The latest version of this entry may be cited as follows: Rômulo Ehalt, “Abreu, Lopo de”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.18069054”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/abreu-lopo-de”, latest revision: December, 27th, 2025.

Life and Works

Lopo de Abreu (c. 1515-1573) was born in Vizeu in 1547 and entered the Society of Jesus in 15 May 1564 (ANTT, Mss. da Livraria, n. 622, f. 371). In 1570, while still a Jesuit brother, the Provincial of Portugal Jorge Serrão chose him to compose the group of missionaries to be sent to India that year. However, no Jesuit embarked on the carreira that year due to an epidemic of plague in Portugal. Abreu received holy orders in 1574, when he became a lecturer at the University of Évora. His whereabouts before teaching at the university is uncertain. Until his departure to India in 1578, Abreu taught cases of conscience in the university. On the hallways he could have met the likes of Luis de Molina (1535-1600), Cipriano Soares (1524-1593) and Fernão Rebelo (1547–1608), all of them professors at the same university at that time (História da Universidade Teológica de Évora (Séculos XVI a XVIII), p. 191). Despite his uncertain formation—we have no confirmation if Abreu was a doctor or not—he was often complimented as a talented theologian. Procurator of the Province of India in Portugal Martim da Silva (1533-c. 1583), upon recommending him to teach in Asia, described Abreu as a “man of rare virtue, able to lecture on any topic, even Greek.” However, the same evaluation also draws attention to his limited capacity for administrative work (DI XI, p. 154-155). Throughout his life, Abreu was often described as a prudent individual, with good judgement and a phlegmatic temperament, although physically weak (DI XIII, 667, DI XV, 175, DI XVI, 936, Goa 24, 382v).

Between 1570 and 1575, Abreu wrote numerous times to his superiors petitioning to be sent to Índia or, if possible, to Japan, to teach theology. His correspondence indicates close connections to other relevant figures of Coimbra at the time. Besides Francisco de Borgia, general of the Society of Jesus between 1565 and 1572, Abreu also asked for recommendations from Jorge Serrão, provincial of Portugal between 1570 and 1574, and Pedro da Fonseca, who visited the University of Évora in March 1570, for the doctorate ceremony of Inácio Martins, and in December 1572 for the Jesuit provincial congregation (Carvalho 2020).

According to himself, Abreu was supposed to be one of the members accompanying Alessandro Valignano to India in 1573, but was inexplicably excluded from the group (ARSI, Lus. 67, f. 86-86v). Eventually, in 1578, he was appointed by the procurator Martim da Silva to integrate the group of fourteen missionaries heading to Asia, which included Matteo Ricci (1552–1610), Michele Ruggieri (1543–1607), Francesco Pasio (1554–1612) and Rudolfo Acquaviva (1550–1583). On the evening of 24 March 1578, while D. Sebastião (1554-1578) prepared his campaign in Africa, Abreu embarked on the nau Caranja, also called Bom Jesus (DI XI, *19-*23, 161-162).

After a stop in Mozambique, where the group met the new viceroy, D. Luís de Ataíde (1516-1581), Abreu and his companions arrived in Goa in late August or early September of 1578. By then, the city was besieged by the Sultan of Bijapur, Ali Adil Shah (1558-1579), who enjoyed strong support from the people of Salsete. Abreu’s talents were quickly employed in a commission formed in the following year to answer to a consultation by the new viceroy, who inquired whether to accept a request from the population of Salsete that wished to continue practicing Hindu rituals.

Despite his wish to be sent to Japan, Jesuit obedience forced Abreu to remain in India for the rest of his life. Upon arriving, he was appointed a professor at the College of São Paulo by the Provincial of India Rui Vicente (1523-1587, prov. 1574-1583), where Abreu taught two theology lessons (DI XII, 198). In 1584, one year after the martyrdom of Rudolfo Acquaviva and his four companions in Cuncolim, Abreu was sent to Cochim, where he served as minister at the College of Madre de Deus for about a year and a half (Aranha 2006, 151-162). Thanks to strong support from his superiors, he was able to profess the fourth vow on 14 January 1585 (DI XII, 207, 282; DI XIII, 445, 825; DI XV, 175).

In 1586, he returned to the College of São Paulo of Goa, now appointed as a preacher, master of studies, and lecturer of theology. In the years he remained in Goa, he also served as spiritual prefect, confessor of the college’s brothers, and consultant to the rector (DI XIV, 790, DI XV, 175, DI XVI, 936, 994, Goa 24, 266v). His epistolary production was rather limited. Almost all of his letters were written in observance of his obligations as consultant (DI XII, 385-392; DI XIII, 749-750; DI XV, 344-377. DI XVII, 289). However, this position allowed him to participate in numerous commissions and meetings of high relevance. For instance, Abreu took part in the 3^rd and 4^th Congregations of the Province of Goa, in 1588 and 1594 (DI XV, 83; DI XVI, 635). He was also present during the discussions that removed Alessandro Valignano from the Visitation of the Province of India and reappointed him Visitor of the Vice-Province of Japan in 1595. Japan was also at the center of a diferente debate at that same time, When Abreu and other Jesuits discussed moral challenges of the Japanese mission and the entry of mendicant orders in the archipelago (DI XV, 344-377, DI XVII, 100, 336, Alvarez-Taladriz 1977, 1-23, Ehalt 2019b, 1-14). He was also one of the numerous Jesuits to write opinions on the revision of the 1586 Ratio Studiorum, discuss confession manuals sent from Europe to Asia, forced baptisms in India, and to suggest ammendments to the 5^th Congregation of the Province of Goa, in 1599 (DI XV, 344-377; DI XVII, 288-293; Goa 22-I, 31-46; Ajuda 49-V-18, 372-378v).

In 1597, Abreu was transferred to Margaon, the main village of the region of Salsete. At the local College of Espírito Santo, he was appointed vicar of the Church of Salvador do Mundo, in Loutulim/Lottli, also in the Salsete area (DI XVIII, 849; Goa 24, 266v, 273, 316). It was during this period that Abreu penned his summa, finished in 1603.

A hiatus in the catalogues of the Province of Goa makes it difficult to trace Abreu’s activities until 1605. In November 1606, when the catalogue is compiled, Abreu’s name is absent, possibly due to a disease that made it uncertain if he should be included among the lists of living or deceased Jesuits (Goa 24, 390-391v). The annual letter written in December 1606 explains Abreu’s health state. Eventually, he chose to return to the College of São Paulo, where he passed away in late 1606 (Goa 24, 415; Goa 33-I, 182v). The same letter also indicates that Abreu left a brief summa of cases, written in Portuguese, which was used in the education of confessors (Goa 33-I, 182v).

Suma de Moral

Despite being impossible to clearly indicate which institutions adopted Abreu’s manual, the Suma de Moral was rejected by the Jesuit Curia soon after its completion. In 1607, Claudio Acquaviva (1543-1615) forbade its use in Jesuit schools, since the adoption of a manual of moral theology written in Portuguese would be detrimental to the study of Latin. The Jesuit general considered that using Abreu’s manual could negatively influence the capacity of local students in evaluating moral cases and the access to other authoritative texts, almost all of them written in Latin (Wicki 1953, 159; Wicki 1980, 505; Goa 5, 100v). But even though it was excluded from classrooms, the Suma de Moral kept being referenced by numerous other theologians, canonists, and casuists in Asia throughout the seventeenth century.

There were at least two places where the manuscript was actively used: Macau and Bardez. In 1616, a list of books kept at the procuratura of the Province of Japan in Macau included a copy of the “suma do Pe. Lopo de Abreu” (Humbertclaude 1943, 20). The same volume was still in the library in 1633, when a new list was elaborated following the death of Diogo Valente (1568–1633), Bishop of Japan (Golvers 2006, 8, Humbertclaude 1943, 43). Besides these two catalogues, the Suma was used in debates held at the Jesuit College of Madre de Deus of Macau. A debate held in 1620 by the Jesuits of Macau refers to the Suma twice when debating issues of confession and restitution (Ajuda 49-VI-6, 123v-124 and 143). Meanwhile, the De Matrimoniis Neophitorum (Ajuda 49-VI-6, 45-98v), a compilation of casuistical opinions relative to matrimonies in Japan composed around the 1650s, reproduces passages of the manual in Latin (f. 95-98v).

Some aspects of the Macau debates are noteworthy. The Latin excerpts included in the discussions differs from the Latin translation available to us in the only extant full manuscript of the Suma de Moral (see Manuscripts). Second, the answers given to the issues proposed in the De Matrimoniiis Neophitorum are in Portuguese, which suggests that the Macau copy of the Suma was, indeed, a manuscript copy of the original manual in vernacular. The same is suggested by continuous references to specific folios of the copy extant in the College of Macau, which indicates that there was only one copy of Abreu’s work in that Jesuit library.

Another relevant evidence of the relevance of Abreu’s text in Portuguese Asia is found in Codex 913, of the Manuscritos da Livraria collection at the Torre do Tombo. Despite the absence of authorship in this codex, a loose piece of paper found between folios 171v and 172 indicates that this volume was still in use by the Franciscans at the Church of Penha de França, in the village of Sirulá, in Bardez, in the late seventeenth century.

The manuscript has a list of questions and answers of various cases written in Portuguese based on the “summa do P.e Lopo d’Abreu.” The cases involve definitions of penitence, usury, excommunication, regularity, and other topics. Many of the topics include references to cities and toponyms of Portuguese India including Goa and Cochim. Some of the answers are based on Francisco Suárez’s Commentariorum ac Disputationum (1602), which goes to show the connections between Abreu’s intellectual production and the more recent developments of Coimbra and Salamanca in Europe. The same Codex 913 also has an excerpt from Abreu’s manual on the absolution of excommunications (f. 190).

Abreu’s treatment of the issue of absolution is also referred by the Franciscan Boaventura das Chagas (?-?) in his 1614 Tratado dos Previlegios que gozam os Religiozos mendicantes (Biblioteca Central de Panjim, Ms. 29), and by the Franciscan António da Graça (?-?) in the 1689 Breves Resoluções Moraes em Forma de Repertório Alphabetico (Biblioteca Central de Panjim, Ms. 5).

The publication of a fac-símile edition of the Latin translation of Abreu’s Suma de Moral, composed by Vicente Álvares SJ (1581-1634) will allow further studies of this seminal work. Indicated by Jesuit historian Francisco Rodrigues as the most popular manual of moral theology of early modern Asia (Francisco Rodrigues, tomo 2, vol. 2, 458), comparisons between this manual with contemporary materials and an analysis of the context of its production, particularly considering Abreu’s involvement with the revision of the Ratio Studiorum, will be fundamental to identify contributions of this author beyond the scope of pragmatic literature.

Bibliography

Sources

• Carvalho, Mário Santiago de, “Fonseca, Pedro da”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.2563270”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/fonseca-pedro-da”, latest revision: January, 29th, 2020).

L'articolo Abreu, Lopo de proviene da Conimbricenses.org.

The latest version of this entry may be cited as follows: Vigas Oliveira, Rozely Menezes “Frei Domingos do Espírito Santo (O.E.S.A.)”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.18068980”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/frei-domingos-do-espirito-santo”, latest revision: December, 27th, 2025.

Life

A native of Lisbon born around 1583, little is known regarding the life of this Augustinian friar, who served in the mission of the Congregação da Índia Oriental dos Eremitas Agostinhos (Congregation of the East Indies of the Augustinian Hermits) and was regarded as one of the most talented authors and scholars in the history of the congregation. Regarding his family origins, only the names of his parents are recorded: Balthasar Ferreira and Anna Pessoa. He professed his vows on October 2, 1601, and in the following year, departed for the Estado da Índia as part of the fourteenth Augustinian mission, alongside Master Fr. João da Rocha, Fr. Sebastião Ribeiro, Fr. Hilário de Jesus, Fr. Felipe de Paixão, and Fr. Antonio de Santo Estevão. In Goa, he continued his studies at the Colégio de Nossa Senhora do Pópulo (College of Our Lady of the People) and was ordained as a priest, preacher, and confessor. A disciple of Fr. Domingo da Piedade, he attained the rank of master in philosophy and theology. He subsequently became a professor of both disciplines at the same college, serving as a lecturer (lente) in theology in the years 1616 and 1621.

Domingos do Espírito Santo also served as the secretary of the congregation (elected on December 5, 1616), vice-rector of the Colégio do Pópulo, and rector on two occasions—the first from November 16, 1618, to February 1, 1621, and the second from September 3, 1624, to November 20, 1626. In his capacity as a visitor of the Order (appointed on January 30, 1621), he inspected all the houses of the Northern Province, accompanied by the vice-provincial Fr. Antônio da Graça. He was elected definidor (definer) on May 27, 1624, a position he would have held for a second time in 1628 had he not died prior to his inauguration. The chronicles provide no specific information regarding the exact date of his death, which is believed to have occurred in October 1628 at the age of 45. However, a chronological inconsistency is noted, as records suggest he was elected definidor two months after this purported date of death. Despite this lapse, there is no significant disagreement among chroniclers concerning the year of his passing.

Versed in moral theology and the history of the Order of the Hermits of Saint Augustine, some of his works were published during his lifetime, while others remained in manuscript form. According to Teófilo Aparício Lopez (1978), the Manual Eremítico (Eremitic Manual) was his most celebrated work and was frequently cited by Augustinian chroniclers, most notably Fr. Manuel da Ave Maria, who transcribed the title in his own chronicle. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to verify this information, as the source has yet to be located. A similar misfortune befell the Historia da fundação do Convento de S. Monica de Goa (History of the Foundation of the Convent of St. Monica of Goa), a manuscript reportedly partially transcribed by the Discalced Augustinian Fr. Agostinho de S. Maria and published in 1699. Another chronicle authored by Fr. Domingos do Espírito Santo was the Chronica da Religiaõ de Santo Agostinho (Chronicle of the Religion of Saint Augustine), which was said to comprise four books.

Beyond historical chronicles, Domingos do Espírito Santo authored commentaries on the rules of his order. The single copy of the two-volume manuscript Exposição sobre as Constituições da Ordem de S. Agostinho (Exposition on the Constitutions of the Order of St. Augustine) was lost during its transport to Portugal. Fr. Domingos da Encarnação, the provincial of the Congregação da Índia Oriental responsible for bringing the work to press, died in Bahia in 1714. According to Fr. Manuel da Purificação (1958, 66), this work was a “exposição doutíssima das constituiçoens da Ordem, com varias doutrinas sobre o governo da Congregaçam da índia” (most learned exposition of the constitutions of the Order, containing various doctrines on the government of the Congregation of India). Despite this loss, a volume authored by Fr. Domingos do Espírito Santo was located in the Reserved Manuscripts section of the Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo (National Archive of the Torre do Tombo), the title of which closely resembles the aforementioned two volumes: Anotações às constituições da Ordem dos Eremitas de Nosso Padre Santo Agostinho (Annotations to the Constitutions of the Order of the Hermits of Our Father Saint Augustine). This work, written in Portuguese with Latin passages, provides elucidative commentary on the determinations contained in several chapters of the constitutions. However, the absence of the first manuscript precludes a comparative analysis between the two documents. This gap, compounded by the difference in the number of volumes, prevents a conclusive verification of their relationship, making it impossible to determine whether they represent the same text, a preparatory draft, or a reproduction.

Of the other works located in Portuguese archival institutions, the following are listed in alphabetical order, as their specific dates of composition are unknown.

• The Manual dos Ministros Ecclesiasticos, prinçipalmente Religiosos que se ocupam nas cristandades Orientais (Manual for Ecclesiastical Ministers, primarily Religious who occupy themselves in Oriental Christendoms), according to Carlos A. Moreira Azevedo (2011, 360), was printed by the Provincial Vicar of India, Fr. Luiz Coutinho. Located only in its manuscript version, it is a treatise that complements and deepens the subjects addressed in the manuscript Privilegios dos Missionarios (Privileges of Missionaries), shedding light on specific cases in Portuguese Asia and its fortresses. It offers resolutions concerning parish priests and confessors and their relationship with captains, royal ministers, and both long-standing and newly converted Christians.
• The Manual de vizitadores (Manual for Visitors), Where the author demonstrates his command of moral theology and canon law by discussing—in Portuguese and Latin—the qualifications of those appointed to conduct visitations of the congregation’s convents and houses. He details the proper procedures for these visits and the interactions with priors and other religious, providing instructions on how to conduct accusations, fraternal corrections, inquiries, defenses, and punishments.
• The Tratado do estado e isenção das pessoas religiosas a que na Ordem dos Eremitas do Nosso Padre Santo Augusto chamam mantelatas (Treatise on the state and exemption of religious persons who in the Order of the Hermits of Our Father Saint Augustine are called mantelatas) arose from the author’s perceived need to address this group of women—also referred to as beatas—who dedicated themselves to religious life in their own homes. These women did not enter a convent or take solemn vows, but instead took the three simple vows and lived under the authority of the Order’s prelates. As Fr. Domingos do Espírito Santo noted in the prologue, few writings existed to determine the status of these women within the Order and the Estado da Índia. Consequently, drawing upon authors who had treated the subject, the friar discussed the nature of the mantelatas, compiled various guidelines, and resolved existing doubts.
• Also, the Breve relaçam das christandades que os religiosos de N. Padre Sancto Agostinho tem a sua conta nas partes do Oriente, & do fruyto que nellas faz (Brief account of the Christendoms that the religious of Our Father Saint Augustine have under their care in the parts of the Orient, and of the fruit they produce therein), which was published by Antonio Alvarez in Lisbon in 1630. Although it does not indicate an author, archival data from both the Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo and the Biblioteca da Ajuda (Ajuda Library) attribute the work to Fr. Domingos do Espírito Santo. This attribution is confirmed by Carlos Azevedo (2011, 360), who states the work was published posthumously and anonymously. In it, the author describes the missionary efforts of the Augustinians in the regions of China, Malacca, Bengal, Ceylon, Sindh, Melinde, Mombasa, Arabia, Basra, and Persia. Furthermore, the volume contains letters from Augustinian religious and an account of the death of the converted Queen Gativanda Dedopoli in Shiraz, Persia, during the reign of Shah Abbas in September 1624.

Finally, other manuscripts by Fr. Domingos do Espírito Santo are listed in chronicles or reference works but have not been located, and no information remains beyond their titles. These are: Erros dos Armenios impugnados (Errors of the Armenians Impugned), Privilegios dos Missionarios (Privileges of Missionaries), Tratado de Contractos, em que se achão varias resoluções dos Contratos de toda a India (Treatise on Contracts, in which various resolutions of the Contracts of all India are found), and Dubia Regularia (Regular Doubts).

Bibliography

Works of Frei Domingos do Espírito Santo (O.E.S.A.)

• Espírito Santo Fr. Domingos do. Anotações Às constituições da Ordem dos Eremitas de Nosso Padre Santo Agostinho. Feitas conforme a direito commum; E particular, de Breues apostolicos: declaraçoes dos gerais: speçiais actas, Diffiniçoes, e practica da Prouinçia de Portugal Statutos, e leis da congregacão da India. Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo (ANTT), Manuscritos Reservados, COD. 5088.
• Espírito Santo Fr. Domingos do. Breve relaçam das christandades que os religiosos de N. Padre Sancto Agostinho tem a sua conta nas partes do Oriente, & do fruyto que nellas faz, tirada principalmente das cartas que nestes annos de lâ se escrevem; em que se contem cousas muy notaveis. Lisboa: Officina de Antonio Alvarez, 1630. ANTT, Impressos Reservados, RES. 616 P. Biblioteca da Ajuda, 154-V-2, nº 1.
• Espírito Santo Fr. Domingos do. Manual dos Ministros Ecclesiasticos, prinçipalmente Religiosos que se ocupam nas cristandades Orientais. Feito pello Padre frei Domingos de spirito sancto Reytor do Collegio, Difinidor, e Lente de Theologia no anno de 1625 aos 15 de Junho. ANTT, Manuscritos da Livraria, n.º 0833.
• Espírito Santo Fr. Domingos do. Manual de vizitadores. ANTT, Manuscritos Reservados, COD. 5111.
• Espírito Santo Fr. Domingos do. Tratado do estado e isenção das pessoas religiosas a que na Ordem dos Eremitas do Nosso Padre Santo Augusto chamam mantelatas ordenado pelo Padre Frei Domingos de Espírito Santo reitor e lente de teologia do colégio da mesma Ordem de Goa. ANTT, Manuscritos da Livraria, n.º 1678.

Sources

• Alonso, Carlos (2003). Os agostinhos em Portugal. Madrid: Ediciones Religión y Cultura.
• Ave Maria, Fr. Manuel da (1955). Manual Eremítico da Congregação da Índia Oriental dos Eremitas de N. P. S. Agostinho. [1817]. In: Rego, Antonio da Silva (corrigida e anotada). Documentação para a história das missões do padroado português do Oriente: Índia. vol. XI. Lisboa: Agência Geral do Ultramar.
• Azevedo, Carlos A. Moreira (2011). Ordem dos Eremitas de Santo Agostinho em Portugal (1256-1834). Edição da Colecção de memórias de Fr. Domingos Vieira, OESA. Lisboa: Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa; Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 2011
• López, Teófilo Aparicio (1978). La Ordem de San Agustin en la India (1572-1622). Separata de STVDIA, nº 40. Lisboa: Centro de Estudos Históricos Ultramarinos da Junta de Investigações Científicas do Ultramar.
• Machado, Diogo Barbosa (1741). Fr. Domingos do Espirito Santo . In: Bibliotheca Lusitana. Tomo I, p. 710-711. Lisboa: Officina de Antonio Isidoro da Fonseca.
• Moraes, Fr. Antonio de (1958). Memorial das missões dos religiosos que mandou a nossa provinçia de Nosso Padre Sancto Agostinho de Portugal a esta Congregação da India, e das couzas em que se occupão. In: Rego, Antonio da Silva (corrigida e anotada). Documentação para a história das missões do padroado português do Oriente: Índia. Vol. XII. Lisboa: Agência Geral do Ultramar.
• Purificação, Fr. Manuel da (1958). Memórias da Congregação Agostiniana na Índia Oriental. In: Rego, Antonio da Silva (corrigida e anotada). Documentação para a história das missões do padroado português do Oriente: Índia. Vol. XII. Lisboa: Agência Geral do Ultramar.
• Santa Maria, Fr. Agostinho de (1699). História da Fundação do Real Convento de Santa Mônica da Cidade de Goa, Corte do Estado da Índia, e do Império Lusitano do Oriente. Lisboa, 1699.

L'articolo Frei Domingos do Espírito Santo proviene da Conimbricenses.org.

The latest version of this entry may be cited as follows: Paiva, José Pedro, “Gaspar de Leão”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.18068900”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/leao-gaspar-de”, latest revision: December, 27th, 2025.

Life

Gaspar de Leão was born in Lagos, in the Algarve, in South Portugal, and the identity of his parents remains unknown (Machado 1747: II, 356). The date of his birth is uncertain, but it can be reasonably deduced to have been around 1505. This is based on a statement made by Alessandro Valignano in a letter to Everardo Mercuriano dated 25 December 1574. In this letter, the Jesuit wrote that Leão was an “old man of more than 70 years” (Wicki 1958: 499).

The details of his early life and education are scarce. One of the earliest known accounts of his biography dates from 25 October 1536 and states that on that day he was awarded a degree in Canon Law at the University of Salamanca, although it is likely that he had been studying there since the end of the previous decade (Serrão 1962: 310). At that time, Salamanca was an important center of intellectual activity, where the teachings of Dominican friar Francisco Vitoria, in particular, had a profound impact, challenging many of the established practices by the Europeans in Hispanic America. Eugenio Asensio, an expert on Leão’s writings, suggests that he studied theology in Salamanca, not canon law. In light of the written output and spiritual practices of Master Gaspar or Gaspar de Santa Maria, names he also used, it makes more sense that he studied the sacred sciences than canon law. The designation “master” which appears in various documents lends credence to this hypothesis. Furthermore, Leão refers to himself as a theologian in the proem of his book Desengano de Perdidos (Disillusioning the Lost) (Leão 1960: VIIIr).

Mestre Gaspar returned to Évora shortly after the Salmantine period and was appointed chaplain to Henrique, then Archbishop of Braga, in 1538 and his preacher in 1541 (Serrão 1962: 310 and Leão 1960: IX-XI). On this second date, Henrique was already Archbishop of Évora and had assumed the role of Inquisitor General. It was within the orbit of this increasingly influential ecclesiastic, where prominent figures from coeval spirituality also congregated, most notably the Dominican Luís de Granada, that Gaspar de Leão remained during this period. On 12 June 1551, he was sworn in as a canon of the Cathedral of Évora, and on 27 July 1557, he was appointed Archdeacon in the same Cathedral (Machado 1747; II, 356 and Nazareth 1887: 31). It seems plausible that these contacts in Évora, coupled with his readings, prompted him to pursue more elevated forms of contemplative spirituality, including the paths of  “unitive love” as espoused by various Northern European spiritual masters, such as the Flemish Franciscan Heinrinch Herp (Harphius). A Portuguese translation of Herp’s book, Espelho de Perfeição, was published in Lisbon in 1533. Leão was undoubtedly aware of it. However, Silva Dias posits that, based on Gaspar de Leão’s Desengano de Perdidos, the Portuguese did not exhibit a particularly original approach to spirituality. (Dias 1960: I, 351-356). This was not an essential demand for an author of his time, as evidenced by Eugenio Asensio (Leão 1960: LXVI-LXXIII).

In 1557, King John III appointed Gaspar de Leão as Archbishop of Goa. This appointment was made on the basis of recommendations put forth by Cardinal Henry, thereby confirming that the Archbishop was a figure under the cardinal’s influence and a person he held in high regard (Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, Morais, Memórias, Códice 489, fl. 102 and Paiva 2006: 316). On 4 February 1558 Leão was finally appointed Archbishop of Goa by the Pope (Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Archivio Concistoriale, Acta Vicecancelarii, vol. 8: 114r). A letter from Queen Catherine, widow of John III and current regent of the kingdom, addressed to the Portuguese ambassador in Rome, indicates that Leão declined the assignment and only accepted it in compliance with a papal directive from Rome (Leal 1884: VIII, 62-63). It was not until 15 April 1560 that his consecration as archbishop took place in Lisbon (Machado 1747: II, 356). Four days later, he departed for India aboard the same fleet that had transported the inquisitors, whose mandate was to establish a tribunal of the Holy Office in Goa (Leão 1960: XXXVIII).

On 12 May 1560, the Queen Regent, as she had already done with other bishops of Portugal overseas dioceses, granted Gaspar de Leão the prerogative of being the one to choose in the diocese all the clerics who would occupy the benefices of canons in the cathedral and vicars in the parishes. Subsequently, Leão’s decision was to be conveyed to the Viceroy or Governor, who was then responsible for presenting the individuals designated by Gaspar de Leão (Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo, Chancelaria de D. Sebastião, Privilégios, 2, 160r).

In December 1560, the Archbishop arrived in Goa and proceeded to enter the city with a formal ceremony accompanied by numerous festivities, according to the account of Jesuit Brother Brás Dias (Rego 1952: VIII, 183-184). He continued to receive favours from Lisbon, an example of which was the “dowry” of 400,000 reais that Regent Catherine authorised on 1 January 1561 (Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo, Chancelaria de D. Sebastião, Privilégios, 6, fl. 66). The prelate, in turn, as was customary for bishops of territories within the Portuguese Empire, regularly sent information on his activities to the royal court in Lisbon, as evidenced by the letter he wrote on 20 November 1561 (Wicki 1958: V, 228-230). However, most of these missives no longer exist.

Gaspar de Leão arrived in a new diocese with structures created by his predecessor, Juan de Albuquerque, since the early 40s of the 16th century. He had to face the enormous challenge of evangelising the non-Christian populations. It was a context that the Archbishop, like most Portuguese who came to India, did not know well. In 1563, a Jesuit noted how little “experience he had of the land” (Wicki 1958: V, 741).

As Archbishop, aware of the reformation guidelines of the Tridentine Church and the jurisdictional power of bishops, he soon prohibited solemn mass baptisms. These included processions with the neophytes and the presence of various local secular and ecclesiastic authorities. At the end of 1560, he attended one of these rituals promoted by the Jesuits, in which hundreds of indoctrinated people were baptised. This led to a dispute with the Society of Jesus, which was only settled in 1563 after the intervention of the Pope and the Regent of the Kingdom of Portugal, now Cardinal Henry, who ordered that Leão should be on good terms with the Society’s priests and that the baptisms should continue as they had been before his arrival in India (Ventura 2011: 175 and Faria 2013: 81-83).

In line with the prevailing episcopal culture of his time, he was keen to gain a deeper understanding of the diocese. He was also committed to the pastoral dimension of his office and to ensuring that the behaviour of the people in his charge was in accordance with the expected moral standards. To this end, Leão undertook a number of pastoral visitations (Constituições 1558: Prólogo). During these visitations, he established a series of penalties, including the imposition of pecuniary fines on Christians and non-Christians who failed to attend Sunday Mass and engage in work on the day designated for divine worship (Rivara 1865: 5, second part, 510-512).

During this period, there were significant efforts to expel the Brahmins from the Goa region and to eradicate other religious groups and beliefs. At the same time, the persecution of heretics and apostates by the inquisition intensified. In this regard, Leão’s role in the destruction of a Buddha tooth that had been stolen by the Viceroy Constantino de Bragança in Jaffna, Ceylon, during his military campaign there in 1560, is frequently highlighted in chronicles. It is reported that the King of Pegu offered a considerable sum of money in order to redeem the tooth. In response, the Viceroy convened a council comprising theologians and the Archbishop. Leão would have been in favour of the tooth’s destruction, thereby forgoing the reward that the King of Pegu would have provided for it. Constantine of Braganza accepted the advice of the theologians and, in accordance with their recommendation, the Archbishop himself ground the tooth in a mortar, burnt the resulting dust, and then threw the ashes into the river (Couto 1616: 207-208 and Sousa 1710: I, 195-197). Later, in 1563, he attended a meeting with the Viceroy Francisco Coutinho and other churchmen, at which he argued for the expulsion of the Brahmins from Goa, as they were hindering the conversion of the natives “because they are the heads of the gentiles and those who have knowledge of the law and teach the heathen” (Wicki 1960: VI, 123). A similar offensive was carried out in the destruction of Hindu temples in the areas of Bardez and Salsete (Wicki 1962: VII, 388-389).

Additionally, the Archbishop dedicated himself to the construction of the cathedral and demonstrated charity in accordance with the archetype of the shepherd bishop. This is illustrated by his concern for the people in the villages surrounding Goa, as evidenced by his distribution of rice to the most impoverished during a period of grain scarcity in 1564 (Rivara 1865: 5, second part, 580 and Wicki 1960: VI, 353-357).

The most significant aspect of his legacy, particularly in terms of its enduring impact, is the preparation of the Constituições (Regulations) of the archbishopric of Goa. This compilation, among other objectives, aimed to implement in the diocese the decrees approved at the Council of Trent, which concluded in 1564. These decrees were transmitted to Leão by Pope Pius V and are extensively referenced in the published text.

As Ângela Barreto Xavier has rightly pointed out, the Constituições contributed more to the spread of a Tridentine Christianity of European origin in the territory than to the “indigenisation” of this religion, although they showed signs of adaptation to the social and cultural context (Xavier 2014: 153-156).  This adaptability is evident in the way the sacrament of baptism was administered to the large number of Asian people who received it. The Constituições stipulated that these baptisms should be voluntary, emphasising that “conversion must be of the will and baptism must be free, and there can be no force in it”. Moreover, all individuals newly converted to Christianity were required to undergo religious instruction prior to being baptised. This catechism was conducted in the native’s language and comprised an explanation of “what to believe, what are the articles of the faith, what to do, what are the commandments of the law”. Furthermore, the regulations stipulated that adult Jews, Muslims, and Yogis should be exempted from baptism unless they had undergone at least five months of catechetical instruction. This was intended to prevent them from subsequently reverting to their previous beliefs. These norms diverged from the established practices associated with solemn baptisms (Constituiçõens 1658: 5v-6). The regulations also recognised that the number of secular priests was small, but nevertheless they required them all to teach the people doctrine, preferably in their own language (Constituiçõens 1658: fl. 42). There are also several passages that show concern about the sacraments. In the case of marriage, the rules even mentioned the marriage of enslaved people. The Archbishop was attentive, he understood that all Christians had the right and even the duty to receive the sacraments, and he had noticed during his pastoral visitations that many slave owners prevented them from marrying. The normative text stipulated that slaves could marry, especially if they were in concubinage, in order to avoid sin (Constituiçõens 1658: 27v).  All these rules were, for various reasons, very difficult to implement.

Leão would still participate in the initial stages of the First Provincial Council of Goa, which was held between 1567 and 1568. However, he would subsequently withdraw from the proceedings (Rivara 1862: IV, 1-2). The Council paid more attention to local “circumstances” than the Constituições did (Xavier 2014: 151) The Council’s primary objective was to proselytise the considerable number of “infidels” residing in the Asian dioceses, with the aim of converting them to the Catholic faith. In this context, in accordance with the stipulations set forth in the Constituições, it was soon established that baptising individuals through the use of “threats and terrors” was not permissible (Rivara 1862: IV, 7). This statement suggests that, until then, baptisms had been forced. The rule also stipulated that the bishops were to investigate cases in which baptism had been administered without the freedom of the neophyte.

Many of the measures of the Provincial Council were directed at the enslaved population. They included the stipulation that Muslims and Hindus were prohibited from owning Christian slaves; the identification of numerous instances of unjust captivity; the establishment of the principle that slaves should be exempt from work on days of religious observance to allow them to attend mass; the requirement that owners organize masses for deceased slaves and request the attendance of a curate or vicar at the funeral; and the denunciation of the brutal physical punishment meted out by masters to their slaves. The Council Fathers were concerned that the enslavement of Christians might result in their loss of faith. Consequently, they decreed that baptized slaves could not be held by Muslim owners. Furthermore, they instructed the Viceroy to prohibit the transportation by Muslims of slave men and women, even those who were not Christians, except to Portuguese fortresses (Rivara 1862: IV, 9, 17-18, 46-47, 51, 53, 71, 79).

In the year 1566, Gaspar de Leão resolved to resign from his post. He duly conveyed this decision to the Holy See, which formally registered it on the 13th of January 1567. This was accompanied by the preconization of his successor, the then Bishop of Cochin, Jorge Temudo (Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Archivio Concistoriale, Acta Vicecancelarii, vol. 10: 40-40r). Nevertheless, a letter from Pope Pius V, dated October 1567 and written in Rome, explicitly declines Leão’s request for resignation and instead requests that he continue to serve as the Archbishop of the diocese (Rego 1953: X, 252-254). Communication times between Goa and Europe were slow, so Leão was still present at the opening of the First Provincial Council of Goa in 1567. However, his resignation is beyond doubt, as his second appointment as Archbishop is known. Furthermore, in the minutes of the Provincial Council, Jorge Temudo refers to himself as Archbishop of Goa.

It seems reasonable to suggest that his appeal to the Pope to relinquish his role as Archbishop was influenced by the doctrines he espoused. In his Desengano de Perdidos he states that God demands “perfection” from all of humanity. In order to achieve this principle, Leão posits that individuals who are “active” are content with the outward expression of virtue. However, these individuals lack the necessary  “enlightenment from within”. Those who seek a genuine “familiarity” with God must therefore “adhere with greater haste to the contemplative life”. (Leão 1573: 252-253). In other words, after a few years of governing the archbishopric and undertaking the “external works” that he deemed necessary for the reform of Catholicism and the enhancement of his authority, he may have felt an inner calling in his advanced years, coupled with the affliction of asthma. This prompted his desire to withdraw from the world in order to pursue the path of contemplative life and, through divine grace, to love God more fully.

He stayed in Goa and retired to the Franciscan Convent of the Mother of God in Daugim, which he had founded and where, according to the Franciscan chronicles, he led a strict and contemplative life (Deos 1690: 23-35).

Following the death of Jorge Temudo, the Archbishop who had replaced him, on 19 November 1572, Leão was once again appointed Archbishop of Goa in a unique gesture that stands out in the history of the Portuguese episcopate during the early modern period (Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Archivio Concistoriale, Acta Camerarii, vol. 11: 12).

This phase of his episcopate was of a shorter duration. It is noteworthy that on 11 June 1575, the Second Provincial Council of Goa was convoked. This assembly further demonstrated the Archbishop’s commitment to complying with Tridentine norms, particularly with regard to the frequency of this type of conciliar meeting. Additionally, it evinces his practical desire to resolve the problems raised by Christians “new to the faith”, that is, Asian people who had recently been baptised (Rivara 1862: IV, 77- 107).

 Gaspar de Leão passed away on 15 August 1576 and was laid to rest in the chapel of the Madre de Deus convent, a testament to his profound affinity with Franciscan spirituality (Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, Morais, Memorias: 489, fl. 81).

Works

Gaspar de Leão left a large body of written work, which was unusual for the Portuguese overseas episcopate. His use of the printing press was an unambiguous indicator of modernity, facilitating the broader distribution of his pastoral work and doctrine. It was during his time that a movable type printing press was established in Goa (Boxer 1975).

Ângela Barreto Xavier suggested that the texts Leão published in Goa had a clear strategy. In her words, they constituted a “pastoral itinerary” (Xavier 2014: 142, 154-155). It was a conversion plan that encompassed norms, as evidenced by the Constituições and the decrees of the Provincial Councils. This plan initially targeted the Portuguese who were already established in Goa, then shifted its focus to the “heretic” New Christians, and ultimately concluded with texts directed towards Muslims and Hindus. This programme was supported by a doctrine of interior spirituality, which included a unitive approach that, in the model proposed by the prelate, would facilitate an ascent through the various stages of Christian love, culminating in a union with the divine. This interpretative proposal assumes that the archbishop had a plan formulated in advance and was less reactive to the contingencies that life presented to him, which would also be a plausible interpretation.

 Even before he took up the chair of the archbishopric, Gaspar de Leão published a treatise entitled Tratado espiritual para o sacerdote quando diz missa e para os ouvintes que a ouvem (Spiritual treatise for the priest celebrating Mass and for the listeners) (Leão 1558 and Machado 1747: II, 357). Similarly to his magnum opus, the author’s name is absent from this book, and no extant copy is known to exist.

His inaugural publication upon his arrival in Goa was the book entitled Compendio Spiritual (Spiritual Compendium) (Leão 1561). The text was primarily directed towards the Portuguese population and constituted a compilation of the sermons delivered by Leão during his inaugural year as archbishop at the cathedral. In the preface, he took St Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians as a point of departure and drew a comparison between the bishop and a “gardener” who is tasked with “weed[ing] and water[ing] the plants” in order to facilitate their “growth, beauty and flavour” in accordance with divine will. In other words, the prelate was responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of the faithful, relying on divine grace to facilitate their path to eternal salvation. He further elaborates that the “gardener” bishop’s primary task was to cultivate the “human heart”, which was the source of “works worthy of eternal life”. Additionally, the “gardener” prelate was required to remove the detrimental influences that could potentially harm the “divine garden”, such as erroneous teachings and sins.

The lengthy book, which bears the grandiose title “A Spiritual Bouquet of Christian Doctrine”, commences with a series of didactic reflections and an invocation of conventional wisdom regarding the evils of sin. It also makes reference to the traditional triad of the devil, the world, and the flesh, which, according to Christian doctrine, entice sinful humans and pose a threat for those who turn away from God. Leão then offers suggestions on how to avoid the dangers of the outside world and how to approach God, the “state of grace” and eternal salvation, the “corral of glory”, as the Archbishop phrased it. (Leão 1561: 48). The majority of the book is devoted to an in-depth examination of Catholic doctrine, following a traditional structure: the Creed, the Ten Commandments of God’s law, the commandments of the Church, the seven deadly sins, the means of overcoming sin (including the sacraments), the works of mercy, and prayers. In this section on prayers, a lengthy discourse on the path of unitive love is presented, followed by a comprehensive account of the life of Christ. The section concludes with a list of spiritual exercises to be undertaken over the course of the week.

The book makes only occasional references to local reality. One such instance occurs when the author addresses the Portuguese who invested a great deal of money in the ship that sailed from Goa to Melaka and insured it, but who, in life, did not prepare themselves for death and the afterlife. Subsequently, he elucidates the first commandment (to refrain from worshipping other deities), emphasising that no “Jewish, Mohammedan or Brahminical” ceremonies should be conducted. In addressing the Church’s third commandment, he observes that the prevalent practice of widows in Goa, namely their absence from church following the demise of their husbands, is unacceptable. Finally, with regard to the sacrament of confession, he acknowledges that although the act itself was conducted in secrecy, it was revealed that should the confessor be unable to comprehend the penitent’s language, the use of an interpreter would be acceptable (Leão 1561: 57, 70, 110).

At a time when the Goa Inquisition was mainly targeting New Christians of Jewish origin, the Archbishop drew up the Tratado que fez mestre Hieronimo (Treatise by Master Hieronimo) (Leão, 1565). Following the indoctrination of the Portuguese, the Archbishop proceeded to attempt the conversion of the heretics. The Treatise comprises two sections. The initial one is a lengthy pastoral letter, serving as a kind of prologue, in which Leão provides an explanation for the publication of the work. The second section is a Portuguese translation of a text written by a Jew from Zaragoza, in Spain, who had converted to Christianity in the 15th century.

Leão commences his discourse with a quotation from the Bible (Ezekiel, XXXIV), a passage that is particularly cherished by spiritual bishops. He sought to emphasise his pastoral duty to provide spiritual guidance and support for all his flock, particularly those who were vulnerable or in need, in reference to the New Christians. This support was not enacted through punitive measures such as chastisement and physical punishment, but rather through the dissemination of doctrine and the demonstration of compassion. This approach stood in stark contrast to the severity of the punitive actions meted out to heretics by the Inquisition. This proposal for fraternal correction was not an original approach. In 1541, Francisco Machado, a Cistercian, had also employed the same biblical passage to, albeit indirectly, challenge the Inquisition and address the concerns of bishops who were perceived to be neglecting their pastoral duties. Despite being dedicated to the Inquisitor General, this text never saw publication and constituted one of the few instances in which the Inquisition was subject to criticism (Paiva 2011: 369).

Similarly, Gaspar de Leão’s pastoral letter was lacking in originality in its attempt to persuade the New Christians dispersed throughout Asia to forsake the law of Moses. To this end, he employed the use of quotations and exegesis from the Old Testament in accordance with customary practice, with the objective of providing greater conviction to those he was addressing. Nevertheless, when it came to matters of substance, Leão demonstrated a distinctive approach among his contemporaries in the episcopacy. Rather than resorting to punitive measures, he advocated for a strategy of redemption, even in the context of heretical transgressions, which he regarded as a grave sin: “Even if the sin is heresy, if it is not confirmed and persists for a long time, hope is by no means lost, as long as [the alleged heretic] has his ears open to hear the causes of his damnation”. In general, his contemporaries proceeded to implement punitive measures, whereas he advocated for forgiveness and reconciliation if the Jews were willing to rectify the situation. He also elucidated the rationale behind Christians’ compassion for the Jews, by explaining that “from you [Jews] we have received all our good: from you the law and the Prophets, from you the Messiah, from you the Apostles”. He concluded his unusual reasoning by stating, “as Christians, we have this obligation to you, and as children of Adam, we should be very sorry for your misfortune”. In essence, he was recommending Christian gratitude and commiseration towards the people of Israel. Furthermore, he expressed hope for their recovery: “I don’t think you are so lost that, seeing the deceits your rabbis are leading you into, you still want to persevere on the road to perdition”.

