THE ROMAN INQUISITION AND THE CONGREGATION OF THE INDEX.
1. =The Institution of the Roman Inquisition, 1542.=--The year 1542
marks the beginning of formal regulations framed in Rome itself for
the suppression of heretical literature and for the supervision and
control of the work of the printers. The English catalogues of 1542
and later, and the edicts of Charles V, published between 1526 and
1540, while having for their expressed purpose the maintenance of
the doctrines of the Church, were issued under the authority of the
State. These earlier censorship measures do not appear even to have
been the result of any direct initiative or suggestion from Rome.
It may be remembered, indeed, that the _Bulla Coenae_ presents, in
its successive forms, a very forcible expression of the policy of
the Church in regard to the spread of heresies through literature
and of the intention of controlling the production and distribution
of books, and this Bull in its original form (as issued by Urban V
in 1364) antedates the operation of the printing-press by nearly
a century. But the formulation of the measures by which the fight
against this perilous ally of heresy was to be carried on, had to wait
for the reorganisation, in 1542, of the Roman Inquisition, which
reorganisation was the direct result of the revolt of Luther and his
associates.
In the present study, I am concerned with the Inquisition only in
so far as this was brought into direct relations with the work of
censorship. The Inquisition as an institution was not brought into
existence at any one date but had a gradual development. Lea refers to
the
“gradual organisation of the Inquisition as being the result of
an evolution arising from the mutual reaction of certain social
forces. The triumph of the Church in the suppression of the
Albigensian crusades had increased its responsibilities, while
the imperfection of the means at its command for discharging
these responsibilities was evidenced by the enormous spread of
heresy during the 12th century.”[94]
The responsibility for the discovery and the control of heresy had from
the earlier years of the Church rested in the hands of the bishops. For
many years after the central authorities undertook to exercise a direct
control over heresy and heretics by means of inquisitors appointed from
Rome, the bishops continued to enforce their own jurisdiction in the
matter of the trial of heretics, sometimes apart from the inquisitors
and sometimes in conjunction with them. The spiritual courts which came
to be attached to their episcopates, and which exercised exclusive
jurisdiction over a constantly widening jurisprudence, arose gradually
during the troubles that followed the division of the Carlovingian
empire. All errors of faith and charges of heresy necessarily came
within the purview of these spiritual courts.[95] Following in the
traces of the civil law, there were in these spiritual courts
three forms of action in criminal cases: _accusatio_, _denunciato_,
and _inquisitio_. In _accusatio_ there was an accuser who formally
inscribed himself as responsible and who in case of failure was
subject to the _taglio_. _Denunciatio_ was the official act of a
public officer, such as the archdeacon, who summoned the court to take
action against the offenders coming within his official knowledge. In
_inquisitio_, the Ordinary arrested the suspected criminal, imprisoning
him if necessary. The indictment, or _capitula inquisitionis_, was
communicated to him and he was interrogated thereupon with the proviso
that nothing extraneous to the indictment could be subsequently
brought into the case to aggravate it. The verdict was finally
given by the Ordinary. The first inquisitors may be considered as
in a measure successors to the _Missi Dominici_ of Charlemagne,
officials commissioned to traverse the empire making inquisition into
all cases of disorder, crime, and injustice. We find in Verona, in
1228, “inquisitors” and “manifestors” employed by the State for the
“detection and punishment of blasphemy.”[96] Under Clement, the bishops
were ordered to make diligent visitations throughout their dioceses
investigating all offences, and with the growth of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, this inquisitorial duty was perfected and organised. In
1227, the Council of Narbonne commanded all bishops to institute in
every parish _testes synodales_ who should investigate heresy and other
offences.
