[delayed]

As a teenager I read Machiavelli's The Prince with trepidation knowing it was on The List (and me being brought up Catholic).

Afterwards I couldn't really see what the fuss was about.

Especially since there are similar works of the Catholic church, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Worldly_Wisdom

Perhaps the notion of ‘engineering’ ones legitimacy as a ruler was seen as a challenge to the established notion of legitimacy by divine right. (Esp. the role of the church in conferring that right).

Umberto Eco once jokingly lamented the deprecation of the Index, writing that it was a "very handy canon of books one ought to read to call oneself an educated person".

> Makes me think that if this list was still published it would have a sort of Father Ted effect and act as a list of books you’d definitely want to read.

The Wikipedia article on the Index note that a related list (the _Index Expurgatorius_, which was at the time published separately but later had its function incorporated within the _Index Librorum Prohibitum_, and listed books subject to similar restrictions as the main index but only conditionally pending correction of specified errors) was called out for something like that use -- in 1627.

In a similar vein, one of my colleagues a few years ago after undergoing workplace sexual harrassment training said "oh learned a couple of new ones"

At the time I hoped he wasn't serious, sometimes it's hard to tell.

> workplace sexual harrassment training

Well, it’s in the name already. The fact it’s not called “anti-harassment training” always makes me chuckle…