INDEXES AND PROHIBITIONS, SPANISH, ROMAN, BELGIAN,
POLISH, AND PORTUGUESE 1612–1768
1612. Madrid, Sandoval.
1617. Cracow, Szykowski.
1624. Lisbon, Mascaregnas.
1628. Papal Decrees _re_ Poza
1632. Rome, Capsiferro.
1632. Seville, Zapata.
1640. Madrid, Sotomayor.
1664. Rome, Alexander VII (see also Chapter XIII).
1707. Madrid, Valladores.
1714. Namur and Liége, Hannot.
1747. Madrid, Prado.
1790. Madrid, Cevallos.
1793–. Madrid, Supplements to Cevallos.
1559–1768. Examples of Spanish Prohibitions.
_1._ _1612._ _Madrid._ _Inquisitor-General Sandoval._ This Index,
comprising lists expurgatory as well as prohibitory, is the next in the
Spanish series to the Quiroga Index of 1584. The inquisitor-general
under whose authority it was compiled and issued was at the time both
Cardinal and Archbishop of Toledo. The title-page bears, in addition to
the name of the Spanish primate, the line _de consilio Supremi Senatus
Stae. Generalis Inquisitionis Hispaniarum_. The volume is one of
considerable compass; as printed in the first Madrid issue, it contains
744 pages, five of which are not folioed.
In 1614, an appendix with additional lists was printed as a separate
volume. This is called _Appendix prima_, but no later appendices
came into print. In 1619, the Index was reprinted in Geneva in an
edition which included, with the appendix, a polemical introduction
by Benedict Turretini. In 1628, this Geneva edition was reprinted in
Palermo under the instructions of the Inquisitor-General, Zapata. The
Index is prefaced by a brief of Paul V, the text of which follows the
lines of that contributed in 1559 by Paul IV to the Index of Valdes.
The Pope says (in substance) that he had learned that the permissions
in existence in the Spanish realm for the reading of prohibited books
had grown to be too numerous and that the results were pernicious. All
such permissions, whether emanating from the popes, from the local
bishops, or from any other authorities, were now cancelled, with
the exception of such permissions as might be given by the present
inquisitor-general to the devout scholars to whom had been confided
the task of the preparation of the present work. The penalty for
disobedience of this general prohibition was the _excommunicatio
latae sententiae_. Then follows an edict of the inquisitor-general
in which he states that the work has been undertaken by him under the
general Apostolic authority that he possesses as inquisitor-general
in the Spanish realms; and under the special instructions given to
him in the papal brief. The penalties specified in the regulations
are incurred by all persons who possess or who read copies of the
prohibited books. The penalties are not incurred in connection with
books entered under Class II, concerning which the censors give simply
a caution. Copies of such books are however to be submitted to the
authorities (in Spain usually the local inquisitors) in order that the
nature of the caution or correction may be duly specified.
The fourteen rules (based upon the Ten Rules of Trent) follow pretty
closely the text of the Rules of Quiroga. Rule X presents a general
prohibition of all anonymous books and of all books not bearing the
name of the printer, which have been issued since 1584.
Sandoval’s editors follow the Roman model in placing their lists under
three classes. Works which, condemned in their original form, are to
be permitted after an expurgation, are specified in the original list
with a star, and the titles are repeated in the second division, the
_Index expurgatorius_.
The second and third classes present in separate alphabets the
titles of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, Flemish, and German
publications. In Class I, the only Spanish names are Constantino de la
Fuente and Joan Auentrote. In this class is placed also Erasmus, with
the memorandum that all of his writings are prohibited as printed in
the vernacular. A similar specification is made in connection with the
names, given in the same class, of Petrus Ramus and of Macchiavelli.
The chief editor of the Index presents, after the classified lists, a
“notice to the reader” in which he says:
“The writings of authors who have been condemned, in so far
as these do not have to do with matters of religion, can be
made available for the use of the faithful through a thorough
expurgation. Even in the writings of orthodox scholars, whose
zeal and service in behalf of the Catholic religion deserve the
highest praise, are to be found certain errors of statement
and expressions liable to misconstruction, which, if left
uncorrected, would be likely to work mischief. In other cases,
writings of Christian authors, whose work was well-suited for
the time and the special conditions under which they wrote,
have in these later times come into controversy. The result of
their consideration by the scholars of later date has been to
show the necessity of some revision or reshaping of the earlier
text, in order to prevent these works of repute from exerting
an evil influence on later generations.” “The compilers of this
Index have undertaken the expurgation of more than three hundred
works, among which are included certain books that have secured
a very wide circulation. Certain further important expurgations
are in train, and in collaborating in such work, devout scholars
can be of noteworthy service to the Inquisition.”
This _Index prohibitorius_ contains practically all the titles that
were given in the Index of Clement VIII, and such further titles as
were compiled by Quiroga. It includes further a number of the later
prohibitions. Class I, in particular, has been very largely added to,
the new names, chiefly German, aggregating nearly three hundred. The
list includes a number of insignificant authors whose writings have
been entirely lost sight of. In the expurgated texts, Sandoval utilised
to some extent the work of Brasichelli. The appendix presents an edict
dated August, 1614, certain modifications of the rules, additional
titles for the preliminary lists, and a series of expurgated texts.
Schneemann[184] points out that this Index of Sandoval was utilised by
the Dominicans, under the lead of Bañez, to bring into condemnation
a number of the books of the Molinists, including the works of
the Jesuit Molina himself. The Benedictine Curiel writes to the
inquisitor-general to point out that this use of the Index by Bañez
and his associate Summel was the result of a disgraceful intrigue
against Molina. Bañez had secured, in 1593, from the Inquisition,
an instruction to the Universities of Alcala and Salamanca for the
production of an Index, but, probably on account of the protest above
referred to, the work was never completed.
Sandoval’s editors evidently had before them the text of the Roman
decrees of 1603, but they appear to have made a rather arbitrary
selection of the authors the condemnation of whom they were prepared
to confirm. Among the better known names omitted from the Spanish
lists are Bruno, James I, William Barclay, and Roger Widdington. In
the Palermo reprint of the Sandoval Index are added the titles of
certain Sicilian authors. There is also included a specification that
references to Pope Joan must be cancelled from any volumes in which
they occur.
The following entries may be cited from the two lists:
_Gregorii Capuc. Enchirid. Eccles_: this stands for the Neapolitan
Index in which the suggestion had been printed that the Spanish _Index
expurgatorius_ might be a forgery. Henricus Stephanus and Johannus
Scapula find place, the former as usual for his issues of Bibles, and
the latter for some treatise not clearly specified. For the works of J.
A. Thuanus or de Thou, the entry states that the censure of the present
Index covers only the first eighty books of the history. It is not
clear whether the last fifty-eight books contained nothing to condemn
or simply had not been reached. Isaac Casaubon is reprobated at some
length.
Emmanuel Sa, freely censured by the Roman Index is here very lightly
corrected and excused. As previously pointed out, the conclusions of
the Spanish and Roman Indexes often clash and the framers of the former
are reprimanded by the writers of Rome for their presumption.[185]
Under Cajaten, are cited two sentences (taken from a work by an
orthodox Catholic, printed at Antwerp) which have been, according to
Mendham, altered to a directly opposite meaning. Mendham gives as
example of his statement the change of the word _mali_ into _divini_
and of _impia_ into _sancta_. The works of Athanasius are considered
in no less than three editions and large changes and “expurgations”
are made in the annotations. Examples of the “cancellations” are the
following:
_Adorari solius Dei esse._
_Imagines tollendas esse testimonia._
_Angeli non sunt adorandi._
_Justificatio fit per fidem._
_Contra meritum humanum pro gratia, abundanter disputatum._
_Sancti non sunt adorandi, non sunt invocandi._
_Scriptura sacra sufficit ad veritatem._
_Canonici libri soli legendi, et cur?_
_Canonici libri soli sunt fontes salutares._
_Gratia Christi nos salvat per fidem, non per bona opera._[186]
The text of S. Augustine is also handled at length. Among the
propositions condemned and cancelled is: _Quae de carne sua
manducanda Christus proposuit, spiritualiter sunt intelligenda_.
Erasmus receives the largest measure of attention, no less than eighty
pages being devoted to the condemnation of reprehensible passages.
The expurgators protest particularly at the contentions maintained by
Erasmus against the worship of saints, images, or creatures.
In St. Chrysostom, passages are condemned which assert that, (a) sins
are to be confessed to God, not to man; (b) that faith alone justifies;
(c) that grace is excluded if we are saved by works; (d) that images
are not to be adored; (e) that nothing is to be asserted without the
authority of Scripture, which is to be read by all and which, to all
who are willing to learn, is intelligible; (f) that after this life
nothing can assist or deliver.
The _Theatrum Vitae Humanae_, compiled by Theodore Zwinger, receives
as much analysis as is permitted by the space at the command of the
expurgators. The work itself is comprised in no less than twenty-nine
octavo volumes. The reference to it being with a note worded as
follows: “Since this work is in a great degree collected from the
writings of condemned authors, it is to be read with special caution.
The names of these authors are never to be cited or referred to
honourably; and, to guard against error in the case of any author of
whose condemnation the reader may have doubts, he must have recourse to
the schedule of the first class.”