The popes had endeavoured to overcome episcopal indifference to the
matter of heresy by a somewhat irregular “Legatine Inquisition.” It
would appear, however, as if up to the beginning of the 13th century
this whole business of the discovery and the correction of heresy had
been cared for by the Church authorities in an unsystematic manner and
with no consistency of policy. The more conscientious and more forcible
rulers of the Church recognised that heresy must be exterminated at
whatever cost, but the measures for its extermination proved to be
difficult to bring into organisation. “The institution of the mendicant
orders,” says Lea, “placed at the disposal of the Church groups of
workers who possessed exceptional facilities for the task to be
undertaken. The Dominicans and the Franciscans were peculiarly devoted
to the Papacy, and the papal authority placed in their hands to carry
on in its larger development the work of the Inquisition, proved to be
a powerful instrument to extend the influence of Rome and to lessen the
independence of the local churches.”[97]
The consecutive history of the Inquisition as a definite organisation
may be said to date from the Council of Toulouse in 1229. The Spanish
Inquisition, which proved to be by far the most persistent, the most
effective, and the most terrible of the Inquisition organisations of
the world, dates from 1480. Curiously enough, the most complete and
pitiless of the acts of persecution that were based upon the Lateran
canons was the work of one of the fiercest opponents of the Church,
the Emperor Frederick II. It became necessary, on more grounds than
one, for the Emperor to meet the charges of heresy that had been freely
brought against him, and for this purpose, he found it convenient
to manifest special zeal in the persecution of heretics. The edicts
putting this persecution into form were issued between the years
1220 and 1239. In 1232, Frederick placed at the command of the papal
inquisitors the whole machinery of the State, for the purpose of
tracing heresy and of capturing and condemning heretics. Frederick’s
coronation edict against heretics, issued in 1220, was sent by Pope
Honorius to the University of Bologna to be taught as a part of
practical law. The whole series of Frederick’s edicts was subsequently
promulgated by successive popes in repeated Bulls. The substance of
these edicts was finally incorporated in the _Corpus Juris_ as
part of the canon law itself, and their regulations may, technically
speaking, be regarded as in force in the present day.[98]
The commission issued in 1227 by Gregory IX may be conveniently
accepted as constituting the foundation of the papal Inquisition.
From this date, the policy of the Church in the great work of the
suppression of heresy was pushed forward with a consistency on the
part of the central organisation that had not before been possible.
In April, 1233, Gregory IX issued two Bulls making the persecution of
heresy the special function of the Dominicans. The plan, arrived at
by Gregory, for the selection by the provincial churches of certain
brethren who exercised within their several provinces the delegated
authority of the Holy See in searching out and examining heretics, was
accepted as a permanent basis of the Inquisition. The bishops continued
from time to time to protest against the invasion by these papal
inquisitors of their territories and of their responsibilities, but the
power of the Inquisition continued to strengthen itself through the
centuries. The germ of the Inquisition lies in the duty of searching
out and correcting error. It was, therefore, natural that when the new
art of printing had largely increased the risk of the spread of error,
the Inquisition should have claimed and should have secured a large
share of the responsibility for the control of the printing-press.
The chief original authority for the system of the earlier Inquisition
is the _Directorium Inquisitorium_ of Nicholas Eymeric, who was
Inquisitor-General for Castile in 1316. Eymeric left, among other
works, the manuscript of a _Liber Sententiarum_, or Book of Judgments,
which presents the early rules of procedure. In 1252, Innocent IV
issued the Bull _Ad Extirpanda_, addressed to the potentates and
rulers of Italy, which presented an elaborate law for the establishing
of machinery for systematic persecution in every city and in every
State. In 1265, Urban IV renewed an order, originally issued in 1257
by Alexander IV, under which the local authorities were forbidden
to interfere in any way with the action of the Inquisition. The
Inquisition was made supreme in all lands and it became an accepted
maxim of law that all legislation interfering with its free action was
void and that all who enacted such laws were to be punished. When a
monarch like Philip the Fair undertook to protect his subjects against
inquisitorial processes, he risked incurring Divine vengeance. Under
the canon law, any one, from the meanest to the highest, who opposed,
or who impeded in any way, the functions of the inquisitor, or who
gave aid or counsel to others so acting, became at once, _ipso facto_,
excommunicate. In England, the statute _de haeretico comburendo_,
enacted in 1400, for the first time secured for that country the
penalty of death as a punishment for heresy. It was under this statute
that dissemination of heretical opinions by preaching or by books was
prohibited and controlled. In 1262, Urban IV instituted the office of
inquisitor-general, the first occupant of which was Cajetano Orsini,
who became Pope as Nicholas III. After the 13th century, however,
the post remained vacant. The Spanish Inquisition retained in its
organisation, from the beginning, the post of inquisitor-general,
and under such direction as that of Torquemada and of Ximenes, the
prosecution of heresy secured in Spain a consistency and finality of
action which were not to be found in any other State.
