Chapter XI: Roman Indexes and Decrees, 1590–1661

1. 1590. Sixtus V, _Index Prohibitorius et Expurgatorius_.
2. 1596. Clement VIII. _Index Prohibitorius_.
3. Supplements to the Clementine Index.
4. Continuations of the Roman Indexes, 1600–1632.
5. 1607. Brasichelli, _Index Expurgatorius_.
6. Expurgations in the Roman Index, 1624–1640.
7. Censorship Decrees.

_1._ _1590, Sixtus V._ _Index Prohibitorius et Expurgatorius._ In August, 1588, Sixtus V instructs the Congregation of the Index to prepare a new edition of the Index of Trent. The work was completed within two years and was printed in July, 1590, by Paul Bladus. This is the first Index the compilation of which was carried out by the Congregation. It is issued in the form of a Bull with the following title:

_Bulla Smi. D. N. Sixti Papae V. Emendationis indicis cum suis Regulis super librorum prohibitione, expurgatione et revisione necnon cum abrogatione caeterorum indicum hactenus editorum, et revocatione facultatis edendorum, nisi ad praescriptam harum regularam normam._

The substance of the Bull may be summarised as follows: Bull of the most revered Lord and Father, Pope Sixtus V, in regard to the production of a revised Index, with which are given the Pope’s regulations concerning the prohibition, expurgation, and revision of books, together with the abrogation of the authority of Indexes previously issued, and the revocation of the authority to print Index regulations other than those herewith presented. The Bull makes reference to the precedents for prohibitory censorship as having been established by Gelasius I and Gregory IX. Reference is also made to the establishment of the Congregation of the Index, by which this responsibility is hereafter to be discharged.

To the annexed _Regulae_ are attached the “penalties” of Pius IV. The Index is presented for universal acceptance as possessing final authority, and the publication by individuals, universities, or other institutions of Indexes, compiled without the specific approval of the Holy See, is prohibited. The edict is exceptional in the history of Indexes, and it is in order to cite its phraseology:

_Universos indices quacunque auctoritate etiam praedecessorum nostrorum hucusque et ubilibet locorum editos, ad hunc nostrum indicem, tanquam ad normam ab apostolica sede praescriptum, ex qua recte sentiendi, credendi, docendique leges in omnem ecclesiam manare par est, revocamus, et exteris quibuscunque sublatio, hunc tantum, et ejus regulas ab omnibus personis, et sub poenis omnibus, quae in praedictis Pii IIII literis exprimuntur, et quas praesenti decreto innovamus, apostolica auctoritate tenore praesentium servari, praecipimus, et mandamus._

The rules which follow, and which are to supersede those of Trent, are twenty-two in number.

_Regula I_ (which is one of the new ordinances) reads: _Quicunque sanctorum patrum libros, vel Scripta fidem, seu mores concernentia, ab ecclesia hactenus recepta, non admiserunt, poenis a jure statutis puniantur_. _Regula II: Quoniam vero iidem sancti doctores, vel quia ante obortas haereses, vel quia, ut eas surgentes impugnarent, fidei zelo accensi, quibusdam interdum locationibus usi sunt, quas postea Dei ecclesia Spiritu sancto edocta rejecit, nemini posthac eas tenere, aut eis uti liceat; sanctis vero ipsis doctoribus, quia non animo ab ecclesia Catholica, recedendi talia scripserunt, debita reverentia deferatur._

The ninth rule forbids the circulation of innocent books by heretical writers unless the names of the authors are expunged. The sixteenth restrains the circulation of manuscripts. The nineteenth limits the printing of sacred and ecclesiastical books to cities where the aid of an inquisitor may be had; and the books printed must be conformed to the exemplar in the Vatican. The twentieth directs visitations of booksellers’ shops, and forbids private persons to burn proscribed books, ordering them to deliver such to the master of the sacred palace or to the local inquisitor. The twenty-first prescribes the expurgation of sacred or ecclesiastical books, such as the _Decretals_, etc., which have been corrupted by heretics. The twenty-second warns the faithful that if they offend by reading or retaining the prohibited books, they will incur a sentence of excommunication, from which they can be absolved only by papal authority, except in the hour of death, and then only upon giving evidence of true penitence. The rules conclude with an instruction to booksellers to possess themselves of the present authoritative Index in order that they may have no pretext for ignorance. A similar instruction is given to all who concern themselves with the reading or possession of books that they are to possess and read this same Index.

Sixtus died a few weeks after the printing of his Index, and when but few copies of the same had been sent out. Reusch states that (as was the case with the Sistine edition of the Vulgate) no further copies were distributed after the Pope’s death, and the copies which had been sent out were, as far as possible, recalled and the edition was destroyed. The copies of the original issue are, therefore, at this time very scarce. In 1835, however, the Sistine Index was reprinted by Mendham under the following title:

_Index librorum prohibitorum a Sixto V Papa, confectus et publicatus; at vero a successoribus ejus in sede Romana suppressus. Edenta Joseph Mendham, London, 1835._

The Index is classified in three divisions. The heading of the second division does not, I believe, appear in any other published Index: _Deinde adduntur nomina Catholicorum quorum libri aut auctoris incuria, aut etiam impressoris negligentia, doctrinam non sanam, sed suspectam, et bonorum morum offensivam continere videntur_.

It is to be noted that the possibility is admitted of the appearance in the works of Catholic writers of doctrine that is unsound or that is offensive to good morals. The right purpose or intention of such writers may be protected under the term “appear” (_videntur_).

While the Index of Sixtus never came into general circulation, it has importance in the series because its lists were utilised as the foundation for the Index of Clement VIII. In 1591, the edition of the Vulgate undertaken by Sixtus V came into consideration with Gregory XIV. The Pope had been advised to condemn and prohibit the work, but he finally decided to have it reprinted with the corrections and eliminations thought necessary, with a preface explaining that in the original issue, certain errors had found place, errors for which the copyists and printers were responsible.

In the condemnation of the treatise of the Jesuit Bellarmin (on the authority of the papacy) and of the _Reflectiones_ of the Dominican Vittoria, Sixtus acted on his individual authority. The Inquisition and the Congregation of the Index declined to condemn either book. The Sistine is the only one of the papal Indexes that contains a list of heresiarchs. The list is entitled: _Catalogus Haeresiarcharum, Haeresum auctorum eorumque qui eas suscitarum seu Haereticorum duces aut capita extiterunt, qui ad faciliorem intelligentium quartae regulae hujus indicis apponitur_. The list compiled by Quiroga has been utilised for this. Fifteen of Quiroga’s heresiarchs have been omitted, and twenty new names are added. Among the eliminations are Ochinus, Ramus, and Agrippa, and among the additions are several Hussites and Anabaptists, and Marsilius of Padua.

