CHAPTER V

METHODS OF PROHIBITION AND THE CONTINUATION OF CLASS I

1. Papal Prohibitions in the 17th and 18th Centuries. 2. Prohibitions by Bishops. 3. Publication of the Book Prohibitions. 4. The Continuation of Class I. 5. Catalogues of Books Approved.

=1. Papal Prohibitions in the 17th and 18th Centuries.=--As in previous periods, there are in the 17th century numerous examples of papal prohibitions, through constitutions, bulls, or briefs, of individual books which were held to be sufficiently important to call for such special action. In 1602, Clement VIII condemns the works of Carolus Molinaeus; in 1642, Urban VIII condemns the writings of Jansen together with a number of treatises by the followers of Jansen; in 1661, Alexander VII condemns a French version of the missal. The formula generally utilised for these individual prohibitions was as follows:

“We condemn this work after mature consideration, on our personal judgment (_motu proprio_) and with assured knowledge (of its pernicious character), on the Apostolic authority (vested in us); and we prohibit to all persons, whatever may be their rank or position, the printing, reading, or possession of the same. The penalty for disobedience shall be the _excommunicatio latae sententiae_. We direct that the existing copies of said work be delivered to the bishop or to the inquisitor of the diocese, by whom such copies shall be promptly burned. This order shall be placed on the doors of the Basilica of the Church of the Apostles and on the doors of the Apostolic Chancellery, and on the gate-way of the Campus Florae, and when so published, shall be held to have been delivered in person to each individual affected by it.”

In the case of a Bull, the wording of the first paragraph was:

“Through this Constitution, which shall remain in force for ever, and under the authority of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of ourselves.”

After the time of Alexander VII, 1665, the condemnation is made to follow the decisions arrived at by theological examiners appointed for the purpose, or by the cardinals of the Inquisition. The greater number of the prohibitions continued, however, to emanate from the Congregation of the Index, while for a few, the responsibility rested with the Inquisition.

In 1753, Benedict XIV in the Bull _Sollicita_ (printed later in connection with the Index of 1758) gives consideration to the regulation of the proceedings of the two bodies. The substance of Benedict’s ruling is as follows:

In the case of a book which is denounced by the Inquisition as deserving of condemnation, and the prohibition of which has not been confirmed by the Index Congregation, the following measures shall be taken. The book shall be examined by a commission appointed for the purpose, and the written report of these examiners shall be submitted (with the book itself) to the cardinals. The conclusion of the cardinals shall be referred to the pope, who will give the final judgment in the matter. In the case of a book by a Catholic author, the condemnation shall not be permitted to rest on the decision of one examiner. His adverse report must secure the confirmation of a second censor appointed by the Congregation. If the judgments of the two differ, the matter must be passed upon by the cardinals. The Congregation of the Index is always to include several cardinals. The _Magister_ of the papal palace is a member _ex officio_. The secretary shall be a Dominican selected by the pope. The Congregation has the assistance of a number of counsellors selected from the clergy and from the Orders and from the judicial class (_Relatores_). The sessions of the Congregation are not regular, as are those of the Inquisition, but are called in response to the report of the secretary that there is business requiring action. This leaves to the secretary a large discretion in the initiating of action and in the selection of matters to be passed upon. In the case of a book by a Catholic author of good repute (_integrae famae_) in which pernicious material is found, the prohibition shall, if practicable, be made not general, but conditional, under the heading of _donec corrigatur_ or _donec expurgetur_. The decree shall not be made public at once, but opportunity shall be given to the author or to some representative of the author to make the required corrections. If the author shall agree to withdraw from sale the original edition, replacing this with the corrected text, no public prohibition need be made. If the original edition has come into general circulation, the condemnation shall be so worded as to apply only to such uncorrected text. The loss incurred through such cancellation and reprinting appears to have fallen upon the publisher unless the edition were the property of the author, or the publishing agreement made the author responsible for losses incurred on the ground of heresies. In reply to the complaint that books had from time to time been prohibited without an opportunity being given to the author to defend his production against the charge of heresy, the Bull takes the ground that the purpose of the

## action of the Church is not to pronounce judgment on authors,

but to protect the faithful against injury through heretical doctrine. Any detriment caused to the repute of the author is an incidental result which cannot be avoided. In any case, the judgment on the character of the production is to be arrived at with due deliberation and full knowledge.