Zwinger has found occasion in his list of popes to use for not a few,
descriptive epithets that are by no means honourable. Mendham remarks
that “no attainment of vice, and not even the taint of heresy has been
considered by the authorities of the Church to be of force sufficient
to bar the claim of the popes to doctrinal infallibility in matters of
faith and of morals.”[187]
The faithful student who might desire to utilise this expurgatory
Index as a guide for his own reading, or who might think it important
to verify the accuracy of the citations condemned as heretical, would
find difficulty in tracing these citations, as the expurgators have
not thought it desirable in a single instance to specify the page or
even the volume from which the alleged extract has been made. The
opportunity thus given for attributing heretical opinions to one author
or another is obvious. An article in the _Protestant Guardian_[188]
gives, as an example of the methods of these Madrid expurgators,
quotations from the corrections made in a treatise by Hernando de
Santiago, _Consideraciones sobre los Evangelios de la Quaresme_: “not
Abimelech, you mean Melchizedech; and where you speak of Pelagians you
certainly should say Socinians; books of chivalry should of course read
books of the Maccabees; on page 149, Persia should read Assyria, Anna,
the sister of Moses, is evidently an error for Miriam, while Tamar
should be changed to Dinah.”
A reprint was issued in Geneva, in 1619, by Turretin, professor of
divinity. The editor places on his title-page the following lines:
_Indices huic libro nomen praefigitur apte;
Nam proprio Sorices Indicis pereunt._
The allusion is to a line in Terence, _Eunuch._, Act V, scene 7,
_Egomet meo indicio, miser, quasi sorex, hodie perii_.[189]
_2._ _1617._ _Cracow Index Prohibitorius._--_Index Librorum
Prohibitorum; cum regulis et cum adjecta instructione de emendandis
imprimendisque libris et de exequenda prohibitione. Nunc in hac
editione congregationis cardinalium edictis aliquot, et librorum nuper
scandalose evulgatorum descriptione auctus. Cracoviae. 1617._ This
was issued under the instructions of Szykowski, Bishop of Cracow.
There had, it seems, been two previous editions, one initiated by
Macierowski, Bishop of Cracow, the other by Zamoyski, Bishop of
Chelmin. The above title is taken from Peignot.
_3._ _1624._ _Lisbon._ _The Inquisition._ _Prohibitorius et
Expurgatorius._
This Index, issued in July, 1624, under the authority of the
Inquisitor-General, Fernando Martius Mascarenhan, bears as its main
title the wording _Index auctorum damnatae memoriae, tum etiam
librorum, qui vel simpliciter, vel ad expurgationem usque prohibentur,
vel denique jam expurgatae permittentur_. As indicated by this
title, the Index is expurgatory as well as prohibitory. Part I presents
the lists of books prohibited in the Roman Indexes and decrees up to
the year 1610. The three classes are merged under a single alphabet.
Part II presents an _Index prohibitorius Lusitaniae_, in which
are summarised, under one alphabet for each language considered,
the several lists of the Portuguese prohibitions. These Portuguese
prohibitions follow very closely the lists of Sandoval. The rules,
based in substance upon the Ten of Trent, are here expanded into
fifteen.
The material in the expurgatory section is in larger part transcribed
from Sandoval. The Index of Trent had been printed in Portugal in 1581,
and that of Clement in 1597. The Portuguese historian Seabra takes the
ground that, under Philip IV, no Index could be published without the
authority of the King. Philip had, in Portugal as in Spain, maintained
a certain personal supervision of the censorship operations of the
Inquisition. Reusch is of opinion that any reprints of the Roman
Indexes must have secured the approval of the King. In 1623, the King
issued an order prohibiting the reprinting, without the authority of
the chamberlain of the palace, of any book which had originated outside
of Portugal. In 1633, this order was renewed, with the specification of
books bearing upon the authority of the State and the history of the
times.
In the edict which stands at the head of the Lisbon Index, the
inquisitor-general directs that copies of all books specified in the
prohibited lists shall, within thirty days, be delivered to the local
inquisitors, and further, that persons possessing copies of books
belonging to the general classes prohibited, or of books the texts of
which are ordered to be expurgated, must, within thirty days, deliver
lists of the same, and hold said books subject to instructions. The
penalty for disobedience is, as usual, excommunication.
In the prefatory note to the expurgatory Index, occurs the remark,
that the works of certain well-known writers which, by the editors of
previous Indexes, have been considered to require expurgation, have
here not been included because their errors have been so thoroughly
refuted in the schools and in other books that their influence need no
longer be dreaded, and there should be no present risk for thoughtful
readers. The list of later Catholic writers whose works are marked for
expurgation is larger than in any other Index. Attention has also been
given to a number of works in the class of belles-lettres which the
editors have undertaken to purge from obscenities. Finally, the Index
contains a series of works on astrology, the expurgation of which has
been undertaken with reference to the instructions given by Sixtus V in
a Bull issued in 1585 (forty years earlier.)
This is the first Index in which appears the title of the essay by King
James I of England, written in defence of his requirement for an oath
of fidelity. This title, which is entered under the letter A, is worded
as follows:
_Apologia pro juramento fidelitas, primum quidem anonymos, nunc vero
ab ipso auctore serenissimo et potentissimo Principo Jacobo, etc. Lond.
1609._
The work is again condemned in the Spanish Index of 1632, where it is
entered under J. Jacobus Rex. In the same year it finds place (this
time also under A) in the Roman Index, the _Elenchus Capsiferrei_,
from which it has been repeated into the later Indexes of Rome. The
continued condemnation of this treatise is of importance as evidence
of the papal doctrine (which appears never to have been revoked) of
the right of the pope to depose kings. The Reverend Mr. O’Sullivan, in
his testimony before the Parliamentary Committee of 1825, on the State
of Ireland, deduces this doctrine from the condemnation given by the
Church (in the Index) to the _Apologia_ of King James.[190]
_4._ _1628._ _Rome._ _Papal Decree._ This decree contains an article
entitled _Elucidarium Deiparae Auctore Joanne Baptista Poza_.
Poza replies in a caustic _Apologia_ in which he charges Brasichelli
with censuring the Fathers, and with an unwarranted condemnation of
Emmanuel Sa. This rebellious conduct was punished by the Decree of
September 9, 1632, making condemnation of all of the works of Poza.
This decree is reversed in a supplement to the Spanish Decree of 1640.
The obedient Catholic was therefore at liberty to read the works of
Poza and of Sa within the dominions of Spain, but in so doing in other
territory, he incurred excommunication.
_5._ _1632._ _Rome._ _Index Prohibitorius._--_Elenchus Librorum omnium
tum in Tridentino, Clementinoque Indice tum in aliis omnibus Sacrae
Indicis Congreg._{nis} particularibus Decretis hactenus prohibitorum:
Ordine uno Alphabetico, Per Fr. Franciscum Magdalenum Capsiferreum
Secretarium digestus. Romae._ MDCXXXII. _Ex Typog. Camerae Apostolicae
Superiorum permissu._
The dedication reads: _Urbano VIII. Pont. Opt. Max._
This Index is chiefly intended, as is indicated in the preface, to
facilitate reference by writing under one alphabet the divisions of the
original Indexes, and by giving surnames as well as Christian names.
_6._ _1632._ _Seville._ _Index Prohibitorius et Expurgatorius._--_Novus
Index Librorum Prohibitorum et Expurgatorum; editus auctoritate et
jussu Eminent.^{mi} ac Reverend.^{mi} D.D. Antonii Zapata, S.R.E.
Presbyt. Card. Tit. S. Balbinae; Protectoris Hispaniarum; Inquisitoris
Generalis in omnibus Regnis; et ditionibus Philippi IV. R.C. et ab ejus
Statu, etc. De Consilio Supremi Senatus S. Generalis Inquisitionis.
Hispali, ex typographico Francisci de Lyra._ AN. MDCXXXII.
The Inquisitor’s _Edict_ refers to the Apostolic Brief of Urban VIII as
the reason for the production of a new Index, and states further that
this comprises, in addition to the works of the later modern writers,
no less than 2500 works of ancient authors who had been overlooked by
those responsible for the preparation of previous Indexes. The usual
prohibitions follow, with the penalty of the greater excommunication.
The _Brief_ of the Pope is in line with that of Paul V. Terrified
at the abuse of existing licenses, the Pope revokes them all, very
emphatically:
_Revocamus, cassamus, irritamus et anullamus, ac veribus penitus
evacuamus et pro revocatis_, etc.
Authority is given to the cardinal presbyter to put into execution
the several decrees, and to call in, if necessary, the assistance of
the secular arm. The “Notice to the Reader” announces that in place
of prohibiting altogether, it has been thought best to permit, with
some necessary expurgation, the reading of certain works by heretics.
For convenience of reference, there is included in the work a general
index covering in one alphabet the titles in both the expurgatory and
prohibitory divisions. The volume is the most considerable in bulk of
the Indexes thus far put into print, comprising over a thousand pages.
One entry in the class of authors proscribed _in toto_ is rather
curious in its wording:
_Martinus Lutherus. Islebii natus in Saxonia, an. 1483. Praedicat
contra indulgentias 1517. Ab ordine Religioso et a Fide Catholica
Apostata, et Heresiarcha, 1517. Reperitur in lecto misere exanimis,
1546._
This passage did not make its appearance in any subsequent Index.
_7._ _1640._ _Madrid._ _Sotomayor._ In 1640, the Inquisitor-General
Antonio de Sotomayor (a Dominican) produced an Index, also printed in
Madrid, which contains both prohibitory and expurgatory divisions. An
edition of this Index, printed (without imprint) either at Lyons or
Geneva, secured a wide circulation. Sotomayor died in 1648, in his
hundredth year. His Index was reprinted in Madrid in 1662, and again
in 1667, under the name of his successor. The Spanish Index of 1707
refers, however, to that of 1640 as “the next preceding.”
