Jansenism

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Old University of Leuven
.

Jansenism was an

Catholicism, primarily active in the Kingdom of France, that arose in an attempt to reconcile the theological concepts of free will and divine grace. Jansenists claimed to profess the true doctrine of grace as put forth by Augustine of Hippo. In 1653, Pope Innocent X promulgated the bull Cum occasione
, which condemned five errors attributed to Jansenism, including the idea that Christ did not die or shed his blood for all men.

The movement originated in the posthumously published work of the Dutch theologian

Port-Royal-des-Champs Abbey, which was a haven for writers including Vergier, Arnauld, Pierre Nicole, Blaise Pascal, and Jean Racine
.

Jansenism was opposed by many within the

efficacious grace, wherein the teachings of Augustine, as presented by the Jansenists, contradicted Jesuit thought.[1] Jansenist leaders endeavored to accommodate the pope's pronouncements while retaining their uniqueness, and enjoyed a measure of peace in the late 17th century under Pope Clement IX. Further controversy led to the papal bull Unigenitus of Pope Clement XI in 1713, however, which condemned further Jansenist teachings.[2] This controversy did not end until Louis Antoine de Noailles
, cardinal and archbishop of Paris who had opposed the bull, signed it in 1728.

Origins

Abbé de Saint-CyranJean du Vergier de Hauranne, abbot of Saint Cyran Abbey in Brenne (1581–1643), one of the intellectual fathers of Jansenism.

The origins of Jansenism lie in the friendship of Jansen and Vergier, who met in the early 17th century when both were studying Christian theology at the University of Leuven. Vergier was Jansen's patron for several years, getting Jansen a job as a tutor in Paris in 1606. Two years later, he got Jansen a position teaching at the bishop's college in Vergier's hometown of Bayonne. The two studied the Church Fathers together, with a special focus on the thought of Augustine of Hippo, until both left Bayonne in 1617.

Vergier became

grace. Upon the recommendation of King Philip IV of Spain, Jansen was consecrated as bishop of Ypres
in 1636.

Jansen died in a 1638 epidemic. On his deathbed, he committed a manuscript to his

canon at the metropolitan church, and to publish the manuscript if they agreed it should be published, adding "If, however, the Holy See wishes any change, I am an obedient son, and I submit to that Church in which I have lived to my dying hour. This is my last wish."[3]

This manuscript, published in 1640 as Augustinus, expounded Augustine's system and formed the basis for the subsequent Jansenist controversy. The book consisted of three volumes:

  1. The first described the history of
    Semipelagianism
    ;
  2. The second discussed the fall of man and original sin;
  3. The third denounced a "modern tendency" (unnamed by Jansen but clearly identifiable as
    Semipelagian

Jansenist theology

The title page of Augustinus by Cornelius Jansen, published posthumously in 1640. The book formed the foundation of the subsequent Jansenist controversy.

Even before the publication of

imperfect contrition (or attrition) could save a person (and that, in turn, only an efficacious grace could tip that person toward God and such contrition). This debate on the respective roles of contrition and attrition, which had not been settled by the Council of Trent (1545–1563), was one of the motives of the imprisonment in May 1638 of Vergier, the first leader of Port-Royal, by order of Cardinal Richelieu.[4]
Vergier was not released until after Richelieu's death in 1642, and he died shortly thereafter, in 1643.

Jansen also insisted on

a priori and necessary. Pascal claimed that Molinists were correct concerning the state of humanity before the Fall
, while Calvinists were correct regarding the state of humanity after the Fall.

The

grace. Jansenism asserts that God's role in the infusion of grace cannot be resisted and does not require human assent. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the orthodox position that "God's free initiative demands man's free response"[5]
—that is, humans freely assent or refuse God's gift of grace.

Controversy and papal condemnation: 1640–1653

La mèreMarie Angélique Arnauld (1591–1661), abbess of Port-Royal-des-Champs.

Augustinus was widely read in theological circles in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands in 1640, and a new edition quickly appeared in Paris under the approval of ten professors at the College of Sorbonne (the theological college of the University of Paris).

On August 1, 1642, however, the

Holy Office issued a decree condemning Augustinus and forbidding its reading.[a] In 1642, Pope Urban VIII followed up with a papal bull entitled In eminenti, which condemned Augustinus because it was published in violation of the order that no works concerning grace should be published without the prior permission of the Holy See; and renewed the censures by Pope Pius V, in Ex omnibus afflictionibus in 1567, and Pope Gregory XIII, of several propositions of Baianism that were repeated in Augustinus.[b]

In 1602,

Angélique Arnauld; he convinced her of the rightness of Jansen's opinions. The two convents thus became major strongholds of Jansenism. Under Angélique Arnauld, later with Vergier's support, Port-Royal-des-Champs developed a series of elementary schools, known as the "Little Schools of Port-Royal" (Les Petites-Écoles de Port-Royal); the most famous product of these schools was the playwright Jean Racine.[8]

Vergier's
death in 1643.

Through Angélique Arnauld, Vergier had met her brother,

Christ instituted it as a means to holiness for sinners, and stating that the only requirement for receiving Communion (apart from baptism) was that the communicant is free of mortal sin at the time of reception. The Jansenists, in line with their deeply pessimistic theology, discouraged frequent Communion, arguing that a high degree of perfection, including purification from attachment to venial sin, was necessary before approaching the sacrament
.

The faculty of the College of Sorbonne formally accepted the papal bull In eminenti in 1644, and Cardinal

archbishop of Paris
, formally proscribed Augustinus; the work nevertheless continued to circulate.

The Jesuits then attacked the Jansenists, charging them with

Calvinism
.

Moral Theology of the Jesuits").[1]

The Jesuits then designated

Louis XIII) to write Réponse au libelle intitulé La Théologie morale des Jésuites ("Response to the libel titled Moral Theology of the Jesuits") in 1644. Another Jesuit response was Les Impostures et les ignorances du libelle intitulé: La Théologie Morale des Jésuites ("The impostures and ignorance of the libel titled Moral Theology of the Jesuits") by François Pinthereau, under the pseudonym of "abbé de Boisic", also in 1644.[9]
Pinthereau also wrote a critical history of Jansenism, La Naissance du Jansénisme découverte à Monsieur le Chancelier ("The Birth of Jansenism Revealed to the Chancellor") in 1654.

During the 1640s,

Vergier's nephew, Martin de Barcos, who was once a theology student under Jansen, wrote several works defending Vergier
.

In 1649,

consultors to report on the situation. Over the next two years, this commission held 36 meetings including 10 presided by Innocent X.[3]

The supporters of Jansenism on the commission drew up a table with three heads: the first listed the

Molinists), and the third listed the correct Augustinian
position (according to the Jansenists).

Jansenism's supporters suffered a decisive defeat when the apostolic constitution

Innocent X
in 1653, which condemned the following five propositions:

  1. That there are some commands of God that just persons cannot keep, no matter how hard they wish and strive, and they are not given the grace to enable them to keep these commands;
  2. That it is impossible for fallen persons to resist interior grace;
  3. That it is possible for human beings who lack
    merit
    ;
  4. That the
    Semipelagians were correct to teach that prevenient grace
    was necessary for all interior acts, including for faith, but were incorrect to teach that fallen humanity is free to accept or resist prevenient grace; and;
  5. That it is Semipelagian to say that Christ died for all.

Formulary controversy

Background: 1654–1664

Antoine Arnauld condemned the five propositions listed in Cum occasione. He contended that

Arnauld argued that since Innocent X would certainly not have wished to condemn Augustine's opinions, Innocent X had not condemned Jansen's
actual opinions.

Replying to

Arnauld's position to the pope. Opponents of Jansenism in the church refused absolution to Roger du Plessis, duc de Liancourt [fr
] for his continued protection of the Jansenists. In response to this onslaught, Arnauld articulated a distinction as to how far the Church could bind the mind of a Catholic. He argued that there is a distinction between de jure and de facto: that a Catholic was obliged to accept the Church's opinion as to a matter of law (i.e., as to a matter of doctrine) but not as to a matter of fact. Arnauld argued that, while he agreed with the doctrine propounded in Cum occasione, he was not bound to accept the pope's determination of fact as to what doctrines were contained in Jansen's work.

Provincial Letters, written 1656 and 1657, a literary masterpiece written from a Jansenist perspective, and remembered for the denunciation of the casuistry of the Jesuits
.

