Chapter I · INTRODUCTORY: THE INDEX AND CENSORSHIP

In any investigation of the development of literary production and of the relations of the producers of books with the reading public, it is necessary to give consideration to the influence exerted upon literary activities, and upon the actual effectiveness of literature, by the censorship and the restrictive measures instituted by the Church.

Church censorship may be said to have begun as early as 150, with an edict issued by the Council of Ephesus, in which the Acta Pauli (an unauthenticated history of the life of St. Paul) was condemned and prohibited. During the centuries following, a number of similar edicts or mandates were published by councils, by individual ecclesiastics, and by civil officials acting at the instance of the authorities of the Church, under which edicts the faithful were cautioned against the pernicious influence of various works classed as heretical, and the heretics who had been concerned in the production and circulation of such writings were threatened with penalties ranging from confiscation of property to imprisonment, excommunication, and death. A schedule of these decrees and edicts will be found in a later chapter.

The revolution in the methods of the production and distribution of literature brought about by the invention of printing in the middle of the 15th century, had, as an immediate result, an enormous increase in the influence upon the shaping of popular opinion of the written, or rather of the printed word, that is, of thought in the form of literature. The work of the printers was at first welcomed by the rulers of the Church. They convinced themselves that the Lord had placed at their disposal a valuable instrument for the spread of sound doctrine and for the enlightenment of believers, and with this conviction, they found funds for the support of a number of the early printers and kept their presses employed in the production of works of approved theological instruction.

It was in fact not until nearly three fourths of a century after Gutenberg, when the leaders of the Reformation were utilising the printing-presses of Wittenberg for the spread of the Protestant heresies, that the ecclesiastics became aroused to the perils that the new art was bringing upon the true faith and upon the authority of the Church. If the people were to be protected against the insidious influence of the new heresies, it was absolutely essential that some system should be instituted under which the productions of the printing-press could be supervised and controlled. The more active and far-reaching the operations of the printers, the greater the necessity for the watchful supervision of their work, and the greater at the same time the difficulty in making such supervision complete and effective. The requirement was met by the institution of a system planned to permit no books to reach the public that had not been passed upon and approved by ecclesiastical examiners appointed for the purpose. To this end, the production and the circulation of any literature not so approved were stamped as constituting a misdemeanour of the most serious character, one that might, under certain circumstances, become the final sin against the light, the offence against the Holy Ghost.

The German historian Pütter says[1]:

“As a result of the great facility brought about in the production of books by the invention of printing, there came to be anxiety on the part of the authorities lest teachings destructive of religion or morality, or inimical to the interests of the State, should be given to the public. On this ground, the conclusion was in all countries promptly arrived at that no production should be permitted to come into print that had not been passed upon and approved by an officially instituted censorship, and that no printing-offices should be established excepting under proper license and effective supervision.”

In 1559, the responsibility for the censorship of literature was first assumed directly by the papal authority through the publication of the Index Auctorum et Librorum Prohibitorum, of Paul IV, the first of a long series of papal Indexes, aggregating, up to 1899, forty-two in all. It does not appear to have been the intention either of Pope Paul IV or of his successors that the responsibility for the system of censorship should be retained under the exclusive direction of the papal authorities, and I find no record of objections having been raised to the publication of the Indexes prepared by such representatives of the Church as the theological faculties of the Universities of Louvain and of Paris, or by the Inquisition of Spain. There were, however, very material differences between the lists as shaped in Rome of works condemned as heretical and the similar lists issued within the same period in Louvain, Paris, or Valladolid; books of undoubted heresy included in one Index would fail to find place in another, and it is difficult to arrive at any consistently followed principle or policy by which the selections of the different compilers were determined.

In the absence of any definite instruction to the contrary, it might at first be assumed from the wording of the prohibitions that any and all of the Indexes, published under the direction of such ecclesiastical authorities as those specified, must have been intended to be equally binding on all the faithful, irrespective of political or ecclesiastical boundaries. We know, however, as a matter of history, that, in the majority of cases, no attempt was made to enforce the prohibitions of the Index outside of the territory of the State in which it had been promulgated.

It is difficult to secure any trustworthy information as to the precise range of the effectiveness of these prohibitions, but it seems probable that the Roman Indexes were held to be in force outside of the immediate territory of the Church only after they had been formally accepted and promulgated by the authorities, ecclesiastical and political, of the individual States, such as Spain, France, the Empire, etc.

The Index of 1559 was, as stated, the first of the series of papal Indexes; but as early as 1542, the Inquisition of Rome had promulgated a special edict prescribing penalties for the reading of heretical or of doubtful books, and in 1545 was published the first Italian list of prohibited books and authors. In 1571, under Pope Pius V, the task of compiling the papal Indexes was confided to a body organised under the name of the Congregation of the Index, which is still (1906) carrying on its work.

The work of the framers of these Roman Indexes exercised an important influence even in the States in which the papal prohibitions had not been officially published, as the titles collected for them were largely utilised by the makers of the Indexes of Spain, France, and Belgium; and in like manner, the material put into print in Louvain, Paris, and Valladolid formed the basis of certain of the Roman lists.

A more authoritative position in regard to the work of censorship was taken by the Papacy through the publication, in 1564, of the Tridentine Index. This Index, as well through its formulation of the rules for censorship, as because of the greater comprehensiveness of its lists, constituted the most authoritative guide that had yet been issued. The Tridentine Index was promulgated, under the authority of pope and of council, throughout all the Catholic States and also in countries in which the Catholic Church, while no longer the ruling power, still possessed followers. It was printed in a long series of editions issued from all the more important publishing centres of Europe; its lists formed the basis of all subsequent Indexes, while its rules were accepted as the guide for future censors and compilers. After the Council of Trent, a wider and more assured recognition was given by churchmen throughout the Catholic world (from which must, curiously enough, be excepted Catholic Spain) to the authority of the Papacy, acting through the Congregation of the Index, to retain the general direction and control of the business of censorship.

In 1758, two centuries after the publication of the Tridentine Index, was issued the Index of Benedict XIV, the lists in which represented better bibliographical work than had previously been attempted, and which was particularly important as representing what may be called the last attempt of the Papacy to maintain any general censorship of the world’s literature. The series of papal Indexes from time to time has been continued, the latest bearing date 1899; but the compilers of these later Indexes content themselves with repeating the general rules or principles by which the reading of the faithful should be guided, while the lists of current publications are limited almost exclusively to works by Catholic writers, and chiefly to works of a doctrinal character, the teachings of which are found to be in one respect or another open to condemnation. The proportion of books absolutely prohibited becomes smaller, the greater number of the works cited being placed in the lists of libros expurgandos, the reading of which is forbidden only until certain corrections or eliminations have been made, donec corrigatur. The Index of 1884 and that of 1899 bring forward from the more important of the preceding papal Indexes the titles of the most noteworthy of the works condemned in these. No attempt, however, is made to condemn (except under general rules and principles) the increasing lists of modern Protestant doctrinal books, or to characterise or differentiate the great mass of the world’s literature. The printing-press had outgrown the machinery of ecclesiastical censorship.

During the centuries in which the censorship of the Church was active and comprehensive, it must have exerted a very material influence over the relations of authors with their public; the effectiveness of literature as an intellectual force in directing or shaping public opinion was assuredly not a little hampered and restricted, while the value of literary productions as property was seriously lessened and, in certain territories, entirely destroyed. It is evident that if the production, the sale, and the possession of copies of a book are prohibited, the work can possess no property value within the territory throughout which such prohibition can be enforced. Its possibilities as property are either cancelled altogether, in case the prohibition can be made effective throughout the entire possible market, or are lessened in the proportion in which such market has been curtailed. In fact, in the cases in which, under the more extreme penalties of a censorship system, the purchase or the possession of a copy of a condemned work involved fine, imprisonment, or excommunication, the work might be said to possess a negative in place of a positive commercial value. The author, and others interested with the author, in securing a circulation for the book, might even be imagined as offering, if not a bonus, something in the nature of a guaranty against risks, to those who would co-operate with them in the dangerous task of distributing copies.