In order to avert the “road to perdition”, Leão then presents the aforementioned translation of the Latin text. In his own words, Jerome was a “Jew, born of Jews, indoctrinated by the Talmudists, and spent most of his time reading the Talmud”. In essence, the rabbi was one of them, but having relocated to Rome, he had converted to Christianity. This was a source of hope, and the Archbishop recognised that he was obliged to undertake this work, as it was the duty of a shepherd prelate to try to save all the sheep in his flock (Leão 1565, unnumbered pages).

The most notable text written by Gaspar de Leão was the last one he authored, the Livro Chamado Desengano de Perdidos (León 1573), which displays clear affinities with Franciscan spirituality. Probably because of some prophecies about the conversion of all the peoples of the world and predictions about the end of the Ottoman Empire, the book was placed on the Inquisition’s Index of Prohibited Books in 1581. This led to the disappearance of the majority of copies, with the exception of one, which is currently housed in the National Library of Spain. Eugenio Asensio, the first to signpost this copy, offered a reading that was both comprehensive and insightful (Leão 1960, V-CIX). The book employs the use of allegory, a rhetorical figure much to the liking of 16th century authors, and is composed of three main parts. The first was a polemic against Islam, based on a dispute between a Turk and a Christian. The second part aimed to “disillusion the lost” with good doctrine. In essence, it was about moving its recipients from a world in which they would be lost to the path of Christian salvation. This was an almost unattainable task due to the considerable cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity and divergence of conceptual frameworks among the individuals to whom the ideas were conveyed, many of whom were unable to comprehend Leão’s concepts. This section sees the author employ a systematic use of allegorical references drawn from the figure of Ulysses and the mermaids of the sea. At least since the eighth century in the Western Iberian Peninsula, the mermaids were perceived and represented as symbol of diabolical lust. This was identified as a particularly problematic vice by the archbishop, which he aimed to confront and eradicate. In the concluding section, the author reverts to his preferred topic, the spiritual path of the via unitiva. This is a “complex” book, as has already been observed (Marcocci 2012: 399), in which Leão puts forth “a path of conversion, through mystical perfection, reserved for Hindu and Muslim neophytes”.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

• Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Archivio Concistoriale, Acta Camerarii, vol. 11
• Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Archivio Concistoriale, Acta Vicecancelarii, vol. 8, 10.
• Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo (Lisboa), Chancelaria de D. Sebastião, Privilégios, livros 2, 6.
• Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal (Lisboa), Henrique Bravo de Morais, Memórias e documentos para a historia ecclesiastica do arcebispado de Goa e seus sufraganeos, Códice 489.
• Constituiçoens do arcebispado de Goa (1568). Goa: João de Endem.
• Couto, Diogo do (1616), Década sétima da Asia. Dos feitos que os portugueses fizeram no descobrimento dos mares e conquista das terras do Oriente, enquanto governarão a India Som Pedro Mascarenhas, Francisco Barrteo, Dom Constantino, o Conde do Redondo Dom Francisco Coutinho e João de Mendonça, Lisboa: Pedro Craesbeeck.
• Deos, Jacinto de (1690), Vergel de plantas e flores da provincia da Madre de Deos dos capuchos reformados Lisboa: Miguel Deslandes, 1690.
• Leal, José da Silva Mendes (1884), Corpo Diplomatico Portuguez. Lisboa: Academia Real das Sciencias, tomo VIII.
• Leão, Gaspar de (1558), Tratado espiritual para o sacerdote quando diz missa e para os ouvintes que a ouvem, com hum suave exercicio do nome de Jesu e outro da oração e da meditação para os que tem pouco tempo, Lisboa: Ioao Blavio.
• Leão, Gaspar (1561), Compendio Spiritual da vida christãa tirada pelo primeiro arcebispo de Goa e por elle pregado no primeiro anno a seus fregueses, Goa: João Quinquenio de Campania.
• Leão, Gaspar (1565), Tratado que fez mestre Hieronimo, medico do papa Benedicto 13, contra os judeus, em que prova o Messias da ley ser vindo. Carta do primeiro arcebispo de Goa ao povo de Israel seguidor ainda da lay de Moises & do Talmud por engano & malicia dos seus rabis, Goa: João de Endem.
• Leão, Gaspar de (1573), Livro Chamado Desengano de perdidos, feito pera gloria de Deos e consolação dos nouamente conuertidos & fracos na fé e pera proueito dos que querem deixar os peccados & seguir as virtudes e o caminho da perfeição do amor diuino, Goa: João de Endem.
• Leão, Gaspar de (1960), Desengano de Perdidos (introdução e publicação por Eugenio Asensio), Coimbra: Por Ordem da Universidade.
• Machado, Diogo Barbosa (1747), Bibliotheca Lusitana, Lisboa: Officina de Ignacio Rodrigues, vol. II.
• Rego, António da Silva (1952), Documentação para a História das Missões do Padroado Português do Oriente. Índia, Lisboa: Agência Geral do Ultramar, vol. VIII.
• Rego, António da Silva (1953), Documentação para a História das Missões do Padroado Português do Oriente. Índia, Lisboa: Agência Geral do Ultramar, vol. X.
• Rivara, J. H. da Cunha (1862), Archivo Portuguez-Oriental, Nova Goa: Imprensa Nacional, fascículo 4.
• Rivara, J. H. da Cunha (1865), Archivo Portuguez-Oriental, Nova Goa: Imprensa Nacional, fascículo 5, 2ª parte.
• Sousa, Francisco de (1710), Oriente conquistado a Jesu Christo pelos padres da Companhia de Jesus da Provincia de Goa, Lisboa: Valentim da Costa Deslandes.
• Wicki, Joseph (1958), Documenta Indica, vol. V (1561-1563), Romae: Monumenta Historica Soc. Iesu.
• Wicki, Joseph (1960), Documenta Indica, vol. VI (1563-1566), Romae: Monumenta Historica Soc. Iesu.
• Wicki, Joseph (1962), Documenta Indica, vol. VII (1566-1569), Romae: Monumenta Historica Soc. Iesu.
• Wicki, Joseph (1966), Documenta Indica, vol. IX (1573-1575), Romae: Monumenta Historica Soc. Iesu.

Secondary Sources

• Aranha, Paolo (2006), Il cristianesimo latino in India nel XVI secolo, Milano: Franco Angeli.
• Boxer, Charles R. (1975),  “A Tentative Check.list of Indo-Portuguese Imprints” Arquivos do Centro Cultural Português 9: 567-599.
• Cunha, João Teles (2020), “Desengado de Perdidos, Social definitions and the Quest for Identity in Sixteenth Century India”, in Weil, Shalva (ed.), The Jews in Goa, New Delhi: Primus Books, 101-172.
• D´Arienzo, Valdo (1987), “La missione di un mistico. Dom Gaspar de Leão primo arcivescovo di Goa” Studi e ricerche sull´Oriente Cristiano X,1: 19-36.
• Dias, José Sebastião da Silva (1960), Correntes de sentimento religioso em Portugal (séculos XVI a XVIII), Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra.
• Faria, Patrícia de Sousa (2009), “Reforma e profecia: a ação do arcebispo de Goa e místico D. Gapar de Leão” História (São Paulo) 28, 1: 149-157.
• Faria, Patrícia de Sousa (2013), A conquista das almas do Oriente. Franciscanos, catolicismo e poder colonial português em Goa (1540-1740), Rio de Janeiro: FAPERJ.
• Lobo, Amaro Pinto (1933), Memória histórico-eclesiástica da arquidiocese de Goa, Nova Goa: Tip. a Voz de S. Francisco Xavier.
• Marcocci, Giuseppe (2012), A consciência de um império. Portugal e o seu mundo (séc. XV-XVII), Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.
• Nazareth, Casimiro (1887), Mitras Lusitanas no Oriente, Nova Goa: Imprensa Nacional.
• Orfali, Moisés (1996), “The Portuguese edition (1565) of Hierenimus de Sancta Fide’s Contra Iudaeos”, in Limor, Lora and Stroumsa, Guy (eds.), Contra Iudaeos. Ancient and medieval polemics between Christians and Jews, Tubingen: J.C.B. Morr, 239-256.
• Orfali, Moisés (2014), Tratado que fez mestre Jerónimo, médico do papa Bento XIII, contra os Judeus. Impresso em Goa por João de Endem, 1565. Lisboa: Bibliotca Nacional.
• Paiva, José Pedro (2006), Os bispos de Portugal e do império (1495-1777), Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.
• Paiva, José Pedro (2011), Baluartes da fé e da disciplina. O enlace entre a Inquisição e os bispos em Portugal (1536-1750), Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.
• Pereira, Juliana Torres Rodrigues (2022), “Batismo e conversão em Goa nos tempos do primeiro arcebispo, Gaspar de Leão (1560-1567)” Varia História 38, 27: 343-377.
• Serrão, Joaquim Veríssimo (1962), Portugueses no Estudo de Salamanca (1250-1550), Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.
• Ventura, Ricardo Nuno de Jesus (2004), “Estratégias de conversão ao tempo de D. Gaspar de Leão, primeiro arcebispo de Goa – Reconstituição histórica de uma controvérsia”, in A Companhia de Jesus na Península Ibérica nos sécs. XVI e XVII.Espiritualidade e cultura. Actas do Colóquio Internacional – Maio 2004, Porto: Instituto de Cultura Portuguesa da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto e Centro Inter-Universitário de História da Espiritualidade da Universidade do Porto, vol. 2: 505-517.
• Ventura, Ricardo Nuno de Jesus (2007), “Arte e discurso da oração na obra de D. Gaspar de Leão, primeiro arcebispo de Goa” Via Spiritus 14: 14-30.
• Ventura, Ricardo Nuno de Jesus (2011), Conversão e conversibilidade. Discursos da missão e do gentio na documentação do Padroado Português do Oriente, Lisboa: (Phd dissertation).
• Ventura, Ricardo (2015), “Desengano de perdidos” in Thomas, D. (ed.), Christian Muslim Relations Online II. Leiden: Brill.
• Vila-Santa, Nuno (2014), “A Coroa e o Estado da Índia nos reinados de D. Sebastião e D. Henrique: política ou políticas?” Lusitania Sacra 2ª série, 29: 41-68.
• Xavier, Ângela Barreto (2008), A invenção de Goa. Poder imperial e conversões culturais nos séculos XVI e XVII, Lisboa: ICS.
• Xavier, Ângela Barreto (2010), “”Conformes à terra no modo de viver”. Matrimónio e império na Goa quinhentista” Cristianesimo nella Storia 31: 419-449.
• Xavier, Ângela Barreto (2011), “Conversos and novamente convertidos: Law, Religion, and Identity in the Portuguese Kingdom and Empire” Journal of Early Modern History 15: 255-287.
• Xavier, Ângela Barreto (2014), “Gaspar de Leão e a receção do Concílio de Trento no Estado da Índia” In Gouveia, António; Barbosa, David Sampaio and Paiva, José Pedro (coord.), O Concílio de Trento em Portugal e nas suas conquistas. Olhares novos, Lisboa: Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa da Universidade Católica Portuguesa:  133-156.
• Županov, Ines G. (2010), “The Wheel of Torments”: mobility and redemptions in Portuguese Colonial India (sixteenth century” in Greenblatt, Stephan et alii (ed.), Cultural Mobility: A Manifesto, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

L'articolo Leão, Gaspar de proviene da Conimbricenses.org.

This entry is a reworking of Faraco (2013), originally published in Italian

The latest version of this entry may be cited as follows: Faraco, Cintia, “Francisco Suárez, Theory of War”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.15574680”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/suarez-francisco-theory-war/”, latest revision: June, 21st, 2025.

Introduction and Reconstruction of the theme: Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas

Francisco Suárez dealt with the issue of warfare in a brief disputatio, included in the broader treatise De Charitate (1587), which, in turn, completes his series of treatises on the three theological virtues.

Even today, this brief essay, which has been subject to extensive discussion among the various scholars who have investigated this matter, is the key issue of a heated debate due to its theoretical implications (see Hamilton 1963; Soder 1973; Torres Campos 1917; see also Cassi 2003, 2012). Therefore, it is precisely within this vast debate on this Suarezian disputatio that I intend to summarise the Jesuit’s position on the theme of war, outlining its most general aspects.

However, in order to be able to reconstruct Suarez’s thought on the theme of war, it is necessary to make first of all a very brief, yet functional, preliminary remark with the purpose of highlighting the theoretical as well as historical elements that converge in the formation of the answer to the issue worked out by the Spanish Jesuit.

Now, the theme of war has always been of significant interest both on a political, legal and economic level, and is substantially inextricably linked to the study of man and his behaviour. In this context, it is a theme that, due to its being closely linked to the use of force, raises the problem of its possible configuration within the scientia iuris (Cassi 2012: 7).

Let us leave aside this problem in the light of Greco-Roman influences, which were also very decisive, to limit ourselves instead to the conceptual reference of two auctoritates. These are, on the one hand, Augustine of Hippo and, on the other hand, Thomas Aquinas, who, among the many authors taken by Suárez as his models and sources of inspiration, can be considered by far the most relevant.

In particular, it should be noted that Augustine of Hippo was historically the first to lay the foundations of reflection on the theme of just war, identifying, among other things, in De civitate Dei the requirements upon which a war can perhaps be defined as lawful. In fact, Tertullian was the one who a few years earlier had already indicated a route for the Church on the subject of war, namely conscientious objection and with it the rejection of war as an instrument of offence. More precisely:

1. The legitimate declaration of a war must necessarily reside in the valid constitution of the authority.
2. War must necessarily be the only means left to respond to an iniuria and, therefore, the only way to restore a broken balance.
3. Finally, it is essential that no malignant feelings intervene (Buzzi 2004: 73-78).

These reflections were already conceived and further developed on several occasions, first by Isidore of Seville and then by the glossators of the Bologna school, and eventually taken up, mutatis mutandis, by Thomas Aquinas, who not only tried to establish a synthesis of these discussions but also, whenever possible, to go even further (Buzzi 2004: 78-79). In fact, in observance of a reading of the Holy Scriptures, which preach evangelical peace, Thomas came to conclusions similar to those proposed by Augustine in De civitate Dei, which would contribute to determining that tradition constantly present in the Second Scholasticism. In short, these conclusions involve:

1. The presence of a legitimate authority, which has been entrusted with the task of defending citizens from internal evildoers and external enemies, therefore a principis auctoritas.
2. The presence of a just cause.
3. Tinally, the presence of the intention to promote good and avoid evil, i.e. a recta intentio (Thomas Aquinas 1949).

Indeed, it should be noted that in the same assumption of the issue of warfare and the resulting definitions, the Jesuit cites the Doctor Angelicus precisely in that part of the Summa Theologiae, where the three requirements just mentioned above can be outlined. However, it should be emphasised that, with the discovery of the Americas, this theme found itself faced with new needs, which resulted in new interpretations of the concept of war. It should be kept in mind that what was at stake was the conquest of new territories already permanently occupied by unknown populations, which also entailed a new evaluation of their characteristics in terms of government.

Suarezian definitions: bellum and pugna

All the foregoing is to be found in the study and in the very forma mentis of Suárez, who, in the usual academic style derived from his scholastic background, starts by enunciating the following definitions, starting from which he would work out the short piece of writing:

Pugna exterior, quae exteriori paci repugnat, tunc proprie bellum dicitur, quando est inter duos principes, vel duas respublicas; quando vero est inter principem et suam rempublicam, vel inter cives et rempublicam, dicitur seditio; quando inter privatas personas, vocatur rixa, vel duellum; inter quae materialis magis quam formalis differentia esse videtur, atque de his omnibus dicemus, de quibus D.Thomas 2.2, q. 40, 1 et 42, et alii infra referendi (Suárez 1857: 737).

What we note from the series of definitions that mark the beginning of the disputatio is first and foremost a precise distinction between two categories of conflict, that the Jesuit defines, respectively, one as exterior and the other – which we could define in opposition to the former – as interior (Please note that the term “interior” was chosen by me, as it is more suitable to show the contrast existing between the various types of conflict that can arise). Now, given the peculiarities of the latter category, which cannot be associated with war, despite the fact that it shares some of properties and evident manifestations of the latter that recall, precisely, real war, it offers some hints that allow us to outline the entire phenomenology of situations of belligerence.

So, let us consider – in the first instance – the second category of conflict, which we have referred to as interior. As for this kind of bellum or pugna, two forms can be identified, namely: the first, which develops through the disagreement between the cives and the princeps or between the cives of two communities coexisting under the same leadership; regarding this first form, we speak of seditio. The second form of pugna interior is the one that does not develop against the constituted authority, but substantially inter privatas personas, and this latter form is referred to as duellum or rixa.

The seditio, i.e. bellum commune intra eamdem rempublicam, quod geri potest vel inter duas partes eius, vel inter principem et rempublicam (Suárez 1857: 759) can be identified in three cases.

The first scenario comes into being in the event that two parts of the community wage war against each other. According to Suárez, this form of seditio is always to be considered an evil whenever we cannot identify the existence of a legitima auctoritas ad indicendum bellum (Suárez 1857: 759) in any specific part of the communitas politica. It can be assumed from this that the aggression of one part against the other part is always mala (ex parte aggressionis); in other words, it is a situation that determines the right to legitimate defence on the part of the opposing party.

The second scenario in which we can identify a situation of seditio comes into being when bellum reipublicae is waged contra principem, which thus includes the case of a revolt of the political body defined here as respublica. In fact, in this case Suárez emphasises that such war non est intrinsece malum”. This stance involves considering the evaluation of a possible unjustified behaviour in the princeps being such as to legitimise the popular revolt.

Besides, as he had already written extensively in the Defensio fidei (Suárez 1872), if the princeps acts as a tyrant, he becomes an aggressor of the communitas politica by waging war against it and its individual members. The consequence is that the entire state community can bello insurgere contra ejusmodi tyrannum (Suárez 1857: 759). Furthermore, it should be emphasised that the Defensio fidei, referring to a usurper, reads as follows:

(…), ideoque si rex legitimus tyrannice gubernet, et regno nullum aliud subsit remedium ad se defendendum, nisi regem expellere, ac deponere, poterit respublica tota, publico et communi consilio civitatum et procerum regem deponere, tum ex vi iuris naturalis quo licet vim vi repellere, tum quia semper hic casus ad propriam reipublicae conservationem necessarius, intelligitur exceptus in primo illo foedere, quo respublica potestatem suam in regem transtulit (Suárez 1872: 290).

These clarifications prove even more insightful if we consider the words of De bello:

quia tunc tota respublica superior est rege; nam cum ipsa dederit illi potestatem, ea conditione dedisse censetur, ut politice, non tyrannice regeret, alias ab ipsa posse depone (Suárez 1857: 759).

Finally, we come to the third scenario of seditio, that Suárez identifies as an outright seditio and the only one of the three scenarios deemed to be intrinsically evil (Pereña Vicente 1956: 125-127). This category of seditio occurs whenever the community rebels against a sovereign whose behaviour has actually given no reason for reaction, nor has he in any way perpetrated an aggression against his own community. The arbitrariness that characterises the behaviour of the political body towards the sovereign therefore appears evident to Suárez and, consequently, this form cannot be the true seditio.

Let us now consider the second category of conflict which, for the sake of convenience, we have indicated as interior in order to differentiate it from the bellum exterior or proprie bellum dicitur (Suárez 1857: 737), that is the duellum or rixa.

Once again, the Jesuit tries to enumerate and group together all the case records on the subject to outline a few rules and certain conclusions, ending up identifying in the duellum or rixa or bellum privatum (Suárez 1857: 759) a form of private war, which he always considers as an evil, except in the case of someone who is driven to commit such a type of deed, intrinsically wicked, by the duty to defend his own honour (Suárez 1857: 760-762).

The reason why the duellum should always be considered intrinsically evil is clarified within the theme of the bellum exterior, where it reads:

vindicatio propria, auctoritate privata, intrinsece mala est, atque eo colore facile excitarentur tumultus et bella in republica; sed jus vindictae, quod habet pars reipublicae, vel privata persona, tantum est imperfectum, et in illo habent haec incommoda majorem locum; ergo non est illi danda haec licentia, nisi solum intra limites justae defensionis (Suárez 1857: 740).

That is to say, if private interest is not justifiable for an exterior war, it is even more condemnable in the case of a situation of conflict within the community. In other words, the duel always ends up being a form of private revenge and, as such, cannot be justified, except before a princeps (Suárez 1857: 762) acting as judge, who will have to establish what motivations led to such a deed by reconstructing the entire event allegata et probate (Suárez 1857: 761).

However, according to the Jesuit there would exist alongside these last two scenarios a third one, which, however, could be considered to be non-negative. In fact, we read:

si auctoritate publica fiat, non est intrinsece mala, sed si alioquin habeat justas belli conditiones, honestari potest (Suárez 1857: 762).

The superior judgment of the authority regarding the legitimacy – justa causa – of the conflict could even justify the conflict itself between two parties, since

moltitudinis personarum non variat honestatem, sive justitiam (Suárez 1857: 762).

This principle also finds further application in the event that someone invested with public authority is killed; in fact,

nam occisio auctoritate publica, et ex justa causa, non est intrinsece mala.

The case of the killing of public authority is, therefore, justified by the presence of a just cause, thus clearly referring to the theories already developed in Defensio fidei which, here, are simply alluded to (Suárez 1872: 285-292).

Well then, already from the analysis of the scenarios that can be occur within a political body, we understand how, for Suárez, the theme of war has an ethical-juridical-political relevance, rather than specifically theological. It can be observed even more clearly – and all the more so in dealing with the war inter duos principes – how it is considered independently of theological evaluations and linked to human philosophical knowledge and always dependent on moral categories (Buzzi 2004: 120).

The reasons for this position find their foundation in natural law and in the Aristotelian philosophy of society, which implies the presence of an authority that has the function of guaranteeing the common good (Buzzi 2004: 118). This is how, for Suárez, the bellum exterior can be differentiated: on the one hand it takes the form of bellum (exterior) defensivum, while on the other hand it takes the form of bellum (exterior) aggressivum.

However, while war waged for defensive purposes is always legitimate, since it takes the form of legitimate defence for the respublica under attack, when it comes to examining the case of aggressive war, the need arises to carefully analyse the different circumstantial situations that can possibly occur.

Bellum etiam aggressivum non est per se malum, sed potest esse honestum et necessarium (Suárez 1857: 738).

This statement highlights a fundamental aspect of the nature of aggressive war according to Suárez’s thought. In fact, the Jesuit motivates his assertion with arguments that, in his opinion, would not have been clear even to Luther, who is directly involved in this regard. In support of his theory, Suárez states that aggressive war can be just

quia tale bellum saepe est reipublicae necessarium ad propulsandas injurias, et coercendos hostes, neque aliter possent respublicae in pace conservari. Est ergo hoc jure naturae licitum, atque adeo etiam lege evangelica, quae in nulla re derogat juri naturali, neque habet nova praecepta divina, praeterquam fidei et sacramentorum (Suárez 1857: 738).

The duty to preserve peace in the nation, therefore, is the ground that legitimises and makes war necessary, to the point that Luther’s theses, which essentially denied such possibility, are even deemed ridiculous:

Quod vero Lutherus aiebat, non licere resistere castigationi Dei, ridiculum est: Deus enim non vult haec mala, sed permittit, unde non prohibet quin juste possint propulsari (Suárez 1857: 738).

Conclusions

From what has been said so far, and fully taking up the Thomistic tradition, which was referred to at the beginning of this work, in order to declare war, wherever the latter is conducted honeste, even if propter multa incommoda quae secum affert, ex iis negotiis est quae male fiunt (Suárez 1857: 739), the guaranteed competition of three elements is required, namely:

1. primum, ut sit a legitima potestate;
2. secundum, ut justa causa, et titulus;
3. tertium, ut vetur debitus modus, et aequalis in illius initio, prosecutione, et victoria, (…) (Suárez 1857: 739).

If for Suárez the first element, namely the legitima potestas, is nothing other than the manifestation of the legitimacy of the prince, who has no one else above him in the respublica, it is clear that the princeps is also the only one to be invested with all the potestas necessary to guide, protect and administer a group. In this connection, the deed that pertinet ad justitiam vindicativam, quae maxime necessaria est in republica ad coercendum malefactors (Suárez 1857: 739) falls within the jurisdictional function. i.e. the potestas jurisdictionis, whereby the Jesuit argues that

sicut supremus princeps potest punire sibi subditos quando aliis nocent, ita potest se vindicare de alio principe, vel republica, quae ratione delicti ei subditur (Suárez 1857: 739).

Actually, should the prince prove to be negligens in vindicanda et defendenda republica, then the entire community could se vindicare et privare ea auctoritate principem, quia semper censetur apud se retinere eam potestatem, si princeps officio suo desit (Suárez 1857: 739).

In Suárez’s opinion, the legitimate potestas in respublica is therefore easily identifiable and, in actual fact, war could not be declared by someone who is not invested with the due legitimate authority, because he would act not only contra charitatem, but also contra justitia etiam adsit legitima causa (Suárez 1857: 741). The reason that Suárez identifies is entirely referable to these conclusions: quia actus ille tunc fit sine jurisdictione legitima; est ergo illegitimus (Suárez 1857: 741).

With regard to the legitimate potestas, then, Suárez makes a digression on the figure of the Pontiff, who non habet directam potestatem in temporalibus extra suum dominium, habere tamen indirectam (Suárez 1857: 740).

Once again – as he had already had the opportunity to highlight in his two major political works, namely: the Tractatus de legibus ac Deo legislatore in decem libros distributus and the Defensio fidei we already mentioned – the Jesuit tries to clarify that the Pontiff is substantially a spiritual authority unable to intervene in all the political matters that concern the most practical life of a kingdom. However, the potestas indirecta grants the head of the Church the power to judge whether the moral ends pursued by a sovereign in pursuit of the bonum commune of his people are consistent or not with the values of the Church. Therefore, the Pontiff will hardly be able to judge a war as just when waged between two Christian kings, although it might “rare” even happen that he sides with one of the two kings involved, while in any case he will always find himself sided against the infidels (Suárez 1857: 740-743). It is clear that the Jesuit could not have been more attentive and suited to the times and to the position he holds.

The second essential element required – according to the Jesuit – to declare war based on reasonable grounds, is found in the justa causa, et titulus. Like all his predecessors, from the examples set by those closest to him, such as Francisco de Vitoria, to those of the older ones, such as Augustine of Hippo, Suárez also identifies in the gravis injuria the only true causa justa et sufficiens to wage war (Suárez 1857: 743). At the same time, however, it is the Jesuit himself who warns against possible errors in the interpretation of situations that could give rise to injuria. Although injuria certainly gives the offended party the right to avenge the offence received, in the event of a justa causa (which is the case in question), it cannot happen instead that both opponents feel simultaneously offended and entitled to defend themselves, since duo enim contra juria non possunt esse justa and, stirring things up even more, Suárez states quod est absurdissimum (Suarez 1857: 744; see also Cassi 2012: 22).

The cause that generates injustice must not, however, be abstract, founded on non-concrete elements and dictated only by the judgement of the princeps; on the contrary, as appears from the text, Suárez is attentive to all the circumstances, even diplomatic ones, that might arise in determining an injuria. In fact, he writes, among the objective elements of injuria, also the following cases should be considered: if the sovereign neget communia jura gentium sine rationabili causa, ut transitum viarum, commune commercium, etc. (Suárez 1857: 744).

In so doing, the Jesuit relaunches a legal-economic approach, precisely by indicating the violation of those fundamental rights of trade and transit (see Cassi 2012: 22-ss. and Buzzi 2007: 120-ss.), ethical-political factors that had been first introduced at the dawn of Spanish Scholasticism.

As he goes on reading the text of the disputatio de bello, Suárez continues to list the various titles, thanks to which the sovereign can declare war. The latter include the possibility – which is worth highlighting here – of waging war in defence of citizens’ rights when these are violated by other sovereigns. Of course, this option had already been pointed out in the Tractatus (Suárez 1868: 161-ss.) and then, more extensively, in the Defensio (Suárez 1872), in which Suárez had deemed it possible, for a community oppressed by a tyrant prince, to request external help. However, in the disputatio under examination, greater emphasis is given to the disagreement existing between the faithful and the infidels, a very delicate issue that had actually involved the Jesuit’s work repeatedly and on several occasions.

Finally, the third part concerns a rather technical aspect of the course of the war itself, not only the princeps as the first leader of armies, but also how the armies themselves should be managed, and even the problem of the soldiers in the pay of the princeps (Suárez 1587: 752-758). I reckon it is not worthwhile to dwell on this third part, since such a discussion would not add any useful element to highlight the general position on the theme of warfare.

In conclusion, the very formulation of the treatise on the three theological virtues dates back to the author’s Roman years, that is, between 1580 and 1585. In those years, in fact, Suárez held an impressive quantity of courses and had the opportunity, also thanks to his friendship with brother Roberto Bellarmino, to study themes that would then undergo a very long gestation, as in the case of the theme addressed here, where even the post mortem publication was edited.

The Jesuit’s casuistic and academic trait is repeated even more so on a theme, such as that of warfare, which gives rise to multiple theoretical – but above all practical – hints. Analysing reality, Suárez, tries to group together the events that, in his opinion, are most likely to happen both outside and inside a communitas politica.

The description not only of the titles, but also of the causes and of the behaviour to be held even at the height of war – which must always be based on weighing up violence with the wrong suffered as a guiding yardstick – is rendered through a harmonious legal and philosophical awareness, capable of clearly recalling the concepts of prudentia and bonum commune, from which all Suárez’s political work draws inspiration.

Besides, Suarez’s entire activity is characterised by constant dialogue with his authoritative teachers as well as with his contemporaries with the aim of projecting himself towards a new interpretation of the themes that, little by little, are brought to his attention in the light of verifying the existence of a solution as close as possible to reality.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

• Francisco Suárez, De triplici virtute theologicae, in Opera Omnia, Parisiis: apud Ludovicum Vivès, 1857.
• Francisco Suárez, Defensio fidei catholicae et apostolicae adversus Anglicanae sectae errores, Neapoli: ex typis fibrenianis, 1872
• Francisco Suárez, Tractatus de legibus ac Deo legislatore in decem libros distrubutus, Neapoli: ex typis fibrenianis, 1868.
• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Bologna: EDS, 1949.

Secondary Literature

• Buzzi, Franco. 2007. “Il tema de iure belli nella Seconda Scolastica”. In F. Arici-F. Todescan (edited by). Iustus ordo e ordine della natura. Sacra Dottrina e sapere politici fra XVI e XVIII secolo. Padua: CEDAM.
• Cassi, Aldo Andrea. 2003. “Dalla santità alla criminalità della guerra, Morfologie storico-giuridiche del bellum iustum”. In A. Calore (edited by) Seminari di Storia e di Diritto. Milan: Franco Angeli.
• Cassi, Aldo Andrea. 2012. “Diritto e guerra nell’esperienza giuridica europea tra Medioevo ed età contemporanea”. In A. Sciumè (edited by). Il diritto come forza. La forza del diritto. Le fonti in azione nel diritto europeo tra medioevo ed età contemporanea. Turin: G. Giappichelli Editore.
• Davis, G. Scott. 2018. “Francisco Suárez (1548-1617)”. In Daniel R. Brunstetter and Cian O’Driscoll (ed.). Just War Thinkers: From Cicero to the 21st Century. London: Routledge, 105-117.
• Díaz, Bárbara. 2009. “Guerra y comunidad internacional: Vitoria y Suárez”. In Idoya Zorroza, María (ed.). Proyecciones sistemáticas e históricas de la teoría suareciana de la ley. In Cuadernos de Pensamiento Español 36: 35-44.
• Endy, Melvin 2018a. “Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez on Religious Authority and Cause for Justified War: The Centrality of Religious War in the Christian Just War Tradition”. In Journal of Religious Ethics 46.2: 289-331.
• Faraco, Cintia. 2013. “Sul concetto di guerra in Francisco Suárez”. In Heliopolis XI.2: 29-39.
• Gómez, Maria Martíns. 2024a. “La guerra como problema filosófico: la aportación de la Escuela de Salamanca”. In Gómez, Maria Martíns (ed.), El pensamiento vivo de la Escuela de Salamanca: filosofía y guerra. Editorial Comares.
• Gómez, Maria Martíns. 2024b. “La guerra como problema de conciencia en Francisco de Vitoria”. In Hermida del Llano, Cristina (ed.) Castilla Urbano, Francisco (ed.) Gutiérrez Simón, Rodolfo (ed.) Sánchez Cuervo, Antolín (ed.), Filosofías de la paz y crítica de la guerra en Iberoamérica. Madrid: Dykinson, 51-64.
• Guerrero, Eustaquio. 1948. “La verdadera doctrina de Suárez sobre el derecho de la Guerra”. In Pensamiento: Revista de investigación e Información filosófica, 4 Extra: 583–602.
• Hamilton, Bernice. 1963. Political Thought in Sixteenth-Century Spain. A study of the political ideas of Vitoria, de Soto, Suárez and Molina. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Johnson, James Turner. 2014. Sovereignty: Moral and Historical Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
• Langella, Simona, 2024. “Sulla guerra giusta: il dittico del 1539 di Francisco de Vitoria”. In Dioni, Gianluca (ed.), Todescan, Franco (ed.). Diritto naturale e guerra giusta. Edizioni Firenze, 97-111.
• Langella, Simona. 2022. “On War and Peace in the First Modernity: From Erasmus’ Irenic Discourse to the Just War Theory of the Founder of the School of Salamanca”. In Studies in the History of Law and Justice. Springer, 157-169.
• Langella, Simona. 2020. “La guerra justa en Vitoria y Suárez: convergencias y adelantos de una teoría”. In Carvalho, Mário Santiago de (ed), Pulído, Manuel Lázaro (ed), Guidi, Simone (ed), Francisco Suárez. Metaphysics, Politics and Ethics, Coimbra: Coimbra University Press, 447-476.
• López Atanes, Francisco Javier. 2010. “El derecho a la guerra y la ley natural”. In Fernández de la Cigoña Cantero, Carmen, and Francisco Javier López Atanes (eds.). En la frontera de la modernidad: Francisco Suárez y la ley natural. Madrid: CEU, 2010.
• Mantovani, Mauro. 2017. “Algunas notas sobre la teoría de la ‘guerra justa’ en Francisco Suárez”. In Sophia, 23: 239-263.
• Rolland, Louis. 1914. “François Suárez et le droit de la guerre”. In Louis Rouzic (Ed.). L’Eglise et la guerre. Paris: Bloud et Gay
• Scattola Merio (ed.), 2003. Figure della guerra. La riflessione su pace, conflitto e giustizia tra Medioevo e prima età moderna. Milan: Franco Angeli.
• Schwartz, Daniel. 2022. ‘Jus post bellum‘. In H. E., Braun, E. De Bom, and P. Astorri, eds. A Companion to the Spanish Scholastics. Leiden: Brill, 390-410.
• Schwartz, Daniel. 2019. The Political Morality of the Late Scholastics: Civic Life, War and Conscience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Soder, Josef. 1973. Francisco Suárez und das Völkerrecht, Grundgedanken zu Staat, Recht und internationalen Bezienhungen. Frankfurt am Main: Alfred Metzner Verlag.
• Torres Campos, Manuel. 1917. Francisco Suárez y el derecho cristiano de la Guerra. Madrid: CSCI.
• Vanderpol, Alfred. 1911. Le droit de guerre d’après les théologiens et les canonistes du moyen-âge. Paris: A. Pedone.
• Vanderpol, Alfred. 1919. La doctrine scolastique du droit de guerre. Paris: A. Pedone.

L'articolo Suárez, Francisco – Theory of War proviene da Conimbricenses.org.

The latest version of this entry may be cited as follows: Gerace, Antonio, “Biblical Exegesis”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.14730839”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/biblical-exegesis-coimbra”, latest revision: January, 24th, 2025.

Introduction

The early sixteenth century witnessed a rise in biblical studies in Portugal, mirroring a trend seen across Christian Europe. This stemmed from a confluence of factors with roots in the previous century: the rise of Humanism, with its emphasis on studying ancient sources, led to a more thorough examination of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew works, including the scriptures; the invention of the printing press facilitated the widespread dissemination of biblical texts, making them more readily available for study; and finally, the Protestant Reformation’s focus on the Bible, following from Luther’s principle of sola scriptura, triggered a Catholic response that also emphasized scriptural authority.

Historical Background

In Portugal, the rise of biblical studies cannot be separated from the development of university theology. As in Spain, Portugal’s colonial empire required an increasingly bureaucratic elite with juridical and theological training. This, in turn, led to the significant expansion of its universities, where theology was of paramount importance. Moreover, theology played a pivotal role in the encounter with other religions and confessions. From the beginning, Portuguese conquest and exploration of the North African Atlantic coast was linked to ideals of crusade, and the Holy See provided its approval by issuing the bulls Dum Universas (1452), Romanus Pontifex (1455), and Inter Caetera (1456).

Exploration was accompanied by a climate of intellectual curiosity, prompting theological debates on the status of the indigenous peoples encountered, including Christians with distinct yet ancient traditions, such as the Syrian Christians of India. In addition, the search for the lands of the legendary ‘Prester John’, soon identified with the Negus, the Christian Emperor of Ethiopia, posed another theological challenge for Portuguese scholars. The arrival of Ethiopian Church members at the Council of Florence in 1440 and Zär’a Ya‘ǝqob’s embassy to Alfonso V of Aragon strengthened European interest in Sub-Saharan Christians, leading to reciprocal diplomatic missions. In particular, the embassy of Francisco Álvares (1520-1527) brought Sagga Za Ab to visit Portugal as official envoy of the Negus. However, once in Lisbon, he was compelled to defend the traditional practices of his homeland against the attacks of court theologians, who accused Ethiopians of being overly influenced by Jewish customs, such as circumcision (Martinez d’Alos Moner 2005: 34-37). Despite the strong anti-Jewish sentiments in Iberia, the use of Hebrew sources and medieval Jewish exegesis by Portuguese theologians had a substantial impact on their interpretation of the scriptures. This is evident from an analysis of the first incunabula issued in Portugal until the expulsion of Jews in 1496: the majority of these works were written in Hebrew, as the Universal Short Title Catalogue shows. Out of 53 works printed, 30 were in Hebrew, 13 in Portuguese, 9 in Latin, and one is in Spanish. Regarding the Hebrew sources, most of them were commentaries on prayers, such as David ben Yosef Abudarham’s Perush Seder Tefillot, and commentaries on the Bible or specific biblical books. The cities of Lisbon, Porto, and Lerida shared the monopoly on printing Hebrew sources, though most of them – 17 out of 30 – were issued by Elizer Toledano in Lisbon (see Rodrigues 1984; Del Barco 2015; see also Cardetas Beato 2020).

Motivated by a desire to defend the Bible – and its Catholic interpretation – from what they saw as the Masoretic ‘corruption’ of Hebrew sources and the Reformation(s)’ ‘misinterpretations’ of the Bible, theologians in Portugal, especially in Coimbra, commented on the scriptures by following the humanistic emphasis on the original sources (ad fontes).

Exegesis and University

In sixteenth-century Portugal, the output of biblical exegetical literature was largely tied to university teaching, particularly in Coimbra and, after 1559, in Évora as well. After the relocation of the university from Lisbon to Coimbra and its permanent establishment there, in 1537, the Faculty of Theology had one major chair for the study of the Bible – against two major chairs for scholastic theology. A few years later, in 1545, a second major chair related to biblical interpretation was created. This expansion was formalized in the 1559 university statutes, which made clear that, from that point on, one chair would be dedicated to the New Testament, called the Terça Chair, and another chair to the Old Testament, called the Noa Chair. This second chair, however, was vacant for two extended periods, from 1562 and 1576 and again from 1580 through 1587. A third chair of scripture was established on an indeterminate date; however, like the chairs of Durand, Scotus, and Gabriel Biel, this was a minor chair and thus not mandatory for the students (Taveira da Fonseca 1997: 782-783). The Bible chairs were considered less prestigious than those dedicated to scholastic theology, which was reflected by their associated salaries: the holders of the Bible chairs earned less than half the income of their counterparts in scholastic theology (Rodrigues 2007: 210).

More varied exegetical approaches to the Bible can be found in Coimbra than in other Iberian universities. This is arguably because the professors there belonged to different religious orders and had received their training in various universities. This entry explores such doctrinal variety by focusing exclusively on Bible commentators who also taught in in Coimbra. The bulk of the commentators analyzed below held either the Terça or Noa Chair: Jerónimo de Azambuja, O.P., known as Oleaster; Francisco Foreiro, O.P.; Pablo de Palacio y Salazar; Luís de Sotomaior, O.P.; Heitor Pinto, O.S.H.; Gabriel da Costa; and Pedro de Figueiró, O.S.A. Despite their differing approaches, these biblical commentators all aimed to defend Catholic dogma against the growing Protestant challenge. To illustrate how these theologians approached the Bible, I focus specifically on the doctrine of justification and the relation between grace and human free will in the economy of salvation – two of the most frequently discussed topics in the commentaries. Some Portuguese theologians concentrated primarily on the biblical text itself, drawing directly on Hebrew and Greek sources to interpret the Latin Vulgate and thereby establish its original, ‘philological’ meaning. Others, however, favored a more traditional approach, making use of patristic writings, scholastic theology, and Church canons to uphold Catholic interpretations.

Literature Review

In the second half of the twentieth century, scholars began to highlight the significant contributions of sixteenth-century Portuguese biblical exegesis, often focusing on specific authors, most of whom were active at the University of Coimbra. The most relevant historiographic contributions are summarized in this paragraph. The first major work is Friedrich Stegmüller’s 1959 volume, which provided a list chairholders in the Faculties of Theology of Coimbra and Évora between 1537 and the two first decades of the seventeenth century, and identified the scholarly output of each theologian, in both print and manuscript form. Stegmüller identified numerous manuscripts preserved in Lisbon, Coimbra, Évora, Braga, and Porto, as well as in international libraries such as those in London and Rome, which attests to the fact that Portuguese commentaries circulated beyond Portugal. Over a decade later, José Nunes Carreira turned his attention to biblical exegesis, publishing a monograph on Francisco Foreiro’s philology and textual criticism (1973), which was followed by several articles on Heitor Pinto and Pablo de Palacio y Salazar (1976), Luís de Sotomaior (1979), and Jerónimo de Azambuja (1995). Nunes Carreira also examined the reception of the Council of Trent’s decree Insuper (1546) in Portugal and the participation of the Portuguese theological delegation at the Council’s later sessions (1997). Other notable contributions include António Augusto Martins Marques’ articles on Oleaster’s exegesis (1966a; 1996b) and his involvement with the Portuguese Inquisition (1964-66), and Manuel Augusto Rodrigues’ numerous articles, including studies on Oleaster’s exegetical work (1976; 1977a), Pedro de Figueiró (1975a), Luís de Sotomaior (1985), and Heitor Pinto (1998). Notably, Rodrigues’ research (1977a) highlighted the influence of medieval Jewish biblical interpretations on Coimbra commentators, underscoring the importance of Hebrew studies at Coimbra (1984). Rodrigues’ monographs remain perhaps the most significant works in this field, which trace the development of biblical studies in Coimbra by focusing on the Bible chairs from 1537 to 1640 (Rodrigues 1974a), the impact of Oriental studies on Biblical exegesis (Rodrigues 1974b), and provide a more general overview on biblical exegesis in Portugal (1984).

Scope of This Entry

The overview provided here is not meant to be exhaustive. First, this entry deals exclusively with printed commentaries. It is important to note, however, that a number of biblical commentaries survive only in manuscript form and still await research. In fact, in the case of Luís de Sotomaior and Gabriel da Costa, the number of their unpublished commentaries exceeds those that were issued during their lifetime (see Stegmüller 1959: 22-25). Second, this entry covers only theologians whose career is somehow related to the University of Coimbra and its preceding institute in Lisbon. It thus excludes the commentary on the Psalms written by Bartholomew of Braga (Bartolomeu dos Mártires) while he was in Trent, and the Augustinian Sebastião Toscano’s commentary on the Book of Jonah, printed in Venice in 1573. Bartholomew received his theological training at the Dominican convent of Batalha, while Toscano studied at Salamanca and lectured in Bologna.

Finally, this entry analyzes how these authors addressed the Insuper decree (1546) regarding the Vulgate. However, since it focuses exclusively on biblical commentators, it will not discuss how other Portuguese theologians faced the same issue, for instance, in commentaries on the Summa theologiae IIa-IIae, q. 1, or in theological treatises. For this reason, the theologian Diogo de Paiva de Andrade (1528-1575), who, as a substitute at Coimbra in the academic year 1557-58, read on the Bible and dedicated Book IV of his Defensio Tridentinae Fidei (1578) to the question of the authority of the Vulgate, is not considered here (see Rodrigues 1975b and 1977b). It should be noted, however, that the reception of the Insuper decree in Portugal was less contentious than in Salamanca, as evidenced by the inquisitorial process carried out in the 1570s, which led to the arrests of professors Luis de León, Gaspar de Grajal, and Martín Martínez de Cantalapiedra.

Jerónimo de Azambuja, O.P., known as Oleaster (c. 1503-1563)

Jerónimo de Azambuja joined the Dominican Order in 1520 and enrolled in the university college of St. Thomas in Lisbon in 1525 (the college would move to Coimbra only in 1539). He continued his studies at the University of Louvain in 1536 and after returning to Portugal, King John III sent him to the Council of Trent, where he attended the sessions of the first period (1545-49). Back in Portugal, he worked for the Inquisition, compiling the Index of Prohibited Books (1547, cf. Martins Marques 1964-66; see also Sobral Coelho 2013).

Three biblical commentaries by Oleaster have survived: one on the Psalms, which survives only in manuscript form (Coimbra, Biblioteca Geral, Ms. 1022; see Martins Marques 1966), one on the Pentateuch (1556; see below), and a commentary on Isaiah, which was published posthumously in Paris in 1622 and reissued in 1656 (Nunes Carreira 1995).

Despite his role in the Inquisition, Oleaster’s own work came to be included in the Index due to his editorial choices: in his commentary on the Pentateuch (1556), he preferred to draw on Sante Pagnini’s Latin translation, which was made from Hebrew. This was a clear breach of Trent’s decree Insuper (1546), which determined the Latin Vulgate to be the authentic text of the Bible for the Catholic Church and the only possible version to be used «in public readings, debates, sermons, and explanations» (Tanner & Alberigo 1990: II.664-665). Furthermore, his commentary was seen as overly reliant on the Hebraica veritas. This brought his commentary to the attention of the Inquisition, which included it in the Index et catalogus librorum prohibitorum (1583), issued by Gaspar de Quiroga y Vela, the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. After a careful emendation of the preface, and in agreement with the requests made by the Inquisition, Oleaster published a second edition of his commentary on the Pentateuch in 1585, printed in Lyon by Pierre Landry. This commentary was reissued in 1586, 1588, and in 1589, evincing the impact of his work outside Portugal. A comparison of the two prefaces illuminates the reason behind the inclusion of his work in the Index. In the first preface, Oleaster rejects the notion that the Jews had corrupted the scriptures, arguing that there are important differences between the Hebrew and Latin versions of the Bible – and even among the various Latin versions – that are not related to Christological issues. To support his view, Oleaster refers to specific passages of the Pentateuch (Gn. 8 and Gn. 48). However, in the second preface, Oleaster eliminates the long section of the text where he mentioned those passages and aligns himself with the Tridentine decree, declaring that there are no errors in the translation itself, though errors were introduced by scribes over the centuries – indeed, it was precisely on account of those errors that the Council demanded the emendation of the Latin Bible.

Oleaster’s work is heavily indebted to the Hebrew Bible. In almost each verse he comments on, Oleaster mentions Hebrew words and expressions, transliterated into Latin characters, to provide the most faithful and philologically accurate meaning of the scriptures. He also shows his openness to Hebrew exegesis, drawing on the work of medieval rabbis such as David Kimhi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and Rashi (Rodrigues 1978: 184).

Throughout his work, Oleaster criticizes the ‘insane’ Luther for having denied human free will (Hieronymus ab Oleastro, CPb: 585A). He argues that Luther did not acknowledge that the human being acquires Christ’s justice not only by faith, but also by charity (idem, CPb: 82B-83A) – a teaching that is all the more absurd given that Luther himself stressed the importance of abiding by God’s commandments despite maintaining that good works are useless for salvation (idem, CPb: 574B). Oleaster expresses concern over the organizational effectiveness of the Lutherans, who he sees as capable of ‘perverting’ the younger generations and leading them to embrace heretical ideas from the cradle. Moreover, Lutherans had success in converting others because of their intense preaching activity. Oleaster blames Catholics for not adopting a similar approach, noting that very few wish to become preachers. Finally, Oleaster condemns the presence of ‘superstitions’ among Catholics, something that, in his view, the Church has failed to adequately address (idem, CPb: 600B).

In his commentary on Isaiah, Oleaster reiterates his criticism of Luther as an ‘enemy’ of human free will (Hieronymus ab Oleastro, CIP: 252) and for viewing good works as sinful (idem, CIP: 1093, 1249 and 1255). Oleaster also claims that, out of self-preservation, Luther opposed the killing of ‘heretics’ and argued that similar leniency should be applied to murderers, thieves, and other ‘enemies of the state’. Based on Rm. 13:4, Oleaster refutes this view, maintaining the legitimacy of coercive power for such cases (idem, CIP: 265).

Francisco Foreiro, O.P. (c. 1522-1581)

A native of Lisbon, Francisco Foreiro embodied the intellectual spirit fostered by the Portuguese nobility. In the context of King John III’s cultural policy, Foreiro was one of seventy students awarded a scholarship to study abroad. Foreiro went to Paris, where he received a solid training in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. He furthered his education at Salamanca before returning to Lisbon in 1539, where he joined the Dominican Order. His scholarly reputation quickly grew, for Foreiro held important positions in Lisbon: he became preceptor of António, Prior of Crato, and served the Inquisition as a censor of books. His expertise was further recognized by a number of prestigious appointments, including being named the preacher of King John III in 1555 and being selected as the royal theologian at the Council of Trent in 1561 (Nunes Carreira 1974: 4-22 and 2006). This latter role paved the way for his inclusion in the Roman Committee for the Index of Prohibited Books in 1564. Significantly, he contributed to the preface of this crucial document. Foreiro also collaborated on the revision of the Roman Missal and Breviary. After returning to Lisbon in 1566, Foreiro became the prior provincial of Portugal in 1568. There is limited information regarding the last decade of his life; whether he was appointed professor of theology at the University of Coimbra remains a subject of scholarly debate (Nunes Carreira 1973: 21).

Foreiro published an annotated edition of Isaiah in 1563, dedicating it to Prince Henry of Portugal, Archbishop of Évora and later King of Portugal. There, addressing the clerics gathered in Trent, he declared his intention – never fulfilled – to publish a commentary on «all the books of Prophets, Job, David, and Salomon». Foreiro comments on Isaiah sentence by sentence, presenting both the ‘old’ (i.e. Vulgate) translation and his own, ‘new’ Latin translation based on the Hebrew text. His purpose was to reveal the original meaning of the text against the ‘perverse’ interpretations of the heretics, Luther above all (Forerius, CI: aiii^v-aiv^r). For this reason, each chapter presents the two Latin translations in two columns, followed by a thorough philological analysis. Against the backdrop of the decree Insuper on the ‘authenticity’ of the Vulgate, in his preface Foreiro underlines that he changed some elements (quaedam) which were mistakenly handed down due to the scribes’ negligence (librariorum negligentia), maintaining that no errors can be ascribed to the translator, Jerome (Forerius, CI; see Nunes Carreira 1973: 95-108 and 1997: 78-80). As Nunes Carreira (1973) maintains, Foreiro applies a philological approach to the scriptures, conducting an in-depth analysis of Hebrew words and idioms. However, he does not draw on Jewish exegesis because, in his view, the rabbis had purposefully altered the text to avoid any possible Christological interpretation, which obscured the meaning of the scriptures. For Foreiro, this ‘corruption’ of the Old Testament, due principally to the introduction of vowel signs by the Masoretes, can be validated by textual variations found in the Septuagint and Vulgate, which differ from the Hebrew text (Nunes Carreira 1973: 90). This, Foreiro maintains, serves as strong evidence of the Jewish corruption of the Old Testament. Given his approach focused primarily on philology, Foreiro also refers to the translations by Theodotion, Symmachus, and Aquila of Sinope, which predate the Masoretic vocalization of the Hebrew text, to construct the most faithful readings of the scriptures. Additionally, Foreiro carefully drew on recent scholarship, in particular François Vatable’s 1539 edition of the Hebrew text of Isaiah, and Sante Pagnini’s Latin translation.

Foreiro’s is not overtly polemical; he engages minimally with confessional disputes against specific authors and scarcely mentions the Church Fathers, apart from Augustine, and he criticizes only once the doctrine of grace alone. Foreiro emphasizes the responsibility that any person has in the economy of salvation. Against the Protestants’ claims, Foreiro argues that everyone must act well in order to atone for ones’ sins and to acquire merits necessary for eternal life (Forerius, CI: 136v).

The central aim behind Foreiro’s commentary is seemingly to demonstrate – in opposition to Jewish scholarship – that Isaiah prophesied the arrival of Jesus Christ. He reinforces this position by cross-referencing passages from the New Testament, particularly Paul’s epistles.

Pablo de Palacio y Salazar (d. 1582)

Born in Granada, Pablo de Palacio y Salazar was the brother of the Salamancan theologian Miguel de Palacio y Salazar. After studying philosophy in Salamanca, Palacio moved to Portugal in 1525, where he earned his doctorate in theology from the University of Évora in June 1560. Shortly after, he was appointed to the Noa Chair at Coimbra. In 1563, he came to hold the Terça Chair (Rodrigues 1974a: 131-156).

The lion’s share of Palacio’s output is related to biblical exegesis, though he also translated Cajetan’s Summa de peccatis into Castilian. He published several biblical commentaries: on the Gospel of Matthew (1564), the Book of Isaiah (1572), the Gospel of John (1581), the Canonical Epistles (1581), Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews (1590), and the Twelve Prophets (1592).

Palacio’s exegetical approach is greatly indebted to scholastic philosophy, Aquinas being his main reference. By contrast, he rarely mentions the Church Fathers. In his first published commentary, on Matthew, Palacio often mentions Luther and even Thomas Münster by name, with clauses such as «Luther omits» (… taceat Lutherus) or «Luther lies, by saying …» (… Lutherus mentiatur, dicens …). In such passages, Palacio provides synopses of Protestant teachings in an attempt to demonstrate their doctrinal inconsistencies with recourse to scripture.

On the issue of the sola gratia principle, Pablo de Palacio rejects the idea that human cooperation is unnecessary in the economy of salvation (Palacio, EM: 392). Of course, grace is the «source of salvation» (fons salutis), but the individual’s deeds are sustained by the gratia adiuvans, and they cooperate to effect an individual’s salvation (operatio nostra per gratiam adiuta saluti cooperatur). Justification is the most discussed doctrine throughout the commentaries, and Palacio does not hesitate to defend the Catholic view, in accordance with Trent’s decree on justification (1547), against Luther’s doctrine (idem, EM: 724).

To defend the Catholic interpretation of justification, Palacio does not turn to the Church Fathers, such as Chrysostom, who stressed the role of good works – authors Luther had chosen not to cite. Instead, he consistently returns to those Biblical passages which, for him, indicate that human cooperation is necessary in the economy of salvation. While commenting on Mt. 15:25, specifically regarding the woman’s words ‘help me’ (adiuva me), Palacio explicitly references Luther while availing himself of philosophical categories to argue that grace and good works hold an ontological reciprocity: good works can be interpreted as matter, while grace is the form, pre-existent in God. This stands in clear opposition to Luther’s sola gratia (idem, EM: 543).

Pablo de Palacio also rejects the Protestant idea of universal priesthood, which implies that even lay people can offer the eucharist. Against this argument, the Spanish theologian argues that Christ first gave bread to the disciples – His ministers – and only after that did they distribute it (idem, EM: 548). Finally, he strongly affirms the existence of the purgatory and the suffering to which its souls are subject, holding that those who have sinned in this earthly life must be tortured in the afterlife and cry out for indulgence (idem, EM: 368).

Luís de Sotomaior, O.P. (1526-1610)

A Portuguese noble by birth, Luís de Sotomaior joined the Dominican Order in Lisbon in 1543. He studied philosophy there, leaving Portugal in 1549 to complete his education at Leuven, both at the Faculty of Theology, under the guidance of John Henten – editor of the Louvain Vulgate (1547) – and at the Collegium trilingue. He earned his bachelor’s degree at the General Chapter of the Dominicans in Rome in 1558 and his master’s degree three years later. Afterward, he taught the New Testament at the University of Coimbra starting in 1566 (Stegmüller 1959: 22), holding the Terça chair for more than twenty years, through 1589.

Sotomaior produced two commentaries on the Song of Songs: a comprehensive, two-volume version in 1599-1601, and a shorter edition that was issued posthumously in 1611. In the first commentary, Sotomaior avoids mentioning his main targets, Luther and Calvin, explicitly. He limits himself to presenting Catholic doctrine through exegesis of the scriptures and by the Church Fathers, above all Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory of Nissa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom. He also draws on medieval authors such as Bede, Richard of St. Victor, and Bernard of Clairvaux, and also on medieval Jewish exegetes, for example, Abraham ibn Ezra and Rashi (see Rodrigues 1998: 1418 and 1979). He also refers to Latin and Greek authors (Moreira Mendes & Simões Rodrigues 1994).

In his commentary on the Song of Songs, Sotomaior emphasizes the necessity of confession to attain the ‘fullness of grace’ and thereby be freed from the slavery of sin (Sotomaior, CCI: I.603A). Notwithstanding the importance of good works, Sotomaior maintains that grace is sufficient in the economy of salvation, citing 2 Cor. 12:9: «My grace is sufficient for thee» (ibidem: 648A). Sotomaior insists on the primacy of grace at several instances, consistently drawing on the Doctor gratiae, Augustine, to argue that grace precedes and enables human freedom rather than being its result (ibidem: 87A; cf. De correptione et gratia 8,17). Nevertheless, remaining grounded in Augustine (De gratia et libero arbitrio, chap. 5), Sotomaior totally rejects the Lutheran doctrine of grace alone. Commenting on 1 Cor. 15:10 («Not I, but the grace of God is with me»), Sotomaior posits a reciprocal relation between grace and humankind, where grace in collaboration with the human will leads human beings to salvation. This process begins with God’s ‘most efficacious call’ which converts man’s mind. Indeed, before God’s intervention through grace, human beings are only capable of acting badly (Sotomaior, CCI: II.814A); all human merit follows from God’s grace (cf. ibidem: 885B and 953A). Thus, while human salvation depends entirely on God’s absolute will, this does not negate human freedom or the dignity of free will (ibidem: 954A). In accordance with Augustine, Sotomaior explains that God’s grace does not eliminate human will; rather, His intervention frees human beings from evil (ibidem: 885B). Sotomaior’s view carries a political implication: just like God bestows an efficacious grace upon the human being but leaves the human will unaltered, so too the Church – and the state – must not force people to convert, thereby erasing their will. Sotomaior goes so far as to claim that any temporal and/or spiritual authority should not «correct, punish, even kill and burn heretics and similar people», but rather seek to promote «discipline, justice and piety» (ibidem: 954B). This stance would appear to criticize the policy of forced conversion imposed upon the Jews, Muslims, and Indigenous peoples of the Americas that occurred in Spain and Portugal and in their colonial empires, thus distancing Sotomaior from some of his fellow Portuguese theologians.

Sotomaior’s commentary on Paul’s epistles to Timothy and Titus, published in 1610, is another of his significant works. Here, he once again affirms the importance of human involvement in the economy of salvation and, in clear opposition to the Protestants, maintains that human beings have the ability to act well (ad incipiendum bonum), although God’s help is required to effectively act well (ad perficiendum bonum) (Sotomaior, CP: 135). Sotomaior states that Augustine himself maintained that human beings are intrinsically free in their will and therefore have the ability to act well or badly (ibidem: 2066). Sotomaior also points to intra-confessional divisions among the ‘sectarians’ (sectatores): for him, the ‘heretic’ Luther almost dies «from his own sword» by labelling Zwingli and Oecolampadius heresiarchs and claiming that heresy is so great a sin that it is very difficult to return to the right path (ibidem: 2016). Sotomaior does not specify the context of the debate among the ‘heresiarchs’, since his motivation is to underscore Protestantism’s ideological fragmentation, in opposition to the solidity – and orthodoxy – of Catholic doctrine, which relies on both the scripture and tradition. However, it is quite clear that he is referring to the Marburg Colloquy (1529), where Protestant leaders debated the real presence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist.

Sotomaior criticizes Calvin’s doctrine of double predestination, though he does not mention Calvin by name. For the Portuguese theologian, Calvin’s doctrine is unable to explain the relation between free will and God’s efficacious grace; indeed, it de facto nullifies human free will, in that it is up to God to choose who will be saved and who will be damned. Against this view, Sotomaior maintains that God wants all human beings to be saved; for this reason, He provided them with His law to prohibit them from sinning. At the same time, God predestined human beings to act according to their own will, even if their will acts against God’s prohibitions. For this reason, even when human beings freely act against God’s will, they also act in accordance with God’s foreknowledge and will to create a specific world, since He is the cause of all contingent beings (ibidem: 264-283).

Heitor Pinto, O.S.H. (1528-1584)

The Hieronymite friar Heitor Pinto, born in Covilhã, is regarded as the most important exegete in Coimbra and one of the most authoritative in sixteenth-century Portugal (Rodrigues 1974a: 285). He held the Noa Chair at Coimbra between 1576 and 1580. Despite his relevance, his tenure was short lived; he was removed from the chair due to his opposition to the Iberian Union. Before his professorship in Coimbra, he taught for some years at the Hieronymite College of Salamanca. He was, however, educated in Coimbra. Heitor Pinto benefited from a solid knowledge of Greek and Hebrew; he also demonstrated a deep familiarity with the numerous works of the Church Fathers as well as Hebrew exegetes. His linguistic and theological proficiency enabled him to interpret the scriptures in a very faithful way – even identifying the Hebraisms in Paul’s Greek – to refute Protestant views. Unlike Sotomaior, Pinto frequently and quite harshly refers to his Protestant adversaries to demonstrate the inconsistencies of their theological speculations. He published a number of commentaries on the prophets: Isaiah (1561), Ezekiel (1568), Daniel, Nahum, and Jeremiah (1579), which were later compiled in his Opera Omnia (1584). Each volume begins with a comprehensive, three-column list of his sources: Church Fathers and rabbis, but also Latin and Greek authors – philosophers, literates, historians, geographers, and poets – translators of the Bible, both ancient (LXX, Theodotion, Symmachus, Aquila) and contemporary (Sante Pagnini), and academic colleagues like Oleaster.

Throughout his works, Pinto persistently condemns Lutheran doctrine. In his commentary on Isaiah, for example, he states on several occasions that Luther and Calvin are the expression of Epicurus’ lascivious doctrine (Pintus, OO: I.79a and 152a) and, what is more, they are «Venus’ soldiers» and «Baccus’ worshippers» (ibidem: 345b and 288b). While commenting on Is. 2:3, Pinto stresses that no salvation is possible outside the Catholic Church (according to the principle extra Ecclesiam nulla salus). For him, this was an occasion to attack Luther, along with Melanchthon, as an «impious man», a «detestable heretic[s]», who were «born for sedition», for these two men paved the way for a schism within the Church by suggesting another path to salvation that would, in fact, lead to eternal death. In Pinto’s commentary on Is. 48:12, Luther is once again strongly criticized for the role he assigns to human beings in the process of salvation. If humans are powerless to contribute to their own salvation – as the sola fide and the sola gratia principles suggest – then God would not ask them to repent. Finally, while commenting on Ez. 2:1-4, Pinto claims that individuals’ capacity to do good is not affected by sin, including mortal sins; on the contrary, whoever has sinned must prepare oneself to receive God’s grace by acting well, for virtuous actions dispose the human mind (animus) toward God’s justice (Pintus, OO: II.60A).

Gabriel da Costa (1556-1616)

Not to be confused with the homonymous Gabriel da Costa (1585-1640), more commonly known as Uriel da Costa, Gabriel da Costa was born in Torres Vedras. After enrolling in the College of St. Peter of the University of Coimbra in 1582, he completed a doctorate in theology in 1587. A disciple of Heitor Pinto, he succeeded Luís de Sotomaior in the Terça chair, holding it until 1615, just prior to his death in 1616.

Costa produced extensive commentaries on both the Old and New Testaments, including, among others, works on Psalms 57 and 109, Hosea 1-2, and the gospels of Mark and John (see Stegmüller 1959: 23-25). These commentaries survive only in manuscript form. However, in 1641, a few decades after Costa’s death, a posthumous collection of his commentaries on select Old Testament books was published in Lyon. This volume is divided into five parts, with each part focused on a chapter or book of the Old Testament: Genesis 49, the Book of Ruth, the Book of Lamentations, the Book of Jonah, and the Book of Malachi.

Costa’s commentaries reflect his great erudition, advancing a sound interpretation of specific elements of the Catholic faith. He prefers not to engage with Protestants on their own terms – in other words, by using the scriptures alone – but rather demonstrates the importance of drawing on multiple sources to unveil the meanings of scripture: he frequently cites Latin and Greek Church Fathers (principally Augustine, Tertullian, Cyprian, Theophylact of Ohrid, and Jerome), Latin and Greek authors, medieval Jewish exegetes, medieval scholastic authors (Anselm, Aquinas, and Duns Scotus), and contemporary authors like Bellarmine. Moreover, to affirm the Catholic foundation of his interpretations, he often references conciliar sources, especially from the Council of Trent (Rodrigues 1974a: 363-368). For example, Costa defends, against Luther and Theodor Beza, the sacramental value of the Catholic marriage (Costa, CVT: 149) by referring to the scriptures and Church Fathers, before turning to conciliar sources, including canons from the Council of Agde (506), the Council of Elvira (306), and the Synod of Arles (314).

In his interpretation of Gn. 49, Gabriel da Costa outlines a methodology for biblical exegesis, by explaining the senses in which the scriptures can be interpreted. Here, his categorizations align with tradition. The first sense in which the Bible can be interpreted is the ‘literal’ one, often defined as ‘historical’, but Costa shows that this category can be applied properly only to the historical books of the Bible – not to the prophetic or doctrinal books. Given these specificities, the theologian further divides the literal sense into ‘simple’ (simplex) – related to the proper meaning (propria significatio) of the words – and ‘figurative’ (figuratus) – the metaphorical meaning (metaphorica significatio). The allegorical, or mystical, sense provides a further level of interpretation, concerning concealed references to Christ or the Church in the Old Testament. The mystical sense, in its turn, can be divided into three different senses: simple allegory, tropological allegory, and anagogic allegory (Costa, CVT: 31-32; see Rodrigues 1974a: 361-362).

Costa’s approach to biblical exegesis seeks first to explain the literal sense of the scriptures, followed by the mystical one. He uses the Latin Vulgate as his primary reference text, while also consulting the Greek versions (LXX, Theodotion’s, Aquila’s, and Symmachus’). His ultimate purpose is to defend the normative power of the Church, against the attacks of the ‘reformers’ (reformatores) – chiefly Luther, though Costa also mentions Melanchthon and Calvin, who denied that the Council and the Pope can define dogmas of faith. For Costa, it is the Pope who holds primacy in declaring the truth of faith, and the scriptures corroborates this: Moses foreshadows the archetype of the Pontiff, while Christ explicitly bestows the power to define dogma onto Peter, by giving him the Keys of Heaven (Mt. 16:19). In that moment, Peter became the Supreme Pontiff of the Church (Costa, CVT: 221).

Pedro de Figueiró, O.S.A. (1523-1592)

Born in Figueiró dos Vinhos, Pedro de Figueiró moved to the nearby town of Coimbra to pursue his higher education. There, he mastered semitic languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic) before becoming a lecturer in sacred scriptures at the Augustinian monastery of the Holy Cross in Coimbra, where he remained the rest of his life. Figueiró was asked to replace Sotomaior – who had revised and approved Figueiró’s commentaries – at the Terça chair, but he declined, preferring instead to stay at the monastery (Rodrigues 1975b: 134). After his death, his commentary on the books of Jeremiah and Malachi was published in Lyon in 1596. Twenty years later, in 1616, his Opera Omnia was published in Lyon in two volumes: the first contained his commentary on the first 25 Psalms, the Book of Jeremiah, and the Book of Lamentations, while the second was entirely devoted to the Minor Prophets. Two manuscripts in the Biblioteca Geral of Coimbra (1728 and 1729) contain adnotationes on a number of Old Testament books (Rodrigues 1975a: 142). Like his fellow Coimbra theologians, Figueiró grounded his analysis of the scriptures in Patristic writings and medieval Jewish commentaries. He also follows the approach of returning to the original sources (ad fontes), consistently referencing both the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible.

Protestants are frequently the object of his critiques, though he does not typically mention them explicitly. The sole exception is Luther, whom he mentions only once, in a passage where Figueiró defends the Catholic doctrine of justification by both grace and works (Figueiro, Op.: I.144A). Here, he upholds the necessity of human free will. Without mentioning Luther by name, he maintains that justification needs both God and the individual’s willing consent to God’s help (ibidem: 318A). He also holds that the claim that even good works are sinful is false (ibidem: 99AB). At times, Figueiró condemns ‘heretics’ broadly without specifying who his target(s) might be. He holds that the danger posed by the ‘heretics’ comes from their ability to blend true and false teachings to confuse the faithful (ibidem: 291). By converting people to false teachings, ‘heretics’ irreparably damage the souls of believers, ‘killing’ them spiritually (spiritualiter), since apostates distance themselves from the path leading to salvation. When they are unable to convert others to their cause, these ‘heretics’ resort to physically (corporaliter) obliterating those who resist them (ibidem: 272B).

Elsewhere, Figueiró condemns the cuius regio, eius religio principle established at the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. He argues that this principle wrongly extends temporal rulers’ supreme authority over spiritual matters (ibidem: 94A).

Conclusion

The preceding overview analyzes a variety of exegetical approaches carried out by authors from different religious orders. However, a common thread unites these commentaries: their authors understand Luther and the Protestant Reformation as their opponents, and this forms the background of their biblical exegesis. Among the most influential Portuguese biblical interpreters of the sixteenth century, Foreiro entirely rejected Jewish exegesis, while promoting a philological approach to the scriptures that prioritized the ‘original’ language. Other authoritative theologians, such as Luís de Sotomaior and Heitor Pinto (Rodrigues 1998), however, drew heavily on medieval Jewish exegesis in their works, using it as a key to unlock the meaning of the scriptures. Throughout his commentaries, Pinto consistently defends the necessity of human free will and good works in the economy of salvation, reiterating that an individual’s actions are meritorious before God. In doing so, he harshly criticized Luther and Melanchthon, even to the point of demonizing and insulting them. By contrast, Sotomaior takes a quite different approach, aiming to convert rather than attack the authors he sees as opponents. Crucially, he never mentions these opponents by name, and their doctrines are not openly condemned. The only ‘heretics’ he cites are the Pelagians. Sotomaior, perhaps by virtue of his theological education at Leuven, where he became acquainted with Michael Baius’ thought, is greatly indebted to Augustine’s theology.

Gabriel Costa stresses the importance of Patristics and medieval authors for biblical exegesis as well as papal supremacy, while Pedro de Figueiró underscores the dangers posed by the Lutherans, who, he warns, can lead people to apostasy and spiritual damnation. Furthermore, he warns that if Lutherans fail to convert Catholics, they will kill those who remain faithful to the Church. This perceived threat explains the need to teach solid doctrine and thereby prevent the spread of Protestant ideas in Catholic territories. Finally, although Oleaster condemned Lutherans for distorting the meaning of the scriptures, he was also forced to recognize that, compared to Catholics, Protestants were more highly organized in their efforts to convert people through preaching and educating the younger generations through catechesis. Oleaster’s exegetical work is, therefore, an attempt to counter the Lutherans, by providing commentaries intended to unveil the ‘real’ meaning of the scriptures against ‘false’ interpretations.

Although the polemical target of the commentaries remained the ‘Lutherans’ – an umbrella term used to indicate all those confessions which arose in Europe during the Reformation – the specific character of biblical exegesis at Coimbra was even more shaped by its problematic relationship with the Jewish tradition. This tradition could be rejected or accepted, but every biblical scholar had to confront it to some extent. This approach likely reflects a broader trend of fiercely defending Catholicism in Portugal, which had its beginning with the expulsion of Jews and Muslims in 1496-97. That approach was later extended toward other forms of Christianity with which Portugal had come into contact through overseas exploration. This is evident in Portugal’s diplomatic relations with Ethiopian Christians, who were criticized for being too closely aligned with the Jewish tradition, and with Syrian Christians in Malabar, who became subjects of the Estado da Índia and whose texts were ordered to be burned at the Synod of Diamper in 1599 (Perczel 2006).

In this way, biblical scholarship reflected local theological needs, just as it did in other regions with different confessional landscapes, such as the Habsburg Netherlands. There, the Reformation(s) posed a more urgent threat, for it was seen as capable of destroying the integrity of the state, which was eventually split into the Catholic Spanish Netherlands in the south and the Calvinist Dutch Republic in the north. Because their country was a Catholic ‘wedge’ between the Holy Roman Empire, Huguenot France, and England, biblical scholars in the Netherlands employed various theological strategies to defended Catholicism against specific ‘heresies’ – more precisely identified than in Coimbra – «covering all the possible tonalities of the exegetical spectrum» (Gerace 2019: 260). In this respect, they deployed anti-Pelagian Augustinianism to defend Catholicism from Luther – a position which even led to Baianism – and Molinism to counter Calvinism. Nothing of this kind is found in the biblical commentaries produced at Coimbra, where the threat of Protestant views was felt less urgently than in other European universities.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

• Gabriel da Costa, Commentaria quinque in totidem libros Veteris Testamenti, Lugduni: sumptibus haeredum G. Boissat & L. Anisson, 1641 [= CVT]
• Hieronymus ab Oleastro, Commentaria in Pentateuchum Mosi, Olysipponae: apud I. Barrerium, 1556 [= CPa]
• Hieronymus ab Oleastro, Commentaria in Pentateuchum Mosi, Lugduni: apud P. Landry, 1589 [= CPb]
• Hieronymus ab Oleastro, In Isaiam Prophetam Commentarii, Lutetiae Parisiorum, Sumptibus Sebastiani Cramoisy [= CIP]
• Franciscus Forerius, Iesaiae prophetae vetus & nova ex Hebraico versio, cum commentario, in quo utriusque ratio redditur, vulgatus interpres a plurimorum calumniis vindicator, Venetiis: ex officina I. Zileti (sic), 1563 [= CI]
• Hector Pintus, Frater, Opera omnia latina, Lugduni: apud S. Michaelem, 1584, tomo I, tomo II, tomo III/1, tomo III/2 [= OO]
• Lodovicus Sotomaior, Cantici canticorum Salomonis interpretatio, Olysipponae: excudebat P. Crasbeeck, 1599-1601, t. I-II [= CCI]
• Lodovicus Sotomaior, Ad Canticum Canticorum notae posteriores et breviores, Parisiis: apud M. Sonnium, 1611 [= CCN]
• Lodovicus Sotomaior, Commentarius in priorem ac posteriorem Pauli Apostoli epistolam ad Timothaeum; et item in epistolam ejusdem ad Titum, Parisiis: apud M. Sonnium, 1610 [= CP]
• Paulus de Palacio, In Ecclesiasticum commentarius, Coloniae: apud G. Calenium, 1593 [= CE]
• Paulus de Palacio, Enarrationes in sacrosanctum Jesu Christi Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, Constantiae: sumptibus N. Kalt, 1613 [= EM]
• Petrus a Figueiro, Operum tomi duo, Lugduni: sumptibus H. Cardon, 1611 [= Op.]

Secondary Literature

• Berbara, Maria, and Karl A.E. Enenkel. 2012. “Introduction: Transoceanic Crossroads – Portuguese Humanism and the Republic of Letters.” In Portuguese Humanism and the Republic of Letters, 120-68. Leiden: Brill.
• Cardetas Beato, Sofia. 2020. “O Ensino Do Hebraico Em Portugal e o Seu Lugar Na Humanitas Universitária.” Revista de História Da Sociedade e Da Cultura 20: 381–96. https://doi.org/10.14195/1645-2259_20_18.
• Del Barco, Javier. 2015. The Late Medieval Hebrew Book in the Western Mediterranean: Hebrew Manuscripts and Incunabula in Context. Leiden: Brill.
• Gerace, Antonio. 2019. Biblical Scholarship in Louvain in the ‘Golden’ Sixteenth Century. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
• Lowe, Kate. 2008. “‘Representing’ Africa: Ambassadors and Princes From Christian Africa to Renaissance Italy and Portugal, 1402-1608.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 17: 101–28.
• Martinez d’Alos Moner, Andreu. 2005. “Paul and the Other: The Portuguese Debate on Circumcision of the Ethiopians.” In Ethiopia and the Missions: Historical and Anthropological Insights, by Verena Böll, Steven Kaplan, and Andreu Martinez d’Alos Moner, 31–52. Munster: LIT Verlag.
• Martins Marques, António Augusto. 1964–1966. “Frei Jerónimo de Azambuja e a sua actividade inquisitorial.” Lusitania Sacra 7: 193–216. https://doi.org/10.34632/lusitaniasacra.1964.8295.
• Martins Marques, António Augusto. 1966a. “A Obra Exegética de Fr. Jerónimo de Azambuja. I. Breve Comparação Dos Comentários.” Theologica 1 (2): 123–50. https://doi.org/10.34632/theologica.1966.13616.
• Martins Marques, António Augusto. 1966b. “A Obra Exegética de Fr. Jerónimo de Azambuja. II. A Obra de Oleastro e a Exegese  Do Seu Tempo.” Theologica 1 (3): 293–327. https://doi.org/10.34632/theologica.1966.13616.
• Moreida Mendes, Ana Maria, and Nuno Simões Rodrigues. 1994. “O Uso Dos Clássicos No Comentário de Frei Luís de Sotomaior a Cant. 4, 1 a.” Cadmo: Revista Do Instituto Oriental  Universidade de Lisboa 4/5: 95–120.
• Nunes Carreira, José. 1974. Filologia e Crítica de Isaías No Comentário de Francisco Foreiro (1522?-1581): Subsídios Para a História Da Exegese Quinhentista. Coimbra: s.n.
• Nunes Carreira, José. 1976. “Dois Mestres de Antigo Testamento Em Coimbra Frei Heitor Pinto e Paulo de Palácios e Salazar.” Didaskalia 6: 381–94.
• Nunes Carreira, José. 1979. “Tradição e Inovação No Comentário de Frei Luís de Sotomaior Ao Cântico Dos Cânticos.” Didaskalia 9: 155–208.
• Nunes Carreira, José. 1995. “Frei Jerónimo de Azambuja: Exegeta e Hebraísta Português.” Mare Liberum 10:407–22.
• Nunes Carreira, José. 1997. “Trento e o Triunfo Da Vulgata Em Portugal.” Clio. Revista Do Centro de História Da Universidade de Lisboa 2: 75–84.
• Nunes Carreira, José. 2006. “Sermão de Frei Francisco Foreiro Aos Padres Conciliares de Trento.” Didaskalia 36 (1): 253–68.
• Perczel, István. 2006. “Have the Flames of Diamper Destroyed All the Old Manuscripts of the Saint Thomas Christians?” The Harp, 20: 87–104.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1974a. A Cátedra de Sagrada Escritura Na Universidade de Coimbra de 1537 a 1640. Coimbra: Instituto de Estudos Históricos Doutor António de Vasconcelos.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1974b. Exegese Bíblica e Antiguidade Oriental. Coimbra: Faculdade de Letras de Coimbra.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1975a. “D. Pedro de Figueiró e a Sua Obra Exegética.” Didaskalia 5 (1): 133–53. https://doi.org/10.34632/didaskalia.1975.726.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1975b. “Algumas notas sobre a vida e a obra de Diogo de Paiva de Andrade.” Revista Portuguesa de História 15: 301–327.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1976. “Dois Mestres de Antigo Testamento Em Coimbra: Frei Heitor Pinto e Paulo de Palácios e Salazar.” Didaskalia 6 (1): 381–94. https://doi.org/10.34632/didaskalia.1976.747.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1977a. “Alguns aspectos da obra exegética de Fr. Jerónimo de Azambuja (Oleastro), O.P.” Revista Portuguesa de História 17: 25–36. https://ap1.sib.uc.pt/handle/10316.2/46601.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1977b. “Diogo de Paiva de Andrade. IV centenário da sua morte.” Revista de História das Ideias 1: 237–286. https://ap1.sib.uc.pt/handle/10316.2/43976.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1978a. “A Obra Exegética de Fr. Jerónimo de Azambuja (Oleastro), O.P. Os Cânones Bíblicos e o Prefácio Ao Pentateuco.” Biblos 183: 183–95.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1978b. Alguns Aspectos Da Obra Exegética de Fr. Jerónimo de Azambuja (Oleastro), O.P. Coimbra: Instituto de História Económica e Social.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1983. Subsídios Para a História Da Exegese Bíblica Em Portugal: Escrituras e Suas Obras. Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1984. “Les Études Hébraiques à l’Université de Coimbre.” In L’humanisme Portugais et l’Europe, 111–60. Paris: Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1985. “Influências Da Exegese Judaica Medieval Nos Comentadores Bíblicos Portugueses Do Século XVI: O Comentário Ao Cântico Dos Cânticos de Luis de Sotomaior.” In Jews and Conversos. Studies in Society and the Inquisition. Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies Held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, August 16-21, 1981, 179–96. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1990. “Le Commentaire Sur Le Pentateuque de Fr. Jeronimo de Azambuja (Oleastro).” In Théorie et Pratique de l’exégèse. Actes Du Troisième Colloque International Sur l’historie de l’exégèse Biblique Au XVIe Siècle (Genève, 31 Aout-2 Septembre 1988), 231–41. Genève: Droz.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1998. “Ecos Da Exegese Judaica Medieval Nas Obras Biblicas de Fr. Luis de Leon, Fr. Luis de Sotomayor e Fr. Heitor Pinto.” In Pensamiento Medieval Hispano: Homenaje a Horacio Santiago-Otero, 2: 1383–1445. Madrid: Consejo superior de investigaciones cientificas.
• Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 2007. “Os professores da Universidade de Coimbra entre 1290 e 1772. Notas ao livro ‘Memoria Professorum Universitatis Conimbrigensis, vol. I’.” In Id., A Universidade de Coimbra: figuras e factos da sua história. Volume I, 171–229. Porto: Campo das Letras.
• Sobral Coelho, Ilda. 2013. “Frei Jerónimo de Azambuja: Exegeta e Hebraísta Português.” Cadmo: Revista Do Instituto Oriental  Universidade de Lisboa 11: 101–21.
• Stegmüller, Friedrich. 1959. Filosofia e Teologia Nas Universidades de Coimbra e Évora No Século XVI. Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra.
• Tanner, Norman, and Giuseppe Alberigo. 1990. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. 2 vols., London–Washington, DC: Sheed & Ward–Georgetown University Press.
• Taveira da Fonseca, Fernando. 1997. “6. A Teologia. 6.1. A Teologia na Universidade de Coimbra.” In História da Universidade em Portugal. Volume 1. Tomo 2: 1537-1771, I.2: 781–816. Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra.

L'articolo Biblical Exegesis proviene da Conimbricenses.org.

The latest version of this entry may be cited as follows: Correia, Mário João, “Pedro Luis”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.13760255”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/pedro-luis”, latest revision: September, 14th, 2024.

Pedro Luis (Pero Luis Beuther, Petrus Ludovicus, 1538-1602) was a Valencian Jesuit philosopher and theologian who left us dozens of writings and participated in the creation and enhancement of the groundbreaking Jesuit theory of God’s foreknowledge of the future contingents that led to the De auxiliis controversy. Despite his prominence as one of the most reputed theologians at the University of Évora at the end of the 16^th century, the fact that he had many institutional issues concerning his Christological theses made him fall into oblivion after his death. Almost all of his works remain unedited, and he is still an unknown figure today, even to scholars who study his period and context. However, Klaus Reinhardt left us many valuable studies on his life and his doctrine of divine foreknowledge, which will be the main source of this entry (cf. Reinhardt 1963, 1965 and 1966). It will be divided into two parts, namely, Life and Works, followed by a list of letters and smaller works from and about Pedro Luis. This list serves as a chronology of the biographical milestones from which we can piece together his life journey.

Life

Youth (1538-1558)

Pedro Luis was born in Valencia in 1538, son of Pedro Antonio Beuther (Pere Antoni Beuther, c. 1490/5-1554), a humanist theologian who wrote the first History of Valencia in Catalan and taught theology at the University of Valencia. In his will, dated 5^th of October 1554, Pedro Antonio Beuther fathered his illegitimate son Pedro Luis and granted him a house and land on the outskirts of Valencia, as well as a sum of money to maintain him in his studies (Batllori 1967: 128-129 and 138-140). From a questionnaire of the Visitor Jerónimo Nadal to the Colégio das Artes of Coimbra (apud Reinhardt 1963: 3-17), answered in 1561, we get to know more detailed information about Luis’ family and youth in Valencia, as well as his path before he arrived at Coimbra. He had two brothers and two sisters, and his family was prosperous economically (“Bien tiene con que vivir”, he says about his mother). Before entering the Jesuit school of Valencia at the age of 16, he was already studying at the University. In his late theological writings, he praises one of his professors in those times: Pedro Juan Nuñez, a Valencian Ramist. From the questionnaire mentioned above, we also learn that Pedro Luis’ inclination and capacity to learn languages, especially poetry, was almost non-existent and that he forgot all he knew about Greek and Hebrew. He thought that he was better in speculative matters. Some years later, he will complain about his inability to learn Portuguese.

