ROMAN INDEXES AND DECREES, 1590–1661
1. 1590. Sixtus V, _Index Prohibitorius et Expurgatorius_.
2. 1596. Clement VIII. _Index Prohibitorius_.
3. Supplements to the Clementine Index.
4. Continuations of the Roman Indexes, 1600–1632.
5. 1607. Brasichelli, _Index Expurgatorius_.
6. Expurgations in the Roman Index, 1624–1640.
7. Censorship Decrees.
_1._ _1590, Sixtus V._ _Index Prohibitorius et Expurgatorius._ In
August, 1588, Sixtus V instructs the Congregation of the Index to
prepare a new edition of the Index of Trent. The work was completed
within two years and was printed in July, 1590, by Paul Bladus. This
is the first Index the compilation of which was carried out by the
Congregation. It is issued in the form of a Bull with the following
title:
_Bulla Smi. D. N. Sixti Papae V. Emendationis indicis cum suis
Regulis super librorum prohibitione, expurgatione et revisione necnon
cum abrogatione caeterorum indicum hactenus editorum, et revocatione
facultatis edendorum, nisi ad praescriptam harum regularam normam._
The substance of the Bull may be summarised as follows: Bull of
the most revered Lord and Father, Pope Sixtus V, in regard to the
production of a revised Index, with which are given the Pope’s
regulations concerning the prohibition, expurgation, and revision
of books, together with the abrogation of the authority of Indexes
previously issued, and the revocation of the authority to print Index
regulations other than those herewith presented. The Bull makes
reference to the precedents for prohibitory censorship as having been
established by Gelasius I and Gregory IX. Reference is also made to
the establishment of the Congregation of the Index, by which this
responsibility is hereafter to be discharged.
To the annexed _Regulae_ are attached the “penalties” of Pius IV.
The Index is presented for universal acceptance as possessing final
authority, and the publication by individuals, universities, or other
institutions of Indexes, compiled without the specific approval of the
Holy See, is prohibited. The edict is exceptional in the history of
Indexes, and it is in order to cite its phraseology:
_Universos indices quacunque auctoritate etiam praedecessorum
nostrorum hucusque et ubilibet locorum editos, ad hunc nostrum indicem,
tanquam ad normam ab apostolica sede praescriptum, ex qua recte
sentiendi, credendi, docendique leges in omnem ecclesiam manare par
est, revocamus, et exteris quibuscunque sublatio, hunc tantum, et ejus
regulas ab omnibus personis, et sub poenis omnibus, quae in praedictis
Pii IIII literis exprimuntur, et quas praesenti decreto innovamus,
apostolica auctoritate tenore praesentium servari, praecipimus, et
mandamus._
The rules which follow, and which are to supersede those of Trent, are
twenty-two in number.
_Regula I_ (which is one of the new ordinances) reads: _Quicunque
sanctorum patrum libros, vel Scripta fidem, seu mores concernentia,
ab ecclesia hactenus recepta, non admiserunt, poenis a jure statutis
puniantur_. _Regula II: Quoniam vero iidem sancti doctores, vel quia
ante obortas haereses, vel quia, ut eas surgentes impugnarent, fidei
zelo accensi, quibusdam interdum locationibus usi sunt, quas postea
Dei ecclesia Spiritu sancto edocta rejecit, nemini posthac eas tenere,
aut eis uti liceat; sanctis vero ipsis doctoribus, quia non animo ab
ecclesia Catholica, recedendi talia scripserunt, debita reverentia
deferatur._
The ninth rule forbids the circulation of innocent books by heretical
writers unless the names of the authors are expunged. The sixteenth
restrains the circulation of manuscripts. The nineteenth limits the
printing of sacred and ecclesiastical books to cities where the aid
of an inquisitor may be had; and the books printed must be conformed
to the exemplar in the Vatican. The twentieth directs visitations of
booksellers’ shops, and forbids private persons to burn proscribed
books, ordering them to deliver such to the master of the sacred palace
or to the local inquisitor. The twenty-first prescribes the expurgation
of sacred or ecclesiastical books, such as the _Decretals_, etc.,
which have been corrupted by heretics. The twenty-second warns the
faithful that if they offend by reading or retaining the prohibited
books, they will incur a sentence of excommunication, from which
they can be absolved only by papal authority, except in the hour of
death, and then only upon giving evidence of true penitence. The rules
conclude with an instruction to booksellers to possess themselves of
the present authoritative Index in order that they may have no pretext
for ignorance. A similar instruction is given to all who concern
themselves with the reading or possession of books that they are to
possess and read this same Index.
Sixtus died a few weeks after the printing of his Index, and when but
few copies of the same had been sent out. Reusch states that (as was
the case with the Sistine edition of the Vulgate) no further copies
were distributed after the Pope’s death, and the copies which had
been sent out were, as far as possible, recalled and the edition was
destroyed. The copies of the original issue are, therefore, at this
time very scarce. In 1835, however, the Sistine Index was reprinted by
Mendham under the following title:
_Index librorum prohibitorum a Sixto V Papa, confectus et publicatus;
at vero a successoribus ejus in sede Romana suppressus. Edenta Joseph
Mendham, London, 1835._
The Index is classified in three divisions. The heading of the second
division does not, I believe, appear in any other published Index:
_Deinde adduntur nomina Catholicorum quorum libri aut auctoris
incuria, aut etiam impressoris negligentia, doctrinam non sanam, sed
suspectam, et bonorum morum offensivam continere videntur_.
It is to be noted that the possibility is admitted of the appearance
in the works of Catholic writers of doctrine that is unsound or that
is offensive to good morals. The right purpose or intention of such
writers may be protected under the term “appear” (_videntur_).
While the Index of Sixtus never came into general circulation, it
has importance in the series because its lists were utilised as the
foundation for the Index of Clement VIII. In 1591, the edition of the
Vulgate undertaken by Sixtus V came into consideration with Gregory
XIV. The Pope had been advised to condemn and prohibit the work, but
he finally decided to have it reprinted with the corrections and
eliminations thought necessary, with a preface explaining that in the
original issue, certain errors had found place, errors for which the
copyists and printers were responsible.
In the condemnation of the treatise of the Jesuit Bellarmin (on
the authority of the papacy) and of the _Reflectiones_ of the
Dominican Vittoria, Sixtus acted on his individual authority. The
Inquisition and the Congregation of the Index declined to condemn
either book. The Sistine is the only one of the papal Indexes that
contains a list of heresiarchs. The list is entitled: _Catalogus
Haeresiarcharum, Haeresum auctorum eorumque qui eas suscitarum
seu Haereticorum duces aut capita extiterunt, qui ad faciliorem
intelligentium quartae regulae hujus indicis apponitur_. The list
compiled by Quiroga has been utilised for this. Fifteen of Quiroga’s
heresiarchs have been omitted, and twenty new names are added. Among
the eliminations are Ochinus, Ramus, and Agrippa, and among the
additions are several Hussites and Anabaptists, and Marsilius of Padua.