The other obstacles that have been noted as standing in the way of the development of literary property had been negative in their character. The lack of realisation on the part of the literary worker himself that he was producing anything entitled to be classed as property; the difficulty on the part of the reading public in arriving at the conception that there could be property in anything not material, in such an abstract entity as a right; the physical impossibility, in advance of the invention of printing, of the multiplication of copies of a literary production by any method that should preserve for the author any control over the text of each copy, or any share in the selling price of the same; the limitations of the territory within which, after the era of printed books had begun, and after the development of public opinion had brought a community to the point of recognising the property rights of one of its own literary workers, such recognition could be made effective; the fragmentary character and necessary inadequacy of the system of local privileges; and finally the lack, during a long series of years after the invention of printing, of any adequate publishing machinery for making known to possible buyers the existence of books, for distributing the copies, and for collecting the amounts paid by the purchasers;—all these obstacles operated against the possibility of securing for producers of literature such protection under the law and such recognition for the results of their labours as had, in all organised communities, been for centuries assured for other classes of producers.

Against such obstacles and difficulties, the recognition of literary productions as property and the actual commercial value of the labour of literary workers had, through the first century of printing been making an assured, though fitful and interrupted, progress. Early in the 16th century, however, the rulers of the State and the authorities of the Church began to find occasion for alarm at the increasing range of influence of the printed word, and came to the conclusion that if the community was not to be undermined by heretical, dangerous, and demoralising opinions, measures must be taken to maintain supervision and control over the production of books.

The interference on the part of the political rulers was fitful and intermittent, and appears at no time to have arrived at the dignity of a continued policy or system. In a number of States, while the rulers continued to claim for themselves the exclusive control of the printing-press (as was, for instance, the case with Spain, France, and the Holy Roman Empire), they were willing to confide to the ecclesiastics the selection of the books to be condemned and prohibited. The actual work of censorship, at least in the countries which remained Catholic, fell, therefore, more and more into the hands of the Church, and was, as a result, carried on with reference to the clerical standard of orthodoxy and morality, and to the clerical theories of what was required for the welfare of the community.

In the series of the Indexes, the proportion of works of a purely political character was small as compared with the long lists of books which had been condemned on doctrinal grounds. It is in order, however, to bear in mind, as a limitation of this statement, that during the two centuries in which censorship was the most active and exerted the largest influence upon intellectual development, say from 1550 to 1750, the minds of men were directed more largely to doctrinal questions than to political matters. It was not the State but the Church whose authority and existence had been assailed and the contest was fought out over creeds and not political platforms.

When, with the outbreak of the Reformation movement, it became apparent how great a range of influence was possessed by the printed sheet, the problem which confronted the authorities of the Church was certainly serious in more ways than one. For the space of fifteen centuries, the education of the people had remained almost exclusively under the direction of the Church. The faithful believers (and the unbelievers were but few) had accepted their entire intellectual sustenance at the hands of the priests. The instruction given in the parish schools instituted by the Church was almost entirely oral, although some use was made of written alphabet tables and of written psalters with the musical notations.

The instruction for those who took up higher branches of study, students who were for the greater part destined for the Church, was naturally, during the manuscript period, carried on by the priests, not only because but few others possessed anything that could be called scholarship, but also because it was only in the collections of the monasteries (the armaria) that the requisite manuscripts could be found. It is true that with the beginning of the 13th century, the educational work of the earlier universities, such as Bologna, Paris, and Oxford, begins to assume importance; but even in the universities, outside of the faculties of law and of medicine, the direction of the instruction was retained very largely in the hands of the Church, the lecturers in the department of philosophy, for instance, being almost exclusively ecclesiastics.

During the 13th century, there does come into existence a body of scholarship which is outside of the Church, but it remains the case that, up to the time of Luther, the great mass of the people had looked to Rome, and to teachers acting under the authority of Rome, for its light and leading, intellectual as well as religious. The association of education and intellectual training with the Church is in fact fairly indicated by the use of the term “cleric.”

In 1516, the leaders of the Reformation, in beginning their long contest against the abuses of the Church of Rome, a contest which soon developed into a fight for the complete overthrow of the papal supremacy, promptly availed themselves of the power of the printing-press. While the words spoken in the pulpit or in the market-place could reach at best but a few hundred of hearers the tracts poured forth from the Wittenberg presses, the “flying-leaves” (Flüg-schriften), carried the teachings of Luther and Melanchthon to many thousands, and it was through the influence of these “winged words” (epea pteroenta) that the revolt developed into a revolution.

To the devout adherents of the Church of Rome, and particularly to those to whom had been given the responsibility for its government and for the spiritual guidance of its members, the situation, not only during these earlier years of fierce strife against Protestant heresies, but throughout the succeeding centuries, presented the gravest difficulties. There is something almost pathetic in the long series of attempts made by popes, councils, bishops, congregations, and inquisitors to protect the souls of the faithful against the baneful influence of the ever-increasing tide of literature that was pouring forth from the various publishing centres, and so much of which was calculated to lead men astray from the true doctrines and to bring them into risk of everlasting perdition. To ecclesiastical rulers, honestly holding such a conviction, there was, of course, but one duty. They must use every means in their power to suppress the heresies, and to warn and protect their flocks. What were the fortunes or even the lives of a few evil-minded or devil-inspired printers and writers as compared with the eternal hopes of the great masses of men? Nay! It was better that the misguided reader himself should, by prompt and, if necessary, extreme penalties, lose all that he had in this world, rather than that he should be permitted, in continuing to absorb heresy and in spreading its leprosy abroad, not only to sacrifice his own soul, but also to undermine the faith of his fellow-men.

The action of the Church was, therefore, not only logical and reasonable; it was the only course that was possible for an organisation to which, as its rulers undoubtedly believed, the Almighty had confided the care of the spiritual welfare of mankind. The safety of the soul depended upon the nature of the intellectual sustenance taken in, whether through the ears or through the eyes. All literature or instruction in any form, spoken, written, or printed, must, therefore, before reaching the understanding, be sifted under the authority of an all-wise and infallible Church. The believer must be protected against harm, the doubter must be recalled to the true path, and the heresies and the heretics must alike be exterminated. While it was only after the active propaganda work of the Reformers of Wittenberg had made clear the perils of the printing-press that any general system of censorship was attempted, there had been, as pointed out, instances of prohibited books centuries before the time of Gutenberg. An heretical utterance in manuscript form was a restricted or manageable evil, in that its influence was limited to the small circle of clerics and could not, at least directly, reach the masses. It was, however, none the less an evil which it was the duty of the Church to condemn and to repress.

The record of the Index is also to be considered as an important contribution to the history of literature. Thomas James, whose treatise on the Index Generalis Librorum Prohibitorum was printed at Oxford in 1627, says in his preface that his book is addressed particularly to the curators of the Bodleian Library to whom it should serve as a guide concerning the works which it was particularly desirable to collect and to preserve; only the curators must be sure to secure the earlier and, therefore, unexpurgated editions. Bishop Barlow writes that he has found the

“Indices Expurgatorii invaluable as records of the literature of the doctrines and opinions obnoxious to Rome.... Their Indices Expurgatorii are very good common-place books and repertories (for that use we make of them) by help of which we may presently find what any author by them censured has uttered against the vulnerable parts of the Catholic system. In these Indices we are directed to the book, chapter, and line where anything is spoken against any superstition or error of Rome; so that he who has the Indices cannot want testimonies against Rome.”[2]

Reusch points out that the Indexes have preserved the record and the purport of not a few works of interest and importance, the very existence of which would otherwise have been lost sight of. It is also the case that the Index lists have preserved the titles of a number of works of comparatively trivial importance, which, if they had not been fortunate enough to secure the condemnation of the Church, would have fallen still-born from the press.

It was the practice, in making condemnation of books either through a general Index or under a separate decree, to order destroyed such copies of the condemned books as could be collected, and this destruction was, as a rule, done by fire. In the record of censorship, there are, however, a number of instances of books which had received the honour of a special condemnation for burning, the titles of which had not appeared in any Index issued by the Church or in any separate papal or diocesan decree. The books so recorded were, with hardly an exception, condemned under civil authority. The writers who have brought together records of books condemned to be burned (of whom Peignot is perhaps the most important) give, under the same general heading, titles of books selected from the Index, books condemned under special decrees of the Church, and works which had fallen under the censorship of the civil authorities. As will be noticed in the later chapters, the special emphasis given to the importance of a book through the burning of copies in a public place, constituted a valuable advertisement and usually extended its influence.

The history of the Index may be divided into two main periods. The first begins, as far as the papal censorship is concerned, in 1559, with the publication of the Index Auctorum et Librorum, prepared under the instructions of Paul IV, and closes with the end of the 16th century, with the issue of the final appendices to the Index of the Council of Trent. During this period, the chief and almost the only subject-matters considered are the great questions raised by the Reformation. In the second period, which closes with the Index of Benedict XIV, issued in 1758, the controversies turn, as indicated by the character of the works placed on the lists, on issues of doctrine, opinion, and conduct arising within the Church itself. The writers whose works are condemned during this period are for the most part ecclesiastics of the Church.

