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.