The Dominican, Alfonsus Ciaconius, charged by the Congregation with
the task of defining an heresiarch, reported that those are to be so
classed who discover new heresies or who revive ancient errors, or who
present in heretical institutions a defence of heretical doctrines,
or who undertake in councils the defence of heretics. The name of
Ciaconius comes into record also in connection with the following
statement concerning the Inquisition:
“The Roman and the Spanish Inquisition have the same purpose,
the maintenance of the Catholic faith. It is to be borne in
mind, however, that the former is the superior, the latter the
subordinate body; the Roman is the mother, the Spanish the
daughter; the Roman is to be likened to the Sun, the Spanish
to the Moon dependent upon the Sun for its light. In the case
in which the Roman Inquisition presents one conclusion and the
Spanish another, the faithful churchman will be guided by the
authority of Rome.”[168]
In Spain, the point of view is naturally different, and the Spanish
Inquisition has always claimed independence from the authority of Rome,
and has often refused to be bound by the regulations issued by the
Roman inquisitor-general.
Sixtus is the first Pope who undertook to retain for the exclusive
action of the Holy Chair, or of the Congregation working under papal
instructions, the authority for the production of Indexes, for the
prohibition of individual books, for the expurgation of books which
in a modified form it was considered important to preserve, and the
general supervision of the reading of the Church. Preceding popes had
accepted, if not without question at least without formal protest,
the claims made by the Inquisition or by the Crown of Spain, by the
Inquisition or by the universities of the Low Countries, by the
Inquisition of Portugal, and by the University of Paris, to produce
Indexes both prohibitory and expurgatory, to publish regulations
controlling the production and the use of books, and to institute
and to execute punishments for the breach of such regulations. The
injunctions of Sixtus, promptly recalled by his successor, seem to have
had practically no influence towards the prevention or the lessening
of such undertakings on the part of national or local authorities. The
successors of Sixtus wisely abandoned the attempt to retain for the
Holy Chair the exclusive control of this troublesome business.
Sixtus finds place among the authors of Class I for two hundred names,
practically doubling the list contained in the Tridentine Index. He
utilised, in making his additions, the catalogues of Quiroga, the
lexicon of Frisius, and the book-catalogue of the Frankfort Fair as
printed in the years 1583–87. The general copying of the names from
Frisius and from the Fair catalogues, has the result of bringing into
the Sistine lists a number of unimportant writers whose names would
otherwise hardly have been preserved, certain others whose books were
announced but never came into publication, and, finally, some good
Catholic authors, editions of whose writings happened to be brought
into print by Frankfort publishers whose imprints had previously
been associated with heresy. Among the orthodox ecclesiastics who
thus secured undeserved condemnation were Caspar Macer, Bishop of
Regensberg, and Andreas Critius, Archbishop of Poland.
Certain of the entries in the Index deserve separate attention. In the
list of books published appears the entry, Joannis Casae, _Poemata_.
This work appears in the Index of Paul IV. Its author is spoken of
by Mendham as “that infamous prelate.”[169] In the Index of Trent,
however, the prohibition was removed, Pius IV having apparently
concluded that the transgressor had done sufficient penance. Under the
authority of Sixtus, the prohibition was, as stated, renewed, but in
all subsequent Indexes the title is omitted. Another entry to be noted
is the following: Roberti Bellarmini, _Disputationes de Controversiis
Christianae Fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos_. To this title
is affixed the note: _Nisi prius ex superioribus regulis recognitae
fuerint_. It is difficult to understand why the stalwart champion of
Roman orthodoxy should have been placed under the ban. It is Mendham’s
suggestion that in the third of the _Disputations_ in question,
which has to do with the power of the Roman pontiff, Bellarmin had
stated that power to be no more than indirect as to temporals. The
censure made necessary a public revocation and self-correction on the
part of the offender. After the death of the critical Sixtus, the
cardinal is said to have vented his resentment as follows: _Conceptis
verbis, quantum capio, quantum sapio, quantum intelligo, descendit ad
infernum_. The authority for this citation is Baxter’s _Safe Religion_,
in which is quoted the report of William Watson, an English priest, to
whom the utterance was made.[170]
The name of the Englishwoman Anne Askew finds place in Class I (entered
as Anna a Skeue), the only other woman thus honoured being Magdalena
Heymairin. In the Index of 1597, Anne’s name is entered A. S. Keuue,
which a conscientious reader, trying to avoid pernicious literature,
might also find difficulty in identifying. The Sistine compilers have
made a curious blunder in including in their lists the titles of a
number of university controversial dissertations, which had been
prepared for the defence of orthodox doctrine against the assaults of
certain heretical opponents. The Frankfort catalogue, in its entries
of the heretical treatises, had brought in the names of the orthodox
writers to whom these treatises were replies.
In a number of instances, the Sistine lists repeat in Class III,
without the names of the writers, the titles of books the authors of
which had already been condemned _in toto_ in Class I. It is
difficult to understand the ground for the insertion in Class III of
a long series of historical works which appear to have possessed no
theological or doctrinal character. The titles had been taken from the
Frankfort catalogues of the publishers Feyerabend and Wechel, probably
because these publishers had come into heretical repute in connection
with previous books.
The compilers had discovered the pernicious character of a monograph
by William Camden, published in London in 1584, under the patronage of
Lord Robert Cecil. Camden undertook to prove that there had been under
Elizabeth no persecution of the Catholics on the ground of their faith.
In the same group, finds place the title of the monograph by John Knox
(but the author’s name is not given) described as _Liber Contra
Regimen Feminarum_; the original English title, _The First Blast
of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment and Empire of Women_,
is correctly printed for the first time in the Index of Benedict,
1758. The edition of the monograph that came into consideration with
the Sistine compilers had been printed in Geneva in 1558. The original
issue had been censured (under the directions of Queen Elizabeth)
by the Archbishop of Canterbury and in 1583 was condemned by the
University of Oxford. No sufficient cause appears for the prohibition
of the _Chronology_ of Gerard Mercator. In 1663, the famous atlas
of Mercator was placed on the prohibited list, a prohibition that was
confirmed by Benedict a century and a half later. It is possible that
the dedication to Queen Elizabeth of these two books may have worked
to their prejudice. The introduction to the treatise _De Mundi
Creatione_, which is printed with the atlas, contains some remarks
in regard to the six days’ work of creation which may have been thought
to be dangerous.
