1 Novelty and Tradition
In today’s rapidly evolving world, innovation is, more often than not, a desirable pursuit. It is sought in private and public sectors, frequently heralded in advertisements, and regularly elevated as a benchmark for academic excellence in research projects. However, to a sixteenth-century jurist or theologian, the concept of novelty might have carried a far less favorable connotation.
In his canon law treatise Ad regulas iuris canonici commentaria, the jurist and Leuven professor Petrus Peckius (1529–1589) expresses caution around the idea of novitas.1 While discussing whether the term beneficium should be substituted by sacerdotium, as suggested by Joannes Corasius (Jean de Coras, 1515–1572) and Tiraquellus (André Tiraqueau, 1488–1558),2 Peckius expresses a sentiment that summarizes not only his position on this particular conundrum but hints toward his general stance regarding the law. Siding with Petrus Rebuffus (Pierre Rebuffi, 1487–1557)3 and quoting Quintilian (ca. 35–ca. 100 AD), Peckius argues against this substitution of terms, contending that one should not decide to change established words that jurists have received for many centuries.4 In this context, Peckius admits that antiquity requires “great amendment,” as it, in many ways, “fell due to the calamity of the times.” Nevertheless, he still states that “novelty is dangerous” (“periculosa est novitas”)—claiming that he sees novelty more often being refuted by better arguments rather than confirmed.5
Thus, as Peckius portrays it, novelty or innovation is not regarded as a beacon of hope or even desired. Instead, it is inherently viewed as dangerous. In the University of Leuven, which was loyal to the Roman Catholic Church, this position did not seem to belong exclusively to Peckius, nor was it even limited to the Faculty of Canon Law. On the contrary, the whole university carried the reputation and even received occasional praise for not accepting innovation or new doctrines.6 In any case, the very distrust over the idea of novelty was not exactly new. As Christian Zendri demonstrates, jurists had long attributed a certain ambiguity to the concept of novitas. During the Late Middle Ages, it was sometimes even equated with “something unjust” (iniquus).7 For example, in the classic dictionary of Albericus de Rosate (Alberico de Rosciate, ca. 1290–ca. 1360), among other designations, he indicates that “innovations bring forth discord” (“novitates pariunt discordias”).8 Likely, distrust of the new only intensified in the face of the Protestant Reformation.
This book aims to delve deeper into Peckius’ canon law works, examining how he navigated his juridical context and the new decrees of the Council of Trent. As part of the @AULAM project, which investigates “innovation through education” in Leuven,9 this examination focused on assessing the innovative aspects of his thought. Interestingly, the very pursuit of novelty in Peckius’ work might not have been well received by the jurist himself.
Historically speaking, there was safety in the traditional. Under the surveillance of both secular and ecclesiastical censorships,10 newer approaches might have seemed undesirable, and limiting oneself to well-trodden paths might have kept one away from danger. Was fear, however, the only motivator for jurists who wished to maintain traditional legal approaches? It would perhaps be too simplistic to think so. For some, keeping a more well-known and stable framework might have simply felt correct. It is also possible that the very idea of what law should be could not yet be detached from the existing authoritative sources and the traditions that framed it for so long. After all, time can be a factor in enhancing normative authority. In the Middle Ages, as Andreas Thier observes, characteristics of temporal dimensions such as age and duration functioned as compelling criteria for the validity of legal norms, which were sometimes understood as possessing a “special quality” and “maturity.”11
As noted by Thomas Duve, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, jurists and moral theologians adopted a new epistemological approach. It recognized that the auctoritates did not provide ready-made solutions to all problems, with the understanding that these had to be acquired through ratio—rational processes of assessing the auctoritates and their suitability to different cases. Still, both new and old authorities continued to carry weight in discussions.12
As James Gordley highlights, sixteenth-century jurists adopted a different method from that of their medieval predecessors. On one side, the mos gallicus approach (or French style) led humanists to seek the original meaning of Roman law texts, distinguishing it from the mos italicus approach (or Italian style), which continued the medieval teaching tradition, holding a more Bartolist basis.13 As Randall Lesaffer explains, the humanistic approach relativized the authority of the text canon and was characterized by its historical and philological methods.14 In the field of law, these humanistic methods were proposed to correct the “corruption” of Roman law. Drawing on the works of Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) and Poliziano (1454–1494), jurists such as Guillaume Budé (1467–1540), Andrea Alciato (1492–1550), and Jacques Cujas (1522–1590) identified inaccuracies in early interpretations of the Corpus Iuris.15 According to Gordley, a key source of conflict between the French and Italian styles was that the former sought to uncover the original meaning of legal texts as intended by their authors, while the latter aimed to apply these texts to new situations that the original authors had not anticipated.16 Scholars such as Alain Wijffels question whether there was a truly distinct division between the mos italicus and the mos gallicus, highlighting the existence of authors who sought to combine elements of both approaches.17
Additionally, still in the sixteenth-century context, there was the late scholastic approach, which was more philosophical and drew on the ideas of Aristotle and Aquinas to explain authoritative texts.18 Moreover, it is important to highlight another significant legal trend: the usus modernus pandectarum. Lesaffer indicates that this trend started in the late-sixteenth century in Germany. He defines it as “a form of neo-Bartolism in the sense that Roman law was studied with a view to its application to current issues,”19 though he recognizes that the usus modernus was still significantly influenced by humanism, particularly in treating Roman law more as a model than as an absolute authority.20 Gordley characterizes the usus modernus more by what it did not aim to accomplish. Namely, unlike the late scholastics, proponents of the usus modernus typically did not resolve legal issues by appealing to higher principles. Unlike the humanists, they did not strive to recover the original intent of Roman law texts as understood by their original Roman authors. Finally, although they, like the medieval jurists, sought to harmonize Roman law texts, they did not attempt to derive meaning from each text and reconcile them together.21
Regarding the Low Countries specifically,22 René Dekkers comments on the existence of new trends, referring to the works of sixteenth-century Leuven scholars such as Nicolaus Everardi (Nicolaas Everaerts,1461/62–1532), Viglius (Wigle van Aytta van Swichum, 1507–1577), and Gabriel Mudaeus (Gabriël van der Muyden, ca. 1500–1560), among others.23 Dekkers summarizes that these scholars acknowledged advancements brought by humanism. Still, they viewed law not as a science but as a practical art incompatible with rigid, learned humanism. Nevertheless, according to Dekkers, they did not form a uniform “Dutch school” in this period; rather, their approaches varied in the degree to which they blended new and traditional methods.24 Even so, Dekkers argues that they had a similar goal: “to make the science of law—and thus ultimately law itself—purer, more attractive, more alive, in a word: more human.”25
Peckius seems to express a similar spirit. In the Epistola Dedicatoria to his work De testamentis mariti et uxoris, Peckius shows a little more openness regarding novelty, but only in what pertains to method.26 In this context, he refers to Roman laws (leges romanae), which he states are aided by the interpretations of many illustrious men, as having regained their brilliance after barbarous errors were pushed away. Nevertheless, Peckius still claims that these laws are sometimes discussed in confusing and disorganized ways, often without proper judgment, and guidance is required to make them clearer and easier to understand, saving time and effort.27 He further suggests that “in many cases, no innovation, new judgment or new doctrine is necessary, but a new, adequate and ascertained method, which brings the greatest light to both memory and all studies.”28 It is unclear whether Peckius implies the use of a humanist method here29 or perhaps something different and more practical. He does not explain further.
In any case, at least some degree of novelty in law was a reality in the late sixteenth century as the conditions in the early modern Low Countries raised several complex juridical challenges. Inadvertently or not, this situation affected both Peckius’ writings destined for publication and the content of his lectures at the University of Leuven. As we have seen in Peckius’ earlier statement, even he admits that novelty might sometimes be necessary regarding methods and when antiquity had fallen due to the “calamity of times.” And what times, in his perspective, could have been more calamitous than those in the late sixteenth century in the Low Countries, marked by religious and political wars? Could old anti-iconoclasm provisions address the legal issues of the Iconoclastic Fury? Were old constitutions enough to reform the early modern clergy and restore its good reputation?
2 The Council of Trent and the Challenge of the ius novissimum
Even within the traditional realm of canon law, complexity and some degree of innovation were unavoidable. In this aspect, although canonists borrowed methods from civilists, canon law fundamentally differed from Roman law. From the beginning, the corpus of authoritative texts did not remain stagnant in canon law, as popes continually issued new decretal letters, and new Church Councils convened to address pertinent issues.30 In the late sixteenth century, canon law had to incorporate the new authoritative decrees from the Council of Trent, the ius novissimum that loyal Catholic jurists were expected to uphold. At the same time, Pope Pius IV forbade all people—clergy and laity—from interpreting the decrees of the Council of Trent without permission. This prohibition included “publishing any form of commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of the said Council […].”31 The interpretation of the decrees was reserved to the Apostolic See, and those who disobeyed—if prelates—would be subjected to an interdict, and all others would be excommunicated.32 Later, in August 1564, the Congregation of the Council was established with the duty to decide on the correct interpretation and ensure the observance of the decrees of the Council of Trent.33
This prohibition and monopoly of interpretation had severe consequences. Paolo Prodi claims that not including the decrees of Trent in the regular corpus of canon law and its establishment as a somewhat superior normative text detached from the basis of the Corpus Iuris Canonici eventually caused a profound crisis in canon law. He proposes that the separation between canon law and theology was accentuated, and canonistic science lost space as a generator of law.34 Other scholars, such as Simon Ditchfield, argue that Prodi does not provide enough justification for this claim.35 Whether Trent and its forms of interpretation ultimately caused such a significant crisis in the canon law discipline remains unclear.
In any case, in this initial moment after the promulgation of the decrees of Trent, canon law scholar and professor Petrus Peckius likely felt both obligated to integrate and teach the decrees of the Council of Trent and compelled to tread carefully in their interpretation. In this evolving context, it could be argued that no entirely safe and stable intellectual path existed.
The difficulty surrounding the best intellectual course of action regarding the interpretation and teaching of the Council of Trent seems to have remained a subject of interest and conflict in the following decades. To illustrate this, we call attention to the words of a later Leuven professor of canon law, Stephanus Weyms (Etienne Weyms, 1533–1633), who attests to a particular reservation in actually publishing content about the decrees of Trent.