“The papal Inquisition was an instrument of infinitely greater
efficiency for the work in hand than any inquisitorial machinery
controlled by the bishops. However zealous an episcopal official
might be, his efforts were necessarily isolated, temporary, and
spasmodic. The papal Inquisition, on the other hand, constituted
a chain of tribunals throughout continental Europe, perpetually
manned by those who had no other work to attend to. Not only
therefore did persecution in their hands assume the aspect of
belonging to the endless and inevitable operations of nature,
which was necessary to accomplish its end and which rendered the
heretic hopeless that time would bring relief, but by constant
interchange of documents and mutual co-operation these tribunals
covered Christendom with a network that rendered escape nearly
hopeless. The Inquisition had a long arm and a sleepless memory
and it is not difficult to understand the terror inspired by
the secrecy of its operations and by its almost supernatural
vigilance.”[99]
In July, 1542, under a Bull of Paul III, a new organisation was
given to the Roman Inquisition. Six cardinals were appointed
inquisitors-general, the list including Caraffa who was in 1555 to
become Pope under the name of Paul IV, and who had already taken an
active part in the fight against heresy.
The six inquisitors were empowered to take such measures as they found
necessary, with or without the co-operation of the local bishops,
for the detection and punishment of heretics, the examination of
suspected persons, the destruction of pernicious literature, and
generally for the suppression of heresy. They were also to appoint
delegates or sub-inquisitors, and to take action on appeals from all
the lower tribunals of the Inquisition. In 1558, Paul IV ordered
that the inquisitor-general or chief should always be a cardinal,
and that he should be charged with the supervision of all matters
of faith, proceedings against heretics, etc. He was to retain this
special authority during any vacancy in the Papacy. The Cardinal of
Alexandria, Ghislieri, was, however, the only one who held this sole
authority. When, in 1566, he was chosen Pope as Pius V, he appointed
four cardinals as inquisitors-general. Lea points out that the purpose
of the institution of the Inquisition was not merely the suppression
of heresy, but the reform of corruption and the correction of the
immoralities that had sprung up within the Church. Lea is speaking more
directly of the Inquisition in Spain, but the statement apparently
holds good also for the Inquisition of Rome, which charged itself later
particularly with the work of carrying out the reforms ordered by the
Council of Trent.
_1543._ _The Inquisitors-general_ issue an edict for the suppression of
heretical literature and of books written by heretics. The book-dealers
throughout Italy are forbidden, under penalty of excommunication and
of a fine of 1000 ducats, and of other punishments to be determined
in the several cases, to sell or to possess any books written by
heretics, or tainted with heresies. They are further ordered to place
in readiness for inspection all books then in stock or later received,
and thereafter to sell no books that have not been examined and
approved by inspectors appointed for the purpose. Similar instructions
are issued for the printers concerning the printing of books condemned.
The inquisitor of Ferrara and Bologna is delegated to arrange for
the inspection of printing-offices, bookshops, libraries, convents,
churches, and private houses, and to make destruction of all books
to be classed as heretical, and to report the names of all printers,
dealers, librarians, or others who refuse or evade co-operation in such
search.
_1550._ _Pope Julius III_, in a Bull issued in April, recalls and
cancels all permissions or dispensations at that time in force, for
the reading or possession of prohibited books. These permissions had
for the most part been issued to scholarly ecclesiastics whose studies
appeared to call for some knowledge of heretical literature. The Bull
repeats also the previous prohibitions, specifications of penalties,
etc., against printers, booksellers, or others, who may produce, sell,
buy, possess, or read such books. The Bull was to be read at St.
Peter’s and at the Lateran, and its provisions became binding, sixty
days later, on all persons.
