CENSORSHIP IN THE EARLY CHURCH, 150–768
“Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together
and burned them before all men.”[12] This reference to the action taken
by certain men in Ephesus under the influence of the eloquence of St.
Paul is frequently cited by upholders of the censorship policy of the
Church of Rome. Some of the more artistically printed editions of
the Index (such for instance as the first Roman edition of the Index
of 1758) contain, as a vignette title, a representation of Paul’s
converts casting into the flames their books of magic, and beneath
the print the verse from the Acts. The fact that St. Paul was willing
to have his disciples, in their zeal for their new-born faith, make a
voluntary sacrifice of writings believed to be incompatible with this
faith cannot, of course, in itself constitute a sufficient warrant
for the claim developed later by the Church of the right to destroy
all literature that its rulers considered to be pernicious, or for
the still larger claim of authority to inflict extreme penalties on
those who produced, multiplied, or possessed the works thus condemned.
An admonition to get rid of unchristian books is one thing, and the
imposition of excommunication (or of an unconscious liability to
excommunication), on the ground of the reading of erroneous doctrine,
is another and a very different thing. But the whole theory of Church
authority and of excommunication was, of course, a matter of slow
development through the ages that followed the preaching of St.
Paul. It was in fact not until the 16th century that there came into
existence anything that could be called a censorship policy or any
attempt at a general censorship system; but from the earliest periods
in the history of the Church there are instances of condemnations of
individual writers, and of prohibitions, under severe penalties, of the
manifolding or distribution of particular works. These prohibitions
are usually the result of one of the series of fierce controversies
about dogma that characterised the earlier centuries of the Church.
They emanate for the most part from councils, but they are occasionally
issued directly by the pope or by local bishops. In certain cases, they
take the form of an imperial edict, but even in these the initiative
comes from a council. It is probable that the influence either of
the councils or of the emperor in restricting the multiplication or
distribution of the writings that had been condemned was not very
effective. The edicts and decrees may be considered as representing an
expression of opinion (connected with one of the bitter theological
controversies of the day) rather than as regulations to be enforced.
There was in fact no machinery for the enforcement. The work of the
copying scribes could not be supervised, as was possible later for
the operations of the printers, and the manuscripts could be passed
from hand to hand among the sectarians, without the intervention of a
bookshop. There are instances of literary censorship on the part of the
imperial authorities of Rome before the institution of the Christian
Church. These are outside of the range of my present subject, but
certain examples may be cited as curiosities.
=Early Prohibitions of Literature.=--Tacitus remarks that Augustus
was the first ruler who undertook to punish a word written or spoken
(that is to say, a word unaccompanied by action). While the law of the
Roman Republic had recognised as deserving of punishment only criminal
deeds, the Emperor brought the authority of the law to bear upon
writings described as libellous or scandalous (_libelli famosi_).
He ordered, for instance, that the writings of Labienus should be
publicly burned. His successor, Tiberius, issued a still stronger
regulation for the supervision of undisciplined or insubordinate
writings. Cremutius Cordus was driven from his occupation and left
to die through poverty for the offence of speaking of Gaius Cassius
as “the last Roman.” His writings were ordered to be burned by the
Aediles. Tacitus speaks with scorn of those who, in the possession
of a little momentary power, undertake to crush out opinions not in
accord with their own, or to prevent such opinions from being handed
down to posterity. The writings of Vejinto were prohibited by Nero.
Concerning this prohibition, Tacitus writes: “So long as the possession
of these writings was attended with danger, they were eagerly sought
and read; when there was no longer any difficulty in securing them,
they fell into oblivion.” An edict ascribed to Domitian ordered that
the historian Hermogenes and any book-dealers who concerned themselves
with the distribution of certain writings of his which had libelled
the Emperor should be crucified.[13] The German historian Schmitz
is, however, of opinion that this so-called edict of Domitian was
apocryphal. It appears certainly, however, to have been the case that
the policy of these earlier emperors was decidedly opposed to any
freedom of expression of thought. If it is the case that in the later
centuries of imperial rule there are fewer instances of punishments of
writers or orders for the suppression of literature, the explanation
may be that literary activity had already been substantially repressed.