The Pope expresses his intention to be present at sessions of the Congregation when matters of first importance are to be considered. Decisions concerning the works of unquestioned heretics, in regard to books containing direct attacks on the doctrines of the Church, can, however, be disposed of without his counsel and under the Rules of the Index of Trent. The members of the Congregation bind themselves to secrecy as to its proceedings. The secretary is, however, at liberty to give information to the author or the publisher of the book condemned.

“The counsellors and examiners of the Congregation are cautioned to proceed with their work with due conservatism. They are by no means to assume that a work submitted is certainly to be condemned but are to assure themselves by diligent investigation whether it may not be possible to declare it fitting for circulation, either in its original form or with certain omissions or emendations. Care is to be taken to place each book in the hands of examiners having expert and scholarly knowledge of the subject-matter. The examiners must free themselves from prejudices of race, native school of thought, or ecclesiastical order. They must keep before them that the essential purpose of their work is the defence of the faith, and the preservation of the doctrines of the Church as set forth by the decrees of the general councils, the constitutions of the popes, and by the teachings of the Fathers and of their learned successors, and the maintenance of the authority of the Church universal. The examiners must bear in mind that it is not possible to judge fairly of the character of a book without reading the entire text, and that the statements in the different divisions of the work must be carefully collated one with another. It is frequently the case that a sentence taken apart from its context may give a wrong impression of the author’s meaning, or that a sentence which taken alone may seem of doubtful purport, will have the thought made clear by comparison with other portions of the text. (Conservative counsel which was by no means always followed by the censors.) In the case of the work of a Catholic author whose orthodoxy is of good repute, it is proper, if a sentence or statement may be open to more than one interpretation, to give to it the most favourable (_i.e._ the most orthodox). There are books which, while quite sound and orthodox in their purpose and teachings, contain references to pernicious writings, or extracts from such writings. The knowledge of the heresies thus referred to may do injury to the faith of innocent readers. Such books call, therefore, for very careful consideration, and if the quoted material is sufficient in amount and in character to exert a pernicious influence, the work must be expurgated or placed upon the Index. Authors are cautioned against the wrongdoing of abusing each other whatever may be the difference of opinion, or of using harsh and condemnatory language against other writers whose works have not been condemned by the Church. These instructions and counsels are to be accepted as carrying the full Apostolic authority and as binding upon the Congregations, the examiners, and all others concerned.”

Certain of the other Congregations, such as those on confession, on the rites of the Church, and on propaganda, assumed the right to prohibit books having to do with their particular subjects, but their prohibitions had to be confirmed by, and promulgated through, the Congregation of the Index.

The _Magister_ of the palace had authority to issue in his own name prohibitions which were valid for the city of Rome. The individual edicts published by him in the name of the pope were of course general in their effect. From the time of Clement XI, 1700–1721, the prohibitions of individual works through bulls and briefs became much more frequent. After Benedict XIV, 1756, such prohibitions are to be found in allocations and in encyclicals. In 1664, Alexander VII ordered that the injunctions and penalties of Pius IV, as specified in the Index of Trent, should remain in force, but that all the other constitutions and decrees in regard to books, excepting only the _Bulla Coenae_, be revoked.

In the introduction to the Index of 1758, Benedict XIV presents certain principles as controlling, from that time, the work of the censors. Books by heretics are to receive consideration only in the instances in which they treat of the Catholic faith, or teach heresies. The task of examining and supervising the entire literature of the world was at last recognised as one beyond the powers of the Church authorities.

In 1869, a Bull of Pius IX restricts the penalty of the excommunication _latae sententiae_ to the reading, possession, etc., of books written by heretics, only when these not only contain heresies, but make a formal defence of the same, or when they have been specifically prohibited by title.