The possession or the reading of forbidden books constitutes one
of the most frequent charges in the Inquisition trials of the 16th
century.[100]
The scheme for the development of the Roman Inquisition so that its
organisation should cover as with a comprehensive network the whole
of the territory that accepted the authority of the Church, was never
brought to completion. The Inquisition of Spain, the most Catholic
of the Catholic States, retained from the outset its independence
from Rome. The Spanish Inquisition, in form at least, worked under
the authority of the king, while in fact, except in the case of
strong-willed monarchs like Charles V and Philip II, it dominated
the throne as well as the country. France, in company with the other
Catholic States north of the Alps, in like manner refused to accept
as binding instructions from Rome for the direction of the operations
of the local inquisition. In France as in England, the control of
the machinery rested practically with the king, while in the several
States of Germany, the authority was for the most part exercised by
the archbishops and bishops. Even in Italy, the Roman Inquisition did
not succeed in securing a general acceptance of its authority. Venice
was able to retain, during the greater part of the centuries, liberty
of action, particularly in the control of the printing-press; Sicily
was under the control of Spain, and there were from time to time
protests and revolts in Florence and Milan.[101] The influence of the
Inquisition of Rome was, however, more extended and more important
than would be indicated by the range of acceptance of the authority
of its edicts and orders. The decisions of its courts and the policy
emphasised in its edicts were very largely followed by the inquisitors
in Spain, France, and elsewhere, and they helped to secure some measure
of consistency throughout the Catholic States in the treatment of
heresy and in the supervision of heretical literature.
_1550._ _Ghislieri, Inquisitor at Como_ (who became Pope as Pius V)
excommunicated the vicar and chapter because they had taken part with
certain book-dealers of whose stock twelve bales of books, classed as
heretical, had been confiscated. By direction of the vicar and chapter
of Como, the books had been returned to the importers. Como was at
that time being used as a port of entry for Northern Italy for books
from Germany and Switzerland. The sympathies of the town were with
the book-dealers and the Inquisition was said to have escaped with
difficulty the vengeance of the injured parties.[102]
_1563._ _Pius IV_ issues a Bull giving authority to the Inquisition to
proceed, in regard to heresy, against prelates as well as laymen. The
action of the Roman Inquisition was as a rule much less severe than
that of the Spanish organisation, and there was, therefore fierce and
effective opposition when Spanish monarchs, in connection with their
control of Italian territory, attempted from time to time to introduce
the Spanish regulations into Naples and Milan.
_1595._ _Decrees of the Roman Inquisition_ order the inquisitors, or
in their absence the bishop, to make search for heretical books in the
cargoes of all incoming ships. The books found are to be confiscated
and burned. In the Inquisition of Rome, as also in the Congregation
of the Index, the Dominicans had from the beginning exercised a very
large influence, and were in fact for the greater part of the time in
full control. From the beginning of the 16th century, this Order had
taken the leading part in the work of extirpating heresy. It was at
the instance of Cardinal Caraffa that a Dominican was associated with
the six cardinals as “Commissary” and became the actual executive of
the board. Many of the edicts and orders, and particularly those in
regard to books, soon came to be issued on the sole responsibility
of the “Commissary.”[103] In the selection of the authors to be
condemned and of the phases of doctrine to be brought into disrepute,
the old-time antagonism of the Dominicans against the Franciscans and
the Jesuits speedily became apparent. The generals of the Franciscans
emphasised with the popes the evil that was caused to the influence
of the Church by confiding to ignorant and prejudiced monks the
supervision of literature and the determination of heresies. It is not
clear, however, that the management of the Inquisition became more
judicious or the supervision of the censorship more discriminating at
the times (comparatively infrequent) when the control of the Dominicans
was replaced by that of the more scholarly, but no less bitter and
partisan, influence of the Jesuits.
The chaplain of Philip II declared it as his opinion that the
purification of Spain from heretics was due to the deaths brought about
under the regulations of the Index, and the prosecution of heretics by
the Inquisition. Cardinal Pallavicino, in his eulogy on Paul IV, lays
special emphasis on the Pope’s zealous attachment to the Inquisition,
and claims that the preservation of Italy from the infection of
invading heresies was due to the activity of the holy tribunal, and
particularly to its work in supervising the Index.[104] Paramo asserts
that the Holy Office of the Inquisition originated in Paradise and that
its record can be traced through the succeeding ages of Jewish and of
Christian history.