Justinian deposed from office Severus and certain other bishops
because they had been lax in their supervision of literature, and had
permitted the wide circulation throughout the realm of prohibited
books and pernicious writings. With the development of the Church of
Rome to the ecclesiastical headship of the world, the claim for the
supervision of literature and for the control of the productions of
authors was asserted by the Church as the legitimate successor of the
imperial authority. It is the opinion of Lea that the earliest act of
censorship, and perhaps the most sweeping, of the Christian Church
is that contained in the “Apostolic Constitutions” which purport to
have been written by St. Clement of Rome at the dictation of the
Apostles. These prefigure the Index by forbidding the Christians to
read any books of the Gentiles;--“the Scriptures should suffice for the
believer.”[14]
The following schedule of the more representative and important of
the prohibitions of the early Church is based chiefly on the record
presented by Reusch.
_150_ A. D. (_about_). _A synod of bishops of Asia Minor_, meeting
either at Ephesus or at Smyrna, prohibits the _Acta Pauli_. The _Acta
Pauli_ was an historical romance written about the middle of the 2d
century and having for its purpose the glorification of the life and
labours of St. Paul. The text of a portion of the work has recently
been produced in facsimile, from a Coptic manuscript, by Professor Carl
Schmidt of Heidelberg. The book is referred to by Eusebius and also
by Photius, who writes in the middle of the 9th century. There is an
earlier reference by Tertullian in his work on baptism, written about
200. According to Father Shahan, the work was condemned on the ground
that, although apparently the work of an “orthodox” Christian, it did
not present an authentic record. Notwithstanding this condemnation,
the _Acta Pauli_ continued throughout the earlier centuries of the
Church to secure circulation among Christians. This action of the
bishops of Asia Minor appears to be the first recorded instance of
ecclesiastical censorship of a work classed as heretical or at least as
not authentic.[15]
_325._ _The Council of Nicæa_ prohibits the _Thalia_ of Arius.
_325._ _The Emperor Constantine_ issues an edict directing the
destruction of the godless books of Porphyry and of the writings of
Arius. The penalty of death was ordered for any who might conceal
copies.
_398._ _The Emperor Arcadius_ issues an edict ordering, under penalty
of death, the destruction of the books of the Eunomians.
_399._ _Arcadius_ issues an edict ordering the destruction under
penalty of death (_humiliores capite puniuntur_) of all books of
magic art. These edicts of Arcadius were the result of the action
of the first two councils of the Church. It seems evident that the
extreme penalties prescribed in the Roman law for those who should
use or distribute books of magic were, under the influence of the
ecclesiastics, utilised for the repression of their theological
opponents.
_399._ _The Council of Alexandria_, under Bishop Theophilus, issues a
decree forbidding the owning or the reading of the books of Origen.
The Egyptian monks protested and the bishops were obliged to call in
the aid of the prefects to restore order in the council and to agree
to enforce its authority. It is to be noted that the service of the
secular government was required to secure the enforcement of this edict.
_402._ _Innocent I_ writes: “I have read through the treatise of
Pelagius. I found in this much that was antagonistic to the Grace of
God, much that was blasphemous, and hardly anything that was deserving
of approval. The book is one the evil influence of which each believer
ought to be able to recognise for himself and to condemn.” This papal
utterance is, of course, not to be classed as a prohibition. I make
place for it in the schedule because it is an early expression of the
literary policy that is now, fifteen centuries after Innocent, being
followed by the Church, namely, to characterise pernicious books and
to place upon believers the responsibility of condemning them for
themselves.
_431._ _The Council of Ephesus_ condemns the errors and the writings of
the Nestorians.
