“On account of the great ease,” says M. Putter, “with which, after
the invention of printing, copies of books could be multiplied and
dispersed, it was necessary that some means should be devised to
prevent a bad use from being made of this art, and to guard against its
being employed to the prejudice of either religion or good morals, or
to the injury of states. For this reason it was everywhere laid down as
a general maxim, that no one should be allowed to establish a printing
office at pleasure, but by the permission and under the inspection of
government; and that no work should be suffered to go to press until it
had been examined by a censor appointed for that purpose, or declared
by a particular order to be of a harmless nature[1260].”
Many centuries however before the invention of printing, books were
forbidden by different governments, and even condemned to the flames.
A variety of proofs can be produced that this was the case among both
the ancient Greeks and Romans. At Athens the works of Protagoras
were prohibited; and all the copies of them which could be collected
were burnt by the public crier[1261]. At Rome the writings of Numa,
which had been found in his grave, were, by order of the senate,
condemned to the fire, because they were contrary to the religion
which he had introduced[1262]. As the populace at Rome were, in times
of public calamity, more addicted to superstition than seemed proper
to the government, an order was issued that all superstitious and
astrological books should be delivered into the hands of the prætor.
This order was often repeated; and the emperor Augustus caused more
than two thousand of these books to be burnt at one time[1263]. Under
the same emperor the satirical works of Labienus were condemned to
the fire, which was the first instance of this nature; and it is
related as something singular, that a few years after the writings
of the person who had been the cause of the order for that purpose
shared the like fate, and were also publicly burnt[1264]. (In a manner
somewhat similar the works of Ben. Arias Montanus, who assisted to
make the first catalogue of prohibited books in the Netherlands, were
afterwards inserted in a catalogue of the same kind). The burning
of these works having induced Cassius Severus to say, in a sneering
manner, that it would be necessary to burn him alive, as he had got by
heart the writings of his friend Labienus, this expression gave rise
to a law of Augustus against abusive writings[1265]. When Cremutius
Cordus, in his History, called C. Cassius the last of the Romans, the
senate, in order to flatter Tiberius, caused the book to be burnt;
but a number of copies were saved by being concealed[1266]. Antiochus
Epiphanes caused the books of the Jews to be burnt[1267]; and in the
first centuries of our æra the books of the Christians were treated
with equal severity, of which Arnobius bitterly complains[1268]. We
are told by Eusebius, that Diocletian caused the sacred Scriptures
to be burnt[1269]. After the spreading of the Christian religion
the clergy exercised against books that were either unfavourable or
disagreeable to them, the same severity which they had censured in the
heathens as foolish and prejudicial to their own cause. Thus were the
writings of Arius condemned to the flames at the council of Nice; and
Constantine threatened with the punishment of death those who should
conceal them[1270]. The clergy assembled at the council of Ephesus
requested the emperor Theodosius II. to cause the works of Nestorius
to be burnt; and this desire was complied with[1271]. The writings of
Eutyches shared the like fate at the council of Chalcedon; and it would
not be difficult to collect examples of the same kind from each of the
following centuries.
We have instances also that, many centuries prior to the invention of
printing, authors submitted their works, before they were published,
to the judgement of their superiors. This was done principally by the
clergy; partly to secure themselves from censure or punishment, and
partly to show their respect to the pope or to bishops. It however does
not appear that this was a duty, but a voluntary act. In the year 768,
Ambrosius Autpert, a Benedictine monk, sent his Exposition of the book
of Revelation to Pope Stephen III., and begged that he would publish
the work and make it known. On this occasion he says expressly, that
he is the first writer who ever requested such a favour; that liberty
to write belongs to every one who does not wish to depart from the
doctrine of the fathers of the church; and he hopes that this freedom
will not be lessened on account of his voluntary submission[1272].
Soon after the invention of printing, laws began to be made for
subjecting books to examination; a regulation proposed even by Plato,
and which has been wished for by many since. It is very probable
that the fear under which the clergy were, lest publications should
get abroad prejudicial to religion, and consequently to their power,
contributed not a little to hasten the establishment of book-censors.
The earliest instance of a book printed with a permission from
government, is commonly supposed to occur in the year 1480; and Dom
Liron, a Benedictine monk, is perhaps the first person who made that
remark. He is the author of a work called Singularités Historiques
et Litteraires[1273]; in the last part of which, where he speaks of
the Heidelberg edition of the book Nosce te ipsum, in 1480, he says,
“This is the first publication I found accompanied with several solemn
approbations and attestations in its favour.” The same thing is said by
J. N. Weislinger, one of the most illiberal defenders of the Catholic
church, in whose work, entitled Armamentarium Catholicum[1274], there
is an account of that book. He there tells us in Latin, without
mentioning Liron, “This is the first book which I have seen, subjected
to the examination, reading, and approbation of the clergy;” and in the
opinion of Mercier, it really is the oldest. It has four approbations
(in Latin); the first and last of which I shall here insert (in
English), as they will serve to show the foolish pride of the clergy
at that period:--“I Philip Rota, doctor of laws, _though the least of
all_, have read over carefully, and diligently examined, this small
work, Nosce te; and as I have found it not only composed devoutly and
catholically, but abounding also with matter of wonderful utility, I
do not hesitate, in testimony of the above, to subscribe my name.... I
Mapheus Girardo, by the divine mercy patriarch of Venice and primate of
Dalmatia, confiding in the fidelity of the above gentlemen, who have
examined and approved the above-mentioned book, do testify that it is a
devout and orthodox work.” There were, therefore, censors at this early
period who gave their opinion of books without reading them.