In the case of a writer who had already been condemned for uttering heretical opinions, his later books were likely to be placed on the Index irrespective of the character of their contents. In 1615, for instance, the opinions of Copernicus were condemned by the Inquisition, and, a year later, his astronomical treatises were duly prohibited.

The condemnation of a book by the Inquisition carried as a rule more weight than a prohibition by the Congregation. On the other hand, the Inquisition found difficulty in keeping up with its work.

In 1711, the Jesuit Daubenton writes to Fénelon: “The Inquisition has such a mass of business on its hands, and has available for its consideration so few men who are capable and who are ready to give attention to it, that a period of years may be required to secure the condemnation of a book, particularly if it is of considerable compass.” The control of the Inquisition, as of the Congregation, rested with the Dominicans. The commissary of the former and the secretary of the latter, always Dominicans, retained in their hands the continuity and the general direction of the business of their respective bodies.

In 1633, Lucas Holstenius (a “consultor” appointed by Alexander XII) writes from Rome to Peiresc:

“We have here a few learned men who would be glad to be of service to scholarly literature if there were any possibility of securing for their views any recognition.... But the opinions of scholars have no weight with these ignorant censors.... One of the cardinals who thinks of himself as an intelligent man and who has a large control of the business, says openly that he is in favour of condemning and burning practically all works of a humanistic character (_qui de literis humanioribus et de liberali eruditione agunt_) and of leaving in existence only the theological treatises, and the writings of a few jurists.... You will have heard of the recent condemnation of the scholarly works of Scaliger, Heinsius, Rivius, and Godenius.... My indignation grows and I find myself unwilling to attend any more sittings of the Congregation.... I speak thus, for your ear only, as here, it is perilous to make any complaint or opposition to such proceedings.”[31]

In 1686, the learned Benedictine Mabillon, being in Rome, was asked by the Congregation to give a report on the writings of Vossius, and later he was appointed a “consultor.”

In the compilation of the Roman Indexes of the 16th century, the announcement catalogues of the Frankfort Fair were largely utilised. As before pointed out, one result of this practice was to bring into the Index lists the titles of not a few books of but trifling importance (which otherwise would have been entirely lost sight of), of others which contained no doctrinal material and in fact nothing pernicious or objectionable, and of still others which, while announced as in preparation or in plan, never came into print at all. After 1600, the Fair catalogues appear to have been but little used, but information concerning published books was secured from the _Acta Eruditorum_, the _Journal des Savants_, and similar periodicals. Bourgeois is authority for the statement that after 1650, it was the routine, with both Inquisition and Congregation, to take up for consideration only such books as had been specifically denounced.

In 1690, Cardinal Ciampini proposed the establishment of a seminar or commission of ten or twelve scholars, selected from different countries, who should be charged with the task of examining the books issued from the different publishing centres and of making reports upon which could be based the selections of the Congregation of the Index. He proposed to bequeath to such a seminar his library and a capital sufficient to secure for each member an annual payment of one hundred scudi. The foundation never, however, came into existence. At the time of Benedict XIV, Cardinal Querini submitted a plea for the better organisation of the Congregation and offered an endowment to be utilised for the printing of the censorship opinions, but the offer appears not to have been taken advantage of. In 1622, Gregory XV instituted the _Congregatio de Propaganda Fide_, and to this body was confided the task of examining, and when necessary of prohibiting, books in oriental and other “exotic” tongues. In 1674, Clement X issued a brief prohibiting the printing, “even by Jesuits or other Orders,” of any works relating to the missions except with the authority of the Congregation. The penalty was cancellation of the edition and excommunication of those responsible for its production.

After 1610, the edicts of the _Magister_ prohibiting individual books are infrequent. In 1690, we have an example of such an edict in the case of a treatise on the Immaculate Conception by the Jesuit Saliceti, which was printed in Rome with the censored passages duly cancelled in the text. It continued, however, to be the practice for each _Magister_, in taking office, to issue a general edict setting forth the regulations controlling the production of books. One of the most important of these required the comparison page by page, by examiners appointed by the censor, of the text of the book as printed with that of the manuscript which had been approved (and possibly corrected). Until this comparison had been made, no copies of the edition could be offered for sale.