The historians are of opinion that succeeding popes, and the Church
itself, believed it to be essential for the interest of the Church to
suppress this erratic and exceptional production of Pope Sixtus, and
as far as any continued influence of the Index itself was concerned,
such a result was certainly secured. Hilgers takes the ground that
this Index, never having been published, is not to be classed as an
authentic utterance of the Church. There is a curious reference,
made in the Index published six years later by Clement VIII, to the
intention that had been formed by Sixtus for the preparation of an
Index and to the fact that he (Sixtus) had departed this life without
carrying this plan into execution. The words of Clement are as follows:
_Verum cum idem Sixtus, re minime absoluta, ab hominis excesserit:
Nos hoc tempore omnino perficiendum atque in lucem edendum duximus._
Gregoris Lati, the biographer of Pope Sixtus, describes the special
purpose of a printing-office instituted by him. The description is
thought to indicate that some considerable “purification” was at times
found advisable in the text of editions issued through the papal press:
_Non lungi della Libraria_ [the Vatican] _vi fece fabricare Sixto
una Stampa capacissima, acciò che i Libri corotti, e profanati dagli
Heretici, e pieni di gravissimi errori si emendassero e si reducissero
al primiero candore, ed alla prima puritá, e si rimettessero, alla loro
sincera verita, stampandosi, e publicandosi con migliore ordine, e
regola._[171]
_2._ _1596._ _Rome_, _Clement VIII_, _Index Prohibitorius_. In
April, 1592, within a few months after his accession, Clement gave
instructions to the Congregation for the production of a new Index.
As before mentioned, the Index of Sixtus had been cancelled and
withdrawn and the Clementine Index was intended to be used as a direct
continuation of that of Pius IV. The responsibility for the direction
of the new compilation came upon Bellarmin, who, as consultor of
the Congregation, had secured the papal disapproval of the work of
Sixtus. The title of the Clementine Index makes acknowledgment however
of the initiative taken by Sixtus. The title reads: _Index librorum
prohibitorum cum regulis confectis per Patres a Tridentina Synodo
delectos auctoritate Pii IIII primum editus postea vero a Sixto V
auctus et nunc demum S. D. N. Clementis PP. VIII jussu, recognitus &
publicatus. Instructione adjecta. De exequendae prohibitionis, dèque
sincere emendandi & imprimendi libros, ratione. Romae, apud Impressores
Camerales._ 1596.
The completed draft of the Index of Clement (probably in the form of
proof sheets) was placed in the Pope’s hands by the Cardinal of Ascoli
(the Dominican Bernerio) as early as July, 1593. Clement decided to
delay the publication in order to give opportunity for suggestions
and criticisms. Baronius submitted certain objections which secured
consideration.
The first of the briefs of Clement is simply a restraint on the right
of printing. The second, bearing date October 17, 1595, makes the usual
reference to Gelasius I as the founder of the Index, adds a credit
to Gregory IX, and then passes on to Pius IV. Then follows a minute
detail concerning the intention, described as having been executed only
in part, of Sixtus V. The remainder of the brief is taken up with a
specification of the work of Clement in completing the plan of Sixtus,
with the statement that Clement had commissioned a congregation of
cardinals who had been charged with the prohibition, expurgation, and
regulation of the impression of books. The wording of the reference
to the Congregation of the Index would give the impression that this
was here instituted for the first time. Catalani is authority for
the statement that the Congregation certainly existed under Gregory
XIII and probably as early as Pius IV. Mendham finds authority, as
previously stated, for crediting the Congregation to Sixtus V. The
brief of Clement is followed by the brief and preface of the Tridentine
edition, with the Ten Rules restored to their place by the suppression
of the Sistine two and twenty.
The Index of Clement bears to that of Sixtus a relation similar to
that borne by the Index of Pius IV to that of Paul IV; but a larger
portion of the Sistine lists was cancelled by the Clementine compilers.
The order of arrangement follows that of the Index of Trent, the new
names and new titles being brought in as appendices at the close of
each class, and as additions after each letter. The Ten Rules of Trent
are repeated with the addition of certain “observations” in regard to
translations of the Scriptures, works on astrology, the _Talmud_
and other Jewish writings. The most distinctive addition to the
regulations is an instruction placing in the hands of the bishop and
inquisitors (or in Rome in those of the _Magister S. Palatii_)
the responsibility for the prohibition or expurgation of books that
were already in print, and for the examination of writings for which a
printing license was issued. In the brief printed as an introduction,
the Pope confirms the powers, privileges, and instructions given by
Pius V, Gregory XIII, and Sixtus V to the _Magister S. Palatii_
and to the cardinals of the Congregation. The brief goes on to state
that in the case of any questions or controversies arising in regard to
the interpretation of the rules and regulations as supplemented, these
shall be passed upon by the Congregation, or in matters of special
moment shall be referred to the Pope.
The Index of Clement is the only papal Index which, before coming
into publication, secured the advantage of consideration from various
points of view and of a revision extending over three years. The
Venetian ambassador, writing in January and again in March, 1594,
makes reference to a number of protests that had been submitted, on
behalf of the scholars and publishers of Italy, in regard to the long
list of additions to the Index of Italian works. It would appear that
the Pope took a more liberal view of these Italian writings than that
expressed by the work of the Congregation. Baronius, writing in July,
1593, to Lipsius, reports that the Pope had found it necessary to
disapprove the lists as prepared, although these were already in print.
Bellarmin, writing late in the same year, explains that his other
duties had compelled him to be absent from many of the sittings of the
Congregation. He appears to desire to make clear that the errors of
judgment complained of did not belong to his responsibility.
In the schedules as finally approved, Clement omits from Class I, as
first shaped by Sixtus, fifteen names; the only one of these which
may be considered as of continuing interest is that of Paracelsus. The
additions to this class comprise twenty-five names. Among these are
included a number of Englishmen, such as Matthew Parker of Canterbury,
Matthew Hutton of York, William Fulke, and John Knewstub.
In Classes II and III, Clement has omitted (in the list as finally
revised) a number of astrological works which had been included by
Sixtus, a series of Italian poets and novelists, and a group of Spanish
titles taken from Quiroga. The few additions to Class II contain few
names of present note. Franciscus Patritius Nova, who held the chair of
philosophy at Ferrara, had in his lectures on the philosophy of Plato
given to Bellarmin and others ground for criticism. Franciscus had, in
a letter to Gregory XIV, strongly recommended that the philosophical
teachings of Aristotle should be excluded from all the schools of
Christendom, and that the Church should give its approval to the
doctrines of Plato (as interpreted in his own lectures).
The _Apologia_ of Davila, printed in Madrid in 1591, is the first
work of the Spanish Regalists (defenders of the authority of the State)
to find place in the Roman Index. Through the 17th century, the list of
the Spanish treatises of this school condemned by the Roman authorities
is a long one.
In Class III, have been added a number of treatises from the Low
Countries, from Germany, and from France, bearing on the relations
of Church and State. The list includes a _Gratulatio_ from
Switzerland to France for the accession of the most Christian King of
France and of Navarre, Henry IV.
The “Instruction” of Clement, which is included as an appendix to the
Rules of Trent, includes the following provisions:
[Sidenote: (I) Concerning the Prohibition of Books]
(1) All bishops and inquisitors are instructed to give orders that,
under heavy penalties for disobedience, their people must within a
limited period make delivery of all copies of the books condemned.