In 1656, the theological faculty at the Sorbonne moved against Arnauld. This was the context in which

Jesuitism (Unlike Arnauld, Pascal did not accede to Cum occasione but believed that the condemned doctrines were orthodox. Nevertheless, he emphasized Arnauld's distinction about matters of doctrine vs. matters of fact.) The Letters were also scathing in their critique of the casuistry
of the Jesuits, echoing Arnauld's Théologie morale des Jésuites.

However, Pascal did not convince the Sorbonne's theological faculty, which voted 138–68 to degrade Arnauld together with 60 other theologians from the faculty. Later that year, the French Assembly of the Bishops voted to condemn Arnauld's distinction of the pope's ability to bind the mind of believers in matters of doctrine but not in matters of fact; they asked

Augustinus, and that they have been condemned in the sense of the same Jansenius and we once more condemn them as such."[3]

In 1657, relying on Ad sanctam beati Petri sedem, the French Assembly of the Clergy drew up a formula of faith condemning Jansenism and declared that subscription to the formula was obligatory. Many Jansenists remained firmly committed to Arnauld's proposition; they condemned the propositions in Cum occasione but disagreed that the propositions were contained in Augustinus. In retaliation, Gondi

interdicted the convent of Port Royal from receiving the sacraments
. In 1660, the elementary schools run by Port-Royal-des-Champs were closed by the bull, and in 1661, the monastery at Port-Royal-des-Champs was forbidden to accept new novices, which guaranteed the convent would eventually die out.

Formulary: 1664

Four bishops sided with Port-Royal,

: n. 2020 

Formulary controversy: 1664–1669

The Formula of Submission for the Jansenists was the basis of the

Formulary Controversy
. Many Jansenists refused to sign it; while some did sign, they made it known that they were agreeing only to the doctrine (questions of law de jure), not the allegations asserted by the bull (questions of fact de facto). The latter category included the four Jansenist-leaning bishops, who communicated the bull to their flocks along with messages that maintained the distinction between doctrine and fact. This angered both Louis XIV and Alexander VII. Alexander VII commissioned nine French bishops to investigate the situation.

Formulary Controversy
led to a 32-year lull (1669–1701) in the controversy over Jansenism known as the Peace of Clement IX.

Alexander VII died in 1667 before the commission concluded its investigation and his successor, Pope Clement IX, initially appeared willing to continue the investigation of the nine Jansenist-leaning bishops. However, in France, Jansenists conducted a campaign arguing that allowing a papal commission of this sort would be ceding the traditional liberties of the Gallican Church, thus playing on traditional French opposition to ultramontanism. They convinced one member of the cabinet (Lyonne) and nineteen bishops of their position, these bishops argued, in a letter to Clement IX, that the infallibility of the Church applied only to matters of revelation, and not to matters of fact. They asserted that this was the position of Caesar Baronius and Robert Bellarmine. They also argued, in a letter to Louis XIV, that allowing the investigation to continue would result in political discord.

Under these circumstances, the

bishop of Laon, as a mediator in the matter.[d] D'Estrées convinced the four bishops, Arnauld, Choart de Buzenval, Caulet, and Pavillon, to sign the Formula of Submission for the Jansenists (though it seems they may have believed that signing the formulary did not mean assent to the matters of fact it contained). The pope, initially happy that the four bishops had signed, became angry when he was informed that they had done so with reservations. Clement IX ordered his nuncio to conduct a new investigation. Reporting back, the nuncio declared: "they have condemned and caused to be condemned the five propositions with all manner of sincerity, without any exception or restriction whatever, in every sense in which the Church has condemned them". However, he reported that the four bishops continued to be evasive as to whether they agreed with the pope as to the matter of fact. In response, Clement IX appointed a commission of twelve cardinals to further investigate the matter.[3]
This commission determined that the four bishops had signed the formula in a less than entirely sincere manner, but recommended that the matter should be dropped to forestall further divisions in the Church. The pope agreed and thus issued four briefs, declaring the four bishops' agreement to the formula was acceptable, thus instituting the "Peace of Clement IX" (1669–1701).