The Dominican, Alfonsus Ciaconius, charged by the Congregation with the task of defining an heresiarch, reported that those are to be so classed who discover new heresies or who revive ancient errors, or who present in heretical institutions a defence of heretical doctrines, or who undertake in councils the defence of heretics. The name of Ciaconius comes into record also in connection with the following statement concerning the Inquisition:

“The Roman and the Spanish Inquisition have the same purpose,
the maintenance of the Catholic faith. It is to be borne in
mind, however, that the former is the superior, the latter the
subordinate body; the Roman is the mother, the Spanish the
daughter; the Roman is to be likened to the Sun, the Spanish
to the Moon dependent upon the Sun for its light. In the case
in which the Roman Inquisition presents one conclusion and the
Spanish another, the faithful churchman will be guided by the
authority of Rome.”[168]

In Spain, the point of view is naturally different, and the Spanish Inquisition has always claimed independence from the authority of Rome, and has often refused to be bound by the regulations issued by the Roman inquisitor-general.

Sixtus is the first Pope who undertook to retain for the exclusive action of the Holy Chair, or of the Congregation working under papal instructions, the authority for the production of Indexes, for the prohibition of individual books, for the expurgation of books which in a modified form it was considered important to preserve, and the general supervision of the reading of the Church. Preceding popes had accepted, if not without question at least without formal protest, the claims made by the Inquisition or by the Crown of Spain, by the Inquisition or by the universities of the Low Countries, by the Inquisition of Portugal, and by the University of Paris, to produce Indexes both prohibitory and expurgatory, to publish regulations controlling the production and the use of books, and to institute and to execute punishments for the breach of such regulations. The injunctions of Sixtus, promptly recalled by his successor, seem to have had practically no influence towards the prevention or the lessening of such undertakings on the part of national or local authorities. The successors of Sixtus wisely abandoned the attempt to retain for the Holy Chair the exclusive control of this troublesome business.

Sixtus finds place among the authors of Class I for two hundred names, practically doubling the list contained in the Tridentine Index. He utilised, in making his additions, the catalogues of Quiroga, the lexicon of Frisius, and the book-catalogue of the Frankfort Fair as printed in the years 1583–87. The general copying of the names from Frisius and from the Fair catalogues, has the result of bringing into the Sistine lists a number of unimportant writers whose names would otherwise hardly have been preserved, certain others whose books were announced but never came into publication, and, finally, some good Catholic authors, editions of whose writings happened to be brought into print by Frankfort publishers whose imprints had previously been associated with heresy. Among the orthodox ecclesiastics who thus secured undeserved condemnation were Caspar Macer, Bishop of Regensberg, and Andreas Critius, Archbishop of Poland.

Certain of the entries in the Index deserve separate attention. In the list of books published appears the entry, Joannis Casae, _Poemata_. This work appears in the Index of Paul IV. Its author is spoken of by Mendham as “that infamous prelate.”[169] In the Index of Trent, however, the prohibition was removed, Pius IV having apparently concluded that the transgressor had done sufficient penance. Under the authority of Sixtus, the prohibition was, as stated, renewed, but in all subsequent Indexes the title is omitted. Another entry to be noted is the following: Roberti Bellarmini, _Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos_. To this title is affixed the note: _Nisi prius ex superioribus regulis recognitae fuerint_. It is difficult to understand why the stalwart champion of Roman orthodoxy should have been placed under the ban. It is Mendham’s suggestion that in the third of the _Disputations_ in question, which has to do with the power of the Roman pontiff, Bellarmin had stated that power to be no more than indirect as to temporals. The censure made necessary a public revocation and self-correction on the part of the offender. After the death of the critical Sixtus, the cardinal is said to have vented his resentment as follows: _Conceptis verbis, quantum capio, quantum sapio, quantum intelligo, descendit ad infernum_. The authority for this citation is Baxter’s _Safe Religion_, in which is quoted the report of William Watson, an English priest, to whom the utterance was made.[170]

The name of the Englishwoman Anne Askew finds place in Class I (entered as Anna a Skeue), the only other woman thus honoured being Magdalena Heymairin. In the Index of 1597, Anne’s name is entered A. S. Keuue, which a conscientious reader, trying to avoid pernicious literature, might also find difficulty in identifying. The Sistine compilers have made a curious blunder in including in their lists the titles of a number of university controversial dissertations, which had been prepared for the defence of orthodox doctrine against the assaults of certain heretical opponents. The Frankfort catalogue, in its entries of the heretical treatises, had brought in the names of the orthodox writers to whom these treatises were replies.

In a number of instances, the Sistine lists repeat in Class III, without the names of the writers, the titles of books the authors of which had already been condemned _in toto_ in Class I. It is difficult to understand the ground for the insertion in Class III of a long series of historical works which appear to have possessed no theological or doctrinal character. The titles had been taken from the Frankfort catalogues of the publishers Feyerabend and Wechel, probably because these publishers had come into heretical repute in connection with previous books.

The compilers had discovered the pernicious character of a monograph by William Camden, published in London in 1584, under the patronage of Lord Robert Cecil. Camden undertook to prove that there had been under Elizabeth no persecution of the Catholics on the ground of their faith. In the same group, finds place the title of the monograph by John Knox (but the author’s name is not given) described as _Liber Contra Regimen Feminarum_; the original English title, _The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment and Empire of Women_, is correctly printed for the first time in the Index of Benedict, 1758. The edition of the monograph that came into consideration with the Sistine compilers had been printed in Geneva in 1558. The original issue had been censured (under the directions of Queen Elizabeth) by the Archbishop of Canterbury and in 1583 was condemned by the University of Oxford. No sufficient cause appears for the prohibition of the _Chronology_ of Gerard Mercator. In 1663, the famous atlas of Mercator was placed on the prohibited list, a prohibition that was confirmed by Benedict a century and a half later. It is possible that the dedication to Queen Elizabeth of these two books may have worked to their prejudice. The introduction to the treatise _De Mundi Creatione_, which is printed with the atlas, contains some remarks in regard to the six days’ work of creation which may have been thought to be dangerous.

The historians are of opinion that succeeding popes, and the Church itself, believed it to be essential for the interest of the Church to suppress this erratic and exceptional production of Pope Sixtus, and as far as any continued influence of the Index itself was concerned, such a result was certainly secured. Hilgers takes the ground that this Index, never having been published, is not to be classed as an authentic utterance of the Church. There is a curious reference, made in the Index published six years later by Clement VIII, to the intention that had been formed by Sixtus for the preparation of an Index and to the fact that he (Sixtus) had departed this life without carrying this plan into execution. The words of Clement are as follows: _Verum cum idem Sixtus, re minime absoluta, ab hominis excesserit: Nos hoc tempore omnino perficiendum atque in lucem edendum duximus._

Gregoris Lati, the biographer of Pope Sixtus, describes the special purpose of a printing-office instituted by him. The description is thought to indicate that some considerable “purification” was at times found advisable in the text of editions issued through the papal press:

_Non lungi della Libraria_ [the Vatican] _vi fece fabricare Sixto una Stampa capacissima, acciò che i Libri corotti, e profanati dagli Heretici, e pieni di gravissimi errori si emendassero e si reducissero al primiero candore, ed alla prima puritá, e si rimettessero, alla loro sincera verita, stampandosi, e publicandosi con migliore ordine, e regola._[171]

_2._ _1596._ _Rome_, _Clement VIII_, _Index Prohibitorius_. In April, 1592, within a few months after his accession, Clement gave instructions to the Congregation for the production of a new Index. As before mentioned, the Index of Sixtus had been cancelled and withdrawn and the Clementine Index was intended to be used as a direct continuation of that of Pius IV. The responsibility for the direction of the new compilation came upon Bellarmin, who, as consultor of the Congregation, had secured the papal disapproval of the work of Sixtus. The title of the Clementine Index makes acknowledgment however of the initiative taken by Sixtus. The title reads: _Index librorum prohibitorum cum regulis confectis per Patres a Tridentina Synodo delectos auctoritate Pii IIII primum editus postea vero a Sixto V auctus et nunc demum S. D. N. Clementis PP. VIII jussu, recognitus & publicatus. Instructione adjecta. De exequendae prohibitionis, dèque sincere emendandi & imprimendi libros, ratione. Romae, apud Impressores Camerales._ 1596.

The completed draft of the Index of Clement (probably in the form of proof sheets) was placed in the Pope’s hands by the Cardinal of Ascoli (the Dominican Bernerio) as early as July, 1593. Clement decided to delay the publication in order to give opportunity for suggestions and criticisms. Baronius submitted certain objections which secured consideration.

The first of the briefs of Clement is simply a restraint on the right of printing. The second, bearing date October 17, 1595, makes the usual reference to Gelasius I as the founder of the Index, adds a credit to Gregory IX, and then passes on to Pius IV. Then follows a minute detail concerning the intention, described as having been executed only in part, of Sixtus V. The remainder of the brief is taken up with a specification of the work of Clement in completing the plan of Sixtus, with the statement that Clement had commissioned a congregation of cardinals who had been charged with the prohibition, expurgation, and regulation of the impression of books. The wording of the reference to the Congregation of the Index would give the impression that this was here instituted for the first time. Catalani is authority for the statement that the Congregation certainly existed under Gregory XIII and probably as early as Pius IV. Mendham finds authority, as previously stated, for crediting the Congregation to Sixtus V. The brief of Clement is followed by the brief and preface of the Tridentine edition, with the Ten Rules restored to their place by the suppression of the Sistine two and twenty.

The Index of Clement bears to that of Sixtus a relation similar to that borne by the Index of Pius IV to that of Paul IV; but a larger portion of the Sistine lists was cancelled by the Clementine compilers. The order of arrangement follows that of the Index of Trent, the new names and new titles being brought in as appendices at the close of each class, and as additions after each letter. The Ten Rules of Trent are repeated with the addition of certain “observations” in regard to translations of the Scriptures, works on astrology, the _Talmud_ and other Jewish writings. The most distinctive addition to the regulations is an instruction placing in the hands of the bishop and inquisitors (or in Rome in those of the _Magister S. Palatii_) the responsibility for the prohibition or expurgation of books that were already in print, and for the examination of writings for which a printing license was issued. In the brief printed as an introduction, the Pope confirms the powers, privileges, and instructions given by Pius V, Gregory XIII, and Sixtus V to the _Magister S. Palatii_ and to the cardinals of the Congregation. The brief goes on to state that in the case of any questions or controversies arising in regard to the interpretation of the rules and regulations as supplemented, these shall be passed upon by the Congregation, or in matters of special moment shall be referred to the Pope.

The Index of Clement is the only papal Index which, before coming into publication, secured the advantage of consideration from various points of view and of a revision extending over three years. The Venetian ambassador, writing in January and again in March, 1594, makes reference to a number of protests that had been submitted, on behalf of the scholars and publishers of Italy, in regard to the long list of additions to the Index of Italian works. It would appear that the Pope took a more liberal view of these Italian writings than that expressed by the work of the Congregation. Baronius, writing in July, 1593, to Lipsius, reports that the Pope had found it necessary to disapprove the lists as prepared, although these were already in print. Bellarmin, writing late in the same year, explains that his other duties had compelled him to be absent from many of the sittings of the Congregation. He appears to desire to make clear that the errors of judgment complained of did not belong to his responsibility.

In the schedules as finally approved, Clement omits from Class I, as first shaped by Sixtus, fifteen names; the only one of these which may be considered as of continuing interest is that of Paracelsus. The additions to this class comprise twenty-five names. Among these are included a number of Englishmen, such as Matthew Parker of Canterbury, Matthew Hutton of York, William Fulke, and John Knewstub.

In Classes II and III, Clement has omitted (in the list as finally revised) a number of astrological works which had been included by Sixtus, a series of Italian poets and novelists, and a group of Spanish titles taken from Quiroga. The few additions to Class II contain few names of present note. Franciscus Patritius Nova, who held the chair of philosophy at Ferrara, had in his lectures on the philosophy of Plato given to Bellarmin and others ground for criticism. Franciscus had, in a letter to Gregory XIV, strongly recommended that the philosophical teachings of Aristotle should be excluded from all the schools of Christendom, and that the Church should give its approval to the doctrines of Plato (as interpreted in his own lectures).

The _Apologia_ of Davila, printed in Madrid in 1591, is the first work of the Spanish Regalists (defenders of the authority of the State) to find place in the Roman Index. Through the 17th century, the list of the Spanish treatises of this school condemned by the Roman authorities is a long one.

In Class III, have been added a number of treatises from the Low Countries, from Germany, and from France, bearing on the relations of Church and State. The list includes a _Gratulatio_ from Switzerland to France for the accession of the most Christian King of France and of Navarre, Henry IV.

The “Instruction” of Clement, which is included as an appendix to the Rules of Trent, includes the following provisions:

[Sidenote: (I) Concerning the Prohibition of Books]

(1) All bishops and inquisitors are instructed to give orders that, under heavy penalties for disobedience, their people must within a limited period make delivery of all copies of the books condemned.

