Logo DBNL
De Gulden Passer. Jaargang 74 (1996)

De Gulden Passer. Jaargang 74

(1996)– [tijdschrift] Gulden Passer, De–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Vorige Volgende

The making of a jesuit author
Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623) and his printers1 Toon Van Houdt

Nomen vestrum, quod ante constitutionem mundi scriptum fuit in coelo, ext[a]t etiam scriptum saris luculenter in terris.
Your name which has been written in heaven before the creation of the world, now shows itself also written on earth with sufficient brightness and splendor.
(Letter sent to Leonardus Lessius by Robert Bellarmine on May 11, 1614)

Introduction. the importance of being catalogued

In his seminal essay What Is an Author? Michel Foucault has stressed the problematic nature of the concept of ‘authorship’ or, to be more precise, the ‘author-function’. According to Foucault,

the ‘author-function’ is tied to legal and institutional systems that circumscribe, determine, and articulate the realm of discourses; it does not operate in a uniform manner in all discourses, at all times, and in any given culture; it is not defined by the spontaneous attribution of a text to its creator, but through a series of precise and complex procedures; it does not refer, purely and simply, to an actual individual insofar as it simultaneously gives rise to a variety of egos and to a series of subjective positions that individuals of any class may come to occupy.2

Developing and modifying Foucault's ideas a little, we can say that the construction of authorship consists of, among other things, the assignation of a corpus of texts to an individual subject who presents himself as the source of the available texts. This construction appears to be historically determined insofar as it can only be realised under limited conditions. First, it presupposes the possibility of identifying and recognising a real individual person as an author. This, in turn, implies that one is able to select those biographical events that are pertinent to a definition of the author's position. Second, it entails the authentication of a specific corpus of texts as being someone's intellectual offspring, with the exclusion of other, non-authenticated texts.3 This two-fold process of assignation is made possible and visible at the same time by the production and diffusion of bibliographies and catalogues of books. Being catalogued was undoubtedly a very important way for Leonardus Lessius to become known as a Jesuit author. The biographical events pertinent to his authorship can be summarised as follows.

Leonardus Lessius or Lenaert Leys was born on October 1, 1554 as the son of a modest family of peasants in Brecht near Antwerp. He studied arts at the university of Louvain from 1567 to 1572. Subsequently, he entered the Jesuit order on June 23, 1572. Following his noviciate at Saint Omer, he departed for Douai to lecture on Aristotelian philosophy. In 1583, he was sent to Rome, where he completed his theological studies under the direction of Francis Suarez (1548-1617), Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), and Augustine Giustiniani (1551-1590). In 1584, Lessius returned to Louvain, where he would lecture on Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae for the next fifteen years. From 1601 to his death on Ja-

nuary 15, 1623, Lessius devoted himself almost entirely to the publication of his numerous theological treatises. A substantial part of these works consisted of learned scholastic commentaries on the Summa and was based on the notes he had previously taken while lecturing at the Jesuit college of Louvain. In addition, he wrote several apologetic, ascetic and mystical works.4

Lessius is just one example of the intense literary activities displayed by members of the Jesuit order in the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth centuries. From its origin in 1540, the Society of Jesus established itself as a preaching and teaching order. Preaching and lecturing were considered essential aspects of the ministry of the word of God (verbi Dei ministerium). Gradually, however, the Society transformed itself into an order of preachers, teachers, and authors alike. By the end of the sixteenth century, the preparation and publication of books was widely accepted as a legitimate and useful way of performing the ministry of the word of God.5 At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the ever growing number of books published hy Jesuit fathers called for stricter regulation and control. Hence, a more rigorous system of internal censorship was devised in 1598 and implemented from 1601 onwards.6 At the same time, the need to inventory and promote the manifold literary offsprings produced by the Socii Iesu became ever more urgent. Following a suggestion made by General Claudius Aquaviva in 1602, father Petrus Ribadeneira (1526-1611) set himself to the task of publish-

ing a Catalogue of Illustrious Writers of the Society of Jesus. It was issued by Jan Moretus in 1608 and reissued by his sons Balthasar and Jan II Moretus in 1613.7 As was to be expected, Lessius did not pass unmentioned in the catalogue.

The purpose that laid behind Ribadeneira's bibliographic activities was both commemorative and apologetic. Situating himself in a long and respected bibliographical tradition that went back to such renowned ancient forerunners as Cicero, Suetonius, and Saint Jerome, Ribadeneira aimed to highlight the extraordinary literary achievements performed by the members of the Society of Jesus.8 A viable means to extol the Jesuit order as a whole, the catalogue was, at the same time, an extremely useful, if not indispensable, instrument for the promotion of individual Jesuit writers among a broad international readership which allowed them to acquire name and fame as an author. Given the specifically apologetic function of the catalogue, it is quite obvious that the readership to which the authors were presented was by no means confined to the Society itself.

