Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow

by Irina Reyfman

  As we traverse epochs and centuries that have passed, we everywhere encounter features of power that torment; everywhere see force rising up against truth, sometimes superstition taking arms against superstition. The Athenian people, incited by hierophants, outlawed the writings of Protagoras,85 ordered that all copies be confiscated and burned. Was it not the same people that in its madness consigned to death, to its indelible shame, the very personification of truth, Socrates? In Rome we find more examples of such ferocity. Titus Livy recounts that the writings found in the grave of Numa were burned by order of the Senate. At different epochs it happened that books of augury were ordered surrendered to the Praetor. Suetonius recounts that Caesar Augustus ordered that close to two thousand such books be burned. Yet one more example of the incongruity of human reason! Can it be that in prohibiting superstitious writings these rulers thought that superstition would be destroyed? Each person individually found himself banned from having recourse to divination, which was used not infrequently to assuage a pang of grief; permission remained only for the state predictions of auguries and haruspices. But if in time of enlightenment they had got it into their heads to prohibit or burn books teaching divination or propagating superstition, would it not be amusing if truth itself took up the scepter of persecution against superstition? And that truth sought, for the vanquishing of error, the support of power and the sword, even though the sight of truth alone is the harshest scourge of error?

  But Caesar Augustus visited his persecutions not on divination alone: he ordered the books of Titus Labienus to be burned. “His persecutors,” says the rhetorician Seneca, “devised for him a new type of punishment. It is unheard of, most unusual, to derive an execution from learning. But to the state’s good fortune this rational ferocity was discovered after Cicero. What might have happened if the Triumvirate had decided that it was good to condemn the mind of Cicero?” But the tyrant soon took revenge on the person who demanded the burning of Labienus’s works.86 During his own lifetime he saw his own works condemned to the pyre.*87 “It was not some evil example that was followed but his own,” says Seneca.†88 May heaven permit that villainy always rebound on its inventor and that anyone mounting persecution of thought would always see his own thoughts mocked and condemned to vilification and destruction. If there is an act of revenge that can ever be excused, then perhaps this is it.

  During periods of plebeian rule in Rome, persecution of such a kind was only visited on superstition, but during the Empire it extended to all firm convictions. In his History, Cremutius Cordus89 named Cassius for having dared to mock the tyranny Augustus exercised against the works of Labienus, the last Roman. The Roman Senate, groveling before Tiberius, to please him ordered Cremutius’s book burned. But many copies survived. “All the more reason,” says Tacitus, “one can mock the care of those who dream that in their omnipotence they are able to annihilate the memory of the next generation. Although power might well unleash furious punishment upon reason, its ferocity has caused shame and disgrace for itself, but glory for them.”

  Jewish books did not escape burning during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Syrian king.90 Similar fates were meted out to Christian writings. The Emperor Diocletian ordered books of Holy Scripture to be placed in the fire.91 But the Christian dogma, having achieved a victory over persecution, subdued its very torturers and now remains as true testimony that the harassment of ideas and opinions not only lacks the force to destroy them but rather implants and propagates them. Arnobius92 rightly protests against such persecution and martyrdom. “Some declare,” he says, “that it is useful for the state that the Senate ordered the writings serving as proof of the Christian confession, which refute the significance of ancient religion, to be destroyed. But to prohibit writing and to wish to destroy what is promulgated is not to defend the gods, rather it is to fear the testimonials of truth.” Nevertheless, after the spread of the Christian confession, its priests displayed just as much hostility to writings that opposed them or were of no benefit to them. Not long before had they criticized this severity among the pagans, not long before had they considered it a sign of mistrust regarding what they defended; yet they themselves were soon armed with omnipotence. The Greek emperors, more occupied by ecclesiastical debates than matters of state, and for that reason ruled by priests, mounted persecution against all those whose understanding of the deeds and teachings of Jesus differed from their own. Such persecution also extended to the product of mind and reason. Already the tormentor Constantine, called the Great, following the decision of the Council of Nicaea relegating Arius’s teaching to anathema, banned his books, condemned them to be burned, and anyone who possessed these books was sentenced to be executed.93 Emperor Theodosius II ordered the condemned books of Nestorios to be collected and consigned to the fire.94 At the Council of Chalcedon, the very same resolution was adopted for the writings of Eutychus.95 In the Pandects of Justinian are preserved a number of similar resolutions.96 Senseless people! They were unaware that by destroying a corrupt or foolish interpretation of Christian teaching and prohibiting reason to labor in the investigation of opinions of any kind, they were stopping its progress; they deprived truth of a strong support, variety of opinions, debate, and the unmenaced statement of thoughts. Who can guarantee that Nestorios, Arius, Eutychus, and other heretics might not have been the predecessors of Luther, and that had it not been for these ecumenical councils’ being convoked Descartes might have been born ten centuries earlier? What a backward step was made toward darkness and ignorance!

