CHAPTER VII

EXAMPLES OF CONDEMNED LITERATURE

1. Writings of the 17th Century concerning the Papacy and the Inquisition. 2. Writings concerning the Churches of the East. 3. Patristic Writings and Pagan Classics. 4. Jewish Literature. 5. Historical Writings of the 17th Century. 6. Protestant Jurists of the 17th Century. 7. Writings of Italian Protestants. 8. Writings in Philosophy, Natural Science, and Medicine. 9. Books on Magic and Astrology. 10. Cyclopaedias, Text-Books, Facetiae, etc. 11. Secret Societies. 12. Manuals for Exorcising. 13. Fraudulent Indulgences. 14. Works on the Saints. 15. Forms of Prayer. 16. Mariology. 17. Revelations by Nuns. 18. The Chinese and Malabar Usages. 19. Fraudulent Literature. 20. Quietism. 21. Fénelon. 22. The Doctrine of Probability. 23. Usury. 24. Philosophy and Literature, 1750–1800. 25. Philosophy and Science, 1800–1880. 26. The Synod of Pistoja, 1786. 27. The Festival of the Heart of Jesus, 1697–1765. 28. French, German, and English Catholic Theologians, 1758–1800. 29. The French Revolution, 1790–1806. 30. The French Concordat of 1801, 1801–1822. 31. Protestant Theologians, 1750–1884. 32. The Eastern Church, 1810–1873. 33. The Theologians of Pavia, 1774–1790. 34. French, English, and Dutch Literature, 1817–1880. 35. German Catholic Writings, 1814–1870. 36. La Mennais, 1830–1846. 37. The Roman Revolution of 1848, 1848–1852. 38. Traditionalism and Ontology, 1833–1880. 39. _Attritio_ and the _Peccatum Philosophicum_, 1667–1690. 40. Communism and Socialism, 1825–1860. 41. Magnetism and Spiritualism, 1840–1874. 42. French Authors, 1835–1884. 43. Italian Authors, 1840–1876. 44. American Writings, 1822–1876. 45. Periodicals, 1832–1900. 46. The Roman Question, 1859–1870. 47. The Council of the Vatican, 1867–1876. 48. Example of a License.

=1. Writings concerning the Papacy and the Inquisition, 1600–1757.=--The Index contains but few of the polemic writings of this period against the Papacy. A few however of the historical works on the Papacy, both by Protestants and Catholics, were prohibited. The lists include a treatise of the Jesuit Riccioli on the infallibility of the pope, but this is entered with a _d.c._ The lists include also a group of writings on the Inquisition, on the Index itself, on the finance system of the papal chancellery, etc. Among these are some monographs by Gregorio Leti (1630–1701), whose entire works secured condemnation in 1686. Reusch points out that the history of the Papacy by Archibald Bower, which was first published in 1748 in seven volumes, and of which a number of editions appeared later, was overlooked by the Index compilers. Bower was born in Scotland, but, becoming a Jesuit, had held a professor’s chair in Italy in Fermo and in Macerata. In 1726, he left Italy and became a member of the Church of England. His treatise was of a character that might naturally have met criticism on the part of the Congregation. The _History of the Inquisition_ by Limborch, printed in Brussels, in 1693, was promptly prohibited in 1694. In the same list, are included the titles of a number of less important treatises on the Inquisition.

=2. Writings concerning the Churches of the East.=--The Index lists of the 17th and 18th centuries contain but few of the works of the Greek theologians. Among the authors of this group are to be noted the names Lukaris, Nektarius, Philippus Cyprius, Catum Syrittus, and Sylvester Syropoli. Robert Creighton, professor in Cambridge, later Bishop of Bath, had printed in The Hague in 1660 the _Vera Historia_ of Syropoli, a record of the relations between the Greek and the Latin Church, which includes an account of the Council of Florence. This was prohibited in 1682.

=3. Patristic Writings and Pagan Classics.=--During the 17th century, a number of editions of the writings of the Fathers are placed on the Index on the ground of the notes and commentaries of the heretical editors. It was the case in the 17th as in the 16th century that the editors who had interested themselves in producing the editions of these works of the Fathers were in large part men whose orthodoxy had come into question. There were, in fact, but very few editions of the Fathers of the Church the editorial work in which had been in the hands of orthodox or conservative believers. Among the editions so prohibited, were the works of Cyprian with the notes of the Frenchman Maran, and the Letters of Chrysostom in the edition printed in Basel. Prohibited also was a work by Erigena in a German edition and the history of the Council of Constance by von Hardt. In the list of classics are to be found Italian editions of the works of Caesar, Ovid, Anacreon, and Lucretius.

=4. Jewish Literature.=--In 1703, prohibitions were issued covering a series of rabbinical writings, selected, as Reusch points out, with hardly any apparent policy or plan from a great mass of literature of the same kind. The compilers had utilised in making up their titles the _bibliotheca rabbinica_ of Bartolocci and Imbonati, which had been published between the years 1675–1694. In 1755–1766, was printed a supplementary Index with additional titles of the same character. A further list, printed separately, covered certain rabbinical writings which had been printed in Latin and in Spanish versions. In 1776, was prohibited a treatise by the Italian monk Vincenti, which was strongly anti-Semitic, and a little later a response to this treatise also secured condemnation.

=5. Historical Writings of the 17th Century.=--The list of historical writings prohibited during the 17th century is very considerable but, as has been indicated for the lists of other groups of literature, is by no means comprehensive nor does it give evidence of any consistent scholarly selection. The prohibitions are by no means confined to works by Protestants. A number of Catholic historians succeeded in getting into their texts phrases or statements that aroused opposition. In the Index of Alexander VII, are given in the class of history only works in Latin; the later Indexes include a series of French and Italian titles and two English works, but nothing from the German writers. Reusch points out that during the 17th and 18th centuries there were produced in Italy no works deserving of preservation having to do with general history. A translation of the _History of the World_ by Dupin and an Italian version of a condensed history published in London were both prohibited. The larger number of the titles comprise monographs on the various issues that arose in Italy and throughout Europe between the ecclesiastical and the civil authorities. Among the historical names to be noted is that of de Thou, whose History of his Own Times was prohibited in 1609. In 1610, in connection with certain applications made to the authorities, the prohibition was modified to an instruction for an expurgation of the work, but no expurgated edition ever came into print. The work continued in circulation not only in France and other European States but in Venice. The _Histoire du Gouvernement de Venise_, by Houssaye, was prohibited in 1667. The miscellaneous works of Francis Osborne, published in 1673, secured the honour of a prohibition in the list of Benedict in 1757. Johnson is quoted as saying of Osborne: “A conceited fellow; were a man to write so now, the boys would throw stones at him.” The Italian historian, Pietro della Valle, on returning in 1626 from a series of journeys, had a favourable reception from Urban VIII, and his account of Persia, printed in Venice in 1628, was issued with a license and with a special privilege. It was, however, in 1629, prohibited with the specification _cum auctor at suum tantum agnoscat librum qui Romae impressus est_. As a fact, however, no edition of this work was ever printed in Rome.

=6. Protestant Jurists.=--During the first decade of the 17th century, the Index includes the names of a group of Protestant jurists, chiefly Germans and Hollanders. The titles specified cover, in the main, books which had no material importance and which never even reached the honour of a second printing. The subjects include not only books having to do with canon law or ecclesiastical relations but works of purely political importance. In the Spanish lists, the compilers have taken the pains to add after the number of the book the term _d.c._, and for a few works they themselves presented the expurgations required. In editions of the pandects and in the treatises having to do with the pandects, the prohibitions cover a number of books on such subjects as _de summa trinitate de fide Catholica_ and _de haereticis et paganis_. The Spanish Indexes include also certain treatises on usury (the authorities taking the Church ground that interest was indefensible) and two essays having to do with the requirement of the permission of parents for marrying. A number of books which in the Roman Index are prohibited altogether, are presented by the Spanish compilers with the term _d.c._ The noteworthy treatise of Puffendorf, _De statu Germanici Imperii_, first published in 1667, did not come to the attention of the Index compilers as a pernicious work until 1754. Other works by the same author which secured condemnation are the French edition of his introduction to the history of the great States, published in 1687 and prohibited in 1693; the _De jure naturae et gentium_, published in 1672 and prohibited in 1714; the _Introductio ad historiam Europaeam_, published in 1704, prohibited in 1737; the _De officio hominis et civis_, published in 1743, prohibited in 1752.

=7. Italian Protestant Writings.=--During the 17th and 18th centuries, Protestant writings printed in Italian were published chiefly in Switzerland. The only author of this group whose work came into any general circulation was Pincenino, a preacher in Soglio. Four of his controversial treatises were prohibited by the Inquisition between the years 1704–1714, and the publication of these brought out a number of replies from Catholic theologians. The name of Vicenzo Paravicino came into the Index in connection with a number of translations of French Protestant writings, and also with editions of the Scriptures printed in the vernacular. Edwin Sandys, a son of the Archbishop of York (who is himself listed in Class I), printed, without his name, in 1605, and with his name in 1629, a treatise entitled _A View of the State of Religion in the Western Part of the World, wherein the Roman Religion and the pregnant Policies of the Church of Rome to support the same are notably displayed, with other memorable Discoveries and Commemorations_. The French and German translations of the book, printed in Geneva in 1625 and 1626, were both condemned.

In 1621, was prohibited a history, printed in 1620, by Luglio (or Paravicino) of the persecution and massacre by the Papists of the Protestants of Valtellina. This has to do with one division of the long series of persecutions of the Waldenses.

=8. Philosophical Writings, Natural Science, and Medicine, 1660–1750.=--In 1663, the Congregation of the Index prohibits with a _d.c._ the chief writings of Descartes (1596–1650); and in 1722 prohibits with no restriction his _Meditationes_. This second prohibition was issued some eighty years after the publication of the work. Reusch[47] explains that the prohibition of 1663 was intended to cover only specific divisions or propositions contained in these writings, but no specification was made by the Congregation as to the passages charged with heresy nor was any expurgated edition ever brought into print. The commentators on Descartes point out that in any case it would not have been practicable, without practically destroying the entire statement of his system, to modify or correct the statements that had evoked criticism. The chief objection raised by the Roman critics was the view taken by Descartes of the philosophy of Aristotle. It seems probable that in the case of this particular work the use of the term _d.c._ did not indicate any expectation that the work would be issued in an expurgated edition, but was intended simply to express the condemnation in somewhat milder form. The works of Nicholas Malebranche (1638–1715) were, with hardly an exception (although not under the term _Opera omnia_), prohibited; but the philosophical writings of Gassendi, Mersenne, and Maignan, writings expressing the same general school of thought, escaped the Index. In 1772, the writings of the Neapolitan Grimaldi, in reply to the treatise issued in 1694 by the Jesuit de Benedictis, opposing the views of Descartes, were prohibited with a special condemnation. In 1679, nine years after its publication, was prohibited the treatise by Spinoza entitled _Tractatus theologico-politicus_. This remains on the later Indexes, but as an anonymous work. In the same year were prohibited the _Opera postuma_ of Spinoza which had been printed in Amsterdam, in 1667. The works of Protestant philosophical writers are but sparsely represented in the Index and were probably but little known to the examiners of the Roman Congregation. The names of Leibnitz and Christian Wolff, for instance, do not appear in the Index lists. The Spanish authorities declined to place in their Indexes the works of Descartes, of Malebranche, or of Spinoza.

Under the heading of Philosophy, the Indexes of the 17th century contain the names of Montaigne, Charron, Ramus, Bacon, Hobbes, Fludd, and Herbert of Cherbury. In 1709, Hobbes secured the distinction of condemnation in the Roman list for his complete works, of which in the earlier lists only single books had been prohibited. His writings escaped the attention, however, of the Spanish compilers. Julius Caesar Vanini, who was in 1619 burned in Toulouse as a propagator of atheism, and whose name stands in the Spanish Index in Class I, with the specification _Impiissimus atheus_, finds place in the Spanish Index of 1623 only in connection with one work and that with the restriction _d.c._ In the Index of Benedict XIV, the title was repeated but the _d.c._ was cancelled.

In the Index of Alexander VII, the natural scientists are, with the noteworthy exception of Galileo, represented only by a few alchemists and a group of physicians. Among the names here to be noted is that of Lionardo di Capua, on the ground of certain sharp criticisms by him of the accepted scholastic philosophy.

The name of the mystic Jacob Boehme is not included in any Roman Index but finds place in Class I of the Spanish lists.

The prohibition in 1676 of the essays of Montaigne is connected with the specification “in whatever language they may be printed.” The essays of Bacon that received attention from the Roman compilers are the _De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum_ and the _De sapientia veterum_. Sotomayor has entered Franc. Baconus and Franc. Verulam in his first class as two distinct authors. The Spanish Index of 1707 condemns of Bacon _Opera omnia_. The full name, Baron Verulam, appears first correctly in the Spanish Index of 1790. Of the many writings of Robert Fludd (†1637) only one, _Utriusque Cosmi_, etc., appears in the Index. The first work of Thomas Hobbes to receive attention was the _Leviathan_, prohibited in 1703, about forty years after its publication. In 1709, however, thirty years after the author’s death, the prohibition was made to include the _Opera omnia_.

=9. Books on Magic and Astrology.=--The lists of the 17th century include the titles of a number of works on magic and astrology, books which apart from this record would long since have been entirely forgotten. The _Steganographie_ of the Abbé Trithenius was included among the books so prohibited, evidently under the impression that it had to do with magic. In April, 1631, Pope Urban VIII issued a Bull against the astrologists, that is to say against those who undertook to produce calculations concerning the future of Christendom or of the Roman Curia or in regard to the life of the pope. In 1732, the Inquisition issued a prohibition of the reading of any books having to do with fortune telling, the interpretation of dreams, or the art of numbers. The books referred to under the latter designation were those that undertook to prophesy the successful numbers for lotteries.

=10. Poems, Facetiae, Text-books, Periodicals, and Cyclopaedias.=--A number of works of no intrinsic importance, belonging under the class of _facetiae_ and text-books, were condemned during the 17th century on the ground of certain references, characterised as disrespectful, concerning Church matters. Certain text-books also found their way into the list because they were reproducing the texts of classic authors who were classed by the ecclesiastics as obscene or immoral. The action of the authorities in regard to literature of this kind was curiously varied and it does not seem to be possible to find for it any consistent policy or principle. The German satirical literature of this period appears to have escaped attention on the part of the examiners. The only German book of this character prohibited during the latter part of the 17th century was the _Visiones de don Quevedo, die Wunderliche Satyrische und Warhafftige Geschichte Philanders v. Sittewald_, by Moscherosch, printed in 1645 and prohibited in 1662. The next German work of this special character to find place on the Index was Heine’s _Reisebilder_, published a century and a half later. The prohibition of cyclopaedias on the ground of objection to certain entries or references, proved of special inconvenience to Catholic students and instructors. The greater publishing activity of the Protestant communities and the keener scholarship of heretical editors had caused the production of works of reference of this kind to be much more considerable and important in the territories outside of those controlled by the Church. It not infrequently happened that the condemnation of a work of this class left the scholars of the Church without the use of any equivalent work. As late even as Benedict XIV, the Congregation found occasion to add to the list of prohibited cyclopaedias.

