (of which copies are preserved in KUL-C, BRES-RA14798/1; KUL-G, 2–003837/A and 89O1 1611 and UA-CST, MAG-P 12.69; see STCV, no 6606721). 170 Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti Concilij Tridentini restitutum, Pii  V … iussu editum. Additis aliquot sanctorum officijs ex praecepto … Sixti PP. V., Antwerp, ‘ex officina Plantiniana, apud Viduam, & Ioannem Moretum’, 1596 (KUL-G, P264.12/Fo MISS Roma; BT, no  8762; USTC, no  413289,  413290). See, among others, BT, no  2133; USTC, no  407046  (1598); EHC, 767989 (see STCV, no  12916467); BT, no  6340; USTC, no  407085,  413584  (1599); Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti concilii Tridentini restitutum, Pii V. Pont. Max. iussu editum et Clementis VIII. auctoritate recognitum, Antwerp, ‘ex officina Plantiniana, apud Ioannem Moretum’, 1605 (KUL-G, 264.12; SA-Oudenaarde, BKPA015 and BKSW001/01; STCV, no 12919939); Missale Romanum, ex decreto sacrosancti Concilij Tridentini restitutum, Pij V. pont. max. iussu editum, et Clementis VIII. auctoritate recognitum, Antwerp, ‘ex Officina Plantiniana apud Ioannem Moretum’, 1606 (KUL-G, 2–001896/D); MPM, 4265 and STCV, no  12915128  (1608); UA-CTS, RG 3105 C6; STCV, no 12918976 (1610); Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti Concilij Tridentini restitutum. Pii Quinti … jussu editum. Et Clementis  VIII auctoritate recognitum, Antwerp, ‘apud Ioannem Keerbergium’, 1612 (Park, GPAR-ADVII/2; Tilburg, TFK-C 2011 (1612); MPM, R46.18 and 4263/1; STCV, no 12913370–12913371); Tilburg, TFH-D566; MPM 2161(1); STCV, no 12918538 (1613).

malines and its official printings

 165

and 1610),171 a new Graduale romanum172 and a Psalterium romanum,173 and the Roman Catechism in Latin (between 1601 and 1606),174 as well as the new catechism in Dutch (from 1604 and 1609 onwards)175 demonstrates that the Church province of Malines only half a century after her foundation could start definitively with the implementation of the Tridentine Catholic Reform, and perhaps later than Cambrai where both bishops were more quickly installed, and print culture flourished earlier. This could only be achieved thanks to the hard labor of its bishops who from the very beginning had to cope with very unwelcome circumstances indeed. The quantity of official printings that appeared during the period 1559–1607/13 is the most convincing e­ vidence of this perseverance.

171 See, among others, USTC, no 407010, 440696 (1597); BT, no 7693; USTC, no 407030 (1598) and BT, no 5329 (1598/1599). Breviarivm Romanvm ex decreto sacrosancti Concilij Tridentini restitutum, Pii  V. Pont. Max. iussu editum, et Clementis  VIII. auctoritate recognitum, Antwerp, ‘ex officina Plantiniana, apud Ioannem Moretum’, 1610 (KUL-G, P264.13/Q° BREVI 1610). 172 Gradvuale Romanum: de tempore et sanctis. Iuxta ritum missalis, ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilij Tridentini restituti: Pii V. pont. max. iussu editi, Antwerp, ‘ex officiana Plantiniana apud Ioannem Moretum’, 1599 (see AAM, A021-A026; EHC, H38254; SESA-Mechelen X.0; STCV, no 6890332; USTC, no 407080). 173 Psalterivm Romanum, decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitvtvm: ex breviario romano Clemens VIII. […] auctoritate recognito, Antwerp, ‘ex officina Plantiniana, apud Ioannem Moretum ’, 1609 (AAM A90; SA-Oudenaarde, BKPA 025; SESA-Mechelen, X.0; STCV, no 6879262). 174 Catechismus Romanus, ex decreto concilii Tridentini, & Pii V. pontificis maximi jussu primum editus …postea vero luculentis quaestionibus, quae rei propositae materiam oculis subiiciant, distinctus, brevibusque annotatiunculis elucidatus, studio & industria Andreae Fabricii Leodii …, Antwerp, ‘ex officina Plantiniana apud Ioannem Moretum’, 1601 (see KUL-C, BRES-7A4075); Catechismus romanus, ex decreto Concilii Tridentini & Pii  V … iussu primum editus, postea vero luculentis quaestionibus … distinctus, breuibusque annotatiunculis elucidatus, studio et industria Andreae Fabricii … Accessit postrema hac editione Index vtilissimus … Fabricius, Andreas…, Antwerp, ‘ex officina Plantiniana, apud Ioannem Moretum’, 1606 (see KUL-C, BRES-RA55099; KUL-G, 268.165 CATE 1606; PBL, OD-D-0689; UA-CST, RG-3093D1 and STCV, no 12912988). 175 Catechismus, dat is de christelijcke leeringhe, in maniere van t’samen-sprekinghe tusschen den meester ende den discipel deur Franciscvm Costervm, Antwerp, ‘inde Plantijnsche druckerije, by Jan Moerentorf ’, 1604 (KUL-G, LEUVEN MU Wa 236 A 24; KUL-G, P268.114 COST Cate). See also note 145 and Catechismus dat is de christeliicke leeringhe ghedeylt in neghen-en-viertich lessen voor de catholijcke ionckheydt van de Prouincie des Artsbischdoms van Mechelen achter-volghende d’Ordinancie van het Concilie Provinciael ghehouden aldaer anno 1609, Brussels, Ian Mommaert, 1609 (KUL-G, P268.114 MAKE Cate 1609).

Restoration and Reform of the Parish after Trent The Case of Saint James in Ghent (1561–1630)

Michal Bauwens

Introduction The publication of the Tridentine decrees was of great importance in the Habsburg Netherlands, though implementing the decrees was not an easy or straightforward process, especially when the interests of ecclesiastical and secular institutions – particularly financial ones – were at stake. In these cases, the publication of the new decrees was often delayed and at times they led to intense discussions between the institutions and office-holders involved.1 Still, understanding Catholic life after Trent in the Low Countries should never be reduced to solely a top-down study of the implementation of the decrees and the concomitant reorganization of the dioceses. For Catholics here, other matters influenced their beliefs and practices as well. From the 1560s onwards, the area was characterized by attacks on everyday Catholic life. Examining how Catholics coped with these challenges can reveal more about local religious experience than solely focusing on the implementation of the decrees. Combining as such top-down studies with a more bottom-up inspired research approach is essential for providing a complete picture of what happened to Catholicism at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century. In order to grasp the complexity of Catholic life after Trent, this contribution discusses three processes in the formation of Tridentine Catholicism in the Netherlands and more particularly in Saint James, a parish in Ghent. First, I discuss the long drawn-out process of implementing the decrees and the bishopric reform in the Habsburg Low Countries within the Ghent context. Secondly, this article takes a close look at some of the actions of the first Bishops of Ghent that touched the local 1

V.  Soen, ‘The Council of Trent and the Preconditions of the Dutch Revolt (1563–1566)’, in: W. François and V. Soen, The Council of Trent. Reform and Controversy in Europe and beyond (1540–1700), vol. 2: Between Bishops and Princes (Göttingen, 2017), pp. 255–278.

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François, Turnhout, 2017 (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire ­Ecclésiastique, 101), pp. 167–185

F H G

DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.113407

168 

michal bauwens

parishes. The third and final part examines some elements of parish life. By focusing on the urban parish of Saint James in Ghent, I  illustrate the tensions ­between ­regulations and practice as well as nuance the often supposed contraposition between local lay Catholics and Catholic Reform.

A New Diocese, a New Bishop The implementation of the Tridentine decrees became intertwined with the reorganization of the dioceses in the Low Countries in 1559, which brought about the erection of the bishopric of Ghent. Before that date, the Burgundian Dukes and Emperor Charles V had vainly lobbied for a reform of the bishoprics in the Low Countries. As a result, the dioceses had not kept in step with the political agglomeration that had taken place in the Netherlands since the fourteenth century. Despite the strong demographic growth during the Middle Ages, especially in Flanders and Brabant, the Dutch-speaking area still only had one bishop’s see, namely Utrecht. The other bishops resided in French-speaking territories, such as Tournai, Arras, Cambrai, Thérouanne and Liège, often beyond Burgundian jurisdiction. The influence of ‘foreign’ bishops in their territories was a thorn in the side of the Dukes of Burgundy.2 In these times, Ghent was administered within the bishopric of Tournai, which was a French enclave until 1521. Over time, the diocese of Tournai received a bishop’s assistant, especially appointed for the Dutch-speaking part of the diocese, often residing in Ghent. Occasionally, the bishop himself stayed in Ghent as well.3 It was only when Philip II was ruler of the Netherlands that there was a breakthrough in the plans for reorganizing the dioceses. After a lot of preparation and lobbying in Rome, on 12 May 1559 Pope Paul IV (1555–59) announced a bishopric reform in the bull Super Universas. Henceforth, the Seventeen Provinces united by Charles V would be divided into fifteen bishoprics, including Ghent, and three archdioceses, namely Malines, Cambrai and Utrecht, which became also the metropolitan see of a Church province.4 The reorganization was not just a political move, as it was aimed at Catholic reform as well: both the higher ecclesiastical and worldly powers were convinced that a more efficient Church structure would provide protection against heresy.5 Subsequently, this institutional reform paved the way for Pope Pius IV’s issue of the bull Regimini Universalis, which in 1561 re2 J.  C.  H.  Blom and E.  Lamberts, Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden, Baarn, 2007, p.  84; M.  Dierickx, De oprichting der nieuwe bisdommen in de Nederlanden onder Filips  II 1559–1570, Antwerp and Utrecht, 1950, pp. 30–32. 3 The strong ties between these Ghent ‘bishops’ and the regime of the Dukes of Burgundy illustrate the political importance of a renewed diocese: E. Van Mingroot, ‘Voorgeschiedenis en oprichting van het bisdom Gent’, in: M. Cloet (ed.), Het bisdom Gent. Vier eeuwen geschiedenis (Ghent, 1992), pp. 17–27 (at pp. 22–23). 4 F. Willocx, L’ introduction des décrets du Concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la Principauté de Liège, Leuven, 1929, pp. 151–52; Van Mingroot, ‘Voorgeschiedenis’ (see n. 3), p. 24; Guido Marnef, ‘Een maat voor niets? De episcopaten van Granvelle en Hauchin (1559–1596)’, in: Het aartsbisdom Mechelen-Brussel. 450 jaar geschiedenis, vol. 1 (Antwerp, 2009), pp. 63–97. 5 G.  Gielis, ‘Een pleidooi voor klerikale herbronning. Ruard Tapper (1487–1559) en zijn ideeën over kerkhervorming’, in: V. Soen and P. Knevel (eds), Religie, hervorming en controverse in de zestiende-eeuwse Nederlanden (Publicaties van de Vlaams-Nederlandse vereniging voor Nieuwe Geschiedenis, 12) (Maastricht, 2013), pp. 21–36.

restoration and reform of the parish after trent  169 sulted in the merger of the 182 parishes of the old dioceses of Tournai, Utrecht and Cambrai to form the new bishopric of Ghent within the ecclesiastical province of Malines.6 The choice of Ghent was not accidental, since it was the political and administrative capital of the highly urbanized County of Flanders. It had also been the largest city in the Low Countries – its population had declined from about 60,000 in the fourteenth century to about 40,000 to 50,000 in the sixteenth century. Since the fifteenth century, the Council of Flanders had gathered in Ghent.7 Furthermore, the city had a rich ecclesiastical history. Around the middle of the sixteenth century, Ghent was home to about 4500 clerics, friars, nuns and religious brothers and sisters spread over seven parish churches, two chapters, an abbey (Saint Peter’s) and a great variety of religious orders. In addition, medieval Ghent had witnessed the creation of eleven hospitals and about forty religious brotherhoods. This broad range of ecclesiastical structures and its political importance made Ghent the perfect episcopal seat. With the formation of the diocese of Ghent, Saint Bavo’s chapter was transformed into the cathedral chapter.8 Nevertheless, the bishopric reform met serious opposition in Ghent, just like in other areas in Flanders.9 When the decrees of the Council of Trent were promulgated over the course of 1565, there was no bishop in Ghent installed, as the city was still being administered from Tournai and even Utrecht.10 Several provincial courts and the Council of State appealed against the publication of the Tridentine decrees as placards. Instead they hoped for a more subtle spread of the council’s conclusions.11 Also in Ghent this opposition was visible. In July 1565, Margaret of Parma contacted the bailiff and magistrate of Ghent and requested the execution of the decrees.12 More than half a year later, on 26 March 1566, the issue had still not been settled in Ghent and extracts of certain articles concerning the publication and implementation of the Council of Trent were again presented and discussed during the assembly of the magistrate.13 Throughout this year, other, more urgent matters were troubling the magistrate and people of Ghent. On 22 August, Ghent was hit by a wave of iconoclasm that had been wreaking havoc destruction in other parts of Flanders for the previous 12 days. Many Catholics were devastated by the destruction and chaos ruled ecclesiastical life for months to come. Protestants took advantage of this disorder to expand the Calvin6 Van Mingroot, ‘Voorgeschiedenis’ (see n. 3), p. 26. 7 J. Dambruyne, Mensen en centen. Het 16de-eeuwse Gent in demografisch en economisch perspectief (Verhandelingen der Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent, 26), Ghent, 2001, p. 106. 8 Van Mingroot, ‘Voorgeschiedenis’ (see n. 3), pp. 19–26. 9 M. G. Spiertz, ‘Succes en falen van de katholieke reformatie’, in: Ketters en papen onder Filips II (Utrecht, 1986), p. 61. 10 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 4), pp. 61–68, 262. Rijksarchief Gent (RAG), Bisdom Gent, 020/K 19148 nf. 11 Spiertz, ‘Succes’ (see n. 9), p. 61. 12 Stadsarchief Gent (SAG), Series 94 bis, nr. 8, fo. 56, fo. 58; the larger context is described in For Cambrai see: V.  Soen and L.  Hollevoet, ‘Bisschop na het Concilie van Trente. De hervormingspogingen van Maximiliaan van Bergen, aartsbisschop van Kamerijk (1564–1570)’, in: W.  François, L.  Kenis and V.  Soen (eds.), Bisschoppen, seminaries en de Leuvense theologische Faculteit (16de-20ste eeuw) (Leuven, in press). 13 SAG, Series 94 bis, nr. 8, fol. 9–11vo. The discussed articles were the same ones the King had sent to the Bishop of Bruges on 19 March 1566. See SAG, Series 94 bis, nr. 8, fo. 39.

170 

michal bauwens

ist Church organization, organize hedge preaching and construct a Calvinist temple, among other things.14 In the meantime, preparations were made for the arrival of a new bishop. After the bishopric reform, the new bishop was still to be nominated by the King, in line with the unofficial tradition of the Burgundian and Habsburg rulers.15 Philip II had already appointed Cornelius Jansenius as the Bishop of Ghent in 1564, a position he accepted after considerable hesitation. In July 1565, the Pope confirmed the nomination, but problems with organizing the bishop’s income delayed his arrival in Ghent. Only after the intervention of the Duke of Alba, the new Governor-General, could the appointee-bishop be installed. In 1567, Philip II dispatched a letter to the city of Ghent, informing it of the arrival of Jansenius, but in practice he did not arrive until more than a year later.16 Not until 7 September 1568 did the new prelate enter the city. He was inaugurated the next day. Three years after his nomination and seven years after the creation of the Ghent diocese, Jansenius finally became Bishop of Ghent.17 The decision to make Jansenius bishop was directly linked to his ‘Tridentine’ profile. He was a theologian, exegete and professor in Louvain, and had taken part in the last three sessions of the Council of Trent. He had also sat on the commission that discussed indulgences. He had written several theological works and was one of the authors of the Roman Catechism on the topic of the Lord’s prayer. Apart from his intellect and impeccable life, his talent for preaching, pastoral capacities and experience were also decisive in his selection. Before his inauguration as Bishop of Ghent in 1568, he had already joined the first Provincial Council of Cambrai as appointee-bishop in 1565, and he also attended a gathering of ‘bishops’ there in 1567.18 Following Trent’s conclusions, the Provincial Councils of Cambrai decided on the first initiatives for the organization of priest seminars.19 From this perspective, Jansenius was the ideal bishop for a city in the middle of a crisis, still picking up the pieces after the iconoclasts’ destruction. This first Bishop of Ghent led the diocese for eight years, while taking many initiatives to restore Catholicism. He died in 1576. Political instability and the rise of the Calvinist Republic of Ghent (1577–84) in particular prevented the arrival of a new bishop. Furthermore, the work of Catholic restoration and many of the reforms of Jansenius were c­ ountered by this Calvinist regime. In December 14 M.  Van Vaernewijck, Van die beroerlicke tijden in die Nederlanden, en voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566–1568, ed. F. F. E. Van Der Haeghen, 5 vols, MVB 4 (Ghent, 1872), p. 118 (Part I); J. Pollmann, Countering the Reformation in France and the Netherlands. Clerical Leadership and Catholic Violence 1560–1585, Past & Present 190 (2006), 83–120 (at p. 94); J. Scheerder, Het wonderjaar te Gent, 1566–1567 (unpublished doctoral thesis), Catholic University of Leuven, 1971, p. 54; G. Marnef, ‘The Dynamics of Reformed Religious Militancy. The Netherlands, 1566–1585’, in: G. Benedict (ed.), Reformation, Revolt and Civil War in France and the Netherlands 1555–1585 (Amsterdam, 1999), pp. 51–68. 15 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 4), pp. 151–52; Van Mingroot, ‘Voorgeschiedenis’ (see n. 3), p. 24. 16 J. Roegiers, ‘Cornelius Jansenius (1565–1576)’, in: Cloet, Het bisdom Gent (see n. 3), pp. 35–40 (at p. 36); Dierickx, De oprichting (see n.  2), pp.  77–79,  236–88; J.  Lockefeer and J.  de Kort (eds), Cornelius Jansenius van Hulst 1510–1576 (Hulst, 2010), pp. 69–79. SAG, Series 94 bis, nr. 21, fo. 1, 7 vo (letter of 8/04/1567), 8, 10 vo. 17 SAG, Series 94 bis, nr. 21, fo. 6. 18 V. Soen and L. Hollevoet, ‘Bisschop’ (see n. 12). 19 J.  Roegiers, De oprichting en de beginjaren van het bisschoppelijk seminarie te Gent (1569–1623) (Verhandelingen der Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent, 27), Ghent, 1973, pp. 23–26; Idem, ‘Cornelius Jansenius’ (see n. 16), pp. 35–36.

restoration and reform of the parish after trent  171 1578, under the influence of William of Orange, a religious peace was accepted in Ghent, but it was short-lived. A few months later, there was a new outbreak of iconoclasm supported by the Calvinist city council. The churches of Ghent would not be used again for Catholic services until 1584, when Alexander Farnese brought Ghent back under Habsburg rule.20 The episcopal chair remained vacant for more than a decade.21 In 1584 a new bishop, Joannes Vonckius, was nominated, but he died in 1585 and never did come to Ghent. The next appointee-bishop, Mattheus Rucquebusch, died in 1586 before the papal bull of his nomination arrived, and the third bishop after the Calvinist Republic, Willem Lindanus, was bishop for only one year and died in 1588. Thus for most of the period from 1580 to at least 1590 there was no bishop leading the diocese of Ghent. During the absence of a bishop a vicar-general was in command, but there has as yet been no thorough study of his leadership.22 In 1590 a new bishop was appointed, who would remain in his position for a considerable period, namely 19 years. Pieter Damant had an enormous challenge awaiting him as, according to Marie-Juliette Marinus, the diocese was in a worse shape than after the first iconoclasm. She claims his episcopate, with the exception of the final years, was not very successful and the secular government and archdeacon showed more interest in the religious and ecclesiastical needs of the diocese than Damant himself.23 During the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609–21), three bishops ruled for relatively short periods over the diocese of Ghent: Karel Maes, Hendric (Frans) vander Burch and Jacob Boonen.24 After them, Antoon Triest, one of the most famous Ghent Bishops during the Early Modern Period, would lead the bishopric until 1657. The Catholic Church historian Michel Cloet has gone so far as to call him the ‘prototype of a Counter-Reformation bishop’. Triest came from a wealthy and noble family that had strong ties with  Ghent. He had already been a chaplain at the court in Brussels when the Archdukes Albert and Isabella nominated him as dean of the Saint Donatian chapter in Bruges in 1610, Bishop of Bruges in 1616 and four years later, Bishop of Ghent.25 Even with a Tridentine-inspired bishop like Jansenius, the Tridentine decrees were not published in Ghent until 1570. Many other cities were quicker to react, for ­example Ypres published the decrees in 1564, and Bruges and Malines in 1565.26 Antwerp was also late in promulgating the decrees, as the diocese of Antwerp only 20 Roegiers, ‘Cornelius Jansenius’ (see n. 16), pp. 38–39; A. Despretz, De instauratie der Gentse Calvinistische Republiek (1577–1579), Handelingen der Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent 17 (1963), 170–83; A.-L. Van Bruaene, ‘A Religious Republic and Fortress’, in: Ghent, A City of All Times (Ghent, 2010), pp. 96–143. 21 M.  J.  Marinus, ‘W.  Lindanus en P.  Damant (1587–1609)’, in: Cloet, Het bisdom Gent (see n.  3), pp. 49–54 (at p. 49). 22 E.  Gardin, De contrareformatie te Gent, 1584–1633. Deel 1 (licentiaatsverhandeling Universiteit Gent), Ghent, 1988, pp. 7–13. 23 Marinus, ‘W. Lindanus’ (see n. 21), p. 52. 24 M.  J.  Marinus, ‘K.  Maes, H.  F.  Van der Burch en J.  Boonen. Drie bisschoppen tijdens het twaalfjarig bestand (1610–1621)’, in: Cloet, Het bisdom Gent (see n. 3), pp. 58–65 (at pp. 58–65). 25 M. Cloet, ‘Antoon Triest (1621–1657)’, in: Cloet, Het bisdom Gent (see n. 3), pp. 66–78 (at pp. 67–68); Idem, Antoon Triest, prototype van een contrareformatorische bisschop, op bezoek in zijn Gentse diocees (1622– 1657), Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 91 (1976), 394–405 (at p. 394). 26 R. Weemaes, Visitatieverslagen van Karel Maes, bisschop van Gent Diarium mei-juni 1611, Brussels, 1987, p. VI.

172 

michal bauwens

received its bishop in 1570.27 Michel Cloet argues that even after the publication of the decrees, the implementation of the reforms in daily life only took off in the first decennium of the seventeenth century. He considers the rule of the Archdukes Albert and Isabella (1598–1621), the Archbishop Mathias Hovius, the third Provincial Council of Malines (1607) and the start of the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609) as important factors in the adoption of Tridentine Catholicism.28 This idea needs to be nuanced. The case of Ghent illustrates that bishops took initiatives for reform right from the beginning, and that ordinary believers were agents of religious change as well. The presence of the first Bishop of Ghent did not go unnoticed. During the first weeks of his episcopacy, he preached every Sunday and holy day in the cathedral or another parish church in Ghent.29 He also furthered the education of ordinary people by having the Jesuit Francis Costerus teach the basics of the Catholic faith. More structural reforms in schooling and catechism followed a few years later. Despite the troubled times, Jansenius managed to reform the Abbey of Saint Peter and its chapter in 1569. The foundation of a seminary that same year was another important achievement. This was clearly inspired by the sessions of the Council of Trent and the Provincial Council of Cambrai that Jansenius had been part of. In 1571, a year after the first Provincial Council of Malines, he managed to organize a diocesan Synod in Ghent where the foundation and funding of the seminary of Ghent was discussed in detail. After this Synod, also the furthering of schools in every parish was an important objective of Jansenius. The topic of the seminary was raised again in the second Provincial Council in Louvain and in the second diocesan Synod which both took place in 1574. Other Trent-related topics were discussed as well. In the first diocesan Synod in Ghent, Jansenius published the conclusions of the Malines Council that had translated most decrees of Trent into the context of the local situation. This would further the implementation of the reforms.30 After the Synod, when Jansenius preached to the Ghent public on Sundays, he explained the importance of the decrees of Trent and those of the Provincial Councils and diocesan Synods.31 27 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 4), p. 263; Spiertz, ‘Succes’ (see n. 9), p. 61; G. Marnef, ‘Een nieuw bisdom in troebele tijden. Vanaf de oprichting tot het episcopaat van Willem van Bergen’, in: M. Gielis (ed.), In de stroom van de tijd. (4)50 jaar bisdom Antwerpen (Leuven, 2012), pp. 39–65 (at pp. 40–42). The fear was that the increased control over religious life by the bishop would bring inquisition and harm the city’s economic activity. 28 M.  Cloet, ‘Het doopsel in de Nieuwe Tijd (ca. 1550-ca. 1800)’, in: L.  Leijssen, M.  Cloet and K. Dobbelaere (eds), Geboorte en doopsel (Kadoc Studies, 20) (Leuven, 1996), pp. 75–94 (at p. 75); For a recent study on Archduke Albrecht see: L. Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety. Archduke Albert (1598–1621) and Habsburg Political Culture in an Age of Religious Wars, Burlington, VT, 2012. 29 For example, see his sermons on the general pardon: V. Soen, Geen pardon zonder paus! Studie over de complementariteit van het koninklijk en pauselijk generaal pardon (1570–1574) en over inquisiteurgeneraal Michael Baius (1560–1576), Brussels, 2007, pp. 216–17. 30 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n.  4), p.  262; Roegiers, De oprichting (see n.  19), pp.  27,  36–41; Idem, ‘Cornelius Jansenius’ (see n. 16), pp. 36–38; The organization of these councils were already attempts to meet the demands of Trent, see: N. P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2: Trent-Vatican II, Washington, DC, 1990, p. 761; we can see a lot of similarities between Jansenius and the Bishop of Antwerp Sonnius: Marnef, ‘Een nieuw bisdom’ (see n. 27), pp. 43–45. 31 C.  Van Campene, P.  Van Campene and F.  De Potter, Dagboek van Cornelis en Philip van Campene behelzende het verhaal der merkwaardigste gebeurtenissen voorgevallen te Gent, sedert het begin der godsdienstberoerten tot den 15e april 1571, Ghent, 1870, p. 300.

restoration and reform of the parish after trent  173 A Trent-inspired topic that became an important aspect of Jansenius’s episcopacy was the keeping of holy days. Within a month of his inauguration, Jansenius sent letters to all the curates of his bishopric to inform them about the rules concerning marriage proclamations and the observance of holy days.32 This latter topic was an especially sensitive issue in a bustling commercial city like Ghent. The magistrate of Ghent responded by ‘informing’ the bishop of the customs of Ghent. The aldermen confirmed that the city had already condemned working on Sundays and holy days with several ordinances as well as fines and other punishments for transgressors. However, they had made some exceptions for practical reasons. On holy days that happened to be a Friday, the main market (Friday market) was allowed to go ahead, except on the following days: Christmas, Good Friday, Pentecost and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. Furthermore, certain guilds had been granted permission to perform their trade on Sundays and holy days until 8 or 9 o’clock in the morning, depending on the season, except for the four solemnities mentioned above. More exceptions were enumerated: fishermen, millers, dockers, bakers and manure cleaners could work, under certain conditions, on Sundays and Feast days.33 Naturally, these numerous exceptions were a thorn in the side of the bishop. And this letter was only the beginning of a careful and prolonged process of negotiation between the city of Ghent and the bishop on the issue of Sundays and Feast days. What happened in practice was yet another story. Just like in the other bishoprics, the work of the bishop did not seem to pay off.34 Sunday rest remained a sensitive subject during the seventeenth century as well. Bishop Hendric vander Burch also negotiated with the magistracy on the topic of Sunday rest and holy days.35 At times the subject even caused open conflict between the ecclesiastical authorities and local government. Antoon Triest (1521–1657) experienced fierce opposition when trying to implement the regulation on holy days. His decree on the Sunday rest issued in 1622 was attacked by the Council of Flanders. The provincial court considered the decree to be in violation of a royal privilege and an existing edict of 1607, as it simulated a police regulation and even dictated fixed fines. The issue escalated into a discussion about the relationship between the Church and State, on which Isabella, then Governess of the Netherlands, also took a stand. A  slightly modified version of the decree was approved by the Privy Council (Geheime Raad) of the central government and reprinted in 1624. However, this was not the end of the conflict. In 1625, Triest complained that the Council of Flanders had ­commissioned the attorney general to remove and confiscate the printed posters containing the text of the decree.36 32 SAG, Series 94 bis, nr. 21, fo. 11 vo. 33 SAG, Series 94 bis, nr. 21, fo. 13–16 vo. 34 Spiertz, ‘Succes’ (see n. 9), pp. 62–65; M. Cloet, ‘Algemeen verslag over de kerkgeschiedschrijving betreffende de nieuwe tijd sinds 1970’, in: M.  Cloet and F.  Daelemans (eds), Godsdienst, mentaliteit en dagelijks leven. Religieuze geschiedenis in België sinds 1970 (Archief-en bibliotheekwezen in België) (Brussels, 1988), pp. 62–88 (at p. 74); Marnef, ‘Een nieuw bisdom’ (see n. 27), p. 45. After this communication it did not end. A delegation visited the bishop and several letters on this topic were exchanged. Although the bishop seemed to understand the exceptions, he aspired a more strict understanding of high days and insisted on the prohibition of work (including markets) during the feasts of Our Lady and the feast of the Apostles. See: SAG, Series 94 bis, nr. 21, fo. 16vo-21. 35 M. Therry and H. Feys, Indices op de Acta Episcopatus Gandavensis (Archiefbestanden in nietrijksarchieven, 18, 1), Brussels, 2002, pp. 46, 49 (Acta vicariatus (1/2/1612–1/2/1613) fo. 100 ro; Acta episcopatus, Henricus vander Burch, fo. 23 vo, 42 ro, 72 vo, 46 vo). 36 RAG, Bisdom Gent, 020/R 1041/2, 020/R 1041/3, 020/R 1041/4, 020/R 1041/5.