=2. Trials under the Inquisition in the 17th Century.=--The most
noteworthy of the trials directed by the Inquisition during the first
half of the 17th century is that of Galileo. In connection with a
denunciation that had been submitted to the authorities concerning the
teachings of Galileo, the Inquisition secured from its theological
counsellors an examination of and a formal opinion concerning two
propositions which presented the Copernican theory. One of these
was declared to be heretical, while the other was characterised as
simply erroneous. As a result of this report, given in March, 1616,
the Congregation of the Index condemned, with a _d. c._, the treatise
by Copernicus, _De revolutionibus orbium coelestium_, and also the
“Commentary on Job” by Didacus of Stunica. The latter had been issued
in Italy in 1584, and reprinted in Rome in 1592. The same list included
the prohibition of a volume by Foscarini entitled _Lettera sopra
l’opiniones de’ Pittagorici e del Copernico_, printed in Naples in
1615. A general prohibition was added of all writings which presented
similar teachings. This condemnation of the Copernican theories was,
under the instruction of the pope, communicated by Cardinal Bellarmin
to Galileo, who was at that time in Rome, and, according to the record,
the astronomer promised to correct his errors. In 1632, however, he
published a monograph entitled _Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi
del mondo Tolemaicho e Copernicano_, in which was made substantially
evident the acceptance by Galileo of the Copernican system. This
publication caused the Inquisition to institute proceedings against
Galileo and, in June, 1633, he was ordered to abjure as error and as
heresy the Copernican doctrine. The _Dialogo_ was in August, 1634,
formally condemned and prohibited. Back of these proceedings, in
1620, the Index Congregation had published a _Monitum_ in which were
specified the eliminations and corrections that had to be made in the
writings of Copernicus before any further printing of these writings
could be permitted. The changes ordered in the text caused the theories
of Copernicus to be presented not as a conclusion but as an hypothesis.
In 1619, the Congregation prohibited the _Epitome astronomiae
Copernicae_ of John Kepler. The above appear to be the only works upon
the Copernican doctrine which on that ground simply, and specifically
by title, were placed in the Index. It is the case, however, that
the _Raccolta_ of 1624, the _Elenchus_ of some years later, and the
succeeding Indexes up to the time of Benedict XIV, all contain, under
the heading of _libri_, a general prohibition covering all books which
teach the movement of the earth and the fixity of the sun. The Index of
Benedict XIV omits this general prohibition. Since that date, various
books have come into print in Rome in which the Copernican doctrine is
openly explained and maintained. It was, however, not until September,
1822, that the Inquisition gave formal permission for the printing in
Rome of books maintaining the theory of the movement of the earth about
the sun, in accordance with the accepted views of modern astronomy.
This conclusion was, on the 25th of September, 1822, confirmed by
Pius VII and in the next edition of the Index, in 1835, the names of
Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Foscarini, and Stunica were omitted. The
account of the condemnation of Galileo is given in Chapter X, in the
record of the Index of 1664.
In 1623, under Urban VIII, Mark Antonio de Dominis, formerly Archbishop
of Spalatro, was brought to trial by the Inquisition and died in the
same year while in prison. He was condemned, after his death, as a
backsliding heretic, and his body, his portrait, and his books were
burned. He had in 1616 joined the Anglican Church, but in 1622 had
returned to Rome and had abjured his heresy. The most important of
his writings that were at this time condemned was the treatise _de
Republica ecclesiastico_, which was prohibited before it had come
into print. In 1626, the English Benedictine, John Barnes, was, under
the command of Urban VIII, arrested in Paris, brought to Rome, and
condemned by the Inquisition to imprisonment for life. He died after
thirty years’ confinement, in a state of idiocy. Among the writings
of Barnes which have been placed in the Index, the most important
is the treatise entitled _Romano Catholicus pacificus_, which was
first published in England after the death of the author. In 1622,
was prohibited a treatise by Vecchietti under the title of _De anno
primitivo ab exordio mundi ad annum Julianum_, etc., the author
of which had for a long series of years been imprisoned under the
order of the Inquisition, because he refused to take back an opinion
concerning the date of the Last Supper. His theory was, however, later
adopted quite generally without further criticism. Cesari Cremonini,
a professor in Padua, was ordered more than once by the Inquisition
to report to Rome for trial. He refused obedience, however, and was
protected by the Republic of Venice. The Inquisition could take no
further action than to secure the prohibition of one of his books.
