Chapter IX (3)

In 1546, the doctors of the Sorbonne secured the insertion in the prohibitory Index of Louvain of the edition of the Bible that had just been printed by Robert Estienne; but later in the same year, the King prohibited the printing or the circulation in France of the Index of Louvain. The King also issued a brief ordering the divines to withdraw their strictures upon the Estienne Bible. With the death of the King in 1547, the prohibition of the Bible was, however, renewed. In 1552, Estienne, deprived of the protection of King Francis, is finally compelled to close his printing office and to remove to Geneva. Estienne did not, however, find Protestant Geneva a place of liberal toleration. The year after his arrival, he witnessed the burning, under the authority of Calvin, of the heretical scholar Servetus, and more than once during the later years of his work in Geneva, the Estienne publications came under the condemnation of the Calvinistic censorship. Henry Estienne (the second) completed, in 1562, the publication of certain theological works which had been left unfinished in Geneva at the time of his father’s death. Among these, were an Exposition of the New Testament and an Exposition of the Psalms. The editor, a certain Marloratus, a Huguenot minister at Rouen, was unfortunately, before the printing was completed, hanged as a heretic, under the direction of the Duke of Guise, but the books themselves were not suppressed nor was the publisher interfered with. The faculty of the Sorbonne appears for the time to have suspended its censorious watchfulness over heretical publications, perhaps because it found its hands sufficiently full with the active work of suppressing, by fire, gibbet, and sword, the heretics themselves. Henry found it later, however, good policy to divide his publishing undertakings, executing at Paris reprints of the classics and works in general literature, and reserving for his press at Geneva theological works which were likely to give offence in a period of “religious irritation.” This term is, I may mention, Maittaire’s, and it is perhaps not too strong a description of a period in which a divine who had taken no part in politics could be hanged simply for editing a Protestant commentary.

[Sidenote: Geneva]

In 1589, the city of Geneva was being besieged by the Duke of Savoy. The city contained at the time a population of about 12,000 and was able to muster for its defence 2186 men capable of bearing arms. Against this little force, the Duke brought up an army of 18,000 regular troops with the determination of destroying once for all this “nest of heretics.” The destruction of the city was earnestly urged by St. Francis de Sales. The schools and the printing-presses were particularly pointed out by St. Francis as instruments of mischief. The powers that determine events were this time not in accord with the saint. The city survived a siege lasting for nine years, although at its close it had lost out of its little levy nearly three fourths. Casaubon tells us that in his time (he is writing in 1595) the ministers of Geneva exercised a strict surveillance over both the work of teaching and that of publishing. A professor in the academy was not permitted to publish until his book had passed through the censorship of the divines. It seems probable that the Calvinistic scrutiny in Geneva, during the last ten years of the 16th century, may easily have proved in its narrowness and persistency a more serious obstacle in the way of publishing undertakings and of scholarship than the censorship of the Catholic theologians of Paris.

Casaubon secured, in 1600, at the instance of his friend De Vic, appointment as Keeper of the Royal Library. This library contained at the time about nine hundred works, a large proportion of which were in manuscript. The collection of Greek manuscripts was said to be second only to that of the Vatican.[127] The new librarian found favour with the King although Henry IV was by no means a scholar. Scaliger says of him that he could not keep his countenance and could not read a book. The great minister Sully was, however, critical of any expenditure for literature. “You cost the King too much, sir,” said Sully to Casaubon; “your pay exceeds that of two good captains, and you are of no use to the country.”[128]

A letter from the papal nuncio at Paris, written in 1562 to Pius IV, makes reference to a statement made to the nuncio by Monsieur de Bourbon, to the effect that a few days earlier he had confiscated from a vessel a quantity of heretical books “of the most distressing character that can be conceived.” These books were packed in wine casks and had been sent from Geneva. He had consigned them to the flames. No reference is made to the importer.[129]

Sacchino, historian of the Jesuits, writing in 1526, refers to the heretical city of Geneva as responsible for the introduction into Lyons of _vim infinitam librorum pestiferorum_ (“a great mass of pestiferous literature,”) prepared for circulation not only in France but in Constantinople. He states further, however, that owing to the efforts of the zealous Possevinus, the books were seized and burned (_Ut pestilentium illa farrago voluminum flammis aboliretur_).[130]

The interest of Francis in scholarship and the influence of Budaeus and other scholars led him to approve the scheme for a Royal College to be devoted more particularly to instruction in the ancient languages. The authorities of the university were, with hardly an exception, bitterly opposed to the plan of the new college. The argument on the part of the university was presented before the Parliament of Paris by Galliard. He urged that “to propagate the knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages would operate to the absolute destruction of all religion.” “Were these professors theologians,” he asked, “that they should pretend to explain the Bible? Were not, indeed, the very Bibles of which they made use, in large part printed in Germany, the region of heresy? Or at least were they not indebted for them to the Jews?” The rejoinder on the part of the new professors was made through Marillac. “We make no pretensions,” said the professors, “to the name or the function of theologians. It is as philologists or grammarians only that we undertake to explain the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. If you, who are criticising our teachings, possess any knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, you are at liberty to attend our lectures and, if you find any heresy in our instruction, to denounce us. If, however, you are yet ignorant of Greek and Hebrew, on what grounds can you base your fitness as censors or your claims to forbid us to teach in these tongues?” The victory rested with the scholars and the Collège Royal maintained its ground and increased in influence and importance.[131] Maittaire quotes in this connection the testimony of Heresbach, who says that, in 1540, he heard in a sermon delivered in Paris the following statement: “A new language has been discovered which they call Greek. Against this you must be carefully on your guard for it is the infant tongue of all heresies. There is a book written in that language called the New Testament. It is _un livre plein de ronces et de vipères_. As to the Hebrew tongue, it is well known that all who learn it presently become Jews.”

In 1685, a royal edict was issued by Louis XIV, ordering the destruction of all heretical books and the punishment of those who should retain copies of the same. As a result of the edict, the Parliament of Paris issued a decree appointing the Archbishop of Paris to prepare an _Index prohibitorius_ of books which in his judgment ought to be suppressed, an instruction which was carried out with all promptness. The list of the archbishop comprised the names of about five hundred authors. The books condemned were those of the Lutherans, Socinians, Arminians, and Greeks. Included with these were all versions of the Scriptures. The Parliament published at once a decree enforcing the prohibition and commanding a strict search to be made for such books in the bookshops and printeries and also in private houses. Many books were burned, including a large number of copies of the Scriptures. The protection, or toleration, heretofore, in form at least, extended to Protestants was during the same year, 1685, withdrawn by the Edict of Fontainebleau, repealing the Edict of Nantes.

[Sidenote: Lyons]

The printers of Lyons succeeded in building up, within a very few years after the introduction of printing into France, a profitable business. They had the advantage of being well out of the way of both ecclesiastical and political censorship. They were quite prepared to take up promptly editions of books which had been prohibited in Paris and in Rome, or later in Geneva. They were also among the earliest to develop the art of what may be called piratical printing. The great expense of the production of earlier editions, more particularly of the classics, was the outlay for scholarly editing. The printers of Lyons promptly discovered that they could make money by utilising the expenditures of Aldus in Venice, or of the scholarly printers in Paris, through the appropriation of editorial material. They brought out editions printed with the text that had been shaped in Venice and in some cases in direct imitation of the typography of these first and so to speak authorised editions. By the year 1495, there were no less than forty printers doing active work in Lyons, a number considerably in excess of those who were then carrying on business in Paris.

* * * * *

In 1526, the university of Paris had authorised the printing of certain dissertations written by the rector Noël Béda against Fabri and Erasmus. King Francis wrote to the Parliament directing it to cause the sale of these books to be prohibited. He added the general instruction that no books, even such as might have been written by members of the university, were to be printed or sold which had not first been examined and approved by the members of the court deliberating together. It would appear from the King’s letter that he had sufficient sympathy with the reformers to be unwilling to have Erasmus attacked, and also that even in matters of theological doctrine, the final decision was entrusted, not to the faculty of theology, but to the court of Parliament. By 1531, however, the King had decided that, for theological questions at least, the responsibility for the control of literary production had better be left with the Sorbonne. In this year he gave a direct royal authorisation to the publisher Badius for the printing of the big treatise of Alberto Pio against Erasmus, which treatise had been duly approved by the divines. The fury of civil war and the bitterness of religious dissension gave a special character to the laws affecting printing and publishing and to the enforcement of these. In 1545, Etienne Polliot was sentenced for importing and selling heretical books. He was compelled to carry a bundle of his publications to the market-place, where he and his books were burned together. In 1546, the publisher Etienne Dolet, himself the author of a number of books, was burned in the Place Maubert, for his obstinate persistence in heresy. The ordinances of 1557 and 1560 punished with death, as guilty of treason, the printers, authors, sellers, and distributors of books which had been condemned as pernicious or libellous. The letters patent of 1563 fixed the penalty of hanging or strangling for the offence of printing a book without a royal authorisation. The ordinance of Moulins, of 1566, renews the same prohibition. Vitet[132] points out that the wars of the League had influence in securing a certain freedom for publishing. The government of the League did not undertake to free from restrictions the printing-presses of Paris. It prohibited them, however, only from such undertakings as seemed likely to prove of service to the enemies of the League. On the other hand, there was at Tours a government which was hostile only to such writings as were not royalist, and at Geneva another government the censures of which affected only that literature which was not Protestant. Through these three limited censures came into existence three fragments of publishing freedom. The power of the printing-press in influencing public opinion may, as far as France is concerned, be said to date from this period. Under the provisions of the Edict of Nantes, which bears date 1598, the production and sale of Protestant books were restricted to certain specified States and districts in which the public exercise of said religion was authorised. These Protestant books, while permitted to exist, are, however, classified as “libels and as inflammatory writings.” It does not appear that any provision was made for the circulation of such publications between the cities in which they were permitted to be printed, as such circulation must, of course, have taken them across the “good Catholic” territory, within the boundaries of which the Protestant books were incendiary libels. The difficulties in the way of authors and publishers of such books must, therefore, at this time have been very considerable. In 1624, four royal censors were instituted by letters patent. The first four were all doctors of the theological faculty, but notwithstanding this selection of the board from the members of the Sorbonne, the university was dissatisfied with losing its ancient privileges of controlling directly the examination of religious literature. In 1629, it was ordered that works submitted for publication were to be passed upon by censors particularly designated for each work by the Chancellor or Privy Seal. It is probable that the volumes had to be put into type before the examiners were willing to give the time for examination. In 1702, an issue arose between the chancellor and the higher clergy on the question of certain general privileges in regard to printing which the bishops claimed to be still in force. It was the contention of the bishops that, being themselves the final judges of the doctrines of the Church, utterances made by them or utterances accepted by them could not with propriety be passed upon by others who were not authorities on points of doctrine. Madame de Maintenon gave the weight of her influence in favour of the bishops. The King dreaded exciting the ire of the Jesuits and dreaded also, says the chronicle, the risk of putting Madame de Maintenon into a bad temper. He avoided making a decision and an adjustment was finally arrived at in which the bishops withdrew their main pretensions. Bossuet made an indignant protest against what he called the attempt of the chancellor to control the utterances of the Church. It is not to be thought of, says Bossuet, that the Holy Church of Christ shall be compelled to submit, for the examination of magistrates, its decrees, catechisms, and spiritual teachings upon matters which should be confined strictly to the instructors of their flock. The King, influenced by the pleading of Bossuet, finally brought himself to decide that for the works which were at the moment in question, the authority should be left with the bishops.

The reports concerning the extent of the influence of censorship, from one authority or another, on the literary activities of France are, as we have seen, conflicting. The authority of the Sacred Office was, as stated, not accepted in France, and the work of the French writers of the 16th century was not seriously affected by the condemnations and expurgations, sometimes severe and sometimes indulgent, with which was supervised and restricted the literature of Italy. It is contended nevertheless (at least by French historians) that the productions of the French writers of the century, freer from the trammels of censorship as these writers were, represented a higher standard of morality and of refinement than characterised the contemporary literature of Italy.

During the 17th century, persistent attempts were made in France as in other Catholic States to enforce throughout the realm a policy of censorship. By one set of authorities, investigations are carried on in the bookshops and in public and private libraries, and copies of obnoxious or suspicious books are burned at the hands of the hangman; by another, St. Cyran is placed in prison and Arnauld and others of his group are driven into exile. The _Lettres Provinciales_ of Pascal are indeed brought into print, but only by cleverly eluding the vigilance of the inspectors. It is nevertheless the case that at no time during the century did it prove to be practicable to keep in force, through the entire territory of the State, any consistent or effective policy. The authority to order proceedings against authors or to make condemnations of books is not, as was the case in Spain, in the hands of a special tribunal, all-powerful and irresponsible. In the place of an Index which preserves the record of a condemnation that has once been pronounced, we have individual edicts or orders which easily fall into oblivion; and in place of a Congregation or of an Inquisition, we find distinct authorities, and sometimes simple local authorities, the actions of which are more or less conflicting and lack permanency of influence. There is also throughout the century, as later, among the ecclesiastics themselves, a strong national feeling of protest against the exercise within the territory of France of censorship authority directed by Italians or Spaniards.[133]

While in Italy, the Church labours single-handed at the task of reforming the people, in France it is the entire nation, without distinction of ecclesiastics and laymen, that undertakes the reformation of itself. Frenchmen of the 17th century, equally assured of their devotion to the true faith and of their intention to maintain the virtues of Christianity, refuse to admit the necessity for submitting to a theocracy, a religious dictatorship, and for putting literature, so to speak, into a state of siege.

Dejob cites, on the authority of the Benedictine editors, a number of the absurdities introduced into the St. Ambrose text by the Roman editors, and concludes that “editorial methods so naïve and so unscrupulous were certainly in need of the aid of the Index in order to prevent, through the collation of their text with the work of more faithful scholars, the unmasking of their pious infidelities.” “What,” he exclaims, “would have been the result for scholarship, for literature, and for the thought of the world, if the Inquisition had succeeded in establishing its domination throughout Europe, and in placing all the manuscripts of the Fathers under the keys of the Vatican?”[134]

Dom Petra, one of the learned editors of the _Acta Sanctorum_, writes in 1649: “If Rome condemns our books, the Jansenists will have a text for saying that this is brought about by intrigue and corruption.... The Congregation [of the Index] appears to object to the work done by the editors of our _Acta_ in the correction of errors; but the Congregation should understand that, rather than to confirm a record of impostures, we prefer to write nothing; the Congregation is giving an opportunity to the heretics to point out the unwillingness of the Papists to make corrections or to remedy abuses.”[135]

Theophile Raynaud, in order to revenge himself for a condemnation issued against his books by certain Dominican inquisitors, undertook the defence, against the Dominicans, of the memory of Reuchlin and of Erasmus, victims, as he contends, of Dominican ignorance and calumny.[136]

Writing in 1661, in reference to certain copies of his books that had been seized in Italy, Raynaud says: “The sovereign pontiff gives authority, it appears, to his ministers to carry on robbery.”[137]

The only portion of the writings of Rabelais that came under the ban of the French censors was the fourth book of the _Pantagruel_, which was prohibited by the divines of the Sorbonne.