174 

michal bauwens

It is not clear exactly how the conflict ended, but later reports point to the bishop as the final winner. In 1628 and 1636, artisans and merchants had to go to the bishop if they wanted an exemption from the legislation concerning working on holy days.37 However, according to Michel Cloet, who has studied Bishop Triest’s episcopacy extensively, these problems were never really solved. Furthermore, complaints about violations of the prohibition against working on holy days increased over the first half of the seventeenth century and only diminished during the last decades of the century. The bishop usually blamed local officials for being too lax.38 The strict ruling of Triest had some lasting effects, though. An early eighteenth century Bishop of Ghent still referred to Triest’s decree when he explained to the Bishop of Ypres that in his diocese only parish priests could offer dispensation to work on Sundays or holy days, and not the magistrate. In the case of infringement, the ecclesiastical court had the power to judge. This shows that over time the ecclesiastical court gained the upper hand over the civil court in matters that touched on the Church and the religious life of people.39

Bishops Reforming the Parish Church The Tridentine decrees had emphasized the importance of the parish church and parish priest, and Jansenius also took up this point.40 For example, in December 1568 he demanded that the magistrates of Ghent introduce legislation to forbid people walking around in churches during services.41 The town council immediately took action and came up with a new resolution. In order to execute the ordinance, the church was allowed to call in the bailiff or other public servants who had been given the authority to prosecute any unruly people.42 This was not enough. In February 1570, Jansenius repeated his request to keep order in the church. In addition, he directed his attention to areas outside the church building. The path of the p­ rocession, for example, was considered semi-sacred. The bishop made it clear that only religious ornaments would be allowed on the processional walkway.43 These attempts to de-profanize religious buildings and stress their sacred character reveal Trent’s influence.44 Other ecclesiastical leaders of Ghent focused on this aspect as well and pushed for more behavioural discipline to prevent the disturbance of religious functions.45 37 RAG, Bisdom Gent, 020/R 1041/6. 38 Cloet, Antoon Triest, prototype (see n. 25), p. 403; M. Cloet, ‘Bisschop Triest op bezoek te Pamele (1624–1652)’, in: Gedenkboek 750 jaar Pamelekerk (Oudenaarde, 1985), pp. 151–61 (at pp. 158, 164); Idem, Het kerkelijk leven in een landelijke dekenij van Vlaanderen tijdens de XVIIe eeuw. Tielt van 1609 tot 1700, Leuven, 1968, pp. 286–93. 39 Cloet, ‘Antoon Triest’ (see n. 25), p. 77; Cloet, Antoon Triest, prototype (see n. 25), p. 394; Other Ghent Bishops also believed that the ecclesiastical regulations were above secular authority. The Bishops Hendric Vander Burch and Jacobus Boonen contacted the Archduke to discuss the renewal and oath of the magistrate. See: Therry and Feys, Indices (see n. 35), pp. 49–50. (Acta episcopatus, Hendricus vander Burch fo. 21 ro, 49 vo, Jacobus fo. 118 vo); RAG, Bisdom Gent, 020/K 18089. 40 Tanner, Decrees (see n. 30), vol. 2, pp. 763, 764. 41 SAG, Series 94 bis, nr. 21, fo.27 vo. 42 SAG, Series 94 bis, nr. 21, fo. 67–68. 43 SAG, Series 94 bis, nr. 21, fo. 79 vo. (request of 9 February 1570). 44 Tanner, Decrees (see n. 30), vol. 2, p. 764. (session 24, canon 7). 45 W.  de Boer, The Conquest of the Soul. Confession, Discipline, and Public Order in CounterReformation Milan (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, 84), Leiden, Boston, MA and Köln, 2001, pp.  96–110; B.  Kümin, ‘Sacred Church and Worldly Tavern. Reassessing an

restoration and reform of the parish after trent  175 Bishop vander Burch shared Jansenius’s worries about the sacrality of the church and mass. He had to rebuke two curates and an usher of Saint James and demand that they show more sobriety and more care and respect for the celebration of mass.46 The Acta of his successor Jacobus Boonen mention that the curate of Saint Salvator was fined and rebuked because he had insulted the magistracy and shown disrespect for the Holy Sacrament.47 And Triest also valued sacrality. During his visits to the parishes of his diocese, he always inspected the church interior and the behaviour (and beliefs) of the parish priests and curates.48 The music too had to be up to standard. He took measures to improve the choir that sang during mass at Saint Nicholas.49 Another worry for the Ghent Bishops was parishioners attending church in different parish churches. The importance of attending mass in one’s own church was encouraged indirectly when on 11 February 1569 Jansenius asked the magistrate to take measures to prevent people from moving from one Ghent parish to another without an attestation of their (previous) membership of a parish. Confession was not mentioned on this occasion, but it seems highly likely that it would have been restricted to the person’s own parish church as well.50 The idea of attending mass and having the sacraments in one’s own parish was widespread among parish priests in early seventeenth century Ghent.51 Nevertheless, many people did not comply with the regulations for a long time, as shown by the publication in Ghent in the late seventeenth century of a pastoral letter on this topic from Carlo Borromeo, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan from 1564 to 1584. Again, all believers were told to stick to their own parish church.52 Antwerp faced the same problems. In 1687, Bishop Joannes Ferdinandus van Beughem ordered the Borromeo poster to be distributed in the ­d iocese, together with an ordinance stating that all parishioners had to attend mass and listen to sermons in their own parish church.53 The fear was that if people moved from one parish church to another, it would weaken control over parishioners and hinder the registration of all baptisms and Early Modern Divide’, in: W. Coster and A. Spicer (eds), Sacred Space in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 2005), pp.  17–38 (at p.  37); S.  Evangelisti, ‘Material Culture’, in: A.  Bamji, G. H. Janssen and M. Laven (eds), The Ashgate Research Companion to the Counter-Reformation (Burlington, VT, 2013), pp. 395–418 (at pp. 395–400). 46 Therry and Feys, Indices (see n. 35), pp. 75–76 (Acta Episcopatus Vander Burch, 45 vo). 47 Therry and Feys, Indices (see n. 35), p. 87 (Acta Episcopatus Jacobus Boonen, 118 ro- vo, 120 vo). 48 Cloet, Antoon Triest, prototype (see n.  25); Marc Therry, Indices op de Acta Episcopatus Gandavensis, (Archiefbestanden in niet-rijksarchieven 19,  2), Brussels, 2002, pp.  55–56 (Acta Episcopatus Antonius Triest, Reg. III, 5 vo.). 49 Therry, Indices (see n. 48), p. 56 (Acta Episcopatus Antonius Triest, Reg. III, 9 ro-vo, 24 ro, vo). 50 SAG, Series 94 bis, nr. 21, fo. 78 vo. (request of 11 February 1569). 51 RAG, Bisdom Gent, 020/K 17582. These Ghent priests asked the bishop if they could offer travellers, merchants and students communion and other sacraments in their temporary venue. The bishop’s answer was affirmative except for the sacrament of Holy Orders, from which foreigners evidently remained excluded. 52 RAG, Bisdom Gent, 020/K 11963 The poster is not dated. However it must have been after the canonization of Borromeo in 1610 as the poster mentions him as a saint. Furthermore, Hans Storme points to the fact that especially during the second half of the seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth century, the obligation to attend preaches in the own parish church lead to conflicts between the regular and secular clergy. Most likely this poster was published around the same time as it was in Antwerp, thus around 1687. See footnote below. 53 H. Storme, Preekboeken en prediking in de Mechelse kerkprovincie in de 17e en de 18e eeuw, Brussel, 1991, pp. 155–59.

176 

michal bauwens

marriages within a parish, which was one of the requirements of Trent.54 Bishop Triest had also pushed for better registration of the parishioners. He proved the importance of ecclesiastical control during his episcopacy and did his best to meet the Tridentine requirement for bishops to visit the parishes of their diocese every two years. The Ghent diocese had over 150 parishes, so this took up a lot of the bishop’s time. Furthermore, even though it was not obligatory, he wrote detailed reports of these visits, describing the state of each parish.55 The far-reaching power of the bishop in these matters, and the stress on receiving the sacraments or attending mass in one’s own parish church matched the spirit of the Council of Trent.56 The role and responsibilities of the deacon and the parish priest had also been strengthened by the Council of Trent.57 In the Borromeo letter, mentioned above, the idea of attending mass in one’s own parish church was backed up by Borromeo’s extensive description of the position of the parish priest as a ‘teacher, preacher, exhorter, interpreter, councillor, the procurer of Godly mysteries and the master of the Christian life, whom the parishioners had to honour as their father’.58 It was the parish priest’s duty to check before mass started that only his fellow parishioners were present. The Provincial Council of Malines (1570), as well as various Ghent Bishops, exhorted the parish priests to know their parishioners, keep the parish records and be present at the closure of the churchwarden accounts and the accounts of the parish institution of poor relief. The deacons, in their turn, were required to support and direct the parish priests, and visit the parishes of the deanery at least once a year.59 Despite Jansenius’s many efforts to strengthen Catholicism in Ghent, the period of Calvinist Rule in the city erased many of his achievements. Later, other Ghent Bishops would build on some of his foundations. But as we have seen, from 1576 to 1590 and beyond the Ghent bishopric was not meeting the most fundamental Tridentine 54 M. Cloet, Kerkelijke instellingen en het belang ervan voor de plaatselijke geschiedenis (XVIde– XVIIIde eeuw), De Leiegauw  XXV (1983), 3–31 (at p.  10); There was also a religious motive. The decrees of Trent obligated the people to attend their parish church to hear the preaching. Tanner, Decrees (see n. 30), p. 763. 55 Cloet, Antoon Triest, prototype (see n.  25), pp. 397,  400. His inquiries usually touched three topics: the state of the church building and the utensils used for the mass, the work of the parish priest and the behaviour of the parishioners. 56 Tanner, Decrees, vol. 2 (see n. 30), pp. 761–63 (Council of Trent, session XXIV, canon 3). 57 Various local studies have illustrated the efforts done to increase the importance of pastors and deans, for example: L.  Braeken, De dekenij Herentals (1603–1669). Bijdrage tot de studie van het godsdienstig leven in het bisdom Antwerpen (Symbolae Facultatis Litterarum et Philosophiae Lovaniensis, 1), Leuven, 1982, pp. 77–78, 143. 58 ‘… dat hy den Prochie-pastor moet houden als synen Vader, die beminne, eere, ende ontsiet: dit sig voorstellende, dat hy is eene Gesant, ende Voorbidder by den Heere voor de Geloovige aen hem bevolen, eenen Taelman van de Goddelycke Wet, eenen uyt-reyker van de gheymen Godts, eenen Meester van het Christelyck Leven, ende van de tugt der zeden, van den welcken dat hy vraege allen raedt om godtvruchtelyck, ende wel te doen; ende ten lesten eenen Bedienaer by naer van alles…’ RAG, Bisdom Gent, 020/K 11963. 59 Cloet, Kerkelijke instellingen (see n. 54), pp. 8–16; Therry and Feys, Indices (see n. 35), pp. 49– 50; Therry, Indices (see n. 48), pp. 37–38. Reg. III, Acta Episcopatus Antonius Triest, fo. 21 vo, Acta Episcopatus Hendricus vander Burch, fo. 81 ro; P.-F.-X. De Ram, Synodicon belgicum, dl. IV, Turnhout, 1900, pp. 281–83. The Bishop Hendric Vander Burch asked the parish priests of Ghent to make lists of parishioners with their profession and specify whether or not they followed the church’s regulations. Four times a year they had to hand a list of parishioners they wanted to have persecuted to the ecclesiastical court.

restoration and reform of the parish after trent  177 standards because it lacked a bishop. In this context, after politics and military power led by Alexander Farnese struck the final blow to Calvinist rule, it was the secular government that took the lead in promoting the reconstruction of church buildings and ecclesiastical life.60 However, the parish community also played a role in this process of recovery. The Ghent parishioners were not unknowledgeable, indifferent or passive members of an inflexible organization, but key figures in upholding Catholic life after the crises, even in the absence of a bishop. The case of Saint James will illustrate this further.61

The Case of Saint James in Ghent Between the tenth and twelfth century, the two major Benedictine abbeys of Ghent, Saint Peter and Saint Bavo, became the patrons of seven parish churches in Ghent. Saint Peter’s Abbey had jurisdiction over the parishes situated on the right bank of the river Lys, while Saint Bavo’s had authority over those located on the left bank.62 The churches of Saint John, Saint Nicholas, Saint Michael and Saint James covered the city centre. Saint Pharaildis was a small collegiate church of a parish near the count’s castle and Saint Saviour and Our Lady were situated in the Benedictine enclaves of Saint Bavo and Saint Peter a­ djacent to the city.63 Except for the relocation of the parish of Saint Saviour in 1540 and a c­ omplete but temporary reorganization during the Calvinist regime (1577–84), this parochial system remained largely intact during the Old Regime.64

60 V. Soen, Vredehandel. Adellijke en Habsburgse verzoeningspogingen tijdens de Nederlandse Opstand. Amsterdam Studies in the Dutch Golden Age, Amsterdam, 2012, pp. 43–44. 61 This idea of a population in need of education and re-catholicization has been dominant in the historiography on religion in the Low Countries, see for example: M. Therry, De religieuze beleving bij de leken in het 17e-eeuwse bisdom Brugge (1609–1706) (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der letteren, 128), Brussels, 1988; J. De Brouwer, Godsdienstig leven en kerkelijke instellingen 1550–1621. Land van Aalst, Aalst, 1961; Cloet and Daelemans, Godsdienst (see n. 34); Braeken, De dekenij Herentals (see n. 57). 62 The oldest parish church within the centre was Saint John (now Saint Bavo), which was certainly patronized by Saint Peter since 964. The rural parish of Saint Martin was first mentioned in 966. Saint Michael split of this parish church in 1105. Most other center parishes date from this period as well: Saint James and Saint Nicholas split off from Saint John in 1093 and around 1120, respectively. Our Lady of Saint Peter was founded between 1037 and 1140 and the Holy Christ or Saint Saviour was consecrated in 1067. See: G. Declercq and M.-C. Laleman, ‘Archeologie van de stedelijke ruimte’, in: M. Boone and G. Deneckere (eds), Gent, stad van alle tijden (Ghent and Antwerp, 2010), p. 48; W. Prevenier and M. Boone, ‘De stadstaat-droom’, in: J. Decavele (ed.), Gent. Apologie van een rebelse stad (Antwerp, 1989), p. 48. 63 P.  Trio, Volksreligie als spiegel van een stedelijke samenleving. De broederschappen te Gent in de late middeleeuwen (Symbolae Facultatis Litterarum et Philosophiae Lovaniensis, 11), Leuven, 1993, p.  23; Dumoulin also includes the ancient rural parish of Saint Martin in Ekkergem: J. Dumoulin, ‘La paroisse urbaine à la fin du moyen âge. Le cas de quatre villes de l’ancien diocèse de Tournai: Bruges, Gand, Lille et Tournai’, in: Y. Coutiez and D. Van Overstraeten (eds), La paroisse en questions. Actes du colloque de Saint-Ghislain, 25 novembre 1995 (Mons, Saint-Ghislain, 1997), pp. 95–108 (at p. 97). 64 In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the aartspriesterschap counted three more parishes: the rural parishes of Saint Martin in Ekkergem, Gentbrugge and Oostakker. See: M. Cloet, N. Bostyn and K. De Vreese, Repertorium van dekenale visitatieverslagen betreffende de Mechelse kerkprovincie (1559–1801) (Centre Belge d’Histoire Rurale Louvain-la-Neuve: Publication, 92), Leuven, 1989, p. 117; For a general and very recent introduction to the religious institutions and history of Ghent see: R. Mantels (ed.), Geloven in Gent. Plaatsen van het religieuze verleden, Ghent, 2015.

178 

michal bauwens

Saint James, one of Ghent’s central parishes, was instituted in the twelfth century and patronized by Saint Peter’s Abbey.65 The church was located very close to the economic centre of the city, the Friday market. The famous chronicler Marcus van Vaernewijck was one of the parishioners. He considered Saint James to be one of the smaller parishes of the city, though not the smallest.66 His observation is confirmed by demographic data: in 1492 there were c. 4700 people living in the parish; the calculations for 1624 indicate a minimum of 3250 parishioners. This was considerably less than the two other parishes for which data are available: Saint Michael (6100 in 1494, 4710 in 1624) and Saint John (8700 in 1478).67 Yet, in comparison with other urban regions, 3000 to 5000 parishioners made a rather large parish.68 The first iconoclasm of 1566 and the period of Calvinist Republic rule in particular disrupted parish life severely. The parish of Saint James had a difficult time dealing with the devastating consequences of the Ghent Calvinist Republic.69 The churchwarden accounts of the parish reflect the turbulence of this period. The expenditure in the churchwarden accounts illustrate how the tradition of saying mass for the dead and other recurrent rites was interrupted. It is not until five years after the restoration of Catholicism in Ghent that the accounts show some minimal payments. The annual expenses for masses and the divine office remained nominal until at least 1630, never exceeding one-third of the amount they had been in the period before 1578. The parish witnessed less disruption from the iconoclasm in 1566 than during Calvinist rule.70 However, the decrease does not mean that the parishioners became less interested in masses or devotional life. Many parishioners wanted the continuation of these services. The downturn was mainly the result of practical obstacles, such as a lack of priests because many had fled during the troubles and the loss of income from rents and annuities due to the Dutch Revolt.71 Inflation may have further worsened the situation. Moreover, after 1584 the parish church was unable to meet the parishioners’

65 P. Trio, ‘Volksdevotionele aspecten in de Sint-Jans- en de Sint-Baafskerk (tot omstreeks 1560)’, in: B. Bouckaert (dir.), De Sint-Baafskathedraal in Gent van Middeleeuwen tot Barok (Ghent, 2000), p. 16. 66 Van Vaernewijck, Van die beroerlicke tijden (see n. 14), III, p. 287. 67 W.  Blockmans, ‘Peilingen naar de sociale strukturen te Gent tijdens de late 15e eeuw’, in: W.  Blockmans, Studiën betreffende de sociale strukturen te Brugge, Kortrijk en Gent in de veertiende en vijftiende eeuw. Deel I: Tekst (Heule, 1971), p. 253. Numbers of parishioners for Saint John are missing for the year 1624, but the number of communicants indicate that in 1712, both Saint John and Saint Michael had 9000 parishioners, while Saint James only had 4,000. 68 In comparison, Milan counted 67 parishes for a population of around 120,000–130,000 inhabitants; D.  Garrioch, Lay-Religious Associations, Urban Identities, and Urban Space in EighteenthCentury Milan, The Journal of Religious History 28/1 (2004), 35–49. 69 For more information on the parish in Ghent during and after iconoclasm see: A.-L. Van Bruaene, ‘Exploring the Features and Challenges of the Urban Parish Church in the Southern Low Countries. The Case of Sixteenth-century Ghent’, in: A. Spicer (ed.), The Early Modern Parish. An Introduction (Farnham, forthcoming); M. Bauwens, Under Construction? The Catholic Community in Ghent after the Beeldenstorm, BMGN-Low Countries Historical Review 131/1 (2016), 81–98. 70 RAG, Oud Archief van de kerkfabriek en parochie Sint-Jacobs te Gent (OKA Sint-Jacobs Gent), nr. 341–88 (churchwarden accounts). 71 De Brouwer, Godsdienstig leven (see n. 61), pp. 146–48.

restoration and reform of the parish after trent  179 requirements because of serious difficulties at the institutional level: the destruction of the building on top of the lack of finances and priests.72 Remarkably, when looking at those aspects of the parish where parishioners depended less on the ecclesiastical finances and hierarchy, we see a totally different picture. After the restoration of Catholicism in 1584, the city parish showed singular resilience. Some changes even seem to have started in the 1570s, before the Calvinist Republic. Graphs 1 and 2 show the amount (in Flemish deniers grooten) that the parishioners of Saint James donated to the churchwardens through their wills and for the payment of their funerals.73 From the 1570s onwards, parishioners started to spend more on their funerals. A lot of the information for the period of Calvinist rule is missing, but the graphs reveal that this interval did not halt the general trend towards more expensive funerals in the parish. On the contrary, from the moment Catholicism was restored in Ghent, the cash coming from funerals increased sharply before stabilizing. At the end of sixteenth century, these revenues received another boost and this growth continued into the first decades of the seventeenth century as well. The annual income from wills for the church fabric fund shows the same trend, except that it only took off after 1584 and fluctuated more in the decades that followed. These fluctuations are not surprising as one large sum donated by a wealthy testator could make a significant difference to the figures. However, the general trend indicates that there was an increase in legacies benefitting the church fabric fund of Saint James. It is important to state that the increase in the first decade after 1584 cannot simply be attributed to a rise in population or deaths. On the contrary, the population of Ghent declined sharply in the years after the Calvinist Republic. Whereas Ghent had about 45,000 people in 1571–72, after a short period of growth during the Calvinist Republic, the population dropped to 27,000 citizens in 1590. This meant that over one-third of the population left Ghent in the period 1584–90.74 There were various reasons for leaving the city during the economic crisis that followed the Calvinist Republic, but the crucial factor was religion. We may assume that the majority of the emigrants left because of their affiliation with Protestantism. Alexander Farnese had offered the religious dissidents in Ghent a two-year period during which they could reconcile with the Church or leave the city.75 Many people emigrated and it took decades for the town to recover from this sudden demographic and economic decline. After 1590, the population of Ghent rose slowly and reached the level of the 1570s again in 1630. This coincided with economic growth.76 As the price for candles, 72 Van Vaernewijck, Van die beroerlicke tijden (see n. 14); F.  Verstraeten, De Gentse SintJakobsparochie, Ghent, 1975. RAG, OKA Sint Jacobs Gent, nr. 341–88 (churchwarden accounts). 73 The graphs are all based on the above mentioned churchwarden accounts. Certain accounts are missing or were not analysed for this study and are missing in the graphs. Of the accounts that covered more than one year, the average amount per year was calculated, except for the account of 1583–85. The first year of this period was situated in the Calvinist Republic during which Catholic Church life was reduced to a minimum. Most likely the income and expenditure in this account belong fully to the second year of this period, when Catholicism was restored in Ghent. 74 Dambruyne, Mensen en centen (see n. 7), pp. 87–89; J. Briels, Zuid-Nederlanders in de Republiek 1572–1630. Een demografische en cultuurhistorishe studie, Sint-Niklaas, 1985, pp. 27–28. 75 V. Soen, De reconciliatie van ‘ketters’ in de zestiende-eeuwse Nederlanden (1520–1590), Trajecta 14 (2005), 355, 356; Eadem, Reconquista and Reconciliation in the Dutch Revolt. The Campaign of Governor-General Alexander Farnese (1578–1592), Journal of Early Modern History 16 (2012), 1–22. 76 Dambruyne, Mensen en centen (see n. 7), p. 89.

michal bauwens

180  35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

Graph 1: Annual income from funerals at Saint James (1562–1630) in Flemish deniers grooten 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Graph 2: Annual income of churchwardens of Saint James (1562–1630), donated through wills, in Flemish deniers grooten

sepultures, the ringing of the bells and other funeral practices did not rise substantially in this period, the increase of income from funerals can be attributed to more luxurious funeral ceremonial.77 Before 1590, the workmen who stayed in Ghent were paid wages that were not in line with the exorbitant food prices.78 In this context, the increase in the church’s revenue is even more surprising. 77 In the churchwarden accounts we read that one candle was on average a little more than 1 shilling groten, although over time we see that apart from these also more expensive candles were sold. The price of a grave in the church depended upon its location, but in general there remained two categories: the ones of 10 shilling groten and the ones of 20 shilling or more. This and the price for bell ringing practically did not change. After 1584, more candles were bought (often four), the bells ringed longer and more transactions were recorded concerning decoration of the church with cloth for the funeral ceremony. After 1610, also a rise in the number of these more expensive funerals took place. 78 P. Deprez, ‘Graanprijzen te Gent en te Deinze in Groten Vlaams 1555–1795’, in: C. Verlinden and J. Craeybeckx (eds), Dokumenten voor de geschiedenis van prijzen en lonen in Vlaanderen en

restoration and reform of the parish after trent  181 Similar dichotomies were witnessed in various parts of the Low Countries and France. For example, Marie-Claude Dinet-Lecomte has found that at the beginning of the seventeenth century there was a remarkable boost in the number of convents and religious orders settling in Amiens, Arras and Douai. The laity was also involved in building these institutions. In particular, the bourgeoisie who helped to found them chose to send their children there for the religious education they offered and brought in people to populate the convents. This ‘revival’ also took place in a period of economic decline.79 The boost in bequests and expenditure on funerals can signify a change in many aspects of local life, such as attitudes to death, the wish to be remembered, devotion, aesthetics, ritual, the function of the church, (group) identity and individuality. It is not within the scope of this paper to go into all the possible motivations behind this development. Rather, I want to demonstrate the increasingly active Catholic life in the parish church after 1584. Parishioners had a passionate interest in their parish church despite (or maybe because of) the years of crisis. Furthermore, the attention of the faithful was not limited to these more personal aspects of parish life. Large sums of money were also offered to the church fabric fund in various ways and on various occasions to tackle repairs to the church building. Graph 3 illustrates this further by giving an overview of the different kinds of gifts received by the churchwardens of Saint James between 1562 and 1630.80 Of course, it was not just the parishioners who wanted the restoration of the church. Andrew Spicer has shown that after the iconoclasm, Margaret of Parma’s first priority for the Netherlands was religion. She immediately ordered the repair of the ruined and violated churches so that mass could take place again. In the case Ghent, the Bishop of Tournai assumed responsibility for the reconciliation of Church property. Margaret of Parma’s successor Alva had a similar policy and urged the m ­ agistrate of Ghent to have the confraternities and guilds restore their own chapels and altars. After Alexander Farnese recaptured Ghent in 1584, he advanced the reconstruction and reconciliation as well.8182 The large sums of money offered to the church after the fall of the Calvinist ­Republic are striking, especially compared to the period before 1577. Graph 3 shows, Brabant, I (XVe–XVIIIe eeuw) (Bruges, 1959), pp. 62–66 (at pp. 63–64); E. Scholliers, ‘Prijzen en lonen te Antwerpen (15e en 16e eeuw)’, in: C. Verlinden and J. Craeybeckx (eds), Dokumenten voor de geschiedenis van prijzen en lonen in Vlaanderen en Brabant, I (XVe–XVIIIe eeuw) (Bruges, 1965), pp. 241–531 (at p. 479). 79 D.-L.  Marie-Claude, ‘L’expansion des couvents et des fondations charitables dans la première moitié du XVIIe siècle. Exemples d’Amiens, d’Arras et de Douai’, in: C. Bruneel et al. (eds), Les ‘Trente Glorieuses’ (circa 1600-circa 1630) Pays-Bas Méridionaux et France Septentrionale. Aspects économiques, sociaux et religieux au temps des archiducs Albert et Isabelle (Brussels, 2010), pp. 89– 106 (at pp. 89, 95, 96); See also: C. Bruneel and P. Guignet, ‘Conclusion’, ibidem, pp. 413–26 (at p. 422); A. Lottin, ‘La conjoncture économique et sociale vue de l’obersvatoire Lillois. De la prospérité à un temps divers et nébuleux’, ibidem, pp. 129–39 (at pp. 129–39). 80 An interesting study about the use of gifts and other income for the building and repairs of the church is W. H. Vroom, De Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk te Antwerpen. De financiering van de bouw tot de Beeldenstorm, Antwerp, 1983, pp. 45–60. 81 A.  Spicer, After Iconoclasm. Reconciliation and Resacralisation in the Southern Netherlands, c. 1566–1585, Sixteenth Century Journal XLIV/2 (2013), 411–34 (at pp. 411–30); V. Soen, Reconquista (see n. 75), pp. 10–16; M. J. Hendrickx, De reconciliatie te Antwerpen (1585–1600) (Master’s Thesis, Catholic University of Leuven), Leuven, 1965. 82

michal bauwens

182  30000

25000

20000

gifts for repairs occasional gifts

15000

fines for repairs offerings gifts for sermons

10000

collections and communion wine 5000

1562 1566 1570 1574 1578 1582 1586 1590 1594 1598 1601 1605 1609 1613 1617 1621 1625 1629

