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 OpenAlex
Gigliola Fragnito

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
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 enseignants0,225
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

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