In his treatise “Ad Constitutiones XXIV ex antiquo iure desumptas, et per Concilium Tridentinum speciatim innovatas analysis,”36 published in 1628, Weyms comments on twenty-four constitutions from previous canon law, which he understands to have been affected by the decrees of the Council of Trent, for use in education and the ecclesiastical courts (“Usibus Scholae et Fori potissimum Ecclesiastici perquam utilis”).37 Yet, in his letter “Ad lectorem,” Weyms strives to assure the reader that he is not sinning by publishing this book, even in the face of Pope Pius IV’s prohibition against any form of interpretation regarding the Council of Trent. For example, Weyms claims that he is not attempting to interpret or comment on the decrees of Trent but rather the constitutions of previous popes, which they altered or had their use restated.38 Weyms also claims that it does not seem to be the intention of the Pope that all judges, advocates, or law professors should completely abstain from any interpretation. He believes that interpretations that follow the rules and precepts of law can either restrict the broader meaning of words as intended by the Council, expand more restrictive terms, clarify ambiguous language, or moderate the rigor of the words based on the circumstances of a case and considerations of equity and reason. The interpretation, forbidden to others and reserved to the Apostolic See, regarded completely uncertain or ambiguous meanings. According to Weyms, these would be the situations in which a resolution could not be achieved with the aid of words or rules of law or in new cases that could not be solved with the words or intention of the Council.39 Furthermore, Weyms argues that other serious authors interpret the decrees of the Council of Trent in a similar manner, citing, among others, Martín de Azpilcueta (1491–1586), Juan de Medina (1490–1547), Giacomo Menochio (1532–1607), Hieronymus Gonzalez (?), and Juan Azor (1535–1603).40
More crucially, Weyms also calls attention to his role as a professor in teaching these earlier canons and how the teachers and doctors of the universities and studia generalia (i.e., study houses or institutions for teaching) were required to not only accept the Tridentine decrees in their entirety but also to teach and interpret what pertains to the Catholic faith according to their norms.41 Thus, one could say that to be silent about the decrees would be to fail in one’s duty as a good Catholic canon law professor. At the same time, to speak of them and provide explanations and interpretations, one had to be careful not to challenge Pope Pius IV’s prohibition.
Weyms’ caution and well-grounded caveat at the beginning of his 1628 treatise highlight how the Council of Trent remained a challenging topic to address. During the period when Peckius was publishing most of his works, and his student’s surviving notes were written (the 1570s), these concerns would have appeared considerably more immediate and the interpretative territories even more uncharted. The strategies for justifying and safely interpreting Trent, which Weyms alludes to—strategies that perhaps were not widely accepted—might not have been apparent then. Additionally, some essential resources that facilitated the understanding of the Tridentine spirit, such as Cardinal Charles Borromeo’s Acta Ecclesiae Mediolanensis (1583), a collection of decrees from provincial and diocesan synods from the ecclesiastical province of Milan and described by Simon Ditchfield as a “practical ‘how to’ manual for the conscientious prelate,”42 were not published when Peckius was teaching and writing most of his works.43 It is even unclear whether Peckius could access the decisions of the Congregation of the Council in the late sixteenth century, even though it was already operational, as the first official collection of its decrees appears to have been published only in the early eighteenth century.44
In contrast, Peckius’ published works and lectures on canon law are the product of a period when the decrees of Trent were relatively much newer. After all, Peckius began his professorship career when the third phase of the Council Trent (1562–1563) was still ongoing. Therefore, Peckius’ approach sheds some light on how a canonist from a respected institution reacted during a time of evolving perspectives and uncertainties regarding the ius novissimum.
How did Petrus Peckius react to this situation? Did he remain in an ivory tower, detached from the juridical problems of his world, or did he take action to shape the law and teach his students according to the necessities of his time, including the decrees of Trent? How would he have considered the interpretative limits of Pius IV’s prohibition?
In this book, we investigate whether Peckius, despite approaching novelty cautiously, adapted his work to address contemporary challenges and actively incorporated the Council of Trent’s decrees into his writings. The focus is not on the idea of novelty or innovation itself as something never created before in the history of humanity, nor is it to try to prove somehow that Peckius was a jurist way ahead of his time. Instead, we aim to explore Peckius’ relationship with his contemporary era and legal trends, the authority he attributed to sources during this turbulent period, and the ideas that permeated his lectures at the University of Leuven—observing, ultimately, how his framing of canon law fell into a bigger picture. In this manner, we seek to open a new window into the considerable work of a jurist who has not received much attention from the academic community.
3 Catholic Reform, the Council of Trent, and the Leuven Jurist Petrus Peckius
The spirit of Catholic Reform,45 and especially the Council of Trent, changed Europe significantly. The rise of Protestantism and the consequential movement of inner renewal and counter-reformation by the Roman Catholic Church not only left a mark in the theological sphere but also had severe political and juridical consequences. There is a vast body of literature concerning the Council of Trent, which continues to grow with time. This includes more classic as well as recent general studies on the events of the Council and its legacy,46 examinations of the distinctions between the Council itself and what later became known as Tridentinism,47 analyses of the Council’s impact across different regions throughout time, and investigations into the subsequent activities of the Congregation of the Council.48
While this investigation acknowledges and is informed by such comprehensive works, its primary focus is on the impact of the Council of Trent in the Low Countries in the late sixteenth century, as seen through the works and lectures of a specific jurist, Petrus Peckius. The Low Countries experienced significant religious changes in the late sixteenth century. Even before the Council of Trent concluded, in 1559, Pope Paul IV, through the bull Super universitas, had ordered the reorganization of local dioceses, establishing fourteen new ones. This decision sparked considerable controversy.49 The changes of the Catholic Reform were only just beginning.
Research has shown that the Council of Trent affected various regions in the Low Countries. For instance, James D. Tracy’s 1985 analysis, which considers both Catholic Reform in the Spanish Netherlands and the Catholicism that survived in the Dutch Republic, identifies numerous studies on this topic.50 Tracy argues, for example, that some obstacles to Catholic Reform were perhaps less severe in the Low Countries than in other regions and that, at the time of Archdukes Albert and Isabella (1598–1633), Protestant presence was reduced in the Habsburg Low Countries, and the Catholic Church was reshaped in a more Tridentine image.51 According to Tracy, the studies suggest that throughout the seventeenth century, there was a trend toward improving pastoral care, enhancing the moral character of the clergy, and raising the moral expectations of the population in the Spanish Low Countries.52 A recent study by Morgane Belin on Catholic reform in the Diocese of Namur from 1559 to 1666 also reveals a positive implementation of reforms aligning with the Tridentine decrees that took place in the region during the same period. Belin highlights improvements in the spiritual state of the diocese, centralization of pastoral issues, organization of the episcopal administration, and the structuring of synods and visitations.53 Thus, it seems that eventually, the spirit of the Catholic Reformation did have the desired effect in the Low Countries.
Nevertheless, pinpointing when these changes took root or when the implementation of Trent’s reforms became a more tangible project is challenging. While some earlier studies assumed that a real Tridentine reform project only truly began in the Low Countries in the seventeenth century, recent research suggests this might not be entirely the case.
In his classic work from 1929, L’introduction des décrets du Concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principauté de Liège, Fernand Willocx investigates the difficulties of implementing the decrees of Trent in the late sixteenth century. He explores the roles of the royal authorities and bishops in the implementation across various regions, including Cambrai, Utrecht, Liège, and Mechelen.54 Willocx highlights several obstacles to effective implementation55 and argues that the Tridentine Reform did not fully take root until later, particularly during the period of Archdukes Albert and Isabella.56
Alternatively, other scholars have pointed out that, despite the difficulties of implementation, a Tridentine reform project already existed earlier in the sixteenth century. In the volume Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands by Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker, and Wim François, several articles indicate that such reforms started even before the end of the Council of Trent and continued throughout the sixteenth century, though not always with the backing of the Habsburg authorities.57 We call attention to some of them. As Violet Soen and Aurelie Van de Meulebroucke demonstrate, the noble bishop of Cambrai, Robert de Croÿ, having been present at the first session of the Council Trent, made efforts concerning Tridentine reform quite early on, establishing a Provincial Council in 1548 and promulgating Charles V’s Formula Reformationis.58 Additionally, Michal Bauwens’ study of the parish of Saint James in Ghent (1561–1630) reveals that, despite the disruption from iconoclasm and the Calvinist Republic, Catholic revival under Alexander Farnese in 1584 led to a flourishing parish life. During this period, parishioners actively supported church repairs and paid considerable amounts for elaborate funerals. Such engagement from the parishioners aligned with Trent’s ideals, though it was primarily a result of their own proactive efforts.59 Still concerning Ghent, Annelies Somers reveals that the chapter of St. Pharahild, due to financial difficulties, demonstrated a willingness to implement the decrees of Trent between 1584 and 1614. She claims that this had an actual effect in reproving those who were negligent or absent in their offices and ensuring greater care concerning liturgy.60 Moreover, a study by Nicolas Simon investigates the impact of the Council of Trent on the legislation enacted by Philip II between 1580 and 1598. Simon demonstrates that the government aimed to address political and religious issues by enacting Trent’s decrees while also utilizing pre-Trent edicts, which were renewed and adapted to serve as tools for maintaining social order.61
In another contribution, Violet Soen demonstrates that the Council of Trent played a significant role in shaping the very preconditions for the Dutch Revolt, given the pervasive fear of exclusive Catholicism and harsh repression. Soen emphasizes that Trent was a tangible reality rather than a myth and that its decrees encompassed a reform program that Philip II aimed to implement.62 In a similar vein, Gustaaf Janssens explores how the Duke of Alba, beginning in 1567 as Governor-General, sought to enforce the decrees of the Council of Trent while pursuing his apparent goal of defending the Catholic faith and combating heresy, actions that contributed to the growing tensions.63
Therefore, until now, works such as these have suggested the existence of an earlier effort to implement the Catholic Reform and the Tridentine decrees. However, there is discussion regarding how, by whom, and with what speed and effectiveness it was carried out in different regions and spheres. The situation seems to vary between institutions and areas of the Low Countries, especially amid the chaotic religious wars of the late sixteenth century. More studies from different perspectives seem necessary to further comprehend this complex phenomenon, and we draw attention to a significant gap in this puzzle: the effect of Trent on local university education, especially regarding canon law.
To date, there has been no analysis of how the Catholic Reformation and the decrees of the Council of Trent influenced teaching practices in canon law at the University of Leuven and the production of jurisprudence there. Additionally, no studies have examined the work and lectures of Petrus Peckius.
During the late sixteenth century, the University of Leuven stood amid a hurricane of political events. Although it had previously blossomed like never before, it now faced a period of considerable turmoil for the Low Countries, marked by incidents such as the Iconoclastic Fury (1566–1567), the persecutions by the Council of Troubles (1567–1576), the start of the Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648) and the Spanish Fury (1572–1579). Even if, during the 1570s, a significant number of people left Leuven due to the effects of war and plague,64 the classes in some faculties continued for quite some time. The Faculty of Law, for example, managed to function until its official suspension between 1584 and 1586.65 Eventually, the troubles caused significant disorganization within university services, exhausted resources, and led to the suspension of courses as well as the scattering of students. The university would only begin to recover more substantially later, with the archdukes Albert and Isabella.66
From 1575 to 1577, the canon law lectures of Petrus Peckius, which have survived through notes of one of his students, took place amidst quite a chaotic moment, before this official closure. It was also during the 1560s and 1570s that Peckius published two large works of canon law, Commentarium ad regulas Juris canonici libri VI decretalium (Leuven, 1564) and De sacrosanctis et catholicis Christi ecclesiis reparandis ac reficiendis (1573), among other works.67
Despite the available literature on the juridical curriculum at the University of Leuven and its evolution during the early modern period,68 it remains difficult to ascertain what professors truly imparted to their students in class and how this translated into practical jurisprudence.