The work done during the 19th century by the Congregation of the Index may be said to belong to a third or modern period, in which, as will be noted later, the censorship over literature and the literary instruction for the faithful has for the most part taken the form of statements of general principles in place of detailed lists of pernicious books. The attempt to characterise the mass of the world’s literature has been abandoned and the comparatively few titles named are (with a few curious exceptions) those of doctrinal works emanating from within the Church itself and the errors in which are, therefore, likely to mislead believers.

It is to be borne in mind further in connection with the general division of periods suggested by Reusch, that while the greater portion of the work of the Index was carried on under the direct supervision of the popes, a long series of Indexes were issued by authorities acting independently of the Papacy, such as the Inquisition of Spain, the theological faculty of the University of Paris, the theological faculty of the University of Louvain, and other bodies.

The first Index, in point of date, of the long series, was in fact issued not in Rome but in Paris, the second and third in Louvain, the fourth in Valladolid, etc. The several dates will be given in the schedules presented later. It is also noteworthy that, while the papal Indexes were of course in form binding on the entire Church and throughout all the States classed as Catholic, they were not actually put into force in the several States unless or until they had been accepted and confirmed by the respective rulers; and, as a fact, a number of the papal Indexes were never so accepted either in France or in Spain. The Church of Spain, acting through the Inquisition, undertook to carry on an independent system of literary censorship and of literary repression. The inquisitors condemned a number of works which do not appear in the Roman lists, and declined to condemn not a few books which had in Rome been classed as pernicious. A similar course was taken by the Gallican Church, whose censorship was carried on by commissions of ecclesiastics acting under the direct authority of the Crown.

A necessary result of the condemnation of books by a number of authorities was a large measure of confusion in regard to the status of a number of books and of not a few authors. A faithful believer, who was fully prepared to accept in regard to literature the guidance of the authorities, may well have had cause for perplexity in finding condemned and prohibited by one pope the works of an author whose writings had received the special commendation of another, or in being prohibited in Madrid from reading books which were permitted or even recommended in Rome. In not a few instances, Indexes which had been issued in regular course with the papal sanction were themselves prohibited from being printed or promulgated in Spain, in France, in Germany, or even in places as near to the papal seat as Venice.

During the period before the Council of Trent, the work of the compilers of the Roman Indexes was chiefly based upon the Indexes which had originated in Spain or in the Netherlands, while there is, as said, occasionally ground for perplexity at the absence from the Roman lists of works of undoubted heresy which had been duly condemned by the censors of Valladolid or Louvain. It is not easy to understand why the Papacy, having recognised the necessity for the exercise of control over literary production, and over the operations of the printing-press, should have permitted the system of Indexes to be initiated anywhere but in Rome, and should have further permitted, apparently without reprimand or protest, so large a proportion of the long series of Indexes to be compiled and published by ecclesiastics who, while claiming to be defending the true faith and to be carrying out the policy of the Church, were not acting under the direct supervision or authority of Rome. Independent action in such an all-important matter as the direction of public opinion as expressed through printed literature might have been considered a dangerous precedent and undoubtedly did constitute an important factor in strengthening the separate authority of the State churches of Spain and of France.

Joseph Mendham finds in the Indexes the literary policy and the doctrinal policy of the Church of Rome. He writes:

“The Indexes issued by the Church of Rome may be regarded as a grand Index of the sentiment, spirit, and policy of an ecclesiastical empire, claiming with the most critical exactness the terrific appellation of the Mystery of Iniquity.

“To no power but modern Rome is equally applicable the encomium of the poet on the ancient:

“The other class of Indexes, the expurgatory, contains a particular examination of the works specified and indicates the passages condemned to be expunged or altered. For these Expurgatory Indexes, publicity was so little desired that it was the chief thing guarded against.... The copies were intended for the possession and inspection only of those to whom they were necessary for the execution of their provisions.... It was not thought desirable that the dishonest dealings of the writers of these censures should be known either to the authors who were injured and who would thus have an opportunity of justifying themselves, or to readers whose judgment must in many instances be at variance with that of the censors.”[3]

The framers of the several expurgatory Indexes found themselves occasionally under the necessity of censuring and correcting the works of writers accepted as the Fathers of the Church. Mendham gives an example, from the Roman Index of Brasichelli, of a condemnation of certain propositions printed by Robert Estienne, which propositions are, he says, direct citations from the Fathers. Mornay, in his edition of the Spanish Index of 1601, presents a list of similar condemnations or expurgations of the texts of the writings of the Fathers themselves. The propositions which, naturally enough, came under this condemnation are those which appear to present grounds for the doctrine of justification by faith and those which enforce the importance of the injunction against the worship of images. The Jesuit Gretser, in apologising for the action of the Church in the case of Bertram’s book, makes the following interesting argument:

“Although Bertram be prohibited, I deny that a Father is prohibited, for that one can properly be called a Father of the Church who feeds and nourishes to the faithful salutary doctrine, who being placed over the family of the Lord, gives it in due season its portion of the corn. If, therefore, instead of the food of salutary doctrine and the portion of corn, he offered and distributed cockles and tares and the burrs and briars of perverse doctrines, so far from being a Father he is but a stepfather, not a doctor but a seductor.”[4]

In another page, Gretser writes: “Who, therefore, is so stupid as not to recognise that the Church or the sovereign pontiff, while he reviews the lucubrations of his sons, and wherein he corrects these, performs a service grateful to the authors and a work useful to posterity.”[5]

It is a natural inference from the assumption by the Church of the responsibility of indicating in the Index lists the books which are on one ground or another pernicious and which require important corrections, that the further responsibility is assumed of approving by implication the books not thus condemned or not corrected through expurgation. While it is the case that the Church has never admitted this responsibility, the contention is one which has often been raised and which does not appear to have been answered. If the books that are not condemned by the Index are considered as having been approved or even sanctioned by the Church, it would follow that the authority in the Church from which the Indexes emanate could be understood to approve and to sanction those doctrines or assertions from the writers within the fold of the Church which these condemning decrees have failed to proscribe or to expurgate. Such a contention does not appear, however, to be really well founded when we bear in mind the necessary limitations, even in the earlier years of the work of the Index, of the facilities possessed by the examiners in passing upon publications originating in various countries and not always even printed in the common ecclesiastical language. The criticism presents, however, one of the most serious difficulties attending the assumption by the Church of this responsibility for the control of literary productions, even though this control be limited to the writings of members of the Church itself.

The Indexes were certainly utilised, and were intended to be utilised, as instruments for the suppression of heresy and for the maintenance of true doctrine as interpreted by the rulers of the Church. The chaplain of Philip II of Spain (Alphonso de Castro) has declared that in his opinion the purification of Spain from heretics was due to the fact that in Spain and in Spain alone the prohibition of heretical literature was effectively enforced. The continued prevalence of heresies in other countries, even in such Catholic States as France, Italy, and South Germany, was, in the opinion of Castro, due to the lack of effectiveness in enforcing the purification of literature.[6] It is the inference of Mendham that the effect referred to by Castro was due not to the simple prohibitions of the Index but to the enforcing of these prohibitions under the thorough-going methods of the Inquisition. Cardinal Pallavicino has assigned the preservation of Italy from the infection of presumed heresy to the activity of the Inquisition and particularly to the work done both by the Inquisition and the Index of the Congregation in suppressing heretical literature. He speaks as if there had been serious risk, in the absence of persistent efforts of this kind, that Italy itself might embrace the Reformation.[7]

Mendham, who writes always as a bitter controversialist, is of opinion that the expurgatory Indexes, and the expurgatory work done quietly without the use of Indexes, were utilised so as to modify in the later editions the text of the writings of the Fathers and of the earlier authorities of the Church, in the respects in which this text did not appear to give consistent support to the accepted doctrine of the later Church, or in which words were used by the authors which could be interpreted and which had been interpreted in support of heresies. It is not practicable, without a careful textual comparison of the “orthodox” and approved editions of the Fathers with the editions of earlier date and with those which the Church censors found occasion to condemn, to say how far there may be any foundation for this severe arraignment. Mendham goes on to suggest that it had been the hope of the Church gradually to replace the former and original editions of books of this class with the editions approved by the Church.