Sotomayor’s introduction begins with a long declamation against
heretical writers who have ventured to issue, under the names of
Catholic authors, pernicious and damnable books; who have interpolated
into the text of orthodox writings heretical passages; who have
described as untrustworthy the writings of the Fathers of the Church
(for instance the treatise of Ambrosius on the Sacraments and the works
of Dionysius Areopagita); and who have destroyed great numbers of
pious books presenting good Catholic doctrine. The regulations which
follow are issued under the general Apostolic authority vested in the
inquisitor-general, and under the special authority given by the Brief
of the Holy Curia. All copies of works which are specifically condemned
by title, or which belong to the classes condemned _in toto_,
are to be delivered within ten days to the local inquisitor. Whoever
retains books classed as heretical, falls under the _excommunicatio
latae_. The retention of other prohibited books brings upon the
possessor the penalty of the _excommunicatio ferendae_. In either
case, there is a further penalty of a fine of six hundred ducats, and
such additional punishments as may be ordered by the Inquisition. The
power rests with the inquisitor-general alone of freeing delinquents
from these penalties.
The sixteen rules contain certain additions to the Regulations of
Trent. The writings of Catholics are, for instance, not to be condemned
on the ground of containing extracts from the works of heresiarchs
cited for the purpose of refutation. In the supervision of books for
the purpose of expurgation, care is to be taken not to cancel the names
of heresiarchs who are referred to by the authors in connection with
necessary refutations.
The rules and penalties are similar to those previously in force. The
supplement contains an entry permitting, after certain expurgations,
the reading of the works of Poza, which by the Roman Congregation had
been absolutely condemned.
As examples of the character of the expurgations which find place
in the Spanish Indexes may be cited the following: Sotomayor orders
the cancellation, in bibliographies or other works of reference, of
the following terms when applied to names of writers standing in
the general Index in Class I: _vir optimus, pius, bonae memoriae,
doctissimus sapientissimus, princeps eruditorum, divinus (Scaliger),
Germaniae lumen (Melanchthon), decus saeculi nostri, etc._ It
is however permitted to describe Buchanan as a “poet of elegance,”
Henricus Stephanus as “learned in Greek scholarship,” Tycho Brahe as “a
distinguished mathematician and astronomer”; because the attainments
so indicated are the gift of God and have not been utilised, at least
directly, against the true faith. The Spanish editor goes on to say,
that such titles as doctor and _magister_ can, strictly speaking,
properly be ascribed to no one outside of the Church; the reference
is to cases in which these titles have been given by heretical
universities whose authority is not recognised by the Church. The title
_Dominus_ can however be permitted.
The expurgatory lists of Sotomayor include the title of the _Vitae
Germanorum_ of Adams; the expurgations comprise thirteen folio
sheets. There are certain interpolations comprising such terms as
_notam auctoris damnati_ or _homo damnatae memoriae_, etc. In the
_Bibliographica critica_, of Michael Josephus, published in Madrid in
1740, the author says in his introduction:
“In the specification of works of heretics I have taken pains
to avoid using any terms of commendation; for it is certainly
not right that infamous persons who have fallen away from the
true Catholic faith should in any fashion be honoured. Certain
Catholic writers have on the other hand contended that heretical
authors whose work had been devoted to subjects outside of
theology or religion, such for instance as philology, geography,
profane history, jurisprudence, and the like, could very
properly be commended for their contributions to learning. To
this suggestion I should respond that I am prepared to recognise
the possibility of heretics possessing learning and talents, and
that certain heretics have written on certain subjects works
which may be of use to Catholics; but it seems to me entirely
improper to give any measure of praise to such men who have
failed to use for the support of the true faith the abilities
with which they have been endowed by the Lord. They can receive
enough praise from their heretical friends and it would tend to
make them intellectually insolent to learn that they had been
honoured also by Catholics.”
_8._ _1664._ _Rome._ _Alexander VII._ The Index of Alexander, which
in chronological order belongs at this point in the schedule, is
considered separately in Chapter XIII.
_9._ _1707._ _Madrid._ _Index Prohibitorius et Expurgatorius._
_Novissimus Librorum Prohibitorum et Expurgandorum Index pro
Catholicis Hispaniarum Regis Phillipi V Reg. Cath. Ann. 1707._
On the engraved title is printed, _Index Expurgatorius Hispanus ab
Ex^{mo} D^{no} Didace Sarmiento et Valladores inceptus, et ab Ill^o
D^{no} D. Vitali Marin perfectus, etc. De Consilio Supremi Senatus
Inquisitionis Generalis._
The work is contained in two volumes, the first comprising 791 pages
and the second 342 pages. It begins with the edict of the Bishop of
Ceuta, and Inquisitor-General, Don Vidal Marin, who explains that
he is completing the work of his predecessor Don Diego Sarmiento,
who had been interrupted in his labours by death. He writes that,
considering the importance and necessity of continuing the Spanish
Index of 1640, this Index has been prepared in order that the books and
pamphlets issued during the last sixty-seven years might, as far as
requisite, be prohibited or expurgated and that the faithful might thus
be preserved from the errors which would otherwise have been caused
through the circulation of heretical or erroneous texts. The previous
_Advertencias_ and _Mandatos_ are repeated and are ordered to
be enforced with the utmost rigour of the law. Provision is made for
the publication of the Index in all churches, cathedrals, colleges, and
cities.
An _avis_ of the Privy Council of Brussels, printed in 1708,
contains the following naïve remark in regard to this Index: _Et pour
montrer qu’il est très difficile d’examiner les livres et de discerner
s’ils doivent être condamnés ou pas, on n’a que prendre recours a
l’Index Expurgatorius d’Espagne, émané dernièrement en l’an 1707, ou
se trouvent plusieurs livres approuvés que Rome a condamné, et de même
plusieurs condamnés par les Inquisiteurs que la Ste. Congregation n’a
pas trouvé convenir de proscrire_.
_10._ _1714._ _Namur and Liège._ _Hannot._--_Index ou Catalogues des
principaux Livres condamnés, rédigé par Jean Baptiste Hannot, Recollet,
Lecteur en Théologie._
This Index, while issued _avec approbation_, was compiled without any
specific authority. It comprises a selection, arrived at apparently in
a rather haphazard fashion, of works favouring Jansenism.
_11._ _1747._ _Madrid._ _Prado. 2 vols. 1200 pp. Pro. and Ex._ This
Index is noteworthy for its _Catalogo_ of Jansenist books. The list
originally included the _History of Pelagianism_ by Cardinal Noris,
but this entry was, as Mendham points out, subsequently cancelled by
the reprinting of a leaf.[191] The cancellation was the result of a
protest or remonstrance addressed by the Pope (Benedict XIV) to the
Inquisitor-General, Compostolla. The brief of Benedict is given in
a supplement to the _Bullarium_ of that Pope, and is cited from the
edition printed in Mechlin, in 1827. The Pope reminds the inquisitor
that it is the policy of the Church to exercise censorship with
moderation and conservatism. He refers to the treatise of Bossuet,
published under the commands of the King of France, which was written
in direct hostility to the infallibility of the Pope and to his claim
for authority over the temporal rights of princes; and he reminds the
inquisitor that his predecessor had decided that the interest of the
Church would be better served by forbearing.
_12._ _1790._ _Madrid._ _Index Prohibitorius et
Expurgatorius._--_Indici Ultimo de los libros prohibidos y mandados
expurgar; para todos los Regnos y Señorios del Catolico Rey de las
Españas el Señor Dom. Carlos IV._ The work contains the prefatory
matter of the three preceding editions, and brings the lists of
condemned and expurgated books down to the close of December, 1789.
The Inquisitor-General, Cevallos, under whose supervision the work was
prepared, declares, as the purpose of the Index, the presentation of
an alphabetic compendium which should comprehend not only the contents
of the Index of 1747, but likewise the titles of all works which had
been prohibited or sentenced to expurgation in the edicts previously
cited up to December 13, 1789. “This would,” he believed, “serve to
close the door to the excesses of printers and booksellers and also
to wrongful action on the part of private persons, and would prevent
the evils consequent upon the introduction into the Kingdom of such
pernicious commodities as heretical books.”
The Index is noteworthy in expressing the change of policy in regard
to the reading of the Scriptures. The inquisitor and his associates
profess themselves to be sensible of the benefits to be secured by
the faithful from the perusal of the Sacred Text, and with reference
to the declaration to the same purpose in the Index of Benedict XIV
(which declaration is printed in the present volume) they decide to
accord permission for the reading of versions of the Bible in the
vulgar tongue, with qualifications similar to those specified in the
Benedictine Index. The longer expurgations of the earlier Indexes are
not reprinted, but a reference is made, connected with the name of the
author, to the Index in which the expurgation originated. For instance:
“Abailardus (Petrus) _ejus opera_ V. Ind. Exp. 1747, p. 920.”
With reference to these condensed entries, the Index of 1790 is often
referred to as an Index manual. To the twelfth rule (in the series
of sixteen) is added the instruction that the possessor of a book
ordered to be expurgated is at liberty himself to make the necessary
corrections in the text, provided, however, that his corrected text
shall, within two months’ time, be submitted to and approved by the
local inquisitor.
Reusch points out that these Spanish Indexes, even the latest, contain
many more errors, both bibliographical and typographical, than those
of the Roman series before Benedict. The compilers of the Index of
Cevallos were of course in a position to utilise in their work the
lists and the information brought together in the Index of Benedict.
It would appear, however, that they made no use of the Benedictine
Index, while it is evident that the compilers were in many cases quite
ignorant of even the names of the authors and of the books condemned
(not to speak of the contents). The following entry may be cited as an
example of some likely to cause perplexity to the devout reader:
“Fulko Grevil, Theliffe Of the Renovudne, Senior Phillip Ciduaey” (Fulk
Greville’s _Life of the Renowned Sir Philip Sidney_).