The law produced at the university did not remain unchanged in the face of a turbulent world. According to Waelkens, the Faculties of Civil and Canon Law and its ius commune had greatly changed from the beginning to the end of the sixteenth century—going from a “champion of absolutism” to stressing, one hundred years later, “the autonomy of jurists and the rights of individuals according to the theory of natural law.”69 But how was canon law affected specifically? The Council of Trent initiated clerical reforms and significant structural changes within the Church and its jurisdiction, inevitably affecting the teaching and scholarship of canon law. The key question is whether these changes had already influenced the jurisprudence and the content taught in Leuven in the late sixteenth century, or, if they had, how and to what extent this occurred.
Questions remain as to how the University of Leuven handled this moment of transition, especially concerning the implementation of the Tridentine decrees.
The University of Leuven played a significant role in both the proceedings of the Council of Trent and its subsequent implementation in the Low Countries. Regarding the latter, as Willocx describes, the university was consulted by the Duchess of Parma regarding the publication of Trent’s decrees, and in response, the faculties of theology, canon law, and civil law unanimously recommended their acceptance and enforcement. They urged the king’s solemn acceptance of the decrees and recommended that bishops and universities be ordered to publish and implement them, particularly through provincial councils. However, despite this initial support, the university took some time before officially publishing itself the decrees.70
Although, according to the Council of Trent (Sess. 25, cap. 2, de refor.), universities were required to receive the decrees and take an oath to uphold them,71 deliberations on their publication at the University of Leuven only began in September 1565, following an order from the Duchess of Parma. A majority decision was not reached until November 3, when the university then scheduled the publication for December 22, 1565, and appointed a commission to organize the event. This commission included Petrus Peckius and Vulmarus Beernaertius (Ulmer Bernaerts, ca. 1510–1571) from canon law, Tiletanus (Josse Ravesteyn, ca. 1506–1570) and Michael Baius (1513–1589) from theology, and Elbertus Leoninus (Elbert de Leeuw, 1519–1598) and Joannes Wamesius (Jean Wamèse, 1524–1590) from civil law. After meeting on December 3, the commission planned a public ceremony, but concerns from the Faculty of Arts about the decrees’ impact on their nomination privileges, along with requests for further delays from the Bishop of Liège, led to a postponement. The situation changed with the arrival of the Duke of Alba and the publication of the decrees on marriage in all the parishes of the city. Despite another request for delay from the Faculty of Arts, the university officially published the Council of Trent’s decrees on November 29, 1567. In a general assembly, the rector and professors publicly endorsed the decrees and took an oath to uphold them.72 Among those present, there were the professors of civil and canon law, including Petrus Peckius.73
The literature shows that the professors of the Faculty of Theology had been involved in the Council of Trent. They influenced the decrees on Scriptures and traditions in the first period, especially the versions of the Bible, and were involved in discussions on the sacraments in the second period. The Leuven theologians even took care of an amended edition of the Vulgate Bible (1547).74 Nonetheless, it is less known that the Faculty of Canon Law professors were also quite aware of Trent’s developments and decrees. Vulmarus Bernartius, the primarius of canon law from 1548 to 1571, was actually sent by Charles V to the Council of Trent along with professors of theology from Leuven, for the second period of the Council.75 Furthermore, when Count Egmont received permission from Philip II to form a limited commission to discuss the religious problems of the Seventeen Provinces, including the execution and implementation of the decrees of Trent, Vulmarus Bernartius was the only professor of canon law to be invited by Margaret of Parma for the task.76 Unfortunately, his written material did not survive.77
Additionally, another professor of canon law in Leuven had a particular connection with the decrees of the Council of Trent. A report from January 31, 1568, reveals that Joannes Molinaeus (Jean van der Meulene, also known as Jean Dumoulin, 1525–1575), who held the royal chair for the Decree of Gratian, deviated from the prescribed curriculum for his classes. Instead, he taught the decrees of Trent and dictated the third book of the commentaries on the pontifical law De sacramentis.78 Joannes Molinaeus purportedly claimed that when he taught the Decree of Gratian, the students did not attend (“quod docendo decretum Gratiani auditoribus destituatur”79 ). The rector noted that, despite warnings, it was not the first time Joannes Molinaeus behaved this way and that he had neglected this course in previous years as well. The rector emphasized that the university had already informed Duchess Margaret of Parma about this unconventional behavior; however, it is unclear whether the rector directed his criticism at the fact the professor was teaching the decrees of Trent. What appeared to be reproached was the abandonment of the content from the Decree of Gratian.80 The exact events surrounding this matter remain vague. Regardless, Joannes Molinaeus found an unfortunate fate. Opposing the establishment of new bishoprics in Belgium, he traveled to Italy to argue against it in 1573 but returned unsuccessful. Doubts about his orthodoxy caused him to go into seclusion, where he is said to have died from mental illness in 1575.81
Perhaps his behavior was not so out of line after all, as Willocx notes that in April of the same year, Philip II instructed the theology and canon law professors to incorporate lessons on the Council’s doctrinal and disciplinary canons, especially directing the royal chair professor to address related issues regarding persons and sacraments.82
Such information indicates that current events and new trends impacted the Faculty of Canon Law and its professors’ activities. Still, it is difficult to determine how and to what extent these influences played a part, especially concerning teaching practices and the jurisprudence produced. Even if Joannes Molinaeus might have been an odd case, and Philip II later ordered the royal professor to include the Council of Trent, pressing questions remain: Did the other professors keep up with the trends of their time, bringing current authors, normative texts, and in fact brought the new Tridentine decrees—exploring their interpretations and implications in the classroom— or did they rely on older and perhaps safer traditions for teaching and writing? How did they navigate the tension between their duty to implement the decrees of Trent and the uncertainty created by restrictions on interpretation? In this context, Petrus Peckius’ body of work provides significant insights into academic practices at the University of Leuven of that period. Unlike Vulmarus Bernartius and Joannes Molinaeus, Peckius extensively published treatises in canon law and left behind student notes from his lectures as second ordinarius between 1575 and 1577.
We have seen that literature has contemplated the Council of Trent in many spheres, and with regard to the implementation of the Council in the Low Countries, started reporting patterns of influence of the decrees in different areas even before the seventeenth century. Nevertheless, some mysteries remain, specifically regarding the legal approach and how the university introduced the Council of Trent in its lectures. Though, as Waelkens pointed out, the legal doctrine produced in the University of Leuven is regarded as having considerably changed from the late sixteenth to the seventeenth century,83 it remains unclear as to how the spirit of the Catholic Reform, the Council of Trent, and the chaotic context of religious wars and violence affected the doctrine produced in the University of Leuven—especially as to canon law.
In this sense, both Peckius’ published treatises on canon law and the surviving manuscripts of his lectures are a window into how a Leuven canonist, who himself graduated in the same institution, brought these subjects to the public and into the lecture halls. Recent research into sixteenth-century student notes from Leuven has uncovered valuable insights into teaching practices and knowledge production in other fields, including theology, biblical scholarship, logic, and languages, among others.84 Even with these advances, there has been no equivalent analysis of Leuven canon law student notes—a gap we seek to address here.85 In addition, it is imperative to draw attention to another figure frequently overlooked by literature: Petrus Peckius himself. Despite being a prolific writer and acclaimed author of his time, surprisingly little academic literature is focused on him, as we will demonstrate.86
4 Shaping Canon Law in an Age of Reform: Research Design
References to the Council of Trent found in sixteenth-century classes and books do not necessarily prove that a professor-canonist was “shaping canon law” in an Age of Reform. As our study continues, we will explore the positions adopted by Peckius toward the challenges posed by the Catholic Reform. In specific, we seek to observe to what extent he adopted the active role of a loyal Catholic to promote the Council of Trent and shaped the law to address the needs of his time and the interests of royal authorities. In order to build a clear narrative, we will delve into Peckius’ canon law production taking into account four concrete aspects (sub-goals).
Firstly, it is necessary to place Peckius within the framework of canon law, considering his citations, style, and positions. This involves determining whether he demonstrated an awareness of and interest in newer sources and methods.
Secondly, the relationship between Peckius’ works and lectures and the historical events of his period and area must be observed. This includes assessing whether his teachings and published texts focused on general doctrine or directly addressed current juridical issues, and the extent to which he referenced actual historical events, decisions of the time, or his own consilia.
More centrally, it is essential to verify how and to what extent Peckius incorporated the decrees of the Council of Trent into his teachings and writings. This involves examining whether he quoted the decrees directly, provided further interpretation, and assessed their degree of authority, as well as determining if the decrees influenced his previous positions on specific subjects.
Finally, due to the different nature of the sources left by him, it is also essential to pay attention to the similarities and differences between Peckius’ classroom practice and published works. This includes identifying whether he expressed different opinions in the two types of sources, and whether his style, methods, and arguments changed.
∵
TEMPORAL LIMITATIONS—Since this research centers on Peckius and his body of work as a jurist, it primarily concerns the late sixteenth century and the historical context in which he lived and authored his writings. While occasional references may be made to earlier legal situations or future developments in history and law, they are not the primary focus; rather, they are included to provide context or further elucidate aspects of Peckius’ work.
∵
TOPIC LIMITATIONS—This research analyzes Peckius’ writings as published by him or as they have survived in annotated form by his students. However, it does not focus on assessing the impact of his work, such as his influence on other jurists or whether Peckius is cited in practical decisions from his time or after. There is some information concerning his impact, but this mostly relates to the analysis of his content and in tracing his profile as a canonist and professor.87 Furthermore, while this research examines manuscript student notes from the University of Leuven, it does not primarily adopt a codicological approach, which explores the “archeology of books.”88 Instead, this study’s emphasis lies on the intellectual and juridical content of the notes, as it does with his published works.
Finally, a more significant and restrictive limitation for this research is one of thematic nature. Even within canon law, as demonstrated in the next section, Peckius meticulously explored numerous complex subjects. Proposing to examine all these themes and sources exhaustively would risk superficiality. Therefore, we have chosen a selected thematic approach, which allows for a more in-depth analysis. Specifically, we will delve into Peckius’ treatment of two critical subjects: the reparation of churches and clerical discipline, ensuring a detailed exploration of each. The way these themes were chosen is explored below.
