Conflicting Authorities.—The invention of printing came into the world at a period when men’s minds were agitated by one of the fiercest contests about ideas that history had known. This new art gave voice and wings to thought at the very time when thought stood for war and when opinions, under the name of creeds, were bringing men into fierce combat with each other. Those whose beliefs were wrong (that is to say, those who at any particular time or place happened to be the weaker party) were burned by those whose beliefs were right (that is, by the stronger), and questions of religion were powerful enough to bring nations into battle against each other. To permit the peaceable production and distribution of literature advocating doctrines sufficiently pernicious to be themselves cause for war, would have been not only illogical but practically impossible. It would have constituted, in effect, failure to keep the faith, and treason to the State.

The general constitution of society was no more compatible than were the religious passions of the time with an unrestricted and unsupervised production and distribution of literature. Monopoly was, or was believed to be, an industrial necessity. Each branch or division of industry, trade, or commerce was closely organised and strictly limited in its range. These guild organisations, with their accompanying prohibition of the exercise of individual and unorganised industry, served to maintain order and to protect artisans against all kinds of exactions, and in various other ways worked for the benefit of the artisans and trades as associated. The guilds also rendered an important service to the community in protecting the general public against frauds and misdealings, for, as well from self-interest as from public spirit, they took upon themselves the supervision of the integrity and morality of their members. The associated trades of printing, publishing, and bookselling came under conditions and restrictions similar in the main to those regulating the business of the other commercial guilds, and like these, they undertook to establish a monopoly of the rights and privileges connected with the manufacture and sale of their productions.

The contests and quarrels of the “regular” or guild dealers, whether with authors, who wanted to retain the right to sell their own books, or with religious communities, which (in continuation of their old literary practices) claimed the privilege of using printing-presses of their own, or with the drapers and fancy goods dealers, who wanted to sell not only almanacs and primers (abécédaires) but also general literature, or against the pedlars and street vendors, who attempted to exercise the full privileges of booksellers, were endless; but while differing in many details, these contests were similar in principle to those carried on by other industrial guilds against outsiders trying to invade their monopolies.

The official censorship of publications began with the reign of Francis I., although there are instances in the previous reign of the issue of certain “permits” or approvals. These earlier permits were not connected with any conditions or restrictions imposed on the authors or publishers. They were for the most part secured at the instance of those interested in the publication, sometimes as a matter of prudence or from dread of future interference, but more frequently in order to give credit or standing to the undertaking.

According to Peignot,[170] the earliest printed book which contains record of such official approval was printed in Esslingen in 1475. It was a reissue of the Tractatus Petri Nigri contra perfidos judæos, and bore a certificate of having been corrected and approved by the Bishop of Ratisbon. This instance antedates the publication of the Phœnix of Peter of Ravenna (referred to by Pütter and others as the first book printed under a privilege), which was issued in Venice in 1491.[171]

In 1515, a Bull of Leo X. (previously referred to in the chapter on Venice) ordered that no licence should be given for the printing of a book until it had been examined and approved by an authorised representative of the Church. The authority of the Church to take into its own hands the supervision of literature was, as we have seen, from the outset contested in Venice, and was never accepted in Germany. In France, on the other hand, the necessity for such ecclesiastical supervision was at once admitted, with the condition that the censorship should always be exercised under the authority and direction of the Crown. The jurisdiction over printers and publishers, originally conferred upon the University, continued to be exercised with more or less effectiveness during two centuries after the invention of printing, and traces of it existed even as late as 1789. The University gave approval, issued privileges, and fixed penalties. An approval had to do with the contents or character of the work, and was evidence that it had been examined and had been accepted as containing nothing unsound in doctrine, detrimental to the morals of the community, or dangerous to the safety of the State.

In the earlier periods of publishing in France, the ecclesiastical censorship as to matters of doctrine was exercised through the Theological Faculty of the University. A privilege gave to its holder a right (usually exclusive) to control the sales of the work specified and sometimes of the entire subject to which the work was devoted, for a given territory and a certain term of years. In 1498, certain publishers printed a description of the funeral procession of Charles VIII., in which procession the Faculty of the University had occupied a position of honour. The printed account was inaccurate, Super modo incedendi. The publishers were brought before the deputies of the University, and after they had been heard in their defence, their editions of the inaccurate book were condemned to be burned in processionibus universitatis.

