The Project Gutenberg eBook ofEncyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Independence, Declaration of" to "Indo-European Languages"This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Independence, Declaration of" to "Indo-European Languages"Author: VariousRelease date: June 27, 2012 [eBook #40096]Most recently updated: October 23, 2024Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "INDEPENDENCE, DECLARATION OF" TO "INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES" ***
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Independence, Declaration of" to "Indo-European Languages"Author: VariousRelease date: June 27, 2012 [eBook #40096]Most recently updated: October 23, 2024Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Independence, Declaration of" to "Indo-European Languages"
Author: Various
Author: Various
Release date: June 27, 2012 [eBook #40096]Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Credits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "INDEPENDENCE, DECLARATION OF" TO "INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES" ***
Articles in This Slice
INDEPENDENCE, DECLARATION OF,in United States history, the act (or document) by which the thirteen original states of the Union broke their colonial allegiance to Great Britain in 1776. The controversy preceding the war (seeAmerican Independence, War of) gradually shifted from one primarily upon economic policy to one upon issues of pure politics and sovereignty, and the acts of Congress, as viewed to-day, seem to have been carrying it, from the beginning, inevitably into revolution; but there was apparently no general and conscious drift toward independence until near the close of 1775. The first colony to give official countenance to separation as a solution of colonial grievances was North Carolina, which, on the 12th of April 1776, authorized its delegates in Congress to join with others in a declaration to that end. The first colony to instruct its delegates to take the actual initiative was Virginia, in accordance with whose instructions—voted on the 15th of May—Richard Henry Lee, on the 7th of June, moved a resolution “that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.rdquo; John Adams of Massachusetts seconded the motion. The conservatives could only plead the unpreparedness of public opinion, and the radicals conceded delay on condition that a committee be meanwhile at work on a declaration “to the effect of the said ... resolution,†to serve as a preamble thereto when adopted. This committee consisted of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Robert R. Livingston. To Jefferson the committee entrusted the actual preparation of the paper. On the 2nd of July, by a vote of 12 states—10 voting unanimously, New York not voting, and Pennsylvania and Delaware casting divided ballots (3 votes in the negative)—Congress adopted the resolution of independence; and on the 4th, Jefferson’s “Declaration.†The 4th has always been the day celebrated;1the decisive act of the 2nd being quite forgotten in the memory of the day on which that act was published to the world. It should also be noted that as Congress had already, on the 6th of December 1775, formally disavowed allegiance to parliament, the Declaration recites its array of grievances against the crown, and breaks allegiance to the crown. Moreover, on the 10th of May 1776, Congress had recommended to the people of the colonies that they form such new governments as their representatives should deem desirable; and in the accompanying statement of causes, formulated on the 15th of May, had declared it to be “absolutely irreconcilable to reason and good conscience for the people of these colonies now to take the oaths and affirmations necessary for the support of any government under the crown of Great Britain,†whose authority ought to be “totally suppressed†and taken over by the people—a determination which, as John Adams said, inevitably involved a struggle for absolute independence, involving as it did the extinguishment of all authority, whether of crown, parliament or nation.
Though the Declaration reads as “In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,†New York’s adhesion was in fact not voted until the 9th, nor announced to Congress until the 15th—the Declaration being unanimous, however, when it was ordered, on the 19th, to be engrossed and signed under the above title.2Contrary to the inference naturally to be drawn from the form of the document, no signatures were attached on the 4th. As adopted by Congress, the Declaration differs only in details from the draft prepared by Jefferson; censures of the Britishpeopleand a noble denunciation of slavery were omitted, appeals to Providence were inserted, and verbal improvements made in the interest of terseness and measured statement. The document is full of Jefferson’s fervent spirit and personality, and its ideals were those to which his life was consecrated. It is the best known and the noblest of American state papers. Though open to controversy on some issues of historical fact, not flawless in logic, necessarily partisan in tone and purpose, it is a justificatory preamble, a party manifesto and appeal, reasoned enough to carry conviction, fervent enough to inspire enthusiasm. It mingles—as in all the controversy of the time, but with a literary skill and political address elsewhere unrivalled—stale disputation with philosophy. The rights of man lend dignity to the rights of Englishmen, and the broad outlook of a world-wide appeal, and the elevation of noble principles, relieve minute criticisms of an administrative system.
