This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Spain's version of the Index was the "Index Librorum et Expurgatorium", which contain, not only forbidden books, but also books who had parts that were forbidden, not the entire work. An example is the second part of Don Quixote, of which one sentence was censured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eni2dad (talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
NEEDS MORE INFO ABOUT SPECIFIC WORKS THAT APPEARED ON THE INDEX
I suggest a section on notable books that were banned at various times and some discussion for the reasons they were banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add a section on the Index's repression of translations of the Bible in the vernacular. On a number of occasions these translations were added to various editions of the Index. For example the 1558 Index, promulgated by the Roman Inquisition, "banned complete translation of the Old and New Testaments in all languages" (see Fragnito, Gigliola, La Bibbia al rogo. La censura ecclesiastica e i volgarizzamenti della Scrittura (1471-1605), 1997. pages 75-198). Those who are better informed than me on the matter might like to contribute.Campolongo (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
If it was in 1558, it appears to be before the Index Librorum Prohibitorum that this article is about. Esoglou (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I mean in the series of editions of 1559, under Paul IV, then 1564 and 1596. The 1559 edition was apparently "affisso" on December 30 1558, which is perhaps why e.g. the Italian Wikipedia speaks of it as the 1558 edition. However, the fact remains that each of these indexes contained varying prohibitions on the reading of Old and New Testaments in the vernacular. There seems to be abundant information about this topic, which also strikes me as important and relevant to the subject of this entry. What do others think? I'm no historian but there must be plenty of well-informed historians capable of adding a few sentences to the topic.Campolongo (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Campolongo (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You know that the Italian Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia (any more than the English Wikipedia is). Would you please quote the statement in the book you refer to that some edition(s) of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum banned (all?) translations of the Bible? – surely not the Bible itself, as the heading you have placed on this section and indeed the title of the book you refer to (La Bibbia al rogo) would suggest. There is a risk that whatever that book says may be no more than a gross over-simplification or distortion of the third and fourth general rules in the 1559 Index (whenever affisso) that can be consulted here. These rules limited the use of translations but, as far as I can see, did not ban their production or reproduction. Esoglou (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia is riddled with errors and nonsense, like many printed books and encyclopaedias (sigh). On the other hand, the statement made above seems to have some basis in fact: for example The Observatio on the Index issued under Pope Clement VIII (Observatio circa quartam regulam) reads: “Sia noto riguardo alla quarta regola dell’Indice di Pio IV di felice memoria che con questa stampa e edizione non viene concessa di nuovo alcuna facoltà a Vescovi, o Inquisitori o superiori di Regolari, di rilasciare licenze per l’acquisto, la lettura o il possesso di Bibbie stampate in volgare, poiché finora per ordine e uso della Santa Romana e universale Inquisizione è stata loro revocata la facoltà di concedere licenze per la lettura e il possesso di Bibbie volgari o di parti della Sacra Scrittura, sia del Nuovo che del Vecchio testamento, stampate in qualsiasi lingua vernacolare; e inoltre dei sommari e compendi anche storici delle stesse Bibbie ovvero libri della Sacra Scrittura scritti in qualsiasi lingua volgare: il che dovrà esser inviolabilmente osservato.” (quoted in JEAN-LOUIS QUANTIN et JEAN-CLAUDE WAQUET (eds.) "Papes, princes et savants dans l'Europe moderne..." Other sources for similar statements from reasonably institutional and scholarly sources can be found. I'm not an expert but I think it is worth trying to put together something on this topic.Campolongo (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
So we await something that is not merely "seems to have some basis" about a banning of the Bible itself. As for translations, Regula III of the 1569 ediction said: "Librorum autem veteris Testamenti versiones viris tantum doctis et piis iudicio Episcopi concedi poterunt ..." Esoglou (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly: as your quotation shows, one of the concerns of the various editions of the Index and the ways it was interpreted at various times was to regulate who had access to the bible and in which editions. One of the points made by scholars is that the faculty conceded to bishops to license the reading of the Bible (as in your quotation) seems to have been opposed by the Roman Inquisition, as in the passage quoted above. Surely this topic is direct relevance to an entry on the Inquistion. Since you, Esoglou, seem to be more of a scholar than me, why not write a brief addition for Wikipedia?Campolongo (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)