_13._ _Supplements to the Spanish Index of 1790._ The second
issue of the Index of 1790 contains two supplements which present the
titles of certain books that, during the printing of the Index, came
under the condemnation of the Inquisition. The works belong almost
exclusively to a group of writings having to do with the French
Revolution. In 1805, was printed a third supplement that contains books
prohibited between 1789 and 1805. This list includes, in addition to
writings of the Revolution, certain Italian works that had during
the preceding decade been prohibited in Rome. Between the years 1806
and 1819 (years that covered the period of the French invasion, the
short-lived kingdom of Joseph, and the reorganisation of the kingdom),
the Inquisition published seven edicts in which a number of works were
prohibited. These lists were, however, not combined into any official
Index. In 1844, was printed in Madrid an Index in which were combined
into one alphabet the lists of the Index of 1790, the supplement of
1805, and the lists of the Mechlin edition of the Roman Index of 1843.
This publication was, however, a private and unofficial undertaking.
In 1848, was printed in Madrid an appendix to the Index of 1844, which
contains the titles of the books prohibited by the Inquisition between
1805 and 1819 together with the titles of the books prohibited in Rome
between 1842 and 1846. In 1863, was issued in Madrid a second appendix
giving the titles of the books prohibited in Rome between 1846 and 1862.
The edict of 1782, a citation of which appears in the Index of
1790, orders that: All persons having permission for the reading of
prohibited books must, not less often than once a year, make statement
to the confessors of the books of this class that they are utilising.
The confessors are authorised and instructed by the Inquisition to
revoke these permits in case they find that the reading in question
is causing injury to the faith of those holding the permits. The
confessors are to demand of the penitents from time to time, and in any
case at the time of the annual confession, whether they have in their
possession copies of prohibited books and whether in the course of the
year they have read any such books. In the former case, the penitents
must agree to deliver the books for destruction; and in the latter must
truly express their penitence for the sin committed. Until this has
been done, they are not to receive absolution.
The permits for the reading of prohibited books given by the Roman
Congregations are not valid in Spain. The permits issued directly by
the pope are to be delivered to the inquisitor-general in Spain or
to the council of the Inquisition, who are, if they are willing to
confirm them, to make registration of the same. They may, however,
refuse to confirm such Roman permits on the ground that the results
would be injurious for those using them. The permission to read
prohibited books or to possess copies of them, does not carry with it
the authority to import such books, to buy or to sell copies, to make
presentation of copies, or to exchange them for other books.
Among the noteworthy books contained in the supplement to the
Spanish Index, issued in 1805, may be mentioned the following:
Bonnet, _Oeuvres_, 18 volumes; the works of Alexander Pope, Laurence
Sterne (the reference is to the French version), Forster, _Voyage
Philosophique_; Smith, the _Wealth of Nations_ (French version); Burke,
_Reflections on the French Revolution_; _Die Rechte des Menschen_, a
reply to Burke’s treatise on the Revolution, etc.
_14._ _Examples of Spanish Prohibitions. 1559–1768._ The first of
the Spanish Indexes, that of Valdes in 1551, contains but one or two
Spanish titles, but the lists of 1559 and 1570 give evidence of fuller
attention to Spanish authors. The books prohibited belonged for the
most part not to heretical literature, but were those presenting,
in translations of the Scriptures or in controversies on points of
doctrine, matter that was not safe or not suitable for the knowledge
of the general lay public. The Inquisition in Spain had, from the
beginning, been more sharply opposed than were the Church authorities
elsewhere, to the distribution to the lay public of literature, and
particularly of literature in the vernacular, having to do with the
doctrines of the Church, even when such books were sound in their own
teachings and had been prepared to expose and to repress error. The
inquisitors took the ground that it was wiser to keep the faithful
in ignorance of the existence of errors. An example of this policy
is the prohibition in the Index of Valdes in 1559 of the writings of
Francisco de Borja, who was later enrolled with the saints, and of
Juan de Avila, Luis de Granada, who have since been classed with the
best of the ascetic writers and as “shining lights in God’s Church in
Spain.”[192] In 1571, permission was refused by the Inquisition for the
printing of a Spanish version of the Roman Catechism. Valdes prohibited
all tracts, letters, and pamphlets, reports of sermons, etc., that had
to do with the Scriptures or with the Sacraments. This prohibition
included any reprints in the Spanish tongue of the Gospels or of
extracts from the Gospels or of the Epistles of Paul.
A prohibition initiated by Quiroga was continued through the following
century, condemning “comedies, tragedies, and farces in which any
reflection or ridicule was cast upon the Sacraments, the practice of
church-going, the holy orders, or the Inquisition.” In 1581, the Index
of Lisbon added to the above a prohibition of the presentation on
the stage of any ecclesiastical characters or the performance of any
sacramental acts. This latter ruled out, of course, the representation
of marriage. In one of the later Indexes, the second part of _Don
Quixote_ comes into the list of works to be expurgated, but the
material condemned comprises but a single sentence: _Las obras de
charidad que se hazen flaxamente, no tienen merito ni valen nada_.
It is a characteristic of the Spanish expurgatory Indexes that they
do not give the references by chapter and by page to the texts of the
authors corrected. Mendham points out that the careful and orthodox
student, who might wish to assure himself of the accuracy of his own
literary guides, would find it important to refer to the originals
of the corrected texts if only in order to be placed in a position
to defend the action of his Church and to confound or possibly even
to convert heretical opposers. “Supposing for instance,” says he,
“a discussion should take place between a believer and an heretical
critic, and the latter should have the hardihood to assert that the
sentences condemned in the Index were not the _ipsissima verba_ or
the necessary sense of the author referred to, what reply could be made
by the defender of the Index who had never been able to make personal
examination of the text in question?”[193]
In 1827, there was published in the _Protestant Guardian_ (on pages
118 _et seq._) a review of the censures in the expurgatory Indexes.
The writer gives as examples of erasures that seemed to him to be
futile or at least open to criticism the following: In the _Glossarium
Graeco-Barbarum_ of Mensius, out of twenty-five erasures fifteen
consist simply in expunging before the names of Junius and other
learned men the terms _V. C._, _Eruditus_, etc.
So far from its being lawful to admit that a Protestant could be
either learned or illustrious, it was forbidden even to give the name
of theologians to Protestants pretending to Holy Orders. The English
bishops always figure in the Indexes under the term “pseudo-episcopi.”
This is doubtless, however, a logical term for the Church to use
concerning officials who must of necessity have been considered as
usurping laymen. In the erasures in the ninth book of the history of De
Thou, we find corrections of a more exacting character. The following
is an instance: _Theologis, qui ad concilium_, pro _Theologis_ scribe
_iis_. _Et ibi decrevisse viros bonos mittere_, dele _bonos_.
The censor actually follows through his rambles the wandering Jew of
Tudela, although the translation of this narrative was issued by so
good a Catholic as Montanus (himself a censor) in order to blot out
every kind word which Benjamin had uttered respecting his nation. For
example: _Filius Jonae probandae memoriae_, dele _probandae memoriae_;
_Synagoga sacra_, dele vocem _sacra_; _Filii Haziddai felicis
memoriae_, dele _felicis memoriae_; and so on through a folio page.
It is somewhat curious that such works of English writers as have been
considered by the framers of the Index, are placed almost exclusively
in the prohibitory division, and in this are included in the first
class, that is to say, under the heading of authors whose works, past,
present, and future (_opera edita et edenda_), are absolutely
prohibited. One of the few English books which have been mentioned by
title (apart from the names of the authors) in the prohibitory Index
is the version of the Psalms by Sternhold and Hopkins. This is the
book understood to be referred to by the title _Psalmes of Dauid in
Englische Metre_.
CHAPTER XIII
THE INDEX OF ALEXANDER VII AND THE CONDEMNATION
OF GALILEO--ROME, 1664
In 1664, was published at Rome the _Index Prohibitorius_ of Alexander
VII. In the accompanying Bull, the Pope says that since the publication
of the Index of Clement VIII, a number of books had been prohibited
by his successors and by the Congregation of the Index, but no
authoritative schedule of the same had been issued which presented
in one comprehensive list the titles of the books and the names of
their authors. He had, therefore, caused a new Index to be compiled
which contained all the titles from the lists of Trent and of Clement,
together with all the further prohibitions, and in which, for
convenience of reference, the three classes of the Trent Index had
been put together, which enabled the titles to be presented in one
alphabeted list. The division into three classes of the books condemned
had in any case been open to the objection that it had “tended to give
the impression that the books of Class I were more pernicious than
those of Classes II and III and their reading more reprehensible; while
as a fact there were in the third class not a few works much wickeder
than any in the other classes.”
In addition to the titles of the prohibited books, this Index presents
the complete series of the decrees since that of the Trent Index,
under which the prohibitions were ordered. “The several regulations,
condemnations, and prohibitions,” continues the rescript, “presented
in this Index, we do hereby, under the Apostolic authority, confirm
and approve as in force at this time and as binding on all the members
of the Church; and we order that all universities, their associations,
and individuals shall give obedience to the same without exception or
reservation.” Then follow the specifications of penalties, seventeen in
all, and instructions to bishops and inquisitors for the publication of
the regulations and enforcement of the penalties.
In 1665, the Secretary of the Index Congregation, Vincentius Fanus,
published an edition of Alexander’s Index, with the omission of the
Clementine lists and of the series of decrees.
In 1667, was published, either at Lyons or Geneva, a reprint of the
text as revised by Fanus, but with the addition of the Clementine
lists and of the series of decrees. The latter are brought down to
1667. Fanus says of his edition that it is more comprehensive and more
correct than that of 1664. It is not clear, however, from what sources
his additional titles are taken. The division into three classes is
abandoned; but he points out that there is no difficulty in identifying
to which class an entry belongs. The name of an author, for instance,
not followed by any book-title indicates Class I; the title of a book
without name of author indicates Class III; while the author’s name
connected with title stands for Class II, which constitutes the bulk
of the Index. Fanus has some idea of bibliographical method. He makes
cross-references for authors who in previous Indexes are presented
sometimes under a forename and sometimes under a surname, the latter
being frequently of course derived from the place of residence. The
Index contains an “Address to the Reader” by Fr. Hyacinthus Libellus,
Fanus’s predecessor. In this address, the Secretary takes the ground
that all other Indexes are to be considered as “private” (_i. e._
unofficial).