(2) The bishops and inquisitors (in Rome the _Magister S. Palatii_) are authorised to give permission to men of assured holiness and scholarship to retain, for a period not exceeding three years, copies of the forbidden books. They bind themselves to report to the authorities, in the books which are permitted _donec corrigatur_, such passages as they may find to be heretical.

(3) Outside of Italy, the responsibility for the distribution of the lists of heretical and immoral books rests with the bishops, the inquisitors, and the universities. The instructions to the people in regard to the reading or possession of such books are to be given by the bishops and inquisitors. This instruction was for a time interpreted as an authority given by the pope for the preparation of local Indexes. In 1621, however, the Index Congregation issued an order prohibiting the further production of any such local lists, or the further circulation of the lists already in print.

(4) The nuncios and legates in foreign lands, and in Italy the bishops and inquisitors, are to submit annually to the Curia or to the Index Congregation lists of the books published in their respective territories, which in their judgment call for expurgation or are deserving of condemnation.

[Sidenote: (II) Concerning the Correction of Books]

(1) The responsibility for the expurgation of books in accordance with the principles laid down in this Index rests with the bishops and inquisitors, or, where there are no inquisitors, with the bishops alone. They are instructed to secure for such work the service of two or three scholarly and pious men.

(2) The expurgators are instructed to cancel passages from the Scriptures which have been wrongly worded by heretical translators, unless it may be that such passages have been cited simply for the purpose of refutation; passages which give praise or commendation to heretics or their writings; passages adverse to the freedom, the immunity, and the jurisdiction of the Church; passages which undertake to defend the tyranny of the State, or which give countenance to theories adverse to the authority of ecclesiastical and Christian law.

(3) In the books of Catholics written after 1515, when the necessary correction can be arrived at through the introduction or omission of single words, this course shall be taken. If this is not practicable, the entire passage or chapter must be cancelled.

(4) In the writings of the earlier Catholics, no alterations shall be made except in the case of passages which have been inserted through the malice of heretics or through the heedlessness of printers.

When the pernicious material appears to be of distinctive importance, it will be well to order the production of a new and corrected edition which shall take the place of the erroneous text. The essential purpose to accomplish is the presentation, in clear and comprehensible form, of the actual doctrine and original thought of the writer.

Mendham points out that, according to this rule, the correctors or compilers of expurgatory indexes were apparently placed in a position to assume a _fraus haereticorum_ whenever such assumption seemed desirable for their purpose, and to amend the text accordingly.

The difficulty with which the papal authorities were here contending had to do with the text of the earlier printed editions of the writings of the Fathers of the Church, and of certain of the later ecclesiastical writers. In preparing these editions for the press, the more scholarly and careful of the printer-publishers, such as the Stephani in Paris, Froben in Basel, and Koberger in Nuremberg, found it necessary to collate as many copies as could be secured of the MSS. which had been accepted as more or less authoritative. In certain cases, as for instance with the Stephani, the editorial work was done by the publisher himself; while in others the service of scholarly revisers was secured. It does not appear from the history or correspondence of these publishers that they had any doctrinal purposes in view. It seems to have been their wish, if only as a matter of business importance, to secure for the printed book the most accurate and complete text possible. There are not a few references in the correspondence of their editors to the unsatisfactory condition of many MS. texts, on the teachings of which had been based important matters of doctrine or large contentions for ecclesiastical control. There is at least fair ground for the belief that the so-called heretical eliminations and corrections complained of by the Index authorities represented simply the attempts of the best scholarship of the day to correct the blunders and the wilful garblings of scribes (working under ecclesiastical direction) who had prepared the accepted MSS. presenting the teachings of the earlier leaders of the Church.

(5) When publication has been made by the bishop and inquisitor of a _Codex expurgatorius_, the owners of the books concerned are permitted, under an authorisation from such bishop, etc., themselves to make in their own copies the corrections required by the Index. Reusch points out that permission for such individual correction was never granted under the regulations of the Spanish Inquisition.

[Sidenote: (III) Concerning the Printing of Books]

Each book must carry on its title-page specification of the full name and nationality of the author and of the printer, and of the location of the printing-office. In an exceptional case, the bishop and inquisitor have authority to permit the anonymous publication of a work, but the name of author and of printer, with their respective addresses, must be duly recorded. Before the printer is permitted to bring his volume into type, he is required to submit to bishop and to inquisitor the complete text of the same, and, after this has been examined, to secure the necessary permit or privilege. The application of this regulation varied materially in different districts, but the methods adopted frequently brought upon the printer-publisher so considerable an outlay as to render unprofitable an undertaking otherwise promising. In connection with the increase in certain centres of the number of books planned for publication, the examiners found an increasing difficulty in keeping up with the labour of passing upon each portion of the text before issuing the necessary permit. They began to take the ground of refusing to trouble themselves with the examination of MSS., and of insisting on having the completed texts placed before them in the form of printed sheets. This necessitated on the part of the printer the striking off of an entire edition in advance of securing the privilege for its publication. In these earlier stages of the work of printing, the making of plates was of course unknown. The fonts of type were small and the “sheets” (comprising from four to sixteen pages) had to be worked off, each by itself, in the full number of impressions required, in order that the type might be freed for the setting of the succeeding “sheets” or “signatures.” The printer would laboriously strike off with his hand-press 250 or 350 impressions of four, eight, twelve, or sixteen pages, and only when such impressions had been completed, would he have type available for the setting of the next form. In the case, therefore, in which the examiners decided that the book could be permitted publication only after more or less serious changes and corrections, the outlay incurred in producing this first set of sheets would be practically thrown away.

The printer-publishers and also the booksellers were required to make oath from year to year that they would carry on their business in full accord with the principles of the holy Catholic Church, the decrees and rules of the Index, and the regulations of the local bishops and inquisitors. In the case of the publication of an authorised, expurgated edition of a work, which in its original form had been condemned, the title-page is to carry a wording similar to the following: _Bibliotheca ... a Conrado Gesnero Tigurino, damnato auctores olim edita ac prohibita, nunc jussu superiorum expurgata et permissa_.

A document, peculiar to this Index, is entitled _Observatio_. The first comment is upon the fourth rule and denies that by this rule any power is given to bishops, etc., to grant licenses to buy, read, or retain Bibles, or any parts or summaries of the Scriptures, in the vulgar language. This Observation is continued in the succeeding papal Indexes up to that of Benedict XIV in 1756. In the later edition of the Index of Benedict, which appeared in 1758, the instruction or interpretation given by the Observation is naturally modified. The third division of the Observation revokes the partial toleration of the Talmudic and Cabalistic books, and the fourth forbids the circulation in any other than the original language of the Hebrew ritual called _Magazor_. The sixth enjoins in the matter of the prohibition of books, that the names of the works condemned should be delivered to the bishops and inquisitors and that license to read them should be obtained for the same. The correction of books is to be committed to learned and pious men and the circulation of the work where expurgated and amended to the satisfaction of the examiners is permitted. The correctors are to search for all utterances anti-Catholic or adverse to the Church or in praise of heretics, as well as for such as are immoral or as may be injurious to individuals. Catholic books issued after the year 1515 are, if objectionable, to be corrected, but the works of the ancients are to be corrected only in case errors have been introduced by the fraud of heretics, etc.

The instruction in regard to the impression of books is as follows: The work to be printed must first be shown to the bishop or inquisitor and approved by either of them; when printed, the text must be compared with the manuscript and verified as correct before permission can be given for sale. Printers must be orthodox men and must bind themselves by oath to deal faithfully and catholicly, and the more learned and eminent of them must profess the creed of Pius IV. A work that has been expurgated by the examiners must express that fact on its title-page.

The Index of Clement is distinctive in giving a much larger measure of attention to theological works by Catholic writers than to the writings of heretics. In this respect, it serves to mark a change of policy on the part of the Church, which was beginning to recognise the impracticability of controlling the character of the whole literary output of the world, and to devote its supervision to the task of keeping free from error books by Catholic writers which would be likely to influence the faith of believers. The Clementine Index secured for itself a wider distribution than had been given to any preceding Index excepting that of Trent. Within two years after its promulgation, editions were printed at Bologna, Perugia, Florence, Milan, Verona, Venice, and Turin, and also at Prague, Lisbon, Liège, Cologne, Paris, and Besançon. The publishers and booksellers of Venice found occasion for complaint concerning a number of the entries and regulations in this Index, and the Venetian Senate submitted on their behalf a strong reclamation to the Pope. After a series of negotiations, the Pope gave instructions for concession on the more important points at issue. In 1596, was published an _Interpretation of the Rules of the Index of Clement VIII, in so far as these apply in the territory of ... Venice_. The more important modifications are the following:

(1) The prohibited books and those for which expurgation has been ordered can still be sold to those who have secured the necessary permission from bishop or inquisitor. (2) When new editions are prepared of volumes that have been prohibited _donec corrigatur_, it is not required to send the copies to Rome. These can be passed upon with the necessary corrections under the instructions of the local bishop and inquisitor. (3) The printers are not required to submit for examination the text in the form of printed sheets. The work of examination and of correction can be completed with the text of the MSS. as prepared for the typesetters. (4) On the back of the title are to be printed, in connection with the record of the permit or privilege, the names of the examiners who have approved the text. (5) The booksellers are required to submit, on demand, to the inquisitor a catalogue of the books contained in their stock in order that the bookshops may be “cleansed” from old copies of prohibited and pernicious works. (6) The authority given to local bishops and inquisitors to prohibit books in addition to those that have been placed on the Index must be understood to apply exclusively to works opposing the true faith, and to volumes which have been brought into print under false or forged permits. (7) The publishers and printers in the territory of Venice are freed from the general requirement of an annual oath. (8) The heirs to an estate are under requirement, within three months of the turning over of an inheritance, to submit to the inquisitor a list of all the books received; and these books are not to be used until they have been passed upon and approved.

These concessions were accepted as satisfactory by the Senate, and authorisation was then given for the printing and promulgation of the Index in the territory of Venice. The influence of Paolo Sarpi in maintaining for the Venetian Republic the right of independent action in regard to censorship, and in refusing to accept as authoritative a regulation from Rome until it had been made to conform to Venetian requirements, was evidently still in force. After this _Concordat_ had been arrived at, a resolution was adopted by the Senate (and appears to have been accepted by Rome) that thereafter no book prohibition should be valid in Venetian territory until it had been promulgated by the Venetian Inquisition.

Sarpi makes a criticism concerning Roman censorship methods which is in substance as follows:

“The Roman authorities prohibit, as corrupt, the text of many
valuable works, particularly of the class that have to do with
political science and the rights of States; they prohibit many
books which have no relation to matters of theology or religion
and which they are in fact not competent to understand; they
contest the right of the Republic itself to prohibit pernicious
books.”

In another passage Sarpi contends that the Roman _Index expurgatorius_ is especially faulty: “In these so-called expurgated editions, the reader can no longer ascertain the purport of the author but has before him simply the opinions of the Curia.”

_3._ _Supplements to the Clementine Index, 1597–1609._ In the decrees of the half-century following the date of the publication of the Index of 1596, a number of books are separately prohibited the authors of which had already been placed in Class I. In a papal decree of 1623, it is declared that all works published, after 1596, by writers who had already been condemned under Class I were prohibited. A number of books which had not been transferred by the editors of Clement from the lists of Sixtus V were prohibited later, in part during Clement’s life and in part by his successors. In the first decade of the 17th century, a number of individual prohibitions were made of books belonging to the 16th century, and some of which had been in print for a quarter of a century, or more. An example of such a belated prohibition is presented by the case of Bruno. Bruno’s earlier writings were published in 1582, but his name does not occur in the Index of Clement VIII. Bruno’s trial and condemnation took place in Rome, in 1600, and first in 1603 does the list of works prohibited include the books and writings, of every class, of Giordani Bruno Nolani. Bruno was born in 1548 at Nola and associated himself with the Dominicans. Proceedings were taken against him as early as 1577 by the Inquisition both at Naples and at Rome. He succeeded, however, in getting out of Italy and remained absent until 1592. In this year he came under trial with the Inquisition in Venice and, in 1593, was delivered by the Venetian authorities to the Inquisition of Rome. He was in prison in Rome until 1599, and in 1600 was condemned and burned as an apostate and an unrepentant and stubborn heretic. During the trial, Bellarmin served as counsel for the Inquisition.

Among the works condemned in the first of these supplements, is the treatise written by King James I of England in defence of his oath of fidelity or coronation oath. This _Apology_ of the King did not find favour in Rome, and it was condemned by two successive decrees of the master of the sacred palace in July and in September of 1609, the year of its publication. The title of the condemned work begins: _Apologia pro juramento fidelitatis ... vero ab ipso auctore serenissimo et potentissimo Principe Jacobo_, etc. The book did not find place in the Spanish Index of 1612, but secured attention, as specified, on the part of the censors of Portugal. The title appears again among the works prohibited in the Spanish Index of 1632, under the title of _Jacobus Rex_ in the first class, and also in the second class under the title of _Jacobus Angliae_. In the same year, the title finds place in a Roman Index, where it is catalogued under the letter _A_. The condemnation is repeated on the Index of 1664 and in those following. In an examination held by the Parliamentary Committee on the State of Ireland in April, 1825, one of the Catholic witnesses, the Reverend M. O’Sullivan, deduces from these condemnations the conclusion that the old-time papal doctrine of the fight of deposing Kings had not been revoked.[172]

In 1609, was included in the lists of books prohibited an Italian edition of the _Confession_ of Theodore Beza. The book had been printed in 1559 in the original French, _Confession de la Foire Chrétienne_, and the Italian version had appeared in 1566. Nearly half a century was required before the pernicious character of the work had become clear to the authorities of the Roman Inquisition.

