Bollandists

BOLLANDISTI. – A scholarly society formed by a small group of Belgian Jesuit fathers, which for three centuries has devoted itself to the publication of the Acta Sanctorum, or a critical collection of contemporary documents concerning the saints. It takes its BOLLANDISTI (v.).

I. HISTORICAL OUTLINE

The origins of Bollandism go back to Fr. Heribert Rosweyde (1569–1629) of Utrecht. Having entered the Society of Jesus at Tournai (1588) and taken his degree at Douai (1591), he had prepared himself

for scholarly work by visiting, during the periods when teaching left him free, the numerous monastic libraries of Belgium, where he collected documents, including numerous lives of saints from Christian antiquity, which gradually offered him the outlines of a vast hagiographical collection. The idea, already mature in 1603 and encouraged by his superiors, was set forth by him in a booklet entitled: Fasti Sanctorum quorum vitae in belgicis bibliothecis manuscriptae (Antwerp 1607), in which, with the outline of the framework into which he proposed to fit the materials he had collected, he appealed to scholars for their collaboration. Rosweyde specified his future plan in these points: to restore the authentic text of old hagiographical documents; to provide the complete text of mutilated ones; to publish the still-unedited lives of the saints; and to accompany the texts with explanatory commentaries. He envisaged the execution of his design in 18 folio volumes: 3 preliminary volumes (documents relating to the history of Jesus Christ and the feasts of his mysteries; to the life and feasts of the Madonna; to the acts of the saints and martyrs who enjoy particular veneration); 12 of saints’ lives; 2 of notes and indexes; and 1 of martyrologies. Before beginning the great work, however, he wished to shed some light on an intricate preliminary question connected with the subject: the martyrology. Thus, in 1613, he published Adō’s martyrology, preceded by the Parvum romanum, under the title: Martyrologium romanum... accedit Vetus Romanum Martyrologium hactenus a Card. Baronio desideratum una cum martyrologio Adonis... recensito (Antwerp 1613). Another preliminary work for the Acts of the Saints was the great edition of the Vitae Patrum. De Vita et verbis Seniorum libri X (ibid. 1616), a large folio of LXXIV–1044 pages and 118 unnumbered pages of indexes; a provisional monument like the preceding one, but one whose importance has been universally recognized.

Rosweyde, who during his lifetime had allowed himself to be tempted by other subjects of historical scholarship, died on 5 October 1629 without having written a single line of the great work he had planned. Fortunately, the vast documentary material he left behind was not dispersed; Bolland, who was to give his name to the work, was summoned by his provincial to examine Rosweyde’s writings, and was able to appreciate their importance, declaring himself ready to arrange them for publication. He knew Christian antiquity well, had a bent for scholarship, and possessed a tenacious devotion to work, qualities that made him suited to the new task, which he undertook at the age of 36, when he was already prefect of studies at the college of Mechelen, which he left permanently to move to the Professed House at Antwerp. Bolland expanded Rosweyde’s programme by extending the field of investigation also to saints who were not represented in hagiographical literature but whose existence was attested by the martyrology or by worship; he also modified the division announced in Rosweyde’s Fasti, deciding that the documentation on a saint should form a single whole together with its appendices. And since, in the meantime, the increase in materials was reducing the time available for using them, at his request he was given assistance in the person of one of his former pupils: Godefrid Henschen (Henschenius), born in 1601, who joined him in 1635. The choice produced fruitful results: Henschen, having immediately devoted himself to the study of the saints of February, began with a study of the saints Vedastus (Vast) and Amandus, in which the lives of the two saints were subjected to careful investigation. Going beyond the philological problem, Henschen’s commentaries resolutely addressed questions raised by the very nature of the documents under study: history, chronology, topography, sources, and literary parallels. Bolland, who was already engaged in printing the first sheets of the volume on the saints of January, did not hesitate, in the face of this revelation, to recast the work in order to give a definitive form to the first beginnings of the Acta Sanctorum, of which he may be called the second founder.