The first list in the series covers 160 pages. The second list presents
exclusively books the title of which is followed by the name of the
author. The third list is confined to books the title of which follows
the name of the author. Then follows an appendix covering titles from
1661 to 1664, and this is followed by the text of the Tridentine Index,
to which is prefixed an _Admonition_ by Libellus giving the origin
and the history of that Index. Libellus affirms that the deputation of
the Index, originally instituted by Pius IV, was matured into a formal
congregation by Pius V.
The concluding division is entitled: _Index Decretorum_. This is
said to present _Omnia Decreta quae vel a Magistro Sac. Palatiti, cum
ratione Officii siu, tum Jussu Sac. Congregationis, vel ab ipsis Sacris
Congregationibus Indicis, et S. Officii emanuerunt_.
This Index of 1664 is noteworthy as containing the formal condemnation
of the works of Copernicus and Galileo, and of all other writings
which affirmed the movement of the earth and the stability of the sun.
The proceedings against Galileo and the Copernican doctrine had been
instituted in 1616 under Paul V. The final condemnation of Galileo was
given in 1633, under Urban VIII.
=The Condemnation of Galileo, and of the Copernican Theory of the
Solar System.=--The fourteenth and twentyeighth of the decrees
summarised in the Index of 1664 present the record of the condemnation
of Galileo. The records of the long series of the proceedings, upon
which the final condemnation of Galileo was based, constitute a
considerable mass of literature. It is necessary here to make reference
only to the more essential conclusions arrived at by the Church
authorities.
In March, 1616, the Congregation of the Index, under the instructions
of Pope Paul V., had rendered a decree to the effect that “the doctrine
of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun
is false and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture.” The same decree
condemned all writings of Copernicus and all writings which affirmed
the motion of the earth. These condemnations were inscribed upon the
Index and in connection with this Index was issued the usual papal Bull
giving to its monitions the most solemn papal sanction. “To teach or
even to read the works denounced or the passages condemned was to risk
persecution in this world and damnation in the next.”[194]
The abjuration of Galileo bears date July 22, 1633. The decree of the
same date, which sentences the philosopher to imprisonment and other
penance, sets forth that the ground of the charge against him was his
statement that the sun was the centre of the system and was immovable,
and that the earth, revolving around the sun and also around its own
axis, was movable. The decree sets forth further that, in 1616, the
offender had been admonished by Cardinal Bellarmin, and that in the
same year the Congregation of the Index issued a decree condemning
the doctrine; notwithstanding this condemnation, Galileo had again
offended by repeating the same erroneous theories in a volume entitled
_Dialogo_.
This volume, issued in 1632, was a treatise presented in the form of a
dialogue, exhibiting the arguments for and against the Copernican and
Ptolemaic systems. The publication was the result of discussions which
had extended through eight years, and was finally permitted only on the
condition that the volume should contain a preface, for the wording
of which Ricciardi, master of the sacred palace, was responsible, but
which bore the signature of Galileo, and in which the Copernican theory
was described as a mere play of the imagination and as not in fact
opposed to the Ptolemaic doctrine. The book secured at once a large
circulation and a widespread influence. The preface was disregarded
or was laughed at, while the reasonings in the dialogue were accepted
by many as practically conclusive of the Copernican doctrine. These
reasonings were considered by the new Pope, Urban VIII, as bringing him
into ridicule and, under the Pope’s instructions, Galileo and his books
were placed in the hands of the Inquisition. It was later contended
by certain Catholic writers that Galileo was condemned not for his
opinions or theories, but for having claimed to found these theories on
Scripture. Sir Robert Inglis is quoted by Mendham as having maintained
this view as late as 1824.[195] This contention appears however to
be fairly met by the fact that the Roman Index of 1704 contains an
explicit condemnation of “all works maintaining the mobility of the
earth and the immobility of the sun.”
The decree numbered thirty-eight and issued August 23, 1634, specifies,
with other condemned books, _Dialogo di Galileo Galilei_. Decree
number fourteen connects with the condemned Copernican doctrine the
name not of Galileo but of Foscarini. It adds, however, the general
sentence: _Aliosque omnes libros pariter idem docentes_.
The names of both Foscarini and Galileo appear in the body of the
Index, the first under _Lettera_, the second under _Dialogo_. In the
Roman Index of 1704 (first edition), the following entry stands in
its alphabetic place: _Libri omnes docentes mobilitatem Terrae et
immobilitatem solis_. In all later editions of the Index this entry
was, however, omitted.[196]
Sundry theologians of the Inquisition were instructed to examine two
propositions which had been extracted from Galileo’s letters on the
solar system. Their decision was rendered as follows:
“The first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not
revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology,
and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture”;
and “the second proposition, that the earth is not the centre
but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and
from a theological point of view, at least, opposed to the true
faith.”[197]
The ground on which had been based the contention of the defenders
of the Church that Galileo had made the Scriptures responsible for
his new theory of the solar system, was a suggestion contained in
letters written by the astronomer to his friend Castelli and to the
Grand Duchess Christine, to the effect that his discoveries might be
reconciled with Scripture.
The result of the long contest is now, of course, fully on record.
The examinations and discussions had extended over a period of sixteen
years. Galileo had for a large portion of that time been kept in prison
under the direct control of the Roman Inquisition. It appears from the
records, which have been summarised by Andrew White and others, that
by the express order of Pope Urban he was menaced from time to time
with torture, although it is probable that physical torture was never
actually administered. The old man was finally (in 1633) forced to
pronounce publicly and on his knees a recantation worded as follows:
“I, Galileo, being in my seventieth year, being a prisoner and
on my knees, and before your Eminences, having before my eyes
the Holy Gospel, which I touch with my hands, abjure, curse,
and detest the error and the heresy of the movement of the
earth.”[198]
The Inquisitors were ordered not to permit the publication of any
further editions of Galileo’s works or of any writings upholding
his theories. On the other hand, “theologians were urged, now that
Copernicus and Galileo and Kepler were silenced, to reply to them with
tongue and pen.” Europe was flooded with these theological refutations
of the Copernican system.[199]
The authority of the Index of the Congregation and of the Papacy
back of the Index remained committed to the position taken by Pope
Urban and his advisers until the time of Benedict XIV. In 1757, under
instructions given by Benedict, the Congregation of the Index removed
the old-time restrictions on writings advocating the Copernican system.
As late, however, as 1765, Lalande, the great French astronomer,
attempted without success to secure from the authorities at Rome the
removal from the Index of the works of Galileo.
Artaud, writing in the Dublin _Review_ in September, 1865, in defence
of the record of the Church, states that Galileo’s _Dialogue_ was
published complete in Padua in 1714, “with the usual approbations.” In
the same article, it is stated that in 1818 the ecclesiastical decrees
were repealed by Pius VII in full Consistory.[200] The historian Cantu,
however, who is described as an authority favourable to the Church,
speaks of the work of Copernicus as remaining on the Index as late as
1835.[201] Cantu’s authority is supported by Reusch.[202]
In 1820, Canon Settele, professor of astronomy at Rome, had ready for
publication an elementary textbook which was based upon the Copernican
system. The master of the sacred palace, Anfossi, refused to allow the
book to be printed unless Settele would reshape it and would refer to
the Copernican theory as merely an hypothesis. The professor appealed
to Pope Pius VII by whom the matter was referred to the Congregation of
the Inquisition. The issue aroused considerable discussion but finally,
on the eleventh of September, 1822, the cardinals of the Inquisition
agreed upon the concession that “the printing and publication of works
treating of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun, in
accordance with the general opinion of modern astronomers, is hereafter
permitted at Rome.”[203]
The decree was ratified by Pius VII and, after a delay of two years,
the professor was permitted to place his book in the hands of the
printers. It may, I judge, be inferred that until the publication of
this volume, late in 1822, the pupils in the orthodox Catholic schools
had not been permitted the use of any textbooks on astronomy, the
conclusions of which were in accord with the Copernican system. It was
not until 1835, thirteen years after the decision of the cardinals,
that an edition of the Index appeared in which was omitted all
condemnation of works defending the double motion of the earth.
The divines in the Protestant Church were no more favourable than were
the Catholic theologians to the Copernican theory of the universe.
Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and Protestant teachers alike placed
themselves on record as in opposition to the teachings of Copernicus
and of Galileo. The great preacher in London, Dr. South, denounced as
irreligious the report of the Royal Society in which the Copernican
doctrine had been accepted. As late as 1724, Professor John Hutchinson
of Cambridge, in a treatise entitled the _Principia of Moses_,
undertook to build up from the text of the Bible a complete physical
system of the universe. In this treatise, the Newtonian and Copernican
theories were condemned as atheistic. In 1722, Thomas Burnett, in the
sixth edition of his _Sacred Theory of the Earth_, argues for
the scriptural doctrine of the earth’s stability. In Holland, the
Calvinistic Church was from the outset strenuously opposed to the whole
new system. The opposition of the Lutherans was continued until a very
late date. In 1873, was issued by the Lutheran publishing house of St.
Louis a work entitled _Astronomische Unterredung_, in which was
again maintained the theory that the earth is a fixed body and the
centre of the universe.
These utterances from the Protestants present sufficient evidence
that the old theologies as they were then interpreted could not
easily be reconciled with the now accepted views of the constitution
of the universe. It does not appear, however, that in any one of the
Protestant realms the opposition of the divines to the new astronomy
was associated with any persecution either of authors or instructors.