5 Methodology
This study utilizes qualitative documental analysis, focusing closely on Peckius’ written sources in canon law, which we will enumerate in detail later in this section. What is meant by documental analysis here is a “systematic procedure to review and evaluate documents.”89 This process involves first skimming the documents in the initial analysis, then reading in for a thorough examination before proceeding to interpret and correlate the data to achieve understanding.90 Because Peckius’ sources are in Latin, and some are in manuscript form, this process also involves transcription and translation using paleographic techniques.91 Furthermore, we also take into account limitations the sources might bring (e.g., the fact that Peckius’ works might lack detail in some points or that not all writings pertinent to some themes survived) and even some biases in them, since Peckius’ treatises and the notes of his student were written with a particular purpose and target audience in mind.92
The main research objective here is explanatory and not simply descriptive in the measure that it seeks not only to clarify what Peckius’ canon law framework is and whether he integrated the decrees of Trent and elements of his context, but also to understand the underlying motives behind such choices.93 This research is intrinsically an interdisciplinary work between the fields of law and history. We frame it as a work of “legal history” in the sense employed by Randal Lesaffer, as different from “history in law” and “law in history,” by holding a middle ground between the two approaches that treats law as a “self-contained historical phenomenon,” while investigating jurisprudence as it was in a “certain time and place in history.”94 Here, the historical element and broader context cannot be ignored, and, in fact, in this study, it plays a vital role in the central juridical question concerning Peckius’ canon law approach.
Thus, equipped with this core framework, we delve into each subsequent step.
∵
INITIAL WORK—First and foremost, we gathered and listed the published works available from Petrus Peckius, as well as searched for and assessed manuscripts linked to his lectures located in the Royal Library of Belgium (Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België—KBR)95 and the State Archives of Belgium (Rijksarchief in België). Next, having gained a comprehensive view of Peckius’ surviving works (both manuscript and printed), along with an exploration of secondary literature about him and the overarching themes of this research,96 we conducted an initial analysis of the material during our preliminary reading. Specifically, regarding his printed books, we examined and listed titles, sub-headings, and the themes Peckius explored in his sources (particularly those on canon law) while also investigating references to the Council of Trent in the margins or throughout the text. As for the manuscripts, the same was carried out, with the addition of the use of paleography to transcribe this initial content and thus create a map of the content available and key references to the Tridentine decrees. Then, we proceeded to select the main themes of the research.
∵
SELECTION OF SUBJECTS OF FOCUS: REPARATION OF CHURCHES AND CLERICAL DISCIPLINE—Considering the depth to which Peckius examines many complex themes, attempting to simultaneously cover all the canon law topics he explores in this study would inevitably result in a superficial analysis. Thus, while focusing on selected themes may constrain the scope of our conclusions, it nonetheless offers a more thorough and secure examination of the sources and themes we analyze, thereby presenting a more balanced portrayal of Peckius as a jurist.97
Given that the primary focus of this investigation is to assess the influence of the decrees of the Council of Trent and the contemporary historical and juridical context within Peckius’ scholarship, the themes of focus were selected as follows. Considering the initial work mentioned above, within the universe of topics explored by Peckius, we used the following criteria to select the main themes of study: (1) whether Peckius discussed a subject especially treated by the decrees of Trent; (2) whether there were express citations from Peckius to the Council of Trent; and (3) whether the theme was significantly related to a current historical or juridical issue.98 Furthermore, we tried to privilege themes that appeared both in the student notes and his published works so that different types of sources and sides of his career could be correlated and compared.
The themes addressed by Peckius that met these criteria and were therefore selected are the reparation of churches and clerical discipline. The topic of reparation of churches is associated with a significant historical event, namely the aftermath of the Iconoclastic Fury (1566–1567) in the Low Countries, and it also pertains to Tridentine provisions, including those concerning the protection of images and other related matters. In contrast, the topic of clerical discipline holds a pivotal role in the Council of Trent’s output, particularly concerning reformation decrees that are mentioned by Peckius in several matters (e.g., regulations on the life and honesty of clerics, clerical concubinage, privileges of married clerics, and the duty of residence). This latter topic also relates to the historical context of criticism toward the clergy and the demand for disciplinary reform. Both themes are examined in Part 1 and Part 2 of this book, forming the core of the analysis.
∵
SELECTED MAIN SOURCES—With the main themes identified, we narrowed our focus to sources that address them. Therefore, the detailed analysis in both Part 1 and Part 2 of this book primarily centers on the following works. Concerning Peckius’ published treatises, the selected ones were (1) De sacrosanctis et catholicis Christi ecclesiis reparandis ac reficiendis (Leuven, 1573); (2) De continentia clericorum sive de non alendis concubinis (Leuven, 1644), and (3) Ad regulas iuris canonici commentaria (Leuven, 1573).99
Regarding the notes of Peckius’ students, the primary source was a codex containing the student Theodorus Brecker’s records of Peckius’ canon law lectures, spanning from October 1575 to ca. October 1577.100 Due to the themes explored (i.e., reparation of churches and clerical discipline), the core analysis considered especially the following titles in the student notes: De vita et honestate clericorum (VI 3.1.1, Clerici, fol.75r–76r), De clericis coniugatis (VI 3.2.1, Clerici, fol. 76r–77v), De clericis non residentibus in ecclesia vel praebenda (VI 3.3.1, Consuetudinem, fol. 77v–81v), De clerico aegrotante (VI 3.5.1, Pastoralis, fol. 139v–140r), and De consecratione ecclesiae (VI 3.21.1, Si ecclesiam, fol. 159v–162v).101
∵
GENERAL (PRE-)ANALYSIS AND THE EXPERIMENTAL USE OF ATLAS.TI—Despite these sources being the focus, a general outlook into Peckius’ whole surviving corpus of works is considered in a Preliminary Part before Parts 1 and 2. There, we list all of Peckius’ published works and known surviving manuscripts—giving general explanations about the characteristics and main theme of the work, when it was produced in relation to Peckius’ career, and eventual relevant aspects to the publication, such as data acquired from the table of contents, prefaces, dedication letters, post-scripts, or information provided by secondary literature. This is done to explain Peckius’ career track and paint a bigger picture of his production in the context of his life. In this preliminary analysis, we also highlight some of his personal connections and what he stated to be his goals and vision toward law in such prefaces and letters of works.
Furthermore, with the student notes, we go beyond that in our preliminary analysis, providing a “helicopter view” of its contents and influences. Namely, we describe the characteristics and structure of the manuscript, then track all of the sources that could be identified in the texts and the margins of the manuscript student notes. This tracking is done throughout Peckius’ teachings about the clergy in Book 3 of the Liber Sextus, where all our selected subjects lie.102
This initial manuscript analysis was done with the aid of the CAQDAS (Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software) ATLAS.ti,103 which allows the researcher to tag or code specific categories in the digital version of the source. ATLAS.ti is a versatile qualitative analysis tool designed for text, graphics, audio, and video data. It is utilized across multiple disciplines, such as economics, criminology, and anthropology, enabling systematic coding and data linkage. Researchers selectively apply codes to text segments, facilitating coherent connections between findings and information. Thus, this software allows for systematic observation of data, discoveries, and interpretations via a digital map during research.104
Researchers such as Hanna Schebesta highlight ATLAS.ti’s successful application in diverse fields, emphasizing that it is compatible with legal research and brings new analytical opportunities. In this sense, the software has the advantages of transparency and clarity, as well as aiding in the management of a large quantity of data that would otherwise be very difficult for the individual researcher to analyze.105 Because of these advantages and the previous use of this tool in another type of research during a master’s thesis,106 we decided to employ this software and methodology in our study experimentally in relation to our preliminary analysis of the manuscript in order to draw out a map of Peckius’ influences.
The following actions were carried out in the preliminary analysis with ATLAS.ti. Initially, we assigned specific codes for each title and central theme found in the Liber Sextus. We designated other types of codes for each author quoted by Peckius, authority text, compilation, and mention of the Council of Trent. We also coded for discussions of real case examples and direct mentions of the University of Leuven. Additionally, characteristic codes were added further to define the quotes of the Council of Trent, marking, for example, whether they were generic, specific, direct, or paraphrased. Since the software allows researchers to see, among other things, the co-occurrence of these codes in tables and graphs, we were able to analyze them in relation to each other in various combinations. The idea was to see not only how many titles each source appeared in but also their distribution throughout the manuscript section.107 We also wished to see, as a whole, whether Peckius consistently quoted similar authors throughout different topics or if he seemed to be influenced by a certain style of author, at least in this more macro perspective.
Additionally, to understand more about Peckius’ influences concerning the authors cited, we also elaborated a relation of the corresponding time frame of each author quoted in this part, as well as their place of origin and whether they were known for participating in a certain school of thought (e.g., whether they were, for example, humanist, a member of the School of Salamanca, etc.). This last part regarding further characteristics of the authors was performed outside of ATLAS.ti,108 with the data already exported from its system indicating all authors, compilations, and authoritative texts used and how often they featured per title in the manuscript. For this later analysis of the authors, we researched each of them individually and generated specific data sheets to manage information and produce graphs and tables.
Thus, after combining the exploration of Peckius’ life, career, and published works with this comprehensive overview of his manuscript, the study proceeded to the main analysis.
∵
MAIN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED SUBJECTS—The main analysis concerned the selected subjects of the reparation of churches and clerical discipline. First, we collected relevant secondary literature about the local context as well as historiographical and juridical sources on these themes in the period. Consequently, in each relevant part, there is a literature review concerning the specific themes and subtopics explored. At the same time, we selected all possible fragments from Peckius’ writings that were compatible in any way with the abovementioned subjects from the general corpus already gathered (cf. the “Selected main sources” above for the core ones). We carefully transcribed, translated, and analyzed these passages, which are explained in detail in this book. Special attention was given to the types of arguments Peckius brings, and to which sources (i.e., authority texts, compilations, authors, and more) are used.
Unlike in the Preliminary Part section, this was not done through ATLAS.ti or by seeking to assess a general pattern of repetition and usage of these sources per title.109 In the main analysis, the focus is on how Peckius uses these references in the microcontext of his arguments more directly. For this purpose, we go ad fontes, examining the original sources in depth. We consulted authoritative civil and canon law texts and aimed to incorporate primary literary sources on the subjects explored, focusing on the authors and works referenced by Peckius himself.
In this sense, although we sought to include as many of Peckius’ quoted references as possible, consulting whether the original works matched Peckius’ explanation of them, it was not feasible to include all of them in their entirety. In any case, this would be innocuous, as the goal is to understand Peckius’ approach and not rewrite his books citation by citation. For this reason, although we sought to go to the original sources quoted by him as much as possible to frame Peckius’ positions, we privileged giving further attention to citations that Peckius himself indicated as crucial, appeared in what we understood to be central or polemic arguments, or were particularly relevant for answering our highlighted subquestions. We also sought to determine whether there were instances in which Peckius took a notably different approach from other authors.110
In this manner, when the text indicates that Peckius referred to someone (e.g., “Quoting Panormitanus, Peckius argues …”) with no other footnote or later indication of the author’s original thought beyond where he appears in Peckius’ work, it should be understood that the author (in the example, Panormitanus) is being quoted through Peckius. When the original source is consulted in this study, there is always a footnote indication, and the original author’s opinion is usually highlighted in the main text.