(2) The bishops and inquisitors (in Rome the _Magister S. Palatii_)
are authorised to give permission to men of assured holiness and
scholarship to retain, for a period not exceeding three years,
copies of the forbidden books. They bind themselves to report to the
authorities, in the books which are permitted _donec corrigatur_, such
passages as they may find to be heretical.
(3) Outside of Italy, the responsibility for the distribution of the
lists of heretical and immoral books rests with the bishops, the
inquisitors, and the universities. The instructions to the people in
regard to the reading or possession of such books are to be given
by the bishops and inquisitors. This instruction was for a time
interpreted as an authority given by the pope for the preparation of
local Indexes. In 1621, however, the Index Congregation issued an order
prohibiting the further production of any such local lists, or the
further circulation of the lists already in print.
(4) The nuncios and legates in foreign lands, and in Italy the bishops
and inquisitors, are to submit annually to the Curia or to the
Index Congregation lists of the books published in their respective
territories, which in their judgment call for expurgation or are
deserving of condemnation.
[Sidenote: (II) Concerning the Correction of Books]
(1) The responsibility for the expurgation of books in accordance
with the principles laid down in this Index rests with the bishops
and inquisitors, or, where there are no inquisitors, with the bishops
alone. They are instructed to secure for such work the service of two
or three scholarly and pious men.
(2) The expurgators are instructed to cancel passages from the
Scriptures which have been wrongly worded by heretical translators,
unless it may be that such passages have been cited simply for the
purpose of refutation; passages which give praise or commendation
to heretics or their writings; passages adverse to the freedom, the
immunity, and the jurisdiction of the Church; passages which undertake
to defend the tyranny of the State, or which give countenance to
theories adverse to the authority of ecclesiastical and Christian law.
(3) In the books of Catholics written after 1515, when the necessary
correction can be arrived at through the introduction or omission of
single words, this course shall be taken. If this is not practicable,
the entire passage or chapter must be cancelled.
(4) In the writings of the earlier Catholics, no alterations shall be
made except in the case of passages which have been inserted through
the malice of heretics or through the heedlessness of printers.
When the pernicious material appears to be of distinctive importance,
it will be well to order the production of a new and corrected edition
which shall take the place of the erroneous text. The essential purpose
to accomplish is the presentation, in clear and comprehensible form, of
the actual doctrine and original thought of the writer.
Mendham points out that, according to this rule, the correctors or
compilers of expurgatory indexes were apparently placed in a position
to assume a _fraus haereticorum_ whenever such assumption seemed
desirable for their purpose, and to amend the text accordingly.
The difficulty with which the papal authorities were here contending
had to do with the text of the earlier printed editions of the
writings of the Fathers of the Church, and of certain of the later
ecclesiastical writers. In preparing these editions for the press,
the more scholarly and careful of the printer-publishers, such as
the Stephani in Paris, Froben in Basel, and Koberger in Nuremberg,
found it necessary to collate as many copies as could be secured of
the MSS. which had been accepted as more or less authoritative. In
certain cases, as for instance with the Stephani, the editorial work
was done by the publisher himself; while in others the service of
scholarly revisers was secured. It does not appear from the history or
correspondence of these publishers that they had any doctrinal purposes
in view. It seems to have been their wish, if only as a matter of
business importance, to secure for the printed book the most accurate
and complete text possible. There are not a few references in the
correspondence of their editors to the unsatisfactory condition of many
MS. texts, on the teachings of which had been based important matters
of doctrine or large contentions for ecclesiastical control. There
is at least fair ground for the belief that the so-called heretical
eliminations and corrections complained of by the Index authorities
represented simply the attempts of the best scholarship of the day
to correct the blunders and the wilful garblings of scribes (working
under ecclesiastical direction) who had prepared the accepted MSS.
presenting the teachings of the earlier leaders of the Church.
(5) When publication has been made by the bishop and inquisitor of
a _Codex expurgatorius_, the owners of the books concerned are
permitted, under an authorisation from such bishop, etc., themselves to
make in their own copies the corrections required by the Index. Reusch
points out that permission for such individual correction was never
granted under the regulations of the Spanish Inquisition.
[Sidenote: (III) Concerning the Printing of Books]
Each book must carry on its title-page specification of the full
name and nationality of the author and of the printer, and of the
location of the printing-office. In an exceptional case, the bishop
and inquisitor have authority to permit the anonymous publication of
a work, but the name of author and of printer, with their respective
addresses, must be duly recorded. Before the printer is permitted to
bring his volume into type, he is required to submit to bishop and to
inquisitor the complete text of the same, and, after this has been
examined, to secure the necessary permit or privilege. The application
of this regulation varied materially in different districts, but
the methods adopted frequently brought upon the printer-publisher
so considerable an outlay as to render unprofitable an undertaking
otherwise promising. In connection with the increase in certain centres
of the number of books planned for publication, the examiners found an
increasing difficulty in keeping up with the labour of passing upon
each portion of the text before issuing the necessary permit. They
began to take the ground of refusing to trouble themselves with the
examination of MSS., and of insisting on having the completed texts
placed before them in the form of printed sheets. This necessitated
on the part of the printer the striking off of an entire edition in
advance of securing the privilege for its publication. In these earlier
stages of the work of printing, the making of plates was of course
unknown. The fonts of type were small and the “sheets” (comprising from
four to sixteen pages) had to be worked off, each by itself, in the
full number of impressions required, in order that the type might be
freed for the setting of the succeeding “sheets” or “signatures.” The
printer would laboriously strike off with his hand-press 250 or 350
impressions of four, eight, twelve, or sixteen pages, and only when
such impressions had been completed, would he have type available for
the setting of the next form. In the case, therefore, in which the
examiners decided that the book could be permitted publication only
after more or less serious changes and corrections, the outlay incurred
in producing this first set of sheets would be practically thrown away.
The printer-publishers and also the booksellers were required to
make oath from year to year that they would carry on their business
in full accord with the principles of the holy Catholic Church,
the decrees and rules of the Index, and the regulations of the
local bishops and inquisitors. In the case of the publication of an
authorised, expurgated edition of a work, which in its original form
had been condemned, the title-page is to carry a wording similar to
the following: _Bibliotheca ... a Conrado Gesnero Tigurino, damnato
auctores olim edita ac prohibita, nunc jussu superiorum expurgata et
permissa_.