I should have considered these instances as the oldest information
respecting book-censors, had I not been induced by M. Eccard, the
learned amanuensis belonging to our library, to look into the Literary
Weekly Journal of Cologne, for the year 1778. In that work I found
an ingenious account, by an anonymous author, of the early state of
printing in that city, and of two books printed almost a year sooner
than 1479, with the approbation of the public censor. The first is
Wilhelmi episcopi Lugdunensis Summa de Virtutibus; at the end of
which are the following words:--“Benedictus sit dominus virtutum, qui
hoc opus earundem felici consummatione terminari dedit in laudabili
civitate Coloniensi, temptatum, _admissumque et approbatum ab alma
universitate studii_ civitatis praedictae, _de consensu et voluntate_
spectabilis et egregii viri pro tempore recteris ejusdem, impressum
per Henr. Quentel.” The other book is a Bible, with the following
conclusion:--“Anno incarnationis dominice millesimo quadringentesimo
LXXIX ipsa vigilia Matthaei apostoli. Quando insigne veteris novique
testamenti opus cum canonibus evangelistarum et eorum concordantiis in
laudem et gloriam sancte et individue trinitatis intemerateque virginis
Marie impressum in Civitate Coloniensi per Conradum de Homborch,
_admissum_, _approbatum_ ab alma universitate Coloniensi.”
The oldest mandate for appointing a book-censor is, as far as I know
at present, that issued by Berthold, archbishop of Mentz, in the year
1486, and which may be found in the fourth volume of Guden’s Codex
Diplomaticus[1275].
In the year 1501, pope Alexander VI. published a bull, the first
part of which may form an excellent companion to the mandate of the
archbishop of Mentz[1276]. After some complaints against the devil,
who sows tares among the wheat, his holiness proceeds thus: “Having
been informed, that by means of the said art many books and treatises
containing various errors and pernicious doctrines, even hostile to
the holy Christian religion, have been printed, and are still printed
in various parts of the world, particularly in the provinces of
Cologne, Mentz, Triers, and Magdeburg; and being desirous, without
further delay, to put a stop to this detestable evil ... we, by these
presents, and by authority of the Apostolic chamber, strictly forbid
all printers, their servants, and those exercising the art of printing
under them, in any manner whatsoever, in the abovesaid provinces,
under pain of excommunication, and a pecuniary fine, to be imposed
and exacted by our venerable brethren the archbishops of Cologne,
Mentz, Triers, and Magdeburg, and their vicars-general or official in
spirituals, according to the pleasure of each in his own province, to
print hereafter any books, treatises, or writings, until they have
consulted on this subject the archbishops, vicars, or officials
above-mentioned, and obtained their special and express licence, to be
granted free of all expense, whose consciences we charge, that before
they grant any licence of this kind, they will carefully examine, or
cause to be examined, by able and catholic persons, the works to be
printed; and that they will take the utmost care that nothing may be
printed wicked and scandalous, or contrary to the orthodox faith.”
The rest of the bull contains regulations to prevent works already
printed from doing mischief. All catalogues and books printed before
that period were to be examined, and those which contained anything
prejudicial to the Catholic religion were to be burned.
In the beginning of the sixteenth century, it was ordered by the
well-known council of the Lateran, held at Rome in the year 1515, that
in future no books should be printed but such as had been inspected by
ecclesiastical censors.
In France, the faculty of Theology usurped, as some say, the right of
censuring books; but in the year 1650, when public censors, whom the
faculty opposed, were appointed without their consent, they stated the
antiquity of their right to be two hundred years. For they said, “It
is above two hundred years since the doctors of Paris have had a right
to approve books without being subjected but to their own faculty, to
which they assert they are alone responsible for their decisions[1277].”
[In no country of Europe does the liberty of the press prevail to such
an extent as with us, the only vestige of censorship being the censor
for the drama. In Rome the same strictness prevails as ever, but a
brighter day seems dawning. In Germany the censorship is excessively
severe, especially in Austria, Bavaria, and Prussia. However, most of
the prohibited works are printed in Switzerland, Hamburg, or Leipsig,
and there being a very large demand for such works, they may be had
of almost any bookseller in every principal town. To put a stop to
this, the present monarch of Prussia, _professedly_ a liberal, placed
under ban all the works issued by the firm of Hoffmann and Campe of
Hamburg, because they published the political poems of Hoffmann von
Fallersleben. Caricatures are, as the reader may suppose, subject to as
strict a law, and no H.B. could be tolerated there.]