Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works Prepovedana Schönlebnova mariološka dela ❦ Monika DežeLak trojar ▶ monika.dezelak@zrc-sazu.si SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal ISSN 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) VOLUME 26 (2021/I), pp. 116–142 DOI 10.13137/2283-5482/32498 117 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands janez ludvik schÖnleBen, teoloGija, marioloGija, cenzura, index librorum prohibitorum, orbis universi votorum, vera ac sincera sententia, palma virginea, de officio immaculatae conceptionis deiparae johann ludWiG schÖnleBen, theoloGY, marioloGY, censorship, index librorum prohibitorum, orbis universi votorum, vera ac sincera sententia, palma virginea, de officio immaculatae conceptionis deiparae Schönleben se je z mariologijo in vne- tim zagovarjanjem resnice o Marijinem brezmadežnem spočetju začel ukvarja- ti že kot jezuit, dejavneje pa se ji je po- svetil po izstopu iz reda. Leta 1659 sta v Celovcu izšli dve knjigi spisa Orbis universi votorum. Njegovi najpomemb- nejši mariološki deli, Vera ac sincera sententia (katerega prvo izdajo je leta 1668 izdal pod psevdonimom Balduinus Helenocceus, drugo leta 1670 pa s svo- jim pravim imenom) in Palma virginea (1671), sta bili natisnjeni v Salzburgu. Kljub siceršnji teološki neoporečno- sti sta bili zaradi polemičnega tona pisanja uvrščeni na Indeks prepovedanih knjig. Enaka usoda je pozneje doletela dve izdaji spisa De officio immaculatae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et de- votissimo (1680, 1681), ki sta izšli ano- nimno, na možnost Schönlebnovega avtorstva pa je prvi opozoril Valvasor. Johann Ludwig Schönleben began fervently defending the truth about the Immaculate Conception of Mary during his Jesuit period. He became more involved in Mariology after leaving the order. In 1659 he published two books of his Orbis universi votorum (Vows of the Entire World). His most important Mariological works, Vera ac sincera sententia (A True and Honest Opinion, 1668/1670) and Palma virginea (The Virgin Palm, 1671), were printed in Salzburg. Due to their polemical tone, and in spite of their otherwise impeccable theological integrity, both works were included on the Index librorum prohibitorum. The same fate befell the two editions (1680, 1681) of De officio immaculatae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et devotissimo (The Oldest and Most Devout Service of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God), which were also prohibited. They came out anonymously, and the possibility of Schönleben’s authorship was first pointed out by Valvasor. 118 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works 1 ARS, AS 1073, II/51r, p. 47; II/52r, pp. 33, 49–50, 63, 65, 68–69, 73, 77, 79, 83, 89, 93, 95, 99, 102. Cf. Lavrič: 262–263. introDuction Johann Ludwig Schönleben is known as a polymath, historiographer, genealogist, preacher, philosopher, and playwright. In addition, his preserved and unpreserved theological writings show that he was personally especially interested in Mariology and, first and foremost, in proving the truth about the Immaculate Conception. Because some editions of his Mariological books were included on the Index librorum prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books), the groundbreaking character and impact of his works were limited to a narrow circle of readers for two full centuries—that is, up until the 1854 promulgation of the Im- maculate Conception dogma. He achieved partial rehabilitation in 1900, when his works were removed from the Index, but his full rehabilitation was not achieved until the congress held in Rome on the hundredth anniversary of the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception dog- ma (Virgo immaculata, Acta congressus mariologici-mariani Romae anno MCMLIV celebrati). Thanks to Maks Miklavčič’s article, which relied on Anton Strle’s theological findings, it was then that Schönleben was finally granted an equal position among other European Mariologists. schönLeben’s earLy contacts with MarioLogy Schönleben was already familiar with the practice of venerating the Immaculate Virgin at home (Schönleben 1659a: 87), where his parents set the first example. His father had been a member of the Latin Jesuit Congregation of the Assumption since July 2nd, 1623, and a year later he joined the German Congregation of the Immaculate Virgin and became an active member.1 Between 1629 and 1635, Schönleben re- ceived further motivation to venerate the Immaculate Virgin from his 119 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 2 ARS, AS 1073, II/51r, p. 122. teachers at the Jesuit college in Ljubljana, where he joined the Student Congregation of the Assumption on February 8th, 1632 .2 He published his first work related to venerating the Virgin Mary and the Immac- ulate Conception at the age of thirty-one, when, after completing his theology studies, he taught rhetoric in Vienna and simultaneously served as the Faculty of Arts’ notary. In 1649, he anonymously pub- lished his collection of Mariological hymns Campus liliorum (A Field of Lilies), which concluded with Panegyricus Magnae Matri Virgini sine macula originali conceptae Mariae (A Panegyric to the Great Vir- gin Mother Mary, Immaculately Conceived). The same year he also published his speech Corona gemmea, adgratulatio sex neo-doctoribus theologis ex Ord. Cisterciensi (The Jeweled Crown, Congratulations