“In this way, the mouth of antiquity should be thoroughly shut up and prevented from uttering any syllable or sound against the doctrines of the later Church.... By the addition of words where opportunity and pretence might serve, and by drawing the marginal notes and glosses of their friars into the texts of the Fathers (as has already been handsomely begun with certain texts) the mouth of antiquity should also be opened for them (the present leaders of the Church). There remained then only the rectifying of St. Paul and of the other scriptural writers whose authority being already set beneath that of the Church, it were not such great matter to submit it also to her gentle and moderate censures; especially for so good an intent as the weeding out of heresies and the preserving of the faith Catholic in her purity and glory.”[8]

Panzer makes reference[9] to an Index printed in Louvain as early as 1510. The title is recorded as follows:

Die Cathlogen of inventargen van den Quaden verboden bouken: na advis der Universiteyt van Louen. Met een edict of Mandement der Keyserlicken Majesteyt. Te Louen geprint bej Sewaes van Sassen. MCCCCCX. 4^o.

No copy of an Index of this date was known (1897) in the British Museum, and it is not referred to by Reusch. Knapp, in his scheme for a History of the Index, is in accord with Reusch in making that of Paris of 1544 the earliest. It seems probable that Panzer has been misled as to the date of the Flemish Index.

The series of Indexes is understood, therefore, to begin with the middle of the 16th century (that is, a century after the invention of printing), but from the earliest years of the organised Church, attempts had been made from time to time to protect the faithful against the pernicious influence of heretical writings, by the destruction of the copies and by the punishment of the writers when these were within reach of the strong arm of the Church and when they refused to be convinced of their errors.

A number of the editions of the Roman Indexes, as for instance that of 1819, bear as their motto: “Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men” (Acts xix, 19); while on others was printed a head-piece engraved on copper, representing the believers burning their books of magic. The example, however, of these early converts, under the influence of the eloquence of Paul, bringing of their own free will, to be destroyed, books the teachings of which were believed to be incompatible with the doctrines of Christianity, does not constitute a fairly logical precedent for the later practice of the Church in punishing by excommunication and in other ways those who continued to read books condemned as heretical.

Throughout the Middle Ages, there are a number of examples of prohibitions, emanating from various authorities, and applying sometimes to single books or individual authors, and sometimes to groups. It is not likely that during the manuscript period, the duplication or reading of the books denounced was seriously affected, except in the immediate locality in which the prohibition was issued. These earlier attempts at censorship possess interest chiefly as indications of the ecclesiastical policy and of the varying standards of different periods and of different places, and also because the titles of the works selected for condemnation were in part utilised by the compilers of the Indexes.

A “Directory” of heresy was prepared early in the 16th century by Nicholas Eymeric of Cologne, under the title of Directorium Inquisitorium. This was reprinted in Venice in 1607, cum commentariis Francisci Pegnae. This Directory was, says Reusch, utilised by Bernard Lutzenburg as the basis for his Catalogus Haereticorum,—Catalogue of Heretics,—first issued in 1522. In these two lists have been preserved the names of a number of persons classed as heretics, of whose books there is no record, and who may possibly even never have written anything, or at least never have brought anything into print. The Lutzenburg Catalogue was utilised in the compilation of the Index of Paul IV.

After the middle of the 13th century, the papal condemnations of specific books frequently included the specification of names of the examiner or examiners, usually one or more of the cardinals. We have here the beginnings of the body that became later the Congregation of the Index.

In 1256, in a Bull issued by Alexander IV against a tractate of William of Saint-Amour, of Paris, the Pope says that his action is based upon the report of four cardinals, to whom had been confided the task of examining the work. All copies are ordered to be burnt within eight days, under penalty of excommunication. Saint-Amour’s essay presents a very unfavourable picture of the condition of the Church of the times, and is especially sharp in its strictures upon the newly instituted mendicant orders. After the beginning of the series of official Indexes, the list of works concerning which the judgment of the Church was reversed under the authority of the different popes, or of successive councils, becomes considerable, and may easily have proved a perplexity to faithful believers who were prepared to accept as a final guide the infallible authority of the Church.

Before the close of the 12th century, there appear to have been no attempts on the part of the Church to restrict the reading of the Scriptures, or the distribution of the manuscript copies of the Scriptural books. During the 13th century, several of the synods held in France issued prohibitions of the use or circulation of versions in the vernacular of the Scriptural books, with the exception only of the Psalms. A similar prohibition was enacted for popular versions of any doctrinal or theological writings. The Church was gradually developing the procedure, finally formulated as a general policy, under which laymen were to be forbidden reading either the Scriptures or works of doctrine except under the immediate direction of the ecclesiastical authorities.

Between the years 1239 and 1320, a series of orders were issued by successive popes, beginning with Gregory IX, for the destruction of copies of the Talmud.[10] In the first portion of the 16th century, a more tolerant view was taken by the papal authorities in regard to the preservation of the literature and the learning of the Hebrews; but Julius III and his immediate successors again ordered the destruction of the Talmud. The work is also included in the first of the official Indexes, that of Paul IV. In the Tridentine Index, the previous prohibitions are relaxed, but under Clement VIII the Talmud was once more condemned.

The whole business of the supervision of literature and the control of opinion was of necessity very materially modified by the invention of printing. It was at first assumed that the control of literature by the Church would be strengthened by the new method of book production. The ecclesiastical authorities decided that no books should be printed excepting under their own supervision, and if there had been any effective means of carrying out such a decision, the printing-press would speedily have become a mere means of expression of Church doctrine and Church policy.

The multiplying of the printing-presses and the development of machinery for the distribution of the copies of the printed books, together with the rapid increase in the public demand for such books, speedily, however, rendered impracticable the effort on the part of the Church to retain the control of book production.

The Louvain Index of 1546 was, as will be noticed in the later summary of the Indexes, followed by several Spanish Indexes which were for the most part compiled and issued under the direction of the Inquisition, and during the succeeding centuries, the general control of the censorship throughout the dominions of Spain remained in the hands of the Inquisition. There was, in such an arrangement, one manifest advantage; the authority that determined the offence was the same as that which put into force the penalties that had been prescribed. As a result of this identity between the power that judged and condemned, and the power that carried the condemnation into effect, the censorship was effective throughout Spanish dominions to an extent which was never reached under any censorship machinery that was put into force in other States. A book that was condemned in Spain did actually pass out of existence, as far, at least, as Spanish territory was concerned, and a similar fate occasionally befell the author. The copies that had been printed were destroyed, and the printing or circulation of further copies was too perilous an undertaking to be ventured upon.

If the Inquisition had been in a position to carry on throughout Europe, or even throughout the Catholic States, a censorship as effective as that put into force in Spain, the extermination of books would have been so considerable that there would have been brought about a serious break between the literatures of the centuries.

In France, the censorship was exercised in a more fitful and less consistent manner. The Indexes originating in France were for the most part compiled, under the authority of the Crown, by the theologians of the Sorbonne. Books were, however, from time to time condemned under the direct supervision of the royal chancellor.

It is to be borne in mind also that a refusal on the part of the chancellor to issue a royal privilege for a book served to prevent its publication, at least in France (the edition must as a rule have been printed before the examination of copies by the royal censors could be made), and was, therefore, practically identical with a prohibition. The title of such an unprivileged and therefore unpublished work would as a rule not find its way into the lists of the French Index. The extent of the repression or restriction of literary activity can, therefore, not be fully measured by the number of titles on the lists of works prohibited.

It was unquestionably the case that the censorship had a very material influence in discouraging the production of literature, an influence that might be classed as an indirect damage to the intellectual development of the community. While the fact of such interference in a country like Spain in which the provisions of the censorship were, under the Inquisition, enforced with strictness and often with severity, is fully established, there can of course be no data for ascertaining the extent of the loss.

It is easy to understand that if an instructor in one of the Spanish universities got into trouble with the Inquisition in bringing into print a series of lectures, he would, in the majority of cases, have kept his later studies or conclusions in the safer form of manuscript. It is probable also that his associates on the faculty, or the students who had followed his work, would in great part be deterred from pressing their studies to a logical conclusion. Not only would the books not be printed or even completed, but the lectures themselves, on subjects that had once been stamped by the Church as pernicious, would be stopped. The Inquisition was in a position to put an end to any courses of study or lines of investigation that it found reason to disapprove, and the record shows that it did not neglect the exercise of its authority to such end.

