Chapter VII: Examples of Condemned Literature (1)

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.