The English titles of the first half of the 18th century include the _Tale of a Tub_ by Swift, _Pamela_ by Richardson, and _Robinson Crusoe_ by Defoe. The latter came to the attention of the indexers through a French edition printed in 1750 and prohibited in 1756. The French names of the same period include the _Contes et Nouvelles_ of La Fontaine; the _Vie de Jacqueline, Comtesse de Hainaut_, of Mlle. de La Roche-Guilhem, printed in 1702 and prohibited in 1727; _Lettres Historiques et Galantes de deux Dames de Condition_, by Mme. Dunoyer, printed in 1704 in seven volumes, prohibited in 1725 and again by Benedict in 1758; _Les Emportements Amoureux de la Religieuse Étrangère_, printed anonymously in 1707, prohibited in Rome 1727, and in Spain in 1790. Molière escapes condemnation in Rome as well as in Spain. The _Don Quixote_, of Cervantes was marked by Sotomayor for correction but only in the case of a single sentence. The Lisbon Index of 1624 finds occasion for the cancellation in the same work of a number of paragraphs.

=11. Secret Societies.=--Clement XII and Benedict XIV condemned, in Bulls issued in April, 1738, and March, 1751, the associations of _Libri Muratori_, or freemasons. The members of these societies were rendered liable to the excommunication _latae sententiae_, and bishops and inquisitors were instructed to take measures against them as heretics. In September, 1821, Pius VII issued a similar Bull against the _Carbonari_. A Bull issued in March, 1825, by Leo XII repeats the text of the three Bulls above specified and confirms their instructions. In the Bull of Pius VII, is prohibited the possession or the reading of all catechisms of the _Carbonari_, of the minutes of their meetings, of their statutes and statements of purposes, and of all works written in their defence, whether these be in print or in manuscript. Through some oversight, this important general prohibition did not find its way into the Index. It is also the case that but very few titles of works on freemasonry are included in the Index lists after Clement XII. The Church seems to have relied, for the suppression of this literature, on its general prohibitions. In May, 1829, Pius VIII issued an encyclical condemning the teachings of the freemasons and of kindred secret societies. Pius IX takes similar ground in an encyclical of November, 1846, and in the allocution of September, 1865. In April, 1884, Leo XIII devotes an encyclical to the injurious teachings of the sect “_masonum_.” With this encyclical, is connected an instruction of the Inquisition under which the faithful are forbidden to have any dealings with such societies. In January, 1870, the Inquisition declared, in response (apparently) to some formal application for instructions, that the Irish and American Fenians had placed themselves under the general condemnation.[48]

In 1739, after the publication of the Bull of Clement XII, the Inquisition prohibited the _Relation apologétique et historique de la société des Francs-Maçons_, by J. G. D., F. D., Dublin, 1738. In the same year, Crudeli was imprisoned by the Inquisition on the charge that he was a freemason, that he had ridiculed or scoffed at the Madonna of Saint Cresci, and that he had read prohibited books. He was sentenced to confinement for one year with the penance of praying from day to day the seven Penitential Psalms.

In 1789, the necromancer, Cagliostro, was imprisoned under the orders of the Inquisition. In April, 1791, the Inquisition issued a judgment arrived at in a session at which the pope presided, declaring that Cagliostro had fallen under the penalties adjudged by canon law, and also by municipal law, against heretics, heresiarchs, astrologers, magicians, and freemasons. The pope decided, as a special grace, to restrict the punishment to a life-long imprisonment, under the condition however that he should abjure his heresies. Cagliostro died in prison in 1795. His collection of books and instruments was publicly burned. The destruction included a manuscript in which the Inquisition was declared to have made the Christian religion superstitious, godless, and degrading. A work of Cagliostro’s, apparently also left only in the form of manuscript, bearing the title _Maçonnerie Egyptienne_, was in April, 1791, placed in the Index. The Spanish Index of 1789 prohibits the _Mémoires Authentiques de Cagliostro_ by Beam, published in Hamburg, in 1786.

In 1836, the Congregation prohibits various histories and treatises on freemasonry published during the preceding three years in Paris and in Brussels. In 1820, was prohibited a treatise published in Madrid giving an account of the persecution of the freemasons under Clement XII and Benedict XIV. In 1846, was prohibited by the Inquisition a history of freemasonry published anonymously in Madrid.

In 1880, the Congregation prohibited a treatise by Falcioni, _Coup d’oeil sur le Christianisme, par un Franc-Maçon, Disciple de la Philosophie Positive_. Falcioni had been secretary of the Pontifical chapel. His book had been published in Paris in 1879.

=12. Manuals for Exorcising.=--In 1604, was issued an edition of the Roman ritual containing a brief of Paul V, in which brief, bishops, abbots, and pastors are instructed to secure the exclusive use of this

## particular ritual. There continued in use, nevertheless, a number of

rituals varying to some extent from the text of this official Roman ritual. There were also in use a number of companion volumes which contained collections of blessings, forms of oaths, etc. In a decree of March, 1709, five exorcising manuals were prohibited which had been in print for more than a century with proper ecclesiastical approval and privilege. After the prohibition had been issued, it appeared that a certain Daniel Francus had printed a collection of so-called scandalous passages taken from these books, and had then pointed out that there was no prohibition in any of the Indexes of these passages or of the collections containing them, nor any instruction in any of the Indexes for the expurgation of the books containing these passages. Francus stated further that the worst of the five books, that bearing the name of Hieronymus Mengus, had been printed in Frankfort, in 1708, for the express purpose of bringing the Catholics to ridicule. During the following decade, a number of similar books of exorcising ritual were prohibited and a decree of December, 1725, makes a general prohibition of all rituals printed after the Reformation without the specific authorisation and approval of the Congregation of Rites. This prohibition includes a condemnation of all forms of exorcising and even of benedictions which had not secured such approval. The bishops are instructed to say that no such forms are permitted. As late as 1832, the Congregation of Rites was asked to take into consideration a collection of forms of absolution, benedictions, forms of exorcising, etc., bearing the name Bern. Sannig, which had been first printed in 1733 and had been in general use for a century. The Sannig collection was declared to be prohibited under the general regulation above specified. The work finds, however, no place in any of the Indexes either under the name of Sannig or under its own title. In the middle of the 18th century, were prohibited certain books for exorcising which had been in use among the faithful for a long series of years and which contained such formulas as the following: _Hel_, _Heloym_, _Heloa_, _Eheye_, _Totramaton_, _Adonay_, _Saday_, _Sabaoth_, _Sota_, _Emanuel_, _Alpha et Omega_, _Primus et Novissimus_, _Principimus et Finis_, _Hagios_, _Ischyros_, _Ho Theos_, _Athanatos_, _Agla_, _Ichona_, _Homousion_, _Ya_, _Messias_, _Esereheye_, etc. Before each term of ejaculation was to be made the sign of the cross. Capellis, in some treatise or manual for the use of exorcisms, explains that in order to ascertain whether or not the suspected person is certainly under possession, this series of names should be written out on a strip of consecrated paper and the paper should be placed somewhere on the person of the patient without his knowledge. If the patient becomes restless after the placing of the paper, it is evidence that he is possessed. Capellis maintains stoutly that a test of this kind is not to be considered as superstitious. Mengus[49] gives a series of similar formulas with the same specification that before each utterance should be made the sign of the cross. Mengus also gives the instruction for the burning of a picture or representation of the demon through whom the patient is supposed to have become possessed. Upon the picture is to be written one of the several series of magic names. In the fire in which the picture is to be placed should be cast, after the imposition of a blessing, portions of sulphur, galbanus, assafoetida, aristolochia, hypericon, and ruta. Mengus gives further a list of formulas for the blessing of oil which is to be bestowed upon the possessed person, both inwardly and outwardly; one of these formulas is ascribed to St. Cyprian. In regard to this particular group of publications, which, as stated, were in very extended use among the faithful, a use that in many cases at least was approved by their spiritual advisers, the censorship of the Church may be considered as having come into action rather late and with not too much effectiveness. In 1752, Benedict XIV publishes a new edition of the official Roman ritual. This contains but few new forms of benedictions. In 1874, the Benedictine ritual was reprinted in Rome with a supplement containing forms of benedictions for railroads, telegraphs, springs, foundries, and brick-yards, and also for the production of beer, cheese, butter, medicine, for the care of cattle, of horses, of birds, and of bees; in this appendix are also presented special forms of prayer against mice, grasshoppers, and other destructive creatures.

=13. Fraudulent Indulgences.=--After 1603, prohibition was made, first by the Inquisition and the Congregation of the Index, and later by the Congregation of Indulgences, of a number of books, monographs, and sheets in which indulgences are recorded which either had never been granted or which had been garbled from their original text. Many of the false indulgences owe their existence to the general superstition and stupidity of the people, and it is to be noted that it has been necessary, from the beginning of the 17th century until the present day, to continue to make disavowal of certain of the most fabulous and absurd of the series. Cardinal Baronius writes January 20, 1601, to Antonio Talpa[50]: “Last evening I had occasion to apply to the Pope for a general indulgence. I found to my surprise that the Pope had decided thereafter to give no general indulgences for a single person or for a specific place. I praised him for this conclusion; for it is the case that many wrong uses have crept into the general use of indulgences. I have had occasion more than once to call the attention of the Congregations to these abuses and in so doing have had the support of many of the more thoughtful of my associates.”

In the _Decreta Generalia_ of Benedict XIV, there are four specifications concerning indulgences. In the Index of Benedict are forbidden, under the term _compendio_, four Italian indulgence records, and under the term _indulgentiae_, eleven similar publications. Under the term _sommario_, the entries include twelve Italian works, and under the term _ablass_, one German issue. Indulgence publications are also recorded under such terms as: _diario_, _dovizie_, _folium_, _giornali_, _notizia_, and _orazioni_. The entries are also sometimes made under the names of the publishers or editors, as, for instance, in the names of Dumensis and Lorenzo. It is the conclusion of Reusch, however, that but a very small proportion of the literature of this class finds place in the Index. In the _Decreta Generalia_ (iii) are recorded for instance all indulgences which had been issued before the decree of Clement VIII of 1598, _de forma indulgentiarum pro corona, grana seu calculi, cruces, et imagines sacrae_; all indulgences which had been issued before the Bulls of Clement VIII in December, 1604, and of Paul V, May, 1605, and November, 1610, to orders, brotherhoods, etc. As late as 1856, a decree of the Congregation of Indulgences was communicated to the bishops in which attention is called to a long series of fraudulent indulgence announcements which had been issued in comparatively recent years in Italy, for the most part in Florence and which are ordered to be condemned. Of the false indulgences so specified, is one credited to Pius V in which, in consideration of a certain prayer, the beneficiary was to have as many indulgences as would be equal “to the stars in the Heaven, the grains of sand in the sea, and the blades of grass in the fields”; another specification is that of nine prayers in consideration of which Gregory (it is not clear which of the Gregories) and his successors, extend indulgences during a period of eighty thousand and a hundred and forty-nine years for each Friday, and for Good Friday eight additional indulgences; on a picture somewhere in Poland is printed a prayer ascribed to the Madonna, spoken as she held in her arms the body of Christ. It is stated that to the believer uttering this prayer, Innocent XII had promised that he should be able to save fifteen souls from the eternal fire or to convert fifteen sinners whose names he was to specify.

=14. Works on the Saints and Pictures of the Saints.=--Under the decrees of Urban VIII of 1625 and of 1634, it was forbidden to publish or to distribute writings concerning the lives and the miracles of persons classed as holy until such writings had secured the specific authorisation of the Congregation or of the Inquisition. It was also forbidden to select for honour or worship as saints any persons not announced as such by the authority of the Church; and, finally, it was forbidden to place upon pictures of any persons not officially saints the insignia of saintliness (_cum laureolis aut radiis sive splendoribus_). In the _Decreta Gen._, iii, 1, production of such unauthorised pictures is forbidden. In the Index stand also, in addition to the prohibitions of writings concerning unauthorised or unofficial saints, works on the saints duly recognised as such, unless and until such works have been, page by page, examined and approved. Such a prohibition became necessary in connection with the increasing mass of absurdly superstitious legends and stories which (in spite of the watchfulness of authorities) continued to get into print and to secure a wide circulation. The lives of Joseph and of Anna proved to be a tempting subject for the writers of these stories.

The decrees of Urban VIII were in the beginning carried out with full thoroughness. Janus Nicius Erythraeus, writing in 1642,[51] says that he had had in plan the publication of a life of Ancina of Saltuzzo, but that the permission to print had been withheld because in his narrative he had found occasion to record wonderful or miraculous things done by persons who had not been canonised. He had proposed to reshape his biography, omitting the separate passages concerning persons other than the bishop himself, but giving some fuller measure of consideration to the virtues of Ancina; but even then had not been able to secure the authority to print. He complains bitterly that writers are permitted to bring into print stories of shameful deeds and words of wicked men but that the devout authors who desire to record for the elevation of the faithful the virtues of pious men are discouraged. In 1648, the Congregation of Rites instructed the Archbishop of Naples to confiscate a book presenting the life and the miracles of Ursula Benincasa (†1618), the founder of the Order of the Theatins. The author of the book, Maria Maggio, a Theatin, was ordered to be brought to trial. Ursula is described on the title-page as _beata_ and as she had not been canonised, this was apparently the main difficulty with the volume. In the decree of 1625, it is stated that the prohibition of the use of the term “saint” or “blessed” in connection with uncanonised persons is not in itself to be considered as any reflection on the piety or orthodoxy of such persons. It is also not to be considered as bringing into question persons who on the ground of the general consensus of the faithful or from time immemorial, in the writings of the Church Fathers and of the earlier writers, or through the personal knowledge extending over a series of years on the part of the local bishops, have been deservedly honoured. This reservation was not unnaturally the cause of a series of controversies in regard to the standing in the Church of holy persons who had secured what may be called a local repute for saintliness but whose claims were not sufficiently assured to have obtained universal recognition.

=15. Forms of Prayer.=--In 1626, Urban VIII confirmed the earlier prohibition of all breviaries or mass-books printed without the approval of the Congregation of Rites. The same prohibition was made to apply to unauthorised editions of the offices, of the litanies, or of the saints. The Index includes in addition to these general prohibitions the titles of a series of prayers mainly superstitious in their character. In the _Decreta Gen._, iv, 8, are prohibited all rosaries other than those which have been specifically authorised by the Curia.