Authorship and print publication

Ribadeneira did not list all Jesuit writers in his catalogue. As a

rule, he selected only those who had brought their work(s) to light or, in other words, who had already appeared in print. However, the bibliographer was willing to make some exceptions to the rule:

I have added some men who excel in genius and erudition, but whose labours have not yet seen the light of day. I have not listed all the men I could justly have included in my Catalogue (for there are a great many of them), but rather I have selected from a large number just a few writers who by the outstanding and famous monuments of learning and genius they have left us, deserve perpetually to be commended. For though their writings have not yet been edited thus far, they might be published sometime in the future so as to guarantee the authors the praise of their industry and others the fruits of reading.9

The criteria used by Ribadeneira to compose his Catalogue seem to suggest that in the Jesuit order at the beginning of the seventeenth century, it was more or less generally acknowledged that authorship and print publication were tied very closely together. Existence in print was by no means considered a pre-requisite for a Jesuit father to be recognised as an author. It was, however, taken for granted that the printing press was by far the most efficient way to diffuse one's literary products and establish one's name as an author. This may help to explain why Ribadeneira decided to limit his catalogue to those writers who had appeared in print before or could justly be expected to have their works printed in due time. At any rate, the mere publication and diffusion of writings in manuscript form obviously did not suffice for a Jesuit to win a place among the illustrious authors presented and pro-

moted by Ribadeneira.10

Leonardus Lessius was fortunate enough to have met the conditions imposed by Ribadeneira. By the time the latter's catalogue of Jesuit authors was to be issued, Lessius had published a printed work and could no longer be ignored. Fully performing his duty, the bibliographer did not fail to mention Lessius and his qualities as an author:

[Leonardus Lessius] has published four books full of erudition On Justice and Right and the Other Cardinal Virtues. They were first printed in Louvain, afterwards in Paris. An augmented edition is about to be printed by the Plantin Press. The books have met with great approval and have passed through the hands of many readers. His other commentaries on Saint Thomas [Aquinas] are expected shortly.11

The information offered by Ribadeneira proves to be correct on the whole. A second authorised edition of Lessius' De iustitia et iure was published in 1609 by Jan Moretus.12 It should be stressed, however, that the short notice on Lessius contains much more

than a tiny bit of dull and dry bibliographical information. Indeed, it betrays at the same time a very subtle marketing strategy. By announcing the new augmented edition of De iustitia et iure and hinting at the applause it has met with among readers, Ribadeneira adroitly succeeds in both promoting Lessius' authorship and advertising the products of the Officina Plantiniana. The reference to the Plantin Press, however brief it is, becomes all the more striking, if one ponders the fact that Ribadeneira generally omits indicating by which printing house a book is published.13 It is, of course, very telling that Ribadeneira's Catalogue was issued by none other than Jan Moretus. His publication of the Jesuit's bibliographical work eventually turned out to have been an act of self-promotion.

Thanks to the technical know-how and the distribution system built up by the Moretuses,14 the manuscript that contained Ribadeneira's Catalogue was turned into a succesful commercial product, an elegantly printed and widely available booklet.15 As I have argued above, the name and fame of Lessius, as of any other Jesuit author, depended to a considerable extent on the Catalogue's production and world-wide distribution. In consequence, it can be safely maintained that by publishing and divulging Ribadeneira's bibliographical instrument, the Moretuses indirectly contributed to the promotion of Lessius' authorship. By publishing the greater part of his numerous theological works, they also contributed to the recognition of his authorship in a more direct and forceful manner. As I have previously maintained, printed publication was an important means of establishing oneself as an au-

thor. Since Lessius largely, albeit not exclusively, depended on his printed books for the creation and promotion of his authorial persona, he was obliged to co-operate with the Moretuses as closely as possible so as to have his books published and distributed in a manner that would both suit and advance his reputation as an author.

The close collaboration between Lessius and his printers resulted in a fruitful correspondence, a substantial part of which is still extant today. The first letter available to us dates from March 1609 and sheds light on the genesis of the first Plantinian edition of Lessius' De iustitia et iure. The last letter that has survived is dated July, 16, 1622 and was sent by Lessius six months before he died on January 15, 1623. All of the letters are directed to or written by Balthasar Moretus. His father Jan I and his brother Jan II do not seem to have participated in the epistolary exchange that took place with Lessius, although they are frequently mentioned in Balthasar's and Lessius' letters.16 In the following paragraphs, I would like to analyse the available correspondence to gain a more profound understanding of the co-operation between Lessius and the Plantinian Office. More particularly, I want to examine how Lessius tried to gain control of the complex process of production of his books and to what extent he succeeded in doing so. The first aspect (How did Lessius attempt to have control?) will give us an impression of his ‘authorial self-consciousness’, a self-consciousness Lessius is most likely to have demonstrated by expressing his concern about the genesis of his intellectual offspring. The second aspect (To what extent did Lessius succeed in having control?) will reveal the institutional and social limitations with which the Jesuit father was confronted and which determined his authorship in a very fundamental way. It should be noted that the present contribution will focus almost exclusively on the production of Lessius' works. However regrettable this may be, the author's attempt to direct the process of distribution will be left aside. I hope to discuss this important, related issue on another occasion. My contribu-

tion can be considered a modest attempt to analyse some of the mechanisms that underlie the construction and realisation of authorship at the beginning of the seventeenth century. As such, it aims to explore a small part of the field of research staked out by Michel Foucault and Roger Chartier. Fortunately, the archives of the Museum Plantin-Moretus provide us with an exceptionally rich abundance of sources facilitating us in undertaking such a detailed historical case study.