Jefferson’s political theory was that of Locke, whose words the Declaration echoes. Uncritical critics have repeated John Adams’s assertion that its arguments were hackneyed: so they undoubtedly were—in Congress, and probably little less so without,—but that is certainly pre-eminent among its great merits. As Madison said, “The object was to assert, not to discover truths.†Others have echoed Rufus Choate’s phrase, that the Declaration is made up of “glittering and sounding generalities of natural right.†In truth, its long array of “facts ... submitted to a candid world†had its basis in the whole development of the relations between England and the colonies; every charge had point in a definite reference to historical events, and appealed primarily to men’s reason; but the history is to-day forgotten, while the fanciful basis of the “compact†theory does not appeal to a later age. It should be judged, however, by its purpose and success in its own time. The “compact†theory was always primarily a theory of political ethics, a revolutionary theory, and from the early middle ages to the French Revolution it worked with revolutionary power. It held up an ideal. Its ideal of “equality†was not realized in America in 1776—nor in England in 1688—but no man knew this better than Jefferson. Locke disclaimed for him in 16903the shallower misunderstandings still daily put upon his words. Both Locke and Jefferson wrote simply of political equality, political freedom. Even within this limitation, the idealistic formulas of both were at variance with the actual conditions of their time. The variance would have been greater had their phrases been applied as humanitarian formulas to industrial and social conditions. The Lockian theory fitted beautifully the question of colonial dependence, and was applied to that by America with inexorable logic; it fitted the question of individual political rights, and was applied to them in 1776, but not in 1690; it did not apply to non-political conditions of individual liberty, a fact realized by many at the time—and it is true that such an application would have been more inconsistent in America in 1776 as regards the negroes than in England in 1690 as regarded freemen. Beyond this, there is no pertinence in the stricture that the Declaration is made up of glittering generalities of natural right. Its influence upon American legal and constitutional development has been profound. Locke, says Leslie Stephen, popularized “a convenient formula for enforcing the responsibility of governorsâ€â€”but his theories were those of an individual philosopher—while by the Declaration a state, for the first time in history, founded its life on democratic idealism, pronouncing governments to exist for securing the happiness of the people, and to derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. It was a democratic instrument, and the revolution a democratic movement; in South Carolina and the Middle Colonies particularly, the cause of independence was bound up with popular movements against aristocratic elements. Congress was fond of appealing to “the purest maxims of representationâ€; it sedulously measured public opinion; took no great step without an explanatory address to the country; cast its influence with the people in local struggles as far as it could; appealed to them directly over the heads of conservative assemblies; and in general stirred up democracy. The Declaration gave the people recognition equivalent to promises, which, as fast as new governments were instituted, were converted by written constitutions into rights, which have since then steadily extended.
The original parchment of the Declaration, preserved in the Department of State (from 1841 to 1877 in the Patent Office, once a part of the Department of State), was injured—the injury was almost wholly to the signatures—in 1823 by the preparation of a facsimile copper-plate, and since 1894, when it was already partly illegible, it has been jealously guarded from light and air. The signers were as follows: John Hancock (1737-1792), of Massachusetts, president; Button Gwinnett (c.1732-1777), Lyman Hall (1725-1790), George Walton (1740-1804), of Georgia; William Hooper (1742-1790), Joseph Hewes (1730-1779), John Penn (1741-1788), of North Carolina; Edward Rutledge (1749-1800), Thomas Heyward, Jr. (1746-1809), Thomas Lynch, Jr. (1749-1779), Arthur Middleton (1742-1787), of South Carolina; Samuel Chase (1741-1811), William Paca (1740-1799), Thomas Stone (1743-1787), Charles Carroll (1737-1832) of Carrollton, of Maryland; George Wythe (1726-1806), Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794), Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), Benjamin Harrison (1740-1791), Thomas Nelson, Jr.