A. Book, Booklet, Writing

3. On the Signification of Various Words and Clauses

A) What is a Book?

A certain bulk is required

Whether newspapers, sheets, little works?

33. What is a Book? According to common acceptance, by this word there is designated a volume of a certain bulk, which offers to readers a subject matter of a certain unity.

a) Of a certain bulk, I say. Therefore newspapers, even more ample ones, sheets (imprimés),¹ and small opuscula are not understood, since they "are accustomed to be called by some other name, such as elegies, letters, or speeches, rather than books."² Many, after Schmalzgrueber,³ require ten sheets for a book. We understand these as whole sheets, so that an octavo work would be 160 pages, a sextodecimo work 320. This estimate seems sufficiently fair.⁴ Without denying, therefore, the material truth which this rule can generally have, we judge, with Lugo,⁵ that the formal reason of the solution is rather to be drawn from common usage.

We have some opponents, who, under the earlier law, either argue with B. P.⁶ from the fact that in the Decrees concerning books, the Legislator spoke of poems, images, etc.; or with Piat⁷ infer the same from certain words of an allocution of Pius IX. But the words of Pius IX, according to Villada,⁸ seem to be referred "to eleven newspapers which the same Supreme Pontiff, by express name, had prohibited for the Roman diocese through his Vicar, June 30, 1871." And by the response of the Holy Office, April 27, 1880, denying that excommunication is incurred by one reading "newspapers defending heresy," our opinion is strongly confirmed.⁹ Now an argument is added from the present Constitution, which in a distinct chapter, namely the eighth, treats of newspapers, sheets, and periodical booklets; and in article 13 distinguishes writings from books; and in articles 17 and 20 distinguishes booklets and sheets.¹⁰

b) Of a certain unity. Therefore smaller booklets bound together by chance are not books.¹¹ But if from the beginning they are destined to compose one volume, which is thus published in parts, the whole volume thus composed is to be held as a book; indeed, the individual parts also, even taken separately, which reach the bulk of a book.

¹ Avanzini, op. cit., Appendix 3.

² Planchard, Revue Théologique Française, loc. cit., n. 14.

³ Book 5, title 7, n. 55.

⁴ D'Annibale, op. cit., III, 141; Pennacchi, op. cit., n. 38; Génicot, op. cit., 454, against Planchard, loc. cit., 13, 14, though he remains doubtful.

⁵ De Fide, disp. 21, n. 38.

⁶ Treatise 7, section 4, nn. 12, 13.

⁷ Op. cit., p. 619.

⁸ Op. and loc. cit., n. 11.

⁹ Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 20, p. 368.

¹⁰ We argue from this deservedly, contrary to the opinion of C. V. C., loc. cit., since we have proved that prohibitions also are to be taken strictly. Add that it would be strange if you took the same word books in one way in the prohibition and in another way in the censure which is its sanction, and now, as Planchard observes, loc. cit., 14, part of the same law. Did the ancients do so?

¹¹ For the same reason we judge that newspapers are not to be placed among books, even if they are gathered into one volume. So also Sleutjes, De prohibitione, etc., p. 24, note 2. We do not know with what truth several, Cardinal Gennari, loc. cit., p. 155, and Hollweck, loc. cit., p. 26, bring forward to the contrary the response of the Holy Office alleged below in the text, from which those incur the excommunication of persons knowingly reading certain books of apostates, heretics, etc., who read periodical publications of the same "bound into fascicles." For in the obvious sense, since we are not accustomed by the name fascicle to designate the large volume which newspapers bound together make, the petitioner who used this expression in proposing the doubt does not seem to have been thinking of newspapers, but wished to describe those publications which, as Lehmkuhl explains (II, 923), "are published periodically in compact fascicles" (qui paraissent en fascicules); otherwise, "les revues," "le riviste." Nor does Arndt, p. 217, seem to have understood the matter otherwise.

Whether periodical booklets are to be held as books

34. What of periodical booklets, "reviews"?

What generally prevents them from being called books is the lacking unity, since they are accustomed to embrace disparate, indeed diverse, subjects and treatises. Yet if from their habitual subject matter they have some unity of kind or tendency, under this respect, and not under another, they will be equated with books as soon as they reach the bulk of a book. Therefore periodical booklets devoted to cultivating the sciences or to philosophy are to be held as books of the sciences or of philosophy.

But a volume which, among other things, contains a study written by a heretic is not to be treated as the book of a heretic.

And in a similar way, periodical booklets which are customarily published by heretical authors and habitually defend heresy are to be equated with books of heretics defending heresy. Therefore, wisely, on January 13, 1892, the Holy Office responded that the censure laid down against those reading books of heretics defending heresy is incurred by those who knowingly read periodical publications bound into fascicles, having a heretical author and defending heresy.¹

Summary concerning the laws by which they are governed

Because the matter is one of daily use, it is helpful here to set forth, as it were in summary, which positive laws must be obeyed in keeping or reading periodical booklets.²

First, indeed, we observe this: individual fascicles are generally of less bulk (cf. n. 33) than that they can be called books; yet today several periodical booklets appear whose individual fascicles, in number of pages, equal even a fairly large book. Proceed then:

1. The General Decrees concerning books seem to us to affect periodical booklets only then:

a) When you have in hand a volume or fascicle which by its bulk equals a book, and if, moreover:

b) By its general character or habitual course the periodical booklet itself, or the whole fascicle, has the quality or sins by the defect which is marked by the General Decrees.

Therefore, if the first condition is lacking, neither a book on religion, nor a book in which the Church is disparaged, nor a book teaching magic, is a separated article of a periodical booklet, or a whole fascicle not reaching the quantity of a book, although they treat of religion, disparage the Church, teach magic. Therefore articles 3, 4, 11, 12 of the Constitution Officiorum do not fall upon an article or fascicle of this kind.