A document, peculiar to this Index, is entitled _Observatio_. The
first comment is upon the fourth rule and denies that by this rule
any power is given to bishops, etc., to grant licenses to buy, read,
or retain Bibles, or any parts or summaries of the Scriptures, in
the vulgar language. This Observation is continued in the succeeding
papal Indexes up to that of Benedict XIV in 1756. In the later edition
of the Index of Benedict, which appeared in 1758, the instruction or
interpretation given by the Observation is naturally modified. The
third division of the Observation revokes the partial toleration of the
Talmudic and Cabalistic books, and the fourth forbids the circulation
in any other than the original language of the Hebrew ritual called
_Magazor_. The sixth enjoins in the matter of the prohibition of
books, that the names of the works condemned should be delivered to
the bishops and inquisitors and that license to read them should be
obtained for the same. The correction of books is to be committed to
learned and pious men and the circulation of the work where expurgated
and amended to the satisfaction of the examiners is permitted. The
correctors are to search for all utterances anti-Catholic or adverse to
the Church or in praise of heretics, as well as for such as are immoral
or as may be injurious to individuals. Catholic books issued after the
year 1515 are, if objectionable, to be corrected, but the works of the
ancients are to be corrected only in case errors have been introduced
by the fraud of heretics, etc.
The instruction in regard to the impression of books is as follows: The
work to be printed must first be shown to the bishop or inquisitor and
approved by either of them; when printed, the text must be compared
with the manuscript and verified as correct before permission can be
given for sale. Printers must be orthodox men and must bind themselves
by oath to deal faithfully and catholicly, and the more learned and
eminent of them must profess the creed of Pius IV. A work that has been
expurgated by the examiners must express that fact on its title-page.
The Index of Clement is distinctive in giving a much larger measure
of attention to theological works by Catholic writers than to the
writings of heretics. In this respect, it serves to mark a change of
policy on the part of the Church, which was beginning to recognise the
impracticability of controlling the character of the whole literary
output of the world, and to devote its supervision to the task of
keeping free from error books by Catholic writers which would be likely
to influence the faith of believers. The Clementine Index secured for
itself a wider distribution than had been given to any preceding Index
excepting that of Trent. Within two years after its promulgation,
editions were printed at Bologna, Perugia, Florence, Milan, Verona,
Venice, and Turin, and also at Prague, Lisbon, Liège, Cologne, Paris,
and Besançon. The publishers and booksellers of Venice found occasion
for complaint concerning a number of the entries and regulations in
this Index, and the Venetian Senate submitted on their behalf a strong
reclamation to the Pope. After a series of negotiations, the Pope gave
instructions for concession on the more important points at issue. In
1596, was published an _Interpretation of the Rules of the Index
of Clement VIII, in so far as these apply in the territory of ...
Venice_. The more important modifications are the following:
(1) The prohibited books and those for which expurgation has been
ordered can still be sold to those who have secured the necessary
permission from bishop or inquisitor. (2) When new editions are
prepared of volumes that have been prohibited _donec corrigatur_,
it is not required to send the copies to Rome. These can be passed
upon with the necessary corrections under the instructions of the
local bishop and inquisitor. (3) The printers are not required to
submit for examination the text in the form of printed sheets. The
work of examination and of correction can be completed with the text
of the MSS. as prepared for the typesetters. (4) On the back of
the title are to be printed, in connection with the record of the
permit or privilege, the names of the examiners who have approved the
text. (5) The booksellers are required to submit, on demand, to the
inquisitor a catalogue of the books contained in their stock in order
that the bookshops may be “cleansed” from old copies of prohibited
and pernicious works. (6) The authority given to local bishops and
inquisitors to prohibit books in addition to those that have been
placed on the Index must be understood to apply exclusively to works
opposing the true faith, and to volumes which have been brought into
print under false or forged permits. (7) The publishers and printers in
the territory of Venice are freed from the general requirement of an
annual oath. (8) The heirs to an estate are under requirement, within
three months of the turning over of an inheritance, to submit to the
inquisitor a list of all the books received; and these books are not to
be used until they have been passed upon and approved.
These concessions were accepted as satisfactory by the Senate, and
authorisation was then given for the printing and promulgation of the
Index in the territory of Venice. The influence of Paolo Sarpi in
maintaining for the Venetian Republic the right of independent action
in regard to censorship, and in refusing to accept as authoritative
a regulation from Rome until it had been made to conform to Venetian
requirements, was evidently still in force. After this _Concordat_
had been arrived at, a resolution was adopted by the Senate (and
appears to have been accepted by Rome) that thereafter no book
prohibition should be valid in Venetian territory until it had been
promulgated by the Venetian Inquisition.
Sarpi makes a criticism concerning Roman censorship methods which is in
substance as follows:
“The Roman authorities prohibit, as corrupt, the text of many
valuable works, particularly of the class that have to do with
political science and the rights of States; they prohibit many
books which have no relation to matters of theology or religion
and which they are in fact not competent to understand; they
contest the right of the Republic itself to prohibit pernicious
books.”
In another passage Sarpi contends that the Roman _Index expurgatorius_
is especially faulty: “In these so-called expurgated editions, the
reader can no longer ascertain the purport of the author but has before
him simply the opinions of the Curia.”
_3._ _Supplements to the Clementine Index, 1597–1609._ In the decrees
of the half-century following the date of the publication of the Index
of 1596, a number of books are separately prohibited the authors of
which had already been placed in Class I. In a papal decree of 1623,
it is declared that all works published, after 1596, by writers who
had already been condemned under Class I were prohibited. A number of
books which had not been transferred by the editors of Clement from
the lists of Sixtus V were prohibited later, in part during Clement’s
life and in part by his successors. In the first decade of the 17th
century, a number of individual prohibitions were made of books
belonging to the 16th century, and some of which had been in print
for a quarter of a century, or more. An example of such a belated
prohibition is presented by the case of Bruno. Bruno’s earlier writings
were published in 1582, but his name does not occur in the Index of
Clement VIII. Bruno’s trial and condemnation took place in Rome, in
1600, and first in 1603 does the list of works prohibited include the
books and writings, of every class, of Giordani Bruno Nolani. Bruno
was born in 1548 at Nola and associated himself with the Dominicans.
Proceedings were taken against him as early as 1577 by the Inquisition
both at Naples and at Rome. He succeeded, however, in getting out of
Italy and remained absent until 1592. In this year he came under trial
with the Inquisition in Venice and, in 1593, was delivered by the
Venetian authorities to the Inquisition of Rome. He was in prison in
Rome until 1599, and in 1600 was condemned and burned as an apostate
and an unrepentant and stubborn heretic. During the trial, Bellarmin
served as counsel for the Inquisition.
Among the works condemned in the first of these supplements, is the
treatise written by King James I of England in defence of his oath of
fidelity or coronation oath. This _Apology_ of the King did not find
favour in Rome, and it was condemned by two successive decrees of the
master of the sacred palace in July and in September of 1609, the year
of its publication. The title of the condemned work begins: _Apologia
pro juramento fidelitatis ... vero ab ipso auctore serenissimo et
potentissimo Principe Jacobo_, etc. The book did not find place in
the Spanish Index of 1612, but secured attention, as specified, on
the part of the censors of Portugal. The title appears again among
the works prohibited in the Spanish Index of 1632, under the title of
_Jacobus Rex_ in the first class, and also in the second class under
the title of _Jacobus Angliae_. In the same year, the title finds place
in a Roman Index, where it is catalogued under the letter _A_. The
condemnation is repeated on the Index of 1664 and in those following.