Honour and authorship

Lessius was rather anxious about his authorial image. By the end of 1609, he had finished an addition that was to be inserted in the second edition of his Quae fides et religio sit capessenda consultatio.17 Yet, he did not want the appendix to be mentioned on the title page. As Lessius was eager to stress, mentioning the addition would not redound to the honour of the author.18

Lessius' authorial image depended to a large extent on the proper reproduction of his texts. Not surprisingly, he was well aware of the importance of a reliable printer and publisher to safeguard his good name as an author. Lessius was equally well aware of the high standards of quality maintained by the Plantinian Office and he knew that the autographs sent to Antwerp were in good hands. On October 10, 1610, Lessius wrote a letter of condolence to Balthasar Moretus upon the event of his father's death on September 22, 1610. He sang the praises of Jan I Moretus as head of the Typographia Plantiniana and urged Balthasar and his brother Jan II to follow their father's, as well as their grandfather's, inspiring example. On behalf of the entire Christian world and especially of all

men of letters (orbis christianus et in primis omnes literati),19 Lessius expressed his gratitude for the extreme care with which the Moretuses handled his own and other writers' texts. In so doing, the family convincingly proved to serve the common good and live up to its world-wide reputation, rather than to aim merely at profit.20

Lessius' concerns were not confined to the safe transmission of his texts, but extended to the ‘physical’ aspects of the books that were to be edited as well. Extolling the many qualities of the Plantin Press, he not only mentioned its famous accuracy and orthography (accurationem et orthographiam), but also approvingly referred to the quality of the paper chosen (chartam) and the typeface selected (typum).21 At the same time, he did not hesitate to express his personal wishes regarding the book size and the letter to be chosen for his texts, although he was wise and confident enough to leave the final decision in these matters to the printer himself. The following passage may serve as an example. Lessius informs Balthasar that he has just sent his treatise De providentia Numinis et Animi immortalitate to Brussels, where it will be submitted to the court for approval.22 He then continues: ‘You may print the treatise in quarto or in octavo, as you will judge to be more convenient. I will discuss this matter in your presence, with God's grace by the beginning of January or a little later. However,

I leave the whole case to your judgement.’23

It is clear that Lessius fully grasped the advantages and the mechanics of the printing process. First and foremost, he appreciated the possibilities offered by the Plantin Press at providing an exact and attractive reproduction of his work. At the same time, he knew how to help the printer obtain such a result, without becoming too heavy a burden to him. He helped choose an appropriate type-face and a convenient format, but left the printer alone in time to get on with printing and proof-reading his work.24 Lessius' accommodating attitude is illustrated in various instances found in his correspondence with Balthasar Moretus.

First of all, Lessius had a keen sense of proportion. He was perfectly capable of distinguishing major shortcomings and minor errors. Quite frequently, Lessius detected a passage which required reworking, though the book was already in print. In this event, he did not hesitate to send a revised text to Antwerp, even though the insertion would cost Balthasar Moretus precious time and energy. One should, of course, bear in mind that any change in text automatically caused a change in type page. Furthermore, it obliged the author or some collaborator of his to entirely revise all the tables and indexes, a tiring and time-consuming task indeed. As was to be expected, Balthasar Moretus was very eager to accommodate to the author's wishes. However, this was not always possible. By the end of 1616, Lessius' treatise De iustitia et iure was about to be re-edited. Initially, the author intended to write a number of additions to be inserted in the new, by then

fourth, Plantinian edition of his book. Taking a closer look at the text, however, he could not find any important omission and decided to give up his plans. Consequently, the printer had no reason to wait and delay the edition.25 Three months later, Lessius changed his plans once again and sent an addition to Antwerp. At that moment, fortunately Balthasar still had plenty of time to take into account whatever change of text Lessius would propose, since it was not until mid-February 1617 that he would begin printing.26 Work progressed surprisingly well, one might even say too well. Lessius sent another addition to be inserted in the chapter on benefices, which the printers were not able to take into account anymore. Regrettably, the change in text had to be postponed until the next edition, which was not issued until 1621.27

Contrary to some of the other authors co-operating with the Plantin Press, Lessius was not an easily irritated nor easily irritating ‘hair-splitter’.28 For example, he was not obsessively pre-occupied with minor printing errors. On occasion, he deliberately omitted sending a list of corrigenda to Antwerp, since the mis-

prints detected were too small and insignificant to warrant correction.29 Moreover, Lessius' concerns about the correct representation of his texts were somewhat tempered by his lack of time. Not infrequently, he was simply unable to do much serious correcting. When the Moretuses planned to issue a third edition of De iustitia et iure, Lessius promised to have the entire text revised before October 1611. Yet, he failed to meet his deadline and was forced to content himself with a short list of errata he composed after a superficial reading of the text.30 Lack of time also compelled Lessius to leave some tasks to an assistant who was occasionally assigned to him by his superiors or even to the personnel employed by the Moretuses. This was notably the case with the composition and revision of tables and indexes.31 More in general, Lessius readily granted Balthasar Moretus permission to make the adaptations he felt were required following his own sound judgement. If Moretus was unsure, he could always contact the author and ask his advice, as Balthasar, in a tactful display of restraint and regard, appears to have done quite regularly. His tact was all the more appropriate, since his interventions were not restricted to purely formal aspects but also extended to more substantial matters such as the choice of wording, the proper structuring of the text, the insertion of marginalia, the correct spelling of words, etc.32 In one instance, Moretus even dared to hint at a serious lacuna in Lessius' text and proposed that Lessius would write an ap-

pendix to his treatise. Lessius agreed,33 as he mostly did. Indeed, the author usually approved of the suggestions advanced by Balthasar or the decisions taken either by him or the compositor(s) dealing with his texts. If anything, it proves the relaxed atmosphere that surrounded the long-lasting co-operation between printer and author, a co-operation that was based on mutual respect and friendship.

