a prurient mind.  Sixtus V. expressed his disapproval of this recension, and new editions were licensed in 1582 and 1588 under the revision of Lionardo Salviati and Luigi Groto.  Both preserved the obscenities of the Decameron, while they displayed more rigor with regard to satires on ecclesiastical corruption.  It may be added, in justice to the Roman Church, that the Decameron stands still upon the Index with the annotation donec expurgetur.[152] Therefore we must presume that the work of purification is not yet accomplished, though the Jesuits have used parts of it as a text-book in their schools, while Panigarola quoted it in his lectures on sacred eloquence.

[Footnote 151:  See Dejob, De l’Influence, etc. Chapter III.]

[Footnote 152:  Index, Naples, Pelella, 1862, p. 87.]

It would weary the reader to enlarge upon this process of stupid or hypocritical purgation, whereby the writings of men like Doni and Straparola were stripped of their reflections on the clergy, while their indecencies remained untouched; or to show how Ariosto’s Comedies were sanctioned, when his Satires, owing to their free speech upon the Papal Court, received the stigma.[153] But I may refer to the grotesque attempts which were made in this age to cast the mantle of spirituality over profane literature.  Thus Hieronimo Malipieri rewrote the Canzoniere of Petrarch, giving it a pious turn throughout; and the Orlando Furioso was converted by several hands into a religious allegory.[154]

[Footnote 153:  This treatment of Ariosto is typical.  Men of not over scrupulous nicety may question whether his Comedies are altogether wholesome reading.  But not even a Puritan could find fault with his Satires on the score of their morality.  Yet Rome sanctioned the Comedies and forbade the Satires.]

[Footnote 154:  Curious details on this topic are supplied by Dejob, op. cit. pp. 179-181, and p. 184.]

The action of Rome under the influence of the Counter-Reformation was clearly guided by two objects:  to preserve Catholic dogma in its integrity, and to maintain the supremacy of the Church.  She was eager to extinguish learning and to paralyze intellectual energy.  But she showed no unwillingness to tolerate those pleasant vices which enervate a nation.  Compared with unsound doctrine and audacious speculation, immorality appeared in her eyes a venial weakness.  It was true that she made serious efforts to reform the manners of her ministers, and was fully alive to the necessity of enforcing decency and decorum.  Yet a radical purification of society seemed of less importance to her than the conservation of Catholic orthodoxy and the inculcation of obedience to ecclesiastical authority.  When we analyze the Jesuits’ system of education, and their method of conducting the care of souls, we shall see to what extent the deeply seated hypocrisy of the Counter-Reformation had penetrated the most