0

Graph 3: Annual value of gifts for the church fabric fund of Saint James (1562–1630) in Flemish deniers grooten82

even more than the graphs for funeral expenses, that the Calvinist period did not weaken Catholicism, but on the contrary inspired Catholic believers to be more fervent than ever. Even when we take inflation into account, the rise remains spectacular. Furthermore, while food prices rose, wages did not rise at the same rate, so after deducting daily expenses people had smaller budgets than before.83 The income of Saint James did not just alter in quantity, but also in quality. The increase in new ways of giving suggests an absolute rise as well. Before 1584, offerings were hardly mentioned in the churchwarden accounts, but after 1584 they are one of the most important sources of income for the church fabric fund of Saint James. In the total income of the church fabric fund of the parish, the proportion due to gifts also showed an increase and reached a peak during the first seven years after 1584 (see graph 4). There was a pressing need for cash to pay for urgent repairs, as the church had been neglected for years after the second iconoclasm in 1578. Still, parishioners did not have to respond to this need if they did not want to. It seems unlikely that political or social pressures were the only explanation for their generosity. And if the control and pressure applied by the Church were behind the enormous increase in ‘generosity’, we would have expected more and more gifts as the Church slowly recovered from Protestant disruption and became a well-organized, hierarchical Tridentine institution. However, the donations to the church show no evidence of this. On the ­contrary, the gifts in the first six years after the Calvinist Republic were only s­ poradically equalled 82 RAG, OKA Sint Jacobs Gent, nr. 341–88. The churchwarden accounts do not show all the gifts. For 1584–86 and 1600–01 extra accounts were made up especially for the repairs. They listed gifts and loans that are not recorded in the ordinary churchwarden accounts and are thus not included in the graph. At the end of the sixteenth century, there was strong inflation which the graph does not take into account. If we deflate the amounts using the prices of rye, the difference between the income before and after 1584 decreases, but remains significant. I explain my reasons for not deflating the amounts further in the text. 83 Deprez, ‘Graanprijzen’ (see n. 78), pp. 63–64; Scholliers, ‘Prijzen’ (see n. 78), p. 479.

restoration and reform of the parish after trent  183 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

Other income

50%

Income from funerals

40%

Income from gifts and loans parishioners

30% 20% 10%

1562 1565 1568 1571 1574 1577 1580 1583 1586 1589 1592 1595 1598 1600 1603 1606 1609 1612 1615 1618 1621 1624 1627

0%

Graph 4: Annual percentage of income coming from parishioners (gifts and funerals) in relation to the total income of the church fabric fund of Saint James (1562–1630)

in the following 30 years. Furthermore, the strong increase in the offerings, a more anonymous form of donating to the church, counter the idea that this rise was mainly due to social or political pressures. The figures prove that the parishioners remaining in Saint James were willing, as a whole, to give money in order to restore their church as soon as the Calvinist Republic had fallen. The damage done to the church building, the loss of income and the lack of clergy had halted the performance of mass for the dead and the liturgy of the hours, but ordinary parishioners made the restoration of the church possible. Rather than turning them into unknowledgeable and uninterested bystanders (as many contemporary visitation reports have portrayed ordinary laypeople), the period of Calvinist rule and the subsequent victory of Alexander Farnese inspired many Catholics in Ghent with renewed confidence. Moreover, 1584 might be considered to have been an important turning point in the formation of a Catholic confessional identity in Ghent, even though there was no Ghent Bishop to control or guide the parishioners. Even though, many smaller rural parishes reacted a lot slower,84 the developments in Saint James coincide with the thesis of Judith Pollmann’s most recent book Catholic Identity and the Revolt of the Netherlands (1520–1635). Pollmann argues that only after strong polarization between traditional Catholicism and the new religion – often the result of warfare and Calvinist regimes – could a more Counter-Reformation Catholicism become an important marker of identity.85 Geert Janssen also affirms the idea of change brought about by ordinary Catholics and 84 Spiertz, ‘Succes’ (see n. 9), pp. 65–68; Braeken, De dekenij Herentals (see n. 57), p. 84. 85 J.  Pollmann, Catholic Identity and the Revolt of the Netherlands, 1520–1635, Oxford, 2011, pp. 2–5, 43, 124, 131, 142.

184 

michal bauwens

points in particular to the influence of Catholic exiles in the formation of a renewed Catholicism.86 Other research that has directed attention to the bottom-up Catholic Reformation is Marie Juliette Marinus’s study of Antwerp and Mark Forster’s study of southwest Germany. Marinus’s 1995 publication shows that in the period 1585–1676, local devotions in Antwerp could go against or coincide with Tridentine Catholicism.87 Forster convincingly describes the active role of ordinary Catholics in the formation of the Catholic confession in the seventeenth century. He argues that as villagers and townspeople identified themselves with the practices of what he calls Baroque Catholicism, they developed a Catholic confessional identity. Because of this role of the population, Forster concludes that Catholicism could vary, depending on the locality and region.88 Indeed, the generosity of the parishioners of Saint James enabled new, rich forms of devotion. The parishioners’ contributions made possible the restoration of the church building and the continuation of Church life. Apart from the repairs to the church, which especially dominated the first years after 1584, the churchwardens also invested an increasing amount of revenue in the enrichment of the church interior, especially during Feast days. Music, decorations and luxurious vestments became more important and added to the sacrality and solemnity of the church and mass. As we saw earlier, these elements had been stressed in the Council of Trent and by the Ghent Bishops as well, and would become important markers of the C ­ ounter-Reformation.89

Conclusions Due to the political and religious instability between 1566 and 1584, the Catholic Church in the County of Flanders witnessed a rather slow institutional reform. This slowness is exemplified by obstacles to the promulgation of the decrees of Trent and repeated local ordinances to implement the decrees, as well as delays in the appointment of a bishop for Ghent after the bishopric reform. Iconoclasm and the policy of the Calvinist Republic had a very destructive impact on parish life altogether. Based on studies of visitation reports and the recorded actions of the Ghent Bishops, Michel Cloet views only the first decade of the seventeenth century as the critical start of the general spread of Counter-Reformation Catholicism in the diocese of Ghent. On the other hand, he points to repeated complaints of later bishops, such as Triest, which prove that the behaviour of the Ghent people was not up to Tridentine standards throughout most of the seventeenth century. The top-down approach to 86 G. H. Janssen, ‘The Exile Experience’, in: Bamji, Janssen and Laven, The Ashgate Research (see n. 45), pp. 73–90; G. H. Janssen, The Counter-Reformation of the Refugee: Exile and the Shaping of Catholic Militancy in the Dutch Revolt, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 63/4 (2012), 671–92. 87 M. J. Marinus, De Contrareformatie te Antwerpen (1585–1676) (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der letteren, 57, 155), Brussels, 1995, pp. 246–58. Despite the attention paid to the reactions of parishioners and dissidents, the study takes a rather top-down approach. 88 M. R. Forster, Catholic Revival in the Age of the Baroque. Religious Identity in Southwest Germany, 1550–1750, Cambridge, 2004, pp. 3–9; M. R. Forster, ‘The Thirty Years’ War and the Failure of Catholicization’, in: D. M. Luebke (ed.), The Counter-Reformation (Blackwell Essential Readings in History) (Malden, MA and Oxford, 1999), pp. 163–98. 89 Tanner, Decrees (see n. 30), p. 764. (Council of Trent, session XXIV, canon 7).

restoration and reform of the parish after trent  185 Catholicism has thus led to a rather negative assessment of the success of the Council of Trent.90 This case study gives another perspective. The first Bishop of Ghent, Cornelius Jansenius, started a Tridentine offensive from the moment he was inaugurated Bishop of Ghent in 1568. It is true that many of his measures were erased by the Protestant regime. During the Calvinist regime and for some years afterwards, Ghent did not have a stable episcopal regime. Nevertheless, once Habsburg and thus Catholic rule was restored under Governor-General Alexander Farnese in 1584, parish activity blossomed as never before. Almost immediately, parishioners started donating generously for church repairs and they paid for more lavish funerals. Likewise, the embellishment of the church building and music during high mass became more and more important, which added greatly to the sacrality and solemnity of the ceremony.91 This development obviously matched the ideas proclaimed in Trent, but it does not seem to have been implemented topdown, rather it stemmed from the parishioners themselves. Although more research is needed to understand the full dynamics of the Catholic Reformation on the local field, this case study of the Saint James parish in Ghent reaffirms the importance of bottom-up processes and the role of ordinary laypeople in the (re)formation of Catholicism. Simultaneously, this study shows that political events were crucial in creating opportunities for new religious ideas and the formation of a confessional identity.

90 M. Bauwens, Parish Studies and the Debates on Religious Life in the Low Countries (Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period), History Compass 13/2 (2015), 64–77. 91 An interesting study on music in Counter-Reformation Antwerp is S.  Beghein, Kerkmuziek, consumptie en confessionalisering. Het muziekleven aan Antwerpse parochiekerken, c.  1585–1797, Antwerp, 2014, pp. 186–87.

Making a Virtue Out of Necessity? The Chapter of Saint Pharahild in Ghent and the Decrees of the Council of Trent (1584–1614)

Annelies Somers

With the decrees of the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church provided not only an answer to the rise of Protestantism, but also an important regulating tool for its internal reform. Both King Philip  II and his Brussels Governor-General Margaret of Parma were in favour of a rapid promulgation of the decrees in the Low Countries. By a series of instructions to the bishops, open letters to the magistrates and office- holders, and an imprimatur for the published version, the decrees became accepted in the course of June and July 1565, a year later than in the Spanish Kingdoms.1 Still, the ­implementation of Trent through the new dioceses which were established in 1559 proved a more difficult process. Meetings such as Provincial Councils and d­ iocesan Synods give a good indication of the chronology of the implementation. In the ­ecclesiastical province of Malines, the first Provincial Councils were held in 1570, 1574 and 1607. Representatives from its Ghent diocese gathered at the instigation of their bishop in 1571, 1574 and 1613. This short timeline immediately illustrates the unstable dynamic of the process of implementation in the first decades following Trent. Moreover, in the city of Ghent, the introduction of the decrees encountered major obstacles. Once the most prominent city in the County of Flanders, in 1540 Emperor Charles V (1506–55) imposed an exemplary punishment on his birth town when it rose against him, and curtailed the political power of the ruling elites by the 1

F. Willockx, L’ introduction des décrets du Concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principauté de Liège (Université de Louvain. Recueil de travaux publiés par les membres des conférences d’histoire et de philologie. Deuxième série, fascicule 14), Leuven, 1929, pp. VI–VIII; V. Soen, ‘The Council of Trent and the Preconditions of the Dutch Revolt (1563–1566)’, in: W.  François and V.  Soen (eds), The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in and beyond Europe (1545–1700), vol. 2: Between Bishops and Princes (Göttingen, 2017), pp. 255–278.

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François, Turnhout, 2017 (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire ­Ecclésiastique, 101), pp. 187–199

F H G

DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.113408

188 

annelies somers

­ oncessio Carolina.2 This Ghent rebellion had emerged within a climate in which C ­Reformation-minded sentiments had been increasing since the 1520s.3 After the Peace of Le Cateau-Cambrésis in 1559, Calvinism became particularly attractive. A little more than a year after the promulgation of Trent an iconoclastic fury hit Ghent in August 1566. The situation radicalized after the Duke of Alba was sent to the Netherlands in order to restore royal authority and suppress heresy. A rather complex combination of circumstances led to the installation of a revolutionary Calvinist regime which was to govern Ghent from 1577 to 1584.4 Widely recognized as an uncommonly severe and uncompromising regime, the Ghent Calvinist magistrate made Catholic religious life in the city practically impossible.5 From July to September 1578, a new wave of iconoclasm overran the city with devastating results, once more causing serious damage to convents, churches and chapels.6 It took the military campaign of Governor-General Alexander Farnese in 1584 for the Ghent Calvinist Republic to be forced to surrender to the Catholic troops.7 The implementation of the Tridentine decrees in Ghent thus had to take place against a background of political uprising, anti-Catholic rage and increasing militancy. After 1584, the city was a landscape of ‘Catholic ruins’, with a traumatized population still recovering from the tumultuous events that had taken place.8 This chapter will not dwell any longer on the general implementation of the Tridentine decrees in the diocese or city of Ghent. The institution under scrutiny is the secular chapter of Saint Pharahild in Ghent in the period from 1584 to 1614. The examined period begins at the end of the Calvinist Republic in Ghent, after the Reconquista by Governor-General Alexander Farnese, and ends with the translation of the chapter to the church of Saint Nicholas. Within this crucial and difficult era in the history of the institution, the introduction of the Tridentine guidelines will appear as both a matter of principle and a pragmatic solution to deal with ad hoc issues. A number of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent were specifically aimed at collegiate or cathedral chapters.9 Particular attention was paid to the virtuous lifestyle of the clergy, the importance of residence and attendance of the offices, the 2 J.  Decavele (ed.), Keizer tussen stropdragers. Karel  V (1500–1558), Leuven: Davidsfonds, 1990, pp. 174–78. 3 J.  Decavele, De dageraad van de reformatie in Vlaanderen (1520–1565) (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België. Klasse der Letteren, 76), Brussels, 1976, pp. 235–40. 4 A. Despretz, De instauratie der Gentse Calvinistische Republiek (1577–1579), Handelingen der Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent. Nieuwe Reeks 17 (1963), p. 119 (henceforth cited as HMGOG NR) 5 J.  Decavele, ‘Genève van Vlaanderen’, in: J.  Decavele (ed.), Het eind van een rebelse droom. Opstellen over het calvinistisch bewind te Gent (1577–1584) en de terugkeer van de stad onder de gehoorzaamheid van de koning van Spanje (17 september 1584) (Ghent: Stadsbestuur, 1984), pp. 35–37. 6 A. Despretz, De instauratie (see n. 4), pp. 173–77. 7 H. Vanderlinden, ‘Het beleg en de val van Gent’, in: Decavele, Het eind (see n. 5), pp. 107–08. V. Soen, Reconquista and Reconciliation in the Dutch Revolt. The Campaign of Governor-General Alexander Farnese (1578–1592), Journal of Early Modern History 16 (2012), 1–22. 8 J.  Pollmann, Catholic Identity and the Revolt of the Netherlands, 1520–1635, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. 9 For example, those formulated during sessions vi (chapter 4), xiv (chapter 4), xxii (chapters 3 and 4), xxiv (chapters 4, 12 and 14) and xxv (chapters 6 and 7). Concilium Tridentinum. Diariorum, Actorum, Epistularum, Tractatuum Nova Collectio. Edidit Societas Goerresiana promovendis inter

making a virtue out of necessity

 189

requirement to obtain the right degree of ordination, the struggle against the widespread practice of simony and the rights of surveillance and correction assigned to the bishops, apart from all claims made for exemption from episcopal jurisdiction.10 This does not, however, mean that the new guidelines were strictly followed by common episcopal demand. Subsequently, I will discuss how the chapter was ‘exposed’ to the Tridentine decrees, and how they applied them or at least pretended to. Hence, the emphasis of this contribution will be on the tension between norms and reality and the acceptance of and conformity to these norms.

The Necessary Translation of the Chapter Saint Pharahild was initially founded as a private chapel by the Count of Flanders at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Before this time, it was known as a group of private chaplains of the Count who were attached to his residence, the Gravensteen. A new and separate church of the same name was established by 1216. At its largest, the chapter totalled thirteen members, consisting of twelve canons (including the dean) and a provost. The origin of the parish of Saint Pharahild dates back to a moment between 1190 and 1225.11 One of the canons was responsible for pastoral care and was appointed as the priest. The dean was chosen among the corpus of canons and was in charge of supervising the choir. The provost held a rather ceremonial office and was regarded as the foremost representative of the chapter, for instance at Synods. He was chosen by the dean and canons but was not necessarily a member of the chapter before his election. The provost cared for the internal jurisdiction, a matter for which he could refer to the statutes. Both the chapter and its affiliated members, such as chaplains, singers and choirboys, were subject to these prescriptions.12 Statutes can be seen as particular sources of canon law as they were put together for implementation in one specific institution.13 The core task of the body of canons was to perform liturgical services in the most solemn manner, especially the singing of the hours. During the Middle Ages as well as the Early Modern Period, a number of important court officials and political figures were gifted with a prebend in the chapter. The presence of these rather highly esteemed personalities must have presented a stark contrast, especially with the often less privileged situation of chaplains, and particularly vicars and mercenaries.14 These last two categories of men worked quite literally at ‘piece-rate’ as substitute singers for canons and chaplains. The canons had a vote in the chapter meeting and thus a say in the ins and outs of the institution,

10 11 12 13 14

Germanos catholicos Litterarum Studiis, ed.  Görres-Gesellschaft, 13 vols, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1963–2001. Willocx, L’introduction (see n.  1), pp.  47–49. A.  Pasture, La réforme des chapitres séculiers pendant le règne des archiducs (1596–1633), Bulletin de l’Institut Historique belge de Rome, 5e fascicule, 1925, passim. G. Declercq, Nieuwe inzichten over de oorsprong van het Sint-Veerlekapittel in Gent, HMGOG NR, 63 (1989), 97–101. A. Somers, ‘At utilitatem et conservationem ipsius status et decorem’. De statuten van het Gentse Sint-Veerlekapittel (1215–1788), Handelingen van de Koninklijke Commissie voor Geschiedenis (henceforth cited as HKCG) (in preparation). W. Nolet and P. C. Boeren, Kerkelijke instellingen in de Middeleeuwen, Amsterdam, 1951, p. 178. See for instance M.  Boone and Th.  de Hemptinne, Le clergé séculier gantois en 1498–1499, HKCG, 149 (1983), 392–93.

190 

annelies somers

unlike the other officials. In contrast to this, chaplains and singers were often the ones who actually guaranteed the execution of the services.15 Although the term ­‘chapter’ points, stricto sensu, at the mere ‘members’ or canons, it is undeniable that there was a strong interaction with eg. the chaplains as well as the chapter disposed of the right of presentation of most of the chaplaincies.16 Reciprocity between the highly esteemed but often absent canons and the ‘subordinate’ chaplains and singers was not always obvious.17 Much later, on 27 June 1614, the Archduke Albert and Archduchess Isabella ordered the solemn translation of the chapter of Saint Pharahild to the nearby parish church of Saint Nicholas, also in Ghent. The urgency of this union was supported by a number of arguments of both a practical and a religious nature. At the insistence of the chapter itself, the Archdukes were petitioned to assent to a translation of the princely foundation of which they were the patrons, as the institution was unable to guarantee its survival on its own. The iconoclastic furies of 1566 and especially 1578 had left the church of Saint Pharahild in ruins and its remains were found unfit for even the most basic services. In addition, a series of inundations in what is today the Zeeland part of Flanders, had flooded a large number of properties, which signified a decrease in income from these sources. On top of all this, the chapter’s parish was very small, so no significant help was to be expected from the parishioners. Financial and material troubles made it impossible to celebrate mass and sing the hours in a proper manner. The church of Saint Nicholas was, – according to the agreement of Bishop Van der Burch of 9 February 1615, – estimated as ‘the location with the highest potential to decently celebrate the divine office’.18 Sharing the means of both institutions would – once again according to the bishop – ‘enable the chapter not only to augment the number of offices, but also to execute them more solemnly’. This would not only increase the pride of the city and the population of Ghent, but also and most importantly the glory of God.19 The reference to the honor of the city and its inhabitants can be considered as a direct allusion to the Calvinist regime and the harm it had caused in the eyes of the Catholics. The mere material arguments for a translation were thus cloaked in a Counter-Reformational discourse in order to emphasize and perhaps even justify the importance of the project.20 15 This was not a unique situation. The break between the small top tier of canons and the much wider base of other Church officials was, for example, recently pointed out by Callewier with respect to the fifteenth century chapter of Saint Donatian in Bruges. H. Callewier, ‘Ubi plura sunt capita, diverse sunt opiniones’. Spanningen in het Brugse Sint-Donaaskapittel (forthcoming). The same was true for the Spanish collegiate chapters in the sixteenth century, as indicated by I.  Fernández Terricabras, Philippe  II et la contre-réforme. L’ église espagnole à l’ heure du Concile de Trente, Paris: Publisud, 2001, pp. 421, 426. At Saint Pharahild, the suppression of absence was one of the main topics in each of the preserved versions of the chapter’s statutes (Somers, ‘Ad utilitatem’ [see n. 12]). 16 In some cases, the heirs of the founder of a chaplaincy disposed of this right. 17 It is – to name but one example – very striking how the chapter was strongly opposed to the representation of the chaplains as a ‘body’, similar to the way in which they represented themselves. See for instance RAG, Sint-Veerlekapittel, nr. 131. 18 ‘commodior et opportunior’, see the chapter acts of 1613: Rijksarchief Gent, Archief van de SintBaafsabdij en Bisdom Gent, serie SN, n° 168, fol. 30v. (further abbreviated as RAG, SBB, serie SN or S). 19 RAG, SBB, serie S, n° 234, fol. 147r. et seq. 20 On this use of a Counter-Reformation discourse, see A.  Somers, A  Post-Reformational Contradiction? The Chapter of Saint Pharahild in Ghent at the Turn of the XVIth Century, Journal

making a virtue out of necessity

 191

The General Attitude of Chapters towards Trent Since the work of reverend F. Willocx, we are well informed on the reception of the Tridentine decrees in the Low Countries and the prince-bishopric of Liège.21 He stated that the introduction as well as the application of the decrees met with great opposition and encountered many obstacles. Both lay and ecclesiastical authorities stuck to their acquired rights and took a reluctant attitude towards these innovations. The particular political situation and revolt in the Low Countries complicated this situation even more. Within the ecclesiastical order, the incompetence of some newly appointed bishops and the resistance of the chapters formed the major obstacles. Willocx characterized the latter as ‘citadelles de la resistance’, as they rigorously held on to their privileges, and, more specifically, to their exemptions. Marinus called them ‘the tipped opponents to the catholic reformation’, as they were characterized by their rigid routine, tradition and conservatism.22 This opposition – again according to Willocx – persisted until the French Revolution.23 Terricabras pointed out the same thing in relation to the Spanish chapters. In his opinion, the elitist character of chapters made it difficult to control them, as they reacted disproportionately to innovations they perceived as an undervaluation of their position or as an attempt to subjugate them.24 Examples of the disobedience of both the Spanish chapters and those in the Low Countries to the Tridentine provisions are manifold: infringements with respect to celibacy and residence, accumulation of benefices, claims to exemption from episcopal jurisdiction and the refusal of episcopal visitations.25 Rather than an instrument for implementing the Tridentine decrees, the Spanish chapters considered the Provincial Councils as bodies that might be able to ‘soften’ the effects of these prescriptions that ‘burdened’ them.26 This gave of Early Modern Christianity 1 (2014), 1–28. 21 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 1). 22 M.  J.  Marinus, De Contrareformatie te Antwerpen (1585–1676). Kerkelijk leven in een grootstad (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren, LVII, 155), Brussels, 1995, p. 103. 23 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 1), pp. 293–94. For a recent reconstruction for the resistance of chapters in the ecclesiastical province of Cambrai: V. Soen and L. Hollevoet, ‘Bisschop na het Concilie van Trente. De hervormingspogingen van Maximiliaan van Bergen, aartsbisschop van Kamerijk (1564–1570)’, in: W. François, L. Kenis and V. Soen (eds), Bisschoppen, seminaries en de Leuvense theologische Faculteit (16de-20ste eeuw) (Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming). 24 Fernández Terricabras, Philippe  II (see n.  15), pp.  427–28; I.  Fernández Terricabras, ‘Conflictos entre Carlos  V y los cabildos catedralicos de Corona de Castilla (1552–1556)’, in: M. Rivero Rodríguez and A. Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño (eds), Carlos V y la quiebra del humanismo político en Europa (1530–1558). Congreso internacional, Madrid 3–6 de julio de 2000 (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V, 2001), vol. 2, pp. 361–86. The elitist character of the canons attached secular chapters is widely recognized: A. Lottin, Lille. Citadelle de la contre-réforme? (1598–1668), Dunkerque: Westhoek-Éditions, 1984, p. 78; Pasture, La réforme (see n. 10), pp. 46 et seq. 25 Fernández Terricabras, Philippe  II (see n.  15), p.  428 et seq; Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 1), pp. 201 et seq. 26 More or less the same was the case for the chapters in Guyenne, who weren’t particularly interested in the outcome of the diocesan Synods as opposed to their attention for the diocesan ‘chamber’, where the repartition of the taxes on ecclesiastical goods and servants was fixed: Ph.  Loupès, Chapitres et chanoines de Guyenne aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (Civilisations et Sociétés, 70), Paris: Éditions de l’EHESS, 1985, p. 354.

