Chapter VIII

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND THE INDEX OF PIUS IV, 1564.

_Rome, 1564._ _Pius IV, Council of Trent._--_Index librorum prohibitorum cum regulis confectis per Patres a Tridentinae Synodo delectos, auctoritate Sanctis D. N. Pii IV Pont. Max., comprobatus. Romae, apud Paulum Manutium, Aldi F. 1564._

This is the first Index which has behind it the authority of a general council.

As early as April, 1546, in the fourth session, a papal decree entitled _De editione et usu librorum sacrorum_ was received and accepted by the council. This presents the general grounds for the authority of the Vulgate, the principles that are to control the interpretation of the Scriptures, a prohibition of any wrongful use or citations of the works of the Bible, and, finally, instructions to the council to frame regulations for the supervision and control of the work of the printing-press, “the operations of which as now uncontrolled tend to pernicious license and injury to the faith of the community and to the authority of the Church.” Certain suggestions follow concerning the necessity for a close supervision of the text of the Scriptures to the end that it may be printed without error, omission, or interpolation, and the further necessity of forbidding the printing of any books having to do with religion or with the Scriptures which have not secured the approval of examiners appointed by the Church. The approval of such books must be given in writing and must be recorded in every written or printed copy. Anonymous books must in no case receive approval.[128]

Two archbishops, Beccatelli and Selvaggio, deprecated the discussion of the subject as calculated to impede the principal object of the council; since Paul IV had, with the counsel and assistance of all the Inquisitions, formed a most complete catalogue, nothing could be added but books edited within the two years that had elapsed since its publication, an act undeserving of the labour of the synod. To reverse any condemnation in that Index would be to reflect imprudence on Rome; and while such action would lessen the authority of the Index of Paul, it would also injure the Council itself. In the redundance of books since the invention of printing, it were better that a thousand innocent ones should suffer than that one guilty should escape. Neither should reasons be given which would provoke opposition and would impair the dignity of laws that ought to rest simply upon their own authority. Correction and expurgation were likewise deemed inexpedient as tending to invite criticism and to make enemies. A contrary opinion, however, prevailed and at the eighteenth session, a decree was passed declaring that as the disease of pernicious books had not yielded to the salutary medicine hitherto applied, it was deemed proper that certain Fathers should be appointed diligently to examine and to state to the council what was necessary to be done respecting the censure of books. In its last session, the council referred to the judgment of the pope the work that had been prepared by its committee, and publication of the same was made in Rome in 1564.

The most permanent portion of the work of this council was the series of Ten Rules prepared as a guide and instruction for all ecclesiastics or other authorities who might thereafter be charged with the duty of literary censorship. These Rules were reprinted in nearly all subsequent papal Indexes, while in the Spanish Indexes they formed the basis of the more or less modified Rules promulgated by the inquisitors. Sixtus V (1585) replaced the Tridentine Rules with a new series of regulations, but they were reissued by Clement VIII (1592) with a few additions. They find place in the two Indexes of Leo XIII, 1896 and 1900.

_The Ten Rules of the Tridentine Index_[129]

I. All books condemned by the supreme pontiffs, or general councils, before the year 1515, and not comprised in the present Index, are, nevertheless, to be considered as condemned.

II. The books of heresiarchs, whether of those who broached or disseminated their heresies prior to the year above-mentioned, or of those who have been, or are, the heads or leaders of heretics, as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Balthasar, Pacimontanus, Swenchfeld, and others similar, are altogether forbidden, whatever may be their titles or subjects. And the books of other heretics, which treat professedly upon religion, are totally condemned; but those which do not treat upon religion are allowed to be read, after having been examined and approved by Catholic divines by order of the bishops and inquisitors. Those Catholic books also are permitted to be read which have been composed by authors who have afterwards fallen into heresy, or who, after their fall, have returned into the bosom of the Church, provided these have been approved by the theological faculty of some Catholic university, or by the general Inquisition.

III. Translations of ecclesiastical writers, which have been hitherto published by condemned authors, are permitted to be read, if they contain nothing contrary to sound doctrine. Translations of the Old Testament may also be allowed, but only to learned and pious men, at the discretion of the bishop; provided they use them merely as elucidations of the Vulgate version, as a means of understanding the Holy Scriptures, and not in place of the sacred text itself. But translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this Index are allowed to no one, since little advantage, but much danger, generally arises from reading them. If notes accompany the versions which are allowed to be read, or are joined to the Vulgate edition, they may be permitted to be read by the same persons as the versions, after the suspected places have been expunged by the theological faculty of some Catholic university, or by the general inquisitor. On the same conditions, also, pious and learned men may be permitted to have what is called the Bible of Vatablus, or any part of it. But the preface and _Prolegomena_ of the Bible published by Isodorus Clarius are, however, excepted; and the text of his editions is not to be considered as the text of the Vulgate edition.

IV. Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, this matter is referred to the judgment of the bishops, or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest, or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety, they apprehend, will be augmented, and not injured, by it; and this permission they must have in writing. But if any one shall have the presumption to read or possess it without permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary. Booksellers, however, who shall sell or otherwise dispose of Bibles in the vulgar tongue to any person not having such permission, shall forfeit the value of the books, to be applied by the bishop to some pious use; and be subjected to such other penalties as the bishop shall judge proper, according to the quality of the offence. But regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without a special license from their superiors.

V. Books of which heretics are the editors, but which contain little or nothing of their own, being mere compilations from others, as lexicons, concordances, apophthegms, similies, Indexes, and others of a similar kind, may be allowed by the bishops and inquisitors, after there have been made, with the advice of Catholic divines, such corrections and emendations as may be deemed requisite.