In 1518, the University issued, by means of placards posted about the city, an edict prohibiting all publishers, under pain of forfeiture of their University privileges and franchise, from printing the Concordat between Francis I. and Leo X. The King, indignant at such an exercise of authority on the part of the University, wrote to the Parliament of Paris demanding that the mandate of the University be declared null and void, and that the Rector, Dean, and professors who had issued the same be punished. He further directed that the Concordat should at once be delivered to good and trustworthy printers, with instructions to lose no time in printing supplies of the same. The Parliament decided that the University must not concern itself with matters of state or with the affairs of the King, under penalty of loss of its own privileges, and the printing and publication of the Concordat appear to have proceeded in due course. It must be borne in mind that the Parliament of Paris was not a legislative body, as might be inferred from the later use of the name, but a high court of justice, exercising the functions of a Court of Appeals.

Several such “Parliaments” were established at different periods in the great cities of the kingdom, but that of Paris was the most ancient and important. Its foundation is ascribed to Louis XI., about 1150. The Paris Parliament was originally used as a kind of circuit court, accompanying the King wherever he went. It was, however, finally fixed at Paris, in 1302, by Philip the Fair. Its members were at first appointed by the Crown, but Francis initiated the practice of selling the seats. The most important function of the Parliament appears to have been the registration of the laws, edicts, and ordinances promulgated by the King. The Parliament gradually assumed a certain degree of political power, and frequently refused to register laws of which it did not approve, and from these refusals spirited contests arose with the Crown. The Parliament of Paris (together with all the Parliaments of France) was finally suppressed in 1790, by a decree of the constituent assembly. It appears from the history of this case of the Concordat that no question was raised concerning the right of the University to control the printers of Paris, excepting as to matters belonging to the King; while the higher authority of the Parliament was not contested.

The first formal institution in France of supervision of publications or literary censorship dates from the ordinance of 1521. Lectum est quoddam regis mandatum prohibitorium ne librarii aut typographii venderent aut ederent aliquid, nisi auctoritate universitalis et Facultatis Theologiæ, et Visitatione facta.[172] (Printers and publishers are forbidden to print or to sell any work which has not first been examined by the University authorities and received the authorisation of the University and of the Faculty of Theology.) The special authority given to the latter shows that it was still the risk of heresy and schism which excited the greatest dread among those supervising the literature of the community. The edict of Charles V., also issued in 1521, prescribed similar regulations for the several countries of his dominions and made offenders against these regulations liable to the penalties for treason (lèse-majesté).

Parliament exercised authority not only for the condemnation of books (a jurisdiction which it had always claimed, even prior to the invention of printing) but also to extend general prohibitions, with or without conditions. As an example, an edict of February, 1525, which was ordered to be published by heralds at the sound of the trumpet, directed (among a number of other measures planned to stamp out the heresies which were spreading through the realm) all persons having in their possession copies of the Old or the New Testament, or any portions of the same, to deliver such books to the court notaries, and forbade all printers to print and all dealers to sell any copies of said books under penalty of confiscation of their goods and banishment from the kingdom. This prohibition was renewed in 1527. In 1542, Parliament forbade the printing or selling, without special authorisation, of the royal ordinances and edicts.

The tendency became more marked from decade to decade to place in the control of the Church the supervision of the entire literary production of the kingdom. Conflicts of authority arose from time to time between the University and Parliament, conflicts in which the advantage usually rested with the latter body, which claimed the final jurisdiction, and which had behind it the authority requisite to enforce its decisions.

In 1526, the University had authorised the printing of certain dissertations against Fabri and Erasmus, written by Dr. Noel Beda. King Francis wrote to the Parliament directing it to cause the sale of these books to be prohibited. He added further general instructions that Parliament must enforce the previous regulations under which no books were to be printed or sold, either in Paris or elsewhere, which had not first been examined and approved by the members of the court deliberating together. The prohibition includes even such books as might have been written by members of the University. The task of a censorship of this kind, imposed not upon a select, scholarly committee, but upon a comparatively large body of consultation, must have been, as the literary production increased, one of no little difficulty.

It would appear, also, from such record as has reached us of the complaints of the publishers who had literary undertakings in train, and of the scholars, instructors, and students who were waiting for the books, that many serious and costly delays must have been caused by the physical impossibility of securing from the Court of Parliament a prompt decision upon the various literary schemes submitted.

