Chapter XVII: Part II: presents an Index prohibitorius Lusitaniae, in which

are summarised, under one alphabet for each language considered, the several lists of the Portuguese prohibitions. These Portuguese prohibitions follow very closely the lists of Sandoval. The rules, based in substance upon the Ten of Trent, are here expanded into fifteen.

The material in the expurgatory section is in larger part transcribed from Sandoval. The Index of Trent had been printed in Portugal in 1581, and that of Clement in 1597. The Portuguese historian Seabra takes the ground that, under Philip IV, no Index could be published without the authority of the King. Philip had, in Portugal as in Spain, maintained a certain personal supervision of the censorship operations of the Inquisition. Reusch is of opinion that any reprints of the Roman Indexes must have secured the approval of the King. In 1623, the King issued an order prohibiting the reprinting, without the authority of the chamberlain of the palace, of any book which had originated outside of Portugal. In 1633, this order was renewed, with the specification of books bearing upon the authority of the State and the history of the times.

In the edict which stands at the head of the Lisbon Index, the inquisitor-general directs that copies of all books specified in the prohibited lists shall, within thirty days, be delivered to the local inquisitors, and further, that persons possessing copies of books belonging to the general classes prohibited, or of books the texts of which are ordered to be expurgated, must, within thirty days, deliver lists of the same, and hold said books subject to instructions. The penalty for disobedience is, as usual, excommunication.

In the prefatory note to the expurgatory Index, occurs the remark, that the works of certain well-known writers which, by the editors of previous Indexes, have been considered to require expurgation, have here not been included because their errors have been so thoroughly refuted in the schools and in other books that their influence need no longer be dreaded, and there should be no present risk for thoughtful readers. The list of later Catholic writers whose works are marked for expurgation is larger than in any other Index. Attention has also been given to a number of works in the class of belles-lettres which the editors have undertaken to purge from obscenities. Finally, the Index contains a series of works on astrology, the expurgation of which has been undertaken with reference to the instructions given by Sixtus V in a Bull issued in 1585 (forty years earlier.)

This is the first Index in which appears the title of the essay by King James I of England, written in defence of his requirement for an oath of fidelity. This title, which is entered under the letter A, is worded as follows:

_Apologia pro juramento fidelitas, primum quidem anonymos, nunc vero ab ipso auctore serenissimo et potentissimo Principo Jacobo, etc. Lond. 1609._

The work is again condemned in the Spanish Index of 1632, where it is entered under J. Jacobus Rex. In the same year it finds place (this time also under A) in the Roman Index, the _Elenchus Capsiferrei_, from which it has been repeated into the later Indexes of Rome. The continued condemnation of this treatise is of importance as evidence of the papal doctrine (which appears never to have been revoked) of the right of the pope to depose kings. The Reverend Mr. O’Sullivan, in his testimony before the Parliamentary Committee of 1825, on the State of Ireland, deduces this doctrine from the condemnation given by the Church (in the Index) to the _Apologia_ of King James.[190]

_4._ _1628._ _Rome._ _Papal Decree._ This decree contains an article entitled _Elucidarium Deiparae Auctore Joanne Baptista Poza_.

Poza replies in a caustic _Apologia_ in which he charges Brasichelli with censuring the Fathers, and with an unwarranted condemnation of Emmanuel Sa. This rebellious conduct was punished by the Decree of September 9, 1632, making condemnation of all of the works of Poza. This decree is reversed in a supplement to the Spanish Decree of 1640. The obedient Catholic was therefore at liberty to read the works of Poza and of Sa within the dominions of Spain, but in so doing in other territory, he incurred excommunication.

_5._ _1632._ _Rome._ _Index Prohibitorius._--_Elenchus Librorum omnium tum in Tridentino, Clementinoque Indice tum in aliis omnibus Sacrae Indicis Congreg._{nis} particularibus Decretis hactenus prohibitorum: Ordine uno Alphabetico, Per Fr. Franciscum Magdalenum Capsiferreum Secretarium digestus. Romae._ MDCXXXII. _Ex Typog. Camerae Apostolicae Superiorum permissu._

The dedication reads: _Urbano VIII. Pont. Opt. Max._

This Index is chiefly intended, as is indicated in the preface, to facilitate reference by writing under one alphabet the divisions of the original Indexes, and by giving surnames as well as Christian names.

_6._ _1632._ _Seville._ _Index Prohibitorius et Expurgatorius._--_Novus Index Librorum Prohibitorum et Expurgatorum; editus auctoritate et jussu Eminent.^{mi} ac Reverend.^{mi} D.D. Antonii Zapata, S.R.E. Presbyt. Card. Tit. S. Balbinae; Protectoris Hispaniarum; Inquisitoris Generalis in omnibus Regnis; et ditionibus Philippi IV. R.C. et ab ejus Statu, etc. De Consilio Supremi Senatus S. Generalis Inquisitionis. Hispali, ex typographico Francisci de Lyra._ AN. MDCXXXII.

The Inquisitor’s _Edict_ refers to the Apostolic Brief of Urban VIII as the reason for the production of a new Index, and states further that this comprises, in addition to the works of the later modern writers, no less than 2500 works of ancient authors who had been overlooked by those responsible for the preparation of previous Indexes. The usual prohibitions follow, with the penalty of the greater excommunication. The _Brief_ of the Pope is in line with that of Paul V. Terrified at the abuse of existing licenses, the Pope revokes them all, very emphatically:

_Revocamus, cassamus, irritamus et anullamus, ac veribus penitus evacuamus et pro revocatis_, etc.

Authority is given to the cardinal presbyter to put into execution the several decrees, and to call in, if necessary, the assistance of the secular arm. The “Notice to the Reader” announces that in place of prohibiting altogether, it has been thought best to permit, with some necessary expurgation, the reading of certain works by heretics. For convenience of reference, there is included in the work a general index covering in one alphabet the titles in both the expurgatory and prohibitory divisions. The volume is the most considerable in bulk of the Indexes thus far put into print, comprising over a thousand pages.

One entry in the class of authors proscribed _in toto_ is rather curious in its wording:

_Martinus Lutherus. Islebii natus in Saxonia, an. 1483. Praedicat contra indulgentias 1517. Ab ordine Religioso et a Fide Catholica Apostata, et Heresiarcha, 1517. Reperitur in lecto misere exanimis, 1546._

This passage did not make its appearance in any subsequent Index.

_7._ _1640._ _Madrid._ _Sotomayor._ In 1640, the Inquisitor-General Antonio de Sotomayor (a Dominican) produced an Index, also printed in Madrid, which contains both prohibitory and expurgatory divisions. An edition of this Index, printed (without imprint) either at Lyons or Geneva, secured a wide circulation. Sotomayor died in 1648, in his hundredth year. His Index was reprinted in Madrid in 1662, and again in 1667, under the name of his successor. The Spanish Index of 1707 refers, however, to that of 1640 as “the next preceding.”

Sotomayor’s introduction begins with a long declamation against heretical writers who have ventured to issue, under the names of Catholic authors, pernicious and damnable books; who have interpolated into the text of orthodox writings heretical passages; who have described as untrustworthy the writings of the Fathers of the Church (for instance the treatise of Ambrosius on the Sacraments and the works of Dionysius Areopagita); and who have destroyed great numbers of pious books presenting good Catholic doctrine. The regulations which follow are issued under the general Apostolic authority vested in the inquisitor-general, and under the special authority given by the Brief of the Holy Curia. All copies of works which are specifically condemned by title, or which belong to the classes condemned _in toto_, are to be delivered within ten days to the local inquisitor. Whoever retains books classed as heretical, falls under the _excommunicatio latae_. The retention of other prohibited books brings upon the possessor the penalty of the _excommunicatio ferendae_. In either case, there is a further penalty of a fine of six hundred ducats, and such additional punishments as may be ordered by the Inquisition. The power rests with the inquisitor-general alone of freeing delinquents from these penalties.