VI. Books of controversy betwixt the Catholics and heretics of the present time, written in the vulgar tongue, are not to be indiscriminately allowed, but are to be subject to the same regulations as Bibles in the vulgar tongue. As to those works in the vulgar tongue which treat of morality, contemplation, confession, and similar subjects, and which contain nothing contrary to sound doctrine, there is no reason why they should be prohibited; the same may be said also of sermons in the vulgar tongue, designed for the people. And if in any kingdom or province, any books have been hitherto prohibited as containing things not proper to be read without selection by all sorts of persons, they may after correction, if written by Catholic authors, be allowed by the bishop and inquisitor.

VII. Books professedly treating of lascivious or obscene subjects, or narrating or teaching these, are utterly prohibited, since not only faith but morals, which are readily corrupted by the perusal of them, are to be considered; and those who possess them shall be severely punished by the bishop. But the works of antiquity, written by the heathen, are permitted to be read, because of the elegance and propriety of the language; though on no account shall they be suffered to be read by young persons.

VIII. Books, the principal subject of which is good, but in which some things are occasionally introduced tending to heresy and impiety, divination, or superstition, may be allowed, after they have been corrected by Catholic divines, under the authority of the general Inquisition. The same judgment is also given concerning prefaces, summaries, or notes, taken from condemned authors, and inserted in the works of authors not condemned; but such works must not be printed in future, until they have been amended.

IX. All books and writings of geomancy, hydromancy, aeromancy, pyromancy, onomancy, cheiromancy, and necromancy; or which treat of sorceries, poisons, auguries, auspices, or magical incantations are utterly rejected. The bishops shall also diligently guard against any persons reading or keeping any books, treatises, or indexes which treat of judicial astrology or contain presumptuous predictions of the events of future contingencies, and fortuitous occurrences, or of those actions which depend upon the will of man. But such opinions and observations of natural things as are written in aid of navigation, agriculture, and medicine are permitted.

X. In the printing of books or other writings, the rules shall be observed which were ordained in the tenth session of the Council of Lateran, under Leo X. Therefore, if any book is to be printed in the city of Rome, it shall first be examined by the vicar of the pope or by the master of the sacred palace or by other persons chosen by our most holy Father for that purpose. In places other than Rome, the examination of any book or manuscript intended to be printed shall be referred to the bishop with whom shall be associated the inquisitor of heretical pravity of the city or diocese in which the printing is done, and these officials shall without charge, and without delay, affix their approbation to the work, in their own handwriting, such approval being subject, however, to the pains and censures contained in the said decree; there is the further condition, that an authentic copy of the book to be printed, signed by the author himself, shall remain in the hands of the examiner; and it is the judgment of the Fathers of the present deputation that those persons who publish works in manuscript before these have been examined and approved, should be subject to the same penalties as those who print them; and that those who read or possess such books should be considered as the authors, if the real authors of such writings do not avow themselves. The approbation given in writing shall be placed at the head of the books, whether printed or in manuscript, that they may appear to be duly authorised; and this examination and approbation, etc., shall be granted gratuitously.

Moreover, in every city and diocese, the houses or places in which the work of printing is carried on, and also the shops of booksellers, shall be frequently visited by persons deputed for that purpose by the bishop or his vicar, conjointly with the inquisitor of heretical pravity, so that nothing that is prohibited may be printed, kept, or sold. Booksellers of every description shall keep in their libraries a catalogue, signed by the said deputies, of the books which they have on sale, nor shall they keep, or sell, nor in any way dispose of, any other books, without permission from the deputies, under pain of forfeiting the books, and of liability to such other penalties as shall be judged proper by the bishop or inquisitor, who shall also punish the buyers, readers, or printers of such works. If any persons import foreign books into any city, they shall be obliged to announce them to the deputies; or if this kind of merchandise be exposed to sale in any public place, the public officers of the place shall signify to the said deputies that such books have been brought; and no one shall presume to read, or lend, or sell any book which he or any other person has brought into the city, until he has shown it to the deputies, and obtained their permission, unless it be a work well known to be universally allowed.

Heirs and testamentary executors shall make no use of the books of the deceased, nor in any way transfer them to others, until they have presented a catalogue of them to the deputies, and have obtained their license, under pain of confiscation of the books, or the infliction of such other punishment as the bishop or inquisitor shall deem proper, according to the contumacy or quality of the delinquent.

With regard to those books which the Fathers of the present deputation shall examine, or correct, or deliver to be corrected, or permit to be reprinted on certain conditions, booksellers and others shall be bound to observe whatever is ordained respecting them. The bishops and general inquisitors shall, nevertheless, be at liberty, according to the authority they possess, to prohibit also such books as may appear to be permitted by these rules, if they deem such prohibition necessary for the good of the kingdom or province or diocese; and the secretary of these Fathers, shall, according to the command of our holy Father, transmit to the notary of the general inquisitor the names of the books that have been corrected, as well as of the persons to whom the Fathers have granted the power of examination.

Finally, it is enjoined on all the faithful that no one presume to keep or read any books contrary to these Rules, or prohibited by this Index. But if any one read or keep any books composed by heretics, or the writings of any author suspected of excommunication, and those who read or keep works interdicted on another account, in addition to the burden of mortal sin, shall, at the discretion of the bishops, be severely punished.