(1738-1789), Francis Lightfoot Lee (1734-1797), Carter Braxton (1736-1797), of Virginia; Robert Morris (1734-1806), Benjamin Rush (1745-1813), Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), John Morton (1724-1777), George Clymer (1739-1813), James Smith (c.1719-1806), George Taylor (1716-1781), James Wilson (1742-1798), George Ross (1730-1779), of Pennsylvania; Caesar Rodney (1728-1784), George Read (1733-1798), Thomas McKean (1734-1817), of Delaware; William Floyd (1734-1821), Philip Livingston (1716-1778), Francis Lewis (1713-1803), Lewis Morris (1726-1798), of New York; Richard Stockton (1730-1781), John Witherspoon (1722-1794), Francis Hopkinson (1737-1791), John Hart (1708-1780), Abraham Clark (1726-1794), of New Jersey; Josiah Bartlett (1729-1795), William Whipple (1730-1785), Matthew Thornton (1714-1803), of New Hampshire; Samuel Adams (1722-1803), John Adams (1735-1826), Robert Treat Paine (1731-1814), Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814), of Massachusetts; Stephen Hopkins (1707-1785), William Ellery (1727-1820), of Rhode Island; Roger Sherman (1721-1793), Samuel Huntington (1732-1796), William Williams (1731-1811), Oliver Wolcott (1726-1797), of Connecticut. Not all the men who rendered the greatest services to independence were in Congress in July 1776; not all who voted for the Declaration ever signed it; not all who signed it were members when it was adopted. The greater part of the signatures were certainly attached on the 2nd of August; but at least six were attached later. With one exception—that of Thomas McKean, present on the 4th of July but not on the 2nd of August, and permitted to sign in 1781—all were added before printed copies with names attached were first authorized by Congress for public circulation in January 1777.
See H. Friedenwald,The Declaration of Independence, An Interpretation and an Analysis(New York, 1904); J. H. Hazleton,The Declaration of Independence: its History(New York, 1906); M. Chamberlain,John Adams ... with other Essays and Addresses(Boston, 1898), containing, “The Authentication of the Declaration of Independence†(same in Massachusetts Historical Society,Proceedings, Nov. 1884); M. C. Tyler,Literary History of the American Revolution, vol. i. (New York, 1897), or same material inNorth American Review, vol. 163, 1896, p. 1; W. F. Dana inHarvard Law Review, vol. 13, 1900, p. 319; G. E. Ellis in J. Winsor,Narrative and Critical History of America, vol. vi. (Boston, 1888); R. Frothingham,Rise of the Republic, ch. ii. (Boston, 1872). There are various collected editions of biographies of the signers; probably the best are John Sanderson’sBiography of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence(7 vols., Philadelphia, 1823-1827), and William Brotherhead’sBook of the Signers(Philadelphia, 1860, new ed., 1875). The Declaration itself is available in theRevised Statutesof the United States (1878), and many other places. A facsimile of the original parchment in uninjured condition is inserted in P. Force’sAmerican Archives, 5th series, vol. i. at p. 1595 (Washington, 1848). The reader will find it interesting to compare a study of the French Declaration: G. Jellinek,The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens(New York, 1901; German edition, Leipzig, 1895; French translation preferable because of preface of Professor Larnande).
See H. Friedenwald,The Declaration of Independence, An Interpretation and an Analysis(New York, 1904); J. H. Hazleton,The Declaration of Independence: its History(New York, 1906); M. Chamberlain,John Adams ... with other Essays and Addresses(Boston, 1898), containing, “The Authentication of the Declaration of Independence†(same in Massachusetts Historical Society,Proceedings, Nov. 1884); M. C. Tyler,Literary History of the American Revolution, vol. i. (New York, 1897), or same material inNorth American Review, vol. 163, 1896, p. 1; W. F. Dana inHarvard Law Review, vol. 13, 1900, p. 319; G. E. Ellis in J. Winsor,Narrative and Critical History of America, vol. vi. (Boston, 1888); R. Frothingham,Rise of the Republic, ch. ii. (Boston, 1872). There are various collected editions of biographies of the signers; probably the best are John Sanderson’sBiography of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence(7 vols., Philadelphia, 1823-1827), and William Brotherhead’sBook of the Signers(Philadelphia, 1860, new ed., 1875). The Declaration itself is available in theRevised Statutesof the United States (1878), and many other places. A facsimile of the original parchment in uninjured condition is inserted in P. Force’sAmerican Archives, 5th series, vol. i. at p. 1595 (Washington, 1848). The reader will find it interesting to compare a study of the French Declaration: G. Jellinek,The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens(New York, 1901; German edition, Leipzig, 1895; French translation preferable because of preface of Professor Larnande).
