Authors Vs Publishers

American Society for Eighteenth Century Studies (ASECS)
The Profits of Ideas: Privileges en Librairie in Eighteenth-Century France

Author(s): Raymond Birn
Source: Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Winter, 1970-1971), pp. 131-168
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Sponsor: American Society for Eighteenth Century Studies
(ASECS).
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2737673 .
Accessed: 26/04/2011 18:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Johns Hopkins University Press and American Society for Eighteenth Century Studies (ASECS) are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Eighteenth-Century Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
TheProfits
ofIdeas
en librairie
Privileges
in Eighteenth-Century
France
RAYMOND BIRN
ON 30 AUGUST 1777-fifteenmonthsafterthe fall of Turgotand

threemonthsintoNecker'sfirst ministry-six royalarretsoverturned
thefundamental commercial principlesupon whichtheFrenchbook
tradehad restedfora century.The firstfourof theseorderssup-
pressedcertainprovincialcommunities of sellersand printers, the
so-calledchambres syndicales,whilecreatingothers;revisedcriteria
foracceptingmasterlibrairesand imprimeurs; establishedtwopublic
salesannuallyforthedisposition ofliteraryproperty; andruledon the
conductand disciplineofthejourneyman printers.'The Sixtharret,
recognizing how a clique offavoredpublishershad monopolizedthe
industryby extendingover many generationsexclusiverightsof
reproduction, theprivilegesen librairie,thusreducingless favored
colleaguesto the recourseof counterfeit editions,now legitimized
theseeditions,provided that owners presentedtheirvolumesto a
royalinspectoror officialofthecommunity to be stamped.2
ButtheFiftharretof30 Augustwas themostsignificant ofall. For
thefirsttimelegislationdistinguishedbetweenthenatureof literary
property in thehandsof an authorand in thehandsof a publisher.
The privilege,
grantedto thewriterforhislabororto thepublisher for
hisinvestment, was newlydefined.The arretstatedthathereafter no
firsteditioncould be publishedin France withouteithera royal
privilegeor permissionawardedbythekeeperoftheseals. Previous
legislation requiredthisofall titles,classicsas wellas newbooks.
had
I wishto expressmygratitude to theFulbright

Commission foritsfinancial
support
in 1968-69,whenI conductedtheresearchforthisarticle.A shorterand somewhat
differentversionwas read at theannualmeetingof theSocietyforFrenchHistorical
Studies,heldinWashington, D.C. on 20 March1970.
1Bibliotheque Nationale.FondsFran9ais22180,Nrs.81,82,87,91. 30 August1777.
See alsoIsambert,Jourdan, andDecrusyeds.,Receullgeinraldesanciennes
loisfrancaises
(Paris,1922-30),XXIII, 108-28.
2 F. Fr. 22180,Nr. 84. 30 August1777.
131
132 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STUDIES
Yet whatwas mostoriginalaboutthenewrulingwas thedistinction it

made between a possessed
privilege byauthors or heirs
their on theone
hand,andpublishers on theother.Whenownedbythefirst group,the
natureoftheprivilege was perpetualas wellas exclusive.Retainingit,
thewriter andhisdescendants mightnegotiate freelywitha printerand
participateinanywaydeemeddesirableand through as manyeditions
as werenecessaryto effect the distributionand sale of the book in
question.All otherpartieswererestrained frompublishing thework.
However,once a publisherpurchasedthemanuscript fromitsauthor
and assumedresponsibility fortheeditionhimself, theroyalprivilege
accompanying thetransferwouldbe validfora minimum oftenyears
or the lifetimeof the work's author. As soon as the publisher's
privilegeexpired,theworkwould enterthepublicdomain. A pub-
lishermightrenewhis privilegeonlyifhe had thetextof his edition
increasedby at least one-fourth.It was assumedthat "anciennes
editionsnon-augmentees" wouldfallintothepublicdomainwhether
or not an old privilegeprotectedthem. All publisherswerecom-
manded to declare an inventoryof privilegesen librairiein their
possessionso thatnewdeterminations on thelimitsof theirvalidity
could be made. The spiritof the rulingwas expressedin language
intendedto assuagepublishersfora suddenloss of property which
theyheldto be as realas a pieceofland or a marriageable daughter:
"Sa Majeste a pense qu'un Reglementqui restreindroit le droit
exclusifdes Librairesau tempsqui seraportedans le Privilegeseroit
leur avantage,parce qu'une jouissance limitee,mais certaine,est
pr6ferable a unejouissanceindefinie, maisillusoire."3
The difficultywasthatfewholdersofprivileges enlibrairiein 1777-
or forthepast century forthatmatter-considered theirpossessions
to be illusions.Theywerebased,it was believed,upon soundtheory
and concreteexample.Colberthad established theprecedent earlyin
thereignof Louis XIV, when,to maintaineconomicand ideological
controlsoverthelibrairie, he linkeda policyon privilegesto twoother
aspectsof his program,censorship,and the limitationand careful
surveillance ofpressesin France.
Authority overcensorship, of course,he inheritedfrompredeces-
sors.4Whenhe established a royalboardofexaminers fortheological
3 F. Fr. 22180,Nr. 80. 30 August1777. Amendments. F. Fr.22180,Nr. 175. 30 July
1778.
4 No comprehensive undertheAncienRegimeexists.Aspectsofthe
studyofcensorship
problemhavebeenstudied,however, eitheras specializedmonographs or as a partof
moregeneralworkson thebooktradeanditsadministration. In theformercategory are
J.-P.Belin, Le Commercedes livresprohibesd Paris de 1750 d 1789 (Paris, 1913); Albert
PRIVILtGES EN LIBRAIRIE 133
works,Richelieuhad madeitclearthattheCrownno longerintended

to shareresponsibilityforcensorshipwiththeUniversity and Parle-
mentof Paris. But the crisisover Jansenism and thenthe Fronde
crippledtheeffectivenessof royalcontrols,and it was onlywiththe
arrivalof Colbertand La Reyniethatthemonarchyfounditselfin
a positionto thrustthefullforceof its authority behinda compre-
hensiveprogramof preventive and repressivecensorship.Reading
copyin manuscript, thechancellor'scommittee of examinerswas to
decideupontheappropriateness ofall worksintendedforpublication
in France. The Community of Sellersand PrintersofParis,founded
in 1618,wastocooperatewiththeexaminers andpoliceininvestigating
the contentsof books enteringfrom abroad. Furthermore, by
descentsand accompanying
initiating royalagentson theirraids,the
ofthePariscommunity
officers wereassociatedcloselywiththeregime
inmakingcertainthatall provincialsellersand printerswereadhering
to theregulations.An arretdu Conseilsanctioning thislastresponsi-
bilitydid much to converta favoredgroup of librairesfromthe
capitalintoan auxiliaryspynetwork thatwouldharassthepublishers
ofthecountry forgenerations to come.5
Buta farmoreseriouselementin theColbertianprogram,sincefor
manyit meantdisappearancealtogether, was the policyof limiting
thenumberofpressesin Franceso thatno idle ones wouldbe leftto
submitto thetemptation ofprohibited worksor counterfeit editions.
Reversinga trendof two centuries, whichhad seen the imprimerie
bloomunderthebenevolent care oftheCrown-not merelyin Paris,
Bachman,Censorship inFrancefrom1715-1750:Voltaire's Opposition (NewYork,1934);
andNicoleHerrmnann-Mascard, La Censure deslivresa Parisa lafindel'AncienRegime
(1750-1789)(Paris,1968). In the latterare LucienFebvreand Henri-Jean Martin,
L'Apparition dulivre(Paris,1958),pp. 371-75;DavidT. Pottinger, TheFrench BookTrade
intheAncien Regime, 1500-1791(Cambridge, Mass.,1958),pp. 54-81;MadeleineVentre,
L'Imprimerie etla librairie
enLanguedoc au derniersiecledel'AncienRegime(1700-1789)
(Parisand The Hague, 1958),pp. 75-215;PierreGrosclaude,Malesherbes:temoinet
interpretede sontemps(Paris,1961),pp. 63-208,665-82;and Henri-Jean Martin,Livre,
pouvoirsetsocieteaParisau XVIIesi&cle (1598-1701) (Geneva,1969)1,440-71;II, 695-98,
764-74.
5F. Fr. 22071,Nr. 108. 11 September 1665. As maybe expected,preventive and
repressivecensorship wasa constantpreoccupation oftheCrownfromthereignofLouis
XIV untiltherevolution, andliterallyhundreds ofroyalarretswerepromulgated on the
subject.Two comprehensive rulingsattempted to coalescethespecific legislationofthe
seventeenth and earlyeighteenth centuries.The first was issuedin 1686(F. Fr. 22061,
Nr. 121. "Editdu Roy pourle reglement des imprimeurs et librairesde Paris,avecles
autoritezdesanciennes ordonnances, statuts,arrests & reglements" Paris,1687). Ostens-
iblyintended forthebooktradeofParis,itreallyappliedtotheentire realm.Thesecond
rulingwasissuedin 1723(Isambert, Jourdan, andDecrusy,Recueilgeneral, XXI,216-31.
"Reglement du Conseilpourla librairie & l'imprimerie de Paris. 24 fWvrier1723"). In
1744it officiallywas madeapplicablefortheentirerealm(ClaudeSaugrain,Codede la
librairie
etdel'imprimerie. Paris,1744).
butalso in Lyon,Rouen,Toulouse,and Troyes-theregimeofLouis

XIV placedsuchrestrictions uponthenumberand sizeofshopsinthe
capitaland provincialtowns,thatthesmallestones,thosemostprone
to illegalpractices,wereforcedout of existence.To cite the most
celebratedexample:in 1666,Paris had 217 pressesin 79 shops. In
1701,195pressesexistedin 51 shops. The community was toldto get
thisnumberdownto 36 shops,and onlyone masterbooksellerwould
be admittedeachyear.6Reductionsbecamecommonpolicythrough-
outmostoftheeighteenth century.The royalsurveyof 1701counted
410 masterprinters theprovinces;one takenin 1764counted254.7
in
In essence,Colbert'sprogram forthebooktrade,enactedina periodof
economicrecession,wouldhavemade good sensehad it keptFrance
ideologicallysafeand a limitednumberoffavoredprinters and sellers
occupiedand grateful to thegovernment.
Somethingwentwrong,however.The censorshipcontrolsbroke
down. Too manyFrenchreadersdesiredbooks printedin thefreer
climesofAmsterdam, Rotterdam, and Leyden;and too manyFrench
authorswerewillingto sendtheirmanuscripts to be publishedthere.
AftertheRevocationoftheEdictofNantes,CalvinistexilesinHolland
suchas theDesbordesand Huguetanfamiliestook ironicvengeance
upon Louis XIV byprinting and exportingto theirformer homeland
books which,forreasonsof state,religion,or publicmorality, could
notbe printed inFrance. Andtocompoundtheproblem, thescholarly
abbeBignon,whoadministered theFrenchlibrairieinthechancellor's
name duringthe firsttwo decades of the eighteenth century,often
lookedtheotherwaywhenthevolumesfromHolland arrived.This
doublestandardin thebook trade,so beneficial to Dutchcommerce,
lasteduntilthedeathofLouis XIV.8 After1715,theinfluxand popu-
larityof the Dutch edition,as well as the developmentof foreign
6 Martin, Livre,pouvoirsetsociete,1,319-26;11,678-83,699,704. Thecrisisofrecession
whichhelpsto explainColbert'sretrenchment policiesfromtheeconomicanglehasbeen
a fruitfultopicforrevisionist historians rightly
wishing to deglamorize theSun King's
reign.RolandMousnierbrilliantly analyzedthebackground ofthecriseand theroyal
responsein Les XVIe et XVIIesiecles("Histoiregeneraledes civilisations"), IV (Paris,
1954),145-56,249-56,297-301;and RobertMandrou,La Franceaux XVIIeet XVIIIe
siecles(Paris,1967),pp. 113-23,offers a morerecentanalysis.MartinrelatedtheParis
booktradealmosttooneatlytothegeneral economicconditions described byhisteacher,
Mousnier,in an articleanticipating thelatter'sbook,"L'Editionparisienne au XVIie
siecle.Quelquesaspectseconomiques," Annales.Economies, Societes,Civilisations
(1952),
pp. 303-18.
7 Paul Chauvet, Les Ouvriers du livreen France:des origines a la ReJvolution
(Paris,
1959),p. 213. An arr8tdu Conseilfor1704calledfora reduction ofmasterprinters in
Franceto 278 (F. Fr. 22065,Nr. 63. 21 July1704),and a rulingfor1739calledfora
reduction to 250(F. Fr. 22067,Nr.206. 31 March1739).
8 Martin, Livre,pouvoirs etsociete,II, 739-53.
PRIVILPGES EN LIBRAIRIE 135
publishingcentersfor books for Frenchconsumptionin Geneva,