The sixteen rules contain certain additions to the Regulations of Trent. The writings of Catholics are, for instance, not to be condemned on the ground of containing extracts from the works of heresiarchs cited for the purpose of refutation. In the supervision of books for the purpose of expurgation, care is to be taken not to cancel the names of heresiarchs who are referred to by the authors in connection with necessary refutations.

The rules and penalties are similar to those previously in force. The supplement contains an entry permitting, after certain expurgations, the reading of the works of Poza, which by the Roman Congregation had been absolutely condemned.

As examples of the character of the expurgations which find place in the Spanish Indexes may be cited the following: Sotomayor orders the cancellation, in bibliographies or other works of reference, of the following terms when applied to names of writers standing in the general Index in Class I: _vir optimus, pius, bonae memoriae, doctissimus sapientissimus, princeps eruditorum, divinus (Scaliger), Germaniae lumen (Melanchthon), decus saeculi nostri, etc._ It is however permitted to describe Buchanan as a “poet of elegance,” Henricus Stephanus as “learned in Greek scholarship,” Tycho Brahe as “a distinguished mathematician and astronomer”; because the attainments so indicated are the gift of God and have not been utilised, at least directly, against the true faith. The Spanish editor goes on to say, that such titles as doctor and _magister_ can, strictly speaking, properly be ascribed to no one outside of the Church; the reference is to cases in which these titles have been given by heretical universities whose authority is not recognised by the Church. The title _Dominus_ can however be permitted.

The expurgatory lists of Sotomayor include the title of the _Vitae Germanorum_ of Adams; the expurgations comprise thirteen folio sheets. There are certain interpolations comprising such terms as _notam auctoris damnati_ or _homo damnatae memoriae_, etc. In the _Bibliographica critica_, of Michael Josephus, published in Madrid in 1740, the author says in his introduction:

“In the specification of works of heretics I have taken pains
to avoid using any terms of commendation; for it is certainly
not right that infamous persons who have fallen away from the
true Catholic faith should in any fashion be honoured. Certain
Catholic writers have on the other hand contended that heretical
authors whose work had been devoted to subjects outside of
theology or religion, such for instance as philology, geography,
profane history, jurisprudence, and the like, could very
properly be commended for their contributions to learning. To
this suggestion I should respond that I am prepared to recognise
the possibility of heretics possessing learning and talents, and
that certain heretics have written on certain subjects works
which may be of use to Catholics; but it seems to me entirely
improper to give any measure of praise to such men who have
failed to use for the support of the true faith the abilities
with which they have been endowed by the Lord. They can receive
enough praise from their heretical friends and it would tend to
make them intellectually insolent to learn that they had been
honoured also by Catholics.”

_8._ _1664._ _Rome._ _Alexander VII._ The Index of Alexander, which in chronological order belongs at this point in the schedule, is considered separately in Chapter XIII.

_9._ _1707._ _Madrid._ _Index Prohibitorius et Expurgatorius._

_Novissimus Librorum Prohibitorum et Expurgandorum Index pro Catholicis Hispaniarum Regis Phillipi V Reg. Cath. Ann. 1707._

On the engraved title is printed, _Index Expurgatorius Hispanus ab Ex^{mo} D^{no} Didace Sarmiento et Valladores inceptus, et ab Ill^o D^{no} D. Vitali Marin perfectus, etc. De Consilio Supremi Senatus Inquisitionis Generalis._

The work is contained in two volumes, the first comprising 791 pages and the second 342 pages. It begins with the edict of the Bishop of Ceuta, and Inquisitor-General, Don Vidal Marin, who explains that he is completing the work of his predecessor Don Diego Sarmiento, who had been interrupted in his labours by death. He writes that, considering the importance and necessity of continuing the Spanish Index of 1640, this Index has been prepared in order that the books and pamphlets issued during the last sixty-seven years might, as far as requisite, be prohibited or expurgated and that the faithful might thus be preserved from the errors which would otherwise have been caused through the circulation of heretical or erroneous texts. The previous _Advertencias_ and _Mandatos_ are repeated and are ordered to be enforced with the utmost rigour of the law. Provision is made for the publication of the Index in all churches, cathedrals, colleges, and cities.

