Catholic Church and Modern Science. Documents from the Archives of the Roman Congregations of the Holy Office and the Index [Volume I. Sixteenth-century documents. Tome 1] 8820982889, 9788820982881

Citation preview

FONTES ARCHIVI SANCTI OFFICII ROMANI SERIES DOCUMENTORUM ARCHIVI

CONGREGATIONIS PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI

5 CATHOLIC CHURCH AND MODERN SCIENCE Ugo Baldini, General Editor

ROMZE EX OFFICINA LIBRARIA VATICANA A. MMIX

FONTES ARCHIVI SANCTI OFFICII ROMANI ------------------------------- 5 --------------------------------

CATHOLIC CHURCH AND MODERN SCIENCE Documents from the Archives o f the Roman Congregations o f the Holy Office and the Index

Volume I SIXTEENTH - CENTURY DOCUMENTS

Edited by Ugo Baldini and Leen Spruit

TOME 1

LIBRERIA EDITRICE VATICANA ROMA 2009

SUMMARY

TOME 1 P reface.................................................................................................... Foreword

XI

.............................................................................................. XVII

G eneral I n t r o d u c t io n ..................................................................

1. Index and Inquisition docum ents.......................................... 1.1. Extant Documentation.................................................... 1.2. Selection C riteria.................... 1.3. Note on the Sixteenth-Century T e x ts ........................

1 4 4 11 27

2. The Prosecution of Science and Natural Philosophy . . . 2.1. The Rise of the Holy Office and the I n d e x .............. 2.2. Heresy and H etero d o x y................................................. 2.3. Trials and C ensurae ........................................................ 2.3.1. Instrum ents........................................................... 2.3.2. An Inquisitorial T ria l.......................................... 2.3.3. Censura: Assessment and Expurgation . . . 2.3.4. C en so rs.................................................................. 2.4. Italy and A b ro ad .............................................................. 2.5. C r ite r ia ................................................................................

30

3. The effects of censorship.........................................................

69

Outcome of T r ia ls ........................................................... Effects of C ensurae and Corrections............................ The Audience of Forbidden B o o k s ............................ On th e ‘Bridling’ of Science and Philosophy . . . .

69 72 80 85

4. Principles of Transcription, Notes and Abbreviations . .

91

3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4.

4.1. Transcription and N o te s ................................................ 4.2. Abbreviations of Bible books, Archives, Libraries and Monastic O r d e r r ........................................................... ~ V ~

34 41 44 44 48 53 57 59 62

91 95

SUMMARY

P art O n e : T he O rganiza tion of the I ndex I n t r o d u c t io n .......................................................................................

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

103

The Inquisition Index and the Tridentine Index .............. The Prohibitions by the Master of the Sacred Palace . . . The Indexes issued by the Congregation for the Index . . The Application of the Clementine I n d e x ............................ A Note on Texts and S e c tio n s .................................................

105 108 I ll 123 128

D o c u m e n t s ..............................................................................................

129

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. V ili.

Criteria for Inserting Authors and Books ..................... 129 Definition of Index R u le s .................................................... 153 Questions and Doubts on the Applica tion of the Index 181 Counselling on Books and A uthors................................... 202 Works to Be C o rre c te d ........................................................ 228 Lists of Books and A u th o rs................................................. 280 Assignm ent of Expurg atory C e n s u r a e ............................ 340 Congregation for the Index: Censura e (1577 - ca. 1596) . 386 P art T w o : T rials, Censura e , P rohibit ions

F irst Section .-G eneral I s s u e s ........................................................

I. II. III. IV. V. VI.

A lch em y................................................................................... Astrology ................................................................................ Magic ....................................................................................... Medicin e and Natural P h ilo so p h y ................................... The Pisa C ircle......................................................................... The Distraint of Demiano Zenaro’s B o o k s.....................

Second Section : I ndividu al C ases

417 419 440 586 599 665 683

.............................................

705

1. Georg Agricola ......................................................................... 2. Heinrich Cornelius A grippa.................................................... 3. Ps-Albertus M agn u s..................................................................

707 711 720

~ VI ~

SUMMARY

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Ulisse A ld ro v an d i..................................................................... Amatus L u sita n u s..................................................................... Arnaldus of V illan o v a.............................................................. Guillaume de Saiuste du B artas............................................. Jean Bauhin................................................................................... Jean B o d in ................................................................................... Giovanni Maria B o n a rd o ....................................................... Girolamo Borri............................................................................ Otto Brunfels................................................................................ Giordano B ru n o ......................................................................... Alessandro B u tr io .....................................................................

727 744 769 799 802 804 807 812 855 862 973

TOME 2 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

Tommaso C am panella.............................................................. 975 Girolamo C ardano......................................................................... 1033 Nicolaus Copernicus..................................................................... 1473 Janus C o rn a riu s.............................................................................1482 Cesare C rem o n in i.........................................................................1485 Konrad D asyp odius......................................................................1488 Domenico D elfino.........................................................................1495 Giovan Battista Della P o r ta ........................................................1507 Thomas E r a s tu s ............................................................................ 1565 E u c lid e s .......................................................................................... 1590 Eunapius S ard ia n u s......................................................................1593 Georg F a b ric iu s.............................................................................1600 Silvestro F a z io ................................................................................1603 Gabriele F e rra ra ............................................................................ 1611 Giovanni Matteo Ferrari...............................................................1614 Thomas F re ig e ................................................................................ 1616 Leonhart F u c h s .............................................................................1622 Konrad G essn er............................................................................ 1673 Francesco G io rgio ......................................................................... 1738 ~ VII ~

SUMMARY

34. Francesco Giuntini......................................................................... 1878 35. Guglielmo G rataroli......................................................................1885 TOME 3 36. Levinus H u ls iu s ............................................................................ 1905 37. Hadrianus Junius............................................................................ 1908 38. Johann K entm ann......................................................................... 1913 39. Levinus Lem nius............................................................................ 1915 40. Cyprian L eo w itz............................................................................ 1970 4L Johann L o n itz e r............................................................................ 1979 42. Ramon L u ll.......................................................................................1983 43. Gerard M ercator......................................................................... 2051 44. Jakob M ilic h ................................................................................ 2068 45. Antoine M izau ld......................................................................... 2077 46. Sebastian M u n ster..................................................................... 2089 47. Michael Neander............................................................................2137 48. David O rig a n u s ............................................................................ 2140 49. Abraham O rte liu s.........................................................................2151 50. Theophrast Paracelsus..................................................................2166 51. Francesco Patrizi............................................................................ 2197 52. Benito P e r e ir a ............................................................................ 2265 53. Kaspar P e u c e r ............................................................................ 2272 54. Pietro Pomponazzi..................................................................... 2277 55. Gioviano P o n tan o ..................................................................... 2281 56. Petrus Ramus................................................................................ 2285 57. Erasmus R ein h o ld ..................................................................... 2297 58. Friedrich R is n e r ......................................................................... 2300 59. Francesco Sansovini.................................................................. 2302 60. Julius Caesar S c a lig e r .............................................................. 2304 61. Josephus Justus Scaliger.............................................................. 2311 62. Jakob Schegk................................................................................ 2326 ~ VIII ~

SUMMARY

63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

Johann S c h ó n e r......................................................................... 2331 André Schott................................................................................ 2340 Erasmus Oswald Schreckenfuchs.......................................... 2342 Clemens S ch u b e rt..................................................................... 2362 Simone Sim oni............................................................................ 2377 Jean S t a d e ................................................................................... 2385 Agostino S te u c o ......................................................................... 2388 Nicola Antonio S tiglio la........................................................... 2402 Matteo Tafuri...................................................................................2411 Bernardino Telesio........................................................................ 2415 Johann Conrad U lm er.............................................................. 2426 Joachim V ad ia n u s..................................................................... 2428 Francisco V a llé s ......................................................................... 2435 Henricus de V e n o ..................................................................... 2447 Battista V e rtem ati..................................................................... 2459 Polidoro V irgilio ......................................................................... 2462 Johann Jakob W e c k e r.............................................................. 2480 Aelius Franciscus van der W i e l ................................................ 2513 Johann Wild (F erus)..................................................................... 2516 Hieronymus W ildenberg........................................................... 2530 Hermann W ite k in d .................................................................. 2542 Hieronymus W o lf ..................................................................... 2545 Wilhelm X ylan d er..................................................................... 2554 Jakob Z iegler................................................................................ 2558

P art T hree : L icences

Introduction

.......................................................................................... 2567

D o cu m en ts.............................................................................................. 2596

SUMMARY

TOME 4 APPENDIX 1. Biographical V adem ecum ............................................................... 2783 2. List of Authors of Documents........................................................ 2967 3. List of Published D ocum ents........................................................ 3001 4. Holy Office T r ia ls ............................................................................ 3068 5. Index Proceedings............................................................................ 3070 6. Consultors of the Congregation forthe I n d e x ....................... 3077 7. Diagrams of Licences Requested for and G ran ted ................. 3084 Bibliography

I.

..........................................................................................3101

Indexes of Forbidden B ooks....................................................3103

II. Reference W o rk s .........................................................................3107 III. Primary S o u r c e s .........................................................................3112 IV. Secundary S o u rc e s.................................................................. 3208 I ndex of N a m e s ...................................................................................... 3259 G eneral I n d e x ....................................................................................... 3373

~ X ~

PREFACE

The opening of the Archives of the Congregations of the Holy Office and of the Index makes a resource of the highest value available to his­ torians and theologians. Until now lacunae in the available information have inevitably led some scholars to make sweeping generalizations, without sufficient foundation, based on conclusions drawn from indi­ vidual cases. Now however and for the future, we have an abundant documentation stretching from the 16th century to the first years of the 19th century, thus allowing us to understand better the significance of these institutions as well as their evolution during this period. In the outstanding Introduction to the present volume, the authors present the aim of this work: not to provide definitive answers to the questions which are raised, but rather to make available a wider docu­ mentation, making research less susceptible to the hazards of chance than it had been in the past. Certain of the points underscored in the Introduction are especial­ ly worthy of attention because of their hermeneutical implications. The institution of the Inquisition goes back to the Middle Ages, but it was in 1542 that Pope Paul III established the modern Inquisi­ tion. If one considers the privileges granted to the kings of Spain and Portugal, and the authority of a university like the Sorbonne, we can speak of a Roman Inquisition whose interventions were restricted, for the most part, to Italy. Some thirty years later, Pope Pius V created the Congregation of the Index in 1571. While it is true that between this institution and the Congregation of the Holy Office there were numerous inter-rela­ tionships, each office had a clearly conceived purpose. The Holy Of­ fice of the Inquisition dealt with persons, while the Congregation of the Index examined works. By failing to take into account this deci­ sive distinction, which determined the difference both in the methods and the decisions of these two institutions, one easily falls into a se­ ries of erroneous and mistaken interpretations. XI

CATHOLIC CHURCH AND MODERN SCIENCE

Heresy was the principal concern of the Inquisition. In current us­ age, heresy refers to a proposition whose content is at variance with the rule of orthodoxy. This is not the primary meaning handed on by the canonical and theological tradition, according to which heresy referred to the deliberate adherence with one’s intellect to a proposition con­ trary to Catholic doctrine, as defined by the Church. This understand­ ing o f the nature of heresy presupposed that the truth in question had been properly presented to the person, who had been brought up in the Catholic faith. As the act of faith also involves the action o f the will, as well as the presence of sufficient motives for belief, heresy was seen as a deliberate and willful act, to which the person remained tenacious­ ly attached in spite of exhortations not to abandon correct doctrine. It is for this reason that heresy constituted a serious crime and was not simply viewed as an erroneous opinion. It should be noted that, for this reason, Jewish and Muslim thinkers, or people brought up in Protes­ tantism, were not the aim of the Inquisition. T he pedagogical, psychological and sociological conditioning o f both the presentation and the perception o f the doctrine o f the faith is obviously an issue. The heretic must be brought back to the right way and prevented from leading others astray. H ere other problems arise relating to the pertinence and the morality o f the means that were used. Reflecting on these problems ought to lead us toward the “ purification o f m em ory” about w hich P o p e John P aul II spoke. H ere it is enough to mention this question. W e note only that on account o f the seriousness o f the threat which heresy, defined in the above manner, posed to the faith, theologians w ere led to m ake a clear distinction betw een heresy pro p erly so called and opinions more or less incompatible with the content o f the faith. It emerges from the available docum entation that the principal concern o f the H oly O ffice was to prevent the infiltration and pene­ tration o f Protestant ideas. The Congregation o f the Index had, in its examination o f works, an analogous concern. So it is that there were occasionally investigations o f the authors o f scientific works, due to their sympathies, more or less manifest, with the ideas o f the Protes­ tant Reformation.

~ X II ~

PREFACE

The historical period of the Reformation was also that of the emer­ gence of the modern natural sciences, and although one cannot establish a strict parallelism between these two phenomena with regard to their inspiration and their appearance, this does not exclude the possibility of contact and relationships on the level of individual persons. It is impor­ tant to emphasize that, in the majority of cases in which the authors of scientific works were condemned, corrected, or investigated, this was not principally on account of the object of their research, but rather be­ cause they were suspected of connivance with Protestant heresy. It is therefore misleading to see the activity of the two Congregations as a struggle against science undertaken in the name of faith, although this is the opinion which has been propagated since the time of the Enlighten­ ment. Indeed, in some cases it seems that the censors attached little im­ portance to scientific content, their principal concern being religious or­ thodoxy. These insights do not mean that the present collection of mate­ rials will not be of great interest for the history of ideas, or to be more precise, for the history of science. Here two aspects need to be noted. T he epistem ological configuration of the scientific disciplines which eventually prevailed in the m odern period only came progres­ sively to be delineated with clarity. So certain boundaries were still poorly defined, as for example between astrology and astronomy, or among the fields of alchemy, chemistry and physics. W hen things b e ­ came more clearly perceived, a certain redistribution of subject m at­ ter took place, and topics which had emerged in the area of astrology find their place in astronomy; the same thing is true for the distinc­ tion between chemistry and alchemy, as well as for the distinction be­ tween natural magic and dem onic magic. Men like G iovanni Pico della M irandola and Marsilio Ficino were interested in the former. The latter was always severely condemned. A process of p ro fo u n d transform ation in epistem ological co n ­ sciousness accompanied the birth of certain scientific disciplines in the sense that we now understand the term scientific. This took place in the 15th and 16th centuries. The Cardinals and theologians who had responsibility in the two Congregations followed the development of these new ideas with personal interest. X III

CATHOLIC CHURCH AND MODERN SCIENCE

In the 17th century, mathematical physics was fully recognized in its own legitimacy. Here one should mention a second aspect. The Physics of Aristotle, which is in fact a philosophy of nature, estab­ lished a qualitative hierarchy among the different disciplines of knowledge, in which mathematics occupied a subordinate place. The new science therefore accomplished a radical reversal of this order­ ing, with indirect consequences for the religious worldview as well. In effect, the Physics was crowned by considerations on the Prime Mover, which were taken up in Christianity by natural theology. Fur­ thermore, an amalgam was introduced between the natural philoso­ phy of Aristotle and the interpretation of biblical teachings. The new discoveries therefore were perceived by many persons as a real “seis­ mic shift” in outlook. Some time had to pass for these discoveries to be accepted and integrated. Persons of insight, like Robert Bellarmine, were all too rare.

The present volume provides information and explanations of the two Congregations’ criteria of action, procedural rules, and differences in their interventions. One cannot make a reasonably consid­ ered judgment solely on the basis of the cases. The taking account of the different forms of censure is indispensable toward this end. It is significant that in a majority of cases the destruction of books was not demanded, but rather their correction. Furthermore, the complexity of the material obliged the judges and the censors to refine the analysis of evident cases of heresy. This effort at clarification concerned both theology and jurisprudence, as the redaction of handbooks, like that of Michele Ghislieri (1559), bears witness. What were the consequences, direct or indirect, of the activity of the two Congregations? This question can be asked on the cultural as well as on the properly ecclesial level. Was scientific creativity hampered? Historians will find some el­ ements in the present volume on which to base a response. With respect to the theological problems posed by the Inquisition and the recourse to coercive measures, these problems, in my view, ~ XIV ~

PREFACE

must be seen within the perspective of the “purification of memory” spoken of by Pope John Paul II, notably in his Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente (numbers 33-36), published on November 10, 1994. It is a sign of fidelity to its mission that the Church’s Magisterium was seriously concerned for the defense of the faith and for the pro­ tection of Christians whose education made them little prepared to confront the ideas of those who may be called the novatores, and that in a Christian country this concern would extend to the social unrest which such ideas could cause. The fact that the means chosen were above all of a disciplinary or­ der and that recourse was made “to intolerance and even the use of vio­ lence in the service of truth” (TMA, 35): this is what ought to occupy the attention of theologians. The thinking of the Church is clarified by its own history and it is often by means of painful experiences that her consciousness of the demands of the Gospel with respect to how she is to act, progressively deepens and matures. John Paul II repeat­ ed the sublime principle enunciated by Vatican II: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power” {Dignitatis humanae, 1; cf. TMA, 35). It should be added that it would be an error of perspective to judge the life of the Church and the pastoral Magisterium in these centuries based solely on the disciplinary institutions which she pos­ sessed. One needs only to think of the missionary impulse, liturgical reform, seminaries, and the emergence of new religious orders. The creation of the Jesuit colleges for example had a religious and cultural impact of the first order. These brief considerations seek above all to be an expression of gratitude to the authors of this volume, which constitutes a remark­ able resource for scholarly work and which will certainly make a last­ ing contribution.

George Card. Cottier, O.P.

FOREWORD

The idea of researching into the relationship between the Catholic Church and modern science arose from a conversation held in 1994 between Mgr Renato Dardozzi, (then the Director of the Chancellery at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences), Professor Mario D ’Addio and myself. The initial idea was to compile a volume of papers by differ­ ent authors on the Copernican issue before and after the 1615-1616 and the 1632-1633 proceedings, both of which essentially concerned Galileo Galilei. Although numerous studies had already been made on this subject, they had utilized only a small part of the ancient archives of the Holy Office (the Roman Inquisition) and of the Con­ gregation of the Index. These archives, kept in the Roman Archive of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (ACDF), were not as yet open to the public, and indeed since the end of the nineteenth century only Antonio Favaro, the editor of the National Edition of the works of Galileo, and a handful of other scholars interested in the issue of Copernicanism, had been allowed access to them — and even then only for short periods. Moreover, these scholars — who were concerned mostly with the Galileo case — had almost exclu­ sively consulted only those codices where they imagined there would be relevant documentation. For which reason, it was possible that these two archives might hold further documents on the Tuscan mathematician, and even more likely that there would also be further documents and/or rulings of ecclesiastical censorship on heliocentricism dating from both before and after the Galileo case. The papers to be contained, therefore, in the proposed volume, apart from con­ taining new discussions on already well researched issues, would also need to be dedicated to the publication and analysis of other docu­ ments. Although in principle the Secret Vatican Archives and the other Roman Archives might hold some important materials, these archives had been open to scholars for a considerable time and indeed analytical inventories existed. The possibility of making XVII

CATHOLIC CHURCH AND MODERN SCIENCE

important new finds was basically limited to the ACDF and, conse­ quently, the necessary research in this archive would need to be more extensive and systematical than for any previous study. The task of transforming this idea into a feasible project and of performing all the many delicate steps required to bring it to comple­ tion was carried out almost entirely by Mgr Dardozzi, a man both deeply religious and also formed in the sciences (he had risen to the heights of his profession as an engineer before becoming a priest in later life). Convinced that a good understanding of science was a cen­ tral element in the relationship of the Catholic Church with the mod­ ern world, he believed that a reconstruction of the history of the Copernican question was necessary, if only because it had been the best known, most im portant and lengthiest bone of contention between the Church and the world of scientific learning. Conse­ quently, he was convinced that such a reconstruction was intrinsic to the institutional objectives of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He therefore submitted the project to Professor Nicola Cabibbo, Presi­ dent of the Academy, who immediately accepted it; this was followed by the approval of the Academy Council which signaled the official go-ahead for the project. Between the end of 1994 and the beginning of 1995 Mgr Dardozzi outlined the idea to Archbishop Alberto Bovone, the then Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In March 1995, Archbishop Bavone replied that, in principle, the Congregation was in favor of allowing the research work, (subject to it being carried out according to a detailed plan that had yet to be fully worked out), and that the Congregation would allow a preliminary visit to the Archive so that an initial evaluation of the state of the documentation could be carried out. It is only right to point out that this decision was almost without precedent. Now, years later, I would like to take the opportunity to express my deepest and warmest public thanks for the enlightened openness shown by the Congregation and in particular by the then Prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Following a visit to the ACDF in May 1995 by Mgr Dardozzi, Pro­ fessor D’Addio and myself, and some in-depth conversations with its Director, Mgr. Alejandro Cifres, two somewhat contradictory things XVIII ~

FOREWORD

became clear. The first was that the research work would be much more difficult and require much more time than originally envisaged (the initial estimate was two years). This was due to a number of fac­ tors: some of the Holy Office and Index Archive resources were vir­ tually without any inventory; others had some very sketchy ones; some of the methods used by past archivists to trace files on any par­ ticular person or subject were adequate to identify a doctrinal or judi­ cial case, but of no use in tracing relevant individual documents to such proceedings. The second thing was that the connections between heliocentricism and many other aspects of scientific devel­ opment and intellectual life between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries made it difficult to establish criteria for making clear cut distinctions between one topic and another. At the same time the enormous quantity of material, which possibly contained important and unforeseen information concerning other times and topics, clearly indicated that this was a major and unique research opportu­ nity to enrich our knowledge on an indeterminable number of other aspects of scientific history. These considerations necessitated a period of reflection, between 1995 and the beginning of 1996, as to whether to extend the scope of the project, and if so whether such an extension would require new resources and a greater number of researchers than first envisaged in order to meet the greater organizational commitment. The quantity of materials was such that the original idea of producing a collection of commentaries on new documents had to be rejected in favour of producing a methodical edition of all relevant documentation — without interpretative sections, but complemented with introductions and notes, both philological and on content. Professor D’Addio agreed with this new approach but his prior commitments prevented him from participating in it. Consequently, having chosen three assis­ tants to help me in examining the codices, and in filing and transcrib­ ing the documents, I took responsibility for the management and exe­ cution of this project. In this new form the project was provisionally entitled: “Il rap­ porto Chiesa cattolica - scienza negli archivi delle Congregazioni del Sant’Uffizio d ell’inquisizione e dell’indice (dalle origini alla età napoleonica)” [The Relationship of the Catholic Church with Science ~ XIX ~

CATHOLIC CHURCH AND MODERN SCIENCE

in the Archives of the Congregations of the Holy Office (the Roman Inquisition) and of the Index (from their initiation until the Napoleonic epoch)]. The Napoleonic period (in particular February 1808 when Rome was occupied by French troops) was chosen as the time limit, on the grounds that the deportation of Pope Pius VII and the suppression of Pontifical government meant that the work of the two Congregations was basically interrupted until 1815, thereby cre­ ating a discontinuity in their Archive records. This date also almost exactly coincides with the transition from eighteenth century science to that of the nineteenth century. When the body responsible for Ecclesiastical Censorship resumed its activity, the prevailing political and cultural conditions — and to an even greater extent the intellec­ tual situation — had greatly changed; so much so that the tensions between religion and science had shifted away from the area of physics and astronomy towards that of natural history and biology. It is for this reason, as well as because of certain changes in the organi­ zation of the censorship, that we concentrated our research on the ancien régime as a clearly distinct historical period. Having been communicated to its new Secretary, Archbishop Tar­ cisio Bertone and to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, our new research title was accepted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. While, thanks in no small part to Archbishop Giovanni Battista Re (then the Sostituto of the Secretary of State), the in creased organizational and financial support required was guaranteed by Mgr Dardozzi. Given that the Archive of the Congregation, still officially closed to the public, continued to maintain direct control over the transcrip­ tion and publication of documents, and given the special importance and extent of the research permit granted, the Congregation and the Academy agreed that, while the project was to develop as a joint ini­ tiative, the results would appear in a series of volumes published by the former, Fontes Archivi Sancti Officii Fomani. Although necessary, this decision was also opportune as it provided the authors, in the face of highly complex textual problems, with access to the vast expe­ rience and skill of the staff of the Libreria Editrice Vaticana, which would publish the series. In May 1996, the President and Secretary of the Academ y

FOREWORD

informed Pope John Paul II of the project. Then in October a Scien­ tific Committee was formed, presided over by Mgr Dardozzi and made up of Fr. Georges Cottier OP, Mgr Prof. Walter Brandmiiller, Fr. Raffaele Farina SDB, Professor Mario D’Addio, Dr Ambrogio Piazzoni and myself. I would like express gratitude to all the mem­ bers of the Committee, but in particular to Mgr Brandmuller, who as President of the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences stepped in as President of the Scientific Committee following the death of Mgr Dardozzi, for his constant commitment in the development and completion of the project. Mgr Brandmuller offered his services despite the lengthier timescale of the process and notwithstanding the fact that the promotion of other members of the committee to positions of responsibility within the Church brought them both new and demanding duties. When Mgr Dardozzi retired as Director of the Chancellery of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1997, the new Director, Fr. Giuseppe Pittau SJ, continued to actively support the project and I would also like to express my gratitude to him. The filin g of relevant docum ents in ACDF, w hich began in Autumn 1996, soon proved to be more difficult than expected. The situ atio n , w hich em erged from the study of the in ven to ries, demanded that thousands of codices be examined sheet by sheet. Many documents were without recognizable structure and of very varied content requiring, therefore, a thorough reading before it was possible to establish whether they were relevant for the project. Handwriting and the state of paper conservation often made tran­ scription difficult and at times even the recognition of content. These problems were to create difficulties at the transcription stage: hun­ dreds of documents needed to be examined repeatedly in order to slowly extend their legible parts; often the content of the documents was only allusive or incomplete making the preparation of content notes very difficult; often the original writers were making only notes for themselves or for others within the Congregations and therefore presupposed that certain details (authors, titles, editions, dates), were already known. Moreover, given the extended period necessary to complete the project and given their other commitments, some of the research workers left the initial group. These circumstances, together with XXI ~

CATHOLIC CHURCH AND MODERN SCIENCE

other technical factors, explain why the initial timescale was gradually extended to eleven years in order to complete the edition of just those documents pertaining to the sixteenth century; and this in turn was extended to almost thirteen years for editorial reasons. Only after the filing and transcription of the documents was the second phase of preparing the critical apparatus embarked upon. In this second stage Professor Leen Spruit worked with me, not only as my collaborator but also as co-author. His ability and commitment sustained me when the work seemed interminable and I am certain that this will remain unchanged in the preparation of the next volumes. Given that the research of documents up until 1808 has been completed on almost all the ACDF sources and series, and that part of those pertaining to the seventeenth century have already been transcribed, it is to be hoped that the remaining parts of the edition will appear in a much shorter timescale. U go Baldini

Acknowledgments The original research group members — Dr. Antonello Pizzaleo and Dr. Cesare Preti, to whom Dr. Carla San Mauro was later added — took part in a significant way at the difficult initial stage of filing the codices and tran­ scribing the initial set of documents pertaining to the sixteenth century. Professional commitments and personal reasons gradually obliged them to abandon the work, but their contribution was indispensable. Dr. Preti was the co-author of a number of publications, before the completion of the final edition, which provided the scholars with particularly important mate­ rial, such as many new documents on Tommaso Campanella. Professors Gigliola Fragnito and Rodolfo Savelli must also be mentioned among those scholars who furnished invaluable advice, especially of a critical nature; they also agreed to examine the entire part of the work pertaining to the six­ teenth century before its final completion. Dr. Johann Ickx, archivist at the Apostolic Penitentiary, provided generous assistance for research at his archive and at that of the Canons of St Peter’s. Dr. Herman H. Schwedt generously and without hesitation offered the vast experience of his research into the institutional history of the two Congregations, and sup-

XXII

FOREWORD

plied information concerning their officials drawn from his large biographi­ cal archive, created over many years of methodical study. Special thanks is due to Mgr Alejandro Cifres, Director of ACDF, who has always supported the project and who, as the Director of Fontes, attended to the organiza­ tional aspect of the edition. To all his collaborators, who over the years have befriended the researchers and have sympathized with their needs, even when it required from them work beyond the call of duty, I also offer my sincere gratitude. Finally, my grateful thanks go the various Superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, those already mentioned as well as those cur­ rently in office: Cardinal William J. Levada and Archbishop Luis F. Ladaria Ferrer, SJ. Without the generous openness and wise foresight that inspired the choices and active commitment of the Dicastery to support this project — especially during the more difficult moments often laden with misunder­ standing — I am sure that this project would never have been completed.

~ XXIII

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Until recently, historical research on the censorial interventions re­ garding science and natural philosophy by Roman ecclesiastical bodies of doctrinal control focused for the most part on individual cases, such as those of Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei.1 Accordingly, most studies concentrated on the ‘victims’ of ecclesiastical censorship, rather than on the institutional aspects of the latter. Hence, due also to the en­ during closure of the Roman Archives of the Inquisition and the Index, individual cases were seen as fully representative for the standard func­ tioning of these bodies of doctrinal control. This annotated edition of documents from those archives aims to furnish a more detailed and ar­ ticulated picture, paying attention to doctrinal and juridical aspects, and in particular to phenomena that can be best defined as pertaining to the lon gu e durée, namely the broader views underlying the ecclesias­ tical assessment of science and natural philosophy. In the past, investigation into the Catholic Church’s attitude towards science and philosophy has frequently been characterized by several forms of bias. Since the Enlightment, when the issue of the historical role of Inquisition and of ecclesiastical censorship was raised, Catholic authors, such as Vaisecchi and Zaccaria,2 were heavily conditioned by apologetic aims, while most ‘lay’ historians described the relation be­ tween science and faith in terms of the Church’s hampering of scientif­ ic progress, in particular in Italy and the Iberian peninsula. Both ap­ proaches assumed, and accordingly developed, an essentially monolith­ ic picture of the functioning of the Congregations. In particular, nine­ teenth and twentieth-century historical studies analyzed the Roman

1 2

For discussion of Spanish and Portuguese situations, see Pardo Tomas 1991. Vaisecchi 1765 and 1787; Zaccaria 1777.

~ 1 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Congregations as characterized by fixed criteria, ignorant collabora­ tors, hostility towards science and free thought, and in general by a fundamental misunderstanding of cultural innovation. The recent opening of their archives permits a more balanced account of the inner functioning of these bodies, in particular as to the slow, but significant, development of the criteria, the scientific culture and philosophical mentality of members and functionaries of the Congregations, and fi­ nally as to the effects of ecclesiastical censorship. From the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, ecclesiastical exami­ nation and censure of science underwent some remarkable changes. Thus, particular attention must be paid to the levels and phases of as­ sessment. A few examples may clarify this issue. First, many authors of works which can be viewed as ‘scientific’ in a modern sense were not prohibited (or prosecuted) for specific scientific or philosophical views, but rather because of their religious creed or else for their in­ volvement in disciplines now regarded as pseudo-scientific, such as as­ trology and magic. Second, as a rule ecclesiastical censure did not ban technical scientific works, but rather popularizations and philosophical extrapolations. Newton’s Principia were not placed on the Index, while expositions of his ideas, such as Voltaire’s E lem ents and Algarotti’s 11 H ew tonianism o p er le dam e, were promptly forbidden. Third, the crite­ ria for condemnations were not everlasting. By the middle of the eigh­ teenth century exponents of the Roman Curia started to realize that traditional geocentrism had become groundless. The influential consultor Pietro Lazzeri proposed to remove the condemnation of heliocen­ trism from the Index. His view was adopted by the Index issued under Pope Benedict XIV in 1758 which tacitly removed the general con­ demnation, but not that of the individual works censured in 1616? Fi­ nally, many (scientific and philosophical) works were not condemned tou t court, but with the d o n ec corrigatu r or ex purgetur proviso. This meant that these works could be permitted either in an emendated edi­ tion or else that reading permits could be granted for older editions on condition that they were corrected according to expurgatory censurae approved by the central bodies of doctrinal control.34 3 4

For discussion, see Baldini 2000b, pp. 301-332, and Finocchiaro 2005, pp. 138-53. See infra, sect. 2.3.3 and ch. Licences, Introduction.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Some caveats are due concerning the geographical and historical delimitation of the issue under scrutiny. The doctrinal control over science and natural philosophy by the Roman Congregations is inves­ tigated here without taking into account the activities of the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions and indexes. This is made possible by the fact that their respective territorial jurisdictions were distinct. By contrast, given that the Church was totally involved in the war against heterodoxy, the actions taken by the Roman Congregations in Italy cannot be reasonably isolated from the broader context of doctrinal control by the Church. The obligation of university professors to cor­ rect heterodox Aristotelian views and the introduction of the im pri­ m atur at the Fifth Lateran Council are worth being mentioned. Fur­ thermore, the Tridentine Index (1564) and the Clementine Index (1596) assigned a key role to the local bishops in the application of the index. Also the Colleges of physicians and philosophers, active in the major Italian cities, frequently played an active role in doctrinal control, i.e. in the assessment and correction of books.5 And finally, during the sixteenth century the Master of the Sacred Palace played an important role in the control of the printing and circulation of books in Rome and the surrounding district.6 Section 1 of this Introduction offers a brief summary of the extant documentation, specifies the general selection criteria, and concludes with a note on the texts contained in this first volume. Section 2 dis­ cusses how science became subject to ecclesiastical censure. There, it is pointed out that ‘scientific’ views were not a main target in the war against heterodoxy, because the instruments used for the analysis of science and philosophy were calibrated and developed for the assess­ ment of ancient, pagan and m edieval views that did not fit the scholastic building of learning. Section 3 presents a basic outline of the effects of censorial intervention carried out by the Roman Con­ gregations. The final section presents the principles of transcription, the general features of this and subsequent volumes, and the list of abbreviations used. 5 A case in point are the Colleges of Padua and Pisa; see ch. Medicine and Natural Phi­ losophy. 6 See also ch. The Organization of the Index, Introduction, § 2.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1. Index and Inquisition Documents 1.1. Extant Documentation The archival holdings of the Roman Congregations of the Holy Office and the Index, as well as the files of the Siena Inquisition, which were added later, constitute the historical nucleus of the Archive of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. This Archi­ ve, located in the sixteenth-century building of the Inquisition in­ side Vatican City, consists of some 4500 volumes, ca. 610 running meters, and dates from the establishment of the Roman Inquisition in 1542. The brief reconstruction presented here 7 principally re­ gards the the Holy Office Archive which has been reorganized sev­ eral times and has been seriously mutilated in the course of time. In 1559, after the death of Pope Paul IV, the Roman population as­ saulted the palace of the Inquisition on the Ripetta bank and proba­ bly destroyed the major part of its archive. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Congregation itself intentionally de­ stroyed (limited amounts of) documentation, for example, in order to protect the authors of denunciations.8 When the French troops marched into Rome in 1798, the Inquisition destroyed numerous documents considered ‘delicate’ in content. More serious losses oc­ curred when under Napoleon the archive was moved to Paris. Fur­ thermore, other documents were purloined from the archives dur­ ing the period of the Roman Republic in 1848, and during several political crises in the nineteenth century (1860, 1870 and 1881) the Church decided to destroy documentation then regarded as ex­ tremely sensitive.9 A single miscellaneous volume of correspondence was acquired late in the nineteenth century for the Bibliothèque Na­ tionale in Paris by Léopold Delisle.10 Finally, many relevant docu-

7

Reconstructions based on seventeenth and eighteenth-century documents and invento­ ries are in Cifres 1998 and 2001; Schwedt 1998; Beretta 2000 and 2008; Arnold 2004. 8 Several depositions in the case against Miguel de Molinos and Quietism are to be men­ tioned. See Cifres 1998, p. 82. 9 Cifres 2001, p. 64. 10 Tedeschi 1991, p. 27.

~ 4 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

ments are not any longer available because they were kept in the private archives of cardinals, consultors and functionaries.11 The Index Archive was kept in the Monastery of S. Maria sopra Minerva till the transfer to Paris,12 with the possible exception of some series of volumes, like the six codices containing expurgatory censurae of books prohibited “donec corrigantur”, which - as early as the begin­ ning of the seventeenth century - were transferred to the Vatican Li­ brary.13 Unlike that of the Inquisition, it does not seem to have been subject to a significant loss of documents. It is relatively small, consist­ ing of 328 volumes, among which there are 24 volumes of Diari con­ taining the minutes of the meetings of the Congregation and the records of the relative decrees, and 143 volumes of Acta et documenta, the so-called Protocolli, containing drafts of official documents, as well as censurae, licences and miscellaneous materials. In 1917, when Pope Benedict XV suppressed the Congregation, sixty-one volumes were transferred to the Vatican library, namely those containing the library catalogues of Italian monasteries and convents that had been drawn up at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.14 11 O ther materials, besides those regarding Bruno and Galilei, were transferred to the Vatican Library and the Vatican Archive. See, for example, Bignami Odier 1973, pp. 263 and 278, who informs about the transfer of several manuscripts in 1922, including a collection of censurae by the Cappucin Friar Gregorio di Napoli in Vat. Lat. 12728. For inquisitorial manuscripts in the Vatican Library, see Jobe 1986. Cf. Pastor 1912, pp. 486-88, for materials once possessed by the Barberinis, and now kept in the Vatican Library. 12 The Congregation for the Index did not have a proper seat, and met at the house of its dean; the secretary was a Dominican, and thus the archive was organized in the aforenamed monastery. 13 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 134r (meeting of 8 July 1600). In 1604 these volumes were withdrawn by Guanzelli, Master of the Sacred Palace, then preparing his expurgatory index; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 173r (meeting of 2 December 1604). As far as is known these volumes never returned to the Vatican Library or the Index Archive. On the controver­ sy at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries between Pico, Secretary of the In­ dex, and Guanzelli, Master of the Sacred Palace, over the Index Archive, see Fragnito 2007. 14 See Lebreton-Fiorani 1985, pp. VII-XIV; cf. also the references in ch. Licences, note 854. Also other materials were transferred to the Vatican Library, such as, for example, Antonio Posio (the first Secretary of the Congregation for the Index), Expurgatio Bibliothecae Pandectarum et epitome Conradi Gesneri, now BAV, Vat. Lat. 6525; for a brief discussion of these corrections, see ch. Gessner, Introduction. Another, well-known, example is the Commentariolum universorum quae in Archivio Sacrae Congregationis Indicis asservantur apud secretarium, containing lists of the

~ 5 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The production of the major official documents of the Holy Office was commissioned to a notary*15 and his assistants.16 This guaranteed the authenticity and the juridical value of the records of meetings, pro­ ceedings and sentences. A sixteenth-century notary, at the service of criminal courts, produced in general three kinds of documents, namely notes, protocols, and authentic instruments.17 Among the better known documents drawn up by the notary of the Holy Office are the Decreta, which correspond to the second type and which consist of synthetic lists of the decisions taken by the court during its meetings of feriae III, IV and V.18 The notes, similar to drafts, have probably all been lost in the course of time, while examples of the third kind, official registra tions of decrees, survive in the series of so-called Stanza storica. Howev­ er, not all items of discussion were recorded. Till the end of the six­ teenth century, the pronouncements by the consultors were regularly recorded,19 but in the seventeenth century this usage was abolished. As to the sixteenth century, lacunae are particularly numerous in the De­ creta of the 1540s and 1550s,20 and also in those of the 1590s on account of the disorder in which the notary Flaminio Adriani left the registers.21 Index’s members and consultors (fols. 6r-23r), as well as a list of censurae (fols. 26r-63r), probably written by Paolo Pico, and now BAV, Vat. Lat. 6861. 15 The sixteenth-century notaries were Sano de Perelli (1542-ca. 1556), Claudio della Valle (ca. 1556-1574), Francesco Mirabile (1574-75), and Flaminio Adriani (1575-1600). De Perelli was active since the foundation, but paid only since 17 July 1550; Pastor 1912, p. 498. The Bull Pastoralis officii cura issued by Pope Pius IV (27 August 1561) allowed the inquisitors to nomi­ nate notaries; see Bullarium, VII, pp. 138-39; for discussion, see Henner 1890, p. 122. 16 The official notary also guaranteed the acts drawn up by his assistants. Cf. Cifres 2001, p. 49. 17 Beretta 2000, p. 123. A declaration of the notary of 10 May 1593 referred a decree by the Holy Office, namely that documents of one trial “quae debeant produci in alio processu et causa, producantur in forma publica et authentica, non autem per simplicem copiam, et subscribantur per me notarium dicti Sancti Officii”. (Pastor 1912, p. 531) 18 See also Libri extensorum, now in ACDF, SO, St.st., 1.3.a (1582-1600), and Q.l.a-s, as well as other examples cited in Beretta 2000, p. 124, note 22. On the meetings on the three feriae, see infra, sect. 2.3.2. 19 See, for example, chs. Bruno, doc. 33; Campanella, doc. 6; and Della Porta, doc. 14. 20 The decrees of the period 1542-1547 went completely lost during the 1559 assault on the Holy Office; the documentation for the years 1548-1559 is not complete. 21 During the session of 8 November 1600, the Cardinals asked the new notary that the registers be redacted and the notes of his predecessor be preserved; see ACDF, SO, Decreta,

~ 6 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

On 23 March 1593, the Congregation commissioned Card. Giro­ lamo Bernieri to organize the extant documentation in a new archive, and in 1619 an archivist was appointed.*22 Once a year the archivist received the files of the finished trials23 and ordered these in volumes according to diocese, religious order, or kind of crime. In this first archive, there were three types of documents: the processi (files of the trials), arranged according to the respective dioceses, proceedings and inquiries from peripheral Inquisitors, and a section of miscel­ lanea. At the end of the sixteenth century the Archive held about 700 volumes, in 1650 the files numbered about 1600, in 1750 ca. 3800, and during the Napoleonic period there were more then 4600.24 In­ ventories made in 1710 and 1745 permit a reconstruction of the files held and their collocation in the archive.25 It is worth mentioning that the series of sentences,26 called instrumenta publica sententiarum et abiurationum, were kept apart from the files of the trials, and that in

1600-1601, p. 347 (copy). On the basis of the notes and registers of Flaminio Adriani, several volumes were composed, which contain copies of the decrees of the Adriani years. Several of the documents (see chs. Bruno, Campanella, de Veno) are contained in such volumes, in par­ ticular ACDF, Decreta, 1597, 1598, and 1599. These copies reproduce the essence of the de­ cisions that were taken, but not the formal elements contained in the original register, such as the names of those who were present, the date and precise place of the sessions, and the opinions expressed by the consultors. For discussion, see Beretta 2000, p. 122. 22 ACDF, SO, St.st., M.3.9, f. 466; see Fragnito 2007. Cf. Pastor 1912, p. 530; Beretta 2000, p. 126. 23 On 22 December 1578, the Inquisition decreed that “in compilandis processibus reo­ rum Sancti Officii, omnia acta simul uniantur, etiam cum articulis et interogatoriis ac senten­ tia et abiuratione et aliis actis”. See Pastor 1912, p. 512. 24 Bordier 1855, p. 400: “Congregation du saint office. 1. Procès depuis 1540 jusqu’en 1771 (L. 1-4158). 2. Sentences intra et extra urbem, 1497-1771 (4159-4630)” ; cf. Beretta 2000, p. 127. 25 For an analytical list, see Beretta 2000, pp. 128-29; Cifres 2001, pp. 52, 68. 26 As to the type of document, the sentences can be collocated between the protocols and the instruments; they contained autograph signatures of the members of the court and, in the case of an abjuration, that of the defendant, but they were frequently recorded in an abbrevi­ ated form. In the case of capital punishment, the sentences were drawn up in three versions. The original was recorded in Liber sententiarum et abiurationum, a public copy was handed over to the Governor of Rome (cf. ch. Bruno, doc. 40), and the registration of the latter in the tribunal proceedings.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1745 the sententiae Urbis (1546-1739) am ounted to 163 volumes and those extra Urbem (1570-1741) to 136 volumes.27 The need for a more systematic collocation of the Archive’s available documentation was discussed as early as 1735,28 but it was not until the 1780s that a thorough reorganization was undertaken. The Congrega­ tion commissioned this job to the archivist G iuseppe Maria Lugani, who carried out a profound transformation. H e created new series, among which Censurae librorum, extracted from the files of the trials and from the Diversorum, and Materiae doctrinales et jurisdictionales are w orth mentioning.29 In 1810, during his conflict with Pope Pius VII, N apoleon ordered that the Vatican archives be transported to Paris.30 During that journey, two carriages disappeared in a torrent near Parma. A French inventory drawn up in 1813 lists 7215 volumes: 4630 volumes of trials and sentences, ca. 1100 volumes of petitions, dispenses and facoltà, decrees, diversorum dubia, minutes of letters, and the correspondence of the Congregation, and finally ca. 1500 volumes of the recently created doctrinal and jurisdictional series.31 Immediately after N apoleon’s fall, M arino Marini, the archivist and papal commissioner who had accompanied the collections to Paris, began to arrange for their return to Rome, but his efforts were ham ­ pered by the lack of funds to cover the transportation costs.32 A selec­ tion was made on the basis of a pro memoria the Roman Curia sent to Marini,33 which distinguished the holdings of the Archive of the Holy Office according to five categories: 1. doctrinal writings; 2. do­ cuments concerning the jurisdiction of the Congregation, in particular concerning its juridical competence; 3. a section containing ‘criminal’ records, 4. a civil section, and 5. an economic section. The first two

27

Beretta 2000, p. 129. For other, non-criminal sections, see idem, p. 130 For the distinction between series held in the chancery and the archive, see Beretta 2000, p. 130f; Cifres 2001, pp. 48-49. 29 Beretta 2000, pp. 135-37; Cifres 2001, p. 57. 30 See Ritzier 1962-64, pp. 144-47. 31 Bordier 1855, p. 400; cf. Cifres 2001, p. 60. 32 For extensive discussion and relevant documents, see Ritzier 1962-64. 33 Published in Documenti Galileo Galilei 1984, pp. 12-14. According to A. Cifres, this pro memoria possibly did not reflect the exact organization of the archive at the end of the eighteenth century; cf. Cifres 1998, p. 80, and Cifres 2001, p. 60. 28

8

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

sections correspond to the jurisprudential series, created two decades previously, containing, inter alia, C en su rae lib roru m and C en su rae p ro p ositio n u m . The author of the pro memoria advised that these holdings be transferred to Rome and suggested that if the cost of transport was excessive, the criminal, civil and economic sections34 should be destroyed. The return of these holdings took place in several phases. Initially, Marini sent ca. 2000 volumes to Rome, which arrived there in Febru­ ary 1816. Then, Rome ordered other volumes to be sent in order to complete the doctrinal and juridical series. Furthermore, Marini was asked to recover the “general index”, which was viewed as the key to the entire archive,35 as well as the files of the famous criminal trials, such as that of Galilei. In the course of 1816 Ercole Consalvi, Cardi­ nal Secretary of State, asked Count Giulio Ginnasi in Paris to take over from Marini, asking him also to stop the shipment of “useless” documents so as to reduce transportation costs. As a result, Ginnasi sold large amounts of inquisitorial documents to shops and paper manufacturers.36 However, without being duly authorized, Ginnasi also destroyed documents pertaining to other organs of the Roman Curia, and thus in May 1817 Marini was called upon to complete the job. During this final phase Marini sold the remaining volumes in the criminal section to paper factories.37 Thus, the criminal section has been almost completely lost,38 while the jurisprudential series created in the second half of the eighteenth century has survived. Also the se­ ries of sentences and abjurations (save seventy-seven files that after several vicissitudes ended up in Trinity College in Dublin),39 as well

34

Documenti Galileo Galilei 1984, pp. 13-14. Ritzier 1962-64, p. 165: “L’Indice generale delle materie comprese in un grosso volume in foglio reale, coperto di Cordovano, lungo un piede e mezzo circa, e alto più di un piede Romano. Questo è la chiave di tutto, ed è interessantissimo”. This “key” has never been found; see Beretta 2000, p. 139 and note 97. 36 See Tedeschi 1991, pp. 23-45 (“The Dispersed Archives of the Roman Inquisition”). 37 Ritzier 1962-64, pp. 159 and 189. 38 For a quantification, see Ritzier 1962-64, pp. 157-58, and Cifres 2001, p. 60. 39 In 1850, during the French occupation of Rome (see infra), a French army officer sold these volumes to the English Duke of Manchester; the latter then sold them to the Irish Protestant Rev. Richard Gibbings; finally, they were purchased by a certain Dr. Wall, a Fel35

~ 9 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

as the Congregation records and drafts of correspondence have been almost completely destroyed. Only some 225 volumes with letters from peripheral seats of the Inquisition have survived,40 although with serious temporal and geographical lacunae. Nonetheless, in 1835/39 the archive still possessed 229 volumes containing the files of trials conducted in the period 1552-1825.41 It seems likely that many of these files were destroyed during the period of the Roman Republic that replaced the papacy in 1848-1849 and suppressed later by French military intervention. In February 1849, the Archive was transferred to the Church of Sant’Apollinare from where it returned to the building of the Holy Office in September of the same year.42 In 1851, when Rome was occupied again by French troops, the Archive was transferred to the Apostolic Palace. Although part of the Archive returned in 1868, the major part was not returned until 1901.43 During the 1940s, following restoration work to the palace of the Holy Office, the Archive was moved to its present seat. The volumes pertaining to the ancient series are now collocated in doctrinal series, created in the eighteenth century, or else in other se­ ries now collocated in the miscellaneous collection named Stanza sto ­ rica, and according to a system of signatures developed by Peter Christian van den Eerenbeemt.44 Exception made for the Galilei trial proceedings (kept in the Vatican Secret Archive), the surviving files of famous legal causes are also held in this collection, such as those of Bartolomé de Carranza, Card. Giovanni Morone,45 Vittore Soranzo,46 Pietro Carnesecchi,47 and Count Cagliostro.48 low of Trinity College, Dublin, who donated them to the College library. Around 1860 they were deposited there. For discussion, see Madden 1863, pp. 62-66. 40 Cifres 1998, p. 77. 41 See Cifres 2001, p. 62, and Beretta 2000, p. 139 and note 99. 42 See Cifres 1998, p. 77, and Cifres 2001, p. 64. Some volumes removed by Giacomo Mancini in May 1849, were returned by Luigi Manzoni in 1890. 43 Beretta 2000, p. 140; Cifres 2001, p. 65. 44 Beretta 2000, p. 140; Cifres 2001, pp. 65-66. 45 Firpo-Marcatto 1981-1995. 46 Firpo-Pagano 2004. 47 Firpo-Marcatto 1998-2000. 48 Extensive summary in ACDF, SO, St. st., S.3.g. Cf. Cifres 1998, p. 78. The vicissitudes of the Galilei codex will be discussed in the volume devoted to seventeenth-century developments.

~ 10 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.2. Selection Criteria For this first volume all relevant series in the Inquisition and Index archives have been scrutinized. The documents reproduced in the in­ dividual chapters come from the following series: Holy Office: 1. Decreta, 1548-1600.49 2. Censurae librorum, L 7095 (1570-1606).50 3. Stanza storica, C.6.c, E.2.e, I.l.a, L.3.a, L.6.n, M.3.g, N.4.c, 0 .1 .d, Q.3.d, E E .l.a, E E .l.b , G G .l.a, G G .l.g , H H .l.e , H H .2.a, HH .2.d, LL.3.a, LL.3.b, LL.3.C, LL.3.e, M.3.g., TT.l.a.51 Index: 4. Diari, 1, 2 and 3.52 5. Protocolli, A-CC (II.a.l-II.a.25).53 6. III. 1-7 (correspondence, licences). 7. V (correspondence). 8. Vili. 1 (licences). 9. XIV. 1 (Giovanni Dei, Index Authorum). 10. XVII.2 (summaries of decrees). 49

The Decreta series contain the succinct minutes of the Holy Office meetings, referring as a rule with lapidary remarks (“ de quibus in actis”) to the individual files of the trials (the majority of which went missing in Paris) for the charges, interrogatories, defences etc. 50 This series contains the Censurae that were commissioned by the Holy Office. 51 The Stanza storica holds the major part of the Inquisition materials (except Decreta, Censurae librorum, and other doctrinal series) that survived the transfer of the archive to France, in addition to nineteenth and twentieth-century files. The series is not ordered on the basis of content or chronology. For the issue under scrutiny all files have been checked. The volumes mentioned here contain relevant sixteenth-century documents. 52 Diari, 1 holds the minutes of the meetings of the Congregation for the Index from 1572 to 1606. However Diari, 3 contains integrations, in particular as to some of the minutes concerning the period 1594-1600. 53 The Protocolli contain the bulk of the Index materials, such as, minutes of the meetings (over the first decades), pronouncements by the Members and Consultors, Censurae, corre­ spondence, and licences.

~ 11 ~

1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

11. XVIII. 1 (miscellaneous). 12. XXIII. 1 (expurgatory censurae from Naples). 13. XXIV.2 {censurae}. Other archives or libraries: 14. ASV, Miscellanea, Arm. X, 205 (summary of Giordano Bruno’s trial). 15. BAV, Vat. Lat. 6207 (Index materials).54 The typological and conceptual criteria of selection require further explanation. Natural philosophy and other non-mathematical scien­ tific disciplines underwent crucial transformations in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Salient developments of the Renaissance including attention to description and depiction, both verbal and vi­ sual; the accumulation of fresh data (geographical, anthropological, zoological, botanical, anatomical); and the emergence of new social structures and environments in which the study of nature was pur­ sued (botanic gardens, anatomy theaters, courts, museums, collect­ ing, and artistic endeavors) - clearly transformed the study of the nat­ ural world.55 Thus, the term “science” and its areas of application un­ derwent profound conceptual and technical changes. In addition, over the last thirty years, the history of all periods of premodern or early modern science has been affected by a general shift towards life sciences, to social and intellectual contexts of scientific knowledge, to connections between science and beliefs, and to the cultural relations of ideas and practices about nature. In consequence, it is hard, not to say impossible, to base the selection of documents regarding six­ teenth-century scientific activity on a restricted number of clear and

These two codexes have been examined because they contain results of the ordinary activities of the two Congregations. Other kinds of Inquisition and Index materials, such as private notes, letters and examinations, held in other archives and libraries are not repro­ duced, but as a rule are used for background information. 55 See Grafton-Siraisi (eds.) 1999, Introduction, for discussion of the appropriation, ma­ nipulation, and reworking of older traditions of knowledge, the role of observation and de­ scription in natural history and medicine, the changing map of the disciplines, and the mate­ rial and practical means for the dissimination of knowledge. 54

~ 12

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

evident criteria. Although an edition o f documents is not the ideal place to discuss general and com plex issues concerning nature and the sciences, the latter cannot be entirely ignored, because that might suggest a positivistic or anachronistic view o f science. The Aristotelian-Scholastic notion of scientia which determined the definition of disciplines and curricula for higher education was, in sever­ al respects, incompatible with the notion of science that replaced it in the following centuries. As a result, after the scientific revolution some disciplines or areas of research - such as metaphysics and theology which were sciences in a scholastic sense, and generally even considered as the most prominent ones, were no longer viewed as scientific even de­ spite and independently of the importance attached to their subject mat­ ter or general aims. Psychological research, just to mention another ex­ ample, was viewed as a “natural science”, by Aristotelian laymen as well as by Scholastics. This was because philosophers investigated (immateri­ al) acts and properties of certain organical bodies, while theologians in­ vestigated a substance (human soul) that even though it was incorporeal, was natural because it was part of the divine creation. These few exam­ ples show that a selection o f documents based on the Aristotelian or scholastic view of science may include many issues and works which a selection based on a modern view of science would exclude. By contrast, during the M iddle Ages and the Renaissance many is­ sues now viewed as scientific were not included in disciplines quali­ fied as such. For example, sixteenth-century Aristotelianism still did not view mathematics as a full-blown science because it did not pro­ duce causal explanations. This was because they did not emerge as articulated fields o f research or because the investigation was not yet sufficiently developed to justify autonomous research. Cosmogony, the changes to the surface o f the Earth, and the natural history o f liv­ ing things were still largely dependent upon biblical sources. Issues such as the structure o f minerals, the trajectories o f projectiles, cli­ matic variations or the origin o f winds were not only investigated in purely scientific works, but also in manuals on mining or on ballistics, in treatises on navigation, in logbooks and in travel books. Therefore, a selection limited to documents regarding only authors and works viewed as scientific in a sixteenth-century sense would ex­ clude those concerning the afore-named manuals and treatises, and in-

13

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

evitably eliminate valuable and interesting materials. Vice versa, a selec­ tion based on ‘modern’ criteria would eliminate other kinds of relevant documentation, such as, the commentaries on the first chapters of Gene­ sis or texts of natural theology. The latter usually did not have any scien­ tific fo r m in a modern sense, but nonetheless they touched upon, al­ though as a rule only incidentally so, issues now considered as scientific. Again, in the sixteenth century many (directly or indirectly) scientific topics were investigated in works to which the qualification “scientific” could not be attached according to the then generally accepted episte­ mological standards, and it would not be possible today either. Works on natural magic, a discipline that was challenged by Catholic theology as well as by Aristotelian physics, did not only contain credulities, in­ tentional illusions and false beliefs, but also more or less correct obser­ vations, useful intuitions or mechanical devices able to produce surpris­ ing or even ‘supernatural’ effects. Works on astrology, which as a disci­ pline was equally challenged, displayed correct techniques of measur­ ing and calculus, that were frequently used in astronomical research. The trigonometry developed for the astrological ‘directions’ is a case in point. Furthermore, astrological expositions were frequently inter­ twined with astronomical research in a modern sense, and the interest for the former had a catalytic effect on the development of the latter. Alchemy was a similar case. It did not attain an academic status be­ cause many of its basic views contradicted Aristotelian natural philoso­ phy. It was also considered suspect by the Church as it attempted to overthrow the (divine) natural order. This was because it tended to in­ duce research that contradicted Christian ethics (such as the search for the philosophical stone) and because it was also frequently mingled with magical and astrological elements. From a modern point of view, alchemy can hardly be viewed as a science, as it displays a secret vocab­ ulary and methodology, it lacks a clearcut conceptual framework, and it is largely based on arbitrary procedures.56 However, alchemy was a de56 Recall that medicine and alchemy intersected in various ways, for alchemy as it devel­ oped in the Western world in late medieval times was a science of life as well as of matter. However, an early established, enduring, and significant difference between the two disci­ plines lay in their levels of institutionalization. That alchemy was practised outside the uni­ versity and had potentially illicit aspects, perhaps constrained its developments in certain ways, but it may also have fostered conceptual freedom.

~ 14

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

positary o f ancient practical knowledge on the properties o f several material substances and on ways to produce or combine them. Further­ more, beyond arbitrary and vain views, alchemy was the craddle of ideas that modern post-1650 chemistry would have w orked out and confirmed.5 ' Also in the case o f sixteenth-century disciplines or individual issues that are apparently homogeneous with modern fields o f scientific re­ search, as suggested by certain terms like “physiology” and “physics” , an analysis o f the conceptual, epistemological and categorical frame­ works for the definition o f objects and phenomena under investiga­ tion shows essential discontinuities, concerning the delimitation of the possible field o f objects as well as in methodology.5758 Finally, something needs to be said about works and research top­ ics that are apparently alien to contemporary criteria on the use o f the term “science” , and which may even appear as un or anti-scientific ways o f investigating natural objects and phenom ena, n oticeably works characterized as “occult” or “ cabalist” . As a matter o f fact, in­ dividual scholars have claim ed that this type o f research, although alien to science on a form al level, nonetheless aims at scien tific knowledge. 59 This point o f view has been entertained in general by ‘humanist’ historians, but it has some affinity too with the views o f Thomas S. Kuhn and some later historians and philosophers o f sci­ ence, who have held, although with different arguments, that the his­ tory o f science is not characterized by a series o f gradual changes but by more or less abrupt conceptual revolutions that entail the incom ­ m ensurability betw een historical epochs. Thus, advocates o f new methods in the field o f history o f science have tried to blur the bor­ ders between the sciences now recognized and other fields o f thought and action. Certainly, know ledge about the natural w orld is always conditioned by the historical and cultural conditions within which it

For detailed discussions of the status of magic, astrology and alchemy as well as of their relationship with the Church, see the introductions to the respective chapters. 58 For the Aristotelian view of physiologia, see Des Chene 1996; for the view of physica, regarding in particular that of the Jesuits, cf. Baldini 2000b, ch. V ili (“L’evoluzione della «fisica» dei Gesuiti in Italia, 1550-1700: un approccio strutturale”). 59 See, for example, the studies by Garin 1980a (1954) and Yates 1964. 57

~ 15

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

is framed. However, the incommensurability thesis may lead to forms of epistemological and historiographical ‘anarchy’, according to which, for example, it is not correct to qualify Aristotle’s view of the fall of bodies as false. As a result, it becomes impossible to condemn doctrines now viewed as not only false, but entirely senseless from a scientific point of view, such as occultism, cabala and demonic magic. These considerations suggest that, even without sharing similar radical views, the historian investigating a period of doctrinal transi­ tion like the late sixteenth century cannot adopt either medieval or modern criteria as something unquestionable or ‘natural’. Accordingly, a history of the relationship between the Catholic church and modern science should not only investigate authors and works that laid the groundwork for modern science, but also the variegated range of early modern issues and mentalities concerning nature and natural knowledge. Indeed, as modern science was not the affirma­ tion of a ‘metahistorical’ truth but the result of a dynamic process, the aforenamed issues and mentalities may have contributed some­ how to science as it developed in the seventeenth century. Therefore, the selection of documents has been based upon essentially pragmatic criteria, endorsing a broad view of science, and accordingly of scien­ tific activity and works, without however extending “scientific” to en­ compassing whatever might be qualified as ‘rational’ or ‘intellectual’. In consequence, this edition reproduces documents concerning views, authors or respective works that show a significant relation to the following issues, disciplines and research fields: 1.

Science in A ‘modern’ sense. In the first place, scientific works are investigated which - entirely or partially - dealt with topics which nowadays are viewed as part of some natural science, both didactically and institutionally, such as those considered by ex­ perimental physics (in a broad sense), chemistry (including both its ‘scientific’ forms and alchemy), biology, descriptive zoology and botanies (including herbals), anatomy, medicine (including pharmacy, recipe books and books of natural “secrets”),60 and natural history (in the broadest sense). 60

See also under Magic (infra).

~ 16

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

2.

‘P ure’ and ‘mixed’ mathematics. W orks on strictly form al mathematics and on its applied parts, as conceived of in the peri­ od under investigation: astronomy, cosmography, geography, o p ­ tics, statics, practical geometry and the theory of instrum ents, gnomonics, hydrostatics, and acoustics.61

3.

General and mathematical physics. The sixteenth-century dis­ tinction between physica and mathematica, still grounded on some basic assumptions of Greek - in particular Aristotelian - thought, determined strict lines of demarcation between disciplines and uni­ versity curricula. General physics was a part of philosophy, and in­ vestigated nature with the conceptual tools of Aristotelian natural philosophy (the doctrine of the four causes, matter and form, act and potency) focussing on space, time, motion and change. As a consequence, philosophia naturalis (or physiologia or, simply, physica) was essentially an un-mathematical discipline, not only be­ cause it consisted mainly in commenting upon Aristotle’s works, but also because it adopted essentially qualitative categories. M od­ ern mathematical physics emerged only from the beginning of the seventeenth century, when quantitative method and language were extended to phenomena previously investigated only ‘philosophi­ cally’, originating physical optics62 and a new theory of motion (in­ cluding cinematical and dynamical aspects).6364 It should be kept in mind that until the end of the sixteenth century the word mechanica merely indicated the geometrical theory of machines, that is, ap­ plied statics, which was a part of mixta mathesis.M Thus, rejecting

61 By contrast, logic has been excluded, because its strictly formal part was not touched by the criteria for the prohibition of books. And its non-formal contents did not regard a possible application to natural objects and phenomena (as in the mathesis mixta), but catego­ rial, semantic and ontological issues. The only (purely) logical works placed on the Index were those written by heretical authors. 62 Recall that perspectiva, catoptrica, dioptrica had been mathematical disciplines since A n ­ tiquity. 63 By contrast, statics had been mathematical since Archimedes; for this reason some of the first attempts to mathematize the study of motion, like those of G.B. Benedetti and the young Galilei, applied statical and hydrostatical concepts to some dynamical situations. 64 To be sure, before the rise of modern mathematical physics there existed some sort of mathematical physics, which consisted in the investigation of “proportiones” of change in

17 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

‘atemporaT definitions of any discipline, the edition includes all documents on natural philosophy, that is, both general manuals and comments or treatises on individual issues. The only exception re­ gards psychology, which the Peripatetic tradition treated as a part of natural philosophy, but which in the case of Scholastic authors had a clear connection with theology (in particular, as to the divine ori­ gin and immortality of the human soul). Furthermore, Renaissance psychology analyzed the range of issues derived from the commen­ tary tradition of Aristotle’s D e anima, and thus investigated psycho­ logical phenomena mostly abstracting from anatomical and physio­ logical considerations, referring in general to observations that were not ‘experimental’ (not even in an ancient sense). However, entries on psychological research were present in sixteenth-century medical treatises and in works on geometrical and physical optics. Both are taken into consideration in this edition. Thus, while the host of D e anima commentaries has been excluded, other works dealing with ‘natural’ aspects of psychology have not. Furthermore, psychologi­ cal issues and views in ‘universal’ authors, such as Cardano, have been accounted for, because as a rule these were intimately linked to more general scientific topics. By contrast, other, basically ethi­ cal, works that focused in various ways on psychological issues have been excluded. Juan Huarte de San Juan, Exam en de ingenios para las ciencias *65 and the Theatrum vitae hum anae by Konrad Lycosthenes and Theodor Zwinger are important cases in point.66 4.

NATURAL theology. Since the thirteenth-century issues regard­ ing natural theology were dealt with in several types of works: (i)

numerous qualitative and quantitative phenomena, started by the fourteenth-century Oxford calculatores. However, as a number of recent studies has shown, this ‘mathematical physics’ stuck to basic Aristotelian tenets, and therefore it should not be confused with the modern meaning of this expression. 65 See Huarte 1575 (and later editions); cf. the note to ch. The Organization of the Index, doc. V.5, f. 244v. 66 Lycosthenes-Zwinger 1565 (and later editions); cf. the note to ch. The Organization of the Index, doc. 1.3, f. 207v. Extensive censurae are in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, C (II.a.3), fol.s 227r-300v; N (H.a.12), fols. 420r-470v; T (II.a.18), 469r, 471r-78v; ACDF, Index, XXIII.l, fols. 56r-59r.

~ 18 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

commentaries on Aristotle’s Physica, M etaphysica, and D e coelo-, (ii) commentaries on Lombard’s Sentences-, (iii) theological Sum­ m a e and, from the early sixteenth century, commentaries on Aquinas’ Summa theologiae-, (iv) specific, thematic works, such as, Ramon Sabunde’s T heologia naturalis. The authors of these works posed a great variety of questions that are relevant for the issue about the world as a whole (creation, eternity of the world), the celestial region (creation, nature and structure of heavens, cause of celestial motion), and the relationship between celestial and terrestrial regions (astral influx, place, vacuum).67 This justifies the reproduction of the extant documentation of ecclesiastical censorship regarding these kinds of works. Although, surprising­ ly, no sixteenth-century ACDF document specifically regards a work that was exclusively devoted to natural theology, this disci­ plinary area recurs in the cen su rae of works that contained discus­ sions of similar issues, that, as a rule, were viewed as potentially more dangerous, that is, hermetic, magical and naturalist concep­ tions, and heterodox cosmologies. The examinations of the works of Francesco Giorgio and Agostino Steuco are cases in point.

Biblical exegesis (in particular commentaries on Genesis). As

5.

Biblical exegesis during the Renaissance was generally dominat­ ed by the primacy of the literal meaning over the other mean­ ings, the cosmogony in Genesis was still largely viewed as the ba­ sis of any cosmology or doctrine on the origin and structure of organical and inorganical beings, and of any category of natural phenomena. Genesis commentaries not only interpreted issues like the creation of the universe ex nihilo, but also tackled topics, such as, the ‘substantiality’ of light, the invariability of vegetal and animal species, the separate creation of man, and the imme­ diate transition from the biological to the social history of man. It was only in the second half of the seventeenth century, and as far as some disciplines are concerned not until the end of the eighteenth century that these topics became the subject matter of scientific investigation. This was because alternative theories 67

For discussion, see Funkenstein 1986 and Grant 1994.

~ 19

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

were lacking or were viewed as a challenge to the Bible’s authori­ ty. Therefore, issues of cosmogony were rarely touched upon in works of natural history, the authors of which usually attempted to accommodate potentially conflicting information with biblical lore. The preadamitae theory or the view that changes to the sur­ face of the Earth were caused by recurring floods are cases in point. More or less radically alternative cosmogonic hypotheses, that appeared in works of natural philosophy, were viewed as heterodox. Now, frequently these issues were also discussed in commentaries on Genesis, but in general these expositions were written by ecclesiastics, which reduced possible theological dis­ sent, independently of their being Catholics or Protestants. This explains the rather small number of censurae of (traditional) commentaries, and the comments on the first chapters generally focused on religious issues, such as original sin, and not on cos­ mogony.68 Thus, relevant documents regard works that discuss cosmogonic and cosmological issues from a different point of view, i.e. inasmuch as they were based on an alternative, that is, a less purely exegetical analysis of the Bible.6970Again, the works of Francesco Giorgio and Agostino Steuco are cases in point, as well or Mercator’s introduction to his Atlas A

68 See ch. Wild, docs. 1-2; ch. Pereira, docs. 1-3. That the primacy of holy history over cosmogony probably also regarded other biblical books may explain the imprimatur grant­ ed to Diego de Zuniga’s Commentaria in Job (1584, 1591). Although - as is well known Zuniga’s exposition proposed a radically heterodox exegesis of (a part of) the text in order to set forth heliocentrism, it was not prohibited until 1616. See ch. Copernicus, notes 17 and 19. 69 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, I (II.a.8), on fols. 197-354, contains a vast dossier on the cor­ rection of Caietanus’ biblical commentaries carried out by the Dominican Order in the years 1571-1572. Five Censors of the Order (Vincenzo da Quinzano; Stefano Guaraldi (BlOGR.); Gabriele da Venezia; Nicola Nessi and an anonymous friar) wrote censurae of the commen­ tary on Genesis. Except the first, these censurae are held in the codex, and constitute without doubt the major collection of censurae on the Pentateuch in ACDF; cf. fols. 210r, 228r-229v, 230r, 232r-234r, 236r-242v, 244r-255v. It has been decided not to publish these materials in this edition because the issued raised by Caietanus’ commentary of Genesis mainly regarded his interpretation of Eve and original sin, in particular his tendency to a symbolic-allegorical, rather than literal exegesis of the texts. For discussion, see Arnold 2008, pp. 128-70. 70 See chapters Giorgio and Steuco, and ch. Mercator, doc. 5.

~ 20 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

M athematical chronology . Sixteenth-century discussions on

6.

the shortcomings of the Julian calendar (from the Fifth Lateran Council to the Gregorian reform in 1582) and the rise in the study of classical philology and ancient history invigorated the attempts to develop a unitary chronological frame for the events of sacred and profane history, which till then were only known through separate, and sometimes largely unexplored calendars. These attempts assumed a definite mathematical character, as they were based upon more precise astronomical data (eclipses, planetary conjunctions and oppositions) which the ancient sources correlated to political and military events, resulting in the establishment of more precise relations with certain dates mentioned in classical and pre-classical calendaries. This ex­ plains why outstanding chronologers, such as Paul of Middelburg, Johannes Lucidus, Gerard Mercator and Josephus Justus Scaliger, were astronomers too, or at least regarded this discipine as necessary and preliminary to their chronological investiga­ tions. The relationship between chronology and astronomy was bi-directional. The datation of astronomical events allowed ‘translations’ between the various calendars, and thus the devel­ opment of a more or less ‘absolute’ chronology of historical events. In turn, the possibility of accurately establishing the Ju­ lian or Gregorian ‘value’ of a date in a classical or pre-classical calendar that referred to an astronomical event, made it possible to check the hypotheses concerning cyclical phenomena (or of phenomena that were held to be cyclical), and thus corroborated sixteenth-century and early seventeenth-century astronomical re­ search. Thus, theoretical chronology71 was both a scientific and a humanistic discipline. In addition, chronology was intimately re­ lated to the exegesis of the Old and the New Testament, not only as to the date of Christ’s birth (canonical ‘meeting-point’ for an­ cient and Christian history), but also because the chronological

Theoretical chronology was distinguished from ‘applied’ chronology or chronography by some scholars (Clavius, Petau and others), because the latter used the former for the dat­ ing of individual events in the entire history of man. 71

~ 21

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

information derived from the Bible was usually viewed as the on­ ly or principal source for the datation of events following upon the creation of the world, including Hebrew, Egyptian, and early classical history. Therefore, theoretical chronology was among the scientific areas that drew the attention of the ecclesiastical bodies of doctrinal control, as confirms the extant docum enta­ tion in ACDF. Considering the general aims of this edition, a dis­ tinction has been made between docum ents concerning works on ‘descriptive’ or ‘narrative’ chronology concerning the vulgar era, on the one hand, and documents concerning works on theo­ retical chronology, on chronography about the pre-Christian era, or else on the relation betw een the datations in Christian and classical calendars (featuring the date of C hrist’s birth), on the other. Documents of the first type are not considered here, b e ­ cause in general they regard works that lack any systematical re­ flection on the formal correctness of calendars. 7.

ASTROLOGY. Until the mid-seventeenth century no neat distinc­ tion between astronomy and astrology existed. The distinction drawn by Ptolemy at the outset of his Tetrabiblos did not regard separate subject-matters, but different functions, because it was based upon a distinction between a general mathematical frame and its possible ‘physical’ applications. Furtherm ore, chairs in mathematics and astronomy, established in the European universi­ ties since the fourteenth century, guaranteed the teaching of basic astrology for its use in medicine. Even though certain works, such as the manuals of elementary astronomy (mostly based upon Sacrobosco’s Sphere) and the treatises of theorica planetarum, usually did not treat astrology, other kinds of works, such as the ‘direc­ tion’ tables, included materials relevant for both disciplines. For these reasons, it has been decided to include in the edition all doc­ uments regarding: (i) the views of ecclesiastical censors about the philosophical foundations or theological and ethical implications of astrological theory and practice, as well as the criteria used to analyze and judge astrological works and activities; (ii) astrological works that pay attention to the theoretical basis of the discipline, that is, works that are not m ere collections of nativities, horo22 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

scopes or predictions, but that explain and discuss astrological theory and method; (iii) trials of persons that practised astrology; (iv) the criteria for the grant of reading permits for astrological works, as well as the licences themselves.72 Ecclesiastical censor­ ship in this disciplinary field had consequences of two kinds. The intimate relation between astronomical and astrological issues, and the intertwining within the latter of (allowed) natural astrology and (forbidden) judiciary astrology, entailed censorial interven­ tions in astronomical research (regarding both works and au­ thors), thus hindering the latter’s development. However, the ex­ plicit prohibition of judiciary astrology led to a gradual dissolution of the intimate relation between astrology and astronomy, (possi­ bly) inducing many specialists from the end of the sixteenth centu­ ry to abandon astrological investigations. 8.

N atural MAGIC. At first sight the case of magic is very similar to

that of astrology: also magic had a link with contemporary scien­ tific research (in particular, physical, chemical and technological investigations); the Catholic church distinguished - although less formally so - between black or demonic magic that was absolute­ ly prohibited, and white or ‘natural’ magic, which was allowed or at least tolerated.73 Finally, also here one should distinguish be­ tween the official condemnation and the manifest interest and fascination by individuals, even at the highest levels of the ecclesi­ astical hierarchy. However, there are also important differences. During the Middle Ages, magic was rooted mainly in folk tradi­ tions, and thus theoretically unsophisticated and essentially prac­ tical in intention.74 During the Renaissance, by contrast, a type of magic developed which depended on a complex theory of the world, in which astrological and alchemical notions were min-

72

Relevant documentation is in ch. Organization of the Index, sections II and III, ch. As­ trology, and ch. Licences. 73 A comprehensive account of Renaissance magic and the Church’s variable attitude toward it is in Walker 1958. See also ch. Magic, Introduction. 74 Hermetic magical texts circulated and were studied and commented on; however, medieval Hermeticism did not have outstanding spokesmen comparable to Pico or Ficino.

~ 23

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

glecL The early modern Hermetic magician, propagated by Gio­ vanni Pico della Mirandola and Marsilio Ficino, believed that the occult virtues, most noticeably the stream of influences emitted by stars and planets, could be exploited to produce results on Earth by certain kinds of ceremonies and incantations. Popular magic at the same time continued to thrive as it has always done, seemingly little indebted to the writings of the learned, though more or less garbled echoes of the thought of Pico or Agrippa oc­ casionally appeared in (manuscript) manuals of practical magic.75 M agical ‘know ledge’ did not assume any institutional form, lacked a generally shared theoretical foundation, and was within the reach of analphabetics too. Frequently, it was intim ately linked with legalized religious practices, such as exorcism. As a matter of fact, magical literature circulated at all levels of the Ital­ ian population, and not only as elegant codexes, but also as loose leaflets. These differences between astrology and magic indirectly determined the assessment of magic by the ecclesiastical bodies of doctrinal control and the respective interventions of the latter. Most magical works were mere collections of formulae, charms, recipes and rituals, in general failing any theoretical underpin­ ning. On the contrary, the latter can be found in the works of au­ thors whose interests were not restricted to magic only, and who were also investigated by the Congregations for other reasons.76 As a consequence, whereas astrology is analyzed and considered for its face value in many ACDF documents, magic is usually not, or very rarely so. Astrology counted professional practitioners, trained at the university, who easily drew the attention of the Congregations, as is shown by the extant documentation. By con­ trast, the trials for magic reveal a typical folk phenomenon, based on traditionally transmitted formulae and rites.77 Therefore, the documents on practical magic have not been considered here. 75

Barbierato 2002a. See, for example, the chapters on Agrippa, Cardano, Della Porta, and Tafuri. It should be kept in mind that Giordano Bruno’s magical works were not yet published and that they were completely unknown in Italy. 77 For discussion, see Spruit 2007. 76

~ 24 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The only case of a magician with higher education who was inves­ tigated during the sixteenth century is Francesco Barozzi; this ex­ plains his treatm ent in a short chapter on magic. 9. DIVINATION. Astrology consisted in a ‘mathematically’ based div­ ination, while the forecasting that magic produced was for the most based on intercourse with invisible forces and entities, in­ cluding demons. Many other less ‘scientific’, yet ‘natural’, forms of divination developed in the sixteenth century, that referred to meteorological and physical events (hydromancy, anemomancy), inorganic materials and plants (libanomancy, dendromancy), ani­ mal behaviour (ornitomancy, herpetom ancy), anatomical tracts (physiognomy, chiromancy, m etoposcopy). These occult disci­ plines oftenly merged with elements from the H erm etic and Cabalist traditions giving rise to particularly intricated conceptual systems. The ‘know ledge’ these disciplines aimed at and were able to produce was entirely heterogeneous with respect to w hat­ ever may be conceived of as essential to m odern science. Yet, as a rule they referred to natural phenom ena, and thus they h ap ­ pened to generate observations and interpretations of some sci­ entific value. However, this aspect is virtually absent in ACDF documents on account of the fact that ecclesiastical censorship focused on contrasts and conflicts between these disciplines and Catholic theology and ethics, rather than on the formal correct­ ness of the (possible) observations in works on divination. As a rule, this edition reproduces documents on the condem nation of divination in general and on individual works whenever they re­ veal the developing criteria for the definition and demarcation of natural entities, events and phenomena. 10. Bibliographies and encyclopedias. In particular works with ample scientific sections or works that had a prom inent role in scientific debates are taken into account, such as, G essner’s Bi­ bliotheca universalis, and for the centuries to come the encyclo­ pedias by Alsted, Bayle, D iderot and D ’Alembert. This edition is not limited to documents on scientific areas, disci­ plines or works alone. The Congregation for the Index analyzed and 25

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

prohibited (printed) works, whereas the Holy Office investigated in­ dividuals also independently of their being authors of published or unpublished works. Therefore, two further categories of documents can be distinguished, namely those which regard: 11. Philosophers or intellectuals who played a significant role in the history of science (Girolamo Cardano, Giordano Bruno, Francesco Patrizi, René Descartes, Willem ’s-Gravesande), as well as scientists who were tried or investigated for their theolog­ ical views (Konrad Gessner, Ulisse Aldrovandi, Robert Boyle). 12. Scientific works BY scholars, whose main activity regarded other disciplinary areas, such as, Jean Bodin,78 Josephus Justus Scaliger, Lieven van Hulse and Hieronymus Wolf. Finally, the edition contains sections that record doctrinal, juridical and organizational aspects of the functioning of the Congregations, as far as the assessment of scientific works and authors are concerned. In the daily practice of the Holy Office and the Index the general cri­ teria of orthodoxy and heterodoxy that were formulated by papal Bulls and conciliary decrees were discussed and specified in order to meet the garden variety of individual cases and issues. Accordingly, the procedures for trials and the rules for the prohibition and confis­ cation of books could not be derived from canon law alone. Further­ more, the assessment of trials and cen su ra e requires an analysis of the composition of the groups of specialists (in particular the Index consuitors). Thus, the edition includes also documents on: 13. The criteria and structure of doctrinal control, in par­ ticular as to the activity of the Congregation for the Index, among which the discussion on Index Rules, the counselling on books and authors, lists of consultors, and the organization of expurgation.79 78 ACDF preserves one document on Bodin’s Universae naturae theatrum. As is well known, ACDF holds many documents on his other works, featuring République and Démonomanie', see Valente 1999b. 79 See, in particular, ch. The Organization of the Index.

~ 26 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

14. The application of censorial prescriptions, with particular attention to the release of reading permits.80 During the last decades of the sixteenth century confiscations of books by civil and ecclesiastical authorities were an everyday practice. Most of the time this type of intervention regarded prohibited books present in bookshops or private houses. The few ACDF documents regarding the confiscation of scientific books are not reproduced here since they are quite irrelevant from a statistical point of view. An ex­ ception has been made for the distraint of the books ordered in Switzerland by Damiano Zenaro and his colleagues,81 as it represents a salient example of large-scale trading in forbidden books, including many scientific and philosophical works, and also because it exempli­ fies the ready reaction by the ecclesiastical bodies of doctrinal control. 1.3. N ote on th e Sixteenth-C entury Texts The chapters in this volume reproduce sixteenth-century docu­ ments, that is, texts written until 31 December 1600; exception is made for a fairly restricted number of later documents, mostly copies or summaries of lost originals, or else later versions containing vari­ ants which lack in the original documents. As a rule only ACDF doc­ uments on the activity of the Roman Congregations of the Holy Of­ fice and the Index are reproduced. Thus, the documentation of the Inquisition of Siena has not been considered.82 In general, inquisitori­ al and index manuscripts held in other archives and libraries have not been reproduced; exception is made for some manuscripts that in the course of time have been transferred from the original archives of the two Congregations and which are of particular importance for the au­ thors or issues under investigation. The summary of Giordano Bru­ no’s trial and certain documents in the Vatican Library are cases in point.83 80 81 82 83

See ch. Licences. See ch. The Distraint of Damiano Zenaro’s Books. See above, section 2. See the docs, from BAV, Vat. lat. 6207, in ch. The Organization of the Index.

~ 27

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Many relevant documents were probably kept in private collections of members and functionaries of the congregations84 and are now dis­ persed over many libraries and archives.85 This holds in particular for the manuscripts possessed by the Cardinal members of the two C on­ gregations.86 A (possible) archive of the M aster of the Sacred Palace, m ember ex officio of both Congregations,87 has not (yet) been located and until the beginning of the seventeenth century it did not even ex­ ist.88 It was fairly impossible to trace and systematically take into con­ sideration all extant docum entation of this kind. As far as possible relevant documents have been cited and referred to in introductions and notes to individual chapters. 84

The materials in BNN, Brancacciano, I.B.2 e I.B.7; see also the collections now kept in

BCR. 85 Particularly as to the sixteenth-century, no sharp distinction can be drawn between the archives of the Congregations and those of some of their members, because frequently the Cardinals acted autonomously or carried out the instructions of the college, preserving the documentation in their personal archives. 86 Examples are the files of Card. Guglielmo Sirleto in BAV, Vat. Lat. 6132, 6143, 6151, 6177-6191, 6379, 6417, 6531, 6792, 6945-6, 7093; Reg. Lat. 2020, 2023, 2099, 2101; Ottob. Lat. 2366, 2452; Barb. Lat. 5711; and those of Card. Giulio Antonio Santori in ASV, Armaria LII, 17-22. 87 Before the foundation of the Inquisition and the Index the Master of the Sacred Palace was charged with tasks later attributed to these Congregations. However, after 1542 and 1571 the Master substantially maintained his traditional functions. For a brief discussion of his role, see ch. The Organization of the Index, Introduction, § 2. 88 In 1600 Guanzelli asked for a personal archive, see ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 133r (meeting of 22 April 1600): “Tractatum etiam fuit de Archivio in Palatio Apostolico constru­ endo de ordine S. D. N. ubi scripturae conservari possint apud Magistrum S. Palatii, qui li­ brorum Censuris indiget, et multis petentibus libros Censura dignos satisfacere possit”. The request to form an own archive was reiterated in 1605; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, fols. 175v (meeting of 9 September 1605). In his petition, of which a copy is kept in ACDF, Index, Pro­ tocolli, Z (II.a.22), f. 280r, Guanzelli referred to the fact that point 4 of section “De impres­ sione librorum” in the Clementine Index mentioned an archive of the Master of the Sacred Palace (see ILI, IX, p. 928). However, the Master objected: “questo archivio non è, né mai, ch’io sapia, è stato al mondo. Anzi l’Ufficio non ha pur una cassa, ove possi sicuramente con­ servare una scrittura” (“this archive does not exist, nor did it exist before in any time. By contrast, [the Master’s] Office even lacks a case in which a document whatever may be safely kept”). Then, he went on explaining that a Master of the Sacred Palace currently lived in the Dominican monastery he was assigned to (usually the Roman convent of S. Maria sopra Min­ erva), and he complained the friars of that monastery did not respect his room and entered whenever they wanted. See also Fragnito 2007.

28

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

As was noted before, the Inquisition archive was seriously dam­ aged by the 1559 assault following upon the death of Pope Paul IV and during the period when the archive was located in France. The former circumstance means that the Decreta series for the period from 1542 to 1559 is extremely fragmentary. The same series also has other lacunae, such as the one for the period between 2 May and 28 December 1595,89 and in general omissions can be hypothesized that are due to the afore-mentioned disorder in which the notary Flaminio Adriani left the registers.90 Many documents that have been reproduced here are extant in sev­ eral versions. For example, some Inquisition decrees exist in draft form, registered version by the notary, (official) copy, contemporary copy and modern copy. As a rule, the registered version is repro­ duced. However, the draft or official copy is reproduced when it con­ tains remarkable novelties.91 Contemporary copies are reproduced when the original is missing or when they contain novelties.92 Mod­ ern, that is, nineteenth and twentieth-century copies are reproduced in the main text or in note when the original decree is completely or partially illegible.93 Index decrees were recorded in the Diari, a new series started by Paolo Pico in 1591 when he became Secretary of the Index, and exclusively devoted to the Minutes of the meetings of the Congregation for the Index. However, as is well known, the Index decrees for the period 1571-1591 in the first volume of this series were reconstructed by Pico on the basis of materials in the first two volumes of the Protocolli of the Index.94 As a rule, this edition reproThis lacuna might have had consequences for the documentation of the trials of Bruno, Campanella, and Stigliola. 90 After the death of Adriani, several volumes of copies of the decrees were composed, omitting, however, the formal properties that allow their authenticity to be established, such as, names of the members and functionaries attending the meetings, exact dates and places of the meetings, and the pronouncements by the Consultors. See above section 1.1. 91 See, for example, ch. Bruno, doc. 26, and ch. Licences, doc. 23, respectively. 92 See ch. Bruno, docs. 27 and 30. 93 See chs. Bruno and Campanella. Not a few volumes of the Decreta have become illegi­ ble because the ink has damaged the paper. 94 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. lr. Pico received the order to draw up the “cathalogum omnium decretorum Congregationis” on 19 April 1597, the order was reiterated on 24 April 1599, and the result was presented on 8 May 1599; cf. ACDF, Diari, 12, fols. 99v, 114v, and 89

~ 29 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

physiology and natural history), but which had by now started to as­ sume a relatively autonomous status, had a more direct link with Aristotelian issues and concepts. By contrast, mathematical disci­ plines, such as astronomy, hydrostatics and optics, had relatively more tenuous links with Peripatetic philosophy, and by consequence these disciplines had a somewhat uncertain place as “scientiae medi­ ae” between the theoretical and the practical sciences. In addition, during the Renaissance several complex philosophical movements and currents developed that had repercussions on contemporary sci­ entific culture. Cases in point are Platonism, naturalism, and Paracelsism. This situation could lead to frictions and eventually to open or veiled conflicts between “science” - when considered as designating a body of views based tendentially on a direct examination of narrow­ ly defined sections of phenomena - and philosophy, that is a complex of ontological concepts and general categories for the analysis of real­ ity, and some ‘physical’ assertions deduced from them. If Galen’s physiology did not fit entirely with Aristotle’s element theory, that of Paracelsus plainly contradicted it, while Archimedean statics was fair­ ly independent of the Peripatetic view of gravity." Ptolemaic mathe­ matical astronomy employed a great variety of sophisticated technical devices, such as, eccentric circles, equants and epicycles, needed merely to save the appearances, irrespective of the real path of a plan­ et. This was clearly at odds with the physical approach of Aristotelian cosmology. Definitely uncertain was the position of chronology, as it was a meeting-point of biblical exegesis, humanist interpretation of ancient texts, theory of the calendar and a reconstruction of datation systems.9100 The specific position of disciplines now considered as un­ scientific will be discussed elsewhere.101 The hierarchy between Aristotelian natural philosophy and the sci­ ences entailed more or less strict lines of demarcation between those which, using anachronistic terms merely for the sake of analysis, may be called ‘superficial’ or descriptive sciences, based on a restricted 99 Contemporary discussions of this independence are analyzed in Baldini 1992b, pp. 256-65, and Baldini 2000a, p. 343f. 100 See ch. J J. Scaliger, Introduction. 101 See chs. Magic, Alchemy, and Astrology. Cf. section 1.2.

~ 32 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

number of assumptions and which did not require scrutiny into ‘un­ derlying’ causes, on the one hand, and ‘profound’ or explanatory sci­ ences, on the other.102 These lines of demarcation regarded methodol­ ogy103 as well as university curricula, and usually entailed the belief of different levels in reality.104 As a rule, ‘superficial’ sciences, most no­ ticeably the mathematical disciplines, did not represent a menace to religion unless they went beyond their strict methodological and in­ stitutional bounds. This is clearly exemplified in the early reception of Copernicanism.105 Traditionally, astronomy established and pre­ dicted the positions of celestial bodies, while the study of their nature and dynamics was a prerogative of (academic) philosophers. In me­ dieval and Renaissance university curricula, astronomy was regarded as a propedeutic discipline, since it belonged to the quadrivium of the liberal arts.106 This explains why Wittenberg astronomers could appreciate Copernicus’ work as a useful set of auxiliary mathematical hypotheses, convinced that there was no urgency on the issue of a cosmological choice. Several sixteenth-century authors, such as Giro­ lamo Fracastoro and G.B. Amico, attempted to formulate a physical basis for mathematical astronomy that was compatible with Aris­ totelian philosophy, but it was not until Patrizi and Bruno, who ven­ tured into territories traditionally reserved for mathematical as­ tronomers, that the distinction between astronomy and physics lost its force. Subsequently, the traditional relation between natural phi­ losophy and mathematical sciences came under scrutiny, a new sort of realism developed, and finally, Kepler and Galilei saw how urgent was the need to integrate mathematical astronomy into a new physics. However, this development raised a serious problem for scholastic theology as it was based upon a synthesis of the Holy Scripture, tradi­ tion and Aristotelian doctrine, also in natural science and cosmology.

102

For discussion, see Baldini 2000a, pp. 341-51. Scholastic manuals viewed mathematics as a discipline able to grasp the quantum of a phenomenon, not its quid. 104 See, for example, R. Bellarmino’s De ascensione mentis in Deum, discussed in Baldini 2003, p. 675f. 105 See Westman 1980, critically discussed in Jardine 1982. 106 Jardine 1987, p. 85. 103

~ 33 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

And apart from individual cases, it was this synthesis that provided the essential criteria for the ecclesiastical censorship of scientific works and views. A clear understanding of the ecclesiastical examination and censor­ ing of science and natural philosophy in the sixteenth century re­ quires a brief reconstruction of the rise of the Holy Office (section 2 .1),107 as well as of the fundamental distinction between heresy and other forms of heterodoxy (section 2.2). The next section analyzes the formal characteristics of inquisitorial trials and of ecclesiastical cen surae. The reach of the jurisdiction of the Roman Congregations of the Holy Office and the Index is pointed out in section 2.4. Sec­ tion 2.5 then reconstructs the developing criteria underlying the ec­ clesiastical assessment of science and natural philosophy. This per­ mits a classification of the ways in which science and philosophy be­ came subject to prosecution and censoring. 2.1. The R ise o f th e H oly O ffice a nd th e Index It goes without saying that a brief outline of the medieval origin of the Inquisition is a necessary prerequisite to an understanding of the genesis and organization of the Congregations of the Holy Office and the Index in the sixteenth century.108 In the second half of the twelfth century, heresy in the form of Catharism spread in a truly alarming fashion, and apparently it not only menaced the Church’s existence, but it seemed to undermine the very foundations of Christian society. As early as 1231, when under Pope Gregory IX the rescripts of Em­ peror Frederick II against heretics (1220 and 1224) were adopted in ecclesiastical criminal law, the medieval Inquisition came into being. The Pope did not establish the Inquisition as a distinct and separate tribunal; what he did was to appoint special but permanent judges, who executed their doctrinal functions. The Inquisitor, who had to conduct the trial in co-operation with the diocesan bishop or his re107 The history of the sixteenth-century Index is briefly reconstructed in the introduction to ch. The Organization of the Index. 108 For bibliographical information, see Vekene.