Neuchatel,Brussels,Liege,Bouillon,and,above all,Avignon,forced
the regimeto re-examineits traditionalrestrictions upon domestic
production.Malesherbes,chiefroyal administrator for the book
tradeat mid-century, givesa hintofwhatoccurred:"II s'esttrouvedes
circonstances oiuon n'a pas ose autoriserpubliquement un livre,&
ou cependanton a sentiqu'il ne seraitpas possiblede le defendre.
C'est ce qui a donne lieu aux premierespermissionstacites."9 In
1718,theofficers ofthePariscommunity listedtheinitialpermissions
tacitesin a registermisleadingly labelled"Des Livresd'impression
etrangere presentez pourla permission de debiter."10Theseformeda
categoryof books whollyoutsidethepurviewof customaryregula-
tions.Some wereprintedabroad and imported;mostwerepublished
in France. No privilegeprotectedthepublisherfromothereditions.
The censorwho examinedthe volume applyingfor a permission
taciteremainedanonymous.Sporadicallyawardedbefore1750,the
permissiontacitebecamemorecommonplacein theEnlightenment.
La Pucelle,De l'Espritdes lois,Le Siecle de Louis XIV, thelast ten
volumesof theEncyclopedie,and all theperiodicalliterature except
thethreeofficial journals,wereamongtherecipients of permissions
tacites.Theyloweredthepriceof intellectual liberation.Moreover,
withoutthem,thelibrairiein Francewouldhave sunklowerthanit
did intothequagmireofmonopoly.
As it stood,Colbert'sprivilegesystemconspiredwiththepolicyof
reducingthe numberof pressesto create,by the beginningof the
eighteenth century, a book tradethoroughly dominatedby a handful
of Paris libraires-imprimeurs, who dictatedcontractswithauthors
whilerendering colleaguesin the capital and provincessubmissive
and economicallyimpotent.These favoredpublishers,customarily
theofficersof theParis Community of Sellersand Printers,formeda
patriciatecloselyassociatedwiththe regime-registering privileges
and permits,as imprimeurs du Roi dividingmonopoliesover the
publicationof government documents,and, above all, obtaining
exclusiveprivilegesforas manybooks as possible,old titlesand new
ones,classics,and bestsellers."
9 C.-G. Lamoignonde Malesherbes,
Mdmoires
surla librairie
et surla libertede la
presse(Paris,1809),p. 249.
10 F. Fr. 21990.
11As theforemosteconomicconsideration
ofFrenchpublishers oftheAncienRWgime,
theprivilege
en librairie
has notescapedtheattention of scholars.Duringthesecond
halfofthenineteenthcenturythehistoriography
oftheprivilegeswasmarredbythefact
thatthosewho approachedthesubjectdid so to justifypersonalpositionsin thethen
currentdebateoverperpetualcopyright.
For example,EdouardLaboulayeandGeorges
en librairiedatedback to thefirst
The earliestprivileges decadesof
thesixteenth centuryand weregrantedeitherto authorsorpublishers.
The originalintentwasto allowtheprincipalinvestor inan editionthe
opportunity to recoverhis moneyand earn a profitwithina fixed
periodof time-fiveto tenyearscustomarily.Afterthisperiodthe
Guiffrey defendedthe principleof perpetualcopyright by stressing the need forre-
establishing continuity withtradition-thatis, withtheirinterpretation of pre-1777
tradition.Theystressed theprinciple thatundertheAncienRWgime an authorand his
heirsmightretaina privilege ad infinitum, and that,until1777,publishers justifiably
mightexpectidenticalprotection.By employing historicalprecedentto defendthe
ambitions ofpublishers oftheirownday,however, Laboulayeand Guiffrey neglected to
mention thatbefore1777theauthorand hisheirswereprohibited fromexploiting the
privilege.Onlya libraire orimprimeur couldengageinthecommerce ofbooks,andthe
ParisCommunity of Sellersand Printers urgedmembers oftheguildto insistuponan
author'ssurrender of his privilege beforeundertaking publicationof his manuscript.
In the overwhelming numberof cases thisintra-community collusionseemsto have
worked,and itwasnotuntil1769thatan authorovertly challenged publishers' practice
byfinding a printer whowouldundertake hisworkwithout insisting uponpurchaseof
theprivilege as well,andthenlocatingseverallibraires whowoulddistribute and sellit.
ThoughthelogicofLaboulayeand Guiffrey wasshaky,thedocuments reprinted intheir
volume, LaPropridte'litte'raireau XVIIIesiecle.Recueildepiecesetde documents. Publie
par le Comitedel'Association pourla d4fense de la propriete litteraireetartistique (Paris,
1859),areveryvaluable.In 1881,M.-F. Malaperttooktheoppositetack,defending the
limitedtemporal notionofcopyright in hisHistoireabrdgde de la l'gislationsurla pro-
pridtdlitteraireavant1789(Paris,1881). Themostdispassionate accountoftheprivileges
wasHenriFalk'slawthesis, Les Privileges de librairiesousl'AncienRe'gime (Paris,1906).
But Falk's nearcompletedependence uponjuridicalsourcesmakeshisworkoutdated
today. He madelittleuse oftheregisters ofprivileges and permissions compiledbythe
ParisCommunity ofSellersand Printers and therefore failedto see howtheuse ofper-
missions tacitescouldcutintothesystem established byroyalarrets.Falkalsomisunder-
stoodDiderot'srolein thetheoretical controversy surrounding theprivileges, and he
appearsnotto havecomprehended thesignificance oftheLa Fontaineaffaire of 1761.
In his Histoireeconomique de l'imprimerie, Vol. I: L'Imprimerie sousl'AncienRegime,
1439-1789 (Paris,1905),pp. 85-92,Paul Mellottee gavea briefsummary oftheprivileges.
So did FrangoisOlivier-Martin in L'Organisation corporative de la Franced'Ancien
Regime(Paris,1938),pp. 44-57.Recentscholarship has attempted to analyzetheeffects
oftheprivilege system upontheprovincial booktrade,ortointegrate thesystem intothe
largersocio-economic pictureof Old RegimeFrance. Two excellent examplesof the
former typeof researchare Mlle. Ventre'sL'Imprimerie et la librairie en Languedoc,
pp. 86-111;andJacqueline Roubert's"La Situationde l'imprimerie lyonnaise 'ala findu
XVIIe siecle,"in CinqEtudeslyonnaises, I ("Histoireet civilisation du livre,"Geneva,
1966),77-111;Themostsignificant exampleofthelattertypeofresearch, limited as itis
to theseventeenth century, is H.-J.Martin'sLivre,pouvoirs et societe,I, 51-57,440-60;
II, 690-95,732-39,757-68.A recentlawthesis,Marie-Claude Dock's Etudesurle droit
d'auteur(Paris,1965),employsan historical framework, butis impressionistic and often
inaccurate.The onlyimportant studyin English,Pottinger's FrenchBook Tradein the
AncienRegime, fallsshortinitstreatment oftheprivileges largely becausetheauthordid
not havedirectaccessto thesourcesand had to dependheavilyupon Laboulayeand
Guiffrey, Malapert,andFalk. Thus,Pottinger tendstorepeaterrorsorcreatenewones.
For example,I cannotsee uponwhathe baseshiscontention thatthearretof 1777on
privileges wasa "deadletter"(p. 134). Pottinger concludes hischapteron the"Adminis-
tration oftheBookTrade"withthefollowing (p. 169): "Thatthepublishers andprinters
workedso valiantly and so loyallyto solvetheirproblems in thelightofwhateconomic
knowledge theybad callsforourhighest admiration forthemas citizens andas business-
men." Needlessto say,and as I hope thisarticleproves,suchadulationoughtto be
severely qualified.
PRIVILEGES EN LLBRAIRIE 137
bookinquestionwas to becomefreecopy. The University, Parlement

ofParis,Courtof Chatelet,and kingsharedin theissuanceofprivil-
eges. In thesecondhalfofthesixteenth century,however,theCrown
assumedexclusiveauthorityto award them. The wars of religion
activatedthe press as neverbefore,and royal advisorssoughtto
converta commercial favorof theking'sintoa meansof censorship
control.In 1566royalprivileges forall firsteditionsbecameobliga-
tory. Enforcingsuch an ordinanceoutside Paris was of course
extremely butby 1600officials
difficult, in thechancellor'soffice were
readingmanuscripts haphazardly anddistributing privilegesregularly.
Whatwas mostsignificant, however,was thefactthatcommencing in
the 1630s the chancellorwas renewingprivilegesof librairesand
imprimeurs.This meantthatthe regimewas favoringcertainpub-
lishersoverthe othersby assuringthemmonopoliesforperiodsof
timelongbeyondthecustomary decade. Moreover,booksalreadyin
thepublicdomainwereremovedfromit,and privileges forthemwere
grantedto fortunatepublishers. Customarilythese works were
classics and patristictexts. For the next half centuryprovincial
publishers wouldrefuseto recognizethesegrants.Finally,theCrown
grantedprivilegesgenerauxto a singlepublisheror groupof them,
guaranteeing therecipientexclusiverightsovera genericcategoryof
books fora stipulatedperiod. The mostcelebratedcorporationto
receivea privilege generalwas theParis-basedCompagniedes usages,
an association the largestpublishersin the capital,who during
of
muchoftheseventeenth centuryheldexclusivetitleto liturgicalworks
reformed bytheCouncilofTrent.Ofcourse,authorsgainedprivileges
as well,butthecostsofproducingand distributing a book at private
expensehad become prohibitive.Writerstherefore tendedto sell
theirprivileges to publishers
fora fixedsum,relinquishing therightto
benefitfromsubsequentprofits.The principleof royaltiesdoes not
seemto have existed.If a publisherand authormighthavehitupon
an arrangement of sharingprofitswhile the author retainedhis
privilege,it seemssafeto assumethattheParisCommunity of Sellers
and Printerswould have renderedsuch an agreement void. In any
event,earlyin theseventeenth century linesofeconomicconflict were
drawn:authors,thesmallerpublishersof Paris,virtually all thosein
the provinces,doctorsof the University, and parlementaires of the
the
capitalopposed courseoftheprivilege system.The Crownand its
protectedclique in Paris favoredit. Until the middleof the next
centurythe major contestants in the struggleforeconomiccontrol
overthebook tradein Francewouldbe thefavoredand nonfavored
publishers.The issuesat handwouldinvolvetheexclusiveprivileges

forpopulareditionsofclassicaltexts,automaticrenewalsofprivileges,
and theprivileges generaux.
When Louis XIV assumed controlof the government in 1661,
however,no settledprivilegepolicy,governedby royal ordinance,
existed.A GeneralRulingon thelibrairiein 1649had recognizedthe
principleof exclusiveprivilegesforclassics,butParlement refusedto
registerthatpartof thedocument.ChancellorSeguierabided by it
nevertheless and awardedprivileges and renewalsto theParishouses
in whichtheregimehad placeditsconfidence.Most frequently these
housesweredirectedbyimprimeurs du Roi-the Billaine,Cramoisy,
and Sonniusfirmsforexample. In the 1650s,however,nonfavored
publishersopenly challengedthe Parisians' claims to monopoly,
printingclassics and religioustexts,protectedor not. Once the
absolutismofLouis XIV hardened, however, changesbeganto evolve;
and themonarchy considereditselfmoreobligedthaneverto protect
the economicinterests of thosesurvivorsof Colbert'sretrenchment
policieswho wereentrusted withthe responsibility forkeepingthe
Frenchbook tradeideologically pure-namelytheofficers oftheParis
community and theimprimeurs du Roi. An ordinanceof 1665,re-
stricting
privilegerenewalsto bookswhosetexthad beensignificantly
alteredor increased,remainedunenforced.12 By 1670theregimehad
cowed into silencethe Parlementand University, two institutions
reactionary enoughto have insistedupon the medievalidea of the
unlimited freetradein books as a social and intellectual
necessity.13
The chancellor'sofficeissuedprivilegesand continuations ofthemat
a recordclip. One outrageous, butbyno meansexceptional, example
ofroyalgenerosity was theprivilegeprolongation awardedin 1675to
PierreLe Petit,a favoredpublisher, to compensateforlosseshe had
sustainedin a warehousefire.He was givencontinuations validfor
fiftyyearsforhis editionsand translations of theworksof Arnauld
12 Martin, etsoci6te',
Livre,pouvoirs 423-29,440-60;
I, 51-57,331-61, II, 555-96,678-95.
The essentialdocuments on the evolutionof theprivilege systemfromthe sixteenth
through mid-seventeenth centuries L'Originedel'imprimerie
areas follows:Chevillier, de
Paris(Paris,1695),p. 395-an enumeration ofthefirst
privileges;
Isambert, Jourdan, and
Decrusy,Recueilge'ne'ral,XIV, 210-11-theEdictof Moulin(February1566)obliging
royalprivileges editions;F. Fr.22071,Nr.69. 19July1618.Art.XXXIII-the
forallfirst
intheroyalpatentletters
article establishing theParisCommunity ofSellersandPrinters,
whichprohibited renewalsof privileges withouta corresponding augmentation of the
text;F. Fr. 22061,Nr. 93. December1649. Art.XXVI-the controversial articleinthe
GeneralRulingoverthelibrairie whichrecognized exclusive forclassics;F. Fr.
privileges
22071,Nr. 107. 27 February1665-thelastroyalarretuntilthemid-eighteenth century
thatmadeanygenuineattempt to slowdownthecontraction ofthepublicdomain.
13 CharlesJourdain, Histoirede l'Universite'de Paris aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siecles
(Paris,1888),I, 332.
d'Andillyand Louis of Granada,for "des officesde l'Eglise,de la

Messe & de la Semainesainteen Latin & en Frangois,que pour le
Vieux et du Nouveau Testament,"'4forcertaintranslations of the
Books of Psalms, Proverbsand Ecclesiastes,and, finally,for the
translatedwritingsof St. JohnChrysostom and GregorytheGreat.15
Such a policy presageddisasterfor publishersin the country,
accustomedto assume that translatedclassics and patristictexts
belongedto thepublicdomain,and all thatwas needed,in orderto
makean editionofone ofthem,was censorship approvalfroma local
procureur du Roi. In thelast yearsof the seventeenth century, Lyon
and Rouen publishersin particular, withtheblessingof local judges
anxiousto stimulateindustryof any sortin a periodof recession,
continuedtheirtimeworn practices,to the dismayof Parisianswho
wereobtainingexclusiveprivilegesforthe verysame books under-
takenby the provincials.The latterwerenot even applyingto the
capitalforsealedpermits forthebooks theyintendedto print,as the
latestgeneralruling,thatof 1686,obligedthemto do.'6 Soon this
conflict resultedin a stateofwarbetweenthepublishers
ofinterests of
Parisand theircolleagues.Oncethegovernment threwthefullweight
of itspolicepowerbehindtheParisians,executinga brutalseriesof
raidsuponthecommunity ofLyonin 1692,1694,and 1699,thegame
was up.17In 1701royalpatentlettersspecifically forbadelocaljudges
for
fromissuingpublicationpermits anything exceptbrochuresand
pamphletswhichhad passedcensorshipscrutiny.Onlythekeeperof
the seals mightgrantpermissionsforbooks.'8 In a circularletter
sixtyLyonsellersand printers requestedthattherulingbe rescinded.
Theypointedout how impossibleit was forthemto negotiatewith
authorsoverthetransfer ofprivileges, sincePariswas theundisputed
centerofFrenchintellectual life,theresidenceofall writers ofmerit.
The Lyonnaisstatedthatvirtuallytheirentirelivelihooddepended
oftheclassics. Theywereconvinced,however,that
upon re-editions
once they requestedpermitsfromthe chancellorfor previously
14 Most likely this-wasNicolasFontaine'sHistoiredu Vieux& NouveauTestament
(Paris,1670)-theso-called"Biblede Royaumont."
15 F. Fr. 22074,Nr. 37. 3 August1675.
16 F. Fr. 22061,Nr. 121. Art.LXVI. See Roubert,"La Situationde l'imprimerie
lyonnaise," pp. 86-87.
17 F. Fr. 22074,Nr. 66. 30 August1692. F. Fr. 22074,Nr. 68. [1694]. F. Fr. 22074,
Nr. 70. 20 June1699. The secondseizure,instigated at therequestofAndrePralardof
Paris,uncovered an incrediblebonanzahiddenintheJacobinand Cordelier conventsof
Lyon: 275 different titles,printed
eitherwithout
permission or in defianceofprivileges
heldby Parisians-inall a totalof 21,454items! See also Roubert,"La Situationde
l'imprimerie lyonnaise," pp. 89-96.
18 F. Fr. 22071,Nr. 195. 2 October1701.
publishedbooks,thesesurelywouldbe denied;forParisians,gaining
wind of theirintentions, would get to the Administrationfirstand
acquire exclusiveprivilegesfor the worksin question. Everyday,
complainedtheLyonnais,thepatriciateofthecapitalwas swallowing
up morebooks oncein thepublicdomain. The provincials requested
the restorationof all classicsand withdrawalof the recentpatent
letter.'9The regimeremainedsilent. In 1704,however,it showed
whereitsallegiancelaybyissuinga newarretreducingthenumberof
printshopsintheprovincial townsto theirlowesttotalyet-Lyon and
Rouen to twelve,Bordeauxand Toulouseto tenapiece.20
Between1704 and 1725,the non-privileged publishersof France

