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: