THE CENSORSHIP OF THE CHURCH
SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
I. Introductory. The Index and Censorship.
II. Censorship and the Early Church. 150–768.
III. Prohibition of Books in the Middle Ages. 830–1480.
IV. Book Regulations before the Indexes.
In England, the Netherlands, France, Spain, and Germany.
1450–1555.
V. Papal Censorship before the Indexes and the Bull _Coenae
Domini_. 1364–1586.
VI. The Roman Inquisition and the Congregation of the Index.
VII. The First Series of Indexes.
Louvain, 1510, Venice, 1543, Paris, 1544, Louvain, 1546,
Lucca, 1545, Louvain, 1550, Venice, 1549, Valentia,
1551, Florence, 1552, Valladolid, 1554, Venice, 1554,
Louvain, 1558, Valladolid, 1559, Rome, 1559.
VIII. The Council of Trent and the Index of Pius IV. 1564.
IX. Censorship Regulations. 1550–1591.
X. Indexes of the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy. 1569–1588.
XI. Roman Indexes and Decrees. 1590–1661.
(This chapter includes the Index of Sixtus V, the only
papal Index which undertook the work of expurgation.)
XII. Indexes and Prohibitions, Spanish, Roman, Belgian,
Portuguese, and Polish. 1612–1768.
XIII. The Index of Alexander VII. 1664.
(This Index includes the record of the condemnation
of Galileo.)
XIV. Decrees and Indexes, French, Belgian, Bohemian, Roman
and Spanish. 1685–1815.
XV. Erasmus and Luther in the Index.
XVI. The Jansenist Controversy and the Bull _Unigenitus_.
VOLUME II
I. Theological Controversies in France, Germany, England,
and the Netherlands. 1600–1750.
II. The Treatment of the Scriptures under Censorship.
III. The Monastic Orders and Censorship.
IV. Roman Indexes. 1758–1900.
(This chapter includes a specification of the Index of
Benedict XIV of 1758, and description of the latest
Indexes, those of Pius IX and Leo XIII.)
V. General Prohibitions and the Continuation of Class I.
VI. Issues between Church and State.
VII. Examples of Condemned Literature.
VIII. The Censorship of the State and by Protestants.
a. Catholic States: Catholic Germany, France, Spain, and
Portugal. b. Protestant States: Protestant Germany,
Switzerland, Holland, Scandinavia, and England.
IX. The Book Trade as Affected by Censorship: 1450–1800.
X. The Censorship of the Stage.
XI. The Literary Policy of the Modern Church.
(This chapter includes a study of the Indexes of Leo XIII,
1896–1900, the work of Index revision and reform,
1865–1880, “Romanus” and the Tablet, 1897, and
a reference to present methods of censorship.)
XII. The Authority and the Results of Censorship.
Supplement, with schedule of the Indexes issued under
the authority of the Church, 1526–1900.
By Geo. Haven Putnam
=Authors and Their Public in Ancient Times.=--A sketch of
literary conditions, and of the relations with the public of
literary producers, from the earliest times to the fall of the
Roman Empire.
Third Edition, revised. 12^o, gilt top, net, $1.50
=Books and Their Makers during the Middle Ages.=--A
study of the conditions of the production and distribution of
literature, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the close of
the Seventeenth Century.
Two vols., sold separately. 8^o, gilt tops. Each $2.50
Volume I., 476–1600.
Volume II., 1500–1709.
=The Question of Copyright.=--Comprising the text of
the Copyright Law of the United States, and a Summary of the
Copyright Laws at present in force in the Chief Countries of
the World. Third edition, revised, with Additions, and with the
Record of Legislation brought down to March, 1896. 8^o, gilt top
$1.75
=The Censorship of the Church of Rome and Its Influence upon
the Production and Distribution of Literature.=--A Study of
the History of the Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes, Together
with Some Consideration of the Effects of Protestant Censorship
and of Censorship by the State.
Two volumes, 8vo. Uniform with “Books and Their Makers.” Each
net, $2.50
G. P. Putnam’s Sons
NEW YORK AND LONDON
THE CENSORSHIP OF
THE CHURCH OF ROME
AND ITS INFLUENCE UPON THE PRODUCTION AND
DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE
A STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF THE PROHIBITORY AND EXPURGATORY
INDEXES, TOGETHER WITH SOME CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECTS
OF PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP AND OF CENSORSHIP BY THE STATE
BY
GEORGE HAVEN PUTNAM, LITT. D.
Author of
“AUTHORS AND THEIR PUBLIC IN ANCIENT TIMES,” “BOOKS AND THEIR
MAKERS IN THE MIDDLE AGES,” “THE QUESTION OF COPYRIGHT,”
“AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS,” ETC.
_IN TWO VOLUMES_
VOLUME II
G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS
NEW YORK AND LONDON
The Knickerbocker Press
1907
COPYRIGHT, 1907
BY
GEORGE HAVEN PUTNAM
The Knickerbocker Press, New York
CONTENTS
PAGE
I.--THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES IN FRANCE, GERMANY,
ENGLAND, AND THE NETHERLANDS, 1600–1750 1
1. The Protestant Theologians of France,
1654–1700.
2. Theological Contests in the Netherlands,
1654–1690.
3. The Protestant Theologians of Holland in
the 17th Century.
4. The Protestant Theologians of England,
1676–1732.
5. The Protestant Theologians of Germany,
1600–1750.
II.--THE TREATMENT OF THE SCRIPTURES UNDER CENSORSHIP 11
1. Germany
2. France
3. The Netherlands
4. Spain
5. England
6. Scriptures in the Vernacular
III.--THE MONASTIC ORDERS AND CENSORSHIP 31
1. Writings on the Monastic Orders, 1600–1800
2. The Jesuits, 1650–1800
3. The Dominicans, 1510–1600
4. The Casuists, 1600–1610
5. The Seculars and the Regulars, 1600–1700
IV.--ROMAN INDEXES, 1758–1900 49
Index of Benedict XIV, 1758
Issues of the Roman Index, 1763–1900
V.--METHODS OF PROHIBITION AND THE CONTINUATION OF
CLASS I 69
1. Papal Prohibitions in the 17th and 18th
Centuries
2. Prohibitions by Bishops
3. Publication of the Book Prohibitions
4. The Continuation of Class I
5. Catalogues of Books Approved
VI.--ISSUES BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE 90
1. Venice and the Papacy, 1606–1696
2. Spain and the Papacy, 1559–1770
3. Controversies concerning the Gallican Church,
1600–1758
4. Ecclesiastical-Political Contests, 1700–1750
5. England and the Papacy, 1606–1853
6. The Gallicans and Liberal Catholics, 1845–1870
VII.--EXAMPLES OF CONDEMNED LITERATURE 121
1. Writings concerning the Papacy and the
Inquisition
2. Writings concerning the Churches of the East
3. Patristic Writings and Pagan Classics
4. Jewish Literature
5. Historical Writings of the 17th Century
6. Protestant Jurists of the 17th Century
7. Writings of Italian Protestants
8. Philosophy, Natural Science, and Medicine
9. Books on Magic and Astrology
10. Cyclopedias, Text-books, Facetiae
11. Secret Societies
12. Manuals for Exorcising
13. Fraudulent Indulgences
14. Works on the Saints
15. Forms of Prayer
16. Mariology
17. Revelations by Nuns
18. The Chinese and Malabar Usages
19. Fraudulent Literature.
20. Quietism
21. Fênelon
22. The Doctrine of Probability
23. Usury
24. Philosophy and Literature, 1750–1800
25. Philosophy and Natural Science, 1800–1880
26. The Synod of Pistoja, 1786
27. The Festival of the Heart of Jesus, 1697–1765
28. French, German, and English Catholic Theologians,
1758–1800
29. The French Revolution, 1790–1806
30. The French Concordats of 1801, 1801–1822
31. Protestant Theologians, 1750–1884
32. The Eastern Church, 1810–1873
33. The Theologians of Pavia, 1774–1790
34. French, English, and Dutch Literature 1817–1880
35. German Catholic Writings, 1814–1870
36. La Mennais, 1830–1846
37. The Roman Revolution of 1848, 1848–1852
38. Traditionalism and Ontology, 1833–1880
39. _Attritio_ and the _Peccatum Philosophicum_,
1667–1690
40. Communism and Socialism, 1825–1860
41. Magnetism and Spiritualism, 1840–1874
42. French Authors, 1835–1884
43. Italian Authors, 1840–1876
44. American Writings, 1822–1876
45. Periodicals, 1832–1900
46. The Roman Question, 1859–1870
47. The Council of the Vatican, 1867–1876
48. Example of a License.
VIII.--THE CENSORSHIP OF THE STATE AND CENSORSHIP BY
PROTESTANTS 205
(I) General
(II) Catholic States
1. Catholic Germany
2. France
3. Spain and Portugal
(III) Protestant States
1. Switzerland
2. Protestant Germany
3. Holland
4. Scandinavia
5. England
(IV) Summary
IX.--THE BOOK-PRODUCTION OF EUROPE AS AFFECTED BY
CENSORSHIP, 1450–1800 270
1. General
2. The Universities
3. Italy
4. Spain
5. France
6. Germany
7. The Netherlands
8. England
9. The _Index Generalis_ of Thomas James, Oxford,
1627
X.--THE CENSORSHIP OF THE STAGE 376
XI.--THE LITERARY POLICY OF THE MODERN CHURCH 379
1. The Indexes of Leo XIII, 1881–1900
2. Index Revision and Reform, 1868–1880
3. “Romanus” and the _Tablet_, 1897
4. The Present Methods of Roman Censorship
XII.--THE AUTHORITY AND THE RESULTS OF THE CENSORSHIP
OF THE CHURCH 446
Schedule of Indexes issued under the authority
of the Church or compiled by ecclesiastics and
published under authority of the State, 1526–1900 480
INDEX 483
CENSORSHIP
CHAPTER I
THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES IN FRANCE, GERMANY,
ENGLAND, AND THE NETHERLANDS, 1600–1750
1. The Protestant Theologians of France 1654–1700.
2. Theological Contests in the Netherlands 1654–1690.
3. The Protestant Theologians of Holland in the 17th
Century
4. The Protestant Theologians of England 1676–1732.
5. The Protestant Theologians of Germany 1600–1750.
=1. The Protestant Theologians of France, 1654–1700.=--The
Protestant theological literature of France and of French Switzerland
is more fully represented in the Index than are the corresponding
groups of Holland and Germany; but in the case of the French authors
also the selection is rather haphazard, the names of important
authors being omitted, while of others only single books, and of
these the least characteristic, have been included. Certain works
also which escaped condemnation at the time of the first publication
secure attention from the censors only a number of years later. Such
Protestant writers in the first half of the 17th century as Chamier,
Picter, Capel, and Bochart were overlooked altogether.
Jacques Abbadie (1654–1727) comes into the Index in connection with
his _Traité de la Vérité de la Religion Chrétienne_. The edition
prohibited was that of 1688, the entry finding place in the list of
1703. Remond’s treatise, _L’Antéchrist Romain opposé à l’Antéchrist
Juif, du Bellarmin_, secured naturally fairly prompt attention,
being condemned in 1609, the year after its appearance.
La Bastide’s monograph, _Exposition de la Doctrine de l’Église
Catholique sur les Matières de Controverse_, was prohibited in 1693,
twenty years after its publication. This is the only one of the series
of replies to the treatise of Bossuet which secured condemnation.
Isaac la Peyrère published in Holland, in 1655, a treatise entitled
_Praeadamitae s. Exercitatio super V. 12–14, cap. 5. epistolae ad
Romanos item Systema theologicum ex Praeadamitarum Hypothesi_. The
book was censured by the Bishop of Namur, and copies were publicly
burned in Paris. In 1656, Peyrère was imprisoned in the Spanish
Netherlands, but, on his application, was sent to Rome for trial. In
advance of his trial, he became Catholic and retracted the utterances
in his book. Later, he wrote a second treatise in confutation of the
first. Notwithstanding the emphasis given to the earlier book, it is
not included in the Index lists.
=2. Theological Contests in the Netherlands, 1654–1690.=--The issues
that arose in the Netherlands during the second half of the 17th
century between the Jesuits and the Franciscans on the one side, and
the theologians of the University of Louvain and the leaders of the
other orders and of the clergy on the other, had to do not only with
the doctrine of Grace but also with questions of theological morality
and pastoral theology (the administration, for instance, of confession
and communion), and, after 1682, were also concerned with some of
the contentions that had been brought up by the Gallican Church. As a
result of a long series of controversies that arose concerning these
issues, a very considerable number of the works of theological writers
of the Low Countries came into the Index. It was the practice of the
leaders on either side to make application to Rome to have condemned
the works brought into print by their adversaries. The authorities
in Rome appear to have condemned with a fair measure of impartiality
the controversial writings on both sides. In 1677, the University of
Louvain sent to Rome, with the approval of the Spanish King (Charles
II), four professors who were charged with the duty of securing the
condemnation of a series of propositions described as adverse to sound
morality, and at the same time to defend against the assaults of the
Jesuits the true doctrine of Grace. In response to this application,
Innocent XI, in March, 1679, caused to be condemned by a decree of the
Inquisition sixty-five propositions. The decree followed the lines
of that issued in 1665 for forty-five propositions then defined as
unorthodox. In regard to the doctrine of Grace, the Holy See decided
that the teaching presented in the censures promulgated in 1558 by the
faculties of Louvain and Douay, was sound and was to be upheld. As was
the case with the decrees in 1665 and 1666, the particular works from
which the condemned propositions had been cited were not specified. A
number of monographs in which the question was brought up as to the
authors who were responsible for these condemned propositions, and
particularly as to whether these authors were or were not Jesuits,
were themselves condemned. After the publication of the decree of
1679, the Inquisition gave attention to the investigation of certain
propositions which had been denounced by the opponents of the Louvain
divines as contained in the writings of these, and as also contained
in certain other works classed as Jansenist. In 1690, was published by
Alexander VIII a decree which had been framed under the instructions
of Innocent XI, condemning as unorthodox thirty-one propositions which
had been found in this group of writings. The propositions condemned
had to do in part with what may be called the moralities and in part
with the doctrine of Grace. The proposition bearing in this series the
number twenty-nine, took the ground that the claim for the superiority
of the pope over the general council of the Church, and for the
infallibility of the pope in the decision of questions of dogma, was a
claim for which there was no foundation (_Futilis et toties convulsa
assertio_). Certain monographs written to criticise and oppose this
decree were promptly prohibited. The action taken during these years
gives evidence of the development of the policy of the Church in the
matter of defining or of approving or condemning doctrinal assertions,
or propositions having to do with theology or morality, apart from
the condemnation by title of any works in which such propositions may
have been contained. A condemnation of this kind freely interpreted
constitutes, of course, a condemnation not only of all books which had
been brought into print up to that time containing such propositions or
doctrines, but (without the necessity of specific prohibition by title)
a condemnation which may serve as a prohibition of all books coming
into print at a later date containing similar doctrines. On the other
hand, the fact that the propositions as specified were often found
open to different interpretations (as in the case of the famous five
propositions of Jansen), and the further fact that it was not always
easy to determine whether the statements or expressions in certain
works brought into question were actually identical with propositions,
classed as heretical, had the result of bringing into print after every
such condemnation of propositions, a group of writings undertaking
either to analyse the propositions themselves or to confirm or to
deny the application of the condemnation to works with which they had
been connected. The necessity for analysing, and in large part for
condemning, the writings of this class, involved probably in the end a
larger amount of detailed labour for the Index authorities than would
have been required if, in place of condemning general propositions, the
original condemnation had been connected with specific writings. The
thirty-one propositions condemned in the decree of Alexander VIII of
1690 were described as _temerariae_, _scandalosae_, _male sonantes_,
_injuriosae_, _haeresi proximae_, ... _schismaticae et haereticae_,
etc. Certain of the propositions were taken from the writings of
Lupus, Huygens, Havermans, Gabrielis; _La Fréquente Communion_ of
Arnauld, and the _Monita_ of Widenfeld. Arnauld speaks of this as _un
décret pitoyable_,[1] and Gerberon says: _Cette censure ambiguë est le
scandale de la Cour Romaine, la honte du Saint Office et la confusion
du Pontificat d’Alexandre VIII_.[2]
3. =The Protestant Theologians of Holland in the 17th
Century.=--The compilers of the Index selected from the Dutch
writings of this period only such books as were issued in Latin or
as were printed later in French versions. It appears that the Dutch
language constituted a sufficient barrier to secure a practical
protection against the condemnation of the Church. It is noteworthy to
remember, however, that this condemnation would in any case not have
been likely to influence those readers who took their literature in the
Dutch form, and it is quite probable that the majority of these Dutch
readers never even knew that their authors had the distinction of being
prohibited. Even in the case of those authors whose books did appear in
the world language of Latin, the selections of the Index compilers were
made at haphazard and omitted a number of the most noteworthy names.
Arminius, Voetius, Gomarus, Coccejus, and a number of other leaders of
thought in Holland are not found in the Index. The Congregation did
succeed in getting into their lists the names of a number of obscure
authors whose books had been printed originally in Latin, but who were
forgotten excepting in connection with this record. The treatise by
Grotius, _De Jure Belli et Pacis_, and a few of the writings of
Heinsius, Fossius, and Horne were prohibited.
=4. The Protestant Theologians of England, 1676–1732.=--Up to the
time of Benedict XIV, none of the English theological writings which
had been printed in the vernacular received attention at the hands of
the compilers of the Indexes. Certain works were condemned which had
been originally issued in Latin or of which French translations had
been printed. The English writers begin to receive attention after
1676, although even in these later Indexes the selections, as in the
case of the writers of Germany and Holland, are curiously incidental
and have apparently been made with no consistent principle. The list
for the 17th century includes among the more noteworthy titles the
following: _Reformatio Ecclesiae Anglicanae quibus gradibus inchoata
et perfecta sit_, London, 1603; the writings of Bishop Hall († 1656);
the works of the scientist Robert Boyle, founder of the Boyle lectures
(1627–91); the Polyglot Bible of Walton; the _Synopsis Criticorum_
of Reginald Pole; the _Cantabrigensis tributa_ of Thomas James; the
_Gravissimae Quaestiones de Christ. Ecclesiarum_, of James Usher,
Archbishop of Armagh; certain works of Isaac Casaubon (1559–1614)
(Casaubon was by birth a Swiss, but in connection with his long
residence and the place of publication of the greater portion of his
books, he came to be classed with English scholars); the latest work
of Casaubon to be condemned, the title of which has been continued in
modern Indexes, is the _Corona Regia_, a panegyric of James I; the
_Regii sanguinis clamor ad coelum adversus parricidas Anglicanos_
(This was first printed in The Hague in 1652, and later in London in
1655. It constituted an answer to Milton’s essay _Pro populo Anglicano
defensio_. The author was later identified as Pierre du Moulin, a canon
in Canterbury); _The History of the Reformation of England_ of Burnet
(1643–1715) and the same author’s _History of his Own Times_ (These
two books are described in the Index in the French editions. Burnet’s
other writings escaped condemnation); Robert Baillie († 1662), _Operis
historici et chronologici a creatione mundi ad Constantinum magnum_,
printed in Amsterdam in 1668; Pearson’s _Exposition of the Creed_;
the sermons of Bishop Sherlock (in the French version) and those of
Archbishop Tillotson; a treatise on _Christian Perfection_ by Lucas;
Bartley’s _Apology for the True Christian_ (printed in the French
version in 1702, prohibited in 1712); Andrew Marvelle’s († 1678) _An
Account of the Growth of Popery and Absolute Government in England_
(1675–76). (This was prohibited in its French edition; the Parliament
had, shortly after its first prohibition, offered a reward of £50 for
the identification of the author.) Williams, Bishop of Chester, finds
place in the Index in connection with his treatise on the _Discovery
of a New World_, in which the author undertakes to prove that the moon
is inhabited. This had been first printed in 1638; the condemnation
in 1703 had to do with the French edition printed in Rouen in 1655.
Selden’s _De jure naturali et gentium_, together with a number of his
later treatises which had appeared between the years 1640 and 1679,
were prohibited in 1714. Prideaux’s _The Old and the New Testament
connected in the History of the Jews and Neighbouring Nations_, printed
in 1716, was prohibited in the French edition in 1732.
=5. The Protestant Theologians of Germany, 1600–1750.=--The
cancellation of Class I of the Index may be considered as constituting
one of the more distinctive modifications of the activity or assertions
of authority on the part of the Congregation of the Index. Through
the 16th century, the view had obtained that in this class should be
brought together practically all of the heretical authors who had
ventured to treat of religious matters. After the Index of 1596,
however, the attempt had been abandoned to specify in full the names
of all of the works which on the ground of their heretical character
came under the proscription of Rule II. After that time, it was
considered sufficient to place under a general condemnation all works
on religious subjects which came from writers outside of the Church.
To this general principle, however, certain noteworthy exceptions were
made. There continued to be a separate prohibition, by title, of books
which had, on one ground or another, been brought to the attention of
the Congregation. The decrees of 1686–1700, 1703–1709, included, in
addition to certain lists of Protestant theological writings, a series
of the works of jurists of which the treatise by Grotius above cited is
a good example. The works so selected were for the most part concerned
with questions as to the sources of authority, whether of Church or of
State.
One peculiarity of the condemnation of this particular group of books
is the fact that their pernicious character came to the attention
of the Congregation or of the examiners in many cases only a number
of years after the publication of the books themselves, and, as has
been pointed out, there are commemorated in this manner, as deserving
of attention, not a few books which had gone out of print and had
been practically forgotten in the communities in which they had been
published. Of the works on exegesis and in Church history published
in Germany during the 17th century and the first half of the 18th, a
number of the most important never found their way into the Index.
The titles selected covered in the majority of cases comparatively
insignificant books. There is, for instance, a long list of the
controversial German writings directed against Bellarmin, Becanus, and
Grester, which escaped attention altogether in Italy. Among the better
known names which did come under condemnation during this period are
those of Joh. L. Mosheim, for his _Ecclesiastical History_ and his
treatise on the _Institutions of Christianity_, and Swedenborg for the
_Opera philosophica et mineralia_, published in Dresden in 1734 and
prohibited in 1737. In the Index of Benedict, the _Opera philosophica_
is omitted and in its place is given the _Principia rerum naturalium_.
The other treatises of this voluminous author escaped condemnation. The
prohibition of Mosheim’s Church History was not sufficiently conclusive
to prevent the book from being read in Italy. In 1769, an Italian
translation by Roselli was published in Naples in ten volumes. This
particular edition was never listed in the Indexes.
CHAPTER II
THE TREATMENT OF THE SCRIPTURES UNDER CENSORSHIP
1. Germany.
2. France.
3. Netherlands.
4. Spain.
5. England.
6. Scriptures in the Vernacular.
=1. Germany.=--The cordial co-operation extended by the Church to
the work of the printers continued until the Humanists, more than a
generation before the protest of Luther, began to assail the authority
of the Church and the infallibility of the pope. The ecclesiastics
now took the ground that errors and heresies arose through a wrongful
understanding of the Scriptures, and from the beginning of the 16th
century, took measures to discourage, and finally to prohibit, the
circulation of the Scriptures.
In 1479, was printed in Cologne a fine edition of the Scriptures in
Latin which bears record of the approval of the University of Cologne.
The term is _admissum et approbatum ab alma Universitate Coloniensi_.
This appears to be the earliest instance of the exercise of censorship
by a university in connection with a printed book. Cologne had extended
early hospitality to the printing art and it was there that Colard
Mansion, the associate of Caxton, secured his training. It was only
through the oppressive censorship of the faculty of theology in the
University that during the succeeding century the business of book
production became seriously burdened and the city lost its relative
importance as a publishing centre.
The first Hebrew Bible printed in Europe was issued in Soncino, in
1461, from the press of Abraham Colonto. In 1462, Fust brought to
Paris from Mayence a supply of his folio Bible, copies of which he was
able to sell for fifty crowns. The usual price for manuscripts of this
compass had heretofore been four to five hundred crowns. The first
Bible printed in the vernacular was issued, in 1466, in Strasbourg by
Heinrick Eggestein.
Among the earlier printers of Zurich (in which the work of printing
began in 1504) was Christ Froschauer, who is known chiefly through his
association with Zwingli. Froschauer, who devoted himself earnestly
to the cause of the Calvinists, had a religious as well as a business
interest in securing a wide circulation for the works of Zwingli and
his associates, and together with these he printed editions of the
Bible not only in German but in French, Italian, Flemish, and English.
Froschauer’s editions were the first Bibles printed on the Continent
in the English tongue. For these Bibles, which were distributed at
what to-day would be called popular prices, very considerable sales
were secured and the presses of Froschauer were thus made an important
adjunct to the work of the Reformation.
Anthoni Koberger of Nuremberg, at that time one of the greatest
publishers of Europe, brought into print, in 1481, an edition in
eight volumes folio, of the Bible of Cardinal Hugo. This work had
been produced about 1240, the editor having been made a cardinal by
Innocent IV. It was used for two centuries (of course in manuscript
form) as one of the theological text-books of the Sorbonne. The text
of the Scriptures as revised by Hugo, together with his notes, were
utilised by Luther and by a number of the later editors and translators
of the Scriptures. Koberger’s publishing catalogue included in all no
less than fifteen impressions of this _Biblia Latina_. In the year
1483, the year in which Luther was born, Koberger published his German
Bible. The text was translated from the Latin of the Vulgate and was
illustrated with woodcuts. It is not clear who was responsible for the
version or what was the German idiom utilised for it, but it was a form
that never took any permanent place in the literature of the country.
Luther, referring to this Nuremberg Bible, declares that “no one could
speak German of this outlandish kind.” The catalogue of Koberger
constituted a very good representation of the foundations of scholarly
Catholicism. The Catholic teachers who rested their contention for
the supremacy of the Roman Church upon the Scriptures as interpreted
for fourteen centuries by the scholars of the Church, depended for
the material of their teachings upon such folios as those produced by
Koberger. Weighty as were these folios, and assured as appeared to
be the foundations upon which had been raised the great structure of
ecclesiasticism, their instruction and their authority were undermined,
at least for a large portion of the community, by the influence of the
widely circulated pamphlets and sheets, the _Flugschriften_, which
brought to the people the teachings of the reformers. A series of Latin
Bibles were printed by Froben of Basel between 1500 and 1528. His
undertakings, like those of Koberger, were addressed almost exclusively
to scholars. He added later a series of works of the Fathers and an
edition of the New Testament in Greek edited by Erasmus. The Testament
included, printed in parallel columns, an improved Latin version. This
was the first edition of the Greek text and it was utilised by Luther
in the preparation of his German version. The text as shaped by Erasmus
was based in part upon the previous issue of Laurentius Valla, to whom
must be given the honour of having been the first scholar to attempt a
revision of the Scripture text by a comparison of authorities.
Notwithstanding the approval given to the book by the pope, its
publication brought out many and bitter criticisms. Accusations were
heard of heresy and Arianism. Erasmus had departed from the version of
the Vulgate and in his Latin text had substituted pure Latin for the
monastic barbarisms; he had even, it was said, charged the Apostles
with writing bad Greek. He had had the temerity to correct a number of
texts in such a way as materially to alter their meaning, and in the
first Epistle of John had ventured to omit altogether the testimony of
the “Three Witnesses.” This unfortunate verse, after being accepted by
the Protestants on the strength of its retention by Luther and of the
later and more scholarly authority of the editors of the King James
version, was finally condemned, as an interpolation, by the revisers
under Victoria, who were thus in a position, after an interval of three
and a half centuries, to bear testimony to the scholarship and the
editorial boldness of Erasmus. That Erasmus did possess the courage of
his convictions was evidenced by the character of the notes throughout
the volume; for instance, in commenting upon the famous text, Matt.
XVI, 18, “Upon this rock will I build my church,” he takes occasion to
deny altogether the primacy of Peter and to express his surprise that
words undoubtedly meant to apply to all Christians should have been
interpreted as applying exclusively to the Roman pontiff; and this is
said, it should be remembered, in a volume dedicated to the Pope.[3]
The paraphrase of the New Testament, printed by Erasmus in Basel in
1524 was reprinted in an English version in London, and the work was so
highly appreciated in England that a copy was ordered to be placed in
every parish church beside the Bible.
It was the influence of Erasmus (who was at the time in good favour
with the Pope, Leo X) that secured for Froben, in 1514, a papal
privilege for a term of five years for the works of St. Jerome.
=2. France.=--Up to the close of the 12th century, the Church appears
to have issued no regulations in regard to the use of the Bible in the
vernacular or to the reading of the Bible in any form by laymen. In
the 13th century, several of the synods in France prohibited the use
of French versions of the Bible, and forbade the laity from reading
theological writings or the Scriptures in any form (excepting the
Psalms).[4] These regulations failed, however, to secure any uniform or
enduring obedience.
In 1522, Robert Estienne of Paris, working as the assistant of his
stepfather Colines, undertook the preparation of an edition in Latin
of the New Testament. The text followed, in the main, the version
of the Vulgate, but the youthful editor found occasion for certain
corrections. The textual changes ventured upon at once called forth
criticism from the divines of the Sorbonne, and Robert found himself
classed with the group of heretical persons. It appears from his
correspondence that he held himself ready to justify on critical
grounds the corrections that he had ventured to make in the text of
the Vulgate. The divines, while continuing their invectives, took
pains to avoid any direct controversy on the points at issue.[5] In
1540, Robert was brought into special jeopardy through an impression
of the Decalogue executed in large characters and printed in the
form of a hanging map for placing on the walls of schoolrooms. Such
an undertaking seems to our present understanding innocent enough,
whether considered from a Romanist or a Protestant point of view, but
in this publication of the Ten Commandments, the divines discovered
little less mischief than in the heresies of Luther. The censors caused
to be put into print a counter-impression of the Decalogue in which
the first two commandments were combined into one, with the omission
of the prohibition of making and worshipping images, while the tenth
commandment was divided into two in order to make up the complete
number. During the same year, various proceedings were taken against
Estienne on the part of the Sorbonne, and on more than one occasion he
was compelled to leave his home and to betake himself for safety to the
King’s court. The fact that a publisher, in order to protect himself
against the violence of officials who were (at least nominally) the
King’s censors, should take refuge at court, throws a curious light on
both the strength and the weakness of the Crown. With all the authority
of the kingdom at his command, Francis was evidently unable to control
the operations of the ecclesiastical censors who, in their dogmatic and
unruly zeal, did what was in their power to throw the influence of
the university against the literary development of France and Europe.
On the other hand, the doctors of the Sorbonne, although backed by
the authority of Rome, were not strong enough, at least for a number
of years, to put a stop to the publication in Catholic Paris of works
stigmatised by them as dangerously heretical.
Fénelon takes the ground in regard to the use of the Scriptures, that
originally the Church permitted such reading without restrictions;
that with increasing degeneracy, restraint was found to be necessary;
that the necessity became increasingly manifest when the Vaudois, the
Albigenses, and the later heretics, Wyclif, Luther, Calvin, and their
associates, utilised the Scriptures as the basis of attacks upon the
true Faith and the authority of the Church; Fénelon’s conclusion is:
_Enfin, il ne faut donner l’écriture qu’ à ceux qui, ne la reçevant
que des mains de l’Église, ne veulent y chercher que le sens de
l’Église même_.
In 1686, an edition of the New Testament in French was printed at
Bordeaux. The edition is described in a tract by Bishop Kidder, printed
in London in 1690, entitled _Reflections on a French Testament_.
This tract was reprinted in 1827 by Doctor H. Cotton in connection
with a Memoir of Bishop Kidder. The Bordeaux Testament is described
as rare; but five copies are recorded as having been in existence in
Great Britain in 1827. The immediate occasion of the production of this
special version of the Testament was the revocation, in 1685, of the
Edict of Nantes. Strenuous efforts were made after the revocation, by
the Church, and by the State acting in co-operation with the Church,
for the recall to the fold of the various groups of Protestants who
still remained in the kingdom. The publication, under the authority
of the State, of the volume in question has been referred by Catholic
writers (including among others Mr. Butler in his _Book of the Roman
Catholic Church_[6]) as a contradiction to the charge that the
Church was averse to the dissemination of the Scriptures. Mr. Butler
reminds his readers, on the authority of Bausset in his _Life of
Bossuet_ that, under the orders of Louis XIV, no less than fifty
thousand copies of the French translation of the New Testament were,
“at the recommendation of Bossuet, distributed among the converted
Protestants.” Bausset refers to this version as being the work of Père
Amelotte, and says that with the Testament were distributed copies
of a translated missal. Mendham points out that among the several
peculiarities specified by Kidder in the Bordeaux version, the more
noteworthy have to do with references of a special character to the
Mass, to Purgatory, and to the Roman Faith, which have been made to
find place in the text of the Testament. Among the examples cited are
the following:
Acts xiii, 2, given in the King James version “As they ministered to
the Lord,” is given in the French version _Comme ils offraient au
Seigneur leurs sacrifices de la Messe_, or “They rendered unto the
Lord the sacrifice of the Mass.”
1 Cor. ii, 15, where the Apostle writes they shall be saved as “by
fire,” this version has _par le feu de Purgatoire_, “by the fire of
Purgatory.”
1 Tim. iv, 1, “In the latter times,” says St. Paul, “some shall depart
from the faith,” is rendered _de la Foy Romaine_, “from the Roman
faith.”
These instances will serve as examples of the character of the
accusations brought by Kidder, Cotton, and Mendham,[7] against the
trustworthiness and good faith of the Catholic censors who undertook to
present to the Protestants who were to be recalled to the true Faith
the doctrine of the Scriptures. It would certainly appear as if the
zeal of these editors had outrun their standard of accurate scholarship.
=3. The Netherlands.=--In 1559, Plantin printed a French edition
of the New Testament and found sale within the year for nearly
twenty-five hundred copies. In 1568, Plantin completed the publication
of the most important of his undertakings, _La Bible Royale_, or
_Bible Polyglotte_, which was produced under the editorship of
the great scholar Arias Montanus. This was the most scholarly edition
of the Scriptures that had thus far been put into print. A polyglot
Bible had been planned by Aldus but he had not lived to complete it. In
1517, the Cardinal Ximenes had had printed at Alcala a polyglot edition
of the Old Testament, and in 1547, an edition of the Pentateuch,
prepared under the supervision of certain Jewish editors, was printed
in Constantinople in Hebrew, Latin, Greek, and Syrian. Plantin secured
for his Bible from King Philip II a subvention (or at least the promise
of a subvention) of twenty-one thousand florins, which amount was to
be repaid to the King in copies of the book. The editor Montanus had
himself been appointed by the King, and he selected as his associates
members of the theological faculty of the University of Louvain. The
enterprise received also the co-operation and support of Cardinal
Granvelle.
One of the most important, and also one of the most difficult,
parts of the undertaking was the securing of the various privileges
required to authorise the sale of the work, and to protect it from
infringement in the several countries in which a demand for it was
expected. A general privilege was first obtained from the governor
of the Netherlands acting in behalf of the King, and this secular
authorisation was supplemented by a certificate of orthodoxy issued by
the theological faculty of Louvain, which was naturally prepared to
approve of its own work. The Pope, Pius V, or his advisers, took the
ground, however, that any general circulation of the Scriptures might
prove dangerous, and in spite of the approval given to the work by
Louvain, he refused to sanction its publication. This refusal blocked
the undertaking for some years and brought upon the publisher Plantin
serious financial difficulties. The history of this work presents a
convenient example of the special difficulties attending the publishing
enterprises of the time. The examiners or censors, whether political
or ecclesiastical, were prepared to make their examinations and to
arrive at decisions only when the book in question was already in
printed form. It was necessary, therefore, that the outlays for the
editing, the typesetting, and the printing should be incurred before
the publisher could ascertain whether or not the publication could be
permitted. It was quite possible also that the plan of the publication
might be approved by one authority, while the work, when completed,
might fail to secure the sanction required on the part of some other
or succeeding authority. With Plantin’s Bible, the history took a
different course. Pope Gregory XIII, who succeeded Pius V, was finally
persuaded to give his approval to the work and, in 1572 (that is to
say four years after the book was in readiness), he issued a privilege
for it which gave to the publisher exclusive control for the term of
twenty years, and which brought upon any reprinter excommunication and
a fine of two thousand livres. The editor, Montanus, after finishing
his editorial labours and supervising the printing of the final sheets
of the Bible, was obliged to devote some years to travelling from
court to court and to a long sojourn in Rome, before he could secure
the privileges required for its sale. Even after the work had secured
the approval of Gregory, it was vigorously attacked by a group of the
stricter Romanists, led by Leon de Castro, professor of Salamanca. De
Castro took the ground that the Vulgate had been accepted by the Church
as the authoritative text, and that all attempts to go back to the
original Hebrew, Greek, or Syriac must, therefore, be sacrilegious.
As early as 1520, Noël Beda, Dean of the Sorbonne, had taken similar
ground in connection with the editions of the Bible printed by Henry
Estienne. Beda contended that the study of Greek and Hebrew would bring
religion into peril, as it would tend to undermine the authority of the
Vulgate. When Montanus, after completing his work in Antwerp, returned
to Spain, he was accused of being a partisan of the Jews and an enemy
to the Church, and was threatened with a trial for heresy. He was able,
however, through his own scholarship and with the backing of the Pope,
to hold his own against his accusers, and no formal trial ever took
place.
=4. Spain.=--The earliest censorship in Spain was undertaken in
Aragon and was directed against vernacular versions of the Scriptures.
In 1234, the Cortes of Tarragona adopted a decree of King Jayme I
forbidding the possession by any one of any portion of the Old or New
Testament in Romance.[8] The Church in the 13th century, as later, was
satisfied with the Latin Vulgate. It authorised no translation into
modern tongues and preferred that popular instruction should come from
learned priests who could explain obscurities in orthodox fashion. The
sects of the Cathari and the Waldenses, whose growth was for a time a
real danger to the establishment, were ardent students of Scripture
and found in it a potent instrument of propagandism. The Cathari, who
rejected nearly the whole of the Old Testament, had translations of
the New. The Waldenses had versions of the whole Bible.[9] In Castile,
literature remained until the 15th century without interference on
the part of either Church or State. The first instance of general
censorship of which I find record in Spain was exercised on the library
of the Marquis of Villena, after his death in 1434. The marquis had
dabbled in occult arts and had won the reputation of a magician. At the
command of Juan II, his books were examined by Lope de Barrientos, who
by a royal order publicly burned such as were deemed objectionable.
In 1479, Pedro de Osma, a professor of Salamanca, was condemned by the
Council of Alcala for certain heresies. The professor was required to
make public recantation holding a lighted candle, and the book in which
his errors were set forth was burned by the secular authorities. In
1316, the inquisitor, Juan de Llotger, on the report of an assembly
of experts, assembled at Tarragona, condemned the works on spiritual
Franciscanism by Arnaldo de Villanneva. The sentence in which the
tracts were condemned formed the model of a long series of similar
prohibitions. Towards the close of the 14th century, Nicholas Eymerich,
who won fame as a strenuous inquisitor, secured the condemnation of a
long series of books including some twenty works by Raymond Lully and
several of Ramon de Tarraga.[10] In Castile, during the latter part
of the 13th century, the censorship of the Scriptures was evidently
relaxed. In 1267, Alfonso X caused a Castilian translation to be made
of the Bible, a copy of which, in five folio volumes, is preserved in
the Escorial.[11] In 1430, Rabbi Moyses aben Ragel completed the work
of translating the Old Testament which had been undertaken in 1422,
under the instructions of the Master of Calatrava. He secured for his
task the aid of certain Franciscans and Dominicans who supplied the
Catholic glosses. An illuminated manuscript of this version still
exists in the collection of Condé, Duke de Olivares.[12] During the
14th and 15th centuries, a number of versions of different portions of
the Scriptures were executed in Catalan. One of these was prepared by
the Carthusian, Bonifacio Ferrer. Of this, an edition was printed in
1478 at Valencia, which edition had been revised by the Jesuit, Jayme
Borell. This volume was issued on the eve of a general proscription of
the Scriptures in the vernacular.
Excepting for the instance of censorship in Aragon, there appears to
have been up to the close of the 15th century, no obstacle to the
printing or the distribution in Spain of versions of the Scriptures
in the vernacular. Carranza, Archbishop of Toledo, writing in 1557,
says that before Lutheran heresies emerged from hell he knew of no
prohibition of the Bible in the vulgar tongue.[13]
Cardinal Ximenes at first took strong ground against the circulation
of all versions of the Scriptures, and even stopped the work that had
been begun by the Archbishop of Granada, in translating into Arabic
the Scripture text used at the matins and in the mass. In 1519,
however, the Cardinal had printed at Alcala a polyglot edition of the
Old Testament, known in bibliographies as the Ximenes Bible. In this
edition, the text of the Vulgate was placed in a column between the
text in Greek and that in Hebrew. Mendham quotes the Cardinal as saying
that the arrangement recalled the crucifixion where Christ was placed
between two thieves.[14]
In 1533, Maria Cazalla, when on trial before the Inquisition, speaks
of its being customary for Catholic women to read portions of the
Scriptures in Castilian, and Carranza in his _Comentarios_ complains of
the “number of female expounders of Scripture who abounded everywhere,”
as an evil to be suppressed.[15] Alfonso de Castro takes the ground
that from the misinterpretation of the Scriptures spring all heresies;
as the keenest intellect and widest learning are required for their
interpretation, they must be sedulously kept from the people; reverence
for the Scriptures would be destroyed if they were allowed to become
common.[16] The Spanish Index of 1551 includes among books prohibited,
Bibles translated into Spanish or other vulgar tongue. In this year,
Valdes issued an edict directed particularly against the importation
of heretical Bibles. In 1554, Valdes issued a special expurgatory
Index in which were examined fifty-four editions of the Scriptures and
lists of the objectionable passages were given. The owners of these
Bibles were required to present them to the inquisitors within sixty
days in order that the objectionable passages might be obliterated.
In 1554, was printed at Salamanca the edition of the Bible of Vatable
which had been thoroughly expurgated, but this expurgated edition was
prohibited in the Index of 1559. A further expurgation was undertaken
and the second revised edition appeared in 1584. Even this contained
additional expurgations inserted with the pen. In 1613, and 1632,
the much revised book endured two further series of expurgations.
Its circulation appears thereafter to have been permitted without
further interference. The Bible edited by Montanus and printed in
Antwerp by Plantin, was denounced by de Castro and others as full
of heresies, but the charges do not appear to have been adequately
supported. The Index of 1583 contains in its general rules a sweeping
prohibition of vernacular Bibles and of all portions thereof. An Edict
of Denunciations, published annually after 1580, classes among works
absolutely prohibited, the writings of the Lutherans, the Alcoran, and
Bibles in the vernacular. It appears to have been the conclusion of the
Spanish censors that the effect of the Bible on the popular mind was on
the whole more to be dreaded than that of the Koran.[17]
The Spanish writer Villanueva has endeavoured to show by extracts
from religious authors whose writings were issued between 1550
and 1620, that there was a large body of educated opinion which
favoured the study of the Scriptures. He finds such utterances from
Carmelites, Franciscans, Benedictines, and even Dominicans. Lea points
out, however, that, with the first quarter of the 17th century, the
authorities of Villanueva come to an end. The generation which had
witnessed the prohibition of the Scriptures had died out and the
Scriptures themselves were forgotten in the intellectual gymnastics
of casuistry. The work of the Inquisition had been accomplished among
both priests and people.[18] Villanueva, himself a _calificador_
(councillor) of the Inquisition, writing in 1791, says that the people
are now practically ignorant of the existence of the Scriptures and
those who have knowledge of such existence regard the Scriptures with
horror and detestation.[19]
In the fifth of the series of the rules in the Index of 1790, the
Inquisitor announces that the Church authorities have become sensible
of the benefits to be secured from the perusal of the Scriptures and
that they are prepared to repeat the declaration given in the Index
of Benedict and to permit, under similar restrictions, the reading
of the Bible in the vernacular. This Index repeats the condemnation
first published in the preceding Index of 1747, and withdrawn under
the protest of Pope Benedict, of the _History of Pelagianism_ by
Cardinal Noris.
The Protestants had little success in getting into Spain their great
weapon of attack, a vernacular Bible, little I mean compared with their
success in Italy. The Spanish Bible upon which they chiefly relied is
the one of 1602 which was prepared by Cypriano de Valera, but which,
in fact, is a second edition, much improved, of that of Cassiodoro de
Reyna, printed in 1559, which in its turn used for the Old Testament
the Jewish Bible in Spanish, printed at Ferrara in 1553. De Reyna was
a native of Seville and had been educated at the university there.
Becoming a heretic, he escaped from Spain about 1557 and went first
to London and then to Basel, where, with the aid of the Senate, he
published his Bible in 1559.
In 1836–37, the Cortes made an attempt to reconcile the liberty of the
press with the repression of certain abuses. It was at this time that
George Borrow undertook to test the censorship conditions in Spain, by
printing and circulating the New Testament. Lea points out[20] that he
utilised for his work a version prepared from the Vulgate by Father
Scio and that he was, therefore, presenting Scriptures which were
entirely orthodox. Borrow succeeded in having an edition of his New
Testament printed in Madrid and in opening a shop for its sale. With
a change of ministry, the sale was blocked and Borrow was for a few
weeks placed in prison. Later, his supplies of books were seized and
cancelled.[21] The later issues of the Bible Society for circulation in
Spain are reprints of the translation by de Valera. The constitution of
1876 gives to all Spaniards the right to express freely in speech or
in print their ideas and opinions without subjection to a preliminary
censorship. Article XI concedes liberty of thought and belief.[22]
In an encyclical letter of Leo XII, written to Spain in 1824, occur the
following passages:
“A certain sect not unknown certainly to you, usurping to
itself undeservedly the name of Philosophy, has raked from
the ashes disorderly crowds of almost every error. This sect,
exhibiting the meek appearance of piety and liberality,
professes Latitudinarianism or Indifferentism.... You are
aware, venerable Brothers, that a certain society, commonly
called the Bible Society, strolls with effrontery throughout
the world; which society, contemning the traditions of the Holy
Fathers and contrary to the well-known decree of the Council
of Trent, labours with all its might and by every means, to
translate--or rather to pervert--the Holy Bible into the vulgar
languages of every nation; from which proceeding it is greatly
to be feared that what is ascertained to have happened as to
some passages may occur with regard to others; to wit that,
by a perverse interpretation, the Gospel of Christ be turned
into a human Gospel, or, which is still worse, into the Gospel
of the Devil (Hier. Cap. I, _Ep. ad. Gal._). To avert this
plague, our predecessors published many ordinances.... We also,
venerable Brothers, in conformity with our Apostolic duty,
exhort you to turn away your flock, by all means, from these
poisonous pastures. Reprove, beseech, be instant in season
and out of season, in all patience and doctrine, that the
faithful entrusted to you (adhering strictly to the rules of
our Congregation of the Index) be persuaded that if the Sacred
Scriptures be everywhere indiscriminately public, more evil
than advantage will arise thence, on account of the rashness
of men.... Behold then the tendency of this Society, which, to
attain its ends, leaves nothing untried. Not only does it print
its translations, but wandering through the towns and cities, it
delights in distributing these among the crowd. Nay, to allure
the minds of the simple, at one it sells them, at another with
an insidious liberality it bestows them. Again, therefore, we
exhort you that your courage fail not. The power of temporal
princes, will, we trust in the Lord, come to your assistance,
whose interest, as reason and experience show, is concerned when
the authority of the Church is questioned.”[23]
=5. England.= The Synod of Canterbury, held at Oxford in 1408,
forbids the translation into English under individual authority
(_auctoritate sua_) of any portion of the Scriptures. It further
forbids, under penalty of the greater excommunication, the reading or
the possession (except with the approval of the bishop or provincial
council) of any versions of the Scriptures which had been issued since
the time of Wyclif, or which might thereafter be issued.[24] This
prohibition appears not to have been very thoroughly enforced. Sir
Thomas More speaks of seeing old versions of the Bible in the hands
of the laity, without criticism from the bishops.[25] It is the case,
however, that, between 1408 and 1525, the date of Tyndale’s Bible, no
English version of the Scriptures was printed.
The first Bible published in England was Tyndale’s English version of
the New Testament. This was, however, printed not in England but in
Cologne at the press of Quentell. Tyndale was by birth a Welshman.
After studying in Oxford and in Cambridge, he sojourned in Antwerp
and in that city he completed, in the year 1525, with the assistance
of John Fryth and Joseph Royes, his translation of the New Testament.
The supplies of the book when forwarded to London, came into immediate
demand, but as soon as the ecclesiastical authorities had an
opportunity of examining the text, the book was put under ban and all
copies that could be found were seized and destroyed. At the instance
of Catholic ecclesiastics in England, Tyndale was, in 1536, arrested
at Antwerp, under the authority of the Emperor Charles V and after
being imprisoned for eighteen months, was burned. In 1535, a complete
English Bible, comprising Tyndale’s version of the New Testament and
the Pentateuch and a translation, prepared by Coverdale and others, of
the remaining books of the Old Testament, was printed somewhere on the
Continent, probably at Zurich by Trochsover.
Fortunately for the freedom of the English press and for the spread of
religious belief through the instruction of the Scriptures, it happened
that shortly after the completion of the Coverdale Bible, Henry VIII
wanted to marry Anne Boleyn. With the close of the supremacy of the
papal power in England, and with the addition of Great Britain to the
list of the countries accepting the principles of the Reformation,
the printing and the distribution of the English versions of the
Scriptures became practicable. It would not be correct to say that
from this date the printing-press of England was free, but it was
the case that it became free for the production of the Protestant
Scriptures and of other Protestant literature, while it was also the
case that the censorship put in force by the English ecclesiastics, or
by the authority of the State, never proved as severe or as serious an
obstacle to publishing as had been the case with the ecclesiastical
censorship of the Catholics.
The first English Bible printed in England was the translation of John
Hollybushe, which was issued in 1538 by John Nicholson, in Southwark.
The great Cranmer Bible was printed between 1539 and 1541, the funds
for its publication being supplied by Cranmer and Cromwell. The
magnificent illustrations are ascribed to Holbein.
When the Scriptures were no longer interdicted in England, the printers
themselves began at once to supply reasons why certain of their
editions should be suppressed. In the year 1631, in a Bible and Prayer
Book printed in London by R. Barker, the word “not” was omitted in the
seventh commandment. This discovery led to a further examination of
the edition and it was stated by Laud that no less than one thousand
mistakes were found in this and in another edition issued by the same
printers. The impressions of both books were destroyed and the printers
were condemned by the High Commission to be fined two thousand pounds,
a condemnation which naturally ruined their business.
=6. The Reading of the Scriptures in the Vernacular.=--The various
Protestant versions of the Scriptures were prohibited in so far as
they came to the knowledge of the Inquisition or the Congregation. The
same course was taken with a number of translations into the language
of the people, which were the work of good Catholics. In 1668, the
New Testament of Mons was condemned by a brief of Clement IX; and in
addition to the New Testament text with the commentaries of Quesnel,
were prohibited French versions that had been prepared by Sinori and
by Hure and a Dutch translation by Schurius. A number of editions
for popular use escaped prohibition and some of these secured a very
wide circulation; but in Italy, in Spain, and in Portugal, a general
regulation was kept in force prohibiting any reading of the Scriptures
in the language of the people. In the last decade of the 17th century,
the question of the use of the Scriptures by the unlearned brought
about some active controversies. The Jansenists maintained from the
outset that the fourth of the Ten Rules of the Index of Trent was
not to be accepted as binding. This question brought into the Index
a number of controversial writings of the time, and in the Bull
_Unigenitus_ were condemned a series of specific propositions,
a condemnation which carried with it the prohibition of any works in
which could be identified the doctrines contained in the propositions.
In the Index of Benedict XIV, Rule IV, cited from the Trent Index,
is printed, with an addition based upon a decree issued by the
Congregation of the Index in June, 1757:
Permission can be given for the use of versions of the Scriptures or
of portions of the Scriptures printed in the language of the people,
when these versions have been prepared by devout and learned Catholics
or have been issued with commentaries or annotations selected from the
writings of the Fathers of the Church, and when said editions have been
specifically approved by the Holy See. For the reading of all editions
not carrying such specific approval, permission must be secured in each
individual case.
This modification of Rule IV was, however, itself revoked under
Gregory XVI through a _Monitum_ issued by the Congregation of the Index
in January, 1836, which _Monitum_ has, since 1841, been printed in the
successive issues of the Index.
“It has come to the knowledge of the authorities of the
Congregation that, in certain places, editions of the
Scriptures, printed in the language of the people, have been
brought into circulation without reference to the restrictions
and regulations imposed by the Church. The Congregation recalls
therefore to believers that, according to the decree of 1757,
only such versions of the Scriptures can be permitted which have
secured the specific approval of the Holy See. For all other
editions of the Scriptures the provisions of Rule IV must be
enforced.”
In 1699, a provincial synod of Naples had declared that editions of the
Scriptures in the vernacular were not to be possessed or read, even
with the authorisation of the bishops, because an Apostolic mandate
had taken from the bishops the authority to grant such permission. The
editions of the Scriptures prepared by the Catholic divines for the use
of the faithful appear for the great part to have been made up with
carefully selected citations, the selections being restricted to the
portions which were not doctrinal. Care was taken also to omit certain
of the stories and historical episodes in the Old Testament which were
considered to be not edifying or wholesome in their teaching. Hilgers
contends that under the present policy of the Church, each Catholic
is, as far as the Church is concerned, at liberty to utilise in his
home reading the text of the entire Bible. The spiritual protectors of
the faithful emphasise, however, the importance of securing for each
division of the Scriptures the interpretation of the Church and the
guidance of those who are made responsible for the shaping of sound
doctrine.
CHAPTER III
THE MONASTIC ORDERS AND CENSORSHIP, 1600–1800
1. The Monastic Orders 1600–1800.
2. The Jesuits 1650–1800.
3. The Dominicans 1510–1600.
4. The Casuists 1600–1610.
5. The Seculars and the Regulars 1600–1700.
=1. Writings on the Monastic Orders.=--The Index contains the
titles of a long series of writings having to do with the Orders of
the Church. Certain of these are controversial in character, raising
contentions against the whole system of the Orders or against the work
or the character of particular Orders. The larger portion of the number
are, however, the work of members of the Orders who have undertaken, in
an exaggerated and improper manner, to maintain unfounded claims for
their own Orders or to point out the defects of their rivals, or which
are devoted to petty differences and strifes that have arisen between
the Orders. The _Decreta Gen._, ii, 12, contain a prohibition,
dated 1568, of the printing or of the distribution in written form of
any works that have not secured the approval of the Index Congregation,
which have to do with the controversy concerning the actual succession
of the Sons of St. Francis, or concerning the detail of the true
form of the hood worn by the saint. The _Decreta Gen._, iii, 8,
print the prohibition, issued in 1663, of all reproductions of the
inscriptions on the pictures of St. Francis and St. Antonio of Padua,
which inscriptions may undertake to specify the form of the garments
worn by the saints or in which any reference may be made to the true
and legitimate succession from these saints.
The Index also contains the series of works having to do with the long
contests between the Franciscans and the Dominicans, the Augustine
hermits and the Augustine choristers, the Augustine choristers and
the Benedictines, the Benedictines and the Hieronymites (followers
of St. Jerome), the Mercedarians and the Trinitarians. The list also
includes certain writings presenting the traditions or records of
the Carmelites. In 1698, Innocent XII issued a general prohibition
in regard to the printing or the distribution of the whole group of
writings concerning the controversies of the Orders.[26]
The long contest carried on between the Carmelites and the Jesuits
brought about the condemnation in Spain, in 1695, the _Acta
Sanctorum_ of the Bollandists, printed in fourteen volumes.
This prohibition was recalled in 1715. In Rome only one volume was
prohibited and this on another ground. In 1755, was prohibited a work
issued under the title of _Ordres Monastiques; Histoires extraites
de tous les auteurs qui ont conservé à la postérité ce qu’il y a de
plus curieux dans chaque ordre_. The work, printed in 1751 in seven
volumes, bears the imprint of Berlin but was supposed as a matter of
fact to have been issued in Paris. It was ascribed to the Abbé Musson.
The _Pragmatische Geschichte der vornehmsten Mönchsorden_, printed
in Leipsic in 1774, in ten volumes, was based upon the _Histoires_
of Musson.
=2. The Jesuits, 1650–1800.=--Books written by, and books concerning,
the Jesuits make a considerable group among the dogmatic and
controversial works in the Index. In 1659, Alexander VII issues a
decree condemning a treatise which had been issued anonymously, in
Paris, under the title, _Apologie pour les Casuistes contre les
calomnies des Jansénistes_. In 1689, Innocent XI condemns forty-five
propositions, cited from Jesuit works; and in 1690, he issues a
decree against the Jesuit doctrine of philosophical sin. Of the books
written against the doctrines and the practices of the Order, the
most important are those by Mariana, Scotti, Pasquelin, and other
ex-Jesuits, by the Capucin, Valerianus Magni, by Arnauld (the elder),
Pasquier, and Scioppius. The great mass of Protestant writings against
the Order are hardly represented. Scotti, whose catalogue name is
Julius Clemens Scotus, had become a Jesuit in 1616. In 1664, he
abandoned the Order and later secured a chair in Padua as professor of
philosophy and of ecclesiastical law. The treatise which was condemned
in 1651, was issued under the title of _De potestate pontificia in
societatem Jesu ... ad Innocentium X, etc._ Scioppius comes into
the Index in connection with a volume entitled _Infamia Famiani_,
prohibited in 1687. The following treatises which were also his work
but which were published anonymously, were condemned in 1682: _Actio
perduellis in Jesuitas S. Rom. Imperii juratos hostes, Anatomia Soc._
_Jesu seu probatio spiritus Jesuitarum._ A third book in the list
was also attributed to Scioppius, _Mysteria Patrum Jesuitarum_. In
1725, was forbidden a treatise bearing the rather vague title _Cura
Salutis, sive de statu vitae mature ac prudenter deliberandi methodus_.
It had been published in Vienna in 1712, and had been utilised as
a proselyting tract in behalf of the Jesuit Order. In 1646, was
forbidden in Spain a volume by the Jesuit Solier, printed in Poitiers,
under the title of _Trois très excellentes prédications prononcées au
jour et fête de la béatification du glorieux patriarche le bien-heureux
Ignace_. The volume had been denounced before the Sorbonne by the
Spanish Dominican Gallardo as scandalous, blasphemous, and heretical.
As an example of the blasphemy, Gallardo cites a sentence in which
the author claims that Ignatius had, with a piece of paper bearing
his written name, worked more miracles than Moses and as many as the
Apostles. In 1752, was placed upon the Index a volume by Marcus Fridl,
presenting a record of the miraculous life of Mary Ward, founder of
the English Society of the _Jesuitissae_. With this, was condemned
another biography of Mary Ward by Unterberg, printed in Tübingen in
1735, and an account of the Order by Khamms. The Order had been founded
in England early in the 17th century on the model of the Order of the
Jesuits. The counsellor of Mary Ward’s _Jesuitissae_ was the Jesuit
Roger Lee. The Order never secured an authorisation or confirmation
from the Pope, but houses of it were established in Belgium, Germany,
and Italy. In 1636, the principal and her chief assistants were
arrested and brought to Rome where, after a trial, their Order was
formally condemned and they were then released. New houses were,
however, shortly after instituted in England and one in Munich, and, in
1703, the rules of the Order were approved and confirmed by Clement XI
at the instance of the Elector of Bavaria.
Twenty years after the condemnation of the teachings of Michael Bajus,
arose in Spain the controversy between the Jesuits and the Dominicans
concerning the doctrine of Grace. The leading representative of the
latter was Domingo Bañez of Salamanca (†1604) and of the Jesuits, Luis
Molina, professor at Evera (†1600). The issues were referred to Rome
more immediately in connection with the treatise by Molina, _Concordia
liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis_, which had been denounced by the
Dominicans, and, between 1602 and 1606, a series of disputations were
carried on under the direction of Clement VIII and of Paul V at the
sessions of the Congregation _de Auxiliis_. In December, 1611, a decree
of Paul V prohibits the printing thereafter, without the specific
authorisation of the Inquisition, of any writing having to do with the
contest. This decree was confirmed by Urban VIII in 1625 and 1641,
and again by Alexander VII in 1657. The latter added a prohibition
for the printing, without the approval of the Inquisition, of any
writings which were concerned with the _materia auxiliorum divinorum
ex professo_, or which brought this subject-matter into print in
connection with commentaries on the writings of Thomas Aquinas. This
general prohibition is entered in Alexander’s Index under the term
_libri_ and, since the time of Benedict, finds place in the _Decreta
Gen._, ii, 1. Under the terms of the _Decreta_, all writings under this
heading, printed since 1657 without a specific approval, are to be held
as condemned. The Index contains, however, but three specific titles
and these of comparatively insignificant monographs. Reusch points out
that the bitter controversial treatises of the Dominican, Hyacinth
Serry, and of the Jesuit, Livinus de Meyer, failed to be recorded in
the Index.[27]
Among the Jesuits whose writings secured special attention on the
part of the Index authorities were J. B. Poza (†1660) and Théophile
Raynaud (†1663). Poza, who was a native of Bilboa, printed in 1626
at Alcala, under the title of _Elucidarium Deiparae_, a treatise that
is described as one of the very worst among the many books concerning
the Virgin. This volume was prohibited by the Congregation of the
Index in 1628, and as a result of Poza’s bitter protests against the
action of the Congregation, a prohibition was issued in 1632 covering
all of his writings. In Poza’s contentions against the judgment of
the Roman authorities, he had the support of the Spanish Inquisition,
which refused to confirm both the individual and the general Roman
prohibition. Raynaud, born in 1583 near Nizza, became a Jesuit in 1602.
He was a scholar and an active writer. He first came into conflict
with the Congregation in connection with a bitter satire against the
Dominican theories of the doctrine of Grace. Shortly thereafter, was
condemned a monograph of his written to oppose the view that those who
died of pestilence were to be held as martyrs. In 1659, was prohibited
a monograph of Raynaud on the ecclesiastical system of censorship.
Thereupon he published, under a pseudonym, a satire treating of the
control exercised by the Dominicans over the Inquisition, which was
promptly placed on the Index.
Clement X, who is classed as favouring the Jesuits, found occasion
to condemn a number of treatises written in defence of Berruyer’s
_Historia Populi Dei_. This work was prohibited in Spain, 1759
(see also p. 42). Under Benedict XIV and during the first years of
Clement XIII, were placed upon the Index a long series of publications
written in opposition to the Jesuits.
Among the works antagonistic to the Jesuits which were prohibited
during the decade after 1750 may be mentioned the following: Quesnel,
_Histoire des Religieux de la Compagnie de Jésus_, Utrecht, 1741;
_Procès contre les Jesuites, pour servir de suite aux causes Célèbres_,
Brest, 1750; Mesnier (†1761), _Problême Historique, qui des Jésuites ou
de Luther ou de Calvin ont le plus nui à l’Église Chrétienne_, Utrecht,
1758; de Silva, _Histoire de l’Admirable Don Inigo de Guipuscoa,
Chevalier de la Vierge_, The Hague, 1738.
The author of the _History of the Jesuits_ (published in London
in 1816, and ascribed to John Poynder) writes: “The doctrine of
probability, our ignorance of the law of nature, and the necessity
of actual reflection upon the quality of an action in order to its
becoming sinful, are the foundations upon which the moral corruption of
the Jesuits is built.”[28]
[Sidenote: The Jesuits in France, 1610–1625]
In 1610, the treatise of Mariana, already referred to, was burned in
Paris under the command of the Parliament. The condemnation was on
the ground of the doctrine maintained by Mariana that, under certain
conditions, there rested with the people the right to slay a tyrant.
During the succeeding fifteen years, a number of the works by leading
Jesuit writers, such as Bellarmin, Suarez, Santarelli, etc., were
prohibited by the Parliament or by the Sorbonne or by both. The ground
for the condemnation of this group of books was the assertion of the
right of the pope to depose princes and generally to control the
authority of the State. In 1613, Paul V directed the Index Congregation
to prohibit with a _d.c._ a treatise by Becanus, in order, as
was stated, to prevent the total condemnation of this treatise by the
authorities in Paris. Curiously enough, however, the volume by Becanus
is not included in the Index of Paul or in any later lists. The decree
itself appears to have been cancelled. In 1612, was placed in the
Index a treatise entitled _Anti-Coton_ which had been written to
oppose the writings of the Jesuit Coton. The latter had undertaken,
after the condemnation of the work of Mariana, a fresh defence of the
doctrines of his Order. In 1603, Clement VIII ordered the condemnation
of a treatise by the Italian Carerius, a writer who had undertaken to
oppose the teaching of Bellarmin in regard to the authority of the pope
in matters of State. The same Pope caused to be removed from the Index
the treatise of Bellarmin which had been condemned under Sixtus V.
In 1665, was published in Lyons a collected edition of Raynaud’s works
comprising no less than nineteen folio volumes. This set does not
include the prohibited writings; but, in 1669, the Jesuits issued, with
a false imprint, a twentieth volume bearing the title _Apopompaeus_
(scape-goat, _see_ Levit. xvi., 10). In this volume are presented the
several prohibited writings together with certain others. The book was
duly prohibited in 1672.
In 1739, the Congregation prohibits the _Opera Electa_ and _Opera
Varia_ of the learned Jesuit Hardouin (1646–1729), and, in 1742, his
Commentary on the New Testament. The _Opera Electa_ had been published
as far back as 1709, and had been promptly condemned by the authorities
of the Jesuit Order. The _Opera Varia_ appeared after the death of the
author; for these also the Jesuit rulers disavowed responsibility.
The works of Hardouin do not appear in the Spanish Index. In 1734,
the Congregation prohibited a _History of the People of God_ which
was the work of Berruyer (1681–1758), a pupil of Hardouin. The first
part of this history had been issued in 1728 with the approval
of the French rulers of the Order, but under the decision of the
general of the Order, it was recalled for revision. The second part,
published in 1753, was disavowed by the Jesuit rulers as having been
issued without their permission, and Berruyer was obliged, under the
condemnatory decision of the Archbishop of Paris, given in 1754, and
of the Parliament, given in 1756, to make recantation of certain of
the statements contained in the volume and to promise to cancel the
original issue and to correct the text. The third division of the
history was issued in 1757, and this secured condemnation through a
brief of Clement XIII.
After the middle of the 16th century, the most important influence
working against the freedom of the press and the undertakings of the
publishers was that of the Jesuits. Members of the Order secured
positions as councillors with the imperial Government in Vienna,
with the Elector of Bavaria, and in other Catholic States, and
promptly brought their influence to bear to strengthen the censorship
regulations. The publication of books lessened or became active almost
in direct proportion to the extent of the Jesuit influence in one State
or another.
Under the reign of Clement XIII (1758–1769), there came into print a
long series of controversial writings directed against the Order of
the Jesuits, but of these only a small number of titles were placed
upon the Clementine Indexes. In a brief issued in September, 1762, the
Pope says that he has caused to be condemned as invalid the edicts
and orders issued by the Parliament of Paris against the Jesuits;
but these orders do not find place in Index lists. Under Clement XIV
(1769–1774), no single one of the writings against the Jesuits was
prohibited. Under Pius VI (1775–1799), was prohibited but a single and
comparatively unimportant monograph of the long series of memorials
written by Jesuits concerning the suppression of their Order.
=3. The Dominicans.=--As stated in an earlier chapter, the work
of the Congregation of the Index had, from the outset, been left very
largely under the direction of the Dominicans. After the beginning
of the 16th century, the Dominicans came into practical control of
the censorship operations in Germany, excepting only in Vienna where
the influence of the Jesuits prevailed. In 1510, under the direction
of these Dominican censors, a strenuous attempt was made to suppress
altogether the literature of the Jews. The influence of the censors was
directed not merely against instruction in Hebrew in the university
centres, but against the printing, for the use of the Jews themselves,
of editions of the Jewish Scriptures, the Jewish commentaries, or of
any works by Jewish writers. The fight led by Reuchlin in behalf of
Hebrew literature was really a fight for the freedom of the press.
Reuchlin, with the all-valuable aid of Erasmus, had in view more
particularly the interests of scholarship, but the principles asserted
by him and in the end successfully maintained, were those upon which
depended the intellectual freedom of the people, of the more common
folk as well as scholars. The fight of Reuchlin against the Dominicans
led by Pfefferkorn was a hundred and thirty years in advance of the
publication of Milton’s _Areopagitica_, but the arguments shaped
by Reuchlin and by Erasmus were substantially identical with those
presented so eloquently by Milton. In 1512, Reuchlin’s treatise
entitled _Augenspiegel_ was prohibited by the emperor and this
prohibition was confirmed in 1520 by the pope (Leo X). In 1515,
_Epistolae obscurorum virorum_, a work which exerted an important
influence in the Protestant contest, secured the honour of prohibition
both from the emperor and from the pope.
=4. The Casuists.=--In 1602, under the direction of Clement VIII, the
Inquisition formally condemned the opinion that under any circumstances
confession could be made other than in person, that is to say by
letter or by messenger, and that a confession other than in person
could secure absolution. The publication of this conclusion appears to
constitute the first example of a decision by the Roman Inquisition
securing general distribution and enforcement. As a result of this
decree, were placed upon the Index treatises by the Jesuits Henriquez
and Sa (books which contained, to be sure, other opinions that called
forth disapproval) and a work by Vivaldus. The latter came under the
d.c. class. Certain writings of F. Suarez, one of the most noted
theologians of the Jesuits, were thoroughly discussed and, according to
report, escaped the Index only by a close vote. During the following
ten years, a considerable series of writings by Jesuits found their
way into the Index, in part, however, with the _d.c._ addition. Among
names to be noted are those of St. Bauny and Fra. Amico, who rank
with the more important of the advocates of the Jesuit morality, and
with these a number of treatises by the Theatins, Vidal, Verricelli,
and Pasqualigo. Suarez had defended strongly the contention that
there was authority for accepting confession from one absent and for
giving to the same absolution. He based his argument in part upon an
interpretation of Thomas Aquinas. A series of investigations were held
in Spain concerning these teachings of Suarez and it was ordered by
the Inquisition (which was under the control of the Dominicans) that
he should be suspended from his functions and that the distribution
of the books should be stopped until they had been amended. In 1604,
Suarez came to Rome and presented, first before Clement VIII and later
before Paul V, the defence of his opinions. The Inquisition of Rome
decided that the opinions of Suarez were unsound and ordered him to
have his treatise corrected. The book escaped therefore being entered
in the Index. The treatise by Sa was condemned not merely on account of
its teachings concerning the confession but on other grounds. The title
reads _Aphorisma conf. hactenus impressa_, etc. An expurgated edition,
approved by Brasichelli, was printed in Rome in 1608. The condemnation
of the original work was never confirmed in the Spanish Indexes.
=5. Contests between the “Seculars” and the “Regulars,”
1600–1700.=--With the beginning of the 17th century, fierce
contests arose concerning the relation of the regular Orders to the
bishops. The authorities of the Orders claimed that they held their
responsibilities directly from the pope and that the work of their
Orders was to be carried on free from the interference of the bishops.
A number of the bishops, on the other hand, took the ground that
they were themselves the territorial representatives of the central
authority of the Church in their own dioceses and that, without
direct authorisation from the bishop, no member of an Order could be
permitted to exercise in the diocese clerical functions. Dr. Richard
Smith, who, under the title of Bishop of Chalcedon, had been appointed
Apostolic Vicar for England, took active part in a controversy with
certain Jesuit writers in maintaining the authority of the bishops.
As a result of the antagonisms raised by his writings, he was obliged,
in 1628, to leave England, and until his death in 1655, he remained
in France. Among the French writers who took part in the controversy
were François Hallier and Jean du Vergier de Hauranne, later abbé
of Saint-Cyran. In 1633, the Index Congregation condemned all the
controversial writings that had come into print concerning the issues
between the Bishop of Chalcedon and the English Regulars. To this
condemnation was added the specification that the Congregation had not
undertaken to express any decision in regard to the issues involved.
The continuance of the controversy was, however, considered undesirable
and a general prohibition, under the penalty of the excommunication
_latae sententiae_, was made of any further writing in regard to
the matter. This prohibition did not succeed, however, in preventing
the publication of a number of further treatises on the subject, and
was itself placed in the Index, and, since Benedict XIV, remains in
the _Decreta Gen._, ii, 4. In 1642, a special prohibition with a
_d.c._ was issued for the volume by the Jesuit Cellot. In 1659,
the Inquisition formally condemned the writings of a number of the
French representatives of the Regulars, including certain treatises
of Bishop Arnauld of Angers. At the same time, were condemned the
replies to these writings. Shortly afterwards, were placed on the
Index a treatise by Chassaing written in behalf of the Regulars and
one by de Launoy maintaining the claims of the Seculars. In 1664, the
Sorbonne censured a monograph that had been printed under the name
of Jacques Vernant, in which large claims were made not only for the
privileges of the Regulars but also for the general authority of the
Papacy; in 1665, this censorship of the Sorbonne was itself separately
condemned in a brief issued by Alexander VII. In 1693, was prohibited a
treatise by the magistrate Karg, dedicated to the Bishop of Bamberg and
Wurzburg, which took ground against the privileges of the Orders.
CHAPTER IV
ROMAN INDEXES, 1758–1899
1. Index of Benedict XIV 1758.
2. Issues of the Roman Index 1763–1899.
=1. Index of Benedict XIV, 1758.=--In 1758, an Index was compiled
under the direction of Benedict XIV which is of importance as marking a
new departure in the censorship policy of the Church. The accompanying
papal brief, which bears date December 23, 1757, states that the
Indexes heretofore issued are in various respects incorrect, and that
the present work has been prepared in order to place at the service
of the faithful trustworthy lists of the books prohibited. In a Bull,
issued as far back as July, 1753, the Index Congregation had been
charged with the duty of the compilation, and five years had been
devoted to the task. The Index was printed at once in two editions, one
containing pp. xxxix-268, and the other pp. xxxvi-304. The title-page
reads:
_Index Librorum prohibitorum SSmi D.N. Benedicti XIV, Pontificis
Maximi, jussu Recognitus atque editus. Romae 1758, ex typographia
reverendae Camerae Apostolicae. cum summi Pontificis privilegio._
Both editions contain a copper plate vignette. The papal brief is
followed by an introduction by Thomas Augustus Ricchini, Secretary
of the Congregation; the Tridentine Rules with the commentaries of
Clement VIII and Alexander VII, together with a new note on Rule IV (on
the reading of the Scriptures); the Instruction of Clement; the Bull
of 1753, and a summary (peculiar to this Index) entitled: _Decreta de
libris prohibitis nec in Indice expressis_. Such summaries are in later
Indexes entitled _Decreta Generalia_. In the preface to the _Decreta_,
it is explained that as, on account of the increasing mass of printed
books, it is no longer possible to present all the titles in the lists,
it has seemed best to classify these into certain general divisions or
categories, and to shape general regulations based upon the subjects
treated or on the general character of the literature, which shall
serve as guides to the faithful, who with this aid need have no
difficulty in determining for a book not specifically catalogued,
whether or not it belongs to one of the prohibited classes. In the
editor’s introduction, Ricchini says: “In the arrangement of the lists,
the family names rather than the forenames of the writers have been
followed as far as practicable. In the previous Indexes, the forenames
were utilised for the main entry, with occasional cross-references
to the family name. We have accepted as family names names that have
been adopted by the writers. Theses and disputations stand under the
names not of the students but of the instructors. Anonymous works are
alphabeted under their titles.” Against the entries of books which were
condemned in the Tridentine Index, is noted _Ind. Trid._, and for those
condemned under Clement, _Append. Ind. Trid._ For the prohibitions
after 1696, the year is specified, and occasionally the Bull itself.
In the cases in which the entry includes the place and date of
publication, the prohibition applies not to the work as a whole, but
only to the particular edition cited; but in the absence of such
specification, the condemnation applies to the work in all its issues.
The addition of the term _donec corrigatur_ or _donec expurgetur_
indicates that the responsibility for the corrections rests with the
Index Congregation. Reusch points out that the lists in this Index,
while presenting corrections of many of the errors contained in the
Tridentine and Clementine, are themselves by no means either correct
or complete. A number of the names of the Clementine lists have been
omitted simply through the oversight of the transcribers.
The _Decreta Generalia_ have the sub-heading: “Prohibited books which
have been written or published by heretics or which have to do with
heresies or with creeds of unbelievers.” This part of the work contains
the following subdivisions:
1. The prayers and offices of the heretics.
2. _Apologia_ in which their errors are defended or favoured.
3. Editions of the Scriptures edited or printed by heretics, or
containing notes, _scholia_, or commentaries prepared by
unbelieving writers.
4. Any portions of the Scriptures put into verse by heretics.
5. Heretical editions of calendars, martyrologies, and
necrologies.
6. Poems, narrations, addresses, pictures, or compositions of
any kind in which heretical beliefs are commended.
7. Catechisms, A.B.C. primers, commentaries on the Apostles’
Creed or the Ten Commandments, instructions in doctrine.
8. Colloquies, conferences, disputations, synodical proceedings
concerning the creeds, edited or printed by heretics.
9. Articles of Faith, confessions, or creeds of heretics.
10. Dictionaries, vocabularies, glossaries, and thesauri compiled
or printed by heretics (as examples are specified the works
of the class bearing the names of the Stephani, Scapula, and
Hoffman); these books may, however, be permitted when they have
been purged of heretical passages or of entries that could be
utilised against the Catholic faith.
11. Works presenting or defending the creeds of any of the
Mohammedan sects.
Certain of the above specifications of classes are entered in the
alphabeted lists under the headings: _Apologia_, _Catechesis_,
_Colloquium_, _Confessio_, _Disputatio_, etc. The titles of individual
works belonging to such classes, titles which had found place in many
preceding Indexes, are then omitted. In some instances a specific work
is entered as an example or type of the class to be prohibited, as
_Apologia Confessionis Augustinae_, with the _addendum_, _et caeterae
omnes haereticorum apologiae; vide Decreta_.
Under the heading of “Prohibited Books on Special Subjects,” are
classed together works condemned under certain prohibitions of the
last half of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th; for
instance, works on duelling, and letters or pamphlets in which the
so-called laws and rules of duelling are presented. Forbidden also are
_Pasquilles_ (broadsides or tractates), printed or written, which
make citations from the Scriptures, or which in any fashion “approach
too near” to God or to the saints, or to the sacraments or other holy
things of the Church.
In certain letters addressed to the Inquisitor-General of Spain,
Benedict XIV names a number of writers whose works had, on the ground
of special consideration for the authors, been spared from the
insertion in the Index, although they had fully deserved such measure
of condemnation. Among the books so specified are those of the Pope’s
friend, Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672–1750). When this letter of the
Pope with reference to Muratori was made public, the latter wrote to
the Pope for some specification of the grounds for the condemnation
of his writings. The Pope replied that he had had in view in this
reference, not the theological writings of his friend, but the treatise
on the civil jurisdiction of the Pope in the papal States. A number of
the writings of Muratori came into sharp criticism and were the subject
of controversy, but although these were thoroughly investigated and
formally denounced in Rome, no one of them finds place in the Index.
In the list of authors is retained the name of Poza for his complete
works, in continued antagonism to the approval of these works by the
framers of the Spanish Indexes. Another noteworthy entry is that of
the _Bibliothèque Janséniste, ou Catalogue Alphabétique des Livres
Jansénistes, Quesnellistes, Baganistes ou Suspects de ces Erreurs_
(Decr., September 20, 1749). This is the work that supplies the
material for the anti-Jansenist appendix in the latest Spanish Index.
Its condemnation here constitutes a fresh instance of the antagonism
which continued in regard to literature and in regard to certain points
of doctrine as presented in literature, between the Church of Rome and
the Church of Spain.
Raynaud, whose work had been prohibited in the preceding Index, had
added his protest to that of Poza at the injustice of being condemned
unheard. In his _Genitus Columbae_, is printed as a parody on the
methods of the censors, a critique on the Apostles’ Creed in every
article of which is discovered some latent and insidious heresy. The
work was itself, naturally enough, promptly condemned.[29]
This Index of Benedict represents the beginning of what may be called
the modern policy of the Catholic Church in regard to the censorship
of literary production and the control or supervision of the reading
of the faithful. By the middle of the 18th century, the Church
authorities were finally prepared to admit the impracticability, with
any such commissions or examining bodies as could be maintained,
of making an individual examination of each work produced from the
printing-press. Such a conclusion might with better wisdom have been
arrived at a century earlier. The most direct evidence of the futility
of the attempts on the part of the Congregation of the Index, of the
Roman Inquisition, and of the local inquisitors to inform themselves
intelligently concerning the nature, the orthodoxy, and the probable
influence for good or for bad of the increasing mass of books brought
into print from year to year, is presented by the Indexes themselves.
The work of the compilation of these successive Indexes was placed in
the hands of scholarly men, and, in the large majority of cases, of men
whose integrity of purpose and devotion to the higher interests of the
Church need not be brought into question. These devout and scholarly
compilers were, however, willing to put into print, under the authority
of an infallible Church, instructions for the reading of believers
which the most faithful of Catholics must have found difficulty in
obeying with any consistency.
The Index lists are marvels of bibliographical inaccuracy. The names
of the authors, frequently misspelled, are entered almost at random,
at times under their surnames or locality-names, sometimes in the
vernacular, sometimes in the Latin forms. This method, or lack of
method, necessarily resulted in duplicate entries, while the copyists,
instructed to transfer for printer’s copy for a later Index the titles
from an earlier, succeeded not infrequently (possibly in the desire
to avoid duplications) in omitting altogether writers and books of
unquestioned heresy. More serious, however, than these bibliographical
blunders, the responsibility for which rested in part at least with
copyists or with compositors, were the errors which were undoubtedly
due to editorial ignorance. It was increasingly impossible for the
compilers to secure personal knowledge of the contents of more than a
very small proportion of the books which were to be passed upon and
classed as either safe or pernicious. Descriptions or impressions of
current publications such as are available to-day through reviews were,
prior at least to the middle of the 18th century, non-existent. The
judgment arrived at concerning an unfamiliar book depended in part on
the name of the author, and in part on that of the printer or the place
of publication. Certain printing offices and certain publishing centres
came to be associated in the minds of the Roman censors with heretical
opinions. The general policy seems to have been that it was safer to
condemn a few books not assuredly either pernicious or heretical, than
to run the risk of omitting from the lists any single work which might
constitute an influence against the authority of the Church.
The selections were also largely influenced by the doctrinal issues
and by the party prejudices that arose between the great Orders of
the Church. The direction of the censorship work in Rome, both of the
Inquisition and of the Congregation, has, since their institution,
remained in the hands of the Dominicans. The natural result was a
strong bias of opinion and of action against the writings of the
Jesuits and of the Franciscans. When, as occasionally happened, the
two latter Orders secured representation on the boards of examiners,
opportunity was taken to pay off literary scores against the Dominican
writers. Of these three great bodies in the Church, the Jesuits
included by far the larger proportion of scholarly workers and were
responsible for the larger mass of dogmatic and theological literature.
It is the books of the Jesuits, therefore, that furnish the largest
number of titles to the lists of prohibited doctrinal works by Catholic
writers.
Up to the time of Benedict, the authorities who had directed the work
of the compilers had thought it necessary to give consideration to
the literature produced by Protestant writers, as far as they could
secure knowledge concerning the character of the books, or could
secure at least information as to their existence. Such knowledge and
information were at best but imperfect and fragmentary. The selections
from Protestant writers that appear in the Indexes of Pius IV, Paul IV,
and Clement VIII impress one as curiously haphazard. It is difficult
to understand under what instructions the work of the compilers was
done. The names of the larger heretics of the Reformation period, such
as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, find place in the greater
number of the Indexes, although even with these larger names there are
occasional curious omissions. In no one of these earlier Indexes,
however, in which the attempt was made to present a complete list of
the doctrinal writings of these leaders of the Reformation, have the
compilers been successful in making a list that was either complete or
correct. It is possibly on the ground of some consciousness of probable
omissions that, after having inserted in the alphabeted lists the
titles (more or less correctly worded) of certain books, it was thought
safer to make a second entry by the name of the author, followed by the
term “_Opera omnia_.” With the second and third groups (considered
in the order of their relative importance) of the Protestant doctrinal
writers, the selection both of the writers themselves and of their
books becomes much more incidental or accidental. In certain instances,
the most important controversial production of such an author is left
uncondemned, while for some comparatively insignificant tract space is
made in the catalogue.
While the selections from writers other than Catholic are devoted in
the main to doctrinal and controversial literature, and were probably
made up as the result of a general instruction to place on the list of
prohibitions all works inimical to the true Faith, the Indexes include
also a curious sprinkling of titles of what may be called miscellaneous
literature, that is, of books having nothing to do with matters of
doctrine, theology, or religion.
The attempt to have some consideration given in the Indexes to the
literature of the whole of Europe, caused the compilers to depend for
their titles upon catalogues which, in many cases, they could not have
had an opportunity of verifying. The Italian editors transcribed for
these Roman Indexes titles of books which appeared from year to year
in the announcement-lists of the Frankfort Book-Fair. Their opinions
or guesses as to the pernicious character of a book so announced could
be based only upon the name of the author, if this happened to be a
well-known name, or upon the imprint and general character of the
publisher whose name indicated of course the place of production. It
was the case, however, with the publishing catalogues of Frankfort
in the 16th and 17th centuries, as with similar catalogues in later
centuries, that a certain proportion of the books announced never came
into print at all. Either no sufficient subscriptions were secured, or
there was a change in the plans of the publisher, or the author did not
secure the necessary resources to ensure the undertaking, or the author
died before the completion of his work. As a result, distinction and
commemoration were secured in the Index for a number of books which
never came into existence.
In the Index of Benedict, while no specific statement to such effect
is made, the compilers had evidently been instructed to concentrate
their censorship labours upon books which, bearing the names of
Catholic writers, and printed, for the most part, within Catholic
territory, were likely to have influence with readers among the
faithful. The authorities of the Church had finally recognised, after
a series of experiments continuing during two centuries, that it was
not practicable for a group of Italian priests, working in Rome, to
keep themselves adequately informed concerning the productions of
the printing-press throughout the civilised world. It was not only a
physical impossibility to secure knowledge of the contents of these
books, printed no longer in one universal language of literature and
scholarship but in all the languages of civilisation; it was even
impracticable to obtain and to utilise for Index purposes any fairly
complete bibliographies of their titles. From the time of Benedict to
the present day, the censorship of the Church has therefore restricted
its efforts in the main to the supervision of Catholic literature.
It is necessary, however, to use the term “in the main” because the
Index of Benedict and the succeeding Indexes, including even the two
promulgated by Leo XIII, include, in connection with the long lists
of doctrinal works by Catholic writers, a curious sprinkling of books
written by Protestants for Protestant communities, the majority of
which books have no concern whatsoever with doctrinal matter. It
it very difficult to arrive at any understanding of the policy on
which these selections, comprising a few dozen volumes out of many
thousands, have been arrived at. It does not seem to have been based
on the relative importance, as hundreds of productions which secured a
world-wide reputation, and the influence of which has been decidedly
adverse to the contentions of the Church, have received no attention,
while volumes of lesser significance have been found worthy of
condemnation.
The lists of the Catholic books have also, under the system pursued by
the editors of Benedict and their successors, been largely reduced.
The method pursued by the Benedictine compilers of condemning _in
toto_ certain classes of literature and all books relating to
certain specified subjects, saves the editors from the necessity of
presenting long lists of titles. In no other manner, in fact, could the
conclusions of the censors of the 18th and 19th centuries in regard to
the current productions of the printing-press have been brought within
reasonable compass. The Index of Benedict marks the beginning of the
modern policy of the Church in the matter of censorship.
Hilgers lays stress on the wise toleration of Benedict, as expressed in
these regulations of 1758, in insisting that in all cases of doubt, and
particularly when the book under examination was a work of a Catholic
of repute, the advantage of the doubt should be given to the author;
that the author should, if within reach, be given an opportunity,
before the decision concerning his book was reached, of being heard
before the examiners; that the examination of any book the subject of
which might not be one for general understanding should be committed
to “consultors” or “qualificators,” one or more of whom must have
expert knowledge of the subject-matter; that the judgment should be
based upon, not the view of any one Order or group or school, but upon
the whole policy of the Christian Church and with reference purely
to the welfare and instruction of believers. Hilgers also commends
the wise liberality of Benedict in regard to works of science. He
adds: “So valuable for the influence of the people is the example of
men of science, that it is not too much to say that even in the work
of scientific investigation, it is their duty, irrespective of the
regulations of the Church, to secure a dispensation for the reading of
prohibited books or doubtful books.”[30]
The Constitution of Benedict, issued under the title _Sollicita ac
provida_, was considered to be so wisely framed that Leo XIII, while
repealing all the earlier regulations, found it desirable to confirm
and to republish this in the Index of 1900.
=2. Issues of the Roman Index, 1763–1899.=--The Index of 1758
constitutes the foundation of all later issues of the Roman Index.
A series of appendices were compiled at irregular intervals (from
five to ten years) in such form that they could be bound in with the
Benedictine Index. At longer intervals (from twenty-five to fifty
years), the lists were consolidated into one alphabet and the Index, so
printed, constituted a legitimate new edition. The responsibility for
the compilation of these additional lists rested with the successive
secretaries of the Congregation of the Index. The introduction, written
by the secretary to each new appendix, follows pretty closely the
wording of that of Ricchini, printed in 1758.
Appendices issued in 1763, 1770, and 1779 were printed in the
printing-office of the Holy See. A number of the better printed
editions which, according to the title-page, were the work of this
office, were, as Reusch points out, actually printed in places other
than Rome. Certain of these have been identified with the typography of
offices in Parma, Venice, and Florence. The Index issued in 1786 was
continued with five appendices; and, in 1806, was reprinted with the
six lists in one alphabet. The first Roman Index of the 19th century
was issued in 1819, with an introduction from Alex. Aug. Bardani. The
second Index of the century was published under Gregory XVI in 1835,
and the third under the same Pope in 1841. Both issues contained
prefaces by Thomas Ant. Degola. These three Indexes were reprinted in a
number of impressions, and the practice had now obtained of recording
correctly the place of issue. Italian issues, printed with the papal
privilege, were published at Monza, Monreale (in Sicily), and Naples;
and an edition printed in Mechlin also carries a papal privilege.
Editions for which no such privilege was secured appeared in Paris and
in Brussels. Under Pius IX, were published two editions of the Index,
one in 1865 and the second in 1877. Under Leo XIII, were also published
two, one in 1881 and the second in 1900 (the preface bears date 1899).
This latter is at the present date (January, 1907) the latest issue in
the papal series. It is described in detail in Chapter XI. These two
Indexes contain each an introduction by the same editor, Hieronymus
Pius Saccheri. The second Index of Leo represents a higher standard
of bookmaking than had been reached by any previous Index either
papal or Spanish. The lists are remarkably free from bibliographical
or typographical errors and the printed page is not only readable
but artistic. The previous issues of the 19th century, and those of
the 18th and 17th, present but very little advance in the matter of
consistent and uniform bibliography or in freedom from misprints.
According to the routine obtaining after the accession of Benedict, all
the more important of the changes which took shape in the successive
Indexes were decided upon in sessions of the Congregation at which
the Pope himself presided. Such was the case, for instance, with the
elimination of the general prohibition of the Copernican writings, with
the cancellation of the series of entries connected with the issues
between Paul V and Venice, and with the recall of the prohibition of
the writings of Cardinal Noailles.
What may be called the editorial division (that is to say, the
introduction and official entries) in the Index of Benedict is repeated
without change in all the later Indexes through the 19th century.
In the Index of 1835, are added to this division two papers. The
first is a _mandatum_ of Leo XII, issued under a decree of the
Congregation of March 26, 1825, which reads in substance as follows:
“His Holiness has ordered that all patriarchs, archbishops,
bishops, and other ecclesiastical dignitaries shall carefully
bear in mind their responsibilities under the Rules as
promulgated by the Council of Trent, together with the additions
to the same which were published by Clement VIII, Alexander
VIII, and Benedict XIV. It is evidently impossible to bring into
the Index the titles of all publications appearing from year to
year which are pernicious in character or dangerous in doctrine.
It is no longer practicable to apply the authority of the Church
through prohibitions of specific books or cautions as to these,
to prevent the faithful from being injured by such pernicious
literature. The Church authorities must therefore issue general
instructions based upon the Index Rules, by means of which
instructions, the faith of believers can be protected against
heresy and demoralisation.”
The second is a _monitum_ of the Congregation of the Index, dated March
4, 1828. The Congregation enjoins upon all patriarchs, archbishops,
bishops, confessors, and local inquisitors the importance of making
thorough application of the provision of the second of the Tridentine
Rules: “Works by heretics which have to do with religious or
theological subjects are prohibited without reservation.” The _monitum_
makes reference also to the instruction of Clement VIII: “All works
which are prohibited by the Holy See in the original text are also
forbidden in all translations of the same.”
In the Index of 1841, was included a _monitum_ concerning translations
into the vernacular of the Scriptures. In the Index of 1877, was
included a statement concerning the modification of the penalties that
had been prescribed under the Bull of 1869, and also a declaration
concerning books on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
In May, 1844, Gregory XVI had included in an encyclical a _monitum_
cautioning all believers to guard themselves not only against the
reading of all books prohibited by title, but against the use or
the influence of any literature belonging to the classes which are
condemned and prohibited under the general instructions of the Index.
This _monitum_ of Gregory’s was, however, not itself reprinted in any
of the succeeding Indexes.
The _Decreta Generalia_ have received no additions since the
time of Benedict. A number of general prohibitions have, however,
been issued which are analogous in their character and authority
to the _Decreta_. These are printed in the text of the Index
proper and, in certain cases, under headings where they would hardly
be looked for. Some of them are entered under _libri_ (_omnes
incredulorum_); the prohibition of books on spiritualism is entered
under the term “matter.” Some of these general prohibitions, such as
that of the writings of the Carbonari, escaped being repeated in any of
the Indexes.
A formula which finds place in the Index first under Benedict reads:
_Auctor laudabiliter se subjecit et opus suum reprobavit_.
When a work has been condemned by the Inquisition or by the
Congregation on the ground of heretical propositions, the determination
of such propositions is based upon certain general principles laid down
by the Inquisition. The author has the alternative of cancelling the
book altogether or of agreeing to reprint it with the elimination of
the propositions condemned as heretical.
In later years, it has been the practice of the Congregation in the
case of authors to whom, on one ground or another, it is thought
desirable to extend consideration, to give to such authors, in advance
of the publication of any condemnation, the opportunity of making the
eliminations or corrections required. If the author promptly assents to
such a course, his work is not included in any of the official lists of
condemnation. Catholics who learn first through the publication of the
official reports that their writings have come into condemnation and
who thereupon make submission and promise of correction, are recorded
in a supplementary decree of the Congregation. Such decree makes
announcement of the fact of the submission and gives approval to the
text as corrected, of the work in question. The form of announcement is
as follows: _Auctor laudabiliter se subjecit et opus reprobavit_. In
the case of works which have been prohibited with a _d.c._ the formula
reads: _Auctor laudabiliter se subjecit et reprobanda reprobavit_ or
_et opus amendavit_. There are various examples of the use of this
formula between the years 1873 and 1881.
In a decree of Pius IX, issued in June, 1848, the censorship concerning
material of a religious or doctrinal character, printed either in books
or periodicals, was restricted to the territory of the States of the
Church. A decree of the inquisitor-general, issued in September, 1851,
states:
“It is become known to us that either on the ground of malice,
of wilful disobedience, or of ignorance, certain persons fail to
give information to the Holy See concerning the undertakings of
heretics and the spread of Protestant contentions, or concerning
the publication of attacks or satires against the Pope or
against ecclesiastical Orders, or as to the distribution of
writings in which the Holy Scriptures have been misused or
misquoted, or the distribution of works printed without the
official permit, or the reading, printing or possession of such
works. It is hereby ordered that all such delinquents shall
incur the penalty of excommunication _latae sententiae_.
This edict is to be placed in every sacristy. It is further
ordered that all printers, booksellers, collectors of customs,
janitors, landlords, and shopkeepers of any kind shall place
copies of this edict in their premises in such manner that it
shall be read by all.”
In an instruction given in July, 1878, by the cardinal vicar of Rome,
which has to do particularly with the regulation of divine service,
of the sermons, and of the schools of heretics, “whose operations are
carried on under the very eyes of the Teacher of Infallible Youth,” is
printed the announcement:
“The typesetters who, in order to prevent themselves from losing
their work, put into type the writings of heretics, come into
grievous sin. This is essentially the case with those who lend
themselves to the production of works maintaining or defending
heretical doctrines for which works the Pope has ordered the
larger excommunication.”
_1806. Rome. Index Prohibitorius._ This Index, issued under Pius
VII, is a reprint of the Index of 1786 with continuations of the lists
up to the year of its publication.
_1819. Rome. Index Prohibitorius. Index Librorum Prohibitorum,
Sanctissimi Domini Nostri Pii Septimi Pontificis Maximi jussu
editus._ The only article in this volume which is distinctive is
the “Address to the Catholic Reader” by the editor, Alex. Angelicus
Bardani, of the Order of St. Dominic and Secretary of the Congregation
of the Index. This address refers, with congratulation, to the pious
interest of the faithful which had exhausted the edition of the Index
of 1786 (making, curiously enough, no reference to the intervening
Index of 1806). The volume was reprinted in 1822 with two appendices
and two decrees. The closing portion of the second decree is devoted to
a denunciation of five works in English relating to papal controversies
in North America, as follows:
“An Address to the Congregation of St. Mary’s Church, Philadelphia.”
“Continuation of an Address,” etc.
“The Opinion of the Right Reverend John Rico on the Address.”
“Address of the Committee.”
“Address of the Right Reverend Bishop of Pennsylvania,” etc.
A further edition of this Index with some revisions was printed in
Paris in 1825--_Le Catalogue des Ouvrages mis à l’Index, contenant
les noms de tous les Livres condamnés par la Cour de Rome, depuis
l’invention de l’Imprimerie jusqu’ à 1825, avec les dates des Décrets
de leur condamnation_. The lists are preceded by an _Avis de l’Éditeur_
in which an account is given of the Congregation of the Index at Rome
with reference to the work of Catalani. It proceeds to say that the
works comprehended in this Index are those which had been prohibited by
Pius VI and Pius VII, together with all which are known to have been
since censured _sous l’heureux gouvernment de l’Église Universelle par
N.T.S. Père le Pape Léon XII_. It is not clear what authority this
general Index may have been held to possess in France as, under various
preceding utterances, the Gallican Church had taken the position
that the Indexes of Rome were not to have authority in France unless
reissued with the specific approval of the rulers of the French Church.
This Index contains a condemnation of the “Defence of the Ancient
Faith,” by the Rev. Peter Gandolphy, published in 1816, a work which
had secured the approbation of the master of the sacred palace and of
Damiani, master of theology. The appendix includes also Lady Morgan’s
volume on Italy, and a special decree in regard to the New Testament.
A reprint of the Index of 1819 was issued in Brussels in 1828.
_1835. Rome. Gregory XVI. Prohibitorius._
_1841. Rome. Gregory XVI. Prohibitorius._ Reprints of these
two Indexes were issued (with papal privileges) in Mechlin, Monza,
Monreale, and Naples.
_1855. Rome. Pius IX. Prohibitorius._
_1871. Rome. Pius IX._ Reissue, with an appendix, of the Index of
1841.
_1877. Rome. Pius IX. Prohibitorius._ Each of these Indexes
contains an introduction by Hieronymus Pius Saccheri. The lists
of titles in both present a number of errors, bibliographical and
typographical, and are in fact much less correct than those of Benedict.
_1881. Rome. Leo XIII. Index Prohibitorius_, reprinted with
appendix in 1884.
_1896. Rome. Leo XIII. Index Prohibitorius._ A reprint of the
Index of 1884, with appendix carrying the titles to 1895.
_1899–1900. Rome. Leo XIII. Index Prohibitorius_: for
specification of contents, see Chapter XI.
CHAPTER V
METHODS OF PROHIBITION AND THE CONTINUATION OF CLASS I
1. Papal Prohibitions in the 17th and 18th Centuries.
2. Prohibitions by Bishops.
3. Publication of the Book Prohibitions.
4. The Continuation of Class I.
5. Catalogues of Books Approved.
=1. Papal Prohibitions in the 17th and 18th Centuries.=--As in
previous periods, there are in the 17th century numerous examples
of papal prohibitions, through constitutions, bulls, or briefs, of
individual books which were held to be sufficiently important to call
for such special action. In 1602, Clement VIII condemns the works
of Carolus Molinaeus; in 1642, Urban VIII condemns the writings of
Jansen together with a number of treatises by the followers of Jansen;
in 1661, Alexander VII condemns a French version of the missal. The
formula generally utilised for these individual prohibitions was as
follows:
“We condemn this work after mature consideration, on our
personal judgment (_motu proprio_) and with assured knowledge
(of its pernicious character), on the Apostolic authority
(vested in us); and we prohibit to all persons, whatever may be
their rank or position, the printing, reading, or possession
of the same. The penalty for disobedience shall be the
_excommunicatio latae sententiae_. We direct that the existing
copies of said work be delivered to the bishop or to the
inquisitor of the diocese, by whom such copies shall be promptly
burned. This order shall be placed on the doors of the Basilica
of the Church of the Apostles and on the doors of the Apostolic
Chancellery, and on the gate-way of the Campus Florae, and when
so published, shall be held to have been delivered in person to
each individual affected by it.”
In the case of a Bull, the wording of the first paragraph was:
“Through this Constitution, which shall remain in force for ever, and
under the authority of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of
ourselves.”
After the time of Alexander VII, 1665, the condemnation is made to
follow the decisions arrived at by theological examiners appointed
for the purpose, or by the cardinals of the Inquisition. The greater
number of the prohibitions continued, however, to emanate from the
Congregation of the Index, while for a few, the responsibility rested
with the Inquisition.
In 1753, Benedict XIV in the Bull _Sollicita_ (printed later
in connection with the Index of 1758) gives consideration to the
regulation of the proceedings of the two bodies. The substance of
Benedict’s ruling is as follows:
In the case of a book which is denounced by the Inquisition as
deserving of condemnation, and the prohibition of which has not
been confirmed by the Index Congregation, the following measures
shall be taken. The book shall be examined by a commission
appointed for the purpose, and the written report of these
examiners shall be submitted (with the book itself) to the
cardinals. The conclusion of the cardinals shall be referred
to the pope, who will give the final judgment in the matter.
In the case of a book by a Catholic author, the condemnation
shall not be permitted to rest on the decision of one examiner.
His adverse report must secure the confirmation of a second
censor appointed by the Congregation. If the judgments of the
two differ, the matter must be passed upon by the cardinals.
The Congregation of the Index is always to include several
cardinals. The _Magister_ of the papal palace is a member
_ex officio_. The secretary shall be a Dominican selected by
the pope. The Congregation has the assistance of a number of
counsellors selected from the clergy and from the Orders and
from the judicial class (_Relatores_). The sessions of the
Congregation are not regular, as are those of the Inquisition,
but are called in response to the report of the secretary
that there is business requiring action. This leaves to the
secretary a large discretion in the initiating of action and
in the selection of matters to be passed upon. In the case of
a book by a Catholic author of good repute (_integrae famae_)
in which pernicious material is found, the prohibition shall,
if practicable, be made not general, but conditional, under
the heading of _donec corrigatur_ or _donec expurgetur_. The
decree shall not be made public at once, but opportunity shall
be given to the author or to some representative of the author
to make the required corrections. If the author shall agree
to withdraw from sale the original edition, replacing this
with the corrected text, no public prohibition need be made.
If the original edition has come into general circulation,
the condemnation shall be so worded as to apply only to such
uncorrected text. The loss incurred through such cancellation
and reprinting appears to have fallen upon the publisher unless
the edition were the property of the author, or the publishing
agreement made the author responsible for losses incurred on the
ground of heresies. In reply to the complaint that books had
from time to time been prohibited without an opportunity being
given to the author to defend his production against the charge
of heresy, the Bull takes the ground that the purpose of the
action of the Church is not to pronounce judgment on authors,
but to protect the faithful against injury through heretical
doctrine. Any detriment caused to the repute of the author is
an incidental result which cannot be avoided. In any case, the
judgment on the character of the production is to be arrived at
with due deliberation and full knowledge.
The Pope expresses his intention to be present at sessions of the
Congregation when matters of first importance are to be considered.
Decisions concerning the works of unquestioned heretics, in regard to
books containing direct attacks on the doctrines of the Church, can,
however, be disposed of without his counsel and under the Rules of the
Index of Trent. The members of the Congregation bind themselves to
secrecy as to its proceedings. The secretary is, however, at liberty to
give information to the author or the publisher of the book condemned.
“The counsellors and examiners of the Congregation are cautioned
to proceed with their work with due conservatism. They are by
no means to assume that a work submitted is certainly to be
condemned but are to assure themselves by diligent investigation
whether it may not be possible to declare it fitting for
circulation, either in its original form or with certain
omissions or emendations. Care is to be taken to place each book
in the hands of examiners having expert and scholarly knowledge
of the subject-matter. The examiners must free themselves from
prejudices of race, native school of thought, or ecclesiastical
order. They must keep before them that the essential purpose of
their work is the defence of the faith, and the preservation
of the doctrines of the Church as set forth by the decrees of
the general councils, the constitutions of the popes, and by
the teachings of the Fathers and of their learned successors,
and the maintenance of the authority of the Church universal.
The examiners must bear in mind that it is not possible to
judge fairly of the character of a book without reading the
entire text, and that the statements in the different divisions
of the work must be carefully collated one with another. It
is frequently the case that a sentence taken apart from its
context may give a wrong impression of the author’s meaning, or
that a sentence which taken alone may seem of doubtful purport,
will have the thought made clear by comparison with other
portions of the text. (Conservative counsel which was by no
means always followed by the censors.) In the case of the work
of a Catholic author whose orthodoxy is of good repute, it is
proper, if a sentence or statement may be open to more than one
interpretation, to give to it the most favourable (_i.e._
the most orthodox). There are books which, while quite sound
and orthodox in their purpose and teachings, contain references
to pernicious writings, or extracts from such writings. The
knowledge of the heresies thus referred to may do injury to the
faith of innocent readers. Such books call, therefore, for very
careful consideration, and if the quoted material is sufficient
in amount and in character to exert a pernicious influence,
the work must be expurgated or placed upon the Index. Authors
are cautioned against the wrongdoing of abusing each other
whatever may be the difference of opinion, or of using harsh and
condemnatory language against other writers whose works have not
been condemned by the Church. These instructions and counsels
are to be accepted as carrying the full Apostolic authority and
as binding upon the Congregations, the examiners, and all others
concerned.”
Certain of the other Congregations, such as those on confession, on
the rites of the Church, and on propaganda, assumed the right to
prohibit books having to do with their particular subjects, but their
prohibitions had to be confirmed by, and promulgated through, the
Congregation of the Index.
The _Magister_ of the palace had authority to issue in his own name
prohibitions which were valid for the city of Rome. The individual
edicts published by him in the name of the pope were of course
general in their effect. From the time of Clement XI, 1700–1721, the
prohibitions of individual works through bulls and briefs became much
more frequent. After Benedict XIV, 1756, such prohibitions are to
be found in allocations and in encyclicals. In 1664, Alexander VII
ordered that the injunctions and penalties of Pius IV, as specified
in the Index of Trent, should remain in force, but that all the other
constitutions and decrees in regard to books, excepting only the _Bulla
Coenae_, be revoked.
In the introduction to the Index of 1758, Benedict XIV presents certain
principles as controlling, from that time, the work of the censors.
Books by heretics are to receive consideration only in the instances
in which they treat of the Catholic faith, or teach heresies. The task
of examining and supervising the entire literature of the world was at
last recognised as one beyond the powers of the Church authorities.
In 1869, a Bull of Pius IX restricts the penalty of the excommunication
_latae sententiae_ to the reading, possession, etc., of books written
by heretics, only when these not only contain heresies, but make
a formal defence of the same, or when they have been specifically
prohibited by title.
In the case of a writer who had already been condemned for uttering
heretical opinions, his later books were likely to be placed on the
Index irrespective of the character of their contents. In 1615, for
instance, the opinions of Copernicus were condemned by the Inquisition,
and, a year later, his astronomical treatises were duly prohibited.
The condemnation of a book by the Inquisition carried as a rule more
weight than a prohibition by the Congregation. On the other hand, the
Inquisition found difficulty in keeping up with its work.
In 1711, the Jesuit Daubenton writes to Fénelon: “The Inquisition
has such a mass of business on its hands, and has available for its
consideration so few men who are capable and who are ready to give
attention to it, that a period of years may be required to secure the
condemnation of a book, particularly if it is of considerable compass.”
The control of the Inquisition, as of the Congregation, rested with
the Dominicans. The commissary of the former and the secretary of the
latter, always Dominicans, retained in their hands the continuity and
the general direction of the business of their respective bodies.
In 1633, Lucas Holstenius (a “consultor” appointed by Alexander XII)
writes from Rome to Peiresc:
“We have here a few learned men who would be glad to be of
service to scholarly literature if there were any possibility of
securing for their views any recognition.... But the opinions
of scholars have no weight with these ignorant censors.... One
of the cardinals who thinks of himself as an intelligent man
and who has a large control of the business, says openly that
he is in favour of condemning and burning practically all works
of a humanistic character (_qui de literis humanioribus et de
liberali eruditione agunt_) and of leaving in existence only
the theological treatises, and the writings of a few jurists....
You will have heard of the recent condemnation of the scholarly
works of Scaliger, Heinsius, Rivius, and Godenius.... My
indignation grows and I find myself unwilling to attend any
more sittings of the Congregation.... I speak thus, for your
ear only, as here, it is perilous to make any complaint or
opposition to such proceedings.”[31]
In 1686, the learned Benedictine Mabillon, being in Rome, was asked by
the Congregation to give a report on the writings of Vossius, and later
he was appointed a “consultor.”
In the compilation of the Roman Indexes of the 16th century, the
announcement catalogues of the Frankfort Fair were largely utilised. As
before pointed out, one result of this practice was to bring into the
Index lists the titles of not a few books of but trifling importance
(which otherwise would have been entirely lost sight of), of others
which contained no doctrinal material and in fact nothing pernicious
or objectionable, and of still others which, while announced as in
preparation or in plan, never came into print at all. After 1600, the
Fair catalogues appear to have been but little used, but information
concerning published books was secured from the _Acta Eruditorum_,
the _Journal des Savants_, and similar periodicals. Bourgeois is
authority for the statement that after 1650, it was the routine, with
both Inquisition and Congregation, to take up for consideration only
such books as had been specifically denounced.
In 1690, Cardinal Ciampini proposed the establishment of a seminar
or commission of ten or twelve scholars, selected from different
countries, who should be charged with the task of examining the books
issued from the different publishing centres and of making reports
upon which could be based the selections of the Congregation of the
Index. He proposed to bequeath to such a seminar his library and a
capital sufficient to secure for each member an annual payment of one
hundred scudi. The foundation never, however, came into existence.
At the time of Benedict XIV, Cardinal Querini submitted a plea for
the better organisation of the Congregation and offered an endowment
to be utilised for the printing of the censorship opinions, but the
offer appears not to have been taken advantage of. In 1622, Gregory XV
instituted the _Congregatio de Propaganda Fide_, and to this body
was confided the task of examining, and when necessary of prohibiting,
books in oriental and other “exotic” tongues. In 1674, Clement X issued
a brief prohibiting the printing, “even by Jesuits or other Orders,”
of any works relating to the missions except with the authority of
the Congregation. The penalty was cancellation of the edition and
excommunication of those responsible for its production.
After 1610, the edicts of the _Magister_ prohibiting individual
books are infrequent. In 1690, we have an example of such an edict
in the case of a treatise on the Immaculate Conception by the Jesuit
Saliceti, which was printed in Rome with the censored passages duly
cancelled in the text. It continued, however, to be the practice for
each _Magister_, in taking office, to issue a general edict
setting forth the regulations controlling the production of books. One
of the most important of these required the comparison page by page, by
examiners appointed by the censor, of the text of the book as printed
with that of the manuscript which had been approved (and possibly
corrected). Until this comparison had been made, no copies of the
edition could be offered for sale.
Certain general prohibitions are included in the Clementine Index. In
the earlier years of the 17th century, further similar prohibitions or
decrees are published. In 1621, for instance, is printed the series
of decisions of the Congregation of the Council of Trent. The Pope
had prohibited the publication of any unauthorised translations
of the decrees of Trent, but the above work, carrying with it no
authorisation, does not find place in the Index lists. In 1601, appears
a prohibition of all litanies with the exception of the Laurentian
and that bearing the name of All Saints. In 1603, appears a general
prohibition of all writings concerning the Mohammedan religion. In
1633, a decree of the _Magister S. Palatii_ prohibits all _Elogia
Haereticorum_. With this prohibition, is included a condemnation of
all pictures or medals in honour of heretics. This general prohibition
was interpreted to bring into condemnation a long series of important
bibliographical works in which had been printed, either with approval
or without condemnation, the names of heretical writers. In April,
1621, an announcement was made, on the part of the Congregation of
the Council of Trent, protesting against the publication, nominally
under the authority of the council, of so-called collections of the
declarations of the council, and pointing out that such publications
had been specifically condemned under the Bull of Pius IV. With the
authority of Gregory XV, all such collections or reports of the
decisions and conclusions of the council, issued without specific
authority of the council, which had thus far been printed or which
should later come into print, were condemned and prohibited. Among
the works included under this condemnation, were a number which had
been prepared by orthodox Catholic theologians and canonists, such as
Prosper Farinaccius, Vincenzio de Marzilla, etc.
In the course of the 17th century, the Congregation of Rites condemned
a series of prayers and litanies. Reusch states that “up to the present
day” (he is writing in 1884) only one such litany, that described as
“In the name of Jesus” had secured approbation. The general decree
of 1601 prohibiting litanies has never been recalled; and under this
decree stand condemned and prohibited all books of service which
contain other than the two, or at this time, the three brief litanies.
This decree, would, according to Reusch, prohibit nine tenths of the
service books in use in the Catholic Church.
The prohibition issued by Alexander in decree number IV with the
title: _Instructionum et rituum sectae Mahumetanae libri omnes_,
seems to have had for its immediate text a work entitled: _Liber
de Russorum, Moscovitarum, et Tartarorum religione_, which was
printed at Spires. In the Index of Benedict, the title was for the
first time given complete with the name of the author, Lasitzki, Jo.,
_de Russorum rel. sacrificiis, nuptiarum et funerum ritu e diversis
scriptoribus_. Under the general prohibition of bibliographical
works in which any terms of approval are connected with the names of
heretical writers, is included (in 1687) the following English work:
Crowaei Guil, _Elenchus scriptorum in s. scripturam tam graecorum
quam latinorum_, London, 1672. A work of similar character,
compiled by Thomas Pope Blount, under the title _Censura celebrium
auctorum_, printed in London in 1690, escaped the attention of the
compilers.
=2. Book Prohibitions by the Bishops.=--During the 17th and
18th centuries, were published no lists of books condemned under the
authority of the bishops which compare in importance or in influence
with the Indexes issued during the 17th century from Louvain and
from Paris. During the 17th century, however, there are a number
of instances of individual books condemned by the divines of the
Sorbonne, of Louvain, and of other theological faculties. One Index
of some comprehensiveness was issued by the Archbishop of Paris, but
the work was undertaken at the instance of the Parliament. Two Indexes
were issued by the Archbishops of Prague, and the decree of Precipiano,
Archbishop of Utrecht, has already been referred to. As late as the
last half of the 18th century, the bishops have utilised the form of
pastoral letters and pastoral instructions for the condemnation of
individual books and, occasionally, of lists of books. A pastoral
letter, for instance, of the Vicar-General of Augsburg, issued in 1758,
presents a list of fifty-five works which are condemned on the ground
of their association with the “new sects and new teachings of mystics
and fanatics.” In 1752, similar lists were connected with a decree of
the Bishop of Turenne and a pastoral instruction of the Bishop of Luçon.
Clement XIII (1758–1769) condemned, in briefs issued in January and
in September, 1759, the treatise by Helvetius, _De l’Esprit_, and the
encyclopaedia compiled by the same author, both of which had been
published anonymously. For the encyclopaedia, the specification was
added that it belonged to the class of books permission for the reading
of which could be given only by the pope himself. In a brief addressed
in November, 1765, to the Archbishop of Rheims, Clement praises the
assembly of the clergy for the condemnation of pernicious writings,
and in an encyclical issued in November, 1766, he reminds the bishops
of their responsibility for the repression of irreligious works, and
reminds them further that they are to secure in this work the aid of
the State authorities.
In an encyclical issued in 1769, Clement XIV repeats to the bishops
the injunction of his predecessor in regard to the essential importance
of maintaining the fight for the stamping out of wicked books. In the
decade succeeding 1758, the Inquisition and the Congregation of the
Index condemn and prohibit the works of Voltaire, Rousseau, La Mettrie,
d’Holbach, Marmontel, Raynal, and others. The list includes also a
treatise by Helvetius, in addition to his work _De l’Esprit_,
and single monographs of Diderot and d’Alembert in addition to their
contributions to the Encyclopaedia.
In 1864, the Congregation of the Index issues, under the authority of
Pius IX, a circular letter to the bishops authorising and instructing
them to carry out the prohibitions of the Congregation. Reference is
made to the Edict of Leo XII, of 1825, and emphasis is laid on the
importance of checking the irreligious influence of the newspapers.
=3. Publication of the Book Prohibitions.=--During the earlier
years of the 17th century, the lists of the books condemned by the
Congregation or the Inquisition were published by the _Magister_.
After 1613, the lists passed upon by the Congregation were prepared for
the press by the secretary, printed in the papal printing-office, and
distributed through the local inquisitors and the nuncios. This was
the course taken, for instance, with the condemnation, in 1616, of the
books of Copernicus, and in 1633, with the writings of Galileo. Later,
the practice obtained of printing the special lists on the annual
lists in the _format_ of the latest edition of the Index, so that
they could be bound in with this. After 1624, the secretaries of the
Congregation brought into print a number of collections of the various
decrees.
In the reprint, in 1667, of the Index issued by Alexander VII in 1664,
are included no less than ninety-two of the separate decrees. Of the
later decrees there is no official or complete collection. According
to the contention of the Curia, the publication of a decree in Rome
rendered it binding on Catholics throughout the world, but this view
was by no means generally accepted. In Spain as in France, it was held
that the papal bulls and decrees were in force only after they had
been formally confirmed and published under national authority, but
in Spain this authority was delegated to the Inquisition. Francis I
refused altogether to recognise the decrees of the Congregation or of
the Roman Inquisition. In Venice, Naples, and Belgium, these decrees
became authoritative only when confirmed by the State authorities. The
circulation outside of Italy of copies of the Roman Indexes was very
trifling, and (with the exception of that of Trent) the reprinting of
these occurred but seldom. If the work of the papal printing-office
is to be judged by the Roman Indexes and decrees of the 16th and 17th
centuries, the standard was by no means high. The bibliographical lists
abound in errors, the responsibility for which must be divided between
the compilers and the typesetters. In not a few instances, the names
and titles have been so seriously twisted that it is often not easy to
identify the work condemned. The Index of Benedict XIV was the first of
the Roman series in which any serious attempt appears to have been made
to secure any measure of bibliographical accuracy.
An _Abrégé du Recueil des Actes du Clergé_, first issued in 1762,
divides the bulls and briefs of the popes into two classes: those
which have been confirmed and accepted in France; and those which
have been rejected and which are, therefore, not binding on the
French Church.[32] The chronicler explains that it is the general
rule to accept the Roman rescripts which may prove useful for Church
or for State, even although it is often necessary to repudiate
certain formulas and expressions contained in them. In certain cases,
however, the formulas are so repugnant that they cause the rejection
of the Bull itself, as for instance when the king is threatened with
excommunication or deposition. The French authorities, ecclesiastical
as well as political, refused from the outset to accept the Roman
formula that publication of a decree in Rome made it binding throughout
the realms of the Church, and they refused also to accept the authority
of any general penalty of excommunication which might be made to
include the head of the State.[33]
The Advocate-General Omer Talon, in an address delivered in 1647
before the Parliament of Paris, says: “We are prepared to recognise
and to accept the authority of the pope but neither the authority nor
the jurisdiction of the Congregation or of the Curia.” The Chancellor
d’Aguesseau writes in 1710: “It is well understood that the Roman Index
carries no authority in France where, while the primacy of the pope
is accepted, the authority of the Congregation of cardinals is not in
force.”[34]
Bossuet writes in regard to such a papal brief:[35] “We hold that these
constitutions are not binding in a French diocese until (and unless)
they have been published by the bishop.” Fénelon says: “We are not
willing through the acceptance of a papal brief to acknowledge the
authority (for France) of either the Index or Inquisition.”
As before stated, within the dominions of Spain, the Spanish Indexes
alone were accepted as authoritative, and the Spanish authorities
very frequently refused to condemn books that had been prohibited
by the editors of Rome. In other of the States classed as Catholic,
the authority of the Roman censorship was in like manner contested.
In 1759, Charles Alexander, Stadtholder of Lorraine, prohibited the
printing or sale of certain theological treatises by Dens, on the
ground that these asserted the authority of the _Bulla Coenae_,
and of the Roman censorship and the immunity of the bishops, and that
this constituted an assault on the authority of the emperor and on the
general policy of the Netherlands.
[Sidenote: Later Heresiarchs.]
=4. The Continuation of Class I, 1603–1876.=--The list of heretical
authors of the first class, all of whose works (past and future) were
condemned, were, in the first group of Roman Indexes, printed without
change or additions. The authorities do not appear to have considered
the later heretical writers to be entitled to the dignity of being
classed as heresiarchs. In the Decree of 1603, the name of Frac.
Guicciardini and that of Peter Frider are added by the Roman editors
to Class I; but these constitute the only additions for the series
of years given. On the other hand, new Spanish Indexes of this class
receive from decade to decade continued additions.
Among the authors, all of whose writings were prohibited in Indexes
printed prior to Alexander VII (1664), may be noted Hugo Broughton
(of Oxford), Thomas White (of London), Ludwig de Dieu, Gregorius
Richter, Giordano Bruno, Claudius Salmasius, J. B. Poza. Between 1664
and 1756, the list includes among the more noteworthy names, the
German writers J. H. Buddaeus, Georg. Calixtus, J. H. Heidigger; the
Hollanders Jo. Clericus, Simon Episcopius, Jac. Laurentius, and Lambert
Velthuysen; the Frenchmen J. Daillé, Ch. Drelincourt, Jean d’Espagne;
the Englishmen G. Bull (Bishop of St. Davids), W. Cave, J. Lightfoot,
Henricus Morus, J. Prideaux, and Thomas Hobbes.
To these may be added the names of Molinos van Espen and Colbert,
Bishop of Montpellier. It is difficult, in an examination of the
complete lists, to arrive at any principle or basis on which the
compilers made their selections. Of forty-one Protestant writers
whose names were placed on the Index during one sitting of the Index
Congregation in May, 1757, sixteen were Germans, ten, Hollanders,
eleven, Frenchmen, and four, Englishmen. At the same session, were
prohibited the entire series of the theological writings of Hugo
Grotius. Between 1757 and 1821, there is no instance in the Roman
Indexes of the use in connection with the name of an author of the term
_Opera omnia_, although as a fact in a number of cases every book
produced by some particular author was included under its own title.
Between the years 1821 and 1827, the authors whose complete works were
thus specifically condemned by title include G. Mordai, David Hume, and
Colin de Plancy. In 1852, were added, among other names, those of V.
Giorberti, Proudhon, and Sue. In 1862, the prohibition included Dumas
father and son, Georges Sand, Murger, Stendhal, Balzac, Champfleury,
Feydeau, and Soulié. In 1876, three names are to be noted, Vera,
Spavente, and Ferrari. The works of John Locke called for special
attention in two of the Indexes of the first half of the 18th century.
The reading or possession of these books is forbidden under penalty of
excommunication, _sub anathemate_.
In 1610, was prohibited the treatise that had been published in the
previous year by Hugo Grotius, _Mare liberum S. de jure quod Batavis
competit ad Indicana commercia_. The entry was alphabeted under
_H_. The title has been preserved in the later Indexes of the
19th century under the proper heading, Grotius. The purpose of the
treatise was to contest, on the ground of natural right and of the
_Jus gentium_, the monopoly, which had secured the support of
Alexander VI, of the Spaniards and Portuguese over certain lines of sea
trade. The Pope had taken the ground that his authority was sufficient
to institute trade monopolies either by land or by sea. If the Pope
were in a position to grant ownership of territories and of peoples,
the smaller matter of the connecting trade might naturally be assumed
as the conclusion. Grotius, however, asserts that no authority vested
in the Pope had given to the Spaniards the control of the Indies (of
the West) and that such control as had come to the Spaniards had been
secured through force of arms and not through the papal diploma.
=5. Catalogues of Books Approved.=--There is ground for surprise
that while in the four and a half centuries since the publication of
the first papal Index, the Church has promulgated such a long series
of lists of books condemned and prohibited, the authorities have
not been interested in giving a larger measure of attention to the
selection of books which could safely be recommended for the reading
of the faithful, and which to some extent at least might be suggested
as taking the place of the literature that was to be cancelled as
pernicious. I can find record of but four or five lists, issued under
the authority of the Church, of books recommended for the reading
of the faithful, and no one of these recommendation catalogues was
prepared in Rome or was published under direct authority from Rome.
The first Index in the Church series, that published in Louvain in
1546, contains a short list of books recommended. This list is referred
to in the description of the Index itself (see Volume I); a similar
recommendation list, including in part the same titles, is connected
with the second Louvain Index of 1550. In 1549, a provincial synod
was held in Cologne under the direction of the Archbishop Adolf of
Schauenburg. A decree was issued by this synod addressed to “the
simple and unlearned priests who might not be qualified to distinguish
the sound from the unsound doctrine, and who had therefore from time
to time been misled by books that were placed in the market with
misleading titles.” These pastors and their followers were particularly
charged against any books, whatsoever might be their titles, which
contain writings of Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, or of
their followers. The decree of the synod was connected with a brief
list of the heretical authors whose works were particularly to be
guarded against, and the statement was made that this would be followed
by a general and comprehensive catalogue or Index. No such general
Index was, however, prepared. In 1550, however, the diocesan synod
issued a list of books recommended for the use of the instructors and
teachers in the Church schools.
The third recommendation list of which I find record was issued in
Munich in 1566, under an edict of Albert V. This is a comprehensive
catalogue of books which have secured privilege for publication
throughout the duchy, and which, having been selected under the direct
supervision of the Church authorities, can be safely recommended for
the use of students and readers.
The heads of convents and Church libraries are cautioned to cleanse
their collections from the books which have been condemned under the
previous prohibitory Index, and to replace these books with the works
now recommended by the authority of the Church. In the second issue
of this recommendation catalogue are presented, curiously enough, the
titles of certain works which had been prohibited in the Index of
Trent. Examples of these are the writings of Bohemus, J. P., of Geiler
Kaisersperg, Conrad Klingius, Jo. Ferus, F. Guicciardinus.[36] Between
the years 1606 and 1619, there came into annual publication in Mayence,
as a result apparently of the recommendation of Peter Canisius, the
energetic head of the Jesuits in Germany, a catalogue, prepared more
particularly for the use of booksellers in Catholic countries, of books
recommended for the reading of the faithful. This annual catalogue bore
the following titles: _Index novus librorum imprimis Catholicorum,
theologorum, aliorumque celebrium auctorum quarumcunque facultatum
et linguarum, causas religionis tamen non tractantium ... pro Italia
ceterisque nationibus confectus_. On the back of the title-page
of the issue for 1606, is presented a preface bearing the signature
Valentinus Leuchtius. _S. Sedis Apost. librorum revisor, imp.
Rodolphi II_, etc. In this preface, the reviser undertakes to lay
down the principle for the elimination of pernicious literature and
for the selection of books of wholesome doctrine and sound influence.
The above series describes the few fragmentary efforts made in any
formal fashion by the Church authorities during the centuries of
censorship to guide with any positive advice the reading of the
faithful. The dependence for counsel in regard to the books to be read
seems to have been left to the individual action of the confessors or
other ecclesiastical advisers.
CHAPTER VI
ISSUES BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE
1559–1870
1. Venice and the Papacy 1606–1696.
2. Spain and the Papacy 1559–1770.
3. Controversies concerning the Gallican Church 1600–1758.
4. Ecclesiastical-Political Contests 1700–1750.
5. England and the Papacy 1606–1853.
6. The Gallicans and the Liberal Catholics 1845–1870.
=1. Venice and the Papacy, 1606–1696.=--The contest that arose between
Paul V and the Venetian Republic caused to the Pope a larger measure
of trouble than had arisen in connection with the controversy _De
Auxiliis_. The Venetian Senate, in laws enacted in 1603 and 1605,
had brought under its direct control the building of new churches,
monasteries, and hospitals; it had prohibited the transfer, either
by sale or by gift, of real estate to any ecclesiastical bodies, and
it had brought for trial before the civil court two ecclesiastics
who were charged with common crimes. In December, 1605, Paul writes
a brief to the Doge and a second brief to the Senate in which he
declares these laws to be annulled and demands the delivery to the
papal nuncio of the two clerical delinquents. The Venetians refused
obedience to the demand in the briefs; thereupon the Pope transmits to
the ecclesiastical bodies of Venice in April, 1606, a _monitorium_
in which he places under excommunication the Doge and the members
of the Senate unless, within twenty-four days after the publication
of this _monitorium_, the demand of the brief be complied with. The
Doge, Leonardo Donato, prohibits the publication of the papal decree.
The Jesuits, the Capucins, and the Theatins, the only bodies who were
affected by the interdict placed upon the territory of the Republic,
were expelled. The Pope now threatened the Venetians with war, but in
the course of a few months, through the intervention of the French
Ambassador and of Cardinal Joyeuse, the two priests were delivered to
the French Ambassador, with the declaration that the Republic reserved
for itself the right to punish ecclesiastics for civil offences. The
laws in regard to such procedure were not recalled, but the Senate
agreed to have the same administered with due reserve. The Senate also
recalled its manifesto against censorship. The Cardinal, in the name
of the Pope, thereupon recalled the several decrees issued against
the Republic. The Venetians refused, however, to take back the order
expelling the Jesuits, and it was not until fifty years later, in 1657,
that the latter again found place for themselves within the Republic.
In 1606, were included in the Index a number of controversial treatises
which had been written for the defence of the contentions of the
Republic or which concerned themselves with the interdict issued by
the Inquisition. During the time of Alexander VII, was placed upon
the Index a general prohibition of the record of the interdict issued
by Paul V against the Venetian Republic. This entry was cancelled by
Benedict XIV. During this contest, were placed upon the Index certain
treatises by Suarez and by Sanchez, both leaders among the Jesuits, on
the ground that editions of their works, printed by Venetian printers,
had omitted passages which sustained the authority of the Holy See.
The printers had been able to secure from the Senate a privilege for
the printing of these volumes only on condition of the elimination of
these passages. The most famous of the representatives of Venice in
this contest was Paolo Sarpi (1552–1626). Sarpi was, in 1626, ordered
by the Inquisition to report to Rome, but he refused obedience and made
a formal protest against the order. Sarpi’s _History of the Council
of Trent_ was prohibited promptly after its publication in 1619,
and later, several other writings of his found their way also into
the Index lists. There is, however, no condemnation under the name of
Sarpi of his _Opera omnia_. In 1656, was published the official
_History of the Council of Trent_, compiled by Pallavicini. The
Index contains the titles of a number of writings which were written in
criticism of this history.
In the _Discorso_ concerning the Inquisition in Venice (printed in
1639), Sarpi (in a reference to certain decrees issued in 1609 and 1610
by Yotella, master of the palace) complains of the attempt on the part
of the papacy to undermine and violate the Concordat made in the year
1596, between the Republic and the pope, which among other obligations
stipulated that no other Index than that of Clement VIII should be
enforced or allowed. In contravention of this stipulation, new decrees
were year after year being imposed, “chiefly through confessors, which
were to be enforced in all cities, territories, and places of whatever
kingdom or nation, and which were to have authority even without
publication.”
In the latter part of 1607, Sarpi was set upon by three assassins (two
of whom were monks) and was very nearly killed. He was in fact stabbed
in fifteen places. The attempt was (not unnaturally) charged to the
papal representatives in Venice and did not a little to embitter the
contest between the city and the pope.[37]
Sir Henry Wotton, writing from Venice to the Earl of Salisbury in
September, 1607, says of Sarpi:
“Now to say yet a little more of this man upon whom and his
seedes there lyeth so great a work, he seemeth as in countenance
as in spirit liker to Philip Melanchthon than to Luther, and
peradventure a fitter instrument to overthrow the falsehood
by degrees than by a sodayne, which accordeth with a frequent
saying of his own: That in these operations _non bisogna far
salti_. He is by birth a Venetian, and well-skilled in the
humour of his own country. For learning, I think I may justly
call him the most deep and general scholar of the world, and
above other parts of knowledge he seemeth to have looked very
far into the subtelties of the Canonists, which part of skill
gave him introduction into the Senate. His power of speech
consisteth rather in the soundness of reason than in any other
natural habilitie. He is much frequented and much intelligenced
of all things that passe, and lastly, his life is the most
irreprehensible and exemplar that hath ever been known.”--Public
Record Office, State Papers, Venice, Misc. 12, f. 805.
In November 1607 the Earl writes to Wotton:
“SIR HENRY WOTTON,--His Majesty hath well approved your care and
industry, and he hath commanded me to return you thanks for it,
being much pleased in the constant and magnanimous proceedings
of that State upon all occasions offered, and particularly in
the carriadge of the matter concerning il Padre Paolo, of whose
escape from so foule an assassinate his Majesty is right glad,
as he expressed himself to the Venetian Ambassador here at his
last audience, to whom he did also make known his particular
good declination towards il Padre Paolo, for his learning,
modesty and zeale in the defence of so good a cause as is the
sovereign power of an estate which hath dependence of none but
of God against the usurpations of the Pope of Rome, who being
not only contented to have intruded himself into the sole power
and authoritie for matters belonging to religion, doth seek
also cunningly to wynd himself, by little and little into the
civil government and lift himself up above all the Monarchs of
the Earth, as the examples in that State and elsewhere to make
manifest; for which also his Breve against the oath of obedience
here may serve for an instance, whereof I do send you a copy
here enclosed, together with another Breve, which for better
explication of the former hath since been published at Rome, to
prevent all exceptions that might be conceived against it, both
which you may impart to the partie you wrote of, for his better
satisfaction and encouragement in the course he hath begun, to
which His Majesty wishes all good success, for the propagation
of God’s glory.”
In 1892, a Monument to Sarpi was erected in Venice with funds secured
by public subscription. This monument commemorates not only the life
and work of a high-minded, far-seeing patriot, but the successful issue
of the long contest waged by Venice against Rome in behalf of the
freedom of the press.
=2. Spain and the Papacy, 1559–1770.=--From the beginning of
the policy of censorship down to the date of the issue of the latest
Index, the Papacy maintained its claims as the sole authority to make
definitions of faith or of morals and to the exclusive control of the
supervision of literature. The record shows, however, that outside
of certain divisions of Italy, the papal decrees in the matter of
censorship secured scant obedience. Spain, which continued through the
centuries to be the most orthodox of States, proved the least willing
to recognise, in the matter of censorship, the authority of Rome.
Montanus is authority for the statement that the issue in 1559, of
the first Roman Index of Paul IV excited the indignation of scholars
throughout the world, and that in Spain the Index was not permitted
to be published. Valdés, the Inquisitor-General, announced that a
catalogue of books had been issued in Rome and further lists in Louvain
and in Portugal, and that the Inquisition would itself prepare an Index
or catalogue based upon these. This first Spanish Index was, however,
framed with little respect for the papal decisions, and this policy was
followed in the whole succeeding series. Books prohibited in Rome were
permitted in Spain, and certain books were condemned in Spain which had
secured the approval of the papal authorities. After the Index of Trent
(published in 1564) had given evidence of a more liberal policy on the
part of the Roman Church, the Spanish authorities declined to accept
the modifications. Valdés, the Inquisitor-General, actually suspended
the publication of the decree of Pius IV and remonstrated with Philip
II for permitting currency to these lax papal regulations. The decree
in question had permitted the reading of Bibles in the vernacular and
also works written by heretics which had to do with matters outside
of the domain of theology and religion. The Spanish authorities
thereafter asserted the right of issuing Indexes under their own name
and authority.[38] Condemnation of a book in Rome carried no weight in
Spain unless such condemnation was itself confirmed by the Inquisition.
When a book had been examined by the Inquisition, it was forbidden to
make any appeal in the matter to Rome.
In 1599, Juan de Mariana published in Valladolid a Latin treatise on
the _Institution of Royalty_ and dedicated it to Philip III. The
work was liberal in its general political tone and even intimated that
there are cases in which it may be lawful to put a monarch to death;
but it sustained with great acuteness the power of the Church and it
tended to the establishment of a theocracy. The work was regularly
approved by the censors of the press and is said to have been favoured
by the policy of the Government which, in the time of Philip II, had
sent assassins to cut off Elizabeth of England and the Prince of
Orange. In France, where Henry III had been thus put to death a few
years before, and where Henry IV suffered a similar fate a few years
afterward, the book excited a great sensation. Indeed, the sixth
chapter of the first volume directly mentions, and by implication
countenances, the murder of the former of these monarchs and was
claimed, although without foundation, to have been among the causes
that stimulated Ravaillac to the assassination of the latter.... Among
the papers found after the death of Mariana was one on the errors
in the government of the Society of Jesuits. It would appear that,
notwithstanding the strong support of the authority of the Church,
the learned author had incurred the enmity of the great Order which
directed the Inquisition.
The Congregation of the Index was instituted by Pius V in 1571.
Gregory XIII, in 1572, issued letters stating that the operations
of the Congregation were in no way to interfere with the powers and
jurisdiction of the Holy Office in Spain. This utterance was in line
with that made by Paul III in 1544, in which the Pope declared, in
reference to the Roman Inquisition that had been instituted in 1542,
that this was not to come into conflict in any way with the powers
and the jurisdiction of the Inquisition in Spain. A similar statement
was made in 1587 by Sixtus V, and in 1595, Clement VIII specifically
committed to the inquisitor in Spain cognizance in the matter of
prohibiting books. There were, however, notwithstanding this series of
papal briefs, occasional protests from Rome concerning the independent
action of the Spanish Inquisition. Catalani, writing in 1680,
pronounces it “ridiculous to suppose that any one could confer on the
Spanish Inquisition the power to rescind the judgments of Rome.”[39] A
letter written by the secretary of the Congregation of the Index to the
Bishop of Malaga, takes the ground that the decrees of the Congregation
were binding on all Christians, and that the bishops were under
obligations, in virtue of their episcopal authority, to punish those
who transgressed their decrees. Lea is of the opinion, however, that
few Spanish bishops would have ventured to put themselves in opposition
to the Inquisition.[39] This conflict of authority produced a series
of issues in regard to certain authors, among whom the most noteworthy
were Poza, Sa, and Moya. There is not space here to give the details
of these issues. It may simply be said that, in the larger number of
instances, the Spanish Inquisition succeeded in maintaining, at least
for Spain, its own authority.
The contentions for the independent control of the national Church
were maintained with no less vigour in Spain than in France although
a somewhat different ground was taken by the Spanish writers. Whatever
success may have been secured in the claim of the Kings of Spain to
control the affairs of the Spanish Church, this control never took
the secular character which characterised much of the action of the
administration of France on ecclesiastical matters. The throne of
Spain was so directly and so completely under the influence of the
Spanish Inquisition that the direction of the affairs of the Spanish
Church, while often entirely independent of Rome, was, with hardly an
exception, kept within complete ecclesiastical control. Under Urban
VIII, were placed in the Index certain Spanish writers who had been
prominent in maintaining the authority of the Crown in the control
of the Spanish Church. The writers of this group came to be known as
Regalists. The most noteworthy among them were Cevallos and Salgado.
The condemnation of these authors was, however, by no means accepted in
Spain and was vigorously protested against by Philip III and by Philip
IV. Later, there came into the Roman Index a long series of treatises
by Spanish, Portuguese, Neapolitan, and Sicilian Regalists who were
maintaining the views originally presented by Cevallos and Salgado. In
1610, a treatise by Cardinal Baronius, in which strong ground was taken
for the authority of the pope to control Church appointments and Church
property in Sicily, was, under an edict of Philip III, prohibited for
Sicily and also for Spain, and the printing or circulation of copies
was forbidden under heavy penalty.
The Spanish kings had in practice usually been able to maintain the
_regalias_ or rights which they held to be inherent in the Crown, but
there were still questions left to be debated by publicists and canon
lawyers. The advocates of the royal prerogative were known as Regalists
and came naturally into antagonism with the authority of Rome and with
the contentions of the Ultramontanists. The issue was complicated
by the determination of the Inquisition to maintain at any cost the
supremacy of its jurisdiction over that of all secular tribunals.[40]
The Inquisition was able to utilise its powers of censorship to sustain
its aggressions upon the other departments of government. In the
Index of Clement VIII, published in 1596, the instructions that had
been reprinted in the successive Indexes ordered the expurgation of
all propositions which were antagonistic to ecclesiastical liberty,
immunity, and jurisdiction. In 1606, the Jesuit Henriquez, in his
treatise entitled _De Clavibus Romani Pontificis_, defended the right
of appeal from the ecclesiastical courts to the Royal Council (of
Spain). By order of the papal nuncio, the edition was cancelled so
successfully that only three or four copies survived. In 1618, in a
treatise by Cevallos, a similar contention was maintained on behalf
of the authority of the State. In 1624, this work was prohibited
by a separate decree, notwithstanding the application made by the
King (Philip III) through his ambassador at Rome, to prevent the
condemnation of a book that maintained the rights inherent in the
sovereign. The censorship authorities of Spain declined to ratify the
papal decree. In a case such as this, the Inquisition and the Crown
had interests in common. If the Crown had failed to vindicate its
independence, the Inquisition would have been reduced to subjection
to the Roman Congregations.[41] When the Inquisition failed in its
duties in regard to the examination of books before publication,
the State assumed for itself the direct exercise of the functions
of condemnation and suppression. In 1694, a treatise attributed
to Barambio was issued under the title of _Casos reservados a su
Santidad_, in which the royal prerogative was impugned. The book was
never placed upon the Index, but it was formally condemned under royal
decree, and the edition was ordered cancelled. In 1760, King Carlos III
issued regulations prescribing the rules respecting papal briefs, and
prescribing further the system under which the censorship functions of
the Inquisition were to be kept under subordination to the State. The
decree was recalled in 1763, but was reissued in 1768 with an appeal
to the spirit of the _Constitution_ of Benedict XIV, issued in 1753,
under which _Constitution_ the proceedings of the Roman Congregations
had been reformed. No edict concerning censorship was thereafter to
be published until it had been submitted to and approved by the King.
The Inquisition was thus placed under wholesome restrictions, but,
although it could not openly resist the royal prerogative, in practice
it continued to condemn books in secret without giving a hearing to the
authors, and to a great extent rendered the submission to the King a
mere formality after the publication of the edict of prohibition. It is
Lea’s conclusion that, as a result of the long series of contests, the
State gradually succeeded in asserting for its own protection the power
of sovereignty, and did not hesitate to exercise the function which had
at first been relegated exclusively to the Inquisition.
In 1751, an issue arose between Spain and Rome over the Catechism of
Mesengui. In this case the Spanish and Roman censors were in accord.
The contest represented an attempt on the part of King Carlos III to
free the throne from the domination of the Inquisition. The catechism
in question was contained in six volumes entitled _Exposition de la
Doctrine Chrétienne_. It was published in 1744 and was placed on
the Index in 1757. It proved particularly obnoxious to the Jesuits
and, at the instance of their general, Ricci, it was again condemned
under a formal Bull. The main ground for the antagonism to the book
was its utterances in regard to the claim of the popes to supremacy
over sovereigns. Its condemnation was virtually a challenge to all the
monarchs of Europe. King Carlos forbade the publication of the Bull
in Spain; the inquisitor-general, in defiance of the royal authority,
caused the Bull to be distributed throughout the churches and convents
of Spain. A royal edict of 1762 ordered that no Bull or papal letter
issued from Rome should be published without having been first
presented to the King by the nuncio and having been approved. This
edict was withdrawn in 1763 under pressure brought to bear upon the
King by his confessor, but it was reissued in 1768. With the close of
the reign of Carlos, the royal edict fell, however, into abeyance, and
the Inquisition again secured for itself full control of the matter of
censorship.
=3. Controversies concerning the Gallican Church, 1600–1758.=--While
there was an increasing tendency on the part, not only of the civil
authorities in Paris but also on that of the divines of the Sorbonne,
to bring into condemnation the works of the more extreme of the
Ultramontane writers, this policy had as one result the directing of
the attention of the authorities in Rome to the series of treatises
by French jurists and theologians in which was contested the claim of
the pope to authority in civil matters, and in which was upheld the
claim to independent authority on the part of the Gallic Church and
the right of the king to control the appointments in the Church. The
French writers gave special attention to the responsibilities of the
French bishops in regard to the control of the Church property of their
dioceses, responsibilities which, according to the French view, were
to be discharged not to Rome but to the State authorities. Among the
writers of this Gallican school of thought whose names came into the
Index during the 17th century may be noted the jurists, Simon Vigor,
Louis Servin, and Pithon Du Puy; the theologians Edmond Richer, Véron,
de Marca, Gerbais, and Boileau. The treatise of the latter had been
written under the instructions of Richelieu. These censorships of the
Holy See secured as a series no recognition in France. The condemnation
of the treatise of Rabardeau was, however, confirmed by an assembly of
the French clergy. In one way or another, the authority of the Holy
See made itself felt in France. Richer, for instance, even before the
formal prohibition in Rome of his writings, was, at the instance of
the authorities in Rome, dispossessed by the French Government from
his post as syndic of the Sorbonne. De Marca, who in 1642 had been
nominated as bishop, was refused confirmation by the Holy See on the
ground of the condemnation of his treatise _De concordia sacerdotii et
imperii_, and it was only in 1647, when after long negotiations he had
made retractation of the doctrine presented in this thesis, that he was
given authority to take charge of his diocese. In the Spanish Index,
are entered a few only of the titles of these French defenders of the
authority of the State which had been condemned in Rome.
[Sidenote: Declaration of the Sorbonne, 1663]
In May, 1663, the divines of the Sorbonne, on the ground of the
development of extreme Ultramontane views, published the following
declaration: I. It is the contention of this faculty that the pope
possesses no authority whatsoever concerning matters belonging to
the State or affecting the control on the part of the most Christian
King over matters of State. This faculty has, in fact, always opposed
the contentions of those who hold for even an indirect authority on
the part of the Church in State matters. II. It is the doctrine of
this faculty that the Christian King recognises in matters of State
no higher authority than God himself. III. It is the doctrine of
this faculty that the subjects of the king can, under no pretext or
suggestion, be freed from their obligation of loyalty and obedience to
the monarch. IV. The faculty can approve no propositions or theories
which are opposed to the complete freedom of the Gallican Church or to
the full authority for this kingdom of the canon law of France. The
faculty denies that the pope has the authority to issue instructions
that are contrary to the authority of these canons. This faculty holds
that the authority of the pope does not take precedence of that of a
general council of the Church. V. This faculty holds that without the
collaboration of the Church as expressed in a general council, the pope
does not possess infallibility. This declaration was the view which was
later confirmed, first by the Parliament of Paris, and later by the
King (Louis XIV). The King at the same time prohibited the printing or
distribution of any writings maintaining contrary doctrine. In 1664
and 1665, the Sorbonne published a censure of certain Ultramontane
propositions which had been found in books by de Vernant and Guimenius.
These censures were themselves condemned in very sharp terms in a Bull
issued in 1665 by Alexander VII. The Parliament of Paris promptly
prohibits the publication of the Bull and confirms the censures of
the Sorbonne. Diplomatic negotiations followed but did not succeed
in bringing any satisfactory conclusion for the issue. In 1671, was
published the _Exposition de la Doctrine de l’Église Catholique_,
by Bossuet, a treatise which, while it by no means supported the
contentions of the Holy See, found in Rome a favourable reception and
secured the individual commendation of Innocent XI.
[Sidenote: The Rights of the Crown in Ecclesiastical Matters]
In 1673, Louis XIV made claim for a material extension of the rights
of the Crown over the appointments in the French dioceses and for the
control of the property of the French Church. This declaration of the
King brought about a sharp conflict with Innocent XI, which continued
until 1682. In that year, a statement of principles arrived at by the
Gallican Church and presented in four articles brought the earlier
issue to a close. As a result of this first contest, one or two French
publications came into the Index. Among these was a treatise by the
Jesuit Rapin (published anonymously), prohibited in 1680. As late as
1710, was prohibited, by a brief of Clement XI, a volume by Andoul
on the matter of the Regalia rights. This papal brief the Parliament
of Paris refused to confirm and, in 1712, the Inquisition therefore
condemned the declaration that had been issued by the Parliament.
A similar course of condemnations had taken shape in 1680, in which
year a previous letter or enactment of the Parliament had been in like
manner condemned by the Inquisition of Rome. In 1682, the assembly of
the French clergy presented a conclusion in support of the contention
of the Crown in regard to the Regalia rights, which conclusion was
expressed in the following declaration:
I. To the pope has been given by God no authority over civil matters
of State. In these matters, kings and princes are subject to no
ecclesiastical authority, and they cannot either directly or indirectly
be brought under the control of the Church, nor can their subjects be
freed through any ecclesiastical intervention from the loyalty and
obedience due from them to their civil rulers.
II. The pope possesses full control in spiritual affairs, as specified
in the conclusions arrived at during the fourth and fifth sessions of
the Council of Constance. The Church of France takes the ground that
these conclusions arrived at in the council did not apply only to the
time of the schism but remained of binding authority.
III. The Apostolic authority is always to be exercised subject to the
restrictions of the canon law; and as far as France is concerned, the
laws of the monarchy and the old customs and regulations of the French
Church are not to be interfered with.
IV. It is the case that in matters of faith, the decision of the
pope retains a controlling influence and his decrees are rightly
to be issued to all the churches of the world. The papal judgment
is, however, not to be held as infallible, final, or not open to
modification unless and until it has secured the assent of the Church
universal, such assent as is expressed through the conclusions of the
general council.
This declaration was, in March, 1682, confirmed under the edict of
Louis XIV, duly registered by the Parliament of Paris. The declaration
brought out not a little antagonism and criticism in Rome but was not
at once condemned. In 1691, however, a brief of Alexander VIII declared
that the conclusions of this convention of 1682, and the edicts in
which the same were represented, were to be considered as null and
void. Through the prohibition of various writings in which the opinions
of this declaration were defended, the papal view in regard to the
same was also made clearly evident. In 1684, was prohibited, under a
special brief of Innocent XI, a treatise from Natalis, in 1685, one
from Neimburg, in 1688, one from Dupin. During the same period, the
Index Congregation condemned writings to the same purpose by Choiseul,
Borjon, Fleury, Févret, Arnauld, and others. The defence of the French
position made by Bossuet was also under consideration for condemnation
but was never formally prohibited.
The following statement from the historian Dejob, while referring to
issues that were under discussion at the Council of Trent, is equally
applicable to opinion in France on ecclesiastical organisation in the
succeeding century:
“Frenchmen of the sixteenth century found as a rule no
attraction in puritanism, in mysticism, or in epicureanism.
They approved of the conclusions of the Council of Trent in
maintaining against the Protestants the invocation of the
Saints, the use (as symbols) of images, the feeling for the
ceremonials of religious observance. Feeling assured that all
homage was actually and finally addressed to God, they approved
the action of the Council in maintaining for the government
Church a monarchical hierarchy, always provided that the
national clergy should lose none of its privileges, and that the
prerogatives of the King should not be assailed. Finally, they
realised that Catholicism had the advantage of being in accord
with the feeling of the people and with justice and common
sense, in defending against the partisans of predestination the
belief in the freedom of the will and in justification by works;
for, while concerning themselves little with equality under
the law, they held stoutly to equality before God. It may, in
fact, be said that their theory of relations of man before God
could be summed up in the three famous words that were adopted
by their descendants in expressing a political ideal: liberty,
equality, fraternity....
“They believed further that while it was not the duty of
believers to abandon the joys of this world, their salvation
in the world to come could be assured only through self-denial
and penitence. In accepting the aims and the ideals of the
Counter-reformation, France was, therefore, called upon for no
sacrifice of convictions or of practice.”[42]
[Sidenote: The Gallican Church Historians]
In 1684, 1685, and 1687, Innocent XI prohibited in special briefs
the Church history of Alexander; in 1685, an historical treatise by
Neimburg; in 1687, the same author’s biography of Gregory I, and
in 1689 a group of other of his writings. Between 1662 and 1693, a
series of treatises by de Launoy on Church history and Church law were
prohibited. In 1688, a brief of Innocent XI prohibits the treatise
on Church law of Dupin, and in 1693, the Inquisition prohibits the
_Bibliothèque_ of the same author. Later, the remainder of his
works came into the Index. In 1707, the writings of Tillemont were
denounced, but were saved from prohibition through a protest on the
part of certain Roman scholars. The Church history of Fleury escaped
the Index and of his works on Church law, only the _Catéchisme
Historique_ was prohibited and with a _d.c._ The learned Mabillon
came under consideration with the Index authorities more than once.
In 1703, a treatise of Mabillon, which had to do with the misuse and
misinterpretation of certain relics taken from the Roman catacombs, was
sharply criticised but escaped formal prohibition with the instruction
that Mabillon must produce an improved edition. His _Traité des Études
Monastiques_ was prohibited in the Italian edition. The Church history
of the French Jesuit Avrigny, covering the period of 1600–1718, was
prohibited on the ground of its Gallican views. Through a special brief
was condemned, in 1740, the translation by Le Courayer of Sarpi’s
_History of the Council of Trent_. Benedict XIV decided to recall the
prohibition of the Church history of Alexander, but at the same time
placed on the Index a series of treatises of Roncaglia the conclusions
in which were practically identical with those of Alexander.
Among the works condemned by the State may be cited:
Bellarmin, _Tractatus de potestate summi Pontificis in temporalibus_,
Rome, 1610, condemned under a decree of the Parliament of Paris
in November, 1610, on the following ground: _Contenant une fausse
et détestable proposition, tendante à l’éversion des puissances
souveraines ordonnées et établies de Dieu, soulévement des sujets
contre leurs princes, soustraction de leur obéissance, induction
d’attenter à leurs personnes et états, troubler le repos et la
tranquillité publique_.
Casaubon, Isaac, _De libertate ecclesiastica_. This book was condemned
by Henry IV, who undertook to have collected and destroyed all the
copies that had been brought into print.
Charron, Pierre, _Traité sur la sagesse_, Bordeaux, 1661. The first
edition was condemned by the Sorbonne until it should have been
expurgated. The later revised editions secured approval.
[Sidenote: Works Connected with the Gallican Church]
In 1729, Benedict XIII wrote a monograph which was to be read before
the Church universal on the commemoration of the feast of Gregory VII,
and in this paper he gave particular emphasis to the statement that
Gregory had deposed the Emperor Henry IV. This papal utterance brought
out protests on the part of a number of the parliaments and bishops
of France. In four briefs, Benedict condemned and ordered cancelled
pastoral letters of three bishops which contained animadversions on his
monograph, and he included at the same time in a general condemnation
all resolutions, decrees, or protests which had emanated from civil
authorities concerning the same matter. The _Officium_ containing
the objectionable statement which Benedict had ordered to be read on
the feast-day, was itself prohibited throughout the Austrian dominions.
Under Benedict XIV, were prohibited a series of writings which
undertook to defend certain measures attempted in 1749 by the
Government of France for the taxation of the clergy. The _Decr.
Generalia_, ii, 9, contain a general prohibition of all works which
bring into question the immunity (from taxation) of the property of
the Church. Shortly after the death of Benedict XIV, a group of six
monographs came into the Index which had to do with the question
whether a converted Jew, by name Barach Levi, was to be permitted
to take to himself another wife during the lifetime of the original
wife, who had decided to remain in the Jewish faith. The same question
had arisen a little earlier in France and had been decided in the
affirmative by Benedict XIV. The authority for the contention that the
convert was free so to act rests upon 1 Corinthians vii, 15.
=4. Ecclesiastical-Political Contests, 1700–1750.=--Clement XI
(1700–1721) plays an important part in the history of the Index. He
is the author of the Bull _Unigenitus_, of the Bull _Vineam
Domini Sabaoth_, and of the Bull concerning Chinese usages, and
he was responsible for the schism of Utrecht. He issued a longer
series of briefs than are to be credited to any other pope for the
prohibition of particular works, and to these are to be added a great
number of decrees published under his orders by the Inquisition and by
the Congregation of the Index, which carried general prohibitions of
whole classes of publications. Clement found himself involved, during
the twenty years of his rule, in serious contests and complications
with the several States of Europe, contests which had as one result
the swelling of the Index lists with a great number of controversial
writings. Under the Index policy of this period, were condemned not
only works which took ground antagonistic to the claims of the pope,
or in defence of the claims of civil authority, but a great series
of civil enactments, State decrees, and court decisions, with the
purport of which the Holy See found reason for dissatisfaction. Public
documents and official records of this general character could of
course be formally condemned, and could in form be prohibited; but it
was not practicable, under any authority possessed by the pope, to
do anything to prevent such enactments, court decisions, etc., from
becoming known and from remaining in force in the territories in which
they applied. The so-called prohibition on the part of the pope may be
considered as simply the expression of a pious opinion, and differs
therefore in its purpose and in its application from the prohibitions
previously attempted by means of the Index. Among the decisions of
magistrates which came into the Index during this period, were a long
series taken from the Neapolitan courts, decisions which indicated
strained relations between the Government of Sicily and the Holy See.
The most important book of the time having to do with these Sicilian
complications was the _Political History of the Kingdom of Naples_, by
Pietro Giannone. This was published just after the death of Clement
and was promptly prohibited under the general policy that had been
in force. By the time of Benedict XIV, the complications between the
Holy See and the Governments of the Catholic States had been pretty
well straightened out and the Index of Benedict contains therefore the
titles of but very few political works. Through a special decree of
the Congregation of January, 1729, was prohibited a history written
by Count Franc. Maria Ottieri, and published in Rome in 1728, of the
_War of the Spanish Succession, 1696–1725_. The book was condemned on
the ground that it contained expressions injurious, if not libellous,
concerning certain princes and political leaders. There seems in
this case to have been no objection on theological or ecclesiastical
grounds. The decree states that the condemnation had received the
personal approval of Benedict XIII. Under the instructions of Benedict
XIV, however, the title was taken out of the Index.
In 1746, Benedict XIV ordered the prohibition of a treatise by Garrido,
general of the Spanish Congregation of the Benedictines, which had been
printed in Madrid in 1745 under the title: _Concordia prelatorum:
Tractatus duplex de unione ecclesiarum et beneficiorum_, etc. This
work was also condemned by the Spanish Inquisition, which was as
heretofore under the control of the Dominicans.
It is the contention of those upholding the reasonableness of the
claims of the Church that there need be no conflict of authority
between the powers spiritual and the powers temporal; that the
allegiance and obedience should be entire towards the sovereign in
matters temporal and entire towards the pope in matters spiritual. In
the application of this apparently simple principle, it was inevitable
that there should arise differences of interpretation. From the
ecclesiastical point of view, it was claimed that all ecclesiastical
property was to be classed with the matters spiritual; to the same
class belonged of necessity ecclesiastical persons, thus securing for
such persons immunities, both personal and real; while from these two
claims arises the jurisdiction of the Church in matters both civil and
criminal. In marriage, for instance, the sacrament is the essential
thing, from which arises the inference that marriage is to be regulated
by ecclesiastical law. Finally, every human act may be the subject of
sin, and on this ground the Church has received divine precepts and has
instituted ecclesiastical laws for the regulation of all actions.
It is evident that, if these assumptions be accepted, there are very
few human activities the regulation of which belongs outside of the
authority of the Church. This is in substance the view presented by an
Austrian Romanist previously quoted, who was writing on behalf of the
liberties of the Austrian Church.[43]
The Rev. Joseph Berington, writing in 1760, uses, in describing the
ecclesiastical polity, the following language:
“The mode of government which Rome maintains in this kingdom
(England) and from which in no kingdom it ever departed but when
driven by hard necessity, draws very near to that feudal system
of polity, to which the nations of Europe were once subject. It
contained one sovereign as suzerain monarch in whose hands was
lodged the _supremum dominium_, and this he apportioned out
to a descending series of vassals who, all holding of him _in
capite_, returned him service for the benefits they received
in honours, jurisdiction on lands; and to this service they were
bound by gratitude, which was strengthened by an oath of fealty.
The application of the system to the sovereign power of the
pontiff and to a chain of descending vassalage in archbishops,
bishops, and the inferior orders in the ministry, is direct and
inevitable.”[44]
Catalani, writing in 1738, contends that the oath of allegiance to
the pope expresses not only a profession of canonical obedience, but
an oath of fealty not unlike that which vassals took to their direct
lords.[45] He cites as an example, the first oath of the kind, that
taken by the Patriarch of Aquileia to Gregory VII, in 1079.
Mendham concludes, after reference to other authorities, that
allegiance and obedience are divided in the most unfavourable sense
and degree (particularly in the case of heretical rulers) when the
soul and conscience are to be given to a foreign (so-called) spiritual
sovereign, while the actual temporal ruler can claim only what remains
of his subject.[46]
A long series of works came into print during the last half of the
18th century having to do with the issues that had arisen between the
Papacy, under Clement XIII and Pius VI and the Governments of Venice
and of Naples. With a few exceptions, doubtless accidental, these works
were duly prohibited, either by the Inquisition or the Congregation.
The similar contests between Clement XIII and the Duke of Parma did
not bring into the Index any fresh titles. A series of Spanish works
written against the claims and contentions of the Holy See, printed
during the same period, also escaped the attention of the editors
of the Roman Indexes. The Indexes of this period contain the titles
of a number of treatises on Church and State issued by the French
author, Richet, and also of a series of monographs on the reform of
the religious orders and on the policy to be pursued by the State with
its non-Catholic citizens. The list also includes a monograph on the
authority of the pope, published in Amsterdam in connection with the
controversy concerning the Church at Utrecht.
In 1764, were prohibited under a separate decree of the Congregation,
a treatise by Bishop Frevorius, published in 1763, together with a
series of less important works, all of which were concerned with the
issues that had arisen between the Holy See and certain of the German
bishoprics. In 1784, the Congregation prohibits the Introduction to
Ecclesiastical Law written by Eybel; and in the following year was
condemned, by a brief of Pius VI, the treatise by the same author on
Confession. In 1786, the monograph by Eybel, issued under the title of
_Was ist der Papst?_, was also prohibited in a separate brief. The
editors of the Index evidently found it impracticable, however, to make
place for the long series of similar publications by the controversial
writers of Germany which came into print during the same period. The
two or three titles selected cover some of the least important of
the series. The selection was apparently made without any adequate
knowledge of the material to be considered.
=5. England and the Papacy.=--On the 25th of February, 1570, Sixtus V
issues his Bull against Queen Elizabeth, a copy of which Bull was, on
May 15th, nailed on the door of the palace of the Bishop of London. The
Pope describes Elizabeth as “a bastard and usurper,” the “persecutor
of God’s saints.” He declares that it would be “an act of virtue to
be repaid with plenary indulgence and forgiveness of all sins, to
lay violent hands upon Elizabeth and to deliver her into the hands
of her enemies.” He declares Philip of Spain to be the rightful King
of England and the Defender of the Faith. In the same year, Cardinal
Allen, an Englishman, printed in Antwerp a pamphlet entitled _An
Admonition to the Nobility and People of England and Ireland_, in
which, says Motley, Queen Elizabeth is “accused of every crime and vice
that can pollute humanity.” These charges are set forth with “foul
details unfit for the public eye in these more decent days.”
[Sidenote: The English Oath of Allegiance 1606–1853]
An important question in the relations between the Papacy and England
that called for attention under Paul V, was the issue that arose with
James I of England after the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. An
order had been issued by King James in July, 1606, for a fresh oath
of allegiance to be taken by English Catholics. The Pope forbade the
Catholics to take this oath because it included the statement that
the claim of the Pope to have the right to depose kings and princes
and to absolve their subjects from allegiance was godless, infamous,
and heretical. The several statements brought into print on behalf
of King James in defence of the wording of the oath, were themselves
condemned by the Inquisition. The treatises of the English Catholics,
William and John Barclay and Thomas Preston (“Roger Widdrington”),
in reply to the defence by Bellarmin of the papal contentions, were
promptly placed upon the Index in connection with a long series of
later monographs on the same subject. The oath of allegiance was, under
Urban VIII in 1626, and later under Innocent X and Alexander VII, again
declared to be invalid. Towards the end of the 18th century, an oath
of allegiance substantially identical was, however, approved by six
theological faculties in England and by the Apostolic vicar in England
and this decision was accepted without protest by Rome. In the oath of
allegiance (which is not to be confused with the oath of supremacy, the
latter not being required from his Catholic subjects) James required
the Catholics to acknowledge that he was the rightful King of England,
that the pope had no authority to dispossess him or to incite a foreign
prince to war against him or to pardon his subjects for disobedience to
British law. They were further called upon to swear that, irrespective
of any papal decrees of deposition or any threat of excommunication,
they would remain loyal to the King, and further they were to declare
as godless and as damnable the theory that the pope could release any
subject from obedience to his rightful sovereign. Finally, they were
called upon to declare the belief that neither the pope nor any other
authority could release them from this oath. In 1608, James wrote a
defence of the oath, which was printed in a Latin version prepared by
Henry Savile. In 1609, this treatise was prohibited by Paul V under
the penalty of _excommunicatio latae_, etc. A further prohibition was
issued by the Inquisition some months later. A treatise by William
Barclay, a Scotch Catholic, printed in 1609 (after the death of the
author), presents the arguments against the authority, either direct or
indirect, of the pope in secular matters. This was duly condemned in
Rome in 1610 and in Paris in 1612. It formed the text for the famous
treatise by Bellarmin, _Tractatus de potestate summi Pont. in rebus
temporalibus_. The treatise written by the Benedictine, Thomas Preston,
under the nom-de-plume of Roger Widdrington, _Apologia Card. Bellarmini
pro jure principium adv. suas ipsius rationes pro auctoritate papali_,
etc., printed in London in 1611, was prohibited in Rome in 1613 in
a general decree. In 1614, the Index of the Congregation issued a
special decree prohibiting this work together with a second treatise
of the same author. Later, were placed on the Index a further group
of essays by Widdrington. Sarpi published in April, 1614, an analysis
of the two earlier books of Widdrington, giving high praise to the
scholarly authority of the author’s conclusions. These had an immediate
bearing upon the contention of the Venetian Republic to control,
without interference from the pope, its own civil affairs. In 1680,
sixty divines of the Sorbonne rendered a judgment to the effect that
the Catholics in England could with a safe conscience swear loyalty
to King James and accept the oath of allegiance. A monograph making
record of this judgment, printed in London, in 1681, under the title
of _English Loyalty Vindicated by the Divines_, or a _Declaration of
Three-score Persons of the Sorbonne for the Oath of Allegiance_, was,
in 1682, prohibited by the Inquisition. A monograph that secured a
wide circulation, being printed in fact thirty-five times in fifteen
years, under the title of _An Abuse Misrepresented and Represented_,
escaped formal condemnation, although it took strong ground in behalf
of the English contention. In 1760, the theological faculties of
Paris, Louvain, Douay, Valladolid, Salamanca, and Alcala united in
a declaration to the effect that the pope possessed in England no
authority over civil affairs and had no power to release the subjects
of the English king from the oath of allegiance, and that no Catholic
was under obligation to accept instructions from the authorities of the
Church that would interfere with this allegiance. In 1853, Professors
Russell, Patrick Murray, and others of the Catholic College of Maynooth
declared, in connection with a Parliamentary investigation, that,
according to their own opinion and to the purport of their teachings
to their students, the pope possessed neither direct nor indirect
authority in the United Kingdom in secular matters. They stated further
that the contrary doctrine was now considered as practically obsolete.
=6. The Gallicans and Liberal Catholics, 1845–1870.=--The contest
of the Congregation of the Index against theological Gallicanism began
in 1851 under Pius IX. Certain books of instruction utilised in the
seminaries of France were, for the purpose of maintaining them in use
against the criticisms of the Ultramontane press, revised with the
elimination of material that could be classed as Gallican. Among the
works belonging to this period which were condemned on the ground of
their Gallican or Liberal Catholic views may be noted the following:
Dupin, André M. J. J., _Manuel du Droit Publique-ecclésiastique
Français_, printed in 1844, prohibited 1845. This manual presents
in eighty-three articles the “Liberties” of the Gallican Church, the
declaration of the clergy made in 1682 on the limits of ecclesiastical
power, and the text of the Concordat.
Bailly, Louis, Canon of Dijon, _Theologia Dogmatica et Moralis, ad usum
Seminariorum_, completed in eight volumes in 1789, reprinted with the
revision by Receveur in 1842, prohibited in 1852 with a _d.c._
Lequeux, J. F. M., _Manuale Compendium Juris Canonici ad usum
Seminariorum_, printed in 1839, prohibited in 1851. The work
had been denounced by five of the French bishops. A decree of the
Congregation issued in 1852 states that the author had “submitted
himself.”
Guettée, l’Abbé, _L’Histoire de l’Église de France_, volumes i to
vii, printed in Paris, 1847, condemned in 1852. The work had secured
the specific approval of no less than forty-two of the French bishops.
Thions, C., _Adresse au Pape Pie IX sur la Nécessité d’une Réforme
Religieuse_, printed in 1848, prohibited in 1852.
Montalembert, _Les Intérêts Catholiques au XIX^{me} Siècle_, published
in 1852, received very sharp criticisms from the Ultramontane journals
and from a number of the bishops, but escaped the Index. In fact no
work of this author was formally condemned in Rome.
A number of the dioceses of France had, on the authority of a Bull
of Pius V, issued in 1568, retained their individual mass books and
breviaries. In 1848, Pius IX issues a Bull recalling the permission
given three centuries earlier by his predecessor and directing the use
in all the dioceses of the Roman liturgy. One or two of the long series
of writings which the Bull brought out were placed upon the Index.
From 1852 on, there came into print a number of controversial writings
concerning the use in the schools of the heathen classics. No one of
these was placed upon the Index, but Pius IX, in an encyclical issued
in March, 1853, emphasises the importance of a very careful selection
of the heathen texts to be so utilised and the necessity, in the case
of certain authors, of providing expurgated texts.
Bellarmin, in his treatise _De Summo Pontifice_, condemned pure
monarchy in the name of a limited monarchy. By the former he appears to
have understood a government (hardly to be conceived as practicable)
in which the king would have ruled entirely by himself, while under
the second he was describing a restricting body made up of delegates
who, having been drawn from the ranks of the people, were invested by
the prince with an absolute authority and were made responsible to him
alone. He denied for the pope the right to exercise a direct control
over the states of the world, but claimed for the Papacy the privilege
of interfering at will.
CHAPTER VII
EXAMPLES OF CONDEMNED LITERATURE
1. Writings of the 17th Century concerning the Papacy and
the Inquisition. 2. Writings concerning the Churches of the
East. 3. Patristic Writings and Pagan Classics. 4. Jewish
Literature. 5. Historical Writings of the 17th Century. 6.
Protestant Jurists of the 17th Century. 7. Writings of Italian
Protestants. 8. Writings in Philosophy, Natural Science, and
Medicine. 9. Books on Magic and Astrology. 10. Cyclopaedias,
Text-Books, Facetiae, etc. 11. Secret Societies. 12. Manuals for
Exorcising. 13. Fraudulent Indulgences. 14. Works on the Saints.
15. Forms of Prayer. 16. Mariology. 17. Revelations by Nuns.
18. The Chinese and Malabar Usages. 19. Fraudulent Literature.
20. Quietism. 21. Fénelon. 22. The Doctrine of Probability.
23. Usury. 24. Philosophy and Literature, 1750–1800. 25.
Philosophy and Science, 1800–1880. 26. The Synod of Pistoja,
1786. 27. The Festival of the Heart of Jesus, 1697–1765. 28.
French, German, and English Catholic Theologians, 1758–1800.
29. The French Revolution, 1790–1806. 30. The French Concordat
of 1801, 1801–1822. 31. Protestant Theologians, 1750–1884. 32.
The Eastern Church, 1810–1873. 33. The Theologians of Pavia,
1774–1790. 34. French, English, and Dutch Literature, 1817–1880.
35. German Catholic Writings, 1814–1870. 36. La Mennais,
1830–1846. 37. The Roman Revolution of 1848, 1848–1852. 38.
Traditionalism and Ontology, 1833–1880. 39. _Attritio_ and
the _Peccatum Philosophicum_, 1667–1690. 40. Communism and
Socialism, 1825–1860. 41. Magnetism and Spiritualism, 1840–1874.
42. French Authors, 1835–1884. 43. Italian Authors, 1840–1876.
44. American Writings, 1822–1876. 45. Periodicals, 1832–1900.
46. The Roman Question, 1859–1870. 47. The Council of the
Vatican, 1867–1876. 48. Example of a License.
=1. Writings concerning the Papacy and the Inquisition,
1600–1757.=--The Index contains but few of the polemic writings of
this period against the Papacy. A few however of the historical works
on the Papacy, both by Protestants and Catholics, were prohibited. The
lists include a treatise of the Jesuit Riccioli on the infallibility
of the pope, but this is entered with a _d.c._ The lists include
also a group of writings on the Inquisition, on the Index itself, on
the finance system of the papal chancellery, etc. Among these are some
monographs by Gregorio Leti (1630–1701), whose entire works secured
condemnation in 1686. Reusch points out that the history of the Papacy
by Archibald Bower, which was first published in 1748 in seven volumes,
and of which a number of editions appeared later, was overlooked by the
Index compilers. Bower was born in Scotland, but, becoming a Jesuit,
had held a professor’s chair in Italy in Fermo and in Macerata. In
1726, he left Italy and became a member of the Church of England. His
treatise was of a character that might naturally have met criticism on
the part of the Congregation. The _History of the Inquisition_
by Limborch, printed in Brussels, in 1693, was promptly prohibited in
1694. In the same list, are included the titles of a number of less
important treatises on the Inquisition.
=2. Writings concerning the Churches of the East.=--The Index
lists of the 17th and 18th centuries contain but few of the works
of the Greek theologians. Among the authors of this group are to be
noted the names Lukaris, Nektarius, Philippus Cyprius, Catum Syrittus,
and Sylvester Syropoli. Robert Creighton, professor in Cambridge,
later Bishop of Bath, had printed in The Hague in 1660 the _Vera
Historia_ of Syropoli, a record of the relations between the Greek
and the Latin Church, which includes an account of the Council of
Florence. This was prohibited in 1682.
=3. Patristic Writings and Pagan Classics.=--During the 17th
century, a number of editions of the writings of the Fathers are
placed on the Index on the ground of the notes and commentaries of
the heretical editors. It was the case in the 17th as in the 16th
century that the editors who had interested themselves in producing the
editions of these works of the Fathers were in large part men whose
orthodoxy had come into question. There were, in fact, but very few
editions of the Fathers of the Church the editorial work in which had
been in the hands of orthodox or conservative believers. Among the
editions so prohibited, were the works of Cyprian with the notes of the
Frenchman Maran, and the Letters of Chrysostom in the edition printed
in Basel. Prohibited also was a work by Erigena in a German edition and
the history of the Council of Constance by von Hardt. In the list of
classics are to be found Italian editions of the works of Caesar, Ovid,
Anacreon, and Lucretius.
=4. Jewish Literature.=--In 1703, prohibitions were issued
covering a series of rabbinical writings, selected, as Reusch points
out, with hardly any apparent policy or plan from a great mass of
literature of the same kind. The compilers had utilised in making
up their titles the _bibliotheca rabbinica_ of Bartolocci and
Imbonati, which had been published between the years 1675–1694. In
1755–1766, was printed a supplementary Index with additional titles
of the same character. A further list, printed separately, covered
certain rabbinical writings which had been printed in Latin and in
Spanish versions. In 1776, was prohibited a treatise by the Italian
monk Vincenti, which was strongly anti-Semitic, and a little later a
response to this treatise also secured condemnation.
=5. Historical Writings of the 17th Century.=--The list of historical
writings prohibited during the 17th century is very considerable but,
as has been indicated for the lists of other groups of literature, is
by no means comprehensive nor does it give evidence of any consistent
scholarly selection. The prohibitions are by no means confined to works
by Protestants. A number of Catholic historians succeeded in getting
into their texts phrases or statements that aroused opposition. In the
Index of Alexander VII, are given in the class of history only works in
Latin; the later Indexes include a series of French and Italian titles
and two English works, but nothing from the German writers. Reusch
points out that during the 17th and 18th centuries there were produced
in Italy no works deserving of preservation having to do with general
history. A translation of the _History of the World_ by Dupin and an
Italian version of a condensed history published in London were both
prohibited. The larger number of the titles comprise monographs on the
various issues that arose in Italy and throughout Europe between the
ecclesiastical and the civil authorities. Among the historical names
to be noted is that of de Thou, whose History of his Own Times was
prohibited in 1609. In 1610, in connection with certain applications
made to the authorities, the prohibition was modified to an instruction
for an expurgation of the work, but no expurgated edition ever came
into print. The work continued in circulation not only in France and
other European States but in Venice. The _Histoire du Gouvernement
de Venise_, by Houssaye, was prohibited in 1667. The miscellaneous
works of Francis Osborne, published in 1673, secured the honour of a
prohibition in the list of Benedict in 1757. Johnson is quoted as
saying of Osborne: “A conceited fellow; were a man to write so now, the
boys would throw stones at him.” The Italian historian, Pietro della
Valle, on returning in 1626 from a series of journeys, had a favourable
reception from Urban VIII, and his account of Persia, printed in Venice
in 1628, was issued with a license and with a special privilege. It
was, however, in 1629, prohibited with the specification _cum auctor
at suum tantum agnoscat librum qui Romae impressus est_. As a fact,
however, no edition of this work was ever printed in Rome.
=6. Protestant Jurists.=--During the first decade of the 17th century,
the Index includes the names of a group of Protestant jurists, chiefly
Germans and Hollanders. The titles specified cover, in the main, books
which had no material importance and which never even reached the
honour of a second printing. The subjects include not only books having
to do with canon law or ecclesiastical relations but works of purely
political importance. In the Spanish lists, the compilers have taken
the pains to add after the number of the book the term _d.c._, and for
a few works they themselves presented the expurgations required. In
editions of the pandects and in the treatises having to do with the
pandects, the prohibitions cover a number of books on such subjects as
_de summa trinitate de fide Catholica_ and _de haereticis et paganis_.
The Spanish Indexes include also certain treatises on usury (the
authorities taking the Church ground that interest was indefensible)
and two essays having to do with the requirement of the permission of
parents for marrying. A number of books which in the Roman Index are
prohibited altogether, are presented by the Spanish compilers with the
term _d.c._ The noteworthy treatise of Puffendorf, _De statu Germanici
Imperii_, first published in 1667, did not come to the attention of
the Index compilers as a pernicious work until 1754. Other works by
the same author which secured condemnation are the French edition of
his introduction to the history of the great States, published in 1687
and prohibited in 1693; the _De jure naturae et gentium_, published in
1672 and prohibited in 1714; the _Introductio ad historiam Europaeam_,
published in 1704, prohibited in 1737; the _De officio hominis et
civis_, published in 1743, prohibited in 1752.
=7. Italian Protestant Writings.=--During the 17th and 18th centuries,
Protestant writings printed in Italian were published chiefly in
Switzerland. The only author of this group whose work came into any
general circulation was Pincenino, a preacher in Soglio. Four of his
controversial treatises were prohibited by the Inquisition between the
years 1704–1714, and the publication of these brought out a number
of replies from Catholic theologians. The name of Vicenzo Paravicino
came into the Index in connection with a number of translations of
French Protestant writings, and also with editions of the Scriptures
printed in the vernacular. Edwin Sandys, a son of the Archbishop of
York (who is himself listed in Class I), printed, without his name, in
1605, and with his name in 1629, a treatise entitled _A View of the
State of Religion in the Western Part of the World, wherein the Roman
Religion and the pregnant Policies of the Church of Rome to support
the same are notably displayed, with other memorable Discoveries and
Commemorations_. The French and German translations of the book,
printed in Geneva in 1625 and 1626, were both condemned.
In 1621, was prohibited a history, printed in 1620, by Luglio (or
Paravicino) of the persecution and massacre by the Papists of the
Protestants of Valtellina. This has to do with one division of the long
series of persecutions of the Waldenses.
=8. Philosophical Writings, Natural Science, and Medicine,
1660–1750.=--In 1663, the Congregation of the Index prohibits with
a _d.c._ the chief writings of Descartes (1596–1650); and in 1722
prohibits with no restriction his _Meditationes_. This second
prohibition was issued some eighty years after the publication of the
work. Reusch[47] explains that the prohibition of 1663 was intended
to cover only specific divisions or propositions contained in these
writings, but no specification was made by the Congregation as to
the passages charged with heresy nor was any expurgated edition ever
brought into print. The commentators on Descartes point out that in any
case it would not have been practicable, without practically destroying
the entire statement of his system, to modify or correct the statements
that had evoked criticism. The chief objection raised by the Roman
critics was the view taken by Descartes of the philosophy of Aristotle.
It seems probable that in the case of this particular work the use of
the term _d.c._ did not indicate any expectation that the work would be
issued in an expurgated edition, but was intended simply to express the
condemnation in somewhat milder form. The works of Nicholas Malebranche
(1638–1715) were, with hardly an exception (although not under the
term _Opera omnia_), prohibited; but the philosophical writings
of Gassendi, Mersenne, and Maignan, writings expressing the same
general school of thought, escaped the Index. In 1772, the writings
of the Neapolitan Grimaldi, in reply to the treatise issued in 1694
by the Jesuit de Benedictis, opposing the views of Descartes, were
prohibited with a special condemnation. In 1679, nine years after its
publication, was prohibited the treatise by Spinoza entitled _Tractatus
theologico-politicus_. This remains on the later Indexes, but as an
anonymous work. In the same year were prohibited the _Opera postuma_
of Spinoza which had been printed in Amsterdam, in 1667. The works of
Protestant philosophical writers are but sparsely represented in the
Index and were probably but little known to the examiners of the Roman
Congregation. The names of Leibnitz and Christian Wolff, for instance,
do not appear in the Index lists. The Spanish authorities declined to
place in their Indexes the works of Descartes, of Malebranche, or of
Spinoza.
Under the heading of Philosophy, the Indexes of the 17th century
contain the names of Montaigne, Charron, Ramus, Bacon, Hobbes, Fludd,
and Herbert of Cherbury. In 1709, Hobbes secured the distinction of
condemnation in the Roman list for his complete works, of which in
the earlier lists only single books had been prohibited. His writings
escaped the attention, however, of the Spanish compilers. Julius
Caesar Vanini, who was in 1619 burned in Toulouse as a propagator
of atheism, and whose name stands in the Spanish Index in Class I,
with the specification _Impiissimus atheus_, finds place in the
Spanish Index of 1623 only in connection with one work and that with
the restriction _d.c._ In the Index of Benedict XIV, the title was
repeated but the _d.c._ was cancelled.
In the Index of Alexander VII, the natural scientists are, with the
noteworthy exception of Galileo, represented only by a few alchemists
and a group of physicians. Among the names here to be noted is that of
Lionardo di Capua, on the ground of certain sharp criticisms by him of
the accepted scholastic philosophy.
The name of the mystic Jacob Boehme is not included in any Roman Index
but finds place in Class I of the Spanish lists.
The prohibition in 1676 of the essays of Montaigne is connected with
the specification “in whatever language they may be printed.” The
essays of Bacon that received attention from the Roman compilers are
the _De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum_ and the _De sapientia
veterum_. Sotomayor has entered Franc. Baconus and Franc. Verulam in
his first class as two distinct authors. The Spanish Index of 1707
condemns of Bacon _Opera omnia_. The full name, Baron Verulam, appears
first correctly in the Spanish Index of 1790. Of the many writings
of Robert Fludd (†1637) only one, _Utriusque Cosmi_, etc., appears
in the Index. The first work of Thomas Hobbes to receive attention
was the _Leviathan_, prohibited in 1703, about forty years after its
publication. In 1709, however, thirty years after the author’s death,
the prohibition was made to include the _Opera omnia_.
=9. Books on Magic and Astrology.=--The lists of the 17th century
include the titles of a number of works on magic and astrology, books
which apart from this record would long since have been entirely
forgotten. The _Steganographie_ of the Abbé Trithenius was included
among the books so prohibited, evidently under the impression that it
had to do with magic. In April, 1631, Pope Urban VIII issued a Bull
against the astrologists, that is to say against those who undertook
to produce calculations concerning the future of Christendom or of
the Roman Curia or in regard to the life of the pope. In 1732, the
Inquisition issued a prohibition of the reading of any books having to
do with fortune telling, the interpretation of dreams, or the art of
numbers. The books referred to under the latter designation were those
that undertook to prophesy the successful numbers for lotteries.
=10. Poems, Facetiae, Text-books, Periodicals, and
Cyclopaedias.=--A number of works of no intrinsic importance,
belonging under the class of _facetiae_ and text-books, were
condemned during the 17th century on the ground of certain references,
characterised as disrespectful, concerning Church matters. Certain
text-books also found their way into the list because they were
reproducing the texts of classic authors who were classed by the
ecclesiastics as obscene or immoral. The action of the authorities in
regard to literature of this kind was curiously varied and it does not
seem to be possible to find for it any consistent policy or principle.
The German satirical literature of this period appears to have escaped
attention on the part of the examiners. The only German book of this
character prohibited during the latter part of the 17th century was the
_Visiones de don Quevedo, die Wunderliche Satyrische und Warhafftige
Geschichte Philanders v. Sittewald_, by Moscherosch, printed in
1645 and prohibited in 1662. The next German work of this special
character to find place on the Index was Heine’s _Reisebilder_,
published a century and a half later. The prohibition of cyclopaedias
on the ground of objection to certain entries or references, proved of
special inconvenience to Catholic students and instructors. The greater
publishing activity of the Protestant communities and the keener
scholarship of heretical editors had caused the production of works
of reference of this kind to be much more considerable and important
in the territories outside of those controlled by the Church. It not
infrequently happened that the condemnation of a work of this class
left the scholars of the Church without the use of any equivalent work.
As late even as Benedict XIV, the Congregation found occasion to add to
the list of prohibited cyclopaedias.
The English titles of the first half of the 18th century include
the _Tale of a Tub_ by Swift, _Pamela_ by Richardson, and _Robinson
Crusoe_ by Defoe. The latter came to the attention of the indexers
through a French edition printed in 1750 and prohibited in 1756. The
French names of the same period include the _Contes et Nouvelles_
of La Fontaine; the _Vie de Jacqueline, Comtesse de Hainaut_, of
Mlle. de La Roche-Guilhem, printed in 1702 and prohibited in 1727;
_Lettres Historiques et Galantes de deux Dames de Condition_, by Mme.
Dunoyer, printed in 1704 in seven volumes, prohibited in 1725 and
again by Benedict in 1758; _Les Emportements Amoureux de la Religieuse
Étrangère_, printed anonymously in 1707, prohibited in Rome 1727, and
in Spain in 1790. Molière escapes condemnation in Rome as well as in
Spain. The _Don Quixote_, of Cervantes was marked by Sotomayor for
correction but only in the case of a single sentence. The Lisbon Index
of 1624 finds occasion for the cancellation in the same work of a
number of paragraphs.
=11. Secret Societies.=--Clement XII and Benedict XIV condemned,
in Bulls issued in April, 1738, and March, 1751, the associations
of _Libri Muratori_, or freemasons. The members of these societies
were rendered liable to the excommunication _latae sententiae_, and
bishops and inquisitors were instructed to take measures against them
as heretics. In September, 1821, Pius VII issued a similar Bull
against the _Carbonari_. A Bull issued in March, 1825, by Leo XII
repeats the text of the three Bulls above specified and confirms their
instructions. In the Bull of Pius VII, is prohibited the possession
or the reading of all catechisms of the _Carbonari_, of the minutes
of their meetings, of their statutes and statements of purposes, and
of all works written in their defence, whether these be in print
or in manuscript. Through some oversight, this important general
prohibition did not find its way into the Index. It is also the case
that but very few titles of works on freemasonry are included in the
Index lists after Clement XII. The Church seems to have relied, for
the suppression of this literature, on its general prohibitions. In
May, 1829, Pius VIII issued an encyclical condemning the teachings of
the freemasons and of kindred secret societies. Pius IX takes similar
ground in an encyclical of November, 1846, and in the allocution of
September, 1865. In April, 1884, Leo XIII devotes an encyclical to the
injurious teachings of the sect “_masonum_.” With this encyclical, is
connected an instruction of the Inquisition under which the faithful
are forbidden to have any dealings with such societies. In January,
1870, the Inquisition declared, in response (apparently) to some formal
application for instructions, that the Irish and American Fenians had
placed themselves under the general condemnation.[48]
In 1739, after the publication of the Bull of Clement XII, the
Inquisition prohibited the _Relation apologétique et historique de
la société des Francs-Maçons_, by J. G. D., F. D., Dublin, 1738.
In the same year, Crudeli was imprisoned by the Inquisition on the
charge that he was a freemason, that he had ridiculed or scoffed at the
Madonna of Saint Cresci, and that he had read prohibited books. He was
sentenced to confinement for one year with the penance of praying from
day to day the seven Penitential Psalms.
In 1789, the necromancer, Cagliostro, was imprisoned under the orders
of the Inquisition. In April, 1791, the Inquisition issued a judgment
arrived at in a session at which the pope presided, declaring that
Cagliostro had fallen under the penalties adjudged by canon law, and
also by municipal law, against heretics, heresiarchs, astrologers,
magicians, and freemasons. The pope decided, as a special grace,
to restrict the punishment to a life-long imprisonment, under the
condition however that he should abjure his heresies. Cagliostro died
in prison in 1795. His collection of books and instruments was publicly
burned. The destruction included a manuscript in which the Inquisition
was declared to have made the Christian religion superstitious,
godless, and degrading. A work of Cagliostro’s, apparently also left
only in the form of manuscript, bearing the title _Maçonnerie
Egyptienne_, was in April, 1791, placed in the Index. The Spanish
Index of 1789 prohibits the _Mémoires Authentiques de Cagliostro_
by Beam, published in Hamburg, in 1786.
In 1836, the Congregation prohibits various histories and treatises on
freemasonry published during the preceding three years in Paris and in
Brussels. In 1820, was prohibited a treatise published in Madrid giving
an account of the persecution of the freemasons under Clement XII and
Benedict XIV. In 1846, was prohibited by the Inquisition a history of
freemasonry published anonymously in Madrid.
In 1880, the Congregation prohibited a treatise by Falcioni, _Coup
d’oeil sur le Christianisme, par un Franc-Maçon, Disciple de la
Philosophie Positive_. Falcioni had been secretary of the Pontifical
chapel. His book had been published in Paris in 1879.
=12. Manuals for Exorcising.=--In 1604, was issued an edition of the
Roman ritual containing a brief of Paul V, in which brief, bishops,
abbots, and pastors are instructed to secure the exclusive use of this
particular ritual. There continued in use, nevertheless, a number of
rituals varying to some extent from the text of this official Roman
ritual. There were also in use a number of companion volumes which
contained collections of blessings, forms of oaths, etc. In a decree
of March, 1709, five exorcising manuals were prohibited which had been
in print for more than a century with proper ecclesiastical approval
and privilege. After the prohibition had been issued, it appeared
that a certain Daniel Francus had printed a collection of so-called
scandalous passages taken from these books, and had then pointed out
that there was no prohibition in any of the Indexes of these passages
or of the collections containing them, nor any instruction in any of
the Indexes for the expurgation of the books containing these passages.
Francus stated further that the worst of the five books, that bearing
the name of Hieronymus Mengus, had been printed in Frankfort, in
1708, for the express purpose of bringing the Catholics to ridicule.
During the following decade, a number of similar books of exorcising
ritual were prohibited and a decree of December, 1725, makes a general
prohibition of all rituals printed after the Reformation without the
specific authorisation and approval of the Congregation of Rites. This
prohibition includes a condemnation of all forms of exorcising and
even of benedictions which had not secured such approval. The bishops
are instructed to say that no such forms are permitted. As late as
1832, the Congregation of Rites was asked to take into consideration a
collection of forms of absolution, benedictions, forms of exorcising,
etc., bearing the name Bern. Sannig, which had been first printed in
1733 and had been in general use for a century. The Sannig collection
was declared to be prohibited under the general regulation above
specified. The work finds, however, no place in any of the Indexes
either under the name of Sannig or under its own title. In the middle
of the 18th century, were prohibited certain books for exorcising
which had been in use among the faithful for a long series of years
and which contained such formulas as the following: _Hel_, _Heloym_,
_Heloa_, _Eheye_, _Totramaton_, _Adonay_, _Saday_, _Sabaoth_, _Sota_,
_Emanuel_, _Alpha et Omega_, _Primus et Novissimus_, _Principimus
et Finis_, _Hagios_, _Ischyros_, _Ho Theos_, _Athanatos_, _Agla_,
_Ichona_, _Homousion_, _Ya_, _Messias_, _Esereheye_, etc. Before each
term of ejaculation was to be made the sign of the cross. Capellis,
in some treatise or manual for the use of exorcisms, explains that in
order to ascertain whether or not the suspected person is certainly
under possession, this series of names should be written out on a
strip of consecrated paper and the paper should be placed somewhere
on the person of the patient without his knowledge. If the patient
becomes restless after the placing of the paper, it is evidence that
he is possessed. Capellis maintains stoutly that a test of this kind
is not to be considered as superstitious. Mengus[49] gives a series
of similar formulas with the same specification that before each
utterance should be made the sign of the cross. Mengus also gives
the instruction for the burning of a picture or representation of the
demon through whom the patient is supposed to have become possessed.
Upon the picture is to be written one of the several series of magic
names. In the fire in which the picture is to be placed should be cast,
after the imposition of a blessing, portions of sulphur, galbanus,
assafoetida, aristolochia, hypericon, and ruta. Mengus gives further
a list of formulas for the blessing of oil which is to be bestowed
upon the possessed person, both inwardly and outwardly; one of these
formulas is ascribed to St. Cyprian. In regard to this particular
group of publications, which, as stated, were in very extended use
among the faithful, a use that in many cases at least was approved
by their spiritual advisers, the censorship of the Church may be
considered as having come into action rather late and with not too much
effectiveness. In 1752, Benedict XIV publishes a new edition of the
official Roman ritual. This contains but few new forms of benedictions.
In 1874, the Benedictine ritual was reprinted in Rome with a supplement
containing forms of benedictions for railroads, telegraphs, springs,
foundries, and brick-yards, and also for the production of beer,
cheese, butter, medicine, for the care of cattle, of horses, of birds,
and of bees; in this appendix are also presented special forms of
prayer against mice, grasshoppers, and other destructive creatures.
=13. Fraudulent Indulgences.=--After 1603, prohibition was made,
first by the Inquisition and the Congregation of the Index, and later
by the Congregation of Indulgences, of a number of books, monographs,
and sheets in which indulgences are recorded which either had never
been granted or which had been garbled from their original text.
Many of the false indulgences owe their existence to the general
superstition and stupidity of the people, and it is to be noted that
it has been necessary, from the beginning of the 17th century until
the present day, to continue to make disavowal of certain of the most
fabulous and absurd of the series. Cardinal Baronius writes January
20, 1601, to Antonio Talpa[50]: “Last evening I had occasion to apply
to the Pope for a general indulgence. I found to my surprise that the
Pope had decided thereafter to give no general indulgences for a single
person or for a specific place. I praised him for this conclusion; for
it is the case that many wrong uses have crept into the general use of
indulgences. I have had occasion more than once to call the attention
of the Congregations to these abuses and in so doing have had the
support of many of the more thoughtful of my associates.”
In the _Decreta Generalia_ of Benedict XIV, there are four
specifications concerning indulgences. In the Index of Benedict are
forbidden, under the term _compendio_, four Italian indulgence records,
and under the term _indulgentiae_, eleven similar publications. Under
the term _sommario_, the entries include twelve Italian works, and
under the term _ablass_, one German issue. Indulgence publications
are also recorded under such terms as: _diario_, _dovizie_, _folium_,
_giornali_, _notizia_, and _orazioni_. The entries are also sometimes
made under the names of the publishers or editors, as, for instance,
in the names of Dumensis and Lorenzo. It is the conclusion of Reusch,
however, that but a very small proportion of the literature of this
class finds place in the Index. In the _Decreta Generalia_ (iii) are
recorded for instance all indulgences which had been issued before the
decree of Clement VIII of 1598, _de forma indulgentiarum pro corona,
grana seu calculi, cruces, et imagines sacrae_; all indulgences which
had been issued before the Bulls of Clement VIII in December, 1604,
and of Paul V, May, 1605, and November, 1610, to orders, brotherhoods,
etc. As late as 1856, a decree of the Congregation of Indulgences was
communicated to the bishops in which attention is called to a long
series of fraudulent indulgence announcements which had been issued
in comparatively recent years in Italy, for the most part in Florence
and which are ordered to be condemned. Of the false indulgences so
specified, is one credited to Pius V in which, in consideration of a
certain prayer, the beneficiary was to have as many indulgences as
would be equal “to the stars in the Heaven, the grains of sand in the
sea, and the blades of grass in the fields”; another specification is
that of nine prayers in consideration of which Gregory (it is not clear
which of the Gregories) and his successors, extend indulgences during a
period of eighty thousand and a hundred and forty-nine years for each
Friday, and for Good Friday eight additional indulgences; on a picture
somewhere in Poland is printed a prayer ascribed to the Madonna, spoken
as she held in her arms the body of Christ. It is stated that to the
believer uttering this prayer, Innocent XII had promised that he should
be able to save fifteen souls from the eternal fire or to convert
fifteen sinners whose names he was to specify.
=14. Works on the Saints and Pictures of the Saints.=--Under the
decrees of Urban VIII of 1625 and of 1634, it was forbidden to publish
or to distribute writings concerning the lives and the miracles of
persons classed as holy until such writings had secured the specific
authorisation of the Congregation or of the Inquisition. It was also
forbidden to select for honour or worship as saints any persons not
announced as such by the authority of the Church; and, finally, it
was forbidden to place upon pictures of any persons not officially
saints the insignia of saintliness (_cum laureolis aut radiis sive
splendoribus_). In the _Decreta Gen._, iii, 1, production of such
unauthorised pictures is forbidden. In the Index stand also, in
addition to the prohibitions of writings concerning unauthorised or
unofficial saints, works on the saints duly recognised as such, unless
and until such works have been, page by page, examined and approved.
Such a prohibition became necessary in connection with the increasing
mass of absurdly superstitious legends and stories which (in spite of
the watchfulness of authorities) continued to get into print and to
secure a wide circulation. The lives of Joseph and of Anna proved to be
a tempting subject for the writers of these stories.
The decrees of Urban VIII were in the beginning carried out with full
thoroughness. Janus Nicius Erythraeus, writing in 1642,[51] says that
he had had in plan the publication of a life of Ancina of Saltuzzo, but
that the permission to print had been withheld because in his narrative
he had found occasion to record wonderful or miraculous things done
by persons who had not been canonised. He had proposed to reshape his
biography, omitting the separate passages concerning persons other than
the bishop himself, but giving some fuller measure of consideration to
the virtues of Ancina; but even then had not been able to secure the
authority to print. He complains bitterly that writers are permitted
to bring into print stories of shameful deeds and words of wicked men
but that the devout authors who desire to record for the elevation of
the faithful the virtues of pious men are discouraged. In 1648, the
Congregation of Rites instructed the Archbishop of Naples to confiscate
a book presenting the life and the miracles of Ursula Benincasa
(†1618), the founder of the Order of the Theatins. The author of the
book, Maria Maggio, a Theatin, was ordered to be brought to trial.
Ursula is described on the title-page as _beata_ and as she had
not been canonised, this was apparently the main difficulty with the
volume. In the decree of 1625, it is stated that the prohibition of the
use of the term “saint” or “blessed” in connection with uncanonised
persons is not in itself to be considered as any reflection on the
piety or orthodoxy of such persons. It is also not to be considered
as bringing into question persons who on the ground of the general
consensus of the faithful or from time immemorial, in the writings
of the Church Fathers and of the earlier writers, or through the
personal knowledge extending over a series of years on the part of the
local bishops, have been deservedly honoured. This reservation was
not unnaturally the cause of a series of controversies in regard to
the standing in the Church of holy persons who had secured what may
be called a local repute for saintliness but whose claims were not
sufficiently assured to have obtained universal recognition.
=15. Forms of Prayer.=--In 1626, Urban VIII confirmed the earlier
prohibition of all breviaries or mass-books printed without the
approval of the Congregation of Rites. The same prohibition was made
to apply to unauthorised editions of the offices, of the litanies,
or of the saints. The Index includes in addition to these general
prohibitions the titles of a series of prayers mainly superstitious in
their character. In the _Decreta Gen._, iv, 8, are prohibited all
rosaries other than those which have been specifically authorised by
the Curia.
=16. Mariology.=--In the _Decreta Gen._, ii, 4, are prohibited (in
1617) all works in which the contention is maintained that Mary had
partaken of any earthly sin. It is the conclusion of the Church that
those who maintain that Mary had any part in such sin are heretics
and godless ones (_impii_). This prohibition stands in the Index of
Alexander VII under the term _libri_. It is cited from a Bull of this
Pope issued in 1661. In 1617, Paul V caused the Inquisition to prohibit
the presentation in sermons, lectures, or theses of any suggestion
concerning the possible sinfulness of Mary. Paul takes pains to add,
however, that his prohibition is not to be considered as undertaking
itself to present a final conclusion on the question. It is the case
that the several Indexes include the titles of a long series of books
in which the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is defended. The
ground for the prohibition of books presenting this doctrine has been
the tendency to misapprehensions and misstatements in the form of
presentation. It appears that the Dominicans, who have controlled the
policy of the Inquisition and largely that also of the Congregation
of the Index, have had the chief responsibility for the condemnation
of all doctrinal treatises which did not present precisely according
to the Dominican theories the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
A number of other works on Mariology are forbidden on the ground
of exaggerations of statement, of bad taste in expression, and of
confusion in the analyses of doctrinal issues. Among the worst of
these is a treatise of Maria of Agreda and one by J. B. Poza. There are
also in the Index a group of writings condemned on the ground of their
exaggeration of the worship of Mary.
In 1439, the Council of Basel decreed that the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception must be held by all orthodox Catholics. The
divines of the Sorbonne, in 1497, issued an order referring to the
above decree and instructing that each candidate for the doctorate
must be prepared to maintain this doctrine. The decree of the council
was naturally not confirmed in Rome, but in 1483, a Bull of Sixtus IV
condemned the contention that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
is heretical and that the observance of the festival instituted under
this name is in itself sinful. At the same time, however, he prohibits
the declaring of the contrary doctrine as in itself heretical. In 1661,
a Bull of Alexander VII says, while confirming the approval given by
his predecessors to the doctrine, that it is not to be permitted to
charge with heresy or with mortal sin those who have not accepted
this doctrine, as the Church universal and the Holy Chair are not yet
prepared to decide all the difficulties involved. In 1708, Clement
XI declares that the festival of the Immaculate Conception is to be
universally observed, but in the same year he orders to be confiscated
and prohibited a reprint of the Bull in which this festival was first
instituted. Gregory VII was the first Pope who permitted the term
Immaculate Conception to find place in the Book of the Mass and to have
included in the Laurentian Litany the words _Regina sine labe originali
concepta_. In 1854, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is
confirmed by Pius IX as a dogma of the Church. Through some oversight,
the _Decretum Gen._, ii, 2, continued, however, to find place in
the Index that was published in 1854. In December, 1854, is printed
in connection with the publication of the _Decreta_ a declaration
in substance as follows: “As the dogma of Immaculate Conception has
now been authoritatively defined, works which treat of the same and
which have in previous years been placed in the Index, are now to be
eliminated from the Index, unless it may be that certain of these works
are entitled to condemnation on grounds other than their conclusions in
regard to this doctrine.” It appears therefore that no prohibition now
rests upon books, whether placed on the earlier Indexes or not, which
make defence of the doctrine.
The first important book written in defence of the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception which was formally condemned, was the work of the
Italian Capucin, J. O. Maria Zamora, _De eminentissimae Deiparae V.
M. perfectione_, published in Venice in 1629 and placed on the Index
in 1636. The list of prohibitions of the works of this group during
the succeeding half-century is very considerable. I will note here but
one additional title, _Quatres Sonnets à l’honneur de la très-pure
et très-immaculée conception de la Vierge Marie_, by le Père Anne
Joachim de Jésus-Marie.
In 1667, there came into controversy questions in regard to the bodily
ascension of Mary into heaven. These controversies brought into the
Index a number of treatises written on either side of the issue.
Benedict XIV (in the decree _De Festis_, ii, 8, 18) says that the
bodily assumption of Mary may be held as a pious and probable belief
which it would be rash to contest; it is not, however, to be accepted
formally as a dogma of the Church. The passages from the Scriptures
which are cited to sustain the belief can be otherwise interpreted. The
text of the announcement proceeds: _Nec est ejusmodi traditio, quae
satis sit ad evehendam hanc sententiam ad gradum articulorum fidei_.
Reusch is of opinion that the tendency during the 19th century has been
to develop this pious belief into a dogma. Dom. Arnaldi, in a treatise
entitled _Super transitu B. M._, printed in Genoa in 1879, undertook
to prove that Mary had never suffered death.[52] Several monographs,
written in honour of the Madonna of Loreto, found their way into the
Index on the ground not of the substance of their teachings but of the
extravagance of their language. In 1654, a work by Vincenzo Caraffa
(later general of the Jesuits) was prohibited (with a _d.c._) which
had been published under a pseudonym in Naples and later reprinted in
Rome under the title _Camino del cielo overo prattiche spirituali,
del P. Luigi Sidereo_. The book was brought into the Index under the
instructions of the general of the Dominicans on the ground that it
maintained the theory of the Immaculate Conception. An examination of
the text showed that this was not the case, whereupon the following new
grounds for condemnation were presented: first, the author claims that
the Virgin during her sojourn in the temple had been fed by the angels
with heavenly nectar; second, the author says that the grace of Mary
from the first moment of her life was greater than that of any created
being; the author states with approval the opinion of Bernardino of
Siena that Mary is to be worshipped as a goddess.
Scheeben points out[53] that, during these later years, the teaching
of the Church holds that the power of the grace of Mary, at least
after the birth of Christ, must be held as being greater not only than
the heavenly grace given to the highest of mankind but even than that
possessed by the highest among the angels. In 1700, was prohibited,
twenty-seven years after its publication, a volume by Zepherin de
Somèire, a French Franciscan, printed in Narbonne under the title
of _La dévotion à la mère de Dieu dans le très-saint Sacrement de
l’autel, fondé sur les unions qui sont entre son fils et elle en ce
divin mystère_. The list of books on Mariology condemned in the
Indexes is, as stated, very considerable, but the larger number of the
more important works treating upon different phases of the worship of
Mary escaped attention.
In 1854, under the authority of Pius IX, the belief in the Immaculate
Conception of Mary was elevated into a dogma. A number of treatises
written against the new dogma were placed on the Index and the authors,
in so far as they were ecclesiastics, were excommunicated. The list
of these includes Thomas Braun of Germany, J. J. Laborde of France,
Braulio Morgaez of Spain, and Grignani of Italy. A pastoral brief on
the subject, signed by the three bishops of the Church of Utrecht,
was prohibited by the Inquisition. A German treatise by H. Oswald,
professor at Paderborn, was condemned on the ground of extravagance of
utterance in defence of the dogma.
=17. Revelations by Nuns.=--For a long series of visions and of
so-called revelations the imagination of the nuns is responsible. Many
of these revelations from the convents have called for the attention
of the Roman censors, but the writer whose productions received the
largest measure of consideration was Maria of Agreda (†1665). Her
monograph on the mystical nature of God, first printed in 1670, was
condemned by the Inquisition in 1681. The prohibition was, however,
suspended by Innocent XI at the instance of the court of Spain. Up to
the close of the century, there continued to be conflicting utterances
and instructions in regard to the book. The judgment of the Inquisition
was neither formally published nor recalled, and there was therefore
continued question as to whether or not the book of Agreda belonged
to the list of prohibited works. The title never found place in the
Index, while a number of editions of the volume were actually issued
with the privilege and approval of the Church authorities. Towards the
end of the 17th century, there came into the Index titles of a number
of writings of a similar character by another Spanish nun, Hippolyta
Rocaberti, and the Index of Benedict contains a prohibition of another
thesis of the same general character by the nun Clarissa, which had
been printed in Munich.
=18. Controversies concerning the Chinese and Malabar Usages.=--Under
Clement XI, was decided, adversely to the contentions of the Jesuits,
through a decree of the Inquisition in 1710 and a Bull of 1715,
an issue that had continued during a series of years between the
missionaries of the Jesuits and those of the rival Orders, concerning
the propriety of permitting the Chinese converts to retain certain
special usages. The Inquisition prohibited the publication, unless
with the special authorisation of the pope, of all writings which were
concerned with these Chinese usages or with the controversies that had
arisen concerning them. This prohibition was entered by Benedict XIV
in the _Decreta Gen._, iv, 6, and, in 1722, the division of the great
history of the Jesuits by Juvencius, which treated of this matter,
was condemned separately. This action aroused fresh controversies
and, in 1742, Benedict found occasion for a further Bull devoted to
them. In 1744, another Bull was issued, in which decision was given in
an analogous issue that had arisen with the Malabars; and, in 1745,
Benedict caused the Inquisition to prohibit, on the ground of some
antagonistic opinions expressed in it in regard to this decision, a
comprehensive history by the Capucin Norbert. The two controversies
continued during a long term of years and produced a mass of
controversial publications, but few separate titles of these writings
came into the Index; the See appears to have considered the general
prohibitions above specified sufficient to meet the requirements.
=19. Fraudulent Literature.=--In the _Decreta Gen._, ii, 10,
are prohibited all books, pamphlets, criticisms, and commentaries,
whether written or printed, which had to do with certain lead tablets
(_Laminae plumbeae_) which had been dug up in Granada and which
bore ancient Arabic characters; with these were condemned certain
manuscripts which had been unearthed in the foundations of an old
tower in Granada. The condemnation covers also works not devoted to
this subject-matter but in which references are made to said tablets
or writings, until and unless such references have been eliminated.
The fragments of tablets and of manuscripts, which, according to their
text, had been inscribed in the time of the Apostles, were discovered
between the years 1588 and 1597; but it was not until 1682 that they
were officially pronounced by the authorities in Rome to be fraudulent.
The false monographs of Flavius Lucius Dexter which belonged to the
same group of manufactured documents, were never forbidden either in
Rome or in Spain. Of the long series of treatises written concerning
the letter said to have been addressed by the Madonna to the residents
of Messina, two only have come into the Index.
In the _Decreta Gen._, ii, 8, are forbidden all books, codexes,
and sheets, whether printed or written, which had to do with the
visions and utterances, the alleged saintliness, etc., of the
Anchorite Johannes Cala; later, were also forbidden all pictures or
representations presenting Cala as a saint. This prohibition has to do
with an alleged discovery made in 1660, by one of the ecclesiastics in
Naples, of Johannes Cala as a saint of the 12th century. Cala secured
saintly honour for a term of twenty years but his saintliness was
finally discredited in 1680.
=20. Works on Quietism.=--In 1680, the Jesuit Segneri brought
to the consideration of the Index authorities two ascetic writings
of the Spaniard Molinos, on the ground that they were maintaining,
under the doctrinal name of Quietism, a fraudulent holiness. In 1685,
the Inquisition of Rome initiated proceedings against Molinos on the
ground both of his life and of his instruction. He was condemned
to imprisonment for life, and, under a special Bull of Innocent XI
confirming a decree of the Inquisition, his doctrine was condemned,
and all of his writings, whether printed or written, were prohibited.
Shortly thereafter, the Inquisition prohibited also the ascetic
writings of the friend of Molinos, the Cardinal Petrucci, together with
certain French writings presenting similar doctrine. Among the latter
were works by Mallavel, Boudon, Lacombe and Madame Guyon. Towards the
close of the 17th century, the Inquisition found occasion to condemn
a long series of ascetic writings including a number which had been
published many years back, but which had apparently only at that time
been brought to the attention of the examiners. Some of these books
had been printed in Rome and had been distributed for many years
without check. In this group may be mentioned the works of Falconi,
Canfeld, Bernières-Louvigny, etc. As early as 1675, the Inquisition had
prohibited the _Opera omnia_ of the Italian writer Lambardi, who
is described as in his doctrinal views a predecessor of Molinos.
=21. Fénelon.=--In 1697, Fénelon, who had with Bossuet interested
himself some years earlier in the protection of Madame Guyon, published
his volume on the Saints and the Inner Life. The doctrines therein
presented on contemplation as distinguished from meditation, and in
regard to the pure and unselfish love of God, which, as he contended,
caused to be put to one side selfishness and the demand for individual
salvation, were sharply criticised by Bossuet and other of his fellow
bishops. The volume was by Fénelon himself forwarded to Rome for a
decision as to its orthodoxy. Louis XIV demanded from Innocent XII, in
July, 1697, the condemnation of the book. It was placed for examination
in the hands of the censorship committee of the Inquisition. The
reports of the representatives who had been sent to Rome in regard
to the business, represented that the votes of the Inquisitors would
have decided in favour of Fénelon’s treatise if it had not been for
the requirement of Louis XIV. In a brief of March, 1699, the book was
prohibited under the penalty of excommunication, and twenty-three
propositions cited from it were specifically censured. In this brief,
pains had been taken to avoid the use of any expressions which would
be likely to cause annoyance in France and in fact no reference was
made in it to the Inquisition. The brief was confirmed by the French
Church and was formally published, and Fénelon submitted himself to the
judgment. The earlier prohibition of the writings of Lacombe and Madame
Guyon (the opinions in which were substantially at one with those
presented by Fénelon) appears hardly to have become known in France,
where it certainly never was acted upon. Fénelon’s correspondence from
Rome states that the influence of the Jesuits there had been exercised
in his favour. The Jesuits were, at the moment, in connection with some
conditions in China, in opposition to the Pope and were willing on
this ground to support the contentions even of a Jansenist. Chanterac,
who was Fénelon’s representative in Rome, suggested to the bishop
that ground could be found for denouncing before the Inquisition the
writings of his opponent Bossuet, but Fénelon appears to have been
unwilling to have any such matter brought into question in connection
with the pending issue. The brief of the Pope was published in France
under the direct authority of the King by means of letters patent. The
Maxims of Fénelon (in which had been found the larger number of the
propositions condemned) were never placed in the Spanish Index. An
edition of the _Télémaque_ which had been printed in London was,
however, under an edict of 1771, expurgated before being authorised for
circulation in Spain.
=22. Contest concerning the Doctrine of Probability.=--During
the rule of Benedict XIV, a sharp controversy arose between the
Dominicans and the Jesuits in regard to the doctrine of Probability,
the immediate cause being the publication of a treatise on morality
by the Jesuit Benzi, which is described as “shameless.” The leading
representative of the Dominicans was Concina (1687–1756), and of
the Jesuits, Faure (1702–1779). Benedict XIV brought into his Index
certain of the monographs by both authors, but the principal treatise
of Concina, sharply condemned by the Jesuits, was not prohibited.
Benedict took occasion, however, to instruct Concina to publish, over
his signature, a comprehensive explanation of his treatise. Clement
XIII prohibited the sermons of the German Jesuit, Neumayr, and, at the
same time, a biography of Concina. Concina’s teachings against the
doctrine of Probability were continued and developed by his associate
Patuzzi (1700–1769). Patuzzi was replied to by Liguori (1696–1787),
founder, in 1732, of the Congregation of the Redemptorists. Benedict
XIV appears to have given his official acceptance to the doctrine of
Probability as expounded by Liguori, the later edition of his treatise
having been issued with a specific approval from the Pope. This
approval secured, later, confirmation on the part of the Church as a
whole, as, in 1839, Concina secured canonisation, and, in 1871, his
name was included in the list of doctors of the Church, being, through
this act, associated with St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Bernard,
St. Thomas, and other pillars of the Church. After the giving of this
honour, the Jesuits, under the lead of Ballerini, took the ground that
certain of the conclusions of Liguori had been too rigorous and that
the doctrine termed by him _Regni probabilismus_ must in order to
be maintained, be interpreted in the sense of “ordinary probability.”
The Jesuits came in this contention into controversy with the
Redemptorists, who insisted upon the distinctive importance of the
differentiation expressed by their founder. The treatise of Ballerini
was however reprinted in Rome with a special privilege from the master
of the palace.
=23. The Controversy concerning Usury, 1600–1800.=--In a long
series of decrees from popes and from councils, the Church has
announced its conclusion that the taking of interest, even although
the rate should not be extortionate, comes under the head of the sin
of usury. This contention was maintained constantly throughout the
17th and 18th centuries, and the several classes of trade in which the
taking of interest was a necessary factor, were condemned as not to
be permitted by the Church. As a result of this policy, a number of
legal treatises which undertook the defence of interest that was not
exaggerated into extortion, were prohibited. There were also placed
upon the Index certain other monographs in which the question had
been treated from a purely academic standpoint. Under Benedict XIV,
the controversy came to the front in connection with the publication
of monographs by Broedersen, an ecclesiastic of Utrecht, and by the
Marquis Sipio Maffei, in which ground was taken against the theories of
the Church. Benedict XIV published, in 1745, an encyclical in which he
confirms as the present utterance of the Church the old contention. The
two treatises which had formed the text for the utterance of the Pope
were, however, not prohibited. In fact that by Maffei was, in 1746,
reprinted in Rome contemporaneously with a monograph by the Dominican
Concina, in which Maffei’s conclusions were stigmatised as heretical.
It is the conclusion of Reusch that the earlier Church view, while
in theory confirmed by Benedict, had practically been abandoned. The
controversy continued throughout the 19th century, and several of the
later popes have taken the ground that the practice of taking interest
that was not extortionate could be permitted until the question had
received a final decision from the Holy See. During this latter period,
only one work on the subject was placed on the Index, a monograph by
Laborde, who was a sharp opponent of the earlier Church theory. No
final conclusion of the issue has, however, ever been reached by the
Church. It has probably been withheld because it would be difficult
to frame a conclusion that would not either directly or indirectly
constitute a reflection on the good judgment and wisdom of the earlier
papal utterances.
In July, 1745, Benedict XIV instituted a special Congregation
comprising four cardinals and clever theologians to give consideration
to the subject of usury. The theologians included two Jesuits, one
Dominican (Concina), and one Observant. The Pope himself presided over
the sessions. The conclusions arrived at were published on the first
of August in the form of three propositions. These were utilised by
Benedict as the basis of the encyclical to the Italian bishops issued
in November, 1745.
1. All return for the use of money given in the form of interest is to
be classed as usury and characterised as unlawful.
2. One may not say that it is unlawful only to receive extortionate
interest or to take interest from the poor.
3. It may be permitted for the lender to receive some return or
compensation for his service from some person other than the borrower
or person benefited; but it may not be permitted to make provision that
such second person or guarantor should always be at hand.
In 1746, the year following the publication of the encyclical, Maffei
had published a second edition of his treatise, which bears the imprint
of the master of the palace. In a letter printed in this edition,
Maffei writes that he had not as yet learned what had been the precise
subject of condemnation in the encyclical. He was, however, of the
opinion that he had been able in his treatise to anticipate the
doctrine of the encyclical.
In the same year, Concina brought into print three essays in which he
makes sharp criticism of the heresies of Broedersen and Maffei. These
essays are dedicated to the pope. Muratori, writing in February, 1747,
says: “A curious history is this! The Holy Father accepts dedication on
the one hand from Concina and on the other from Maffei and yet neither
the one nor the other is to be classed as unsound or heretical.”
After 1820, there arose also in France an active controversy on the
question of interest. The earlier orthodox opinion adverse to the use
of interest was maintained by Abbé Pages in his treatise _Dissertation
sur le prêt à intérêt_, published in 1821. The contrary view was
maintained by La Luzerne, Bishop of Langres, in his _Dissertations sur
le Prêt de Commerce_, published in 1823 in five volumes, and by the
Abbé Baronnat in _Le Prétendu Mystère de l’Usure Dévoilé_, published
in 1822. In the course of the following half-century, the question was
repeatedly brought from France and from Italy to the attention of the
Inquisition. In 1873, the Congregation of Propaganda printed together
the decisions that had been issued by the Inquisition on this subject
between 1780 and 1872. The conclusion presented in 1873 is in substance
as follows: Those who, under the authority of the law of the land, may
take interest at a moderate rate (up to five per cent.), whether laymen
or ecclesiastics, are not to be called to account in the confessional
or otherwise for so doing until it has seemed wise to the Holy See to
present a final conclusion in the matter. They must, however, hold
themselves prepared at any time to accept and to abide by the final
instruction of the Church.
=24. Philosophical Writings, between 1750 and 1800, Condemned as
Irreligious.=--In the Spanish Index, are prohibited all the writings
of Voltaire and Rousseau. The Roman Index of 1824 includes the name of
David Hume.
In February, 1778, Pius VI issues a general prohibition as follows:
_Libri omnes incredulorum, sive anonymi sive contra, in quibus contra
religionem agitur_. This prohibition, instead of being included in the
_Decreta Generalia_, where similar decrees had heretofore been printed,
is placed under the term _libri_. Connected with the decree, is the
specification that the permission to read books of this class can be
granted only by the pope himself. It is probable that this general
prohibition did not prove particularly effective, as it was hardly
possible for the average reader to be able at once to identify a work
as irreligious in tendency or to have knowledge by name of all of the
writers who were to be classed as unbelievers. The difficulty was
naturally greater in the case of anonymous works.
In the Spanish Indexes of 1747 and 1790, the editors have indicated by
a mark the books the reading of which is prohibited even to those who
have secured permission for the use of works included in the general
Index lists.
There was published in Paris an encyclopaedia under the title
_l’Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonnée des Sciences, des Arts,
et des Métiers, par la Société des Gens de Lettres_. It bore the
names, as editors, of Diderot and d’Alembert. In 1759, at the time of
the prohibition, seven volumes only had been published. The first two
volumes, printed in 1751, had been condemned in 1752, under an order
of the Council of the King; but two years later, the king issued a
privilege for the continuation of the work. The papal brief states that
the volumes first issued had been condemned and that the later issues,
described as a revised edition, had been carefully examined by the
Inquisition and again condemned on the ground that the teachings and
propositions contained in them were false and pernicious and tended
to the destruction of morality; and further that these teachings
promoted godlessness and the undermining of religion. In 1759, the
royal privilege under which the publication was being continued, was
withdrawn. The editors and printers succeeded, however, in carrying on
the work without coming into open conflict with the authorities, and by
1772, twenty-eight volumes had come into print.
In April, 1757, a decree of Louis XV prohibits, under penalty of death,
the production and distribution of any writings against religion. There
does not appear, however, to be on record any instance of the carrying
out of this penalty.
The papal brief issued in 1759 in regard to the treatise of Helvétius,
_De l’Esprit_, describes the book as “antagonistic to the
Christian religion and to natural morality, and as maintaining
the pernicious and damnable views of the Materialists and of the
Epicureans,” and further, “as maintaining many godless and heretical
propositions.”
In 1762, a prohibition of the Inquisition contains the title of
_La petite Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire des Philosophes, oeuvre
posthume d’un de ces Messieurs_. The entry is followed by the remark
“_Ridiculum acri fortius et malius plerumque secat res_. Anvers,
1761.” This title probably refers to a reprint of some portions of the
encyclopaedia. Between 1758 and 1800, were placed upon the Index at
intervals practically all of the works of Voltaire, but, excepting in
Spanish Indexes, the term _Opera omnia_ does not appear. In 1762, the
treatise by Rousseau on education, entitled _Émile_, was prohibited
by the Inquisition; and in the same year, the book was ordered by the
Parliament of Paris to be burned. It was also censured by the Sorbonne
and prohibited for France by the Archbishop of Paris. The work was also
condemned by the Protestant authorities in Geneva.
In 1784, was prohibited, by a brief of Pius VI, a work issued under the
title of _Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains ou Mémoires
intéressants pour servir a l’Histoire de l’Humanité_. The author was
Cornelius de Paw, a canon in Zante.
In 1761, the Congregation prohibits the French version of the essay
by David Hume, _A Treatise on the Human Understanding_. This
edition had been printed in Amsterdam in 1758, twenty years after the
appearance of the original.
Gibbon’s _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, printed in an
Italian edition in 1776, was prohibited in 1783. The writings of
Thomas Paine and Joseph Priestly escaped the attention of the compilers
of the Roman Index, but the name of the latter author appears in the
Spanish Index of 1806.
The writings of Frederick the Great of Prussia, as printed in Berlin,
in 1750, under the title of _Oeuvres du Philosophe de Sans-Souci_,
receive the compliment of prohibition by the Inquisition in 1760. The
Spanish Index does not include the works but does find place for the
_Mémoires pour servir à l’Histoire de la Maison de Brandebourg_.
=25. Works on Philosophy and Natural Science, 1800–1880.=--Among
the works prohibited during the period in question in the department of
philosophy and natural science, may be noted the following:
Villiers, Ch. de, _A Treatise on Kant_, printed in Paris in 1801,
prohibited in 1817. An Italian edition of Kant’s _Critique of Pure
Reason_, printed (in Rome) in 1821, prohibited in the same year.
Buhle, J. G., _Geschichte der neuern Philosophie_, printed in Leipsic,
1800–1805, prohibited (in the French and Italian versions) in 1828.
Tennemann, _Grundriss der Gesch. der Philosophie_, printed in Leipsic
in 1812, prohibited (in the Italian version) in 1837, prohibited again
(in a Polish version) in 1865.
Bentham, Jeremy. Of this author practically all the works find place
sooner or later in the Index, but the term _Opera omnia_ has not
been used.
Whately, Richard, _Elements of Logic_, printed in 1822, prohibited
in 1851.
Mill, John Stuart, _Treatise on Liberty_, prohibited in 1851;
_Principles of Political Economy_, printed in 1848, prohibited in
1850.
Darwin, Erasmus, _Zoönomy_, printed in 1794, prohibited in 1817.
(_The Origin of Species_ and the other treatises by Charles
Darwin, the grandson of Erasmus, have, curiously enough, escaped the
attention of the Index authorities.)
Draper, J. W., _History of the Conflict between Religion and
Science_, printed (in New York) in 1874, prohibited (in a Spanish
version) in 1876.
Condorcet, the Marquis, _Esquisse d’un Tableau historique du Progrès
de l’Esprit humain_, printed in 1804 as a division in a series of
works comprising in all twenty-one volumes, prohibited 1827.
Condillac, Abbé de, _Cours d’Étude_, printed (in Paris) in 1773,
prohibited in 1836.
Ahrens, Henri, _Cours du Droit Naturel_, printed in 1838,
prohibited 1868.
Cousin, _Cours d’Histoire de la Philosophie_, printed in 1827,
prohibited in 1844. This is the only one of the long series of works by
this author that finds place in the Index. Cousin was induced by his
friends Sibour and Maret, for the purpose of preventing the threatened
condemnation of his works by the Congregation of the Index, to write
a letter to the Pope. He writes, under date of April 30, 1836, in
substance as follows: “As Your Holiness has already been informed, I
am myself a devout upholder of the Christian faith and I place all my
hopes for the future of mankind upon the maintenance and extension of
Christianity. I can but be troubled that my views have been placed in
a false light and I have attempted to produce a philosophical treatise
which should be entirely free from the possibility of reproach and
in the preparation of which I have secured the counsel of scholarly
divines. If it may be the case that, notwithstanding my own watchful
care and the aid of these scholarly advisers, certain passages which
could cause concern to Your Holiness have escaped attention, I will ask
that these may be indicated to me. I am more than anxious to correct
or to eliminate any expressions or statements that may be open to
criticism from the point of view of the Church. My sole purpose is to
do all that may be practicable to perfect the text of these modest
writings of mine.”
Comte, Auguste (†1857), _Cours de Philosophie Positive_, printed
in Paris in 1864 with an introduction by Littré, prohibited in the
same year. No one of the other works by Comte finds place in the
Index. Littré had sharp controversies with Dupanloup in 1863, and was
characterised by the Archbishop as an atheist, but no one of Littré’s
writings was formally condemned.
Taine, Hippolyte Adolphe, _Histoire de la Littérature Anglaise_,
printed (in Paris) in 1863, prohibited in 1866. This work had, in 1864,
been condemned by the French Academy as tending to undermine the belief
in the freedom of the will, the sense of personal responsibility, and
morality in general.
Legrand, Jacques, _Recherche des Bases d’une Philosophie Pratique_,
printed in 1864, prohibited the same year.
Mangin, Arthur, _L’Homme et la Bête_, printed in 1872, prohibited the
same year.
Figuier, Louis, _Le Lendemain de la Mort ou la Vie Future selon la
Science_, printed 1871, prohibited 1872.
A collection of essays by Tyndall, Owen, Huxley, Hooker, and Lubbock,
translated into French, together with certain papers by Raymond,
edited by the Abbé Moigno, on the general subject-matter of science
and faith, was printed in Paris in 1875 and prohibited in the same
year. Connected with the prohibition is a statement that the notes of
Moigno on Tyndall and the other naturalists meet the approval of the
Congregation.
Leopardi, Giacomo, _Operetti Morali_, printed 1827, prohibited, with a
_donec emendatum_, in 1850.
Spaventa, Bernardo, _Opera omnia_, printed between the years 1861 and
1874.
Vera, Auguste, _Opera omnia_ in each and every version. These two
writers had given instruction in the Hegelian philosophy. Vera’s works
had appeared in Italian, French, and English editions.
Ferrari, Gius., _Opera omnia_, prohibited 1877. The chief work of
this author, _Essai sur le Principe et la Limite de la Philosophie
d’Histoire_, had been printed as early as 1837 and had for forty
years escaped condemnation.
Settembrini, Luigi (a third Neapolitan Hegelian), _Lezioni di
Letteratura Italiana_, printed in 1868, prohibited in 1874.
Sicilinoni, Pietro (professor of philosophy in Bologna), a series of
works printed between the years 1878 and 1887, placed upon the Index
from year to year immediately after their publication.
[Sidenote: Historical Works]
Ranke, L., _Die Römischen Päpste, ihre Kirche und ihr Staat, im
XVI^{ten} und XVII^{ten} Jahrhundert_, printed in 1835, prohibited
in 1841.
Hume, David, _History of England_, printed in 1761, prohibited in
1823.
Robertson, William, _History of Charles the Fifth_, printed in 1762,
prohibited (in a French edition) in 1777.
Goldsmith, Oliver, _History of England_, printed in 1770, prohibited
(in an Italian edition), with a _d.c._, 1823.
Roscoe, William, _Biography of Leo X_, printed 1805, prohibited,
in both the English and Italian versions, in 1825.
Hallam, Henry, _View of the State of Europe during the Middle
Ages_, printed in 1818, prohibited (in the Italian edition) in 1833.
_Constitutional History of England_, printed in 1824, prohibited
1827.
Beugnot, A., _Histoire de la Destruction du Paganisme en Occident_,
printed in 1835, prohibited in 1837.
Sismondi, J. C. L. S. de, _Histoire du Moyen-Age_, printed in
1812, prohibited in 1817. The prohibition covers, however, only
the first eleven volumes. The sixteenth volume, which contains the
noteworthy chapter on the pernicious effects produced on Italy by the
casuistical morality of the Church of Rome, escaped condemnation.
Gregorovius, _Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter_, printed in
1859–1873, condemned in 1874, both in the German original and in the
Italian version.
Mignet, F. A., _Histoire de la Révolution Française_, printed in 1824,
prohibited 1825.
Ségur, Comte de, _Galerie Morale et Politique_, printed in 1817–1823,
prohibited 1826.
Jobez, Alph., _La France sous Louis XV_, printed 1865–1867, prohibited
1868.
Le Bas, Phil., _L’Univers Pittoresque_, printed in 1851, prohibited in
1853. The reprehensible chapters in this descriptive work were those
giving an account of the religions of the world.
Munks, _La Palestine, Description géographique, historique, et
archéologique_, printed 1845, prohibited in 1853.
_Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la France_, edited by Le Bas and
Rénier, printed, in twelve volumes, 1840–1845, prohibited (in a
separate decree) in 1853.
The prohibitions of this period include a long series of French,
German, and Italian encyclopaedias, universal dictionaries, gazetteers,
etc., in addition to those specified.
Lalande, J. L. de, _Voyage en Italie_, printed in 1769, prohibited in
1820. It is possible that one reason for placing on the Index, so many
years after the date of its appearance, this particular book was the
association at a later date by the author with the _Dictionnaire des
Athées_ which was compiled by Maréchal. This latter work, however,
curiously escapes the attention of the Index compilers.
Didier, Ch., _Rome souterraine_, printed in 1833, prohibited in
1835. It is proper to point out that this work has to do, not with the
Catacombs, but with the secret societies of Rome.
Viardot, Louis, _Les Musées d’Italie_, printed in 1842, prohibited
in 1865. A later work by this author on the Jesuits, the bishops, and
the pope, apparently much more serious in its subject-matter, escapes
attention.
Ciocci, Raffaelle, _A Narrative of Iniquities and Barbarities practised
at Rome in the 19th Century_, printed (in a French version) in 1841,
prohibited in 1845. The author was formerly a Cistercian and had been
librarian of the papal College of San Bernardo. It is not surprising
that his work failed to secure the approval of the Roman authorities.
La Châtre, Maurice, _Histoire des Papes; Les Crimes, Meurtres ... des
Pontifes Romains, depuis S. Pierre jusqu’ à Gregoire XVI_, printed
in 1842–1845, prohibited in 1848.
[Sidenote: General Literature]
Among the noteworthy works under the heading of general literature may
be cited the following:
Sue, Eugene, _Mystères de Paris_, printed in 1843, prohibited in
1852; _Le Juif Errant_, printed in 1845, prohibited in 1852. Later in
the same year, Sue’s name was placed upon the Index connected with
the term _Opera omnia_. In 1864, the list of French authors all of
whose works were prohibited includes the following names: Balzac,
Champfleury, Dumas the elder and Dumas the younger, Feydeau, Murger,
Sand, Soulié, and Stendhal. The name of Flaubert appears in the same
year in connection with two only of his romances. The volume of the
Abbé Michon, published anonymously under the title _Le Maudit_,
was prohibited in the year of its publication, 1864, and the later
volumes issued as by the author of _Le Maudit_ were prohibited as
they appeared. Since 1864, the compilers of the Index have given
comparatively little attention to French fiction.
In 1834, the _Chansons_ of Béranger were prohibited. Some of these
had been printed as far back as 1815. Additional titles from French
literature are as follows:
Lamartine, Alph. de, _Souvenirs d’un Voyage en Orient_, printed in
1835, prohibited in 1836.
Hugo, Victor, _Notre Dame de Paris_, printed in 1831, prohibited
in 1834; _Les Misérables_, printed in 1836, prohibited in 1864.
The famous volumes by Ferd. Fabre, _Lucifer_ and _L’Abbé Grand_,
curiously enough escape condemnation.
The selections of this period from German literature are
inconsiderable. They include:
Lessing, _Erziehung des Menschen-geschlechts_, prohibited 1835.
Heine, H., _Reisebilder_, printed in 1834, prohibited in 1836;
_De la France_, printed in 1833, prohibited in 1836; _De
l’Allemagne_, printed in 1835, prohibited 1836; _Gedichte_,
printed in 1844, prohibited in 1845.
In 1855, Mrs. Stowe’s _Uncle Tom’s Cabin_ was prohibited, under
some special instruction, as far as its sale in the papal States was
concerned. The title does not find place in the Index.
The small group of Spanish and Portuguese works includes the following
titles:
Torres, _Quentos en verso Castilano del Remédo de la Melencholia_,
prohibited 1824.
Tressera, _El Judio Errante_, prohibited 1864.
The long series of anti-clerical romances by Benito, Perez, and Galdós
escape condemnation.
Stockler, _Poezias Liricas_, printed in 1820, prohibited in 1836.
The Italian list includes:
Foscolo, Ugo, translation of Sterne’s _Sentimental Journey_, printed in
1817, prohibited in 1819; _La Commedia di Dante_, illustrated, printed
in 1830, prohibited in 1845.
Zaccheroni, G., an edition of Dante’s _Inferno_ with notes, printed
in 1838, prohibited (as far as the introduction and the notes are
concerned) by the Inquisition in 1840. The larger number of the
commentaries on Dante are condemned as printed.
Guerrazzi, Dom., _L’Assedio di Firenze_, printed in 1830, prohibited in
1837. His later romances, _Isabella Orsini_ and _Beatrice Cenci_, were
prohibited promptly on publication, the former in 1844, the latter in
1854.
Niccolini, G. B., _Arnaldo da Brescia_, printed in 1844, prohibited the
same year.
Bossie, Conte Luigi, _Della Istoria d’Italia Antica e Moderna_, printed
in Milan, 1819–1822, in nineteen volumes, prohibited in 1824. The same
author produced a translation of Roscoe’s _Life of Leo X_, which was
promptly condemned some twenty years after the prohibition of the same
work in the original.
Botta, Carlo, _Storia d’Italia del 1729 al 1814_, ten volumes, printed
in 1824, prohibited in 1826. Botta had gained the name of “the Italian
Tacitus.” His son, Vincenzo Botta, was well known in New York as a man
of letters, between the years 1850 (he was one of the exiles of ’48)
and 1880.
Rossetti, Gabrielle, _Sullo Spirito anti-Papale_, etc., printed in
1832, prohibited 1833; _Iddio a l’Uomo_, printed in 1836, prohibited
1837.
The Spanish and Portuguese group of general literature of this period
includes the following titles:
Llorente, J. A., _Histoire Critique de l’Inquisition de l’Espagne_,
printed in Paris in 1820, prohibited in 1822. The author, who was the
Secretary-General of the Inquisition, had been banished from Spain in
1812. His history, written in Spanish, was translated under his own
supervision.
_Historia Completa des Inquisiçoes de Italia, Hispagnia e Portugal_,
printed (anonymously) in 1822, prohibited in 1825. This is probably
a translation of the _Histoire de l’Inquisition of Lavalée_ printed
in Paris in 1809, and prohibited in 1819. The histories of the
Inquisition, whether written from the Dominican point of view or from
that of their opponents, found their way in great part into the Index.
=26. The Synod of Pistoja, 1786.=--In 1794, the conclusions arrived at
by the Diocesan Synod held at Pistoja at the instance of Bishop Ricci,
were condemned by the Bull _Auctorem Fidei_ of Pius VI. In this Bull,
were censured specifically eighty-five propositions. The Pope condemns
and prohibits, under penalty of excommunication, the printing,
distribution, or reading of any editions or translations of the acts
of the synod and of all works written in defence of these acts. It
is doubtless through oversight that this very sweeping condemnation
does not find place in the Index. Certain publications reporting the
conclusions of the synod had been already specifically prohibited;
while certain further works, the subjects of which were connected with
the issues raised by the synod, were prohibited in later years, in
certain instances as late as 1817. For these later prohibitions, the
statement was added that the works were already condemned under the
Bull _Auctorem Fidei_.
=27. The Festival of the Heart of Jesus.=--In 1697 and again in 1729,
the Congregation of Rites recalled the authorisation for a specific
office for the Sacred Heart of Jesus; and in 1704, was prohibited the
treatise by the Jesuit Croiset, written in defence of this office.
Under Clement XIII in 1765, the office was again authorised, and
under Pius IX, the festival in honour of the Heart of Jesus was made
a general usage. This special act of adoration had originated with
the Jesuits; those who opposed it were classed as Jansenists. The
office came, however, into question with a good many Churchmen other
than Ricci and his friends; and a number of the most important of the
treatises written against it were published under Clement XIV in Rome.
=28. Theological Writings of French, German, and English Catholics,
1758–1800.=--But one important work of theology printed in France,
_Theologia Lugdunensis_, came upon the Index during the last
decade of the 18th century. From England, the single title of the same
period covers a book of worship, and from Germany, were prohibited,
in addition to the writings already referred to, a volume by Isenbiehl
and several treatises by Stättler, Meyer, and Oberrauch. During these
years, were published in England a number of works by Catholic authors
which had to do with the controversies of the time, such as the Oath
of Allegiance, the re-institution of the hierarchy of bishops, etc.,
but no one of these writings is recorded in the Index. The single
English work above referred to was published in London, in 1767, under
the title _The Catholik Christians’ New Universal Manual, being a
true spiritual guide for those who ardently aspire to salvation_.
The book contains the entry, _Permissu superiorum_, which did not
prevent its prohibition in 1770. On the other hand, the writings of
Charles Dodd, J. Berington, Alexander Geddes, George Cooper, and Bishop
Butler, the teachings of which would hardly have met the approval of
the Holy See, escaped condemnation.
=29. The French Revolution.=--The _Constitution Civile_ of the clergy,
framed in 1780, and the Defence of the same issued a year later by the
so-called Constitutional Bishops, were promptly condemned by briefs
of Pius VI, but they do not find place in the Index. The acts of the
national councils of 1797 and 1801 were condemned in like manner but
these titles also escaped the attention of the Index compilers. The
practice on the part of the Index editors in regard to the recording
of legislative acts appears not to have been consistent. In 1817, for
instance, a collection of the acts and declarations of the Italian
bishops and chapters, which had been printed in 1811, was placed upon
the Index although the subscribers and compilers of the same had made
recantation of the opinions expressed.
The long series of revolutionary writings and of anti-Church writings
which came into print in France after 1789 were in large part recorded
by the Spanish Inquisition but in the Roman Indexes are represented by
only a few titles.
In July, 1797, the Congregation of the Index publishes its last
decree for the century. The authors whose books are condemned include
Stättler, Oberrauch, Tamburini, and Zola; in addition to these, there
is a series of German theological and juristical theses which the
students of Freiburg had defended between the years 1786 and 1794. The
last work prohibited by the Inquisition during the 18th century is a
treatise by Guadagnini.
The first prohibition of the 19th century condemns a monograph by a
Greek theologian, printed in Corfu in 1800. The Congregation of the
Index resumed its activities in 1804 after a suspension of more than
seven years. In decrees issued in 1804, 1805, 1806, and 1808 were
condemned a number of French and Italian writings that had to do with
the Revolution. The imprisonment in June, 1809, of Pius VII again
brought to a close the operations of the Roman Congregations. The Pope
returned to Rome in May, 1814, and in August, 1815, the Inquisition
resumed its supervision of literature. The work of the Congregation of
the Index was, however, not taken up till January, 1817. In this year,
a list of prohibitions was issued covering a number of works that had
been published in France and in Italy between 1796 and 1815.
The two briefs that Pius VI had issued in March and in April, 1781,
for the condemnation of the so-called Civil Constitution of the French
clergy, were declared by the “constitutional” party in the Church to
be apocryphal. It was pointed out that the second brief, while dated
in Rome, April 13th, was distributed in Paris April 14th, from which
detail, it came to be known as the “Miraculous Brief.” In a brief
issued in 1792, the Pope calls attention to this statement as one of
the insults coming from France. The Index of 1806 contains, printed as
an appendix, a list of the books prohibited from 1804 to 1806. The more
important names in this list are those of Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot,
Mirabeau, Dulaurens, and La Fontaine.
=30. The French Concordat of 1801.=--In August, 1801, a Bull of
Pius VII records the provisions of the Concordat that had been arrived
at between Napoleon and himself. Under the Concordat, the number of
the French bishoprics was reduced from a hundred and fifty-six to
sixty and a new division of the dioceses was provided for. In a brief
bearing the same date, the Pope calls for the resignation of all the
French bishops, and in November of 1801, he issues a second Bull,
declaring those bishops who had not resigned to be deposed, and fixing
the limits of the new bishoprics. In 1803, thirty-six bishops present a
protest against these regulations. This protest was widely circulated
and served as the text for a long series of monographs in which were
brought into discussion various questions relating to the Concordat.
In 1817, a second Concordat was put into force between the Papacy and
Louis XVIII. In 1822, a long series of writings which took ground
against the authority of this Concordat were placed upon the Index.
=31. Protestant Theological Writings, 1750–1884.=--The selections
for condemnation, in the last years of the 18th century and during the
first half of the 19th century, of works by Protestant theologians
appears to have been made with no greater consistency and with no
more assured principles than had been apparent in the selection of
Protestant writings of an earlier date. The following titles may be
noted:
Michaelis, J. D., _Introduction to the New Testament_, published
in 1750, condemned in 1827.
Strauss, _The Life of Jesus_ (_Das Leben Jesu_), published in
1835, prohibited 1838.
Bauer, _Streit der Kritik mit Kirche und Staat_, published in
1844, prohibited in 1845.
Bunsen, _Hippolytus and his Age_, published 1852, prohibited 1854.
Maurice, F. D., _Theological Essays_, published 1854, prohibited
1854 (the entry in the Index is under the word “Denison”).
Stroud, _The Physical Causes of the Death of Christ_, published
1847, prohibited 1878.
Morgan, Lady, _Italy_, prohibited 1822.
Waldie, _Rome in the Nineteenth Century_, published 1820,
prohibited 1826.
Blunt, James, _Vestiges of Ancient Manners and Customs in Modern
Italy and Sicily_, published 1823, prohibited 1827. The difficulty
with Mr. Blunt’s treatise was the connection made by him between
certain ceremonies and practices of the Roman Church and the earlier
Pagan usages.
Seymour, Hobart, _A Pilgrimage to Rome_, printed 1851, prohibited
1851. The title is entered under “Pilgrimage.”
Whately, Archbishop, _Introductory Lessons on Christian
Evidences_, an Italian version printed in 1850 and prohibited in the
same year.
The treatise by John Poynde, _Popery in Alliance with Heathenism_, the
publication of which (in 1835) brought out some sharp controversial
letters from Wiseman, escaped the attention of the Index compilers.
The more noteworthy of the French titles in the Indexes of this period
are the following:
Bruitte, Edouard, abbé and professor of philosophy, _Mes Adieux à
Rome_, published in 1844, prohibited in 1844.
Mourette, _Le Pape et l’Évangile_, published in 1844, prohibited
in 1845. This latter was also prohibited in Paris.
Coquerel, Athanase, (†1868), _Le Christianisme experimental_,
published in 1847, prohibited in 1850. No other of the series of
writings by this famous Protestant preacher nor any of those of his
son, Athanase Josue, find place in the Index.
Bugnoin, T. R., _Catéchisme de l’Église du Seigneur_, published in
1862, prohibited in 1863.
Martig, Emm., _Manuel d’Histoire religieuse a l’Usage des Écoles_,
published at Geneva in 1877, prohibited in 1878.
D’Aubigné, _l’Histoire de la Réforme du Seizième Siècle_, printed,
in an Italian edition, in 1847, prohibited in 1852.
The list of Italian and Spanish publications contains few names that
would be familiar to English readers.
Bianchi, Angiolo, _Biographia di Fra Paolo Sarpi_, printed (in
Brussels) in 1836, prohibited in 1844; _Del Pontificato di S.
Gregorio il grande_, printed (in Milan) in 1844, prohibited in 1853.
Boni, Filippo de, _Del Papato_, printed in 1850, prohibited in
1852.
Castro, Adolpho de, _Historia des los Protestantes Españoles_,
printed in 1851, prohibited in the same year.
=32. Writings concerning the Eastern Church.=--The larger number
of the works under this heading the titles of which come into the Index
of the 19th century, are the production of the “United Armenians.” The
addition of a group of monographs by Polish writers is doubtless due
to the fact that during the reign of Pius IX, the consultor of the
Congregation was a Pole, Peter Semenenko. The Bull issued by Pius IX
in July, 1867, under the title of _Reversurus_, in which it had
been ordered that the procedure of worship of the Armenians should be
reconstituted, resulted in a schism in this division of the Church.
Between the years 1872 and 1873, three monographs by Ormanian and one
by Casangian, written in opposition to this Bull, are placed upon the
Index. The list also includes the following:
Pichler, A., _Die kirchliche Trennung zwischen Orient und Occident_.
The Greek Church of Russia is represented in the Index of this time by
but one or two titles:
Tolstoy, Dimitri, _Le Catholicisme Romain ou Russe_, published in 1864,
prohibited in 1866. This work stands in the Index under the entry
“Dimitri.” The entry is connected with the reference _Opus praedamnatum
ex reg. II. ind._ This entry indicates that, prior to 1870, the
Russians were already classed as heretics.
Pociej, Joh. (Chancellor of the Cathedral at Chelm), _O Jezusie
Chrystusie_ (a study of the record of the early Christians), printed
in 1852 (with the approval of the Church authorities at Warsaw),
prohibited in 1857.
The record of the proceedings of a Synod of Melchites, held in 1810,
in Beyrout, with the approval of the papal delegate, Gandolfi, was
condemned in 1835 by a brief of Gregory XVI. The record had been
printed in Arabic and was not likely therefore to have secured an
extended circulation in Catholic States.
In 1851, was prohibited an Italian version of the _Critical History
of the Greek and Russian Church_ by Josef Schmitt, which had been
published in Mayence in 1840. In 1868, was prohibited a work by the
English writer, Edmund S. Ffoulkes, which had been published in London
in 1865 under the title, _Christendom’s Divisions, a Philosophical
Sketch of the Divisions of the Christian Family in East and West_.
The work had been sharply criticised by Manning, but it does not appear
that Manning had made any formal denunciation of the same to Rome.
=33. The Theologians of Pavia, 1774–1790.=--In 1774, the Austrian
Government instituted a theological faculty in the University of
Pavia. In 1783, the Emperor Joseph II transferred to Pavia, for use in
the newly instituted _Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum_, the
collections belonging to the old _Collegium Germanicum_ of Milan.
The divines of the theological faculty of Pavia came to be classed as
Jansenists. The classification appears to have been based not so much
upon their teaching of the Augustinian doctrine of Grace as upon their
own sharp antagonism to the theories and practices of the Jesuits.
These divines contended openly that the so-called Jansenist heresy
was a phantom, and they also undertook the defence of the Church of
Utrecht. They were, further, opponents of the doctrines taught by the
Jesuits in regard to morality; they were in sympathy with the claims
of the Gallican Church, and, finally, they maintained stoutly the
necessity for reforms within the Catholic Church on the lines indicated
by the Synod of Pistoja. In the years succeeding 1781, were placed
upon the Index the titles of a number of writings by these theologians
and by others who had accepted their views. Among these writers may
be mentioned the following: Pietro Tamburini, Giuseppe Zola, Count
Th. Trautmannsdorf, Canon Litta, and G. B. Guadagnini. The treatise
by Trautmannsdorf on Toleration, condemned in 1783, the author found
desirable to disavow in order to secure his appointment as bishop.
=34. French, Dutch, and English Writings, 1817–1880.=--In 1825, a
report was laid before the French Minister of the Interior concerning
certain writings classed as irreligious or immoral which had been
published between the years 1817 and 1824. The list included various
editions of the complete works of Voltaire and of Rousseau, together
with a number of issues of their separate volumes. There were no less
than eight editions of the _Système de la Nature_, by d’Holbach,
and four of the _Lettres Persanes_. It was complained that these
pernicious books were being sold so cheaply that they were brought
within the reach of the masses of the people and were bringing about
widespread evil. The _Tartuffe_ of Molière, sold for five sous,
had at once reached a sale of one hundred thousand copies. In 1821,
Étienne Antoine, Bishop of Troyes, in a pastoral letter writes: “We
renew all the censorship orders issued, between the years 1782 and
1785, by the clergy of France, and the individual orders issued by the
archbishops of Paris, in which these works were condemned as godless
and sacrilegious, and as tending to undermine morals and the State. We
prohibit, under the canonical law, the printing or sale of these books
within the territory of this diocese, and we charge the vicar-generals
to enforce this regulation and to see to the carrying out of the
necessary penances for all who make confession of disobedience to
these regulations.” The authority of the Church of France appears to
have been considered as sufficient for the control of the matter. No
application was made to have these books again placed upon the Index.
Dupuis, Ch. Fr., _Origine de tous les Cultes_, printed 1794,
prohibited, 1818. An abridgment of this work, printed in 1798 and
reprinted in a number of editions thereafter, escaped condemnation.
Volney, J. F., _Les Ruines ou Méditations sur les Révolutions des
Empires_, printed in 1799, prohibited in 1821. This book was also
strongly condemned in the Spanish Indexes. An Italian translation,
printed in 1849, escaped the Index.
Pigault, Le Brun, _Le Citateur_, printed in 1803, prohibited in 1820.
This work contains some bitter assaults on the Bible and on the dogmas
of Christianity. Reiffenberg states that, in 1811, Napoleon, in a state
of irritation with a brief of Pius VII, gave instructions for the
distribution to the public, free or at a nominal price, of ten thousand
copies of _Le Citateur_, but there is no record that these instructions
were carried out. A Spanish version of the book, printed in London in
1816, was prohibited in Spain in 1819.
_Essai historique sur la Puissance temporelle des Papes_, printed
in Paris in 1818, prohibited in 1823. No author’s name is connected
with any of the several editions of this treatise, but the introduction
to the original issue states that the work was translated from a
Spanish manuscript found at Saragossa.
After the Restoration, negotiations were in train during a series of
years for a modification of the provisions of the Concordat of 1801. A
series of controversial publications bearing upon the Concordat were
placed upon the Index as they appeared.
Constant, Benjamin, _De la Religion Considerée dans sa Source_, etc.,
printed in 1824–1831, in five volumes, prohibited in 1827.
Gandolphy, Peter, _A Defence of the Ancient Faith, or Exposition of
the Christian Religion_, printed (in London) in 1813, prohibited
in 1818. Gandolphy was a priest of the Catholic Church and at the
time of this publication had charge of the Spanish Chapel in London.
The book had been promptly condemned by Pointer, Apostolic Vicar in
London. Gandolphy journeyed to Rome and succeeded in securing for his
book the approval of the master of the palace and a certificate giving
him the authority to state that his book had been approved by the Holy
See. On the strength of this certificate, he placed copies again on
sale. Pointer secured from the Inquisition instructions to confirm the
prohibition, and as this was still ignored by Gandolphy, the latter was
suspended. After some years of controversy, the difficulty was finally
adjusted by the correction of the text according to the specifications
of Pointer.
Earle, Charles J., _The Forty Days, or Christ between His Resurrection
and Ascension_ and _The Spiritual Body_. These were printed in 1876 and
1878 and were prohibited in 1880. Earle had in 1851 been converted to
Romanism.
In 1857, an association was instituted in England “for the promotion
of the unity of Christendom.” Its special purpose was to bring
together the members of the Catholic, the Greek, and the English
Churches. The members of the society accepted the obligation to make
a daily prayer to this end. Cardinal Patrizzi declared in the name
of the Inquisition, in a letter addressed, September, 1864, to the
English bishops, that Catholics were forbidden to take part in this
association. In 1866, Archbishop Manning confirmed this prohibition.
Patrizzi had condemned in his first letter the _Union Review_, which
was the organ of the society, but the _Review_ was not placed on the
Index. A series of essays on the reunion of Christendom, written by
members of the society, and edited by F. G. Lee, was placed on the
Index in 1867.
=35. Writings of German Catholics, 1814–1870.=--During the 19th
century, were placed upon the Index a larger proportion than in the
earlier period of the writings of the Catholics of Germany, but the
selection of the works so distinguished appears as heretofore to have
been arrived at with no very definite policy or principle. It is
evident that the books were not selected on the ground either of their
relative heresy, of their scholarly importance, or of their popular
influence. It seems probable that the condemnation of any particular
work was dependent upon the accident of its title being brought to
the attention of the Congregation. The names of a few of the more
noteworthy authors in the list are specified below.
Wessenberg, Vicar-General of Constance, _Die deutsche Kirche_,
printed in 1806, condemned by a brief of Pius VII, in 1814.
Dannemayer, _Institutiones Historiae Ecclesiasticae_, printed (in
Vienna) in 1780, prohibited in 1820.
Rechberger, _Enchiridion Juris Eccles. Austriaci_, printed in
1809, prohibited in 1819.
Reyberger, _Institutiones Ethicae Christ._, printed in 1805–9,
prohibited 1834.
Bolzano Bernhard (professor of geology in Prague), _Stunden der
Andacht_, printed in 1813, prohibited in 1828. It was largely
on the ground of this work, which was published anonymously,
that Bolzano was deposed from his professorship. _Lehrbuch der
Religions-Wissenschaft_, printed in 1813, prohibited 1838.
Brendel, Sabold, professor of law in Würzburg, _Handbuch des kath.
und protest. Kirchenrechts_, etc., printed in 1823, prohibited in
1824. Brendel retained his professorship but was later ordered to give
up instruction in canon law.
Theiner, Anton., _Die katholische Kirche in Schlesien_ (published
anonymously), printed in 1826, prohibited the same year.
Müller, Alexander, _Handbuch des kath. und protest. Kirchenrechts_,
printed 1829–1832, prohibited in 1833. It would appear that very few
of the treatises on canon law or ecclesiastical jurisprudence were so
written as to meet the approval of the Index authorities.
Hirscher, J. B., a treatise on the mass, entitled _Missae Genuinam
Notionem Eruere_, etc., printed in 1821, prohibited in 1823.
Drey, G. S. von, a treatise on confession, entitled _Diss. Hist.
theol. Originem et Vicissitudinem_, etc., printed, in 1815,
prohibited in 1823.
Gehringer, _Liturgik und Theorie der Seelsorge_, printed in 1848,
prohibited in 1850.
Hermes, George, _Die philosophische Einleitung in die christ.
katholische Theologie_, printed in 1819, prohibited in 1831.
The other writings by this author, together with a long series of
treatises by his followers, were for the most part prohibited. It was
contended by the Hermessians, as it had formerly been contended by
the Jansenists, that the specific errors on the ground of which the
condemnations had been arrived at did not as a matter of fact exist
in the writings of Hermes. In May, 1837, six years after the death
of Hermes, Professors Braun and Elvenich journeyed to Rome for the
purpose of securing a fresh examination of the works of Hermes and of
establishing their orthodoxy, but after a series of conferences, they
failed to secure the recall of condemnation.
Günther, A., _Peregrins Gastmahl, Janusköpfe für Philosophie und
Theologie_, and a group of similar writings published between 1830
and 1843, were condemned together in 1857. The Congregation of the
Index began in 1851 to give special attention to Günther. In 1852,
instructions were given by Pius IX to the bishop of Wurzburg to
prohibit the teaching of the theories that had become known as the
philosophy of Günther.
Trebisch, Leop. (classed as a follower of Günther), _Die christliche
Weltanschauung in ihrer Bedeutung für Wissenschaft und Leben_,
printed in 1858, prohibited in 1859.
Frohschammer, J., _Ueber den Ursprung der menschlichen Seelen_, printed
in 1854, prohibited in 1857. The work of Frohschammer was brought upon
the Index by the influence of the Jesuit Kleutgen. It is recorded
that the secretary of the Congregation asked Dr. Döllinger, who was
at the time in Rome, to induce Frohschammer to submit himself and to
recall his treatise, but no such action was taken by the author. His
later treatises, _Einleitung in die Philosophie_, _Der Grundriss der
Metaphysik_, and _Ueber die Freiheit der Wissenschaft_, were prohibited
together in 1862. He was suspended from his functions in 1863, and in
1871, placed under excommunication. In the introduction to the papal
brief of 1863, Pius writes that he had learned with great sorrow that a
number of the theologians and instructors in philosophy having chairs
in the Catholic institutions of Germany had permitted themselves to
bring into their teachings an unwarranted license of thought and of
expression. The works through which these teachings were distributed to
the general public were in many cases carrying most pernicious errors.
These works, in so far as they had been examined and reported upon, the
Pope had therefore ordered to be placed on the Index.
Oischinger, Paul J. N., who appears to have belonged to the same
theological group with Frohschammer, is recorded as the author of a
long series of philosophical works, only one of which was placed upon
the Index: _Die spekulative Theologie des H. Thomas von Aquin_,
printed in 1859, prohibited in 1859. Oischinger maintains that Thomas
had wrongly comprehended a number of the most important divisions of
the dogma of the Church.
Pichler, Aloys, _Geschichte der kirklichen Trennung zwischen dem
Orient und Occident_, printed in 1865, prohibited in 1866. _Die
Theologie des Leibnitz_, printed in 1869, prohibited in 1870.
=36. La Mennais.=--The writings of Abbé La Mennais had, even
before 1830, brought out in France some measure of criticism. They
had, however, secured the approval of Leo XII. After the Revolution
of July, 1830, the opinions of La Mennais and his associates were
condemned in Rome as in more ways than one pernicious. In August, 1832,
Gregory XVI, in the encyclical entitled _Mirari_, condemned the
ecclesiastical and political opinions presented in the journal issued
by La Mennais and his associates under the title _L’Avenir_. No
one of the writers was mentioned by name, but in a letter by Cardinal
Pacca accompanying the encyclical, they were informed that the
condemnation applied to their work. They all submitted themselves to
the authority of the Church. After some negotiations, La Mennais, in
December, 1833, gave his signature to a formula which had been sent
from Rome for the purpose. A few months later, however, he brought into
print a monograph entitled _Paroles d’un Croyant_, through the
declarations in which he made a direct breach with Rome. In June, 1834,
he received, through a separate encyclical, sharp condemnation. A year
later, the Congregation placed on the Index the treatise _Affaires de
Rome_ and the subsequent writings were prohibited promptly on their
appearance. The earliest publication of La Mennais, issued in 1809
under the title _Réflexions sur l’État de l’Eglise en France pendant
le XVIII^{me} Siècle et sur la Situation actuelle_, was promptly
suppressed by the imperial police, but was not placed upon the Index.
The _Essai sur l’Indifférence en matières de Religion_, published
in 1817–1820, was sharply criticised in France but was not condemned in
Rome. The monograph _De la Religion Considérée dans ses Rapports avec
l’Ordre Politique et Civile_, printed in 1826, was condemned by a
number of the bishops and the author was sentenced by the courts to the
payment of a large fine.
The journal _L’Avenir_, previously referred to, had for its
purpose the maintenance of the independence of the Gallican Church
against the encroachments of the Ultramontanes, and also the final
separation of Church and State. The publication of the journal was
suspended by the Government in 1831, and Lacordaire and Montalembert
journeyed to Rome to present the case of its editors. A _Mémoire_
written by Lacordaire was delivered in February, 1832, to Cardinal
Pacca. In this, the memorialists asked the pope to have thorough
investigation made of their purpose and actions and to give permission
for the continuation of their work. After some weeks, Pacca gave
decision on behalf of the pope that, while the good service rendered
in the past by the memorialists was fully acknowledged, he found
ground for grave disapproval of their later actions in stirring up
controversies which tended to bring the authority of the Church into
disrepute. While the matter was under consideration, an appeal came
to Rome from thirteen of the bishops of France, asking the pope to
confirm the condemnation of _L’Avenir_ and specifying fifty-six
propositions which were in themselves sufficient ground for its
condemnation. This memorial secured later the support of fifty further
French bishops. In September, 1832, La Mennais and his associates sent
to Rome an acknowledgment of the decision of the pope and made promise
that the journal _L’Avenir_ should no longer be printed. In May,
1833, the pope sent to the Archbishop of Toulouse a brief in which he
made reply to the memorial of the bishops. He pointed out that in the
encyclical he had presented the sound and final doctrine of the Church
and that he had taken measures to prevent the further circulation of
the pernicious opinions complained of by the bishops.
In August, 1833, La Mennais sent to the pope through the Bishop of
Rheims a letter in which he protests against the strictures expressed
in the papal brief. He professes himself prepared to give the fullest
possible acceptance to all provisions of the Holy See which have
to do with matters of doctrine and of morals. He asks the pope to
indicate the expressions occurring in his writings which are open to
condemnation. In October, 1833, the pope replies to the Bishop of
Rheims, pointing out certain statements by La Mennais the purport of
which tends to undermine the authority of the Church. La Mennais had
taken the ground that he was not undertaking to interfere with purely
ecclesiastical questions. While in such matters he gave the fullest
acceptance to the authority of the pope, he was not prepared to accept
the judgment of the pope in matters that seemed to him to be outside of
the proper authority of the Holy See.
In 1834, La Mennais published, under the title of _Affaires de Rome_,
a report concerning his correspondence and relations with the Holy
See. This was duly prohibited by the Congregation in 1835. _Le Livre
du Peuple_, printed in 1837, was prohibited in 1838. The same course
was taken with his later writings, appearing between 1841 and 1846. La
Mennais died in February, 1854. The set of his works in five volumes,
published after his death, 1855–1858, does not appear in the Index.
=37. The Roman Revolution of 1848.=--The operations of the Index
Congregation were not intermitted on the ground of the absence of
Pius IX from Rome, from November 25, 1848, to April 12, 1850. During
this period, three sessions were held in Rome and two in Naples,
and judgment was passed upon a number of the more important of the
publications of the day. Among those condemned the following titles may
be noted:
Rosmini, Antonio, _Die fünf Wünder der h. Kirche_, and _Die Verfassung
gemäss der socialen Gerechtigkeit_.
Gisberti, V., _Der moderne Jesuit_.
Ventura, G., _Discorso funebre dei morti di Vienna_, etc. (The three
titles in German are recorded in Italian.)
A few months before the condemnation of the two treatises of Rosmini,
his name had been under consideration with the pope for appointment
as cardinal. His theological and philosophical writings had been
denounced by his theological opponents as early as 1841, but, in 1843,
Gregory XVI had ordered the controversies concerning the doctrines of
Rosmini to be brought to a close. In 1850, the denunciation of the
writings of Rosmini was renewed. The Congregation of the Index caused
an examination of the works to be made by a number of consultors and,
in 1854, the judgment was given that they were not to be disapproved,
_dimittantur opera_. This continued controversy concerning the
philosophical and theological teachings of Rosmini brought about, in
1880, an authoritative definition of the formula _dimittantur_.
In November, 1848, Pius IX took refuge in Gaeta. Rosmini followed the
Pope thither, but finding that the influence of his opponent, Cardinal
Antonelli, was still controlling, he returned without securing any
personal consideration. A series of negotiations, controversies,
and correspondence followed, but it was not until 1854 that his
works finally secured quittance. The question then placed before
the Congregation was whether, as the writings of Rosmini had been
thoroughly examined and had been shown to be free from errors in
matters both of doctrine and morality, the prohibition that had been
placed upon them ought not to be cancelled. The Jesuits were still
unwilling to give up their contest against the teachings of Rosmini.
They pointed out that the Inquisition held higher authority than that
of the Congregation, and that in a number of instances books which had
been passed with approval by the Congregation had been condemned by
the Inquisition. Cornaldi, in a treatise printed in 1882, contended
that the philosophy of Rosmini was distinctly opposed to the doctrines
of St. Thomas. Leo XIII, in a brief addressed, in January, 1882, to
the Bishops of Milan and Turin, reproves the attempts to renew the
controversies concerning Rosmini and calls attention to his encyclical
in which he had indicated the way by which all devout philosophers
could arrive at a harmony of conclusion.
=38. Traditionalism and Ontology, 1833–1880.=--In 1833, Abbé
Bautain of Strasburg was responsible for the initiating of certain
controversies, in part philosophical and in part theological,
which appear to have turned upon the proper interpretation of the
doctrines so-called of Traditionalism and Ontologism. In 1870, these
controversies were revived in Louvain and in Paris with the result of
bringing out certain condemnations from the Congregation and from the
Inquisition. In 1840, Bautain was compelled to subscribe to certain
propositions formulated by the Congregation, and in 1855 his associate
Bonnetty took the same course. In 1861, the Inquisition declared seven
propositions, selected from the writings of Ubagh and other French
Ontologists, to be heretical. Ubagh was compelled to correct certain
treatises of his own according to specifications laid down by the
Index; and, in 1866, after lengthy negotiations, his friends in Louvain
were obliged to declare their acceptance of the reproval and of the
conclusions of the Congregation and of the Inquisition. Ubagh held in
the University of Louvain the chair of philosophy and logic.
=39. Attritio and the Peccatum Philosophicum.=--In addition to
the Inquisition’s decrees in which whole series of propositions were
condemned, certain decrees were issued in which consideration was
given to one or two propositions. In May, 1667, Alexander VII issued
a decree in which, while not undertaking to decide the issue that had
arisen concerning the sufficiency of incomplete repentance to secure
absolution, he prohibited any writings which maintained that one view
or the other of the matter was in itself heretical. In August, 1690,
a decree of Alexander VIII condemns the two propositions, first, that
the love of God is not requisite for the leading of a proper life, and,
second, the theory that a sin which has been committed by some one who
does not know God, or committed during a moment in which the sinner is
not thinking of God, (the so-called philosophical sin as distinguished
from the theological sin) is not to be classed as a mortal sin. These
two definitions of the Inquisition resulted in the prohibition of a
number of writings upon the questions. The most important of these was
the _Amor poenitens_ by Johannes Mercassel, Bishop of Castro,
which, after a long series of investigations, was finally condemned in
1690, with a _d.c._
The Council of Trent[54] had declared that the perfect repentance
which has its motive in the love of God (_contritio caritate
perfecta_) can secure reconciliation with God before the sacrament
of confession may be received, but it does not free the believer from
the requirement for this sacrament. The instruction says, further, that
the incomplete repentance, the so-called _attritio_, which arises
from a consideration of the shamefulness of the sin or is produced
by a fear of the punishment of hell and which is therefore connected
with the will to refrain from sin with the hope for forgiveness, can
not of itself and without the sacrament of confession, bring about a
reconciliation with God. Such a condition in the believer places him,
however, by means of the sacrament of confession, in a position to
secure grace. The doctrines presented in these instructions were, as
above indicated, the texts for a long series of writings, many of which
failed to secure with the Index authorities approval as orthodox.
=40. Communism and Socialism, 1825–1860.=--The selections from the long
lists of works of those classed as socialists are but inconsiderable
and, as in the case of certain other important divisions of literature,
it is difficult to trace any plan or principle upon which they have
been based. Proudhon is distinguished by having his entire series of
works included in the Index, while of Saint-Simon (†1825) not a single
volume has been condemned. Of the works of Charles Fourier (1768–1837),
one book only has been selected for prohibition, _Le Nouveau Monde,
Industriel et Sociétaire_, printed in 1829, prohibited in 1835.
Étienne Cabet (1788–1856) is represented in the Index by one only of
his long series of treatises, _Le Vrai Christianisme_, printed in 1846,
prohibited in 1848.
Esquiros, H. A. (†1876), has, next to Proudhon, the longest list in the
Index of works belonging to this class. Of these the most important is
_L’Évangile du Peuple_, printed in 1840, prohibited in 1841. This is
followed by three socialist tracts entitled _Les Vierges Martyres_,
_Les Vierges Folles_, _Les Vierges Sages_, printed in 1841, prohibited
in 1842.
Further titles in this group are:
Constant, L. A., _La Bible de la Liberté_, printed in 1841, prohibited
in the same year. The author was condemned to imprisonment for his
works.
Chevé, Ch. Fr., _Le Dernier Mot du Socialisme, par un Catholique_,
printed in 1848, prohibited in 1852.
=41. Magnetism and Spiritualism, 1840–1874.=--From the year 1840,
the Inquisition published a series of decrees or opinions in regard to
the theory of animal magnetism, but did not undertake to lay down any
final conclusions. Certain expressions of opinion were also given in
regard to the theories grouped under the name of spiritualism, but for
this subject also there is wanting from the censorship authorities any
authoritative or final word of counsel. From the long list of writings
by the spiritualists of the time, only about a dozen were formally
condemned. The list includes:
Kardec, Allan, _Revue Spirite, Journal d’Études Psychologiques_,
1858–1864; _Le Spiritisme à sa plus simple Expression_, printed in
1862, prohibited in 1864; _Le Livre des Esprits_, printed in 1863,
prohibited in 1864.
Guldenstubbe, L. V., _Positive Pneumatologie_, printed in 1870,
prohibited in 1874.
Under magnetism may be noted:
Cahagnet, L. A., _Guide du Magnétiseur; Le Magnétisme
Spiritualiste_.
With this group may also be classed the Memoir of Swedenborg by the
Protestant theologian, J. Matter of Strasbourg, _Swedenborg, Sa Vie,
ses Écrits et sa Doctrine_, printed in 1863, prohibited in 1864.
=42. French Authors, 1835–1884.=--Among the more important of the
books by French authors which are represented in the Index during this
half-century may be noted the following:
Ségur, Mgr. L. G. de (1881), _La Piété et la Vie Intérieure_,
printed in 1864, prohibited in 1869. The name of the author is not
recorded in the Index and it is stated that the omission was due to
personal consideration for him. Ségur states, in an article printed
in 1860, that the monograph, before being brought into print, had
been passed upon with approval by a number of devout scholars. He said
further, that seventeen thousand copies had been distributed and that
during the five years since the publication no criticism concerning it
had come to him. He yields himself now to the authority of the Holy See
and recalls the work from circulation.
Cloquet, Abbé. This author comes into the Index in 1864, on the ground
of a series of monographs having to do with the subject of indulgences.
Alletz, P. A. (†1785), _Dictionnaire Portatif des Conciles_, printed in
1758 and reissued in 1822, first prohibited (with a _d.c._) in 1859.
Caron, L. H., Abbé, _La Vraie Doctrine de la Sainte-Église_, printed in
1852, prohibited in 1856.
Siguier, Aug., _Christ et le Peuple_, printed in 1835, prohibited in
1836.
Marne, M. G. de la, _La Religion Défendue contre les Préjugés et la
Superstition_, printed in 1823, prohibited in 1843.
Quinet, Edgar (1803–1875), _Ahasuérus_, printed in 1833, prohibited
in 1835; _La Génie de Religion_, printed in 1842, prohibited in 1844;
_L’Allemagne et l’Italie_, printed in 1839, prohibited in 1848; _La
Révolution_, printed in 1865, prohibited in 1866.
Michelet, J., _Mémoires de Luther_ (a translation from the German),
printed in 1835, prohibited in 1840; _Du Prêtre_, _De la Femme_, _De
la Famille_, _L’Amour_, _La Sorcière_, _La Bible_, _De l’Humanité_,
printed between 1845 and 1864, prohibited promptly after publication.
Mickiewicz, Adam (1798–1855), _L’Église Officielle et le Messianisme_,
printed in 1843, prohibited in 1848.
Renan, E. The writings of this author ought properly to have come into
the Index under the specification _Opera omnia_. The Congregation
appears to have taken prompt action concerning each book as soon as
information of the publication came to hand, but a few titles escaped
attention. The more important of those recorded are the following: _Le
Livre de Job_, _Étude d’Histoire Religieuse_, _Origine du Langage_,
_Histoire des Langues Sémitiques_, _Averroés et l’Averroisme_, _Vie de
Jésus_, _L’Antéchrist_, _Les Évangiles_, _La Mort de Jésus_. (These
books appeared between the years 1858 and 1884.)
Pêyrat, Alphonse, _Histoire Élémentaire de Jésus_, printed in 1864,
prohibited the same year.
Soury, Jules, _Jésus et les Évangiles_, printed 1878, prohibited 1878.
Scholl, _Le Procès de Jésus_, printed in 1878, prohibited 1878.
Havet, E., _Le Christianisme et ses Origines_, printed 1873, prohibited
1878.
Aube, B., _Histoire des Persécutions de l’Église_; _Histoire de
l’Église_; _La Polémique Paienne à la fin du deuxième siècle_; _Le
Christianisme dans l’Empire Romain_, printed 1876–1880, prohibited as
published.
Larroque, P., _Examen des Doctrines de la Religion Chrétienne_;
_L’Esclavage chez les Nations Chrétiennes_, printed in 1859–1864,
prohibited as published. Later writings by this author were also placed
on the Index, apparently in so far as their titles were brought to the
attention of the Congregation.
Jacolliot, L., _La Bible dans l’Inde_; _Vie de Jezeus Chrishna_, an
identification of Christ with the Chrishna of the Hindus, printed in
1869, prohibited the same year. A group of later writings by this
author were also promptly condemned.
Rodrigues, H., _Les trois Filles de la Bible_, printed in 1865; _Les
Origines du Sermon de la Montagne_, printed in 1868; _La Justice de
Dieu_, printed in 1869; _Histoire du Premier Christianisme_, printed
in 1873. The above books were prohibited together in 1877 with the
specification: “these works are condemned in accordance with the
Constitution of Clement VIII, issued in 1592, on the ground of their
presenting Jewish writings which contain heresies and errors tending to
undermine Christian doctrine.”
Lajollais, Mlle. Nathalie de, _Le Lime des Mères des Families sur
l’Éducation Pratique des Femmes_, printed in 1845, prohibited (with a
_d.c._) in 1846.
Gréville, Mme. Henri, _Instruction Morale et Civile des Jeunes Filles_,
printed in 1882, prohibited the same year.
Bert, Paul, _L’Instruction Civile à l’École_, printed in 1883,
prohibited the same year. The volume of Bert had been officially
adopted for use in the schools of Paris and also in certain other
of the large cities. The decree of the Index was published by the
Archbishop of Albi and by the Bishops of Annécy, Viviers, Langres,
and Valence. The ecclesiastical authorities were sharply reproved by
the magistracy for their interference in the matter and for their
undertaking to criticise the action of the Government in a matter
which, as it was claimed, belonged to the temporalities. In May, 1883,
Minister Ferry, speaking in the Senate, says:
“We will never recognise as binding in a matter of this kind
the conclusions or judgments of the Congregation of the Index.
We propose to maintain free from interference the Gallican and
the French tradition of the independence of the civil power. How
is it possible to conceive that a Frenchman would be prepared
to accept conclusions of a body like the Congregation which has
in past years seen fit to condemn and to attempt to repress
great spirits of humanity like Descartes, Malebranche, Kant,
Renan, Bouillet?... I understand that a manual by Compayré was
condemned because the author says that it is more important for
a child to know the names of the Kings of France than those of
the Kings of Judea.... This Index decree is sent out over the
heads of our ambassador in Rome and of the Papal Nuncio in Paris
in such manner as to arouse needless antagonism in France.”
=43. Italian Writings, 1840–1876.=--Of the works by Italian authors
condemned during this period, the following may be noted as indicating
the policy of the Congregation.
Lazzeretti, David, _Opuscula omnia quocumque Idiomate edita_, printed
in 1876, prohibited in 1878. Lazzeretti represented a mystic school of
thought. He had for a time been in favour with Pius IX.
Gravina, D. B., _Su l’Origine dell’ Anima_, printed in 1870,
prohibited in 1875.
Nuytz, G. N., _Juris ecclesiastici Institutiones_, printed in
1844, prohibited in 1851. In this condemnation, the critics have
taken the pains to specify certain propositions which are considered
pernicious.
Zobi, Ant., _Storia civile della Toscana_, 1737–1848, prohibited in
1856.
Amari, Mich., _Storia dei Musulmani in Sicilia_, volume one, printed in
1845, prohibited in the same year. The following volumes of this work
escaped condemnation.
Rusconi, Carlo, _La Repubblica Romana del 1849_, printed in 1849,
prohibited in 1850.
Leva, Jus. de, _I Jesuiti e la Repubblica di Venezia_, printed in
1866, prohibited in 1873.
Cantu, E., _Storia Universale_, printed in 1858, prohibited in 1860.
Torti, Giov., _Un Abisso in Roma_, printed in 1864, prohibited (by
the Inquisition) in 1865.
=44. American Writings, 1822–1876.=--The first work by an American
author which finds place in the Index is a monograph by W. Hogan,
a priest in Philadelphia, having to do with a controversy that had
arisen concerning the Church of Saint Mary which Bishop Henry Conwell
proposed to have consecrated as a cathedral. The action of the Bishop
was contested in some fashion by the trustees acting on behalf of Hogan
who wanted to retain his pastorate. Hogan’s pamphlet was condemned
in 1822. Hogan finally gave up the contest and at the same time left
the Catholic Church and married. In 1864, was placed upon the Index
a translation, printed in New York, of a monograph by Fr. Hollick,
entitled _Guia de los Cassados o Historia Natural de la Generacion_.
Draper, J. W., _History of the Conflict between Religion and Science_,
printed (in New York) in 1874, prohibited (in a Spanish version) in
1876.
Canada is represented in the Index of this period by the titles of
two year-books issued by a literary association in Montreal, which,
printed in 1858–9, were prohibited in 1864. In the year 1858, at which
time the association contained seven hundred members, a proposition,
submitted at the instance of certain ecclesiastics in the membership,
was brought up for consideration, under which all non-Catholic members
were to be excluded and two Protestant journals were to be removed
from the reading-room. This proposal was voted down, and on that
ground and also on the further complaint that the library contained
pernicious literature, the Catholic members were called upon to leave
the association. One hundred and fifty left and instituted a Catholic
French-Canadian institute. The majority of the original association
issued a statement declaring that the library contained no unworthy
books and that, in any case, the decision concerning its literature
rested with the managers of the association. In April, 1858, Bishop
Bourget issued a pastoral brief in which he reminded the members of
the old association that the reading or possession of heretical books
involved the penalty of excommunication, and that any books recorded in
the Index were to be classed as heretical. The institute was instructed
to recall its action, and if it refused, the Catholic members were
ordered to resign, under penalty of excommunication. Two hundred
Catholics disregarded the command of the Bishop and remained members.
They explained that they did not assert the right to read forbidden
books, but they did maintain their right to remain members of a society
in whose collections such books might be contained. In 1864, these
Catholic members took the pains to place before the Bishop a catalogue
of the library with the request that he would indicate the books
classed as pernicious and with the suggestion that these books should
be placed in a separate collection. To this proposition the Bishop paid
no attention, whereupon seventeen of the members made direct appeal to
Pope Pius IX. From the Pope they received no reply, but in July, 1869,
the Bishop, then in Rome, sent to Montreal a pastoral brief in which
he reported that the Inquisition declared the work of the institution
to be pernicious. He reported, further, that the annual volume of the
Canadian institute for 1868 (in which volume were contained certain
addresses on toleration and freedom of conscience) had been condemned
and that any person possessing or reading this year-book or remaining
in the institute had come into mortal sin and must be refused the
sacraments. Later in the year, a second memorial was addressed to the
prefect of the Propaganda by the Catholic members of the institute, in
which they stated that they accepted without question the condemnation
of the year-book. To this memorial no reply was received. The Bishop,
however, declared in a report to the vicar-general that the submission
rendered in this memorial was inadequate because the writers remained
members of an institute in which was maintained the righteousness of
religious toleration. In November, 1869, died a distinguished Catholic
member of the institute named Guibord, a man whose life had been above
reproach. The pastor and the other authorities refused to make burial
of the body even without religious ceremonies. The widow secured a
provisional interment in unconsecrated ground. She then instituted a
suit demanding the right of burial in consecrated ground. The suit
continued until after her death in 1873. In November, 1874, the
judicial committee of the priory council in London decided that the
body was entitled to burial in the consecrated ground of his pastoral
church and decided further that the Church authorities must provide for
the very considerable expenses of the suit. The re-burial took place
in November, 1875, after the Church authorities had filed a protest
and had ordered faithful Catholics to take no part in the ceremonies.
The record is of value in the history of censorship proceedings as an
example of the overriding by the authority of the State of a decision
of the Church, in regard to a matter which had heretofore been held
as belonging strictly within ecclesiastical control, namely the right
of burial in consecrated ground. In 1870, a later annual giving
the record of the conclusion of the process, was condemned by the
Inquisition.[55]
The contributions to the Index from the literature of South America are
for this period more considerable than those from the United States and
Canada. The following titles indicate the direction of the censorship.
Vidaurre, Manuel Lorenzo de, _Proyecto del codigo eclesiastico_,
printed (in Paris) in 1830, condemned in 1833. The author, a doctor
of law of the University of Lima, was Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of Peru. His “project” proposed certain rather radical changes
in ecclesiastical regulations. _Tratado sobre Denaciones_, printed (in
Madrid) in 1820, prohibited in 1833. In the same year were placed upon
the Index three monographs by Vidaurre, one on the Bishop of Rome and
the condition of the Church, the second on Celibacy, and the third on
Confession.
Vigil, Francisco P. G. de, _Defensa de la Autoridad de los Gobiernos
y de los Obispos contra las Pretenciones de la Curia Romana_, printed
(in Lima) in 1848, prohibited in 1851. The author was a priest and at
the time of his death Curator of the National Museum at Lima. The work,
issued in six volumes, octavo, gives consideration to almost every
detail of the organisation of the Church. _Manual de Derecho Publico
Eclesiastico, and Dialogos sobre la Existencia de Dios y la Vida
futura, á la Juventud Americana_, printed (in Lima) in 1863, prohibited
in 1864. Vigil died in June, 1875. He had declined to submit himself to
the condemnation of the Church and he was therefore refused the last
sacraments. The Congress of Peru directed, however, that he should have
the honour of a public funeral.
La Riva, J. F., _El Espiritu del Evangelio comparado con las Practicas
de la Iglesia Catolica_, printed (in Lima) in 1867, prohibited in the
same year.
Fotvárad, Carlos H. de, _O Casamento civil_, etc., printed (in
Rio Janeiro) in 1858, prohibited in 1859. This monograph was written
in reply to a treatise, published in Rio in 1858, by Canon de Campo.
The author undertook to maintain the exclusive authority of the Church
(as against the State) in all matters connected with marriage. _Las
Biblias falsificadas_, etc., printed (in Rio) in 1867, prohibited in
1869. This was a further criticism of the utterances of de Campo.
D’Aranjo, M. R. (Bishop of Rio), _Elementos dé direito Eclesiastico
publico_, etc., printed (in Rio) in 1857, prohibited in 1869.
_Compendio de Theologia Moral_, printed (in Oporto) in 1858, prohibited
in 1869.
Monte, Carmelo J. de, _O Brazil Mystificado na Questao religiosa_,
printed in 1875, prohibited in 1876.
Mexico is represented in the Index of the period by a treatise entitled
_Conducta_, the work of D. J. C. Portugal, Bishop of Michoachon,
printed (in Mexico) in 1835, prohibited in 1840; and by two treatises
of N. Pizarro, _Catecismo Politico Constitutional_, and _Catecismo de
Moral_, printed in 1867, prohibited in 1869.
=45. Periodicals, 1832–1900.=--In 1832, the Congregation of the
Index issued a declaration stating that the regulations of the Index
of Trent (renewed in the succeeding Indexes) concerning ecclesiastical
censorship, covered material printed in journals as well as that
published in books. After the year 1848, however, the attempt to
enforce in Rome ecclesiastical censorship, over the contents of
journals as given up was impracticable. It was pointed out that no
advantage could be secured in placing upon the Index journal issues of
a back date, the reading of which had already been completed.
During the 18th century, however, various attempts were made to
control the literary policy of journals the managers of which were
within reach of ecclesiastical authority, and during the 19th century,
censorship decrees were issued in regard to a number of journals which
concerned themselves with ecclesiastical subjects. The only practicable
measure to take against journals the articles in which are judged to
be pernicious in their influence is to prohibit the faithful from
reading or from possessing copies of the same. It has, however, been
found convenient, in the cases in which such prohibitions appeared
to be called for, to have the same issued and enforced, not by the
Congregation, but by the local authorities.
After 1850, the Minister of the Interior in the papal States printed
lists of the foreign journals the reading of which was forbidden.
1862. December. Adames, Apostolic Vicar of Luxemburg, declared in a
pastoral letter that the publisher of the _Courier de Luxemburg_ and
his editors were excommunicated. The subscribers and readers of the
journal were to be excluded from the sacraments on the ground that they
were helping to support a work of Satan. The publisher took the matter
into the courts, but the judges dismissed the complaint against Adames,
taking the ground that his action was within his ecclesiastical and
legal rights. (Vering, _Archiv_, X, 422, XII, 172.)
In 1863, the Patriarch of Venice and the ten Venetian bishops, in a
pastoral letter, prohibited the reading of three journals specified.
1870. Melchers, Archbishop of Cologne, published an instruction
against the _Rheinische Merkur_, with which instruction the Bishop of
Mayence and the Capitular-Vicar of Münster concurred. The Bishop of
Paderborn issued an edict forbidding, as a mortal sin, the possession
of a copy of the journal. No action appears to have been taken by the
publishers, possibly because the circulation of the _Merkur_ was not
seriously affected by these episcopal fulminations.
1871. Under instructions of Pius IX, a circular letter was issued by
Cardinal Vicar Patrizzi to the pastors or parish priests directing
them to forbid to their parishioners the reading of certain Roman
journals. The list included _La Libertà_, _Il Capital_, _Il Tempo_,
_La nuova Roma_, _La Vita Nuova_, and six others. Disobedience to this
order was to be classed as a grievous sin. In 1873, a papal brief gave
certain general instructions in regard to journals. It pointed out
that these were covered by rules 2 and 7 of the Index. Papers were to
be considered sheet by sheet, simply as open books. Permission might
be accorded to a person to whom the information was necessary, to read
in heretical or dangerous papers the political or financial articles,
but the permission should be strictly limited to these portions of the
journal.
In 1882, September, the Patriarch of Venice prohibited in like manner
the reading of _Il Veneto Christiano_, and of _Fra Paolo Sarpi_, as
“godless, blasphemous, and heretical productions.” The Patriarch
declared that the publisher and those who read these journals with
belief were excommunicated.
1885. February. The Archbishop Magnasco, of Geneva, condemned the
_Epoca_. Editor, publisher, distributor, and readers were alike
condemned to excommunication. Whoever buys or reads a number, or gives
it to another, has committed mortal sin.
=46. The Roman Question, 1859–1870.=--Between the years 1859–1861,
a number of monographs and volumes, chiefly by French writers, were
brought into print that had to do with the question of the political
authority of the Papacy. These French theories brought out a full
measure of criticism and condemnation. Among the works thus reproved
was a treatise by La Guérronnière, _La France, Rome et l’Italie_,
printed in 1861, in regard to which Cardinal Antonelli issued a
specific condemnation. No single title of the group is, however, to
be found in the Index. The monograph by La Guérronnière expressed, as
was well understood, the views of the Emperor Napoleon III, and had
probably been written at the Emperor’s suggestion. A companion volume
was published about the same time by Edmund About and this also was
sharply condemned not only by Cardinal Antonelli but also by a number
of the French bishops, including Dupanloup. The list of the Italian
controversial publications on this question is also considerable. The
earlier works had to do simply with the political authority of the
pope, but since 1870, a number of writers have given attention to the
desirability, on the ground of the welfare of Italy and also of that
of the Church universal, of the reconciliation of the Papacy with the
Government of the United Italy. These writings were met with sharp
condemnation on the part of Pius IX and Leo XIII and of the supporters
of the civil authority of the Papacy, but in only few instances was
action taken in regard to them by the Congregation of the Index.
=47. The Council of the Vatican, 1867–1876.=--The conclusions reached
by the council held in the Vatican in 1867 resulted in the publication
of a number of controversial works of which certain titles found their
way into the Index. The more important of these are the following:
Michelis, Fr., _Fünfzig Thesen über die Gestaltung der kirchlichen
Verhältnisse der Gegenwart_, printed in 1867, condemned in 1868.
Renouf, Le Page, _La Condamnation du Pape Honorius_, printed in
1868, prohibited in the same year.
“Janus” (the name adopted for the moment by Döllinger) _Der Papst und
das Concilium_, printed in 1869, prohibited in the same year.
Wallon, Jean, _La Vérité sur le Concile_, printed in 1872, prohibited
in 1873.
Dupanloup, Archbishop, _Testament Spirituel de Montalembert_, and _La
Cour de Rome et la France_, printed in 1871, prohibited in 1872.
Pressensé, _Le Concile du Vatican_, printed in 1872, prohibited in 1876.
In 1870, the general Congregation published a protest, signed by a
number of members of the council, calling for the specific condemnation
of a series of newspapers, articles, and pamphlets in which the work
of the council had been criticised. The secretary of the Congregation
of the Index reported, however, that it did not seem wise to take
action. During the years 1871 and 1872, were, however, condemned by
the Inquisition a number of periodical articles on the work of the
council by such authors as Lord Acton, Berchtold, Friedrich, Ruckgaber,
Schulte, Zirngiebl, and others.
=48. Example of a License.=--A license given by the inquisitor-general
of Spain to Dr. Andrew Sall in June, 1652, states that he was
permitted to keep and to read prohibited books for use in connection
with the writing of any doctrinal or devotional books or treatises.
The holder of the license was charged with the duty of giving
information to his Grace of any censurable propositions that he might
find in books, ancient or modern, which might not already have been
comprehended in the expurgatory Index. The license was marked as
duly entered in the record of licenses, the page (Number 138) giving
indication of a considerable series of licenses outstanding. These
instruments were renewed from year to year. Dr. Sall relates that with
the second grant came a complaint that he had reported no censurable
propositions. He had excused himself by saying that he had not had
in his hands any Protestant books; but he gave specification of some
perverse and apparently heretical doctrines he had found in certain
books which were approved and were much in use with themselves. He gave
as an example citations from the Commentaries on Esther by de Murcia:
_Etiam Deus Op. Max. proposita ante oculos morte in meliora contendat_;
and
_Etiam demon morte ante oculos constituta contendit in meliora_.[56]
Sleumer gives the following example of the form in force to-day (1906)
for an application for the permission to read forbidden books.
“To the very reverend Vicar-General of the diocese: The undersigned
respectfully request permission for the reading of certain books which
have been specifically forbidden in the Index or which in their class
come under the general provisions of the Index. The requirement is
based upon the following grounds:...
“The undersigned feels assured that the proposed use of this forbidden
literature may be made by him on these grounds without any undermining
of his faith or any interference with his conscientious duty to the
Holy Church.”[57]
CHAPTER VIII
THE CENSORSHIP OF THE STATE AND CENSORSHIP BY
PROTESTANTS
1. General.
2. Catholic States: Catholic Germany, France, Spain and Portugal.
3. Protestant States: Switzerland, Protestant Germany, Holland,
Scandinavia, England.
4. Summary.
=1. General.=--In this chapter, I am undertaking to present, not
any comprehensive summary of political censorship, a task which would
in fact require many volumes, but merely certain noteworthy examples of
regulations issued under civil authority which will serve to indicate
the general character of the censorship supervision of literature that
was attempted by the State.
I have grouped together here instances of Catholic censorship in which
the ecclesiastics carried out their prohibitions under the authority
of the State, or in which the State censorship regulations had been
put into shape by the ecclesiastics. In the record of the so-called
Protestant censorship, that is to say of the regulations adopted
in Protestant States for the control of theological or religious
literature, it is not practicable to separate the acts and utterances
of the theologians from those emanating from the civil authorities,
whether municipal or national. The larger number of the prohibitions
of books having to do with theology or religion were naturally
initiated by the divines, although even for this class of literature
the civil authorities frequently did not hesitate to take into their
own hands the responsibility of selecting the works to be condemned.
The chief distinction, however, between the censorship methods of
Protestant communities and those which came into force in Catholic
States was the fact that for the former the censorship authorities
were dependent for the enforcement of the prohibitions and penalties
upon the machinery of the civil authority. The Protestant divines had
at their command no such dread penalty as the ban of excommunication
by means of which the Catholic ecclesiastics were able to enforce upon
the faithful obedience to the commands of the Church. In the Protestant
States, it was necessary for the divines, first, to convince the rulers
of the essential importance of their particular creeds or forms of
“orthodoxy,” in order to secure the enactment of the necessary laws or
the issue of censorship edicts; and, secondly, to keep the magistrates
up to the mark in the enforcing of the penalties prescribed.
It is true that in Catholic States, such as France, Austria, or
Bavaria, the authority of the Crown and the machinery of the civil
power were frequently utilised to carry out censorship regulations
that had been framed by the ecclesiastics; but even with the citizens
of those States (as far at least as they were Catholics) the most
pertinent influence in insuring obedience for the prohibitions of the
Index was the dread of being deprived of the rites of the Church.
Excommunication meant that the adults were prohibited from marriage
and their children were deprived of baptism; it meant that for the
living there was no communion, for the dying, no absolution, and for
the dead, no burial in consecrated ground. Life without the sacraments
was full of fears, and with the deprival of absolution and of Church
burial, death took on new terrors. These same influences were, of
course, all-important also in securing the active co-operation even of
the most worldly and most skeptical of the civil rulers in creating
and in maintaining the machinery for controlling the operations of the
printers and booksellers and for enforcing adequate civil or criminal
penalties against heretical delinquents who were not amenable to the
authority of the Church.
In the States in which in this fashion the co-operation of Catholic
rulers could be secured in support of the censorship policy of the
Church universal, the administration of such censorship was, of course,
more consistent, and it is fair to say less arbitrary (at least outside
of Spain) than in the Protestant States in which the principles
of prohibition changed from decade to decade with the changes of
administration or as one theological faction or another secured
influence with the rulers.
In 1904, the Jesuit Father, Joseph Hilgers, published, under the title
_Der Index der verbotenen Bücher_, a treatise presenting, from
the point of view of an earnest upholder of the authority of the Roman
Church, an historical study of the Roman Index. The immediate text
for the production of this treatise of the learned Father was the
publication, in 1900, of the second Index of Leo XIII, of which Index
the Father gives a comprehensive description and analysis. Father
Hilgers takes the ground that it was impossible for the Church, without
neglecting its manifest duty, to avoid accepting the responsibility
for the supervision and control of literary production and of the
reading of the faithful. The pope, says the Father, is, as the head of
the Church on earth, the direct representative of God. It is through
him that God makes known his wishes and the principles upon which the
life of the faithful is to be guided. It is for the shepherd of the
flock to preserve the flock from poison. The shepherd is charged not
merely with the right living of his sheep during their earthly career,
but with the much larger responsibility of seeing that their lives are
so shaped that they shall secure a blessed hereafter.
In the historical sketch of the operations of the Index, Hilgers
touches but lightly upon the examples of inconsistencies or
difficulties in the enforcement by the Church of the control over
literature. He makes no mention of the many contests that arose
between the different ecclesiastical bodies. He hardly touches upon
the fact that the Index came to be from time to time an expression
of theological differences between the great Church bodies or Orders
such as, for instance, the Jesuits and the Dominicans or the Jesuits
and the Franciscans. He has nothing to say about the instances in
which the utterances of successive popes came into conflict with each
other. He also barely makes mention of the contentions, maintained in
Spain as in France, of the right of the national Church, acting in
co-operation with the national Government, to decide what principles
should be maintained for the supervision of the literature of the
nation. His big treatise, comprehensive in many respects, is very
curious in its omissions. In dwelling upon the beneficent influence of
this Church censorship, he omits altogether the record of the control
of this censorship by the Inquisition in Spain. He has nothing to say
about the imprisonment or execution of Spanish heretics whose crime
had consisted in the production, the selling, or the reading of books
classed as heretical. If the reader had no other knowledge of the Index
than that which came to him by the history as presented by Hilgers, he
would have before him simply a record of an administration of fatherly
beneficence on the part of wise advisers, of a pleading with the
perverse that they should be saved from the consequences of their own
perversity; of actions furthering all scholarship that was in itself
wholesome and sound, and of the discouragement simply of such perverted
intellectual efforts as tended to lead men away from their duty to
their Creator and to undermine the moral conduct of their own lives.
Hilgers is not prepared to admit that any of the works repressed by
the Church, or the repression of which was undertaken by the Church,
could have constituted, if permitted free circulation, or do actually
constitute as far as, in spite of the opposition of the Church, they
secure such circulation, any additions of value to the intellectual
life of mankind. He would probably, if the question had been put to
him directly, have taken the ground that no intellectual gain could
sufficiently offset the moral or spiritual loss. In maintaining the
contention that any properly ruled community must accept a supervision
of its literary activities, he naturally lays stress upon the long
series of censorship systems which were undertaken by ecclesiastics
or by the civil rulers of Protestant States. He calls attention to
the series of so-called Protestant (theological) Indexes, and he
adds a very considerable list of instances of political censorship.
He is able to point out that the number of books which have come
under condemnation through this Protestant censorship (including the
censorship undertaken directly by the civil authorities) very much
exceeds the books condemned in the whole series of Roman Indexes,
although in this comparison he omits all Indexes which came into
publication outside of Rome.
He does not take pains to present any results of the effectiveness of
these Protestant Indexes. In omitting the record of the censorship
of the Spanish Inquisition, he is able to avoid any reference to the
fact that the censorship machinery put into force by the Inquisition
was, for the territory controlled by it, thoroughly effective; so that
if a book was condemned in Spain, it was the case, for the centuries
in question, that, as far as Spanish territory was concerned, the
editions were thoroughly suppressed and the production or distribution
of copies was rendered impossible. He speaks of each of the censorship
edicts of the German States as if they had effect throughout the whole
of the territory of Germany. He omits to point out that the books
condemned in one city or in one State promptly came into print and into
circulation in adjacent territory in such manner that the circulation
was practically unchecked.
He is able, however, fairly to make out his main contention, that for
the century succeeding the Protestant Reformation, the will or desire
on the part of the Protestants to establish a censorship of literature
was just as emphatic as that of the authorities of Rome; and that if
their efforts were only partially successful, it was through no want
of conviction on their part that such efforts were required for the
maintenance of what they considered to be the true Faith. He is able
to make good the further contention that these examples of Protestant
censorship present a much larger series of inconsistencies than could
be found in the record of the Index of the Church of Rome; even though
one should for the purpose of the comparison include under the Church
Index, in addition to those printed in Rome, the Indexes that emanated
from Madrid, Louvain, and Paris. He also makes his point good in regard
to the political Index. He is able to show that, as far at least as
the edicts of the State were concerned, these were more bitter, more
comprehensive, and more regardless of literary interests than those of
the Church. What he does not emphasise is that these political edicts
were very much more spasmodic and temporary in their influence, and
that, as a fact, they had very little continued effect on the literary
development of the communities which were responsible for them.
A political censorship becomes of necessity the football of political
parties and is therefore not to be maintained with any measure of
consistency or justice. The multiplicity and changeableness of the
religious doctrines of the reformers gave to the so-called Protestant
censorship an inconsistent and contradictory character which is not
to be paralleled under any epoch of Roman supervision of literature.
A censorship of this kind is the natural product of the fissure of
creeds. Hermann Wagener, writing in Berlin in 1864, remarks that all
the measures of the State thus far attempted to protect the public
against pernicious influences from the printing-press, are open to
the criticism that their action is purely negative. On the other
hand, as he points out, the censorship policy of the Catholic Church,
while on the one hand prohibitory, on the other asserts positive and
constructive principles for the literary and intellectual development
of the community by wholesome and wise methods.
It is true, says Hilgers, that the works of great writers like Tasso,
Molière, Châteaubriand, Vondel, Goethe, Schiller, Grotius, and other
leaders of thought have come under the ban of censorship and that the
publication or use of their works had been permitted only after certain
eliminations or purgations had been made. The censorship regulations
in regard to these authors emanated however not from Rome but from
the authorities of France, Holland, Germany, and Denmark. It was the
case even with _Faust_ that its production could not be permitted
on the stage of Berlin until certain “dangerous” passages had been
eliminated.
[Sidenote: Catholic Germany]
=2. Catholic States.=--The Edict of Worms of 1521, which committed
the Emperor Charles V to the support of the contentions of the Papacy,
and threw the great weight of the Holy Roman Empire against the cause
of the Protestant reformers, constituted the beginning of an imperial
censorship, a censorship which was confirmed and extended by the Edict
of Nuremberg of 1524. In the regions under Lutheran influence, the only
effect of the imperial and ecclesiastical prohibition was, as noted,
to increase largely the circulation of the writings of the reformers.
In the districts into which the reform doctrines had only begun to
penetrate, the ecclesiastics were able, in great part at least, to stop
the further circulation of the pamphlets, by taking prompt and harsh
measures against the colporteurs. From this time and until the close
of the Thirty Years’ War, Church and State (the imperial State) worked
together (although not always in harmony) against the freedom of the
press, on the broad ground that such freedom necessarily resulted in
heresy and in treason. In 1529, the persecution of the printers and
of the Protestants in Austria was for the time relaxed because of the
peril of Vienna from the Turks, an exigency which absorbed the full
attention of the imperial authorities.
The Church and the Holy Roman Emperor finally took the ground that
every writing that came from the pen of a Protestant author, even
though it had nothing whatsoever to do with religion or politics,
must be classed as libellous. In 1548, the Emperor issued a new
series of most strenuous laws for the control of the press. The
penalties were brought to bear at one point or another with full
severity, but it proved to be impracticable to secure in the Germany
of the time any uniformity of obedience. In Austria and in Bavaria,
the penalties included the use of the rack for authors, printers,
and sellers of publications that came under condemnation. In 1567,
a _Flugschrift_ was printed in Frankfort under the title of
_Nachtigall_, which was at once interpreted as a libel on the
Emperor. Fourteen hundred copies were sold within a few hours of its
issue and there were various reprints within the next few weeks. The
Emperor ordered the punishment not only of the printer, but of the
magistrates of Frankfort. The former was placed in prison for two years
and the magistrates were fined thirty thousand gulden, an enormous sum
for those days.[58]
The Emperor Ferdinand was a more faithful, that is to say, a more
bigoted, son of the Church than Charles, but he refused to admit that
the control of the press was a Church matter. He took the ground that
censorship was a matter pertaining to the State, that is, to the Crown,
and that the bishops could take part in it only as delegates of the
authority of the State. This was the contention asserted, and finally
maintained, in France by Francis I and his successors.
In an official document of 1580, occurs the phrase, “The regulation of
books (_das Bücher-regal_) which has for many years been within
the control of the emperor.” Schurmann is of opinion that the authority
for the regulation of books was derived from, or connected with, the
rights reserved to the imperial authority under the Golden Bull. A
century after the issue of the Golden Bull, at the time namely of the
invention of printing, the reserved powers (_Reserva-rechte_) of
the empire had become materially weakened, and were being in large part
exercised by the local authorities, and the attempt of the emperor to
enforce control over literary production and distribution was from the
outset met by antagonism and protest on the part of princes and of the
municipal magistrates, and was also opposed by the contention of the
Church that such supervision properly belonged to her. The question
was raised as to whether the decrees of the imperial Diet contained
any references to the imperial control of book publishing. The
omission was explained on the ground that such control was exercised
as a personal right of the emperor. It was under such imperial
authority, for instance, that an approval or privilege was given to
the _Germania_ of Aeneas Sylvius (afterwards Pius II), originally
issued in Italy in 1464 and printed in Germany in 1515.
In 1530, there came to Vienna a group of Jesuits who did much to
strengthen the machinery of censorship. The undertakings of the
printers and of the booksellers decreased in direct proportion with
the growth of the influence of the Jesuit advisers of the emperor.
In 1523, the production and sale throughout the empire of the German
Bible is prohibited. In 1564, the Elector of Bavaria orders that the
work of the publishers must be restricted to printers whose Catholic
orthodoxy has been duly tested. In this year, the Elector begins the
issue of an annual list of books that were to be permitted. In 1569,
the use in the schools of Bavaria of certain Latin classics, including
the works of Virgil, Horace, and Ovid, was prohibited. In 1616, the
Elector appointed Catholic commissioners of censorship for each town in
Bavaria. The University of Ingolstadt became the centre of the work of
the Jesuits, who, in Bavaria as in Vienna, had secured the direction of
censorship.
In 1579, under Rudolf II, the Jesuits were called upon to put into
shape a more effective censorship for the empire. Under the régime thus
established, the standard of thought for the political action and for
the religious belief of Germany was to be fixed in Rome and in Madrid.
Under the direction of the Jesuit censors in the year 1579, no less
than twelve thousand books in German and two thousand in Bohemian were
burned by the public hangman in the town of Gratz.[59]
In the same year, an imperial commission was appointed, with
headquarters at Frankfort, which was charged with the supervision of
the book production of the empire. The operations of this commission
were very largely controlled by the interests, real or imaginary,
of the Catholic Church, and the personal supervision and arbitrary
censorship of the ecclesiastics, had not a little to do with the
disintegrating of publishing undertakings in Frankfort and with
the transfer, some years later, to Leipsic of the leadership in the
business of book production and book distribution.
Hilgers, while admitting the influence of the Jesuits in the direction
of State censorship in South Germany, denies that the results of
their work were adverse to the development of literature (“sound
literature”) or to intellectual activity. Hilgers writes: “It may
at once be admitted that the Jesuit Fathers were, during the 16th
century, active in securing in Austria, Bavaria, and other States a
censorship of literature. The Holy Ignatius, Father of the Order, had
from the beginning of his active work insisted upon the responsibility
resting with the Church and with the active workers of the Church for
preserving the faithful from the poison of literature.”[60] In 1550,
and in the years following, Peter Canisius, at that time the head
of the Order in Germany, took active measures for the enforcement
throughout the empire of the regulations of the Index of Paul IV, and
after the publication, in 1564, of the Index of Trent, the Jesuit
Fathers in Germany had a large part in bringing about the enforcement
of the regulations therein presented. Hilgers points out that, under
Jesuit influence, there were issued in Bavaria during the years
succeeding 1565 not only lists of books condemned and prohibited, but
further lists of books commended for the reading of the faithful.
These catalogues had been prepared by the Jesuit Fathers at the
instance of Canisius and under the authority of Duke William V. They
were distributed chiefly through the parish priests. Against the
contention made by German historians that the influence of the Jesuits,
particularly in South Germany, had served to restrict, and in certain
instances practically to repress, literary production and publishing
activity, Hilgers insists that in Germany, as throughout Europe, the
influence of the Order had always been an intellectual influence; and
that its efforts had furthered education and had advanced the interests
of scholarly literature, of printing, and of publishing. He contends
with some ingenuity that the elimination from literary production of
activity in undesirable productions and the concentration of literary
force in the channels in which such force could be directed to the best
service of humanity, far from lessening intellectual or literary force,
could but serve to strengthen this and to render it more effective.[61]
During the first half of the 16th century, there may well have been
ground for a censorship of literature in Germany in connection with
the long series of lampoons and libellous tractates and volumes that
came into print. Even leaders of thought such as Luther and Reuchlin,
were tempted into language that became not only unscholarly, but
coarsely abusive. The more earnestly the community interested itself in
religious convictions, the more bitter became the expression of hate
and scorn for other earnest believers who had arrived at different
convictions.
It is certainly not in order to hold the Jesuits responsible for
the general censorship policy of Rome. The direction of the Roman
censorship has never been in Jesuit hands. The first secretary of the
Congregation of the Index was a Franciscan, while all the succeeding
secretaries have been Dominicans. Hilgers does not mention one detail
in regard to which this Dominican control of the Congregation has
doubtless been important: of the books on the Index which were the
work of members of the great Catholic Orders, those of the Jesuits
equal in number all of the others together. One cause for this was
probably the fact that this Order included a larger proportion of
educated workers. The literary interests of the Jesuits were greater
and so also was the number of books produced by them.
During the second half of the 18th century, the censorship commissions
instituted by the State were given powers under which the authority
of the censorship bodies of the Church was materially modified and
restricted. In Austria, a number of Indexes were compiled by these
civil commissions, and in Bavaria one such Index was published. These
Indexes have importance chiefly because they represent a claim made on
the part of the State to control certain matters which, according to
the ecclesiastics, properly belonged within the exclusive domain of the
Church.
In 1752, Maria Theresa, for the purpose of checking the distribution
throughout the Austrian dominions of Protestant writings, issued an
edict ordering all Catholics to submit to their confessors the copies
of religious books in their possession. The confessors were to retain
all doubtful works and to return the others duly certified with their
signatures and with an ecclesiastical seal. In 1756, the bookbinders
were instructed to deliver to the parish priests copies of any
Protestant writings placed in their hands for binding.
In 1753, the examination of books that were already in print, together
with the censorship of works submitted for the purpose of securing
a printing permit, was transferred from the University of Vienna
to a censorship commission which was charged with the work both of
censorship and revision. This commission was appointed under the
imperial authority and remained in existence until 1848. It issued
from time to time catalogues of prohibited books. Books were in part
prohibited unconditionally, and in part with the restriction that they
should be placed only in the hands of scholars who had secured from the
police authorities a special permission for their use.
In 1754, was published the first Austrian Index. It bears the title
_Catalogus librorum rejectorum per Concessum censurae_. After 1758,
the lists bore the title of _Catalogus librorum a Commissione Aulica
prohibitorum_.
Between the years 1758 and 1780, were issued continuations of the Aulic
catalogues. Later, the system obtained of printing fortnightly lists
of books which had failed to secure an _Imprimatur_ or _Admittetur_,
these lists being distributed to police magistrates, libraries, and
booksellers. Every two months the same were classified and reprinted.
In 1768, was published in one volume the series of catalogues covering
the prohibitions of the preceding seven years. The title reads:
_Catalogus Librorum a Commissione Caes. Reg. Aulica Prohibitorum.
Vienna mdcclxviii. Prostat. in officiana Libraria Kaliwodiana._
With this volume, are bound in supplements to a preceding Austrian
Index, numbered from I to VI, comprising annual lists for the six
years succeeding 1761. The work was reprinted in Vienna in 1774
with further annual lists. Similar issues were made, with annual
supplements, in 1776, 1777, and 1778. These volumes contain lists
only, with no prefatory matter and no reference to the authority
under which the condemnations are made. The selections presented a
much larger proportion of English books (including plays and novels)
than have received attention in any other Continental Indexes. Of
Melanchthon only two works are condemned. Mendham points out that the
Aulic Council, which was undoubtedly the authority for the preparation
of these lists of prohibitions, was at the time composed of an equal
number of Romanists and Protestants. The Aulic Indexes are probably the
only examples of prohibitions arrived at by the judgment of Catholics
and Protestants working together under the authority of the State.
In 1788, was published in Brussels an Index for use in the Austrian
Netherlands, under the title _Catalogue des livres défendus par la
Commission Impériale et Royale_.
The _Enchiridion Juris Ecclesiastici Austriaci_, edited by Rechberger
and printed in Vienna, in 1808, presents the ecclesiastical law of
Austria at that date in force. Rechberger declares in his preface that
the “Index of Trent has no force in the Austrian dominions.”[62]
In 1816, was published in Vienna a general Index of German books under
the title _Neues durchgesehenes Verzeichniss der verbotenen deutschen
Bücher_.
In the earlier Vienna Indexes, are included the titles of certain works
selected from the Roman Index, but it is difficult to arrive at the
principle on which the selection has been made.
In 1769, under Max Joseph III, was instituted in Bavaria a “College
of Censorship” comprising, in addition to the president, eight
councillors. The subjects of theology and of ecclesiastical
procedure were placed in the hands of three divines selected from
the theological faculty of the University of Munich and the other
councillors included representatives from the philosophical faculty.
_Municipal Censorship._--An early instance of the exercise of a
city censorship occurred in Nuremberg, in 1527, in the case of a volume
containing woodcuts illustrating the history of the Tower of Babel,
for which cuts a rhyming text had been supplied by the cobbler-poet,
Hans Sachs. The book had been printed without a license or permission
from the magistracy. The magistrates decided that the book must be
suppressed. They further cautioned Sachs that the writing of verses
was not his proper business, and that he should keep to his own trade
of shoemaking. The edict was simply an emphatic reiteration of the old
proverb, “Shoemaker, stick to your last.” The difficulty in this case
appears to have been due not to the Lutheran tendencies of Sachs’s
rhymes, but to the lack of respect shown to the magistrates in issuing
a book without a permit: and to the further breach of authority on the
part of a man licensed only as a shoemaker undertaking also to carry on
the avocation of a poet.
[Sidenote: France]
In France, the first State regulations for the control of the press
date from 1521, and were directed against the works of the writers of
the Protestant Reformation. While it was the case that the theologians
of the University and the bishops put into action certain measures
against works of heresy, the larger proportion of the censorship
regulations came directly from the Crown or from the Parliament. In
1735, Duplessis d’Argentré published, in three volumes, a _collectio
judiciorum_ which contained the most important of the acts and edicts
in regard to censorship from the faculty of the Sorbonne, from the
bishops, from the Parliament, and from the king up to the year 1735.
In 1757, the King (Louis XV) issues an edict prohibiting, under
penalty of death, the publication and distribution of writings against
religion.[63] There appears to be no record of the enforcement of this
penalty. The policy of Malesherbes, who was director of censorship from
1750 to 1768, was lenient. One of the first acts of the revolutionary
Government of 1789 was the repeal of the censorship laws of the old
monarchy, but the new regulations, established by the revolutionists
themselves for the control of the press, were still more severe and
exacting than those that they replaced. It may be remembered, however,
that these regulations, while in form universal, were as a matter of
fact in force only in Paris and one or two other of the larger cities.
Dupont, in his _History of Printing_, published in Paris in 1854, says
that the press had been less seriously burdened under the persecutions
of monarchical government than when it came under the control of the
so-called “liberty” accorded to the community by the revolutionists of
1789. In form at least these revolutionists had shown themselves keenly
interested in freeing the press from all burdens or restrictions. Under
the Act of August, 1789, it was decreed as follows: “Article Two. Full
exchange of thought and of opinion is one of the rights most precious
to mankind. Every citizen is to be at liberty to speak, write, and
print as he will, with the sole restriction that if the liberty be
abused, he will be liable for any injury caused through such abuse.” It
appears that certain inconveniences resulted from this cancellation of
all restrictions. In March, 1793, the convention decrees as follows:
“Whoever shall be convicted of having written or brought into print
books or writings of any kind that assail the authority of the national
representatives or that shall advocate the reëstablishment of royalty
or that attempt to antagonise in any way the sovereignty of the people,
shall be brought to trial before the special tribunal and shall, if
convicted, be punished by death.” As a result of this decree, there
were brought to the scaffold within the next year twenty journalists
and fifty other writers.
The “rights of man” continued, however, to be maintained, at least by
decree, as unassailable. The constitution of the Jacobins, published in
September, 1793, declares that there must be no interference with the
right of expression of thought and of opinion whether by word of mouth
or in printed documents. In the constitution of the year III (1795)
it is ordered that no censorship shall be imposed on writings before
publication and that no author shall be hindered from bringing into
print what he will. By September, 1797, the pendulum had again swung in
the other direction. Under a decree issued in the name of the Senate
and of the Five Hundred it was ordered that sixty journalists and other
writers and printers who had been charged with conspiracy against the
Republic should be brought to trial. Bailleul, speaking in the name of
the Council of the Five Hundred, declared that “the mere existence of
writers of this class is a crime against Nature ... they constitute
a disgrace for mankind. The star of freedom must be freed from their
presence. Not only these writers but the printers who have aided them
in bringing their infamies into print must be banished into the penal
colonies.” Fifty-five writers and printers were so banished.[64] In
1799, a new press law was enacted which brought the printing-press
formally under the control of the police department. This system
remained in force until the régime of the First Consul, when it was
strengthened and the regulations were carried out more thoroughly. The
censorship established under the empire is a part of the history of
Europe. Fouché carried out with full measure of thoroughness the policy
of Napoleon in regard to the operations not only of the journalists but
of the printers, the book publishers, and the booksellers. The shops of
the latter were placed under reiterated examination in order to avoid
the risk that they might bring into the territory of France pernicious
literature. The policy of the imperial censors concerned itself almost
exclusively with works of a political character or which might, through
criticisms of persons, by any possibility exert a political influence.
The production and distribution of works in theology and religion had
in any case been very much lessened, and during the consulate and the
empire, there was but very little ecclesiastical censorship. But little
attention seems during these years to have been paid to the protection
of the morals of the community. Criticism of a book as _contra bonos
mores_ does not find place in any of the French censorship lists
of the time. In June, 1806, it was ordered by an imperial edict that
the director-general should instruct all the booksellers and printers
to place with the minister, in advance of any sales, a copy of every
book whether it was printed in France or was an importation. They were
at liberty to accept books which belonged without question to the
divisions of science and art. This was the time in which the battle of
Jena was being fought and one might perhaps suppose that the attention
of the Emperor would have been sufficiently engaged with affairs in
Germany.
Under the imperial censorship, occurred instances of expurgations
which recall the expurgatory Indexes of the Spanish Inquisition. In
the _Athalie_ of Racine, before a new edition was permitted to be
printed, certain passages had to be cancelled because they contained
allusions to “tyranny.” Chénier had permitted himself in his drama
_Cyrus_ to present the following lines:
“_Je ne commande point, j’obéis à la loi;
Et je suis à l’État, l’État n’est point à moi._”
These lines had to be cancelled before the performance of the play was
permitted.[65] Kotzebue’s _Souvenir d’un Voyage_ was prohibited because
the author had permitted himself certain favourable references to the
late Queen of Naples and to the English Admiral, Sidney Smith (“that
pirate,” said Napoleon). Madame de Staël’s _Corinne_ was prohibited in
1807 and a bitter criticism of the work, printed in the _Moniteur_, is
ascribed to the pen of Napoleon himself. Chateaubriand’s _Les Martyrs_
was, before being published, severely handled by the censors. After
suffering a large amount of elimination, it was brought into print,
but even then proved unacceptable and was prohibited. A reference to
the court of Diocletian was held by the police to constitute a _lèse
Majesté_. In November, 1809, Napoleon specified as the responsibilities
of censorship, _Le droit d’empêcher la manifestation d’idées qui
troublent la paix de l’État, ses intérêts et le bon ordre_. In the
same year, Napoleon says: _Qu’on laisse donc écrire librement sur la
religion, pourvu qu’on n’abuse pas de cette liberté pour écrire contre
l’État_.[66] In 1810, the Emperor instituted the post of _directeur
general de l’imprimerie et de la librairie_, with Portalis as the first
incumbent. The system of inspection and repression established under
this bureau continued until the close of the empire and was, in fact,
renewed with no great change after the return of the Bourbons.
Peignot, writing in 1806, during the “strenuous” years of the First
Empire and at a time when political censorship in France and in
the great territories outside of France that were under Napoleonic
control was most severe, is prepared to speak with full measure of
respect of the importance and the necessity of censorship. He finds
ground for criticism, however, in the cases in which the Roman Church
has undertaken to interfere with the control over French literature
which properly belonged to the bishops and to the civil government of
France, but he is quite prepared to accept the judgments of the Church
in regard to pernicious books provided that these judgments are kept
subordinated to the authority of the State.
Peignot speaks of “the happy Europe of his time” (the Europe controlled
by Napoleon),
“in which governments now rest on foundations conformed to
natural law. Individual liberty maintains itself through nearly
all the civilised world. The princes recognise that they command
not themselves but men and that their own authority is so much
more to be respected when they submit themselves to the laws of
their State. The rapid progress of science and art has developed
the human spirit and has freed it from the prejudices and from
the immorality, the tyranny and anarchy which had in the last
years of the preceding century shaken and confused Europe.”[67]
Peignot includes in his lists of books condemned to be burnt not only
the books which he finds recorded as condemned but certain further
works which in his judgment ought to have been suppressed.
_The Results of Jansenism in France._--The Jesuit Hilgers places
upon the Jansenists the responsibility for the wave of heresy, of free
thought, and of unrestricted passion which at the close of the 18th
century undermined in France, Church, State, and the foundations of
society. Hilgers writes (in substance) as follows:
During the 18th century, through the Jansenism which affected a
large part of the community in France, place was being made for the
free thought philosophy which later became responsible for the great
Revolution, and the result was the burst of a storm of public opinion
against the Jesuits. In 1761, the Parliament of Paris prohibited
twenty-four works by Jesuit writers and a year later, in a fresh
prohibition, condemned a hundred and sixty-three Jesuit treatises.
The contention was made in these edicts that the prohibited works
had had an exciting and pernicious effect, had served to undermine
Christian morality, and had tended to demoralise the life and to impair
the safety of the citizens; and it was further contended that the
opinions presented in these writings constituted an assault against
the persons of the princes. These pernicious and godless heresies of
the Jansenists continued to gain strength; the Jesuit Order in France
became one of the first victims of the heresy; the Revolution gathered
strength and the Parliament issued a fresh series of orders; the
sacred persons of the king and queen fell victims on the scaffold
and the best of the citizens lost property and in many cases life;
the moral law of Christianity was replaced by the law of man and the
goddess of Reason was accepted as the divinity of the community, and
at her feet were burned as sacrifices the books of religion and the
pictures of the saints. History has recorded how extreme became the
tyranny of this world of so-called reason under the laws of men. This
tyranny naturally extended itself to the censorship of all literature.
The Jacobins controlled with an iron hand journals and journalists;
the censorship instituted by them enforced the strictest supervision
over their printed and spoken words; and when the rule of the mob was
replaced by that of the despot Napoleon, the regulations controlling
the press became still more burdensome and the penalties still more
severe. Under the rule of Napoleon, it was not only the press of France
of which the freedom was crushed, but throughout the broad territories
of Germany and Italy, under the hand of the despot, every utterance of
the people was checked and repressed. No censorship ever attempted or
established by the Church had equalled in severity, in arbitrariness,
in its crushing influence that instituted first by the so-called people
of France (or to speak more accurately, by the mob of Paris) and later
that continued and developed by the product of the mob revolution,
Napoleon the despot.
The above is a summary of the forcibly presented contention of the
Jesuit Hilgers. He traces back to the unrestrained utterances of the
Jansenists what he terms the free-will riot of opinion that took
possession of France. He makes this the natural causation of the
excesses of the Revolution and of the oppressions of Napoleon. It is
easy to point out that the causation is not adequate. The fact that
the teachings of Port Royal preceded the Revolution is not in itself
sufficient to make Port Royal responsible not only for the Revolution
but for Napoleon. As the response of a disputant to the criticism of
Church censorship, the parallel presented by Hilgers is, however,
deserving of consideration if only as indicating the state of mind
under which a loyal Romanist interprets history.
“If,” says Hilgers, “there is to be a sound and safe rule for the
community, it is not possible to permit for men, whose understanding
is at best but limited, an unrestricted freedom of investigation or
of expression. To God alone, whose understanding is unrestricted and
unlimited, can there be absolute freedom from limit for thought or for
action. For man the sole safety lies in control.”[68]
Voltaire was obliged in 1716 to make sojourn for a number of weeks
in the Bastile on the ground of certain of his ribald _pasquilles_.
Before this experience, he had already endured banishment on the ground
of other rash utterances. Rousseau’s _Émile_, which finds place in
successive Indexes, was prohibited also by the civil authorities in
Paris in 1762. The condemnation in Geneva was somewhat more serious;
the book was burned by the hangman and the author was condemned to
imprisonment.
In 1827, was printed in Paris (under Charles X) a State Index, under
the title: _Catalogue des Ouvrages condamnés depuis 1814 jusqu’à
Septembre, 1827, suivi du texte des jugemens et arrêts insérés au
Moniteur_. The censures are specified as _conformément à l’article 26
de la Loi du 26 Mai, 1819_. The books condemned are for the most part
classed as immoral.
Hilgers refers to the name of Mirabeau which stands on the Roman
Index connected with the godless and immoral essay on the Bible that
was printed anonymously, but the authorship of which was identified.
He points out that this same book, when later reprinted in Paris, was
condemned in 1829, and again in 1868, and on these two occasions not by
Rome, but by the censorship of the State.
Among the books which secured the distinction of condemnation by the
civil authorities, may be cited the following:
d’Aubigné, Sieur, _Histoire Universelle_. This book was condemned
and burned in 1667 immediately after its publication, under a decree
of the Parliament and a sentence of the Provost of Paris. The ground
for the condemnation was certain satirical references contained in the
history concerning Charles IX, Henry III, and Henry IV.
Beaumarchais, Pierre Augustin Caron de, _Mémoire_. The book was
condemned and ordered to be burned by the public hangman under a
decree of the Parliament of Paris, February, 1774. It was described as
containing scandalous charges against the magistracy and the members of
the Parliament.[69]
To France had been accorded, since the time of Pepin, the title of
“eldest son of the Church.” It is France, however (or perhaps one
should say consequently), that has found occasion to repudiate or to
annul the greatest number of papal Bulls. I cite as follows certain of
the more noteworthy of these acts of protest or of rebellion against
the authority of Rome.
_Papal Bulls Repudiated in France._--1300. Boniface VIII. A Bull
was issued by the Pope against Philip the Fair in connection with
the injunction imposed by the Pope upon the King to make a pilgrimage
to the Holy Land, and more immediately as a result of the treatment
accorded by Philip to the papal emissary, who had been imprisoned for
threatening interdict against the King. The Bull of excommunication
was replied to with a decree from the King headed: _Philippe, par le
grâce de Dieu roi des Français, à Boniface prétendu pape, peu ou point
de salut_.
1407. Benedict XIII (classed as an anti-pope). In this Bull the Pope
excommunicates all those who undertake to prevent the peaceable
settlement for which he was working and who opposed themselves to his
designs as the University of Paris had already done. The Pope places
under interdict the kingdom of France and the domains of the empire.
Charles II, the Parliament, the clergy, and the University of Paris
issued in general council a decree stating that Benedict was not only a
schismatic but a heretic.
1510. Julius II excommunicates Louis XII because the King had refused
to deliver to the Pope certain cities over which the Curia claimed
to have rights. Louis is reported to have said when learning of his
excommunication: _Saint Pierre avait bien autres choses à faire que
se mêler des affaires des empereurs sous lesquels il vivait_. The
King appealed to the General Council of Pisa. The Pope, in confirming
the interdict on the kingdom, relieved the subjects of Louis from their
oath of allegiance. Louis in his turn excommunicated the Pope and
caused to be struck certain pieces of money which bore on the reverse
_perdam Babylonis nomen_. The Council of Pisa refused to confirm
the interdict of the Pope, who thereupon called the Council of the
Lateran, but he died before this council had given a decision.
1580. The Bull _In Coena Domini_, issued by Gregory XIII, was
publicly burned in Paris under decree of Parliament. This burning was
the result of an attempt of the Pope to have the Bull published in
France.
1585. Sixtus V issues a Bull against the King of Navarre, later Henry
IV. The Pope declares the King, together with the Prince of Condé,
to have been convicted of heresy and to be enemies of God and of
religion. He decrees that the King shall be deposed from all rights
in the kingdom of Navarre and in the principality of Berne, and shall
forfeit his claim to the throne of France. This Bull gave satisfaction
to the League in France, but had no political effect. The reply of
Henry, copies of which were placed on the doors of the palace of the
cardinals in Rome and even on the door of the Vatican, takes the ground
that the declaration and excommunication on the part of Sixtus V,
_soi-disant_ Pope of Rome, are false and are based on falsehood.
The Pope is declared to be anti-Christ.
1591. Gregory XIV publishes in Rome two Bulls by the first of which
he declares Henry IV to be a heretic and to be excommunicated and
deposed from his kingdom; by the second, he places under interdict
all ecclesiastics who may render homage to the King. Henry replies by
ordering the Bull of Gregory to be burned before the gate of his palace
and declares this _soi-disant_ Pope to be an enemy of the King,
an enemy of France, and an enemy of peace and Christianity.
March, 1809. Pius VII issued a Bull of excommunication against his
adversaries, this Bull being directed more particularly at Napoleon.
Napoleon forbids the publication of the Bull in France and in the
territories controlled by the French Empire and causes the Pope to be
seized and taken from Rome to Savona and later to Fontainebleau. For
a term of four years, during which he was practically a prisoner, the
Pope refused to accept the instruction of the Emperor to cancel the
Bull, but in January, 1813, he yielded, the Bull was recalled, and the
_Concordat_ was signed. This _Concordat_ remained in force,
at least in substance, up to 1906, in which year it was cancelled by
the French Republic.
January, 1860. Pius IX issued a Bull (also described as an anathema)
against those who had abetted the invasion of his dominions. This
Bull was directed at Victor Emmanuel, who had, after the successful
conclusion of the war with Austria, annexed the papal States, and at
Napoleon III, through whose co-operation this annexation had proved
possible. The Bull was, as far as France was concerned, suppressed by
Napoleon III, who also suppressed the Paris journal (_Le Monde_)
in which the Bull had been published.
[Sidenote: Spain and Portugal]
The law of 1558, which continued in force until the publication, in
1812, of the Constitution of Cadiz, rendered the supervision of the
press a process as cumbrous as it was thorough. Every manuscript for
which a license was desired had to be passed upon by an examiner
appointed by the Royal Council. After such examination, it was
delivered to the corrector general, and when it had passed through
the press, the manuscript as annotated by this official was returned
to him with the printed copy for comparison. If the author was an
ecclesiastic, a preliminary examination and approbation by his superior
were also required. The book as printed carried on its front page a
long series of official certificates, and the same process had to be
repeated for each succeeding edition. The fees were provided by the
author or printer and constituted, of necessity, an additional charge
on the actual cost of production. As the system grew more complex, the
fees and the fines were multiplied so that the total charge became for
each publication a very serious matter indeed. The interests of the
readers were guarded by accompanying the license with a _tassa_
or specification of the price at which the book was to be sold, which
price was determined by the Royal Council. This _tassa_ was not
abandoned until 1762, when it was taken off all books excepting what
are called books of necessity, that is to say books of instruction,
either secular or religious.[70] The charge assumed by the Spanish
censors brought upon them, as was the case with the censors of other
countries, an unavoidable responsibility for the soundness, orthodoxy,
and morality of everything that, having succeeded in passing the
official examination, was permitted to come into print.
In 1682, it was ordered that books on the several subjects “affecting
the interests of the State” (a definition which was of course
capable of a very wide range of application) should be submitted to
a special council or the department to whose affairs they related.
The approbation of such department must be secured before the license
could be issued. For instance, a book in regard to the colonies called
for the approval of the Colonial Department, and one in regard to
commerce or metals had to be submitted to the Department of Commerce.
As late as 1757, a law issued by Ferdinand VI, and repeated in 1778
by Carlos III, ordered that all books on medical science must, before
being published, secure the approval of a physician selected by the
president of the _Protomedicato_. Printers and publishers, under the
close supervision of the host of officials who had charge of the
printing-offices and bookshops, were practically outlawed. The only
printers who had any measure of freedom of action were those who
carried on the printing-offices in the religious houses. The Crown
could deprive its subjects of their civil rights, but it dared not
meddle with ecclesiastical privileges. In 1752, under a royal decree,
it is prohibited to import or to sell any books in Spanish written
by Spaniards and printed abroad without special royal license; the
penalty is death and confiscation. The death penalty could, however,
be commuted to four years of _presidio_. With this varied series of
obstacles in the way of printing and burdensome charges increasing
the cost of publication, it is by no means surprising that the
production of books in Spain was, for the three centuries after
1560, inconsiderable as compared with that of the other States of
Europe. As Lea says, Spain fell absolutely behind in the development
of literature, science, arts, and industry, when human thought
seeking expression was surrounded and rendered ineffectual by so many
impediments. Carlos III, realising the disadvantage to the community
of the hampering of the work of the printing-press, undertook, in
1769, to remove certain of the restrictions. In 1778, he was able
to congratulate himself on the increased prosperity of the printing
business.
In 1782, the Inquisitor-General Bertram, following the instructions
given in the Index of Benedict in 1756, recalled the prohibition of the
printing and reading of Spanish versions of the Bible, a prohibition
which had endured for two hundred and fifty years. This action brought
out sharp antagonism on the part of many of the ecclesiastics and after
the revolutionary events of 1789, the Inquisition re-established the
larger number of the old-time prohibitions and included in these a
fresh prohibition for the reading of the Scriptures. The censorship
activity of the five years succeeding 1789 was, however, particularly
directed against the importation of political and so-called
philosophical publications from France. After the restoration of the
Spanish monarchy under Ferdinand VII, the old regulations of the Index
were again confirmed under an edict of July 22, 1815. There were,
later, certain modifications in these regulations, but in June, 1830,
an elaborate law re-established the entire censorship system with its
cumbrous machinery; every work contrary to the Catholic Faith or to the
royal prerogative was forbidden under pain of death, and provision was
made for the most elaborate supervision of books imported from abroad.
In 1768, Joseph I of Portugal declared that the _Bulla Coena_ and the
other Bulls of the Church having to do with censorship, and the series
of Roman Indexes were not to be held as binding upon his subjects
excepting in so far as they had been specifically confirmed by the
State Government. Joseph instituted a commission to take charge of
the matter of censorship; but this body did not produce any Index. In
1771, however, it issued a list of sixty books prohibited under the
authority of the Church, this list being made up chiefly of treatises
by Jesuits, Escobar, Mariana, Saintarella, etc. Fourteen further works
were to be sold only when containing a printed notice in which were to
be specified the condemned passages.
[Sidenote: Switzerland]
=3. Protestant States.=--The Roman procedure in censorship in
Switzerland, and particularly in Geneva, presents close analogies to
the methods in force in Rome.
In 1525, the magistracy of Zurich established a so-called State Church.
Under the regulations of this Church, no preaching could be permitted
within the territory of the city other than the pure Gospel of Zwingli
and his associates. The books of worship of the Catholics were ordered
to be delivered and burned and a similar course was taken with the
Lutheran Bibles and the Lutheran works of instruction of Melanchthon. A
similar action was taken in Geneva under the direction of Calvin. The
altars and altar pictures were destroyed and the Catholics were ordered
to deliver for like destruction their books of worship, of song, and
their catechism. The Inquisition established in Geneva assumed the
authority to visit houses and shops and to confiscate for destruction
all heretical books. In 1539, the magistrates ordered that no book
should be printed until it had received a license from the authorities.
This decree was renewed in 1556 and in 1560. The burning of Servetus,
under the authority of the court instituted by Calvin, occurred in
1553.
In 1554, Calvin published his _Defensio Orthodoxi et Fidei de S.
Trinitate contra Prodigiosos Errores Mich. Serveti Hispanii_, etc.
This “Defence” bears, in addition to the name of the author, the
subscriptions of fifteen of the divines of the Geneva Church. Later,
Calvin called the theologians of Basel to account for permitting the
publication of an anonymous monograph written as an answer to his
“Defence,” and demanded that the publishers of the same should be duly
punished. Even after the death of Calvin (1564), the censorship system
was renewed and continued.[71]
In 1580, Henricus Stephanus (whose father Robert had migrated to
Geneva in order to free his printing-press from the censorship of the
Catholic divines) was brought before the city council and formally
reprimanded because, in a certain volume of _Dialogues du Nouveau
Langage Français_, he had made additions to the text after this had
been passed upon by the censors. He was reminded that he was already
under reprimand in connection with his _Apologia Herodoti_, and
was cautioned that, if he did further printing without securing a
permit for the text as finally worded, he would lose his license.
It was decided finally by the Consistorium that Stephanus was not
obeying the regulations, and he was declared to be excommunicated,
while the magistrates condemned him to a week’s imprisonment. In 1559,
knowledge came to the Church authorities in Basel that a certain
heretical writer named David Joris had for some little time lived in
the city unrecognised, and had died there in 1556. A formal process was
entered into against the disinterred remains of Joris, and he was duly
condemned (we may say _in absentia_) for heresy. His portrait and
his books were burned by the public hangman. In 1563, in the process
held in Zürich against Ochinus, it was made a charge that, without
first securing permission from the city censors, he had brought into
print, in Basel, a monograph on the Lord’s Supper.[72] In 1562, Beza
brought before the Synod of Geneva a book of Morelli de Villiers which
he described as heretical. The synod, accepting Beza’s view, orders the
book to be prohibited and existing copies to be burned. One copy was
burned in public by the hangman.
In 1566, Jo. Val. Gentilis was, in consideration of his repentance,
spared from death but sentenced to walk through the street of Geneva
in his shirt, barefooted, and with a burning candle in his hand, and,
after doing penance in the church, he was, with his own hands, to burn
his books. His march was to be preceded by trumpeters who were to
specify his crime. Afterwards he was to be confined in Geneva for an
apparently indefinite period. He escaped but was recaptured and was
decapitated and burned.
In Basel, the first decree having to do with censorship emanated from
no less an authority than Erasmus. In 1542, the magistrates issued an
order prohibiting, under a penalty of a hundred dollars, the printing
of any book until it had been examined and approved by the municipal
censors.
An example is presented in Geneva, in 1645, of a prohibition
or suppression of a book with a payment made to the author as
consideration for his loss. The name of the author was Brios; the book
was entitled _L’homme hardi à la France_. The amount paid was ten
crowns. I do not find record of another instance of compensation in
connection with the cancelling of a book.[73]
[Sidenote: Protestant Germany]
In certain of the States which had accepted Protestantism, attempts
were made at an early date to institute a censorship over the
productions of the printing-press. There was, however, no central
authority through which a permanent censorship organisation could
be maintained and it was not practicable to enforce any penalties
for the possession or the reading of condemned books that could be
considered the equivalent of excommunication. No Protestant rulers
took the ground that the reading of false or of erroneous doctrine
constituted a mortal sin. The responsible authority for such censorship
as came into existence rested with the State. Action was taken by the
State most frequently at the instance of the theological faculties
of the universities, and it was to these bodies that was as a rule
committed the task of supervising and examining the books that came
into question. In the case, however, of works that were charged with
assailing the rulers of the State or with any utterances _contra
bonos mores_, the civil officials were accustomed to take the
direction of the matter into their own hands. The German princes
sometimes also assumed the authority to supervise matters of theology,
a weakness that has been paralleled as late as the 20th century by
a German Emperor. Duke Ludwig of Würtemberg, in 1585, announced for
instance that in his duchy no work of theology should come into print
that had not been passed upon and approved by himself. He made no
exception even for the writings of the divines of his own principality,
the soundness of whose orthodoxy might, one should suppose, have been
already tested.
In 1561, the Duke of Weimar appointed a consistorium, comprising four
divines and four laymen, which was charged with the duty of examining
all books offered for sale in the duchy, whether these were printed
within the confines of Weimar or were importations. A book offered
for sale without the approval of the consistorium (whose meetings
took place only four times a year) was ordered to be confiscated. For
a serious offence, such as a repeated disregard of the regulation,
the printer or dealer was subject to a fine. The theologians of Jena
promptly made protest against such a censorship, particularly in the
case of imported books. They took the broad ground that the writing of
books was a necessary responsibility of learning or of knowledge, and
that any attempt to restrict the use of men’s thinking power or the
expression of their opinions was an attempt to place restrictions upon
the Holy Ghost himself.[74]
The chief difficulty in the application of any censorship regulation
within the Lutheran States was the existence of different schools of
belief, the controversies between which soon became active. The control
of the censorship machinery for any one State fell into the hands
first of one set of controversialists and then of another, according
to the activity of the respective leaders and to the influence brought
to bear upon the local ruler. In the Lutheran States, such as Saxony,
the prohibition against papistical writings was accompanied by an
equally sweeping condemnation of the writings of the Calvinists;
while the Calvinistic authorities of States like Brandenburg were
prompt on their side to take similar measures for the protection
of their own special tenets. This continued conflict between the
several groups of reformers had the necessary effect of bringing into
disrepute and ineffectiveness the larger portion of the attempts at
censorship control. Some attempts were made towards a more tolerant
and a more practicable policy. Zwingli, for instance, insisted that
his fellow-believers in Essling should follow the Christian example of
the church in Zürich, which refused to interfere with the sale even of
Anabaptist writings; but in Zürich itself this tolerant spirit was not
long permitted to control.
The Elector of Saxony[75] prohibited, under a penalty of three thousand
gulden, the printing of the _Corpus Doctrinae_ of Melanchthon,
and Frederick II of Denmark prohibited preachers and instructors,
under penalty of the loss of their positions and (for persistency
in misdoing) of further punishments, the use of the formula of the
_Concordia_. Again, in 1574, the Elector of Saxony compelled the
members of the University of Wittenberg to subscribe to an oath that
they would neither purchase nor read the writings of the Sacramentists
or of the Vermigli.
In 1439, Nicholas Wohlrab, who had, under the instructions of Duke
George of Saxony and the Magistracy of Leipsic, brought into print the
_Postille_ of Wicels, was put into prison by Duke Henry, acting
at the instance of the Elector John Frederick. Before he could secure
his release, Wohlrab was obliged to take oath to bring no further
works into print or into sale until these had received the censorship
and the approval of the magistrates. The three other book-dealers of
Leipsic were forbidden to print or to sell any books that had not
secured approval of the censor appointed by the magistrates, and two
deputy magistrates were detached to make a weekly inspection of
the printing-offices and assure themselves that nothing was printed
antagonistic to the teachings of the Gospel.[76]
There were from time to time schemes for a Protestant Index. In 1579,
Duke Julius of Brunswick brought out a scheme for charging a general
synod with the duty of compiling an Index of heretical books and of
instituting measures for the censorship of the press; but the plan was
not put into execution.
In 1593, Duke Louis of Würtemberg issued an instruction to the
University of Tübingen which reads as follows:
“Book-dealers must be cautioned under sufficient penalties,
neither to print, to possess, nor to sell, heretical or
pernicious books, such as the abominable writings of the
Jesuits. The preachers are directed to warn their hearers
against the unclean literature. In order, however, that the
instructors and preachers should be able to secure knowledge of
the arguments of their adversaries and of the nature of their
calumnies, printer George Gruppenbach is ordered to secure two
copies of each of such books as are available and to deliver
the same to the university. The preachers whose erudition and
good judgment can be trusted to keep them from being led astray
by pernicious doctrines, are to be permitted to read these
heretical and sectarian writings, in order that they may be in a
position to defend the true Faith. The superintendent appointed
for the purpose is to keep a record of the pernicious books so
distributed and is to secure reports as to the use made of them.
The copies themselves are in any case to be returned to the
university authorities, so that they may not be used to pervert
the people. All this is done ‘In order that the assaults of the
hateful Satan (who in these last days has been permitted to work
much evil upon the Church of God) shall be withstood, and that
for the people in this principality the true Faith shall be
preserved and their souls shall be kept clean.’”[77]
Luther was, it should be remembered, thoroughly in accord with pope
and with emperor in the belief that it was the duty of the faithful to
destroy heresy. He only differed from the pope as to what constituted
heresy. In 1525, we find him invoking the aid of the censorship
regulations of Saxony and of Brandenburg for the purpose of stamping
out the “pernicious doctrines” of the Anabaptists and of the followers
of Zwingli. The Protestant princes were for the most part more than
willing to establish and to maintain a censorship for the presses of
their several localities, as such a system served in more ways than one
to strengthen their authority, while it could be utilised also to head
off undesirable criticism.
In 1525, Luther decides that a censorship ought to be established in
the Protestant States. He asks the Protestant princes to co-operate in
instituting the machinery for the purpose. The regulations established
by the princes interfered seriously with the operations of the
printers in the larger places, but proved ineffectual for securing
any uniformity of religious publishing throughout the States of North
Germany.
In 1532, Luther calls upon Duke Heinrich of Mecklenburg, for the
sake of the Gospel of Christ and for the saving of souls, to prevent
from coming into print a translation of the Gospels that had been
prepared by the Catholic priest Emser. Melanchthon was fully in accord
with Luther as to the necessity of repressing with sharpest and most
effective censorship all books that were not in accord with the
Protestant faith.
Zwingli and Calvin, acting each from his own point of view, established
in their respective cities a censorship that was much more bitter
and strenuous than anything as yet attempted under the authority of
Rome. Hilgers points out that the Lutherans with their schools and
their cliques, the Zwinglians, the Calvinists, the Anabaptists, the
Mennonites, the Schwenckfeldians, the Weigelians, and the Socinians,
contended with each other with full use of the weapon of censorship,
and in censorship as in religion it was always the brutal power of
the strongest that came into control. The princes, establishing with
readiness a censorship machinery, changed the application of their
penalties as they changed their faith, but the penalties themselves
became, with each change, more severe.[78]
According to Gretser, the first article of the Calvinistic theologian
stated that “the writings of Luther must be stamped out from the Church
of God.”[79] In Saxony, in the Palatinate, in Baden, in Würtemberg,
in Brandenburg, and in Prussia after 1550, we find in full force a
series of Protestant censorships directed sometimes spasmodically, but
usually with no little bitterness, under the authority of the political
power.[80]
The Jesuit Hilgers, who naturally makes use of Luther as a
characteristic example of Protestant intolerance in censorship, writes:
“Luther, who characteristically enough began his notorious
career with the burning of books, was by no means prepared to
accept with patience any Catholic literature that stood in his
way. What, nevertheless, made the Lutheran movement a radical
revolution was the acceptance of the right of individual freedom
of inquiry, a right that was to make each man the authority for
his individual views of faith and doctrine against the accepted
Catholic principle that the authority for the interpretation
of doctrine and for the guidance of faith must rest with the
Church.... Luther accepted as authoritative the teaching of the
Scriptures, but it was his contention that this teaching could
be ascertained by the individual understanding and without the
guidance of the Holy Church. This very principle, however, of
individual interpretation was almost immediately set to one
side by Luther himself. He found that what he propounded as
the true Faith could be maintained only through the protection
of his faithful from the influence of pernicious literature;
and he instituted promptly, to the extent of his own power,
a censorship against not only the writings of the Catholics
from whom he had broken away, but still more sharply against
those of fellow-Protestants whose views of interpretation
differed in any manner from his own. Luther became himself the
first censor of the Word of God, and set up his individual
understanding as a guide not merely for himself but for the
misguided who were ready to accept the word of a single man
rather than the authority of the Church universal.... Under
the divine government, men have been placed in dependence
upon each other. It is only through full recognition of this
interdependent relation that State and Church can come into
existence and can be maintained. No reasonable man will deny for
a father the right and the duty to preserve son and daughter
from the influence of pernicious companionship. One could more
reasonably contend against the authority of the Lord in Heaven
to impose upon Adam and Eve in Paradise certain prohibitions.
That a still more seriously pernicious influence can be
brought about by bad books than even by evil companionship can
be denied by no thoughtful man. The evil is none the less
because it may be brought about under the name of freedom and
enlightenment. No father, with a proper consciousness of his
own responsibilities, will permit a son who is still a youth
to receive without restriction teachings, whether religious,
philosophical, medical, or scientific, which have been shaped
for the understanding only of older men.... The father must on
his own authority restrict, direct, and select the literature
upon which is based the instruction of his children. The
authority of the State makes necessary a supervision of the
action and influence of the printing-press. The Church includes
in its responsibilities the relation of the father to the child
and of the Government to the citizen. Its rulers must watch
not only the matter of morality but that of sound doctrine and
wholesome influence. If the ruler of a modern State finds it
impossible to permit the circulation of writings which assail
the character or the person of king or emperor, how much less is
it possible for those who direct the government of the Church
to permit the circulation of writings which assail the wisdom
and the authority of the Lord of Hosts or of his Son. The realm
of the Church is that of faith and of conduct, a realm which is
of necessity directly influenced by the spoken word and still
more by the word circulated in print. It is this realm that must
be defended and protected against the invasion of the poison
of pernicious and unsound writings. As in the modern State, a
special system is required for the organisation of the defensive
power represented by such bodies as the army and the police, so
is it necessary for the Church, with the organisation of its own
ecclesiastical army of bishops, priests, deacons, and soldiers
of the Faith, to establish regulations for discipline, for
defence, and, when the time comes, for assault upon the powers
of evil. This system of the Church is expressed most logically
through its control of thought and of literature, for the Church
works through the mind with spiritual forces. The authorities of
a city are prepared to prohibit, under the severest penalties,
miscellaneous disturbances or a careless handling of dynamite;
such precautions in regard to personal harm as the mayor finds
necessary for the safety of his community, the bishop is under
similar necessity of adopting for the preserving of his flock
against spiritual assaults.”[81]
In 1595, the astronomer, Johann Kepler, completed his first
astronomical treatise, the _Mysterium Cosmographicum_, which was
to be printed in Tübingen. Before the book could come into print, it
was necessary to secure the approval of the senate of the university.
The theological faculty gave permission for the printing only after
cancelling the chapter in which the author undertook to bring the
Copernican system into accord with the Scriptures. In Leipsic, the
printing of the book was prohibited.
The great Elector of Brandenburg, in 1670, ordered that, for the
purpose of avoiding religious strife and controversy, there should be a
thorough censorship of all books, whether printed within his territory
or imported from without, which were concerned with matters of theology
or religion.
An order issued in Cologne in 1662 prescribes that the preachers shall
engage in no disputations or conferences and shall bring into print no
controversial writings, without the specific permission of the Elector
himself.
In 1772, a Cabinet order prescribes that theological books for
which privileges are demanded must be examined and, if necessary,
revised by a consistorial commission comprised of certain Protestant
ecclesiastics. The penalties imposed upon an ecclesiastic for printing
any volume for which special permission had not been secured were
particularly severe.
The persecution of Christian Wolff, who held for a series of years
a professorship in Halle, is cited as a characteristic example of
Protestant censorship and intolerance. The philosophic doctrines
taught by the professor excited the indignation of Frederick II and in
1773, under a Cabinet order, Wolff was deprived of his post and was
ordered to leave Prussian territory within forty-eight hours. Other
instructors who had accepted the so-called Wolffian philosophy, such as
Gabriel Fischer of Königsberg, were in like manner deprived of their
offices and banished from the country. The various operations of royal
censorship under the great Elector and his several successors, up to
and including Frederick the Great, present examples of tyrannical
inconsistency, inconsequence, unreasonableness, ignorance, and
narrowness which have not been surpassed, and have possibly hardly been
equalled, under any of the regulations of the Roman Index.
Frederick the Great developed the political censorship of Prussia
into a system the influence of which persists under the German Empire
of to-day. His censorship was directed more particularly against
literature affecting the interests of the State, but it included the
full control of theological utterances.
After the occupation of Silesia, an order was issued directing the
Bishop of Breslau to submit for the approval of the royal censors,
before publication, all edicts or utterances on the part of the
Catholic Church.
In 1775, the King prohibited the publication in his dominions of the
Bull of Clement XIV.
In 1784, Frederick the Great issued an edict prohibiting under serious
penalties the acceptance by any of his subjects of Catholic doctrines.
This edict being contrary to the conventions in force, he was obliged,
however, to withdraw it.
In 1792, Frederick William issues an order for the systematising of the
censorship of the kingdom. It is directed that all printing-offices,
publishing concerns, and bookshops be placed under the strictest
supervision, that no work shall come into print until it has secured
the approval of the royal censors. The penalties included, in addition
to fines, the cancellation of the editions, and in case of a persistent
disobedience, the banishment of the delinquent. The university
professors are also brought under close supervision for their
utterances in lectures.
In 1794, in which year censorship in England was practically abandoned,
the censorship system in Prussia under Frederick William II. became
more severe and exacting than ever before.
In 1794, the _Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek_ is prohibited in
Prussian dominions as constituting an influence against the Christian
religion. This is an example of a long series of similar prohibitions.
In 1816, the _Rheinische Merkür_ of the poet Görres, who had done
so much to arouse public opinion against Napoleon, was suppressed under
a Cabinet order. The royal censorship was ameliorated under Frederick
William but was again strengthened in 1848 and during the years
immediately succeeding.
In 1844–5 was published at Jena a catalogue entitled _Index Librorum
Prohibitorum_, giving the titles only of books prohibited in Germany.
In 1882, was published in Berlin what is probably the latest of the
State Indexes. It is devoted to a list of works maintaining the
principles of the Social Democrats, which works had been condemned and
prohibited under the authority of an act of the Reichsrath of 1878. The
list includes several hundred publications, chiefly pamphlets.
The political censorship existing to-day throughout Prussia and the
German Empire under the imperial control is of course familiar to all
readers of the 20th century. Between 1878 and the close of the century,
a very long list of Social Democratic writings, pamphlets, books, and
journals came under condemnation and suppression. This policy was
continued into the 20th century, although under present conditions its
thorough enforcement is a matter of increasing difficulty.
Hilgers points out that the instances of Protestant political
censorship against works which are purely literary or intellectual
in their character, that is to say, which had no direct concern with
either religion or politics, are far more numerous than under the
action of the censorship authorities of Rome. Among other examples, he
points out the action of Luther against the works of Erasmus and the
writings of a number of the Humanists; the decree of the Duke of Weimar
(acting at the initiative of Goethe) against _Isis_, and for the
suppression of the epoch-making writings of the philosopher Fichte; the
acts of Frederick the Great against Voltaire, and the measures taken by
Bismarck against a long series of writings that came into print during
the _Kulturkampf_.
An order issued in January, 1903, by the rector of the University of
Berlin, prohibits the delivery of a lecture on Proudhon and Lasalle
on the ground that it was necessary to take “all possible precautions
for the protection of young souls from the pernicious and poisonous
influence of sociological errors.”[82]
In November, 1902, in a convention held at Hamburg of the teachers
of Germany, it was proposed to prohibit the use in schools of the
catechism of Luther and of the Protestant Scriptures.[83]
The German _Goethe-bund_ finds occasion to make protest, in 1903,
against the _lex Heinze_: “In Berlin, we are not only under the
burden of dramatic censorship which never sleeps and which causes
perpetual irritation, but we have to endure the exacting regulations of
the general press law under which are controlled not merely journals
but publications of all kinds. For instance, in the three months from
October to December, 1902, no less than seventy-seven works were
condemned and their further publication prohibited; that is to say,
in these three months the civil authority condemned more books than
had been placed in the prohibitory Index of Rome during the ten years
preceding.” With such experience under the State control of the press,
it is, claims Hilgers, absurd to make reference to “the pernicious
interference with literature on the part of the Church censors.”
Kant’s _Critique of Pure Reason_, prohibited, in its Italian
translation, in the Roman Index since 1827, had, years before that
date, come under the condemnation of the royal authority of Prussia. In
October, 1792, a Cabinet order contains a bitter characterisation of
the work: “Our sacred person you have with your so-called philosophy
attempted to bring into contempt ... and you have at the same time
assailed the truth of Scriptures and the foundations of Creed belief
(_mich und Gott_).... We order that henceforth you shall employ
your talents to better purpose and that you shall keep silence on
matters which are outside of your proper functions.” The further
circulation of the book was prohibited, but it is fair to remember that
this prohibition proved entirely ineffective to suppress the book, even
in Prussia.
[Sidenote: Holland]
The States General of Holland issued in 1581, and again in 1588, edicts
prohibiting the printing, the reading, and the possession of certain
condemned books, the lists of which were given with the edicts. These
books were described as presenting “papistical superstitions.” In
1598, certain Socinian books which had been printed in Amsterdam were
condemned as heretical by the theological professors of Leyden. The
editions were confiscated and the books were publicly burned in The
Hague.
Among the noteworthy names included in the list of condemned authors
may be cited those of Vondel, Grotius (who was certainly not to be
ranked either as a Socinian or as an unbeliever, but whose form of
Calvinism was not in accord with that of the authorities), Hobbes, and
Spinoza. The poet Vondel, in 1641, went back into the Catholic Church
and thereupon came under the proscription of the Synod of Delft as
well as of the State. Before he accepted the Catholic Faith, he was
accused of being an Arminian and a supporter of Olden-Barneveld. Later,
his tragedy _Maria Stuart_, in which he declaimed against the
murder of the Catholic queen, brought him again into trouble with the
authorities.
Grotius suffered much more severely from the persecution of his
fellow-historians than from any action on the part of censors of the
Roman Church. His friend Olden-Barneveld had lost his life largely
because of differences on theological matters with certain of his
fellow-Calvinists. The same fate would probably have befallen Grotius
if he had not succeeded in escaping from prison.
Hobbes, when instructor in the University of Cambridge, having
undertaken to defend certain propositions concerning the law of
nature, was prohibited from further teaching and was driven from
the university. He betook himself to Amsterdam, but even here, the
_Leviathan_, (printed in London, in 1651,) came under condemnation. The
Roman censors are criticised (and with justice) for their prohibition
of the writings of Spinoza, but the condemnation of Spinoza was much
more severe among his own people than anything that had been proposed
by the authorities of Rome. The ban uttered in the Jewish temple on the
27th of July, 1656, closes with the words:
“We order hereafter that no one shall have communication with
Baruch Espinoza either by word of mouth or in writing, that no
one shall render him any service, that no one shall remain under
the same roof with or even accost him, that no one shall in any
manner have communication with him.”
The works of Spinoza and the _Leviathan_ of Hobbes were brought
under a series of condemnations under the authority of the Prince of
Orange, the States of Holland, the synods of the Church, the local
magistrates, the university authorities, and the Burgomaster of Leyden.
In 1668, Adrian Coerbach, a doctor of medicine of Amsterdam, was
charged with having accepted the opinions of Spinoza and with having
defended these before others. He gave evidence that he had never spoken
with Spinoza and had not spoken publicly of his theories. He was,
however, sentenced to be imprisoned for ten years and thereafter to
be banished from Holland for ten years. In 1678, the Synod of South
Holland, in session at Leyden, gave fresh judgment concerning the
pernicious writings of Spinoza. Between the years 1650–1680, there
were in all no less than fifty similar edicts or judgments, in some
instances accompanied by severe punishments, against the reading or
circulation of the works of Spinoza. In many cases, under the same
judgment was placed the _Leviathan_ of Hobbes.
[Sidenote: Scandinavia]
In Denmark, between the years 1537 and 1770, a severe censorship was
maintained not only against works upholding the Catholic Faith, but
against all books which were not in accord with the Lutheran doctrines
that the Crown had established as the orthodox faith of the kingdom.
Among books other than theological which came under condemnation, may
be noted the _Werther_ of Goethe, condemned in 1776. The severe
prohibitions of the censorship law were not repealed until 1849 and
1866. In Sweden also, where the Lutheran creed had been established
as the faith of the kingdom, a censorship was maintained against
publications which were not in accord with the creed of Luther. In
1667, under a royal ordinance, the booksellers were directed to present
from year to year to the censors a precise catalogue of all the books
carried in stock and to secure permission for the sale of such books.
The penalty was loss of license.
In 1764, was printed, at Upsala, an Index presenting a list of certain
books which are held as prohibited in Sweden. It is to be classed as
an historical tract and not strictly as an Index. The title reads as
follows: _Historia librorum prohibitorum in Suecia; cujus specimen
primum, consensu Ampl. Senat. Philos. Upsal. publica disputatione,
submittunt Samuel J. Alnander, Philos. Magister, et Petrus Kendal,
Stipend. Reg. Ostrogothi, Anno mdcclxiii, Upsaliae._ The thesis
recognises three sources of the power of prohibiting books, the royal
Senate, specified in the title-page; the royal authority by edict; and
the theological faculty of the University of Upsala. The lists are
devoted mainly to works of the 17th century but there are a few titles
from the 16th century. The books condemned are chiefly political. The
volume has value chiefly as an indication of a system of censorship
in a Protestant country and also (in connection with the meagreness
of the lists) of the fact that such system was apparently neither
comprehensive nor exacting.
In 1856, was printed in Gothenburg, in an edition comprising but
sixteen copies, an Index bearing the title, _Elenchus Librorum in
Suecia prohibitorum, saeculorum XVII et XVIII_.
[Sidenote: Censorship by the State in England]
The first censorship in England appears to have been made as a matter
of Church discipline; the bishops assumed in these earlier cases the
sole jurisdiction and the punishments were ecclesiastical--penance and
excommunication. In 1382, the State began to take action in matters of
censorship. The occasion arose from the circulation of the doctrines
of Wyclif, which, together with the teachings of the Lollards, were
assumed to have had influence in bringing about the insurrection of Wat
Tyler. The authorities decided that the bishops did not have the power
required to suppress the inflammatory doctrines, because the preachers
kept moving from one diocese to another and denied at the same time
the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. In 1382, therefore, the
Parliament passed an act directing the civil authorities to arrest
all such preachers and to “hold them in arrest and strong prison until
they will justify themselves to the law and reason of Holy Church.”
The mischief, however, continued and, in 1401, the more severe act
known as “_de haeretico comburendo_” was passed. Dr. Shirley says
that the first victim of this statute was W. Sawtree, preacher at
St. Osyth’s in the City of London. Sawtree was convicted of denying
transubstantiation. Milman points out that the writ for the execution
of Sawtree appears on the Rolls of Parliament before the act itself.
It is possible, therefore, says Milman, that Sawtree suffered under
a special act which had perhaps been proposed for the purpose of
ascertaining, in advance of the consideration of the larger measure,
the feeling of Parliament.
The last instances of execution for heresy in England occurred in 1612,
in which year Bartholomew Legate was burned at Smithfield for holding
Unitarian opinions, and Edward Wightman was burned at Litchfield for
holding no less than nine “damnable heresies.”
The papal Bull issued on June 19, 1520, for the destruction of the
publications of Luther, Wolsey declined to enforce in England. It is
probable that if the Cardinal had been left to himself, the cruel
proceedings which characterised the reign of Henry VIII would not have
been instituted. It is the opinion of Froude that with Wolsey, heresy
was an error, while with More it was a crime.
A prohibitory Index was published in England in 1526, nearly
twenty-five years before the issue of the first Index on the Continent,
and thirty-three years before the first issue in the series of the
Roman Indexes. In March, 1527, Tunstal, Bishop of London, gave to
Thomas More a privilege for the reading of heretical books in order
that, following the example of the King (Henry VIII), More might be
enabled to make good defence of the Catholic Faith against the new
heresies. In June, 1539, the King gave his approval to an act of
Parliament which was concerned particularly with the articles of faith.
The first of these articles had to do with the real presence of Christ
in the Sacrament. The act reads: “If any person writes, preaches, or
disputes against this first article, he shall be punished with death as
a heretic and his property shall be confiscated to the Crown.”
In 1564, Queen Elizabeth issued an instruction to the Bishop of London
to provide for an examination of the cargoes of all the vessels
arriving, in order that pernicious and heretical books should be
secured and destroyed. In 1571, an act of Parliament provided the
punishment of treason against all who should secure from the Bishop of
Rome any bull, brief, or other instrument or should undertake to make
distribution of copies of the same. Under Elizabeth, it was ordered
that any person should be treated as guilty of high treason and should
be liable to sentence of death if he had in his possession a Catholic
book in which was taught the doctrine of the supremacy of the pope.
In 1582, an act of Parliament declared it to be felony to write,
print, sell, distribute, or possess books, rhymes, ballads, letters,
or writings of any kind which contained matter against the fame of
the Queen or in any way injurious to the repute of the Government.
Under this law, two ministers belonging to the sect of the Brownists,
Thacher and Copping, were tried and executed. In 1575, Elizabeth
approved a new act directed against the Anabaptists, the Puritans,
the Brownists, and the Catholics, under the provisions of which act a
number of people were condemned and burned. Among the books prohibited
under the same law, were certain writings of Henry Nicholas of Leyden
which had been translated from the German. It was ordered that any
persons possessing or distributing these writings should be punished.
In 1583, a proclamation was issued by the Queen against the publishers,
booksellers, or possessors of pernicious and schismatic literature. The
Star Chamber, under the law of 1585, prescribed that each university
should keep in activity but one press and prescribed from year to
year the number of presses permitted for London. In 1593, Barrow and
Greenwood, both Brownists, were executed as heretics. It is the view of
the Jesuit historian Hilgers that throughout the whole of the reign of
Elizabeth there was a persistent and bloody persecution against freedom
of thought of any kind. In 1594, Adfield and Carter suffered death
because the former had brought into England a Catholic book and the
latter had had the same in his possession.
A sect that fell under the displeasure of Queen Elizabeth was the
“Family of Love.” The founder was a Dutch Anabaptist, born at Delft,
called David George, but the leader whose influence was of the most
importance was Henry Nicolai of Münster. Nicolai gave out that his
writings were of equal authority with Holy Scripture. “Moses,” he says,
“taught mankind to hope, Christ to believe, but Nicolai taught man to
love, which last is of more worth than both the former.” The Queen
ordered (in 1575) that all books and writings maintaining this doctrine
should be destroyed and burned and that possessors of such books should
be duly punished. In 1608, James I, in a proclamation concerning the
supervision of literature, says: “For better oversight of books of all
sortes before they come to the presse, we have resolved to make choice
of commissioners that shall looke more narrowly into the nature of all
those things that shall be put to the presse, either concerning our
authoritie royall or concerning our government, or the lawes of our
Kingdom.”[84]
In July, 1637, the Star Chamber published an act for the regulation of
literature which in the severity of its censorship can be compared only
with a procedure under Napoleon. It was prohibited to import or make
sale of any books the influence of which was opposed to sound faith or
to the authority of the Church or to the authority of government or
to any rulers or to the interests of the community, or in which there
should be libels or attacks against any corporation or any individual
person. The penalties prescribed included fines, imprisonment, and
bodily punishment, the decision to be made under the authority of the
Chamber. The printing of any book which had not secured the approval
of the Chamber was forbidden under heavy penalties. Books in the
department of jurisprudence must be approved by the Chief Justice or by
some authority appointed by him; books on history and statecraft were
to be approved by the Secretary of State; those on morals by the Lord
Marshal; works on theology, philosophy, natural science, poetry, and
general literature, by the Archbishop of Canterbury or Bishop of London
or by the chancellor of one of the two universities. Licenses were to
be issued for but twenty master printers outside of those appointed
directly by the Crown and those allotted to the universities. No
printer was to operate more than two presses or was to have more than
two apprentices. Should anybody undertake to operate a press without
securing a license from the Chamber, he was liable to be placed in the
stocks, to be flogged through the city, and, after judgment, to further
penalties.
In 1638, Alexander Leighton was, under a judgment of the Star Chamber,
condemned in connection with a book entitled: _An Appeal to the
Parliament or Sion’s Plea against the Prelacie_. He was sentenced to
a fine of ten thousand pounds, to degradation from the ministry, and
to be publicly whipped in the palace yard; he was made to stand two
hours in the pillory, one ear was cut off, a nostril slit open, and
one of his cheeks branded with the letters S.S. (Sower of Sedition).
A week later, he underwent a second whipping and a repetition of the
mutilation. He was then left in prison for three years but, in 1641,
had the satisfaction of having his sentence reversed by the House of
Commons. The book had declared the institution of Episcopacy to be
anti-Christian and satanical and it accused the king with having been
corrupted by the bishops to the undoing of himself and his people.
In 1633, Prynne was condemned by the Star Chamber to be fined five
thousand pounds, to be placed in the pillory, to be deprived of his
ears, and to perpetual imprisonment. The book on the ground of which
this punishment was administered was entitled: _The Histriomastix,
the player’s scourge or actor’s tragedies_. Lord Cottington, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, says in his judgment: “I do in the first
place begin censure with Prynne’s book. I condemn it to be burned by
the hangman,” etc. This is said to be the first instance in England in
which a condemned publication was burned by the hangman. Prynne came
again under condemnation, in 1637, in connection with a book called the
_Flagellum Pontificis et Episcoporum Latinorum_, which was said to
have been written in co-operation with J. Bastwick and H. Burton. I do
not find the record of Prynne’s punishment in this case, but Bastwick
was condemned by the High Commission court to pay a fine of one
thousand pounds, to be excommunicated, to be debarred from the practice
of his profession (medicine), and to remain in prison until he recanted
(and that is, he says, “until domesday in the afternoone”).
The practice of burning books was continued by the Puritans, who also
utilised for the purpose the services of the common hangman. One book
so burned (in 1619) was the King’s _Book of Sports_, issued by
James in 1618, on the advice of Morton, Bishop of Chester. It had been
ordered to be read in all churches throughout England. Copies were
publicly burned in a number of the Puritan counties.
The regulations for the control of the press in England were more
strenuous under the Commonwealth and the later Stuarts than before the
death of Charles I. Between the years 1637–1681, more than two hundred
books came upon the condemnation lists. Among the works condemned
and prohibited by Cromwell was the _Areopagitica_ of Milton,
published in 1644. In 1646, was condemned the book by John Biddle
(known as the father of modern Unitarianism) which bore the title:
_Twelve Arguments from Scripture in regard to the Divinity of the
Holy Ghost_. The author was imprisoned and the copies of the book
burned. The censor of the press under the last two Stuarts was Roger
L’Estrange. The penalties in force at the time he assumed the office
providing for the destruction of books, the imprisonment and in certain
cases the death of the authors and printers, were, in his judgment, not
sufficiently severe. He beseeched Parliament to give him authority to
add to these penalties stocks, public whipping, the cutting off of the
hand, the cutting out of the tongue, etc. A printer named Trogan, who
came under the disapproval of the censor, was executed in 1686, with
various revolting details.
In 1642, the Parliament condemned and ordered burned by the hangman
five publications written by Royalists. In each succeeding year,
similar action was taken with publications (mainly pamphlets) written
in opposition to the control of Parliament. A more serious matter for
the authors than the burning of the books was that of the fines. Joseph
Primatt, for instance, in 1652, was fined five thousand pounds for the
publication of a petition to Parliament, and Lilburne was in the same
year fined seven thousand pounds. The first theological work dealt
with by Parliament was a treatise by John Archer entitled _Comfort
for believers about their Sinnes and Troubles_. This was published
in 1645 and in the same year was, under the order of Parliament,
publicly burned in four places. In September, 1650, a monograph by
Lawrence Clarkson entitled _Single Eye, All light, no darkness_,
was condemned to be burned by the hangman and Clarkson, after being
imprisoned for a month, was sentenced to banishment for life. These
instances are selected from a long series of similar condemnations
merely in order to make clear that the theory of the Parliament in
regard to the right and the duty of the Government to prevent the
circulation of pernicious literature (that is to say, literature the
opinions of which were not in accord with those of the existing
authorities) differed in no way from that of the supporters of royalty.
A similar series of condemnations, with burning of the books and fining
of the authors, together with an occasional exposure in the pillory,
was continued through the Restoration. In the year 1690, a treatise by
Arthur Bury, rector of Exeter College, Oxford, issued under the title
of the _Naked Gospels_, was ordered burned under the authority of
the University of Oxford.
In 1698, a Scotchman named Aikenhead, who was at the time a student
of but eighteen years of age, was hanged at Edinburgh, not on account
of any heresies brought into print, but simply because in some wild
talk he had referred to Christianity as a delusion. Under one of the
statutes of Scotland, it was a capital crime to revile or to curse
the Supreme Being or any person of the Trinity. The words used by the
young man were not strictly within the definition of the statute, but
this statute was, under the direction of James Stuart, Lord Advocate of
Scotland, used to bring the boy to execution.[85]
The censorship laws were not repealed as an immediate result of the
Revolution of 1688 but endured until 1695. The regulations then
established maintained for the Crown the full authority to control the
operations of the press, but the penalties were made much less severe.
Among the books condemned under the new legislation were _Christianity
not Mysterious_, by John Toland, _Thoughts concerning Human Souls_, by
William Coward, and the _Fable of the Bees_, by Mandeville, in 1723.
(The last had been published as far back as 1706). Mandeville’s volume
was made the subject of a presentment by the Grand Jury of Middlesex.
The book was described as “a public nuisance, having a tendency to the
subversion of all religion, the undermining of civil government, and
the impairment of our duty to the Almighty.” No penalty was inflicted,
or ordered, upon the author, nor was the book itself suppressed.[86]
Among the books condemned in the succeeding years were _The Doctrine
of the Trinity_, by Samuel Clark, and the _Miracle of Our Saviour_, by
Thomas Woolston. The author of the latter was fined twenty-five pounds
and was then imprisoned until he could raise two thousand pounds. He
died after four years’ imprisonment.
In 1701, a treatise by John Asgill on the _Covenant of Eternal Life_
was burned by the order of two Parliaments, English and Irish. In 1702,
the famous essay by Defoe, _The Shortest Way with the Dissenters_, was
burned by the hangman under order of Parliament and Defoe was sentenced
to three days’ punishment in the pillory, to a ruinous fine, and to a
long imprisonment. The trial of Saccheverell brought about the burning,
in 1710, of a long series of books, including his own sermons and
works by both his supporters and adversaries. In 1707, the Grand Jury
of Middlesex made a presentment characterising as a public nuisance
the essay by Matthew Tyndale entitled the _Rights of the Christian
Church_. Tyndale reflects that this proceeding will further “the wider
circulation of one of the best books that have been published in our
age among many people that would not otherwise have heard of it.” It
was burned by the hangman in 1710. In 1722, the Commons agreed with
the resolution of the Peers to have burned at the Royal Exchange the
declaration of the Pretender issued as the declaration of James III.
In 1763, numbers of the _North Briton_, of John Wilkes, who was then
himself a member of the House, were, under an order of the two Houses,
condemned to be burned at the Royal Exchange. The author was expelled
from the House, but secured, after a long contest, a re-election. A
volume issued without name in 1775, under the title of _The present
Crisis in regard to America considered_, was burned on the 24th of
February of that year and is referred to as the last book which the
English Parliament has condemned to the flames.
In 1795, Sheridan proposes to have publicly burned a treatise by Reeve
entitled _Thoughts on English Government_, but his proposal was not
supported. The press law, passed as late as December, 1819, imposed a
penalty of transportation on the writers or printers of godless and
revolutionary works. This law was repealed in 1837, and the legislation
of 1869 finally secured an assured freedom for the press. It is the
conclusion of Catholic writers, in summing up the history of what they
call the exceptionally fierce and brutal censorship of England, that
the responsibility for this rests with the original crime committed
by the State against the Church universal; and with the continued and
demoralising wrong caused by transferring the control of the Church to
the civil authorities.
The history of political censorship, or of censorship by the State in
England, is a large and complex subject to which in a work like this it
is of course, possible only to make reference.
In 1877 was printed (privately) in London a catalogue which from
the title has been classed with the Indexes: _Index librorum
prohibitorum_; being notes bio-, biblio-, and icono-graphical and
critical on curious and uncommon books, compiled by Pisanus Fraxi. This
is, however, simply a list, probably prepared for commercial purposes,
of obscene books.
=4. Summary.=--The instances cited are sufficient to show that
the spirit of Protestantism, in each and all of the sects that came
into power or influence in the State, has through the past centuries
held it to be the right and duty of the Church, and of the State
under the influence of the Church, to supervise and to control the
productions of the printing-press and the reading of the people. The
fact, however, that within the Protestant communion there were so
many points of view, rendered it not only difficult but impossible to
establish any consistent and continuing policy of censorship. There
was also a lack of any effective machinery for carrying out, within
these Protestant territories, such regulations as the censors of the
Church might establish. In certain places and at certain times the
civil authorities, like the magistrates of Geneva or the Elector of
Saxony, were ready to utilise the force of the State for carrying out
the decrees of the Church, but such co-operation and support were
at best (or at worst) but intermittent and spasmodic. In Germany or
in Switzerland, the authority of the State covered but a limited
territory. If the censorship pressure became burdensome in one city,
there was no essential difficulty in moving the composing-room and the
press to some other place where the faith of the magistrates was not
so “orthodox” or so strenuous. As a result, the Protestant writers,
representing all schools of protest, found no continued difficulty in
bringing their productions into print and in circulating these among
sympathetic readers.
The Jesuit historian, while admitting that the condemnation of the
Catholic Church has fallen upon certain works of unquestioned scholarly
value, insists that the Protestant censorship of authors and books
of similar standing has been, to say the least, no less severe. He
maintains, further, that the Catholic policy and methods have been more
consistent, more discriminating, more intelligent, and more moral in
purpose and in effect than those of the Protestants. He emphasises the
importance of distinguishing between the circles of readers for which
different books are fitted, either to do service or to work injury. He
writes: “The works of Grotius, Gibbon, and Guicciardini have a deserved
repute with the scholars. We may admit, that scholars can derive from
such works valuable instruction, but this does not make them suitable
for the reading of the untrained or the half trained. The Church
undertakes always to maintain this distinction.”
The Father sums up his arraignment of the censorship of the State by a
bitter reference to the methods pursued by the Protestant Government
of Prussia with its Catholic subjects in Poland. What answer can an
instructor make in a school in Posen when a child asks why he is
forbidden to read the Polish Catechism? The instructor can only say
that the modern State is all powerful, and that in the execution of its
self-imposed task of crushing out nationality, it is willing to take
the responsibility not only for the interpretation of science, but for
the shaping of belief.[87]
“Whence,” says Hilgers, “do the civil authorities secure the right to
compel Catholic children to accept instruction from heretical books;
and to prohibit the use in Catholic families, outside even of the walls
of the official institutions, the use of Catholic books and documents?
Here is a censorship tyranny with which in the history of Rome there is
nothing to be compared.”
CHAPTER IX
THE BOOK PRODUCTION OF EUROPE AS AFFECTED BY
CENSORSHIP
1. General. 2. The Universities. 3. Italy. 4. Spain. 5. France.
6. Germany. 7. The Netherlands. 8. England. 9. The _Index
Generalis_ of Thomas James, 1627.
=1. General.=--Four men, Columbus, Luther, Copernicus, and Gutenberg,
stand at the dividing line of the Middle Ages, and serve as boundary
stones marking the entrance of mankind into the higher and finer epoch
of its development.[88] It would be difficult to say which one of the
four has made the larger contribution to this development or has done
the most to lift up the spirit of mankind and to open for man the
doors to the new realms that were awaiting him. The Genoese discoverer
opens new regions to our knowledge and imagination, leads Europe from
the narrow restrictions of the Middle Ages out into the vast space
of Western oceans, and, in adding to the material realm controlled
by civilisation, widens still more largely the range of its thought,
and fancy. The reformer of Wittenberg, in breaking the bonds that had
chained the spirits of his fellow-men and in securing for them again
their rights as individual Christians, conquers for them a spiritual
realm and brings them into direct relations with their Creator. The
great astronomer shatters, through his discoveries, the fixed and
petty conceptions of the universe that had ruled the minds of mankind,
and in bringing to men fresh light on the nature and extent of created
things, widens at the same time their whole understanding of themselves
and of duty. The citizen of Mayence may claim to have unchained
intelligence and given to it wings. He utilised lead no longer as a
death-bringing ball, but in the form of life-quickening letters which
were to bring before thousands of minds the teachings of the world’s
thinkers. Each one of the four had his part in bringing to the world
light, knowledge, and development.
Before the beginning of the Reformation, the business of printing
books, which had originated among Germans, had secured in the so-called
Latin countries, Italy, France, and Spain, larger development than
in the German lands. It is certainly the case that, irrespective
of the facilities afforded by the printing-press, the intellectual
development in Italy was, during the 15th and the first portion of
the 16th century, far in advance of Germany and for that matter of
the rest of Europe. If the Reformation was not in itself an important
factor in the transfer of the centre of literary activity, this period
certainly coincided with such transfer. After 1518, the centres of
literary production and intellectual activities are to be sought rather
in Germany and in Holland than in Italy or Spain. France, on the other
hand, appears to have been able, while accepting a rather burdensome
measure of censorship, to have retained an important intellectual
position, the influence of which is, of course, most closely associated
with the university of Paris.
During the years immediately following the invention of printing,
the Church gave to the new art a cordial welcome. The scholarly
ecclesiastics were among the first to recognise the service that could
be rendered by the printers in multiplying for general distribution
the books of doctrine and of devotion. The Church felt secure in its
hold upon the minds of the people and for three quarters of a century,
at least, there was no apprehension that the people could be diverted
from their allegiance to the true Faith. Many of the monasteries
made space for printing-presses, while others placed funds at the
disposal of printers who were needing co-operation. It was not only in
the scholarly circles of the Church that the new art secured prompt
recognition. The Brothers of Common Life, who for a century or more
had taken upon themselves the work of teaching the people and who
had utilised in this work manuscript copies of books of devotion,
were among the first to make use of the printing-press in the work
of education for the distribution of their books of devotion. Within
eighteen years after the production of Gutenberg’s Bible, the Brothers
had printing-presses at work in Deventer (Holland) and in a number of
their monasteries in North Germany. In Strasburg, Magdeburg, Nuremberg,
and elsewhere before 1470, the monasteries of the Carthusians had
established printing-presses.
The work of publishing material for popular circulation begins
practically with the Reformation. It was with the great popular demand
for instruction and information which had been developed through the
work of the reformers, that there came to the people at large the
realisation of the value to them of the invention of Gutenberg, and
an understanding of its importance for the work of educating and of
organising the people and for the securing the right of individual
thought production against the oppression of Church and State. The
system of censorship, ecclesiastical and political, a system which was
to do much to hamper the development of literature and of publishing,
dates in substance from the Reformation.
The effect of the censorship of the Church on the activities of
publishers and on the production of books varied very materially, even
in those States in which the regulations of the Church were, in form
at least, accepted as authoritative. The States in which, during the
16th and 17th centuries, the work of the printer-publishers came into
conflict, in one way or another, with the censorship edicts, and in
which literary production and activity were influenced by censorship
policy, were: Italy, France, South Germany, North Germany, Switzerland,
England, Spain, the Spanish Netherlands, and Holland.
In Italy, the edicts of the Roman Inquisition and of the Congregation
of the Index having to do with the prohibition or the expurgation of
books were of course, at least in form, binding equally upon all the
States and cities in which printing-presses were at work. As a fact,
however, at no time, not even after the labours of the Council of
Trent, did it prove practicable to secure any uniformity of procedure
or of result in the enforcement of the censorship decrees throughout
the territory of the Italian peninsula. The printers of Rome were under
obligation to take immediate action in regard to the cancellation
or withdrawal from sale of books condemned. Outside of Rome, or at
least outside of the States of the Church, periods of from thirty to
ninety days were allowed within which the printers were expected to
secure knowledge of the prohibitory edicts. The Church authorities
assumed that these edicts were binding throughout the entire Catholic
world, but, outside of Italy, the printers, booksellers, or readers
were not under obligation to have knowledge of the prohibitions until
the edicts had been published by the local bishops or the local
inquisitors. It was the case that from time to time the local bishops
were not in sympathetic accord with the literary policy of Rome, and
delayed indefinitely, or declined altogether, to make publication of
the edicts. In certain of the Italian cities, of which Venice is the
most noteworthy example, the civil authorities took the ground that no
regulations concerning printing and bookselling could be considered
as in force unless and until such regulations had been confirmed
by the civil authorities. The Church claimed not only the right to
prohibit pernicious literature, but to authorise and to protect for
sale throughout the world the works which secured its approval. The
papal privileges conceded, in form at least, to the printers to whom
they were issued, exclusive control not only within the States of
the Church, but in all the States of the world that acknowledged the
authority of the Church. There was, however, practically no machinery
for enforcing the authority of the papal privileges. The material
advantage belonging to such a privilege was that it carried with it
the assurance of the approval of the Church concerning the character
of the book. It constituted, namely, evidence that the book had
secured the approval of the Church censors and (with an occasional
exception) it preserved the book from interference on the part of local
ecclesiastical censors, whose prejudices were usually more bitter and
whose ignorant dread of heretical scholarship was greater than was the
case with the censors appointed directly by the Congregation. The
fact that, during the 16th and 17th centuries, Latin was the official
language of scholarship and nearly universal as the language of
literature, and that the great majority of publications of importance
came into print in Latin, served to maintain a certain universality
of learning, of literature, and of science and to build up a body of
scholars who belonged not to any one State, least of all possible to
the “country of origin,” but to Europe as a whole, to the world of
literature and learning. The detail of smallest importance that occurs
in thinking of the career of a Casaubon, Scaliger, or an Erasmus
is the place of his birth. This universality of language furthered
also, however, during the same centuries, the operations of the
ecclesiastical censors and the enforcement of the policy of censorship.
When there came to be a development of national literatures brought
into print in the national languages, the difficulties of a standard of
censorship and of a general enforcement of such standard, even through
the States recognising the authority of the Church, became very much
greater. It is evident, in fact, from the fragmentary additions of the
lists of the later Indexes that the examiners, acting on behalf of the
Congregation or of the Inquisition, had very little familiarity with
literature that came into print in language other than Latin or Italian.
The art of printing was one which evidently could not long be
restricted to any one locality. It was speedily carried from Mayence to
other communities in which literary interests or educational facilities
could be furthered by its use.
In 1462, on the 28th of October, Archbishop Adolph of Nassau captured
the city of Mayence and gave it over to his soldiers for plunder. The
typesetters and printers, with all the other artisans whose work
depended upon the commerce of the city, were driven to flight and it
appeared for the moment as if the newly instituted printing business
had been crushed. The result of the scattering of the printers was,
however, the introduction of the new art into a number of other
centres where the influences were favourable for its development. The
typesetters of Mayence, driven from their printing offices by the
heavy hand of the Church, journeyed throughout the world and proceeded
to give to many communities the means of education and enlightenment
through which the great revolt against the Church was finally
instituted.
An important influence in securing for the work of the early
printer-publishers of Germany a greater freedom from restriction than
was enjoyed by their contemporaries in France was the fact that, in
Germany, the beginning of printing, or at least its development,
took place, not in a university centre but in a commercial town and
was from the outset carried on not by scholars but by workers of the
people. This brought the whole business of the production and the
distribution of books in Germany into closer relations with the mass
of the people than was the case in France. The direct association with
the university of the first printers in France (who were themselves the
immediate successors of the official university scribes) brought the
printing-press under the direct control of the university and rendered
easy the establishment by the university authorities, and particularly
by the theologians, of a continued censorship.
Hegel, in his _Philosophy of History_, refers to the renewed interest
in the writings of the ancients which was brought about through the
service of the printing-press. He points out, further, that the Church
felt at the outset no anxiety concerning the influence of the pagan
literature and that the ecclesiastical authorities evidently had no
understanding of the new elements of suggestion and enquiry that this
literature was introducing into the minds of men. It may be considered
as one of the fortunate circumstances attending the introduction of the
art of printing that the popes of the time were largely men of liberal
education and intellectual tastes, while one or two, such as Nicholas
V, Julius II, and Leo X, had a keen personal interest in literature
and were themselves creators of books. The fact that Leo X was a
luxury-loving, free-thinking prince rather than a devoted Christian
leader or teacher, may very probably have been a favourable influence
for the enlightenment and development of his own generation and of the
generations that were to come. An earnest and narrow-minded head of the
Church could, during the first years of the 16th century, have retarded
not a little the development of the work of producing books for the
community at large.
It was a number of years before the dread of the use of the
printing-press for the spread of heretical doctrines, and of a
consequent undermining of the authority of the Church, assumed such
proportions in the minds of the popes in Rome and with the bishops
elsewhere as to cause the influence of the Church to be used against
the interests of the world of literature. As a result of this early
acceptance by the Church of the printing-press as a useful ally and
servant, the first Italian presses were supported by bishops and
cardinals in the work of producing classics for scholarly readers,
while at the other extremity of the Church organisation, and at a
distance of a thousand miles or more from Rome, the Brothers of Common
Life in the Low Countries were using their presses for the distribution
of cheap books among the people. Many citations could be made of the
approval with which the scholarly ecclesiastics of the time regarded
the new art. Felix Fabri, prior of the Dominican monastery in Ulm, says
in his _Historia Suevorum_, issued in the year 1459, that “no art
that the world has known can be considered so useful, so much to be
esteemed, indeed so divine as that which has now, through the Grace
of God, been discovered in Mayence.” Johannes Rauchler,[89] the first
rector of the Tübingen School, rejoices that through the new art so
many authors can now be brought within the reach of students in Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew, authors who are witnesses for the Christian faith,
and the service of whose writings to the Church and to the world is so
great that he can but consider “this art as a gift directly from God
himself.”
The favourable relations between the Church and the printers were
checked by the Humanistic movement, which, a generation or more
before the Reformation, began to bring into question the authority
of the Church and the infallibility of the Papacy. The influence of
the Humanistic teachers was so largely furthered by the co-operation
of the printers that the jealousy and dread of the ecclesiastical
authorities were promptly aroused, and they began to utter fulminations
against the wicked and ignorant men who were using the art of printing
for misleading the community and for the circulation of error.
Ecclesiastics who had at first favoured the widest possible circulation
of the Scriptures, now contended that much of the spread of heresy was
due to the misunderstanding of the Scriptures on the part of readers
who were acting without the guidance of their spiritual advisers.
The Church now took the ground that the reading of the Scriptures by
individuals was not to be permitted and that the Bible was to be given
to the community only through the interpretations of the Church. At
the same time, the authority of the Church was exerted to repress
or at least to restrict the operations of the printing-press and to
bring printers and publishers under a close ecclesiastical supervision
and censorship. It was, however, already too late to stand between
the printing-press and the people. Large portions of the community
had become accustomed to a general circulation of books and to the
use without restriction of such reading matter as might be brought
within their reach, and this privilege they were no longer willing
to forego. In Spain, in Italy, and in France, the censorship of the
Church soon became sufficiently burdensome to hamper and to interfere
with publishing undertakings and to check the natural development of
literary production. Even in Italy, however, the critical spirit was
found to be too strong to be crushed out, and from Venice, which became
the most important of the Italian publishing centres (because it was
the freest from papal control) it proved possible to secure for the
productions of the printing-press a circulation that was practically
independent of the censorship of Rome.
The importance of Frankfort as a centre of the trade in books
began with the first years of the 15th century, when the dealers
in manuscripts were present with booths at the Frankfort Fair. The
manuscript dealers came together once a year also at the fairs of
Salzburg, Ulm, and Nordlingen, but the book-trade at Frankfort soon
assumed a pre-eminence that it did not lose for two centuries. The
earliest date at which is chronicled the sale at the Frankfort Fair
of printed books was 1480. For these earlier sales of manuscripts
and printed books, there was apparently no censorship or official
supervision.
The manuscript trade in the Netherlands was more important both in
character and in extent than that carried on in Germany, and it
appears to have exerted a larger influence upon the general education
of the people than the book-trade of the time in either France or
Italy. In France and in Italy, the earlier book-trade, first in
manuscripts, later in printed volumes, was connected with the work
of the universities. In the Low Countries, on the other hand, and
particularly in such centres as Ghent, Antwerp, and Bruges, there came
into existence during the first half of the 15th century an active
and intelligently conducted business in the production of books, both
of a scholarly and of a popular character, the sale of which was made
among citizens who were for the greater part outside of university
circles. One reason why the trade in books found a larger development
in Belgium than in Germany was the greater wealth of the working
classes in the Low Countries. With the wealth, came cultivation and a
taste for luxuries and among luxuries soon came to be included art and
literature. Another factor in the early development of the book-trade
was the freedom from the university censorship control which in Paris,
Bologna, and other book-producing centres restricted the undertakings
of the dealers.
A special characteristic of the literary undertakings of the 16th
century is the practice of collaboration. Such works as the great
dictionary of the Academy and the _Corpus inscriptionum latinarum_
are instances of undertakings which would have been impossible for
individual authorship. The Catholic reformation was also contemporary
with an important development in literary form and in literary
expression. It is fair to remember, however, that for this development
the influence of the Italian writers of the Renaissance may be
considered as chiefly responsible.
The Renaissance, the influence of which in Germany had been so large a
factor in bringing about the Protestant Reformation, had not succeeded
in Italy in revitalising paganism, but the Italian writers of the time
broke away from the traditions of Christianity. Their Deity was no
longer the sombre avenger invoked by Dante; or the consoler who, in the
verse of Petrarch, reunites the souls that have been purified under
suffering and have endured the separation of death. It was Art. The
religion of Ariosto may be summed up as the development of literary
perfection coupled with an indifference to moral ideas.[90]
The rule of Alexander VI (Borgia), 1492–1503, coincided with the
beginning of the active work of the printing-presses in Venice,
Florence, and in Rome. The influence of the Pope was, however,
promptly brought to bear to discourage the undertakings of the
printer-publishers. Venice was practically outside of his control,
while even in Florence the printers were not prepared to accept
dictation from the papal representatives. In Rome, however, the
subjection of the press to ecclesiastical censorship, for the
initiation of which the responsibility rested with Alexander, proved
at once a serious limitation to its activities. It was undoubtedly
this restriction which gave to the printers of Venice their great
advantage over their early competitors in Rome. Venice was the leader
among the cities of Italy in resisting the censorship of the Church,
although even in Venice the Church succeeded in the end in gaining
the more important of its contentions. In Spain, the control over the
printing-presses on the part of the censors of the Church was hardly
questioned, but these censors represented the authority not of Rome
but of the local Inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition was, for the
longer period of its existence under the direction of the Dominicans,
and it was frequently the case that the decisions of the Spanish
inquisitors, in regard both to the literature to be condemned and to
that to be approved, were in direct opposition to the conclusions of
the Papacy. In France, after a century of contest, the ecclesiastical
control of the printing-press became practically merged in the
censorship exercised by the Crown, a censorship which was in itself
as much as the publishing trade could bear and continue to exist. In
Austria and in South Germany, after the crushing out of the various
Reformation movements, the Church and the State worked in practical
accord in maintaining a close supervision of the printing-presses. In
North Germany, on the other hand, the ecclesiastical censorship never
became important. The evils produced by it were, however, serious and
long-enduring over a large portion of the territory of Europe, and
the papal Borgia, although by no means a considerable personage, must
be held responsible for bringing into existence an evil which assumed
enormous proportions in the intellectual history of Europe.
=2. The Universities and the Book-trade.= The book-dealers of Paris,
beginning their work as part of the organisation of the university,
had their first quarters in the immediate vicinity of the college
buildings. The foundation of the College of the Sorbonne dates from
1257. The college had been instituted by Robert de Sorbon, chaplain to
Louis IX, from whom it took its name. It was at once affiliated to the
university, the work of which had begun about half a century earlier.
The college assumed the control of the theological instruction in the
university and the divines of the Sorbonne exercised from the outset
a controlling influence over the general policy of the university.
The theological faculty took charge, on behalf of the university,
of the censorship of the Paris book-trade and of the productions of
the Paris press. It based its authority for this censorship in part
on the fact that the book-dealers had from the earliest manuscript
period been under the direction of the university, and in part on the
authority of the Church. The dealers who did not secure a license
from the university occupied as their locality the precincts of
Notre Dame on the island of La Cité. Throughout Europe, in fact, the
earlier book-dealers carried on their business very frequently under
the immediate shadow of the cathedral if not within its portals. In
Cologne, for instance, the manuscript-dealers in the early part of
the 15th century took possession for their shops or booths of various
corners or angles of the cathedral building; while in Münster was
allotted to them the court immediately in front of the cathedral. There
is a reference as early as 1408, in one of the Strasburg chronicles, to
the scribes who sold books on the steps of the Cathedral of Our Lady.
With the invention of printing, the universities (with the exception
of Paris) lost their control over the business of book production, and
there resulted necessarily a decrease in their influence and relative
importance in the community. They continued to lay claim to the control
of censorship but this claim could not be supported in the face of the
direct action of the Church on the one hand, and that of the civil
authorities on the other. Paulsen[91] writes: “The tradition of the
universities, and, in particular, their method of instruction in the
arts and in theology, were rejected with scorn by the new educator
through its representatives, the poets and the orators,” to whom the
form and the substance of this teaching seemed alike to be barbarism.
The _Epistolae obscurorum virorum_, published in 1516, was the
work of a band of youthful poets working under the leadership of
Mutianus at Erfurt; it expressed the hatred and detestation felt by the
Humanists for the ancient university system. Within a few years from
the publication of the _Epistolae_, the influence of the Humanists
had so far extended itself as to have effected a large modification in
the systems of study in all the larger universities. The ecclesiastical
Latin was replaced by classical Latin; and the old translations of
the Aristotelian texts were driven out by new versions representing
more exact scholarship. Greek was taken up in the faculty of arts, and
courses in its language and literature were established in nearly all
the universities. This change was coincident with the shifting of the
authority for censorship from the hands of the university theologians
to those of the direct representatives of the pope or of the State.
The strifes and contentions of the Reformation checked for a time the
development in the universities of the studies connected with the
intellectual movement of the Renaissance, and lessened the demand for
the literature of these studies. The active-minded were absorbed in
theological controversy, while those who could not understand the
questions at issue could still shout the shibboleths of the leaders.
As Erasmus puts it, rather bitterly: _ubi regnat Lutheranismus, ibi
interitus litterarum_. The literature of the Reformation, however,
itself did much to make good for the printing-presses the lessened
demand for the classics, while, a few years later, the organisation in
Germany of the Protestant schools and universities aroused intellectual
activities in new regions and created fresh requirements for printed
books. Within half a century of the Diet of Worms, the centre of the
book-absorbing population of Germany had been transferred from the
Catholic States of the south to the Protestant territories of the north
and the literary preponderance of the latter has continued to increase
during the succeeding generations.
Mark Pattison says[92]:
“If we ask why Italy did not continue to be the centre of the
Humanist movement which she had so brilliantly encouraged, the
answer is that the intelligence was crushed by the reviviscence
of ecclesiastical ideas. Learning is the result of research, and
research must be free and cannot co-exist with the claim of the
Catholic religion to be superior to enquiry. The French school,
it will be observed, was wholly, in fact or in intention,
Protestant. As soon as it was decided (as it was before 1600)
that France was to be a Catholic country and the University
of Paris a Catholic University, learning was extinguished in
France. France saw without regret and without repentance the
expatriation of her unrivalled scholars. With Scaliger and
Saumaise, the seat of learning was transferred from France to
Holland.
The third period of classical learning thus coincides with the
Dutch school. From 1593, the date of Scaliger’s removal to
Leyden, the supremacy in the republic of learning was possessed
by the Dutch. In the course of the 18th century, the Dutch
school was gradually supplanted by the North German, which from
that time forward has taken, and still possesses, the lead in
philological science.”
As early as 1323, the University of Paris was the most important in
Europe for theological studies, as that of Bologna was the authority on
jurisprudence, and that of Padua for medicine. The early development
of theological studies in Paris was one of the influences that brought
about the authority of the College of the Sorbonne in the censorship of
the book productions of the kingdom.
An anonymous author of a polemical tract, written in the previous
century for the purpose of pointing out the errors of some heretical
production, says: _Is autem erroneus liber positus fuit publice ad
exemplandum Parisiis anno Domini 1254. Unde certum est quod jam publice
predicaretur nisi boni prelati et predicatores impedirent._ (“This
heretical tract was openly given to the scribes to be copied in Paris
in the year of our Lord, 1254. Whence it is evident what manner of
doctrine would now be set forth to the public had not good priests
and preachers interfered.”)[93] By the beginning of the 16th century,
the University of Vienna had taken a leading place among the centres
of education in Europe. It is said to have contained at this time no
less than seven thousand students and the work of the Humanists in
furthering the revival of interest in the classic authors was in Vienna
at this time particularly active. Within a quarter of a century after
Luther had begun his protests, the Jesuits secured the controlling
influence in matters in Vienna and from this time the relative
importance of the university steadily declined.[94]
The jurist Scheurl writes from Nuremberg to Cardinal Campeggi, March
15, 1524: “Every common man is now asking for books or pamphlets and
more reading is being done in a day than heretofore in a year.”[95]
In Nuremberg, as in other towns, it became the practice to read the
books of Luther out loud in the market place. Erasmus complains, in
1523, that since the publication of the German New Testament, the whole
book-trade seems to be absorbed with the writings of Luther, and to
be interested in giving attention to nothing else. He says, further,
that it is very difficult to find in Germany publishers willing to
place their imprint upon books written in behalf of the Papacy. As
an example of the kind of interest caused by the writings of Luther,
it is recorded that the magistrates of Bremen sent a bookseller to
Wittenberg for the purpose of purchasing for their official use a set
of Luther’s works. The citizens of Speyer are described as having the
books read to them at supper, and as making transcripts of the texts.
In hundreds of towns throughout Germany, Luther’s writings were brought
to the notice of the people by means of the very edict which had for
its purpose their final suppression, and after the Diet of Worms, the
demand for them rapidly increased. The preacher Matthaeus Zell writes
from Strasburg, in 1523: “The Lutheran books are for sale here in the
market-place immediately beneath the edicts of the emperor and of the
pope declaring them to be prohibited.”
With the beginning of the 13th century, it was realised that the newly
organised universities had become the centres of intellectual activity.
The popes undertook promptly the institution of machinery for the
supervision of the work done in the universities and of the literary
productions that came from the instructors. It was the contention of
the papal representatives that the appointments of the university
officials having to do directly with the work of multiplying books,
must rest with the theological faculty, that is to say with the
immediate representatives of the Church. This contention was, in the
main, sustained in such university centres as Bologna, Paris, Prague,
Vienna, and Cologne. A brief, issued in 1479 by Sixtus IV, charges
the rectors and the deacons of the university with the responsibility
of censorship. The edict in 1486 by Berthold, Archbishop of Mayence,
is to be classed not as an ecclesiastical act but as an expression
of authority of a German prince. The Archbishop asserted the right
on behalf not of the Roman Church but of his State. The censorship
exercised by the University of Cologne terminated with the close of the
15th century. The representative of the Archbishop claimed authority,
on the strength of the Bull issued in 1486 by Innocent VIII, directed
against the printers of pernicious books, to take into his own hands
the direction of censorship of the entire principality.
[Sidenote: Early Printers and the Church]
=3. Italy.=--The introduction of the printing-press into Italy was
brought about under the initiative of Juan Turrecremata, who was Abbot
of Subiaco, and who later became Cardinal. The Cardinal was a Spaniard
by birth and his family name (in the Spanish form Torquemada) was,
later, associated with some of the most strenuous of the persecutions
which the Inquisition brought to bear upon the printers. The great
Spanish inquisitor was a nephew of the Cardinal. The Cardinal had been
one of the confessors of Queen Isabella and is said to have made to her
the first suggestion of the necessity of establishing the Inquisition
in order to check the rising spirit of heresy. He did not realise what
a Trojan horse, full of heretical possibilities, he was introducing
into Italy in bringing in the Germans and their printing-press.
Turrecremata was a man of scholarly interests, and he felt assured
that the new art could be made of large service to the Church. He
provided funds for the establishment in Subiaco, in 1464, of the first
printing-press in Italy, which was placed in charge of the Germans
Schweinheim and Pannartz who had learned their art directly from
Gutenberg. The two Germans later migrated to Rome and within a few
years there was a large invasion of German printers into the capital.
The first books printed in Subiaco under the instructions of the
Cardinal were a _Donatus_, an edition of Lactantius, and an edition of
the _De Oratore_ of Cicero. Until towards the close of the century,
when the Church authorities began to realise the risks that were to
be incurred by the Church through the popular distribution of printed
literature, the German printers found opportunities in Italy for
successful and remunerative business.
[Sidenote: Venice]
In 1492, the printing art was introduced into Venice, where it speedily
developed into one of the most important of the industries of the
city. For nearly a century thereafter, Venice took place among the
most influential of the European centres of publishing and literary
activity. There were various grounds on which the productions of the
Venetian presses aroused criticism and antagonism in Rome. After the
beginning of the work of Aldus in 1495, the Venetian publishing lists
included a number of productions by Greek scholars. The majority of
these books being editions of Greek classics, had of course nothing
whatever to do with matters of doctrine or Church policy. The Roman
censors of the time had no knowledge of Greek, an ignorance for which
they were hardly to be criticised, as, until the books of the Aldine
press began to reach the university centres, it was an ignorance that
was shared by all the scholars of Europe. These ecclesiastics were,
however, very apprehensive of the influence of the doctrines of the
Greek Church. They appear to have imagined that the text of Homer
or of Aristotle, or the accompanying notes, might be made to carry
the contentions of the Greek Church in regard to the old-time issues
which had divided Constantinople and Rome. As the censors were unable
themselves to examine the texts, and were unwilling to accept the
conclusions of any examiners who understood Greek, their only means of
defence against this insidious attack on the orthodoxy of Italy was to
prohibit the production and the circulation of any volumes printed in
this heretical language.
The presses of Venice were dangerous not only because they were being
utilised by the scholars of Greece, but because they were bringing into
print also works in Arabic, in Hebrew, in Persian, and in Chaldean. In
the Index lists as printed in Rome, the term “Chaldean” is utilised to
cover the entire group of Oriental tongues which came into print in
one form or another from the presses of Venice. The censors who were
ignorant of Greek were not likely to have any knowledge of Hebrew,
while there was still less chance that they would be able to secure
an understanding of the character of the literature presented in
other Oriental tongues. The first Hebrew books issued in Venice were
editions of the Hebrew Scriptures, of the _Talmud_ and of the
_Targum_, which were printed under the directions of the rabbins
and at the cost of a publication fund, collected for the purpose from
Hebrew congregations throughout South Europe. The doctrines presented
in the long series of Talmudic commentaries might very possibly, if
they could have been read by the censors in Rome, have been interpreted
as antagonistic, at least by implication, to the authority of the
Church of Rome. It would have been difficult, however, to point out
any measure of doctrinal antagonism in the Arabic books selected
for production in Venice. These comprised treatises on mathematics,
treatises on medicine, and Arabic versions, with commentaries by Arab
philosophers, of certain of the texts of Aristotle. The two or three
Persian volumes printed in Venice during the first years of the 16th
century included an exposition of the faith of Zoroaster, a memoir of
Haroun-al-Raschid, and some specimens of the poets of the 14th century.
The actual Chaldean volumes, but one or two in all, were devoted to
astrology. It was the repute that came to these volumes that brought
about the application of the term Chaldean as a description of any
works of divination or magic. Each of the Roman Indexes, from 1559,
down, reiterates the prohibition of “Chaldean books of magic.” The
date of the publication of the first of the Roman Indexes happened to
coincide with the time of the greatest activity of the publishers of
Venice. If the censorship policy of Rome could be enforced in Venice,
the Venetian printers would be driven out of business. The issue was
one that had to be fought out. The victory finally secured by the
printers was due, in the main, to the courage and the intellectual
force of a priest, Paolo Sarpi.
In 1479, Pope Sixtus IV makes Jenson, printer-publisher of Venice,
Count Palatine, the first nobleman among publishers. In 1503, the
Venetian Senate charged Musurus (the friend and literary associate
of Aldus and professor of Greek in Padua) with the censorship of all
Greek books printed in Venice, with reference particularly to the
suppression of anything inimical to the Roman Church. This constitutes
one of the earliest attempts made in Italy to supervise the work of
the printing-press. The action of the Senate was doubtless instigated
by the authorities of the Inquisition. It was natural that the
ecclesiastics should have dreaded the influence of the introduction
into Italy of the doctrines of the Greek Church, while it was doubtless
the case that the refugees from Constantinople brought with them no
very cordial feeling towards Rome. The belief was very general that
if the Papacy had not felt a greater enmity against the Greek Church
than against the Turk, the Catholic States of Europe would have saved
Constantinople. The sacking of Constantinople by the armies of the
Fourth Crusade was still remembered by the Christians of the East as a
crime of the Western Church. There were, therefore, reasons enough why
the authorities of Rome should think it necessary to keep a close watch
over the new literature coming in from the East, and should do what
was practicable to exclude all doctrinal writings, and the censorship
instituted in 1503 was but the beginning of a long series of rigorous
enactments.
The censorship measures undertaken by the Government of Venice (as
was true of the measures of other States in which the business of
publishing became of importance) were more largely concerned with
the supervision of the press for the safety of the State than for
the interests of the Church. For the century between 1407–1528, this
censorship in Venice was carried on without the aid of any general
law, and was based simply upon a series of precedents evolved from
the individual action taken by the Government in each instance as it
arose. The responsibility for the censorship of the press rested with
the Council of Ten, which, in its capacity of a standing committee,
assumed a general charge of the morals of the community. An application
from a printer for a privilege must, according to the usual routine, be
accompanied by a certificate or _testamur_ from the examiners who
were willing to certify as to the soundness and the importance of the
work in question.
In the year 1508, we have the first example of an ecclesiastical
_testamur_ being required by the Council of Ten as a condition for
their own _imprimatur_. The work was the _Universalis animae
traditionis liber quintus_ of Gregoriis, and the ecclesiastical
censor reported that he found in it nothing opposed to Catholic
verity.[96] This is the first instance of a religious censorship
exercised by the secular government. The case indicates the position
the Government of Venice proposed to take in regard to supervision
of books touching upon theological matters. The State had a personal
interest in protecting the Church against the attacks of books likely
to be subversive of the Faith, and the authorities were glad to secure
the opinion of the Church in regard to the character or tendency of a
doubtful work; it intended, however, to retain in its own hands the
final decision as to the permission to print; and it contended that
the interests of Church and State could be best protected by the State
taking action for both. It was the conclusion that, while there should
be a religious censorship, the censor should act only through powers
delegated to him by the secular government.
In 1515, an order was issued by the Council of Ten which established a
general censorship for the literature of the Humanists. It was worded
as follows:
“In all parts of the world and in the famous cities not only
of Italy but also of barbarous countries, that the honour of
the nation may be preserved, it is not allowed to publish works
until they shall have been examined by the most learned person
available. But in this our city, so famous and so worthy, no
attention has as yet been given to this matter; whence it comes
to pass that the most incorrect editions which appear before
the world are those issued in Venice, to the dishonour of the
city. Be it, therefore, charged upon our noble Andrea Navagero
to examine all works in Humanity which for the future may be
printed; and without his signature in the volumes they shall
not be printed, under pain of being confiscated and burned,
and a fine of three hundred ducats for him who disobeys this
order.”[97]
This is the first Italian example of a general or prevention
censorship, applied to a whole class of literature. The third class of
censorship concerns itself with the morals of literature, political
morality, the attitude of the writer or of the publisher towards the
State, and the probable influence of the book upon decency and _bonos
mores_. The political censorship was apparently more effective than
the censorship of morals. It was certainly the case that the imprimatur
was given to not a few books of a scandalous character. In 1526,
the Council of Ten issued a general order decreeing that for future
publications, the _imprimatur_ should be given only to works which
had been examined and approved by two censors who should make a sworn
report that its character was satisfactory.
In 1544, the commissioners of the University of Padua were constituted
the permanent censors of Venetian books submitted for the _imprimatur_
of the council. The censorship of the commissioners covered all points
excepting those relating to religion or theology, which were still
left to be passed upon by the ecclesiastical censors. In 1548, the
first catalogue of prohibited books was issued in Venice. In this
year were instituted, as an addition to the regular executive, three
commissioners on heresy, the _Savii sopra l’Eresia_, who were charged
with the new publications having to do with matters of religion or
doctrine and also with the examination of imported books. The Lutheran
heresy was now being promulgated by means of the press, and the
ecclesiastical authorities were especially suspicious of literature
coming from Germany. The organisation in this same year, 1548, of the
Venetian guild of printers and publishers had for an important part of
its responsibilities the checking of the production or the importation
of heretical books.
In September, 1573, the History of Venice, written by Justiniani, which
had been examined and, to a considerable extent, corrected by the local
inquisitor, having been brought into print, was required to submit to
a further censorship on the part of the Roman examiners. Fra Marco,
the first examiner, writes to Sirleto that he has already written so
frequently in regard to this book that he is mortified to trouble him
further. He points out, however, that the Venetians are in a state of
irritation that the promised papal permission has not been secured, and
he asks for a decision in a matter that has already been held up for a
long period of months.
In 1547, occurred the first instance of a trial undertaken in Venice
by the Holy Office for offence committed through the printing-press.
The list is closed in 1730, with the trial of Giovanni Checcazzi. In
the 16th century, there were one hundred and thirty-two trials by the
Inquisition; in the 17th, fifty-five; in the 18th, but four. It is not
clear whether the diminished activity of the Inquisition during the
later years was due to the increasingly hostile attitude taken by the
Government of Venice towards the Church of Rome after 1596, or to the
fact that the vigour of the press prosecutions during the last half of
the 16th century had effectively stamped out the publication in Venice
of heretical and immoral publications.
[Sidenote: Venice and the Pope]
It is in connection with the Index of Pope Clement VIII and the
Concordat that the history of publishing in Venice comes for the first
time into touch with general history. The claim of the Church to the
control of all publishing undertakings soon became involved in the
larger question of the relations between Venice and Rome. Paolo Sarpi,
who became the champion of the cause of the independence of the State
against ecclesiastical domination, comes into the history of literature
as the upholder of the rights of authors and of publishers against the
crushing censorship of the Inquisition. The problem presented to the
Venetian Government was whether the Venetian press, supported in its
liberty by the Government, should continue to maintain its character as
one of the freest presses in Europe (and therefore one with the most
active production); or whether it should be permitted, for want of
the support of the Government, to fall under the repressive influence
of the Inquisition and the Index. As early as 1491, Franco, Bishop
of Treviso and Papal Legate, had issued a decree prohibiting any one
from printing in Venetian territory or from causing or permitting, to
be printed, any books treating of the Catholic faith or of matters
ecclesiastical without the express permission of the bishop or of the
vicar-general of the diocese. The Legate named at once two works,
Rosselli’s _Monarchia_ and Mirandola’s _Theses_, which were absolutely
prohibited, and all existing copies of which were to be burned in
the cathedral or in the parish churches within fifteen days from the
publication of the decree. There was no charge that these works were
in any way immoral or scandalous. They were condemned simply on the
ground of the unsoundness of their doctrine. The contention raised
in this order on behalf of the Church was far-reaching. If it were
heretical to discuss, in a sense at all hostile to the Curia, the
relative powers of the pope and the emperor, there would be an implied
right in the Church to censure and to condemn any political writings
in which reference was made to the authority of the pope or to the
responsibilities of the emperor. It became in fact the keystone of the
ecclesiastical position that in the case of the Church no separation
was possible between politics and ecclesiastical dogma. In July, 1693,
Paruta, the ambassador of Venice at the Vatican, submitted to the pope
a vigorous protest against the publication of the Clementine Index,
which was then in readiness. Paruta pointed out that the commercial
importance of the book-trade in Venice at that time exceeded that of
any city in Europe; that the book-trade was in itself deserving of
protection and consideration; that a sufficient censorship was already
exercised by the _imprimaturs_ of the Council of Ten, who utilised
among their examiners the inquisitor; that the publication of this
Index would destroy the property, and might cause the ruin, of many
who, believing themselves to be safe as long as they kept within the
regulations of the Council of Trent, had published books which were now
to be prohibited in the Clementine Index; that the new Index not only
made many additions to the lists of prohibited books, but proposed a
radical change in the standard of prohibition--a great number of books
were now, on the ground of some trivial expressions, to be condemned
although they were not at all concerned with ecclesiastical or
religious questions; that it was important for the Church to keep well
affected men of learning throughout the world and that such men would
certainly be very much troubled with any measures that interfered with
scholarly undertakings and the distribution of the world’s literature.
The arguments of Paruta and similar protests that came to Rome from
Germany and from Paris had the effect of convincing the pope that
some modification of his Index was necessary. The Index, as finally
published four years later, was very much altered and diminished. Among
the omissions from the first lists were the titles of the whole class
of non-religious books printed in Venice, in behalf of which Paruta
had spoken. In 1596, the printers and publishers of Venice again found
occasion to appeal to the Senate for support against the regulations
of the Clementine Index. They found that the works that remained
prohibited in the Clementine lists, in addition to those on previous
lists the prohibitions of which were still in force, included many
that had constituted an important staple in their trade and that this
trade, particularly for export, was suffering severely. The Clementine
regulations also undertook to take away from the Venetian printers the
right to print Bibles and missals and to restrict the printing of such
books to Rome. Negotiations between the Senate and the Papacy lasted
for some months but in the end the pope gave way on the more important
points complained of, and a declaration or Concordat was agreed upon
which lessened as far as Venice was concerned the stringency of the
most objectionable features of the Index. When this Concordat had been
signed, the Senate authorised the publication of the Index. The most
important clause in the Concordat was the seventh, which provided that
the right of the bishops and inquisitors to prohibit books not on the
present Index should refer only to books which attacked religion, or
which were printed outside of Venice, or which were issued with a
false imprint. This limitation of the ecclesiastical Inquisition to
purely religious or theological questions constituted a most valuable
precedent in the long fight between the Church and the secular
authorities for the control of the press. The Concordat was the last
arrangement arrived at until the year 1766 between Rome and Venice in
regard to the supervision of the press. During the century and a half
following the Concordat, the Venetian republic persistently refused to
authorise the publication within its territory of an augmented Index.
A list of later prohibitions was, however, finally accepted in 1766,
_juxta formam concordatorum_.
The most prominent figure in this long struggle between Venice and
the Papacy was Fra Paolo Sarpi. Cleric though he was, he contended
vigorously that the Church was embarking upon a wrong course, and he
held that the State was justified in resisting, in secular matters,
ecclesiastical encroachments upon the rights of the sovereign. The
fight made by Sarpi on behalf of the independence of the State, and
particularly of the right of the State to supervise and control
literary productions, was of first importance for the intellectual
activities of Europe. The arguments used in Venice were repeated in
Madrid, Paris, Zürich, and Oxford. Time was gained for authors and for
printers, until, largely by means of the presses which the Church was
endeavouring to throttle, the spirit of resistance to the domination
of the Papacy, and the feeling of national independence against the
right of Rome to lay down the law for Europe, had gathered so much
strength that the claims of the Church had to be withdrawn or very much
moderated.
In 1613, two books by the Englishman Thomas Preston, who wrote under
the name of Roger Widdrington, _Apologia Cardinalis Bellarmini_ and
_Disputatio Theologica_, were placed on the Index by the Congregation.
The Government of Venice, acting under the advice of Sarpi, refused
to allow the provision to take effect in Venice on the two grounds
that the theological doctrines taught by Widdrington were sound and
orthodox, and that his arguments against the pernicious doctrine of
the temporal authority of the pope over princes were eminently worthy
of dissemination.
There were also instances of books that were approved by the Church but
the publication of which was considered detrimental to the interests
of the State, and their sale in Venice was accordingly prohibited. An
example of this class was the _Recantation_ of the Archbishop
of Spalato, printed in Rome in 1623. The republic objected to the
contention of the Archbishop that the pope had power in things temporal
as well as in things spiritual. The republic also prohibited the
History of the Council of Trent, by Cardinal Pallavicini, written
in answer to the History by Sarpi, on the ground that the work
contained sentiments obnoxious to the Government of the republic.
In a report written to the Government by Sarpi, he takes the ground
that the course of action of the Church during the past few years had
produced a series of books whose doctrines were entirely subversive
of secular government. The writers taught that no government but the
ecclesiastical had the divine origin; that secular government is a
thing profane and tyrannical which God permits to be imposed upon his
people as a kind of trial or persecution; that the people are not
in conscience bound to obey the secular law or to pay taxes; that
the imposts and subventions are for the most part iniquitous and
unjust, and that the princes who impose these have in many cases been
excommunicated. In short, princes and rulers are held up to view as
impious and unjust; subjects may have to obey them perforce, but in
conscience they are free to do all that in them lies to break their
yoke. Sarpi emphasises the importance on the part of the republic in
retaining in their own hands the control of literary censorship.
He pointed out that unless the burden of papal censorship could be
lessened, literary production in Venice and elsewhere must cease. He
contended that in the correction of books which are open to censure,
it is not advisable to follow the practice of the Church of “raking
through the entrails of an author” and altering the sense and the
intention of a whole sentence so that the writer is made to say the
reverse of what he had desired to say; first, because all the world
stigmatises such action as falsification; secondly, because such
conduct would bring upon Venice the infamous charge of castrating
books; thirdly, because the court of Rome assumes for itself the sole
right to alter passages in books. He submitted ten propositions upon
which he recommended the Government to take action. The purpose aimed
at in these propositions was the retention in the hands of the State of
the final decision as to prohibition or expurgation, admitting that the
civil authorities could very properly utilise in matters of doctrine
the service of ecclesiastical censors. Sarpi insisted that in all
Venetian editions of the Index, the Concordat should itself be printed.
It was evident in the course of the controversy that Venice was,
ostensibly at least, as anxious as the Church could be for the purity
of the press. In fact, judging from the Indexes, this point had not
caused the Church any particular anxiety. The unsettled question was,
which authority should exercise the censorship over the offences of
libel, scandal, and obscenity--the Church or the State? It was the
opinion of Sarpi that all such books should be absolutely prohibited.
The risk, as emphasised by him, was that the Concordat might fall
into desuetude, leaving the Venetian press, deprived of the bulwark
which the State had secured for its defence, placed completely
under the control of the Inquisition. The future justified Sarpi’s
dread. The heat of the argument died away, and the Concordat was
substantially forgotten. The Inquisition secured full control of
the censorship. The press of Venice came under the influence of the
Index and the Rules. Its losses were greater than those of the other
presses that the Council of Trent had undertaken to regulate, for
the reason that it had so much more to lose. From the middle of the
17th century, the printing-press of Venice, though not destroyed,
ceases to hold pre-eminence in Europe. The last contest of Venice
with Rome occurred in August, 1765, when the Senate issued a decree
instructing the _Rifformatori_ to publish and to circulate the
Index of Clement and the Concordat, and providing further that the
_Rifformatori_ should appoint as an equal associate with the
inquisitor an ecclesiastic who should be a subject of Venice, and whose
_testamur_ as to matters of faith and doctrine should have equal
weight with that of the inquisitor.
A decree was at once issued by the papal court prohibiting the sale
or circulation of all books licensed by the newly appointed Venetian
officers and the nuncio demanded the withdrawal of the Venetian
decree. The issue between the republic and the Papacy turned simply
upon the selection of the authority that should decide what was
heretical or dangerous. The republic was prepared to make use of
ecclesiastical censors but insisted that these must be appointed by
the civil government. The Papacy, on the other hand, maintained that
the entire responsibility of keeping the faithful from poisonous
food had been entrusted to the Church. The Venetian decree of 1765
was never withdrawn and the place of inquisitor as censor of books
upon matters of faith was thereafter held by persons appointed by the
_Rifformatori_ of the university. As late as 1794, the commissioners
of heresy secured an opinion from these university censors upon the
_Institutiones Theologicae_ of De Montazet, Archbishop of Lyons, which
had been condemned at Rome in 1792. As a result of their report, the
Government refused to sanction the decree of the Congregation of the
Index. Such an instance can be accepted as an evidence that the press
of Venice had at last secured freedom from the censorship of Rome.
The revolutionary spirit which was agitating all Europe, and which in
France had for the time completely overthrown both Church and monarchy,
must have seriously weakened the control of the Papacy over the Italian
States, and doubtless exercised no little influence in this final
contest between the ecclesiastical censorship and the printing-press.
The Venetian press possessed a greater measure of freedom than had been
secured by the printer-publishers of any other Italian State and this
was an important factor in its long-continued pre-eminence. The general
course, however, of the legislation for the supervision of the press
was similar in character to that of the other Italian cities in which
attention was given to printing.
[Sidenote: Rome]
The city which undertook the task of at once purifying and revitalising
the literature of the Christian world, has itself been curiously barren
of literary producers. In examining the lists of the writers of Italy
whose names and whose works have survived through the centuries, one is
surprised to note how few are to be credited to Rome. It is Florence,
Venice, Bologna, Ferrara, Milan, and Naples that are recorded as the
birthplaces of the most illustrious of the writers of Italy, and it was
also largely in these smaller cities rather than in the capital that
their important work was carried on.
In artistic productions, the record of Rome is more important. There
was, during the 16th and 17th centuries, a Roman school of art that
had influence, while in Rome were produced many of the famous works by
artists who were natives of Tuscany, of Venice, or of other regions
outside of the States of the Church.
The vision of the cardinal’s hat or of the tiara must have had a
powerful effect in attracting to the papal capital the talent of
the Christian world, and particularly, of course, of Italy; but the
concentration of energies upon ecclesiastical aims and dignities may
easily have had a depressing and restricting influence on general
intellectual development, at least as expressed in literature or art.
Dejob suggests that the possession of the throne of St. Peter, held as
the chief wealth of the country, may possibly have brought intellectual
poverty to Italy as the mines of America had caused ruin to Spain.
It is the conclusion of Dejob that the crushing surveillance of
ecclesiasticism, in connection with the demoralising influences that
opulence had brought upon a society already corrupt, has been the chief
reason why the States of the Church produced fewer writers and artists
of note than are to be credited to the other Italian States; while the
Roman writers whose names are known, such as Leopardi and Caporali,
have in their work manifested an aversion rather than a patriotic
sympathy for the spirit of their home government.[98]
An examination of the list of the popes shows how seldom the choice has
fallen on any one not a native of Italy. Since Adrian VI, who died in
1523, no “foreigner” has been called to the headship of the “World’s
Church,” while of the forty-one popes who have ruled the Church since
Adrian, no less than twenty were born within the territory of the
States of the Church. Dejob (writing in the time of Pius IX) is willing
to ascribe greatness to but one pope since the 16th century, namely
Sixtus V.[99]
This impresses me as too sweepingly pessimistic, at least if we are
to consider the term greatness by the standard attained by the other
monarchs of Europe. I should suppose for instance that Benedict XIV
was entitled to a high relative position among the rulers of the 18th
century for wisdom and for capacity.
In 1561, Pius IV calls to Rome Paul Manutius, son of Aldus, to take
charge of the publication of the writings of the Fathers of the Church
and of such other works as might be selected. Pius was impressed with
the belief that the printing-press, under scholarly management, could
be made of service to the cause of the Church in withstanding the
pernicious influence of the increasing mass of the publications of the
German heretics. These Protestant pamphlets and books were not merely
undermining the authority of the Church in Germany, in Switzerland,
and in France, but were making their way into Italy itself. The first
issues of the Aldine press in Rome were the decrees of the Council of
Trent, the writings of Cyprian, and the letters of St. Jerome. The
press secured the continued support of Pius V and of Gregory XII.
Pius V, when he was Inquisitor of Como, had made one seizure of twelve
bales of books characterised by him as heretical, which had been sent
from the Valtelina to Como for distribution in Lombardy and Romagna.
The books were detained at the office of the Inquisition, but the
application for their release on the part of the bookseller to whom
they were consigned, being backed up by the vicar and the chapter, the
too zealous inquisitor was compelled to release the books, and escaped
only with difficulty payment of damages to the importer whose business
had been interfered with.[100] The same inquisitor, when stationed at
Bergamo, made seizure of two chests of prohibited books, which were in
the possession of a priest who was waiting for a favourable opportunity
for their distribution. The inquisitor reports that the priest had
become depraved by the reading of heretical literature.[101]
[Sidenote: Milan]
In 1614, the Milan guild of printers and booksellers secured a fresh
edict confirming its authority and enjoined, under heavy penalties,
strict obedience to its regulations. In the application for this
decree, the guild no longer lays stress upon the necessity of
upholding the dignity and honourable standard of the book-trade, but
emphasises the risk to the Church and to the community of believers
if permission to print or to sell books should be given to uneducated
and irresponsible persons who could not be familiar with the lists of
forbidden works. Experience had evidently made clear to the publishers
that with a government like that of Spain (which might be described as
a despotism tempered by the Inquisition) this class of considerations
would be more influential than any thought of upholding the dignity
of the business of making and selling books. The confirmation of
the authority of the guild under the direct control of ecclesiastics
representing the Spanish Inquisition, had the effect of checking its
business in publications outside of the classes of jurisprudence and
medicine. These subjects were naturally less affected by ecclesiastical
censorship.
[Sidenote: Discrimination in Censorship]
A factor to be taken into account in considering the selections of
books ordered to be condemned, was the patriotism of the Italian
clergy, in whose hands rested the control of the operations of the
Congregation. They were as unwilling to characterise as pernicious
noteworthy and representative books by Italian writers, as they
were to place any one but an Italian on the throne of St. Peter.
This partisan zeal for the literary glory of Italy must frequently
have seriously interfered with the aim of securing a consistent and
effective Index and have brought upon a conscientious pope not a little
embarrassment. An example of the difficulty experienced by Rome in
enforcing a consistent censorship in the face of Italian patriotism,
on the part of ecclesiastics, no less than of laymen, is afforded by
Dante and Petrarch. Of the former, was prohibited the _De Monarchia_,
but the _Divine Comedy_, with all its bitter strictures of things
ecclesiastical, escaped condemnation and even expurgation.
The _Canzoniere_ of Petrarch were also left untouched by Rome, although
the Inquisition of Spain had characterised them most severely in the
Indexes of 1612 and 1667. It was not until 1667 that the _Satires_ of
Ariosto were placed upon the Index, while the _Comedies_ of the same
poet were never condemned although in these the poet had assailed
fiercely the trade in indulgences, and had painted a vivid picture of
the traffic carried on by the capital of the Christian world with the
blood of the apostles and martyrs.
The example of independence set by Venice in its series of contests
with the Church for the freedom of the press had a natural influence in
other cities of Italy where conditions were favourable for publishing
activity. In Florence, Pisa, Ferrara, Milan, and other cities in
which scholarship had flourished during the manuscript period,
the productions of the printing-press became, during the 15th and
16th centuries, of increasing importance. This work was frequently
interfered with and sometimes seriously hampered by the censorship
regulations of Rome and by the operations of the local inquisitors,
but it was never entirely blocked even in any one city. The feeling of
State and municipal independence and the individuality of the people
were too strong to be crushed out by Roman edicts or by the threats
of the Inquisition. In Italy as in Germany, the fact that there was
not one government in the peninsula, but a number of independent
States, helped to secure for the work of the printers some degree of
opportunity, notwithstanding the censorship edicts of the Church and
the repressive measures of the State. The presses of the day were small
and in case of trouble in one city, they could easily be moved to
another.
An instance of a book the censorship of which caused no little
difficulty to the authorities of the Index is afforded by the
_Decameron_ of Boccaccio. The book had, under the instructions of
Paul IV, been placed upon the Index of 1559, and the prohibition was
confirmed in that of 1564. In response to an urgent requirement from
the public, an expurgated edition was printed for the needs of the
faithful by the Giunti in Florence in 1573, under a special privilege
from the Duke of Tuscany and from Gregory XIII, who himself contributed
a prefatory word. The volume includes further an authorisation from
Manrique, Grand Inquisitor, and one from de Pise, Inquisitor-General
of Florence. The introduction states that the work has been purged of
its obnoxious passages. It appears, however, that the eliminations were
confined almost exclusively to the passages which were tainted with
heresy, and to the uncomplimentary references to the clergy and to
monastic institutions. The amorous incidents are left untouched, but
in all cases in which a monk or a cleric, an abbess or a nun is made
by Boccaccio to play an undignified or unworthy rôle, the character is
replaced by a citizen, a nobleman, or a bourgeoise.
The edition of the _Decameron_, revised under the instructions
of Gregory XIII, did not prove satisfactory to Sixtus V, and the
book was therefore replaced on the Index. The demand for copies on
the part of readers, ecclesiastics and others, who were prepared to
respect the prohibition of the Index, continued urgent, and the Pope
authorised the production of a further expurgated edition, which was
printed in Florence in 1582 and reprinted in Venice in 1588. The task
of expurgation had been confided to two laymen, Salviati, known as a
linguist, and Groto, a poet. This further revision still failed to
satisfy the Pope and the book remained on the Index, but it continued
in general reading, and the authorities appear finally to have decided
to close their eyes to this particular instance of disobedience.
The record presents a curious example of a book the vitality of
which, persisting through the centuries, defied all efforts for its
suppression. It is referred to by the historians as the first _chef
d’oeuvre_ in prose that had as yet been produced in Italy, whose
literature was so rich in great poems.
[Sidenote: Papal Authorisation]
One would suppose that the authority of the head of the Church ought
to have been accepted in all cases as adequate to cover the permission
required for the printing and continued circulation of a book. It
appears, however, that from time to time even the papal authorisations
were disregarded or failed to receive continued consideration. Dejob
refers to a history of Bologna by Sigone, the publication of which was
suspended, owing to the malignancy of certain Bolognese, after the
approval had been secured from the examiners appointed by the pope.
Baronius, the defender of the most extreme claims for the supremacy of
the Papacy, secured for his monograph on Sixtus V the approbation of
the papal examiner and of the master of the palace. Notwithstanding
this approval, the printing of the book was blocked through some cabal
and the work was held up until Cardinal Caraffa intervened to secure
its publication.[102]
In the year 1600, was completed, in thirteen folio volumes, the
_Annales Ecclesiastici_ of Baronius, the most comprehensive work
which the controversies of the Protestant revolt had as yet produced.
The series was continued by various writers until, in the edition
issued at Lucca in 1738–1786, it had grown to thirty-eight folio
volumes, a work of which purchase was difficult and perusal impossible.
A reply to Baronius was undertaken by Casaubon, who published in
London in 1604 (as a fragment of the work originally planned) his
_Exercitationes_, a volume of eight hundred folio pages. For
the great work of Baronius, the authorities of the Church interested
themselves in securing through the Church machinery channels of
distribution and such reading public as was practicable considering its
compass and scholastic character.
The Roman idea of reforming and developing the intellectual life
of the State was to follow a policy of official supervision with
prohibitions and penalties. Ecclesiastical censors undertook to bring
authors under a system of religious and theological obligations, and
were willing to give their official approval only to works complying
with their standards. Certain writers accept with docility the
regulations imposed, but it is not those whose productions will live
or will retain influence. The books that have not conformed to the
ecclesiastical restrictions must be either reshaped or suppressed.
It is not under such conditions, says Dejob, that a great literature
can be produced.[103] And yet in spite of an ecclesiastical policy of
restriction and repression enforced, or at least attempted, through
centuries, the intellectual vitality of Italy was so great that it
proved impossible to crush out its independence of thought, or even
seriously to limit the expression of its spiritual and literary ideals.
A scholarly Catholic of France writing in 1883 says (in substance):
The peculiar conception, that from the earliest times Italy had formed,
of the Kingdom of God and of the way in which this Kingdom was to be
reached, the astounding freedom of spirit with which (during the middle
ages) it handled matters of dogma and of discipline, the serenity that
it was able to maintain in the face of the great mystery of life and
death, the marvellous way with which it brought into accord faith and
rationalism, its indifference for heresies and for the temerities of
its mystical imagination, the ardent affection with which it accepted
the highest ideals of Christianity, and finally, the indignation with
which from time to time it denounced the feebleness, the violence,
the corruption of the Church of Rome,--this is the religion of Italy,
the faith of Peter Damien, of Arnold of Brescia, of St. Francis,
of John of Parma, of St. Catherine of Siena, of Savonarola, and of
Ochino; but it was also the faith of Dante and of Petrarch, of Giotto,
of Fra Angelico, and of Raphael, of Vittoria Colonna and of Michael
Angelo.[104]
=4. Spain.=--In Spain as in Italy, the Church did not at once
realise the risks to orthodoxy that were to be associated with the
work of the printers. German printers coming to Spain as early as
1474 were received with favour and found opportunities for profitable
work. Even Hebrew printers were at the outset welcomed. Between the
years 1499–1510, Cardinal Ximenes (following in the footsteps of
Turrecremata) paid fifty thousand crowns for the production of a series
of classics. It was not until 1510 that the Church began, through the
organisation of its censorship, to hamper the work of the printers.
Pütter is authority for the statement[105] that for a term of two years
(1484–1486) Christopher Columbus served as a bookseller’s apprentice
and as a colporteur. An ecclesiastic named Bernaldes writes in 1487: “I
have recently seen a man named Christofero Colombo who comes from Genoa
and who is a dealer in printed books that he has brought to this city
(Cogolludo) from Andalusia.”
The destruction of books classed as pernicious appears to have been,
during the 15th century, within the province of any person of position
and influence.[106] In 1490, Torquemada burned, under order of
Ferdinand and Isabella, a number of Hebrew Bibles, and, later, he made
at Salamanca an _auto-da-fé_ of more than six thousand volumes
described as books of magic or as infected with Jewish errors. Ximenes,
while yet merely Archbishop, burned in the public square of Granada
no less than five thousand Arabic books, many of them splendidly
ornamented and illuminated. The only books spared from the collection
were those on the subject of medicine, which were deposited in the
University of Alcala.[107] In 1502, Ferdinand and Isabella enacted
an elaborate law, which is referred to as the first of the kind in
Europe, establishing a general censorship of the press. In this law,
were laid down the principles on which were based nearly all subsequent
enactments. To Spain thus belongs the honour of organising the system
which was to exercise an influence so incomputable on the development
of human intelligence.
“The Spanish people strove earnestly for the maintenance of the faith
but it understood by this not the reform of methods of life and the
correction of immorality, but the extirpation of heresy.”[108]
“The uncompromising character of the Spanish temperament, which pursued
its object regardless of consequences, saw at once what was elsewhere
only perceived by degrees, that any endeavours to set bounds to the
multiplying products of the press could be successful only under a
thorough system of minute surveillance.”[109] It was ordered that
no book should be printed or imported or exposed for sale without
examination and license. In some places, this duty was imposed upon
judges of the royal courts and in others on the archbishops or bishops.
The examiners, men of good repute and learning, were to be appointed
by these authorities and were to be adequately paid for their work.
After a work in manuscript had been licensed for printing, the printed
sheets were to be carefully compared with the original to insure that
no alteration had been made on the press. Any book printed or imported
or offered for sale without such license was to be seized and burned
and the printer or vendor was declared incapable of longer carrying on
the business.[110] In this first enactment, no reference is made to
the Inquisition as having any concern either with the investigation
of books for heresies or with the punishment of delinquents; but
the Inquisition had not long to wait before its jurisdiction over
literature was established on an impregnable basis.
After the beginning of the Reformation in Germany, the operations of
the censorship in Spain were carried on with renewed vigour. Special
efforts were naturally made to protect the faithful in Spain from
contamination through the importation of heretical books from Germany.
A letter of June 25, 1524, written by Martin de Salinas, mentions
that a ship from Holland bound for Valencia had been captured by
the French and then recaptured and brought into San Sebastian. In
discharging the vessel, there were found two casks of Lutheran books
which were publicly burned. Salinas writes, some months later, that
three Venetian galleasses had arrived at a port in Granada, bringing
large quantities of Lutheran books. The books were burned and the
captains and crews arrested. An edict of the Supreme Council of the
Inquisition, issued in August, 1530, urged the inquisitors to increased
vigilance in connection particularly with the destruction of certain
Lutheran writings that had been introduced under false titles or under
the names of Catholic authors. The inquisitors were ordered to add to
the Edict of Denunciations, published annually, a clause requiring the
denunciation of all who possessed such books or of all who had read
them.[111] In spite of the watchfulness of the inquisitors and of the
customs officials, it is reported that, in 1570, no less than thirty
thousand copies of a Spanish version of the _Institutes_ of Calvin
were brought over the frontier.[112]
It is the conclusion of Ticknor that by the end of the 16th century,
bookselling in Spain, in the sense in which the term was used elsewhere
in the world, was practically unknown, and the Inquisition and the
confessional had often made most rare what was most desirable. In
March, 1521, papal briefs were sent to Spain, warning the Spanish
Government to prevent the further introduction of books written by
Luther and his followers, copies of which had, it was believed, been
penetrating into the country for about a year. These papal briefs
were addressed to the civil administration, which still, in form at
least, retained in its own hands the control of such matters. It was,
however, more natural and more in accordance with the ideas then
prevalent, not only in Spain but in other countries, to look to the
ecclesiastical power for remedies in a matter connected with religion.
This was certainly the attitude of the great body of the Spanish
people. In less than a month (as is evident from the date of the briefs
in question) and possibly even before these briefs were received in
Spain, the grand inquisitor addressed an order to the tribunals under
his jurisdiction, requiring them to search for, and to seize, all books
supposed to contain the doctrines of the new heresy. The measure was
bold and proved successful.
In the meantime, the Supreme Council of the Inquisition proceeded with
this work with a firm and consistent step. By successive decrees issued
between 1521 and 1553, it was ordained that all persons who had in
their possession books infected with the doctrines of Luther, and all
persons also who failed to denounce the holders of such books, should
be excommunicated and subject to severe punishments. These decrees
gave to the Inquisition the right to inquire into the contents and the
character of whatever books were sold and printed. They also relegated
to itself the power to determine what books might be sent to the
press. This assumption was made gradually and with little noise, but
effectually.
While at first there was no direct authority for such action from
either the pope or the Kingdom of Spain, it necessarily implied the
assent of both, and was carried into effect by means furnished by one
or the other. In certain works printed before 1550, the Inquisition
began quietly and without any formal authority to take cognisance and
control of books that were about to be printed. A curious treatise
on exchange, by de Villalon, entitled _Tratado de Cambios_, was
printed at Valladolid in 1541. The title-page declared that the book
had been “_Visto por los señores Inquisidores_.” In the _Silva
de Varia Leccion_, of Pero, printed at Seville, in 1543, the title
gives the imperial license for printing, while the colophon adds that
of the Apostolical inquisitor. The author was evidently anxious to
secure, in addition to a permission resting on law, one which rested on
the still more formidable authority of the Church.
A system which should effectually preserve the faithful from the
contamination of evil by keeping from them the knowledge of its
existence comprised two functions; the first was the examination of all
books prior to publication, permitting only the innocent to be printed;
the second was the scrutiny of the books that had come from the press
and the condemnation or expurgation of those containing errors which
had escaped the vigilance of the first examiners. Under the rigid
institution of censorship in Spain, the first of these duties was
assumed by the State and the second was confided to the Inquisition.
The first law in regard to Spanish censorship was enacted in 1502 and
forbade the printing or importation of any book without an examination
and license. The chancellor Gattinara, writing in 1527 to Erasmus,
says that in Spain no book could see the light without a careful
preliminary inspection which was rigidly enforced. This statement is
confirmed in 1540 by Hugo de Celso. The Inquisition had no legal status
in the matter of preliminary licensing, but its growing influence
caused its judgment to be frequently appealed to in advance. Ticknor
makes reference to books of 1536, 1541, and 1546 as bearing records of
examination by the Inquisition.
In 1554, an edict of Charles V confines to the royal council the
function of issuing licenses for the printing of books of all
descriptions. In the case of works of importance, the original
manuscript was to be deposited with the council to ensure detection
of any alterations made while the book was going through the press.
In 1558, it is ordered under royal edict that no bookseller or other
person shall sell or possess any books printed or to be printed which
have been condemned by the Inquisition and that such books should be
publicly burned. The penalty is death and confiscation of all property.
The same penalties apply to the importing of any books in Romance which
do not bear a printed license from the council. A later regulation
specifies that, in order to prevent any alterations in the printing,
the original manuscript shall be signed on every leaf by a secretary
of the royal chamber, who shall mark and rubricate every correction or
alteration in it and shall state at the end the number of leaves and
of alterations. When the printing has been completed, these corrected
leaves are to be compared with the printed sheets. The infection of
heresy could be communicated by manuscript, and therefore the penalty
of death and confiscation is decreed for all who own or show to others
manuscripts on any religious subject without first submitting these to
the council.[113] Lea goes on to say: “I am not aware that any human
being was actually put to death for violating its provisions, unless
the offence was complicated with heresy express or implied, but such
violation remained to the end a capital crime. The only modification
of this ferocious penalty occurs in a revision of the press law in
1752.”[114] It is not surprising that under restrictions of this
character, the work of the Spanish printer-publishers during the 16th
century was seriously hampered. As an example of the enforcement of
the regulations of the Valdes Index of 1559, may be named the case of
a French priest named Jean Fesque. He had handed to a bookseller named
Trechel a volume without imprint, asking Trechel if he could say where
it was printed. The book belonged to the condemned list, being a French
version of the Psalms of David, translated by Marot and Bèza. Fesque
stated that he had purchased the book from a boy in the street without
knowledge of its character. He was brought before the Inquisition, and
after five months’ imprisonment and various examinations, he was put to
the torture but was unable to give further evidence as to the history
of the book. He was finally released after six months’ incarceration,
seriously disabled by the torture.[115]
The machinery of the Inquisition was effective even in the farther
parts of the empire. In 1795, a priest in the settlement of Hopelcheen
in Yucatan published a prohibition of the Inquisition warning his
congregation not to read a certain book which had been described by
the Inquisition as dangerous and to surrender at once all copies in
their possession. The book was entitled _Disengaño del Hombre_, by
Puglia, and bore the imprint (possibly fictitious) of Philadelphia. The
congregation of Indians and half-breeds was hardly likely to have had
knowledge of the book or to have been able to read it even if copies
had reached Hopelcheen.[116]
_The Index expurgatorius_ in its literal sense may be described
as peculiarly a Spanish institution. In the Roman series, there is
record of the publication of but one expurgatory Index, that of
Brasichelli, and this was never republished and was in fact promptly
recalled by the authorities. The inquisitors of Spain took upon
themselves the task of preserving the faithful from contamination, and
the successive expurgatory Indexes give evidence of the enormous labour
expended by the examiners in the correction of the text of books which
they were not prepared absolutely to prohibit, but the circulation of
which they were ready to permit if the heresies could be expunged or
corrected. The Roman prohibitory Index contained against many works
the restriction _donec corrigatur_. This indicated that the book
when corrected was to be permitted; the objectionable passages were,
however, not specified, although the author could ascertain these on
application. As an actual result, it was very rarely the case that it
proved practicable to bring into publication an edition in which the
corrections in question, having been ascertained from the authorities,
could be made. The Spanish censors took credit to themselves for their
liberality in securing the use of heretical works of value through the
expurgation of the offensive passages. It is true that, under this
system, permission was given for the production of the writings of
authors like Erasmus, Casaubon, Bertram, and others who were absolutely
prohibited in Rome. It does not appear, however, that as far as the
publishers of Spain were concerned, this permission brought about
for the greater portion of the books in question the production of
corrected editions. It is in fact easy to understand how the heavy
loss that must be incurred through the suppression of the original
edition would have discouraged both author and printer from the task
of risking a further investment in a second edition which might itself
in like manner be prohibited until again revised. It may safely be
concluded that the restricted prohibition in Spain had as far as the
production and distribution of books were concerned practically the
same result as the absolute prohibition in Rome. In fact, in Spain,
the result was more effective simply because the regulations of the
Spanish Inquisition were enforced, while for the similar orders of
the Inquisition of Rome or of the Congregation of the Index, the
enforcement throughout the States of Italy or outside of Italy was but
vacillating and fragmentary. An example of the watchfulness of the
Spanish examiners is given in the expurgation of a passage from the
Second Part of _Don Quixote_. But a single sentence is cancelled.
It reads: “Works of charity negligently performed are of no worth.”
In the _Divine Comedy_ of Dante, the censors found but three
passages for excision. Lea points out that for this work at least the
examination can hardly be described as thorough.[117] In 1790, the
history of the monastery of Sixena, by Varon, which had been published
with the approval of the royal examiners in 1776, was prohibited until
the following sentence had been expurgated: “When Philip the Second
was despoiling the world to enrich his monastery of the Escorial.”
The Inquisition of Spain even assumed for itself the authority to
revise and correct the utterances of the popes. The State utilised the
censorship of the Inquisition not only for matters theological but for
the suppression of writings that were purely political. Instructions
of Clement VIII were accepted as the authority for the expurgation
of teachings that were derogatory to princes and to ecclesiastics and
contrary to good morals. In 1612, for instance, the works of Antonio
Perez were placed on the Index because they were critical of Philip
II.[118] In 1640, the Inquisition suppressed a manifesto addressed by
the authorities of Barcelona to Philip IV, and, in 1642, it prohibited
a further manifesto in which the Catalans accused the favourite,
Olivares, of causing the misfortunes of Spain. In 1643, on the other
hand, after the dismissal of Olivares, the Inquisition prohibited a
pamphlet which had been issued in his defence.
[Sidenote: Book-trade and the Inquisition]
Under an edict of 1602, commissioners of the Inquisition were
stationed at all the ports with instructions to seize all books by
new authors and all new and enlarged editions of new books as they
arrived and to allow no one to handle these until they had been
inspected by representatives of the supreme council. Prohibited
books were detained and burned. The regulations of the Inquisition
had at this time rendered very difficult the carrying on of the
printing and publishing business in Spain, with the result of very
much decreasing the annual production of books. The requirements
of scholars and readers could therefore be met only through the
importation of books produced in France, Italy, or the Netherlands.
The necessity, however, of securing for imported books, in addition
to the inspection (onerous enough in itself) on the part of customs
officials, an examination, volume by volume, by the representatives
of the Inquisition, brought such serious burdens, expenses, and risks
upon the business of the importers as to render this unprofitable.
It is certainly the case that the circulation of books in Spain
during the 17th century became very inconsiderable. An order issued
in 1597 gives evidence of some consideration for the property of
foreigners. When heretics came to trade, bringing books for their own
use, the commissioner was instructed to examine these and to mark
conspicuously and indelibly such as belonged to the prohibited list,
so that they could be recognised by the faithful. The owners were
warned, under heavy penalties, not to bring such books to the shore.
In 1631, it was directed that “ships of England should be treated with
gentleness so as not to cause offence.”[119] The instructions for the
examination of vessels, whether Spanish or foreign, to guard against
the introduction not only of prohibited books but of heretics, and to
punish any infractions of the faith that might during the voyage have
been committed either by the crew or passengers, were very precise and
exacting.
Under the fourth article of these instructions, a report is to be given
as to what Christian doctrine and prayers of the Church have been
recited at sea and what saints have been advocated and invoked in their
necessities and perils. Under article six, it is ordered that all boxes
and chests of the sailors and passengers were to be opened for evidence
of heresy.
Henry C. Lea, in a letter to the writer (under date of October 31,
1898) in regard to the effect of censorship on the literary interests
of Spain, says:
“I was chiefly interested in tracing the influence of censorship
on the intellectual and political development of Spain, but in
many instances a side light is thrown upon the resultant injury
to the commercial interests involved,--as for instance the ruin
of Portonares, the greatest Spanish printer, as a result of the
censorship (_i. e._ the condemnation of the Vatable Bible.)
The business of bookselling was in fact crippled in every way.
I have met with one case in which a bookseller humbly petitions
the Inquisition to come to a decision in regard to certain books
which he had imported and which had been in the hands of the
_Calificadores_ (examiners) for four years.
“The _prima facies_ was against all books; their innocence
had to be proved before their circulation could be allowed
and even after this they were still liable at any time to an
adverse judgment. Under these circumstances, commerce in books
was necessarily crippled and the diffusion of intelligence was
reduced to a minimum.”
The books that were published during the 16th century, and indeed for
a century later, bore everywhere marks of the subjection to which the
press and those who wrote for the press were alike reduced. From the
abject title-pages and dedications of the authors themselves through
the series of certificates collected from their friends to establish
the orthodoxy of works that were often as little connected with
religion as fairy tales, down to the colophon supplicating pardon for
any unconscious neglect of the authority of the Church or for any too
free use of classical mythology, we are continually impressed with
painful proofs, not only how completely the human mind was enslaved in
Spain, but how grievously it had become cramped and crippled by what
it had so long borne.[120] Of the few dramatic pieces written in the
earlier part of the reign of Charles V, nearly all except those on
strictly religious subjects were laid under the ban of the Church;
several in fact being now known to have existed only because their
names appear in the _Index expurgatorius_; and others, like the
_Amadis de Gaula_ of Gil Vicente, though printed and published,
being subsequently forbidden to be represented.[121]
Ticknor writes (with reference to the trial of Luis de Leon, in
December, 1576):
“The very loyalty with which Luis bowed himself down before the
dark and unrelenting tribunal into whose presence he had been
summoned, sincerely acknowledging its right to all the powers
it claimed, and submitting faithfully to all its decrees, is
the saddest proof that can be given of the subjection to which
intellects the most lofty and the most cultivated had been
reduced by sinful tyranny, and the most discouraging augury
of the degradation of the national character that was sure to
follow.”[122]
In 1676, was born Benito Feyjoo, who later became a Benedictine
monk. While his life was spent in strict retirement (for forty-seven
years he remained in the convent at Oviedo), the activity of his
thought made him a fire in the community. He wrote a series of papers
published, in 1726, under the title of the _Critical Theatre_.
In these, he openly attacked the dialectics and metaphysics then
taught everywhere in Spain. Few persons at the beginning of the 18th
century were so well informed as not to believe in astrology, and fewer
still doubted the disastrous influence of comets and of eclipses. The
study of Copernicus was forbidden to be taught on the ground that
it was contrary to Scripture. The philosophy of Bacon, with all the
consequences that followed it, were unknown. In spite of the opposition
of the Inquisition, before which Feyjoo was more than once summoned,
it proved to be impracticable to suppress his investigations or his
publications. In 1742, he began a series of discussions published under
the title _Learned and Enquiring Souls_. The series was finished
in 1760. It was impossible for the Inquisition to assail the soundness
of his faith. Fifteen editions of his principal works were printed in
half a century. It is the conclusion of Ticknor that the quiet monk had
done more for the intellectual life of his country than had been done
in a century.[123]
Ticknor calculates that the number of _auto-da-fés_ during the
reign of Philip V exceeded seven hundred and eighty. It is believed
that more than twelve thousand persons were, in different ways,
subjected, under the authority of the Inquisition, to be punished and
disgraced and that more than one thousand were burned alive. Charles
III, with the assistance of his liberal ministers, was able so far to
abridge the papal power that no rescript or edict from Rome could have
force in Spain without the express consent of the throne. He restrained
the Inquisition from exercising any authority whatever except in
cases of obstinate heresy or apostacy. He forbade the condemnation
of any book until its author or those interested in it had had an
opportunity to be heard in its defence. Finally, deeming the Jesuits
the most active opponents of the reforms he was intending to enforce,
he expelled their whole body from his dominions all over the world,
breaking up their schools and confiscating their great revenues.
Certain abuses were, however, beyond his reach. When he appealed to the
universities, urging them to change their ancient habits and to teach
the truths of the physical and exact sciences, Salamanca answered
in 1771: “Newton teaches nothing that would make a good logician
or metaphysician and Gassendi and Descartes do not agree so well
with revealed truth as does Aristotle.”[124] The other universities
showed little more of the spirit of advancement. Under Charles IV, in
1805, the Inquisition, grown forcible in the hands of the Government
as a political machine but still renouncing none of its religious
pretensions, came forth with its last _Index expurgatorius_ to
meet the invasion of French philosophy and insubordination. Acting
under express instructions from the powers of the State, it instituted
against men of letters, and especially against those connected with the
universities, an immense number of denunciations which, though rarely
prosecuted to conviction and to punishment, were still formidable
enough to prevent the public expression of opinions on any subject that
could endanger the social condition of the individual who ventured to
entertain them.
[Sidenote: University of Paris]
=5. France.=--Duke Philip Augustus in an edict issued in 1200,
confirmed by St. Louis in 1229 and by Philip the Fair in 1302,
directed that the cases of university members be brought before the
Bishop of Paris. The university found disadvantages in being under the
jurisdiction of the bishop (whose censorship later proved particularly
troublesome for the publishers) and applications were made to replace
the authority of the ecclesiastical courts with that of the royal
courts. In 1334, letters patent of Philip of Valois directed the
Provost of Paris, who was at that time considered as the _conservateur_
of the royal privileges, to take the university under his special
protection, and in 1341, the members of the university were forbidden
to enter proceedings before any other authority. This action brought
the control of literary production in the university directly under the
authority of the Crown and constituted a precedent for the contention,
maintained through the 15th and 16th centuries, for the direct control
by the Crown of the printing-presses. The claim on the part of the
university, however, to control as a portion of the work of higher
education the business of the makers and the sellers of books, while
sharply attacked and materially undermined during the 17th century,
was not formally abandoned until the beginning of the 18th. At this
time, the Crown took to itself all authority to regulate the press, an
authority which terminated only with the Revolution of 1789.
[Sidenote: Paris]
The first printing-office in France was established in 1469 by Gering,
Krantz, and Friburger from Constance. At the request of two of the
divines of the Sorbonne, space was given for the printing-office in
one of the halls of the college. An edict of Louis XII, issued April
9, 1513, confirms and extends the privileges previously acquired by
booksellers as officials of the university. In this edict, Louis speaks
with appreciation and admiration of the printing art, “the discovery
of which appears to be rather divine than human.” He congratulates his
kingdom that in the development of this art “France takes precedence
of all other realms.”[125] A year later, the King places on record his
opinion that dramatic productions and representations should be left
free from any restrictions. In 1512, the King writes to the university
requesting the theological faculty to examine a book that had been
condemned as heretical by the Council of Pisa. In place, however, of
demanding that measures of severity should be taken against the writer,
the King proposed that the professors should go over the book chapter
by chapter and should present a refutation of any of its conclusions
that seemed to them to be contrary to the truth. It was hardly possible
that so fair a spirit of toleration should long continue. The spirit
of the time was stronger than the power of any one king and it was
impossible in the 16th century that the Church and the State could
permit the free development and the unrestricted expression of thought.
In 1500, the publisher Badius, who had been selected by the theological
faculty for printing certain of its censorial works, issued an edition
of the _Regula S. Benedicti_, the famous Rule which had exercised
so important and so abiding an influence on the literature and the
intellectual development of Europe. The leading publisher in Paris
between the years 1496 and 1520 was Henry Estienne. The so-called
heretical opinions of Estienne rendered him obnoxious to the doctors
of the Sorbonne and if it had not been for the special interference
of Francis I, by whom his learning and his merits were held in high
esteem, his life would more than once have been in jeopardy. His
opponents succeeded, however, in procuring his expulsion from the
university, and, driven from Paris, he was compelled to seek the
protection of the Queen of Navarre. The case is one of a long series of
instances in which the liberal views and scholarly interests of King
Francis brought him into conflict with the doctors of the Sorbonne.
In the end, however, the theological faculty, backed by the majority
of the ecclesiastics of France and by the influence of the Papacy,
proved too strong for the liberal tendencies of the Crown. With the
triumph of Catholic orthodoxy in France, the leading publishers and
their scholarly editors found so many difficulties placed in the way
of their undertakings that these could no longer be carried on to
advantage in Paris. The chief trouble was due to the ignorance and
suspiciousness of the doctors of the Sorbonne. These doctors possessed
at this period little or no knowledge of Greek and were inclined to
imagine that any Greek sentence must contain or might contain some
dangerous heresy.[126] Any critical analysis of Latin texts which, in
some earlier, and usually imperfect or defective, form, had received
the approval of the Church, also seemed to the divines likely to
prove dangerous, and in any case, constituted a reflection upon the
orthodox scholarship of the previously accepted versions. Their
apprehensions became most keen and their indignation most active when
the “new criticism” (as they probably called it) was applied to the
text of the Scriptures, whether for the purpose of correcting the
early clumsy Latinised versions of the New Testament or of securing
more accurate rendering of the texts of the Hebrew books. During the
first half-century of printing, however, the production of editions of
the Scriptures constituted the most important division of publishing
undertakings. It is not surprising, therefore, that the printers who
were giving their time and their capital to the preparation of these
editions, and who found themselves hampered and harassed by ignorant
and bigoted censorship, came to the conclusion that the advantages of
Paris as a literary and commercial centre were not sufficient to offset
the continued difficulties and annoyances of such antagonism.
By 1540, the ecclesiastical control of the printing-press (exercised
through the authority of the university) had become an established and
an obstructive fact. A necessary result of the antagonism of the Church
to critical scholarship was to drive into the ranks of sympathisers
with the reformers, if not into Protestantism itself, very many of the
scholars who at the outset were not reformers and who were not keenly
interested in the theological issues of the period, but who felt a
natural indignation at the reiterated interference with scholarly
undertakings on the part of very ignorant men. The scholars engaged in
preparing for the public critical editions of the world’s literature
asked to be let alone, but they asked in vain.
In 1546, the doctors of the Sorbonne secured the insertion in the
prohibitory Index of Louvain of the edition of the Bible that had
just been printed by Robert Estienne; but later in the same year,
the King prohibited the printing or the circulation in France of the
Index of Louvain. The King also issued a brief ordering the divines to
withdraw their strictures upon the Estienne Bible. With the death of
the King in 1547, the prohibition of the Bible was, however, renewed.
In 1552, Estienne, deprived of the protection of King Francis, is
finally compelled to close his printing office and to remove to Geneva.
Estienne did not, however, find Protestant Geneva a place of liberal
toleration. The year after his arrival, he witnessed the burning, under
the authority of Calvin, of the heretical scholar Servetus, and more
than once during the later years of his work in Geneva, the Estienne
publications came under the condemnation of the Calvinistic censorship.
Henry Estienne (the second) completed, in 1562, the publication of
certain theological works which had been left unfinished in Geneva at
the time of his father’s death. Among these, were an Exposition of the
New Testament and an Exposition of the Psalms. The editor, a certain
Marloratus, a Huguenot minister at Rouen, was unfortunately, before
the printing was completed, hanged as a heretic, under the direction
of the Duke of Guise, but the books themselves were not suppressed
nor was the publisher interfered with. The faculty of the Sorbonne
appears for the time to have suspended its censorious watchfulness over
heretical publications, perhaps because it found its hands sufficiently
full with the active work of suppressing, by fire, gibbet, and sword,
the heretics themselves. Henry found it later, however, good policy
to divide his publishing undertakings, executing at Paris reprints of
the classics and works in general literature, and reserving for his
press at Geneva theological works which were likely to give offence
in a period of “religious irritation.” This term is, I may mention,
Maittaire’s, and it is perhaps not too strong a description of a period
in which a divine who had taken no part in politics could be hanged
simply for editing a Protestant commentary.
[Sidenote: Geneva]
In 1589, the city of Geneva was being besieged by the Duke of Savoy.
The city contained at the time a population of about 12,000 and was
able to muster for its defence 2186 men capable of bearing arms.
Against this little force, the Duke brought up an army of 18,000
regular troops with the determination of destroying once for all this
“nest of heretics.” The destruction of the city was earnestly urged
by St. Francis de Sales. The schools and the printing-presses were
particularly pointed out by St. Francis as instruments of mischief.
The powers that determine events were this time not in accord with the
saint. The city survived a siege lasting for nine years, although at
its close it had lost out of its little levy nearly three fourths.
Casaubon tells us that in his time (he is writing in 1595) the
ministers of Geneva exercised a strict surveillance over both the work
of teaching and that of publishing. A professor in the academy was not
permitted to publish until his book had passed through the censorship
of the divines. It seems probable that the Calvinistic scrutiny in
Geneva, during the last ten years of the 16th century, may easily have
proved in its narrowness and persistency a more serious obstacle in the
way of publishing undertakings and of scholarship than the censorship
of the Catholic theologians of Paris.
Casaubon secured, in 1600, at the instance of his friend De Vic,
appointment as Keeper of the Royal Library. This library contained at
the time about nine hundred works, a large proportion of which were in
manuscript. The collection of Greek manuscripts was said to be second
only to that of the Vatican.[127] The new librarian found favour with
the King although Henry IV was by no means a scholar. Scaliger says of
him that he could not keep his countenance and could not read a book.
The great minister Sully was, however, critical of any expenditure for
literature. “You cost the King too much, sir,” said Sully to Casaubon;
“your pay exceeds that of two good captains, and you are of no use to
the country.”[128]
A letter from the papal nuncio at Paris, written in 1562 to Pius IV,
makes reference to a statement made to the nuncio by Monsieur de
Bourbon, to the effect that a few days earlier he had confiscated
from a vessel a quantity of heretical books “of the most distressing
character that can be conceived.” These books were packed in wine casks
and had been sent from Geneva. He had consigned them to the flames. No
reference is made to the importer.[129]
Sacchino, historian of the Jesuits, writing in 1526, refers to the
heretical city of Geneva as responsible for the introduction into
Lyons of _vim infinitam librorum pestiferorum_ (“a great mass of
pestiferous literature,”) prepared for circulation not only in France
but in Constantinople. He states further, however, that owing to the
efforts of the zealous Possevinus, the books were seized and burned
(_Ut pestilentium illa farrago voluminum flammis aboliretur_).[130]
The interest of Francis in scholarship and the influence of Budaeus and
other scholars led him to approve the scheme for a Royal College to
be devoted more particularly to instruction in the ancient languages.
The authorities of the university were, with hardly an exception,
bitterly opposed to the plan of the new college. The argument on the
part of the university was presented before the Parliament of Paris
by Galliard. He urged that “to propagate the knowledge of the Greek
and Hebrew languages would operate to the absolute destruction of all
religion.” “Were these professors theologians,” he asked, “that they
should pretend to explain the Bible? Were not, indeed, the very Bibles
of which they made use, in large part printed in Germany, the region of
heresy? Or at least were they not indebted for them to the Jews?” The
rejoinder on the part of the new professors was made through Marillac.
“We make no pretensions,” said the professors, “to the name or the
function of theologians. It is as philologists or grammarians only
that we undertake to explain the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. If you,
who are criticising our teachings, possess any knowledge of Greek or
Hebrew, you are at liberty to attend our lectures and, if you find any
heresy in our instruction, to denounce us. If, however, you are yet
ignorant of Greek and Hebrew, on what grounds can you base your fitness
as censors or your claims to forbid us to teach in these tongues?” The
victory rested with the scholars and the Collège Royal maintained its
ground and increased in influence and importance.[131] Maittaire quotes
in this connection the testimony of Heresbach, who says that, in 1540,
he heard in a sermon delivered in Paris the following statement: “A
new language has been discovered which they call Greek. Against this
you must be carefully on your guard for it is the infant tongue of
all heresies. There is a book written in that language called the New
Testament. It is _un livre plein de ronces et de vipères_. As to
the Hebrew tongue, it is well known that all who learn it presently
become Jews.”
In 1685, a royal edict was issued by Louis XIV, ordering the
destruction of all heretical books and the punishment of those who
should retain copies of the same. As a result of the edict, the
Parliament of Paris issued a decree appointing the Archbishop of
Paris to prepare an _Index prohibitorius_ of books which in his
judgment ought to be suppressed, an instruction which was carried out
with all promptness. The list of the archbishop comprised the names
of about five hundred authors. The books condemned were those of the
Lutherans, Socinians, Arminians, and Greeks. Included with these
were all versions of the Scriptures. The Parliament published at once
a decree enforcing the prohibition and commanding a strict search to
be made for such books in the bookshops and printeries and also in
private houses. Many books were burned, including a large number of
copies of the Scriptures. The protection, or toleration, heretofore, in
form at least, extended to Protestants was during the same year, 1685,
withdrawn by the Edict of Fontainebleau, repealing the Edict of Nantes.
[Sidenote: Lyons]
The printers of Lyons succeeded in building up, within a very few
years after the introduction of printing into France, a profitable
business. They had the advantage of being well out of the way of both
ecclesiastical and political censorship. They were quite prepared to
take up promptly editions of books which had been prohibited in Paris
and in Rome, or later in Geneva. They were also among the earliest to
develop the art of what may be called piratical printing. The great
expense of the production of earlier editions, more particularly of
the classics, was the outlay for scholarly editing. The printers of
Lyons promptly discovered that they could make money by utilising the
expenditures of Aldus in Venice, or of the scholarly printers in Paris,
through the appropriation of editorial material. They brought out
editions printed with the text that had been shaped in Venice and in
some cases in direct imitation of the typography of these first and so
to speak authorised editions. By the year 1495, there were no less than
forty printers doing active work in Lyons, a number considerably in
excess of those who were then carrying on business in Paris.
* * * * *
In 1526, the university of Paris had authorised the printing of
certain dissertations written by the rector Noël Béda against Fabri and
Erasmus. King Francis wrote to the Parliament directing it to cause the
sale of these books to be prohibited. He added the general instruction
that no books, even such as might have been written by members of
the university, were to be printed or sold which had not first been
examined and approved by the members of the court deliberating
together. It would appear from the King’s letter that he had sufficient
sympathy with the reformers to be unwilling to have Erasmus attacked,
and also that even in matters of theological doctrine, the final
decision was entrusted, not to the faculty of theology, but to the
court of Parliament. By 1531, however, the King had decided that, for
theological questions at least, the responsibility for the control of
literary production had better be left with the Sorbonne. In this year
he gave a direct royal authorisation to the publisher Badius for the
printing of the big treatise of Alberto Pio against Erasmus, which
treatise had been duly approved by the divines. The fury of civil war
and the bitterness of religious dissension gave a special character to
the laws affecting printing and publishing and to the enforcement of
these. In 1545, Etienne Polliot was sentenced for importing and selling
heretical books. He was compelled to carry a bundle of his publications
to the market-place, where he and his books were burned together. In
1546, the publisher Etienne Dolet, himself the author of a number of
books, was burned in the Place Maubert, for his obstinate persistence
in heresy. The ordinances of 1557 and 1560 punished with death, as
guilty of treason, the printers, authors, sellers, and distributors
of books which had been condemned as pernicious or libellous. The
letters patent of 1563 fixed the penalty of hanging or strangling
for the offence of printing a book without a royal authorisation. The
ordinance of Moulins, of 1566, renews the same prohibition. Vitet[132]
points out that the wars of the League had influence in securing a
certain freedom for publishing. The government of the League did not
undertake to free from restrictions the printing-presses of Paris. It
prohibited them, however, only from such undertakings as seemed likely
to prove of service to the enemies of the League. On the other hand,
there was at Tours a government which was hostile only to such writings
as were not royalist, and at Geneva another government the censures of
which affected only that literature which was not Protestant. Through
these three limited censures came into existence three fragments of
publishing freedom. The power of the printing-press in influencing
public opinion may, as far as France is concerned, be said to date
from this period. Under the provisions of the Edict of Nantes, which
bears date 1598, the production and sale of Protestant books were
restricted to certain specified States and districts in which the
public exercise of said religion was authorised. These Protestant
books, while permitted to exist, are, however, classified as “libels
and as inflammatory writings.” It does not appear that any provision
was made for the circulation of such publications between the cities in
which they were permitted to be printed, as such circulation must, of
course, have taken them across the “good Catholic” territory, within
the boundaries of which the Protestant books were incendiary libels.
The difficulties in the way of authors and publishers of such books
must, therefore, at this time have been very considerable. In 1624,
four royal censors were instituted by letters patent. The first four
were all doctors of the theological faculty, but notwithstanding this
selection of the board from the members of the Sorbonne, the university
was dissatisfied with losing its ancient privileges of controlling
directly the examination of religious literature. In 1629, it was
ordered that works submitted for publication were to be passed upon
by censors particularly designated for each work by the Chancellor or
Privy Seal. It is probable that the volumes had to be put into type
before the examiners were willing to give the time for examination. In
1702, an issue arose between the chancellor and the higher clergy on
the question of certain general privileges in regard to printing which
the bishops claimed to be still in force. It was the contention of
the bishops that, being themselves the final judges of the doctrines
of the Church, utterances made by them or utterances accepted by
them could not with propriety be passed upon by others who were not
authorities on points of doctrine. Madame de Maintenon gave the weight
of her influence in favour of the bishops. The King dreaded exciting
the ire of the Jesuits and dreaded also, says the chronicle, the risk
of putting Madame de Maintenon into a bad temper. He avoided making a
decision and an adjustment was finally arrived at in which the bishops
withdrew their main pretensions. Bossuet made an indignant protest
against what he called the attempt of the chancellor to control the
utterances of the Church. It is not to be thought of, says Bossuet,
that the Holy Church of Christ shall be compelled to submit, for the
examination of magistrates, its decrees, catechisms, and spiritual
teachings upon matters which should be confined strictly to the
instructors of their flock. The King, influenced by the pleading of
Bossuet, finally brought himself to decide that for the works which
were at the moment in question, the authority should be left with the
bishops.
The reports concerning the extent of the influence of censorship, from
one authority or another, on the literary activities of France are,
as we have seen, conflicting. The authority of the Sacred Office was,
as stated, not accepted in France, and the work of the French writers
of the 16th century was not seriously affected by the condemnations
and expurgations, sometimes severe and sometimes indulgent, with which
was supervised and restricted the literature of Italy. It is contended
nevertheless (at least by French historians) that the productions
of the French writers of the century, freer from the trammels of
censorship as these writers were, represented a higher standard
of morality and of refinement than characterised the contemporary
literature of Italy.
During the 17th century, persistent attempts were made in France as
in other Catholic States to enforce throughout the realm a policy of
censorship. By one set of authorities, investigations are carried on
in the bookshops and in public and private libraries, and copies of
obnoxious or suspicious books are burned at the hands of the hangman;
by another, St. Cyran is placed in prison and Arnauld and others of
his group are driven into exile. The _Lettres Provinciales_ of
Pascal are indeed brought into print, but only by cleverly eluding
the vigilance of the inspectors. It is nevertheless the case that at
no time during the century did it prove to be practicable to keep in
force, through the entire territory of the State, any consistent or
effective policy. The authority to order proceedings against authors
or to make condemnations of books is not, as was the case in Spain, in
the hands of a special tribunal, all-powerful and irresponsible. In the
place of an Index which preserves the record of a condemnation that
has once been pronounced, we have individual edicts or orders which
easily fall into oblivion; and in place of a Congregation or of an
Inquisition, we find distinct authorities, and sometimes simple local
authorities, the actions of which are more or less conflicting and
lack permanency of influence. There is also throughout the century, as
later, among the ecclesiastics themselves, a strong national feeling
of protest against the exercise within the territory of France of
censorship authority directed by Italians or Spaniards.[133]
While in Italy, the Church labours single-handed at the task of
reforming the people, in France it is the entire nation, without
distinction of ecclesiastics and laymen, that undertakes the
reformation of itself. Frenchmen of the 17th century, equally assured
of their devotion to the true faith and of their intention to maintain
the virtues of Christianity, refuse to admit the necessity for
submitting to a theocracy, a religious dictatorship, and for putting
literature, so to speak, into a state of siege.
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]
It is certain that the authority of the Church exercised in France
a much smaller influence over literature than either in Spain or in
Italy. In fact, under Louis XIV, the Church found it necessary to
resort to raillery rather than to discipline in the cases in which it
found ground for criticism.
The learned historian of the Benedictines, Mabillon, brought himself
into criticism on the part of the Papacy through proving that the bones
taken from the catacombs, which were being distributed as relics for
the faithful, had belonged neither to saints nor to martyrs.
Dejob is of opinion that the acknowledged superiority of the
theological writers of France during the 17th century over those of
Italy and Spain was chiefly due to the greater freedom possessed by
the French scholars in carrying on their investigations and in bringing
their books into print.[139]
The intellectual work of the orthodox clergy owes not a little to the
feeling of obligation that rested upon them to offset the influence of
the Huguenot controversialists and to secure for orthodox literature
a prestige to balance that of Arnaud and of Pascal. It may fairly be
claimed that the Church of France showed itself equal to the task. Any
nation may have been proud to produce within the term of a century
five writers or scholars whose names could be compared with those of
Bossuet, Fénelon, Bourdaloue, Malebranche, and Mabillon. No religion
has counted among its ministers during any one generation men superior
to these in intellectual force. Catholicism can refer to this group as
an evidence that orthodoxy does not stifle originality of talent. It
can claim further that the acceptance of dogma does not of necessity
involve the renunciation of scientific and philosophical investigation.
The lay writers of this famous century were hardly less influenced
by the spirit of religion. It is this that inspired Corneille and
Racine, not only in such creations as _Polyeucte_ and _Athalie_, but
in the moral conception with which they handle the subject of love;
it is this which retains within wholesome limits the satirical verse
of Boileau and of La Bruyère and which keeps within bounds even the
bitter personalities of St.-Simon; it is this which raises far beyond
the level of feminine curiosity and maternal egoism the writings of
Mme. de Sévigné, and which imbues with eloquence the work of Mme. de
Motteville.[140]
The religious spirit may be said to have influenced also the work of
Molière, who uses his trenchant pen to emphasise our obligations to
morality. Save in an occasional instance where the manners of the
comedian get control of the pen of the poet, these obligations are set
forth with the certainty of an infallible moralist, while the dramatist
succeeds in securing for his readers (or hearers) full sympathy for
those of his characters which show themselves faithful to wholesome
ideals.
If it had been possible for the fathers who directed the work of
the Council of Trent to have knowledge of this wonderful body of
literature, which gave to Catholicism an incomparable intellectual
éclat, they would surely have admitted that their pious expectations
were surpassed.[141]
The classical literature of France retained, therefore, freedom of
thought and of expression. The eulogies addressed to the rulers, even
when extravagant in form, bore the stamp of sincerity. It was a saying
of La Bruyère that the use of satire in really great subjects was
denied to writers who were at once Frenchmen and Christians. But it is
fair to remember that such an interdiction is confirmed by the opinion
of the public itself, and also that to one who is himself a witness
of great things, the dazzle of their brilliancy may easily prevent a
clear perception of their blemishes. It is certain that the record of
the work done by the great writers of France does not give any evidence
of serious interference by the Church either for praise or for blame.
Apart from the _Lettres Provinciales_ (which after all secured
a wide reading and a general appreciation), no work of the first
importance was brought under condemnation by the authorities either
civil or religious.[142]
=6. Germany.=--Within half a century after the invention of printing
in Mayence, the business of publishing was established in a number of
towns, such as Frankfort, Strasburg, Basel, Cologne, and Nuremberg;
and by the close of the 16th century, the work of the printers became
important also in many towns of North Germany, such as Leipsic,
Magdeburg, Wittenberg, etc. The development of the production of
printed books followed very largely the lines of the trade in
manuscripts which it superseded. The sale of manuscripts had, for the
century before printing, constituted an important item in the business
of the Fair at Frankfort, and after 1480, we find entries in the
annual records of the Fair of sales of printed books. The organisation
of the book-trade of the empire dates from about 1525. Frankfort was
established as the centre or headquarters of this trade, and the Fair
brought to the city twice a year representative publishers and dealers
not only from the towns of Germany but from Italy, France, and the
Netherlands.
The establishment of a centre or headquarters for the book-trade
of Europe was, of course, of immediate advantage in furthering the
knowledge and the distribution of the literature that came into print,
and particularly of the books published in Latin. Latin was generally
accepted throughout the world as the language not only of scholarship,
but of literature, and it was therefore selected by the publishers of
the time for the larger portion of the books brought into print. It is
true that the work of the early printers of Germany was, unlike that of
France and the Netherlands, carried on not in university centres, but,
very largely at least, in commercial towns. The lists of these German
printers contain a much larger number of books addressed to the general
or unscholarly public than was the case with those of their competitors
in Paris, Venice, or Leyden, but in Germany also the production of
works printed in Latin, for the trade of the world, became each year of
increasing importance.
For the operations of the general censorship of the Church, the
organisation of the book-trade presented certain advantages or at least
conveniences. The compilers of the earlier Roman Indexes utilised the
bulletins and catalogues of the Book-Fair in securing for their lists
information concerning new and forthcoming books of heretical writers
or on controversial subjects. As is mentioned in the separate record of
certain Indexes, the censors were not infrequently prepared to condemn
a book without any examination whatever, simply on the repute of its
author, or even on that of its publisher. It occasionally happened, as
a result of this method, that a work was prohibited which never came
into existence, some obstacle having prevented its completion or its
publication after the title had been announced.
The first instances of books issued with _Imprimaturs_ are two
printed at Cologne in 1479 and sanctioned by the university, and a
third printed at Heidelberg in 1480, under the authorisation of the
Patriarch of Venice.
The earliest mandate of which there is record for the appointment of a
censor of books was issued in 1486 by Berthold, Archbishop of Mayence.
The Archbishop forbids the translation into the vernacular of any books
from Latin, Greek, or other languages, or the sale of translations
brought in from without, until these have been examined and approved by
censors appointed for the purpose from the university of Erfurt.[143]
He instructs the Burgomaster of Frankfort to make examination of all
books at the Frankfort Fair before the permit should be given for
their sale. In 1524, the Archbishop of Mayence claims, on the double
ground of his position as High Chancellor of the empire and as a
representative of the authority of Rome, the right to supervise the
book-trade of the empire, and he makes immediate application of this
authority to the control of the sale of books at the Frankfort Fair.
[Sidenote: Frankfort]
In 1648, the year in which the Thirty Years’ War came to an end, the
magistrates of Frankfort gave up formally the attempts to supervise the
book-production of the city. In 1662, the magistrates found occasion
for protests against the imperial regulations for the control of the
book-trade. The emperor, in his edict of March 18, 1662, was acting
under the counsel of his Jesuit advisers. The magistrates were speaking
as the representatives of the publishers, and, as they contended,
for the interests of the community as a whole. In 1665, under some
counsel which proved to be very ill-advised, the imperial commissioners
undertook to fix the prices of the books presented for sale at the
Frankfort Fair. It was contended that the commissioners who had been
charged with the work of censorship had no authority to take upon
themselves the determination of a business detail. It was very certain
that they did not have the expert knowledge required for the task, but
it was, of course, the case that no commissioners could have carried
out successfully any such system. This price regulation proved to
be one of the most effective of the various factors which caused the
replacing of Frankfort by Leipsic as the centre of the publishing and
bookselling interests of Germany.
[Sidenote: Strasburg]
In 1488, the city of Strasburg established under the directions of the
emperor a local censorship supervised by the magistracy. The first
book prohibited under this regulation was the _Germania Nova_ of
Murner, issued in 1502.
In 1501, Alexander VI publishes a bull prohibiting the printing, within
the territories in question, of any books that have not secured an
approval, in the form of a privilege, from the Archbishops of Cologne,
Mayence, Treves, and Magdeburg, or from their vicars-general.[144]
[Sidenote: Leipsic]
By the year 1495, the book-trade of Leipsic had assumed very
considerable proportions and was already beginning to rival that of
Frankfort. The Booksellers’ Association, organised (in Frankfort) in
1525, is at the present time, four centuries later, the most effective
and intelligently managed trade organisation that the world has
known. Leipsic publishers gave from an early period special attention
to the printing of the controversial literature of the Reformation,
and, as was natural from their close relations with Wittenberg, the
sympathies of the larger proportion of the printers were in accord
with the Lutherans. In 1524, Duke George, who was a Catholic, came
to the throne and during his reign, which continued until 1533, the
writings of the reformers were repressed by a rigorous censorship. The
Duke utilised the machinery of the trade organisation for putting into
effect the ducal regulations for supervision and censorship, and two
ecclesiastical censors, appointed under the ducal authority, secured
the aid of the city officials in making examination of all the books
printed and in confiscating or cancelling all heretical works found in
the shops of either Leipsic or Dresden. The immediate result of these
anti-reform operations of the Church and of the Duke was the practical
destruction for the time being of the book-trade of Leipsic. Many of
the printers transferred their presses to Wittenberg or Magdeburg.
In 1526, occurred in Leipsic an extreme instance of the application
of Catholic censorship. Under the instructions of Duke George, Johann
Herrgott, a printer and colporteur, was burned, with certain of his
books, for the crime of distributing Protestant literature. In the next
year, Hübmayer, the leader of the Baptists in Southern Germany, was
burned in Vienna for a similar offence. In 1571, the Duke of Saxony
ordered that the work of the printers should be restricted to three
towns, Leipsic, Dresden, and Wittenberg. The purpose of this regulation
was the facilitating of censorship control.
[Sidenote: Wittenberg]
In advance of the aggressive Protestant measures of Luther, Wittenberg
had already become an important place for book-production, having
secured, among other favourable influences, the advantage of the
transfer of certain of the printers and their presses from Leipsic.
After 1515, Wittenberg was the most important of the centres from
which were distributed throughout Germany the books and pamphlets
(_Flugschriften_) of the reformers. It was in Wittenberg also that
was brought into print the great Bible of Luther.
[Sidenote: Magdeburg]
At an early date in the period of the Reformation, Magdeburg, in
which the printing business had already secured an assured foothold,
had taken an important place among the centres of distribution of
Protestant literature. The work of the printers was interrupted for
a time in 1518 by the repressive measures of the Catholic Albert of
Brandenburg, but after 1528, the presses were again left practically
free from civil authority, while the ecclesiastical influence in the
city was never important. The book-trade was crushed out for the time
by the destruction of the city by Tilly in 1631.
[Sidenote: Münster]
The city of Münster was another centre for Protestant publications.
The excesses of the Anabaptists, who, under John of Leyden and his
associates, had possession of the town for a number of months in
1535–36, were, however, well-nigh destructive to its Protestantism
and proved fatal to its publishing business. In 1562, an edict issued
by the bishop ordered the destruction of all Protestant books in
Westphalia and made it a misdemeanour to print, sell, or possess any
such books.
[Sidenote: Basel]
The city of Basel secured at an early date an important position among
the centres of publishing. The university, founded in 1460, brought
to the city men devoted to scholarly pursuits many of whom took an
early interest in the work of the printing press and were ready to
give coöperation to the publishers. In 1501, Basel broke away from the
imperial control. At that time, there were in the city no less than
twenty-six important publishing and printing concerns.
During the most active period of its publishing interests, Basel had
the advantage over the majority of the German towns in its comparative
freedom from censorship either ecclesiastical or civil. The authority
of Rome was permitted to exert practically no restrictions upon the
productions of the printing-presses; while as a free imperial city, it
had the right to claim exemption from any authority other than that
of the emperor, whose examiners were too far distant to be able to
bring their influence to bear, to any extent, upon the operations of
the Basel publishers. It was this freedom that constituted the most
important cause of the great development of the book-trade of the
city during the 15th and 16th centuries. The leader among the great
publishers of Basel, who ranked at the time with Aldus as one of the
great publishers of the world, was Johann Froben, the publisher,
friend, and close associate of Erasmus. It is the imprint of Froben
that is associated with the most important of the volumes of Erasmus,
including not only those that secured the approval of Leo X and of
other of the Church authorities, but the group which brought the author
into sharp criticism with the ecclesiastical censors. During the years
between 1460 and 1500, the popes themselves sent to Basel for printing
certain books which required more trustworthy work than could be
secured in Rome.[145]
In 1523, the first application for censorship in the city of Basel was
made by Erasmus in connection with the reprinting of certain French
writings which he claimed to be libels of himself. The censorship of
the city was under the direction of the magistrates. The magistrates
forbade the printing of books in any other languages than Latin, Greek,
Hebrew, and German. In 1598 the censors of the city required that there
be placed in their hands catalogues of books that were forthcoming in
order that they might designate those calling for special attention.
[Sidenote: Zürich]
Between the years 1520 and 1580, the presses of Zürich were busied with
the production of the works of the Calvinist reformers. Froschauer,
who was one of the first of the Zürich printers, was a close friend
of Zwingli, whose special tenets he had adopted, and he placed at the
disposal of the Zwinglians the machinery of his printing concern for
the production and distribution of the Zwinglian treatises and tracts.
Zürich presents also an example of early and strenuous Protestant
censorship. Zwingli brought about a prohibition on the part of the
civil authorities of Zürich for the sale within the city of the
Lutheran publications.
[Sidenote: Augsburg]
The city of Augsburg occupied a similar place among the centres of
Catholic book-production to that held by Basel and Zürich for the works
of the Protestants. The presses of the great publisher Koberger and
his associates were devoted during the last third of the 15th and the
first half of the 16th century to the production of editions of the
works of the more scholarly of the Catholic theologians. The books
were addressed to scholars and were comparatively high in price. The
work of the German reformers had as one result the checking of the
activities of the Augsburg publishers. In 1520, the civil authorities
of Augsburg, at the instance of the local ecclesiastics, issued
prohibitions for the sale in the city of the works of Luther and of
Zwingli. It was the multiplicity of prohibitory authorities in the
book centres of Germany that actually worked against the influence of
the prohibitory system. There was also in these German cities a lack
of any effective censorship machinery such as existed in Spain either
for the examination of texts in advance of printing, or for the seizure
of books and the punishment of printers after publication. There were,
during the century after the Reformation, instances (aggregating a
considerable number) of writers who on the ground of their heretical
utterances had been punished in one way or another and some of whom had
even suffered death, but there was no general or effective repression
of literary production and distribution throughout Germany, either on
the part of the Catholic censors working against Protestant writings
or under the influence of the Protestant divines utilising for the
prohibition of Catholic books the civil authority.
[Sidenote: Nuremberg]
In Nuremberg, under a regulation of 1513, the printers were to be sworn
each year as holding the orthodox Catholic faith and as agreeing to
print no books contrary to that faith.[146] The magistrates issued in
1518 a special prohibition against the printing of the writings of the
Hussites, and in 1521, a similar prohibition against the writings of
Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. This edict was withdrawn in 1535 when the
magistracy of the city had become Lutheran. In 1527, the poet-cobbler,
Hans Sachs, came under censorship for certain rhymes attached to an
illustrated record of the Tower of Babel. In this case, the trouble
appears, however, to have been not religious, but a matter of guild
prejudice. Sachs, being licensed only as a cobbler, had no authority to
do work as a poet. After 1535, when the control of Nuremberg had passed
into the hands of the Protestants, there is a rapid development of the
activity of its printing-presses and book-trade.
[Sidenote: Tübingen Breslau]
The works of Melanchthon were first printed in Tübingen in 1511.
Later, Melanchthon used for his theological treatises and also for his
long series of text-books the presses of Wittenberg. The statutes of
the University of Tübingen in regard to the _Libelli famosi_ were,
in 1500, made binding throughout the electorate of Würtemberg. In 1557,
an edict of the Duke called for an annual visitation of the bookshops
for the search for heretical publications. In 1593, a ducal permission
was given to one bookseller in Tübingen, Gruppenbach, to buy for the
use of the professors two copies of any heretical books called for. In
1601, an ordinance was published in Tübingen prohibiting the sale of
all sectarian or controversial books, Catholic as well as Protestant.
In the three ecclesiastical principalities of Mayence, Cologne, and
Trier, the ecclesiastical censorship became, after 1525, particularly
rigorous with the result of a material checking in the business of
the printers and booksellers. In Silesia, Breslau became the centre
of Catholic influence and the Protestant printers were, after 1577,
largely driven out of business.
[Sidenote: Heidelberg]
In Heidelberg, under an edict of the Elector of Baden, the censorship
control was, in 1651, placed in the hands of the university and came
under the direction of the theological faculty.
[Sidenote: Vienna]
The printing business in Vienna had during the first years of the
16th century made a good start, but with the beginning of imperial
censorship under the edict of Ferdinand, in 1523, the work of the
printers received a check. In this edict the printing, sale, and
possession of the books of Luther is prohibited under heavy penalties.
Ferdinand permitted the ecclesiastics to exercise directly (that is to
say without reference of individual cases to the civil authorities)
the supervision of the work of the printers. These censors made
effective opposition against scientific education and their repressive
measures for literature other than theological was so far effective
that, after the year 1560, the printing in Vienna of editions of the
classics was brought to a close. In the year 1572, the printing-office
and bookshop of Creutzer, who had for some years acted as the publisher
of the university, was closed. In the year 1587, the book stock of
Necker, who was at that time the leading bookseller in the city, was
confiscated and in large part burned. By 1600, the control of the book
business was placed almost exclusively in the hands of the Jesuits and
as a result of their “supervision,” the business practically came to a
close.
Kapp points out that the prohibitory lists issued in Germany contained,
in addition to the titles of the Protestant controversial writings and
religious writings other than controversial, the titles of a number
of books which were really in character _contra bonos mores_.
The advantage of the advertisement given to the books deserving of
existence was unfortunately shared by not a few volumes which were
really scandalous in character.
The Thirty Years’ War in Germany (1618–1648) may be considered as an
extreme application of the principle of censorship. The power of the
emperor and that of the Catholic princes who associated themselves
with the emperor, was directed to the suppression of Protestantism in
Germany and with this to the control under the direction of the Roman
Church of German thought and of German intellectual development. This
was, of course, an attempt to do something much wider than to control
and restrict the printing-press, but the control and restriction of
the operations of the printers constituted an essential part of the
purpose of the pope, the emperor, and their allies the Jesuits and
Dominicans. In so far as the Catholics held their own, succeeding in
maintaining their control in the States of South Germany, the printers
had to accept the continued authority of the ecclesiastics backed by
the power of the State. The States of North Germany, on the other hand,
with the all-powerful aid of Gustavus Adolphus and his sturdy Swedes,
were able to maintain by force of arms their independence as citizens,
and secured also the right to think and to speak, to print and to read
for themselves, free from decisions to be arrived at by the Dominican
Congregation of Italy or the Jesuit censors of Vienna. The waste of
life and of treasure brought upon Germany through the thirty years’
strife was enormous, but even as a matter of material advantage, the
contest was for North Germany worth all that it had cost.
=7. The Netherlands.=--The work of the printers in Holland was
begun in Utrecht in 1473. The Dutch printers had from the outset the
enormous advantage in their business of a practical freedom from
interference by censorship, whether ecclesiastical or political. This
was also true for a quarter of a century or more with the printing
centres of Flanders, where, under the initiative of Mansion, Caxton,
and their successors, the work of printing was begun, in 1474, in
Bruges and in Louvain. In 1476, Caxton migrated from Bruges to London,
setting up his first press in the courtyard of Westminster Abbey.
The Dukes of Burgundy had, for several generations prior to the
introduction of printing, been noted for their liberal interest in
literature, and for their great collections of manuscripts, and this
sympathetic relation of the Burgundian rulers to literature continued
through the first half-century of printing.
During the first three fourths of the 16th century, the Netherlands,
with Antwerp as a centre, present the type of a most enlightened
community. At the time of the great siege of 1585, Antwerp was at the
height of its prosperity, and in the extent and the varied character of
its commercial relations it was possibly the leading city of Europe.
Antwerp possessed exceptional advantages as a centre of book-production
and by the close of the 16th century, out of the sixty-five printers
who were at work in the Netherlands, no less than thirteen were in
Antwerp. The neighbouring University of Louvain supplied scholarly
coöperation which was essential for all the publishing undertakings
of the age, while not a few scholars, who, some years later, found
themselves with the exiles in Leyden or in Amsterdam, were at this
time resident in Antwerp, and were already largely associated with the
work of the printing-press. In 1556, at the time of the beginning of
the work of the great publisher Plantin, an entire quarter of the city
was devoted to the making of books, a circumstance without a parallel
among the cities of Europe. The result of the censorship of the Spanish
Government was practically to crush out the book business of Antwerp.
The presses were largely destroyed and the scholars and printers alike
were scattered among the towns of Holland. Plantin placed his imprint
upon a number of books of theology, for all of which it was necessary
to secure the approval, with the “royal privilege,” of the Duke of Alva
and of the successors of the Duke who represented the Spanish Throne.
[Sidenote: Book Regulations, 1560–1570]
The ordinances issued by Philip II concerning books were for the most
part merely a confirmation, with some increase in severity, of the
edicts of Charles V. The modifications in these ordinances brought
about by the States-General in 1566 provided that those books only
should be prohibited that contained heretical or pernicious opinions;
and that the responsibility for the examination and decision should be
shared with the theologians by the scholars of the other university
faculties; that instructors should be at liberty to utilise all books
not on the prohibited lists; and that the visitation to the bookshops
should be made only under the direct authority of the magistrates.
Under Alva, the routine for such a visitation was to instruct the
magistrates on a specific day (not announced in advance) to place seals
on the doors of all printing-offices and bookshops; the examination of
the books was then carried out by the suffragan bishop and the local
head of the Franciscans. In the years 1566 and 1567, four printers were
sentenced to banishment for from four to six years, one was sent to the
galleys, and one was hanged.[147]
In 1570, Philip II instituted the office of “proto-typographer” or
supervisor of printing for the Netherlands, and appointed as the first
occupant of the office the printer Plantin. Master-printers applying
to the supervisor for authorisation for a work to be printed must
show the certificate of approval of the diocesan bishop or of his
vicar, and also of the local magistrate. Printers were required to
take an oath of conformity to the doctrines of the Church as set forth
by the Council of Trent. No remuneration was attached to the office
of proto-typographer, but the incumbent was freed from the duty of
lodging soldiers. The important service of the post for Plantin was,
of course, the increased facility it secured for him in obtaining
approvals and privileges for his own publications. The theologians of
Louvain (through whom the ecclesiastical censorship for Antwerp was,
in the main, carried on) were not likely to raise question concerning
the undertakings of the literary representative of the King. It was
suggested that one ground for his selection was the wish of the King
to make good to Plantin the loss that had been caused to his business
by his arrest in 1562 on a charge of heretical publishing, a charge
which proved to be unfounded. It may also be recalled that Philip
had promised, in 1568, to pay to Plantin the sum of 21,000 florins
as a subvention for the polyglot Bible, edited by Montanus. This
payment was, however, never made, and the failure to receive it was
one of the causes that had, in 1570, brought Plantin into financial
difficulties.[148]
Under the ordinance of 1570, the censorship is lodged with the
council, the bishop, and the inquisitor. Each book that may secure
their approval is to be referred to the stadtholder, by whom its
selling price shall be fixed. Inspection of the printing-offices must
be made from time to time by the bishop, the inquisitor, and the
proto-typographer, and not less than twice a year by the magistrates.
The booksellers must take oath that without permit from the censors
they will bring in no book from abroad; that they will sell, except to
a buyer with a written permit, no copies, printed in the vernacular,
of the Scriptures or of controversial writings; and that they will
faithfully obey all the regulations of these ordinances and of the
Roman Index (that of Trent, printed as an appendix to the ordinances);
all packages of imported books are to be opened only in the presence of
the bishop or of the inquisitor.
In 1573, it was ordered that of all the books printed in the
Netherlands, one copy should be delivered to the royal library at
Antwerp, and a second (to be paid for) to the Escurial.
[Sidenote: 1569. Liège (Lüttich)]
Henricus Hovius printed in Liège, in 1569, an edition of the Index
of Trent in which (without any reference or specification) certain
additional names and titles have been inserted in the alphabetical
lists. The title-page states that the Index has been prepared under
the authority of King Philip, and in accordance with a decree of the
Duke of Alva. The new titles, probably added at the instance of the
divines of Louvain, are for the most part repeated in the Antwerp Index
of 1570. Reusch points out that this Liège Index is very carelessly
printed and is full of errors.
The prohibitions of the Trent Index were confirmed under the authority
of the diocesan synods of the Spanish Netherlands. One of the diocesan
edicts required the printers and booksellers each year to take an
oath of fidelity to the faith of the Church, in default of which the
license to print was to be forfeited. In 1589, the Synod of Tournai
prohibited the booksellers from possessing a copy of the _Index
librorum haereticorum_, a catalogue printed yearly for the use of
the Frankfort Book-Fair, which was based upon the lists of the Index
of Trent, but the titles in which were from year to year brought
down to date. The book-dealers were already beginning to realise the
value for their business of the labour expended by the Church in the
preparation of bibliographies of the books which were most likely
to prove of interest to the active minded people of the world. This
Frankfort catalogue of heretical books was the beginning of a series of
such catalogues in which the work of the Congregation of the Index and
of the Inquisition was taken advantage of (with material improvements
in the accuracy of the bibliography) to emphasise the value and to
further the circulation of the books which had been condemned by the
Church. The edict of the bishops who met at Tournai in 1589 appears to
have been the first expression of doubt on the part of ecclesiastical
authorities as to the effectiveness of the condemnations of the Index
in lessening the circulation and the influence of heretical literature.
In 1585, through the recognition of the independence of the Dutch
Republic, the long contests in the Netherlands were brought to a
close. The authority of the Spanish King was restored in Antwerp but
the city was impoverished as to both men and resources. Irrespective
of the loss of life in the great city, Antwerp had suffered the loss
of some of the best and most enterprising of its citizens who had
preferred to make their home in the Protestant communities of Holland.
The departing Protestants took with them much of the intellectual life
and literary activity in the city, while Amsterdam and Leyden, free
from the hampering restrictions of Catholic censorship, presented
many advantages for publishing undertakings. In 1585, there was but
one book printing-press in activity in the city in which a few years
earlier there had been no less than forty. Plantin’s first publication
for the new year was an official list of the books at that time under
prohibition, the list comprising some six hundred titles.
It is not surprising, in view of the hampering regulations and
restrictions above specified, that the book-trade of the Spanish
Netherlands should have become demoralised and that the centres of
publishing activities should have been transferred from Antwerp and
Louvain to Amsterdam, Utrecht, and Leyden.
Among the Protestants who during this war period migrated from Flanders
was Louis Elzevir, who removed from Louvain to Leyden and began there
the business which developed later into one of the greatest publishing
houses of the world. The coöperation of the scholars of the university,
together with an absolute freedom from any censorship restrictions,
gave to the new publishing concern advantages which were at that time
possessed by no printer-publishers outside of Holland. The development
of the book-trade of Holland was furthered thirty years later through
the influence of the Thirty Years’ War in Germany. During this period,
1618–1648, the territory of the Seven United Provinces was free alike
from invaders and from civil strife. Much of the work of the scholars
of Europe that had heretofore been brought into print through the
presses of Frankfort or of Leipsic was now transferred to Amsterdam and
Leyden. The theological discussions which became active in Holland,
more particularly after the time of the Synod of Dort in 1618,
furthered the work of the printing-presses. The Hollanders were also
shrewd enough to realise the opportunity given to them for bringing
into print the books which had been prohibited or cancelled in Spain,
in France, or in Italy. With a few exceptions, these books had been
written in Latin and the editions printed in Leyden or in Amsterdam
were, therefore, available for the use of scholarly readers throughout
Europe.
Andrea Schurius writes[149] that he has been told that the Amsterdam
publisher of the _Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum_ took special
pains to secure the formal prohibition of his work, considering this to
be the most effective means of bringing it into active sale.
During the 17th century, the press of the Dutch Republic continued this
work free from restrictions which hampered publishing in all other
States of Europe. The censorship measures in Holland were restricted to
certain edicts and regulations issued by the States-General prohibiting
the printing of libellous material or of works directed against princes
or governments which were allied with the Republic. There is also
an occasional edict against the circulation of publications classed
as “irreligious” or “obscene.” The machinery for the enforcement of
these regulations appears, however, to have been very inconsiderable;
and there is no record of any general inspection for the purpose of
censorship of the productions of the printing-press. Among the earlier
noteworthy publications of the Elzevirs were certain books that could
not at that time easily have come into print elsewhere, such as _The
System of the Universe_ by Galileo and the _Defensio Populi Anglicani_
of Milton. Galileo, writing in 1638, gave testimony to the excellence
of the work done for him by his Dutch publishers. The list of scholars
under censorship either ecclesiastical or political in their persons or
in their books who had been exiled from their own countries and whose
names are brought together on the catalogues of the Elzevir house is
a long one. We may mention, in addition to Galileo, Scaliger, Hobbes,
Pascal, Descartes, More, etc.
The Roman, Spanish, and French Indexes served as guides to the Dutch
printers for the selection of books likely to prove of interest
and to secure circulation. In not a few instances, the scholarly
writers themselves who had been banished from Spain or from France
in connection with their so-called heretical teachings, or who,
irrespective of banishment, had decided that they could carry on
their work to better advantage in a territory which was outside of
the control of the Catholic Church, had taken up their residence in
Holland. The influx of these scholars made Holland for a century or
more the centre of scholarly activity in Europe and gave to the Dutch
publishers, in the use of these scholarly pens for original work and
for editorial work, an enormous advantage. The ethics of publishing
were at this time not recognised or certainly at least not recognised
outside of national boundaries. The Dutch publishers were quite ready,
therefore, in the case even of books which had not been prohibited
in the country of origin, to utilise texts that had been edited or
shaped by competitors in Venice, in Paris, or in Frankfort, for the
production of competing editions. The printers of Holland secured for
themselves a final advantage in developing after 1525 a better standard
of typography, both for accuracy and for beauty, than had as yet been
known in Europe excepting with certain of the issues of Aldus and of
Froben. The preëminence obtained under these several influences by the
printers of Holland continued until the middle of the 18th century.
=8. England.=--The work of printing in England began with Caxton,
in 1476. His catalogue speaks of his books as being “printed in the
Abbey of Westminster.” His presses were as a fact placed in the
almonry, a space within the Abbey precincts. Sir Thomas More has
shown why Caxton could not venture to print a Bible in the vernacular,
although the people would have greedily bought the Wyclif translation.
Wyclif’s translation was interdicted and More says: “On account of the
penalties ordered by Archbishop Arundel’s constitution, though the old
translations that were before Wyclif’s days remained lawful and were in
some folks’ hands, yet he thought no printer would likely be so hot to
put any Bible in print at his own charge, and then hang upon a doubtful
trial whether the first copy of his translation was made before
Wyclif’s days or since. For if it were made since Wyclif, it must be
approved before the printing.” This was a dilemma that Caxton was too
prudent to encounter.[150]
In England, during the first half of the century, the printers,
while having various other difficulties to contend with, such as
lack of communication with a public, the small extent of the public
that was ready to be interested in the printed book, and the serious
interference that was caused to all trade by the events of the Civil
War, were practically free from any burdens of censorship. Even if
the ecclesiastics in England had been in a position to make their
censorship troublesome, they would have had small occasion for
interference with the first literary undertakings of the English
printers. The lists included hardly any works having to do with
theology, religion, or controversial subjects of any kind. Caxton and
his immediate successors realised that at this period the interest
of English readers could be depended upon much more safely for books
of romance and for chronicles. It was nearly a century after the
introduction of printing into England before any attempt was made to
produce English editions of the Scriptures. It was in Germany that
during this period the attention of the printers was given largely to
the production of Bibles, theological treatises, and controversial
tracts. The lists of the printers of France were devoted mainly to
classics, with some titles under the headings of romance and poetry,
while in Italy the earlier lists were made up chiefly of classics and
science.
The Stationers’ Company received its charter by royal decree in 1566,
two years after the marriage of Queen Mary (to Philip of Spain). It
constituted an organisation of the publishing and printing trade
of London which assumed to represent the publishing interests of
the country. The basis of the authority of the Stationers’ Company
was the theory that all printing was the prerogative of the king.
The Stationers’ Company had, under its charter, summary rights of
search, seizure, and imprisonment, and these powers were confirmed
or renewed by the licensing acts. It seems probable that the purpose
of the institution of the Company was not so much the furthering of
the business of book-production, as the organisation of this business
in such shape that it could be reached effectively and promptly by
the censorship authorities of the Crown. No question appears to have
arisen in England in regard to any conflicting authority on the part
of the Church to control such censorship. The Crown utilised the
services of bishops and of other ecclesiastics for the examination of
works in the division of theology which came under the suspicion of
heresy. The selection of the examiners and the decision concerning the
disposition of the books so examined was reserved, however, for the
direct action of the Crown or of the representatives of the Crown.
Such censorship as came into action in England proved to be more
important in connection with political literature than with works on
religion or theology. In 1644, the Long Parliament enacted certain
regulations for the control of printing which provided that “No book,
pamphlet, or paper shall be henceforth printed unless the same be first
approved and licensed by censors that shall be thereto appointed.”
Milton had been a persistent opponent of the policy of censorship and
of licensing, and one result of the enactment was the publication of
the famous _Areopagitica_, an oration in the form of a pamphlet, which
presented with fierce eloquence a protest against the whole theory
of the exercise by Government licensers of a supervision and control
of literature, or of the delegation of such control to a commercial
company (the Stationers’ Company) which was the creation of Government.
=9. Oxford. Index Generalis. James. 1627.=--In 1627, Thomas James,
the librarian of the Bodleian Library in Oxford, brought into print,
under the title of an _Index Generalis_, a summary or catalogue
which had been made up from the Church Indexes that had thus far come
into print and of which James had been able to secure copies. It was
his purpose to present in this general catalogue the titles of the
more important of the books condemned under the censorship of the
Church, copies of which books it was, as he pointed out, important to
secure for the Bodleian collection. The so-called James Index came to
be a working guide for book-buyers and its publication had a direct
effect upon the circulation in England of the books specified. It has,
therefore, seemed in order to make reference to it in this chapter on
the influence of censorship on the book-trade of England.
This catalogue of James was utilised during the succeeding years
by English scholars generally, as a convenient guide to the
literature condemned by the Church and which on the very ground of
its condemnation might be assumed to possess interest and value
for scholars who were not troubled by the dread of ecclesiastical
penalties. The recommendation of James that copies of these works
should be secured for the Bodleian has been carried out quite
effectively. The copy of the James Index which has been preserved for
the reference library of the Bodleian has been checked by successive
librarians as copies of the books recommended have been secured and
the list is now very nearly complete. The copies secured for the
Bodleian represent in large part editions printed in Holland; as
before pointed out, the publishers of Amsterdam, Leyden, and Utrecht
had, from the date of publication in 1546 of the Index of Louvain,
interested themselves in bringing promptly into print works condemned
by Roman authorities and in furthering the distribution of these books
throughout Europe.
The full title of James’s Index reads as follows: _Index Generalis
Librorum Prohibitorum a Pontificiis; una cum editionibus expurgatis
vel expurgandis juxta serium literarum et triplicem classem. In usum
Bibliothecæ Bodleianæ et Curatoribus ejusdem specialiter designatus.
Per Tho. James, S. Theol. D. Coll. B. Mariæ. Winton. In Oxon. Vulgo.
Novi dicti quondam Socium Oxonæ Excudebat Gulielmus Turner. An. D.
1627._
I add a rendering of his preface (the original of which, according
to the custom of the time, is in Latin) which is interesting as
indicating the attitude of the Protestant scholar of the day towards
the censorship of Rome. James includes in the volume of his Index an
announcement (addressed to students of theology) of another work
that he had in preparation which he entitles _A Universal Index of
the Sacred Fathers of the Church_. He speaks of having published a
sample of this and goes on to say,
[Sidenote: Bull appended to the oath at the Council of Trent.--“I
will never accept or interpret Holy Scripture except according to the
unanimous opinion of the Fathers.”]
“If my friends tell me that this sample which I have published
is not displeasing to them, there will shortly after follow
the other books of Scripture, if not in their own order, at
least in a series which has the support of other authorities.
My method of procedure will be as follows: The text before us
will be the Vulgate, and no one who has read any of the works
of Cyprian or Tertullian or of the other ancient Fathers of the
Church, has ventured to say that this text is Hieronymian, and
thus the various readings which do not agree with this Vulgate
edition will be added, and the passages which have been disputed
by Bellarmin and his school (of which there are more in this
fifth chapter than in any other) carefully noted in the margin.
By these means, the younger students to whom God has given the
necessary leisure and inclination, may see whether the Fathers
take the side of the Pontifical writers with their shrill
unseemly clamour, or are ranged under our banners: for a careful
inspection of the Company here drawn up will support opinions
of the Eastern as well as the Western Churches one after
another,--a support which is claimed falsely by the Papists,
in direct opposition to the rules laid down by the Council of
Trent, as they would see if they would but face the facts.
“If the opinion of those who have declared that these Books
ought not to be published, or ought to be suppressed, wins
the day, I shall not fall claiming to have championed in the
struggle the fortunes of the Church or any great issue. No! but
relying on conscience and on the conviction that I must promote
the cause of God to the best of my poor ability, I shall
preserve my writings of whatsoever sort in my own house under my
own roof; with the hope that if I can but present a willing and
ready spirit I shall be not unworthy to serve the world, even
though opportunities and resources fail; for has not the Poet
said,
‘In magnis est voluisse satis.’
“In everything I have tried to follow the counsel of S.
Paul,--neglecting my own conscience, taking no care for my
bodily health, not seeking your money, but yourselves, not
trying to profit myself but to benefit the world.
“Finally, that there be no mistake as to the editions which I
have used in the compilation, I have appended the following
Index. Lest you experience difficulty in perusing it or strike
upon the rock which has proved fatal to others, I would have
you remember (being desirous of removing the obstacle which has
long troubled many readers) that I have devised a way by which
all future Editions may be referred to my pages, thus saving
readers the expense and trouble of buying Edition after Edition.
With these words of instruction, learned Reader, I would bid you
farewell. May God direct and preserve us and our studies to the
glory of His name and to the advancement of His Church.
“For the State and the Catholic Church of God these labours.
TH. JAMES, D.D.
“OXFORD, 1627.”
The preface to the Index itself reads as follows:
TO BE NOTED IN THIS CATALOGUE
“First, as regards the numerals 1, 2, 3, occurring throughout
the book.
“1. Denotes condemned authors, that is, authors whose religious
opinions are orthodox and pious, but whose books are prohibited.
“2. Denotes pontifical authors, in whose case caution or
expurgation is prescribed.
“3. Denotes works of doubtful authorship which are prohibited.
“But it must be understood that the inquisitors (if one may say so)
made a rather imperfect classification under these heads. For the
authors Aventinus, Erasmus, Palingenius, Bruciolus, etc., were placed
in the first class, whereas they belong rightly in the second; and
on the other hand, Adolphus Metkerchus, Lavinus Lemnius, and others,
who ought to be in the first class, are placed in the second. And the
third class, which should consist of doubtful works, contains a good
many known authors whose names and surnames are clear as day to any
one looking at the title-pages with one eye. This appears plainly, for
example, in the case of two books, _Bello Papali_, and another of which
the title is, _Beliae, sive consolatio peccatorum_.
“Secondly, it ought to be clear to everybody that books prohibited
by the _pontificii_ (_i. e._ the Congregation of the Index, acting
as the representatives of the Pope) ought to be sought with the more
zeal and read with the greater avidity. For what the papists prohibit,
God grants for our use and benefit, and the memory of those condemned
by our adversaries is and should be blessed, since their names are
doubtless inscribed in the Book of Life.
“Thirdly, a star(*) indicates editions or authors hitherto contained in
the _Bibliotheca Oxoniensis_, which is to be set down as our gain since
we need take no further trouble to make them known.
“Fourthly, the Greek letter denotes authors of the second class (almost
all _pontificii_) who (unless they are emended and expurgated as the
Indexes direct) set forth more clearly than the noonday sun the very
doctrine of the Protestants, so that the _pontificii_ do not venture
even to mutter against it. This is doubtless the work of God’s finger
and of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, who armed Midianite against
Midianite, to their mutual slaughter.
“Fifthly, we have arranged all authors of whatever class in strict
alphabetical order. Their names cannot be found so easily in the
_Sandovillian_ or _Roman Index_, in comparison with which other Indexes
are rubbish.
“Sixthly, in this alphabetical revision are included books, written
whether in Latin or in French, Italian or Spanish, chiefly on religious
subjects, by men who were in their own day not subject to condemnation
at the hands of either God or men, but who, if they were now alive,
could hardly, or not at all, escape the Inquisition and damnation to
the shades of deeper hell. Moreover (to speak more plainly and to make
the thing clear by examples taken from this book) the _pontificii_
are so far from being consistent that books hitherto praised and
approved by worthy men are now transformed into prohibited books of the
second or third class. In this way was treated even the _Evangelium
Romanum prout a Clementis octavi manu Jacobs Davis Episcopo traditum
est_; for after the book had (if the stories may be believed) worked
miracles on the return of Perron to France, it was not only left
neglected, but the possession of a copy was prohibited under penalty of
excommunication.[151] Capucinus, inquisitor in the diocese of Naples,
has his doubts about the Index of Quirogus (Madrid, 4VO, 1584), and
for this reason he incurs censure in the Sandovillian Index, p. 365
(consult our catalogue) and the _Enchiridion Ecclesiasticum_, Ven.,
1588 (see our catalogue) is by no means to be read unless _corrigatur_.
In the same way, Gabriel Pentherbeus’ book on The Destruction of Evil
Books is not always free from the censure of others. What need of
more examples? The Defence against the Reformers, according to the
principles of S. Francis, S.D.N., by Manfred (and, good God, what a
man) is altogether prohibited, unless I have overlooked something. If
so many and such men do not escape the hands, or rather the claws of
their own party, who can guarantee safety to a book composed by any
author whatever? Not Aesculapius himself, their God, their lord Pope,
ventured to promise this, since Clement VIII changed the books of his
predecessor, Sixtus V, with no consideration for the industry involved,
on the ground of typographical errors, a most glorious lie. There are
many more cases of this sort worthy of notice, but it has seemed best
to mention but these few facts at present. Let the rest be left in the
hands of the intelligent reader, or postponed to another time.
“Finally, it must be carefully noted that the censures sometimes recoil
upon the censors themselves, for no law is juster than that the very
inquisitors should be revised, corrected, and altered, under the rod.
The complete works of Beatus Arias Montanus for one were most severely
castigated by the first inquisitors and expurgators. This is done
(strange but true) on page 55 of the Index Sandovilliano and on page 39
of the Roman Index, to say nothing of the Indexes named above. Are more
instances wanted?”
CHAPTER X
EXAMPLES OF CENSORSHIP OF THE STAGE IN THE
SIXTEENTH CENTURY
1. In Italy
2. In Spain
3. In France
The scope and plan of this treatise do not permit any general
consideration of so complex a subject as the censorship of the stage.
In the present chapter, I am submitting merely certain examples of
attempts at such censorship in Italy, Spain, and France in the 16th
century, which it may be interesting to compare with the supervision
that was being exercised in these countries at the same time over the
production and distribution of literature.
=1. The Theatre in Italy, 16th Century.=--The action taken in regard
to the censorship of the stage varied materially in the different
localities. St. Charles Borromeo prohibited in Florence, in 1565,
theatrical performances during the time of religious fêtes. Later, he
secured the suppression altogether of the presentation of the drama of
the Passion. Gregory XIII, as the result of an appeal made to him by
St. Charles, prohibited dramatic performances in Rome on holy days. The
influence of the saint secured similar action in Verona and in Bologna,
and, in 1577, Venice banished the comedians altogether.
The Church as a whole, however, avoided being drawn into the
consideration of the control of the drama; it made absolute prohibition
of but two things: the presentation on the stage of ecclesiastical
dress and the use of female actors.[152]
The Jesuit Ottonelli, writing in 1640, condemns “immodest” dramatic
representations, of which he demands the complete suppression. He
contends that there should be on the stage no scenes of love between a
man and a woman left alone. He is willing to concede the communication,
in connection with a proposition of marriage, by the father of the
lover to the father of the girl, of the sentiments of the young
man.[153]
=2. The Theatre in Spain.=--In Spain and in Italy the clergy
undertook during the 16th century to repress or to restrict the license
of the stage, and in Spain, at least, the clerical control of the drama
was complete. The seven centuries of contest against the Moors had,
among other results, served to associate indissolubly the Catholic
faith with the cause of patriotism and nationality, and with the daily
life of the people; and yet in Spain a large respect and an ardent
devotion for the Church were not felt to be incompatible with a large
indecency on the stage.
In Spain, the Inquisition, in place of being detested as in France, or
dreaded as in Italy, was really a popular institution. Lope de Vega,
who entered the priesthood after the birth of two illegitimate children
which had come to him during his second widowhood, displayed at the
head of his most indecent comedies his title of “Familiar of the Sacred
Office.” His plays present alternate examples of passages of real
piety and of verses the most obscene.
In 1548, however, as a result of a petition of the Cortes to Charles V,
vigorous measures were taken against indecent performances; and between
1587 and 1600, such effective destruction was made by the clerical
commissioners of dramatic productions that of a series of forty-three
volumes, there remained copies of but ten.[154]
=3. The Theatre in France, 16th Century.=--The French Church
of the 16th century did not manifest antagonism to the stage. The
edict of 1548, which, for the purpose of protecting religion against
indignities, ordered that dramatic performances should be restricted
to subjects that were “profane, decent, and free from scandal,”
emanated not from the divines, but from the Parliament of Paris.
The Church councils of the provinces restricted their interference
to the prohibition of the use for such performances of consecrated
buildings.[155]
CHAPTER XI
THE LITERARY POLICY OF THE MODERN CHURCH
1. The Indexes of Leo XIII 1881–1900.
2. Index Revision and Reform 1868–1880.
3. The Index and the Liberal Catholics, “Romanus”
and the “Tablet” 1897.
4. The Present Methods of Roman Censorship
=1. The Indexes of Leo XIII, 1881–1900.=
Rome, 1881, 1884, 1896.--_Index Librorum Prohibitorum sanctissimi
Domini nostri Leonis XIII, Pont. Max. Jussu editus, cum appendice usque
1895, Augustae Taurinorum. Typog. pontif. 1896._
Rome, 1900.--_Index Librorum Prohibitorum SSMI D. N. Leonis XIII,
jussu et auctoritate recognitus et editus; praemittuntur Constitutiones
Apostolicae de examine et prohibitione Librorum. Romae, Typis
Vaticanis, 1900._
The two Indexes issued by Leo XIII, the first compiled in 1881 and
reprinted in 1884 and 1896 with supplements, and the second in 1900,
constitute at the date of this writing (December, 1906) the latest
expression of the censorship policy of the Church of Rome. It remains
to be seen whether Pius X (who is not credited with any such measure
of literary interests as characterised his scholarly predecessor)
will undertake the production of any addition to the long series
of Roman prohibitory Indexes. The first of the two Indexes of Leo
is, bibliographically speaking, a fairly creditable piece of work.
The titles are, with few exceptions, correctly presented, and in
this respect it makes a noteworthy exception to all the preceding
Roman Indexes, excepting only that of Benedict, issued in 1758. Its
typography is, however, undignified. The volume contains in all about
6800 entries. The number of separate works considered is, however, very
much smaller, as in a large number of instances each book is entered
twice in the alphabetical list, once under its own title, and again
under the name of the author.
The volume of 1896 presents as front matter:
I. The Preface (signed by Cajetanus Amatus)
to the Index of Benedict 1758
II. The Address to the Reader, signed by Saccheri
III. The Ten Rules of the Index of Pius IV (Trent) 1564
IV. Observations on the Rules, from the Index of
Clement VIII 1585
V. Observations on the Rules from the Index of
Alexander VII 1664
VI. The Instruction of Clement VIII
VII. The Constitution of Benedict XIV
VIII. The Decree _de libris prohibitis_, from the Index
of Benedict 1758
IX. The _Mandatum_ from the Index of Leo XII 1825
X. The _Monitum_ of the Congregation of the Index 1828
XI. The _Monitum_ of the Congregation of the Index 1836
XII. The Constitution of Pius IX 1869
XIII. The Declaration of Pius IX (in regard to the
dogma of the Immaculate Conception) 1854
The Index of 1900 is very attractively printed, and is a credit to
the work of the papal printing-office. It is the first of the Roman
issues that can be so described. This second Index repeats, with a few
omissions, the lists of the volumes of 1896, with the addition of
certain titles selected from the publications of the intervening four
years.
The prefatory matter of the volume of 1900 is made up as follows:
I. The Papal Brief, which bears the signature of Cardinal Macchi.
II. A Preface, with the signature of Esser, Secretary to the
Congregation.
III. The Constitution of Leo XII.
IV. The _Decreta Generalia_.
V. The Constitution of Benedict.
I have thought it in order to present the full text of the first four
of these documents as fairly representative of the literary policy of
the Church at the close of the 19th century.
BRIEF OF LEO XIII
“The Roman pontiffs, to whom, in the person of S. Peter the
chief of the Apostles, that great duty was committed of feeding
the universal flock of Christ, have all been constant in
preserving whole and inviolate the most precious deposit of the
Faith, and in nourishing the Christian peoples of the world with
the food of sound doctrine. Hence the fervent and provident
care continually taken by them that, as good grain from tares,
so sound and excellent books may be separated from the alloyed,
the apocryphal, and the hurtful, lest Christian men, by using
them incautiously or daringly, may injure the integrity of their
faith and morals. Under this head, the pontiffs themselves or
the councils have been ever careful to provide remedies suitable
to the evils, changing these to suit the changes of time. When
the invention, in the 15th century, of the new art of printing
caused a great increase in the number of books and also a
great spread of the pest of evil heresies, it was everywhere
deemed necessary to take severe notice of evil writings, both to
forestall danger and to repair evil already done. Therefore the
Fathers of the Council of Trent, to whom our predecessor Pius
IV had entrusted the matter, deemed that the great contagion of
heretical books, or of books suspected of the crime of heresy,
or of books hurtful to piety and morals, should be attacked in
two ways: First, the scholars and theologians, chosen for this
purpose by the authority of the same synod, made certain general
rules so that it might be easier to decide of what books in
general the faithful should beware; and secondly, they compiled
an accurate and absolute exposition or Index of books of
improper contents. When the synod adjourned, by its own decree,
this Index, with the rules above mentioned, was shown to our
predecessor, Pius IV, that it might, before publication, receive
the support of the Apostolic sanction. The pontiff approved it
after it had been worked over again with great diligence, and
ordered its observance by all.
“In the nature of the case, his Index required additions as
in the course of time new wicked and hurtful books appeared,
and every one knows that the Apostolic Chair has attended to
this again and again with zealous care. Thus Clement VIII and
later Alexander VII and Benedict XIV, our predecessors, by the
specification of those books which the popes had proscribed, by
Apostolic letters, by the Roman Congregations, and chiefly by
the Congregations of the Inquisition and the Index, revised and
reshaped the Index proper so that it constituted practically a
new compilation. Since (the issue of Benedict) there has been
a long interval, almost a hundred and forty years, and the
conditions seemed to call for something more comprehensive and
more efficient for the present needs....
“(Signed),
“ALOIS. CARD. MACCHI.
“ROME, Sept. 17, 1900.”
“PREFACE
“Behold, worthy reader, a new Index of the prohibited books,
revised and published with the greatest care, by direction of
His Holiness Leo XIII, P. M.; together with a syllabus of books
to be avoided, there are published also the Constitutions of
the Apostolic Chair by which the examination and proscription
of bad books are at present governed: viz.: the Constitution
‘of Offices and Duties,’ promulgated by Leo, Jan. 25, 1897, and
the Constitution ‘_Solicita ac Provida_’ by which Benedict
XIV, on July 9, 1753, established clear and firm rules for the
use of the Roman and universal Inquisition, and also of the Holy
Congregation of the Index, in examining and judging books.
“As to the Constitution of Benedict XIV, it does not apply so
much to the faithful in general as to those who are entrusted by
the Holy See with the task of examining books. The Constitution
of the present Pope has another object, since, revoking the
rules of the holy Synod of Trent, ‘it sets forth certain new
general Decretals, which are to be obeyed religiously by
Catholics everywhere.’
Furthermore, these general Decretals and the Index have this in
common, that both exist for the purpose of teaching what books
to avoid reading and owning. The Decretals, however, serve this
end in one way, the Index in another. For the Decretals prohibit
the greatest possible number, indeed almost all, of noxious and
tainted books, the reading of which is strongly forbidden by
the natural law itself; while the Index reviews and notes but a
small part of these. By the Decretals, _genera_ and classes
only of bad books are proscribed; by the Index, individual
books, each with its title and even the author’s name. Hence it
is plain how greatly they err who suppose the whole question
of improper books to be decided by the Index alone, as though
of the innumerable perverse and pernicious books which have
appeared in the course of centuries, those only are prohibited
which have been condemned by special decrees and noticed in
the catalogue of prohibited books. In fact, any given book can
only be safely declared lawful reading when these two conditions
are satisfied: it must not occur in the Index nor be contained
in any of those classes which are as a whole reprobated and
condemned by the Decretals.
“It remains to consider what the character of the Index is
and what the object was in planning and compiling it. For a
catalogue of prohibited books does not go as far as to note
each and every bad book. Obviously this would not be done, nor,
if the principle of the Decretals be grasped, does it appear
necessary. There must, therefore, be some special reason why the
Roman Congregations black-list by special decree a book already
included in those classes noted by the Decretals. This reason
is furnished in most cases by denunciations, from a bishop or
other of the persons specified in _Const. Off. ac Mun._,
vv. 27, 28, 29, recommending a given book to the Holy See for
examination as destructive or dangerous. Following this clue,
and not of set purpose choosing the worst among all the books in
existence, the Holy See is very often led to examine other books
not included by the Decretals. Therefore, it would be vain to
seek in the Index either all noxious and wicked books or those
distinguished as it were for wickedness in any department, or
to demand that the books in the Index be dealt with in a fixed
order based on either the argument or the matter. The only basis
of the Index is then this, that it notes those works which for
any reason have been prohibited by special decree during the
last three centuries, whether by popes in Apostolic letters or
by Roman Congregations, and especially the Congregation of the
Index, so that neither oblivion nor ignorance may obscure the
dangerous character of their contents.
“A few words are needed to explain the principle of the new
edition and its chief points of difference from the earlier
ones. The intention of the Pope in ordering a thorough revision
of the Index was not only to temper the severity of the old
rules but also, on behalf of the maternal kindness of the
Church, to accommodate the whole spirit of the Index to the
times. In the actual compilation of the list of prohibited books
some material modification has been shown and the number of
books formerly prohibited has been diminished. This can be seen
in the first Decretal, by which all books prohibited before the
year 1600 are declared to be henceforth expunged from the Index,
although they are to be considered as much condemned to-day as
they ever were, with the exception of those permitted by the
new Decretal. Hence in the case of condemned authors hitherto
described in Class I, all of whose works were prohibited, by
the present Index those of their works are permitted which
either _ex professo_ do not treat of religion, or, if
they do treat of it, contain nothing contrary to the Faith,
unless they happen to have been prohibited by some general or
special decree. And this mitigation may properly be extended
to the case of non-Catholic authors whose complete works are
expressly prohibited in the Index. This prohibition will not
apply in future to those books which touch the Faith either
not at all or only incidentally by the way, if these have not
been noted by any general or special decree. Therefore the old
distinction between ‘all works’ simply and ‘all works treating
of religion’ might be cancelled as superfluous. For whenever the
complete works of an author are prohibited, those works only are
understood which either treat of religion or are proscribed by
some general or special decree.
“Moreover, certain books, not a few in number, have been dropped
from the Index, which, although they labour under certain
defects or have some slight taint, yet have such a reputation
for learning or such documentary value that their errors or
views seem to be compensated by their usefulness.
“It was also thought best to delete a good many works which
deal with the Immaculate Conception, soundly, it is true, but
too intemperately or with some offence to adversaries. Again, a
number in which domestic controversies and private quarrels were
agitated with improper acrimony, to the injury of good feeling
and with hardly any gain to truth; and some which deserved
prohibition not by defective doctrine nor failure in charity,
but by the indiscretion of the author in failing to obey the
public injunction to silence for the sake of extinguishing
private quarrels. These controversies having become extinct and
the injunction to silence having been long ago removed, these
books could be dismissed.
“Since certain books, otherwise harmless, had been placed on the
Index because they contained offices and litanies of the Church
which were disapproved and published contrary to prohibition,
it seemed good to expunge these also, since to-day the power is
entrusted to Ordinaries to publish litanies and prayers of this
kind for the private use of the faithful.
“Certain minor works, frivolous, or absurd or superstitious, and
such as cite false and apocryphal indulgences, are omitted. For
superstitions and magic are sufficiently excluded by _Dec._
12, 13, 16, and 17; while for the elimination of apocryphal
indulgences, there is at hand for all the authoritative ‘decree
of the Holy Congregation in charge of Indulgences and Holy
Relics,’ published by command and authority of the Pope, and the
decree ‘concerning the discrimination between regular or normal
indulgences and apocryphal,’ published by the same Congregation
on the 10th of Aug., 1899.
“It happened often that there were placed on the Index works
of slight bulk, sometimes of only a few pages, which were full
of venom and danger, but which have been so dispersed by the
passage of time (as by the wind) that to-day copies are hardly
to be found. These have not been placed on the new Index. Under
this head are included a series of pamphlets, for the most part
scholastic, which were transferred to the Index proper from
the appendices to the Indexes of Innocent XI and of Clement
XI. Theses, also, which were prepared for public academic
discussion, although not free from error and rightly and justly
placed on the Index on their first appearance, have been thought
fit for omission, the more as oblivion has long ago blotted
out most of them. But those prohibited writings, however small
in compass, which claim any part in the historic evolution of
Catholic theological doctrine, are for this very cause retained
in the Index.
“All those works were struck off which had been condemned only
by the edicts of the _Magister Palatii_ early in the 17th
century, and those in regard to which the Congregation itself
decreed that they might or should be omitted by the next decree,
as well as certain old collections of declarations, decisions,
and interpretations of the Council of the Congregation,
which this body proscribed by its decree of April 29, 1621.
For although the decrees in these collections are not to be
considered authentic simply on the ground of inclusion there,
the collections are nevertheless believed to be of some value
to-day. Besides, the making of such collections in future has
been sufficiently guarded against by _Dec. gen._ 33.
“It happened sometimes that the first volume or volumes of
a work were placed in the Index, the later volumes of which
followed the publication of the prohibition; or that periodicals
were proscribed which continued afterwards to be published; also
that all the works of an author were proscribed, who, after
the publication of the decree, produced other works. In all
these cases, the volumes or numbers published after the latest
special decree, although not mentioned in that special decree,
are nevertheless held suspicious and are justly presumed to fall
under the prohibition of some general decree, unless there is
evidence of the author’s change of heart.
“It remains to indicate in a few words, for the readier use of
the Index, the method used in arranging and describing books.
In order that the issue of Leo might be more correct than its
predecessors, and that all corruptions might be eliminated
which, in the course of so many editions, (some of them prepared
by private authority) had crept in, much zealous labour has been
given to the investigation of the records of the Congregation of
the Index and of the Inquisition, both Roman and general; and of
libraries in Rome and abroad. Books whose authorship is declared
in their titles are entered under their titles in alphabetical
order, the author’s name being subjoined when possible. These
names are always entered in full, lest the omission of a
syllable should lead to the confusion of similar ones. Assumed
or fraudulent names included in titles are treated on the same
basis as real names.
“Italian names prefixed by the syllable _De_, _Del_, _Di_, etc.,
which appears to be part of the name, always begin with that
syllable in this catalogue. The same applies to _Van_ etc., in
Dutch names, and to _Des_, etc., and _St._ in French names; but
names beginning with the two syllables _De la_ are entered under
_La_. When the syllable _De_ alone begins a French name, it is
placed after the name in this catalogue unless the name begins
with a vowel.[156]...”
There follow certain further bibliographical details. The Preface
bears the signature of “Fr. Thomas Esser, Ord. Praed. S. Indicis
Congregationis a Secretis.”
THE CONSTITUTION OF POPE LEO XIII, CONCERNING
THE PROHIBITION AND CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS
“Of the duties and obligations which ought to be most carefully
and faithfully performed in this Apostolic Office, this is the
chief and most important matter, namely,--to watch zealously and
make every effort that the integrity of the faith and morals of
Christians shall not be impaired. If this were ever necessary,
it is especially so in this age--when, in the midst of unbounded
license of character and morals, almost all the teaching which
Jesus Christ, the Saviour of Mankind, entrusted to the care of
his Church for the salvation of the human race is attacked, with
daily criticism and discussion.
“In this criticism, our opponents use various and innumerable
stratagems and artifices for the purpose of causing injury; but
especially dangerous is the lack of moderation in their writings
and the influence of these pernicious writings among the people.
For nothing worse can be imagined for contaminating the minds
of men, both by making them despise religion and by suggesting
many incentives to sin. Wherefore the Church, the guardian and
protector of the integrity of faith and morals, in fear of
this great evil, long ago came to the conclusion that measures
must be adopted to guard against the danger. To this end, it
made continued efforts to prohibit men, as far as practicable,
from the reading of pernicious books, which are the worst kind
of poison. Even the very remote age of St. Paul saw an eager
zeal in this matter. And in like manner, every subsequent
generation has witnessed the watchful care of the holy Fathers,
the instructions of the bishops, and the decrees of the Church
councils.
“Especially do the records of literature bear witness to the
care and diligence shown by the Roman pontiffs to prevent the
writings of heretics, a constant menace to the community, from
making their way unnoticed into circulation. The earlier years
are full of examples of this. Anastasius I condemned by a
solemn edict the more dangerous writings of Origen; Innocent I
did the same with all the works of Pelagius, and Leo the Great
with those of the Manichaeans. There are known to be decretal
letters about the same matter concerning the acceptance and
the non-acceptance of certain books. For one of these letters
Gelasius is responsible. Likewise, in the course of years, the
decree of the Holy See has condemned the pestilent books of the
Monothelites, of Abélard, Marsilius of Padua, of Wyclif, and of
Huss.
“But in the 15th century, with the invention of the new art
of printing, not only were prohibitions made against wicked
books that had actually appeared, but efforts were also made
to prevent the publication of any further such books. This
foresight was demanded for that age not on any trivial grounds,
but by the necessity for the preservation of the public
integrity and safety; because an art, most excellent in itself,
and the source of very great advantages, which had come into
existence originally for the purpose of propagating Christian
civilisation, had been speedily perverted by the action of many
into a powerful instrument of evil. The great and pernicious
influence of wicked writers had more serious and more rapid
results because of this very increase in the extent of the
circulation of literature. Therefore, by a most wise policy,
both Alexander VI and Leo X, my predecessors, made regulations,
adapted to the character of the times, to keep publishers in the
path of duty.
“Later, as the evil was recognised as more serious, it became
necessary to use strict and more strenuous measures to check
the contagious spread of wicked heresies. To this end, the
same Leo X, and afterwards Clement VII, positively forbade any
one to read or to possess the books of Luther. But when, in
accordance with the calamities of the age, the foul collection
of dangerous books had increased beyond all bounds and had
penetrated in every direction, the need of a more far-reaching
and more immediate remedy was recognised. This remedy was first
opportunely suggested by our predecessor Paul IV, namely, the
publication of a list of writers and books, from the perusal of
which the faithful were to abstain. Not long afterwards, the
Fathers of the Synod of Trent took further measures for checking
the increasing license of writing and of reading. In accordance
with their wish and instructions, directors and theologians
chosen for this purpose took great pains not only in amplifying
and perfecting the Index which Paul IV had published, but also
in framing rules to be observed in the publishing, reading, and
possessing of books. To these rules, Pius IV added the weight of
the Apostolic authority.
“But the needs of the public welfare, which in the beginning
had caused to be framed the Rules of Trent, promulgated from
the council, came in later years to call for further action.
Therefore, the Roman pontiffs, and especially Clement VIII,
Alexander VII, and Benedict XIV, with full understanding of the
requirements and with thoughtful discretion, framed further
decrees to explain these rules and to adapt their instruction to
the later generations.
“This record shows plainly that the Roman pontiffs have always
taken exceptional pains to protect human society from errors of
opinion and from influences inimical to morality, and to combat
those causes of disaster and ruin to the community which are
engendered and distributed from pernicious literature. Good
results attended this action as long as, in the administration
of public affairs, the Divine law had control of the directing
and the prohibiting, and as long as the temporal Rulers of
States were in accord with the sacred Authority.
“As to what followed, no one is ignorant. When, in the progress
of the ages, the conditions of society had gradually changed,
the Church modified with discretion the application of its
authority, because, with full understanding of the character
of the times, it saw that these regulations were of assistance
and service for the guidance of mankind. Several of the rules
of the Index, which appeared no longer to be pertinent, were
either abolished by decree, or the books therein forbidden
were permitted under conditions and with wise judgment on the
ground of the increasing importance of antiquarian researches.
Of more recent occurrence is the action of Pius IX instructing
the archbishops and bishops to modify materially the strictures
of Rule V. In addition, in view of the approaching important
Vatican Council, Pius IX confided to a group of learned men
the task of making a fresh examination of all the rules of
the Index with instructions to report as to what action might
be necessary in regard to them. They unanimously agreed that
certain changes ought to be made. The majority of the Fathers
frankly avowed that they were of the same opinion and they
submitted to the council a similar recommendation. There are
extant letters concerning this matter from the bishops of
France, whose opinion was unanimous as to the necessity for
immediate action in order that these rules and the entire Index
should be framed in an entirely different manner, which would
render the regulations better suited to our age and easier
to observe. Similar counsel was received from the bishops of
Germany, who united in recommending that the rules of the Index
should be submitted to a new examination and revision. A great
number of the bishops in Italy and in other countries were in
accord with this conclusion.
“If one considers the character of the times, and the condition
of civil institutions and of popular morals, we must admit that
these demands are just and reasonable, and are not out of accord
with the purposes or the material affection of the Holy Church.
In the rapid development of intellectual activity, there is
no field of knowledge in which literature is not produced too
freely, with the result of a daily accumulation of foul and
of dangerous books. What is still more serious is that this
great evil is not only connived at by the civil laws, but even
secures under these a great freedom. As a result, therefore,
unrestricted license is assured for reading anything whatever,
and the minds of many are filled with religious doubts.
“Concluding, therefore, that we must now take measures to remedy
these evils, we have decided that there are two things to be
done in order that there should be a fixed rule of action in
this class of matter, a rule that should be plain to every one.
The Index of books forbidden to be read has been gone over again
with the utmost care and this revised list shall be published as
soon as it is in readiness. Furthermore, we have directed our
attention to the rules themselves and have decided, without
changing their general character, to make them more lenient, in
order that unless a man be really depraved, he shall not find it
a difficult matter to obey them. In this we not only follow the
examples of our predecessors, but we also imitate the zeal of
the Mother Church, which, with loving zeal, takes pains to spare
the infirmities of her children.
“Therefore, after mature deliberation and after summoning the
cardinals and a holy council to go over the lists of books, we
have decided to publish the following general decrees, which are
made part of this Constitution. The holy council will in the
future make use of these rules only, and Catholics all over the
world must obey them scrupulously. We decree that these only
shall have the authority of law, and we abrogate the ‘Rules’
published by the order of the very holy Council of Trent, and
the ‘observations,’ ‘instructions,’ ‘decrees,’ and ‘precepts,’
and every other statute or law concerning this matter which have
been made by our predecessors, except only the ‘Constitution’
of Benedict XIV, which we decree shall remain in force in the
future as it has done hitherto.”
GENERAL DECREES CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION AND CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS
ARTICLE I
OF THE PROHIBITION OF BOOKS
I. OF THE PROHIBITED BOOKS OF APOSTATES, HERETICS, SCHISMATICS, AND
OTHER WRITERS
1. All books condemned before the year 1600 by the Sovereign
Pontiffs, or by Oecumenical Councils, and which are not recorded
in the new Index, must be considered as condemned in the same
manner as formerly: with the exception of such as are permitted
by the present General Decrees.
2. The books of apostates, heretics, schismatics, and all
writers whatsoever, defending heresy or schism, or in any way
attacking the foundations of religion, are altogether prohibited.
3. Moreover, the books of non-Catholics, _ex professo_
treating of religion, are prohibited, unless they clearly
contain nothing contrary to Catholic Faith.
4. The books of the above-mentioned writers, not treating _ex
professo_ of religion, but only touching incidentally upon
the truths of Faith, are not to be considered as prohibited by
ecclesiastical law, unless proscribed by special decree.
II. OF EDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AND
OF VERSIONS NOT IN THE VERNACULAR
5. Editions of the original text and of the ancient Catholic
versions of Holy Scripture, as well as those of the Eastern
Church, if published by non-Catholics, even though apparently
edited in a faithful and complete manner, are allowed only to
those engaged in theological and biblical studies, provided
also that the dogmas of Catholic Faith are not impugned in the
prolegomena or annotations.
6. In the same manner, and under the same conditions, other
versions of the Holy Bible, whether in Latin, or in any other
dead language, published by non-Catholics, are permitted.
III. OF VERNACULAR VERSIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
7. As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the Holy
Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any
distinction, more harm than utility is thereby caused, owing
to human temerity: all versions in the vernacular, even by
Catholics, are altogether prohibited, unless approved by the
Holy See, or published, under the vigilant care of the Bishops,
with annotations taken from the Fathers of the Church and
learned Catholic writers.
8. All versions of the Holy Bible, in any vernacular language,
made by non-Catholics, are prohibited; and especially those
published by the Bible Societies, which have been more than once
condemned by the Roman Pontiffs, because in them the wise laws
of the Church concerning the publication of the sacred books are
entirely disregarded.
Nevertheless, these versions are permitted to students of
theological or biblical science, under the conditions laid down
above (No. 5).
IV. OF OBSCENE BOOKS
9. Books which professedly treat of, narrate, or teach lewd or
obscene subjects are entirely prohibited, since care must be
taken, not only of faith, but also of morals, which are easily
corrupted by the reading of such books.
10. The books of classical authors, whether ancient or modern,
if disfigured with the same stain of indecency, are, on account
of the elegance and beauty of their diction, permitted only to
those who are justified on account of their duty or the function
of teaching; but on no account may they be placed in the hands
of, or taught to, boys or youths, unless carefully expurgated.
V. OF CERTAIN SPECIAL KINDS OF BOOKS
11. Those books are condemned which are derogatory to Almighty
God, or to the Blessed Virgin Mary or the Saints, or to the
Catholic Church and her worship, or to the Sacraments, or
to the Holy See. To the same condemnation are subject those
works in which the idea of the inspiration of Holy Scripture
is perverted, or its extension too narrowly limited. Those
books, moreover, are prohibited which professedly revile the
Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, or the clerical or religious state.
12. It is forbidden to publish, read, or keep books in which
sorcery, divination, magic, the evocation of spirits, and other
superstitions of this kind are taught or commended.
13. Books or other writings which narrate new apparitions,
revelations, visions, prophecies, miracles, or which introduce
new devotions, even under the pretext of being private ones, if
published without the legitimate permission of ecclesiastical
superiors, are prohibited.
14. Those books, moreover, are prohibited which defend as lawful
duelling, suicide, or divorce; which treat of Freemasonry, or
other societies of the kind, teaching them to be useful; and not
injurious to the Church and to Society; and those which defend
errors proscribed by the Apostolic See.
VI. OF SACRED PICTURES AND INDULGENCES
15. Pictures, in any style of printing, of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Angels and Saints, or other
Servants of God, which are not conformable to the sense and
decrees of the Church, are entirely forbidden. New pictures,
whether produced with or without prayers annexed, may not be
published without permission of ecclesiastical authority.
16. It is forbidden to all to give publicity in any way to
apocryphal indulgences, and to such as have been proscribed or
revoked by the Apostolic See. Those which have already been
published must be withdrawn from the hands of the faithful.
17. No books of indulgences, or compendiums, pamphlets,
leaflets, etc., containing grants of indulgences, may be
published without permission of competent authority.
VII. OF LITURGICAL BOOKS AND PRAYER BOOKS
18. In authentic editions of the Missal, Breviary, Ritual,
Ceremonial of Bishops, Roman Pontifical, and other liturgical
books approved by the Holy Apostolic See, no one shall presume
to make any change whatsoever; otherwise such new editions are
prohibited.
19. No Litanies--except the ancient and common Litanies
contained in the Breviaries, Missals, Pontificals, and Rituals,
as well as the Litany of Loreto, and the Litany of the Most
Holy Name of Jesus, already approved by the Holy See--may
be published without the examination and approbation of the
Ordinary.
20. No one, without license of legitimate authority, may publish
books or pamphlets of prayers, devotions, or of religious,
moral, ascetic, or mystic doctrine and instruction, or others of
like nature, even though apparently conducive to the fostering
of piety among Christian people; unless issued under license,
they are to be considered as prohibited.
VIII. OF NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS
21. Newspapers and periodicals which designedly attack religion
or morality are to be held as prohibited, not only by the
natural, but also by the ecclesiastical law.
Ordinaries shall take care, whenever it be necessary, that
the faithful shall be warned against the danger and injury of
reading of this kind.
22. No Catholics, particularly ecclesiastics, shall publish
anything in newspapers or periodicals of this character, unless
for some just and reasonable cause.
IX. OF PERMISSION TO READ AND KEEP PROHIBITED BOOKS
23. Those only shall be allowed to read and keep books
prohibited, either by special decrees, or by these General
Decrees, who shall have obtained the necessary permission,
either from the Apostolic See or from its delegates.
24. The Roman Pontiffs have placed the power of granting
licenses for the reading and keeping of prohibited books in the
hands of the Sacred Congregation of the Index. Nevertheless the
same power is enjoyed both by the Supreme Congregation of the
Holy Office, and by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda for
the regions subject to its administration. For the city of Rome
this power belongs also to the Master of the Sacred Apostolic
Palace.
25. Bishops and other prelates with quasi-episcopal jurisdiction
may grant such license for individual books, and in urgent cases
only. But if they have obtained from the Apostolic See a general
faculty to grant permission to the faithful to read and keep
prohibited books, they must grant this only with discretion and
for a just and reasonable cause.
26. Those who have obtained Apostolic faculties to read and keep
prohibited books may not on this account read and keep any books
whatsoever or periodicals condemned by the local Ordinaries,
unless by the Apostolic favour express permission be given to
read and keep books by whomsoever prohibited. And those who have
obtained permission to read prohibited books must remember that
they are bound by grave precept to keep books of this kind in
such a manner that they may not fall into the hands of others.
X. OF THE DENUNCIATION OF BAD BOOKS
27. Although all Catholics, especially the more learned, ought
to denounce pernicious books either to the Bishops or to the
Holy See, this duty belongs more especially to Apostolic Nuncios
and Delegates, local Ordinaries, and Rectors of Universities.
28. It is expedient, in denouncing bad books, that not only the
title of the book be expressed, but also, as far as possible,
the reasons be explained why the book is considered worthy of
censure. Those to whom the denunciation is made will remember
that it is their duty to keep secret the names of the denouncers.
29. Ordinaries, even as Delegates of the Apostolic See, must
be careful to prohibit evil books or other writings published
or circulated in their dioceses, and to withdraw them from
the hands of the faithful. Such works and writings should be
referred by them to the judgment of the Apostolic See as appear
to require a more careful examination, or concerning which a
decision of the Supreme Authority may seem desirable in order to
procure a more salutary effect.
ARTICLE II
OF THE CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS
I. OF THE PRELATES INTRUSTED WITH THE CENSORSHIP OF
BOOKS
30. From what has been laid down above (No. 7), it is
sufficiently clear what persons have authority to approve or
permit editions and translations of the Holy Bible.
31. No one shall venture to republish books condemned by the
Apostolic See. If, for a grave and reasonable cause, any
particular exception appears desirable in this respect, this
can only be allowed on obtaining beforehand a license from the
Sacred Congregation of the Index and observing the conditions
prescribed by it.
32. Whatsoever pertains in any way to Causes of Beatification
and Canonisation of the Servants of God may not be published
without the approval of the Congregation of Sacred Rites.
33. The same must be said of Collections of Decrees of the
various Roman Congregations: such Collections may not be
published without first obtaining the license of the authorities
of each Congregation, and observing the conditions by them
prescribed.
34. Vicars Apostolic and Missionaries Apostolic shall faithfully
observe the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda
concerning the publication of books.
35. The approbation of books, of which the censorship is not
reserved by the present Decrees either to the Holy See or to the
Roman Congregations, belongs to the Ordinary of the place where
they are published.
36. Regulars must remember that, in addition to the license of
the Bishop, they are bound by a decree of the Sacred Council
of Trent to obtain leave for publishing any work from their
own Superior. Both permissions must be printed either at the
beginning or at the end of the book.
37. If an author, living in Rome, desires to print a book, not
in the city of Rome but elsewhere, no other approbation is
required beyond that of the Cardinal Vicar and the Master of the
Apostolic Palace.
II. OF THE DUTY OF CENSORS IN THE PRELIMINARY
EXAMINATION OF BOOKS
38. Bishops, whose duty it is to grant permission for the
printing of books, shall take care to employ in the examination
of them men of acknowledged piety and learning, concerning
whose faith and honesty they may feel sure, and that they will
show neither favour nor ill-will, but, putting aside all human
affections, will look only to the glory of God and the welfare
of the people.
39. Censors must understand that, in the matter of various
opinions and systems, they are bound to judge with a mind
free from all prejudice, according to the precept of Benedict
XIV. Therefore they should put away all attachment to their
particular country, family, school, or institute, and lay
aside all partisan spirit. They must keep before their eyes
nothing but the dogmas of Holy Church, and the common Catholic
doctrine, as contained in the Decrees of General Councils, the
Constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs, and the unanimous teaching
of the Doctors of the Church.
40. If after this examination, no objection appears to the
publication of the book, the Ordinary shall grant to the author,
in writing and without any fee whatsoever, a license to publish,
which shall be printed either at the beginning or at the end of
the work.
III. OF THE BOOKS TO BE SUBMITTED TO CENSORSHIP
41. All the faithful are bound to submit to preliminary
ecclesiastical censorship at least those books which treat
of Holy Scripture, Sacred Theology, Ecclesiastical History,
Canon Law, Natural Theology, Ethics, and other religious or
moral subjects of this character; and in general all writings
specially concerned with religion and morality.
42. The secular clergy, in order to give an example of respect
towards their Ordinaries, ought not to publish books, even when
treating of merely natural arts and sciences, without their
knowledge.
They are also prohibited from undertaking the management of
newspapers or periodicals without the previous permission of
their Ordinaries.
IV. OF PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS OF BOOKS
43. No book liable to ecclesiastical censorship may be printed
unless it bear at the beginning the name and surname of both the
author and the publisher, together with the place and year of
printing and publishing. If in any particular case, owing to a
just reason, it appears desirable to suppress the name of the
author, this may be permitted by the Ordinary.
44. Printers and publishers should remember that new editions
of an approved work require a new approbation; and that an
approbation granted to the original text does not suffice for a
translation into another language.
45. Books condemned by the Apostolic See are to be considered as
prohibited all over the world, and into whatever language they
may be translated.
46. Booksellers, especially Catholics, should neither sell,
lend, nor keep books professedly treating of obscene subjects.
They should not keep for sale other prohibited books, unless
they have obtained leave through the Ordinary from the Sacred
Congregation of the Index; nor sell such books to any person
whom they do not prudently judge to have the right to buy them.
V. OF PENALTIES AGAINST TRANSGRESSORS OF THE GENERAL
DECREES
47. All and every one knowingly reading, without authority of
the Holy See, the books of apostates and heretics, defending
heresy; or books of any author which are by name prohibited by
Apostolic Letters; also those keeping, printing, and in any way
defending such works; incur _ipso facto_ excommunication
reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff.
48. Those who, without the approbation of the Ordinary,
print, or cause to be printed, books of Holy Scripture, or
notes or commentaries on the same, incur _ipso facto_
excommunication, but not reserved.
49. Those who transgress the other prescriptions of these
General Decrees shall, according to the gravity of their
offence, be seriously warned by the Bishop, and, if it seem
expedient, may also be punished by canonical penalties.
We decree that these presents and whatsoever they contain shall
at no time be questioned or impugned for any fault of subreption
or obreption, or of Our intention, or for any other defect
whatsoever; but are and shall be ever valid and efficacious, and
to be inviolably observed, both judicially and extrajudicially,
by all of whatsoever rank and preëminence. And We declare
to be invalid and of no avail, whatsoever may be attempted
knowingly or unknowingly contrary to these, by any one, under
any authority or pretext whatsoever; all to the contrary
notwithstanding.
And We will that the same authority be attributed to copies
of these Letters, even if printed, provided they be signed by
the hand of a Notary, and confirmed by the seal of some one in
ecclesiastical dignity, as to the indication of Our will by the
exhibition of these presents.
No man, therefore, may infringe or temerariously venture to
contravene this document of Our constitution, ordination,
limitation, derogation, and will. If any one shall so presume,
let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God, and
of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Given at St. Peter’s in Rome, in the year of the Incarnation of
Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, on the
25th day of January, in the nineteenth year of Our Pontificate.
A. CARD. MACCHI.
A. PANICI, Subdatary.
_Visa._
De Curia: J. DE AQUILA VISCONTI.
L. ✠ S.
Registered in the Secretariat of Briefs,
I. CUGNONI.
THE LISTS OF THE WORKS CONDEMNED
In the lists (as was the arrangement in the earlier Index of Leo) the
date of the decree under which the work was condemned is connected with
the title of the book. For the works (a considerable proportion of the
entire series) which are entered both under the title and under the
name of the author, cross references are given. The number of entries
in the second Index of Leo is about 7000, practically the same as that
in the earlier volume. Of the publications of the last ten years of
the 19th century, 131 works, representing 82 authors, are selected for
condemnation. These books of recent date comprise 60 Italian volumes,
47 French, 16 Spanish and Portuguese, 4 German, and 4 English. This
selection may be considered as indicative of the lack of familiarity
of the examiners with the language or with the modern literature of
Germany or of England.
As these two Indexes represent the latest authoritative expression of
opinion in regard to the present literary policy of the Church of Rome,
it is in order to present with some detail the character of the books
selected for examination.
It is with the Leonine Indexes, as with all those that preceded,
difficult to arrive at the principle that has guided this selection.
The lists include no works of the heresiarchs, and in fact no titles
back of the 17th century. Place has been found, however, for reprinting
a number of the prohibitions of the early 17th century, as well as for
those of the 18th. The Leonine decrees confirm those of the Indexes
of Pius IV (Trent), 1564, of Clement VIII, 1596, and of Benedict XIV,
1758, and the lists in these cover, of course, all the important
heretical literature from the earliest date of printing. It is not
clear on what principle have been selected the works of the 17th
century which in the judgment of the Leonine editors were important
enough to warrant a reiteration, three centuries later, of the original
condemnation. Still more difficult for these editors must have been
the selection from the great mass of fiction and of current literature
of the past century, and more particularly of the last half of the
19th century, of works that impressed them as sufficiently pernicious
in character and abiding in their influence to call for specific
condemnation. The result of this selection impresses the student as
curiously disproportionate, and in fact as almost haphazard in its
character. The fiction which has been condemned is for the most part
classed under the description of _fabulae amatoriae_.
I have noted the titles of certain works which seem to be in one way or
another typical or which would be likely to prove of interest to the
English-speaking readers of to-day.[157] It is doubtless the case that
the Italian literature (which constitutes the very large proportion of
the lists) possesses for the purposes of the indexer a distinctive
importance of its own, but these books are, I judge, less likely to be
familiar to the readers who will be reached by my treatise. The dates
placed against the titles are those, not of publication, but of the
decrees, these decrees being in some cases as far as a century later
than the date of the original issue.
_Abrégé de l’histoire ecclésiastique de Fleury._ Decr. 1769.
ACTON, LORD. _Zur Geschichte des vaticanischen Conciles;
Sendschreiben an einen deutschen Bischof._ 1871.
ADDISON, JOS. _Remarks on Italy._ 1729.
ALBERTUS MAGNUS. _De Secretis Mulierum._ 1604.
_Alciphron_, by Berkeley. 1742.
_Anglica, Normanica_, etc., _a veteribus scripta_, etc. _d.c._
By Walsingham, etc., edit. Camden. 1605.
These chronicles are, it is to be noted, to be permitted
when corrected; but for such corrections they have
already waited for centuries.
_Apologie de Jansénius, évesque_, etc. 1654.
There are no less than sixteen entries under the term
“Apology.”
ARNAULD ANTOINE (_fils_).
Seventeen works are entered under the name of this
Jansenist writer. The decrees are of date 1656–1659.
_Arrest de la cour de Parlement._
Under this term are six entries, covering acts of the
Parliament of Paris from 1680–1744, the condemnation of
which it is considered important to confirm 250 years
later.
_Augustinus._ Janseni. 1654.
A condemnation that recalls a long and bitter doctrinal
contest.
BALZAC, _oeuvres de_. 1841, 1842, 1864.
BARONIUS, VINCENTIUS.
Three works. 1672.
BAYLE, PIERRE. _Opera omnia._ 1698 to 1757.
This is followed by entries of four separate works of the
same author.
BENTHAM, JEREMIE.
Four works, of which two are entered in the French
editions. 1819–1835.
BÉRANGER. _Chansons._ 1834.
BERT, PAUL. _L’Instruction Civile._ 1882.
BLACKWELL, GEORGE, Archpriest of England. Letter to
Clement VIII. 1614.
BOILEAU, JACOBUS. _Historia Flagellantium._ 1668.
_Book of Common Prayer._ London. 1714.
BOSSUET, ÉVESQUE. _Résponse à M. de Tencin._ 1745.
BROWNE, THOMAS. _Religio Medici._
BRUNO, GIORDANO. _Opera omnia._ 1600.
BUNSEN, C. C. J. _Hippolytus and his Age._ 1853.
BURNET, GILBERT. _The Reformation of the Church of
England._ 1714.
„ „ _History of his own Times._ 1731.
CAMERARIUS, JOHANNES. _Opera omnia._ 1654.
CASAUBONUS, ISAACUS. _De Rebus Sacris_, etc. 1614.
„ „ _Epistolae._ 1640.
_Catechisme, Catechismo, and Catechism._
Under this heading and that of Katechism there are
twenty-five entries in the four languages, under dates
from 1602 to 1876.
CHARRON, PIERRE. _De la Sagesse._ 1605.
COLLINS, ANTHONY. _On Free Thinking._ 1715.
COMBE, GEORGE. _Manuel de phrénologie._ 1837.
COMTE, AUGUSTE. _Cours de philosophie positive._ 1864.
CONDORCET. _Tableau historique du progrés de l’esprit humain._
1827.
CUDWORTH, RALPH. _Intellectual System of the Universe._ 1739.
DARWIN, ERASMUS. _Zoönomia._ 1817.
DESCARTES, RENATUS. _Meditationes de prima philosophia._ 1663.
DIDEROT. _Encyclopaedie raisonnée des sciences._ 1804.
_Discovery of a New World._ Wilkins, John. 1701.
DRAPER, JNO. WM. _History of the Conflicts between
Science and Religion._ 1876.
The much more comprehensive and incisive work on the same
subject by Andrew D. White escapes attention.
DUMAS, ALEXANDRE (_pater_). _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._ 1863.
DUMAS, ALEXANDRE (_filius_). _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._
{ _The Spiritual Body._ }
EARLE, JOHN C. { _The Forty Days._ } 1878.
ENFANTIN, BARTHÉLEMY P. _Science de l’homme_. 1859.
ERIGENA, JOHANNES SCOTUS. _De divisione naturae_, etc. 1684.
FÉNELON. _Explication des Maximes des Saintes_, etc. 1665.
FERRI, ENRICO. _Sociologia criminale_ [and four other
treatises]. 1895–6.
FERRIÈRE, ÉMILE. _Le Darwinisme_ [and seven other treatises].
1892–3.
FEYDEAU, ERNEST. _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._ 1864.
FONTENELLE, B. L. _La république des philosophes_, etc. 1779.
FOURIER, CHAS. _Le Nouveau monde industriel et sociétaire._ 1835.
FREDERIC II (of Prussia). _Oeuvres du philosophe de Sans-Souci._
1760.
FROHSCHAMMER, JACOB. _Ueber den Ursprung der menschlichen
Seelen_ [and five other treatises]. 1857–1873.
GANDOLPHY, PETER. _A Defence of the Ancient Faith_, etc. 1818.
GIBBON, E. _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire._ 1783.
GOBLET D’ALVIELLA, E. _L’idée de Dieu d’après l’anthropologie_,
etc. 1893.
GOLDSMITH, OLIVER. _Abridged History of England_, etc. 1823.
GREGOROVIUS, F. _Geschichte der Stadt Rom_, etc. 1874.
GROTIUS, HUGO. _Opera omnia theologica_ [and five other works,
comprising practically _Opera omnia_]. 1757.
GUICCIARDINI, F. _Loci duo ob rerum_, etc. 1603.
HALLAM, H. _Constitutional History of England._ 1833.
„ „ _View of the State of Europe._ 1833.
HERBERT DE CHERBURY. _De Veritate_, etc. 1633.
_Histoire_, _Historia_, _De Religione_, etc.
Under these terms are entered thirty-six different works.
_History of the Devil, as well ancient as modern._ Defoe,
Daniel. 1743.
HOBBES, THOMAS. _Opera omnia._ 1703.
HUGO, VICTOR. _Notre Dame de Paris._ 1834.
„ „ _Les Misérables._ 1864.
JACOB (_filius_) _Chaviv._, etc. By Rabbi Jehuda Arje de Mutina.
The title is reprinted in Hebrew.
JACOBUS I. _Rex Angliae._ [Greek: Basilikon dôron.] 1606.
„ _Meditatio in orationem dominicam_ [and two other treatises].
1619.
JANSENIUS, C. _Augustinus_, etc. 1641, 1642, 1654.
KANT, I. _Kritik der reinen Vernunft._ 1827.
LAMARTINE, A. _Souvenirs, etc., d’un voyage en Orient_ [and two
other works]. 1836.
LAMÉ FLEURY, J. R. _L’Histoire Ancienne_ [and five other
histories]. 1857.
LAMENAIS, H. F. R. _Paroles d’un croyant_ [and six other works].
1834.
LANFREY, PIERRE. _Histoire politique des papes._ 1875.
LANG, ANDREW. _Myth, Ritual, and Religion._[158] 1896.
LAUNOY, J. _Veneranda romanae ecclesiae circa simoniam traditio_
[and no less than twenty-six other works by this much condemned
author]. 1688.
LEIGH, EDWARD. _Annotations upon the New Testament_, 1735.
LESSING, G. E. _Religion Saint Simonienne_, etc. 1835.
_Lettre_, _Lettura_, _Letter_, and _Lettres_.
Under these headings are seventy-eight titles.
LIMBORCH, P. _Historia inquisitionis_, etc. [and two other
books]. 1694.
LIPSIUS, J. _Orationes_, etc. 1613.
LOCKE, J. _Essay on the Human Understanding._ 1734.
„ _The Reasonableness of Christianity._ 1737.
MACCRIE, TH. _History of the Reformation in Italy._ 1836.
MALEBRANCHE, N. _Traité de la Nature et de la Grâce_ [and six
other treatises]. 1689.
_Mandement._
Under this heading are fourteen entries, dating from 1667
to 1729.
MANDEVILLE, B. DE. _The Fable of the Bees_, etc. 1744.
„ „ _Thoughts on Religion._ 1732.
MANSFELD, R. _Diatriba theologica._ 1690.
_Manual, the Catholic Christian’s New Universal_, etc. 1770.
MARMONTEL. _Belisaire_, etc. _d.c._ 1767.
MARVELL, A. _The Growth of Popery and of Arbitrary Power in
England._ 1730.
MAURICE, F. D. _Theological Essays._ 1854.
_Mémoire_ and _Memoria_.
Under this heading are thirty-four entries, dating from
1667 to 1817, including several having to do with the
Bull _Unigenitus_, the Gallican Church, etc.
Under this title is entered the _Mémoires de la vie du
Comte de Grammont_, which was not condemned until 1817.
MERLE D’AUBIGNÉ, J. H. _Histoire de la Réformation_, etc. 1852.
MICHELET, J. _Bible de l’humanité_ [and five other works].
1840–1896.
MILL, J. S. _Principles of Political Economy._ 1856.
MILTON, JOHN. _Literae pseudo-senatus anglicani_, etc. 1694.
MIVART, ST. GEORGE. _Happiness in Hell._ 1892–1893.
From “Nineteenth Century.”
MOLINOS, M. DE. _Opera omnia._ 1687.
MONTAIGNE, M. DE. _Les Essais._ 1676.
MONTESQUIEU, C. DE S. _Esprit des lois._ 1751.
„ „ _Lettres persanes._ 1751.
MORGAN, LADY S. _Journal of Residence in Italy._ 1822.
MURGER, H. _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._ 1864.
PASCAL, B. _Pensées._ 1789.
POZA, J. B. _Opera omnia._ 1628–1631.
This condemnation represents the confirmation or
re-assertion on the part of Leo of the position taken by
his predecessors three and a half centuries back, against
the contentions of the Spanish Jesuits and of the Spanish
Church.
PRESSENSÉ, E. DE. _Le Concile du Vatican._ 1876.
PUFFENDORF, S. VON. _De jure naturae et gentium_ [and four other
treatises]. 1711.
QUESNEL, P. 1708–1720.
A series of works comprising practically _Opera omnia_.
QUINET, E. _Le génie des religions._ 1844.
RANKE, L. _Die Römischen Päpste._ 1841.
RENAN, E. _Vie de Jésus_ [and nineteen other works]. 1859–1892.
This entry could more conveniently have been made
_Opera omnia_.
RICHARDSON, S. _Pamela._ 1744.
ROCABERTI, H. _Vida y Dottrina_ [and eleven other treatises].
1688.
ROSCOE, WM. _Life of Leo X._ 1825.
ROSMINI. _Enciclopedia di science e lettere._ 1889.
ROUSSEAU, J. J. _Le Contrat Social_ [and four other works]. 1766.
SABATIER, P. _Vie de S. Francis d’Assisi._ 1894.
SAINT-SIMON, C. H. _Science de l’homme._ 1859.
SAND, GEORGE. _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._ 1840–1863.
SARPI, PAOLO. _Historia sopra gli beneficii ecclesiastici_, [and
three other treatises]. 1676.
SCALIGER, J. _Epistolae._ _d.c._ 1633.
SISMONDI, J. C. L. _Histoire des républiques italiennes_, etc.
1817.
SPINOZA, B. DE. _Opera posthuma._ 1690.
STENDHAL, H. B. DE. _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._ 1864.
STEPHANUS, R. _Ad censuras theologorum parisiensium_, etc. 1624.
STERNE, L. _A Sentimental Journey._ 1819.
STRAUSS, D. J. _Das Leben Jesu._ 1838.
STROUD, WM. _The Physical Causes of the Death of Christ._ 1878.
SUE, E. _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._ 1852.
SWEDENBORG, E. _Principia verum naturalium_, etc. 1738.
TAINE, H. A. _Histoire de la littérature anglaise._ 1866.
_Testament, le nouveau_ (printed at Mons), 1668, [together with
three other editions in French, one in Dutch, and three in
Italian, 1709–1820].
THOMAS KEMPISIUS. _De imitando Christo._ 1723.
TILLOTSON, JEAN. _Sermons, traduits de l’anglois._ 1725.
VOLNEY, C. F. _Les ruines, etc., des empires._ 1821.
VOLTAIRE, F. M. A. _Oeuvres._ 1752.
This entry is followed by thirty-eight separate titles
of the books of Voltaire which called for special
condemnation.
WHATELY, R. _Elements of Logic._ 1851.
WHITE, THOMAS. _Opera omnia._ 1655–1663.
WILKINS, J. _Discovery of a New World._ 1701.
ZOLA, É. _Opera omnia._ 1894–1898.
ZWICHER, G. _Monks and their Doctrine._ 1898.
=2. Index Revision and Reform, 1868–1880.=--Pomponio Leto reports[159]
that Pope Pius IX had instituted, in addition to the six existing
commissions of the council, a seventh commission placed under the
direction of Cardinal de Luca, which was to be charged with the
consideration of biblical material and of the revision of the Index. It
appears, however, that this commission held but one or two sessions in
1868 and after 1869 was not again called together.
From time to time suggestions have been submitted for the reform of
Index proceedings. In 1870, eleven French bishops took the ground that
no work by a Catholic writer should be condemned by the Congregation
unless and until the author had had an opportunity of being heard in
its defence and of replying to criticisms of any special passages. It
seemed to these bishops outrageous that, possibly on the ground of the
lack of correct understanding of certain individual passages, important
books, representing the serious labour of devout scholars, should be
placed under the same class of condemnation as that applied to godless
and heretical writings or to books _contra bonos mores_.[160]
The bishops of Germany joined in the demand for a reshaping of the
rules of the Index for which in a number of territories it had not
been practicable to secure obedience. They also demanded that in the
future no book by a Catholic writer should be condemned until a hearing
had been given by the bishops to its author. It was contended that
by means of such direct action the injury of an official censorship
would in a large number of cases be avoided. In a number of monographs
printed in 1869 and 1870, the contention was maintained that there
should be either a discontinuance of the operations of the Congregation
of the Index or a thoroughgoing reform in the whole method of Church
censorship.[161]
Segesser says, in his monograph entitled _Am Vorabende des
Conciliums_: “We do not admit that the Roman Index as now carried
on fulfils the purpose for which it was instituted. It seems to us
that the present censorship system, together with the method of
securing from repentant authors ‘retractions’ and ‘submissions,’ leads
only to serious misapprehensions and confusions of judgment.... The
responsibility ought to be left to the bishops to take action, each for
his own diocese, concerning the books produced within the territory
for which he is responsible.” One of the editors of the _Mainzer
Katholik_, writing in 1869, says[162]: “We accept the view which
is now being presented very generally throughout the Church, that the
reconstitution of the organisation and methods of Roman censorship is
essential in order to meet the very great changes in the conditions of
literary production which have come about since the time of Benedict
XIV.” Writing again later in the year, the same writer says:[163]
“It may well be doubted whether it is practicable, under the
present social conditions, to enforce any prohibition in
regard to the reading of books and whether, therefore, such
prohibitions are not pernicious rather than helpful.... We
are inclined to the belief that it would be wiser, in place
of leaving the books to be passed upon in Rome, to place the
responsibility for their examination in the hands of the bishop
of the diocese.... We do not recommend that the Index should
be abandoned, but it should certainly be revised in order to
meet the new conditions of the present time. We submit with all
deference the suggestion that a theological literary organ might
properly be published in Bonn, and similar journals, speaking
under the authority of the Church, in such centres as Munich
and Tübingen. Such journals would, with their conclusions,
criticisms, and recommendations, carry weight and wholesome
influence among all faithful readers in the Church. A central
organ of literature, speaking with all the authority of the
Holy See and Church universal, should be published in Rome. In
such a journal should be presented the record of theoloical
literary activities throughout the whole world. The conclusions
and criticisms issued under the official authority of Rome would
in themselves constitute a standard of theological orthodoxy
and of literary form.... For such an undertaking, the support
and the interest of devout Catholics throughout the world would
be assured. Its influence would have the effect of an Index or
censorship of literature. Such a journal should serve as a guide
and an inspiration towards a true Catholic life.”
A periodical which was in existence for a few years during the last
decade of the 18th century appears to have had some such purpose as
this writer considers important. The _Giornale Ecclesiastico_,
a weekly journal published in Rome from July, 1785, to June, 1798,
presented, together with Church news and general information, a weekly
review of books. The journal included further the decrees issued,
during this period of fourteen years, by the censorship authorities of
Rome, against the books selected for condemnation. The first volume
recorded in these decrees is a treatise entitled _Was ist der
Pabst?_ published anonymously but identified as the work of Eybel.
It receives the honour of a condemnation, not in the ordinary form, but
in an elaborate “constitution” printed over the signature of Pope Pius
VI. The treatise had been issued at a critical time when the Pope found
ground for alarm at the reformations announced by Joseph II. One of the
works condemned in the later decrees was the _Pensées_ of Pascal,
with Voltaire’s notes.
[Sidenote: The Infallibility of the Pope]
The criticism has been made more than once on the part of Protestant
historians of the Index that the record of the conflicting decisions
given by successive popes in regard to literary productions itself
constitutes a substantial argument against the reasonableness of the
doctrine of infallibility. This doctrine became officially one of the
dogmas of the Church at the Council of the Lateran in 1870. It is the
understanding that, while the declaration of the dogma was made this
year for the first time, under the necessary interpretation of such
dogma, it would be held to apply to the utterances of all the popes
preceding Pius IX. The orthodox interpreters of Catholic doctrine
point out, however, that the claim for infallibility does not cover
all classes of papal utterances. Father Searle, for instance (writing
in New York, 1895), makes the following statement in regard to the
orthodox interpretation of this dogma:
“The special prerogative which Catholics now universally believe
to have been conferred on the Pope by the Divine Founder of
Christianity has a very special and limited range, although
certainly quite complete within its proper domain. It consists
in the Pope’s ability to decide questions concerning religion
about which there may be room for doubt in the minds of
Christians, on account either of the large number of adherents
or of the apparently plausible arguments on both sides of the
question.... It should be clearly understood that it is not the
office of the Pope to act as one inspired or to receive or give
to the world any new revelation. It is merely to decide what the
original deposit (as we call it) of faith was, as committed by
Christ to his Apostles; or in other words to repeat the decision
which the Apostles themselves would have made in regard to the
doctrines of Christianity. Still less is it the office of the
Pope to settle matters of science or ordinary questions of fact.
Not but what the domains claimed by science and the domains
claimed by faith may sometimes overlap; this may be the case for
instance to some extent in the matter of evolution, especially
if evolution is supposed to apply to the human soul, or it may
apply in the cases in which science asserts that matter existed
from all eternity.... And even questions of historical fact may
belong to faith by being necessarily connected with some of
its dogmas, or by forming part of the inspired record of Holy
Scripture. There would, for instance, be a conflict of history
or of geology with the Church, if it should be asserted in the
name of either of these branches of learning that the account
of the Deluge was simply a myth. But conflicts of this sort are
rare. Practically no Catholic is impeded in any kind of study
or investigation by any fear of papal condemnation.... The
impression of Protestants that we Catholics believe the Pope to
be incapable of error, no matter what he is speaking about or
under what circumstances he expresses his thought, is of course
without foundation.... The Catholics do, however, believe that
the Pope is able to make infallible decisions with regard to
morals as well as to faith.... But it by no means follows that
because the Pope can solemnly instruct the faithful infallibly,
he always or on all occasions holds or gives utterance to
correct views with regard to right or wrong.... We hold simply
that God assists the Pope in a special way to prevent him from
making a decision at all if the way is not reasonably clear to
it; or if God allows the decision to be made, to insure that
this decision shall contain nothing contrary to the truth.”[164]
It seems probable from the position taken by Father Searle that in the
cases in which the utterances of the Papacy have by later events been
shown to be based upon error or have even directly been recalled or
corrected by later papal utterances, the Catholic of to-day would take
the ground that these erroneous utterances did not belong to the class
for which infallibility was claimed. Under this class of exceptions
would doubtless be placed the condemnation of Galileo, and also the
condemnation of certain Catholic books maintaining doctrines not
accepted at the time as dogmas of the Church but which later secured
official acceptance.
=3. The Index and the Liberal Catholics, in 1897. “Romanus” and
“The Tablet.”=--In October, 1897, after the promulgation of the
first Index of Leo XIII and at the time when announcements concerning
the scheme of the second Index were being made, a writer in the
_Contemporary Review_ undertook to present views in regard to the
literary policy of the Church of Rome and its responsibilities towards
the intellectual development of the century. The writer subscribes
himself “Romanus” and writes as a faithful and conscientious member
of the Catholic Church. He claims to be expressing the apprehensions
of a large body of educated Catholics in England and on the Continent
as to the probable loss of influence on the part of the Church and
of the weakening of its hold on men possessing both education and
conscience, in case its present rulers should persist in maintaining a
mediaeval policy in regard to intellectual matters. “Romanus” insists
that the Church must accept and abide by all of the conclusions of
modern science the foundations of which are shown to be thoroughly
assured, and that unless the Church may make science its own, it must
of necessity lose influence with conscientious students throughout the
world.
I cite below some of the more noteworthy utterances in this article.
“Leo XIII,” says “Romanus,” “has inspired respect and sympathy even
among men who are strongly opposed to Catholicism.” He goes on to speak
of Leo as that “gentle, cultured, conciliatory pontiff, the promoter
of historical research, the friend of the French Republic.” The main
purpose of his article is to show that “liberal Catholicism,” so far
from having ceased to exist, has only been transformed into a much more
“formidable movement.”
“Liberal Catholics,” says “Romanus,” “are fully aware that
the enormous power of the Church for good would be fatally
impaired by an injury to its organisation, and they would
regard as intrinsically absurd and unscientific any attempt
to reverse the process of development. Their desire is,
therefore, not to destroy, but to strengthen the authority of
the Church by diverting it from proceedings detrimental to
its own welfare.... They are profoundly convinced that the
Catholic Church is the one great influence for promoting the
spiritual welfare of humanity. They believe that there exists
no power comparable to it for the promotion of virtue and of
all that is highest, noblest, purest, and most self-denying and
generous among mankind. They are convinced that it is the most
complete--the only complete--organisation for bringing about
among all classes, all nations, and all races, obedience to, and
fulfilment of, Christ’s two great commandments wherein lay all
the law and the prophets--love of God and of our neighbour.
“Such Catholics also believe that the Church supplies, to our
minds, as no other yet existing organisation can supply, means
of access and address to their Creator through a worship such
as the world has never before known--traditional, majestic,
soul-satisfying, and, above all, profoundly spiritual, wherein
the divine and human meet and _cor ad cor loquitur_.
“By its sacraments, every stage of human life is elevated and
sanctified, the wounded conscience renovated and strengthened,
the broken and contrite heart comforted and consoled, the
various afflictions of life mitigated and its joys, as well as
its sorrows, refined and consecrated.... These liberal Catholics
not only look upon Catholicity as the special home and the
most effective aid to what is good, but also as an influence
making for beauty and the culture of art. Its influence with
respect to philosophy they regard as of priceless value, nor
do they think lightly of its service to literature. Profoundly
influenced by such convictions, the adherents to ‘Liberal
Catholicism’ must evidently desire to maintain unimpaired that
wonderful organisation of which Rome is the head.... Liberal
Catholics declare themselves to be devoted to the discovery,
the promulgation, and the establishment of truth in every
field of knowledge, historical, critical, and scientific,
especially in what bears upon religion. Sincere Theists, they
are profoundly convinced not only that the God of truth can
never be served by a lie, but that the cause of religion can
never be promoted by clever dodges, by studiously ambiguous
utterances, by hushing up unpleasant truths, or (when such
can no longer be hidden) by misrepresenting or minimising
their significance--trying by a series of clever devices to
disguise the consequences which logically follow from them. As
St. Paul strenuously opposed himself to the circumcision of
the flesh, so would the Liberal Catholics oppose themselves
to the circumcision of the intellect. These believers are not
so foolish as to be blind to the fact that a body so vast and
complex in structure as the Catholic Church must move slowly.
It neither surprises nor shocks them that new astronomical,
geological, or physiological truths should not be accepted with
alacrity or that discoveries as to the Old and New Testaments
and startling facts with respect to the organisation of the
Church in the first two centuries should not be welcomed with
enthusiasm and loudly proclaimed.... What liberalism does not
understand, what it vehemently protests against and deems fatal
to the welfare of the Church, is not reticence, but declarations
hostile to and condemnatory of ascertained scientific truth.
No one in authority would probably now venture to affirm in so
many words that Catholics must regard as historical facts such
matters as the legend of the Serpent and the Tree, that of the
formation of Eve, Noah’s Ark, the destruction of Sodom, the
transformation of Lot’s wife, the talking ass, or Jonah and his
whale; nevertheless (not only from what is popularly taught,
but from what has been put forth in the name of the Supreme
Pontiff) it would seem as if Reuss, Welhausen, and Keunen had
never written at all, instead of having transformed our whole
conception of the Hexateuch. Liberal Catholics need demand no
formal disavowals. What they do most strongly deprecate are
needless declarations freshly made in the full light of modern
science, physical, physiological, historical, or critical, yet
futilely hostile thereto. The well-known Syllabus of Pius IX
afforded a memorable instance of what is thus objected to.... It
was so worded as to make plain men believe that their reasonable
liberties had been condemned, and many tender consciences were
greatly troubled thereby. A year or two back, Leo XIII, in a
letter concerning the Bible, afforded a most amazing example of
misleading ambiguity.... It is understood that for this letter
he was not personally to blame, his will having been overborne
by the influence of the Jesuits of the _Civiltà Cattolica_.
This letter contains, to be sure, a certain recognition of
modern science; but it broadly declares that the Bible contains
no error.... English Catholics have been played with of late
in the matter of a new Index in a singularly inept and absurd
manner, owing to the fact that the players at Rome are so
densely ignorant concerning the state of things in England.
“The old Index was never supposed to be binding on English
Catholics and, indeed, its provisions were such that it was
practically almost a dead letter on the Continent also.... The
new Index is, however, formally declared to be applicable to
all countries, and great has been the distress which through
its publication arose in the minds of a multitude of timid and
scrupulous believers.... Pressure was brought to bear upon Rome,
which was forced at last to learn something of the condition
of affairs in England, and finally supreme authority has had to
draw in its horns and suffer it to be spread about in England
that the new reformed Index does not apply here, and that in
this happy country every condemned publication can be read,
and any work on morals or religion published and circulated,
without ecclesiastics having the power to prevent it.... Since
the affair of the Index, however, a yet more monstrous act
has been perpetrated. Any one who has taken any interest in
Scripture knows that for many years past the text in the Epistle
of St. John about ‘the three witnesses’ (the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost in heaven) has been regarded as a spurious addition.
An application was lately made to Rome to know whether the
authenticity of this well-known text might safely be called in
question. The reply was that it might neither be denied nor
called in question. Thus authority, in this last act, has shown
an utter contempt for historical and critical truth, and that
it desires its spiritual subjects should be left to believe
that an absolutely unauthentic passage is an inspired statement
written ‘by the finger of God.’... We live in a critical period.
Dogmatic statements require special care when, thanks to the
labours of such men as Harnack and Weiszäcker, so much light has
been thrown on the genesis and history of dogma and the earliest
condition of the Christian Church. But the diffusion of any such
knowledge is but little perilous if only authority will refrain
from self-destructive affirmations.... The advance of physical
science necessarily carries with it changes in religious belief,
as astronomy and geology unquestionably show. But changes in
moral science and consequent modifications in human sentiment
produce changes of far greater moment.... It is then above all
things necessary that ecclesiastical authority should help in
the elevation of popular ethical ideals, instead of trying,
as the Catholic Church has in many cases already done, to
retain these at a lower stage of development.... The scientific
teaching now current about the Old and the New Testament, the
history of dogma and of the beginnings of the Church, must
doubtless disturb the minds of many faithful Catholics now as
future discoveries in the field of physiology will disturb the
minds of persons who are to come after us. We are and we wish
to remain in sympathy with the Church of centuries long gone;
but surely we should also wish and strive to pave the way for
the triumph of the Church in ages yet to come. We emphasise the
importance of attention to past changes and the necessity of
great consideration and accommodation on the part of authority
at the present time and yet more in the future. We urge this
because we are devoted to the cause of the Catholic Church;
we urge this as humble followers of the great Apostle of the
Gentiles, in the name of Him who was the first great teacher
of ‘accommodation’ and who, as the great opponent of pharisaic
narrowness, emphatically deserves the honourable title of the
first ‘Liberal Catholic’ of the Universal Church of Christ.”
The criticism of “Romanus,” speaking on behalf of the Liberal
Catholics, was promptly taken up by an “orthodox” Romanist, evidently
a strong opponent of Liberal Catholicism, who is prepared to accept
without question the authority and the policy of Pius and Leo in regard
to the supervision of literature and the direction of the intellectual
life of the Church. The reply of the defender of the papal policy
appears in the _Tablet_ (which may, I suppose, be considered as
the official organ of the Church in England) in December, 1897. The
following extracts will give the main conclusions of this upholder of
papal authority.
“The article in the _Contemporary Review_ which claims to
represent the views of ‘Liberal Catholicism’ is not entitled to
any serious attention on the part of educated Catholics. Its
matter and its spirit are well known to them _ad nauseam_,
and they easily recognise one and the other as a part of the
stock-in-trade of certain writers who not unnaturally conceive
that they can attack the Catholic Church more plausibly by
affecting to stand within her pale, and while masquerading
(anonymously, of course) under the name of Catholic. The only
passage in the _Contemporary_ article which is deserving
of any present attention is that relating to the modification
of the recent Constitution of the Index. In January last, the
Holy See was pleased to simplify, and in many respects to
modify, the provisions of the Index, and issued a Constitution
to that effect. Like all legislation of a general kind, it was
issued to the Church as a whole. The Holy See, following its
most wise tradition, frames its general law upon the needs of
the bulk or majority of its subjects, and makes such law, for
the time being, the standard of the community, knowing that if
its provisions, in whole or in part, should, owing to peculiar
circumstances, become inapplicable to the minority or should
press unduly upon them, their case can easily be met either
by local modification, or by personal dispensation where they
affect an individual or a class. A good deal of cheap rhetoric
is often wasted upon the narrowness and intolerance of the
authorities of the Index. We are concerned with the law itself
and with the principles which underlie this law and with the
reasons which justify it. The measure of discretion (or of
indiscretion) which characterises the action of the authorities
in the administration of the law and in its application to this
or that book or opinion deserves separate consideration....
It may safely be asserted that not a little of the ordinary
criticism of the regulations of the Index is due in many cases
to insularity. Probably out of every hundred Englishmen or
Americans who rail against the restrictions of the Index, not
a tithe has any direct acquaintance with, or takes any due
account of, the flood of bitterly anti-Christian literature,
often infidel, immoral, and blasphemous, and almost always
insidiously polemical, which is poured over Italy and the
Continent generally, by the masonic and anti-clerical press.
It is in great measure this degrading abuse of one of the
noblest faculties of civilised society, and the need of duly
protecting the minds of the masses that the provisions of the
Index are specially designed to meet. It is simply a measure of
Catholic sanitation. In fact, were a representative collection
of such continental literature translated and put into the
hands of the average English father, we conceive that he would
promptly improvise himself into a domestic Congregation of the
Index and take pains to see that all such vehicles of infection
were rigidly excluded from his family.... That the Catholic
Church, which is necessarily an authoritative and a teaching
Church, should be equally solicitous about the members of her
family, and that from her standpoint she should extend her
solicitude, not only to manifest evils but to assaults upon the
faith which she believes to be the logical sub-structure of
morality, is a principle which assuredly need not excite our
surprise. However much we may feel that, in times like our own,
when our best triumphs promise to be gained by guiding, rather
than by limiting human liberty, and when necessarily much must
be left to the discretion of the conscientious, the practical
application of the principle is a matter which calls for the
exercise of that generous and tactful delicacy that the Catholic
Church knows so well how to use in teaching her children.... No
one who looks upon the face of Christendom to-day can fail to
note that there exists a clearly marked difference between the
whole set of social and political circumstances which obtain
in the English-speaking lands and those which obtain in the
various countries of the Continent. This difference applies
particularly to the very circumstances which most affect the use
and application of the provisions of the Index.... We maintain
that in English-speaking countries there does not exist upon any
large or popular scale such bitter and active propaganda against
Christianity and Christian morality as are unhappily at work
abroad, nor is there that widespread prevalence of aggressively
anti-Christian and pornographic literature which the infidel
and anti-clerical press pours forth like a pestilential sewer in
certain continental countries. The Church has wisely taken into
account the special character and circumstances of Catholics in
the English-speaking countries, and the significance which as
expressing the more modern development of social and political
life they promise to possess in the future. For centuries, the
provisions of the Index in their more rigid sense have not been
practically applied to these countries, and to a very large
measure these provisions have been left in abeyance with the
perfect knowledge of the Supreme Authority.... The Constitution
published by the Holy See, in January last, was naturally issued
to the Church at large, and when it appeared in the Catholic
press of England it necessarily elicited from both clergy and
laity the question whether this new Constitution was or was not
intended to supplant the _status quo_ which had hitherto
existed among us. The reply to the enquiry addressed to Rome
by the Cardinal Archbishop and bishops of England, conceded
the most ample powers for dispensation, so that, owing to the
‘special circumstances of the country,’ the bishops in England
were fully authorised ‘to modify the rigour of the law by their
prudence and counsel according as the case might demand.’
Rome’s reply was thus as ready and as liberal as could well be
desired....
“No Catholic forgets or can ever allow himself to forget that
the Index is at most an institution which has been called into
existence by the practical prudence of the Holy See to safeguard
and to hedge around with specific regulations the observance of
a moral law that is as old as Christianity itself and that, even
if the regulations of the Index were abolished to-morrow, would
remain in all its force in the Catholic Church. If the faithful
Catholic in the course of his reading finds by experience that
a given book is of a kind to undermine his faith or to work
injury to his morals, he knows that he is bound by the very fact
to deal with it as he would with a proximate occasion of sin,
and to cast it aside. Christianity by its very condition means
discipline. In it the unbridled freedom of thinking, saying,
reading, and doing what we like is exchanged for the higher
and holier freedom of union with the mind and with the life of
Christ. The moral law of the Church is everywhere and always
with us and every good Christian carries about with him inside
of his own conscience a Constitution of the Index....”
This article may, I judge, while now eight years old, fairly be
accepted as an authoritative utterance on the part of the thoroughly
orthodox Romanists of England, that is to say, of those who accept
without question the decisions and the regulations from Rome. The
writer in the _Tablet_ declines, or, to speak more precisely,
contemptuously refuses, to meet any of the specific criticisms of
“Romanus” in regard to this or that text or to the relations of the
Church with the conclusions of scientists. He bases his conclusions
upon a general and implicit acceptance of the final authority of
the Church in all matters and he apparently holds that only in such
reverent acceptance and obedience can there be a religious sanity in
this world or hope for the world to come.
=4. The Present Methods of Roman Censorship.=--The Papal
Consistory may be considered as a direct successor or at least
a continuation of the chancellery of the Roman Empire. When (in
328), the Emperor Constantine moved the court to Byzantium, he left
the chancellery in Rome and the authority or organisation of this
chancellery came to be associated with the authority of the Bishop of
Rome.
The term Curia or Holy See is used to represent the Church organisation
or final authority of the Church considered more particularly in its
relations with foreign States or with outside bodies.
The Congregations date in their final organisation from Sixtus V
(1585). The series now comprises eighteen. These Congregations might
be compared in the nature and in the exercise of their functions to
the standing committees of the United States Senate; excepting that
their decisions do not have to be referred to any general body for
action. These decisions are final unless disapproved by the pope. The
pope retains for himself the official headship of the Congregation of
the Index on the ground that the work of this Congregation has to do
directly with matters of doctrine. The working body of the Congregation
of the Index comprises ten to twelve members with votes, including
always a group of cardinals. In addition to these voting members, there
is a varying number of _consultores_ (advisers) who are called in
as experts in different divisions of knowledge, but who have no votes
in the decisions arrived at. The Congregation which bears the name
Propaganda is charged with the responsibility of receiving and sifting
miscellaneous business, referring each division of such business to
its appropriate Congregation. The Congregation of the Index has from
the outset been conducted under the influence and under the practical
control of the Order of the Dominicans. The secretary, who bears the
name “commissarius” and who is always a Dominican, has the general
responsibility for the selecting and the shaping of the business of
the Congregation. It is to the commissarius that suggestions are
submitted by ecclesiastics or others concerning books which, in
their judgment, call for the consideration of the Congregation. The
commissarius is also himself under obligation to submit titles of
doubtful books of which he has personal knowledge. The exceptional
influence of the Jesuits in statecraft and in personal relations
with the popes and with other of the authorities of the Church is
considered as constituting some measure of offset to the influence
that the Dominicans have, in their control of the Index, been able to
exert concerning the acceptance (or the reprobation) of literature
presenting the special doctrines of the Jesuits. The method of thought
and of reasoning of the Dominicans is, it is to be borne in mind,
based upon the teachings of Thomas of Aquinas and of the Thomists.
The Franciscans are described as the commemorators of the mystical
spirit of Duns Scotus. The leadership in intellectual activity in the
Church is said to rest to-day, as it has rested through the centuries,
with the Jesuits. The great Order of the Benedictines and that of the
Cistercians are still referred to as making some of the largest and
most important contributions to literature that come from Catholic
sources.
It is to be remembered that the bishop possesses in his own diocese
a very large measure of independent authority, authority which may
be considered as increasing in direct proportion to the distance of
the diocese from Rome. This local authority is utilised in connection
with literary censorship as for other matters affecting the action
of believers. This censorship of the bishops is naturally of special
importance when it has to do with books originating in languages other
than Italian or Latin, as such books are less likely to be brought to
the attention of the censorship authorities in Rome.
In regard to the literary policy of the Church to-day as expressed in
the Index, the opinion of the Jesuit Father Hilgers is of interest.
In reply to the enquiry, “What is the Index?” Hilgers presents (in
the treatise before referred to) the following statement, the text of
which I have somewhat condensed: “The Index of prohibited books does
not contain or undertake to present the entire regulation or body of
the enactments of the Church concerning the supervision of literature
and the specification of prohibited books. This body of Church law
is to be found in the general Decrees or Regulations (_Decreta
Generalia_) of the Constitution, known as the _Officiorum ac
munerum_. It is of course to be understood that the editions of
the Index are controlled by the general prohibitions (that is to say,
by the prohibitions which, in place of specifying individual works,
express a general literary policy) and also by what may be called the
law of nature.... It is not safe for a believer to say, ‘as this book
is not found in the Index, I am at liberty to read it.’ It should be
understood that the book in question or any similar work may fall under
the prohibition of the general rule or may under the law of nature
be classed as pernicious. It is undoubtedly the case that many books
which are pernicious for faith or for morals are not to be found in the
Index. It would of course be a physical impossibility to include in any
current lists all of the books of bad character or of bad influence
which each year are being brought before the public. The Index is to
be considered as itself a portion of the general Church prohibitions.
It is not even to be admitted that the most dangerous or pernicious
have with certainty found their way into Indexes, either the earlier or
those that are now in force. The books which are undeniably bad should
so reveal themselves to the conscience of the believer and are in any
case clearly indicated by the law of the Church. This is the answer to
the criticism that has more than once been made that the Congregation
of the Index has concerned itself with the trivial or petty things,
leaving without consideration books which are of most serious
moment, for instance works belonging to the emphatically bad group.
Examples of such are--in literature: those of Carl Gutzkow and Conrad
Ferdinand Meyer; in natural science, those of Haeckel and of Krause
(Carus-sterne); in philosophy, the writings of Feuerbach and Büchner;
in theology, the works of F. C. Baur and of Bruno Bauer, etc. Against
names like these, the caution of specific condemnation in the Index
ought not to be required by any intelligent reader. There are to-day
so-called philosophers whose representative works can be recognised as
dangerous by the reason of each intelligent person, and these works it
has therefore not been thought necessary to place in the Index. The
very fact that the total number of books appearing in the Index is so
inconsiderable is to be accepted as evidence that there has been no
attempt to make specific condemnation of the whole mass of pernicious
literature.” According to the calculation of Hilgers, the Indexes of
the last three hundred years contain an average of sixteen new titles
only for each year; and these sixteen titles represent the total of the
selections made from the literatures of all the countries of the world,
principally of course of those of Europe.
The Index presents for us a collection of the utterances of the Church
authorities concerning specific condemnations of individual books.
It may be said to bear the same relation to the general censorship
decrees as that borne, for instance, by a collection of the judgments
of a criminal court to the provisions of criminal law. It is the
business of the court to arrive at a judgment in each individual
case and in each case to determine whether the law has been broken.
The Index condemnations, like the court judgments, may be accepted as
representative in the one case of the general policy or principles by
which the Church is guided and in the other case of the principles and
of the provisions of the law. In the Constitution _Officiorum ac
munerum_, section I, chapter 10, is the instruction: “While it is
the duty of all believers, and particularly of the educated Catholic,
to bring to the attention of the authorities of the Curia or of the
bishops, books believed to be dangerous, this responsibility rests
more particularly upon the nuncios, the Apostolic delegates, and the
rectors and associates of the higher schools.” The word denunciation
has a serious sound and yet such a word may be applied as describing
the duty of any magistrate acting under the law of the land. “The
Index is not,” continues Hilgers, “and never has claimed to be, a
systematic and comprehensive collection of the titles of each class
of prohibited books. It is no more just on this ground, however, that
the Index should be charged with lack of system, plan, or consistency
than that the civil authority should be criticised because, under the
actual working of the law, there may not be each year examples of
the imposition of penalties for all the offences specified.... It is
further to be borne in mind that the influence of any particular work
is naturally not the same during different periods or under different
conditions; a book which at the time when certain issues were pending
might have exercised a seriously pernicious influence, could for later
generations, under different conditions, be studied safely simply as an
historical record. It is the purpose of the Index as of the _Decreta
Generalia_ to protect and defend the true Faith, sound morality, and
wholesome conduct. The censorship prohibitions constitute one means
by which those to whom has been confided the care of the flock of the
faithful may be enabled to fulfil their responsibilities.”
“In case there may be question of the accusation of any person for
heretical doctrine the examination of the matter or the control of the
case is held not under the direction of the Congregation of the Index,
but under that of the Roman Inquisition. The condemnation of the book
does not in itself carry with it a condemnation of the individual.”[165]
The Reverend Spencer Jones, in his treatise _England and the Holy
See_, printed in London, 1902, remarks that, in such cases, “when
a teacher is silenced and his books have been placed upon the Index
a large proportion of the public are apt to entertain pity for him,
which is natural; but feel little concern for those on whose behalf
the Church has interfered, which shows want of sympathy and contempt
for the authorities, which is for the most part unjust; the assumption
being that because they judge it right to stay the treatise, they
therefore wish to stop the truth.”[166]
A further criticism has been made against the Index on the ground
of the indignity caused to works of science and to productions of
literature of thought in associating these under condemnation with
vulgar erotic romances or with the passing pamphlet of the moment.
The Catholic answer is very simple: the Church is responsible for
the correction of error in whatsoever form such error may take. Such
action in regard to an error, whether this be a thought or form of
expression, does not of necessity imply that the writer is himself
unworthy. The Church may properly honour and does honour a faithful
believer and great thinker like Fénelon, and may at the same time, in
its watchfulness over sound thought and precise expression, find it
necessary to correct some single utterance of Fénelon. The true Faith
has to do not only with understanding but with the preservation of the
purity of the soul and of right feeling.
It may be at once admitted that the regulations of the Congregation
of the Index do not claim for themselves an infallible authority
concerning matters of doctrine. The book prohibitions, while approved
by the pope, do not (unless with rare exceptions) emanate directly from
him and do not, therefore, partake of the infallibility of his Office.
The pope can of course, in the cases in which it seems to him right so
to do, decide with his own infallible judgment that the doctrine of a
book is heretical and such a decision must carry with it full weight.
The general prohibitions of the Index are, however, to be considered
as simply an expression or conclusion concerning dogma in the narrower
sense of the word. Such prohibitions may be considered as coming from
the ecclesiastical court before which the book in question has been
under trial and through such judgment the book is either condemned or
passed upon as not a subject for disapproval.[167]
Hilgers calls attention to the method of procedure under which the
successive Indexes collected into their lists the titles of books that
had been condemned (in certain cases many years before) in specific
decrees. The Index authorities have, he says, been criticised for
bringing into condemnation books having to do with controversial
questions, years after these questions have been practically adjusted
or were no longer vital matters. The answer is that the literature was
considered at the proper time under a separate decree and the Index
merely presents a summary of such decrees. The Index of Leo XIII makes
clear in its record of condemnations of earlier date the immediate
source for each condemnation; whether this took the form of a papal
brief or bull or whether it was arrived at through the decision of one
of the papal Congregations. The books which have been condemned under
a separate Apostolic edict (brief or bull) comprise in all a hundred
and forty titles and these have been printed in each Leonine Index
with a cross. During the three centuries between 1600 and 1900, the
Congregation of the Holy Office, that is to say, the Roman Inquisition,
has issued in all nine hundred book prohibitions. These are entered
in the Leonine lists with the words: _Decr. S. Off._ During the
same period, the Congregation of Rites has prohibited in all but three
books. The Congregation of Dispensations has issued two condemnation
decrees. It is clear from the above reference that each Congregation
has been charged with the supervision of the literature belonging to
its own special subject-matter. The Congregation of the Index, however,
is concerned with the books in every division of literature because
its subject is the examination and determination of works classed as
suspected. The entries for which the Congregation of the Index is
responsible during the three centuries in question aggregate about
three thousand. As before stated, the power rests with the pope to
examine and to pass judgment upon any book without the intervention of
any one of the Congregations.
The Leonine Index repeats but two prohibitions back of the date of
1600. The first, bearing date 1575, makes entry of the title of the
_Chronicon_ of Conrad of Lichtenau, and the second, under the
date of 1580, the title of _Il Salmista secondo la Bibbia_, etc.
During the above specified period, covering three centuries, the lists
comprise some four thousand titles, but this number includes a hundred
and eight authors whose entire writings (under the entry of _Opera
omnia_) came under condemnation. If the works of these writers were
added separately to the schedule, the titles would aggregate about
five thousand. Of these titles, some fifteen hundred belong to the
17th century, twelve hundred to the 18th, and thirteen hundred to the
19th; while from the publications of the last decade of the 19th have
been selected but one hundred and thirty-one titles. This last group
includes, however, the _Opera omnia_ of Zola. The writers of the
19th century who have been distinguished through the condemnation of
their entire works comprise the following: Sue, 1852; Dumas (father
and son), 1863; Sand (Dudévant), 1863; Balzac, 1864; Champfleury
(Fleury-Husson), 1864; Feydeau, 1864; Murger, 1864; Soulié, 1864; Hume
(David), 1827; Morado, 1821; Plancy, 1827; Proudhon, 1852; Spaventa,
1856; Vira, 1876; Ferrari, 1879; Zola, 1895.
The omission from the Leonine Index of a long list of names, which
appeared in earlier Indexes connected with the term _Opera omnia_,
is to be understood as giving permission to the faithful for the
use of such books of these writers as do not appear under specific
condemnation or as cannot at once be classed under the general
prohibitions. All of the books of writers of this first class which
do not antagonise either the true Faith or good morality are now free
for Catholic readers. This exception would of course continue to rule
out the writings of the leaders of the original Reformation, Luther,
Calvin, Melanchthon, and the rest, although the names of these writers
do not find place in the Leonine lists. The Index of Benedict (who
from the liberal character of his convictions and policy was sometimes
spoken of as the free-thinking Pope) strengthened the prohibitions
against some fifty authors. The names of these authors, which had
previously been connected only with specific books, are entered in the
Index of 1758 with _Opera omnia_. Hilgers emphasises the greater
liberality of Leo XIII in recalling these authors from the _Opera
omnia_ classification and in leaving condemned only certain specific
works. He gives as another example of the liberality of Leo the freeing
from condemnation of the famous treatise by Grotius, _De Jure Belli
ac Pacis_. This had previously been condemned with a _d.c._ but
the objectionable portions had never been specified and no corrected
edition had ever been attempted. Another work of this class, previously
condemned but now left free by Leo, is the _Paradise Lost_ of
Milton, and a third author whose condemnation has in like manner been
cancelled is Leibnitz.
The Index of Leo concerns itself, further, with the correction of
certain condemnations that had been made, under general decrees, of
books having to do with questions that had finally been adjusted
through some later utterances of the Church. In 1661, Alexander VII
had condemned in a general decree all writings having to do with
(either for question or for defence) the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception. In 1854, this doctrine was accepted by the Church as a
dogma and the decree of Alexander was thereby cancelled. The Index of
Leo recalls the prohibition of the books previously condemned which had
defended the doctrine.
The great number of Italian books which swell, in the Leonine Index,
the list of modern publications, are very largely concerned with the
issues, that have been fought over and that are not yet adjusted, which
arose from the development of the Kingdom of Italy. The condemnation
in 1871 of two essays by Lord Acton was due to the approval given
by Acton to the doctrines of the group of Catholic reformers led by
Döllinger. The comparatively small selection that has been made in this
Index and in those that more immediately preceded it of works from the
countries outside of Italy was due to the fact that the examiners of
the Congregation have felt under responsibility to pass upon only those
books which were directly brought to their attention.
“The Index,” says Hilgers, “has never given consideration to
the person or authority of the author. The decision has always
been arrived at purely on the basis of the influence, bad or
good, of the book. It has not hesitated to condemn utterances
of the theological faculty of the University of Paris on the
one hand, or acts of the Parliament of Paris on the other. It
was ready to condemn ordinances of Duke Leopold I of Lorraine,
the treatises of James I of England, and the works of the
‘Philosopher of Sans-Souci.’ It would be difficult in fact to
contend that the material contained in these last was not likely
to exert a pernicious influence. The royal writer of Sans-Souci
scoffs at the immortality of the soul and, with his leader
Voltaire, defends a religious nihilism. He who is concerned
with maintenance whether of the throne, the altar, or the State,
who feels a responsibility for the welfare of the people, will
hardly guide his actions by the philosopher Voltaire.”[168]
In December, 1901, a journal printed in Rome for English-speaking
readers, under the title of the _Roman World_, prints the following
comment on the Index of Leo, a copy of which had, as the writer of the
article reports, been placed in his hands by a book collector of New
York:
“One of the great book collectors of New York has recently
secured from his foreign agent a copy of the new edition of the
Index _Librorum prohibitorum_ issued under the directions
of Leo XIII. It is seldom that a copy of an official Index
or record of books, the perusal of which is prohibited to
Catholics, comes into the hands of an outsider. The copies
printed are reserved for the use of the readers of the Church.
It is necessary in order to secure a copy, to pay a high price.
This particular copy, for instance, was estimated as worth from
$40 to $50, while a little later, in connection with the greater
difficulty of securing copies, it might easily have cost $400.
The history of the famous Index is interesting. Its intellectual
originator was the Emperor Charles V of Spain whose production
bears date about 1550. In 1554, the Pope Paul IV took into his
own hands the matter of the supervision of literature. This
has since been retained under the direct control of the pope.
Many hundreds of books which are not specified and mentioned in
the catalogue are prohibited under the general decrees, which
decrees, first issued by Benedict XIV in 1744, from that date on
are repeated in the succeeding Indexes. It is well known that no
Catholic ventures, under penalty of excommunication, to possess
or read books which are contained in the Index unless he may
secure a specific privilege or permission. It is not so well
known that the catalogue is itself three centuries old and that
it contains thus far the name of no single American writer, not
even Thomas Paine or Robert Ingersoll. There are, however, in
the lists dozens of works of the English classics and hundreds
of French books which belong to the world’s classics. Here for
instance are to be found Bossuet and Pascal. The latter always
believed himself to be a good Catholic. Among the English
names placed under the ban are Gibbon, Hume, Hallam, and
Goldsmith.”[169]
Hilgers amuses himself, and with justice, with the mass of errors that
have been crowded into the few paragraphs cited from the article. It is
his conclusion that if an American writing in the city of Rome could be
so thoroughly ignorant of matters that were easily within his reach,
the impressions of Americans elsewhere and of Protestants generally
concerning the purpose, the history, and the nature of the Index are
probably equally erroneous.
The conclusions of the German Jesuit concerning the literary policy of
the Church of Rome as expressed in its latest Index, may conveniently
be supplemented by a statement (written in November, 1898) by a
scholarly American priest, on the present policy and methods of the
Roman censorship. This statement comes in a personal letter to myself
and I am, therefore, not at liberty to bring into print the name of the
writer.
“The action of the Index is meant to be both preventive and
repressive. Its preventive action is exercised through the
diocesan censor, that is, there is in every well constituted
diocese an officer known as the _censor deputatus_, to whom
the bishop can hand over, before they come into print, all
works written by Catholics which deal with religion or morals.
This officer gives his opinion in writing to the bishop, who
thereby issues an _imprimatur_ (permission) or a _nihil
obstat_ (no reason to the contrary). There is, moreover, at
Rome a similar censorship on a somewhat wider scale which is
to-day, as through the past centuries, exercised through the
master of the sacred palace. This official continues to be a
Dominican friar. The greater part of the works submitted to this
censor are of course books printed in the city of Rome or at
least within the territory of the old papal States.
“As far as the repressive action of the Index is concerned, this
is performed by the Congregation itself. I may recall, however,
that at the Council of the Vatican, many bishops from France,
Germany, and Italy asked that the ‘Ten Rules of the Index’ be
revised. They asserted that the changed social and literary
conditions in these countries made it impossible to continue to
enforce these ‘Rules’ with the former strictness. The further
request was made public that books should no longer be censured
(condemned) at Rome until the local episcopal authorities had
been heard in the matter so that the author might have his
errors pointed out, and that, if he were writing in good faith,
he might thus be afforded an opportunity of recalling his
erroneous statements and thus save himself from the disgrace
that from a Catholic point of view would of necessity have come
upon him through the condemnation of his book. The text of
this document may be found in the _Acta Sacrorum Conciliorum
Recentiorum, Collectio Lacensis_, volume viii, 843–844.
On pages 11, 79, and 780 will be found a petition of certain
Catholic laymen for the abrogation of the Index.
“The application of the legislation of the Index is made by
the refusal of the permission to print, or by condemnation
of the printed book and the insertion of its title on the
catalogue of prohibited books. This latter act is accomplished
by means of special decrees in which one or more works may be
specified.... As far as the positive legislation of the Index
goes, it may be said that this is, as a matter of principle,
everywhere obligatory in that it emanates from the supreme
ecclesiastical authority. Nevertheless, it may in certain places
be modified by use or by non-use. Sometimes it is not strictly
applied or insisted upon; still, it does not lose its binding
force although the consciences of Catholics may thereby to some
extent be relieved. In certain countries, and undoubtedly in
English-speaking countries, the Index legislation has not been
strictly observed. I must say, however, that within the last
year (1898) a formal enquiry having been sent to the Roman
authorities as to whether in these English-speaking countries
the legislation of the Index was to be considered as in force,
an affirmative reply was returned to the questioners.
“Publishers and booksellers, if they be Catholics, are in
like manner bound to the observance of this ecclesiastical
legislation. Inasmuch as the legislation is preventive, it
is looked upon by them as a security and moreover in general
it offers a _présomption d’innocuité_ [presumption of
innocuousness] to the book, which is of importance for those
who furnish the capital for its publication. [This remark of
the American Father is, it may be pointed out, in line with
the conclusion submitted sixty years earlier by the Englishman
Mendham to the effect that if a book were not included in an
Index of its period, those interested in its publication had
a right to assume that it contained nothing considered as
objectionable by the authorities of the Church.]
“The repressive action of the Index may of course from time to
time occasion losses to writers, publishers, and to booksellers.
An author whose book has been placed upon the Index is under
obligation to withdraw the book from circulation or to modify
its text. [It is of course the case, although the Father does
not mention it, that any modification of the text of the
original edition calls for the cancellation of the copies of
this edition and involves the outlay of printing further copies
with the revised text]. Publishers and booksellers, if they be
Catholics, are bound, as is the author, by the action of the
Index authorities. If they be not Catholics and do not pay any
attention to ecclesiastical legislation, they may still, in
case the work has been written by a Catholic and is addressed
to a Catholic reading public, expect to see its sale blocked or
diminished through the censorship....
“It may be said in general that the Index legislation, as
formulated by Leo XIII, is no longer as severe as formerly;
it has been modified in the sense of mitigation. For example,
a book written by an American for the purpose of education or
instruction for instance in the Scriptures, is no longer _ipso
facto_ forbidden. As far as the Index is concerned, such
books may be freely read by Catholics who may need them.... The
famous ‘Ten Rules’ of the Index issued under the authority of
Pius IV (1564) are to be interpreted to-day by the Constitution
‘_Apostolicae Sedis_’ issued by Pius IX, a Constitution
which reformed considerably the well-known system of censures,
excommunication, and the like, and which is to-day the juridical
source of general ecclesiastical censures of all kinds. In the
_Compendium Juris Ecclesiastici ad usum cleri_, written by
the Austrian Bishop, Simon Archner, Bishop of Brixen, (the sixth
edition of which was printed in 1887), you will find (on page
521) the following passage:
“‘The ecclesiastical prohibition of books, whether placed
_nominatim_ on the Index or forbidden by its general rules,
whether forbidden by the natural law or by the positive law,
remains still intact. Therefore, such prohibited books cannot
be printed, read, or kept _sine peccato_. But, at the same
time, certain modifications of these prohibitions remain also
in force, modifications which have doubtless been introduced
in various regions through legitimate custom. As to Germany,
authors of authority mentioned by the Council of Vienna have
maintained that profane books written by heretics, on special
subjects, as law, medicine, philosophy, history, etc., although
they may contain one or more heresies scattered throughout the
text, heresies held by the authors _obiter tantum_, do not
fall under the ecclesiastical prohibition. They say the same
of those writings of Catholic authors, otherwise worthy books,
which contain one or more doctrines that are not entirely in
accord with Catholic theology, the sacred canons, and the
constitutions of the popes, and which in certain matters may
exceed the proper limits in comment on subjects that the
writers ought not to touch. This moderation is extended also
to the rules of the Index which are scarcely anywhere received
in their entirety, and which still less can be republished in
this century _ex integro_. Finally, in Germany, even those
writings of non-Catholics may, generally speaking, be safely
read by Catholics which speak of religious matters in a manner
conformable to the doctrine of the Church; and especially is
this the case with the works of writers who may seem to be
nearing conversion to the Catholic religion. On the other hand,
no such license can be given to writings which treat of obscene
matter, superstitions, magic, incantations, and the like; such
works, even though written by Catholics, are forbidden in
Germany, and rightly so. It is further to be noted that even
bishops can issue and are under obligations to issue positive
precepts by which, even under pain of censure, they may forbid
the reading of books if they are satisfied that such reading
would bring danger of perversion. In such case, they will
declare that the reading of the works in question is forbidden
under the law of nature. In regard to this point, Pius IX on the
24th of August, 1868, renewed the injunction of Leo XII, urging
the bishops to proceed in this matter not only by their own
episcopal rights but also as delegates of the Apostolic See.’
“The work of the Congregation of the Index is continued at Rome
practically under the same routine as in former centuries,
modified only by the late legislation of Leo XIII.... The
prohibitions of the Index are, as a rule, made known by being
published in the _Osservatore Romano_. I am not able to say
how the individual author learns of the condemnation of his work
and whether it is customary to write a letter to the bishop of
his diocese or whether the publication in the _Osservatore_
is looked upon as sufficient; nor can I say whether there is
any earlier or more juridical means of promulgation than that
mentioned. As a matter of fact, such condemnations are first
more widely published by means of the Catholic press; but there
is no law or usage compelling further publicity than that
specified. Indeed, I doubt whether the fact of the condemnation
of a book by a decree, or the fact that it has been placed on
the Index, is always known to the Catholic world in general or
even to those Catholics who speak the language in which the book
is printed.... It may be well to remember that, in practice,
the condemnations of the Index probably affect very much less
than is generally imagined the actual sale or distribution
of the books condemned; partly because of ignorance of the
condemnation, which is often very general, partly because of
the accepted and increasing modification of the legislation,
and partly because the persons for whom such books were chiefly
intended are often by privilege or by dispensation provided with
the authority to read the same.”
At the time of the completion of the proof-reading of this division of
my treatise (March 1907), there does not appear to be any prospect of
the production, under the direction of Pius X, of any later issue of
the Index. Books that are brought to the attention of the Secretary
of the Congregation, or of the Master of the Palace, are, however,
condemned from time to time by separate decrees. Among other recent
similar condemnations, may be cited: Schell, Hermann (of Wurzburg),
_Treatise on Catholicism_, (and three other works) 1899. Loisy, the
Abbé, _L’Évangile et l’Église_, 1903. Horitin, the Abbé, _La Question
Biblique chez les Catholiques_, etc., 1903.
The writings of these three authors gave rise to fierce controversies
during the years between 1898 and 1903. Schell and Loisy submitted
themselves. The treatise by Ehrhart, _Catholicism and the Twentieth
Century_, published in 1901, and that by the Protestant, Harnack,
_What is Christianity_, published in 1900, escaped condemnation. In
July, 1906, a condemnation was made of _The Saint_ (_Il Santo_) by
Senator Antonio Fogazzaro. The author, who is reported to be a devout
Catholic, is said to have “submitted himself” in regular course, but
his submission could not prevent the continued sale of the book in the
Italian as well as in the foreign editions.
I am informed by the publishers of the American edition that the
prohibition by the Roman authorities was duly respected by the
publishers of the leading Catholic papers of America, which declined to
accept advertisements of the book.
CHAPTER XII
THE AUTHORITY AND THE RESULTS OF THE CENSORSHIP
OF THE CHURCH--SCHEDULE OF INDEXES, 1526–1900
In the earlier periods of the Index, the Curia had, in form at least,
taken the ground that the prohibitions and condemnations as published
in Rome were, without further action, to be held as binding upon
all the countries in which the Church itself was recognised. This
contention, as has already been noted, failed to secure acceptance
in countries like France, Spain, Germany, and Belgium. In fact even
in certain divisions of Italy, and conspicuously in Venice, the
regulations of the Index were put into force only if, and when, the
local authorities had confirmed the same. During the latter half of the
19th century, however, there came to be a change in the nature of the
consideration given in Catholic countries to the censorship regulations
of Rome. A series of provincial councils and a number of theologians
and divines have taken the ground that the Index decrees were entitled
to general acceptance and should be enforced with uniformity throughout
all Catholic States. The protests and controversial opinions in regard
to the condemnation or supervision of literature which, during the 17th
and 18th centuries, had been so frequent had during these later decades
become more and more exceptional. These earlier protests concerning
certain individual books or individual writers developed, as we have
seen, in quite a number of instances into general controversies,
controversies many of which had an abiding influence on the opinions
of believers and on the final policy of the Church. We may recall in
this connection the results that arose through the action of the Roman
authorities in regard to the works of such writers as the Jesuits Poza
and Daniel, the Dominican Serry, the Jansenists Arnauld and Quesnel,
the liberal Churchman Fénelon, etc.
It appears to-day to be the general practice in Catholic circles to
speak of the purpose and operations of the Index with a fair measure of
respect, and the authors of this later period permit themselves even
to give specific commendation to the work of the Church in supervising
and controlling, for the use of the faithful, the character of literary
productions. Curiously enough, side by side with this increasing
respect for the institution, or at least with the very considerable
lessening of criticisms, protest, and antagonism against the working
of the institution, there is evidence of an increasing ignorance of
the details of the regulations of the later Indexes, those that are
supposed at this time to be in force. The scholarly divines of the
latter years of the last century had in not a few instances given
evidence that they were by no means familiar with the present Index
regulations or with the lists of books placed under condemnation.
As late as 1890, Bishop Rass brought into print in Rome a volume by
Justus Lipsius which had been condemned in two preceding Indexes;
during the same period, Bishop Malou caused a new edition to be
printed of a prohibited work. The vicar-general of Lorenzi printed
in 1883 a treatise by Geiler von Keisersberg, oblivious of the fact
that the name of the author remains in the first class of the Index.
It is probably the case that there is under present conditions no
such constant reference to the Index lists as guides for reading and
for study as could secure for their regulations the authority which
properly belongs to them under the theory of Church control. It is
a question for the casuist to decide how far ignorance of the fact
of condemnation of a book may serve as an extenuation of the sin of
reading a volume, for which sin the penalty has been prescribed in
successive Indexes of excommunication _latae sententiae_.
In 1862, under decision of the Quinquennial faculties, it was ordered
that bishops had authority to extend permission for the reading of
prohibited books only to priests who were actually engaged in the
care of souls. Laymen desiring to secure such permission must make
application direct to the Holy See. This is in line with the order
issued, in 1853, by the Congregation of the Index under which the
Ultramontane bishops had authority to extend to ecclesiastics of
assured scholarship and piety permission to utilise, during their
lifetime, prohibited books having to do with matters of religion and
doctrine; but no such permission could be given for books _contra
bonos mores_. In every permission issued by a bishop it must be
specifically stated that the authority comes from the Holy See.
After the middle of the 19th century, there began to be a change in
the relations of the ecclesiastics of France to the authority of
the Index. In _La Revue Ecclésiastique_, an article printed in 1866
says: “If, twenty years back, the question had been put as to whether
the authority of the Index was recognised in France, the answer
would simply have been a laugh or a word in derision. To-day, such
recognition is assented to without serious question. The formula _Index
non viget in Gallia_, heretofore printed in books the titles of which
had come upon the Roman Index, is now no longer to be seen.” Councils
of the 19th century of the French Church in which the authority of
the Roman Inquisition or of the Congregation of the Index to control
literature in France had been accepted in substance, as cited in this
article, are these: Paris and Rennes, 1849, Lyons and Clairmont, 1850,
Avignon, 1849, Albi, Toulouse, Bordeaux, and Sens, 1850, La Rochelle,
1853, and Rheims, 1857.
Among the councils of this period, outside of France, which placed
themselves on record as specifically accepting the authority of the
Index, are those of Prague, 1860, Colocsa, 1863, Utrecht, 1865. A
council held in Venice, in 1859, orders that the Roman prohibitions are
from year to year to be printed in a diocesan calendar. This is a very
different attitude from that taken by Venice during the 17th and 18th
centuries.
In 1852, Bishop Baillès of Luçon writes in a pastoral instruction:
“The prohibition of a book by the Holy See is binding upon believers
throughout the Church universal. The lists issued by the authorities
of Rome of condemned and prohibited books are securing from year to
year a fuller authority and a wider recognition.... Only heretics,
schismatics, and Gallicans at this time contest the general authority
of the Index.”
In Germany, the world-wide authority of the Index is asserted by such
critics as Heymans and Phillips in their treatise on ecclesiastical law
(issued in 1872) and by the editors of the Münster _Pastoral Blatt_,
writing in 1879. A modified view is expressed by the editor of the
_Katholik_, writing in 1859, who says: “The Index, considered as a
moral law, is to be accepted as authoritative throughout the world.
There may be ground for question, however, as to the general obligation
to accept its penal regulations.” A little later, however, the editor
of the _Katholik_, writing in 1864, says:
“The faithful throughout the world are under obligations
to accept the authority of the censorship tribunals, the
Inquisition and the Congregation of the Index, not only in
regard to the prohibition of the use of prohibited books but
also with reference to the conclusions reached by these censors
concerning the soundness of doctrine or general fitness for
devout reading of the literature contained in such books....
The history of the Church has secured for the wisdom of the
work of the censorship authorities an assured, even a brilliant
confirmation.” “The only utterance,” continues this writer,
“in which the Congregation of the Index can be convicted of a
serious or decisive error of judgment is that of the decree
issued in 1616 against the writings of Copernicus.... While the
history makes clear (what in fact no one has ever denied) that
the Roman Congregations are in their judgments not infallible,
the evidence is overwhelming as to the wisdom and effectiveness
with which the work of these scholarly and devout censors has
been carried on through the centuries; and it would be an act
of very gross presumption for individual believers to undertake
to question the validity and substantial value of their
conclusions.”
In 1865, an article in the official _Civiltà Cattolica_[170] in
regard to a treatise of the Bishop of Treviso, says:
“The infallibility of a prohibition or condemnation of a book
which has been expressed through a papal Bull, a papal brief,
or under a decree of the Congregation which has been issued
under specific instructions from the pope, cannot be questioned.
The ordinary decrees of the Congregation cannot be said to
possess the same full measure of infallibility as these rest
not upon the direct authority of the pope but merely upon
the general authority under which the Congregation has been
constituted. A book that has been condemned by the Congregation
must, however, be considered as having been condemned by the
Church of which the Congregation is for this purpose the
authorised representative.”
As before pointed out, the influence of the Dominicans in the
operations of the Congregation of the Index has been continuous and all
powerful. As a result, the theological writers whose books have been
condemned included a large proportion of Jesuits, and the literature
presenting Jesuit doctrines has from the outset been handled with
special severity. In the cases in which occasion has been found for
reproving the books of Dominican authors, the censorship has been
comparatively mild, and if the books were prohibited, the entry was
usually made with the reservation _d.c._[171] Father Hilgers, of the
Order of the Jesuits in Germany, whose treatise on the Index (issued
in 1905) is referred to elsewhere, is one of the few of the scholarly
Jesuits who have found it practicable to take a favourable view of the
policy of the Index. The Jansenist view of the authority of the Index
has not unnaturally been still less approving than that of the Jesuits.
Arnauld, for instance, writing in 1656, says:
“In France we do not trouble ourselves very much concerning the
censures of the Index.... We know on what grounds certain of
the condemnations have been arrived at. It is assuredly true
that the prohibition of a work constitutes no evidence that it
is really pernicious.... If a pope who has such devout purposes
as characterised Innocent XI, in coming under the evil practice
of Rome, finds it impossible to avoid the condemnation of really
devout and scholarly books, it is easy to understand what the
results of censorship must be when the authority comes into the
hands of popes who are less pious and less fair-minded.... One
may await only bad results from the book censorship of Rome so
long as the practice obtains of listening only to those who
denounce the books and of giving no opportunity to the authors
themselves to make clear the writing or precise character of
their text. In this way it has come about that books of most
importance for scholarship and of religion have been condemned
and cancelled on the ground of two or three sentences which have
failed to be understood by careless or unscholarly examiners.”
Writing again in 1693, under Innocent XII, Arnauld says:
“Our good Pope is labouring in praiseworthy manner for the
abolition of abuses. He has, however, not yet realised that one
of the reforms most called for is to avoid appointing as members
of the Inquisition cardinals who have no more trustworthy
knowledge of the matters there to be considered than a shoemaker
has of astronomy. The ‘qualificators’ (the examining scholars)
have only a vote for counsel. It is with the cardinals that
rest the deciding votes and these unfortunately are not weighed
but simply counted. How many and serious have been the blunders
committed through decisions of the Inquisition (or of the
Congregation) in matters of doctrine of which the majority of
the cardinals are frankly ignorant!”
As an example, on the other hand, of an unquestioning acceptance of
the wisdom and authority of the Church in this matter of censorship,
may be cited St. Francis of Sales, who writes (in 1608):
“We pray our Catholic readers, in order to protect themselves
from the contagion of evil influences, to accept without
question the book prohibitions of the Holy Church. We may say
that we ourselves have always given the strictest obedience to
the Church regulations in regard to the reading of condemned
books. In no other way can we manifest the full honour in which
we hold its authority and our obligations as believers to accept
this authority.”[172]
Macchiavelli (writing about 1500) observes that if the princes of the
Christian States had maintained religion in the form in which it was
delivered by its Founder, these States would be more united and happier
than they are. He adds, _ne se può fare altra maggiore conjettura
della declinatione d’essa, quanto è vedere come quelli popoli che sono
più propinqui alla Chiesa Romana, capo della Religione nostra, hanno
meno Religione. Et chi considerasse i fondamenti suoi, e vedesse l’uso
presente quanto è diverso da quelli, giudicherebbe esser propinquo
senza dubbio, ò la rovina ò il flagello. Habbiamo adunque con la Chiesa
e coi Preti noi Italiani questo primo obligo, d’essere diventati senza
Religione e cattivi_, which Mendham interprets, “the more of Rome,
the less of religion.”[173]
Sir Edwin Sandys, whose _Europae Speculum_, printed at The Hague
in 1629, was translated (from English) into Latin by Francus, gives in
this a summary of the literary policy of the Church of his time. He
writes:
“But the Papacy at this day, taught by woful experience what
damage this license of writing among themselves hath done them
and that their speeches are not only weapons in the hands of
their adversaries, but eyesores and stumbling blocks also to
their remaining friends; under show of purging the world from
the infection of all wicked and corrupt books and passages
which are either against religion or against honesty and good
manners, for which two purposes they have several officers who
indeed do blot out much impiousness and filth, and therein well
deserve both to be commended and imitated (whereto the Venetians
add also a third, to let nothing pass that may be justly
offensive to princes), have in truth withal pared and lopped off
whatsoever in a manner their watchful eyes could observe, either
free in disclosing their drifts and practices, or dishonourable
to the clergy, or undutiful to the Papacy. These editions only
authorised, all other are disallowed, called in, censured;
with threats to whosoever shall presume to keep them; that no
speech, no writing, no evidence of times past, no discourse of
things present, in sum, nothing whatsoever may sound aught but
holiness, honour, purity, integrity to the unspotted spouse of
Christ and to his unerring Vicar; to the Mistress of Churches,
to the Father of Princes ... and they brought forth in fine
those _Indices Expurgatorii_ whereof I suppose they are
now not a little ashamed, they having by misfortune lit into
their adversaries’ hands from whom they desired by all means to
conceal them.”[174]
D’Aguesseau, in a _Mémoire_ written in 1710, says: “It is well
understood that the Index possesses in France no authority. It is sad
to understand that it is still permitted to control literature in
certain countries which have not known, as has France, how to uphold
the freedom of a national Church. The Index has in fact been so misused
as a power that it makes prohibition of not a few books which are by
no means deserving of so much honour.”
In an essay by Villers on the _Spirit and Influence of the
Reformation of Luther_ (which obtained the prize offered in 1802 by
the French Institute for the best treatise on the question) the author
finds ground for no little indignation concerning the restrictions upon
books by a pope who, while issuing fulminations against Luther, gave
full license to Ariosto. The writer goes on to say:
“In Spain, in Italy, and in Austria, the prohibitions and
censures went much further, and in those countries heavy
shackles have been imposed on the liberty of writing and of
thinking.” The writer complains that “in public libraries
in these countries, the works of Rousseau, of Voltaire, of
Helvetius, of Diderot, and of other _esprits forts_, are
kept under lock and key with the order that they shall not be
communicated to any persons excepting to those who shall engage
to refute their doctrines.”
He makes reference to the dismissal from office, in 1780, of a
professor of a Bavarian university who had requested that a copy of
Bayle’s _Critical Dictionary_ should be placed in the common library.
“In those countries is still maintained as far as possible the
policy of the Middle Ages, under which the minds of men are to
be kept on certain subjects in complete stupidity or in a state
of emptiness so that they may later be filled with convenient
doctrine or may be kept free for superstition.[175]
Mendham points out that
“It is not going beyond the truth to say that an almost
perfect library might be formed from the books condemned by the
papal Indexes, perfect indeed for all purposes of absolute and
abundant utility. It would need only to have added to it a few
Benedictine editions of the Fathers, histories and accounts of
modern Roman affairs and the collection of the Bulls, Councils,
etc.... It would also be somewhat lacking in English books,
prolific as this island is in offensive and formidable heresy.
The fact is, that the literary productions of England have
come into contact or collision with the Italian only by means
of translations. It is in this that we find in the Indexes the
works of Swift, Tillotson, Sherlock, Robertson, Gibbon, and
others.... There is a further detail, that these prohibitory
and expurgatory instruments could only be put into execution
among subjects of papal government.... Any attempt to enforce
them in other States would have provoked hostilities with their
heretical community with no prospect of advantage and with much
risk of disadvantage to the Roman power.”[176]
Mendham contends that under the general policy of the Church, as
expressed in its Indexes, the inference is legitimate that what the
Indexes do not condemn they approve and sanction. It therefore follows
that the authority from which those Indexes issue (an authority which
is the highest in the Church) must be understood as approving and even
sanctioning all doctrines or assertions presented by writers of her own
communion which her condemning decrees have failed either to proscribe
or to expurgate. (This contention is, it must be remembered, denied
absolutely by the Jesuit Hilgers, writing in 1905.) In the examination
held in 1825 on the state of Ireland, the Rev. M. O’Sullivan stated
in one of his answers that in the case of an author of authority,
such as Cardinal Bellarmin, the omission of criticism on the part
of the authorities amounted to an approbation. The questioner drew
the immediate inference: “Then you understand by the Index, not only
a negative condemnation of all the books specified, but a positive
affirmation of the doctrines or principles of all the books by Catholic
writers not condemned.” Against this inference the witness was reported
as making no protest. With respect to Bellarmin, it may be noted that
his name was entered in the Index of Sixtus V because he had failed to
affirm the direct power of the pope in matters temporal, an entry which
may be considered as supporting the above inference.
[Sidenote: Ignorance of the Indexes]
That the works appearing under the form of Indexes, catalogues, etc.,
however various, still all belonging to, or coming from, Rome, are
at least uncommon and extensively unknown, requires no proof more
elaborate or unquestionable than the not only ready but forward
declaration of ignorance by the very persons who should be presumed
to be best acquainted with them, by well informed members of the
ecclesiastic community which promulgates and enforces them. Charles
Butler, writing in 1824, says: “Few of the Roman Catholics know of the
existence of the _Index expurgatorius_.”[177] Dr. Murray, the Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, states before a committee of the House
of Commons, in 1825:
“The _Index expurgatorius_ has no authority whatever
in Ireland; it has never been received in these countries
[_sic_] and I doubt very much whether there be ten people
in Ireland who have ever seen it; it is a sort of censorship of
books established in Rome and it is not even received in Spain,
where they have a censorship of their own. In these countries,
it has no force whatever.”[178]
Mendham trusts that “no equivocation lurks under the ambiguity of the
epithet _expurgatorius_.”
Dr. Slevin, prefect of the College of Dunboyne, says (in 1826):
“Our Catholics will respect the prohibitions of the Congregation of the
Index.”
In a work entitled _Church History of the English from the year
1500_, published under the name of Dod, (according to Mendham the
real name of the author was Tootell), mention is made of a Council of
Reformation. In chapter ix, pages 94 and 95, an extract is given from
certain regulations framed by this council during the last decade of
the 16th century. The wording is as follows:
“Publick and private libraries must be searched and examined
for books, as also all bookbinders, stationers and booksellers’
shops; and not only Heretical Books and Pamphlets but also
prophane, vane, lascivious and other such hurtful and dangerous
poysons, are utterly to be removed, burnt and suppressed, and
severe order and punishment appointed for such as shall conceal
these kind [_sic_] of Writing; and like order set down for
printing of good things for the time to come.”
* * * * *
“The earlier editions of the Index expurgatory,” says Mendham,
“were distributed with the utmost caution and were intended only
for the possession and the inspection of those to whom they were
necessary for the execution of the provisions. The reason is
obvious. It certainly was little desirable that the dishonest
dealings with the authors here censured should be known, either
to those who were injured by them and to whom they would offer
the opportunity of justifying themselves; or to the world at
large whose judgment they must know would in many instances be
at variance with their own. And evidently it was not to their
interest to discover and to point out those very passages
and writings, not only of reputed heretics but of reputed
Catholics, which exposed the most vulnerable parts of their own
system.”[179]
“The _Indices Expurgatorii_ are very good commonplace
books and repertories, by help of which we may presently find,
what any author (who has fallen under censure) has against them
[_i.e._ the Catholics]. We are directed through the Index
to the book, chapter, and line, where anything is spoken against
any superstition or error of Rome; so that he who has the
_Indices_ cannot want for testimonies against Rome.”[180]
In an article printed in 1861, in the _Katholik_ of Mayence, the
writer says:
“We are prepared to place upon any inquirer the responsibility
of determining whether the Congregation of the Index in the
whole series of its operations has ever committed an essential
blunder.... The policy and method of ecclesiastical censorship
as carried out through the Index is the most moderate, the
most tolerant, and the wisest that could be conceived....
The Congregation of the Index secures in the shaping of its
judgments the service of the scholarship and of the consciences
and capable labour of wise and devout counsellors; and its
decisions may be accepted as the conclusions of a scientific
Areopagus which is entitled to the fullest respect and the most
implicit obedience; and he who does not render such obedience is
a stranger to, and an opponent of, the spirit of the Church.
... It is through the Index that the Holy See exercises one of
the most important of its functions.”[181]
In 1868, in an article having to do with the Council of the Vatican,
the _Katholik_ says:
“The sting of the Index (to its critics) rests in this, that
it represents a judgment exercised by the highest authority in
matters of faith over individual knowledge. It is the sting of
infallible truth.... The Index has from the beginning been the
most trustworthy teacher of sound theology and defender of true
Faith.”
Bishop Baillès of Luçon, writing in 1864, says:
“The Index contains no single book the condemnation of which
was not arrived at under general rules.... It may be considered
as itself one great book in which are characterised with more
or less precision all the errors, heresies, and schisms of the
ages--a book which for all devout scholars may be accepted as
a trustworthy chart on which have been marked with a skilled
and trusted hand all sunken rocks and other perils of the deep.
The Index is the incomparable master work of the wisdom of
the Church.” Baillès says further: “No bibliographical work
can be considered as complete until it has been collated with
the Index.... The date of the prohibition of a book, taken in
connection with the date of its first publication, indicates the
time during which it has become more pernicious.... The Index is
to be classed as the most essential of critical bibliographies,
one which no library should be without.”
Bishop Plantier of Nismes, in a pastoral letter of 1857, describes the
Congregation of the Index as “the throne of good sense, the magistracy
of truth, and a tribunal each utterance of which constitutes an
indispensable service to true philosophy.”[182]
Minister Jules Ferry, speaking in the French Senate, May 31, 1882, says:
“We will never recognise the decrees of the Congregation of
the Index. We propose to maintain the traditions of the French
State and of the Gallic Church. Where would the State be if the
decisions of the body which has placed its interdict upon the
great spirits of mankind, such as Descartes, Malebranche, Kant,
Renan, and has even condemned the Dictionary of Bouillet, should
be accepted as the law of the land?... The ground that has been
assigned for the condemnation of the Handbook of Compayré was
the statement contained in it ‘that it was more important for
the French child to know the names of the Kings of France than
those of the Kings of Judea.’... The Index-decree went over the
head of the Ambassador in Rome and of the Nuncius in Paris, in
order to start a conflagration in our State.
“In a manual by André Berthet, published in 1882, (which did
_not_ find its way into the Index), stand the following
questions: ‘What is God? I know not. What becomes of us after
death? I know not. Are you not ashamed of your ignorance? One
need not be ashamed not to know what has not yet been known to
any one.’”
[Sidenote: The Church and Science]
Father Searle (writing in 1895) maintains that the Church does
not prohibit Catholics who are competent to undertake scientific
investigation, from so doing. She places absolutely no obstacle in the
way of their penetrating into all the facts of nature as it stands or
of their considering the probable indications as to its past history or
of their weighing actual historical testimony.... The Church forbids,
as against reason, common-sense, and the welfare of man, liberty of
thought on matters, whether in the material or spiritual order, which
have been clearly demonstrated and definitely ascertained; she refuses
to abandon it on those matters which are still open to reasonable
question, as is the case with certain scientific hypotheses not as yet
proven.[183]
Such a statement, if accepted to-day as authoritative, would make
it evident that the policy of the Church in the 20th century has
changed very materially from the policy that was in force, with some
strenuousness, in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Hilgers points out that the Church is naturally much more concerned
with the protection of the morality and of the spiritual nature of the
people than with any formal intellectual development such as is to be
secured from the study of the so-called classics. If a classical work,
for instance, teaches that suicide is praiseworthy or is defensible,
it is the duty of the Church to keep such work out of the hands of the
believers. In like manner, the Church prohibits writings of any kind
which make defence of the propriety of divorce or which make reference
to divorce as if it were a necessary condition of society. The Church
can further give its approval either formally or tacitly to no work
which attacks the inspiration of the Scriptures or the binding force of
scriptural doctrine, and must bring its condemnation upon any writer,
however great he may be, whether Catholic or Protestant, historian
or litterateur, philosopher or theologian, whose utterances tend to
undermine faith in the word of God.[184]
There are, however, not a few expressions of opinion from Catholic
sources which are by no means in accord with the conclusions reached
by Father Hilgers as to the wisdom and beneficence of the literary
policy of the Church of Rome. These critics have pointed out that
the censors, whether in Rome, Madrid, or Paris, had been so seriously
concerned with matters of doctrine, that they had given small measure
of attention to publications of a scandalous character, and the
influence of which was _contra bonos mores_.
[Sidenote: Sleumer on the Index]
A volume published in Osnabrück (Hanover) in August, 1906, may be
cited as an example of cordial support given to the present censorship
policy of the Roman Church by a loyal Catholic of North Germany. The
author is Albert Sleumer, Doctor of Philosophy, and his book, issued
under the title of _Index Romanus_, claims to present a complete
record of all the German publications which have been placed upon the
Roman Index, together with the titles of books other than German which
have been condemned since 1870. Dr. Sleumer’s volume is issued with
the approval of Hubert, Bishop of the historic diocese of Osnabrück.
Sleumer’s volume had been originally issued in 1901 and now appears in
a later revised edition. The contentions submitted by him in regard
to the necessity of the Index, and as to the wisdom with which, from
the beginning, the censorship of the Church has been conducted, are
substantially in line with the position taken by Father Hilgers, whose
larger and more important treatise has already been referred to.
Sleumer is, like Hilgers, interested in citing examples of censorship
by the State which are less consistent in principle and more extreme in
application than similar actions by the authorities of Rome. He quotes,
for instance, Thiers (whom he describes as “a well-known, free-thinking
author of France”) saying, in 1830, that there could be no danger to
the community in giving unrestricted freedom to the press.
“Truth alone,” says Thiers, “can have abiding influence; that
which is false can do no harm and in the end brings its own
refutation and no government can ever be injured by libellous
publications.”
In 1834, Thiers takes a different ground:
“The representatives of the People are having their influence
impaired by the falsifications of the Press.... The wickedness
and lack of responsibility on the part of the Press have brought
grave misfortunes upon the community.... It is essential for the
safety of the State that there should be a close supervision of
the Press.
We may remember that, between 1830 and 1834, the Bourbon government
of Charles X had been overthrown and that Thiers was now a leader of
influence under the administration of Louis Philippe.
Sleumer has himself no doubt that the press has to-day become “the most
important expression of the ‘Evil One.’”[185]
“Who could,” he says, “deny to the State the right to control,
with all the authority that has been confided to it, the
development and the influence of a power that can undermine
the authority alike of the family, of the government, and of
the Church? But if such authority is necessary to maintain the
foundations of the State, who shall deny an equal right and duty
to those who are responsible for maintaining the foundations of
the Church?”[186]
In presenting the lists of the German books condemned, Sleumer points
out that it is of course an impossibility for the Congregation of the
Index to compile with any measure of completeness the titles of all
the books deserving condemnation. He contends however, that the books
selected may be accepted as fairly typical of the classes calling for
condemnation and that the Index schedules can, therefore, be utilised
by the more intelligent of the faithful for their own guidance and by
the confessors who have the responsibility of directing the reading of
their flocks.
[Sidenote: Tyrrell on the Index]
It is interesting to compare with the implicit acceptance given to the
censorship policy of the modern Church by the scholarly Jesuit Father
Hilgers and by the good Dr. Sleumer, the more discriminating and more
critical analysis of this policy by a scholarly Jesuit in England,
Father George Tyrrell, whose monograph entitled _A Much Abused
Letter_, comes into print while this volume is passing through
the press. Father Tyrrell had, it seems, been applied to for counsel
by a devoted friend in the Church (since identified as St. George
Mivart) who, in middle life, in connection with certain scientific
pursuits and investigations, had found himself in perplexity as to the
foundations of his faith. The friend had not been able to bring into
accord the conclusions which he had arrived at through his scientific
investigations with the latest utterances of the Church authorities
having to do with the matters at issue. Seriously troubled at the
thought of being forced out of relations with the Church in whose
communion he had grown up, he had asked Father Tyrrell for advice as
to his present duty. The Father had in his reply (which in compass
and character constitutes an essay on the relations of faith with
intellectual pursuits) taken the ground that there was nothing in
the scientific conclusions that his friend had accepted which made it
necessary for him to abandon the communion of the Church. It was the
Father’s judgment that the spiritual relations of the believer were to
be considered quite apart from his scientific opinions or intellectual
development. The letter, which was intended to be purely personal
and which had for its purpose the saving to the Church of a valued
member, through some inadvertency came into publication, and, as a
result, Father Tyrrell was dismissed from the Order of the Jesuits. The
unauthorised publication of the letter had presented an incorrect, not
to say a garbled, text, and the Father now felt at liberty to print the
corrected text with some commentary on his own relations to the matters
at issue. The document is of decided interest as an expression of the
spiritual and intellectual status of a scholarly Catholic of to-day.
The selection of opinions of Catholics on the present policy of the
Church runs the risk of being unduly extended, but I think it in order
to make one or two citations from the volume of this earnest English
Jesuit.
“The express purpose of the Confidential Letter was to
dissuade my friend from a breach with the Church which would
mean an assertion of individualism and a denial of authority
and corporate life.... My whole line of argument was to
insist that the reasonable and moderate claims of the Church
over the individual were not invalidated by any extravagant
interpretation of those claims.... The heroes of moral romance
sail serenely through life’s darkest storms, cheered by the
certainty of their rectitude and by the hearty applause of a
thoroughly satisfied conscience. But in real life, it seems
to me that such serenity, and the undoubted force and energy
which it secures, are the privilege not so much of the heroic
but of the unreflective.[187]... Only when we take the word
‘faith’ in its ethical and evangelical sense, is it true to
say that loss of faith necessarily implies some moral weakness
or imperfection. But the saying is palpably false when faith
is made to stand for theological orthodoxy, for assent to a
dogmatic system. It is admitted on all hands that such faith
as this may, and often does, go with the most extreme moral
depravity--with sensuality and cruelty, with injustice, with
untruthfulness and hypocrisy, prejudice and superstition.
Temporal and selfish interests of one sort or another, or
more commonly still, an absolute lack of all sympathetic and
intelligent interest in their religion, will keep the great
majority of such men in the paths of orthodoxy as long as
orthodoxy is in public fashion and favour.[188]... For one
reason or another theologians have, for generations, been
letting their accounts get into disorder; they have trusted to
the one general principle of ‘authority’ for the quieting of
all possible doubts and have paid less and less attention to
particulars. They have forgotten that, by a necessary law of the
mind, the claims of authority will _de facto_ inevitably
be called in question as soon as the reasons on which those
claims rest are cancelled or outweighed by those which stand
against the particular teachings of authority; that though a
Catholic as such cannot consistently call this or that Catholic
doctrine in question, he can consistently call his Catholicism
in question.[189] However unwilling a man may be to raise doubts
in his own mind, he cannot live in an age and country like yours
[England] without these being thrust upon his attention. In
Mediaeval Spain, where index and inquisition were practically
workable methods of protection, it was otherwise. There and then
one needed only not to think in order to be at peace; here and
now one needs also not to see or hear or read or converse or
live.
There is now no educational grade so low as to be exempt
entirely from the spirit of criticism, whose influence is of
course still more strongly felt as we ascend to the higher
grades.[190]... Turning to the clergy, we find a great readiness
on the part of individuals to disclaim the honour [of having
authoritative knowledge] and also a curious vagueness as to the
precise depositaries for the final authorities [on intellectual
difficulties]. Taken individually, they frankly say that they
are themselves incompetent to deal with such problems, but
they imply that they have an unbounded confidence in their own
collectivity, or in certain persons (unknown and unknowable)
whose specialty it is to adjust the claims of sacred and secular
knowledge. Thus the responsibility, divided over the whole
multitude of the Church’s children, is shifted from shoulder
to shoulder, and comes to rest nowhere in particular;[191]...
The conservative positions (in the Church) are maintained by
ignorance, systematic or involuntary.... The close historic
study of Christian origin and development must undermine many
of our most fundamental assumptions in regard to dogmas and
institutions.... The sphere of the miraculous is daily limited
by the growing difficulty in verifying such facts, and the
growing facility of reducing either them or the belief in them
to natural and recognised causes.[192]... If the intellectual
defence of Catholicism breaks down (as far as the individual is
concerned) does it straightway follow that he should separate
himself from the communion of the Church? Yes, if theological
‘intellectualism’ be right; if faith mean mental assent to a
system of conceptions of the understanding; if Catholicism
be primarily a theology or at most a system of practical
observances regulated by that theology. No, if Catholicism be
primarily a life, and the Church a spiritual organism in whose
life we participate, and if theology be but an attempt of that
life to formulate and understand itself--an attempt which may
fail wholly or in part without affecting the value and reality
of life itself.[193]... Must we not distinguish between the
collective subconsciousness of the ‘People of God’ and the
consciously formulated mind and will of the governing section of
the Church? May not our faith in the latter be at times weak or
nil, and yet our faith in the former strong and invincible?...
Let us recognise that, in spite of its noisy advertisements,
this self-conscious, self-formulating Catholicism of the
thinking, talking, and governing minority is not the whole
Church, but only an element (however important) in its
constitution.[194]... Faith is the very root and all-permeating
inspiration of life. Not the faith of mere obedience to
authoritative teaching, which is at best a condition of
spiritual education ... not the faith of merely intellectual
assent to the historical and metaphysical assertions of a
theology that claims to be miraculously guaranteed from
errancy. After all, your quarrel is not with the Church, but
with the theologians [we are to bear in mind that Tyrrell is
still addressing his friend whose scholarship has brought him
into doubt]; not with ecclesiastical authority, but with a
certain theory as to the nature and limits and grades of that
authority, and of the value, interpretation, and obligation of
its decisions.[195]... Who formulate these decisions, determine
their value, interpret them to us; who have fabricated the whole
present theology of authority and imposed it upon us, but the
theologians? Who but the theologians themselves have taught
us that the concensus of theologians cannot err? These are,
however, mortal, fallible, ignorant men like ourselves.”[196]
May not Catholicism, like Judaism, have to die in order that it may
live again in a greater and grander form? Has not every organism its
limits of development after which it must decay, and be content to
survive in its progeny? Wine-skins stretch, but only within measure;
for there comes at last a bursting-point when new ones must be provided.
[Sidenote: Briggs on Censorship]
Another volume expressing the views of scholarly Catholic believers
in regard to the present intellectual policy of the Church comes into
print in 1906 while these pages are going through the press. It bears
the title of _The Papal Commission and the Pentateuch_ and is
the work of two authors, the Reverend Charles A. Briggs, Professor of
Theology and Symbolics, of the Union Theological Seminary of New York,
and Baron Friedrich von Hügel, at present of Cambridge, England. The
work and career of Dr. Briggs are, of course, familiar to all who have
knowledge of the issues of later years between the creeds and dogmas
of the Churches and of the difficulties of the great scholars of the
present generation who have been investigating the texts and records
upon which these creeds and dogmas have been based. Of these scholars,
Dr. Briggs is known as one of the most authoritative and conscientious
and also as one possessing the greatest reverence for the purposes and
the spiritual power of revealed religion. Dr. Briggs, now a member of
the Episcopal Church, has from time to time brought into expression
certain ideals in regard to the development of the Church Universal.
If one understands him aright, he looks forward to the reconstruction,
under the new conditions of the twentieth century, of a world’s
Church or Church Universal, which was so nearly realised under the
very different conditions of the fifteenth century. He is, therefore,
sympathetically interested in the policy of the Church of Rome and he
is in close personal relations with not a few of the scholarly leaders
of that Church. He has united with his friend Baron von Hügel in the
production of a monograph made up of two letters, one from himself and
one from Baron von Hügel, which have for their purpose the analysis
and criticism of the conclusions arrived at by the recent Papal
Commission in regard to the origin and the history of the Pentateuch.
The report of the Commission (of the text of which I have no direct
knowledge) appears to have taken strong ground against the results
of the so-called higher scholarship, that is to say, of the latest
investigations concerning the origin and the formation of the writings
going to make up the Pentateuch. Dr. Briggs cites from the record of
the Papal Commission the statement that
“certain faulty readings in the text of the Pentateuch may be
ascribed to the error of an amanuensis concerning which it
is lawful to investigate and judge according to the laws of
criticism.... But in so doing ‘Due regard must be paid to the
judgment of the Church.’ It is admitted [says Briggs], (by
the Papal Commission) that investigation and judgment must be
‘according to the laws of criticism.’ If this is so, then it
necessarily follows that the laws of criticism must determine
the entire investigation, and not merely any definite part of
it.”[197]
[Sidenote: Von Hügel on Censorship]
The Baron’s division of the monograph applies, of course, more directly
to the subject of the present chapter as an expression of the views of
a scholarly Catholic on the present intellectual policy of the Church.
He writes as follows:
‘For you cannot teach whom you do not understand, and
you cannot win the man with whom you cannot share certain
presuppositions.... The cultivated non-Roman Catholic world
is, in part unconsciously, often slowly yet everywhere surely,
getting permeated and won by critical standards and methods.
A system cannot claim to teach all the world and at the same
time erect an impenetrable partition-wall between itself and
the educated portion of that world.[198]... This opinion of
the Biblical Commission is surely but one link in a chain of
official attempts at the suppression of Science and Scholarship,
beginning with Erasmus and culminating with Richard Simon and
Alfred Loisy, but never entirely absent, as witness the lives
of countless workers, well-known to their fellow-workers....
When and where has Rome finally abandoned any position however
informal and late its occupation, and however demonstrated
its untenableness? Where, in particular, is the case of its
permission to hold critical and historical views even distantly
comparable in their deviation from tradition to those here
presented by us? But if no such cases can be found, then,
surely, Rome stands utterly discredited....”[199]
The Baron recalls that, on January 13th, 1897, there appeared,
“approved and confirmed by Pope Leo XIII, a Decree of the Holy
Office, in the highest Roman tribunal next after the Pope
himself, and which, unlike the Biblical Commission, claims
directly doctrinal authority, giving a negative answer to the
question, ‘Whether it is safe to deny, or at least to call in
doubt, the authenticity of the text of St. John, in the First
Epistle, chapter v, verse 7, “For there are three that give
testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,
and these three are one.”’”[200]
The Baron closes his letter (which is addressed to his friend Dr.
Briggs) with the words:
“That we can and ought, both of us, to pray, to will, and to
work that the advisers of the chief Bishop of Christendom,
in the manifold mixed subject-matters which they have to
prepare and to bring before him, may have a vivid realisation
of the difficulty and complexity, the importance and rights
and duties of those other departments of life--Science and
Scholarship--lest these forces, ignored or misunderstood, bring
inevitable obstruction and eclipse to those direct and central
interests and ideals which are the fundamental motives of all
spiritual life, and the true mainspring and impregnable citadel
of the Christian, Catholic, and Roman Church.”[201]
I can but feel that these utterances of sane and reverent Catholic
believers of to-day are expressions of a state of mind with which the
Church of Rome will have to reckon in the near future unless the realm
of its believers is to be restricted to those who are the less sane and
less scholarly and, to those who, to put it frankly, have a smaller
measure of intellectual integrity.
[Sidenote: Conclusions]
It may be concluded that the general regulations of the Index and the
insistence on the part of the Church of the right and the obligation
of supervising the output of the printing-press and of controlling
and directing the reading of the faithful, did exert a restrictive
influence on the production and distribution of literature. This
influence was, however, limited to the territories in which the
machinery of the Inquisition was in active existence. In the regions
north of the Alps and the Pyrenees, the Index regulations brought
about but a spasmodic and inconsiderable interference with the
distribution of the works of Protestant writers. Outside of the lands
of the Inquisition, the Church had no other means of hindering the
reading of heretical books than to declare the same to be deadly sin
and to threaten the delinquents with such penalties as excommunication.
The records of applications for dispensations present, as Reusch points
out,[202] evidence that scholarly Catholics made frequent opportunity
for infringing the censorship prohibitions. It would in fact be
difficult to specify any territory in which the Index regulations
were accepted cheerfully and thoroughly. It is certain that, even
in the most faithful of the Catholic communities, bitter complaints
arose from time to time on the part of the scholars in regard to the
destruction of valuable literature and the resulting interference
with scholarly work. There were also complaints of a different kind.
Those who were interested in preserving the true faith from being
undermined by heretical doctrine, came to the realisation of the fact
that heretical books were, through the operations of the Index, brought
to the attention of many who otherwise would never have known of their
existence.
In 1549, Gabriel Putherbeus, writing to Theotimus, complains that
the books prohibited by the Paris divines were being read by people
to whom they would never have become known excepting through the
censorship lists.[203] Gratianus Verus writes that the Index of Paul
IV had had a most pernicious influence in making known to Catholic
readers a long list of Protestant writings. Protestant scholars
utilised the catalogues in the Index very largely as recommendations
of books that were deserving of consideration. The more thoughtful
Catholics were ready to recognise that, as an offset to the importance
of protecting the faithful from the influence of heretical doctrines,
the publication of the Index-lists brought serious disadvantages. The
reading of the Scriptures was rendered unduly difficult for many to
whom the instruction therein contained should prove of service. The
study of the Bible, of the works of the Fathers of the Church, and of
much of the literature of scholarship, was seriously hampered even
for devout scholars. The pursuit of scientific studies by Catholic
students and instructors was placed under great disadvantages through
the prohibition and cancellation even of such works of reference as
lexicons, when these bore the names of Protestant compilers. The
opportunity of utilising such lexicons when specific permission had
been secured from bishops or from inquisitors could not sufficiently
meet the difficulty. The possibility of securing expurgated editions
of books the original and complete text of which had fallen under
condemnation, proved in practice to be too slight a dependence. The
printer-publishers, who had been subjected to loss, and often to very
serious loss, through the cancellation of the original edition, were
as a rule not encouraged to make the further investment required for
the printing of the “corrected” and expurgated text. It was also the
case that these expurgations were frequently made very heedlessly, and
with a full measure of ignorance of the subject-matter of the book,
and of the precise purport of the original text. As a result, if the
eliminations ordered by the censors were carried out with precision,
the text as it remained presented no adequate sense. On the other
hand, the insertion of any changes whatsoever, or of any new material
in the expurgated text, subjected the reissue to a further censorship
and to the risk of a second cancellation.
In the States in which, as in Spain and Portugal, the entire control of
the censorship was left with the Inquisition, the scholars and students
were practically deprived of the use of foreign literature. Writers
like Pallavicini congratulate themselves that the dread of the Index
(that is to say, of course, of the penalties of the Index regulations)
has had the effect of checking very largely the printing and the
distribution of books, and must, according to his view, have served to
discourage the writing of books. It is evidently his point of view that
the possible advantages from active literary production are more than
offset by the resulting evils.
The difficulties for students and readers were of necessity increased
by the lack of any consistency or uniformity of policy on the part
of the Congregation of the Index, of the Inquisitions (whether in
Rome or in Spain), or of the _Magister Palatii_. In fact, with
the inevitable change in the personnel of these authorities, it is
difficult to see how any absolutely consistent policy could have been
maintained through a term of years. The men representing different
Orders were, as Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, etc., committed to
differences of dogma and of interpretation which seemed to them to be
vital. As the opportunity came into their hands, it was inevitable that
they should do what was in their power to discourage the production and
to lessen the distribution, not only of the works of avowed heretics,
but of the books of writers of different schools of thought and of
faith within the communion of Rome. The contests between the Orders
were carried into the work of censorship and found their expression in
the varying lists of the Indexes of successive decades or of different
centres of Church authority. There may be ground for wonder, not that
the interference with the literature of these Catholic countries
was so considerable, but that the Catholic scholars of the 16th and
the first half of the 17th century were able, under such hampering
restrictions, to leave any literary monuments of continued value. The
results of the censorship system can of course also not be measured by
what may be termed the direct action, the value of the scholarly books
destroyed, the interference with the work of scholarly readers, the
property losses caused to the printer-publishers and the booksellers,
and, through them, to the community. We must bear in mind also the
restrictive influence on literary production and on intellectual
development. Many works that might have stimulated and enlightened the
world were undoubtedly, after some sharp activities of the censors,
destroyed in manuscript rather than, in being brought into print,
to bring risk to their authors of loss of position, of banishment,
or of excommunication. In other cases, writers of individuality and
distinctive force decided to cancel their proposed books in the
initial stage of lecture notes, rather than, in bringing the material
to completion and into print, to risk loss of position, banishment,
or excommunication. In the States that accepted the authority of the
Index, and particularly in the territories in which this authority
was exercised by the Inquisition, the existence of the Index and the
machinery of the censorship acted as a blight on literary production
and distribution and constituted a serious bar to the interests of
higher education and to intellectual development. Such a restriction
on the natural operations of the mind, enforced through a long series
of years, must have had a repressing effect also on character and
individuality, besides tending to the development of deceit and the
impairment of manliness.
[Sidenote: Dejob on the Papacy.]
“In concluding my summary of the influence of the Church
on the literature of Europe, I find myself,” says Dejob,
“considering one hypothesis. What might the result have been
for the Church and for Europe, if the college of Cardinals,
in place of considering the nationality only of candidates
for the tiara, had made its selections purely on the basis of
merit and capacity? What might have happened if, for instance,
the papal throne had been filled by a series of Popes from
France?... Imperial Rome had the wisdom to select its successive
rulers from the diverse provinces that came within its rule,
and in so doing, it unquestionably widened and strengthened
the foundations of the Empire. Christian Rome might assuredly
have secured similar results from a similar world-wide policy.
A Bossuet or a Massillon selected for the pontificate would
certainly have governed the Church with a spirit at once more
serious and more comprehensive, and would have rendered enormous
service to the interests of Catholicism and of Europe. The
spirit of Popes of such calibre would have kept within bounds
the continued disputes on smaller matters of doctrine which
have wasted the force and narrowed the intelligence of so many
excellent Christians. They would not have been able to prevent
the diffusion of philosophical ideas, but I feel confident that
faith, as represented and defended by them, would have been
assailed with less bitterness and with less effectiveness....
The Church, like France itself, should have been able to remain
serious without becoming Puritan; and to develop intellectual
brilliancy without any compromise of the foundations of faith or
of morality.
“I may admit that we have here only an hypothesis but it is fair
to remember, in thinking how the influence of France might have
served the highest ideals of the Church, how large an evidence
during the past two centuries the French spirit has given of
earnestness, of moral discipline, of wholesome force. It has
preserved with a hatred of hypocrisy, an aversion for servility,
a large liberality of thought, and it is such a combination of
qualities that should have been made of the largest service to
the Church and to the world.”[204]
As has been indicated in the preceding narrative, there has been
through the centuries not a little varying in the policy of Roman
censorship and in the enforcement of its regulations according as
one or another Order or school of thought secured the control of the
Papacy, or of the machinery of the Inquisition and of the Congregation
of the Index. This control, however, has remained, not only for the
Papacy, but also in great measure for the Roman Inquisition and for
the Congregation of the Index, in the hands of Italians. The result
has been, of necessity, from generation to generation, to force into a
conformity with local Italian standards the literary activities, and
the intellectual development, of the faithful throughout the world.
There is certainly ground for the conclusion that under this policy,
the Index (including under this term the whole system of censorship)
came to constitute one of the more important of the influences which
have worked through the centuries towards the narrowing of the
Church Universal (the magnificent ideal of the Middle Ages) into the
organisation known in our twentieth century as the Church of Rome.
SCHEDULE OF INDEXES
SCHEDULE OF INDEXES WHICH WERE ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE
CHURCH, OR WHICH, HAVING BEEN COMPILED BY ECCLESIASTICS, WERE
PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE.
1526, London, Henry VIII, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
1543, Paris, the Sorbonne.
1544, Paris, the Sorbonne.
1545, Lucca, the Inquisition.
1546, Louvain, Theol. Faculty, Emperor Charles V.
1549, Cologne, Synod.
1549, Venice, Casa.
1550, Louvain, Theol. Faculty, Emperor Charles V.
1551, Valentia, Inquisition.
1552, Florence, Inquisition.
1554, Milan, Arcimboldi.
1554, Valladolid, Inquisition.
1554, Venice, Inquisition.
1558, Louvain, Theological Faculty.
1559, Valladolid, Valdés.
1559, Rome, Paul IV.
1564, Trent, Pius IV.
1569, Antwerp, Theological Faculty of Louvain.
1570, Antwerp, Theological Faculty of Louvain.
1571, Antwerp, Theological Faculty of Louvain.
1580, Parma, Inquisition.
1583, Madrid, Quiroga.
1584, Toledo, Inquisition.
1588, Naples, Gregorius.
1590, Rome, Sixtus V.
1596, Rome, Clement VIII.
1607, Rome, Brasichelli.
1612, Madrid, Sandoval.
1617, Cracow, Szyskowski.
1624, Lisbon, Mascarenhas.
1632, Rome, Capsiferro.
1632, Seville, Zapata.
1640, Madrid, Sotomayor.
1664, Rome, Alexander VII.
1670, Clement X.
1682, Innocent XI.
1704, Rome, Innocent XII.
1707, Madrid, Volladores.
1714, Namur and Liège, Hannot.
1729, Königgrätz, Bishop.
1747, Madrid, Prado.
1754, Vienna, Archbishop and Emperor.
1758, Rome, Benedict XIV.
1767, Prague, Archbishop.
1790, Madrid, Cevallos.
1815, Madrid, Inquisitor-General.
1835, Rome, Gregory XVI.
1841, Rome, Gregory XVI.
1865, Rome, Pius IX.
1877, Rome, Pius IX.
1881, Rome, Leo XIII.
1895, Rome, Leo XIII.
1900, Rome, Leo XIII.
No two schedules of Church Indexes or even of papal Indexes could be
prepared that would be in precise accord with each other. An Index
of one date would be reissued some years later with a later date, but
sometimes without change of text; in the majority of instances, these
later issues carried with them supplements in which were summarised
the prohibitions of the years succeeding the original issue. The above
schedule, which may be taken as approximately complete, is intended
to cover only those Indexes which were issued under the authority of
the Church or under the joint authority of the Church and the State,
and which, having included, in addition to the classified lists of
books condemned, separate “constitutions,” decrees, or briefs, may be
accepted, at least for purposes of reference, as constituting each a
separate Index publication.
* * * * *
The form at present in use for the application, to be addressed to the
Pope himself, for a permission, to remain in force during the lifetime
of the applicant, for the reading of prohibited books is as follows:
Beatissime Pater,
N.N., magister [praeceptor, professor ...] diocesis N. ad pedes
Sanctitatis Vestrae provolutus devotissime petit, ut sibi ad
conscientiae suae tranquillitatem in studiis et pro munere suo
implendo (vel in honestorum studiorum subsidium) concedatur
facultas legendi omnes libros a S. Sede prohibitos, etiam ex
professo contra religionem tractantes.