~ 34

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

presentatives, was a judge, acting in the name of the Pope and vested by him with the right and the duty to deal legally with offences against faith; he had, however, to adhere to the established rules of canonical procedure and pronounce the customary penalties. The chief scene of the Inquisitions’ activity was Central and Southern Eu­ rope. The Scandinavian countries were spared altogether, while in England it appeared only on the occasion of the trial of the Templars. It was just at this time that two new orders sprang up, the Domini­ cans and the Franciscans, whose members, by their superior theologi­ cal training and other characteristics, seemed eminently fitted to suc­ cessfully perform the inquisitorial task. On 30 March 1254, with the Bull Super extirpatione, Pope Innocent IV divided Italy into two in­ quisitorial provinces: the Franciscans were to have central and north­ east Italy (mainly Tuscany, Umbria and the Veneto), while the Do­ minicans presided over the remainder of the country. These orders, in particular the Dominicans, dominated the medieval Inquisition, and almost entirely provided the functionaries for the modern congrega­ tions. Members of recently founded sixteenth-century orders with an equally high theological preparation, such as the Jesuits, played a marginal role. For example, leading Jesuits such as Suarez, and espe­ cially Toledo and Bellarmino, contributed to the formulation of crite­ ria for the assessment of heterodox views or else were active as consuitors and members of the Holy Office and the Index, but the Socie­ ty of Jesus had no influence on the nomination of officials, and in general the Mendicants kept control over the central and peripheral organization of the Congregations. Several medieval and early sixteenth-century Bulls and conciliary decrees laid down general aspects and procedures on the war against heresy. Fundamental for the functioning of the Inquisition was the Bull Ad extirpanda (15 May 1252) by Pope Innocent IV,109 renewed or reinforced by Pope Alexander IV (1254-61), Pope Urban IV (1261-1265), Pope Clement IV (1265-68), Pope Nicholas IV (128892), and finally codified by Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) in the Liber Sextus of 1298, the last great collection of canon law of the pre-

109

See Bullarium, III, pp. 552-58.

~ 35 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Reformation era. Similarly, ecclesiastical press control was regulated in the Bull In ter m u ltip lices by Pope Innocent VIII (17 November 1487),110 renewed and integrated by Pope Alexander VI with the same “incipit” (1 June 1501), and by Leo X ’s In ter so llicitu d in es, promulgated during the Fifth Lateran Council (4 May 1515).111 The latter Bull added fines for printers and gave control for this to both Inquisitors and Bishops.112 Also the judicial determinations by the major faculties of theology, among which those of Paris and Louvain, played an important role in the definition of heterodox positions. Deviations and heterodox implications of Aristotelian natural phi­ losophy had already been condemned in 1277 by the enactment of the Bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier.113 This condemnation was re­ newed by Pope Leo X ’s Bull A postolici R egim in is (issued on 19 De­ cember 1513, during the Fifth Lateran Council), which obliged uni­ versity professors to correct and thoroughly confute suspect or heretical philosophical views, referring to Averroist and Alexandrist psychology, and the eternity of the world.114 Also the condemnations of magic, astrology, and several forms of divination had medieval, and sometimes even patristic, origins.115 It should be kept in mind, how­ ever, that before 1542 condemnations and prohibitions were fre­ quently decreed and applied only at a local level and with alternate fits and starts over time. Many decisions by the Roman Congrega­ tions derived from and explicitly referred to previous deliberations which contrasted heterodoxy that had managed to survive. In some cases, the historical reality of condemnations and prohibitions was challenged.116 110

See Hilgers 1904, pp. 480-82; cf. Blasio 1988, pp. 12-13. This Bull established a pre­ liminary assessment of books to be printed and the ecclesiastical imprimatur on the latter. 111 The first two Bulls are in Hilgers 1904, pp. 480-83, and Hilgers 1907, pp. 17-18; the third is in Mansi, 32, cols. 912-13. For a discussion of the context, see Blasio 1988b and Fra­ jese 1992, pp. 678-86. 112 As is well known, after the rise of the press ecclesiastical and civil book control initial­ ly developed through the concession of “imprimatur” and “privilegium”. For general discus­ sion, see Blasio 1988a; Frajese 2006, pp. 15-23. 113 See Bianchi 1999 and Beretta 2005. 114 Mansi, 32, cols. 842-43; cf. section 2.5 (infra). For discussion, see Constant 2002. 115 See the Introductions to the chs. Magic and Astrology. 116 See ch. Lull.

~ 36 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

A nother im portant (and often neglected) source of both censorial rules and practice was - since the later M iddle Ages at least117 - the activity of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Roman College founded for the confession and the grant of indulgences to visiting pilgrims. In the course of time its jurisdiction extended to the absolution of cer­ tain cases of heresy and to establishing criteria for the examination of doctrinal issues.118 The College kept this function also after the foun­ dation of the Holy Office and the Index. Thus, its casuistry and crite­ ria are among the probable sources for the developing, written and unwritten, criteria of the Congregations; however, possible relation­ ships should be checked by thorough investigation of the Peniten­ tiary’s archive.119 During the Counter Reformation the Inquisition was active mainly in four geographical areas: Spain and its American dominions, Portu­ gal and its colonial empire, Italy, and the Spanish Low Countries. Though it was the same institution which operated in various parts of medieval Europe, its organization and structures started to diversify, depending on the countries in which it survived. The Spanish Crown, from 1478,120 and the Portuguese Crown, from 1536,121 obtained spe­ cial concessions from the Holy See that conferred on their Inquisi-

117 The origin of this tribunal cannot be assigned with any reasonable certainty. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordained the establishment of a penitentiary in each cathe­ dral. The Penitentiary of the Roman Church was a cardinal priest; this was certainly the case before Pope Gregory X (d. 1276). For the earlier history of this tribunal, see Chouet 1908. 118 The Sacred Penitentiary was always provided with great powers, formerly of internal jurisdiction only, but as time went on, of external jurisdiction also. Under the latter head its work so increased that the administration of this tribunal was greatly hampered. Several Popes disapproved of this, especially Pope Pius IV, who planned a reform both of its consti­ tution and of its field of action, or competency. Death prevented him from carrying this into effect: it was realized by Pope Pius V, who, in 1569, by his Bull In omnibus, reformed the Penitentiary, while he modified its tasks by his other Bull Ut bonus paterfamilias, both dated 18 May of that year. 119 For a brief survey, see Brambilla 2000, ch. 6: “I casi riservati papali e la Penitenzieria apostolica” (pp. 159-93). 120 With the Bull Exigit sincerae devotionis affectus Sixtus IV granted the nomination of (general) inquisitors to the Spanish crown. For a summary view, see Del Col 2006, pp. 22436; cf. Kamen 1985, p. 18f. 121 Bethencourt 1984.

~ 37 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

tions some degree of autonomy, but which inevitably placed them un­ der the control of their respective sovereigns. The situation was dif­ ferent in France, where by the middle of the sixteenth century the an­ ti-heretical repression passed gradually into the hands of secular au­ thorities which exercised this power through the parliaments.122 The Italian tribunals, except for Sicily and Sardinia (under the In­ quisitor General of Spain), were instead subject to the authority of the Holy See since the foundation of the modern Roman Inquisition in 1542.123 The inquisitorial tribunals were not equally distributed over the Italian territory: there was a relatively high concentration in the subalpine regions in order to defend Italy against Protestant in­ fluences, while in the Pontificial State there were only five seats, often covering more than one diocese. Lucca successfully resisted the intro­ duction of the Roman Inquisition, and instituted a specific tribunal to repress religious dissent. In Venice, the Holy Office was composed of the Apostolic Nuncio, an Inquisitor, the Vicar General of the Vene­ tian Patriarch, and three noble laymen, the so-called “I savi sopra l’eresia”, while, the Council of Ten (one of the major governing bod­ ies of the Republic of Venice from 1310 to 1797) frequently interferred in Holy Office legal proceedings.124 Within the Kingdom of Naples a compromise was adopted. Here doctrinal control was not assigned to the Spanish Inquisition, and the trials and examination of books followed Roman rules. However, these tasks were commis­ sioned to the local Bishops, and the Roman Inquisition was repre­ sented by a commissioner (usually indicated as m inister) only.125 It should be kept in mind, however, that nothwithstanding these territorial limitations, Pope Paul I ll’s Bull L icet ab initio, founding in

122

Mentzer 1984, p. lOf; see also Monter 2007. Peripheral seats of the Roman Inquisition were instituted also outside Italy: in Avi­ gnon (1538), Istria (1546), Dalmatia (1578), Malta (1574), Besangon, Carcassonne and Toulouse, and Cologne (at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). See Del Col 2006, p. 296. 124 Del Col 2006, pp. 343-45. 125 Borromeo 1977-1978; Borromeo 1983-1984; Romeo 1988 and 2003. For the opposi­ tion of the city of Naples against the introduction of the Spanish and the Roman inquisitions, see Romeo 2002. 123

~ 38

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1542 the m odern Roman Inquisition,126 did not merely aim to block the rapid spread of religious dissent in Italy. W ith this Bull the Pope entrusted a commission of six cardinals with the protection of ortho­ doxy in every part of the w orld,127 conferring upon them ample ju­ ridical powers. U nder the pontificate of Pope Paul IV the collabora­ tion between Rome and the peripheral seats increased notably, and the Holy Office became an im portant weapon against internal dis­ sent, in particular against that expressed by the so-called “spirituali”, among whom were the Cardinals Reginald Pole and Giovanni Morone. In the meantime, the Congregation rapidly assumed a leading role in the prohibition of books.128 D uring the first decades the or­ ganization of the peripheral seats was rather poor, but their efficiency started to increase w hen the nom ination of the local inquisitors passed from the orders of the Dom inicans and Franciscans to the central seat. The strictly hierarchical structure and the intense corre­ spondence between Rome and the peripheral seats created a m ono­ poly and thus a new ‘style’ in the war against religious dissent.129 First, the contribution of civil authorities to the inquisitorial activities was sensibly diminished, save the a-typical situations in Genoa, Venice and

126 The succeeding Popes - especially Pope Pius IV (by the Bulls Pastoralis Officii of 14 October 1562, Romanus Pontifex of 7 April 1563, Cum nos per of 1564, Cum inter crimina of 27 August 1562) and Pope Pius V (by a Decree of 1566, the Bulls Inter multiplices of 21 De­ cember 1566, and Cum felicis recordationis of 1566) - made further provisions for the proce­ dure and competency of this court. By his Bull Immensa aeterni of 23 January 1587, Pope Sixtus V became the real organizer, or rather reorganizer of this congregation. 127 The Bull qualified the Roman Inquisition as “universal”, in the sense that it prevailed over the ‘local’ inquisitions, including those active in Portugal and Spain. Thus, it claimed the right to pronounce sentences against any person wherever he lived, irrespective of the Congregation’s effective powers and independent of the fact that its claims were recognized or less. This attribute was conserved throughout the history of the Congregation. 128 In 1543 the Holy Office issued a first edict against erroneous, scandalous and sedi­ tious books; cf. Hilgers 1904, p. 483-84. See also ch. The Organization of the Index, Intro­ duction, § 2. 129 The exchange of correspondence between central and peripheral seats was formally established in 1564; cf. Dall’Olio 1999, p. 307. On 18 September 1581, the Holy Office de­ creed that local inquisitors should transmit all sentences, “non autem processus, nisi in ar­ duis causis; sed bene ante expeditionem summarium transmittant et responsum expectent” (Pastor 1912, p. 515).

~ 39 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Lucca. Elsewhere in Italy, local inquisitors were trained to appeal as less as possible to secular force, and under the reign of Pope Sixtus V they became financially self sufficient.130 Second, the local inquisition marginalized bishops, whose role was progressively reduced to the mere subscription of the sentence.131 The Congregation for the Index was called into existence by Pope Pius V in March 1571,132 formally and solemnly confirmed by the Bull of Pope Gregory XIII, Ut pestiferarum (13 September, 1572),133 and its rights eventually defined by Pope Sixtus V in the Bull immen­ sa aeterni Dei (22 January 1588), with those of the other congrega­ tions of cardinals. However, the prohibition and censoring of books was not the exclusive privilege of the Congregation alone. Also, after 1572 the Holy Office decreed on heretical and suspect books, inter­ fering in the activities of the Index. First, after a trial the Holy Office usually prohibited the works of authors that had been condemned as heretics. Second, the Inquisition could also prohibit works without a previous trial. In both cases the Index was obliged to adopt the pro­ hibition. Furthermore, the Master of the Sacred Palace, member ex officio of both Congregations, was commissioned to control the book production in Rome and the surrounding district.134 During the six130

Del Col 2006, pp. 509-12, 515-16. For further discussion, see Prosperi 1996, pp. 135-53, and Romeo 2000. 132 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. lr-v. Cf. the note (anonymous, but most probably by the first secretary of the Index, Antonio Posio, 1571-1572) in BAV, Vat. Lat. 6207, f. 203r: “Congregatio super reformatione Indicis et expurgatione librorum erecta fuit Anno Domini 1571, Mense Mar­ tii, in domo Ill.mi Cardinalis Clarevallensis, atque prima vice, eiusdem congregationis deputati Ill.mi DD. Cardinales, Die 27.“ eiusdem mensis congregati fuere. Die autem 22. praefati mensis ab Ill.mis DD. meis Card.bus Theanensi et de Monte Alto sic annuente S.mo D.N. fel. recor. Pio V.° iniunctum fuit mihi officium à secretis obeundum”. In this context, it is worth mentioning that in the Bull Licet alias postquam (19 November 1570), Pope Pius V had authorized Tomas Man­ riquez, then Master of the Sacred Palace, to correct forbidden, non-religious, books and to print corrected texts in Rome. Probably, after less than a half year, the Pope deemed it necessary to commission press censorship to a separate commission, that is, the future Congregation for the Index. For the text of the Bull, see Hilgers 1904, pp. 510-13. For the role of the Master of the Sa­ cred Palace, see ch. The Organization of the Index, Introduction, § 2. 133 Text in Hilgers 1904, pp. 514-15. The first cardinal members are listed on pp. 513-14. 134 During the 1590s Bartolomé de Miranda, Master of the Sacred Palace, quarreled with the Vicegerent of the Cardinal Vicar of Rome over the imprimatur. See Fragnito 2007. 131

~ 40 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

teenth century this lack of a clear division in duties and responsibili­ ties resulted in several conflicts among the ecclesiastical bodies of doctrinal control.135 2.2. Heresy and Heterodoxy The Inquisition opposed heresy, which was generally defined as the voluntary adhesion of the intellect to a proposition that contradicted Catholic doctrine.136 Thus, heresy had a substantial aspect, namely that of being a proposition - or a set of propositions - which some­ how contradicted the dogmatic view as defined by the Church,137 and a psychological aspect, that is, the fact that the person who main­ tained that proposition was fully aware of this contradiction. In addi­ tion to manifest heresy, schisms, and apostasy, the Inquisition was al­ so supposed to prosecute magic, sortilegia, divination, abuse of sacra­ ments and whatever else could be construed as heresy. As a matter of fact, later sixteenth-century trials show a tendency to extend the no­ tion of heresy also to propositions that contradicted broader theolog­ ical beliefs which had not (yet) been defined as dogmas. In this con­ text, it is worth recalling that some scholars have argued that the Holy Office extended the theological notion of heresy to heterodox actions.138 A distinction should be drawn between openly professing a view, on the one hand, and simply entertaining an idea, on the other. In the lat135 For a short history of the sixteenth-century indexes, see ch. The Organization of the Index, Introduction. 136 See, for example, Castro 1549, f. 5r-v. Cf. Roberto Bellarmino in his 1587 pronounce­ ment on Erasmus, in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), f. 406r: “Nam, ut quis hereticus di­ ci possit, requiruntur duo: error fidei contrarius, et pertinacia, ita ut ex electione oppugnet id quod scit ab Ecclesia definitum vel doceat quod scit ab Ecclesia condemnatum”. For dis­ cussion of the historical development of the concept of heresy, see Brox 1986; Chenu 1968; Hageneder 1976; Koch 1930. 137 Heresy did not consist in contradicting a generic religious belief, but one that was well-defined by the magisterium of the Church, because a proposition that disputed only tra­ ditional views was not a formal heresy. See infra. 138 Garzend 1913 argued for the existence of an ‘inquisitorial’ heresy, presumably broad­ er than the strictly theological heresy. For discussion, see Neveu 2003 and Finocchiaro 2005, pp. 272-73.

41 ~

GENERAL INTROD UCTION

ter case, heresy was considered a sin and had to be confessed in order to obtain absolution. By contrast, explicit adhesion to heretical views was a serious crime and put on a par with high treason (“crimen laesae maies tatis”), 139 to be judge d by the Tribu nal of the Inquisition that could decree sanctions, penalties and abjurations.140 A charge of heresy presu pposed that one had been educa ted in the true faith. It therefore follow ed that the ancien t philosophers, chil­ dren educa ted in Protestant countries, Muslims and Jews could not strictly be viewed as heretics,141 nor be brought to trial as such. Fur­ therm ore, heresy distin guished itself clearly from other types of doc­ trinal devia tion, name ly, the endor semen t of propo sition s which Catho lic theology qualified as “erron ea,” “sapiens haere sim,” “male sonan s,” “teme raria,” or “scan dalosa ”.142 An erroneous proposition was one that contradicted a “veritas ali­ qua ab Ecclesia non definita”. An exam ple of a “sapiens haere sim” proposition is that ‘the Bible contains errors ’, becau se the Holy Writ is the supreme truth, but individual (printed) Bibles may contain mis­ prints. An exam ple of “prop ositio male sonan s” was an ortho dox doctrine that had been wrong ly expressed. For example, “fides iustificat” was not a heretical view, but when proclaimed by a Prote stant it did not ‘sound good’. “Tem eraria ” was a propo sition expressing an unjustified truth, such as, “Dies iudicij erit infra annum ”.143 Other kinds of propositions were qualified as “schismatic a” (undermini ng the unity of the Church), “blasp hema ”, and “iniur iosa”.144 To establish the heretical nature of an opinio n or a proposition re­ quired that one first had to discern a “propositio de fide defini 145 ta”. 159

Hageneder 1976, pp. 88, 100-101; Neveu 1993, pp. 38 and 102; Prosperi 1996, p. 53. Beretta 1998, p. 140. 141 Castro 1555, f. 42v. Cf. section 2.4. 142 See Castro 1549, fols. 12r-16v. For discussion, see Borromeo 1983, p. 506f; Lohr 1988; Neveu 1993, pp. 243-60. For examples of the use of this classific ation, see ch. Cardano, doc. 43, and ch. Giorgio, doc. 10. 143 See Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ila Ilae, q. 53. 144 For a ‘complete’ list, see ch. The Organization of the Index, sect. I, doc. 9. For a sys­ tematic application of the distinction between several degrees of heterodoxy in book censor­ ship, see Alfonso Chacón’s censura of Cardano in ch. Cardano, doc. 43. 145 Mediev al background is discussed in Lang 1964. 140

42 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The five criteria developed by Alfonso de Castro in De iusta h a ereti­ corum p u n ition e were certainly of some help.146 The first criterion of orthodoxy was the Holy Scripture as long as its sense was clear, that is “apertus et indubitatus”.147 Otherwise the consensus of the “Doctores” was needed. However, a proposition might be heretical also in the case its contrary was not found in the Bible, as, for example, the view that Christ is not both God and man. The second criterion was to be found in the conciliary decrees, given that the content of several articles of faith is not explicitly given in Scripture.148 The formulation of this criterion was inspired by the conviction that the works of an­ cient philosophers, in particular Plato and Aristotle, even though not being formally heretical, contained many doctrines that were ex­ tremely dangerous to the Catholic faith.149 A well-known example was the dogma on the human soul which the Council of Vienna (1311-12) explicitly defined as “forma corporis”.150 Thus, any alterna­ tive psychology could be qualified as heretical.151 The third criterion was the “consensus universalis Ecclesiae”, that is, the tradition which the Council of Trent viewed as one of the sources of truth. The final criteria consisted in the opinion of the Holy See and the views of the doctores. The latter was controversial. Pena made a clear distinction between the opinions of the Fathers and those of scholastic theolo­ gians in order to saveguard the distinction between heretical and er­ roneous propositions. For example, from a doctrinal point of view, to deny the Immaculate Conception of Mary was to be regarded as an error, but not a heresy. As to the former, it should be borne in mind

146

Castro 1549, fols. 17r-22v. For discussion of the views of Melchior Cano and Domingo Banez, see Lang 1943. For medieval origins, see Lohr 1988. 147 Generally, the literal sense prevailed over the mystical sense. 148 See Neveu 1993, pp. 269-81, for the distinction between articles of faith that are re­ vealed either directly or indirectly. 149 Cf. Eymeric 1578, pars II, qq. 4-5, for a list of “errores philosophorum”. However, the possibly heretical outcomes of the interpretation of ancient philosophy were controversial. Possevino 1593, p. 42, argued that ancient philosophers cannot be viewed as heretics. See al­ so the discussion over Patrizi’s Nova de universis philosophia, in ch. Patrizi, in particular as to the contrasting interpretations of Saragoza and Giustiniani. 130 Neveu 1993, pp. 100-101. 131 See, for exampe, chs. Bruno, Cardano, and Cremonini.

43 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

that since the pontificate o f Pope Sixtus V the authority o f the H oly See had been substantially strengthened, the P o p e becom ing the supreme judge in doctrinal controversies.152 2.3. Trials and Censurae The main structure o f an Inquisitorial trial, including the types of condemnations, the penalties and the way to execute them, had been established by the medieval Inquisition, and many o f its features were adopted by the modern Roman Inquisition. This explains the frequent reprints and editions o f medieval manuals, such as that by Eymeric. Inquisitorial law was based on the principles and uses o f previous canon law. In a certain sense, the former was a specialized part of the latter.153 However, in subsections 2.3.1-2 it will be shown that the spe­ cific rules and procedures of the Inquisition tribunals could not be es­ tablished on the basis o f the general rules laid down by canon law, and therefore largely derived from criminal law as well as from medieval and contemporary manuals on heresy and inquisitorial practice. The final two subsections discuss the modes of book examination and con­ trol, paying particular attention to the censors involved. 2.3.1. Instruments D uring the sixteenth century official inquisitorial law - as distin­ guished from the concrete rules employed by the tribunals - merely consisted o f a lim ited num ber o f fairly general rules and generic solemn declarations. The same held true for the censorial activity of the Congregation for the Index apart from the Rules o f the Triden­ tine Index (1564). As a consequence, in their juridical and censorial activities, the members and consultors o f the Roman Congregations used several manuals which provided schemes for any possible in­ quisitorial trial as well as criteria for the analysis o f the suspect and

The origin of the Pope’s primacy, as to doctrinal matters, is in the period preceding the Fifth Lateran Council; see Lohr 1988, pp. 163-65. 153 See, for example, the sections concerning the setting up of a trial in Fumo 1549; cf. Gratianus 1879-1881. 152

~ 44

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

heretical views under investigation.154 Several of these manuals were widely spread and, although none had a clearly official or privileged status, it seems reasonable to presume that they were intensively used. The spread of sixteenth-century inquisitorial manuals can be divid­ ed into three different phases: one from the end of the fifteenth cen­ tury till the foundation of the Roman Inquisition by Pope Paul III in 1542; a second till 1578, when Pena published his edition of Eymeric’ Directorium inquisitorum-, and finally the period from 1578 till the end of the sixteenth century. Characteristic of the first period is Gon­ zales de Villadiego’s Contra haereticam pravitatem,155 published about 1483 in Rome, but conceived exclusively for the Spanish Inquisition (founded a few years before in 1478). The work consists of twentyfive general quaestiones which treat individual and specific issues of inquisitorial law. The author discussed the several aspects of heresy as well as the procedures to fight it, but the quaestiones lacked any sys­ tematic organization, and thus, the work did not furnish a guide for trials. Also the first attempt for an all-comprehensive discussion of in­ quisitorial law, the anonymous Repertorium inquisitorum haereticae pravitatis (Valencia 1494) only offered a fragmentary account of the procedures to be followed.156157 The most authoritative of the medieval manuals, the Directorium inquisitorum written by Nicolau Eymeric in 1376, was published ca. 1500.15/ This seminal work was divided into three parts, devoted, re­ spectively, to a definition of faith, the notion of heresy, and the in­ quisitorial trial.158 Eymeric’s work contained a detailed alphabetical index of heresies, errors, and “propositiones diversi generis”, disFor discussion, see Errerà 2000, cap. II. A reprint appeared in 1536, edited by Giovanni Nicola Arelatano. See Errerà 2000, pp. 88-92. 156 Errerà 2000, pp. 93-94. 157 A first edition appeared ca. 1500 in Seville, a second one in 1503 in Barcelona. Later editions were those by Francisco Pena; see Eymeric 1578 (and reprints). For discussion, see Borromeo 1983. 158 Other medieval manuals, such as Zanchino Ugolini’s De haereticis, did not fix a de­ tailed scheme of the inquisitorial trial. See Ugolini 1568, an edition with additions and notes by Camillo Campeggi (BlOGR.), promoted by Pope Pius V. 154 155

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

cussed in his work. The Inquisitor of Aragon distinguished between theological and philosophical propositions, and dedicated specific sections to heterodox views in natural philosophy (such as, the eterni­ ty of the world, astral determinism) and to the errors of ancient and medieval authors, featuring the “philosophi prisci” (Aristotle, Alkindi, Avicenna, Algazel, Averroes, Maimonides) and Ramon Lull. The list of erroneous propositions, frequently used by contemporary cen­ sors, was reproduced in Gregorio di Napoli’s Enchiridion.iy) Not ufficially adopted by the Church, Gregorio’s work did not play a formal­ ly recognized role in inquisition trials and book censorship. Yet, like other lists of forbidden and suspect theological and philosophical propositions drawn up by the religious Orders to control the teach­ ing in their schools, it influenced many (regular) ecclesiastics. Thus, in addition to the formal rules of the Index and the Holy Office, it became part of the intellectual background of the functionaries of the Congregations, in particular as to their views on cormogony, astrolo­ gy and divination. Other significant texts of this period are Alfonso de Castro’s Adver­ sus omnes haereses (first edition Paris 1534),15916016 Lancellotto Politi’s (the future Ambrogio Catarino) Speculum haereticorum contra Bernardinum Ochinum,l(A and Bartolomeo Fumo’s Summa, quae aurea armil­ la inscribitur (Piacenza 1549),162163which point out the several forms of heretical deviation. Representative of the second period are Raffaele da Como’s Mal­ leus haereticorum (Venice 1543) and Alfonso de Castro’s De iusta haereticorum punitione'^ which concentrated on the doctrinal aspects of the war against heresy, rather than on the inquisitorial trial, as well as the alphabetically organized repertoria by Bernardo da Como,164 Diego de Simancas,165 and Umberto Locati, the General Commis-

159 160 161 162 163 164 165

See Gregorio 1588, fols. 220-239. See Castro 1555. Published in Rome in 1532, and reprinted in 1541 in Lyon, with a dedication to Paul III. Fumo 1549. Castro 1549 (first edition: Salamanca 1547). Lucerna inquisitorum haereticae pravitatis (Milan 1566); cf. Errerà 2000, pp. 103-104. Institutiones catholicae (Valladolid 1552; Rome 1575), cf. Errerà 2000, pp. 105-106.

~ 46 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

sioner of the Roman Holy Office.166 In 1568 there appeared Diego de Simancas’ Enchiridion iudicum violatae religionis^1 which furnished a practical guide for the inquisitorial trial.168 The period after 1578 is dominated by the activity of Francisco Pena as editor. In 1578 he published his ground-breaking edition of Eymeric’s Eirectoriumf^ to which was added in appendix a collection of apostolic letters.170 Shortly afterwards, Pena edited several other inquisitorial manuals, and finally he contributed to the edition of a collection of previous treatises on inquistorial law published in 1584.171 During the sixteenth century, the inquisitorial manuals were of cru­ cial importance. On the basis of earlier (medieval) manuals, biblical passages, patristic texts, theological doctrine, papal dispositions, ju­ ridical practice, and canon and civil law, these works furnished a functional set of rules for the activity of the Roman Congregations.172 During the following centuries other manuals appeared.173 Further­ more, the decrees and the correspondence of the Roman Congrega­ tions with the peripheral seats became authoritative sources of juris­ diction,174 and finally, from the second half of the seventeenth century the Holy Office composed several Repertoria containing lists of refer­ ences to a wide range of issues, alphabetically ordered and as a rule starting from “Abiura”.175

166

Opus quod ludiciale inquisitorum dicitur (Rome 1568). Simancas 1568. 168 See Errerà 2000, pp. 108-12. 169 For discussion, see Errerà 2000, pp. 119-26. 170 Pena (ed.) 1579. These letters were also disseminated as an individual publication; see Borromeo 1983, pp. 522-23. 171 Tractatus illustrium in utraque tum pontificii, tum caesarei iuris facultate lurisconsultorum, De Iudiciis criminalibus S. Inquisitionis, which appeared as vol. XI of Ziletti’s edition of Tractatus Universi Iuris. See Errerà 2000, pp. 126-30. 172 For a classification, see Errerà 2000, pp. 137-53. 173 Two of the better known are Carena 1655 and Masini 1621. 174 Recorded decrees had a juridical value, also for future causes. The same held, obvious­ ly, for the sentences. 175 See, for example, ACDF, SO, St.st., A.l.a-h; A.2.a-p; 1.2.d; M. 3.g; Q.3.d. 167

~ 47

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

2.3.2. A n Inquisitorial Trial The Congregation of the Holy Office - supreme expression of the pontifical jurisdiction against heresy - was founded on the model of a criminal tribunal, in particular that of the governor of Rome. This con­ gregation differed from the others, inasmuch as it had no cardinal-pre­ fect: from its foundation in 1542 its prefect was the Pope, who was informed about the ordinary activities and who always presided in per­ son when momentous decisions were to be taken {coram Sanctissimo}. One of its members, usually the Dean, was Vice-Prefect and coordinated the daily practice. The tribunal of the modern Roman Inquisition did not proceed “ad instantiam partis, sed ex officio,” although its proceed­ ings were usually triggered by a charge or a denunciation. This meant, however, that the burden of proof lay with the Prosecutor and guilt had to be demonstrated by formal evidence. Only heresy or suspected heresy justified the arrest of the suspect. House arrest was the penalty for lesser forms of heterodoxy, such as blasphemy or the entertaining of proposi­ tions that were “male sonantes”. Although the tribunal’s procedures were inspired mainly by contemporary penal courts and hence by crimi­ nal law as it had developed since the thirteenth century,176 the Roman Inquisition introduced new elements into juridical practice, such as the defense attorney, testimony under oath, appeals to a higher court, the adoption of the principle “unus testis, nullus testis”, a sentence to “life im prisonm ent” usually being tantam ount to a few years of incarce­ ration,177 and a public defender for the indigent.178 Whenever the preliminary proceedings persuaded the Inquisition to set up a formal trial, the evidence was collected in a specific file. Unfor­ tunately, as was pointed out before, most of these files were lost in the years when the Archive of the Holy Office was located in France. For the reconstruction of inquisition trials one must therefore rely almost ex­ clusively on the so-called Decreta, which report the decisions taken by the cardinals during their sessions as recorded by the notary.179 For the medieval background, see Neveu 1993, pp. 391-92. See Pastor 1912, p. 509. 178 For the reconstruction of an inquisitorial trial, see Beretta 1998, chs. 1-4, and Errerà 2000, ch. I. 179 See section 1.1. 176 177

~ 48 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

It was the task of the Holy Office to establish whether the crime of heresy was committed and, if such should be the case, to proceed against the suspect.180 An inquisitorial trial proceeded according to a determi­ nate num ber of steps. The inquisitio (usually triggered by a charge brought against an individual) amounted to the collection of circumstan­ tial evidence, which enabled the Court to set up the case. This was fol­ lowed by a session in which it was decided whether the accused should be arrested. Next followed an investigation, which included the interro­ gation of witnesses and of the defendant. This first part of the process was concluded with the formalization of the charges, which were com­ municated to the defendant, together with a copy of the testimonies. At this point the lawyers were admitted. Contextually, both the time span for the defence and the list of witnesses called by the defendant were es­ tablished. During this phase of the trial the witnesses as well as the de­ fendant could be interrogated (again). Then, the so-called expeditio causae, that is, a legal sentence was reached. Finally, during a public ses­ sion the sententia was read, which also synthesized the essential elements of the trial. However, many trials ended without a sentence, because the latter presumed (at least) that it had been established juridically - i.e., on the basis of sound indications - that the defendant was lightly or strong­ ly suspected of heresy. Frequently, the defendant was released on bail, and obliged to present himself whenever the inquisitors ordered (the socalled toties quoties}. As a rule, in these cases the defendant was given house arrest, or if he belonged to the regular clergy he was confined in a house of his O rder and given minor penalties.181 In an inquisitorial trial, preliminary proceedings and investigation were assigned to the officials (officiales Sancti Officii} of the Court, that is, to the friars and secular priests that assisted the cardinals. Two of these officials, namely the commissarius (a Dominican of the Lom ­ bard province) and the assessor, could open proceedings, but had no jurisdictional power.182 Until the m iddle of the seventeenth century

For a classification of heterodoxy, see section 2.2 (.supra). See, for example, chs. Borri, Campanella, Della Porta, and De Veno. For the penalties, see also infra. 182 The introduction of functions of Commissioner and Assessor dates back to 1551 and 1553, respectively. See Del Col 2006, p. 316. 180 181

49 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

the highest official was the commissarius, to whom two coadjutors were given from the same order.183 He managed the proceedings ex­ clusively until the plenary session, thus conducting it up to the time of sentencing. The commissarius is comparable to the modern investi­ gating magistrate, for he interrogated the witnesses and the defen­ dant, made up the list of propositions to abjure and finally handed the files over to the Cardinal Inquisitors. During the inquisitio, he es­ tablished the soundness of the charges on the basis of circumstantial proof and the interrogation of witnesses. His function was thus of great importance, for he was present during all of the different phases of the trial and he mediated between the cardinals and the defendant. The assessor sancti officii, always one of the secular clergy, saw to the expedition of the business in hand. He informed the tribunal about ongoing trials in Rome and elsewhere, recorded the decisions taken during the sessions and passed them to the notary, who transcribed them into the volumes of the Decreta. Another official was the procu­ rator fiscalis (the public prosecutor) who also cooperated in the com­ pilation of the files. Finally, the tribunal was assisted by a group of consultores and qualificatores. The duty of the consultors was to af­ ford the cardinals expert advice. They formulated pronouncements on the orthodoxy of suspect views, they advised on doctrinal issues and on sentences in trials, and finally they were active as censors in the examination and correction of books. The consultors were ap­ pointed by the Pope, their job was paid for and as a rule they were exempted from other tasks. They always came from the regular and, less frequently, from secular clergy. The General of the Dominicans, the Master of the Sacred Palace, and a third member of the same or­ der were always ex-officio Consultors {consultores nati). By contrast, qualificators gave their opinions only when called upon.184 The Cardinals subsequently weighed the evidence, consulted the Pope in demanding cases, and formulated the sentence.185 In the sec183 Since the later seventeenth century the Assessor held the office next in dignity after the Cardinals of the Congregation and took precedence over the commissioner. See Hum­ phrey 1899, pp. 409-10. 184 For discussion of members and officials, see section 2.3.4 (infra) and Schwedt 2001. 185 The jurisdiction of the Inquisition did not include bishops and noblemen of royal dig­ nity, who were judged directly by the Pope.

~ 50

GENERAL INTRODUCTIO N

ond half of the sixteenth century, the Roman Inquisition generally met twice a week, on Tuesdays (“feria tertia”) for a session of the functionaries and Consultors and sometimes with one or more cardi­ nals, and on Wednesdays (“feria quarta”) for a plenary session. The officials met also on Mondays, but there is no extant documentation of their meetings. The Pope was informed after the Wednesday meet­ 186 ings. If necessary, a Thursday meeting was added (“feria quinta”), during which the most demanding cases were discussed with the Pope.187 Guilt was established on the basis of a doctrinal evaluation of the interrogatories and, if available, of propositions extracted from the defendant’s works. In addition, although not strictly necessary, an ex­ plicit confession was always sought for, in order to establish the in­ tentional nature of the crime. When there were grounds to suspect that the accused was lying or hiding part of the truth, the Inquisitors could send persons to the prisoners. This was related to the practice of pushing the defendant to making a full confession as well as to convince him to denounce further partisans in his cause. In fact, the Inquisition did not regard heresy as a private or socially isolated phe­ nomenon. The arrest of one could indeed lead to the arrest of other heretics. The advantage for those who denounced fellow heretics was that they could count on a less severe sentence.188 Furthermore, the Inquisitors could take recourse to torture.189 The specific way in which the interrogations took place was very much determined, how­ ever, by the fact that the magistrate already knew, either from the ac­ cusation or from the defendant’s works, what the latter was presumed to confess. As noted before, after the preliminary proceedings the de­ fendant had the possibility of defending himself. He would receive

As early as 1556; see Beretta 1998, p. 68. Tedeschi 1991, pp. 127-203 (“The Organization and Procedures of the Roman Inqui­ sition: A Sketch”). Recall that the Inquisition was the only Congregation that was chaired by the Pope. 188 See the role of Robert Brown in ch. Henricus de Veno. 189 It was first authorized by Pope Innocent IV in his Bull A d extirpanda of 15 May 1252, which was confirmed by Pope Alexander IV on 30 November 1259, and by Pope Clement IV on 3 November 1265. 186 187

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

copies of the files, he could ask for a repetitio testium and was given the possibility of drawing up a defense. Once the charge of heresy had been formally proven and con­ fessed, the conviction generally consisted in an abiura de formali and a prison term, which as a rule was not established with any exactness. Thus, it could even be a sentence to carceratio perpetua (that is, with­ out fixing a precise period), but in most cases the prison term was limited in time. More severe penalties included that of being im­ mured in a windowless prison cell or being condemned to serve on the papal galleys (at most ten years). The so-called impoenitentes, un­ repenting heretics whose guilt was proven but who refused to con­ fess, and relapsi, i.e. defendants who had been previously con­ demned, were given a so-called terminus ad resipiscendum, that is, a period of time (usually sixty days), to change their mind. During this period, the prisoner was visited by experienced men, well versed in theology and canon law, who tried to persuade him to repent.190 In the case they were successful, capital punishment was revoked and the trial was concluded with a solemn withdrawal and a prison term, often pardoned when the crimes were not particularly serious. When such attempts failed, the defendant could be given a new term again and again, till he was finally handed over to the civil authorities, the so-called secular arm (“braccio secolare”), to be executed.191192 In the frequent cases of suspected heresy, there were various courses of ac­ tion available. Whenever the suspicion was “light,” the defendant was convicted to an abiura de levi, while in the case of a strong suspi­ cion the conviction was to an abiura de vehementi™ Other forms of doctrinal deviation could lead to a simple retraction. Practical or ‘be-

190 On 8 April 1591 the Holy Office decided that the monthly visit to the prisoners was to be substituted by a meeting of the Congregation. See Pastor 1912, p. 525. 191 See, for example, the trial of Giordano Bruno: in 1599, the Congregation tried to con­ vince Bruno over and over again to recant, but without success. For statistics on death sen­ tences in Southern Europe, see Borromeo 1988, p. 259f. 192 At the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the condemnation to an abiura de vehementi was inflicted on several philosophers and scientists, including Girolamo Car­ dano (1571), Tommaso Campanella (1595), and Galileo Galilei (1633). See Baldini-Spruit 2000, p. 154; Baldini-Spruit 2001, p. 185; 'Documenti Galileo Galilei 1984, p. 154.

52

GENERAL INTRODUCTIO N 19319456 havioral’ heresy, such as the reading of forbidden books, brought about an abiura de vehementi, except in those cases where the defen­ dants had no higher education. Those who presented themselves spontaneously - the sponte comparentes™ - could abjure coram con­ gregatione and, in some cases, were spared the poenae temporales.™ Those charged with having favored heresy, which included housing heretics or offering them hospitality, could, when the charge was not dismissed, be condemned either to abjuring, to a purgatio canonica™ or to a simple admonition. Even though it has been documented that in some cases the In­ quisitors proceeded with surprising mildness,197 this does not mean that the Inquisition represented a model of moderation and did not instill fear. Research confirms that it was highly feared, but not so much because of the procedures it applied, or because it could inflict the death sentence, but rather because of the economic and social consequences stemming from even a light sentence: confiscation of property, banishment, loss of certain rights, and infamy heaped not 198 only upon the person condemned but also his descendants.

2.3.3. Censura: Assessment and Expurgation The censura was a central element in the practice of the Roman Congregations, consisting in the valuation of the congruence of a 193 For the legislation developing between Popes Paul IV and Clement VIII, see the In ­ troductions to chs. Licences and The Organization of the Index. 194 See again the case of Robert Brown in ch. Henricus de Veno. 195 See the case of the Anabaptist Giovan Battista Scotti, discussed in Prosperi 1996, p. 282. 196 A purgatio canonica consisted in an oath by the defendant declaring solemnly that he had nothing to do with the heterodoxy he was accused of. See, for example, Eymeric 1595, pp. 500-503. For discussion, see Errerà 2000, pp. 38, 224-26. See also ch. Della Porta, Intro­ duction. 197 See ch. Henricus de Veno. 198 Pope Pius V’s Bull Si de protegendis, emanated on 1 April 1569, decreed that whoever, layman or ecclesiastic, offended the inquisitors or in any way hampered their work, would be deprived of his properties and dignity, and his sons of any heritage, because “filii etiam tali­ um infames sunt”. See Bullarium, VII, pp. 744-46. Heretics who abjured risked to loose pub­ lic charges; see Pastor 1912, p. 512. For contemporary reactions to the Bull, see ACDF, SO,

St. st., L L .l.f (1607). See also Pagano 2007.

53

GENERAL INTROD UCTION

view, doctrine or work with Catholic orthodoxy. Censurae were of two kinds;199 assessments containing a critical examination of a view or of the content of a work,200 on the one hand, and expurgations, 201 that is, proposals for correction, on the other. A general distinction can be drawn between the approach of the Inquisition and that of the Index. As a rule, the Congregation for the Index commissioned mem­ bers, consultors or qualificators with the examin ation of suspect works in order to establish whether a certain work could be permit­ 202 ted or else was to be prohibited. By contrast, the examination of books by the Holy Office aimed at establishing whether the author entertained or intended to spread certain views. For this reason ex­ purgation was an Index affair. For example, Cardan o’s works were examined and condemned by the Inquisition, but their expurgation was coordinated by the Index.203 Now, in the case of a prohibition by the Index, a work could be condem ned tout court or else with the stipulation of “donee corriFor For a general discussion of ecclesiastical censure, see Frajese 2006, pp. 289-315. “Censor­ 130: p. 2000, Godman see non, phenome the the broader cultural background to of authority ship was not only an expression of those strivings [i.e. to grapple with the issues thought: so of form a debate, of vehicle a n, discussio of method A more. was it and control]; al, po­ theologic problem commonly practised and so widely diffused was censura that any judge­ the to d submitte and ons litical, or moral - was able to be condensed into propositi ment of peers, colleagues, or superiors”. 200 As is well known, censorship could be exercised in two ways: before the printing or prohibiting it publishing of a work (censura praevia), and after the printing or publishing, by (1564) had Index e (censura repressiva). The Bull Inter sollicitudines (1515) and the Tridentin officials Church other to pertained established preventive censorship and approbation, which in­ tions Congrega Roman the while Palace), (the local inquisitors and the Master of the Sacred form. pt manuscri in circulated which or ur vestigated works printed without an imprimat 201 When the correction was carried out, the print and reading of the work could be per­ mitted again. 202 Little is known about the precise procedures for selecting books to be examined. In ; among those general, the Congregations gathered information through several channels Protocolli, V Index, ACDF, (see s catalogue Fair worth mentioning are the Frankfurt Book nfuchs, Schrecke ch. 3; doc. Giuntini, ch. 1; 1399-140 pp. (II.a.19), f. 57r; cf. Rotondò 1973, Rome in s bookshop to ries functiona Palace Sacred the of Master the of doc. 4) and the visits were books and its environs. Furtherm ore, it frequently occurred that suspect or heretical readers. tious conscien or denounced by peripheral inquisitors, occasional collaborators 199

203

See ch. Cardano.

~ 54 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

gatur” or “donec expurgetur”. Expurgation, suggested in Ghislieri’s 1559 Instructio, was a remarkable innovation of the Tridentine Index (1564) and regarded books “quorum principale argumentum bonum est, in quibus obiter aliqua inserta sunt, quae ad haeresim seu impi­ etatem, divinationem aut superstitionem spectant”.204 Works prohib­ ited with the proviso “donec corrigatur” could be reprinted in an emendated edition,205 or else local bishops or inquisitors could grant reading permits on condition that the work was corrected according to the instructions of the Congregation for the Index. Italian libraries contain many works that bear the signs of several kinds of interven­ tion: the cancellation of names and lines, the covering or physical elimination of individual passages or entire pages and sections. For­ bidden books that were not corrected, neither officially nor privately, were destined to a clandestine circulation. Expurgation could be asked for by the author,206 but most of the time it was required by the representatives of the legal and medical professions, printers and publishers,207 as well as by relatives and sci­ entific or cultural academies.208 As a rule, it regarded works prohibit­ ed with the proviso “donec corrigatur”, but frequently totally prohib­ ited works were also corrected as they were regarded as useful.209 Even some books that had never been condemned or prohibited were corrected if they were considered in some way or another to be suspect. In general, expurgation was presumed to be carried out ac­ cording to the Index Rules, or else it had to be based upon pre-exis­ tent censurae, with a preference for those kept in the archive of the Congregation for the Index in Rome. However, expurgation was not 204

ILI, Vili, p. 817. The 1576 edition of Polidoro Virgilio, De rerum inventoribus and the 1577 edition of three works by Johann Wild are cases in point; see chs. Virgilio and Wild, Introduction. 206 See the case of Francesco Patrizi; cf. respective chapter. Giovan Battista della Porta modified Magia naturalis for the 1589 edition; see the respective ch., Aquilecchia 1968, and Lopez 1974, p. 156. 207 Jean Bodin’s Venetian printer Nicola Manassi is a case in point. Cf. the following note. 208 The expurgation of Castiglione’s Cortegiano was supported by his son Camillo, that of Machiavelli by the Florentine academy and his relatives; similar cases are those of Boccaccio and Telesio; for the latter see Firpo 1951. The expurgation of the Talmud was asked for by the Jewish community. See Frajese 2006, pp. 307-308. 209 See ch. Licences, Introduction. 205

~ 55 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

centralized until 1587,210 and before this date there was a prolifera­ tion of local correctors, partly experts (inquisitors and their assistants and consultors), and partly common readers requested to correct the books they were allowed to read.211 A fter the prom ulgation of the Clementine Index, the Congregation decided to set up local commis­ sions for the correction of books prohibited in the second class,212 but this attem pt did not furnish the desired results.213 The reasons motivating correction were multifarious: obscenity, mix­ ing up prophane and holy, derision of rites and devotion, irreverence to clergy, attribution of divine aspects to common people, etc. The funda­ mental problem in expurgation regarded the criteria underlying an ad­ equate correction. Rule VIII of the Tridentine Index concerned those heretical or suspect statements in books which occurred occasionally {obiter), and this suggested that they could be easily isolated. And in­ deed, until only names or clearly distinct passages were to be eliminat­ ed things were relatively simple.214 The situation got quite complicated when the book was placed on the Index because the author put forth views in open or veiled conflict with Catholic doctrine, and in particu­ lar when the censor had to tackle erroneous propositions that were in­ timately radicated in complex theoretical systems. Cases in point are the works by Francesco Giorgio and Francesco Patrizi, which did not directly contradict Catholic doctrine, but which contained many views with pernicious potentialities.215

210 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 17v. The very term is used for the first time on 12 November 1587; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, 28r. 211 The correction of prohibited or suspect works was initially seen as the aim of the grant of reading permits. Later, by contrast, it often became a condition of the latter; see ch. Li­ cences, Introduction. 212 The distinction in three classes was introduced in the Tridentine Index; see section 3.2. 213 See ch. The Organization of the Index, Introduction, § 4. 214 Ca. 1587, Vincenzo Bonardi composed a Modus et ratio expurgandi vel corrigendi li­ bros-, the text is in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, M (II.a.10), fols. 124r-125r. See also ACDF, In­ dex, Diari, 1, f. 20v. Comments by Ruggiero, Pena, Allen, Morin, and an anonymous author are in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 528r-537v. On 8 October 1594, Marcantonio Colonna handed over to his censors a printed Instructio pro expurgatione et impressione li­ brorum-, cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 81r. This text was probably the basis for the Instructio printed in the Clementine Index; ILI, IX, pp. 859-62. 215 For discussion of Giorgio, see also Rotondò 1982, pp. 18-33.

~ 56

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The Censor was presumed to take into consideration any possible kind of peril, but first of all the title-page, the name of the author or editor, and the place of edition.216 Then, he should examine the text, and formulate his proposals for correction.217 Often, however, the Censor could also operate at a substantially different level: connect the mutilated parts and/or re-write entire sections,218 and thus insinu­ ating orthodoxy. As a consequence, works could assume an outlook strongly deviating from the author’s original intentions.219 Thus, while some corrections were visible or traceable, others were completely in­ visible. As to the latter, they were probably more damaging than a downright prohibition. 2.3.4. C ensors The censors of the Roman Congregation of the Holy Office and the Index can be roughly divided into three categories.220 First comes the rather large group of the so-called con su ltores who, as said before, were ecclesiastics and as a rule were active in the central seats of the Congregations. They were nominated by the Pope and stayed in of­ fice for an indeterminate period and often for the rest of their lives. Consultors were selected from among personalities active in the Cu­ ria (for juridical expertise), official representatives of religious Orders (usually the Procurators General), theologians or members of the courts of the cardinals, and in general they were persons renowned from a theological or philosophical point of view. A second category was made up of the occasional collaborators, the qualificatores, who

216

For general rules, see ILI, IX, pp. 859-62. In general, the censors should prefer correction to cancellation. On 19 September 1592, the Congregation exhorted its consultors to follow the Pope’s intention in this sense: “Disputatum inter hos Consultores et de mente S.ml conclusum quod expurgatio Librorum fiat non delendo sed solum notando errores”, (ch. The Organization of the Index, doc, VII.4, f. 52v) 218 See ch. Lemnius, for the proposals by Ambrogio da Asola. 219 A clamorous case of the wrenching of a literary work was Girolamo Malipiero’s trans­ formation of Petrarca’s Canzoniere (published in 1536); cf. Del Col 2006, pp. 530-31. 220 For the Consultors of the Index, see ch. The Organization of the Index, section VII, as well as the diagram Index Consultors in the Appendix. 217

~ 57 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

in virtue of their specific competence and expertise were asked to ex­ amine several kinds of works. They were active in Rome as well as in other cities and could be either ecclesiastics or laymen.221 Sometimes these censors were instructed by the Congregation,222 other times they were engaged by a Cardinal, a prelate or a local Inquisitor.223 To this category there pertain also the members of the local commissions that were nominated in the period immediately following upon the promulgation of the Clementine Index and that were commissioned to examine specific categories of books, such as those active in Padua, Faenza, Naples, Perugia, Pisa, and Venice.224 A final group consisted of people who, on their own initiative, informed the Congregations of suspect works, often transmitting a list of suspect and heretical views or propositions. The cen su ra e of Domenico Delfino’s S om m ario d i tu tte le s c ie n tie by an unknown abbot, that of Schegk by Johann Brutscher, and the one of Ziegler by Giulio Priscianese, are cases in point.225 The censors were not only recruited from the regular or secular clergy, but they were usually m agistri th eo lo gia e ( and always so in the case of consultors). The fact that books of all kinds were examined and/or corrected by specialists of a single discipline clearly deter­ mined the range and depth of the analysis. The censors’ main task was to check the orthodoxy of books, and not - as far as regards the issue under scrutiny - the scientific or philosophical plausibility of the views expressed in these works. In the past, this had given rise to profound and enduring misunderstandings, as the ecclesiastical cen­ sors have been frequently accused of ignorance with respect to the disciplinary fields that made up the subject matter of the works they were asked to analyze. Some caveats are due. First, there was an evi­ dent disparity among the individual Roman censors. Even a summary look at the cen su ra e reproduced in the individual chapters makes

221

See, for example, ch. Lemnius, doc. 2, for Clavius, and ch. Cardano, doc. 71, for An­ tonio Erizzo. 222 See the case of Clavius (ti/pra). 223 See ch. Agrippa, doc. 1. 224 See ch. The Organization of the Index, Introduction, § 4. 225 Ch. Delfino, doc. 1; ch. Schegk, doc. 1; and ch. Ziegler, doc. 2.

58

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

clear that some carried out detailed and more or less profound analy­ ses of the works that the Congregation had commissioned to them, while others conducted rather poor examinations that were frequent­ ly quite limited from a philosophical or a scientific point of view. Fur­ thermore, some censors were definitely more open-minded than most of their colleagues. However, it should be kept in mind that the depth of the analyses and the open attitude towards contemporary science and philosophy that one may find in the cen su ra e of an Am­ brogio da Asola or an Alfonso Chacon did not derive from their sci­ entific or philosophical competence, but rather from their more liber­ al view of Catholic orthodoxy. Their pronouncements and views which may strike the modern reader as a pleasant surprise, were not scientifically or philosophically motivated. Instead, they were ground­ ed upon a more sophisticated culture, as a rule a strictly personal one, that affected their religious convictions. The case of lay censors is only slightly different. Also the laymen, such as those active in Northern Italy, were asked to analyze books from a religious point of view. That some of them were specialists could lead to a relatively more competent analysis of the works concerned, but in general only marginally coloured their overall approach, conclusions and propos­ als for correction. The cen su ra e of medical and philosophical works by the physician Girolamo Rossi are a case in point.*226 2.4. Italy a nd A broad As noted before, the two Roman Congregations were intended as universal bodies of doctrinal control, but in actual fact their jurisdic­ tion only extended to the Ecclesiastical state (including Avignon) and to the majority of other Italian states, and Venetian territories on the Dalmatian coast, and Malta. The Roman Index was only formally ac­ cepted within the borders of the Italian peninsula.227 Also, as a matter I 226 See ch. Amatus Lusitanus, doc. 5; ch. Arnaldus of Villanova, doc. 10; ch. Cardano, docs. 58-60; ch. Dasypodius, doc. 2; and ch. Grataroli, doc. 3. 227 In other European countries, except those under Spanish dominion, the authority of the Roman index was propagated by the local clergy, but as a rule most governments man­ aged book censorhip on their own account. For the case of France, see Fragnito 2002.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

o£ fact, the extent of Holy Office jurisdiction was limited to Italy.228 This entailed, however, that visiting Protestants could be arrested and tried. Let us analyze this situation in some m ore detail. The Bull Immensa aeterni Dei, which was prom ulgated by Pope Sixtus V on 11 February 1588,229 established the Inquisition as the Supreme Congregation and broadened its competence in matters re­ lating to the defense of the integrity of the Catholic faith.230 The In ­ quisition was supposed to prosecute whatever could be construed as heresy, not only in the territory of the Ecclesiastical State, but wherev­ er the Christian faith flourished.231 However, as said before, to con­ tradict faith was taken to imply that one had previously adhered to it. Therefore, pagans, including the ancient G reek philosophers, Jews and Muslims, were not considered heretics in a strictly formal sense.232 However, owing to the fact that the Inquisition was supposed to have jurisdiction over all baptized Christians and thus also over Protestants, all cultural or economic exchanges between Italy and the Protestant re­ gions of Europe were nominally under its control. The arrogation of these powers was clearly and uncompromisingly expressed by Pope Pius V ’s version of the Bull In coena D om ini, w hich was read in Catholic churches every Holy Thursday.233 The Bull excommunicated all Protestants who happened to be under the jurisdiction of the Ro228 In Poland, the medieval inquisition survived and was related to Rome. In other Catholic states, there were forms of cooperation with Rome through the Nuncios. 229 Bullarium, VIII, pp. 985-999. 230 It confirmed or established fifteen Congregations, nine devoted to spiritual affairs (such as Council, Catechism, Bishops, Regulars, Rites) and six to temporal affairs (Navy, University La Sapienza, Infrastructures). This structure of the Roman Curia remained sub­ stantially such until the end of the nineteenth century; see Del Re 1970. 231 Bullarium, VI: pp. 344-46; idem, vol. VIII: p. 987. 232 Castro 1549, fol. 42v. See also Neveu 1993, p. 101, on the distinction between “infi­ delitas positiva” and “infidelitas negativa”. 233 In Coena Domini was a periodical papal Bull, so called from the feast on which it was annually published in Rome, viz. the feast of the Lord’s Supper, or Maundy Thursday. The Bull contained a collection of forms of excommunication against the perpetrators of various offences, absolution from which was reserved to the Pope. The first list of censures appeared in the fourteenth century, and was added to and modified as time went on, until its final revi­ sion under Pope Urban VIII in the year 1627, after which it remained practically unchanged till its formal abrogation in the nineteenth century. Among the main heads of the offences struck with excommunication in the Bull are apostasy, heresy, and schism.

~ 60 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

man Inquisition latae sen ten tia e and prescribed their prosecution as formal heretics.234 To the arrested Protestants the Inquisition offered the possibility of conversion.235 The choice was restricted inasmuch as the refusal of this offer meant that the unrepentant heretic was hand­ ed over to the secular court.236 According to Inquisitorial law, con­ tacts with heretics had to be denounced immediately, and failure to do so entailed prosecution.237 This policy of protecting the Catholic orthodoxy against heterodox influences culminated in Pope Clement VIII’s Bull Cum sicu t (26 July 1596) which prohibited Catholics from staying in Protestant countries that lacked sufficient Catholic ‘infra­ structures’.238 The Bull also had indirect consequences for the avail­ ability of scientific works, because it established that Catholics in Protestant countries could be assisted by non-Catholic physicians on­ ly in cases of emergency, and thus prohibited implicitly the use of medical books by Protestant authors.239 Had these sanctions been applied with a minimum of efficiency, commerce between Italy and the North would have collapsed, with the peninsula barred off behind an iron curtain. While instead, many foreigners continued to visit Italy without relinquishing their confes­ sional identity. Indeed, the inquisitorial documents frequently men­ tion difficulties in applying restrictive measures.240 Many foreigners,

234 See Schmidt 2000, p. 366, note 5, who reports the first version of this sentence: “Ex­ communicamus et anathematizamus Hussitas, Wiclefistas, Lutheranos, Zwinglianos, Calvinistas, Ugonottos, Anabaptistas, Trinitarios et a Christiana fide apostatas, ac omnes et singulos alios haereticos, quocunque nomine censeantur, et cuiuscumque Sectae existant, ac iis cre­ dentes, eorumque fautores et generaliter quoslibet illorum defensores see also Schmidt, 2001, p. 107. 235 As happened in de Veno’s case; see respective chapter. 236 See Beretta 1998, pp. 93-163. 237 Carena 1655, pars II, tit. IV; Mirto 1986, pp. 105-108. 238 Bullarium, X, pp. 279-81. On 2 July 1622, Pope Gregory XV reissued and extended this Bull as [lomani Pontificis-, cf. Pullarium., XII, pp. 708-9. For discussion, see Simoncelli 1976, pp. 133-37. 239 Bullarium, X, p. 280: “Medicorum quoque haereticorum opera, necessitate cessante, et ubi adsit copia catholici medici idonei, non utantur”. 240 See Schmidt 2000, pp. 368-69, who analyzes the file ACDF, SO, St.st., M.4.b, which contains a rich documentation for the period 1617 to 1670 regarding “diversos haereticos degentes in Italia”.

61 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

in particular merchants, were afforded protection by secular pow­ ers.241 In Genoa and Venice, for example, Protestant foreigners were even allowed to settle, provided that they did not openly profess their faith. Moreover, Spain signed pacts with England and Switzerland, which also affected the Kingdom of Naples. Finally, local princes and dukes often granted safe conduct.242 To be sure, the Inquisition at­ tempted to undermine such arrangements, but mostly without du­ rable consequences. Thus, protection came in different degrees. Wherever the mechanism of contractual, diplomatic or social protec­ tion did not fully function, the Inquisition represented a real threat. In this situation, there was of course another solution: a good mastery of typically Catholic behavior by Protestant foreigners made it virtu­ ally impossible to identify them and greatly reduced the Inquistion’s capacity to intervene. 2.5. Criteria During the sixteenth century, the ecclesiastical bodies of doctrinal control did not develop precise criteria for the assessment of scientif­ ic and philosophical views and works.243 As said earlier, the papal Bull Apostolici Regiminis which referred to Averroist and Alexandrist psychology, and the eternity of the world (issued on 19 December 1513 during the Fifth Lateran Council) obliged university professors to correct and thoroughly confute suspect or heretical philosophical views.244 In the same document the Council fixed the general rule Merchants must be distinguished from visiting nobles or students on their peregrinatio academica. In some Italian universities foreign Protestant students were exempted from Pope Pius’ IV Bull In Sacrosancta (9 December 1564), that imposed the profession of Catholic faith before graduating. 242 Schmidt 2000, pp. 369-70; Schmidt 2001, pp. 109-10. 243 For a general discussion, see Beretta 2005, who on pp. 68-71 distinguishes three forms of philosophical orthodoxy in Medieval and Renaissance scholasticism, namely “orthodoxie du paradigme scientifique, de la correlation disciplinaire et de la hiérarchie disciplinaire”. 244 Alberigo et al., pp. 605-606: “Insuper omnibus et singulis philosophis in universitati­ bus studiorum generalium et alibi publice legentibus districte praecipiendo mandamus, ut quum philosophorum principia aut conclusiones in quibus a recta fide deviare noscuntur, auditoribus suis legerint seu explicaverint quale hoc est de animae mortalitate aut unitate et mundi aeternitate, ac alia huiusmodi, teneantur eisdem veritatem religionis christianae omni 241

~ 62

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

“verum congruit cum vero”: as no true proposition may contradict another which is also true, philosophical doctrines that contradict theological truth are false. Thus, the so called “principle of double truth”,*245 to which Averroist and Alexandrist academic philosophers often referred, was refuted and all views that were somehow incom­ patible with truths of faith could be qualified as suspect, heterodox or heretical.246 This, however, was only a very general premise for the examination of any specific thesis about natural entities and phenom­ ena. Pope Paul I ll’s Bull that founded the modern Roman Inquisition did not fix clear-cut criteria for the possible forms of “aberratio” from faith. It implicitly referred to the theological and juridical tradi­ tion and to the previous inquisitorial practice. Also the several six­ teenth-century indexes did not consider works on natural philosophy and science as a distinct case. Only in the course of the second half of the sixteenth century, several general norms were approved that had an indirect impact on science and natural philosophy. A first important watershed is the 1557 Index, which explicitly condemned several forms of divination and astrology.247 This laid the

conatu manifestam facere et persuadendo pro posse docere, ac omni studio huiusmodi philosophorum argumenta, quum omnia solubilia existant, pro viribus excludere atque re­ solvere”. For discussion, see Price 1985 and Ghisalberti 1999, pp. 487-89. Cf. Mansi, 32, cols. 842-43. This papal Bull was also published by Francisco Pena in his edition of Eymeric’s Directorium inquisitorum, being a seminal document of the developing inquisitorial legis­ lation; cf. Eymeric 1578, pp. 53-54. 245 Namely, the same proposition may be simultaneously true in philosophy and false in theology. The doctrine first appears in 1277 as part of the introduction to the condemnation of heterodox ideas by the bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier. For discussion, see Wippel 1977, Dales 1984, and Niewòhner-Pluta 1999. 246 At the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this principle had an important role in the Italian debates on heliocentrism, in particular as to the relation of the Copernican theory with biblical passages. It was frequently referred to by Copernicans such as Galilei and Foscarini and by Campanella too. However, they disagreed with ecclesiastics, in particu­ lar Bellarmino, because they argued that not all biblical passages were to be viewed as true in a literal sense. See Baldini 1992a, pp. 324-25; Lerner 2001. 247 See ILI, V ili, p. 737: “Libri omnes, et scripta, Chyromantiae, Geomantiae, Hydromantiae, Physionomiae, Pyromantiae, vel Necromantiae, sive in quibus Sortilegia, venefi­ cia, incantationes, Magicae Divinationes, vel Astrologica iudicia, circa Geneses, Nativi­ tates, futuros eventus, sive particulares successus, status, vitae, vel mortis cuiusvis hominis describantur”.

63

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

groundwork for the prohibition of sections of astronomy, (experi­ mental) physics and natural philosophy. Astrology and astronomy were intimately linked in scholarly texts and university curricula. Ptolemy’s T etrabiblos, known as Q uadripartitum during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, did not draw a neat distinction between astronomy and astrology: the former was viewed as the theoretical (and more demonstrative) part of a discipline and the latter as its ap­ plication. The same holds for scholastic cosmology, as well as Renais­ sance Platonism and naturalism. As a consequence, the censure of as­ trology also frequently had an impact on astronomy and natural phi­ losophy.248 Astrology was also linked to medicine, in so far as a con­ nection between astral events and the pathologies of individual per­ sons was assumed. The 1559 Index249 made an exception for astrolog­ ical research linked to navigation, agriculture and medicine.250 Subse­ quently, external criticisms and internal debates led to the canonic distinction between natural and judiciary astrology in the Tridentine Index (1564), in Pope Sixtus V’s Bull C oeli e t terra (1586), and in lat­ er indexes.251 A similar distinction regarded physiognomy, which dur­ ing the sixteenth century, due to the wide spread of the pseudo-Aristotelian P hysiognom ica (first edition: Venice 1482; eleven editions in Greek and translation before 1600), was usually viewed as a scientific discipline.252 Michele Ghislieri’s In stru ctio circa in d icem (1559) per­ mitted ‘natural’ physiognomy, and later decisions by the Congrega­ tion adopted a similar policy.253 248

For discussion, see Baldini 2001a. The Index was promulgated on 30 December, and thus according to the calendar “a nativitate” dated 1559. 250 ILI, Vili, p. 775. 251 See ILI, Vili, p. 818; IX, pp. 797 and 927. For extensive discussion, see ch. Astrology, Introduction. 252 For a survey of the editions of the Physiognomonics, modern studies on its spread, and the nature of physiognomical doctrines, see Aristoteles 2007, “Introduzione”, and pp. 297-357. 253 ILI, V ili, p. 101: “Physionomia quae naturalibus complexionibus hominum flegmaticis, colericis etc. iudicandis inservit non est reiecta, sed quae ad divinationes in morem Chiromantiae convertitur”. During the late 1580s, the Consultors of the Congregation for the Index puzzled whether physiognomy was to be included explicitly or not in the Rule con­ demning the divinatory arts; see the pronouncements by the consultors in ACDF, Index, Pro­ tocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 339v-543v (in ch. The Organization of the Index, sect. II, docs. 6, 8, 249

~ 64 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The position of magic was different.*254 It did not attain any aca­ demic status, but it was conceptually linked to observation, physical experimentation, alchemical tradition, and natural history. Now, in experimental physics and natural history there was no widely shared theory of the unperceivable properties and actions of substances en­ abling one to discriminate between those which were real and those which were not. For example, reports of observations and experi­ ments in the works of Cardano and Della Porta have profound magi­ cal connotations. Furtherm ore, some of m agic’s basic assumptions contrasted with those of Aristotelian natural philosophy taught in the university. Thus, the fact that large sections of contem porary no n ­ Aristotelian natural philosophy treated magical issues, magic’s con­ nection to Hermeticism, and finally the problem atic distinction be­ tween natural and dem onic magic brought the aforenam ed disci­ plines into the reach of ecclesiastical censure.255 The Council of Trent formulated a rather general criterion for philo­ sophical research, claiming that it should be conditioned by faith.256 It thus assigned a key role to the Holy Writ. However, the latter was no­ toriously vague on matters scientific and philosophical, furnishing mea­ gre elements for the solution of a fairly restricted group of issues, for

10). After the promulgation of the Clementine Index (1596), the Congregation decreed that divination through physiognomy was permitted; cf. ch. The Organization of the Index, sect. Ill, doc. 11, f. 72r. See also the Introduction to the ch. Astrology. The only extant sixteenth­ century censura of a work on physiognomy is in ch. Grataroli, doc. 3; see also the brief re­ marks in doc. 4 of the same chapter. 254 See section 1.2. For the medieval condemnations, see ch. Magic, Introduction. 255 A case in point is the link of Paracelsus’ views with magic. For discussion of the inter­ relation between science, philosophy, magic and astrology, only from the viewpoint of its bearing on the inquisitorial reaction, see Baldini 2003b, p. 215f. 256 The decree of 26 February 1562 which instituted a commission for the preparation of an index of books to be prohibited merely hinted at the problem: “Hoc tempore suspecto­ rum ac perniciosorum librorum numerus nimis excrevit” {Concilium Tridentinum, VIII, p. 358). The issue was tackled in a more direct way in the Decretum de reformatione generali (3 December 1563): “Ii, ad quos universitatum et studiorum generalium cura, visitatio et refor­ matio pertinet, diligenter curent, ut ab eisdem universitatibus canones et decreta huius sanctae synodi diligenter recipiantur, ad eorumque normam magistri, doctores. Ea, quae catholicae fidei sunt, doceant et interpretentur, et si aliqua in praedictis universitatibus correctione et re­ formatione digna fuerint, ab eisdem emendentur” {Concilium Tridentinum, IX, p. 1086).

~ 65

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

the most part limited to cosmology (“creatio ex nihilo”, the order of creation), astronomy (geocentrism), chronology (a fairly ‘limited’ histo­ ry of mankind) and anthropology (in particular, the monogenesis of mankind and a quite ambivalent notion of the distinction between soul and body). As is well known, psychology was under strict surveillance, because of its obvious link with theological doctrine. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind, that the interpretation of the Bible - among the core issues in the controversy with Protestantism - also incorporat­ ed the tradition of the Church and therefore this criterion could as­ sume a wide range of action, in particular in the seventeenth century.257 Obviously, the Catholic Church feared that the attribution of a merely historical value to (parts of) the Bible could definitely undermine its credibility in more strictly defined doctrinal issues.258 Also the Rules of the 1564 Index, modified by Pope Sixtus V in 1590 but restored by Pope Clement VIII in 1596, were of a fairly generic nature. By contrast, other, although equally general, criteria had a major impact on the prohibition of science and natural philosophy. Such criteria permit the tracing of a more detailed map of the ways in which natural philosophy became implicated in the war waged by the Roman Congregations in their efforts to defend what tradition sanc­ tioned as the truth. The intimate link between Aristotelian natural philosophy, meta­ physics and (natural) theology, made non-Aristotelian views suspect and easily turned any criticism towards Aristotelian philosophy into an implicit attack against the logical possibility of the truths of faith featuring the miracle of the Eucharist259 and geocentrism - and into a m enace to the unity of the scholastic building of learning and culture.260 This intimate link entailed first of all a strenuous opposi-

257

The Galilei case (1616, 1632-33) and the first extended debates on the nature and ori­ gin of fossiles in the second half of the century are worth to be mentioned. 258 This motivated Bellarmino’s opposition against heliocentrism; for discussion, see Bal­ dini 1992a, pp. 305-41, in particular pp. 314-15. 259 In particular, during the seventeenth century. See Redondi 1983, and Armogathe 1977. 260 Some exceptions are worth mentioning. Roberto Bellarmino, usually seen as the incar­ nation of the link between Aristotelian cosmology and Christian faith, challenged on biblical grounds the distinction between terrestrial and celestial physics. See Bellarmino 1984.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

tion against heterodox Aristotelian views, but it also involved six­ teenth-century versions of Platonism (Patrizi), forms of naturalism (Pomponazzi, Cardano, Bruno), and materialism (Telesio). In general, the measures of the Catholic church against heresy re­ garded the religious works by Protestant authors, and not their works on philosophical or scientific issues. However, the ban of heretical works affected all works by Protestant authors, whether they treated religion or not. Already Pope Paul I ll’s Bulls In apostolicis culm in is and L icet ab in itio (issued in January and July 1542, respectively) in­ dicated that the Inquisition’s main target was the heretical author rather than his work. This principle was adopted by the Roman In­ dex of 1557 (not promulgated).261 The Tridentine Index attenuated this decision and permitted the reading of works by Protestant au­ thors that “de religione non tractant”, but the Sixtine Index again condemned the entire production of Protestant authors, “sive de reli­ gione, sive de quocunque alio argumento tractant”.262 The Clemen­ tine Index (1596) marked the return to the Tridentine Index, but its In structio d e co rrectio n e librorum ordered the correction of any book containing “epitheta honorifica, et omnia in laudem haereticorum”.263 The censorial practice reflected the fluctuation of criteria: many au­ thors were located in the first or second class of the Index, even though their works did not contain heterodox philosophical or scien­ tific views. Thus, many works were not condemned for their content, but merely for the author’s religious creed. As a rule, this type of con­ demnation was not due to a contradiction between philosophy or sci­ ence and religion, but rather to an alleged priority of the latter over the former. Later, the Tridentine Index condemned contents seen as “lascivi seu obsceni”,264 and the Clementine Index censured publications “quae famae proximorum, et praesertim ecclesiasticorum, et Principum detrahunt”.265 The former rule played a role in the examina261 262 263 264 265

ILI, ILI, ILI, ILI, ILI,

VIII, p. 718. IX, p. 796. IX, p. 927. VIII, p. 817 IX, p. 927.

~ 67

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

tion and condemnation of some naturalistic features in the works of Cardano, and Amatus Lusitanus.266 The latter eventually resulted in viewing the mention of cynical or realist political acts by persons of high rank (whether true or not) as offenses, and so reinforced the ju­ ridical basis of previous censures of theories that had removed ethics from the field of politics and law (Machiavelli). Still later, in the In­ stru ctio of the Clementine Index,267 it led to the censoring of works that drew a distinction between ethics and the economic fields of production and finance (Du Moulin). This criterion did not touch burning issues, such as the relationship between religion and science, faith and reason, or theology and philos­ ophy, and therefore in general it has been relatively underestimated in historical research. Yet, it originated condemnations, because it in­ volved several naturalist works and non-academic, i.e. non-Peripatetic, philosophical treatises. In addition, during the seventeenth century au­ thors resuming views of ancient atomism and materialism were fre­ quently accused of favouring libertinism or Epicurean ethics. Thus, the prohibition and censoring of science and natural philoso­ phy by the ecclesiastical bodies of doctrinal control was conditioned by a gap between a garden variety of individual issues and fairly gen­ eral rules which were quite hard to apply. Therefore, the assessment and correction of philosophical and scientific views also depended upon cultural background, traditional beliefs and interpretative con­ ventions. In general, the absence of precise rules for the assessment of scientific and philosophical works did not entail juridical errors or intentional abuse of power by the Roman Congregations; rather, pro­ hibition or correction often depended upon non-philosophical and non-scientific grounds. Thus, exception made for psychology, the censorial intervention was for the most indirect, characterized by an integration of the rules that was based upon an assimilation of revela­ tion, official doctrine and tradition.

266 267

See respective chs. ILI, IX, p. 927.

~ 68 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

3. The Effects of Ecclesiastical Censorship The opening of the historical archives of the Roman Inquisition and the Index in 1998 has made it possible to carry out wide-ranging investigations into ecclesiastical censorship and its effects. Until re­ cently research about trials and prohibitions was inevitably fragmen­ tary and mostly limited to case studies.268 Now, the availability of all extant documents269 allows one to investigate in all possible direc­ tions and on several levels of analysis. By consequence a more de­ tailed picture of ecclesiastical censorship of science and natural phi­ losophy can be provided. In general, the newly available documenta­ tion furnishes a large amount of information about persons involved and issues addressed in trials and censory activities, thus enriching the biography of investigated authors, and our knowledge of the members and officials of the two Roman Congregations. Further­ more, the opening of the archives allows one to pursue a meaningful statistical analysis of trials and censurae. This holds in particular for censurae composed by the Index, because, as explained above, its archive is virtually complete.270 This section provides a summary ex­ amination of the outcome of processes, of the assessment and correc­ tions of books (and of more general issues, such as astrology and medicine), and of the impact of reading permits on the availability of forbidden scientific and philosophical works. Finally, some prelimi­ nary considerations are made on a notoriously thorny issue, that is, whether there is a significant relationship between the activity of the Roman Congregation and the ‘decline’ of science in Italy. 3.1. Outcome o f Trials A preliminary disclaimer is needed here: this edition, and thus the following considerations regard sixteenth-century trials of scientists

Among the best-known examples are Luigi Firpo’s publications on Bruno and Cam­ panella; see Firpo 1950a-c and 1993. 269 At first permission extended to 1917 and now (with some exceptions) to February 1939. This limitation is irrelevant for the issue under scrutiny. 270 See section 1.1. Inquisition Censurae are held in SO, Censurae librorum. 268

~ 69 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

and philosophers by the Roman Holy Office that have left at least a trace of documentation in ACDF.271 In the period between 1542 and 1600 the Roman Inquisition started legal proceedings against twelve authors who are significantly related to science and natural philoso­ phy: Ulisse Aldrovandi, Girolamo Borri, Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, Girolamo Cardano, Giovan Battista Della Porta, Gu­ glielmo G rataroli, Simone Simoni, Nicola Antonio (Colantonio) Stigliola, Matteo Tafuri, Henricus de Veno, and Giovanni Battista Vertemati.272 In two cases, that is, Bruno’s Roman trial and Grataroli’s second trial in Bergamo, the Cardinals decided that the defendants were handed over to the secular arm. As to the latter, however, it should be kept in mind that in 1551 Grataroli was condemned in contumacy and living abroad he saved his life. At least eight trials ended up with an abjuration, and subsequently the prisoner was con­ fined (Campanella), immediately released (Borri, Cardano, Grataroli, Tafuri, Vertemati) or else set free after a fairly short time (Aldrovandi, Stigliola, de Veno). Della Porta’s trial was concluded with a minor penalty, the so-called canonical purgation, while other trials (some of Borri’s, Campanella’s 1597 trial) apparently ended up with no sen­ tence at all. It should be emphasized that most of these trials were not motivat­ ed by charges concerning scientific or philosophical views, or else on­ ly obliquely so. In most cases, the defendant was accused of heresy (Protestantism or sympathy for Protestants), of the possession of for­ bidden works or else of magic, the defence or practice of judiciary as­ trology and divination. Only in the trials of Borri, Bruno, and Stiglio­ la the Holy Office examined philosophical and scientific views, in271 It cannot be excluded that in local seats trials were carried out concerning persons to be included in these categories, that were not notified to the central seat. Tafuri is a case in point: he was surely tried in the Kingdom of Naples before the process mentioned in ACDF documents; cf. respective chapter. Alternatively, files holding copies of local trials could have been destroyed in Paris. For example, a copy of Grataroli’s trial (1550-51) was transmitted only in 1600, but it had been asked for by the Congregation for the Index, and is now held in its Protocolli. Cf. ch. Grataroli, doc. 7. 272 The trial of Julius Caesar Scaliger in Agen (France) in 1538, and that of Gerard Mer­ cator in the Low Countries in 1544 are not considered here, because they were neither or­ dered by nor reported to the Roman Inquisition. See respective chs.

~ 70 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

eluding heterodox psychology (Borri) and in the case of Bruno cos­ mology (heliocentrism, plurality of worlds). In the trial of Stigliola the endorsment of heliocentrism was mentioned in a testimony, but it is not known whether this resulted in an explicit charge. As to the effects of the trials, it can be noted that apart from the condemnations handed over to the secular arm for capital punish­ ment (Bruno was burned at the stake; Grataroli fled before his sec­ ond trial started), the majority of the sentences were remarkably mild. Furthermore, apart from some cases of deep and ravaging psy­ chological distress, the mere fact of having been tried by the Holy Office did not affect the future career of most of the defendants. Girolamo Borri, for example, took up his university job after every one of his four trials. Also Aldrovandi’s trial, concluded when he was still a young man, did not hamper his academic career. Stigliola re­ sumed his job at the Court of Fortifications in Naples. De Veno, who abjurated and thus formally converted to Catholicism, probably si­ lenced on his Roman trial, and successfully pursued a university ca­ reer at the University of Franeker in the Protestant Republic of the Seven Provinces. Cardano was removed from his chair at the Univer­ sity of Bologna, but after his transfer to Rome he was accepted with honour at the local College of physicians, and became the private physician of several cardinals. Within a short time he obtained per­ mission to resume his job in Bologna, which was impeded only by his imminent death. As to other figures: almost nothing is known about the career of Vertemati, but there is no evidence that the trial serious­ ly damaged him in the years to come; Tafuri theorized and practiced magic and astrology for many years (also after his first trial), while Campanella’s trial in Naples (starting in 1598) regarded his conspira­ cy against the Spanish dominion in Calabria. Thus, at first sight and except for that of Giordano Bruno, the six­ teenth-century Roman trials of scientists and philosophers did not give rise to seriously negative consequences for the defendants. How­ ever, it should be kept in mind that the sample considered here is fairly restricted. Furthermore, it would seem reasonable to assume that current inquisitorial trials intimidated in one way or another con­ temporary scientists and philosophers. In effect, an inquisition trial did instill fear, because it could have drastic economic and social con71 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

sequences.273 Therefore, the role of the Inquisition cannot be mini­ mized in a social history of science in those parts of Europe that were under the control of the Holy Office. Nonetheless, the overall mild­ ness of the outcomes of these specific trials suggests that the effects of ecclesiastical censorship on contemporary society should not be as­ sessed in merely ethical terms, that is, focusing on the sufferings of the individual defendants. By contrast, a study of the long term ef­ fects of ecclesiastical censorship should primarily pay attention to its (possible) role in altering or restraining more general historical devel­ opments. 3.2. E ffects o f Censurae and C orrections A far more complex picture arises from the ecclesiastical assess­ ment of suspect, heterodox, and heretical authors and their works. The first Roman Index (1559) introduced a division of prohibited works in three classes:274 class one included authors (usually heretics) of whom all the works were prohibited, while class two prohibited one or more works by authors not included in the first class, and class three works by authors in ce r ti n om in is. The Index prohibited all works by heretics, even if these did not treat religion or did not con­ tain any remarks offensive to the Catholic faith (“cuiuscumque argu­ menti sint”). Later Indexes (most noticeably those issued in 1564 and 1596) attenuated this decision, permitting under certain conditions works by heretics that did not regard religion and that were viewed as useful.275 In general, an author was placed on the Index after a pre­ liminary assessment or censura of his works. The Tridentine Index in­ troduced expurgation, which regarded only prohibited books “quo­ rum principale argumentum bonum est, in quibus obiter aliqua inser­ ta sunt, quae ad haeresim seu impietatem, divinationem aut supersti­ tionem spectant”, that is, useful works that were included in the sec273 Confiscation of property, banishment, loss of certain rights, and infamy heaped upon the person condemned and his descendants; cf. section 2.3.2. 274 As a matter of fact, the division was introduced in the 15.57 Index, which was not promulgated, however. 275 For discussion, see ch. The Organization of the Index, Introduction, § 3.

~ 72 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

ond and third class. Thus, so it seems, there was - or better, there should have been - a logical sequence between preliminary assess­ ment, the decree to place a work on the Index and its possible correc­ tion. However, a closer inspection of the extant docum entation as well as of the decisions of the Congregation for the Index concerning issues and authors under scrutiny reveals an extremely intricate pic­ ture, in many cases characterized by an apparent lack of coherence. First, as to the extant documentation, it should be noted that many books were placed on the Index without leaving a documentary trace in ACDF, that is, either a decree to commission the examination of the work or else a censura. This may mean that no preliminary censura was composed or else that it went missing. Second, not all works by authors condemned in Holy Office trials were placed immediately on the Index and sometimes they were, contradictorily, included in the second class. Grataroli is a case in point. Third, corrections were also made to works by authors included in the first class. Fourth, sometimes authors were placed in the Index and then removed from it. A clamorous case is Ra­ mon Lull’s: the twenty works condemned by Pope Gregory X i’s Bull276 were placed on Pope Paul IV ’s Index (1559), removed from the Index by the Tridentine fathers in 1564, prohibited again in 1583 by the Con­ gregation for the Index, and subsequently removed in 1596. Fifth, some authors were condemned by a decree of that Congregation, but not placed in later printed Indexes, as shown in the case of Bernardino of Arevalo.2 " Sixth, corrections were made, in particular in peripheral seats, to works that had not been placed on the Index at all.278 Seventh, many people asked Bishops and local Inquisitors for reading permits regarding books that had never been prohibited. Remarkably, the li­ cences asked for were granted. These anomalies had different causes. First, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between Index decisions and extant documentation. Second, the Congregation was subject to several internal and external

The reputed Bull Conservationi puritatis (dated 25 January 1376); for discussion, see ch. Lull, Introduction. 277 This author of religious works, and confessor of one of Charles V’s wifes, was includ­ ed in the second class of the Index on 30 December 1583; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 13v. 278 See ch. Bauhin. 276

73 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

pressures. Therefore, it was not exceptional that decisions imposed by Popes (in particular, Pope Paul IV and Pope Sixtus V) or taken in a more or less autonomous way by the Congregation itself were challenged by later Popes, by the Holy Office, by members of the Congregation, or even by scholars, editors and representatives of the professional world. The prohibition of non-religious works by heretical authors and the modalities employed for the prohibition of astrology are cases in point. Third, in many cases the Congregation apparently broke its own rules or did not fully respect them. Fourth, often the coordination between the central seat of the Index and peripheral commissions was quite poor. The complex picture that emerges from the reconstruction of the vicissitudes of certain categories of books, and from the analysis of the operations of the agencies charged with implementing the Roman di­ rectives, demonstrates that an accurate assessment of the extent and incisiveness of Rome’s control over the written word requires histori­ ans to go beyond the lists of authors and works set out in the indexes, and beyond the apparent clarity of prescriptions and suspensions.279 In order to tackle this issue it may be helpful to sketch the outlines of a statistical profile of the authors and books under scrutiny. Investigation in ACDF has produced docum entation on seventysix authors whose works, concerning scientific issues in the sense specified before,280 were discussed, examined, corrected, denounced, deliberated on and/or forbidden during the sixteenth century.281 O b ­ viously, they were either included in the first two classes of the Ro­ man Index or else not prohibited.282 Thirty authors were included in the first class, twenty-seven in the second one (including sixteenth century authors who were prohibited in the seventeenth century), and nineteen authors were not forbidden at all. However, the latter group includes authors, namely Francesco G iuntini and David Orig-

279

See also section 3.4 (infra). See section 1.2. 281 Apart from the documents reproduced in chapters on general issues, such as, chs. The Organization of the Index, Alchemy, Astrology, and Medicine and Natural Philosophy. 282 As to the prohibitions by other (not Roman) sixteenth-century indexes, see the respec­ tive chapters for exhaustive information. 280

74

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

anus, whose works fell subject to the Index Rule IX on astrology.283 Let us first discuss those included in the first class. As said already, as a rule authors included in the first class were condemned as heretics. In a strict sense, this meant that their works were not liable to expurgation and could not be licenced for reading. However, as was noted before, the logic of the prescriptions and rules was frequently contradicted by the Congregation’s daily practice, characterized by continuous reconsiderations as well as by internal and external pressures. Therefore, the authors included in the first class should be divided in several categories. Initially, in the 1557 Index the distinction of authors, and their works, in three classes was introduced in order to distinguish the au­ thors viewed as formally heretical from those condemned for other rea­ sons.284 However, later indexes also included in the first class authors who had not been formally declared as heretical. For example, the 1559 Index included in this class “nomina, vel cognomina (...) eorum, qui prae caeteris, et tanquam ex professo errasse depraehensi sunt”,285 whereas the Tridentine Index included “non tam libri, quam (...) scrip­ tores (...) qui aut haeretici, aut nota haeresis suspecti fuerunt”.286 As a consequence, authors such as Desiderius Erasmus, Erasmus Oswald Schreckenfuchs, and Jakob Ziegler were included in the first class. Furthermore, in the sixteenth century, several authors of works on science and natural philosophy were prohibited, while relevant infor­ mation on previous or subsequent debates or deliberations concern­ ing their heterodoxy is lacking, except - in some cases - their being mentioned in general documents.287 Obviously, they are not taken in-

283

See ch. Astrology, Introduction. See ILI, Vili, p. 718: “Haeretici auctores, qui et ipsi, et scripta, et sequaces (...) in universum reprobantur”. 283 ILI, Vili, p. 754. 286 ILI, Vili, p. 810. 287 This is the case, for example, of Alessandro Achillini, Martin Borrhaus, John Case, Euricius Cordus, Pompeo della Barba, Bartolomeo della Rocca (Codes), Johannes Dryander, Helius Eobanus Hessus, Leonardo Fioravanti, Johannes Gartze (Garcaeus), Luca Gaurico, Johannes Katzsche, Marcello Palingenio Stellato, Simone Porzio, Girolamo Ruscelli, Johannes Saxonius, Michael Stifel, Patrizio Tricasso da Cerasari, and Johannes Velcurio. For prohibitions, cf. ILI, X. 284

~ 75 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

to account here.288 Sometimes, an author had been placed in an (ear­ ly) Roman index, while in later indexes he was ‘tacitly’ removed, that is, without any trace of discussion or deliberation. Georg Agricola is a case in point. Another category of first class authors is made up of those who were discussed, and even corrected, but eventually prohib­ ited as heretics, such as Petrus Ramus. The majority, however, was made up by authors who were banned as heretics on all sixteenth­ century Roman indexes, but whose works were subsequently re-ex­ amined. Sometimes this examination consisted in a simple examina­ tion {censura), but other times more or less detailed proposals for the correction of their works were worked out. To the former category belong Cornelius Agrippa, Georg Fabricius, Johannes Lonitzer, Jakob Milich, Jakob Schegk, Simone Simoni, Joachim Vadianus, Hie­ ronymus W ildenberg, Hieronymus Wolf, W ilhelm Xylander, and Jakob Ziegler. To the latter category belong Arnaldus of Villanova, Konrad Dasypodius,289 Thomas Erastus, Leonhart Fuchs, Konrad Gessner, Cyprian Leowitz, Sebastian Munster, M ichael Neander, Paracelsus, Konrad Peucer, Johannes Schbner, Erasmus Oswald Schreckenfuchs, Clemens Schubert, and Johannes Ulmer. Some au­ thors were examined as well as corrected: Arnaldus of Villanova and Hieronymus Wildenberg are cases in point. Thus, at least as far as au­ thors of works on science and natural philosophy are concerned, the Congregation reconsidered the major part of the total condemna­ tions. This is remarkable, even if one takes into account that this re­ consideration never led to a transfer of these authors from the first to the second class. As to the authors whose works were prohibited in the second class, the following classification may be of some help: 1. Authors whose works were examined and/or corrected and which, either before or after these interventions, were prohibited with the stipulation “donec corrigatur”. Cases in point are Ama-

288 However, for several of the authors mentioned in the previous note, see chs. The Or­ ganization of the Index, and Medicine and Natural Philosophy. 289 See, however, the Introduction to the respective chapter for the anomaly of his case.

~ 76 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

tus Lusitanus, Girolamo Cardano, Thomas Freige, Francesco Giorgio, Gerard Mercator, Levinus Lemnius, Julius Caesar and Josephus Justus Scaliger, Bernardino Telesio (partial correction in 1600), Francisco Vallés (prohibited in 1603), Johann Jakob Wecker (prohibited in 1607). Two authors whose works were reprinted after being corrected: Agostino Steuco’s Opera omnia appeared in 1391 in Venice, and Polidoro Virgilio’s De rerum inventoribus in 1576 in Rome. Re­ markably, Alfonso Chacon made a further correction to the latter, but without any consequences for the availability of the work.290291 Some works by authors included in the second class were de­ nounced by peripheral inquisitors. However, this did not always lead to a prohibition of the work in question, as shown in the cas­ es of Jean Bodin’s Universae naturae theatrum, and Francesco San­ sovino’s Cronologia.™ Authors who were not (yet) prohibited, but of whose works a censura or correction was made, such as, Copernicus (prohibit­ ed in 1616), Pontano (his commentary of Centiloquium and his De rebus coelestibus were never prohibited), and ps-Albertus (De virtutibus was prohibited only in 1665). Works of which a censura or correction was written, and that were placed on the Index, but later removed. Eunapius Sar­ danus’ De vitis philosophorum et sophistarum, Domenico Delfino’s Sommario di tutte le scienze, and ps-Albertus’ De secretis mulierum, were removed from the Index in 1596. Works apparently placed in the Index without any preliminary examination (whether censura or correction), or of which, in any case, extant documentation is lacking. It does not come as a surprise that this holds in particular for works condemned be­ fore 1515, such as those of Lull.292 In the case of works prohib-

For a similar case, see ch. Wild. Note that the other works by Sansovino that were placed on Index were removed in 1596. 292 For the general prohibition of works condemned before 1515, see Rule I of the Tridentine Index, also adopted in the Clementine Index; cf. ILI, IX, p. 920. 290 291

~ 77

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

ited after the foundation of the Congregation for the Index, it can be assumed that relevant documents went lost. Campanel­ la’s P hilosophia sen sib u s dem on stra ta (prohibited in 1595) is a case in point. 7. As a quite anomalous case, authors - such as Grataroli - were condemned as heretics by the Holy Office but their works were included in the second - not the first - class. In this specific case, however, it seems reasonable to assume that before 1600 the Index was not informed about Grataroli s trials in Northern Italy.293 However, also when the Congregation was informed about his condemnation it did not move his works to the first class in later indexes. 8. Authors were placed in the Index not for the specific works that had initially attracted the attention of the ecclesiastical bodies of control but for other publications instead. For example, among Pomponazzi’s works only D e in ca n ta tion ib u s was prohibited, not his notorious D e im m ortalitate anim ae. 9. Living authors, who after the prohibition of their works were asked to participate in the correction, such as Della Porta and Patrizi.294 As explained elsewhere,295 the several campaigns launched by the Congregation for the Index for the correction of books included in the second class shipwrecked miserably. Here it should be empha­ sized that the extant expurgatory cen su ra e are very unequal as to the type of proposed corrections as well as to the kind and level of analy­ sis. Some cen su ra e merely propose the elimination of a single name of a person or a city (as many of the cen su ra e written in Naples),296297while others consist of extremely sophisticated and detailed proposals for correction, like suggesting the re-writing of certain works, such as those made by Ambrogio da Asola.29/ The only Roman expurgatory 293 294 295 296 297

See ch. Grataroli, Introduction. Cf. ch. The Organization of the Index, sect. V, doc. 21. See ch. The Organization of the Index, Introduction, § 4. Held in ACDF, Index, XXIII. 1: see ch. Cardano, introductory note to doc. 65. See, in particular, chs. Lemnius (docs. 3-4) and Cardano (doc. 72).