In 1644, Pallavicini was executed in Avignon under the authority
not of the Inquisition but of the papal legate. The ground for his
condemnation was a pasquil written against Urban VIII. The pasquil
itself, doubtless through oversight, escaped condemnation in the Index.
=3. The Congregation of the Index.=--In 1571, Pius V instituted
the Congregation of the Index, which was made up of certain cardinals
selected by the Pope and was charged with the work of continuing the
series of Indexes and of shaping the regulations for the prohibition
and supervision of books. The original order or edict of Pius appears
not to have been preserved. The organisation of the Congregation
was completed in 1572 by the Bull of Gregory XIII. In 1588, fifteen
congregations of cardinals were instituted by Sixtus V for various
objects. Of these, the seventh had for its function _pro Indici
librorum prohibitorum_. The Congregation is at this date (1906)
still carrying on its labours, although, under the later policy of the
Curia, its responsibilities have been somewhat restricted.
Benedict XIV, in the introduction to the _Bulla Solicita_, issued
in 1753, says:
“There are two Congregations which have been charged by the
Curia with the work of supervising pernicious and doubtful
books, of reprinting those which by means of expurgation can
be rendered suitable for preservation, and of indicating which
must be condemned. Paul IV placed this task in the hands of
the Congregation of the Inquisition, and still to-day (1753)
the Inquisition gives judgment in regard to books of certain
classes. The Congregation of the Index was, however, instituted
by Pius V, and the responsibilities of this body were confirmed
and extended by Gregory XIII, Sixtus V, and Clement VIII. The
special duty of the Congregation is to make examination of
books concerning the authorisation, the correction, or the
prohibition of which question has arisen.”
As first constituted, the Congregation comprised four cardinals and
nine councillors. Under a Bull issued in 1572, by Gregory XIII, the
Congregation was made up of seven cardinals, of whom Sirleto was named
as chief. The Pope states as follows the grounds for the institution of
the Congregation:
“In order to put a stop to the circulation of pernicious
opinions, and as far as practicable to bring certainty and
protection to the faithful, it is our desire to bring the Index
of prohibited books into a condition of completeness, so that
Christians may be able to know what books it is safe for them
to read and what they must avoid, and that there may be in
this matter no occasion for doubt or question.... Therefore we
give to you or to the majority of your body, full authority
and powers to take action in regard to the examination and the
classification of books, and to secure for aid in such work
the service of learned men, ecclesiastics and laymen, who have
knowledge of theology and of the canons; and to permit or to
prohibit the use of books so examined, all authority given by
my predecessors to their bodies or individuals for the carrying
on of the work. It shall also be the duty of your body to
elucidate or eliminate all difficulties or incongruities in the
existing Indexes; to arrange for the correction or expurgation
of all texts containing instructions of value, the service of
which is marred by erroneous and pernicious material; to add to
the Index the titles of all works found to be unworthy; and to
prohibit the production and the use of all books so condemned;
and to give permission for the reading of books approved and of
books corrected and freed from error; and for the purpose of
facilitating your task, you shall enjoin upon all bishops ...
doctors, masters, printers, booksellers, magistrates, and others
to coöperate with your body in carrying out the regulations
formulated by your body for the supervision, control, and
improvement of literature, and for the protection of the
faithful against heresy.”
In the Bull _Immensa_ of Sixtus V, January, 1587, the Congregation
of the Index is directed to secure co-operation from the universities
of Paris, Bologna, Salamanca, and Louvain, and other trustworthy
institutions, in the work of examining and correcting books. (The
selection of the universities recommended is interesting.) The
Congregation is empowered to give permissions, exclusively for use
in connection with the Index, to the scholars selected from these
universities, and to other scholars whose service is utilised, to read
the forbidden books without a special papal dispensation.