sankintothesilenceofbitterness and resignation,
whilethepatriciate
ofthecapitalconsolidateditstriumphs ofthepreviousthreedecades
witha rigorouspursuitof privileges and prolongations of them. Its
membersdividedmonopoliesamongthemselves, tradedin them,and
even offered themas dowrieswiththeirdaughters.The provincial
pressfellintosuchdesperatestraitsthatas earlyas 1706,Chancellor
Pontchartrain was forcedto displayan elementof uncharacteristic
generosity by restoring to thepublicdomaincertainpopularworks
ofpiety,thecatalogueforwhich,itmustbe added,was to be drawnup
by officersof the Paris community.21 But evenin theirmomentof
victory,the Parisianswerenot of a mindto enjoyit. Printersand
sellersfoughtone anotherforthecommanding voicein thechambre
syndicale.22Masterprintersstruggled withtheirjourneymen, going
and ill-
so faras to hire"scab" labor,theso-calledalloues, foreigners
trainedprovincialsdrawnto Paris,seekingirregularemployment at
cutratesofpay.23Mostcharacteristic ofall werethestrugglesamong
the favoredmastersthemselves overthe bountyin privilegesmade
availablebyroyalgenerosity.
One of the most publicizedcases involvedtwo membersof the
patriciate,Jean-Baptiste II Coignardand JacquesMariette.It had
becomefairlycommonforthechancellor'sofficeto tempta Parisian
withprivilegeprolongationsfor worksthat sold well if only the
19F. Fr. 22071,Nr. 196. "A nosseigneurs desRequestesde l'HOtel"[1702].
20F. Fr. 22065,Nr. 63. 21 July1704.
21F. Fr. 22071,Nr.223. 30 January 1706.
22Mellottee, Histoire6conomique,I, 196-99.
23Chauvet,Les Ouvriersdu livre,pp. 150-55.The GeneralRulingof 1723officially
authorized use ofthealloues.
PRIVILAGES EN LIBRAIRIE 141
publisherwould undertakethe re-editionof a costlyventurewhose

profitwasnotguaranteed.In 1707,suchan opportunity waspresented
to Coignard,imprimeur du Roi et de l'AcademiefranCaise.Six years
earlierCoignardhad obtaineda twelve-year privilegefor several
works,includingtheimmensely successful DictionnaireofMoreri. In
a of
hopesofpublishing newedition theMoreri,Coignarddecidedto
sharetheprivilegeforit withMariette.Nothingimmediatecame of
thepartnership. Butthenthechancellor'soffice proposedan eighteen-
year continuationof the privilegefor the Moreri providedthat
Coignard undertakepublicationof the out of printAntiquitates
of PereAnselme.Coignardproceededto inform
Constantinopolitanar
Mariettethatbyvirtueofthepartnership in theMoreri,thetwowere
to shareexpensesfortheAnselme. Mariettedid not see it thatway,
maintaining thatthetwoenterprises werewhollyindependent ofeach
other.He invokeda longabusedarretof 1665statingthenecessity of
considerableaugmentations of textbeforea privilegeprolongation
would be granted,and added thatboth he and Coignardpossessed
sufficientnew materialto merita legitimatecontinuationof the
Moreri. But greedalone had motivatedCoignard,Mariettewrote,
sincetheimprimeur du Roi failedto mentionthatin additionto the
Moreri,he had managedto wanglefiftyadditionalprolongations of
inhispossession-ifonlyhewouldundertake
privileges theAnselme.24
In the long run Marietteobtainedsatisfaction.I can findno sub-
sequentre-edition oftheAnselme,andin 1712a neweditionofMoreri
appearedwithMariettecitedas publisher.25 Accordingto one source,
admittedly exaggerated, theprofitsaccruingfromit wereenormous,
ifnotexorbitant.26
Eightyearslater,however,a gravecrisisstruckthePariscommun-
ity,forcingitsofficersto takea stand,at leasttemporarily,againstthe
privilegesystemrecentlyevolved. This timethe issue concerneda
privilegeobtainedby the rectorof the Universityof Paris for all
editionswhichtheSorbonnemightdetermine as:
poursesClasses,avecdesNotesou sansNotes,& specialement
necessaires
unesuited'AuteursGrecs& Latins,avecdesNotes& desIndex... [tobe
autantde foisque leurbon semblera& de les fairevendre&
printed]
24 Thememoir ofCoignardis F. Fr. 22072,Nr. 14. [1710]"Au Roy & a nosseigneurs

de son Conseil." ThememoirofMariette is F. Fr. 22072,Nr. 16. [1710]"Au Roy & a
nosseigneursde sonConseil."
25 Catalogue
g6n'raledeslivresimprimes dela Bibliothque Nationale.Vol. 119,529-30.
Blondel],"M6moiresurlesvexations
26 [Jacques-Pierre qu'exercent leslibraires
& les
imprimeurs de Paris"(Paris[1725]),p. 4.
d6biter
par toutnotreRoyaumependantle tempsde cinquanteann6es
cons6cutives.
Though the award categoricallydenied prejudice against pub-
lishersholdingprivilegesforeditionscontemplated bytheUniversity,
itneverthelessprohibited librairesand imprimeurs ofthecapitalfrom
printingthe same worksthatthe Sorbonnemightundertake.The
rectorlooked fora publisherwithwhomhe mightentrustthe vast
concession.He did nothaveto go far. His brother, LambertCoffin,
had recentlyresignedhisprofessorship to takeup a newprofession-
thatoflibraire.28
The issueboretheearmarksofa put-upjob, and the
Parisiansfoundthemselves dupedat a gamein whichtheythemselves
had acquiredgreatskill. Theycriedthatthegrantto theUniversity
wasa privilegegeneral,nowoutoffashion,29 andthattheadvancement
of scholarshipwouldall but cease. Editors,theyclaimed,wouldbe
willingto undertakeonly University-sponsored ventures. Con-
venientlyforgetting their own relentlesshunt for privileges,the
Parisiansaddedthatthefreemarketin classicaltextsand indexeswas
now ruined,and compoundingself-interest with hypocrisy,the
patriciatesuddenlydisplayedconcernforbrethrenin the country,
"dont la plupartne subsistent que pour l'Impression& le Debit des
Feuillesde Classes & des livresa l'usage des Etudians." Once the
provincialuniversitiesimitatedParis, the patriciateadded, the
publishersofthecountrywouldbe destroyed.30
Importantas thisaffairwas in itself,it also mustbe seen as an
efforton thepartoftheUniversity to regaina degreeofinfluence over
an areainwhichitoncehad playedsucha preponderant role. Priorto
printing,thelibrairiehad beenwithinthedomainofitsauthority.In
the sixteenthcentury,however,its controlsover censorshiphad
whittledaway,and in theseventeenth century itspositionon thefree
tradeinbookshad becomea dead letter.In theviewofthedoctors.a
27 F. Fr. 22072,Nr. 33. 8 August1720.
28 F. Fr. 22072,Nr. 34. [1720]"Memoirepourle sieurLambertCoffin, ancienpro-
fesseur en Universite."LambertCoffin had to pay dearlyforhiswindfall.His former
colleaguesdeeplyresented hiscommercialambitions, maintaining thattheprofession of
libraire, at one timelinkedcloselyto theacademy,"n'estpas aujourd'huisurl'ancien
pied. . . & que commeellen'a riend'incompatible avecl'Artd'unRelieur,ellen'a aussi
riende compatible noble& lib6ralede Maistrede l'Universit6."
avecla Profession The
binders, had beendrivenoutofthecommunity
incidentally, in 1686.
29 Late in theseventeenth century
authorshad beenprohibited fromobtaining privi-
lges gen6raux.F. Fr. 22071,Nr.136. 18 February 1673;F. Fr.22071,Nr. 138. 4 June
1674;F. Fr. 22173,Nr. 46. 13 May 1686. I can findnothing in theregisters,however,
thatprohibited publishers fromobtainingthem.
30 F. Fr. 22072,Nr. 35. "Memoirepourles libraires& imprimeurs de Parisopposans
a l'enregistrement d'unprivilegegen6ralsurprispar M. Coffin, recteurde l'Universite"
(1720).
PRIVILEGES EN LIBRAIRIE 143
oncenobleprofession had fallenpreyto thestateand crafty business-

men.31Worstof all, in 1703 a royal orderopened the academic
community itselfto all masterlibrairesand imprimeurs, not merely
thetwodozenfavoredones sanctionedbymedievaltradition.32 After
all thehumiliations perhapsnow the opportunity arose fora bit of
vengeance,and RectorCoffindecidedto make themostof circum-
stances.
But the Parisiansweretoo firmly entrenched.They launcheda
counter-attack againsttheuniversity, and in 1721theofficers of the
chambre syndicaleobtained major concessionsfrom the Royal
Council. Most significant was the factthatthe volumeswhichthe
universityintended toundertake werenottobeprotected bya privilege
afterall. Theyratherwouldobtainspecialpermissions simples.This
meantthat commercialpublisherswould be allowed to printsub-
sequentversionsof theuniversity editionsas freelyas theywished.
They merelywould have to acquire theirown permissions.Only
publishedlecturenoteswould keep theirexclusivecharacter.33The
Parisiansthuscouldbreathemoreeasily,butat thepriceofprinciple.
For a momenttheyhad to reversetheirpositionon privileges andwere
forcedto acknowledgeadditionsto the publicdomain. The storm
passed, and theysoon returnedto customaryhabits of obtaining
privilegesand protecting them. The Sorbonneaffairof 1720-21was
to be consideredan anomaly.Theymightrenewtheircourseagain.
Indeed,theyhad to. The suddenaggressiveness of the Sorbonne
perhapswas symptomatic of the deep social and economiccrisis
whicharose in France in the wake of the collapse of JohnLaw's
System.Groupshad to taketheirchances.Now itwas theturnofthe
officersofthePariscommunity. Theyemergeddetermined morethan
everto seekin legislationa meansofassuringretention ofgainswhich
recentlyhad come underattack. They pieced togethera compre-
hensiveset of recommendations forthelibrairieof thecapital. The
Royal Council approved theirproposals,but a now recalcitrant
Parlementwithheldregistration.In 1723 the Parisianstriedagain.
OncemoretheRoyal Councilapproved,and thistimeParlement was
31 Jourdain, Histoiredel'Universite,
II, 28-29,176-78.Olivier-Martin,L'Organisation
corporative, pp. 55-60.
32 F. Fr.21748,Nr.62. 6 October1703. Formerly, membership hadbeenrestricted
to
twenty-four masters,a customdatingbackto thefourteenth century.In 1725theUni-
versity savedsomefacebyobtaining therightto examineall candidatesformasterships
in thebook trade,ostensibly to determine literacy
in Latinand Greek. Obviouslythe
examination wasnothing morethana formalgesture.
33 F. Fr. 22072,Nr. 38. 13 September 1721.
ignoredaltogether.In 1744 the "Reglementdu Conseil" became

knownas the"code de la librairie"and was appliedformallyto the
entirekingdom.34Thoughtherevisionsof 1777wereto altercom-
pletelyits treatment
of the privileges,
it remainedthe fundamental
documentgoverning thebook tradefortheremainder of theAncien
Regime.35
Dividedintosixteenchaptersand 123articles, therulingcoveredthe
administration and compositionof the community, censorshippro-
cedures,the policingof publishedworks,the rightsof authors,the
role of itinerant peddlers(the colporteurs), the auxiliarytrades,and
finallytheprivileges and permits.Curiouslyenough,therulingfailed
to defineprivileges perse,or statecriteria fortheirprolongation.But
Article103 assumedthatall books printedin Francemustbe sanc-
tionedbyeithera permission de sceauorprivilege and Article
exclusif,
109 definedas counterfeit editionsbooks printedin defianceof
privileges or prolongations ofthem. The veryambiguity ofthatsec-
tionoftherulingon privileges wouldpermittheParisiansthegreatest
leewayofinterpretation. Basically,theirpositionwas thatbooks not
alreadyprotectedby privilegesmightconceivablybecome so; and
that privilegesupon expirationwere automaticallyrenewable. Of
course,nota wordmentioned thepermissions tacites.Article5 ofthe
rulingwasclearinstating whomightengageinthecommerce ofbooks:
onlyprinters, sellers,and registeredcolporteurs.
The patriciatecounteredprovincialprotestsagainsttherulingby
havingdrawnup in 1725a theoretical argument justifyingthelegisla-
tion. No longerdidtheParisiansintendtodependsolelyuponhistoric-
al precedent oreconomicnecessity, as had beentraditionalwiththem.
Nor wouldtheypaymuchattention to thecontradictory elementsin
seventeenth century arretson theprivileges.Theywouldappealrather
to a fundamental idea on property whichhad itssource,so theybeliev-
ed, in NaturalRightsthemselves.Theycalled upon a parlementary
lawyer, Louis d'Hericourt, to preparetheirbrief,whichtheysubmitted
to KeeperoftheSeals Fleuriaud'Armenonville earlyin 1726.36
34 F. Fr.22062,Nr.85. 24 March1744. Saugrain,Codedela librairie
etdel'imprimerie
(Paris,1744).
35 Isambert,Jourdan,Decrusy,Recueilgeneral,XXI, 216-31.
361By no meanswas d'Hericourt'sargument whollyoriginal.As earlyas 1694,a
memoirof thePariscommunity had likenedprivilegesto realproperty (F. Fr. 22071,
Nr. 177). To therhetoricalquestionofwhether mightwilla privilege
a libraire renewal
tohisheir,theParisianshadresponded:"Est-ceuncrimede seconferer undroitlegitime-
mentacquis?" Theywenton to likenthosecontesting theirclaimto jealousneighbors
whowoulddenya landlordtherightto bequeatha wellon hisproperty simplybecause
they,theneighbors,hadnotpossessedtheindustry to constructtheirown.
PRIVILRGES EN LIBRAIRIE 145
To theirbewilderment d'Armenonvillebecame furiouswhen he