78

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Index published in 1607 by Giovanni Maria Guanzelli, the then Mas­ ter of the Sacred Palace, made available for reading a certain amount of scientific and philosophical works, but left unresolved the issue of a far greater number of them. Guanzelli used not only corrections published in the expurgatory indexes of Antwerp (1571) and Spain (1584), but also those written by officials of the Congregation, as well as those written by the religious orders, which as a rule were asked to make corrections to the works of their members.29829 A final consideration concerns the extant documentation on works by authors who were never prohibited, not even for an individual work. Also in this group several categories appear. Some works were simply denounced without any consequence, such as, Bonardo’s M iniera, Hulsius’ C bronologia and Witekind’s Sphaera™ Of several works cen su rae are extant, which in some cases were probably prelimi­ nary to a decision not to place to book on the index (Kentmann), and in other cases were written by readers who asked permission to read the work and obtained it on condition that they transmitted a list of suspect passages. The examination of van der W iel’s Oratio is a case in point. The Neapolitan group of censors coordinated by Cherubino of Verona made several corrections to works in view of a future Roman expurgatory Index,300301including those by Bauhin, Ferrari, Mela, Rein­ hold, Risner, Schott, and an edition of Euclid’s E lem ents™ Also other expurgations, such as Ambrogio da Asola’s correction of Mizauld and the anonymous correction of Ortelius’ Theatrum, belong to this category. Other documents regard local controversies over a work (Fazio’s Sputar sa n gu e), or requests for the im p rim a tu r (Ferrara, Pereira’s commentaries on G enesis). A remarkable case is that of as­ trological works, in particular those by Giuntini and Origanus. Giuntini’s works were denounced by Bellarmino, but not prohibited on any sixteenth century index. Origanus’ works were corrected, but not See the case of the corrections of the works of Francesco Giorgio, composed by the Friars Minor of the Observance. Cf. ch. The Organization of the Index, doc. V.19. 299 For these authors and works, see respective chapters. 300 See supra. 301 See respective chs. 298

~ 79

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

placed on the Index. These decisions, however, were probably due to the fact that the Congregation considered all works on judiciary astrol­ ogy prohibited on the basis of Rule IX of the Index.302 3.3. The Audience of Forbidden Works As will be pointed out elsewhere, the grant of reading permits is the only attendible means to measure and assess both observance and efficacy of the prohibition of books. Here an anticipated synthesis in nuce of the effects of the proceedings of the Congregations on the availability of forbidden works is presented.303 Although in theory the impact of book prohibitions was unlimited, in reality its reach was fairly restrained, not only by the clandestine reading of forbidden books, but also by the numerous reading per­ mits granted by several ecclesiastical authorities, which included the Pope, Bishops, local Inquisitors, the Roman Congregations, the Mas­ ter of the Sacred Palace, and the Generals of some of the religious Orders. The latter frequently obtained unlimited licences which they in turn could extend for individual works to the members of their Orders. Extant documentation shows that originally the grant of reading permits was planned as something quite exceptional. Then, the phenomenon became rather frequent and took unexpected di­ mensions in consequence of the pressures by groups of professionals, who in a certain sense forced the Congregations to come to terms with the needs of contemporary society. This emerges from an analy­ sis of the social origins of those requiring reading permits, in particu­ lar from the cultural and professional qualifications of the beneficiar­ ies of licences reproduced here. As a matter of fact, the extant docu­ mentation reveals that the audience of forbidden scientific and philo­ sophical books was principally formed by physicians and ecclesias­ tics. To be sure, the afore-named beneficiaries are a relatively small percentage of the entire group of those applying for reading permits during the sixteenth century.304 Nonetheless, the documentation here 302

See ch. Astrology, Introduction. See ch. Licences, Introduction. Cf. Baldini 2001b, based on a slightly different docu­ mentation. The Appendix contains diagrams illustrating the requests and grants of licences. 304 See ch. Licences, Introduction. 303

~ 80

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

presented may be considered as providing a roughly representative sample of the audience of books on science and natural philosophy, as one of its main features, namely the prominent role of physicians, is confirmed by the indirect information provided by a large group of reading permits that, for the most, have been lost.305 In sixteenth-century Rome reading permits were granted by the In­ quisition, the Index or the Master of the Sacred Palace. ACDF holds thirty-two licences concerning works on science and natural philoso­ phy that were granted by the Holy Office in the second half of the sixteenth century: four were issued during the 1560s, ten during the 1570s and eighteen in the 1580s. Furthermore, in the same period the Holy Office received six requests for reading permits the result of which is unknown (two were presented in 1560, one in 1561, two in 1574, and one in 1595). On 14 January 1599, the Holy Office re­ ceived one from the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, Christina of Lor­ raine; on 12 March 1599, they decided to contact the Inquisitor of Pisa, but neither the content of the letter nor the outcome are known. ACDF also preserves a licence granted by the Inquisitor of Faenza in 1599, and a request for a reading permit addressed to the Inquisitor of Venice (ca. 1603). The documentation under consideration shows that the Master of the Sacred Palace was involved in two licences that were granted by the Holy Office, in 1560 (De Amicis) and 1582 (Danti). Furthermore, ACDF holds three licences granted by the Master himself (1583, 1593-94 and 1596), and two requests without documentated outcome (1585, 1593). The granting of reading permits by the Index is concentrated in the 1590s. There is extant documentation on ca. fifty requests for reading permits. Without considering the renewals, thirty-four licences were granted in the 1590s: one in 1594, fourteen in 1596, five in 1597, three in 1598, five in 1599, five in 1600, and one is undated. Only two requests were rejected explictly (one in 1598, and another in 305 The majority of local inquisitors which asked Rome for instructions regarding the grant of licences or which informed about requests for the latter, referred to the physicians as the prevailing social group.

~ 81 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1596-99). Eight other requests had an unknown outcome (1586, 1592-1600?, 1595, two in the period 1596-99, one in the period 15991603).306 Nor do we know what happened with the two requests transmitted to the Holy Office (1597, 1598), and the one handed over to Card. Bernieri in 1600.307 A particularly interesting case is that of an almost unknown - and surely not a socially outstanding person, Giovanni Andrea Pomi. On 3 August 1596, he presented a request to the Master of the Sacred Palace, who replied in the nega­ tive. Shortly afterwards he successfully applied to the Pope and the Congregation for the Index, which released a reading permit on 24 August (renewed in 1599).308 As said before, the audience of forbidden books, as far as can be deduced from the extant documentation, was principally formed by physicians and ecclesiastics. The former appear in twenty-two re­ quests and/or permits, and the latter in twenty-three cases, among which one cardinal (Orsini), three bishops (Manzoli, Speciani, Vice­ domini), five consultors of the Index (Altieri, Chacon, Costanzo, Frances, Rocca), Franciscan and Dominican friars, a Servite friar and a General (Baglioni) as well as several Canons and Clerics Regular (among whom was S. Andrea della Valle in Rome). Then follow thir­ teen noble-men (including a m ilitary man) and women, featuring Francesco de’ Medici and Francesco Maria II della Rovere. In 1577, the Tuscan Grand Duke obtained an extensive permit for books on philosophy, mathematics, and medicine, while in the same year the Duke of Urbino was even granted a universal, that is, an unlimited permit (renewed in 1596). Finally an author of popular almanacs (Casali) and a jurist (Biscia) can be mentioned. Both the licences granted and those requested for reveal the popu­ larity of a rather restricted number of authors, featuring Girolamo Cardano and Konrad Gessner, followed by Fuchs, the 'Theatrum vitae hum anae, and Munster.309 Cardano counts several dozens of entries, 306

See ch. Licences, and the Appendix. See ch. Licences, and the Appendix. 308 See ch. Licences, docs. 72-77. 309 The lists of books that were probably presented for a possible licence (cf. ch. Li­ cences, docs. 9, 108, 136, 137, 138, 140) are not taken into account; cf. Appendix. 307

- 82

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

which can be subdivided in requests or licences for: astrological, medical, unspecified or all works (8), D e su btilitate and D e varieta te (each 5 or 4 entries for requests and 3 or 4 licences granted), his com­ ment upon Ptolem y’s Q uadripartitum (4 requests, and 2 licences granted),310 his medical and astrological works, followed by De co n ­ sola tio n e, D e som n ijs, and D e gen itu ris. There are 30 requests for Gessner (22 granted), mostly for his works on animals and for his B ibliotheca. The works of Leonhart Fuchs end up with 14 requests (13 granted) and the popular D heatrum v ita e h u m a n a e with 9 re­ quests (7 granted), while Sebastian Munster has 7 requests for his C osm ographia (4 granted). Also the works of Francesco Giorgio (10 requests, 6 granted), Arnaldus of Villanova (8 requests, 4 granted), Ptolemy (4 requests for his Q uadripartitum , 2 granted), Theophrastus Paracelsus (8 requests, 3 granted), Francesco Giuntini (7 requests, 3 granted), Bernardino Telesio (6 requests, 3 granted), and Agostino Steuco (2 requests and 2 licences for his C osm opeia) frequently recurred on requests or li­ cences. The works of Julius Firmicus Maternus and Petrus Ramus were mentioned about four times, while Cyprian Leowitz, and the medieval astrologers (Albumasar, Alcabitius and Omar), Cornelius Agrippa, the physician Otto Brunfels, Joachim Camerarius, Ramon Lull (Ars m agna), and Josephus Justus Scaliger (his De em en d a tio n e tem poru m ) count three entries. Finally, there are works mentioned twice (Amatus Lusitanus, Guido Bonatti, Janus Cornarius, Gerard Mercator’s C hronologia, Messahalla, Gioviano Pontano, Patrizi’s No­ va p h ilosop h ia , Julius Caesar Scaliger, the R egim en san itatis of the School of Salerno, and Johann Jakob Wecker’s D e secretis), or only once: Abenragel, Alessandro Achillini, Georg Agricola, ps-Albertus Magnus, Albubater, Albumasar, Bethem, the C entiloquium , Giovan Battista Della Porta, Thomas Erastus, Jean Fernel, Marsilio Ficino, Thomas Freige, Johann Gartze, Luca Gaurico, Guglielmo Grataroli, Hermes Trismegistus, Jean Lalamant, Philipp Melanchthon, Giro­ lamo Mercuriale, Antoine Mizauld, Agostino Nifo, Pietro Pomponazzi, Jakob Schegk, Erasmus Oswald Schreckenfuchs, Simon Simoni, 310 The generic requests/licences for Ptolemy’s Quadripartitum with commentary are counted under Ptolemy’s name.

83

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Francisco Vallès, Polidoro Virgilio, Johann Winter, and Wilhelm Xylander (Holtzmann). Among the general requests and licences, astrology and mathemat­ ics (a term then also used for astrology) count for 16 requests and 6 licences granted, followed by medicine (5 and 5), and philosophy (6 requests and 3 licences granted, including humanities). Remarkably, things are different if strict correspondences are loo­ ked for between categories of applicants or beneficiaries of reading permits, on the one hand, and types of books requested for or au­ thorized, on the other. It comes natural that physicians asked for books on medicine and medical astrology, and that in their requests or licences recur the names of Arnaldus of Villanova, Brunfels, Car­ dano, Fuchs, Gessner, and Paracelsus. In a similar vein, licences to read the T beatrum vita e hum anae and the works on chronology (Mer­ cator, Scaligeri were mostly sought for by ecclesiastics.311 By contrast, it is rather surprising to discover that members of the secular and reg­ ular clergy were apparently the only ones to ask reading permits for the works of Patrizi, Steuco, and Telesio. Cardano is virtually the only author who is asked for by all categories, including physicians, eccle­ siastics, noblemen, jurists, astrologers, and philosophers. But also the interest for astrological literature, and for the works of Fuchs, Gessner, and Munster involved several types of audiences. Thus, the audience for forbidden books cannot be split up according to strictly disciplinary fields, and it seems reasonable to assume that belonging to a determinate professional group only partly influenced the inter­ est for specific forbidden books. 311

Documents held in the archives of peripheral inquisitions reveal the spread and read­ ing of forbidden or suspect books in monasteries. For example, on 4 November 1585, Felice da Bargi, Inquisitor of Pisa, accused Francesco Perugino, Provincial Vicar of the Capuchins in Tuscany, of a too liberal attitude; cf. ACAP, Tribunale dell’Inquisizione, 2, f. 325r-v (fur­ ther interrogatories are on fols. 332-337): “non ha mai osservato il decreto del sacro concilio di Trento quanto alla correttione e censura di libri proibiti; Perché sempre ha tenuto nella provincia sua libri suspetti d’heresia, libri senza nome d’autore, e libri scritti in penna mal coretti permettendo che ciascun suddito lega indifferentemente tanto chierici quanto laici”. Felice found in the Pisan library of his Order several works by Konrad Gessner, Erasmus and Janus Cornarius.

~ 84

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

3.4. On the ‘Bridling o f Science and Philosophy Until recently, most studies on the relationship between the Catholic Church and m odern science and philosophy were characterized by a strong anti-clerical flavour.312 It had in fact been generally assumed that ignorant censors and a fundamentally negative attitude towards m od­ ern intellectual developments would have caused the decline of science and natural philosophy in the Italian and Iberian peninsulas with re­ spect to Protestant Europe. As has been pointed out before,313 censors active in the Roman Congregations were usually members of the regu­ lar clergy and were selected on the basis of their theological compe­ tence. This was because they were supposed to check the orthodoxy of views entertained by persons under trial or else of statements formulat­ ed in m anuscripts and printed works, rather than the scientific or philosophical value or consistency of those views. Censorship regarded in the first place religious or theological heterodoxy, and only in an in­ direct way forms of dissent that developed in other disciplinary fields, featuring those that possibly underm ined the scholastic building of learning, or that possibly undermined Christian ethics. In effect, cen­ sors were particularly keen on non or anti-Aristotelian philosophy, as well as on magic and judiciary astrology. Thus, their alleged ignorance should not be overstated, because the (apparent) partiality of their pro­ nouncements and censurae can be explained by their primary task. This also bears on the C hurch’s attitude towards science which in critical studies has been depicted frequently as hostile or ill-disposed. To be sure, the impact of Catholic censorship on the intellectual climate of Southern-Europe is not to be minimized, especially as to the dramatic events that involved figures such as Bruno and Galilei. Yet, recent re­ search on the scientific and philosophical culture of the major religious O rders, featuring the Society of Jesus, shows that the role of the Catholic Church cannot be analyzed any longer in terms of a down­ right obstacle to scientific progress only.

312 Significant exceptions are some of the major histories of science that appeared in the first half of the twentieth century, such as, that of Pierre Duhem, based as these were on the view of a fundamental continuity between medieval scholasticism and modern science. 313 See section 2.3.4.

~ 85 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The interventions by the Roman bodies of doctrinal control on matters scientific and philosophical were intensified during the last decades of the sixteenth century. Apart from those of Borri, Cardano and Della Porta, all trials against scientists and natural philosophers who were investigated, in some way or another, for their philosophi­ cal or scientific views developed in the 1590s, culminating with the execution of Bruno in Rome on 17 February 1600. As to press con­ trol, the activity of the Congregation for the Index reached its peak in the period between 1587, when Pope Sixtus V reorganized the Con­ gregation, and 1596 when Pope Clement VIII promulgated the last sixteenth-century index. This development suggests that the major ef­ fects of ecclesiastical censorship regarding science and natural philos­ ophy became tangible during the following century. However, al­ though at this stage no definite conclusions can be formulated, some provisory considerations are due. In the first place, a distinction should be drawn, at least in a heuris­ tic sense, between direct and indirect effects of trials, prohibitions, and censurae. Direct effects are those that regard intention and possi­ bility of research for people who had been investigated, tried or con­ demned, or else the availability of prohibited works and the possible consequences for scientific research and progress. Indirect effects, by contrast, are the broader consequences of condemnations and prohi­ bitions on a social and intellectual level, regarding also people who had not been directly involved in censorial proceedings. These effects are largely unknown and for the moment they can only be guessed. It seems reasonable to assume, however, that they were multifaceted, possibly running from simply giving up certain views and abandoning research into determinate issues, to starting the exercise of certain disciplines which did not entail an instant peril. As said above, in most cases the trials of philosophers and scientists did not sensibly affect their later careers.314 The same can be arguably held for the authors of prohibited works. The majority of authors banned as heretics were dead or foreigners, and the inclusion of some living Italian authors in the first class, namely Bruno, Simoni and - in the seventeenth century - Campanella, was caused by their (pending) 314

Section 3.1.

86

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

suits at the Holy Office and probably only partially due to a detailed examination of their works. Most philosophical and scientific works were prohibited with the proviso “donec corrigatur”, and as a rule living authors included in the second class were given the possibility to collaborate actively in the correction of their works. Cardano was a clamorous case in point,315 but also Patrizi and Della Porta are worth being mentioned here.316 In the past, the immediate or direct effects of the prohibition of works have probably been overstated. The average time between the publication of a work and its prohibition was such that most special­ ists could have read the book before it was placed on the Index.317 Therefore, the prohibition usually did not succeed in blocking the impact of works on scientific debates. Furthermore, future genera­ tions also became acquainted with possible technical and scientific innovations through other works related to these debates. And, final­ ly, in the case of (quite rare) immediate censures, the effect of prohi­ bition was waned by disobedience or ignorance of the deliberation, and surely it was attenuated by the grant of reading permits.318 Some­ thing more about the availability of forbidden books needs to be said. Many ACDF documents, although only marginally considered in this edition, confirm that the confiscation of forbidden works was a daily practice, and particularly intense in Northern Italy. This shows in the first place the wide spread of banned books. Furthermore, the fact that many librarians ‘specialized’ in these kinds of books, includ­ ing philosophical and scientific works, shows that the demand was such as to justify economic and judiciary risks.319 For the heirs of those who possessed prohibited books, the Tridentine Index intro­ duced Rule X which ordered these descendants to inform the local inquisitor.320 Thus, indirectly, this Rule reveals the existence of private libraries containing many forbidden books, and the order to the heirs

515 316 317 318 319 320

See ch. Cardano, Introduction. See respective chs., and ch. The Organization of the Index, sect. V, doc. 21. See Baldini 2001c. See section 3.3 (supra), and ch. Licences, Introduction. See ch. The Distraint of Damiano Zenaro’s Books. See ch. Licences, the introductory note to doc. 9.

87

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

suggested the possibility o£ obtaining a posteriori reading permits. Many works by late-sixteenth-century Italian scientists and philoso­ phers show their acquaintance with forbidden books for which, as far as the extant documentation allows us to establish, they did not ask for any permission. The traditional assessment of the effects of ecclesiastical censorship is probably less wanting as far as the indirect consequences are con­ cerned. Trials, prohibitions and preventive control (“censura preven­ tiva”) of books as well as convocations to defend or to appear as a witness possibly sowed terror, and surely created a widespread cli­ mate of intimidation in a society in which the lines of demarcation between religious, philosophical and scientific activities were fairly thin. And although it is extremely difficult to quantify or measure with any certainty the impact of this climate, it cannot simply be de­ nied nor should it be minimized. In effect, it is inconceivable that the late sixteenth-century trials, the promulgation of the Clementine In­ dex, and the campaign of a decentralized correction of books at the turn of the century did not affect or condition the intellectual milieu in which contemporary scientific and philosophical discussion and research developed. These considerations are preliminary to a discussion of the issue that has dominated most ‘traditional’ studies on the impact of Inqui­ sition and Index on modern science and natural philosophy, namely: did prohibitions and trials block the development of science and (al­ ternative) natural philosophy in specific parts of Europe (Italy and the Iberian peninsula) and thus determine the intellectual and (indi­ rectly) the social history? This thorny issue cannot be sensibly tackled without drawing, as far as possible, clear lines of demarcation between periods, geographic areas, disciplinary fields, professional levels, and individual authors and books. However, other preliminary remarks are due here. The aim of this edition is not to formulate (definite) answers, but rather to contribute in furnishing materials in a way which is more extensive and less casual than was done in the past. The detailed doc­ umentation now available does not justify any revisionism or apology of censorial interventions in historical debates and research, but it

~ 88

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

certainly obliges historians to go beyond generic, harsh and fairly bi­ ased condemnations. In effect, the documents reproduced here sug­ gest that the Congregations did not have the precise aim to bridle doctrinal dissent regarding Aristotelian and scholastic science and natural philosophy in any technical sense. Apart from the personal convictions and cultural views of individual consultors or functionar­ ies of the Congregations, there was no explicit detailed project that was comparable, for example, to the interventions in theological de­ bates and the control over Bible translations and devotional litera­ ture.321 It was only in these cases that the Congregations deliberately aimed at and succeeded in exerting a well-organized control over the religious mentality of the Italian population. Summarizing, and concentrating upon later sixteenth and early seventeenth-century Italy, a distinction can be drawn between the consequences of Inquisition trials and Index prohibitions that can be easily documentated and those that remain, at least for the mo­ ment, at a level of a more or less reasonable hypothesis. As to the former, two considerations are due. First, as said before, trials and prohibitions did not necessarily affect the careers of living authors, and most forbidden books remained available, although in a limited way.322 Second, not a few books almost disappeared because confis­ cated and/or burnt by local inquisitors and bishops, but these inter­ ventions only marginally touched those scientific or philosophical works the absence of which might have seriously compromised sci­ entific development. However, the (more or less) incidental survival of copies of forbidden works is not sufficient to demonstrate the fail­ ure of the impact of ecclesiastical bodies of control, because it is an accepted fact that books are easy to hide.323 Vice versa, the efficacy of ecclesiastical control over intellectual culture in Italy cannot be measured alone by its capability to eliminate forbidden books from private and public libraries through confiscations and book burn­ ings. This leads us to the afore-mentioned issue of the indirect and broader effects of censorship. 321 322 323

See Fragnito 2005. Section 3.3. For discussion, see Fragnito 2005, p. 189, note 138; cf. Savelli 2004.

89

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

As said before, the effects of ecclesiastical censorship should not be assessed on the basis of the outcomes of trials, the catalogues of for­ bidden books or the confiscation of books alone. In general the pro­ ceedings and investigations of the Roman Congregations implicitly contributed to creating a climate of uncertainty which delivered au­ thors and readers to the power of the local and central authorities, most of the time on the basis of occasional, usually anonymous, accu­ sations. Influencing the intellectual, cultural and civil development of Italy, this possibly brought no less harm than book burnings and con­ fiscations. A full assessment of these types of effects is not possible here. Such a task requires detailed research into those specific disci­ plinary fields that became object of censorial interventions, in order to verify whether and how authors adapted to explicit and implicit Roman prescriptions and rules, and whether and how persons were deterred from studying or discussing certain subjects. For the mo­ ment, one illustrative example may suffice: the requests for licences regarding books that were not prohibited at all.324 It should be noted that this phenomenon is ambivalent as it not only reveals a climate of intimidation, but it also suggests that the latter did not prevent re­ quests for reading permits. Also other, less ‘tangible’, forms of the impact of ecclesiastical cen­ sorship on the intellectual climate can be hypothesized and suggest­ ed. Indeed, in the light of more subtle and sometimes hardly percep­ tible ways of exerting pressure to persuade or to deter, the effects of Rome’s surveillance should also be investigated as far as it may be possible to do so. Unfortunately, most of these ways can hardly be warranted. For example, it seems reasonable to presume that there were authors who out of fear for possible consequences decided not to publish works prepared already in manuscript, but documentation on sixteenth-century cases is apparently lacking.325 Although it cannot be addressed here, a final important issue is worth mentioning: that is the question whether the interventions of See ch. Licences, notes 78, 120, 486, 646, 661, 668, 672, 686, 774, 854. A well-known seventeenth-century example, namely Descartes’ decision not to pub­ lish his Le Monde after Galilei’s condemnation in 1633, cannot be automatically extended to a previous period nor should it be viewed as an exemplary case. 324

325

~ 90 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

ecclesiastical censorship pushed researchers to what could be quali­ fied ‘no-risk areas’. In other words, whether it is possible to detect a tendential shift from research in ‘fundamental’ disciplines, such as, cosmology, where the contrast between novelties and Scholastic phi­ losophy was pregnant of theological implications, or from that in ar­ eas that were affected by condemnations (heliocentric astronomy), to­ wards research in disciplinary fields that, both historically and con­ ceptually, were more independent from Aristotelian philosophy, such as hydrostatics, mechanics, physiology, medicine and botany. If such a shift materialized, it only developed in the centuries to come. Thus, neither an investigation on sixteenth-century conditions and, afortiori, nor a edition of sixteenth-century documents may pro­ vide an answer. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that, among the plurality of factors on which scientific change, development, and (possibly) revolution depend, religion (and the social climate that it may determine) coexists with other factors, like available technology, economic developments, and research environment, all of which are to be viewed in connection to broader social, political, and cultural processes, such as, for example, the change in the European states’ socio-economic conditions and the progressive shift of the continent’s political center of gravity from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic countries. Thus, independently from the outcomes of future research, the issue whether research environment in Italy (as well as in Portu­ gal and Spain) fundamentally changed under the nst’ of the Index and the Inquisition cannot be recognized the exclusive and decisive role it has been assigned to in the past.

4. Principles of Transcription, Notes and Abbreviations 4.1. Transcription and Notes The transcription of the documents is based upon the following criteria: 1. Documents that exclusively regard science and natural philoso­ phy are integrally reproduced. In other cases, only the relevant part of the document is reproduced, and omitted parts are indi91

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

cated by the sign (...)”. This choice may seem questionable, be­ cause it apparently deprives the reader of possibly interesting sections of documents, such as lists of books and letters. How­ ever, in particular in the case of documents containing lists of books to be examined or inventories of libraries to be licenced for reading, an integral reproduction would have made it quite difficult to identify the sections that are relevant for the issue under scrutiny. A fortiori, the exceptional length of some docu­ ments (such as those mentioned) might have compromised the edition itself. In the case of official documents, such as decrees or minutes of the meetings of the Congregations, the opening part which lists the cardinals present is reproduced, and in the case of pronouncements or deliberations that involved other functionaries, also the names of the latter. For the same reason, but quite rarely so, the final part may be reproduced. 2. The reproduction of the documents follows the structure of the original texts, and in particular: the division in sections and paragraphs, the indent of single lines or paragraphs, the diversi­ ty of characters (capitals, small capitals, underlined) used in the various parts of the text (title, subtitle, current text). 3. Orthographical errors and uncommon forms of words have not been corrected, but as a rule are notified in the philological notes. By contrast, “j” has been settled as an “i ” (exception made for the end-forms: for example, “officij”), and “u ” and “v ” have been differentiated. 4. Accordingly, the original punctuation which in the sixteenth century was not yet formally established has been followed. Thus, signs that now seem superfluous or incorrect have been preserved, and no punctuation signs are introduced where they apparently are lacking, with the only exception of a full stop. 5. Original capitalisation of the manuscripts has been preserved, also when capitals are used according to rules now considered as incorrect. This holds in particular for the numerous lines that, after a full stop or a question mark, start with a lower-case letter. ~ 92 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

6. All shorthand signs have been solved. 7. Like all sixteenth-century manuscript texts the documents of the Congregations as well as their correspondence abound in abbreviations, not only in the titles and adjectives (“Exc.mus” for “Excellentissimus”, “Sanct.us” for “Sanctissimus”, “Car.lls” for “Cardinalis”), in the standard terms in the headings and the concluding clauses, but also in many common words in the cur­ rent text. In general, the clerks and scribes still used abbrevia­ tions that dated back to the Middle Ages for many Latin terms, in particular for relative pronouns (“q. m ” for “quern” or “quam”; “quo do ” for “quomodo”), but for nouns as well (“hom.es” for “homines”). Besides these abbreviations through elision, there are many abbreviations based on simply breaking off (“lib”, for “liber”; “expurg”. for “expurgatio” or “expurga­ tiones”). In general the meaning of the abbreviated words is pretty clear. There are cases, however, where the interpretation is problematic. A strict diplomatic transcription would have contradicted the general aim of this work, namely to make avail­ able the documentation at issue for a large audience interested in intellectual history. Adopting the alternative of a systematic risolution of the abbreviations might have led to misunderstand­ ings, however, in particular as to the uncertain cases, confound­ ing merely possible with apparently certain interpretations. Thus, a middle course has been chosen: the abbreviations of honorific adjectives used in titles (in particular in the headings) have been preserved, while the other ones have been solved putting the abbreviated part between angle brackets (“dig(nissim)us”; “prob(abilis)”). It goes without saying that, in general, the meaning of the abbreviations is quite evident and therefore this approach seems not only useless but also inspired to pedantry. Yet, it permits the reader a quite faithful reconstruc­ tion of the original text. 8. Many documents contain words, lines and even entire pages that are difficult to read, or even more or less illegible. Some­ times the (partial) illegibility depends upon the hand of the au­ thor, the whitening of the ink or the damage suffered by the pa~ 93

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

per. All conjectures for uncertain words have been put between square brackets (“li[bror]um”, “cuiusldamj”, “[signification­ um]”). When part of a word or an entire word, a line or a sec­ tion is illegible or simply is lacking because the paper has been damaged square brackets are used (“le[...]nu m ”, “sp ir[...]”, [...]). Also in these cases, a clear distinction has been drawn be­ tween certain and conjectural interpretations. The substantially conservative transcription and concise philologi­ cal notes aim at a faithful representation of the text. An extensive ap­ paratus of explanatory notes provides information on books, authors and events mentioned, and on essential aspects of the activity of the Congregations, most noticeably on criteria and motivations underly­ ing doctrinal control and censorial interventions, in particular as to expurgatory censurae. This first volume represents the period from the rise of the Roman Congregations till the end of the sixteenth century. Preliminary work for subsequent volumes on seventeenth-century developments and on the period until 1808 has now been started. Each volume is planned to have more or less the structure of this first one, which is articulat­ ed in three parts, devoted respectively, to the organization of the in­ dex, general issues, trials and censurae of individual authors, and li­ cences for the reading of forbidden books. Furthermore, every vol­ ume contains a biographical section, providing essential information on authors subject to proceedings, authors of the documents pub­ lished in the respective chapters, members and functionaries of the Congregations of the Holy Office and for the Index who are men­ tioned in the reproduced documents, and finally the beneficiaries of licences for reading forbidden books. Finally, all volumes will contain a primary and secondary bibliography (presented in the notes by sur­ name and year of publication; in case of primary sources the latter in italics), reporting the works cited in the Introduction and in the indi­ vidual chapters of the sections, as well as an index of names.

~ 94 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

4.2. A bbreviation s o f B ib le Books, A rchives, L ibraries a n d R eligiou s O rders B ible326

Gn Ex Lv Nm Dt Ios Ide Rt I-II Sm III-IV Rg I-II Par I-II Esr Tb Idt Est lob Ps Prv Ecl Ct Sap Sil­ ls Ier Lam Ez Dn Os Ioel Am

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numeri Deuteronomium Iosua Iudices Ruth Samuhel (Libri Regum I-II) Reges (Libri III-IV) Paralipomena (Libri I-II) Ezra (Libri I-II) Tobias Iudith Esther lob Psalmi Proverbia Ecclesiastes Canticum canticorum Sapientia Jesus Sirach Isaias Hieremias Lamentationes Hiezechiel Danihel Osee Iohel Amos

326

The abbreviations for the books of the Bible are those used in the Biblia Sacra (Stuttgart 19853).

~ 95 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Abd Ion Mi Na Hab So Agg Za Mal ITI Mcc Mt Me Lc Io Act Rm I-II Cor Gal Eph Phil Col I-II Th I-II Tim Tit Phlm Hbr lac I-II Pt I-III Io Iud Ape

Abdias Iona Micha Naum Abacuc Sofonias Aggeus Zaccharias Malachi Macchabei (Libri I-II) Mattheus Marcus Lucas Iohannes Actus apostolorum Ad Romanos Ad Corinthios (Epistulae ITI) Ad Galatas Ad Ephesios Ad Philippenses Ad Colossenses Ad Thessalonicenses (Epistulae I-II) Ad Timotheum (Epistulae I-II) Ad Titum Ad Philemonem Ad Hebraeos Epistula Iacobi Epistulae Petri (I-II) Epistulae Iohannis (I-III) Epistula Iudae Apocalypsis Iohannis

A rchives and L ibraries

ACAP ACDF

Archivio della Curia Arcivescovile di Pisa Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede (Vatican City) 96 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

ACR ACSP ACVR ANTT APA APUG ARSI ASB ASDM ASDN ASM ASPd ASPr ASR AST ASUP ASV ASVe BAB BAM BAR BAlesR BASG BAV BCAM BCB BCBo BCC BCFa BCFo BCFor BCP BCR BEM BNCF BNCR BNM

Archivio Capitolino (Rome) Archivio della Canonica di S. Pietro (Vatican City) Archivio della Curia Vescovile di Rovigo Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo (Lisbon) Archivio della Penitenzieria Apostolica (Rome) Archivio della Pontifìcia Università Gregoriana (Rome) Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu (Rome) Archivio di Stato di Bergamo Archivio Storico Diocesano di Milano Archivio Storico Diocesano di Napoli Archivio di Stato di Mantova Archivio di Stato di Padova Archivio di Stato di Parma Archivio di Stato di Roma Archivio di Stato di Torino Archivio storico dell’università di Padova Archivio Segreto Vaticano Archivio di Stato di Venezia Biblioteca dell’Archiginnasio (Bologna) Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Milan) Biblioteca Angelica (Rome) Biblioteca Alessandrina (Rome) Basilica Abbaziale di Santa Giustina (Padua) Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Biblioteca Civica Angelo Mai (Bergamo) Biblioteca Comunale Berio (Genoa) Biblioteca Civica Bonetta (Pavia) Biblioteca Comunale Classense (Ravenna) Biblioteca Comunale Manfrediana (Faenza) Biblioteca Comunale di Foligno Biblioteca Comunale di Forlì Biblioteca Comunale di Perugia Biblioteca Casanatense (Rome) Biblioteca Estense (Modena) Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana (Venice)

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

BNMa BNN BPP BPPM BSM BVR CSPM ONV TCD

Religious

COSPN CRL CRSP CRSS CR Theat MI OCarm OCart OCD OCr OEHSJ OESA OFM OFMcap. OFMconv. OFMobs. OH OM OP OSB OSBcam. OSBcass. OSBvall.

Biblioteca National (Madrid) Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli Biblioteca Palatina (Parma) Biblioteca Publica (Palma de Majorca) Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek (Miinchen) Biblioteca Vallicelliana (Rome) Colegio de la Sapientia (Palma de Majorca) Òsterreichse Nationalbibliothek (Vienna) Trinity College (Dublin).

orders

Confoederatio Oratorii S. Philippi Nerii Canonici Regulares Congregationis Sancti Salvatoris La­ teranensis Canonici Regulares Sancti Pauli Canonici Regulares Sancti Salvatoris Clerici Regulares Theatini Ministri Infirmorum Ordo Carmelitarum Ordo Cartusiensis Ordo Fratrum Carmelitarum Discalceatorum Ordo Cruciferorum Ordo Equitum Hospitalariorum Sancti Johannis Ordo Fratrum Eremitarum Sancti Augustini Ordo Fratrum Minorum Ordo Fratrum Minorum Capuccinorum Ordo Fratrum Minorum Conventualium Ordo Fratrum Minorum Observantium Ordo Hospitalarius S. Joannis de Deo (Fatebenefratelli) Ordo (Fratrum) Minimorum Ordo (Fratrum) Praedicatorum Ordo Sancti Benedicti Ordo Sancti Benedicti, Congregatio Camaldulensis Ordo Sancti Benedicti, Congregatio Cassinensis Ordo Sancti Benedicti, Congregatio Vallis Umbrosae 98 ~

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

OSH OSIacobi OSIoIeros OSM SOCist SJ TOF

Ordo Sancti Hieronymi Ordo Sancti Iacobi Ordo Hospitalis Sancti Iohannis Ierosolymitani Ordo Servorum Mariae Sacer Ordo Cisterciensis Societas Jesu Tertius Ordo Franciscanus

99

PART ONE

THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

INTRODUCTION

There is an important difference between the documentation regard­ ing the Holy Office and that regarding the Congregation for the Index. The Holy Office assessed heterodox views on the basis of canon law, in­ quisitorial manuals, and referring to rules and formal procedures devel­ oped during the Middle Ages. Thus, it selected and established criteria for juridical proceedings, but it did not develop a formal body of rules for assessing specific views. By contrast, the Congregation for the Index started its activity in the early 1570s discussing on appropriate rules and criteria. This activity is reflected in numerous documents, and those rele­ vant for the criteria, underlying the scrutiny of views and works, in par­ ticular those pertaining to the disciplinary fieds of science and natural philosophy, are reproduced in this Part. These documents not only reveal, even though in a partial and frag­ mentary way, some relevant aspects of the stylus of the Congregation for the Index as to the examination and the prohibition of books and aurhors, but also as to the procedures and rules regarding the composi­ tion of the sixteenth-century Indexes and the expurgation of books. In addition, they are useful for the (chronological) reconstruction of pro­ ceedings regarding individual authors or issues. As concerns the latter, astrology is an important case in point, because it was the only subject connected to science for which a specific Index rule existed. The documents have been divided in eight sections. The first three sections permit, as far as possible, the reconstruction of the Congrega­ tion style in formulating criteria and rules for the control and prohibi­ tion of authors and books. The next three sections (IV to VI) offer a glance at the ‘daily practice’ of the Cardinals and consultors to the Con­ gregation, namely, identifying suspect books, examining books and au­ thors to be prohibited and/or corrected, composing expurgatory cen ­ surae, and issuing public decrees on prohibitions and corrections. The 103

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

documents in section VII give an account of the composition of the classes of Index consultors and the corrections assigned to each. The fi­ nal section presents the various inventories of prohibited, suspect or cor­ rected works compiled by the Congregation’s consultors and functionar­ ies during the last twenty-five years of the sixteenth century. This intro­ duction is a basic outline of the history of the sixteenth-century Roman Index and offers an initial guide to the latter’s activities and priorities. The second half of the sixteenth century was the period which w it­ nessed the m ost intense production of Rom an universal Indexes. Both central and peripheral bodies deputed to control the circulation of books were founded and consolidated while, albeit amid contro­ versy, the range and application of censorial rules expanded and be­ came more precise. The sixteenth-century Roman catalogues of for­ bidden books can be classified into four types: the Inquisition Index, the Tridentine Index, the M aster of the Sacred Palace Prohibitions and finally, the Indexes issued by the Congregation for the Index. The plurality of censorial organs was a source of tension. The Master of the Sacred Palace oversaw press censorship in Rome and its district, but was also influential in other Italian states, especially in the 1570s and the early 1580s.1 The Congregation of the Holy Office which was au­ thorized to pronounce prohibitions and condemnations on books and authors,2 exploited the clause to cause difficulties not only for the Con­ gregation for the Index, but also for the Holy Roman Pontiffs them ­ selves. The reasons for friction were various, there was dissent on whether authors, individual works or categories of texts should be pro­ hibited or suspended “donec corrigatur”; on who should issue reading permits;3 on the rules that should regulate censorial activity; and on the fields of competence of Bishops and Inquisitors in the outlying pro­ vinces. This created a stalemate which was responsible for the failure to promulgate three versions of the third Roman Index, two of which had already been printed. These tensions came to a head when in 1596 the Inquisition compelled the Congregation for the Index and the Pope to make substantial changes to the already promulgated catalogue. The 1 2 3

See section 2 for the lists of forbidden books the Master sent to Turin and Naples. See Pope Paul Ill’s bull Licet ah initio (1542), and Rule X of the Tridentine Index. See ch. Licences, Introduction.

104 ~

INTRODUCTION

conflict was reflected in the alternating fortunes of certain books and au­ thors: suspended, permitted under licence, and banned outright.4 1. The Inquisition Index and the Tridentine Index The modern Roman Inquisition, founded by Pope Paul I l l ’s Bull Licet ab initio on 21 July 1542, was made responsible for the printing, sale and distribution of books. O n 12 June 1543, the first official edict of the Ro­ man inquisitors was sent to booktraders, printers and customs-officers. In this edict they pointed out the intrinsic moral risk presented by the reading of books that were either considered suspect or had been previ­ ously condemned as heretical, and threatened severe penalties for any­ one who refused to hand over lists of imported books.5 The edict also prohibited the reading, sale, and possession of suspect books. In the late 1540s the Inquisition prepared a list of forbidden books on the basis of catalogues published in Paris and Louvain (1546).6 To this end in 1547, Michele Ghislieri, the General Commissioner of the Inquisition, in­ structed Egidio Foscarari, Master of the Sacred Palace, and Pietro Bertano, Bishop of Fano, to draw up lists of heretical and suspect books. These lists were neither printed nor notified to booksellers, instead they were sent in manuscript to the ecclesiastical authorities of Milan and Venice and printed under their supervision in 1554.7 From 1555, the preparation of a Roman Index was strongly promoted by Pope Paul IV.8 A first version of the Index was finished and printed in 1557, but it was suppresssed by the Pope and completely revised the following year.9 Promulgated by a decree of the Holy Office on 30 De4 The Talmud, the vernacular translations of the Scripture, and the works of Ramon Lull (cf. respective ch.) are cases in point. 5 Hilgers 1904, pp. 483-86. 6 In 1549 Antonio Biado published the Index of the University of Paris (1549). The only copy known is kept in the Vatican Library; cf. ILI, V ili, p. 29. For the text, see ILI, I, pp. 490-94. 7 See ILI, VIII, pp. 31-32; Grendler 1977, p. 94. The catalogue is in ILI, III, pp. 394-438. The Index of Florence [1553/1554] basically reproduced this catalogue; ILI, X, pp. 815-24. 8 Initially, it was pondered upon to print a combination of the catalogues composed by the universities of Louvain and Paris; cf. Prosperi 1999, p. 263. 9 For discussion, see Scaduto 1955, pp. 11-13. The instructiones nonnullae (section I, doc. 1, infra} represent an intermediate phase between these two Indexes.

105 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

cember 1558 and thus according to the calendar “a nativitate” dated 1559,10 the Index of Pope Paul IV was a declaration of war against the Reform. It contained over one thousand prohibitions assigned to three different ‘classes’ (as in all later Roman Indexes11): one category con­ tained all the works of heretical authors, a second category contained in­ dividual works by authors not included in the first category, and a third category contained works by authors in certi nominis. This Index general­ ly prohibited all works by heretics (“cuiuscumque argumenti sint”), even if these did not relate to religion or did not contain any remarks offen­ sive to the Catholic faith, and it also condemned sixty-one printers of heretical works. Subsequently, all works appearing without imprimatur or dealing with magic or divination were banned. Furthermore, an In­ structio circa Indicem librorum prohibitorum printed in February 1559 and sent to the local inquisitors made it plain that the Inquisition was determined to take independent action on the prohibition of books by excluding the bishops.12 However, this also led to some exceptions to earlier prohibitions, entailing, for example, the permission to read Fuchs for physicians. Finally, the Index invalidated all previously released read­ ing permissions, and prohibited the absolution of those who possessed forbidden books, or who were informed upon the possession of forbid­ den books by other persons.13 Thus, the reading and possession of for­ bidden books was considered heresy.14 The application of the first Index was heavily compromised in 1559 with the death of Pope Paul IV and the election of Gian Angelo Medici which nourished the hope for an attenuation of the severe condemnations it contained.15 The opposition by booksellers, print10

The Index was promulgated on 30 December, and thus according to the calendar “a nativitate” dated 1559. 11 Other Indexes, most notably those issued in Spain, did not divide the authors in classes. 12 ILI, Vili, pp. 100-101. 13 See ILI, Vili, p. 753; cf. ch. Licences, Introduction. For discussion, see Prosperi 1996, pp. 228-43, For a summary discussion of the application of the 1559 Index, see Fragnito 2001a, pp. 17-18 (fairly similar versions are in Fragnito 2001b and 2001c). 14 Cf. Pope Paul IV’s version of In Coena Domini-, for this Bull, see the General Introduc­ tion, section 2.4. For the later versions of this Bull, see Frajese 2001, p. 2 lOf. 15 Extant ACDF documentation on the application of this Index is scanty. For the first re­ actions in Rome and elsewhere in Italy, see Scaduto 1955, p. 18f; Grendler 1977, pp. 117-27; Dall’Olio 1999, pp. 240-45.

~ 106

INTRODUCTION

ers, physicians, jurists, and magistrates persuaded Pope Pius IV in 1561 to invite Michele Ghislieri to draw up a Moderatio Indicis Libro­ rum Prohibitorum which contained a number o£ sensible suggestions and proposed various solutions of a practical nature. It introduced the distinction between heretical books and works to be corrected, and it renewed the permission for physicians to read Fuchs.16 The 1559 Index was the only catalogue of forbidden books issued by the Holy Office. However, in the years to come the Inquisitors continued to play a key role in the analysis and prohibition of books, and as they had permission to read heretical works they could grant reading permits, their Congregation was the supreme judge in mat­ ters heretical, and they could absolve those excommunicated for the reading of heretical works. In January 1562, Pope Pius IV reconvened the Council of Trent and on 26 February a “Committee for the Index” was appointed, consisting of bishops and presided by Anton Brus, the Archbishop of Prague, assisted by the Portuguese Dominican, Francisco Foreiro, as Secretary.17 This Committee had a three-fold task: the correction of the 1559 Index, the assessment and correction of books not listed in the Roman Index, and a regimentation of the press through general rules.18 By 4 December 1563 it had completed the text and sent it to Rome. After the impromptu closing of the Council, the Pope ap­ pointed a commission of three bishops to finish the work, and on 24 March 1564 the Tridentine Index was printed. This Index brought remarkable innovations: it introduced expurgation;19 it restricted the ban on works by heretics to those that dealt de fide-, it attenuated the prohibition of Erasmus;20 it eliminated the list of heretical printers 16

ILI, Vili, p. 105. Reusch I, pp. 312-21. 18 For the acts, see Concilium Tridentinum, XIII, pp. 587-607. For the documentary traces of this commission, see Fragnito 1997a, p. 102, note 55. Cf. ILI, Vili, pp. 55-94. 19 Expurgation regarded books “quorum principale argumentum bonum est, in quibus obiter aliqua inserta sunt, quae ad haeresim seu impietatem, divinationem aut superstitionem spectant”. 20 Several works, among which the Adagia, were used in the schools of the religious or­ ders; see, for example, Scaduto 1955, p. 12, for the worries of the Jesuit masters. 17

107

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

and abolished the total prohibition of Bible translations; the bull of promulgation ^Dominici gregis custodiae) made a clear distinction be­ tween heretical and prohibited works.21 Furthermore, the afore­ named bull, the preface by Francisco Foreiro, Secretary of the com­ mission, and the ten Rules added to the Index assigned a crucial role in the application of the Index to bishops and Catholic universities.22 The bishops were entitled not only to grant permissions for printing new books, they were also authorized to grant licences for the read­ ing of books written by heretical authors that did not deal with reli­ gious issues, as well as of Bible translations. Finally, the bishops were deemed to promote the expurgation of works (Rules V, VI, VIII) that after correction might be useful to the faithful.23 Noticeably, Rules VII and IX attributed obscene books (relevant for naturalist works) and works on magic, divination and astrology to the exclusive control of the bishops.24 2. The Prohibitions by the Master of the Sacred Palace The bull Inter Sollicitudines, issued in 1515 at the Fifth Lateran Council, ordered the preliminary examination of all books prior to printing, and assigned this task to the bishops and in Rome to the Master of the Sacred Palace.25 The latter, as official theologian to the

21

ILI, Vili, pp. 803-808. For discussion, see Fragnito 2005, pp. 37-42. For discussion of the role of the Italian universities (in particular Pisa) in censorial activities, see Prosperi 1999. 23 Press censorship was already conferred to the bishops by the Fifth Lateran Council (session X, 4 May 1515) and, during its first phase, by the Tridentine Council (session IV, second decree, 8 April 1546). 24 For the application of this Index, see Fragnito 2001c, pp. 111-13. 25 For discussion of the function of the Master of the Sacred Palace, see De Luca 1759, pp. 245-246. De Luca stated that initially his primary task consisted in: “ut in rebus, quae ad fidem pertinent, in privatis occurrentiis Papam informet, tanquam per speciem consultoris in his materiis (...) potissime antiquioribus temporibus antequam (...) erigeretur Congregatio Inquisitionis, (...) quae hodie in iis quae pertinent ad Ecclesiam universalem, et Papam uti Papam, istas gerit partes. (...) Hodiernum autem munus huius Magistri principaliter consis­ tere videtur in revisione (...). librorum in Urbe, ac districtu imprimendorum, cum impressio prohibita sit, sine previa licentia Cardinalis Vicarii, seu ejus Vicesgerentis, quae concedi solet sub conditione revisionis, et approbationis huius Magistri, qui (...) per se ipsum, vel per eius 22

108

INTRODUCTION

pope was responsible for orthodoxy at the papal court, and also played an important role in the prohibition and correction of books, the composition of lists of forbidden books, and in the granting of reading permits.*26 He was ex officio Consultor of both the Index and the Inquisition. The Master of the Sacred Palace was particularly active in the sec­ ond half of the sixteenth century. In his bull Licet alias postquam of 19 November 1570 Pope Pius V accused the bishops of laxity in the expurgation of books, and authorized the Master of the Sacred Palace to correct forbidden books.27 Subsequently, several lists were drawn up and transmitted to the peripheral inquisitors. A list issued on 22 May 1574 contained forty-two authors and titles,2829and in Sep­ tember 1576 the Master Paolo Costabile composed a provisional or semi-official list. This working document was entitled Index librorum aliorum in indice non contentorum™ and contained about three hun­ dred and fifty prohibitions. This Index laid the groundwork for local Indexes which first appeared ca. 1580 in several Italian cities, among which the so-called Index of Parma (1580),30 the Turin catalogue (ca.

socium hanc revisionem facit, et quandoque, ac frequentius in libris (...) facultatum, quarum ipse, eiusque socii non sint professores, revisionem committit alici provato professori, ad cuius relationem ipse licentiam impartitur, ut docet praxis adeo frequens librorum, qui in Urbe imprimuntur; quinimo neque ista licentia sufficit, sed postquam liber est impressus, desideratur altera eius licentia super publicatione, cuius occasione per Impressorem tres ei traduntur eiusdem libri copiae impressae, una scilicet pro se ipso, altera pro socio, et altera pro dicto Vicesgerente. Retinet quoque facultatem, quam forte solus exercebat ante erec­ tionem dictae Congregationis Inquisitionis et alterius, quae dicitur Indicis librorum pro­ hibitorum, de qua etiam infra in sua sede, revidendi (...) libros alibi impressos, qui in Urbe eiusque districtu vendantur, seu legantur; ac etiam concedendi licentias personis non suspec­ tis, legendi libros prohibitos, ad aliquem bonum finem, ideoque ex ista etiam causa ante dic­ tarum Congregationum erectionem, longa maiorem faciebat figuram”. See also Fontana 1663; Catalani 1751b; Zucchi 1938-1943: III, pp. 66-77; Creytens 1942. 26 An edict of 19 January 1566 by Tomas Manriquez shows that the Master of the Sacred Palace also checked the import and sale of books in Rome and the surrounding area. See Bujanda 2001, p. 219. 27 Text of the Bull is in Hilgers 1904, pp. 510-13. 28 ILI, IX, pp. 746-47. 29 ILI, X, pp. 829-39. 30 ILI, IX, pp. 17-185.

~ 109 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

1580),31 and the list transmitted by the Roman Curia to Naples in January 1583.32 However, these lists caused confusion. Not only did bishops and local inquisitors now receive instructions from distinct institutions (the Inquisition and the Master of the Sacred Palace),33 but often these lists made no distinction between books that were prohibited, suspended, suspect, or else to be made available for sale and reading in a corrected version or with a specific licence. That this abuse of power by the Master of the Sacred Palace also caused irrita­ tion is borne out by Paleotti’s queries discussed in the Congregation for the Index on 26 January 1583.34 Subsequently, the Master’s role was reduced, but also in later years he continued to publish the Con­ gregation decrees, such as the 1603 Edict that integrated the Clemen­ tine Index.35 On 26 October 1580, the Master of the Sacred Palace Sisto Fabri and Card. Sirleto were commissioned by the Congregation for the In­ dex “disponere quaecumque sunt necessaria pro novi indicis aeditione atque libros damnare quos damnandos indicarent et decreta facere”.3637 During 1584 the Congregation discussed the outcomes of Sirleto’s and Fabri’s work and started to prepare the publication of a new Index p ro h ib ito riu s and an Index ex p u rga toriu s? 1 Neither was published, probably due to internal disagreements, but also because after the death of Pope Gregory XIII on 10 April 1585 and that of Card. Sirleto on 7 October the Congregation’s activity was interrupt­ ed for almost two years. The later sixteenth-century Masters Tomma­ so Zobbio (1583-89), Vincenzo Bonardi (1589-91), and Bartolomé de Miranda (1591-97) played an active part in the Index activities during 31

ILI, IX, pp. 758-69. ILI, IX, pp. 770-78. 33 Till 1596, the contacts between the Congregation for the Index and bishops and local inquisitors were quite rare. For discussion, see Fragnito 2001c. 34 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. llr-v; cf. Fragnito 1997a, pp. 137-39. Note that the ma­ jority of the Index decrees of the years 1571-1590 is in Protocolli A and B; see the General Introduction, section 1.3. 35 See Fragnito 2005, pp. 128-29. 36 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 7v. 37 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 14v-16r. The first Expurgatory Index was issued in 1571 in Antwerp; in 1584 there appeared the first Spanish Expurgatory Index. 32

~ 110

INTRODUCTION

the turbulent years of the Sixtine and Clementine Indexes. The Clementine Index (1596) confirmed the 1570 right of the Master to expurgation: the Instructio ordered that a copy of the books pub­ lished in Rome should be kept in his archive. Unfortunately, this archive, which might certainly harbour not only a few surprises, given the central role performed by the Master in relation to the Congrega­ tions of the Holy Office and for the Index, has still not been located and has probably been lost.*38 In the early years of the seventeenth century the Masters Giovanni Maria Guanzelli (1598-1607) and Luis Ystella (1608-14) issued edicts of books prohibited after the promulgation of the Clementine Index.39 In 1607, Guanzelli published a first part of a Roman expurgatory Index. However, this list of corrections was published without the official authorization of the Congregation which blocked its diffusion, and thus it did not become legally bind­ ing; furthermore, other parts never appeared.40 3. The Indexes Issued by the Congregation for the Index On 5 March 1571, Pope Pius V created a Commission of Cardi­ nals for the reform of the Index to which he appointed Arcangelo de’ Bianchi, Jéròme Souchier, Felice Peretti and Vincenzo Giustini­ ani.41 On 13 September 1572, with the bull Ut pestiferarum opinio­ num, Pope Gregory XIII transformed this commission into a fullyfledged Congregation for the Index. The Inquisition continued to work independently, so - as said before - after 1571 there were three institutions engaged in the vetting of books, each with its own channels of communication and sometimes with an evident lack of coordination. For about a decade we have a heterogeneous group of See Fragnito 1997b and 2007. Until the beginning of the seventeenth century this Archive did not even exist; see the note to section 1.3 of the General Introduction. ■ 39 Guanzelli issued edicts on 3 August 1603, and in December 1605; his successor Luis Ystella issued four edicts between 23 July 1609 and 30 January 1609. 40 For discussion, see Fragnito 2007. 41 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. lr. Not nominated among the Cardinals was Jerome Souchi­ er, Abbot of Clairveaux (t 10 Novemner 1571; BlOGR.), although the first session was held in his palace on 22 March 1571; see, for example, ACDF, Index, Protocolli, S (II.a.17), f. 469r. 58

Ill

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

documents produced by both the Congregation for the Index and the Master of the Sacred Palace (as well as some items by the Holy Office) which are notifications to the public of their decisions trans­ mitted to the periphery through the network of Bishops, Inquisitors and Nuncios.42 The newly founded Congregation had two core activities, namely the integration and revision of the Tridentine Index, and the expurga­ tion of books.43 The Congregation, counting among its members Guglielmo Sirleto, Gabriele Paleotti, Archangelo de’ Bianchi, Michele Bonelli, Nicolas de Pellevé, Vincenzo Giustiniani, and Felice Peretti (the future Pope Sixtus V), started to examine the Tridentine Index and to discuss its Rules.44 During the years of Sirleto’s direction (1572-1584) prohibition overruled expurgation. Indeed, the first de­ cisions marked a return to the inquisitorial Index, given that on 5 September 1571 the Congregation for the Reform of the Index de­ creed the suspension of reading permits for Bible translations,45 on 27 November 1571 Sirleto proposed that the permission for non-religious works by heretics be restricted,46 and on 20 April 1572 it was decided that “omnes libros ab Indice Romano sub Fe. re. Paulo 4° sublatos in Tridentino Indice quoque esse reponendos”.47 The prohi­ bitions decreed during the following years confirmed a return to Pope Paul IV’s Index, while the expurgation, also commissioned to the Master of the Sacred Palace and the Inquisition, was not seriously undertaken.48 However, this prohibitory activity did not lead to a new

42

For discussion, see Rotondò 1963. See the copy of the Bull in ASV, Miscellanea, Arm. IV, vol. 30, f. 6v, quoted in Frajese 1998, p. 271. For the “stylus” and “facultates” of the Congregation, see ACDF, Index, Proto­ colli, S (II.a.17), fols. 469r-470r, 474r. 44 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 4r. 45 For discussion of the application of this decree, see Frajese 1998, pp. 274-76. 46 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (Il.a.l), f. 51r-v: “Hl.mus D. Card. Sirletus duo annotavit su­ per 2.am Regulam. Alterum, quod libri hereticorum conversorum, si sunt catholici et utiles, possunt concedi. Alterum vero quod liber alicuius heretici, qui alicuius facultate sit necessar­ ius si de religione non tractat concedi potest Summi Pontificis auctoritate, regulariter vero nequaquam”. See also ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 4v, and Godman 2000, p. 333. 47 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 3v, 5r. 48 Cf. Frajese 1998, pp. 278-82. 43

~ 112

INTRODUCTION

official catalogue of forbidden books: the lists of books to be prohib­ ited and to be corrected that were prepared in 15 8449 by Sirleto and the Master of the Sacred Palace were approved but not officially promulgated. In the period following the death of Guglielmo Sirleto (1585), the Congregation for the Index went into some sort of lethargy for al­ most two years.50 In February 1587, Pope Sixtus V refounded the Congregation, appointing the Cardinals M arcantonio Colonna, Agostino Valier, Vincenzo Lauro, G irolam o della Rovere, and Costanzo Torri.51 On 19 March, Ascanio Colonna joined the Congre­ gation, while on 7 September William Allen (consultor since April) became a member shortly after being created cardinal.52 On 8 Febru­ ary the new commission met for the first time and after seven days, on 15 February, the Congregation appointed new consultors includ­ ing Giulio Ruggiero, Bartolomeo Cesi, Pietro Galesini, Mario Altieri, Alfonso Chacon, Roberto Bellarmino, and Francisco Pena. Further­ more, Pope Sixtus V called out the traditional consultors ex officio: the Master of the Sacred Palace (then Tommaso Zobbio), the Procu­ rator Generals of the Augustinians, the Servites, the Dominicans, the Friars Minor, and the Conventual Franciscans.53 The Congregation entered a new phase, which was to conclude only with the promulga­ tion of the Clementine Index in 1596. For the first time since its foundation, the correction of books be­ came one of the core activities of the Congregation. On 2 April, it decreed that works by heretics that did not deal with religious issues could be expurgated.54 On 7 May 1587 Vincenzo Bonardi, Secretary of the Congregation, was commissioned to compose a draft of the rules for expurgation, and after only one week Card. Girolamo della Rovere was appointed to prepare the bull for the

49 50 51 52 53 54

See sect. VI, doc. 6. See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fol. 16r. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fol. 17v. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fol. 26r-v. See sect. VII, doc. 1. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1. f. 18r.

113 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

promulgation of these new rules.55 On 11 June the rules were read in the congregation, which decided to publish them after approval by the Pope.56 These rules, to be added to the Tridentine rules (1564), were intended to promote and facilitate the correction of works included in the second class of the Index. Now, the Congre­ gation was ready to start the organization for a centralized correc­ tion of the major works prohibited with the proviso “donec corri­ gatur”. On 25 June the consultors were grouped in eight classes, each being commissioned with a number of books to correct,57 and from 2 July till the end of December they started to report their conclusions.58 Due to the continuous absence of M arcantonio Colonna, Agostino Valier steadily assumed a leading role, organiz­ ing most of the meetings in his house and mediating between the Roman Index and the Venetian press, which insisted on large-scale expurgation in order to make as many books available as possible for reading and thus commerce?9 Pope Sixtus V’s re-organization of the pontifical government in the congregation system led to a profound reform of the Congregation for the Index. His bull Immensa aeterni Dei (11 February 1588) con­ firmed the Congregation’s tasks of prohibition, correction and pre­ liminary examination of texts to be printed, stressing the need to con­ sult renowned Catholic universities, such as those of Paris, Bologna, Salamanca, and Louvain.60 The major novelty regarded the nomina­ tion of new members, namely, Philippe de Lenoncourt, and after six months Federico Borromeo, excluding both Gabriele Paleotti and

See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 20v-21r; the text of Bonardi is, inter alia, in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, M (II.a.10), fols. 124r-125r. Comments by Ruggiero, Pena, Allen, Morin, and an anonymous author are in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), 528r-537v. 56 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 21r. 57 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 22v-23v (sect. VII, doc. 3). 58 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 24v: examples are Erasmus, Vives, and Serranus’ Plato edition. 59 For discussion, see Grendler 1977 and Frajese 1998, pp. 293-96. See also Valier’s De cautione adhibenda in edendis libris which circulated in manuscript in the Roman Curia; cf. BlOGR. 60 See also ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 3 lr-v. As early as 20 June 1587 the Pope involved the Catholic universities in the expurgation of books; see Hilgers 1904, pp. 517-18. Apparently, only the University of Louvain answered the call. 55

114

INTRODUCTION

Agostino Valier. On 28 January, in the absence of Marcantonio Co­ lonna, the Congregation started to discuss some doubts “in nova re­ formatione congregationis per summi Domini Nostri constitutionem publicata”.61 A few days previously, in a letter to Alfonso Chacon, the consultor Francisco Pena denounced the wavering of the Cardinals comparing them to “harundines vento agitatae” and he accused Chacon, who was commissioned to draw up a list of heresiarchs for the new Index, of not taking into due consideration the criteria adopted by the Spanish Index.62 From 11 February the Cardinals started meeting again at Marcan­ tonio Colonna’s palace, but a new phase in the activity of the Congre­ gation started on 5 May when the Pope presented his views on the in­ stitution of a new Index and, in particular, his proposal for an exten­ sion of the Index Rules.63 The Pope’s aggressive strategy upset the usual procedures and soon diminished the role of the Congregation to a passive one, merely discussing orders imposed from the top. Be­ tween 18 May and 17 June it discussed the twenty-two Rules pro­ posed by Pope Sixtus V, on 3 July the objections and counter-propos­ als were redacted in fair copy, and on 11 July they were presented to the Pope.64 In general, the Congregation attempted to moderate these Rules, and only rarely new formulations were proposed. Cases in point are Rules V (books by heretics) and XIII (astrology and divinatory arts).65 On 29 July 1588, Girolamo della Rovere referred the an­ swers of the pope to the Congregation, on 6 October the bull of pub­ lication and the revised Rules were transmitted to the Congregation, and during the meetings of 13 and 20 October the latter were dis­ cussed.66 Further objections and proposals were transmitted to the pope, who on 26 January accepted those on the reading of books

61

ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 31v. See Frajese 1986, p. 21, who cites Zaccaria 1777, pp. 164-65. 63 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 33r. For a comparison between Tridentine and Sixtine Rules, see Frajese 1986, pp. 17-19. 64 Sect. II, docs. 9-11. 65 Sect. II, doc. 11. For discussion, see Frajese 1998, pp. 300-304, and ch. Astrology, Introduction. 66 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 34r-35r. 62

~ 115

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

written by heretics not regarding religious issues, as well as the per­ mission for an expurgated version of the Talmud.67 In the first months of 1590, the list of books to prohibit had been established. Basically inspired by the severe 1559 Index, it included Erasmus among the authors in the first class, it prohibited many lit­ erary works and it banned those of Enea Silvio Piccolomini and Ra­ mon Lull.6869However, the last months of the preparation of the Sixtine Index were dominated by the issues of the Talmud and the pro­ hibition of Roberto Bellarmino’s Controversiae® Noth withstanding the protests raised by the Cardinals of the Congregation, Bellarmino was not removed from the Index, which was printed in early sum­ mer. However, after the death of Sixtus V on 27 August the Congre­ gation immediately suspended this Index (in the end not promulgat­ ed), and ordered the confiscation of copies which had already been distributed.70 On 26 September, Giovanni Battista Castagna, elected Pope Urbanus VII, prohibited the further printing and dissemina­ tion of the new Index.71 The Sixtine triennium revealed the funda­ mental lack of power possessed by the Congregation for the Index with respect to that of both the Pope and the Holy Office. In partic­ ular, during the following two years, the Roman Inquisition issued decrees on the prohibition of books (including the Bible, Talmud and the Sixtine Index) consulting neither the Pope nor the Congre­ gation for the Index.72 In the two years following the death of Sixtus V, three Popes were elected who, for an evident lack of time, did not succeed in coordi­ nating and directing the activity of the Congregation. The election of Pope Clement VIII in 1592 marked the return to the Congregation of two of Pope Sixtus V’s opponents, namely Agostino Valier and ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 36v. For the expurgation of the Talmud, see Frajese 1998, pp. 304-307, 310-11, and Parente 2001. 68 See ch. Lull, Introduction. 69 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 39v and 41v; for discussion, see Frajese 1986, p. 24f; Frajese 1998, p. 308f; and Godman 2000, pp. 100-152. 70 For the destiny of the Sixtine Index, see Frajese 1986, pp. 15-17. After several years the printer Antonio Biado complained over his not being paid; cf. ACDF, Index, Protocolli, I (II.a.8), fols. 440r and 442r. 71 Avvisi dell’anno 1590, in BAV, Urb. Lat. 1058, f. 495v (cited in Frajese 1986, p. 29). 72 Frajese 1998, pp. 311-12. 67

~ 116

F INTRODUCTION

Roberto Bellarmino. Pope Clement VIII was generally known as a liberal man, with an open mind to the contemporary scholarly world. His calling of Francesco Patrizi to the Chair of Platonic Philosophy at the University of Rome triggered great expectations and was tragical­ ly misunderstood by Francesco Pucci and Giordano Bruno.73 On 27 April, the Congregation started to discuss the new Index, in particu­ lar the problem of how to deal with the Sixtine Index. On 1 August, after several months of discussion, it was decided to adopt Bellarmino’s proposal (read on 25 July 1592) to abandon the Sixtine Index and to return to the Rules as formulated in the Tridentine Index.74 After only one week the Cardinals decided to add indications on the expurgation and printing of books.75 On 8 August the Congregation was granted the faculty to settle possible controversies and doubts af­ ter the promulgation of the next Index, which strengthened its auton­ omy with respect to the Inquisition and the Master of the Sacred Palace.767Then, on 12 September they decided to convoke the consultors for the next meeting, that is, the one held on 19 September, and on 26 September they gathered pronouncements by the consultors, and commissioned expurgations to the newly organized classes of consultors./z Among the decisions taken in this period there are some that are worth mentioning, such as the adoption of the neat distinc­ tion between heretics and heresiarchs as formulated in the Tridentine Index; this entailed the rejection of the Spanish list of heresiarchs.78 Furthermore, it was decreed to stick to the division of the catalogue of forbidden books in three classes as formulated by Pope Pius IV, but to modify the composition of the second class as proposed by Sixtus V.79 Shortly afterwards, several doubts were raised, which the See ch. Giordano Bruno, doc. 21, f. 202v. ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 35r-36v (published in Godman 2000, pp. 26972); Index, Diari, 1, fols. 47v-48r. For discussion, see Frajese 1998, pp. 314-16; and Fragnito 2006, pp. 37-38. 75 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 48v-49r. 76 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 48v; see also the minutes of the meeting of 3 November (on f. 58r) and the bull of promulgation in ILI, IX, p. 916. 77 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 50v-55r. See also sections IV and V. 78 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 50v-51r; cf. the note to sect. Ill, doc. 8. 79 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 56r (meeting of 3 October): “Decretum auditis, quae in mi­ noribus Cong(rcgatio)nibus gesta sunt, quod Index Pii Quarti secundum omnes Classes eo73

74

~ 117

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Congregation decided to discuss with the pontiff, such as, the correc­ tion of books by Catholic authors, astrology, Bible translations, trans­ lations by heretics, and finally the insertion of Patrizi and Lull into the Index.*80 On 5 December 1592 the Cardinals examined the bull of prom­ ulgation written by Bellarmino and the preface by Bartolomé de M iranda, M aster of the Sacred Palace, and decided to ask the Pope for advice on some doubts they had, relating also to the penalties for the possession of forbidden books.81 Pope Clement VIII approved both the bull and the preface, and urged the com­ position of an Expurgatory Index.82 Subsequently, on 13 February the classes of the consultors were re-organized, on 6 March the Congregation decided to commission the correction of non-religious books, written by heretics but viewed as useful, to peripher­ al commissions, and on 13 March the books to be corrected were distributed. Contextually, the issues concerning Bible translations and the works of Cardano were transmitted to the Holy Office.83 Thus, the Index was sent to the press, appeared on 26 June, and was presented to the Congregation on 8 Ju ly 1593.84 Its nature was ambivalent, as it marked a return to the Tridentine Rules, without abandoning the themes and prohibitions of the Sixtine Index, such as, those concerning Erasmus and vernacular literature. The pope examined the Index for 24 hours and then ordered it to be suspended.85 Most likely, Pope Clement VIII sought the advice of dem ordine retineatur et sic etiam omnes authores et libri in p.a et 3 a Classe Indicis Sixti Quinti contenti et in 2a etiam quibusdam additis et demptis, sed in omnibus adhibeatur dili­ gentia ad ambiguitatem tollendam ut recte et expresse describantur et imprimantur, et in p.a Classe dicatur authores primae Classis et in 2a sat sit dicere donec expurgentur, et habeatur consideratio ob moderationem Bullae Sixti”. 80 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), f. 34r. See sect. I, doc. 5, and ch. Lull, doc. 25. 81 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 61r-v. 82 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 63r. 83 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 63v-64v. 84 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 68r-69v. 85 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 69v. In the notes of card. Santori concerning issues to be dis­ cussed with the pope, there is an entry on the new Index dated 15 July 1593. See ASV, Ar­ maria, LII, 20, 239r: “Obscurità et male ordine dell'indice de’ libbri prohibiti”, concluding “si parlò a lungo”.

118 ~

INTRODUCTION

aroup of Oratorians , who progressive ly determined the politics of his pontificate .*86 It was not until 20 November that the Congregation responded and asked the Pope to transmit his objections to the Index.87 On 4 Decem­ ber, Valier referred the objections raised by the pope,88 on 11 February 1594 the Congregation met the pope, and on 15 January Federico Bor­ romeo was commissioned to pick up the written objections at Antoniano’s house. The Pope, in order to ensure that the Index would be ac­ cepted by as large an audience as possible, asked in his A nim adversiones which were read to the Congregation on 12 February,89 for a distinction to be made between the Tridentine list and the later additions. He also strongly urged the composition of an Expurgatory Index, and chal­ lenged the presence of prohibitions derived form the 1559 Index and expunged on the Tridentine Index. Thus, he suggested that the Congre­ gation not only underrated possible political repercussions (the case of Lull was patronized by Philip II), but that it also openly opposed conciliary decrees. Moreover, the recent Index prohibited many widely distrib­ uted and fairly inoffensive works, not even condemned by the 1559 In­ dex, such as, Cristoforo Landino’s commentary on Dante, and Vives’ on Augustine. The same held for Bembo, Tansillo and Cusanus. In addi­ tion, Pope Clement VIII proposed not to offend Catholic authors, such as Justus Lipsius, Jean Bodin, Julius Caesar Scaliger, and Jean Papire Masson, by mixing their names with those of heretics. He defended an­ cient authors, such as Lucianus, and classical texts, including Hegendorff’s translation s of Aristotle’s D e d iv in a tio n e p e r som n iu m , and Demosthenes’ orations. Finally, the Pope proposed a solution for the possession of forbidden books, articulated in two “viae”, namely (1) the a

. 86 Major representatives of this group of secular priests, firmly rooted in Rome and thus independent both of Spain and the traditional religious orders, were active in the Congrega­ tion for the Index, such as, Silvio Antoniano and Cesare Baronio, while Agostino Valier, Dean of the Congregation, was closely linked to them. For discussion, see Biogr . and Fra­ jese 1998, pp. 320-23. 87 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 69v. 88 Oppositiones a S.D.N. per Illustrissimum dominum Silvium Antonianum transmissae contra Indicem, in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, M (II.a.11), fols. 281r-284v; text published in Frajese 1998, pp. 346-49. 89 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 70v-71r.

119

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

possibility of keeping the books without reading them, or else (2) the presentation of a petition in order to be granted a licence to read forbid­ den books.90 In both cases the future expurgatory Index was presumed to play a crucial role. Obviously, Pope Clement VIII aimed at a strict ob­ servance of the ban on heretical authors, as well as at a liberal applica­ tion of the licence system. Thus, the Congregation was accused of not having done what it had promoted in vain against Pope Sixtus V. A sig­ nificant case in point was the inclusion of Erasmus in the first class, ob­ jected to in 1587 but accepted under pressure of Pope Sixtus V, and now not emendated. The same held for the expurgations, asked for by Pope Clement VIII: they were started in 1587, then snowed under, only to be resumed in 1592 but with fairly disappointing results. It should be borne in mind that whereas Pope Sixtus V ’s politics, save for the case of the Talmud, did not raise significant problems with the Roman Inquisition, Pope Clement VIITs Animadversiones could reasonably be presumed to cause serious trouble, at least as to criticism regarding the titles placed in the 1559 Index. Given that the Congrega­ tion Cardinals commissioned Card. William Allen to draw up a re­ sponse to Pope Clement V III’s Animadversiones to be presented to the Holy Office, it seems reasonable to assume that the Cardinals feared they would be obliged to defend the Pontiff against the Inquisition. Thus, the Congregation, fully aware of possible conflicts, put the Pope in a rather awkward position, obliging him to counter in first person any possible objections on the part of the Holy Office. O n 17 March 1594 Bartolomé de Miranda read the Congregation’s response to Animadversiones, and emphasized that its primary task was to protect the faithful against dangerous books rather than to correct the latter. Thus, Clement’s urge for correction was declined. Moreover, the pope had recently condemned works that the Congregation had at­ tem pted to save in previous years, such as the Talmud; and as to the prohibition of Lull, “tandem sequuta est congregatio voluntatem sancti Officij”.91 In short, the Congregation did not intend to assume respon90

See Frajese 1998, pp. 327-28, and ch. Licences, Introduction. ACDF, Index, Protocolli, M (II.a.11), fols. 242r-251r, published in Frajese 1998, pp. 349-56; cf. also sect. I, doc. 6. Cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 72v. For discussion, cf. Frajese 1998, pp. 330-31,351-52. 91

120

INTRODUCTION

sibility for issues beyond its authority, and suggested that Pope Clement VIII made himself responsible for his liberal line and defend it against possible attacks by the Holy Office. After the second failure at promulgating a new Roman Index, the Congregation was again put under pressure to remove this or that au­ thor from the Index. Cases in point are Patrizi and Lull, promoted by the author himself and by the Spanish crown, respectively.92 On 2 July 1594, according to the will of the Pontiff, the Congregation re-activated the expurgatory commissions.93 The religious orders were granted the privilege to correct the books written by their members, on condi­ tion that they furnished capable collaborators to the Index, and living authors were asked to correct their own books.94 On 7 August, the classes of the consultors were re-organized and each was commis­ sioned with a number of books.95976In the fall of the same year the Con­ gregation adopted some of the suggestions contained in Pope Clement VIII’s A n im ad version es^ and on 4 March 1595, Federico Borromeo proposed to remove, among others, the works of ps-Albert the Great from the Index.9 ' Borromeo’s proposal was discussed until 22 April, then the Congregation started to correct the 1593 list, and on 29 June 1595 the Index, reviewed by Bartolomé de Miranda, was handed over to Francisco Toledo for a final assessment.98 On 2 July the new Index was presented to Pope Clement VIII who commissioned Cesare Baronio, Silvio Antoniano and Marcantonio Maffa with its revision; and on 26 September they presented their report to Francisco Toledo.99 The revision of the Index dragged on for another six months and it was not until 8 March 1596 that Paolo Pico, the Index Secretary, re­ ceived from Silvio Antoniano the text signed by the pope with per92

See chs. Patrizi and Lull. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 76v. 94 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 77r-v. 93 Sect. VII, doc. 8. 96 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 81 r, 82r, 83v. 97 Sect. I, doc. 7. 98 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 85r-86r. 99 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 86r-v. Frajese 1998, pp. 336-38, points out that this procedure must be viewed in the context of the contemporary absolution of Henry IV: Baronio, Anto­ niano and Valier were favourable, while Federico Borromeo and the Colonnas were not. 93

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

mission to publish it. On 27 March the Index was promulgated,100 and on 7 April the Index was presented to the pope, the Holy Office and the members of the Consistory. After only six days the opposi­ tion of the Holy Office prompted the Pope to convoke the Secretary and to order him to suspend the promulgation of the Index.101 The Inquisition challenged various aspects of the new Index, which cer­ tainly included the return to Tridentine Rules (Rule IV permitted the reading of Bible translations), and the expurgation of the Talmud and of Bodin’s Six livres de la Répubhque,102 On 25 April Card. Santori discussed several issues with the Pope and Cosimo Angeli, the Holy Office Assessor, including the translation of the Bible, the role of the Inquisition, Bodin, the Talmud, and expurgation. They concluded that bishops and inquisitors should not grant reading permits for Bible translations, but eventually they accepted the modalities for ex­ purgation as pointed out in the Index.103 In the meantime, Santori in­ formed local inquisitors that the Index had been issued without the approval of the Holy Office.104 On 30 April the Inquisition met Paolo Pico at Santori’s Palace, on 2 May the Pope authorized that additions to the Index be inserted in the printed copies, and on 10 May Pico received from Antoniano the additions of the Inquisition accompa­ nied by the approval of Pope Clement VIII.105106The additions were en­ titled Observatio and printed after the Instructio-^ they concerned the prohibition of the Bible in translation, the prohibition of the Tal100

ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 87r. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 87r-88r. For a detailed reconstruction of the suspension, see Fragnito 2005, pp. 48-72. 102 See Frajese 1998, p. 340. Recall that the Talmud had been prohibited by the Inquisi­ tion on 28 February 1593, and Bodin’s work by Gregory XIV in 1591 as well as by the Inqui­ sition on 15 October 1592 and on 8 March 1595; cf. Fragnito 2001a, pp. 19-20, and Fragnito 2005, pp. 52-53, note 57, and pp. 67-69. For the prohibition of Bodin’s works, see ch. Bodin, Introduction; for the prohibition of the Talmud, see Parente 2001. 103 ASV, Armaria, LU, 21, f. 168r-v. For the prohibition of the Bible, see also Santori’s note dated 20 June 1596, in idem, f. 193r-v. 104 See, for example, his letter to the Inquisitor of Asti of 27 April, in Scriniolum 1612, pp. 124-25. 105 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 88v. 106 Note that during the first years after the promulgation, copies without the amend­ ments ordered by the Inquisition remained in circulation. See Fragnito 2001a, p. 25. 101

INTRODUCTION

mud, the competence of local inquisitors as to the possession of books on astrology, divination and magic, and finally the total prohi­ bition of Bodin’s Six livres de la République. Thus, the Clementine In­ dex, definitively promulgated on 17 May, was a compromise between Pope Clement VIII’s Animadversiones, the half-hearted reaction by the Congregation for the Index, and the Holy Office as directed by Santori.107 According to the instructio of the new Index reading permits could be granted for books listed in the second class but not yet corrected, and furthermore for books not mentioned in the Index, but which fell under the rules de correctione,108 After the promulgation of the In­ dex in May 1596 the first licences were granted to Antoniano and Maffa on 22 June,109 and a month later Baronio and the Oratory Fa­ thers asked for and obtained permission to possess and read the books in their library that were subject to correction.110 Shortly after­ wards, also other prelates in close relation with the Congregation for the Index, such as Angelo Rocca and Alessandro Graziani, were granted ample licences.111 4. The Application of the Clementine Index Shortcomings in the application of the first two Roman Indexes in­ duced the Congregation of the Index in 1596 to have the manage­ ment of the Index transferred to the bishops and to set up local ‘con­ gregations’ - presided over by the bishop but supervised by the cen­ tral offices - in individual dioceses for the expurgation of books pro­ hibited with the stipulation “donec corrigatur”.112 However, this deci­ sion encountered the obstruction of the central and peripheral organs 107

For a list of expunged works, see Frajese 1998, p. 342. ILI, IX, p. 926. 109 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 90v. 110 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 93v (ch. Licences, doc. 67); cf. BAV, Vat. Lat., 11286, f. 25r. 111 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 94r, and ch. Licences, doc. 70. 112 For discussion, see Fragnito 2001b. Contextually, from 1599 through 1603, the Con­ gregation launched a large-scale campaign for the inventory of works held in the libraries of religious orders. For discussion, see Dykmans 1986; Frajese 2001, pp. 225-32; Rusconi 2002; and Fragnito 2006. 108

123 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

of the Holy Office,113 and it was undermined by the frequent absen­ teeism of the bishops, the inertia of the latter in Southern Italy, and the difficulty of recruiting competent and diligent consultors to flank the ordinaries in their work of prevention and expurgation. Apart from the ongoing conflict with Holy Office, there were practical reasons that motivated the decision to commission the bishops with the application of the new Index. The Inquisition tri­ bunals were often strategically established (Alpine regions, towns with universties and bookshops), and in general performed their task efficiently. However, as will be noted, in the late sixteenth cen­ tury it would have been impossible to apply the Index relying solely on the peripheral inquisitors, present in not more than forty-one cities,114 while bishops were present throughout the Italian pensinsula and were able to provide administrative facilities.115 The choice for the bishops appeared obligate, but the final results proved that it was fundamentally misconceived. The Holy Office claimed a pri­ mary role in the prosecution of heresy and thus of heretical books. By consequence, the Congregation for the Index and its peripheral seats were supposed to deal only with books prohibited with the stipulation “donec expurgatur”.116 Now, in the seats where the In-

113 The Holy Office claimed to be the supreme tribunal for the prosecution of heresy and thus counted the analysis and condemnation of heretical texts as within its competence. For discussion, see Frajese 2001. 114 For a list, see Fragnito 2001c, pp. 120-21. The Italian tribunals were not evenly dis­ tributed throughout the Italian peninsula. Inquisitorial seats were concentrated in the sub­ alpine regions, in order to defend Italy against Protestant influence, while in central Italy there were seats that often covered more than one diocese. Some (General) Inquisitors were supposed to control a territory that included seven (Siena), eight (Faenza) or even eleven (Perugia) dioceses. See also the letter from Girolamo Urbani (Pisa, 7 July 1580) to Card. Savelli, complaining of the many “luoghi che non son dal Santo Ufficio curati”, cited by Fragnito 2001c, pp. 123-24. 115 Cf. Nota eorum quae inter Cardinales Congregationis Indicis mature prius discussa iuxta Constitutiones Indicis pro rerum gravitate postmodum consulto S.D. Nostro determinanda sunt, in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, R (II.a.16), fols. 25r-26r (draft in Protocolli, Y (II.a.21), fols. 165r-166v, 171r-v). 116 In 1600 the Holy Office’s primacy in matters heretical was explicitly confirmed by Pope Clement VIII; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, 128v: “Card.1,s Baronius retulit vivae vocis oraculo sibi facto S. D. N. Clementem P.P. viii declarasse quod IU.mi et R.mi D.D. Card. les pro

~ 124 ~

INTRODUCTION

dex was duly applied, inquisitors merely burnt the books that were “omnino prohibiti”,*117 while the bishops laboured against all odds in an attempt to start with the expurgation of those works listed in the second class. The proliferation of unskilled revisers and of expurgated editions not approved by Rome, following the formalization of the criterion for expurgation in 1564, had induced the Congregation since its very beginning to assign the correction of suspended texts, despite unsat­ isfactory results, first to the universities and the religious orders, and then to its own consultors.118 After the promulgation of the Clemen­ tine Index, the first containing a section De correctione librorum, the Congregation decided to decentralize the work of expurgation, en­ trusting it to bishops and local inquisitors flanked by men of learning. The tasks of these local commissions were the composition of lists of books (either confiscated or handed over), and above all the correc­ tion of suspended books. At the turn of the sixteenth and seven­ teenth centuries, the Congregation tried to commission specific cate­ gories of works to the several local commissions: canon law to Bologna, civil law to Perugia, philosophy and medicine to Padua (lat­ er to Pisa), astrology to Venice, books on duels to Parma and Cre­ mona, vernacular literature to Florence.119 However, only a few bish­ ops obeyed the instructions issued between 9 November 1596 and 19 April 1597120 and promptly set up local congregations. Not surpris-

tempore deputati super Congreg. Indicis habeant amplam, et plenam potestatem, et facul­ tatem, ne dum super libros impressos, et imprimendos, suspendendos, prohibendos et corri­ gendos, permittendos, concedendos, verum etiam super auctores librorum, et eosdem impri­ mentes, et legentes, vel personas quomodocumque, et qualitercunque Indicis materiam, aut libros concernentes, dummodo in causa heresis nullatenus se intromittant, quod si quan­ doque id contingat ad Officium S. Romanae et Universalis Inquisitionis personas statim transmittant, cuius est in materia heresis iudicare”. 117 See, for example, ACDF, Index, III, fols. 126r, 313r, 466r. Zealous inquisitors, such as Giovanni Battista Porcelli in Asti, also burnt books listed in the second class; see ibid., f. 8r. 118 Roberto Bellarmino, Consultatio de correctione librorum prohibitorum (datable in the early seventeenth century), in ACDF, Index, XIX, 1, fols. 16v-17r. 119 See ACDF, Index, V, passim', and sections VII and VIII (infra). For discussion, see Fragnito 2000, pp. 171-72, Fragnito 2005, and Prosperi 1999. 120 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, X (II.a.20), f. 6v; Index, V, f. 55r.

~ 125

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

ingly, they were those residing in cities endowed with universities, such as Bologna, Florence, Macerata, Milan, Modena, Naples, Padua and Perugia. With the exception of Naples,121 the function of the congregations was generally laboured, because of the absence of the bishops, the turnover of inquisitors, the shortage of consultors, and the lack of motivations to correct books that probably would be banned by the Inquisition. Another frequent stumbling-block was the excessive cost of pur­ chasing books to correct and the lack of funds to pay the Consultors and Censors involved in the correction.122 Moreover, the Roman Con­ gregation imposed a central control of the expurgations composed by the local congregations because it planned to arrange and use them for a universal Roman Expurgatory Index.123 Thus, it was decreed that correction should be made by at least three censors, and that it required the approval of the bishop and the local inquisitor, and fi­ nally that of Rome.124 Local incompetence and inertia added to the lack of efficiency of the central institution and led to the failure of this project. Also the attempt to involve representatives of religious Orders in Italy did not serve the purpose of quickly drawing up a Roman ex-

121 The Neapolitan Commission coordinated by Cherubino da Verona transmitted a man­ uscript Expurgatory Index which the Congregation recommended should be printed; for a reconstruction, see the introductory note to ch. Cardano, doc. 65. The Vicar to the Bishop of Florence was ordered not to print the expurgations made under his responsibility; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 112v (14 March 1598). Finally, the Congregation answered the Inquisitor of Milan, who had transmitted printed corrections of Zwinger, Nevizzano and Ferrari, “ut in unum corpus colligat cum expressione loci, et impressoris et approbatione Ordinarii et In­ quisitoris, specificando nomina Consultorum”; ibid. (13 November 1599), f. 125r. See Fragnito 2001b, p. 23, note 83. 122 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 75r: “Decretum quod IH.mus Card.!“ Columna alloquatur mum S. ut assignet aliquam provisionem pecuniariam pro necessariis ad expurgationem libro­ rum comparandis et libris emendis et scriptoribus salariandis et Consultoribus et Censoribus praemiandis quae omnia in sequenti Congregatione relata mature determinanda sunt”. The Paduan commission, charged with the correction of medical and philosophical books, is a case in point; see ch. Medicine and Philosophy, doc. 36. 123 See, for example, ch. Medicine and Natural Philosophy, doc. 8. For discussion, see Fragnito 2001a, pp. 38-39; for additional difficulties, see pp. 42-43. 124 Fragnito 2001a, p. 44.

~ 126

INTRODUCTION

purgatory Index.125 On 26 August 1600, for the purpose of having the Expurgatory Index compiled as soon as possible, Agostino Valier received the representatives of the religious Orders who promised to collaborate in the correction of books. However, in ACDF there is no documentary evidence of any active role played by the Orders in the corrections carried out in the early part of the seventeenth century. The Congregation for the Index did not succeed in replacing the Holy Office as the prevalent institution in the struggle against hetero­ dox works, nor did it succeed in substituting the local inquisitorial tribunals in censoring and repressive activities.126 By contrast the failed or stunted institution of local ‘Congregations of the Index’ had extremely serious consequences for the expurgatory policy. Obstacles against the decentralization of the expurgatory work proved unsurmontable. The Roman Expurgatory Index was announced as early as 1564 but it was only in 1607 that it finally made its appearance, con­ taining the corrections of just fifty-three works. The other suspended works were destined to disappear from the market and from public and private libraries. The ambitious goals of the Roman Index (bring­ ing every branch of knowledge under its sway) were matched neither by sufficient manpower nor by a clear perception of the practical im­ plications of such a vast undertaking. The gap between ambition and the inadequate means of achieving them caused damage difficult to quantify but undoubtedly more severe than was desired.

ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 136v-137r: “Card.1'5 Veronensis exposuit quomodo coram se comparuit Procurator ord(ini)s Minorum de Observantia et Praedicatorum et Carmelitarum et Eremitarum S. Augustini et Monachorum Cassinensium et Clericorum Regularium et Clericorum S. Pauli Decollati, et Secretarius Praepositi Generalis Societatis Iesu, qui n ml omnes se paratos ostenderunt et promptos ad obsequendum voluntati S. D. ' N. et Congre­ inser­ Congreg(atio)ni ut patribus, Religionis suae praecipuis ex unum consignando gationis, viant pro librorum Censura ad Indicem Expurgatorium quamprimum in lucem edendum, quod etiam et Patres Congregationis Oratorii se facturos promiserunt et Patrem Thomam Galetum ad hoc munus obeundum Ill.mo Card.1' Baronio et Congreg(atio)ni obtulerunt”. 126 Only in 1592 the Congregation for the Index obtained permission to settle (local) con­ troversies over the interpretation of the Index; Fragnito 2001c, p. 115. However, it was not until 1613 that the Congregation was authorized to publish the decrees that collected the prohibitions by the Inquisition, Index and Master of the Sacred Palace. See ACDF, Index, Protocolli, X (II.a.20), f. 6r, and Fragnito 2005, p. 129. 125

~ 127

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

At the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, years of ex­ purgatory endeavour came to an end. The central apparatus had been crushed by the w eight of a project for the disinfestation of an unimaginable quantity of books. The first and only Roman Expurga­ tory Index was not officially approved by the Congregation.127 The latter’s project to establish itself throughout the pensinsula with its own organs had already failed by the end of the first decade of the 1600s, when the system of the local ‘congregations’ gradually disinte­ grated. 5. A Note on Texts and Sections The documents reproduced in this chapter have been divided ac­ cording to eight categories. However, several documents did not fit a precise section. Thus, there are certainly cases in which a determinate location can be viewed as disputable.128 Furthermore, frequently a document has been elaborated on creating several versions. In gener­ al, only final versions have been reproduced,129 except in the case of sensibly different versions (drafts and intermediate elaborations). Sometimes these different versions have been reproduced in the same section, because they virtually had the same function.130 In other cas­ es the different versions are located in separate sections, because they apparently served distinct aims.131

127

Fragnito 2001a, p. 45. For example, doc. VI. 11 also contains a list of Censurae, but it is primarily a list of books suspended from sale. Therefore, it has been placed in section VI and not in section VIII. Furthermore, doc. V.19 has been placed in section V as it is strictly related to correc­ tions that were still to be composed. 129 See, for example, doc. V. 12. 130 See docs. VI.6, 10, 11, and 13; VII.9 and 11; VIII.7 and 13. 131 See for example, docs. 1.4-5, and III.3, II.4 and VIII.3. 128

128

CRITERIA FOR INSERTING AUTHORS AND BOOKS

This section contains rather dissimilar documents about several aspects of the developing discussion on criteria for the prohibition or (limited) permission for (suspect) books. In the first document, which dates back to the preparation of the 1559 Index, there are suc­ cinct judgments on a quite definite group of authors who should be placed in the next Index. As in the 1557 Index, the authors are divided into three classes. Among those authors mentioned in the first class, the following are listed: Arnaldus of Villanova, Kaspar Peucer, Konrad Gessner, and Cornelius Agrippa. Among the authors mentioned in the second class, the following are listed: Erasmus Schreckenfuchs, Georg Agricola, Hartmann Beyer, Jakob Milich, Joachim Camerarius, Johann Schoner, Leonhart Fuchs, and Ramon Lull. All authors listed in both classes were condemned as heretics in the 1559 Index. Marcello Stellato Palingenio and Otto Brunfels, listed among the authors in the third class, were also condemned as heretics in this Index. By contrast, only some of the works by Vitus Amerbach, who was among those listed in the second class, were pro­ hibited. Most of these names were destined to appear again in numer­ ous future lists of authors and books to be condemned or prohibited, that is, on lists that were produced during the preparation of the Indexes printed and/or promulgated in the 1590s. In this sense, the document served as a kind of permanent short-list of suspect or heretic scientific and philosophical authors for future purposes. It reveals that the motivation to prohibit scientific and philosophical books was for the most part theologically inspired. A quite excep­ tional case is the prohibition of Ramon Lull, whose prohibition was several times removed and reconfirmed.132

132

See ch. Ramon Lull.

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

The well-known Moderatio (1561) by Michele Ghislieri (doc. 2) was an attempt to subdue the effects of the severe Index by Pope Paul IV. Ghislieri held that: (i) books published by suspect editors or anonymously could be permitted on condition that they did not con­ tain any “errorem in fide”, (ii) translations of Catholic fathers, also by heretic translators could be permitted, if the names of the latter and possible errors had been cancelled; (iii) editions of the Vulgate with suspect annotations could be expurgated; (iv) the works of Fuchs could be permitted, on condition that the names of heretic authors had been erased. In the early 1570s the University of Douai asked the Duke of Alva, Governor of the Netherlands, whether works prohib­ ited in the second class of the Tridentine Index could be expurgated and then permitted, instead of destining them to be burned (doc. 3). The Duke of Alva, with a few exceptions, answered in the afferma­ tive. He suggested, however, that on some occasions expurgation was a very onerous task. Alva listed the works of Joachim Vadianus and Julius Caesar Scaliger among those permitted in expurgated version as they had already been corrected in the 1571 Antwerp Index. In the Fall of 1592, the Congregation for the Index decided that the following Index should not mention the authors placed in the 1564 Index and those prohibited in the Sixtine Index (1590) on sepa­ rate lists. Moreover, the condemnation of the works by Ramon Lull and Patrizi’s Nova philosophia required the intervention of the pon­ tiff, while as to astrology specific problems were caused by Sixtus’ bull Coeli et Terra that was issued in 1587 (docs. 4 and 5). A couple of years later in 1594, the Congregation reacted to Pope Clement VIII’s Animadversiones on the 1593 Index (doc. 6).133 During the fol­ lowing year, doubts regarding the works of ps-Albert the Great, Clemens Schubert and Gerard Mercator were raised (doc. 7). Similar doubts regarded the prohibition of the works by Jean Bodin, Giovan Battista Della Porta, and Joseph Scaliger (doc. 8). The last document in this section presents the scale of heterodoxy as it cristalized during the first decades of the Congregation’s activity.

133

For discussion, see the Introduction to this chapter, § 3.

~ 130

LI Anonymous, In stru ction es n o n n u lle circa libros nom in atim p roh ib itos in S.t0 In d ice (Rome, 1557-1558134) BAV, Vat. Lat. 6207, fols. 220r-239v 135

Instructiones nonnulle circa libros nominatim prohibitos in S.to Indice

220r

( ...) A rn o ld u s de V illa N ova, C ath alan u s, p ro h ib itu s per clem(entem) quintum ob multos lib. hereticos et insanos et erro-

221r

134

Most of the proposals were adopted in the Roman Index of 1559. The annotations regarding the authors referred to are published in the analysis of the 1559 Index, in ILI, Vili, pp. 261-707. It is not known why and when the codex Vat. Lat. 6207 was transferred to the Vatican Library. It has been identified with ACDF, Index, Protocolli, E, which is lacking in ACDF; see, for example, Simoncelli 1983-1984. A provisory index of the lost Proto­ colli E can be derived from BAV, Vat. Lat. 6861, which on fols. 26r-63r contains a the list of Cen­ surae in the Index Archive in the 1590s: Gasparo Contarmi (f. 1), Agostino Ferentilli (fols. 2, 98), Giovanni Antonio (sic, for Matteo) Toscani (f. 3), Damiano Maraffi (f. 4), Cardano (f. 8), Historia Germanica [probably Justus Reuber, Veterum scriptorum, qui caesarum et imperatorum germanicorum res literis mandarunt”-, ILI, IX, pp. 582-583] (f. 9), Orthodoxograpbia Patrum [Johann Jakob Grynaeus’ Monumenta s. patrum orthodoxographa-, ILI, VII, p. 200] (f. 11), Niccolò Machiavelli (f. 15), Ioannes Chrisostomus (f. 18), Lucianus (f. 18), Johannes Carion (f. 31), Johannes Sturm (f. 37), Johannes Coccenus [probably Johannes Cochlaeus (Dobneck); ILI, X, pp. 127-128] (f. 38), Sebastianus Munsterus (f. 39), Io. Manahelem [unidentified author; his name is probably spelled erroneously] (f. 44), Ludovicus Vives (f. 46), Tertullianus (f. 49), Abdias (f. 51), Pierre Gregoire [ILI, IX, p. 174] (f. 57), Conrad Kling (f. 61), Historia Brittanica [possibly John Price, Defensio historiae Brytannicae-, ILI, IX, pp. 138-139] (f. 65), Apologia Caroli Quinti [Jacques de Bourgogne, Apologia ad Carolum Caesarem-, ILI, Vili, pp. 510-511] (f. 66), Michael Maspurgius [unidentified; the name is probably garbled] (f. 69), Pietro Giustiniani [probably his Rerum Venetarum ab urbe condita, which was never banned] (f. 70), Meditationes S. Bonaventurae [Me­ ditationes de vita Christi, frequently printed in the sixteenth century] (f. 75), Johannes Cassianus [ILI, X, p. 117] (f. 78), Albert Krantz (f. 79), Albertus Carmelitus [unidentified] (f. 82), Teofilo Folengo (f. 84), Io. Ferus [Johann Wild] (f. 87), Mattheus van Wesembeke [ILI, X, p. 407] (f. 91, 128), Antonio de Guevara (fols. 98, 102), Francesco Giorgio (f. I ll) , Cosimo Filiarchi [never banned; a censura of his Libellus de miraculosis speciebus is in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, G (II.a.6), fols. 511r-512v] (f. 126), Otto Brunfels (f. 127), Johannes Thomas Freige (f. 130), Biblio­ theca Sanctorum Patrum [ILI, X, p. 87] (f. 132), Francesco Guicciardini (148, 129), Sophronius 135

131

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

res136 [...] [...] christiani damnantur, et presertim claustrales et dies judicij futurus erat anno 1335.137 (...) Caspar Peucerus Budicinus,138 Gener Melanchtonis sequax scrip­ 222v sit de circulis celestibus, dedicans Aug(ust)o Duci Saxoniae cuius ce­ lebrat religionem,139 et de dimensione terre, dicatum Ioachimo came­ rario.140 (...) Conradus Dasypodius discipulus Melancthonis.141 (...) 223r Conradus Gesnerus celeber hereticus famosus.142 (...) 143 223v Cornelius Agrippa extat [...] super lib. de [occulta] philosophia] (...) (314,18). This list corresponds to the index of a volume of Censurae which is also reproduced in docs. VIII.8; see the introductory note to the second part of doc. VIII.8, infra. By contrast, it is entirely different from the content of codex Vat. Lat. 6207; thus, the latter cannot be identified as the lost Protocolli E. Yet, it cannot be doubted that the codex contains Index materials, and this justifies the publication of some of its documents here. 136 See ch. Arnaldus of Villanova. 137 The reference is probably to Arnaldus of Villanova’s prediction of the end of the world in 1335. See the note to sect. VI, doc. 2, f. 9v, and ch. Arnaldus of Villanova, Introduction, note 1. 138 Kaspar Peucer (1525-1602) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1593, 1596), Parma (1580), and Spain (1583); ILI, VIII, p. 391; IX, pp. 128, 555, 867; VI, pp. 233, 329. Peucer was mentioned on Juan de Mariana’s list of haeresiarchae (1579; see ILI, VI, p. 63), but not on the Spanish list of 1583 (ILI, VI, pp. 974-76). N or was he men­ tioned on similar Roman lists, such as those by Chacon (in the 1590 Roman Index) or Bel­ larmino (Godman 2000, p. 286). See also ch. Peucer, BlOGR., and, for further information, the sections V, docs. 4 and 12; VI, doc. 14; and VIII, docs. 4, 5 and 13. 139 The first edition is Peucer 1551; later editions appeared in W ittenberg (1553, 1558, 1563, 1569, 1576 and 1587). The work was corrected in the expurgatory Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, p. 499. The dedicatory letter was addressed to August the Pious (15261586), Duke of Saxony from 1553. 140 The first edition is Peucer 1550, the second edition appeared in 1554; cf. ILI, VII, p. 500. The dedicatory letter was addressed to Joachim Camerarius (Kammermeister) (15001574), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Portugal (1551), Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), Spain (1559, 1583), and Parma (1580); ILI, IV, p. 275; VIII, p. 515; V, p. 392; VI, p. 388, IX, p. 185, 821, 882, 952. For the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, p. 112. 141 See ch. Dasypodius. 142 See ch. Gessner. 143 Agrippa, De occulta philosophia, appeared in a partial edition in Antwerp and Paris in 1531; the copies of the first complete edition (without place of edition, but: Cologne 1533) show remarkable alternative readings. The work was reprinted various times: s.l. (1541, 1551), Lyon (1550), Basel (1565), and Paris (1567); see Agrippa 1967, pp. 405-406 and 40913. It was prohibited in the Indexes of Louvain (1546, 1550, 1558), Portugal (1547, 1551),

~ 132

I. CRITERIA FOR INSERTING AUTHORS AND BOOKS

Mich. Stifelius144 vocat Justum [Jonam]145 suum episcopum, et in quadam epistula se nominat pastorem alicuius certae ecclesiae.146 (...) Cyprianus Leovitius in suo [vasto] libro ephemeridum non [hono]rat religionem.147 (...) Secunda classis (...) Erasmus Osvaldus, discipulus Sebastiani Musteri, in cuius obitu orationem scripsit illum laudans.148 (...) Georgius Fabricius chemnicensis.149 satis se hereticum et invidum Pontificiae potestatis inimicum ostendit in sua Roma;150 fol. 24. (...) Georgius Agricola inimicum agit recentiorum ecclesiae Doctorum comendat studium Ducum Saxoniae, maxime Mauritij, quibus dicat suos libros, in epistola nuncupatoria, librorum de natura eorum que effluunt.151

Paris (1551), Spain (1551, 1559) and Venice (1554); ILI, II, pp. 131-2; IV, pp. 140, 238; I, p. 124-5; V, pp. 258, 365; III, p. 283. See also ch. Agrippa. 144 Michael Stifel (1485/87-1567), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554) and Rome (1557); ILI, III, p. 327; VIII, p. 247; cf. BlOGR. His Arithmetica integra (Stifel 1544), which was a step towards modernizing the algebraic notations, was expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 506-507. 145 The well-known reformer Justus Jonas (Nordhausen, 5 June 1493 - Eisfeld, 9 October 1555), whose original name was Jodocus Koch; in 1542 he was appointed Superintendent of Halle, and thus he was Stifel’s superior; see LTK, V, p. 989, and Hofmann 1968, p. 7. 146 In the dedicatory letter to Milich in Stifel 1544, Stifel presented himself as reverend of Holzdorf. See also Stifel 1968, p. 4, where he presents himself as “pastor H aberstro, in Borussia, prope Regium M ontem”. His work was one of the better-known arithmetical man­ uals used in the sixteenth century. M ost remarkably, the proposal of the author of the Instructiones had no effect: after 1557 Stifel was not placed in the Roman Index. 147 See ch. Leowitz. 148 Schreckenfuchs 1553. See also ch. Schreckenfuchs. 149 For the prohibition of works by Fabricius, see ILI, X, pp. 178-79. See also ch. Fabricius. 150 Georg Fabricius, Roma, appeared in the following editions: Basel (1550, 1551, 1560, 1587); the work was expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 520-21, and 785. Until 1557, only two editions of this work were published. However, in Fabritius 1551 neither on p. 24, nor on earlier or immediately following pages are there any critical remarks regarding the Pope or the Ecclesiastical State. Probably, the Censor referred to Fabricius’ judgement on the wretched state of Rome in this period; see, for example, pp. 21-22: “nunc male abitata, et ruinarum plena”. 151 Agricola 1546. See also ch. Agricola.

133

224r

225r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

226r

227r

227v

Georgius Joachimus Rheticus152 discipulus Osvaldi153 et condisci­ pulus Gesneri in schola Tigurina, Gesner in Bibliotheca.154 (...) Hartmanus Beyer in epistola dedicatoria super spheram de sacro­ busto 155 asserit se studuisse sub disciplina Melanchtonis,156 et in eadem ostendit se non recte sentire de Missa.157 (...) Hieronymus Vuolphius, hunc existimo esse caephaleum argentoratensem impressorem sanguine et animo Capitoni affinem ut in epistola sua sui novi testamenti.158 (...) Iacobus Milichius,159 eius opera notantur, a Mutinensi160 de hoc melanthon in epistola in spheram sacrobusti.161 (...) 152 Georg Ioachim Rheticus (1514-1576), author of the work that propagated and spread Copernicus’ heliocentrism before the publication of De revolutionibus orbium colestium, that is, the Narratio prima de libris revolutionum, which appeared in Dantzig (1540), Basel (1541), and Tubingen (1596). It was also reproduced in Copernicus 1566. See BlOGR. and ch. Copernicus. 153 Rheticus was a pupil of Erasmus Oswald Schreckenfuchs. 154 Gessner 1545, f. 269v. 155 Hartmann Beyer (1516-1577), Quaestiones novae in libellum de sphaera Ioannis de Sacro­ bosco, appeared in: Frankfurt (1549: three reprints, 1552, 1556, 1560, 1561, 1563, 1571), Paris (1551,1552,1560) and Wittenberg (1573). The author was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), and Spain (1583); ILI, V ili, p. 489; VI, p. 344; IX, pp. 818, 879, 948. Beyer’s case shows that the prohibition of Protestant authors was not observed automatically and in a strict way, not even in Rome and in organizations devoted to doctrinal control, like the Society of Jesus. In 1588, Christoph Clavius, who was aquainted with H art­ mann’s Quaestiones novae on Sacrobosco (his copy is now in the Biblioteca Nazionale of Rome) and with his religious views, met his son Johann Hartmann (1563-1625), physician and Protes­ tant too; later they entered into correspondence. See Clavius 1992: V I.l, pp. 91-94, 97, 105-108. 156 Actually, Beyer asserts in the dedicatory letter to his book that he studied with Eras­ mus Reinhold at the University of Wittenberg. See Beyer 1569 (which reproduces the 1549 letter), on f. 3r. 157 The Censor probably referred to the final phrase; see Beyer 1569, f. 3r: “Deus aeter­ nus pater domini nostri Iesu Christi in his imperiorum ruinis, ac furore satanae et hominum, ecclesiam suam afflictam et dissipatam colligat, ac regat, eamque et ministerium Evangelij, literas et disciplinas conservet”. 158 Hieronymus Wolf (1516-1580), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564), Parma (1580) and Spain (1583); ILI, Vili, p. 496; IX, p. 183; VI, p. 362. See also ch. Wolf. 159 Jakob Milich (Mylichius) (1501-1559), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596) and Spam (1583); ILI, V ili, pp. 512-13; VI, p. 379; IX, pp. 821, 882, 951. For the censura and the prohibition of his commentary on Plinius, see ch. Jakob Milich. 16° p r o bably, with “Mutinensis” Egidio Foscarari (BlOGR.) is meant; see ILI, VIII, pp. 29 and 36. 161 Melanchthon’s edition of Sacrobosco’s Sphaera appeared in Wittenberg (1538, 1543, 1445, 1549, 1550, 1553, 1561, 1563, 1568, 1574). The Censor cited Melanchthon’s dedica-

~ 134

I. CRITERIA FOR INSERTING AUTHORS AND BOOKS

Iacobus Schenck huius hortatu Brunfelsius edidit impiissimas pan­ 228r dectas 162 / / et eidem [...] de eo refer[...] R.D. Varmien.163 (...) Ioachimus Cam erarius 164 reprobatus Lovanij165 se in ecclesia [...] Ianus Cornarius Lovanii reprobatus 166 [vocat] Theologiam G erm a­ niae sinceriore[m] (...) Ioachim us V adianus 167 scripsit epitom e ubi co n ten d it p ro b are Petrum non fuisse Romam, nec romanam fundasse ecclesiam damnata in Belgiis 1541.168 (...) Jo. Lonicerus vertit Lutherum in M agni[ficat], Lovanii reproba­ 229v tus 169 (...) Io: Schonerus Carolostadius,1/0 Mathem. Astrolog. laudat philippum 23 Ov Melanth. et hunc lutheranum ostendit Gesn. in Bibliotheca.171 (...) Leonarthus fucssius 172 in p.° paradoxorum fo: 57.173 omnia in scrip­ 232r tura contineri, tu e tu r iustificationem de sola fide et repugnantes catholicos vocat impios sophistas, et dicit solius Dei medicina propter tory letter to Simon Grynaeus; see, for example, the second edition, that is, Sacrobosco 1^43, f. 7r (n.n.): “(...) harum artium [i.e. the mathematical disciplines] mentio semper memoriam mihi tui renovat, cuius rei testem habes virum optimum, Iacobum Milichium, qui quoniam has artes hic [i.e. Wittenberg] docet, multum de eis mecum confabulatur”. 162 See infra, f. 234v. 163 Stanislaus Hosius; BlOGR. 164 For Joachim Camerarius, see th note to fol. 222v. 165 Camerarius’ Commentary to Cicero’s Tusculanae quaestiones was prohibited in the Louvain Index of 1546, and his Annotations on Ecclesiast in the 1558 Index; ILI, II, pp. 15859,326-27. 166 See ILI, II, pp. 155-56, for the condemnation of Cornarius’ translation of Epiphanius in the Louvain Indexes of 1550 and 1558. Cf. ch. Janus Cornarius. 167 Joachim Vadianus (von Watt) (1484-1551) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), Antwerp (1570), Parma (1580), and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 306; VIII pp. 516, 694; VII, p. 178; IX, p. 184; VI, pp. 389, 552; IX, pp. 821, 882, 952. See also ch. Vadianus, and the note to f. 237r (.infra). For his condem­ nation in the Index of Louvain, see ILI, II, p. 45. 168 Probably, Vadianus 1535, prohibited by an edict issued by Charles V; see ILI, X, p. 392. 169 See ILI, II, p. 159, for the prohibition of his Compendium of Aristotle’s physical and ethical works in the Louvain Indexes of 1550 and 1558; cf. ch. Johann Lonitzer. 170 See ch. Johann Schóner. 171 See Gessner 1545, f 453r. 172 See ch. Leonhart Fuchs. 173 Fuchs 1547b, f. 57v. The “apologia” quoted next is Fuchs 1535.

135

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

christum nos cunctos coram Deo reparari non propter nostra opera, et virtutes larvas et stolidissimas3 sophistas vocat doctores sorbonicos in apologia contra Sebastianum.174 (...) Tertia Classis

232v

(...) Libri omnes chiroman(tiae), Aeromantiae, Hydromantiae, etc. damnati per episcopum parisiensem , Inquisitores , doctoresque utriusque [...] publica congregatione coactat175

“ “stolidissimas”: sic, for “stolidissimos”. First published in Fuchs 1535, then in Fuchs 1540b. See also ch. Fuchs, note 36. This pronouncement was adopted in the Indexes of 1557 and 1559 and then turned into Rule IX of the Tridentine Index; cf. ILI, V ili, pp. 737, 775. The debate on chiro­ mancy in the bosom of the Congregation is closely linked to that on (judiciary) astrology and other divinatory arts. For an all-encompassing discussion of the Catholic church’s assessment of astrology and divination, see ch. Astrology, Introduction. In general, works on chiromancy were viewed as extremely suspect; see doc. VI.2, £. 9v, llv, and 21v (infra), for Giovanni Dei’s judgement of the works by Bartolomeo della Rocca (Codes) and Anton Francesco Doni (for the latter see also doc. VI.10, f. 228v). Several works on chiromancy were placed on the Index, such as those by della Rocca (Codes) and Andrea Corvo; cf. ILI, X, pp. 128, 139. However, during the painstaking discussion on Index Rules in 15871588, Francisco Pena initially argued, invoking Aristotle, that chiromancy should not be prohibited because it is a part of physiognomy, and thus “res naturalis”; see doc. II.6, f. 364 (infra). When shortly afterwards Sixtus V proposed to extend the Rules, in a first moment all kinds of divination were condemned in Rule XIII; see doc. 11.10. Later Sixtus proposed to condemn divination explicitly in Rule XII on astrology; cf. doc. 11.12, f. 513v. In July 1588, the Congregation proposed that the explicit reference to the divinatory arts be skipped, and to permit “naturales observationes, quae Navigationis, Agriculturae, sive Medicae artis iuvandae gratia conscripta sunt”; see ibid., f. 514r. This proposal was adopted in the printed edition of the Sixtine Index (1590). The 1593 and 1596 Indexes returned to the Rules of the Tridentine Index (1564) and condemned in Rule IX all divina­ tion (including chiromancy) and judiciary astrology; cf. ILI, IX, pp. 857 and 922. In a short note written after the promulgation of the Clementine Index (1596) an anonymous author stated that the medical use of physiognomy was permitted, but he explicitly con­ demned chiromancy; cf. doc. III. 14, f. 874r. 174

175

~ 136

I. CRITERIA FOR INSERTING AUTHORS AND BOOKS

M Marcellus Palingenius stellatus 17617 nihil credens, neque divinitatem Christi Cesenae perfidus m ortuus est.1/7 (...) O tto Brunfelsius, scripsit pandectas sacrae scripturae parisijs 178 reprob. vocat missam abominationem, apostata fuit carthusianus.179 (...) Secundae Classis Raimundi Luli opera 20 sunt in quibus .500 errores offenduntur180 (...) Sebastianus M unsterus, scripsit inter caetera, annotat(iones) in M attheum ,181 et in epistola sua in Marcum, ad Regem Angliae,182 p ro ­ fertur se hostem Papae et ecclesiae Romanae (...) Vadianus Ioachimus minister ecclesiae Lipsiae, scripsit nom encla­ turam principorum in ecclesia doctorum .183 (...)

Marcello Palingenio Stellato (ca. 1500 - ca. 1543) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596) and Spain (1583); ILI, V ili, p. 602; VI, p. 457; IX, pp. 832, 892, 962. His Zodiacus vitae appeared in several editions: see, for example: Venice (1535) and Basel (1537, 1543,1548, 1552,1557, 1563,1566,1574,159 1, 1594, 1600/1); German translations appeared in Frankfurt (1564) and Laugingen (1599). The work was pro­ hibited in the Indexes of Rome (1557), Paris (1570, 1580), Louvain (1558), Portugal (1581) and Spain (1583); ILI, V ili, pp. 247-48; II, pp. 330-32; IV, p. 463; VI, p. 566. Stellatos works were probably examined by Francisco Foreiro; see doc. II.4; cf. doc. VIIL3. 177 It is unknown where Stellato died; see also BlOGR. 178 O tto Brunfels, Pandectarum veteris et novi Testamenti libri XXII, appeared in the fol­ lowing editions: Strasbourg (1527, 1528, 1529, 1530, 1532, 1535), Basel (1557), without place of edition (1529) and without either date or place of edition. The work was prohibited in the Paris Index of 1544; ILI, I, p. 144. 179 See ch. O tto Brunfels and BlOGR. 180 Nicolau Eymeric traced more than three hundred errors in the works of Lull, but in his Directorium he only specified one hundred of these errors. See Eymeric 1585, pp. 2T2.-T1', cf. also ch. Ramon Lull, doc. 14. 181 Sebastian Munster, Evangelium secundum Matthaeum in lingua hebraica, cum versione latina atque succinctis annotationibus, appeared in Basel (1537, 1557, 1582); the work was pro­ hibited in the Indexes of Louvain (1550, 1558), Portugal (1547, 1551), Venice (1549), Paris (1551), and Spain (1551); ILI, II, p. 103; IV, pp. 149-50, 322; III, p. 172; I, p. 219; V, p. 242. 182 See the preface to Markus Marulus (Marko Marulic), Evangelisterium (Basel 1519). 176

See also ch. Munster. 183 Vadianus was a theologian, not a minister, however; and as far as we know, he did not live in Leipzig. Cf. ch. Vadianus and BlOGR; see also the note to f. 228r {supra).

~ 137

234v

23 6r

236v

237r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Secundae Classis

238r

Viti Amerbachij184 hic cliens Ioanni Ernesti Lantgravij saxoniae ducis, cui adulatur, et cuius observandissimum se se profitetur. 1.2

Card. Michele Ghislieri, Moderatio indicis librorum prohibitorum (Rome, 24 June 1561) ACDF, SO, St.st., N.4.C, fols. 858r-859r185 (copy186)

85 8r

Moderatio indicis librorum prohibitorum, Michael Ghislerius187 divina miseratione tituli .S. Sabinae S. R. E. praesbiter cardinalis, alexandrinus vulgariter nuncupatus, contra haereticam pravitatem, in tota repub(lica) christiana summus inquisitor a S. D. N. et a sancta sede apostolica specialiter deputatus Universis omnibus et singulis christi fidelibus has praesentes nostras visuris, lec­ turis, seu quovismodo earum noticiam habituris. Salutem in domino. Noveritis qualiter sanctiss(imus) in Christo Pater et D. N. D. Pius divina providentia Papa .1111. perspiciens ex censuris in indice con­ tentis, librorum prohibitorum ab officio Sanctae inquisitionis de Urbe, quam plurimas animas illaqueari, seu irretiri, post plures theo­ logorum et iurisperitorum consultationes, ac eorum diversas senten­ tias,3 mature auditas et intellectas, humanae fragilitati (in quantum cum Deo potest) compatiendo ad hanc moderationem prefati indicis deveniendum mandavit.b a

BAV, Vat. Lat. 3958: “Censuras”.

b

BAV, Vat. Lat. 3958 adds: “videlicet”.

184 Veit Amerbach (1503 1557), author of commentaries on Aristotle and on the sayings of Pythagoras; cf. Lohr, p. 13. For the prohibition of his works, see ILI, X, p. 58. 185 A damaged (printed) copy is in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), f. 98r. See also ILI, Vili, pp. 105-106, which reproduces BAV, Vat. Lat. 3958, f. 74r-v, published before in Zentralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen (1909-1910). This version is printed here because it presents one major and some minor variants. See the philological notes. 186 Apparently dating back to the sixteenth-century. 187 Michele Ghislieri, the future Pope Pius V; BlOGR.

~ 138

I

I. CRITERIA FOR INSERTING AUTHORS AND BOOKS

Ut tollerentur libri, qui nulla alia ratione prohibiti sunt, nisi quia impressoribus suspectis in indice nominatis, emanarunt: dummodo per ordinarium et inquisitorem approbentur, nullum continere errorem in fide catholica. Versiones librorum bonorum D octorum ab ordinario, et inquisi­ tore diligenter prius exam inatae an aliquae errorem in fide co n ­ tineant, et ab eisdem approbatae, a quibuscum que traductoribus tollerentur, deletis nom inibus haereticorum cum eorum scholiis et annotationibus,3 donec aliter a S. D. N. provisum fuerit. Catholicorum 8 libri nulla alia ratione prohibiti nisi quia pr(ae)fationesc summulas, et scholia habent haereticorum, p u r[...] d tollerentur donec denuo a catholicis revisi, et correcti [.. ,],e Libri sine authoris nomine impressi, ante quadraginta annos dum ­ 858v modo nullum in fide errorem contineant tolerentur. Biblia omnia vulgatae editionis a quibuscum que annotationibus argumentis summarijs capitulorum quovismodo suspectis, ordinary, et inquisitoris iuditio expurgata poterunt de eorum licentia retineri. Conceditur ubique inquisitoribus haereticae pravitatis, eorum que vicariis ut cum consensu ordinarii prius diligenter erasis sive deletis haereticorum nom inibus, ac in fide erroribus, possint concedere licentiam retinendi ac legendi. Codices Leonhardi Fuchsii in m edi­ cina herbariique,188 Codices iuris canonici a Mollineo annotati, eius1 nomine annotationibusque deletis nominibus. Zasiique legalia opera prius diligenter examinata. Caveant autem ne id segniter fiat, quia erunt in culpa etc. Thesaurus latinae linguae, et biblia vulgaria secundum prescriptas in indicis instructione conditiones, ab eisdem (ut praefertur) concedi possint, et in omnibus praemissis moderatio huiusmodi instructionis servetur.

a b c d e f

“et annotationibus”: not in BAV, Vat. Lat. 3958. The paragraph “Catholicorum libri (...) et correcti [...]” is not in BAV, Vat. Lat. 3958. “Pr(ae)fationes”: conjecture (the paper is seriously damaged). The paper is damaged. See previous note. BAV, Vat. Lat. 3958: “eius”.

188

See ch. Leonhart Fuchs.

139 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

859r

Conceditur ordinariis et inquisitoribus, et aliis ab ipsis deputandis, ut possint absolvere in foro conscientiae, omnes qui quoscunque libros, etiam qui in prima classe continentur, legerint, vel tenuerunt, et utroque in foro eos qui vigore presentis decreti, seu moderationis tolerari permittuntur, libros tenuerunt et legerunt, dummodo in posterum sint obedire parati. Omnem etiam solertiam ac diligentiam ipsi reverendi Domini ordi­ narii ac haereticae pravitatis inquisitores adhibeant, ne in manibus suae iurisdictionis subiectorum permittant libros nisi ab omni haeresi suspitione purgatos tam in indice contentos, quam etiam non contentos, sive hactenus impressos aut etiam qui in / / posterum imprimentur. Alioquin Deo Optimo Maximo atque Sanctitati Suae rationem se noverint reddi­ turos. In quorum fidem praesentes manu nostra subscriptas3 per infra scriptum secretarium nostrum subscribi, nostrique soliti sigilli fecimus impressione communiri. Datae Romae in Sacro apostolico palatio apud Vaticanum in parte nostrae solitae residendae Die 24 mensis iunii 1561. pontificatus eiusdem Sanet. Suae189 anno secundo. 1.3

Consultatio Academiae Duacensis (Douai, late 1571, beginning 1573190) BAV, Vat. Lat. 6207, fols. 206r-207v 191

Consultatio Academiae Duacensis192 Exemplum consultationis Academiae Duacensis Ad Illustrissimum Ducem Albanum? (...)

206r

a

BAV, Vat. Lat. 3958: “scriptas”.

b

In the ms. the Duke’s answers are in the left margin.

189

Pope Pius IV; BlOGR. The date post quem is deduced from the fact that Julius Caesar Scaliger’s works are presented as “iam repurgati”, which refers to the expurgatory Index of Antwerp (1571); as regards the date ante quem-. Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, third Duke of Alva (BlOGR.), was governor of the Low Countries from 1567 till 1573. 191 This text was published in Mendham 1836, pp. 12-20, from another copy which the author said to have found in a manuscript that he purchased on an auction in 1833 at Ghent. 192 The university in this Flemish city dates back to 1562. 190

~ 140

I. CRITERIA FOR INSERTING AUTHORS AND BOOKS

7. An omnes libri nominati in secunda Classe Indicis Tridentini, vel 207r appendicis quibus non adiicitur, donec repurgentur; sint exurendi, Nec satis sit deferre purgandos? Ut annotationes Ioannis Langi In Justinum Martyrem,193 et alios authores Iulij Caesaris Scaligeri doctissimi Com­ mentary in Theophrastum .194 Variabant sententiae alijs exuri debere putantibus (tametsi hoc illis durum videtur) alijs contra sufficere, si deferrentur purgandi. Regulas am enim Tridentinas non solum ad prim am , sed etiam ad 2.am et 3. classes pertinere. Sed posteaque intellectum fuit ex Domino Cancel­ lario universitatis, Excellentiam Ill.mi Ducis mandasse facultati Theolo­ giae purgationem quorundam librorum 2.ae classis, quibus tamen non invenitur adiectum donec purgentur, ut harum ipsarum annotationum Io. Langi, Ioannis Reuchlini speculi ocularis de verbo mirifico artis Cabalisticae195 et aliorum, Item est in eam sententiam, ut Regulae Tri196 dentinae ad Classes 2.am et 3.am quoque pertinere existim arentur, Itaque tales libros non esse comburendos, sed Magistratui tradendos. Responsio Ducis O m nium repurgatio exigitur praeterquam haeresiarcharum 197 non autem combustio: Nisi tantum eorum qui om nino corrupti sunt, et 193 Johann (de Karvinà) Lange (1503-1567), Annotationes in lustinum Martyrem (Basel 1565), was prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Antwerp (1570, 1571) and Spain (1583, 1584); ILI, VII, pp. 183, 427; VI, pp. 172, 405, 847-8. The author was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Antwerp (1570), Parma (1580), Spain (1583), and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, VII, p. 179; IX, p. 143; VI, pp. 405, 429; IX, pp. 599, 823, 884. 194 Scaliger JC 1566; see also ch. Julius Caesar Scaliger. 195 Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522), De arte cabalistica appeared in the following editions: Hagenau (1517, 1530), Basel (1550), in Pico G 1557 and in Pietro Colonna, Opus de arcanis Catholicae veritatis (Basel (1550, 1561); the work was prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564), and Spain (1559, 1583), and expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, Vili, p. 562; V, p. 395; VI, p. 231, 413; VII, p. 413. Reuchlin’s De verbo mirifico appeared in several fifteenth and sixteenth-century editions, among which Basel (1494, 1561), Tubingen (1514), Cologne (1532), and Lyon (1552). It was also published in Colonna 1561; the work was prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564), Antwerp (1571) and Spain (1583); ILI, Vili, pp. 561-2; VII, p. 413; VI, pp. 231, 412. 196 For the Tridentine Rules, see ILI, Vili, pp. 813-22. 197 For this category, see the note to doc. 8 in Section III.

~ 141 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

repurgari non possunt, etiam si ab haeresiarchis non sint conscripti. Ideoque 2.a sententia in hoc ca(su) 7° probatur Excellentiae Ducis, ut d e p o n an tu r eiusm odi libri qui repurgari possunt. Regulae autem Concili] ad om nes classes pertin en t, tam in dam nandis, quam in repurgandis scriptis. Iulij Caesaris scaligeri commentari] in Theophrastum iam sunt repur­ gati,198 et cum caeteris permittentur. Item Vadiani in Pomponium com­ mentarium 199 et aliorum etiam libri Philosophici argumenti. (...) 207v

9. A n C h ro n ic a c a rio n is 200 Ite m T h e a tru m v ita e h u m a n a e p e r T h e o d o ru m S w in g e ru m , 201 Ite m B ib lio th e c a m G e sn e 198

The correction in the expurgatory Index of Antwerp is referred to; see ILI, VII, pp. 188. Joachim Vadianus (von Watt) (1484-1551), Commentaria super Pomponium Melam De situ orbis, appeared in the following editions: Vienna (1518), Basel (1522, 1557), Paris (1530, 1540, 1540), Zurich (1534, 1546 and 1548). The work was prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal (1547, 1551), Venice (1549, 1554), Spain (1551, 1559, 1583), and expurgated in the Expurgatory Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, IV, pp. 149, 346; III, pp. 190-1, 345; V, pp. 246, 392, 433; VI, p. 511; VII, pp. 504-5. See also the note to doc. 1 (supra), and ch. Vadianus. 200 Johannes Carion (1499-1538), Chronica, appeared in: Wittenberg (1531, 1532 [2 eds.], 1538, 1546), Augsburg (s.a„ 1533, 1534, 1540, 1550, 1554), Frankfurt (1543, 1546, 1550, 1552, 1555, 1556), Berwald (1553), Magdeburg (1534, 1542, 1547), Halle (1537, 1539) and Basel (1552). The work, which after 1558 was published under the names of Melanchthon and/or Kaspar Peucer, was prohibited in the Indexes of Louvain (1558), Spain (1559, 1583), and Parma (1580); ILI, II, p. 323; V, pp. 334-5; VI, pp. 244-5; IX, p. 144. The work was expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 533-5 (cf. Index collectus, pp. 36773). The author was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), and Spain (1583); ILI, VIII, p. 521; VI, pp. 396, 578; IX, pp. 822, 883, 952. 201 Lycosthenes-Zwinger 1565 (various reprints). The first edition consisted of a collection of historical examples which Zwinger’s stepfather Konrad Lycosthenes had excerpted from a great variety of works over a period of fifteen years. Zwinger arranged the material after the Aristotelian division of the sciences in the sixth book of the Nicomachean Ethics. In the first book of the Theatrum he covered the entire area of the “artes liberales” and that of philosophy, in the second one the “artes mechanicae”, of which he produced a systematic list; while the other seventeen books dealt with all ethical and political actions of man. For discussion, see Gilly 2002. The work was prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Antwerp (1570), Parma (1580), Portugal (1581), Spain (1583, 1584); ILI, VII, pp. 233-4; IX, pp. 179-80; IV, pp. 461-2; VI, pp. 265, 545, 867-8. It was prohibited by the Congregation for the Index on 3 January 1574; ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 5v. On 25 June 1583, Sisto Fabri, Master of the Sacred Palace, commissioned its correction; ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 12r. On 3 December 1587 its correction was commissioned to Card. Ascanio Colonna; see Diari, 1, f. 29v (doc. V.10). Eventually, it was 199

142

I. CRITERIA FOR INSERTING AUTHORS AND BOOKS

ri,202 et eius Epitome203 purgare sufficiat, nec sint comburenda. Videbatur sufficere purgari. Idque ut quamprimum fiat expedire propter magnam illorum librorum utilitatem. (...) 9. Purgentur omnes huiusmodi libri.

1.4 Decree of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 8 October 1592) ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 56v

56v

(...) Die 8.a Octobris Cong(regati)o habita apud Card. Asculanum 204 ubi interfuit Card. Alanus205 cum Mag(istr)o Sac(rij) Pal(atij)206 et Secretario.207 Index totus per Secretarium perlectus fuit quoad libros vel authores additos aut demptos et de Patritio et Raymundo Lullo208 et Thalmud Hebraeorum, et de Christofaro de capite fontium tractatum, et conclusum quod non seorsum nomina superaddita Indici Pij 4.“ ponantur sicut in appendice Lovaniensi209 sed alphabetice prout in Indice Sixti V.1 quod referendum ad maiorem Cong(regatio)nem . placed in later Roman Indexes (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 724, 844, 902. ACDF holds many Censurae-, important collections are in Protocolli, C (II.a.3) and N (Il.a. 12). 202 Konrad Gessner, Bibliotheca universalis appeared in Zurich (1545 and 1555). For cen­ surae and prohibition, see ch. Konrad Gessner. 203 Gessner 1555c. 204 Girolamo Bernieri; BlOGR. 205 William Allen; BlOGR. 206 Bartolomé de Miranda; BlOGR. 207 Paolo Pico; BlOGR. 208 See the following doc., and also chs. Lull and Patrizi. 209 The Antwerp Index of 1570 reproduced the Tridentine Index and added a list of (locally) prohibited works - including French, Dutch/Flemish, and Spanish works - in appendix; see ILI, VII, pp. 654-706.

143

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

1.5 Notes for a Meeting of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 8-10 October 1592) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 210r-211v210

2 i0 r

Die X Octobris 1592 In Congregatione habita coram Ill.mis Card(ina)libus Asculano 211 [et] Alano212 et praesente Magistro .S. Palatij215 die Mercuri] [9 a J Octobris Conclusum fuit quod nulla fieret distinctio inter Authores et Libros contentos in Indice Pij IIII et eos qui superadditi sunt, sed servaretur Ordo contentus in Indice Sixti V. ut indistincte iuxta illo­ rum Nomenclatura Alphabetice collocarentur et prout in maiori Congreg(atio)ne Die 8 Octobris conclusum fuit retinerentur in novo Indice Libri et Authores superadditi ad Indicem Pij vel a Sixto .V. vel a Card. Alano vel a Padre Belarminio,214 vel tandem ex Officio [S.] Inquisitionis propositi a Card. Asculano Insurrexerunt tres Difficultates in Congreg(atio)ne Maiori determi­ nande ab IIP An Raimundus Lullus reponendus esset in Indice215 An francisci Patritij Liber collocandus esset in 2 Classe216 (...)

a

“Ill”: sic, probably for “Illustrissimis”.

210

See the annotation in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), f. 38r: “.6. An Raimundus Lullius et franciscus Patritius in secunda Classe Indicis sint reponendi et Thalmud Hebreorum expurgari possit;” cf. ibid., f. 39r, and Protocolli, Q (II.a.15), f. 126r. See also ch. Lull, doc. 25. 211 Girolamo Bernieri; BlOGR. 212 William Allen; BlOGR. 213 Bartolomé de Miranda; BlOGR. 214 Roberto Bellarmino; BlOGR. 215 See ch. Ramon Lull. 216 See ch. Francesco Patrizi.

~ 144 ~

I. CRITERIA FOR INSERTING AUTHORS AND BOOKS

Die X. Octobris

211r

de Libro Patritij referendum ad Sanct. item de Remundi Lulli operibus (...) de Astrologia iudiciaria, retinenda est regula nona: et habenda ratio bullae Sixti V.217218 1.6

The Congregation for the Index, Reply to Pope Clement VIII’s Animadversiones in Indicem™ (Rome, 17 March 1594219) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, M (II.a. 11), fols. 242r-251ra 220 (copy)

B.mo Padre La Congregazione del Indice Per obedire alla santa mente della S.ta V. et suo Pio zelo fù diligen­ temente considerata da noi la scrittura, che gli dì passati restò servita farci dare de molte considerationi fatte, per le quali pareva che l’indice, che da questa Congreg(azio)ne era sta(to) fatto, havesse bisogno di essere emendato, et all’incontro s’e fatta qui inclusa scrit­ tura per rendere piu chiara raggione, e mostrar con che fundamento ci siamo mossi à far quelle regole, et ordini, et à questo ci siamo indotti, accio considerato dalla S.ta V. con la sua molta prudenza, a Summary copies (without the Italian introduction and the answers) are on fols. 263r264v, fols. 265r-67v, and fols. 281r-84v. See also Protocolli, R (II.a. 16), fols. llr-13v, 15r-16v, for (probably) earlier versions of the reply by the Congregation. Cf. ch. Lull, Introduction, note 18, for a sensibly different version of the Congregation’s reply to the Pope’s query con­ cerning the prohibition of Lull.

The Bull Coeli et terrae (1586), in Pullarium, Vili, pp. 646-50; see also ch. Astrology. Cf. ACDF, Index, Protocolli, M (II.a.11), fols. 281r-284v; text published in Frajese 1998, pp. 346-49 (analysis on pp. 324-33). Pope Clement VIII’s text is not reproduced here, because its relevant fragments are reproduced in the reply by the Congregation. 219 For the date, see ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 71r-72v. 220 Full text published in Frajese 1998, pp. 349-56. 217

218

~ 145 ~

242r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

l’una et l’altra scrittura possi con l’assistenza che ha del spirito S.to , discernendo il meglio, m uttar tutto ò parte, et com m andare quello che giudicherà, che sia piu conveniente che si facci, che da noi sara esseguito prontissimamente, sicuri che così non potrem o errare. B.m o Padre (...) 244v

245r

247r

5.° In hoc Indice multi sunt auctores qui descripti erant in Romano Indice Pauli 4. et consulto ommissi in Indice Pij 4. ad leniendam ipsius severam censuram. Qua in re prospiciendum est, ne levitatis, aut incon//constantiae 3 sedes Ap(ostoli)ca argui quoquomodo possit, cuiusmodi sunt Raymundi Lulli opera,221 et alia quam plura. Quo vero ad Authores, qui de Geomantia tractant, expedire videtur, ut nuncupatim expriman­ tur, ut factum est, licet generatim in regula Pij prohiberentur.222 Resp(onsi)o. N on solum rerum, et tem porum differentia, sed rebus ijsdem stantibus, facit experientia ut decreta, ac sententiae Principum sine inconstantiae nota m utentur, sicut non immerito factum est in Thalm ud haebreorum simpliciter dam nando, quod prius cum nota tantum expurgationis prohibeatur.223 D e Raymundo quidem non erat idem omnium sensus, sed tandem sequuta est Cong(regati)o volun­ tatem S(anc)ti offici].224 (...) 10. De G entium libris,225 quales sunt Dialogi Luciani 226 et si in Indice Pij quarti sunt appositi quia forsan existimatum ab haeretico hom ine esse conscripti vel Lucianum fuisse a fide apostata, Zosimi “ “incon-constantiae”: sic. 221 The prohibition of the twenty works (already condemned by Pope Gregory XI) in the 1593 Index is referred to. 222 In Rule IX of the Tridentine Index (1564): “Libri omnes, et scripta Geomantiae, Hydromantiae, Aeromantiae, Pyromantiae, Onomantiae, Chiromantiae, Necromantiae, (...), prorsus reiiciuntur”. See ILI, VIII, p. 818. Cf. doc. III.10. 223 The Talmud was prohibited in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564) and Spain (1583); see ILI, III, p. 362; VIII, p. 691; VI, p. 544. See also the Introduction to this chapter. 224 See ch. Lull, Introduction. 225 See Rule VII, in the later Clementine Index (1596), in ILI, IX, p. 922: “Antiqui vero, ab ethnicis conscripti, propter sermonis elegantiam, et proprietatem , perm ittuntur, nulla tamen ratione, pueris praelegendi sunt”. 226 The Italian translation of Lucianus’ Dialogues was prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1590, 1593); see ILI, IX, pp. 113 and 383. In the fifteenth and early six-

~ 146 ~

I. CRITERIA FOR INSERTING AUTHORS AND BOOKS

Historia,*227 Eunapij Sardiani, Liber de Vitis Philosophorum,228 Aris­ totelis de Divinatione per somnium,229 Demosthenis orationes philippicae230 videtur omnino esse delendos. Nam Ecc(lesi)a non habet con­ suetudinem interdicendi libros gentilium, quamvis contra religionem christianam scripserint ex professo, ut Porphirius. Quod si horum versio interdicetur, quia ab hereticis prodijt, vel quia haereticorum praefationes hic praefixae sint animadvertendum est regula 3.a Indi­ cis, permitti versiones, etiam scriptorum Ecc(lesiasti)corum etiam ab haereticis factas, dummodo nihil contra sanam doctrinam contineant et praefationes illicò posse auferri.231 Resp(onsi)o.232 Si hoc crimen est, nobis cum primis Indicis Institu­ toribus commune est. neque enim credi potest hos ignorasse, Lucianum gentilem fuisse, sed nec / / illi nec nos externorum hominum, 247v seu Iudeorum seu gentilium scripta, quoscunque errores contineant, vetamus, sed ea solum quae in Christum, eiusque Matrem vel sanctos blasphema continent, vel christianorum mores colloquijs, aut prae­ ceptionibus impuris corrumpunt ac proinde non omnes Luciani, sed certos Dialogos,233 nec Ovidij omnia sed quae de arte amandi teenth centuries, Lucianus was regarded as a reputable model for moralistic satire. After the Reformation, however, and particularly after 1550, his reputation declined, and he began to be represented as a subversive, bent on undermining respect for philosophical, political, and religious authority. For discussion, see Cox 1992, ch. II. 227 Zosimos (fifth century), Historiae, prohibited with the proviso “donec corrigatur” in the two previous Roman Indexes (1590, 1593); ILI, IX, p. 422. 228 Eunapius 1568 and 1598. See also ch. Eunapius. 229 See Aristoteles 1536. This translation with commentaries by Christoph Hegendorff (1500-1540) was prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal (1551), Spain (1559, 1583) and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, IV, p. 179; V, pp. 315, 330; VI, p. 180; IX, pp. 411-12. 230 Christoph Hegendorff’s translation of Demosthenes, Orationes philippicae quatuor, prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal (1551, 1561), Spain (1559, 1583), and Rome (1593); ILI, IV, pp. 179-80; V, pp. 331, 342; VI, p. 275; IX, pp. 422-23. 231 For the development of the Rule III between 1590 and 1596, see ILI, IX, pp. 795, 856 and 921. 232 An earlier version is in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, R (II.a.16), f. 16r: “Mirum quod auctores Indicis cone. Tridentini ignorasse censores existimaverint Lucianum gentilem fuisse, et falsum est ecclesiam non prohibuisse lectionem librorum Gentilium, et Iudeorum, si ex professo contra Christum, et christianam religionem aliquid ex professo non damnant, licet in quibus dogmatibus à christiana doctrina dissideant, ut in articulo creationis et aeternitatis creaturarum aut venturi Messiae quod attinet ad iudeos”. It should be noted that the Latin of this text is a bit uncertain. 233 See the note to f. 247r.

147 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

scripsit, prohibemus, caeteros vero vel propter versionem vel praefa­ tionem, Indices aut annotationes haeresim continentes, non dam na­ mus sim pliciter sed donec expugantur. H o ru m enim non scripta om nino sed has vel illa, huius, vel illius anni, loci, Interpretis, aut Impressoris editiones legi prohibemus. (...)

1.7 Decree of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 4 M arch 1595) ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 84r-85r

84r

84v

Die 4. Martij .1595 Congreg(atio) habita fuit apud Ill. mum D. C ard. lem M. A ntonium C olum nam 234 ubi interfuere om nes, exceptis Ill. mis D D . C ard . libus Asculano 235 et Toleto.236 adfuit etiam Magister Sac(ri) Palatij.237 (...) Ill. mus D. C ard . lis B orrom aeus 238 re tu lit p ro u t sibi in iu n ctu m à S. C o n g reg (atio )n e fu e ra t, quae d ilig e n ti ex am in e a d n o ta v e ra t in A lp h a b etico In d ic e A u cto ru m et lib ro ru m p ro h ib ito ru m u t decerneretur à S. Congregaticene quinam delendi essent ex Indice ex annotatis, et quinam relinquendi et videbatur quod omnino tollerentur Albertus Magnus de secretis mulierum,239 Bibliotheca Constantinopolitana, 240 Coellius P an[n]onius, 241 Petrus C rinitus, 242 H enricus H ar234

Marcantonio Colonna; BiOGR. Girolamo Bernieri; BiOGR. 236 Francisco Toledo; BiOGR 237 Master o£ the Sacred Palace was Bartolomé de Miranda; see BiOGR. 238 Federico Borromeo; BiOGR. 239 See ch. ps-Albertus Magnus. 240 Bibliotheca Constantinopolitana, edited by J. Hartung, preface by G. Calaminus, was prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 479-80, 805, 866. 241 Coelius Pannonius, pseudonym for Franciscus Gregorius (1471/72 - ca. 1545), author of Collectanea in sacram Apocalypsin, prohibited (or corrected) in the Indexes of Portugal (1581), Spain (1583,1584), and Rome (1590,1593); see ILI, IV, p. 521; VI, pp. 239, 803; IX, 412. 242 Pietro Crinito (Del Riccio Baldi) (1474-1507), author of De honesta disciplina, prohib­ ited (or corrected) in the Indexes of Portugal (1581), Spain (1583, 1584), and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, IV, pp. 514-15; VI, pp. 502, 862-63; IX, p. 418. 235

~ 148

I. CRITERIA FOR INSERTING AUTHORS AND BOOKS

phius,243 et relinquerentur Clemens Spubertus 3 244 et Bernardinus Arrevalensis.245 Christophorus vero de Capite Fontium ex prima Classe246 deleretur et in secundam transferretur quamvis non nisi post delationem in sequentibus Congregationibus prosequendam omnibus mature dis­ cussis determinandum sit de omnibus simul. (...) In sequenti Congreg(tio)ne determ inandum An ex sola citatione 85 r haereticorum in alijs à fide liber Auctoris Catholici debeat prohiberi et nom en haeretici expungi ut Cronologia G erardi M ercatoris 247 et similia in Indice retineantur vel deleantur. (...)

1.8 Paolo Pico, N ote on Authors and their Works (Rome, ante 27 M arch 1596248) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, M (II.a.11), f. 181r-v

(...) Bodini m ethodus historiae,249 et de repub. 250 sit in indice: et 181r maneat in indice, donec expurgetur, de daem onom ania,251 referen­ dum ad sanctum officium Inquisitionis. Iohannis Baptistae Portae magia naturalis liber tollatur ex indice252 (...) ‘ “Spubertus”: sic, for “Schubertus”. 243 Hendrik Herp (Harphius) (t 1477), author of theological works; for the prohibition of the latter, see ILI, X, p. 221. 244 See ch. Schubert. 245 Bernardino de Arevalo, author of religious works and confessor of one of Charles V’s wifes; he had been prohibited in the second class of the Index on 30 December 1583; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 13v. A censura of his works is mentioned in BAV, Vat. Lat. 6861, f. 29v. However, he was not placed on later Roman Indexes. 246 Christophe de Cheffontaines (1512/19-1595), General of the Friars Minor from 1571 to 1579, was included in the second class in the Roman Index of 1590 and the first class of the 1593 Index; Patrem 1879, p. 62; ILI, IX, pp. 807, 867. 247 Mercator 1569. See also ch. Mercator. 248 Most probably the document dates back to the period of the preparation of the Clementine Index; for the date, see ILI, IX, p. 977. 249 Bodin 1566. See also ch. Jean Bodin. 250 Bodin 1588. 251 Bodin 1587. 252 For the various editions, see ch. Giovan Battista Della Porta.

149

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

181v

Q u a e r e n d u m d e Io s e p h o S c a lig e ro sit h a e re tic u s , a n n o n lib e r e m e n d a tio n u m 253 [ ...] to lla tu r ex indice. fra n c isc i P a tritij lib e r d e P h ilo s o p h ia to lla tu r ex in d ic e : s u b la ta p rae fa tio n e, et ad d itis in fine an im ad v ersio n ib u s R.dus fr. Secretarius 254 adeat Ill.mos D D . Cardinales, B [orro]m aeum 255 et A scanium colum nam . 256

1.9 A n o nym ous, O n F o rm s o f H e te ro d o x y 257 (Rom e, late 1580s,258 w ith a se v en te en th -ce n tu ry a n n o ta tio n 259 ) ACDF, SO, St.st., 0 .1 .d, fase. 1, fols, lr-v, 5r (unnumbered fols.)

lr

N o ta e , seu c en su rae P ro p o sitio n u m d a m n a b iliu m 260 iu x ta p rax im servatam à C oncilio C o n sta n tien si sess. 8. et 15.,261 et p e r SS. P o n tifices P iu m V., et G re g o riu m X IIJ. in d a m n a tio n e P ro p o s itio n u m M ichaelis Baij 262

253

ScaligerJJ 1583. See ch. Josephus Justus Scaliger. Paolo Pico was Secretary from 1591 to 1613; BlOGR. 255 Federico Borromeo; BlOGR. 256 Ascanio Colonna; BlOGR. 257 For a general discussion, see Neveu 1993, chap. Ill: “Ars censoria”, pp. 239-381. For medieval origins of this classification of heterodoxy, see Koch 1930 and L ohr 1988. See also Pope Paul I l l ’s bull In apostolici culminis specula (14 January 1542), in Bullarium, VI, p. 319: “propositiones scandalosas et erroneas ac piarum m entium offensivas et quandoque etiam haeresim sapientes, ac catholicae fidei minus consonas, christianaeque pietati et bonis m oribus minus conform es”; and on the same page, the following classifi­ cation: “suspectas, scandalosas, periculosas, errores continentes, haeresim sapientes, (...) catholicae fidei minus consonas, christianaeque pietati et bonis m oribus minime con­ form es”. 258 The criteria were established under Popes Pius V and Gregory XIII. 259 Seventeenth century-authors, such as Antonino Diana, are cited in the final annotation. 260 See also the “Instructio” to the 1593 Index and the Clementine Index, in ILI, IX, pp. 860 and 926: “Propositiones haereticae, erroneae, haeresim sapientes, scandalosae, piarum aurium offensivae, temerariae, schismaticae, seditiosae, blasphemae”. 261 See Mansi, 27, cois. 629-40 and 747-68, for the condemnation of John Wicliff and Jan Hus. 262 Michel Baius (De Bay) (1513-1589) entertained suspect views on justification and grace, and challenged the universal pow er of the Pope. Later, Jacques Janson, master of 254

~

150 ~

I. CRITERIA FOR INSERTING AUTHORS AND BOOKS

I

Prima nota. Propositio haeretica dicitur illa, quae manifestò opponitur sive contrariè alicui veritati Fidei, immediatè per Eccle­ siam definitae, seu quae omnimodè contrariatur obiecto Fidei, quatenus revelatae à Deo. 2.a nota. Propositio erronea dicitur, quae opponitur veritati certae Theologica tantum certitudine, quia non est immediate revelata, sed educta per evidentem consequentiam ex uno principio naturali et ex altero in se relevato. 3.a nota Propositio sapiens haeresim dicitur, quae ex assumptis alijs principijs sequitur haeresis, quando illa principia non sunt omnino certa, sed in Ecclesia recepta, nec ex eis sequitur illatio evidens. 4.a nota. Propositio malè sonans dicitur, quando / / in aliquo sensu proprio fit heretica, et in alio etiam proprio sit catholica. 5.a nota. Propositio piarum aurium offensiva dicitur quando ali­ quid indecens, vel indignum in materia Religionis christianae con­ tinet. 6.a nota. Propositio scandalosa dicitur ea, quae in materia Fidei occasionem errandi praebet. 7.a nota Propositio temeraria dicitur, quae in doctrina Fidei, vel Theologiae sine rationis regula profertur. 8.a nota Propositio schismatica, seu seditiosa dicitur illa, quae unionem membrorum Ecclesiae sive universaliter, sive particulariter aufert, vel oppositam inducit. 9.a nota Propositio injuriosa, seu contumeliosa dicitur ea, quae detrahit alicui statui, vel illustri Personae Ecclesiasticae, sive se-culari. X . a nota. Propositio impia dicitur, quae opponitur Pietati, quatenus Pietas filiali affectu colit Deum, et consequenter Sanctos, et Sacram Scripturam.

Cornelius Jansenius at the University of Louvain, endorsed Baius’ theories. Baius was condemned in the Bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus (1567) issued by Pope Pius V, and in the Bull Provisionis nostrae (1580) issued by Pope Gregory XIII. The latter is in Bullarium, VIII, pp. 315-20; see in particular p. 319, for the qualification of Baius’ proposi­ tions: “haereticas, erroneas, suspectas, temerarias, scandalosas et impias, in aures offen­ siones inmittentes”.

151

lv

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

XI. nota. Propositio blasphema dicitur, quae maledictis, et convicijs aliquid de Divina excellentia detrahit. 5r X II. a nota Propositio impertinens dicitur, quae aliquid asserit, nihil ad Fidem faciens, sive concedatur, sive negetur. De hac materia consule Turcecrem 3 - in Sum de Ecclesia Lib. 4. p a rte 2. 263 ca: 8., A lbertin - de dignoscen. assertionibus q. 6. et seqq.264 Simanc. Instit. Cath. §. 54.265 Penam in Direct. Parte 2. Com ­ ment. 26. 23.,266 Suarez de Fide disp. 19. sect. 2.,267 Castropalao disp. 4. puncto prim o, 268 Diana parte 4. tract. 8. resolt. 94.269 Selellas tom. Prim o Lib. primo, cap. 12. reg. 98.270

“Turcecrem”: sic, for “Turrecrem”., that is, Turrecremata or Torquemada. 263

Torquemada 1561, fols. 380v-81v; see also cap. 11, f; 384r, where Torquemada listed: “temeraria”, “erronea”, “iniuriosa”, “male sonans sive scandalosa aut piarum aurium offen­ siva”, “seditiosa”, “haeretica”, “haeresim sapiens”. 264 Albertini 1572, fols. 13v-17r, presented the following list: “haeretica”, “haeresim sapiens”, “temeraria”, “erronea”, “iniuriosa”, “scandalosa”, “schismatica”, “impia”, “blasphema”, and finally: “absurda et irrationalis”. 265 Simancas 1575, pp. 423-27, listed: “haeretica”, “sapit haeresim”, “erronea”, “male sonans” or “pias aures offendens”, “temeraria”, “scandalosa”, “schismatica”, “seditiosa”, “blasphema”, “favens haereticis”, “irrisoria”. 266 Eymeric 1595, pp. 135-37, and in particular pp. 231-33, where Pena referred to defini­ tions of heresy by Guido Carmelita, Juan Torquemada, Alfonso Castro and Albertus Pighius. 267 Suarez 1621, Disp. XIX, sectio secunda, entitled: “Quot sint gradus damnabilium propositionum in doctrina sacra, et quis illorum sit propria materia, circa quam haeresis ver­ setur”, on pp. 299-305, where Suarez mentioned the condemnation of Hus and Wicliff at the Council of Konstanz, and the condemnation of Baius. He distinguished between: “haeretica, erronea, sapiens haeresim, male sonans, offendens pias aures, scandalosa, temeraria, sedi­ tiosa, iniuriosa, impia, blasphema”. 268 Castro Palao 1631-1651:1, pp. 408-409. 269 Diana 1647: I, pp; 770-71, mentioned: “erronea”, “haeresim sapiens”, male sonans”, “piarum aurium offensiva”, “temeraria”, “scandalosa”. Then he presents a scale: “haeretica”, “erronea” (with a fourfold subdivision), “sapiens haeresim”, “male sonans”, “temeraria”, and “scandalosa”. Diana referred to the condemnation of Michael Baius by Pius V and Gre­ gory XIII, as well as to a host of authors, among whom Pena, Cano, Albertini, Paramo, Suarez, Castro, Torquemada, and Castro Palao. 270 Salelles 1651-1656: I, pp. 189-92; see also “regula” 99, on pp. 192-95, where Salelles presented the following scale: “haeretica”, “erronea”, “sapiens haeresim”, “male sonans”, “piarum aurium offensiva”, “scandalosa”, “temeraria”, “schismatica”, “iniuriosa”, “impia”, and “blasphema”.

~ 152 ~

II DEFINITION OF INDEX RULES From the foundation of the Congregation271 till the early 1590s dis­ cussion of the Rules occupied its functionaries as a permanent issue. Between the Summer and Fall of 1571 the Congregation discussed the Tridentine Rules. Documents that are relevant for the issue under scrutiny almost exclusively concern Rule IX on astrology. The first three documents date back to the first months of the newly founded Congregation and reveal the tendency to exclude ‘natural’ astrology from the general prohibition. Eventually, the Congregation decided to adopt the Rule as formulated in the 1564 Index. During the 1570s, reconsidering Rule X on expurgation, Francisco Foreiro, the former Secretary of the Tridentine Commission for the Index, mentioned Johann Dryander’s A natomia capitis hu m an i and Palingenio’s Zodia­ cu s v ita e (doc. 4) among the books exam ined, corrected or else viewed as liable to correction. In February 1587, Sixtus V promoted a large-scale discussion on the Index Rules. Initially, the Congrega­ tion resumed discussing the Tridentine Rules, and all consultors were asked to write down and send in their views (docs. 5-6). The exten­ sive pronouncements on Rule IX show that Pope Sixtus V’s recent bull C oeli et terra had caused serious trouble and was not uncondi­ tionally accepted.272 Remarkably, the notoriously severe Francisco Pena defended physionomy as well as natural astrology (doc. 6, f. 364r). On 25 April 1587, the Congregation decided to address the Pope in order to establish which useful astrological works were to be 271 The Congregation for the Index was called into existence by Pope Pius V, in March 1571, and was formally and solemnly confirmed by the Bull of Pope Gregory XIII, Ut pes­ tiferarum (13 September, 1572); see General Introduction, section 2.1. Here, for reasons of convenience the Commission of Cardinals active since 1571 is called ‘Congregation’. The first cardinal members were Arcangelo De’ Bianchi, Felice Peretti (the future Pope Sixtus V), and Vincenzo Giustiniani; see BlOGR. 272 For discussion, see ch. Astrology, Introduction.

153

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

permitted (doc. 7). One year later the discussion came to a turningpoint when the pope proposed to extend the Tridentine Rules, the Rule on astrology and divination first becoming Rule XIII and later XII (docs. 8-11). Doc. 12 illustrates the now well-known resistance of the Congregation for the Index to the new Rules that Pope Sixtus V intended to introduce. The Cardinals asked the Pontiff to resume the traditional distinction between heretic books dealing with religion and those which did not, permitting the latter after expurgation. They developed the following arguments: (i) some professional groups (lawyers, physicians, mathematicians) pressed the Congrega­ tion for reading permits; (ii) Ghislieri had argued for their permission in his 1561 Moderatio-, (iii) the Indexes of Spain and Louvain permit­ ted a great number of expurgated books which should have been burned whenever the Roman Congregation decided not to permit them; (iv) many scholars desired to read them; (v) the passage in Exo­ dus 12: 35-6, concerning the gold and jewels taken away by the Jews from the Egyptians before their flight into the desert, suggests a legit­ imate and profitable use of pagan culture. The Congregation was also inclined to permit books by ‘fallen’ authors, written before their con­ version, and after their return to the Catholic Church. Another issue touched upon in this reaction regarded the unconditioned condem­ nation of astrology in Sixtus’ afore-named bull C o eli e t terra, the effects of which the Congregation desired to attenuate. The last two documents bear testimony that the discussion on astrology continued during the preparations of the later sixteenth-century Indexes.273

275

See ch. Astrology, Introduction, and Baldini 2001a.

~ 154 ~

ILI The Consultors of the Index on the Rules (Rome, 28 August 1571) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (Il.a.l), pp. 38-43274

Die xxviij Augusti

38

Congregatio habita fuit in loco consueto, cuj interfuerant omnes Ill.mi Card. Deputationis (...) Procurator ord. Carmelitarum275 Regulas octavam et nonam, que examinanda proponebantur intac­ tas reliquendas fere consuluit, cum nihil videatur illis vel addendum vel minuendum, neque etiam aliqua videantur indigere explicatione. Procurator Servorum276 (...) Super 9.am vero hoc unum annotavit, et sub dubio reliquit quod agendum videatur de Almanach et quibusdam alijs libris Astrologiae a quibus potest desumi iudicium de rebus particularibus, atque ita iudiciariam depromere Astrologiam. Theologus Flander

39

(...) super 9.am Regulam meo verbo Regula quod habet Permittun­ tur autem iudicia et naturales etc.

274

Official version in ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 3v: “Disputatum super 8a. 9a. 10. reg.a Indicis, et quaedam adnotata praesertim quoad poenam inflictam excommunicationis contra legentes vel habentes libros prohibitos ut habes libro A. fol. 38”. The discussion on these Rules started on 17 July; cf. Diari, 1, 3r. 275 Filippo de Maria; BlOGR. 276 Angelo Morelli (from Arezzo); Biogr.

155 ~

PART ONE: ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

40

Satius esset dicendum liceat omnes naturales observationes et Iudicia etc., et ratio est, quia quod permittitur etiam prohiberi potest, verum huius[modi] iudicia et naturales.277 (...)

41

Lector ordinis predicatorum Super 8. et 9.am nihil habuit quod diceret preterquam super illud verbum .9. Regule ubi fit mentio de Iudiciarijs libris, quod bene videretur consultum si auctores prohibiti huius [modi] apponerentur quamquam istud videretur difficilius, et hoc praeterea quod cum per­ mittantur illi qui in genere docent principia iudiciarie de facili ad par­ ticularia possunt applicari. (...)

42

Theologus Ill.™ Domini Card. Medices. (...) super 9.am Nihil (...)

II.2

The Consultors of the Index on the Rules (Rome, 4 September 1571) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (Il.a.l), pp. 43-45278

43

(...) Die iiij Septembris Congregatio habita fuit in loco consueto cui interfuerunt omnes 4.r 111.™Domini Card.les Deputati R.mus Dominus Regiensis279 annotavit (...)

45

Super Nonam Proposuit quod multi medicj atque alij studiosi viri exclamant 277 Quite remarkably, the Consultor proposed to subtitute “licere” for “permittere”, thus suggesting to prefer astrology’s legitimacy over its being tolerated. 278 Official version in ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 3v: “Disputatum super praefatione Forerii et de quibusdam addendis in 2*. 3“. 4 a. 6a. et 9a. regula ut habes libro A. fol. 43”. 279 Eustachio Locatelli, then Bishop of Reggio Emilia; BlOGR.

— 156 ~

II. DEFINITION OF INDEX RULES

quod illis tollatur ephemerides, cum tamen si bene consideretur Re­ gulam 3 illa est valde discreta. 11.3

The Consultors of the Index on the Rules (Rome, 27 November 1571) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (Il.a.l), pp. 51-52-’80

Die xxvij Novembris Habita fuit congregatio in edibus Ill.”11 Do­ 280 successit decanus cum dum mini Car. Syrleti qui loco Card. Claren.281 obijerit, cui interfuerunt omnes 4.r Ill.11” DD. Card. (...) super 9.am Decreverunt quod Regula feli(cis) Recor(dationis) Paul. 4.“ assumetur, et illa servetur.

51

52

11.4

Francisco Foreiro,282283On Rule X of the Index of Pope Pius IV (Rome, ante 1581285) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, M (II.a.11), fols. 324r-325v284 (copy)

Ex Regula X. Indicis Pij Quarti285 a

“Regulam”: sic.

280

Published in Godman 2000, pp. 333-34. Official version in ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 4v: “Decretum quaedam esse addenda et minuenda et explicanda in regulis Indicis Pii quarti prout habes libro A. f. 51”. 281 Jérome Souchier; BlOGR. 282 Francisco Foreiro; BlOGR. 283 Foreiro died in 1581. 284 See also ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (Il.a.l), fols. 126r-127v (sect. Vili, doc. 3); other copy in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 190r-191v. Published in ILI, VIII, pp. 106-108. 283 Rule X, adopting a decision by the Fifth Lateran Council, ordered a preliminary examination and permission by the ecclesiastical authorities for all works to be printed; moreover, it established rules for the correction of books already printed. Thus, it consti­ tuted the juridical basis for all censorial activities; see ILI, VIII, pp. 818-21.

~ 157

324r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

324v 325r

Circa vero libros quos Patres deputati, aut examinarunt, aut expur­ garunt, aut expurgandos tradiderunt, aut certis conditionibus, ut rur­ sus excuderentur concesserunt quidquid illos statuisse constiterit, tam Bibliopolae, quam caeteri observent, et infra. Caeterum nomina, cum librorum, qui à Patribus deputatis purgati sunt, tum eorum quibus illi hanc provinciam dederunt eorundem deputatorum Secretarius Notaris sacrae universalis Inquisitionis Ro­ manae descripta D.N. iussu tradidit. Nomina librorum qui in Concilio Tridentino a Patribus deputatis sunt expurgati, et eorum quibus ut examinarent(ur) ab ijsdem Patribus dati sunt. (...) Anatomia excussa Mai Purgij3.286 tradita fuit Cesari Ferrantio 287 cum operibus Functij.288 (...) Marcellus Palingenius Stellatus.289 fratri Fran(cis)co Forerio.

a

“Mai Purgij”: sic.

Dryander 1536, prohibited in the Indexes of Louvain (1546, 1550, 1558), Portugal (1551), Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), and Spain (1559, 1583); ILI, II, p. 133; IV, p. 166; III, p. 219; VIII, p. 365; V, p. 310; VI, p. 164; IX, pp. 803, 865, 933. 287 Cesare Ferrante; BlOGR, and cf. ch. Astrology, doc. 36. 288 Probably, Johann Funck (1518-1566) is meant. This author was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596) and Spain (1583); see ILI, V ili, p. 525; VI, p. 400; IX, pp. 822, 883, 952. Furthermore, Chronologia, ab initio mundi usque ad annum M.D.LII was prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Portugal (1561), Antwerp (1571) and Spain (1583); ILI, IV, pp. 370, 504-5; VII, pp. 536-7; VI, pp. 254-55. However, in 1562 Camillo Paleotti asked the commission chaired by Foreiro to revoke the prohibition of some authors, among whom Fuchs; see ch. Fuchs, introduction, note 12. Thus, it cannot be excluded that “Functii” was a deformation of “Fuchsii”. 289 See sect. I, doc. 1, f. 232v (note). 286

158 ~

II. DEFINITION OF INDEX RULES

II.5 The Consultors of the Index, Pronouncements on the Rules III, IV and V290 (Rome, presented on 12 March 1587291) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), 308r-338v, on f. 324v

(...) Ad quintam regulam292

324v

Nihil desiderari videtur praeter exequtionem. Nam duo incom­ moda nascuntur ex eo, quod non mandatur hec regula exequtioni. Primum enim aliqua dictionaria inemendata passim habentur et leguntur, ut Graeca Ioannis Crispini293 et Henrici Stephani294 et Hebraica Pagnini Catholici295 cum additionibus Quinquarborei haeretici.296 Deinde aliqui libri valde utiles non permittuntur, qui 290 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2) contains on fols. 267r-537v a long series of docu­ ments regarding the extensive discussion on the Index Rules by Members and Consultors of the Congregation for the Index between February 1587 and July 1588; see ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 17r and 33r-v. The documents include several (for the most autographical) pro­ nouncements by Giulio Ruggiero, Bartolomeo Cesi, Agostino Molari, Mario Altieri, Pierre Morin, Timoteo Berardi (Procurator General of the Carmelites), Agostino da Corneto (gen­ eral procurator of the Augustines), the Procurator General of the Franciscans, Aurelio Verallo, Roberto Bellarmino, Marcantonio Maffa, Francisco Pena, Giovanni Francesco Bordino, Alfonso Chacón, Latino Latini, and William Allen. Several sections can be distinguished. Fols. 267r-307r regard the discussion of the Rules 1 and 2; the pronouncements were pre­ sented on 5 March 1587 (see Diari, 1, f. 17r). For a brief discussion of the other sections, see the introductory notes to the following documents. 291 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f, 17v. 292 This rule of the 1564 Index regarded lexica, concordances, indexes etc., which pre­ sented also materials by non-Catholic authors; ILI, Vili, p. 816. 293 Jean Crespin (ca. 1520-1572), Lexicon sive dictionarium graeco-latinum, in Bibliotheca studii theologici ex plerisque doctorum prisci seculi collecta (Ginevra 1565,1581,1591), was pro­ hibited in the indexes of Spain (1583) and Rome (1596); ILI, VI, pp. 224-25; IX, pp. 480, 481. 294 Henri Estienne (1528/31-1598), Dictionarium historicum ac poeticum-, idem, Thesaurus linguae graecae. For the prohibitions, see ILI, X, pp. 174-75. 295 Sante Pagnini (1470-1541), Thesaurus linguae sanctae, sive Lexicon hebraicum latinum, (...) auctum ac recognitum opera Ioannis Merceri, Ant. Cevallerii, et B. Cornelii Bertrami, Lyon 1575 (first edition Lyon 1529), was prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 725-26, 902. 296 Jean Cinquarbres (ca. 1500 - 1587), author of De re grammatica Hebraeorum opus (Paris, Martinus Juvenes, 1556), edited Munster’s commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew.

159 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

facillime iuxta hanc regulam purgari possent, ut Bibliothecae Conradi Gesneri et Conradi Licosthenis.297 Nihil in eis est mali praeter enco­ mia quorundam auctorum haereticorum .298

II.6 The Consultors of the Index, Pronouncem ents on the Rules VI, VII, V ili, IX and X (Rome, presented on 16 and 25 April 15 87299) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 339r-370vJ0°

339v

(...) Regula 9.a Regula ista strictior redditur constitutione S.m D.N.,301 cui inhaerere debemus, ubi itaque scribitur. Episcopi vero diligenter provideant, dicen­ dum est similiter quoquè prohibentur Astrologiae iudiciariae libri,302

For the prohibition of Gessner’s Bibliotheca, and that of its Epitome by Konrad Lycosthenes, see ch. Gessner, Introduction. 298 The text on fol. 324r-v is an autograph by Roberto Bellarmino. 299 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 19r-v. 300 The next section, on fols. 372r-396v, contains the pronouncements of Giulio Ruggiero, Bartolomeo Cesi, Angelo Molari (Fivizzani), Mario Altieri, William Allen, Roberto Bel­ larmino, an anonymous Consultor, the Procurator of the Augustinians (Agostino da Cor­ neto), Tommaso Berardi (Procurator of the Carmelitans), Giovanni Francesco Bordino, Mar­ cantonio Maffa, and Francisco Pena regarding three doubts on the Rules and their applica­ tion: (1) “an libri haereticorum, qui ex professo de religione non tractant, et habent aliquid religionis admixtum, expurgati sint permittendi”; (2) “an delenda sint nomina haeretico­ rum”; (3) “an Biblia vulgaria sint concedenda”. Fol. 398r-v contains the observations of an anonymous Consultor on Rules II, III, VI, VII, and X. Fols. 400r-418v contain a discussion concerning the opportuneness of a prohibition of Erasmus, including pronouncements by the Procurator of the Augustinians, Aurelio Verallo, Alfonso Chacon, Roberto Bellarmino, Mario Altieri, Pietro Galesini, Giulio Ruggiero, Marcantonio Maffa, Francisco Pena, Anto­ nio Agelli, Latino Latini, Angelo Molari, and Giovanni Francesco Bordino. This discussion took place after 25 April 1587; see Dian, 1, f. 20r. 301 Pope Sixtus V’s Bull Coeli et terrae (1586), in Bullarium, Vili, pp. 646-50. 302 The phrase “Episcopi (...) provideant”, which was in the 1564 Index, disappeared in the provisory text (f. 494v), as well as in the 1590 Index. For the addition “similiter (...) libri”, see the equivalent on f. 494), published with slight modifications in 1590: “Libri omnes (...) astrologiae iudiciariae (...) prohibentur omnino”. 297

~ 160 ~

II. DEFINITION OF INDEX RULES

Certo aliquid eventurum affirmant, expuncta particula certo reliquum erit consentaneum constitutioni, quae nihil eventurum affir­ mare posse decernit.303 (...) I. Rugerius Prot.304

340r

R.s D. Prothonotarius Caesius305 (...) Circa Nonam Regulam. Esset declarandum an libri Astrologiae sint prohibendi, quia Regula non prohibet. Esset etiam declarandum nam Reg(ul)a loquitur tantum de ijs li­ bris, qui aliquid certo eventurum dicunt; an si libri Astrologiae dicant tantum, quod stelle inclinant an sint prohibendi. Aliquid in Reg(ul)a esset addendum de libris phinosomiae3.306 (...)

341r

Circa nonam

343v

Cum S.mus D.N. iubeat habentes, et legentes libros in hac regula prohibitos puniri censuris, et poenis in Indice contentis, opus fortasse esset eiusmodi censuras et poenas in hac ipsa regula explicare, et dis­ trictiori forma fideles ab illorum lectione deterrere. (...) F. Aug(ustinu)s Fiviz(zanus) Apostolici palati] sac(rist)a307 (...) Quo ad nonam regulam. Illud solum est animadvertendum ut Reg(u)la consentiat cum constitutione S.ml D. N. Syxti nuper con­ tra Astrologos. In constitutione enim in eadem serie ponuntur libri et tractatus Astrologiae iudiciariae, libri Geomantiae Hydromantiae et caeteri de quibus in Reg(u)la et ijsdem censuris et poenis a

“phinosomiae”: sic, for “phisionomiae”.

303

In the 1564 version of the Rule, the word “certo” indicated the distinction between conjectural and certain predictions of voluntary acts, and entailed the condemnation of the latter only. Rule XII of the 1590 Index eliminated this distinction, thus condemning what­ ever type of forecasting. See ch. Astrology, Introduction. 304 Giulio Ruggiero; BlOGR. 305 Bartolomeo Cesi, member of the first class of Consultore; BlOGR. 306 Cesi’s first two proposals were adopted by the Congregation; for physiognomy, see doc. III.10, ch. Della Porta, Introduction, and ch. Astrology, Introduction. 307 Agostino Molari; BlOGR. His proposal was not adopted. As a matter of fact, no Index Rule specified possible penalties.

— 161 ~

349r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

interdicuntur, et prohibentur nullo adhibito discrimine ut fit in Reg(u)la. (...) Marius Alterius Can(oni)cus et Theologus S(anc)ti Petri.308 350r

R. P. Alanusa (...)

350v

Regula 9 Per omnia plalcet], et declaretur atque executioni mandetur secun­ dum bullam S.mi D. Nostri Sixti Quinti. (...)

352r

R.P. bellarminiusb 309310(...) Ad nonam 1. Explicandum esset, an libri iudiciariae astrologiae simpliciter prohibeantur, nec ne. Nam regula ista non videtur interdicere horum librorum lectionem simpliciter, ut interdicit lectionem librorum necromantiae, et similium, sed solum Episcopos monere, ut dent operam, ne eiusmodi libri habeantur. 2. Deinde tollenda esset fortasse illa particula ‘qui certo affirmare audent’, nam cum nulli fere sint, qui ita certe affirmare audeant, nulli fere libri prohibiti erunt in hoc genere. Utrumque accommodandum esset ad bullam Sixti V de astrologis?10 (...) a “R. P. Alarius”: annotation; autographical subscription on £. 35 Ir: “G. Alanus” (William Allen). b “R.P. bellarminius”: annotation; the text is autographical.

308 William Allen; BiOGR. As noted above, Rule IX did not condemn astrology as such, but only the certain forecasting of voluntary acts. By contrast, Pope Sixtus V’s Bull con­ demned astrology tout court, as did Rule XII of the Sixtine Index. The distinction was intro­ duced again in 1593. 309 Roberto Bellarmino; BiOGR. 310 Bellarmino’s pronouncement, from “Explicandum esset” to “Sixti V de astrologis”, is published in Godmann 2000, p. 241. Note that Bellarmino, although highly critical about Sixtus’ re-organization of the Index, shared his view of astrology, in particular as to the elimi­ nation of the distinction between “obliging” and “inclining” astral influx, and thus of the distinction between absolute and conjectural predictions. This view, shared also by Francisco Pena (see f. 364r-v), was not adopted by the Congregation.

~ 162

II. DEFINITION OF INDEX RULES

353v

super nona Probatur tota, sed per tutiorem explicationem illius consulenda est constitutio S.mi D. N. nuperrim e edita. (...) Frater Timotheus berardus Procurator generalis Carmelitarum sub censura superiori.311 (...)

358r

In regulam Nonam Haec regula cum à S. D. N. Sixto .V. per bullam editam Non. Ian. 1586 satis declarata et amplior reddita sit, nihil difficultatis continere videtur/ Sed solum considerandum an expediat interdicere librum Abbatis Ioachim 312 cum quibusdam schemmatibus futurorum Pont, quae res plurimas animas illaqueat, sic Nostradami annua Prognostica.313 que è Gallijs deferri solent, et similiter librum B. Amodei ordinis Mino­ rum,314 qui à perversis8 et temerarijs hominibus corruptus, multa con­ tinet, quae emendatione indigere videntur. Novimus enim nonnullos de fide et salute valde periclitatos ex illius libri lectione, unde et ingemi­ scimus. (...) Io. Franc(iscu)s Bordinus. R.s D. Abbas Maffa c 315 (... )

359r

* In the margin: “Non imm utanda”. b In the margin: “Aliquorum libri interdicendi”. c “R.s (...) Mafia”: annotation; autographical subscription on f. 361v: “M.A. Maffa”.

• 511 According to Pope Sixtus V’s re-organization of the Index in February 1587, the Procura­ tor Generals of the Dominicans, Servites, Carmelites, Augustinians and Friars Minor had been confirmed Members of the Congregation “ex officio”; see ACDF, Index, fols, lv (for their nomi­ nation in 1571) and 16v (February 1587). Text in Godman 2000, p. 343. For Berardi, see BlOGR. 312 Probably, Ioachim 1577. 313 Probably, a version of the Presages by Michel de Nostradamus (1503-1566). : 314 The reference is to Blessed Amedeo Menez de Sylva, a Franciscan monk of Por­ tuguese origin who was the founder of the Amadeite branch of the order, alleged author of Apocalypsis Nova, a report that he wrote about his ecstatic trances and his dialogues with the Archangel Gabriel. For discussion, see Morisi 1970. 315 Marcantonio Maffa; BlOGR.

163

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

359v

360r

364r

Circa IX .am Necromantiae. quia similium nom inum multi possent esse libri ad superstitionem et sortilegia spectantes: non esset forsan om nino extra rem, si exprimerentur, putant enim plerum que simpliciores, non esse damnatos, ed quod nominarim de his non agatur. Et idcirco adderem, A xim om antiae, quae d iv inatio p e r dolabellas et sicuros fieb at, lecanom antiae per pilium, Catoptrom antiae, per speculum, Capnomantiae, ex fumi dissectione, Coscinomantiae per cribrum, quod di­ vinationis genus frequentissimum est apud vulgus, et muliercules pro reperendis furtis.316 Artis Magicae. Videretur addendum ex Bulla S.mi superstitionum, et ex precedenti regula, divinationum. Certo aliquid. Sed novella constitutione S. D. N. Sixti V. videntur omnes, omnino Astrologiae iudiciariae libri interdicti. Putarem tamen, constitutionem cum hac regula, quoad libros, non pugnare. Nam licet constitutio puniat exercentes iudicia astronomica, et si certo aliquid non affirment. Tamen cum de libris agit, subdit, in Indice memorato interdictos ergo iuxtà prescriptum huius regulae. Est igitur quoad personas exercentes, etiam non certo aliquid affirmantes, nova constitutio; quoad libros nihil novi circa hanc clausulam Indicis videtur statuere, quae cum desumpta sit ex S. Tho(ma) 2. 2. q. 95. vide­ tur omnino retinenda.317 Consulto tamen S.D.N. praesertim, quia con­ stitutio illa, quoad usum forensem maximas habet difficultates. H aec tamen regula distinctior videtur esse in Indice Hispaniarum. Sed quae magis videatur adversari dictae constitutioni.318 (...) ad 9. regulam 319 dubium occurrit circa illud verbum chyromantiae. quod non vide­ tur pari iure cum ceteris in hac regula positis censendum: nam chyrom antia pars physionomiae constituitur, ut copiose docuit Alexander For magic and divination, see chs. Magic and Astrology. For Aquinas’ text, see ch. Astrology, Introduction. Maffa’s position, contrasting those of Bellarmino and Pena (fols. 352 and 364), was eventually adopted by the Congregation. 318 For the difference between the Roman Rule IX and the Rule on astrology in the Span­ ish Index, see ch. Astrology, Introduction. 319 The previous text, by Maffa, breaks off on f. 36lr. The one that starts on f. 364r is by Pena. 316

317

~ 164 ~

II. DEFINITION OF INDEX RULES

Aquilinus non aspernendus phylosophus:320 physiognomia vero per­ missa est, et res naturalis, quod vel ex eo constat quoniam Aristoteles quia ubique principia naturae sectatus esse videtur, et omnem incertitudinem et superstitionem abominasse, quantum ratio sola naturalis patiebatur, physiognomica scripsit, [aut] [sive] liber eius esse negetur non potest negari quin lib. 2. cap. ult. prioris Analyseos de syllogismo physiognomico disseruerit, ad quem chyromantia pertinere videtur.321 ceterum non audeo pronuntiare, ut deleatur, ex quo S. D. N.b Sixtus ,V. inc constitutione, quam an. 1585. edidit Romae contra exercentes astrologiae iudiciariae artem, chyromantiam etiam vetuit, in qua huius regulae copiose meminit.322 In eadem regula ibi: certum aliquid eventurum affirmare audent. emendanda regula est, et concipienda iuxta praescriptum praefatae constitutionis d. n. papae Sixti .V. per quam vetuit omnes huiusmodi libros et artes divinatorias, etiamsi^ id se non certo affirmare asserant, aut protestentur. in eadem regula ibi: permittuntur autem iudicia et naturales observa­ tiones etc. tam ine his huius regulae verbis, quam in illis prorsus his similibus quae in praefata constitutione domini Sixti papae V. conti­ nentur, occurrit dubium duplex perplexum et anceps, cuius resolutio in praxi difficulter capi potest. P(rimu)m dubium est, quoniam in illis ipsis libris in quibus agitur de astrologia iudiciaria genethliaca, inter­ rogatoria, et electiva, tractatur etiam de iudicijs et naturalibus obser­ vationibus quae pertinent ad navigationem, agriculturam et medici­ nam, nec possunt illi prohiberi autf hi permitti, nisi simul omnes interdicantur aut permittantur. Dubium hoc augetur ex eo quod eis­ dem principijs videntur eniti iudicia astrologiae prohibitae et permis­ sae. nam omnibus est commune nosse hos vel illos planetas esse

a

After “qui”: a word crossed out. b Below a line crossed out. c After “in”: a word crossed out. d After “etiamsi”: a word crossed out. e After “in”: three words crossed out. f After “aut”: a word crossed out. 320 In the approbatio added to Bartholomaeus Codes (B. Della Rocca), Chyromantiae ac physionomiae anastasis-, see Codes 1504 (and reprints). 321 An. Priora, II. 27, 70bl-35. 322 On chiromancy, see the note to section I, doc. 1, f. 232v.

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

faemininos vel masculinos haec aut illa signa esse terrea, ignea, aerea, vel aquatica, et his sim ilia/ Alterum dubium est, quoniam nusquam sunt speciatim nominati / / 364v libri astrologiae qui interdicuntur, sed prohibentur in genere: non est b autem omnium par ratio: et de quadripartito ptolemei merito dubitur an in prohibitione 12 contineatur.323 Itaque circa hanc regulam diligens studium adhibendum foret nusquam ederetur, ne ubique terrarum m ultorum ingenia torquerentur, nesciunt enim d quid sit agendum deliberare: putarem itaque librorum rationem esse habendam, et quos­ dam penitus prohibendos quales sunt qui solum de interrogationib us et electionibus tractant, quales sunt Guido bonatus,324 Aomar,325 et alij similes: alios vero retinendos et non tam en om nibus concedendos donec alio provisio capiatur. Sed haec non possunt brevi tem pore expediri. (...) fran(cis)cus pegna.326 365r

Sententia magistri fr. Alfonsi Ciaconis circa 3. 4. [5.] 6. 7. et 8. re­ gulam Indicis Tridentini (...)

366v

Regula 9.a Cum nuper de astrologiae libris etiam qui non necessitate futura praedicunt, quae ab hum ana voluntate pendent6 decretum prodierit .S. D. N. Sisti V. oportet hanc regulam ad illud decretum restringere, “ “eniti (...) similia”: in the margin. b “dubitur”: sic. c After “prohibitione”: two words e After crossed out (one in the interlinear space). d After “enim”: two words crossed out. “pendent”: a word crossed out. 323 In 1596 the Congregation replied in the negative to the query whether ancient books on astrology were prohibited, recalling the general principle that only Christian authors were liable to prohibition; cf. sect. Ill, docs. 6 and 11; cf. supra, sect. I, doc. 6, f. 247r. 324 Guido Bonatti (1200/30-1296/98), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564), and Parma (1580); ILI, III, p. 232; VIII, p. 217; IX, p. 93. His Decern tractatus astronomiae were prohibited in the Index of Portugal (1561); ILI, IV, p. 383. 325 Cf. Messahalla, Omar Tiberiades et al. 1509. 326 Francisco Pena; BlOGR. Note that Pena argued that the words “certum aliquid eventu­ rum affermare audent” were in contradiction with Pope Sixtus V’s Bull, which condemned astrology unconditionally, and thus they should be eliminated. A similar position was formu­ lated by Bellarmino (see supra, f. 352r).

166 ~

II. DEFINITION OF INDEX RULES

nisi .S. D. N. voluerit sua benignitate decretum ad regulam tempe­ rare. Alias Ptolemaei Almagestum quadripartitum et centiloquium et auctores Graeci et Arabes qui multa habent ad Gethneliaca3 spectan­ tia permixta cum magno dispendio virorum doctorum et astronomiae damno tollerentur, nec remanerent praesidia ad agriculturam, naviga­ tionem, et medicinam iuvandas. (...) Galesini de sequentibus et ultimis Regulisb (...) Nona regula de libris Geomantiae Pyromantiae et ceterarum istiusmodi divinationum, Astrologiaeque iudiciariae, ita supplenda est, ac declaranda, ut cum ceteris canonum decretis, pontificum que consti­ tutionibus omnino conveniat, tum maxime cum s.mi D.N. sanctione, qua toto eo de genere cautum est diligentissime. (...) P. Gai.327

II.7 The Consultors of the Index, Pronouncements on the Modification of the Rules328 (Rome, [ante 25 April 1587]329) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 419r-429r, on 420r, 423r, 424v330

Super 9. Regulae appendicem Antequam nona Regula immutetur, aut haec appendix in lucem prodeat, supplicandum omnino esset S.mo Domino nostro, ut patiatur, “ “Gethneliaca”: sic. 327

b

“Galesini (...) Regulis”: annotation.