The writings of Montaigne were prohibited in 1576 by the Congregation of the Index but the prohibition was not confirmed in France. In 1595, an expurgated edition of the _Essays_ was published at Lyons, from which was omitted, together with certain other passages, under the instructions of the censors, the fifth chapter of the third book. The twenty-ninth chapter of the first book, apparently equally reprehensible, escaped condemnation.

“I find,” says Dejob, “no book of importance, excepting the _Tartuffe_ of Molière, that the national authorities attempted to suppress. Molière, Racine, La Bruyère, were from time to time assailed, but there were always influences working on their behalf strong enough to prevent any serious or continued interference with their work. Once, it may be remembered, Richelieu _se ligua contre le Cid_, but the immediate protest of the public made clear to the minister that he was on a false track.”[138]

It is certain that the authority of the Church exercised in France a much smaller influence over literature than either in Spain or in Italy. In fact, under Louis XIV, the Church found it necessary to resort to raillery rather than to discipline in the cases in which it found ground for criticism.

The learned historian of the Benedictines, Mabillon, brought himself into criticism on the part of the Papacy through proving that the bones taken from the catacombs, which were being distributed as relics for the faithful, had belonged neither to saints nor to martyrs.

Dejob is of opinion that the acknowledged superiority of the theological writers of France during the 17th century over those of Italy and Spain was chiefly due to the greater freedom possessed by the French scholars in carrying on their investigations and in bringing their books into print.[139]

The intellectual work of the orthodox clergy owes not a little to the feeling of obligation that rested upon them to offset the influence of the Huguenot controversialists and to secure for orthodox literature a prestige to balance that of Arnaud and of Pascal. It may fairly be claimed that the Church of France showed itself equal to the task. Any nation may have been proud to produce within the term of a century five writers or scholars whose names could be compared with those of Bossuet, Fénelon, Bourdaloue, Malebranche, and Mabillon. No religion has counted among its ministers during any one generation men superior to these in intellectual force. Catholicism can refer to this group as an evidence that orthodoxy does not stifle originality of talent. It can claim further that the acceptance of dogma does not of necessity involve the renunciation of scientific and philosophical investigation. The lay writers of this famous century were hardly less influenced by the spirit of religion. It is this that inspired Corneille and Racine, not only in such creations as _Polyeucte_ and _Athalie_, but in the moral conception with which they handle the subject of love; it is this which retains within wholesome limits the satirical verse of Boileau and of La Bruyère and which keeps within bounds even the bitter personalities of St.-Simon; it is this which raises far beyond the level of feminine curiosity and maternal egoism the writings of Mme. de Sévigné, and which imbues with eloquence the work of Mme. de Motteville.[140]

The religious spirit may be said to have influenced also the work of Molière, who uses his trenchant pen to emphasise our obligations to morality. Save in an occasional instance where the manners of the comedian get control of the pen of the poet, these obligations are set forth with the certainty of an infallible moralist, while the dramatist succeeds in securing for his readers (or hearers) full sympathy for those of his characters which show themselves faithful to wholesome ideals.

If it had been possible for the fathers who directed the work of the Council of Trent to have knowledge of this wonderful body of literature, which gave to Catholicism an incomparable intellectual éclat, they would surely have admitted that their pious expectations were surpassed.[141]

The classical literature of France retained, therefore, freedom of thought and of expression. The eulogies addressed to the rulers, even when extravagant in form, bore the stamp of sincerity. It was a saying of La Bruyère that the use of satire in really great subjects was denied to writers who were at once Frenchmen and Christians. But it is fair to remember that such an interdiction is confirmed by the opinion of the public itself, and also that to one who is himself a witness of great things, the dazzle of their brilliancy may easily prevent a clear perception of their blemishes. It is certain that the record of the work done by the great writers of France does not give any evidence of serious interference by the Church either for praise or for blame. Apart from the _Lettres Provinciales_ (which after all secured a wide reading and a general appreciation), no work of the first importance was brought under condemnation by the authorities either civil or religious.[142]

=6. Germany.=--Within half a century after the invention of printing in Mayence, the business of publishing was established in a number of towns, such as Frankfort, Strasburg, Basel, Cologne, and Nuremberg; and by the close of the 16th century, the work of the printers became important also in many towns of North Germany, such as Leipsic, Magdeburg, Wittenberg, etc. The development of the production of printed books followed very largely the lines of the trade in manuscripts which it superseded. The sale of manuscripts had, for the century before printing, constituted an important item in the business of the Fair at Frankfort, and after 1480, we find entries in the annual records of the Fair of sales of printed books. The organisation of the book-trade of the empire dates from about 1525. Frankfort was established as the centre or headquarters of this trade, and the Fair brought to the city twice a year representative publishers and dealers not only from the towns of Germany but from Italy, France, and the Netherlands.

The establishment of a centre or headquarters for the book-trade of Europe was, of course, of immediate advantage in furthering the knowledge and the distribution of the literature that came into print, and particularly of the books published in Latin. Latin was generally accepted throughout the world as the language not only of scholarship, but of literature, and it was therefore selected by the publishers of the time for the larger portion of the books brought into print. It is true that the work of the early printers of Germany was, unlike that of France and the Netherlands, carried on not in university centres, but, very largely at least, in commercial towns. The lists of these German printers contain a much larger number of books addressed to the general or unscholarly public than was the case with those of their competitors in Paris, Venice, or Leyden, but in Germany also the production of works printed in Latin, for the trade of the world, became each year of increasing importance.

