CENSORSHIP
To the mind of the fifteenth or sixteenth century man the protection of
church and state and of the public was a very much more important matter
than the protection of the printer or the author, and it was seen that
the printing press might easily distill a venom which would poison the
minds of men and threaten the health of institutions. Measures to
prevent this occurrence went hand in hand with the granting of
privileges. It was only natural that they should do so as they might
well be regarded as conditions upon which the privilege should be
granted, or, as the idea developed, upon which the trade should be
exercised. France early decreed that every piece of printing put out in
the kingdom must be certified as “containing nothing contrary to faith,
good manners, public peace, and the royal authority.” Theoretically,
nothing could be more admirable. Doubtless many of us today would like
to be assured that all printed matter should meet these requirements. It
is obvious, however, that such regulations were liable to work very
badly in practice. What constitutes faith, good manners, public peace,
and the royal authority? These are, to a considerable extent, matters of
opinion. It may happen that the royal authority becomes tyranny and
ought to be opposed rather than supported. In the hands of the
narrow-minded, ignorant, and unscrupulous, censorship laws may easily
open the way to intolerable abuses. As a matter of fact, they have only
too often done so, and it is for that reason that we in the United
States today insist upon freedom of the press.
Possible injury to the faith was very early perceived by the church. As
guardian of the faith and morals of the people, the church felt
constrained to see that nothing with heretical or immoral tendencies
should be placed in the hands of the faithful. Just as Venice led the
way in laws relating to privilege, so she was prominent in the matter of
censoring books. Usually the body which issued licenses had charge of
the censorship as well. It might not distrust the ecclesiastical
examination and censoring of the books, but it made the censorship
effective by its refusal of privilege. Later, as we shall see, when this
procedure did not prove entirely effective other methods were taken to
punish the printers and the authors of books which were deemed
injurious. The first book which appeared with the approval of the
ecclesiastical authorities was printed in 1480. This approval at first
had nothing to do with the privilege to print, but was rather a
commendation to the attention of the faithful.
In 1487, however, the Pope (Innocent VIII) issued a bull against
objectionable books. This bull was addressed to the States of the
Church, Italy, Germany, France, Spain, England, and Scotland. As a
result, probably, of this bull, Venice enacted a requirement in 1508
that the approval of the Church should precede the granting of any
privilege to print. In 1515 the Lateran Council established the
principle of strict censorship. The religious troubles of the sixteenth
century had much to do with the application of this principle. In the
Protestant countries it was applied much less vigorously than in the
Catholic countries. It must not be understood, however, that the
Protestants had any broader or more intelligent views on the subject of
censorship than the Catholics had. They were just as ready to recognize
the principle of censorship and apply it, but the occasions for applying
it were, or seemed to be, less frequent. Venice, although always a
Catholic country, was careful to keep herself as independent of Rome as
possible. The Venetians consequently kept the reins in their own hands
with regard to the censorship of books as well as in other matters,
although they co-operated with the church authorities and offered no
hindrances to the work of the Inquisition.
In 1503 Venice extended the scope of censorship to cover the literary
quality of books and translations, the political effect of books, and
their effect upon morals. The political and moral censorship appears to
have been less effective than the religious and literary. In 1547 the
Inquisition took charge of the censorship of books and the punishment of
those who offended against the press laws, and continued to exercise
those functions until 1730. It is interesting to note that the greatest
activity of the Inquisition was in the first half century of its work, a
period when religion was still the subject of bitter controversy and
bloody warfare. The Inquisition took cognizance of 132 cases between
1547 and 1600. Between 1600 and 1700, however, it only dealt with 55,
while from 1700 to 1730 it dealt with only four.
In 1571 Pope Pius V started the Index Expurgatorius. This Index was and
is a list wherein are registered books and other publications which are
condemned by the Commission in charge of it, called the Congregation of
the Index, as being immoral and unsound either in religion or politics.
By this means the church undertakes to protect its members from the
reading of books calculated to injure their morals or to unsettle their
faith.
Lines of legislation in Venice regarding censorship ran in certain very
definite directions, namely: the legalizing of custom and precedent,
protection of the industry against foreign competition and preservation
of the excellence of the nation’s press, protection of the buyer of
books against poor workmanship and excessive charges (protection of the
author’s right has already been discussed), and the development of a
Bureau to administer the press laws and regulate the industry. In 1549
the book trade was organized by the creation with definite legal
recognition of the Guild of Printers and Booksellers. It was believed
that the trade could be dealt with better and could do its own work
better if it were organized.
The purpose of the guild was three-fold:
1. To protect trade interests—the purpose of trade organizations at all
times.
2. To assist the state and church in watching the output of the press.
3. To suppress pernicious books.
As the years went by the tendency was for the state censorship to relax
and for the church censorship to become more severe. In time the
censorship became very harassing and very troublesome. In 1671, although
the Inquisition had ceased to be very active in dealing with the
enforcement of press censorship laws, the requirements preliminary to
printing a book were so severe that one wonders that printing existed at
all. If a man wanted to print a book in Venice at that time he had to
secure the following:
1. A testamur (a sort of approval) from the Inquisition.
2. A testamur from the Ducal Secretary.
3. A certificate from the University of Padua.
4. Permission to print from the Council of Ten.
5. Revision of his work by the superintendent of the press.
6. Revision of his proofs by the public proof reader.
7. Collation of the original text with the printed text by the
representative of the University.