* * * * *

In advance of the Rules are printed the Bull of the Pope, dated Rome, March 24, 1564, and a preface by Francis Forerius, secretary of the deputation or commission which had been charged with the compilation of the Index. Forerius states that this Index is intended to take the place of that prepared at Rome by the inquisitors (that of Paul IV) because that had included certain books which did not deserve to be prohibited, and also because it had not been generally accepted.

_Notes on the Ten Rules_

I. This follows in substance the regulation of Paul IV. Sixtus added: “To be excepted are certain books which, notwithstanding the errors contained in them, the Church has found it desirable to preserve as records of ecclesiastical traditions and old-time usages, or as evidence to be used in the specification and condemnation of heretical doctrines, as is set forth in the decree of Pope Gelasius I” (492). Gelasius, however, does not prohibit the reading of the condemned books, and in fact no such prohibitions occur before the 16th century.

II. A somewhat similar distinction between heresiarchs and ordinary heretics finds place in Louvain, 1546. The definition of heresiarchs might, however, have been made a little more precise for the information of the faithful, or a complete list of them might have been given, as was done later by Quiroga (1594) and by Sixtus.

III. The later Indexes of Sixtus (1585), Alexander VII (1655), and Benedict XIV (1756) proscribed, with some slight modifications in the wording, all editions of the Scriptures edited or printed by heretics. Alexander added, “the Holy Script or any portions of the same which have, since 1515, been printed in metrical form.” Benedict restricts this prohibition to metrical versions produced by heretics.

IV. Paul IV had permitted the reading of the Bible in the vernacular only under authorisation of the Inquisition. Sixtus replaced the milder regulation of Trent with his rule No. 7. The possession of the Scriptures or of portions of the Scriptures printed in the popular tongue is prohibited except under special authority of the Curia. Paraphrases in the vernacular are unconditionally condemned. In later Indexes, the prohibition was extended to cover all “summaries” and historical compends of the Bible in the vulgar tongue. The acceptance of these prohibitions varied in different lands and in different times. In Spain, a Bible had been printed in the dialect of Valentia as early as 1478. The first issue in the vernacular after that date was that of 1790, edited by San Miguel, later Bishop of Segovia. A second appeared in 1823, edited by Amat, Bishop of Barcelona.

The Lisbon Index of 1624 not only confirmed the prohibition of Bibles and parts of the Bible, but added a new restriction in forbidding the use in works of general literature (printed in the vernacular) of any extracts from the Scriptures. This order called for the cancellation, for instance, in the _Shepherds of Bethlehem_ of Lope de Vega, of the poet’s versions of the _Magnificat_, the _Benedictus_, the _Nunc Dimittis_, and the _Miserere_. In Italy, previous to 1560, a number of translations of the Scriptures had been issued, but after the prohibitions of Paul IV and of the Index of Trent, we find record of Italian versions only of the Psalms and a few other portions, and these could be read only with a formal permission. In 1596, Clement VIII authorised the publication, by the Order of Jesus, of an edition in the vernacular of the portions of the Gospels selected for reading on Sundays and Saints’ days. It would appear, however, as if north of the Alps, this proscription of the Scriptures in the vernacular failed to secure any general enforcement, as during the 16th and 17th centuries a large series of editions of the Scriptures and of the New Testament were brought into print from Catholic translations, in French, German, Bohemian, Hungarian, and Polish. The Jesuit Serarius, writing in 1612, complains that “any one in Germany can read the Bibles of Eck or Dietenberger, and in place of being reprimanded and punished by their bishops and confessors, the delinquents are likely to be commended and honoured.”

V. Sixtus orders further that the name of the heretical publisher of the work must be cancelled and that of the “Expurgator” must be specified. Benedict directs that dictionaries, thesauri, and similar works compiled by heretics, “like the publications of the Stephani, Scapula, J. J. Hofmann, etc.,” must, before being “permitted,” be thoroughly “expurgated” of all material which may be antagonistic to the Catholic faith.

VI. Sixtus directs that books written in the vernacular which combat the doctrines of the Jews and Mohammedans, shall be read only under authorisation of the Inquisition. In Germany, the prohibition against the reading of controversial books printed in the vernacular secured very little obedience and such books came, during the 16th century, into very wide circulation.

VII. In the Index of Paul, there is recorded under this heading a group of Priapean literature connected (erroneously) with the name of Virgil. The only other classic author condemned as obscene is Lucian. In the Lisbon Index of 1624, it is specified that the Epigrams of Martial can be permitted only after expurgation, or in the text edited by the Jesuits Fusius, Radius, and Augerius. Ovid’s erotic poems are permitted “for private reading,” but for students only the _Epistolae Selectae_ as edited at Tournay, 1615. Sixtus prohibits also obscene pictures and collections of music containing amatory songs.

X. In 1625, the Inquisition of Rome issued an order prohibiting any resident of the States of the Church from printing a book without the permission, if within the city of Rome, of the cardinal vicar and the _Magister_ of the palace, or if without the city, of the local bishop. Alexander VII announced in the Bull of 1664, which accompanied his Index, that only those penalties were still in force which were specified in this tenth Rule and in the _Bulla Coenae_. Under this decision, the excommunication _latae sententiae_ became no longer applicable to those who might read writings of heretics but still held good for the reading of books actually specified in the Index, of vernacular versions of the Scriptures and controversial works, and of works classed as obscene.