It appears from the letter of King Francis, first, that the King had sufficient sympathy with the Reformers to be unwilling to have Erasmus attacked; and, secondly, that, even in matters of theological doctrine, the final decision was entrusted not to the Faculty of Theology, but to the Court of Parliament. Bayle, writing some time later, and having a cordial distrust for the Catholic Faculty of the University of his generation, regretted that these wise regulations could not have continued indefinitely.[173] Chevillier, on the other hand, thinks that the King’s confidence had been abused, and that his “grand douceur de caractère” had caused him to be too gentle to those accused of heresy. Chevillier goes on to say that the King in the end recognised the justice of the position taken by the Theological Faculty of the University in defence of the Church against its enemies. He got rid of his prepossessions in favour of Erasmus, and, in 1531, he gave a direct royal authorisation to the publisher Badius for the printing of Albert Pio’s big treatise (in twenty-four books) against Erasmus.

In February, 1534, the King sent to the Court of Parliament letters patent, under which the Court was instructed to select twenty-four persons qualified and trustworthy, from among whom the King would select twelve. To these twelve should be given, until further instructions, the exclusive privilege of printing books. Said books were to be printed in the city of Paris and nowhere else, and were to comprise only those which had been already approved as required for the public welfare. No new compositions whatever were to be licensed. The penalty for infraction of this ordinance was death by hanging. Legislation of this sort might be considered as somewhat discouraging to literary production, and as evidence of increasing dread on the part of the authorities of the intellectual activities and fermentation which characterised the period of the Reformation.

The prohibition against the publication of any new works gives the impression that the activity of literary or controversial production was on the side of the Reformers, and that it was thought to be of the first importance to restrain the publication and distribution of the writings of the Reformers, even at the inconvenience of hindering at the same time the publication of sound Catholic doctrine. What the King wanted to bring about was evidently the cessation of all religious, or rather of all theological controversy, and it was, in part at least, due to his policy in that matter that the mass of controversial literature produced during the Reformation was so much smaller in France than in Germany or in Switzerland. It is to be borne in mind that for the theological literature, and, in fact, for all the scholarly literature of the sixteenth century, the political boundaries did not imply, as they do to-day, barriers of language. The literary language of Europe was Latin, and the scholars of Europe, coming, through this common language, into direct relations with each other, were in a better position to carry on international controversies than would be the case to-day. There was nothing but the poverty of buyers or the prohibitory edicts of the rulers to prevent the general circulation among all scholarly readers of any work of importance on the all-absorbing issues of the time. The letters patent, above referred to, were, says Renouard, never registered by Parliament, and it does not appear that they were ever effectively carried into execution.

The ordinance of March 7, 1537, provides:

1st. (in reiteration of previous acts) that no work shall be printed in the kingdom in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Chaldee, Italian, Spanish, German, French, or other tongues, which had not first secured the King’s approval (given through the royal librarian). The list of languages through which it was supposed that evil might be instilled into the minds of good Frenchmen, was certainly sufficiently comprehensive. It is difficult to imagine any very serious risk of the dissemination of false doctrine or of the corrupting of the public morals through the circulation of works in Chaldee.

2d. That a copy of each book when printed be deposited in the library of the royal château of Blois, being delivered for the purpose to the King’s trusty councillor and treasurer, the Abbé Réclus Mellin de Saint-Gelais, librarian of said château, or to one of the deputies to be appointed by him for the purpose in each of the universities and important cities of the kingdom, a certificate being given as evidence of the delivery of the book.

3d. That a copy of each book printed abroad, and which it was desired to offer for sale in France, should, in like manner, be submitted for inspection, and that its sale in France could be authorised only if said book should be found worthy of being placed in the Royal Library, this inspection being necessary for the purpose of avoiding the risk of introducing into the kingdom works containing wicked errors such as have heretofore been found in books imported from abroad.

If copies of these imported works were certified as fit for sale in France and as worthy of acceptance for the Royal Library, the librarian was to make payment for them at the same price as that charged to others. The ground given for the collection in the Royal Library of copies of all works issued in France or imported into the kingdom, was the importance of preserving for future generations valuable literature which might otherwise have disappeared altogether from the memory of man, or which might in later issues have been altered from the original and accurate text. This edict of 1537 may therefore be considered as the first step towards the formation of a library for the preservation of the national literature. It was also the earliest example in France of the securing an authorisation for the publication of a book (a concession that was not yet a copyright and was not always even a privilege) in consideration of a tax imposed for the benefit of the nation, said tax comprising a single copy of the work authorised.

