The case went on for two years before Cabell and his publisher, Robert M. McBride, won. They argued that the "indecencies" were double entendres that also had perfectly decent interpretations, though it appeared that what had actually offended the prosecution most was the work's mocking expression of philosophy, including a jest about the nature of papal infallibility.
The case lasted two years before Cabell and his publisher, Robert M. McBride, won. They argued that the "indecencies" were double entendres with acceptable interpretations, although it appeared that what had truly angered the prosecution was the work's satirical take on philosophy, including a joke about papal infallibility.