But if the second condition is lacking, neither is a complete volume or a collection of several volumes a book of this kind, if in them, besides articles on religion, there are also other longer articles of profane subject matter, or besides articles in which the Church is disparaged or magic is taught, there are found others of a different kind, so that from the prior articles you cannot gather one character of the periodical booklet.

But, on the contrary, a book of heretics is a periodical booklet which heretics are accustomed to write; a book on religion is a periodical booklet which has been accustomed to treat religious subjects; and so forth, provided you look at a volume of just bulk.

2. But individual fascicles, even smaller ones, are governed as by their own law by the General Decrees which are sanctioned in articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution Officiorum.

3. But if a work, whether previously or subsequently proscribed by name, has been published in a periodical booklet in several successive articles, to read one of those articles truly separated from the others does not seem contrary to the positive law; but you will have offended against the law if you morally have all or almost all the articles before your hands. For in the first case you do not read the work, but a separated part of it (cf. n. 36); in the other, you read the work itself, which, even as it is in the periodical booklet, is prohibited by positive decree. Yet the collection itself, or series of volumes, will not therefore always have to be mutilated. Cf. n. 32.

¹ This, therefore, seems to us to be the proper force of that decree. By no means, contrary to what many think and what we ourselves previously thought, is it there defined that periodical booklets are to be held as books. Nor, even if the individual articles reach the bulk of a book, would we say that the fascicle is then virtually to be compared with several books, as Villada writes, op. cit., n. 12.

² The things which we say concerning periodical booklets can almost be transferred to newspapers.

Whether calendars

35. By its external figure itself, a calendar whose leaves are to be torn off on individual days (Calendrier à effeuiller), and which therefore is more like a newspaper, does not seem to us to have the character of a book. It is otherwise, however, if it has had the character of a stable volume.¹

¹ Schmalzgrueber, 5, 7, 33; Bucceroni, p. 339; in the second edition, p. 368.

Sheets separated from a book

36. Nor do several sheets separated from a book come under the name of book. Against Piat,¹ who brings forward many authorities.

¹ Op. cit., p. 620.

Whether a collection of images

37. Nor is a collection of images considered a book. Therefore, by this Constitution, obscene or impious images are not touched by positive prohibition.¹

¹ Pennacchi, op. cit., n. 40; Hollweck, op. cit., p. 32.

Whether manuscripts

38. Whether it is further necessary that it be printed with type, or whether a manuscript work comes under the name of book, is not entirely certain. Most include manuscripts, because the word book is older than the typographical art, and the reason of the law, or the danger of infection, also obtains here. This is preferred by St. Alphonsus,¹ Arndt,² and B. P.³ Others, however, to whom laws of this kind seem to be interpreted strictly, not improbably observe that in our days, by common usage, books are distinguished from manuscripts, and that the reason of the law is less urgent concerning these, since they are disseminated with more difficulty. This is maintained by D'Annibale,⁴ Avanzini,⁵ and Bucceroni;⁶ Göpfert, however, says the same is probable.⁷ And after the Constitution was issued, Cardinal Gennari,⁸ Planchard,⁹ Génicot,¹⁰ and Hollweck¹¹ are of the same opinion; Hollweck adds this excellent reason, that the use of a manuscript work is today so rare that concerning it this holds: "what is minimal the legislator does not consider." Palmieri now holds the same in Gury, II, 794.

But there is no reason why you should deny the character of a book to works which indeed are not printed with type, but by other methods (lithography, hectography) which can give place to similar diffusion.

¹ Book 7, n. 293.

² N. 101, pp. 118-121.

³ Loc. cit., n. 13. Cf. in Piat, loc. cit., p. 618, note 1, many, both of the earlier and of the present age, holding the same.

⁴ III, 141.

⁵ Op. cit., I, appendix 3, pp. 134, 135.

⁶ II, p. 339, n. 4.

⁷ Op. cit., p. 323.

⁸ Loc. cit., p. 132.

⁹ Revue Théologique Française, loc. cit., n. 12.

¹⁰ I, 454.

¹¹ Op. cit., p. 24.

Whether lithographed or printed codes

39. Furthermore, at least as regards the necessity of previous censorship, books are not regarded except insofar as they are published. Hence works set down lithographically, which professors are accustomed to prepare so that hearers may make a compendium of what is to be written, and which are not of public right, are not subject to this censorship.¹ We know this to be approved by Roman usage itself. We think the same must be said of treatises which, for the same reason, are even printed with type. In German they say: Als Manuskript gedruckt - printed as a manuscript. And here again we are confirmed by usage, which is the best interpreter of laws.

¹ Génicot, op. cit., I, 454.

What is a Booklet?

40. A booklet designates a work of smaller bulk, which does not reach the just quantity of a book, but nevertheless is composed of some pages. So also Pennacchi, op. cit., n. 58. Booklets are spoken of in articles 17, 20, and 21 of the Constitution Officiorum.

What is a Writing?

41. Writing is a most general word, apt for designating a composition of every bulk and form. Therefore even individual numbers of some newspaper are a certain writing. Cf. Pennacchi, op. cit., nn. 51 and 59.

Whether, by the general breadth of this word, even sheets which have not been printed with type are designated? Some deny this.¹ Yet the affirmative opinion of others agrees more with the force of the word, and is confirmed by a decree of the Holy Office which, by prohibiting any writings whatever (provided they were propagated) concerning a recently invented new devotion, added that "it matters little whether they had been printed with type."² Generally, however, writings will not be published unless printed with type.

¹ Génicot, loc. cit.

² Hollweck, loc. cit. Decree of February 6, 1896. Cf. Decree of the Index, April 19, 1896, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 28, p. 640.