192 

annelies somers

rise to situations where the procurators of the chapters went to these councils with instructions that were decidedly opposed to Trent.27 With regard to the chapters in the diocese of Guyenne, Loupès stated that – because of their selfishness and incomprehension towards the catholic Reformation – they could be described in two ways: at best they were a ‘dead weight’ to the bishops of their diocese and at worst they were downright obstacles.28 The delicate question of exemption from episcopal jurisdiction was not really an issue in Saint Pharahild during the period under review as the chapter never appealed to this privilege before the end of the seventeenth century.29 During the preceding period, Saint Pharahild was inspected at least four times by the Ghent Bishops, that is, by Cornelius Jansenius (between 1568–76, exact year unknown), Karel Maes (1611) and Antoon Triest (1647, 1655). Furthermore, the third Ghent Bishop was the former provost of the chapter, Pieter Damant. This meant that during the critical period of the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, more specifically from 1590 to 1609, there was a direct link to the episcopacy. Damant did not, however, turn out to be the greatest champion of the Counter-Reformation among the Ghent Bishops of the post-Tridentine era.30 The smooth acceptance of episcopal supervision by Saint Pharahild stands in strong contrast to the situation in Lille where the chapter of Saint Peter was described by Lottin as un monde d’exempts.31 In the Low Countries as well as in Spain, Germany and France, the matter of exemption caused disputes and indignation among both cathedral and collegiate chapters.32 In the Church province of Malines for instance, the cathedral chapters in particular were vigorously opposed to the intended diminishing of their privileges.33 For Saint Parahild, delegates of the chapter were present at the first and third Provincial Councils of the Church province of Malines. Dean Henricus Ydeghem attended in Malines in 1570 and provost Leo de Meyere (an apostolic protonotary presented by Archduchess Isabella herself) in 1607. The latter raised the matter of precedence, a conflict which arose between the two Ghent chapters of Saint Bavo and Saint Pharahild. The former was attached to the cathedral of Saint Bavo, the illustrious see of the new diocese, while the latter, smaller and impoverished, could only invoke its seniority. At the same meeting, dean Philippus Jaddaert was appointed as representative to the next council. At the diocesan Synod of 1571, Pieter Damant attended as both cantor of Saint Bavo and provost of Saint Pharahild.34 The main topics covered by the 27 Fernández Terricabras, Philippe II (see n. 15), p. 454. 28 Loupès, Chapitres (see n. 26), p. 365. 29 This wrongful claim, supported by a forged charter, was formulated in an attempt to avert the announced inspection by Bishop Albertus de Hornes in 1683 (Declercq, Nieuwe inzichten [see n. 11], pp. 65–67). 30 M. J. Marinus, ‘W. Lindanus en P. Damant (1587–1609)’, in: M. Cloet, Het bisdom Gent (1559– 1991). Vier eeuwen geschiedenis (Ghent, 1991), pp. 51–54. 31 Lottin, Lille (see n. 24), pp. 80 et seq. 32 Pasture, La réforme (see n. 10), pp. 9–10. To name but a few examples from the so-called ‘Spanish Netherlands’: conflicts concerning the matter of exemption arose in the chapters of Tournai, Bruges, Lille, Seclin, Harelbeke, Binche, Louvain, Antwerp, Diest, Oirschot, Hilvarenbeek, ’s Hertogenbosch, Aire, Mons, Maubeuge and Andenne (ibidem, 11 et seq.). 33 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 1), p. 286. 34 At the Synod of 1613, it was decided that provost de Meyere would be sent to the next Provincial Council. See P. F. X. De Ram, Synodicon Belgicum sive acta omnium ecclesiarum belgii a celebrato

making a virtue out of necessity

 193

Council of 1570 were episcopal supervision, the augmentation of benefices in order to attract more valid candidates and encourage residence and the establishment of seminaries for the improved training of future priests.35 The subsequent meeting of 1574 brought no new items for attention as it was entirely based upon the decrees of 1570. Its results were, consequently, rather poor. The Provincial Council of 1607 put down for consideration the correction of chapters concerning the matter of exemption, as well as the financial contribution charged to seminaries, the uniformity of liturgy and the list of prohibited books. It is generally accepted that it was not until the reign of Archbishop Mathias Hovius (1596–1620) and the Archduke Albert and Archduchess Isabella (1598–1621/1633), that the Counter-Reformation offensive in the Habsburg Netherlands really took off.36 In what follows, it will become clear that the chapter especially adopted the topics ­discussed at the first council.

Counter-Reformation Discourse To examine the way the Tridentine decrees were approached by the chapter of SaintPharahild, we have an interesting source at our disposal in the shape of the acta capituli or chapter acts, which are preserved from 1585 onward, and which give insight into daily chapter life through the mention of subjects discussed during the (usually weekly) chapter meetings. The conserved acta go back to the period of the first translation of the chapter to the church of Saint Nicholas, confirmed by the Alexander Farnese, less than a year after the fall of the Calvinist Republic. This translation was effected in 1585 but quickly annulled, at the instigation of the abbot of Saint Peter’s Abbey who was also the patron of Saint Nicholas. As a result, Saint Pharahild once again faced serious material hardship. In order to survive, a subsidy was petitioned from the government to repair the former church and each of the canons donated a sum of money for its restitution. The chapter received back what was left of its church and attempts were made to rebuild it. By 1592 the new choir, constructed from the former transept, was finished. Despite all efforts, the new church was inconvenient and unsuitable for even the most basic services. In addition, it was insufficiently equipped to help restore the institution’s former glory.37 Consequently, a new translation was inevitable if the chapter wanted to survive. Throughout the years under examination, the chapter acts show an increasing concern for matters linked to the Tridentine decrees, such as residence and absenteeism, the appearance of canons and chaplains, the correspondence between the obtained degree of ordination and the requirements of each benefice, ceremony concilio tridentino usque ad concordatum anni 1801 (Centre Nationale de Recherche d’Histoire Religieuse. Études et documents, 1), Liège, 1996, vol. 1, pp. 132, 237, 273 et seq., 406.; Idem, vol. 4, pp. 101, 107. 35 Willockx, L’ introduction (see n. 1), pp. 267–69. 36 Marinus, De Contrareformatie (see n. 22), p. 288; R. Mols, ‘De seculiere clerus in de 17de eeuw’, in: D. P. Blok (ed.) Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 8 (Haarlem, 1979), p. 372; M. Cloet, Antoon Triest, prototype van een contrareformatorische bisschop, op bezoek in zijn Gents diocees (1622–1657), Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 91/3  (1976), 395. 37 Strikingly similar arguments were invoked by the cathedral chapter of Cadix when they were moved to the Candelaria-church (Fernández Terricabras, Philippe II [see n. 15], p. 427).

194 

annelies somers

and liturgy, recompenses or penalties for attendance or absence at the offices, and so on.38 In addition, the chapter’s statutes were regularly read out aloud39 in order to inform canons and chaplains about their rights and duties, when the private reading of these regulations was demanded.40 The chapter’s statutes were supposed to be in accordance with the Tridentine decrees especially in relation to the measures against absenteeism.41 With regard to the chaplains, who were characterized as negligent and absent by the canons, specific guidelines or statutes were formulated in 1589 in order to correct their behavior. The chapter acts make clear that the members mainly considered that the behavior of the chaplains harmed the image of the institution:42 revenues from fines imposed on them were mainly given to the members of the vicars and ‘Bonifanten’ or choir boys43 – who were occasionally sent to the Jesuits for schooling44 – in the hope that they could be educated and become decent clergymen, capable of taking care of the offices. In this context, it is important to keep in mind that these ‘substitutes’ were often the ‘pivots’ of the offices, as absenteeism among both chaplains and canons was high. The canons pointed specifically to the chaplains concerning the problem of non-residence, although they were not free of the charge themselves either as was mentioned above.45 In other chapters such as Our Lady in Antwerp, Tournai and Courtrai, Saint Saviour in Harelbeke and Saint-Omer in Lillers, the number of absent chaplains was very high as well. This was most probably due to the poor revenues from the chaplaincies, which were as such insufficient to warrant the residence of their holders.46 At the cathedral chapter of Saint Bavo in Ghent a reform of the chaplaincies and their revenues turned out to be successful and led to a higher level of residence among the chaplains.47 An important exception to this rule was the chapter of Our Lady in Bruges where all chaplains resided.48 The importance of the presence of chaplains – preferably priests – capable of taking care of the services cannot be underestimated 38 Concerning the collegiate chapter of Saint Gilles in the French diocese of Nîmes, Sauzat stated that ‘ … les délibérations capitulaires montrent un certain vocabulaire de réforme et donc une certaine conscience de la nécessité de celle-ci’ (R.  Sauzet, Contre-reforme et reforme catholique en BasLanguedoc au XVIIème siècle. Le diocèse de Nîmes de 1598 à 1694 (étude de sociologie religieuse), vol. 1, Lille, 1978, pp. 134–36). 39 RAG, SBB, serie SN, n° 165, fol. 68r, 82v. 40 RAG, SBB, serie S, n° 234, fol. 127r Regarding the proclamation of this duty in 1592, a reference was made to the earlier visit of Bishop Jansenius. In 1611, it was prescribed that the book containing the statutes should circulate among the canons, to be read in turns: RAG, SBB, serie SN 167, fol. 130r. 41 RAG, SBB, serie SN, n° 167, fol. 160r, 4/5/1612. Nonetheless, it was not until 1627 that the chapter – whose most recent version of the statutes dated from 1413 – would receive a new, more extensive set of directions from Bishop Triest. These were without any doubt written in a Tridentine vein. See: Somers, ‘Ad utilitatem’ (see n. 12). 42 RAG, SBB, serie SN, n° 167, fol. 191r. 43 RAG, SBB, serie SN, n° 167, fol. 15v. At the cathedral chapter of Our Lady in Tournai, the revenues of one canonical prebend and one chaplaincy were reserved for the maintenance of chorals or ‘symphoniaci’ (Pasture, La réforme [see n. 10], p. 45). 44 RAG, SBB, serie SN, n° 166 fol.° 49v. 45 In this respect it is remarkable that all canons – even those who were usually absent – joined the annual general chapter meeting. 46 Pasture, La réforme (see n. 10), pp. 33–36. 47 Pasture, La réforme (see n. 10), pp. 36–37. 48 Ibidem, p. 52.

making a virtue out of necessity

 195

as both the continuity and splendor of the offices were of prime importance for the image of a chapter.

Seminaries and the Training of Priests Related references concerned the training of priests and during Session 23 of the Council49 it was concluded that this was best done through the establishment of episcopal seminaries. Bishop Jansenius had met this requirement as early as 1569 when the Ghent seminary was established. On this occasion, a special tax was introduced on the secular clergy of the diocese in order to support the new establishment.50 In contrast to the acceptance of tax by representatives of Saint Pharahild in 1569, contributions had still not been paid by 1571.51 In 1614, the chapter was demanded payment once more, but despite the intentions noted in the chapter acts they did not settle, even though two of their canons, Egidius Waernier and Marcus Bardeloos, had been appointed as guardians of the seminary in 1603 and 1614 respectively.52 In the chapter acts of 1607, ‘a seminary’ is referred to, but it seems as if the chapter also used this term for their own ‘students’, the choirboys.53 Beginning in 1596, the number of acts dealing with the reception and education of these choristers rose perceptibly.54 It almost seems as if the chapter wanted to emphasize that it was able to take care of the training of young men preparing for the priesthood. Saint Pharahild’s recorded attitude towards the episcopal seminary can most probably be correlated with this routine. Perhaps the idea of the traditional chapter school, – a concept to which the Council of Trent tried to give a new impetus during its first period and had the inclination to entrust the training of candidates for the priesthood to – laid the foundation for this approach.55 In the last period, however, it opted for seminaries as the preferred method for training priests.56 A comparable case is offered by the chapter of Saint Peter in Lille where the chapter school was actually ‘transformed’ into a seminary. The standards maintained, however, were not high enough and it was decided to keep the school in Lille as a Latin school, while a ‘real’ 49 J.  Roegiers, De oprichting en de beginjaren van het bisschoppelijk seminarie te Gent (1569–1623), Ghent: Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde, 1973, pp. 20–21. 50 Roegiers, De oprichting (see n. 49), p. 33. This tax was initially imposed for two years, but at the diocesan Synod of 1574, this contribution constituted the main item on the agenda and it would be imposed for another four years: Roegiers, De oprichting (see n. 49), pp. 40–41. 51 Roegiers, De oprichting (see n. 49), pp. 33, 47. 52 Roegiers, De oprichting (see n. 49), p. 107; RAG, SBB, Serie SN, n° 168, 62r, 10/10/1614. 53 For instance RAG, SBB, Serie SN, n° 167, fol. 3r; serie S, n° 234, fol. 40–43 54 RAG, SBB, serie SN, n° 166, passim. 55 P. Declerck, Het seminariedecreet van Trente, Collationes Brugenses et Gandavenses 11/1 (1965), 14–19; L. E. Halkin, ‘La formation du clergé catholique après le concile de Trente’, in: Miscellanea historiae Ecclesiasticae III, colloque de Cambridge 1968 (Louvain, 1970) (Wetteren: Cultura, 1970), pp.  110–11; J.  A.  O’Donohoe, Tridentine Seminary Legislation: Its Sources and Its Formation (Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis. Sylloge excerptorum e dissertationibus ad gradum doctoris in Sacra Theologia vel in Iure Canonico consequendum conscriptis, 30), Leuven: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1957, p. 38. 56 ‘Trent was not destined to establish seminaries in the form and manner it did’. See C. M. Bellito, ‘Revisiting Ancient Practices. Priestly Training before Trent’, in: R. B. Begley and J. W. Koterski (eds), Medieval Education (New York: Fordham University Press, 2005), pp. 35–36.

196 

annelies somers

seminary was to be established in Douai, a city that already disposed of an important Theological Faculty.57 During the episcopacy of Pieter Damant, the Ghent seminary was strongly influenced by the chapter of Saint Bavo since the bishop showed no intention of promoting the training of priests through this institution. The control of the seminary would, until 1613, remain de facto with the chapter.58 Perhaps Saint Pharahild was in some ways inspired by this example, and wanted to ensure the training of its members autonomously. This presumption is also strengthened by the fact that Saint Pharahild never let an opportunity slip to emphasize its great importance, especially when vying with Saint Bavo, and despite the fact that it was a competition it could never win. Of course, this must remain a mere hypothesis as the sources unfortunately do not allow us to investigate or develop this further. Another measure prescribed in accordance with the Council of Trent and in favor of the diocesan seminary was the incorporation of certain beneficia simplicia or benefices without spiritual care. Thus, for the chapter of Saint Pharahild, the chaplaincy at the altar of Saint Daniel would be suppressed and its revenues awarded to the seminary.59 Although this was decided at diocesan level as early as 1571, it was not until 1613, when negotiations for the translation reached maturity, that the matter was actually discussed and it was decided that the chapter would give up all rights to this chaplaincy and ‘put the revenues at disposal, in order to promote the divine worship’.60 By supporting the training of clergymen, services could be guaranteed, as vicars would be able to become priests and hold chaplaincies properly,61 something which in turn would be favorable to the image of both the chapter and the church. In other words: it was used as a supporting argument to justify the survival of the chapter through a translation. Another interesting fact is that the translation act of 1614 mentions the suppression of a chaplaincy belonging to a canon of the chapter who was at the same time a chaplain of Saint Nicholas. The revenues of this chaplaincy would be applied by the provost in favour of ‘a seminary’ in order to promote the 57 Lottin, Lille (see n. 24), pp. 79–80; Pasture, La réforme (see n. 10), p. 61. 58 See Roegiers, De oprichting (see n.  49), pp.  72–76,  91–93. Again, this can be compared to the situation in Spain: in Catalonia, the founding of seminaries was not effective either and the clergy were for a long time trained in the traditional way. I.  Fernández Terricabras, The Implementation of the Counter-Reformation in Catalan-speaking Lands (1563–1700). A Succesful Process?, Catalan Historical Review IV (2011), 90. This was supported by Maurizio Sangalli who pointed to the fact that, because of the lack of a strong ecclesiology formulated by Trent, the seminaries were feeble institutions from the very beginning. M. Sangalli, La formación del clero católico en la edad moderna. De Roma, a Italia, a Europa, Manuscrits 25 (2007), 108, 122. 59 Roegiers, De oprichting (see n. 49), pp. 48–49. Other examples are the chaplaincies of Saint Jan in Our Lady in Dendermonde, the Holy Cross in Kruishoutem, Our Lady in Lokeren, Saint Nicholas in the cathedral of Saint Bavo in Ghent, Our Lady behind the Choir in the church of Saint James in Ghent, Our Lady in the church of Saint Nicholas in Ghent, Saint Giles in the church of Saint Michael in Ghent, the chaplaincy at the high altar in the church of Saint Martin in Ghent, Saint Nicasius in Pamele, Saint Ludgerus in Zele, Our Lady in Tielt, a quarter of the revenues of the churches of Kieldrecht, Beveren, Hamme, Zele and a third of this at Kallo. 60 RAG, SBB, serie SN, n° 168, fol.  16v–17v, 41r. Nonetheless, the chapter did not seem willing to pay the tax imposed in favour of the seminary, as mentioned before. Perhaps the suppression of a chaplaincy was deemed a more ‘visible’ contribution. 61 RAG, SBB, serie SN, n° 167, fol. 3r.

making a virtue out of necessity

 197

divine worship. It is, however, left unclear whether the seminary in question was the one erected at the instigation of the bishop or not.62 The chaplaincy involved was in all respects one of those that had to be incorporated according to the orders given by Bishop Jansenius.63 Perhaps here too, an alternative i­nterpretation was given to the episcopal resolution.

Upgrading of Prebends Other examples of a pragmatic application or interpretation of the Tridentine decrees concerned the increase of prebends in order to make them more attractive and valuable and thus warrant the services and raise the degree of residence.64 Starting from 1613, the provost (who had been unbeneficed since the thirteenth century) received a prebend as well to ensure his presence and attendance at meetings, an issue which had caused annoyance in the preceding years.65 This decision was taken in the hope that the residing provost would conscientiously act as their loyal representative whenever called for, with an eye on negotiations for the translation, for instance, which had gradually come up to cruising speed. In 1607 the dean had also received a ‘raise’ through a rearrangement of the chaplaincies.66 As head of the choir, he was responsible for order and discipline within the church and thus had to set an example for the other members. Shortly afterwards, during the act of translation, it was decided that henceforth the prebend of the dean would be given to the parish priest of Saint Nicolas, as a concession for the union, which had to make the deal more attractive to Saint Nicolas as well. The number of chaplaincies was reduced and reformed into a new corpus. Since the translation act stipulated that the chapter was to take on the duty of the divine office in Saint Nicolas, it was important to reorganize and optimize its functioning. The fulfillment of this condition was particularly significant as it constituted the main reason why the first translation fizzled out. In 1585, the chapter had seemed especially eager to reap the benefits of a translation to Saint Nicolas rather than just carrying the burdens, which had now become a sine qua non. Again, it would appear that the post-Tridentine zeal of the chapter to reform in order to increase the splendor of the office had a more prosaic and self-preserving side as well.

62 RAG, SV, nr. 102. 63 Namely the chaplaincy of Our Lady, belonging to Dionysius Blommaert in 1614 but attributed to Philippus Torrentius by the ‘list’ of Jansenius drawn up in 1571 (Roegiers, De oprichting [see n. 49], pp. 48–49). 64 Similar actions were taken at the chapter of Saint Rumbold in Malines (Pasture, La réforme [see n. 10], p. 24). The poverty of the canonical prebends at the end of the sixteenth century is known for the chapters of Our Lady in Antwerp, Saint John in ’s Hertogenbosch, Saint Donatian and Saint Saviour in Bruges, Saint Christopher in Roermond, Our Lady in Dendermonde, Saint Walburga in Veurne, Saint-Géry in Valenciennes, Our Lady in Namur and Hesdin (Pasture, La réforme [see n. 10], pp. 29, 31, 34, 38, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58 and 59). 65 For instance RAG, SBB, serie SN, n° 166, f°170v–171r, SN 167  fol.° 93r, 107r-v, 159v. The highest dignitary of the chapter of Our Lady in Antwerp, the dean, refused to reside because of the insufficiency of the revenues of his prebend (Pasture, La réforme [see n. 10], p. 49). 66 RAG, SBB, serie SN, n° 167, fol. 2v, 6v.

198 

annelies somers Conclusions

This contribution argued that the most ‘practical’ Tridentine measures became ‘hot topics’ at times when negotiations for the translation of the chapter of Saint Pharahild were ongoing. The chapter was threatened in its very survival as it did not dispose of sufficient means to continue on its own. In other chapters, however, similar topics were of great importance too as they struggled with comparable difficulties. It is nonetheless striking how certain matters were not dealt with until the last minute when the survival of the chapter itself was at stake. In the case of Saint Pharahild, we pointed out the kind of Counter-Reformation discourse to which the chapter had recourse, stressing the importance of the splendor of the office. Its attempts to implement the Tridentine decrees are evident, for example, from the numerous reprimands given to canons and chaplains who were negligent and absent. The extent to which the chapter relied on deputies such as vicars and mercenaries to guarantee the services67 nevertheless proves the limited impact of these admonitions. Yet the importance ascribed to the celebration of the office is also illustrated by the missal, anthiphoner, breviaries, gradual and other books related to liturgy that were ordered, bought or restored during the period investigated.68 Although the chapter was represented at Provincial Councils and diocesan Synods, their documented interventions were restricted to discussions of their material needs and their demand for precedence over the cathedral chapter of Saint Bavo. Both subjects relied heavily on claims from a former time when Saint Pharahild was the only chapter in the city. This also contains a trace of a reason why Saint Pharahild availed itself of a discourse so strongly inspired and justified by Trent: it lost its initial function as chapel of the count’s castle already in the fourteenth century and, on top of this, was overshadowed by the chapter of Saint Bavo from the 1540s on. Saint Pharahild more or less modeled itself on this cathedral chapter, as it too attempted to organise the training of priests internally and hesitated to contribute financially to the diocesan seminary. As the aim and ‘core business’ of a secular chapter was by definition determined by the splendid execution of the services and hours, Saint Pharahild had to stress the importance of all aspects related to this subject in order to justify why it had to be supported and saved. Topics such as residence, absenteeism and the exemplary lifestyles of the clergy were literally of primary importance to the chapter in order to preserve its image, and through this, find support for its continued existence. The suggested interventions and decisions taken in reference to the Tridentine decrees in Saint Pharahild, consequently served a material purpose as well. As Saint Pharahild never made any claims to exemption, most of the guidelines for chapters were adopted quite easily, or so it would appear from the chapter acts. Measuring the actual scope of the chapter’s moves, however, puts a different complexion on the discourse they make use of. Indeed, based upon our rather fragmentary sources, we could argument that by making a virtue out of necessity, the chapter of Saint Pharahild adopted the decrees 67 Who were punished as well for their carelessness: RAG, SBB, serie SN, n° 167, f°126v. 68 B. Bouckaert and E. Scheurs, Bijdragen tot de studie van het muziekleven in de Sint-Veerlekerk te Gent (14de-16de eeuw). Een muziekinventaris uit 1616. Deel 3, Musica Antiqua 13/4 (1996), 178–79.

making a virtue out of necessity

 199

of the Council of Trent. The latter were more than just a means of spiritual revival and offered Saint Pharahild a set of suggestions for the kinds of measures and arguments that could be used in its attempt to overcome material hardships and ensure its survival.

The Council of Trent and Its Impact on Philip II’s Legislation in the Habsburg Netherlands (1580–98)

Nicolas Simon*

The promulgation of the Tridentine decrees in the Habsburg Netherlands was far from being an easy endeavour, as it collided with many provincial and regional authorities across the Habsburg territories. As Governor-General in Brussels, Margaret of Parma sent over the course of June and July 1565 circular letters that obliged the ecclesiastical and civil authorities to apply the decrees.1 This contribution *

1

I would like to thank Prof. dr J.-M. Cauchies (Univ. Saint-Louis), Prof. dr Ph. Desmette (Univ. SaintLouis) and the editors of this volume for their comments on the first draft of this paper as well as Sophie Leclère (Université libre de Bruxelles/Université de Limoges) and Luke Murray (KU Leuven) for their advice about the English version of this paper. Abbreviations: ACRALOB: Archives de la Commission royale pour la publication des anciennes lois et ordonnances de Belgique; AGR: Archives générales du Royaume (Brussels, Belgium); BCRALOB: Bulletin de la Commission royale pour la publication des anciennes lois et ordonnances de Belgique; BMGN: Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden; CHR: Catalan Historical Review; CP: Conseil privé; CPE: Conseil privé espagnol; CT: Concilium Tridentinum; Diariorum, Actorum, Epistolarum, Tractatum nova collectio (Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1901–2001); HMOGG: Handelingen van de Maatschappij voor Oudheidkunde en Geschiedenis te Gent; JEMH: Journal of Early Modern History; PEA: Papiers d’État et de l’Audience; RCP: Registres du Conseil Privé; Tanner: N. Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols., Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990; TvRG: Tijdschrift voor rechtsgeschiedenis. P.  F.  X. De Ram, Synodicon Belgicum sive acta omnium ecclesiarum Belgii a celebrato concilio tridentino usque ad concordatum anni 1801, 4 vol., Liège: Centre National de Recherche d’Histoire Religieuse, 1996 (reprint), vol. 1, pp. 20–23; Placards de Flandre, vol. 2, pp. 49–50; V. Soen, ‘The Council of Trent and the Preconditions of the Dutch Revolt (1563–1566)’, in: W. François and V.  Soen (eds), The Council of Trent. Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1540–1700), vol. 2: Between Bishops and Princes (Göttingen, 2017), pp. 255–278. Eearlier research stems from the beginning of the twentieth century: H. Elias, Kerk en staat in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden onder de regeering der aartshertogen Albrecht and Isabella (1598–1621), Leuven and Antwerp: Uitgeverij ‘De Sikkel’ and Librairie Universitaire, 1931; A. Pasture, La restauration religieuse aux Pays-Bas sous les archiducs Albert et Isabelle (1596–1633). Principalement d’après les archives de la nonciature et de

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François, Turnhout, 2017 (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire ­Ecclésiastique, 101), pp. 201–216

F H G

DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.113409

202 

nicolas simon

assesses the impact of the Council of Trent on the subsequent legislation in the Netherlands between 1580 and 1598. To this day, no large-scale study has been dedicated to the legislation as a tool of a­ dministration and communication between rulers and subjects in the Low Countries.2 Hence, this chapter can only analyse a few aspects of this wide field of research. ­R ather than searching for explicit mentions of the Council of Trent in the legislation – a search which would turn out quite sterile – this contribution shall emphasize the difference between the Council of Trent as a historical event and Tridentinism in legislation.3 The decrees concluded during the Council of Trent did not supply a uniform, homogeneous and ‘ready for use’ vision, and thus needed to be updated with extra measures from both religious and secular spheres.4 This process led sometimes to conflicting relations between Princes and Popes. As Paolo Prodi has stressed, the relationship between the Church and the Early Modern States was not only defined by a power struggle for jurisdictional pre-eminence, but was a complex ­relationship with mutual influences.5 Therefore, while the legislation enacted by Catholic rulers contained an obvious religious character, Trent also opened the way for a bureau­ cratic reorganization of the Church. Similar to other secular princes, the Popes aimed to have absolute control over the ecclesiastical apparatus.6 The Church t­ ended to ­generate its own order and then to become a communitas perfecta parallel to the State. According to Prodi, Trent represented the recognition of a dual system (political and religious) but also the embodiment of the eternal struggle over the ­predominance of the religious or political sphere. In the time span under scrutiny, between 1580 and 1598, the central government in the Habsburg Netherlands managed to restore a minimum of State power through the territorial Reconquista of Governor-General Alexander Farnese, Margaret’s son, re-establishing the provinces of Tournai, Flanders and Brabant for the royal party.7 As such, Farnese still did not have a chance to recapture Holland, Zeeland, Overijssel, la visite ad limina, Leuven: Librairie Universitaire, 1925; F. Willocx, L’ introduction des décrets du Concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principauté de Liège, Leuven: Librairie universitaire, 1929. 2 G.  Janssens, De uitgave van de verordeningen van koning Filips  II (1566–1570). Bronnen voor de teksteditie, BCRALOB 43 (2002), 67–73; Idem, De uitgave van de ­verordeningen van koning ­Filips  II (1555–1598). Een nieuwe impuls voor een oud project, BCRALOB 37  (1996), 195–206; Ch.  Terlinden, Liste chronologique provisoire des édits et ordonnances des Pays-Bas, règne de Philippe II (1555–1598), Brussels: Goemaere, 1912. 3 G. Alberigo, Du concile de Trente au tridentisme, Irénikon 54 (1981), 192–210. 4 I.  Fernández Terricabras, Philippe  II et la contre-réforme. L’ église espagnole à l’ heure du Concile de Trente, Paris: Publisud, 2001; Idem, ‘Des créatures de votre majesté. Choix et contrôle des évêques par Philippe II dans les couronnes de Castille et d’Aragon (1556–1598)’, in: P. Arabeyre and B.  Basdevant-Gaudemet (eds), Les clercs et les princes. Doctrines et pratiques de l’autorité ecclésiastique à l’ époque moderne (Paris: École des Chartes, 2013), pp. 105–18; J. O’Malley, Trent. What Happened at the Council, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013, p. 261. 5 P. Prodi, ‘Il concilio di Trento di fronte alla politica e al diritto moderno. Introduzione’, in: Id. and W. Reinhard (eds), Il concilio di Trento e il moderno (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996), pp. 20–21; Idem, Il paradigma tridentino. Un’epoca della storia della chiesa, Brescia: Morcelliana, 2010. 6 W. Reinhard, ‘Il concilio di Trento e la modernizzazione della Chiesa. Introduzione’, in: Prodi and Reinhard, Il concilio di Trento (see n. 5), p. 53. 7 V. Soen, Reconquista and Reconciliation in the Dutch Revolt. The Campaign of Governor-General Alexander Farnese in the Dutch Revolt (1578-1592), JEMH 16 (2012), 1-22.

trent and its impact on philip ii’s legislation

 203

Frisia and parts of Gelre, but again exerted control over the territories from Hainaut, Artois, Tournai, Flanders, Brabant, Namur, Luxembourg, and even in more northern parts of Gelre and Groningen.8 Each of them had their own legal system, and regional privileges, and the ‘particularist’ reflex of each of the constituent territories of the Seventeen Provinces was one of the catalysts of the ongoing Revolt. This contribution shall try to show how, in this context and tradition of ‘legal pluralism’, the ordinances promulgated in Philip II’s name after 1580 fitted into a post-conciliar context aiming to influence and discipline the spirit of every subject in Catholic lands. Furthermore, these laws exemplify another an attempt of an in-depth (re)catholicization of society which was launched by Alexander Farnese and his successors. The Habsburg restoration of Church and State did not only take place through the reconstruction and reconciliation of desecrated Church property, but also through a legal framework.9

The Difficult ‘Balance of Powers’ The implementation of Tridentine decrees led to diverse frictions between Philip II and the Papacy, from Pius  V (1559–65) to Sixtus  V (1585–90). These tensions can sometimes seem eccentric but in reality they exemplify ceaseless power struggles.10 Recognized by each province as its territorial prince, Philip II was at the top of the feudal pyramid in the Netherlands. All feudal ties with France had been cut during the reign of Charles  V thanks to the Treaty of Madrid (1526) and the Pragmatic Sanction (1549). At least in practice, the Emperor no longer exercised any feudal right in the Netherlands since the Augsburg Transaction in 1548.11 Despite this situation each province of the Netherlands had its own institutional and legal history. It was not until the Dukes of Burgundy, in the late fifteenth century, that the promulgation of homogenous legislation in all these provinces was possible.12 However this did not mean the end of local customs. The interpenetration between customs and the legislation – the legal pluralism – was a reality that is not easy to study, as John Gilissen pointed out.13 Nevertheless, it should be noticed that Philip  II did not normally intervene directly in the legislative-making process. Rather, he delegated 8 9

10 11 12 13

For the reconciliation of Groningen, the most northern territory under Habsburg rule, see: V. Soen, De verzoening van Rennenberg (1579-1581). Adellijke beweegredenen tijdens de Opstand anders bekeken, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 122 (2009), 318-333. A. Spicer, ‘Consecration and Violation. Preserving the Sacred Landscape in the (Arch)diocese of Cambrai, c. 1550-1570’, in: M. Delbeke and M. Schraven (eds), Foundation, Dedication and Consecration in Early Modern Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 266-267; A. Spicer, After Iconoclasm. Reconciliation and Resacralization in the Southern Netherlands, ca. 1566-85, Sixteenth Century Journal 44 (2013), 411–433. For instance, in 1589 Philip II asked Alexander Farnese, the Governor-General, which solutions were possible to finance the reconstruction and embellishment of destroyed churches in Brussels: Philip II to Alexander Farnese (copy), 18/08/1589. Cf. AGR, PEA, 194, f°163r-v. Terricabras, Philippe II (see n. 4), p. 384. J.-M.  Cauchies and H.  De Schepper, Justice, grâce et législation. Genèse de l’ état et moyens juridiques dans les Pays-Bas, 1200–1600, Brussels: University Saint-Louis, 1994, pp. 16–20. J.-M. Cauchies, ‘Les ordonnances dites générales sous les ducs de Bourgogne. Critères et questions autour d’une édition’, in: G.  Martyn (ed.), Le droit et la loi pendant l’Ancien Régime (Brussels: Archives générales du Royaume, 2014), pp. 19–31. J.  Gilissen, Loi et coutume. Quelques aspects de l’interpénétration des sources du droit dans l’ancien droit belge, TvRG 21 (1953), 257–96.