Thus, after a common and conscientious effort, the two volumes on the saints of January appeared in 1643, and were received with genuine enthusiasm by the learned world. A further fifteen years of work were necessary for the publication of the three volumes on the saints of February (1658). Yet, in the rigor of their method and the perspicacity of their investigations, these had a marked advantage over the first two. Admiration increased, and even in Protestant circles tribute was paid to the learning and scholarly probity of the Jesuit hagiographers. To the eulogies was added an invitation from Alexander VII for Bolland to go to Rome. Prevented by illness and infirmities, he sent Henschen, who took with him a young collaborator recently assigned to the editing of the Acta Sanctorum: Daniel Van Papenbroeck, or Papebroch, born in 1628 and destined soon to make a name for himself in the field of hagiographical scholarship. With this recruit, the future of the Acta gained substance after its painful beginnings, for Papebroch was made to identify himself with the work itself. His commentaries would soon reveal him as a penetrating critic served by a fine pen, an indefatigable researcher, rich in information, solid in reconstruction, and never disconcerted by minute details. A modest but courageous man, he also knew how not to conceal the truth once he was persuaded that he had found II.
The journey of the two Bollandists lasted two years; after a nine-month stay in Rome, they visited other libraries in Italy and France, returning to Antwerp on 21 December 1662 with a rich harvest of documents transcribed from 1,400 manuscripts, but also with a new experience acquired in the meantime: the necessity of assigning a larger place to Byzantine hagiography, which Bolland’s plan had left in the background. The final stage of the Bollandian plan, expanded and perfected on the basis of experience, can be seen in the three volumes of March, with which Papebroch’s collaboration began. But Bolland did not see them, for he died on 12 September 1665 at the age of 69, three years before their publication (1668). To fill the place left by the deceased, Conrad Janninck, born at Groningen in 1650, was summoned in March 1669. He was initiated into the secrets of the craft while still a student for two and a half years; he was then sent to the Gregorian University to study theology. During his absence, Fr. Baert was summoned; besides rendering notable services in the temporal administration of the work, he also collaborated on volumes IV of May and V of June.

Meanwhile, Henschen died on 11 September 1681, after 46 years of indefatigable collaboration on the Acta, covering the first 24 volumes, 14 of which were published during his lifetime.

The tranquil work of the hagiographers was disturbed after the publication of volume I of April, in which the acts of St. Albert of Jerusalem, from whom the hermits of Carmel received their Rule, were discussed. The implicit condemnation of the tradition that wished to trace the origins of the Order back to the prophet Elijah marked the beginning of a bitter dispute on the part of the Carmelites, which ended with the intervention of the Spanish Inquisition, which condemned Papebroch, the author

of those commentaries in 1695. The incident came to an end in 1715 with the full rehabilitation of the calumniated Bollandist, who, however, did not live to see that day, having died on 14 June 1714 at the age of 87. The work he left behind is remarkable not so much for its extent as for its variety and value. The volumes of the Acta to which he contributed (March–June) have been judged by Fr. Delehaye to be the finest in the old collection.

After Papebroch’s death, the presidency, or seniority, passed to Fr. Baert, who died a few years later (27 October 1719). On the day of his funeral, a cerebral congestion struck Janninck, who died in 1723 as the last survivor of that generation, which through Henschen and Papebroch was directly linked to Bolland.

From 1723 until the suppression of the Society of Jesus, which also saw the dispersion of the Bollandist work, there remained a considerable period of tireless activity, during which the efforts, difficulties, and, in part, successes of the preceding period were repeated. Although, taken as a whole, this period lacked the powerful personalities of the first generation, who had established the methods of research and criticism, some figures of this second period nevertheless stood out clearly, both for their personal qualities and for their contribution to the work, such as Fathers Du Sollier, Stiltingh, and De Bye. A robust constitution, an exact memory, and a keen intelligence enabled Fr. G. B. Du Sollier to sustain forty years of intense application, distributing his commentaries through the seven volumes of July and the first three of August, while also overseeing the administration of the Museum Bollandianum. In particular, the entire burden of the work fell upon him after Papebroch’s retirement and Janninck’s illness. His principal work is the edition of Usuard’s martyrology, included in the supplements to June, which has been judged one of the most valuable contributions to the historical martyrologies.

Du Sollier’s companion, who died in 1740, was Pien, who had been with him since 1713 and followed him to the grave nine years later. He played a significant part in the Acta of July, and his commentary on St. Ignatius of Loyola still constitutes a source of information; his works on the ancient liturgies of Spain are likewise highly valued. Pien, already advanced in age, was left alone after Du Sollier’s retirement and the death of another Bollandist, Fr. Pietro Van den Bosche, who had spent only fifteen years on the editing of the Acta (1723–37). He was given assistance of unquestionable worth, in whom his contemporaries believed they recognized Papebroch again, because he possessed an extraordinary capacity for assimilation and was able rapidly to acquire extensive knowledge of every subject.