Authorship and cautiousness

More often than not, Lessius was quite pleased with the work delivered by the Moretuses. Yet, he had no scruples about ventilating his dissatisfaction, as he occasionally felt entitled to do. In a letter of February 4, 1611, Lessius asked Balthasar to inform him when he would consider issuing a new edition of his treatise De iustitia et iure. Lessius wanted some corrections to be made to the printed text of 1609, which he was told to be less correct than the first edition issued by Johannes Masius in 1605.34 In a letter dated July 16, 1622, Lessius explicitly demanded that ‘great diligence be applied by the corrector. For I have heard from colleagues of mine that the latest edition of my work On Justice and Right contains many more errors than any of the preceding ones ever did.’35 Unfortunately, the next edition of his treatise did not appear until 1626, three years after he deceased.

However high the standards maintained by the Plantin Press may have been, Lessius had set equally high standards as an au-

thor himself and strongly desired his publisher to take these into account. I do not feel it is stretching things too far to interpret the criticism occasionally uttered by Lessius as evidence of his highly developed ‘authorial self-consciousness’. As I have stated above, Lessius was quite anxious about the correct reproduction of the texts he submitted to the printer. First and foremost, this was a matter of honour. Quite often, however, it also amounted to be a matter of self-protection and sheer survival, so to speak.

In 1587, Leonardus Lessius, at the age of thirty-four, got involved in an ardent controversy with the Faculty of Theology at Louvain regarding the delicate and highly complicated issue of divine grace and human free will. It was a venomous conflict in which both parties accused each other of expressing heretical ideas. Lessius was said to uphold viewpoints that, far from being in line with the approved doctrine of Saint Augustine, had a definitely semi-pelagian ring to them. The young Jesuit tried to defend himself by counter-attacking the opinions expressed by the theologians of the university. The dispute was settled temporarily, though by no means definitely resolved, thanks to the intervention of Pope Sixtus V who, on April 15, 1588, issued two breves by which both parties were prohibited to declare each other's doctrine as being heretical.36 During the relatively short but intense conflict, Lessius repeatedly complained that the censura of his viewpoints composed by members of the Louvain Faculty of Theology and subscribed to by the Faculty of Theology at Douai in September 1587 and January 1588, respectively, was based on a deliberate misinterpretation of his theological propositions. According to Lessius, the university professors did not understand his opinions and worse, they did not want to understand them, as was amply demonstrated by the numerous misrepresentations of his viewpoints. Likewise, the theologians of Louvain accused Les-

sius of giving a false impression of the controversy in general, and of their ideas on the subject, more particularly.37

For a theologian involved in the discussion of such delicate issues as the problem of divine grace and human free will, it was absolutely necessary to have his ideas expressed as accurately as possible in order to avoid, or at least, to a certain extent reduce the risk of being misinterpreted and, as a result, being censured by a distinguished body of university theologians or perhaps even by the Pope himself. Lessius was certainly not condemned by the Pope in 1588. The breves issued by the Pope and imposed upon the contending parties by nuncio Ottavio Mirto Frangipani allowed them to persist in upholding and teaching their conflicting ideas. At any rate, Lessius did not alter his opinions at all. The risk of being subjected to papal censorship, however, had sharply risen when he wrote a treatise De gratia efficaci decretis divinis libertate arbitrii et praescientia Dei condicionata, in 1602. In this dogmatic work, Lessius wholeheartedly supported the doctrine on grace and free will put forward by his colleague Luis de Molina (1531-1600) in his Concordia liberi arbitrii, which was first published in Lisbon in 1588 and subsequently reissued in Antwerp in 1595. The publication of Molina's work had stirred an even sharper controversy among theologians, both within the Society of Jesus and outside it. In 1598, a special commission was installed by Pope Clement VIII in order to resolve the conflict. Yet, it failed to achieve its goal. Therefore, in 1607, Pope Paul V decided to take the matter into his own hands. Pending his final decision on the issue, he allowed both parties to express their own viewpoints, but strongly urged them not to accuse each other of heterodoxy.38

As we shall see, the ‘Molinist’ viewpoints were eventually prohibited by General Claudius Aquaviva in 1613, three years after

the publication of Lessius' treatise De gratia efficaci.39 This is not to say that it was completely safe for Lessius to have his book published in 1610. On the contrary, throughout the conflict, the Molinist party was forced into a defensive position and was most likely to be condemned some time in the near future.40 Consequently, openly subscribing to Molinist standpoints involved serious dangers. Even though Pope Paul V had restored freedom of speech by his decree of 1607 and General Aquaviva had granted authorisation to have Lessius' treatise printed by the end of 1608, the author still had every reason to be extremely cautious in submitting his book to the Plantin Press. Mindful of the problems previously faced while teaching and writing on the same subject matter in 1586-1588, Lessius must have felt the need to express his ideas with extreme precision and to have them represented in print as accurately as possible. It is no wonder then that he strongly urged Balthasar Moretus and his team to execute their work with extreme care. More specifically, he asked them to pay particular attention to punctuation. Lessius took some pains to explain the importance of a correct punctuation:

I have received, Dear Sir, a sample of the work On Grace you have begun printing. I am pleased with everything. I would like to ask that the corrector apply his utmost diligence so as to make sure that everything will be finished with the same perfection and precision. There is considerable brevity in the style of writing, whereas the subject itself is extremely obscure and subtle. It would hardly be
intelligible unless all parts are accurately distinguished by their own commas, colons and periods.41

It hardly needs stressing that Lessius took great care of checking the printed text of his De gratia efficaci before it was issued in 1610, a task far too delicate to be left to others.42 As I have indicated above, Lessius had less difficulty in delegating or even completely omitting work, where the edition of somewhat less controversial books, such as his De iustitia et iure, was concerned. Attempting to seize control of the publication of his treatise De gratia efficaci, Lessius gave evidence of being a prudent author. Indeed, it seems legitimate to conclude that, in this particular case, his self-consciousness as an author was nourished to a large extent by his cautiousness, which in turn was sharpened by his acute awareness of the danger of publishing - the danger of being censured and denunciated.43

A drawn-out struggle

A printed book was a commercial product that had to be issued at the right time and offered for sale in the right place. Lessius was well aware of this basic rule dictated by the ‘market logic’ that governed the production of his books. On several occasions, he asked the printer to hurry so as to have his books issued before the opening of the book fair at Frankfurt. This was, of course, a quite sensible commercial strategy that would be profitable for the Moretuses as well. In their own interest, they diligently attempted to comply with the author's wishes and have his books

printed as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, they sometimes failed to give satisfaction. Inevitably, there were many other writers impatiently waiting for the publication of their work. This obliged the printer to establish priorities. The publication of the first Plantinian edition of Lessius' treatise De iustitia et iure is a case in point. In a letter dated July 16, 1609, Balthasar Moretus informed Lessius that his father was unable to have his work printed before the Autumn fair at Frankfurt, which was held from September 29th to October 12th. Indeed, Jan I had already committed himself to publish other books first. Hence, he promised to begin printing Lessius' treatise before the fair to insure it was completed by the end of the year. In short, the printer was determined to follow his own time schedule, even though it did not correspond to the author's planning.44

Apart from being a commodity, the economic value of which was determined on the book market, a printed work was also an object invested with symbolic value. Indeed, it was quite literally a symbolus, a token of friendship and gratitude, which was to be dedicated to a ‘patron’ and offered to friends. As such, it was a viable means to build up and fortify a complex social network which rested on a mutual, though by no means strictly equal, exchange of gifts and services.45 Based as it was on reciprocity, the patronage system was doomed to come under serious pressure if one of the two parties failed to meet the commitments which had been taken on by entering into the relationship. To take an obvious example, a person who accepted a book that was dedicated to him by the author, was entitled to receive it in due time. It is not difficult to understand that this would pose a problem if the publication of the dedicated work was postponed too long. By un-

duly procrastinating the edition of a book, the printer could do serious damage to the author and the social network he tried to build up.

This was precisely the situation expected and feared by Lessius when he was told by Balthasar Moretus that the publication of his treatise De Numinis providentia would be delayed. The work was already dedicated to Franciscus Henricus vander Burch (1567-1644), who was recently appointed Bishop of Ghent. The dedication was meant to strengthen the ties between the influential dignitary and the Jesuits of Louvain and Antwerp, since the bishop was kindly invited to continue favouring and supporting the Society as zealously as he had done in the past. In short, the dedication was a response to prior services and benefactions, as well as an appeal for future patronage.46 Vander Burch accepted Lessius' dedication. As a consequence, he was looking forward to receiving the printed book. Lessius could not afford to disappoint the bishop's high expectations. As the matter was of great importance to him, he dared to suggest that if necessary, Moretus find another printer who proved capable of bringing out his treatise in due time.47 In the end, however, Lessius retreated a bit and reconciled himself to the time schedule proposed by Moretus.48

The tension created by Moretus' decision to delay the publication of Lessius' treatise brings to the fore the broader social and institutional context in which the production of printed works at the beginning of the 17th century took place. Indeed, the printing and publication of books was a highly dynamic and social event, which was by no means restricted to the co-operation between the author and his printer. On the contrary, several other persons and institutions were involved in the process. All these

persons and institutions had to be taken into account by author and printer alike. One of the most important institutions consisted of the ecclesiastical control and censorship exercised over the Christian world of learning and writing. Not infrequently, they had an extremely strong impact on the process of production and diffusion of books. As Lessius and the Moretuses had the opportunity to experience on several occasions, they could cause a publication to be delayed, postponed indefinitely, or even prohibited altogether.49