On March 20, 1537, appeared a second ordinance giving further details of the new measures. The preamble is worth quoting, because it sets forth clearly the main purpose which was kept in view in all these earlier regulations of literary production, namely, the restriction of the circulation of error and the assuring of the defence of the holy faith against the assaults of heretics:

François, etc. Comme, par tous les moyens que possible a été, nous avons obvié et empêché que les erreurs et infidèles interprétations déviant de notre sainte foi et religion chrétienne ne aient été reçues en notre royaume.... An ordinance of 1538 appoints Conrad Néobar printer for the King in Greek, under the following conditions:

1st. Religious works must secure the approval of the Faculty of Theology, and profane works that of the Faculty of Belles-Lettres.

2d. A copy of each work printed must be given to the Royal Library, afin que, si quelque calamité publique vient à affliger les lettres, la postérité puisse trouver là une ressource qui permette de réparer en partie une perte des livres.

3d. That each book issued by Néobar shall contain the announcement that he is “printer to the King” and that his Greek printing-office has been instituted under the royal protection, afin que non seulement ce siècle, mais aussi la postérité, comprenne avec quel zèle et quelle bienveillance nous avons traité la litérature, et que la postérité, avertie pas notre example, croie devoir faire de même, pour constituer et encourager les études.

In order to guarantee Néobar against the risk of loss, as the demand for books in Greek was hardly likely to prove remunerative, the King agreed to pay him per year the sum of one hundred gold crowns, equal in currency to about two hundred dollars, but representing, of course, at that time, a much larger purchasing power. Néobar’s business was also to be free of taxes, and to enjoy the other privileges previously accorded to the publishers of the University. Other printers and publishers were forbidden to print or to import editions of the works issued by Néobar, he being granted an exclusive monopoly or copyright of five years for books which were first published by him, whether these were the productions of modern scholars or were taken from old manuscripts, and of two years for books which had been reprinted by him in revised and more complete form from earlier editions.

The fury of civil war and the bitterness of religious dissension, continued to give a special character to the laws affecting printing and publishing and to the enforcement of these. There were also instances in which the severities of the courts preceded those of the legislators. In 1545, the records of the Chambre syndicale de la librairie, the sub-court charged with the control of publishing, show that a certain Étienne Polliot was sentenced for importing and selling heretical books. He was compelled to carry a bundle of his publications to the market-place, where he and his books were burned together. In 1546, the publisher Étienne Dolet, himself the author of a number of books, published in both Latin and French, was burned in the Place Maubert, for his obstinate persistence in the heresy of Calvin. Dolet is credited with having uttered at the stake the following line: Non dolet ipse Dolet, sed pia turba dolet. [It is not Dolet who grieves, but a pious crowd (of witnesses).]

The ordinances of 1557 and 1560 punished with death, as guilty of treason, the authors, printers, publishers, and sellers or distributors of books which had been condemned as pernicious or libellous. The declaration of July 17, 1561, sentenced to the penalty of the lash for the first offence and to that of death for the second, all printers, sellers, and distributors of inflammatory or libellous publications. Letters patent of 1563 fixed the penalty of hanging or strangling for the offence of printing a book without the royal authorisation. The often quoted ordinance of Moulins, of 1566, renews the same prohibitions, which were further confirmed in 1570, 1571, 1586, and later. It is not easy to understand why such reiteration of prohibitions and of penalties was required, or why the provisions of any particular ordinance, or letters patent, should not have remained in force until repealed, or at least until the close of the reign.

This ordinance of Moulins, issued by Charles IX., brings together under one heading privileges and permits. It is often referred to as forming the beginning of the copyright system of France: Défendons aussi à toutes personnes que ce soit d’imprimer ou faire imprimer aucun livre ou traité sans notre congé et permission et lettres de privilège expédiées sous notre grand scel, auquel cas aussi enjoignons à l’imprimeur d’y mettre et insérer son nom et le lieu de sa demeurance, ensemble ledit congé et privilège, et ce sur peine de perdition de biens et punition corporelle.

Monsieur Vitet[174] is of opinion that the wars of the League had some influence in securing a certain freedom for publishing. The government of the League did not undertake to free from restrictions the printing-presses of Paris. It prohibited them, however, only from such undertakings as seemed likely to prove of service to the enemies of the League. On the other hand, there was at Tours a government which was hostile only to such writings as were not royalist, and at Geneva another government, the censures of which affected only that literature which was not Protestant. Through these three limited censures came into existence three fragments of publishing freedom. The power of the printing-press in influencing public opinion may, as far as France is concerned, be said to date from this period. Without question, during the previous twenty years, the larger portion of the publications of a religious, theological, and controversial character had come from the side of the Protestants. Their mission was to preach and convince as well as to fight, and the printing-press was as necessary to them as were their muskets. The controversial writings were, however, largely left unanswered, and their authors were reduced to the publishing of monologues and, finally, for a time at least, to the abandonment of the Press as an active agent in the contest.