=16. Mariology.=--In the _Decreta Gen._, ii, 4, are prohibited (in 1617) all works in which the contention is maintained that Mary had partaken of any earthly sin. It is the conclusion of the Church that those who maintain that Mary had any part in such sin are heretics and godless ones (_impii_). This prohibition stands in the Index of Alexander VII under the term _libri_. It is cited from a Bull of this Pope issued in 1661. In 1617, Paul V caused the Inquisition to prohibit the presentation in sermons, lectures, or theses of any suggestion concerning the possible sinfulness of Mary. Paul takes pains to add, however, that his prohibition is not to be considered as undertaking itself to present a final conclusion on the question. It is the case that the several Indexes include the titles of a long series of books in which the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is defended. The ground for the prohibition of books presenting this doctrine has been the tendency to misapprehensions and misstatements in the form of presentation. It appears that the Dominicans, who have controlled the policy of the Inquisition and largely that also of the Congregation of the Index, have had the chief responsibility for the condemnation of all doctrinal treatises which did not present precisely according to the Dominican theories the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. A number of other works on Mariology are forbidden on the ground of exaggerations of statement, of bad taste in expression, and of confusion in the analyses of doctrinal issues. Among the worst of these is a treatise of Maria of Agreda and one by J. B. Poza. There are also in the Index a group of writings condemned on the ground of their exaggeration of the worship of Mary.

In 1439, the Council of Basel decreed that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception must be held by all orthodox Catholics. The divines of the Sorbonne, in 1497, issued an order referring to the above decree and instructing that each candidate for the doctorate must be prepared to maintain this doctrine. The decree of the council was naturally not confirmed in Rome, but in 1483, a Bull of Sixtus IV condemned the contention that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is heretical and that the observance of the festival instituted under this name is in itself sinful. At the same time, however, he prohibits the declaring of the contrary doctrine as in itself heretical. In 1661, a Bull of Alexander VII says, while confirming the approval given by his predecessors to the doctrine, that it is not to be permitted to charge with heresy or with mortal sin those who have not accepted this doctrine, as the Church universal and the Holy Chair are not yet prepared to decide all the difficulties involved. In 1708, Clement XI declares that the festival of the Immaculate Conception is to be universally observed, but in the same year he orders to be confiscated and prohibited a reprint of the Bull in which this festival was first instituted. Gregory VII was the first Pope who permitted the term Immaculate Conception to find place in the Book of the Mass and to have included in the Laurentian Litany the words _Regina sine labe originali concepta_. In 1854, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is confirmed by Pius IX as a dogma of the Church. Through some oversight, the _Decretum Gen._, ii, 2, continued, however, to find place in the Index that was published in 1854. In December, 1854, is printed in connection with the publication of the _Decreta_ a declaration in substance as follows: “As the dogma of Immaculate Conception has now been authoritatively defined, works which treat of the same and which have in previous years been placed in the Index, are now to be eliminated from the Index, unless it may be that certain of these works are entitled to condemnation on grounds other than their conclusions in regard to this doctrine.” It appears therefore that no prohibition now rests upon books, whether placed on the earlier Indexes or not, which make defence of the doctrine.

The first important book written in defence of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which was formally condemned, was the work of the Italian Capucin, J. O. Maria Zamora, _De eminentissimae Deiparae V. M. perfectione_, published in Venice in 1629 and placed on the Index in 1636. The list of prohibitions of the works of this group during the succeeding half-century is very considerable. I will note here but one additional title, _Quatres Sonnets à l’honneur de la très-pure et très-immaculée conception de la Vierge Marie_, by le Père Anne Joachim de Jésus-Marie.

In 1667, there came into controversy questions in regard to the bodily ascension of Mary into heaven. These controversies brought into the Index a number of treatises written on either side of the issue. Benedict XIV (in the decree _De Festis_, ii, 8, 18) says that the bodily assumption of Mary may be held as a pious and probable belief which it would be rash to contest; it is not, however, to be accepted formally as a dogma of the Church. The passages from the Scriptures which are cited to sustain the belief can be otherwise interpreted. The text of the announcement proceeds: _Nec est ejusmodi traditio, quae satis sit ad evehendam hanc sententiam ad gradum articulorum fidei_. Reusch is of opinion that the tendency during the 19th century has been to develop this pious belief into a dogma. Dom. Arnaldi, in a treatise entitled _Super transitu B. M._, printed in Genoa in 1879, undertook to prove that Mary had never suffered death.[52] Several monographs, written in honour of the Madonna of Loreto, found their way into the Index on the ground not of the substance of their teachings but of the extravagance of their language. In 1654, a work by Vincenzo Caraffa (later general of the Jesuits) was prohibited (with a _d.c._) which had been published under a pseudonym in Naples and later reprinted in Rome under the title _Camino del cielo overo prattiche spirituali, del P. Luigi Sidereo_. The book was brought into the Index under the instructions of the general of the Dominicans on the ground that it maintained the theory of the Immaculate Conception. An examination of the text showed that this was not the case, whereupon the following new grounds for condemnation were presented: first, the author claims that the Virgin during her sojourn in the temple had been fed by the angels with heavenly nectar; second, the author says that the grace of Mary from the first moment of her life was greater than that of any created being; the author states with approval the opinion of Bernardino of Siena that Mary is to be worshipped as a goddess.

Scheeben points out[53] that, during these later years, the teaching of the Church holds that the power of the grace of Mary, at least after the birth of Christ, must be held as being greater not only than the heavenly grace given to the highest of mankind but even than that possessed by the highest among the angels. In 1700, was prohibited, twenty-seven years after its publication, a volume by Zepherin de Somèire, a French Franciscan, printed in Narbonne under the title of _La dévotion à la mère de Dieu dans le très-saint Sacrement de l’autel, fondé sur les unions qui sont entre son fils et elle en ce divin mystère_. The list of books on Mariology condemned in the Indexes is, as stated, very considerable, but the larger number of the more important works treating upon different phases of the worship of Mary escaped attention.

In 1854, under the authority of Pius IX, the belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary was elevated into a dogma. A number of treatises written against the new dogma were placed on the Index and the authors, in so far as they were ecclesiastics, were excommunicated. The list of these includes Thomas Braun of Germany, J. J. Laborde of France, Braulio Morgaez of Spain, and Grignani of Italy. A pastoral brief on the subject, signed by the three bishops of the Church of Utrecht, was prohibited by the Inquisition. A German treatise by H. Oswald, professor at Paderborn, was condemned on the ground of extravagance of utterance in defence of the dogma.

=17. Revelations by Nuns.=--For a long series of visions and of so-called revelations the imagination of the nuns is responsible. Many of these revelations from the convents have called for the attention of the Roman censors, but the writer whose productions received the largest measure of consideration was Maria of Agreda (†1665). Her monograph on the mystical nature of God, first printed in 1670, was condemned by the Inquisition in 1681. The prohibition was, however, suspended by Innocent XI at the instance of the court of Spain. Up to the close of the century, there continued to be conflicting utterances and instructions in regard to the book. The judgment of the Inquisition was neither formally published nor recalled, and there was therefore continued question as to whether or not the book of Agreda belonged to the list of prohibited works. The title never found place in the Index, while a number of editions of the volume were actually issued with the privilege and approval of the Church authorities. Towards the end of the 17th century, there came into the Index titles of a number of writings of a similar character by another Spanish nun, Hippolyta Rocaberti, and the Index of Benedict contains a prohibition of another thesis of the same general character by the nun Clarissa, which had been printed in Munich.

=18. Controversies concerning the Chinese and Malabar Usages.=--Under Clement XI, was decided, adversely to the contentions of the Jesuits, through a decree of the Inquisition in 1710 and a Bull of 1715, an issue that had continued during a series of years between the missionaries of the Jesuits and those of the rival Orders, concerning the propriety of permitting the Chinese converts to retain certain special usages. The Inquisition prohibited the publication, unless with the special authorisation of the pope, of all writings which were concerned with these Chinese usages or with the controversies that had arisen concerning them. This prohibition was entered by Benedict XIV in the _Decreta Gen._, iv, 6, and, in 1722, the division of the great history of the Jesuits by Juvencius, which treated of this matter, was condemned separately. This action aroused fresh controversies and, in 1742, Benedict found occasion for a further Bull devoted to them. In 1744, another Bull was issued, in which decision was given in an analogous issue that had arisen with the Malabars; and, in 1745, Benedict caused the Inquisition to prohibit, on the ground of some antagonistic opinions expressed in it in regard to this decision, a comprehensive history by the Capucin Norbert. The two controversies continued during a long term of years and produced a mass of controversial publications, but few separate titles of these writings came into the Index; the See appears to have considered the general prohibitions above specified sufficient to meet the requirements.

=19. Fraudulent Literature.=--In the _Decreta Gen._, ii, 10, are prohibited all books, pamphlets, criticisms, and commentaries, whether written or printed, which had to do with certain lead tablets (_Laminae plumbeae_) which had been dug up in Granada and which bore ancient Arabic characters; with these were condemned certain manuscripts which had been unearthed in the foundations of an old tower in Granada. The condemnation covers also works not devoted to this subject-matter but in which references are made to said tablets or writings, until and unless such references have been eliminated. The fragments of tablets and of manuscripts, which, according to their text, had been inscribed in the time of the Apostles, were discovered between the years 1588 and 1597; but it was not until 1682 that they were officially pronounced by the authorities in Rome to be fraudulent. The false monographs of Flavius Lucius Dexter which belonged to the same group of manufactured documents, were never forbidden either in Rome or in Spain. Of the long series of treatises written concerning the letter said to have been addressed by the Madonna to the residents of Messina, two only have come into the Index.

In the _Decreta Gen._, ii, 8, are forbidden all books, codexes, and sheets, whether printed or written, which had to do with the visions and utterances, the alleged saintliness, etc., of the Anchorite Johannes Cala; later, were also forbidden all pictures or representations presenting Cala as a saint. This prohibition has to do with an alleged discovery made in 1660, by one of the ecclesiastics in Naples, of Johannes Cala as a saint of the 12th century. Cala secured saintly honour for a term of twenty years but his saintliness was finally discredited in 1680.

=20. Works on Quietism.=--In 1680, the Jesuit Segneri brought to the consideration of the Index authorities two ascetic writings of the Spaniard Molinos, on the ground that they were maintaining, under the doctrinal name of Quietism, a fraudulent holiness. In 1685, the Inquisition of Rome initiated proceedings against Molinos on the ground both of his life and of his instruction. He was condemned to imprisonment for life, and, under a special Bull of Innocent XI confirming a decree of the Inquisition, his doctrine was condemned, and all of his writings, whether printed or written, were prohibited. Shortly thereafter, the Inquisition prohibited also the ascetic writings of the friend of Molinos, the Cardinal Petrucci, together with certain French writings presenting similar doctrine. Among the latter were works by Mallavel, Boudon, Lacombe and Madame Guyon. Towards the close of the 17th century, the Inquisition found occasion to condemn a long series of ascetic writings including a number which had been published many years back, but which had apparently only at that time been brought to the attention of the examiners. Some of these books had been printed in Rome and had been distributed for many years without check. In this group may be mentioned the works of Falconi, Canfeld, Bernières-Louvigny, etc. As early as 1675, the Inquisition had prohibited the _Opera omnia_ of the Italian writer Lambardi, who is described as in his doctrinal views a predecessor of Molinos.

=21. Fénelon.=--In 1697, Fénelon, who had with Bossuet interested himself some years earlier in the protection of Madame Guyon, published his volume on the Saints and the Inner Life. The doctrines therein presented on contemplation as distinguished from meditation, and in regard to the pure and unselfish love of God, which, as he contended, caused to be put to one side selfishness and the demand for individual salvation, were sharply criticised by Bossuet and other of his fellow bishops. The volume was by Fénelon himself forwarded to Rome for a decision as to its orthodoxy. Louis XIV demanded from Innocent XII, in July, 1697, the condemnation of the book. It was placed for examination in the hands of the censorship committee of the Inquisition. The reports of the representatives who had been sent to Rome in regard to the business, represented that the votes of the Inquisitors would have decided in favour of Fénelon’s treatise if it had not been for the requirement of Louis XIV. In a brief of March, 1699, the book was prohibited under the penalty of excommunication, and twenty-three propositions cited from it were specifically censured. In this brief, pains had been taken to avoid the use of any expressions which would be likely to cause annoyance in France and in fact no reference was made in it to the Inquisition. The brief was confirmed by the French Church and was formally published, and Fénelon submitted himself to the judgment. The earlier prohibition of the writings of Lacombe and Madame Guyon (the opinions in which were substantially at one with those presented by Fénelon) appears hardly to have become known in France, where it certainly never was acted upon. Fénelon’s correspondence from Rome states that the influence of the Jesuits there had been exercised in his favour. The Jesuits were, at the moment, in connection with some conditions in China, in opposition to the Pope and were willing on this ground to support the contentions even of a Jansenist. Chanterac, who was Fénelon’s representative in Rome, suggested to the bishop that ground could be found for denouncing before the Inquisition the writings of his opponent Bossuet, but Fénelon appears to have been unwilling to have any such matter brought into question in connection with the pending issue. The brief of the Pope was published in France under the direct authority of the King by means of letters patent. The Maxims of Fénelon (in which had been found the larger number of the propositions condemned) were never placed in the Spanish Index. An edition of the _Télémaque_ which had been printed in London was, however, under an edict of 1771, expurgated before being authorised for circulation in Spain.

=22. Contest concerning the Doctrine of Probability.=--During the rule of Benedict XIV, a sharp controversy arose between the Dominicans and the Jesuits in regard to the doctrine of Probability, the immediate cause being the publication of a treatise on morality by the Jesuit Benzi, which is described as “shameless.” The leading representative of the Dominicans was Concina (1687–1756), and of the Jesuits, Faure (1702–1779). Benedict XIV brought into his Index certain of the monographs by both authors, but the principal treatise of Concina, sharply condemned by the Jesuits, was not prohibited. Benedict took occasion, however, to instruct Concina to publish, over his signature, a comprehensive explanation of his treatise. Clement XIII prohibited the sermons of the German Jesuit, Neumayr, and, at the same time, a biography of Concina. Concina’s teachings against the doctrine of Probability were continued and developed by his associate Patuzzi (1700–1769). Patuzzi was replied to by Liguori (1696–1787), founder, in 1732, of the Congregation of the Redemptorists. Benedict XIV appears to have given his official acceptance to the doctrine of Probability as expounded by Liguori, the later edition of his treatise having been issued with a specific approval from the Pope. This approval secured, later, confirmation on the part of the Church as a whole, as, in 1839, Concina secured canonisation, and, in 1871, his name was included in the list of doctors of the Church, being, through this act, associated with St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Thomas, and other pillars of the Church. After the giving of this honour, the Jesuits, under the lead of Ballerini, took the ground that certain of the conclusions of Liguori had been too rigorous and that the doctrine termed by him _Regni probabilismus_ must in order to be maintained, be interpreted in the sense of “ordinary probability.” The Jesuits came in this contention into controversy with the Redemptorists, who insisted upon the distinctive importance of the differentiation expressed by their founder. The treatise of Ballerini was however reprinted in Rome with a special privilege from the master of the palace.