_4._ _Continuations of Roman Indexes, 1624–1655._ The Index of Clement VIII was reprinted from time to time with the original decrees and with supplementary lists. Such reprints were issued in Rome in 1624, 1630, and 1640.

In 1618, was printed in Bologna, under the title of _Syllabus seu collectis librorum prohibitorum_, a list of the books prohibited since 1596. In 1619, Franciscus Magdalenus, Secretary of the Congregation, printed in Rome, under the title, _Edictum librorum qui post Indicem Clementis VIII prohibiti sunt_, a reissue of the Bologna _Syllabus_. In 1624, these lists were reissued in Milan, under the title of _Raccolta de libri prohibiti_.

In 1632, Magdalenus issued in Rome, under the title, _Elenchus librorum omnium tum in Tridentino Clementinoq. tum in aliis omnibus Sacrae Indices Congregationis particularibus decretis hactenus prohibitorum_, what appears to have been a freshly compiled Index. This _Elenchus_ of Magdalenus was, in the same year, reprinted in Milan, with the omission of the series of decrees; and in 1640, a second reprint, containing additional lists, was issued in Rome. Mendham speaks of this _Elenchus_ as if it were a personal and unofficial undertaking[173]; but as Reusch points out, it was issued with the approval and the authority of the Congregation, although not printed in the official press.

In 1644, a second _Elenchus_ was printed in Rome, bearing no name of compiler or of printer, which presented in alphabetical order a list of books prohibited since 1596.

In 1655, a third _Elenchus_, bearing the name, as compiler, of Thomas de Augustinis, was printed in Rome. It contains the titles of books prohibited between 1636 and 1655, and constitutes a continuation of the _Elenchus_ of 1632. In June, 1658, this _Elenchus_ was itself condemned and prohibited by the Congregation, on the ground of its incompleteness and lack of accuracy.[174] It is evident that the Congregation Index authorities were requiring a higher standard of bibliographical work than had heretofore been thought necessary.

In 1629, the Inquisition issued in Cologne a reprint of the Index of Clement VIII with the titles of books prohibited under the edict of February, 1627, interpolated in the alphabeted lists and indicated by a †. The books prohibited (by edict) between the years 1601–1627 are not included, and the lists are therefore incomplete. The Index thus compiled was, however, reprinted, without corrections, in 1647 and again in 1665.

In 1634, was put into print in Trent an edition of the Clementine Index which includes two supplements (each under separate pagination) presenting respectively the titles of prohibited books and the edicts of condemnation, for the periods 1601–1630 and 1632–1634. The title-page contains the imprint Rome and Trent, in order to make clear the authoritative character of the publication. Later, further supplementary lists were put into print to be bound in with the above. The lists or Indexes above specified represent the prohibitions of the Roman authorities.

In 1603, was published in Cracow, under the authority of Bishop Maciciowski, a volume containing a reprint of the Clementine Index, together with an _Index auctorum et librorum prohibitorum in Polonia editorum_. This latter contains sixty-four titles connected with the names of authors and eighteen anonymous works.

In 1617, Bishop Szyskowski published, in Cracow, an _Index auctorum librorum haereticorum et prohibitorum_, containing about sixty-three titles. These Polish Indexes represent books condemned under the authority of the local bishops.

In 1627, Thomas James issued in Oxford an _Index Generalis_, which he had compiled from the Indexes of Clement VIII and of von Sandoval. At the close of the volume is given a list of authors whose works had been listed for expurgation by Brasichelli, Quiroga, von Sandoval, and in the Index of Antwerp. This compilation of James is of course not to be included in the series of Indexes properly so called. Its purpose was in fact to commend to the attention of scholarly readers in Oxford and elsewhere the books which had been emphasised by the Church of Rome as heretical and pernicious.

Fuller specification of this noteworthy undertaking of James is given in a later chapter.

_5._ _1607._ _Brasichelli, Master of the Palace._ _Index Expurgatorius.--Indices librorum expurgandorum in studiosorum gratiam confecti. Tomus primus. In quo quinquaginta Auctorum Libri prae caeteris desiderati emendantur, per F. Jo. Maria Brasichellen Sacri Palatii Apostolici Magistrum in unum corpus redactus, et publicae commoditati aeditus Romae ex typographia R. Cam. Apost. MDCVII superiorum permissu._

This is the second _Index expurgatorius_ in the Roman series. The compiler was the Dominican Guanzelli, from Brisighella near Faenza. He calls himself on the title-page, Fr. Jo. Maria Brasichelli. He had, since 1598, been the _Magister_ of the palace. Shortly after the publication of his Index, he was appointed by Paul V, Bishop of Polignani. He died in 1619, leaving his Index a fragment, only the first volume having been completed. This volume was printed in the printing-office of the Curia. A reprint appeared in Bergamo in 1608, which was within a year or two suppressed. A reprint was in press at Antwerp, but was suppressed. Further reprints appeared in Regensburg in 1723, in Altdorf in 1745, and in London in 1837. Even the reprints are very scarce. A copy of the original issue is contained in the Bodleian. The compiler says in his preface that the expurgation of books belongs to the responsibility of his office, and that he has, therefore, charged himself with the task of examining certain books which have been condemned _donec corrigatur_, and has done what was requisite, through the elimination of pernicious and heretical passages, to render these works available for the use of scholars and students. The number of such books is unfortunately very large, and he has, therefore, selected for his labours those which when properly corrected are likely to prove of the greatest service for the scholarly public, _quosque sibi e manibus extorqueri gravius ferre homines animadvertimus et quorum ut permitteretur facultas pene quotidie a nobis efflagitabatur_.... The texts which were issued with the corrections specified in his Index have been transferred from the class of condemned to that of approved books.... His second volume is, he reports, already in train.

The preface is followed by a reprint of the Trent Rules bearing upon expurgation, and by the second division of the Instruction of Clement VIII.