The Church of Rome must assume the responsibility for having continued
during a series of years, which ended only with the lifetime of its
victim, the persecution of a great scientist whose only crime was his
exceptional capacity for scientific investigation and his desire to
present simply and effectively what he believed to be the truth. In
1852, two hundred and twenty years after the condemnation of Galileo,
which had been brought about largely through the influence of the
Jesuits, the astronomer Secchi, himself a Jesuit, presented, in one of
the churches at Rome, the experiment of Foucault with the pendulum,
making clear to the human eye the movement of the earth about its own
axis.[204]
Another noteworthy title in the Index of 1664 is that of the _Lettres
Provinciales_ of Pascal. Mendham finds ground for surprise that an
author who could maintain so emphatically certain of the most exacting
pretensions of the Church of Rome should have been thought deserving of
condemnation. In the seventeenth of the _Lettres Provinciales_,
Pascal writes:
“_Grâce à Dieu, je n’ai d’attache sur la terre qu’à la seule
Église Catholique, Apostolique, Romaine, dans laquelle je
veux vivre et mourir, et dans la communion avec le Pape, son
souverain chef, hors de laquelle je suis très persuadé qu’il n’y
a point de salut._”
CHAPTER XIV
DECREES AND INDEXES, FRENCH, BELGIAN, BOHEMIAN,
ROMAN, AND SPANISH, 1685–1815
1685. Paris. Decrees of Louis XIV 1685–1735
Belgian Indexes 1726–1767
Bohemian Indexes 1670–1800
Editions of Roman Indexes 1815
Madrid. Inquisitor-General.
_1._ _1685._ _Paris._ _Decrees of Louis XIV._--In 1685, shortly
before the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Louis XIV ordered the
suppression and destruction of the writings of the Protestants. Harlay,
Archbishop of Paris, thereupon published, at the request of the
Parliament of Paris, a catalogue of these books which has, as compared
with the Roman indexes, a distinctive character of its own. In this
list of books condemned and ordered to be destroyed, no reference is
made to the Indexes of the Roman series, and, on their part, these
Indexes give no consideration to the Paris catalogue.
A convention of the clergy held in 1682, published a pastoral letter
(_Un Avertissement pastoral_) addressed to those who followed the
so-called reformed faith. The purpose of this _Avertissement_ was
stated to be a reconciliation with the Church of these backsliders; and
it included a _mémoire_ setting forth the different methods that
could to advantage be followed in order to bring about the conversion
of these heretics. Included in this _mémoire_ is a statement of
orthodox doctrine entitled “Doctrine of the Church as contained in
its profession of faith and in the Decrees of the Council of Trent as
opposed to the calumnies and the false charges spread to the world in
the works of the so-called reformers.”
In 1685, the convention addressed a brief to the King in which it is
stated that the clergy did not demand a revocation of the Edict by
means of which earlier kings, under unhappy conditions and on grounds
that no longer existed, had for a time permitted the practice of the
so-called reformed religion. The request was, however, submitted to
the King that during the time in which the Edict should yet remain in
force, the reformers were to be forbidden in their sermons or writings
to abuse or to libel the Catholic Church. In August, 1685, Louis XIV
published an edict in which reformers were forbidden to preach or
to write against the faith and the doctrine of the Roman Catholic
religion. They were further to be permitted to print only such books as
contained the statement of their own creed, the text of their prayers,
and their rules of discipline. All controversial books having to do
with the Catholic faith were condemned, prohibited, and ordered to
be destroyed. Any disobedience to this edict is to be punished with
banishment and confiscation of property. The printing or the selling of
the prohibited books is to be punished with a fine of 1600 livres, and
with the cancellation of the license to print. The list of the books
so condemned was published in September, 1685, under the authority of
Archbishop Harlay and with an _arrêt_ of Parliament. The title is,
_Catalogue des livres condamnéz et deffendus par le Mandement de M.
l’Archevésque de Paris_.
The catalogue is arranged alphabetically, but at the close is a
supplement containing forty-five titles without alphabetical order. The
titles are restricted to books printed either in Latin or in French but
include a number which have been issued outside of France. This Index
condemns as “scandalous” all versions of the Scriptures prepared by the
Protestant ministers. In October was published the edict revoking the
Edict of Nantes.
_2._ _Belgian Indexes 1695–1735._--In the beginning of the 18th
century, were printed in Namur two lists made up from the Roman Index.
The first carries no editorial name and is printed in Latin under the
title _Elenchus propositionum et librorum prohibitorum_. It bears the
date 1709. The second carries the name, as compiler, of Jean Baptiste
Hannot. The text is in French. The title reads _Index ou Catalogue des
principaux livres condamnés et défendus par l’Église_. This bears date
1714. It comprises a selection of works in support of Jansenism. The
compiler is a zealous member of the society of Jesus. Both these lists
are private undertakings, issued under no ecclesiastical or political
authority.
In January, 1695, Precipiano, Archbishop of Mechlin, published a
decree which orders the condemnation of seventy-three works, chiefly
the writings of the Jansenists. Among the titles given in the
_Elenchus_ of 1709 are the works of “de Chartes” (Descartes) and
of Copernicus. The Index contains the following remark:
“A number of the books which were prohibited in the Tridentine
Index, such as the works of Erasmus and Molinäus, have been
corrected in the Antwerp _Index expurgatorius_. It may
therefore be assumed that the later editions of these works
have been printed with the approved text.”
The Index of Hannot, while unofficial, secured later the approval of
the Bishop of Namur. The Index of Precipiano undertook to prohibit only
books which had not already been prohibited in Rome. The Congregation
of the Index paid no attention to the lists prepared by Precipiano.
Of the long list of Calvinistic books condemned by Precipiano, only
one, a treatise by Basnage, was prohibited in Rome (not until 1728),
and of the sixty Jansenist writings only two, the _Difficultés_ of
Arnauld and an essay of Quesnel, found place in the Roman lists.
Brussels, 1735.--_Catalogus Preliminaris donec amplior sequatur,
Quorundam Librorum tum prohibitorum tum noxiorum aut Periculosorum et
Proscriptorum e Belgio Austriaco_, etc. The first division is devoted
to an _Instructio Summaria_ comprising the general rules; then follows
the body of the Index under the title: _Instructio specifica sine
Catalogus_, etc. This Index is distinctive in giving in a separate
schedule, connected with the titles by numbers, the grounds on which
the books are condemned. The schedule is entitled: _Qualificationes
et Censurae Librorum_. The lists are largely devoted to the works of
Jansen, Quesnel, and van Espen. The Index is said by Mendham to have
been the work of the Jesuit Father Wouters Hoynck van Papendrecht,
Archpriest of Malines. The regulations provide for minute and vexatious
visits of printeries and bookshops, and for interference with sales
of books. The Index appears never to have got beyond the status of
a scheme. It secured the cordial approval of the Governess, the
Duchess Marie Elizabeth, but the Council of Brabant objected to the
publication, and appears to have been strong enough to maintain its
objection. The regulations of the Index failed, therefore, to secure
the sanction of law, and were not put into force. The result indicates
that the authority of Philip IV in Brabant was not as final as had been
that of Philip II. The scheme comes into print in a supplemental volume
of the works of van Espen.[205]
The introduction contains the following noteworthy observation:
“_Il seroit inutile de répéter que dans tout le dit Catalogue
on ne trouve pas condamné un seul livre de ceux qui ont voulu
attribuer aux Papes ce pouvoir illimité, à l’égard des Princes
seculiers, ce qui prouve encore le nécessité qu’il y a de
maintenir les auteurs qui à cet égard ont soutenu les droits des
Princes._”
This complaint occurs not infrequently on the part of the critics of
the Indexes. It was made among others by Fra Paolo in his _Discorso_ on
the Inquisition already referred to.
It is noteworthy that the members of the council speak of the author
of the Index as being unknown to them. It is evident that they do not
accept as real the authors whose names are given. It is a suggestion
of Mendham that the chief purpose of the production of this particular
Index was the proscription by the Jesuits of the works of van Espen.
It is evident in any case from the character of the books selected for
condemnation, as well as from the wording of the documents connected
with the lists, that this Index was a part of the long fight of the
Jesuits against the followers of Jansenius.
Among the authors condemned in this Index was, curiously enough, the
well-known bishop and eloquent preacher, Bossuet, called by some
of his contemporaries the Eagle of Meaux, and also the _Mallens
Haereticorum_. The full title of the work condemned is as follows:
_Defensio declarationis celeberrimae quam de Potestate ecclesiastica
sanxit Clerus Gallicanus, 19 Martii, 1682, ab Illus. ac Rev. Jacobo
Benigno Bossuet Meldensi Episcopo, ex speciali jussu Ludovici Magni
Scripta_, 2 vol. 4to, Luxemburgi, 1730.
_3._ _Bohemian Indexes, 1726–1767._--In 1726, was printed in Prague
a reprint of the Roman Index of 1704 together with the appendix of
1716. In 1729, was printed at Königgrätz, as a supplement to the
Roman Index, an _Index prohibitorius_ and _expurgatorius_ in which
special consideration is given to works in Latin, in German, and in
Czech which had found circulation in Bohemia. The main title reads:
_Clavis haeresim claudens et aperiens_. This is followed by a Bohemian
title the substance of which is: “A key which has for its purpose
the making clear to the understanding the pernicious character of
heretical writings, and which, in so doing, shall provide for their
extermination; or a catalogue of pernicious works which are likely to
cause mischief and which on this ground have been prohibited, together
with instructions for the identification of such dangerous writings for
extermination of same.”
