1. Index of Benedict XIV, 1758.—In 1758, an Index was compiled under the direction of Benedict XIV which is of importance as marking a new departure in the censorship policy of the Church. The accompanying papal brief, which bears date December 23, 1757, states that the Indexes heretofore issued are in various respects incorrect, and that the present work has been prepared in order to place at the service of the faithful trustworthy lists of the books prohibited. In a Bull, issued as far back as July, 1753, the Index Congregation had been charged with the duty of the compilation, and five years had been devoted to the task. The Index was printed at once in two editions, one containing pp. xxxix-268, and the other pp. xxxvi-304. The title-page reads:

Index Librorum prohibitorum SSmi D.N. Benedicti XIV, Pontificis Maximi, jussu Recognitus atque editus. Romae 1758, ex typographia reverendae Camerae Apostolicae. cum summi Pontificis privilegio.

Both editions contain a copper plate vignette. The papal brief is followed by an introduction by Thomas Augustus Ricchini, Secretary of the Congregation; the Tridentine Rules with the commentaries of Clement VIII and Alexander VII, together with a new note on Rule IV (on the reading of the Scriptures); the Instruction of Clement; the Bull of 1753, and a summary (peculiar to this Index) entitled: Decreta de libris prohibitis nec in Indice expressis. Such summaries are in later Indexes entitled Decreta Generalia. In the preface to the Decreta, it is explained that as, on account of the increasing mass of printed books, it is no longer possible to present all the titles in the lists, it has seemed best to classify these into certain general divisions or categories, and to shape general regulations based upon the subjects treated or on the general character of the literature, which shall serve as guides to the faithful, who with this aid need have no difficulty in determining for a book not specifically catalogued, whether or not it belongs to one of the prohibited classes. In the editor’s introduction, Ricchini says: “In the arrangement of the lists, the family names rather than the forenames of the writers have been followed as far as practicable. In the previous Indexes, the forenames were utilised for the main entry, with occasional cross-references to the family name. We have accepted as family names names that have been adopted by the writers. Theses and disputations stand under the names not of the students but of the instructors. Anonymous works are alphabeted under their titles.” Against the entries of books which were condemned in the Tridentine Index, is noted Ind. Trid., and for those condemned under Clement, Append. Ind. Trid. For the prohibitions after 1696, the year is specified, and occasionally the Bull itself. In the cases in which the entry includes the place and date of publication, the prohibition applies not to the work as a whole, but only to the particular edition cited; but in the absence of such specification, the condemnation applies to the work in all its issues. The addition of the term donec corrigatur or donec expurgetur indicates that the responsibility for the corrections rests with the Index Congregation. Reusch points out that the lists in this Index, while presenting corrections of many of the errors contained in the Tridentine and Clementine, are themselves by no means either correct or complete. A number of the names of the Clementine lists have been omitted simply through the oversight of the transcribers.

The Decreta Generalia have the sub-heading: “Prohibited books which have been written or published by heretics or which have to do with heresies or with creeds of unbelievers.” This part of the work contains the following subdivisions:

Certain of the above specifications of classes are entered in the alphabeted lists under the headings: Apologia, Catechesis, Colloquium, Confessio, Disputatio, etc. The titles of individual works belonging to such classes, titles which had found place in many preceding Indexes, are then omitted. In some instances a specific work is entered as an example or type of the class to be prohibited, as Apologia Confessionis Augustinae, with the addendum, et caeterae omnes haereticorum apologiae; vide Decreta.

Under the heading of “Prohibited Books on Special Subjects,” are classed together works condemned under certain prohibitions of the last half of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th; for instance, works on duelling, and letters or pamphlets in which the so-called laws and rules of duelling are presented. Forbidden also are Pasquilles (broadsides or tractates), printed or written, which make citations from the Scriptures, or which in any fashion “approach too near” to God or to the saints, or to the sacraments or other holy things of the Church.

In certain letters addressed to the Inquisitor-General of Spain, Benedict XIV names a number of writers whose works had, on the ground of special consideration for the authors, been spared from the insertion in the Index, although they had fully deserved such measure of condemnation. Among the books so specified are those of the Pope’s friend, Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672–1750). When this letter of the Pope with reference to Muratori was made public, the latter wrote to the Pope for some specification of the grounds for the condemnation of his writings. The Pope replied that he had had in view in this reference, not the theological writings of his friend, but the treatise on the civil jurisdiction of the Pope in the papal States. A number of the writings of Muratori came into sharp criticism and were the subject of controversy, but although these were thoroughly investigated and formally denounced in Rome, no one of them finds place in the Index.

In the list of authors is retained the name of Poza for his complete works, in continued antagonism to the approval of these works by the framers of the Spanish Indexes. Another noteworthy entry is that of the Bibliothèque Janséniste, ou Catalogue Alphabétique des Livres Jansénistes, Quesnellistes, Baganistes ou Suspects de ces Erreurs (Decr., September 20, 1749). This is the work that supplies the material for the anti-Jansenist appendix in the latest Spanish Index. Its condemnation here constitutes a fresh instance of the antagonism which continued in regard to literature and in regard to certain points of doctrine as presented in literature, between the Church of Rome and the Church of Spain.

Raynaud, whose work had been prohibited in the preceding Index, had added his protest to that of Poza at the injustice of being condemned unheard. In his Genitus Columbae, is printed as a parody on the methods of the censors, a critique on the Apostles’ Creed in every article of which is discovered some latent and insidious heresy. The work was itself, naturally enough, promptly condemned.[29]

This Index of Benedict represents the beginning of what may be called the modern policy of the Catholic Church in regard to the censorship of literary production and the control or supervision of the reading of the faithful. By the middle of the 18th century, the Church authorities were finally prepared to admit the impracticability, with any such commissions or examining bodies as could be maintained, of making an individual examination of each work produced from the printing-press. Such a conclusion might with better wisdom have been arrived at a century earlier. The most direct evidence of the futility of the attempts on the part of the Congregation of the Index, of the Roman Inquisition, and of the local inquisitors to inform themselves intelligently concerning the nature, the orthodoxy, and the probable influence for good or for bad of the increasing mass of books brought into print from year to year, is presented by the Indexes themselves. The work of the compilation of these successive Indexes was placed in the hands of scholarly men, and, in the large majority of cases, of men whose integrity of purpose and devotion to the higher interests of the Church need not be brought into question. These devout and scholarly compilers were, however, willing to put into print, under the authority of an infallible Church, instructions for the reading of believers which the most faithful of Catholics must have found difficulty in obeying with any consistency.

The Index lists are marvels of bibliographical inaccuracy. The names of the authors, frequently misspelled, are entered almost at random, at times under their surnames or locality-names, sometimes in the vernacular, sometimes in the Latin forms. This method, or lack of method, necessarily resulted in duplicate entries, while the copyists, instructed to transfer for printer’s copy for a later Index the titles from an earlier, succeeded not infrequently (possibly in the desire to avoid duplications) in omitting altogether writers and books of unquestioned heresy. More serious, however, than these bibliographical blunders, the responsibility for which rested in part at least with copyists or with compositors, were the errors which were undoubtedly due to editorial ignorance. It was increasingly impossible for the compilers to secure personal knowledge of the contents of more than a very small proportion of the books which were to be passed upon and classed as either safe or pernicious. Descriptions or impressions of current publications such as are available to-day through reviews were, prior at least to the middle of the 18th century, non-existent. The judgment arrived at concerning an unfamiliar book depended in part on the name of the author, and in part on that of the printer or the place of publication. Certain printing offices and certain publishing centres came to be associated in the minds of the Roman censors with heretical opinions. The general policy seems to have been that it was safer to condemn a few books not assuredly either pernicious or heretical, than to run the risk of omitting from the lists any single work which might constitute an influence against the authority of the Church.

The selections were also largely influenced by the doctrinal issues and by the party prejudices that arose between the great Orders of the Church. The direction of the censorship work in Rome, both of the Inquisition and of the Congregation, has, since their institution, remained in the hands of the Dominicans. The natural result was a strong bias of opinion and of action against the writings of the Jesuits and of the Franciscans. When, as occasionally happened, the two latter Orders secured representation on the boards of examiners, opportunity was taken to pay off literary scores against the Dominican writers. Of these three great bodies in the Church, the Jesuits included by far the larger proportion of scholarly workers and were responsible for the larger mass of dogmatic and theological literature. It is the books of the Jesuits, therefore, that furnish the largest number of titles to the lists of prohibited doctrinal works by Catholic writers.

Up to the time of Benedict, the authorities who had directed the work of the compilers had thought it necessary to give consideration to the literature produced by Protestant writers, as far as they could secure knowledge concerning the character of the books, or could secure at least information as to their existence. Such knowledge and information were at best but imperfect and fragmentary. The selections from Protestant writers that appear in the Indexes of Pius IV, Paul IV, and Clement VIII impress one as curiously haphazard. It is difficult to understand under what instructions the work of the compilers was done. The names of the larger heretics of the Reformation period, such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, find place in the greater number of the Indexes, although even with these larger names there are occasional curious omissions. In no one of these earlier Indexes, however, in which the attempt was made to present a complete list of the doctrinal writings of these leaders of the Reformation, have the compilers been successful in making a list that was either complete or correct. It is possibly on the ground of some consciousness of probable omissions that, after having inserted in the alphabeted lists the titles (more or less correctly worded) of certain books, it was thought safer to make a second entry by the name of the author, followed by the term “Opera omnia.” With the second and third groups (considered in the order of their relative importance) of the Protestant doctrinal writers, the selection both of the writers themselves and of their books becomes much more incidental or accidental. In certain instances, the most important controversial production of such an author is left uncondemned, while for some comparatively insignificant tract space is made in the catalogue.

While the selections from writers other than Catholic are devoted in the main to doctrinal and controversial literature, and were probably made up as the result of a general instruction to place on the list of prohibitions all works inimical to the true Faith, the Indexes include also a curious sprinkling of titles of what may be called miscellaneous literature, that is, of books having nothing to do with matters of doctrine, theology, or religion.

The attempt to have some consideration given in the Indexes to the literature of the whole of Europe, caused the compilers to depend for their titles upon catalogues which, in many cases, they could not have had an opportunity of verifying. The Italian editors transcribed for these Roman Indexes titles of books which appeared from year to year in the announcement-lists of the Frankfort Book-Fair. Their opinions or guesses as to the pernicious character of a book so announced could be based only upon the name of the author, if this happened to be a well-known name, or upon the imprint and general character of the publisher whose name indicated of course the place of production. It was the case, however, with the publishing catalogues of Frankfort in the 16th and 17th centuries, as with similar catalogues in later centuries, that a certain proportion of the books announced never came into print at all. Either no sufficient subscriptions were secured, or there was a change in the plans of the publisher, or the author did not secure the necessary resources to ensure the undertaking, or the author died before the completion of his work. As a result, distinction and commemoration were secured in the Index for a number of books which never came into existence.

