Chapter II: Censorship in the Early Church, 150–768

“Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together and burned them before all men.”[12] This reference to the action taken by certain men in Ephesus under the influence of the eloquence of St. Paul is frequently cited by upholders of the censorship policy of the Church of Rome. Some of the more artistically printed editions of the Index (such for instance as the first Roman edition of the Index of 1758) contain, as a vignette title, a representation of Paul’s converts casting into the flames their books of magic, and beneath the print the verse from the Acts. The fact that St. Paul was willing to have his disciples, in their zeal for their new-born faith, make a voluntary sacrifice of writings believed to be incompatible with this faith cannot, of course, in itself constitute a sufficient warrant for the claim developed later by the Church of the right to destroy all literature that its rulers considered to be pernicious, or for the still larger claim of authority to inflict extreme penalties on those who produced, multiplied, or possessed the works thus condemned. An admonition to get rid of unchristian books is one thing, and the imposition of excommunication (or of an unconscious liability to excommunication), on the ground of the reading of erroneous doctrine, is another and a very different thing. But the whole theory of Church authority and of excommunication was, of course, a matter of slow development through the ages that followed the preaching of St. Paul. It was in fact not until the 16th century that there came into existence anything that could be called a censorship policy or any attempt at a general censorship system; but from the earliest periods in the history of the Church there are instances of condemnations of individual writers, and of prohibitions, under severe penalties, of the manifolding or distribution of particular works. These prohibitions are usually the result of one of the series of fierce controversies about dogma that characterised the earlier centuries of the Church. They emanate for the most part from councils, but they are occasionally issued directly by the pope or by local bishops. In certain cases, they take the form of an imperial edict, but even in these the initiative comes from a council. It is probable that the influence either of the councils or of the emperor in restricting the multiplication or distribution of the writings that had been condemned was not very effective. The edicts and decrees may be considered as representing an expression of opinion (connected with one of the bitter theological controversies of the day) rather than as regulations to be enforced. There was in fact no machinery for the enforcement. The work of the copying scribes could not be supervised, as was possible later for the operations of the printers, and the manuscripts could be passed from hand to hand among the sectarians, without the intervention of a bookshop. There are instances of literary censorship on the part of the imperial authorities of Rome before the institution of the Christian Church. These are outside of the range of my present subject, but certain examples may be cited as curiosities.

=Early Prohibitions of Literature.=--Tacitus remarks that Augustus was the first ruler who undertook to punish a word written or spoken (that is to say, a word unaccompanied by action). While the law of the Roman Republic had recognised as deserving of punishment only criminal deeds, the Emperor brought the authority of the law to bear upon writings described as libellous or scandalous (_libelli famosi_). He ordered, for instance, that the writings of Labienus should be publicly burned. His successor, Tiberius, issued a still stronger regulation for the supervision of undisciplined or insubordinate writings. Cremutius Cordus was driven from his occupation and left to die through poverty for the offence of speaking of Gaius Cassius as “the last Roman.” His writings were ordered to be burned by the Aediles. Tacitus speaks with scorn of those who, in the possession of a little momentary power, undertake to crush out opinions not in accord with their own, or to prevent such opinions from being handed down to posterity. The writings of Vejinto were prohibited by Nero. Concerning this prohibition, Tacitus writes: “So long as the possession of these writings was attended with danger, they were eagerly sought and read; when there was no longer any difficulty in securing them, they fell into oblivion.” An edict ascribed to Domitian ordered that the historian Hermogenes and any book-dealers who concerned themselves with the distribution of certain writings of his which had libelled the Emperor should be crucified.[13] The German historian Schmitz is, however, of opinion that this so-called edict of Domitian was apocryphal. It appears certainly, however, to have been the case that the policy of these earlier emperors was decidedly opposed to any freedom of expression of thought. If it is the case that in the later centuries of imperial rule there are fewer instances of punishments of writers or orders for the suppression of literature, the explanation may be that literary activity had already been substantially repressed. Justinian deposed from office Severus and certain other bishops because they had been lax in their supervision of literature, and had permitted the wide circulation throughout the realm of prohibited books and pernicious writings. With the development of the Church of Rome to the ecclesiastical headship of the world, the claim for the supervision of literature and for the control of the productions of authors was asserted by the Church as the legitimate successor of the imperial authority. It is the opinion of Lea that the earliest act of censorship, and perhaps the most sweeping, of the Christian Church is that contained in the “Apostolic Constitutions” which purport to have been written by St. Clement of Rome at the dictation of the Apostles. These prefigure the Index by forbidding the Christians to read any books of the Gentiles;--“the Scriptures should suffice for the believer.”[14]

The following schedule of the more representative and important of the prohibitions of the early Church is based chiefly on the record presented by Reusch.

_150_ A. D. (_about_). _A synod of bishops of Asia Minor_, meeting either at Ephesus or at Smyrna, prohibits the _Acta Pauli_. The _Acta Pauli_ was an historical romance written about the middle of the 2d century and having for its purpose the glorification of the life and labours of St. Paul. The text of a portion of the work has recently been produced in facsimile, from a Coptic manuscript, by Professor Carl Schmidt of Heidelberg. The book is referred to by Eusebius and also by Photius, who writes in the middle of the 9th century. There is an earlier reference by Tertullian in his work on baptism, written about 200. According to Father Shahan, the work was condemned on the ground that, although apparently the work of an “orthodox” Christian, it did not present an authentic record. Notwithstanding this condemnation, the _Acta Pauli_ continued throughout the earlier centuries of the Church to secure circulation among Christians. This action of the bishops of Asia Minor appears to be the first recorded instance of ecclesiastical censorship of a work classed as heretical or at least as not authentic.[15]

_325._ _The Council of Nicæa_ prohibits the _Thalia_ of Arius.