Et Deus. x x x
Ad Sacram Congregationem Indicis,
Romae
Concillaria Apostolica
INDEX
A
Abbadi, Jacques, ii, 2
Abélard, i, 65
About, Edmond, and the Roman Question, ii, 201
“Acceptants,” the, and the Bull _Unigenitus_, i, 363 _ff._
_Acta Pauli_, i, 1
_Acta Sanctorum_ of the Bollandists, ii, 36, 343
Acton, Lord, writings of, ii, 202, 405, 437
Adames and the censorship of periodicals, ii, 199
Adams, _Vitae Germanorum_, i, 296
Addison, writings of, ii, 405
Adfield, execution of, ii, 259
Adolph, Archbishop of Nassau, ii, 275
Adrian VI, and van der Hulst, i, 94;
and censorship, i, 104;
adds to Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 113;
and Erasmus, i, 331; ii, 306
Aenaeus Sylvius on the Index, i, 336
d’Aguesseau, and the authority of the pope, ii, 83;
on censorship, ii, 454
Ahrens, writings of, ii, 159
Aikenhead, execution of, ii, 264
Albert, Archbishop of Mayence, and censorship, i, 82;
and von Hütten, i, 110
Albert of Saxony and Leo X, i, 83
Albert, Elector of Brandeburg, ii, 352
Albert V, Duke of Bavaria, and censorship, i, 216 _ff._
Aldine Press, the, in Rome, ii, 306
Aldus, Manutius, work of, ii, 290
Aleander and Erasmus, i, 331 _ff._
d’Alembert, Cyclopædia of, ii, 156
Alexander IV, Bull of, i, 24;
and the Inquisition, i, 121
Alexander VI, and Pico della Mirandola, i, 80;
Bull of, _Inter Multiplices_, i, 80;
and censorship, ii, 281;
Bull of, on printing (1501), ii, 350
Alexander VII, Index of, 1664, i, 307 _ff._;
and the five propositions, i, 348 _ff._;
and Oriental literature, ii, 79;
and the Gallican Church, ii, 104;
and mariology, ii, 141;
and the Immaculate Conception, ii, 142;
and Attritio, ii, 187
Alexander VIII and the Doctrine of Grace, ii, 4
Alexandria, Council of, i, 60
Alexius, Bishop of Malfi, and Leo X, i, 83
Allen, Cardinal, on Queen Elizabeth, ii, 115
Alletz, the writings of, ii, 190
Alva, Duke of, and censorship, i, 203, 229; ii, 359, 360
Amatus, Cajetanus, ii, 380
Amaury (Amalric), of Chartres, i, 65
America, Spanish censorship in, i, 105
American writings, prohibition of, ii, 67
Anabaptists, the, and censorship, ii, 244, 245, 258;
and Münster, ii, 352
André, Ives, on the 101 propositions, i, 370
Anfossi and Settele, i, 314
Antoine, Etienne, Bishop, ii, 175
Antonelli, Cardinal, and the Roman Question, ii, 201
Antonio, St., of Padua, ii, 36
Antwerp, privileges secured by, i, 96;
Indexes of, 1569, 1570, 1571, i, 226 _ff._;
the book-trade of, ii, 359;
siege of, ii, 359, 363
Apostolic Brothers, the, i, 67
“Appellants,” the, and the Bull _Unigenitus_, i, 363 _ff._
Aquinas, Thomas, in Paris, i, 67;
writings of, ii, 39, 428
Arabic literature, ii, 291
Aragon, earliest censorship in, ii, 22
d’Aranjo, Bishop, writings of, ii, 198
Arcadius, the emperor, edicts of, i, 59
Archer, John, condemnation of, ii, 263
Archirota and Sirleto, i, 212
Archner, Simon, ii, 442
Arcimboldi, Index of, i, 152
_Areopagitica_, the, of Milton, i, 54
Aretino in the Index, i, 202
d’Argentré, Duplessis, the _Collectio Judiciorum_ of, ii, 221
Ariosto, writings of, ii, 281, 308
Aristotle, and Gregory IX, i, 66;
and Descartes, ii, 127;
and the Humanists, ii, 284;
editions of, ii, 290
Arius, the _Thalia_ of, i, 59
Arnauld, and Jansen, i, 346;
writings of, i, 358 _ff._, ii, 405;
and the decree of Alexander VIII, ii, 5;
on censorship, ii, 451 _ff._
Arnold of Brescia, i, 65
Arnold of Villanova, i, 68
Arundel, Archbishop, i, 70
Asgill, John, writings of, ii, 265
Askew, Anne, and the Sistine Index, i, 250
Astrologists, writings of, in the Index, ii, 129 _ff._
Astrology and magic, works of, in the Index, i, 202 _ff._
Athanasius and the Index, i, 287
Attritio, ii, 186
Aube, writings of, ii, 191
d’Aubigné, Merle, writings of, ii, 172
d’Aubigné, Sieur, History of, ii, 230
_Augenspiegel_, the, condemned by the universities, i, 83 _ff._
Augsburg, Diet of, i, 106;
the book-trade of, ii, 354
Augsburger Pact, the, i, 107
Augustine and the Index, i, 287
Augustinus, Thomas de, _Elenchus_ of, 1655, 1658, i, 268
Aulic Indexes, the, ii, 219 _ff._
Austrian Index, the first, ii, 219
Austrian Netherlands, the Indexes of, ii, 220
Authors, form of “submission” of, to censorship, ii, 64 _ff._
Autpert and Stephen III, i, 63
_l’Avenir_, ii, 182
B
Bacon, writings of, ii, 128 _ff._
Badius, publisher, ii, 330
Baillès, Bishop, on censorship, ii, 449, 460
Bailleul on censorship, ii, 223
Baillie, Robert, on the Index, ii, 7
Bailliet, the biographies of the saints, i, 352
Bailly, Louis, writings of, ii, 119
Ballerini, writings of, ii, 151
Balzac, writings of, ii, 85, 164, 405, 435
Bañez, writings of, ii, 39
Barambio and the Regalists, ii, 100
Barclay, John, writings of, ii, 116
Barclay, William, writings of, ii, 116
Bardain, A. A., ii, 61
Barker, Richard, the Bible of, ii, 31
Barlow, Bishop, in the Roman Index, i, 13
Barnes, John, i, 130
Baronius, the _Annales Ecclesiastici_ of, ii, 311;
and the Catholic Reformation, i, 208;
and censorship in Spain, ii, 98;
on indulgences, ii, 137;
writings of, ii, 405
Barrow, J., execution of, ii, 259
Basel, the book-trade of, ii, 352;
censorship in, ii, 239;
Council of, and the Immaculate Conception, ii, 142
Bastwick, J., condemnation of, ii, 262
Bauer, Bruno, writings of, ii, 171, 430
Baur, F. C., writings of, ii, 430
Bavaria, censorship in, ii, 215;
College of, censorship of, ii, 220
Bayle, writings of, ii, 405
Beaumarchais, de, P. A. C., writings of, ii, 230
Becanis, Vidal de, Inquisitor, i, 99
Becanus, writings of, ii, 41
Beccatelli and the Index of Trent, i, 181
Béda, Noël, _Confessio Fidei_ of, i, 101;
and the Scriptures, ii, 21;
and Erasmus, ii, 338
Belgian Indexes, 1695–1734, i, 319 _ff._
Bellarmin, Cardinal, and Galileo, i, 310;
on state censorship, ii, 108;
on the temporal power, ii, 117;
on monarchy, ii, 120;
and the Index, ii, 457
Benedict, St., the Rule of, ii, 330
Benedict XIII, and Hebrew writings, i, 73;
and the Bull _Unigenitus_, i, 364, 372; ii, 231;
and Gregory VII, ii, 109
Benedict XIV, the Index of, i, 14; ii, 49 _ff._;
and the _Augenspiegel_, i, 84;
and the Copernican theories, i, 129, 313;
and the Congregation of the Index, i, 131;
and the writings of Quesnel, i, 366;
and the Jesuits, ii, 40, 47;
issues Bull _Sollicita ac Provida_, ii, 70;
and the Scriptures, ii, 32;
regulations of, ii, 74;
and Alexander, ii, 108;
and Ottieri, ii, 111;
and Garrido, ii, 112;
and the Freemasons, ii, 131;
and the writings of the clergy, ii, 109;
and the marriage of converts, ii, 110;
and the Roman ritual, ii, 136;
and indulgences, ii, 137;
and the assumption of the Virgin, ii, 143 _ff._;
and the doctrine of probability, ii, 151;
and usury, ii, 152
Benedictines, the, and literature, ii, 428
Bentham, Jeremy, writings of, ii, 158, 405
Benzi, writings of, ii, 151
Béranger, writings of, ii, 164, 405
Berengar of Tours, i, 65
Berg, Adam, publishes Bavarian edition of Tridentine Index, i, 217
Berington, Joseph, on church and state, ii, 113
Berkeley, writings of, ii, 405
Berlin, Index printed in, 1882, ii, 250 _ff._
Berruyer, writings of, ii, 42 _ff._
Bert, Paul, writings of, ii, 192, 405
Berthet, André, writings of, ii, 461
Berthold, Archbishop of Mayence, and censorship, i, 78; ii, 348
_ff._;
edict of, ii, 288
Bertram, Inquisitor-General, ii, 236
Beugnot, writings of, ii, 162
Beza and censorship, ii, 239
Bianchi, A., writings of, ii, 172
Bible, the first, printed in England, ii, 31
Bibles, in Germany, ii, 12 _ff._;
Hebrew, ii, 12;
in the Index, i, 154–156;
Lutheran, censorship of, ii, 237
Bible-Society, the, of Great Britain, and the Scriptures in Spain,
ii, 27
Biddle, John, writings of, ii, 262
Bishops, book prohibitions by, ii, 79 _ff._
Bismarck and the _Kulturkampf_, ii, 251
Blunt, James, writings of, ii, 171
Boccaccio, _Decameron_ in Index, i, 168, 200; ii, 309
Bodleian Library, ii, 369 _ff._
Bodley, Thomas, and the Index of Quiroga, i, 239
Boehme, Jacob, writings of, ii, 129
Boethius, the _de Trinitate_ of, i, 65
Bohemian Indexes, 1726–1767, i, 322 _ff._
Boileau, writings of, ii, 345
Bollandists, the _Acta Sanctorum_ of, ii, 36
Bologna, Index of, 1618, i, 267;
University of, and Honorius, i, 120
Bolzano, B., writings of, ii, 178
Bonagratia of Bergamo, i, 68
Boniface VIII, Bull of, 1300, ii, 230
Book-Fair of Frankfort and the Index, i, 228 _ff._; ii, 58
Book-prohibitions, publication of the, ii, 81 _ff._
Booksellers and the Index of 1546, i, 143 _ff._
Book-trade, the, of Europe, and the cathedrals, ii, 283;
and the Inquisition, i, 123; ii, 323 _ff._;
of France, ii, 328 _ff._
Books, approved, catalogues of, ii, 86 _ff._;
the burning of, i, 13; ii, 314 _ff._;
the production of, and censorship, ii, 270 _ff._;
recommended for the faithful, ii, 216
Borromeo, St. Charles, and the censorship of the stage, ii, 376
Borrow, George, and the Scriptures in Spain, ii, 27
Bossuet, and the authority of the pope, i, 299; ii, 83;
on the Belgian Index, i, 321 _ff._;
and censorship, ii, 340 _ff._;
and Fénelon, ii, 149;
and the Gallican controversy, ii, 104;
writings of, ii, 405;
Life of, by Bauset, ii, 18
Botta, C., writings of, ii, 166
Bourges, Council of, i, 97
Bourget, Bishop, and the Montreal Association, ii, 195 _ff._
Bower, Archibald, on the papacy, ii, 122
Boyle, Robert, on the Index, ii, 7
Brandenburg, censorship in, ii, 241;
the elector of, and censorship, ii, 248
Brasichelli, Index of, 1607, i, 270 _ff._; ii, 321
Brendel, S., writings of, ii, 179
Breslau, book-trade of, ii, 356
Briggs, Charles A., on the Papal Commission, ii, 470 _ff._
Brios, writings of, ii, 239
Broedersen on usury, ii, 152
Brothers of Common Life, the, and education, ii, 278;
and publishing, ii, 272
Broughton, Hugo, writings of, ii, 84
Browne, Sir Thomas, writings of, ii, 405
Brownists, the, ii, 258
Bruges, first printing in, ii, 358
Bruno, Giordani, i, 266;
writings of, ii, 405
Brussels, Privy-Council of, on the difficulties of censorship,
i, 298
_Bücher-Regal, das_, ii, 214
Büchner, writings of, ii, 430
Budaeus, and Erasmus, i, 339;
and the Royal College, ii, 335
Bull _Auctorem Fidei_, 1794, ii, 232;
_Ad Extirpanda_ of Innocent IV, 1252, i, 121;
_Contra Impressores_, 1487, i, 108;
_Decet Romanum_, 1521, i, 110;
the Golden, ii, 214;
of Gregory XIII, 1572, i, 221;
_Immensa_, 1587, i, 133;
_Inter Solicitudines_, i, 82;
of Julius III, 1550, i, 215;
of Julius III, 1550, for control of book-trade, i, 124;
of Leo X, 1518, i, 109;
of Leo X, 1520, i, 120;
of Paul III, 1542, re-organises Roman Inquisition, i, 122;
of Paul IV, 1558, of Pius IV, 1564, of Paul V, 1612, of Gregory
XVI, 1623, of Urban VIII, 1627, i, 215;
_Reversurus_ of 1867, ii, 173;
of Sixtus V, 1587, for the regulation of libraries, i, 216
Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 111 _ff._, 214 _ff._;
analysed by Ferraris, i, 112;
modified by Pius IX, i, 112;
publication of, prohibited by various rulers, i, 113;
later comments on the, i, 115
Bullinger and the Index of Paul IV, i, 177
Bunsen, writings of, ii, 171
Burgundy, the dukes of, and the early printers, ii, 358 _ff._
Burke, works of, in the Spanish Index, i, 303
Burnet, Bishop, on the Index, ii, 7;
writings of, ii, 405
Burnett, Thomas, _The Sacred Theory of the Earth_, i, 315
Burton, H., condemnation of, ii, 262
Bury, Arthur, condemnation of, ii, 264
Butler, Charles, on the Index, ii, 457
Butler, J., on the Church and the Scriptures, ii, 18
C
Cabbala, the and the Inquisition of Rome, i, 75
Cabet, Etienne, writings of, ii, 188
Cagliostro and the Inquisition, ii, 133
Cahagnet, L. A., writings of, ii, 189
Cala, Johannes, ii, 148
Calvin, John, and censorship, ii, 237;
on the Diet of Ratisbon, i, 155;
the _Institutes_ of, a Spanish version of, ii, 316;
and Servetus, ii, 332
Calvinistic Church, the, of Holland, and the Copernican System,
i, 315
Camden, William, and persecutions under Elizabeth, i, 251
Canada, writings of, in the Index, ii, 194 _ff._
Canello and the Catholic Reformation, i, 207
Canisius, and censorship in Bavaria, i, 220; ii, 216
Canterbury, Convocation of, and the Scriptures, i, 68, 70
Cantu on Copernicus and the Index, i, 314
Capellis on exorcising, ii, 135
Caporali, writings of, ii, 305
Capucinus, Index of, 1588, i, 241
Caraffa, and the Index of Paul IV, i, 171;
and the Inquisition, i, 123;
writings of, ii, 144
_Carbonari_, the, and the Index, ii, 132;
writings of the, ii, 64
Carlos III. (of Spain), and the Inquisition, ii, 101;
on papal authority, ii, 100
Caron, Abbé, the writings of, ii, 190
Carranza, and Paul III., i, 214;
trial of, i, 221 _ff._;
and Valdes, i, 163
Carter, execution of, ii, 259
Casa, Index of, 1549, i, 148
Casaubon and Baronius, ii, 311 _ff._;
and Geneva, ii, 334;
in Paris, ii, 334;
and the Index, i, 286;
on the Index, ii, 7;
and State censorship, ii, 108;
writings of, ii, 275
Castiglioni, Bernardo, and the Index of Trent, i, 196
Castro, Alphonso de, on the Index, i, 20
Castro, L. de, and the Scriptures, ii, 21
Casuists, the, and the Index, ii, 45 _ff._;
the propositions of, and the Index, i, 374 _ff._
Catalani, on the oath of allegiance, ii, 113
Catalans, the, and censorship, ii, 323
_Catalogus Haereticorum_, i, 23
Cathari and the Scriptures, ii, 22
Caxton, William, ii, 358 _ff._, 366 _ff._
Caylus, Bishop, writings of, i, 366
Cazalla, Maria, and the reading of the Scriptures, ii, 24
Cecco d’Ascoli, i, 68
Celso, Hugo de, and censorship in Spain, ii, 318
Censorship, to what authorities committed, i, 137 _ff._;
of the Church, the beginnings of, i, 1 _ff._;
damages incurred under, i, 138, 139;
and the distribution of literature, i, 32 _ff._;
in the early Church, i, 58;
in England, ii, 367 _ff._;
regulations in Bavaria, 1561–1582, i, 216 _ff._;
decrees, 1624–1661, i, 279 _ff._
Cervantes, writings of, ii, 131
Cevallos, and the authority of the pope, ii, 99;
Index of, 1790, i, 299
“Chaldean” literature, ii, 290 _ff._
Chancellery, the, of Rome, ii, 426
Charles III (of Spain) and censorship, ii, 327 _ff._
Charles IV (of Spain) and censorship, ii, 328
Charles V, Emperor, ii, 212;
and Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 113;
censorship edicts of, i, 95 _ff._, 116;
and censorship in Spain, ii, 319;
and the censorship of the stage, ii, 378;
censorship under, i, 93 _ff._;
and Erasmus, i, 332 _ff._;
and the Index of 1551, i, 153;
and Leo X., contract between, i, 85
Charles X (of France), Index of, ii, 229
Charron, writings of, ii, 109, 406
Chateaubriand, edict of, i, 100–103;
writings of, ii, 212, 225
Checcazzi, G., trial of, ii, 296
Chénier, André, and censorship, ii, 225
Chevé, C. F., writings of, ii, 188
Chinese usages, the, in the Index, ii, 146
Christopher of Padua and the Index of Paul IV, i, 174
Chrysostom, St., and the Index, i, 288
Church and State, issues between, ii, 90 _ff._
Churches of the East, writings concerning the, ii, 122 _ff._
Ciampini, Cardinal, ii, 76
Ciocci, writings of, ii, 163
Cistercians, the, and literature, ii, 428
Civil power, the, and censorship, ii, 206 _ff._
_Civiltà Cattolica_, the, on censorship, ii, 450 _ff._
Clarke, Samuel, writings of, ii, 265
Clarkson, Lawrence, condemnation of, ii, 263
Claudius, i, 64
Clement IV and Hebrew writings, i, 73
Clement VI and d’Autrecourt, i, 69
Clement VIII, and Bellarmin, ii, 42;
cancels Sistine Index, i, 253 _ff._;
Index of, i, 253 _ff._;
and the Congregation of the Index, i, 133, 253;
and the Casuists, ii, 45;
and censorship in Spain, i, 97; ii, 322 _ff._;
grants dispensation to scholars, 1591, i, 216;
and Hebrew writings, i, 25, 75;
the Index of, in Venice, ii, 296;
and Molina, ii, 69;
and the printing of Bibles, i, 190; ii, 299;
and Suarez, ii, 46
Clement IX, and the five propositions, i, 349 _ff._;
the “Peace” of, i, 357 _ff._
Clement X, and the Congregation of the Index, ii, 77;
and the Immaculate Conception, ii, 142;
Index of, 1670, i, 324;
and the Jesuits, ii, 40
Clement XI, Index of, 1681, i, 324;
and issues with the State, ii, 110;
and the 101 propositions, i, 361 _ff._;
and Quesnel, i, 360 _ff._
Clement XII, and the Freemasons, ii, 131 _ff._
Clement XIII, and the Duke of Parma, ii, 114;
and Helvetius, ii, 80;
and the Jesuits, ii, 40, 43
Clement XIV, and the bishops, ii, 81;
and the Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 114;
and Hebrew writings, i, 76;
and the Jesuits, ii, 43
Cloquet, Abbé, writings of, ii, 190
Cock, Theodor, and the church of Utrecht, i, 359 _ff._
Codde, Peter, and the church of Utrecht, i, 359 _ff._
Coerbach, A., and censorship, ii, 254
Colbert, Bishop, writings of, i, 366
Collins, A., writings of, ii, 406
Cologne, censorship in, ii, 248;
an early _imprimatur_ in, ii, 348;
Index of, 1629, i, 269;
the printers of, i, 77;
Synod of, i, 106;
University of, and censorship, i, 77, 109;
and Luther, i, 342;
and the Scriptures, ii, 11;
and the beginning of printing, ii, 11;
and Sixtus V, i, 77
Colonto, Abraham, printer of Bibles, ii, 12
Columbus, Christopher, as a bookseller’s apprentice, ii, 313 _ff._
Combe, George, writings of, ii, 406
Comes, Natalis, and the Index of Paul IV., i, 177
Comendon, Cardinal, sent as Catholic missionary to Germany, i, 216
Communism, ii, 188 _ff._
Como, book-trade of, i, 126
Comte, A., writings of, ii, 160, 406
Concina, writings of, ii, 151
Concordat, the French, of 1801, of 1817, ii, 170;
the, of Napoleon, ii, 233;
the, of Venice and the pope, ii, 296 _ff._
Condillac, writings of, ii, 159
Condorcet, writings of, ii, 159, 400, 406
_Congregatio de Propaganda Fide_, the, ii, 77
Congregation of the Index, i, 5, 116 _ff._, 131; ii, 134, 169;
and Benedict XIV, ii, 70 _ff._;
and Pius V, ii, 96;
and Gregory XIII, ii, 96;
organisation of the, ii, 427
Congregation, the, on usury, ii, 153 _ff._
Conrad of Lichtenau, writings of, ii, 435
Constant, Benjamin, writings of, ii, 177
Constant, L. A., writings of, ii, 188
Constantine, the Emperor, ii, 426
Constantinople, the sack of, ii, 292
_Contemporary Review_, the, and censorship, ii, 417 _ff._
Convention, the, of 1793, and censorship, ii, 222 _ff._
Conwell, Bishop H., and the Index, ii, 194
Copernican theory, condemnation of the, i, 309 _ff._
Copernicus, and censorship in Spain, ii, 326;
and the Inquisition, i, 128 _ff._;
writings of, ii, 74
Copping, execution of, ii, 258
Coquerel, A., writings of, ii, 172
Cordier, M., in the Index, i, 160
Cornaldi on Rosmini, ii, 185
Corneille, writings of, ii, 345
_Corpus Juris Canonici_, i, 225
Cortes, the, and the liberty of the press, ii, 27
Cosmo, Duke of Tuscany, and the Index of Paul IV, i, 178
Coton, writings of, ii, 42
Council of Alexandria, i, 60;
of Basel, i, 70;
of Constantinople, i, 62;
of Ephesus, i, 60;
of Trulla, i, 62;
of Rome, i, 62;
of the Lateran, i, 66, 108;
of Narbonne, 1227, i, 118;
of Nicaea, i, 59;
of Ten and censorship, ii, 293;
of Toulouse, 1229, i, 119;
of Trent, the, and _attritio_, ii, 187;
of the Vatican, 1867, ii, 201;
of Vienna and Segarelli, i, 67
Councils of the French Church in the 19th century, ii, 449
Cousin, writings of, ii, 159
Coward, Wm., writings of, ii, 264
Cracow, Index of, 1617, i, 289 _ff._
Cranmer, Thomas, the Bible of, ii, 31
Creighton, Robert, on the Greek and Latin churches, ii, 122
Cremonini, Cesari, i, 130
Creutzer, condemnation of, ii, 357
Cromwell, Oliver, and censorship, ii, 262 _ff._
Cromwell, Thomas, and the Scriptures, i, 88
Curia, the, ii, 426
Cyclopaedists, writings of the, ii, 81
D
Dalmeida, Index of, 1581, i, 235 _ff._
Dal _Pozzo_ on Catholicism in Austria, ii, 113
Dannemayer, writings of, ii, 178
Dante, in the Index, i, 200;
writings of, ii, 281, 308;
and John XXII, ii, 200
Darwin, Erasmus, writings of, ii, 159, 406
Daubenton, and Fénelon, ii, 75;
on the writings of Quesnel, i, 368 _ff._
David of Dinant, i, 66
Davy, Jacques, ii, 374
_Decreta Generalia_ of Benedict XIV, ii, 50 _ff._
Defoe, condemnation of, ii, 265;
writings of, ii, 131, 408
Degola, T. A., ii, 61
Dejob, and the Council of Trent, i, 204 _ff._, ii, 106;
on the editions of the Fathers, ii, 342 _ff._;
on Italian literature, ii, 312 _ff._;
on the literature of France, ii, 344 _ff._;
on the Papacy, ii, 478 _ff._
De Marca, ii, 102
Denmark, censorship in, ii, 255
Denunciation of books, the, i, 137
De Placette on the doctrines of Jansen, i, 348
Descartes, on the Belgian Index, i, 319;
writings of, ii, 127, 406
Deventer, printing in, ii, 272
De Vic, ii, 334
Diderot, the Cyclopaedia of, ii, 156;
writings of, ii, 170, 406
Didier, writings of, ii, 163
Diet, of Nuremberg, i, 106;
of Augsburg, i, 106;
of Speyer, the, i, 107
_Directorium Inquisitorium_, i, 23, 85
Dispensations, Congregation of, ii, 434
_Divine Comedy_, the, expurgation of, ii, 322
Dod, the _Church History_ of, ii, 458
Dolet, Estienne, condemnation of, ii, 338
Döllinger, doctrines of, ii, 437;
writings of, ii, 202
Dominic, St., first _Magister Palatii_, i, 134
Dominicans, the, and censorship, i, 137; ii, 44 _ff._, 217,
427 _ff._;
and the Jews, ii, 44;
and the doctrine of probability, ii, 151;
and Gregory IX, i, 120;
and the Immaculate Conception, ii, 141 _ff._;
and the Inquisition i, 119, 127
Dominis, M. A. de, i, 130
_Don Quixote_, the expurgation of, ii, 322
Dort, Synod of (1618), ii, 364
Drama, the, of Spain, and censorship, ii, 325 _ff._
Draper, J. W., in the Index, ii, 159, 194, 407
_Dublin Review_, the, and Aquinas, i, 67;
and the condemnation of Galileo, i, 314
Ducal commission of censorship in Bavaria, 1566, i, 217
Dumas, A., (fils), writings of, ii, 407, 435
Dumas, A., (père), writings of, ii, 85, 164, 407, 435
Dunoyer, Mme., writings of, ii, 131
Dupanloup, Bishop, and the Roman Question, ii, 201;
writings of, ii, 202
Dupin, writings of, ii, 107, 119
Dupont, _History of Printing_, of, ii, 222
Dupuis, C. F., writings of, ii, 176
Duvoisey, Bishop of Exeter, and censorship, i, 86
E
Earle, C. J., writings of, ii, 177, 407
Eastern Church, writings concerning the, ii, 173
Eck, Chancellor, and the Index of Bavaria, i, 217
Eckart, the Dominican, writings of, i, 68, 69
Education and the Church, i, 10
Edward VI and censorship, i, 90
Ehrhart, the _Catholicism in the 20th Century_ of, ii, 445
Elizabeth of England, censorship edict of, i, 93;
and censorship, i, 92 _ff._, 274; ii, 258 _ff._;
and Sixtus V, ii, 115
Elzevir, Louis, publishing undertakings of, ii, 364
Enfantin, B. P., writings of, ii, 407
England, censorship in, i, 86 _ff._; ii, 256 _ff._;
the Scriptures in, ii, 29 _ff._;
and the Papacy, ii, 115 _ff._
English statute _De Heretico Comburendo_, i, 121;
theologians and the Index, ii, 6 _ff._;
oath of allegiance, ii, 116 _ff._
_Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum_, i, 85; ii, 284
_Erasmus_, in the Index, i, 166, 197, 284, 287, 328 _ff._;
_Adagia_ of, authorised by Gregory XIII, i, 225;
the New Testament of, ii, 14 _ff._;
writings of, ii, 275;
and censorship in Basel, ii, 239;
and Froben, ii, 353;
and his opponents in France, ii, 338;
and the Reformation, i, 46; ii, 285;
and Richelieu, ii, 44;
on Luther, ii, 287
Erfurt, University of, i, 78
Erigena (Johannes Scotus), writings of, ii, 407
Erskine, Cardinal, and the Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 115
Escobar, writings of, ii, 237
Espen, van, on the Belgian Index, i, 321
Espencé and censorship, i, 103
Esquidos, H. A., writings of, ii, 188
Esser, Thos., ii, 388
Estienne, (Stephanus), Henry, ii, 330 _ff._
Estienne, Henry (the second), in Geneva, ii, 332 _ff._
Estienne, Robert, in Roman Index, i, 173;
Bibles of, i, 102;
New Testament of, ii, 15 _ff._;
in Geneva, ii, 332 _ff._
L’Estrange, Roger, and censorship, ii, 262 _ff._
Eugenius IV and Favorini, i, 70
Eunomians, books of the, i, 59
Excommunication, forms and penalties of, i, 114;
a weapon of censorship, ii, 206 _ff._
Exorcising, manuals for, in the Index, ii, 134 _ff._
Expurgation of books, the, i, 19
Eybel, von, _Was ist der Pabst?_, i, 326, ii, 114, 414
Eymeric, Nicholas, i, 23, 69, 85, 121, ii, 23;
_Directory of Heresy_ of, i, 85
F
Falcioni, writings of, ii, 134
“Family of Love,” the, ii, 259
Fanus, V., i, 308
Fathers, the, corruption of the text of, i, 277 _ff._
Faure, on excommunication, i, 114;
writings of, ii, 151
Favorini the Eremite, i, 70
Fénelon, and the authority of the pope, ii, 83 _ff._;
and Daubenton, ii, 75;
on the Bull _Unigenitus_, i, 369 _ff._;
on the reading of the Scriptures, ii, 17;
and the Roman Index, i, 325 _ff._, ii, 149, 407;
and Louis XIV, ii, 145
Ferdinand, Emperor, and censorship, ii, 213, 356;
and Erasmus, i, 334 _ff._
Ferdinand VII, of Spain, censorship under, ii, 236
Ferdinand and Isabella and censorship, ii, 314
Ferrara, publishing in, ii, 309
Ferrari, writings of, ii, 161
Ferraris, analyses prohibitions in Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 112
Ferri, E., writings of, ii, 407
Ferry, Jules, on censorship, ii, 192, 461
Fesque, Jean, condemnation of, ii, 320
Feuerbach, writings of, ii, 430
Feydeau, E., writings of, ii, 407, 435
Feyjoo, Benito, and censorship, ii, 326
Ffoulkes, E. S., writings of, ii, 174
Fichte, writings of, ii, 251
Figuier, writings of, ii, 160
Fischer, Gabriel, and censorship, ii, 249
Fisher, John, in the Index, i, 155
Flaubert, writings of, ii, 162
Flemish Index, an early example, i, 22
Fleury, writings of, ii, 108
Florence, Index of, 1552, i, 150;
publishing in, ii, 309
Fludd, writings of, ii, 128 _ff._
Flugschriften, the, of Wittenberg, i, 44
Fontainebleau, edict of, ii, 337
Fontanelle, writings of, ii, 407
Foscarini, and the Copernican doctrine, i, 312;
and the Inquisition, i, 128 _ff._
Foscolo, writings of, ii, 165
Fotvárad, writings of, ii, 198
Fouché, and censorship, ii, 224
Fourier, Charles, writings of, ii, 188, 407
Fox’s _Acts and Monuments_, i, 89
Fox, John, and Dante, i, 201
France, censorship in, i, 16, 26, 30 _ff._, 96 _ff._, ii, 282;
publishing in, ii, 276 _ff._;
and the Index of Trent, ii, 195;
and the Papal authority, ii, 83 _ff._
Francis I, censorship edicts of, i, 97 _ff._;
and the early printers, ii, 330 _ff._;
and Erasmus, i, 332 _ff._;
and Estienne, ii, 15 _ff._;
and Paul IV, appoint Inquisitors, i, 102;
and the Royal College, ii, 335;
and the University of Paris, ii, 338
Francis, St., de Sales, on censorship, ii, 453
Francis, St., Sons of, ii, 35 _ff._
Franciscans, the, and censorship in the Netherlands, ii, 360;
and censorship, ii, 428 _ff._;
and the Inquisition, i, 119
Franco, Niccolo, Bishop of Treviso, and censorship, i, 79, ii, 297
Francolinus, B., writings of, i, 375
Francus, Daniel, writings of, ii, 134
Fraudulent literature in the Index, ii, 147
Frankfort, and censorship, ii, 215;
Book-Fair of, ii, 58, 347, 362 _ff._;
and the Index of 1570, i, 228;
and the book-trade, ii, 279 _ff._
Frankfort Fair, the, and the Sistine Index, i, 249;
catalogues of the, ii, 76
Frederick II (of Prussia), writings of, ii, 158, 407;
and Voltaire, ii, 251
Frederick II (of Denmark), and censorship, ii, 242, 249
Frederick II, the Emperor, and the Inquisition, i, 119–120
Frederick William of Prussia, and censorship, ii, 250
Freemasonry, writings on, in the Index, ii, 131 _ff._
French Revolution, the, writings on, ii, 168 _ff._
Frevorius, writings of, ii, 114
Fride, life by, of Mary Ward, ii, 38
Froben, J., ii, 13 _ff._, 353
Frohschammer, J., writings of, ii, 180 _ff._, 407
Froschauer, Christ., and Zwingli, ii, 12;
and the printing of Bibles, ii, 12;
and Zwingli, ii, 354
Froude, on censorship, ii, 257
Fust, Johannes, and the printing of Bibles, ii, 12
G
Galileo, and the Inquisition, i, 128 _ff._;
the condemnation of, i, 309 _ff._;
writings of, ii, 365
Galliard, and the Royal College, ii, 335
Gallican Church, controversies concerning the, ii, 101 _ff._
Gandolphy, writings of, ii, 68, 177, 407
Garrido, writings of, ii, 112
Gassendi, writings of, ii, 127
Gattinara to Erasmus, ii, 318
Gelasius I, decree of, i, 61
_Gemara_, the Babylonian, condemned, i, 72
Geneva, censorship in, ii, 237, 333 _ff._;
journals of, in the Index, ii, 200;
publishing in, ii, 332 _ff._;
siege of, ii, 333 _ff._
Gentilis, condemnation of, ii, 239
George, David, ii, 259
George, Duke, of Saxony, and censorship, ii, 350 _ff._
Gerberon, and censorship, i, 357 _ff._;
and the decree of Alexander VIII, ii, 5
Gering, ii, 329
Germany, the book-trade of, ii, 347 _ff._;
censorship in, i, 38, 105 _ff._, ii, 240 _ff._;
and the Index of Trent, i, 195
_Gesta Romanorum_, i, 165
Ghisberti, V., writings of, ii, 184
Ghislieri, Cardinal, burns Hebrew books, i, 74;
and the case of Carranza, i, 223 _ff._;
and the Inquisition, i, 123;
Inquisitor at Como, i, 126
Giannone, writings of, ii, 111
Gibbon, Edward, the history of, ii, 157, 407
Gieseler, on the 101 propositions, i, 369 _ff._
_Giornale Ecclesiastico_, the, ii, 414
Giunti, the, in Florence, ii, 310
Goethe, writings of, ii, 212, 251, 255
Goethe-Bund, the, and censorship, ii, 252
Goldsmith, writings of, ii, 161, 407
Gonzalez, T., on the morality of the Jesuits, i, 374 _ff._
Görres, writings of, ii, 250
Gothenburg, Index of, ii, 256
Gottschalk, i, 64
Grace, the doctrine of, ii, 2 _ff._, 39
Gratian, Emperor, decree of, i, 61
Gravina, writings of, ii, 193
Greek, the study of, in France, ii, 335 _ff._;
literature and censorship, ii, 290
Greenwood, execution of, ii, 259
Gregorovius, writings of, ii, 162, 407
Gregory VII, and the Immaculate Conception, ii, 142;
and the Patriarch of Aquileia, ii, 113
Gregory IX, condemns the Talmud, i, 25, 72;
and Aristotle, i, 66;
and the Dominicans, i, 120;
and the Inquisition, i, 120
Gregory XI., condemnation by, i, 69
Gregory XII, and the printing-press, ii, 306
Gregory XIII, Bull of 1572, i, 221;
Bull of 1580, ii, 232;
adds to Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 113;
and the Bible of Plantin, ii, 20;
and Boccaccio, ii, 310;
and censorship, i, 221 _ff._;
and the censorship of the stage, ii, 376;
and the Congregation of the Index, i, 131 _ff._;
and the _Corpus Juris Canonici_, i, 225;
and Erasmus, i, 333
Gregory XIV, and Henry of Navarre, ii, 232
Gregory XV, and the Congregation of the Index ii, 77;
and the Council of Trent, ii, 78;
_Monitum_ of, on the Scriptures, ii, 33;
_Monitum_ of, ii, 64;
and La Mennais, ii, 181;
and the Melchites, ii, 173;
and Rosmini, ii, 184 _ff._
Gregory of Hamburg, excommunicated, i, 71
Gretser, on the prohibition of Bertram, i, 18;
on Protestant censorship, ii, 245;
and Paul IV, i, 169
Greville, Fulke, _Life of Sir Philip Sidney_, i, 301
Greville, Mme. Henri, writings of, ii, 192
Grimaldi, writings of, ii, 127
Grotius, writings of, ii, 6, 85, 212, 253, 407, 435
Gruppenbach, and censorship, ii, 356
Guadognini, writings of, ii, 169
Guerrazzi, writings of, ii, 165
Guettée, Abbé, writings of, ii, 119
Guibord, the burial of, ii, 196 _ff._
Guicciardini, writings of, i, 200, ii, 84, 408
Guise, Duke of, and censorship, ii, 33
Guldenstubbe, L. V., writings of, ii, 189
Gunther, A., writings of, ii, 180
Gustavus Adolphus, ii, 358
Gutenberg, and printing, ii, 272 _ff._
Gutzkow, C., writings of, ii, 430
Guyon, Mme., writings of, ii, 148
H
Haeckel, writings of, ii, 430
Hall, Bishop, on the Index, ii, 7
Hallam, writings of, ii, 162, 408
Hamburg, censorship in, ii, 252
Hannot, Index of, 1714, i, 298;
Index of, 1719, i, 319
d’Harcourt, Maréchal, definition of “Jansenist,” i, 365
Hardouin, writings of, ii, 42
Harlay, Index of, 1685, i, 317
Harnack, A., writings of, ii, 445
Havet, writings of, ii, 191
Heart of Jesus, the, festival of, ii, 167
Hebrew, the study of, in France, ii, 291, 335 _ff._
Hebrew printers in Spain, ii, 313
Hebrew writings, destruction of, i, 25;
prohibition of, i, 72 _ff._
Hegel on censorship, ii, 276 _ff._
Heidelberg, book-trade of, ii, 356;
an early _imprimatur_ in, ii, 348;
University of, and Eckart, i, 69
Heine, writings of, ii, 130, 164
Heinrich, Duke of Mecklenburg, ii, 244
Heinze, the law of, ii, 252
Helvetius, writings of, ii, 80, 156
Henriquez, writings of, ii, 45;
and the authority of the pope, ii, 99
Henry of Navarre, and Sixtus V, ii, 232;
and Gregory XIV, ii, 232
Henry II, censorship edict of, i, 100
Henry III, and the Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 113;
and censorship, i, 103
Henry IV and literature, ii, 334
Henry VIII, censorship under, i, 41, 86 _ff._; ii, 257
Herbert of Cherbury, writings of, ii, 128, 408
Hereford, Nicholas, i, 70
Heresbach and the study of Greek and Hebrew, ii, 336
Heresiarchs, list of, 1549, i, 151;
in the Index of Quiroga, i, 240;
in the Sistine Index, i, 247
Hermann of Ryswick, burned, i, 81
Hermes, George, writings of, ii, 180
Herrgott, J., execution of, ii, 351
Heymans on censorship, ii, 449
Hichins, William (Tyndale), i, 92
Hieronymites, ii, 36
Hieronymus, Bishop of Ascoli, and Luther, i, 109
Hilgers, on Benedict XIV, ii, 60;
on censorship, i, 52, 78 _ff._; ii, 207 _ff._, 428 _ff._;
on the Jansenists, ii, 227;
on Jesuit censorship, ii, 216 _ff._;
on Luther, ii, 245 _ff._;
on morality, ii, 462 _ff._;
on Protestant censorship, ii, 245 _ff._, 268 _ff._;
on the reading of the Scriptures, ii, 33 _ff._
Hincmar, i, 64
Hirscher, J. B., writings of, ii, 179
Hobbes, Thomas, writings of, ii, 85, 128, 253, 408
Hogan, W., and the Index, ii, 194
d’Holbach, writings of, ii, 175
Holland, censorship in, i, 40, ii, 253 _ff._
Hollybushe, John, Bible of, ii, 31
Holstenius and Peiresc, ii, 75
Honorius and the University of Bologna, i, 120
Hoogstraaten, Jacob, and Reuchlin, i, 84 _ff._, 337 _ff._
Hopelcheen, censorship in, ii, 320
Houssaye, writings of, ii, 124
Houtin, Abbé, writings of, ii, 444
Hovius, H., ii, 362
Hübmayer, execution of, ii, 351
Hügel, Baron Friedrich von, on the Papal Commission, ii, 470 _ff._
Hugo, Cardinal, the Bible of, ii, 12 _ff._
Hugo, Victor, writings of, ii, 164, 408
Hulst, Franz van der, permit to, i, 93;
appointed inquisitor, i, 94
Humanistic movement, the, ii, 278 _ff._
Humanists, the, ii, 284, 294;
and the authority of the Church, ii, 11 _ff._
Hume, David, writings of, ii, 85, 155, 161, 435
Huss, John, i, 70
Hussites, condemned by Julius II, i, 111;
writings of the, i, 71, ii, 355
Hutchinson, John, the _Principia of Moses_, i, 315
Hutten, Ulrich v., in the Index, i, 155
Hutton, W. H., i, 326
I
Immaculate Conception, the doctrine of, ii, 141 _ff._, 437;
writings on the, ii, 64
Index, the, as a guide for book-buyers, i, 42;
as a serial, 1581, i, 220;
Congregation of the, institution of the, i, 131
Index of books commended, Bavaria, 1569, i, 217
Index Revision and Reform, ii, 411 _ff._
_Index Librorum Haereticorum_ of the Frankfort Fair, ii, 362
Indexes, the, as guides for publishers, ii, 365 _ff._;
papal, the series of, i, 4;
schedule of, ii, 480 _ff._
Indulgences, the Congregation of, ii, 138;
fraudulent, ii, 136
Infallibility of the pope, the, ii, 414 _ff._
Inglis, Sir Robert, and the condemnation of Galileo, i, 311
Ingolstadt, University of, and censorship, ii, 215
Innocent I and Pelagius, i, 60
Innocent III, i, 65
Innocent IV, issues, 1252, Bull _Ad Extirpanda_, i, 121;
and Louis IX, i, 73;
and Talmudic writings, i, 73
Innocent VIII, Bull of _Contra Impressores_, i, 108;
Bull of 1486, ii, 288;
and the University of Cologne, i, 78
Innocent X and the (so called) propositions of Jansen, i, 346 _ff._
Innocent XI, and Alexander, ii, 107;
and Bossuet, ii, 104;
and Louis XIV, ii, 104;
and the doctrine of grace, ii, 3;
and the Gallican controversy, ii, 106
Innocent XII, ii, 36;
and Arnauld, ii, 451;
and indulgences, ii, 138
Innocent XIII and the Bull _Unigenitus_, i, 364
Inquisition, the, in Central America, ii, 320;
in the Middle Ages, i, 117 _ff._;
in France, i, 125;
in Germany, i, 125;
in Italy, i, 125;
in Spain, i, 119, 125, ii, 26, 282, 316, 322 _ff._;
of Rome, i, 116, 123, 126, ii, 434;
of Tarragona, i, 68;
originated in Paradise, i, 127;
burns Hebrew books, i, 74;
and the Cabbala, i, 75;
and Galileo and Copernicus, i, 128;
and Hermann of Ryswick, i, 81;
and Alexander IV, i, 121;
and censorship in Venice, ii, 296;
and the censorship of the stage, ii, 377 _ff._;
and the Copernican doctrine, i, 312 _ff._;
and the Freemasons, ii, 132 _ff._;
and Gregory IX, i, 120;
and the art of printing, i, 121;
and Philip the Fair, i, 121;
and Settele, i, 314;
and Urban IV, i, 121;
and the writings of Jansen, i, 345 _ff._
Italian, book-trade and the Inquisition, i, 123;
_Giornale Ecclesiastico_, 1785–1798, i, 326;
patriotism and censorship, ii, 308;
Protestant writings in the Index, ii, 126
Italy, censorship in, i, 29, 36 _ff._;
introduction of printing into, ii, 288;
publishing in, ii, 273
J
Jacobins, the, and censorship, ii, 223
Jacolliot, writings of, ii, 191
James I (of England), and censorship, i, 266 _ff._, ii, 259 _ff._;
writings of, ii, 408;
and Paul V, ii, 115;
and the oath of allegiance, ii, 116 _ff._;
in the Index, i, 292
James, Thomas, _Index Generalis_ of, i, 12, 270, ii, 369 _ff._;
and the Index of Quiroga, i, 239;
on the editions of the Fathers, i, 278
Jansen, Cornelius, the writings of, i, 345 _ff._, ii, 405;
five propositions ascribed to, i, 346 _ff._
Jansenist controversy, the, i, 345 _ff._
Jansenist writings, i, 320 _ff._, ii, 69 _ff._
Jansenists, the, and censorship, ii, 451 _ff._;
and the French Revolution, ii, 227;
and the Scriptures, ii, 32
Jena, censorship in, ii, 241;
Index printed in, 1844, ii, 250
Jenson, the first nobleman among publishers, ii, 292
Jerome of Prague, i, 70
Jesuits, the, writings of, ii, 37 _ff._, 237;
in Germany, ii, 43;
and censorship, ii, 428 _ff._, 451 _ff._;
and censorship in Bavaria, i, 218;
and censorship in the Empire, ii, 214, 357 _ff._;
and the Chinese and Malabar usages ii, 146;
and the doctrine of probability, ii, 151;
and the Index of Brasichelli, i, 276 _ff._;
and theological morality, i, 374 _ff._
Jewish literature in the Index, ii, 123
Jobez, writings of, ii, 162
John XXI and the Schoolmen, i, 67
John XXII, condemnations by, i, 67 _ff._
John of Jaudun, i, 68
Johnson, Samuel, on Francis Osborne, ii, 125
Jones, Spencer, _England and the Holy See_, ii, 432
Joris, David, condemnation of, ii, 238
Joseph I of Portugal, censorship under, ii, 236 _ff._
Joseph II (of Austria) and the University of Pavia, ii, 174
Josephus, Michael, on the works of heretics, i, 296 _ff._
Julius II, issues Bull _Coenae Domini_, 1511, i, 111;
specifies sects classed as heretical, i, 111;
and Louis XII, ii, 231
Julius III, brief of, 1551, permitting certain cardinals to read
heretical books, i, 215;
Bull of 1550, for control of book-trade, i, 124, 215;
orders destruction of Hebrew books, i, 25, 74;
and censorship, i, 105
Julius, Duke of Brunswick, and censorship, ii, 243
Jurists, writings of, in the Index, ii, 125
Justinian, Emperor, condemns books of Severus, i, 62
Justiniani, the history of Venice of, ii, 295 _ff._
Juvencius on the Jesuits, ii, 147
K
Kant, writings of, ii, 158, 252, 408
Kapp, F., on book-production in Germany, ii, 270 _ff._;
on censorship in Germany, ii, 357
Kardec, Allan, writings of, ii, 189
Kempis, Thomas à, the “Imitation” of, ii, 411
Kepler, J., and censorship, ii, 248;
and the Inquisition, i, 128 _ff._
Kidder, Bishop, on French editions of the Testament, ii, 17
Kirchof and the German book-trade, i, 196
Koberger, A., and the Bible of Hugo, ii, 12 _ff._;
the publications of, ii, 354
Koniasch, Index of, 1760, i, 323
Königgrätz, Index of, 1729, i, 322
Koran, the, in the Index, i, 155
Köstlin on the writings of Luther, i, 343 _ff._
Kotzebue and censorship, ii, 225
Kracow, Index of, 1603, i, 269;
Index of, 1617, i, 269
Krantz, ii, 329
Kranz, Albert, _Historia Ecclesiastica_, i, 165
Krause (_Carus-Sterne_), writings of, ii, 430
Kulturkampf, the, ii, 2, 51
L
La Bigne, _Bibliotheca_ of, expurgated by Brasichelli, i, 273;
censored, i, 274
Laborde on usury, ii, 152
La Bruyère, writings of, ii, 344
La Châtre, writings of, ii, 163
Lacombe, writings of, ii, 150
Lacordaire, ii, 182 _ff._
La Fontaine, writings of, ii, 170
La Guérronnière, writings of, ii, 201
Lajollais, de, Natalie, writings of, ii, 192
Lalande, writings of, ii, 163
Lamartine, writings of, ii, 164, 408
Lambardi, writings of, ii, 149
La Mennais, Abbé, writings of, ii, 181 _ff._, 408
Lanfrey, writings of, ii, 408
Lang, Andrew, writings of, ii, 408
La Riva, writings of, ii, 198
Laroque, writings of, ii, 191
Lasalle and censorship, ii, 251
Lateran, Council of the, 1215, i, 66;
1516, i, 108
Latin the language of literature, ii, 275
Latin classics, editions of, in the Index, ii, 123
Latinus, i, 134;
and the Index of Paul IV, i, 176
Launoy, de, writings of, ii, 107, 408
Laylande on the writings of Galileo, i, 314
Lazzeretti, writings of, ii, 193
Lea, Henry C., on censorship in Spain, ii, 324 _ff._;
on the Inquisition in the Middle Ages, i, 117 _ff._;
on the Papal Inquisition, i, 122;
on the Scriptures in Spain, ii, 26
Lead tablets, chronicles of the, ii, 147 _ff._
Le Bas, writings of, ii, 162
Lee, Edward, and Erasmus, i, 332
Lee, F. G., writings of, ii, 178
Lee, Roger, and Mary Ward, ii, 38
Legate, Bartholomew, burning of, ii, 257
Legrand, writings of, ii, 160
Leibnitz, writings of, ii, 435
Leighton, A., condemnation of, ii, 261
Leipsic, the book-trade of, ii, 350 _ff._;
censorship in, ii, 242 _ff._, 351 _ff._
Leo I condemns heretical writings, i, 61
Leo X, Bull of, 1519, i, 109;
coronation of, i, 81;
issues (1521) Bull _Decet Romanum_, i, 110;
issues, 1520, the Bull _Exurge_, i, 110;
issues, 1515, Bull _Inter Solicitudines_, i, 82;
and Cardinal Wolsey, i, 110;
and censorship in Spain, i, 104;
and Charles V, contract between, i, 85;
and the _Epistolae obscurorum virorum_, i, 85;
and Erasmus, i, 331 _ff._;
and literature, ii, 276;
and Luther and von Hütten, i, 110;
and the _Magister_, i, 133;
and permits for heretical reading, i, 214;
and the Testament of Erasmus, ii, 15
Leo XII, on the use of the Scriptures, ii, 28;
on the Bible Societies, ii, 28;
_mandatum_ of, ii, 62 _ff._;
and censorship, ii, 443;
and La Mennais, ii, 181
Leo XIII, Indexes of, ii, 62, 379 _ff._;
and Benedict XIV, ii, 60;
and censorship, ii, 443;
and Father Tyrrell, ii, 467 _ff._;
and “Romanus,” ii, 417 _ff._;
and Rosmini, ii, 186;
and von Hügel, ii, 472
Leopardi, writings of, ii, 161, 305
Lequeux, J. F. M., writings of, ii, 119
Lessing, writings of, ii, 164, 408
Leti, Gregorio, writings of, ii, 122
Leyden, John of, ii, 352
Libellus, F., i, 309
“Liberal Catholics,” the, ii, 118 _ff._, 417 _ff._
License, application for, form of, ii, 482;
example of a, ii, 202
Liguori, writings of, ii, 151
Lilburne, condemnation of, ii, 263
Limborch on the Inquisition, ii, 122, 409
Lipsius, writings of, ii, 409, 447
Lisbon, Index of, 1581, i, 235 _ff._;
Index of, 1624, i, 290 _ff._
Literary policy of the modern Church, the, ii, 379 _ff._
Literary property, i, 7 _ff._
Liturgy, use of the Roman, ii, 120
Llorente, writings of, ii, 166
Locke, John, writings of, ii, 86, 409
Loisy, Abbé, writings of, ii, 444
Lollards, the, teachings of, ii, 256
London, first printing in, ii, 358;
Index of (1877), ii, 266 _ff._
Louis IX, and Hebrew writings, i, 73;
and Innocent IV, i, 73
Louis XII, and Julius II, ii, 231;
and the early printers, ii, 329 _ff._
Louis XIV, censorship decrees of, i, 317 _ff._;
edict of (1685), ii, 336;
and the Bull _Unigenitus_, i, 361 _ff._;
and Cardinal Noailles, i, 370 _ff._;
and Mme. de Maintenon, ii, 340;
and Fénelon, ii, 149 _ff._
Louis XV, and writings against religion, ii, 156;
and censorship, ii, 222
Louis XVIII, and the Concordat, ii, 170
Louis, Duke of Würtemberg, and censorship, ii, 240, 243
Louvain, Index of, 1510, i, 140;
1546, i, 26, 141 _ff._, 145;
1550, i, 145;
1554, i, 160
Louvain, University of, and censorship, i, 109;
and the doctrine of grace, ii, 3;
and Luther, i, 342;
and publishing, ii, 359
Luca, Cardinal de, ii, 411
Lucca, Index of, 1545, i, 147
Lully, Raymond, i, 69
Luther, i, 10;
the Bible of, ii, 351;
characterised by Hilgers, ii, 245 _ff._;
and the bishops of Ascoli, i, 109;
and Cardinal Cajetanus, i, 109;
and censorship, i, 140, 341 _ff._;
writings of, burned in Rome, 1521, i, 111;
writings of, i, 341 _ff._; ii, 217, 287;
in the Index, i; 200, 294;
and Erasmus, i, 332 _ff._;
and Leo X., i, 110;
and Protestant censorship, ii, 244
Lutherans, the, and the Copernican system, i, 315 _ff._
Lutzenburg, Bernard, i, 23;
the catalogue of, i, 85
Lyons, censorship in, i, 100;
printing in, ii, 337;
and heretical literature, ii, 335
M
Mabillon, writings of, ii, 108;
and censorship, ii, 344;
and the Congregation, ii, 76
Macaulay, T. B., on censorship, ii, 264
Macchi, Cardinal, ii, 381 _ff._
Macchiavelli, in the Index, i, 200;
on the religion of Rome, ii, 453
Maciciowski, Index of, 1603, i, 269
Madrid, Index of, 1583, i, 236 _ff._;
Index of, 1640, i, 294 _ff._
Maffei on usury, ii, 152
Magdalenus, _Elenchus_ of, 1632, i, 268;
supplementary Index of, 1619, i, 268
Magdeburg, book-trade of, ii, 352;
a centre of heresy, i, 81;
printing in, ii, 272
_Magister Sacri Palatii_, i, 133, 134, ii, 73;
prohibitions by, ii, 77
Magnetism, ii, 189
Maintenon, Mme. de, and censorship, ii, 340
_Mainzer Katholik_, the, on censorship, ii, 413, 450 _ff._, 459
_ff._
Maittaire on censorship, ii, 333
Malabar usages, the, in the Index, ii, 146
Malebranche, writings of, ii, 127, 409
Malesherbes and censorship, ii, 222
Malou, bishop, ii, 447
Mandeville, writings of, ii, 264 _ff._, 409
Mangin, writings of, ii, 160
Manicheans, writings of, i, 61
Manning, Archbishop, ii, 178;
Cardinal, and Ffoulkes, ii, 174
Manrique, Archbishop of Seville, and censorship, i, 104;
and Erasmus, i, 339
Mansion, Colard, ii, 11, 358
Manutius, Paul, printer in Rome, ii, 306;
prints writings of Erasmus, i, 333
Marcello and censorship, i, 211
Maria of Agreda, ii, 146
Maria Theresa and censorship, i, 323 _ff._, ii, 218
Mariana, Juan de, writings of, ii, 37, 96;
and the Index of Quiroga, i, 239
Marillac and the Royal College, ii, 335 _ff._
Marin, V., Index of, 1707, i, 298
Mariology, ii, 141 _ff._
Marloratus hanged, ii, 333
Marmontel, writings of, ii, 409
Marne, the writings of, ii, 190
Marriage, representation of, on the stage, prohibited in Spain, i, 304
Marsilius of Padua, i, 68
Martin I, decree of, i, 62
Martinez, Alfonso, i, 157
Martinez de Osma, Pedro, writings of, condemned, i, 72
Martinez, Seb., i, 163
Marvell, Andrew, on the Index, ii, 8;
writings of, ii, 409
Mary, Queen, of England, marriage of, ii, 368;
and censorship, i, 91
Mascarenhan, Inquisitor-General, Index of, i, 290
Matter, J., on Swedenborg, ii, 189
Maurice, F. D., writings of, ii, 171, 409
Maximilian and Reuchlin, i, 338 _ff._
Mayence, capture of, ii, 275;
Inquisition of, i, 72;
printing in, ii, 276
Maynooth, College of, on the papal authority, ii, 118
_Mazazor_ (_Machsor_), the book, condemned, i, 76
Melanchthon, in the Index, i, 164;
writings of, ii, 237;
and Protestant censorship, ii, 244 _ff._
Melchers, Archbishop, and the _Rheinische Merkur_, ii, 200
Melchites, Synod of, ii, 173
Mendham, on censorship, ii, 456 _ff._;
on expurgations, i, 21;
on the literary policy of Rome, i, 17;
reprint by, of the Sistine Index, i, 246;
and the Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 115;
and the Council of Trent, i, 203 _ff._;
and the Index of Brasichelli, i, 277 _ff._
Mengus on exorcising, ii, 135 _ff._
Mennonites, the, and Protestant censorship, ii, 245
Mercassel, Joh., writings of, ii, 187
Mercator, Atlas of, and the Index, i, 252 _ff._
Mercedarians, ii, 36
Merle d’Aubigné, writings of, ii, 409
Mesengui, the Catechism of, ii, 100 _ff._
Methods of Roman censorship, ii, 439 _ff._
Mexico, writings of, in the Index, ii, 198
Meyer, C. F., writings of, ii, 430
Michael of Cesena, i, 68
Michelet, the writings of, ii, 190, 409
Mickiewicz, the writings of, ii, 190
Mignet, writings of, ii, 162
Milan, guild of printers, the, ii, 307 _ff._;
Index, lists of, 1624, i, 268;
Index of, i, 152;
publishing in, ii, 309
Mill, J. S., writings of, ii, 158, 409
Milman on censorship, ii, 257
Milner and the _Taxatio Papalis_, i, 226
Milton, John, the _Areopagitica_ of, i, 54;
and censorship, ii, 369;
writings of, ii, 262, 365, 409, 435
Mirabeau, writings of, ii, 170
Mirandola, Pico della, theses of, i, 80, ii, 297 _ff._
_Mischna_, the, condemned, i, 72
_Missi Dominici_ of Charlemagne, i, 118
Mivart, St. George, writings of, ii, 409;
and Father Tyrrell, ii, 465 _ff._
Molière, writings of, ii, 131, 175, 344
Molina, writings of, ii, 39;
and Clement VIII, ii, 69;
and the Index, i, 241, 286
Molinists condemned by Sandoval, i, 285 _ff._
Molinos, writings of, ii, 148, 409
Monastic orders and censorship, ii, 35 _ff._
Mons, the Testament of, ii, 31
Montaigne, writings of, ii, 128, 344, 409
Montalembert, writings of, ii, 119
Montanus, A., edits the Polyglot Bible, ii, 19;
expurgated by Brasichelli, i, 273;
on the authors of expurgated works, i, 232 _ff._;
Polyglot Bible of, ii, 361;
writings of, ii, 375;
and the Index of Paul IV, i, 178;
and the Index of 1570, i, 227;
and censorship, ii, 95
Montazet, writings of, ii, 304
Montesquieu, writings of, ii, 410
Montreal, the Literary Association of, and the censorship of Rome,
ii, 194 _ff._
More, Sir Thomas, and censorship, ii, 258;
and the Scriptures, ii, 29;
and the work of Caxton, ii, 367
Morgan, Lady, _Italy_, of, ii, 171, 410
Morin, Pierre, i, 134
Moscherosch, writings of, ii, 130
Mosheim, J. L., on the Index, ii, 9
Motto of the Index, i, 22
Moulins, the ordinance of (1566), ii, 339
Mourette, writings of, ii, 172
Moya, Matthaeus de, and the Jesuit causists, i, 374
Müller, Alexander, writings of, ii, 179
Municipal censorship, ii, 221
Munks, writings of, ii, 162
Münster, book-trade of, ii, 352;
and the Anabaptists, ii, 352
Muratori, on usury, ii, 154;
and Benedict, XIV, ii, 53
Murger, writings of, ii, 410, 435
Murner, the _Germania Nova_ of, ii, 350
Murray, Archbishop, on the Index, ii, 457 _ff._
Muzio, Girolamo, complaint of interference from the Index, i, 215
Musson, Abbé, _Les Histoires_ of, ii, 36
Musurus and censorship, ii, 292
Mutianus, ii, 284
N
_Nachtigall_, the, ii, 213
Nantes, edict of, i, 318, ii, 17, 337, 339
Naples, Index of 1588, i, 241 _ff._
Napoleon and the Concordat, ii, 170;
and censorship, ii, 224 _ff._;
and Pigault, ii, 176;
and Pius VII, ii, 233
Napoleon III, and Pius IX, ii, 233;
and the Roman Question, ii, 201
Narbonne, Council of, 1227, i, 118
Navagero, A., censor in Venice, ii, 294
Necker, condemnation of, ii, 357
Nestorians, writings of, i, 60
Netherlands, book-trade of the, ii, 358 _ff._;
censorship in the, i, 93;
manuscript trade in, ii, 280
Nicaea, second Council of, i, 63
Nicolai, Henry, ii, 259
Nicholas, Henry, writings of, ii, 259
Nicephorus, Patriarch, decree of, i, 63
Ninguarda, issues an Index for Bavaria, 1582, i, 218 _ff._
Noailles, Archbishop, condemned, i, 370;
Cardinal, writings of, ii, 62;
Cardinal, and the Bull Unigenitus, i, 362 _ff._
Nordlingen and the book-trade, ii, 279
Noris, Cardinal, the history of Pelagianism, by, i, 299, ii, 26;
Cardinal, writings of, i, 353
Nuns, revelations by, in the Index, ii, 145 _ff._
Nuremberg, the Bible of, ii, 13;
book-trade of, ii, 355;
censorship in, ii, 221;
Diet of, i, 106;
edict of, ii, 212;
printing in, ii, 272
O
Ochinus, condemnation of, ii, 238
Odo, Cardinal, and Hebrew writings, i, 73
Oischinger, P. J. N., writings of, ii, 181
Olden-Barneveld, John of, ii, 253
Oliva, the Minorite, i, 68
Olivares and censorship, ii, 323
Ontology, ii, 186
Origen, the writings of, i, 60
Orleans, the Duchess of, and the Bull _Unigenitus_, i, 365, 371
_ff._
Orsini, Cajetano, i, 122
Orvieto, Bishop of, and the Bull _Unigenitus_, i, 372
Osborne, Francis, writings of, ii, 124
Osnabrück, the Bishop of, ii, 463
_Osservatore Romano_, the, ii, 444
O’Sullivan, M., on the rights of kings, i, 292;
on the Index, ii, 456 _ff._
Oswald, H., on Mariology, ii, 145
Ottiere, writings of, ii, 111
Ottonelli and the censorship of the stage, ii, 377
Ovid in the Index, i, 192
Oxford, _Index Generalis_ of, ii, 369 _ff._
P
Pacca, Cardinal, ii, 182 _ff._
Padua, the University of, and censorship, ii, 295
Paine, Thomas, writings of, ii, 158
Palafox, Bishop, and the Jesuits, i, 355 _ff._
Pallavicini, execution of, i, 130;
writings of, ii, 92
Pallavicino, Cardinal, on censorship, i, 20, ii, 476 _ff._;
on the Inquisition, i, 127;
writings, of, ii, 301
Pannartz, printer, ii, 289
Panzer on the Index of Louvain, i, 140
Papal, authorisations, the authority of, ii, 311;
Bulls repudiated in France, ii, 230 _ff._;
censorship and the Reformation, i, 108 _ff._;
Indexes, the series of, i, 4 _ff._;
infallibility, ii, 414 _ff._;
prohibitions in the 17th and 18th centuries, ii, 69 _ff._
Papendrecht, Index of, 1735, i, 320 _ff._
Paramo on the Inquisition, i, 127
Paravicino, V., writings of, ii, 126
Paris, François, and the Bull _Unigenitus_, i, 373
Paris, Index of, 1544, i, 140 _ff._
Parliament, the, of England, and censorship, ii, 263 _ff._;
the Long, and censorship, ii, 369
Parliament of Paris, the, and censorship, i, 97 _ff._, ii, 336
Parma, Index of, 1580, i, 234 _ff._
Paruta, ambassador of Venice, ii, 298
Pascal, in the Index of 1664, i, 316 _ff._;
the _Lettres Provinciales_ of, i, 280 _ff._, ii, 341;
writings of, ii, 410, 414;
and Jansen, i, 346
_Pastoral-Blatt_, the, of Münster, on censorship, ii, 450
Pastoral theology, ii, 2 _ff._
Patristic writings, editions of, on the Index, ii, 123
Patrizzi, ii, 178
Pattison, Mark, on the Humanists, ii, 285
Paul, the preaching of, i, 58
Paul, Bishop of Ascalon, and censorship, i, 82
Paul III, adds to Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 113;
and Erasmus, i, 331;
and the Index of Casa, i, 148;
and the Roman Inquisition, i, 122
Paul IV (Caraffa), Index of, i, 3, 14, 85, 168 _ff._;
prohibits Talmudic writings, i, 74;
and Boccaccio, ii, 309 _ff._;
and Erasmus, i, 332 _ff._;
and Hebrew writings, i, 25;
and the Inquisition, i, 123;
and Lully, i, 69
Paul V, and Beccanus, ii, 41;
and the doctrine of grace, ii, 39;
and Galileo, i, 310;
and the Index of Lucca, i, 148;
and Mariology, ii, 141;
and Venice, ii, 91
Paulsen on the universities, ii, 284
Pavia, theologians of, ii, 174
Paw, Cornelius de, writings of, on the Americans, ii, 157
_Peccatum Philosophicum_, the, ii, 186
Pegna, F., edits Lutzenberg, i, 86
Peignot, on censorship, ii, 226;
and the Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 115
Peiresc and Holstenius, ii, 75
Pelagius, writings of, i, 60
Pelt, Johann, writings of, i, 95
Pentherbeus, or Putherbeus (Puy-Herbaut), Gabriel, writings of, ii,
374, 474
Perez, A., writings of, ii, 323
Periodicals, censorship of, ii, 198 _ff._
Permits for heretical reading, i, 214 _ff._, ii, 203
Peru, the Congress of, and the Index, ii, 197
Petra, Dom, on censorship, ii, 343
Petrarch, writings of, i, 238 _ff._, ii, 281, 308
Péyrat, writings of, ii, 191
Peyrère, la, Isaac, ii, 2
Pfefferkorn and Reuchlin, ii, 44 _ff._
Philip II, censorship under, i, 93, 164, ii, 323;
ordinances of, ii, 359, 360;
and the Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 113;
and the case of Carranza, i, 221 _ff._;
and the index of 1569, i, 226 _ff._
Philip and Mary and censorship, i, 90 _ff._
Philip IV, and censorship, ii, 323
Philip the Fair, edict of (1302), ii, 328;
and the Inquisition, i, 121
Philip of Valois, edict of (1334), ii, 328
Philip Augustus, edict of (1200), ii, 328
Philosophical sin, Jesuit doctrine of, ii, 37
Pichler, writings of, ii, 173, 181
Pico della Mirandola, theses of, i, 80
Pigault, Le Brun, writings of, ii, 176
Pisa, the Council of, ii, 329;
publishing in, ii, 309
Pistoja, Synod of, ii, 166 _ff._
Pius II (Aeneas Sylvius), ii, 214;
condemnations by, i, 71 _ff._;
writings of, in Index, i, 167, 336;
and Bishop Pecock, i, 70
Pius IV, brief of, 1561, permitting legates to Trent to read
heretical books, i, 216;
Index of, i, 180 _ff._;
issues, 1563, Bull _re_ Inquisition, i, 126;
and censorship in France, ii, 334;
and the Index of Lucca, i, 148;
and the printing-press, ii, 306
Pius V (Ghislieri), i, 5;
and Cardinal Comendon, i, 216;
and the case of Carranza, i, 223 _ff._;
letters of, i, 223;
and censorship, i, 220 _ff._;
and the Congregation of the Index, i, 131, ii, 96;
and indulgences, ii, 138;
and the Inquisition, i, 123;
and the printing-press, ii, 306;
and the book-dealers of Como, ii, 307;
and St. Bartholomew, i, 224;
and the _Corpus Juris Canonici_, i, 225;
and the Scriptures, ii, 20;
and the writings of the Jansenists, i, 351 _ff._
Pius VI, general prohibition by, ii, 155;
and the French Revolution, ii, 168 _ff._;
and the Jesuits, ii, 44;
and the Synod of Pistoja, ii, 166;
and von Eybel, ii, 414
Pius VII, recalls, 1822, condemnation of Copernican theories, i,
129;
and the Carbonari, ii, 132;
and the Concordat, ii, 170;
and Napoleon, ii, 169, 233;
and Settele, i, 314
Pius IX, Indexes of, ii, 62;
modifies Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 112;
on the use of the classics, ii, 120;
regulations of, ii, 74 _ff._;
and the Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 115;
and censorship, ii, 65 _ff._, 443;
and the Eastern Church, ii, 173;
and Gallicanism, ii, 118;
and the Immaculate Conception, ii, 142;
and the journals of Rome, ii, 206;
and the Montreal Association, ii, 195;
and Napoleon III, ii, 233;
and Victor Emmanuel, ii, 233;
and the Roman Question, ii, 201;
and Rosmini, ii, 185 _ff._
Pius X, ii, 379
Plantier, Bishop, and censorship, ii, 460
Plantin, appointed proto-typographer, ii, 360;
the Polyglot Bible of, ii, 19;
publishing undertakings of ii, 359 _ff._, 363, _ff._
Pociej, Joh., writings of, ii, 173
Poggio in the Index, i, 160
Pole, Cardinal, and censorship, i, 90, ii, 7
Political censorship, i, 50
Polliot, Estienne, condemnation of, ii, 338
Porphyry, the books of, i, 59
Porrée, Gilbert de la, i, 65
Portalis and censorship, ii, 226
Port Royal and Jansen, i, 347 _ff._
Possevinus and censorship, ii, 335
Poynder, John, _History of the Jesuits_ by, ii, 41
Poza, J. B., and Benedict XIV, ii, 53;
and the Index, i, 292;
writings of, ii, 39, 410
Pozzo, Count F. dal, and the Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 115
Prado, Index of, 1747, i, 298
Prague, Index of, 1749, i, 322
Prayer, forms of, ii, 140 _ff._
Precipiano, Archbishop, ii, 80;
Index of, 1695, i, 319;
and the Jansenists, i, 357 _ff._
Pressensé, E. de, writings of, ii, 202, 410
Press-laws, in Spain, ii, 233 _ff._;
of the French Empire, ii, 224 _ff._
Preston, Thomas, writings of, ii, 116, 300
Priestly, Joseph, writings of, ii, 158
Primatt, Joseph, condemnation of, ii, 263
Printer-publishers in Roman Index, i, 173
Printing, influence of, i, 2;
early, in Italy, ii, 288 _ff._;
in England, ii, 366;
in France, ii, 328 _ff._;
introduced into Venice, ii, 289
Probability, the doctrine of, ii, 150 _ff._
Prohibitions of books in Middle Ages, i, 64 _ff._
Propaganda, the Congregation of, ii, 155
Protestant censorship, i, 49 _ff._
_Protestant Guardian_, the, on the expurgatory Indexes, i, 305
Proudhon, writings of, ii, 188, 251, 435
Prynne, condemnation of, ii, 261 _ff._
Przichovsky, Index of, 1767, i, 322 _ff._
Publishers in the Index, i, 157, 168
Publishing in Europe, conditions of, ii, 271 _ff._
Puffendorf, writings of, ii, 410
Puritans, the, and censorship, ii, 258 _ff._
Putherbeus (or Pentherbeus), Gabriel, ii, 374, 474
Pütter on printing and censorship, i, 2
Q
Querini, Cardinal, and the endowment of censorship, ii, 76 _ff._
Quesnel, writings of, ii, 410;
and the Bull _Unigenitus_, i, 360 _ff._;
and censorship, i, 357 _ff._
Quietism, writings on, ii, 148
Quinet, writings of, ii, 190, 410
Quiroga, and Erasmus, i, 333;
and the Index of 1571, i, 228;
Index of, 1583, i, 236 _ff._;
Index of, 1584, i, 239 _ff._
R
Rabardeau, ii, 102
Rabelais in Index, i, 101, ii, 343
Racine, writings of, ii, 225, 344
Ranke, writings of, ii, 161, 410
Rass, Bishop, ii, 447
Ratisbon, Diet of, 1541, i, 155
Rauchler, J., on printing, ii, 278
Raynaud, Théophile, on censorship, i, 138, ii, 39, 53;
on Reuchlin and Erasmus, ii, 343
_Receuil des Actes du Clergé_, ii, 82 _ff._
Reeve, writings of, ii, 266
Reformation, the, i, 9;
an intellectual revolution, i, 43;
and classical literature, i, 45 _ff._, ii, 271;
and the universities of Germany, i, 53
Reformation, the Catholic, i, 206 _ff._
Regalia Rights, the, ii, 104 _ff._
Regalists, the, of Spain, ii, 98
“Regulars,” the, contests of, with the “Seculars,” ii, 46 _ff._
Renaissance, the, and literary activities, ii, 281
Renan, E., the writings of, ii, 190 _ff._, 410
Renouf, writings of, ii, 202
_Reserva-rechte_, the, ii, 214
Reuchlin, Johannes, attacks upon, i, 83 _ff._;
writings of, ii, 217;
and Bertram, writings of expurgated by the divines of Douai,
i, 233;
and censorship, ii, 44 _ff._;
and Erasmus, i, 335 _ff._;
and Hoogstraaten, i, 337 _ff._
Revolution, the French, of 1789, and censorship, ii, 222 _ff._
_Revue Ecclesiastique, la_, on the Index, ii, 448
Rheims, Synod of, i, 65
_Rheinische Merkur_, the, in the Index, ii, 250
Ricci, Bishop, ii, 166
Riccioli on the infallibility of the pope, ii, 122
Riccius, Index of, 1681, i, 324 _ff._
Richard II and Wyclif, i, 69
Richardson, S., romances of, ii, 131, 410
Richelieu, ii, 102;
and censorship, ii, 344
Richet on Church and State, ii, 114
_Rifformatori_, the, and censorship in Venice, ii, 303
Rites, Congregation of, ii, 78 _ff._, 434;
and exorcising, ii, 135 _ff._;
and writings on the saints, ii, 140;
and forms of prayer, ii, 140
Robertson, William, writings of, ii, 161
Rocaberti, Hippolyta, ii, 146
Rodrigues, writings of, ii, 191 _ff._
Roman Indexes, 1670–1800, i, 324 _ff._
Roman Question, the (1859–70), writings on, ii, 201
Roman Revolution of 1848, ii, 184 _ff._
_Roman World_, the, on the Index, ii, 438 _ff._
“Romanus” and _The Tablet_, ii, 417 _ff._
Rome, Index of, 1632, i, 293 _ff._;
journals of, in the Index, ii, 200;
the literary productions of, ii, 304 _ff._;
the artistic productions of, ii, 305;
prohibitory edicts of, ii, 273 _ff._
Roscoe, William, writings of, ii, 162, 410
Roselli, Antonio, the _Monarchia_ of, i, 79, ii, 297
Rosmini, A., writings of, ii, 184 _ff._, 410
Rossetti, D. G., writings of, ii, 166
Rousseau, writings of, ii, 81, 155, 157, 170, 175, 229, 410
Ruchrath, Johann, of Overwesel (de Wesalia), i, 72
Rudolph II and the Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 113
Rules, the ten, of the Index of Trent, i, 182 _ff._
Rupella, Nicholas de, i, 73
S
Sa, Emmanuel, and the decree of 1688, i, 292;
and the Index, i, 274, 286
Sabatier, writings of, ii, 410
Saccheri, H. P., ii, 62
Sacchino and Geneva, ii, 335
Sachs, Hans, and censorship, ii, 221, 335
_Sachsenspiegel_, the, and Gregory XI, i, 69
Sacramentists, the, writings of, ii, 242
Saint-Amour, William of, i, 24
St. Louis, edict of (1229), ii, 328
Saint-Simon, writings of, ii, 188, 410
Saints, writings on the, in the Index, ii, 138 _ff._
Salamanca, University of, and censorship, ii, 328
Sales, St. Francis de, and Geneva, ii, 333
Salinas, Martin de, on censorship in Spain, ii, 315 _ff._
Salisbury, Earl of, on Sarpi, ii, 93 _ff._
Sall, Andrew, ii, 202 _ff._
Salviati and the _Decameron_, ii, 310
Salzburg and the book-trade, ii, 279
“Sand, George” (Mme Dudevant), romances of, ii, 410, 435
Sandoval, Index of, 1612, i, 282 _ff._
Sandys, Sir E., on the literary policy of the Church, ii, 453
_ff._;
writings of, ii, 126
Sannig, B., writings of, ii, 135
Santiago, Hernando de, and the Index, i, 289
Sarmiento, D., Index of, 1707, i, 297
Sarpi, Paolo, writings of, ii, 301 _ff._, 410;
and censorship, i, 37, 265, ii, 296 _ff._;
on Widdrington, ii, 117;
and the Concordat, i, 280 _ff._;
and the contest with Rome, ii, 92 _ff._
_Savii sopra l’Eresia_, the, ii, 295
Savile, Henry, and the oath of allegiance, ii, 117
Savonarola in the Index, i, 198 _ff._
Sawtree, W., condemnation of, ii, 257
Saxony, censorship in, ii, 241
Scaliger, condemned under Gregory XIII, i, 225;
writings of, ii, 275, 410
Schauenburg, A. von, Archbishop, i, 106
Scheeben on Mariology, ii, 145
Schell, Hermann, writings of, ii, 445
Scheurl on publishing, ii, 287
Schiller, writings of, ii, 212
Schmitt, Josef, writings of, ii, 174
Scholl, writings of, ii, 191
Schurius, Andrea, ii, 365
Schweinheim, ii, 289
Schwenckfeldians, the, and censorship, ii, 245
Science and the Church, ii, 461
Scioppius, writings of, ii, 37
Scotti, writings of, ii, 37
Scotus, Duns, ii, 428
Scotus, Erigena, i, 66
Scriptures, copies of, destroyed in England under Henry VIII,
i, 86;
in France, ii, 15 _ff._, 337;
in the Index, i, 154, 156, 190, ii, 32;
in the Netherlands, ii, 19 _ff._;
in Spain, ii, 22 _ff._;
in the vernacular, ii, 31, 63;
reading of the, i, 24;
treatment of, under censorship, ii, 11 _ff._, 475;
and Clement VIII, i, 190
Scykowski, Index of, i, 286 _ff._
Seabra on the Index, i, 290
Searle, Father, on censorship, ii, 461 _ff._;
on infallibility, ii, 415
Secchi and the Copernican system, i, 316
Secret societies in the Index, ii, 131 _ff._
“Seculars,” the, contests of, with the “Regulars,” ii, 46 _ff._
Segarelli of Parma, i, 67
Segesser on the reform of the Index, ii, 412
Segneri, writings of, ii, 148
Ségur, L. G. de, writings of, ii, 162, 189
Selvaggio and the Index of Trent, i, 181
Semenencho, P., writings of, ii, 173
Sens, Council of, i, 66, 97
Serarius and the Scriptures, i, 191
Serry and the Bull _Unigenitus_, i, 364
Servetus, M., in the Index, i, 155;
trial of, ii, 237;
the burning of, ii, 332
Settele and the Copernican system, i, 314
Settembrini, writings of, ii, 161
Sévigné, Mme. de, writings of, ii, 345
Seville, Index of, 1632, i, 293
Seymour, H., writings of, ii, 171
Shahan, Thomas J., on the Congregation of the Index, i, 134 _ff._;
on Erasmus, i, 340 _ff._
Sheridan, R. B., and censorship, ii, 266
Sigoni, the history of Bologna of, ii, 311
Siguier, A., the writings of, ii, 190
Simler, Josias, and the Index of Trent, i, 196
Sirleto, correspondence of, with Montanus, Plantin, Valverde,
_et al._, i, 209 _ff._;
and the Catholic Reformation, i, 207 _ff._;
and censorship in Venice, ii, 296
Sismondi, writings of, ii, 162, 410
Sistine Index cancelled by Clement VIII, i, 253 _ff._
Sixtus IV, and censorship, ii, 288;
and the Immaculate Conception, ii, 142;
and Pedro de Osma, i, 72;
and printing, ii, 292;
and Segarelli, i, 67
Sixtus V, ii, 306;
Bull of, 1587, i, 216;
Index of, 1590, i, 243 _ff._;
issues, 1587, Bull _Immensa_, i, 133;
and Baronius, ii, 311;
and Boccaccio, ii, 310;
and the Congregation of the Index, i, 131, 248 _ff._;
and Elizabeth, ii, 115;
and Henry of Navarre, ii, 232
Sixtus of Siena destroys 12,000 Hebrew volumes, i, 74
Sleumer, A., the _Index Romanus_ of, ii, 463
Slevin, Dr., on the Index, ii, 458;
and the Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 115
Smith, Adam, the _Wealth of Nations_ of, on the Spanish Index,
i, 303
Smith, Dr. Richard, and the Jesuits, ii, 46 _ff._
Soanen and the Bull _Unigenitus_, i, 364
Socialism and the Index, ii, 188 _ff._
Socinians, the, writings of, ii, 245, 253
Solier, writings of, ii, 37
Sorbon, Robert de, ii, 283
Sorbonne, College of the, ii, 283
Sorbonne, the, on the Bull _Unigenitus_, i, 370;
and Bishop Monluc, i, 221;
and censorship, i, 96 _ff._;
divines of the, on the oath of allegiance, ii, 118;
Index of, in 1544, i, 100, 140 _ff._;
and the early printers, ii, 330 _ff._;
and the Gallican Church, ii, 103;
and the Immaculate Conception, ii, 142;
and Luther, i, 110
Sotomayor, Index of, i, 294 _ff._
Soulié, writings of, ii, 435
Soury, Jules, writings of, ii, 191
South, Dr., and the Copernican doctrine, i, 315
South America, writings of, in the Index, ii, 197 _ff._
Spain, censorship in, i, 16, 27 _ff._, 104 _ff._, ii, 282;
press-laws in, ii, 233 _ff._;
printing in, ii, 313 _ff._;
and the Index of Trent, i, 194;
and the Papacy, ii, 94 _ff._;
and the papal authority, ii, 84
Spalatro, Archbishop of, i, 130, ii, 301
Spanish Indexes, 1790–1844, i, 301 _ff._
Speyer, the Bishop of, and Reuchlin, i, 84;
the Diet of, i, 107
Spinoza, writings of, ii, 127, 253, 410
Spiritualism, ii, 189
Staël, Mme. de, and censorship, ii, 225
Star-Chamber, the, and censorship, ii, 259, 260 _ff._
State, censorship of the, ii, 205 _ff._
Stationers’ Company, the, ii, 368;
and censorship, i, 92
Stendhal, romances of, ii, 410
Stephanus, H. (Estienne), i, 296;
and censorship, ii, 238
Stephanus, R. (Estienne), editions of Scriptures of, i, 102;
and the Index, i, 228 _ff._;
writings of, ii, 411
Stephen III and Autpert, i, 63
Stephen, Leslie, on censorship, ii, 265
Sterne, L., romances of, ii, 411
Sternhold and Hopkins, version of the Psalms of, i, 306
Stowe, Harriet B., writings of, ii, 165
Strasburg, printing in, ii, 272;
and censorship, ii, 350
Strauss, _Das Leben Jesu_ of, ii, 171, 411
Stroud, writings of, ii, 171, 411
Stunica and the Inquisition, i, 128 _ff._
Suarez, writings of, ii, 45 _ff._
Subiaco, printing in, ii, 289
Sue, E., romances of, ii, 164, 411, 435
Sully and Casaubon, ii, 334
Sweden, censorship in, ii, 255 _ff._
Swedenborg, writings of, ii, 189, 411
Swift, writings of, ii, 131
Switzerland, censorship in, ii, 237 _ff._
Sylvius, Aeneas (Pius II), condemns his own writings, i, 71;
writings of, in Index, i, 167, ii, 214
Synod, of Cologne, i, 106;
of Naples (1619) and the Scriptures, ii, 33;
of Paris, i, 66;
of Sens, i, 66
Szyzkowski, Index of, 1617, i, 269
T
_Tablet_, the, and “Romanus,” ii, 417 _ff._
Tacitus, history of, condemned by Leo X, i, 111
Taine, H. A., writings of, ii, 160, 411
_Talmud_, the, editions of, ii, 291;
ordered burned by Gregory IX, i, 72;
prohibition of the, i, 25
Talmudic books and the Sistine Index, i, 262
Talon, Omer, and the authority of the pope, ii, 83
Tamburini, writings of, ii, 175
_Targum_, the; editions of, ii, 291
Tasso, writings of, ii, 212
_Taxae_, the, of the Church of Rome, i, 226
_Taxatio Papalis_, i, 226
Tempier, Bishop Stephen, i, 66
Ten, the Council of, and censorship, ii, 294
Tennemann, writings of, ii, 158
Testament, Greek, edition by Erasmus, i, 166;
the New, in the Index, ii, 411
Thacher, execution of, ii, 258
Theatre, in France, censorship of the, ii, 378;
in Italy, censorship of the, ii, 376 _ff._;
in Spain, censorship of the, ii, 377
Theodosius, Emperor, and the Nestorians, i, 60
Theological controversies, in France, 1654–1700, ii, 1 _ff._;
in the Netherlands, 1654–1690, ii, 2 _ff._
Theresa, Saint, i, 166, ii, 179
Thiers, A., on censorship, ii, 464
Thions, C., writings of, ii, 119
Thirty Years’ War, influence of, on the book-trade, ii, 349, 364;
and censorship, ii, 212;
and the freedom of the press, ii, 358;
and its influence on literature, i, 48
Thomai, historian of Ravenna, i, 212 _ff._
Thou, de, writings of, i, 286, ii, 124
Ticknor, George, on bookselling in Spain, ii, 316 _ff._;
on the Inquisition in Spain, ii, 327 _ff._
Tillemont, writings of, ii, 107
Tillotson, J., sermons of, ii, 411
Tilly and Magdeburg, ii, 352
Toland, John, writings of, ii, 264
Toledo, Index of, 1584, i, 239 _ff._
Tolstoy, Dimitri, writings of, ii, 173
Tonstal, Bishop of London, and censorship, i, 86, ii, 258 _ff._
Torquemada, Cardinal, i, 70, 122;
burns 7000 volumes, i, 242;
and censorship, ii, 314
Torti, writings of, ii, 194
Toulouse, Council of, 1229, i, 119
Tournai, Synod of, ii, 362
Traditionalism, ii, 186
Trautmannsdorf, writings of, ii, 175
Trent, the Council of, i, 5, 180 _ff._, ii, 78
Trent, the Index of, i, 5;
printed in Liège, ii, 362;
and Hebrew writings, i, 75
Triphenius, Abbé, writings of, ii, 129
Trutfetter, Canon, and censorship, i, 82
Tübingen, book-trade of, ii, 356;
University of, ii, 243
Turrecremata, J., and the early printers, ii, 288
Tyler, Wat, insurrection of, ii, 256
Tyndale, Matthew, writings of, ii, 265
Tyndale, William, i, 92;
the Bible of, ii, 29 _ff._
Typesetters, censorship regulations for, ii, 66
Tyrrell, George, Father, on censorship, ii, 465 _ff._
U
Ulm and the book-trade, ii, 279
_Unigenitus_, the Bull, i, 360 _ff._
Universities, Continental, utterances of, on the English oath of
allegiance, ii, 118;
and the book-trade, ii, 282 _ff._
University, of Berlin, the, censorship in, ii, 251;
of Bologna, and jurisprudence, ii, 286;
of Cologne, and censorship, ii, 288;
of Erfurt, and censorship, ii, 349;
of Louvain, and publishing, ii, 359;
of Padua, and medicine, ii, 286;
of Paris, and censorship, ii, 328 _ff._,
and printing, ii, 318,
and theology, ii, 286;
of Vienna, and literature, ii, 286
Upsala, Index of, ii, 255 _ff._
Urban IV, appoints Inquisitor-General, i, 122;
and the Inquisition, i, 121
Urban V issues Bull _Coenae Domini_, 1364, i, 111
Urban VIII, Index of, i, 293;
and the astrologists, ii, 129;
and censorship in Spain, ii, 98;
and della Valle, ii, 125;
and the doctrine of Grace, ii, 39;
and forms of prayer, ii, 140 _ff._;
and Galileo, i, 311;
and Jansenist writings, i, 346, ii, 69 _ff._;
and John Barnes, i, 130;
and writings on the saints, ii, 139
Usher, Archbishop, on the Index, ii, 7
Usury, writings on, in the Index, ii, 152 _ff._
Utrecht, the church of, i, 359 _ff._;
first printing in, ii, 358
V
Valdés, Index of, 1551, i, 146, 153;
Index of, 1554, i, 156;
Index of, 1559, i, 146, 161;
and Erasmus, i, 339;
and censorship, ii, 95;
and the Index of Paul IV, i, 179;
and the Scriptures, ii, 25
Valentia, Index of, 1551, i, 153
Valla, L., in the Index, i, 160;
the New Testament of, ii, 14
Valladolid, Index of, 1554, i, 156;
Index of, 1559, i, 161
Valle, della, Pietro, writings of, ii, 125
Valverde and Sirleto, i, 209 _ff._;
on the ignorance of the censors, i, 210
Van Dyke, Paul, cited, i, 202
Van Espen on censorship, i, 138
Vanini, writings of, ii, 128
Varon, history of Sixena, ii, 322
Vatable, the Bible of, ii, 25
Vaughan, Archbishop, and Aquinas, i, 67
Vechietti, writings of, i, 130
Vega, Lope de, writings of, ii, 377
Venice, censorship in, ii, 281, 293 _ff._;
Index of, 1549, i, 148;
Index of, 1543, i, 140;
journals of, in the Index, ii, 200;
publishing in, ii, 274 _ff._, 289, 297;
and the Papacy, ii, 90 _ff._;
Senate of, and Bull _Coenae Domini_, i, 113
Vercelli, Synod of, i, 65
Vergerio, Peter Paul, in the Index, i, 148, 149, 150, 199;
works of, i, 170 _ff._;
and Paul IV, i, 169
Vergilius, Polydorus, on the Index, i, 274 _ff._
Vermigli, the, writings of, ii, 242
Vernant, Jacques, writings of, ii, 47 _ff._
Verona, inquisitors of, in 1228, i, 118
Verus, Gratianus, ii, 474
Viardot, writings of, ii, 163
Victor Emmanuel and Pius IX, ii, 233
Vidaurre, writings of, ii, 197
Vienna, book-trade of, ii, 356;
censorship in, ii, 356;
siege of, ii, 213;
University of, and censorship, ii, 218 _ff._
Vigil, writings of, ii, 197
Villanueva and the Scriptures in Spain, ii, 26
Villers on censorship, ii, 455 _ff._
Viet on censorship, ii, 339 _ff._
Volney, J. F., writings of, ii, 176, 411
Voltaire, writings of, ii, 81, 155, 170, 175, 411;
and censorship, ii, 229;
and Frederick the Great, ii, 251
Vondel, writings of, ii, 212, 253
W
Wagener, Hermann, on censorship, ii, 211
Waldenses, the, and the Scriptures, ii, 22
Waldie, writings of, ii, 171
Ward, Mary, and the _Jesuitissae_, ii, 38 _ff._
Wareham, Archbishop of Canterbury, and censorship, i, 86
Weigelians, the, and censorship, ii, 245
Weimar, censorship in, ii, 241
Welschinger on censorship, ii, 224
Wessenberg, writings of, ii, 178
Westminister, printing in, ii, 366
Whately, Archbishop, the _Logic_ of, ii, 158, 171, 411
White, Andrew D., and the condemnation of Galileo, i, 313 _ff._
White, Thos., writings of, ii, 411
Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, and censorship, i, 92
“Widdrington, Roger,” writings of, ii, 116, 300
Wightman, Edward, burning of, ii, 257
Wilkes, John, writings of, ii, 266
Wilkins, J., the _New World_ of, ii, 411
William V, Duke of Bavaria, and censorship, i, 218 _ff._
William of Occam, i, 68
Wittenberg, reformers of, i, 12;
the book-trade of, ii, 350;
University of, ii, 242
Wohlrab, Nicholas, ii, 242
Wolff, C., and censorship, ii, 249
Wolsey, Cardinal, and censorship, i, 86, ii, 257;
and Luther, i, 110 _ff._, 342 _ff._
Woolston, Thomas, condemnation of, ii, 265
Worms, edict of, ii, 212
Wotton, Sir Henry, on Sarpi, ii, 93
Wyclif, the Bible of, ii, 29, 70, 256, 367
Wyclifites condemned by Julius II, i, 111
X
Ximenes, Inquisitor-General, i, 122;
the Polyglot Old Testament of, ii, 19;
and censorship, ii, 314;
and printing, ii, 313;
and the Scriptures, ii, 24
Y
Yucatan, censorship in, ii, 320
Z
Zamora, writings of, ii, 143
Zell, M., on the writings of Luther, ii, 287 _ff._
Zola, romances of, ii, 169, 411, 435
Zürich, censorship in, ii, 237;
the book-trade of, ii, 354;
early printers of, ii, 12
Zwicher, G., writings of, ii, 411
Zwinger, Theodore, and the Index, i, 288
Zwingli, writings of, ii, 237;
and censorship, ii, 354
Zwinglians, the, and censorship, ii, 244
FOOTNOTES:
[1] III, 350.
[2] _Procès_, ii, 10.
[3] Drummond, i, 412.
[4] Reusch, i, 43.
[5] Greswell, i, 191.
[6] Mendham, 183.
[7] Mendham, 146.
[8] _Constitutt. Apostt._, Lib. I, c. vii.
[9] Lea, _Religious History of Spain_, 17.
[10] Lea, 19.
[11] _Ibid._, 19.
[12] _Ibid._, 19.
[13] Lea, 45.
[14] 134.
[15] _Comentarios, Prologo al Lector._
[16] _Haereses_, Lib. I, c. xiii.
[17] Lea, 54.
[18] MS. of David Fergusson, cited by Lea, 87.
[19] Villanueva, 29.
[20] Equizabal, 162, cited by Lea, 179.
[21] _Bible in Spain_, c. xix.
[22] Lea, 128.
[23] Printed in a volume of _Pastoral Instructions_ issued by
Richard Coyne in Dublin, 1824, cited by Mendham, 353.
[24] Wilkins, iii, 317.
[25] Blunt, _Reformation of the Ch. of Eng._, i, 505.
[26] Reusch, ii, 260 ff.
[27] Reusch, ii, 294.
[28] Mendham, 184.
[29] Cited by Mendham, 243.
[30] Hilgers, 138.
[31] Epp., ed. Boissonade, 1817, 252.
[32] 2d edtn., Paris, 1764, 186.
[33] Reusch, ii, 20.
[34] _Oeuvres_, xiii, 409.
[35] _Oeuvres_, 37, 75.
[36] Reusch, i, 467.
[37] Robertson, 118.
[38] Llorente, i, 492. Ticknor, ii, 96.
[39] Lea, 102.
[40] Lea, 125.
[41] _Ibid._ 130.
[42] Dejob, 342.
[43] _Dal Pozzo, Catholicism in Austria_, 182.
[44] _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Religion in
England_, London, 1760, 275.
[45] _Commentary on the Roman Pontificate_, i, 178.
[46] Mendham, 217.
[47] II, 598.
[48] _Acta SS._, i, 290, v, 369.
[49] _Flag._, 86.
[50] _Epp._, ed. Albericius, 3, 125.
[51] _Epp. ad. Tyrrh._, 70.
[52] Scheeben, _Dogm._, iii, 281.
[53] _Ibid._ iii, 516.
[54] S. 14 sec. Poen., c.
[55] Reusch iii., 1201.
[56] Cited by Mendham, 138.
[57] Sleumer, 39.
[58] Kapp, 548.
[59] Kapp, 551.
[60] Hilgers, 192.
[61] Hilgers, 205.
[62] See also Appendix to the report from the Select Committee
concerning the laws in foreign States respecting Roman Catholic
subjects, 1816, cited by Mendham, 247.
[63] R., ii, 908.
[64] Welschinger, 232.
[65] Hilgers, 261.
[66] Welschinger, 307.
[67] Peignot, xxii.
[68] Hilgers, 16, 17
[69] Peignot.
[70] Lea, 142.
[71] Stähelin, _Calvin_, ii, 316.
[72] Hilgers, 232.
[73] Heppe, _Beza_, 196.
[74] Reusch, i, 422.
[75] Schmidt, P., _Vermigli_, 292.
[76] _Archiv des Deutsch. Buchh._, i, 22, 52.
[77] Hilgers, 287.
[78] Hilgers, 289.
[79] Cited by Hilgers, 290.
[80] _Ibid._, 297.
[81] Hilgers, 17 _ff._
[82] Hilgers, 93.
[83] Hilgers, 94.
[84] Villers, 290 _seq._
[85] Macaulay’s _England_, ix, 286.
[86] Stephen, _Free Thinking and Plain Speaking_, 279.
[87] Hilgers, 192.
[88] Kapp, _Gesch._, 231.
[89] Kapp, 62.
[90] De Sanctis, _Storia della letteratura italiana_, ii, Chap. 13.
[91] Paulsen, 41.
[92] Casaubon, 453.
[93] _Gesch. der Präger Universität_, viii, 8.
[94] _Gesch. der Präger Universität_, viii, 8.
[95] Kapp. 417.
[96] Brown, 63.
[97] Brown, 65.
[98] Dejob, 336.
[99] Dejob, 335.
[100] Fuenmayer, _Vida de Pio V_, 89.
[101] Gabutius, _De Reb. et Gest. Pii V_, Rome, 1605, 12.
[102] Dejob, 57.
[103] Dejob, 339.
[104] Gebhart, _Introduction à l’histoire du sentiment religieux en
Italie_, etc., p. 2.
[105] Pütter, 23.
[106] Lea, 21.
[107] Gomez, Lib. ii, fol. 30, b.
[108] Dejob, 339.
[109] Lea, 22.
[110] _Nueva Recop._, Lib. i, tit. vii.
[111] Llorente, i, 457.
[112] Böhmer, _op. cit._, ii, 78.
[113] Lea, 61.
[114] _Ibid._, 62.
[115] Lea, 70.
[116] _Ibid._, 73.
[117] Lea, 81.
[118] Lea, 83.
[119] Lea, 86.
[120] Ticknor, i, 504.
[121] Ticknor, ii, 49.
[122] _Ibid._, ii, 96.
[123] Ticknor, ii, 73.
[124] Ticknor, ii, 431 (note).
[125] Renouard, i, 25.
[126] Greswell, i, 172.
[127] Pattison, 182.
[128] Frith, _Life of Bruno_, 71.
[129] _Letters from the Nuncio of Pius IV at Paris_, i, iii.
[130] _Hist. Jesuit._, vi, 44.
[131] Greswell, i, 219.
[132] _De la Presse au Seizième Siècle._
[133] Dejob, p. 89.
[134] Dejob, 99.
[135] Dom Petra, cited by Dejob, 91.
[136] Cited by Dejob, 92.
[137] Raynaud’s works, Cracow, 1669, xx, 267.
[138] Dejob, 343.
[139] Dejob, 90.
[140] _Ibid._ 347.
[141] Dejob, 348.
[142] Dejob, 343.
[143] Beckman, _History of Inventions_, i, 89.
[144] Beckmann, _History of Inventions_, i, 99.
[145] Kapp, 125.
[146] Kapp, 126.
[147] Gachard, _Corr. de Philippe II_, ii, 9, 565.
[148] Putnam, _Books and Their Makers_, ii, 255.
[149] Epp., iii, 19.
[150] Knight, _The Old Printer_, 113.
[151] The _Evangelium Romanum_ was a Protestant satire on
indulgences, printed in Leipsic, without the name of the author, in
1600. The book was as a joke ascribed to Jacques Davy, Bishop of
Evreaux. Davy was better known under the name of Du Perron. He was
a convert from Protestantism and was the Bishop selected to bring
King Henry IV into the Catholic fold. The _Evangelium Romanum_
was reprinted more than once and appears to have secured a wide
circulation. Curiously enough, it did not find place upon the Index
(Reusch, ii, 213).
[152] See an edict of the Inquisition dated 1611, cited by Dejob p. 216.
[153] Ottonelli, _Memoriali_, etc., cited by Dejob, 218.
[154] Ticknor, vol. ii, Appendix.
[155] Migne, _Nouvelle Encyclop. Théologique_, vol. 43.
[156] This detail is deserving of attention because the Index of Leo
is the first which makes any attempt at bibliographical consistency or
accuracy.
[157] These titles are transcribed in the precise form in which they
are printed in the Leonine schedule.
[158] The author, in a letter to the _Athenaeum_ (Feby. 25, 1905),
states that his book is concerned solely with savage and classical
beliefs, and that he had been unable to secure a reply to his inquiry
(submitted through one of the English Catholic bishops) as to the
grounds for the condemnation.
[159] Reusch, ii, 26.
[160] Martin, _Omnium conc. Vat. documentorum, collectio_, 159,
179.
[161] Friedrich, _Vat. Koncil._, ii, 288, 289.
[162] i, 293.
[163] i, 757.
[164] Searle, 36, ff.
[165] Hilgers, 70–73.
[166] Cited by Hilgers, 74.
[167] Hilgers, 75.
[168] Hilgers, 141.
[169] Hilgers, 170.
[170] 4, 1, 446.
[171] G. Daniel, writing to Serry in 1724, _Oeuvres_, ii, 365.
[172] Cited by Hilgers, 348.
[173] Cited by Mendham, 9.
[174] Sandys, 127–132.
[175] Villers, 290 _seq._
[176] Mendham, 270.
[177] Letter to C. Blandell, prefixed to the _Vindication_,
lxxxiv, cited by Mendham, 14.
[178] Mendham, x.
[179] Mendham, x.
[180] _Remains_ of Bishop Barlow, 1693, 70, 71.
[181] II, 710.
[182] _Rev. des Sc. eccl._, 1866, iii, 374.
[183] Searle, 281–297.
[184] Hilgers, 378.
[185] _Index Romanus_, 7.
[186] _Ibid._, 9.
[187] George Tyrrell. _A Much Abused Letter_, pp. 18, 21.
[188] _Ibid._, 39.
[189] _Ibid._, 41.
[190] George Tyrrell. _A Much Abused Letter_, p. 42.
[191] _Ibid._, 44.
[192] _Ibid._, 48.
[193] George Tyrrell. _A Much Abused Letter_, p. 51.
[194] _Ibid._, 59.
[195] _Ibid._, 67.
[196] _Ibid._, 87.
[197] Briggs and Hügel, _The Papal Commission and the Pentateuch_,
p. 18.
[198] _The Papal Commission and the Pentateuch._
[199] _Ibid._, 54.
[200] _Ibid._, 59.
[201] _The Papal Commission and the Pentateuch._
[202] ii, 599.
[203] Theotimus, 238.
[204] Dejob, 351.
Transcriber’s Notes:
1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been
corrected silently.
2. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have
been retained as in the original.
3. Italics are shown as _xxx_.
4. Bold print is shown as =xxx=.
5. Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. D^r. or
X^{xx}.Project Gutenberg
The censorship of the Church of Rome and its influence upon the production and distribution of literature, volume 2 (of 2)
Putnam, George Haven
Chimera60
Graduate