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