_325._ _The Emperor Constantine_ issues an edict directing the destruction of the godless books of Porphyry and of the writings of Arius. The penalty of death was ordered for any who might conceal copies.

_398._ _The Emperor Arcadius_ issues an edict ordering, under penalty of death, the destruction of the books of the Eunomians.

_399._ _Arcadius_ issues an edict ordering the destruction under penalty of death (_humiliores capite puniuntur_) of all books of magic art. These edicts of Arcadius were the result of the action of the first two councils of the Church. It seems evident that the extreme penalties prescribed in the Roman law for those who should use or distribute books of magic were, under the influence of the ecclesiastics, utilised for the repression of their theological opponents.

_399._ _The Council of Alexandria_, under Bishop Theophilus, issues a decree forbidding the owning or the reading of the books of Origen. The Egyptian monks protested and the bishops were obliged to call in the aid of the prefects to restore order in the council and to agree to enforce its authority. It is to be noted that the service of the secular government was required to secure the enforcement of this edict.

_402._ _Innocent I_ writes: “I have read through the treatise of Pelagius. I found in this much that was antagonistic to the Grace of God, much that was blasphemous, and hardly anything that was deserving of approval. The book is one the evil influence of which each believer ought to be able to recognise for himself and to condemn.” This papal utterance is, of course, not to be classed as a prohibition. I make place for it in the schedule because it is an early expression of the literary policy that is now, fifteen centuries after Innocent, being followed by the Church, namely, to characterise pernicious books and to place upon believers the responsibility of condemning them for themselves.

_431._ _The Council of Ephesus_ condemns the errors and the writings of the Nestorians.

_435._ _The Emperor Theodosius_ issues an edict forbidding the possession, the reading, or the copying of the Nestorian books, and ordering existing copies to be delivered up for burning.[16]

_436._ _Theodosius_ issues an edict forbidding the possession and the reading of the books of the Manichaeans and ordering the burning of the same.[17]

_446._ _Pope Leo I_ issues an edict ordering destruction of the books of Porphyry and of Origen, and the writings of the Nestorians, the Manichaeans, the Eunomians, the Montanists, the Eutychians, and all others which were antagonistic to the Christian religion, and which were not in accord with the teachings of the Synods of Nicaea and Ephesus. The prohibition reads: “Whoever owns or reads these books is to suffer extreme punishment.”

_494._ Under _Pope Gelasius I_, was issued what is afterwards referred to as the first papal Index. It was a catalogue of works prohibited, and is so cited in the Decretals of Gratian. It was, however, not properly a prohibitory Index, in that it has to do, not with private and general, but with public or official reading.

_496._ _Pope Gelasius_ issues a decree, published at a council of Rome, and confirmed in a decree of Gratian, which specifies the patristic writings accepted and approved by the Church, and which then proceeds to the condemnation of a long series of apocryphal and heretical writings and writers. These writings are specified as follows: “_Haec et omnia his similia non solum repudiata, verum etiam ab omni Romana catholica et apostolica ecclesia eliminata atque cum suis auctoribus auctorumque sequacibus sub anathematis indissolubili vinculo in aeternum confitemur esse damnata._”[18] This decree, known as the _Decretum Gelasianum_, is sometimes referred to as the earliest example of an Index emanating from the Church. It is, however, an Index only in a restricted sense of the term, as it does not order a general prohibition of the reading of the works specified but calls simply for their rejection and condemnation. The phrase _omnia his similia_ is curiously vague for an Index specification.

_536._ _The Emperor Justinian_, as a result of a condemnation by the Synod of Constantinople, orders the burning of the books of Severus. The manifolding of these books is prohibited under a penalty for the scribe of the loss of his writing hand.[19] It appears from these and from similar examples that, according to the practice of the two centuries after Constantine, the responsibility for the condemnation of heretical writings was assumed by the councils, while the work of prohibiting the books, of destroying the copies, and of punishing those who retained copies was carried out under the authority of the emperor.

_649._ _Pope Martin I_ issues a decree condemning and prohibiting certain heretical literature.

_681._ _The Council of Constantinople_ issues a decree condemning certain heretical literature and ordering all copies of the same to be burned. This is the first instance in which, in place of referring the matter to the secular authority, a council had itself ordered the destruction of the condemned books.

_692._ _The Council of Trulla_ issues an edict ordering the burning of certain histories of the martyrs, which had been produced in versified form.[20]

_755._ _The Council of Rome_ issues an edict ordering the burning of certain condemned writings of Adelbert. Pope Zacharius took the ground, however, that it would be wiser to preserve the offending books in the archives of the Papacy, _ad reprobationem et ad perpetuam ejus confusionem_.

_768._ An authorisation is granted by _Pope Stephen III_ to Ambrosius Autpert, a Benedictine monk, for a treatise the title of which is not given. In his application, Autpert states that he is the first author who has sought for his work the approval of the Head of the Church; and that he is anxious to keep his writings in accord with the teachings of the Fathers of the Church.[21]

_787._ _The second Council of Nicaea_ issues an edict ordering the destruction of certain “falsified utterances of the Martyrs” which had been prepared by “enemies of the Church.”

_814._ _The Patriarch Nicephorus_ orders the destruction in Constantinople of similar falsified acts of the Martyrs. The number of such censorship edicts in the early Church is not considerable, but it is to be remembered that through the lack of knowledge of reading, the faithful were, during these centuries, fairly well protected against any evil influence from pernicious literature.