Dejob cites, on the authority of the Benedictine editors, a number of the absurdities introduced into the St. Ambrose text by the Roman editors, and concludes that “editorial methods so naïve and so unscrupulous were certainly in need of the aid of the Index in order to prevent, through the collation of their text with the work of more faithful scholars, the unmasking of their pious infidelities.” “What,” he exclaims, “would have been the result for scholarship, for literature, and for the thought of the world, if the Inquisition had succeeded in establishing its domination throughout Europe, and in placing all the manuscripts of the Fathers under the keys of the Vatican?”[134] Dom Petra, one of the learned editors of the _Acta Sanctorum_, writes in 1649: “If Rome condemns our books, the Jansenists will have a text for saying that this is brought about by intrigue and corruption.... The Congregation [of the Index] appears to object to the work done by the editors of our _Acta_ in the correction of errors; but the Congregation should understand that, rather than to confirm a record of impostures, we prefer to write nothing; the Congregation is giving an opportunity to the heretics to point out the unwillingness of the Papists to make corrections or to remedy abuses.”[135] Theophile Raynaud, in order to revenge himself for a condemnation issued against his books by certain Dominican inquisitors, undertook the defence, against the Dominicans, of the memory of Reuchlin and of Erasmus, victims, as he contends, of Dominican ignorance and calumny.[136] Writing in 1661, in reference to certain copies of his books that had been seized in Italy, Raynaud says: “The sovereign pontiff gives authority, it appears, to his ministers to carry on robbery.”[137] The only portion of the writings of Rabelais that came under the ban of the French censors was the fourth book of the _Pantagruel_, which was prohibited by the divines of the Sorbonne. The writings of Montaigne were prohibited in 1576 by the Congregation of the Index but the prohibition was not confirmed in France. In 1595, an expurgated edition of the _Essays_ was published at Lyons, from which was omitted, together with certain other passages, under the instructions of the censors, the fifth chapter of the third book. The twenty-ninth chapter of the first book, apparently equally reprehensible, escaped condemnation. “I find,” says Dejob, “no book of importance, excepting the _Tartuffe_ of Molière, that the national authorities attempted to suppress. Molière, Racine, La Bruyère, were from time to time assailed, but there were always influences working on their behalf strong enough to prevent any serious or continued interference with their work. Once, it may be remembered, Richelieu _se ligua contre le Cid_, but the immediate protest of the public made clear to the minister that he was on a false track.”[138]