[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Dark Ages](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages) › [Travellers (1500–1858)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel) › [Storia do Mogor](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci) › [Storia do Mogor (Irvine)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine) › 369 # Storia do Mogor 369: NOTE ON FATHER NORBERT, CAPUCHIN, AND HIS WRITINGS. Storia do Mogor (Irvine) 369 - **Language:** English ### NOTE ON FATHER NORBERT, CAPUCHIN, AND HIS WRITINGS. ### [369.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.369.1) \[Since, in connection with these disputes between the Jesuits and Capuchins, I have quoted largely from the books of Father Norbert, Capuchin, some words of justification of that much-maligned missionary seem to be called for, especially when a scholar like the late A. C. Burnell makes no scruple of calling him a 'rascally old Capuchin' ('Hobson Jobson,' 2nd edition, 473). The only 'rascality' I can discover in him is that he made himself extremely disagreeable to the Jesuits. Undoubtedly he was a strenuous pamphleteer, and, provoked by persecution, as time went on he became more bitter and more violent in his expressions. But the documents he prints are, I am persuaded, quite authentic, and worthy of admission as evidence. My greatest complaint against him is his overwhelming prolixity, and I also agree with his spiteful biographer, Chevrier, that he wrote in Walloon rather than in French. ### [369.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.369.2) Pierre Parisot was born at Bar-le-Duc, in Lorraine, on March 8, 1697. After attending a Jesuit school he became a Capuchin novice on April 13, 1716. In 1734 he proceeded to Rome, and became Procurator-General of the 'Missions Étrangères.' About 1736 he was sent to India to the Pondicherry mission, where he took an active part at the side of Claude Visdelou, Bishop of Claudiopolis, in the still continuing dispute between the Jesuits and his own order. After the death of Visdelou in 1739, he returned to Europe to represent the Capuchin case and was well received by Benedict XIV. The Jesuits were roused to action. Norbert was alarmed, and removed to Lucca, where he found a protector, and brought out his book 'Mémoires Utiles . . .' (1742). From that time he remained more or less a wanderer. From Lucca he went to Venice, from Venice to Holland by sea. Thence he moved to London, and finally was employed at Lisbon by the Marquis Pombal, then engaged in his campaign against the Jesuit order. A final edition of Norbert's second book 'Mémoires Historiques,' was brought out there in the year 1766 in eight volumes, quarto. In 1759, with the Pope's consent, Norbert had resigned his monastic orders, and thenceforth was known as the Abbé Curel Platel (or perhaps that was his real family name). He returned to Lorraine, and died there in poverty on July 7, 1769 ('Biographie Universelle,' Michaud, Paris, 1822, vol. xxxi., p. 360, article by W\[eis\]s). ### [369.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.369.3) The attack made on Norbert's morals by T. H. Chevrier, alias 'Le Colporteur' (born at Nancy, 1720; died 1762), in his 'La Vie du Fameux Père Norbert, ex-Capuchin . . .' (London, 1762), is mere silly backbiting, and is rendered still less worth notice when contrasted with the praise he had already lavished on his victim in a previous work ('Mémoires des Hommes Illustres de Lorraine,' ii. 83). The charge made by the Jesuits that Norbert falsified a document at Pondicherry I hold to be quite groundless. On the other hand, some of his charges against them are trivial, and a few are not proven; but the remainder of them are abundantly proved, and could hardly be seriously disputed. I am speaking solely of the facts as facts, and not of the interpretations put upon them by controversialists. ### [369.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.369.4) In my opinion, the Jesuit concession to caste distinctions in Christian worship was their gravest mistake, for the recognition of any such differences strikes at the root of Christianity conceived as a religion for all men, and not only for some chosen race of peculiar people. Surely in the sight of God all Christians are equal? Another prominent point which strikes one in these disputes is the excessive reluctance of the Jesuit order to bow to authority, although implicit obedience is one of their fundamental doctrines. From 1699 to 1744, for five-and-forty years, they struggled with the Popes, and tried their best to get their own way. Perhaps their most sensible defence is that put forward by a modern writer, the Reverend Father Auguste Jean, S.J., in 'Le Maduré, l'Ancienne et la Nouvelle Mission' (Brussels, Société de St. Augustin, 1894, 2 vols.), i. 209: 'Nous nous soumettons à sa' (the Church's) 'décision d'esprit et de cœur. Nous regardons cette décision comme définitive: elle ne laisse plus place à la discussion. Rome a parlé; il suffit.' He holds that up to 1744 the Pope's approval of Cardinal de Tournon's decree was provisional, and left it open for the Jesuits to refuse to obey it while prosecuting their appeals. ### [369.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.369.5) Strange to say, this question of recognising castes is, I am told, still under discussion in the non-Catholic missions of Southern India. In Northern India the missions seem to have ignored caste after conversion; in the South it has been different. The Abbé J. A. Dubois, though not a Jesuit, upheld caste Christianity as a merely civil or social distinction; Bishop Heber seems to have been of much the same opinion ('Narrative of a Journey,' 4th edition, 1829, 3 vols., iii. 444; 'Life,' 2 vols., 4to., 1830, ii. 221, 399). Swartz and the Lutheran missionaries had tolerated caste and divided the Pariahs from the Sudras at public worship; but the younger school of clergy were actively opposed to any such concessions. Even the Bishop calls the high caste demand for a separate cup for the sacrament an 'abominable claim.' Daniel Wilson, Bishop of Calcutta and Metropolitan of India, would allow of no compromise, and denounced all such concessions as inadmissible ('Life of the Right Rev. D. Wilson,' by Josiah Bateman, 2 vols, 1860, i. 392, 424, 437; ii. 218). I believe that in the South of India the question is still one that provokes controversy.\] --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.369](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.369) · Pramāṇa