In an examination held by the Parliamentary Committee on the State of
Ireland in April, 1825, one of the Catholic witnesses, the Reverend M.
O’Sullivan, deduces from these condemnations the conclusion that the
old-time papal doctrine of the fight of deposing Kings had not been
revoked.[172]
In 1609, was included in the lists of books prohibited an Italian
edition of the _Confession_ of Theodore Beza. The book had been printed
in 1559 in the original French, _Confession de la Foire Chrétienne_,
and the Italian version had appeared in 1566. Nearly half a century was
required before the pernicious character of the work had become clear
to the authorities of the Roman Inquisition.
_4._ _Continuations of Roman Indexes, 1624–1655._ The Index of Clement
VIII was reprinted from time to time with the original decrees and with
supplementary lists. Such reprints were issued in Rome in 1624, 1630,
and 1640.
In 1618, was printed in Bologna, under the title of _Syllabus seu
collectis librorum prohibitorum_, a list of the books prohibited since
1596. In 1619, Franciscus Magdalenus, Secretary of the Congregation,
printed in Rome, under the title, _Edictum librorum qui post Indicem
Clementis VIII prohibiti sunt_, a reissue of the Bologna _Syllabus_. In
1624, these lists were reissued in Milan, under the title of _Raccolta
de libri prohibiti_.
In 1632, Magdalenus issued in Rome, under the title, _Elenchus librorum
omnium tum in Tridentino Clementinoq. tum in aliis omnibus Sacrae
Indices Congregationis particularibus decretis hactenus prohibitorum_,
what appears to have been a freshly compiled Index. This _Elenchus_ of
Magdalenus was, in the same year, reprinted in Milan, with the omission
of the series of decrees; and in 1640, a second reprint, containing
additional lists, was issued in Rome. Mendham speaks of this _Elenchus_
as if it were a personal and unofficial undertaking[173]; but as Reusch
points out, it was issued with the approval and the authority of the
Congregation, although not printed in the official press.
In 1644, a second _Elenchus_ was printed in Rome, bearing no name
of compiler or of printer, which presented in alphabetical order a list
of books prohibited since 1596.
In 1655, a third _Elenchus_, bearing the name, as compiler, of Thomas
de Augustinis, was printed in Rome. It contains the titles of books
prohibited between 1636 and 1655, and constitutes a continuation of the
_Elenchus_ of 1632. In June, 1658, this _Elenchus_ was itself condemned
and prohibited by the Congregation, on the ground of its incompleteness
and lack of accuracy.[174] It is evident that the Congregation Index
authorities were requiring a higher standard of bibliographical work
than had heretofore been thought necessary.
In 1629, the Inquisition issued in Cologne a reprint of the Index of
Clement VIII with the titles of books prohibited under the edict of
February, 1627, interpolated in the alphabeted lists and indicated by
a †. The books prohibited (by edict) between the years 1601–1627 are
not included, and the lists are therefore incomplete. The Index thus
compiled was, however, reprinted, without corrections, in 1647 and
again in 1665.
In 1634, was put into print in Trent an edition of the Clementine
Index which includes two supplements (each under separate pagination)
presenting respectively the titles of prohibited books and the
edicts of condemnation, for the periods 1601–1630 and 1632–1634. The
title-page contains the imprint Rome and Trent, in order to make
clear the authoritative character of the publication. Later, further
supplementary lists were put into print to be bound in with the above.
The lists or Indexes above specified represent the prohibitions of the
Roman authorities.
In 1603, was published in Cracow, under the authority of Bishop
Maciciowski, a volume containing a reprint of the Clementine Index,
together with an _Index auctorum et librorum prohibitorum in Polonia
editorum_. This latter contains sixty-four titles connected with the
names of authors and eighteen anonymous works.
In 1617, Bishop Szyskowski published, in Cracow, an _Index auctorum
librorum haereticorum et prohibitorum_, containing about sixty-three
titles. These Polish Indexes represent books condemned under the
authority of the local bishops.
In 1627, Thomas James issued in Oxford an _Index Generalis_, which
he had compiled from the Indexes of Clement VIII and of von Sandoval.
At the close of the volume is given a list of authors whose works had
been listed for expurgation by Brasichelli, Quiroga, von Sandoval, and
in the Index of Antwerp. This compilation of James is of course not to
be included in the series of Indexes properly so called. Its purpose
was in fact to commend to the attention of scholarly readers in Oxford
and elsewhere the books which had been emphasised by the Church of Rome
as heretical and pernicious.
Fuller specification of this noteworthy undertaking of James is given
in a later chapter.
_5._ _1607._ _Brasichelli, Master of the Palace._ _Index
Expurgatorius.--Indices librorum expurgandorum in studiosorum gratiam
confecti. Tomus primus. In quo quinquaginta Auctorum Libri prae
caeteris desiderati emendantur, per F. Jo. Maria Brasichellen Sacri
Palatii Apostolici Magistrum in unum corpus redactus, et publicae
commoditati aeditus Romae ex typographia R. Cam. Apost. MDCVII
superiorum permissu._
This is the second _Index expurgatorius_ in the Roman series. The
compiler was the Dominican Guanzelli, from Brisighella near Faenza.
He calls himself on the title-page, Fr. Jo. Maria Brasichelli. He
had, since 1598, been the _Magister_ of the palace. Shortly after
the publication of his Index, he was appointed by Paul V, Bishop
of Polignani. He died in 1619, leaving his Index a fragment, only
the first volume having been completed. This volume was printed in
the printing-office of the Curia. A reprint appeared in Bergamo in
1608, which was within a year or two suppressed. A reprint was in
press at Antwerp, but was suppressed. Further reprints appeared
in Regensburg in 1723, in Altdorf in 1745, and in London in 1837.
Even the reprints are very scarce. A copy of the original issue is
contained in the Bodleian. The compiler says in his preface that the
expurgation of books belongs to the responsibility of his office, and
that he has, therefore, charged himself with the task of examining
certain books which have been condemned _donec corrigatur_, and has
done what was requisite, through the elimination of pernicious and
heretical passages, to render these works available for the use of
scholars and students. The number of such books is unfortunately very
large, and he has, therefore, selected for his labours those which
when properly corrected are likely to prove of the greatest service
for the scholarly public, _quosque sibi e manibus extorqueri gravius
ferre homines animadvertimus et quorum ut permitteretur facultas pene
quotidie a nobis efflagitabatur_.... The texts which were issued with
the corrections specified in his Index have been transferred from the
class of condemned to that of approved books.... His second volume is,
he reports, already in train.
The preface is followed by a reprint of the Trent Rules bearing upon
expurgation, and by the second division of the Instruction of Clement
VIII.