Beyond this descriptive work on Peckius’ writings on each specific subject, this book adopts an analytical perspective to address each sub-goal proposed in relation to each part. These sub-goals guide the examination of the chosen subject and specific points within each part, ultimately correlating these perspectives to answer the study’s main question. Expressly, the analysis of each topic and subtopic is framed to determine Peckius’ general place within the framework of canon law, the extent to which his works and lectures related to the historical events of his period and area, how he incorporated the decrees of the Council of Trent, and the main similarities and differences between Peckius’ classroom practices and his published works. For the last point, a comparative approach is used to examine his stance in the classroom versus his public persona in published works, which is based on textual similarities between the notes and treatises when there is sufficient compatibility in the source material.
Combining the general overview of Peckius’ works and manuscripts provided in the preliminary analysis with the detailed examination of the main themes (the reparation of churches and clerical discipline) and addressing our sub-goals, we can gather sufficient data to draw conclusions. This approach will assist in determining whether Peckius was “shaping canon law” in response to the challenges posed by the Catholic Reform, and whether he integrated local issues into his juridical production.
6 Structure
Starting with the Preliminary Part, this book delves into Peckius’ life and career and the existing scholarship on his works (Chapter 1). The analysis takes a comprehensive look at his entire body of work, highlighting general aspects and intentions stated in the prefaces and introductory texts of his published pieces (Chapter 2). The focus then shifts to his unpublished works, highlighting the student notes that survived and serve as a primary source for this investigation (Chapter 3). We provide an “aerial view” of Peckius’ surviving commentary on Book 3 of the Liber Sextus, which concerns the clergy. This overview includes an analysis of authoritative texts cited, authors mentioned, and references to the Council of Trent. After establishing a general understanding of Peckius’ influences and his broader intellectual context, the examination descends to “ground level” for a more detailed analysis.
The main analysis is divided into two parts. Part 1 concerns the theme of reparation of sacred spaces after iconoclasm. In this part, we analyze a lecture on the reparation of churches and Peckius’ published treatise on the subject. The section begins with an exploration of the historical context surrounding the Iconoclastic Fury and provides an overview of Peckius’ main sources concerning church reparation (Chapter 4). The examination is structured around Peckius’ considerations regarding different phases of church restoration:111 evaluating the damage and considering the degree of reparation needed (Chapter 5), assessing the liable parties (Chapter 6), and exploring juridical tools to secure funds (Chapter 7). The spiritual aspects of church reparation (with the rites of reconsecration and reconciliation) are also considered, as well as questions concerning the privileges of the repaired churches (Chapter 8). In this context, we also compare his approaches to the subject (especially spiritual reparation) in the sources from different spheres: the classroom and the published literature (Chapter 9). In summary, we show how Peckius offered a systematic approach to addressing very real problems of his time—implying an underlying intention to restore churches to a good and sufficient state as quickly as possible, after the Iconoclastic Fury, which aligned with the royal powers’ intentions in this period. We also argue that, despite rarely referring to actual case law or local examples and only mentioning the Council of Trent a few times, Peckius’ method of presenting content in the form of practical questions was innovative and that the importance of the theme of church reparations was also reflected in the classroom.
Part 2 shifts the focus from sacred places to the people dedicated to God, the clergy. Various aspects of clerical discipline are analyzed, with the themes organized into three chapters.112 Chapter 10 examines the theme of “Life and Honesty of Clerics,” following Peckius’ approach to the first chapter of Book 3 of the Liber Sextus and explores what clerical honesty and life entailed in relation to the themes he brought to the classroom, including the treatment of misconducts, such as becoming a jester, acting, hunting, and gambling.
Chapter 11 addresses the issue of “clerics and women,” considering Peckius’ lecture on the privileges of married clergy of lower orders and an earlier treatise from his student days, published posthumously, with several arguments against clerical concubinage. This subject goes into what clerical privileges entail, how they affect the minor orders, and how marriage might change this—especially concerning personal and jurisdictional privileges, among which Peckius even considers the effect of a local concordat. Furthermore, in relation to his treatise on concubinage, we see a young Peckius directly engaging with polemic themes concerning clerics’ relationships with women, assuming a heavy stance against clerical concubinage.
The closing chapter of Part 2, Chapter 12, explores a topic of special importance in the Council of Trent: the clerical duty of residence. Here, we delve into Peckius’ lectures on the titles of the Liber Sextus’ De clericis non residentibus in ecclesia vel praebenda as well as De clerico aegrotante, combined with aspects brought up in his Ad regulas iuris canonici commentaria, and what these fragmented writings imply about his understanding of the duty of residence and its connection to income from large fruits and from daily distributions, as well as what were understood as valid reasons for absence. As a whole, in Part 2, we demonstrate that Peckius not only cites Trent but also adheres to the Tridentine spirit of clerical reform, with a frequent pastoral focus and a reiteration that clerics should be an example, or “mirror,” to the laity, which occupies both his published works and classroom practice. Furthermore, the blend of both older and newer jurisprudence he employed seems to reflect Peckius’ position and understanding of the authority of sources of canon law during this transitional period of the late sixteenth century.
Subsequently, the book proceeds to our final considerations, examining the insights from the pre-analysis alongside the detailed findings from Parts 1 and 2. This section explores the common elements in Peckius’ approach to the questions posed in this study, identifying consistent themes across his varied works. In summary, we argue that despite his diverse range of styles and adherence to the authority of old canons and the ius commune tradition, Peckius did not reside in an ivory tower but rather sought to “shape canon law” in response to the challenges posed by the Catholic Reform, and took into account his own context in the juridical production. In particular, we claim that Peckius incorporated the decrees and the spirit of Trent in his writing, and did not shy away from demonstrating a little methodological novitas.
Petrus Peckius, Ad regulas iuris canonici commentaria, (Leuven: Ex officina Ioannis Bogardi, 1573), Regula I, n.1, fol. 1r–1v.
This subject can be found in Coras at Jean Coras (Joannes Corasius), In universam sacerdotium materiam, erudita sane, ac luculenta paraphrasis, (Paris: Apud Arnoldum l’Angelier, ad secundam Regiae aulae columnam, 1549), c. 1, n. 6, fol. 2v. In Tiraqueau at André Tiraqueau (Andreas Tyraquelus), Tractatus, cessante causa cessat effectus (Venice: Franciscus Bindonus excudebat, 1553), part 1, n. 46, 16–17.
See this argument in Rebuffi at Pierre Rebuffi (Petrus Rebuffus), Praxis beneficiorum, (Rome: Apud Guliemum Facciottum, 1595), part 1, 1–2.
“[…]Ideo nos ea in re Rebuffum secuti, ne ius ipsum una cum arte confundere videamur, non decrevimus verba usitata, et apud Iurisperitos tot seculis recepta, ac veluti eiusdem artis vocabula, immutare, Quod & Quintilianus ipse, absurdum esse indicat.[…]” In Peckius, Ad regulas iuris canonici commentaria, Regula I, n.1, fol. 1v.
“[…]Magna quidem emendatione eget antiquitas, quae in multis propter temporum calamitatem lapsa est, sed tamen periculosa est novitas, quam saepius melioribus rationibus confutari, quam asseri potuisse video.” In Petrus Peckius, Ad regulas iuris canonici commentaria, Regula I, n. 1, fol. 1v.
Some considerations in this sense are found, for example, at Mantovani, Mattia. “Chapter 15 The Anatomy of a Condemnation: Descartes’s Theory of Perception and the Louvain Affair, 1637–1671.” In Descartes in the Classroom, 1st ed., Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2022, 343–382, 343.
Christian Zendri, “Novitates Pariunt Discordias: A proposito della nozione di novum nella tradizione giuridica fra medio evo ed età moderna,” Laboratoire Italien, no. 6 (2006): 37–54.
In Albericus de Rosate, Dictionarium ad utriusque iuris facilitatem pertingere nitenti maxime necessarium, rugosum quod prius erat & obscurum, octingentis & amplius, quibus scatebat mendis repurgatum splendet, (Lyon: Bertheau, 1548), s.v. “Novitates.” See also more about Rosciate’s argument at Zendri, “Novitates Pariunt Discordias,” paragraphs 6–8, 38–39. To know more about Rosciate in general, cf. the work Clarisse Siméant, “La composition et la transmission du Dictionarium juris d’Albéric de Rosate. Quelques éléments d’enquête,” in Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Paris, 17–23 July 2016, eds. Florence Demoulin-Auzary, Nicolas Laurent-Bonne, and Franck Roumy (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2022), 277–286.
@AULAM project (BOF Research Fund, project number: C14/19/012) of the Lectio Institute of the KU Leuven.
In the sixteenth century Habsburg Low Countries, censorship was widespread and not limited to the Church and State. It was also carried out by various entities, including cooperative associations, university theologians, printers, papal nuncios, and episcopal censors. See Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker, and Wim François, “Church, Censorship and Reform: Questions and New Answers Regarding the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands,” in Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, Bibliothèque de La Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique, 101 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 1–9, 2.
Andreas Thier, “Time, Law, and Legal History – Some Observations and Considerations,” Rechtsgeschichte: Zeitschrift des Max-Planck-Instituts für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte 25, no. 25 (2017): 20–44, 30.
Thomas Duve, “The School of Salamanca: A Case of Global Knowledge Production,” in The School of Salamanca: A Case of Global Knowledge Production, eds. Thomas Duve, José Luis Egío, and Christiane Birr (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 1–42, 18–21.
James Gordley, The Jurists: A Critical History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 118–19 and 156.
Randall Lesaffer, European Legal History: A Cultural and Political Perspective, trans. Jan Arriens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 340–344.
James Gordley, The Jurists: A Critical History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 112–113.
James Gordley, The Jurists: A Critical History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 119.
Alain Wijffels, “Antiqui et Recentiores: Alberico Gentili – Beyond Mos Italicus and Legal Humanism,” in Reassessing Legal Humanism and Its Claims: Petere Fontes?, eds. Paul J. du Plessis and John W. Cairns (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016), 11–41, 13.
James Gordley, The Jurists: A Critical History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 156.
Randall Lesaffer, European Legal History: A Cultural and Political Perspective, 358–359.
Randall Lesaffer, European Legal History: A Cultural and Political Perspective, 359.
James Gordley, The Jurists: A Critical History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 156–164 see especially 157.
In this study, we utilize the expressions “Low Countries” and “the Netherlands” as synonyms, and as also including the Prince-Bishopric of Liège.
René Dekkers, Het humanisme en de rechtswetenschap in de Nederlanden, Vlaamsche rechtskundige bibliotheek 19 (Antwerpen: De Sikkel, 1938).