This was Fr. Giovanni Stiltingh, who arrived in 1737, when volume V of August was beginning to be printed. He familiarized himself with the new office so quickly that he was able to prepare two-thirds of the work for that folio volume, published in 1739. From then until February 1762, when he died not yet sixty years old, despite the difficulties caused by the shortage of new collaborators, he wrote no fewer than 250 commentaries, most of which filled the ten volumes published during his lifetime. This ease of composition also explains the rapid aging of his work in comparison with many others in the Acta. During his lifetime he acquired a reputation for possessing a prestigious talent, which he genuinely did possess, and enjoyed great authority, though the confidence of his criticism does not justify that authority to an equal degree. His prestige, however, helped Bollandism to weather the difficult years that were approaching.

Fr. Cornelio De Bye, among the many men who succeeded one another in the Bollandist undertaking during this period, possessed the qualities needed to become a figure of great prominence in the line of the early hagiographers. Less brilliant than Stiltingh, he nevertheless had the clarity of vision necessary to keep the Acta at the level of their past. Adverse events reserved for him only the role of victim, which he nevertheless bore courageously. Together with the other editors, he followed the fortunes of the work after the suppression of the Order, when it was housed in 1775 by the abbey of Cawdenberg near Brussels. The reforms of Joseph II and the suppression of Cawdenberg in May 1786 imposed a new move, and it became necessary to settle in a wing of the former Jesuit college in Brussels. But the destruction of the Museum Bollandianum had by then been decided, and this was made public on 16 October 1788. The storehouse of publications and the library were to be sold for the benefit of the state treasury. To prevent the dispersal of valuable materials, the Bollandists entered into negotiations with the Premonstratensians of Tongerloo. The abbey accepted the conditions and, together with the Bollandist equipment, also received the hagiographers as guests, so as to enable them to resume their work. With the French invasion of 1792, the last hopes of saving the laboriously preserved undertaking were destroyed: the documents and library were dispersed.

After the restoration of the Society of Jesus in 1814, Bollandism waited several more years before being reconstituted, because the Belgian Jesuits were burdened with works and colleges, for which the available active forces were scarcely sufficient. But toward the end of 1836, the keen interest of De Ram, rector of the Catholic University of Louvain, both with the government and with the superiors of the Society in Belgium, in reviving a national undertaking envied by the entire world, produced the desired effect, and on 29 January 1837 the provincial, Fr. Van Lil, announced to the head of government that the Society of the Bollandists had been reconstituted and would soon begin its work. It consisted of Fathers J. B. Boone, J. Van der Moere, Pr. Coppens, and, later, also Fr. J. Van Hecke. The new editorial body had to confront unusually serious technical difficulties, because what remained of the old inheritance was only a plan to which it could conform; the continuity of the scholarly tradition formed over a century and a half was lacking, together with its thousand secrets of execution, as well as the scholarly apparatus, which had to be laboriously rebuilt over many more years. During this period it was necessary to advance the publication of the Acta of October, which, naturally, reflected the inferior conditions under which the tasks of the revival were undertaken.

The initial difficulties were eased after a few years (1840) by the arrival of two gifted recruits: Antonio Tinnebroek and Victor de Buck, still students. In volume VII of October, the former contributed no fewer than 500 pages of original work. The promise announced by this talent was unfortunately cut short after his return from theology (1850); he died of consumption five years later. His fellow student Victor de Buck, on the other hand, left a memorable mark on the Bollandist undertaking. Spirit, memory, will, and intelligence were all firmly tempered in him. Through his ardor for study and his uncommon capacity for assimilation, he was the providential man of the moment. Returning from theology in 1850, after having previously spent five years in scientific training at the Bollandist Museum, De Buck was among the first to understand the importance of Christian archaeology for the study of ancient hagiography, to which the discoveries of G. B. De Rossi were opening broad prospects. De Buck’s advances in this field became evident in his dissertation De Phialis rubricatis, which marks a date in the history of hagiographical criticism, even though at the time it brought the author attacks and vexations from the laggards. Today no one disputes his conclusions, namely, blood (v.) are not a sign of martyrdom.