For the operations of the general censorship of the Church, the organisation of the book-trade presented certain advantages or at least conveniences. The compilers of the earlier Roman Indexes utilised the bulletins and catalogues of the Book-Fair in securing for their lists information concerning new and forthcoming books of heretical writers or on controversial subjects. As is mentioned in the separate record of certain Indexes, the censors were not infrequently prepared to condemn a book without any examination whatever, simply on the repute of its author, or even on that of its publisher. It occasionally happened, as a result of this method, that a work was prohibited which never came into existence, some obstacle having prevented its completion or its publication after the title had been announced.

The first instances of books issued with _Imprimaturs_ are two printed at Cologne in 1479 and sanctioned by the university, and a third printed at Heidelberg in 1480, under the authorisation of the Patriarch of Venice.

The earliest mandate of which there is record for the appointment of a censor of books was issued in 1486 by Berthold, Archbishop of Mayence. The Archbishop forbids the translation into the vernacular of any books from Latin, Greek, or other languages, or the sale of translations brought in from without, until these have been examined and approved by censors appointed for the purpose from the university of Erfurt.[143] He instructs the Burgomaster of Frankfort to make examination of all books at the Frankfort Fair before the permit should be given for their sale. In 1524, the Archbishop of Mayence claims, on the double ground of his position as High Chancellor of the empire and as a representative of the authority of Rome, the right to supervise the book-trade of the empire, and he makes immediate application of this authority to the control of the sale of books at the Frankfort Fair.

[Sidenote: Frankfort]

In 1648, the year in which the Thirty Years’ War came to an end, the magistrates of Frankfort gave up formally the attempts to supervise the book-production of the city. In 1662, the magistrates found occasion for protests against the imperial regulations for the control of the book-trade. The emperor, in his edict of March 18, 1662, was acting under the counsel of his Jesuit advisers. The magistrates were speaking as the representatives of the publishers, and, as they contended, for the interests of the community as a whole. In 1665, under some counsel which proved to be very ill-advised, the imperial commissioners undertook to fix the prices of the books presented for sale at the Frankfort Fair. It was contended that the commissioners who had been charged with the work of censorship had no authority to take upon themselves the determination of a business detail. It was very certain that they did not have the expert knowledge required for the task, but it was, of course, the case that no commissioners could have carried out successfully any such system. This price regulation proved to be one of the most effective of the various factors which caused the replacing of Frankfort by Leipsic as the centre of the publishing and bookselling interests of Germany.

[Sidenote: Strasburg]

In 1488, the city of Strasburg established under the directions of the emperor a local censorship supervised by the magistracy. The first book prohibited under this regulation was the _Germania Nova_ of Murner, issued in 1502.

In 1501, Alexander VI publishes a bull prohibiting the printing, within the territories in question, of any books that have not secured an approval, in the form of a privilege, from the Archbishops of Cologne, Mayence, Treves, and Magdeburg, or from their vicars-general.[144]

[Sidenote: Leipsic]

By the year 1495, the book-trade of Leipsic had assumed very considerable proportions and was already beginning to rival that of Frankfort. The Booksellers’ Association, organised (in Frankfort) in 1525, is at the present time, four centuries later, the most effective and intelligently managed trade organisation that the world has known. Leipsic publishers gave from an early period special attention to the printing of the controversial literature of the Reformation, and, as was natural from their close relations with Wittenberg, the sympathies of the larger proportion of the printers were in accord with the Lutherans. In 1524, Duke George, who was a Catholic, came to the throne and during his reign, which continued until 1533, the writings of the reformers were repressed by a rigorous censorship. The Duke utilised the machinery of the trade organisation for putting into effect the ducal regulations for supervision and censorship, and two ecclesiastical censors, appointed under the ducal authority, secured the aid of the city officials in making examination of all the books printed and in confiscating or cancelling all heretical works found in the shops of either Leipsic or Dresden. The immediate result of these anti-reform operations of the Church and of the Duke was the practical destruction for the time being of the book-trade of Leipsic. Many of the printers transferred their presses to Wittenberg or Magdeburg.

In 1526, occurred in Leipsic an extreme instance of the application of Catholic censorship. Under the instructions of Duke George, Johann Herrgott, a printer and colporteur, was burned, with certain of his books, for the crime of distributing Protestant literature. In the next year, Hübmayer, the leader of the Baptists in Southern Germany, was burned in Vienna for a similar offence. In 1571, the Duke of Saxony ordered that the work of the printers should be restricted to three towns, Leipsic, Dresden, and Wittenberg. The purpose of this regulation was the facilitating of censorship control.

[Sidenote: Wittenberg]

In advance of the aggressive Protestant measures of Luther, Wittenberg had already become an important place for book-production, having secured, among other favourable influences, the advantage of the transfer of certain of the printers and their presses from Leipsic. After 1515, Wittenberg was the most important of the centres from which were distributed throughout Germany the books and pamphlets (_Flugschriften_) of the reformers. It was in Wittenberg also that was brought into print the great Bible of Luther.

