Aspects de l’érudition hagiographique aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (review)

The European Renaissance presumed the myth of the golden age. Whatever was good was located in a remote and pristine past. The Jesuits as “Renaissance men” approved of the recovery of texts, cleaner texts (reconciling the many variants) and corrected ancient texts—an early form of “historical criticism”—delving into the glorious past alongside other Renaissance scholars, religious or “secular, ” Protestant or Catholic. Even so, criticism of the lives of the saints formed just a small part of the textual recovery of the era.

Joassart writes that Jean Bolland (1596–1665) worked alone in compiling the Acta Sanctorum until he was joined by Godefroid Henschen (1601–81) and later by Daniel Papebroch (1628–1714). There is scant reference to hagiography in the Jesuit Ratio Studiorum. Even though it grew into a legend, as did the small mission to Quebec recounted in the Relations jésuites, the Bollandist hagiographical work was a numerically insignificant apostolate of the Society.

Not surprisingly, “friendly rivalry” developed between the older and established Benedictines and the Jesuits. Dom Jean Mabillon (1632–1707), a monk of the Congregation of St. Maur and student of Luc d’Achery (1609–83), gained fame for his profound study of the Acta of the Benedictine saints. The Maurist scholars were numerous, but only Mabillon distinguished himself in hagiography, although he did not work alone and was active in other areas of study. Mabillon’s masterpiece was the De re diplomatica (Paris, 1681; and supplement, Paris, 1704). Joassart asserts that Bolland and Mabillon were “twins” in the work they did for their respective communities. He likewise asserts that the Bollandists eagerly followed the numerous publications of the Maurists to stimulate their own research (p. 53). The two communities did not organize or present their material in the same way. The Maurist hagiography was intended primarily for internal consumption, whereas the Jesuits were writing apologetics for the whole world.

Early in his introduction Joassart exclaims that he does not wish to write about something boring like we find locked away in dull dissertations. Although the Bollandists and the Maurists may have been in benevolent competition with each other, this was not the case between the Jesuits and the Carmelites. The beginning of the quarrel dates from 1675. The Bollandists had just published in their first volume the article concerning Albert, “Patriarch of Jerusalem.” Some of the early Christian writers did not support the Carmelite claim that their founder “materially” was the Prophet Elijah. One may see here the myth of the golden age at work in the Carmelite passion to seem as ancient as possible. The Bollandists analyzed the tradition and stirred up a controversy with the Carmelites, which became heated. Even some Carmelites, including Louis-Jacob de Saint-Charles (1608–70), doubted the claim about their foundation, which only increased the rancor. There followed a flood of Carmelite polemics in favor of the tradition that the Prophet Elijah did indeed found the Order (pp. 92–93). Henschen and Papebroch were responsible for the materials concerning the Carmelites. The Jesuit Superior General advised a middle path between compromising the truth and needlessly offending the Carmelite Order. The Carmelite Provincial, Daniel de La Vierge, wrote to the Bollandists to protest their publication, but his arguments were ad hominem and not historical. Various important dignitaries in Rome became involved in the case, mostly concluding in support of Papebroch. The Superior General disapproved of the “tone” of the work against the tradition of the founding of the Carmelites. Mabillon wrote to Papebroch, assuring his full support for the position taken by the Jesuit Bollandist. Mabillon went so far as to say he grieved that Papebroch was now distracted from his important work in order to defend himself in the case. In 1698 Pope...