  After the destruction of the Roman Empire monks in Europe were the guardians of learning and science. But nobody disputed their freedom to write what they wished. In 768 Ambrosius Opert, a Benedictine monk, sending his interpretation of the Book of the Apocalypse to Pope Stephan III and seeking permission to continue his work and to publish it, says that he was the first of writers to seek such permission. “But let freedom of writing,” he continues, “not vanish because abasement was proffered voluntarily.” The Council of Sens in 1140 condemned the views of Abelard, and the Pope ordered the burning of his compositions.97

  But neither in Greece nor in Rome do we anywhere find an example that a judge of thought was appointed that he brazenly say: “Seek permission from me if you wish to open your lips for eloquence; reason, science, and enlightenment are stamped for approval by us, and everything that has seen the light without our seal of approval we denounce in advance as stupid, vile, unworthy.” Such a shameful invention was reserved for the Christian clergy, and censorship was contemporary with the Inquisition.

  Rather often in reviewing history we find that reason goes with superstition and the most useful inventions stand alongside the coarsest ignorance. At the moment when cowardly mistrust of the object of an affirmation incited monks to establish censorship and to destroy an idea at its birth, at that very time Columbus dared to set off into the unknowability of the seas in pursuit of America; Keppler anticipated the existence of gravitational force in nature, proven by Newton; at that same moment Copernicus, who charted the path in space of the heavenly bodies, was born. But concerning a greater regret about the fate of human reasoning, we shall say that a great idea sometimes gave birth to ignorance. Printing gave birth to censorship; philosophical reason in the eighteenth century produced the Illuminati.

  In the year 1479 we find the oldest hitherto known permission to print a book. At the end of the book titled Know Thyself, printed in 1480, the following was added: “We, Maffeo Ghirardi,98 by the grace of God Patriarch of Venice, primate of Dalmatia, after the reading of the above-named gentlemen who bear witness to the composition described above, and after its conclusion and authorization being added, we bear witness that this book is Orthodox and pious.” A most ancient monument to censorship though not the most ancient to madness!

  The oldest legislation on censorship known hitherto we find in 1486, published in the same city where printing was invented. The monastic authorities were prescient that i
t would be the agent of the destruction of their power, that it would hasten the opening up of reason in general, and that power based on opinion rather than on the common interest would find its demise in printing. May we be permitted here to add a historic document, at present still extant as a detriment to thought and to the disgrace of the Enlightenment. A decree on the prohibition to publish Greek, Latin, and other books in the vernacular without the prior approval of scholars, 1486.*99

  “Berthold, archbishop by divine grace of the holy precinct of Mainz, archchancellor and Prince-Elector in Germany. Although the divine art of printing makes it possible in the acquisition of human learning to obtain books pertaining to various sciences more bountifully and more freely, it has nonetheless come to our attention that certain people, induced by the wish for vain fame or wealth, abuse this art and what was bestowed for education in human life they turn into ruin and slander.

  “We have seen books concerning sacred duties and the rituals of our confession translated from Latin into the German language circulate, as is inappropriate for the sacred law, in the hands of simple folk. And what, then, is to be said about the sacred prescriptions of rules and laws? Although they were written carefully and intelligently by people expert in legal study, the wisest and most intelligent possible, the science is in itself so difficult that the entire life of a most eloquent and learned person would scarcely be sufficient.