[Sidenote: Magdeburg]

At an early date in the period of the Reformation, Magdeburg, in which the printing business had already secured an assured foothold, had taken an important place among the centres of distribution of Protestant literature. The work of the printers was interrupted for a time in 1518 by the repressive measures of the Catholic Albert of Brandenburg, but after 1528, the presses were again left practically free from civil authority, while the ecclesiastical influence in the city was never important. The book-trade was crushed out for the time by the destruction of the city by Tilly in 1631.

[Sidenote: Münster]

The city of Münster was another centre for Protestant publications. The excesses of the Anabaptists, who, under John of Leyden and his associates, had possession of the town for a number of months in 1535–36, were, however, well-nigh destructive to its Protestantism and proved fatal to its publishing business. In 1562, an edict issued by the bishop ordered the destruction of all Protestant books in Westphalia and made it a misdemeanour to print, sell, or possess any such books.

[Sidenote: Basel]

The city of Basel secured at an early date an important position among the centres of publishing. The university, founded in 1460, brought to the city men devoted to scholarly pursuits many of whom took an early interest in the work of the printing press and were ready to give coöperation to the publishers. In 1501, Basel broke away from the imperial control. At that time, there were in the city no less than twenty-six important publishing and printing concerns.

During the most active period of its publishing interests, Basel had the advantage over the majority of the German towns in its comparative freedom from censorship either ecclesiastical or civil. The authority of Rome was permitted to exert practically no restrictions upon the productions of the printing-presses; while as a free imperial city, it had the right to claim exemption from any authority other than that of the emperor, whose examiners were too far distant to be able to bring their influence to bear, to any extent, upon the operations of the Basel publishers. It was this freedom that constituted the most important cause of the great development of the book-trade of the city during the 15th and 16th centuries. The leader among the great publishers of Basel, who ranked at the time with Aldus as one of the great publishers of the world, was Johann Froben, the publisher, friend, and close associate of Erasmus. It is the imprint of Froben that is associated with the most important of the volumes of Erasmus, including not only those that secured the approval of Leo X and of other of the Church authorities, but the group which brought the author into sharp criticism with the ecclesiastical censors. During the years between 1460 and 1500, the popes themselves sent to Basel for printing certain books which required more trustworthy work than could be secured in Rome.[145]

In 1523, the first application for censorship in the city of Basel was made by Erasmus in connection with the reprinting of certain French writings which he claimed to be libels of himself. The censorship of the city was under the direction of the magistrates. The magistrates forbade the printing of books in any other languages than Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and German. In 1598 the censors of the city required that there be placed in their hands catalogues of books that were forthcoming in order that they might designate those calling for special attention.

[Sidenote: Zürich]

Between the years 1520 and 1580, the presses of Zürich were busied with the production of the works of the Calvinist reformers. Froschauer, who was one of the first of the Zürich printers, was a close friend of Zwingli, whose special tenets he had adopted, and he placed at the disposal of the Zwinglians the machinery of his printing concern for the production and distribution of the Zwinglian treatises and tracts. Zürich presents also an example of early and strenuous Protestant censorship. Zwingli brought about a prohibition on the part of the civil authorities of Zürich for the sale within the city of the Lutheran publications.

[Sidenote: Augsburg]

The city of Augsburg occupied a similar place among the centres of Catholic book-production to that held by Basel and Zürich for the works of the Protestants. The presses of the great publisher Koberger and his associates were devoted during the last third of the 15th and the first half of the 16th century to the production of editions of the works of the more scholarly of the Catholic theologians. The books were addressed to scholars and were comparatively high in price. The work of the German reformers had as one result the checking of the activities of the Augsburg publishers. In 1520, the civil authorities of Augsburg, at the instance of the local ecclesiastics, issued prohibitions for the sale in the city of the works of Luther and of Zwingli. It was the multiplicity of prohibitory authorities in the book centres of Germany that actually worked against the influence of the prohibitory system. There was also in these German cities a lack of any effective censorship machinery such as existed in Spain either for the examination of texts in advance of printing, or for the seizure of books and the punishment of printers after publication. There were, during the century after the Reformation, instances (aggregating a considerable number) of writers who on the ground of their heretical utterances had been punished in one way or another and some of whom had even suffered death, but there was no general or effective repression of literary production and distribution throughout Germany, either on the part of the Catholic censors working against Protestant writings or under the influence of the Protestant divines utilising for the prohibition of Catholic books the civil authority.

[Sidenote: Nuremberg]

In Nuremberg, under a regulation of 1513, the printers were to be sworn each year as holding the orthodox Catholic faith and as agreeing to print no books contrary to that faith.[146] The magistrates issued in 1518 a special prohibition against the printing of the writings of the Hussites, and in 1521, a similar prohibition against the writings of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. This edict was withdrawn in 1535 when the magistracy of the city had become Lutheran. In 1527, the poet-cobbler, Hans Sachs, came under censorship for certain rhymes attached to an illustrated record of the Tower of Babel. In this case, the trouble appears, however, to have been not religious, but a matter of guild prejudice. Sachs, being licensed only as a cobbler, had no authority to do work as a poet. After 1535, when the control of Nuremberg had passed into the hands of the Protestants, there is a rapid development of the activity of its printing-presses and book-trade.