In February 1555, he joined the Jesuit school, was admitted to the novitiate, and began again his philosophical studies. As this school was the first instituted in Spain, some of the most reputed Jesuits in those times were Valencian (to name a few, Jerónimo Doménech, Diego Mirón [or Miró], Nicolau Gracida, and Benet Pereira [or Perera]). However, his life was itinerant between his entrance into the Society of Jesus and 1558. He was successively in Cuenca, Alcalá, Medina del Campo, Simancas, Monterey, São Fins (Valença) and finally he arrived at Coimbra, where he would finish his philosophical studies, as we will see. This itinerant life was part of his novitiate, involving the completion of the spiritual exercises, probations, and the first vows. In some of these places, he fell ill. However, he taught grammar in Medina del Campo and was gatekeeper for some months. In Simancas, he wrote and translated whatever he was asked to. In Monterey, he also lectured (“letor de la que allá llaman primera classe”). From 1558 on, although against his wishes, he lived in Portugal until his death.

Philosophy in Coimbra, Braga and Évora (1558-1568)

It is finally in Coimbra that he finished his philosophical formation. He studied there for a year and nine months. He arrived near August 1558. His master was most likely Marcos Jorge since he taught a course that started in 1556 and finished at the beginning of 1560, preserved in manuscript (mss. Escorial, Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de El Escorial, J-III-1, J-III-2, J-III-3, J-III-4, and J-III-5). By the spring of 1560, Pedro Luis was already magister artium, and he had started to study theology for some months, probably also with Marcos Jorge. One of his colleagues was no other than Luis de Molina (Reinhardt 1965: 12).

However, he interrupted his studies and went to Lisbon. The goal of this journey was to be sent on a mission, possibly to India (maybe to Germany), but for some reason (his intellectual capacities? his poor health? who knows…), he didn’t go. We know for sure that his will was to go on a mission to India since he states this wish in more than one document. Instead, he lectured the first philosophy course of the recently founded Colégio de São Paulo in Braga. This three-year course (started on the 18^th of October 1561 and finished at the beginning of 1564) could not be found in any extant manuscript. Klaus Reinhardt (1965: 13) supposes Luis may have used Marcos Jorge’s commentary to teach. We know that Pedro Luis was enthusiastically received and praised, and that he disputed the first public disputation of the new school on the 25^th of January 1562 (Reinhardt 1965: 12-13).

After this course in Braga, Luis moved to Évora in the Autumn of 1564. He taught a four-year philosophy course, partially preserved in two manuscripts (cf. 2.1 below), and then, as usual in his order, he started learning Theology. The other masters teaching philosophy courses during those four years were Pedro Martins, Belchior Afonso, João Brandão, Francisco Cardoso, and João Correia. Many years later, as we will see, João Correia will be one of Luis’ supporters in his struggle to publish his polemical De incarnatione. There is also record of a list of some of his pupils in those years: Sebastião Álvares, Nicolau Pimenta, Manuel Afonso, Brás Marques, Pedro Mascarenhas, Baltasar Esteves, João and Jerónimo Rebelo, Luís Henriques, and Gaspar de Góis (Reinhardt 1965: 13-14). During this period, we also have a record of Luis’ friendship with Manuel Álvares, one of the Forty Martyrs of Brazil, who supposedly told Luis that he had the revelation of his future martyrdom (Franco 1714: 236; Franco 1945: III, ff. 159r and 242v).

Theology in Évora and Coimbra (1568-1595)

Pedro Luis began studying theology for the second time in Évora in 1568 after finishing his Philosophy course. His professors were Fernando Pérez, Luis de Molina, Pedro da Fonseca (for a short period, in 1570), Inácio Martins (also for a brief period, in the same year), Gaspar Gonçalves and Pedro Paulo Ferrer. While studying, he made his vows and was ordained priest in 1570. He completed his studies on July 1573, as baccalaureus, and earned the degree of baccalaureus formatus on the 30^th of January 1574 (Reinhardt 1965: 14-16).

By the end of his studies, however, his letter to the Superior General Everard Mercurian shows that he did not feel at home in Portugal (apud Reinhardt 1963: 7-9). He complains about Évora’s climate, his difficulties with the Portuguese language, and the way his Portuguese brothers treat him. Once again, he stresses his great wish to go on a mission to India. Despite these complaints, he remained in Portugal and started lecturing on ST Ia IIae, substituting Gaspar Gonçalves, who was elected chancellor of the University. Luis used Molina’s early commentary to prepare his lectures, which took place between the 10^th of March 1575 and (probably) July 1576 (cf. ms. Lisboa, Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal [BNP], cod. 2796 and cod. 2802).

These lectures were interrupted due to an outbreak of plague in Évora. Luis moved to Coimbra and lectured for three years, but there is no record of his teachings. According to Klaus Reinhardt, Fernão Rebelo, his fellow there, already showed his disapproval of Luis’ teachings in these years. Later, Fernão Rebelo would become one of his fiercest opponents (Reinhardt 1965: 16-17). It was also in these Coimbra years that he took his perpetual solemn vows (on the 14^th of April 1577, in São Roque, Lisbon) and that he earned the title of doctor in theology (on the 21^st of April, in Évora). He stayed in Coimbra until the middle of 1579. The last testimony of his activity before his departure to Évora is a ceremonial speech to the students of Colégio das Artes on the 9^th of May 1579 (ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca Geral da Universidade de Coimbra [BGUC], cod. 993, ff. 446v-447v).

From July 1579 on, Évora was his home. Most of his extant writings were redacted during this long Évora period. He was given the cadeira de Véspera between 1579 and 1584, when he substituted Molina and was assigned the cadeira de Prima. He lectured uninterruptedly this class until 1592. Below, in 2.2, one can find a list of his extant writings on ST I and ST III, the result of his lectures in those years.

The year 1584 is also the date of the first of many preserved documents that point to a disquiet around Pedro Luis and his supposedly extravagant teachings. In 3, below, I listed the documents Reinhardt found and edited containing complaints, censurae, and apologiae of Pedro Luis’ teachings, mainly on the satisfaction and the merit of Christ, contrition, predestination, and justification. His main opponents were Fernão Rebelo, Brás Viegas, and Francisco Pereira. Even João Correia, who supported Luis, censored some of his theses. One can easily notice that Pedro Luis was a source of unrest. We even have a letter from Brás Viegas to the Superior General Claudio Aquaviva requesting the expulsion of Pedro Luis from the University (apud Reinhardt 1966: 39-40).

In July 1592, a letter from João Álvares, the Provincial of Portugal, to Aquaviva informs us that Pedro Luis was very ill and had to interrupt his lectures and move to Vale do Rosal (Almada). Pedro Luis writes to Aquaviva on the 28^th of December, still from Vale do Rosal, trying to convalesce and recover his strength (apud Reinhardt 1963: 42-45).

In spite of his poor health, Pedro Luis lectured until 1595. In April 1593, he participated in the Provincial Congregation in Lisbon and reported it to Aquaviva. Shortly after, he started his lectures again in Évora. He finished António Carvalho’s (his substitute while recovering) lectures on ST II IIae and then moved for the second time to ST III. Moreover, he helped Pedro da Fonseca in the completion of his commentary on the Metaphysics, as well as in a failed project of a compendium (ms. Rome, ARSI, Lusitania 72, f. 213v. Cf. Carvalho 2023: 35; Carvalho 2020: ch. 1.6.; and Gomes 1965: XXXII). He collaborated with Fonseca in this task at least in 1594, maybe earlier than that. By May 1595, Francisco de Gouveia, the Provincial, wrote to Aquaviva saying that Évora was short of professors since Pedro Luis was unable to keep teaching. Although he still attends some academic acts in the next year, 1595 is the end of a long career as a professor of Prima (Reinhardt 1965: 18). A new phase in his life begins: Luis’ struggle to publish his controversial commentary on ST III, titled De incarnatione.

Last years: illness, controversies and oblivion (1595-1602)

Pedro Luis’ last years were marked by his defence against the censorship of some of his Christological ideas. As we saw, Brás Viegas demanded his expulsion, or at least Luis’ move to another province. However, the Provincial Francisco de Gouveia wasn’t so harsh on Luis. He appointed Luis Vice-Rector of the Colégio da Purificação da Nossa Senhora, in Évora, and even demanded that the Rector of the University, Jerónimo Dias, should show more compassion towards Luis. At the same time, Gouveia submitted Luis’ De incarnatione to a commission of theologians for examination and delayed the permission to print it. This commission was made up of João Correia, António de Castelo-Branco, and Lourenço Fernandes. Pedro Luis’ work was approved and praised by the commission, and so, by January 1599, everything seemed to favour the publication of his polemical work (cf. Correia’s letter apud Reinhardt 1966: 53).

Pedro Luis planned a trip to Madrid to find a publisher. But once again, his fellows stopped him: in a letter from Francisco Pereira, collaborator of the Portuguese Inquisition, to Claudio Aquaviva, written on the 3^rd of June 1599, he warned about Pedro Luis’ trip and demanded a new revision of De incarnatione with the argument that Luis had chosen the Portuguese commission that evaluated his work. Francisco Pereira warns that one should be particularly attentive to the following problems: satisfaction, perfect contrition, predestination, grace, divine relations, and Luis’ way of philosophizing, too close to the Nominalists, too far from Thomas, and distorting the authorities. As Brás Viegas, Francisco Pereira asks Aquaviva at least to send Luis away from the Portuguese province, to Castille (apud Reinhardt 1966: 53-55).

Aquaviva acquiesced to Pereira’s request and a second commission was summoned in Rome to evaluate De incarnatione. By 1600, the Roman commission had permitted the publication of Luis’ work, though it demanded some changes (apud Reinhardt 1966: 55-63). Luis was finally free from accusations and went to Madrid by the end of 1600 and the beginning of 1601. There is record that he was there, but there is no record of the success of his journey. The only information we have after this trip to Madrid is his death, most likely on the 13^th of March 1602. His disease, probably tuberculosis (hectica), finally defeated him (cf. Reinhardt 1965: 21). Luis died unpublished, uncelebrated, forgotten. His works are yet to be thoroughly studied. Some of them have not been studied at all.

Works

This section presents a detailed list of Pedro Luis’ writings, with some first insights into his doctrines and specificities. The list is dependent on Reinhardt’s (1965: ch. 2), with slight corrections and adaptations.

Philosophical commentaries (1566-1568)

As said before, the Braga philosophy course has not been found. The Évora course is incomplete:

• Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2535:
  •  Annotationes in libros Physicorum (1566), ff. 1-201v;
  •  In libros Metaphysicae (1566-7), ff. 205r-350v;
  •  In libros Ethicorum Aristotelis (1567), ff. 351r-385v.
• Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2513:
  • In libros de generatione et corruptione (1567), ff. 1-83v;
  • In libros de anima (1567-1568), ff. 84r-182v.

All these texts are yet to be studied deeply. By now, while working on some specific passages of every commentary, we had the opportunity to compare some of them with Marcos Jorge’s course. In general, a reading of these commentaries benefits the most when read together with other contemporary commentaries. Although one cannot say that Luis copies Jorge, it is likely that his master’s commentary was the model from which he built his own. This is clear, at least, in what concerns his commentary on De anima.

From a still superficial point of view, one can find that some issues occupy a more significant dimension and are more developed than others. These are the ones that may be of more interest, both because they were being discussed more intensely during this period and because they would be the ones that Pedro Luis put more effort into. I shall enumerate them shortly.

Following the order of the extant two-thirds of his Évora course, in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, the lengthier of them all, containing both literal explanations of the text (some of them quite long and complex) and questions, a first assessment points that Luis is especially worried about the following topics:

• Questions concerning cognition and the knowledge of nature: whether knowing a thing perfectly is knowing its four causes, the pair notius nobis vs. notius natura, the knowledge of what is more universal and less universal, etc. (book I, ch. 1, ff. 5v-14r).
• Questions concerning infinity, magnitude, and smallness: if Aristotle proved correctly that there is no natural infinity, if there are minima (atoms, indivisibles), if there is any natural infinite being, if God could produce an infinite being either in discrete or in continuous quantity, etc. (book I, ch. 4, ff. 35v-42v; book III, ch. 8, ff. 103v-113v).
• A long set of questions on the ontological status, so to say, of prime matter, privation, negation, nothingness, and the void (book I, ch. 9, 51v-64r).

Luis treats many other issues, such as the notions of nature, cause, local movement, velocity, place, whole and part, etc. Still, it seems to me that the three highlighted sets of topics may be the ones of more interest. In general, it is quite a lengthy commentary, and it may have some interesting insights into how the Jesuit professors dealt with some polemical natural philosophy issues of the 16^th century.

As for his commentary on the Metaphysics, there are three (or four, depending on the count) books that occupy most of his commentary, namely, books IV, V, and a set of questions on books XIII-XIV (ff. 223r-287r and ff. 323r-350v, 91 of a total of 145 ff., more or less two-thirds of the commentary), and there are two issues that are clearly special for Luis:

• Book IV contains a set of questions, almost a separate treatise, on analogy (ch. 2, titled Quaestio de Analogis, ff. 240r-250v).
• The two longest and more complex questions are at the end of the commentary, loosely commenting on books XIII-XIV, in fact, a set of questions on the ontological status of genus, species, and individuals: one against the reality of less-than-numerical unity, other concerning the distinction of essential levels (books. XIII-XIV, qq. 1-2, ff. 323v-343r).

These two issues will surely be the most promising. A first assessment of his theory of analogy shows that the source of the discussion is Caietanus’ De nominum analogia and that he aims at determining if there is only analogy secundum attributionem or if there is a difference between univocation and analogy secundum proportionem. As for the less-than-numerical unity, Luis thinks that the arguments to put forward the real status of this kind of unity are uselessly trying to ground universal knowledge in something hard to hold. According to him, there is no need for something other than similitude between particulars to ground the certitude of universals. In terms of sources, Luis shows a deep knowledge of the Scotist tradition on this matter and the nuances within it by distinguishing the positions of authors such as Francesco Lycheto, Francesco Sansone, Antonio Trombetta or Pierre Tartaret.

His commentary on the Ethics is not as long and well-developed as the others. It has only 34 ff. (against 200 and 145 for the Physics and the Metaphysics, respectively) and consists mainly of small literal commentaries to the chapters, often a phrase or a small paragraph for each chapter, sometimes a bigger explanation. Still, there are some issues that he treats more deeply: happiness (book I, ch. 1, f. 352r-v, and ch. 8, f. 355v-356v); the control of the intellect over the sensitive appetites (book I, ch. 13, ff. 357v-358v); the notion of virtue, passions and the relationship between virtues and passions (book II, ch. 2, f. 359r-v, ch. 4, ff. 360r-361r, ch. 6, ff. 362r-365r, and book V, ch. 1, f. 377r-v); and a theory of the virtue of justice (book V, ch. 2-11, ff. 373v-378r).

Luis comments on De generatione by providing a long and detailed treatment of many matters both through literal commentary and lengthy questions. The lengthier of the questions is about the hypothesis of a plurality of substantial forms in the same substance. It serves as a preamble for one of the core issues of this commentary: once again, as in his commentary on the Physics, prime matter. He dedicates two questions to it: one asks whether accidents have prime matter as their subject; other on the problem of the corpse, i.e., whether in between the corruption of something and the generation of something else, there is a moment where prime matter exists as such, without any form (book 1, ch. 4, qq. 2-3, ff. 15r-22v). Another very important set of long literal commentaries and questions concerns augmentation and rarefaction (book I, ch. 5, ff. 22v-47v). Finally, he dedicates an extensive part of his commentary on Book II to the elements, their origin, and their elemental primary qualities (ch. 2-4, ff. 68r-76r).

As for De anima, the third in size (after Physics and Metaphysics), one can see easily that Luis put great effort into issues that involve cognition, i.e., sensation, the ontological status of various kinds of sensible and intelligible species, and intellection. Here are the sets of questions that seem more relevant at first glance:

• A set of questions on the definition of the soul, the rational soul as the form of man, and the relationship between body and soul (book I, ch. 1, q. un., ff. 90v-92r [ms. numbered 7v-9r], and ch. 2, qq. 1-3, ff. 94v-102r [ms. 11v-19r]).
• A set of questions on the senses, their activity/passivity, sensation, and the ontological status of species (book II, ch. 5-12, ff. 113r-142v [ms. 30r-59v]).
• A long set of questions on the immortality of the rational soul, its powers (with a special focus on the cognitive powers, since the question on the will is very small), the intelligible species, intellection, formal concepts, and the possibility to separate notitiae from the cognitive powers (Book III, ch. 5, qq. 1-10, ff. 156r-175v [ms. 73r-92v]).

By now, while working on his theory of sensation and comparing it to Marcos Jorge’s and also Manuel de Góis’ (the Cursus Conimbricensis), his closeness to Jorge became apparent. Not only do they hold almost the same positions on sensation and its whereabouts, but their commentaries are also very alike in structure and in the questions they pose. As said before, it seems to me that it is possible that Jorge’s course may have been a model for the writing of Luis’ course, but this needs further research.

Theological commentaries

I will follow Reinhardt’s attempt to ascribe the various manuscripts, sometimes with different dates, to the several periods of teaching at the University of Évora. I will abridge and omit the codicological information (cf. Reinhardt 1965: 25-39). It is likely that this list is incomplete, but it already shows an impressive number of copies of his works and a multiplicity of provenances: not only Braga, Coimbra, and Évora but also Portalegre, São Roque, Elvas, etc. All his theological works are commentaries on parts of the Summa, developed in the context of his teachings in Coimbra and mostly Évora. For some parts of the Summa, we have two different redactions from two different periods of teaching, sometimes with relevant changes, as is the case in what concerns Summa I, in questions concerning foreknowledge, predestination, reprobation, etc., and Summa III, in what concerns the necessity of Incarnation, the merit of Christ, etc. At the end of the list, I shall comment on some first insights about this vast amount of unexplored material.

March 1575 – 1576: In Ia IIae, qq. 1 – 72, art. 1:

•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2796, ff. 1r-197v (qq. 1-21 and 49-72, art. 1)
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2802, ff. 1r-172r (qq. 9, art. 2-q. 72, art. 1)

October–November 1579: De sacramento ordinis (In III Suppl. q. 34):

•   Lisboa, Biblioteca da Ajuda, cod. 50-I-67, ff. 676r-719r;
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2834, Int. VI (3 ff., very incomplete)
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 3976, ff. 137r-192v;
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 5205, ff. 330-379;
•   Oxford, Bodleian Libraries, ms. Bodl. 560, ff. 431-631.

1579–October 1583: In IIa IIae, qq. 1-32:

•  Lisboa, Biblioteca da Ajuda, cod. 50-I-69, ff. 1-280v (qq. 1-26, art. 3);
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2656, ff. 1-215 (qq. 23-32).

1584-July 1587: In Ia, qq. 1-73

•   Coimbra, BGUC, cod. 1948, ff. 1-333v (qq. 1-26);
•   Lisboa, Biblioteca da Ajuda, cod. 50-II-22 (qq. 1-72, some blank ff. with significative loss of qq. and articles in ff. 29v-40r, 105v-112v and 457r-561r);
•   Évora, Biblioteca Pública, cod. 118-2-38 (qq. 27-71);
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 5835, Int. II (ff. 153r-329r) (qq. 44-73);
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2842 (qq. 44-73, autograph);
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2928, (beginning, before numeration of ff., De quattuor fluminibus paradisi [q. 69, disp. 111, quaestiuncula 4, dub. 2]);
•   Oxford, Bodleian Libraries, ms. Bodl. 121, ff. 1-209 (qq. 44-73).

October 1587 – July 1589: De incarnatione (In IIIa, qq. 1-32)

•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2816 (qq. 1-16 and disp. Utrum Verbum divinum sit sanguis);
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2848;
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2876;
•   Braga, Biblioteca Pública, cod. 184;
•   Cambridge, Univ., Gg. I 20, 4, ff. 1-341.

October 1589 – July 1591: De sacramentis (In IIIa, qq. 84-87)

•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 3964, ff. 210r-295r.

October 1591 – July 1592: In Ia, qq. 1-24

•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2783;
•   Braga, Biblioteca Pública, cod. 240, ff. 1-82 (qq. 22-23);
•   Porto, Biblioteca Pública Municipal, cod. 1136, II (excerpt of q. 23).

1593: In IIa IIae, qq. 2-16

•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2805, ff. 346r-416v;
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 5461, ff- 232r-291r.

(Reinhardt proved [against Stegmüller’s cataloguing] that the mss. Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2545 and Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 28072, do not contain a Pedro Luis’ redaction of IIa IIae commentary)

1593–1595: De incarnatione (In IIIa, qq. 1-28)

•  Lisboa, BNP, cod. 6226. It is most likely the redaction that is closer to the one he intended to publish in Madrid (the one that was approved by the Rome commission in 1600), but it is not exactly the same.

Klaus Reinhardt studied with detail Pedro Luis’ doctrine of contingency, divine foreknowledge, and, to a shorter extent, predestination and reprobation (Reinhardt 1965). He also did an impressive survey on the several controversies around his Christological ideas by gathering documentation containing censurae against and apologiae by Luis, highlighting the main points of discussion (I will list these documents in the next section). He also made a short comparison between Pedro Luis and António Galvão OESA (1559-1609) on their approach to biblical interpretation in the aftermath of the Council of Trent (Reinhardt 1971).

A study, edition and Portuguese translation of his second redaction of Summa I, questions 10, on eternity, and 14, art. 13, on God’s knowledge of the futures contingents, is going to be published soon. Making a comparison with the first redaction, it is easy to notice important changes that may be explained by the publication of Molina’s Concordia in 1588, in between the two redactions, and by a whole movement of discussion of his thesis and theses alike in the period. As for the theory itself, Luis’ taxonomy of divine foreknowledge is closer to Fonseca’s theory than it is to Molina’s, in the sense that Luis prefers to use the term scientia conditionata and not scientia media, and to group it inside scientia simplicis intelligentiae, not posing a third kind of knowledge in God in between abstractive and intuitive knowledge (for a comparison between Fonseca and Molina, cf. Rebalde 2023: 63-85). At the same time, contrary to Fonseca, Luis doesn’t notice that one cannot equate the pair simplicis intelligentiae vs. visionis (or abstractive vs. intuitive) with the pair naturalis vs. libera. Another similarity between Fonseca and Luis is their discomfort with Molina’s supercomprehensio (or inscrutabilis comprehensio) due to the fact that both of them hold that propositions concerning the future contingents are determinately true or false. So, in alternative, both hold that God knows the future contingents through scientia conditionata by knowing the indeterminate free created will, the determinate volitions it will have and the free connection between the free potency and its effects. Reinhardt puts forward the hypothesis of Luis’ closeness to Suárez, but it seems to me that it is more likely that his interlocutors are Fonseca and Molina. Reinhardt himself states that this hypothesis is more likely. Both of them taught him, he collaborated with Fonseca, and he quotes them in his commentary. Suárez, indeed, wrote an opuscule somewhere between 1586 and 1588 called De scientia conditionalium (edited in González Rivas 1948: 81-132), which stated a similar position to theirs, but it remained unpublished. Moreover, in spite of the similarities between these doctrines, there are also slight differences, in particular, Pedro Luis’ identification of his position with Bonaventure’s. Finally, I also studied the consequences of this doctrine of divine foreknowledge for the relation between sin and Incarnation in his last extant commentary on ST III, i.e., probably the one closest to the redaction he planned to publish. Departing from Aquinas’ assumption that predestination presupposes foreknowledge, Luis tries to order God’s knowledge and volitions against Caietanus’ idea of three orders of things, i.e., nature, grace and hypostatic union (Caietanus 1903: III, q. 1, art. 3, 15-16). Luis solves the question of the relationship between sin and Incarnation by introducing a scientia conditionata of Adam’s sin. It is a first attempt to study his De incarnatione more thoroughly.

It is important to stress two features of his theological works that promise to be of great interest: 1) inside the complex of questions concerning foreknowledge, providence, predestination, and grace, the biggest chunk of text left by Pedro Luis concerns the problem of reprobation; 2) most of the institutional issues while trying to publish, as shown before, have to do with the merit of Christ, satisfaction, and related matters. Although Reinhardt studied the censurae and the apologiae, and gave us a first insight on what is at stake, it would be important to focus more deeply in Luis’ huge two redactions of a commentary on ST III. Maybe contrary to what happens with his philosophical commentary, documentation (see 3) shows very clearly that Pedro Luis knew he was proposing innovative theological theories, and he always refused to retract them, even against the Superior General. The discomfort he created among his pairs and his stubbornness in holding them is a clear sign of authorship. I hope that scholars will rediscover and explore these two topics in the future.

Letters and other smaller writings from (and about) Pedro Luis

Klaus Reinhardt gathered and transcribed a great number of texts from and about Luis, most of them extant in the Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu (ARSI). To his list, one should add some documents explored by Miguel Batllori (1967) and Francisco de Gouveia’s letter to the Superior General that gives us information about Luis’ collaboration in the completion of Pedro da Fonseca’s commentary on the Metaphysics, as well as in a compendium. I will provide a very brief summary of the content of each of these documents. With this summary, one obtains a sketch of a chronology of Pedro Luis’ life, completed by the listed manuscripts above, in 2.

• Valencia, 5^th October 1554: Pedro Antonio Beuther’s will recognizing Pedro Luis as his son and granting him a house and a sum of money for his studies and maintenance – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 1646, doc. 24 (edited by Batllori 1967: 138-140).
• Coimbra, May – July 1561: Pedro Luis’ answers to the Visitor Jerónimo Nadal concerning his age, family, studies, preferences, where he has been, his obedience to the rules of the Society of Jesus, etc – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 77, ff. 259r-260r; Fondo Historia Societatis 251, ff. 308r-309v.
• Évora, 19^th December 1573: Letter to the Superior General Everard Mercurian requesting to move to another province or to go on a mission to India. Luis complains about the climate, his health, his struggle to learn Portuguese, and his tense relations with his Portuguese colleagues. – ARSI, Lusitania 65, ff. 291r-292r. Autograph.
• Évora, 3^rd February 1574: Protocolar note on the graduation of Pedro Luis as bachelor (bacharel formado) – Livro dos juramentos e profissões da fee da Universidade de Évora, Évora, Biblioteca Pública, cod. 130-1-3, f. 50v.
• Lisboa, 14^th April 1577: Perpetual solemn vows – ARSI, Lusitania 1, ff. 55v-56r. Autograph.
• Évora, 21^st April 1577: Protocolar note on the promotion of Pedro Luis as doctor in Theology – Livro dos juramentos…, Évora, Biblioteca Pública, cod. 130-1-3, f. 76r.
• Coimbra, 9^th May 1579: Pedro Luis’ speech in the context of the proofs for examination of the Philosophy students of Colégio das Artes, in Coimbra. A speech on beatitudo – Rerum scholasticarum, Coimbra, BGUC, cod. 993, ff. 446v-447v.
• Évora, 20^th May 1584: Letter of Fernão Rebelo addressed to the Superior General Claudio Aquaviva complaining about Pedro Luis and stating that some of his opinions were censored. Fernão Rebelo proposes a revision of Luis’ writings – ARSI, Lusitania 68, f. 378v.
• Évora, Spring 1584: Claudio Aquaviva’s list of eight condemned doctrines that were supposedly being taught in Évora together with the Responsiones of the Évora professors. They concern the hypostatic union, the nature of Christ, and justification. Some of them were held by Pedro Luis – Évora, Biblioteca Pública, cod. 110-1-17, peça 6, ff. 3r-4r.
• Évora, 13^th June 1587: Letter of Pedro Luis addressed to Claudio Aquaviva. Pedro Luis reports a Provincial Congregation that took place in April in the school of São Roque, Lisbon, and warns the Superior General about two issues. The first concerns the habits and behaviours of the Jesuits in the province. The second concerns a first assessment of a draft of the Ratio studiorum, where Luis proposes some adaptions to the needs of the students in Évora. Finally, he states that some of his opinions were censored, but that he sent his defensiones before – ARSI, Lusitania 70, ff. 171r-172v. Autograph.
• Évora, 5^th July 1587: Letter of Pedro Luis addressed to Claudio Aquaviva. Pedro Luis adds some information about the excessive use of titles and lack of humbleness of some Jesuits in the province, still in the context of the Provincial Congregation – ARSI, Lusitania 70, ff. 199r-v. Autograph.
• Portugal (s.l.), 1588: Letter of the Provincial João Correia to Claudio Aquaviva censoring six propositions of Pedro Luis on Incarnation, the merit of Christ, contrition, satisfaction, etc. – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 656, pp. 122-125.
• Évora, 1588: Pedro Luis’ apology against João Correia’s censorship. This apologia is titled In quo consistat incarnatio and is divided into 12 propositions concerning the humanity of the Word, the relations of causation and dependence, the meaning of dare esse, the categorial analysis of the hypostatic union, etc. – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 656, pp. 127-129.
• Rome, 1589: Censura of the Roman Commission about the six theses denounced by João Correia. The censors demand that Luis retract four of his theses on the merit of Christ and contrition – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 656, pp. 134-135.
• Évora, 29^th January 1592: Letter from Pedro Luis addressed to Claudio Aquaviva. Pedro Luis asks for the intervention of the Superior General in matters concerning the lack of scholarship payment to some students in different situations. He also shares his opinion on Fonseca’s Isagoge: «Lo tercero es que la Isagoge del P. Pero da Fonseca es muy docta y grave; pero para servir de texto, tiene este inconveniente que el texto ha de ser indifferente en questiones ventiladas y probables in utramque partem, y él es partial en algunas opinions, y assí tiene por contrarios los que fueren de la contraria opinion. Exemplo es que pone universalia realia y que intellectus non cognoscit primo singularia…». In his opinion, Fonseca’s Isagoge is not suitable as a handbook – ARSI, Lusitania 71, f. 63r-64v. Autograph.
• Coimbra, 31^st July 1592: Letter from the Provincial João Álvares to Claudio Aquaviva informing that Pedro Luis was tired and ill, and that António Carvalho gladly substituted him as professor of Prima – ARSI, Lusitania 71, f. 191r.
• Vale do Rosal (Almada), 28^th December 1592: Letter from Pedro Luis addressed to Claudio Aquaviva. Pedro Luis complains about a game introduced by Pedro da Fonseca in Évora (juego del Truque, a game involving sticks and balls, not the card game with the same name) that led his brothers to some excesses (screams, injuries, playing all night long, etc.). He also says that he has been ill, with long fevers, and that he couldn’t finish some of his lectures. That is one of the reasons why he went to Vale do Rosal – ARSI, Lusitania 71, ff. 311r-v. Autograph.
• Rome, 2^nd August 1593: Letter from Claudio Aquaviva to Pedro Luis. Aquaviva responds to a letter written on the 23^rd of May 1593 (lost) assuring Pedro Luis that in Rome, the assessment of his works won’t be guided by national considerations, as he believes it is not in Portugal either – ARSI, Lusitania 32, ff. 55r-v.
• Évora, March 1594: Pedro Luis’ apologia concerning seven theses about satisfaction and the merit of Christ. He was redacting for a second time his De incarnatione and sought to have the censorship on his theses lifted – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 660, ff. 14r-17v. Autograph.
• Braga, 18^th September 1594: Letter from the Provincial Francisco de Gouveia to Claudio Aquaviva containing, among other things, the following information: «El pe. Pedro Luiz aiuda al pe. Pedro da Fonseca para acabar su metaphysica y hacer compendio della.» – ARSI, Lusitania 72, ff. 213r-214r.
• Évora, 11^th February 1595: Letter from Pedro Luis to Claudio Aquaviva. Pedro Luis clarifies his apology of seven theses of his sent one year before, this time in Spanish, following the request of the Roman censors, such as Bellarmine.
• Évora, 13^th February 1595: Letter from Francisco de Gouveia to Claudio Aquaviva stating that Évora is short of theologians, since Pedro Luis is tired and sick, and won’t be able to teach any longer – ARSI, Lusitania 73, f. 13v.
• Évora, 1595: Pedro Luis’ censorship of two theses by Pedro Novais on the hypostatic union – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 660, f. 12r.
• Évora, 22^nd January 1596: Letter from Brás Viegas to Claudio Aquaviva concerning, among other things, the disquiet around Pedro Luis and his teachings in Évora. Viegas asks Aquaviva to expel Pedro Luis since he is a source of war, endless discussion, and disagreement, and he doesn’t retract his condemned theses on grace, merit, and satisfaction (a list of 64 theses sent to Rome, not found in any document). If things don’t change, he feels obliged to denounce him to the Inquisition – ARSI, Lusitania 73, ff. 94r-95v.
• Évora, 3^rd June 1596: Letter from Francisco de Gouveia to Claudio Aquaviva where he states, among other things, that a group of scholars is preparing a censorship of Pedro Luis’ De incarnatione since it has too many particular opinions, it is not close enough to Thomas Aquinas, and also because Suárez already wrote very well about it – ARSI, Lusitania 73, ff. 137r-v.
• Évora, 22^nd November 1597: Letter from Brás Viegas to Claudio Aquaviva. In this letter, Brás Viegas complains about a group of Jesuits in the Portuguese province that teach theses on grace and predestination that are against the Ratio studiorum and were condemned in Rome: Pedro Luis, but also Pedro Novais, Pedro da Fonseca, Francisco Pereira, António Carvalho, and Nicolau Godinho. According to him, they were holding and teaching Molina’s positions on grace, some of which were condemned by Bellarmine and others. Against Molina, Viegas presents the thesis of physical premotion – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 660, ff. 25r-26v.
• Portugal (s.l.), 1598: Censorship of 28 Pedro Luis’ propositions on the merit of Christ, contrition, and predestination by the Portuguese Order, under the supervision of Cristóvão de Gouveia. This censura was requested by Claudio Aquaviva – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 660, ff. 27r-29v.
• Évora, 17^th January 1599: Letter from João Correia to Claudio Aquaviva. This letter confirms a letter that was lost on its way to Rome (dated 9^th November 1598). In it, João Correia says that he, António de Castelo-Branco, and Lourenço Fernandes revised Pedro Luis’ De incarnatione and approved its printing – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 660, f. 36r.
• Évora, 3^rd June 1599: Letter from Francisco Pereira to Claudio Aquaviva concerning the approval of Pedro Luis’ De incarnatione. Pereira warns Aquaviva that Pedro Luis is traveling to Madrid in order to print his work. Pereira’s goal is to gather a new commission since Pereira thinks that Luis’ work is dangerous for the reputation of the Society of Jesus. Moreover, he accuses Luis of choosing the Portuguese censors that approved his work, i.e., João Correia, António de Castelo-Branco and Lourenço Fernandes – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 660, ff. 37r-v.
• Rome, 1600: Roman censura of De incarnatione. Pedro Luis gets a final approval from the Roman censors of his order, but requesting some changes in particular pages. The text that is being approved may be very close to the one that is extant in ms. Lisboa, BNP, cod. 6226, but it is surely not exactly the same text, as pointed out by Reinhardt.

After this date, we only have short notes about his stay in Madrid in 1600/1 and of his death, most likely on the 13^th of March 1602. Luis died without publishing anything, fell into oblivion, and is being slowly rediscovered as an important figure in the last century. May this entry be one more spur in this process of rediscovery.

Bibliography

L'articolo Luis, Pedro proviene da Conimbricenses.org.

The latest version of this entry may be cited as follows: Carvalho, Mário Santiago de, “Monteiro, Inácio”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.10463708”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/inacio-monteiro”, latest revision: January, 5th, 2024.

Life and Works

Inácio Monteiro (also spelled Ignacio Monteyro) was born in Lamas (Viseu, Portugal) on January 16, 1724, and died in Ferrara (Italy) in 1812. In the most recent study on Inácio Monteiro, historian Monteiro (2004) divides the life of this Portuguese Jesuit into the following four periods: 1739-1759, the novitiate/professorship; 1759-1761, the exile period; 1761-1789, the pontifical period in Ferrara; and 1789-1796, the revolutionary period. Son of Dionísio Monteiro and Luísa de Almeida, Inácio enters at the age of fifteen the Society of Jesus, on February 8, 1739, at the college of Évora. He begins to study philosophy at the Jesuit University of Évora in 1741, first following the lessons of Francisco Gomes (1705-1771) and after, in the last year’s course, of António de Freitas (1706-1753). The latter was known for his familiarity with some of the works of René Descartes (1596-1650) and Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715), having read an entire course in Lisbon (1742/45), where the Jesuit library contained several of Descartes’ oeuvres (Gomes 1960: 43, and 49). As will be seen below, Monteiro demonstrates familiarity with a particular trend of “modern philosophy”, but it is likely that the University of Évora was not unfamiliar with the works of “modern philosophers”, as well. Between 1747 and 1748, Inácio Monteiro concludes the master’s degree in philosophy and deepens his skills in mathematics in Évora. The study of mathematics was not uncommon in the major Portuguese Jesuit colleges. Historian Martins (1999: 21) suggests that Monteiro’s orientation towards the study of mathematics was influenced by Manuel Mendes (1716-1782), and Tomás de Campos (?-1766). To the latter’s name could still be added that of João de Borja’s (1711-1767), who surely taught Campos (Borja 1743), and whose mathematical “theses” – namely on speculative geometry, Archimedean theorems, geography and practical geography, trigonometry, astronomy, statics, hydrostatics, optics, catoptrics, gnomic, and the revolution of the circles – have come to our days and. At the end of his studies in Évora, and after a period spent teaching grammar and humanities at the college of Porto (1748/50), Inácio Monteiro is sent to Coimbra to study theology. In 1753-54, Inácio is a third-year student of theology. However, already in 1752 and writing from Coimbra, he expresses his disappointment to Father General Ignacio Visconti (1751-1755, in office) at not being appointed as a mathematics teacher (mathematicae/mathesis magisterio). This is an indication that when Monteiro was sent to Coimbra, he had already anticipated the opportunity to teach a subject matter he did appreciate, as Visconti’s following words might corroborate. In his reply dated December 12, 1752, Visconti acknowledges Monteiro’s inclination towards novelties (inclinari ad amatores novitatum) but justifies the lack of appointment as punishment for not preparing his theology lessons properly (Rosendo 1996: 162, and Silva 1973: 243). Moreover, at that point, Monteiro was subject to the customary accusation of treating some authors disrespectfully (Baldini 2004: 459). The punishment was however brief, and historian Monteiro (2004: 127) gives a psychological account of its context, alluding to Inácio Monteiro’s “nonconformist character” (carácter inconformista). Monteiro is appointed to teach mathematics at the Coimbra College of Jesus in 1753 and holds the position until at least 1756. During this time, he composes his first book in two volumes, Compendio dos Elementos de Mathematica/Compendium of the Elements of Mathematics, published in 1754. The fact that mathematics was the subject of Monteiro’s first book is evidence of the author’s expectations and complains, as well as a testament to the level of his mathematical education in Évora and, finally, the relevance of mathematics in Coimbra (Carvalho 2022). On May 20, 1754, being “the new mathematics teacher” Monteiro requests the general’s “permission to dedicate to him a mathematical work, to keep a precision clock for astronomical observations (the vow of poverty forbade the Jesuits to have clocks), and to have his writings examined by the province censors, not by the Roman ones” (Baldini 2004: 460). If the last request meant that Monteiro had issues concerning Roman math scope or was only merely a matter of hastening things, one does not know. Regardless, on July 9, Visconti denied the first request but granted the others. Six months before the Lisbon earthquake (Rollo 2007), which prompted reflections by Voltaire (1694-1778), Rousseau (1712-1778), Kant (1724-1804) or Alexander Pope (1688-1744), as well as by several Portuguese authors (Carolino 2003: 333), the degree in theology was granted to Inácio Monteiro in Coimbra, in May 1755. A collection of “theses” still extant today, Orbis Theologici Mappam (1755), documents Monteiro’s own conclusions in connection with this academic degree. It is likely he defended these theses in front of his teacher of theology at the college of Jesus, Inácio Borges (dates unknown). This document acknowledges Monteiro’s capacity as a mathematics professor (matheseos professor), but dwells, obviously, on dogmatic, scholastic, and canonical theology. When Monteiro was emerging as a “mathematician” and “physicist”, an equestrian statue of King José I (1750-1777, in office) was being erected in Lisbon, and its erection is to be interpreted as an obvious political statement. To shape a program of “converting the ignorant to the truth” (Tavares 2018: 158), José’s “Republic of Letters” culminates with the brutal acts of power by the Inquisition, such as the horrific persecution and death of Gabriele Malagrida (1689-1761) (see Maxwell 1995: 83) – the adjective “horrific” is used by Voltaire (1878: 397) –, as well as the expulsion of the Society of Jesus of the country in 1759, championed by the Marquis of Pombal (1750-1777, in office). “Republic of Letters” or similar expressions, as it goes without saying, were in fashion among “humanists and savants that emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (Rubiés 2018). It must be said, however, that the two Portuguese kings, João V (1706-1750, in office) and José I, saw themselves at the image of Louis XIV of France (1643-1715, in office), but not at that of Frederick II of Prussia’s (1740-1786, in office) (see Monteiro 2009). During three academic years 1756/1759, Monteiro is at the College of Santarém teaching mathematics, probably, and philosophy, for sure. He was deported from Santarém to the Papal States (1759), as a consequence of the “pogrom” led by Pombal (Romeiras 2019: 23-37, and Monteiro 2004: 198ff). Inácio Monteiro’s personal library in the college of Santarém was seized and catalogued by justice (desembargador) Inocêncio Alves da Silva Freire (Giurgevich & Leitão 2016: 303). In addition to the extraordinary number of books and authors quoted by Monteiro in his books, there were other personal math libraries in the Coimbra college (Giurgevich & Leitão 2016: 298-300, and Golvers, forthcoming). The publication of Monteiro’s second book, the seven volumes entitled Philosophia Libera seu Eclectica/Free or Eclectic Philosophy, occurs in Venice (between 1766-76). This is, of course, justified by Monteiro’s deportation, but the Free or Eclectic Philosophy was entirely composed in Portugal (dum inter vos in Lusitania), as he himself testifies in the Lusitanae Juventuti/Letter to the Portuguese Youth which is the Dedication-Letter (Epistola nuncupatoria) that opens Monteiro’s “magnum opus” (Monteiro 2004: 128). Adopting a nostalgic but grateful tone, Inácio Monteiro does not lose the opportunity to convey his message. Written in Ferrara, the Dedication-Letter recalls Monteiro’s Coimbra companions and years (qui me Conimbricae nostis); its scholar atmosphere, keen on natural science and on contemporary philosophy (scientiam naturalem et nuperam Philosophiam); and emphasizes the utility (non inutile) his book might still have in Portugal. At this point, the names of two Portuguese contemporary authors, Luís António Verney (1713-1792) and António Ribeiro Sanches (1699-1783), could be invoked, for they also wrote letters from abroad aiming at the cultural and educational situation of the country (Verney 1746, Sanches 1759). But whereas Verney and Sanches used mostly the Portuguese language to convey their programs, ideas and criticisms, Monteiro wrote the Letter to the Portuguese Youth in “exquisite Latin” (Freire 1973: 303), a linguistic decision one must take into consideration. Differently from the Free or Eclectic Philosophy, partially written in Portugal – Sommervogel (1894: 1243) says that only its first part was written in Portugal (122 pages, to be precise) –, Monteiro’s subsequent oeuvre was only conceived or planned (mente conceperam) in the country (Silva 2001: 180). Each one of Monteiro’s three future titles deals with logic, metaphysics and ethics. In an abridged English translation (for the complete original titles see below), here are the titles that came out from the Italian Press: Critical Science or Rules for the Direction of the Mind (Venice, 1768; hereafter: Logica); Philosophical Principles of Theology or Natural Religion (Venice, 1770; hereafter: Metaphysica); and Physical and Rational Ethics (Ferrara, 1794; hereafter: Ethica). The extent to which the content of these three titles derives from Monteiro’s Portuguese teaching or has received instead an Italian input, which is more likely, has not been examined and awaits a critical edition of the three books. In the aforementioned Letter, Monteiro refers to other matters (“coisas”) pertaining to his Portuguese period that were lost because of his deportation. Some contents of these Italian publications could be among those matters, but manuscripts on other subjects are also likely to belong to the lost materials. Inácio Monteiro would not leave Italy for the rest of his life. From 1761 on, he resided in Ferrara, preparing his oeuvre for publication and later teaching philosophy in the Society’s college of the city (1767); meanwhile, in 1764, he traveled to Bologna and stayed at the Saint Lucia college for a short time, returning to Ferrara in 1766. Historian Silva (1973: 249) justifies Monteiro’s short stay in Bologna on account of getting the censors authorization to publish his oeuvre. The second collection of “theses” by Monteiro that have reached our days, Theses ex omnibus Philosophiae partibus excerptae, provides evidence of his professorship in Ferrara in 1771. One of his most famous pupils, Antonio Campana (1751-1832), is known. Campana held a few chairs of Experimental Sciences at the Ferrara university for several years (Monteiro 2004: 250) but traces of his teacher have not been detected in Campana’s work. Since the Holy See approved the suppression of the Society of Jesus in 1773, Monteiro was already acting as prefect of studies at the university of Ferrara (Ignatio Monteiro in Pontificia Ferrariensi Universitate Studiorum Praefecto) when his Ethica was finally published in 1794. One unedited formal document related to two former students of Monteiro, dated June 12, 1776, and signed by Monteiro himself, mentions him as former Jesuit (Exjesuita Sig. Ab. Monteiro) and Portuguese priest (sacerdos lusitanus) (Silva 1973: 250-1). In truth, Monteiro was just one of the exiled scholars who came to the university over the course of its history (Pepe 1998: 7). On June 19, and again on June 30, 1797, he was summoned by the city authorities (Cittadino D. Ignazio Monteiro Preffeto de’Studi nella Università) to participate in the reformation of the university (Piano di organizzazione dei Studi). Following the revolutionary period in Northern Italy, Monteiro was dismissed from his professorship on October 9, 1799, only to be reintegrated later by occasion of the restoration of the Cisalpine Republic (1801). Perhaps due to the decline of the university and Monteiro’s advanced age, the university did not benefit from his capacity as Prefect. Two years after Inácio Monteiro’s death (1812), Diosdado Caballero (1814: 36) briefly mentions the respect paid by the Academy in Ferrara to its ancient professor (suo celeberrimo per tot anos Magistro honestissime parentavit), and the Italian city honored him with a portrait (Monteiro 2004: 420).

