Érudition hagiographique au XVIIIe siècle, Jean Lebeuf et les Bollandistes: Correspondance (review)

The controversy over Jansenism represented one of the greatest challenges to the Catholic Church in Ancien Régime France, but perhaps the influence of the movement on the Church and its members has been overestimated. This is essentially the issue which Bernard Joassart addresses in his work Érudition hagiographique au XVIII^e siècle, Jean Lebeuf et les Bollandistes: Correspondance. Joassart, who previously published the correspondence between the Bollandists and their contemporaries, presents the letters exchanged by the Jesuit hagiographers and Jean Lebeuf, a cathedral canon from Auxerre and a Jansenist sympathizer. Lebeuf had earned the acclaim of his eighteenth-century contemporaries and future generations for his contributions to the history of France, particularly his native Auxerre. His research on the hagiography of local saints' cults brought him into contact with the Bollandists in Antwerp. In exchange for assistance and verification of his own work, Lebeuf offered his services and research to the Bollandists, despite the antagonism that existed between Jesuits and Jansenists.

Although the collaboration between Lebeuf and the Bollandists bore scholarly fruit, the relationship appeared to sour around the 1730's as the letters sent by the Bollandists became less frequent. Joassart's introduction to the previously unpublished correspondence concentrates in particular on the motivation which led to the end of this epistolary friendship. Henri Leclercq, who wrote the biography of Lebeuf for the Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, claimed that the Bollandists, motivated by their desire to terminate contacts with anyone of Jansenist tendencies, cut off the contact with Lebeuf. Joassart, however, argues that the sources in his present publication suggest that perhaps Lebeuf's Jansenism may not have been the only factor that broke the lines of communication. When Lebeuf declared that he had found the long-lost relics of Saint Germain d'Auxerre and asked the Bollandists to verify their authenticity, the hagiographers of Antwerp refused their approbation. The indirect connection between the relics and the Jansenists (Saint Germain had been a supporter of St. Augustine, upon whose writings the Jansenists developed their doctrine) may have swayed their decision, but Joassart does not seem to believe that this incident caused a permanent rift in the relationship. Rather, the letters in this volume reveal that Lebeuf still expressed his admiration for the work of the Bollandists, even after the relic incident. Furthermore, Joassart points out that the Bollandists did not seek to discontinue their correspondence with more prominent Jansenists such as Pasquier Quesnel. For their part, the Bollandists may have answered Lebeuf's missives with less frequency, but as Joassart notes, these elderly and infirm clerics simply may have lacked sufficient energy to keep up the literary pace of the younger catherdral canon.

By publishing for the first time the letters between the Bollandists and their Jansenist contemporary, Joassart contributes to the historiography of the eighteenth century by calling into question the influence of Jansenism on the correspondence between Lebeuf and the Bollandists. This work also injects a new interpretation into the broader context of Jansenism in general. If Jansenism may not have been the main factor which brought this collaboration to a halt, then perhaps the pervasiveness and influence of Jansenism deserves reconsideration. Overall, Joassart's book not only contributes to the source base, but it also raises new questions for the study of Catholicism during the Ancien Régime.