Case of Conscience and aftermath: 1701–1709

Nuns being forcibly removed from the convent of Port-Royal-des-Champs
in 1709

Although the Peace of

Clement IX
was a lull in the public theological controversy, several clergies remained attracted to Jansenism. Three major groups were:

  1. The duped Jansenists, who continued to profess the five propositions condemned in Cum occasione;
  2. The fins Jansénistes, who accepted the doctrine of Cum occasione but who continued to deny the infallibility of the Church in matters of fact;
  3. The quasi-Jansenists, who formally accepted both
    Declaration of the clergy of France
    .

The quasi-Jansenists served as protectors of the "duped Jansenists" and the fins Jansénistes.

The tensions generated by the continuing presence of these elements in the French church came to a head in the Case of Conscience of 1701. The case involved the question of whether or not absolution should be given to a cleric who refused to affirm the infallibility of the Church in matters of fact (even though he did not preach against it but merely maintained a "respectful silence"). A provincial conference, consisting of forty theology professors from the Sorbonne, headed by Noël Alexandre, declared that the cleric should receive absolution.

The publication of this "Case of Conscience" provoked outrage among the anti-Jansenist elements in the Catholic Church. The decision given by the scholars was condemned by several French bishops; by Cardinal

archbishop of Paris; by the theological faculties at Leuven, Douai, and eventually Paris; and, finally, in 1703, by Pope Clement XI. The scholars who had signed the Case of Conscience now backed away, and all of the signatories withdrew their signatures and the theologian who had championed the result of the Case of Conscience, Nicolas Petitpied [fr
], was expelled from the Sorbonne.

Louis XIV and his grandson, Philip V of Spain, now asked the pope to issue a papal bull condemning the practice of maintaining a respectful silence as to the issue of the infallibility of the Church in matters of the dogmatic fact.

The pope obliged, issuing the apostolic constitution

bishop of Saint-Pons
, voted to accept Vineam Domini Sabaoth and Louis XIV promulgated it as binding law in France.

Louis also sought the dissolution of

dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution
.

Case of Quesnel

Unigenitus Dei Filius
.

archbishop of Mechelen, but escaped several months later and lived in Amsterdam
for the remainder of his life.

Réflexions morales did not initially arouse controversy; in fact, it was approved for publication by Félix Vialart de Herse,

bishop of La Rochelle, forbade the reading of the book in their dioceses.[3]

However, Noailles, who was now the cardinal archbishop of Paris was embarrassed and reluctant to condemn a book he had previously recommended and thus hesitated. As a result, Louis XIV asked the pope to settle the matter.[

heretical
, and as identical with propositions already condemned in the writings of Jansen.

Unigenitus Dei Filius
in 1713, which condemned Quesnel and the Jansenists.

Those Jansenists who accepted Unigenitus Dei Filius became known as Acceptants.

After examining the 101 propositions condemned by Unigenitus Dei Filius, Noailles determined that as set out in Unigenitus Dei Filius and apart from their context in the Réflexions morales, some of the propositions condemned by Unigenitus Dei Filius were in fact orthodox. He, therefore, refused to accept the apostolic constitution and instead sought clarifications from the pope.

In the midst of this dispute, Louis XIV died in 1715, and the government of France was taken over by

Louis XV of France. Unlike Louis XIV, who had stood solidly behind Unigenitus Dei Filius, Philippe II expressed ambivalence during the Régence period. With the change in political mood, three theological faculties that had previously voted to accept Unigenitus Dei Filius – Paris, Nantes, and Reims
– voted to rescind their acceptance.

In 1717, four French bishops attempted to appeal Unigenitus Dei Filius to a general council; the bishops were joined by hundreds of French priests, monks, and nuns, and were supported by the parlements. In 1718, Clement XI responded vigorously to this challenge to his authority by issuing the bull Pastoralis officii by which he excommunicated everyone who had called for an appeal to a general council. Far from disarming the French clergy, many of whom were now advocating conciliarism, the clergy who had appealed Unigenitus Dei Filius to a general council, now appealed Pastoralis officii to a general council as well. In total, one cardinal, 18 bishops, and 3,000 clergy of France supported an appeal to a general council. However, the majority of clergy in France (four cardinals, 100 bishops, 100,000 clergymen) stood by the pope. The schism carried on for some time, and it was not until 1728 that Louis Antoine de Noailles submitted to the pope and signed Unigenitus Dei Filius.