Certain general prohibitions are included in the Clementine Index. In the earlier years of the 17th century, further similar prohibitions or decrees are published. In 1621, for instance, is printed the series of decisions of the Congregation of the Council of Trent. The Pope had prohibited the publication of any unauthorised translations of the decrees of Trent, but the above work, carrying with it no authorisation, does not find place in the Index lists. In 1601, appears a prohibition of all litanies with the exception of the Laurentian and that bearing the name of All Saints. In 1603, appears a general prohibition of all writings concerning the Mohammedan religion. In 1633, a decree of the _Magister S. Palatii_ prohibits all _Elogia Haereticorum_. With this prohibition, is included a condemnation of all pictures or medals in honour of heretics. This general prohibition was interpreted to bring into condemnation a long series of important bibliographical works in which had been printed, either with approval or without condemnation, the names of heretical writers. In April, 1621, an announcement was made, on the part of the Congregation of the Council of Trent, protesting against the publication, nominally under the authority of the council, of so-called collections of the declarations of the council, and pointing out that such publications had been specifically condemned under the Bull of Pius IV. With the authority of Gregory XV, all such collections or reports of the decisions and conclusions of the council, issued without specific authority of the council, which had thus far been printed or which should later come into print, were condemned and prohibited. Among the works included under this condemnation, were a number which had been prepared by orthodox Catholic theologians and canonists, such as Prosper Farinaccius, Vincenzio de Marzilla, etc.

In the course of the 17th century, the Congregation of Rites condemned a series of prayers and litanies. Reusch states that “up to the present day” (he is writing in 1884) only one such litany, that described as “In the name of Jesus” had secured approbation. The general decree of 1601 prohibiting litanies has never been recalled; and under this decree stand condemned and prohibited all books of service which contain other than the two, or at this time, the three brief litanies. This decree, would, according to Reusch, prohibit nine tenths of the service books in use in the Catholic Church.

The prohibition issued by Alexander in decree number IV with the title: _Instructionum et rituum sectae Mahumetanae libri omnes_, seems to have had for its immediate text a work entitled: _Liber de Russorum, Moscovitarum, et Tartarorum religione_, which was printed at Spires. In the Index of Benedict, the title was for the first time given complete with the name of the author, Lasitzki, Jo., _de Russorum rel. sacrificiis, nuptiarum et funerum ritu e diversis scriptoribus_. Under the general prohibition of bibliographical works in which any terms of approval are connected with the names of heretical writers, is included (in 1687) the following English work: Crowaei Guil, _Elenchus scriptorum in s. scripturam tam graecorum quam latinorum_, London, 1672. A work of similar character, compiled by Thomas Pope Blount, under the title _Censura celebrium auctorum_, printed in London in 1690, escaped the attention of the compilers.

=2. Book Prohibitions by the Bishops.=--During the 17th and 18th centuries, were published no lists of books condemned under the authority of the bishops which compare in importance or in influence with the Indexes issued during the 17th century from Louvain and from Paris. During the 17th century, however, there are a number of instances of individual books condemned by the divines of the Sorbonne, of Louvain, and of other theological faculties. One Index of some comprehensiveness was issued by the Archbishop of Paris, but the work was undertaken at the instance of the Parliament. Two Indexes were issued by the Archbishops of Prague, and the decree of Precipiano, Archbishop of Utrecht, has already been referred to. As late as the last half of the 18th century, the bishops have utilised the form of pastoral letters and pastoral instructions for the condemnation of individual books and, occasionally, of lists of books. A pastoral letter, for instance, of the Vicar-General of Augsburg, issued in 1758, presents a list of fifty-five works which are condemned on the ground of their association with the “new sects and new teachings of mystics and fanatics.” In 1752, similar lists were connected with a decree of the Bishop of Turenne and a pastoral instruction of the Bishop of Luçon.