In 1749, was printed at Prague a second and enlarged edition of this
_Clavis_. In 1767, the Archbishop of Prague, Przichovsky, printed,
in obedience to an encyclical of Clement XIII, an Index presenting
Bohemian books only. The title is: _Index Bohemicorum librorum
prohibitorum et corrigendorum et ordine alphabetico digestus_, etc. In
the _Clavis_ of 1729, the _Index prohibitorius_ is arranged in three
alphabeted divisions, the first including the works in Czech, the
second those in German, and the third the Latin titles, with which
are certain in French. Following each division, are given certain
blank pages left for the description of further books. In the second
edition is given a special division entitled _Index librorum Veneria
vel obscoena tractantium_, presenting a list of works the obscene
character of which can fairly be inferred from their titles. It is
noteworthy that this very legitimate division of censorship, which
received very little attention either in Rome or in Spain, should have
been cared for in Bohemia. Beneath the titles of the books in the list
for expurgation, are given as a rule brief analyses constituting what
might be called a _catalogue raisonnée_, for instance, _perstringuntur
religiosi Societatis Jesu_, etc. Against such a name as that of Huss
is added the term “heretic” or “arch-heretic.” The compiler of the
_Clavis_ was a Jesuit, Anton Koniasch. Koniasch left at his death
(in 1760) materials for a further Index which were utilised as the
basis of the Index printed in 1767 by Przichovsky. The title proposed
by Koniasch was: _Index librorum perniciosorum abolendorum vel
repurgandorum_, etc. In the Index as published by the Archbishop, is
the order that his pastoral brief, together with the encyclical of the
pope, shall, within three weeks’ time, be read on the Sunday in all
German and Bohemian churches, and that, on the same day, a sermon shall
be given devoted to the danger of heretical books. He orders further
that whoever shall be convicted of reading heretical or prohibited
books shall _ipse jure_ come under excommunication. This is followed by
an edict, issued by Charles VI and confirmed in 1749 by Maria Theresa,
in regard to the distribution of heretical books. This Index is both
prohibitory and expurgatory, but the two sets of titles are arranged
in one alphabet. It contains also an enlarged edition of the Bohemian
division of the _Clavis_.
=4. Editions of the Roman Indexes, 1670–1800.=
_1670._ _Rome._ _Clement X._ In 1670, under the instructions of Clement
X, Fanus prints an Index which contains the lists of Alexander and of
Clement, with an appendix bringing the record of prohibitions down to
date. This volume is again printed in 1675, with an appendix covering
the prohibitions of five years.
_1681._ _Rome._ _Clement XI._ In 1681, under the instructions of
Clement XI, Jacobus Riccius again reprints the same lists and decrees
with supplements. An edition of this Index of 1681 was printed in
Munich in 1683. Riccius states in his preface that, in addition to
the including of the titles of the later prohibitions, he has found
occasion for a number of corrections, both in the titles and in
the names of the authors. The editors of the Roman Indexes are now
beginning to show some regard for bibliographical completeness and
typographical accuracy.
A second impression of the Riccius Index was printed in Rome in 1682,
and a third edition appeared in 1739, printed without change, and the
later prohibitions are recorded in a series of appendices. Between the
years 1704 and 1744, were also printed various editions of this Index,
in which the titles of the works prohibited from 1704 to 1739 find
place in the main alphabet. Reusch points out, however, that from 1682
to 1754 no official edition of an Index was printed in Rome. A number
of Indexes bearing the imprint of the Apostolic printing-office were
as a matter of fact manufactured elsewhere, chiefly in Venice.[206]
Riccini, or Riccius, who served from 1749 to 1759 as secretary of the
Index Congregation, states that for more than seventy years no official
editions of the Index were printed in Rome; and that the editions
issued from the presses of Venice, presenting the false imprints of
the Roman office, contained many blunders and were not to be accepted
as authoritative. The official and approved editions must in any case
include an introductory word from the secretary of the Congregation.
The Index of Clement XI contains, as first printed, one alphabeted
list. In later editions, this list is followed by appendices which,
by the year 1734, had aggregated five. The first of these appendices
has the epithet _Unica_. It is suggested that this term indicates
that the appendix has been substituted for a previous faulty appendix.
It is Hannot’s understanding that the fault in the cancelled appendix
consisted in a condemnation which had been almost immediately revoked.
In this same Appendix _Unica_ appears for the first time in an Index
the name of Fénelon, Archbishop of Cambray. The work condemned is
_Explications des Maximes des Saints_. The particular offence in the
volume is understood by Mendham to have been the acceptance by Fénelon
of the views of the mystical Spanish nun, Sor d’Agreda. There were
evidently, however, some other matters in Fénelon’s volume which were
found to be dangerous, as the Pope, Innocent XII, found occasion to
issue in regard to it a special _Constitution_ in which were condemned
twenty-three propositions extracted from Fénelon’s _Explications_. The
perusal of the work was forbidden, under pain of excommunication, to
all the faithful without exception. The _Constitution_ bears date,
March 12, 1699. In the same year, there was issued at Paris an _Arrêt
de la Cour de Parlement_ enregistering the letters patent of the king
for the execution of this _Constitution_. The Archbishop appears to
have accepted without protest the condemnation of the Pope and the
authority of the High Court of Parliament.
_1704._ _Rome._ _Index Prohibitorius._--_Index Librorum Prohibitorum
Innoc. XII. P.M. jussu. editus. Usque ad Annum 1681. Eidem accedit in
fine Appendix usque ad mensem Junii._
_1711._ _Rome Index: Prohibitorius._ This Index, issued under the
authority of Clement XI, has no prefatory matter and simply extends up
to the date of 1710 the lists of the next preceding Roman Index.
_1744._ _Rome. Index Prohibitorius._ This Index is characterised as
distinctive in the absence of all the customary prefatory articles
excepting the _Regulae_. Among the works prohibited is a treatise of
the Jesuit Benzi, which had some importance in the controversies of the
period.
_1750._ _Rome._ _Index Prohibitorius._--This is a reprint of the above
with additions to 1750.
_1785–1798._ _Rome._ _Decrees of Prohibition._ During the period above
specified, there was published at Rome a weekly journal under the title
of the _Giornale Ecclesiastico_. The series for the thirteen years
covers thirteen volumes. This journal was utilised for the publication
of the decrees issued against specific books by the authorities of
the Church. The first work receiving the compliment of such special
condemnation was a treatise of Eybel entitled _Was ist der Pabst?_ The
author is characterised as one of the ancient enemies of the Apostolic
See. Excommunication is ordered against any readers, possessors, or
printers of the work and the absolution or relaxation of the penalty is
reserved to the pope excepting in the moment of death. A later volume
contains a regular decree by the Congregation of the Index in which are
condemned twenty-four different works. In the fourth volume appears
among other titles the _Pensées_ of Pascal, with Voltaire’s Notes.
The volume contains also a specification of the dogmatic constitution
issued by the pope against the Council of Pistoria. Mendham refers
to the Memoirs of De Ricci as containing an explanation of this
condemnation.
_5._ _1815._ _Madrid._ _Index Prohibitorius._--The lists in this Index,
which is issued as usual under the authority of the inquisitor-general
(only recently restored to power) are devoted almost exclusively to
Spanish publications.
CHAPTER XV
ERASMUS AND LUTHER IN THE INDEX
=1. Erasmus in the Index.=--The treatment accorded by the compilers of
the Indexes of the 16th century to the writings of Erasmus is entitled
to separate reference, if only because the variety of the successive
prohibitions and classifications gives evidence of the difficulties
experienced by the authorities of the Church in maintaining any
consistency of policy in regard to the supervision of critical
literature. The position of Erasmus among the leaders of thought of
his time was, of course, in many respects exceptional. His varied and
comprehensive attainments placed him among the first scholars of the
world. He united with scholarship a keen sense of humour, an incisive
and forcible literary style, and a courage of opinion which were not
hampered by any large measure of reverence for authority or tradition.
His writings, in their original Latin form, found their way in the
first place to the educated circles of the upper classes and of the
more liberal-minded of the ecclesiastics, while the versions in the
vernacular which speedily followed, in both authorised and unauthorised
editions, were taken up with cordial appreciation by all classes of
readers throughout Europe. In fact, in popularity, as far as popularity
is to be gauged by the extent of circulation, the books of Erasmus were
surpassed only by the writings of Luther, while the range of their
distribution --that is, the extent of the territory reached and the
variety of the circles of readers by whom they were welcomed--must have
been much in advance of anything attained by the writings of Luther.
The attacks of Erasmus on the abuses which had grown up in the Church
were of course a most important factor in bringing about the conditions
that made the Reformation possible, and in fact inevitable; but
Erasmus fought for reform within the Church of which he always held
himself to be a dutiful son. He refused from the outset to take part
with the Protestant assault on the authority of the Church universal,
and his scholarship and influence were undoubtedly a most important
influence in helping to maintain this authority against the fierce
antagonism of the Lutheranism of Germany and the Calvinism of Geneva.
And yet at the very time when the reformers of Wittenberg, in their
keen disappointment that they were not to have in their long fight the
co-operation of the great scholar who had so fully realised and so
trenchantly assailed the evils against which they were revolting, were
condemning the writings of Erasmus as unchristian and time-serving,
the censors of Rome were placing these same books on the Index as
constituting serious heresy. From Wittenberg, were hurled fierce
denunciations of the trimmer, the time-server, the man who was sinning
against the light; while from Rome came bitter charges of heresy
against the insidious enemy of the true Faith, against the man who,
trained in the Church, was using his scholarship to undermine its
authority.
Erasmus stood practically alone in the world of belief and of
disbelief. He had no sympathy with the doctrines of either Luther or
Calvin. He could not accept the theory of individual interpretation
of religious truth. He believed in a Church universal. He looked
and worked for the time when this world’s Church, shaking off the
corruption, the worldliness, and the vulgarity by which it had become
demoralised, should, under the leadership of scholars, wise, sane,
tolerant, and pure-minded, resume its authority over all Christian
believers. To this end, he continued to denounce and to hold up to
ridicule, as the worst enemies of the Church, the intolerant bigots and
the vulgar corruptionists whose actions were bringing it into disrepute
and strengthening the hands of the reformers.