Pietro Galesini; BlOGR. The pronouncements are by Francisco Pena, Bartolomeo Cesi, two anonymous Con­ sultors, and William Allen. 329 These pronouncements probably integrated the ones in the previous document; cf., for example, the pronouncements by Francisco Pena. 330 Fols. 431r-452v contain the first version of Pope Sixtus V ’s Rules (cf. fols. 12r-14r) and the observations of the Congegation (for the definitive text, see doc. II.10 below); fols. 454v474v contain a copy of this text, almost completely crossed out. 328

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

antiquam regulam consistere, et constitutionem S(anctita)tis suae declarari, propter innumera dubia quae in provinces tam ultramontanis, quam citramontanis exoriuntur: et propter ingentem difficultatem reducendi ad praxim illa, quae praecipiuntur in dicta constitutione. (...) Fran(cis)cus pegna. 423 r

Ad regulas Indicis331 (...)

424v

Ad Nonam (Cum hac de re publicata) sancita, ac promulgata sit constitutio etc. (Quae ad medicam artem) Qui vero libri ad medicinam, agricul­ turam, et navigationem etc. II.8 Decree of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 25 April 1587) ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, £. 19r-va

Die 25. Aprilis 19r I9v

Cong(regati)o habita apud Ill.mum Card.lem Columnam ubi inter­ fuerunt reliqui. Decretum circa 9am et consulatur S.mus propter constitutionem ab ipso promulgatam et declaretur in Indice quinam sint libri Astro­ logici utiles concessi.332

Draft in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), £. 7v: “Circa nonam Regulam decreverunt illam retinendam esse, et consulendum sanctissimum propter constitutionem ab ipso pro­ mulgatam. / / Quod in Indice declaretur qui nam libri Astrologiae, pro medica arte. Agri­ coltura, et Navigatione exercenda legi possunt etc”. Cf. f. 13v. a

The text is anonymous, but it is written in Galesini’s hand; see fols. 367r-370v. This decree was never applied, because as a rule the Congregation rejected the idea that the Index could also contain permitted works. 331

332

~ 168

II. DEFINITION OF INDEX RULES

IL9 The Congregation for the Index, On the Extensions of the Rules (Rome, ante May 1588333) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 476r-477v, on £. 477r334

Extensio nonae3 (...)

477r

Cum hac de re publicata sit constitutio Sanctissimi D. N. Sixti Papae Quinti, illa omnibus suis in partibus observanda erit; qui vero libri Astrologiae ad medicam artem, agriculturam, et navigatoriam exercendam necessari) videntur, cum licentia legi poterunt, ut suis locis in Indice annotabitur15.335

Before “Extensio nonae”: “Ad nonam”, erased. “cum licentia (...) annotabitur”: in the margin; for: “in Indicem minime reponentur”, written after “necessarij videntur” and then erased. a

b

I

353 Between May 1587 and May 1588, the Congregation focused on the selection of works to be prohibited and/or expurgated. The Congregation started to discuss the Index Rules proposed by Pope Sixtus V on 5 May 1588 and concluded the discussion on 3 July; ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 33r-v. As this document refers to an extension of Rule IX, it was probably written before the presentation of the new Rules. 334 Between fols. 477 and 478 is an unnumbered page containing a synthesis of the Rules; fol. 47 8r is a synthesis of the observations made by the Congregation on Pope Sixtus V’s Rules; fol. 481r presents another synthesis; fols. 482r-484v contain a first version of Pope Sixtus V’s Rules (see below doc. 11.10). 335 This decree was never applied, because as a matter of fact the Congregation rejected the idea that the Index could also contain permitted works. See supra, doc. II.8.

~ 169

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

11.10 The Sixtine Rules336 (Rome, M a y -J u n e 1588337) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 490r-496v

490r

Ratio et ordo regularum Indicis (...)

494r

Regula tertiadecima 3 Libri omnes, et scripta Geomantiae, Hydromantiae, Aeromantiae, Pyromantiae, Onomantiae, Necromantiae, et aliarum omnium istiusmodi detestabilium divinationum sive in quibus continentur sortilegia, Veneficia, Auguria, Auspicia, Incantationes artis magicae, prorsus reiiciuntur. Astrologiae vero Iudiciariae tractatus, et Indices qui de futuris contingentibus successibus, fortuitisve casibus, aut iis actionibus quae ab hum ana voluntate pendent, 6 et praesertim interrogationum , et elec­ tionum libri, prohibentur omnino, ut est cautum constitutione nostra. Si quae vero Iudicia, et naturales observationes navigationis, agriculturae, sive medicae artis iuvande gratia conscripta sunt, permittuntur.338

a “tertia”: in the interlinear space for “duo”, erased; in the margin: “reg. 9/ Ind. reg. 12.“ ex. d. C ”. b Apparently, in the clause “qui de (...) voluntate p en d en t”, a verb like “tractan t” is lacking.

336 For a first version, see fols. 482r-484v. After this section follows, on fols. 500r-504v, Vincenzo Bonardi, Discorso intorno all’indice (see sect. V, doc. 11). A. definite version of the Sixtine Rules is (also) in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, L (II.a.10), fols. 118r-121v. 337 As noted before (see note to previous doc.), the Congregation started to discuss the Index Rules proposed by Pope Sixtus V on 5 May 1588 and concluded the discussion on 3 July. 338 Draft on f. 13v : “Cum hac de re promulgata sit Constitutio nostra, ilia in omnibus suis partibus observanda est. Qui vero libri Astrologiae ad Medicam artem, Agricolturam, et Navigationem exercendam necessitati videntur, legi poterunt, ut suis locis in Indice anno­ tatis”. In the margin: “Regula videtur retinenda, consulatur tamen Sanctissimus”. This was the first phrase of the rule on divination, which according to Pope Sixtus V should substitute the Rule IX of the Tridentine Index. After the Congregation’s considerations, the Rule was modified and became Rule XII in 1590; the 1593 Index omitted this rule and the Clementine Index returned to the 1564 Rules.

170

II. DEFINITION OF INDEX RULES

11.11 The Congregation for the Index, Observation on Rule IX as proposed by Pope Sixtus V (Rome, ca. June 15 88339) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 538r-558v, on 543v340

(...) 12. In Duodecima credit Cong(regati)o vitio scriptoris deesse haec quae sequuntur, scilicet Item scripta quaecunque cuiusmodi sunt Geomantiae, Hydromantiae, Pyromantiae, Onomantiae, Chiromantiae, Necromantiae, et aliarum istiusmodi detestabilium divina­ tionum, sive in quibus continentur Sortilegia, Auguria, Auspicia, Veneficia, incantationes, artes magicae reijciuntur, atque abolentur omnino.341

339 According to ACDF, Index, Diari, 1. f. 33r, the observations on fols. 538r-558v were presented on 18 May 1588. However, here Rule XIII is already considered as Rule XII (see previous note); thus, this document probably reflects a later stage of the debate on Index Rules. 340 After this document, the following sections can be distinguished. Fols. 559r-569r: “votum Sorbonae” (post 1587); fols. 571r-v: the reaction of the University of Louvain, sub­ scribed by a certain Hendrik Cuyck (1587); fols. 572r-574v: doubts by Card. Della Rovere; fols. 575r-576r: answer by the Royal Council in Bruxelles, dated 27 June 1570; fols. 577r595r: letters from the Universities of Alcalà, Salamanca, and Coimbra; letters from the Archbishop of Lisbon, the Nuncio in Paris, and the University of Louvain; letters from Cologne, Antwerp, and Naples; fols. 594r-620v regard the correction of the Spanish Index by the Capuchin Friar Gregorio di Napoli, the author of Enchiridion ecclesiasticum (Gre­ gorio 1588). 341 The Congregation notes that a phrase is lacking: “Item scripta quaecunque (...) atque abolentur omnino”. This was a modification of the first part of the new rule (f. 494r), and corresponds to the version published in 1590. There was an important difference, however, because the latter did not specify the divinatory arts, referring merely to “item scripta quaecunque, sortilegia, veneficia, magiam, incantationesque continentia reijciuntur omnino”; see ILI, IX, p. 797. Thus, the proposal by the Congregation was only partially adopted for the second part of the rule.

— 171 ~

543v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

11.12 The Congregation for the Index on the Rules proposed by Pope Sixtus V342 (Rome, 3 July 1588343) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 506v-526r344

506v

Regulae Indicis à S.mo D. N. Cardinalium Congregationi traditae345

508v

Regula .V. Haereticorum vero scripta, cuiuscunque sint argumenti, errores in fide, vel moribus non continentia, si ad Ecclesiam ipsi tandem redierint, permittuntur. Si autem errores permixtos habent, nec ipsi ad Ecclesiam redierint, sive ante, sive post lapsum in haeresim scripserint, sive de religione, sive de alio quocunque argumento tractent, omnino prohibentur.346 (...)

342 The Rules here discussed are those which should have replaced those of the 1564 Index (first version in doc. 11.10). It should be borne in mind that the text reproduced reflects the Pope’s proposal; the Rules were modified after this reply by the Congregation. On 6 October 1588, Pope Sixtus V transmitted the corrected version of the Rules to the Congregation, which discussed them on 13 October (“Examinatae fuerunt rursus regulae traditae a S.ra° D. N. et quaedam addenda et moderanda et minuenda conclusum”.) and on 20 October (“Examinatae fuerunt regulae omnes tum quae traditae sunt a S.m° D. Nostro tum quae illi a Cong(regatio)ne redditae sunt ut in meliorem formam redactae impressioni dari possint”.); cf. Diari, 1, fols. 34v-35r. There is no extant documentation on the discussion from the summer through the autumn of 1588. 343 The Congregation started to discuss the Index Rules proposed by Pope Sixtus V on 5 May 1588 and concluded the discussion on 3 July; ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 33r-v. The final version of these Rules was printed in the 1590 Index, which was never promulgated. 344 Drafts in Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 431v-474r; copy in Protocolli, V (II.a.19), fols. 9r29r. Partially published in Godman 2001, pp. 419-22. After this document, on fols. 528r537v: discussion on expurgation (pronouncements by Ruggiero, Pena, Allen, and anony­ mous Consultors); on fols. 538r-558v, pronouncements and general documents on the Index (see doc. II. 11). 345 Note that the versos contain the Rules proposed by Pope Sixtus V, entitled “Regulae Indicis à S.”10 D. N. Cardinalium Congregationi traditae”. The rectos contain the observa­ tions by the Cardinals, entitled “Regulae Indicis ab eadem Congregatione S.m° D.N.D. Sixto Quinto redditae”. 346 The text is identical in the 1590 Index; see ILI, IX, p. 796.

~ 172 ~

II. DEFINITION OF INDEX RULES

Regulae Indicis ab eadem Congregatione S.mo D.N. redditae Regula V Congregatio omni qua decet humilitate supplicat Sanctitati Vestrae quod velit retinere veteris regulae distinctionem, et libros haeretico­ rum, qui de religione tractant, reijcere, reliquos expurgatos, et correc­ tos concedere, idque. Primo: quia similem fere regulam ohm a Paulo quarto aeditam, Pius Q uartus qui eum sequutus fuit moderatus est, ut patet in litteris Fratris Michaelis Ghislerii tunc Cardinalis Alexandrini, qui praefatae moderationis fidem facit, sub die 14a mensis Iunii Pont(ificatus) eius­ dem Pii anno 2°.347 Subinde sequutus Index iussu Concilii aeditus, hanc distinctionem proposuit in regula 2 a .348 Idem frater Michael ad summum Pontificatum evectus, et Pius Vus vocatus sub Datis Romae apud Sanctum Petrum xiii. Calend. Decembris Pont(ificatus) sui anno V° Motu proprio 349 etc. praedictam regulam con­ firmavit, et expurgationem huiusmodi librorum Magistro Sacri Palatii tunc existenti commisit, qui etiam eam exequutioni mandare incoepit. Secundo, quia difficile admodum erit aliquos haereticorum libros cuius­ libet scientiae professionibus respective non concedere, ut Iurisperitis Monlineum,350 Zasium,351 Hottomannum,352 Vuesembeccium;353 Medicis See sect. I, doc. 2 (24 June 1561); Ghislieri was elected Pope Pius V on 7 January 1566. For Rule II, see ILI, Vili, pp. 813-14. 349 In the Bull Licet alias postquam (19 November 1570), Pope Pius V authorized Tomas Manrique, then Master of the Sacred Palace, to correct forbidden, non-religious, books and to print corrected texts in Rome. The text of the bull is in Hilgers 1904, pp. 510-13. 350 Charles du Moulin (1500-1566), prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), Antwerp (1570), Parma (1580), and Spain (1583); ILI, Vili, p. 390; VII, p. 133; IX, p. 182; VI, p. 231; IX, pp. 805 , 867, 936. For the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, pp. 159-61. 351 Ulrich Zasius (1461-1535), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1557, 1559, 1596) and Parma (1580); ILI, VIII, pp. 257, 306, 307; IX, p. 737, 180. For the prohibi­ tion of individual works, see ILI, X, p. 415. 353 Francois Hotman (1524-1590), prohibited in the Indexes of Munich (1582), Spain (1583), and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, p. 241; VI, p. 409; IX, pp. 543, 603, 814, 875. See also ILI, X, p. 228. Cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. llr-v. 353 Mattheus van Wesenbeke (1531-1586), prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 659, 832, 892. for the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, p. 407. Cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. l l r 347

348

173 ~

509r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

G esnerum , 354 Fuchsium , 355 Brunsfelsium , 356 Paracelsum , 357 Cornarium . 358 Philosophis Velcurionem , 359 C am erarium 3,360 G ryneum . 361 M ath em aticis L e o v itiu m , 362 S c o n n e ru m , 363 H e g e n d o rp h iu m . 364 H um anarum literarum peritis, Doletum ,365 Licosthenem,366 et alios. Tertio quia Hispanienses, Lovanienses,367 et alii, qui plures huiusm odi libros expurgarunt, et expurgatos retinent, et legunt, cum id fecerint Sedis Apostolicae permissu, aegre ferent si eadem iubente eos reijcere coacti fuerint. a

After “Camerarium”: “Petrum Ramum”, crossed out.

354

See ch. Gessner. See ch. Fuchs. 356 See ch. Brunfels. 357 See ch. Paracelsus. 358 Janus Cornarius (Hagenbut o Hainpol) (ca. 1500-1558); for the prohibition of individ­ ual works, see ILI, X, p. 137, and ch. Janus Cornarius. 359 Johannes Velcurio (Feldkirch) (J 1534), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), and Spain (1559, 1583); ILI, III, p. 305; VIII, pp. 523, 547, 695; V, p. 445; VI, pp. 398, 419, 553-54; IX, pp. 824, 885, 953. For the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, p. 395. 360 Joachim Camerarius; see sect. I, doc. 1, f. 228r. 361 Simon Grynaeus (1493-1541), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), Antwerp (1570), and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 356; VIII, pp. 481, 674-75; VII, p. 222; VI, pp. 340, 534; IX, pp. 841, 900, 971. For the prohibi­ tion of individual works, see ILI, X, p. 209. 362 See ch. Cyprian Leowitz. 363 See ch. Schóner. 364 Christoph Hegendorff (1500-1540), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), Parma (1580), and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 244; VIII, p. 393; IX, p. 182; VI, p. 242; IX, pp. 805, 867, 936. For the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, pp. 216-18. 365 Étienne Dolet (1509-1546), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1549), Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), Spain (1559, 1583); ILI, III, p. 153; VIII, pp. 675-76; IX, pp. 842, 900, 971; V, p. 437; VI, p. 539. For the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, p. 155. 366 Conrad Lycosthenes (Wolfhart) (1518-1561), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), Parma (1580), and Spain (1583); ILI, Vili, p. 396; IX, pp. 106, 183, 806, 868, 936; VI, p. 265. For the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, p. 269. 367 For lists of books expurgated in Louvain, see section VIII, docs. 4, f. 129r, and 13, fols. 7r-10r. See also Index (...) collectus. The major part of these corrections were published in the expurgatory Index of Antwerp (1571). 355

174

II. DEFINITION OF INDEX RULES

I Quart°> quia multae expurgationes iam factae sunt, quae si exe- 510r I utioni mandabantur, plures huiusm odi libri non 3 parvo studiosoet retineri. Commodo legi poterunt, Quinto, quia non indecens, immo aequum esse videtur AegiptioEcclesiae vindicare.368 Ecclesiam vero Dei bonitatem imi_ -i -i ■ rum °P CS odio prosequatur, naturam nihilominus amat. t a r i qui tametsi vitium Placeat igitur S(anctita)ti V(estrae) regulam his verbis form atam recipere? Hoc eodem m odo perm ittuntur etiam libri Catholice scripti, tam ab illis qui postea in haeresim lapsi sunt, quam ab illis, qui post lap­ sum ad Ecclesiae gremium rediere/ ^O p taret etiam Congregatio ut S.V. in his regulis rationem aliquam haberet librorum, qui ex aliorum dictis ab haereticis collecti sunt, ut lexica, concordantiae, Apophtegmata, Indices, similitudines, et reliqui de quibus quinta regula Indicis Pii quarti.369 Opteret etiam, ut haberetur ratio de Prologis, Summaries, Adnotationibus, scholijs etc. quae ab Auctoribus damnatis, libris non damnatis apposita sunt, de quibus octava regula Indicis,370 idque ne Haeresiarchis aequipararentur Haeretici.371 Regula vero hoc modo formaretur. Sequens Regula suo loco erit reponenda 4. Lexica, concordantiae, A pophtegm ata, sim ilitudines, Indices, sententiae, aliaq u e h u iu s m o d i ab h e re tic is d c o lle cta , p e rm itti poterunt, si m odo sublatis eorum nom inibus atque illis om nibus, quae doctrinae fidei orthodoxae pietatique christianae repugnant, • After “non”: “sine”, crossed out. b The text of the rule that follows in the ms., was crossed out: “Aliorum Haereticorum libri qui de Religione ex professo tractant, prohibentur omnino. Permitti vero poterunt nonnulli eorum libri, sed admodum pauci, et ex his ij tantum qui hactenus prodierunt, quique possint esse alicuius utilitatis, si modo de Religione non tractent ex professo, sitque eorum expurgatio à Cardinalibus deputatis approbata”. c After rediere”: “dummodo Haeresiarchae non fuerint”, crossed out. d After “hereticis”: “non inutiliter”, crossed out.

58 365

- 70

This attitude of the Church originated from the patristic exegesis of Ex 12: 35-36. See doc. II.5. For Rule VIII (on expurgation), see ILI, Vili, pp. 817-18. For the crucial distinction, see the note to sect. Ill, doc. 8.

175 ~

511r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

expurgata et correcta fuerint; atque fuerit eorum correctio, et expur­ gatio, per deputatos ab hac S(anc)ta Sede approbata.372 Permitti quoque eodem modo possunt prologi, summaria, et annotationes, ab haereticis libris catholicis appositae, Donec (quod maxime optamus) haec eadem, vel similia à viris catholicis fuerimus consequuti, tunc enim novis supervenientibus, sup(radic)tas haereticorum lugubrationesa nolumus amplius imprimi, vel retineri.373 (...) 5i2v

Regula IX Theses, Assertiones, seu Axiomata, aut Problemata, aut alia quae­ vis eius generis etiam quae exercendi ingenij aut disserendi causa, aliavè ratione proponuntur doctrinae fidei orthodoxae, pietatique christianae repugnantia, è quacunque scientia deprompta prorsus vetan­ tur; quae si ab haereticis collecta fuerint etiam si nullatenus fidei repugnent, in haereticorum, detestationem prohibentur, si nomina eorum non expungantur.374 (...)

513r

Regula IX In hac regula ubi legitur, quae si ab haereticis collecta fuerint, Con­ gregatio credit legendum esse ab haereticis eorum que libris. (...)

513v Regula XIJb Libri omnes, tractatus, et Indices Astrologiae iudiciariae, de actio‘ “lugubrationes”: sic, in the interlinear space, for “labores”, crossed out. b Other copies of the text on fols. 513v-514r, are on fols. 439r-440r and on fols. 461r-462r. 372 In the 1590 Index: “Lexica vero, concordantiae, indices, apophtegmata, sententiae, aliaque huiusmodi ab haereticis collecta, permittuntur, postquam expurgata fuerint, haereti­ corum tamen nominibus sublatis, expurgatoris vero, seu recognitoris nomine expresso”. See ILI, IX, p. 796. 373 For later developments of Rule V, see ILI, IX, pp. 856 and 921. 374 In the 1590 Index: “Theses, assertiones, seu axiomata, aut problemata, aut alia quaevis eius generis etiam quae exercendi ingenij aut disserendi causa, aliavè ratione proponuntur doctrinae sanctorum patrum, fidei orthodoxae, pietatique christianae repugnantia, è qua­ cunque scientia deprompta, prorsus vetantur, quae si ab haereticis collecta fuerint, etiamsi nullatenus fidei repugnent, in haereticorum detestationem prohibentur, si nomina eorum non expungantur, et eius qui illorum nomina expunxerit, nomen item non exprimatur”. See ILI, IX, pp. 796; see also pp. 857 and 922.

~ 176

F II. DEFINITION OF INDEX RULES

nibus humanis è libero arbitrio pendentibus prohibentur omnino. Item scripta quaecunque cuiusmodi sunt, Geomantiae, Hidromantiae, Aeromantiae, Pyromantiae, Onomantiae, Chiromantiae, Necromantiae, Axinomantiae, Leconomantiae, Catoptromantiae, Capnomantiae, et aliorum, istiusmodi detestabilium divinationum, sive in quibus continentur sortilegia, auguria, auspicia, veneficia, incanta­ tiones artis magicae, reijciuntur atque abolentur omnino.375 (...) Regula XIJ

514r

Ut regula3 conveniatb cum bulla S(anctita)tis V(estrae) Congregatio credidit expedire, ut hoc modo formaretur. Libri omnes, tractatus, et Indices Astrologiae Iudiciariae de futuris contingentibus successibus fortuitisve casibus, aut actionibus huma­ nis, è libero arbitrio pendentibus, prohibentur omnino. Illa quae solum iudicia, et naturales observationes, quae Navigatio­ nis, Agriculturae, sive Medicae artis iuvandae gratia conscripta sunt, permittuntur. Item scripta quaecunque etc. usque in finem regulae.376 Placeret Cong(regatio)ni quod suo loco apponeretur certo aliquod eventum affirmantem prout in reg(ul)a Indicis Pii Quarti.0

a In

the interlinear space: “potissimum”, crossed out. After “conveniat”: “in omnibus suis partibus”, crossed out. c “Placeret (...) Quarti”: in another hand. b

375

For the text in the 1590 Index, see ILI, IX, p. 797: “Libri omnes, tractatus, et indices astrologiae iudiciariae, seu divinationum de futuris contingentibus, successibus, fortuitisque casibus, ac humanis actionibus è libero arbitrio pendentibus prohibentur omnino: qui vero iudicia, naturalesque observationes navigationis, agriculturae, seu medicae artis iuvandae gratia tractant, permittuntur: item scripta quaecunque sortilegia, veneficia, magiam, incanta­ tionesque continentia, reijciuntur omnino”. For later developments, see pp. 857, 922; notice that in the Roman Indexes of 1593 and 1596 the rule concerning astrology became again Rule IX (as in the 1564 Index). See also ch. Astrology. 376 Cf. the draft on f. 19r: “Circa duodecima credit deesse Item scripta quaecunque cuiusffiodi licet Geomantiae etc. usque in finem”.

~ 177 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

11.13 Roberto Bellarmino, Observations on the Rules of the Index (Rome, read on 25 July 1592377) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 19r-20r 19r

Que Videntur Addenda vel explicanda in Regulis Indicis Pij IIII Belarminij Votum (...)

19v

Ad 9am Explicandum illud ut Episcopi vero diligenter provideant ne astrologia judiciaria libri tractatus indices legantur.378 Dubium est enim utrum hoc loco absolute prohibeatur lectio eiusmodi librorum an solum mandetur episcopis [...] [libros] eiusmodi legi patiantur, itaque perspicue dicendum esse videretur Astrologie [...] Iudiciarie libri, [nemo] legere vel habere [presumat] atque ut id servetur epis­ copi diligenter provideant.379 Praeterea cum hec regulea non omnino concordet cum Bulla Sixti V. consulenda esset Santitas PP 380 quod in hac parte fieri velit nam vel mutanda est bulla ubi dicitur libris astrologie etiam si protestentur eorum auctores se nihil certo affirmare velle vel corrigenda est Regula ubi dicit eos libros damnari in quibus de futuris eventis aliquid certo affirmatur.

“regule”: sic, for “regula”. 377 On this day, the Cardinals adopted Bellarmino’s argumentation, and decreed that the future Index resumed the 1564 Rules; cf. doc. III.2. 378 The phrase “Episcopi (...) legantur” is a quotation of the Rule. 379 Bellarmino argued for a rigorist interpretation; cf. doc. II.6, f. 352r (supra). 380 Clement VIII; BlOGR.

178

II. DEFINITION OF INDEX RULES

11.14 Bartolomé de Miranda, O n the Rule IX (Rome, ante 9 August 15 92381) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 23r-24ra , on f. 24r

(...) De N ona Regula

24r

Videatur Bulla Sixti V? 382 quae multa prohibit circa materiam de qua illa regula agit, et visa bulla consideretur, si illi regulae aliquid sit addendum, ut conformitas sit inter regulam et bullam. (...) Magister Sac. Pai.383

11.15 Bartolomé de M iranda, O n the Decisions of the Congregation for the Index on the Rule IX (Rome, post 8/9 August 1592384) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 25r-26v/ 31r

Post D ecretum factum ab Ill.mIS et R.mis Dominis Cardinalibus C on­ 25r gregationis Indicis de retinendis Regulis editis sub Pio 4° a Patribus deputatis a Tridentina Sinodo, congregatione habita Die 9. Augusti 1592. coram Ill.mis et R.mis Dominis Cardinalibus de Verona,385 Mona

Copy on fols. 27r-30r.

b

Copy in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, P (II.a.14), fols. 84r-88r.

381

See the following document. Pope Sixtus V’s Bull Coeli et terrae (1588) is referred to; see above and ch. Astrology, Introduction. 383 Bartolomé de Miranda; BlOGR. 384 The official version of the minutes of the meeting is dated 8 August; Miranda, by con­ trast, indicates 9 August (cf. infra). Cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 47v: “Responsum fuit multis dif­ ficultatibus propositis a Mag(ist)ro Sacri Palatii et sic per literas privatas aliis respondendum prout habes libro K Fol. 21”. 385 Agostino Valier; BlOGR. 382

179

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

dovi,386 Asculane387 et Alane388 fuere aliquot Dubia proposita circa praedictas Regulas a consultoribus, qui tali congregationi intersunt, quatenus illis explicatis et resolutis per Ill.mos Cardinalibus supranominatos facilius possit in materia ista procedi. (...) 27v De 9.a Regula Videatur bulla Sixti quinti, quae multa prohibet circa materia illam, ut bulla visa consideretur, si illi regulae aliquid sit addendum. lll.m‘ decreverunt, quod consideretur bulla, et fiat verbum cum Sanc­ tissimo. (...) Magister S. Palat.

586 387 388

V incenzo L au ro ; BlOGR. G iro lam o B ernieri; BlOGR. W illiam A llen; BlOGR.

~ 180 ~

Ill QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE INDEX

After the death of Pope Sixtus V, the promulgation of the Index prepared under his guidance and fresh from the press was immedi­ ately suspended. Its destination remained uncertain for a couple of years, until under Pope Clement VIII the Congregation opted for the composition of a new Index. However, this was essentially the adop­ tion of the Index of Pius IV, including its Rules (docs. 1-2). The extant documentation reveals that the ensuing discussion returned, in ter alia, on the issue of the condemnation of astrology (doc. 3). The promulgation of the Clementine Index in 1596 fueled a lively debate on the Rules and their application, both with the M aster of the Sacred Palace and with the peripheral seats of the Index. The debate centered on the distinction between original editions, translations and corrected editions of books, on the modalities of expurgation, on the translations of ancient (pagan) texts (docs. 4, 7, 11, 12), on the status of (presumed) haeresiarch ae (doc. 6), on astrology (docs. 4, 5, 9, 11), and on physionomy (docs. 10, 14). An illuminating synthesis of these disputes and dialectics is in doc. 13, which consists of a col­ lection of the most significant Index decrees during the 1590s.

~ 181 ~

III.l Decree of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 18 July 1592) ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 46v-47r389

46v

47r

Die 18. Iulii Cong(regati)o habita apud Ill.mum Card. Veronensem 390 ubi inter­ fuerunt Card. 1'5 M ontis Regalis,391 Asculanus,392 Alanus 393 et Borromaeus 394 cum Mag(istr)ro Sacri Palatii.395 Restitutus fuit Congregatigli Indicis a S.mo D. N. Ill.mus Card. Montis Regalis, et in locum dem ortui bonae memoriae Card.Ils de Ruvere 396 subrogatus est Ill."1"3 D. Car? 5 Asculanus qui cum reliquis per Secreta­ rium 397 verbo et scripto informatus de agendis in Congreg(atio)ne sta­ tuerunt in diem Sabbati transferendam Cong(regatio)nem quae hac­ tenus die Iovis congregabatur nisi ob aliquod impedimentum esset feria sexta. Memoriale Mag(istr)ri Sacri Palatii a S.mo D. N. transmissum per Se­ cretarium lectum fuit et conclusum quod ab impressione novi Indicis inchoandum et postmodum de librorum expurgatione tractandum et tunc adhibendi Consultores dum m odo ut asseruit Secretarius Index Sixti Quinti nondum publicatus fuerat sed suspensus et retentus. D ecretum in sequenti Cong(regatio)ne discutiendum esse an Sixti V' Index cum suis regulis sit prom ulgandus vel potius In d ex Pii Q uarti cum appendice et regulis impressoriis et expurgatoriis.

389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397

Published in Godman 2000, p. 439. Agostino Valier; BlOGR. Vincenzo Lauro; BlOGR. Girolamo Bernieri; BlOGR. William Allen; BlOGR. Federico Borromeo; BlOGR. Bartolomé de Miranda; BlOGR. Girolamo della Rovere; BlOGR. Paolo Pico; BlOGR.

-

182

III. QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE INDEX

III.2 Decree of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 25 July 1592) ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 47r-v398

Die 25. Iulii

47r

C ongregatilo habita apud Ill.mum Card.lem Veronensem / / ubi inter­ fuerunt omnes excepto Card.11 Ascanio 399 absente et Mag(istr)ro Sacri Palatii. Memoriale Mag(istr)ri Sacri Palatii lectum proponentis quosdam pro visitatione publicarum Bibliothecarum quod concessum illi fuit. Lectae p er Secretarium quam plures difficultates p ro p o sitae a P(at)re Belarminio 400 in regulas et Indicem Sixti Q uinti et conclusum ad evitandas tot difficultates retinendum Indicem Pii 4" cum suis re­ gulis ubique publicatum et usu receptum in quo virtualiter continentur omnia et m inor apparet difficultas. Decretum quod iuramentum a Consultoribus exigatur ut moris erat et in manibus Ill.™ Card.Us Veronensis praestitit iuramentum Secretarius qui notam omnium Consultorum deferret ad Congreg(atio)nem et R. P. Toletum401 et Belarminium advocabit. Decretum in sequenti Cong(regatio)ne discutiendum an regulae Pii Quarti sint retinendae cum appendicibus per Cong(regatio)nem olim superadditis.

47v

398 399 400 401

Published in Godman 2000, p. 439. Ascanio Colonna; BlOGR. Roberto Bellarmino; BlOGR. Probably, doc. 11.13 is referred to. Francisco Toledo; BlOGR.

~ 183

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

111.3 The Consultors of the Index, D oubts on the Index (Rome, O ctober 1592)402 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), f. 37ra

37r

Dubia in Regulis Pij IV. emergentia per Ill.mos DD. Consul(to)res dis­ cutienda, ut pro illorum determ inatione consulant sanctam sedem Ap(osto)licam (...) 2.° De Bulla Sixti .V. Inhibendam omnino Astrologiam Iudiciariam quae videtur restringere Regulam nonam Indicis.403 (...) .7.° An Raimundus Lullius et franciscus Patritius in 2a Classe Indicis sint reponendi, et Thalmud Hebreorum expurgatum tolerari poss[it].404 111.4 Bartolomé de M iranda,405 D oubts on the new Index (Rome, ante 6 July 1596406) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Q (II.a.15), f. llSr-v 407 (copy; autographical signature)

H8r D ubia circa Regulam .9. Indicis “ Summary on f. 38r. Copy in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, I (II.a.8), f. 356r. See also in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Q (II.a.15), f. 126r: “Dubia coram S.mo determinanda (...) / / 2° An Bulla Sixti V, vel regula nona Indicis servanda de libris astrologicis. ( .. .) / / 6 An Raimundus Lullius et Fran­ ciscus Patritius in 2.a classe Indicis reponendi (...)”. Cf. docs. 1.4-5, and ch. Lull, doc. 25. C£. ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 210r-211v (sect. I, doc. 5). For a reconstruction of the debate on astrology, see ch. Astrology, Introduction. 404 In the 1596 Index, Patrizi was prohibited in the second class, and Lull’s Philosophia amoris in the third class, while the Talmud was not prohibited; see ILI, IX, pp. 945 and 969. See also chs. Patrizi and Lull. 405 Bartolomé de Miranda; BlOGR. 406 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 90v-91r: “Difficultates Magistri S. Palatii propositae per Secretarium diligenter examinatae, et mature discussae fuere per Cong(regatio)nem, quibus responsum prout habes in registro Decretorum”. 407 For the responses, see f. 78r-v (doc. III.5); cf. doc. III.10. 402 403

~ 184 ~

n i. QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE INDEX

I pm Si Astrologiae iudiciariae libri non reperiantur separati à li­ bris Astronomiae, in quibus de astris, coelis, planetis, eorumque influentijs disseritur, quaeritur, an isti libri sint omnino prohibiti, ita ut tantum deleantur, quae ad judi­ n vero veniant expurgandi, cia spectant. 2 m supposito quod hi libri sint expurgandi, an de illorum conces­ sione ante expurgationem idem fieri debeat, quod de alijs expurgan­ dis et qui ad praescriptum regularum Indicis permitti possunt statu­ tum est §. 2. de prohibitione librorum.408 3 mAn sub hac regula comprehendantur libri Astrologiae iudicia­ riae, qui quamvis de futuris contingentibus successibus fortuitisve casibus aut actionibus liberis aliquid affirmativè dicant, non tamen ita certo ut illud inevitabile fateantur, sed absolute et simpliciter illud eventorum proferunt, absque quod dicant certo. 4.m An liber Astrologiae Iudiciariae sit prohibendus, in cuius prin­ cipio author ait se non velle futuros eventus aut actiones liberas praedicere, sicuti Ptolomeus initio sui Quadripartiti facit dicens3 quod sapiens dominabitur astris.409 et postea absolutè profert fortui­ tos casus eventus et actiones liberas. 5.m si non dentur impressa iudicia et naturales observationes navi­ gationis, agriculturae sivè medicae artis iuvandae gratia, separatim a libris Iudiciariae Astrologiae, quaeritur an libri istius iudiciariae artis, trium illarum iuvandarum gratia etiam permittantur, et libere ipsarum professoribus seu studiosis concedi debeant.

' After “dicens”: a word crossed out. Cf. the Clementine Index (1596): Instructio eorum qui libris tum prohibendis, tum expurgandis, tum etiam imprimendis (...) operam sunt daturi, in the section De prohibitione librorum, § II, in ILI, IX, p. 925: “Si qui erunt, qui librum unum aut plures ex prohibitis, qui (■••) permitti possunt, (...), potestatem sibi retinendi, aut legendi (...). Ante expurgationem desiderent: concedendae facultatis extra Urbem, ius erit penes Episcopum, aut Inquisitorem, Romae, penes Magistrum Sacri Palatij”. 09 These words rephrase, rather than quote Ptolemy’s argumentation in Quadripartitum, 408

185 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Circa §.2. De Prohibitione librorum 410 D ubium est, an liber expurgandus ante expurgationem aliqua ex causa concedi possit viris dignis ac pietate non tamen doctrina, sed di­ gnitate Ecclesiastica vel saeculari conspicuis licet eorum studia publi­ cae utilitati et sanctae catholicae Ecclesiae usui esse non sit compertum. Et an qui tractant de medicina, medicis etiam non insignibus, et qui agunt de b iurisprudentia, Iurisperitis etiamsi non sint celebres permitti valeant. (...) frate bartho. de miranda 6 118v III.5 The Congregation for the Index, Replies to the Queries of the M aster of the Sacred Palace411 (Rome, 6 July 1596)412 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Q (II.a.15), f. 78r-v

78r

Ad prim um D ubium Magistri .S. Palati] Resp(onditu)r Affirmative, quod Libri Astrologici in quibus per­ mixta sunt judiciaria naturalibus expurgari possunt. Ad .2.” R (esponditu)r A ffe rm a tiv e Q u o d ante expurgationem iusta de causa, personis dignis concedi possunt sicut alij libri expurgabiles. Ad ,3.m R(esponditu)r aff(irmati)ve quod si libri Astrologici non c affirmant certo, necessario, infallibiliter, vel inevitabiliter aliquid eventurum perm itti possunt. a

After “de”: “medicina”, crossed out. “certo”, crossed out.

b

Autographical signature.

c

After “non”:

See also Miranda’s more extensive doubts, formulated in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, P (Il.a. 14), fols. 59r-60v, quoted in ch. Licences, Introduction. 411 The text of the queries is in doc. III.4. 412 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 90v-91r (cf. note to previous doc.). 410

186

III. QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE INDEX

Ad -4 ” R(esponditu)r a ffe rm a tiv e Q uod Libri A strologici in principio protestantes se nolle liberos eventus predicere, et illos postea sine cer­ titudine affirmantes perm itti possunt. Ad .5.m R(esponditu)r afferm ative sicut ad ,2.m . Q uod judiciarie Astrologie libri perm ixti naturalibus observationibus perm itti possunt, omnibus si non certo affirment, et viris dignis, iusta de causa, si certo affirmant liberas actiones eventuras De Prohibitione librorum

78v

R(esponditu)r affirm ative Q uod Viris dignitate Ecclesiastica vel seculari conspicuis concedi possunt libri expurgabiles, q(uandoquide)m illorum studia ratione dignitatis publice utilitati conducunt. Doctores omnes sive in Medicina sive in jurisprudentia vel alia fa­ cultate censendi sunt doctrina conspicui dum m odo in omnibus adsit pietas christiana.

III.6 Decree of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 6 July 1596) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Q (II.a.15), f. lllr-v* 1’

In Generali Cong(regatio)ne Indicis habita die 6. Iulij 1596. Coram 117r Ill.mis et R.mis D D. Aug. S. Marci de Verona,413414 Simeone S. Anastasiae de Terranova,415 Caesare .SS. Nerei et Archilei1’ Baronio,416 T.T. Presb. nec“ “Archilei”: sic, for “Achillei”. 413 For the (summarized) minutes of the meeting, see ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 90v-91r (ch. Astrology, doc. 37). The official version is in ACDF, Index, Diari, 3, fols. 15v-17r. Here, this version is reproduced because it bears the autograph of card. Valier. 414 Agostino Valier; BlOGR. 415 Simone Tagliavia de Aragon; BlOGR. 416 Cesare Baronio; BlOGR.

~ 187 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

non Ascanio S. Mariae in Cosmedin de columna Diacono,417 Card.bus, in Universa Rep(ublica) Christiana super librorum prohibitione, expurgat(io)ne Permissione, et Impressione, à S. N. Clemente Papa vii), et à Sede Apostolica specialiter deputatis, lectis et propositis per Secretarium non nullis difficultatibus praesentatis à Reverendo Patre Magistro S. Palati), circa Regulas, Instructionem, et Indicem librorum prohibitorum Congregatilo ex unanimi omnium sententia, omnibus maturò pensatis, et discussis, ad infrascriptam earumdem devenit determinationem. (...) 2. Astrologie Iudiciarie libri Gentilium Scriptorum perm ittuntur, et solumm(od)o Christianorum libri expurgandi sunt, ubicunque de futuris contingentibus, successibus, fortuitive casibus, aut actionibus liberis, aliquid vel certo affirmare, vel per similia verba assertive even­ turum proferre audent, quamvis in Principio se nolle futuros eventu, aut actiones liberas predicere, protestentur; idem que iudicium in concessione librorum Astrologiae habebitur ad Prescriptum Regu­ larum Indicis, sicut in aliorum lib ro ru m expurgabilium perm is­ sione.418 3. Libri expurgandi concedi poterunt aliqua ex causa viris dignis, de pietate vel doctrina, aut dignitate Ecclesiastica, vel Seculari, con­ spicuis; quamvis S. Theologiam non calleant; idem et Iurisperitis de a M edicis, licet T heologi non sint, suae professionis libri p erm itti poterunt. 419 (...) 8. Quamvis non nullorum librorum certi temporis impressio expur­ gata in Indice omnibus permittatur, ut Aug. Steuchi,420 (...) Polidori “ “de”: sic, probably for “et”. 417

Ascanio Colonna; BlOGR. See also the slightly different version of this decision in doc. III. 11. This decree was anticipated in Pope Clement VIII’s Animadversiones in Indicem (1594), stressing that “Eccle­ sia non habet consuetudinem interdicendi libros gentilium quamvis contra religionem Chris­ tianam scripserint ex professo, ut Porphirius”; see doc. 1.6, f. 247r-v. A doc. of March 1598 shows that this decree was issued on request of the Master of the Sacred Palace Bartolomé de Miranda; see doc. III. 13, f. 516r. 419 See ch. Licences, Introduction. 420 See ch. Agostino Steuco. 418

III. QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE INDEX

Virgili!,421 et similium, non tamen ob id negatur quin precedentium temporum impressiones eorundem librorum ad prescriptum Indicis expurgari et concedi possint. Ita est Aug. Card. Veron.a

III.7 Cipriano Crescentino da Lugo, Inquisitor of Rimini,422 to the Congregation for the Index, in Rome (Rimini, 12 July 1596)423 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Q (II.a.15), f. 79r-v424

79r

Inq.ris Ariminensis b (...) 4. Polidoro Vergilio de Inventoribus etc in lingua spagnuola stampato in Anversa del 1550425 con l’approbatione de gl’Inquisitori dic Spagna, non si sa, se si debba tenere fra i, corretti, o fra i, prohibiti.426 (...) “Ita est Aug. Card. Veron”: autograph. “di”: “sPa”, crossed out. a

b

“Inq.ris Ariminensis”: annotation.

421

c

After

See eh. Polidoro Virgilio. See ACDF, SO, St. st., II.2.Ì, f. 26r. 423 See doc. III.9. 424 A copy is in the same codex on f. 82rv; a summary on f. 81v. 425 Virgilio 1550b, translated by Francisco Thamara, was prohibited in the Indexes of Spain (1559, 1583). A new translation of the expurgated text (Virgilio 1576) appeared in 1599 at Medina del Campo; see ILI, V, pp. 530-31; VI, pp. 623-24. See also ch. Polidoro Virgilio. 426 The Clementine Index permitted only the expurgated 1576 edition (see ch. Polidoro Virgilio). The Index of Antwerp of 1569 prohibited the book because “auctus ab hereticis, imo mutatus”, while the expurgatory Index issued there in 1571 corrected a ‘heretical’ edi­ tion, i.e. the one that appeared in 1544 at Basel; ILI, VII, pp. 122, 544-46. The Spanish Index of 1559 prohibited the work in whatever language, mentioning explicitly the 1550 Antwerp edition; ILI, V, pp. 432-33, 530-31. The later Spanish Index (1583) prohibited all editions (including the Antwerp edition of 1550), exception made for the expurgated edition of 1576; ILI, VI, pp. 510-11, 623-24. Thus, the Inquisitor of Rimini, not acquainted with the Spanish Indexes but only with the Italian ones, did not know that the 1550 Antwerp edition was prohibited. Cf. doc. III.9 and ch. Virgilio, Introduction. 422

189 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

6.° Thomae Phreigii opera omnia; s’hanno molte opere d ’un Gio. Thomaso Phreigio, ma niente di Thomaso, si desidera sapere se l’Autore è prohibito. 427 (...) 79v

8.° Henricus Stephanus,428 Gulielmo Xilandro,429 Giovanni Leunclaio,430 e simili, quali hanno tradotto molte historie d ’Autori Greci antichi, et puoi vi hanno fatto, prefationi, annotationi, scogli o, argo­ menti, le quali se ben fosse per le regole dell’indice pare, che si pos­ sono concedere deleto nom ine tantum auctoris si desidera non di meno sapere, quel tanto che si deve fare per non errare. III.8 Pedro Juan Saragoza to the Congregation for the Index, in Rome (Rome, read on 20 July 1596) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Q (II.a.15), f. 103r (copy)

i03r

(...) 4. In Indice Hyspano ut haeresiarchae apponuntur H ierony­ mus W olphius,431 Ioannes carrionus,432 Ioannes Lonicerus,433 Petrus 427

“Thomae Phreigii opera omnia” is a literal quote from the prohibition in the Roman Indexes of 1590, 1593, 1596. On all title-pages of his works, Freige was called “Johannes Thomas”. Obviously, the Inquisitor wanted to know whether Freige was the author prohib­ ited in the Index. Also the so-called Index of Parma indicated Freige as Thomas, but cen­ sured a work by Johann Thomas; ILI, IX, p. 167. Cf. ch. Freige. 428 For the prohibition of ancient historical works translated by Henri Estienne (1528/311598), see ILI, X, pp. 174-75. 429 For the prohibition of ancient historical works translated by Wilhelm Holtzmann (Xylander) (1532-1576), see ILI, X, pp. 413-4. See also ch. Xylander. 430 For the prohibition of ancient historical works translated by Johann Lowenklau (1541-1594), see ILI, X, p. 416. 431 Hieronymus Wolf (1516-1580) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), Parma (1580) and Spain (1583); see ILI, III, 496; IX, pp. 183, 819, 880, 949; VI, p. 362. See also ch. Wolf. 432 For the prohibition of the works by Johannes Carion (1499-1538), see section I, doc. 3 (note) and ILI, X, p. 115. 433 Johannes Lonitzer (Lonicerus) (ca. 1499-1569) was prohibited in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596) Parma (1580), and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 299; VIII, p. 532; IX, pp. 184, 823, 884, 953; VI, p. 406. See also ch. Lonitzer.

~ 190 ~

III. QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE INDEX

Ramus, Sebastianus Munstherus, Stephanus Doletus.434 Et quamvis immeritè hoc ita factum esse videatur, nihilominus quaeritur an prae­ fati haeretici sint reputandi haeresiarchae, et eorum omnia opera et libri omnino prohibendi non obstantibus quibuscumque in contrar­ ium?435 (...) 436 Lectae fuerunt huiusmodi difficultates à Socio M. S. Palatij pro­ 437 positae per Secretarium Cong(regatio)nis die 20 Iulij 1596. quibus diligenter examinatis, et maturè discussis Cong(gregati)o ad Infrascriptam devenit determinationem. For the prohibition of the works by Etienne Dolet, see sect. II, doc. 12, f. 509v (note) and ILI, X, p. 155. 435 The Spanish Index issued in 1583 contained a list of heresiarchs, that included many authors not condemned before in this category; cf. ILI, VI, pp. 974-76. In the late 1580s, dur­ ing the preparation of the Sixtine Index, Alfonso Chacón was charged by the Congregation for the Index to develop criteria for inserting authors and to compose a first draft of a Roman list. On the list that he presented on 7 January 1588 (ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 30r), he had skipped several names of the Spanish list, among whom Sebastian Munster, Petrus Ramus and Etienne Dolet, because in his view they were not really ‘heretical leaders’. See ILI, IX, pp. 311-13, and pp. 848-49, for the list published in the Sixtine Index (1590). When in Septem­ ber 1592 the issue was discussed again, the Congregation decided to adopt the distinction between “haeresiarchae” and “haeretici” as formulated in Pope Pius IV’s Index (1564); cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 50v: “nulla fiat mutatio vel alteratio Indicis Pii Quarti quoad Haerea siarchos distinguendos ab Haeretiis sed sufficiat regula 2 ”. Later Roman Indexes (1593, of the Clementine Index promulgation the After heresiarchs. of list a include not did 1596) (1596), a functionary of the Congregation for the Index challenged the extension in the Span­ ish Index and pointed out that heresiarchs are only “qui Lutheranorum, Semilutheranorum, Antilutheranorum, Evangeliorum, Confessionistarum, seu Protestandum, Rigidorum, Mol­ lium, et Extravagantium , Sacramentariorum, Anabaptistarum Capita vel Duces fuerunt”. Thus, according to him, Henri Etienne, Etienne Dolet, Johannes Carion, Hieronymus Wolf, Petrus Ramus, Sebastian Munster are heretics, but can not be viewed as “haeresiarchae”. Moreover, he revealed that the 1592 decree was supported by all Cardinals (Agostino Valier, Vincenzo Laureo, William Allen, Girolama Bernieri, and Ascanio Colonna) and by the major­ ity of the Consultore (Gonzalez Ponce de Leon, Francisco Aduarte, Alfonso Chacón, Louis Creil, Pierre Morin, Marcantonio Maffa, Roberto Bellarmino), but that the Master of the Sacred Palace (then Bartolomé de Miranda), Juan de Hozes, and the lie. Olibona, opposed this decision. See ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), f. 57r-v; cf. ACDF, Protocolli, P (II.a.14), f. 58r-v, for Olibona’s view. This explains why the Spaniard Saragoza formulated the doubt reported here. A classification of heresiarchs is in St. st., M. 3. g, p. 310. 436 The socius of Bartolomé de Miranda was Pedro Juan Saragoza (see Biogr.). 437 See the minutes of the meeting of 6 July, in ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 91r: “Magister Sacri Palatii proposuit Indicem Hispanum Heresiarcharum ab omnibus ubique recipiendum et approbandum, verum Congregatio de hoc maturius tractandum in sequenti censuit”. 434

191

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Ad 4. et .5. dicitur quod C ongregatilo non approbat Indicem H is­ panum Heresiarcharum .438

III.9 The Congregation for the Index, Replies to D oubts Raised by the Archbishop of Naples,439 and the Inquisitors of Perugia and Rimini440 (Rome, 24 August 1596) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Q (II.a.15), f. 77r-va

77r

In Generali Cong(gregatio)ne Indicis die 24 Aug. 1596. propositae fuerunt infrascriptae difficultates ex Neapolis Dio. q(uae) Aug. eius­ dem anni transmissae ab Ill.mo et R.mo D.D. Card. Jesualdo,441 quibus ex Decreto eiusdem Cong(gregatio)nis responsum est ut infra. Responderi forte posset ad dubia proposita. (...) Ex Perusio Die 8. Aug. 1596 à R.mo D. Episcopo et R.do P. Inquisi­ tore eiusdem Urbis.442 Ad Perusina (...) Ad 5. um dicitur Constitutionem Sixti V. solummodo renovari quo ad executionem poenae infligende 8 et per Inquisitores contra trans-

a b

Draft on f. 86r-v. “infligende”: in the interlinear space.

438

On 13 July the Congregation decided not to adopt the Spanish catalogue, and not to compose another one. See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 91v. A note on the issue by the secretary of the Index is in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, P (II.a. 14), fols. 84r-88r. 439 The Neapolitan doubts (on f. 84r) concerned two issues, namely the expurgation and permission of corrected books that are not mentioned in the Index with the clause “donee repurgentur”, and whether books by heretical authors which do not treat religious topics may be corrected and sold even when their names are not in listed in the Index. 440 See the address in the same codex, on fols. 81r-v. 441 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 94v: “Lectae fuerunt litterae Card. Gesualdi, Episcopi et Inquisitoris Perusini, et Inquisitoris Arminensis, cum dubiis propositiis (...)”. 442 Benedetto Ercolani; BlOGR.

192

III. QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE INDEX

gredientes Regulam Indicis, quae iudiciariam certo affirm antes damnat, et quaecunque sortilegia et divinationem sapiunt3 .443 Ex ariminio die 12 Iulij a R.mo P. Inquisitore eiusdem Urbis44445etc Ad Ariminensia (...) Ad 3,um445 dicitur non nisj iuxta censuram Romanam .1576. editum, Polidorus Vergilius permittatur.446 (...) Ad 5 . um dicitur, quod idem Autor quandoque Thomas, et Io. Thomas Phrigius dicitur.447

77v

III. 10 Decree of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 28 September 1596) ACDF, Index, Diari, 3, £. 2ÓV448

In Generali Cong(regatio)ne Indicis die 28: Sept: 1596 propositae fuerunt infrascriptae difficultates ex Perusio, ab Episcopo et Inquisi­ to le transmissae die 20 eiusdem Mensis, quibus Resp(onsum) ex Decreto eiusdem Cong(regatio)nis ut infra. Queritur p(rimo): An inter libros, quae divinationem sapiunt iuxta §. 2. Instructionis Indicis,449 sub titulo de Correctione librorum inclu­ dantur, Phisionomia Porte,450 et Quadripartitum Ptolomei, et similia. a

After “sapiunt”: “infligendae”, crossed out.

443

See ch. Astrology. Alberto Chelli; B i o g r . 445 In the letter by the Inquisitor of Rimini, this was the fourth point. 446 CF. doc. III.7, and ch. Polidoro Virgilio. 447 Cf. doc. III.7, and ch. Freige. 448 Cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 96v. 449 Cf. Index 1596: Instructio eorum qui libris tum prohibendis, tum expurgandis, tum etiam im prim endis (...) operam su n t daturi, in the section De co rrectio n e librorum , § II, in ILI, IX, p. 927: “Ad haec reijciuntur omnia, quae superstitiones, sortilegia, ac divinationes sapiunt”. 450 Delia Porta 1586. See also eh. Delia Porta, Introduction. 444

~ 193 ~

26v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

R esp o n d itu r neg. Q u o n iam ex p re c e d e n tib u s verbis eiusdem §. apparet non nisi de Divinat (io)ne quae fit per Artis magiae incanta­ tiones ibi loqui. I I I .ll The Congregation for the Index, Replies to Several Queries (Rome, post 6 July 1596451) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Q (II.a.15), fols. 70r-73r

70r

Ill.™ et R.™ D .D . C ard. Ies super librorum perm issione, p ro h ib i­ tione, expurgatione et im pressione specialiter à S. Sede A postolica in Universa Republica C hristiana D eputati iuxta facultates, privile­ gia et indulta à fe. ree. Pio V. Greg(ori)o X III. Sixto. V. et nunc dem um a S.mo D. N. Clem ente V ili. Cong(gregatio)ni Indicis con­ cessa et confirm ata, diversis Episcopis et Inquisitoribus infrascriptas D eclarationes, et Decisiones transm isserunt ad tollendas n o n ­ nullas difficultates in novi Indicis librorum p rohibitorum exeeutione subortas. (...)

70v

Astrologiae Iudiciariae libri Gentilium scriptorum perm ittuntur, et solum m odo / / christianorum libri expurgandi sunt, ubicunque de futuris successibus fortuitisve casibus, aut actionibus liberis aliquid vel certo affirmare vel per similia verba assertivè proferre audent, quamvis in principio libri se nolle futuros eventus praedicere proteste n tu r, verum iu x ta § 2 . um de p ro h ib it(io )n e lib ro ru m p e rm itti poterunt. Constitutio Sixti V. contra exercentes Astrologiam Iudiciariam452 inno­ vatur quo ad execut(ion)em penae per Episcopos et Inq(uisito)res infli­ gendae transgressoribus Regulae nonae Indicis Pij IIII. (...) Expurgationes librorum non nisi approbatae per Cong(regatio)nem Indicis ab A postolica Sede suum ubique efectum sortiri possint, interim vero eisdem privatim uti possumus.

71r

72r

The passage regarding astrology, on fols. 70v-71r, is a slightly different version of the decree issued in July 1596; see doc. III.6. See also the note to the final phrase of this document. 452 The Bull Coeli et terrae', cf. Bullarium, III, pp. 646-50. 451

~ 194

III. QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE INDEX

D ivinatio om nino p ro h ib e tu r quae p er artis m agicae incantantiones, non autem quae per phisionomiam.453 (...) Aug(usti)ni Stheuchi, Didaci Stellae,454 Henrici H arphij,455 Polidori Virgili) et sim ilium certi tem poris im pressio ex p u rg ata quam vis omnibus perm ittatur, non tamen ob id negatur, quin precedentium tem porum impressiones eorundem librorum ad praescriptum Indicis expurgari et concedi possint.456 (...) Franciscus Iunius Biturgen.457 alius est à Franc(isc)o Iuntino Flo­ rentino 458

72v

III. 12 The Congregation for the Index, Reply to some Questions about some Forbidden Books (Rome, ante 25 January 1597)459 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, P (II.a. 14), fols. 344r-346r

Calliens. P(rim)aa Index librorum , qui ex novo Indice Romano, iussu Clementis V ili, edito, prohibiti censentur donec emendati fuerint. a

The three following pages were garbled when the codex was bound, and are now num ­ bered 345, 346, 344. 453 See also the, probably contemporary, note in ACDF, SO, St. st., N.4.C, f. 874r, which elab­ orates on the 1559 Index: “Phisionomia, per quanto serve a giudicar le complessioni fiematica, o colerica o sanguinea, si concede: per quanto si suole abusar, ad indovinar, e, nel modo che si fà della chiromantia, è prohibita; nel resto si [servi] il tenor del indice”. Cf. ILI, V ili, p. 101. 454 Diego de Estella (1524-1578), author of Enarrationes in Evangelium Lucae, which was prohibited in the Indexes of Spain (1583) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); see ILI, VI, pp. 280, 809-11; IX, pp. 519, 810, 871. 455 For the prohibition of the works by H endrik H erp (ca. 1410-1478), see ILI, X, p. 221. 456 See the chs. Steuco and Virgilio. 457 Franciscus Junius (Du Jon) (1545-1602), was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Munich (1582) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); see ILI, IX, pp. 225, 544, 814, 875. 458 The hypothesis that the name of the first author was merely a mistake for that of the second, was formulated by Bellarmino in a letter of 19 July (see ch. Giuntini, doc. 1). Thus, this phrase was an annotation for a reply to this letter. 459 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 97dv. Most likely, the author of the queries was Ascanio Libertani (late Inquisitor of Malta and Consultor of the Holy Office; BlOGR.), who was Bishop of Cagli from 1591 to 1607. His letter is not in ACDF, however. Two other letters by Libertani to the Cardinals Terranova and Valier, dated 12 August and 17 December 1599 (Index, III.4, fols. 43r-v and 54r-v) regard different issues.

195

345r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

345v

346r

344r

Circa quos queritur de ratione, modo, ac forma emendandi. Et an interim donec fuerint correcti, possint detineri ab Ordinario, ut postea expurgati restituantur460 (...) Arnaldi de Villanova tractatus de virtutibus herbarum. Item regimen sanitatis, latinae linguae Item aliud regimen, linguae Gallae461 (...) Hieronimus Cardanus de sapientia. De consolatione De subtilitate In quadripartitum Ptolaemei462 (...) Iulij Caesaris Scaligeri commentaria in Theophrastum Eiusdem Poetices Levinij Lemnij de secretis miraculis naturae463 (...) Calliens. 2.a Index librorum, qui in Romano Indice iussu Clementis VIII. edito prohibiti esse videntur. Circa quos haesitatur an vere in eo comprehendantur, cum omnino concordare cum adnotatis in ipso non videantur, vel ex titulorum varietate, vel alias.464 (...) Calliens. 3a Index librorum qui ex Indice Romano, iussu Clementis VIII. edito, prohibiti censentur, quorum librorum Authores damnati sunt. Circa quos, cum de Religione non tractent quaeritur an iuxta Regu­ lam secundam Indicis Pij IIII: deleto nomine Authorum, et emendati ac expurgati detineri possint, saltem de licentia Ordinarij: Et de ratione emendandi. (...)

460

After the respective queries, the Bishop mentioned relevant works, that were confis­ cated by him or handed over by the owners. 461 De virtutibus herbarum (Arnaldus de Villanova 1520) is probably a spurious work. Regi­ men sanitatis refers to the Rules by the School of Salerno, frequently accompanied by Arnaldus of Villanova’s commentary; for editions see ch. Arnaldus of Villanova, Introduction. A French translation of Regimen was published in Lyon, by Claude Nourry, in 1501 and 1514. 462 Cardano 1544, 1542, 1550,1554b (or later editions). 463 Scaliger JC 1566 and 1561 (or later editions). Lemnius’ work ran through many edi­ tions; see ch. Lemnius, Introduction. 464 Below follow five titles of works on canon law and theology that were included in the Index, but the prohibition of which was questioned on the basis of the Index Rules.

~ 196

III. QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE INDEX

Othonis Brunsfeldij herbarum leones, et de effectu utilitate ac praestantia ipsarum.465 (...) Leonardus Fuchsius in Hippocratis Aphorismos.466 (...) (...) Conradi Gesneri Medici opera [videlicet] De admirandis herbis Descriptio montis fracti in Helvetia De Piscibus Volatilibus Terrestribus animalibus Lapidibus et Gemmis.467

344v

III. 13 Decrees by the Congregation for the Index (Rome, post 14 March 1598)468 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, S (Il.a. 17), fols. 516r-522r

Quoniam dubitationes et controversiae circa regulas, et Indicem emergentes ad Congregationem Indicis sunt referendae ut decidan­ tur, et declarentur ex sententia Cardinalium pro tempore ad id munus ab Apostolica Sede deputatorum, quibus praeter facultates, privilegia et indulta Praedecessoribus concessa, et à S.mo D. N. Clemente Octavo confirmata, et innovata cum permittendis, tum pro­ hibendis, expurgandis, et imprimendis libris, alijque ad hoc pertinen­ tibus praecipua confertur auctoritas. Idcirco praedicti Card.les huiusmodi difficultatibus respondendum esse decreverunt per literas pri­ vatas quoties opus esset ita decretum die 8. Augusti 1592.469 et idem 465

Brunfels 1530-1536. (o r a ]a t e r edition). 466 p u c [jS 467 Gessner 1555i (includes Descriptio montis fracti), 1558, 1555a, 1551a and 1554,1555e. 468 See f. 52lv (infra). 469 See doc. 11.15, and ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols, 48v: “Responsum fuit multis difficul­ tatibus propositis a Mag(ist)ro Sacri Palatii et sic per literas privatas aliis respondendum prout habes libro K Fol. 21”.

197 ~

516r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

repetitum 12 Septembris eiusdem anni,470 imo Io. Vincendo Portae471 supplicanti sibi tradi copiam cuiusdam decreti ad instantiam Magistri S. Palatij emanati 6 Iulij 1596472 in mat(eri)a Astrologiae rescriptum 20 Decembris 1597 Nihil,473 quia conclusum fuerat nullatenus publi­ canda esse Cong(regatio)nis Decreta, quae possunt ad Infrascriptos titulos restringi. De Episcopis De Inquisitoribus De Regularibus De Universitatibus De Consultoribus De Tipographis De Bibliopolis De Heresiarchis De Hereticis De Hebreis

De impressione librorum De Concessione Privilegiorum De expurgatione librorum De Permissione librorum De Prohibitione librorum de libris Ecclesiasticis De auctoribus, et libris p.ae Classis De auctoribus, et libris 2.e Classis De libris 3.ae Classis De Poenae transgressorum (...)

517v De Universitatibus Universitatibus scribendum pro Indicis executione, et librorum expurgationem per Card.lem Veronensem 2 Iulij 1594.474 et rursus per Card.lem Ascanium 5 Iulij 1596 omnibus subscribentibus.475 Universitatibus distributi libri ad censurandum 23 Maij 1593.476 et 2. Iulij 1594.477

470 471 472 473

See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 50v-51r. Gianvincenzo della Porta; BlOGR. See doc. III.6, and ch. Astrology, docs. 53-54, for Della Porta’s first request. See ch. Astrology, doc. 57, for Della Porta’s second request, read on 19 December

1597. 474 475 476 477

See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 75v, 76v (sect. VII, doc. 7). See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 90v. There are no minutes of a meeting on this date in ACDF, Index, Diari, 1. See section VII, doc. 7.

~ 198 ~

III. QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE INDEX

Perusiae commissa expurgatio Civilis, Bononiae luris Canonici 4. Ianuarij 1597,478 et P atavi] librorum Philosophiae 8. Martij 1597.479 et M ediolani librorum H istoricorum 29. Aprilis 1597.480 et librorum Astrologiae Venetijs 22 Novembris 1596.481 et 17. Mai) 1597.482 (...) De librorum Permissione (...)

520r

P erm ittan tu r libri Astrologici G entilium , et solum m odo C hris­ tianorum libri expurgandi sunt, etc si protestentur se nolle certo affir­ mare 6 Iulij 1596.483 (...) 520v De auctoribus, et libris p. ae Classis (...) O svaldus, 484

H artungus 485

Erasm us et Io. tunc delendi, quando constabit iuridicè, quod catholice scripserint, et vixerint. 14. martij 1598.486 (...) De libris 2. ae Classis (...) Raimundi Lulli doctrina instante Proc(urato)re Regni Aragoniae, examinanda per deputatos consultores 6. Aug. 1589.487 et Card. les 16

478

See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 97 cr. On 31 March 1597, the College o£ Doctors in Law of Perugia replied to card. Valier; cf. ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Q (II.a.15), f. 53r. On 22 March 1597, the College of Doctors in Canon and Civil Law of Bologna replied to the same request; cf. ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Q (II.a. 15), f. 58r. 479 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 97er-v (in ch. Medicine and Natural Philosophy, doc. 6). 480 There are no minutes of a meeting on this date in ACDF, Index, Diari, 1. 481 This decision is not in the minutes of the meeting (ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 97br-v). 482 There are no minutes of a meeting on this date in ACDF, Index, Diari, 1. 483 In the minutes of the meeting, there is another annotation on astrology: “Admissus et auditus fuit in defensione Astrologiae prout etiam scripto tradidit D. Ferrantes” (ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 90v-91r, on f. 91r; see also ch. Astrology, docs. 36-37). Extensive regis­ trations of this important decree are in docs. III.6 and III.ll. 484 For the censura and the prohibition of the works by Erasmus Oswald Schreckenfuchs, see ch. Schreckenfuchs. 485 Johann Hartung (1505-1579) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554) and Rome (1559, 1590, 1593, 1596); ILL III, p. 298; III, p. 277; IX, pp. 597, 823, 883. See also ILI, X, p. 214. Cf. ch. Schreckenfuchs. 486 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols, l l l r (in ch. Schreckenfuchs, doc. 2). 487 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 37r (in ch. Lull, doc. 12).

199

521v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

522r

Iunij 1590.488 et expeditae literae compulsoriales instante Oratore Regis Catholici 4 Martij 1595.,489 et iam sublatus fuerat ex Indice 3 Iunij 15 93.490 Sublati fuerint ex Indice Io. Taulerius 26 Ianuarij 1583,491 Franc(iscu)s Victoria, et Belarminus 27 Iulij 1590492 (...) Iustus Lipsius 10 octobris 1592493 (...) De Poena transgressorum declaratur non esse ipso iure excommu­ nicates legentes libros novos, vel antiquos in Indice non comprehen­ sos, quorum autores inter legendorum comprehendimus esse haereti­ corum dum obiter aliquid dicunt contra fidem 7. sept. 1596.494 (...) Libri omnino prohibiti post missarum solemnia publice ante fores Ecclesiae comburantur per actum notarij 12 Ianuarij 1597.495 III. 14 Anonymous, Solution of some Doubts (Rome, [post 1596] )496 ACDF, SO, St.st., N.4.C, fols. 873r-874r

873r

In risolutione dei punti che paiono dubbi a V. R. nel Indice dico (...)

873v

Leonardus fuschius8 Tutte le sue opere sono prohibite, con gran difficoltà si dab licenza del erbario497 a qualche persona da bene, et [compositor] della proa

“fuschius”: sic.

b

“da”: sic.

See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 40v-41r (in ch. Lull, doc. 18). See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 84r-v (in ch. Lull, doc. 36). 490 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 73v (in ch. Lull, doc. 27). 491 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. llr-v. 492 The decision is not recorded on this date in ACDF, Index, Diari, 1. 493 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, £. 57r: “(...) et instante Lelio Peregrino et attestante Patre Belarminio decretum quod Justus Lipsius deleatur ab Indice (...)”. 494 The decision is not recorded on this date; see ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 95r-v. 495 There are no minutes of a meeting on this date in ACDF, Index, Diari, 1. 496 Most likely the doubts regarded the Clementine Index. 497 Fuchs 1542a and 1549a-b. In reality, the permission for Fuchs were not that rare, nor were they limited to his De historia stirpium commentarii only; see chs. Licences and Fuchs. 488

489

~ 200 ~

III. QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE INDEX

fession medica; la quale licenza si daa in scriptis, et solum ad certum tempus; infra che, con molta diligenza et sollicitudine si sia raccolto qualche [sommaria] rissolutione della cognitione dell’erbe, e tal licenza deve esser chiesta da questo sacratissimo tribunal di Roma (...) Phisionomia, per quanto serve a giudicar le complessioni fiematica, o colerica o sanguinea, si concede: per quanto si suoleb abusar, ad indovinar, e, nel modo che si fà della chiromantia, è prohibita; nel resto si [servi] il tenor del indice.498

‘ “da”: sic. b “suole”: correction of “vuole”. 498

For a brief discussion of the assessment of physiognomy, see ch. Astrology, Introduction.

~ 201 ~

874r

IV COUNSELLING ON BOOKS AND AUTHORS

The extant documentation regarding the counselling on books and authors, crucial phase for the preparation of any new Index in the later sixteenth century, is surely incomplete, but nonetheless extremely inter­ esting and revealing as to the variegated judgements on single authors and books, and the respective motivations. Unfortunately, as regards the preparatory phase of the Sixtine Index the only extant pronounce­ ment is that by Chacon, who proposed to exclude the translations by Albanus Thorer and Antoine M izauld’s from the future Index (doc. 1). By contrast, the pronouncem ents preceding the 1593 Index are well documentated in the codex Protocolli K, which holds an extensive col­ lection of pronouncements composed by the consultors during the fall of 1592.499 In Septem ber 1592, the Spanish licenciate O libona p ro ­ posed to permit authors useful to philosophers and physicians, among whom Gessner and Lemnius, whose works should be corrected when necessary. By contrast, he argued for the total prohibition of Paracelsus (doc. 3). Also the author of an anonymous pronouncem ent argued for the correction of medical works, including those by Amatus Lusitanus, Andreas Vesalius, and Antoine Mizauld (doc. 4). As a rule, the most elaborate analyses were those by Alfonso Chacon, who in his first pro­ nouncement (doc. 5) dwelled on astrological texts (Avenaris, Albubater and others), the pseudo-epigraphical works attributed to Albert the Great, Christoph Hegendorff’s edition of Aristotle’s De longitudine et brevitate vitae and De divinatione per som nium , and the works of Agostino Steuco. In another pronouncement Chacon proposed to per­ mit (expurgated versions of) Gessner’s medical works and M ercator’s

499

ACDF, Index, Protocolli, I (II.a.8), f. 356v contains a list of Consultors (among whom Gonzalez Ponce de Leon, Pierre Morin, Marcantonio Maffa, Louis de Creil, Roberto Bel­ larmino, Francisco Aduarte, Alfonso Chacon, Angelo Rocca) who had received one or two copies of the Sixtine Index, most probably in order to prepare their pronouncements.

- 202

IV. COUNSELLING BOOKS AND AUTHORS

(C ronologia (doc. 7). That Chacon’s pronouncements were influential, results clearly from the recorded opinions on his proposals (doc. 10). The extant pronouncements by other consultors, among whom Ignazio Capuano, Giovanni Soderino and Roberto Bellarmino, had a more concise character, consisting merely of a list of authors and books, and proposals for possible correction (doc. 8). P rotocolli K also holds the record of a more general consideration on the books to be added to or to be skipped from the Index, elaborated by a group of consultors. This document contains not only a fairly detailed list of books and authors, but also the modalities of their prohibition in the next Index (doc. 11). The afore-named pronouncements were examined on 26 September by Girolamo Bernieri and William Allen, Cardinals of the Congregation for the Index (doc. 12). Unfortunately, the extant docu­ mentation on the composition of the Clementine Index is rather poor as to scientific and philosophical authors under consideration (docs. 13-15), revealing however interesting details about the prohibition of Chr. Hegendorff, Joseph Scaliger, the P egim en sanitatis by the School of Salerno, and Bernardino Telesio.

~ 203

IV. 1 A lfonso C h acó n , Sententia (R om e, p re s e n te d o n 19 N o v e m b e r 1587 500 ) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), f. 239r-v (autograph)

239r

M . F. A lfonsi C iaconis se n te n tia 501 A C irca au cto res q u in q u e p rim a e classis p rio ri loco p ositos n o n h a b e o q u id dicam quia p e n itu s sint m ihi ig noti D e c e rto ru m a u c to ru m libris p ro h ib itis (...) A lbanus T orinus m edicus vitodurensis, m u lta e G raeco L atine ver­ tit, 502 Pauli A eginetae 3,503 P hilareti librum de pulsibus, 504 et T heophili de urinis. 504 Polybii 506. A gapeti diaconi, 507 Em anuelis Chrysolorae gram m ati­ cam . 508 P h ilo te i m ed ic i c o m m e n ta rio s 509 et d e m u m E p ip h a n iu m de

a

After “Aeginetae”: “librum”, crossed out.

500

See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 28v. It seems likely to presume that Chacón formulated a reaction to Giovanni Dei’s Index (see sect. VI, doc. 2), because (1) the three authors he discussed were also listed by Giovanni Dei, (2) they do not appear together on other lists, and (3) they were never prohibited on a Roman Index. 502 Albanus Torinus (Thorer) (1489-1550), prohibited as a heretic in the Index of Parma (1580); see ILI, IX, p. 77. 503 See, for example, Paulus Aegineta 1532,1538,1541 and 1551. 504 Philaretus 1533. 505 Theophilus Protospatharius, Liber urinarum, exists also in an earlier translation (Venice 1502). 506 Polybus 1544. 507 Agapetus Diaconus 1541. 508 Chrysoloras 1528. 509 See the treatise by Theophilus Protospatharius, published in Philaretus 1533. 501

204

IV. COUNSELLING BOOKS AND AUTHORS

prophetarum vita et interitu Graeco latine edidit.510 Obiit Basileae anno D. 1550. Quid autem illa versio mali habeat ignoro. Antonius Mizaldus511 Gallus Monlucianus medicus et astronomus.3 Multa in medicina agricultura et reliqua philosophia scripsit, et inter alia arcana quaedam , su n t a u tem r e m e d ia m e d ic in a lia et arcana quaedam naturae, quae cum semel legerim nihil me offenderunt, inter­ serit aliquando ex aliis antiquis auctoribus remedia aliquod b quae videantur aliquid superstitionis contineri sed non sunt res magni alicuius m omenti, ut ideo interdici debeant, cum nullibi hucusque interdicta sint, auctor est catholicus; et omnia eius opera quae sunt valde multa Parisijs sunt im pressa cum censura theologorum Sorbonae.512 Obiit circiter annum 1578. (...) C Authores tres primae classis mihi ignoti, certorum auctorum libri prohibiti (...) C oeli philosophorum seu de secretis naturae P hilippi U lfstadij 239v librum 513 legi aliquando nihil tamen recordor in eo offendisse, de rebus alchimiae, et distillationibus tractat; non video cur debeat interdici.

a b

“astronomus”: correction of “astrologus”. “aliquod”: sic.

510

Epiphanius, De prophetarum vita et interitu (Basel 1529). Antoine Mizauld (ca. 1510-1578); the Index of Parma (1580) prohibited his Centuriae (see ILI, IX, p. 88). See also ch. Antoine Mizauld. 512 It is unclear to which edition or editions Chacon referred. Mizauld was not mentioned in the Indexes by the University of Paris; see ILI, I, ad indicem. 513 Philipp Ulstad (1490-1490), Coelum philosophorum seu de secretis naturae liber appeared in Strasbourg (1526, 1528, 1530 and 1535) and Lyon (1553, 1572); the work was not prohibited on any sixteenth-century Index. 511

205

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

IV.2

Anonymous, Libri quorum usu interdicendum est (Rome, post 1576,514 ante 1590515) BAV, Vat. lat. 6207, fols. 218r-219r516

Libri quorum usua interdicendum est Simon8 Simonius, qui impie sentit de sanctissimo Missae sacrificio, ut ex proemio apparet sui commentary in libros Aristotelis de sensu, et sensili.517 (...) Methodus I. Bodini,518 aspersa veneno. Chronologia Gerardi Mercatoris quae ab Slidano, et damnatis auc­ toribus sumpta est.519

a b

“usu”: sic. “Simon”: correction of “Simeon”.

514 This list was most likely inspired to the Index by the Master of the Sacred Palace (1576); see infra. 515 The document probably dates back to the period of the preparation of the Sixtine Index. 516 For condemnations phrased in similar wordings, see the Index by the Master of the Sacred Palace (1576), in ILI, X, pp. 829-39. 517 This phrase probably derives from the Index by the Master of the Sacred Palace (1576); cf. ILI, X, p. 838: “Simon Simonius ut qui impie sentiat de sacratissimo missae sacri­ ficio ut ex prohemio apparet sui comment. in Aristotelem de sensu et sensibili”. For a con­ demnation in similar wordings, see the so-called Index of Parma (1580); cf. ILI, IX, p. 173. Remarkably, in the proemium to his Aristotle commentary Simoni praised Theodore Beza, but he did not touch upon the issue of the sacrifice of the mass. Probably his critique of the Catholic custom to dilute Eucharist wine with water is referred to; see ch. Simoni, doc. 3. 518 Jean Bodin, Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem was prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580), Portugal (1581), Spain (1583) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); see ILI, IX, p. 145; IV, p. 451; VI, p. 395; IX, pp. 435, 612. See ch. Bodin. 519 This pronouncement on the Chronologia, formulated in the Index by Giovanni Dei (1576; see section VI, doc. 2), was adopted in the same year by the Master of the Sacred palace (ILI, X, p. 831), then in the 1580 Index of Parma (ILI, IX, p. 99). It was repeated sev­ eral times in the same wordings by other Consultors (see docs. IV.7, V.5 and 14) and then reproduced in the Clementine Index; see ILI, IX, p. 492. See also ch. Gerard Mercator.

IV. COUNSELLING BOOKS AND AUTHORS

IV.3

Licenciate Olibona, Pronouncem ent on the new Index 520 (Rome, 12 and 19 September [1592])521 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 168r-173v (copy)

Domini Licentiati O libone 522

168r

Die XIX Septembris. (...) 168v

Litera C

In prima classe nihil habeo quod addendum putem, [...] tamen in uno Conrado Gesnero cum eius libri de Quadripedibus, volucribus etc.523 ubi tot reperiuntur res cognitu dignae paucis emendatis possent ab omnibus et maxime à philosophis magna cum utilitate legi et teneri. (...) De Prestigijs Daem onum etc. Ioannis Viveri524 videtur non cadere sub hac lit(er)a D. ideo aptius ponitur in verbo loan. Vuieri.525 1. clas. G uilielm us X ilander est advertendum eius esse Tabulae 169v chronologicae ad finem Annalium Georgij cedreni, adiectae.526 (...) Addo etiam, Ioannis G orraei praefationem in librum definitionum 170v m edicarum .527 est enim p ro p ter contentas im pietates, expurganda. 520

The author of this document responds to a list of queries, which were also presented to other Consultors; see docs. IV.4 and 5. 521 See doc. IV. 12 (infra). 522 Consultor of the Index as early as 1 August 1592; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 48v, 50r, 51v; BAV, Vat. lat. 6861, f. 21r. No further biographical information found. 523 Gessner 1551a, 1554, 1555a. See also ch. Gessner. 524 Johannes Wier (1515-1588), author of De praestigiis daemonum, incantationibus et veneficiis, (Wier 1563). Other editions: Basel (1564, 1566, 1568, 1577, 1583); translated in German (1567) and in French (1579). The work was prohibited in the Indexes of Antwerp (1569, 1570), Parma (1580), Portugal (1581), Spain (1583), and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); see ILI, VII, pp. 185-86; IX, pp. 115-6; IV, p. 462; VI, pp. 420-1; IX, pp. 620, 826, 887. For discussion, see Valente 2003. Other works by the same author: De ira morbo, eiusdem cura­ tione philosophica, medica, & theologica (Basel 1577) and De lamiis (Basel 1582). 325 Note that only in the Clementine Index Wier’s work was prohibited under Toannes Wierij’. Cf. the previous note. 326 Cedrenus 1566. The work translated by Holtzman was prohibited in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); see ILI, IX, p. 102. See also ch. Xylander. 327 Gorris 1564 (reprint Frankfurt 1578).

207

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

171r

(...) et similiter. Ioannis Praetorij Tractatus de cometis. Norimbergae528 et alibi Impressus. (...) Levinum Lemnium ab hac classe adimerem in 2. collocandum eiusque librum de occultis naturae miraculis expurgatum permit­ terem. Ut in 2. classe dicitur unde a prima adimendus videtur.529 (...) Addo. Michaelem Aestinum a Goepingensem eiusque libros qui inscribuntur consideratio aetherei cometae, an. 1580. et chasmatum .an. 1581.530 possent enim prohiberi et tolli. (...) 1. clas. Theophrastus Paracelsus, merito in prima classe collocatur, etsi quamplurimi vellent eius libros expurgatos permitti, at vero omnia eius opera inveniuntur insanis et erroneis respersa sententijs contra optimam Philosophiam, medendi artem, et Astrologicam, nedum contra Religionem, continent itidem superstitiosas, magicas ac etiam blasphemas doctrinas ut tanquam nociva et perniciosa sint potius reijcienda quam emendanda.531 IV.4

Anonymous, Pronouncement on the new Index (Rome, ante 26 September 1592)532 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), f. 58r-v

58r

Ad 2. quaesitum Qui nam addendi sunt Authores aut libri ad unamquamque Classem Indicis Pij. HIT litera A. et B. Etiamsi adnotationibus tan“ “Aestinum”: sic, for “Maestlinum”. 528

Praetorius 1578. See ch. Levinus Lemnius. 530 Consideratio et observatio cometae aetherei astronomica (Maestlin 1581). Michael Maestlin (1550-1631) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); see ILI, IX, pp. 663, 833, 893. 531 For discussion, see ch. Paracelsus. 532 See docs. 3 (supra) and 12 (infra). 333 Beatus Rhenanus (Bild, 1485-1547), Opera Q. Septimi Florentis Tertulliani appeared in Basel (1521, 1528, 1539, 1550, 1562), Paris (1545, 1566) and Franeker (1597). Beatus Rhenanus was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554) and Rome (1559); see ILI, III, p. 228; VIII, p. 381. 529

~ 208

IV. COUNSELLING BOOKS AND AUTHORS

tum bonos libros conspurcarint, ut Beatus Rhenanus Tertullianum,533 534 e t Petrus Mossellanus Quintilianum. Quantum attinet ad A. literam nullus mihi occurrit primaria damna­ tione notandus. (...) Attamen in 2. classe collocarem tanquam neces­ saria castigatione et emendatione dignos libros, eorumque, ac scholiorum authores qui sequuntur. (...) Amatus Lusitanus Medicus, in eius centuriis,535 praeter ea quae Hispana censura iubentur expurgari, videnda est curatio 9. cent. 1. quae incipit Alcalainus.536 et scholium curationis 23. cent. 4.537 et in cent. 6. Scholium 46. et curatio .97.538 cuperem enim haec omnia expurgari. Andreae Vessali]. Anothomiae3 liber 5 ad. cap. 15.539 in fine habet nonnulla, expurgatione digna. Antoni] Mizaldi libellus de secretis.540 et eiusdem Historia horten­ sis541 castigari poterit, et potissimum lib. [...] cap. XI. pag. 33. (...) De B. litera Bernardus Pernotus b Londradus in 115. curationes Paracelsi impressus Genevae de an. 1582542 non tolerandus absque « “Anothomiae”: sic.

b

“Pernotus”: sic, for “Penotus”.

534 Petrus Mosellanus (Schade) (1493-1524), In M. Fabii Quintiliam Rhetoricas Institu­ tiones, annotationes (Cologne 1532). Mosellanus was prohibited in the Index of Venice (1554); see ILI, III, p. 340. 535 See ch. Amatus Lusitanus. 536 Amatus Lusitanus 1556, pp. 31-32: “Curatio nona, in qua agitur de sphacelimo, id est, ulcere cerebrum depascente”. This passage was also noted by a Censor of Amatus; cf. ch. Amatus Lusitanus, doc. 8, f. 77r. 537 Amatus Lusitanus 1556, pp. 347-48: “De apoplexia illico interficiente, et de apoplectico paroxismo tres dies durante”. See previous note. 538 This section treats “de muliebri satyriasi, simulque uterino furore”. While the scholium to VI, 46 was not taken into consideration in any censura, the passage in VI, 97 was noted by two Censors; cf. ch. Amatus Lusitanus, docs. 5, f. 628r, and 7, f. 81r. 539 In Vesalius 1543, book V, chapter 15 is entitled “De utero, reliquisque mulierum gen­ erationi famulantibus organis”. At the end of this chapter, Vesalius polemizes with Galenus. See also the note to doc. IV. 11 (infra). 540 See Mizauld 1558 or Mizauld 1560a-, cf. ch. Mizauld. 541 See Mizauld 1577. 542 Paracelsus 1582b-, it is unclear whether this book was published in Geneva or Lyon. This edition of Paracelsus’ texts contains an apologetical preface of Master “Barnard G. Londrada A Portu Aquitanus”, i.e. Bernard Georges Penot (ca. 1522-1617), who emphazised the application of metalline medicines, and rejected strongly the old, Galenic medi­ cine. The main text presents 114 short case studies, where Paracelsus successfully cured dif­ ferent diseases, followed by a collection of Penot’s iatrochemical preparations.

— 209 ~

58v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

castigatione. Bernardi Dessenij Cronemburgensis, Veteris medicinae deffensio adversus Georgium Fedronem. Coloniae apud Ioan. Gym­ nicum an. 1573.543 debet expurgari. (...)

IV.5 Alfonso Chacon, Sententia de libris retinendis aut reprobandis5^ (Rome, ante 26 Septem ber 1592)545 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 68r-69v (autograph)

68r

Sententia quam dixit interrogatus M. E Alfonsus Ciacón de libris retinendis aut reprobandis. (...) De Littera A

2. Abralhae] [Avenaris] introductio in iuditia astrorum, quae dicitur3 principium sapientiae.546 Albubater, et centiloquium D. Hermetis547 et A rch[ada] de nativitatibus seu de fatalibus diebus 6 .548 Isti auctores Arabes, et Graecus 3 si interdicuntur ob privatos errores quos in scriptis suis est deprehendere, recte factum, sin autem solum ob astrologiae 68v principia tradita, mitius esset procedendum. / / tum, quod ea ratione Ptolemaei astronomica essent excludenda et aliorum Graecorum qui a c

After “dicitur”: “sapi”, crossed out. b “et Arch[ada] (...) diebus”: in the margin. “et Graecus”: in the interlinear space.

543 Dessenius 1573. This work exemplifies the reaction of academic physicians to Paracel­ sus’ views. Other cases in point are Thomas Erastus’ Disputationes (Erastus 1572-73), and works by L. Stengilin, J. Wier, and G. Marstaller. 544 Chacon responds to the same questions as the author of doc. IV.4. 545 See the note to the previous document. 546 Abraham ibn Ezra 1507-, the work by Abraham ibn Ezra (Avenaris) (ca. 1092-1167), translated by Pietro d ’Abano (ca. 1246-ca. 1320), was prohibited in the Index of Rome (1590); see ILI, IX, pp. 397-8, 801. 547 Albubater 1501, prohibited in the Index of Rome (1590); see ILI, IX, pp. 418-9, 802. 548 Arcandam 1542. Arcandam (fl. in the tenth century), De veritatibus et praedictionibus astrologiae was published in Paris (1552, 1556, 1563). The work was prohibited in the Indexes of Spain (1559, 1583), Portugal (1561, 1581), and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, V, pp. 313-4; VI, p. 179; IV, p. 358; IX, pp. 411, 418.

~ 210 ~

IV. COUNSELLING BOOKS AND AUTHORS

haec eadem docuerunt, essetque omnino non solum astrologiam3 sed et astronomiam evertere, et principes viros qui mortales ijs disciplinis tot seculis erudierunt. 2. ° ijsdem principijs utuntur, eadem them ata erigunt astrologi ad vaticinandum de navigatione, agricultura et m edicina, quibus ad gethneliaca,b si igitur horum scripta abolentur, et interdicuntur, diffi­ cillima via supererit ad haec,c utraque investiganda, quae tamen ne­ cessaria sunt, et speciatim permittuntur. 3. ° Religioni Christianae adversantur iuditia et praegnostica even­ tuum futurorum , quando in actibus liberi arbitri] aliqua necessitas imponitur, quod tum ex coactione hom inis 0 non ex libertate agere viderentur, et proinde non esset ratio m eritorum aut demeritorum. Si autem necessitas nulla im ponatur sed solum quaedam inclinatio ex astris, nulla fit iniuria religioni, non divinae providentiae derogatur, sed magis extollitur, qui omnia inferiora corporea per caelestia m o­ deratur et regit, et illorum influxibus subesse voluit. 4. ° iudicare de vita et m orte, m orbis et aegritudinibus, sunt de rebus 6 ad m edicinam p ertin e n tib u s, ergo et id etiam licebit p er astrologiam investigare. 5. ° S. Thomas mirum in m odum favet astrologiae iudiciariae in commentarijs ad secundum Aristotelis librum de generatione et corrup­ tione sive de ortu et interitu lectione 10. ubi tradit, planetas in circulo Zodiaci positi, quando sunt fortiores dant plures annos vitae, quando sunt debiliores, dant pauciores.549 H oc etiam m odo innotescit, quod qui sciret virtutes signorum et stellarum in eis positarum, dum nascitur res aliqua, [quoque] cognosceret, quam [...] [est] de influentia caelesti, et posset prognosticare de tota vita et m orte rei generatae; licet hoc posset impediri per accidens, vel per cibum malum vel mortem violen­ tam, vel alio aliquo m odo. Et hinc colligit, quod ideo diversimode moriuntur homines citius et tardius, quam per naturam mortales sint. “ “astrologiam”: correction of “astronomiam”. “gethneliaca”: sic. c After “haec”: “inve”, crossed out. d “hominis”: in the interlinear space above “agent”, crossed out. e “sunt de rebus”: correction of “sunt res”.

b

549

Thomas Aquinas 1952, pp. 357-61.

211 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Cum astrologis etiam fatetur septimum signum vocari domum mortis, et ascendens domum vitae: et multa alia similia disserit, quibus non solum astrologiam non damnat, sed potius probat et laudat, illam inquam quae necessitatem hominibus et operationibus non inducit. 6. ° quia difficile mortales obtem perabunt decretis de tollendis et abolendis libris astrologiae iudiciariae, et multis scrupulis et dubiis torquebuntur eorum conscientiae, et a maiorum praecepta de ea re transgredientur, esset enim melius ut sine peccato id facerent, ut sta­ tuerunt patres a S.a Synodo Tridentina deputati, quam eos periculo exponere, ut dum haec aegerrime admittent, et impatienter exequentur aut minime.550 7. ° Si id fit ob tollendos abusus, eorum qui minus recte astrologia utuntur,b id in om nibus artibus contingit, sunt enim qui medicina inepte utentes homines interimunt, et iurisconsulti opibus et facultati­ bus spoliant, ob male defensas causas. Proinde abutentes et necessi­ tatem aliquam eventibus seu liberi arbitrij actibus0 inducentes, ana­ themate feriendi, et tamquam haeretici acerrime puniendi. Sicut et factum est de caeco 3 Asculano qui semel cum abiurasset hunc erro­ rem, de necessitate inducendi ex astris actibus liberi arbitrij, iterum relapsus tandem combustus est.551 69r 8° Alberto magno ascriptum opus de Secretis mulierum expurgandum proponitur. Istud opusculum genuinum est et legitimum Alberti magni, quod nihil habere censeo expurgatione dignum, quod neque religionem ullo pacto offendat, nec bonos mores, neque superstitiosum aliquid con­ tineat, quod ego saepe legi, tractat enim de formatione foetus in utero matris, et qualiter per singulos menses usque ad partum se habeat,6 de infusione animae, et similia magna eruditione et doctrina ut in alijs philo­ sophicis solet. Aequivocatio autem est, quod huic opusculo alius libellus

“ After “et”: “contra”, crossed out. b After “utuntur”: a word crossed out. c After “actibus”: “utenti”, crossed out. d “caeco”: sic, for “Cecco”. e “se habeat”: in the interlin­ ear space. 550

See Mansi, 33, p. 230, for the decree on the Rules regarding the prohibition of books. Francesco Stabile, called Cecco d’Ascoli (1269-1327), author of a commentary to the Sphere of Sacrobosco and of the poem L’Acerba, physician, astrologer at the court of Flo­ rence, burnt at the stake as a heretic. 551

~ 212 ~

IV. COUNSELLING BOOKS AND AUTHORS

coniunctus solet excudi, qui de v irtutibus herb aru m et lapidum* inscribitur ipsi Alberto magno inscriptus, qui alicuius est impostoris multa superstitiosa et vana tradentis, alienus a stylo et gravitate Alberti Magni, qui ob ingentem sapientiam, Magni cognomen adeptus. Sub isto igitur titulo interdicendus est ille Libellus, Alberto magno falso ascriptus libellus de virtutibus herbarum et lapidum.552 Aristotelis de longitudine et brevitate vitae, et divinatione per som­ nium, per Christophorum H egendorphinum , in Latinum sermonem editio.553 V idebitur quibusdam ex am biguitate sermonis liber A ris­ totelis prohiberi, melius igitur ex littera A. ad litteram C. transferretur, et dici. Christophori Hegendorphini, versio libri8 Aristotelis de longitu­ dine et brevitate vitae et divinatione per somnium 0 [etc] et concionis Chrysostomi de magistratibus e Graeco in Latinum versio.554 (...) Augustini Steuchi Eugubini Cosmopoeia, quae est in tria capita priora Geneseos expositio, usque ad eiectum Adam de paradiso. In editione Lugduni per sebastianum G rypheium anno 1535.555 in illa verba, in principio creavit Deus coelum et terram , pag. 29. caelum empyreum sensit claritatem esse divinam quam semper cum Deo fuisse necesse erat: et proinde incorpoream et increatam, verum in editione novissima Venetijs 1591.556 opera eius prodierunt purgatiora, Gregorio PP. XIIII. dicata, hic locus medicatus pag. 10.d connotatione marginali in haec verba. Sententia haec de caelo empyreo, quam auctor desum p­ sit ab ipsis Rabbinis, et eam repetit pagina 51. et 81. et alibi, est omnino falsa, et non sequenda. Q uare o p orteret dici in indice. A ugustini Steuchi Eugubini, Cosmopoeia, ante annum 1591. excusa.557 a After

“lapidum”: “solet”, crossed out. b “libri”: in the interlinear space. nium”: a letter crossed out. d “pag. 10”.: in the interlinear space. 552

c

After “som­

See ch. ps-Albertus Magnus. Aristoteles 1536. See the note to doc. 1.6. In the 1593 Index this work was not moved to the section ‘C’. 554 The translation of Concio Chrysostomi de magistratibus by Christoph Hegendorff (1500-1540), was prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal (1551), Spain (1559, 1583) and Rome (1590); ILI, IV, pp. 178-79; V, p. 330; VI, p. 246; IX, p. 364. 535 Steuco 1535. 336 Steuco 1591. For the censure of Steuco’s interpretation of the “empyreum”, see ch. Steuco, Introduction, doc. 1, and doc. 3, f. 266v. 337 See ch. Agostino Steuco. 553

~ 213 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

IV.6

Anonymous, Note on the new Index558 (Rome, ante 26 September 1592 )559 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 103r-106v

103r

103v

( ...)