Clement XIII (1758–1769) condemned, in briefs issued in January and in September, 1759, the treatise by Helvetius, _De l’Esprit_, and the encyclopaedia compiled by the same author, both of which had been published anonymously. For the encyclopaedia, the specification was added that it belonged to the class of books permission for the reading of which could be given only by the pope himself. In a brief addressed in November, 1765, to the Archbishop of Rheims, Clement praises the assembly of the clergy for the condemnation of pernicious writings, and in an encyclical issued in November, 1766, he reminds the bishops of their responsibility for the repression of irreligious works, and reminds them further that they are to secure in this work the aid of the State authorities.

In an encyclical issued in 1769, Clement XIV repeats to the bishops the injunction of his predecessor in regard to the essential importance of maintaining the fight for the stamping out of wicked books. In the decade succeeding 1758, the Inquisition and the Congregation of the Index condemn and prohibit the works of Voltaire, Rousseau, La Mettrie, d’Holbach, Marmontel, Raynal, and others. The list includes also a treatise by Helvetius, in addition to his work _De l’Esprit_, and single monographs of Diderot and d’Alembert in addition to their contributions to the Encyclopaedia.

In 1864, the Congregation of the Index issues, under the authority of Pius IX, a circular letter to the bishops authorising and instructing them to carry out the prohibitions of the Congregation. Reference is made to the Edict of Leo XII, of 1825, and emphasis is laid on the importance of checking the irreligious influence of the newspapers.

=3. Publication of the Book Prohibitions.=--During the earlier years of the 17th century, the lists of the books condemned by the Congregation or the Inquisition were published by the _Magister_. After 1613, the lists passed upon by the Congregation were prepared for the press by the secretary, printed in the papal printing-office, and distributed through the local inquisitors and the nuncios. This was the course taken, for instance, with the condemnation, in 1616, of the books of Copernicus, and in 1633, with the writings of Galileo. Later, the practice obtained of printing the special lists on the annual lists in the _format_ of the latest edition of the Index, so that they could be bound in with this. After 1624, the secretaries of the Congregation brought into print a number of collections of the various decrees.

In the reprint, in 1667, of the Index issued by Alexander VII in 1664, are included no less than ninety-two of the separate decrees. Of the later decrees there is no official or complete collection. According to the contention of the Curia, the publication of a decree in Rome rendered it binding on Catholics throughout the world, but this view was by no means generally accepted. In Spain as in France, it was held that the papal bulls and decrees were in force only after they had been formally confirmed and published under national authority, but in Spain this authority was delegated to the Inquisition. Francis I refused altogether to recognise the decrees of the Congregation or of the Roman Inquisition. In Venice, Naples, and Belgium, these decrees became authoritative only when confirmed by the State authorities. The circulation outside of Italy of copies of the Roman Indexes was very trifling, and (with the exception of that of Trent) the reprinting of these occurred but seldom. If the work of the papal printing-office is to be judged by the Roman Indexes and decrees of the 16th and 17th centuries, the standard was by no means high. The bibliographical lists abound in errors, the responsibility for which must be divided between the compilers and the typesetters. In not a few instances, the names and titles have been so seriously twisted that it is often not easy to identify the work condemned. The Index of Benedict XIV was the first of the Roman series in which any serious attempt appears to have been made to secure any measure of bibliographical accuracy.

An _Abrégé du Recueil des Actes du Clergé_, first issued in 1762, divides the bulls and briefs of the popes into two classes: those which have been confirmed and accepted in France; and those which have been rejected and which are, therefore, not binding on the French Church.[32] The chronicler explains that it is the general rule to accept the Roman rescripts which may prove useful for Church or for State, even although it is often necessary to repudiate certain formulas and expressions contained in them. In certain cases, however, the formulas are so repugnant that they cause the rejection of the Bull itself, as for instance when the king is threatened with excommunication or deposition. The French authorities, ecclesiastical as well as political, refused from the outset to accept the Roman formula that publication of a decree in Rome made it binding throughout the realms of the Church, and they refused also to accept the authority of any general penalty of excommunication which might be made to include the head of the State.[33]