The _Magister_ of the papal palace (who was always a Dominican) was
the standing counsel of the Inquisition and of the Congregation of the
Index. The _Magister_ held at one time the office of papal chaplain,
and later served as the personal adviser of the pope in theological
matters. Leo X assigned to the _Magister_ (acting in conjunction with
the cardinal vicar) the control of the censorship for Rome of books to
be printed, and this function is still retained by him.[105] In 1600,
Clement VIII decides (through Cardinal Baronius) that the Congregation
has jurisdiction not only over books, but also over the authors,
printers, and readers of the same; but that it must not interfere in
the matters of heresy reserved for the control of the Inquisition.[106]
Latinus (1593, later counsellor of the Congregation) relates that
having occasion to read a volume by Paschasius, he had inadvertently
proceeded with the reading of a treatise by Bertram which was bound in
with this, forgetting that the latter was on the Index. On recognising
his error, he threw away the book, and appealed to the Cardinal of
Ermland, Grand Penitentiary, for absolution. His sin had brought him
under the “reserved excommunication.” Later, the secretary of the
Congregation had authority to give permission for the reading of
prohibited books (with a few exceptions), but for no term longer than
three years, and only in connection with an application on certificate
from a bishop, vicar-general, or general of an order.
The first _Magister_ of the palace was St. Dominic. The office was
held more than once by cardinals. Since the beginning of the 17th
century, the _Magister_ or his associate (_Socius_) is empowered, for
the city of Rome, to prohibit the printing and the reading of books.
Both officials have also the authority to permit the use of books other
than the works of authors placed in Class I, or of books which treat of
theological matters. For instance, in 1574, the _Magister_ Constabile
gave permission to the scholar, Pierre Morin, to make use of the Greek
lexicon of Stephanus (Estienne).
Doctor Shahan (of the Catholic University of America) gives me the
following statement concerning the organisation and the work of the
Congregation:
“The Congregation of the Index has, since its formal
organisation, always had for its Secretary a member of the
Dominican Order. The ‘Master of the Sacred Palace’ is also,
_ex officio_, a member of the Congregation with the title
of Perpetual Assistant. The usage under which the office of the
Secretary and the office of Perpetual Assistant are always held
by Dominicans is explained as follows:
“When St. Dominic was at Rome, he was wont to interpret the
Holy Scriptures in the presence of the papal Court, and from
that time one of his brethren has always continued to hold this
office. A Dominican historian of the 18th century, Echard,[107]
tells us that the duty placed upon this Dominican consisted
_in Scholae Romanae et Pontificiae regimine et in publica
Sacrae Scripturae expositione_, i. e., ‘in the government of
the Roman and pontifical school and in the public interpretation
of the Scripture.’ This would mean, in the 13th and 14th
centuries, the headmastership of all theological teaching and
preaching in the papal Curia (_Sacrum Palatium_). The
theological sciences were not then differentiated after their
present manner. Doctrinal theology was largely Bible-commentary.
Thus, the Roman ecclesiastical official who had formal charge
of Bible-study and public teaching in the papal Curia, would
naturally be expected to control the public utterances of
his own disciples and of others, to exercise a revision of
theological and Scriptural manuscripts, and to detect and
denounce current heresies, where these might be propagated
orally or made known in writing. As a matter of fact, such
duties belong yet to the office of the ‘Master of the Sacred
Palace.’ It is he who selects the preachers for solemn
pontifical occasions, and revises their sermons, and he is the
official censor of all books printed at Rome. This office is
the principal historical source of the Dominican influence in
the Index. It meant from the 13th century an official duty and
right of revision of all public ecclesiastical teaching, and
the immediate practical decisions as to the conformity of such
teaching with the teachings of the Scripture and of the Holy
See.