Ex litera A. in 2 a Classe Abraham Avenaris introductio in iudicia astrorum. Idem quod de omnibus Astrologiae libris est examinandum.560 (...) Alberto Magno adscriptum opus de secretis mulierum 561 Albubaher, seu centiloquium Hermetis.562 qui non fuerunt Chri­ stiani. (...) Amati Lusitani centuriae. (...) Aristotelis de longitudine vitae.563 Archandam de nativitatibus.564 Augustini Eugubini: non recte scripsit de [praesentia] Dei in psal. Domine probasti me.565 IV.7

Alfonso Chacón, S ententia circa libros e t a u ctores in d icis^ (Rome, ante 26 September 1592)567 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 112r-114r (autograph)

112r

Sententia M. F. Alfonsi Ciaconis circa libros et auctores indicis litteris .A.B.C.D. (...) 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567

This text is apparently inspired to Chacón’s pronouncement in the previous document. See doc. IV. 12. Abraham ibn Ezra 1507 (see the previous doc.). Cf. ch. ps-Albertus. Albubater 1501. prohibited in the Index of Rome (1590); see ILI, IX, pp. 418-9, 802. Cf. the note to the previous doc., f. 69r. Arcandam 1542; see note to doc. IV.5. See the interpretation of Psalm 138 in Steuco 1578, vol. II, f. 225. This document is probably the continuation of doc. IV.5 (supra). See doc. IV.12.

~ 214

IV. COUNSELLING BOOKS AND AUTHORS

c

112v

(...) Conradi Gesneri opera, videlicet apparatus medicus568 onomasti­ c s [propriorum] nominum’69 [...] [...] et fossilibus.570 de animalibus quadrupedibus historia,571 eorundem icones.572* de historia avium et pi­ scium575 et eorum icones,574 de re herbaria commentari].575 de lacte et operibus lactarijs,576 et alia similia, revisa diligenter fuerunt8 / / a theolo­ 113r gis Belgicis anno 1571. et Hispanicis, et nihil [penitus] in huiusmodi scriptis deprehensum quod pietatem et doctrinam catholicam offen­ deret, una eius bibliotheca excepta. Quare haec sola debuisset interdici, et alia omnia eius opera ob utilitatem magnam permittenda. Q uod et factum est in indice expurgatorio Belgico, et Hispaniensi.577 (...) Cypriani Leovitij ephemerides, quae ad annum 1606. prod[ucuntur] 578 expurgatae sunt utroque indice Belgico et Hispaniensi.579 (...) Gerardus M ercator insignis geographus, et temporum exactissimus 113v supputator, vir fuit catholicus et nihil credo [tradidisse] suam chronologiam expurgatione dignum, et ab Sleidano 580 et dam natis auc­ toribus nihil [ferme] mali mutuatus est.581 “After “fuerunt”: “et nihil pro”, crossed out. 568

Gessner 1542. Onomastikon propriorum nominum, virorum, mulierum, sectarum, populorum, ed. K. Gess­ ner, in Ambrogio Calepino (ca. 1435-1509/10), Latinae linguae dictionarium, in the following edi­ tions: Basel (1544,1546,1550,1551,1553,1555,1558,1560,1562,1568,1570,1574,1579,1584 and 1590); the work was prohibitied in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 102. , 370 Gessner 1565. 371 Gessner 1551a and 1554. 372 Gessner 1560a. 373 Gessner 1555a and 1558. ( 374 Gessner 1555d, 1560b and 1560c. ?7? Gessner 1555b. 376 Gessner 1541a. 377 See the Introduction to ch. Konrad Gessner. 378 Leowitz 1557. 379 Notice that Leowitz was corrected in the Index of Antwerp (1571), but not in the Expurgatory Index of Spain (1584); moreover, he was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564) and Spain (1583); ILI, Vili, p. 398; VI, p. 271. See also ch. Leowitz. 380 Johann Sleidan (1506-1556) was the author of the first great history of the Protestant movement, and as such did much to influence how it was perceived by Catholics and Protes­ tants alike. Cf. ch Mercator, note 9. 581 See the note to doc. IV.2. 369

— 215 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Cosmopoeia Augustini Eugubini quae repetitur in littera .C. deberet addi, quae ante 159 [1]. annum excusa est. cum venetica edi­ tione vulnus sanatum est additione ad marginem adiecta.582 IV.8

Ignazio Capuano, Giovanni Soderino and Roberto Bellarmino, Pronouncements on the new Index (Rome, ante 26 September 1592)583 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 129r-140v (autographs)

131r

13 lv

I33r

fr. Ignatius Capuanus584 Ordinis Minimorum S. Franc(cis)ci de Paula ex Conventu S. Trinitatis in Congregatione Indicis Ad proposita dubia sic respondet (...) Ex Theologia Harmonia Mundi et Problemata E Georgi]’585 Augustini Eugubini Cosmopeia.586 (...) Theatrum vitae humanae.587 (...) Ex facultatibus alijs Albertus magnus de secretis mulierum588 Cardani de consolatione589 etc. (...) Io. Baptistae Portae Neap. Magia Naturalis590 (...) Vulgariter conscripti Capricci medicinali di Fieravante591 Bolognese (...) fr. Ignatius Capuanus Ordinis Minimorum (...) [Ad] quaestionem respondeo, expurgandos esse; Egobinum in Steuco 1591; cf. Steuco 1535 and 1578. See doc. IV. 12. 584 Ignazio Capuano; BlOGR. 585 See eh. Francesco Giorgio. 586 See the notes to the previous document. 587 See the note to doc. 1.3, £. 207v. 588 See doc. IV.5, f. 69r and ch. Ps.-Albertus. 589 Cardano 1542. See ch. Cardano. 590 For the various editions, see ch. Della Porta. 591 Leonardo Fioravanti (1517/18-1588), Capricci medicinali appeared in the following editions: Venice (1561, 1564, 1565, 1573, 1582, 1595); the work was prohibited in the Indexes of Spain (1583) and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, VI, pp. 646-47; IX, p. 382. 582 583

~ 216

IV. COUNSELLING BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Pentateuchum;592 Sard[anes]a de subtilitate, et varietate rerum; Pomponatij de mortalitate animae,593 de incantationibus, de praedestina­ tione, et libero arbitrio;594 Symonem Portium de mente humana;595 Theatrum vitae humanaeb;596 (...) Ioannes Soderinus597 (...) 2.um dubium, quorum librorum potissimum necessaria vel utilis sit expurgatio. Omissis libris iureconsultorum, et medicorum, de quibus alij iudicabunt, hi, qui sequuntur, utiliter meo iudicio expurgarentur. (...) Conradi Gesneri Bibliotheca, et reliqua opera. Georgijc Mercatoris chronicum.598 (...) Sebastiani Munsteri Cosmographia, et opera grammatica599 (...) Robertas Bellarminus idem mihi videtur Ioannes Azor600 idem .p. parrad 601 a “Sard[anesJ”: sic, for “Cardanus”. b “humanae”: in the interlinear space. c Sic, for “Gherardi”. d “idem mihi (...) parra”: written in another hand (probably that of Azor: next to “parra” there are two small crosses as a sign of authentication). 592

Steuco 1535, 1578 and 1591. Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1525), Tractatus de immortalitate animae appeared in the fol­ lowing editions: Bologna (1516), Venice (1525), s.l. (1534, which is a fictitious date; probably in France ca. 1560). Surprisingly, this work was not prohibited on any sixteenth-century Index. 594 Pomponazzi 1567, prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and of Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); see ILI, IX, pp. 161, 691, 838, 897, and ch. Pomponazzi. 595 Porzio 1551, prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1590); see ILI, IX, pp. 172 and 393. 596 See the note to doc. 1.3, f. 207v 597 Possibly a certain Juan Soderino, Consultor of the Congregation for the Index as early as 19 September 1592 (doc. VII.4). In BAV, Vat. Lat. 6861, f., 20, he is said to be from Lis­ bon. However, the surname is not Iberian, but that of a well-known family of the Florentine gentry. The only Giovanni belonging to this family and known in these years was Giovanni Vittorio (1526-1596), author of several works, among which Trattato della coltivazione delle viti (Florence 1600). As there is no extant documentation about a stay in Rome in 1592 nor about his theological qualifications, this Consultor probably belonged to a secondary branch of the family, which had moved to Portugal. 598 See Mercator 1569. 599 Cf. ch. Munster. 600 Juan Azor; BlOGR. Cf. ch. Licences, Introduction. 601 Pedro Parra; BlOGR. 593

217 ~

134r

134v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

IV.9 A m brogio da Bassano,602 Pronouncem ent on the new Index 3 (Rome, ante 26 Septem ber 1.592)603 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 154r-155v (copy)

In nom ine dom ini (...) A ugustini A ucubini b cosm opeia. (...) I54v A lberti m agni opus de secretis m ulierum (...) C ardani opera de sapientia, de veritate, c de subtilitate, de consola­ tione. 604 I54r

IV.10 Gonzalez Ponce de Leon,605 On the pronouncement of Alfonso Chacon (Rome, ante 26 Septem ber 1592)606 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 97r-98v“ 7

97r

De alijs capitib(us) censurarum d(ictorum) Consultorum .

P ater chiaconius

1. idem censet Consalvus Pontius.

1. P u tat dividendos om nino in ­ dices Prohibitorium et Expurgatorium , né ullo m odo C ath o lici m isceantur haereticis.

a

Cf. same codex, f. 155v.

602 603 604 605 606 607

b

“Aucubini”: sic.

c

Ambrogio Frigerio; BlOGR. Seedoc. IV. 12. See Cardano 1544, 1557a-\o, 1550, 1542. Gonzalez Ponce de Léon; BlOGR. See doc. IV. 12. Partially published in Godman 2000, p. 447.

~ 218

“de veritate”: sic, for “de varietate”.

IV. COUNSELLING BOOKS AND AUTHORS

2. Consalvus putat oportere exac­ tius haec recogn o sci an nem pe post Const(itution)em Sixti contra Astrologos permitti possint.608

2. A uverrois in trodu ctoriu m in iu d itia astro ru m A lb a b a te r, A rchadom um , et centoloquium H e rm e tis , 609 non p u tat p r o ­ hibenda, eo solum nomine quod tractant Astrologica.

3. in dicto libro de secretis, tollen­ dum esse illu d (falso A lb e rto magno adscriptum ) putat C o n ­ salvus ceterum prohibendum. (...)

3. Libellum de secretis mulierum dicit vere adscribi Alberto magno, et non prohibendum sed alium qui illi iungitur cuius titulus est de virtuttibus herbarum et lapidum. (...)

4. S a lte m e x p u rg a n d a et no n om nino proh ib en d a eius opera Consalvus putat, de censuris Bel­ gicis 2 non illi constat. Hispanica habentur in Indice Hispanico.

4. C on rad u m G esn eru m d ic it 97v fuisse revisum à Theologis Belgicis anno 1571. et Hispanicis et nihil in om nibus repertum (excepta b i­ bliotheca) [...] quare putat biblio­ thecam tantum esse prohibendam et caetera perm ittend a p rop ter magnam operum valitatem.610

5. Consalvus putat non esse tol­ lendum ab Indice expurgatorio, qu ia v e tu s tio r e s lib r i ad h u c supersunt, et ad eorum exemplar p o ssu n t alij re cu d i et o p o rte t extare semper emendaturi. (...)

5. Eugebium etiam quod iam cor­ rectum sit in nova editione.611 (...)

8. expurgandum putat Consalvus

8. Gerardum M ercatorem tollen­ dum ab Indice

a After

“Belgicis”: “aut Hispanicis”, crossed out.

608

Sixtus V’s bull Coeli et terrae (1586); cf. ch. Astrology, Introduction. Albubater 1501. 610 See Chacon’s pronouncement in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 150r-v (in section V, doc. 14). 611 Cf. Steuco 1591. 609

219

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

IV. 11 Anonymous, De addendis vel demendis in Indiceb n (Rome, ante 26 September 1592)612613 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 124r-128v

De Libris Addendis vel Demendis in Indice Consultor(um) Iudicium Ex [ForerijJ praefactione614

124r

Deputati Patres ad Librorum censuras iudicarunt Regulas compo­ nendas esse, ut quo ad eiusa fieri posset Doctorum hominum com­ mentis et studijs salva Veritate et Religione prospiceretur; [...] quas de Libris, tam qui in Indice continentur, quam qui non continentur iudicium faciendum esse duxerunt. Patribus tamen non is fuit animus, [...] ad eorum pertinebat insti­ tutum ut collocandos in p a Classe non unum perquirerent, sed ijs pene contenti fuere qui in Romano13 Chatalogo descripti sunt, de alijs vero eiusdem generis Auctoribus [idem] ad ordinarijs et inquisi­ toribus statuendum esse existimarunt.c Liberum [tamen] sit Episcopis (ex Reg(ul)a X a )615 aut Inquisi­ toribus Generalibus [secundum] facultatem quam habent eos etiam Libros qui his Regulis permitti videntur prohibere, si hoc in suis Re­ gnis et Provinces vel Diocesibus expedire judicaverint. At vero qui Libri prohibendi sint incerti Authoris in tertia Classe aut tales censeri debent, praeter eos qui in hoc Chatalogo descripti “ “quo ad eius”: sic, probably a mistake by the scribe for “quo citius” or a similar expression. After “Romano”: “Indice”, crossed out. c In the margin, in the same hand: “De classe prim a”.

b

The document is a summary of the pronouncements by the Consultors (indicated with their initials: “O ” for Olibona, “M ” for Morin, “B” for Bellarmino etc.) on the revision of the Index of 1564. The author was probably Paolo Pico, Secretary of the Congregation. 613 See the following document. 614 The reference is to the preface by Francisco Foreiro (BlOGR.), secretary of the Com­ mission for the Index of books, created at the Council of Trent; see ILI, V ili, pp. 809-12. 615 The author referred to Rule X of the Tridentine Index, reproduced under the same number in the Clementine Index (1596); cf. ILI, IX, p. 923. 612

~ 220 ~

IV. COUNSELLING BOOKS AND AUTHORS

sunt Episcopi et Inquisitores una cum Theologorum Chatolicorum consilio dijudicabunt. Quare non necessario in Indice collocandi sunt omnes Auctores aut Libri prohibiti cum omnium notitia minime habeatur, sed tantum notiores apponendi et Ordinarijs, ac Inquisitoribus relinquendum de alijs ad instar [istorum] datas Regulas prohibendis. Dum eorum qui sunt prima Classe Opera omnia prohibentur, et illorum multiplex [farrago] contineatur in Indice, hinc fit quod [...] multi [...] ex [...] Libris et [..Jtionibus quamplurimis non contem­ nendis privantur Index [quam] [...datissimus] esse debet potiss(imu)m in Auctorum nominibus cognominibus et Patria exacte exprimendis, et diligenter considerandum quod non ignobiles Heretici, qui nihil aut fere nihil scripserunt notentur inter Scriptores Hereticos, et in prima Classe referantur qui in 2a notari deberent et in 2a collocentur nisi graves Chatolici, qui [...] ab Indice prohibitorio recensendi in expurgatorio essent, et in titulis Librorum tertiae Classis [...] titulus explicandus ubi ambiguus esse potest et ex se aliquid boni prae se ferre.3 [Sic] Christiani institutio 616 Dialogus de doctrina christiana 617 Speculum exemplorum6.618

a In the margin, in the same hand: “qui non simpliciter prohibentur sed donec expur­ gentur”. b In the margin, in the same hand: “ [Interdum] satis est appellari hominem et designari Librum tacita Patria”.

616

This work had been prohibited in the Indexes of Venice (1554), and Rome (1559, 1564); see ILI, III, p. 245; VIII, p. 410. It is unclear which work is referred to exactly. ILI, Vili, p. 410 suggests Calvin’s institutio, C.S. Curione’s Institutio, or else the anonymous Christianae institutionis liber. 617 Juan de Valdes (1498?-1541), Dialogo de doctrina christiana, prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal (1547), Venice (1549, 1554), Spain (1551, 1559, 1583), and Rome (1559, 1564); see ILI, IV, p. 146; III, pp. 180, 256; VI, pp. 277, 587; VIII, p. 435. 618 Speculum exemplorum, prohibited in the Indexes of Spain (1559, 1583), and Rome (1590); see ILI, V, pp. 436-37; VI, p. 537; IX, p. 394.

~ 221

124v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Qui addendi vel adimendi ab Universo Indice Consultores qui Vota sua in Scriptis tradidere sunt infrascripti Robertas Belarminus Petrus Morinus621 D. Ioannes [Hoz]es622 D. ferdinandus [Hoz]es623 (...)

Magister .S. Palati]619 Alfonsus Ciacconius Eduardus Chartusianus620 Licentiatus Olibona

2 a Classis A b r [...] Avenaris A strologiae lib ri cum nota ex p u rg atio n is apponendi Ciaccon (...) 125r

A ndree Vessali]' A n ato m ia 625 [Donee] Antoni] Mizzaldi de Secretis.626 (...) In 2 a Addendi (...) Bernardus Pernotus Londradus 3 De 115 curationibus donec.627 Bernardi Dessenij Cronenburgensis Veteris Medicinae

Alberti Magni adscriptum Opus de V irtu tib u s H erb aru m et Lapidum [...] 624 O A ug(usti)ni E ugubini Ciaccon nisi ex impressis Ultimo Venetijs

“Londradis”: in the interlinear space. 619

Bartolomé de Miranda; BlOGR. Francisco Aduarte; BlOGR. 621 Pierre Morin; BlOGR. 622 Juan de Hozes; BlOGR. 623 Hernando de Hozes; BlOGR. 624 Seedoc. IV.5. 625 Vesalius, De humani corporis fabrica, was prohibited in the Index of Venice (1554); ILI, III, p. 370. The correction of this work, suggested by the clause “donee”, cannot be traced in any ACDF document. See also the note to doc. IV.4 (supra). 626 Cf. ch. Mizauld. 627 Paracelsus 1582b; see the note to doc. IV.4. 620

~ 222

IV. COUNSELLING BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Defensio*628 donec (...)

Clemens Scubertus632 Morinus

Bernardini Tilesij de natura,629 de somno, et quod animal univer­ sum [...] omnia gu b ern etur 630 B.631 (•••) In P a addendi (. . . ) In 2 a addendi (...) Conraddi Gesneri de Animalibus donec c. (...) in 2 a addendi

125v

G u glielm i X ila n d ri tab u lae Chronologie adiecte ad Georgi] Cedreni Annales633 (...) Iulius Cesar Scaliger de subtili­ tate634 M (...)

M ichael aestinus 3 hoepingensis [ .. .]inderatiob [...] comete637 O

Io. Pretori] de Cometis635 donee [...] Io [Gornei] prefatio ad Librum [Medicarum curationum 636 (...) Levinus Lemnius in 2.a O (...) a

“aestinus”: sic, for “Maestlinus”. the title). 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 633 636 637

b

“[...Jinderatio”: sic, for “consideratio” (which is in

Dessenius 1573; see the note to doc. IV.4. Telesio 1586. See ch. Telesio. Telesio 1590. For Bellarmino’s pronouncement, see also ch. Telesio, doc. 1. See ch. Schubert. Cedrenus [1566]. Scaliger JC 1576 (first ed. Scaliger JC 1557). See also ch. Julius Caesar Scaliger. Praetorius 1578. Gorris 1564 (reprint: Frankfurt 1578). Maestlin 1581.

223

126r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

M R icch ezze d ’A g ric o ltu ra del Cieco d ’A dria 638 (...) In p(rim )a (...) D elendi Theatrum Orbis terrar(um ) 639 B

P (... )

IV. 12

D ecree of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 26 Septem ber 1592) ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 53r-55r, on f. 53r

1592 Die 26 a . Septem bris C ong(regati)o habita apud Ill. mum C ard. Veronensem 640 ubi inter­ fuerun t om nes excepto C ard. A scanio una cum consultoribus qui fuerunt M agister Sacri Palati], Procur(ator) ord(inis) Praedicatorum,641 Alphonsus Ciacconius, Ioannes Ozes, Gottifredus Cesenas,642 Robertus Belarminius, Abbas Maffa,643 Gonsalvus Poncius, Licentiatus Olibona. Decretum quod vota Consultorum de addendis vel adimendis libris ab Indice Sixti exam inentur diligenter à C ard. 11 Asculano,644 et Alano645

638

Bonardo 1584. See ch. Bonardo. O rtelius 1570; O rtelius was not placed on any sixteenth-century Index; cf. ch. Ortelius, Introduction. 640 Agostino Valier; BlOGR. 641 Juan Vincente de Astorga; BlOGR. 642 Giuseppe Gottifredi; BlOGR. 643 Marcantonio Maffa; BlOGR. 644 Girolamo Bernieri; BlOGR. 645 William Allen; BlOGR. 639

IV. COUNSELLING BOOKS AND AUTHORS

IV. 13

Anonymous, Notes on the new Index (Rome, 23 July 1595) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, M (II.a.11), fols. 285r-86v

Circa Indicem haec videntur animadvertenda (...) In litera G Christofori Hegendorphij translatio Aristotelis,646 et Demostenis647 cur prohibetur? cum translationes etiam sacrorum bibliorum ab Hereticis tollerentur addendo saltem clausula donec expurgetur. (...) In litera

285r 286r

286v

Hadriani lu n ij translatio Eunapij. Quid nobis cum Eunapio gentili scriptore et Christianae religionis hoste? a quocunque translatus.648

IV. 14

Anonymous, Notes on the new Index (Rome, ca. 1596) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, M (II.a.11), fols. 287r-288v

Censura In novum Indicem librorum prohibitorum. (...) 646

Aristoteles 1536', see the note to Section I, doc. 6, f. 247r. Demosthenis orationes Philippicae quatuor, prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal -53. 734 Joachim Camerarius, Commentarii in Tusculanas quaestiones Ciceronis (Basel 1543) was prohibited in the Indexes of Louvain (1546, 1550), and expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, II, pp. 158-59; VII, pp. 491-92. 735 Joachim Camerarius, Commentarii utriusque linguae graecae et latinae (Basel 1551) was examined and permitted in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 538-39, 794. 736 Joachim Camerarius, Versio fabularum Aesopi (Tubingen 1542) was examined and permitted in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, p. 539. 737 Camerarius 1581. 738 Lohr does not list any De anima-commentary by Camerarius; nor is a similar work mentioned in the catalogues of the main European libraries. For the prohibition of his books, see ILI, X, p. 112. 731

~ 239

245 r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

V.6

Alfonso Chacon, Sententia de libris haereticorum non de religione ex professo tractantium, qui utiles erunt si expurgentur™ (Rome, ca. autum n 1587)739740 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), f. 246r-v (autograph)

M. F. Alfonsi Ciaconis Sententia de libris Haereticorum non de religione ex professo tractantium , qui utiles erunt si expurgentur

246r

Achillis Pyrminij G assari m edici et M athem atici, historiarum et chronicarum M undi epitome.741 (...) Chum m ani Elinspachij3 de Tab[ia]nis M ontanis Chronologia ex sacris atque ecclesiasticis authoribus desumpta ab orbe condito usque ad annum 1552.742 Eiusdem genealogiarum liber, in quo gentium origines post dilivium explicantur.743 Evonymi Philiatri Thesaurus, de remedijs secretis liber physicus, medicus et oeconomicus et Ep(istula) qui confecto nomine est Con­ radi Gesneri.744 Eiusdem epistolae medicinales.745

“ “Chummani Elinspachij”: sic, for “Cunmanni Flinspachij”. 739

Probably, Chacón derived most of his information from Gessner’s Bibliotheca (Gessner 1583)', see, for example, under Lycosthenes, Rheticus and Caius. 740 The pronouncements on books to be corrected were probably gathered before December 1587; see doc. V.10. 741 Gasser 1536. 742 Flinsbach 1552, prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), Antwerp (1571), Portugal (1581), and Spain (1583); ILI, Vili, p. 399; IX, pp. 501-2, 807, 869; VII, pp. 511-2; IV, p. 437; VI, p. 247. 743 Flinsbach 1567. 744 Konrad Gessner, Thesaurus Evonymi Philiatri, de remediis secretis, liber physicus, medicus et partim etiam Chymicus, et oeconomicus in vinorum diversi saporis apparatu, medicis et pharmacopolis omnibus praecipue necessarius nunc primum in lucem editus, appeared in Zurich (1552 and 1554) 743 Gessner 1577. See ch. Gessner.

~ 240

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

Conradi Lycosthenis Rubeaquensis Calendarium Historicum, in quo Macedonum et Aegyptiorum Haebreorum et Graecorum menses cum Romanorum mensibus conferuntur.746 (...) Davidis chytraei Chronologia Herodoti et Thucydidi cum serie tem­ porum mundi a [...] [creajtione usque ad annum 1531 deducta.747 Adami Bucholzeri, chronologia vel [annorum] supputatio continua [...] deducta ab orbis conditi primordijs usque ad exilium israelitarum in Babylonia, insertis passim Graece et Romane Historiae eventibus insignioribus.748 (...) Georgi] Fabricij Chemicensis ex Misnia, itinerum lib.l. carmine heroico, additis [...] veterorum et recentiorum annotationibus urbis Romae descriptio.749 Eiusdem antiquitatis aliquanta monumenta ex aere, marmoribus, membranisque veteribus descripta atque collecta duobusque libellis distractis.750 Eiusdem elegantiae poeticae ad facienda carmina ex Ovidio, Tibullo, Propertio, cum libello De syl-

746

This work is not listed in the bibliographies of Lycosthenes’ works or in the catalogues of the major European libraries. Chacon probably derived this information from Gessner’s Bibliotheca-, see Gessner 1583, p. 169, under Lycosthenes: “Scripsit praeterea librum de Mulierum praeclare dictis et factis. Item libellum de priscis Romarorum legibus et plebisci­ tis. De similibus factis, casibus et eventis librum. Calendarium historicum, in quo Mace­ donum, Aegyptiorum, Hebraeorum et Graecorum menses, cum Romanorum mensibus con­ feruntur, et quae a condito mundo ad nostra usque tempora memoratu digna, certis apud diversos diebus acciderunt, commemorantur, etc”. Cf. Gessner 1555c, f. 37r. More than thirty years later, it was also mentioned with the same title in Melchior Adam, Vitae Ger­ manorum theologorum, who probably derived his information from Gessner too; cf. Adam (Theo.), p. 364. A manuscript or preparatory materials of the work are in Schaffhausen, Stadtbibliothek, ms. Generalia 50; cf. Iter italicum, V, p. 130. 747 David Chytraeus (Kochhafe), Chronologia historiae Herodoti et Thucydidis appeared in the following editions: Rostock (1562, 1567, 1569, 1570, 1573, 1578, 1579, 1592, 1593), Strasbourg (1563, 1565, 1565), Wittenberg (1563) and Helmstadt (1585, 1585-6). The work was prohibited in the Indexes of Antwerp (1570), and Spain (1583), and expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 145-6, 516; VI, pp. 272, 353, 549. The author was included among the authors of the first class by the Congregation for the Index on 22 November 1580; ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 8r. 748 Bucholzer 1585. 749 Georg Fabricius, Roma (...) Ejusdem itinerum liber unus. Cum rerum et verborum (...) indice, appeared in Basel (at least in 1550, 1560, 1587). 750 Georg Fabricius, Antiquitatis aliquot Monumenta insignia, ex Aere, marmoribus, mem­ branisque veteribus descripta atque collecta (Strasbourg 1549).

241 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

labarum quantitate.751 Eiusdem formularum loquendi ad usum communoris et quotidianis sermonis, ex Plauto et Terentio.752 Georgij Ioachimi Rhetici narratio de libris revolutionum Nicolai Copernici, quibus terra circum coelum moveri asseritur.753 Eiusdem orationes de astronomia, G eographia et physica.754 Eiusdem canon doctrinae triangulorum / 5’ Eiusdem commentariorum de astronomia lib. 9.756 De astronomiae principijs lib. 2.757 Tabulae angulorum, tabu­ lae inaequabilium m otuum , lib. 3 a .758 D e ecclypsibus libri. 759 novi canones in tabulas ecclypsium Copernici,760 et demum alia eiusdem opera astronomica. Fuit enim in ea Disciplina doctissimus. 246v H enrici Pantaleonis Basiliensis chronographia ecclesiae.761 (...)

“lib. 3”: in the interlinear space. 751

Fabricius 1549. Fabricius 1550. 753 Rheticus 1540. Cf. Ch. Copernicus. 754 Rheticus 1542. 755 Georg Ioachim Rheticus, Canon doctrinae triangolorum, appeared in Leipzig (1551) and Basel (ca. 1575). An extended version appeared in 1596: Opus palatinum de triangulis, in folio, probably in Neustadt. 756 This work is not mentioned in the section “Schriften des Rhetikus”, in Burmeister 1967-68: II, pp. 55-83, nor is it included in the catalogues of the world’s major libraries. However, it is mentioned in Gessner’s Bibliotheca-, cf. Gessner 1583, p. 270. 757 Also this work is not mentioned in the section “Schriften des Rhetikus”, in Burmeister 1967-68: II, pp. 55-83, nor is it included in the catalogues of the world’s major libraries. Again, this work is mentioned by in Gessner’s Bibliotheca-, cf. Gessner 1583, p. 270. 758 Also this information derived from Gessner’s Bibliotheca-, cf. Gessner 1583, p. 270. It is unclear whether Gessner listed one or two works, or else two sections of the same book. Whenever two works are concerned the latter title probably refers to Georg Ioachim Rheti­ cus, Tabulae astronomicae in gratiam studiosae iuventutis seorsim editae (Wittenberg 1542, 1545). 759 Not mentioned in the section “Schriften des Rhetikus”, in Burmeister 1967-68: II, pp. 55-83. See, however, Gessner 1583, p. 270. 760 Possibly, the very rare Georg Ioachim Rheticus, Ephemeris ex fundamentis Copernici (Zeipsick 1550, in 4°). See Gessner 1583, p. 270. 761 Heinrich Pantaleon, Chronographia ecclesiae christianae qua patrum et doctorum ordo cum variarum heresum origine et multiplici innovatione rituum in Ecclesia, per imperatores, concilia aut pontifices romanos ad nostra tempora usque ostenditur (...), appeared in Basel (1550,1561,1568). 752

~ 242 ~

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

Ioannis Caij Britannici medici762 de m edendi m ethodo lib. 2.763 De ephemera Britannica lib. 2 764 de antiquitate cantabrigiensis academiae lib. 2 765 De canibus Britannicis lib. 2 766 De Rariorum animalium atque stirpium historia lib. I. 767 De Symphonia vocum Brittanicorum lib. p68 p e therm is britannicis lib. I. 769 De libris Galeni, qui nondum extant, lib. I. 770 De antiquis Britanniae urbibus.771 Commentaria eius­ dem in Cornelium Celsum,772 Scribonium Largum,773 et in pleraque Galeni opera,774 quae maxima ipse ex parte vertit. Iani cornarij Zuiccaviensis Germani preterea quae expurganda sus­ ceperunt in Hispania,775 De conviviorum veterorum Graecorum, et hoc tempore Germanorum ritibus moribus et sermonibus tractatus.776 Ioannis Aventini num erandi per digitos manusque veterorum con­ suetudinis explicatio, cum picturis et imaginibus.777 (...) Pauli C onstantini Phrygionis G erm ani, C hronicon regum regno­ rumque omnium catalogum, et perpetuam ab exordio m undi tempo762

Chacon’s list contains several unpublished works by Case that are only mentioned in Case 1570b and in Gessner 1583, pp. 415-16. See infra. w Case 1544. 764 In Case 1556; later edition: London 1721. 765 John Case, De antiquitate Cantabrigiensis academiae libri duo: in quorum secundo de Oxoniensis quoque Gymnasij antiquitate disseritur et Cantabrigiense longé eo antiquius esse definitur, appeared in London (1568, 1574). 766 Case 1570&. 767 In Case 1570a. 768 Mentioned in Case 1570b; cf. Venn 1912, p. 99: “Scripsimus alium libellum de sym­ phonia vocum Britannicarum, in quo docuimus quemadmodum cum lingua Graeca et Latina Britannica nostra consonet”. Cf. Gessner 1583, p. 415. 769 Mentioned in Case 1570b; see Venn 1912, p. 100: “De thermis Britannicis librum item unum scripsimus”. Cf. Gessner 1583, p. 415. 770 In Case 1556. 771 Mentioned in Case 1570b; see Venn 1912, pp. 100 and 106. Cf. Gessner 1583, p. 415 772 Mentioned in Case 1570b; see Venn 1912, pp. 86-88, and 106. Cf. Gessner 1583, p.415. 773 An In Scribonii Largi de compositione medicamentorum librum unum is mentioned in Case 1570b; see Venn 1912, pp. 88 and 106. Cf. Gessner 1583, p. 415. 774 Editions of Galen’ works, translated and annotated by Case, appeared in Basel (1544, 1549, 1557), Louvain (1556; reprint Venice 1565). See Case 1570b. 775 See ILI, VI, pp. 169-70,382. 776 Cornarius 1548. 777 Aventinus (ed.) 1532.

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

rum saeculorumque seriem complectens, ex optimis quibusque Hebraeis, Graecis et Latinis auctoribus congestum.778 Petri Mosellani Partegensis annotationes in Aulij gelij noctes Acticas,779 in institutiones Quintiliani,780 Scholia in dialecticam Georgij Vallae,781 In Dionysium de situ orbis782 (...) Sebastiani Munsterij praeter .6. libros Geographiae in Hispania purgatos,783 Kalendarium Hebraicum, et novae tabulae in Ptolemaei Geographiam.784 V.7 Anonymous, Index librorum, qui aut expurgandi, aut permittendi viderentur (Rome, ca. autumn 1587)785 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), f. 248r

Index librorum, qui aut expurgandi, aut permittendi viderentur. (...) Conradi Gesneri bibliotheca.786 Conradi Licosthenis epitome bibliothecae3 Gesneri787 (...) a

After “bibliothecae”: “Gentile”., crossed out.

778

Phrygio 1534. Editions by Petrus Mosellanus (Schade) (1493-1524) appeared in Basel (1526, 1565) and Cologne (1526, 1533, 1537, 1541, 1549, 1557, 1563, 1566). 780 Editions of M. Fabii Quintiliani De institutione oratoria libri X II with Mosellanus’ annotationes appeared in Basel (1527), and Paris (1528, 1533, 1538, 1542). 781 Petrus Mosellanus’ Scholia in Georgii Vallae categoremata, in: Giorgio Valla, De expe­ dita ratione argumentandi libellus (1534). 782 No sixteenth-century edition of Dionysius Periegetes seems to have been edited by Mosellanus or has a commentary written by him. 783 Chacon probably referred to the Antwerp corrections; see ILI, VII, pp. 222-23, and 548 and ch. Munster. 784 Ptolemaeus 1540. 785 The pronouncements on books to be corrected were probably gathered before December 1587; see doc. V.10. 786 Gessner 1545. See also ch. Gessner. 787 Gessner, Epitome bibliothecae universalis, ed. Konrad Lycosthenes, appeared in the following editions: Zurich (1555, 1574 and 1583). 779

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

V.8

Anonymous, Books that Require Further Correction (Rome, ca. autum n 1587)788 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), £. 249r-v

Libri qui maiorem expurgationem postulant sunt hij. (...) — ex medicis — Galenus.— scriptis Leonardi, Fuchsij.789 Corradi Gesnerij.790 Iani Cornarij.791 herasmi.792 Hipocrates, Iani Cornarij793 Avicenna, — eiusdem 794 ex philosophia Aristoteles795 expurgandus scriptis herasmi,796 Symonis Grisi 3,797

“Grisi”: sic, for “Grini”. 788

The pronouncements on books to be corrected were probably gathered before December 1587; see doc. V.10. 789 Probably Galenus 1550-1554, or else Fuchs 1551b, examined and permitted in the Index of Antwerp (1571); see ILI, VII, pp. 482, 775-76. 790 Galenus 1549. 791 Galenus 1549. Cornarius’ commentaries in this edition were examined and permitted in the Index of Antwerp (1571); see ILI, VII, pp. 473-74, 774. Cf. ch. Cornarius. 792 Galenus, Contra Academicos et Pyrrhonios, D. Erasmo Roterodamo interprete, in Sex­ tus Empiricus 1569. 793 The commentaries to the Greek edition (Hippocrates 1538a) and the Latin edition (Basel 1546, 1554, 1558) by Janus Cornarius; these commentaries were examined and per­ mitted in the Index of Antwerp (1571); see ILI, VII, pp. 471-73, 774. 794 Maybe Avicenna 1556. 795 Cf. Gregorio 1588, f. 147v: “In Aristotelem Philosoph. Scribunt Andreas Cratander. Coelius curio Erasmus. Gilbertus Cognatus. Henricus Pantaleon. Iacobus Bedrotus. Iacob Schenck. Matthias Flaccus Illyricus. Martinus Borraus. Philippus Melancthon. Simon Grineus (...)”. 796 Erasmus published an edition of Aristotle’s works at Basel in 1531 (reprinted in 1539 and 1540). 797 See Aristoteles 1531 and 1538. Simon Grynaeus (1493-1541), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), Antwerp (1570), and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 356; VIII, pp. 481, 674-75; VII, p. 222; VI, pp. 340, 534; IX, pp. 841, 900, 971. For his Aristotle commentaries, see Lohr, pp. 175-76.

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Iacobi Schegij,798 Andreae Gratandi'99— (...) phisica.— Ioanis Belcirionis800 (...) De sensu ac memoria — Simonis Symonij801 — (...) Libri humaniarum disciplinarum (...) In Ambrosium Callepinum — Conradi Gesneri.802— In plinium, Roberti Stephani—herasmi803 Iacobi Micilli804 In lexico Graeco latinum, hadriani Iunij,805 Conradi Gesneri,806 Melanchtonis,807 francisci porti.808 — Reliqui libri sunt minus necessari)', et pro tempore convenienti pro­ ponentur. V.9

Anonymous, Books to be Corrected (Rome, ca. autumn 1587)809 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), £. 251r-v

798

See the note to doc. V.4, f. 241v, and ch. Schegk. Probably Aristoteles 1550 or another Aristotle edition by Cratander is referred to. 800 See the note to doc. V.4, f. 241v. 801 Simoni 1566. See also ch. Simoni. 802 Onomastikon propriorum nominum, virorum, mulierum, sectarum, populorum, ed. K. Gessner, in Ambrogio Calepino (ca. 1435-1509/10), Latinae linguae dictionarium, appeared in the following editions and/or reprints: Basel (1544, 1546, 1550, 1551, 1553, 1555, 1558, 1560, 1562, 1568, 1570, 1574, 1579, 1584 and 1590); the work was prohibited in the Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 102. 803 The edition of Historia naturalis by Erasmus appeared in Basel (1535, 1539, 1545, 1549, 1554). 804 Milich 1535; see ch. Jakob Milich. 805 Hadrianus Junius (Adriaen de Jongh) (1511-1575), Lexicon graecolatinum, was pro­ hibited in the Index of Antwerp (1570) and expurgated in the Index of Spain (1584); ILI, VII, p. 170; VI, p. 824. See also chs. Eunapius Sardanus and Hadrianus Junius. 806 Gessner’s edition of Ambrogio Calepino, Onomastikon is referred to. 807 Probably, Melanchthon’s preface to Michael Neander, Graecae linguae Erotemata (Basel 1553 and Wittenberg 1577). 808 Franciscus Portus (1511-1581), Hellenist from Crete, active in Heidelberg and Fer­ rara; author of a Greek-Latin lexicon; prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559) and Spain (1583); ILI, VIII, p. 465 and VI, p. 322. 809 The pronouncements on books to be corrected were probably gathered before December 1587; see doc. V.10. 799

246 ~

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

Libri, qui utiliores et magis necessari] videntur, quo notantur ordine, essent corrigendi (...) In Medicina Arnaldus de Villa nova810 Amatus Lusitanus.811 Leonardus Fucsius.812 Theophrastus Paracelsus.813 In Philosophia Nova Philosophia Bernardini Tilesij.814 Conciliator vel Petri Abani differentiae, omissae in alio Indice.815 Simon Portius.81' Pomponatius etiam omissus.816 De Aristotelis libris cum annotationibus Grinaei, et aliorum non essem admodum sollicitus.818 In Mathematicis Cosmographia Munsteri.820 Quadripartitum Ptolomei.819 Theatrum orbis.821 Gaspar Peucensis8 de elementis doctrinae de Circulis etc.822 a

“Peucensis”: sic, for “Peucerij”.

See ch. Arnaldus of Villanova. See ch. Amatus Lusitanus. 812 See ch. Leonhart Fuchs. 813 See ch. Paracelsus. 814 For the editions and the Censura of De rerum natura iuxta propria principia, see ch. Bernardino Telesio. 815 Pietro d’Abano 1565. The “alius index” refers to the Tridentine Index (1564) which did not prohibit the work, because condemned by Rule IX, while the work had been prohib­ ited in the 1559 Index; see ILI, Vili, pp. 144, 300-302. 816 Pomponazzi 1567; see ch. Pomponazzi. 817 Probably Porzio 1551; cf. doc. IV.8, f. 133 r. 818 For Simon Grynaeus’ Aristotle commentaries, see doc. V.8, f. 249v. 819 Ptolemy, Quadripartitum appeared in the following Greek-Latin editions: Basel (1553, 1559) and in Latin: Venice (1484, 1493, 1519), Paris (1519), Basel (1533, 1541, 1559, 1578) and Nuremberg (1535); also printed in Firmicus 1551 and Cardano 1554. As a rule, ancient astrological works were not prohibited; cf. ch. Astrology, Introduction. 820 See ch. Munster. 821 Ortelius 1570; see the note to doc. IV.l 1, f. 126v, and ch. Ortelius, Introduction. 822 Kaspar Peucer, Elementa doctrinae de circulis coelestibus was expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 499, 781. See also the note to doc. 1 in Section I, and ch. Peucer, doc. 1. 810 811

~ 247

251r 25 lv

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Ioachimus Vadianus in Melam.823 In Historicis Teatrum vitae hum anae.824 In H um anioribus litteris. (...) Betulius.825 Roberti Stephani scripta.826

V.10 Decree of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 3 Decem ber 1587) ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, £. 29va

Die 3 a. Xmbris Cong(regati)o habita absente Card. 11 Columna 827 apud Card. Vero­ nensem 828 ubi adfuerunt reliqui adhibitis Consultoribus. (...) D ecretum in prox(im)a Cong(regatio)ne quemlibet Card.lem deferre notam expurgandorum iudicio suo prout habes libro B. fol. 205 829 et quod dentur Ill.mis Card. llbus regulae expurgatoriae et iuxta distribu­ tionem factam co n signentur libri ex p urgandi, et th e atru m vitae

“ Draft in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), f. 66r: “Habita fuit Congregatio in domo Ill.mi et R 1™D. D. Card.1'5 Veronensis, et adfuerunt omnes [etc.] / / ( . . . ) / / In proxima Congregatione quilibet ex Ill.'™ D. D. Cardinalibus deferat Indicem expurgandorum Iudicio suo”. 823

See the note to section I, doc. 3, f. 207r, and ch. Vadianus. Lycosthenes-Zwinger 1565, 1571, 1575, 1586-1587. See the note to section I, doc. 3, f. 207v. 825 Sixt Birk (Betuleius, 1501-1554), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564), Parma (1580) and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 371; VIII, p. 707; IX, p. 176; VI, p. 565. For the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, pp. 88-9. 826 Robert Estienne (1503-1559), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564), Parma (1580) and Spain (1583); ILI, VIII, p. 667; IX, p. 184; VI, p. 526. For the pro­ hibition of individual works, ILI, X, p. 175. 827 Marcantonio Colonna; BlOGR. 828 Agostino Valier; BlOGR. 829 See section V, doc. 12. 824

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

humanae a Card.11 Ascanio expurgetur et Ill.mus Paleotto vel Columna repetant scripta olim data S.mo pro appendice et regulis novo Indici apponendis, 830 et Secretarius laciet Indicem librorum prohibendo­ rum.831

V .ll Vincenzo Bonardi, Discorso intorno all’indice da farsi de libri proibiti (Rome, post February 1587,832 ante 1589)833 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 500r-504v, on fols. 502v-503r834 (copy)

Discorso intorno all’indice da farsi de libri proibiti etc. (...)

500r

(...) Per la terza parte dell’espurgazione, sono moltissimi, i, libri 502v da espurgarsi, et darà no n poco fastidio il negotio di R aim on­ do Lullo, che da Paolo quarto fu prohibito, et da Pio quarto nel­ l’indice del Concilio fu lasciato, à, dietro; 835 Ma specialm ente si desiderano l’espurgationi del Zasio,836 M onlineo,837 Vuesembeccio,838

830

For the discussion on the Rules, see section II. The secretary of the Congregation was Vincenzo Bonardi (BiOGR.), who composed a Modus et ratio expurgandi vel corrigendi libros, in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, M (II.a.10), fols. 124r-125r (cf. Prot. B, fols. 191r-192r, 193r-194r), probably presented on 30 April 1587; see ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 20v. For his instructions, cf. doc. 11 (.infra) and the introductory note to doc. V.12. 832 The text is most probably written after the re-organization of the Index by Sixtus V in February 1587. 833 The final phrase of this document refers to the Master of the Sacred Palace; Bonardi became Master in 1589. 834 For discussion of this document, see Savelli 2003, p. 316. 835 See ch. Ramon Lull. 836 Ulrich Zasius (1461-1535) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1557, 1559, 1596), and Parma (1580); ILI, Vili, pp. 257, 306, 307; IX, p. 737, 180; for the prohibi­ tion of individual works, see ILI, X, p. 415. 837 Charles du Moulin (1500-1566), prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564), Antwerp (1570), Parma (1580), and Spain 1583); ILI, Vili, p. 390; VII, p. 133; IX, p. 182; VI, p. 231. For the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, pp. 159-161. 838 Matthaeus van Wesenbeke (1531-1586), prohibited as heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564), and Spain (1559); ILI, III, p. 225; VIII, p. 375; V, p. 315; VI, p. 186. For the prohibition of individual works, cf. ILI, X, p. 407. 831

~ 249 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

503r

Sturfio,839 Sfriegellio,840 Cuiacio,841 H indeldorfrio, 842 H ingendofino,843 H ottom anno, 844 D uareno, 845 Corasio,846 Nicolò Clingio,847 Arnaldo da / / villa nova, Fuchsio, Cardano, Gesnero, la Biblioteca,848 de anima­ libus,849 de Planctis,850 de fossilibus,851 il Vuolfio,852 Platina, 853 Gios-

839 Most probably, Hieronymus Schurff (1481-1554) is referred to, who was prohibited as in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564), Portugal (1561), and Spain heretic a (1583); see ILI, III, p. 287; VIII, p. 495-6; IV, p. 384; VI, p. 358, 361. For the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, p. 361. O r else Johannes Stumpf (1500-ca. 1577), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564), and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 303; VIII, p. 545; VI, p. 418. 840 Victorinus Strigel (1524 1569), Protestant theologian and follower of Melanchthon; author of Arithmeticus libellus (Leipzig 1551), Epitome doctrinae de primo motu (Leipzig 1564); he was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559), and Spain (1583); Libri Samuelis, Regum et Paralipomenon (...) commentariis explanati (Leipzig 1569) was prohib­ ited in the Indexes of Antwerp (1570) and Spain (1583); cf. ILI, VII, p. 194-5; VI, p. 449. See also Lohr, p. 439. 841 Jacques Cujas (1522-1590), well-known French jurist and scholar of Roman law, was never placed in the Index. 842 It is unclear which author is referred to. It might be Johannes Oldendorp (ca. 14881567), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1549, 1554), Rome (1559, 1564), Parma (1580), and Spain (1583); ILI, III, pp. 157, 300; VIII, p. 536; IX, p. 183; VI, p. 409. 843 Probably Christoph Hegendorf (1500-1540), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564), Parma (1580), and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 244; VIII, p. 393; IX, p. 182; VI, p. 242. See also ILI, X, pp. 216-18. 844 Francois H otm an (1524-1590), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Munich (1582), Spain (1583), and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, p. 241; VI, p. 409; IX, pp. 543, 603, 814, 875. See also ILI, X, p. 228. 845 Francois Duaren (1509-1559); for the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, p. 158. 846 Jean de Coras (1513-1572), author of In universam sacerdotium materiam paraphrasis, prohibited in the Clementine Index; ILI, IX, pp. 613-4. 847 Probably Melchior Kling (1504-1571); see ILI, X, p. 243. 848 Gessner 1545. 849 Gessner 1551a, 1553, 1555a, 1558. 850 Gessner 1541b. 851 Gessner 1555e. 852 It is unclear which W olf is referred to. An unspecified W olf was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Spain (1583), and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); see ILI, VI, 564; IX, pp. 735, 846, 904. Heinrich Wolf (1551-1594) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, VI, pp. 572, 819, 879. Hieronymus Wolf (1516-1580) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564), Parm a (1580), and Spain (1583); ILI, VIII, p. 496; IX, p. 183; VI, p. 362; see also ch. Wolf. Johannes Wolf (1521/221571) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564), and Spain (1583); see

~ 250

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

fero,854 Gio: Taulero,855 Franc(esc)o Giorgio, Battista da Crema,856 Thomaso elisio,857 Mondogneto, discorsi pred.*11,*VI,X858 Theatrum Vitae humanae,859 Theatrum orbis,860 Cosmografia del Munstero, Lettere de diversi, di Pietro Aretino,861 del Calmo,862 del Parabosco,863 No­ velle del Sansovino,864 dello strappatola,865 del Bandello,866 Dialogi Vili, p. 548; VI, p. 421. Martin Wolf (£1. sixteenth century) was prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1564) and Spain (1583); ILI, Vili, p. 606; VI, p. 461. 853 Bartolomeo Sacchi (Platina) (1421-1481), author of De vitis pontificum romanorum (first edition: Venice 1479), who was prohibited as a heretic in the Index of Parma (1580); see ILI, IX, pp. 90-1. 854 It is unclear which author is referred to. “Giosfero” might be a (peculiar) Italian form of Joannes Ferus. 855 Johannes Tauler (ca. 1300-1361), prohibited as a heretic in the Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 144. For the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, p. 381. 856 Battista Carioni (Battista of Crema) (ca. 1460-1534), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593), and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 233; VIII, pp- 379-80; IX, p. 427; VI, pp. 185, 645. For the prohibition of individual works, see ILI,X, p. 115. 857 It is unclear which author is referred to. 858 Probably one of the many editions of Vita, gesti, costumi, discorsi, et lettere di Marco Aurelio imperatore, sapientissimo filosofo, et oratore eloquentissimo (at least fourteen editions appeared in Venice from 1544 through 1580), by Antonio de Guevara (1480-1545), bishop of Mondonedo; author of Monte Calvario, prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580), and Rome (1590, 1593); and of Oratorio dei religiosi et esercitio dei virtuosi, prohibited in the Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, pp. 85-86, 363. For the expurgation of his works, see also docs. VII.2, f. 185r-v, VII.3, f. 23v, and VII.5, £. 54v. 859 See the note to doc. 1.3, f. 207v. 860 Ortelius 1570; see the note to doc. IV .ll, f. 126v, and ch. Ortelius, Introduction. 861 Pietro Aretino (1492-1556) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593); ILI, Vili, p. 647; IX, p. 442. For the prohibition of individual works, see also ILI, X, pp. 62-63. 862 For the prohibition of the works of Andrea Calmo (1510-1571), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1590, 1593), see ILI, IX, pp. 84, 354. See also ILI, X, p. 108. 863 For the prohibition of the works of Girolamo Parabosco (1520/24-1557/60), see ILI, X,p.311. 864 Francesco Sansovino (1521-1583), Cento novelle, prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1590, 1593); idem, Cento novelle con l’aggiunta di cento altre novelle antiche, prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal (1581) and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, X, p. 350. 865 Giovan Francesco Straparola (ca. 1480-post 1557), Piacevoli notti, prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, IX, pp. 158, 379-80). A corrected edi­ tion appeared in 1599; cf. Frajese 1986, p. 49. 866 Matteo Bandello (1485-1561), author of Lettere and Novelle; for prohibitions, see ILI, X, p. 69.

251

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

di Speron’ speroni, 867 Poetica, et Petrarca del Castelvetro,868 Selva Nuttiale,869 alcune cose d ’Erasmo,870 Macchiavelo,871 et molti altri, de quali l’indice espurgatorio di Spagna, et le censure che sono nell’offitio del Padre Maestro del sacro Palazzo ne possono dar notitia 872873 (...) V.12

Anonymous, De librorum expurgatione facienda™ (Rome, post 1587)874 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, P (II.a.14), fols. 90r-93ra

Drafts in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 201r-204r, and in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 176r-180v, and fols. 182r-186r; other versions/copies in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (n.a.l), fols. 150r-154r, and ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Z (II.a.22), fols. 524r-527r, 529v. For a first draft of the included list, see ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), f. 249r-v (doc. 9). a

867 Sperone Speroni (1500-1588), Dialoghi, prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, IX, pp. 111-12, 393. For discussion, see Cox 1992, p. 70f. 868 Ludovico Castelvetro (ca. 1505-1571), was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, p. 634, 829, 889. 869 Giovanni Nevizzano, Sylva Nuptialis (first edition: Asti 1518), a renowned miscellaneous work on juridic problems concerning marriage and sexuality, was prohibited on 18 February 1584; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 14r. Its (successive) expurgation (cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 27v; Protocolli, B (II.a.2, f. 212r) is discussed by Savelli 2003, pp. 322f. Cf. Gregorio di Napoli’s view, in Gregorio 1588, f. 159r: “Silva nuptialis, quamvis non sit in Indice: quia in nonnullis locis erravit in doctrina contra bonos mores (...)”. In 1597 censurae were sent in from Bologna and Florence; ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 106v-107r. See also ch. Valesius, doc. 1. 870 The works of Erasmus (ca. 1469-1536) were prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1557, 1559), Parma (1580), and Spain (1583); ILI, V ili, pp. 430, 445; IX, p. 182; VI, pp. 276. They were expurgated in the Indexes of A ntw erp (1571) and Spain (1584); ILI, VII, pp. 554-5; V ili, 814-5. For the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, pp. 168-72. 871 Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome 1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), Parma (1580), and Spain (1583); ILI, V ili, p. 626; IX, p. 440, 156, 964; VI, pp. 480, 658, 660. See also ILI, X, p. 269. Even in the case of Machiavelli the Index pondered upon a correction; see the note to ch. Licences, doc. 112. 872 Probably Bonardi referred to Tommaso Zobbio, Master of the Sacred Palace from 1583 to 1589; see BlOGR. This final phrase reveals that a part of the materials of the Congre­ gations was held by the Master of the Sacred Palace, whose archive has not yet been located and has probably been lost. See General Introduction, section 1.3. 873 Cf. the note to doc. V.10. 874 Silvio Antoniano presented the Censura of Plato 1575 (mentioned below) on 14 and 30 July 1587 (ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 25r-v); the final version of this document is surely later however.

252 ~

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

De librorum expurgatione facienda et quis ordo servandus videtur. In primis opus esse crederem eos expurgare, qui in Tridentino Indice, hac conditione adiuncta sunt prohibiti, scilicet donec expur­ gentur. Hij v(er)o sunt. (...) Secundo loco cum Hispaniensis Inquisitio, et Lovaniensis Acade­ mia multos expurgaverint libros875 cum haereticorum, tum etiam Catholicorum, atque in expurgandis haereticorom libris ea non ser­ vaverint, quae in secunda Indicis regula dicuntur scilicet quod si tan­ tummodo ex haereticorum libris expurgentur qui de religione non tractant, quandoquidem multos expurgarunt eorum / / qui ex pro­ fesso de Religione tractant, his omnibus omissis pro observatione Regulae opus esse crederem reliquas censuras omnes recognoscere, easque perficere et complere hoc enim suadent verba Ser.ml Regis Hispaniarum Philippi in praefatione ad Lovaniensem expurgatorium videlicet, et quoniam inter praescriptos libros.876 (...) Horum omnium labores in sanctorum Patrum opera delendos etiam arbitrarer; etenim cum homines sint haeretici, et ea pertractent, quae religionem concerneant prohibendi sunt ex his, quae habentur regula 2 a Indicis. Indices omnes operum praefatorum diligenter recognoscendi sunt. Margines quoque sunt animadvertendae ut earum suspectae, vel falsae seu etiam haereticae sunt expungendae, quandoque [v(er)o] expedire videbitur eas omnes expungere. Ex recentioribus [v(er)o], alijsque Theologicis libris expurgandi sunt. (...) Harmonia mundi Problemata Francisci Georgi] Veneti.877 (...)

875

Cf. the Censurae reproduced in Index (...) collectus (1593); cf. doc. VIII. 13. The author quotes the decree of Philip II opening the expurgatory Index of Antwerp (1571). The words “quondam inter prescriptos libros (...)” are a Latin translation of “Et parce que entre les livres subditz (...)”; see ILI, VII, p. 713. 877 See ch. Giorgio. 876

253 ~

90r

90v

91r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Libri Medicinae

92r

Galenus expurgandus est scriptis Leonardi Fuchsij, Conradi Gesneri, Iani Cornarij, Erasmi.878 Theophrastus, I. Scaligeri879 Nicolaus Mirepsius de avium comp. Leonardi Fuchsij880 Hippocrates881 Avicenna882 Iani Cornarij7* Aetius883 Paulus Aegineta884 Schola Salernitana Ioachimi Camerarij, et Melanchtonis885 Leonardus Fuchsius Arnaldus de Villanova Theophrastus Paracelsus Thomas Erastus886 Amatus Lusitanus Euritius Cordus de herbis887 Valerius Cordus in Dioscoridem888 Heobonus Hessus de tuenda valetudine889 “ “Iani Cornarij”: is referred to the authors from “Hippocrates” to “Paulus Aegineta”. 878

See the note to doc. V.8, f. 249v. See ch. Julius Caesar Scaliger. 880 The title is most likely garbled; the reference is probably to Myrepsus 1541; see ch. Fuchs. 881 See the note to doc. V.8, f. 249v. 882 Avicenna (Ibn Sina) 1556. 883 Aetius, De cognoscendis et curandis morbis sermones sex, appeared in the following editions: Basel (1533, 1534, 1542) and Venice (1534: two editions); Janus Cornarius’ com­ mentaries were expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 474-77, 774. 884 The translation of Paulus Aegineta, De ponderibus ac mensuribus was published in Basel, in the edition of the works of Aetius (Basel 1542, 1549). 885 Schola Salernitana 1568; see ch. Arnaldus of Villanova. 886 See ch. Thomas Erastus. 887 Cordus E 1543; the work was expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); see ILI, VII, p. 470. 888 Cordus V 1561a. 889 Helius Eobanus Hessus, De tuenda bona valetudine appeared in the following edi­ tions: Frankfurt (1550, 1551, 1554, 1556, 1557, 1560, 1564, 1567, 1568), Paris (1555: two reprints), Eisleben (1561); the work was expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); see ILI, VII, pp. 467-69. 879

~ 254 ~

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

Ioannes Lonicerus in Dioscoridem890 Libri Philosophici Aristoteles expurgandus e scriptis Erasmi Simonis Grynaei, Iacobi Scheggi], Andreae Gratandri.891 (...) Physica Ioannis Velcurionis892 (...) De sensu, et memoria Simonis Simonij893 Phisionomia Adamanti] expurganda est scriptis Iani Comari]894 Plato Simonis Grynei, Iani Comari]',895 Iannis Serrani896 (...) Simon Portius897 (...) a Historici (...) Cronologia Herodoti, et Tucididis Davidis Chythrei,898 (...) Chronologia, hoc est temporum, et regnorum series a prin(cipi)o etc.899 (...) Theatrum vitae humanae900 Iacobi Zingleri]6 descriptio Palestinae. Schondia.901 (...) Sebastiani Musterij Idem Cosmographia a

In the draft, in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), f. 179r: “Petri Rami Metaphysica, Logica, et Physica / / Liber Tilesii”, crossed out. b “Zinglerij”: sic, for “Zieglerij”. 890

Lonicerus 1544', see ch. Lonitzer. See note to doc. V.8 {supra). 892 See note to doc. V.8 {supra). 895 Simoni 1566; see also ch. Simone Simoni. 894 Adamantius 1544. 895 The edition of Plato’s works by Simon Gryneus appeared in Basel (1532, 1539, 1541), like the edition by Ianus Cornarius (1541). 896 The translation by Jean de Serres; see Plato 1575. Silvio Antoniano and Rolandus de Winckele (Flander) presented Censurae of this edition on 14 and 30 July, and on 27 August 1587; ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 25r-v, 26r. 897 Probably Porzio 1551; cf. doc. IV.8, f. 133r. 898 See the note to doc. V.6, f. 246r. 899 Funck 1554, prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal (1561, 1581), and Spain (1583), and expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, IV, pp. 370, 504-5; VII, pp. 536-37, 791-93; VI, pp. 254-55. 900 Lycosthenes-Zwinger 1565 (and reprints). 901 Jakob Ziegler, Descriptio Palestinae appeared in Strasbourg (1532, 1536), and was pro­ hibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Portugal (1581); ILI, IX, p. 157; IV, p. 506. It was frequently published with his Schondia, the first complete geographical description of the Scandinavian countries. The work was examined and permitted in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 501-2, 781. See also ch. Ziegler. 891

~ 255

92v

93 r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Libri Mathematici In Euclide expurganda sunt scripta Thom i venatori]902 903 In Sphera, Erasmi Osvaldi,903 Antoni] Braccioli,904 Melancthonis 1 Ptolomei Q uadripartitum , Hieronymi Cardani 906 Cypriani Leovitij Ephemerides.90 ' G asparis P euceri elem enta doctrinae de circulis coelestibus à p(rim)o m otu 908 et eiusdem liber de dimentione terrae.909 910 Guilielmus Xilander in Psellis de quatuor Mathematicis scientijs Iacobus Sconnerus 911 Ioachimus Vadianus in Pom ponium Melam, et eiusdem Cosmo­ graphia 912 M artini Cruci] libri tres Arithmetici913 M artini Borrhei in Cosmographic a elementa914 902 No edition of Euclid by Thomas Venatorius (Gechauf), editor of Archimedes’ works (Basel 1544), seems to exist. 903 Schreckenfuchs 1569; cf; ch. Schreckenfuchs 904 Brucioli 1543. Antonio Brucioli (1498?-1566), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596) and Spain (1583); ILI, Vili, pp. 352-53; VI, p. 174; IX, pp. 801,863,932. 905 See the edition of Sacrobosco’s Sphaera with Melanchthon’s preface, which appeared in Wittenberg (1538, 1543, 1445, 1549, 1550, 1553, 1561, 1563, 1568, 1574). 906 This work by Cardano appeared in the following editions: Basel (1554 and 1578) and Lyon (1555); cf. ch. Cardano. 907 Leowitz 1557; see ch. Leowitz. 908 Peucer 1551, expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 499, 781. See also the note to doc. 1 in Section I. 909 Kaspar Peucer, Liber de dimensione terrae, appeared in Wittenberg (1550, 1554,1579, 1587). The work was expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 499-500, 781. See also the note to doc. V.9, f. 251v (supra). 910 Holtzmann 1556, expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 500-1. See

also ch. Xylander. 911 See ch. Schoner. 912 Mela 1518 and the Epitome trium terrae partium (Vadianus 1534), which appeared in Zurich (1534, 1546, 1548), and was prohibited in the Indexes of Venice (1549), Paris (1551) and Spain (1551, 1559); ILI, III, pp. 169-70; I, p. 259; V, pp. 245, 392. See also ch. Vadianus. 913 Martin Crusius (Kraus) (1526-1607), Arithmetici libri tres, examined and permitted in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, p. 782. According to ILI, VII, p. 505, there are no extant copies of this work. 914 Martin Borrhaus (Cellarius) (1499-1564), In cosmographiae elementa commentatio appeared in the following editions: Basel (1555), Strasbourg (1539), Paris (1551). The work was examined and permitted in the Index of Antwerp (1571; ILI, VII, pp. 506, 782.

~ 256

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

Michaelis Sasellij Aritmethica915 Sebast(ianu)s Theodoricus in Sphaeram 916 Theatrum Orbis917 V.13 Bartolomé de Miranda, Note on Books to be Corrected (Rome, ante 26 September 1592)918 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), f. lOlr (copy)

(...) Aegent expurgatione. 2 Richezza di agricoltura dal cieco de Adria 919 habet multas super­ stitiones. (...) 5. Iulio Scaliger nei libri de Subtilitate.920 (...) 9. Commentaria in Averroim impressa apud Iuntas 1550.921 magister S. pai.

lOlr

V.14 Alfonso Chacón, Sententia in n ego tio expurgandorum libroru m 922 (Rome, ca. 1590-1592)923 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 150r-152v (autograph)

Sententia M. f. Alfonsi Ciaconis poenitentiarij Papae, in negotio expurgandorum librorum. (...) 915

Probably Stifel 1544, expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 506-7. Sebastian Theodoricus (sec. XVI), Novae quaestiones sphaerae appeared in Witten­ berg (1564, 1567, 1570, 1573, 1578, 1583, 1591, 1605). The work was examined and permit­ ted in the Index of Antwerp (1571; ILI, VII, p. 509. 917 Ortelius 1570 (and other editions). See ch. Ortelius. 918 See doc. IV. 12. 919 Bonardo 1584. See ch. Bonardo. 920 Scaliger JC 1576 (first ed. Scaliger JC 1557). See also ch. Julius Caesar Scaliger. 921 The Latin translation of Aristotle’s works with Averroes’ commentaries, which appeared in two editions: Venice (1550-52, 1562-74). 922 This document largely reproposes Chacon’s earlier pronouncements for the Sixtine Index; see doc. V.5, and cf. IV.5. 923 See the note to the previous doc. 916

~ 257 ~

150r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

150v

Albertus magnus de secretis mulierum non est interdicendus, est enim illius sancti viri et doctoris insignis proprius partus, et liber utilem philosophiam et mirandam com plectens, et nihil prorsus de religione tradens, alius libellus alicuius impostoris, qui solet cum illo excudi de virtutibus herbarum et lapidum ille posset interdici, habet enim multa superstitiosa, et falso Alberto magno ascribitur.924 Chronologia G erard i M ercatoris non deberet inter expurganda reponi, nihil enim ferm e tractat praeter continuationem et seriem tem porum , et non video quid sit in illa expurgandum , et auctor praeterea est catholicus, et pro tali habetur, si autem ex Sleidano, et damnatis auctoribus aliquid sumpsit, quod non sit malum, non est quod debeat censura notari.925 Cosm opaeia Augustini Eugubini interdicenda, quo ad expurga­ tionem esset excepta editione Veneta 1 5 9 2 . 926 in qua cautum est, quod expurgari debuisset. D e conservanda bona valetudine opusculum Scholae Salernitanae, non deberet interdici nihil enim mali habet, sed essent interdicenda commentaria in opusculum de bona valetudine conservanda Scholae Salernitanae.927 (...) Abrahe Avenaris introductio in iudicia astrorum.928 A lbubather 929 et centiloquium D. Herm etis,930 Hali de ju d icijs. 931 (...) Levinus Lemnius nescio qua ratione ponitur in prima classe, est enim vir catholicus et pius in ijs quae ego legi de historia plantarum, de arboribus et plantis quae continentur in Sacra Scriptura, de occultis naturae miraculis sed tamquam catholicus, et postea inter catholicos eius naturae miracula expurganda proponuntur.932 (...) 924

See ch. ps-Albertus Magnus. See ch. Mercator. 926 The Venetian edition of Steuco’s Opera omnia appeared in 1591; see also ch. Steuco. 927 See ch. Arnaldus of Villanova. 928 Abraham ibn Ezra 1507. 929 Maybe Albubater 1540. 930 Albubater 1501, prohibited in the Index of Rome (1590); ILI, IX, pp. 418-9, 802. 931 Haly Abenragel (or Albohazen Haly) (t 940), Liber in iudiciis astrorum, appeared in the following editions: Venice (1485, 1520), Basel (1551, 1571); the work was prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal (1561, 1581), Spain (1583) and Rome (1590); ILI, IV, p. 384; VI, p. 344; IX, p. 374. See also Abenragel 1551. 932 For the editions and prohibitions of De miraculis occultis naturae and Herbarum atque arborum similitudines, see ch. Lemnius. 925

~ 258 ~

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

Libri, praeter contentos in indice Pij IIII, qui utiliter expurgari possent, sententia M. f. Alfonsi Ciaconis. Ad usum praecipue theologorum (...) Cosmopoeia Augustini Eugubini expurgata prodijt novissima edi­ tione veneta anno 1591. ceterum aliae possunt purgari ad huius nor­ mam. unus locus expurgandus ter [tamen] repetitus. (...) Quae ad philosophiam, dialecticam, et medicinam spectant Arnaldi de Villanova opera. Amati Lusitani centuriae,933 quae utiles sunt in curatione morbo­ rum, et secreta multa [proponunt]. Cardani opera de sapientia, de varietate, de subtilitate, de consola­ tione, et in quadripartitum Ptolemaei, quod censura est Hispana expurgatum.934 (...) Gulielmi Grattarola3 Medici opera.935 Ioannis lalamantij medici exterarum et praecipuarum gentium anni ratio.936 Tuli] Caesaris Scaligeri commentaria in Theophrastum 937 in His­ pania expurgata.938 (...) Levini Lemnij occulta naturae miracula, in Hispania expurgata.939 Annotationes et Scholia in opusculum Scholae Salernitanae de con­ servanda bona valetudine940 Quae ad historiam attinent Sacram et prophanam. (...) After “Grattatola”: “opera”, crossed out. 933

See ch. Amatus Lusitanus. See ch. Cardano. 935 Grataroli 1558; see also ch. Grataroli. 936 Jean Lalamant (ante 1550-ca. 1578); Lalamant 1571, prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 615, 826, 887. 937 Scaliger JC 1566. 938 See ILI, VI, pp. 424, 868, and ch. J.C. Scaliger. 939 See ch. Lemnius. 940 See, for example, Schola Salernitana 1568; cf. also ch. Arnaldus of Villanova. Recall that the Roman Index of 1590 prohibited “Opuscula Scholae Salernitanae De conservanda bona valetudine scholia et annotationes”; cf. ILI, IX, pp. 371, 836. 934

151r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

I52r

Chronologia Gerardi Mercatoris, qui pro catholico habetur et valde est necessaria pro temporum exacta supputatione.941 Clementis Schubertiliber de scrupulis chronologorum.942 (...) Theatrum vitae humanae, a conrado Lycosthene coeptum et a Theodoro Zuingero absolutum,943 in Hisp. expurgatum.944 Conradi Gesneri historia animalium, avium et piscium, in qua nihil invenerunt expurgatione dignum Academia Lovaniensis et theologi Hispani, sicut neque in alijs eiusdem operibus medicis.945 (...) Quae ad ius utrum que eta mathematicas disciplinas spectant. (...) Albubather et centiloquium D. Hermetis.946 (...) Georgij Purbachij theoricae novae planetarum cum scholijs Erasmi Reinholdi, expurgatum in Hispania.947 Lucas Gauricus de astrologia iudiciaria.948 Hali de iudicijs.949 Michaelis Butheri fasti et ephemerides.950 Raimundi de Sabunde prologus in theologiam naturalem.951 (...) After “et”: “astrono”, crossed out. 941

See ch. Mercator. See ch. Schubert. 945 Lycosthenes-Zwinger 1565 (and reprints); see also note to doc. 1.3, f. 207v. 944 ILI, VI, pp. 265,545, 867-68. 945 See ch. Gessner. 946 See f. 150v. 947 Peurbach 1542- see ILI, VI, pp. 335, 821-22. 948 Luca Gaurico (1475-1558), Tractatus astrologiae iudiciariae, appeared in two Italian editions (Rome 1539 and 1550) and in one Latin edition (Nuremberg 1540); the work was prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1590); ILI, Vili, p. 286; IX, p. 383. 949 Albubater 1501, prohibited in the Index of Rome (1590); ILI, IX, pp. 418-19, 802. 950 Michael Beuther (1522-1587), Tastorum libri duo, quorum alter Hebraeorum, alter Atheniensium Romanorumque veterum Fastos, ordine commodissimo proponit (Basel 1554, 1556) and Ephemeris historica (Paris 1551 and Lyon 1552), were prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Spain (1583, 1584) and Rome (1590); ILI, pp. 468, 860; IX, p. 389. 951 Raymond Sabunde (Sebond, t 1436), Theologia naturalis, appeared in the following editions: Lyon (1484), Deventer (1485), Strasbourg (1496, 1501), Nuremberg (1502), Lyon (1507, 1526, 1540, 1541), Paris (1509), Venice (1581). The work was prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564) and Spain (1583); ILI, Vili, pp. 668-9; VI, p. 521. 942

260

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

Theatrum orbis terrarum .952 (...) Davidis C hitreij 3 in Chronologiam historiae H erodoti et Thucy­ didis953 in H ispania expurgatus.954 EobanlusJ Hessus de tuenda valetudine 955 unico loco expurgatus indice Hispanico. (...) Gulielmus Xilander ab eadem academia Lovaniensi expurgatus.956 152v Hadriani iunij medici Scripta 957 in Hispania expurgata. (...) Iacobus Zieglerus in 2. Plinij et in descriptione Palestinae nihil expurgatione dignum habere a theologis Hispanis iudicatus est.958 Ianus Cornarius medicus expurgatus, tam ab Hispanis theologis, quam ab academia Lovaniensi.959 Ioannis Schoneri opera expurgata in Hispania.960 in architectura Leonis Baptistae Alberti unus locus expungitur in indice H ispano. 961 Leonardi Fuchsij opera medica in Hispania expurgata 962 et ab aca­ demia Lovaniensi.963 (...) Michaelis Pselli arithmetica964 ex Hispanica censura expurgata 965 (...) a

“Chitreij”: sic, correction of “Chythriei”.

952

Ortelius 1570; see the note to doc. IV .ll, f. 126v, and ch. Ortelius, Introduction. See the note to section V, doc. 12, f. 92v. 954 ILI, X, p. 125. 955 See the note to section V, doc. 12, f. 92v. 956 See ch. Xylander. 957 Probably Hadrianus Junius (Adriaen de Jongh), Nomenclator, omnium rerum propria nomina, variis linguis explicata indicans. Multo quàm antea emendatior ac locupletior (Antwerp 1567; many reprints), expurgated in the Index of Spain (1584); ILI, VI, pp. 82425. See ch. Junius. 958 See ch. Ziegler. 959 See ch. Janus Cornarius, ILI, VII, pp. 471-77, and Index (...) collectus, pp. 349-51. 960 Chacon was wrong, because Schoner was not corrected in the expurgatory Index of Spain (1584); cf. ch. Schoner, Introduction. He probably referred to the Antwerp correction, in ILI, VII, pp. 502-504. 961 Leon Battista Alberti, Architettura, was prohibited in the Index of Portugal (1581) and expurgated in the Index of Spain (1584); ILI, IV, pp. 539-41; VI, pp. 849-50. 962 ILI, VI, p. 432. 963 ILI, VII, pp. 479-86, and Index (...) collectus, pp. 426-32; cf. ch. Fuchs. 964 Probably Holtzman 1556; see also ch. Xylander. 963 Probably the Antwerp correction in ILI, VII, pp. 500-501, and in Index (...) collectus, p. 293. 953

261

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Iacobi Milichij annotationes in 2. Plinij. in Hispania expurgatae.966 Cosmographia Munster? ab universitate Lovaniensi expurgata*3 et in Italia etiam et italice impressa, et in cosmographiam Ptolemaei pariter esset expurgandus quia liber sit utilis.967 Theophrasti Paracelsi opera in Hispania expurgata.968

V.15

Federico Mezio,969 On the Expurgation of Books (Rome, 16 December 1592) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 163r-166r (autograph)

163r

Ill.mi et Rever.mi Domini mei cardinales Congregationis Indicis tria nobis decernenda praecipiunt pro expurgatione librorum in congrega­ tione generali, habenda proximo die sabbati XV. Kai. Ian. MDXCIII. 1. Quinam libri expurgandi, iuxta regulas et Indicem pij papae quarti felic. record. 2. Quorum potissimum necessaria, vel utilis expurgatio. 3. A quibus (Romae praesertim) sit exordienda censura. (...)

I63v

Quoad primum dicendum putamus, quod praeter eos libros, qui in praescripto indice pij papae quarti habentur corrigendi, et expurgandi, sequentes fortasse forent adijciendi: quos ipsi de mandato alias vidimus, ac in eos censuras et iudicia pleraque habemus / / praeter ea quae apud Sixtum senensem970 adnotata leguntur, haec etiam addenda credimus, non ut patrum pudenda detegamus, [...] Pius papa quintus sanctae mem. de Senense dicere consueverat, sed ut potius, instar pio­ rum filiorum, aversi contegamus. a

After “Ministeri”: “in”, crossed out.

966 967 968 969 970

b

After “expurgata”: “sicut”, crossed out.

ILI, VI, pp. 379, 864. See ch. Milich. See ILI, VII, pp. 546-48, and ch. Munster. See ILI, VI, pp. 868-69, and ch. Paracelsus. Federico Mezio; BlOGR. Sisto da Siena 1574.

262

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

ea v ero su n t (...) Bibliotheca Conradi Gesneri cum appendicibus, et nomenclatore, vel saltem epitome: omitto quod omnia Gesneri opera vellem expurgata, de animalibus, de plantis, de ijs quae noctu lucent, et alia complura (...) Cardinalis cusanus*971972 Augustinus eugubinus9/2 Armonia mundi, et problemata Fran(cis)ci Georgi (...) Medicos praeterea et praecipue fuxium Historicos etiam, et chronistas, et politicarum rerum scriptores, ut (...) Mercatoris (...) Theatrum vitae humanae (...) Munsteri Geograph.973 (...) Cardani opera medica, et philosophica, et mathematica, dum non sint Genethliaca. (...) loan. Lalamant. de anni ratione974 Nicolai Gesbellif GraelcisJ Chorographia975 (...) Romae è nostro musaeolo XVI Kai. Ian. MDXCIII Fridericus M et[i]us a

“Gesbellij”: sic, for “Gerbellij”.

571 From 1574 it was not allowed to sell the works of Nicolaus Cusanus (Nikolaus von Kues, 1401-1464) in the Ecclesiastical State without explicit permission by the authorities; see the “Aviso alii librari” of the Master of the Sacred Palace (22 May 1574), published in ILI, IX, pp. 746-7, 757. Since 1577, De concordia catholica (reprint: Basel 1565) was prohibited in Rome; ILI, IX, pp. 750, 755, 766; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 8r. Later, Cusanus’ works were mentioned in a list of works “extra Indicem prohibiti” (ILI, IX, pp. 770, 776), and were placed in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 159. They came again under examination of the Congregation for the Index from 26 November 1587; see ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 28v-29r. Cusanus was placed in the Sixtine Index (ILI, IX, pp. 390, 835), but not in later Roman Indexes (1593, 1596). On 7 August 1594, the correction of his works was commissioned to the second class of Consultors, but ACDF does not hold these corrections; cf. Diari, 1, f. 80v. 972 See ch. Agostino Steuco. 973 Ptolemaeus 1540; see also ch. Sebastian Munster. 974 See the note to doc. V.14, f. 15lr. 975 Gerbelius 1545; Nikolaus Gerbel (ca. 1485-1560) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596) and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 330; VIII, p. 625; VI, p. 479; IX, pp. 835, 894, 964.

~ 263 ~

164r

164v

165r

165v

166r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

V.16 Prospero Podiano, Nota delli libri che si comprano per ordine della Sacra Congregazione dell’indice (Rome, 7 August 1594) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Y (II.a.21), f. 452r-v976 (autograph)

452r

N ota delli libri che si com prano per ordine della Sacra Cong(regazio)ne dell’indice dal R. P. Maestro E Pavolo Pico 977 secret(ari)o di d(ett)a Con(gregatio)ne et S.r Luca Valerij978 deputato à quest’offltio daU’Ill.mo Card.1®Colonna 979 capo di d(ett)a Cong(regatio)ne valutati al sottoscritto prezzo dal S.r Gio. Pauolo Terra Rossa980 et S.r Prospero] Podiano 981 nella libraria del messer Georgio Ferrari982 quali libri deveno servire per l’espurgat(io)ne da farsi dalla Con(gregatio)ne per ordine di N.S. Biblia Pagnini fol. Plant. 0 Interlineata 983 7 Idem del Vatablo in fol.984 10 976

Recorded in ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 78v, and 3, fols. 8r-9r. Paolo Pico; BlOGR. 978 Luca Valerio (Naples, 1553 - Rome, 17 January 1618); studied mathematics at the Collegio Romano under Clavius where he graduated in philosophy and theology; taught rhetoric and Greek at the Collegio Greco; from 1591 active as corrector in the Vatican Library; about 1600 he started teaching mathematics at the University La Sapienza-, from 1609 until 1616 he corresponded with Galileo; from 1612 he was a Member of the Accade­ mia dei Lincei (he resigned after the 1616 decree of the Congregation for the Index against Copernicanism); author of De centro gravitatis (1604), and Quadratura parabolae (1606). Valerio’s relation with the Congregation for the Index, which most probably was occasional, is not documented in other biographical sources, collected in Baldini-Napolitani 1991. 979 Marcantonio Colonna; BlOGR. 980 Unidentified person. 981 Prospero Podiani; BlOGR. 982 For discussion of the Roman librarian Giorgio Ferrari (born ca. 1540), see Masetti Zannini 1980, pp. 22, 35, 42, 104, 122, 124, 129, 163, 168, 169, 172-75, 178, 188, 190, 191, 202,203. 983 Pagnini (ed.) 1584. This edition was not prohibited. 984 The edition of the Bible by Vatable appeared in (at least) the following editions: Paris (1528, 1532, 1534, 1540, 1545, 1546). Note that this edition was mentioned in Rule III of the Clementine Index (1596); cf. ILI, IX, p. 921: “Quibus conditionibus totum volumen Biblio­ rum, quod vulgo Biblia Vatabli dicitur, aut partes eius, concedi viris piis, et doctis poterunt”. 977

~ 264 ~

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

Idem Tornesij fol. Lione985 3 986 Idem Isidorij Clari fol. 2 Bibliotheca Constantinopolitana 8. Paris.987 .30 Idem Hier(oni)mi et August, fol 2 50 Idem ex monumentis Doctorum Prisci saeculi fol.988 Idem Gesnerij cum appendice et Epitome989 fol. Alla 3 Claudij Espencei in epist(ula) ad Titum 8. Paris.990 1 [8] 50 Idem de continentia 8. Paris991 30 0992 And(re)as Masius in Iosue fol. Plant. 2 50 Contareni opera fol. Ven(eti)a993 2 50 4 b Nicolai de Cusa opera" fol. Alla 3 “ “Alla”; unclear.

b

“Alla”: unclear.

985

The edition which appeared with J. Tournes in 1567. The edition of the Vulgate with comments by Isidoro Clario (Taddeo Cucchi, from Chiari) which appeared with Pietro Schoffer (Venice 1542); this edition was prohibited at the Council of Trent and then published in a corrected edition in 1557 and again in 1564. See Bar­ beri 1984, pp. 11-12; cf. ILI, X, p. 747. This edition was mentioned in Rule III of the Clemen­ tine Index (1596); cf. ILI, IX, p. 921: “Ex Biblijs vero Isidori Clarij Brixiani prologus et prologemena praecidantur; eius vero textum, nemo textum vulgatae editionis esse existimet”. 987 Bibliotheca sive Antiquitates urbis Constantinopolitanae (Strasbourg 1578), translated by Johann Hartung (1505-1579), was prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 479-80, 805, 867. 988 Jean Crespin (ed.) (ca. 1520-1572), Bibliotheca studii theologici ex plerisque doctorum prisci saeculi collecta, appeared in the following editions: Geneva (1565, 1581, 1591); the work was prohibited in the Index of Spain (1583), prohibited by the Index decree of 22 November 1580, and placed on later Roman Indexes (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, VI, pp. 224-5; ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 8v; ILI, IX, pp. 480-81, 805, 867. 989 Gessner 1545,1555c and 1555g. 990 Espence 1567. The work was prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Portugal (1581), Spain (1583, 1584) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IV, pp. 515-6; VI, pp. 248, 802; IX, pp. 493,807,868. 991 Espence 1565. The work was prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 493, 807, 868. 992 Andreas Masius (Maes) (1514-1573), Iosuae imperatoris historia, Antwerp 1574. The work was prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Portugal (1581), Spain (1583, 1584) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IV, 428; VI, pp. 166, 785-6; IX, p. 459, 802, 864. 993 Gasparo Contarmi (1483-1542), Opera (Venice 1578 and 1589), was prohibited in the Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 127. 994 For the prohibition of the works of Nicolaus Cusanus (Nicolai von Kues, 1401-1464), see note 968. 986

265

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Orthodoxografia Patrum fol.99’ Alla1' Molineus in constit. Parisienses fol. Paris95996 Caballinus de Usuris fol. Ven(eti)a997 Idem de dividuis in dividuis in 4.° Ven(eti)a998 Idem de Evictione in 8° Ven(eti)a999 Zabarella de scismate1000 . . . 2. Index expurgatorius . . . 12. Enchiridion Gregorij Capuccini1001.. Catalogus Francofortiensis . . . Per ligature delli sud(det)ti libri ligature semplice eccetto la Biblioteca Gesneri che valen ligati In tutto

6 8 3 50 50 2 3 60 150 7 70 70

Io Prospero Podianj1002 Affirmo quanto di sop(ra)b

“ “Alla”: unclear.

b

“Io Prospero (...) sop(ra)”: autographical signature.

Monumenta s. patrum orthodoxographa, appeared in two editions, i.e. an edition by Johannes Basilius Herold (Basel 1555) and another by Johann Jakob Grynaeus (Basel 1569). The latter was prohibited in the Indexes of Antwerp (1570), Parma (1580), Spain (1583), and Rome (1590,1593, 1596); ILI, VII, p. 200; IX, pp. 161; VI, p. 474; IX, pp. 671-2, 835, 894. 996 Charles du Moulin (1500-1566), Commentarium in consuetudines parisienses', the work was prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Antwerp (1571), Parma (1580), Portugal (1581) and Spain (1583,1584); ILI, VII, 434,445; IX, p. 104; IV, 506-7; VI, p. 231-2, 794, 796. 997 Charles du Moulin, Tractatus commerciorum et usurarum (Venice 1576), printed under the name of Gaspare Cavallini (ca. 1530-1589), published before in Latin and French from 1546 and 1547; the Venetian edition was prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580), Spain (1583) and Rome (1590, 1593,1596); ILI, IX, pp. 129; VI, pp. 327-28; IX, pp. 564-5, 817, 878. 998 Charles du Moulin, Extricatio labyrinthi dividui et individui, Venice 1576, printed under the name of Gaspare Cavallini (first ed.: Paris 1546); the Venetian editian was prohib­ ited in the Indexes of Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 565, 817, 878. 999 Probably, Gaspare Cavallini, Tractatus de edictionibus (Venice 1573). 1000 Zabarella 1545, prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1557, 1564), Antwerp (1571) and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 275; VIII, pp. 253, 469; VII, p. 451; VI, pp. 323-4,565. 1001 Gregorio 1588. 1002 Prospero Podiani; BlOGR. See also ch. Licences, doc. 31. 995

266 —

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

Ill.mo et molto R.do M ons. r Cesis Thesauriere Generale di N.S. 1003 452v piacerà di far pagar studi settanta di m oneta e giulij sette al Padre Maestro fra Paulo Pico Segretario della nostra Cong(gregatio)ne del­ l’indice da pagarsi da lui à ms. Giorgio Ferrari Libraro per la compra delli retroscritti libri come di sopra quali per ordine espresso datoci da N.S. si comprano in servitio dell’indice espurgatorio da farsi dalla nostra Cong(gregatio)ne e Nostro Sig.re Iddio la conservi. Di casa li .7. di Agosto 1594. Amorevolmente fratello di V. Ill-ma et molto Rev.da Il Cardinale Colonna Bibliot(ecari)oa 1004

V.17 Bartolomé de Miranda, Libri expurgandi in Indice nunc relati (Rome, post 1593,1005 ante 1596) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, P (Il.a. 14), fols. 22r-27rd (copy)

Prima pars

22 r

Libri expurgandi in Indice nunc relati in duas partes dividuntur. P(rim)a pars est eorum qui latina lingua conscripti sunt. Altera vero, qui Italica.1006 eorum qui latine sunt quidam iam dudum , opera doctissimorum Virorum , em endati sunt: quidam vero nequaquam . Inter illos qui latin itate donati sunt scriptores aliquorum adhuc vivunt: aliqui iam periere. Quare prim um agendum de libris latinis, qui iam emendati sunt, et hoc erit prim um caput. a

“Amorevolmente (...) Bibliot(ecari)o”: autographical signature. ACDF, Index, Protocolli, M (II.a.11), fols. 236r-241v. 1003 1004 1005

b

Another copy in

Bartolomeo Cesi; BlOGR. Ascanio Colonna; BlOGR. Only the 1593 Index reported Italian books in a distinct section (see the following

note). 1006

For the section “Libri volgari italiani” in the 1593 Index, see ILI, IX, pp. 905-11.

267 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Deinde de libris latinis, quorum nullae apud nos extant expurga­ tiones. Tertio de illis latinis libris, quorum scriptores in humanis sunt. Postremo de libris qui nostro idiomate habentur. Haec ad librorum emendationem spectant. Secunda pars Praeterea quaedam debent emendari in Indice jam edito. Caput p(rimu)m primae partis videlicet de libris qui iam emendati sunt. Posset aliquis dubitare non omnes libros in Indicem coniectos iure esse damnatos, cum in eorum censuris nihil certe, quod sit magni momenti deprehendatur. Hi vero sunt qui sequuntur 22v

1. Alberto Magno adscriptum opus de secretis mulierum. Nil con­ tinet erroris, ut fidem facit Giaconius.100' Vetitum fuit ob librum inscriptum de virtutibus herbarum et lapidum; falso etiam Alberto tributum, qui solet simul compingi cum illo de secretis mulierum. Ideo titulus ita esset conscribendus. Alberto Magno falso ascriptus libellus de virtutibus herbarum, et lapidum3.1071008 (...) 3. Chronologia Gerardi Mercatoris quae a Sclidanob , et damnati auctoribus sumpta est.1009 citat multos auctores haereticos; sed hec non videtur sufficiens causa; nec quia forte fuit ille haereticus. Alia quaedam emendanda: sed non tanti momenti: ideo est statuendum. Giacon,1010 dicit esse auctorem catholicum; neque debere expurgari chronologiamc. 4. Clementis Scubetid liber de scrupulis chronologorum. Videndus est liber, cum ex expurgationibus nihil certum habeature. (...) a In the margin, maybe in another hand: “deleatur”. b “Sclidano”: sic, for “Sleidano”. In the margin, maybe in another hand: “retineatur in Indice”. d “Scubeti”: sic, for “Schuberti”. e In the margin, maybe in another hand: “retineatur in Indice”. c

1007 1008 1009 1010

See docs. IV.5 and V.14. See also ch. ps-Albertus Magnus. For this recurring phrase, see ch. Mercator, Introduction. See docs. 5 and 12 (supra).