The enforcement in Germany of the penalties prescribed in Rule X was a matter of dispute among the theologians as had before been the authority of the _Bulla Coenae_. In 1869, these penalties were rescinded by the Bull of Pius IX. In the same Bull, however, Pius retained the “reserved excommunication” for the printing, reading, etc., of books which had been specifically condemned (by titles), not by the Inquisition, but by direct apostolic authority (papal Bulls, briefs, or encyclicals). This specification would apparently cover the books listed in the two Indexes issued under the direct authority of Pius IX and probably holds good also for the works contained in the two Indexes of Leo XIII.

* * * * *

The Tridentine Index, presented with the full authority of the Church represented by the Pope (Pius IV) and the general council, and compiled after due deliberation, by a representative commission of scholarly divines, secured a much wider distribution and more general acceptance than had been obtained by the first of the papal Indexes or than could have been expected for the comparatively local Indexes of Louvain, Venice, or Valladolid. The Index was printed in 1564, either separately or in connection with the record of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Bologna, Modena, Florence, Cremona, Venice, Cologne, and Dillingen, and during the remaining years of the century, in a great number of editions. Within the next thirty years, there were no less than ten issues from the presses of Venice (which was still one of the most important centres of the printing industry) and four from Cologne. Throughout the Catholic world, the interest was active and continued in the proceedings and conclusions of the council which had undertaken the task of cleansing the Church from its inner evils and of fortifying its institutions against the assaults of the heretics without. The deliberate policy of the Church in regard to the supervision of books was expressed in the Ten Rules of its Index and in the accompanying lists of prohibited books and of condemned authors, and these rules and lists now came to the eyes of thousands of readers (or were cited to them by their teachers and confessors) who had never before known of ecclesiastical censorship. According to the understanding of the Curia, no formal acceptance or confirmation was required to make binding in the lands acknowledging the authority of the Church either the Bull or the Index, but this was not the view generally taken.

In Belgium, Bavaria, and Portugal, the regulations of the Index were formally adopted under royal edicts. Spain adhered to the policy of leaving in the hands of the Spanish Inquisition the responsibility for the preparation, and for the enforcement of, the successive Indexes, and neither the Index of Trent nor any other issued under papal authority was ever accepted as binding within the Spanish dominions. The Ten Tridentine Rules were however adopted in the Spanish Indexes appearing after 1564. In France and in Germany (outside of Bavaria) the Index of Trent was confirmed and promulgated only by one or two provincial synods. It is evident that in these countries the Rules secured no general acceptance or authority. Reusch adduces as evidence that the Roman authorities held the Tridentine Index to be universal in its authority, certain instructions given in 1580 by Gregory XIII to Toletus. Toletus, who had been sent to Germany and the Low Countries as a papal representative, was empowered to absolve from excommunication and from other ecclesiastical penalties, believers who had for scholarly purposes retained or read books condemned as heretical, provided they would promise to abandon the pernicious practice.

The decrees in regard to book-production issued during the succeeding twenty years by the provincial synods of Italy repeated in substance the regulations of Trent, with an occasional addition. In Milan for instance, in 1583, the synod ordered that printers and booksellers must, before securing permission to begin business, make a confession of faith to the bishops and take an oath to conduct their business according to the regulations of the Index.

In a number of the dioceses of France, similar edicts were issued, but these made no reference to the papal Indexes. In 1566, King Henry II ordered (at the instance of the theological faculty of the Sorbonne) that no books prohibited by said faculty should be printed, owned, or read. Further, he authorised the Sorbonne to make personal examination of the stock of the booksellers. The supervision exercised by the Sorbonne over the production and distribution of books worked to the detriment of the book-trade of Paris, and to the advantage of the printers and dealers of Lyons, Montpellier, and other provincial centres, where it proved to be impracticable to enforce the regulations of the Paris theologians. It was also a factor in building up in Holland (which was practically free from censorship) the business of producing books for the students of Europe.

In Germany, notwithstanding repeated efforts by successive popes, Pius V, Gregory XIII, and others, and edicts by Maximilian II and Rudolf II, it was evidently impracticable to keep control or supervision over the productions of the rapidly increasing printing-presses, presses which, instead of being concentrated as at Paris, were distributed through a great number of widely separated towns. A letter written in 1582 by the Bishop of Vienna indicates that the lists in the Roman editions of the Index were not accepted as final authority. “You can permit the use of books printed in Munich, Ingolstadt, Cologne, and other such towns [_i.e._ towns under good ecclesiastical influence] but those from Wittenberg, Tübingen, etc., must be forbidden. It will be well for the inspectors to take in their hands the catalogue of the Frankfort Fair in which are given the titles of the Protestant theological books. They will also find useful the Index as printed in Cologne and in Venice.”[130] In 1566, Josias Simler writes: “A new Index has been promulgated in which so many books are condemned that many Italian professors complain they will no longer be able to deliver their lectures. The Frankforters and Zürichers and other German cities have written to the authorities of Venice begging them not to accept the Index.”[131] Kirchhof speaks of the German book-trade with Italy as being practically destroyed through the enforcement of the regulations of Trent, while the book-dealers of Italy itself were isolated and in many cases ruined.[132]

The Dominican Bernardo Castiglione writes, in 1581:

“In Rome, there is at present much watchfulness concerning the
books coming into Italy. The Inquisitors are charged with the
duty of prohibiting or destroying copies of this work or that.
As a result, the booksellers dare not give orders, and are often
unable to sell the books they have received. I understand that
there are now lying in the Roman shops unsalable books to the
value of many thousand _scudi_.”[133]

A noteworthy omission in the catalogue of the Trent Index is the entire list of condemned Bibles and Testaments which had constituted an important division in the Index of Paul IV. Mendham calls attention to the omission of the name of John della Casa.