to the Six New Doctors of Theology from the Cistercian Order), which, how- ever, has not been preserved (Valvasor: vol. 2, book 6, 355). Schönleben wrote this panegyric to Mary in honor of the Univer- sity of Vienna’s consecration to the Immaculate Virgin, but he ac- tually performed (or perhaps only printed) it in late August 1649, when the first six doctors of theology (all from the Cistercian order) after this consecration vowed to strive to spread the truth about the Immaculate Virgin (Schönleben 1649: unnumbered page before the start of the panegyric). In several places in this speech, he expressed his belief that people had already been aware of Mary’s exemption from the original sin for a long time. He dedicated his collection of hymns together with the panegyric to the initiator of the univer- sity’s consecration to the Immaculate Virgin, Emperor Ferdinand III (Deželak Trojar: 65, 67, 68). The years that Schönleben spent in Vienna (1648–1649, 1652–1653) seemed to be crucial for his later engagement in Mariology. He himself revealed which professors were his role models in venerating the Immaculate Virgin (Schönleben 1659a: 120 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works 3 As a source Schön- leben often cited his personal notes (“Ms. Acad.,” “Ms. Sched. Acad.”) created at the Vienna Jesuit college and university libraries during his studies (Schönleben 1659a: 17, 23–24, 26, 38, 47–49, etc.). 4 “Alii tres antecedentes cum quinto adhuc praelo sunt, quos pro- pediem expecta.” 5 “Lib. 3. cap. 1., 2. et 3” (Zani: 182v). 6 “Maria Mater Dei et Virgo sine macula originali concepta ag- noscitur a sacro ordine RR. PP. Praedicatorum, et ex eodem ordine D. Thomas de Aquino, theologorum princeps cum sua schola immac- ulatae conceptionis assertor ostenditur.” 7 “Maria Mater Dei et Virgo sine macula originali concepta docetur ab antiquis- simi archigymnasii Viennensis doctoribus. Sive Sexagena doc- torum Viennensium Deiparae sine macula conceptae assertorum et vindicum e tenebris vetustatis educta.” 85–87); in addition, his stay in Vienna was also important because he had libraries there where he could study and collect material for his later Mariological works.3 Orbis universi vOtOrum (1659) Schönleben’s first extensive Mariological work was Orbis universi votorum pro definitione piae et verae sententiae de immaculata con- ceptione Deiparae (Vows of the Entire World to Adopt a Pious and True Decision on the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God). Even though he had five books ready for printing (Schönleben 1659a: “Ad lectorem”),4 only two were published: the third and fourth ones. Both were printed in 1659 by the Kramer printshop in Klagenfurt. The fourth book was published first, followed by the third one—which, however, was not published in full (only three chapters of the nine initially planned; Schönleben 1659a: “Ad lectorem”; Schönleben 1659b: “Proemium”, 3).5 In the third book, Schönleben presented evidence of the Immaculate Conception gathered from the writings and de- crees of the Dominican order, which generally opposed this truth the most (Schönleben 1659b: title page).6 In the third chapter of the book, he provided evidence for his thesis that Thomas Aquinas did not really oppose the Immaculate Conception. In this way, he sought to disqualify the main line of argument from the Dominicans, who based their opposition on Aquinas’s writings (Strle 1955a: 171–173). In the fourth book, he discussed the thoughts of sixty professors at the University of Vienna and other prominent individuals (bishops and canons) from the university’s inception until his time that sup- ported the truth of the Immaculate Conception (Schönleben 1659a: title page).7 121 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 8 NŠAL, NŠAL 100, KAL fasc. 138/10. With his Orbis universi votorum, Schönleben sought to demon- strate that the pious opinion about Mary’s immaculateness itself was sufficient for it to be declared a dogma. He presented his belief thoroughly, equably, and soberly, describing it as highly likely rather than certain (Strle 1955a: 181–182). Even though on May 4th, 1664, the estates granted him six hundred guldens for printing his books on the Immaculate Virgin (Lubej: 55), they were never published. The reason remains unknown. He may have had problems finding a printer, which he mentioned in a letter to Bishop Buchheim.8 It is also possible that he perceived Pope Alexander VII’s 1661 bull Sollicitudo omnium, which spoke in favor of the truth of the Immaculate Conception (Strle 1954a: 3), as an imminent victory of its advocates and hence he no longer found it necessary to continue his quest for a printer. His two later lists of works prepared for publication (from 1669 and 1672) include two volumes of Orbis universi votorum, but it is unclear whether they refer to the first and second books or perhaps two vol- umes of the fifth book (Schönleben 1669: “Syllabus operum”; Zani: 183r). Among Schönleben’s manuscripts, Valvasor only mentions the unpublished fifth book in two volumes and does not say a word about the first two books (Valvasor: vol. 2, book 6, 356). The content of the unpreserved books can be inferred from Schönleben’s later testimo- nies (Ušeničnik: 418–419). In his later work Palma virginea, he makes several references to the first two books of Orbis universi votorum (Schönleben 1671: 143, 148–149) without ever mentioning the fifth book. Because he described Palma virginea as a fragment of a major work (fragmen maioris operis), it can be assumed that in it he sum- marized the content of the first two books of Orbis universi votorum, which he often cited, and thus, after it was published, only made efforts to publish the fifth book (Deželak Trojar: 241–242). 