~ 268 ~

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

11. Raymundi Lulli opera per Greg(oriu)m IX.a damnata b .1011 (...) 15. Commentaria, annotationes, scholia in opusculum Scholae Salernitanae1012 donec expurgentur, liber qui nunc invenitur emenda­ tus est solum de haeretico Ioachim Camerario heretico p(rim)ae clas­ sis, et Huss, mentionem facit extatque. Epigramma illius, in quo nil reperi quod damnari debeat. Primi codices qui prohibiti fuerant Romae fere non extantc. (...) Caput 3.m primae partis videlicet de libris illis latinis quorum scrip­ tores in humanis sunt. (...) 4. Portae Magia naturalis ipsemet pollicetur expurgationem per Ep(isto)lam transmissam ad Congreg(ati)nem. De Secreto agit, quo in conclavi aliquem possumus admonere fuit recognitus de novo iussione mea, atque ab auctore editus anno 1589. ac ipse auctor rogat congreg(atio)nem per libellum supplicem ut non permittat ultimam hanc editionem in Indice damnarid .1013 5. Francisci Patritij philosophia6.1014 (...) 7. Iosephus Scaliger de emendatione temporum1.1015 Secunda pars Praeterea quaedam debent emendari in Indice iam edito. (...) 2. (...) Christophori Egendorphij translatio Aristotelis de longitu­ dine et brevitate Vitae, et divinatione per somnum.1016 (...) * “IX”: sic, for “X I”. b In the margin, maybe in another hand: “deleatur ab Indice”. c In the margin, maybe in another hand: “deleatur ab Indice”. d In the margin, maybe in another hand: “auferatur ab Indice”. e In the margin, maybe in another hand: “retineatur in Indice”. f In the margin, maybe in another hand: “retineatur in Indice”. 1011

See ch. Ramon Lull. Schola Salernitana 1568. The references to Camerarius and to Hus were probably due to the editor J. Curio. 1013 See ch. Della Porta, doc. 57. 1014 Patrizi 1591, prohibited by the Index decree of July 4, 1594. 1015 See ch. J.J. Scaliger. 1016 See the note to section I, doc. 6, f. 247r. 1012

269

23r 23v

24r

24v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Eunapius Sardianus de vitis philosophorum , et sophistarum, graece et latine editus. H adriano Iunio interprete quam diu correctus non fuerit. Melius forte titulus H adriani Iuniii translatio Eunapij Sardiani, de vitis philosophorum et sophistarum, quandiu non corrigatur.1017 Hadriani Iunij translatio Eunapij Sardiani de Vitis philosophorum et sophistarum quamdiu non corrigatur, erat hic liber positus in litera E. atque incipiebat. Eunapius Sardianus de vitis philosophorum etc. (...) Ioannis Feri opera omnia etc. Romae revisa et purgata et impressa, dicatur Romae expurgata et impressa.1018 (...) E xam en ord in an d o ru m Ioannis Feri nisi ex im pressis ab anno 25v 1587.1019 et nisi repurgatum , et recognitum fuerit, ultim a periodus superflua est.a (...) Fr(ate)r Bartholomeus de M iranda S(acri) P(alatii) Mag(iste)r. 25r

V.18 Antonio Possevino,1020 O n Books that Require Correction (Rome, post 1593,1021 ante 1596) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, O (Il.a. 13 ), fols. 509r-510v (autograph)

509r

Della Piazza Universale 1022 scrissi già general(men)te aU’Ill.mo S.re Car.le Santa severina,1023 che haveva bis(ogn)o di m olta purgatione, et

In the margin, maybe in another hand: “donec expurgetur”. Eunapius 1568 and 1596; see also ch. Eunapius Sardianus. See ch. Johann Wild (Ferus). 1019 Joannes Ferus, Examen ordinandorum appeared (at least) in Mainz (1550, 1557) and Utrecht (1553); the Censor refers probably to the 1587 edition by Nicolaus Aurificius, which appeared in Dillingen. See also ch. Wild. 1020 Antonio Possevino; BlOGR. 1021 The author refers several times to “mia Biblioteca”. His Bibliotheca selecta appeared in 1593. 1022 Garzoni 1585 (and following editions). This work was not prohibited, neither in the sixteenth century nor afterwards. 1023 Giulio Antonio Santori; BlOGR. 1017

1018

~ 270 ~

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

lima, si come parim(en)te nelle cose mie uscite, ò che usciranno si fa mentione. Le cagioni in genere, sono perche molte cose sono come farragine rac­ colta da varie chronologie, et historie non vere, ò prohibite, come di Ca­ none,1024 et di altri. Et perche allega auttori simili molto liberam(en)te la mole loro dà credito presso il Volgo, che legge quel libro, et può spianare la strada, et disporre gli animi à leggere quegli altri libri tristi. Et anco perche mescola molte cose che inducono gli animi a cose lascive, narrando di varij stati, come anco di facchini, le cose che fanno colle fan­ tesche di Venetia et altre tai cose. Si aggiunge che tutto quel proemio lungo è cavato da Pietro Aretino suppresso il nome. Et tutte l’opre di Pietro Aretino sono prohibite. 1025 Le falsità poi dell’historie, et altri inconven(ien)ti havrebbono bis(ogn)o di più lunga scrittura, et che uno che avesse ocio et giud(ici)o l’andasse rivedendo. Circa altri auttori, i quali hanno bis(ogn)o di espurgatione, già la P. V. R.m a havrà veduto quanto si dovrebbono purgare i libri conforme alle regole del’vecchio Indice. Pero io mostro nella mia Bib(liote)ca1026 come la tradutt(io)ne di [...] cantabrigiense fatta sopra Leone imperatore de Apparatu belli, sive de re militari, et dedicata ad Henrico ottavo,1027 Re già heretico, ha molti errori percioche dovunque nel Testo Greco si faceva mentione della bened(ictio)ne de sacerdoti sopra le bandiere, ò insegne / / de soldati christiani, et del s.mo Sacrificio dell’altare, et della 509v confessione sacramentale et di simili altre cose, tutte le mutò, ò lievò via accomandandole, ò per dire meglio guastandole, con parole di mi­ nistri, et ministeri]' heretici. I luoghi saranno à V. P. R.ma m ostrati da ms. Gio. Battista Bandinj,1028 il quale gli ha havuti da me.

1024

For the prohibition of the works by Johannes Carion (1499-1538), see ILI, X, p. 115. Pietro Aretino (1492-1556) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593); ILI, Vili, p. 647; IX, p. 442. For the prohibition of individual works see also ILI, X, pp. 62-63. 1026 Possevino 1593 and 1603. 1027 Leo VI (“the Wise’’, 862?-912), De bellico apparatu liber e graeco in latinum conversus (Basel 1554, 1595). Cf. Possevino 1603, vol. I, pp. 210-16. 1028 Giambattista Bandini (1551-1621), expert of liturgical texts, worked as corrector of galley proofs and then as supervisor at the Vatican Printing Press. Cf. DBI, 5, pp. 713-14; Grendler 1977, p. 248. 1025

271

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Parim ente nella tradutt(ion)e fatta da Giovanni Sleidano sopra Vhis­ toria di C om ineo,W2S fu usata simile arte [...]. et questi 2 auttori Comineo, et Leone Imp. si leggono de Principi et da altri con queste macchie. Parim (en)ti G iulio cesare Scaligero ne suoi Poem i stam pati in 1031 G inevra 10291030 ha cose intolerabili, est notatum in indice sub Sixto. 1033 sono Nei libri poi de subtilit(at)e 1032 et credo in quei de poetica alcune cose che bisogna per ogni m odo levare via, come quelli che parlano contra la corona de’ sacerdoti, et altre cose assai libere et scandalose contra gli Religiosi. Gioseffo Scaligero suo figlio scrisse ult(imamen)te de Emendation e 1035 tem porum ,1034 dove favorisce la parte degli heretici Quartadecim anj contra il decreto del conc(ili)o Niceno circa il Kalend(ari)o, ò la festa 1036 della Pasqua [...] et in altre cose3 bisognerebb e purgarlo.

“ After “cose”: the beginning of a word crossed out. Philippe de Comines (1445/47-1509/11), Commentarii de Carolo Octavo rege et bello Neapolitano, Ioanne Sleidano interprete, appeared in the following editions: Paris (1545, 1567), Strasbourg (1548). 1030 Scaliger JC 1561. 1031 See ILI, IX, p. 826. 1032 Scaliger JC 1576 (first edition Scaliger JC 1557). 1033 Scaliger JC 1574. 1034 Scaliger JJ 1583. 1035 During the first centuries the Christians in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on the 14 Nisan, that is, the day established by the Hebrew Pésah. In Europe, by contrast, Easter was celebrated on the first Sunday after that day. The Council of Nicea (325) established the date of Easter as the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox. In the sec­ tion on chronology of his Bibliotheca Possevino did not discuss Protestant and prohibited authors, but made an exception for Scaliger. His judgment on Scaliger’s work was negative but fairly superficial, as it was limited to Scaliger’s view of the dissemination of the “Quartadecimani” thesis during the early centuries of the Church. 1036 See ch. Josephus Justus Scaliger. Possevino had already criticized Scaliger in a work published in 1586; the following year Scaliger was criticized by another Jesuit, that is, Benito Pereira, in his commentary of the book of Daniel. In 1593 Possevino specified his criticisms in Bibliotheca selecta (bk. II, ch. 26); the hostility of the Jesuits towards Scaliger was again expressed by Denis Petau’s De doctrina temporum D6T1). For discussion, see Baldini 2005, 1029

pp. 69-81.

~ 272

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

Nel Bodino, nel M achiavello,1037 n e l [ ...] , In [M orneo] 1038 il mio libro già stampato mostra gli errori che sono perniciosissimi.1039 N e lli co m m en ta ri] di Averroe io ho m ostrato nella mia Bib(lio- 510r te)ca 1040 quanto si doverebbe lievare per ogni modo quel che fu stam­ pato n elle sue opere stam pate da G iu n ti del 1 5 5 0 . 1041 L a quale impressione è stata piu volte reiterata,1042 inanzi le sue opere, nelle quali fra l’altre cose è questo in fronte, ò ne i primi quinterni di quei commentari “Fuit ergo dictus Averroes, tempore, quo fides christiana erat valde dilatata. Constat autem, quod apud christianos erat solemnis mentio de statu animarum separatarum, et ideo Averroes, qui fuit isto tem pore, potissimum debuit videre hoc INCONVENIENS”, nelle quali parole chiamando, Inconveniente, un dogma de fide che tocca l’im m ortalità d ell’anima hum(an)a. N on so com e tante volte non sieno stati ò purgati, ò prohibiti tali libri. Ma intorno questo, et l’Academie d’Italia, poiché le lett(io)ni si fanno in scritto, et vanno in volta, et gli avisi che bisognerebbe dare alle bi­ blioteche de car(dina)li et altri sopra i libri manoscritti, et altri pieni di empietà, E t quel ch’era digniss(im)o di consideraticene in ogni facolta, havrebbe bisogno di lunga scrittura. Ma questo che ho detto è stato per ubidire à V. P. R.ma. Al Rever.mo Padre m(aest)ro Sacri Palatij 1043 sopra i libri che hanno bisogno di espurgatione

1037

See Possevino 1603, vol. II, tract. XVI, sectio 1, cap. 9, and sectio 4, cap. 5. Philippe de Mornay (1549-1623), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Munich (1582), and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 258, 838, 897, 941. 1039 See Possevino 1592. 1040 Possevino 1603, vol. II, pp. 54-55. 1041 Aristoteles 1550-1552. 1042 Aristoteles 1562-1574. 1043 Bartolomé de Miranda (BiOGR.), Master of the Sacred Palace from 1591 to 1597, ordered the preliminary examination of Possevino’s Bibliotheca selecta to a group of Consultors of the Index, and then granted the imprimatur. See Possevino 1603, f. b5v. 1038

~ 273

510v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

V.19

Anonym ous, Books Inserte d into the Index donec corrigatur (Rome, post 1592, ante 1597)1044 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Z (II.a.22), fols. 536r-538v

Nota libroru m in Indice content orum , donec expurg entur, per varias Classes, iuxta diversitatem facultat um distribu torum , cum suis expurg ationib us

536r

1° Viventes sua opera expurg aturi 1 Franciscus Patritiu s Novam suam de universis philoso phiam expur­ gabit (...) 1045 2° Canoni ci Regulares S. Salvato ris 4 August ini steuchi Cosmo paeia 6° Ordinis S. Franc(i)sci (...) 15 Francis cus Georgi us 536v 18 Ioannes Ferus 11° Histori ci (...) 537r 1046 Rom. hisp. 39 Contin uatio tem porum Eusebi i Rom. 40 Cronologia G erardi Mercatoris 1047 41 Cronologia ex sacris litteris 1048 42 Cronol ogicaru m rerum libri duo in Patrizi, who is considered as still alive in this document, was placed on the Index 1597. in 1592 and died 1045 As a rule the correction of works by regular monks was commissioned to their Order; Francis­ see doc. VII.3, f. 23 r, and ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 92r. Cf. infra for the case of the Saviour Holy the of Regular Canons The Ferus. and cans Giorgio (cf. ch. Giorgio, doc. 2) called also were They ans. Augustini the of Order the in split a (CRSS) arose in 1408 from II, DIP, See (CRL). Lateran the of Regular Canons the with fused they 1823 in “Scopettini”; the For 117. and cols. 100-2; cf. ch. Aldrovandi, Introduction, and ch. Licences, docs. 115 1044

correction of Steuco, see ch. Steuco. 1046 A work by Matteo Palmieri; cf. ILI, X, p. 309. 1047 Flinsbach 1552, prohibite d (or expurgate d) in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 399; IX, 1590, 1593, 1596), Antwerp (1571), Portugal (1581), and Spain (1583); ILI, Vili, p. 247. p. VI, 437; p. IV, 511-12; pp. VII, 869; 807, pp. 501-2, 1048 Curio 1557, was prohibite d in the Indexes of Antwerp (1570), Spain (1583), and Rome (1593, 1596); see ILI, VII, p. 138; VI, p. 246; IX, pp. 869, 939.

~ 274

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

43 Clem ens Scubertus 54 Polidorus V irgilius 57 Theatrum vitae hum anae 14° Philosophici 63 Bernardinus Telesius 15° M atem atici 64 Ioannes Lalam antius de A nno 1050 65 Ioseph Scaliger de em endatione Temporum 16° M edici 66 Am atus Lusitanus 67 A rnaldus de villanova 68 C ardanus 69 D avid de Pom is 1051 70 Iulius ces. Scaliger 71 Levinius Lem nius 99 Fons V ite 1052

Rom. (...) Rom. 1576.1049 (... ) Rom. hisp. (...) 537v

Rom. hisp. lus. Rom. hisp. Rom. hisp. Rom. Rom. hisp. (...) 538v

V.20 Anonym ous, L ib ri ex p u rg a b iles in u ltim o I n d ic e d e s cr ip ti (Rome, post 1596)1053 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Z (II.a.22), fols. 512r-513v

L ibri expurgabiles in ultim o Indice descripti. (...) Am atus Lusitanus (...) A rnaldus de V illanova (...) Bernardinus Telesius (...) C ardanus (...) Bellarm inus Chronologia G erardi M ercatoris

1049

See ch. Polidoro Virgilio. See the note to doc. V.14, f. 151r. 1031 Pomi 1588. 1032 Avicebron (Ibn Gabirol), Fons vitae, prohibited in the Indexes of Spain (1583) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, VI, p. 318; IX, pp. 553, 815, 876. 1033 Most probably the document refers to the Clementine Index. 1050

275 ~

512r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Chronologia ex sacris Litteris Chronologiarum rerum libri duo (...) Clemens Scubertus (...) David de Pomis1054 (...) Declaratio Nominum Chaldaeorum1055 (...) Franciscus Georgius (...) Franciscus Patritius (...) Io. Ferus (...) Io. Lalamantius (...) Iulius Caesar Scaliger Ioseph Scaliger (...) Levinius Lemnius (...) Theatrum vitae humanae

512v

513r

Bellar(minus)

V.21 [Paolo Pico], Letter to Living Authors for Correcting their Works1056 (Rome, post 23 July 1594, ante 1596)1057 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, M (II.a.11), f. 222r-v

222r

Minuta literarum transmittendarum per Congregationem ad Authores superstites, ut propria opera expurgent ipsi, ut Papirius MasPomi 1588, prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); see ILI, IX, pp. 518,810, 871. 1033 Robert Estienne (1503-1559), Interpretatio nominum Chaldaeorum, prohibited by an edict of Charles V and in the Indexes of Spain (1551, 1559, 1583), and Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, II, p. 93; V, pp. 221, 342; VI, pp. 273, 388; VIII, p. 566; IX, pp. 520, 1034

580, 827, 888. 1036 For the context of a similar request, see the section on the correction of books in the Instructio of the Clementine Index (1596), in ILI, IX, pp. 926-27. In his 1594 Animadversiones, Pope Clement VIII proposed to treat living authors not too harshly; cf. Frajese 1998, pp. 347-48. 1037 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, 77r (minutes of the meeting of 23 July 1594): “Decretum quod authoribus viventibus nullatenus per Congrationem scribatur, sed privatim solum ab aliquo adm oneantur, ut errores corrigant in suis libris”. Lipsius was prohibited in the Indexes of 1590 and 1593, but no longer in the Clementine Index; cf. ILI, IX, pp. 420-21. Bodin was explicitly mentioned in the “Observatio” of the Clementine Index (1596), and died the same year; cf. ILI, IX, p. 931.

~ 276 ~

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

sonius, 1058 Iustus L ipsius, 1059 Franciscus Iu retas, 1060 Ioannes Bodinus,1061 Ioannes Baptista Porta Inter caeteras Pastoralis curae sollicitudines,3 quibus incessanter b premi­ tur Apostolica sedes, illa potissimum urget, et fortius agit, ut non solum c haeretici, et haereticorum libri procul a finibus Catholicorum0 assumen­ tur verum etiam catholicorum libri nequam haberent quod pias aures offendent aut bonos mores corrum peret, quoad fieri posset purgati edantur,6 Cui rei, ut maiori studio consulere possetf in partem sollicitudi­ nis specialiter nos assumpsit, qui ex invincto munere, ut pietas, honestas, et charitas christiana quoad fidem, et mores, integra et illibata permaneat8 iuxta regulas, et Indicem Sac. Cone. Trid. Non modo spernitiosos insur­ gentur indices hereticorum libros prohiberi exterm inare prorsus a Catholica ecclesia eosdem contendimus, verum etiam omnem zizaniam ab inimico superseminatam in florenti, et exculto quarumcunque disci­ plinarum Agro eradicari procuramus, nec temere huiusque delatum est. Hoc negotium, et dissimulatum tam diu, quia tempus tacendi, et loquendi observatum, ut subscrescentibus usque ad messem contritico zizanijs de opportuno tandem remedio providere possemus. Quare nunc universi­ tates generalis Inquisitionis, Episcopi et Inquisitores, et Regularium supe­ riores excitantur / / a d Indicem expurgatorium conficiendum, et perfi­ 222v ciendum quod si aliqui librorum Authores adhuc superstites sunt eisque benigne indulgemus, ut per se ipsos sua opera castigentur per Apostolicam sententiam admoniti, ut se ipsos iudicent, alioquin a Domino judi-

a In the margin: “Summa. Quod authores expurgent proprios libros iuxta prescriptam censuram Nuntio apostolico petendam”. b All underlinings are in the ms. c “non solum”: in the interlinear space. d After “Catholicorum”: “excludantur”, crossed out. e “verum (...) edantur”: in the margin. f “consulere posset”: in the interlinear space for “invigilet”, erased. g “permaneat”: correction of “permaneant”.

1058 Jean Papire Masson (1544-1611), author of Libri sex de episcopis Urbis Romae (Paris 1586), prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, p. 689, 838, 897. 1059 Justus Lipsius (1547-1606), author of Politicorum sive Civilis doctrinae libri sex (Lei­ den 1589), prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, IX, pp. 420-1, 827, 887. 1060 Francois Juret (1553-1626), author of Annotationes in epistolas Symmachi, prohibited (or expurgated) in the Index of Spain (1583, 1584), and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, VI, pp. 321, 866; IX, p. 414. 1061 See ch. Jean Bodin.

~ 277 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

cabuntur de omni verbo otioso, scientes quod in multiloquio ex humani ingenij imbecillitate, et naturalis luminis obnubilatione saepe prolabimur in falsi loquium quamvis ex malitia eosdem errasse non credamus. Ideo exempli Divi Thomae, qui opusculum concordandaru m,1062 et D. Augus­ tini qui libros retrattationum 1063 fecerunt, sic etiam in Carmine fratrum quam primum [...] ipso Palidonianum Canes,1064 et que expurganda erunt a Nuntio Apostolicae Sedis, cui modum expurgationis transmissimus cognoscere ex cujus approbatione, et acute publicare poteris, et impressioni mandare opus tuum cum censura ab omnibus approban­ dum, et laudandum quem primo, et Catholicum verum esse confidimus haec tibi significare volui nomine Illustrissimorum Dominorum meorum Dominorum Cardinalium, qui mecum in universa Republica Christiana ad librorum improbate lectionis impressorum et imprimendorum prohi­ bitionem, vel expurgationem a Sancta Sede Apostolica specialiter depu­ tati sunt. Vale, et pro nobis ora. V.22 Anonymous, Letter to Agostino Valier,1065 Card, of Verona, in Rome 3 (s.l., post 1593 ) 1066 ACDF, Index, XVIII. 1, £. 285r

285r

Si desidera la censura degli infrascritti libri (...) Degli opusculi del Tilesio (...) Dell’opere del G ratarola.1067 (...) Deduced from f. 293v. 1062 Probably, De concordandis suiipsius, now viewed as “dubiae authenticitatis”. See Thomas Aquinas 1974-1980: VII, pp, 585-88. 1063 A modern edition is in Augustinus 1984. 1064 It is unclear which work is referred to. 1065 Agostino Valier; BlOGR. 1066 Telesio’s Opuscula were placed on the Index in 1593; cf. ch. Telesio. 1067 See ch. Grataroli.

~ 278

V. WORKS TO BE CORRECTED

V.23

Anonymous, List of Books to be Corrected (Bologna, s.a.) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, O (II.a.13), f. 517r

Bononiensis Congregatilo Indicis,1068 ex multis libris quos tan quam 517r utiliores censuit expurgandos, infrascriptos, uti maxime necessarios lH.mae Congregationi Romanae prius proponendos delegit. Qui sunt. Francisci Georgi] Harmonia mundi et Problemata (...) Ioannis Feri opera (...) [Lexicon Henrici Stephanii (...) Theatrum Vitae humanae

1068 In 1596 a group of Bolognese Censors was commissioned to correct works on canon law; see Introduction, § 4. By contrast, this note suggests that the local congregation also worked on other kinds of books.

279

VI LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS The sixteenth-century volumes of the P ro to co lli contain many lists of books and authors, which in most cases were functional to the preparation of (one of the) new Indexes. These documents can be divided in different categories. Some lists are short m em ora n da of books lent to Cardinals and consultors in order to be examined (docs. 1 and 4). By contrast, the Index authorum by Giovanni Dei, probably drawn up on Sirleto’s orders, consists of a full-blown cata­ logue of authors and books to be prohibited (doc. 2). This list com­ prises three categories of books: (i) “openly heretical books or ones suspected of heresy”; (ii) books “contrary to good morals and a chaste life”; and (iii) classical and Christian authors edited by Protes­ tants. Giovanni Dei also wrote an extensive introduction to his list and drew distinctions between heretical (or “vehementer suspecti”) and suspect authors, and between Latin and vulgar works. It should be noticed that Dei classified most philosophical and scientific schol­ ars which he took into consideration among the suspect authors, unless they were outspoken Protestants. Remarkably, as said, this cat­ alogue devoted a section to the works by the Fathers and by pagan Ancient authors that had been translated or edited by heretics, listing among the pagan authors Aetius, Aristotle, Avicenna, Euclid, Galen, and Hippocrates. Quite peculiar is the list in doc. 3, because in con­ trast to other similar documents it mentions rather unknown me­ dieval as well as contemporary authors. Possibly, it was not a list that played any role in the composition of a new Index, but simply some kind of inventory of a private library. On 17 November 1580, the sec­ retary Giovanni Battista Lanci drew up a, provisory and surely incomplete, list of books to be inserted into the next Index, including Cardano, Giorgio, Wildenberg, Ramus, Lull and Delfino (doc. 5). Giovanni Dei’s Index was the basis of the list of authors to be added to the Tridentine Index, a list that was eventually composed by card. Guglielmo Sirleto and Sisto Fabri, then Master of the Sacred Palace, ~ 280

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

in the first half of 1584 (doc. 6). Their catalogue was elaborated in later lists of books and authors to be prohibited that were written in the period between 1584 and 1590 (docs. 10, 11, 13). Quite similar is the list of books by heretical authors in doc. 12. The extensive list of books published in France and Germany bears testimony to the need felt by the Congregation to protect the Italian readers against possi­ ble dangers from abroad (doc. 9). Some lists contain books and authors qualified as suspect, whose works had been examined already, and which for this reason had been excluded from sale (doc. 11). Most lists date back to the period preceding the Sixtine Index, as only one list documents the preparation of the Indexes composed under Pope Clement VIII: the author of doc. 14 (ca. 1590-92) pro­ posed to add the books prohibited in the Sixtine Index to the Triden­ tine Index, exception made for the works of Bellarmino and de Vito­ ria, and furthermore he proposed some new works to be placed on the Index as well. Doc. 15 contains a list of books prohibited by the Holy Office between 1550 and 1596, while later lists contain books probably to be placed on the new Index (docs. 16-17) or else books prohibited with the proviso “donec corrigatur” (doc. 18).

~ 281

VI.l Anonymous, List of Books to be Examined (Rome, 1574) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, I (II.a.8), fols. 64r-65v

64r

Libri dati a vedere .1574. Al R. p. Procuratore di S. Agostino1069 Conrado gesnero de quadrupedibus 1070 mandato a quello di Aracoelia 1071 Al Dottor Juan 1072 (...) Polidoro Virgilio de inventoribus rerum 1073 (...) Michele Mercati1074 medico e semplicista di N. S. Conradus Gesnerus de figuris lapidum 1075 (...) Georgius Agricola de historia fossilium in fol.1076 Valerij [cordi] historia stirpium 1077 [impr.] [...] [...] [,..] b “ “mandato (...) Aracoeli”: in the margin. b On the following line: “All’Ill. e R. Card. Delfino accomodato la Cosmografia di Munsero,” crossed out. 1069

Alessio Stradella; BlOGR. Gessner 1551a and 1554. 1071 The Procurator of the Franciscans of the Observance, whose headquarters was based in the convent of Santa Maria in Aracoeli (Rome). 1072 It is not possible to identify this person with any certainty. 1073 For the editions and prohibitions of Polidoro Virgilio, De inventoribus rerum, see ch. Polidoro Virgilio. 1074 Michele Mercati; BlOGR. 1075 Probably Gessner 1565. 1076 Probably Georg Agricola, De natura fossilium, which appeared in two editions: Basel (1546 and 1558); see als ch. Agricola. 1077 Cordus V 1561b. 1070

282

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

A [m(esse)r] Nicolo accomodato1078 (...) Item La Cosmografìa di Monstero fatto volgare1079 (...) Al R. Theologo1080 dell’Ill. e R. di Piacenza 1081 dato per espurgare/ R.do Procuratori Carmelit(anorum)1082 dati Chirurgia magna Paracelsi1083 pucsio De medendi methodo [...] Parisijs. 1539.1084 (...) P elli libri che si trovano nell’ufficio del M Sacro palazzo1085 Accomodato1086 (...) A11T11 Cardinale di Gambara1087 Theatrum vitae hum anae 1088 [coperto] di Bianco di [m(esse)r] Marco a[v]aro 1089 Cardin. Varmien(si)1090 Theatrum vitae humanae parisijs .1571.1091 [coperto] di [nero] con una lista d’oro.b On the following line: “Institutiones Medicinae ad Hippo. Galenum Fucsij lib. Venet. 1565. in 8. Item. Methodus perveniendi ad solidam medicinam eiusdem Fucsij. Parisijs 15513] in 8.,” crossed out. b On the following lines: “All’Ill Cardinale di S. Severina. The­ atrum vitae humanae di uno. All’Ill Acquaviva Bibliotheca Gesneri,” crossed out. a

1078

Unidentified person. An Italian translation of Munster, Cosmographia, appeared in Basel (Munster 1558) and Cologne (Munster 1575). 1080 Giovanni Battista da Gubbio; see BAV, Vat. Lat. 6861, f. 14r. 1081 Paolo Burali of Arezzo (t 17 June 1578), Bishop of Piacenza, created Cardinal on 17 May 1570; see HC III, p. 44. 1082 Giovanni Battista Soriano; in 1573 Professor of Theology at the University of Rome La Sapienza', Regent of the university in 1575; nominated Bishop of Bisceglie on 22 August 1576. 1083 Paracelsus 1573a. See ch. Paracelsus 1084 Fuchs 1539. See ch. Fuchs. 1085 Paolo Costabile; BlOGR. Notice that the Master of the Sacred Palace kept prohibited books that were confiscated or that had been bought for examination. He was authorized to lend these books; see ch. Licences, doc. 43. 1086 See note to f. 64r (supra). 1087 Gian Francesco Gambara; BlOGR. 1088 Lycosthenes-Zwinger 1565 (and reprints). 1089 Unidentified person. 1090 Stanislaus Hosius; BlOGR. 1091 Lycosthenes-Zwinger 1571. 1079

283

65r

65v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

AllTll.mo Cardinal S. Severine Theatrum vitae humanae di uno [...] Ill.mo R.mo Acquaviva1092 Bibliotheca Gesneri. VI.2 Giovanni Dei,1093 Index Authorum 1094 (Rome, 1576) ACDF, Index, XIV. 1, unnumbered fols.1095 (copy)

2r

Index Authorum, qui vel apertè haeretici sunt, aut certè de haeresi valdè suspecti esse videntur; aut contra bonos mores, vitaeque pudici­ tiam aliqua continent. Postremo etiam addita sunt opera Sanctorum Doctorum, sive etiam prophanorum, quae ratione impressionis, aut In ­ terpretis, sive quod scholia, atque Annotationes haere­ tici alicuius Authoris contineant mi­ nus probanda videntur Authore D. Io. Dei Florentino Romae M.D.Lxxvi

Giulio Antonio Santori and Giulio Acquaviva d ’Aragon; BlOGR. Giovanni Dei; BlOGR. 1094 T u s d o c u m ent, which is briefly discussed in ILI, X, pp. 825-26, shows a striking sim­ ilarity with the Index by the Master of the Sacred Palace (1576); see ILI, X, pp. 829-39. The present transcription reproduces only scientific authors, translators of scientific works and literary authors edited by scientists. 1095 Copy of the dedicatory letter in BAV, Vat. Lat. 6280; copy of fols. 51r-59v in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (Il.a.l), fols. 88r-96r. 1092

1093

~ 284 ~

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

B(eatissi)mo atque Sanctiss(im)o Domino Nostro Gregorio xiij. 3r Pont. Max. Etsi parum ingenij viribus valeam B(eatissim)e Pater, planeque agnoscam quam sit mihi domi curta suppellex, non possum tamen, nec debeo ullo pacto desistere quin die noctuque pro virili invigilem, munerique mihi iniuncto diligenter incumbam. Sanè cum Ill.mus ac R.mus D. meus Scipio Rebiba Car.lls Pisanus1096 sancti Officij Inquisi­ tionis Decanus, necnon et admodum R.dus P. sacri Palatij Magister,1097 S(anctita)tis Tuae nomine atque iussu, ad libros, qui ad hanc Almam Urbem adferentur, vel hinc asportantur, examinandos, me licet ad tantum munus exequendum indignum elegerint, ac destinaverint: sicuti antea multis annis cum Venetijs, tum per Germaniam libros authoresque haereticos perquirens Ecclesiae S. inservivi, ita et nunc multò magis omni conatu enitor non inutilis servus inveniri. Cumque illud in primis intelligam pernecessarium esse pro conservatione Catholicae fidei, et ad pietatis augumentum, ut libri haereticorum, vel / / qui bonos mores corrumpunt, prorsus e medio tollantur. Vi- 3v deamque subinde quamplures quotidie id genus libro circumferri, ac publicari, non abs re me facturum iudicavi, si omnes, quos vel planò haereticos existimo, aut valde suspectos, aut postremo eos, qui parum honestatis, ac pietatis praeseferunt, qui in Indice à sacro Tridentino Conc(ili)o aedito non habentur, sed neque in illo vetustiori Rom.1098 in unum colligerem, ac ordine Abcedario digererem. Quod cum Ill.mo ac R.mo D. meo Car.11 Sirleto1099 insinuassem, iussit, ac planò impulit, ut Sanct(itat)i Tuae offerrem, ac dicarem hoc qualecumque est opuscu­ lum, ipse vero piaculum duco, tanti Principis, tamque de me bene­ meriti, non obtemperare imperio. Quippè is est, qui me tot annis fovet, ac benignissimè mihi in studijs favet, sine cuius auxilio, ac patrocinio nihil certè, aut parum profecissem, quum prorsus viribus destitutus essem. Et quia Ill.™ D. Sirleti mentionem feci ne ingrati hominis notam incurram, praeterire nullatenus debeo Ill.mum ac R.mum D. Meum Car.lem Lomellinum,1100 Ill.m et D. Blanchettum S(anctita)tis 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100

Scipione Rebiba; BlOGR. Paolo Costabile; BlOGR. The Index issued by Pope Paul IV in 1559. Guglielmo Sirleto; BlOGR. Benedetto Lomellino; BlOGR.

285

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

4r

4v

Tuae Camerae Magistrum;1101 // quos omnes planè agnosco, D om i­ nosque meos confiteor, eisque im m ensas gratias ago, quod mihi faverint ac dederint, unde et literis vacare, et literatis omnibus usui esse possem. Sed ad me ipsum redeo, Collegi Patre S(anctissi)me non paucos Authores, ac libros, qui vel post Indicis aeditionem orti sunt, vel ad notitiam adhuc non pervenere; sanctorum etiam D octorum pijssima opera ab Haereticis adultera esse comperimus, quorum ali­ qua etiam annotavi; quae omnia unà cum me ipso S(anctita)ti Tuae, et sacrosanctae sedis Apostolicae iudicio, et correctioni submitto, neque mihi Indicis conscribendi authoritatem usurpo, sed uti bonus (quod valdè cupio) Eccl(esiae) Sanctae filius zelo D ei, ac Fid ei fervore accensus, id quicquid est feci. Non enim me fugit quantum detri­ menti Haereticorum libri adferant Reipub. C hristianae, per quos venenati sui erroris veluti per meatus quosdam tartareos lethale con­ tinuo virus effundunt. Q uid aliud sunt haereticoru m libri, quam radices quaedam mortiferae, ac noxia semina, quae perpetuo pullu­ lant, germinantque gramina m ortis, ac fructus profe-ru nt damna//tionis? Quid quaeso aliud quam lam iae in fern ales? de quibus Hieremiasa in suis Lam entationibus in qu it, 1102 lamiae nuda-verunt mammam, lactaverunt catulos suos, Quam sententim ita explicat B. Hier(onymu)s: Lamia inquit humanam faciem habet, sed corpus bes­ tiale. Possunt itaque in lamia H aeretici accipi, qui humanam quidem faciem, sed belluina per impietatem corda gestant. H i tunc mammam nudant quando errorem suum liberò praedicant. Tunc catulos lactant quando male sequaces parvulorum animas, dum perversa insinuant ad impietatem nutriendo confirmant. H actenus Hier(onymu)s. Iure igitur Prisci S(anc)ti Pontifices, Pijssimique Imperatores haereticorum libros comburendos sanxerunt. Id quod Leo Primus de Priscilliani haeretici libris decrevit scribens ad Toribium A storigensem E p is­ copum.1103 Id ipsum Magnus ille Constantinus Im perator de libris

In the margin: “Thren. 4”.. 1101

Ludovico Bianchetti (fl. second half o f sixteenth cent.) was M aster of the C ham ber to Pope Gregory XIII from 1572 to 1585; he w as a b ro th e r o f C ard. L o ren zo B ianchetti (Bologna, 1545 - Rome, 12 March 1612). 1102 Lam 4: 3. 1103 Leo Magnus, Epistola ad Turribium Asturicensem Episcopem, in P L 54, cols. 677-92.

286 ~

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

■■iio4 Valentinianus, et Martianus Augusti de Apollinaris,1105 et r tvchetis1106 monumentis sub poena capitis praeceperunt; Nec ab re I ’dem’ Quoniam teste Livio in 5. Decad. 3. lib.1107 M. Aemilius praetor in concione senatus- / / consultum recitavit, et edixit, ut quiunque libros vaticinos, praecationesve, aut artem sacrificandi scripam haberet, eos libros omnes, literasque ad se ante Kalendas Aprilis deferrent. Et idem Author in decimo 4. Decad. libro refert,1108 Num(am) Pomp(ilium) libros sub Ianiculo inventos cum plerosque dissolvendarum Religionum esse senatus censuisset, in comitio con­ crematos. Quin et Athenienses, ut Eusebius, alijque scribunt,1109 Prothaaorae libros in concione combusserunt, quod assereret sibi non liquere, Utrum esset aliqua divinitas, necne, ob quam etiam causam ipsum è Civitate expulerunt. Si igitur illi tanta suae prophanae reli­ gionis tuendae cura tenebantur, Quid nobis pro vera, divinaque Reli­ gione servanda, et ut incautos ab errorum periculis eruamus, facien­ dum est? Certè inter caetera, quae B. Paulus apud Ephesum mirabilia gessit D. Luca referente, id unum fuit, quod libros curiosos scilicet Magiae, sive Astrologiae, aut divinatricis cuiuslibet artis publicè delatos comburi iussit. Ita enim .19. cap. Apostolicarum actionum lib. ait.1110 Multi autem ex eis, qui fuerunt curiosa / / sectati, contulerunt libros, et combuserunt eos coram omnibus, et computatis pretijs illorum invenerunt pecuniam denariorum quinquaginta mil­ lium, ità fortiter crescebat Verbum Domini, et confortabatur. Quod si ex praecepto .B. Pauli libri curiosi comburebantur, nonne multò magis Haereticorum libri, qui procul dubio magis nocere possunt comburi debent? id ipsum autem et Apostolorum successores fecisse nulli dubium esse debet. Et integra B. Sebastiani legenda non obscure demonstrat.1111 Habetur enim in ea quòd cum BB. Polycarpi, ll(M

The Council o£ Nicea (325) condemned Arius. Apollinaris of Laodicea (1 385/90) was definitely condemned on the Synod of Con­ stantinople in 381. 06 Eutyches was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Il0 ' Livius, A b urbe condita, XXV, c. 1, § 12. 08 Livius,1A b urbe condita, XL, c. 29, § 3 ; see also Augustinus, De civitate Dei, VII, c. 34. 109 Cf. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, XIV, 19, 10. ■ p 10 Act 19: 19. 11 An episode of the Life o f Saint Sebastian, from the Golden Legend compiled by Jacobus de Varagine, Archbishop of Genoa, 1275 (first edition published 1470). 105

5r

5v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

6r

et Sebastiani omnia Chromatij Idola eo consentiente evertissent, nequaquam tamen Chromatius ab infirmitate, qua laborabat, per baptismum fuit liberatus; donec et opus Astronomicum, in quo omnis desciplina stellarum continebatur, frangeretur. Querenti autem Chromatio quid mali illi inesset cum nullo ritu sacrificiorum coleren­ tur; Respondit sanctus Polycarpus, Artem illam esse Deo inimicam, omniaque esse ministeria falsae / / deceptionis: sanctus quoque Sebastianus intulit omnia vanissima esse, et falsa, Christo revelante co­ gnovimus. Sed haec prolixius dicta sunt. P. B(eatissi)me obsecro, ut quae Tua est clementia, mihi ignoscat, hocque exiguum munusculum non tanquam Tua Beatitudine dignum, sed tanquam ab optimo huius deditissimi sevuli animo, ac zelo profectum suscipere haud dedignetur. Deus Opt. Max(imu(s Be(atitudi)nem Tuam Ecclesiae suae S(anc)tae diù incolumen servet. Sanctitatis Tuae Humillimus servus Ioannes Dei Florentinus

7r

Index Authorum, qui vel apertè haeretici agnoscuntur, aut certè de haeresi suspecti haberi possunt; quorum libri partim latino, partim vulgari Idiomate excussi sunt: Quibus postremo etiam loco adduntur libri, qui parum honestatis, ac pudicitiae praeseferunt, A Domino Io. Dei fiorentino collectus A

7v

9r 9v

(...) Albanus Torinus in Epistola1112 paulo liberius in sacerdotes, quos philobaros appellat debacchatur, interpretatur epiphanium, ver­ bis affectatis nimium, interdum prophanis, nec sensum semper verum exprimit, ut videre est fol. 27. 33. 35. 37. 39. (...) Andreae Corvi chiromantia in Romano.1113 (...) Arnoldus de Villanova Hispanus, hic est etiam annumeratus inter Thorer 1539. Albanus Thorer (1489-1550) was prohibited as a heretic in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); ILI, p. 77. 1113 Andrea Corvo (ca. 1450-), De chiromantia, was prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1559, 1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, Vili, pp. 264-66; IX, p. 79, 802, 864. The first edition of this work appeared probably by the end of the fifteenth century; see DBI, 29, pp. 835-36. 1112

288

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

», . Ecclesiae Catholicae ab Matthia Flacco; qui ante 300. annos H^posuit, et affirmavit multa haeretica, et stulta.1114 (...) Auctores suspecti (...) Alchabinus de Arte Chiromantiae.1115 (...) Antoni Milzaldi3 de secretis Naturae. Coi. In .12.1116 (...) Arcanda de Nativitatibus seu de fatali die.1117 (...) Armonia Francisci Georgij Veneti.1118 I Artis divinatricis Encomia,1119 et patrocinia diversorum authorum, inter quos est unus Philippus Melancton Aristotelis libelli de longitu­ dine et brevitate vitae, et divinatione per somnium translati in latinum sermonem per Christophorum Hegendorphinum .1120 I Artis divinatricis, quam Astrologiam, seu Judiciarium vocant sine auctore Lutetiae 1549.1121 (...) Authores haeretici, vel vehementer suspecti B (...)

f

Bartholomei Coclitis Anastasis Chiromantiae, et phisonomiae in priori Indice.1122 (...) • “Milzaldi” : sic. Flacius 1560-1574: V III, cois. 571-572; the full text is in ch. A rnaldus of Villanova, Introduction, note 1. 'J W® It is unclear w hich w ork is referred to. Probably, D ei confused the author (most likely Alcabitius) with the author of another work. 1116 Mizauld 1573; see ch. M izauld. ■ un Arcandam 1542. See the note to sect. IV, doc. 5. Ift 1118 Giorgio 1525. See also ch. Francesco Giorgio. 1114

See the note to f. ll r . Aristoteles 1536. This translation was prohibited in the Indexes of P ortugal (1551), Spain 11559, 1583), and Rome (1590, 1593); IL I, IV, p. 179; V, pp. 315, 330; VI, p. 180; IX, PP-411-2. 1121 Marstaller 1549, p rohibited in the Indexes of Spain (1559, 1583), P ortugal (1561, 1581), and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); IL I, V, pp. 314-15; VI, pp. 182-83; IV, p. 358; IX , pp. 471-72,803,865. 122 Codes 1504; many reprints followed, am ong which: Strasbourg (1533, 1534, 1537, 1541, 1551, 1554, 1555). T he w ork was p rohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1590, !593,1596); ILI, V ili, p. 271; IX , pp. 475, 804, 866.

K

1119

120

~ 289

10r lOv

llr

llv

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Auctores suspecti (...)

13v

Bartholomei Coclitis Phisionomiae, et Chiromantiae compendium.1123 (...) Bernardi de Lavineta explanatio artis Raymundi Lulli.1124 (...) Auctores haeretici vel vehem enter suspecti

14r

C ( ...) 16r

1

Conradus* Licosthenes, adde Rubeaquensis.1125 (...) Auctores suspecti

C alendarium ex A ntiquissim o, et verissim o libello A stronom co durans ad finem mundi; Auctore Stephano Wacker, ling T heut. 1126 Calendarium ecclesiasticum ling. T h e u t. 1127 (...) I7r Chronologia G erardi M ercatoris, quae ab siedano, et damnatis au­ ctoribus sumpta est.1128 (...) Coelum Philosophorum , seu liber de secretis Naturae, per Philuppum Ulstadium. Lug(du)ni per Guil. Rovilium 1572.1129 Collatio Natalitia ling. T heut. 1130 (...) 17v Constantio A phricano In M edicina Basil, pro H enrico P et. 1131 (...) I6v

a

“ Conradus”: crossed out

1123 Cocles 1536. The work was prohibited in the Indexes of Spain (1559, 1583); see ILI, V, pp. 316-18; VI, pp. 185-6. Thus, the same author was included in two different categories. 1124 Lavinheta 1523, prohibited in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); see ILI, IX, p. 91. 1123 For the prohibition of the works by Konrad Lycosthenes, see sect. II, doc. 12, f. 509r (note), and ILI, X, p. 269. Dei proposed to add the birthplace of the author (Rubeacum, Latin for Ruffach), as was done in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); see ILI, IX, p. 106. 1126 Wacker 1523. Stephan Wacker (fl. first half sixteenth century), was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Munich (1582) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 261, 710, 842, 900. 1127 Probably, Scultetus 1571. 1128 Mercator 1569. For a prohibition in similar wordings, see the Index of the Master of the Sacred Palace (1576), in ILI, X, p. 831. 1129 Ulstad 1572. Chacón formulated a different proposal; see doc. IV. 1, f. 239v. 1130 Unidentified work. 1131 Constantinus Africanus 1536.

~ 290

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Auctores suspecti (...) De conservanda bona valetudine opusculum scholae Salerni­ tanae.1132 (...) De Praestigiis Demonum, incantationibus, et veneficijs lib. 5. Ioannis Viveri Medici. Basil. 1563.1133 (...) Discorsi Philosophici Pompei.1134 (...) Doni opera, quod multis locis referta sunt Geomantiae, chiromantiae, et aliarum rerum prohibitarum institutis.13241135 (...)

20v

21r

21v

Libri volgari sospetti (...) Dialoghi di speron speroni.1136 Dialoghi di Lione Hebreo.1137 Dichiaratione delle sphere In 8. Ven. 1555.1138 (...) Auctores haeretici, vel vehementer suspecti. E (...) Auctores suspecti (...) Ephemerides Iosephi Molletti, Venetijs apud Signum Paris.1139 Ephemerides Io. Baptistae Carelli Placentini, Venetijs apud Signum Divi Georgij.1140

See ch. Arnaldus of Villanova. Wier 1563; see the note to doc. IV.3, f. 168v. 1134 Della Barba 1553, prohibited in the Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, pp. 163-4. 1135 Anton Francesco Doni (1513-1574) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1559, 1593); ILI, IX, pp. 118, 355. For a condemnation in similar wordings, see the Index of the Master of the Sacred Palace (1576), in ILI, X, p. 832. In 1599 his well-known Zucca appeared in an emendated edition. 1136 Speroni 1542, prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, IX, pp. 111-2,393. 1137 Leone Hebreo (Judah Abravanel) (1460/65-1535), Dialoghi d’amore, was prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal (1581) and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, IV, pp. 543-4; IX, p. 430. 1138 Mattei 1550, prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580), Spain (1583) and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, IX, p. 115; VI, pp. 644-5, 658; IX, p. 388. The same work was prohibited in the Roman Index of the Master of the Sacred Palace (1576); ILI, X, p. 832. 1139 Moleti 1564. Cf. ch. Astrology, notes 181 and 300. 1140 Carello 1557 (reprints 1558 and 1563). Cf. ch. Astrology, doc. 64, f. 21r. 1132 1133

291

22r 22v

23 r 23v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Ephemerides Antonij Milzaldi Lutetiae . 1560.1141 (...) Erasto in Theophrasto Paracelso.1142 (...) Auctores suspecti

24v

F (...) Auctores suspecti (...)

25r

Francisci Rapardi Brugensis Medici, qui fecit Tractatum Astrolo­ giae Iudiciariae. Basileae.1143 Francisci Spinulae Mediolanensis de intercalandi ratione corri­ genda, qui fuit in Mare proiectus Venetijs . 1568.1144 Francisci Georgi] Problemata, et Armonia.1145 (...) Auctores haeretici, vel vehementer suspecti

26r

G 26v

(...) Georgius Palatinus animadvertendum est quod fuit quidam nominatus Georgius Agricola spalatinus, qui non fuit haereticus, nescio si ille sit, qui hoc loco nominatur solum Georgius Palatinus, an Georgius alius sit ab illo.1146 (...) Gerardus Dorn, qui scripsit artificia Chymistica Phisica, Metaphisica.1147 (...)

Mizauld 1546 (reprints 1554 and 1560); see ch. Antoine Mizauld. Erastus 1572-1573', see ch. Thomas Erastus. nW Probably a later edition of Franciscus Rapardus, Magnum et perpetuum almanack (...), Antwerp 1551. The book was also published in Flemish; see Francois Rapaert, Den grooten ende eeuwigen Almanack, ydel van alle beuselingen, Bruges 1551 (text in De Meyer 1844, pp. 43-99). 1144 Spinola 1562. The Milanese humanist Publio Francesco Spinola was drowned by the Venetian Inquisition in 1567; see Grendler 1977, pp. 57n, 190. 1145 Giorgio 1525 and 1536-, see ch. Francesco Giorgio. 1146 This Georg Palatinus, mentioned also in a Turin list (ca. 1580; see ILI, IX, p. 763), is most probably Georg Spalatinus (Burkhardt) (1484-1545), prohibited as a heretic on the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564), Parma (1580), and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 278; VIII, p. 479; VI, p. 335. 1147 Dorn 1569, prohibited in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 131. 1141

1142

~ 292

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Auctores suspecti (...) Georgi) Veneti Problemata in sacram scripturam.1148 (...) Auctores suspecti (...) Hieronymi Cardani opera ante ann. 1574. impressa, / / et ad medi­ cinam non pertinent(ia).1149 (...) Auctores haeretici, vel vehementer suspecti (...) Auctores suspecti (...) Ioannis Ferri opera.1150 (...) Auctor vehementer suspectus K Kalzius de sanitate.1151 Auctores haeretici vel vehementer suspecti L (...) Auctores suspecti (...) Libellus comprehendens fundamentum medicae artis una cum consolatione Infirmorum ling. Theut.1152 (...)

1148

Giorgio 1536 and 1574. With the Decree of 29 October 1572 the Congregation for the Index prohibited all non-medical works by Cardano; see ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 5v (in ch. Cardano). In 1574, however, Cardano obtained permission to publish De alimento (Cardano 1574); see ch. Car­ dano, doc. 53. 1150 See ch. Johann Wild (Ferus). 1151 Katzsche 1557, prohibited in the Indexes of Spain (1559, 1583) and Rome (1596); ILI, V, p. 398; VI, pp. 426-27; IX, pp. 626-27. 1152 Unidentified work. 1149

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Auctores vehementer suspecti

37r

M (...) Auctores suspecti

37v

Magiae Naturalis, sive de Miraculis rerum naturalium libri iiij Antverpiae. 1559.1153 (...) Marsilius Ficinus de vita coelitus comparanda.1154 (...) Medicina perutilis aegris, et sanis in mortis periculo de omnibus conveniens, ling. Theut.155 (...)

38v

Auctores haeretici vel vehementer suspecti N (...) Auctores suspecti (...)

39r

Nicolai Cussani opera.1156 Nicolai Leonici Dialoghi.1157 (...) Auctores suspecti

39v

O (...)

)

Opusculum scholae Salernitanae de conservanda bona valetudine. Venetijs 1573.1158 (...)

1153

Delia Porta 1559; see eh. Giovan Battista Della Porta. Marsilio Ficino, De vita libri tres appeared (at least) in the following editions: Flo­ rence (1489), Basel (1507, 1532, 1541, 1549), Strasbourg (1511); it was also included in Opera omnia (1561 and 1576). The work was prohibited in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); see ILI, IX, p. 154. 1155 Unidentified work. 1156 For the prohibition of the works of Nicolaus Cusanus (Nicolai von Kues, 1401-1464), see the note to doc. V.15, f. 164r. 1157 Niccolò Leonico Tomeo, Dialogi, appeared in many editions, among which Venice (1523, 1524) and Paris (1530). The work was prohibited in the Indexes of Spain (1559, 1583), Portugal (1561), Parma (1580) and Rome (1590, 1593); cfr. ILI, V, p. 416; VI, p. 480; IV, p. 404; IX, pp. 112 and 431. 1158 Schola Salernitana 1573; see ch. Arnaldus of Villanova. 1154

294

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Auctores haeretici vel vehementer suspecti

40v

P. (...) Auctores suspecti (...)

41r

Petrus Pomponatius de incantationibus.1159 (...) Petri Rami opera.1160 (...) Philippi Aurehoi1’ Theophrasti Paracelsi Chirurgia magna, et reliqua opera Argentorati 1573.1161 Philosophiae libri tres Hieronymi Wildenbergij.1162 Pomponius Mela de situ Orbis cum commento Ioachimi Vadiani Helvetij.1163 Pratica artis Raymundi Lulli per Magistrum Bernardum de Lavinetha.1164 (...) Problemata Francisci Georgij. (...)

41v

Libri vulgari sospetti (...)

42v

42r

Pompeio della Barcha sopra il sonno di scipione.1165 (...) Auctores haeretici vel vehementer suspecti

43v

R (...) Auctores suspecti Raimundi Lulli opera alias damnata.1166 (...)

“ “Aurehoi”, sic. Pomponazzi 1556', also in Pomponazzi 1567. See also ch. Pomponazzi. ii» p e t r u s Ra m u s (Pierre de la Ramée) (1515?-1572) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Parma (1580), Munich (1582), Spain (1583) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, p. 164, 256; VI, pp. 505-6, 621; IX, pp. 685, 837, 897. See also ch. Ramus. 1161 Paracelsus 1573a; see ch. Paracelsus. 1162 See ch. Hieronymus Wildenberg. 1163 See the note to section I, doc. 3, f. 207r. See also ch. Vadianus. 1164 Lavinheta 1523, prohibited in the Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 91. 1165 Della Barba 1553; cf. the note to f. 21r. 1166 Dei referred to the condemnation in the presumed Bull by Pope Gregory XI, dis­ cussed in ch. Ramon Lull, Introduction. 1159

~ 295

44r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

R udim entum C osm ographicorum Io. H o n teri C oronen, lib. iij. Antverpiae .1554.1167 (...) Auctores haeretici, vel vehementer suspecti; S (...) Simon Simonius Italus Philosophiae professor Genevae aedidit librum contra Iacobum Schegkium ubiquistam 1168 pro sacramentarijs.1169 (...) Auctores suspecti (...) Simon Portius de hum ana m ente.1170 (...) Supplementum Almanach restituti tem poris.1171 (...) Sogni, espositioni, et ogni libro, che tratta de sogni.1172 (...) Auctores haeretici vel vehem enter suspecti T ( ...)

'

Thomas Beconus, sive Theodorus Basilius aedidit multos libellos haereticos, inter quos uni nom en rescripsit Nova de Coelo.1173 Thomas Erastus aedidit librum Genevae in eandem sententiam.1174

1167

See Honter 1549. Antischegkianorum liber I (Leipzig 1570), the result of a controversy with Jakob Schegk concerning the doctrine of scientific demonstration, which Simoni had begun at the instigation of Theodore Beza in Paris and continued in Heidelberg. The ubiquistae held that Christ was not only present in the Eucharist, but ‘everywhere’. 1169 The Sacramentarians denied the real presence of body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The name was given to them by Martin Luther. See also ch. Simoni. 1170 Porzio 1551; cf. doc. IV.8, f. 133r. 1171 Dei mentions two works, Supplementum Almanach and De restitutione temporum, that often appeared in a joint edition; cf. Cardano 1538. See also ch. Cardano. 1172 See, for example, the prohibition in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1590, 1593) of the Italian translation of Artemidorus Daldianus, under the title Dell’interpretazione de sogni; ILI, IX, pp. 172, 433. 1173 Thomas Becon (1512-1567), Newes out of heaven. By Theodore Basille was published in London (1541? and 1542). The author was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 179, 721, 843, and 902. 1174 Cf. Erastus 1580B. 1168

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Auctores suspecti (...) Theatrum vitae humanae.1175 (...) Theophrasti Paracelsi opera.1176 (...) Thomae Erasti Disputationes contra novam medicinam Philippi Paracelsi.1177 (...) Auctores haeretici vel vehementer suspecti

48r

48v

49v

V (...) Auctores suspecti (...)

50r

De Valetudine bona conservanda opusculum scolae Salernitanae. (...) Sequuntur opera sacrorum Doctorum, sive etiam prophanorum Auctorum, quae ab Haereticis translata, sive etiam corrupta sunt, vel additis scholijs, sive annonationibus conspurcata. Eodem Io. Dei Auctore. (...) Aetius in Medicina per Io. Cornarium traductus unà cum eiusdem praefatione. Venetijs ex officina ferrea. 1544.1178 (...) Aristotelis opera omnia per diversos Haereticos translata cum scholijs et annotationibus. Basileae per Io. Ervagium.1179 Aristotelis de Anima cum Commentarijs Iacobi Schegkij. Basil, per Io. Ervagium. 1562.1180

1175 For the prohibition and Censurae of Theatrum vitae humanae, see the note to doc. 1.3, f. 207v. 1176 See ch. Paracelsus. 1177 Erastus 1572-1573; see also ch. Erastus. 1178 Aetius 1543-1544. Janus Cornarius’ commentaries were expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 474-77, 774. Cf. ch. Cornarius, Introduction. 1179 Aristoteles 1563a. Among the collaborators of this editions are to be mentioned Celio Secundo Curione, Guarino da Verona, Joachim Périon, Nicolas de Grouchy, Raffaello Maf­ fei, Angelo Poliziano, Marcantonio Maioragio, Francesco Filelfo, Pietro Vettori, Leonardo Bruni, Veit Amerbach, Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples, Alandre Chamaillard, Nicolò Leonico Tomeo, Marcantonio Flaminio, Theodorus Gaza, and Jakob Schegk. 1180 Probably Schegk 1546. See also ch. Schegk.

~ 297

5ir

5iv

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

52r 53v 54r 54v

56v

57r

Aristotelis Physica cum Commentarijs Ioannis vel Curionis/ Lug­ duni apud Io. Fran(cis)cum de Gabiano 1554.1181 (...) Avicennae opera Impressa Basileae per Io. Ervagium et traducta per Ianum Cornarium cum praefatiuncula.1182 (...) Euclides cum scholijs Conradi Dasypodij Argentorati 1564.1183 (...) Galeni opera Impressa Basileae per Io. Ervagium traducta per Haereticos cum praefationibus; et Venetijs In 8° apud Griphios.1184 (...) Hippocratis Coi opera à Iano Cornario traducta una cum eiusdem praefatione. Basil, per Io. operinum, et Venetijs apud Valgrisium, et Lugduni apud Griffium, et apud Rovilium.1185 (...) Pedani] Dioscoridis Anazarbei de Medicinali materia cum annota­ tionibus Euricij Cordi Francfor. apud Chr. Egenolphum.1186 Philonis opera impressa Basileae per Episcopium, in cuius fine habetur Epistola cuiusdam Haeretici.1187 Platonis opera versa à Iano Cornario cum eiusdem praefatiuncula Basileae . 1561.1188 Plutarchi opuscula accedentibus Erasmi annotationibus Basil, per Michaelem Isingrinum.1189 (...) Sententiae Io. Stobei impressae Basileae apud Sebastianum Griphium .1555. et traductae à Conrado Gesnero cum sua praefatiuncula.1190 Sexti Empyrici adversus Mathematicos impressum Lutetiae apud

a

“vel Curionis”: sic, for “Velcurionis”.

1181

Velcurius 1554', see the note to sect. V, doc. 4, f. 241v. Probably Avicenna (Ibn Sina) 1556. 1183 Euclides 1564b, 1564c and 1564d. Cf. ch. Dasypodius. 1184 Galenus 1537-1538 and 1562-1563. Janus Cornarius’ commentaries to this edition were examined and permitted in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 471-73. 1185 Hippocrates 1543, 1546b, 1546c and 1576. Janus Cornarius’ commentaries to this edition were examined and permitted in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 471-73. See also ch. Cornarius. 1186 Dioscorides 1549. 1187 Philo 1554 (reprint 1561). 1188 Plato 1561 (first edition: 1541). Janus Cornarius’ preface to this edition was exam­ ined and permitted in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 529-30. 1189 Plutarchus 1541. 1190 Probably Ioannes Stobaeus 1555. 1182

~ 298 ~

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Martinum Iuvenem .1559. Interprete Erasmo Roter, cum praefatiun­ cula, et alijs eiusdem.1191 Sibillina Oracula per Castilionem traducta, quibus eiusdem anno­ tationes accedunt Basii.1192 (...) Operis conclusio

59v

Haec sunt B(eatissi)me Pater, quae non sine magno labore hactenus collegi, Tuaeque S(anctita)ti humiliter offerre decrevi; ut intelligat S(ancti)tas Tua me non otio, inertiaeque indulgere, quin potius ea quae muneris mihi iniuncti sunt, totis viribus exequi semper curavi id solum ab adolescentia mea habens in votis, ut communi hominum utilitati aliquid pariam, deque omnibus benemereri possim. Porrò P S. exiguum hoc munusculum, obsecro hilari fronte suscipere haud dedigneri, quem Deus opt. Max. diù incolumen servet. Finis VI.3 Anonymous, List of Authors and their respective Books (Rome, post 1570)1193 BAV, Vat. Lat., 6207, fols. 209r-213v1194

(...) Levinij Lemnij medici Zirisei de Astrologia etc. Antverpie Martinus Nultjzius 1554.1195 (...) 1191

Sextus Empiricus 1569. Sibyllinorum Oraculorum libri Vili, in the translation by Sebastian Castellion, appeared in Basel (1546 and 1556). 1193 The author mentions Ortelius 1570. 1194 This is a rather mysterious document, because it mentions rare works (sometimes even unpublished until recent days), some of which have nothing to do with religion. Several entries regard medieval works, in general not prohibited. Finally, the scientific works listed belong to a well-defined area, namely that of astronomy, gnomonics, theory of the calendar and geography. The Vatican codex and ACDF documents do not suggest information about the origin or function of this text. 1195 Lemnius 1554 contains: De astrologia, liber unus in quo obiter indicat quid illa veri, quidficti falsique habeat. 1192

~ 299 ~

209v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

2i0r

211r

Anaximander Milesius Philosophus gnomonem invenit, horoscopia fabricatus est ac primus terre marisque ambitum descripsit et spheram insuper construxit obijt circa 58 Olymp(iadem)1196 (...) Andreas Stiboricus Boius Vienne Austriae canonicus et mathemati­ cus1197 professor scripsit opus um brarum] /epuo quinque lib.1198 Item lib. instrumentorum Astronomicorum primi et s(ecun)di mobilis.1199 Clipeum Austriacum 1200 cum canonibus in quo Astrolabij facilis omni momento [...] [...] [...] horologijs1201 De Varijs compassis De Varijs quadrantibus Introductorium in sen­ sibilem Astronomiam cum varijs Astronomicis picturis et Calendario Astronomico et multa alia.1202 (...) Bartholomei Schoenbornij computus vel Calendarius Astronomicus. Witebergae 1567.1203 (...) Calendarium chirometricum Item computus ecclesiasticus cum brevi Calendarij ratione edita sunt anno 1541.1204 (...) Guillermus egidius selandus lib. scripsit super celestium motuum indagatione sine calculo impressum anno 1494.1205 (...) 1196 This reference is rather enigmatic, because no edition of Anaximander’s fragments was published in those years, and in general Ancient authors were not prohibited. See Rule VII, in ILI, IX, p. 922. 1197 This list of works by Stiborius (Andreas Stòberl, 1465-1515: ADB, 36, pp. 162-163) is probably the most mysterious part of this document, because it contains some of his unpub­ lished, and very rare, astronomical and gnomonic works, while it does not mention betterknown published works, such as his treatise on the reform of the calendar (Stoberl 1514). For discussion of Stiborius as an astronomer and mathematician, and lists of his works, see Weidler 1741, p. 331; cf. Kobolt 1795, sub nomine. A list of his works is also in BAV, Vat. Lat. 14011. 1198 Opus umbrarum quinque libris partialibus distributum, an extensive astronomical and gnomonic treatise. 1199 Liber instrumentorum astronomicorum primi et secundi mobilis cum canonibus. 1200 Clipeus Austriacus cum canonibus, in quo astrolabiifacies omni momento relucet. 1201 Probably, Libellus de variis sphaericis horologiis. 1202 Libellus de variis compassis', Libellus de variis quadrantibus-, Introductorium in sensi­ bilem astronomiam. Among the other unpublished astronomical works a Libellus primi mobilis can be mentioned. 1203 Schònborn 1567. 1204 Macropedius 1541. The 1557 Index of Rome prohibited the Comediae et tragoediae by Georgius Macropedius (Joris van Langeveldt, ca. 1475-1558); see ILI, Vili, p. 225. 1205 Willem Gilliszoon van Wissekerke, Liber desideratus super celestium motuum indaga­ tione sine calculo (Lyon 1489, 1494, 1511; reprint: Nieuwkoop 1965).

~ 300

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Guilhermus Saxton Anglus scripsit mundi Chronicon magni labo­ ris opus lib.1206 (...) Ioannis de Don dis Physici Paduani civis fabrica Astrarij sive opus 211v Planetarum. Venetiis a Iuntis an. 1552.1207 (...) Ioahannes Eslzer vel Elser Maguntius scripsit libellum exiguum in quo conatus est demonstrare punctum vernalis equinoctii praecessus Arietis initium quod Tabulis est gradibus quatuor et dimidio anno 8. Supra 1400. Speculum Astrologorum Basilee anno domini 1569 cum Teoricis Peurbachij.1208 Ioannis ferr [...] Pedemontani De vera cometae significa(tione). vascosarius] excudit Parisijs anno Domini 1 5 70.1209 Iohannes [...] tabulas Alphonsinas excudit Venetijs in officina sua An. 1494.1210 (...) Iohannes Somerius franciscanus composuit Calendari] Castiga­ tiones lib. 1. Tertium Calendarium lib. 1. Astrorum canones lib. 1 De quantitate annilib. 1. Claruit an. D(omini) 1300.1211 (...)

1206 Probably, Guilelmus Sartorius (William Taylor) (fl. at the turn of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries), who was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1557, 1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), Parma (1580) and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 283; VIII, pp. 225, 483; IX, 134, 563, 817, 878; VI, pp. 342, 343. 1207 Dondi 1960. 1208 Joannes Esler, Tractatus utilis ante LX annos conscriptus, cui titulus fecit, Speculum astrologicum, ubi multa quae ad theoricarum, praesertim octavae spherae, intellectum faciunt, explicantur, appeared in Basel (1568, 1569, 1573, 1596). 1209 Ferrerio 1540. 1210 Klebs reports two Venetian editions (1483, 1492) of Alfonso X “el Sabio”’s Tabulae astronomical, see Klebs 1938, p. 35. The second had been printed by Johann Hammann, active in Venice from the beginning of the sixteenth century, frequently associated with Peter Liechtenstein. Nothing is known about a 1494 edition. 1211 John Somer (b. ca. 1340); cf. Ioannes Somer 1998. See Wadding (Ann.): IX, p. 115: “Claruerunt hoc tempore [sc. 1390] in Anglia frater Joannes Somerius alumnus Conventus Pontis Gualteri, Bridgewaiter, in comitatu Somersetensi ad ripam fluminis Flueli, vir in mathematicis et philosophicis scientiis apprime versatus. Astronomiae prae ceteris invigilavit, et partim ex probatissimis auctoribus, partim ex ingenio suo, sedulaque industriae monu­ menta in eo genere laudatissima depromptit, quae mandato Thomae Heberi sui Provincialis, et rogatu Joannae Principis, Walliae Regis genetricis, perpolivit, in bonum ordinem redegit, et in lucem emisit; additis aliis operibus in posterorum utilitatem”.

301 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Iohannes Stabius Austriacus. modus faciendi horologium lunare 1212 (...) A bbo floriacensis coenibij A bbas G allus A urelianensis scripsit. (...) De motibus stellarum lib. 1. De Planetarum cursu lib. 1 Dem on­ strationes A stronom icae lib. 1. Super calculo Victorij lib. 1. (...) O biit Anno 1004 1213 (...) Abraham us Ortelius Antverpianus edidit Teatrum orbis terrarum hoc est geographicas tabulas ... 15701214 (... ) Adrianus Iunius H ornanus medicus scripsit de anno et mensibus commentarium. Item Calendarium etc. Henricus Petri excudit. Anno D(omin)i 1[5]59 [...] 9.1215 (...) Cosmographia Antoni) N eb[r]icensis [...] Lugd. 1537 Introductorium in Cosmographiae lib(ros). Parisijs etc.1216 (...) Albertus Pighius Campensis Germ anus de aequinoctiorum solsticiorumque inventione scripsit. Item de ratione Paschalis solemnitatis deque restitutione Calendari]’ ecclesiastici opus impressum Parisijs 1217 et alia m ulta.3 (...) 2i3v Rugerus Bacon Anglus M inorità D octor O xoniensis Astrologus multa scripsit in ea facult(ate) A.D. 1 [2]8[8]. 1218 This annotation on Pighius is repeated on f. 213r. 1212 Johann Stabius, active between 1498 and 1503 as mathematician in Ingolstadt, con­ structed in 1502 the sun-dial of the Church of Saint Lawrence in Nuremberg. On his astro­ logical works, see Klebs 1938, p. 310. 1213 Abbo (Albo, Abbon, Albon) de Fleury (Floriacensis) (ca. 945 - 1004); born near Orleans, studied in Saint-Benoit-sur Loire, then in Fleury; invited by Bishop Oswald of York to England, returned to Fleury after two years; in 1004 he went to La Reole, where he was killed; he is author of the following works: Liber de motibus stellarum (ms), Computus (in PL 90, 727-820), Passio Eadmundi, Quaestiones grammaticales, De quinque zonae caeli, Commen­ tarius in calculum Vteloni, De cursu solis et lunae. De cursu septem planetarum per zodiacum circulum-, see also the biography written by Aimoin (in Migne, PL 139, 387-414). 1214 Ortelius 1570. See ch. Ortelius. 1215 Junius 1553. See ch. Junius. 1216 Lebrija 1533. 1217 Pighius 1520. 1218 See the following works by (ps.) Bacon: De numero annorum ab origine mundi usque ad Christum, De zodiaco, De locis stellarum, De horologiis, De mundo, De concordia maris et Lunae-, cf. Houzeau-Lancaster 1.1: p. 514. See also: Roger Bacon, De mirabili potestate artis et naturae ubi de philosophorum lapide (...) libellus, published in 1542 by Oronce Fine.

302

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

VI.4 Anonymous, Books lent by the Master of the Sacred Palace and returned to Librarian Grassi (Rome, ca. 1574-1584)1219 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, I (II.a.8), fols. 69r-84r

(...) Card. Varmiense. Theatrum vitae humanae. Adagia Erasmi Card, di Gambara. Theatrum vitae humanae. Card. Delphino.1220 Cosmografia del Monstero (...) De annis et mensib(us) Coyraldi liber 1221 Dominus Doctor Didacus deFrom ef...]1222 (...) Theophrasti paracelsi De Secretis naturae 1223 Chyrurgia minor1224 Chyrurgia vulnerum 1225 Preparationum liber 1226 De restituta praxi medicinae1227 (...) Theologo Ill Card. Carafa 1228 (...) Paracelsi Chirurgia Doctoris Vine pra[za] 1229 (...) 14 158E.J Prestati a [...] medico di [La...] Chirurgie magnae [...] et ph(ilosophia)e et de gradibus in [...] in carta pecora tomo uno3 (...) In the following line: “Al S. Camillo [Bosio] Prestati Doi Tomi delle Centurie cioè il p. et 12. sono restituiti,” crossed out. a

1219

See doc. VI. 1. Zaccaria Dolfin; BlOGR. 1221 Giraldi 1541, expurgated in the Index of Spain (1584); see ILI, VI, p. 858. 1222 Unidentified person. 1223 Paracelsus 1582a. 1224 Paracelsus 1570a. 1125 Paracelsus 1569a. 1226 Probably, Paracelsus 1562. 1227 Paracelsus 1578. 1228 Antonio Carafa, created Cardinal on 24 March 1568; see BlOGR. It is not known who was his theologian. 1229 Unidentified person. 1220

303 ~

69r

72r

80r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

84r

A un padre di Aracelli.1230 (...) Tomo delle Centurie 1231 Libbri restituiti al S. bartolomeo Grassi1232 che erano qui nelToffitio. (...) Almagestum Tholomei.1233 (...) Ephemerides Mestelini voi. 3.1234 Epitome Astron, eiusdem 1235 Diaphasis Arithme(ti)ca1236 (...) Io bart. grass] libraro ho recevuto dal R padre Mastro Sacro pa­ lazzo1237 li su detti libri questo di 23 di [novem bre] 1584.

VI.5 Giovanni Battista Lanci,1238 List of Prohibited Authors and Books (Rome, 17 November 1580) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (II.a.1), fase. 87: lr-12v (copy)

87: lr

Die xvij Novembris 15801239 In Nomine D. N. Yesu Christi et gloriosissimae Virginis mariae eius matris, omniumque Sanctorum et Sanctarum Dej. Etc.

1230

That is, of the Franciscan monastery of S. Maria in Aracoeli in Rome. Cf. Amatus Lusitanus 1556; see ch. Amatus Lusitanus. 1232 For the Roman librarian Bartolomeo Grassi, see Masetti Zannini 1980, pp. 18, 42, 98, 117, 136, 154, 164, 168, 174, 175, 177, 187, 202-4. 1233 Probably, Ptolemaeus 1538 or 1551. 1234 Maestlin, Ephemerides, appeared in the following editions: Tubingen (1576, 1580). Michael Maestlin (1550-1631) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); see ILI, IX, pp. 663, 833, 893. 1235 Maestlin, Epitome astronomiae, appeared in the following editions: Heidelberg (1582), and Tiibingen (1588, 1597). 1236 Probably Diophantes 1575. 1237 Tommaso Zobbio; BlOGR. 1238 Giovanni Battista Lanci: BlOGR. 1239 This document refers to the collection of drafts of decrees in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (ILa.1), f. 86 (with subnumeration). 1231

~ 304

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Hie ordine alphabetico adnotabuntur autores Haereticij et libri, decreto Ill.morum DD. Cardinalium deputatorum super reformaione Indicis improbatae lectionis damnati ac prohibiti: idque per fratrem Io. Baptistam Regiensem sacrae Theologiae Profesorem ord(ini)s praedicatorum p(raedic)tae Congregationis secre­ tarium. (•■•) C (...)

87: 2v

Certorum auctiorum) libri prohibiti Cardani opera quae de medicina non tractant Fa:a l 1240 (...) F (...)

87: 4r

Cert(orum) auct(orum) lib(ri) prohib(iti). (...) Francisci Georgii Veneti Harmonia mundi,1241 et Problemata donec correcta iterum imprimant(ur).1242 Fa. 22. (...) .H.

87: 5r

Auctores p(rim)ae classis (...) Hieronimus Witebergius Aurimontanus1243 fa. 15 (...) Certorum auctorum libri prohibiti (...) Hieronimi Cardani opera quae de medicina non tractant (...) .P. Auctores p(rim)ae classis (...) Petrus Ramus 231244 (...) *“Fa” refers to the internal numeration of the fascicle. 1240

See the note to doc. VI.2, f. 29v, and ch. Cardano. Giorgio 1525. 1242 Giorgio 1536 and 1574. Totius philosophiae humanae in tres partes, nempe in Rationalem, Naturalem, et Moralem, digestio earundémque partium-, for editions, see ch. Wildenberg. 1244 See ch. Petrus Ramus. 1241

~ 305 ~

87: lOv

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

8 7 :llv

.R. (...) Cert(orum) auct(orum) lib(ri) prohib(iti) Raymundi Lulli opera.1245

Fa. 17. (...)

S ( ...)

87: 12r

Cert(orum) auct(orum) lib(ri) prohib(iti) (...) Summario di tutte le scienze di Dom(eni)co Delfino Venetiano.1246 Fa. 3. (...) T .(...)

87:12v

Incert(orum) auct(orum) Theatrum Vitae humanae

fa. 2. VI.6

[Guglielmo Sirleto and Sisto Fabri], 1247 List of Authors Not (Yet) Placed in the Index (Rome, ante 20 April 1584)1248 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (Il.a.l), fols. lI0r-121v 1249

llO r

Authores prohibiti non annotati in In dice (...) Conrado Lycosthene.1250 (...) Arnaldus di Villa nova catalanus tantum in Romano Indice.1251 (...) 1245 The works of Lull, removed from the Index in 1563, were prohibited again in 1583; see ch. Lull. 1246 See ch. Domenico Delfino. 1247 See ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 14v: “Lectus fuit Index librorum quem una cum Mag(ist)ro Sacri Palatii Hl.mus Card.lls [se. Sirletus] confecit prout habes libro A. fol. 110”. 1248 This document was discussed on 20 April 1584; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 14v. 1249 This document was based on Giovanni Dei, Index Authorum (see doc. 2, supraY Preparations started as early as 26 October 1580; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 7v. Later ver­ sions are in docs. VI. 11 and VI. 13. 1250 For the prohibition of the works by Konrad Lycosthenes, see sect. II, doc. 12, f. 509r (note), and ILI, X, p. 269. 1251 See ch. Arnaldus of Villanova.

306

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Arnoldus de Villa nova, Hispanus,1252 Hic etiam est annumeratus in inimicos ecc(lesi)ae catholicae, ab ipso Matthia Fiacco,1253 qui ante 300 annos composuit et affirmavit multa Haeretica et stulta. (...) Bartholomaei Coclitis anastasis chiromantiae, et phisionomiae, in priori indice.1254 (...) Conradus Licosthenes, adde Rubeaquensis1255 (...) Erasmus Reinholdus Savel[t]ensis1256 (...) Gerardus Dorn, qui scripsit Artificia Chymistica, Physica, Meta­ physical257 (...) Thomas Beconus sive Theodorus Basilius, edidit multos libellos haereticos inter quos uni nomen rescripsit Nova de Coelo1258 Thomas Erastus aedidit librum Genevae in eamdem sententiam.1259

lllv

112v 114r 116r 117r 121r

VI.7

Anonymous, Books to be Prohibited (Milan, ante 1590)1260 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (Il.a.l), fols. 146r-147v1261

Libri quorum usu a interdicendum est. (...) * “usu”: sic. 1252 Also in the Master of the Sacred Palace Index (1576) Arnaldus is twice mentioned; see ILI, X, p. 830. 1253 See the note to doc. VI.2, f. 9v. 1254 Codes 1504. Many reprints followed, among which: Strasbourg (1533, 1534, 1537, 1541, 1551, 1554, 1555). The work was prohibited in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1590, 1593,15 96); ILI, VIII, p. 271; IX, pp. 475, 804, 866. 1255 See the note to doc. VI.2, f. 16r. 1256 See ch. Reinhold; “Saveltensis”, that is, born in Saafeld. I 1237 Dorn 1569, prohibited in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 131. 1238 1239 1260

See the note to doc. VI.2, f. 47v. Cf. Erastus 1580b. Most likely, the document dates back to the period of the preparation of the Sixtine

Index. 1261

A list with the same title, but with a slightly different content is in BAV, Vat. Lat. 6207, fols. 218r-219r (sect. IV, doc. 2).

~ 307 ~

146r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

147r

147v

5. Chronologia Gerardi Mercatoris quae ab slidano, et dannatis auctoribus sumpta est.1262 (...) — Simon portius de humana mente1263 (...) — Discorsi philosophici pom pei Barbae super somnium Sci­ pionis3.1264 (...) Nota di libri Venuta da Milano 6 VI.8 Anonymous, List of Books and Authors (Rome, ante 1590)1265 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (Il.a.l), fols. 148r-149r

148r

(...) Certorum auctorum libri prohibiti (...) Antoni] Milzaldi liber de secret, nat. ex Ioa. D.1266 (...)

c

149r

Auctores primae classis (...) Coelum Phylosophorum , seu de secretis naturae P hilippi Ulstadij.1267 Ex Ioa. D.1268 a b

“—Simon (...) somnium Scipionis”: in another hand. “Nota di (...) Milano”: in another hand.

1262 1263 1264 1265

See the note to doc. IV.2. Porzio 1551; cf. doc. IV.8, f. 133r. Della Barba 1553; cf. the note to doc. VI.2, f. 21r. Most likely, the document dates back to the period of the preparation of the Sixtine

Index. 1266

Cf. the Index by Giovanni Dei (1576), in doc. VI.2. Philipp Ulstad, Coelum philosophorum seu de secretis naturae liber appeared in Stras­ bourg (1526, 1528, 1530 and 1535) and Lyon (1553, 1572); the work was not prohibited on any sixteenth-century Index. For Chacón’s pronouncement, see doc. IV.l, f. 239v. 1268 Cf. the Index by Giovanni Dei (1576), in doc. 2. 1267

~ 308 ~

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

VI.9 Anonymous, Books Published in Germany and France (Rome, post 1587, ante 1590)1269 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (II.a.1), fols. 156r, 156a-h

Lista de libri diversi de alle(mania) et franzia et p. a (... ) Annatomia Wessallj2 in fol. bas(ile)a1270 — platerij in fol. basel1271 — Bochelio in 8 N o[...]ij1272 — Reali Colombjb 1273 8.ps.c (...) Aristotelis problemata, grece in 4°.1274 (...) — de Animalibus in [4°] grece.1275 (...) — physica grece in 4°.1276 Aristotelis opera omnia fol. [...] — opera omnia in 16.° [...] Aristotelis Phisica con perioni 4°1277 ps d (...) a

“Wessallj”: sic for “Vesalij”. “Reali”: sic, for “Realdi”. ' “ps”: for “Parisiis”. d “ps”: for “Parisiis”. b

1269 Most probably the list was compiled during the preparation of the Sixtine Index; moreover, no works published after 1590 are referred to. 1270 Andreas Vesalius, De humani corporis fabrica librorum Epitome, appeared in many sixteenth-century editions, among which: Basel (1543 and 1555), London (1545), Paris (1560, 1565), Wittenberg (1582). The work was prohibited in the Index of Venice (1554, 1568); ILI, III, p. 370. 1271 Platter 1383. 1272 Boeckel 1383. 1273 Realdo Colombo (ca. 1516-ca. 1559), De re anatomica libri X V , appeared in Venice (1559, 1572), in Paris (1562), and in Frankfurt (1590, 1593). 1274 Problemata Aristotelis ac philosophorum medicorumque complurium determinantia multa quaestiones de variis corporum humanorum dispositionibus, appeared in the following editions: Cologne (1502, 1506, 1510), Basel (1540, 1544), Frankfurt (1548, 1549, 1551, 1566, 1568, 1580), s.l. (1558). 1275 Aristoteles 1387. 1276 This edition of Aristotle’s Pbysica appeared in Frankfurt (1577, 1584). 1277 Aristoteles 1332.

309 ~

156r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

I56v

Alija Alboasem de Indici] in fol.1278 Agricola de re metallica Italice fol. 1279 — Idem Latine in fol 01280 — Idem de mensuris et ponderibus fol.1281 — Idem de ortu et causis fol. 1282 Almagestum ptolomej in fol. grece 1283 — Idem Latine fol.1284 Alchabitio [...] in 4°.1285 (...) Ar devino de Venenis 1286 (...) Antidotario Wecherij com pì...Jto in 4°. 1287 (...) Aritmetica Diofante. fol.1288 Aritmetica Saligniaci in 4°.1289 (...) Alexander Tralianus grece et latine in 8 1290 — Idem grece. Fol. Robert Steffa.1291 (...) Aphorismi hipocratis grece et Lat. in 16°1292 Aphorismi hipocratis helingi in 8.1293 (...) Alexi pharm acum 1294 (...)

“ After “Alij”: a word crossed out. 1278 Abenragel 1551. The work was prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal (1561, 1581), Spain (1583), and Rome (1590); ILI, IV, p. 384; VI, p. 344; IX, p. 374. 1279 Agricola 1563. 1280 Agricola, De re metallica libriXII, appeared in Basel (1556, 1561). 1281 See, for example, Agricola 1533 and 1550. 1282 De ortu et causis subterraneorum, appeared in the following editions: Basel (1546, 1558). 1283 Ptolemaeus 1538. 1284 The Latin edition of Almagestum appeared in two editions: Basel (1541 and 1561). 1285 Probably Alcabitius 1521. 1286 Ardoino 1562. 1287 Johann Jacob Wecker, Antidotarium, (“general” or “special”) appeared in the follow­ ing quarto editions: Basel (1574, 1576, 1577, 1580, 1581). See ch. Wecker. 1288 Diophantus 1575. 1289 Of Bernard Salignae are known: Dractatus arithmetici (Frankfurt 1575) and Arithmeti­ cae libri duo (Frankfurt 1580, 1593). 1290 Trallianus 1556. 1291 Trallianus 1548. 1292 Hippocrates 1587. 1293 Hippocrates 1579b. 1294 Nicander 1537 (or reprint).

~ 310 ~

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Arnaldi de Villa Nova opera omnia fol.1295 (...) Augustini Eugubini opera omnia1296 fol psa (...) Archidoxa Theophrasti in 81297 (...) Avicenna et herbarium in 81298 (...) Apomasarijs de Insomnijs in f.1299 (...) Armonie Coeleste in 4° novi.1300 (...) Astrologia ratio in 4° pl.1301 (...) (...) Cronologia Genebrardi1302 fol. ps.b — Mercatoris in 8.1303 Calepinus in fol. [...] et fol. bas(ile)ae1304 (...) Chirurgia quidonis [...] Ioberti 4° [,..]1305 (...) Cordeius de morbis mulierum. Grece et latine - fol ps. novj.1306 (...) Cosmographia petrj Appianj 4° novi.1307 « “ps”: for “Parisiis”.

b

“ps”: for “Parisiis”.

1295

See ch. Arnaldus of Villanova. Steuco 1578; cf. ch. Agostino Steuco. 1297 Paracelsus 1582a. 1298 The work cannot be identified with any certainty. 1299 Apomasaris 1579. 1300 The work cannot be identified with any certainty. It is highly improbable, but it can­ not be excluded that the author had heard about Viète’s Harmonicon coeleste, written ca. 1570, but not published until 1651. 1301 Probably, Johannes Garcaeus, Astrologiae methodus; see Gartze 1576. The author was prohibited as a heretic on 28 February 1581; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 9r. He was placed in the later Roman Indexes; cf. ILI, IX, pp. 822, 883, and 955. 1302 Chronographia in duos libros distincta (...), appeared in the following editions: Lou­ vain (1570), Cologne (1581); The work was prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Spain (1583, 1584) (see ILI, VI, pp. 246,331,821). See note 1508. 1303 Mercator 1569. 1304 Gessner’ edition of Ambrosio Calepino, Latinae linguae dictionarium, appeared in many editions and reprints: Basel (1544, 1546, 1550, 1551, 1553, 1555, 1558, 1560, 1562, 1568, 1570, 1574, 1579, 1584 and 1590). The work was prohibited in the Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 102. 1305 Cauliac 1585. 1306 Probably Hippocrates 1585. 1307 Petrus Apianus (Bienewitz), Cosmographiae introductio, appeared in a first edition in 1524; among the reprints edited by Gemma Frisius: Marburg (1543), Cologne (1544, 1574), Ingolstadt (1579). It is unclear whether the indication “novi” refers to a recent edition. 1296

~ 311

156ar

156av

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

I56br

156bv

— Idem Spagnoli 4 ° 1308 (...) Crissippi de arte metallica in 8.1309 (...) Com pendium phisicae Hyperij in 8.1310 (...) Cosmographia honterij in 8.1311 Cosmographia Antoni] Augustini in 16.1312 (...) Claudio peralium in hipocrat(is) de Vulneri(bus) 8 1313 (...) De prodigiose specie Cornette 8 1314 (...) Dictionarium medicum in 8 1315 (...) De conceptu hom inis.1316 Dorneo de Archidoxa in 8.1317 (...) Dictionarium theophrasti in 8 1318 — Idem de Vita longa 8 1319 (...) De curandis Vulneribus, in 4. 1320 De Scrupulis Cronologia fol.1321 (...) Domenicj mascarie de ponderibus 8 1322 (...) De morbis mulierum in 4° novi1323 (...)

1308

Apianus 1548. Fanianus 1576 (first edition: 1560). 1310 Geeraerds 1585. 1311 Johann Honter (1498-1549), Rudimentorum cosmographicorum libri III, appeared in the following editions: Zurich (1546, 1548, 1549, 1552, 1558, 1564, 1565, 1570, 1575, 1578, 1581,1583, 1590). 1312 Aethicus 1575. 1313 Porralius 1580. 1314 Gemma 1578. 1315 Probably Otto Brunfels, Onomastikon medicinae', see Brunfels 1534, 1543 and 1554. 1316 Jacob Rueff (1500-1558), De conceptu et generatione hominis, appeared in the follow­ ing editions: Zurich (1554) and Frankfurt (1580 and 1587). It is the Latin translation of Ein schones, lustiges Trostbuchlein von der Empfangnis und Geburt des Menschen (Zurich 1554 and 1569). The author was prohibited in the Index of Venice (1554); ILI, III, pp. 290-91. 1317 Cf. Paracelsus 1582a; see ch. Paracelsus. 1318 Cf. Paracelsus 1575a. 1319 Theophrastus Paracelsus, Libri quatuor De vita longa, appeared in the following edi­ tions: Basel (1560, 1562, 1568), Frankfurt (1583), Cologne (1570) and Munich (1570). 1320 Probably, Paracelsus 1569a. 1321 Schubert 1575; see also ch. Clemens Schubert. 1322 Massari 1554. 1323 Wolf HK 1566. It is unclear whether the indication “novi” refers to a recent edition. 1309

312 ~

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Descriptio Utriusque germanie fol1324 (...) Ephemerides Stadij in 4° [,..]1325 — Idem [in] Iuntinj 4° Lione 1326 — Mestlino in 4 0 .1327 (...) Euclides Candallo £ol. [...] ps a 1328 (...) Enchiridion Medicum in 8 h a s. 1329 Enchiridion M edicum Trincanellj 8.1330 (...) Erasto de putredine in 4°. 1331 — Epistola divinatrice 4°. 1332 — de putredine contra Archangelo 4°. 1333 — de occultis pharm acorum in 4°. 1334 (...) Epitome Vessali] Latina fol.1335 (...) fernellj opera omnia in fol. et in 8 . 1336 — Idem Cons.a b in 8 ps c et in 8 Frankfort 1337 — Idem de febribus 8°. 1338 “ “ps”: for “Parisiis”. After “Cons.a”: “et”, crossed out. c “ps”: for “Parisiis”. b

1324 Possibly, Willibald (Bilibald) Pirckheimer, Germaniae ex variis scriptoribus perbrevis explicatio, is referred to; the work appeared in the following editions: Augsburg (1530), Nuremberg (1530, 1532), Frankfurt (1532), Wittenberg (1571) and Hannover (1594). The author was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564) and Spain (1583); ILI, Vili, pp. 377, 463, 524; VI, pp. 226, 319, 400. 1325 Johannes Stadius, Ephemerides, appeared in Cologne (1556, 1570, 1579, 1581). See ch. Stade. 1326 Giuntini 1585. See ch. Giuntini. 1327 Michael Maestlin, Ephemerides, appeared in Tubingen (1576,1580). 1328 Euclides 1566, edited by Francois Foix de Candale (Franciscus Flussas Candalla). 1329 Most probably, Harchius 1573. 1330 Probably, Trincavelli 1570. 1331 Erastus 1580c. 1332 Erastus 1580a. 1333 Erastus 1583. 1334 Erastus 1574. 1335 Andreas Vesalius, De humani corporis fabrica librorum Epitome-, see note to f. 156r. 1336 The works of Fernel appeared in Cologne (1574,1581, 1592). 1337 Cf. Jean Fernel, Consiliorum medicinalium liber, which appeared in the following edi­ tions: Paris (1582, 1585), Frankfurt (1585). 1338 Fernel 1577.

