Article 10

Books of authors, whether ancient or more recent, whom they call classics, if they are infected with this very stain of baseness, are permitted, on account of elegance and propriety of speech, only to those whom the reason of office or of teaching excuses; nevertheless, they must by no means be handed over or read before boys or youths, unless purged with careful diligence.

Comparison with prior law

73. 1. Formerly, to the seventh rule of the Index this exception was appended: "But ancient [books] written by pagans are permitted on account of elegance and propriety of speech; nevertheless, they must by no means be read before boys."

Therefore the faculty of the prior law was broader with respect to persons; narrower with respect to the object. For it excluded no one;¹ and it prohibited only readings which were made before boys; while now it is confined to persons excused "by office or teaching," and both the handing over and the reading made before boys or youths is prohibited, unless the books have been purged with careful diligence. Yet at the same time the former exception regarded only the ancients, whereas today it looks to all "classic" writers.

What this faculty effects

Moreover, the force of the faculty made is this: that it places the persons whom it affects back under natural law. Therefore it does not take away the efficacy of the divine sanction by which we are forbidden to expose ourselves to proximate danger; and he would err vehemently who, relying on this permission, considered it lawful for himself habitually to devote himself to reading books obscene of set purpose.

What classics are

2. Classic authors are those who in individual languages are used as examples. Formerly, as we were saying, the exception was circumscribed to the more ancient classics.

Which books of theirs are permitted

3. The permission regards their obscene books, but not those which, on another account, for example on account of pernicious doctrines, are either referred to the Index or touched by a general Decree. This is the case, with the question omitted whether the author can be held to be a classic, of certainly many books of Ém. Zola, all of whose works are referred to the Index.²

What if placed by name in the Index?

But, unless we are mistaken, the positive faculty comprises all obscene books, even if, on account of this vice, they are placed by name in the Index, provided they are by a classic author. With us is Génicot, Theol. mor., n. 456, while others, Boudinhon, C. Gennari, Ciolli (on this place), except from the faculty books which are prohibited by name. Yet the law does not distinguish.

To whom the permission is given

4. The permission is given to those whom the reason of office or teaching excuses. Therefore it is not required that these make the reading of those books strictly necessary, but it is sufficient that they furnish an excuse. Namely, the elegance of the speech of classic writers brings it about that, although they contain base things, nevertheless their works can contribute to the greater cultivation of men of letters or of teachers of letters, and the knowledge of them can pertain to the necessary or at least suitable erudition of many. For these causes the faculty of the present article is conceded.

Hence a) we draw: office, which in general signifies an assumed condition of state (profession, état), will here look especially to the cultivation of letters, so that those are excused by office who, of set purpose, either write or judge works of letters (Littérateurs de profession, hommes de lettres, critiques).³ But it is not sufficient that by accident you write something pertaining to letters. Yet someone can at the same time exercise another art and devote himself enough to letters that he is excused.

Furthermore, on account of other offices, indeed, several persons can sometimes have a just cause why they read obscene things (cautiously and insofar as natural law itself permits this), whether classic or even non-classic. We do not think these persons can directly use the benefit of the present article. But since explicit permission concerning obscene books has not been customarily given, and to obtain it is sufficiently odious, a reasonable epikeia is founded in this article, by force of which that reading is not positively forbidden to those persons, insofar as they must read such things in order to be able to fulfill their office suitably. By office of this sort those can be excused who, for example, by a special title must denounce bad books,⁴ and, in large cities, certain confessors. Yet the office must be understood as honest. Correctors of typography⁵ we will excuse only if and when it is lawful for them to exercise their art in a workshop where base things are printed.

b) We draw: by teachers not only those are excused who, by order of the Government, are compelled to use obscene classics,⁶ but all for whom the reason made is useful, namely teachers who teach letters, but not those who teach merely the rudiments of a language, as in an elementary school (école primaire); nor those who hand on another discipline, even a nobler one: such as law or theology.

Exception with regard to boys or youths

5. Nevertheless, they must by no means be handed over or read before boys or youths. Therefore the Constitution prudently takes care lest those whose office it is to instruct boys or youths in letters and to furnish them with suitable books should place obscene things in their hands, or much less read them before them.

Boys or youths are certainly those who are taught the more humane letters in gymnasia.

What of those who frequent Universities?

What of those who frequent Universities? If you consider the native meaning of the words, and also the meaning received in law, boyhood lasts until the eighteenth year, youth at least until the twenty-fifth.⁷ If you turn your mind to the reason of the law, do not those younger persons perhaps offer more danger from obscene writers than boys themselves?⁸

Wherefore, in our opinion, readings which are held in Universities also are comprehended by this prohibition.⁹

If some, however, although youth has not yet been surpassed, already exercise the teaching of letters, certainly, as teachers, they will be able to enjoy the benefit of article 10. Yet we would by no means recommend use of the faculty. And if you wish those to be excused by office who, in Universities, devote themselves to a special cultivation of letters on account of a future state, we do not altogether oppose it. Yet we prefer to consider them rather as on the way to an office than as already furnished with an office. Nor do we see the necessity why they ought not to use corrected editions. But is our Constitution to be presumed to have wished to give our youths a new pretext for excusing their excessive and not sufficiently deplored license in this matter?

Or certain gymnasia?

But it can happen that even in certain gymnasia, the necessity of hearing teachers who spurn these admonitions, or of preparing themselves for examinations (examens) to be made, compels youths to use uncorrected editions. Then, within the limits of a necessity of this sort, they will be excused from the positive law.

Purged obscene books can be handed over

6. Yet, if purged with careful diligence (if nevertheless the abundance of obscenities permits this cleansing), they can be handed over and read before them. Thus there is formally conceded what had already prevailed by usage.

What if you read versions?

7. You will ask whether the faculty is circumscribed to the proper language of the classic author, or whether they can also be read when turned from their own language into another. If the version is of such a kind that it furnishes the faculty even in a foreign idiom of perceiving the usefulness from the classic author, the reason made obtains here also. For those who are engaged in literary studies often approach writers translated into a foreign language, whose elegance of speech, if less their propriety, they can perceive even in a foreign garment. Wherefore we think that our article can be transferred to versions of this sort.

¹ But because the license was circumscribed to books of pagans, by that fact "the profane crowd" was excepted.

² Decree of January 26, 1895.

³ Palmieri, on this place, also indicates keepers of libraries, presidents of lyceums, etc., as excused by office.

⁴ Pennacchi, cited work, n. 48, indicates these.

⁵ Hollweck cites these, p. 34.

⁶ Against Pennacchi, cited place.

⁷ Cf. Barbosa, Repertorium iuris, v. Aetas.

⁸ Cf. Génicot, cited work, I, 452, 4°.

⁹ Thus also Wernz, n. 111, 10.