In like manner, if the business of a printer-publisher had been broken up or seriously hampered through penalties imposed for the crime of circulating literature found deserving of condemnation, it is very certain that such dealer, if continuing in business at all, would have reason to avoid taking in the future any such undesirable risks, and his competitors in the book-trade would wish to be equally conservative in the selection or acceptance of books for their own presses.

Apart even from the cases of books which had been condemned as heretical, and which had involved in their condemnation the authors, the printers, and the booksellers, the whole system of censorship constituted with its delays, its interference, and its fees or charges, a very heavy burden upon the business of printing and selling books. The details of the methods employed by the censors will be referred to in a later chapter. Their operations, were, of course, not confined to the supervision of books printed in Spain or prepared for the Spanish press. An elaborate system of inspection was instituted for books ordered by booksellers or by individuals from other countries. Large numbers of these foreign publications were destroyed in the customs-houses, while in other cases, as a milder judgment, the supplies were refused admission and had to be returned to the shippers. As a result, the business of importing books could hardly be made profitable, and at times became dangerous. It is not surprising that, in the face of such difficulties and under the hampering influence of such burdens, the book-trade of Spain, during the three centuries following the date of the first Spanish Index, was attenuated and insignificant, and as compared with that of France, Germany, or the Low Countries, played but an inconsiderable part in the community. It is in fact difficult to understand how under these exceptional conditions, any printer-publishers or booksellers should have been able to maintain an existence.

In Italy, also, the publishers and booksellers worked during these centuries under similar difficulties, but there were mitigating circumstances. The Inquisition was able to retain in its hands only a partial control of the censorship, while outside of the papal States its authority was not infrequently set at naught. In fact, in Venice, for a large portion of this period (to use a phrase of a later century), the writs of the Inquisition “did not run,” an exemption which was by no means the least of the several factors combining to make Venice a centre of book-production. The division of the Peninsula into a number of states or principalities was an important influence in maintaining for the printer-publishers some measure of independence, as the undertakings that were stopped or interfered with in one State could, with no insuperable difficulties, be carried across the nearest boundary and brought to completion in another. A further influence serving to secure protection for the printing-press, and to promote its activity, was the personal interest on the part of many of the Italian princes in intellectual pursuits and in literary production, an interest that caused them to compete with each other for the possession of scholars and to offer special advantages to enterprising printer-publishers, and which made them frequently willing, for the sake of the literary prestige of their States, to brave the disfavour of the ecclesiastical authorities. In Italy, therefore, while the production and distribution of books was frequently interfered with by the operations of the Congregation or by the Inquisition, it is probable that (at least outside of the papal States) the actual detriment caused by the censorship to intellectual interests was by no means as great as, from the long list of mandates, prohibitions, and penalties, might at first be inferred.

In France, the conditions which opposed and those which favoured the freedom of the press differed in several respects from those which obtained in Spain or in Italy. We have here to deal with a central government whose authority over a fairly homogeneous territory was for the greater part of the periods under consideration not seriously questioned. The literary and publishing interests of the kingdom were centred in the capital, and in fact, with the single exception of Lyons, there were, outside of Paris, no publishing centres of importance. The literary policy of the Church, expressed through the theological faculty of the Sorbonne, could, therefore, conveniently be brought to bear very directly upon the operations of the Paris book-trade, the organised guild of which itself formed part of the university. Finally, the authority of the Crown, acting through the royal courts or directly through the chancellor, was, in form at least, available for putting into effect any measures for the supervision or restriction of literature with which the administration might find itself, in accord. Notwithstanding, however, this apparent completeness of the supervising machinery, the book-trade of Paris was able to retain a very large measure of independence, and its contributions to the literary productions of Europe were, notwithstanding the censorship, of continued importance. Several influences worked in its favour. The divines of the Sorbonne and the leaders of the Gallic Church, while often actively opposed to scholarly undertakings, were by no means prepared simply to register and to execute the censorship decrees of the authorities of Rome. No Roman Indexes were accepted as binding upon believers in France unless or until they had been formally approved by the French Church and had been put into effect by the authorities of the State. With an occasional exception, such as that of the Index of the Council of Trent, the Gallican censors preferred to frame their own Indexes and to adapt these to the requirements and conditions of their own country.

The State was still less ready than the Church to accept as authoritative instructions emanating from Rome in regard to the character of the books that should be produced or should be permitted in France. Successive kings took the ground that the final authority in regard to censorship was vested in the State, that is to say in the Crown. The divines of the Sorbonne were instructed or permitted to pass upon the applications for privileges for books belonging to the department of theology, but even for these, their dicta were not always accepted and (as in the case of the Bibles of Estienne) were sometimes entirely set aside by the Crown.

And finally, the University of Paris, for centuries the most important in Europe, contended through a long series of years that the supervision and control of the book-trade of the kingdom was a university matter, and it succeeded for a series of years, with occasional exceptions and set-backs, in maintaining this contention very largely until, with the gradual extension of the powers of the Crown, the direction of censorship and of privileges had been, with nearly all other divisions of government, brought directly under royal authority.

More than one scholar has been quoted as saying that the intellectual life and development of Europe during the centuries between 1556 and 1800 could be traced by the lists of condemned books, and that these books would in themselves constitute a fairly complete library for the thoughtful student. There might be ground for complaint that, owing to the remissness or ignorance of the censors, the lists included titles of a number of works not valuable enough to deserve condemnation, and omitted many of real value and continued importance. Irrespective of such inconsiderable exceptions in one direction or another, there can, I judge, be no question that a very large proportion, one may say by far the largest proportion, of the world’s literature that stood for intellectual activity and insight, literature which expressed the conclusions of the greatest minds of their several generations, and which stood for the development and the civilisation of the community itself, had been placed by the Church in the Index of condemned and prohibited books. Comparatively few of these books of light and leading had been omitted (and those apparently through inadvertence) and comparatively few books had been included which, apart from any questions of heresy or pernicious doctrine, would, under a standard not theological, be classed as dangerous or unwholesome for the community. In fact, the service of the Index in suppressing or in discouraging books contra bonos mores may be characterised as unimportant.

I have referred to the service to literature and to the intellectual development of mankind (a service none the less important because it was so entirely unintended) brought about through the action of the Church in preparing Indexes that served to chronicle the books of the thinkers and thus to preserve and extend their teachings. It is natural to enquire to what extent this service was offset by the interference with literary production and distribution caused by the burdens of censorship and by the repressive measures of the inquisitors and other censors. To such an enquiry there can be no very satisfactory answer. The materials or data for any precise calculation do not exist. In the chapter on the Index and the Book-trade, I have however presented such general data as I have been able to secure concerning the effect of the censorship regulations upon the operations in different States of the printer-publishers and the booksellers.

It is evident that the extent of the influence of the system is not to be measured by the number of books condemned after publication or after being put into type. It is probable that the restrictions and detriments placed in the way of literary production constituted a more important influence on the intellectual life and development of the people than the cancellation or expurgation of books that had already come into existence. These latter might be reprinted, and to a considerable extent were reprinted, in other countries, in which case their authors would be able to feel that their work had not been altogether without results. But the influence of the writers who were deterred from writing, and of the lecturers who were afraid to continue to speak, was lost not only for their own community but for their own development, unless, as from time to time happened, they preferred banishment to repression and silence. Whether the leaders of thought were expatriated or were silenced, the effect in the home country on the university centres and on the so-called educated circles was the same.

At the very time when in Italy, France, Germany, and the Low Countries the intellectual activities were greater than ever before known, and minds working in new directions of research were expressing themselves in varied and suggestive literary productions, scholarship in Spain had been confined in a few fixed channels, its expression had become stilted and reiterative, and the literature of thought, imagination, and opinion had almost disappeared. It would be interesting to ascertain whether an intelligent Romanist of to-day, who believed conscientiously in the necessity, or at least in the wisdom, of ecclesiastical censorship, would be prepared to accept as satisfactory the results of such a system in the one country in which it had been carried on with any measure of consistency and thoroughness.

It must at the same time be borne in mind that this censorship was not imposed upon Spain by an authority from without. The power of Rome was never applied, either in regard to literature or to other matters controlled by the Church, with greater strenuousness or severity in Spain than in France or in Italy itself. In fact, whether from choice or from necessity, the direction of the affairs of the Church of Spain, and the regulation of the discipline of its members, were left by the Papacy to be controlled by the Spanish ecclesiastics themselves. The Inquisition, as organised in Spain, was the creation of Spaniards and, with hardly an exception, the inquisitors who during the centuries in question carried on its work were Spanish in birth and in training. The policy of placing in the hands of the Inquisition the creation and the administration of a system of censorship of literature, and the responsibility for the preparation of the Indexes, is one for which the rulers of the kingdom, acting naturally under the influence of their spiritual advisers, must be held directly responsible. The ecclesiastics succeeded in convincing not one but successive Kings of Spain that for the safety and welfare of the community literature and education, higher as well as elementary, must be placed under the supervision of the Church.