read it. He forcedthe resignationsof the syndicand adjunct
ofthecommunity, and theprinter oftheMemoire had to fleeParisto
avoidimprisonment.37
Whatwas so outrageousabouttheargument whichnowthreatened
the alliancemoldedby Colberthalfa centuryearlier? Essentially,
d'Hericourtand theParisiansdefinedtheroyalprivilege in so restric-
tivea waythatitbecameno morethantheconfirmation ofan anterior
right-andthatrightwas property:"II estcertain,"wrotethejurist,
"selon les principesque l'on vientd'etablir,que ce ne sontpointles
Privilegesque le Roi accorde aux Librairesqui les rendentpro-
prietairesdes Ouvragesqu'ils impriment, maisuniquement l'acquisi-
tiondu Manuscrit, dontl'auteurleurtransmet la propriete, au moyen
du prixqu'il en recoit." By whatrightis a manuscript theproperty
ofan author,d'Hericourtaskedrhetorically? His replywas an exten-
sionofLocke's: "C'est le fruitd'un travailqui lui estpersonnel, dont
il doit avoirla libertede disposer'a son gre,pour se procurer,outre
l'honneurqu'il en espere,un profitqui lui fournisse ses besoins." Of
course,d'Hericourtneglectedto mentionthat the Ruling of 1723
prohibited allwhowereneither libraires
norimprimeurs fromengaging
in thecommerceof books,so thatauthorshad no otherchoicethan
to transfer ownershipof the productof theirtoil. To d'Hericourt,
oncethemanuscript changedhands,thenewownerobtainedfulland
outright possession:"[I1] doitdemeurer perpetuellement proprietaire
du Textede cet Ouvrage,lui & ses descendans,commed'une terre
ou d'une maison qu'il auroitacquise, parce que l'acquisitiond'un
heritagene differe en rienpar la naturede l'acquisitionde celled'un
manuscrit."Therefore, a privilege,strictly
speaking,could have no
temporallimits. It simplyacknowledgeda rightof property."Le
Roi, n'ayantaucun droitsur les Ouvragesdes Auteurs,ne peut les
transmettre a personnesansle consentement de ceuxqui s'entrouvent
les legitimesproprietaires."Once a manuscriptpassed censorship
and the publishersacquireda royalprivilegeover it, the king"se
trouvedans une heureuseimpuissanced'oter les Privilegesqu'il a
37 F. Fr. 22072,Nr. 62. "A Monseigneur le Gardedes Sceaux" (Paris,[1726]). A

handwritten noteattachedto theBibliothequeNationale'scopyofthememoir, signed
Boudi6(Boudierde Villemert?) noted:
Ce m6moirea tellementirrit6le Garde des Sceauxqu'il en insultale sindicMariette& son confrere
adjoint
Ganeau, qu'ils luydonnerentleurd6mission,& a leurplace furentnomm6spar arrestdu Conseil Brunet
sindic,Prudhomme& Saugrainadjoints.
In 1764thelibrairie
official
FranqoisMarinnotedthattheprinter
ofthememoir,
Vincent,
had had to fleeParis(F. Fr. 22183. March,1764).
accordesa un libraire proprietaired'unManuscrit, pouren gratifier

unautrequin'ya aucundroit."38
FranklinFord has notedhow earlyeighteenth century Robe
theoreticians adaptedtoFrench circumstances ofthejustifying
certain
principles forthe GloriousRevolution.Customarily it was the
contractual theory ofthestatethatintrigued them.39 D'He'ricourt,
however, wasdipping intotwoother areasdeartothemenof1688,the
labortheory ofproperty andtheinviolability ofcommercial contracts.
The merging of theseconceptswouldservetheself-interest of the
privilege monopolists of theFrenchbook tradeforanotherhalf
century. Nevertheless, theyear1726marksa watershed in another
way. No longerwouldthe Administration reactwithautomatic
sympathy to thewishesoftheParispatriciate. As a matter offact,
thatveryyearthegovernment tolerated thecirculation of Jacques
Blondel's"Memoiresurlesvexations les libraires
qu'exercent & les
imprimeurs de Paris,"a denunciation ofthehabitsoftheofficers of
thePariscommunity, who,according toBlondel,abusedwriters and
non-favored publishersalike,andwhosebookswerejustlynotorious
fortheirhighpriceandlowquality.40
Still,between 1726and 1750,theregime madeno concerted effort
to revisetheprivilege system.Only once betweenthese dates didit
seemgenuinely threatened. This was in 1739.Two Parissellers,
Jean-Frangois JosseandCharles-Marie Delespineprotested thatthe
comted'Argenson, whoheldadministrative responsibilityoverthe
librairiein thenameof Chancellor d'Aguesseau,had turneddown
theirrequestforprivilege continuations forstocksthepairrecently
hadpurchased. JosseandDelespine maintainedtod'Aguesseau that
theyhad madetheirinvestment withtheunderstanding thatthey
wouldhavenodifficulty obtaining theirprolongations.Theyrepeated
38 F. Fr. 22072,Nr. 62. Thememoir wasreprinted, withslightvariants, intheUEuvres
posthumes de MaitreLouisd'Hericourt, Avocatau Parlement (Paris,1759),III. M6moire
V. En formede Requeste'a Monseigneur le Garde des Sceaux. Question:"S'il seroit
juste& 6quitable d'accorderauxLibraires deProvince la permission d'imprimer lesLivres
quiappartiennent aux LibrairesdeParis,parI'acquisition qu'ilsontfaitedesManuscrits
desAuteurs,"pp. 54-71.See also JohnLocke,TheSecondTreatise onGovernment, ed.
PeterLaslett(NewYork,1965),pp. 327-44.
39 FranklinL. Ford, Robe and Sword: The Regrouping of theFrenchAristocracy
After LouisXIV (NewYork,1965),p. 224. See also DenisRichet,"AutourdesOrigines
iddologiqueslointainesde la R6volutionfranqaise.Eliteset despotismes," Annales.
Economies, Socidte's,
Civilisations
(1969),1-23.
40 [Blondel],"M6moiresurlesvexations."In hisJournal etmemoires surla Regenceet
surle regnede Louis XV, ed. de Lescure(Paris,1863-68),III, 176 and 310,Matthieu
MaraisnotesthatBlondel'smemoirwas thought to havebeentheworkofdisgruntled
journeyman Thememoir
printers. hasbeeneditedbyLucienFaucouandpublished under
itsoriginaltitlebytheMoniteur duBibliophile (Paris,1879).
d'Hericourt'sargumentthatprivilegesprotectedreal propertyand
thereforewere indissolublewithoutconsentof the owners. That
fearsofa newroyalpolicylaybehindtheirplea appearsevidentfrom
theirremarks:"[Si] Sa Majeste jugeroitapropos aujourd'huyde
retranchertoutesles continuationsdes Privileges,
ce retranchement
ne pouroitequitablement tomberque sur les Privilegesqui se sont
accordesposterieurement a ce nouveau Reglement,& non sur les
suppliants."'41But no change in policy occurred. Maboul soon
replacedd'Argensonas director,and the patriciatecould breathe
moreeasily.The year1739broughta further reductionin thenumber
ofprovincialpresses,and fiveyearslatertheRulingof 1723officially
becameapplicablefortheentireland.
It was in 1750,thedatetraditionallyviewedas theturningpointin

theintellectual lifeof prerevolutionaryFrance,thatthebook trade
entereda new era. The guidingspiritof thistransition was Male-
sherbes,son of ChancellorLamoignon,who at twenty-seven became
chiefoftheroyalbureaude la librairie.DuringMalesherbes'thirteen-
yearstintthedepartment expandedinsizeand scope,and thedirector
assumedthe awesomeresponsibility of decidingmost of the ideo-
logical ground rules for disseminationof the Enlightenment in
France.42HostiletowardsColbert'sprogramforthebook tradeon
both economic and intellectualgrounds,determinedto protect
writersand his censorsfromreactionaryforcesat Court,in the
Church,and in Parlement, Malesherbesepitomizedcourage,delicacy,
and skillin thehandlingofhisassignment.He despisedtheprivilege
system;his sympathies lay withauthorsand nonfavored publishers.
In his Memoiressur la librairie,composedin 1758-59,he accused
membersof the Paris patriciateof havingclosed masterships to all
but membersof theirown families.As a consequence,"les filsdes
libraires,suirsde leurfortunepar ce monopoleodieux,proprietaires
41 F.Fr. 22072,Nr.98. April,1740.
42Indigestibleas it is,PierreGrosclaude'smonumentalMalesherbes: tdmoin et inter-
pretedesontempsremains thedefinitive
biography
ofthisremarkable man. Grosclaude
devotesa considerable amountofhiswork(pp. 63-208,665-81)to Malesherbes and the
librairie,
butspendsonlytwopages(pp.180-82)ontheprivileges. A recent book,Edward
P. Shaw,ProblemsandPoliciesof Malesherbes as Directeurde la librairiein France
(1750-1763)(Albany,1966),saysmore. But thisstrangework,ignoring all save the
documents in theAnissonCollectionof theBibliotheque Nationale,is extremely im-
pressionistic
andnarrowly focused.Shawappearsto confusethepermissions tacitesand
thesimplepolicetolirances.Thelattercustomarilywerenotrecorded inanyregister and
oftenwereissuedorally.
d'ailleursdu privilege exclusifde la plupartdes livresqui s'impriment,

jouissentde leurmaitrisesans soin & sans travail,commeon jouit
d'uneterrequi rapporteun grosrevenu."43Clearlythiswas an ironic
twistof theParisians'celebratedargument.Yet Malesherbesfound
itdifficult
to attackthepatriciate frontally. Afterall, oftenitsofficers
sharedhis libertarian viewsand wishedas muchas he to spreadthe
gospel of the new ideas. Was not the syndicLe Bretonone of the
partnersin the Encyclopedie, the publicationof whichMalesherbes
pledgedhimself to protectat all costs?
The oblique way Malesherbeschose to attackthe privilegesand
numbingorthodoxywas via the permissionstacites. We know of
course that the permissionstaciteswere employedto circumvent
censorship.One mayhypothesize thattheywereused to circumvent
theprivilegesystem as well. In thefirstplace,as is revealedbyRobert
Estivals'compilation ofthedata preserved intheregisters oftheParis
Communityof Sellersand Printers, the averageannual numberof
privileges,continuations, andpermissions de sceausoughtandauthor-
ized underMalesherbesdid not increasemateriallyfromprevious
decades,and in fact,neverdid attaintheaveragesforthelastyearsof
Louis XIV's reign.44The permissionstacites,however,tell a far
differentstory.Beyondthepale as faras regulationson censorship
and privilegewereconcerned,theynonetheless wererecorded-too
sloppily,too haphazardlyto meetthe standardsof thequantifier of
modernvoterstatistics perhaps,but as wellas thehistorianworking
in themurkyshadowsof theAncienRegimecan hope for. For the
period1724-46,thatis beforeMalesherbes'assumption ofthedirector-
ship over the librairie,the averagenumberof permissionstacites
requestedper annum came to twenty-five; the average number
authorized,fourteen.These figuresrepresented approximately 72
percentof the numberof privilegesand permissionsde sceau re-
questedand 61 percentof the numberauthorized.For the period
1751-63,the era of Malesherbes,the average annual numberof
permissions tacitesrequestedcameto 135;theaverageannualnumber
authorized, 79. Thesefigures represented 38 percentofthenumberof
privilegesand permissionsde sceau requestedand 40 percentof
thoseauthorized,or,put anotherway,nearly28 percentof thetotal
requestsand 29 percentofthetotalauthorizations.For Malesherbes'
43 Malesherbes, surla librairie,
Memoires p. 172.
44RobertEstivals,La Statistique bibliographique de la Francesous la monarchie au
XVIIIesiecle (ParisandTheHague,1965),p.247. SeealsoFrangois Furet,"La 'Librairie'
du royaumeau 18e siecle,"inLivre et societedans la France du XVIIIe siecle (Parisand
The Hague,1965),pp. 3-32. See Table ofAnnualAverages, opposite,p. 149.
PRIVILAGES EN LIBRAIRIE 149
TABLE OF ANNUALAVERAGESOF REQUESTSFOR PUBLICATION,APPROVALS,

1701-87/9(1716-23excepted)
ANDPRODUCTION,
(CompiledfromtheAnnualStatisticsin Estivals,La Statistique
pp.247-48,268-69,287-88,308-09,356,366)
bibliographique,
1743-50
(For
1701- 1724- P.T.s 1751- 1764- 1778- 1784-
1715 1742 1743-46) 1763 1777 1783 1787/9
Privilegesand Permissionsde 400 333 332 355 431 313 422

Sceau requested
Privilegesand Permissionsde 264 223 181 195 285 224 282
Sceau approved
Percentageof approvals per 66 % 67 % 55 % 55 % 66 % 72 % 67%
requests
Actual titles(LivresdePrivileges) 430 427 503 359 448
seeking PrivilegesandPermissions
de Sceau
Actual titles(LivresdePrivileges) 233 257 337 249 299
obtainingPrivilegesand
de Sceau
Permissions
Percentageof approvals per - 54 % 60 % 67 % 69 % 67 %
requests
PermissionsTacitesrequested - 23 33 135 354 212 358
Permissions Tacitesapproved 13 20 79 207 125 220
Percentageof approvals per 57% 61 % 59 % 58 % 59 % 61 %
requests
Permissionsrequested(Privileges 356 365 490 785 525 806
+ Permissions Tacites)
Permissionsapproved (Privileges 236 201 274 492 349 519
+ Permissions Tacites)
Percentageof approvals per 66 %? 55% 56 % 64 % 66% 64%
requests
Titles depositedin the Bibliotheque 157 208 210 218 315 422 1210
duRoi
Volumes depositedin the 198 267 278 294 434 541
da Roi
Bibliotheque
LivresdePrivilegesannounced in - - - - 397 416 761
theJournalde la librairie
period,betweentwo and threeof everyten books approvedby

governmental authoritiesin Franceweredone so in contraventionof
the existingregulationson censorshipand privilege(79 of 336 per
annum). In succeedingyearsthenumberwas to rise.45
45 In "La 'Librairie'du Royaume,"p. 9, Furethypothesizesthatuntilthe1750sthe
regime maywellhavetolerated a significant
numberofbookswithout sanctioning
them
via a permission-either expresseor tacite. In subsequentyearstheseclandestine
authorizationsbecame known genericallyas simplestolirances. They mightstemfrom
virtuallyanysourceinthegovernment orat Courtinterested
inprotecting
a bookother-
wiseconsidereddangerous.At thepresentstageof researchon thelibrairieit is as
impossible to weightheinfluence
ofthesebooksuponthegeneralstateofproduction as
it is impossible
to weightheinfluence
ofillicitbooksuponit. The importance
ofboth
Malesherbeshimselfboasted thathe was attackingprivilegesin

directfashionbyprohibiting continuations ofthem.46The absenceof
a regularseriesofprotestson thepartoftheParispatriciate-hardly
a groupwillingto acceptchallengesto itsproperty in silence-leads
one to believethatthedirector was chestpuffing withoutcause. On
onecelebratedoccasion,however, he didnullifya claimto a continua-
tion,holdingit to haveexpired,and he persuadedtheRoyal Council
to issue an arretrecognizinga publicationpermithe subsequently
awarded for what the Paris communityclaimedwas a protected
work.47The affair was bathedin sentiment. The privilege in question
concerned theFablesofLa Fontainewhichtheauthorhad surrendered
to a publisherin his lifetime.The beneficiaries of Malesherbes'
generosity were La Fontaine'smaiden granddaughters, discovered
wallowingin poverty.The directorfoundthelatestprolongation of
the originalprivilegeto be valid no and
longer, he offered the de-
moisellesa permitto publishan editionwhichwas to be sold on a
subscriptionbasis for theirprofit. The Paris patriciateaccused
Malesherbesof abusinghis authority bydeclaringa privilegeinvalid
and thenawardinga new one arbitrarily.But the directorretorted
thattheoriginalprivilegehad expiredand he was merelysanctioning
a permission to whichanyonewas entitledfora workin thepublic
domain.48Ever since 1723 the patriciatehad triedto preventthe
chancellor'sofficefromawardingpermissionsde sceau. On the
occasion when a nonfavoredpublishermightapply for one, the
of thecommunity
officers would attemptto provethatthebook in
questionalreadywas protectedby a privilege, or theyquicklywould
seekto obtainone. This time,however,thecouncilorderedthemto
thepermission
register grantedtheLa Fontainesisters,whicheven-
tuallywas done.49
underground categorieswillcometo lightnotbywayofregister statisticsbutas a result

ofcarefulstudiesofindividual publishing housesandtheirsurviving accountbooks. To
myknowledge no one has yetattempted to trackdownsuchsourcesin France,butthe
workin progressof RobertDamton, on the Soci6t6typographique de Neuchatel,a
Swisshousepossessing a vigorousexchange tradewithFrenchcounterparts, undoubtedly
willresultinthemodelweneed.
46 F. Fr. 22146,Nr. 87. 14 February 1760. Malesherbes to Semonville.
47 F. Fr. 22178,Nr. 16. 14 September 1761.
48 F. Fr. 21832,Nr. 195. 2 November 1761. Malesherbes to St. Priest.
49 F. Fr. 22073,Nr. 57. 12 October1761. Extract oftheRegisters oftheCommunity
oflibraires and imprimeurs ofParis. ThoughMalesherbes refused to considertheper-
missionawardedtheLa Fontainesisters to be a privilege
exclusif,theParisCommunity
ofSellersandPrinters sawitas one. Mlle.Dock,inherEtudesurledroitd'auteur, p. 120,
believesthattheedictof14 September 1761established a hierarchy ofliteraryownership
thatfirstrecognizedrights ofprivileged publishers, thenofauthorsand theirheirs,and
finally
ofnonprivileged Therefore,
publishers. inthecasewhereby a privilegeexpired,the
The followingyearthepatriciatetook anotherwhipping.Back in