On the other hand, when the Catholics, associated together in the organisation of the League, had established themselves as a military power, they undertook not only to extirpate Protestantism, but to speak to the world more energetically and more authoritatively than the Protestants had done. Nothing is more contagious than speech, especially if such speech take upon itself a controversial form. As soon, therefore, as the presses of the League became active, those of the Protestants renewed their own activities, so that the civil and religious wars had the double effect of freeing the printing-presses from a large proportion of their previous restrictions, and of increasing enormously the amount of the literary production of these presses. It is to be noted, however, that production was for the time limited almost exclusively to works in the department of theology, while the publication of Greek, Roman, and Italian classics, no longer encouraged by University supervision or by royal bounty, was naturally checked. The grand campaign of the pamphlets was most active during the years 1588-1589, after which the ardour of the pugnacious pens appears to have slackened, until, in 1594, the victors terminated the contest with the final pamphlet of the series, a Menippean satire, which is said to have been no less useful to Henry IV. than the battles of Arques and of Ivry.

The Edict of Nantes, which bears date 1598, contained a special provision concerning the circulation of publications favouring the so-called “reformed religion”: Ne pourront les livres concernant la dite religion, prétendue réformée, être réimprimés et rendus publiquement qu’ès villes et lieux où l’exercice public de la dite religion est permis; et, pour les autres livres qui seront imprimés en autres villes, seront vus et visités tant par nos ordonnances. Défendons très expressément l’impression, publication et vente de tous livres, libelles et écrits diffamatoires, sous les peines contenues en nos ordonnances, enjoignant à tous nos juges et officiers d’y tenir la main.[175]

The essential point of this provision appears to be the restriction of the sale of Protestant books to certain cities and districts (the list of which is given elsewhere in the Edict), in which the public exercise of said religion was authorised. It is worth noting, however, also, that these Protestant books are practically classified as libels and inflammatory writings. The difficulties in the way of the authors and publishers of such books must have, at the time, been very considerable. It does not appear that any provision was made for the circulation of such publications between the cities in which they were permitted to be issued, as such circulation must, of course, have taken them across the “good Catholic” territory, within the boundaries of which these Protestant books were incendiary libels. There could in but few cases have been any possibility of securing within the limits of any single Protestant city, such, for instance, as Rochelle, a sufficient sale for a book to render its sale remunerative, or even to return the outlay required; while there were no university funds or royal bounties within the reach of Protestants with which to facilitate the publication of unprofitable works. There is little probability, therefore, that for the Protestant works published in France during this period the authors were able to secure any compensation whatever, while for the majority of such books the authors or others interested must themselves have provided the investment required.

An enactment of 1618 codified the various separate regulations for the supervision and control (la police et la discipline) of the business of printing and of publishing. Among the previous regulations which were repeated in detail in this enactment were those dating May, 1571, the substance of which is as follows:

“The master printers now doing business in the city of Paris, shall choose each year two from among their number with two of the twenty-four master publishers certified (jurés) for the same year, the functions of whom shall be to prevent the printing of any work of a libellous or incendiary or heretical character; and to insure the correctness and satisfactory quality of the editions which may be printed in each city of the realm.” This last responsibility was understood to cover not only an approval of the quality of the paper and the presswork, but also a careful supervision of the correctness of the type-setting and of the quality of the type, which must not be worn (trop usée), and if these supervisors find errors calling for reprimand, they are to make report of the same before either a civil or a criminal judge according to the nature of the fault.

The said publishers are limited in the prices they are permitted to charge for their publications, the price per sheet for works in Latin (not including notes in Greek) not to exceed ten deniers, for works in Greek not to exceed six deniers. There is a further clause providing for a proportionate reduction in the schedule of prices specified, whenever in the judgment of the Rector, deans, masters, and twenty-four certified publishers of the University, a lessening of the cost of production or of handling may justify such reduction.