A further responsibility, however, for this abandonment to ecclesiastical control of the intellectual life of the community must rest with the people themselves. If the literary productions of Spain were restricted and hampered to the point of crushing out altogether, if the men of active minds were banished or made dumb, if the business of the printer-publishers was brought to a close, and if the few enterprising readers who, notwithstanding the instructions of their confessors, might still venture to interest themselves in current literature, were obliged to depend for their supplies upon the chance of securing copies of the prohibited books smuggled in with bales of merchandise, it was because the people of Spain had decided for themselves that such methods were necessary for their spiritual safety. It may well be a matter of surprise that, under the conditions of censorship obtaining during the 16th and 17th centuries, it should have been possible to bring into existence any such national literature as that which is described by Ticknor and other historians. With a censorship which, in form at least, differed very little in the several great Catholic States of Europe, the fact that the Spaniards were willing to accept and to give obedience to a series of regulations, of penalties, and of prohibitions such as it proved to be impossible to enforce in Italy, in France, or in Germany, is evidence of some special quality in the Spanish nature.

In Italy, the fulminations of the Church in regard to heretical or dangerous literature were, in form at least, as severe in their penalties and as sweeping in their prohibitions as those which emanated from the inquisitors in Spain. There appears, however, to have been no period during which there was any consistent consecutive system applied throughout the entire Italian peninsula in carrying out the regulations that had been formulated by the Inquisition of Rome or by the Congregation of the Index. The successive papal Indexes were produced at considerable and very varying intervals. There is no evidence in the series of these Indexes of any definite policy in regard to the terms of years to be covered or the extent or the classes of the literature which was to be considered. From time to time, as successive popes assumed the papal chair, there would come one possessing a larger measure of literary interests or a clearer perception of the influence of literature upon the religious conditions of the community. Instructions would then be given for the production of a new papal Index, the lists in which would include, in addition to the more important of the titles in the preceding Indexes, the works of the later period the use of which was to be forbidden.

As will be made clear in the detailed record of the papal Indexes, the attempt was made but once in Rome to produce an Index Expurgatorius. The popes and the members of the Congregation, who had the immediate responsibility for the work, appear to have shrunk from a task with which the Spanish inquisitors had charged themselves without hesitancy, namely the reshaping of books which had already come into circulation and influence, in such manner as to eliminate heretical passages or expressions which might in any way conflict with sound doctrine. The fact that through such eliminations and interpolations the purpose and character of the work might be materially altered and the author might be made responsible for utterances or opinions which were not his own, or the further fact that through any such reshaping the literary form, and sometimes even the actual sense of the narrative, was practically sacrificed, did not trouble the minds of the revisers selected by the Spanish inquisitors.

The effectiveness of the prohibitions and regulations instituted in Rome by the Congregation of the Index varied materially in the different Italian States. The printer-publishers of Rome were naturally obliged to give respect to the papal ordinances concerning literature, but even in Rome itself it was usually not difficult to secure through the booksellers, in Venetian, Florentine, or foreign editions, copies of prohibited books. It was in Venice that, as far at least as the territory of Italy was concerned, the smallest measure of attention was paid to the prohibitions of the Roman Index. The contest instituted, about 1580, by Paolo Sarpi against the authority of Rome to control the printing-presses of Venice, was not the beginning but really the culmination of a long series of active protests on the part not only of the printers, but of the government of the republic itself. In fact, the conflict in which Sarpi took place as leader was brought about immediately by a renewal of attempts on the part of the Curia to secure for Rome the control of censorship in Venice.

In the Catholic States of South Germany, the record of the censorship of Rome is very similar to that which has been noted in the case of the Italian States. There were times in which very strenuous censorship regulations were issued, under the authority of either emperor or prince, in such cities as Vienna, Basel, Nuremberg, Frankfurt, etc. The immediate result of such ordinances was to check the operations and to curtail the undertakings of the local printers, but the effect on the final circulation of the books condemned was but inconsiderable.

In France, the prohibitions of the papal Indexes and the censorship regulations instituted by the Roman Congregation of the Index were not accepted as binding unless and until they had been confirmed by the rulers of the Gallic Church, and there were but few instances in which the French bishops attempted to take action in regard to censorship excepting under instructions emanating from the Crown. There was, under the successive kings, not a little variety of policy in connection with censorship, and of method in carrying out the policy adopted. With certain monarchs the influence of the ecclesiastics was much stronger than with others, and during such reigns, the decisions concerning the acceptance of the Roman Indexes and the work of preparing the Indexes originating in France were left in the hands of the bishops. From reign to reign, however, the precedent became more firmly established that the final authority in the matter rested with the Crown, and that even when the immediate direction of censorship was left with the bishops, their power to act came to them not from the pope, but from the king.

Any jealousy that may have existed with the ecclesiastics against interference on the part of the State with functions elsewhere held as belonging to the control of the Church, appears in France to have been more than offset by the determination of the Gallic Church to maintain its full independence against Rome. Censorship in France remained, therefore, a matter kept under the direct control of the Crown, to an extent which was paralleled in no country excepting England. The Kings of France, during the two centuries succeeding the invention of printing, were for the most part more keenly interested in furthering the operations of the printer-publishers, than in protecting the doctrines of the Church and the faith of believers against the risks of heretical literature. The undertakings of the printers had been made part of the work of the royal university, and the literary achievements of the Paris press brought prestige to the rulers of France.

Censorship was, of course, exercised, and in the case of theological works, the supervision of which was confided to the divines of the Sorbonne, the prohibitions and restrictions were not infrequently narrow and burdensome. It was the case, however, that the press of Paris was on the whole less seriously interfered with during the censorship period than that of any other Catholic State. It was further true, also, that while the prohibition of a book by the Sorbonne did from time to time block the sale of the Paris edition, bringing serious loss to the original publisher, it could not prevent the distribution of copies even among French readers. A work that had proved of sufficient importance to be placed on a Paris Index was pretty sure to be promptly printed in Lyons or in Tours, and if or when the authority of the censors had succeeded in stopping the operations of the provincial printers, the presses of Geneva, Cologne, and Amsterdam were always ready to supply the demand that was quite certain to continue for a work classed as heretical or dangerous. The total circulation and final influence of the book was, therefore, likely to be furthered rather than restricted by the action of the censors.

In the Low Countries, and particularly in Holland, the operations of the censors and Index-makers of Italy, Spain, and France constituted a factor of not a little importance in furthering the development of the book-trade. The printer-publishers of Holland kept themselves promptly informed of the operations of the various authorities which had taken upon themselves the task of supervising the literature of the world. Early copies of all the original Indexes found their way, as soon as produced, to Leyden, Amsterdam, and Utrecht, and were promptly utilised by the enterprising Dutch publishers as guides for their publishing undertakings. Within a few months of the time when the censors of Rome or of Paris had completed, as they supposed, the cancellation of the local editions of the condemned books, copies of the Holland issues would begin to find their way, more or less surreptitiously, into the hands of the readers of the country of origin. Literature is, in this respect, like water; whatever the intervening obstacles, it is pretty sure to find its level, or, like air, to find its way under the pressure of the mass of the intellectual atmosphere to the points where there exists an intellectual vacuum or need.

It is certain that at a time when, in the absence of journals, there were but limited means of information as to the existence or the character of literary productions, the Indexes proved to be most serviceable guides concerning books for which communities were waiting. The restrictions and prohibitions of the censorship system brought serious and sometimes crushing difficulties upon publishing undertakings in certain centres, but proved of invaluable service as suggestions for active-minded readers throughout Europe, and also for the undertakings of publishers in countries like Holland, who, free from restrictions at home, were very ready to utilise their presses for the profitable work of distributing abroad literature for which the Church, in advertising it as heretical, had taken pains to prepare the way and to provide a public. However great were the difficulties brought through the Church censorship upon the book-trade in other communities, it was certainly the case that for the printer-publishers and book-distributors of Holland it secured very direct and considerable advantages.