(F. S. P.)
1“Independence Day†is a holiday in all the states and territories of the United States.2As read before the army meanwhile, it was headed “In Congress, July 4, 1776. A Declaration by the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled.â€3Two Treatises of Government, No. ii. § 54, as to age, abilities, virtue, &c.
1“Independence Day†is a holiday in all the states and territories of the United States.
2As read before the army meanwhile, it was headed “In Congress, July 4, 1776. A Declaration by the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled.â€
3Two Treatises of Government, No. ii. § 54, as to age, abilities, virtue, &c.
INDEPENDENTS,in religion, a name used in the 17th century for those holding to the autonomy of each several church or congregation, hence otherwise known as Congregationalists. Down to the end of the 18th century the former title prevailed in England, though not in America; while since then “Congregationalist†has obtained generally in both. (SeeCongregationalism.)
INDEX,a word that may be understood either specially as a table of references to a book or, more generally, as an indicator of the position of required information on any given subject. According to classical usage, the Latin wordindexdenoted a discoverer, discloser or informer; a catalogue or list; an inscription; the title of a book; and the fore or index-finger. Cicero also used the word to express the table of contents to a book, and explained his meaning by the Greek formsyllabus. Shakespeare uses the word with the general meaning of a table of contents or preface—thus Nestor says (Troilus and Cressida, i. 3):—
“And in such indexes, although small pricks;To their subsequent volumes, there is seen;The baby figure of the giant mass.â€
“And in such indexes, although small pricks;
To their subsequent volumes, there is seen;
The baby figure of the giant mass.â€
Table was the usual English word, and index was not thoroughly naturalized until the beginning of the 17th century, and even then it was usual to explain it as “index or table.†By the present English usage, according to which the word “table†is reserved for the summary of the contents as they occur in a book, and the word “index†for the arranged analysis of the contents for the purpose of detailed reference, we obtain an advantage not enjoyed in other languages; for the Frenchtableis used for both kinds, as isindicein Italian and Spanish. There is a group of words each of which has its distinct meaning but finds its respective place under the general heading of index work; these are calendar, catalogue, digest, inventory, register, summary, syllabus and table.1The value of indexes was recognized in the earliest times, and many old books have full and admirably constructed ones. A good index has sometimes kept a dull book alive by reason of the value or amusing character of its contents. Carlyle referred to Prynne’sHistrio-Mastixas “a book still extant, but never more to be read by mortalâ€; but the index must have given amusement to many from the curious character of its entries, and Attorney-General Noy particularly alluded to it in his speech at Prynne’s trial. Indexes have sometimes been used as vehicles of satire, and the witty Dr William King was the first to use them as a weapon of attack. His earliest essay in this field was the index added to the second edition of the Hon. Charles Boyle’s attack upon Bentley’sDissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris(1698).
To serve its purpose well, an index to a book must be compiled with care, the references being placed under the heading that the reader is most likely to seek. An index should be one and indivisible, and not broken up into several alphabets; thus every work, whether in one or more volumes, ought to have its complete index. The mode of arrangement calls for special attention; this may be either chronological, alphabetical or according to classes, but great confusion will be caused by uniting the three systems. The alphabetical arrangement is so simple, convenient and easily understood that it has naturally superseded the other forms, save in some exceptional cases. Much of the value of an index depends upon the mode in which it is printed, and every endeavour should be made to set it out with clearness. In old indexes the indexed word was not brought to the front, but was left in its place in the sentence, so that the alphabetical order was not made perceptible to the eye. There are few points in which the printer is more likely to go wrong than in the use of marks of repetition, and many otherwise good indexes are full of the most perplexing cases of misapplication in this respect. The oft-quoted instance,
Mill on Liberty——on the Floss
Mill on Liberty
——on the Floss
actually occurred in a catalogue. But in modern times therehas been a great advance in the art of indexing, especially since the foundation in 1877 in England of the Index Society; and the growth of great libraries has given a stimulus to this method of making it easy for readers and researchers to find a ready reference to the facts or discussions they require. Not only has it become almost asine qua nonthat any good book must have its own index, but the art of indexing has been applied to those books which are really collections of books (such as theEncyclopaedia Britannica), to a great newspaper like the LondonTimes, and to the cataloguing of great libraries themselves. The work in these more elaborate cases has been enormously facilitated by the modern devices by means of which separate cards are used, arranged in drawers and cases, American enterprise in this direction having led the way. And the value of the work done in this respect by the Congressional Library at Washington, the British Museum and the London Library (notably by its Subject Index published in 1909) cannot well be exaggerated. (See alsoBibliography).