Factionalism

Jansenism persisted in France for many years but split "into antagonistic factions" in the late 1720s.

One faction developed from the convulsionnaires of Saint-Médard, who were religious pilgrims who went into frenzied religious ecstasy at the grave of François de Pâris, a Jansenist deacon in the parish cemetery of Saint-Médard in Paris. The connection between the larger French Jansenist movement and the smaller, more radical convulsionnaire phenomenon is difficult to state with precision. Brian Strayer noted, in Suffering Saints, almost all convulsionnaires were Jansenists, but very few Jansenists embraced the convulsionnaire phenomenon.[12]: 236 

"The format of their seances changed perceptibly after 1732," according to Strayer. "Instead of emphasizing prayer, singing, and healing miracles, believers now participated in 'spiritual marriages' (which occasionally bore earthly children), encouraged violent convulsions [...] and indulged in the secours (erotic and violent forms of torture), all of which reveals how neurotic the movement was becoming." The movement descended into brutal cruelties that "clearly had sexual overtones" in their practices of penance and mortification of the flesh. In 1735 the parlements regained jurisdiction over the convulsionary movement, which changed into an underground movement of clandestine sects. The next year "an alleged plot" by convulsionnaire revolutionaries to overthrow the parlements and assassinate Louis XV was thwarted. The "Augustinian convulsionnaires" were then absconded from Paris to avoid police surveillance. This "further split the Jansenist movement."[12]: 257–265 

According to Strayer, by 1741 the leadership was "dead, exiled, or imprisoned," and the movement was divided into three groups. The police role increased and the parlements role decreased "in the social control of Jansenism" but cells continued engaging in seances, torture,[e] and apocalyptic and treasonous rhetoric. By 1755 there were fewer than 800 convulsionnaires in France. In 1762 the parlements criminalized some of their practices "as 'potentially dangerous' to human life."[12]: 266–269, 272  The last crucifixion was documented in 1788.[12]: 282 

Jansenists continued to publish anti-Jesuit propaganda through their magazine Nouvelles ecclésiastiques and played a central role in plotting and promoting the expulsion of the Jesuits from France in 1762–64.[13]

In the Spanish Netherlands and the Dutch Republic

As noted by

Bishop of Ghent. Though the Church in the Spanish Netherlands eventually took up persecution of Jansenism – with Jansenist clergy being replaced by their opponents and the monument to Jansen in the Cathedral of Ypres
being symbolically demolished in 1656 – the Spanish authorities were less zealous in this persecution than the French ones.

Where Jansenism persisted longest as a major force among Catholics was in the Dutch Republic, where Jansenism was actively encouraged and supported by the Republic's authorities. Jansenist refugees from France and the Spanish Netherlands were made welcome, increasing the Jansenist influence among Dutch Catholics. Politically, the Dutch Jansenists were more inclined than other Catholics to reach accommodation with the Protestant authorities and sought to make themselves independent of Papal control. Moreover, theologically the Jansenist doctrines were considered to be closer to the dominant Dutch Calvinism. Indeed, Dutch Jansenism (sometimes called "Quesnelism" after Pasquier Quesnel, who emerged as a major proponent of Jansenism in the 1690s) was accused by its opponents of being "Crypto-Calvinism within the Church". The controversy between Jansenists and anti-Jansenists (the latter naturally led by the Jesuits) increasingly tore up the Dutch Catholic Church in the late 17th and early 18th century – with the authorities of the Dutch Republic actively involved on the one side and the Papacy and Kings of France, Spain, Portugal, and Poland – on the other. Moreover, some Dutch Catholics seeking greater independence from Papal control were identified as being "Jansenists", even if not necessarily adhering to the theological doctrines of Jansenism.

Things came to an open split in April 1723, with the adherents of what would come to be known as the

Cornelis Steenhoven, as Archbishop of Utrecht
to rival the Archbishop recognized by the Pope. Throughout the 18th century, these two rival Catholic Churches were active in competition. The question of whether, and to what degree, this breakaway Church was Jansenist was highly controversial – the Jesuits having a clear polemical interest in emphasizing its identification as such.

In the 19th century, Jansenists were part of the abolition societies in France. The Janists had criticized Jesuit missions in the New World and advocated for liberation.