122 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works schönLeben’s MarioLogicaL works incLuDeD on the index librOrum prOhibitOrum A turn in Schönleben’s style of writing was caused by two key moments. His more decisive advocacy of the truth of the Immaculate Conception was, first and foremost, stimulated by the 1661 bull of Pope Alexander VII (Schönleben 1668: “Dedicatio”, 5, 7, 29, etc.; Schönleben 1671: e.g., 131). However, his wrath was aroused by the 1663 work Synopsis historica de conceptione Deiparae (Historical Synopsis of the Conception of the Mother of God) by a Dominican writer with the pseudonym Marcellus Sidereus Cyriacus. The fact that the author dared to reject the truth of the Immaculate Conception despite the papal bull made Schönle- ben so angry that he began vigorously defending the truth. Personal resentment and an unbending belief in his own rightness can be felt in the background of his works. He did not change his views and line of argument in favor of the Immaculate Conception, but he began po- lemizing with his opponents; he looked down on them and insulted them on several occasions. In places, his tone of writing was ironic and condescending (Ušeničnik: 419, 423; Strle 1954b: 202–205). Espe- cially because in essence his line of argument and Mariological views remained the same as in Orbis universi votorum, it is this very change of tone that was most likely the main reason for his two major works being later included on the Index librorum prohibitorum. vera ac sincera sententia (1668, 1670) Schönleben published the first edition of his Vera ac sincera sententia de immaculata conceptione Deiparae Virginis (A True and Sincere Opinion on the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God) under 123 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands the pseudonym Balduinus Helenocceus. It was printed by the Haan printshop in Salzburg in 1668. He printed the second edition under his real name two years later at the same printshop. He dedicated the book to Pope Clement IX (Schönleben 1668: “Dedicatio”)9 himself, asking him to be the judge between him and the Immaculate Virgin’s opponents (Schönleben 1668: “Dedicatio”, 8; Strle 1954b: 204–205). Except for the title page, the second edition is identical to the first one. He did not even change the dedication: he signed it with his pseudonym and, ← FIG. 1 Title page of the first edition of Vera ac sincera sententia (Salzburg, 1668). NUK Archives. 9 “Sanctissimo Domino N. Clementi Nono, Pon- tifici Opt. Max., Christi in terris Vicario.” 124 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works 10 “Deo laus. Haec & omnia mea S. Rom. Ecclesiae judicio & arbitrio penitus peni- tusque subjecta sunto. Virgini Immaculate Conceptae Honor.” even though a new pope had come to the throne in the meantime, he dedicated the book to the previous pope, not the new one, Clement X (1670–1676; Schönleben 1670: “Dedicatio”, 3). Schönleben rejected all of Marcellus’s untrue claims, fervently defending the truth of the Immaculate Conception. He warned and corrected his opponent, was angry at him, and even threw insulting remarks at him. He spared no words. Irony can be traced in the back- ground of his writing. He already harshly criticized the Dominicans in the foreword, reproaching them with disrespecting papal authority (Strle 1954b: 202–205). In this way, a shadow was cast over the entire order, even though not all Dominicans opposed the Immaculate Con- ception (especially Ambrosius Catharinus, to whom Schönleben made several references; cf. Strle 1955b: 204–211). Despite his unstoppable ardor and belief in his own right, at the end of the book Schönleben nonetheless humbly bowed to authority, leaving the final decision about the correctness of his ideas to the Holy See (Schönleben 1668: 178).10 Anton Strle, who analyzed the content of Vera ac sincera sententia in detail, established that it was dogmatically flawless. Even though not all of Schönleben’s ideas can be accepted, he did not make any major errors. Just like in his later work, Palma virginea, he used the general consensus of the faithful and the infallibility of the Church result- ing from internal protection and guidance by the Holy Spirit as the main proof supporting the Immaculate Conception. In addition, Strle established that the later papal bull, Ineffabilis Deus, through which Pope Pius IX confirmed the Immaculate Conception dogma in 1854, proved that the 1661 papal bull Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum already made any arguments supporting the opposite claims based on dogmatic principles impossible. Hence, Schönleben was right to be angry and defend the truth (Strle 1954b: 205; Strle 1955a: 181–182, 185), but that 125 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands cannot justify the irascible attacks and insults leveled at his opponent. With a little self-censorship, the effect of his works would have been nearly the same and the coverage much broader because significantly more people would have read them. Because the dogma was not yet confirmed at that point, especially because papal