Paul’s editors had placed the name of Erasmus in Class I (authors all of whose writings were condemned) and had added a specification which is connected with no other name, not even those of Luther and Calvin: “with all his commentaries, criticisms, scholia, dialogues, letters, translations, books, and writings, including those which have nothing to do with the subject of religion.” In the Index commission of Trent, after sharp discussions, this Draconian judgment was materially modified. The name of Erasmus was placed in Class II, in connection with the titles _Colloquia_, _Encomium Moriae_, _Christiani Matrimonii Institutio_, and the _Paraphrasis in Matteum_ (as printed in an Italian version under the name of Bernardine Tointano). The other writings, including those that had already been condemned in Paris and in Louvain, were left free. For the _Adagia_, a specific authority was given to Paulus Manutius for the publication of an edition. Until this edition should be in readiness, permission was given for the use of the existing editions (the most noteworthy was that printed in 1498 by Aldus), after certain reprehensible or doubtful passages had been eliminated under the authority of the Inquisition or of a theological faculty. In 1590, under the authority of Sixtus V, Erasmus was again placed in Class I, and all of his writings “whatever their subject-matter,” with the exception of the expurgated _Adagia_, were condemned. In 1596, Clement VIII again confirmed for the writings of Erasmus the classification of Pius IV. In the Spanish Indexes, the name of Erasmus was, after 1612, retained in Class I. In 1575, the expurgated edition of the _Adagia_ was issued in Rome under the authority of the Church, without the name of the author. It would be a little difficult to secure from these varying pronouncements a trustworthy impression as to the final conclusions of the Church authorities in regard to the seriousness of the heresies contained in the writings of this scholarly Catholic or as to the actual value of the books.

In the preface to the Trent Index, it is stated that those writers are to be placed in Class I who are known as heretics or who are suspected of heresy (_nota haeresis suspecti_). This phrase is capable of varying interpretations and would appear to have been worded in order to cover the cases of writers like Erasmus, who while refusing to class themselves with the Protestants, had written or spoken with sharp criticism of the Church. As a result of such an instruction, writers like Staupitz, Pirckheimer, Hamer, and Billicanus find place in Class I. There also were included by Paul, Rhenanus and Zasius, who were by the Trent editors transferred to Class II.

Savonarola had suffered death as a heretic in 1498, but no reference was made in the judgment to his writings. These came up for consideration in the compilation of Paul’s Index, and were discussed in several sessions of the Inquisition. They were condemned by representatives of the Jesuits, the Augustinians, the Carmelites, and the Franciscans, and were defended by certain Dominicans. It was the desire of Paul to have the whole series condemned, and it is said that as certain passages were read out loud the Pope stamped on the floor and exclaimed, “This is pestilential teaching, it is Martin Luther himself.”

It was finally decided to place in the Index the _Dialogo della verita prophetica_ and fifteen of the sermons preached in 1496–98, including that given at the ordeal of fire. The writings of Savonarola came again into discussion at Trent when the commission concluded to permit the reading of expurgated editions. In 1598, under the permission of Clement VIII, an edition of Savonarola’s works was undertaken by Cardinal Bonelli and Philip Neri, but was never completed. As late as 1837, was placed upon the Index (under Pius VIII) an edition of the _Opere inedite_ di Fra Gir. Savonarola, _Libri cinque dell’ Italia_, etc.

Clemangis, placed by Paul in Class I, is transferred by Trent to Class II, with the specification that the works can be permitted when expurgated. Geiler of Kaisersberg, placed by Paul in Class I, is left out of the Index of Trent, but is replaced by Sixtus V and Clement VIII in Class I, where his name still remains.

The Trent Index, like that of Paul IV, includes in Class I a number of Italian authors whose works seem to be of hardly sufficient importance to give warrant for the distinction. Among the names the grounds for the condemnation of which are more easily to be understood may be noted that of Petrus Paulus Vergerius. The record of Vergerio has been referred to in connection with the Index of 1559. His thorough knowledge of the methods followed by the compilers of the Italian Indexes, his strenuous opposition to the policy of permitting literary production to be controlled by the Inquisition, and his trenchant controversial style, had rendered this convert to Protestantism one of the most dangerous of the opponents of the Church. It is not surprising, therefore that his name should have been singled out for special condemnation. The compilers were also sufficiently painstaking to trace and to include in their lists the titles of certain of Vergerio’s writings which had been printed under a pseudonym or anonymously.

In Class II, may be noted Italian translations of certain writings of Luther which had been issued under the name of Fregoso (Federigo Fregoso died in 1541, as Archbishop of Salerno.) Class III contains further Italian translations of the treatise of Luther on the _Freedom of Christian Men_ and of the _Address to the Christian Nobility of Germany_. In the same class is entered the title _Il Beneficio di Christo_ (also recorded as _Beneficium Christi_), the authorship of which is ascribed to Dom Benedetto, a Benedictine of Mantua. This tract was printed throughout Europe in various versions and secured a very wide circulation. Vergerio speaks of forty thousand copies being sold in Venice alone, within six months. The tract appears, however, to have been very thoroughly suppressed, as copies are now scarce.