  “Some stupid, brazen, and ignorant people take it upon themselves to translate into the vernacular these sorts of books. Many learned people on reading these translations admit that owing to their considerable improper and poor use of words they are more obscure than the originals. What would we say about works in other fields in which they often mix the false, introduce mistaken appellations and for which more buyers are found the more they attribute their own ideas to famous writers.

  “Let these translators—if they love the truth—no matter the intention with which they have acted, good or bad, let them tell us whether the German language is suitable for transposing into it what the most elegant Greek and Latin writers have written exquisitely and intelligently on the loftiest considerations of the Christian faith and about other sciences? One is obliged to admit that owing to its poverty our language is barely sufficient, and for that reason they have to devise in their heads unknown names for things; and even if they use the old ones it will be by corrupting their true meaning, the thing we fear most in Holy Scripture given their importance. For who will reveal the true meaning to the uncouth and ignorant people and the female sex into whose hands the books of sacred scripture fall? When the text of Holy Gospel or the Epistles of the Apostle Paul are read, every intelligent person will admit that there are in them many scribal additions and corrections.

  “What has been said by us is well known. What should we think about what is found in the writings of the Catholic church that depends on the strictest scrutiny? We can give many examples but for our purpose the aforesaid is already sufficient.

  “Given that the origin of this art, to speak the truth, appeared miraculously in our famous city of Mainz, and presently continues in it, corrected and enhanced, it is right that we take its dignity under our protection. For our duty is to preserve the Holy Scriptures in a state of uncorrupted purity. Having discussed in this manner the errors and presumption of brazen and wicked people, and desiring as much as we can, with the help of God, of Whom this is about, to warn them and to put a halt to each and every one them, clerical and civilian subject of our region and on those who trade outside its boundaries, no matter their rank and station, herewith we order all that no work in any science, art, or branch of learning, being translated from the Greek, Latin, or another language into German, or already existing in translation with a change only of title or anything else, may be distributed or sold, openly or clandestinely, forthrightly or in a secret manner, if it does not possess before printing or after printing before publication, clear permission to be printed or published as granted by our most esteemed, exalted, and noble doctors and masters of the university, that is: in our city of Mainz permission from Johannes Bertram von Naumburg in the matter of theology; from Alexander Diethrich in jurisprudence; from Theoderich von Meschede in the medical sciences; and from Andreas Oehler in letters, those doctors and masters selected for this purpose in our city of Erfurt. [We declare that no work] … can be distributed or sold … also in the city of Frankfurt if these books published for sale have not been vetted and confirmed by an esteemed and dear to us master of theology and one or two doctors and licentiates, who have been maintained on an annual salary by the Council of the same city.100

  “If anyone should scorn this, our curatorial decree, or give advice, help, or support against our order in person or through another, he will thereby subject himself not only to excommunication but also to having confiscated these books and will pay one hundred gold gilders in fine into our treasury. And let no one without special decree dare to infringe this resolution. Granted in the Castle of St. Martin in our city of Mainz with our seal affixed. In the month of January, on the fourth day of the year 1486.”

  Once again Berthold on the manner in which to discharge censorship: In the year 1486 Berthold etc. To the most honored, learned, and in Christ dear to us J. Bertram (Doctor of Theology), A. Diethrich (Doctor of Law), F. de Meschede (Doctor of Medicine), and A. Oehler (Master of Letters) we bid greeting and attention to the attached below.

  “Being informed of deceptions and forgeries having been perpetrated by some translators and printers of scholarship, and being anxious to preempt them and willing if possible to head them off, we decree that nobody in our diocese and region shall dare to translate books into the German language, print or distribute printed matter, until such compositions or books have been inspected by you in our city of Mainz and, concerning the subject matter itself, they will not appear until confirmed by you in translation and for sale in accordance with the aforenoted decree.