Before a manuscript written by Lessius could be entrusted to the compositors employed by the Plantin Press, it had to be submitted to the librorum censor, who examined its religious content and, if satisfied on the whole, issued an approbatio. In the course of the 16th century, this system was fully developed.50 Lessius' text could not be submitted to the ecclesiastical censor unless it had been scrutinised and deemed fit for publication by the revisores active in the Society of Jesus. We have already mentioned the internal censorship of the Jesuit order and its organisation in 1598. As a matter of fact, Lessius was one of its first ‘victims’. Indeed, it was the central body of Jesuit revisores working at the Collegio Romano that caused the first edition of his De iustitia et iure to be postponed for more than three years.51 Apart from these types of control, a theologian such as Lessius also ran the risk of being confronted with the censorship exercised by the Holy Office or by the Pope himself. This was no less perilous and time-consuming than the Jesuits' internal censorship. Not surprisingly, the two systems

of control sometimes complemented and confused themselves with each other. This was notably the case, when Lessius' highly controversial treatise De gratia efficaci was issued in 1610. It was received most unfavourably in Rome, both by the leading theologians of the Jesuit order and by the advisers of Pope Paul V. The book was taken out of circulation in Rome, whereas the author was forced to revise his text and bring it in line with the remarks and criticisms uttered by the body of Jesuit censors. It was most unfortunate, in General Aquaviva's opinion, that the work had not been sent to Rome for closer inspection before it was published.52 Lessius complied and reworked his treatise. By the end of the year, he asked Balthasar Moretus to inform him in due time when he would consider issuing a second edition of De gratia efficaci, since Lessius would like to add ‘a few modifications’ to the text.53 Some months later, Moretus was thanked for accelerating the edition of the revised text which had been approved by the General.54 It was sent to him by the author on March 13, 1612.55 Nevertheless, the text could not yet be put to press. Eager to avoid new controversies on the problem of divine grace and human free will, the Pope refused to grant his permission; a pre-requisite the author could not afford to do without. Indeed, it was out of the question to consider the publication of the revised text without the Pope's prior consent, since this practice was strictly forbidden by a decree issued by the Holy Office on December 1, 1611.56

Lessius was extremely distressed by the deadlock that was thus created. Rumours spread in Rome and elsewhere that his book had been officially suppressed and prohibited. Clearly, Lessius' reputation as an author was at stake. What is more, the position of

the entire Jesuit order was seriously endangered. Yet, the Pope's refusal to authorise a second, revised edition of De gratia prevented the author from saving (or at least restoring) the good name he was gradually losing.57 In a desperate attempt to change the embarrassing situation, Lessius appealed to Pope Paul V personally.58 The démarche proved to be counterproductive on the whole. In addition, it strongly offended General Aquaviva, who explicitly ordered Lessius to leave the defence of his work entirely to the General and his advisers,59 an order that must have been quite hard to comply with for Lessius who was anything but unconcerned about his authorial image. Aquaviva's promises notwithstanding, the situation did not improve in the least. On September 7, 1612, Balthasar Moretus asked Lessius to inform him of Rome's decision regarding the treatise De gratia efficaci.60 Having made some inquiries, Lessius was forced to admit that no decision had been made at all. While no censure or prohibition had passed so far, the work still lacked papal approval.61

The situation became even less prosperous, when General Aquaviva, with the approval of Pope Paul V, issued his famous decree on the uniformity of doctrine to be maintained in the Jesuit order (December 14, 1613). Not surprisingly, the decree focused on the delicate issue of divine grace and human free will. Addressing the problem, Aquaviva took a position that diverged in certain respects from Lessius' Molinist viewpoints. The standpoint indicated in the decree was to be followed by all members of the Society. Fulfilling his duties as praefectus studiorum to the point, Lessius insured that the decree was strictly observed in the Jesuit

college of Louvain.62 At the same time, however, he must have sensed that the decree was not particularly conducive to having his treatise De gratia reissued in a timely fashion. When Aquaviva died on January 31, 1615, Lessius decided to appeal once more to the Pope.63 His second attempt proved to be equally unsuccesful. Gradually, Lessius must have given up all hopes of winning the approval of Pope Paul V. As late as 1619, he apparently suggested to Balthasar Moretus to have the book reprinted in secret. Tactful as usual, Balthasar responded on October 12, 1619 that he was still deliberating the question. At any rate, Moretus noted that it would be impossible to print in secret, since the printing house was so public in nature.64 Eventually the plan was dismissed.

The serious and persistent difficulties faced by Lessius in having his treatise De gratia, as well as some of his other books, approved of and brought to light, deeply affected his authorship. Disappointed and ill at ease as he was, he finally decided to turn away from writing learned treatises. By shifting his attention to pious literature, a far less controversial genre to cultivate, he insured that he would not offend his superiors in Rome anymore. During the years 1612-13, Lessius confirmed his decision several times.65 By the middle of 1614, it seems that he had given up writing altogether. Indeed, in a letter which was probably sent by the end of April, he told his friend and former teacher Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) that he would content himself henceforth with mere reading and contemplation (lectio et contemplatio). The position taken by Lessius was warmly applauded by Bellarmine,

who happened to have made a similar choice before. In his response of May 11, 1614, the aged cardinal advanced two arguments to uphold his approval of Lessius' attitude. First of all, he wrote, it was hardly possible in those days to have something written that would not be exposed to the malicious slander of enemy and friend alike. Taking the argument just one step further, one might say that, according to Bellarmine, the best thing an author intent on safeguarding his honour could do was to publish nothing at all.66 The second argument is equally compelling:

Your Reverence has already written quite a lot of books, not only theological but also legal treatises and even medical works, as I have been told, so that your name, which has been written in heaven before the creation of the world, now shows itself also written on earth with sufficient brightness and splendor.67

In other words, Lessius' authorship was already established firmly enough. He did not need to publish more books to make his name up in lights. In fact, Lessius did not cease completely from writing and publishing. By the end of 1614, he was still to compose such important spiritual treatises as De summo bono et aeterna beatitudine hominis and De perfectionibus moribusque divinis.

