The censorship of the Church of Rome and its influence upon the production and distribution of literature, volume 2 (of 2) — John Shaqi
The censorship of the Church of Rome and its influence upon the production and distribution of literature, volume 2 (of 2)Putnam, George Haven
History
The censorship of the Church of Rome and its influence upon the production and distribution of literature, volume 2 (of 2)
Putnam, George Haven
Freedom of the press; Liberty of conscience; Prohibited books
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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account