Monteiro’s Compendium of the Elements of Mathematics (1754)

As was already said, Inácio Monteiro’s mathematical Compendium is a product of the author’s learning and teaching experience in Évora and Coimbra. The Compendium of the Elements of Mathematics Necessary for the Studies of Natural Sciences and the Arts, to be Used by Portuguese Students, and to serve as an Introduction to the Study of Mathematics to the Curious for those sciences is a two-volume manual published by the Press of the college of Arts in Coimbra in 1754 and 1756. The two years coincide with the author’s period of lecturing mathematics and studying theology, as was common practice in Portuguese Jesuit schools. Cardinal Henrique (1512-1580), the founder of the Jesuit university of Évora in 1559 (at that time the second Portuguese university), established the studies not without a scientific outlook. However, during the 17^th century, the time and place for strictly scientific topics were significantly reduced there and that explains why a formal chair of mathematical sciences was created there in the first years of the 18^th century (Gomes 1960: 46). From its early years, the university of Évora, as well as the college of Jesus in Coimbra, welcomed indipitae as math teachers – that is, foreign Jesuits who stayed in Portugal while waiting for the ship for the Eastern missions. Just to mention one case, in 1655, the English “indipetus” George Brett Keynes (1629-1658) was sent to Évora with the explicit mandate of “teaching mathematics to students of theology and philosophy” (Golvers & Simões 2022: 60). Naturally, Monteiro does not fit in that category. He belongs to a different period in the history of math teaching within the Portuguese province, as will be seen below and as was already suggested when I previously alluded to the fingerprint of Mendes, Campos and Borja in Monteiro. Historians Andrade (1966a: 243-51) and Gomes (1946) praised the Compendium and were the first scholars to pay due attention to it (see afterwards Monteiro 2004: 133ff.). Overall, the Compendium is an introduction to the study of mathematics for high schools, or, one may conjecture, a manual for the Jesuit colleges all over the country, less likely for the other colleges of the Portuguese assistancy. While it may be remembered that in their very beginning Jesuit Constitutions prescribed the teaching of mathematics – albeit within the Society’s goals though (quatenus ad nobis propositum), and alongside the more philosophical matters (Lukács 1965: 283) –, Monteiro’s Compendium differs in two respects from both earlier and later mathematical Portuguese contributions to that field. On the one hand, it differs “a parte ante” because Monteiro was not a foreign teacher (indipetus) and was wholly committed to the teaching of mathematics and, likely, not so keen on theology. It also differs because the formation of helmsmen – notably, thanks to the stress put on Sacrobosco’s Sphaere (Albuquerque 1972) – were no more under Monteiro’s goal, and because math studies were no longer framed by the ancient discussions dependent on Domingo de Soto’s (1494-1560) teaching on falling motion; the discussions had been common ground for 16^th century Roman and Portuguese Jesuit schools (Wallace 1995, and 1997: 124; Baldini 1998: 235 ). In a nutshell, Monteiro’s approach to mathematics differed from the older paradigm because, just like what happened with Borja, it was no longer attached to the “mathematical” Aristotelian texts, mostly On Heaven, On Generation, or Physics (Carvalho 2022). This feature is usually mentioned as a distinctive mark to interpret Monteiro’s contributions to philosophy and the studies in general. But, on the other hand, Monteiro’s Compendium might differ also “a parte post”. For instance, a book by the Oratorian José Anastácio da Cunha (1744-1787), Mathematical Principles/Principios Mathematicos (see Cunha 1790), is said to embody “an ambitious project to organize and expound mathematics on solid grounds”, to intertwine purely mathematical assertions with experience, that is, the very root of the physical sciences (Queiró 2004: 501, and 511 respectively). This appears to be crucial even if it is still impossible to determine the exact place of Inácio Monteiro in the history of mathematics in Portugal. Such a goal can only be achieved by considering the contributions of the Jesuits along with the Oratorians, in Lisbon, and the Franciscans, in the Saint Peter Coimbra college of Arts – not to mention the alternative paradigm provided by laymen, exemplified by the Portuguese Engineer by Manuel de Azevedo Fortes (1660-1749), a treatise on fortification, attack and defense of forts, the first volume of which (Fortes 1728) dwells on practical geometry and plane trigonometry (Martins 2017, Saraiva 2008: 3, Garção-Stockler 1819). Whereas amongst the Oratorians, the figure of the mathematician João Baptista (1722-1801) emerges (Andrade 1946: 326-32; Dias 1953), amid the Franciscans, attention should be given to the contributions by Valentim de Alpoim (1623-1696), Joaquim de São José (1707-1755) and Manuel do Cenáculo (1724-1814; see Caeiro 1957). Let us return to Monteiro’s situation in this history. One of the mathematical authorities frequently quoted by Monteiro is Antoine Thomas’ (1644-1709) Sinopsis Mathematica (see Thomas 1685). While praising Thomas’ “good method”, Monteiro considers it strictly philosophical-oriented (apenas dirigido a filosofia) (Golvers 2020). This might lead one to think that Monteiro tried to avoid the criticism directed at Thomas’ limitations, but the necessary study to determine whether this is correct or not has not yet been carried out. Historian Monteiro does not hesitate in characterizing the Portuguese Jesuit mentality as “modern” as regards the goal of mathematics (Monteiro 2004: 152, 379, 407), but a comparative examination of the aforementioned Portuguese contributions remains to be conducted. Furthermore, Inácio Monteiro’s intervention as a “science” teacher and writer must be read in the context of the growing absolutist political atmosphere, with the ambiguities that affected the “enlightened” Republic of Letters, for better or worse (Tavares 2018, Rubiés 2018), and, of course, with the epistemological situation of mathematics within the Portuguese province. In contrast to situation in Portugal, where the university in Coimbra was reorganized having the Society of Jesus as its target (Silva 1767), Maximillian III Joseph, Elector of Bavaria (1727–1777, in office), invited the Jesuits to teach experimental philosophy at the university of Ingolstadt in 1746, a policy later followed in Innsbruck, Freiburg, and Bamberg (Hellyer 2005: 38). Situations abroad are worth recalling because they coeval with Monteiro’s Portuguese efforts. Not without reason, some historians consider the situation of the province as poorer when compared to that of other latitudes. For several times, historian Baldini depicted the epistemological status of mathematics in Jesuit Portuguese schools as lower overall when compared to other European Jesuit schools. He explained this situation by “the different recognition given to mathematics as a profession, not only by the local context but by the mathematicians themselves” (Baldini 2004: 363, and Baldini 2013). In Coimbra, Inácio Monteiro succeeded Filipe de Gamboa (1722-?) who was transferred to Évora “to refine his competences” (Baldini 2004: 459). Baldini suggests that such a transfer could indicate that the quality of mathematics instruction in Évora was superior to that in Coimbra. However, the teacher who was appointed to continue Monteiro’s teaching in Coimbra was Bernardo de Oliveira (1714-1796), a competent mathematician as well. Oliveira had held the chair in 1741, in Coimbra, he had also taught mathematics in Évora, and would continue to do it in Ferrara, after 1759. It is yet too soon to assess the mathematical level of the Jesuit schools at Évora and Coimbra, but I suspect they do not differ that much. What must be stressed out is that Jesuits in Portugal did not know of any enlightened political decisions like those that took place in Roman or German provinces, despite the Portuguese Jesuits’ response to several interventions, such as: Tirso de González’s (1686-1705, in office) call to the increment of mathematics, in 1692; Michelangelo Tamburini’s (1706-1730, in office) letter to the Provincial of the Portuguese Province, on April 11, 1711 (see Baldini 2004: 318-27; Rosendo 1996, and 1998); the 16^th General Congregation of the Society (1730/31) which recognized the importance of erudition related with experimental and mathematical physics within Jesuit studies (Rosendo 1998: 348); and lastly, and within national borders, one very important document, the List of Subject-Matters to be Taught by Our Philosophy Masters in this Portuguese Province of the Society of Jesus/Elenchus Questionum, Quae a Nostris Philosophiae Magistris Tractari Debent, in hac Provincia Lusitana Societatis Iesu (Andrade 1973: 295-6, and Andrade 1966b). Arguably, if the first two interventions marked the beginning of a new period in the Jesuit history of mathematics in Portugal due to their appraisal of mathematics as pure scientific research – precisely the topic Monteiro seemed to have criticized in Antoine Thomas’s Synopsis –, Monteiro’s Compendium coincides in time with that List published in 1754, that is, only five years before the Jesuits’ expulsion and in the year of the publication of the first volume of the Compendium. A few more facts evidence the relevance of that year: while the Lisbon newspaper A Gazeta, in its issue of June 13, 1754, announces the philosophical and mathematical vastness of the Jesuit Inácio Soares’ (1712-?) Philosophia Vniversa Eclectica ex cunctis philosophorum sectis methodice selecta ac concinnata in northern Braga, in southern Évora both Sebastião de Abreu (1713-1792) and João Leitão (1715-after 1782) emerge as two top-ranked Jesuits professors of mathematics (see Gomes 2012: 304). As briefly summarized by historian of science Martins (1999), the List aimed at “the study of gravity based on the explanation of Peripatetic, Cartesian and Newtonian opinions, proposing the adoption of the one closer to the truth. It also added that studies of speed and quantity of motion would be based on the laudable method of the moderns. Regarding the study of elastic bodies, the presentation of the models of Descartes, Gassendi (1592-1655) and Newton (1643-1727) was recommended. ‘Restricted physics’ should deal with the world in general, and the opinions of Aristotle (c.384-c.322), Descartes, Kepler (1571-1630), and Newton should be presented therein. The study of the four elements should acknowledge the Torricelli tube, the Magdeburg spheres, and the opinions of Descartes, Gassendi, and Borelli (1608-1679) on several scientific topics. Overall, these subjects should be followed by the study of magnetism, electricity, and geography, covering topics such as longitude and latitude, zones, climates, the origin of hills, rivers, fountains, thermal springs, mineral waters, salt and color of sea waters, ebb, and flow, etc.” (Martins 1999: 20). Monteiro’s Compendium does not cover all of these topics but does acknowledge some of them, and testifies to its didactic approach to mathematics, in particular, and science, in general, as noted by Garção-Stockler (1819: 161) for the first time. With a different approach, historian Gomes (2012: 77) highlighted two items of importance in the Compendium: the method of study followed therein and the choice of the authors. The combination of both items explains why Monteiro preferred Christian Wolff’s (1679-1754) algebra over Guillaume François Antoine’s (1661-1704) L’Analyse des Infiniment Petis, which he considered unsuitable for beginners (Gomes 2012: 79-80). Arguably, Monteiro followed closely Wolff’s way of presenting mathematics in school texts (Nobre 2005). To put it briefly, the Compendium addresses pragmatic issues such as the shortage of time for studying, the low success rate in studies, the order of the subject matters and the choice of manuals, which are all core teaching issues (Rosendo 1998: 328). It was said provocatively that Inácio Monteiro’s sharp eye to didactics made him leave a few observations that “deserve to be an example to many of the present-day authors of manuals for basic and high schools” throughout the Compendium (Rosendo 1998: 340). This demonstrates a certain continuity with the major didactic objectives of the first Coimbra Jesuit Course (1592-1606), which targeted two types of students: those seeking a deeper knowledge of mathematics and those wishing to approach philosophy with a foundation in physics (Andrade 1973: 297-8). Monteiro’s dual goal appears to align with these same targets, which may explain Verney’s crippled diatribe against Monteiro (see Gomes 1944a, now in Gomes 2012: 97-106, and Monteiro 2004: 409ff). One might even say that the set of surviving tiles reproducing figures from The Elements of Euclid, in the version by André Tacquet (1612-1660), and testifying how quadrivium sciences were methodologically taught at the Coimbra college (Duarte 2020, Leitão 2007), could still be used by Monteiro in his introductory lessons. I wrote “introductory” because although the Compendium opens in a Euclidean key, Monteiro does not consider the Elements to be an entirely suitable instrument for doing geometry, even though he favors the Euclidean synthetic method for teaching and presenting the science. Discussions about the best method to teach mathematics and, consequently, its epistemological horizon must have been crucial at the time. Scholars recognize that by the mid-18^th century, “experiment” had become synonymous with natural philosophy for the Jesuits, but this positive attitude toward experiments was mainly found in German colleges (Hellyer 2005), as said above. However, Baldini (2004: 454) is not alone in considering Monteiro as “the most noble scientist in the years immediately preceding 1759”, an honor he is said to share with Jesuit Eusébio da Veiga (1718-1798). Overall, the contents of Monteiro’s Compendium are the following: after a General Introduction, consisted of Definitions, Universal Axioms, and Evident Propositions, the first volume is divided into Arithmetic (further divided into Elementary or Speculative Arithmetic and Algebra), Geometry (divided into Speculative or Elementary and Practical, and which is the largest chapter in the volume, with an appendix on Conical sections), followed by Trigonometry, Algebra, Statics, Mechanics, Hydrostatics, Aerometry, Hydrometry, Hydraulics, and Pyrotechnics. The pure mathematical section of the first volume ends with the chapter on Algebra, after which the physical and mathematical issues are introduced. The second volume of the Compendium begins with the elements of Optics, Catoptrics and Dioptrics, followed by the elements of the Sphere and Astronomy, and ends with the elements of Geography and Chronology. Monteiro does not justify the absence of Gnomic, Perspective and Architecture, but as regards the nature of the light, for instance, he departs from the ancient theory of the Peripatetics (Gomes 2012: 73; but see Bernardo 2009: 535). Throughout the Compendium various illustrations depicting machines, instruments, and experiments enrich the volume, totaling over three-hundred pictures. Some of these also appear in Manuel Pinheiro’s (1718-1776) General Physics at Évora (Gomes 1960:592), and they cover arithmetic, geometry, trigonometry, statics, mechanics, hydrostatics, hydrometrics, aerometric, hydraulics, pyrotechnics, optics, catoptrics, dioptrics, the sphere, astronomy, geography, chronology, and algebra. While this is not the place to delve deeper into the content of the Compendium (see Rosendo 1998), I shall briefly point out some challenging topics or issues therein. Monteiro does not seem to consider irrational numbers, he does not discuss the infinite at length, he is not always consistent when science and religion conflict, and he wavers between the systems of Brahe (1546-1601) and Copernicus (1473-1543). However, he provides interesting insights on mereology, and shows a willingness to embrace the permanent evolution that characterizes science. Without being a “scientist” as one nowadays understands the word, Monteiro must have been a mathematics enthusiast, and a man with strong appetite for the most updated scientific knowledge. His personal library bears witness to his eagerness to acquire recent publications in order to stay updated (Golvers forthcoming). As mentioned earlier, one final feature of Monteiro’s Compendium that deserves attention is that it was written in the Portuguese language. Nicolau Gaspar (dates unknown) used the same procedure before, in 1519, and his Matemáticas Práticas/Practical Mathematics is the first known mathematical treatise in the Portuguese language. Monteiro was not the first Jesuit to use his mother language at the high school level, but he still acknowledged the difficulty of explaining mathematics in Portuguese, instead of Latin (Rosendo 1998: 324). Note that even Pedro Nunes (1502-1578), the greatest mathematician at the university of Coimbra, set an example with his own translations of the Treaty of the Sphere and Ptolemy’s Geography (Nunes 1537: 5, and Leitão 2002). One may recall that in the Aula da Esfera (the Class on the Sphere) at the Lisbon College of Saint Antão/Saint Anthony, mathematics was taught in Portuguese, not in Latin (Gomes 2012: 42-43). This could also be the case in Coimbra as well as in the other Portuguese Jesuit colleges. Furthermore, Monteiro’s Compendium alludes to the Oratorian Teodoro de Almeida’s Philosophical Recreation (1751-1800), and to other Portuguese titles as well, both published and unpublished. In addition, besides João de Borja, mentioned earlier, one could note the Elements of Geometry by Jesuit Manuel de Campos (1681-1758; not to be mistaken with Tomás de Campos, mentioned at the beginning of his article), considered “an excellent preparation for the substitution of the false Aristotelian by the true Newtonian and experimental philosophy” (Andrade 1973: 296, see Campos 1735), and the unpublished Newtonian Chronology in Epitome by Jacob de Castro Sarmento (1690-1762), probably a pupil of Campos in Évora during 1710/11 (see Sarmento 1737). Hence, if Monteiro chose to write in his mother language, given the short books for study, as he admits, one cannot ignore that his initiative was not isolated, and was actually typical among “science professors”. Although experimentation and mathematization never reached the level they did in Italian or German latitudes, the Portuguese circumstance likely favored them more from a didactic perspective. Additionally, the philological interest of this situation has not been yet given proper attention (see Rosendo 1998: 337, regarding Gaspar’s and Monteiro’s terminologies). Castelão-Lawless (2018), Rosendo (1998) and Andrade (1973: 298) agree that Monteiro is an example of the dissemination of modern science in Portugal, made by science popularizers in the 18^th century. Optics could be a good example of this situation, despite Monteiro’s hesitation between Cartesian and Newtonian solutions regarding that subject matter (Ribeiro & Bulhões 2014). To the names of Almeida and Sarmento, Castelão-Lawless (2016) adds two pedagogic letters, The True Method of Studying by Verney (1746), and the Letters for the Education of the Youth by Sanches (1759), mentioned above. However, both present concerns, ideal programs, and negative opinions concerning the state of Portuguese studies, which was not the negative target aimed at by Monteiro. It is possible that their goal was not to disseminate science to large audiences, but to educate within the context of schools. Monteiro did not write about the need to reform the educational system, but he wrote his own version of what the system should provide. Among the authors quoted in the Compendium, the following must be mentioned here, mainly for future evaluation of the possible “translations” or adaptations by Monteiro (see e.g. Carvalho 1997b): Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo (1564-1642), Pascal (1623-1662), Bernard Lamy (1640-1715), Wolff, Newton, Nollet (1700-1770), Mariotte (1620-1684), Boyle (1627-1691), Isaac Barrow (1630-1677), and Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695), among many other names registered by Gomes (2012: 84-97), to which should be added the names of John Locke (1632-1704), and Samuel Clark (1675-1729), as noted by Martins (1973: 268). Marginally, it may be said that the Dominicans had Monteiro’s Compendium in their Coimbra Library (Rodrigues 1987: 61).

Monteiro’s Eclectic/Selective philosophy

Inácio Monteiro’s following works fall under the umbrella of “eclecticism”. By their common title, Free or Eclectic Philosophy, the eight volumes of his Physica clearly evidence this. The two volumes of the Logica are announced as an eclectic manifesto (secundum eclecticae philosophiae leges adornata), and the same goes for the Metaphysica (eclecticae philosophiae regulas pertractata), and the Ethica or moral philosophy (secundum philosophiae eclecticae institutionem pertractata). In the next paragraphs, I shall return to this, but, besides the obvious comparison with the Oratorians, for they were meant to replace the Jesuits, it is worth comparing Monteiro’s eclectic proposals with the solutions followed by the various religious orders that adopted the structure of the university of Coimbra in the wake of Pombal’s reformation (see e.g., Plano 1776a, and 1776b). Before the publication of Monteiro’s philosophical “opus magnum”, the Free or Eclectic Philosophy/Physica, Jesuit João Leitão taught a philosophical course (1754/58) that shared the same eclectic motif, at the university of Évora. Leitão’s Philosophia Analitico-Eclectica in tres partes distributa is accessible in manuscript (BPME: BP cod. CXVIII/1-4, and BGUC: Ms. 2333), and was described by Gomes (1960: 588-9). Unfortunately, Monteiro’s and Leitão’s titles were not subject to a full comparative examination yet. The latter’s three parts – rational, natural, and moral philosophy – do not coincide with Monteiro’s structure. Even though Leitão was the author of a reformed philosophy (philosophia reformata), the way he divides it differs from Monteiro’s proposal. Note that Leitão’s five scales or methods are Aristotle’s method, Galileo’s, Gassendi’s or the Atomists’, Descartes’s and finally the Peripatetic one. As explicitly recognized by Francisco António (1752) or Inácio Soares (1754), both lecturing in the northern city of Braga, a label like “Modern Peripatetic School” was then taken as synonym of “Eclecticism” (Gomes 2012: 27), a way of thinking finally free from pure Aristotle’s inputs. “Eclecticism” had a presence of its own in Portugal, and its influence was even detected in American territories (Rovira Gaspar 1958), except for Monteiro’s works, for obvious political reasons. Experiencing his time as an epoch of crisis, Monteiro sees no merit in Skepticism (scepticismum rigorosum, seu pyrrhonismum neque verum esse esse dogma, neque serio atque sincere ab aliquo teneri propugnarique existimo). According to him, eclecticism should be the response fed by history of philosophy whenever it shows the imperfection of human knowledge. I shall return to the role the history of philosophy had in Monteiro’s philosophy, but, as he himself puts it, even if one truth may be found in every and each author, the whole truth cannot be found in any one of them. There is nothing new here. In the same vein, a course taught at Évora in 1755 by Manuel Pinheiro introduced eclecticism as follows: “a sect of those authors who do not want to swear to the words of a single master, but who embrace what they judge most according to the truth” (Gomes 2012: 28). Surely, this could even apply to Aristotle himself whose authority was still claimed by the Society of Jesus. Incidentally, António de Freitas’ manuscript, Peripateticae Philosophiae Medullam a Mechanicae Philosophiae corpusculis ac faecibus expurgatam (BNL-R. 5138 A), read by Silva (1973: 237-8), despite considering three major Cartesian principles – the universal doubt, the cogito, and the certain or self-evident ideas – attacks Cartesian “mechanics” based on an Aristotelian position. However, due to the extension of the historical frame from Ancient to Modern authors (in Philosophia et Veteres et Recentiores Philosophi observatione), from that time on, Aristotle was just one of the names among various sects present by the history of philosophy and, as such, individually experienced by each philosophy professor, regardless of their religious order. That is why Leitão’s last scale, mentioned above, becomes biographically experienced by Monteiro’s idiosyncratic itinerary, which he depicts as follows: starting with the study of Aristotle, Monteiro moved on to Epicurus, whom he abandoned to address the Atomists, and then “the new Cartesian world, the new philosophy”, which he also abandoned to meet Newton. Some itineraries of these teachers can be said to recall Justin the Martyr’s itinerary in the 2^nd century. However, despite being a common experience of several philosophers’ intellectual biographies, they all lack of systematicity. After all these stations, being at a time a Peripatetic, an Atomist, a Cartesian and a Newtonian, Monteiro arrives at the expected conclusion that although each of the mentioned philosophers had tackled some truth, the prudent philosopher should be a free (meaning: independent) one. In short, an eclectic philosopher suited for “a republic of reason”. This implies that eclecticism was pursued as an enlightened motif by Monteiro as well, whose rejection of dogmatism and sectarianism allowed a recent interpreter to classify Monteiro’s philosophical figure under the rubric “freedom of philosophizing”/”Freiheit des philosophierens” (Albrecht (1994: 587). Nevertheless, strange as it may see, the opposition between eclecticism and sectarianism was also one of the key ideas in Diderot’s (1713-1784) important article “Écletisme” for the Encyclopédie (Wolfe 2021). Hence, to put it in clearer words, it was a topic widely spread but differently understood, as can be seen in the works of non-Jesuit thinkers such as the German philosopher and Lutheran priest Johann Christoph Sturm (1635-1703), or the Portuguese-Jewish physician Isaac Cardoso (1615-1680). Inácio Monteiro will remain faithful to Eclecticism, but this still poses a problem because, prior to Victor Cousin’s (1792-1867) theoretical stance, eclecticism could only be either inconsistent or consistent and systematic. Monteiro’s intellectual and philosophical eclectic biography will always require the reader to check the level and coherence of his attachment to e.g., Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Wolff, or Newton. However, this will not be enough, as a close examination on how and to what extent those authors and their theories are consistent in Monteiro’s reading is also necessary. Overall, to be considered a consistent eclecticism, Monteiro’s entire oeuvre must be accessed through competent exegetical work, ideally based on its urgent critical edition, and framed by a historical-philosophical sound knowledge. And a work as such has yet to be done.

Physica: A Free or Eclectic Philosophy (1766)

Monteiro’s Free or Eclectic Philosophy/Philosophia Libera seu Eclectica was first published in 1766 in Venice, and its content derives from the three-year time that the author spent lecturing in Portugal, likely in Santarém, ten years earlier (although its opening Letter was signed on February 28, 1761). Several matters that had integrated the Compendium reappear in the opening volume of this Physica, which even reproduces a free Latin version of the Compendium made by the author himself. The French journal L’Esprit (1776: 383-5) saluted and described the publication of Monteiro’s Free or Eclectic Philosophy as a “model” of the modern philosophy wholly dedicated to physics. Monteiro outlines his conception of a genuine course in philosophy, meaning, in “natural philosophy” (integrum, absolutumque Philosophiae naturalis cursum), to be completed in three years. During the first year, students would be introduced to geometry, the history of philosophy, and logic, with the latter being dealt with after the former two or mixed with them. Later, in 1788, Monteiro would publish an independent title wholly dedicated to logic. Seeing geometry as a necessary introduction to the study of physics, Monteiro assigns the same role (tyronem philosophiam) to the study of the history of philosophy, considering it suitable for anyone wishing to be well educated (bene cultum). Due to its style and purpose, the Physica has been compared to Almeida’s Philosophical Recreation, written in Portuguese, and focused on physics as well. Castelão-Lawless (2016: 41) suggests that Monteiro wrote the Physica in Latin, probably with the intent of having it adopted by foreign professors at the newly reformed university of Coimbra. Although this suggestion contradicts the historian’s view that Almeida’s and Monteiro’s titles may be considered contemporary examples of science dissemination, studies evaluating the differences between Monteiro and Almeida, one a Jesuit and the other an Oratorian, are still lacking, and one must always take into consideration that Portuguese titles and Latin titles likely had different audiences. Broadly, the publication of the Physica aimed to provide students with the necessary or ideal inception (tyrones) in philosophy. Monteiro consistently sees his intervention under the same didactic goal: to help students overcome limitations imposed by the short period of time during which teachers were constrained within the academic year. This is, at least, the way I read the original: “…ut adolescentes in Philosophia satis instructi evadant, si Philosophicum stadium absolvant, quin aliud menti, et memoriae mandaverint, praeter ea, quae a magistro dictata accceperunt.” According to the syllabus proposed by Monteiro, to which I now return, in the second year of philosophy, students should address the following three items, all of them related to physics in general (physica generalis): (i) the notion, object, method and rules of philosophy, plus physics; (ii) the notion and existence of bodies; (iii) nature, first elements, the principles and composition of bodies. The remaining chapters, such as mechanics, statics, and barycenter physics, would follow. Volumes two and three of the Physica also dwell in the same subject matters. Astronomy occupies the fourth volume, and with it ends the study of physics in general. From the fifth to the eighth volume, Monteiro deals with specific parts of the world, bodies, and the phenomena related to them (physica particularis), such as geography (vol. V), aerometry, pyrotechnics, electricity, sleep, and music (vol. VI). The last two volumes deal with the physics of living beings (physica viventium), which covers subject matters as diverse as plants, animals, their anatomy, the circulation of the blood and respiration, but also lessons on light, and colors (vol. VII), and, of course, the human body and soul, the so-called “homo sentiens” (vol. VIII). Just like Manuel de Góis’ (1543-1597) conception of the Coimbra Jesuit Course, almost two centuries before (1592), Monteiro would have nothing to say against the huge presence of natural philosophy in any exposition of philosophy. The difference lies, however, in the fact that while the former stuck to the Aristotelian text, the latter swims in an eclectic wave. Is that peculiarity sufficient to call Monteiro “the last of the Coimbra Jesuits” (o último Conimbricense), as Silva (2001) does? The answer cannot be straightforward. While it is possible to affirm that Monteiro continues the attention to natural philosophy opened by Góis, it is also possible to sustain that the philosophical program defined by Monteiro antedates an horizon that one would only find in 20^th century Portugal, when philosopher Leonardo Coimbra (1883-1936), in his capacity as Minister of Education, designs a scientific-philosophical syllabus to be applied in high schools from scratch (Carvalho 2011a: 482). In the meantime, one could, of course, recall the scientific attention to the “book of nature” embodied in education by the Society of Jesus in Portugal during the second phase of its history (Romeiras 2019). Divided into a systematic part (the study of causes) and an experimental part (the observation and analyses of phenomena), physics is the science of nature or the universe, in its wider philosophical sense, according to Monteiro; or in another words: a science having as its object all the things and bodies that fill the entire world (physica, amplissima philosophiae pars, est scientia naturae seu universi, hoc est, rerum et corporum omnium, quae universum mundum componunt). Considering the vastness of the universe – a world, it may be remembered, that was becoming increasingly wide and studied with rather diverse and different tools –, the place of the earth is reconsidered, and the natural approach is mandatory (Carolino 2003, and Carvalho 1997b). Furthermore, Monteiro discusses the hypothesis of other humans and worlds in “an attentive and updated form” (Conceição 2004: 296ff). In any case, the more promising way to assess Monteiro’s epistemology of physics is to tackle his understanding of experience. Besides insisting upon the new paradigm that natural philosophy had to follow, namely “observation and calculation”, the eclectic approach adopted by Monteiro led him to produce a manual both with success and gaps or weaknesses. Earlier, I mentioned some historians who embraced the idea that Monteiro was a modern scientist in some way. Indeed, he writes after Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, thence his explicit admission that mathematics is crucial to engage in the study of experimental physics. Or, in his picturesque yet clear words, which I shall translate given their interest: “To true physics, precisely the one we are doing nowadays, do not belong the beings of reason, the possibilities, the chimeras of the Ancients, all of them being subtle idleness of the human mind. Nowadays, nature is studied by observation and calculation (…) Wanting to study experimental physics with no knowledge of mathematics is like teaching theology not knowing the catechism. Sir Newton’s teaching has more calculations than conclusions. / A Physica verdadeira, e que nestes tempos se cultiva, naõ saõ os entes de razaõ, as possibilidades, e chymeras dos antigos, ociosas sutilezas do entendimento humano. Estudamos hoje a natureza pela observaçaõ, e pelo calculo (…). Pertender estudar physica experimental sem Mathematica, he, querer ensinar Theologia, ignorãdo o Cathecismo. A doutrina do Cavalleiro Newton tem mais calculos, do que conclusoens.” (Compendio I, Prol.).” Just as with the Compendium, Monteiro’s Physica attends to method and demonstration, as well as to the differences between the analytical/resolution and synthetic/composition methods. “Method” (methodus/ordo), it goes without saying, is a key-notion for the Jesuits, and from the very beginning of the Spiritual Exercises, an itinerary itself, one reads that a better understanding depends on “method and procedure” (Loyola 1992: 21). In its general definition, Logica V states that “method is that particular kind of order by which one dispose one’s ideas, judgments, and reasoning to find or to teach the truth” (Methodus generatim accepta est peculiaris ille ordo, quo nostras ideas, judicia, ratiocinationes ad veritatem aut inveniendam aut docendam disponimus). Despite the Cartesian tone associated with the stress put on ideas (on their evidence, to be precise), despite the relevance of observation and experience (according to Physica II), despite Monteiro’s inflexibility in stating that in physics one should stick to geometrical reasoning (geometrica ratiocinandum), whenever possible, and despite the fact that “analysis” and “synthesis” are two structural dimensions of method, Monteiro, I repeat, follows mostly the principle that analysis is better suited to finding the truth, whereas synthesis is better suited to teaching it (Logica II). This is, among other things, a sensible departure from Descartes’ emphasis on “analysis” in mathematical contexts (see e.g., AT II, 22,30, 82, 337, 394, 400, 438, 637; AT III, 99; AT VI, 17-18, 20; AT X, 373). There is no surprise here, as in his “autobiography” Monteiro ranks Newton before Descartes, even though he never read Kant (KrV, 1781). This does not imply by itself that Cartesian mathematics was surpassed by Newtonian physics because, I insist, Monteiro is not a scientist but rather someone who is attentive to the need of being updated and preoccupied with the dissemination of science for didactic and human reasons. It is true that the Ancient or Aristotelian dichotomy sense/reason (sensus/ratio) is interpreted by the Jesuit as the trichotomy observation/experience/demonstration (observatio/experientia/demonstratio), but I submit that it all indicates that the latter appears mostly at the service of didactic exposition. In the case of Inácio Monteiro, it is arguable that he rarely, if ever, engaged in doing experiments, and, as was already said, the only known instance was his request for having a precision clock for astronomical observations. In short, despite his awareness of the importance of observation and experience as “fundamental phases in the search of a mathematical law and the permanent verification of the conclusions reached, following the path opened by Galileo’s and Descartes” (Rosendo 1998: 326), Monteiro’s “experimental demonstration” mostly consisted of the description of facts, eventually read by a few new instruments, following the attention given to them by updated literature, all this conceived in view of the most efficacious didactic repetition. Finally, regarding the history of philosophy, it is not enough to consider the topics dealt therein by Monteiro, mostly related with the ideological “monsters” of his epoch such as optimism, materialism, atheism, pantheism, Manicheanism, space and place, liberty and fate, providence and divine justice, human mind, the nature of the soul, acts or ideas of the soul, and the human will. While the attention given to the history of philosophy has been traced back to the teachings of António de Freitas (BNL-R. Ms. 5138 A), who was likely the last professor of young Monteiro in 1746 in Évora (Silva 1973: 237), historians are not in agreement on this issue. For instance, although the role of Verney (1746) in that domain is recognized, and the special place occupied therein by Fr Manuel do Cenáculo (1724-1814) is also acknowledged, historian Caeiro attributed the first thesis ever published concerning the history of philosophy to Friar Leonardo da Encarnação (dates unknown), in Coimbra, 1747 (Caeiro 1957: 350, 356). However, Gomes (1960: 654) ascribes this merit to António de Freitas, who presided over a thesis defended by António Álvares Correia (dates unknown) in March 1746. Being this as it may, the credit for recognizing the importance of the history of philosophy in Monteiro’s oeuvre belongs to historian Carvalho (1946), who has drawn attention to two sections of the Free or Eclectic Philosophy‘s first volume, the “Historiae philosophiae sinopsis” and the “Adnotationes historicae”. Monteiro divided the history of philosophy into three parts: the first deals with the beginning, progress, and current state of human opinions, and errors; the second deals with the various schools and their main authors; the third discusses ideas and inventions, especially in sciences. This third part is particularly interesting because the author provides the reader with his thoughts on major or relevant topics such as the Cartesian notion of extension, the world and its primordial elements, the Aristotelian theory of matter and form, human composition, the theory of the elements, space, void, the divisibility of matter, the theory of movement, God and movement (especially in Cartesian theory), the impenetrability of matter, and so on.

Logica: Critical Science or the Rules for the Direction of the Mind (1768)

Echoing a Cartesian tone (ars critica rationis dirigendae seu philosophiae humanae mentis institutio), Monteiro’s Logic does not ignore Descartes’ contribution, and, to a lesser extent, Locke’s, without however losing touch with Aristotle’s legacy. Logic is nothing less than the prolegomena to all sciences (organum omnium scientiarum) and therefore a critical science in what respects the human mind’s (humanum intellectum) natural effort to reach the truth, to learn, to dispute and to teach (ars critica rationis dirigendae ad veritatem assequendam, ad discendum, disputandum, et docendum a ratione ipsa inventa). The general structure of the five parts of Monteiro’s Logica still betray an Aristotelian outlook: the existing and thinking human mind (de mente humana existente et cogitante), subdivided into the following four lessons: metaphysical and physical positions concerning the soul’s (anima) activities, the origin and notion of “idea”, the ideas in themselves, and in their relationship with the objects. The second part deals with the mind and its process of judging (mente humana judicante); the third, with the reasoning mind (mente humana ratiocinante); the fourth, with the mind’s true and false acts; and finally, the fifth, with the method, or more specifically with the mind before its teaching and learning goals. Immediately after the exposition concerning the analytical and synthetic methods, part V of the Logica presents a “true Ratio Studiorum with the laws for a methodical and proper teaching for a constructive dialogue (disputa)” (Silva 2001: 188). It must be added, however, that the fifth part of the Logica is preceded by the study of the human mind following Descartes’s lead. Some interpreters loosely emphasize the proximity between Monteiro’s and Descartes’s methodology to achieve truth, already in the first part of the Logica (Monteiro 2004: 403-06). Again, an eclectic or selective choice justifies the mix that conjointly (i) discusses the origin of ideas, their notion and object, (ii) analyses judgments and propositions; (iii) gives the laws of reasoning and syllogisms; (iv) distinguishes between truth and false and advances evidence as the ultimate criterion for truth. To objectively dismantle such a curious mix is a task that still awaits. Monteiro’s exposition of the rules for preventing humans from falling into false evidence represents a step further in relation to the brief pages in which he deals with “enthusiasm” and fanaticism (Logica I), but the reader must bear in mind that Monteiro also talks about a “true enthusiasm” as a precise representation of sensible reality (Est igitur enthusiasmus vivida quaedam animi commotio ad exactam naturalem, et perfectam rerum sensibilium repraesentationem, quae et a ratione ipsa in immaginatione clarissime percipitur, et animum nostrum percellit). This fervor or enthusiasm differs from fanaticism (mentis furor) since, contrary to the former, the latter is rooted in confused ideas resulting from a vivid or inflamed imagination (Martins 1973: 286-7), meaning deprived from the order the method should lean on, and, I submit, the consequences of which were experienced by Monteiro and his companions in the aftermath of the banning of the Society from his country.

Metaphysica: The philosophical principles of Theology or Natural Religion (1770)

“Metaphysics” is the popular name (vulgo nuncupata) of the discipline concerned with the principles of philosophical theology or natural religion (principia philosophica theologiae atque religionis naturalis). Divided into two major parts – on natural theology, or the study of God as the first cause of all natural things, and the study of mind, the spirit or the human soul (de Deo, aliisque spiritibus, ac proinde de anima nostra, eiusque natura, cognitionibus, commercio et statu separatu) – Monteiro’s Metaphysics begins, however, with the definitions of the most “general and familiar notions”. Among them, are “being”, “existence”, “real being”, “nothingness”, “possible” and “impossible”, “natural”, “supernatural”, and “preternatural”, “accident”, “mode”, “body”, “spirit”, “principles” and “causes”, “effects”, “actions”, and “sufficient reason”. The book continues with several hypothesis, paragraphs, propositions, conclusions, difficulties, and rules that resemble the geometrical method just like Monteiro understands it, after Wolff. The four lessons of the second part, wholly dedicated to the human mind, dwell on its existence (specifically, its nature, origin, creation, its distinction from the body and from all other bodily qualities), its state within the body, its first capacity (meaning, thinking activity as well as the origin and nature of ideas), and the proprieties and nature of the will. Aristoteles’ Metaphysics, to which every Jesuit was once expected to adhere to, is now disregarded – Monteiro alludes to the empty questions of the old Scholastic authors (inanibus Scholasticorum veterum quaestionibus) –, but this is mostly done in connection with the obvious fact that with the Metaphysics Monteiro expects to address the challenges of the European intellectual landscape of his time specially undermined by skepticism, pyrrhonism, deism, atheism, and materialism, among many other “monsters” (as he put it). In contrast to Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine about metaphysics being epistemologically subjected to theology, metaphysics, now illuminated by reason alone (solo rationis lumine), coincides with rational philosophy (philosophia rationalis) i.e., a true, clear and logical exposition of all metaphysical matters (pura ratione, lumine naturali agere, argumentari, atque philosophari oportet: idearum tantum modo claritate et connexione ducti a veritate ad veritatem progredimur), physical and moral laws included (de Deo, anima humana, rerum intelligibilium notionibus, et primitivis rerum legibus physicis et moralibus), ultimately leading to God. As Monteiro is writing in a new era, his “eclectic metaphysics”, as he understands it, takes into account the English, the French and the German major “metaphysicians” – namely, and respectively, John Locke (1632-1704), Samuel Clarke (75-29) and Ralph Cudworth (1617-1688), Nicolas Malebranche, Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) and Christian Wollf (1679-1754). It is symptomatic of his eclecticism that Monteiro puts English philosophers and philosophy, mostly Locke, side by side with the Peripatetics, for their shared empiricist approach, as well as Malebranche and Plato, for their defense of innate ideas. With obvious different actors, this division predates the two systems – “sensualisme”/ “idéalisme” – that, according to Victor Cousin, all other philosophical systems could in fact be reduced to (Cousin 1828: 12).