censorship was in the domain of the Dominicans, he could have anticipated problems already while writing these works. Both editions of Vera ac sincera sententia were included on the Index on May 18th, 1677, under the reign of Pope Innocent XI (Index: 212, 383). palma virginea (1671) Schönleben continued his polemic style of writing in his next work, Pal- ma virginea sive Deiparae Virginis Mariae de adversariis suae immaculatae conceptionis victoriae omnium seculorum aere christianae succincta narra- tione repraesentatae (The Virgin Palm or the Victories of Mary the Virgin Mother of God over the Adversaries of Her Immaculate Conception in All Christian Centuries Presented in a Succinct Narrative). On the title page, he described it as a fragment or passage of a major work (fragmen maioris operis), probably alluding to his Orbis universi votorum. Judging from the printing permission, Palma virginea must have been completed by early 1669, even though the chronogram and ded- ication use the year 1671. This means that, after finishing the work, Schönleben had more than enough time to send it to his friends at the Academy of the Frozen (Accademia dei Gelati) for review. Two of them, Petrus Hercules de Bellois and Simon Santagata, praised the work in verse. Schönleben included their couplet and epigram in the book, placing them behind the printing permissions and also adding his own epigram dedicated to Santagata (cf. Deželak Trojar: 162–166). It appears 126 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works that it was thanks to this work that Schönleben was accepted among the honorary members of the Academy of the Frozen by 1670 at the latest (Zani: 181r–182r; Miklavčič 1957: 220). In Palma virginea, Schönleben discussed Mary’s victories from the beginning of Christianity to his time. He referred to the general con- sensus of the faithful as the main proof supporting the truth of her Immaculate Conception. The importance of Palma virginea was also rec- ognized by the provincial estates, which presented an honorary award to Schönleben for the work in 1671 (Radics: 51; Ušeničnik: 422). Based on archival sources, the Carniolan provincial estates did in fact make an exceptional monetary award in the amount of 428 guldens to Schön- leben, which he reportedly already received on May 5th, 1670 (Mikla- včič 1967: 237), and so it is unclear whether the award was connected with the publication of this work or Schönleben’s dedication of the first volume of his feast-day sermons Feyertäglicher Erquick-Stunden (Hours of Feast-Day Refreshment, 1669) to the estates. Palma virginea is written in a popular theological style, but in a po- lemic manner. Schönleben was unable to avoid irony, attacks, and harsh expressions, which is why this work, too, was included on the Index on March 13th, 1679 (Index: 383). His attacks were primarily direct- ed at the Dominican Vincenzo Bandello, whom he viewed as Goliath fighting against David—that is, Pope Sixtus IV (Schönleben 1671: 62–70, 79–81; Strle 1954b: 203–205). He wrote that he was “vomiting poison” (virus evomebat Bandellus) and he referred to his acolytes as “the Ban- dello cohort” (Bandelli fida cohors; Schönleben 1671: 63, 81). He accused him of forging documents (Schönleben 1671: 68), wondering at Pope Sixtus IV’s patience and the fact that he did not take action against him (Schönleben 1671: 67). In several places, he could barely resist laughing at his opponents’ stupidity (e.g., magna cum molestia cachinnos cohibui 127 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands ‘I held back laughter with great trouble’; Schönleben 1671: 43) and in general he used very unforgiving language when referring to them (Schönleben 1671: 78, 128). Palma virginea is considered Schönleben’s most important Mario- logical work primarily because of the way he provided argumentation and evidence supporting the Immaculate Conception. He substanti- ated his beliefs with the general consensus of Christians, which had strengthened and spread over the centuries. He presented his views on this fact in detail in an appendix to the book titled De universo fideli- um coetu (Concerning the Entire Assembly of the Faithful; Schönleben 1671: 134–166). In it, he discussed the internal and external evidence based on which he believed the truth of the Immaculate Virgin should be recognized as a dogma. He inferred the external evidence from the ← FIG. 2 Title page of Palma virginea (Salzburg, 1671). Ljubljana Seminary Library. 128 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works fact that the Church had always relied on the consensus of the faith- ful (e.g., in rejecting heresy), and he saw the internal evidence based on which the dogma of the Immaculate Conception should be con- firmed in the workings of the Holy Spirit, which lives inside the Church and under the influence of which such a universal consensus of the faithful regarding the Immaculate Virgin had been able to develop in the first place (Strle 1954a: 4). He attributed such great importance to the consensus of the faithful based on his belief that it had practi- cally already been present from the beginning of Christianity and that it had only grown stronger by his time. He further substantiated this opinion with the truth about the infallibility of the Church, arguing that, by rejecting the validity and importance of the general consensus of the faithful, the truth of the infallibility of the Church