In the Index of Benedict, while no specific statement to such effect is made, the compilers had evidently been instructed to concentrate their censorship labours upon books which, bearing the names of Catholic writers, and printed, for the most part, within Catholic territory, were likely to have influence with readers among the faithful. The authorities of the Church had finally recognised, after a series of experiments continuing during two centuries, that it was not practicable for a group of Italian priests, working in Rome, to keep themselves adequately informed concerning the productions of the printing-press throughout the civilised world. It was not only a physical impossibility to secure knowledge of the contents of these books, printed no longer in one universal language of literature and scholarship but in all the languages of civilisation; it was even impracticable to obtain and to utilise for Index purposes any fairly complete bibliographies of their titles. From the time of Benedict to the present day, the censorship of the Church has therefore restricted its efforts in the main to the supervision of Catholic literature. It is necessary, however, to use the term “in the main” because the Index of Benedict and the succeeding Indexes, including even the two promulgated by Leo XIII, include, in connection with the long lists of doctrinal works by Catholic writers, a curious sprinkling of books written by Protestants for Protestant communities, the majority of which books have no concern whatsoever with doctrinal matter. It it very difficult to arrive at any understanding of the policy on which these selections, comprising a few dozen volumes out of many thousands, have been arrived at. It does not seem to have been based on the relative importance, as hundreds of productions which secured a world-wide reputation, and the influence of which has been decidedly adverse to the contentions of the Church, have received no attention, while volumes of lesser significance have been found worthy of condemnation.

The lists of the Catholic books have also, under the system pursued by the editors of Benedict and their successors, been largely reduced. The method pursued by the Benedictine compilers of condemning in toto certain classes of literature and all books relating to certain specified subjects, saves the editors from the necessity of presenting long lists of titles. In no other manner, in fact, could the conclusions of the censors of the 18th and 19th centuries in regard to the current productions of the printing-press have been brought within reasonable compass. The Index of Benedict marks the beginning of the modern policy of the Church in the matter of censorship.

Hilgers lays stress on the wise toleration of Benedict, as expressed in these regulations of 1758, in insisting that in all cases of doubt, and particularly when the book under examination was a work of a Catholic of repute, the advantage of the doubt should be given to the author; that the author should, if within reach, be given an opportunity, before the decision concerning his book was reached, of being heard before the examiners; that the examination of any book the subject of which might not be one for general understanding should be committed to “consultors” or “qualificators,” one or more of whom must have expert knowledge of the subject-matter; that the judgment should be based upon, not the view of any one Order or group or school, but upon the whole policy of the Christian Church and with reference purely to the welfare and instruction of believers. Hilgers also commends the wise liberality of Benedict in regard to works of science. He adds: “So valuable for the influence of the people is the example of men of science, that it is not too much to say that even in the work of scientific investigation, it is their duty, irrespective of the regulations of the Church, to secure a dispensation for the reading of prohibited books or doubtful books.”[30]

The Constitution of Benedict, issued under the title Sollicita ac provida, was considered to be so wisely framed that Leo XIII, while repealing all the earlier regulations, found it desirable to confirm and to republish this in the Index of 1900.

2. Issues of the Roman Index, 1763–1899.—The Index of 1758 constitutes the foundation of all later issues of the Roman Index. A series of appendices were compiled at irregular intervals (from five to ten years) in such form that they could be bound in with the Benedictine Index. At longer intervals (from twenty-five to fifty years), the lists were consolidated into one alphabet and the Index, so printed, constituted a legitimate new edition. The responsibility for the compilation of these additional lists rested with the successive secretaries of the Congregation of the Index. The introduction, written by the secretary to each new appendix, follows pretty closely the wording of that of Ricchini, printed in 1758.