In England, even prior to the schism under Henry VIII, the Church of Rome never secured any control over the censorship of the press. The responsibility for the production of books had, with special reference to the convenience of supervision, been concentrated at an early date in the Stationers’ Company. The supervision of the operations of this company was retained under the direct control of the Crown and was carried out by officials appointed under royal authority. These supervisors or censors were for the most part not ecclesiastics. Such censorship as took place in England was in fact more largely political than ecclesiastical. The perils guarded against had to do with assaults upon the authority of the Crown rather than with opinions classed as heretical by the Church.

It was also the case that while the book-trade of the realm had, very conveniently for the censors, been centred in London and organised under the Company of Stationers, there were from time to time presses in activity outside of the capital, presses the work of which very largely escaped supervision. Either through such county town issues or by means of supplies imported from Holland, it is probable that English readers who were prepared to interest themselves in heretical literature met with no serious or continued difficulties in the way of securing the desired material. For England as for Holland and North Germany, the Indexes published at Rome and elsewhere served also as convenient guides for the book-buying and the reading of the more active-minded members of the community.

As before stated, it is not easy to arrive at any trustworthy net result concerning the final effect upon the literary conditions of Europe of the work of the ecclesiastical censors. The preceding brief summary gives my impression as to the more immediate effect of the censorship in the more important States which were within reach of the supervision of the Church. It would appear as if the literary conditions of each community had been hampered or interfered with in almost direct proportion to the efficiency of the censorship machinery. To the extent to which the prohibitions and restrictions of the Indexes were carried out consistently, literary activity was checked, the production of higher literature was lessened, and the intellectual capacities of the people were stunted.

It seems hardly possible that the indirect service, to which reference has been made, that was rendered by the work of the censors in emphasising for communities not within the control of their prohibitions the distinctive interest and abiding importance of the prohibited books, could make an adequate offset for the sterilising influence exerted within the communities that were under thorough supervision and control.

The system of organised Church censorship had its origin during the time of the Reformation in the necessity under which the Church felt itself of protecting the faithful, and perhaps more particularly the doubtful, from the influence of heretical arguments presented in printed form. The earlier history of the Indexes is therefore closely associated with the record of the conflict of the centuries between Protestantism and the Church. This relation has, however, a confusing effect in the attempt to estimate the direct influence of the censorship upon literature, for the reason that the direction of literary activities and the character of literary production were, during the two centuries succeeding the first protests of Luther, very materially affected, outside entirely of the influence of the censorship, by the theological and controversial tendencies of the time. The Reformation was an intellectual revolution, and the contest was carried out on both sides with intellectual weapons. These controversies had the effect of sharpening men’s minds and of cultivating the capacity for thought, for analysis, and for reasoning power. In reading the controversial literature which proceeded on the one hand from such Protestant centres as Wittenberg and Geneva, and on the other from Rome, Cologne, or Louvain, it may well be to-day a matter of surprise that the writers were able to count upon circles of readers likely to be interested in their dissertations and capable of understanding the class of arguments presented. It was the case during the 16th and 17th centuries not only that long series of controversial works were prepared by scholars for the reading of scholars, but that great masses of material, mainly in the form of pamphlets, were placed upon the market for the instruction or the influencing of what we should to-day call the common people. The tracts, “flyleaves” (flügschriften), which were distributed from the presses of Wittenberg were addressed directly to artisans, farmers, and peasants. For a few years, the controversial literature of this class was monopolised by the Protestants. The arguments of the defenders of the Church were addressed to the scholars and preachers with the idea of reaching through them the understanding of the common people. Before the middle of the 16th century, however, Catholic writers also began to give attention to the production of controversial literature addressed directly to the common people. The historian who to-day examines the files of this Reformation literature is struck by the high estimate placed by the writers on both sides upon the understanding of these readers among the people. It would be difficult to find to-day among the peasants of Germany, or in the same classes of other countries, any body of readers who would be prepared to interest themselves in thoughtful literature of such a standard, or who would be competent to follow the reasoning and the arguments of these controversialists of the Reformation period. It may be borne in mind, as a credit to the educational influence of the Roman Church, that these communities, the common people of which were sufficiently intelligent to be influenced to the point of revolution by the arguments of the Protestant leaders, must have owed their education almost entirely to the priests of the Church of Rome.

While, in this direction of controversy, the Reformation had a stimulating effect on the intellectual interests of a number of the European States, it may be admitted that in certain respects its influence upon literature was hampering and restricting rather than elevating. In the countries in which the Protestant opinions secured control there was, for a considerable period at least, a decided setback to the study of the classics and to all literary production outside of the domain of theology or religion. The interest in classical literature which had been initiated in Italy under the so-called Renaissance and in connection with the rediscovery of the great works of Greece, was for the time lost sight of in the Protestant States of Germany and of the Netherlands and among the Calvinists of France and of England. Classic writers were classed as “pagans” and their works were discouraged as likely to have a worldly influence on the minds of the faithful. The work in the universities in these States was, outside of the theological faculties, more and more restricted to what might be called utilitarian channels. The textbooks planned by Melancthon and his associates were of distinctive service for elementary education and undoubtedly represented a material advance over the books of the same grade which had been utilised for the elementary Catholic school. For a considerable period, however, the educational advance stopped with this elementary work; and in the universities there was a lack of higher grade teaching and a narrowing of the whole course of training.

The letters of Erasmus emphasise the conviction that took shape in his mind as to the essential injury brought upon the cause of higher scholarship by the absorption of so large a proportion of the active-minded thinkers in matters purely controversial. He believed strongly in the necessity for radical reforms in the Church. He recognised as clearly as did the Protestant leaders the enormity of the evils which had been permitted to creep into the administration of the affairs of the Church and to corrupt both the teachers and the hearers. He looked with dismay, however, upon the operations of the reformers when these took the shape of antagonism to the final authority of pope or council and thus constituted an assault upon the very existence of the Church Universal.

To Erasmus and to other scholarly readers in the Church whose devotion to the religious purposes of the Church organisation was possibly purer minded and more consistent than his own, men like Sir Thomas More, and Dean Colet, it seemed essential for the wise management of the Church upon which depended the maintenance of the true faith, that the leadership and authority should be left in the hands of scholars. They dreaded lest the establishment of the doctrine of individual interpretation, of the right of believers to a direct relation with their Creator, and the shaping of creeds and of rules of action apart from the counsel and guidance of trained ecclesiastics, must of necessity lead to such excesses as were evidenced in the performances of the Anabaptists in Westphalia, or in the utterances of the fanatics who incited the peasant revolt in Saxony.

It may be concluded, therefore, that while the machinery of ecclesiastical censorship remained in force only in the countries which the Reformation had not succeeded in detaching from the control of the Church, there was no such immediate advantage, at least during the half-century succeeding the work of Luther, in the production and distribution of literature in the Protestant countries as might have been expected to result from the freedom secured from the interference of the ecclesiastics. By the close of the 16th century, however, when the Protestant control of the States which have since remained Protestant seemed to be fairly assured (an assurance which was, to be sure, rudely interrupted twenty years later, by the opening of the “Thirty Years War”), there came a reaction in the educational centres in these States in favour of the work of higher education. The study of Greek, and to a smaller extent that of Hebrew, was taken up in certain of the Protestant colleges. A wide circulation was secured for the text of the Greek Testament, which had been issued by Erasmus through the presses of Froben in Basel, and in connection more particularly with this Testament the study of Greek was carried on with increasing interest in Wittenberg, Erfurt, and other of the educational centres of North Germany. The introduction, for the purpose of Greek study, of the editions of the great Greek classics, prepared by Aldus and one or two other of the more enterprising printers, naturally brought with it a renewed interest in the works of the Latin writers. These were no longer classed as pagan frivolities but were accepted as belonging to the intellectual property of the world.

This revival of letters, untrammelled by Church censorship, was, of necessity, seriously interfered with during the ravages of the “Thirty Years War.” A considerable period elapsed after the Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, before the disasters and destructions of this long contest were sufficiently made good to enable the natural interests and activities of the people to resume their course. By the beginning, however, of the 18th century, the larger intellectual activities of the Protestant States of Europe had made themselves clearly apparent. The literary production of these States not only greatly exceeded in mass that of the Catholic States, but included a very much larger proportion of what might be called the world’s books, that is to say, of books which exerted a continued and increasing influence from generation to generation. The great works of imagination, the records of noteworthy scientific discoveries, the histories accepted as authoritative, the treatises in higher metaphysics, were produced, of course not exclusively, but in very much greater proportion, in the countries which had either thrown off altogether the authority of Rome, or which, as was the case with France, while still classed as faithful to the Church, had practically refused to accept the supervision of the Roman Church over their national literature. It may be concluded that the theory upon which the censorship of the Church was based is incompatible with the natural and complete development of the literary potentialities of a people and interferes with the production of higher literature in direct proportion to the effectiveness with which it may be applied.