would also be rejected (Strle 1954a: 4–7). Nearly two hundred years later, a special council of theologians was appointed under Pope Pius IX in 1848, which was entrusted with establishing whether the concept of the Immaculate Conception could be defined as a dogma. To this end, the council first formulated the positive and negative principles, according to which it then discussed the belief ’s potential to be defined as a dogma (Strle 1954a: 8–9). Strle examined the extent to which Schönleben’s Mariological findings matched these principles, determining that as a whole they matched both the positive and negative principles, and that Schönleben’s line of argumentation proceeded from the same bases that played a decisive role in defining the Immaculate Conception as a dogma in 1854 (the bull Ineffabilis Deus). Therefore, according to him, Palma virginea was an important Mariological work, which—had it not been included on the Index due to its polemical style of writing—would have played an important role in the history of Mariology and would have been 129 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands cited significantly more in the works of later Mariologists (Strle 1954a: 8–10). That Strle’s deduction is correct is also proved by Orbis universi votorum, in which Schönleben defended practically the same principles as in his later two works. The only difference is that in Orbis he re- mained on a strict theological scholarly level and therefore nobody prohibited it. concLuDing MarioLogicaL PerioD Schönleben’s peak Mariological period from 1667 to 1671 was followed by a period of decline resulting from him being heavily occupied with writing and editing sermons, and his intense involvement in histori- ography and genealogy. When he returned to Mariology, he decided to retreat into anonymity, most likely because his previous works had been included on the Index. Upon the 1678 grand opening of the Mayr printshop in Ljubljana, in which Schönleben played the crucial role, he anonymously published a panegyric to the Immaculate Virgin, Mar- iae absque naevo labis originalis conceptae, nova typographia Labacensis urbis consecrata sub felicibus auspiciis procerum inclytae Carnioliae elogium (A Eulogy to Mary, Conceived without the Blemish of Original Sin, upon the Dedication of the New Printing House of the Town of Ljubljana un- der the Happy Greetings of the Champions of Glorious Carniola). This first minor work printed by Mayr in Ljubljana has not been preserved; it is only known from a reprint in Valvasor’s Die Ehre deß Hertzogthums Crain (The Glory of the Duchy of Carniola; vol. 3, book 11, 726–727). The panegyric or praise to Mary mentioned above was later pub- lished in a slightly adapted and expanded form as an introduction to the collection of panegyrics to Mary titled Mariae magnae Dei Matris celebres panegyristae (Panegyrists in Honor of Mary, the Great Mother 130 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works 11 The full title reads: De officio immaculatae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et devo- tissimo, parvo mole, magno mysteriis: recens per anonymum correcto, et Lucensibus typis edito. Observationes Sigismundi a S. Maria, theologi ex SS. patribus, et doctoribus, praesertim ordinis pp. praedicato- rum desumptae. of God), printed by Mayr in 1679. In his copy of the book, Johann An- ton Thalnitscher added a note to the introductory poem that it was written by Schönleben, thereby also confirming the authorship of the first work printed by Mayr in Ljubljana (Smolik: 415). The fact that his panegyric appeared in the introduction to the collection of panegyrics honoring the Virgin Mary suggests that he may have been more actively involved in the book’s publication (e.g., he could have influenced the selection of contributors considering that four of the five Mariologists were Jesuits). Special attention should be drawn to the work De officio immacula- tae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et devotissimo, parvo mole, magno mysteriis (The Oldest and Most Devout Service of the Immaculate Con- ception of the Mother of God, Light in Weight, Great in Mystery) pub- lished in two editions: 1680 and 1681.11 Its author used the pseudonym Sigismundus a S. Maria ‘Sigismund of Saint Mary’. The first edition was printed by a Joseph de Grangiis of “Altstedium”. Nothing is known about this printer, and the town in which the work was printed cannot be iden- tified. Just as mysterious is the information on the printer and place of publication provided in the second edition, which was allegedly pub- lished in Paris. Both editions differ only in their title page and design, whereas their content is the same. Because both the author and printer could have anticipated problems, it is possible that the printer and place of publication were made up. The work was attributed to Schönleben by both Johann Weikhard von Valvasor and Johann Gregor Thalnitscher (Valvasor: vol. 2, book 6, 355; Dolničar: 220), which definitely speaks in favor of this authorship because their lists of Schönleben’s works are generally considered very reliable. In addition, Ušeničnik, Miklavčič, and Štrukelj also included the publication among Schönleben’s works, even though they were only familiar with the first edition (Štrukelj: 372). 