Among the non-theological Italian writers whose names find place in the lists of Trent (and in other of the earlier Indexes) the following may be noted: Dante, Macchiavelli, Boccaccio, and Guicciardini. The name of Dante is connected with the treatise _De Monarchia_. The ground for the condemnation was undoubtedly the same that, two centuries earlier, had brought the author under the reprobation of John XXII, namely, that Dante had ventured to assert that the authority of the emperor was derived from God and not from God’s vicar on earth. The book had, in 1318, been publicly burned in Lombardy. The name of Dante finds place also in the expurgatory Index issued, in 1581, in Lisbon. The _Commedia_ is prohibited until it has been officially expurgated, and all copies are ordered to be delivered to the Inquisition for correction. The _De Monarchia_ is referred to by Fox in his _Book of Martyrs_. He speaks of Dante as “an Italian writer against the Pope.” The name of Joan. Foxus and that of Oporinus (the Basel publisher of the treatise) are placed in the Trent list. In the same Index, are condemned certain passages from the commentary on the _Commedia_ by Landino, in which it is asserted that heretics are not deserving of death but simply of imprisonment. In a Greek version of the _Commedia_ recently published in Constantinople by Musurus Pacha, certain passages are omitted which make uncomplimentary references to Mahomet.

Macchiavelli has, since Paul IV, been placed in Class I. His writings are available for the faithful only under special authority of the pope. Certain of the books are said by Brudini (writing in 1752) to have found favour with Alexander VI, and with Clement VII. Under Gregory XIII, 1572–85, the production of an expurgated edition of Macchiavelli’s works was undertaken, but the plan was not carried out, owing to the refusal of the Congregation to permit the books to be printed with the name of the author. Villari speaks of having seen a copy of an expurgated edition of the _Storie Fiorentini_, printed in 1551.[134] In 1605, under Clement VIII, a fresh prohibition was made of an edition at Lausanne of the _Discours sur les moyens de bien gouverner_.

The _Decameron_ of Boccaccio is entered in the Index of Trent with the phrase: _quamdiu expurgatur ab iis, quibus rem Patres commiserunt, non prodierunt_. An edition so expurgated was printed in Florence in 1573, at the instance of Cosimo I. The “expurgations” had to do only with the references to religion or to ecclesiastics. Except in the instances in which the characters involved are monks or priests, the obscenities of the original are retained in the expurgated edition.

Certain of the books of the notorious Aretino of Arezzo had been included in the Index of 1559, and the prohibition is confirmed in the Index of Trent. This author is condemned not (as might well have been expected) on the ground of the pornographic character of his writings, but because of their (alleged) heretical tendencies. Professor Paul van Dyke points out that “when the influence of the Council of Trent was being felt in reforming the abuses and restoring the discipline of the Church, Aretino’s freedom in criticising the clergy became offensive.”[135]

The works of Guicciardini which came into condemnation had to do with the history of the development of the political authority of the Papacy, a subject concerning which the Congregation of the Index was always on the alert.

In the Index of Trent, a number of works on astrology and magic, which had found place in the Index of Paul, were omitted.

* * * * *

As before indicated, the classifications of the Tridentine editors indicated a wider and more tolerant policy than had been followed by the compilers of the Index of Paul IV. The change is to be credited in part to the influence exercised in Trent by the delegates from Germany and in part to the protests which had been called forth from scholars in Italy and throughout the world by the severe prohibitions in Paul’s Index, prohibitions which, as pointed out, were seriously hampering for scholarly undertakings.

After the Council of Trent, there was for a series of years a decided increase in the efforts of the authorities, political as well as ecclesiastical, throughout Catholic realms, to repress the production and the circulation of heretical and dangerous literature. In the Spanish Low Countries, the regulations under the administration of Alva were especially stringent. In the years 1566–7, in Antwerp alone, four printers were banished, one was sentenced to the galleys for a term of six years, and one was hanged.

Mendham remarks, in regard to the Council of Trent:

“The Roman, beyond any other professedly Christian sect,
is bound to its peculiar faith and discipline by original
engagements the most sacred, the most precise, the most
extended, the most rigorous. And it is there that we are to
look for its true and distinguishing character. No greater
mercy of the kind was ever vouchsafed to the Christian world by
a compassionate Providence than the Council of Trent. However
cautious the managers of this Council, they were obliged by
many motives to speak out and declare themselves in canons, in
decrees, in anathemas, and above all in a Creed, none of which
can be recalled or concealed. The Indexes which emanated in
great measure from this Assembly stand forth a specimen and
illustration of the true character of the religion of Rome....

“How can he who accepts the creed and oath of Pius IV, as the
rule of his faith, or actually professes and swears it, and
therein solemnly engages to _believe and profess all things
defined_ more especially by the Council of Trent, from which
all the subsequent Roman Indexes flow, feel himself at liberty,
not as to the respect, but as to the degree of respect,
due to the deliberate and constantly renewed expression of
judgment on religious subjects by the most sacred of all human
authorities?”[136]

It is the conclusion of Dejob that it was possible for a believer living during the sixteenth century under the direct influence of the Vatican to remain a good Christian, even to the point of intolerance, but that he could hardly, under the existing conditions, attain to real scholarship.[137]

* * * * *

The work of the Council of Trent marks in more ways than one a turning-point in the history of the Church of Rome. During the half-century preceding the date of the council, the Protestant revolt had wrested from the control of Rome nearly half of the territory of Europe, and the authority of the Church had been shaken even in States still classed as Catholic. The calling together of the council was the result of a realisation on the part of the Papacy and its advisers that the Protestant advance could not be stayed by simple reassertions of the authority of Rome, or by threats or edicts of excommunication. The Church must prove its right to rule, must in fact justify its continued existence. The practice of the ecclesiastics must be brought into conformity with ecclesiastical teachings. The claim that the Pope was the Vicar of Christ, the Vice-Regent of the Almighty, could be made good only through presenting practical evidence that the work of the Church was guided by the divine precepts, and that the workers of the Church were really the children of God.

