expressed his disapproval of this recension, and new editions were licensed in 1582 and 1588 under the revision of Lionardo Salviati and Luigi Groto. Both preserved the obscenities of the _Decameron_, while they displayed more rigor with regard to satires on ecclesiastical corruption. It may be added, in justice to the Roman Church, that the _Decameron_ stands still upon the Index with the annotation _donec expurgetur_.[152] Therefore we must presume that the work of purification is not yet accomplished, though the Jesuits have used parts of it as a text-book in their schools, while Panigarola quoted it in his lectures on sacred eloquence. [Footnote 151: See Dejob, _De l'Influence, etc._ Chapter III.] [Footnote 152: _Index_, Naples, Pelella, 1862, p. 87.] It would weary the reader to enlarge upon this process of stupid or hypocritical purgation, whereby the writings of men like Doni and Straparola were stripped of their reflections on the clergy, while their indecencies remained untouched; or to show how Ariosto's Comedies were sanctioned, when his Satires, owing to their free speech upon the Papal Court, received the stigma.[153] But I may refer to the grotesque attempts which were made in this age to cast the mantle of spirituality over profane literature. Thus Hieronimo Malipieri rewrote the _Canzoniere_ of Petrarch, giving it a pious turn throughout; and the _Orlando Furioso_ was converted by several hands into a religious allegory.[154] [Footnote 153: This treatment of Ariosto is typical. Men of not over scrupulous nicety may question whether his Comedies are altogether wholesome reading. But not even a Puritan could find fault with his Satires on the score of their morality. Yet Rome sanctioned the Comedies and forbade the Satires.] [Footnote 154: Curious details on this topic are supplied by Dejob, _op. cit._ pp. 179-181, and p. 184.]