313

156cr

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

I56cv

fasciculus Remediorum1339 fernelius de luis Venerea. 8.1340 (...) Germani contra paracelsum 4°. psa 1341 (...) Guido Baldob planisfera in 8.1342 (...) Georgio Agricola de re metalica volg. fol.1343 — Idem de ponderibus et mensuris Latine fol. Gemma de globo in 8.1344 Gesnero de piscibus in fol.1345 — de Avibus fol.1346 — de eviparijsc fol.1347 — in phisica in fol. novi1348 (...) Herbarium Londinj p.° 2° volumina fol. [,..]1349 — Ieronimj Tragi in 4°.1350 — Dodonej fob plant.1351 (...) Hollerius in Hippocratem in fol.1352 — in Aphorismos et psd 1353 Idem Practica in 8 [...]1354 (...) Hieronimo Mercurial(i). Variae lectioni 81355 “ps”: for “Parisiis”. b After “Baldo”: “plas”, crossed out. “oviparijs”. d “ps”: for “Parisiis”. a

1339

c

“eviparijs”: sic for

Moller 1579. Fernel 1580. 1341 Probably Erastus 1572-1573. 1342 Del Monte 1579. 1343 See eh. Agricola. 1344 Cf. Petrus Apianus (Peter Bienewitz), Cosmographia, in the edition of Gemma Frisius which appeared in various editions, among which: Antwerp (1539, 1584). 1345 Gessner 1558. 1346 Gessner 1555a. 1347 Gessner 1554. 1348 Cf. Gessner 1586b. It is unclear whether the indication “novi” refers to a recent edition. 1349 The work cannot be identified with any certainty. 1350 Bock 1552. 1351 Most probably, Dodoens 1557. 1352 Hollier B 1562. 1353 Cf. Hollier J 1582. 1354 Hollier B 1565. 1355 Mercuriale 1576. 1340

~ 314

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

-— Idem Censura in Hipocrat(em). f.1356 Harmonia mondi gallice in fol.1357 (...) Hipocratis opera omnia Zwingerij fol.1358 (...) Haventerus de arte medica 8 novus1359 (...) Ioannis et franc, picj Mirandul. opera omnia fol.1360 (...) Iulio Firmico in fol.1361 Idea medicina Severing 4.1362 Idea medicina Scribonij 8.1363 — Idem de simptomatibus 8.1364 Iulij Alexandri. In Galenum fo.1365 — Idem de sanitate tuenda fol.1366 — Idem ad doneium [Ep.le] apologeticum 8 1367 (...) Iordani Brunj de memoria in 8.1368 (...) Iordanus de aquis 8 novi1369 (...) Levino Lemnio de miraculis nat(ur)ae in 81370 (...) Medic(in)e princeps grece et latine fol. [...] 1371 Medice predictiones Taurellj in 4°.1372 Marsilio ficino opera omnia in fol.1373 (...)

1356

Mercuriale 1585. Francesco Giorgio, L’Harmonie du monde. Transi, par Nicolas LeFèvre de La Boderie, Paris (1578, 1587). 1358 Hippocrates 1579a. 1359 Havenreuter 1586. 1360 Pico G 1572 and Pico GF 1573. 1361 Firmicus 1551. 1362 Severinus 1571. 1363 Scribonius 1584. 1364 Possibly, Scribonius Largus 1528 or 1529. 1363 Alessandrini 1581. 1366 Alessandrini 1575. nei Alessandrini 1584. 1368 Bruno 1582&. 1369 Jordanus 1586. It is unclear whether the indication “novi” refers to a recent edition. 1370 See ch. Lemnius. 1371 Probably, the works of Hippocrates. 1372 Taurellus 1581. 1373 Ficino 1561 or 1576. 1357

~ 315

156dr

156dv

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

I56er

I56ev

Mercurio trismegisto 4° psa.1374 (...) Montanus Opuscula 8.1375 Idem in nonum rasis in 8.1376 (...) Montanus De triangulis fol.137z (...) Margarita philosophica1378 (...) Nicolaj Copernici de revolution(ibus). fol.1379 (...) Opuscula alchimia in 8.1380 (...) Orontio de quadratura Circuì) fol. psb 1381 — Idem quadrans Astrolabicus fol. psc 1382 — Idem Arithmetica in 8.1383 (...) Orontio De geometria 4°.1384 (...) ptolomeo geographica Latine in fol. bas.1385 (...) problemata geometrica1386 (...) prospetiva Vitellionis in fol.1387 (...) phisica perrerij in 8° psd 1388 a

“p s”: for “Parisiis”. “Parisiis”.

b

“p s”: for “Parisiis”.

1374

c

“ps”: for “Parisiis”.

d

“ps”: for

Cf. Hermes Trismegistus 1522. Monte 1558 (other editions: Venice 1554 and 1556). 1376 Monte 1562. 1377 Muller 1561. 1378 Cf. Gregor Reisch, Margarita philosophica, which appeared in a first edition in Stras­ bourg 1504 (many reprints). 1379 The work appeared in two editions: Nuremberg (1543) and Basel (1566). See ch. Copernicus. 1380 Possibly, Jacob 1550. 1381 Finé 1544. 1382 Finé 1534. 1383 Oronce Finé, Arithmetica practica, libris quatuor absoluta, appeared (at least) in the following editions: Paris (1542, 1544, 1555). 1384 Oronce Finé, Liber de Geometria, appeared in Paris in two editions (1556, 1586). 1385 The folio editions of Ptolemy’s Geographia appeared in: Basel (1540, 1542, 1545, 1552). 1386 Stevin 1583 is possibly referred to. 1387 The work appeared in the following editions: Nuremberg (1535, 1551) and in the edi­ tion of Alhazen’s Opticae thesaurus (Basel, 1572). 1388 Benedictus Pererius (Pererio, Perera, Pereira), Physicorum sive De principiis rerum naturalium libri X V (first edition, entitled De communibus omnium rerum naturalium prin­ cipiis, Rome 1576; reprints: Paris 1579, 1585, 1586, 1589). See ch. Pereira. 1375

~ 316 ~

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

— idem in 4° ps a 1389 (...) poligraphia Tritemij in 8.1390 (...) phisica Ar(istote)lis Argiropolj in 4°.1391 petri rami varia in fol. et in 8. (...) petrj Artopej in genesim in 8.1392 (...) practica Wecherij in 16°1393 (...) Secretis Weckerij in 8 1394 (...) speculum Astrologie Iunctinj fol. [...J1395 (...) sfera de Sacrobosco in 8.1396 (...) Sonio De Situ orbis latine 8 1397 (...) Stephani Gormelini in Cirurgia 8 ps b 1398 (...) Stobej Sententie grece et Latine fol. 1399 Stobej phisica grece et Latine fol. 1400 (...) Scaligero contra Cardanum in 8.1401 — in historia Theophrasti in 8. 1402

« “ps”: for “Parisiis”. b “ps”: for “Parisiis”. 1589

See the previous note. Johannes Trithemius, Polygraphiae Libri Sex, appeared (at least) in the following edi­ tions: Basel (1518), Frankfurt (1550), Cologne (1564, 1571); the latter three were in 8°. 1391 The translation of the Physica by Johannes Argyropulos, which appeared in many six­ teenth-century editions, is referred to. 1392 Petrus Artopoeus (Becker) (1491-1563), De prima rerum origine, ex libro Geneseos. The work was prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal (1551) and Louvain (1558); ILI, IV, pp. 312-3; II, p. 333. 1393 Wecker 1585. See also ch. Wecker. 1394 Wecker, De secretis, appeared in the following editions: Basel (1582, 1587, 1588, 1592,1598). 1395 Giuntini 1581; see also chs. Francesco Giuntini and Astrology. 1396 One of the numerous sixteenth-century editions. 1397 Solinus 1557, which contains Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis, with Vadianus’ com­ mentary. 1398 Gormelenus 1566. 1399 The Greek-Latin folio edition of Stobaeus’ Sententiae, appeared in: Frankfurt (1581), Zurich (1543, 1559), and Basel (1549, 1557, 1580). 1400 See Ioannes Stobaeus 1555. 1401 Scaliger JC 1576 (first ed. Scaliger JC 1557); see ch. Julius Caesar Scaliger. 1402 Scaliger JC 1566. 1390

— 317

156fr

156fv

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

156gr

— de Causis lingue Latine.1403 — de plantis in fol.1404 (...) Strabonis opera in fol. grece latine.1405 — Idem in latine in fol.1406 (...) Sixto empirico in fol. pl.1407 Sinopsis de peste in 8.1408 (...) Sintaxis medicine Wecherij fol1409 (...) Suplimentum Bibliotheca Gesnerj fol [...].1410 Theatrum Galeni in fol.1411 Tabula in Galenum Zwingerij fol1412 (...) Trincavelli de Compositione medicamentorum.1413 (...) Theorica planetarum burbachij 8 1414 (...) Thomas, in genesin in 8 [...] 1415 (...) Thomas finchij de geometria 4°1416 (...) Turba philosophorum in 8° 1417 (...) Thesaurus de Alchimia in 8 1418 1403

Julius Caesar Scaliger, De causis linguae latinae, appeared in the following editions: Lyon (1540), Heidelberg (1580, 1584, 1597). 1404 See Scaliger JC 1566. 1405 The Greek-Latin edition of Strabo’s Opera, appeared in: Basel (1523, 1539, 1549). 1406 Probably De situ orbis libri XVII, which appeared in Lyon (1557, 1559). 1407 Sextus Empiricus 1569. 1408 Donzellini et al. 1583. 1409 Wecker 1576 (reprint 1582). 1410 Probably Gessner 1555c. 1411 Galenus 1568. 1412 Zwinger 1561. 1413 Trincavelli 1570. 1414 Peurbach, Novae theoricae, in 8° appeared in the following editions: Ingolstadt (1528), W ittenberg (1535, 1542, 1551, 1553, 1580), Paris (1556), Basel (1573, 1596), Cologne (1581). The work was prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Spain (1583, 1584) and Rome (1590); ILI, VI, pp. 335, 821-2; IX, pp. 373-4. 1413 Probably, a sixteenth-century edition of Postilla in librum Geneseos, now attributed to Pietro Giovanni Olivi; see Thomas Aquinas 1974-1980: VII, pp. 486-540. 1416 Finck 1583. 1417 This important collection of alchemical texts, datatable between the tenth and twelfth century, was translated already during the Middle Ages from Arabic in Latin, French and German; editions appeared in Basel (1578 and 1593). For discussion, see Plessner 1954. See also the introduction to ch. Alchemy. 1418 Possibly, Grataroli 1572.

318 ~

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Theophrasti paracelsi de Vita longa 8 1419 — de Urinis 4° [...] 1420 — de Sumijs naturae Misterijs in 8 1421 Theatrum orbis terrarum fol. novj.1422

VI. 10 Anonymous, List of Authors and their Works (Rome, post 1584,1423 ante 17 June 1587)1424 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (II.a. 1), fols. 226r-238v1425

(...) Arnaldus de Villa nova. Arnoldus de Villa nova Hispanus.1426 (...) Chronologia Gerardi Mercatoris, quae ab slidorno,3 et [pravatis] auctoribus sumpta est.1427 (...) Armonia Francischi Georgij (...) Bernardi de Lavinetha explanatio artis Raymundi Lullj1428 (...) Conradus Licosthenes Rubeaquensis (...) Censura in chronologiam Mercatoris (...) chronologia Mercatoris (...) Doni opera, quod multis locis referta sint Geomantiae, chiromantiae, et aliarum rerum prohibitarum institutis.

a

“slidorno”: sic for “Sleidano”.

1415

See the note to f. 156br. Paracelsus, De urinarum ac pulsuum iudiciis, appeared in the following 4° editions: Vissae Sylesiorum (1566) and Cologne (1568). 1421 Paracelsus 1570c. 1422 Ortelius 1570; see note to doc. IV .ll, f. 126v, and ch. Ortelius. 1423 Cf. docs. VI.2 and 6. 1424 The document is referred to in the minutes of the meeting of 17 June 1587; see ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 22r. 1425 For a further elaboration, see doc. VI. 11 and 13. 1426 See the note to doc. VI.2, f. 9v. 1427 See the note to doc. IV.2. 1428 Lavinheta 1523, prohibited in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 91. 1420

319 ~

226r 227r 227v 228r

228v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

229v 230r 230v 231r 23 iv 232r

233r

Discorsi Philosophici Pompei barb(ae) super somn(ium) scipio­ nis.1429 De Prestigiis Demonum, Incantationibus, ac Veneficijs, lib. V. Ioannis Vuieri Medici Basileae 1563.1430 (...) De conservanda bona valetudine opusculum Scholae Salerni­ tanae.1431 Decchiaratione delle sphere in 8. Ven. 1555.1432 (...) Francisci Georgi] Problemata, et Armonia. (...) Georgij Veneti Problemata in S(acra)m Scripturam et censura Armonia etc. (...) Hieronimi Cardani opera ante Ann. 1574 impressa, et quae ad Medicinam non pertinent3 1433 (...) Io(ann)is GarcaeF Astrologiae Methodus. Basil, per Henricpetrina1434 (...) Leonardi Fuchsijc (...) Marsilius Ficinus de vita caelitus comparanda.1435 (...) Musteri Dictionarium, et Cosmographiad Milichius in Plinium6 1436 (...) Medicina lib. stampato in basilea nel 1576, da Gio. Giacomo [...]. nel epistola del libro dimostra esser haeretico, Et reprobato.1437 (...) Opusculum Scholae Salernitane de conservanda bona valetudine Ven. 15731438 (...) a In the margin: “De subtilitate rerum, de somnijs, de Varietate, et Astrologia”. After “Garcaei”: a word crossed out. c In the margin: “Censura”. d In the margin: “Cen­ sura” e In the margin: “censura”. b

1429

For Doni and Della barba, see the notes to doc. VI.2, £. 21r. Wier 1563; see the note to doc. IV.3, f. 168v. 1431 See ch. Arnaldus of Villanova. 1432 Mattei 1550; see the note to doc. 2. 1433 See the note to doc. VI.2, 29v. 1434 Gartz 1576, prohibited in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); see ILI, IX, p. 145. 1435 Marsilio Ficino, De vita libri tres, appeared (at least) in the following editions: Flo­ rence (1489), Basel (1507, 1532, 1541, 1549), Strasbourg (1511). The work was prohibited in the Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 154. 1436 See ch. Milich. 1437 Cf. Wecker 1576. 1438 Schola Salernitana 1573. 1430

~ 320

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Petrus Pomponatius de Incantationibus.1439 P ractica Artis Raimundj Lullj per Magistrum Bernardum de Lavinetha.1440 Philippi AurthoP Theophrasti parac., chirurgia magna, Et reliqua opera Argent. 1573.1441 Philosophia libri tres Hieronimi Vuildembergij.1442 Pompeio della barca sopra il sonno di Scipione1443 Petri Rami opera.1444 Problemata Francisci Georgij. (...) Raymundi Lulli opera alias dannata. (...) Simon Portius de humana mente.1445 (...) Suplementum Almanach. Restit(ut)ioTemporum, etc.1446 (...) Sixtus betuleus.b (...) Theophrasti Paracelsj opera. Thomae erasti Disputationes contra novae Medicinae Philippi Paracelsj etc.1447 (...) Thomas Erastus. (...) Theatrum vitae humanae. Reiectus. (...) De Valetudine bona conservanda opusculum Scholae Salerni­ tanae1448 Autori Heretici Volghati, c’hanno composta. Et stampato (...) Leon, fuchsio. Iacobus Micyliusc (...) a “Aurthoi”: sic, for “Aureoli”. “Milichius”.

1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448

b

In the margin: “Censura”.

Pomponazzi 1556; cf. ch. Pomponazzi. See the note to f. 227v. Paracelsus 1573a. See ch. Wildenberg. See the note to doc. VI.2, f. 21r. See ch. Ramus. Porzio 1551 (cf. doc. IV.8, f. 133r). Cardano 1538, joint edition of two works; see doc. VI.2, f. 46v. Erastus 1572-1573. Cf. Schola Salernitana 1568.

~ 321

c

“Mycilius”: sic, for

233v

234r 235r

235v

236r

23 6v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Christoph H egendorphinus 1449 Conradus Gesnerus Conradus Licosthenis (...) Ioachimus Vadianus 1450 Sebastianus M unsterus (...) Robertas Stephanus 1451

VI. 11 Anonymous, Lists of Books Suspended from Sale (Rome, post 1588,1452 ante 1590)1453 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, A (II.a.1), fols. 239r-263ra

239r

239v

240r

Avertimento per li librari di Roma de i libri, che, oltra quelli che contengono nel Indice Triden. non si possono vendere senza licenza15 p arte p er esser reprobati, parte per esser sospesi, p arte per esse sospetti. (...) Bernardi de’ Lavinetha, explanatio Artis Raymundi Lulli.1454 (...) Cardani opera omnia in Philosophia.1455 (...) Charon Pontani Dialogus tantum c .1456 (...) Dialogus Pontani charon (...) A draft of the following lists is on fols. 226r-238v; a similar doc. is in doc. VI. 10. This list is an elaboration of doc. VI.6; another version is in doc. VI. 13. b “senza licenza”: in the margin. c “tantum ”: in a second hand. a

1449 For the prohibition of the works and translations of Christoph Hegendorff (15001540), see the note to sect. II, doc. 12, f. 509r, and ILI, X, pp. 216-18. 1450 Joachim Vadianus (von Watt); see note to sect. I, doc. 1. 1451 Robert Étienne (1503-1559) ; see ILI, X, p. 175. 1452 O n fol. 250r, a censura of Milich’s commentary of Plinius is mentioned; for the date of this censura, see ch. Milich, docs. 1-2. 1453 Most likely the document dates back to the period of the preparation of the Sixtine

Index. 1454 1455 1456

See the note to the previous doc., f. 227v. See ch. Cardano. See the note to doc. V.5, f. 243v.

322 ~

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Doni opera, quod multis locis referta sint Geomantiam, chiromantiam, et aliarum rerum Prohibitarum institutis.1457 (...) Discorsi filosofici Pompei barbae super somnium Sipionis3 1458 (...) Francisci Georgi] problemata s.am Scripturam 1459 (...) Fussiusb 1460 (...) Gerardi Mercatoris Chronologia1461 Hieronymi Cardani opera omnia in Philosophia (...) Io(ann)is G arcaei Astrologiae M ethodus. Basil per H enricpetrina1462 (...) Io(ann)is Vuieri Medici lib. V. de Praestigiis Daemonum, Incanta­ tionibus, ac veneficijs. Basii.1463 Io(anne)s sinapius Medicus1464 (...) Magia naturalis 1465 (...) Marsilius Ficinus de vita caelitus comparanda.1466 (...) Medicina lib. stampato in basilea nel 1576 di Giacomo Vuecero, nel Epistula dei libro si scopre heretico.1467 (...) Problemata s(acra)m scripturam Francesci Georgi]’. (...) Petrus Pomponatius de Incantationibus.1468 Practica Artis Raymuni Lulli per magistrum Bernardum de Lavinetha. Philippi Aurthoi Theophrasti Paraphr. Chirurgia magna et Reliqua opera. Argentorati 1573.1469 Pompeio della Barcac sopra il sonno di Scipione. a

“Sipionis”: sic, for “S cipionis”. f.“Barca”: sic, for “Barba”.

b

“F u ssiu s”: sic, probably for “F uchsius”.

1457

See the note to the previous doc., f. 228v. See the note to the previous doc., f. 233v. 1459 See ch. Giorgio. 1460 See ch. Fuchs. 1461 See ch. Mercator. 1462 See the note to the previous doc., f. 23 lr. 1463 See the note to the previous doc., f. 228v. 1464 Johannes Sinapius (ca. 1505-1561), prohibited as a heretic in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 145. 1465 Probably, one of the editions of Della Porta’s Magia naturalis-, see ch. Della Porta. 1466 See the note to doc. VI.2, f. 37v. 1467 Wecker 1576. Cf. ch. Wecker. 1468 See ch. Pomponazzi. 1469 See the previous doc., f. 233v. 1458

~ 323 ~

241r 241v 242r

242v

243v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

244r

244v 245r

245v

246v

247v

Petri Rami opera (...) Pontani Charon Dialogus De Praestigijs Daemonum, Incantationibus, ac Veneficijs lib. V Io(ann)is Vuieri Medici Basilien. (...) Paracelsi Theophrasti opera (...) Raymundi Lulli opera alias dannata1470 (...) Simon Portius de humana mente, tenet mortalitatem Animae.1471 Simon Simonius, ut qui impie sentiat de s.mo Missae sacrificio ut ex prooemio aparet sui com. in Arist. De sensu, et sensili.1472 (...) Supplementum Almanach Rest(itutione) temporum1473 (...) Theatrum vitae humanae1474 (...) Theophrasti Paracelsi opera1475 Thomae Erasti Disputationes contra novam Medicinam Philippi Paracelsi.1476 (...) Thomas Erastus contra Paracelsum. (...) Parte seconda de i libri sospesi, che non si possono vendere se prima non sono corretti. censura1477 (...) Arnaldus de Villa nova censura1478 (...) Armonia Franc(isc)i Georgij Veneti Cardani opera omnia in Medicina censura (...) (praeterquam in Hipocratem, Romae 1574)1479

The condemnation in Pope Gregory X i’s (most likely not authentic) Bull is referred to; see ch. Lull, Introduction. 1471 See the previous doc., f. 235r. 1472 See ch. Simoni. 1473 Cardano 1538, joint edition of the two works. 1474 See the note to doc. 1.3, f. 207v. 1475 See ch. Paracelsus. 1476 See the previous doc. f. 235v. 1477 ACDF censurae are in ch. Arnaldus of Villanova. 1478 ACDF censurae are in ch. Giorgio. 1479 Cardano 1574. In the 1580 Index of Parma this work was excluded from the prohibi­ tion; see ILI, IX, p. 108. Cardano’s comment to De alimento had been authorized (the work appeared with imprimatur). There are no extant Censurae of Cardano’s specifically medical works, apart from the medical-magical-astrological parts of his more general works. How­ ever, this measure was provisory, because the Index of 1596 (as the 1590 and 1593 Indexes) suspended the application. 1470

~ 324

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Chronologia M ercatoris censura 1480 (... ) De conservanda bona V aletudine opusculum scollae Salernitanae censura. 1481 (...) Franc(isc)i Georgi] A rm onia censura (...) Georgi] Veneti A rm onia censura. H ieronym i C ardani opera om nia in M edicina (praeter in censura (...) Hipocratem Romae im p(ressum )) 1482 censura 2 1483 (...) Leonardi fuchsij opera in M edicj censura. 1484 (...) M usteri D ictionarium , et Cosm ographia. censura. 1485 (...) M ilichius in Plinium O pusculum scollae Salernitanae de C onservanda bona valetudine C ensura (...) 1486 Sixtus betuleus (...) Sommario di tutte le scientiae de Dom(eni)co D olphino b , 1487 Com ­ burimur) (...) De Valetudine bona conservanda opusculum scollae salernita(nae) censura (...) Parte 3 de i lib ri sospetti, che non si possono vendere senza licenza. Reg. P.a Tutti quei lib ri che sono stam pati, o trad otti, ó raccolti d’Autori H eretici. Reg. 2 . 2 Tutti quei lib ri che sono stam pati in lochi d ’H eretici, ó sospetti. Reg. 3 . 2 Tutti quei libri, che vengono fuori di Prim a stampa, senza approbatione d ’Inq(uisito)re, o di chi è soprastante à tal Ufficio. (...) Arnoldus de V illa nova H ispanus in Indice Rom(ano)c (...) G aspar Pincerus, b u cerus 1488 (...) “censura”: in another hand.

1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488

b

“Dolphino”: sic.

c

“in (...) Rom(ano)”: in another hand.

Cf. doc. V III.l and ch. Mercator. See ch. Arnaldus of Villanova, doc. 10. See f. 247v. ACDF Censurae are in ch. Fuchs. ACDF Censurae are in ch. Munster. See ch. Milich. See the note to doc. VI.4 (above). See ch. Delfino. Kaspar Peucer is meant; see the note to section I, doc. 1, f. 222v, and ch. Peucer.

~ 325 ~

248r 248v 249r

249v 250r 25 Ov 252r

252v 254r

254v 257v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

258r 26ir 262r

262v

Gerardus Dorn. Scripsit Artificia, chymistica, Physica, Methaphysica. 1489 (...) Petri Gregorij, Tholosani Sintaxe artis mirabilis 1490 censura (...) Sommario delle scientie di Dom(eni)co Delphino Veneto omnino prohib. (...) Sintaxes artis mirabilis petri Greg(or)ij Tholosani censura 3 Scola salarnitana censura (...) Thomas beconus, sive Theodorus basilius edidit libr(os) haeretic(os) inter quos, unus intit(ulatus) Nova de Caelo.1491 Thomas Erastus edidit librum haeres(eos) refertum.

VI. 12

Anonymous, List of Books (Rome, post 1587, ante 1590)1492 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 563v-567r

Sequitur alterius postulationis membri descriptio, ut videlicet libri haereticorum huius maxime tempestatis ordinentur, quorum nomina non sunt in prioribus codicibus Concili] Tridentini adiectis tempo­ ribus et cetera. (...) 565v 1586 Theatrum vitae humanae Theodori Zwingeri Bas(ileae) tertia editione novem voluminibus locupletatum. In fol. Basileae.1493 (...) 567r 1587 Levini Levinij Medici Zinzaei de habitu et constitutione cor563v

a

“salarnitana”: sic.

1489

Dorn 1569, prohibited in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 131. Grégoire 1583 (first edition: 1575-76), prohibited in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 174. See also Savelli 2003, p. 308f. 1491 See the note to doc. VI.2, f. 47v. 1492 Most likely the document dates back to the period of the preparation of the Sixtine Index. 1493 Lycosthenes-Zwinger 1586-1587. 1490

~ 326 ~

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

poris quam Greci Kpaaiv trivialem complexionem vocant, Libri duo. lenae, In octavo1494 (...) Simonij Simonius opera quaedam In theologia Impressa Genevae1495

VI. 13

Anonymous, Prohibited Authors to be Inserted into the Index (Rome, post 1584,1496 ante 1590)1497 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, F (II.a.5), fols. 154r-175ra

Authores prohibiti non annotati in Indice (...)

154r

Andreae corvi Chiromantia, in Romano1498 (...) Arnoldus de villa nova catalanus tantum in Romano indice. (...) Arnoldus de villa nova Hispanus, Hic etiam est annumeratus inter inimicos Ecc(lesi)ae catholicae ab ipso Mathia Fiacco, qui ante 300. annos composuit, et affirmavit multa Heretica, et stulta.1499 (...) Bartholomei Cochlitis anastasis chiromantiae, et phisionomiae in priori indice.1500 (...) Conradus Licostenes, adde Rubeaquensis. (...) Georgius Palatinus, Animadvertendum est quod fuit quidam nomi­ natus Georgius agricola spalatinus qui non fuit haereticus. Nescio si ille sit, qui hoc loco nominatur solum Georgius Palatinus, an hic Georgius alius sit ab illo.1501 (...)

155r

a

This list is probably an elaboration of doc. VI.6; another version is in doc. V I.ll.

1494 1495 1496 1497

Lemnius I5S7. Simoni 1567b. The document is an elaboration of doc. VI.6. Most likely the document dates back to the period of the preparation of the Sixtine

Index. 1498

Andrea Corvo (ca. 1450-), De chiromantia was prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1559, 1596); see the note to doc. VI.2, f. 9v. 1499 See the note to doc. VI.2, f. 9v. 1500 Codes 1504; see the note to doc. VI.2, f. 13v. 1501 See the note to doc. VI.2, f. 26v.

~ 327 ~

155v

156v 158r 162r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

I62v

165r I72r

Guilelmus Radensis. Hie fecit preafationem chronicorum de Abbatijs Abbatis Tritemij valde scandaloso, et haeretica.1502 (...) Gerardi Mercatoris cronologia. (...) Ioannis Bodinj Methodus Ioannes vuierus de prestigijs Demonum.15® (...) Thomas Beconus sive Theodorus Basilius edidit multos libellos haereticos, inter quos uni nomen rescripsit, Nova de Caelo. Thomas Erastus edidit librum Genevae in eandem sententiam. (...) Theophrastus paracelsus.

VI. 14

Anonymous, List of Books to be Inserted into the Index (Rome, post 1590, ante 26 September 1592)1504 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, K (II.a.9), fols. 146r-149v

I46r

Libris qui in Indice Pij .4. conscripti sunt addi possunt omnes alij qui in Indice Sixti .5.a fuerunt appositi paucis exceptis. Videlicet, francisco a Victoria1505 et Roberto Bellarminio.1506 [...]d his adiungi poterunt qui sequuntur. (...) B (...) Bilibaldi pircamerij descriptio bataviae.1507 (...) After “Sixti .5”.: “Pij 4”, crossed out.

1502

Trithemius 1559. Wier 1563; see the note to sect. IV, doc. 3, f. 168v. 1504 See doc. IV. 12. 1505 Francisco de Vitoria (ca. 1480/86-1546), Praelectiones theologicae X II in duos tomos divisae (Lyon 1557), was prohibited in the 1590 Index of Rome; ILI, IX, p. 399. 1506 Roberto Bellarmino, Disputationes (...) de controversiis christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, tribus tomis comprehensae (Lyon 1587-1589; Ingolstadt 1586-15881593), was prohibited in the 1590 Index of Rome; ILI, IX, pp. 408-9. 1507 Probably a part of Willibald (Bilibald) Pirckheimer (1470-1530), Germaniae ex variis scriptoribus perbrevis explicatio, is referred to; see also the note to doc. VI.9, f. 156 bv. 1503

~ 328 ~

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

C

146v

Genebrardi1508

Chronographia (...) Conradi dassipodij libri super Euclidem1509 Conradi hertsbarchij liber de re rustica1510 (...) Cornerius3 agripa de vanitatibus scientiarum1511 Cipriani Leovitij ephemerides1512 (...) E (...) Erastus thomas opera quae scripsit de medicina1513 (...) I

147r

Iacobi Miliquij*5 comentaria in secundum librum Plinij1514 (...) Iacobus Zieglerusc quae scripsit de hystoria et comentaria in librum secundum Plinij.1515 Item descriptio Palestinae et scondiae et exci­ dium [Vuol]mense1516 (...) Ioannis eschiud summa astroligicad de accidentibus mundi1517 a “Cornerius”: sic. b “Miliquij”: sic, for “Milichij”. “Ziglerius”. d “astroligica”: sic.

c

“Zieglerus”: correction of

1508 Gilbert Génébrard (1537-1597), Chronographia in duos libros distincta, appeared in the following editions: Louvain (1570), Paris (1580), Cologne (1581). The work was prohib­ ited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Spain (1583, 1584); ILI, VI, pp. 246, 331, 821. 1509 Probably, Euclides 1564b, 1564c, 1564d. Moreover, Dasypodius was the author of mathematical manuals based on Euclid, such as Dasypodius 1567 and 1572. See also ch. Dasypodius. 1510 Konrad Heresbach (1496-1576) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Munich (1580) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 221, 486, 806, 868. De re rustica appeared in the following editions: Cologne (1570, 1571, 1573), and Spier (1593, 1594, 1595). 1511 See ch. Agrippa. 1512 Leowitz 1557. See also ch. Leowitz 1513 See ch. Erastus. 1514 Milich 1535. 1515 Jacob Ziegler (ca. 1470-1549), Commentaria in Plinii De naturali historia librum secundum, appeared in the following editions: Basel (1531, 1581) and Cologne (1550). The work was examined and permitted in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 501, 781. See also ch. Ziegler. 1516 See doc. V.12, f. 93 r. 1517 Estwood 1489, prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal (1581) and Rome (1590); ILI, IV, pp. 451-52; IX, p. 379. Cf. ch. Astrology, doc. 31, f. 221v, note 158.

329 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Ioannis Functij chronologia1518 Ioannes Garzeus de Astronomia 1519 (...) L ( ...)

147v

Leonard? Fusisijb Opera omnia. (...) Incerti nominis (...) libri Hermetis Magi ad Aristotel.1’ 20 M

148r

Martini Borrei enarrationes et comentarios in Cosmografica eiementa1521 M artin? C[r]uccij Arismethici libri tres1522 et Gramatica graeca1523 (...) Michaeli S a[..Jlij sive Saffely Arismethica1524 (...) O Ottonis Brunsfelsij padeltid medicinae [...] hortacia 1525 (...) b “Fusisij”: sic, for “Fuchsij”. a After “Leonardi”: the beginning of a word, crossed out. After “Martini”: a word crossed out. d “padelti”: sic. The word probably refers to an adjec­ tive on the title-page, but it unclear to which one; recall that Brunfels was born in Mainz.

c

1518 Johann Funck, Chronologia, ab initio mundi usque ad annum M.D.LIII, appeared in the following editions: Nuremberg (1545), Kònigsberg (1552), Basel (1554), Wittenberg (1570 and 1578). The work was prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Portugal (1561), Antwerp (1571), and Spain (1583); ILI, IV, pp. 370, 504-5; VII, pp. 536-7; VI, pp. 254-55. 1519 Cf. Gartz 1576, prohibited in the Index of Parma (1580); see ILI, IX, p. 145. 1520 There is no text with a similar title in the Appendix of Lucentini-Perrone Compagni 2001, which presents a bibliography of the sixteenth-century Hermetic texts in print. See also ch. Astrology, note 60, and ch. Magic, note 14. 1521 Martin Borrhaus (Cellarius) (1499-1564), In cosmographiae elementa commentatio, appeared in the following editions: Basel (1555), Strasbourg (1539), Paris (1551). The work was examined and permitted in the expurgatory Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 506,782. 1522 See the note to doc. V.12, f. 93r. 1523 M artin Crusius, Grammatica graeca, exam ined and p erm itted in th e Index of Antwerp (1571); see ILI, VII, pp. 542, 795. 1524 Stifel 1544, expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); see ILI, VII, pp. 506-7, 782. 1525 Probably Brunfels 1530-1536. See ch. O tto Brunfels.

~ 330

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

P ( ...) Petri Rami Scholia phisica 1526 et methafisica 1527 et animadversionum libri viginti in Arist.1528 et Scolia M athematica 1529 e Arismethicae libri tres.1530 (...) .S.

148v

Sebastiani Musterij Cosmografìa,1531 et de Horologijs 1532 et gramatica haebrea 1533 Sebastiani Theodorici Wimscherij novem questiones spherae ac de circulis celestibus 1534 Symon Symonius in Aristotelem de sensu et memoria 1535 (...) T Teofrasti paracelsi tres libri chyrurgiae quam Berleoniam intitulavit;1536 item chirurgia maior,1537 et chirurgia minor,1538 (...) G ( ...) G aspar peucerus Rudiffinus, qui de mathematicis scripsit1539 (...)

1526

Ramus 1565. See ch. Petrus Ramus. Ramus 1566. 1528 Ramus 1543. 1529 Scholarum mathematicarum libri X X X I appeared in the following editions: Paris (1567) and Basel (1569). 1530 Arithmeticae librili appeared in the following editions: Paris (1555, 1557) and Basel (1569). 1531 Munster’s Cosmographia appeared in the following Latin editions: Basel (1550, 1552, 1554, 1559 and 1572); the Italian edition appeared in Basel (1558) and Cologne (1575). Cf. ch. Sebastian Munster. 1532 Munster 1531 and 1533. 1533 The Hebrew grammar of Munster appeared in Basel (1527 and 1529). 1534 See the note to doc. V.12, f. 93r. 1535 Simoni 1566. See ch. Simone Simoni. 1536 Paracelsus 1570a. 1537 Paracelsus 1573a. 1538 Paracelsus 1570a. 1539 SeePeucer 1550,1551,1556,1571, 1586. 1527

331 ~

149r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Guillelmi Xilandri augustani de quatuor3 mathemathicis scientijs libri et interpretationes.1540 (...) H (...) H iero n im u s U b ild e n b e rg e n sis in p h isicam et m oralem philosophiam Aristotelis1541 VI. 15

List of Books Prohibited by the Inquisition (Rome, ca. 27 April 1596)1542 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Z (II.a.22), fols. 550r-552r

550r

Nota Alphabetica Librorum omnium à Cong.ne Romana S. Offici) damnatorum ab Anno 1550, usque ad annum 1596. Per Notarium ex Decretis S. Officii tradita (...)

550v

Giardino delle Maraviglie Arabice impressa Rome per Ribertum Granaionem Parisien(sem) Rome 1584 prohibetur 7 Augusti 1588.1543 (...) Ioannis Bap(tis)tae Porte operum prohibetur impressio et editio cum abiuraverit Venetiis 10 Marti] 15921544 vi(de) infra p. 531 [.. J b (...)

55 lv

a After

“quatuor”: “mahemati”, crossed out.

b

1540

“vi(de) (...) p. 531

in another hand.

Holtzman 1556, expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); see VII, pp. 500-501, 781. Cf. ch. Xylander. 1541 See ch. Wildenberg. 1542 On 27 April 1596 the Congregation ordered Paolo Pico to ask Card. Santori for this list; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 88r: “Cong(regati)o habita in domo Veronensis ubi omnes interfuere, et tractatum de tollenda suspensione Indicis, et commissum Secretario ut adiret Card. S. Severinae, a quo reciperet Decreta S(anc)ti Officii novo Indici inserenda, et tracta­ tum fuit de Indice expurgatorio inchoando”. However, when this list arrived the Clementine Index had been printed already; cf. Introduction to this chapter, section 3. 1543 On fols. 557v-558r, the prohibition is dated 7 August 1586. A censura of this work is in ACDF, Index, Protocolli, C (II.a.3), fols. 322r-337v. However, the work was not placed on later Roman Indexes (1590, 1593 or 1596). 1544 Actually, Della Porta abjurated in Rome. See ch. Giovan Battista Della Porta, doc. 52.

~ 332

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Thome Campanelle ord. Pred. Philosophia Neapoli impressa apud Horatium salviano 15911545 reponitur in Indice 7 Novemb. 1595.1546 vi(de) infra p. 533 [...] a

VI.16 Anonymous, List of Books (Rome, post 1585) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Z (II.a.22), f. 82r

Conradi Gesneri Bibliotheca universalis sivè Catalogus omnium scriptorum. Tiguri anno 1542.1547 Eiusdem Bibliotheca in epitomem redacta, et locupletata, per Iosiam Simlerum. iamverò amplificata per Ioannem Iacobum Fri­ sium. Tiguri anno 1583.1548 Eiusdem Bibliotheca appendix. Tiguri 1551.1549 Eiusdem Partitiones theologiae pandictarum universalium. Ti­ guri.1550 (...) Ioannis Drusij Observationes libri .12. Antverpiae anno 1584.1551 Eiusdem Animadversiones libri duo. Lugduni anno 1585.1552

a

“vi(de) (...) p. 533 [...]”: in another hand.

1545

Campanella 1591. See ch. Tommaso Campanella, doc. 13. Campanella’s work was not inserted into the Clementine Index (1596), which had been printed already (cf. supra). 1547 Gessner 1545. 1548 Gessner 1583. 1549 Gessner 1555g. 1550 Cf. the third volume of Gessner 1545. 1551 Van den Driesche 1584. The author was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Rome (1590,1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 614, 826, 886. 1552 Van den Driesche 1585. 1546

82r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

VI. 17 Anonymou s, List of Books (Rome, post 1595)1553 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Z (II.a.22), f. 113r-v

113r

Aetij omnia conversa per Ian. C ornarium 1554 Amati Lusitani Centuriae 1555 Aquatilia Conradi G esneri 1556 Arnaldi villanovan i omnia 1557 Conradi Gesneri de Fossilibus 1558 de Animalibu s 1559 de Serpentibu s 1560 epistolae medicinale s 1561 D [ ...] ex versione Ian. Cornarij Guilielmu s G ratarola 1562 Iacobus Schegkius de plastica in seminis 1563 1564 Iani Cornarij enum(erati)o m edicam entorum Io. Caij opuscola 1565 Lam berti Danaei de Sortiarijs1566 The list includes Erastus 1595. The translation of Aetius’ works appeared in the following editions: Basel (1533-35, 1542 and 1549) and Venice (1544). Cornarius’ comments were expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, pp. 474-76. 1555 Cf. ch. Amatus Lusitanus. 1556 Gessner 1558. For the prohibition of Gessner’s works, see ch. Gessner. 1557 Cf. ch. Arnaldus of Villanova. 1558 Gessner 1565. 1559 Gessner 1551a, 1554, 1555a., 1558. 1560 Gessner 1587. 1561 Gessner 1577. 1562 See ch. Guglielmo Grataroli. 1563 Schegk 1580. 1564 Ianus Cornarius, Ret medicae enumeratio (Basel 1529, 1534), expurgated in the Index of Antwerp (1571); ILI, VII, p. 774. 1565 Case 1556. 1566 Lambert Daneau (ca. 1530-1595), De veneficiis, quos olim sortilegos, nunc autem vulgo sortarios vocant (Cologne 1575), argued for the need of severity in witchcraft trials. The author was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Munich (1582), Spain (1583) and Rome (1593, 1596); ILI, IX, p. 246; VI, p. 428; IX, pp. 627, 888. 1555

1554

~ 334 ~

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Leonardi Fuschij varia Levini Lennij de occultis naturae secretis 1567 Michaelis N eandri synopsis de mensuris 1568 Paulus Aegineta per Jan. Cornarium 1569 Simon Simonius de Peste 1570 de Febribus 1571 Theodor. Zuingerij tabulae in lib. G aleni 1572 In lib. quosdam H ippocr. 1575 Paracelsi opuscola quaedam De urinis et pulsibus 1574 Vitae longae com pendium 1575 Chirurgia vulnerum 1’76 D ictionarium 1577 Chirurgia magna 1578 De tartaro et longa vita 1579 Onomastica duo 1580 Thomae Erasti de occul. med. facultate 1581 Auro potabili 1’82 Lamijs 1583 medicina Paracelsi1584 1567

See ch. Lemnius. Neander 1555; cf. ch. Neander. 1569 See, for example, Paulus Aegineta 1532,1538, 1541 and 1551. 1570 Simoni 1576. 1571 Simoni 1577. 1572 Zwinger 1561. 1573 Hippocrates 1529. 1574 Paracelsus, De urinarum ac pulsuum iudiciis, appeared in the following editions: Vissae Sylesiorum (1566), Cologne (1568) and Strasbourg (1568). 1575 Suavius 1568. 1576 Paracelsus 1569a. 1577 Paracelsus 1575a. 1578 Paracelsus 1573a. 1579 For the editions of Paracelsus, De vita longa, see note to doc. VI.6, f. 156br. 1580 Paracelsus 1575a. 1381 Erastus 1574. 1382 Erastus, De auro potabili appeared in Basel (1578, 1584). 1383 Erastus 1578. 1384 Erastus 1572-1573. 1568

335 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Putredine 1585 [Vi]va anatomae in Com. m ontani libros 1586 Epistolae medicinales 1587 Astrologia Divin.1588 Cardanus in Ptolem . 1589 Cypriani Leovitij Ephem erides 1590 (...) Conradi Gesneri meditationes physicae 1591 Hier. Cardani de subtilitate de rerum varietate [...] de Nativit.1592 loach. Camterij” de divinat. G eneribus 1593 Ioachimi Curei de sensu 1594 (...) Io. Stobeus per Conradum G esnerum 1595 Iulius Scaliger in Theophrastum 1596 (...) Platonis omnia per Io. Senam um 1597 (...) Simon Grinaeus de Ignitis impressionibus 1598 Thomas Erastus de Cometis 1599 (...) a

“Camterij”: sic, for “Camerarj”.

1585

Erastus 1580c. See Erastus 1581. 1587 Erastus 1595. 1588 Erastus 1580a. 1589 Cardano, In Cl. Ptolemaei de astrorum iudiciis, appeared in the following editions: Basel (1554, 1578) and Lyon (1555). 1590 Leowitz 1557. 1591 Gessner 1586b. 1592 Probably Cardano 1555. 1593 Camerarius 1576. 1594 Joachim Curaeus, De sensu et sensibilibus, appeared in the following editions: Witten­ berg (1567, 1572, 1584), and Frankfurt (1595/6). Joachim Curaeus (1532-1573) was prohib­ ited as a heretic in the Indexes of Munich (1582) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 235,591, 821, 882. 1595 Ioannes Stobaeus 1543. 1596 Scaliger JC 1566. 1597 Jean de Serres’ translation; see Plato 1575. The translation with commentary was pro­ hibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Portugal (1581) and Spain (1583, 1584); ILI, IV, p. 452; VI, pp. 416, 509, 863-4. 1598 Grynaeus 1580. 1599 Erastus 1579. 1586

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Io. Drusij observationes Animadversiones1600 (...) Conr. Heresbach. de re rustica 1601 Conr. Lycosteni similia 1602 (...) Guilelmi Postelli Chronographi1603 (...) Ioachimi Camerari] comm(entari)a (...) Iunij Adriani de Anno ext. gen.1604 (...) Io. Lalamantij de Anno et mensibus1605 Ioseph. Scalig. de emendat, temp.1606 (...) Petri Rami Praelect(io)nes1607 Polidori Virgili]’ de Inventor. Rerum 1608 (...) Theatrum humanae vitae per Theo. Zuing. Theodori Zuingerij metod. Apodemica rustica 1609

113v

VI. 18

Anonymous, List of Works Prohibited d o n ec ex purgentur (Rome, post 1594)1610 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Z (II.a.22), fols. 519r-520v

(...) Amati Lusitani Centuriae Augustini Eugubini Cosmopeia (...) Bernardini Telesij opera omnia (...)

1600

See the notes to doc. VI. 16, f. 82r. See doc. VI. 14, f. 146r. 1602 For the prohibition of the works by Konrad Lycosthenes (1518-1561), see sect. II, doc. 12, f. 509r (note), and ILI, X, p. 269. 1603 Probably Postel 1561. 1604 Junius 1553. 1605 Lalamant 1571. See the note to doc. V.14, f. 15lr. 1606 See ch. Josephus Justus Scaliger. 1607 Ramus 1578 and 1580. 1608 Cf. ch. Polidoro Virgilio. 1609 Zwinger [1576]. 1610 Patrizi’s Nova de philosophia was definitively prohibited in July 1594; cf. respective ch. 1601

337

519r

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATIO N OF THE INDEX

519v

Conradi Clingij opera1611 (...) 1612 Continuatio temporum germani cuiusdem ab anno salutis 1513 Chronologia Gerardi Mercatoris1613 Chronologia ex sacris litteris incerti auctoris1614 Chronologicarum libri duo 1615 (...) Conradus Gesnerus de animalibus (...) Conradus Licosthenes Cumani Chronologia ex sacris litteris Cardani opera omnia Continuatio temporum Clemens schuberus de scrupulis Cronologorum1616 (...) Fons vitae1617 Francisci Georgi) veneti opera (...) Francisci Patritij Philosophia1618 Franciscus Iunbinus3 Astrologus1619 (...) Guido Bonatus Astrologus1620 (...) Ioannes Vuicrius de incantationibus, et secretis1621 Introductio admirabilium antiqua, et moderna1622 (...) “Iunbinus”: sic; follows: “opera”, crossed out. 1611 Konrad Kling (1483/84-1556) was prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Parma (1580), Spain (1583 and Rome (1596); ILI, IX, pp. 97, 107, 495; VI, p. 264. 1612 Cf. the note to doc. V.19, f. 537r. 1613 Mercator 1569 (2nd ed. 1577) was prohibited in the 1596 Index with the clause “nisi emendetur”; see ILI, IX, pp. 492 and 938. 1614 Flinsbach 1552, prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593, 1596), Antwerp (1571), Portugal (1581), and Spain (1583); ILI, Vili, p. 399; IX, pp. 501-2, 807, 869; VII, pp. 511-2; IV, p. 437; VI, p. 247. 1615 See the note to doc. V.19, f. 537r. 1616 Schubert 1575 (see ch. Clemens Schubert). 1617 Avicebron (Ibn Gabirol), Fons vitae, prohibited in the Indexes of Spain (1583) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, VI, p. 318; IX, pp. 553, 815, 876. 1618 Patrizi 1591 and 1592. 1619 See ch. Francesco Giunóni. 1620 Cf. the note to doc. II.6, f. 364v. 1621 Probably, Wier 1563; cf. the note to doc. IV.3, f. 168v. 1622 Cf. Henri Estienne (1528/31-1598), Apologia pro Herodoto, prohibited (or expur­ gated) in the Indexes of Antwerp (1569, 1570, 1571), Spain (1583, 1584) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, VII, pp. 190-2, 528; VI, pp. 388, 826-7; IX, pp. 625, 827, 888.

~ 338

VI. LISTS OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Levinij lemnij opera3 (...) Petrus Ramus (...) Polidorus Virgilius de Inventoribus rerum Pompeus Barba de secretis naturae 1623 (...) Sebastianus Monsterus (...) Theodorus Zuuingerus Theophrastus Paracelsus (...) Theatrum vitae humanae (...) Nota Librorum donec expurgentur13

“ On the next line: “Petrus Ramus”, crossed out. b “Nota (...) expurgentur”: annotation. 1623

See the note to doc. VI.2, £. 21r.

339 ~

520r

520v

1 VII ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXPURGATORY CENSURAE The documents reproduced in this section regard the nomination of the Index’s consultors and the assignment of expurgatory censurae since 1587, and thus they are closely related to the documents pre­ sented in section V, which concerned the pronouncements on books to be corrected.1624 The organization of expurgatory cen su ra e was concentrated in four well-defined periods, namely the period from February till June 1587, the second half of 1592, June-August 1594, and the period immediately following upon the publication of the Clementine Index. On 8 February 1587, almost two years after the death of Card. Guglielmo Sirleto, Pope Sixtus V profoundly re-organized the Congregation of the Index nominating the Cardinals Mar­ cantonio Colonna, Agostino Valier, Vincenzo Lauro, Girolamo della Rovere and Constantino Torri (Boccadifuoco),1625 and appointing, after a week, a large group of consultors (doc. 2).1626 After careful and mature consideration, in June of this year the consultors were organ­ ized in (seven or nine) classes, to which were assigned over thirty books to be corrected, among which works by Giorgio, Cardano, Mercator, and Schubert (docs. 3-4).1627 Probably, not all cen surae were actually worked out and handed over to the Congregation.1628 As a matter of fact, in 1592 the Congregation deemed it necessary to launch a new campaign, involving not only consultors active for five years or more, but also many scholars who were freshly appointed (doc. 5). Now, the consultors were divided into eleven classes, each being assigned only one author (doc. 6). After less than half a year, the Congregation drew up a (partial) list of books to be corrected of which expurgatory cen su ra e were extant in the Congregation, includ­ ing the works of Giorgio, Amatus Lusitanus, Arnaldus of Villanova, Gessner, Delfino and Schubert (doc. 7). During the summer of 1594, the classes of the consultors were re-organized again. However, among the books assigned on 7 August for expurgation, there are no relevant works on natural philosophy or science (doc. 8-9). A list of ~ 340 ~

VII. ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXPURGATORY CENSURAE

assigned censurae (ca. 1594-97) reveals the problems raised by expur­ gation, because it mentions several authors, among whom Mercator, Cardano, and Arnaldus of Villanova, whose correction had been decreed for quite some time, but which obviously was not yet done or else carried out in an unsatisfactory way (doc. 10). These difficulties persisted also after the promulgation of the Clementine Index in 1596. Most probably, the classes were re-organized again (doc. 11) and many expurgatory censurae were assigned in the last years of the century, not only to the consultors of the central seat of the Roman Congregation, but also to religious orders, peripheral seats, and to Universities in Italy and abroad (docs. 11-15). The expurgatory cam­ paigns of the 1580s and 1590s eventually led to the quite dissappointing Index expurgatorius by Giovanni Maria Guanzelli in 1607, the first but also last Roman Expurgatory Index, which reproduced only a relatively small part of the corrections composed in the central and peripheral seats.

VILI Decree of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 15 February 1587) ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 16v-17r1629

I6v Die 15. Februarii Cong(regati)o habita apud Card. M arcum A ntonium Colum nam 1630 p raesen tib u s C ard . bus ad id d ep u tatis A ug(usti)no Valerio Vero­ nense,1631 Vinc(enz)o Laureo, 1632 Hieronim o de Ruvere 1633 et Constan­ tio Sarnano 1634 ut im positum m unus a S.mo novum Indicem confi­ ciendi et p u b licandi quantocius executioni m andarent, adhibitis infrascriptis Consultoribus. R.D. Abbas Rogerius 1635 R.D. Abbas Caesius 1636 R.D. Petrus Gallesinius 1638

Prothonotarii Apostolici1637

For discussion, see Introduction (supra), section 3. Cf. the Appendix for a chronology of Index Consultors. 1625 ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 16r. 1626 For an analysis of the group of Consultors, see the diagram Index Consultors in the Appendix. 1627 See the drafts of the division in classes published in Godman 2000, pp. 355-60. 1628 See, in particular, the considerations in the introductions of the chapters devoted to individual authors. 1629 Published in Godman 2000, pp. 342-43. 1630 Marcantonio Colonna; BlOGR. 1631 Agostino Valier; BlOGR. 1632 Vincenzo Lauro; BlOGR. 1633 Girolamo della Rovere; BlOGR. 1634 Costanzo Torri; BlOGR. 1635 Giulio Ruggiero; BlOGR. 1636 Bartolomeo Cesi; BlOGR. 1637 “Prothonotarii Apostolici” refers to Ruggiero, Cesi and Galesini. 1638 Pietro Galesini; BlOGR. 1624

~ 342 ~

VII. ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXPURGATORY CENSURAE

R. P. Fr. Alphonsus Ciacconius1639 R. P. F. Aurelius Verallus1640 R. PD. Fridianus Bonon[iensis]1641 R. P Mag. Sacri Palatii1642 R.D. Sacrista Ap(osto)licus1643 R. Procur. ord. Praed(icato)rum 1644 R. Procur. ord. Servorum 1645 R. Procur. ord. Carmelitani1646 R. Procur. ord. Heremitanorum 1647 R. Procur. ord. S. Franchiseli de observantia1648 R. Procur. ord. S. Fran(cis}ci ConvenRua)lium1649 R.D. Marius Aliterius Theol(ogu)s S. Petri1650 R. P. Robertas Belarminus1651 R. P. Antonius Agellius 1652 R.D. Abbas Maffa1653 R.D. Franchisees Pegna1654 R.D. Io. Franchiscu)s Bordinus1655 R.D. Latinus Latinius1656 R.D. Petrus Morinus1657

1639 1640 1641 1642

A lfonso C haco n ; BiOGR. A urelio V erallo; BiOGR. F lo ria n o N a n n i; BiOGR. T om m aso Z o b b io ; BiOGR.

1643

A gostino M o lari (Fivizzani); BiOGR.

1644

Ju a n d e las C uevas; BiOGR. P a o lo Sarpi; BiOGR.

1645 1646 1647

T im o teo B erardi; BiOGR. A gostino di C o rn e to ; BiOGR.

1648

D a n iel d e M e d u n a ; BiOGR.

1649

G iro lam o U rb a n i; BiOGR. M ario A ltieri; BiOGR.

1650 1651 1652

R o b e rto B ellarm ino; BiOGR. A n to n io Agelli; BiOGR.

1653

M a rca n to n io M affa; BiOGR.

1654

F ra n c isco P ena; BiOGR. G io v a n n i F ra n c esc o B ordino; BiOGR.

1655 1656 1657

L atin o L atini; BiOGR. P ie rre M o rin ; BiOGR.

343 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

17r

Qui omnes tactis evangeliis iurarunt secretum tenere quod in sin­ gulis Cong(regationi)bus tractabitur. In hac p(rim)a Congregaticene confirmatus fuit in officio Secretariatus R. P. Fr. Vincentinus Bonardus1658 Sacrae Theologiae professor. In sequenti Cong(regatio)ne examinandae duae regulae Indicis Pii 4., an aliquid addendum mutandum vel minuendum.1659

VII.2

Assignment of Expurgatory C ensurae (Rome, post 15 February 15871660, ante 25 June 15871661) ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 181r-183r, 185r-186v1662

181r

Consultores Illustrissimae Cong(regatio)nis, in suas Classes distributi. Prima Classis I11.1S et adm(du)m R.s Dominus Caesius Prothon(otariu)s Apost(olicu)s1663 R.s Dominus Abbas Maffa1664 R.s Dominus Ioannes Franc(iscu)s Bordinus1665 R.s Dominus Fam(iliar)is Ill.™1 D. D. Card.iis Aldob(randi)ni1666 1658

Vincenzo Bonardi; BlOGR. See the minutes of the following meeting held on 26 February, in ACDF, Diari, 1, f. 17r: “Decretum communi consensu retinendum Indicem Pii Quarti cum suis regulis illisque adhibere aliquas opportunas declarationes”. For the discussion of the Index Rules, see section II. 1660 It is probable that the distribution of the Consultors in classes followed upon the nomination of the new staff of Cardinals and Consultors on 15 February 1587; see ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 16v-17r (doc. VILI). 1661 For the official decree on the composition of the classes, see the following document. 1662 Published in Godman 2000, pp. 361-65; drafts on pp. 355-60. 1663 Bartolomeo Cesi; BlOGR. Cesi was also listed among the “consultores extra classes”; cf. f. 183r (infraY 1664 Maffa was also listed among the “consultores extra classes”; cf. f. 183r (infra). 1663 Bordino was also listed among the “consultores extra classes”; cf. f. 183r (infra). 1666 Most likely, Settimio Borsieri (Celinio), also mentioned on f. 182r (infra)-, see BlOGR. 1659

344

VII. ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXPURGATORY CENSURAE

Secunda Classis Ill.15 et adm(du)m R.s Dominus Odeschalcus Proth(onotariu)s Apost(olicu)s.1667 R.s D. Doctor Clemens Hispanus.1668 R.s D. Iulius Roscius Hortinus.1669 R.s D. Ioannes bonafides.1670 R.s D. Leonardus Filsimon.1671 Tertia Classis Adm(odu)m R.s Dominus Sacrista Apostolicus1672 R.s Pater M(agiste)r Alexander Bartolucius Anconetanus1673 R.s Pater M(agiste)r Theologus Ill.™ D. D. Card.lls Comensis.1674 R.s Dominus Franciscus Fernandus Ulissiponensis.1675 181v

Quarta Classis Adm(odu)m R.s Dominus Stella Referend(ariu)s Apost(olicu)s1676 R.s. Pater M(agiste)r Fr. Ioannes baptista de Piombino Haeremitarum.1677 1667 Probably, Pier Giorgio Odescalchi; BiOGR. On contemporary lists of Consultors an “Aloisius Odescalcus” is mentioned; see ACDF, Index, Protocolli, I (II.a.8), f. 357r; cf. BAV, Vat. Lat. 6861, f. 9r. The only contemporary Luigi Odescalchi known was a Jesuit (Como, 1547 - Pozzuoli, ca. 1590), first preceptor of Sigismund, son of Stephan Bathory, King of Poland, who was then a Professor of Mathematics in Padua; cf Sommervogel, V, cols. 187071. However, this Luigi probably never currently lived in Rome. 1668 Clemens Hispanus: untraced. See also doc. VII.4, f. 51v. 1669 Giulio Roscio; BiOGR. 1670 Giovanni Bonafede; BiOGR. 1671 Leonardo Filsimom (or Filsimon) cannot be identified with certainty. The different spellings of his name in ACDF and BAV (Vat. lat. 6861, f. 21r) are probably deformations of a non-Italian surname, which might be Fitzsimon, a well-known Irish family, to which belonged a Jesuit and a Bishop. 1672 Agostino Molari (Fivizzani); BiOGR. See the previous doc. 1673 Alessandro Bartolucci; BiOGR. 1674 Card, of Como was Tommaso Galli (BiOGR.), his theologian was Niccolò de Monte; BAV, Vat. Lat. 6861, f. 14r. 1675 Francisco Fernandes Galvào; BiOGR. 1676 Giovanni Battista Stella (see also ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 51v); BiOGR. 1677 Giovanni Battista Bernori; BiOGR.

345 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

R . s Dominus M ichael Tim othei 1678 R.s Dominus R.s Dominus D octor Leon H ispanus 1680

Iustinus 1679

Q uinta Classis Adm(odu)m R.s Dominus Pisanellus Referend(ariu)s Apost(olicu)s1681 R . s D ominus Licentiado V aldiviesa.1682 Sexta Classis Adm (odu)m R.s D ominus Abbas M arius de C urtis 1683 R. s D ominus Sebastianus M edicus. 1684 R . s D ominus D octor Aug(ustinu)s Soares H isp(anu)s 1685 R . s P ater fr. Paulus P orrectanus 1686 Theol(ogu)s Ill. mi D.D. C ard.Us Can ani. 1687 I82r

Septim a Classis Adm (odu)m R. Dominus M arius A lterius 1688 R.s D ominus Doctor Castillo H ispanus 1689 R.s D ominus D octor R ibera H ispanus. 1690 1678

Michele Timotei; BlOGR. Giustino; BlOGR. 1680 Gonzalez Ponce de León; BlOGR. 1681 Scipione Pisanelli; BlOGR 1682 This person, whose name is spelled in different ways (Valdiviera, Valdiviesta), cannot be identified with any certainty; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, f. 26v. The only known contemporary person bearing a similar name and with compatible interests and qualifications is the religious poet José de Valdivielso, a notable figure of contemporary literature, but there is no evidence for a role in the Congregation nor for his stay in Rome. Cf. DHEE, IV, cols. 2686-87. 1683 Mario de Curtis; BlOGR. 1684 Sebastiano de’ Medici; BlOGR. 1685 Augustin Suarez; BlOGR. 1686 Paolo da Porretta; BlOGR. 1687 Giulio Canani; BlOGR. 1688 Altieri was also listed among the “consultores extra classes”; cf. f. 183r (infra}. 1689 Diego Castillo; BlOGR. 1690 Ribera; BlOGR. 1679

346

VII. ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXPURGATORY CENSURAE

R.s Dominus Fabius Carnutus.1691 R.s Dominus Septimius Cesiniusa.1692 Octava Classis Adm(odu)m R.s D. Franciscus Vais Pintus.1693 R.s D. Odoardus Ulissiponensis.1694 R.s Dominus Foelix de Gusman.1695 Extra classes1696

182v

Admodum R.s Dominus Archidiaconus Taurinensis1697 R.s Dominus Lelius Peregrinus 1698 R.s Dominus Abbas Centula 1699 R.s Dominus Petrus Morinus R.s Pater Frater Alphonsus Ciacconus R.s Dominus Franciscus Lamata Hispanus1700 R.s Dominus Silvius Antonianus1701 R.s Dominus Ioannes Botterus1702 R.s Dominus. Bartolomeus Valverdius1703 ‘ “Cesinius”: sic, for “Celinius”. 1691

No biographical information found. Settimio Borsieri (Celinio); BlOGR. 1693 Francisco Vais Pinto; BlOGR. 1694 Probably, Duarte de Moraes (see infra)-, BlOGR. 1695 Felix de Guzman; BlOGR. 1696 It should be kept in mind that this doc. was a kind of draft for the definitive composi­ tion of the classes in June 1587. Note indeed that several of the Consultors listed here (among whom Bartolomeo Cesi, Mario Altieri, Marcantonio Maffa and Giovanni Francesco Bordino) were also assigned to classes above. 1697 Anastasio Germonio (see infra)-, BlOGR. 1698 Lelio Pellegrini; BlOGR. 1699 Vincenzo Gaurino, from Lecce, admitted as Consultor on 14 July 1587; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 25r. Among the most active Consultors of the Congregation; cf. ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 27v, 28v, 30r, 35v, 36r, 37r, 38v, 40r-v. 1700 Francisco La Mata y Marcilia; BlOGR. 1701 Silvio Antoniano; BlOGR. 1702 Giovanni Boterò; BlOGR. 1703 Bartolomeo Valverde; BlOGR. 1692

~ 347 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

183r

Admodum R.s D. Gallesinus Proth(onotariu)s Apost(olicu)s1704 R.s Dominus Abbas Rogerius R.s Dominus Abbas Caesius R.s Pater Mag(iste)r Sacri Palatii R.s Dominus Sacrista R.s Dominus Gallesinus R.s Dominus Marius Alterius R.s Pater Proc(urato)r Or(dini)s Praedicatorum R.s Pater Proc(urato)r Or(dini)s Servorum R.s Pater Proc(urato)r Or(dini)s Carmelitarum R.s Pater Proc(urato)r Or(dini)s Haeremitanorum R.s Pater Proc(urato)r Or(dini)s Aracoeli1705 R.s Pater Proc(urato)r Or(dini)s Sanctorum Apostolorum 1706 R.s Dominus Ciacconus Hispanus 1707 R.s Pater Frater Aurelius Verallus R.s Pater Dominus Fridianus Bononiensis Canon(icu)s Reg(ularis) R.s Dominus Franciscus Pegna R.s Dominus Abbas Maffa R.s Dominus Ioannes Franciscus Bordinus R.s Dominus Latinus Latinus R.s Dominus Petrus Morinus R.s Pater Bellarminus R.s Pater Antonius Agidius Libri per Classes expurgandi

185r

Prima Classis expurgabit opera infrascripta videlicet: Alberti Argentinensis Cronicon;1707 praesertim margines et in­ dicem. 1708 1704

Pietro Galesini; BlOGR. The general procurator of the OFMobs; see the note to the previous document. 1706 The general procurator of the OFMconv; see the note to the previous document. 1707 Alfonso Chacon, already mentioned above. 1708 Albertus Argentinensis (t after 1378), Chronicon, prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Portugal (1581), Spain (1583, 1584), adn Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IV, pp. 427-28; VI, pp. 159, 783-84; IX, pp. 456, 802, 864. 1705

348 ~

VII. ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXPURGATORY CENSURAE

Alberti Krantii Ham burgensis H istoriae. 1709 Andreae Masii Commentaria super Iosuem .1710 Annotationes super Institutiones Civiles Ioannis Schenekde[vivi].1711 Secunda Classis. Expurgabit Harm oniam Francisci Georgi) Veneti.1712 Augustini Eugubini Cosmopoeiam.1713 Dialoghi d ’Amore di Leon H ebbreo 1714 Dialoghi di Speron Speroni1715 Tertia Classis expurgabit Balduini I.C. Magnus, sive de C onstantini magni im peratoris le­ gibus ecclesiasticis et civilibus1716 Beati Rhenani Epistola de prim atu Petri et eiusdem prologi,1717 Annotationes et scholia in Tertullianum 1718 1709 This work by Albert Kranz was not condemned individually; for the prohibition of his works, ILI, X, p. 245. 1710 Andreas Masius, Iosuae imperatoris historia, prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Portugal (1581), Spain (1583, 1584), and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IV, p. 428; VI, pp. 166, 785-86; IX, pp. 459, 802, 864. 1711 Johann Schneidewein, Commentarii in quatuor libros Institutionum Iustiniani, pro­ hibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580), and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 143, 46061, 619, 826, 887. For discussion of its censura, see Savelli 2003, p. 323f. 1712 Giorgio 1525. In ACDF no censura by this class is preserved; see also ch. Giorgio, introduction. 1713 Steuco 1535 and 1578. The censura held in ACDF is by Lelio Pellegrini (See ch. Steuco, doc. 3). 1714 This work by Judah Abravanel (Leon Hebreo) (1460/65-1535) was prohibited in the Index of Portugal (1581); ILI, IV, pp. 543-44. 1715 Speroni 1542, prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, IX, pp. 111-12,393. 1716 Francois Baudouin (1520-1573), De Constantini legibus, prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Louvain (1558), Rome (1559, 1564, Spain (1559, 1583), and Antwerp (1571); ILI, II, pp. 310-11; VIII, p. 468; V, p. 359; VI, pp. 184, 319; VII, pp. 514-15. 1717 Beatus Rhenanus (1485-1547), Epistola de primatu Petri, prohibited in the Indexes of Spain (1583), and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, VI, pp. 187-88, 292; IX, pp. 476, 804, 866. 1718 Beatus Rhenanus, Scholia in Tertullianum, prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Rome (1564), Antwerp (1570, 1571), Parma (1580), and Spain (1583, 1584); ILI, VIII, pp. 381-82; VII, pp. 223, 429-31; IX, pp. 171-72; VI, pp. 172, 188, 529, 866-67.

349 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Monte Calvario prima parte1719 Satire del Ariosto.1720 I85v

Quarta Classis expurgabit Bibliothecam studii theologici ex operibus Sanctorum Hieronymi Augustini et reliquiorum confectam1721 Cardani opera de sapientia, etc.1722 Eundem de varietate1723 Monte Calvario la seconda parte. Quinta Classis expurgabit Baptista de Crema opera1724 Cardanum de subtilitate1725 Coelii Pannoni Collectanea in sacram Apocalypsem1726 Ioannis Feri Sermones de Adventu1727 Sexta Classis expurgabit Chronicon Eusebii et praesertim ab illo loco ubi incipit: “Nova temporum continuatio ab anno salutis 1513”.1728 1719 Antonio de Guevara (1480-1545), Monte Calvario, prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580), and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, IX, pp. 85-86, 363. 1720 Ludovico Ariosto (1474-1533), Satire, prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580), Spain (1583), and Rome (1590, 1593); ILI, IX, pp. 174-75; VI, p. 657; IX, pp. 437-38. 1721 Bibliotheca studii theologici ex plerisque doctorum prisci seculi collecta, prohibited in the Indexes of Spain (1583), and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, VI, pp. 224-25; IX, pp. 480-

81, 805, 866. 1722 Cardano 1544', see ch. Girolamo Cardano. 1723 For the editions, prohibitions, and censurae of De rerum varietate, see ch. Girolamo Cardano. 1724 Battista Carioni (da Crema) (ca. 1460-1534), prohibited as a heretic in the Indexes of Venice (1554), Rome (1559, 1564, 1590, 1593) and Spain (1583); ILI, III, p. 233; VIII, pp. 379-80; IX, p. 427; VI, pp. 185, 645. 1725 For the editions, prohibitions, and Censurae of De subtilitate, see ch. Girolamo Cardano. 1726 Franciscus Gregorius (1471/72 - ca. 1545), Collectanea in sacram Apocalypsin, pro­ hibited (or corrected) in the Indexes of Portugal (1581), Spain (1583, 1584), and Rome (1590,1593); ILI, IV, p. 521; VI, pp. 239, 803; IX, 412. 1727 See ch. Johann Wild. 1728 See the note to doc. V.19, f. 537r.

~ 350

VII. ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXPURGATORY CENSURAE

Claudii Espencei Commentaria de continentia et In epistolam [...J 1729 Cirilli aeditio Basileae anno Domini 15661730 Ioannis Feri Sermones quadragesimales.1731 Septima Classis expurgabit

186r

Chronologia Gerardi Mercatoris.1732 Clementis Schuberti liber de scrupulis Chronologorum 1733 Compendium orationum impraessum Venetiis per Iunctam et alios1734 De prestigiis demonum Incantationibus, et Veneficis libri quinque Ioannis Vuiveri Medici.1735 Sermones Feri de Passione1736 Octava Classis expurgabit Scolia in librum De conservanda bona valetudine: opusculum Scholae Salernitanae3 1737 Indicem et postillas marginales operum Sancti Augustini

“Scholia in lib(ru)m”: in the margin. 1729 Claude d’Espence (1511-1571), Collectaneorum de continentia libri Sex, Parisiis, ex officina Iacobi du Puys, 1565; Id., In Epistolam Pauli ad Titum commentarius. These works were prohibited (or expurgated) in the Indexes of Portugal (1581), Spain (1583, 1584), and Rome (1590,1593, 1596); ILI, IV, pp. 515-16; VI, pp. 248, 802; IX, pp. 493, 807, 868. 1730 See ILI, X, pp. 230, 404. 1731 This work was not prohibited in any sixteenth-century Index; see ILI, X, p. 182. 1732 Mercator 1569; see ch. Gerard Mercator. 1733 Schubert 1575; see ch. Clemens Schubert. 1734 Ludolphus de Saxonia (ca. 1300-1377/78), Compendium orationum, prohibited in the Indexes of Portugal (1551, 1561), Spain (1559, 1583), and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IV, pp. 192, 373; V, p. 341; VI, p. 257; IX, pp. 510-11, 809, 870. 1735 Wier 1563 (and reprints); see the note to section IV, doc. 3, f. 168v. 1736 See ch. Johann Wild. 1737 The edition of De conservanda bona valetudine opusculum Scholae Salernitanae which during the sixteenth century appeared with comments by Arnaldus of Villanova and Joachim Camerarius; see. Schola Salernitana 1568, and ch. Arnaldus of Villanova.

351 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Examen ordinandorum nuper impraessum Venetiis1738 Concilium Coloniense 1739 Epitom en sermonum Ioannis Feri 1740 Nona Classis Illustris et R.s Dominus Ioannes Baptista Constantius R.s Pater Paulus Porrectanus R.s Dominus Sectilius1741 Familiaris Ill.™ Domini Card.lis Aldobrandini R.s Dominus Licentiado Valdiviera Ad.m R.s Dominus Archidiaconus Taurinensis 1742 R.s Dominus Lelius Peregrinus lib ru m de R e p u b lic a Io a n n is Bodini 1743 R.s Dominus Abbas Centula R.s Dominus Petrus Morinus R.s Pater Frater Alphonsus Ciacconius R.s Dominus Franciscus Lamata Osorium De N obilitate 1744 R.s Dominus Silvius Antonianus R.s Dominus Ioannes Botterus Bodinum De historia con­ scribenda 1745 s 1746 I86v R. D om inus Ioannes B aptista Problem ata Francisci Georgii Veneti1747

1738 Johannes Wild (Ferus), Examen ordinandorum, prohibited in the Indexes of Parma (1580) and Rome (1590, 1593, 1596); ILI, IX, pp. 120,531-32, 812, 873. 1739 Concilium provinciale Coloniense: anno 1536 celebratum (Venice 1541, 1555). This work was not prohibited in any sixteenth-century Index. 1740 This work is not among Wild’s prohibited works; see ILI, X, p. 182. 1741 Most probably Settimio Borsieri (cf. f. 182r); BlOGR. 1742 Anastasio Germonio; BlOGR. 1743 See ch. Bodin. 1744 This work by Jeronimo Osorio (1506-1580) was not prohibited on any sixteenth-cen­ tury Index; see ILI, X, p. 307. 1745 See ch. Bodin. 1746 Probably “Ioannes Baptista Constadius”, mentioned on f. 186r as “Constantius”; see Giovanni Battista Costanzo (BlOGR.). 1747 Giorgio 1536 and 1574. Among the censurae of Giorgio held in ACDF there is no censura signed by or attributable to Costanzo; see ch. Giorgio.

352 ~

VII. ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXPURGATORY CENSURAE

VII.3 Decree of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 25 June 1587) ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 22v-24v1748

Die 25. Iunij a

22v

Cong(regati)o apud Ill.mum Card. Columnam habita ubi adfuerunt excepto Card.11 Sarnano 1749 reliqui omnes una cum Consultoribus. Decretum quod librorum expurgationi daretur opera et propositus modus ab omnibus servandus et quo ordine prout habes libro B. fol. 1971750 et 205.1751 Decretum ut facilius expurgatio fieret quod Cong/regatifo dividere­ tur Consultores in varias classes quibus distribuerentur libri expur­ gandi et Procuratores ordinum viros doctos et pios in suis Conven­ tibus eligerent qui huic negocio incumberent. Decretum quod Secretarius1752 divideret Consultores in classes qui­ bus traderet libros expurgandos cum / / ordine servando in expurga­ 23 r tione quod Secretarius statim fecit, et per Cong(regatio)nem approba­ tum fuit prout habes lib. B. fol. 186 et 190.1753 Classis Prim a 1754 111. et adm odum R. D. Caesius Prothonotarius ap(ostoli)cus R. D. Abbas Maffa R. D. Io. Franciscus Bordinus “ In the margin: “Vi. Prot. B, p. 34”. 1748

Published in Godman 2000, pp. 351-55. Costanzo Torri; BiOGR. 1750 ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 191r-192r: “Modus et ratio expurgandi vel corrigendi libros”. See the introductory note to doc. V.12. 1751 The reference is to ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 199r-202v: “De librorum expurgatione facienda et quis ordo servandus videtur” (a version is in doc. V.12). 1752 Vincenzo Bonardi; BiOGR. 1753 See ACDF, Index, Protocolli, B (II.a.2), fols. 181r-182r, 185r-186v (doc. VII.2). 1754 For information on the authors and books, see the notes to doc. 4. 1749

~ 353 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

R. D. Septimius familiaris Card. Aldobrandini Haec Classis expurgabit Alberti Argentinensis Chronicon praeser­ tim margines et Indicem Alberti Kranzii, Hamburgensis historiae, Andreae Masii Commentaria super Iosue, Annotationes super Insti­ tutiones civiles Ioannis Schneckdevivi Classis Secunda

23v

Ill.s et admodum R. D. Odescalcus Prothonotarius Apostolicus R. D. Clemens Hispanus R. D. Iulius Rosius Urtinus R. D. Io. Bonafides R. D. Leonardus Filsimom Haec Classis expurgabit Harmoniam Francisci // Georgi] Aug(usti)nia Eugubini Cosmopaeia, Dialogi d’Amore di Leone Hebreo, Dialogi del Sperone. Classis Tertia Admodum R. Sacrista Ap(osto)licus R. P. Magister Alexander Bartoluccius R. P. Magister Theologus Ill.ml Card. Comensis1755 R. D. Franc(iscu)s Ferdinandus Haec Classis expurgabit Balduini I.C. Constantinus Beati Rhenani epistola et scholia, Monte Calvario p(rim)a parte, Satira dell’Ariosto. Classis Quarta Admodum R. D. Stella Referend(ariu)s Ap(ostoli)cus R. D. Michael Timothei R. D. Iustinus R. D. Doctor Leon

After “Aug.ni”: “Iaco”, crossed out. 1755 Card, of Como was Tommaso Galli (BlOGR.), his theologian was Niccolò de Monte; BAV, Vat. Lat. 6861, f. 14r. On 28 January 1588, Francisco Toledo (BlOGR.) became the the­ ologian of this Cardinal; see ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 32r.

354 ~

VII. ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXPURGATORY CENSURAE

Haec Classis expurgabit Bibliothecam studii Theologici ex operibus S, Hieronimi Cardani de sapientia et varietate, Monte Calvario 2 a . parte Classis Quinta Admodum R. D. Pisanellus Referend(ariu)s // R. D. Valdiviesta Haec classis expurgabit Baptistae de Crema opera, Cardanum de subtilitate, Coelij collectanea in Apocalipsim , Feri sermones de adventu.

24r

Classis sexta Admodum R. D. Abbas Marius de Cortis R. D. Sebastianus Medices R. D. Augustinus Xuarez R. P. Magister Paulus Theologus Card. Canani. Haec Classis expurgabit Chronicon Eusebii, Claudii Espincei Commentaria, Cirilli editio Basileae 1566, Feri quadragesimale. Classis septima R. D. Marius Alterius R. D. Doctor Castillo R. D. Doctor Ribera R. D. Fabius Carnutus R. D. Septimius Celinius Haec classis expurgabit Chronologiam Mercatoris, Schubertum de Scrupulis, Compendium orationum Vyerium de praestigijs, et Ferum de Passione. Classis octava

24v

Admodum R. D. Franciscus Vaispintus R. D. Odoardus Ulixbonensis R. D. Felix de Guzman Haec Classis expurgabit Scholia in scholam Salernitanam Indicem et post illas operum S(anc)ti Aug(usti)ni examen ordinandorum, Con­ cilium Coloniense, epitomen Sermonum Feri. ~ 355

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

In plures alias Classes varie divisi fuere Consultores prout habes libro B. fol. 182. Ubi quamplures alii recensentur Consultores. Quo­ rum omnium ordinem Alphabeticum habes in libro separarim.1756

VII.4 Decree of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 19 September 1592) ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 51r-52v1757

Die 19a . Septembris Cong(regati)o habita apud Ill.mum Card. Veronensem ubi excepto Card. 11 Ascanio interfuerunt omnes una cum 46 Consultoribus ad quos brevis sermo adhortatorius per Card. Veronensem est habitus pro publico Reipublicae bono in librorum Censura et expurgatione sedulo procuranda et absolvenda. Nomina autem Consultorum qui interfuerunt vel abfuerunt sunt infrascripta. Admodum R. Mag.r Sacri Palatii1758 Admodum R. Sacrista S. D. N.1759 R. Procur. ord.is Praed(icato)rum 1760 R. Procur. ord. S. Aug(usti)ni1761 R. Procur. ord. Carmelitarum 1762 R. Procur. ord. Servorum 1763 R. P. Robertus Belarminius R. P. Alfonsus Ciaconicus R. P. Riccardus Baronius1764

1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1765 1764

See the previous doc. Contemporary lists in Protocolli, I (II.a.8), fols. 357r-373r. Bartolomé de Miranda; BlOGR. Agostino Molari; BlOGR. Juan Vincente de Astorga; BlOGR. Giovanni Battista Bernori; BlOGR. Gian Stefano Chizzola or Alfio Mattioli; see BlOGR. Baldasarre Bolognetti; BlOGR. Riccardo Baronio; BlOGR. See also ch. Licences, docs. 97-98.

VII. ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXPURGATORY CENSURAE

R. P. Marcellus Tholosa1765 R. P. Parra Soc(ieta)tis Iesu 1766 R. P Duartes Carthusianus1767 R. P Regens Collegii S? 1 Bonaventurae 1768 R. P Monsfilatranus1769 R. P E vangelista Bosius1770 R. P Angelus Rocha 1771 R. P Alexander Franciscius1772 R. P Petrus Saragozza1773 R. P. Gregorius Sermoneta1774 R. P Andreas de Aquila S? 1 Hieronimi1775 R. P Ber(nardi)nus ord. S. Bernardi1176 Ill? admodum D. Abbas Caitanus1771 Ill? admodum Dominus Abbas Cornelius S? 1 Zeno1778 Ill? D. Ioannes Baptista Stella 1719 Ill? D. Gondisalvus Ponce de Leon D. Ioannes Soderinus1780

1765

Marcello Tolosa; BlOGR. Pedro Parra; BlOGR. 1767 Francisco Aduarte; BlOGR. 1768 The Roman College of the Conventual Franciscans. The “regens” or “rector” (Pietro Capulio; BlOGR.) qualifies those in charge of the theological colleges of the major orders present in Rome, indicated with the titles of the parish churches of the respective monasteries. 1769 Probably, Giulio Santucci; BlOGR. 1770 Evangelista Bosio; BlOGR. 1771 Angelo Rocca; BlOGR. 1772 Alessandro Franceschi; BlOGR. 1773 Pedro Juan Saragoza; BlOGR. 1774 Probably, Gregorio Graziani; BlOGR. 1775 This monk of the Order of St. Hieronymus is also mentioned in a list of Consultors of the Index (BAV, Vat. Lat. 6861, f. 16r), but he cannot be identified with any certainty. A certain Andrea was on a list of those who possessed books in the monastery of the Order in Pavia around 1600, but there is no further evidence. Cf. Lebreton-Fiorani 1985, p. 199. 1776 Bernardinus Algoreta; BlOGR. 1777 Probably, Camillo Caetani; BlOGR. 1778 No biographical information found. 1779 Giovanni Battista Stella; BlOGR. 1780 Giovanni Soderino; see the note to doc. IV.8, f. 133r. 1766

357

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATIO N OF THE INDEX

D. Odoardus Moraes1781 D. Franc(iscu)s Lamata D. Aldus Manutius1782 D. Io. Paulus Eustachius1783 D. Silvester Branschon dius1784 D. Didacus Castillo 1785 D. Vitalis1786 D. Fernandus Hozes1/S7 D. Io(ann)es Hozes1788 D. Petrus Morinus D. Ant(oniu)s Aquinas1789 D. Lelius Peregrinus D. Pompeus Ugonius1790 D. Ioseph Gottifredus1791 D. Rolandus Flander1792 D. Iacobus Closius1793 D. Flaminius Parisius 1794 D. Octavius Mancinus179’ D. Archid(iaco)nus Taurinensis1796 D. Blasius Clemens.1797

Duarte de Moraes; BlOGR. Aldo Manuzio; BlOGR. 1783 Giovanni Paolo Eustachio; BlOGR. 1784 Silvestro Branconi; BlOGR. 1785 Diego Castillo; BlOGR. 1786 Probably, Jeronimo Vidal; BlOGR. 1787 Hernando de Hozes; BlOGR. 1788 Juan de Hozes; BlOGR. 1789 Antonio d’Aquino; BlOGR. 1790 Pompeo Ugoni; BlOGR. 1791 Giuseppe Gottifredi; BlOGR. 1792 Rolandus de Winckele (Flander); BlOGR. 1793 Giacomo Closio; BlOGR. 1794 Flaminio Parisio; BlOGR. 1795 No biographical information found; see also ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 48v, 51v, 54r, 108r. 1796 Anastasio Germonio (see infra)-, BlOGR. 1797 No biographical information found. 1781

1782

358 ~

VII. ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXPURGATORY CENSURAE

Qui omnes fuerunt 46 quamvis defuerint infrascripti qui sunt de 52r corpore Congregationis inter Consultores R. Proc. ord. S. Fran(cis)ci Convent*1798 R. Proc. ord. S. Fran(cis)ci de obser(vanti)a1799 R. Proc. Abbas Ciprianus ord. Vallis Umbrosae1800 R. Pater Azor Soc(ieta)tis Iesu1801 R. Pater Antonius Agellius R. Pater Aug(usti}nus Sacrinus1802 R. Pater Thomas Terracina1803 D. Lelius Suessanus1804 D. Hieronimus Miranda 1805 Admodum R.D. Pegna Admodum R.D. Silvius Antonianus1806 Admodum R.D. Aloisius Crerus1807 R.D. Marius Aliterius D. Federicus Metius1808 D. Latinus Latinius Antonius Ciccarellus1809 D. Gherardus Voxius1810 D. Hieronimus Osorius1811 D. Vincentius Sirti1812 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1803 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812

Marco Natalizi; BlOGR. Probably, Ferdinando Ximenes (Province of Carthago); cf. Patrem 1879, p. 65. Adriano Ciprari; BlOGR. Juan Azor; BlOGR. Probably Agostino Sutrino; cf. doc. 5 (infra), f. 54r. Tommaso Terracina; BlOGR. Lelio Landi (da Sessa Aurunca); BlOGR. No biographical information found. Silvio Antoniano; BlOGR. Louis de Creil; BlOGR. Federico Mezio; BlOGR. Antonio Ciccarelli; BlOGR. Gerard Vossius; BlOGR. Jeronimo Osorio; BlOGR. No biographical information found.

~ 359 ~

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

52v

D. Licentiatus Olibona 1813 Prior S. Mariae de Populo 1814 et Licentiatus Cogliado 1815 additi fuere (...) Decretum quod Catholicis scriptoribus obiter errantibus inter scribendum nulla fiat iniuria annotando eosdem in Indice sed in mar­ gine notentur errores et apponatur Censura et nullatenus mutilentur delendo sententias sed solum notando errores. Dimissis et licentiatis reliquis Consultoribus una cum Card.libus remanserunt infrascripti: Magister Sacri Palatii Proc. ord. Praed(icato)rum Procur. ord. Carmelitarum Procur. ord. Heremitarum Procur. Servorum P. Robertus Belarminius P. Alexander Franciscius P. Alphonsus Ciacconius P. Duartes Carthusianus Petrus Morinus D. Gondisalvus Ponce Disputatum inter hos Consultores et de mente S.mi conclusum quod expurgatio Librorum fiat non delendo sed solum notando errores. Decretum quod per Classes dividantur Consultores et saltem quinque in unaquaque Classe reponantur quibus distribuantur expur­ gationes olim per Cong(regatio)nem factae et fiat distributio in

1815

See the note to doc. IV.3, f. 168r. Ambrosio Frigerio; BlOGR. 1815 This person cannot be identified with any certainty; the only known Spaniard with this name who lived in Italy at the end of the sixteenth century is Luis Collado, born in Lebrija (near Seville), engineer of the Spanish troops in Milan and author of a Pratica on artillery (Italian edition: Venice 1586; Spanish edition: Milan 1592); however, his interests and qualifications do not square with those of a Consultor, and there is no evidence of a longer stay in Rome. Cf. Toda y Guell, I, p. 415. 1814

~ 360 ~

VII. ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXPURGATORY CENSURAE

sequenti Cong(regatio)ne Classium et librorum censurandorum in Urbe et extra quin etiam collatio fiat addendorum et adimendorum in toto Indice ex Consultorum sententia in scriptis addita.

VII.5 Decree of the Congregation for the Index (Rome, 26 September 1592) (ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, fols. 53r-55v

Die 26 a . Septembris

53 r

Cong(regati)o habita apud Ill. mum Card. Veronensem ubi inter­ fuerunt omnes excepto Card. Ascanio1816 una cum Consultoribus qui fuerunt M agister Sacri P alatii, 1817 Procur. ord. Praed(icato)rum , Alphonsus Ciacconius, Io(ann)es Ozes, G ottifredus Cesenas, 1818 Robertus Berlarminius, Abbas Maffa, Gonsalvus Poncius, Licentiatus Olibona. Decretum quod vota Consultorum de addendis vel adimendis libris ab Indice Sixti exam inentur diligenter a C ard. 11 A sculano, 1819 et Alano1820 adhibitis nonnullis Consultoribus et ad Cong(regation)em generalem referant ut determinari possit et publicari Index prohibito­ rius. Approbata est distributio Classium facta a Card.11 Veronensi1821 una cum Magistro Sac. Palatii, quae est infrascripta. Classis Prima Consultorum S. Cong(regatio)nis Indicis Ill.s admodum et R.mus D. Gonsalvus Poncius R.D. Didacus de Castillo 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821

Ascanio Colonna; BlOGR. Bartolomé de Miranda; BlOGR. Giuseppe Gottiffredi; BlOGR. Girolamo Bernieri; BlOGR. William Allen; BlOGR. Agostino Valier; BlOGR.

~ 361

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

53v

RD . Vitalis RD . Licentiatus Olibona RD . Licentiatus Cogliado Huius Classis erit censurare Cornelium Iansenium cuius extat Romana Censura.1822 Classis 2 a Admodum R.D. Abbas Maffa R.D. Marius Aliterius R.D. Ioseph Gottifredus (Can(oni)ci S. Petri) R.D. Aloisius Crerus Doctor Sorbonicus R.dus D. Flaminius Parisius Auditor Ill.™ Card.lls Montis Regalis Huius Classis erit reliqua Ioannis Feri opera 1823 censurare quorum extant Censurae Romana, Hispana, Lovaniensis. Classis 3 a R.dus p a t e r Robertas Belarminius R. Pater Parra R. Pater Azor R.D. Anastasius Germonius1824 Archidiaconus Taurinensis Huius Classis erit Commentaria in Evangelia et Epistolas Iacobi Fab­ bri1825 censurare quorum extant Censurae Hispana et Lovaniensis.

54r

Classis 4 a Admodum R. Procur. ord. Praed(icato)rum Admodum R. Procur. ord(in)is Minorum de obser(vanti)a R. Pater Frater Augustinus Sutrinus1826 The Censura was presented on 5 November 1582; see ACDF, Index, Diari, 1, f. 27v. However, Jansenius’s main works were not prohibited until 1654: cf. ILP, p. 470. 1823 For the prohibition of Wild’s works, see ILI, X, p. 182. See also ch. Wild. 1824 Anastasio Germonio; BlOGR. 1825 For the condemnation of the biblical commentaries by Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples (1450-1536), see ILI, X, p. 251. 1826 No biographical information has been found about this regular priest from Sutri (near Viterbo), probably a Dominican or Franciscan (qualified “pater frater”). 1822

~ 362 ~

VII. ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXPURGATORY CENSURAE

R. P. Frater Gregorius Gratianus1827 R. P. Frater Petrus Saragozza R. P Frater Vincentius1828 Huius Classis erit opera Ioannis Taulerii1829 expurgare cuius extat Censura Romana. Classis 5 a Admodum R. Procur. ord(ni)is Monacorum S.u Hieronimi1830 R. Procur. ord. S.“ Bernardi1831 R.D. Ioannes Hozes R.D. Ferdinandus Hozes R. P. Eduardus Chartusianus Huius Classis erit Card.lls Contareni opera 1832 expurgare cuius extat Censura Romana. Classis 6a Admodum R.D. Sacrista S.mi D. N.n Admodum R. Procur. ord. S. Augustini Admodum R. Procur. ord(in}is Carmelitarum R. Pater Evangelista Bosius R. Pater Angelus Rocha Huius Classis erit expurgare Conc(iliu)m Coloniensem1833 cuius extat Censura Romana et Neapolitana.

1827

Gregorio Graziani; BiOGR. Probably, Juan Vincente de Astorga; BiOGR. 1829 Johannes Tauler (ca. 1300-1361), prohibited as a heretic in the so-called Index of Parma (1580); see ILI, IX, p. 144; for the prohibition of individual works, see ILI, X, p. 381. 1830 Probably, Andrea from L’Aquila, mentioned in the previous doc., f. 51v; BiOGR. 1831 Probably, Bernardinus Algoreta, mentioned in the previous doc., f. 51v; BiOGR. 1832 Gasparo Contarini’s (1483-1542) works were prohibited in the Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 127. For discussion, see Arnold 2008. 1833 See doc. VII.2, f. 186r. 1828

~ 363

54v

PART ONE: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDEX

Classis 7 a Admodum R. Pater Riccardus Baronius ordinis Fratrum S.u Hier(ony)mi R.D. Petrus Morinus R.D. Iacobus Closius Can(oni)ci S. Marci R.D. Rolandus Flander R.dus D. Octavius Mancinus Auditor Ill.™ Card. Veronensis Huius Classis erit Antonii Guevarae opera Montis Calvarii1834 et Oratorii1835 expurgare cuius extat Censura Romana. Classis 8a Admodum R. Procurator ord(in)is Servorum R. P r Alfonsus Ciacconicus R.D. Vincendus Sirti R.D. Lelius Peregrinus R.D. Ioannes Soderinus Huius Classis erit expurgare Piazza Universale di Thomaso Gar­ zoni.1836 55r

Classis 9a IH mus admodum et R.D. Abbas Cornelius1837 R. P. Marcellus Tholosa ord(in)is Clericorum regularium R.D. Lelius Suessanus R.D. Silvester Branchondius R.D. Antonius Aquinas Huius Classis erit Alberti Pighii opera 1838 censurare. 1834

See doc. 2, f. 185r. Antonio Guevara (1480-1545), Oratorio dei religiosi et esercitio di virtuosi, prohibited in the Index of Parma (1580); ILI, IX, p. 85 1836 Garzoni 15