From volume VII onward, all the volumes on the saints of October had his collaboration, and the numerous commentaries he signed have been judged the best in this series. He is nevertheless reproached for having been unable to resist certain tendencies of the generation

preceding generation, chiefly the exaggerated importance accorded to the dissertation.

The progress announced by Fr. de Buck seemed confirmed by the promising contribution of Frs. Eugène Carpentier and Henri Matagne. The former seemed destined to carry out pioneering work in Eastern hagiography. His commentary on the acts of the martyrs of Nadjran, included in vol. X of October, judged to be the fruit of original and solid erudition, was completed by him with rudimentary means in an unknown land. Death took him in 1868, at the age of forty-six. Matagne died at a younger age, at thirty-nine, in 1872, when de Buck, himself still in the prime of life, was withdrawing into relative inactivity because of the illness that was consuming him. When he died, on 22 April 1876, not yet sixty years old, there was a moment of crisis for the Acta, entrusted to weak shoulders; it would have been fatal had a worthy successor to the work not arrived: Fr. Charles de Smet, called to direct its fortunes in 1882. A professor of ecclesiastical history at the scholasticate of Louvain, during the years of his teaching Fr. de Smet

During the years of his teaching, he had followed the progress of the historical method and the development of scholarly research. He had written a booklet that became famous: Principes de la critique historique (1872), which produced something of a revolution in ecclesiastical circles, where historiography was in a deplorable state, and especially hagiography, in which false legends and false traditions held sway. Appealing to common sense, he showed by what features historical truth makes itself known to those who seek it, and he opposed the spirit of bias and preconceived opinion. In concrete terms, everything came down to a technical problem in which only a sure method, rigorously applied, could reduce the risk of error to a minimum; and the entire reform plan he had long meditated for the edition of the Acta was reduced to a simple question of method. His predecessors believed they could find their way out of the complicated maze of hagiographical literature by taking as the basis for the history of a saint the life or text that seemed most acceptable, commenting upon it and attempting to make the other surviving strands converge upon II. He, on the other hand, thought that the texts themselves had to be submitted to the scrutiny of criticism; therefore, the documentation of a saint must include all the documents of the tradition that concern him (this was, fundamentally, the method of the ancient hagiographers, although it was not always applied).

Hence the need to provide, as completely as possible, an inventory of all hagiographical sources. This was undertaken through the publication of two series of repertories: of sources already published (Bibliotheca hagiographica latina; Biblioth. hagiogr. graeca; Biblioth. hagiogr. orientalis) and of sources still in manuscript, dispersed among the various libraries of Europe (Catalogi), which were included in a new section later entitled: Subsidia hagiographica.

The idea of adding to the Acta a periodical devoted to speeding up the collection of all preliminary and revisable studies also goes back to p. de Smet. Thus, beginning in 1882, the journal Analecta Bollandiana was published; from vol. X (1891) onward it regularly included a bibliographical bulletin of hagiographical publications.

This body of preparatory work considerably slowed the pace of publication of the Acta, but the wait was fully justified. In the volumes on the saints of November, the first to appear after p. De Smet’s reform, the soundness of the new method adopted is accompanied by an expansion in the field of research: not only did Byzantine hagiography receive the place it deserved, but, beginning with vol. IV, so too did the complicated Christian literature of the ancient East. P. de Smet, who died in 1911, was succeeded by p. Delehaye (v.) as senior member; through his extensive scholarly work, continued until the eve of his death (1941), he brought great authority and prestige to the work of the b. At present, p. P. Peeters is responsible for directing the fortunes of the undertaking.

II. THE BOLLANDIST METHOD

This method is judged by some, who are not well informed, to be a kind of iconoclasm aimed at demolishing the cult of the saints, especially the saints of antiquity. The reality is quite different, because the criticism is directed at hagiographical texts, very often founded on elements that are readily dissolvable. The historical truth of a saint need not necessarily be connected with a text, since there is no necessary relationship between the value of a narrative and the right that a saint has to cult. This remains fully justified as soon as one arrives at the hagiographical coordinates, or simple and essential elements, one of which is topographical in nature (that is, the place where the remains of a saint were deposited), and the other chronological, namely the anniversary of the deposition: the day and the month.