René Dekkers, Het humanisme en de rechtswetenschap in de Nederlanden, 258–261.
Free translation of this quote. See René Dekkers, Het humanisme en de rechtswetenschap in de Nederlanden, 260–261.
Petrus Peckius, De testamentis mariti et uxoris coniuncte vel separatim factis, (Paris: Apud Michaelem Sonnium, 1564), Epistola dedicatoria.
“Non me latet leges ipsas Romanas, quarum tractationem magna ex parte in hoc opere suscipio, mea explicatione tantopere non egere, quae tot illustrium virorum interpretationibus adiutae nunc clarent, et nitorem suum tot et tam barbaris erroribus depulsis iam dudum receperunt. Sed re ipsa comperio, quod ea quae ex legibus dicuntur, alioque et alio loco confuse admodum, et saepe etiam absque iudicio probantur et definiuntur, aliquam meliorem consilio permutationem vel emendationem desiderant, ut eorum via dilucida atque aperta pateat, eademque opera et minore difficultate ea quae infinitis laboribus magnaque temporis iactura excutienda erant, cognoscantur[…]” In Petrus Peckius, De testamentis, Epistola dedicatoria.
“[…]plurimaque sunt in quibus non nova inventio, novum iudicium, novaque doctrina necessaria est, sed nova, apta, et exquisita methodus, ut quae confusa sunt in ordinem adducantur, qui et memoriae et studiis omnibus maximum lumen adfert.” Petrus Peckius, De testamentis, Epistola dedicatoria.
The humanists had a very structured approach to learning law, and, in the sixteenth century, there were already some treatises on teaching law by humanist authors. For more about this subject see Xavier Prevost, “Mos Gallicus jura docendi: La réforme humaniste de la formation des juristes,” Revue historique de droit français et étranger 89, no. 4 (October 2011): 491–513. Regarding especially humanist influences in the teaching ideas in Leuven, albeit focusing on the early seventeenth century, see Wouter Druwé and Geert Sluijs, “Reforming Legal Education in Leuven. The Humanist Ideas of Diodorus Tuldenus (1594–1645),” Historia et Ius – Rivista di Storia Giuridica dell’età Medievale e Moderna 20 (2021): 1–29.
James Gordley, The Jurists: A Critical History, 51 and 53–55.
This prohibition appears in the bull of confirmation of the Council of Trent (Benedictus Deus, 1564). The translation to English here quoted is from: James Waterworth (translator), The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent, (London: Dolman, 1848), Bull Benedictus Deus (1564), 288. A larger excerpt with this idea states, in Latin: “[…]Apostolica auctoritate inhibemus omnibus, tam Ecclesiasticis personis, cuiuscunque sint ordinis, conditionis et gradus, quam laicu quocunque honore ac potestate praeditis, Praelatis quidem sub interdicti ingressus Ecclesiae, aliis vero quicunque fuerint, sub excommunicationis latae sententiae poenis, ne quis sine auctoritate nostra audeat ullos commentarios, glossas, annotationes, scholia, ullumve omnino interpretationis genus super ipsius Concilii decretis quocunque modo edere, aut quicquam quocunque nomine, etiam sub praetextu maioris decretorum corroborationis aut executionis, aliove quaesito colore statuere.[…],” in, Canones et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici et generalis Concilii Tridentini (Leuven: Apud Petrum Zangrium Tiletanum, sub Fonte, 1567), col. 246.
James Waterworth (translator), The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent, Bull Benedictus Deus (1564), 285–289. See in Latin at Canones et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici et generalis Concilii Tridentini, Bulla Benedictus Deus, col. 243–247.
Federica Meloni, “Le rôle de la Sacrée Congrégation du Concile dans l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine,” in The Council of Trent and Beyond (1545–1700), vol. 1 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 371–394, 374–375.
Paolo Prodi, “Note sulla genesi del diritto nella chiesa post-tridentina,” in Legge e Vangelo: discussione su una legge fondamentale per la Chiesa, eds. Giuseppe Alberigo, Pier Cesare Bori, and Benedetto Calati (Brescia: Paideia, 1972), 191–223, 192, 199, and 203–206.
Simon Ditchfield, “De-centering Trent: How ‘Tridentine’ Was the Making of the First World Religion,” in The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700), eds. Wim François and Violet Soen, Refo500 Academic Studies, vol. 35 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 185–208, 202.
Étienne Weyms, Ad constitutiones XXIV ex antiquo iure desumptas, et per concilium Tridentinum speciatim innovatas analysis (Leuven: Excudebat Philippus Dormalius, 1628).
Étienne Weyms, Ad constitutiones XXIV ex antiquo iure desumptas, et per concilium Tridentinum speciatim innovatas analysis (Leuven: Excudebat Philippus Dormalius, 1628), cover.
“[…]Verum extra hanc culpam me spero pro tua aequitate constitues, cum attenderis, non me decreta dicti Concilii Tridentini interpretanda aut commentariis illustranda suscepisse; sed ex anteriorum Pontificum constitutionibus Iuris Pontificii libris comprehensis (quarum expositioni professori mei muneris ratio me adistringit) eas quas dicti Concilii decretis innovatae vel in usum revocatae sunt, suscepisse illustrandas atque adornandas hac conciliarum decretorum accessione[…]” In Étienne Weyms, Ad constitutiones XXIV ex antiquo iure desumptas, et per concilium Tridentinum speciatim innovatas analysis (Leuven: Excudebat Philippus Dormalius, 1628), Ad lectorem.
“Neque vero ea mens fuisse videtur Sanctissimi Pontif[icis] ut omni interpretatione decretorum conciliarum abstinere omnes voluerit Iudices, causarum patronos, Antecessores, etiam ea quae secundum Iuris nostri regulas et praecepta sit, dum verborum vel latius patentium vim ex mente Concilii restringunt, vel restrictiorem ampliant, aut ambigui sermonis quae sit sententia explorant, aut denique rigorem verborum ex casus ocurrentis circumstantiis et aequitatis ratione temperant: sed eam tantum interdictam esse omnibus interpretationem constituit, quae ad incertam omnino Concilii sententiam pertinet, ut ex verbis vel iuris regulis fieri certo non possit, vel qua novi casus qui nec ex verbis nec ex mente Concilii commode resolvi possunt, decidendi sunt; quae omnis Sedi Apostolicae iure merito est reservata […]” In Étienne Weyms, Ad constitutiones XXIV ex antiquo iure desumptas, et per concilium Tridentinum speciatim innovatas analysis (Leuven: Excudebat Philippus Dormalius, 1628), Ad lectorem.
Étienne Weyms, Ad constitutiones XXIV ex antiquo iure desumptas, et per concilium Tridentinum speciatim innovatas analysis (Leuven: Excudebat Philippus Dormalius, 1628), Ad lectorem.
“In qui abest tantum ut in prohibitionem Pii IV comittere videre debeam, ut magis eo ipso praescriptis eiusdem Concilii parere et conformare me iudicandus sim; qua parte magistros et Doctores Universitatum et studiorum generalium alium voluit non solum canones et decreta eius integre recipere, sed et ad eorum etiam normam, ea quae Catholica fidei sunt docere et interpretari.[…]” In Étienne Weyms, Ad constitutiones XXIV ex antiquo iure desumptas, et per concilium Tridentinum speciatim innovatas analysis (Leuven: Excudebat Philippus Dormalius, 1628), Ad lectorem.
Simon Ditchfield, “De-centering Trent: How ‘Tridentine’ Was the Making of the First World Religion,” in The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700), 185–208, 203.
By 1583, Peckius was no longer a professor in Leuven and had instead joined the Great Council of Mechelen. Cf. the Preliminary Part, Chapter 1 for information about his life. See also Simon Ditchfield, “De-centering Trent: How ‘Tridentine’ Was the Making of the First World Religion,” 202–203.
Simon Ditchfield, “De-centering Trent: How ‘Tridentine’ Was the Making of the First World Religion,” 201, footnote 54.
Some of the content in the Section 3 of this Introduction, as well as in the Chapter 3 of the Preliminary Part, overlaps with an article that was part of this thesis and pre-published in the peer-reviewed volume of the Lectio XII Annual Conference in 2023. Shared themes, methodologies, and findings are integral to both works. Additionally, certain paragraphs contain similar wording, which has been retained to maintain consistency and coherence between the two pieces. We draw attention to this and highlight Brepols’ permission to reproduce the content in this book. The reference to the article is: Ana Luiza Ferreira Gomes Silva, “Teaching canon law after Trent: mapping juridical sources in the lectures of Petrus Peckius (1529–1589),” in Innovationes Lovanienses. Crossroads of Knowledge Transfer between Antiquity, Middle Ages, and Renaissance around the premodern University of Leuven, eds. Wouter Druwé, Wim François, Violet Soen (Leuven: Brepols), forthcoming, https://doi.org/10.1484/M.LECTIO-EB.5.152282.
We are aware of the discussion around terms such as “Catholic Reform,” “Catholic Reformation,” and “Counter-Reformation.” Since, in this investigation, the focus lies on the changes to canon law and internal aspects of reparation and discipline rather than considerations of the Church in comparison with Protestantism, we chose to mainly employ the expression “Catholic Reform.” It was also possible to use “Tridentine Reformation,” but here we opted for the broader first option since it takes into account a larger context of reform. For more about these expressions and their implications, see Massimo Firpo, “Rethinking ‘Catholic Reform’ and ‘Counter-Reformation’: What Happened in Early Modern Catholicism: A View from Italy,” Journal of Early Modern History 20 (2016): 293–312.
The literature on the Council of Trent is so vast that we do not pretend in this short statement to include all relevant works in this large subject, but merely illustrate how it is already covered. We call attention to the classical work of Hubert Jedin, as well as other examples of key works which explored the phenomenon of Trent: Hubert Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, vol. 1–4 (Freiburg, Basel, Vienna: Verlag Herder, 1951); John W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013); Paolo Prodi and Wolfgang Reinhard, eds., Il concilio di Trento e il moderno (Trento: Istituto trentino di cultura, 1996); Alain Tallon, Le concile de Trente (Paris: Cerf, 2000); Adriano Prosperi, Il Concilio di Trento: una introduzione storica (Torino: Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi Storia e Geografia, 2001); Wim François and Violet Soen (eds.), The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700); Refo500 Academic Studies, Volume 35, 1–3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018); and Nelson H. Minnich (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Trent (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2023).
Several authors comment on a distinction regarding what the Council of Trent saw in itself and how it was seen later, which is frequently addressed as being a distinction between “Trent” and “Tridentinism.” For example, this can be seen in the works of John O’Malley and Giuseppe Alberigo. See, among others John W. O’Malley, “What Happened and Did Not Happen at the Council of Trent,” in The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700), vol. 1, 49–68, and Giuseppe Alberigo, “From the Council of Trent to ‘Tridentinism’,” trans. Emily Michelson, in From Trent to Vatican II: Historical and theological investigations, eds. Raymond F. Bulman and Frederick J. Parrella (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 19–38.