=23. The Controversy concerning Usury, 1600–1800.=--In a long series of decrees from popes and from councils, the Church has announced its conclusion that the taking of interest, even although the rate should not be extortionate, comes under the head of the sin of usury. This contention was maintained constantly throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, and the several classes of trade in which the taking of interest was a necessary factor, were condemned as not to be permitted by the Church. As a result of this policy, a number of legal treatises which undertook the defence of interest that was not exaggerated into extortion, were prohibited. There were also placed upon the Index certain other monographs in which the question had been treated from a purely academic standpoint. Under Benedict XIV, the controversy came to the front in connection with the publication of monographs by Broedersen, an ecclesiastic of Utrecht, and by the Marquis Sipio Maffei, in which ground was taken against the theories of the Church. Benedict XIV published, in 1745, an encyclical in which he confirms as the present utterance of the Church the old contention. The two treatises which had formed the text for the utterance of the Pope were, however, not prohibited. In fact that by Maffei was, in 1746, reprinted in Rome contemporaneously with a monograph by the Dominican Concina, in which Maffei’s conclusions were stigmatised as heretical. It is the conclusion of Reusch that the earlier Church view, while in theory confirmed by Benedict, had practically been abandoned. The controversy continued throughout the 19th century, and several of the later popes have taken the ground that the practice of taking interest that was not extortionate could be permitted until the question had received a final decision from the Holy See. During this latter period, only one work on the subject was placed on the Index, a monograph by Laborde, who was a sharp opponent of the earlier Church theory. No final conclusion of the issue has, however, ever been reached by the Church. It has probably been withheld because it would be difficult to frame a conclusion that would not either directly or indirectly constitute a reflection on the good judgment and wisdom of the earlier papal utterances.

In July, 1745, Benedict XIV instituted a special Congregation comprising four cardinals and clever theologians to give consideration to the subject of usury. The theologians included two Jesuits, one Dominican (Concina), and one Observant. The Pope himself presided over the sessions. The conclusions arrived at were published on the first of August in the form of three propositions. These were utilised by Benedict as the basis of the encyclical to the Italian bishops issued in November, 1745.

1. All return for the use of money given in the form of interest is to be classed as usury and characterised as unlawful.

2. One may not say that it is unlawful only to receive extortionate interest or to take interest from the poor.

3. It may be permitted for the lender to receive some return or compensation for his service from some person other than the borrower or person benefited; but it may not be permitted to make provision that such second person or guarantor should always be at hand.

In 1746, the year following the publication of the encyclical, Maffei had published a second edition of his treatise, which bears the imprint of the master of the palace. In a letter printed in this edition, Maffei writes that he had not as yet learned what had been the precise subject of condemnation in the encyclical. He was, however, of the opinion that he had been able in his treatise to anticipate the doctrine of the encyclical.

In the same year, Concina brought into print three essays in which he makes sharp criticism of the heresies of Broedersen and Maffei. These essays are dedicated to the pope. Muratori, writing in February, 1747, says: “A curious history is this! The Holy Father accepts dedication on the one hand from Concina and on the other from Maffei and yet neither the one nor the other is to be classed as unsound or heretical.”

After 1820, there arose also in France an active controversy on the question of interest. The earlier orthodox opinion adverse to the use of interest was maintained by Abbé Pages in his treatise _Dissertation sur le prêt à intérêt_, published in 1821. The contrary view was maintained by La Luzerne, Bishop of Langres, in his _Dissertations sur le Prêt de Commerce_, published in 1823 in five volumes, and by the Abbé Baronnat in _Le Prétendu Mystère de l’Usure Dévoilé_, published in 1822. In the course of the following half-century, the question was repeatedly brought from France and from Italy to the attention of the Inquisition. In 1873, the Congregation of Propaganda printed together the decisions that had been issued by the Inquisition on this subject between 1780 and 1872. The conclusion presented in 1873 is in substance as follows: Those who, under the authority of the law of the land, may take interest at a moderate rate (up to five per cent.), whether laymen or ecclesiastics, are not to be called to account in the confessional or otherwise for so doing until it has seemed wise to the Holy See to present a final conclusion in the matter. They must, however, hold themselves prepared at any time to accept and to abide by the final instruction of the Church.

=24. Philosophical Writings, between 1750 and 1800, Condemned as Irreligious.=--In the Spanish Index, are prohibited all the writings of Voltaire and Rousseau. The Roman Index of 1824 includes the name of David Hume.

In February, 1778, Pius VI issues a general prohibition as follows: _Libri omnes incredulorum, sive anonymi sive contra, in quibus contra religionem agitur_. This prohibition, instead of being included in the _Decreta Generalia_, where similar decrees had heretofore been printed, is placed under the term _libri_. Connected with the decree, is the specification that the permission to read books of this class can be granted only by the pope himself. It is probable that this general prohibition did not prove particularly effective, as it was hardly possible for the average reader to be able at once to identify a work as irreligious in tendency or to have knowledge by name of all of the writers who were to be classed as unbelievers. The difficulty was naturally greater in the case of anonymous works.

In the Spanish Indexes of 1747 and 1790, the editors have indicated by a mark the books the reading of which is prohibited even to those who have secured permission for the use of works included in the general Index lists.

There was published in Paris an encyclopaedia under the title _l’Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonnée des Sciences, des Arts, et des Métiers, par la Société des Gens de Lettres_. It bore the names, as editors, of Diderot and d’Alembert. In 1759, at the time of the prohibition, seven volumes only had been published. The first two volumes, printed in 1751, had been condemned in 1752, under an order of the Council of the King; but two years later, the king issued a privilege for the continuation of the work. The papal brief states that the volumes first issued had been condemned and that the later issues, described as a revised edition, had been carefully examined by the Inquisition and again condemned on the ground that the teachings and propositions contained in them were false and pernicious and tended to the destruction of morality; and further that these teachings promoted godlessness and the undermining of religion. In 1759, the royal privilege under which the publication was being continued, was withdrawn. The editors and printers succeeded, however, in carrying on the work without coming into open conflict with the authorities, and by 1772, twenty-eight volumes had come into print.

In April, 1757, a decree of Louis XV prohibits, under penalty of death, the production and distribution of any writings against religion. There does not appear, however, to be on record any instance of the carrying out of this penalty.

The papal brief issued in 1759 in regard to the treatise of Helvétius, _De l’Esprit_, describes the book as “antagonistic to the Christian religion and to natural morality, and as maintaining the pernicious and damnable views of the Materialists and of the Epicureans,” and further, “as maintaining many godless and heretical propositions.”

In 1762, a prohibition of the Inquisition contains the title of _La petite Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire des Philosophes, oeuvre posthume d’un de ces Messieurs_. The entry is followed by the remark “_Ridiculum acri fortius et malius plerumque secat res_. Anvers, 1761.” This title probably refers to a reprint of some portions of the encyclopaedia. Between 1758 and 1800, were placed upon the Index at intervals practically all of the works of Voltaire, but, excepting in Spanish Indexes, the term _Opera omnia_ does not appear. In 1762, the treatise by Rousseau on education, entitled _Émile_, was prohibited by the Inquisition; and in the same year, the book was ordered by the Parliament of Paris to be burned. It was also censured by the Sorbonne and prohibited for France by the Archbishop of Paris. The work was also condemned by the Protestant authorities in Geneva.

In 1784, was prohibited, by a brief of Pius VI, a work issued under the title of _Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains ou Mémoires intéressants pour servir a l’Histoire de l’Humanité_. The author was Cornelius de Paw, a canon in Zante.

In 1761, the Congregation prohibits the French version of the essay by David Hume, _A Treatise on the Human Understanding_. This edition had been printed in Amsterdam in 1758, twenty years after the appearance of the original.

Gibbon’s _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, printed in an Italian edition in 1776, was prohibited in 1783. The writings of Thomas Paine and Joseph Priestly escaped the attention of the compilers of the Roman Index, but the name of the latter author appears in the Spanish Index of 1806.

The writings of Frederick the Great of Prussia, as printed in Berlin, in 1750, under the title of _Oeuvres du Philosophe de Sans-Souci_, receive the compliment of prohibition by the Inquisition in 1760. The Spanish Index does not include the works but does find place for the _Mémoires pour servir à l’Histoire de la Maison de Brandebourg_.

=25. Works on Philosophy and Natural Science, 1800–1880.=--Among the works prohibited during the period in question in the department of philosophy and natural science, may be noted the following:

Villiers, Ch. de, _A Treatise on Kant_, printed in Paris in 1801, prohibited in 1817. An Italian edition of Kant’s _Critique of Pure Reason_, printed (in Rome) in 1821, prohibited in the same year.

Buhle, J. G., _Geschichte der neuern Philosophie_, printed in Leipsic, 1800–1805, prohibited (in the French and Italian versions) in 1828.

Tennemann, _Grundriss der Gesch. der Philosophie_, printed in Leipsic in 1812, prohibited (in the Italian version) in 1837, prohibited again (in a Polish version) in 1865.

Bentham, Jeremy. Of this author practically all the works find place sooner or later in the Index, but the term _Opera omnia_ has not been used.

Whately, Richard, _Elements of Logic_, printed in 1822, prohibited in 1851.

Mill, John Stuart, _Treatise on Liberty_, prohibited in 1851; _Principles of Political Economy_, printed in 1848, prohibited in 1850.

Darwin, Erasmus, _Zoönomy_, printed in 1794, prohibited in 1817. (_The Origin of Species_ and the other treatises by Charles Darwin, the grandson of Erasmus, have, curiously enough, escaped the attention of the Index authorities.)

Draper, J. W., _History of the Conflict between Religion and Science_, printed (in New York) in 1874, prohibited (in a Spanish version) in 1876.

Condorcet, the Marquis, _Esquisse d’un Tableau historique du Progrès de l’Esprit humain_, printed in 1804 as a division in a series of works comprising in all twenty-one volumes, prohibited 1827.

Condillac, Abbé de, _Cours d’Étude_, printed (in Paris) in 1773, prohibited in 1836.

Ahrens, Henri, _Cours du Droit Naturel_, printed in 1838, prohibited 1868.

Cousin, _Cours d’Histoire de la Philosophie_, printed in 1827, prohibited in 1844. This is the only one of the long series of works by this author that finds place in the Index. Cousin was induced by his friends Sibour and Maret, for the purpose of preventing the threatened condemnation of his works by the Congregation of the Index, to write a letter to the Pope. He writes, under date of April 30, 1836, in substance as follows: “As Your Holiness has already been informed, I am myself a devout upholder of the Christian faith and I place all my hopes for the future of mankind upon the maintenance and extension of Christianity. I can but be troubled that my views have been placed in a false light and I have attempted to produce a philosophical treatise which should be entirely free from the possibility of reproach and in the preparation of which I have secured the counsel of scholarly divines. If it may be the case that, notwithstanding my own watchful care and the aid of these scholarly advisers, certain passages which could cause concern to Your Holiness have escaped attention, I will ask that these may be indicated to me. I am more than anxious to correct or to eliminate any expressions or statements that may be open to criticism from the point of view of the Church. My sole purpose is to do all that may be practicable to perfect the text of these modest writings of mine.”

Comte, Auguste (†1857), _Cours de Philosophie Positive_, printed in Paris in 1864 with an introduction by Littré, prohibited in the same year. No one of the other works by Comte finds place in the Index. Littré had sharp controversies with Dupanloup in 1863, and was characterised by the Archbishop as an atheist, but no one of Littré’s writings was formally condemned.

Taine, Hippolyte Adolphe, _Histoire de la Littérature Anglaise_, printed (in Paris) in 1863, prohibited in 1866. This work had, in 1864, been condemned by the French Academy as tending to undermine the belief in the freedom of the will, the sense of personal responsibility, and morality in general.

Legrand, Jacques, _Recherche des Bases d’une Philosophie Pratique_, printed in 1864, prohibited the same year.

Mangin, Arthur, _L’Homme et la Bête_, printed in 1872, prohibited the same year.

Figuier, Louis, _Le Lendemain de la Mort ou la Vie Future selon la Science_, printed 1871, prohibited 1872.

A collection of essays by Tyndall, Owen, Huxley, Hooker, and Lubbock, translated into French, together with certain papers by Raymond, edited by the Abbé Moigno, on the general subject-matter of science and faith, was printed in Paris in 1875 and prohibited in the same year. Connected with the prohibition is a statement that the notes of Moigno on Tyndall and the other naturalists meet the approval of the Congregation.

Leopardi, Giacomo, _Operetti Morali_, printed 1827, prohibited, with a _donec emendatum_, in 1850.

Spaventa, Bernardo, _Opera omnia_, printed between the years 1861 and 1874.

Vera, Auguste, _Opera omnia_ in each and every version. These two writers had given instruction in the Hegelian philosophy. Vera’s works had appeared in Italian, French, and English editions.

Ferrari, Gius., _Opera omnia_, prohibited 1877. The chief work of this author, _Essai sur le Principe et la Limite de la Philosophie d’Histoire_, had been printed as early as 1837 and had for forty years escaped condemnation.

Settembrini, Luigi (a third Neapolitan Hegelian), _Lezioni di Letteratura Italiana_, printed in 1868, prohibited in 1874.

Sicilinoni, Pietro (professor of philosophy in Bologna), a series of works printed between the years 1878 and 1887, placed upon the Index from year to year immediately after their publication.

[Sidenote: Historical Works]

Ranke, L., _Die Römischen Päpste, ihre Kirche und ihr Staat, im XVI^{ten} und XVII^{ten} Jahrhundert_, printed in 1835, prohibited in 1841.

Hume, David, _History of England_, printed in 1761, prohibited in 1823.

Robertson, William, _History of Charles the Fifth_, printed in 1762, prohibited (in a French edition) in 1777.

Goldsmith, Oliver, _History of England_, printed in 1770, prohibited (in an Italian edition), with a _d.c._, 1823.

Roscoe, William, _Biography of Leo X_, printed 1805, prohibited, in both the English and Italian versions, in 1825.

Hallam, Henry, _View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages_, printed in 1818, prohibited (in the Italian edition) in 1833. _Constitutional History of England_, printed in 1824, prohibited 1827.

Beugnot, A., _Histoire de la Destruction du Paganisme en Occident_, printed in 1835, prohibited in 1837.

Sismondi, J. C. L. S. de, _Histoire du Moyen-Age_, printed in 1812, prohibited in 1817. The prohibition covers, however, only the first eleven volumes. The sixteenth volume, which contains the noteworthy chapter on the pernicious effects produced on Italy by the casuistical morality of the Church of Rome, escaped condemnation.

Gregorovius, _Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter_, printed in 1859–1873, condemned in 1874, both in the German original and in the Italian version.

Mignet, F. A., _Histoire de la Révolution Française_, printed in 1824, prohibited 1825.

Ségur, Comte de, _Galerie Morale et Politique_, printed in 1817–1823, prohibited 1826.

Jobez, Alph., _La France sous Louis XV_, printed 1865–1867, prohibited 1868.

Le Bas, Phil., _L’Univers Pittoresque_, printed in 1851, prohibited in 1853. The reprehensible chapters in this descriptive work were those giving an account of the religions of the world.

Munks, _La Palestine, Description géographique, historique, et archéologique_, printed 1845, prohibited in 1853.

_Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la France_, edited by Le Bas and Rénier, printed, in twelve volumes, 1840–1845, prohibited (in a separate decree) in 1853.