It may further be concluded that, excepting in the case of Spain, the ecclesiastical censors did not succeed in hampering very largely the literary production even in Catholic States, although, as before pointed out, the general influence of the Church appears always to have worked against the full intellectual development of the communities that remained in the faith and that accepted the ecclesiastical authority.

The wider enquiry as to the extent of the influence of the Church censorship, during the three centuries of its greatest activity, upon the literary production of Europe, that is to say, the question as to how far, in case no censorship had been attempted, this literature would have been different in character from or greater in importance than, that which actually came into existence, must, I judge, remain unanswered.

The responsibility for the policy pursued during the centuries since the advent of printing for a censorship control of literature does not rest alone with the Catholic Church. In all of the Protestant States, attempts were made from time to time to control and to restrict the operations of the printing-press. In the Protestant States of Germany, the preparation of the local Indexes or lists of books condemned, and the issue of the decrees for the separate condemnation of any individual work, were in part placed in the hands of the Protestant ecclesiastics and in part managed directly by the civil authorities. The authority, however, under which the orders were issued and the penalties were enforced was always that of the State. The edicts were given out in Dresden, or in Berlin, as in Brussels, Madrid, or in Paris, in the name of the ruler. The series of such decrees or censorship actions is long and complex.

There can, of course, be no question that from the outset the leaders of the Protestant Reformation believed as thoroughly in the necessity and in the rightfulness of the censorship of literature as did the ecclesiastics of Rome or of Spain. The duty of protecting the minds of the faithful against the insidious and wrong doctrine was just as clear to Calvin, to Zwingli, and to Luther, as it was to Loyola or to Brasichelli. The Protestant ecclesiastics were, however, not in a position to enforce or even to threaten any such penalties as could be imposed by the authorities of Rome, and as in fact were imposed most consistently and effectively by the Inquisition in Spain. They had under their control no such dread penalty as excommunication. The leaders of the Protestant faith were compelled to rely upon the civil authorities of their several States for carrying out the provisions of such censorship policy as might be decided upon, and concerning the wisdom of which they had been able to convince the civil rulers.

Irrespective of the censorship initiated by the divines, which had for its purpose the maintaining of a specific creed and the preservation from attack of “sound theology,” there is record of a long series of attempts (attempts which have in fact continued into the 20th century) to enforce what may be called political censorship,—that is to say, the control of literary production in the interests of the State and in support of the authority of the State, against opinions believed to be inimical to such authority. It may at once be admitted that the series of Protestant prohibitions, whether ecclesiastical or political in their origin, do not compare favourably with the similar prohibitions issued under the authority of the Church of Rome. There is far less consistency of purpose, and, at least as far as the political edicts are concerned, there are more examples of bitter and brutal oppression than can be matched anywhere in the States controlled by the Roman Church outside of Spain.

The list of books which came into condemnation under such Protestant censorship during the centuries in question was very much more considerable than the aggregate of all the lists of the Indexes issued in Rome or issued under the authority of the Roman Church. The censorship policy of the Protestants was more spasmodic, and may be admitted to have been directed on the whole by a less wholesome, dignified, and honourable purpose. It represented very much more largely the spirit of faction or of personal grievance, while the political censorship was, of necessity, influenced by the action of the party which happened for the moment to be in control or of the minister who had for the time the ear of the ruler.

While in form this Protestant censorship may, therefore, be considered as less defensible than that of the Church of Rome, it may be contended that in fact it has proved on the whole much less serious in its effect upon intellectual activities. In nearly all of the Protestant States, the attempts on the part of the divines to exclude religious and theological literature which was not in accord with their own dogmas and opinion, were given up in the century succeeding the Reformation. The censorship action of the State has, as we know, continued in certain divisions of literature to the present day, but even under this political censorship, it cannot be contended that literature has been seriously repressed or even largely influenced. It is not practicable, under the conditions obtaining in modern States and with the active intercourse between the residents of such States, to repress any literary productions for which a circle of readers is waiting. The books condemned and prohibited in Berlin come into print in Leipsic, or if the Imperial authority is sufficient to control conditions in Leipsic, are produced without difficulty in Amsterdam or Leyden. It is impossible to prevent the books so printed from finding their way back even into the territory in which their production and distribution has been absolutely forbidden.

Father Hilgers, whose work on the history of the Index of the Roman Church constitutes the latest, and probably the best, authority on the orthodox Catholic view of the purpose and the influence of the Roman censorship, is able to make a very formidable indictment against the operations of Protestant censorship, ecclesiastical and political. Certain of the statistics collected by him are presented in the chapter on Protestant censorship. He does not undertake to explain, however, why it is that the literary activities repressed from the time of the Reformation in the Catholic States have continued to develop and to be strengthened in all the States which were outside of the control of Roman censorship. He makes no reference to the very specific example presented in his own German country of the transfer of literary leadership and of publishing activities from the States of the South to the States of the North, a transfer which went on in direct connection with the success of the Church in controlling the printing-presses in the territory of such States as remained Catholic.

The concentrated attention given during the period of the Reformation and by the generations immediately succeeding the Reformation to controversial issues had an important influence on the intellectual development of the people. The effects produced upon general education, and particularly upon primary education, were also important. The students who had secured from the higher grade schools, established by the reformers throughout North Germany, a common school education such as prior to Melanchthon’s time had not been attainable anywhere in Europe, were, in great part at least, not satisfied to let the work of education be brought to a close with the end of their school course. They pressed into the universities which had remained in existence after the withdrawal of the Catholic instructors. New universities were speedily required in many of the North German States to meet the growing demand for higher instruction. The organisation of a number of the important universities of North Germany dates from the century succeeding the Reformation. These universities speedily became the centres of literary activity and of publishing production. With the relaxation of Catholic censorship, the publishers were free to prepare for the public reprints of such old-time literature as was now being called for. The study of Hebrew, discouraged and almost brought to a close in the Catholic universities after the long persecution of Reuchlin and his followers, was taken up with earnestness by Protestant scholars who had so largely based their creed and their conduct on the teaching of the Old Testament. The study of Greek, discouraged at least for a time in Catholic France, after the banishment from Paris of Robert Estienne with his printing-presses, was pressed with fresh energy in Leipsic, in Leyden, and in Oxford.

It is not easy in this 20th century fully to realise the state of mind of the individuals, whether ecclesiastics or civilians, whether of Rome, of Paris, or of London, who have not hesitated to assume for themselves the wisdom requisite to pass upon all divisions of knowledge and who have been willing to take the responsibility for the direction, the restriction, and the continued control of intellectual activity in all realms of thought. I may recall the eloquent argument in behalf of the freedom of the press which was made three centuries back by one great thinker, who was at the time (as it is fair to remember) protesting against the oppressive action not of the Church of Rome, but of the Parliament of Protestant England. John Milton writes in the Areopagitica:

“For Bookes are not absolutely dead things, but doe contain a potencie of life in them to be as active as that Soule was whose progeny they are; nay, they do preserve as in a violl the purest efficacie and extraction of that living intellect that bread them. I know they are as lively and as vigorously productive as those fabulous Dragons’ teeth; and, being sown up and down, may chance to spring up armed men. And yet on the other hand, unlesse warinesse be used, as good almost kill a Man as kill a good Booke; who destroyes a good Booke, kills Reason itselfe; Kills the image of God as it were in the eye. Many a Man lives a burden to the Earth; but a good Booke is the pretious life-blood of a master spirit, imbalm’d and treasured but on purpose to a Life beyond Life. ’Tis true, no age can restore a Life, whereof perhaps there is no great losse; and revolutions of ages doe not often recover the losse of a rejected Truth, for want of which whole Nations fare the worse. We should be wary therefore what persecution we raise against the living labours of publick men, how we spill that seasoned life of Man preserved and stored up in Bookes; since we see a kinde of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes even a martyrdom; and if to extend to the whole impression, a kinde of massacre, whereof the execution ends not in the slaying of an elementalle Life, but strikes at that etherialle and first essence, the breath of Reason itselfe and slaies an Immortality rather than a Life.”[11]