Appendices issued in 1763, 1770, and 1779 were printed in the printing-office of the Holy See. A number of the better printed editions which, according to the title-page, were the work of this office, were, as Reusch points out, actually printed in places other than Rome. Certain of these have been identified with the typography of offices in Parma, Venice, and Florence. The Index issued in 1786 was continued with five appendices; and, in 1806, was reprinted with the six lists in one alphabet. The first Roman Index of the 19th century was issued in 1819, with an introduction from Alex. Aug. Bardani. The second Index of the century was published under Gregory XVI in 1835, and the third under the same Pope in 1841. Both issues contained prefaces by Thomas Ant. Degola. These three Indexes were reprinted in a number of impressions, and the practice had now obtained of recording correctly the place of issue. Italian issues, printed with the papal privilege, were published at Monza, Monreale (in Sicily), and Naples; and an edition printed in Mechlin also carries a papal privilege. Editions for which no such privilege was secured appeared in Paris and in Brussels. Under Pius IX, were published two editions of the Index, one in 1865 and the second in 1877. Under Leo XIII, were also published two, one in 1881 and the second in 1900 (the preface bears date 1899). This latter is at the present date (January, 1907) the latest issue in the papal series. It is described in detail in Chapter XI. These two Indexes contain each an introduction by the same editor, Hieronymus Pius Saccheri. The second Index of Leo represents a higher standard of bookmaking than had been reached by any previous Index either papal or Spanish. The lists are remarkably free from bibliographical or typographical errors and the printed page is not only readable but artistic. The previous issues of the 19th century, and those of the 18th and 17th, present but very little advance in the matter of consistent and uniform bibliography or in freedom from misprints. According to the routine obtaining after the accession of Benedict, all the more important of the changes which took shape in the successive Indexes were decided upon in sessions of the Congregation at which the Pope himself presided. Such was the case, for instance, with the elimination of the general prohibition of the Copernican writings, with the cancellation of the series of entries connected with the issues between Paul V and Venice, and with the recall of the prohibition of the writings of Cardinal Noailles.

What may be called the editorial division (that is to say, the introduction and official entries) in the Index of Benedict is repeated without change in all the later Indexes through the 19th century. In the Index of 1835, are added to this division two papers. The first is a mandatum of Leo XII, issued under a decree of the Congregation of March 26, 1825, which reads in substance as follows:

The second is a monitum of the Congregation of the Index, dated March 4, 1828. The Congregation enjoins upon all patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, confessors, and local inquisitors the importance of making thorough application of the provision of the second of the Tridentine Rules: “Works by heretics which have to do with religious or theological subjects are prohibited without reservation.” The monitum makes reference also to the instruction of Clement VIII: “All works which are prohibited by the Holy See in the original text are also forbidden in all translations of the same.”

In the Index of 1841, was included a monitum concerning translations into the vernacular of the Scriptures. In the Index of 1877, was included a statement concerning the modification of the penalties that had been prescribed under the Bull of 1869, and also a declaration concerning books on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

In May, 1844, Gregory XVI had included in an encyclical a monitum cautioning all believers to guard themselves not only against the reading of all books prohibited by title, but against the use or the influence of any literature belonging to the classes which are condemned and prohibited under the general instructions of the Index. This monitum of Gregory’s was, however, not itself reprinted in any of the succeeding Indexes.

The Decreta Generalia have received no additions since the time of Benedict. A number of general prohibitions have, however, been issued which are analogous in their character and authority to the Decreta. These are printed in the text of the Index proper and, in certain cases, under headings where they would hardly be looked for. Some of them are entered under libri (omnes incredulorum); the prohibition of books on spiritualism is entered under the term “matter.” Some of these general prohibitions, such as that of the writings of the Carbonari, escaped being repeated in any of the Indexes.

A formula which finds place in the Index first under Benedict reads: Auctor laudabiliter se subjecit et opus suum reprobavit.

When a work has been condemned by the Inquisition or by the Congregation on the ground of heretical propositions, the determination of such propositions is based upon certain general principles laid down by the Inquisition. The author has the alternative of cancelling the book altogether or of agreeing to reprint it with the elimination of the propositions condemned as heretical.

In later years, it has been the practice of the Congregation in the case of authors to whom, on one ground or another, it is thought desirable to extend consideration, to give to such authors, in advance of the publication of any condemnation, the opportunity of making the eliminations or corrections required. If the author promptly assents to such a course, his work is not included in any of the official lists of condemnation. Catholics who learn first through the publication of the official reports that their writings have come into condemnation and who thereupon make submission and promise of correction, are recorded in a supplementary decree of the Congregation. Such decree makes announcement of the fact of the submission and gives approval to the text as corrected, of the work in question. The form of announcement is as follows: Auctor laudabiliter se subjecit et opus reprobavit. In the case of works which have been prohibited with a d.c. the formula reads: Auctor laudabiliter se subjecit et reprobanda reprobavit or et opus amendavit. There are various examples of the use of this formula between the years 1873 and 1881.