In 1587, an order in council confirmed the exemption of the book-business from all subsidies and from customs duties and municipal tolls and taxes. In 1617, the Syndic and directors of the Guild of publishers, printers, and binders submitted a request to the Provost of Paris to be authorised to select for a special commission to take into consideration the condition of the book-business, six certified publishers, six non-certified publishers (practically book-dealers), and six printers. To this commission were joined the Syndic of the Guild and four of its board of directors, and under its recommendations and as a result of investigations extending into the following year, were drafted the regulations embodied in the letters patent of 1618.

The preamble says:

Et d’autant que, parmi le bruit et l’insolence des armes, ceux qui font profession des bonnes lettres ont été les plus oppressés et comme réduits à néant, nous avons, en ensuivant les anciens vestiges de nos prédécesseurs, apporté tout le soin à nous possible de les rétablir en leur première splendeur, principalement en ce qui regarde notre fille âinée, l’université de notre bonne ville de Paris, etc.

It is to be noted that the profession of letters is made practically synonymous with the University of Paris. The statutes contain thirty-eight articles. The first confirms the franchises and immunities of the Guild of publishers, printers, and binders.

Articles 2, 5, and 11 give consideration to the subjects of apprenticeship, the admission of associates and of masters, the obligation (for each master) of keeping not less than two presses in running order, the rights of widows, etc.

The twelfth article prescribes that all printers and publishers must print their books in handsome, legible type, carefully corrected, and on good paper, and that each volume must bear at its beginning or end the name and trade-mark of its publisher, and the record of the privilege and permit under which it is issued; and in case the book has been printed without permit, the entire edition is to be confiscated, in addition to further penalties.

Article 13 provides that printers or publishers who issue books of a libellous or defamatory character, shall be deprived of their privileges and immunities, and shall, thereafter, be enjoined from exercising the trade of printing or book-selling.

This article, however, was not intended to trench upon the sphere of penal legislation. In this same year, 1618, a poet named Durand, convicted of having written a libel against Louis XIII., was condemned to be broken on the wheel and afterwards burned. Two brothers, Italians, were executed with him, for having translated the book into Italian.

Article 15 specifies that two copies of each book published were to be deposited in the Royal Library (an increase of one copy over the requirements of the enactment of 1571), one copy was to be given to the Syndic, apparently for use in the Guild library, and four copies could be retained for the printers and their associates.

Article 16 provides that for the future not more than one publisher, one printer, and one binder should be admitted each year to the Guild, the purpose being to reduce the membership of this.

Article 17 provides for the election each year of the Syndic and of two of the deputies.

Article 18 gives consideration to the examination of books by the syndics, to the restrictions to be placed upon the trade in France of foreign book-dealers, to colporteurs, book-sales, etc.

Article 19 provides for the seizure of unauthorised foreign reprints of French books.

Article 30 forbids any single individual or firm from having more than one shop or printing-office, which must (doubtless for the greater convenience of official supervision) be within the precincts of the University.

Article 31 forbids the sale of books in book-stalls and book-carts.

These last two prohibitions were considered of sufficient importance to be repeated in a separate act issued in 1630. They were directed more particularly against the practice which was increasing among certain persons of quality of keeping printing-presses in their houses.

Article 32 forbids, under penalty of confiscation of goods and 3000 francs fine, the printing outside of the kingdom of any work to be issued with a French imprint, or the disguising or concealing of either the publishing imprint or the record of the place of manufacture.

Article 38 provides that each publisher, printer, and binder must be sworn before the Provost of Paris, or his deputy, in the presence of the procureur of the King.

The noteworthy changes brought about by the enactment were: the reduction in the number of authorised publishers and printers, a reduction to be brought about by the limitation of the new members to one of each class per year, the transfer to the Provost of Paris of a function heretofore exercised by the University, and the restriction of the printing-presses in such a manner as to facilitate the police supervision of the authorities.

From time to time, however, the Court of Parliament reasserted its claim to the exercise of a joint control with the King, and the declaration of 1612 appears to have been issued in order to put an end to any such claims.

Défendant très expressément a nos âmes et nos feaux conseillers, maîtres des requêtes, et gardes des sceaux de nos chancelleries, et de nos cours de parlement, donner aucune permission d’imprimer livres ou écrits, sur mêmes peines que dessus contre les imprimeurs ou librairies qui auraient obtenu telles permissions.

Authorisation to publish was from this time on dependent on the securing of permits sealed with the royal seal.