8. A certificate by the Librarian of Saint Marks that a copy of the book
had been deposited in the Library.
9. Examination by government experts to fix the price.
Almost every one of these processes had to be paid for. Italy outside
Venice was strongly influenced by Rome and the press was comparatively
strictly controlled by the influence of the church.
In Germany, on the contrary, the censorship was probably the least
severe of any on the Continent. As already noted, there was
substantially no printing of original work in Germany until 1500 and
consequently no special need of censorship. Shortly afterward Germany
was rent in twain by religious dissensions. It must be remembered that
the Reformation, being very largely a political movement, the difference
between Catholics and Protestants followed geographical lines for the
most part. There were comparatively few Protestants in Catholic
countries or Catholics in Protestant countries. The Protestants seized
upon the printing press as a method of propaganda. They consequently
advocated its freedom and encouraged its use. The Catholics at first
attempted to defend themselves from this attack by the suppression of
printing and the destruction of imported books. After a little time,
however, with greater wisdom, they themselves made use of the printing
press for a counter propaganda. Those who were disturbed by the
censorship in a country in either camp could and did move to one in the
other. In this way unless a man had religious opinions which were
unacceptable anywhere or wished to publish books which were seditious or
immoral it would be entirely easy for him to find a place where he could
be undisturbed and probably encouraged.
The early assertion of government control in France has already been
described. Francis I, although a good friend of printing, was a loyal
son of the church, and all the more so because of his unfriendly
relations with Henry VIII of England who, for much of his life, was not
on good terms with the church. Francis, therefore, issued edicts in 1521
enforcing the censorship which was called for by the decree of the
Lateran Council already referred to.
This censorship was exercised by a considerable number of persons. This
was always a defect in the French press laws and was the cause of a
great deal of difficulty and hardship. At first censorship was exercised
by the bishops, by the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris,
by the Parliament of Paris, by the Royal Chancellor, by the
Director-General of the Book Trade, and by the Lieutenant of Police.
Tendencies to consolidation, however, soon manifested themselves. The
first important step was the centering of church censorship in the hands
of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris to the exclusion
of the bishops generally.
The tendency to centralize was naturally accompanied by a tendency to
tighten the censorship of the civil authorities, a tendency quite
opposite to that which we observed in Venice. In 1624 a Censor-Royal was
appointed to whom everybody, even the bishops themselves, was obliged to
submit his writing. The numerous civil authorities having charge of
censorship caused confusion for a time, but gradually their powers were
concentrated in the hands of the Director-General of the Book Trade.
The laws were administered by inspectors of bookselling and enforced by
the police and the civil courts. The laws were very severe. They applied
primarily to the printer and bookseller, probably because he was an
easier person to get at than the author and much more likely to be
financially responsible. The printer was obliged to make public the name
of the author and printer, the place of manufacture, and the place of
sale of every book which he printed. A printer might be prosecuted if an
authorized book turned out to be objectionable. This was a particularly
unjust law because the printer was obliged to take the chance that,
after the book had been duly censored and approved by authority, some
censor, perhaps not the one who had originally approved it, might find
something in it which he considered objectionable.
The penalties for infraction of the press laws were very severe. They
consisted of the burning of books, confiscation of books, fines,
flogging, imprisonment, banishment, and even burning alive. From 1660 to
1756, 869 authors, printers, and booksellers were sent to the Bastille.
At least one-third of these were printers.
The press laws in France were more severe than almost anywhere else in
Europe. In practical operation they favored foreign printers at the
expense of the French. Naturally the result of all of this regulation
was that Frenchmen did not print, and the market was supplied from
abroad. If the laws had been strictly enforced printing would apparently
have been driven out of France. There were, however, certain
mitigations. In the first place certain things were exempt from the
operations of the press laws, such as legal documents, police papers,
documents bearing the signatures of advocates, and small publications of
two leaves or less for the spread of news or for other purposes. This
particular exemption was always the cause of a good deal of question and
a good deal of abuse. Again, these laws were largely held in reserve,
that is to say, they made possible the punishment of offending printers,
but in many cases the offender was not proceeded against unless someone
complained. Again, the judges used large discretion in dealing with
cases of infraction of the press laws. In many cases licenses were
issued in a very informal way, so that official responsibility was not
involved; and sometimes a clandestine permission was given, the printer
being assured that although his book could not be approved no action
would be taken against him if he published it. False statements as to
place of printing were used as a means of avoiding responsibility,
sometimes apparently with the connivance of the authorities. The
personal influence of the Chancellor was very great in these cases, and
it was entirely possible for him to protect authors or writers if he
chose to do so.
By the eighteenth century the condition had become practically
intolerable. There was a great mass of laws on the statute books.
Legislation was confused and contradictory and of the most drastic sort.
The enforcement was sporadic and irregular, depending upon a great many
personal and local considerations. There was no underlying principle to
control either the making or enforcement of the laws. All this, like so
much else that belonged to the life of the old days, was swept away by
the French Revolution. All the laws regarding privilege, censorship, and
the like were annulled in a mass. The press was given absolute freedom
and left without any control whatever. Of course, it abused this freedom
and the condition of things for a while was extremely bad. It finally
readjusted itself, however, and gradually settled down into the
condition which is familiar today.