November1760 the Lyon printerJean-MarieBarrethad obtained
assuranceof permissionsde sceau forseveralworks,includingthe
popularde Beuil editionof theImitationde Jesus-Christ.50 True to
pattern, thechambresyndicaleofParisrefusedto register thepermit,
statingthatthelibraireDesprez ownedtheprivilegeexclusifforthe
Imitation.And, as a matterof fact,in July1761 Desprez gaineda
six-yearcontinuation of his privilege.51Barretappealed directlyto
royaljusticeand in March1762wonhiscase. An arretconfirmed his
permit, and he obtained300 livresin damages.52
ImmediatelyDesprez initiateda countersuit,to which Barret
repliedwithexceptionalvigor. He attackedd'Hericourt'stheoryof
literarypropertywiththeassumption thata book,likeanyotheritem
of commerce, mightbe freelyreproducedonce it was placed on the
market:
Unlivren'appartient a sonauteurou au libraire'aquiil1'aremis,qu'autant
qu'ilestdanssoncabinet;maisaussitot qu'ilestmisaujour,il appartient
au
de l'imprimer
Public,& deslorsil estloisiblea touslibraires autantdefois
qu'illeurplaira,enprenant lespermissions requisesAmoinsque pourdes
il n'aitplua Sa Majested'enaccorder
raisonsparticuli6res 'aquelqu'unun
Privilegeexclusif.
Conveniently Barretwas weddingthemedievalnotionoffreecopyto
the absolutistdoctrineof the royal grace. It was indisputablythe
privilegeitself,and not the anteriorcontractbetweenauthorand
publisher,whichassuredrightsof exclusivejouissance:"II suitde la
que la proprietequi confereunPrivilegenaitdu Privilege
meme& non
de la chose."'53The Barret-Desprez case did notproduceimmediate
repercussions in the book trade. The leadinghouses of Paris con-
tinuedto envisageprivileges and prolongationsas royalacknowledg-
director of thebook trademightre-awardit to themostappropriate party.I cannot

acceptthisview,forin his letterto SaintPriestcitedabove (F. Fr. 21832,Nr. 195),
Malesherbes wrote:". . . J'aifaitdonnernon un privilegemaisunepermission simple
pourlesFablesdeLa Fontaine auxpetitesfillesde La Fontainequi meurent de faim."I
wouldjudgethispermission simpleto havebeentheequivalent ofa permission de sceau.
The category, permission simple,not necessitating approvalwitha specialseal, came
intobeingonlyafterthearr8tsof 1777. The permits awardedto theSorbonnebackin
1721weredoneso in an exceptional instance.
50 F. Fr.21999. 13November 1760. "Registredesprivileges
etpermissions simplesde
la librairie, 1760-1763," p. 28. In thisinstancealso thetermpermission simplemeans
permission de sceau.
5' F. Fr. 21999. 16July 1761.
52 F. Fr. 22073,Nrs.61-62. 15 March1762. The language ofthearr8tcalledBarret's
permission an inaccuracy
a privilege, byno meansuncommon.
53 F. Fr. 22073,64. [September, 1762]"RepliquepourJean-Marie Baffet. . . a la
requetepresentee ... parle sieurDesprez,imprimeur-librairea Paris."
mentsofproperty rights.In December1762,however,a declaration

ofthekingstrictly limitedall privilegesforinventionsto fifteenyears
and prohibited unauthorized cessionofthelicensesto anyoneexcept
the inventors'heirs.54Subsequentarguments by the disestablished
publishersrespondingto the claims of the patriciatewould link
privileges en librairieto theseprimitive patents.
In October 1763, as a consequenceof ChancellorLamoignon's
disgrace,Malesherbeshad to resignhis directorship.In hopes of
convincinghis successor,Sartine,of the solidityof theirclaimsto
privileges en librairie,theofficers of thePariscommunity asked one
of theirpatriarchs, H.-L. Guerin,to preparea reporton the trade.
Guerinwentfurtherthan any otherpredecessorin defendingthe
practiceof literary monopoly. He evendelineatedthecategoriesof
books whichhad to be protected.These includedtranslationsof
Holy Scriptureand classics,all originaltextswithscholarlycom-
mentariesappended,and of course all new works. Those books
whichmightremainin thepublicdomain,butforwhicha permission
de sceau was nonethelessobligatory,were ABC's, livresd'heures,
collegetextbooks,and classicaltextsin theiroriginallanguageand
withoutcommentaries.Guerinrecognizedprivilegeprolongations
as a right-"une consequencedu droitacquis aux proprietaires des
livres"-and as an economicnecessity;he believedthattheParisians
needed some formof protectionagainstthe practicesof theirun-
scrupulouscolleaguesin the provinces,who "contrefont avec im-
punite les livresqui ont le plus de debit."55
But Guerin'sreportwas simplyprologue.The patriciatenextpre-
pareda setof"Representations" which,itwas hoped,wouldproveto
thenewroyaladministrators ofthelibrairiethathistoricalprecedent,
logic,and moralrectitude wereall arguingforacceptanceofitsclaims
to literaryproperty.Unlike the occasion in 1726, the Parisians
bypassedthejudiciaryin seekingan individualto preparetheirbrief.
Insteadtheyselecteda man ofletters, an author,whobylayingclaim
to his rights,theybelieved,would validatetheirown. Le Breton,
syndicforthecommunity, had a masterrhetoricianat his disposal-
Diderot. Perhapsit is thegreatestironyin theentirehistoryof the
privilegesin the eighteenth centurythatthe writer'swriterof the
Enlightenment-himself abusedand underpaidbypublishers, on the
eve of the worstbetrayalof all, Le Breton'sdoctoringof the page
54 F. Fr. 22073,Nr. 72. 24 December1762.
55BibliothequeNationale. Salle de R6serve. F. 718. "R6flexionssur quelques
articlesdu reglementg6n6ral de la librairie
& de l'imprim6rie" 1763).
(November,
PRIVIL-GES EN LmBRAIRIE 153
proofsforthelastvolumesof theEncyclopedie-should findhimself

apologizingformen he despised. JacquesProust,to whomwe are
indebtedfor dating correctlyat last Diderot's so-called "Lettre
historiqueet politiquesur le commercede la librairie,"56 makes a
valiantattemptto riseabove thedilemmabypositingthetheorythat
whenfirstcommissionedby Le Bretonto compose the "Lettre,"
Diderotintendedit to be a "Memoiresurla libertede la presse."57
True,in a letterin 1769,Diderotrefersto his essayin theseterms.58
And in thepieceitself,Diderotnoteshow usefulit wouldbe bothfor
tradeand for lettersif permissionstacitescould be multiplied"a
l'infini." But he fullyintendsthesepermissions to be as exclusive
commercially He defendedthepatriciate'sclaimsas
as privileges.59
vigorously as had d'Hericourt.To giveDiderothis due, however,it
appearsmostlikelythatwhenhe spokeup in favorofprotecting the
literary
property ofpublishers, of
he had therights authorsprimarily
in mind. In one place he is quiteexplicit:
Si je laissaisa mesenfants de mesouvrages,
le privilege qui oseraitles en
spoiler?Si forceparleursbesoinsou parlesmiensd'alienerce privilege,
je substituais unautreproprietaire 'amaplace,qui pourrait, sansebranler
touslesprincipes sa propriete
de la justice,luicontester ? ... Jele repete,
l'auteurestmaltre de sonouvrage, ou personne dansla societen'estmaltre
de sonbien. Le libraire le possedecommeil estpossedeparl'auteur.60
Modifying and suppressing wheneverhe judged thelanguagetoo
vigorous,Le BretonpresentedDiderot'smemoirto Sartineas the
"Representations" ofthePariscommunity in March 1764. The new
directorthenpassedthemon to Josephd'Hemery,inspector in charge
of policingbooks in the capital. In his turnd'Hemeryrequesteda
reportontherepresentationsfromFrancoisMarin,recently appointed
to thenewpostof secretary generalforthelibrairie.Fortunately we
stillpossessthe manuscript copy of the representationsalong with
Marin'snotes.61No documentrevealsso accuratelyhow muchthe
56 The Assezat-Tourneaux editionof the(Euvrescompletes de Diderot(Paris,1876),
XVIII, 7-75,gavethedateofcomposition ofthe"Lettre"as 1767. ProfessorProust's
"Presentation"to Surla libertede la presse(Paris,1964)-thelatterbeingan editionof
partofDiderot'soriginal manuscript, nowin theBibliothequeNationale(F. Fr. N.a.fr.
24932)-estimates 1763as thedateofcomposition.Professor Proustnotesas wellthat
Diderot's"Lettre"formedthebasisforthe"Representations" of theParispatriciate,
whichLe Bretonsentto Sartineon 8 March1764(F. Fr. 22183).
57 Proust,"Presentation,"pp. 7-37.
58 DenisDiderot,Correspondance, ed. GeorgesRoth(Paris,1963),IX, 198-99.
59Surla liberte
de la presse,p. 88.
60 Ibid., p. 42.
61 F. Fr. 22183.
"Representations & observations
en formede memoiresur1'etat
ancien& actuelde la librairie& particuli&rement
surla propriete
des privi1kges,
&c.,
allianceforgedby ColbertbetweentheAdministration and thegreat

libraireshad comeunstuck.Marinrejectedtheanalogymadebythe
patriciatebetweenliteraryproperty and realestate.In hisview,once
the Parisiansturnedprivilegesinto simpleguaranteesof anterior
rights,theroyalprerogative to distribute
a gracewouldbe destroyed:
"On verroitles seuls librairesproprietairesdes privilegescauserla
ruinede leursconfr'eres de Paris & des Provinces,& composerune
petiterepubliqueindependante de touteautorite."62In essence,of
course,thisalreadyhad becomea historicalfact. What alternative
did Marin now propose? Drawingupon the argumentsonce pre-
sentedbytheLyonlibraireBarret,he likenedprivileges en librairieto
privilegesen commerce, bothbeingat thedisposaloftheCrown:
les privileges
ne sontque des gracespassageres,bien differentesde la
possessiond'unemaison,d'uneterre.Les librairesne sontque des mar-
chandsqui achdtentunemarchandise. Ils obtiennent
unprivilege,
pourla
fabriquer & pour la vendreexclusivement pendantun certainnombre
d'annees.Le Roi devient le memedroit
le maltreensuitede transmettre
ou Ai'auteur,
ou au mdmelibraire,
ou 'aunautre,selonlesraisonsqu'ilpeut
avoirpourse d6terminerdanssesgraces.63
Marin wenton to illustratethe individualabuses generatedby the
oftheprivilege
Parisians'interpretation system.He blameditforthe
highpriceand low qualityofPariseditions.He sympathized withthe
nonfavored publishers,
forcedby circumstance intomakingcounter-
feiteditions.He accusedmembersof thepatriciateitselfof having
helped financemany of the Avignonenterprises, because of the
certainprofitaccruingfromthem.64But of all the elementsin his
written dialoguewiththeParisians,noneprovedmoredangerousto
theircause thanthedistinction Marinmade betweenthesolidrights
possessedbyauthorsas a resultoftheircreativity and thetemporary
titlepossessedbypublishers as a resultoftheirinvestment.Thougha
writermeritedveryspecialroyalprotection, Marinconcluded,under
presentcircumstances, "[il] meurta l'hopital couvertde steriles
lauriers,"whilethelibraireprofits fromtheprivilege.65
Butwhatcoulda writer do withhisprivilegein 1764? He mightkeep
itifhe couldaffordto paya printer ofthecommunity forthecostsof
presentees a M. de Sartineparles Syndic& Adjoints,& en margeles observations

que
M. Marina faitessurchaquearticle,d'apr6slesnotesinstructivesque je [d'Hemery]lui
ai remises parordredu magistrat" (March,1764).
62 Ibid.,p. 1.
63 Ibid.,pp. 37-38.
64 Ibid., pp. 56, 97, 101.
65 Ibid.,p. 85.
publication,shouldthatsame printerbe willingto riskprofessional