An English scholar presents as follows the position of Erasmus:
“It is the conclusion of Erasmus that the Bible, learning,
criticism, humanism, are each and all incomplete as guides to
man without the permanent interpretative power and historic
witness of the visible institution ordained by Christ Himself.
His appeal is always to Christ; but it is inconceivable to him
that Christ should be apart from His Church or the Church from
Him.... As critic and as historian, Erasmus found it impossible
to say that Christ was right and that the fundamental principles
of the continuous Church were wrong. Thus, what the Church
had regarded as essential doctrines were and must remain the
permanent, unalterable bases of loyalty to the Lord.... Erasmus
believed in the Church not as a congeries of disintegrating
elements, not as a rigid and inflexible machine, but as a
sacred institution divinely instituted and divinely inspired,
and because it was ever in touch with divine life continually
growing and developing into the knowledge of the truth.... The
Church was to him the body of Jesus Christ, and in Christ he
profoundly believed; and, so believing, he was not impatient,
not afraid to wait for light.”[207]
It is not surprising that the Congregation of the Index found
difficulty in classifying the writings of Erasmus. The predecessors
of Paul IV had held these writings in favourable consideration, and
to certain works had given distinct approval; and they had in various
instances extended to the author protection against attacks.[208] In
1516, Leo X praised his “sound morality, his rare scholarship, and
his distinguished services,”[209] and had accepted the dedication of
his New Testament. The second edition of the New Testament contains
an appreciative letter from Leo, dated September 10, 1518. Adrian VI,
writing in December, 1522, assures Erasmus that he gave no credence to
those who described him as a follower of Luther, and exhorts him to
continue the work of writing against the heretics. In January, 1523,
the Pope thanks him for the gift of the _Arnobius_.[210] Paul
III, in a brief of May, 1535, speaks of “having always held in esteem
the honoured name of Erasmus,” and refers to his great learning and
eloquence, and to his contests against the pernicious new errors.[211]
In August, 1535 (a year before the death of Erasmus), Paul appointed
him Provost of Deventer, by reason of his learning, his piety, and
the great services he had rendered to the Curia in his sturdy fight
with the apostates from the Faith.[212] Later, the Pope spoke of
wishing to make him cardinal.[213] The chief opponent of Erasmus
among the prelates of Rome was Aleander. Aleander prides himself on
having, as he believes, disposed Erasmus favourably towards himself,
because he hopes thus to be able to check Erasmus’s opportunities
for working further mischief.[214] Another antagonist of Erasmus was
Edward Lee, who, in 1532, became Archbishop of York. He wrote three
treatises in criticism of the Erasmus edition of the New Testament.
On the other hand, Erasmus found bitter assailants among such German
Reformation leaders as Luther, v. Hutten, Bucer, Corvinus, and others.
Some of the anti-Erasmus treatises of these writers find place in
the Index. The ninth volume of the works of Erasmus is made up of
the replies to his Protestant critics. From France, also, came sharp
criticisms against the writings of Erasmus, but these were the work
of orthodox authorities such as the theologians of the Sorbonne, and
the inquisitor-general. The Sorbonne sent out, between 1525 and 1530,
a number of condemnations of different books of Erasmus, but these
continued to come into print in Paris, with or without “privilege.” In
1531, appeared, under the permission of King Francis, editions of the
_Paraphrases_ and of the _Colloquia_.[215] In 1542, after the
death of Erasmus, the Sorbonne issued a general condemnation of his
writings, the list comprising fifteen titles.
In the Netherlands, Erasmus had the protection of the Emperor Charles
V. No one of his books finds place in the Louvain Indexes of 1546 and
1550. In that of 1558, is printed only the title of the French version
of the treatise _De Sarcienda Eccl. Concordia_. In the Indexes of
Italy, the name of Erasmus appears first in 1559, in the Index of Paul
IV. In Spain, Quiroga repeats, in the Index of 1583, the titles given
in the Index of Trent. In 1576, Paul Manutius printed in Florence,
under a “privilege” of Gregory XIII, an expurgated edition of the
_Adagia_. The privilege carried with it a prohibition of all other
editions. The Index of Sixtus V specifies this edition as permitted,
all others as condemned. The Index of Benedict XIV repeats the
authorisation for the Manutius edition, and confirms the prohibition of
the others unless expurgated.
The editors of the Index of Paul IV (1559) took a very serious view of
the evils of the writings of Erasmus. His name is placed in Class I,
and is connected with a condemnation more sweeping than that given to
Luther or to Calvin; “with all of his Commentaries, Remarks, Notes,
Dialogues, Letters, Criticisms, Translations, Books, and Writings,
including even those which contain nothing concerning Religion.” This
judgment was, however, materially modified five years later by the
Tridentine compilers, by whom, after some heated discussions, the
name of Erasmus was transferred to Class II. _The Colloquies, Praise
of Folly, Institution of Christian Matrimony_, and the _Paraphrases_
(of the Gospel of Matthew) were condemned, as also certain of the
_Letters_. Others of the _Letters_ were restored to the class of
permitted literature, but only after such eliminations and alterations
that (as the chronicler remarks) they would not have been recognised
by their author[216] (Erasmus had died in 1536). The record of the
discussions in the commission is given in a letter written from Trent,
in 1563, by the Archbishop of Prague to the Emperor (Ferdinand I).
The Archbishop states that he had himself contended for the freeing
of the works of Erasmus from condemnation on the ground that he had
always submitted himself to the judgment of the Church; that his
literary undertakings had received the approval of Leo X; that he had
been engaged in many sharp contests with the heretical assailants of
the Church; that he had devoted to the editing of the writings of the
Fathers a scholarship of which the heretics might well envy the Church
the possession, and that he had died in the Faith. The Archbishop goes
on to say that the majority of his associates were of another way of
thinking, and had overborne the views of the few who wanted to secure
the preservation of the works of an author who had done such signal
service for the Church. He closes by asking the Emperor to relieve
him from service on the commission. He finds it difficult to work in
harmony with the churchmen from Spain and Italy who have no personal
knowledge of the heretics who are trying to destroy the Church.
The Emperor replied that the Archbishop, as the only German on the
commission, had been continued at his post to do what he might find
possible to prevent the condemnation of any further works and authors
of excellence.[217]
The introduction of the Tridentine Index orders placed in Class I all
authors who may have come under suspicion of heresy (_nota haeresis
suspecti_), a description which may be called elastic, and which
would naturally be subject to varying interpretation on the part of
different persons in authority. Among the associates or correspondents
of Erasmus who were placed by the Tridentine editors in the first
class and who have since remained under this general condemnation,
are Staupitz, Pirckheimer, Hauer, and Bellicanus. Rhenanus and Zasius
were transferred in the Trent lists from Class I, where they had been
placed by Paul, to Class II, where they have since remained.
The chief associate of Erasmus in the contest in Germany against the
opposition of a large group at least among the ecclesiastics, in behalf
of what may be called higher scholarship, was Reuchlin, who gave
years of his life to the work of securing for the German universities
the privilege of instruction in Greek and in Hebrew. After 1518,
when a number of the works of Erasmus had already found place in the
Index, the printers issuing editions of these within the territories
controlled by Church censorship found it convenient to omit from the
title-pages the name of their author. Such editions were issued, for
instance, in 1520 by Paul Manutius, the son of Aldus, bearing on the
title-page and in the catalogue, in place of the name of Erasmus, the
words, _Batavus quidam homo_.
In the Index of 1559, the name of Erasmus is placed under the class of
_Auctores quorum libri et scripta omnia prohibentur_. After the
entry of the name, however, comes the following specification: _cum
universis Commentariis, Annotationibus, Scholiis, Dialogis, Epistolis,
Censuris, Versionibus, Libris et Scriptis suis, etiam si nil penitus
contra Religionem, vel de Religione contineant_. Mendham refers to
this as an illustration of the term _De omnibus Rebus et quibusdam
aliis_. It may be recalled, in this connection, that as a result of
the dedication to Leo X printed by this condemned writer in the first
edition of his annotated Greek Testament, issued in 1516, the Pope
addressed to Erasmus a letter published in the second, and in every
subsequent, edition of the work, highly commending this production
of his dear son. The letter contains the following expressions:
_Quas nuper a te recognitas, et pluribus editis annotationibus,
locupletatas, illustratasque fuisse certiores facti, non mediocriter
gavisi fuimus, ex prima illa editione quae absolutissima videbatur,
conjecturam facientes, qualis haes futura, quantumve boni, sacrae
Theologiae studiosis, ac orthodoxae fidei nostrae sit allatura_.[218]
If, at this stage in the history of the Church, the utterance of the
reigning pope was already to be accepted as infallible, it is somewhat
difficult to understand how to bring into accord with these conclusions
the condemnation of half a century later, issued under the authority of
the no less infallible Pius IV. A similar instance had occurred earlier
in the reign of Pius II, who found occasion to include in the list of
writings by Catholic ecclesiastics to be condemned a treatise written
by himself eighteen years earlier under the title _Aeneae Sylviae
commentaria de actis et gestis Concilii Basileen_. This condemnation
is confirmed in the Tridentine Index in the following words: _In
actis Aeneae Sylviae prohibentur ea quae ipse in Bulla retractationis
damnavit_. Mendham speaks of this Bull as an example of a change of
opinion similar to that described by another pope confronted with a
similar difficulty, who explained that “when he was raised higher he
saw things more clearly.”[219]
In 1522, the sale and the perusal of the _Colloquies_ of Erasmus,
an authorised edition of which had been printed by Colines, were
interdicted by the censors of the Sorbonne. Erasmus reports that before
the date of the prohibition, no less than twenty-four thousand copies
of this Paris edition had been sold.