MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2046635995 · doi:10.1353/cat.2007.0166

Index librorum prohibitorum: 1600-1966 (review)

2007· article· en· W2046635995 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gigliola Fragnito

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œCatholic historical review · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueRenaissance Literature and Culture
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVernacularIndex (typography)EleventhCensorshipHistoryClassicsLiteratureArtPhilosophyTheology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Index librorum prohibitorum: 1600-1966 Gigliola Fragnito Index librorum prohibitorum: 1600-1966. Edited by J.M. De Bujanda with the assistance of Marcella Richter. [Index des livres interdits, Volume XI.] (Montreal: Centre d'Études de la Renaissance, Université de Sherbrooke, Médiaspaul; Geneva: Librairie Droz. 2002. Pp. 980.) After the publication of the ten volumes of Index of forbidden books, which record all books prohibited by secular and ecclesiastical authorities in Catholic Europe during the sixteenth century, this eleventh volume of the series Index des livres interdits directed by J. M. De Bujanda registers the books appearing only on the Roman Index, but it embraces a much wider span of time. It lists approximately 5200 titles and 3000 authors, whose prohibition was issued between 1600 and 1966, when the Roman Index was finally abolished by Pope Paul VI. To these impressive numbers, as De Bujanda stresses in his introduction, must be added anonymous writings, titles that, though never placed on the index, were not allowed to circulate for several reasons, and that incalculable amount of books falling under the prohibitions of the general rules, which concerned inter alia vernacular translations of the Bible, lascivious and obscene texts, controversial religious literature, astrological writings, etc. De Bujanda, however, points out that a few authors and titles were withdrawn from the 1900 index following the reform of Roman censorship decreed by Leo XIII. Interestingly enough, this revision was the consequence of the harsh criticisms by F. H. Reusch, whose Der Index der verbotenen Bücher was examined in 1885 by the Congregation of the Index in view of its condemnation. Far from being prohibited, Reusch's book prompted the censors to put order in the contradictory and messy contents of Roman catalogues (see Hubert Wolf, Storia dell'Indice. Il Vaticano e i libri proibiti [Rome: Donzelli, 2006], pp. 199-214). Notwithstanding the inevitably concise biographical data on the authors and bibliographical data on the writings, as compared to the previous volumes, De Bujanda provides the reader with the indispensable elements of a given author or a given work, thus offering an invaluable and hitherto lacking tool to scholars of censorship and to specialists of various disciplines. The major interest of this new volume, with respect to the sixteenth-century catalogues, lies in its chronology, for it encompasses [End Page 366] more than 350 years of activity of the three curial institutions involved in censorship—the Inquisition, the Congregation of the Index, and the Master of the Sacred Palace. A bird's-eye view of such a long period allows a deeper and broader understanding both of the wide-ranging spectrum of topics, issues, and disciplines at the center of Roman concerns and of the most significant changes over time in the selection of targets. Having lost its battle against the Reformation, Rome seems to have increasingly focused its attention on attacks from domestic dissidents: defenders of State jurisdiction against the encroachments of the Church and the claims of the papacy, Jansenists, quietists, and modernists. Meanwhile virtually every branch of knowledge, independently from its theological implications, came under close scrutiny, and every discipline—from philosophy to history, medicine, sciences, law, biblical studies, literature, etc.—paid its toll to censorship. Condemnations, however, were accurately dispensed: the relevance attributed to the authors or to the writings concerned was evidenced by the authority emitting them. The entries include references to the official document (decree, bull, brief, encyclical, edict), to the authority emitting it (pope, Inquisition, Index, Master of the Sacred Palace, and in a few cases the Congregations of Rites and Indulgences) and to the date. Though drawn from the 1948 index (the last catalogue published by the Roman Church), these data must be handled with caution, since they do not always refer the correct date of the decisions taken by the Inquisition or the Index or of the first publication of the prohibition. On the other hand, they also reflect long-term disputes as to which institution should cloak the condemnation of a book with its authority, a problem that needs to be more carefully investigated and that may account for both the frequent delays in condemning books and authors and for the contradictory...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,092
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,308

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0060,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0050,004
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0920,041

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,253
Écart entre enseignants0,229 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œCatholic historical reviewMême sujetRenaissance Literature and CultureTravaux en français237 207