The Advocate-General Omer Talon, in an address delivered in 1647 before the Parliament of Paris, says: “We are prepared to recognise and to accept the authority of the pope but neither the authority nor the jurisdiction of the Congregation or of the Curia.” The Chancellor d’Aguesseau writes in 1710: “It is well understood that the Roman Index carries no authority in France where, while the primacy of the pope is accepted, the authority of the Congregation of cardinals is not in force.”[34]

Bossuet writes in regard to such a papal brief:[35] “We hold that these constitutions are not binding in a French diocese until (and unless) they have been published by the bishop.” Fénelon says: “We are not willing through the acceptance of a papal brief to acknowledge the authority (for France) of either the Index or Inquisition.”

As before stated, within the dominions of Spain, the Spanish Indexes alone were accepted as authoritative, and the Spanish authorities very frequently refused to condemn books that had been prohibited by the editors of Rome. In other of the States classed as Catholic, the authority of the Roman censorship was in like manner contested. In 1759, Charles Alexander, Stadtholder of Lorraine, prohibited the printing or sale of certain theological treatises by Dens, on the ground that these asserted the authority of the _Bulla Coenae_, and of the Roman censorship and the immunity of the bishops, and that this constituted an assault on the authority of the emperor and on the general policy of the Netherlands.

[Sidenote: Later Heresiarchs.]

=4. The Continuation of Class I, 1603–1876.=--The list of heretical authors of the first class, all of whose works (past and future) were condemned, were, in the first group of Roman Indexes, printed without change or additions. The authorities do not appear to have considered the later heretical writers to be entitled to the dignity of being classed as heresiarchs. In the Decree of 1603, the name of Frac. Guicciardini and that of Peter Frider are added by the Roman editors to Class I; but these constitute the only additions for the series of years given. On the other hand, new Spanish Indexes of this class receive from decade to decade continued additions.

Among the authors, all of whose writings were prohibited in Indexes printed prior to Alexander VII (1664), may be noted Hugo Broughton (of Oxford), Thomas White (of London), Ludwig de Dieu, Gregorius Richter, Giordano Bruno, Claudius Salmasius, J. B. Poza. Between 1664 and 1756, the list includes among the more noteworthy names, the German writers J. H. Buddaeus, Georg. Calixtus, J. H. Heidigger; the Hollanders Jo. Clericus, Simon Episcopius, Jac. Laurentius, and Lambert Velthuysen; the Frenchmen J. Daillé, Ch. Drelincourt, Jean d’Espagne; the Englishmen G. Bull (Bishop of St. Davids), W. Cave, J. Lightfoot, Henricus Morus, J. Prideaux, and Thomas Hobbes.

To these may be added the names of Molinos van Espen and Colbert, Bishop of Montpellier. It is difficult, in an examination of the complete lists, to arrive at any principle or basis on which the compilers made their selections. Of forty-one Protestant writers whose names were placed on the Index during one sitting of the Index Congregation in May, 1757, sixteen were Germans, ten, Hollanders, eleven, Frenchmen, and four, Englishmen. At the same session, were prohibited the entire series of the theological writings of Hugo Grotius. Between 1757 and 1821, there is no instance in the Roman Indexes of the use in connection with the name of an author of the term _Opera omnia_, although as a fact in a number of cases every book produced by some particular author was included under its own title. Between the years 1821 and 1827, the authors whose complete works were thus specifically condemned by title include G. Mordai, David Hume, and Colin de Plancy. In 1852, were added, among other names, those of V. Giorberti, Proudhon, and Sue. In 1862, the prohibition included Dumas father and son, Georges Sand, Murger, Stendhal, Balzac, Champfleury, Feydeau, and Soulié. In 1876, three names are to be noted, Vera, Spavente, and Ferrari. The works of John Locke called for special attention in two of the Indexes of the first half of the 18th century. The reading or possession of these books is forbidden under penalty of excommunication, _sub anathemate_.