“There never has been in Rome a theological faculty
corresponding in character to the theological faculties of Paris
and of Oxford; but it would appear that the popes of the 13th
century had hoped to be able in one way or the other to bring
about the organisation of such an institution at Rome. There
were always at the papal Curia theologians of distinction, both
Italian and foreign, and the subject of ecclesiastical studies
was naturally a matter of constant attention and concern. It
was during this particular period of more or less unorganised
theological activity at Rome in the 13th century that the Master
of the Sacred Palace acquired and held all the privileges that
then went with the office of the head schoolmaster, or head of
the school (_Magister Scholae_). In other words, he was,
as may be said, the equivalent of the head or rector of the
theological faculty at Rome. I take it that had the political
circumstances of the 14th and 15th centuries permitted the
development at Rome of a good school of theological studies, our
Master of the Sacred Palace would have taken on the character
of the chancellor of the university, with such duties as are
exercised by the chancellor at Paris and at Oxford. Probably
too, like these officials, he would have met with prejudice and
opposition and would have been compelled to share more generally
the functions of his office. This was, however, the period of
the Avignon Papacy, the Great Schism, and the preponderating
political interests of the 15th century. So it came about
that at the time of the Reformation, the Master of the Sacred
Palace had for fully two centuries been an office reserved
for a Dominican. The Order was in possession of a place quite
closely related to its original purpose and its historical
development. The Dominicans had also, during the first quarter
of the 16th century, been intimately connected with the work for
the repression of heresy. It was still the period of influence
for the old and influential Aristotelian scholasticism and of
this school of thought the Dominicans remained the most learned
representatives. The Dominicans held also important theological
chairs in many of the Catholic universities of Europe. They
were very learned men of the severe traditional type, with a
long record for fidelity to the Holy See, for opposition to
heresy, and for opposition also even to the new learning that
had led astray so many Churchmen. For these reasons, when in the
latter quarter of the 16th century, it was the question of the
reorganisation of the Inquisition and of the creation of the
Index, the Dominican Order was able to put forth an indisputable
claim for the representation of both. Possibly also the enormous
influence of Spain at this period had something to do with the
actual constitution of these Congregations. Spain was always
wont to look very closely after its ecclesiastical interests at
Rome.”
[Sidenote: The Denunciation of Books.]
The present regulations of the Index provide official channels for the
denunciation of books.
In Title I, Chapter X, it is stated that the duty of the denunciation
of books to the Congregation belongs to the papal nuncios, the
apostolic delegates, the ordinaries (Diocesan bishops), and the rectors
of the more important (Catholic) universities. It is requested that on
such occasions not only the title of the book, but the reason for its
condemnation should be given, and at the same time absolute secrecy is
promised as regards the sources of such denunciation.[108]
Mendham contends that the Italian Church seems to have acted on the
presumption that, not when she condemned and executed (whether the
innocent or the guilty), but only when she acquitted and allowed to
escape, she did wrong. And, therefore, the power of condemning supposed
heretical books was permitted to any of the superior ecclesiastical
authorities.
The pope, as head of the Church, claimed the individual right to the
control of literary production. A similar authority was likewise
allowed to, and exercised by, public ecclesiastical bodies, such as the
theological faculties of the Sorbonne and of Louvain, by individual
superior ecclesiastics, and even by the supreme civil magistrate.
There were from time to time protests, on the part more particularly
of the Jesuits and the Dominicans, against the exercise of censorship
by any bodies or individuals not explicitly authorised by the head
of the Church, or carrying some such general authorisation as that
held by the Inquisition. The Jesuit Raynaud[109] denies the authority
of the bishops; and his opinion of the censorship authority of the
universities is contemptuous. If, he argues, this power resides not in
an individual doctor as such, how can it reside in a collective body of
doctors? If Aesop’s ass, though in a lion’s skin, was still but an ass,
would a whole herd of such animals form an assembly of lions?
Van Espen, in a tract concerning the Congregation of the Inquisition,
states that the censure or condemnation of the books in the Index is
often to be resolved into the examination and judgment of a single
consultor, as he is called. Not a few true Romanists whose works were
thus transfixed have protested against the injustice of being, on the
judgment of a single examiner, classified as heretics.[110]
[Sidenote: Damages under Censorship]
I have not been able to find that the ecclesiastical authorities now
take, or ever have taken, any official notice of the damages brought
upon a publisher or a printer as a result of the condemnation of books
brought into print by him. I may assume that an Italian or a Spanish
publisher who had reason to suspect the denunciation of a work in which
he was interested, would see to it that the author either himself bore
the entire risk and expense for the production and publication of the
book, or that the author placed himself under bond of some kind for the
protection and possible reimbursement of his publisher.