In 1624, four royal censors were instituted by letters patent. Two of them were to have each six hundred livres a year, and the others, four hundred livres. The first four censors, André Duval, Pierre Quedarne, Jacques Messier, and François de Saint Père, were all doctors of the Theological Faculty of Paris. The privilege of filling such vacancies as might occur in the board was in the first place given to the College of the Sorbonne. Notwithstanding this selection of the board from the members of its own Faculty, the University, or at least the theological division of the University, was seriously dissatisfied with losing its ancient privileges of controlling directly the examination of religious literature. In 1629, fresh regulations were issued by the Crown in connection with the censorship, under which, works submitted for publication, instead of being examined by a board appointed in advance, were passed upon by censors particularly designated for each work by the Chancellor or the Privy Seal. In 1658, the Chancellor Séguier had designated three readers or examiners who again appear to have constituted a permanent board.

Notwithstanding the edict of 1629, the Theological Faculty of the University continued to claim the right to pass upon all publications of a religious character. This right was also recognised in ordinances of a later date, and the examinations of the Faculty were held concurrently with those of the royal censors or of the deputies designated by these. Under the ordinance of 1629, the publisher or author seeking a permit to print was obliged to submit for examination two complete copies of his manuscript, a requirement which could be modified only under the authority of the Chancellor or Privy Seal.

The general result of the ordinance of 1629 was not in the direction of freedom for the printing-press, but there were certain advantages secured by the writers and makers of books in having consolidated into one code restrictions and regulations which had heretofore existed in isolated letters, ordinances, and edicts. The creation of royal censors, an act harmonising with the centralising tendencies of the times, may be understood also as a recognition on the part of the Crown of the increasing influence of literature, and of the importance of bringing literature into direct dependence upon the authority of the monarch.

The founding, in 1635, of the French Academy, had an important influence as well upon the organisation of authors as upon the relations of these with the Crown. It was the general scheme of Richelieu, continued later by Louis XIV., in the first place to put literature exclusively under the authority of the Crown, and secondly, through privileges and favours, to secure its support for the interests of royalty. It is evident that the King, or at least the King of this date, neither created nor extended the supervision of literature, for the idea had as yet occurred to none that the printing-press could be left free. There was also, probably, no deliberate purpose to bribe or corrupt the authors of the time. It was, however, no new idea for men of letters to be dependent upon the favour of princes, and there was, it is fair to remember, a certain direct advantage for literature as well as for the Crown in adding to the social position and general welfare of writers. While the edict establishing the Academy bore the date of 1635, its incorporation was completed only by the lettres de cachet, of July 10, 1637. In these letters appears the following curious restriction:

“Provided, namely, that the members of said Assembly and Academy shall concern themselves only with the history, embellishment, and development of the French language,” a restriction which was evidently acted upon, later, with considerable breadth of interpretation.

In 1686, a further enactment for the supervision of publishing and printing was recorded in the Parliament of Paris. In this were repeated the several provisions in the enactment of 1629, with the following modifications: Three complete copies, instead of two, of each book printed, should be deposited, and no additional printer should be admitted into the Guild until the number of master-printers had been reduced to thirty-six. There was also a provision forbidding publishers from carrying on a printing business under their licence as publishers. The board of control of the Guild is given special authority for the examination of works imported from abroad, with the purpose of preventing the circulation in France of Livres ou Libelles diffamatoires contre l’honneur de Dieu, le bien et répos de notre état, ou imprimés sans nom d’auteur, ou du libraire, ou des livres contrefaits sur ceux qui auront été imprimés avec privilége, etc.

In the same year appeared an enactment, under which the bookbinders and gilders were separated from the Guild of publishers and printers. As in 1618 and in 1649, the University found ground for complaint that these regulations had been framed without its participation. It secured the appointment of a commission of State councillors to examine into its complaint, but the report of the commission was adverse to the contention of the University. Of its old responsibilities and privileges for the supervision and control of literary undertakings, there rested now with the University only certain inconsiderable forms, and the restriction upon printers and publishers to carry on their business in the University quarter.

The issue of permits and the charges to be paid for the same, were regulated by letters patent of 1701, the provisions for pamphlets being made different from those for books. The authorisation for the printing and publishing of books was, as heretofore, to be granted under the great seal. The authorisation for the printing of pamphlets was to be given by the local magistrates, and after an examination of the material by inspectors appointed by the magistrates for the purpose. A pamphlet was defined to be a work containing not more than two sheets. When the permit given under the great seal included a general privilege securing for the publisher the exclusive control for the kingdom of the work issued, the sum paid for the same was to be determined by the general tariff of the great seal.