204 

nicolas simon

this task to the Governor-General, and the three collateral councils – the Council of State, the Privy Council and the Council of Finances – forming the core of the Brussels bureaucracy at the Coudenberg palace.14 Of course, Madrid was aware of the decisions taken in the Netherlands, but it did not mean that the Spanish Crown was involved in the daily work of Brussels’ central institutions. It was almost impossible considering the distance between Madrid and Brussels. Measures taken by ecclesiastical authorities must also be added to this picture of ‘legal pluralism’ as well. As it will be shown, in the sixteenth century, the central institutions did not hesitate to put pressure on the clergy to adopt measures that were acceptable for Brussels and in accordance with the royal legislation. The persecution of heterodoxy was a shared task between ecclesiastical inquisitors, and mainly, secular courts acting upon an impressive body of royal anti-heresy legislation.15 And in the seventeenth century as well, some provincial authorities directly contacted the Governor-General in Brussels to make decisions on religious matter if they were note satisfied by the solutions recommended by ecclesiastical officials.16 As such, implementing Trent became a shared task between magistracies and clergy alike, codified in circular letters between bishops and the governors-general and in synodal statutes and royal edicts alike. It is this last category which is under scrutiny in this contribution. In fact, Governor-General Farnese published an edict on 1 June 1587 endorsing the conclusions of the second Provincial Council of Cambrai.17 Since the new bishopric division in the Low Countries of 1559, Cambrai reassembled the bishoprics of Namur, Arras, Tournai, Saint-Omer and Cambrai, or most of the French speaking territory of the Habsburg Netherlands at its southern border of France. The ec­ clesiastical province had been the first in the Seventeen Provinces to promulgate Trent in its first Provincial Council of 1565 called by Archbishop Maximilien de Berghes.18 In his study dedicated to the implementation of the Tridentine decrees in the Netherlands, Fernand Willocx has stressed the repercussions of the second Provincial Council of Cambrai held in 1586 that resulted in an explicit backing of the nuncio of Cologne, Giovanni Francesco Bonomi. It was held in Mons, as the archiepis­ copal city of Cambrai was then in the hands of French troops. The second Provincial 14 G.  Martyn, ‘How “Sovereign” Were the Southern Netherlands under the Archdukes?’, in: R. Lesaffer (ed.), The Twelve Years Truce (1609). Peace, Truce, War and Law in the Low Countries at the Turn of the 17th Century (Leiden: Brill, 2014), pp. 196–209. 15 V.  Soen and G.  Gielis, The Inquisitorial Office in the Sixteenth-century Low Countries. A Dynamic Perspective, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 66 (2015), 47–66. 16 N. Simon, ‘Les Archiducs, la guerre et la religion. Facteurs d’influences sur la décision politique dans les Pays-Bas espagnols (ca.1620-ca.1635)’, in: Ph. Martin and B. Forclaz (eds), Religion et piété au défi de la guerre de Trente Ans (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2015), pp. 39–51. 17 A. Lottin, Lille. Citadelle de la contre-réforme? (1598–1668), Dunkerque: Westhoek-Éditions, 1984; Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 1); A. Lottin, ‘La mise en œuvre de la réforme catholique, à travers les conciles provinciaux de Cambrai (1565, 1586, 1631)’, in: M. Aoun and J.-M. Tuffery-Andrieu (eds), Conciles provinciaux et synodes diocésains du Concile de Trente à la Révolution française. Défis ecclésiaux et enjeux politiques? (Strasbourg: Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, 2010), pp. 167–86. 18 V. Soen and L. Hollevoet, ‘Bisschop na het Concilie van Trente. De hervormingspogingen van Maximiliaan van Bergen, aartsbisschop van Kamerijk (1564–1570)’, in: W.  François, L.  Kenis and V.  Soen (eds), Bisschoppen, seminaries en de Leuvense theologische Faculteit (16de-20ste eeuw) (Leuven: Peeters, in press).

trent and its impact on philip ii’s legislation

 205

Council was essential according to Willocx because it ‘gave the definitive boost to the execution of the Council of Trent in this ecclesiastical province’.19 Willocx repeatedly draws on documents produced at this council when examining how the Governor-General consulted civil provincial authorities about the decisions taken in Mons.20 First in December 1586, Farnese consulted civil provincial institutions and justice officers before this publication so that they would express their opinions and send reports to Brussels. After this first round of consultations, the bishops were asked to modify some articles for which reluctances remained. The new version was then forwarded to the civil authorities for approval.21 In the struggle for the endorsement of the statutes of the second Provincial Council of Cambrai, it is important to study the texts closer, pointing out the ‘particularist’ reflex of pointing at own’s previous privileges, and the legal pluralism existing in the Netherlands. In the consultation round, the Privy Council had drawn up a document synthesizing the main requests sent by the prelates and added in the margin the recommendation aimed at the civil institutions.22 Several issues were discussed: obtain the support of the civil authorities during the rounds to raise money by the priests, the presence of the same priests during the audition of the charity institutions’ accounts to control the laymen involved, support for the creation of Sunday schools, the respect for Sunday rest and religious holidays, collaboration of civil servants to arrest a suspect summoned by an ecclesiastical court, the overzealous use of excommunication, the interdiction for the clergy to take part in armed conflicts and finally the support to bring in the implementation of the decrees enacted in Trent and in Mons.23 In the preparatory draft of this document the Privy Council studied all the conciliar decisions, one of which being the one about the Sunday rest and Sunday schools. In the margin, the Privy Council indicated that it was compulsory to republish two former texts: the general edict of 1531 and the one of 1568 concerning the theme of Sunday rest. The first one is undoubtedly the most important and is often quoted in reports sent to Brussels because of the large range of matters 19 Willocx, L’ introduction (see n. 1), p. 184. 20 Cf. AGR, CPE, 1116 B. The preparatory document: AGR, PEA, 1105, 01/06/1587. The last draft of the ordinance signed by Farnese: AGR, PEA, 1146, 01/07/1587. Concerning the publication on this ordinance in Flanders: AGR, PEA, 1107, 12/08/1593. 21 The bishops sent back the modified articles on March 1587. The Council of Hainaut answered Brussels on April 1587, the officers of Lille, Douai et Orchies, the bailiff of Tournai, and the officers of Namur on May 1587. The Council of Artois sent back its remarks on June 1587. 22 The Privy Council was one of the three most important central institutions in the Netherlands. In collaboration with the Council of Finances and the Council of State, the Privy Council assisted the Governor-General in his tasks. In the beginning of the seventeenth century, these three instiuttions started to be called the Collateral Counciles (conseils collatéraux). The Privy Council could make decisions regarding matters of legislation, administration and even justice. This council was clearly a key actor in the decision-making process in the Netherlands. Cf. H. De Schepper, ‘Les archiducs et les institutions du gouvernement au Pays-Bas espagnol [sic], 1596–1621’, in: W.  Thomas and L.  Duerloo (eds), Albert & Isabella, 1598–1621. Essays (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), pp.  221–32; P. Alexandre, Histoire du Conseil privé dans les anciens Pays-Bas, Brussels: Académie royale de Belgique, 1894. 23 Cf. Tanner, 2.759–73; CT, 9.984, 9.1089; J. Bernhard, Ch. Lefebvre and F. Rapp, L’ époque de la Réforme et du Concile de Trente (Histoire du Droit et des Institutions de l’Église en Occident, 14), Paris: Cujas, 1990, pp. 377–78; Placards de Flandre, vol. 2, pp. 50–88.

206 

nicolas simon

covered in it.24 The central institutions recommended an article forbidding anyone to ‘walk or run in churches whether during or after mass’. The Council of Hainaut answered the central government in January 1587. The Council supported the recommendations of the Privy Council and, for instance, ­reported that regarding the Sunday schools, local authorities should absolutely help the bishops to find the funds for the erection of these establishments. This kind of decisions exemplified the importance given to education as ‘one of the major measures of social disciplining during the confessional age’.25 In addition, local authorities should also ensure that children would be present in numbers. The councillors were also willing to force priests to participate in the cities’ defence and to authorize them to fight if it was inevitable. The reason was simple: The present wars are not common and ordinary wars in which princes are fighting each other. They rather are wars searching to impose God’s glory. Therefore the religious people who are able to fight must defend cities and small towns.26 The clergy should be allowed to participate in the war efforts even if it was well established that he cannot spill blood. In this case, it is a question of legitimizing a Christian war in which the commitment of every believer was required. Another article should be mentioned: local officers have to take an oath before taking office. This oath renewed the ideas contained in the Professio Fidei Tridentina enacted by Pius IV in 1564.27 The Privy Council affirmed that every officer must pronounce this oath annually and provided the following formula: I, [name], swear by the Almighty God and the damnation of my soul that I believe in all that the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes. I believe in the doctrines followed in the past and in current doctrines under the obedience to our Holy father the Pope. I  refuse all contrary to Church doctrines like the Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists and all other heretics and I will oppose and fight these evil doctrines. God and all the saints help me in this endeavour.28 24 J. Lameere (ed.), Recueil des ordonnances des Pays-Bas. Deuxième série, 6 vols, Brussels, Goemaere, 1902, vol. 3, pp. 265–73. 25 U. Lotz-Heumann, ‘Imposing Church and Social Discipline’, in: R. Po-Chia Hsia (ed.), The Cambridge History of Christianity, 9 vols, (Cambridge: University Press, 2007), vol. 6, p. 246. 26 The Council of Hainaut to the Privy Council, 26 January 1587. Cf. AGR, PEA, n°1106-B. 27 Taking the oath was already mandatory for the participants in the Iconoclastic Fury (1566) if they wanted to be forgiven for their actions by the Church. This complemented the general pardon issued by Philip II in which the conditions for reintegration in the political community were specified. Cf.  V. Soen, Vredehandel. Adellijke en Habsburgse verzoeningspogingen tijdens de Nederlandse Opstand (1564–1581), Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012, pp. 89–90; O’Malley, Trent (see n. 4), p. 262. The entire text of the Professio Fidei Tridentinae is published by O’Malley, Trent (see n. 4), pp. 283–85. 28 Different versions of this oath were proposed. The transcribed version here is the one present in the drafted document signed by Farnese before publication. Cf. AGR, PEA, 1146, 01/07/1587.

trent and its impact on philip ii’s legislation

 207

It was also rigorous to mingle the gesture with the word: the officer would have to take the oath while touching a crucifix or the Gospels. This association of orality and physical contact tended to show that the individual belonged to a cosmic order that exceeded him or her. Taking place under God’s protection or swearing with one’s hand on the cross was meant to protect the officer and inspire respect in him. It would be too long to describe in detail all the articles considered problematic by the civil authorities. Nevertheless it should be underlined that the recommended solutions by the civil provincial institutions mobilized references to the earlier published edicts and customary law. The bailiff of Tournai indicated that it is ‘by use from immemorial time’ that they can pursue clerics in civil courts if they do not fulfil their contracted obligations, for instance. Concerning the rescission of properties’ alienations and the eventual rents, the Council of Namur asserted that ‘civil law is equally fair to ecclesiastics than the canon law which we always respected and are still intending to respect’. However, Namur’s councillors emphasized that they will conform to it ‘without prejudice to immemorial use, customary law or the ordinances enacted by the King which could be contrary’ to the conciliar decrees. The Council of Artois was not stating differently when he appeared to be willing to respect the bishops’ decisions but at the same time remind them that they will be applied ‘without prejudice to customary law or to privileges’. The edict did not pass without problems. It seems that the publication of this edict of June 1587 was still causing some trouble in 1593. The Governor-General ad interim, Pierre-Ernest of Mansfeld, also Governor of the province of Luxembourg, sent on 12 August a letter to the Council of Flanders.29 Mansfeld wondered why this edict had not been published yet and expressed his concerns. The publication of this edict was an important matter because the decisions taken during the Provincial Council in 1586 should be enforced in the diocese of Saint-Omer. As one part of the diocese was under the jurisdiction of the province of Flanders, the Governor-General asked for the publication of this edict in the province as well. However, Flemish authorities took their time to fulfil this obligation. In the same letter, it is interesting to note that Mansfeld asked for the republishing of two other legal texts. The first was the edict of July 1557 regarding the tithes and the second was the open letters requiring the application of the Tridentine decrees in the Netherlands and promulgated in 1565 by Margaret of Parma, Governor-General at the time. This case shows that civil authorities were largely involved in the implementation of the Tridentine reform programme in the Netherlands at the end of the sixteenth century. In fact, it is clear that the Church needed the State to accomplish this programme and, as a result, Catholic rulers such as Philip  II of Spain took the opportunity to assert their control on ecclesiastical authorities.30 However, it should not be forgotten that some prominent members of the Church like Jean Vendeville, Bishop of Tournai from 1588 to 1592, were willing to eagerly engage themselves in the implementation of Tridentine decisions.31 29 Mansfeld to the Council of Flanders, 12 Augustus 1593. Cf. AGR, PEA, n°1107. 30 J.  Bireley, ‘Redefining Catholicism: Trent and Beyond’, in: Po-Chia Hsia, The Cambridge History (see n. 25), vol. 6, p. 160. 31 V. Soen, ‘The Loyal Opposition of Jean Vendeville (1527–1592). Contribution to a Contextualized Biography’, in: D.  Vanysacker, P.  Delsaerdt, J.-P.  Delville and H.  Schwall (eds), The

208 

nicolas simon

Synoptic table in AGR, CPE, 1116 B (With the authorization of the Archives générales du Royaume)

These few examples show us how the old civil legislation was ardently upheld in front of the religious authorities’ pressure to implement the Tridentine decrees or those from the synods of Cambrai/Mons. Also, in a period that tended to assert the increasing importance of the legislation while the customary law was facing his last hours in the sixteenth century, it is important to recognize that for the implementation of Trent old customs still were instrumentalized to hedge the effects of central legislation sometimes to compete with the legislation’s supremacy. Thus, legal pluralism was another indubitable reality.32 In this case, one of the practical repercussions of the Council of Trent is at a legal level: the obligation to (re)define the spheres of intervention between the ecclesiastical and civil law. In addition, a synoptic table drafted after 1600 filled with documents concerning the second Provincial Council of Cambrai embodies the relations between r­ eligious and civil norms.33 Four columns structure this table: the first one (starting from the left) summarizes the Tridentine decrees, the second the decisions of Cambrai (1586), the third the edict of June 1587, and the fourth the Synod of Tournai (1600). The c­ ompared articles concern problems discussed during the second Council of ­Cambrai: respect for religious feasts and clerics’ presence in charitable institutions’ accounts, etc. We can observe the permanent work of synthesis that had to be made when it came the Tridentine decrees’ implementation. Quintessence of Lives. Intellectual Biographies in the Low Countries presented to Jan Roegiers (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), pp. 59–60. 32 R. Ross and Ph. Stern, ‘Reconstructing Early Modern Notion of Legal Pluralism’, in: L. Benton and R. Ross (eds), Legal Pluralism and Empires, 1500–1580 (New York: New York University Press, 2013), pp. 109–41; J. Gilissen, Loi (see n. 13). 33 AGR, CPE, 1116 B.

trent and its impact on philip ii’s legislation

 209

A Legislative Offensive: Moralize God’s People As Paolo Prodi has argued, Trent offered the opportunity to reaffirm the importance of the bishop as a priest and a shepherd for its flock. In this perspective, the Council suggested a new reform for the Church as a whole. However the so-called ‘Catholic Reformation’ faced an identity crisis and the initiatives taken to enforce the decrees ran out in a conservative position, which, according to Prodi, resulted in no real reformation emerging within the Catholic Church.34 What scholars have called the ‘Confessional era’ (from the conciliar crisis in the fifteenth Century to the treaties of Westphalia in 1648) defines not only the collapse of the European religious unity but also the restructuring of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.35 It is also important to point out that this process went hand in hand with the genesis of the Early Modern States. Konfessionalisierung, social discipline, and Early Modern States are in fact intertwined and are interdependent phenomena. Of course this process cannot be grasped from a single point of view. It derived its strength from its ability to bind different aspects (military, ecclesiastical, political, economic, etc.) of the new society and state models, and engaged the public sphere from external police measures to the most internal habitus.36 There was indeed a special attention drawn to the discipline of the Christian subjects but it far exceeded the spectrum of religious discipline strictly speaking. This included, for example, the fight against public drinking, gambling, idleness, prostitution or blasphemy.37 An ordinance of 1598 dedicated to making people observe Feast days and Sunday rest in Brussels must first be mentioned.38 The archival curiosity of this act lies in the fact that the Brussels’ authorities enacted it but an annotated draft was kept in the archives of the central government (probably a copy sent to the central authorities). This act offers the opportunity to question again the hierarchy inside the legal order between the authorities able to promulgate decisions about religious holidays and the obligation to attend mass. Relationships between civil and ecclesiastical authorities are in this case crucial.39 In fact, this edict is the same as the one published in September 1598 by the ­Archbishop of Malines, Mathias Hovius.40 The general ban to work concerned 34 P.  Prodi, ‘Riforma cattolica e contrariforma’, in: L.  Bulferetti, Nuove questioni di storia moderna, 2 vols, Milan:, vol. 1, pp. 357–418. 35 H.  Schilling, ‘Confessional Europe’, in: Th.  Brady, H.  Oberman and J.  Tracy (eds), Handbook of European History (1400–1600). Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation (2 vol., Leiden: Brill, 1995), vol. 2, pp. 641–81. 36 P.  Prodi, ‘Controriforma e/o riforma cattolica: superamento di vecchi dilemmi nei nuovi panorami storiografici’, in: V. Branca and C. Ossola (eds), Crisi e rinnovamenti nell’autunno del Rinascimento a Venezia (Florence: Olschki, 1991), pp. 11–21. 37 K.  von Greyerz, Religion et culture. Europe 1500–1800, trans. E.  Kaufholz-Messmer, Paris: Cerf, 2006, p. 74; W. Reinhard, Reformation, Counter-Reformation and the Early Modern State. A Reassessement, The Catholic Historical Review 75 (1989), 398. 38 AGR, PEA, 1109, 1598 (precise day unknown). This kind of ordinance was still published during the Thirty Years’ War. Cf. Simon, ‘Les Archiducs’ (see n. 16). 39 It explicitly indicated that this ordinance was enacted by the Brussels’ authorities after they had consulted the Archbishop of Malines. 40 The ordinance of Mathias Hovius was originally published in Dutch. In October 1598, Guillaume of Berghes, Bishop of Antwerp, published an ordinance about the religious’ Holidays too. This act is logically inspired by Hovius’ edict. Cf. De Ram, Synodicon Belgicum (see n. 1), vol. 2, pp. 335–41, vol. 3, pp. 358–64.

210 

nicolas simon

S­ undays, seven holidays of Notre-Dame, Pentecost, Christmas, the Epiphany, Ascension Day, Saint John The Baptist, Saint Laurent and Saint Michael. Along these holidays, those of the patron saints of every city’s parish are added. In fact, these holidays represented those during which people were never allowed to work. As anywhere else in the Catholic European area, the importance granted to the holidays of the liturgical year dominated.41 First of all, the prescriptions of 1598 focussed on commodities that could be sold or not during these days. Another fundamental aspect was the one dedicated to the prohibition of games because ‘the youth neglected not only the divine service but there was also the immorality resulting by dice games and other illicit ways to earn money’. These decisions were only a few among others from the same way: a ban on playing farces or comedies before vespers, a ban to open dancing schools before mass, etc. The most symbolic condemnation indubitably remained the ban to go to inns and taverns. The authorities recalled that in these particular moments, they required ‘a special worship from every Catholic’. Yet the priests had to correctly dispense the sacraments, which was not a reality everywhere.42 Also, the children were banned from other sacred places such as cemeteries. By this means, the Brussels’ authorities tried to take measures against ‘the burghers’ children and others who played in churches’ cemeteries, causing troubles by running, playing and fighting each other’.43 The moral supervision of the clergy and consequently its flock counted as one of the most important post-conciliar undertakings led by both the ecclesiastical and c­ ivil authorities.44 This legislative activity focussing on raising moral standards fitted into a wider dynamic. It refers to what German scholars call the Policeywissenschaft, the science of the ‘[good] police’. Gute Policey corresponded to the voluntaristic approach of civil authorities to organize in a coherent way a legal order where God is not the only reference anymore. As it has been pointed out by Karl Härter, the notion of Policey/police referred ‘to the general concept and the overall purpose of the ‘good 41 M. Forster, Catholic Revival in the Age of the Baroque. Religious Identity in Southwest Germany, 1550–1750, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 110–31. 42 In 1571, the Antwerp Bishop, Franciscus Sonnius, sent to every priest of his bishopric, instructions about the seven sacraments. In a very didactic way, Sonnius explained each sacrament and quoted the Gospels in order to be sure that every priest could properly dispense the sacraments. Cf.  De Ram, Synodicon Belgicum (see n.  1), vol.  3, pp.  71–81; CT, vol.  1, pp.  77–79, vol.  5, pp.  228–35, vol. 8., p. 962, vol. 9, p. 981; Tanner, vol. 2, pp. 736–37; M. J. Marinus, De Contrareformatie te Antwerpen (1585–1576), Brussels: Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, 1995, p. 206. 43 However the necessities of that time allowed several exceptions. The economic activities connected to perishable goods are exempted (fishers, butchers, bakers, etc.). In Ghent where similar decisions were taken, some guilds complained about unfair competition and asked for a collective interdiction without any possible exemption. Obviously, these exceptions were meant to avoid waste but also to ensure the eventual supplying of the army. In this case, the political and military considerations collided with the confessional aims of the rulers. 44 Marinus, De Contrareformatie (see n. 42); H. Soly, ‘Openbare feesten in Brabantse en Vlaamse steden, 16de-18de eeuw’, in: Het openbaar initiatief van de gemeenten in België. Historische grondslagen (Ancien Régime) (Brussels:  Crédit Communal, 1984), pp.  605–31; G.  Elewaut, Herberg en Overheid. Politionele en fiskale aspekten van het overheidsoptreden betreffende herbergen in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden en in het bijzonder te Gent, 17de-18de  eeuw, HMOGG 40  (1986), 111–58; M. Frank, ‘Exzeß oder Lustbarkeit? Die policeyliche Reglementierung und Kontrolle von Festen in norddeutschen Territorien’, in: Karl Härter (ed.), Policey und frühneuzeitliche Gesellschaft (Frankfurt-am-Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2000), pp. 149–78.

trent and its impact on philip ii’s legislation

 211

order’ of a community, society or state: the so-called well-ordered police state’.45 The means of justification grew out of the implementation of a discursive approach where words such as ‘sovereignty’ and ‘reason of State’ (Staatsräson) were crucial.46 Yet the divine side of this order was not evacuated because Gute Policey was also synonymous of Gute Ordnung: the lack of faith could bring God’s lightening strikes.47 The prescriptions dedicated to the implementation of moral standards among the population were meant to create a good agreement between the subjects and the establishment of a Christian ‘esprit de corps’.48 In this respect, an act of 26 June 1589 can be retained. It dealt with various topics: it contained decisions concerning inns, religious feasts, as well as the sovereign’s right of reprieve.49 By restricting the analysis to articles supervising the Catholics’ behaviour, several striking elements can be raised. First of all, the authorities limited the number of inns and cabarets near cities – the measure is also comprehensible through fiscal considerations – but a royal permission could be delivered if it was necessary. Then wedding banquets taking place in the countryside should be supervised by some officers or any other qualified person to pacify argument or quarrel … And officers will prevent any troubles that could rise about the meat usually asked by young men during wedding banquets … The holidays organized in the Netherlands in dedication of a local patron saint will be regrouped in one single day. This decision should strongly limit the risks of overflowing as already defined more than ten years before the beginning of Trent in the general ordinance of 1531.50 Thus, this decision was not per se an innovation for the Netherlands in 1589. Yet this situation was quite new in respect of the obvious increase of state regulation and control over the moral and religious behaviour of ­individuals during the Early Modern Period.51 45 K. Härter, Security and ‘Gute Policey’ in Early Modern Europe. Concepts, Laws and Instruments, Historical Social Research 35 (2010), 42. 46 H.  Mohnhaupt, Potestas legislatoria und Gesetzesbegriff im Ancien Régime, Ius Commune 4 (1972), 188–239; G. Botéro, De la raison d’État (1589–1598), Paris: Gallimard, 2014. 47 In the Lutheran Sweden, God’s anger is the only argument used in the legislation next to the preservation of the kingdom’s ‘common good’. For the Catholic prince-bishopric of Bamberg, J. Staudenmaier pointed out that the end of the sixteenth century (1590–1610) represented a peak in the imposition of a religious and social discipline (‘disciplinarization’ of the clergy, respect of fasting, correct dispense of the sacraments, condemnation of blasphemy, regulation of games, etc.). Cf. J. Staudenmaier, Gute Policey in Hochstift und Stadt Bamberg, Frankfurt-am-Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2012, pp. 75–78, 125; T. Kotkas, Royal Police Ordinances in Early Modern Sweden. The Emergence of Voluntaristic Understanding of Law, Leiden: Brill, 2014; Lottin, Lille (see n. 17), p. 95; Härter, Security (see n. 45), p. 47. 48 See the letter sent by the Duke of Alva to Maximilien Morillon, vicar-general of the archbishopric of Malines, in June 1570. Cf. De Ram, Synodicon Belgicum (see n. 1), vol. 1, p. 70; Tanner, vol. 2, pp. 784–96. 49 AGR, ACRALOB, Collection des placards imprimés, n°2/54–55,  22/06/1589. For the preparatory document, see AGR, PEA, 1106, 22/06/1589; AGR, PEA, 1146, 22/06/1589. 50 J. Lameere (ed.), Recueil des ordonnances des Pays-Bas. Deuxième série, 6 vols., Brussels: Goemaere, 1902, vol. 3, pp. 265–73. 51 Th.  Simon, ‘“Policing” and Morality. On the State Regulation of Faith and Morality in the Policy Decrees of the Early Modern Period’, in: S. Müller and C. Schweiger (eds), Between Creativity and Norm-Making. Tensions in the Later Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era (Leiden, Brill, 2013), p. 242.