The Council of Trent retained in its great Index the prohibition of the writings of Erasmus, but the reforms initiated by the council constituted a justification of the strictures of the great Hollander, and in not a few instances these reforms simply carried out his recommendations.

The divines of Trent did not hesitate to characterise Luther and his associates as the “children of the devil,” but these same divines placed on record condemnations hardly less specific than those that had come from the preachers of Wittenberg, of the abuses and corruptions that had taken possession of the Church of Christ.

If the work of the reformers of Trent could by any possibility have been brought about fifty years earlier, we may imagine that the theses of Luther might never have been posted, while the leaders of the Protestant reform would have had available for their great contest no adequate ammunition. It may at once, however, be admitted that the “ifs of history” are at best but futile guesses. It is safer to conclude that without such shaking up as was given by the Protestant revolt, the reformation within the Church would never have been undertaken, or would at least not have taken shape during the sixteenth century. It is possible even that the loss of half of its realm was necessary if the existence of the Church as an institution was to be maintained.

The history of the succeeding century makes clear that the Catholic reformation was undertaken in good faith, and with a full measure of devotion and earnestness, and that it brought about a great revival in Christian spirit and a noteworthy advance in scholarship, in wisdom and administration, and in faithful service on the part of the rulers, and of zeal, faith, and good works among their flocks.

The popes who initiated the work of the Council of Trent and those whose rule followed immediately the years of the council, showed a very different standard of life and of official and personal action than had characterised such popes as Julius II and Leo X, who had been responsible for Church policy at the time of the Reformation. Paul IV, Pius IV, Pius V, Gregory XIII, and Sixtus V led austere lives and insisted that their courtiers should accept the same standard of life. They were all earnest workers for the reform of the Church, realising that its domination could be justified only by its purity, its severity towards the rebellious, and its charity for the faithful. The successful results of the work of the council had brought to Catholicism confidence in itself; when the adherents of the Church realised that the council had escaped the various perils that had been prophesied, and that without any limitation to the ideal of domination, without any abandonment of essentials to the demands of heretics, the Church had made an emphatic condemnation of crying abuses, they were able, with lessened anxieties and with large hopes for the future, to look forward to the accomplishment of the promises made to Christianity. The popes now commence seriously with the reform of abuses in the Church, not only among its members, but with its rulers. Nepotism is prohibited; the cardinals are brought back to a modest and consistent way of living; the bishops are sent back to their dioceses; the monks return to their convents. A beginning is made in good faith with the correction of ecclesiastical manners and methods.

As one result of the reforms, Rome itself was awakened and, so to speak, rehabilitated. The court of the popes, which, from the time of Petrarch to that of Luther, had been denounced by so many eloquent voices as the home of scandals and as the source of corruptions, had thrown off its pernicious habits of life. Virtue and science were once again held in honour, and Christian scholarship was placed in a position to maintain, without too serious an inferiority, a continuity with the profane erudition of the Renaissance. From this time, the Catholics found themselves less embarrassed when confronted with the names of their old-time critics, Erasmus and Melanchthon, and were no longer under the necessity of blushing for the intellectual and moral condition of their religious capital.[138]

It would appear from the general testimony of historians of literature that, in spite of certain noteworthy exceptions, the reforms initiated after the Council of Trent exercised a largely wholesome effect on the character of Italian literature. The Italian historian Canello[139] contends that the work of the ecclesiastical reformers not only restored and preserved the Church, but purified and rehabilitated society.

It is the contention of Dejob that by the close of the 16th century the Catholic reformation had exerted in Italian literature an influence that was both significant and lasting, while the effect on the literature of Spain was hardly less marked although probably less lasting. The Protestant peoples had, as he claims, thus far produced, under the inspiration of religious feeling, no works that could equal the religious productions of these two countries. It was during the century following that the literature of France received from Christianity its most profound impression.[140]

The correspondence of Cardinal Sirleto gives an indication of the labour undertaken by the clergy of Italy after the Council of Trent for the purpose of disputing with the Protestants the leadership in science and in scholarship. Sirleto, who had had a chair of rhetoric in the College of San Silvestro at Rome, was, in 1549, placed in charge of the great library of the Vatican. Later, he became Bishop and Cardinal, but resigned the honours of the Episcopacy in order to devote himself exclusively to the pursuit of learning and to the service of other scholars of the Church. The group of Catholic writers who were, during the lifetime of Sirleto, devoting themselves to scholarly labours included such names as those of Baronius, Bellarmin, Tiraboschi, Latini, Orsini, and many others. Sirleto, with a marvellously intimate knowledge of the great collections of the Vatican that were under his control, devoted himself during a series of years through correspondence, through suggestions, and through the loan of manuscripts and books, to furthering the work of the writers of this group. It would appear as if no Italian writer of the day who was giving attention to dogma, to history, to tradition, to exegesis, or even to general literature, was able to complete his work without the co-operation of Sirleto. He typified in his own person the great revival in scholarly and in literary interests that accompanied the reform in morals and in religious zeal brought about by the Council of Trent. The Protestant writers were no longer to be permitted to have a monopoly of applied scholarship or in literary exposition for popular reading. Men like Baronius devoted themselves in defence of the Church to the proofs to be secured from history and tradition; while hundreds of writers who had secured their training in the newly established or newly revised schools of the Church, brought into print, for the reading of the people generally, appeals and arguments with which to offset the influence of the “flyleaves” of Wittenberg. It was in fact through the furious attacks of Luther and his associates that a comprehensive reformation was brought about in the army of Catholicism.