Ethica: Physical-Rational Free Ethics (1794)

Assuming its natural dimension, moral philosophy (philosophia morum) is nothing but a natural science that deals with human life in connection with the rules of justice to achieve natural happiness (ethica seu philosophia moralis proprie dicta, est naturalis scientia, et ars vitae moralis secundum justitiae regulas ad naturalem felicitatem consequendam). Once again, and in line with the first moral doctrine ever published by the Jesuits in Coimbra (Góis 2020), ethics is considered the fulfillment of the entire philosophy since “physics, logic, metaphysics, or senses, principles, reason, and actions are connected, and they all lead to ethics”. This reflects the initial pages of Góis’ commentary to Ethics originally published in 1593. However, despite being conceived by a Christian and sincere follower of the revealed religion, ethics is now considered wholly philosophical, meaning wholly founded in nature and reason (ex natura hominis ratione naturalis deducta) and, therefore, accessible to the numerous followers of natural religion. Being impossible to attain true happiness in the historical life of a human being, where, according to Monteiro, one may nonetheless attain the triple “peace that restrains the passions” – “peace with God, peace with oneself, and peace with other men” –, ethics sticks to the three main coordinates of human life or human actions, i.e. life (through mechanical and physical causes), truth (by intelligence), and good (thorough the will). Silva (2001: 192-3), whom I have been following regarding the Ethica (but see also Martins 1973), summarizes the domains of Monteiro’s “special or practical” ethics, mostly restricted to law and political science, and enumerates some of the major authorities thereof like Grotius (1583-1645), Wolff, Puffendorf (1632-1694), Cumberland (1631-1718), Montesquieu (1689-1755), Shaftesbury (1671-1713) or Rousseau. It is worth noticing that Monteiro’s ethics could be somehow seen as not too distant from the “new” approach to ethics developed by the reformed (or anti-Jesuit) Coimbra university. Arguably, nineteenth-century Portuguese historiography was much more inclined to see the link between the reform of the university and Luís Verney’s or Teodoro de Almeida’s works (Arriaga 1886: 373), and, as a result, it lost the necessary perspective to appreciate Monteiro’s doctrine on ethics and how it could also be taught within the Republic of Letters. It is sad, to say the least, that scholars still tend to insist on the divide instead of reading Inácio Monteiro’s oeuvre without outdated prejudices such as those. But as is the case with the titles above, Ethics deserves to be read anew, and I submit, that its comparison with the manual in use in the reformed university (Barbosa 1792) will certainly pay off (Carvalho 2011b: 237). Incidentally, it may be recalled that the year the Ethica was published (1794) also witnessed the publication of The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine (1737-1809) and Fichte’s (1762-1814) Grundlage der gesammten Wissenschaftslehre.

Provisional Evaluation

When it comes to unveil Monteiro’s figure, one should refrain from looking for it in any particular doctrine he espouses, but rather in his attitude of inquiry and teaching. The eventual coherence of all his works has not been the object of any study whatsoever yet. Furthermore, it is too soon to say that Monteiro’s work encompasses an entire Enlightenment program, which emphasizes the role of physics in mathematics and enhances it, “in its ramifications, turning it into the indispensable nucleus of knowledge that should interest scholars of all kinds, particularly those engaged in public governance…” (Coxito 1991: 951). There is no reason to overestimate Monteiro’s Physica to the detriment of his subsequent works. If one intends to discern an “enlightenment” design in Monteiro, one must bear in mind that it should be closer to its Spanish (Feijóo) or its German version (Wolff) rather than the English (Locke), not to mention the French ones (Diderot). Other interpreters suggest addressing Monteiro’s profile and contribution between continuity and rupture (Maduro 2016, and Fiolhais & Franco 2016). According to Vaz de Carvalho, his main philosophical features would have been the following: (i) Eclecticism, (ii) Antiperipateticism, Cartesianism, and Moderate skepticism (Carvalho 1997a: 765). Amândio Coxito proposed these very features, explaining each one of them as follows: (i) Eclecticism, meaning that Monteiro is opposed to partisanship, refractory to authority whenever reason is downsized, and a lover of freedom in philosophy; (ii) Antiperipatetic, since he denies the qualitative explanations of the physical and biological phenomena that make use of substantial or accidental forms; (iii) Cartesianism, since he seems to favor Descartes, as well as his doctrine about the evident ideas, theodicy, and rational explanation of the mystery of transubstantiation; and (iv) Moderate skepticism, as he claims that one knows few things, ignores a lot more, and divine revelation cannot become the criterion for our few certainties (Coxito 1991: 951-2). In the end, I suspect Monteiro’s eclecticism is not to be understood as devoid of any kind of inherited or inner systematicity, but the work required to prove it is yet to be done. As Monteiro sticks to the division between theoretical and practical philosophy, the question remains whether that division is still ancient (Aristotle) or not. His division of the whole of philosophy into logic, pneumatic, moral, and physics, is common, but consistent with the new intellectual tide. In order to interpret the coherence of Monteiro’s choice for eclecticism, Gomes (1944b) traces it back to the spirit of independence towards Aristotle shared by Pedro da Fonseca (1528-1599), Manuel de Góis, Francisco Soares Lusitano (1605-1659) and António Cordeiro (1640-1722). However, eclecticism, a specific philosophical feature that would only be in fashion in Portugal during the 18^th century, is a step forward that must neither be neglected nor confused with the intention of prioritizing the search for truth above all else. Adopting the words of Jesuit Joan Baptista Gener (1711-1781), who was speaking about a period between 1700 and 1750 and therefore ignored Monteiro’s oeuvre, I submit that the latter’s eclecticism, was mainly an updated Scholasticism, meaning, its most recent and Modern expression (scholastica novissima ad seculi gustum et genium) (Gener 1766: 28). Ultimately, Inácio Monteiro may not have been that different from his fellow companions with regard to the Jesuits’ ambiguous contribution to the Enlightenment, as expressed by Rubiés (2018): he was modern in his efforts to make humanistic disciplines and mathematics accessible to students by creating curricular books; modern in the sense that he tried to intertwine natural reason and empirical research. But he was not radically modern, “rather the opposite, reactionary, if we identify modernity with skepticism”; or with “materialist and neo-Epicurean philosophies, including utilitarian and hedonistic ethics.

References

Latin Works, and Translations

• Compendio dos Elementos de Mathematica, Coimbra: Real Collegio das Artes, 2 vols., 1754, 1756.
• Orbis Theologici Mappam […] in tres partes divisam, 1. De Theologia Scholastica et Dogmatica 2. De Theologia Morali et Dogmatica 3. De Theologia Canonica. Praeside P.M. Ignatio Borges Societ.Iesu Primario Professore/ Publico offert examini P. Ignatius Monteiro Eiusdem Societ. Matheseos Professor/ In aula theologica Regi Artium Collegii Collimbriensis, integra die [5] huius mensis/Disputabitur: Utrum ad virum theologum apte efformandum omnes memoratae partes sint necessariae? [1755].
• Philosophia Libera seu Eclectica Rationalis, et Mechanica Sensuum ad studiosae juventutis institutionem accomodata, ac per lectiones digesta, 7 vols., Venice: Antonii Zatta, 1766 (1^st edition), 1775-1776 (2^nd edition, in 8 vols).
• Ars Critica Rationis Dirigendae, seu Philosophiae Humanae Mentis Institutio, Logica communi usu nuncupata secundum Eclecticae Philosophiae Leges adornata, Venice: Antonii Zatta, 2 vols., 1768 (1^st edition), 1777 (2^nd edition).
• Principia Philosophica Theologiae atque Religionis Naturalis, seu Philosophia Rationalis de Deo, Anima Humana, Rerum Intelligibilium notionibus, et primitivis rerum legibus physicis et moralibus, Metaphysica vulgo nuncupata, et eclecticae philosophiae regulas pertractata, Venice: Antonii Zatta, 2 vols., 1770 (1^st edition), 1778 (2^nd edition).
• Theses ex omnibus Philosophiae partibus excerptae disputabuntur publice in Templo Ferrariensi PP. Societatis Iesu, anno MDCCLXXI […] Ferrariae: Josepho Rinaldo Tip., 1771.
• Ethica Physico-Rationalis Libera seu Philosophia Morum ex natura hominis ratione naturalis deducta et secundum Philosophiae Eclecticae Institutionem pertractata, 2 vols., Ferrara: Josephi Rinaldi, 1794.
• The “Letter to the Portuguese Youth” as well as the “Prologue to the Reader” of the Philosophia Libera have been translated into Portuguese by Freire (1973; 306-317, and 318-322 respectively, the former with the Latin text in front).

Secondary Literature

Bibliographical References related to Inácio Monteiro

• Abreu (2012), Adélio Fernando. “Iluminismo e Cristianismo em Portugal. Uma abordagem” Humanística e Teologia 33: 31-61.
• Albrecht (1994), Michael. Eklektik: eine Begriffsgeschichte mit Hinweisen auf die Philosophie- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Fromman-Holzboog.
• Andrade (1946), A. A. Banha de. Verney e a filosofia portuguesa, Braga: Livraria Cruz.
• Andrade (1966a), A. A. Banha de. Vernei e a cultura do seu tempo, Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra.
• Andrade (1973), A. A. Banha de. “Inácio Monteiro e a evolução dos estudos nas aulas dos Jesuítas de Setecentos”, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 29: 289-304.
• Azevedo (2011), Ana. “Entre os ‘Antigos’ e os ‘Modernos’: as querelas sobre o ensino das ciências que antecederam a reforma pombalina da Universidade”, in Congresso Luso-Brasileiro de História das Ciências. Livro de Actas, coordenado por Carlos Fiolhais, Carlota Simões e Décio Martins, Coimbra: Departamento de Física, 119-128.
• Baldini (2004), Ugo. “The Teaching of Mathematics in the Jesuit Colleges of Portugal, from 1640 to Pombal”, in The Practice of Mathematics in Portugal, edited by Luis Saraiva, and Henrique Leitão, Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra, 293-465.
• Bernardo (2009), Luis Miguel. Histórias da Luz e das Cores. Lenda-Superstição-Magia-História-Ciência-Técnica. vol, 1. 2ªed., Porto: Universidade do Porto.
• Carolino (2003), Luís Miguel. Ciência, Astrologia e Sociedade. A Teoria da Influência Celeste em Portugal (1593-1755), Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
• Carvalho (1946), Joaquim de. “Evolução da historiografia filosófica em Portugal XIX”, Biblos 1, now in: Joaquim de Carvalho. Obra Completa. vol. I: Filosofia e História da Filosofia, Lisbon: Fund. Calouste Gulbenkian, 1981, 121-153.
• Carvalho (1991), José Vaz de. “Jesuitas portugueses com obras filosóficas publicadas nos séculos XVI-XVIII”, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 47: 651-659.
• Carvalho (2022), Mário Santiago de. “Coimbra Jesuit Mathematicians. A Possible Reasoned Catalog”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.7101873”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/coimbra-jesuit-mathematicians”, latest revision: December 9th, 2022.
• Castelão-Lawless (2018), Teresa. “Not Lagging Behind Enlightned Europe: The Circulation of Natural Philosophy in Portugal”, Agathos: An International Review of the Humanities and Social Sciences 9/1: 61-72.
• Castelão-Lawless (2016), Teresa. “A Brief History of the Introduction of Modern Science to Portugal During the 18^th Century”,  Agathos: An International Review of the Humanities and Social Sciences 7/1: 33-47.
• Conceição (2004), Joaquim Fernandes da. O imaginário extraterrestre na cultura portuguesa. Do fim da Modernidade até meados do século XIX. PhD Thesis, Porto: Faculdade de Letras.
• Coxito (1991), Amândio. “Monteiro (Inácio)”, in Logos. Enciclopédia Luso-Brasileira de Filosofia, Lisbon: Ed. Verbo, vol. 3: 950-953.
• Coxito (2006), Amândio. Estudos sobre Filosofia em Portugal na Época do Iluminismo, Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional – Casa da Moeda.
• Dias (1953), José Sebastião da Silva. Portugal e a cultura europeia (sécs. XVI a XVIII), Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra.
• Diosdado Caballero (1814), Raimundus. Gloria Posthuma Societatis Iesu, Romae: Apud Franciscum Bourilé.
• L’Esprit (1776) des journaux franc̜ais et étrangers, tome VII, volume 29, juillet 1776: 383-385.
• Figueiredo (1922), Fidelino de. Para a historia da philosophia em Portugal: subsidio bibliographico, Lisbon: Typ. da Empr. Litteraria e Typographica.
• Fiolhais & Franco (2016), Carlos & José Eduardo. “Os jesuítas em Portugal e a ciência: continuidades e ruturas (séculos XVI-XVIII)”, Brotéria, 183: 9-28.
• Freire (1973), António. “Textos de Inácio Monteiro”, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 29: 303-322.
• Garção-Stockler (1819), Francisco de Borja. Ensaio historico sobre a origem e progressos das mathematicas em Portugal, Paris: P.N. Rougeron.
• Giurgevich & Leitão (2016), Luana & Henrique. Clavis Bibliothecarum. Catálogos e Inventários de Livrarias de Instituições Religiosas em Portugal até 1834, Moscavide: Secretariado Nacional para os Bens Culturais da Igreja.
• Golvers (forthcoming), Noel. “The mathematical books and culture in the Colégio das Artes in Coimbra before the Pombal-reformation (17^th-18^th cent.)”.
• Gomes (1944a), João Pereira. “Verney e o Jesuíta Inácio Monteiro”, Brotéria 38:16-25 [now in: Gomes 2012: 97-106].
• Gomes (1944b), João Pereira. “Perante Novos Sistemas e Novas Descobertas”, Brotéria 39: 378-396 [now in: Gomes 2012: 27-45].
• Gomes (1946), João Pereira. “A cultura científica de Inácio Monteiro”, Brotéria 43: 268-287 [now in: Gomes 2012: 76-96].
• Gomes (2012), João Pereira. Jesuítas, Ciência e Cultura no Portugal Moderno. Obra selecta de Pe. João Pereira Gomes, S.J., org. de H Leitão & J. E. Franco, Lisbon.
• Guimarães (1940), F. Rocha. “Inácio Monteiro e a filosofia do seu tempo”, Brotéria 31: 506-520.
• Maduro (2016), Carlos. “O Padre Inácio Monteiro, entre a ruptura e a continuidade” Revista de Estudos Culturais 6 (set/out.): 31-45.
• Martins (1973), António Manuel. “Para uma análise da filosofia de Inácio Monteiro”, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 29: 267-288.
• Martins (1999), Décio Ruivo. “Inácio Monteiro no contexto da cultura científica portuguesa até 1760”, Gazeta de Física 22/1:17-21.
• Maurício (1935), Domingos. “Os Jesuítas e o ensino das matemáticas em Portugal”, Brotéria 20: 189-205.
• Maurício (1945), Domingos. “Para a História do Cartesianismo entre os Jesuítas portugueses do século XVIII”, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 1: 27-44.
• Monteiro (2004), Miguel Maria Santos Corrêa. Inácio Monteiro (1724-1812), um jesuíta português na dispersão, Lisbon: Centro de História da Universidade de Lisboa.
• Monteiro (2009), Miguel Corrêa. “Os Jesuítas e a Ilustração”, in Razão e Liberdade. Homenagem a Manuel José do Carmo Ferreira, Lisbon: CFUL, 779-791.
• Nobre (2005), Sérgio. “As influências de Christian Wolff sobre a obra matemática do Jesuíta Português Padre Inácio Monteiro”, in Jesuítas, Ensino e Ciência. Séc. XVI-XVIII, coord. by Luís Miguel Carolino & Carlos Ziller Camenietzki, Casal de Cambra: Caleidoscópio, 125-133.
• Pacheco (1982), Maria Cândida Monteiro. “Filosofia e ciência no pensamento português dos séculos XVII e XVIII” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 38: 474-486.
• Pepe (1998), Luigi. “I gesuiti a Ferrara tra religione e scienza”, in I Gesuiti e i loro libri a Ferrara Frontespizi figurati del Seicento, a cura di L. Pepe, Ferrara: Biblioteca Ariostea, 7-18.
• Ribeiro & Bulhões (2014), Marília de Azambuja & Arthur Feitosa de. “Os colégios jesuítas de Portugal e a revolução científica: Inácio Monteiro e a recepção das novas teorias da luz em Portugal”, História Unisinos 18/1: 27-34.
• Rodrigues (1950), Francisco. História da Companhia de Jesus na Assistência de Portugal, tomo 4 (A Província Portuguesa no século XVIII: 1700-1760), vol. 1: Virtude, Letras, Ciências, Porto: Apostolado da Imprensa.
• Rodrigues (1986), Resina. “Física e Filosofia da Natureza na Obra de Inácio Monteiro”, in História e Desenvolvimento da Ciência em Portugal, Lisbon: Academia das Ciências, vol. 1, 191-242.
• Rosendo (1998), Ana Isabel. “O ‘Compêndio dos Elementos de Mathemática’ do P. Inácio Monteiro”, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 54: 319-353.
• Rosendo (1996), Ana Isabel Rodrigues da Silva. Inácio Monteiro e o Ensino da Matemática em Portugal no séc. XVIII. Dissertação de Mestrado/Departamento de Matemática, Braga: Universidade do Minho.
• Silva (2001), Lúcio Craveiro da. “Um jesuíta no contexto das Luzes: Inácio Monteiro (1724-1812)”, in P. Calafate (dir.), História do Pensamento Português, vol. III: As Luzes, Lisboa: Ed. Caminho, 177-194.
• Silva (1973), Lúcio Craveiro da. “Inácio Monteiro. Significado da sua vida e da sua obra”, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 29: 229-266.
• Sommervogel (1894), Carlos. Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus, Tome V, Bruxelles-Paris: O. Schepens-A. Picard.

Other References

• Albuquerque (1972), Luís de. “A ‘Aula de Esfera’ do Colégio de Santo Antão no século XVII”, Anais da Academia Portuguesa da História, 2.ª série, vol. 21: 337-391.
• Almeida (1751-1800), Teodoro de. Recreasaõ Filozofica ou Dialogo Sobre Filozofia natural, para a instrusaõ de pessoas curiosas, que nao frequentaraõ as aulas, Lisbon: Miguel Rodrigues; also: Recreação filosófica, ou Diálogo sobre a Filosofia Natural, para instrucção de pessoas curiosas, que não frequentárão as aulas, pelo P. Theodoro d´Almeida. Quinta Impressão muito mais correcta que as precedentes, 10 vols., Lisboa: Regia Off. Typografica,1786-1800.
• Andrade (1966b), António Alberto. “Para a História do Ensino da Filosofia em Portugal. O ‘Elenchus Quaestionum’ de 1754”, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 22: 258-286.
• António (1752), Francisco. Naturae et Artis Mirabilia sive Philosophia Peripatetica Curiosa, Coimbra: Ex Typographia Antonii Simoens Ferreira.
• Arriaga (1886), José de. História da revolução Portugueza de 1820, Porto: Lopes e Cia.
• Baldini (1998), Ugo. “As Assistências Ibéricas da Companhia de Jesus e a Actividade científica nas Missões asiáticas (1578-1640). Alguns aspectos culturais e institucionais”, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 54: 195-245.
• Baldini (2013), Ugo. “A Escola de Christoph Clavius: um agente essencial na primeira globalização da matemática europeia”, in História da Ciência Luso-Brasileira. Coimbra entre Portugal e o Brasil, ed. Carlos Fiolhais, Carlota Simões e Décio Martins, Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.
• Barbosa (1792), Antonio Suares. Tratado Elementar de Filosofia Moral, Coimbra: na Real Imprensa da Universidade.
• Borja (1743), Ioanne de. Conclusiones mathematicas, praeside R.P. ac S.M. Ioanne de Borja Societatis Iesu Matheseos Professore, defendit Thomas de Campos eiusdem Soc. In Regali Eborensis Academiae Aulae, Eborae: ex Typographiae Acdemiae
• Caeiro (1957), Francisco da Gama. “Frei Manuel do Cenáculo, Aspectos da sua actuação filosófica”, now in: F. da Gama Caeiro. Dispersos I, Prefácio de P. Calafate, organização de Mª de L. S. Ganho, Lisbon: INCM, 1998, 333-499.
• Campos (1735), Manoel de. Elementos de geometria plana e solida segundo a ordem de Euclides (…) para uso de la Real Aula da Esfera do Collegio de Santo Antão da Companhia de Jesus, Lisbon: Rita-Cassiana.
• Cardoso (1673), Isaac. Philosophia libera in septem libros distributa: in quibus omnia, quae ad philosophum naturalem spectant, methodice colliguntur, & accurate disputantur. Opus non solum medicis et philosophis sed omnium disciplinarum studiosis utilissimum. Auctore Isac Cardoso medico ac philosopho, Venetiis: Bertanorum sumptibus.
• Carvalho (1997a), José Vaz de. “A Filosofia na Universidade de Évora”, in História da Universidade em Portugal. I volume, tomo II (1537-1771), Coimbra-Lisbon: Universidade de Coimbra-Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 763-766.
• Carvalho (2011a), Mário Santiago de. “De um tom de modéstia a adoptar para já em Filosofia. Sobre os cem anos de Filosofia na Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra”, Revista Filosófica de Coimbra 20: 451-484.
• Carvalho (2011b), Mário Santiago de. “Il destino della metafisica nella modernizzazione dell’università portoghese all’epoca di Luís António Verney (1713-1792)”, in G. Piaia e M. Forlivesi (a cura di), Innovazione filosofica e Università fra Cinquecento e primo Novecento,  Padova: CLEUP, 227-243.
• Carvalho (1997b), Rómulo de. “A doutrina heliocêntrica de Copérnico e a sua aceitação em Portugal”, in Carvalho, Rómulo de, Colectânea de Estudos Históricos (1953-1994), Évora:  Universidade Évora.
• Cousin (1828), Victor. Cours de Philosophie. Introduction à l’Histoire de la Philosophie, Paris: Pichon et Didier Eds.
• Cunha (1790), José Anastácio da. Principios mathematicos para instrucçao dos alumnos do Collegio de Saõ Lucas, da real casa pia do castello de Saõ Jorge, Lisbon: A. Rodrigues Galhardo.
• Duarte (2020) António Leal; Simões, Carlota; Gil, Francisco. “Azulejos que testemunham o ensino das ciências nos Colégios Jesuítas em Coimbra”, in Carlota Simões, Margarida Miranda, and Pedro Casaleiro (eds.), Visto de Coimbra, O Colégio de Jesus entre Portugal e o Mundo, Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, 145-157.
• Fortes (1728), Manuel de Azevedo. O engenheiro portuguez: dividido em dous tratados. Tomo primeyro… obra moderna, e de grande utilidade para os engenheiros, e mais officiaes militares, Lisboa Occidental: na Officina de Manoel Fernandes da Costa, Impressor do Santo Officio.
• Gener (1766), Joan Baptista. Scholastica Vindicata seu Dissertatio Historico-Chronologico-Critico-Apologetica, Genuae: Bernardum Tarigum.
• Góis (2020), Manuel de. Curso Aristotélico Jesuíta Conimbricense. Tomo II: Disputas do Curso Conimbricense sobre os livros das ‘Éticas de Aristóteles a Nicómaco’. Tradução do latim e Introdução Doutrinal de Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Fixação do Texto Latino de Sebastião Tavares de Pinho e Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.
• Golvers (2020), Noel. “Thomas, Antoine”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.3897564”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/thomas-antoine”, latest revision: July, 16th, 2020.
• Golvers & Simões (2022), Noel & Carlota (coord.). 1655 Escala em Coimbra – um jovem jesuíta entre o Ocidente e o Oriente/ 1655 Tussenstop in Coimbra – een jonge jezuiet tussen West en Oost, Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.
• Gomes (1960), João Pereira. Os professores de Filosofia da Universidade de Évora, Évora: Câmara Municipal.
• Hellyer (2005), Marcus. Catholic Physics: Jesuit Natural Philosophy in Early Modern Germany. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Leitão (2002), Henrique. Pedro Nunes 1502-1578. Novas terras, novos mares e o que mays he: novo ceo e novas estrellas- Catálogo Biblográfico sobre Pedro Nunes, Lisbon: Biblioteca Nacional.
• Leitão (2007), Henrique. Azulejos que ensinam, Coimbra: Centro de Matemática da Universidade de Coimbra.
• Loyola (1992), Ignatius. The Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius. A Translation and Commentar by Georg E. Ganss, S.J.Chicago: Loyola Press.
• Lukács (1965), Ladislau. Monumenta Paedagogica Societatis Iesu: I (1540-1556), Rome: Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu.
• Martins (2017), Décio Ruivo. Primeiro tratado de Engenharia, Lisbon: Círculo de Leitores.
• Maxwell (1995), Kenneth. Pombal Paradox of the Enlightenment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nunes (1537), Pedro. Tratado da Sphera, now in: Pedro Nunes. Obras. Vol. I: Tratado da Sphera. Astronomici Introductorii de Spaera Epitome, Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 2014, 2ª ed., 1-184.
• Pinheiro (1755-58), Manuel. [Cursus Philosophicus], Mss. BNL 4756 (= Logica), 4776 (= Physica Generalis), 4792 (= Physica Particularis et Metaphysica).
• Plano (1776a). Plano dos Estudos para a Província dos Religiosos Trinitários de Portugal ordenado segundo o Methodo dos novíssimos Estatutos Regios da Universidade de Coimbra do anno de 1772, Lisbon, Regia Officina Typografica, 1776
• Plano (1776b). Plano dos Estudos para a Congregação de S.Bento de Portugal, Lisboa: Regia Officina Typographica.
• Queiró (2004), João Filipe. “José Anastácio da Cunha: An Assessment”, in The Practice of Mathematics in Portugal, edited by Luis Saraiva, and Henrique Leitão, Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra, 493-513.
• Rodrigues (1987), Manuel Augusto. Inventário da Livraria do extinto Colégio de S Tomás de Coimbra, Coimbra: Publicações do Arquivo da Universidade de Coimbra.
• Rollo (2007), Maria Fernanda. História e Ciência da Catástrofe. 250 aniversário do terramoto de 1755, coordenação científica de Mª F. Rollo, Ana Isabel Buescu e Pedro Cardim, Lisbon: Ed. Colibri.
• Romeiras (2019), Francisco Malta. Jesuits and the Book of Nature. Science and Education in Modern Portugal, Leiden: Brill.
• Rovira Gaspar (1958), Maria del Carmen.  Eclécticos portugueses del siglo XVIII y algunas de sus influencias en América, México: Colegio de México.
• Rubiés (2018), Joan-Pau. “The Jesuits and the Enlightenment”, The Oxford Handbook of the Jesuits Edited by Ines G. Županov, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 854-890.
• Sanches (1759), António Ribeiro. Cartas sobre a Educação da Juventude, apud: Cartas sobre a educação da mocidade. Nova Edição. Prefácio e notas de Maximiano Lemos, Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1922.
• Saraiva (2008), Luís Manuel Ribeiro. “The Jesuit Mathematicians of the Portuguese assistancy and the Portuguese historians of mathematics (1819-1940)”, in The Jesuits, the Padroado and the East Asian Science (1552-1773), edited by Luís Saraiva nad Catherine Jami, New Jersey/London: World Scientific, 1-31.
• Sarmento (1737), Jacob de Castro. Chronologia Newtoniana Epitomizada, MSS: BNL- ms. 593.
• Silva (1767), Joseph de Seabra da. Deducção Chronologica e Analytica. Primeira Parte, na qual se manifestão pela successiva série de cada hum dos reynados da Monarchuia Portugueza, que decorrêrão desde o governo do Senhor Rey D. João III até o presente, os horrorosos estragos, que a Companhia denominada de Jesus fez em Portugal […] até que dele foi proscrita e expulsa pela justa, sábia e providente Ley de 3 de Setembro de 1759, Lisboa: Miguel Manescal da Costa.
• Tavares (2018), Rui. O Censor Iluminado: Ensaio sobre o Pombalismo e a revolução cultural do século XVIII, Lisbon: Tinta da China.
• Thomas (1685), Antonius. Synopsis Mathematica Complectens Varios Tractatus quo Hujus Scientiae Tyronibus et Missionis Sinicae Candidatis Breviter et Clare Concinnavit, Douai: Mairesse.
• Verney (1746), Luis António. O Verdadeiro Método de Estudar, para ser útil à República e à Igreja: Proporcionada ao estilo, e necessidade de Portugal, Valensa: Antonio Balle.
• Voltaire (1878), François-Marie Arouet. Oeuvres Complètes de Voltaire, tome XV, Texte établit par L. Moland, Paris: Garnier, tome XV: 143-435.
• Wallace (1995), William A. “Late Sixteenth-Century Portuguese Manuscripts Relating to Galileo’s Early Notebooks”, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 51: 677-698.
• Wallace (1997), William A. “Domingo de Soto and the Iberian Roots of Galileo’s Science”, in Kevin White (ed.), Hispanic Philosophy in the Age of Discovery. Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy 29, Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 139-129.
• Wolfe (2021), Charles T. and Shank, J.B. “Denis Diderot”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/diderot/>.

L'articolo Monteiro, Inácio proviene da Conimbricenses.org.

This text is a translation into English of the book chapter Rui Lobo 2012.

The latest version of this entry may be cited as follows: Lobo, Rui, “The College-University of Espírito Santo (Holy Ghost) of Évora”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.7712038”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/college-university-espirito-santo-evora/”, latest revision: March, 9th, 2023.

Introduction

This short text follows an in-depth study that we have completed some years ago (Lobo, 2009) dedicated to the College of Espírito Santo (or Holy Ghost) of Évora, which later became the headquarters of the local University (founded in 1559). The building was erected from 1550, and in successive construction phases, the first of which under Cardinal Henrique (1512-1580), the younger brother of King John III (1502-1521-1557). For the referred study, we carried out a set of six schematic drawings, which we now present again, and which intend to register the architectural and volumetric evolution of the complex in other six moments of its history, from its origin to the expulsion of the Jesuits, and consequent closure of the University, in 1759.

In order to substantiate the evolutionary hypotheses, we resort, above all, to the documentation collected in Rome by Fausto Sanches Martins (1994) and to the texts of the Jesuit chronicles, written in the 17^th and 18^th centuries. Nevertheless, for the latter sources, we should keep in mind the gap between the time of the facts and time of writing, which can be the reason for some imprecisions. This time gap is particularly noticeable in the description of the early stages of the construction process, although it is true that the later chronicles of Manuel Fialho or António Franco, from the early 18^th century (and which specifically refer to the history of this college), seem to be more rigorous than the excerpts dedicated to Évora by Baltazar Teles, as part of his general work on the installation of the Society of Jesus in Portugal, during the lifetime of Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), published in 1645-47.

1554

In 1548, Cardinal Henrique sold to the Cistercian order (of which he was Abbot of Alcobaça, since 1542), for about four thousand cruzados, the college which he had been raising in the new Santa Sophia Street in Coimbra (Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, Cod 8842). The King, John III, was inducing all religious orders to establish colleges beside the renewed university (transferred from Lisbon to Coimbra in 1537). The Cardinal, who was also the Archbishop of Évora (besides being the King’s brother), would not, however, give up on his original intention of creating a college for the instruction of the clergy of the Alentejo region, in southern Portugal.

In 1549, the apostolic legate, Giovanni Lipontino, passed down a brief authorizing the transfer of the incomes of the college of Coimbra to a new institute to be raised in the capital of the Alentejo. In the following year, 1550, land was acquired next to the Palace of the Castros (Paço dos Castros), future Counts of Basto, leaning against the east city wall of Évora. Soon after, the works had already started, as Baltazar Teles tells us:

For this to happen, there was a license given by the King to erect the building in Évora over a part of the city wall, which runs from the houses of the Count of Basto, until it came back over the city door, which they call Door of Machede, always going down against the northeast: over this wall fifteen cells were built on the highest floor, & on the lower floor the workshops were accommodated, with a square cloister, & a chapel [the current public ceremonies room] for saying, & hearing mass.  (Teles, 1647, 317).

Coincidence or not, in October 1551, a first group of nine Jesuit priests arrived in Évora, whose arrival had been requested by the Cardinal to Simão Rodrigues, Provincial Head of the Company, for them to mission in the Alentejo (Lavajo, 1991, 35). Cardinal Henrique thought that they could be housed in his institute, together with the seminarians, so he had the number of cells of the new college expanded to thirty:

Not even after bringing the religious of the Company to Évora, did he [the Cardinal] descend from trying to have his college students with them; for that he tried to extend the building, so that everyone lived in the same place, & fitted in the same college (Teles, 1647, 317).

Another Jesuit chronicler, Manuel Fialho, describes in detail the result of this programmatic adjustment:

… Heading from the front of the church on the west side, he [the Cardinal] launched a little corridor, until it was aligned with the beginning of the first corridor; and then another that squarely connects to this first corridor. In these two corridors he ordered another 15 cubicles to be made; on the back of the church he set up a house for the library; today it serves for the disputations and other ministries; he thought those 30 cubicles were enough for what he wanted. The gap between these two little corridors, and the first, and the Church, makes almost a square, or patio, which on both sides of the southwest and northwest has the balconies supported by 11 marble columns, very well carved up to 12 palms in height: this courtyard served the College entrance that was where the door with the seal still is, on the right side [left, for those who enter] of the Church (Fialho, w/d, Tome 3, 28).

We believe this patio is the Botica (pharmacy) cloister, which today preserves only six of the aforementioned columns. This was the first patio to be built (fig.1). While this first college was being built, Luis, the Duke of Beja, brother to both Cardinal and the King, convinced Henrique to give the property entirely to the Company. It was as their exclusive tenants that the first Jesuit priests entered the college, in 1554.

Fig.1. College of Espírito Santo, conjectural reconstitution in 1554 (entry of the first Jesuit residents): a. church x. primitive wing (15 cells) y. new wings (15 cells) z. city wall.

1556

In an annual letter sent to Rome, at the end of 1556 (December 31), resident brother Francisco Morais reveals that there was

… in the middle of the courtyard a beautiful fountain, made of marble, from which flows a great deal of water. The fountain occupies the central place of a space surrounded by a magnificent portico with marble columns, making the setting most pleasant and welcoming (Martins, 1994, 211).

Although in the same document reference is made to three classrooms, two of which are still being finished, it does not appear that we are in the presence of the actual grand courtyard of the classrooms. On the contrary, the description is better suited to the cloister of the Brothers, or of the Cistern, also surrounded by marble columns, which would justify the use of the terms “pleasant” and “welcoming” to describe it (“ameno e acolhedor” in Portuguese). In this same direction seems to point out the opinion of António Franco:

The first, or the first, part of this building, were the two cloisters of the pharmacy, & cistern, serving as Church what today is the University Hall (Franco, 1714, 2).

This is the building that a second reconstitution drawing (fig.2) intends to represent

Fig.2. College of Espírito Santo, conjectural reconstitution in 1556 (conclusion of the cloister of the brothers): a. church b. botica cloister c. cloister of the brothers or cistern cloister.

1561

In 1556, the Arts course began at the College of Espírito Santo, read by Father Inácio Martins (Franco, 1728/1945, 230). In July of the following year, John III died in Lisbon. Thus, the Cardinal was able to advance without constraints towards the creation of a new university, centered in the theological studies, a project he had been nurturing for some time. On September 20, 1558, Paul IV signed the bull that established the new University of Évora, inaugurated solemnly on 1^st November 1559, although without the presence of Cardinal Henrique, withheld by the kingdom’s business in Lisbon.

Apparently, it was in that same year, 1559, that a fundamental part of the complex was advanced, the great classroom patio, or Gerais patio. It accommodated two classes of Theology and several for the preparatory course of the Arts. The works would have started as early as April, because by that time “one had already started to put hands on the matter” (Martins, 1994, 214). On 12^th September of the following year (1560) it is said that

The material works are very far ahead and the body of the patio outside is almost finished: and five or six classes are being completed so one can read in them at the beginning of the year (Martins, 1994, 219).

And in September 1561 the patio would be practically finished (fig.3), as Father Manuel Góis tells us:

The outdoor patio contains twelve classrooms in addition to the room that serves as a public library and another room that is used as the doorman’s house (Martins, 1994, 220).

Fig.3. College of Espírito Santo, conjectural reconstitution in 1561 (conclusion of the Gerais patio): d. Gerais patio (1559-1561) p. porta da traição (city door) r. first lodgings of the Cardinal.

The large square courtyard, 36 meters wide, was located before the complex’s primitive church (the current public ceremonies room, as we have already mentioned) and was surrounded by columns and galleries which gave access to the classrooms on all sides except for one, the entrance southeast wing. Hence, the school gate was placed opposite to the primitive church’s façade. On each side of the latter, two verandas with columns were built over the galleries, from where the Cardinal could see the students drinking from the fountain, placed in the center of the patio (Fialho, w/d, Tome 3, 72vº).

1580

After the classroom courtyard was concluded, progress was made in another sector of the current complex, in a facility more directly related to the immediate needs of the Jesuits. We speak of the novitiate, the construction of which began in 1564 (Franco, 1714, 5) under Cardinal Henrique’s distant surveillance, since he was still residing in Lisbon. A two-story quadrangular building was built, attached to the southwestern side of the College, arranged around a small patio. In 1568 it would be almost ready:

In the material of this college, a great augment happened because the new work that extends the old college is coming to an end (…) we serve ourselves from all the upper level which has a chapel in which mass can already be said, and twenty cubicles, and below there are 24 (Martins, 1994, 226).

The novitiate was still being finished while another enterprise started gaining momentum: the construction of the new church of Espírito Santo. In effect, the erection of the classroom courtyard had made the original Jesuit church inaccessible to the female public. And it was the ladies of the city who asked for the resolution of the problem:

Soon he [the Cardinal] resolved to make another Church; & as in everything he was so great, he determined to make it such, that it seemed worthy of whoever did it, & of the Lord to whom he was doing it: & so we are told, that his first intentions were to build a temple, to be equal in greatness to the Church of the monastery of the Fathers of San Francisco of the city of Évora, which is a very sumptuous work, & therefore very similar to its magnificent founder, who was the most happy King Dom Manoel, father of the Serene Cardinal. Our Fathers dissuaded him from such great thoughts (…) (Teles, 1647, 366)

The work undertaken, eventually more restrained in scale, went along quickly. The new church, begun in 1566, was already concluded in 1574, the year in which it was opened for worship, during Easter, in a ceremony that the Cardinal did not miss. The church of Espírito Santo, a project we can attribute to Afonso Álvares, constituted, together with that of São Roque of Lisbon (of the same architect), the embodiment of a national model of Jesuit church (single nave, shallow chancel, intercommunicating lateral chapels with tribunes on top, overlooking the nave) prior to the definition of the Company’s international church model, established at Il Gesù in Rome, started in 1568.

In 1570, while the new church was being erected, Cardinal Henrique was able to visit Coimbra and the works of the College of Jesus and of the attached College of Arts, which impressed him vividly:

& since, on the one hand, he greatly praised the magnificent King, his [already deceased] brother, for doing a work so royal, & so worthy of his great spirit; on the other hand, he was very disconsolate, when he remembered the building he had built in Évora, in view of what was being built in Coimbra. He soon decided to add the works of his own College, so that they could compete with those of Coimbra (Teles, 1647, 352).

It was only in 1575, with the church finished, that the desired expansion of the college could take place:

This great work ran with such fervor, that by October 1578 it was all woodened, & covered with tile in the form, in which it would stay (Franco, 1714, p.5).

Thus, on the 9^th of April of the following year (1579) eight cubicles were finished in the corridor of a new pavilion launched against the northeast, inside which we are informed that “soon a good refectory with its kitchen will also be finished” (Martins, 1994, 244). It was evidently the still standing refectory of the college, located under that corridor and cells.

We give account of these additions – novitiate, new church and refectory block – in a new scheme of the evolution of the complex (fig.4), corresponding to 1580, the year of the founder’s death. To the northwest, the new College of the Purification (started in 1577), the “Benjamin of the Cardinal King” (Fonseca, 1728, 422) was already under construction, the sole survivor of the failed project of associating four new colleges with the central university college, idealized at least since 1573 (Rodrigues, 1938, Volume 2, Vol. 1, 85-89). On the other hand, the College of the Purification, the current seminary, also resumed the idea of an establishment for the training of future archbishopric priests, which had been (after all) at the origin of the College of Espírito Santo itself, in the already distant years of 1549-50.

Fig.4. College of Espírito Santo, conjectural reconstitution in 1580 (death of Cardinal Henrique): a. public ceremonies room e. noviciate (1564-1568) f. church of Espírito Santo (1567-1574) g. refectory wing (1575-1578) h. College of Purification (in construction since 1577).

1669

With the death of Cardinal Henrique, the Jesuits continued to expand their college-university. The attention of the priests turned once again to the Gerais courtyard. In 1591, the new entrance was completed, adjacent to the church (Martins, 1994, 247), and also a new wing, in its sequence, over the southwest gallery of the courtyard. This allowed direct access to the Jesuit community area, in order to avoid traversing the quadrangle of the classes. At the end of 1595 the dormitory on the upper floor of the opposite wing, to the northeast, was already advanced (Martins, 1994, 253-256, 745). This was the courtyard that Baltazar Teles was able to contemplate and describe in the mid-17th century:

Stands this large pateo so fancy to the eye, so graceful in its architecture, so majestic in the strength of the work, that it can make envy to the best & most royal works in all of Spain (Teles, 1647, 356).

A new construction site would advance from 1641, in the back area of the college, with the start of the infirmary wing, perpendicular to the refectory wing. In this way, the cross plan scheme of this specific sector of the Jesuit complex gained substance, which can be seen in the foreground of the view of the City of Évora, drawn in 1669 by Pier Maria Baldi (Sanchez Rivero, undated), the year in which we set a new stage evolution of the ensemble (fig.5). Before (in 1666), and on the main façade, the new porch of the gatehouse had appeared (Martins, 1994, 266), a typical structure of Portuguese Jesuit colleges.

Fig.5. College of Espírito Santo, conjectural reconstitution in 1669 h. College of Purification (1577-1605): i. porter’s wing (concluded 1591) j. dormitory of the Gerais (concluded 1596) k. infirmary wing (1649-1655) l. porter’s porch (1666).

1759

Finally, let us take notice of the new interventions that took place at the end of the 1600’s and beginning of the 1700’s. In 1670-1684, the internal space of the primitive college church, which had been converted into the university ceremonies room, was remodeled:

It is in front on the door of the pateo and (almost) in the middle of the façade; and that is why it provides a lot of beauty to all the pateo (Fialho, s/d, Tomo 3º, 73vº).

The original ceiling, that no longer exists, was described by Manuel Fialho as the “Sky of Heaven”. Between 1709 and 1718 (Martins, 1994, 280-288) the front of the ceremonies room was also reformulated, giving it the more civilian air with which presides to the large patio today. The columns and arches on the upper floor, on each side of the renovated front, are also the result of this intervention. Before, around 1687 (Fialho, s/d, tome 3rd, 69vº), the upper floor had also been built over the entrance wing of the university. Finally, and on this same side, the fourth gallery was built around the patio (which became shorter), with a superimposed gallery on the upper floor.