In a decree of Pius IX, issued in June, 1848, the censorship concerning material of a religious or doctrinal character, printed either in books or periodicals, was restricted to the territory of the States of the Church. A decree of the inquisitor-general, issued in September, 1851, states:

In an instruction given in July, 1878, by the cardinal vicar of Rome, which has to do particularly with the regulation of divine service, of the sermons, and of the schools of heretics, “whose operations are carried on under the very eyes of the Teacher of Infallible Youth,” is printed the announcement:

1806. Rome. Index Prohibitorius. This Index, issued under Pius VII, is a reprint of the Index of 1786 with continuations of the lists up to the year of its publication.

1819. Rome. Index Prohibitorius. Index Librorum Prohibitorum, Sanctissimi Domini Nostri Pii Septimi Pontificis Maximi jussu editus. The only article in this volume which is distinctive is the “Address to the Catholic Reader” by the editor, Alex. Angelicus Bardani, of the Order of St. Dominic and Secretary of the Congregation of the Index. This address refers, with congratulation, to the pious interest of the faithful which had exhausted the edition of the Index of 1786 (making, curiously enough, no reference to the intervening Index of 1806). The volume was reprinted in 1822 with two appendices and two decrees. The closing portion of the second decree is devoted to a denunciation of five works in English relating to papal controversies in North America, as follows:

“An Address to the Congregation of St. Mary’s Church, Philadelphia.”

“Continuation of an Address,” etc.

“The Opinion of the Right Reverend John Rico on the Address.”

“Address of the Committee.”

“Address of the Right Reverend Bishop of Pennsylvania,” etc.

A further edition of this Index with some revisions was printed in Paris in 1825—Le Catalogue des Ouvrages mis à l’Index, contenant les noms de tous les Livres condamnés par la Cour de Rome, depuis l’invention de l’Imprimerie jusqu’ à 1825, avec les dates des Décrets de leur condamnation. The lists are preceded by an Avis de l’Éditeur in which an account is given of the Congregation of the Index at Rome with reference to the work of Catalani. It proceeds to say that the works comprehended in this Index are those which had been prohibited by Pius VI and Pius VII, together with all which are known to have been since censured sous l’heureux gouvernment de l’Église Universelle par N.T.S. Père le Pape Léon XII. It is not clear what authority this general Index may have been held to possess in France as, under various preceding utterances, the Gallican Church had taken the position that the Indexes of Rome were not to have authority in France unless reissued with the specific approval of the rulers of the French Church.

This Index contains a condemnation of the “Defence of the Ancient Faith,” by the Rev. Peter Gandolphy, published in 1816, a work which had secured the approbation of the master of the sacred palace and of Damiani, master of theology. The appendix includes also Lady Morgan’s volume on Italy, and a special decree in regard to the New Testament.

A reprint of the Index of 1819 was issued in Brussels in 1828.

1835. Rome. Gregory XVI. Prohibitorius.

1841. Rome. Gregory XVI. Prohibitorius. Reprints of these two Indexes were issued (with papal privileges) in Mechlin, Monza, Monreale, and Naples.

1855. Rome. Pius IX. Prohibitorius.

1871. Rome. Pius IX. Reissue, with an appendix, of the Index of 1841.

1877. Rome. Pius IX. Prohibitorius. Each of these Indexes contains an introduction by Hieronymus Pius Saccheri. The lists of titles in both present a number of errors, bibliographical and typographical, and are in fact much less correct than those of Benedict.

1881. Rome. Leo XIII. Index Prohibitorius, reprinted with appendix in 1884.

1896. Rome. Leo XIII. Index Prohibitorius. A reprint of the Index of 1884, with appendix carrying the titles to 1895.

1899–1900. Rome. Leo XIII. Index Prohibitorius: for specification of contents, see Chapter XI.