disgracebytakingthejob withouta transfer oftheprivilege.Oncein
possessionoftheprinted volumes,theauthorhimself couldneither sell
nordistribute them.Nor couldhe contract witha sympathetic libraire
to do so, forthe Paris patriciateinterpreted the 1723/44rulingas
prohibiting this. Priorto 1764 there had been instanceswhereby
writerstriedto haveprivileges restoredaftera publisherhad enjoyed
themovera time,66 and one,Crebillonpere, had actuallysucceeded.67
Marin himselffavoredsuch a technique,whichwould allow the
writera second chance of negotiating withthe publisher.68Other
however,understoodthatthiswouldcontradict
librairieofficials, the
spiritofpolicyforeseen bythem.Thetaskat handwasto tryand open
up morefreetradein books,notperpetuate monopolyin thehandsof
anothergroup,howeverworthy and mistreated itmightbe. In short,
theinterests ofauthorsand disestablished publishers werenotneces-
sarilycompatible.
D'Hemery,Marin'ssuperior,understoodthis. In August1764,he
senta memorandum to Sartinein whichhe complainedthat,in the
viewofobtainingand sellingas manyprivileges as possiblefora single
successfulwork, authorswere defraudingthe public by offering
different publishersmanuscripts of thatworkwiththe mostminor
distinctions-anew title,chaptersswitchedabout,a new prefaceor
introduction. To d'Hemerytheproprietorship mentalitywasstimulat-
ing the greed of authors and publishers alike. Rather thanrestore
privilegesto authorswhentheyexpiredin the hands of publishers,
d'Hemeryproposedthatwritersbe encouragedto hold on to their
privilegesin thefirstplace. Thismeantofcourserelaxingtherestric-
tionsprohibiting theirparticipationin sale and distribution.But,in
the face of the stillconsiderableinfluenceof the Paris community,
d'Hemeryheld littlehope fora revolutionin policies. He resigned
himself to attackindividualabuses,hopingthat"l'on peutremedier a
ceuxqui sontimportants & fermer la routeaux nouveaux."69
66 For example,F. Fr. 22072,Nr. 60. "Memoirepour la veuvede PierreRibou,

libraire a Paris,contreFlorentCarson[Carton]seigneur d'Ancour[Dancourt]"(1725).
67 F. Fr. 22073,Nr.4. 15 May 1752.
68 F. Fr. 22183. "Representations," p. 85. "Il seroitbienflatteur,
bienhonorable pour
le ministere, de le tirerde la misereen lui donnantle renouvellement du privilege
apres
1'expiration de celuiqui auroiteteaccordeau libraire."
69 F. Fr. 22073,Nr. 83 bis. "Memoiresur les abus qui se sontintroduits dans la
librairie a l'occasiondesprivilfges" [August,1764]. D'Hemerywishedto placeauthors
and publishers on an equal footingregarding theuse of privileges,butin eachcasehe
desiredsurrender tothepublicdomainon thedateofexpiration. In contrast,
Marinand
Sartineconsidered privilegesin thehandsofauthorsas sacrosanct.SincetheRulingof
But the inspectorunderestimated Sartine'sown commitment to

change. The director was as sympatheticto the interests authorsas
of
Malesherbeshad been. In 1764 he rejectedd'Hemery'sproposal
permitting authorsto engagein the commerceof books-because,
like Fran9oisMarin,he stillthoughtin termsof the restoration of
privilegesto writersupon expirationin publishers'hands.70 But
makinglittleprogressin this regard,he came around to accept
d'Hemery'spositionsixyearslater. The occasionwhichoffered hima
chanceto actwasa case concerning crabby,and courageous
a wealthy,
authornamed Luneau de Boisjermain,who was to achieve some
distinctionin the struggle forconsumers'rightsby suingunsuccess-
fullythepublishers oftheEncyclopedie forhavingtripledthenumber
ofvolumesand originalpriceagreedto bysubscribers.71 Despitethe
policiesof the patriciatediscouragingpublishersfromacceptinga
manuscript withouta transfer ofitsprivilege,
Luneauhad managedto
have printed,at his own expense,threeof his books-the Nouvelle
Maniered'enseigner la geographie,Coursd'histoireuniverselle, and
Commentaires sur Racine-all the whileretainingpossessionof his
privileges.In 1769 he located fivesmall Paris libraireswillingto
challengeexistingregulations by distributinghis books to colleagues
in theprovinces.Buttheofficers ofthePariscommunity learnedtoo
quicklywhat-was occurringand seized Luneau's books beforehe
could have themsent off. They pressedcharges,accusinghim of
havingwillfully contravened theprohibitions theyinterpreted to be
presentin the Rulingof 1723/44. This Luneau did not deny, but
insteadappealed directlyto Sartine. The director(who also was
lieutenantofpoliceforParis)sympathized withtheauthorbutdidnot
believehimself empowered to effecta newpolicy. He therefore chose
an oblique route,declaringforLuneau on the technicality thatthe
syndicand adjunctshad conductedtheirraidswithoutcorrectpolice
approval. Luneau's books were restoredto him, he received300
livresin damagesfromthe community, and presumablycompleted
his transaction.72Diderot applauded the verdict,writing:"Les
Librairesen corps formerent contreM. Luneau des pretentions
1723/44 madethemuselessas well,itmight anddirecteur

besaidthatthesecretaire-general
werebeggingtherealquestion.In herEtudesurle droitd'auteur(p. 122),Mlle.Dock
mistakenly d'Hemeryas the authorof themarginalcomments
identifies to the "Re-
presentations."
70 F. Fr. 22073,Nr. 83 bis.
71 John Lough,"Luneaude Boisjermainv.thePublishersoftheEncyclopedie,"Studies
on Voltaireand the18thCentury(Geneva, 1963), XXIII, 115-77.
72 F. Fr. 22069,Nr. 10. 17 February1770.
revoltantes pour touthommede lettres.Je le dis,je 1'6crivis.Je le

dirais,je 1'ecrirais
encore."73
Favorable to authors,Sartinetried to help the nonprivileged
publishersby enlargingupon Malesherbes'policy regardingthe
permissions tacites.Thefewregionalstudiesmadethusfaremphasize
the apparentdecadenceof the provincialeditionin the eighteenth
century.Admittedly, mostof thesestudieshave been based largely
upon government documentsratherthanthe accountbooks of the
publishersthemselves.Thereforetheytend to concentrateupon
acceptednormsofpublishing and trade-thosewhichconcernedthe
universeof privileges, permissions de sceau,and permissions tacites.
A royalarretoccasionallymightpunisha provincialpublishercaught
withan illicitedition,butofficialdocumentsfailto takethemeasure
of the extentof clandestinepublishingor distribution.Withouta
doubttheunderground industry playeda rolein thecountry, but it
remainsan openquestionwhether itdid so to thepointofbrightening
significantly thepatchesof economicgloomthusfarrevealedto us.
In Languedoctheonlylibrairesand imprimeurs to knowa modicum
of regularprosperity were the small minorityholdingmonopolies
over the officialpublicationsof the intendancy, bishoprics,or uni-
versities.The Avignonindustry and theprivilege system collaborated
to keep most publishersin difficult circumstances.Toulouse was
especiallyhardhit,and thesmallertownssquabbledwithone another
overtheissueof whoseshopswereto be sacrificed in thereductions
of1739and 1759.74 In thenortheast, at leastuntil1766whenLorraine
was incorporated intoFrance,theprivilegesystemand theindustry
oftheduchytookadvantageof thenascenttradeof Metz,Toul, and
Verdun. Priorto 1697,thethreecitieshad accountedfor268 books
ofoverfifty pageslength;theduchy,261. Duringtheeighteenth cen-
tury349 editionswerepublishedin the threetowns,1215 in Lor-
raine.75Rouen's printers and sellerswentwithoutworkregularly,76
and Sartine'sinspectorforLyonestimated thatin 1763onlythirty of
thecity'sfifty-one presseswerefunctioning.77 Sartineand hissucces-
73 M. Tourneux, "Un Factuminconnude Diderot:'Au Public& aux magistrats,"'
BulletinduBibliophile(1901),361.
74 Ventre, etla librairie
L'Imprimerie enLanguedoc, pp. 237-44.
75 Albert Ronsin,"L'Industrieetle commerce du livreen Lorraineau XVIIICsi6cle,"
Bulletinde la Socikte'
lorrainedesEtudeslocalesdansl'enseignementpublic.Nouv.Serie,
nrs.22-23(October-December, 1963;January-March, 1964),23-53.
76 J. Querinort, "L'Imprimerie rouennaiseau XVIII" siecle,"unpublished thesis,
University ofRennes(1967). Chauvet,Les Ouvriers dulivre,pp. 235-40,297-98.
77 F. Fr. 22128,Nr. 99. 24 December1763. Bourgelat to Sartine.Louis Trenard,
"Commerceet culture:le livre'a Lyonau XVIIICsiecle,"Albumsdu Crocodile(July-
August,1953),44 pp.
sors attemptedto reversethis trendby makingmore permissions

tacitesavailablethaneverbefore.From 1764-77,foreverytenbooks
authorizedvia a privilege
or permission de sceau,6.1 wereauthorized
via a permissiontacite.Thiscameto 38 percentofthetotalnumberof
authorizations.78How many of these permissionstacites were
awardedforbooksprintedin Franceand notimported fromabroad?
At themomentwe simplydo notknow. One estimate holdsthatfrom
1768-77 approximately10-15 percentof the permissionstacites
requestedwereforbooksprintedabroad.79Butthesepercentages are
farfromcertain,and we do notknowhow welltheyjibe withactual
authorizations.Furthermore, it is not yetpossibleto determine the
percentage ofnonprivileged publishersobtainingpermissions tacites.
Furtherstudyoftheregisters mayprovideestimates.At anyrate,the
regionalevaluationssuggestthatamelioration oftheirlotwas notthe
rule. Whatcan be asserted,however,is thattheprivilegesystemwas
slippingbadlyafter1764,and whoeverfoundhimselfeconomically
capablemight,withtheconnivanceoftheregime,cause it to slipyet
more.
From1774-76,thenonfavored bookmenwerein a positionto hope

thattheprivilegesystem,if not the communities themselves,might
crumblebeneaththehammerblowsof Turgot. On theeve of Louis
XV's deaththeLyonnaishad reasserted theirrole as spokesmenfor
thedisadvantaged libraires-imprimeurs byrequesting theabolitionof
privilegeprolongations as wellas privilegesforbooks whichin their
firsteditionhad been originally printedoutsideFrance.80But their
proposalswentunanswered.Otherdisappointments followed.When
Turgotforcedthroughthe suppressionof the majorityofjurandes,
maftrises, and corporations,he passed over those whichhad been
establishedby the government; and the Communityof Sellersand
Printers ofParis,foundedin 1618,fitthiscategory.Certainly, ifthey
believedthemselves to be threatened, theParisiansdid not showit.
In 1771, 1773,and 1775 theyhad thepolice descendupon Lyon in
searchof counterfeit editions,thelast raid beingthemostthorough
and least productiveof the century:"Magasins, appartements, les
lieuxles plus secrets,toutestvisite& furete. . .," butnota singlein-
78See Table ofAnnualAverages, p. 149.
79NicoleHerrmann-Mascard, La Censuredes livresa' Paris, p. 116.
80F. Fr. 22073,Nr.42. "Au Roi & nosseigneursde sonConseil"[March,1774].
criminating book was found.8' The Lyonnaisinstigated legalaction

againsttheircolleaguesofParisand evenafterTurgot'sfallrefused to
back down. Inspiredby thereformmovement, yethopingthatthe
backlash following12 May 1776 would miss those who had not
benefitedfromthe programof the formercontroller-general, the
Lyonnaisin October drew up a memoirintendedfor the Royal
Council,not merelyin theirown name,but also in thatof thecom-
munitiesof Rouen, Toulouse, Marseille, and Nlmes, the most
thoroughcahierde dol6ancesevercomposedby thepublishersof the
country,and summingup a centuryof pain, frustration, and mis-
treatment.
The concreteaims statedin the memoirof the provincialswere
similarto thosegivenbytheLyonnaistwoyearsearlier:to securein
legislationtheabolitionofautomaticprolongations ofprivilegesand
to place intothepublicdomainall once-published books,including
thosewhichoriginally had beenprintedabroad. The influence ofthe
Enlightenment penetratesdeeplyintothememoir.Turningd'Heri-
courtupside-down, theprovincialsfoundtheclaimsof theParisians
to theirprivileges to theLaws ofNatureas to
to be as muchan affront
theking'sprerogative.In sketching thehistoricaldevelopment ofthe
systemtheprovincialsstatedthatto survivetheyhad beenforcedto
undertakecounterfeit editions,manyof whichwereunintentional,
since the Parisianshad steadfastly refusedto revealthe names of
protected titles.Dependingin thiswayupon illicittrade,theprovin-
cials admittedlivingin the shadowof "une toleranceincertaine&
variable,qui tantotfermeles yeux& tantotles ouvrepourlancerles
prohibitions"-themostfrustrating ofpredicaments.82
In responding to thedefinitionsofproperty rightsupon whichthe
Parisianshad builttheircase forhalfa century, theprovincialsleaned
heavilyupon the counterarguments presentedby theircolleague
Barretback in 1762.83Theyacknowledgedthata property transfer
took place once an authorsold his manuscript to a publisher.And
whenthe publisherconvertedthe manuscriptinto an edition,the
volumesin hisstocksmostcertainly representedhisproperty as well:
"Cette proprietepeut a tous egards etre compareea celle d'une
maison,d'une terre,& de toutautreeffet legitimement acquis." But
81F. Fr. 22073,Nr. 144. "Memoirei consulter.Pourles libraires & imprimeurs de

Lyon,Rouen,Toulouse,Marseille& Nismes. Concernant les privileges
de librairie
&
continuations d'iceux"(Lyon,15 October1776),pp. 19-22.
82 Ibid.,pp. 1-3,10-29.
83 Ibid.,pp. 28-29.
theprovincialswerereferring to individualvolumes,not to thecon-

tentstherein.Once he sold a singleone ofhisvolumesto thepublic,
thepublisherrelinquished all rightsto thatbook and couldplace no
limitupon whatthepurchasermightdo withhis copy. He couldnot
prevent thepurchaser fromtranscribing ormultiplying thevolume.A
book,accordingto theprovincials, was simplya pieceofmerchandise,
an articleofcommerce.Again,theimplications ofthe1762rulingon
inventions camein handy. Whenan inventor sold hisproductto the
public, "il lui communiqueen meme tempsle droit,non pas de
s'emparerde l'original,maistrescertainement de l'imiterou copier,si
l'objetlui est utileou agreable."Whatthenwas a privilege?Not a
royalacknowledgment ofthe"droitexclusifnaturel"claimedby the
Parisians,but theking'sreward,grantedovera restricted periodof
time,fortheindustriousness oftheinventor, creativity oftheauthor,
or financialriskof thepublisher.The sovereignawardsto inventors
"la faculteexclusivede vendrea ses sujets,pendantun tempslimite,
la participation & la jouissancede leursinventions."In thesameway
he rewardsauthors and publisherswith privileges:"La faculte
d'imprimer & de vendreexclusivement un livrerendupublicnaitdu
Privilegeseul & non a l'acquisitionde la possessiondu Manuscrit,
ruisquel'Auteurlui-meme n'a ce droitparaucuntitre,s'il ne l'obtient
du Gouvernement."84
Fromthisit can be seenthat,whilerecognizing thattheysuffered
commonpersecution withauthors,theprovincialpublisherswereof
no mind to admit to writersspecial claims of proprietorship for
having createda manuscript.The provincialswishedinstead to
remindauthorshow the latterwere being victimizedinto selling
manuscripts at low pricesand how unjustit was forthemto be pro-
hibitedfromprintingand sellingtheirown books if theyso chose.
Writerssimplywereurgedto join thedisestablished publishers in the
struggleagainstperpetuationof privileges.Once the great Paris
housesno longermonopolizedthe trade,once theirprofitsbecame
moremodest,theywould seek out authorsand not tryto dominate
them.85
The provincialsconcludedtheirmemoirwithan analysisof the
stateofthebooktrade.Theirmainpointwasthattheprivilege
current
systemkeptpriceshighand editionsscarce.The Parisians,theywrote,
wereonlyinterestedin pot-boilers.Theyhoardedtheirprivilegesfor
neededworks,thus preventing
but desperately
out-of-print, others
84 F. Fr. 22073, Nr. 144, pp. 30-36.
85 Ibid., pp. 37-50.
PRIVILtGES EN LIBRARE 161
fromundertakingthese books. Therefore,while provincialpub-