In the center of the courtyard, the old fountain, from the Cardinal’s time, was replaced by a new piece. The renovation of the school grounds was completed between 1734 and 1740, with the remodeling of the classrooms (new doors, chairs and wooden benches, tile paneling – Martins, 1994, 293-294) that gave them the appearance they keep today. Another emblematic work, in the community area, was the dome over the crossing of the two large corridors of the dormitory and the infirmary (fig.6). “The octogonal house in the middle of the College was made by Father António Franco, at his expense, in 1726”, in the words of António Franco himself (Franco, 1728/1945, 257).

Fig.6. College of Espírito Santo, conjectural reconstitution in 1759 (closing of the university): m. new entrance wing (c. 1687) n. new façade of the public ceremonies room (concluded 1718) o. dome of the “crossing” (1726).

Conclusion

Some conclusions are possible to be reached, based on the systematization of data (from various sources and from various authors) gathered in this study. From the outset, it seems possible to confirm the particular direction that Cardinal Henrique gave to the project, during various phases and from very early on, as a result of his personal plan of creating a university-level establishment, centered on theological and also philosophical studies (the preparatory arts course).

In this sense, the relationship with the University of Coimbra and with some of its buildings, that emerged in the sphere of its recent re-foundation, would have been pertinent. We were unable to identify the author of the design for the Gerais patio, the largest element of the Evorean complex, but it is very likely – a thesis we defend – that it copied the unfinished large square courtyard of the classes of the also never finished first College of Arts in Coimbra (fig.7), located in the city’s downtown, and from which, we believe, it even copied the exact dimensions (160 hand spans, about 36 meters, on each side – Lobo, 2006, 160).

Fig. 7. College of Arts I (1548-55), Coimbra, as imagined by Hoefnagel. Detail of the city view (cª. 1567) published by Georg Braun, Urbium Praecipuarum Mundi Theatrum Quintum, Cologne, 1599.

The relationship with the Jesuit complex in Coimbra is also evident. The cruciform plan of the “center” of the College of Jesus seems to have a reflection, in Évora, in the perpendicular crossing of the wings of the refectory and the infirmary. In the opposite direction, the Gerais patio of Évora (fig.8), which was older, influenced the planimetric scheme of the second College of Arts (fig.9), built by the Coimbra Jesuits, next to their main building.

Fig.8. College of Espírito Santo, Évora. Plan of the Gerais patio (erected in 1559) between 1574 e c. 1590, BnF – Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris, étampe Hd-4c, 152/VR 446 (Source: BnF Gallica).

Fig. 9. College of Arts II (i.1568), Coimbra. Ground floor plan, Guilherme Elsden and Isidoro Paulo Pereira, cª.1772, Biblioteca Geral da Universidade de Coimbra, Ms.3377/62.

In Coimbra, and because of the “portionist” students, inherited from the secular College of Arts in downtown, the program (a Jesuit college plus a classroom courtyard) was divided into two large buildings (the Colleges of Jesus and Arts II, fig.10), a requirement which in Évora was merged into a single structure. In this sense, the College-University of Espírito Santo (fig.11) is a kind of typological hybrid, aggregating in its configuration two, in our view, separable architectural models – a first model essay of a Jesuit College (that of Coimbra) and an “Arts College” (the courtyard of the Gerais).

Fig.10. College of Jesus and College of Arts II, Coimbra. Drawing by Carlo Grandi, 1732, Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, Lisbon, E 926 A.

Fig.11. College-University of Espirito Santo of Évora. Aerial photograph, by Manuel Ribeiro.

Bibliography

Manuscript Sources:

• Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, Cod. 8842.
• FIALHO, Manuel (w/d, first quarter of the 18^th century): Évora Illustrada, Biblioteca Pública de Évora, Tome 3, Cod. CXXX/1-10.

Printed Sources:

• Castelo Branco, Fernando (1959): “As origens da Universidade de Évora”, A Cidade de Évora, Évora, Year XVI, nºs 41-42, p.37-46.
• Espanca, Túlio (1948): “Alguns Artistas de Évora nos séculos XVI-XVII”, A Cidade de Évora, Évora, Year VI, nº15-16, p.131-287.
• Espanca, Túlio (1959): “Notícia dos edifícios do Colégio e Universidade do Espírito Santo de Évora”, A Cidade de Évora, Évora, Year XVI, nºs 41-42, p.155-185.
• Espanca, Túlio (1966): Inventário Artístico de Portugal, tomo VII – Concelho de Évora (2 vols.), Lisboa, Academia Nacional de Belas-Artes, 1966, Vol. I, p.71-91.
• Fonseca, Francisco da (1728): Évora Gloriosa, Roma, Officina Komarekiana.
• Franco, António (1714): Imagem da Virtude em o Noviciado da Companhia de Jesus do Real Collegio do Espírito Santo de Évora, Lisbon, Officina Real Deslandesiana.
• Franco, António (1728/1945): Évora Ilustrada, publicação, prefácio e índices de Armando de Gusmão, Edições Nazareth, Évora.
• Lavajo, Joaquim (1991): “Os Jesuítas e as Missões no Alentejo no Século XVI”, Boletim Igreja Eborense, Évora, nº15, p.27-50.
• Lima, Manuel C. Baptista (1947): “Um filho de D. Pedro II na Universidade de Évora”, A Cidade de Évora, Évora, AnoV, nº12, p.165-182.
• Lobo, Rui (1999), Os Colégios de Jesus das Artes e de S. Jerónimo, Coimbra, Edarq.
• Lobo, Rui (2006): Santa Cruz e a Rua da Sofia. Arquitectura e urbanismo no século XVI, Coimbra, Edarq.
• Lobo, Rui (2009): O Colégio-Universidade do Espírito Santo de Évora, Évora, CHAIA-Universidade de Évora.
• Lobo, Rui (2012): Fica este grande pateo tam apparatoso à vista. O Colégio-Universidade do Espírito Santo de Évora, in Sara Marques Pereira and Francisco Lourenço Vaz (Coord.), Universidade de Évora (1559-2009). 450 Anos de Modernidade Educativa, Lisbon, Chiado Editora, 2012, pp.473-488.
• Martins, Fausto Sanches (1994): A Arquitectura dos primeiros colégios jesuítas em Portugal, 1542-1579, PhD Thesis, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, Oporto, author’s print.
• Pereira, Paulo (1992), “A Arquitectura Jesuíta. Primeiras fundações”, Oceanos, nº12, CNCDP, Lisbon, p.104-111.
• Polónia, Amélia (2005): D. Henrique. O Cardeal-Rei, Lisbon, Círculo de Leitores.
• Rodrigues, Francisco (1931-50): História da Companhia de Jesus na Assistência de Portugal, 4 Vols, Oporto, Apostolado da Imprensa.
• Sanchez Rivero, Ángel e Mariutti de Sanchez Rivero, Angela (edition and notes, w/d): Viaje de Cosme de Médicis por España e Portugal (1665-1669), Madrid, Sucessores de Ribadeneyra.
• Santos, Paulo F. (1963): “Contribuição ao estudo da arquitectura da Companhia de Jesus em Portugal e no Brasil”, Actas do V Colóquio Internacional de Estudos Luso-Brasileiras, Coimbra, p.515-569.
• Teles, Baltasar (1645-47): Chronica da Companhia de Iesu na Província de Portugal, 2 Vols., Lisbon, Paulo Craesbeeck.
• Veloso, José Maria de Queirós (1949): A Universidade de Évora. Elementos para a sua História, Lisbon, Academia Portuguesa da História.

L'articolo The College-University of Espírito Santo (Holy Ghost) of Évora proviene da Conimbricenses.org.

The latest version of this entry may be cited as follows: Pich, Roberto Hofmeister, “Latin American Colonial Scholasticism”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.7703060”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/latin-american-colonial-scholasticism/”, latest revision: March, 4th, 2023.

Name and Historical-Geographical Delimitation

Scholastica colonialis (“colonial Scholasticism”) is an investigative project in the history of philosophy concerning the reception and development of Baroque scholasticism in Latin America from the 16th to the beginning of the 19th century. The project covers the period up to the independence processes in Spanish and Portuguese America, from 1809-1810 onwards. As such, the project covers the colonial and viceroyal period in Latin American history. It attempts to describe and interpret the scholastic philosophy that appeared in that period, with a special focus on the adoption of that philosophy in institutions of higher education (convents, seminaries, universities, etc.). It looks at the teaching and documented formulation of philosophical, theological and juridical ideas. The adjective colonialis is a neologism in Latin, highlighting a meaning that (at least partially) differs from the adjective colonicus (-a, -um), which might have led to the misleading expression Scholastica colonica. Both words, however, can be associated with the ancient and medieval urban center of Cologne in today’s Germany and with the human settler (colonus), bound to the land, or with the colonizer of a given land. The term Scholastica colonialis is used to designate a long period of reception and reconfiguration, with the unfolding of the ideas of medieval scholasticism in pre-modern scholasticism (purer scholastic thought) and in modern scholasticism (more eclectic scholastic thought that is compared or connected to modern philosophy) through the following singular perspective: the perspective of its transmission to and adoption and teaching in Catholic institutions in the regions of the Americas under the political control of Spain and Portugal. These processes essentially began with the maritime expansion and “discoveries” by both countries, and lasted up to the chronological limit mentioned above. In those centuries, having passed through processes of domination and colonization, the lands conquered by those two Iberian potencies remained, in different ways, macropolitically speaking, dependent on and controlled by a central European power that was, as a rule, monarchical or imperial. As such, those lands remained dependent on and controlled by the countries that conquered American territories and nations, and these countries culturally influenced their diverse and numerous peoples.

Beginning with a description of previous projects – by Walter Redmond, Mauricio Beuchot, Celina Ana Lértora Mendoza, José Carlos Ballón Vargas et alii – Scholastica colonialis has as its long-term, exhaustive objective the completion and writing anew of inventories and catalogues of manuscripts and printed works, chiefly of the materials produced and found in Latin American colonial institutions, in which a true and unique register of colonial scholastic thought is preserved. Moreover, the project has in view the editing or at least the creation of a digital platform of colonial scholastic texts, as well as the conceptual analysis of its major fields, problems, and contents – either regarding global and speculative subjects or regarding local questions of the “New World.” From the beginning, Scholastica colonialis was understood as an integrated investigation project, having received the collaboration of groups of researchers both in Latin America (above all in Brazil, where the project was conceived, as well as Peru and Chile) and in Europe (above all Portugal but also Spain). The conceptual spheres of the project are the history of medieval philosophy and the history of pre-modern scholasticism. Since 2010, Scholastica colonialis, with its focus on Latin scholasticism, has had the explicit support of the Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale (SIEPM).

Second Scholasticism and Thomism as Essential Background

Thomism is a central line of theological and philosophical thought in colonial scholasticism. This is due, to a large extent, to the fact that the scholasticism that was called “second” and was developed from the 16th century onwards, especially in Iberian university centers, was itself profoundly shaped by the reception of Thomas Aquinas’s works. It was also forged by the collective efforts of Catholic intellectuals, who proposed a “Thomistic” theology and philosophy (or a theology and a philosophy of the “Thomistic school”). Along similar lines, the creative restatement of ancient-medieval traditions led Franciscan intellectuals to formulate a “Scotistic” theology and philosophy (or a theology and a philosophy of the “Scotistic school”). In fact, in the Old World, from the 16th century onwards, it was generally accepted that the theological synthesis produced by Thomas Aquinas, which was grounded on a predominantly Aristotelian philosophical basis, was solid and consistent enough to be universally accepted as a fair expression of the teachings of the Catholic faith. Indeed, in 1567, Pius V declared Thomas Aquinas “Doctor of the Church.” Especially in university chairs reserved for Dominican and, later, Jesuit masters – as well as in the “Superior Colleges” of these Orders – the fundamental theological work commented on and taken as the basis for the lectio was no longer the Sentences by Peter Lombard, but rather the Summa theologiae by Thomas Aquinas. Thomas de Vio (Cardinalis Caietanus OP (1469–1534), author of a renowned commentary on De ente et essentia (1495), was also the author of a complete commentary on the Summa theologiae, through which he determined that the Summa theologiae should be a kind of “theological textbook” for the centuries to come. It should be used as a starting point and taken as a fundamental companion for theologians. Cajetan’s commentaries to the Summa theologiae I, IaIIae, IIaIIae and III were concluded, respectively, in 1507, 1511, 1516, and 1522. The same Cajetan, as General Master of the Order of Preachers, beginning in 1508, would promote missionary work in the Americas, being responsible for sending the first Dominican friars to the New World, who, in 1510 reached the Island Española (today, the Dominican Republic), where the Friar Pedro de Córdoba created a convent. Regarding the reception of Thomas Aquinas’s legacy, in 1516, Francesco Silvestri OP (1474–1528) had published his commentary on the Summa contra gentiles. Shortly before that, in 1510, the German Konrad Köllin OP (1476–1536) had begun a line-by-line commentary on the Prima Secundae in Heidelberg – highly dependent on the commentaries by John Capreolus OP (c. 1380–1444) to be found in his Defensiones theologiae Divi Thomae Aquinatis, with which the “Prince of the Thomists,” in the function of sententiarius, initiated the revival of Thomism in Paris. The commentary written by Konrad Köllin would become, in 1512, an Expositio to IaIIae, published in Cologne, where he then worked as regent of the Studium of the Dominicans. Moreover, the Belgian Peter Crockaert OP (c. 1465–1514) had adopted the use of the Summa theologiae in his university courses in Paris from 1509 onwards, replacing Peter Lombard’s Sentences. In 1512, together with his student and disciple Francisco de Vitoria, Crockaert had organized an edition of the IIaIIae.

Since his admission as professor of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Salamanca in the second half of 1526, the Spanish Dominican Francisco de Vitoria (1483–1546) ratified the role of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae as the chief foundation for a theological education and he wrote commentaries on it. He was the first great figure and virtually the founder of the School of Salamanca, and a theoretician of classical-Thomistic natural law doctrine as well as a forerunner of the theory of international public law. In particular, Vitoria had the merit of combining the medieval Thomistic legacy with a concern for patristic, Renaissance humanist, and Western canonical-civil-juridical traditions and, with that Thomistic theoretical apparatus, of thinking theologically and philosophically about the “discovery” of the “New World.” From the Thomistic scholastic mind of Francisco de Vitoria appeared some of the first theological-philosophical treatises – anthropological, normative and political in content – related to the American lands, conquered and proto-colonized by the Spaniards. These are, in particular, the De indis recenter inventis relectio prior and the De indis recenter inventis relectio posterior (or: De iure belli) of the years 1538-1539, dealing, respectively, with the legal claims of the conquest of New World territories by the Spaniards and the legal claims of just wars against the Amerindian peoples, due to alleged offenses committed by them. Contemporary to Vitoria, Bartolomé de Las Casas (c. 1484–1566), who became a Dominican friar – his religious profession occurred in 1523 – and first studied the thought of Thomas Aquinas in the Caribbean, in the Convent of the Dominicans in Santo Domingo, related the thought of the “Angelic Doctor” to other concrete problems of the government of the Indies. For example, he connected Thomas Aquinas’s thought with the unjust system of the concession of lands and the economic exploitation of the encomiendas, and to the practices of catechesis and evangelization connected to the confinement and forced labor of the indigenous people in those estates. Las Casas’s polemical works, social-political critique and debate on human nature and the human status of the indigenous peoples are epitomized in his Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias (1552). In his De unico vocationis modo omnium gentium ad veram religionem (completed c. 1537), Las Casas writes of the pacifist preaching of the Gospel, which takes place by means of the natural persuasion of the understanding and attraction of the will via the practice of good deeds, or, in a nutshell, through the truth of faith and through the practice of the good, which Christian faith both is and announces. This is grounded in Thomas Aquinas’s defense of the voluntariness of adhesion to proclaimed faith (see, for example, ST IIaIIae, q. 10, a. 8, “Whether the unfaithful must be compelled to faith”). Moreover, being acquainted with the texts of the Thomists of Salamanca who were inspired by Francisco de Vitoria, who polemicized about the themes of conquest, dominium, slavery, just war, and the natural rights of individuals and peoples, Las Casas proposed a Christian ethics of a Thomistic blend that was opposed to the conceptual defense of the conquest by the Spanish empire formulated by Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (1490–1573). This ethics was grounded in the unity of human kind and the recognition of the universality of the human being, as well as of his rights as a dignified image of God and a creature endowed with reason and will – and, thus, of agency too (see ST I, q. 82, a. 1, ad 3; IaIIae, q. 1, a. 1-2; q. 6, a. 1-2).

Universities, Thomism, Scotism, and Suarezianism in Colonial Latin America

As such, Scholastica colonialis is a historiographical category that is connected to “Second” scholasticism and to “Baroque” scholasticism. The term “Baroque” here is used not in the artistic sense, but in the sense of a joining of patristic and medieval Christian traditions, of the religious fragmentation provoked by Protestant Reformations, of the new understanding of the world and its parts, and of the need for finding new languages and syntheses for Christian truth, as well as answers to new problems of human existence (therefore a joining of the new together with classical-patristic-medieval traditions). The Scholastica colonialis project investigates Western philosophy transplanted to and, in some respects, mixed with the Americas, and not pre-Columbian philosophies. Being closely related to European and, above all, to Iberian, Catholic scholasticism, colonial scholasticism that was taught and produced in convents, monasteries, colleges, seminaries and universities brings with itself the characteristics and theories from universities such as Salamanca and Alcalá de Henares (Spain), and Coimbra and Évora (Portugal). Thinkers in philosophy and theology who taught or even studied in the young Catholic colonial institutions largely replicated the reception of Thomas Aquinas’s thought in the institutions of Spain and Portugal and in the Religious Orders generally speaking, especially in the Order of Preachers and the Society of Jesus. In that sense, one should keep in mind that the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, in Lima – which was called, at its foundation, “Real Universidad de la Ciudad de los Reyes” – was the first university in the Southern Hemisphere, opening on May 12th, 1551. On September 21st, 1551, the Real y Pontificia Universidad de México began its activities. Having studied in Alcalá de Henares and Salamanca, the Augustinian Friar Alonso de la Vera Cruz (c. 1504–1584) probably was the first person to teach philosophy in the New World. He began his teaching of the artes in 1540, in the convent of San Juan Bautista de Tiripetío (founded by Vera Cruz himself), and later, from 1553 onwards, worked as a professor in the Universidad de México. His works on logic, Recognitio summularum and Dialectica resolutio, both from 1554, and shortly afterwards, his work on the philosophy of nature, Physica speculatio (1557), were the first philosophical works written in the Americas. Vera Cruz’s philosophical course had as its orientation the study program of the University of Salamanca. Vera Cruz remained close to the Summulae by Domingo de Soto OP (1494–1560) and, especially in logical-metaphysical themes, such as the debate on the nature of universals, he followed the Thomistic point of view. From 1553 to 1557, in the Mexican university, Vera Cruz himself took on the chair “Prima de Teología,” which was focused on the lectio of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. His theological lecture, or Relectio de dominio infidelium et iusto bello (which took as a starting point the text of ST IIaIIae, q. 62, on “restitution,” or restitutio), which was read in 1553 and published at a later point, is a written testimony of Vera Cruz’s teaching activities in that chair.

At any rate, the history of colonial scholasticism as a history of philosophical ideas does not simply amount to versions or variances of Thomism. The logic by the Fanciscan Jerónimo Valera (1568–1625), namely, Commentarii ac quaestiones in universam Aristotelis ac Subtilis Doctoris Ioannis Duns Scoti logicam (Lima, 1610) was the first philosophical work to be published in South America. It included a short Summulae dialecticae and commentaries ad mentem Scoti to Porphyry’s Isagogé and to Aristotle’s Categories. Several metaphysical topics of Scotus’s thought are discussed as well, such as the object of metaphysics (in explanations on the ens reale and the ens rationis), universals and common natures, quantity as a metaphysical concept, and the theory of relations. A former student of Jerónimo Valera at the Convento de San Francisco de Lima, namely the Chilean Alfonso Briceño (1587–1668), made an outstanding academic and ecclesiastical career and published, in Madrid, two large volumes of Controversiae (1639-1642) around key topics of Scotus’s Ordinatio I. Briceño’s Controversiae is a useful tool for understanding the extent and characteristics of Scotism in Latin America in the first half of the 17th century. In fact, the spectrum and depth of the debates in which Briceño engaged are rather impressive. In the two volumes of the Prima Pars of his incomplete project of commenting on open disputes raised by Scotus’s Ordinatio I (a project actually related to Scotus’s whole opera), Briceño, in a total of 12 Controversiae of different lengths, both offers an exposition of what is, for him, the metaphysical basis of Scotus’s theology, and systematically constructs Scotus’s theology as a metaphysical doctrine of God. “Metaphysicalia” are treated everywhere in his published works. We should highlight the expositions in Controversies 1-8, structured according to the metaphysical properties of God, such as unity, truth, and goodness, as well as to divine pure perfections and the so-called modes of being. Every interpretation is accompanied by, and every final stance preceded by, controversies with Thomistic authors and “Scotizantes,” a word that bears the twofold meaning of authors aligned with Duns Scotus’s doctrine and those unable to correctly render his thought. Between 1687 and 1689, Juan de Fuica OFM (c. 1655/1660–c. 1735) dictated in Santiago de Chile a complete Philosophy Course, contained in the single manuscript Commentaria philosophica ad mentem Doctoris Subtilissimi Patris Fratris Ioannis Duns Scoti Sacratissimi Ordinis Minorum, et Theologorum Principis, which is today preserved at the Archivo Historico Franciscano. In his ingenious expositions and interpretations of the Scotist doctrine, Fuica quite often refers to Valera and Briceño. In his cursus on metaphysics, Fuica shows that the object of metaphysics, that is, the objective concept of the “real being in common” (ens reale in communi), can receive an “essentially relative definition” (definitio essentialiter relativa), in which one can find the aspect of “non-repugnance” or “non-contradictoriness,” which is effectively common to the real being and the being of reason. Fuica, thus, makes an original contribution to the understanding of the scope of metaphysics and its connection to mental objects and the human mind broadly speaking.

If one focuses on the different theological and philosophical materials produced in the centers for higher education, above all in the courses of arts (i.e., in the cursus philosophicus) and in the faculties of theology – keeping in mind that most colonial theologians and philosophers were members of the Religious Orders – one can verify, grosso modo, as was likewise the case in Europe, the following intellectual identities: that Franciscans were primarily guided by John Duns Scotus, whereas Thomas Aquinas guided the Benedictines, Augustinians, Dominicans, and Jesuits (in this last case, in a characteristically eclectic way). It has been demonstrated, however, that many Jesuits, including Miguel de Viñas (1642–1718), who, during his magisterial activity in the Colegio Máximo de San Miguel (Santiago de Chile), wrote his Philosophia scholastica (published 1709, in Genoa), defended the idea that the Company of Jesus should find in Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) – the “Doctor Eximius” – the guiding mind of its theological and philosophical teaching. Jesuits would rather belong to the “school of Suárez” (Jesuitica vel Suaristica Schola), which, at any rate, was closely related to the thought of Thomas Aquinas. In that sense, one can understand that, in theoretical philosophy especially, focused on the triennial course of logic, philosophy of nature and metaphysics (cursus philosophicus [triennalis]), colonial intellectuals were in search of expositions of Aristotle’s works quite often through the guidance (ad mentem) of John Duns Scotus or of Thomas Aquinas. Moreover, courses ad mentem Suarez (or rather ad mentem Societatis Jesu) were also dictated, especially by Spanish magistri working in Latin America. We find, for example, in the collections of the Biblioteca Ecuatoriana Aurelio Espinosa Pólit (Quito, Ecuador), which is a Jesuit “Fundación” dedicated to research in history, humanities, and natural sciences, as well as a library of a distinguished kind, the Universa dialecticae naturae in disputationes collecta, iuxta Societatis doctrinam atque intelligentiam Eximii Doctoris P. Francisci Suarez, Philosophiae ac Theologiae facile principis, by Sebastián Sabater SJ (17th century), finished in 1676 in the Jesuit College of Palma de Mallorca. Such comprehensive expositions by the scholastic minds in Latin America, sometimes textbookish and in many cases truly systematic, had as their models, especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, magisterial expositions and even collective works of the Salmanticenses, of the Complutenses, and of the Conimbricenses. In the case of the Cursus Conimbricensis (1592-1606), that is, the philosophical course built by the Jesuits of Coimbra (which also encompassed writings by Aristotle on ethics), the influence of the Ratio Studiorum of the Society of Jesus on its structure and selection of contents is evident. Thus, the works produced by Catholic scholars combined the appeal of explanations of Aristotle with, increasingly, the appeal of explaining the guiding minds of the different philosophical traditions. This opened the door for theoretical debates and distinctions among authors and “schools,” modifying in a significant way the common textual order of exposition, and creating a kind of systematic theoretical philosophy that might be identified as cursus philosophicus thomisticus (more frequently) or scotisticus (among Franciscan authors). Moreover, one should bear in mind that, in colonial Brazil, Thomistic thought, which in this case was inherited especially from theologians educated in the Universities of Coimbra and Évora, was widely present in Jesuit colleges, where the curriculum of arts followed the dictates of the Cursus Conimbricensis. Among the colleges founded by the Jesuits one can mention the College of Bahia (1553), of São Paulo (1554), of Rio de Janeiro (1567), of Maranhão (1622, in the city of São Luís), and of Pará (c. 1690, in the city of Belém). The first course of philosophy or of “Artes” in Brazil opened in 1572, in the “Colégio da Bahia,” bestowing, in time, degrees of bachelor, licensed, and master of arts (the College of Bahia closed 1759). Gonçalo Leite SJ (c. 1546–1603), the first professor of philosophy in that College, and the first in colonial Brazil, entered the Company of Jesus in Coimbra in 1565, and apparently studied philosophy and theology in the University of Coimbra. The second course of philosophy in Brazil, which started in 1663 at the “Colégio do Rio de Janeiro,” had as its first professor Eusébio de Matos SJ. Eusébio de Matos, incidentally, was the brother of the lawyer and satirical-Baroque poet Gregório de Matos (1636–1696), who was educated in Coimbra. Francisco de Faria SJ wrote the Conclusiones metaphysicae de ente reali, which was printed in Rio de Janeiro in 1747. All instruction in Jesuit colleges was guided by the pedagogy, didactics, and contents of the program of the Ratio Studiorum, which was officially promulgated in 1599. As is well known, the program was committed to the teaching of Aristotle in philosophy, and, in theology, the teaching of Thomas of Aquinas.

The Cursus Philosophicus, Theological Disputations, and Commentaries on Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae

In the cursus philosophicus, masters of arts with Thomistic or Scotistic orientations formulated expositions and treatises of formal or “minor” logic, from the perspective of terminist logic, loosely connected to medieval works such as the Summulae logicales by Peter of Spain, and more directly related to the post-Renaissance scholastic model of the Summulae dialecticae ordered by the Salmantine master Domingo de Soto. At any rate, in the minor logic the masters discussed terms (on the mental basis of apprehensions), propositions (on the mental basis of judgments) and arguments (on the mental basis of inferential reasonings). In the “greater” logic, masters followed the tradition of philosophical expositions and commentaries focused on all or some of the works of Aristotle’s Organon – to some extent, the selection of works to be commented on depended on the range of subjects that had been treated before, in the summulae. In most cases, those expositions referred to the Isagoge by Porphyry, the Categories, the Perihermeneias and the Posterior Analytics, and in some cases also to the Sophistical Refutations and the Topics, by the Stagirite. Following the tendencies and chief concerns of the Religious Orders, Thomistic or Scotistic positions also appear in the selections of certain contents, theories, disputes, and systematization in the second part of the course (philosophy of nature, with an emphasis on the eight Books of the Physics and the three Books of On de the Soul) and in the third part (metaphysics). In logic, for example, we can highlight the disputes on the object of logic as a science and, as a consequence, the efforts for understanding the kind of entity that logical objects are – i.e., entia rationis – and how they are distinguished from other sciences’ objects. From those disputes on, authors introduced expositions and debates about the theory of distinctions (real distinction, distinction of reason, and formal distinction, this last one being contested by the Thomists and defended by the Scotists). Such logical-metaphysical debates still played an important role, for example, in the Tractatus primus (De logica sive philosophia rationali) of the Philosophia platonica seu cursus philosophicus, rationalem, naturalem, et transnaturalem philosophiam, sive logicam, physicam et metaphysicam, complectens (dictated in the city of Rio de Janeiro in 1748, and still preserved as a manuscript), by the Friar Gaspar da Madre de Deus OSB (1715–1800). In fact, as we read in the title of Gaspar da Madre de Deus’s course, metaphysics was usually understood as the science of the (real) concept of the “real being” (ens reale). It was thus viewed as a “transnatural,” “transcategorical,” or “transcendental” science or philosophy. The study of the composite substance, in turn, was part of both metaphysics and the philosophy of nature.

A large number of Thomistic philosophical courses written in Latin America have been preserved. Antonio Rubio SJ (1548–1615), on the basis of his sixteen years of philosophical and theological teaching activity in Mexico – in the “Colegio de San Pedro y San Pablo” – had already written a course that was quite close to the ideas and interpretations of Thomas Aquinas in his extensive Commentarii in universam Aristotelis dialecticam, first published in 1603. In their turn, the abridged and didactic commentaries by Antonio Rubio on the logic of Aristotle were already published as Logica mexicana in the edition of 1606. The Logica mexicana gained fame as an international handbook on logic, and became, for example, the standard work for that discipline in the University of Alcalá de Henares, in Spain, and in the University of Córdoba, in Argentina. Moreover, an important example of a creative and eclectic reception of Baroque scholasticism in Latin American colonial times is the work of the Peruvian Juan de Espinosa Medrano (c. 1632–1688), “El Lunarejo,” professor of philosophy and theology at the Seminary of San Antonio Abad del Cusco (founded in 1598). Important logical and metaphysical debates appear in his Philosophia thomistica seu Cursus philosophicus (Rome, 1688), with emphasis on Espinoza Medrano’s Thomistic defense of the reality of non-particular entities (“universals”) against new nominalist tendencies in metaphysics shared by Iberian scholastic thinkers. In fact, Thomists and Scotists should be viewed as “Peripatetics,” for they adopt (different) forms of realism, according to which “universals” or “essences” are aspects of extramental reality. Peripatetics usually reject Platonism, seeing in it a doctrine that advances the thesis that universals or “ideas” exist apart from particular things. But El Lunarejo connected to the defense of his account of universals an apology for Platonic realism about “ideas,” assimilating ideas into the Aristotelian-Thomistic (and Scotistic) account of “essences” in extramental reality. In short, the “universals” of Peripatetic philosophy are essential beings that are real, unchangeable, non-temporal, and non-spatial, which differ from concrete individual things and also from God. Rejecting neo-Platonic accounts of the “ideas” and having the purpose of making credible Plato’s understanding of the object of knowledge, Espinoza Medrano had no choice but to describe ideas in the way that Peripatetics understand essences. In that sense, Platonic ideas are similar in every aspect to Aristotle’s universals, setting aside the discussion of the separate existence of ideas. Espinoza Medrano’s interpretation bears similarities to the accounts of Dominic of Flanders OP (c. 1425–1479) and Francisco de Araújo OP (1580–1664).

Theological debates about specific topics could assume several forms, such as the disputatio and the tractatus, containing relevant philosophical ideas. Discussions on epistemology appear, for example, in texts with the title De visione Dei or the like, in which the possibility and structure of the cognition of God are examined. This is Alfonso Briceño’s main topic in cognition theory, treated by him in his long Controversy 9 (“On the knowability of God through us”), in which topics such as the theory of species, theory of concepts, mental acts, object of knowledge, intuitive cognition, abstractive cognition, beatific vision, etc., are discussed by him by means of detailed and comprehensive revisions of medieval and current scholastic literature. Of course, theological education in studia, higher colleges and universities was widely influenced by the model of Iberian Scholastic thinkers taking the Summa theologiae as the basis for study and teaching. In a similar way, Franciscan authors used Scotus’s opera theologica as the basis for the study of theology. From the chairs of the faculties of theology, characteristic ways of studying and exposing Aquinas’s Summa were created. These included disputes on controversial topics of the Summa theologiae I (see, for example, the Disputationum theologicarum, in Primam Partem Divi Thomae, Tomus Primus, de Deo uno (1663), by Leonardo Peñafiel SJ (1597–1657), who was born and worked as a theologian in the Viceroyalty of Peru). They also included the commentaries, interpretations, and expositions accompanying the thematic sections of the Summa theologiae IaIIae and IIaIIae, for example the Tractatus de actibus humanis (1759) by Jacinto Antonio Buenaventura OP (1731–1785), which focuses on topics covered in IaIIae, q. 6-48, or the De iustitia et iure (c. 1762) by Juan Antonio Ferraro SJ [1717–????] which takes into consideration themes treated by Aquinas in IIaIIae, q. 57-122. In fact, Tractatus de actibus humanis and Tractatus de conscientia (which has IaIIae, q. 19 as its background) were important loci for discussing the role of practical certainty for the goodness of an act and in forming right – and, thus, morally well-grounded – conscience. On the basis of such interpretations and analyses, and in connection with several different kinds of practical issues of singular relevance in Iberian colonies – particularly in the economy (such as the slave trade, the general obligation of work and payment of taxes) and in politics (such as waging war) – the topics of “tutiorism,” “probabilism(s)” and the like were widely debated and discussed in Latin American scholasticism. In the case of the theological themes of Summa theologiae III, many treatises on the incarnation, the perfections of Christ, and the sacraments can be found. So, for example, under the name of Juan Amorillo OSA, who was active in Mexico at the end of the 16th century, we have information about a manuscript, preserved in the National Library of Mexico, containing treatises on Christ’s incarnation, grace, and sacraments; we are also told of manuscripts from the first years of the 17th century, by Juan Pérez de Menacho SJ (1565–1626), from Lima, which are preserved at the National Library of Colombia and are supposed to contain three commentaries on themes of the Tertia Pars of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae, such as the Eucharist (III, q. 72-84). A single and remarkable author such as the Jesuit master José de Aguilar (1652–1708), from Peru, alongside his own complete Cursus philosophicus (dictated and published in Lima in 1701), was able to produce an impressive number of writings on the contents of the Summa theologiae I. The writings were posthumously published in 1731, in Córdoba (in the colonial region of Tucumán, today’s Argentina), with the title Tractationes posthumae in Primam Partem Divi Thomae, Volumes I-V.

One can hardly overestimate the significance that Aquinas’s Summa theologiae IIaIIae exerted on polemical literature and texts on applied ethics in the Latin American colonial period, especially in the 16th and 17th centuries, as well as its influence on the chairs dedicated to moral theology. It influenced the understanding of very different themes, such as the justice of commutations and contracts in general and the justice that relates to the commerce of slaves and to restitution in particular (for example, the idea of coordinating the obligation of restitution according to three “headings” (capita) for analyzing an unjust commutation, that is, the thing unjustly received, the unjust reception of something, and the participation in the unjust reception of a thing; see, among others, Tomás de Mercado OP (1223–1575), Suma de tratos y contratos [1571] II.21, and Epifanio de Moirans OFM Cap., Servi liberi seu naturalis mancipiorum libertatis iusta defensio XII, n. 122). It fact, it deeply influenced the understanding of the formal doctrine of natural law, civil-positive law, and the law of peoples, as well as the theory of justice and of particular justice (distributive, commutative and, especially, corrective and punitive justice). In several colonial institutional contexts, in theoretical philosophy and theology (metaphysics and dogmatics), a culture of true dispute for the most loyal interpretation of Thomas Aquinas emerged, which was, in its turn, filtered by centuries of reception and commentaries on Aquinas’s works. This stands out in colonial institutions of the Viceroyalty of Nueva Granada. In the Universidad Tomística or Universidad Santo Tomás (founded by the Dominicans in 1580) and later in the “Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario” (founded by the Dominicans in 1653), the artes followed the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas. The same is true for the artes and the course of theology at the Universidad Javeriana, which was founded in 1623 by the Jesuits. In the Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé (founded in 1604, also by the Jesuit Fathers), Aquinas’s works were the center of the Ratio Studiorum. Martín de Eusa SJ (1631?–1693), who worked as a professor at the Universidad Javeriana from 1661 to 1680 and was twice the principal of the Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé, in Bogotá (Colombia), echoes his courses on moral theology ad mentem Thomae in his Controversia de restitutione necessaria pro iniuriis et damnis in omnibus humanorum bonorum generibus. In this work, he synthesizes the teachings of a large number of Baroque-scholastic authors who wrote commentaries on the question restitution, as expounded by Thomas Aquinas in ST IIaIIae, q. 62, a. 1-8, with special consideration for the work of Juan de Lugo SJ (1583–1660, Disputationes de iustitia et iure, 1642). The Jesuit Juan Martínez de Ripalda (1641–1707), in a phase of consolidation of the cursus philosophicus in the Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé and at the Universidad Javeriana as well, had the project of explaining – contrasting the points of view of the scotistarum schola, as well as those of the nominales, with the doctrines of thomistarum schola – the true Thomistic doctrine in his De usu et abusu doctrinae Divi Thomae (1704), with regard to several fields: the object of metaphysics, human cognition, freedom of the will and divine actions. It was a matter of dispute indeed, where masters of arts and theologians would find in Nueva Granada the flag of the most orthodox Thomistic legacy and, concomitantly, the philosophy that claimed to offer the mens propria Aristotelis.

Philosophy of Nature, Transition and Disappearance of Colonial Scholasticism

A remarkable number of texts dedicated to the philosophy of nature, usually the second part of the cursus philosophicus, were produced during the colonial period. In general, they suffer from an unfortunate lack of scholarly attention. Antonio Rubio’s published works are a good example of this situation. Rubio’s Logica mexicana had 18 editions and has been the object of important studies, but of the 55 editions of Rubio’s philosophical works, two thirds were on the philosophy of nature, namely commentaries on the Physics, On the Soul, On Generation and Corruption, and On the Heavens, which remain essentially uninvestigated The Argentinian scholar C.A. Lértora Mendoza published several works on the history of the natural sciences in the Viceroyalty of “Rio de la Plata” and especially in the Viceroyalty of “Nueva Granada.” Such studies show that the teaching of physicalia comprised three groups of works to be commented upon: (a) beyond Aristotle’s Physics, the Aristotelian treatises De caelo, De generatione et corruptione, De meteoris, and in some cases the Parva naturalia, which means here De memoria et reminiscentia and De somno et vigilia; (b) second, the so-called “Animastics” or treatises on Aristotle’s De anima; (c) finally, some interfaces with metaphysics, since, in some cases, teachers of metaphysics expounded questions related to De caelo and De anima. Until almost the end of the colonial period, with few exceptions, the 16th-17th century European model of teaching the philosophy of nature was followed, with expositions of the physical works usually embracing the order of the Aristotelian books, always beginning with the eight Books of the Physics, focusing on themes which had metaphysical and theological implications. Latin American intellectuals mastered the Aristotelian and medieval philosophy of nature, but, in contrast to what happened in Europe from the end of the 17th century onwards, experimental approaches to physical investigation and teaching did not play a significant role for them. For Latin American intellectuals, the study of physics was characterized by disputes on internal scholastic issues, which prompted conceptual disagreements and polemics both inside the Orders and among the Orders. Irrespective of the reasons for such an “anachronism” in the study and teaching of natural philosophy, and leaving aside the hypothesis that the selection of topics reflected the masters’ search for the conceptual conditions of the possibility of change and motion – and, to a certain extent, their search for the conditions of the possibility of the experience of change and motion – four topics seem to have been predominant in academic physics from the late 16th to the 18th century in colonial scholasticism. (i) Firstly, there was the debate on prime matter. For Aristotle, matter as such is one of the intrinsic co-principles which, together with form, constitute natural being. It is the potential principle of any physical compositum. Aristotle saw it as “pure potency,” but medieval thinkers (and Suárez) interpreted Aristotle’s terminology in different ways. They disputed, for example, whether prime matter had some actuality (and, thus, reality) of its own – as Scotus and Suárez thought it did – or not (as Aquinas thought). (ii) Secondly, there was the discussion on the multiplicity of subordinate forms. For Aristotle, the substantial composite has only one form. But some medieval authors proposed the so-called forma corporeitatis of living beings, in order to explain, for example, the identity of a dead body, that is, a body without a soul as animating principle. That structural form was thought to be subordinated to the specific form of the living being (a plant, a lion, a human being, etc.), and it had the role of universally assuring corporeal homogeneity from a formal point of view. (iii) Thirdly, there were debates on the multiplicity of non-subordinated forms. Thomists, following Aristotle, considered the co-existence of two forms of different species in the same being impossible. For Aquinas, not even God in His omnipotence could produce a being that would be at the same time cat and dog, not due to a defect of His omnipotence, but because it was about an impossible thing. Thomists worked with the principle that an objective impossibility or an intrinsic contradiction not only was an absolute limit of feasibility, but also of cognoscibility. However, Jesuits and Franciscans used to demand more rigorous conditions for a metaphysical impossibility – where a metaphysical possibility was always open to a logically absolute power of divinitus and immediately effecting something, i.e., an “absolute possible.” Against the Thomists, Franciscans and Jesuits argued that the co-existence of forms of different species was an absolute possible. (iv) Fourthly, there was the topic of the relationship between uncreated cause and created causes. Of course, the theory of causality is central in Aristotle’s physics. But now, Baroque scholastic thinkers – and up to the end of the 18th century our Latin American masters – discussed the nature of the relationship between God as uncreated efficient cause and the created efficient causes in the physical world. Four themes were central, namely divine concourse, physical premotion, concourse for evil or sin, and the relationship between divine concourse and free causality. One of the results of such an emphasis on conceptual issues of a metaphysical blend in approaching the philosophy of nature – issues that were not Aristotelian and were not concerned with theoretical and experience-based developments in the scientific approach to nature either – was that it blocked the reception, teaching, and pursuit of modern physics, i.e. of Newton’s mechanics, in the New World.