Different regions had diverse experiences of implementation of the decrees of the Council of Trent. This is well documented in the literature. For example, in his study from 1977, Jean Delumeau already briefly commented on how different regions received Trent, taking into account the roles of monarchs, synods, seminaries, and pastoral visitations, as well as religious orders in this process in different spaces. See Jean Delumeau, Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire: A New View of the Counter-Reformation, intro. John Bossy (London: Burns and Oates, 1977), 24–59. Currently, there are many studies with a more detailed focus on specific places, not only in Europe but also in the Americas, Asia, and Africa. Regional diversity is such that Günther Wassilowsky even argues that the Council of Trent enabled a variety of confessional identities rather than a homogeneous one, proposing the view of a “Catholic confessional culture.” See Günther Wassilowsky, “The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture,” in The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700), vol. 1, 69– 98, 91–93. Regarding studies concerning the Congregation of the Council, we call attention to the project from the Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory led by Dr. Benedetta Albani. See “Normative Knowledge in the Praxis of the Congregation of the Council,” Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.lhlt.mpg.de/2732047/rg-albani-Normative-knowledge-in-the-praxis-of-the-Congregation-of-the-Council, and other publications such as Federica Meloni, “Le rôle de la Sacrée Congrégation du Concile dans l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine,” in The Council of Trent and Beyond (1545–1700), vol. 1 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 371–394, and Benedetta Albani, “In universo christiano orbe: la Sacra Congregazione del Concilio e l’amministrazione dei sacramenti nel Nuovo Mondo (secoli XVI-XVII),” 63–73, among others.
For more about the reorganization of dioceses, see Michaël Dierickx, L’érection des nouveaux diocèses aux Pays-Bas 1559–1570 (Brussels: La Renaissance du livre, 1967).
James D. Tracy, “With and Without the Counter-Reformation: The Catholic Church in the Spanish Netherlands and the Dutch Republic, 1580–1650,” The Catholic History Review 71, no. 4 (October 1985), 547–575.
James D. Tracy, “With and Without the Counter-Reformation,” 547–548.
James D. Tracy, “With and Without the Counter-Reformation,” 559.
Morgane Belin, “Pastoral Reform in the Diocese of Namur Following the Council of Trent. From Norms to Applications (1559–1666),” in The Council of Trent. Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700), vol. 2, Refo500 Academic Studies, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 107–130.
Fernand Willocx, L’introduction des décrets du Concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principauté de Liége (Leuven: Librairie universitaire, 1929).
Among other obstacles, he mentions, for example, local attachment to customs and privileges and the situation of war and invasions, as well as the incapacity of certain bishops and the resistance of chapters. See Fernand Willocx, L’introduction des décrets du Concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principauté de Liége, 291–302.
Fernand Willocx, L’introduction des décrets du Concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principauté de Liége, 291–302.
Violet Soen, Dries Vanysacker, and Wim François, Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, Bibliothèque de La Revue d’histoire Ecclésiastique, 101 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017).
Violet Soen and Aurelie Van de Meulebroucke, “Vanguard Tridentine Reform in the Habsburg Netherlands: The Episcopacy of Robert de Cröy, Bishop of Cambrai (1519–1556).” In Soen, Vanysacker, and François, Church, Censorship and Reform, 125–144.
Michal Bauwens, “Restoration and Reform of the Parish after Trent,” in Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, vol. 101 (Brepols, 2017), 168–185.
Annelies Somers, “Making a Virtue Out of Necessity: The Chapter of Saint Pharahild in Ghent and the Decrees of the Council of Trent (1584–1614),” in Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, vol. 101 (Brepols, 2017), 187–199.
Nicolas Simon, “The Council of Trent and Its Impact on Philip II’s Legislation in the Habsburg Netherlands (1580–1598),” in Church, Censorship and Reform in the Early Modern Habsburg Netherlands, vol. 101 (Brepols, 2017), 201–216.
Violet Soen, “The Council of Trent and the Preconditions for the Dutch Revolt (1563–1566),” in The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700), vol.2, (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 255–78.
Gustaaf Janssens, “Le duc d’Albe et l’exécution des décrets du Concile de Trente aux Pays-Bas: raison d’État et dévouement religieux en temps de guerre (1567–1573),” in The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700), vol. 2 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 279–296.
Laurent Waelkens, “Law when the regime became harsher,” in Waelkens, Stevens, and Snaet, The History of Leuven’s Faculty of Law (Brugge: die Keure, 2014), 78–84, 82.
Laurent Waelkens, “A science of law for the modern era,” in Waelkens, Stevens, and Snaet, The History of Leuven’s Faculty of Law, 60–62, 61; and Waelkens, “Law when the regime became harsher,” 82.
Victor Brants, La Faculté de Droit de l’Université de Louvain à travers cinq siècles: Étude historique, (Leuven, Paris: Peeters, 1906), 18.
We shall discuss Peckius’ publications further in the Preliminary Part, Chapter 2.
For example, concerning the teaching of law and canon law in Leuven in this period, see Victor Brants, La Faculté de Droit de l’Université de Louvain à travers cinq siècles; Henri Wagnon, “Les leçons ad Decretum Gratiani à la Faculté de Droit Canonique de l’Ancienne Université de Louvain (1426–1797),” Studia Gratiana 3 (1955): 567–98; Guido Van Dievoet et al., Lovanium docet: geschiedenis van de Leuvense Rechtsfaculteit (1425–1914) (Leuven: K.U Leuven, Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid, 1988); Waelkens, Stevens, and Snaet, The History of Leuven’s Faculty of Law; Wouter Druwé and Geert Sluijs, “Reforming Legal Education in Leuven. The Humanist Ideas of Diodorus Tuldenus (1594–1645),” Historia et Ius – Rivista di storia giuridica dell’età medievale e moderna 20 (2021): 1–29.
Waelkens, “A science of law for the modern era,” 62.
Willocx, L’introduction des décrets du Concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principauté de Liége, 233.
“[…]Ad haec, omnes ii, ad quos Universitatum, et studiorum generalium cura, visitatio, et reformatio pertinet, diligenter curent, ut ab eisdem Universitatibus Canones, et decreta huius sanctae Synodi integre recipiantur: ad eorumque normam magistri doctores, et alii in eisdem Universitatibus ea, quae Catholicae fidei sunt, doceant, et interpretentur: seque ad hoc institutum initio cuiulibet anni solenni iuramento obstringant: sed et si aliqua alia in praedictis Universitatibus correctione, et reformatione digna fuerint, ab eisdem, ad quos spectat, pro religionis, et disciplinae Ecclesiasticae augmento emendentur, et statuantur. Quae vero Universitates immediate summi Romani Pontificis protectioni, et visitationi sunt subiecta, has sua Beatitudo per eius, delegatos eadem, qua supra, ratione, et prout ei utilius visum fuerit, salubriter visitari, et reformari curabit.” Canones et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici et generalis Concilii Tridentini, Sess. 25 c. 2, de refor, col. 218.
For details on the publication process of the Council of Trent’s decrees at the University of Leuven, see: Fernand Willocx, L’introduction des décrets du Concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principauté de Liége, 233–236. Valerius Andreas also provides a description of the event of publication of the decrees at: Valerius Andreas, Fasti Academici (Studii Generalis Lovaniensis), (Leuven: Hyeronymum Nempaeum, 1650), 363–365.
Valerius Andreas, Fasti Academici (Studii Generalis Lovaniensis), 364. From the faculties of civil law and canon law Valerius Andreas lists the following names: Joannes Molinaeus, Vulmarus Bernaerts, Elbertus Leoninus, Joannes Wamesius, Petrus Peckius, Joannes Ramus, Michael Herenbaut, Joannes Bievene and Gerardus Caverson.
See Wim François and Antonio Gerace, “Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?” in The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700), eds. Wim François and Violet Soen, 131–74. Vol. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018.
Pierre François Xavier de Ram, Mémoire sur la part que le clergé de Belgique et spécialement les docteurs de l’Université de Louvain ont prise au Concile de Trente (Brussels, 1841), 30–31, Eugène Coemans, “Bernaerts, Ulmer,” in Biographie Nationale, tome II, ed. L’Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique (Brussels: Petrum Foppens, H. Thiry-Van Buggenhoudt, 1868), 274–75; Jean François Foppens, Bibliotheca Belgica, vol. 2 (Brussels: Petrum Foppens, Typographum & Bibliopolam, 1739), 1160; Valerius Andreas, Fasti Academici Studii Generalis Lovaniensis (Leuven: Apud Ioannem Oliverium & Cornelium Coenesteyn, 1635), 114–115.
Violet Soen, “The Council of Trent and the Preconditions for the Dutch Revolt (1563–1566),” in The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700), eds. Wim François and Violet Soen, vol. 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018) 255–78, 265–267.
There is indication that he wrote several works both in civil and canon law, but that none of them survived. In Foppens, Bibliotheca Belgica, 1160.
The report was given by Cunerus Petri, the then rector of the Old University of Leuven, to the Duke of Alba. It can be found in Herman Vander Linden, “L’Université de Louvain en 1568” Bulletin de la Commission royale d’Histoire 77, no. 1 (1908): 9–36, 20–22. Wagnon also discussed this case in Wagnon, “Les Leçons Ad Decretum Gratiani à La Faculté de Droit Canonique de l’Ancienne Université de Louvain (1426–1797),” 578.
Vander Linden, “L’Université de Louvain en 1568,” 21.
Vander Linden, “L’Université de Louvain en 1568,” 21.
Foppens, Bibliotheca Belgica, 696–697; Andreas, Fasti Academici, 120; Wagnon, “Les leçons ad Decretum Gratiani à la Faculté de Droit Canonique de l’Ancienne Université de Louvain (1426–1797),” 580; Jean-Noël Paquot, 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. 17 (Liège: Imprimerie Académique, 1769), 405–412.
Willocx 1929, p. 235.
Waelkens, “A science of law for the modern era,” 62.
