PLANTIN’S RELATIONS

WITH HENDRIK NICLAES

“

To what extent would our view of Plantin change if we knew all the facts relating to his career? To give a conclusive answer to this question is impossible. Despite the unique contents of his archives and the abundance of information they contain we must fear that a number of his dealings will always remain undocumented. That the proto-typographer of King Philip ii had a hand in clandestine activities is certain. Well over a century ago, it became clear that he did not always bide by the rules imposed by Church and state. Ever since then his relations with ‘heretics’ such as Hendrik Niclaes and Hendrik Jansen Barrefelt (Hiël) have been the subject of both serious study and much speculation.1 In the course of time Plantin has been attributed with an ever greater role within the Family of Love – so much so that some scholars have even regarded him as a leading figure in this sectarian movement.2 The development of these and other far too extreme views was made possible by the all but total lack of reliable sources concerning the nature and range of Plantin’s clandestine activities. The small quantity of authentic information that survives

1 In writing this article I have assumed that the reader is acquainted with the state of research as it is presented in L. Voet, The Golden Compasses. A history and evaluation of the printing and publishing activities of the Officina Plantiniana at , 2 vols. (/London/New York 1969-72), hereafter cited as Voet GC, esp. vol. 1, pp. 21-44 and 50-2. The same applies to the references to the existing literature in the notes of that work, which will not, as a rule, be included here. 2 The formation of this myth occurred above all under the influence of B. Rekers, , 1527-1598 (Groningen 1961; thesis Amsterdam; English translation London/ 1972), pp. 137-84: ‘De secte der spiritualisten’. The author provides a thoroughly distorted image of the relations between Hendrik Niclaes and Plantin by including almost everyone in Plantin’s circle, Catholic or Protestant, among the adherents of the Family of Love, or, in later years, as members of a sect allegedly led by Hendrik Jansen Barrefelt (Hiël). He also projects the latter’s close friendship with Plantin onto the earlier relationship between the printer and Hendrik Niclaes. Equally speculative are a number of conjectures in J.-F. Maillard, ‘Christophe Plantin et la Famille de la Charité en : Documents et hypothèses’, Mélanges sur la littérature de la Renaissance, à la mémoire de V.-L. Saulnier (Genève 1984), pp. 235-53. See, on the other hand, the more balanced treatment of the subject in A. Hamilton, ‘The Family of Love in Antwerp’, Religieuze stromingen te Antwerpen voor en na 1585 (Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis, 70; Antwerpen 1987), pp. 87-96, and above all the same author’s introduction to his recently published edition of the manuscripts of the Family of Love (see n. 7).

245 plantin’s relations with hendrik niclaes

allowed all sorts of conjectures and hypotheses to develop, which, in the absence of any contrary evidence, soon led a life of their own. Even the thorough research into Plantin’s archives performed in the last few decades has produced next to no new evidence concerning illegal business deals.3 Nevertheless, we could suppose that the printer, manoeuvring his way between the limitations imposed by the circumstances of the moment, produced more than is known, and often pursued a highly independent course in order to create the conditions to do what he wanted to do. The dangers entailed obviously demanded the greatest caution. The authorities did not hesitate to make use of informers and agents provocateurs in their pursuit of culprits. Every deal that was not specifically permitted by law consequently had to remain concealed. Even in the most detailed records surviving from the days of his partnership with the Van Bomberghens – at the time a model of modern administration – nothing can be found concerning clandestine publications. Yet all the registers and documents were meticulously preserved by Plantin’s successors, and there is no reason to believe that anything was destroyed posthumously. We must thus conclude that Plantin himself was determined from the outset to avoid any risk and kept certain transactions out of his books. However worthwhile the results might be, further archival investigation is most unlikely to provide any evidence in this domain. The lack of documentary evidence can, however, be remedied to some extent by another side of Plantin’s legacy: his printed work and the information it yields about his typefaces. The use of typological criteria in bibliographical research is not new and has long been part of the standard equipment of the incunabulist. Strangely enough, however, after Rooses and Vervliet the method has only rarely been applied to the production of the Officina, whereas the various elements of the type stock provide every opportunity to do so.4 In such an approach we must first turn to the specific characteristics of the book as a typographical product. It is not the content of the text but the material appearance which becomes an object of

3 Despite the formidable quantity of facts and information published in the standard work of L. Voet, The (1555-1589). A Bibliography of the Works printed and published by Christopher Plantin at Antwerp and Leiden. In collaboration with J. Voet-Grisolle, 6 vols. (Amsterdam 1980-3), hereafter cited as Voet PP. 4 Rooses was the first scholar to use typographical information when studying Plantin. He recognized a German typeface in a book by Hiël (Voet PP 627) as being identical to a Fractura which the printer used in 1581 for his edition of Lobelius’ Kruydtboeck (Voet PP 1579). See M. Rooses, Christophe Plantin, imprimeur anversois (Anvers 1882), pp. 87-90, with a reproduction opposite p. 90, and id., Le Musée Plantin-Moretus (Anvers 1914), p. 52. On the basis of the typefaces used Vervliet showed that Plantin could not possibly have published his edition of La theologie germanicque (Voet PP 2309), dated 1558, before 1579. See H.D.L. Vervliet, ‘Typographica Plantiniana I. Ter inleiding: De studie van het zestiende-eeuwse letterbeeld en het geval van “La théologie germanicque” (Plantin, 1558)’, De Gulden Passer, 37 (1959), pp. 170-8. Other attributions to Plantin of anonymous publications rest on the recognition of his woodcut initials.

246