When these elements are present, there is nothing obscure or suspect at the starting point, when the cult of a saint is established in the normal manner. The legend (Acta) begins afterward; but by demolishing it, one does not suppress the reality of the personage.

III. BOLLANDIST PUBLICATIONS

1. Acta Sanctorum. There are three different editions of the Acta: the original edition, the Venice edition, and the Paris edition.

The original edition consists of 50 vols. printed at Antwerp, one volume printed at Tongerloo, and 16 vols. printed at Brussels, in addition to the Auctaria. At Antwerp there were printed the 2 volumes of January (1643), 3 of February (1658), 3 of March (1668), 3 of April (1675), 7 of May (1680–88), together with the Propylaeum Maii, 7 of June (1695–1717), 7 of July (1719–31), 6 of August (1733–43), 8 of September (1746–1762), and October (the first three volumes: 1765–70). Volume IV and V appeared at Brussels (1780–86); volume VI at Tongerloo (1794); the remaining volumes of October (VII–XIII) were printed at Brussels during the period 1845–83, followed by the first 4 of November (1885–1925), to which must be added the Propylaeum ad Acta SS. Nov. (Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae) in 1902; the Pars Posterior, volume II (Commentarius in Martyr. Hieronymianum) in 1931; and finally the Propylaeum ad Acta SS. Dec. (Martyr. Romanum) in 1940.

The Venice edition, begun in 1734, reaches volume V of September (1770). The distribution of the days and pagination are identical to those of the Antwerp edition, except for the last 4 volumes of May.

The Paris edition, begun in 1863 by the publisher Victor Palmé, was edited by a priest of the diocese of Langres, J. Carnandet, and consists of 60 vols., reaching volume XII of October (1867), in addition to one volume of indexes (1875). The distribution of the days is identical to that of the original, except for the months of May and June; the pagination, however, is different.

2. Analecta Bollandiana is the quarterly journal of the Bollandists, first published in 1882; from volume X (1891) onward, each issue of the journal has always included a Bulletin des publications hagiographiques.

In the Analecta, in addition to unpublished texts and dissertations, there have appeared catalogues of hagiographical manuscripts dispersed among the various libraries of Europe; these have been published separately whenever their length prevented them from being included in the journal. To date, 3 volumes of indexes have appeared: I, 1882–1902 (Brussels 1904); II, 1902–22 (there 1931); III, 1923–44 (there 1944).

3. Subsidia Hagiographica

This series comprises works falling within the programme of the Analecta but which, because of their size, require separate publication. Thus, the series has included volumes of published hagiographical sources: Bibliotheca hagiographica latina antiquae et mediae aetatis (1898–1901); Bibliotheca hagiogr. graeca (5th ed. 1909); Bibliotheca hagiogr. orientalis (1910). In addition, there are various volumes of hagiographical codices dispersed among the various libraries: Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum bibliothecae Bruxellensis (2 vols., 1886–89); Cat. cod. hagiogr. latinorum in bibliotheca nationali Parisiensi (4 vols., 1889–93); Cat. cod. hagiogr. graecorum bibl. nation. Parisiensis (1896); Cat. cod. hagiogr. graecorum bibl. Vaticanae (1899); Cat. cod. hagiogr. lat. bibliothecorum romanorum praeter quam Vaticanae (1909); Cat. cod. hagiogr. lat. bibl. Vaticanae (1910); Cat. cod. hagiogr. graec. Germaniae Belgii Angliae (1913). To these must be added the 4 vols. of the Repertorium hymnologicum edited by U. Chevalier (1892–1912), and the various works of hagiographical criticism by Fr. H. Delehaye, to mention the principal items in the collection.

4. Pseudo-bollandiana. The Bollandists have nothing to do with the works listed below, which, by their titles, appear to seek a connection with the Acta. They are distinguished by an absolute lack of criticism: 1º Les petits bollandistes. Vies des saints de l'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament... par mgr. Paul Guérin (7th ed., 17 vols., Paris 1888); 2º Supplément aux vies des saints... par dom Paul Piolin (3 vols., Paris n.d.); 3º Les actes des saints d'après les bollandistes... edited by J. Carnandet and J. Fèvre (4 vols., Lyon 1865–68); 4º Supplément aux Acta Sanctorum pour des vies de l'époque mérovingienne, par l'abbé C. Barbey (3 folio vols., Paris 1899 ff.). — Vedi Tav. CV.