The issue of the first volume of Brasichelli’s work brought out a
series of remonstrances and criticisms which caused the rulers of
the Church to decide that the publication of expurgatory Indexes was
an unwise policy. Such Indexes were also, in the judgment of the
advisers of the Curia, not necessary as the instruction in the General
Index last issued had given to the agents appointed for the purpose,
full power of making quietly and with freedom from criticism such
corrections and expurgation as seemed to be required in books the main
text of which was deserving of preservation. With an expurgatory Index,
this difficult work had to be done openly and with an acceptance of
responsibility.
The Index presents, in alphabetical arrangement, fifty-one works. The
list includes four which were not in the Index of 1596, but which had
been condemned in two edicts of the _Magister_ of 1603 and 1605,
and three books of the Benedictine Montanus (the editor of the Polyglot
Bible issued in Antwerp by Plantin) which had never been condemned in
Rome.
Certain of the books selected, such as the writings of Molinaeus,
Venetus, and Nevizanus, had already been expurgated. Other authors
receiving attention are Cornarius and Fuchsius. Editions of Xenophon
are purged by the cancellation of the names of heretical editors, such
as Gesner, Pirckheimer, and Camerarius. These particular expurgations
are borrowed from the Antwerp Index of Quiroga and the same is the
case with the corrections in the text of Polydorus Vergilius and
of Didaeus Stella. The list includes further: Rhenanus, Vatablus,
Paracelsus, Serranus (for his edition of Plato), and Scaliger (for his
Theophrastus).
This Index of Brasichelli cannot be considered as a personal
undertaking, as the compiler states explicitly that his work has been
carried out by him in his official capacity. It appears, however, that
he had secured no specific instruction or authorisation, either from
the pope or from the Congregation, as, if such authority had been
given, the record of it would undoubtedly have been printed in the
volume. On the other hand, if the undertaking of Brasichelli had been
disapproved by the pope, he would hardly have secured his appointment
as bishop and there would probably have been some formal cancellation
of the Index. In place however of being formally withdrawn, the Index
appears to have been quietly suppressed, probably on the ground that
it could bring no credit to the Church. The second volume was never
completed. The most important piece of censorship contained in the
Index, the expurgation of the _Bibliotheca Patrum_, aroused no little
critical opposition on the part of the scholars. It was apparently
undertaken without adequate knowledge or scholarship.
The first name in the list of expurgated authors is that of Arias
Montanus. Montanus had himself borne the chief responsibility in the
production of the Index issued in Antwerp in 1546. He had been accepted
as an authority not only for sound scholarship, but for sound doctrine.
About six pages of the Roman Index are devoted to his writings, which
here suffer a castigation and mutilation similar to that formerly
inflicted by him on other authors.
Space is given (as in all the expurgatory Indexes) to the Bibles of
Robert Estienne. The longest and most important article in the volume
is that devoted to the _Bibliotheca SS. Patrum_ of La Bigne printed in
Paris in 1589. As an example of the class of correction found necessary
in the _Bibliotheca_ may be noted the correction of cancellation of
_Sanctus_ or _Sanctorum_ or _S. Divus_ or _D._ whenever such term is
applied to a personage not in the list of Roman saints or of Roman
martyrs. The words _Caute lege_ appear frequently in connection with
the text of La Bigne. On page 82, Clemens of Alexandria is degraded
from the rank of _Divus_. In the critique upon S. Peter Martyr, Bishop
of Alexandria, the censor denounces his commentator, Balsamon, as “a
Greek and a schismatic.” S. Chromatius is censored as condemning oaths
altogether. S. Ignatius is censored for his opinions respecting the
Lord’s Day. Leontius is censored for omitting the apocryphal books
in the canon. La Bigne is censored for ascribing the work _De Duabus
Naturis_ to Gelasius who became Pope. Jonas Aurelianensis is censored
for his testimony against image worship. Marcus the hermit is censored
for contending that the kingdom of heaven is not given as a reward
for our good works. For Paschasius the title of _Divus_ is ordered
to be expunged. He is further censored for describing as creation
the change of the elements. Photius, Bishop of Constantinople, is
condemned (very naturally) for representing his own see as the head
of all the churches. To the Spanish author, Emmanuel Sa, is given a
discipline or censorship covering twenty-eight pages. In the next
succeeding Spanish Index, Sa is acquitted of any false or erroneous
doctrine and his writings are held up to special approbation. It was
with the Roman criticism of Sa that originated a long series of issues
between the Index makers of Rome and those of Spain. Francis Duarenus
received a castigation, which he might fairly have expected, for his
work _Pro libertate Ecclesiae Gallicae_, in section 77 of which are
detailed the heavy exactions of the Papal See. Cardanus is condemned
for his _Eulogy_ of Edward VI. A condemnation is also brought in upon
Queen Elizabeth, the text for the same being a dedication to the Queen
prefixed to a London edition of _Plato_.
Polydorus Virgilius is subject to correction for his work _De Rerum
Inventoribus_. Among the passages cited for reprobation are those
assigning (on the authority of Bishop Fisher of Rochester) a very
recent origin to the doctrine of indulgences, with the suggestion that
the discovery of purgatory was a powerful cause for the demand for
indulgences. The censors also condemned the reference by Virgilius to
the second commandment as involving a criticism of the action of the
Church.
A reference to the Brasichelli Index is made by Paolo Sarpi.[175] He
finds in it evidence that in a large number of the writings in which
expurgation or alterations had been found necessary, the passages
objected to were those which defended the authority given by God to
the prince. Zobelius, in his _Notitia Indicis_, states that
Brasichelli was aided in his work by Thomas Malvenda, a Dominican.
In 1611, an edition of the Brasichelli Index was printed in Antwerp. A
year later, the Nuncio writes to the printer-publisher: “By the orders
of his Holiness, this Index has been suspended. As some months back
I placed in your hands, for printing, a copy of the original issue,
it is necessary for me now to write asking that you will not proceed
with this printing, or, in case the edition is already issued, that
you will take the necessary measures to recall and cancel the copies.”
It does not appear that the Nuncio expressed any readiness to make
good to the publisher the outlay that the latter had incurred with the
permission, and in fact at the request, of the representative of the
pope. Mendham is of opinion that the Brasichelli Index itself found
place among the books later condemned by the pope;[176] and in this
opinion he is supported by Zobel. Reusch takes the ground that this
Index had never been formally prohibited. He points out that the
word _suspendere_, used by the Nuncio, is the equivalent of a
condemnation _donec corrigatur_.[177] It appears that there was
later (1643) the intention in Rome to prepare an expurgated edition of
this _Index expurgatorius_, but this plan never took shape.
Brasichelli had excited the antagonism of the Carmelites, because, in
his correction of the eighth volume of the _Bibliotheca Patrum_,
he had denied the claim to saintship of Bishop John of Jerusalem
(a contemporary of Jerome), and had also denied that Bishop John
was responsible for the production of the volume _De Institutione
Monachi_. The anonymous author of this book describes himself as a
Carmelite, and gives the record of the institution of the Carmelite
Order; but Brasichelli is of opinion that in the 5th century there were
as yet no Carmelites.