In 1610, was prohibited the treatise that had been published in the previous year by Hugo Grotius, _Mare liberum S. de jure quod Batavis competit ad Indicana commercia_. The entry was alphabeted under _H_. The title has been preserved in the later Indexes of the 19th century under the proper heading, Grotius. The purpose of the treatise was to contest, on the ground of natural right and of the _Jus gentium_, the monopoly, which had secured the support of Alexander VI, of the Spaniards and Portuguese over certain lines of sea trade. The Pope had taken the ground that his authority was sufficient to institute trade monopolies either by land or by sea. If the Pope were in a position to grant ownership of territories and of peoples, the smaller matter of the connecting trade might naturally be assumed as the conclusion. Grotius, however, asserts that no authority vested in the Pope had given to the Spaniards the control of the Indies (of the West) and that such control as had come to the Spaniards had been secured through force of arms and not through the papal diploma.

=5. Catalogues of Books Approved.=--There is ground for surprise that while in the four and a half centuries since the publication of the first papal Index, the Church has promulgated such a long series of lists of books condemned and prohibited, the authorities have not been interested in giving a larger measure of attention to the selection of books which could safely be recommended for the reading of the faithful, and which to some extent at least might be suggested as taking the place of the literature that was to be cancelled as pernicious. I can find record of but four or five lists, issued under the authority of the Church, of books recommended for the reading of the faithful, and no one of these recommendation catalogues was prepared in Rome or was published under direct authority from Rome. The first Index in the Church series, that published in Louvain in 1546, contains a short list of books recommended. This list is referred to in the description of the Index itself (see Volume I); a similar recommendation list, including in part the same titles, is connected with the second Louvain Index of 1550. In 1549, a provincial synod was held in Cologne under the direction of the Archbishop Adolf of Schauenburg. A decree was issued by this synod addressed to “the simple and unlearned priests who might not be qualified to distinguish the sound from the unsound doctrine, and who had therefore from time to time been misled by books that were placed in the market with misleading titles.” These pastors and their followers were particularly charged against any books, whatsoever might be their titles, which contain writings of Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, or of their followers. The decree of the synod was connected with a brief list of the heretical authors whose works were particularly to be guarded against, and the statement was made that this would be followed by a general and comprehensive catalogue or Index. No such general Index was, however, prepared. In 1550, however, the diocesan synod issued a list of books recommended for the use of the instructors and teachers in the Church schools.

The third recommendation list of which I find record was issued in Munich in 1566, under an edict of Albert V. This is a comprehensive catalogue of books which have secured privilege for publication throughout the duchy, and which, having been selected under the direct supervision of the Church authorities, can be safely recommended for the use of students and readers.

The heads of convents and Church libraries are cautioned to cleanse their collections from the books which have been condemned under the previous prohibitory Index, and to replace these books with the works now recommended by the authority of the Church. In the second issue of this recommendation catalogue are presented, curiously enough, the titles of certain works which had been prohibited in the Index of Trent. Examples of these are the writings of Bohemus, J. P., of Geiler Kaisersperg, Conrad Klingius, Jo. Ferus, F. Guicciardinus.[36] Between the years 1606 and 1619, there came into annual publication in Mayence, as a result apparently of the recommendation of Peter Canisius, the energetic head of the Jesuits in Germany, a catalogue, prepared more

## particularly for the use of booksellers in Catholic countries, of books

recommended for the reading of the faithful. This annual catalogue bore the following titles: _Index novus librorum imprimis Catholicorum, theologorum, aliorumque celebrium auctorum quarumcunque facultatum et linguarum, causas religionis tamen non tractantium ... pro Italia ceterisque nationibus confectus_. On the back of the title-page of the issue for 1606, is presented a preface bearing the signature Valentinus Leuchtius. _S. Sedis Apost. librorum revisor, imp. Rodolphi II_, etc. In this preface, the reviser undertakes to lay down the principle for the elimination of pernicious literature and for the selection of books of wholesome doctrine and sound influence.

The above series describes the few fragmentary efforts made in any formal fashion by the Church authorities during the centuries of censorship to guide with any positive advice the reading of the faithful. The dependence for counsel in regard to the books to be read seems to have been left to the individual action of the confessors or other ecclesiastical advisers.

##