Both were issued by the Plantin Press in 1616 and 1620, respectively.68

When Lessius died on January 15, 1623, the revised version of his treatise De gratia efficaci was still awaiting publication. Almost immediately after his death, his Roman superiors considered having a new edition of all of Lessius' works, both published or unpublished, prepared. However, it did not seem a good idea to do so unless his vast oeuvre was previously examined and brought into conformity with the validated Jesuit doctrine. The task of preparing such a revised posthumous edition was assigned to Aegidus Regius (Gilles de Coninck) (1571-1633), a former pupil and collaborator of Lessius.69 The procedure decided upon could easily be applied to Lessius' unpublished treatises. However, it posed some delicate problems with respect to De gratia, a work that had been issued before. On the one hand, it contained some view-points that were simply not in line with the accepted Jesuit doctrine and therefore seemed to require a thorough revision. On the other hand, such a revision would not be very honourable for Lessius, to say the least, since any reader would be able to compare the first edition issued in 1610 with the new one. In so doing, the reader would acknowledge that the book no longer represented the opinions of Lessius, but those of the Jesuit order as a whole.70 It appears, however, that General Mutius Vitelleschi did not seem

greatly concerned with the situation, since in 1626 Balthasar Moretus was granted permission to publish the Opuscula, a volume which contained a selection of Lessius' works that had appeared in print before.71 Among those works was included the second edition of De gratia. It is worthwhile noting the title of the Opuscula in full:

Leonardi Lessii e Societate Iesu, sacrae Theologiae in Academia Lovaniensi quondam Professoris, Opuscula, quibus pleraque sacrae Theologiae mysteria explicantur, et vitae rite instituendae praecepta traduntur, ab ipso auctore paullo ante mortem, varie aucta et recensita.

It seems reasonable to deduce from the title page that the Opuscula contained a version of De gratia that had not been modified by any posthumous editor attempting to bring the text completely in line with the uniformised Jesuit doctrine on divine grace and human free will. Hence, it was a work Lessius would still have been able to claim as his own. However great the changes he had been obliged to introduce into the text himself after its first edition in 1610, it remained his, by and large. After Lessius' death, the text was not turned into a hybrid composition that utterly lacked integrity and authenticity. The control and censorship exercised by the Pope and the General of the Jesuit order had caused the author to suffer some serious blows during his lifetime. Deceased, he was spared the ultimate disgrace of being unduly deprived of his authorship.

Appendix
The Correspondence between Leonardus Lessius and Balthasar Moretus. A Provisional List of Letters

Abbreviations

KB: Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek
MPM: Antwerp, Museum Plantin-Moretus