The Jesuits, such as Reynaud, Poza and others, and the Spanish
ecclesiastics generally, were much dissatisfied with the expurgation of
the text of their author, Sa. In the later Spanish expurgatory Indexes,
while certain of the works corrected by Brasichelli were retained, the
expurgations of the texts were very much modified and lessened.
In connection with the expurgation of the _Bibliotheca Patrum_, a
question arose, concerning which there was later no little discussion,
as to whether it was in order to place in the Indexes, prohibitory or
expurgatory, the writings of the Fathers of the Church. In the later
Roman Indexes, including that compiled under the authority of Pius IX,
the _Bibliotheca_ (under the name of the editor, La Bigne) is
still included, without reference to the edition, under the heading
_d. c._ Reusch finds instance of but one actual prohibition of
patristic writings. The other references to these writings in the
Index have to do with the comments, notes, or alleged interpolations
of heretical editors. The Instruction of Clement VIII takes the ground
that no alterations are to be made in the text of the works of Catholic
writers produced before 1515, unless there is evidence that corruptions
have crept into the text through the work of heretical editors, or
through the carelessness of the printers.
The question has from time to time been raised by Protestant writers
whether the Catholic editors of the patristic writings put into print
in the 16th century had not, under the instructions or with the
knowledge of the authorities who had given their approval to these
editions, corrupted the original text for the support of certain
doctrines or contentions.[178] It is not surprising that such a
belief should have obtained, in connection with the readiness of many
theologians of the 16th century to take the ground that passages of
the Fathers which could not be made to fit in with their own doctrinal
views must represent interpolations or corruptions on the part of
the scribes, or of the editors or printers of the earlier editions.
Franciscus Junius relates that a reader for the Lyons printer,
Frelonius, had shown to him a proof sheet of an edition of St. Ambrose
on which the censors, two Franciscans, had made material changes from
the text of the manuscript copy.[179]
Mendham suggests, in connection with the expurgations of Brasichelli,
as the secret of pontifical logic that to say of a thing _non ipsa
vera_ and _quodammodo_ enables you to turn the most obstinate
substance and propositions into direct opposites.
The use for faithful Catholics of available editions of the Fathers had
been seriously interfered with by the regulations of the Index of 1559,
and even by the modifications of these in 1561. Hosius writes in 1565
to Cardinal Amulius[180] complaining that before Pius V the writings of
the Fathers had been brought into print not in Rome or other Catholic
cities, but chiefly in centres of heresy like Basel where the editors
corrupted the original text. He had tried to make purchase in Rome of
the works of Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory, but had been told
by the booksellers that the only available editions were prohibited.
Such a complaint may be taken as an indication of the greater scholarly
enterprise and intellectual activity of the communities which had been
influenced by Protestantism.
The title-page of an edition of Augustine, printed in Venice in 1570,
contains a notice that the text has been carefully revised and freed
from all the corruptions and _scholia_ introduced into the
previous editions by Erasmus and other heretical and condemned writers.
Thomas James[181] points out that the edition of Gregory the Great
printed in Rome in 1585 contains no less than 1085 passages in which
the text varies from that of the authoritative manuscripts. Calandrini
speaks of 13,000 such variations. Reusch is, however, of opinion that
these charges of corruptions in Roman editions are exaggerated.[182]
_6._ _Expurgations in the Roman Index, 1624–1640._ The Roman Indexes,
with the exceptions of that of Brasichelli and the suppressed Index of
Sixtus, are classed as prohibitory only. It is the case, however, in
certain instances that in place of the term _donec corrigatur_ (usually
indicated simply by the letters _d. c._) is given a paragraph in which
is specified the material that is to be omitted and the omission of
which will leave the book in the list of those permitted. Such a
paragraph is, for instance, connected in several of the Roman Indexes
with the name Copernicus. Occasionally is connected with the entry of
the title and the letters _d. c._ a reference to an expurgated edition
published under the authority of the Congregation, the reading of which
is permitted. Among authors whose works the value of which is in this
way emphasised are Natalis, Bottero, Florentini, Garafalo, Scaramelli,
etc. In the case of certain other authors (nearly exclusively Italians)
the editors have taken the pains to specify in the Index itself the
ground for the prohibition.[183]
_7._ _1624–1661._ _Rome._ _Censorship Decrees._
_Index librorum post indicem Clementis VIII prohibitorum decreta
omnia hactenus edita._
_Romae, ex typographia Rev. Cam. Apost. MDCXXIV._
Each decree, emanating from the different authorities, is here given
separately and at length, thus presenting a convenient summary of the
sources from which originate the prohibitions and criticisms in the
Indexes. The series comprises edicts of the Inquisition, edicts of the
Congregation of the Index, edicts of the master of the sacred palace,
and decrees of the pope, and extends from the year 1601 to 1629. The
Index with which the series of edicts is printed as a sequel bears
date 1632. In a second edition, issued in 1640, the series of edicts
is brought down to 1637. The master of the sacred palace, whose name
appears in the first decrees issued by that official, was Brasichelli,
whose abortive _Index expurgatorius_ has already been referred to.
Four of the decrees issued by his successor, Lud. Ystella, in the years
1609 and 1610, were the subjects of severe animadversion on the part of
Fra Paolo Sarpi of Venice.
In the _Discorso_ concerning the Inquisition at Venice, printed
in 1638, Sarpi complains of an attempt on the part of the Papacy to
undermine and to violate the Concordat instituted in 1596 between
Rome and the Venetian Republic. In the Concordat, it is stipulated
that no other Index than the Clementine is to have force in Venice.
In the two decrees in question it is declared that the Indexes and
separate decrees issued since 1596 are to be “in force in all cities,
territories, and places, of whatsoever kingdom, nation, and people, and
are to have authority, in whatsoever way, even without publication, the
edicts should be made known.” Such a claim on the part of the Papacy
certainly appears to constitute an attempt to invalidate the conditions
of the Concordat and to give grounds for the criticisms of the intrepid
defender of the independence of the Republic.
The 66th decree (1644) is directed against the _Lettres Provinciales_
of Pascal; and makes a separate condemnation of each of the eighteen
letters. This author ought certainly to have remained in favour with
the Church. In number seventeen of these _Lettres Provinciales_ he
expresses himself thus: _Grâce à Dieu, je n’ai d’attaches sur la
terre qu’à la seule Église Catholique, Apostolique et Romaine, dans
laquelle je veux vivre et mourir, et dans la communion avec la Pape
son souverain chef, hors de laquelle je suis très persuadé qu’il n’y a
point de salut_. It would appear, however, as if some wave of Jesuitism
must have influenced Pope Innocent X at the time this condemnation was
issued. It may easily be understood that from the point of view of the
Jesuits, Pascal could hardly be considered a good Churchman.
Decree number seventy-seven, issued by Pope Alexander VII, January
12, 1661, states that some sons of perdition had arrived at such a
condition of madness as to turn the Roman missal into the vulgar tongue
of the French.