In other fields, several studies consider the education practices in Leuven amidst this consternated period of the late sixteenth century, utilizing student or lecture notes. Regarding the teaching of moral theology in Leuven, see Shiri Roelofs, “Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), the Louvain Lectures, and Economic Thought: Image and Impact of a Saint Viewed from an Underestimated Perspective,” in Profiling Saints: Images of Modern Sanctity in a Global World, eds. Elisa Frei and Eleonora Rai, vol. 97 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2023), 191–218. Concerning the teaching of theology, see Jarrik Van Der Biest, An Augustinian Revolution in the Lecture Hall? Michael Baius (1513–1589) as Regius Professor of Theology in Leuven (doctoral thesis, KU Leuven, 2024) and Jarrik Van Der Biest, “From the Lecture Hall to the Confessional Frontier: Student Notebook Production and the Transmission of Biblical Knowledge from Louvain,” in The Students and Their Books: Early Modern Practices of Teaching and Learning, ed. Danilo Facca, vol. 2 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022). On the Faculty of Arts and the Collegium Trilingue, see for example Jan Papy, “The Teaching of Logic at Louvain University (1425–1797): Perpetually Peripatetic? A First Survey of a Research Project on Student Notebooks and Their European Context,” Neulateinisches Jahrbuch: Journal of Neo-Latin Language and Literature 17 (2015): 360–378. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, 2015; Christian Coppens, “A Student’s Reading at the Collegium Trilingue in Louvain in 1547,” Quaerendo 41, no. 1 (2011): 155–161. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV; Maxime Maleux, “The Curious Case(s) of the Hebrew Article: On a Conflated Grammatical Category and How It Emerges from Sixteenth-Century Student Notes,” Language & History 66, no. 2 (2023): 124–144. Taylor & Francis (Routledge); Maxime Maleux, The Teaching of the Old Testament Revolutionized? The Sixteenth-Century Low Countries and the First Institutionalized Hebrew Curriculum (doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven, 2023). Furthermore, regarding printed textbooks for lectures, see also Dieter Cammaerts, “Drie Logicahandboeken gefinancierd door de Leuvense Artesfaculteit (1509–1510),” Ex Officina: Nieuwsbrief van de Vrienden van de Universiteitsbibliotheek 36, no. 2 (2023): 6–7.
By the time of submission of this thesis, some sections of it had already been published in the form of articles, as noted at the beginning of each corresponding section. The necessary copyright permissions were obtained for the publication of this book. These works are: Ana Luiza Ferreira Gomes Silva, “Reparação de espaços sagrados e o direito canônico: a Fúria Iconoclasta na obra de Petrus Peckius (1529–1589),” Ius Gentium 14, no. 1 (2023): 4–46; Ana Luiza Ferreira Gomes Silva, “The price of iconoclasm: Liability and the reparation of churches in the work of Petrus Peckius (1529–1589),” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung, vol. 110 (2024): 58–122, https://doi.org/10.1515/zrgk-2024-0003; Ana Luiza Ferreira Gomes Silva, “Teaching canon law after Trent: mapping juridical sources in the lectures of Petrus Peckius (1529–1589),” in Innovationes Lovanienses. Crossroads of Knowledge Transfer between Antiquity, Middle Ages, and Renaissance around the premodern University of Leuven, eds. Wouter Druwé, Wim François, Violet Soen (Leuven: Brepols), forthcoming, https://doi.org/10.1484/M.LECTIO-EB.5.152282. Therefore, these analyses do consider Peckius’ works in canon law and notes of his canon law lectures, though they are a byproduct of this dissertation. Other secondary literature outside the scope of this thesis that does the same was not found.
As previously indicated, the literature specifically about Peckius and his works is particularly explored in the discussion of his life and writings in the Preliminary Part, Chapter 1.
An assessment of his impact on legal doctrine and practice would constitute a different study, framed differently from this one. This research does not aim to draw conclusions in that regard. Instead, Peckius’ importance and impact are only assumed and discussed based on his biographical accounts and the republication of his works.
François Masai, “Paléographie et codicologie,” Scriptorium 4, no. 2 (1950): 279–293, 293.
Gleen A. Bowen, “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method,” Qualitative Research Journal 9, no. 2 (2009): 27–40, 27.
Gleen A. Bowen, “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method,” 27 and 32.
During certain stages of the transcription process, we collaborated with members of the @AULAM project from the Lectio Institute to develop a model for the Transkribus software. Our goal was to facilitate the computer-based transcription of texts written in the handwritings of the Low Countries during the Early Modern period. This collaborative effort is ongoing with other project members. However, for the conclusion of this research, all manuscripts were transcribed by the researcher using traditional methods (i.e., manually reading and copying text from handwritten documents) rather than with Transkribus or similar software.
Gleen A. Bowen, “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method,” 33–34.
More about explanatory research objectives in law can be found in Lina Kestemont, Handbook on Legal Methodology: From Objective to Method, (Mortsel: Instersentia), 16.
Randall Lesaffer, “Law and History: Law between Past and Present,” in Law and Method: Interdisciplinary Research into Law, eds. Bart van Klink and Sanne Taekema (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 133–152, 136.
From now on referred as KBR.
The most relevant literature of both a legal and historiographical nature on the subject was selected, considering both primary and secondary sources. For this purpose, scientific databases were employed, such as Google Scholar and others accessible through Limo (including Index Religiosus), as well as other platforms, such as Magister Dixit and Lovaniensia. In this research, considering the theme of local university history, the collection of KU Leuven’s library was particularly of vital importance.
It is possible to argue that even if we were to study all of Peckius’ surviving works and manuscript student notes, some of his existing manuscripts are missing, which means our understanding of Peckius as a jurist and professor may never be complete.
We elaborated lists of key themes addressed by the Council of Trent through a pre-analysis of the decrees and the secondary literature cited in Section 1 of this Introduction regarding the Council. Concurrently, lists were also compiled concerning themes explored in Peckius’ treatises and student notes from his canon law classes as written by a student, considering the titles and section headings. These lists were then cross-referenced to generate the themes of choice. In a subsequent pre-analysis of Peckius’ treatises and the student notes, we further scanned for explicit citations to the Council of Trent and mentions of historical events to solidify the selection of themes among other possibilities, such as changes to ecclesiastical jurisdiction and procedure, as well as the division of competencies. We are confident that this selection is the most suitable for a detailed analysis of the influence of the Catholic Reform and the historical context on Peckius’ scholarship.
The first is explored in Part 1, linked to the issue of reparation of churches, and the following two are respectively treated in Chapters 11 and 12 of Part 2, being linked to the subject of clerical discipline.
These notes are referenced both in Parts 1 and 2 of this thesis; they can be found at Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België (KBR), Brussels, Commentaria in libros decretalium: manuscript n. 22153, 165 folios. Also available through the project Magister Dixit from the KU Leuven: “Commentaria in libros decretalium,” Collection, Magister Dixit Project, KU Leuven, Lectio Institute, accessed July 16, 2024, https://www.kuleuven.be/lectio/magisterdixit/items/show/1829.
The last one, De consecratione ecclesiae, features in Part 1 of the main analysis, while the others are explored in Chapters 10, 11, and 12 of Part 2.
Book 3 is not only the largest complete book remaining in the surviving notes but also the only one preserved in its entirety as Peckius taught it. Additionally, it contains the most references to the Council of Trent, as noted in the first survey of this manuscript in the phase of “Initial work” described above.
More about the use of this tool for qualitative analysis can be found at Susanne Friese, Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.Ti (London: Sage, 2012).
ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, “What Is ATLAS.Ti,” ATLAS.Ti (blog), accessed December 22, 2020, https://atlasti.com/product/what-is-atlas-ti/.
Hanna Schebesta, “Content Analysis Software in Legal Research: A Proof of Concept Using ATLAS.Ti,” Tilburg Law Review 23, no. 1 (2018): 23–33.
Ana Luiza Ferreira Gomes Silva, “Fontes do direito colonial e a inquisição no Ceará: uma análise dos processos de bigamia (1774–1800)” (master’s thesis, Federal University of Ceará, 2020).
The approach involved coding each compilation or author not by the total number of mentions throughout the text, but rather by their presence in each title where they appeared. Consequently, the resulting count reflects how many titles a particular source is featured in and identifies the authors who appear most consistently throughout the manuscript. For this to work, in ATLAS.ti, the “quotations,” in the language of the software, were always in the size of the content of each title. The references to the Council of Trent were an exception to this method. In this case, each mention of Trent also received a unique code identifier (“Concil do Trent: quote in text”), not only in the larger quotation of the title, but also in an exact marking in the text, given its central role in the analysis where the precise location and general frequency were crucial data points.
Initially, the goal was to generate this information through codes in ATLAS.ti to facilitate analysis of the origin and timeframe of authors. However, due to the already large number of codes for the variety of authors’ names quoted by Peckius, it became difficult to cross-reference that much information efficiently in the system. In practice, it took a long time to load, and the resulting analysis contained so much information that it became difficult to identify patterns, which was counterproductive. Furthermore, at the time, the tool did not have a function that allowed adding a characteristic code, such as “Nationality: French” or “Humanist” intrinsically to an author code (e.g., “@François_Douaren”). Each quotation in which the author appeared had to be individually coded for this purpose. After contacting the ATLAS.ti IT team, we technically found a workaround by filtering all the quotations linked to a certain author and adding the nationality code to all of them at once. However, since the quotes were quite long, and we sought to identify which authors were mentioned per title, there were often many names from different periods and nationalities in the same quote, skewing the correlation. To summarize, using this tool for the specific purpose of verifying the origin and timeframe of the authors proved to be more labor-intensive than necessary, as it was not designed with this goal in mind. Consequently, we chose to complete this process manually with tables and graphs in Excel after importing the rest of the data from ATLAS.ti.
In the initial research design, the plan was to use ATLAS.ti and compatible methodologies for the full analysis of this research. However, this approach proved inefficient and incompatible with the goals of the main analysis. Among other issues, the number of citations of each page of manuscript and the number of different types of authors and quoted sources was higher than expected to the point that, together with the codes for characteristics, it became a too large number of codes to work well around and cross-reference the data in a practical and clear way. However, categorizing the authors and other sources to this level of detail was a desired goal of this research—which indicates that the use of this tool was ultimately not adequate for the later purposes. In light of these problems, we decided to simplify the use of the tool and keep it in the map of the pre-analysis, rather than in the detailed main analysis.
At times, it was particularly challenging to identify which points in Peckius’ arguments were polemical or significantly divergent. To address this, we observed whether Peckius’ assertions notably contradicted earlier opinio communis or diverged from the sources he cited to substantiate them. We also considered how similar topics were approached by his contemporaries, such as Joannes Wamesius (Jean Wamèse, 1524–1590), and later Leuven authors, such as Stephanus Weyms (Etienne Weyms, 1533–1633), Franciscus Zypaeus (Frans van der Zypen, 1579–1650), and Andreas Valensis (André Delvaux, 1569–1636). Although this comparison was not extensively pursued as it was not the focus of this research, it provided contextual insights into Peckius’ unique perspectives within the discourse of his time.
Despite the varying lengths of these phases, they are organized to maintain a chronological logic in the church reparation process. This structure reflects the amount of commentary Peckius provides on each aspect and facilitates the reader’s understanding of the relevance of juridical considerations and instruments to the overall phenomena. More about these considerations can be found in Part 1.
Unlike Part 1, which follows a chronological process, Part 2 explores distinct topics without a sequential order. Therefore, we opted for dividing Part 2 into chapters based on different themes within clerical discipline. This thematic organization allows for a comprehensive examination of various aspects of clerical life, each addressed in its own chapter, providing a thorough understanding of Peckius’ approach to clerical discipline.