Similarly, Bellarmine took issue with the bishops who served as apostolic nuncios and who, because of their international engagements, “have not seen their churches for many years.” This practice sacrificed the spiritual interest of the Catholic Church to the political interest of the papacy, and Bellarmine suggested that a shift in priorities on the part of the pope would benefit the spiritual supremacy to which he, as “pastor and rector of the universal Church,” was entitled and which should be his primary concern. In the text we have included the pope’s far from warm response to each issue raised by Bellarmine, and we see that Clement was not willing to give up his direct political authority in the administration of the Roman Church over his own house, so to speak. “Regarding nuncios,” the pope replied, “we think that it is most appropriate that the nuncios are bishops, because they command bishops and they have a greater authority with the princes and peoples.”
Bellarmine understood perfectly well that the Church of Rome was not just a spiritual institution, but he thought that the future of its supremacy depended on its spiritual authority and he tried to redefine how much political authority it could afford without losing its spiritual primacy. For the pope, such redefinition might indeed be historically and theoretically necessary, but it was costly for the day-to-day political and administrative interests of the Church. When Bellarmine suggested that a bishopric had become a job to be grabbed rather than a duty to be fulfilled, the pope replied that theory was very well, but the “practical aspects” of running the Catholic Church could not be carried out from spiritual considerations, especially when it came to administering the Church’s provinces through the bishops.
The contrast between Clement VIII and Bellarmine in this text complements the other controversies over the theory of the potestas indirecta involving Protestant monarchies, Catholic monarchies, and central protagonists of the Roman Curia. This is because Bellarmine’s potestas indirecta was a profound and far-reaching attempt at reconsidering and reshaping the universal Church’s self-understanding and internal operation as well as its universal, “catholic” role with respect both to the Protestant churches and to secular authority. Neither the Roman Church nor the European monarchies embraced Bellarmine’s theory wholeheartedly, which is a further testament to the dominant place that Bellarmine’s theory occupies in the historical and theoretical process of defining the boundaries between power over bodies and power over consciences.
On Laymen and On the Temporal Power of the Pope are translated from the texts in Bellarmine’s Opera omnia.1 For the memorandum to Clement VIII, On the Primary Duty of the Supreme Pontiff, I have used Le Bachelet’s Auctarium Bellarminianum as the text of reference for my translation, as well as the original manuscript used by Le Bachelet and other copies of the manuscript that I located.
Many of Bellarmine’s works were reprinted during his lifetime, some several times, and he personally corrected and oversaw the reissuing of some of them, particularly the Controversiae. For obvious reasons, I have not accounted for all the corrections from the 1580s to the late 1610s, but since one of the most interesting aspects of Bellarmine’s doctrine of the potestas indirecta is its development, I have made an exception for the corrections that Bellarmine made in 1608 to a copy of the Venice 1599 edition of the Controversiae.2 Thus, I have identified Bellarmine’s modifications concerning the controversy on the laymen in italic text and have indicated the specific reference in the footnotes. I have noted only important conceptual points and changes that could be useful for elucidating his arguments or their context. I have not noted corrections of typographical errors and the like.
All the translations of Bellarmine’s quotations are my own. However, a few of the books from which Bellarmine quoted are available in English, and those English translations have been indicated in the Index of Works Cited by Bellarmine. Whenever possible, I have checked Bellarmine’s (and Barclay’s) quotations against the modern editions of these works, and I have occasionally found that some of the references given do not match those in the modern editions and that a few typographical errors have crept into the quotations. These references have been silently corrected in the text, and the revised quotations have been inserted in square brackets. The same procedure has been followed in the cases of incorrect biblical references.
Bellarmine, of course, used the Vulgate Bible, but I have taken all biblical quotations from the King James Version, since it is likely to be more familiar to readers of this edition. Many arguments in the present texts involve controversy over translation issues. I have given a detailed explanation in the footnotes for every passage in which a contested reading of particular verses of the Bible was involved.
The intended audience of Bellarmine’s texts was prelates and churchmen, all of whom would be familiar with the distinctive formal style used by the church hierarchy in addressing religious controversies. Lengthy parenthetical phrases, complex syntax, copious and often redundant use of quotations, and devotion of entire pages and sections to the listing of sources and authorities were common elements. These elements, far from rendering the texts unnecessarily complex and difficult to read, conferred polemical effectiveness on the works and bestowed scholarly and theological prestige on their authors. I have preserved, whenever possible and appropriate, Bellarmine’s style of writing; thus, the syntactical structure of my translation is more complex than is common in current English.
Translating Bellarmine’s Latin presented a familiar dilemma of how to balance literal accuracy with readability. I tried to stay close to Bellarmine’s Latin, not only to reproduce accurately his arguments but also to give a sense of the tone and format that were characteristic of early modern controversies and that were integral to the arguments made. While modern readers may not share the stylistic preferences of the early modern era, they may nevertheless appreciate the traces of Bellarmine’s writing style as cues to a different historical and cultural period.
Bellarmine and his contemporaries buttressed their arguments with long and erudite lists of authors and works. Information on the authors referred to by Bellarmine can be found in the Biographical Notes. Complete publication information for works cited in the footnotes can be found either in the Index of Works Cited by Bellarmine or in the Bibliography of Works Cited by the Editor.
Stefania Tutino
These notes include all the authors to whom Bellarmine refers. More information and suggestions for further readings can be found in the Dictionnaire de droit canonique, the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and the Oxford Classical Dictionary.
Ado of Vienne (d. ca. 875), ecclesiastical historian, author of a chronicle of the world and of a martyrology.
Adrian VI (Adrian of Utrecht) (1459-1523), pope; Cardinal Inquisitor of Aragón, Navarre, Castile, and León; viceroy to Spain for Emperor Charles V; and author of a commentary on Lombard’s Sententiae and a text of Quodlibeta.
Aegidius Bellamera (Giles de Bellemère) (ca. 1342-1407), canonist and bishop of Avignon, author of various commentaries on the canon law.
Aerius of Pontus (fourth century), Christian presbyter who questioned some Christian tenets and practices such as the primacy of bishops over laymen and the prayers for the dead.
Agatho (d. 681), pope; under his pontificate the Sixth Ecumenical Council was held in Constantinople in 680-81.
Agrippa von Nettesheim, Heinrich Cornelius (1486-1535), German humanist scholar and author of De vanitate scientiarum, a work skeptical of humanistic and historical studies.
Aimoinus