An _avis_ of the Privy Council of Brussels, printed in 1708, contains the following naïve remark in regard to this Index: _Et pour montrer qu’il est très difficile d’examiner les livres et de discerner s’ils doivent être condamnés ou pas, on n’a que prendre recours a l’Index Expurgatorius d’Espagne, émané dernièrement en l’an 1707, ou se trouvent plusieurs livres approuvés que Rome a condamné, et de même plusieurs condamnés par les Inquisiteurs que la Ste. Congregation n’a pas trouvé convenir de proscrire_.

_10._ _1714._ _Namur and Liège._ _Hannot._--_Index ou Catalogues des principaux Livres condamnés, rédigé par Jean Baptiste Hannot, Recollet, Lecteur en Théologie._

This Index, while issued _avec approbation_, was compiled without any specific authority. It comprises a selection, arrived at apparently in a rather haphazard fashion, of works favouring Jansenism.

_11._ _1747._ _Madrid._ _Prado. 2 vols. 1200 pp. Pro. and Ex._ This Index is noteworthy for its _Catalogo_ of Jansenist books. The list originally included the _History of Pelagianism_ by Cardinal Noris, but this entry was, as Mendham points out, subsequently cancelled by the reprinting of a leaf.[191] The cancellation was the result of a protest or remonstrance addressed by the Pope (Benedict XIV) to the Inquisitor-General, Compostolla. The brief of Benedict is given in a supplement to the _Bullarium_ of that Pope, and is cited from the edition printed in Mechlin, in 1827. The Pope reminds the inquisitor that it is the policy of the Church to exercise censorship with moderation and conservatism. He refers to the treatise of Bossuet, published under the commands of the King of France, which was written in direct hostility to the infallibility of the Pope and to his claim for authority over the temporal rights of princes; and he reminds the inquisitor that his predecessor had decided that the interest of the Church would be better served by forbearing.

_12._ _1790._ _Madrid._ _Index Prohibitorius et Expurgatorius._--_Indici Ultimo de los libros prohibidos y mandados expurgar; para todos los Regnos y Señorios del Catolico Rey de las Españas el Señor Dom. Carlos IV._ The work contains the prefatory matter of the three preceding editions, and brings the lists of condemned and expurgated books down to the close of December, 1789. The Inquisitor-General, Cevallos, under whose supervision the work was prepared, declares, as the purpose of the Index, the presentation of an alphabetic compendium which should comprehend not only the contents of the Index of 1747, but likewise the titles of all works which had been prohibited or sentenced to expurgation in the edicts previously cited up to December 13, 1789. “This would,” he believed, “serve to close the door to the excesses of printers and booksellers and also to wrongful action on the part of private persons, and would prevent the evils consequent upon the introduction into the Kingdom of such pernicious commodities as heretical books.”

The Index is noteworthy in expressing the change of policy in regard to the reading of the Scriptures. The inquisitor and his associates profess themselves to be sensible of the benefits to be secured by the faithful from the perusal of the Sacred Text, and with reference to the declaration to the same purpose in the Index of Benedict XIV (which declaration is printed in the present volume) they decide to accord permission for the reading of versions of the Bible in the vulgar tongue, with qualifications similar to those specified in the Benedictine Index. The longer expurgations of the earlier Indexes are not reprinted, but a reference is made, connected with the name of the author, to the Index in which the expurgation originated. For instance:

“Abailardus (Petrus) _ejus opera_ V. Ind. Exp. 1747, p. 920.”

With reference to these condensed entries, the Index of 1790 is often referred to as an Index manual. To the twelfth rule (in the series of sixteen) is added the instruction that the possessor of a book ordered to be expurgated is at liberty himself to make the necessary corrections in the text, provided, however, that his corrected text shall, within two months’ time, be submitted to and approved by the local inquisitor.