Legacy

Unigenitus Dei Filius marks the official end of toleration of Jansenism in the Church in France, though quasi-Jansenists would occasionally stir in the following decades. By the mid-18th century, Jansenism proper had totally lost its battle to be a viable theological position within Catholicism. However, certain ideas tinged with Jansenism remained in circulation for much longer; in particular, the Jansenist idea that Holy Communion should be received very infrequently, and that reception required much more than freedom from mortal sin, remained influential until finally condemned by Pope Pius X, who endorsed frequent communion, as long as the communicant was free of mortal sin, in the early 20th century.

In 1677, a pro-Baianism faction from the theological faculty at Louvain submitted 116 propositions of moral laxity for censure to

Francisco Suarez.[according to whom?] All 65 propositions were censured and prohibited "as at least scandalous and pernicious in practice."[10]
: n. 2167 

At the pseudo-Synod of Pistoia, a proposition of Jansenist inspiration, to radically reform the Latin liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, was passed. This proposition along with the entire Synod of Pistoia was condemned by Pius VI's bull Auctorem Fidei several years later.[16]

Jansenism was a factor in the formation of the independent

Ultrajectine traditions, but this proposition began with accusations from the Jesuits.[according to whom?
]

In

Le Refus global accused the Church in Quebec as being the result of a "Jansenist colony".[failed verificationsee discussion][17]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ The decree was powerless in France since the tribunal was unrecognized by the law.[6][7]
  2. ^ In eminenti was, for a time, treated as invalid because of an alleged ambiguity about the date of its publication. Jansenists attempted to prevent the reception of In eminenti, both in Flanders and in France. They pretended that it could not be genuine, since the document attested to be promulgated at Rome on March 6, 1641, whereas the copy sent to Brussels by the Nuncio at Cologne was dated in 1642. In reality, the difference between the Old Style and New Style dates was because two calendars were in use.[6]
  3. bishop of Alet
    .
  4. bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne
    , assisted d'Estrées.
  5. ^ For example, Strayer related a case documented in 1757 where a woman was "beat [...] with garden spades, iron chains, hammers, and brooms [...] jabbed [...] with swords, pelted [...] with stones, buried [...] alive, [...] crucified." In another case documented in 1757, a woman "was cut with a knife numerous times" causing gangrene.[12]: 269 
  6. ^ The Holy Office decree that censured 65 propositions of moral doctrine is dated March 2, 1679.[10]: p. 466  The Holy Office previously censured 45 propositions of moral doctrine between two decrees dated September 24, 1665, and March 18, 1666.[10]: nn. 2021–2065  According to Denzinger, the propositions submitted, by both the University of Louvain and the University of Paris, were "frequently taken out of context and sometimes expanded by elements that are not found in the original, so that most often one must speak of fictitious authors."[10]: p. 459  The censure was that the 45 propositions were "at the very least scandalous."[10]: n. 2065 

References

  1. ^ from the original on 11 November 2008.
  2. Catholic Historical Review
    93/2 (2007), pp. 265-299.
  3. ^ a b c d e  One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domainForget, Jacques (1910). "Jansenius and Jansenism". In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
  4. .
  5. .
  6. ^ a b Jervis, Lady Marian (1872). Tales of the boyhood of great painters. T. Nelson and Sons. pp. 386–387. Retrieved 23 March 2022.
  7. ^ Jervis 1872, p. 386–387.
  8. ^ "Jansenism: a movement of great influence". Musée protestant.
  9. OCLC 493191187
    .
  10. ^ .
  11. ^ Miranda, Salvador (ed.). "Selleri, O.P., Gregorio". The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. Florida International University Libraries. Archived from the original on 2005-05-02. Retrieved 2012-02-05.
  12. ^ .
  13. ^ Dale Van Kley, The Jansenists and the Expulsion of the Jesuits from France 1757–1765
  14. ^ Jonathan Israel, "The Dutch Republic, Its Rise, Greatness and Fall", Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995, pp. 649-653, 1034-1047)
  15. .
  16. ^ Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1911). "Synod of Pistoia" . Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
  17. ^ "Refus Global by Paul-Émile Borduas". Archived from the original on 25 March 2015. Retrieved 13 June 2015.

Further reading

External links