131 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands However, they did not examine the work in detail; they merely adopt- ed Valvasor’s account. Strle, who is considered the greatest specialist in Schönleben’s Mariological oeuvre to date, did not mention or discuss this work in his articles. Based on the thoughts of the Church Fathers and (especially Do- minican) theologians, the author Sigismund of Saint Mary provides his opinion on the modifications to the breviary about the Immacu- late Conception produced by an anonymous author, who published a modified version of the breviary in Žatec in what is now the Czech Republic. These modifications were most likely inspired by a 1679 decree in which the pope prohibited the readings of the Immaculate Concep- tion breviary. Because the head of the Vatican office was a Dominican, ← FIG. 3 Title page of De officio immac- ulatae conceptionis Deiparae (Altstedium, 1680). NUK Archives. 132 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works 12 HDA, MK, M 9451: “Syllabus operum et proiectorum Joannis Ludovici Schönleben.” Sigismund found the decision especially questionable. He disagreed not only with the prohibition of the breviary’s readings, but also its modifications (Sigismundus a S. Maria 1681: 3–6). He based his belief on the views of the Church Fathers and theologians (including the Do- minican ones) that supported the Immaculate Conception. On April 14th, 1682, this work, too, was included on the Index librorum prohibitorum, which, however, does not indicate that it was published in two separate editions (Index: 279). The assumption that the work was written by Schönleben is also supported by the fact that Sigismund of Saint Mary’s views are close to Schönleben’s Mariological beliefs. A similarity in terms of content is suggested by the selection of sources and the fact that Schönleben already relied on the favorable views of Dominican theologians while providing arguments for Mary’s exemption from the original sin in his third volume of Orbis universi votorum. However, because others shared his views at that time, it cannot be unequivocally claimed that he is the one hiding behind Sigismund’s name. Further doubt is raised by the fact that the work is not mentioned on the list of his works published during his lifetime.12 However, because all his genealogies printed in 1680 are also missing from that list, it is possible that the list was printed before this work and the genealogies were published. It is also possible that this work was intentionally omitted from the list. Schönleben’s authorship is more likely if the information on the printer and the place of pub- lication provided on the title page were made up, because otherwise the work could only have been printed with extensive support from his influential European friends (cf. Deželak Trojar: 174–178). A final deci- sion on Schönleben’s authorship of this work would definitely be made easier with better knowledge of general theology and a more thorough familiarity with his complete Mariological body of work. 133 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands ConClusion The inclusion of Schönleben’s works on the Index librorum prohibito- rum resulted from his relentless and ardent efforts to prove the truth of the Immaculate Conception. His character was also a large part of this: a strong belief in his own rightness and excessive agitation, which diverted him from the strictly scholarly theological direction illustrated in the work Orbis universi votorum into polemicizing, irony, and using insulting language in Vera ac sincera sententia and in Palma virginea. All this must also have been contributed to by excessive con- fidence inspired by the 1661 bull of Pope Alexander VII, which caused him to conclude that Mary’s victory (Mariana victoria) was practically achieved, and that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception would soon be declared. Because they were included on the Index, Schönle- ben’s Mariological works received less attention than they could have. It is indisputable that the impact of his works—if it had remained at the level of theological writing as displayed in Orbis universi voto- rum—would have been much wider and that his name would also have been more appreciated in Mariology than it currently is. How impor- tant the veneration of Mary was to him personally is indicated, very revealingly, in his epitaph, which prioritizes his efforts to spread the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and have it declared over all his other, generally very diverse, activities: Here lie the remains of Johann Ludwig Schönleben, a doctor of sacred theology, a protonotary apostolic, and the former dean of the Ljubljana cathedral and the imperial parish of Ribnica. [He strove] for the procla- mation and spread of the Immaculate Conception and veneration of the holy ones of heaven, the honor of the most majestic Austrian house, 134 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works 13 “Hic iacet quod mortale fuit Ioannis Ludovici Schönleben ss. theologiae doct. protonotarii apostolici cathedralis ecclesiae Labac. Olim decani et caesarei plebei Reifnicensis asseren- dae, et propagandae immaculatae concep- tionis divorumque coelitum cultui. Augustissimae domus Austriacae honori ducatus Carnioliae, patriaeque nomini qua sacris, qua propha- nis, lucubrationibus ad nominis immortali- tatem claruit huius viri quem dies XV. Octobris ex patria rapuit per- ennem in posteris memoriam fundavit. Requiescat in pace anno M DC LXXXI.” the name of the Duchy of Carniola, and his homeland. He acquired fame with both his sacred and secular works, making immortal the name of this man whom the fifteenth of October separated from his home- land and established for posterity his perpetual memory. May he rest in peace. 