The issue of the first volume of Brasichelli’s work brought out a series of remonstrances and criticisms which caused the rulers of the Church to decide that the publication of expurgatory Indexes was an unwise policy. Such Indexes were also, in the judgment of the advisers of the Curia, not necessary as the instruction in the General Index last issued had given to the agents appointed for the purpose, full power of making quietly and with freedom from criticism such corrections and expurgation as seemed to be required in books the main text of which was deserving of preservation. With an expurgatory Index, this difficult work had to be done openly and with an acceptance of responsibility.

The Index presents, in alphabetical arrangement, fifty-one works. The list includes four which were not in the Index of 1596, but which had been condemned in two edicts of the _Magister_ of 1603 and 1605, and three books of the Benedictine Montanus (the editor of the Polyglot Bible issued in Antwerp by Plantin) which had never been condemned in Rome.

Certain of the books selected, such as the writings of Molinaeus, Venetus, and Nevizanus, had already been expurgated. Other authors receiving attention are Cornarius and Fuchsius. Editions of Xenophon are purged by the cancellation of the names of heretical editors, such as Gesner, Pirckheimer, and Camerarius. These particular expurgations are borrowed from the Antwerp Index of Quiroga and the same is the case with the corrections in the text of Polydorus Vergilius and of Didaeus Stella. The list includes further: Rhenanus, Vatablus, Paracelsus, Serranus (for his edition of Plato), and Scaliger (for his Theophrastus).

This Index of Brasichelli cannot be considered as a personal undertaking, as the compiler states explicitly that his work has been carried out by him in his official capacity. It appears, however, that he had secured no specific instruction or authorisation, either from the pope or from the Congregation, as, if such authority had been given, the record of it would undoubtedly have been printed in the volume. On the other hand, if the undertaking of Brasichelli had been disapproved by the pope, he would hardly have secured his appointment as bishop and there would probably have been some formal cancellation of the Index. In place however of being formally withdrawn, the Index appears to have been quietly suppressed, probably on the ground that it could bring no credit to the Church. The second volume was never completed. The most important piece of censorship contained in the Index, the expurgation of the _Bibliotheca Patrum_, aroused no little critical opposition on the part of the scholars. It was apparently undertaken without adequate knowledge or scholarship.

The first name in the list of expurgated authors is that of Arias Montanus. Montanus had himself borne the chief responsibility in the production of the Index issued in Antwerp in 1546. He had been accepted as an authority not only for sound scholarship, but for sound doctrine. About six pages of the Roman Index are devoted to his writings, which here suffer a castigation and mutilation similar to that formerly inflicted by him on other authors.

Space is given (as in all the expurgatory Indexes) to the Bibles of Robert Estienne. The longest and most important article in the volume is that devoted to the _Bibliotheca SS. Patrum_ of La Bigne printed in Paris in 1589. As an example of the class of correction found necessary in the _Bibliotheca_ may be noted the correction of cancellation of _Sanctus_ or _Sanctorum_ or _S. Divus_ or _D._ whenever such term is applied to a personage not in the list of Roman saints or of Roman martyrs. The words _Caute lege_ appear frequently in connection with the text of La Bigne. On page 82, Clemens of Alexandria is degraded from the rank of _Divus_. In the critique upon S. Peter Martyr, Bishop of Alexandria, the censor denounces his commentator, Balsamon, as “a Greek and a schismatic.” S. Chromatius is censored as condemning oaths altogether. S. Ignatius is censored for his opinions respecting the Lord’s Day. Leontius is censored for omitting the apocryphal books in the canon. La Bigne is censored for ascribing the work _De Duabus Naturis_ to Gelasius who became Pope. Jonas Aurelianensis is censored for his testimony against image worship. Marcus the hermit is censored for contending that the kingdom of heaven is not given as a reward for our good works. For Paschasius the title of _Divus_ is ordered to be expunged. He is further censored for describing as creation the change of the elements. Photius, Bishop of Constantinople, is condemned (very naturally) for representing his own see as the head of all the churches. To the Spanish author, Emmanuel Sa, is given a discipline or censorship covering twenty-eight pages. In the next succeeding Spanish Index, Sa is acquitted of any false or erroneous doctrine and his writings are held up to special approbation. It was with the Roman criticism of Sa that originated a long series of issues between the Index makers of Rome and those of Spain. Francis Duarenus received a castigation, which he might fairly have expected, for his work _Pro libertate Ecclesiae Gallicae_, in section 77 of which are detailed the heavy exactions of the Papal See. Cardanus is condemned for his _Eulogy_ of Edward VI. A condemnation is also brought in upon Queen Elizabeth, the text for the same being a dedication to the Queen prefixed to a London edition of _Plato_.

Polydorus Virgilius is subject to correction for his work _De Rerum Inventoribus_. Among the passages cited for reprobation are those assigning (on the authority of Bishop Fisher of Rochester) a very recent origin to the doctrine of indulgences, with the suggestion that the discovery of purgatory was a powerful cause for the demand for indulgences. The censors also condemned the reference by Virgilius to the second commandment as involving a criticism of the action of the Church.

A reference to the Brasichelli Index is made by Paolo Sarpi.[175] He finds in it evidence that in a large number of the writings in which expurgation or alterations had been found necessary, the passages objected to were those which defended the authority given by God to the prince. Zobelius, in his _Notitia Indicis_, states that Brasichelli was aided in his work by Thomas Malvenda, a Dominican.

In 1611, an edition of the Brasichelli Index was printed in Antwerp. A year later, the Nuncio writes to the printer-publisher: “By the orders of his Holiness, this Index has been suspended. As some months back I placed in your hands, for printing, a copy of the original issue, it is necessary for me now to write asking that you will not proceed with this printing, or, in case the edition is already issued, that you will take the necessary measures to recall and cancel the copies.” It does not appear that the Nuncio expressed any readiness to make good to the publisher the outlay that the latter had incurred with the permission, and in fact at the request, of the representative of the pope. Mendham is of opinion that the Brasichelli Index itself found place among the books later condemned by the pope;[176] and in this opinion he is supported by Zobel. Reusch takes the ground that this Index had never been formally prohibited. He points out that the word _suspendere_, used by the Nuncio, is the equivalent of a condemnation _donec corrigatur_.[177] It appears that there was later (1643) the intention in Rome to prepare an expurgated edition of this _Index expurgatorius_, but this plan never took shape.

Brasichelli had excited the antagonism of the Carmelites, because, in his correction of the eighth volume of the _Bibliotheca Patrum_, he had denied the claim to saintship of Bishop John of Jerusalem (a contemporary of Jerome), and had also denied that Bishop John was responsible for the production of the volume _De Institutione Monachi_. The anonymous author of this book describes himself as a Carmelite, and gives the record of the institution of the Carmelite Order; but Brasichelli is of opinion that in the 5th century there were as yet no Carmelites.