There are numerous books on Indexing, but the best for any one who wants to get a general idea is H. B. Wheatley’sHow to make an Index(1902).
There are numerous books on Indexing, but the best for any one who wants to get a general idea is H. B. Wheatley’sHow to make an Index(1902).
1Another old word occasionally used in the sense of an index is “pye.†Sir T. Duffus Hardy, in some observations on the derivation of the word “Pye-Book†(which most probably comes from the Latinpica), remarks that the earliest use he had noted of pye in this sense is dated 1547—“a Pye of all the names of such Balives as been to accompte pro anno regni regis Edwardi Sexti primo.â€
1Another old word occasionally used in the sense of an index is “pye.†Sir T. Duffus Hardy, in some observations on the derivation of the word “Pye-Book†(which most probably comes from the Latinpica), remarks that the earliest use he had noted of pye in this sense is dated 1547—“a Pye of all the names of such Balives as been to accompte pro anno regni regis Edwardi Sexti primo.â€
INDEX LIBRORUM PROHIBITORUM,the title of the official list of those books which on doctrinal or moral grounds the Roman Catholic Church authoritatively forbids the members of her communion to read or to possess, irrespective of works forbidden by the general rules on the subject. Most governments, whether civil or ecclesiastical, have at all times in one way or another acted on the general principle that some control may and ought to be exercised over the literature circulated among those under their jurisdiction. If we set aside the heretical books condemned by the early councils, the earliest known instance of a list of proscribed books being issued with the authority of a bishop of Rome is theNotitia librorum apocryphorum qui non recipiuntur, the first redaction of which, by Pope Gelasius (494), was subsequently amplified on several occasions. The document is for the most part an enumeration of such apocryphal works as by their titles might be supposed to be part of Holy Scripture (the “Acts†of Philip, Thomas and Peter, and the Gospels of Thaddaeus, Matthias, Peter, James the Less and others).1Subsequent pontiffs continued to exhort the episcopate and the whole body of the faithful to be on their guard against heretical writings, whether old or new; and one of the functions of the Inquisition when it was established was to exercise a rigid censorship over books put in circulation. The majority of the condemnations were at that time of a specially theological character. With the discovery of the art of printing, and the wide and cheap diffusion of all sorts of books which ensued, the need for new precautions against heresy and immorality in literature made itself felt, and more than one pope (Sixtus IV. in 1479 and Alexander VI. in 1501) gave special directions to the archbishops of Cologne, Mainz, Trier and Magdeburg regarding the growing abuses of the printing press; in 1515 the Lateran council formulated the decreeDe Impressione Librorum, which required that no work should be printed without previous examination by the proper ecclesiastical authority, the penalty of unlicensed printing being excommunication of the culprit, and confiscation and destruction of the books. The council of Trent in its fourth session, 8th April 1546, forbade the sale or possession of any anonymous religious book which had not previously been seen and approved by the ordinary; in the same year the university of Louvain, at the command of Charles V., prepared an “Index†of pernicious and forbidden books, a second edition of which appeared in 1550. In 1557, and again in 1559, Pope Paul IV., through the Inquisition at Rome, published what may be regarded as the first Roman Index in the modern ecclesiastical use of that term (Index auctorum et librorum qui tanquam haeretici aut suspecti aut perversi ab Officio S. R. Inquisitionis reprobantur et in universa Christiana republica interdicuntur). In this we find the three classes which were to be maintained in the Trent Index: authors condemned with all their writings; prohibited books, the authors of which are known; pernicious books by anonymous authors. An excessively severe general condemnation was applied to all anonymous books published since 1519; and a list of sixty-two printers of heretical books was appended. This excessive rigour was mitigated in 1561. At the 18th session of the council of Trent (26th February 1562), in consideration of the great increase in the number of suspect and pernicious books, and also of the inefficacy of the many previous “censures†which had proceeded from the provinces and from Rome itself, eighteen fathers with a certain number of theologians were appointed to inquire into these “censures,†and to consider what ought to be done in the circumstances. At the 25th session (4th