lisherswereprohibitedfrommakingan editionof the out-of-print
Dictionnairede Commerce ofSavary,becausetheworkwas protected
bya privilege,a Genevahouse,notrecognizing themonopoly,printed
a successfulcontrefafon.Conversely, ifa workwerein demand,the
householdingtheprivilegecould not hope to servethemarketade-
quately. The memoirended by notinghow relationsbetweenthe
capitaland countrywereat an all-timelow. Onlyrestoration of the
provincialtradecould resolvethecrisis.Privilegeswouldhave to be
limitedin time,the continuationsstoppedaltogether.The conse-
quence, predictedthe provincials,would be the abandonmentof
nativecounterfeit editionsand thereopeningof"des liaisonsd'interet
mutuel"betweenParisand therestofthenation.86
The Crown'sreactionto thepleas oftheprovincials was theRuling
of 30 August1777. (Interestingly enough,in a decisionthreeyears
earlier,theHouse of Lords had ruledagainstperpetualcopyright in
England.)87No longerwould theParis patriciateconfidently enjoy
privilegesover generations, and the provincialpublisherseven saw
theircontrefagons to thatdate recognizedand legitimized.By no
meansdid thismean,however,thatthedominanceofthePariscom-
munityovertheFrenchbook tradehad been eradicated.The ruling
did nothingabout the extraordinary police powersenjoyedby the
patriciatefora century, and six yearslaterthechambresyndicaleof
thecapitalwouldbe entrusted withrightsofinspection overall books
imported intoFrancefromabroad. Ifa genuinevictory was stillgoing
to be deniedthedisestablishedpublishers,thesamecannotbe saidfor
authors.In thefirst place,thestateunderscored theindefinite tenure
ofprivilegesin theirhandsand in thehandsoftheirheirs. Moreover,
bypermitting authorsto use theirprivilegesat last,thatis to partici-
pate in thesale and distributionofbooks withoutsurrendering their
86 Ibid.,pp. 51-85.
EnglandandFranceinthestruggle
as wellas parallelsbetween
87 Therearedifferences
overfreetradein books. The 1774rulingin Englanddid not establisha distinction
between therightsofauthorsandpublishers. It simplyenforced a lawof1710whichhad
fallenintodisuse,and heldthatno copyright couldextendbeyondtwenty-eight years.
Englishjurisprudenceseemedneverto makeas muchofan issueas didtheFrenchover
theso-calledmoralrightsofan authorto hismanuscript. Insteadit stressed
themoral
necessityofcommunicating thecontents ofthemanuscript to thepublic.As theWhig
lawyer,LordCamden,putit: "Knowledgehas no valueor useto thesolitary owner;to
be enjoyedit mustbe communicated. Sciretuumnihilest,nisite scirehocsciatalter;
gloryis therewardof science,and thosewho deserveit scornall meanerviews." See
FrankArthurMumby, Publishing
andBookselling: A HistoryfromtheEarliestTimesto
thePresentDay (London,1954),p. 191.See also MarjoriePlant,TheEnglish BookTrade:
An EconomicHistoryof theMakingand Sale ofBooks (London, 1939),pp. 117-120;
intheDays ofJohnson
andA. S. Collins,Authorship (NewYork,1929).
6
rightsoverthem,theFiftharretof30Auguststruckoutattheexclusive
characterof the merchant-printer communities.After 1777, an
authormightat leastcounton finding a publisherwhowouldserveas
his agentand nothingmore. He mightcontractwiththepublisher,
sharecosts and profits, and, retaininghis privilege,hope to do the
same fora secondeditionor more. And thepublisher,discovering
thata non-renewable privilegeno longerpossessedtheglitter ofyore,
wouldnowbe morelikelyto swallowprideand be willingto engagein
sucha commercial venture.
But not immediately.The initialresponseof theParisiansto the
Rulingof 30 Augustwas to tryand have it amendedor repealed.
Theirpamphleteers and lawyersdenouncedit. One, abbe Pluquet,
predictedthata crisisof overproduction forpreviouslyfast-selling
workswouldresult,and publisherswouldbe reluctant to undertake
neweditionsor old,rareones-thus incurring grievousdamageupon
thetrade.88The journalistLinguet,bundleof contradictions thathe
was (he had been one of Luneau de Boisjermain'sdefensecounsels
backin 1770),repeatedan argument he hadmadethreeyearsearlier,89
namelythatprivileges en librairie
wereirrevocable in nature,thatthey
were notarialacts recognizingthe rightsof citizensto theircivil
possessions. Like Pluquet, Linguetstatedhis beliefthat authors
wouldbe theonesto paythepricefortheruling,oncetheydiscovered
howmuchpublishers werehesitating to contractwiththemunderthe
newarrangements.90 The directreactionoftheParisiansrangedfrom
highmelodrama-a marchupon Fontainebleauby the widowsof
libraires,dressedin full mourning9l-tothe hiringof avocats au
Parlement and au ConseilduRoi to presenttheoretical briefsin hopes
of amendmentor repeal.92Linguetreportedthatpublishersin the
capitalwererefusing to presentto officersofthelibrairiethestatusof
privilegesin theirhands,and thatone officer of thecommunity, de
88 F. Fr. 22063,Nr. 68. 15 November 1777. [AbbePluquet],"LettreAunamisurles

arretsdu Conseildu 30 aouit1777,concernant etl'imprimerie,"
la librairie inLaboulaye
and Guiffrey, La Proprietelitteraire,pp. 277-358.
89 Bibliotheque Nationale.Salle de R6serve.F. 718 [S. N. H. Linguet],"M6moire
surlespropri6t6s & privilegesexclusifs de la librairiepr6sentee en 1774."22 pp.
90Annales civileset litteraires
politiques, dudix-huitieme siecle(December1777),Vol.
III, Nr. 17,9-57.
91 [J.-B.-A.Suard],Discoursimpartiel surlesaffaires actuellesdela librairie
(1777),p. 6.
92 "Requ8teau Roi & consultations pourla librairie & l'imprimerie de Paris,au sujet
des deuxarretsdu 30 ao'ut1777,"in Laboulayeand Guiffrey, La Propriete litteraire,
pp.159-98."Consultation desavocatsau Parlement pourle corpsde la librairie& impri-
meriede Paris"(23 December1777),inibid.,pp.199-209."Consultation desavocatsau
Conseildu Roi pourle corpsde la librairie etimprimerie de Paris"(9 January 1778),in
ibid.,pp. 211-20.
Bure,had beenthrownintotheBastilleforrefusing to applytheRoyal

Seal oflegitimacy to thecontrefagons
presented to him.93
The courtsand policewereextremely to enforcetheruling
reluctant
rightaway,and itwas notsentto Parlement forregistration.Thusthe
inevitable hasslesensued. In September1777,policeinspector Lenoir
decidedin fourseparateinstancesthatraidsconductedby theParis
community inLyonbackin 1770,1771,and
againstsellersandprinters
1773werejustified, and thosecaughtwithcounterfeit editionswereas
guiltynowas theyhad beenpriorto theexistenceoftheSixtharretof
30 August. The rulingwas notretroactive.94 Then,in a friendly suit
institutedto testtheFiftharret,theCourtofChatelet ruled as valid a
privilegetransfereffected priorto 30 August,betweenthe author
Pauctonand theParis publisher,veuveDessaint-victorin Lenoir's
decisions-despitethefactthataccordingto thetermsofthetransac-
tion,theprivilege was to be permanent in thehandsofthewidow.95
Was theRulingof 30 Augustenforcedat all? Pottinger calls it a
dead letter.96But evidenceto the contrarydoes exist. A register
probablydrawnup in 1778wouldfreeforthepublicdomaina listof
325 titles"owned" by the Paris firmsof Delalain, Knappen, and
Durand, as soon as the old privilegesexpired.97And two other
registers,-one"des Permissions Simplespourlesouvragesclassiques"
(1778-89),theothera "Repertoirealphabetiquedes livrespubliesde
1778a 1788,avecl'indicationdu chiffrede tirage"-includedrequests
of publishersfor permissionto printthe newlyliberatedbooks.98
In June 1778, the rightsof authorsto keep theirprivilegeswhile
distributingtheirbooksto retailingagentswereconfirmed.99 Writers
93 Annales (15 February,
politiques 1778),Vol. III, Nr.20,239.
94F. Fr. 22070,Nr.53; F. Fr.22180,Nr.112;F. Fr.22180,Nr. 113;F. Fr.22180,Nr.
114. 27 September 1777. Judgments ofPoliceInspector Lenoir.
95See Falk,LesPrivileges pp. 136-38.The Chateletdecisionwasmadeon
de librairie,
11August1778andconfirmed bytheParlement ofParison 10February 1779.
96Pottinger, TheFrenchBookTrade,p. 134.
97 F. Fr. 21832,Nr.2. "Tableaudesouvrages jugescommuns ou qui le deviendront a
1'expiration desprivileges
dontilssontrevetus, en executionde l'articleXI de I'arr8tdu
Conseildu 30 aouit1777portantr6glement surla dureedesprivileges en librairie."
98 F. Fr. 22018,22019. Estivals,
La Statistique p. 88.
bibliographique,
99F. Fr. 22180,Nr. 175. 30 June1778. D'Hemeryhad recommended thisin his
memoirto Sartinebackin 1764(F. Fr. 22073,Nr. 83 bis). The clarifying amendment
statedthat
toutAuteurqui aura obtenuen son nomle PriviIfgede son Ouvragenon-seulement aura le droitde le faire
vendrechezlui,maisil pourraencore,autantde foisqu'il le voudra,faireimprimer, pour son compte,son
Ouvrage par tel Imprimeur & le fairevendreaussi par tel Librairequ'il aura choisi,sans que les trait6sou
conventions qu'il ferapourimprimer ou d6biteruneeditionde son Ouvragepuissent8trer6put6scessionde
son Privilage.
The amendment wasin parttheresultofa requestforclarification
statedin a s6anceof
theAcad6miefrancaisein February1778. Certainmembers of theAcad6mie,led by
Suard,appeartohavebeenactivelobbyists
forthe30AugustRuling.See Laboulayeand
Guiffrey,
La Propri6td
litteraire,
pp. 625-28.
ofcourseobtainedandheldontoprivileges whenever theycould.Mme.

Herrmann-Mascard estimatesthatthey secured 78 percentofthetotal
in 1778and 81 percentin 1783,as comparedto 40-50percentforthe
1770-76period.'00Whatis mostinteresting would be to knowjust
how manywriters actuallyretainedtheirprivileges throughdistribu-
tion; at present we cannot make such a determination. Perhapsa
comparisonbetweenthe actual privilegeregistersfor 1778-89and
writer-publisher contractspreservedin the MinutierCentralof the
ArchivesNationaleswould be of help. Certainlythe depouillement
wouldbe an arduoustask.
In orderto discouragedirect judicialappeals,thearretsof30August
1777werenotissuedas patentlettersand werenotsentto Parlement
forregistration. But therecourseof theParisiansto thecourtsas a
channelof protest,and most especiallyParlement'sreviewof the
Paucton-Dessaint case,madea generalinquiryinevitable.In 1779the
Parlementof Paris discussedthe arretson at least four distinct
occasions. The governmentrequestedavocat-generalSeguier to
present itscasetothebody. Thisprovedtobe thelastmajortheoretical
analysisof theprivileges en librairieundertheAncienRegime.101It
was a long-winded, extremely redundantreport,and one can more
than suspect that Seguier was arguingwithhalf a heart. For the
sympathies of the majorityof parlementaires, hostileto the Royal
Council,nowlaywiththepatriciate.102 The avocat-general admitted
thatin theirdefinition of privilegesas property, theParisianshad a
betterjuridical argumentthan theiropponents. But Seguieralso
admittedthattheissueat handwas a practicalone,thehealthofthe
nation'sbooktrade,andtherefore principlehadtoyieldtoexpediency:
"Si le droitnaturelmiliteenfaveurde la propriete, I'avantagenational
exigequ'on facilitele commerceen detruisant les entravesdontil est
plusou moinsembarrasse."''03 In delineatinga rationalebetweenthe
twotypesofprivileges enunciated bytheRulingof1777-a permanent
one in the hands of an author,a temporary one in the hands of a
publisher-Seguieragainhad to resortto thebrutefactsofthesitua-
tionas opposedto principleor consistency.He foundthatas longas
thelaw had forcedauthorsto yieldtheirprivileges men
to publishers,
of lettersdid not receivefairfinancialcompensation fortheirmanu-
100Herrmann-Mascard, La Censure deslivresa Paris,p. 71. Theregisters
employed by
Mme.Herrmann-Mascard areF. Fr. 21997-22003.
101ArchivesNationales.Ser. X1B 8973. Reprinted in Laboulayeand Guiffrey, La
Propridtd pp. 481-596.
litteraire,
102A.N.S6r.XIB 8972. 23 April 1779. "R6cit d'un des Messieursde Parlement
[Duval d'Epremesnilj."Reprinted in Laboulayeand Guiffrey, La PropridtJ litteraire,
pp. 468-78.
103 A.N. Ser.XIB 8973. Laboulayeand Guiffrey, La Propri6td litteraire,
p. 577.
PRIVILtGES EN LIBRARE 165
scripts.Therefore, it was necessaryto encouragethemto keep the

privileges
iftheyso desired.The avocat-general wriggledon thehorns
ofhisdilemma,believingin thegenuinecharacterofliterary property
at thesametimeas he felthimselfobligedby his officeto defendthe
royalgrace. Thus he attempted to definethe privilegeas an act of
royaljusticeforan author,and as an act ofroyalliberality fora pub-
lisher.Recognizing at lengththeimpossibility ofreconcilingprinciple
withduty,Seguierratherdesperatelyconcludedby admittingthat
"ce qui est bon dans un tempsn'a plus le memeavantagedans un
autre,& la multiplicite des abus appelleune nouvellelegislation."1104
Assumingthatthe arretsof 30 Augustwereat least partiallyen-
forced,a pairofessentialquestionsremain:weretheyresponsible for
any noteworthy economic changesin the book trade? Did the
disestablishedpublishersrecoversignificantly as a result of the
legislationagainstmonopoly?In an articlewhichwillappearshortly,
RobertDarntonhypothesizes thatthegreatParishouses,particularly
thatof Charles-Joseph Panckoucke,maintainedtheircommanding
presencedownto therevolution.On theotherhand,he believesthat
provincialdealersand foreignpublishersenjoyeda briefrenewalof
prosperityuntil1783-not as a resultofthe1777Ruling,however, but
becauseofTurgot'srepealoftariffs on book importsin 1775.105Both
ofthesejudgmentsmaywellproveto be true,thoughtheregistration
statisticsforprivileges, permissions de sceau,and permissions tacites
compiledby Estivalssuggestthatthe industryas a whole suffered
jarringeffectsfrom1778-83. Accordingto Estivals' figures,from
1764-77,theaverageannualnumberofprivileges and permissions de
sceaurequestedand authorizedhad cometo 431 and 285 respectively.
From 1778-83,the corresponding figuresdipped to 313 and 224.
From 1784-88,therecoverywas made-the figuresreading422 and
282.106The permissions tacitesappearto tellan evenmoredisastrous
story:from 1764-77,the average annual numberrequestedand
authorizedhad cometo 354 and 207. From 1778-83,thecorrespond-
ingfigures fellto 212 and 125. Then,as withtheprivileges andpermis-
sions de sceau, recoveryoccurredswiftly. The figures 1784-87
for
read358 and 220.107In graphformtheapparentcrisisin production
annearsevenmoredramatic.108
104 Ibid.,p. 596.