When the permit gives control over a limited district only, the charge is made but one third of that for a general privilege. If the authorisation includes no privilege, either general or limited, the sum paid for the same shall be five livres.

When the works are published in series, the different parts of which are issued at different times, each part must be examined and authorised for itself; and each examination must in any case include the prefaces, dedications, and supplements.

The “general privileges” associated with permits, referred to in these letters, are not to be confounded with another class of general privileges which were from time to time conceded directly by the Crown either to individuals or to associations or companies as well for works already composed as for those still to be written. This latter class of royal privilege was abolished, and those in force at the time were revoked, by orders in council of 1659 and 1686. An exception, however, was made as late as 1714, in the case of certain general privileges accorded by the Crown to the Academy of Letters, and to the Academy of Painting and Sculpture.

A contest arose, in 1702, between the Chancellor de Pontchartrain and the higher clergy on the question of certain general privileges which the bishops claimed to be still in force. The bishops, possessing already an unquestioned right to print, without special permits, their episcopal charges and letters, and also the catechisms used for the instruction of the young people of the diocese, thought they could take advantage of the ardour of the King against Jansenism and Quietism, gradually to extend their privileges so as to make these include all works of a devotional character.

The Chancellor refused to give consideration to any such claims and the resulting disputes continued over some years. The bishops contended that, being themselves the final judges of the doctrines of the Church, utterances made by them, or utterances or writings accepted by them, could not with propriety be passed upon by others who were not authorities upon points of doctrine.

The Chancellor simply maintained the binding force of the old regulations, and took the ground that, while the Government would always require the counsel of the bishops on literature involving points of doctrine, the final decision as to the advisability of the publication of any particular work must, as heretofore, rest with the Crown. He undertook further to take all necessary measures to prevent the publication of any works which might appear to be inimical to the liberties of the Church of France.

Madame de Maintenon gave the weight of her influence in favour of the bishops, the question having come up in tangible shape in connection with certain works that the Bishops of Meaux and of Chartres had written in controversy with a certain prolific writer named Simon, and which were now in readiness for the press.

The King dreaded exciting the ire of the Jesuits and dreaded also, says the chronicle, the risk of putting Madame de Maintenon into a bad temper. He avoided, therefore, making a decision, and contented himself with expressing the wish that the parties would arrange some adjustment of the difficulty. An adjustment was finally arrived at, under which the bishops withdrew their pretensions concerning the general oversight of doctrinal literature, but reaffirmed their right (which had never been disputed) to have their counsel taken before permits were issued for any works of this class. The privilege was accorded to them (this concession being practically the sole result of the issue) of printing and publishing, without official permit, works written by themselves. The control of documents concerning ritual and of catechisms was also left in their hands.

Disputes subsequently arose concerning the interpretation of the authority for the publication of works written by the bishops. They themselves and their Jesuit allies, with the powerful aid of Madame de Maintenon, contended that this authorisation covered all doctrinal literature. The Chancellor, on the other hand, maintained that it was limited to missals, rituals, books of the liturgy, and other official volumes connected with the service of the Church. A formal decision does not appear to have been arrived at, but in the subsequent practice the view of the Chancellor was in the main adhered to.

Bossuet wrote to the King, to Cardinal de Noailles, and to Madame de Maintenon several indignant protests concerning the attempt of the Chancellor to control the utterances of the Church. It is not to be thought of, says Bossuet, that the Holy Church of Christ shall be compelled to submit, for the examination of magistrates, its decrees, catechisms, and spiritual teachings upon matters which would be confined strictly to the instructors of their flock. The Church must be left free to print, sell, and distribute its prayers and its instructions to its children and its ministers. The responsibility that has been placed in the hands of the rulers of the Church for the preservation of the faith and for the instruction of the people in this faith, comes to them from Christ himself, and any attempt to take away or diminish this responsibility is an attack upon the faith and an intention to humiliate the Church.[176] The King, influenced by the pleading of Bossuet, finally brought himself to a decision, which, while not covering all the questions involved, gave to the bishops whose works were at the moment under consideration the satisfaction claimed. To the Bishop of Chartres was accorded, in 1703, a general privilege for the term of ten years covering all breviaries, missals, diurnals, antiphonals, graduals, processionals, episcopal letters, psalters, hours, catechisms, ordinances, statutes, and pastoral instructions which were required under the general usage of the diocese.[177]