The Jesuits, such as Reynaud, Poza and others, and the Spanish ecclesiastics generally, were much dissatisfied with the expurgation of the text of their author, Sa. In the later Spanish expurgatory Indexes, while certain of the works corrected by Brasichelli were retained, the expurgations of the texts were very much modified and lessened.

In connection with the expurgation of the _Bibliotheca Patrum_, a question arose, concerning which there was later no little discussion, as to whether it was in order to place in the Indexes, prohibitory or expurgatory, the writings of the Fathers of the Church. In the later Roman Indexes, including that compiled under the authority of Pius IX, the _Bibliotheca_ (under the name of the editor, La Bigne) is still included, without reference to the edition, under the heading _d. c._ Reusch finds instance of but one actual prohibition of patristic writings. The other references to these writings in the Index have to do with the comments, notes, or alleged interpolations of heretical editors. The Instruction of Clement VIII takes the ground that no alterations are to be made in the text of the works of Catholic writers produced before 1515, unless there is evidence that corruptions have crept into the text through the work of heretical editors, or through the carelessness of the printers.

The question has from time to time been raised by Protestant writers whether the Catholic editors of the patristic writings put into print in the 16th century had not, under the instructions or with the knowledge of the authorities who had given their approval to these editions, corrupted the original text for the support of certain doctrines or contentions.[178] It is not surprising that such a belief should have obtained, in connection with the readiness of many theologians of the 16th century to take the ground that passages of the Fathers which could not be made to fit in with their own doctrinal views must represent interpolations or corruptions on the part of the scribes, or of the editors or printers of the earlier editions. Franciscus Junius relates that a reader for the Lyons printer, Frelonius, had shown to him a proof sheet of an edition of St. Ambrose on which the censors, two Franciscans, had made material changes from the text of the manuscript copy.[179]

Mendham suggests, in connection with the expurgations of Brasichelli, as the secret of pontifical logic that to say of a thing _non ipsa vera_ and _quodammodo_ enables you to turn the most obstinate substance and propositions into direct opposites.

The use for faithful Catholics of available editions of the Fathers had been seriously interfered with by the regulations of the Index of 1559, and even by the modifications of these in 1561. Hosius writes in 1565 to Cardinal Amulius[180] complaining that before Pius V the writings of the Fathers had been brought into print not in Rome or other Catholic cities, but chiefly in centres of heresy like Basel where the editors corrupted the original text. He had tried to make purchase in Rome of the works of Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory, but had been told by the booksellers that the only available editions were prohibited. Such a complaint may be taken as an indication of the greater scholarly enterprise and intellectual activity of the communities which had been influenced by Protestantism.

The title-page of an edition of Augustine, printed in Venice in 1570, contains a notice that the text has been carefully revised and freed from all the corruptions and _scholia_ introduced into the previous editions by Erasmus and other heretical and condemned writers. Thomas James[181] points out that the edition of Gregory the Great printed in Rome in 1585 contains no less than 1085 passages in which the text varies from that of the authoritative manuscripts. Calandrini speaks of 13,000 such variations. Reusch is, however, of opinion that these charges of corruptions in Roman editions are exaggerated.[182]

_6._ _Expurgations in the Roman Index, 1624–1640._ The Roman Indexes, with the exceptions of that of Brasichelli and the suppressed Index of Sixtus, are classed as prohibitory only. It is the case, however, in certain instances that in place of the term _donec corrigatur_ (usually indicated simply by the letters _d. c._) is given a paragraph in which is specified the material that is to be omitted and the omission of which will leave the book in the list of those permitted. Such a paragraph is, for instance, connected in several of the Roman Indexes with the name Copernicus. Occasionally is connected with the entry of the title and the letters _d. c._ a reference to an expurgated edition published under the authority of the Congregation, the reading of which is permitted. Among authors whose works the value of which is in this way emphasised are Natalis, Bottero, Florentini, Garafalo, Scaramelli, etc. In the case of certain other authors (nearly exclusively Italians) the editors have taken the pains to specify in the Index itself the ground for the prohibition.[183]

_7._ _1624–1661._ _Rome._ _Censorship Decrees._

_Index librorum post indicem Clementis VIII prohibitorum decreta omnia hactenus edita._

_Romae, ex typographia Rev. Cam. Apost. MDCXXIV._

Each decree, emanating from the different authorities, is here given separately and at length, thus presenting a convenient summary of the sources from which originate the prohibitions and criticisms in the Indexes. The series comprises edicts of the Inquisition, edicts of the Congregation of the Index, edicts of the master of the sacred palace, and decrees of the pope, and extends from the year 1601 to 1629. The Index with which the series of edicts is printed as a sequel bears date 1632. In a second edition, issued in 1640, the series of edicts is brought down to 1637. The master of the sacred palace, whose name appears in the first decrees issued by that official, was Brasichelli, whose abortive _Index expurgatorius_ has already been referred to. Four of the decrees issued by his successor, Lud. Ystella, in the years 1609 and 1610, were the subjects of severe animadversion on the part of Fra Paolo Sarpi of Venice.

In the _Discorso_ concerning the Inquisition at Venice, printed in 1638, Sarpi complains of an attempt on the part of the Papacy to undermine and to violate the Concordat instituted in 1596 between Rome and the Venetian Republic. In the Concordat, it is stipulated that no other Index than the Clementine is to have force in Venice. In the two decrees in question it is declared that the Indexes and separate decrees issued since 1596 are to be “in force in all cities, territories, and places, of whatsoever kingdom, nation, and people, and are to have authority, in whatsoever way, even without publication, the edicts should be made known.” Such a claim on the part of the Papacy certainly appears to constitute an attempt to invalidate the conditions of the Concordat and to give grounds for the criticisms of the intrepid defender of the independence of the Republic.

The 66th decree (1644) is directed against the _Lettres Provinciales_ of Pascal; and makes a separate condemnation of each of the eighteen letters. This author ought certainly to have remained in favour with the Church. In number seventeen of these _Lettres Provinciales_ he expresses himself thus: _Grâce à Dieu, je n’ai d’attaches sur la terre qu’à la seule Église Catholique, Apostolique et Romaine, dans laquelle je veux vivre et mourir, et dans la communion avec la Pape son souverain chef, hors de laquelle je suis très persuadé qu’il n’y a point de salut_. It would appear, however, as if some wave of Jesuitism must have influenced Pope Innocent X at the time this condemnation was issued. It may easily be understood that from the point of view of the Jesuits, Pascal could hardly be considered a good Churchman.

Decree number seventy-seven, issued by Pope Alexander VII, January 12, 1661, states that some sons of perdition had arrived at such a condition of madness as to turn the Roman missal into the vulgar tongue of the French.