Among the correspondents of Sirleto who write soliciting permission for the reading of prohibited books (a permission required in connection with their work) may be noted Montanus, the editor of the Polyglot Bible, Sigone, and Baronius. Sigone writes, for instance, in 1579: “Every one knows that I can do nothing to bring to completion my present task without an opportunity of reading the ‘Centuries’ of Magdeburg; but the ‘Centuries’ are under excommunication, and I do not know how I am going to be able to obtain a copy or to secure permission to read the book. I hope very much that you may be interested in serving me in this matter.”

Plantin writes to Sirleto stating that he has in plan an edition of St. Augustine and asks the librarian to advise him of any variants in the text of this Father, of which he has knowledge. He puts a similar question concerning the possible requirement for corrections in texts of the Scriptures, which corrections he could utilise in the Bible that was being edited by Montanus. Later, he asks for aid from Sirleto in connection with editions of St. Chrysostom and of St. Jerome which are to be dedicated to the Pope.

The Spaniard Bartolomeo de Valverde, chaplain of Philip the Second, who had rendered important collaboration in certain of the scientific undertakings of the Vatican, writes in 1584 to Sirleto requesting the renewal of the permission that had been accorded to him some time back for the use of prohibited books. He alleges as one justification for his request certain significant considerations concerning the character of the examiners with whom rests the fate of books brought into question. Bartolomeo understands that

“among the men who are engaged in the production of the new
Index, there are some whose judgment is so severe and whose zeal
is so excessive that they have condemned books which they have
never seen. The people whose judgment should count concerning
books are of course those who through study have knowledge of
their character. These compilers have not hesitated to condemn
the works of many saints and (a loss much to be lamented) all
the commentaries of the Jews.... The Pope has appointed as
examiners men who do not know a word of Greek or Hebrew and who
possess neither judgment or capacity. They are expected to read
(without any payment for their time) a great mass of volumes and
in order to get through easily with the repugnant task, they
declare quite simply and with an air of large knowledge that the
whole series must be suppressed.”

Valverde prays Sirleto to help him to preserve his own
library against the assaults of this “arbitrary and ignorant
omnipotence.”[141]

It is to be borne in mind, says Dejob, that this letter comes not from a Protestant, denouncing the unintelligent tyranny of the Papists, but from a dignitary of the Spanish Church, who had been charged by the Vatican with special responsibilities; while the Cardinal to whom his application was addressed was himself the chief director of the work of the Congregation of the Index. It is the conclusion of Valverde that, as a necessary result of the existing conditions, the work of censorship must, in large part at least, be placed in the hands of men who are ignorant of the subjects confided to them. These men, charged by the Pope with an enormous responsibility and with an authority for which there is no supervision, are expected to do this work without pay, and they may be said to give to the Church the equivalent of their compensation.[142]

The nephew of the Cardinal, Marcello, who was his successor in the Diocese of Squillace, was apparently in favour of a strenuous application of censorship.

Marcello, writing to the Cardinal under date of November 2, 1570, says:

“It seems to me essential that in affairs like this, having to
do with heresy, one should proceed with full rigour rather than
with too close attention to equity, for these matters concern
the honour of God and that of the whole Catholic Church. As a
Father of the Church has said, ‘_in hac re summa pietas esset,
fuisse crudelem_.’ It is the perfection of piety to be ‘cruel’;
that is to say, to be forcible in punishment.”

The examiners of the Congregation of the Index and those delegated to consider the special subjects referred to the inquisitors found themselves swamped by the mass of material submitted for their consideration. The task of examining and of reporting upon the literature of Europe, or even upon that portion of literature with which the interests of the Church were directly concerned, was beyond the powers of the men to whom it had been delegated. The authors whose works were under consideration found themselves obliged to retain a solicitor or a representative to watch over their interests and to do what might prove practicable to hasten a favourable decision. Abbe Alessandro Archirota writes to Sirleto, under date of February 23, 1572, complaining that a treatise of his which had been passed upon with approval by Pirrotano, has rested in the hands of the Master of the Palace for no less than fifteen months. The unfortunate author had been obliged under the terms of his contract to make payment to his printer some months back, but was still unable to secure the necessary permission for the production of his edition. Through the intervention of Sirleto, the first sheets of the work were secured from the Master of the Palace and the printing of these sheets was permitted to proceed.[143]

A year later, another archbishop advises Sirleto that he has been waiting for a year or more for the permission which had been promised by the Pope for the publication of a work that had already been examined three times, the last time by Sirleto himself, and passed upon with approval. He had contracts in train for the publication of the book in Venice as well as in Rome.[144]

The authors found it necessary to guard themselves not only against the elimination from their text of sentences, paragraphs, or chapters which were required for a complete and consistent narrative, but against the risk of the interpolation of text of which they had themselves no knowledge and which might, in its purport, be entirely contrary to the purpose and spirit of the work. In May, 1575, Thomasso Thomai, writing from Ravenna, complains that his history of Ravenna, which had secured the approval of the bishop and of the local inquisitor, had, before being brought into print, been marred by the interpolation of certain paragraphs which were entirely contrary to the spirit and to the character of the book. Fra Marco, Inquisitor of Venice, reported, in response to an inquiry made by Sirleto, that the Roman inquisitor, a person both learned and zealous, had found certain passages in the book which appeared to him to be undesirable and had undertaken, in place of eliminating these, to write further paragraphs correcting and explaining them.