212 

nicolas simon

The prescription described above also intended to forbid the immunity of every criminal requesting sanctuary in church or any other sacred place.52 This vast category of individuals encompassed heretics, thieves, those guilty of manslaughter, or any persons involved in public revolts or ‘popular tumults’. The alacrity to supervise all the religious feasts in which believers participate attained a new level in the post-conciliar context and the disorders occurring in the Netherlands. Already in the 1540s, the Council of Flanders underlined the danger that places such as inns or cabarets represented for the population. In those places, according to the provincial institution, the workers spend ‘all their salary by drinking strong beer, they abandon their spouses and children and therefore manslaughters or other troubles occur’.53 Hence it must be pointed out that edicts promulgated by the civil authorities before Trent could be reactivated when the question of applying these recommendations reappeared. The new spectrum, which covered these decisions, fits into this European endeavour to defend the moral righteousness of the clergy and, by extension, all God’s people. At the end of Philip II’s reign, the central government seemed to be resolved to discipline the whole population and to forbid any infringement on the Scriptures. Thenceforth, it did not hesitate to remind people of its obligations to the Council of Flanders. The provincial institution was forced by Brussels to republish the prescription of May 1593 relative to the speeches and the discussions held on the ‘theological proposals in profane places such as inns or taverns’.54 The authorities’ decisions lay within the framework of the decrees taken in Trent.55 In this respect the distinction operated between profane places unfit for the theological disputes and others possessing the sacred validity for such discussions is quite characteristic.56 The period of the liturgical year in which the central government discussed this measure to the Provincial Council was not fortuitous. The republishing had to be made precisely before Easter of that year. If the central government paid attention to enforce religious holidays and the Sunday rest, as demonstrated above, it also tried to make sure that these same holidays were not the opportunity to disrespect Holy Scripture. Thus, there is a beam of Tridentine inspired decisions aimed explicitly at leaving the smallest openings possible for the citizens to question or express themselves about religion. The ‘bicategorisation’ of ‘this world here below’, between a profane and a sacred space, finds its consecration in resolutions such as those sent to the Council of Flanders.

52 On the question regarding sanctuary, see: H.  Noizet, ‘Alcuin contre Théodulphe. Un conflit producteur de normes’, in: B. Judic and P. Depreux (eds), Alcuin de York à Tours (actes du colloque de Tours les 4–6 mars 2004) (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2004), pp. 113–29. 53 N.  Simon, Un dossier ‘gracieusement’ conservé. La genèse de l’ordonnance d’octobre 1541 sur le droit de grâce, BCRALOB 53 (2012), 125–225, pp. 142–43. 54 AGR, PEA, 1109, 30/03/1597 (copy). 55 CT, vol. 8, p. 965, vol. 9, p. 981. 56 This refers also to a ‘visual communication’ aimed to enforce the recatholization of the population and the public sphere. Cf. J. M. Muller, Communication visuelle et confessionnalisation à Anvers au temps de la Contre-Réforme, Dix-septième siècle 249 (2008), 441–82.

trent and its impact on philip ii’s legislation

 213

To Create a Home for Catholic Exiles? At the end of the sixteenth century, then, Brussels attempted to establish an exclusively Catholic community in which religious factors played a dominating role.57 In this respect, special attention should be drawn to the edict of 1 July 1597.58 This act intended to define the conditions of the Catholic French and English emigrants willing to leave their own country to settle down in the Catholic Netherlands. The purpose of this edict was to control more effectively foreigners and religious emigrants. It is well known that the end of the sixteenth century showed a weakening in the English Crown’s support for the Dutch rebels.59 King James I/VI Stuart was concerned about the legitimacy of a revolt which abjured its ‘natural’ sovereign.60 If Spain and England signed the Treaty of London in 1604 it did not establish a regime of religious liberty or the freedom of cult for the English subjects in the Netherlands. It was primarily a commercial agreement. If an English subject wanted to stay permanently in the Netherlands or in Spain he had to convert to Catholicism.61 Additionally, the prescriptions of 1597 intended to find a long-lasting solution so that the French Catholic victims of the war led by Henry IV could peacefully live their faith under Philip II’s protection.62 Nevertheless, not all the emigrants were of Catholic confession. It was thus necessary to proceed to verifications. Every emigrant had to declare himself to the officer of his jurisdiction. The English or French refugee had to pass on his place of residence, his name and any nickname, his place of birth, his age and the reasons which urged him to come in the Netherlands. These decisions were similar to another aspect of a policy led by the Archdukes (1598–1621), namely the search for recognition of the Catholic minorities in Protestant territories.63 In this Tridentine spirit, aiming to obtain the establishment of religiously homogeneous territories, the resoluteness of the Catholic authorities was quite obvious. In the first draft of an edict of 1 July 1597, Brussels was ready to allow Calvinist Dutch to come to the Netherlands if they possessed an authorization and if they followed the prescriptions discussed above of not residing permanently in royal territory. This granted mobility to Calvinists appears as an extremely liberal-minded initiative of the Spanish King. In 1597, the central government seemed to realize that 57 B. Diefendorf, Catholic Identity and the Revolt of the Low Countries. A View from South of the Border, BMGN 126 (2011), 82–88. 58 AGR, PEA, 1109, 01/07/1597. 59 H.  Dunthorne, Britain and the Dutch Revolt, 1560–1700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 60 L.  De Frenne, ‘Professions, prêtres et pensions. Les réfugiés catholiques anglais aux PaysBas méridionaux sous l’administration des archiducs Albert et Isabelle (1598–1621/1633)’, in: Cl.  Bruneel, J.-M.  Duvosquel, Ph.  Guignet and R.  Vermeir (eds), Les ‘Trente Glorieuses’ (ca. 1600-ca. 1630). Pays-Bas méridionaux et France septentrionale. Aspects économiques, sociaux et religieux au temps des archiducs Albert et Isabelle (Brussels: Archives et bibliothèques de Belgique, 2010), pp. 107–25; M. Questier, When Catholics Attack. The Counter-Reformation in Fractured Regions of Europe, BMGN 126 (2011), 89–95. 61 W. Thomas, ‘The Treaty of London, the Twelve Years Truce and Religious Toleration in Spain and the Netherlands (1598–1621)’, in: Lesaffer (ed.), The Twelve Years Truce (see n. 14), p. 281. 62 AGR, PEA, 1109, 01/07/1597. 63 P.  Arblaster, ‘The Archdukes and the Northern Counter-Reformation’, in: Thomas and Duerloo, Albert & Isabella (see n. 22), pp. 87–92.

214 

nicolas simon

this article would cause disorder considering the wide latitude given to the enemies of the King and it was removed from the published version of the edict. Even if this article was not kept, it must be emphasized that the mere presence of this generous attitude in the first draft of the edict is far from trivial. If one wants to fully understand the mind-set of the Catholic government he should also pay attention to the economic situation of the Netherlands in the 1590s. The central authority in Brussels was naturally quite concerned by the impact of the religious tensions between Catholics and Calvinists but it was also concerned about the economic growth of the rebel provinces and the weakening of the Netherlands.64 Therefore some edicts prohibited the transfer of food and goods from or to the United Provinces. Yet, in December 1591, the economic situation of the Catholic territories was so bad that the Privy Council advised to allow the importation of goods from the United Provinces because the Netherlands ‘currently need more of their goods than they need ours’. The same advice was given regarding the importation of refined salt.65 This last example confirms the fact that the political and economic interests of the Spanish Crown prevailed sometimes over religious considerations.66 The question of Catholic immigrants in the Netherlands contained two coextensive problems. The erection of a physical and symbolic border between Protestants and Catholics was meant to help achieve the homogenization of God’s people, especially by the implementation of the Tridentine decrees. The authorities found themselves in a convenient situation to weld a community around a concrete and coherent vision of the world.67 The civil authorities tried to answer the new aspirations in an original way by distancing themselves from a partly obsolete medieval balance. They needed to be able to realize a synthesis of the Christian values advocated by Trent while taking into account radical political, social or economic changes.68 Even after the Twelve Years’ Truce was signed, all the same problems reappeared quickly because of the ‘massive arrival’ of heretics. In order to guarantee the measures introduced by the central government more than a decade before, the Archdukes stated on April 1611 to the Provincial Councils and religious authorities that they must 64 Although the last decades of the sixteenth century saw a shift in the way that Brussels considered the United Provinces, they were mainly seen as ‘rebels’ and not only as religious dissidents. Cf. M. Van Galderen, The Political Thought of the Dutch Revolt 1555–1590, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. 65 The Spanish territories were apparently too weak to struggle against the sea powers of the Calvinist provinces. The Privy Council advised them to allow the import of salt from the United Provinces until the Netherlands were able to import salt from Spain. Cf. AGR, PEA, 1107, 06/12/1591. 66 Thomas, ‘The Treaty of London’ (see n. 61), p. 278. Moreover, the economic life of an important city like Antwerp was far from its golden age in the early sixteenth century. In 1585, the Calvinist Antwerp surrendered to Farnese and four years later, the city’s population halved partly because of economic emigration. Some emigrants were Protestants but others were Catholics who were attracted by the high wages in the United Provinces. G. Marnef, ‘Protestant Conversions in an Age of Catholic Reformation. The Case of Sixteenth-Century Antwerp’, in A.-J.  Glederblom, J.  L.  de Jong and M.  van Vaeck (eds), The Low Countries as a Crossroads of Religious Beliefs (Leiden: Brill, 2004), p. 39. 67 R.  Stein, ‘The Dynamics of National Identity in the Later Middle Ages’, in: R.  Stein and J. Pollmann (eds), Networks, Regions and Nations. Shaping Identities in the Low Countries, 1300– 1650 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), p. 39. 68 J. Pollmann, ‘No Man’s Land. Reinventing Netherlandish Identities, 1585–1621’, in: Stein and Pollmann, Networks (see n. 67), pp. 241–61; Alberigo, Du concile de Trente (see n. 3), passim.

trent and its impact on philip ii’s legislation

 215

r­ epublish the former enacted ordinances.69 Yet in May 1611, the Archdukes continued to receive complaints concerning Calvinists’ arrival.70 Then they recognized their powerlessness and indicated that after a deliberation with the Privy Council we cannot say anything else than what has already been published in our edicts from December 1609 and from last April. These decisions were complementary to others and were published a few years before. In 1582, the central government forbade Catholics to leave the Netherlands, to go in the Calvinist provinces, to study at the newly created university in Leiden. According to Brussels’ authorities, this university only wanted to spread the sects’ ideologies and heresies, each more dangerous than the others.71 Thus, parents were forbidden to send their children abroad even under the pretext of sending them to learn an economic activity. By doing so, they would violate not only the decisions concerning the trade between the Netherlands and the rebel territories but also those relative to Catholic worship. The same decision was enacted in 1587, recalling an edict forbidding one to study in districts ruled by Protestants or Calvinists published in 1569.72 In the meantime, Douai asked Brussels to let the foreign Dutch students study at their university (July 1592).73 That means that despite the legal framework, and the borders imposed, some areas in the erected barriers between religious communities could not be observed.

Conclusion This essay documented the government’s decision to answer the political and religious problems of the time by enacting Tridentine decisions. These found their roots in edicts promulgated sometimes well before Trent, but were then renewed in a passionate context of confessional opposition. Philip II’s legislation testifies to the existing awareness of a radical shift from the old Universitas Christiana, towards a torn corpus christianum.74 The studied laws show how legislation in the Tridentine spirit was instrumentalised to stop the tensions which arose from political and 69 70 71 72 73

AGR, PEA, 1112, 06/04/1611. AGR, PEA, 1112, 04/05/1611. AGR, PEA, 1146, 26/03/1582. AGR, PEA, 1146, 02/07/1587. Request mentioned in a eighteenth century inventory: AGR, Inventaires. Deuxième section, 399, f°195r. 74 W. Frijhoff, ‘Chrétienté, christianismes ou communautés chrétiennes? Jalons pour la perception de l’expérience d’unité, de division et d’identité de l’Europe chrétienne à l’époque moderne’, in: B.  Forclaz (ed.), L’expérience de la différence religieuse dans l’Europe moderne (XVIe–XVIIIe siècles) (Neuchâtel: Éditions Alphil-Presses universitaires suisses, 2013), pp. 18–19; O. Christin, ‘Conclusion’, in: Y. Krumenacker (ed.), Entre calvinistes et catholiques. Les relations religieuses entre la France et les Pays-Bas du Nord (XVIe–XVIIIe siècle) (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2010), p.  392; R.  Lesaffer, ‘Peace treaties from Lodi to Westphalia’, in: R.  Lesaffer, Peace, Treaties and International Law in European History. From the Late Middle Ages to World War One (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 12–13; Prodi, ‘Il concilio di Trento’ (see n. 5), p. 21.

216 

nicolas simon

religious opposition.75 The content of the edicts leaves no doubt: the central govern­ ment chose to enact harsh edicts in an attempt to create order in society. This discipline became visible when the authorities were suspicious of popular repertoires thought to be irreconcilable with the post-Tridentine logic. Hence, the advent of a Protestant repulsive pole was used as a fulcrum to promulgate new dispositions or to reactivate old ones concerning the social discipline of the subjects.76 Furthermore, in the loyal territories of the Habsburg Netherlands there remained much local and particularist obstruction towards implementing the Tridentine decrees in all territories.

75 J.  Pollmann, Catholic Identity and the Revolt of the Low Countries, 1520–1635, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. 76 Pollmann, Catholic (see n. 75), p. 127; M. Forster, The Catholic Laity and the Development of Catholic Identity, BMGN 126 (2011), 75–80.

Caught between Compromise and Conflict The Establishment and Institutional Development of the E ­ cclesiastical Court(s) in the Early Modern Archdiocese of Malines

Tom Bervoets*

Contrary to the officialities of late medieval Europe, which have been thoroughly studied by legal and religious historians, their early modern counterparts have received far less attention in historiography. Despite their undeniable loss of power, these religious tribunals remained one of the most important instruments for bishops in the prosecution of deviant clerics and laypeople until the eighteenth century.1 * List of abbreviations: A  = Audiëntie; AAM  = Aartsbisschoppelijk Archief Mechelen; ARA =  ­A lgemeen Rijksarchief; CH  = Codices Helmontii; M  = Mechliniensia; O  = Officialiteit; RABA = Rijksarchief Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Anderlecht; SAM = Stadsarchief Mechelen; SBC = Staten van Brabant, Cartons; VKS = Verzameling Kerk en Staat. 1 For a recent historiographical overview of scholarship on officialities in general, see V.  Beaulande-Barraud and M.  Charageat, ‘Avant propos’, in: V.  Beaulande-Barraud and M.  Charageat, Les officialités dans l’Europe médiévale et moderne. Des tribunaux pour une société chrétienne (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), pp.  7–22. Some important exceptions for the Early Modern Period: B. d’Alteroche, L’officialité à la fin de l’Ancien Régime, 1780–1790, Paris, 1994; R.  Houlbrooke, Church Courts and the People during the English Reformation (1520– 1570), Oxford, 1979; R.  A. Marchant, The Church under the Law. Justice, Administration and Discipline in the Diocese of York, 1560–1640, Cambridge, 1969, M.  Ingram, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England 1570–1640, Cambridge, 1990 and more recently R.  B.  Outhwaite, The Rise and Fall of the English Ecclesiastical Courts, 1500–1860, Cambridge, 2006. For the Low Countries, most research has focused on the Middle Ages, see above all the work of Monique Van Melkebeek-Vleeschouwers and Cyriel Vleeschouwers. Among their many contributions, see above all M. Van Melkebeek-Vleeschouwers, De officialiteit van Doornik. Oorsprong en vroege ontwikkeling (1192–1300), Brussels, 1985; Idem, Compotus sigilliferi curie Tornacensis (1429–1481), 3 vols, Brussels, 1995 and C. Vleeschouwers and M. Van Melkebeek, Liber Sentenciarum van de officialiteit van Brussel: 1448–1459, Brussels, 1982–1983. The outdated overview of M. J. J. E. Proost, Les tribunaux ecclésiastiques en Belgique, Annales de l’académie d’archéologie de Belgique, 1872 and the work of J. De Brouwer, De kerkelijke rechtspraak en haar evolutie in de bisdommen Antwerpen, Gent en Mechelen tussen 1570 en 1795, 2 vols, Tielt, 1971–1972

Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, edited by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker and Wim François, Turnhout, 2017 (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire ­Ecclésiastique, 101), pp. 217–233

F H G

DOI 10.1484/M.BRHE-EB.5.113410

218 

tom bervoets

Established in the thirteenth century, they enabled the episcopacy to delegate and widen its jurisdiction. While the vicar-general received the so-called forum gratiosum which allowed him to grant indulgences and marriage dispensations, the ecclesiastical court official became responsible for a much more extensive and contentious area of law – one which comprised, among other things, sexual offences, sacrilege, blasphemy and theft or fraud involving ecclesiastical property – and was authorised to sanction those who appeared before him and his court of law.2 Episcopal jurisdiction and its reinforcement was one of the main themes of the Council of Trent (1545–63). Chapters lost the majority of their unbridled judicial ­privileges, which they had enjoyed until then. These privileges were lost in favour of the local bishop (at least in theory) who, in addition was charged with the regular ­visitation of the different parishes in his diocese.3 In the centuries that followed, however, the ­upcoming absolute monarchies and their royal courts of justice would increasingly ­curtail ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In an attempt to avoid undermining the competency of their Church courts, many bishops had to navigate between conflict and ­compromise in their relationships with secular authorities. By focusing on the establishment of these officialities in the newly founded archdiocese of Malines, this contribution will outline its evolution, as well as its institutional development. Until the mid-sixteenth century, the territory of Malines was divided between the dioceses of Cambrai and Liège.4 After several attempts, a new ecclesiastical ­structure was implemented by the promulgation of the papal bull Super Universas in 1559 which reorganised the Habsburg Netherlands into eighteen dioceses. Next to Utrecht and Cambrai, Malines became the seat of a Church province which further included the dioceses of Antwerp, Bruges, Ghent, Ypres, Roermond and ­`s-Hertogenbosch.5 ­A ntoine Perrenot de Granvelle, a councillor of Governor-General Margaret of ­Parma

provide an overview of the early modern ecclesiastical courts in the Habsburg Netherlands but should be handled with care. For the officiality as an instrument for bishops in the prosecution of deviant clerics, see, among others, K.  Saule, Le cure au prétoire. La délinquance ecclésiastique face à l’officialité au XVIIe siècle, Paris, 2014. For the activities of an officiality in the Habsburg Netherlands during the early Catholic Reform, see J. Monballyu, ‘Een kerkelijke rechtbank aan het werk tijdens de Contrareformatie. De rechtspraak van de officialiteit van Brugge tussen 1585 en 1610’, in: M. Decaluwé, V. Lambert and D. Heirbaut (eds), Inter amicos. Liber amicorum Monique Van Melkebeek, (Iuris Scripta historica, 26) (Brussel: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor wetenschappen en kunsten, 2011), pp. 125–61. 2 A. Lefèbvre-Teillard, Les officialités à la veille du Concile de Trente, Paris, 1973, p. 29. 3 For the decrees of the Council, see H. J. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 3th ed., Rockford, 1978; For episcopal visitations in the early modern Church province of Malines, see M. Cloet, N. Bostyn and K. De Vreese, Repertorium van dekenale visitatieverslagen betreffende de Mechelse kerkprovincie (1559–1801), Leuven, 1989. 4 A recent overview of the previous history of the territory of the archdiocese can be found in A. J. Bijsterveld and Ch. Caspers, ‘Origines de l’archidiocèse de Malines’, in: J. De Maeyer and E. Put (eds), L’Archidiocèse de Malines-Bruxelles. 450 ans d’ histoire (Antwerp, 2009), pp. 14–61. 5 For the reorganisation of 1559, see M.  Dierickx, De oprichting der nieuwe bisdommen in de Nederlanden onder Filips II, Antwerp, 1950. A new perspective was given by F. Postma, Nieuw licht op een oude zaak. De oprichting van de nieuwe bisdommen in 1559, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 103  (1990), 10–27. See also G.  Gielis, ‘Utinam magnam eorum copiam haberemus’. Franciscus Sonnius en de oprichting van de nieuwe bisdommen in 1559, Communio. Internationaal Katholiek Tijdschrift 34 (2009), 194–207.

caught between compromise and conflict

 219

and, at that time, Bishop of Arras, was appointed as its first Archbishop.6 It was during his episcopacy that the initial steps were taken to establish an ecclesiastical court. However, with the outbreak of the Dutch Revolt and the establishment of Calvinist Regimes in the principal cities of the diocese, the implementation of these new bureaucracies was hampered. It was not until the beginning of the episcopacy of the third Archbishop, Mathias Hovius (1596–1620), in 1596 that the archdiocese a­ ttained a legal ­structure suitable to its own geographic area.7 The tireless efforts made by Hovius and his ­successors with respect to the ecclesiastical court’s configuration and operating base would show the pivotal role played by this particular institution in a post-Tridentine (archi)episcopal administration.

An Old Structure in a New Archdiocese On the eve of the reform of the bishoprics in the Netherlands, the territory of the later Malines archdiocese had at least two ecclesiastical courts. Because it was partly situated in Brabant both the Bishop of Cambrai and the Prince-Bishop of Liège found themselves obliged to establish a separate tribunal for the inhabitants in one of the major towns of the duchy, even though they already had their own ecclesiastical courts in their respective episcopal cities. This particular situation stemmed from the so-called privilegium de non evocando, a prerogative that was constitutionalised in the Golden Bull of 1349 and which stipulated that the inhabitants of Brabant could not be summoned for court outside the borders of their duchy. The privilege was later extended to appeal cases.8 Thus far, these two ecclesiastical courts established by the Bishop of Cambrai and the Prince-Bishop of Liège have only been scantily studied and much remains to be researched.9 It is certain that the Liège tribunal was established in Louvain, which was the intellectual hub of the Low Countries at this time, but the exact date of its inception is unknown. Both 1462 and 1482 have been cited as dates for the establishment, but a memorandum written in the first quarter of the eighteenth century mentions 15 February 1469 as the date when the city acquired the ecclesiastical court following a financial agreement with Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy.10 A few years later, the first conflicts with the university and its extensive judicial privileges arose.11 Shortly after its foundation in 1425 by Pope Martin V, 6 More information on Granvelle in M.  Van Durme, Antoon Perrenot, bisschop van Atrecht, kardinaal van Granvelle, Brussels, 1953, and in K. De Jonge and G. Janssens (eds), Les Granvelle et les anciens Pays-Bas, Liber doctori Mauricio Van Durme dedicatus, Leuven, 2000. 7 For a biography of Hovius, see C. Harline and E. Put, A Bishop’s Tale. Mathias Hovius among His Flock in Seventeenth-century Flanders, New Haven, CT, 2000. 8 B.  Wauters, Recht als religie. Canonieke onderbouw van de vroegmoderne staatsvorming in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden, Leuven, 2005, pp. 124–26. 9 For the tribunal of Cambrai, a doctoral dissertation is in preparation, E. Falzone, Juger en cour spirituelle dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux. Les officialités de Cambrai et de Bruxelles (du XIIe au XVIe siècle), forthcoming. 10 RABA, SBC, inv.nr. 188/8, ‘Reflectie dienende tot betoogh dat den officiael van Mechelen en sijn tribunael moet wesen binnen de stadt Loven’, s.d. 11 M. Briwier, Les conflits juridictionnels et bénéficiaux entre l’Université de Louvain et l’évêque de Liège de 1425 à 1568, Revue d’ histoire ecclésiastique 44 (1949), 569–82. For jurisdictional conflicts in the early sixteenth century, see also A. Van Hove, Étude sur les conflits de juridiction dans le diocèse de Liège à l’ époque d’Érard de La Marck (1506–1538), Leuven, 1900.

220 

tom bervoets

Map 1: Dioceses of Cambrai and Liège on the eve of 1559

the university had obtained the privilege of judging its own members, most of them clerics, which had already caused resentment among the Prince-Bishop of Liège and his archdeacons.12 An agreement was reached in 1428, but this could not prevent the

12 For the juridical position and the law court of the University of Louvain, see C. Vandenghoer, De rectorale rechtbank van de oude Leuvense Universiteit, Brussels, 1987, pp. 33–35. Compare with a similar study that has been made for the University of Douai, that belonged to the Southern Netherlands until the French conquest of 1667, cf.  S.  Castelain, L’Université de Douai. Son recteur et sa justice. Les vicissitudes d’une juridiction privilégiée (XVIe–XVIIIe siècles), unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lille, 2009; The late medieval prince-bishopric of Liège was divided into eight archdiaconates, governed by an archdeacon who possessed of extensive judicial competences. Each of them had his own ecclesiastical court. The reform of 1559 did not abolish this structure and the tribunals remained active until the end of the Ancien Régime, cf. J. Paquay, Juridiction, droits et prérogatives des archidiacres de l’Église de Liège, Liège, 1935 and A. Deblon, ‘Les pouvoirs archidiaconaux dans l’ancien diocèse de Liège et leur exercice aux temps modernes’, in: Les structures du pouvoir dans les communautés rurales en Belgique et dans les pays limitrophes (XIIe–XIXe siècle). Actes, Brussels, 1988, pp. 375–418.

caught between compromise and conflict

 221

episcopal court regularly moving its operational base to Diest from the end of the fifteenth century, before finally returning to Louvain in 1545.13 The officiality of the Bishop of Cambrai in Brussels did not fare any better. Originally established in 1422 to provide legal aid for the inhabitants of the distant archdeaneries of Antwerp, Brabant and Brussels, the tribunal was subordinated to the one in Cambrai.14 Paradoxically, the officialis foranis of this court was generally more knowledgeable than the officialis principalis in the bishop’s city.15 An ordinance of Philip the Good of 1448 provided the institution with the status of a full Church court, thereby provoking the displeasure of the members of the Cambrai metropolitan chapter.16 Recent research has argued that this measure was part of a carefully considered policy pursued by the Duke regarding the various officialities and that the bishop agreed in order to safeguard as much as possible the exercise of his jurisdiction.17 At the end of the fifteenth century, the tribunal moved to Vilvoorde, only to return to the capital a few years later.18 The reform of the bishoprics in the Netherlands neither abolished the Louvain tribunal nor its counterpart in Brussels. Ex Iniuncto, the papal bull of 1561, which defined the borders of the Church province of Malines, stipulated that the existing institutional structures should only gradually disappear. In the following years, episcopal jurisdiction remained limited to the bishop’s city itself and the surrounding villages of Muizen, Hever, Hombeek, Heffen and Leest, together forming the seigniory of Malines, a small area that was enclosed by the Duchy of Brabant. It was not until the arrival of the new Governor, the Duke of Alba, that Archbishop Granvelle officially obtained possession of the whole archdiocese.19 On 16 September 1568 the jurisdiction of the Liège tribunal was solemnly bestowed on the Malines vicar-general Maximilien Morillon, deputy of the always-absent Granvelle, during a ceremony in the Louvain convent of the Augustinians where it had its residence and in the presence of representatives of the university and the city council.20 The court remained active until at least 1591. Four days later, a similar ceremony took place in the residence of the Cambrai Archbishop for his officiality in the capital. Just as in Louvain, the tribunal remained operational until the eve of the seventeenth century, even though from that time on justice was administered on behalf of the Malines 13 RABA, SBC, 188/8, copy of a ‘Recueil des points principaux conténus dans les Memoires en Reflexions dressez à l’égard des cours écclesiastiques pour le Brabant. Avec quelques reflexions ulterieures’, s.d. 14 C. Vleeschouwers and M. Van Melkebeek, Registres de sentences de l’officialité de Cambrai (1438–1453), I, Brussels, 1998, p. V. 15 My thanks to Emanuel Falzone for this information. For the staff of the court in Brussels, see C. Vleeschouwers and M. Van Melkebeek, Liber Sentenciarum (see n. 1), pp. 53–69. 16 M. Maillard-Luypaert, Le chapitre cathédral de Cambrai et l’évêque Jean de Bourgogne (1452). Un dialogue de sourds, Revue du Nord 4 (2012), 131–32 and 141. 17 J.-M.  Cauchies and E.  Falzone, ‘Si fut conseillé de la faire citer par devant monseigneur de Cambray…’. Justice princière, justice épiscopale et concordat en Hainaut (1449), Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques 21 (2010), 115–16. 18 J. Laenen, Notes sur l’organisation ecclésiastique du Brabant à l’ époque de l’ érection des nouveaux évêchés, Antwerp, 1904, p. 84. 19 G.  Marnef, ‘Une mesure pour rien? Les épiscopats de Granvelle et Hauchin (1559–1596)’, in: L’Archidiocèse de Malines-Bruxelles (see n. 4), pp. 71–72. 20 AAM, CH, 1817, I, fol. 10.