The colonial scholasticism that has been characterized so far, especially its philosophical basis, disappears almost entirely at the beginning of the 19th century. This is partially due to its substitution, both as a pure and as an eclectic orientation of philosophical study, by modernist philosophy influenced by the Entlightenment – which was, to a large extent, anti-scholastic. Eclectic scholastic thinkers of the period after the expulsion of the Jesuits (1767), such as the Franciscan José Elias del Carmen Pereira (1760–1825), professor at the Universidad de Córdoba (Argentina) and author of a Physica generalis (1784), exemplify this scientific-philosophical transition. For that transition, especially in the philosophy and science of nature, it is useful to contrast the work of José Elias Del Carmen Pereira with the Physica ad Aristotelis mentem (1758), by Juan Bautista Aguirre SJ (1725–1786), professor at the Pontificia Universidad de San Gregorio Magno, founded in 1622, in Quito (Ecuador). Acquainted with (modern) classical mechanics, Juan Bautista Aguirre supports the role of experience and experimentation for the knowledge of nature, but he stills defends the greater explanatory power of the Aristotelian philosophy of nature regarding motion and change.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

• Alonso de la Vera Cruz O.S.A. (2007). De dominio infidelium et iusto bello – Sobre el dominio de los infideles y la guerra justa. Trad. R. Heredia Correa. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México.
• Alphonsus a Vera Cruce O.S.A. (1554). Recognitio Summularum Reverendi Patris Ildephonsi a Vera Cruce Augustiniani Artium ac Sacrae Theologiae Doctoris. Excudebat Ioannes Paulus Brissensis, Mexicus.
• Alphonsus a Vera Cruce O.S.A. (1554). Dialectica resolutio cum textu Aristotelis edita per Reverendum Patrem Alphonsum a Vera Cruce Augustinianum, Artium atque Sacrae Theologiae Magister. Excudebat Ioannes Paulus Brissensis, Mexicus.
• Alphonsus a Vera Cruce O.S.A. (1557). Physica speculatio, edita per R.P.F. Alphonsum a Vera Cruce, Augustinianae familiae Provincialem, artium ac sacrae Theologiae Doctorem. Excudebat Ioannes Paulus Brissensis, Mexicus.
• Alphonsus Briceño O.F.M. (1639-1642). Prima Pars Celebriorum Controversiarum in Primum Sententiarum Ioannis Scoti Doctoris Subtilis. Typographia Regia, 2. Vols., Madrid.
• Antonius Rubius Rodensis S.J. (1606). Commentaria in Octos Libros Aristotelis de Physico. Ad florentissimam Complutensem Academiam. Cum privilegio. Apud Joannem Chrysostomum Garriz, Valentiae.
• Antonius Rubius Rodensis S.J. (1603). Commentarii in universam Aristotelis dialecticam. Ex Officina Justi Sanchez Crespo, Compluti.
• Antonius Rubius Rodensis S.J. (1620). Logica Mexicana R. P. Antonii Ruvio Rodensis Doctoris Theologi Societatis Jesu hoc est Commentarii breviores et maxime perspicui in universam Aristotelis dialecticam. Sumptibus Antonii Pilehotte, Lugduni.
• Bartolomeu de Las Casas O.P. (2005). Obras completas I – Único modo de atrair todos os povos à verdadeira religião. Coord. C. Josaphat, trad. de N. Gigli e H. Lucas. Paulus, São Paulo.
• Bartolomeu de Las Casas O.P. (2010). Obras completas II – Liberdade e justiça para os povos da América – Oito tratados impressos em Sevilha em 1552. Coordenação de C. Josaphat, tradução de H.E. Lucas, M.J.R. Monzú Freire, M.T.R. Monzú Freire e S. Romaniw. Paulus, São Paulo.
• Cajetan (1964). Commentary on Being and Essence (In De Ente et Essentia d. Thomae Aquinatis). Trans. L.H. Kendzierski and F.C. Wade. Marquette University Press, Milwaukee.
• Epifanio de Moirans O.F.M. Cap. (2007). Siervos libres: una propuesta antiesclavista a finales del siglo XVII / Servi liberi seu naturalis mancipiorum libertatis iusta defensio. (Corpus Hispanorum de Pace, Segunda Serie – Volumen 14). Ed. M.A. Pena González. CSIC, Madrid.
• Francisco de Vitoria O.P. (1932-1935; 1952). Comentarios a la Secunda Secundae de Tomás de Aquino. Ed. V. Beltrán de Heredia. Biblioteca de Teologos Españoles, Vols. 1-5; Vol. 6, Salamanca.
• Francisco de Vitoria O.P. (1960). “De la potestad civil (De potestate civili)”; “De los índios recientemente descubiertos (relección primera) (De indis recenter inventis relectio prior)”; “De los índios recientemente descubiertos (relección segunda) (De indis recenter inventis relectio posterior)”, in Obras de Francisco de Vitoria – Relecciones teologicas, ed. y trad. T. Urdanoz, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid: 149-95; 641-726; 811-58.
• Gaspar da Madre de Deus O.S.B. Philosophia platonica seu cursus philosophicus, rationalem, naturalem, et transnaturalem philosophiam, sive logicam, physicam et metaphysicam, complectens [Rio de Janeiro 1748], Ms. Biblioteca do Mosteiro de São Bento, São Paulo.
• Hieronymus Valera O.F.M. (1610). Commentarii ac quaestiones in universam Aristotelis ac subtilissimi Doctoris Ioannis Duns Scoti logicam. Apud Franciscum a Canto, Lima.
• Ioannes de Espinoza Medranus S.J. (1688). Philosophia thomistica seu Cursus philosophicus Duce D. Thoma Doctore Angelico peractus. Ex Typographia Reu. Cam. Apost., t. I, Roma.
• Ioannes de Fuica O.F.M. Commentaria philosophica ad mentem Doctoris Subtilissimi Patris Fratris Ioannis Duns Scoti Sacratissimi Ordinis Minorum, et Theologorum Principis [Santiago de Chile 1687-1689], Ms. Archivo Histórico Franciscano, Santiago de Chile, 297ff.
• Iosephus de Aguilar S.J. (1701). Cursus philosophicus dictatus Limae. Ex offic. Ioannis Francisci de Blas, Lima.
• Iosephus de Aguilar S.J. (1731). Tractationes posthumae in Primam Partem Divi Thomae. In Collegio Assumptionis Societatis Iesu, per Petrum de Pineda, et Valderrama, 5 Vols., Cordubae.
• Juan Antonio Ferraro S.J. (2002). De iustitia et iure [ca. 1762. Ed. M. Domínguez Miranda. (Biblioteca Virtual del Pensamiento Filosófico en Colombia, Volúmen I, Tomo VII, Obra no. 17). Universidad Javeriana-Instituto Pensar, Bogotá.
• Juan Bautista Aguirre S.J. (1982). Fisica de Juan Bautista Aguirre [Physica ad Aristotelis mentem]. Estudio introductorio Dr. J. Terán Dutari S.J., trad. L.F. Yépez. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador-Banco Central del Ecuador, Quito.
• Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (21984). Demócrates Segundo o de las justas causas de la guerra contra los índios. Edición y traducción de A. Losada, CSIC, Madrid.
• Juan Martínez de Ripalda S.J. (1704). De usu et abusu doctrinae Divi Thomae, pro Xaveriana Academia Collegii Sanctafidensis in Novo Regno Granatensi. Apud Guiliemum Henricum Streel, Leodii (reedited in Juan Martínez de Ripalda S.J. (2002). De usu et abusu doctrinae Divi Thomae. Ed. M. Domínguez Miranda. (Biblioteca Virtual del Pensamiento Filosófico en Colombia, Volúmen I, Tomo I, Obra no. 1). Pontificia Universidad Javeriana-Instituto Pensar, Bogotá.
• Jacinto Antonio Buenaventura S.J. (2002). Tractatus de actibus humanis. Ed. M. Domínguez Miranda. (Biblioteca Virtual del Pensamiento Filosófico en Colombia, Volúmen I, Tomo IX, Obra no. 23). Pontificia Universidad Javeriana-Instituto Pensar, Bogotá.
• Leonardus Peñafiel (1663). Disputationum theologicarum, in Primam Partem Divi Thomae, Tomus Primus, de Deo uno. Sumpt. Horatii Boissat, et G. Remeus, Lugduni.
• Martín de Eussa S.J. (2002). Controversia de restitutione necessaria pro injuriis et damnis in omnibus humanorum bonorum generibus. Ed. M. Domínguez Miranda. (Biblioteca Virtual del Pensamiento Filosófico en Colombia, Volúmen I, Tomo VIII, Obra no. 20). Pontificia Universidad Javeriana-Instituto Pensar, Bogotá.
• Sebastianus Sabater S.J. Universa dialecticae naturae in disputationes collecta, iuxta Societatis doctrinam atque intelligentiam Eximii Doctoris P. Francisci Suarez, Philosophiae ac Theologiae facile principis [In Palmario Sionis Monte 1676], Ms. Fundación Biblioteca Ecuatoriana Aurelio Espinosa Pólit, Quito, 196ff.
• Tomás de Mercado (1587). Suma de tratos y contratos [1571]. Hernando Diaz, Sevilla.

Secondary Sources

• Aravena Zamora (2020), A. Comentarios “Acerca del alma” según la doctrina del Doctor Sutil Duns Escoto, por Fray Juan de Fuica (1689). Estudio biográfico e histórico, y edición bilingüe latín – castellano. Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá.
• Ballón Vargas (2011), J.C. (ed. y coord.). La complicada historia del pensamiento filosófico peruano, siglos XVII y XVIII (Selección de textos, notas y estudios). Universidad Científica del Sur-Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos / Ediciones del Vicerrectorado Académico, Tomos I-II, Lima.
• Belda Plans (2000), J. La Escuela de Salamanca. BAC, Madrid.
• Beuchot (1996), M. Historia de la filosofía en el México colonial. Herder, Barcelona.
• Carvalho (2019), M.S. de. “Cursus Conimbricensis”, in M.S. de Carvalho and S. Guidi (eds.), Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, doi = “10.5281/zenodo.3234133”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/cursus-conimbricensis/”, latest revision: May, 28th, 2019.
• Cenci (2011), M.P. “Notas bibliográficas sobre Alfonso Briceño”, Cauriensia 6: 213-32.
• Cenci (2015), M.P. “African Slavery and Salvation in the De instauranda Aethiopum salute of Alonso de Sandoval S.J. (1577–1652)”, Patristica et Mediaevalia 36: 75-89.
• Crippa (1978), A. (coord.). As idéias filosóficas no Brasil. Editora Convívio, São Paulo.
• Culleton (2011), A.S. “Antecedentes a la investigación filosófico-historiográfica de la escolástica colonial. La contribución de Celina Lértora Mendoza”, Cauriensia VI: 23-35.
• Culleton (2015), A.S. “Tomás de Mercado on Slavery: Just According to Law, Unjust in Practice”, Patristica et Mediaevalia 36: 29-38.
• Culleton (2020), A.S. “A moral econômica e o tráfico de escravos na escolástica ibero-americana: Tomás de Mercado e a Suma de tratos y contratos [1571]”, in R.H.Pich; A.C. Storck; A.S. Culleton (eds.), Homo – Natura – Mundus: Human Beings and Their Relationships, Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of the Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale, (Rencontres de Philosophie Médiévale 22), Brepols, Turnhout: 649-60.
• Culleton (2014), A.S. and Pich, R.H. (eds.). Right and Nature in the First and Second Scholasticism. (Rencontres de Philosophie Médiévale 16). Brepols, Turnhout.
• Del Rey Fajardo (2002), J. Catedráticos jesuitas de la Javeriana colonial. Centro Editorial Javeriano, Bogotá.
• Del Rey Fajardo (2010), J. y Marquínez Argote, G. La enseñanza de la filosofía en la Universidad Javeriana colonial (1623–1767). Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá.
• Domingues (2017), I. Filosofia no Brasil – Legados e perspectivas. Ensaios metafilosóficos. Editora Unesp, São Paulo.
• Eguiguren (1951), L.A. Historia de la Universidad de San Marcos – Tomo I: La Universidad en el siglo XVI (Volumen I: Narración; Volumen II: Las constituciones de la Universidad y otros documentos). Imprenta Santa María, Lima.
• Franca (1952), L. O método pedagógico dos jesuítas: o “Ratio Studiorum”. Introdução e tradução. Agir, Rio de Janeiro.
• Fuertes Herreros (2011), J. L. “La estructura de los saberes en la primera Escuela de Salamanca”, Cauriensia 6: 103-45.
• Giacon (1944), C. La Seconda Scolastica I – I grandi commentatori di San Tommaso. Fratelli Bocca, Milano.
• Giacon (1946), C. La Seconda Scolastica II – Precedenze teoretiche ai problemi giuridici. Fratelli Bocca, Milano.
• Giacon (1950), C. La Seconda Scolastica III–I problemi giuridico-politici III. Fratelli Bocca, Milano.
• Höffner (21969), J. Kolonialismus und Evangelium. Spanische Kolonialethik im Goldenen Zeitalter. Paulinus-Verlag, Trier.
• Leinsle (1988), U.G. “Die Scholastik der Neuzeit bis zur Aufklärung”, in E. Coreth; W.M. Neidl; G. Pfligersdorffer (Hrsg.), Christliche Philosophie im katholischen Denken des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts – Band 2: Rückgriff auf scholastisches Erbe, Verlag Styria, Graz-Wien-Köln: 54-69.
• Leinsle (2010), U.G. Introduction to Scholastic Theology. Trans. M.J. Miller. Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C.
• Leite (2015), B.M.B. “Conimbricenses nos trópicos: a escrita dos manuais de filosofia da Companhia de Jesus e sua importância nos colégios jesuítas do Brasil”, Revista Brasileira de História da Ciência 8.2: 100-109.
• Leite (2020), B.M.B. “Fábrica de intelectuais. O ensino de Artes nos Colégios jesuíticos do Brasil, 1572–1759”, História Unisinos 24.1: 21-33.
• Leite, (1938-1950), S. História da Companhia de Jesus no Brasil. Instituto Nacional do Livro, 10 tomos, Rio de Janeiro.
• Lértora Mendoza (2000), C. “Filosofía en Córdoba colonial. Bibliografia y bibliotecas”, in M. Aspell y C.A. Page (eds.), La Biblioteca Jesuítica de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Ed. Eudecor, Córdoba: 103-22.
• Lértora Mendoza (1995), C.A. Fuentes para el estudio de las ciencias exactas en Colombia. Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales, Santa Fe de Bogotá, D.C.
• Lértora Mendoza (2006), C.A. La enseñanza jesuita de la física en Nueva España. Ediciones F.E.P.A.I., Buenos Aires.
• Machado (31976), G.P. A filosofia no Brasil. Cortez e Moraes Ltda., São Paulo.
• Marconi Juárez (2021), R. La idea de filosofía en Miguel de Viñas. S.I. en su contexto histórico-cultural. (Ph.D. Thesis in Philosophy, Instituto de Filosofía de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile). PUC-Chile, Valdivia.
• Margutti (2013), P. História da filosofia do Brasil – O período colonial (1500-1822). Edições Loyola, São Paulo.
• Marques (2015), L.A. Philosophia brasiliensis: história, conhecimento e metafísica no período colonial. Editora FI, Porto Alegre.
• Marques (2018), L.A. A lógica da necessidade: o ensino de Rodrigo Homem no Colégio do Maranhão (1720-1725). Editora FI, Porto Alegre.
• Montes D’Oca (2015), F.R. “Two Capuchin Friars in Defense of African Slaves’ Liberty: Francisco José de Jaca and Epifanio de Moirans”, Patristica et Mediaevalia 36: 91-108.
• Montes D’Oca (2017a), F.R. “Epifânio de Moirans (1644–1689) e a escravidão negra: uma análise do título de escravidão por guerra justa”, in R.H. Pich; A. Correia; M.A.O. da Silva (orgs.), Filosofia medieval (Coleção ANPOF – XVII Encontro), ANPOF, São Paulo: 206-21.
• Montes D’Oca (2017b), F.R. “O discurso antiescravista de Epifanio de Moirans sobre os títulos de escravidão”, Síntese: Revista de Filosofia 44.139: 279-303.
• Montes D’Oca (2017c), F.R. “Tráfico de escravos e consciência moral: o pensamento antiescravista de Epifânio de Moirans”, Dissertatio 46: 130-72.
• Paim (1998), A. Etapas iniciais da filosofia brasileira. Estudos complementares à História das idéias filosóficas no Brasil – Volume III. Editora UEL, Londrina.
• Paim (1999), A. Os intérpretes da filosofia brasileira. Estudos complementares à História das idéias filosóficas no Brasil – Volume I. Editora UEL, Londrina.
• Pich (2011a), R.H. “Antecedentes à investigação filosófico-historiográfica da Escolástica Colonial: a contribuição de Mauricio Beuchot”, Cauriensia VI: 37-64.
• Pich (2011b), R.H. “Recepção e desenvolvimento da Escolástica Barroca na América Latina, séculos 16-18: notas sobre a contribuição de Walter Bernard Redmond”, Scripta mediaevalia 4.2: 81-101.
• Pich (2012a), R.H. “Alfonso Briceño (1587–1668) and the Controversiae on John Duns Scotus’s Philosophical Theology: The Case of Infinity”, The Modern Schoolman 89: 65-94.
• Pich (2012b), R. H. “Jerónimo Valera’s (1568–1625) Scotistic Account on the Nature and Properties of Logic”, Mediaevalia – Textos e Estudos 31: 187-234.
• Pich (2012c), R.H. “Scholastica colonialis: Notes on Jerónimo Valera’s (1568–1625) Life, Work, and Logic”, Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale 54: 65-107.
• Pich (2015a), R.H. “Alfonso Briceño (1587–1668) e a recepção de Scotus na América Latina: um breve estudo sobre o conceito de infinito”, Scintilla – Revista de Filosofia e Mística Medieval 12: 77-97.
• Pich (2015b), R.H. “Alfonso Briceño (1587–1668) sobre o conceito de infinitude: três debates scotistas fundamentais”, in A. Culleton; L. Streck; R.R. dos Reis (orgs.), Festschrift [um tributo a Ernildo Stein]: viveu às voltas com a metafísica e a fenomenologia, Editora UNISINOS, São Leopoldo: 159-82.
• Pich (2017a), R.H. “Alfonso Briceño O.F.M. (1587–1668) sobre a distinção de razão”, Veritas 62.3: 949-75.
• Pich (2017b), R.H. “Alfonso Briceño O.F.M. (1587–1668) sobre o ente e a distinção”, in R.H. Pich; A. Correia; M.A.O. da Silva (orgs.), Filosofia medieval (Coleção ANPOF – XVII Encontro), ANPOF, São Paulo: 171-205.
• Pich (2017c), R.H. “Common Real Being and the Scope of Metaphysics According to Fray Juan de Fuica O.F.M. (17th-18th Centuries, Chile)”, Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale 59: 68-108.
• Pich (2018), R.H. “Alfonso Briceño O.F.M. (1587–1668) on John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysical Groundworks of Theology: The Controversies on Infinity”, in R.H. Pich and A. Speer (eds.), Contemplation and Philosophy: Scholastic and Mystical Modes of Medieval Philosophical Thought. A Tribute to Kent Emery, Jr., Brill, Leiden-Boston: 705-38.
• Pich (2019a), R.H. “Diego de Avendaño S. J. (1594–1688) e um de seus críticos: um estudo sobre a escravidão negra”, Intuitio 12.2: 1-47.
• Pich (2019b), R.H. “Probabilismo, escravidão negra e crítica: Francisco José de Jaca O.F.M. Cap. (c. 1645-1689) interpreta Diego de Avendaño S.J. (1594–1688)”, Thaumazein (IX)12.24: 1-44.
• Pich (2019c), R.H. “Second Scholasticism and Black Slavery”, Veritas – Revista de Filosofia 64.3: 1-24.
• Pich (2020a), R.H. “Diego de Avendaño’s Probabilistic Understanding of Right Conscience and Prudential Acts”, in R.H. Pich; A.C. Storck; A.S. Culleton (eds.), Homo – Natura – Mundus: Human Beings and Their Relationships, Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of the Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale, (Rencontres de Philosophie Médiévale 22), Brepols, Turnhout: 929-48.
• Pich (2020b), R.H. “Probabilismo e escravidão negra”, Humanidades: Revista de La Universidad de Montevideo 8: 17-67.
• Pich (2020c), R.H. “Second Scholasticism and Black Slavery (Continuation and End)”, Veritas – Revista de Filosofia 65.1: 1-13.
• Pich (2021), R.H. “Francisco José de Jaca’s (c. 1645–1689) and Epifanio de Moirans’s (1644–1689) Plea for the Liberation of Enslaved Black People in Latin America”, in Ch. Haar; M. Kaufmann; Ch. Müller (eds.), Civilization – Nature – Subjugation. Variations of (De-)Colonization, (Treffpunkt Philosophie 20), Peter Lang GmbH: Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin u. a.: 69-110.
• Pich (2016), R.H. and Culleton, A. S. (eds.). Scholastica colonialis – Reception and Development of Baroque Scholasticism in Latin America, 16th-18th Centuries. FIDEM-Brepols, Barcelona-Roma.
• Pinzón Garzón (1987), R. La filosofía en Colombia. Bibliografia de los siglos XVI, XVII, XVIII. 1ª parte. Universidad de Santo Tomás, Bogotá.
• Poncela González (2011), A. “Aristóteles y los Jesuitas. La génesis corporativa de los Cursus philosophicus”, Cauriensia 6: 65-101.
• Redmond (1972), W.B. Bibliography of the Philosophy in the Iberian Colonies of America. Nijhoff, The Hague.
• Redmond (1974), W.B. “Latin American Colonial Philosophy: The Logic of Espinosa Medrano”, The Americas – Academy of American Franciscan History 30: 475-503.
• Redmond (1984), W.B. “Lógica y ciencia en la Logica mexicana de Rubio”, Quipu: Revista Latinoamericana de Historia de las Ciencias y la Tecnologia 1.1: 55-82.
• Redmond (1998), W.B. La lógica en el Virreinato del Perú. A través de las obras de Juan Espinoza Medrano (1688) e Isidoro de Celis (1787). Fondo de Cultura Económica, Lima.
• Redmond (2002), W.B. La lógica del Siglo de Oro. Una introducción histórica a la lógica. Eunsa, Pamplona.
• Redmond (2018a), W.B. “La lógica mexicana de Antonio Rubio. Parte I. El ser real y no real. El ente de-razón lógico en la lógica mexicana de Antonio Rubio”, Metafísica y persona 10.19: 123-41.
• Redmond (2018b), W.B. “La lógica mexicana de Antonio Rubio. Parte II. En su origen y en la historia”, Metafísica y persona 10.20: 137-55.
• Redmond (1987), W. and Beuchot, M. Pensamiento y realidad en Fray Alonso de la Vera Cruz. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México.
• Saranyana (1999), J.I. (dir.) et al. Teología en América Latina. Desde los orígenes a la Guerra de Sucesión (1493-1715). Iberoamericana-Vervuert, Vol. 1, Madrid-Frankfurt am Main.
• Schmidinger (1988), H.M. ““Scholastik” und “Neuscholastik” – Geschichte zweier Begriffe”, in E. Coreth; W.M. Neidl; G. Pfligersdorffer (Hrsg.), Christliche Philosophie im katholischen Denken des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts – Band 2: Rückgriff auf scholastisches Erbe, Verlag Styria, Graz-Wien-Köln: 23-53.
• Storck (2012), A.C. “The Jesuits and the Indigenous Slavery: A Debate over Voluntary Slavery in Brazilian Colonial Period”, Mediaevalia – Textos e Estudos 31: 69-83.
• Storck (2019), A.C. “A recepção da Política de Aristóteles na Nova Espanha: Alonso de la Vera Cruz e o seu Speculum coniugiorum (1556)”, Veritas 64.3: 1-26.
• Tellkamp (2020a), J.A. (ed.). A Companion to Early Modern Spanish Imperial Political and Social Thought. E.J. Brill, Leiden-Boston.
• Tellkamp (2020b), J.A. “From Salamanca to Mexico: On Justifying Empire”, in R.H. Pich; A.C. Storck; A.S. Culleton (eds.), Homo – Natura – Mundus: Human Beings and Their Relationships, Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of the Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale, (Rencontres de Philosophie Médiévale 22), Brepols, Turnhout: 169-89.
• Tosi (2002), G. La Teoria della schiavitù naturale nel dibattito sul Nuovo Mondo (1510–1573). Veri Domini o Servi a natura?. Edizioni Studio Domenicano, Bologna.
• Tosi (2005), G. “Raízes teológicas dos direitos subjetivos modernos: o conceito de dominium no debate sobre a questão indígena no séc. XVI”, Prim@ Facie 4.6: 42-56.
• Tosi (2007a), G. “Alle origini della modernità: I diritti degli indigeni del Nuovo Mondo”, Jura gentium 4: 87-106.
• Tosi (2007b), G. “Bartolomé de Las Casas y la guerra justa de los indios”, in I. Murillo (org.), El pensamiento hispanico en América: siglos XVI-XX, Publicaciones Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, Salamanca: 639-49.
• Tosi (2007c), G. “The Theological Roots of Subjective Rights: Dominium, ius and potestas in the Debate on the Indian Question”, in M. Kaufmann und R. Schnepf (Hrsg.), Politische Metaphysik. Die Entstehung moderner Rechtskonzeptionen in der Spanischen Scholastik, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main: 125-54.
• Tosi (2014), G. “Sins against Nature as Reasons For a ‘Just War’: Sepúlveda, Vitoria and Las Casas”, in A.S. Culleton and R.H. Pich (eds.), Right and Nature in the First and Second Scholasticism, (Rencontres de Philosophie Médiévale 16), Brepols, Turnhout: 199-229.
• Trentman (1982), J.A. “Scholasticism in the Seventeenth Century”, in N. Kretzmann; A. Kenny; J. Pinborg (eds.), The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism 1100-1600, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 818-37.
• Urdanoz (1960), T. “Introducción biográfica”, in Obras de Francisco de Vitoria – Relecciones teologicas, BAC, Madrid: 1-107.

L'articolo Latin American Colonial Scholasticism (the Scholastica colonialis Project) proviene da Conimbricenses.org.

The latest version of this entry may be cited as follows: Nikitenko, Iuliia, “The Coimbra Jesuit Course in 18th–19th Century Russia”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.7585917”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/the-coimbra-jesuit-course-in-russia/”, latest revision: January, 30th, 2023.

Jesuit Education under Russian authority

For the purpose of brevity we will not mention the earlier contacts of Jesuits with the Russian state, which occasionally took place. Instead we will begin from the year 1772, which may be called a turning point in the Russian chapter of the history of the Society of Jesus, as in that year vast territories traditionally catholic where the Society had been already present and active became part of the Russian empire. In 1772—1797, the following regions fell successively under Russian authority: all the Polish territory east of the line formed roughly by the Dvina and Dnieper rivers (1772); the major remnant of Lithuanian Belorussia and the western Ukraine, including Podolia and part of Volhynia (1793); Courland, all Lithuanian territory east of the Neman (Nieman) River, and the rest of the Volhynian Ukraine (1797). Later, Alexander I acquired the Białystok Department as a result of the Treaties of Tilsit in 1807, and the east-central territory of the Duchy of Warsaw, reestablished as the Congress Kingdom of Poland in 1815 as a result of the Congress of Vienna.

According to Inglot (1997), in 1772 on the acquired territories there were 4 Jesuit colleges (in Polotsk, Orosha, Vitebsk, and Dinaburg) with higher schools; 2 residencies with secondary schools (in Mohilev and Mstislavl); and 9 missionary houses (in Lozovitsa, Kaunata, Dagda, Indritsa, Laukeza, Preili, Pushcha, Uzhvald, Varakliany). The most important of them was Polotsk college evolving in 1812 into an Academy.

However, the area of Jesuit influence was not limited by the newly acquired catholic lands. Already in the beginning of the 19^th century Jesuits started the expansion to the South and  East of Russia. Jesuit missions started to appear on the banks of the Volga river (1803), were opened on Odessa (1804), Astrakhan (1805) and Mozdok (1806), and few years later, were established first missions in Siberian cities of Irkutsk (1811) and Tomsk (1815).

Not of the least significance was the establishment of the Jesuit college in the St. Catherine’s church in the main street of the capital. From 1800 to 1815 the Church hosted Collegium Petropolitanum Paulinum, a college with a 6-year study program where foreign languages, including Latin, science, philosophy, and theology were taught. Two years later, in 1803 the Collegium Nobilium was inaugurated, a boarding school attended by 60-70 sons of the foremost noble families. It is highly probable that in all those numerous Jesuit educational institutions functioning on Russian territory since 1772 Coimbra Jesuit Course was used in the process of teaching philosophy. (Inglot 2015)

Coimbra Jesuit Course outside Jesuit institutions. Personal libraries’ study

It should be noted, however, that the multiplying in number Jesuit colleges  were actually not the only Shishkov sources of propagation of Jesuit education and particularly of the Coimbra Jesuit Course. As it was stated by A.M. Shishkov (2020), the Cursus was widely used in the teaching process of two non-Jesuit educational institutions that brought up many Russian intellectuals of the time, namely, the Kievo-Mohilanskaya Academy in Kiev (1615) and the Slavic Greek Latin Academy (1687).

These institutions and their curricula were organized in the manner of Jesuit colleges and largely used both the Coimbra Jesuit Course (1592‒1606) and the Ratio atque institutio studiorum Societatis Iesu (1599) (see Shishkov 2020). It is known that Greek brothers Ioannikios Leichoudes (1633–1717) and Sophronios Leichoudes (1653–1730) who established the Slavic Greek Latin Academy in Moscow, between 1685 and 1694, were also using parts of the Coimbra Jesuit Aristotelian Course in their works (Chrissidis 2016). Among students of  Kievo-Mohilanskaya Academy it is worth mentioning a poet, priest and statesman of Peter’s Russia, Feofan Prokopovich (1681-1736), and the Ukrainian philosopher Grigory Skovoroda (1722-1794). There and later, in the Slavic Greek Latin Academy, studied the pioneer of Russian science and literature, Mikhail Lomonosov (1711-1765). Among other students of the Slavic Greek Latin Academy were also the poet Antioch Kantemir (1708-1744) and the first Bishop of Eastern Siberia, Innocent of Irkutsk (1680-1731). It is probably among the students and teachers of these two institutions that we may find more noticeable traces of the impact of the Coimbra Jesuit Course on 18^th century Russian intellectuals, who were more receptive to the Scholastic tradition than their 19^th century counterparts.

Notably, in the inventory of the books left after the death of Innocent of Irkutsk, we find a copy of Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis in libros de Generatione et Corruptione. Among more than 400 books of the Bishop, the Coimbra commentary is mentioned under No. 96 (Description 1916, col. 201). The inventory was published as a part of the “Act on the Demise of Right Reverend Innocent, Bishop of Irkutsk, and the belongings he left behind”, No. 99/93, April 28/12, 1760 (Дело о кончине Преосвященного Иннокентия, епископа Иркутского и об оставшихся после него пожитках) (Description 1916, col. 193-218.). We also dispose of the inventory of books possessed by Feofan Prokopovich and published by Dmitro Chizhevski (Chizhevsky 2003,  469-478.). Among Feofan’s books, there was no edition of the Coimbra Jesuit Course, although we may find there editions of Aristotle’s proper texts, as well as commentaries written mostly by English, German and Dutch authors. The reconstruction of Lomonosov’s book collection by German Korovin also reveals no trace of the Coimbra Jesuit Course (Korovin 1961).  Being aware that the data is too scarce to draw any conclusions, we have to pay attention to the fact that Innocent, who was thirty years older than Prokopovich and Lomonosov, owned a volume of the Coimbra Jesuit Course. Could this be a sign of a change in the younger generation’s scientific interests?  However we should admit that the absence of any edition of the Coimbra Jesuit Course among the books owned by Stefan Yavorsky (1658-1722), another former student of Kievo-Mohilanskaya Academy contradicts this hypothesis (Maslov 1914). Unfortunately, as we said, the data is far too limited to reach a conclusive answer, and since we are contracted by the purpose of our study, for the time being this question should remain unanswered.

Provenance of the volumes in public libraries

Let us now follow another thread of our inquiry and see what the copies of the Coimbra Jesuit Course currently held in Russian and Ukrainian public and university libraries will tell us about their former owners. A certain corpus of works is held at the Russian State Library (RSL), in Moscow, and the National Library of Russia (NLR), in Saint-Petersburg. Apart from that, a copy of De Generatione et Corruptione (Moguntiae: in Officina Typographica Ioannis Albini, 1606) is held by the Irkutsk University Library (Cote: 1/C74). This book may come either from the library of the Jesuit mission in Irkutsk or from the library of the Jesuit mission in Beijing that was conferred by the last head of the mission to his Russian colleague and supposedly transported to Irkutsk (Karmanovskaia1990; Liu 2019). Unfortunately, the catalog entry is rather short and does not contain any information about the previous owners or the provenance of the book.

Apart from that, five volumes of the Coimbra Jesuit Course are currently held by the University library of the Odessa national university (Catalog 2005, 70-71). These are commentaries on Aristotle’s Ethics, Physics, Meteorologica, De Caelo and Parva Naturalia. All the books were printed in Cologne by Lazare Zetzner in 1596. In this case, the catalog entries are more comprehensive, enabling us to obtain some information about their provenance. Notably, we can notice that the commentary on Physics has the inscriptions “Ex Libris Stephani Bukownichi [or probably Bukownicki – my suggestion, Y.N.]  Anno 1658 ; Iларiон Епископ П. [Ilarion Episkop P.]”, as well as the stamp of Novorossiisk University Library (later turned into the University of Odessa). It is difficult to identify with precision who was Bishop Ilarion (Hilarion), as there were several Bishops with that name. However, we suppose it to be Hilarion (Grigorovich), Bishop Krutitsky (Saransky and Podonsky) (1696-1760). Himself a former student of Kievo-Mohilanskaya Academy, in 1721 he was appointed to teach there. In the same year he moved to Kharkov College where he was teaching rhetoric and philosophy and administrating the college (Polovtsov 1897, 80—81).

It could be assumed that the copies of the Coimbra Jesuit Course arrived at the University of Odessa from a Jesuit mission, although against such a conjecture runs the absence of any possessor’s marks of Jesuit school or mission library. If we identified Bishop Hilarion correctly, it follows that he possessed the book after Stephan Bukownichi. If so, it was not through Jesuit missionaries but instead through a former student of the Kievo-Mohilanskaya Academy that this copy of the Coimbra Jesuit Course made its way.

We suppose that most of the RSL and NLR books came to Russia through Poland. At least, provenance marks on NLR editions are highly favorable to this conjecture. All institutions that were former possessors of the Coimbra Jesuit Course NLR editions are Polish. It is worth mentioning that, as Serhii Wakúlenko has shown, in Poland not only the Coimbra Jesuit Course itself was present, but also has a significant influence as a source for such authors as  Andrzej Novak (1570-1629) and Martin Śmiglecki (1562-1618) who after getting acquainted with Portuguese Jesuit texts in the Collegio Romano, incorporated Coimbra texts in their Lithuanian lessons to boost a religious identity, a “filum doctrinae”. (Wakúlenko 2006; 2014). Six NLR editions (7.28.2.5, Commentary on Physics; 7.28.2.4, De Gen. et Corruptione; 7.24.2.1, De anima; 7.30.2.3, Physica, De Caelo, Meteorologicorum) were originally owned by the Jesuit College in Kalisz (Poland)  established in 1574. After the Second Partition of Poland (1793),  the city came under the authority of Prussia, and came under Russian control as a result of the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Eight editions are connected to Warsaw. Four of them bear manuscript ex libris of the Jesuit College in Warsaw (7.24.2.8 De Caelo, Meteorologicorum et Parva Naturalia; 36.6.2.74-76, De Gen. et Corruptione, 36.6.2.75 De Anima,  36.6.2.76 De Caelo); another one (36.6.2.40 Physica) was given to the college by Bishop Załuski; two editions come from the Library of Warsaw Cathedral (36.6.2.38 Physica,  36.6.2.39 De Caelo), one more (7.24.2.8, De Caelo) comes from Warsaw Lyceum, whither it probably came from the Jesuit College in Lublin, as the manuscript ex libris testifies, although there is also an inscription from a church in Koniecpol. One edition of the Physica (7.44.9.13) comes from the Cistercian Monastery in Ląd.

Among the private persons whose marks we find on our copies, the most notable is Bishop Josef Andrzei Załuski (36.7.2.4 De Gen. et Corrupt.; 36.6.2.36, De Anima). Załuski’s library, impounded by the Russian government after the Second Partition of Poland, became a foundation for the later collection of the National Library of Russia. Załuski’s copy of the commentaries on De Anima (36.6.2.36), a Lyon edition of the Coimbra commentary on Aristotle’s On the Soul, also carries an armorial ex libris of the noble Parisian family Pasquier de Valgrand (Armorial 1757, 42). Another notable name that can be found on the NLR copies of the Coimbra Jesuit Course (36.6.2.33 De Anima; 36.6.2.34 – De Gen. et Corrupt.) is Łukasz de Bnin Opaliński. Although the name is remarkably reputed, it is not easy to identify the precise owner, for there were two notable contemporaries bearing that very same name. One of them is the marshal and nobleman Łukasz de Bnin Opaliński  (1581–1654), Castellan of Poznań. However, a more compelling alternative is the poet and politician Łukasz de Bnin Opaliński (1612–1666), a bibliophile who owned one of the largest private book collections of his days in Europe and also authored the textbook of morals De oficiis,  used in Jesuit educational establishments (Mikoś 1996, 110).

Among other former owners of the NLR copies of the Coimbra Jesuit Course is Stanislaus Szuberth (7.27.2.42 De Gen. et Corrupt., Meteororum), who can probably be identified with Stanisław Andrzej Shuberth, a Norbertine who joined the order in 1683 and since 1703 served as a priest in Polotsk (Catalog 2007, 446).  Another name appearing on the marks of the old possessors is Nicolai Zytkievicz. He probably can be identified with the magistrate Mikołaj Zytkiewicz, a former student of the Jesuit College in Kalisz who received his bachelor’s degree from the Krakov academy in 1700 (Orzechowski 2006, 114). That is all information on the provenance of the copies of the Coimbra Jesuit Course found in Russian and Ukrainian libraries.

Conclusion

Without any doubt, this matter requires further data collection and study, deserving deeper and more thorough research. Nevertheless, even at this stage of our inquiry, we can reach some conclusions. First of all, looking for copies of the Coimbra Jesuit Course on the territory of the former Russian empire, one should dig in the catalogs of the state or university scientific libraries in the cities where Jesuit colleges or missions were formerly established. Secondly, many copies which ended up in the Imperial Public Library (the former name of the National Library of Russia) were previously in the possession of Jesuit colleges in Poland, which were providing teachers and programs for the opening of colleges on Russian territory. Thirdly, the copies of the Coimbra Jesuit Course were owned not only by institutions but also by individuals educated in Jesuit colleges. Finally, it was not only in the Jesuit educational establishments that Russian intellectuals could get acquainted with the Coimbra Jesuit Course, as shows the case of Innocent of Irkutsk. Taking into account that Kievo-Mohilanskaya Akademy and  Slavic Greek Latin Academy closely mirrored the example of the Jesuit colleges and used the Coimbra Jesuit Course in their teaching, it turned out that some of their students were bringing the Cursus to their personal libraries even after graduation.

Bibliography

• Armorial des principales maisons et familles du royaume (1757) T.2, Paris: chez H.L Guérin et L. Fr. Delatour, Laurent Durand, la veuve J.B.T. Le Gras.
• Catalog druków XV i XVI wieku w zbiorach Biblioteki Uniwersyteckiej w Warszawie (2007). T. 8: Zbiorcy indeks proweniencyjny. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
• Catalogue of XVIth-century editions. From the collection of Scientific library of Odessa National University (2005) Odessa: Astroprint (In Russian) = Каталог изданий XVI века. Из фондов научной библиотеки ОНУ им. И.И. Мечникова (2005). Одесса: Астропирнт.
• Chizhevsky, D. (2003) Ukrainian literary Baroque : collected works on ancient literature (Kiev: Oberegi. (in Ukrainian) = Чижевський, Д. (2003) Українське літературне бароко: Вибр. праці з давньої л-ри. К.: Обереги.
• Chrissidis, N. (2016) An Academy at the Court of the Tsars: Greek Scholars and Jesuit Education in Early Modern Russia. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.
• Description of the documents and acts being preserved in the Archive of the Holy Synode (1916) T, 28 : 1748. Saint-Petersburg: Typography of Synode.  (In Russian) = Описание документов и дел, хранящихся в архиве Святейшего правительствующего синода (1916) / [сост. Комис. для разбора и описания арх. Святейшего правительствующего синода]. Т. 28: 1748 г. Санкт-Петербург: Синод. тип.
• Inglot, M.  (S.J.) (1997) La compagnia di Gesù nell’Imperio Russo (1772–1820) e la sua parte nella restaurazione generale della Compagnia (Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana) = Инглот, М. (2004) Общество Иисуса в Российской Империи  (1772–1820) и его роль в повсеместном восстановлении Ордена во всем мире. М.: Институт философии, теологии и истории св. Фомы. = Inglot, M. (2015) How the Jesuits Survived Their Suppression. The Society of Jesus in the Russian Empire (1773-1814) / ed. and trans. D.L. Schlafly. Philadelphia: Saint Joseph’s University Press.
• Karmanovskaia, I.L. (1990) “Treasures of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Beijing”,  Problems of the Far East, 5:  194-200. (In Russian) = И.Л.  Кармановская, “Сокровища Русской духовной миссии в Пекине”, Проблемы Дальнего Востока, 1990,  5: 194–200.
• Korovin, G.M. (1961) Library of Lomonosov. Moscow ; Leningrad: USSR Academy of science. = Коровин, Г.М. Библиотека Ломоносова  (1961). М.; Ленинград: Изд-во Академии наук СССР.
• Liu, R. (2019) “Survey about the Catalog of Books from the Northern Cathedral (Beitang) Library  Stored in the Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia”, Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University.  Asian and African Studies, 11, 2: 140–151 (In Russian) = Лю, Ж. (2019) “Изыскания о каталоге книг библиотеки Северного собора (Бэйтан) из  собрания архива Министерства иностранных дел РФ”, Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Востоковедение и африканистика, 11, 2: 140–151.
• Maslov, S.I. (1914) Stefan Yavorsky’s library Kiev: Meinander. (In Russian) = Маслов, С.И. (1914) Библиотека Стефана Яворского. Киев: тип.  М.Т. Мейнандера.
• Mikoś, M.J. (1996) Polish Baroque and Enlightenment literature: an anthology. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.
• Nikitenko, I. (2022) The Coimbra Jesuit Course in 18th-19th century Russia: traces of cross‑cultural connections. Revista Filosófica de Coimbra. 2022. 31 (62) : 239–256.
• Orzechowski, J. (2006) Księgi metrykalne kościołów radomskich z lat 1591-1795: Kościoł św. Jana Chrzciciela, 1591-1637. Radom: Radomskie Towarzystwo Naukowe.
• Polovtsov, A.A. (ed.) (1897) Russian biographical dictionary of A.A. Polovtsov. T. 8. Saint-Petersburg: Typography of the Departement of Appanage Estates (In Russian) = Половцов, А.А. (1897) Русский биографический словарь А. А. Половцова. T. 8 Санкт-Петербург: тип. Гл. упр. уделов.
• Shishkov, A.M. (2020),  “Scholasticism in Rus”, Problems of philosophy, 9: 166–177 (In Russian) = Шишков, А.М. “Схоластика на Руси”,  Вопросы философии, 9: 166–177.
• Wakúlenko, S. (2006) “Projecção da Filosofia Escolástica Portuguesa na Polónia Seiscentista”. Revista Filosófica de Coimbra 15, 30: 355–360.
• Wakúlenko, S. (2014) Algumas reflexões acerca do lugar dos autores religiosos portugueses na vida intelectual ucraniana dos séculos XVII e XVIII, In: José Eduardo Franco and Luís Machado de Abreu (eds.), Para a história das ordens e congregações religiosas em Portugal, na Europa e no Mundo. Prior Velho: Paulinas

L'articolo The Coimbra Jesuit Course in 18th–19th Century Russia proviene da Conimbricenses.org.