December 1563) this committee of the council was reported to have completed its work, but as the subject did not seem (on account of the great number and variety of the books) to admit of being properly discussed by the council, the result of its labours was handed over to the pope (Pius IV.) to deal with as he should think proper. In the following March accordingly were published, with papal approval, theIndex librorum prohibitorum, which continued to be reprinted and brought down to date, and the “Ten Rules†which, supplemented and explained by Clement VIII., Sixtus V., Alexander VII., and finally by Benedict XIV. (10th July 1753), regulated the matter until the pontificate of Leo XIII. The business of condemning pernicious books and of correcting the Index to date has been since the time of Pope Sixtus V. in the hands of the “Congregation of the Index,†which consists of several cardinals, one of whom is the prefect, and more or less numerous “consultors†and “examiners of books.†An attempt has been made to publish separately theIndex Librorum Expurgandorum or Expurgatorius, a catalogue of the works which may be read after the deletion or amending of specified passages; but this was soon abandoned.
With the alteration of social conditions, however, the Rules of Trent ceased to be entirely applicable. Their application to publications which had no concern with morals or religion was no longer conceivable; and, finally, the penalties called for modification. Already, at the Vatican Council, several bishops had submitted requests for a reform of the Index, but the Council was not able to deal with the question. The reform was accomplished by Leo XIII., who, on the 25th of January 1897, published the constitutionOfficiorum, in 49 articles. In this constitution, although the writings of heretics in support of heresy are condemned as before (No. 1), those of their books which contain nothing against Catholic doctrine or which treat other subjects are permitted (Nos. 2-3). Editions of the text of the Scriptures are permitted for purposes of study; translations of the Bible into the vulgar tongue have to be approved, while those published by non-Catholics are permitted for the use of scholars (Nos. 5-8). Obscene books are forbidden; the classics, however, are authorized for educational purposes (Nos. 9-10). Articles 11-14 forbid books which outrage God and sacred things, books which propagate magic and superstition, and books which are pernicious to society. The ecclesiastical laws relating to sacred images, to indulgences, and to liturgical books and books of devotion are maintained (Nos. 15-20). Articles 21-22 condemn immoral and irreligious newspapers, and forbid writers to contribute to them. Articles 23-26 deal with permissions to read prohibited books; these are given by the bishop in particular cases, and in the ordinary course by the Congregation of the Index. In the second part of the constitution the pope deals with the censorship of books. After indicating the official publications for which the authorization of the divers Roman congregations is required, he goes on to say that the others are amenable to the ordinary of the editor and, in the case of regulars, to their superior (Nos. 30-37). The examination of the books is entrusted to censors, who have to study them without prejudice; if their report is favourable, the bishop gives theimprimatur(Nos. 38-40). All books concerned with the religious sciences and with ethics are submitted to preliminary censorship, and inaddition to this ecclesiastics have to obtain a personal authorization for all their books and for the acceptance of the editorship of a periodical (Nos. 41-42). The penalty of excommunicationipso factois only maintained for reading books written by heretics or apostates in defence of heresy, or books condemned by name under pain of excommunication by pontifical letters (not by decrees of the Index). By the same constitution Leo XIII. ordered the revision of the catalogue of the Index. The new Index, which omits works anterior to 1600 as well as a great number of others included in the old catalogue, appeared in 1900. The encyclicalPascendiof Pius X. (8th September 1907) made it obligatory for periodicals amenable to the ecclesiastical authority to be submitted to a censor, who subsequently makes useful observations. The legislation of Leo XIII. resulted in the better observance of the rules for the publication of books, but apparently did not modify the practice as regards the reading of prohibited books. It is to be regretted that the catalogue does not discriminate among the prohibited works according to the motive of their condemnation and the danger ascribed to reading them. The tendency of the practice among Catholics at large is to reduce these condemnations to the proportions of the moral law.