Reusch points out that these Spanish Indexes, even the latest, contain many more errors, both bibliographical and typographical, than those of the Roman series before Benedict. The compilers of the Index of Cevallos were of course in a position to utilise in their work the lists and the information brought together in the Index of Benedict. It would appear, however, that they made no use of the Benedictine Index, while it is evident that the compilers were in many cases quite ignorant of even the names of the authors and of the books condemned (not to speak of the contents). The following entry may be cited as an example of some likely to cause perplexity to the devout reader:

“Fulko Grevil, Theliffe Of the Renovudne, Senior Phillip Ciduaey” (Fulk Greville’s _Life of the Renowned Sir Philip Sidney_).

_13._ _Supplements to the Spanish Index of 1790._ The second issue of the Index of 1790 contains two supplements which present the titles of certain books that, during the printing of the Index, came under the condemnation of the Inquisition. The works belong almost exclusively to a group of writings having to do with the French Revolution. In 1805, was printed a third supplement that contains books prohibited between 1789 and 1805. This list includes, in addition to writings of the Revolution, certain Italian works that had during the preceding decade been prohibited in Rome. Between the years 1806 and 1819 (years that covered the period of the French invasion, the short-lived kingdom of Joseph, and the reorganisation of the kingdom), the Inquisition published seven edicts in which a number of works were prohibited. These lists were, however, not combined into any official Index. In 1844, was printed in Madrid an Index in which were combined into one alphabet the lists of the Index of 1790, the supplement of 1805, and the lists of the Mechlin edition of the Roman Index of 1843. This publication was, however, a private and unofficial undertaking. In 1848, was printed in Madrid an appendix to the Index of 1844, which contains the titles of the books prohibited by the Inquisition between 1805 and 1819 together with the titles of the books prohibited in Rome between 1842 and 1846. In 1863, was issued in Madrid a second appendix giving the titles of the books prohibited in Rome between 1846 and 1862.

The edict of 1782, a citation of which appears in the Index of 1790, orders that: All persons having permission for the reading of prohibited books must, not less often than once a year, make statement to the confessors of the books of this class that they are utilising. The confessors are authorised and instructed by the Inquisition to revoke these permits in case they find that the reading in question is causing injury to the faith of those holding the permits. The confessors are to demand of the penitents from time to time, and in any case at the time of the annual confession, whether they have in their possession copies of prohibited books and whether in the course of the year they have read any such books. In the former case, the penitents must agree to deliver the books for destruction; and in the latter must truly express their penitence for the sin committed. Until this has been done, they are not to receive absolution.

The permits for the reading of prohibited books given by the Roman Congregations are not valid in Spain. The permits issued directly by the pope are to be delivered to the inquisitor-general in Spain or to the council of the Inquisition, who are, if they are willing to confirm them, to make registration of the same. They may, however, refuse to confirm such Roman permits on the ground that the results would be injurious for those using them. The permission to read prohibited books or to possess copies of them, does not carry with it the authority to import such books, to buy or to sell copies, to make presentation of copies, or to exchange them for other books.

Among the noteworthy books contained in the supplement to the Spanish Index, issued in 1805, may be mentioned the following: Bonnet, _Oeuvres_, 18 volumes; the works of Alexander Pope, Laurence Sterne (the reference is to the French version), Forster, _Voyage Philosophique_; Smith, the _Wealth of Nations_ (French version); Burke, _Reflections on the French Revolution_; _Die Rechte des Menschen_, a reply to Burke’s treatise on the Revolution, etc.