1681. (Valvasor: vol. 2, book 6, 354–355)13 ❦ 135 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Sources Arhiv Republike Slovenije (ARS) AS 1073, II/51r, Sodalitas Beatissimae Virginis Mariae in Coelos Assumptae in Archiducali collegio Societatis Iesu Labaci. AS 1073, II/52r, Bruderschaft der unbefleckten Empfängnis. Hrvatski državni arhiv (HDA) MK, M 9451, Dissertatio polemica de prima origine augustissimae domus Habspurgo-Austriacae (Syllabus operum et proiectorum Joannis Ludovici Schönleben). Nadškofijski arhiv Ljubljana (NŠAL) NŠAL 100, KAL fasc. 138/10, Schönleben’s letter to Buchheim (July 17, 1662). 136 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works References deželak trojar, monika, 2017: Janez Ludvik Schönleben (1618– 1681): Oris življenja in dela. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. dolniČar, janez GreGor, 2009: Bibliotheca Labacensis publica Collegii Carolini Nobilium. Trubar, Hren, Valvasor, Dolničar: O slovstvu na Kranjskem: Znanstvenokritična izdaja. Ed. Luka Vidmar. Ljubljana: SAZU. 179–395. Index librorum prohibitorum sanctissimi domini nostri Gregorii XVI, Pontificis Maximi iussu editus Romae MDCCCXLI, 1852. Monteregali (Mondovi): Rossi. [https://archive.org/details/ bub_gb_3h_JMCZWRAUC/page/n4] lavriČ, ana, 2010: Ljubljanske baročne bratovščine in njihovo umetnostno naročništvo: Jezuitske kongregacije. Arhivi 33, 2. 251–286. luBej, uroŠ, 2001: Marijin steber v Ljubljani. Acta historiae artis Slovenica 6. 53–66. miklavČiČ, maks, 1957: Johann Ludwig Schönleben, ein slowenischer Mariologe. Virgo Immaculata: Acta congressus Mariologici-Mariani Romae anno MCMLIV celebrati: Vol. XIV: De immaculata conceptione apud varias nationes. Romae: Academia Mariana Internationalis. 214–241. miklavČiČ, maks, 1967: Schönleben, Janez Ludvik. Slovenski biografski leksikon 10. Ed. Alfonz Gspan. Ljubljana: SAZU. 236–240. radics, peter, 1894: Der krainische Historiograph Johann Ludwig Schönleben. Mittheilungen des Musealvereines für Krain 7. 1–72. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1649: Campus liliorum, sive Album Austriaco-Marianum. Sex admodum reverendis, religiosis, et clarissimis dominis ex celeber. sacr. Ord. Cisterc. monasterio 137 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Campiliorum professis, … anno M. DC. XLIX, XXVI. Augusti solenni ritu suprema theologiae laurea ornatis promotore R. P. Matthia Bastianschizh … Vienna: Matthaeus Rictius. ÖNB, 79. Q. 70. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1659a: Orbis universi votorum pro definitione piae et verae sententiae de immaculata conceptione Deiparae, Liber IV. Klagenfurt: Georgius Kramer. NUK, DS I 141434. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1659b: Orbis universi votorum pro definitione piae et verae sententiae de immaculata conceptione Deiparae, Liber III. Klagenfurt: Georgius Kramer. NUK, DS I 141434. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1668: Vera ac sincera sententia de immaculata conceptione Deiparae Virginis. Salzburg: Melchior Haan. NUK, 14285. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1669: Feyertäglicher Erquick- Stunden. Erster Theil. Das Winter- und Frühlings-Quartall. Salzburg: Melchior Haan. NUK, DS I 44702. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1670: Vera ac sincera sententia de immaculata conceptione Deiparae Virginis. Salzburg: Melchior Haan. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek digital, Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum Digitale Bibliothek. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1671: Palma virginea sive Deiparae Virginis Mariae de adversariis suae immaculatae conceptionis victoriae omnium seculorum aerae Christianae. Salzburg: Melchior Haan. SK LJ, M IV 10. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1678: Mariae absque naevo labis originalis conceptae, nova typographia Labacensis urbis consecrata sub felicibus auspiciis procerum inclytae Carnioliae elogium. Johann Weikhardt von Valvasor, Die Ehre deß Hertzogthums Crain 3, 11. Ljubljana, Nürnberg: Endter. 726–727. 138 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1679: Dedicatorium elogium Maria nomen ominum, omen nominum. Mariae magnae Dei Matris celebres panegyristae, qui amoeniore stylo eius laudes vulgarunt. In unum collecti fasciculum et in novella typographia Labacensi reimpressi. Ljubljana: Joannes Baptista Mayr. ÖNB, 75367-A. siGismundus a s. maria, 1680: De officio immaculatae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et devotissimo, parvo mole, magno mysteriis; recens per anonymum correcto et lucensibus typis edito. Observationes Sigismundi a S. Maria, theologi ex patribus et doctoribus, praesertim ordinis pp. praedicatorum desumptae. Altstedium: Josephus de Grangiis. NUK, GS 0 21699. siGismundus a s. maria, 1681: De officio immaculatae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et devotissimo, parvo mole magno mysteriis, recens per anonymum correcto et lucensibus typis edito. Observationes Sigismundi a s. Maria theologi ex ss. patribus et doctoribus praesertim Ordinis pp. praedicatorum desumptae. Paris: Sebastianus Martinus. smolik, marijan, 1981: Pridigar, mariolog in zgodovinar Janez Ludvik Schönleben. Bogoslovni vestnik 41, 4. 