The prohibitions of this period include a long series of French, German, and Italian encyclopaedias, universal dictionaries, gazetteers, etc., in addition to those specified.

Lalande, J. L. de, _Voyage en Italie_, printed in 1769, prohibited in 1820. It is possible that one reason for placing on the Index, so many years after the date of its appearance, this particular book was the association at a later date by the author with the _Dictionnaire des Athées_ which was compiled by Maréchal. This latter work, however, curiously escapes the attention of the Index compilers.

Didier, Ch., _Rome souterraine_, printed in 1833, prohibited in 1835. It is proper to point out that this work has to do, not with the Catacombs, but with the secret societies of Rome.

Viardot, Louis, _Les Musées d’Italie_, printed in 1842, prohibited in 1865. A later work by this author on the Jesuits, the bishops, and the pope, apparently much more serious in its subject-matter, escapes attention.

Ciocci, Raffaelle, _A Narrative of Iniquities and Barbarities practised at Rome in the 19th Century_, printed (in a French version) in 1841, prohibited in 1845. The author was formerly a Cistercian and had been librarian of the papal College of San Bernardo. It is not surprising that his work failed to secure the approval of the Roman authorities.

La Châtre, Maurice, _Histoire des Papes; Les Crimes, Meurtres ... des Pontifes Romains, depuis S. Pierre jusqu’ à Gregoire XVI_, printed in 1842–1845, prohibited in 1848.

[Sidenote: General Literature]

Among the noteworthy works under the heading of general literature may be cited the following:

Sue, Eugene, _Mystères de Paris_, printed in 1843, prohibited in 1852; _Le Juif Errant_, printed in 1845, prohibited in 1852. Later in the same year, Sue’s name was placed upon the Index connected with the term _Opera omnia_. In 1864, the list of French authors all of whose works were prohibited includes the following names: Balzac, Champfleury, Dumas the elder and Dumas the younger, Feydeau, Murger, Sand, Soulié, and Stendhal. The name of Flaubert appears in the same year in connection with two only of his romances. The volume of the Abbé Michon, published anonymously under the title _Le Maudit_, was prohibited in the year of its publication, 1864, and the later volumes issued as by the author of _Le Maudit_ were prohibited as they appeared. Since 1864, the compilers of the Index have given comparatively little attention to French fiction.

In 1834, the _Chansons_ of Béranger were prohibited. Some of these had been printed as far back as 1815. Additional titles from French literature are as follows:

Lamartine, Alph. de, _Souvenirs d’un Voyage en Orient_, printed in 1835, prohibited in 1836.

Hugo, Victor, _Notre Dame de Paris_, printed in 1831, prohibited in 1834; _Les Misérables_, printed in 1836, prohibited in 1864.

The famous volumes by Ferd. Fabre, _Lucifer_ and _L’Abbé Grand_, curiously enough escape condemnation.

The selections of this period from German literature are inconsiderable. They include:

Lessing, _Erziehung des Menschen-geschlechts_, prohibited 1835.

Heine, H., _Reisebilder_, printed in 1834, prohibited in 1836; _De la France_, printed in 1833, prohibited in 1836; _De l’Allemagne_, printed in 1835, prohibited 1836; _Gedichte_, printed in 1844, prohibited in 1845.

In 1855, Mrs. Stowe’s _Uncle Tom’s Cabin_ was prohibited, under some special instruction, as far as its sale in the papal States was concerned. The title does not find place in the Index.

The small group of Spanish and Portuguese works includes the following titles:

Torres, _Quentos en verso Castilano del Remédo de la Melencholia_, prohibited 1824.

Tressera, _El Judio Errante_, prohibited 1864.

The long series of anti-clerical romances by Benito, Perez, and Galdós escape condemnation.

Stockler, _Poezias Liricas_, printed in 1820, prohibited in 1836.

The Italian list includes:

Foscolo, Ugo, translation of Sterne’s _Sentimental Journey_, printed in 1817, prohibited in 1819; _La Commedia di Dante_, illustrated, printed in 1830, prohibited in 1845.

Zaccheroni, G., an edition of Dante’s _Inferno_ with notes, printed in 1838, prohibited (as far as the introduction and the notes are concerned) by the Inquisition in 1840. The larger number of the commentaries on Dante are condemned as printed.

Guerrazzi, Dom., _L’Assedio di Firenze_, printed in 1830, prohibited in 1837. His later romances, _Isabella Orsini_ and _Beatrice Cenci_, were prohibited promptly on publication, the former in 1844, the latter in 1854.

Niccolini, G. B., _Arnaldo da Brescia_, printed in 1844, prohibited the same year.

Bossie, Conte Luigi, _Della Istoria d’Italia Antica e Moderna_, printed in Milan, 1819–1822, in nineteen volumes, prohibited in 1824. The same author produced a translation of Roscoe’s _Life of Leo X_, which was promptly condemned some twenty years after the prohibition of the same work in the original.

Botta, Carlo, _Storia d’Italia del 1729 al 1814_, ten volumes, printed in 1824, prohibited in 1826. Botta had gained the name of “the Italian Tacitus.” His son, Vincenzo Botta, was well known in New York as a man of letters, between the years 1850 (he was one of the exiles of ’48) and 1880.

Rossetti, Gabrielle, _Sullo Spirito anti-Papale_, etc., printed in 1832, prohibited 1833; _Iddio a l’Uomo_, printed in 1836, prohibited 1837.

The Spanish and Portuguese group of general literature of this period includes the following titles:

Llorente, J. A., _Histoire Critique de l’Inquisition de l’Espagne_, printed in Paris in 1820, prohibited in 1822. The author, who was the Secretary-General of the Inquisition, had been banished from Spain in 1812. His history, written in Spanish, was translated under his own supervision.

_Historia Completa des Inquisiçoes de Italia, Hispagnia e Portugal_, printed (anonymously) in 1822, prohibited in 1825. This is probably a translation of the _Histoire de l’Inquisition of Lavalée_ printed in Paris in 1809, and prohibited in 1819. The histories of the Inquisition, whether written from the Dominican point of view or from that of their opponents, found their way in great part into the Index.

=26. The Synod of Pistoja, 1786.=--In 1794, the conclusions arrived at by the Diocesan Synod held at Pistoja at the instance of Bishop Ricci, were condemned by the Bull _Auctorem Fidei_ of Pius VI. In this Bull, were censured specifically eighty-five propositions. The Pope condemns and prohibits, under penalty of excommunication, the printing, distribution, or reading of any editions or translations of the acts of the synod and of all works written in defence of these acts. It is doubtless through oversight that this very sweeping condemnation does not find place in the Index. Certain publications reporting the conclusions of the synod had been already specifically prohibited; while certain further works, the subjects of which were connected with the issues raised by the synod, were prohibited in later years, in certain instances as late as 1817. For these later prohibitions, the statement was added that the works were already condemned under the Bull _Auctorem Fidei_.

=27. The Festival of the Heart of Jesus.=--In 1697 and again in 1729, the Congregation of Rites recalled the authorisation for a specific office for the Sacred Heart of Jesus; and in 1704, was prohibited the treatise by the Jesuit Croiset, written in defence of this office. Under Clement XIII in 1765, the office was again authorised, and under Pius IX, the festival in honour of the Heart of Jesus was made a general usage. This special act of adoration had originated with the Jesuits; those who opposed it were classed as Jansenists. The office came, however, into question with a good many Churchmen other than Ricci and his friends; and a number of the most important of the treatises written against it were published under Clement XIV in Rome.

=28. Theological Writings of French, German, and English Catholics, 1758–1800.=--But one important work of theology printed in France, _Theologia Lugdunensis_, came upon the Index during the last decade of the 18th century. From England, the single title of the same period covers a book of worship, and from Germany, were prohibited, in addition to the writings already referred to, a volume by Isenbiehl and several treatises by Stättler, Meyer, and Oberrauch. During these years, were published in England a number of works by Catholic authors which had to do with the controversies of the time, such as the Oath of Allegiance, the re-institution of the hierarchy of bishops, etc., but no one of these writings is recorded in the Index. The single English work above referred to was published in London, in 1767, under the title _The Catholik Christians’ New Universal Manual, being a true spiritual guide for those who ardently aspire to salvation_. The book contains the entry, _Permissu superiorum_, which did not prevent its prohibition in 1770. On the other hand, the writings of Charles Dodd, J. Berington, Alexander Geddes, George Cooper, and Bishop Butler, the teachings of which would hardly have met the approval of the Holy See, escaped condemnation.

=29. The French Revolution.=--The _Constitution Civile_ of the clergy, framed in 1780, and the Defence of the same issued a year later by the so-called Constitutional Bishops, were promptly condemned by briefs of Pius VI, but they do not find place in the Index. The acts of the national councils of 1797 and 1801 were condemned in like manner but these titles also escaped the attention of the Index compilers. The practice on the part of the Index editors in regard to the recording of legislative acts appears not to have been consistent. In 1817, for instance, a collection of the acts and declarations of the Italian bishops and chapters, which had been printed in 1811, was placed upon the Index although the subscribers and compilers of the same had made recantation of the opinions expressed.

The long series of revolutionary writings and of anti-Church writings which came into print in France after 1789 were in large part recorded by the Spanish Inquisition but in the Roman Indexes are represented by only a few titles.

In July, 1797, the Congregation of the Index publishes its last decree for the century. The authors whose books are condemned include Stättler, Oberrauch, Tamburini, and Zola; in addition to these, there is a series of German theological and juristical theses which the students of Freiburg had defended between the years 1786 and 1794. The last work prohibited by the Inquisition during the 18th century is a treatise by Guadagnini.

The first prohibition of the 19th century condemns a monograph by a Greek theologian, printed in Corfu in 1800. The Congregation of the Index resumed its activities in 1804 after a suspension of more than seven years. In decrees issued in 1804, 1805, 1806, and 1808 were condemned a number of French and Italian writings that had to do with the Revolution. The imprisonment in June, 1809, of Pius VII again brought to a close the operations of the Roman Congregations. The Pope returned to Rome in May, 1814, and in August, 1815, the Inquisition resumed its supervision of literature. The work of the Congregation of the Index was, however, not taken up till January, 1817. In this year, a list of prohibitions was issued covering a number of works that had been published in France and in Italy between 1796 and 1815.

The two briefs that Pius VI had issued in March and in April, 1781, for the condemnation of the so-called Civil Constitution of the French clergy, were declared by the “constitutional” party in the Church to be apocryphal. It was pointed out that the second brief, while dated in Rome, April 13th, was distributed in Paris April 14th, from which detail, it came to be known as the “Miraculous Brief.” In a brief issued in 1792, the Pope calls attention to this statement as one of the insults coming from France. The Index of 1806 contains, printed as an appendix, a list of the books prohibited from 1804 to 1806. The more important names in this list are those of Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Mirabeau, Dulaurens, and La Fontaine.

=30. The French Concordat of 1801.=--In August, 1801, a Bull of Pius VII records the provisions of the Concordat that had been arrived at between Napoleon and himself. Under the Concordat, the number of the French bishoprics was reduced from a hundred and fifty-six to sixty and a new division of the dioceses was provided for. In a brief bearing the same date, the Pope calls for the resignation of all the French bishops, and in November of 1801, he issues a second Bull, declaring those bishops who had not resigned to be deposed, and fixing the limits of the new bishoprics. In 1803, thirty-six bishops present a protest against these regulations. This protest was widely circulated and served as the text for a long series of monographs in which were brought into discussion various questions relating to the Concordat. In 1817, a second Concordat was put into force between the Papacy and Louis XVIII. In 1822, a long series of writings which took ground against the authority of this Concordat were placed upon the Index.

=31. Protestant Theological Writings, 1750–1884.=--The selections for condemnation, in the last years of the 18th century and during the first half of the 19th century, of works by Protestant theologians appears to have been made with no greater consistency and with no more assured principles than had been apparent in the selection of Protestant writings of an earlier date. The following titles may be noted:

Michaelis, J. D., _Introduction to the New Testament_, published in 1750, condemned in 1827.

Strauss, _The Life of Jesus_ (_Das Leben Jesu_), published in 1835, prohibited 1838.

Bauer, _Streit der Kritik mit Kirche und Staat_, published in 1844, prohibited in 1845.

Bunsen, _Hippolytus and his Age_, published 1852, prohibited 1854.

Maurice, F. D., _Theological Essays_, published 1854, prohibited 1854 (the entry in the Index is under the word “Denison”).

Stroud, _The Physical Causes of the Death of Christ_, published 1847, prohibited 1878.

Morgan, Lady, _Italy_, prohibited 1822.

Waldie, _Rome in the Nineteenth Century_, published 1820, prohibited 1826.

Blunt, James, _Vestiges of Ancient Manners and Customs in Modern Italy and Sicily_, published 1823, prohibited 1827. The difficulty with Mr. Blunt’s treatise was the connection made by him between certain ceremonies and practices of the Roman Church and the earlier Pagan usages.

Seymour, Hobart, _A Pilgrimage to Rome_, printed 1851, prohibited 1851. The title is entered under “Pilgrimage.”

Whately, Archbishop, _Introductory Lessons on Christian Evidences_, an Italian version printed in 1850 and prohibited in the same year.

The treatise by John Poynde, _Popery in Alliance with Heathenism_, the publication of which (in 1835) brought out some sharp controversial letters from Wiseman, escaped the attention of the Index compilers.

The more noteworthy of the French titles in the Indexes of this period are the following:

Bruitte, Edouard, abbé and professor of philosophy, _Mes Adieux à Rome_, published in 1844, prohibited in 1844.

Mourette, _Le Pape et l’Évangile_, published in 1844, prohibited in 1845. This latter was also prohibited in Paris.

Coquerel, Athanase, (†1868), _Le Christianisme experimental_, published in 1847, prohibited in 1850. No other of the series of writings by this famous Protestant preacher nor any of those of his son, Athanase Josue, find place in the Index.

Bugnoin, T. R., _Catéchisme de l’Église du Seigneur_, published in 1862, prohibited in 1863.

Martig, Emm., _Manuel d’Histoire religieuse a l’Usage des Écoles_, published at Geneva in 1877, prohibited in 1878.

D’Aubigné, _l’Histoire de la Réforme du Seizième Siècle_, printed, in an Italian edition, in 1847, prohibited in 1852.

The list of Italian and Spanish publications contains few names that would be familiar to English readers.

Bianchi, Angiolo, _Biographia di Fra Paolo Sarpi_, printed (in Brussels) in 1836, prohibited in 1844; _Del Pontificato di S. Gregorio il grande_, printed (in Milan) in 1844, prohibited in 1853.

Boni, Filippo de, _Del Papato_, printed in 1850, prohibited in 1852.

Castro, Adolpho de, _Historia des los Protestantes Españoles_, printed in 1851, prohibited in the same year.