_435._ _The Emperor Theodosius_ issues an edict forbidding the
possession, the reading, or the copying of the Nestorian books, and
ordering existing copies to be delivered up for burning.[16]
_436._ _Theodosius_ issues an edict forbidding the possession and the
reading of the books of the Manichaeans and ordering the burning of the
same.[17]
_446._ _Pope Leo I_ issues an edict ordering destruction of the books
of Porphyry and of Origen, and the writings of the Nestorians, the
Manichaeans, the Eunomians, the Montanists, the Eutychians, and all
others which were antagonistic to the Christian religion, and which
were not in accord with the teachings of the Synods of Nicaea and
Ephesus. The prohibition reads: “Whoever owns or reads these books is
to suffer extreme punishment.”
_494._ Under _Pope Gelasius I_, was issued what is afterwards referred
to as the first papal Index. It was a catalogue of works prohibited,
and is so cited in the Decretals of Gratian. It was, however, not
properly a prohibitory Index, in that it has to do, not with private
and general, but with public or official reading.
_496._ _Pope Gelasius_ issues a decree, published at a council of
Rome, and confirmed in a decree of Gratian, which specifies the
patristic writings accepted and approved by the Church, and which
then proceeds to the condemnation of a long series of apocryphal
and heretical writings and writers. These writings are specified as
follows: “_Haec et omnia his similia non solum repudiata, verum etiam
ab omni Romana catholica et apostolica ecclesia eliminata atque cum
suis auctoribus auctorumque sequacibus sub anathematis indissolubili
vinculo in aeternum confitemur esse damnata._”[18] This decree, known
as the _Decretum Gelasianum_, is sometimes referred to as the earliest
example of an Index emanating from the Church. It is, however, an Index
only in a restricted sense of the term, as it does not order a general
prohibition of the reading of the works specified but calls simply for
their rejection and condemnation. The phrase _omnia his similia_ is
curiously vague for an Index specification.
_536._ _The Emperor Justinian_, as a result of a condemnation by the
Synod of Constantinople, orders the burning of the books of Severus.
The manifolding of these books is prohibited under a penalty for the
scribe of the loss of his writing hand.[19] It appears from these
and from similar examples that, according to the practice of the two
centuries after Constantine, the responsibility for the condemnation
of heretical writings was assumed by the councils, while the work of
prohibiting the books, of destroying the copies, and of punishing those
who retained copies was carried out under the authority of the emperor.
_649._ _Pope Martin I_ issues a decree condemning and prohibiting
certain heretical literature.
_681._ _The Council of Constantinople_ issues a decree condemning
certain heretical literature and ordering all copies of the same to
be burned. This is the first instance in which, in place of referring
the matter to the secular authority, a council had itself ordered the
destruction of the condemned books.
_692._ _The Council of Trulla_ issues an edict ordering the burning of
certain histories of the martyrs, which had been produced in versified
form.[20]
_755._ _The Council of Rome_ issues an edict ordering the burning of
certain condemned writings of Adelbert. Pope Zacharius took the ground,
however, that it would be wiser to preserve the offending books in
the archives of the Papacy, _ad reprobationem et ad perpetuam ejus
confusionem_.
_768._ An authorisation is granted by _Pope Stephen III_ to Ambrosius
Autpert, a Benedictine monk, for a treatise the title of which is not
given. In his application, Autpert states that he is the first author
who has sought for his work the approval of the Head of the Church; and
that he is anxious to keep his writings in accord with the teachings of
the Fathers of the Church.[21]
_787._ _The second Council of Nicaea_ issues an edict ordering the
destruction of certain “falsified utterances of the Martyrs” which had
been prepared by “enemies of the Church.”
_814._ _The Patriarch Nicephorus_ orders the destruction in
Constantinople of similar falsified acts of the Martyrs. The number of
such censorship edicts in the early Church is not considerable, but it
is to be remembered that through the lack of knowledge of reading, the
faithful were, during these centuries, fairly well protected against
any evil influence from pernicious literature.