399–427. strle, anton, 1954a: Slovenski mariolog Schönleben o soglasju vernikov kot teološkem viru. Zbornik Teološke fakultete 4. Ed. France Grivec. Ljubljana: Teološka fakulteta. 2–23. strle, anton, 1954b: Nekaj opomb k Schönlebnovim mariološkim delom. Zbornik Teološke fakultete 4. Ed. France Grivec. Ljubljana: Teološka fakulteta. 201–208. strle, anton, 1955a: Schönleben o mnenju sv. Tomaža Akvinskega glede Marijinega brezmadežnega spočetja. Zbornik Teološke fakultete 5. Ed. France Grivec. Ljubljana: Teološka fakulteta. 171–190. 139 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands strle, anton, 1955b: Schönleben in Ambrozij Catharinus. Zbornik Teološke fakultete 5. Ed. France Grivec. Ljubljana: Teološka fakulteta. 204–211. Štrukelj, anton, 2006: Slovenski mariolog v službi Brezmadežne: Janez Ludovik Schönleben (1618–1681): posvečeno v hvaležen spomin prof. dr. Antonu Strletu. Communio 16, 4. 365–381. uŠeniČnik, FranČiŠek, 1904: Schönleben o Brezmadežni. Katoliški obzornik 8. 413–426. valvasor, johann Weikhard, 1689: Die Ehre deß Hertzogthums Crain. Ljubljana, Nürnberg: Endter. zani, valerio, 1672: Memorie, imprese e ritratti deʼ signori Accademici Gelati di Bologna. Bologna: Manolessi. 140 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works Povzetek Področje mariologije je bilo tisto, ki se ga je Janez Ludvik Schönle- ben (1618–1681) lotil s posebno veliko mero osebne zavzetosti. V res- nico o Marijinem brezmadežnem spočetju je bil neomajno prepričan že v času, ko so se glede nje nekaterim teologom porajali še številni dvomi in vprašanja. Slabih dvesto let pred uradno razglasitvijo do- gme (1854) je napisal svoja temeljna dela o Marijinem brezmadežnem spočetju. V nekaterih od njih je svoja stališča zagovarjal tako goreče in neomajno, da se je zaradi tega njegovo ime znašlo na Indeksu prepo- vedanih knjig. Z mariologijo in zagovarjanjem resnice o Marijinem brezmadežnem spočetju se je Schönleben začel ukvarjati že v svojem jezuitskem ob- dobju na Dunaju. Dejavneje se ji je posvetil v času službe ljubljanskega stolnega dekana in pozneje kot arhidiakon Spodnje Kranjske. Leta 1659 sta v Celovcu izšla dva od načrtovanih petih zvezkov spisa Orbis universi votorum. To delo je bilo zasnovano pregledno, z njim je želel dokazati, da ima pobožno mnenje o Marijinem brezmadežnem spočetju že vse potrebne lastnosti za dokončno opredelitev kot verske resnice. Doda- ten zagon za dokazovanje te resnice mu je leta 1661 dala bula papeža Aleksandra VII. (Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum), ki jo je razumel kot skorajšnjo zmago zagovornikov Marijine brezmadežnosti. Vrhunec Schönlebnovega mariološkega ustvarjanja predstavljajo leta 1668–1671. Leta 1668 je anonimno izšla prva izdaja spisa Vera ac sin- cera sententia. Natisnil jo je v Salzburgu, in sicer pod psevdonimom Balduinus Helenocceus. V drugo izdajo istega spisa, ki je prav tako izšla v Salzburgu, se je dve leti pozneje (1670) podpisal s svojim pravim imenom. Njegovo najpomembnejše mariološko delo je Palma virginea (Salburg, 1671). Odlikujeta ga način izvajanja in dokazovanja resnice 141 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands o Marijinem brezmadežnem spočetju. Pravilnost svojega prepričanja je utemeljeval v splošnem soglasju vernikov, ki se je tekom stoletij krepilo in širilo. Obe deli sta bili kljub siceršnji teološki neoporečnosti zaradi polemičnega tona pisanja po posredovanju nasprotnikov Mari- jinega brezmadežnega spočetja kmalu po nastanku uvrščeni na Indeks prepovedanih knjig: Vera ac sincera sententia 18. maja 1677, Palma Virginea pa 13. marca 1679. V sklepnem delu svojega življenja se je Schönleben še naprej posve- čal mariološkim temam, a se je umaknil v anonimnost. Po Valvasorjevi zaslugi poznamo pesnitev na čast Brezmadežni z naslovom Mariae absque naevo labis originalis conceptae, nova typographia Labacensis urbis consecrata sub felicibus auspiciis procerum inclytae Carnioliae elogium, ki jo je napisal ob slovesnem odprtju Mayrjeve tiskarne leta 1678 v Lju- bljani. Valvasor mu je tudi prvi pripisal delo De officio immaculatae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et devotissimo (1680, 1681), katerega avtor se skriva za psevdonimom »Sigismundus a S. Maria«. Poleg Val- vasorjevega pričevanja možnost Schönlebnovega avtorstva potrjujeta še sorodnost marioloških nazorov in ujemanje virov. Tudi to delo je bilo 14. aprila 1682 uvrščeno na Indeks prepovedanih knjig. 142 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works Monika Deželak Trojar Monika Deželak Trojar is a research fellow at the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slo- venian Literature and Literary Studies. In 2015, she received her PhD at the University of Maribor’s Faculty of Arts with the dissertation Janez Ludvik Schönleben (1618-1861) v luči arhivskih virov, njegovega zgodovins- kega in retoričnega opusa (Johann Ludwig Schönleben, 1618–1681, in the Light of Archival Sources and His Historical and Rhetorical Works). In her postdoctoral research project Jesuit Plays as a Factor in the Development of Early Modern Drama: The Slovenian and Central European Context (2018–2020), she examined Jesuit drama and theater in Slovenian territo- ry, especially Jesuit drama activity at the Ljubljana College of the Society of Jesus. She specializes in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Slovenian literature as well as seventeenth-century historiography.