[Sidenote: Tübingen Breslau]

The works of Melanchthon were first printed in Tübingen in 1511. Later, Melanchthon used for his theological treatises and also for his long series of text-books the presses of Wittenberg. The statutes of the University of Tübingen in regard to the _Libelli famosi_ were, in 1500, made binding throughout the electorate of Würtemberg. In 1557, an edict of the Duke called for an annual visitation of the bookshops for the search for heretical publications. In 1593, a ducal permission was given to one bookseller in Tübingen, Gruppenbach, to buy for the use of the professors two copies of any heretical books called for. In 1601, an ordinance was published in Tübingen prohibiting the sale of all sectarian or controversial books, Catholic as well as Protestant. In the three ecclesiastical principalities of Mayence, Cologne, and Trier, the ecclesiastical censorship became, after 1525, particularly rigorous with the result of a material checking in the business of the printers and booksellers. In Silesia, Breslau became the centre of Catholic influence and the Protestant printers were, after 1577, largely driven out of business.

[Sidenote: Heidelberg]

In Heidelberg, under an edict of the Elector of Baden, the censorship control was, in 1651, placed in the hands of the university and came under the direction of the theological faculty.

[Sidenote: Vienna]

The printing business in Vienna had during the first years of the 16th century made a good start, but with the beginning of imperial censorship under the edict of Ferdinand, in 1523, the work of the printers received a check. In this edict the printing, sale, and possession of the books of Luther is prohibited under heavy penalties. Ferdinand permitted the ecclesiastics to exercise directly (that is to say without reference of individual cases to the civil authorities) the supervision of the work of the printers. These censors made effective opposition against scientific education and their repressive measures for literature other than theological was so far effective that, after the year 1560, the printing in Vienna of editions of the classics was brought to a close. In the year 1572, the printing-office and bookshop of Creutzer, who had for some years acted as the publisher of the university, was closed. In the year 1587, the book stock of Necker, who was at that time the leading bookseller in the city, was confiscated and in large part burned. By 1600, the control of the book business was placed almost exclusively in the hands of the Jesuits and as a result of their “supervision,” the business practically came to a close.

Kapp points out that the prohibitory lists issued in Germany contained, in addition to the titles of the Protestant controversial writings and religious writings other than controversial, the titles of a number of books which were really in character _contra bonos mores_. The advantage of the advertisement given to the books deserving of existence was unfortunately shared by not a few volumes which were really scandalous in character.

The Thirty Years’ War in Germany (1618–1648) may be considered as an extreme application of the principle of censorship. The power of the emperor and that of the Catholic princes who associated themselves with the emperor, was directed to the suppression of Protestantism in Germany and with this to the control under the direction of the Roman Church of German thought and of German intellectual development. This was, of course, an attempt to do something much wider than to control and restrict the printing-press, but the control and restriction of the operations of the printers constituted an essential part of the purpose of the pope, the emperor, and their allies the Jesuits and Dominicans. In so far as the Catholics held their own, succeeding in maintaining their control in the States of South Germany, the printers had to accept the continued authority of the ecclesiastics backed by the power of the State. The States of North Germany, on the other hand, with the all-powerful aid of Gustavus Adolphus and his sturdy Swedes, were able to maintain by force of arms their independence as citizens, and secured also the right to think and to speak, to print and to read for themselves, free from decisions to be arrived at by the Dominican Congregation of Italy or the Jesuit censors of Vienna. The waste of life and of treasure brought upon Germany through the thirty years’ strife was enormous, but even as a matter of material advantage, the contest was for North Germany worth all that it had cost.

=7. The Netherlands.=--The work of the printers in Holland was begun in Utrecht in 1473. The Dutch printers had from the outset the enormous advantage in their business of a practical freedom from interference by censorship, whether ecclesiastical or political. This was also true for a quarter of a century or more with the printing centres of Flanders, where, under the initiative of Mansion, Caxton, and their successors, the work of printing was begun, in 1474, in Bruges and in Louvain. In 1476, Caxton migrated from Bruges to London, setting up his first press in the courtyard of Westminster Abbey. The Dukes of Burgundy had, for several generations prior to the introduction of printing, been noted for their liberal interest in literature, and for their great collections of manuscripts, and this sympathetic relation of the Burgundian rulers to literature continued through the first half-century of printing.

During the first three fourths of the 16th century, the Netherlands, with Antwerp as a centre, present the type of a most enlightened community. At the time of the great siege of 1585, Antwerp was at the height of its prosperity, and in the extent and the varied character of its commercial relations it was possibly the leading city of Europe. Antwerp possessed exceptional advantages as a centre of book-production and by the close of the 16th century, out of the sixty-five printers who were at work in the Netherlands, no less than thirteen were in Antwerp. The neighbouring University of Louvain supplied scholarly coöperation which was essential for all the publishing undertakings of the age, while not a few scholars, who, some years later, found themselves with the exiles in Leyden or in Amsterdam, were at this time resident in Antwerp, and were already largely associated with the work of the printing-press. In 1556, at the time of the beginning of the work of the great publisher Plantin, an entire quarter of the city was devoted to the making of books, a circumstance without a parallel among the cities of Europe. The result of the censorship of the Spanish Government was practically to crush out the book business of Antwerp. The presses were largely destroyed and the scholars and printers alike were scattered among the towns of Holland. Plantin placed his imprint upon a number of books of theology, for all of which it was necessary to secure the approval, with the “royal privilege,” of the Duke of Alva and of the successors of the Duke who represented the Spanish Throne.