222 

tom bervoets

Archbishop.21 At the same time, a third tribunal was established in Malines during the early 1560s, of which little is known but which most likely functioned for the seigniory and as a court of appeal for the Church province as a whole.22 Moreover, the Malines Archbishop was granted the title primate of the Netherlands, and therefore judicial decisions of the Utrecht and Cambrai metropolitan officialities could be disputed before his archiepiscopal tribunal.23 Due to the troubles caused by war and the Calvinist Regimes in Brussels and Malines, this rather complex judicial structure lasted until Mathias Hovius gained possession of the archdiocese.24 The new Archbishop, often depicted in the historiography as one of the key figures of the early Catholic Reform in the Southern Netherlands, almost immediately took action. In advance of his legal reforms of 1596, ­Hovius wrote an official letter to Archduke Albert, asking permission to reduce the number of ecclesiastical courts in his diocese. He stressed the trying circumstances in which he had to implement the new structure and emphasised the difficulties of recruiting capable judges to maintain several tribunals. Albert agreed with Hovius and the very same year one single ecclesiastical court for the entire archdiocese was established in the village of Hombeek.25 The Liège tribunal was abolished after its last official, Henric van Cuyck, was ordained as Bishop of Roermond and the administrative settlement was entrusted to the Louvain theologian Jacobus Jansonius; the court in the capital was then reduced to a permanent commissioner’s office with a purely administrative function.26 Nicolas Oudaert, the right-hand man of the former Archbishop Hauchin and head of the officiality in Brussels, was appointed as first official of the archdiocese. This canon of the metropolitan chapter of Saint Rumbold was equipped with a doctoral degree in both canon and civil law.27 He remained in office until his death in 1608 and was succeeded by Jacob Boonen, later Bishop of Ghent and Archbishop of Malines.28 21 AAM, CH, 1817, I, fol. 10 and fol. 20. 22 AAM, O, nr. 825–35. 23 M. Dierickx, De strijd om de primaatzetel van het aartsbisdom Mechelen (1558–1562), Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 63 (1959), 55–66. 24 Literature on this subject is vast. See for instance G. Marnef, ‘The Dynamics of Reformed Religious Militancy. The Netherlands’, in: Ph. Benedict, G. Marnef, H. Van Nierop and M. Venard (eds), Reformation, Revolt and Civil War in France and the Netherlands 1555–1585 (Amsterdam, 1999), pp.  51–68; The Calvinist Regimes in Brussels and Malines were thoroughly studied in G. Marnef, ‘Het Protestantisme te Brussel onder de Calvinistische Republiek, ca. 1577–1585’, in: H. van Nuffel and W. Blockmans (eds), État et religion aux XVe et XVIe siècles – Staat en religie in de 15de en 16de eeuw (Brussels, 1986), pp. 231–99 and Idem, Het Calvinistisch bewind te Mechelen, Courtrai, 1987. 25 AAM, O, nr. 4. 26 AAM, O, nr. 5–6 and AAM, M, nr. 44, fol. 125–26; On Jansonius, read B. Boute, ‘Saint, Scholar, Exorcist? About Jacobus Jansonius, Professor at Leuven (1547–1625)’, in: D.  Vanysacker, P.  Delsaerdt, J.-P.  Delville and H.  Schwall (eds), The Quintessence of Lives. Intellectual Biographies in the Low Countries presented to Jan Roegiers (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), pp. 87–110. 27 For a biographical notice, see P.  Bergmans, ‘Oudaert Nicolas’, in: Biographie nationale, vol. 16, 1901, pp. 382–83. 28 A complete list of the officials can be found in T. Bervoets, Inventaris van het officialiteitsarchief van het aartsbisdom Mechelen in het Aartsbisschoppelijk Archief te Mechelen (1510) 1596–1796, Brussels, 2015, pp. 36–37.

caught between compromise and conflict

 223

Hovius’ recourse to Albert, in what would be the beginning of a fruitful collaboration that lasted until the Archbishop’s death in 1620, and the positive response of the archduke was not the first time the Spanish Habsburgs intervened in ecclesiastical jurisdictions.29 Although the legal balance between Church and State had been recorded in the Concordat of 1541 between Charles V and Cornelis of Bergen, Prince-Bishop of Liège, secular law courts interfered more and more in the execution of sentences pronounced by Church tribunals.30 In 1559, this resulted in a prohibition by Philip II of the use of the French appel comme d’abus, a juridical construction by which one could challenge legal proceedings made in an ecclesiastical forum before a secular court. And in 1587, when the Spanish King ratified the decrees of the second Provincial Council of Cambrai that was held the year before in Mons, the episcopate of the Netherlands was allowed to appeal to the sovereign of his Privy Council when the royal courts of justice encroached on the jurisdiction of the bishop.31 In the aftermath of his judicial reform, Hovius composed a new regulation for the court, following the example of bishops such as Laevinus Torrentius and Maximilien Morillon in their respective dioceses of Antwerp and Tournai.32 ­ His decision to ­locate the ecclesiastical court in Hombeek was prompted by mere ­strategic c­ onsiderations. Given that the tribunal was situated on the territory of a small Brabant enclave w ­ ithin the village, only a stone’s throw from Malines where the A ­ rchbishop had his residence, he could closely monitor its functioning without violating the privilegium de non evocando. Despite this location, the official often held court in the archiepiscopal palace, within the Malines city walls. People of the western part of the archdiocese, which geographically belonged to the County of Flanders, were summoned to appear at this place.33 Hovius was also able to convince the city Magistrate to grant tax immunity to, among others, members of the court, and to provide the tribunal with a decent building and a prison, probably arguing that the presence of the officiality would add lustre to the Dyle city.34 Ecclesiastical jurisdiction was also a point of discussion during the third ­Provincial Council of Malines in 1607, which marked the unofficial starting point of the Catholic Reform in the archdiocese.35 One year later, Albert and Isabella 29 For the Archdukes and the Catholic Reform in the Southern Netherlands, see for instance E. Put, ‘Les Archiducs et la réforme catholique. Champs d’action et limites politiques’, in: L. Duerloo and W. Thomas (eds), Albert & Isabella, 1598–1621. Essays (Brussels and Leuven, 1998), pp. 255–65. An interesting analysis of the archducal piety was given by L. Duerloo, Pietas Albertina. Dynastieke vroomheid en herbouw van het vorstelijk gezag, Low Countries Historical Review 112 (1997), 1–18. 30 A version of the concordat in ARA, A, nr. 1617. 31 V. Demars-Sion, Les monarchies européennes aux prises avec la justice ecclésiastique. L’exemple des anciens Pays-Bas espagnols, Revue du Nord 77 (1995), 535. 32 M. J. Marinus, Laevinus Torrentius als tweede bisschop van Antwerpen, 1587–1595, Brussels, 1989, p.  97. The regulation of Tournai was published in M.  Van Melkebeek, Oude wijn in nieuwe zakken. Bisschop Maximiliaan Morillon’s reglement van de officialiteit van Doornik 1582–1586, Bulletin de la Commission royale pour la publication des anciennes lois et ordonnances 44 (2003), 7–57. For the Malines regulation, see De Brouwer, Kerkelijke rechtspraak (see n. 1), vol. 1, pp. 351–95. 33 See for instance AAM, O, nr. 878. 34 SAM, Oud Archief, C, Magistraat, (Resolutiën), Serie I, nr. 1 (1585–1615), fol. 73v–80v. 35 The decrees of the third provincial Council were published in P. F. X. De Ram, Synodicon Belgicum sive acta omnium ecclesiarum Belgii a celebrato concilio Tridentino usque ad concordatum anni 1801, Malines, vol. 1, pp. 362–409.

224 

tom bervoets

issued an ordinance that made the decisions taken during this occasion official, albeit with a few adaptations.36 Well aware of the tensions between the ambitions of the reform-minded bishops – most of them appointed by the archdukes themselves – and local concerns, they opted for a more moderate legislation.37 For instance, the ­ordinance did not mention a single word about the extensive judicial claims made by the episcopacy or the support of the secular authorities for the episcopal courts. It was not until 1614 that the government would promulgate a regulation that would give assistance to ecclesiastical judges to execute sentences. However, despite this ­legislation, the secular authorities often refused to support the activities of the offi­ cialities. This caused resentment and was criticised by Hovius in 1620 in a petition written to the Council of Brabant. Referring to the ordinance of 1608 he also mentioned several other complaints from his bishops, who had denounced the worldly authorities’ reluctance to cooperate with the ecclesiastical tribunal in 1611 and 1616.38

The Brussels Interlude When Jacob Boonen (1621–55) became Archbishop of Malines in 1621 after a short episcopacy in Ghent, he immediately made some changes to the institutional configuration of the tribunal. In contrast to his successor, who had a theological background, Boonen had received a legal education. In 1596, he had begun work as a lawyer at the Council of Brabant and, after serving in the Northern Netherlands as a delegate of the Duke of Arenberg, he was appointed as official in 1608. He went on to become ecclesiastical councillor in the Great Council and dean of the metropolitan chapter of Saint Rumbold, before beginning his episcopal career in 1616.39 While Hovius used Malines as his principal base of operation, the new Archbishop resided in Brussels most of the time, where, after the death of her husband Albert, Archduchess Isabella remained in office as Governor-General.40 As one of the ­confidants at the Court of the Infanta, Boonen became a member of the Council of State in 1626 and played an important role in the peace negotiations with the 36 For the ordinance, see V. Brants, Recueil des ordonnances des Pays-Bas. Règne d’Albert et Isabelle. 1597–1621, tome premier contenant les actes du 10 septembre 1597 au 30 avril 1609, Brussels, 1909, pp. 390–95. 37 Before they started their episcopal career, clergymen such as Johannes Miraeus, Bishop of Antwerp, and Karel Maes, Bishop of Ypres were active at the archducal court, cf. A. Wauters, ‘Miraeus Jean’, in: Biographie nationale, vol. 14, 1897, pp. 895–98 and D. Raeymaekers, One Foot in the Palace. The Habsburg Court of Brussels and the Politics of Access in the Reign of Albert and Isabella, Leuven, 2013, pp. 60–61. For the episcopal appointments by the archdukes in general, see Ph. Desmette, ‘Les nominations épiscopales sous les Archiducs’, in: Les ‘Trente Glorieuses’ (circa 1600–1630). PaysBas méridionaux et France septentrionale. Aspects économiques, sociaux et religieux au temps des archiducs Albert et Isabelle (Bruxelles, 2010), pp. 73–88. Compare the first generation post-Tridentine bishops with the episcopacy on the eve of the reform of 1559, as described by H. Cools, ‘Bishops in the Habsburg Netherlands on the Eve of the Catholic Renewal, 1515–1559’, in: J. DeSilva (ed.), Episcopal Reform and Politics in Early Modern Europe (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2012), pp. 46–62. 38 AAM, VKS, inv. nr. 163. 39 A biography of Boonen has not been written. For a biographical sketch, see L. Ceyssens, ‘Boonen, Jacobus’, in: Nationaal biografisch woordenboek, vol. 2, 1966, pp. 74–89. 40 For the governorship of Isabella, see the contributions in C. Van Wyhe (ed.), Isabel Clara Eugenia. Female Sovereignity in the Courts of Madrid and Brussels, Madrid and London, 2012.

caught between compromise and conflict

 225

Map 2: Spanish Brabant and the seigniory of Malines (seventeenth century).

­ epublic of the 1630s.41 His many stays in Brussels had fundamental consequences R for the ­ecclesiastical court’s official and his staff, who, from 1621 onwards, administered justice more often in the archiepiscopal palace in the capital than in Hombeek, even though de iure the latter remained the residence of the court until 1647. De facto people had already been summoned for several years to appear at the ‘Pasbrug’, located in Brabant territory on the border with Malines and Sint-Katelijne-Waver where a ­commissioner dealt with cases whenever the official was in Brussels.42 41 R. Vermeir, In staat van oorlog. Filips IV en de Zuidelijke Nederlanden, 1629–1648, Maastricht, 2001, p. 72. 42 RABA, SBC, inv. nr. 188/8, copy of a notarial act from 1728, s.d.

226 

tom bervoets

The most important member of the ecclesiastical court during Boonen’s episcopacy was Amatus Coriache, who presided over the court from 1639 until 1656.43 As vicar capitular, this former secretary of the Archbishop was the administrator for the archdiocese no fewer than three times, during the sedis vacatio of 1656, 1666 and 1668. Notorious trials, like the ones against the unchaste priests Jan Schuermans and Petrus Tyrant, were tried during his tenure.44 Just like Boonen, Coriache s­ ympathised with the Jansenist faction when this theological dispute reared its head from the 1640s onwards.45 After the death of the Archbishop, this support would cost him his role as official when the divided metropolitan chapter – which possessed the right to replace active functionaries during the vacancy of the archdiocese – appointed Michel Van de Perre as the new head of the officiality.46 Under Boonen’s successor, Andreas Creusen (1657–67), the capital continued to function as the main operational base of the ecclesiastical court.47 Fully in line with his ideological policy, Creusen appointed Ferdinand Nipho, former secretary of the internuncio – who had already won his spurs in the battle against the growing Jansenist forces in the Southern Netherlands – as official in 1657, thereby most likely giving the anti-Jansenist faction in Rome an indirect means to intervene in the conflict.48 Since 1596, the Holy See had a permanent nunciature in the Habsburg Netherlands. By means of his letters of appointment, this papal diplomat theoretically possessed the right to establish his own ecclesiastical tribunal, although in fact this right was not exercised. After a clash between nuncio Fabio de Lagonissa and the Council of Brabant in 1628, the nunciature was replaced in 1633 by a less prestigious internunciature, which was denied this judicial prerogative.49 The new Archbishop also implemented something new. By appointing Franciscus Van de Venne, the like-minded provost of the metropolitan chapter of Saint Rumbold to the archiepiscopal court in 1658, while Nipho was still in office, the tribunal compromised more than one official for the first time since 1596.50 Most likely, the new ecclesiastical judge administered justice within the Malines city walls; the location at the ‘Pasbrug’ was scarcely used at that time. Eventually, both Nipho and Van de Venne played a key role in the pros43 For biographical information on Coriache, see C.  Van De Wiel, Twee beroemde leden van het geslacht Coriache, Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 86 (1982), 59–83. 44 L. Milis, Le charme indiscret de Jan Schuermans. Curé flamand du dix-septième siècle, Villeneuved’Ascq, 2003; J.-P. Dumoulin and V. Lambert, De passie van de kapelaan. Het losbandige leven van een priester-dief, Leuven, 2003, especially pp. 171–239. 45 Lucien Ceyssens has published extensively on the Jansenist controversy, see his synthesis article: L.  Ceyssens, Que penser finalement de l’histoire de jansénisme et de l’antijansénisme, Revue d’ histoire ecclésiastique 88 (1993), 108–30. 46 L. Ceyssens, Les dernières années de Triest, Handelingen van de Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent, 13 (1959), 49. 47 For Creusen, see E. Reusens, ‘André, Cruesen’, Biographie nationale, vol. 4, 1873, pp. 567–69. 48 L. Ceyssens, Ferdinand Nipho (1626–1659), secrétaire à la nonciature de Bruxelles et internonce ad interim, Bulletin de l’ Institut Historique Belge de Rome 43 (1973), 558. 49 For the jurisdiction of the (inter)nuncio, cf. B. Wauters, La jurisdiction contentieuse du nonce de Flandre (XVIIe–XVIIIe siècles), Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 121 (2004), 430–55. 50 L. Ceyssens, Franciscus Van de Venne, voorman van de antijansenisten te Mechelen (1627–1689), Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 79 (1975), 235.

caught between compromise and conflict

 227

ecution of Judocus Vanderlinden and Jean Vernimmen, two Jansenist Oratorians who were once close confidants of Jacob Boonen.51 More than just an adequate institution for enforcing the post-Tridentine reform programme, the ecclesiastical court had become an important instrument for policy. After the death of Nipho in 1659 the Archbishop maintained the system of two officials for the entire archdiocese. At first, Brussels remained the hub of episcopal jurisdiction. The dissatisfaction this caused within the Malines city council resulted in a lawsuit before the Great Council of Malines, which lasted from 1661 until 1665. Complaints expressed by the deans of the city’s guilds formed the basis of this lawsuit. The aldermen denounced the fact that the agreement made between them and Mathias Hovius in 1596 was no longer honoured as a result of the many stays of the official and his staff in the capital. Creusen and his collaborators on the other hand argued that it was the Malines Magistrate which had violated the arrangement given that it had never provided a decent building and prison as promised. The Great Council, however, did not concur with the Archbishop’s argument and forced him and his court to return.52 The already existing court in Malines remained unchanged and continued to deal with the Flemish cases of the diocese; the Brussels official returned to the Pasbrug and was once again replaced in the capital by a permanent commissioner. Due to the threat of war, this tribunal had to temporarily move within the Malines city walls after a few years, where it most likely merged with the other episcopal court.53 This may explain the absence of a second official after 1671, when Van de Venne was appointed as ecclesiastical councillor in the Great Council.54 The departure of the Brussels officiality deeply bothered the staff members of the court in the capital. In 1670 they addressed the Council of Brabant, expressing their deep displeasure about the current location of the Pasbrug. Being summoned to a place that lacked even of its own town hall deeply offended the people of the duchy. Even worse was that in practice most of the lawsuits took place within the Malines city walls, which did not square with the privilegium de non evocando.55 By contesting the decision taken by the Great Council before one of its main rivals, the staff members cleverly played on an old rivalry. Established in 1473 by Charles the Bold as the highest secular law court in the Netherlands, the Great Council originally had the competence to revoke the judgments of the Council of Brabant.56 However, from the early sixteenth century onwards the latter acquired the status of sovereign court, which meant that no appeal against its decisions was possible any longer.57 This upset the councillors of the Great Council and led to an uneven relationship 51 L. Ceyssens and A. Legrand (eds), La fin de la première période du jansénisme. Sources des années 1654–1660, Brussels and Rome, 1963–65, vol. 1, p. 278. 52 AAM, O, nr. 41. 53 AAM, O, nr. 50. 54 C. Thomas, De l’affection, avec laquele je me dispose de la servir toute ma vie. Prosopographie des grands commis du gouvernement central des Pays-Bas Espagnols, Brussels, 2011, vol. 2, p. 730. 55 SAM, Affaires ecclésiastiques, clergé séculier, procédures, cour prévôtale, nr. 1. 56 For the Great Council of Malines in the fifteenth century, read J. Van Rompaey, De Grote Raad van de hertogen van Bourgondië en het Parlement van Mechelen, Brussels, 1973. 57 For the sovereignity of the Council of Brabant, see for instance E. Put, ‘Gedeelde soevereiniteit? De dubbelrol van de Raad van Brabant’, in: H.  De Smaele and J.  Tollebeek (eds), Politieke representatie (Leuven, 2002), pp. 221–31.

228 

tom bervoets

that would last until the end of the Ancien Régime.58 It was of course no coincidence that the Council of Brabant got involved in the dispute concerning the location of the archiepiscopal officiality. Brabant was the most powerful region of the Southern Netherlands, not only because of its wealth, but also due to its Joyous Entry (‘Blijde Inkomst’), a charter of liberties granted to the people of the duchy that provided them a privileged status not shared by any other province.59 This gave the provincial council a highly ambiguous position. On the one hand, its councillors administered justice in the name of the sovereign while, on the other hand, they were staunch defenders of the Brabant privileges, even if this did not sit well with royal interests. In the eighteenth century, when the conflict about the residence of the ecclesiastical court arose again, the Council of Brabant would play its role as defender of the privileges of the inhabitants of the duchy with even more determination.

The Brussels Interlude (bis) During the episcopacy of Alphonse de Berghes (1671–89) new conflicts with the secular authorities arose. In 1679 the Archbishop wrote a letter to the Prince of Ligne, councillor of the Council of State in Madrid, complaining about the attempts of Leo Jan de Pape, president of the Privy Council, to undermine his episcopal jurisdiction.60 Three years later, the same complaint emerged in a petition to the Governor. This time, De Berghes referred to the Tridentine decrees and threatened that there would be consequences if the legal balance between the Church and the State were to be disturbed. According to the Archbishop, the attempts were ‘contre le repos qu’ y est necessaire pour le bien publicque’.61 During the following decades the conflict escalated further. Shortly after taking office in 1690, Humbertus Guillielmus de Precipiano (1690–1711), successor of De Berghes, addressed a petition to Governor Francesco Antonio de Agurto. As a result of being further challenged by Jansenist clergymen who, when feeling disadvantaged by the episcopal tribunal, took their cases to the royal courts, the Archbishop pleaded for a royal decree to prohibit this practice. As a result, De Agurto’s successor Maximilian II Emanuel of Bavaria promulgated an ordinance in 1695 forbidding the Council of Brabant, the Great Council and the Council of Flanders to deal with lawsuits of clerics who disputed their superior’s decisions concerning faith and discipline.62 This made little impression on the secular tribunals, who continued to give legal access to members of the clergy. In 1722 Archbishop Thomas Philippus d’Alsace, the like-minded successor of De Precipiano, wrote a memorandum to Emperor Charles  VI in which he complained about the nonobservance of the ordinance of 1695. The archiepiscopal complaint resulted in a new decree that once more forbade the royal law courts to deal with matters that 58 A.  Verscuren, The Great Council of Malines in the Eighteenth Century. An Aging Court in a Changing World?, Springer, 2014, pp. 155–59. 59 A study of the first Joyous Entry in R. Van Bragt, De Blijde Inkomst van de Hertogen van Brabant Johanna en Wenceslas (3 januari 1356). Een inleidende studie en tekstuitgave, Leuven, 1956. 60 AAM, VKS, nr. 7. 61 AAM, OA, nr. 9. 62 For the ordinance and its background: T.  Quaghebeur, Het decreet van 7 november 1695 van gouverneur Maximiliaan Emmanuel van Beieren aan de Raad van Brabant tegen de recursus naar de seculiere rechtbanken door clerici, Bulletin de la commission royale d’Histoire 173 (2007), 231–56.

caught between compromise and conflict

 229

fell under the juridical domain of the officialities.63 By supporting the Church and its claims concerning jurisdictions, the Spanish government in the Southern Netherlands pursued an opposing policy to the one in France, where the Gallicanism of Louis XIV – having set up the framework in the Declaration of the Clergy of 1682 – curtailed the competences of the ecclesiastical courts. In 1695, the same year as the ordinance promulgated by Maximilan  II Emanuel, the French King proclaimed a decree that, all things considered, provided the Church courts with a very limited juridical scope.64 In the meantime, for the first time since Hovius’ reform of 1596, Brussels again became the official residence of an officiality. In 1679, Martinus Van Oudenhagen, canon of the Brussels chapter of Saint Gudule, was appointed as head of this second episcopal court. With the exception of Henricus Josephus van Susteren, later the Bishop of Bruges, all the subsequent judges of this tribunal were chosen from among the members of this ecclesiastical corpus. Despite carrying the same title, the new official was ranked below his Malines colleague in the Church hierarchy. In addition, he only dealt with cases from the deaneries of Brussels, Louvain and Sint-Pieters-Leeuw; as far as the rest of the Brabant territory of the archdiocese was concerned his jurisdiction was per preventionem, which meant that he could only intervene there when the ecclesiastical judge in the bishop’s city was prevented from doing so. De Precipiano maintained the Brussels tribunal and used it, in the same vein as Creusen, to prosecute his Jansenist opponents. The most notorious trial of this period was that of Willem Van de Nesse, parson of the church of Saint Catharine (Brussels), who ended up taking refuge with the Council of Brabant, which in turn ultimately decided against the Archbishop.65 After the death of De Precipiano in 1711, the second Church court and its official were once again abolished and for the third time replaced by a permanent commissioner. Henceforth, the archdiocese counted once more only one officiality, which had its fixed residence within the Malines city walls where it took care of the ‘Flemish cases’ of the diocese. Justice for the Brabant people was, theoretically, administered at the Pasbrug.66

An Age of Decline From the late 1720s onwards, the erosion of episcopal jurisdiction in the Southern Netherlands continued unabated. This became clear in the long-lasting conflict concerning the establishment of a full and permanent ecclesiastical court in the 63 C.  Van De Wiel, ‘Recours aux tribunaux laïcs en matière ecclésiastique vers 1720. Réaction du cardinal Th.-Ph. d’Alsace’, in: Études du droit et d’ histoire. Mélanges Mgr. H. Wagnon, Louvain-laNeuve, 1976, pp. 415–35; For the decree, see L. P. Gachard (ed.), Recueil des ordonnances des Pays Bas autrichiens. / Troisième série, 1700–1794, Brussels, 1873, vol. 3, pp. 346–49. 64 N.  Lyon-Caen, ‘La justice ecclésiastique en France à l’époque moderne. Laïcisation ou secularisation?’, in: P. Büttgen and C. Duhamelle (eds), Religion ou confession. Un bilan francoallemand sur l’ époque moderne (XVIe–XVIIIe siècles) (Paris, 2010), p. 270. 65 For the trial against Van de Nesse, cf.  B.  Wauters, Sonder eenige ordre van ’t recht te onderhouden…’. Een analyse van een zaak van recursus ad principem voor de Raad van Brabant in het begin van de 18de eeuw: bezitsvordering of buitengewoon rechtsmiddel, Legal History Review 73 (2005), 111–39. 66 RABA, SBC, Copy of a ‘Memoire touchant les cours ecclésiastiques du diocese de Liège et de Cambray pour le Pays et Duché de Brabant’, s.d.