List

1.1609 03 05. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi quaterniones cum paterno dono
MPM, Arch. 86, 265
Autograph
2.1609 06 16. B Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Ecce terniones binos
MPM, Arch. 135, 45-46
Copy
3.1609 07 21. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi quaterniones quos misisti
MPM, Arch. 86, 269
Autograph
4.1609 12 01. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi vir praeclare specimen operis incepti
MPM, Arch. 86, 273
Autograph
5.1610 03 08. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepta 30 exemplaria secundae editionis Consultationis
MPM, Arch. 86, 275
Autograph
6.1610 03 14. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Mitto indiculum per famulum collegij nostri
MPM, Arch. 86, 279
Autograph
7.1610 03 23. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi exemplaria quae misisti
MPM, Arch. 86, 283
Autograph
8.1610 08 25. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Multi dicuntur esse per Galliam et Hollandiam
MPM, Arch. 86, 287
Autograph
9.1610 10 10. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Intellecta parentis tui viri optimi et humanissimi morte
KB, III. 1483, nr. 9
Autograph
10.1610 10 15. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Pars nobis solatij est
MPM, Arch. 135, 90
Copy
11.1610 10 25. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: De munere parentis optimi nomine misso
MPM, Arch. 86, 287bis
Autograph
12.1610 12 20. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Miror vir praeclare exactam diligentiam
MPM, Arch. 86, 293
Autograph
13.1611 02 04. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Binis fasciculis accepi folia
MPM, Arch. 86, 295
Autograph
14.1611 02 15. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Impulsus ijs quae literis tuis significasti
MPM, Arch. 86, 297
Autograph
15.1611 02 26. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Mitto appendiculam et indiculum
MPM, Arch. 86, 299
Autograph
16.611 03 04. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Scripsi ad patrem Leonardum De Fray
MPM, Arch. 86, 301
Autograph
17.1611 03 11. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi integre fasciculum librorum
MPM, Arch. 86, 303
Autograph
18.1611 03 29 L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Opto mihi mitti proxima oportunitate
MPM, Arch. 86, 305
Autograph
19.1611 09 15. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi vir praeclare fascem librorum donativum tuum
MPM, Arch 86, 307
Autograph
20.1612 02 07. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi vir praeclare quae misisti
MPM, Arch. 86, 309
Autograph
21.1612 03 13. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Mitto vir praeclare disputationem de Gratia et Praedestinatione
MPM, Arch. 86, 311
Autograph
22.1612 04 17. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepimus sarcinam quam misisti
MPM, Arch. 86, 313
Autograph
23.1612 07 15. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Hactenus nihil Roma intelligere potui
MPM, Arch. 86, 315
Autograph
24.1612 09 07. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Novae editionis operis de Iustitia
MPM, Arch. 135, 151
Copy
25.1612 12 15. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Multis mensibus vir praeclare
MPM, Arch. 86, 317
Autograph
26.1613 01 22. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi vir praeclare munuscula libraria duo
MPM, Arch. 86, 319
Autograph
27.1613 05 28. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi quaterniones quos hactenus misisti
MPM, Arch. 86, 321
Autograph
28.1613 06 01. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Confecerunt nostri raptim indiculum
MPM, Arch. 86, 323
Autograph
29.1613 06 04. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Praeproperus fui in mittendo indiculo
MPM, Arch. 86, 325
Autograph
30.1613 06 11. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Remitto quaternionem ultimum
MPM, Arch. 86, 327
Autograph
31.1613 07 07. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Tradidi fratri tuo
MPM, Arch. 86, 331
Autograph
32.1613 07 16. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Persuasit pater Anselmus ut acceptem
MPM, Arch. 86, 333
Autograph
33.1613 07 23. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi sarcinam librorum
MPM, Arch. 86, 335
Autograph
34.1613 07 30. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Nulla prolegomena expectanda
MPM, Arch. 86, 337
Autograph
35.1613 08 09. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Nomina quae apud fratrem feci
MPM, Arch. 86, 339
Autograph
36.1613 08 13. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi omnia salva
MPM, Arch 86, 341
Autograph
37.1613 09 02. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi Optica et duo folia Hygiastici
MPM, Arch 86, 343
Autograph
38.1613 10 17. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Pro libris quos promittis
MPM, Arch. 86, 347
Autograph
39.1613 11 09. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Adfuerunt nobis duo patres
MPM, Arch. 86, 345
Autograph
40.1613 11 15 B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Mitto Bellarmini Chronologiam
MPM, Arch. 135, 180
Copy
41.1614 02 26. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Mitto approbationem domini Viringi
MPM, Arch. 86, 349
Autograph
42.1616 06 10. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi 10 Junij fasciculum
MPM, Arch. 86, 351.
Autograph
43.1616 06 21. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Mitto vir praeclare responsum
MPM, Arch. 86, 352
Autograph
44.1616 09 09. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Remitto vir praeclare tres istos libros
MPM, Arch. 86, 355
Autograph
45.1616 09 20. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi vir praeclare duo exemplaria
MPM, Arch. 86, 357
Autograph
46.1616 12 14. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Mitto vir praeclare hanc additiunculam
MPM, Arch. 86, 359
Autograph
47.1617 02 04. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Operis de Iustitia editionem etiamnunc differo
MPM, Arch. 136, 88
Copy
48.1617 02 15. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Ipsa qua abierat hora
MPM, Arch. 136, 90
Copy
49.1617 05 13. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: In opere de Iustitia recudendo
MPM, Arch. 136, 113
Copy
50.1617 07 15. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Additiunculam de beneficijs
MPM, Arch. 136, 126
Copy
51.1617 07 20. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi exemplaria Iubilaei
MPM, Arch. 86, 363
Autograph
52.1617 10 12. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Accepi vir praeclare quinque sarcinulas
MPM, Arch. 86, 365
Autograph
53.1619 02 01. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Mitto missale superiori anno cusum
MPM, Arch. 136, 210
Copy
54.1619 06 09. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc: Binas Reverentiae Vestrae litteras
MPM, Arch. 136, 209
Copy
55.1619 10 12. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc: Binis Reverentiae Vestrae litteris
MPM, Arch. 136, 242
Copy
56.1620 01 10. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Quaterniones iterum mitto
MPM, Arch. 136, 248
Copy
57.1620 02 04. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Accepi operis de Iustitia correctiones
MPM, Arch. 136, 252
Copy
58.1620 02 18. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Novem quaterniones
MPM, Arch. 136, 254-255
Copy
59.1621 03 04. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Appendicem de Monte Pietatis adhuc exspecto
MPM, Arch. 138, 24
Copy
60.1621 03 07. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Remitto consultationem cum mea approbatione
KB, III. 1483, nr. 9bis.
Autograph
61.1621 09 30. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Martino Nudo affini meo
MPM, Arch. 138, 36
Copy
62.1622 03 30. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
inc.: Appendicem dudum accepi
MPM, Arch. 138, 63
Copy
63.1622 05 22. B. Moretus (Antwerp) to L. Lessius (Louvain)
Hygiasticon recte accepi
MPM, Arch. 138, 67
Copy
64.1622 07 16. L. Lessius (Louvain) to B. Moretus (Antwerp)
inc.: Remitto vir praeclare exemplar
MPM, Arch. 86, 367
Autograph

 

Faculteit Letteren

KULeuven

Blijde-Inkomststraat 21

B-3000 Leuven


Vorige Volgende

Over dit hoofdstuk/artikel

auteurs