=32. Writings concerning the Eastern Church.=--The larger number of the works under this heading the titles of which come into the Index of the 19th century, are the production of the “United Armenians.” The addition of a group of monographs by Polish writers is doubtless due to the fact that during the reign of Pius IX, the consultor of the Congregation was a Pole, Peter Semenenko. The Bull issued by Pius IX in July, 1867, under the title of _Reversurus_, in which it had been ordered that the procedure of worship of the Armenians should be reconstituted, resulted in a schism in this division of the Church. Between the years 1872 and 1873, three monographs by Ormanian and one by Casangian, written in opposition to this Bull, are placed upon the Index. The list also includes the following:

Pichler, A., _Die kirchliche Trennung zwischen Orient und Occident_.

The Greek Church of Russia is represented in the Index of this time by but one or two titles:

Tolstoy, Dimitri, _Le Catholicisme Romain ou Russe_, published in 1864, prohibited in 1866. This work stands in the Index under the entry “Dimitri.” The entry is connected with the reference _Opus praedamnatum ex reg. II. ind._ This entry indicates that, prior to 1870, the Russians were already classed as heretics.

Pociej, Joh. (Chancellor of the Cathedral at Chelm), _O Jezusie Chrystusie_ (a study of the record of the early Christians), printed in 1852 (with the approval of the Church authorities at Warsaw), prohibited in 1857.

The record of the proceedings of a Synod of Melchites, held in 1810, in Beyrout, with the approval of the papal delegate, Gandolfi, was condemned in 1835 by a brief of Gregory XVI. The record had been printed in Arabic and was not likely therefore to have secured an extended circulation in Catholic States.

In 1851, was prohibited an Italian version of the _Critical History of the Greek and Russian Church_ by Josef Schmitt, which had been published in Mayence in 1840. In 1868, was prohibited a work by the English writer, Edmund S. Ffoulkes, which had been published in London in 1865 under the title, _Christendom’s Divisions, a Philosophical Sketch of the Divisions of the Christian Family in East and West_. The work had been sharply criticised by Manning, but it does not appear that Manning had made any formal denunciation of the same to Rome.

=33. The Theologians of Pavia, 1774–1790.=--In 1774, the Austrian Government instituted a theological faculty in the University of Pavia. In 1783, the Emperor Joseph II transferred to Pavia, for use in the newly instituted _Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum_, the collections belonging to the old _Collegium Germanicum_ of Milan. The divines of the theological faculty of Pavia came to be classed as Jansenists. The classification appears to have been based not so much upon their teaching of the Augustinian doctrine of Grace as upon their own sharp antagonism to the theories and practices of the Jesuits. These divines contended openly that the so-called Jansenist heresy was a phantom, and they also undertook the defence of the Church of Utrecht. They were, further, opponents of the doctrines taught by the Jesuits in regard to morality; they were in sympathy with the claims of the Gallican Church, and, finally, they maintained stoutly the necessity for reforms within the Catholic Church on the lines indicated by the Synod of Pistoja. In the years succeeding 1781, were placed upon the Index the titles of a number of writings by these theologians and by others who had accepted their views. Among these writers may be mentioned the following: Pietro Tamburini, Giuseppe Zola, Count Th. Trautmannsdorf, Canon Litta, and G. B. Guadagnini. The treatise by Trautmannsdorf on Toleration, condemned in 1783, the author found desirable to disavow in order to secure his appointment as bishop.

=34. French, Dutch, and English Writings, 1817–1880.=--In 1825, a report was laid before the French Minister of the Interior concerning certain writings classed as irreligious or immoral which had been published between the years 1817 and 1824. The list included various editions of the complete works of Voltaire and of Rousseau, together with a number of issues of their separate volumes. There were no less than eight editions of the _Système de la Nature_, by d’Holbach, and four of the _Lettres Persanes_. It was complained that these pernicious books were being sold so cheaply that they were brought within the reach of the masses of the people and were bringing about widespread evil. The _Tartuffe_ of Molière, sold for five sous, had at once reached a sale of one hundred thousand copies. In 1821, Étienne Antoine, Bishop of Troyes, in a pastoral letter writes: “We renew all the censorship orders issued, between the years 1782 and 1785, by the clergy of France, and the individual orders issued by the archbishops of Paris, in which these works were condemned as godless and sacrilegious, and as tending to undermine morals and the State. We prohibit, under the canonical law, the printing or sale of these books within the territory of this diocese, and we charge the vicar-generals to enforce this regulation and to see to the carrying out of the necessary penances for all who make confession of disobedience to these regulations.” The authority of the Church of France appears to have been considered as sufficient for the control of the matter. No application was made to have these books again placed upon the Index.

Dupuis, Ch. Fr., _Origine de tous les Cultes_, printed 1794, prohibited, 1818. An abridgment of this work, printed in 1798 and reprinted in a number of editions thereafter, escaped condemnation.

Volney, J. F., _Les Ruines ou Méditations sur les Révolutions des Empires_, printed in 1799, prohibited in 1821. This book was also strongly condemned in the Spanish Indexes. An Italian translation, printed in 1849, escaped the Index.

Pigault, Le Brun, _Le Citateur_, printed in 1803, prohibited in 1820. This work contains some bitter assaults on the Bible and on the dogmas of Christianity. Reiffenberg states that, in 1811, Napoleon, in a state of irritation with a brief of Pius VII, gave instructions for the distribution to the public, free or at a nominal price, of ten thousand copies of _Le Citateur_, but there is no record that these instructions were carried out. A Spanish version of the book, printed in London in 1816, was prohibited in Spain in 1819.

_Essai historique sur la Puissance temporelle des Papes_, printed in Paris in 1818, prohibited in 1823. No author’s name is connected with any of the several editions of this treatise, but the introduction to the original issue states that the work was translated from a Spanish manuscript found at Saragossa.

After the Restoration, negotiations were in train during a series of years for a modification of the provisions of the Concordat of 1801. A series of controversial publications bearing upon the Concordat were placed upon the Index as they appeared.

Constant, Benjamin, _De la Religion Considerée dans sa Source_, etc., printed in 1824–1831, in five volumes, prohibited in 1827.

Gandolphy, Peter, _A Defence of the Ancient Faith, or Exposition of the Christian Religion_, printed (in London) in 1813, prohibited in 1818. Gandolphy was a priest of the Catholic Church and at the time of this publication had charge of the Spanish Chapel in London. The book had been promptly condemned by Pointer, Apostolic Vicar in London. Gandolphy journeyed to Rome and succeeded in securing for his book the approval of the master of the palace and a certificate giving him the authority to state that his book had been approved by the Holy See. On the strength of this certificate, he placed copies again on sale. Pointer secured from the Inquisition instructions to confirm the prohibition, and as this was still ignored by Gandolphy, the latter was suspended. After some years of controversy, the difficulty was finally adjusted by the correction of the text according to the specifications of Pointer.

Earle, Charles J., _The Forty Days, or Christ between His Resurrection and Ascension_ and _The Spiritual Body_. These were printed in 1876 and 1878 and were prohibited in 1880. Earle had in 1851 been converted to Romanism.

In 1857, an association was instituted in England “for the promotion of the unity of Christendom.” Its special purpose was to bring together the members of the Catholic, the Greek, and the English Churches. The members of the society accepted the obligation to make a daily prayer to this end. Cardinal Patrizzi declared in the name of the Inquisition, in a letter addressed, September, 1864, to the English bishops, that Catholics were forbidden to take part in this association. In 1866, Archbishop Manning confirmed this prohibition. Patrizzi had condemned in his first letter the _Union Review_, which was the organ of the society, but the _Review_ was not placed on the Index. A series of essays on the reunion of Christendom, written by members of the society, and edited by F. G. Lee, was placed on the Index in 1867.

=35. Writings of German Catholics, 1814–1870.=--During the 19th century, were placed upon the Index a larger proportion than in the earlier period of the writings of the Catholics of Germany, but the selection of the works so distinguished appears as heretofore to have been arrived at with no very definite policy or principle. It is evident that the books were not selected on the ground either of their relative heresy, of their scholarly importance, or of their popular influence. It seems probable that the condemnation of any particular work was dependent upon the accident of its title being brought to the attention of the Congregation. The names of a few of the more noteworthy authors in the list are specified below.

Wessenberg, Vicar-General of Constance, _Die deutsche Kirche_, printed in 1806, condemned by a brief of Pius VII, in 1814.

Dannemayer, _Institutiones Historiae Ecclesiasticae_, printed (in Vienna) in 1780, prohibited in 1820.

Rechberger, _Enchiridion Juris Eccles. Austriaci_, printed in 1809, prohibited in 1819.

Reyberger, _Institutiones Ethicae Christ._, printed in 1805–9, prohibited 1834.

Bolzano Bernhard (professor of geology in Prague), _Stunden der Andacht_, printed in 1813, prohibited in 1828. It was largely on the ground of this work, which was published anonymously, that Bolzano was deposed from his professorship. _Lehrbuch der Religions-Wissenschaft_, printed in 1813, prohibited 1838.

Brendel, Sabold, professor of law in Würzburg, _Handbuch des kath. und protest. Kirchenrechts_, etc., printed in 1823, prohibited in 1824. Brendel retained his professorship but was later ordered to give up instruction in canon law.

Theiner, Anton., _Die katholische Kirche in Schlesien_ (published anonymously), printed in 1826, prohibited the same year.

Müller, Alexander, _Handbuch des kath. und protest. Kirchenrechts_, printed 1829–1832, prohibited in 1833. It would appear that very few of the treatises on canon law or ecclesiastical jurisprudence were so written as to meet the approval of the Index authorities.

Hirscher, J. B., a treatise on the mass, entitled _Missae Genuinam Notionem Eruere_, etc., printed in 1821, prohibited in 1823.

Drey, G. S. von, a treatise on confession, entitled _Diss. Hist. theol. Originem et Vicissitudinem_, etc., printed, in 1815, prohibited in 1823.

Gehringer, _Liturgik und Theorie der Seelsorge_, printed in 1848, prohibited in 1850.

Hermes, George, _Die philosophische Einleitung in die christ. katholische Theologie_, printed in 1819, prohibited in 1831. The other writings by this author, together with a long series of treatises by his followers, were for the most part prohibited. It was contended by the Hermessians, as it had formerly been contended by the Jansenists, that the specific errors on the ground of which the condemnations had been arrived at did not as a matter of fact exist in the writings of Hermes. In May, 1837, six years after the death of Hermes, Professors Braun and Elvenich journeyed to Rome for the purpose of securing a fresh examination of the works of Hermes and of establishing their orthodoxy, but after a series of conferences, they failed to secure the recall of condemnation.

Günther, A., _Peregrins Gastmahl, Janusköpfe für Philosophie und Theologie_, and a group of similar writings published between 1830 and 1843, were condemned together in 1857. The Congregation of the Index began in 1851 to give special attention to Günther. In 1852, instructions were given by Pius IX to the bishop of Wurzburg to prohibit the teaching of the theories that had become known as the philosophy of Günther.

Trebisch, Leop. (classed as a follower of Günther), _Die christliche Weltanschauung in ihrer Bedeutung für Wissenschaft und Leben_, printed in 1858, prohibited in 1859.

Frohschammer, J., _Ueber den Ursprung der menschlichen Seelen_, printed in 1854, prohibited in 1857. The work of Frohschammer was brought upon the Index by the influence of the Jesuit Kleutgen. It is recorded that the secretary of the Congregation asked Dr. Döllinger, who was at the time in Rome, to induce Frohschammer to submit himself and to recall his treatise, but no such action was taken by the author. His later treatises, _Einleitung in die Philosophie_, _Der Grundriss der Metaphysik_, and _Ueber die Freiheit der Wissenschaft_, were prohibited together in 1862. He was suspended from his functions in 1863, and in 1871, placed under excommunication. In the introduction to the papal brief of 1863, Pius writes that he had learned with great sorrow that a number of the theologians and instructors in philosophy having chairs in the Catholic institutions of Germany had permitted themselves to bring into their teachings an unwarranted license of thought and of expression. The works through which these teachings were distributed to the general public were in many cases carrying most pernicious errors. These works, in so far as they had been examined and reported upon, the Pope had therefore ordered to be placed on the Index.

Oischinger, Paul J. N., who appears to have belonged to the same theological group with Frohschammer, is recorded as the author of a long series of philosophical works, only one of which was placed upon the Index: _Die spekulative Theologie des H. Thomas von Aquin_, printed in 1859, prohibited in 1859. Oischinger maintains that Thomas had wrongly comprehended a number of the most important divisions of the dogma of the Church.

Pichler, Aloys, _Geschichte der kirklichen Trennung zwischen dem Orient und Occident_, printed in 1865, prohibited in 1866. _Die Theologie des Leibnitz_, printed in 1869, prohibited in 1870.

=36. La Mennais.=--The writings of Abbé La Mennais had, even before 1830, brought out in France some measure of criticism. They had, however, secured the approval of Leo XII. After the Revolution of July, 1830, the opinions of La Mennais and his associates were condemned in Rome as in more ways than one pernicious. In August, 1832, Gregory XVI, in the encyclical entitled _Mirari_, condemned the ecclesiastical and political opinions presented in the journal issued by La Mennais and his associates under the title _L’Avenir_. No one of the writers was mentioned by name, but in a letter by Cardinal Pacca accompanying the encyclical, they were informed that the condemnation applied to their work. They all submitted themselves to the authority of the Church. After some negotiations, La Mennais, in December, 1833, gave his signature to a formula which had been sent from Rome for the purpose. A few months later, however, he brought into print a monograph entitled _Paroles d’un Croyant_, through the declarations in which he made a direct breach with Rome. In June, 1834, he received, through a separate encyclical, sharp condemnation. A year later, the Congregation placed on the Index the treatise _Affaires de Rome_ and the subsequent writings were prohibited promptly on their appearance. The earliest publication of La Mennais, issued in 1809 under the title _Réflexions sur l’État de l’Eglise en France pendant le XVIII^{me} Siècle et sur la Situation actuelle_, was promptly suppressed by the imperial police, but was not placed upon the Index. The _Essai sur l’Indifférence en matières de Religion_, published in 1817–1820, was sharply criticised in France but was not condemned in Rome. The monograph _De la Religion Considérée dans ses Rapports avec l’Ordre Politique et Civile_, printed in 1826, was condemned by a number of the bishops and the author was sentenced by the courts to the payment of a large fine.

The journal _L’Avenir_, previously referred to, had for its purpose the maintenance of the independence of the Gallican Church against the encroachments of the Ultramontanes, and also the final separation of Church and State. The publication of the journal was suspended by the Government in 1831, and Lacordaire and Montalembert journeyed to Rome to present the case of its editors. A _Mémoire_ written by Lacordaire was delivered in February, 1832, to Cardinal Pacca. In this, the memorialists asked the pope to have thorough investigation made of their purpose and actions and to give permission for the continuation of their work. After some weeks, Pacca gave decision on behalf of the pope that, while the good service rendered in the past by the memorialists was fully acknowledged, he found ground for grave disapproval of their later actions in stirring up controversies which tended to bring the authority of the Church into disrepute. While the matter was under consideration, an appeal came to Rome from thirteen of the bishops of France, asking the pope to confirm the condemnation of _L’Avenir_ and specifying fifty-six propositions which were in themselves sufficient ground for its condemnation. This memorial secured later the support of fifty further French bishops. In September, 1832, La Mennais and his associates sent to Rome an acknowledgment of the decision of the pope and made promise that the journal _L’Avenir_ should no longer be printed. In May, 1833, the pope sent to the Archbishop of Toulouse a brief in which he made reply to the memorial of the bishops. He pointed out that in the encyclical he had presented the sound and final doctrine of the Church and that he had taken measures to prevent the further circulation of the pernicious opinions complained of by the bishops.