_14._ _Examples of Spanish Prohibitions. 1559–1768._ The first of the Spanish Indexes, that of Valdes in 1551, contains but one or two Spanish titles, but the lists of 1559 and 1570 give evidence of fuller attention to Spanish authors. The books prohibited belonged for the most part not to heretical literature, but were those presenting, in translations of the Scriptures or in controversies on points of doctrine, matter that was not safe or not suitable for the knowledge of the general lay public. The Inquisition in Spain had, from the beginning, been more sharply opposed than were the Church authorities elsewhere, to the distribution to the lay public of literature, and particularly of literature in the vernacular, having to do with the doctrines of the Church, even when such books were sound in their own teachings and had been prepared to expose and to repress error. The inquisitors took the ground that it was wiser to keep the faithful in ignorance of the existence of errors. An example of this policy is the prohibition in the Index of Valdes in 1559 of the writings of Francisco de Borja, who was later enrolled with the saints, and of Juan de Avila, Luis de Granada, who have since been classed with the best of the ascetic writers and as “shining lights in God’s Church in Spain.”[192] In 1571, permission was refused by the Inquisition for the printing of a Spanish version of the Roman Catechism. Valdes prohibited all tracts, letters, and pamphlets, reports of sermons, etc., that had to do with the Scriptures or with the Sacraments. This prohibition included any reprints in the Spanish tongue of the Gospels or of extracts from the Gospels or of the Epistles of Paul.

A prohibition initiated by Quiroga was continued through the following century, condemning “comedies, tragedies, and farces in which any reflection or ridicule was cast upon the Sacraments, the practice of church-going, the holy orders, or the Inquisition.” In 1581, the Index of Lisbon added to the above a prohibition of the presentation on the stage of any ecclesiastical characters or the performance of any sacramental acts. This latter ruled out, of course, the representation of marriage. In one of the later Indexes, the second part of _Don Quixote_ comes into the list of works to be expurgated, but the material condemned comprises but a single sentence: _Las obras de charidad que se hazen flaxamente, no tienen merito ni valen nada_.

It is a characteristic of the Spanish expurgatory Indexes that they do not give the references by chapter and by page to the texts of the authors corrected. Mendham points out that the careful and orthodox student, who might wish to assure himself of the accuracy of his own literary guides, would find it important to refer to the originals of the corrected texts if only in order to be placed in a position to defend the action of his Church and to confound or possibly even to convert heretical opposers. “Supposing for instance,” says he, “a discussion should take place between a believer and an heretical critic, and the latter should have the hardihood to assert that the sentences condemned in the Index were not the _ipsissima verba_ or the necessary sense of the author referred to, what reply could be made by the defender of the Index who had never been able to make personal examination of the text in question?”[193]

In 1827, there was published in the _Protestant Guardian_ (on pages 118 _et seq._) a review of the censures in the expurgatory Indexes. The writer gives as examples of erasures that seemed to him to be futile or at least open to criticism the following: In the _Glossarium Graeco-Barbarum_ of Mensius, out of twenty-five erasures fifteen consist simply in expunging before the names of Junius and other learned men the terms _V. C._, _Eruditus_, etc.

So far from its being lawful to admit that a Protestant could be either learned or illustrious, it was forbidden even to give the name of theologians to Protestants pretending to Holy Orders. The English bishops always figure in the Indexes under the term “pseudo-episcopi.” This is doubtless, however, a logical term for the Church to use concerning officials who must of necessity have been considered as usurping laymen. In the erasures in the ninth book of the history of De Thou, we find corrections of a more exacting character. The following is an instance: _Theologis, qui ad concilium_, pro _Theologis_ scribe _iis_. _Et ibi decrevisse viros bonos mittere_, dele _bonos_.

The censor actually follows through his rambles the wandering Jew of Tudela, although the translation of this narrative was issued by so good a Catholic as Montanus (himself a censor) in order to blot out every kind word which Benjamin had uttered respecting his nation. For example: _Filius Jonae probandae memoriae_, dele _probandae memoriae_; _Synagoga sacra_, dele vocem _sacra_; _Filii Haziddai felicis memoriae_, dele _felicis memoriae_; and so on through a folio page.

It is somewhat curious that such works of English writers as have been considered by the framers of the Index, are placed almost exclusively in the prohibitory division, and in this are included in the first class, that is to say, under the heading of authors whose works, past, present, and future (_opera edita et edenda_), are absolutely prohibited. One of the few English books which have been mentioned by title (apart from the names of the authors) in the prohibitory Index is the version of the Psalms by Sternhold and Hopkins. This is the book understood to be referred to by the title _Psalmes of Dauid in Englische Metre_.