  “Firmly trusting in your reasonableness and prudence, we entrust to you that: when compositions or books designated for translation, printing, or sale shall be brought to you, you will review their contents and should it prove not easy to perceive their true meaning, or if they are able to engender mistakes and temptations or to offend against purity of morals, then reject them; while those you freely release will have to be signed at the end in your own hand, namely, by two of you that it will thereby be clear that these books were reviewed and approved by you. You render to our Lord and state valuable and useful service. Granted in the Palace of St. Martin. 10 January 1486.”

  While reviewing this law, new at the time, we find that it favored prohibition so that few books were published in the German language. Put differently, the people remained perpetually in ignorance. Censorship, it seems, did not extend to compositions written in Latin. For those already knowledgeable in the Latin language, it seemed, were already protected from error, impermeable to it, and what they read they understood clearly and accurately.* And thus the clergy wanted that only their allies in power were to be enlightened, so that the people would consider learning to be of divine origin beyond their comprehension and would not dare touch it. And so what was devised to confine the truth and enlightenment within the strictest boundaries, devised by a mistrusting power for its own might, devised for the continuation of ignorance and benightedness, now in days of science and philosophy, when reason has shaken off the shackles of superstition alien to it, when truth gleams in a hundred guises stronger and stronger, when the source of learning flows through the furthest branches of society, when the efforts of governments expedite the destruction of error and the opening of paths for reason to reach the truth unimpeded, this shameful monastic invention emanating from a trembling power is now accepted everywhere, has taken root, and is considered a good bulwark against error. Raving ones! look around, you strive to prop up truth with falsehood, you wish to enlighten nations with falsehood. But beware lest benightedness be restored. What is the
use to you of ruling over ignoramuses, all the more uncouth because they remained ignorant not due to a lack of the means to enlightenment or due to their natural simplicity, but rather, having taken a step toward enlightenment, they were stopped in their progress and turned back, driven into darkness? What use is it to you to fight with yourself and rip out with your left hand what your right hand planted? Regard the clergy as they rejoice in this. You already are of service to them. Scatter benightedness and feel the chains that are on you: if they are not always the chains of ecclesiastical superstition, they are of political superstition, less ridiculous albeit equally destructive.

  However, it is to the good fortune of society that printing has not been banished from your countries. As a tree planted in an eternal spring does not lose its greenery, so the instruments of printing can be stopped in their action but not destroyed.

  Having understood the danger that freedom of the press could pose to their dominion, the popes were not slow to pass laws about censorship, and this regulation acquired the force of a general law at the council that took place shortly thereafter in Rome. Holy Tiberius, Pope Alexander VI, was the first of the popes to pass a law about censorship in 1501. Weighed down himself by all his evildoings, he had no shame in showing concern for the purity of the Christian faith. But whenever has power blushed! He begins his papal bull with a complaint against the devil who sows corn cockles among the wheat and says: “Having learned that by means of the aforementioned art* many books and compositions printed in various parts of the world, particularly in Cologne, Mainz, Trier, Magdeburg, contain various errors and damaging teachings inimical to the Christian faith, and even now are still printed in some places, wishing without delay to preempt this odious ulcer, for each and every printer of the aforementioned art and for all those belonging to it and for all who are active in the business of printing in the places mentioned above, under pain of anathema and a fine to be determined and collected for the benefit of the Apostolic Camera by our honorable brethren the archbishops of Cologne, Mainz, Trier, and Magdeburg, or their vicars in their regions, we forbid by virtue of our apostolic power to print or to submit for printing books, treatises, or writings unless they have been referred to the aforementioned archbishops or vicars and unless they have been granted authorization that has specifically been without personal compensation; we charge them on their conscience so that, before they grant authorization of this kind, they will consider carefully the writings designated for print or have them examined by the scholarly and truly religious; and that they maintain the utmost vigilance that nothing be published that is contrary to the true faith and capable of giving rise to impiety and temptation.” And so that books already in existence cause no further harm it was decreed that all inventories of books and all printed books be inspected and that those whose contents in any part opposed the Catholic confession be burned.