In August, 1833, La Mennais sent to the pope through the Bishop of Rheims a letter in which he protests against the strictures expressed in the papal brief. He professes himself prepared to give the fullest possible acceptance to all provisions of the Holy See which have to do with matters of doctrine and of morals. He asks the pope to indicate the expressions occurring in his writings which are open to condemnation. In October, 1833, the pope replies to the Bishop of Rheims, pointing out certain statements by La Mennais the purport of which tends to undermine the authority of the Church. La Mennais had taken the ground that he was not undertaking to interfere with purely ecclesiastical questions. While in such matters he gave the fullest acceptance to the authority of the pope, he was not prepared to accept the judgment of the pope in matters that seemed to him to be outside of the proper authority of the Holy See.

In 1834, La Mennais published, under the title of _Affaires de Rome_, a report concerning his correspondence and relations with the Holy See. This was duly prohibited by the Congregation in 1835. _Le Livre du Peuple_, printed in 1837, was prohibited in 1838. The same course was taken with his later writings, appearing between 1841 and 1846. La Mennais died in February, 1854. The set of his works in five volumes, published after his death, 1855–1858, does not appear in the Index.

=37. The Roman Revolution of 1848.=--The operations of the Index Congregation were not intermitted on the ground of the absence of Pius IX from Rome, from November 25, 1848, to April 12, 1850. During this period, three sessions were held in Rome and two in Naples, and judgment was passed upon a number of the more important of the publications of the day. Among those condemned the following titles may be noted:

Rosmini, Antonio, _Die fünf Wünder der h. Kirche_, and _Die Verfassung gemäss der socialen Gerechtigkeit_.

Gisberti, V., _Der moderne Jesuit_.

Ventura, G., _Discorso funebre dei morti di Vienna_, etc. (The three titles in German are recorded in Italian.)

A few months before the condemnation of the two treatises of Rosmini, his name had been under consideration with the pope for appointment as cardinal. His theological and philosophical writings had been denounced by his theological opponents as early as 1841, but, in 1843, Gregory XVI had ordered the controversies concerning the doctrines of Rosmini to be brought to a close. In 1850, the denunciation of the writings of Rosmini was renewed. The Congregation of the Index caused an examination of the works to be made by a number of consultors and, in 1854, the judgment was given that they were not to be disapproved, _dimittantur opera_. This continued controversy concerning the philosophical and theological teachings of Rosmini brought about, in 1880, an authoritative definition of the formula _dimittantur_.

In November, 1848, Pius IX took refuge in Gaeta. Rosmini followed the Pope thither, but finding that the influence of his opponent, Cardinal Antonelli, was still controlling, he returned without securing any personal consideration. A series of negotiations, controversies, and correspondence followed, but it was not until 1854 that his works finally secured quittance. The question then placed before the Congregation was whether, as the writings of Rosmini had been thoroughly examined and had been shown to be free from errors in matters both of doctrine and morality, the prohibition that had been placed upon them ought not to be cancelled. The Jesuits were still unwilling to give up their contest against the teachings of Rosmini. They pointed out that the Inquisition held higher authority than that of the Congregation, and that in a number of instances books which had been passed with approval by the Congregation had been condemned by the Inquisition. Cornaldi, in a treatise printed in 1882, contended that the philosophy of Rosmini was distinctly opposed to the doctrines of St. Thomas. Leo XIII, in a brief addressed, in January, 1882, to the Bishops of Milan and Turin, reproves the attempts to renew the controversies concerning Rosmini and calls attention to his encyclical in which he had indicated the way by which all devout philosophers could arrive at a harmony of conclusion.

=38. Traditionalism and Ontology, 1833–1880.=--In 1833, Abbé Bautain of Strasburg was responsible for the initiating of certain controversies, in part philosophical and in part theological, which appear to have turned upon the proper interpretation of the doctrines so-called of Traditionalism and Ontologism. In 1870, these controversies were revived in Louvain and in Paris with the result of bringing out certain condemnations from the Congregation and from the Inquisition. In 1840, Bautain was compelled to subscribe to certain propositions formulated by the Congregation, and in 1855 his associate Bonnetty took the same course. In 1861, the Inquisition declared seven propositions, selected from the writings of Ubagh and other French Ontologists, to be heretical. Ubagh was compelled to correct certain treatises of his own according to specifications laid down by the Index; and, in 1866, after lengthy negotiations, his friends in Louvain were obliged to declare their acceptance of the reproval and of the conclusions of the Congregation and of the Inquisition. Ubagh held in the University of Louvain the chair of philosophy and logic.

=39. Attritio and the Peccatum Philosophicum.=--In addition to the Inquisition’s decrees in which whole series of propositions were condemned, certain decrees were issued in which consideration was given to one or two propositions. In May, 1667, Alexander VII issued a decree in which, while not undertaking to decide the issue that had arisen concerning the sufficiency of incomplete repentance to secure absolution, he prohibited any writings which maintained that one view or the other of the matter was in itself heretical. In August, 1690, a decree of Alexander VIII condemns the two propositions, first, that the love of God is not requisite for the leading of a proper life, and, second, the theory that a sin which has been committed by some one who does not know God, or committed during a moment in which the sinner is not thinking of God, (the so-called philosophical sin as distinguished from the theological sin) is not to be classed as a mortal sin. These two definitions of the Inquisition resulted in the prohibition of a number of writings upon the questions. The most important of these was the _Amor poenitens_ by Johannes Mercassel, Bishop of Castro, which, after a long series of investigations, was finally condemned in 1690, with a _d.c._

The Council of Trent[54] had declared that the perfect repentance which has its motive in the love of God (_contritio caritate perfecta_) can secure reconciliation with God before the sacrament of confession may be received, but it does not free the believer from the requirement for this sacrament. The instruction says, further, that the incomplete repentance, the so-called _attritio_, which arises from a consideration of the shamefulness of the sin or is produced by a fear of the punishment of hell and which is therefore connected with the will to refrain from sin with the hope for forgiveness, can not of itself and without the sacrament of confession, bring about a reconciliation with God. Such a condition in the believer places him, however, by means of the sacrament of confession, in a position to secure grace. The doctrines presented in these instructions were, as above indicated, the texts for a long series of writings, many of which failed to secure with the Index authorities approval as orthodox.

=40. Communism and Socialism, 1825–1860.=--The selections from the long lists of works of those classed as socialists are but inconsiderable and, as in the case of certain other important divisions of literature, it is difficult to trace any plan or principle upon which they have been based. Proudhon is distinguished by having his entire series of works included in the Index, while of Saint-Simon (†1825) not a single volume has been condemned. Of the works of Charles Fourier (1768–1837), one book only has been selected for prohibition, _Le Nouveau Monde, Industriel et Sociétaire_, printed in 1829, prohibited in 1835.

Étienne Cabet (1788–1856) is represented in the Index by one only of his long series of treatises, _Le Vrai Christianisme_, printed in 1846, prohibited in 1848.

Esquiros, H. A. (†1876), has, next to Proudhon, the longest list in the Index of works belonging to this class. Of these the most important is _L’Évangile du Peuple_, printed in 1840, prohibited in 1841. This is followed by three socialist tracts entitled _Les Vierges Martyres_, _Les Vierges Folles_, _Les Vierges Sages_, printed in 1841, prohibited in 1842.

Further titles in this group are:

Constant, L. A., _La Bible de la Liberté_, printed in 1841, prohibited in the same year. The author was condemned to imprisonment for his works.

Chevé, Ch. Fr., _Le Dernier Mot du Socialisme, par un Catholique_, printed in 1848, prohibited in 1852.

=41. Magnetism and Spiritualism, 1840–1874.=--From the year 1840, the Inquisition published a series of decrees or opinions in regard to the theory of animal magnetism, but did not undertake to lay down any final conclusions. Certain expressions of opinion were also given in regard to the theories grouped under the name of spiritualism, but for this subject also there is wanting from the censorship authorities any authoritative or final word of counsel. From the long list of writings by the spiritualists of the time, only about a dozen were formally condemned. The list includes:

Kardec, Allan, _Revue Spirite, Journal d’Études Psychologiques_, 1858–1864; _Le Spiritisme à sa plus simple Expression_, printed in 1862, prohibited in 1864; _Le Livre des Esprits_, printed in 1863, prohibited in 1864.

Guldenstubbe, L. V., _Positive Pneumatologie_, printed in 1870, prohibited in 1874.

Under magnetism may be noted:

Cahagnet, L. A., _Guide du Magnétiseur; Le Magnétisme Spiritualiste_.

With this group may also be classed the Memoir of Swedenborg by the Protestant theologian, J. Matter of Strasbourg, _Swedenborg, Sa Vie, ses Écrits et sa Doctrine_, printed in 1863, prohibited in 1864.

=42. French Authors, 1835–1884.=--Among the more important of the books by French authors which are represented in the Index during this half-century may be noted the following:

Ségur, Mgr. L. G. de (1881), _La Piété et la Vie Intérieure_, printed in 1864, prohibited in 1869. The name of the author is not recorded in the Index and it is stated that the omission was due to personal consideration for him. Ségur states, in an article printed in 1860, that the monograph, before being brought into print, had been passed upon with approval by a number of devout scholars. He said further, that seventeen thousand copies had been distributed and that during the five years since the publication no criticism concerning it had come to him. He yields himself now to the authority of the Holy See and recalls the work from circulation.

Cloquet, Abbé. This author comes into the Index in 1864, on the ground of a series of monographs having to do with the subject of indulgences.

Alletz, P. A. (†1785), _Dictionnaire Portatif des Conciles_, printed in 1758 and reissued in 1822, first prohibited (with a _d.c._) in 1859.

Caron, L. H., Abbé, _La Vraie Doctrine de la Sainte-Église_, printed in 1852, prohibited in 1856.

Siguier, Aug., _Christ et le Peuple_, printed in 1835, prohibited in 1836.

Marne, M. G. de la, _La Religion Défendue contre les Préjugés et la Superstition_, printed in 1823, prohibited in 1843.

Quinet, Edgar (1803–1875), _Ahasuérus_, printed in 1833, prohibited in 1835; _La Génie de Religion_, printed in 1842, prohibited in 1844; _L’Allemagne et l’Italie_, printed in 1839, prohibited in 1848; _La Révolution_, printed in 1865, prohibited in 1866.

Michelet, J., _Mémoires de Luther_ (a translation from the German), printed in 1835, prohibited in 1840; _Du Prêtre_, _De la Femme_, _De la Famille_, _L’Amour_, _La Sorcière_, _La Bible_, _De l’Humanité_, printed between 1845 and 1864, prohibited promptly after publication.

Mickiewicz, Adam (1798–1855), _L’Église Officielle et le Messianisme_, printed in 1843, prohibited in 1848.

Renan, E. The writings of this author ought properly to have come into the Index under the specification _Opera omnia_. The Congregation appears to have taken prompt action concerning each book as soon as information of the publication came to hand, but a few titles escaped attention. The more important of those recorded are the following: _Le Livre de Job_, _Étude d’Histoire Religieuse_, _Origine du Langage_, _Histoire des Langues Sémitiques_, _Averroés et l’Averroisme_, _Vie de Jésus_, _L’Antéchrist_, _Les Évangiles_, _La Mort de Jésus_. (These books appeared between the years 1858 and 1884.)

Pêyrat, Alphonse, _Histoire Élémentaire de Jésus_, printed in 1864, prohibited the same year.

Soury, Jules, _Jésus et les Évangiles_, printed 1878, prohibited 1878.

Scholl, _Le Procès de Jésus_, printed in 1878, prohibited 1878.

Havet, E., _Le Christianisme et ses Origines_, printed 1873, prohibited 1878.

Aube, B., _Histoire des Persécutions de l’Église_; _Histoire de l’Église_; _La Polémique Paienne à la fin du deuxième siècle_; _Le Christianisme dans l’Empire Romain_, printed 1876–1880, prohibited as published.

Larroque, P., _Examen des Doctrines de la Religion Chrétienne_; _L’Esclavage chez les Nations Chrétiennes_, printed in 1859–1864, prohibited as published. Later writings by this author were also placed on the Index, apparently in so far as their titles were brought to the attention of the Congregation.

Jacolliot, L., _La Bible dans l’Inde_; _Vie de Jezeus Chrishna_, an identification of Christ with the Chrishna of the Hindus, printed in 1869, prohibited the same year. A group of later writings by this author were also promptly condemned.

Rodrigues, H., _Les trois Filles de la Bible_, printed in 1865; _Les Origines du Sermon de la Montagne_, printed in 1868; _La Justice de Dieu_, printed in 1869; _Histoire du Premier Christianisme_, printed in 1873. The above books were prohibited together in 1877 with the specification: “these works are condemned in accordance with the Constitution of Clement VIII, issued in 1592, on the ground of their presenting Jewish writings which contain heresies and errors tending to undermine Christian doctrine.”

Lajollais, Mlle. Nathalie de, _Le Lime des Mères des Families sur l’Éducation Pratique des Femmes_, printed in 1845, prohibited (with a _d.c._) in 1846.

Gréville, Mme. Henri, _Instruction Morale et Civile des Jeunes Filles_, printed in 1882, prohibited the same year.

Bert, Paul, _L’Instruction Civile à l’École_, printed in 1883, prohibited the same year. The volume of Bert had been officially adopted for use in the schools of Paris and also in certain other of the large cities. The decree of the Index was published by the Archbishop of Albi and by the Bishops of Annécy, Viviers, Langres, and Valence. The ecclesiastical authorities were sharply reproved by the magistracy for their interference in the matter and for their undertaking to criticise the action of the Government in a matter which, as it was claimed, belonged to the temporalities. In May, 1883, Minister Ferry, speaking in the Senate, says:

“We will never recognise as binding in a matter of this kind the conclusions or judgments of the Congregation of the Index. We propose to maintain free from interference the Gallican and the French tradition of the independence of the civil power. How is it possible to conceive that a Frenchman would be prepared to accept conclusions of a body like the Congregation which has in past years seen fit to condemn and to attempt to repress great spirits of humanity like Descartes, Malebranche, Kant, Renan, Bouillet?... I understand that a manual by Compayré was condemned because the author says that it is more important for a child to know the names of the Kings of France than those of the Kings of Judea.... This Index decree is sent out over the heads of our ambassador in Rome and of the Papal Nuncio in Paris in such manner as to arouse needless antagonism in France.”

=43. Italian Writings, 1840–1876.=--Of the works by Italian authors condemned during this period, the following may be noted as indicating the policy of the Congregation.