105Robert Darnton, "Reading,Writing,and Publishingin Eighteenth-Century
France,"Daedalus.
bibliographique,
La Statistique
106Estivals, Table ofAnnualAverages,
pp. 247-48.LSee
p. 149
288. See TableofAnnualAverages,
107Estivals, p. 149.
p. 296.Furet,"La 'Librairie'du Royaume,"p. 8.
108Estivals,
As a message ofhomagetohisteacher, Estivals proudlynotesthat

for1778-83appearto confirm
his statistics thecompliance of yet
anotherindustry to Labrousse'scurveof recession.109 A certain
amountof evidenceon theotherside,however, mustmodify his
findings.Inthefirst after
place,theregisters 1778hadtobeaffected by
the factthatprivilege continuations,previously recordedas new
privileges,
simply ceasedto exist.Furthermore, in thewakeofthe
reform of1777,an entirely newcategory ofpermissions, thepermis-
sionssimples, cameintobeing;and theregisters forprivilegesor
permissions tacitesfailedto accountforbooksfallingunderthis
rubric.Next,another categoryofpublications forwhichtheregisters
do notadequately account-theperiodical press-blossomed forthin
thelate seventies.110 A permission taciteregister recordeda new
journalonlyonce;buttheperiodical brought continuous to
activity
itspublisheras longas itlasted.Estivals'owncomputation ofworks
109See especiallyhis article,"La Production des livresdans les dernieres ann6esde
l'AncienRegime,"Actesdu 90o CongresNationaldes SocietesSavantes.Nice, 1965.
Sectiond'histoire modemeet contemporaine. Vol. II (Paris,1966),11-54.Depending
upontheregister F. Fr. 22019,the"Repertoire alphab6tique deslivrespubli6sde 1778a
1788,avecl'indication du chiffre de tirage,"Estivalsattempts to reachconclusions con-
cerningtotalproduction.He admitsthattheregister is not comprehensive, however.
Onesolidvirtue ofthisarticleisitshypothesis regarding theeffects oftwotaxesinstituted
byTerrayin 1771. Thefirst wasa taxof20 sousperreamon whitepaper(F. Fr. 22082,
Nr.90.1-2March1771),increased inAugustbutthenmoderated inOctober1771(F. Fr.
22082,Nr. 98. 16 October1771). The secondwas a tax of sixtylivresperquintalon
imported books(F. Fr. 22081,Nr. 190. 11 September 1771),reducedin 1773(F. Fr.
22179,Nr.274. 17 October1773)andfinally abolishedaltogether byTurgotin 1775(F.
Fr. 22179,Nr. 362. 23 April1775). BothEstivalsand Damtonsee thetaxon paperas
beinga perpetual thornin thesideofParispublishers after1771. Estivals'statisticson
privil&gesandpermissions de sceau,and on depositions intotheBibliotheque du Roi do
implya noticeabledeclineinproduction for1773,1774,and 1776;and,as thefollowing
table,whichisderived fromLaStatistique bibliographique, doessuggest (seep. 287),legally
imported books,allofwhichentered viathepermission tacite,appeartohavebeenaffected
markedly bythecustomsdutyof11 September 1771and itssubsequent modifications.
Permissions Tacites
Tacites Permissions
Year Requested Approved
1769 457 187
1770 445 198
1771 292 143
1772 243 107
1773 314 141
1774 421 244
1775 394 199
1776 347 202
110In La Statistiquebibliographique, Estivalsis not unawareof the mushrooming
periodical
press.He writes (p. 343): ". . . Ils passentde 6 en 1772,'a5 en 1773,8 en 1774,
30 en 1775,36 en 1776,72 en 1777,87 en 1778,118en 1779,97 en 1780,103en 1781,59
en 1782,71 en 1783,56 en 1784,103 en 1785,284 en 1786." GabrielBonno's"Liste
chronologique des p6riodiques de languefrangaise du XVIIIe siecle,"ModernLanguage
Quarterly(1944),19-25,citesthirty-three newperiodicals established or soldin France
between1777and 1784. Seventeen had livesexceeding one year,sevenexceeding five
years.
thatappearedin theyears1778-83,derivedfromdepositionsintothe
Bibliothequedu Roi and citationsin the weeklycatalogue,the
Journalde la librairie, casts a largeshadowupon thevalidityof his
registrationstatistics.Averageannualentries intotheBibliotheque du
Roi for1751-63,1764-77,and 1778-83read as follows:Titles-218,
315, 422. Volumes-294, 434, 541."'1 The Journalde la librairie,
whichinitiatedits recordkeepingin 1763,presentsevengreaterdif-
ficulties.For the period 1764-77,its annual average of livresde
privilegescame to 397; for 1778-83,it was 416; for 1784-89,it was
761.112 AddingEstivals'statistics, theJournal de la librairie
listedthe
appearanceofmorelivresde privileges for1778-83thantheregisters
themselves recorded,permissions tacitesincluded(2494 to 2300)!113
The precedingshowsclearlyhow farwe stillare fromestimating the
totaleconomiceffects of thearretsof 1777,ifindeedtherewereany.
It is probablethata briefgenuineslumpdidoccurintheindustry from
late 1771 through1774,and possiblythrough1776,Terray'spaper
tax hurtingtheParisiansand his importtax hurtingtheprovincials.
After1777,however,theregisters of theParis community no longer
are validindicesof prosperity or poverty.Beforegoinganyfurther,
we mustplace bettercontrolsoverthedata we have.
On theotherhand,no doubtexistswhatsoever as to thedeteriora-
tion in relationsbetweenthe provincialpublishersand theircol-
leaguesin Paris after12 June1783. On thatdate ForeignMinister
Vergennessentan orderto thefarmers generalrequiring transporta-
all
tionof imported booksfromtheportofentryto thecapital,where
the chambresyndicaleof Paris would inspectthe contentsof the
packagesfromabroad. Onlyafterapprovalby the chambrewould
reshipment be permitted, and theprovincialimporter had to pay all
transportation costs to and fromParis. Dealers fromLyon and
Lilleprotested vigorously.To themVergennes' orderwas a vindictive
act,inspiredmostlikelybytheParisians.The Lilloispreferred tohave
theirshipments rotin a customshouseat theportofentryratherthan
sendthemon to Paris,whiletheLyonnaispointedouttheabsurdity of
sendingimports from Geneva to Paris priorto reshipment to the
provincesor Spain. Needlessto say,theorderof 12 Junewas instru-
mentalininjuring thecarrying tradeoftheprovincials and contributed
enormously to theirdifficultiesin re-establishing an economicbase
aftera century ofdiscrimination. It is highlyunlikelythattheypartici-
pated significantlyin the burstof productivity in the Frenchbook
I Estivals,LaStatistiquebibliographique,
p. 356.SeeTableofAnnualAverages,
p. 149.
p. 366. See Table ofAnnualAverages,
112Estivals, p. 149.
113Estivals,
pp. 309,366.
tradefrom1784 untilthe revolution.On the contrary, it was the

Parisians-very likely those whose monopolies were the objectsofthe
arretof 1777-who werethechiefprofiteers.114
Butiftheprovincials failedto recover,thelot ofwriters improved.
From1777on theirsocialandeconomicdependence uponpatronsand
publishersmust have declined. And they were an inspiredlot.
Beaumarchaisled thedramatists in theirprotestsagainstthe tradi-
tionalmonopolyof theComediefrangaiseduringthe 1780s,though
it tooktherevolutionary legislationof 1791to awardplaywrights the
libertyof representing theirpieces wherevertheypleased.115Con-
cerningauthorsof nondramaticworks,however,the Convention's
presslaw of 1793,whileno longerrecognizing thetermprivilegeen
librairieofcourse,retainedthespiritoftheFiftharretof 1777. There
were two departuresin detail. An author'sheirsmightenjoy his
rightsforonlytenyearsafterhisdeath,at whichmomentthebook in
questionhad to enterthepublicdomain. And ifan authorhad ceded
rightsto a publisher, thelatterlikewisecouldenjoythemfortenyears
aftertheauthor'sdeath."16
In conclusion,it appearsthattheevolutionoftheprivilegesystem,
withits climaxin 1777,offers a lessonin administrative history.In
one instanceat least,theAncienRegimesaw howimperative itwas to
adapt an institution to social needs. Whenthe government finally
acted,it did so painfully and indecisivelyas faras thedisestablished
publishersofFrancewereconcerned;and ultimately it succumbedto
old pressures. Concerningwriters,however, the resultsproved
different. It was thedecadent,crumbling monarchythatrecognized
the proprietary claimsof authorsto the productof theirgeniusor
theirfolly-to suchan extentthatrevolutionaries, whilerepudiating
thepastbyword,by deed mightlinkit to thefuture.
ofOregon.
University
114F. Fr. 21833,Nr. 68. "Memoirepourles SieursPiestre& Cormon,libraires a
Lyon." F. Fr. 21833,Nr. 70. "Memoirepresente a M. le ProcureurGeneraldu Parle-
mentde Flandreparles Sousign6sSindic& Adjointsde la ChambreSindicalede Lille,
tanten leurnom,qu'au nomde tousleursconfreres de la Flandre,Hainaut,Cambr6sis,
Artois& Boulonoisformant l'arrondissement soumisa la ditteChambreSindicale."
F. Fr. 21833,Nr. 96. 2 August1783. SyndicPerissele Duc of Lyonto directeur de la
librairieLe Camusde Neville.F. Fr.21833,Nr. 129. "Observations surla Decadence&
la Ruined'unedesBranches lesplusflorissantes du Commerce du Royaume,c'est-it-dire
de la Librairie, de cellede la Villede Lyon." Darntonoffers
particulierement convincing
evidenceandconclusions regarding themotives behindandconsequences oftheorderof
12June1783in "Reading,Writing, andPublishing."As thisgoesto press,a newstudy
on theprovincial booktradehas beenannounced:Julien Brancoliniand Marie-Th6r6se
Bouyssy, "La Vieprovinciale
dulivrea la findeI'AncienRegime,"inLivreetsocidtdans
la FranceduXVIIIesiecle,II (Paris,1970),11-51.
115Dock, Etudesurle droitd'auteur, pp. 143-54.
116Ibid.,pp. 155-57.

Authors Vs Publishers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Authors Vs Publishers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Society for Eighteenth Century Studies (ASECS)

The Profits of Ideas: Privileges en Librairie in Eighteenth-Century France

ON 30 AUGUST 1777-fifteenmonthsafterthe fall of Turgotand

I wishto expressmygratitude to theFulbright

Yet whatwas mostoriginalaboutthenewrulingwas thedistinction it

works,Richelieuhad madeitclearthattheCrownno longerintended

butalso in Lyon,Rouen,Toulouse,and Troyes-theregimeofLouis

publishingcentersfor books for Frenchconsumptionin Geneva,

bookinquestionwas to becomefreecopy. The University, Parlement

publishers.The issuesat handwouldinvolvetheexclusiveprivileges

d'Andillyand Louis of Granada,for "des officesde l'Eglise,de la

Between1704 and 1725,the non-privileged publishersof France

publisherwould undertakethe re-editionof a costlyventurewhose

24 Thememoir ofCoignardis F. Fr. 22072,Nr. 14. [1710]"Au Roy & a nosseigneurs

oncenobleprofession had fallenpreyto thestateand crafty business-

ignoredaltogether.In 1744 the "Reglementdu Conseil" became

To theirbewilderment d'Armenonvillebecame furiouswhen he

37 F. Fr. 22072,Nr. 62. "A Monseigneur le Gardedes Sceaux" (Paris,[1726]). A

accordesa un libraire proprietaired'unManuscrit, pouren gratifier

It was in 1750,thedatetraditionallyviewedas theturningpointin

d'ailleursdu privilege exclusifde la plupartdes livresqui s'impriment,

TABLE OF ANNUALAVERAGESOF REQUESTSFOR PUBLICATION,APPROVALS,

Privilegesand Permissionsde 400 333 332 355 431 313 422

period,betweentwo and threeof everyten books approvedby

Malesherbeshimselfboasted thathe was attackingprivilegesin

underground categorieswillcometo lightnotbywayofregister statisticsbutas a result

The followingyearthepatriciatetook anotherwhipping.Back in

director of thebook trademightre-awardit to themostappropriate party.I cannot

mentsofproperty rights.In December1762,however,a declaration

proofsforthelastvolumesof theEncyclopedie-should findhimself

allianceforgedby ColbertbetweentheAdministration and thegreat

presentees a M. de Sartineparles Syndic& Adjoints,& en margeles observations

publication,shouldthatsame printerbe willingto riskprofessional

66 For example,F. Fr. 22072,Nr. 60. "Memoirepour la veuvede PierreRibou,

But the inspectorunderestimated Sartine'sown commitment to

1723/44 madethemuselessas well,itmight anddirecteur

revoltantes pour touthommede lettres.Je le dis,je 1'6crivis.Je le

sors attemptedto reversethis trendby makingmore permissions

From1774-76,thenonfavored bookmenwerein a positionto hope

criminating book was found.8' The Lyonnaisinstigated legalaction

81F. Fr. 22073,Nr. 144. "Memoirei consulter.Pourles libraires & imprimeurs de

theprovincialswerereferring to individualvolumes,not to thecon-

fromundertakingthese books. Therefore,while provincialpub-

88 F. Fr. 22063,Nr. 68. 15 November 1777. [AbbePluquet],"LettreAunamisurles

Bure,had beenthrownintotheBastilleforrefusing to applytheRoyal

ofcourseobtainedandheldontoprivileges whenever theycould.Mme.

scripts.Therefore, it was necessaryto encouragethemto keep the

104 Ibid.,p. 596.

As a message ofhomagetohisteacher, Estivals proudlynotesthat

tradefrom1784 untilthe revolution.On the contrary, it was the

You might also like