230 

tom bervoets

capital.67 In 1728 Jan Baptist Hendrickx, parish priest of Terhulpen (near Brussels), was summoned before the official at the Pasbrug. He disputed the legitimacy of the tribunal and claimed the right to appear in Brussels. After the Church court rejected this claim, Hendrickx addressed a petition to the Council of Brabant in which he asked for his indictment to be declared invalid because it was contrary to the privilegium de non evocando. Advices were exchanged between the parties, but the priest was nevertheless suspended, which resulted in a new petition. This was the moment when the Estates of Brabant and the Brussels city Magistrate got involved. Both of them pleaded fiercely for the (re-)establishment of an officiality in the capital, but this was refused by Thomas Philippus d’Alsace.68 In 1730, the Privy Council and Governor Maria Elisabeth of Austria – a strong supporter of the anti-Jansenist policy pursued by the Archbishop – concluded that there was no need for a second Church court and the case was temporarily closed. However, conflict arose again during the reign of Empress Maria-Theresa and the governorship of Charles Alexander of Lorraine. After a petition by the Brabant Estates to the new Archbishop Johannes Henricus von Franckenberg a second Church court was established in the capital in 1760, similar to the one that was active during the episcopacies of De Berghes and De Precipiano. The court was presided over by Carolus Bernardus Josephus Leyniers, treasurer of the chapter of Saint Gudule. This half-hearted solution was, however, not sufficient for the Estates and a new complaint was lodged with the Austrian government. This time, the Privy Council decided in favour of the Brabant demand and the Archbishop was ordered to provide the people of the duchy with a fully equipped Church court that had its fixed residence in the capital. De Franckenberg obeyed and extended the competences of Leyniers to the entire Brabant part of the archdiocese. Just like its Malines counterpart, this tribunal remained active until the end of 1795, when the French occupying forces suspended the activities of all ecclesiastical courts in the Southern Netherlands. The forced division required by the secular authorities was a clear indication of the fading position of the officiality. Recourse to the royal law courts became more common in the early eighteenth century and was given a theoretical framework in the work of the famous Louvain canonist Zeger-Bernard Van Espen (1646–1728).69 67 For more details about the trial against Hendrickx and the establishment of the ecclesiastical court in Brussels, see T.  Bervoets, Van ‘fantoomtribunaal’ tot volwaardige rechtbank. De moeizame totstandkoming van de Brabantse officialiteit (1728–1762), Pro Memorie. Bijdragen tot de ­rechtsgeschiedenis der Nederlanden 15 (2013), 68–86. 68 For biographical information on d’Alsace, see, among others, L.  Ceyssens, Autour de la bulle Unigenitus. Le cardinal d’Alsace (1679–1759), Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 66 (1988), 792– 828. 69 A biography of Zeger Bernard Van Espen in M. Nuttinck, La vie et l’œuvre de Zeger-Bernard van Espen. Un canoniste janséniste, gallican et régalien à l’Université de Louvain, 1646–1728, Leuven, 1969. For his work with regard to ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the recourse to royal courts, see, among others, M. Stiphout, Van de paus of van de koning? Zeger-Bernard van Espen en het appel comme d’abus, Pro Memorie. Bijdragen tot de rechtsgeschiedenis in de Nederlanden 1  (1999), 100–14 and J. Hallebeek, ‘Recursus ad principem. Zeger-Bernard van Espen on the Rôle of Secular Courts in Preventing the Abuse of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction’, in: Id. and B. Wirix (eds), Met het oog op morgen.

caught between compromise and conflict

 231

His ideas were a synthesis of Jansenist and regalist ideas, an ideology that was further developed in the policy pursued by Patrice-François de Neny, president of the Privy Council between 1758 and 1783.70 Under his rule, the ecclesiastical courts were deprived of cases that until then had exclusively belonged to them. In 1758 a decree was promulgated, which declared that henceforth minors no longer needed permission from the officiality if they wanted to marry without the agreement of their parents.71 Marriage itself was at stake during the following decades. Considered by the secular government as a contract, the Church perceived it as a sacrament and therefore a purely ecclesiastical matter. From the second half of the eighteenth century onwards, the royal courts of justice tussled with the officialities in the Habsburg Netherlands about the latter’s judicial monopoly on this subject. The bishops and their collaborators realised that every concession they made would lead to a more secularised society and thus offered fierce resistance.72 After the Council of Flanders revoked one of his decrees, the Ghent official Jacobus Clemens published a fierce defence in which he strongly backed the Church’s claims. His ultramonist pamphlet was condemned by the Privy Council and would ultimately lead to his dismissal.73 Actions like these caused resentment among the Austrian rulers and in 1768, Maria-Theresa wrote a letter to the Great Council and the provincial councils asking for advice in order to avoid future conflicts between secular and ecclesiastical jurisdictions, thereby suggesting it was better to reduce the authority of the Church to purely spiritual matters.74 The dispute about ecclesiastical jurisdiction in general, and marriage in particular, escalated further and was a question which was ultimately decided in favour of the State during the reign of Joseph II by the promulgation of two decrees in 1781 and 1784.75 While the first decree henceforth only forbade Rome and its nuncio to grant dispensations from impediments for marriage, the second had more far-reach-

70 71 72 73 74 75

Ecclesiologische beschouwingen aangeboden aan Jan Visser (Zoetermeer, 1996), pp. 64–71. His regalist ideas were further discussed in B. Wauters, Zeger-Bernard van Espen. Regalisme, conciliarisme en corporatisme, Bijdrage tot de kerkrechtsgeschiedenis in de Nederlanden, Pro Memorie. Bijdragen tot de rechtsgeschiedenis in de Nederlanden 3 (2001), 213–32 and Idem, ‘A jurisdictione principum nemo immunis. The Legal Construction of the Ecclesia Belgica’, in: G. Cooman, M. Van Stiphout and B. Wauters (eds), Zeger-Bernard Van Espen at the Crossroads of Canon Law, History, Theology and Church–State Relations (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 170) (Leuven, 2003), pp. 31–70. For De Neny and his ideas, see especially J. Roegiers, De Jansenistische achtergronden van P. F. de Neny’s streven naar een “Belgische Kerk”’, Low Countries Historical Review 91 (1976), 429–54. B.  De Munck, Free Choice, Modern Love, and Dependence. Marriage of Minors and Rapt De Séduction in the Austrian Netherlands, Journal of Family History 2004, 185 and 197. An overview of the resistance of the episcopacy during the reign of Joseph II in B. Vandermeersch, Comme il importe au bien de l’Église et de l’État… L’opposition de l’ épiscopat ‘ belgique’ aux réformes ecclésiastiques de Joseph II (1780–1790), Louvain-la-Neuve, 2010, pp. 85–125. J.  Roegiers, ‘Kompetenzkonflikte im Eherecht der Österreichischen Niederlande. Der Fall des Genter Offizials Clemens (1768)’, in: Recht en instellingen in de oude Nederlanden in de middeleeuwen en de nieuwe tijd: Liber amicorum Jan Buntinx (Leuven, 1981), pp. 607–13. Verscuren, The Great Council (see n. 58), p. 144. P.  Verhaegen, Recueil des ordonnances des Pays Bas autrichiens. Troisième série, XII, Brussels, 1910, pp.  102–03 and pp.  380–85. For the discussion on marriage, see J.  L. Moreau, La ‘guerre matrimoniale’. La sécularisation du mariage au XVIIIième siècle dans les Pays-Bas autrichiens (unpublished licenciate’s thesis), Louvain-la-Neuve, 1983.

232 

tom bervoets

ing consequences as it deprived the Church and its courts of any jurisdiction over the matter. The crumbling of episcopal jurisdiction and the inevitable loss of power it entailed for the officialities was reflected in the career of its official. While in the seventeenth century the function formed one of the last stops in an ecclesiastical career that ultimately led to an episcopal see, in the eighteenth century the position had lost most of its prestige and was staffed with second-rate figures.

Conclusion Historical research has only barely focused on early modern officialities, due to their supposed loss of influence from the sixteenth century onwards. Those who have worked in this area have concentrated almost exclusively on the prosecution policy of these courts in the aftermath of the early modern Catholic Reform. This contribution argued that these institutions remained relevant until the eighteenth century, at least in the archdiocese of Malines. After the official creation of the archdiocese in 1559, the implementation of a matching institutional framework was postponed due to the politic and religious troubles in the region. Meanwhile the administrative structures of the Cambrai and Liège bishops remained active, albeit from 1568 onwards in the name of the Malines Archbishop. Under the auspices of Archduke Albert, a single Church court was established in 1596 by Mathias Hovius on the territory of a Brabant enclave in the village of Hombeek, thereby respecting a longer standing privilegium de non evocando for the Duchy of Brabant. An agreement was made with the Malines Magistrate which gave provision for a proper infrastructure for the court. Collaboration with the secular authorities did not, however, always go smoothly. Provincial and collateral councils often disrupted the functioning of the ecclesiastical court, either by dawdling over the required execution of sentences or by undermining its jurisdiction. Measuring the impact of the ecclesiastical court for the archdiocese as a whole remains a rather difficult task, due to the almost complete absence of its archives.76 Analysing the changes in its configuration and base of operation throughout the seventeenth century may, however, give an idea of the key role it played in the archiepiscopal administration. Moving between Brussels, Malines and its surrounding areas, the various relocations of (parts of) the tribunal reflected the difficulties successive Archbishops had in striking a balance between the regard for old prerogatives and local sensitivities on the one hand and the pursuit of a strong, based on the Catholic Reform programme, policy on the other hand. Due to it being the institution through which most of the episcopal jurisdiction was practised, the Church court had to remain in the proximity of the Archbishop and his residence. Officials – equipped with doctoral degrees, whether in canon and civil law or theology, and chosen among the canons of the chapters of Saint Rumbold (Malines) as well as, to a lesser extent, Saint Gudule (Brussels) – proved to be valuable collaborators in the governing of the archdiocese. 76 See the remarks of former archivist Jozef Laenen: ‘Quant aux archives de l’officialité (…) elles disparurent presque complètement lors de la Révolution française’, J. Laenen, Annuaire du clergé de l’archevêché de Malines, 1912, pp. VII–VIII. Compare with the relatively rich archives of the (much smaller) diocese of Roermond, as described by G. Venner, Inventaris van het archief van het officialaat, de kerkelijke rechtbank van het eerste bisdom Roermond 1599–1797, Maastricht, 2014.

caught between compromise and conflict

 233

The episcopal jurisdiction in the Southern Netherlands remained more or less untouched during the reign of the Spanish Habsburgs. The situation changed dramatically after the Austrian rulers had settled in: conflicts now became the rule rather than the exception. Even issues that had until then belonged exclusively to the ecclesiastical courts came under attack. Whilst in the seventeenth century the Church could still navigate between compromise and conflict in her relations with the State concerning the limits of her jurisdiction, from the eighteenth century onwards, this manoeuvring became obsolete.

Table 1: Locations of the Malines archiepiscopal officialitie(s) (1559–1795) Period 1559–96

Location Louvain

Brussels

Malines

1596–1621

Hombeek/Malines

1621–47

Brussels/Hombeek

1647–65

Brussels/Sint-Katelijne-Waver

1665–79

Malines/Sint-Katelijne-Waver

1679–1711

Brussels/Malines/Sint-Katelijne-Waver

1711–60

Malines/Sint-Katelijne-Waver

1760–62

Brussels/Malines/Sint-Katelijne-Waver

1762–95

Brussels/Malines

Index Adam, Renaud 2, 45 Adrianus VI 21, 30 Aesop 112 Agten, Els 4 Agurto, Francesco Antonio de 228 Ailly, Pierre d’ 139 Alba (Duke of ) 62, 78, 79, 81, 99, 148, 151, 170, 188, 221 Aleandro, Girolamo 24, 29, 31, 131 Alexander VI 23, 75 Alexander VII 84 Allen, William 82, 161 Alsace, Thomas-Philippe d’ 102, 103, 228, 230 Alvares, Francisco 112, 113, 121 Álvarez de Toledo, Fernando See: Alba (Duke of ) Alveldt, Johannes 42 Ambrose 91 Amerbach (Veit?) 42 Amiodt, Stephan 103 Apuleius 112 Aquitania, Prosper of 91 Archdukes Albert and Isabella 1, 6, 73, 89, 94, 95, 97, 98, 100, 116, 156, 160, 161, 171, 172, 173, 190, 192, 193, 213, 215, 222, 223, 224, 232 Arias Montano, Benito 79 Ariosto, Ludovico 112, 120 Arrieta, Gabriel de 121 Augustine 91, 112 Austria, Margaret of 29, 32, 33, 35 Austria, Mary Elisabeth of 103, 230 Ávila y Zuñiga, Luis de 112, 115 Ayala, Pedro de 121 Azpilcueta, Martín de 112, 120 Bac, Govaert 18 Badoer, Alberto 82 Baers, Sebastiaen 63

Bardeloos, Marcus 195 Barlandus, Adrianus 143 Bauwens, Michal 7 Bavaria, Ernest of 86 Bavaria, Ferdinand of 91 Bavaria, Maximilian II Emanuel of 228, 229 Bayfield, Robert 36 Beardsley, Theodore S. 110 Beets, Jan 16 Behant, Anthonette de 64, 66, 67 Benedict XIV 104 Bentivoglio, Guido 99, 160 Bergen, Cornelis of 223 Berghen, Adriaen van 25, 31, 46, 47, 48 Berghes, Alphonse de 102, 228, 230 Berghes, Guilielmus de 158 Berghes, Maximilien de 142, 144, 204 Bervoets, Tom 8 Beughem, Joannes Ferdinandus van 175 Birckman, Arnold 112 Blosius, Ludovic 139 Bogardus, Johannes 149, 150 Bois, Simon du 52 Bollaert, Roelant See: Bollaert, Rollandi Bollaert, Rollandi 109 Bonaventure 91 Bonomi, Giovanni Francesco 86, 87, 92, 204 Bonte, Gregorio de See: Bontius, Gregorius Bontius, Gregorius 109 Boonen, Jacob 100, 171, 175, 222, 224, 226, 227 Borcht, Pieter van der 152, 153, 159 Borromeo, Carlo 175, 176 Borromeo, Federico 82 Boscán, Juan 112, 120 Boute, Bruno 88 Braun, Georges 91 Brenz, Johannes 41 Brugge, Willeken van 31

236 

index

Brunfels, Otto 41, 43 Bucer, Johannes 41 Bugenhagen, Johannes 39, 41, 43 Burch, Hendrik Frans van der 163, 171, 173, 175, 190 Busche, Hermann von dem 43 Calvete de la Estrella, Juan Cristóbal 112, 121 Camers, Giovanni 42 Campeggio, Lorenzo 32 Canisius, Petrus 161 Cano, Melchior 119 Capito, Wolfgang 41 Carafa, Decio 89, 160 Carafa, Gian Pietro See: Paul IV Caravale, Giorgio 76 Carranza, Bartolomé de 119, 120 Castanheda, Fernão Lopes da 112, 121 Castiglione, Baldassare 112, 120 Castro, Jean de 89 Castroverde, Esteban de 121 Catharinus, Ambrosius 42 Ceriol, Furió 115 Charles (Archduke) 21 Charles V (Emp.) 1, 22, 29, 30, 32, 75, 76, 80, 81, 95, 112, 115, 116, 129, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 147, 168, 187, 203, 223 Charles VI (Emp.) 228 Charles the Bold 219, 227 Chièvres (Lord of ) 131, 132 Cicero 112 Cieza de León, Pedro 112 Claesdochtere, Wendelmoet 29 Clairvaux, Bernard of 91 Clarus Brixianus, Isidorus 119 Clebat, Estevan 110 Clemens, Jacobus 231 Clement VII 32, 133 Clement VIII 24, 83, 84, 87, 89 Clement XI 102 Clichtove, Josse 42 Cloet, Michel 171, 172, 173, 184 Cobenzl, Charles de 103 Cochlaeus, Johannes 42 Cock, Symon 20 Coels, Martinus 99 Coevoet, Merten 31 Coll-Tellechea, Reyes 119 Consilius, John 137

Corbel, Jan 31 Cordero de Valencia, Martín 114 Coriache, Amatus 100, 101, 226 Corte, Petrus de 150 Costerus, Francis 172 Crabeels, Clemens 158 Craenevelt, Frans 132 Creusen, Andreas 226, 227, 229 Cromberger, Jacobo 109, 111 Croÿ, Charles de 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138, 143 Croÿ, Eustachius de 129, 136 Croÿ, Jacques de 129 Croÿ, Ferry de 129 Croÿ, Guillaume de 129, 131, 132 Croÿ, Robert de 6, 9, 31, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144 Croÿ, William II de See: Chièvres (Lord of ) Cuperus, Martinus 139 Curtius See Corte, Petrus de Cuyck, Henric van 158, 162, 222 Cyprian 91 Damant, Pieter 157, 163, 171, 192, 196 Damhouder, Joos De 56, 57 David, Mathieu 141 Davids, Karel 112 Day, John 37, 51 Decavele, Johan 55, 156 Dene, Eduard de 63 De Vroede, Ghislenus 99 Dietenberger, Johann 42 Dinet-Lecomte, Marie-Claude 181 Dingelsche, Jan 18 Dixhoorn, Arjan van 3 Doesborch, Jan van 20, 24 Dommenne, Hector van 29, 31 Dorpius, Martin 37 Driedo, Johannes 24, 143 Drieux, Remi 154, 155, 156, 158 Dubravský, Racek 42 Dueñas, Juan de 112, 115, 120 Eberlin, Johannes 41 Eck, Johannes 42 Eckert, Henrick 19 Edward VI 37 Egmond, Nicolaas van 31

index Elias, Hendrik J. 94 Emser, Johannes 42 Erasmus, Desiderius 13, 33, 34, 35, 41, 42, 46, 112, 114, 118, 120, 132, 133, 134, 143 Fabri, Johannes 39, 41, 42, 44, 45 Farnese, Alexander 7, 22, 86, 156, 159, 171, 177, 179, 181, 183, 185, 188, 193, 202, 203, 204, 205 Fattlin, Melchior 42 Ferdinand I 44, 134 Fernández de Córdoba, Francisco 119 Feuerhahn, Henning 42 Fish, Simon 36 Fisher, John 41, 42, 44 Flavius Josephus 112, 121 Flores, Juan de 112 Forster, Mark 184 Fraet, Frans 49, 50 Fragnito, Gigliola 75, 81, 85 Franckenberg, Johannes Henricus von 97, 98, 104, 105, 106, 230 François, Wim 42 Frangipani, Fabio 86 Frangipani, Ottavio Mirto 4, 73, 74, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 160 Frisius, Gemma 109 Fundling, Johannes 42 Furió Ceriol, Fadrique 120 Gardiner, Stephen 36 Gaver, Jacob van 33 Ghelen, Jan van 46, 47 Ghislieri, Michele 77 Gilissen, John 203 Goch, Johannes Pupper von 43 Goosens, Aline 30, 55 Granvelle, Antoine Perrenot de 64, 99, 136, 147, 148, 151, 157, 218, 221 Grapheus, Johannes 51, 108, 109, 111 Grave, Claes de 19, 20, 22 Gregory XIII 81, 82 Griffin, Clive 109, 110 Groesbeeck, Gerard of 78 Guevara, Antonio de 109, 111, 112, 115 Gutenberg, Johannes 74 Härter, Karl 210 Hagenauer, Friedrich 135 Hamon, François 23 Hauchin, Johannes 99, 157, 161, 222

 237 Hayen, Laurens 20 Hazaert, Thomas 137 Heemskerck, Maarten van 153 Heerstraten, Aegidius van der 16 Heigerlin, Johann See: Fabri, Johannes Heliodorus 112 Hendrickx, Jan Baptist 230 Hennebel, Joannes Libertus 102 Henneberg, Berthold von 22 Henry IV (France) 213 Henry VIII 36, 37, 41, 42 Hessius, Johannes 41 Hill, William 37, 52 Hillen, Michiel 20, 21, 24 Homer 112 Hoogstraaten, Jacob van 42 Hoogstraten, Michael van 133 Hovius, Henricus 78, 79, 81 Hovius, Mathias 7, 8, 97, 99, 100, 160, 161, 163, 172, 193, 209, 219, 222, 223, 224, 227, 229, 232 Hoynck van Papendrecht, Cornelis 103 Hubmair, Balthasar 41 Hulst, François Vander 31 Hungary, Mary of 135, 136 Hurtado de la Vera, Pedro 120 Hus, Jan 30, 43 Innocent VIII 23, 75 Jaddaert, Philippus 192 James I/VI Stuart 213 Jans, Aloïs 140 Jansenius, Cornelius (Ghent) 151, 154, 155, 157, 158, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 185, 192, 195, 197 Jansenius, Cornelius (Ypres) 101 Janssen, Jan 29 Janssen, Geert 183 Janssonius, Jacobus 157, 222 Jarava, Hernando de 119 Jarava, Juan de 121 Jerome 91 Joesen, Steven 49 John the Fearless 129 Jonas, Justus 39, 41, 43 Joseph II 5, 97, 98, 105, 106, 231 Kamen, Henry 117 Karlstadt, Andreas 39, 41 Kempis, Thomas à 112, 120

238  Ketelaer, Nicolaus 14 Key, William 130 Keyser, Marten de 51 Laet, Hans de 112 Laet, Jaspar 19 Lagonissa, Fabio de 226 Lalaing, Antoine de 58, 62 Lambert, François 39, 41, 43 Lamoraal (Count of Egmont) 148 Latomus, Jacobus 31, 37, 132, 133, 143 Laurenszoon, Joost 32 Leempt, Gerard de 14 Lemaitre, Nicole 125, 144 Lens, P. 115, 116 Leo X 23, 29, 30, 31 León, Cieza de 120 Leyniers, Carolus Bernardus Josephus 230 Liesvelt, Adriaen van 17, 18, 25 Liesvelt, Jacob van 25 Lindanus 151, 153, 156, 157, 158, 171 Lints, Aerd 31 Lipsius, Justus 89 Longland, John 36 López de Gómara, Francisco 112, 120 López de Zúñiga, Diego 42 Lorraine, Charles of 104, 230 Lottin, Alain 192 Louis XIV 229 Loupès, Philippe 192 Lusy, Anthoine de 134, 136 Luther, Martin 3, 24, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 130, 131, 132, 133 McDonald, Grantley 3 Madrid, Alonso de 112 Maes, Gisbert 158, 163 Maes, Karel 158, 163, 171, 192 Maillet, Jacques 137 Makeblijde, Ludovicus 161, 163 Manrique Figueroa, César 5 Mansfeld, Pierre-Ernest of 207 Marck, Erard de la 32 Maria-Theresa 103, 230, 231 Marinus, Marie-Juliette 171, 184, 191 Marius, Augustinus 42 Martens, Dirk 14, 20, 21, 24, 29 Martin V 219 Masius 160 Matthew (S.) 34

index Maximilian (Emp.) 21 Medici, Giulio de’ See: Clement VIII Melanchthon, Philipp 39, 41, 43 Mena, Juan de 112 Mensing, Johannes 42 Metsius, Laurentius 153, 157 Mexía, Pedro 112, 120 Meyere, Leo de 192 Middelburg, Paul of 15 Mierdmans, Steven 25, 49 Miraeus, Joannes 158, 163 Moerentorf, Jan See: Moretus, Jan Montanus, Johannes 42 Montesinos, Ambrosio de 112 Montfert, Merten van 60 Montmorency-Nivelle, Filips de 148 Morberius, Gualterus 78, 79 More, Thomas 36, 42, 45 Moreau, Gerard 133 Moretus, Jan 89, 159 Morillon, Guy 133 Morillon, Maximilien 99, 155, 221, 223 Murner, Thomas 42 Nachtigall, Otmar 42 Nausea, Friedrich 42, 44 Nebrija, Antonio de 112 Neny, Patrice-François de 103, 231 Nesvig, Martin A. 118 Nipho, Ferdinand 226, 227 Noot, Thomas van der 20 Notebaert, Pieter 31 Nutius, Martinus 5, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 Nutius, Martinus I. (widow of ) 149 Nutius, Philippus 153 Oecolampadius, Johannes 39, 41, 43 Opstraet, Joannes 102 Orange, William of See: William the Silent Osiander, Andreas 41 Oudaert, Nicolas 222 Padilla, Tomás 112, 113 Padua, Marsilius of 43 Pafraet, Albert 38 Pape, Leo Jan de 228 Parix, Juan 110, 116 Parma, Margaret of 64, 65, 150, 156, 162, 169, 181, 187, 201, 202, 207, 218 Parente, Fausto 77

index Partibus, Jacobus de 20 Pasture, Alexandre 148, 150 Paul (Saint) 31 Paul III 75 Paul IV 75, 76, 77, 84, 117, 147, 148, 168 Pelargus, Ambrosius 42 Pellicanus, Johannes 41 Pelt, Johan 34, 35 Petri, Judocus 20 Peretti di Montalto, Alessandro Damasceni 90, 96 Peretti da Montalto, Felice 82 Pettegree, Andrew 108 Philip II 1, 8, 22, 25, 67, 76, 80, 81, 88, 95, 107, 115, 116, 117, 120, 148, 150, 168, 170, 187, 203, 207, 212, 213, 214, 215, 223 Philip the Good 221 Pietersoen, Doen 20, 31, 34, 46 Pirmin Gasser, Achilles 118 Pirstinger, Berthold 42 Pius IV 77, 80, 84, 92, 168, 206 Pius V 77, 80, 203 Plantin, Christopher 22, 79, 80, 151, 152, 153, 156, 159 Platner, Johannes 41 Pollmann, Judith 183 Pomeranus See: Bugenhagen, Johannes Ponce de la Fuente, Constantino 119, 120 Precipiano, Humberto de 102, 228, 229, 230 Prodi, Paolo 202, 209 Quaghebeur, Toon 145 Quentel, Peter 44 Quesnel, Pasquier 101, 102, 103 Ram, Pierre François Xavier de 145 Ramakers, Bart 59 Ravesteyn, Josse See: Tiletanus, Jodocus Raymundus, Jordan 119 Rebellato, Elisa 84, 85 Redman, John 37 Redman, Robert 51 Regius, Urbanus 41 Rescius, Rutger 121 Richardot, François 149 Riethoven, Maarten van See: Rythovius Rodoan, Karel-Filips de 164 Rojas, Fernando de 112 Romano, Diego 121 Roovere, Anthonis de 63, 70

 239 Rousseau 105 Rucquebusch, Mattheus 171 Rudolph II 86 Ruremund, Christoffel van 38, 46, 47 Rythovius 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 Saint Victor, Richard of 21 Salinensis, Lambertus 20 Sallust 112 San Pedro, Diego de 112 Schatzgeyer, Caspar 42 Schuermans, Jan 226 Seneca 112 Sichard, Johann 42 Silber, Eucharius 24 Silvius, Willem 149 Simon, Nicolas 8 Simons, Petrus 158 Simpson, James 69 Sixtus IV 22 Sixtus V 81, 84, 86, 90, 203 Soen, Violet 6 Somers, Annelies 7, 8 Sonnius, Franciscus 59, 60, 137, 147, 151, 153, 155, 157 Soto, Domingo de 119 Spicer, Andrew 181 Spiertz, Mathieu G. 163 Spira, Johannes de 19 Stapleton, Thomas 89 Steelsius, Joannes 5, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 149 Sterck van Ringelbergh, Joachim 109 Steyaert, Martinus 104 Streyers, Arnoldus 139 Susteren, Henricus Josephus van 229 Tagliavia de Terranova, Simone 93, 94, 96 Terricabras, Fernández 191 Thamara, Francisco de 114 Thomas, Henry 109 Tiletanus, Jodocus 79 Titelmans, Pieter 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71 Toledo, Pedro de 94 Torre, Giovanni della 84 Torrentius, Laevinus 87, 158, 160, 223 Trechsel, Jean 20 Treger, Conrad 42 Triest, Antoon 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 184, 192

240 

index

Trognesius, Joachim 161 Tronesius, Emanuel Philippus 150 Truchsess von Waldburg, Gebhard 86 Tunstall, Cuthbert 36 Tyndale, William 36 Tyrant, Petrus 226 Uutewael, Paulus 159 Vaernewijck, Marcus van 178 Valdés, Fernando de 118, 119 Van de Meulebroucke, Aurelie 6 Vanden Bosch, Gerrit 4 Van de Nesse, Willem 229 Van de Perre, Michel 226 Vander Hulst, François 31, 32 Vanderlinden, Judocus 227 Van de Velde, Jan Frans 145 Van de Venne, Franciscus 226, 227 Van Espen, Zeger-Bernard 101, 102, 104, 230 Van Hamont, Michiel 99 Van Leest, Antoon 153, 159 Van Lind, Willem See: Lindanus Van Oudenhagen, Martinus 229 Van Roost, Willem 103 Vanysacker, Dries 7 Vega, Garcilaso de la 112, 120 Vendeville, Jean 207 Verard, Antoine 20 Verhasselt, Merten 149

Vernimmen, Jean 227 Viglius 59, 67 Vives, Juan Luis 42, 132, 134 Vivier, Nicolas du 64, 66, 67 Voet, L. 79 Voltaire 97, 98, 105 Vonckius, Joannes 171 Vorsterman, Willem 18, 20, 21, 24, 29, 48 Vosmeer, Sasbout 87, 89 Waernier, Egidius 195 Warham, William 36 Waterschoot, Werner 108 Wayland, John 37, 51 Westhemerus, Bartholomaeus 118 Westphalia, Johannes de 14, 15 William the Silent 148, 171 Willocx, Fernand 6, 9, 150, 191, 204, 205 Woltjer, Juliaan 55 Wouters, Charles 103 Wyclif, John 43 Ydeghem, Henricus 192 Zangrius, Petrus 149, 150 Zárate, Agustín de 112, 120 Zevertszoon, Jan 35, 48 Zinck, Johannes 41 Zwingli, Huldrych 41, 43