[Sidenote: Book Regulations, 1560–1570]

The ordinances issued by Philip II concerning books were for the most part merely a confirmation, with some increase in severity, of the edicts of Charles V. The modifications in these ordinances brought about by the States-General in 1566 provided that those books only should be prohibited that contained heretical or pernicious opinions; and that the responsibility for the examination and decision should be shared with the theologians by the scholars of the other university faculties; that instructors should be at liberty to utilise all books not on the prohibited lists; and that the visitation to the bookshops should be made only under the direct authority of the magistrates. Under Alva, the routine for such a visitation was to instruct the magistrates on a specific day (not announced in advance) to place seals on the doors of all printing-offices and bookshops; the examination of the books was then carried out by the suffragan bishop and the local head of the Franciscans. In the years 1566 and 1567, four printers were sentenced to banishment for from four to six years, one was sent to the galleys, and one was hanged.[147]

In 1570, Philip II instituted the office of “proto-typographer” or supervisor of printing for the Netherlands, and appointed as the first occupant of the office the printer Plantin. Master-printers applying to the supervisor for authorisation for a work to be printed must show the certificate of approval of the diocesan bishop or of his vicar, and also of the local magistrate. Printers were required to take an oath of conformity to the doctrines of the Church as set forth by the Council of Trent. No remuneration was attached to the office of proto-typographer, but the incumbent was freed from the duty of lodging soldiers. The important service of the post for Plantin was, of course, the increased facility it secured for him in obtaining approvals and privileges for his own publications. The theologians of Louvain (through whom the ecclesiastical censorship for Antwerp was, in the main, carried on) were not likely to raise question concerning the undertakings of the literary representative of the King. It was suggested that one ground for his selection was the wish of the King to make good to Plantin the loss that had been caused to his business by his arrest in 1562 on a charge of heretical publishing, a charge which proved to be unfounded. It may also be recalled that Philip had promised, in 1568, to pay to Plantin the sum of 21,000 florins as a subvention for the polyglot Bible, edited by Montanus. This payment was, however, never made, and the failure to receive it was one of the causes that had, in 1570, brought Plantin into financial difficulties.[148]

Under the ordinance of 1570, the censorship is lodged with the council, the bishop, and the inquisitor. Each book that may secure their approval is to be referred to the stadtholder, by whom its selling price shall be fixed. Inspection of the printing-offices must be made from time to time by the bishop, the inquisitor, and the proto-typographer, and not less than twice a year by the magistrates. The booksellers must take oath that without permit from the censors they will bring in no book from abroad; that they will sell, except to a buyer with a written permit, no copies, printed in the vernacular, of the Scriptures or of controversial writings; and that they will faithfully obey all the regulations of these ordinances and of the Roman Index (that of Trent, printed as an appendix to the ordinances); all packages of imported books are to be opened only in the presence of the bishop or of the inquisitor.

In 1573, it was ordered that of all the books printed in the Netherlands, one copy should be delivered to the royal library at Antwerp, and a second (to be paid for) to the Escurial.

[Sidenote: 1569. Liège (Lüttich)]

Henricus Hovius printed in Liège, in 1569, an edition of the Index of Trent in which (without any reference or specification) certain additional names and titles have been inserted in the alphabetical lists. The title-page states that the Index has been prepared under the authority of King Philip, and in accordance with a decree of the Duke of Alva. The new titles, probably added at the instance of the divines of Louvain, are for the most part repeated in the Antwerp Index of 1570. Reusch points out that this Liège Index is very carelessly printed and is full of errors.

The prohibitions of the Trent Index were confirmed under the authority of the diocesan synods of the Spanish Netherlands. One of the diocesan edicts required the printers and booksellers each year to take an oath of fidelity to the faith of the Church, in default of which the license to print was to be forfeited. In 1589, the Synod of Tournai prohibited the booksellers from possessing a copy of the _Index librorum haereticorum_, a catalogue printed yearly for the use of the Frankfort Book-Fair, which was based upon the lists of the Index of Trent, but the titles in which were from year to year brought down to date. The book-dealers were already beginning to realise the value for their business of the labour expended by the Church in the preparation of bibliographies of the books which were most likely to prove of interest to the active minded people of the world. This Frankfort catalogue of heretical books was the beginning of a series of such catalogues in which the work of the Congregation of the Index and of the Inquisition was taken advantage of (with material improvements in the accuracy of the bibliography) to emphasise the value and to further the circulation of the books which had been condemned by the Church. The edict of the bishops who met at Tournai in 1589 appears to have been the first expression of doubt on the part of ecclesiastical authorities as to the effectiveness of the condemnations of the Index in lessening the circulation and the influence of heretical literature.