See H. Reusch,Der Index der verbotenen Bücher(Bonn, 1883); A. Arndt,De Libris prohibitis commentarii(Ratisbon, 1895); A. Boudinhon,La Nouvelle Législation de l’index(Paris, 1899); J. Hilgers,Der Index der verbotenen Bücher(Freiburg in B., 1904); A. Vermeersch,De prohibitione et censura librorum(Tournai, 1907); T. Hurley,Commentary on the Present Index Legislation(Dublin, 1908).
See H. Reusch,Der Index der verbotenen Bücher(Bonn, 1883); A. Arndt,De Libris prohibitis commentarii(Ratisbon, 1895); A. Boudinhon,La Nouvelle Législation de l’index(Paris, 1899); J. Hilgers,Der Index der verbotenen Bücher(Freiburg in B., 1904); A. Vermeersch,De prohibitione et censura librorum(Tournai, 1907); T. Hurley,Commentary on the Present Index Legislation(Dublin, 1908).
(A. Bo.*)
1Hardouin,Conc.ii. 940; Labbé,Conc.ii. 938-941. The whole document has also been reprinted in Smith’sDict. of Chr. Antiq., art. “Prohibited Books.â€
1Hardouin,Conc.ii. 940; Labbé,Conc.ii. 938-941. The whole document has also been reprinted in Smith’sDict. of Chr. Antiq., art. “Prohibited Books.â€
INDIA,1a great country and empire of Asia under British rule, inhabited by a congeries of different races, speaking upwards of fifty different languages. The whole Indian empire, including Burma, has an area of 1,766,000 sq. m., and a population of 294 million inhabitants, being about equal to the area and population of the whole of Europe without Russia. The population more than doubles Gibbon’s estimate of 120 millions for all the races and nations which obeyed imperial Rome.
The natives of India can scarcely be said to have a word of their own by which to express their common country. In Sanskrit, it would be called “Bharata-varsha,†from Bharata, a legendary monarch of the Lunar line; but Sanskrit is no more the vernacular of India than Latin is of Europe. The name “Hindustan,†which was at one time adopted by European geographers, is of Persian origin, meaning “the land of the Hindus,†as Afghanistan means “the land of the Afghans.†According to native usage, however, “Hindustan†is limited either to that portion of the peninsula lying north of the Vindhya mountains, or yet more strictly to the upper basin of the Ganges where Hindi is the spoken language. The “East Indies,†as opposed to the “West Indies,†is an old-fashioned and inaccurate phrase, dating from the dawn of maritime discovery, and still lingering in certain parliamentary papers. “India,†the abstract form of a word derived through the Greeks from the Persicized form of the Sanskritsindhu, a “river,†pre-eminently the Indus, has become familiar since the British acquired the country, and is now officially recognized in the imperial title of the sovereign.
The Country
India, as thus defined, is the middle of the three irregularly shaped peninsulas which jut out southwards from the mainland of Asia, thus corresponding roughly to the peninsula of Italy in the map of Europe. Its form is that of aPosition and shape.great triangle, with its base resting upon the Himalayan range and its apex running far into the ocean. The chief part of its western side is washed by the Arabian Sea, and the chief part of its eastern side by the Bay of Bengal. It extends from the 8th to the 37th degree of north latitude, that is to say, from the hottest regions of the equator to far within the temperate zone. The capital, Calcutta, lies in 88° E., so that when the sun sets at six o’clock there, it is just past mid-day in England and early morning in New York. The length of India from north to south, and its greatest breadth from east to west, are both about 1900 m.; but the triangle tapers with a pear-shaped curve to a point at Cape Comorin, its southern extremity. To this compact dominion the British have added Burma, the strip of country on the eastern shores of the Bay of Bengal. But on the other hand the adjacent island of Ceylon has been administratively severed and placed under the Colonial Office. Two groups of islands in the Bay of Bengal, the Andamans and the Nicobars; one group in the Arabian Sea, the Laccadives; and the outlying station of Aden at the mouth of the Red Sea, with Perim, and protectorates over the island of Sokotra, along the southern coast of Arabia and in the Persian Gulf, are all politically included within the Indian empire; while on the coast of the peninsula itself, Portuguese and French settlements break at intervals the continuous line of British territory.