Lazzeretti, David, _Opuscula omnia quocumque Idiomate edita_, printed in 1876, prohibited in 1878. Lazzeretti represented a mystic school of thought. He had for a time been in favour with Pius IX.

Gravina, D. B., _Su l’Origine dell’ Anima_, printed in 1870, prohibited in 1875.

Nuytz, G. N., _Juris ecclesiastici Institutiones_, printed in 1844, prohibited in 1851. In this condemnation, the critics have taken the pains to specify certain propositions which are considered pernicious.

Zobi, Ant., _Storia civile della Toscana_, 1737–1848, prohibited in 1856.

Amari, Mich., _Storia dei Musulmani in Sicilia_, volume one, printed in 1845, prohibited in the same year. The following volumes of this work escaped condemnation.

Rusconi, Carlo, _La Repubblica Romana del 1849_, printed in 1849, prohibited in 1850.

Leva, Jus. de, _I Jesuiti e la Repubblica di Venezia_, printed in 1866, prohibited in 1873.

Cantu, E., _Storia Universale_, printed in 1858, prohibited in 1860.

Torti, Giov., _Un Abisso in Roma_, printed in 1864, prohibited (by the Inquisition) in 1865.

=44. American Writings, 1822–1876.=--The first work by an American author which finds place in the Index is a monograph by W. Hogan, a priest in Philadelphia, having to do with a controversy that had arisen concerning the Church of Saint Mary which Bishop Henry Conwell proposed to have consecrated as a cathedral. The action of the Bishop was contested in some fashion by the trustees acting on behalf of Hogan who wanted to retain his pastorate. Hogan’s pamphlet was condemned in 1822. Hogan finally gave up the contest and at the same time left the Catholic Church and married. In 1864, was placed upon the Index a translation, printed in New York, of a monograph by Fr. Hollick, entitled _Guia de los Cassados o Historia Natural de la Generacion_.

Draper, J. W., _History of the Conflict between Religion and Science_, printed (in New York) in 1874, prohibited (in a Spanish version) in 1876.

Canada is represented in the Index of this period by the titles of two year-books issued by a literary association in Montreal, which, printed in 1858–9, were prohibited in 1864. In the year 1858, at which time the association contained seven hundred members, a proposition, submitted at the instance of certain ecclesiastics in the membership, was brought up for consideration, under which all non-Catholic members were to be excluded and two Protestant journals were to be removed from the reading-room. This proposal was voted down, and on that ground and also on the further complaint that the library contained pernicious literature, the Catholic members were called upon to leave the association. One hundred and fifty left and instituted a Catholic French-Canadian institute. The majority of the original association issued a statement declaring that the library contained no unworthy books and that, in any case, the decision concerning its literature rested with the managers of the association. In April, 1858, Bishop Bourget issued a pastoral brief in which he reminded the members of the old association that the reading or possession of heretical books involved the penalty of excommunication, and that any books recorded in the Index were to be classed as heretical. The institute was instructed to recall its action, and if it refused, the Catholic members were ordered to resign, under penalty of excommunication. Two hundred Catholics disregarded the command of the Bishop and remained members. They explained that they did not assert the right to read forbidden books, but they did maintain their right to remain members of a society in whose collections such books might be contained. In 1864, these Catholic members took the pains to place before the Bishop a catalogue of the library with the request that he would indicate the books classed as pernicious and with the suggestion that these books should be placed in a separate collection. To this proposition the Bishop paid no attention, whereupon seventeen of the members made direct appeal to Pope Pius IX. From the Pope they received no reply, but in July, 1869, the Bishop, then in Rome, sent to Montreal a pastoral brief in which he reported that the Inquisition declared the work of the institution to be pernicious. He reported, further, that the annual volume of the Canadian institute for 1868 (in which volume were contained certain addresses on toleration and freedom of conscience) had been condemned and that any person possessing or reading this year-book or remaining in the institute had come into mortal sin and must be refused the sacraments. Later in the year, a second memorial was addressed to the prefect of the Propaganda by the Catholic members of the institute, in which they stated that they accepted without question the condemnation of the year-book. To this memorial no reply was received. The Bishop, however, declared in a report to the vicar-general that the submission rendered in this memorial was inadequate because the writers remained members of an institute in which was maintained the righteousness of religious toleration. In November, 1869, died a distinguished Catholic member of the institute named Guibord, a man whose life had been above reproach. The pastor and the other authorities refused to make burial of the body even without religious ceremonies. The widow secured a provisional interment in unconsecrated ground. She then instituted a suit demanding the right of burial in consecrated ground. The suit continued until after her death in 1873. In November, 1874, the judicial committee of the priory council in London decided that the body was entitled to burial in the consecrated ground of his pastoral church and decided further that the Church authorities must provide for the very considerable expenses of the suit. The re-burial took place in November, 1875, after the Church authorities had filed a protest and had ordered faithful Catholics to take no part in the ceremonies. The record is of value in the history of censorship proceedings as an example of the overriding by the authority of the State of a decision of the Church, in regard to a matter which had heretofore been held as belonging strictly within ecclesiastical control, namely the right of burial in consecrated ground. In 1870, a later annual giving the record of the conclusion of the process, was condemned by the Inquisition.[55]

The contributions to the Index from the literature of South America are for this period more considerable than those from the United States and Canada. The following titles indicate the direction of the censorship.

Vidaurre, Manuel Lorenzo de, _Proyecto del codigo eclesiastico_, printed (in Paris) in 1830, condemned in 1833. The author, a doctor of law of the University of Lima, was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Peru. His “project” proposed certain rather radical changes in ecclesiastical regulations. _Tratado sobre Denaciones_, printed (in Madrid) in 1820, prohibited in 1833. In the same year were placed upon the Index three monographs by Vidaurre, one on the Bishop of Rome and the condition of the Church, the second on Celibacy, and the third on Confession.

Vigil, Francisco P. G. de, _Defensa de la Autoridad de los Gobiernos y de los Obispos contra las Pretenciones de la Curia Romana_, printed (in Lima) in 1848, prohibited in 1851. The author was a priest and at the time of his death Curator of the National Museum at Lima. The work, issued in six volumes, octavo, gives consideration to almost every detail of the organisation of the Church. _Manual de Derecho Publico Eclesiastico, and Dialogos sobre la Existencia de Dios y la Vida futura, á la Juventud Americana_, printed (in Lima) in 1863, prohibited in 1864. Vigil died in June, 1875. He had declined to submit himself to the condemnation of the Church and he was therefore refused the last sacraments. The Congress of Peru directed, however, that he should have the honour of a public funeral.

La Riva, J. F., _El Espiritu del Evangelio comparado con las Practicas de la Iglesia Catolica_, printed (in Lima) in 1867, prohibited in the same year.

Fotvárad, Carlos H. de, _O Casamento civil_, etc., printed (in Rio Janeiro) in 1858, prohibited in 1859. This monograph was written in reply to a treatise, published in Rio in 1858, by Canon de Campo. The author undertook to maintain the exclusive authority of the Church (as against the State) in all matters connected with marriage. _Las Biblias falsificadas_, etc., printed (in Rio) in 1867, prohibited in 1869. This was a further criticism of the utterances of de Campo.

D’Aranjo, M. R. (Bishop of Rio), _Elementos dé direito Eclesiastico publico_, etc., printed (in Rio) in 1857, prohibited in 1869. _Compendio de Theologia Moral_, printed (in Oporto) in 1858, prohibited in 1869.

Monte, Carmelo J. de, _O Brazil Mystificado na Questao religiosa_, printed in 1875, prohibited in 1876.

Mexico is represented in the Index of the period by a treatise entitled _Conducta_, the work of D. J. C. Portugal, Bishop of Michoachon, printed (in Mexico) in 1835, prohibited in 1840; and by two treatises of N. Pizarro, _Catecismo Politico Constitutional_, and _Catecismo de Moral_, printed in 1867, prohibited in 1869.

=45. Periodicals, 1832–1900.=--In 1832, the Congregation of the Index issued a declaration stating that the regulations of the Index of Trent (renewed in the succeeding Indexes) concerning ecclesiastical censorship, covered material printed in journals as well as that published in books. After the year 1848, however, the attempt to enforce in Rome ecclesiastical censorship, over the contents of journals as given up was impracticable. It was pointed out that no advantage could be secured in placing upon the Index journal issues of a back date, the reading of which had already been completed.

During the 18th century, however, various attempts were made to control the literary policy of journals the managers of which were within reach of ecclesiastical authority, and during the 19th century, censorship decrees were issued in regard to a number of journals which concerned themselves with ecclesiastical subjects. The only practicable measure to take against journals the articles in which are judged to be pernicious in their influence is to prohibit the faithful from reading or from possessing copies of the same. It has, however, been found convenient, in the cases in which such prohibitions appeared to be called for, to have the same issued and enforced, not by the Congregation, but by the local authorities.

After 1850, the Minister of the Interior in the papal States printed lists of the foreign journals the reading of which was forbidden.

1862. December. Adames, Apostolic Vicar of Luxemburg, declared in a pastoral letter that the publisher of the _Courier de Luxemburg_ and his editors were excommunicated. The subscribers and readers of the journal were to be excluded from the sacraments on the ground that they were helping to support a work of Satan. The publisher took the matter into the courts, but the judges dismissed the complaint against Adames, taking the ground that his action was within his ecclesiastical and legal rights. (Vering, _Archiv_, X, 422, XII, 172.)

In 1863, the Patriarch of Venice and the ten Venetian bishops, in a pastoral letter, prohibited the reading of three journals specified.

1870. Melchers, Archbishop of Cologne, published an instruction against the _Rheinische Merkur_, with which instruction the Bishop of Mayence and the Capitular-Vicar of Münster concurred. The Bishop of Paderborn issued an edict forbidding, as a mortal sin, the possession of a copy of the journal. No action appears to have been taken by the publishers, possibly because the circulation of the _Merkur_ was not seriously affected by these episcopal fulminations.

1871. Under instructions of Pius IX, a circular letter was issued by Cardinal Vicar Patrizzi to the pastors or parish priests directing them to forbid to their parishioners the reading of certain Roman journals. The list included _La Libertà_, _Il Capital_, _Il Tempo_, _La nuova Roma_, _La Vita Nuova_, and six others. Disobedience to this order was to be classed as a grievous sin. In 1873, a papal brief gave certain general instructions in regard to journals. It pointed out that these were covered by rules 2 and 7 of the Index. Papers were to be considered sheet by sheet, simply as open books. Permission might be accorded to a person to whom the information was necessary, to read in heretical or dangerous papers the political or financial articles, but the permission should be strictly limited to these portions of the journal.

In 1882, September, the Patriarch of Venice prohibited in like manner the reading of _Il Veneto Christiano_, and of _Fra Paolo Sarpi_, as “godless, blasphemous, and heretical productions.” The Patriarch declared that the publisher and those who read these journals with belief were excommunicated.

1885. February. The Archbishop Magnasco, of Geneva, condemned the _Epoca_. Editor, publisher, distributor, and readers were alike condemned to excommunication. Whoever buys or reads a number, or gives it to another, has committed mortal sin.

=46. The Roman Question, 1859–1870.=--Between the years 1859–1861, a number of monographs and volumes, chiefly by French writers, were brought into print that had to do with the question of the political authority of the Papacy. These French theories brought out a full measure of criticism and condemnation. Among the works thus reproved was a treatise by La Guérronnière, _La France, Rome et l’Italie_, printed in 1861, in regard to which Cardinal Antonelli issued a specific condemnation. No single title of the group is, however, to be found in the Index. The monograph by La Guérronnière expressed, as was well understood, the views of the Emperor Napoleon III, and had probably been written at the Emperor’s suggestion. A companion volume was published about the same time by Edmund About and this also was sharply condemned not only by Cardinal Antonelli but also by a number of the French bishops, including Dupanloup. The list of the Italian controversial publications on this question is also considerable. The earlier works had to do simply with the political authority of the pope, but since 1870, a number of writers have given attention to the desirability, on the ground of the welfare of Italy and also of that of the Church universal, of the reconciliation of the Papacy with the Government of the United Italy. These writings were met with sharp condemnation on the part of Pius IX and Leo XIII and of the supporters of the civil authority of the Papacy, but in only few instances was

## action taken in regard to them by the Congregation of the Index.

=47. The Council of the Vatican, 1867–1876.=--The conclusions reached by the council held in the Vatican in 1867 resulted in the publication of a number of controversial works of which certain titles found their way into the Index. The more important of these are the following:

Michelis, Fr., _Fünfzig Thesen über die Gestaltung der kirchlichen Verhältnisse der Gegenwart_, printed in 1867, condemned in 1868.

Renouf, Le Page, _La Condamnation du Pape Honorius_, printed in 1868, prohibited in the same year.

“Janus” (the name adopted for the moment by Döllinger) _Der Papst und das Concilium_, printed in 1869, prohibited in the same year.

Wallon, Jean, _La Vérité sur le Concile_, printed in 1872, prohibited in 1873.

Dupanloup, Archbishop, _Testament Spirituel de Montalembert_, and _La Cour de Rome et la France_, printed in 1871, prohibited in 1872.

Pressensé, _Le Concile du Vatican_, printed in 1872, prohibited in 1876.

In 1870, the general Congregation published a protest, signed by a number of members of the council, calling for the specific condemnation of a series of newspapers, articles, and pamphlets in which the work of the council had been criticised. The secretary of the Congregation of the Index reported, however, that it did not seem wise to take

## action. During the years 1871 and 1872, were, however, condemned by

the Inquisition a number of periodical articles on the work of the council by such authors as Lord Acton, Berchtold, Friedrich, Ruckgaber, Schulte, Zirngiebl, and others.

=48. Example of a License.=--A license given by the inquisitor-general of Spain to Dr. Andrew Sall in June, 1652, states that he was permitted to keep and to read prohibited books for use in connection with the writing of any doctrinal or devotional books or treatises. The holder of the license was charged with the duty of giving information to his Grace of any censurable propositions that he might find in books, ancient or modern, which might not already have been comprehended in the expurgatory Index. The license was marked as duly entered in the record of licenses, the page (Number 138) giving indication of a considerable series of licenses outstanding. These instruments were renewed from year to year. Dr. Sall relates that with the second grant came a complaint that he had reported no censurable propositions. He had excused himself by saying that he had not had in his hands any Protestant books; but he gave specification of some perverse and apparently heretical doctrines he had found in certain books which were approved and were much in use with themselves. He gave as an example citations from the Commentaries on Esther by de Murcia:

_Etiam Deus Op. Max. proposita ante oculos morte in meliora contendat_; and

_Etiam demon morte ante oculos constituta contendit in meliora_.[56]

Sleumer gives the following example of the form in force to-day (1906) for an application for the permission to read forbidden books.

“To the very reverend Vicar-General of the diocese: The undersigned respectfully request permission for the reading of certain books which have been specifically forbidden in the Index or which in their class come under the general provisions of the Index. The requirement is based upon the following grounds:...

“The undersigned feels assured that the proposed use of this forbidden literature may be made by him on these grounds without any undermining of his faith or any interference with his conscientious duty to the Holy Church.”[57]

##