The French book trade in the ancien régime, 1500-1791 9780674321007, 9780674432581, 9780674432550

Table of contents :
Frontmatter (page N/A)
PART ONE AUTHORS IN THE ANCIEN REGIME
I. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS (page 4)
II. THE AUTHOR AND HIS PUBLIC (page 22)
III. AUTHOR, PUBLISHER, AND PRINTER (page 43)
IV. CENSORSHIP (page 54)
V. REWARDS OF AUTHORSHIP (page 82)
PART TWO DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE
VI. THE BROTHERHOOD OF ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST (page 107)
VII. ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK GUILD (page 111)
VIII. ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE (page 146)
PART THREE THE MASTERS
IX. THE MASTER PRINTERS (page 173)
X. THE MASTER LIBRAIRES (page 184)
XI. PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY (page 210)
PART FOUR THE WORKMEN
XII. THE JOURNEYMEN (page 241)
XIII. THE APPRENTICES (page 269)
PART FIVE AUXILIARY TRADES
XIV. PAPERMAKING (page 289)
XV. BOOK ILLUSTRATION (page 310)
XVI. BINDING (page 324)
CONCLUSION (page 341)
APPENDIX A. Money and Purchasing Power (page 351)
APPENDIX B. Some Details of Civil Government (page 353)
APPENDIX C. The Guild System (page 354)
INDEX (page 357)

Citation preview

THE FRENCH BOOK TRADE IN THE ANCIEN REGIME 1500-1791

THE FRENCH BOOK TRADE IN THE ANCIEN REGIME 1500-1791

David T. Pottinger 3 belied: GAS ZARS asee)

VER TRL AAS

NOY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, Massachusetts

1958

© Copyright, 1958, by the President and Fellows of Harvard College

Distributed in Great Britain by Oxford University Press, London Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 58-5596

Designed by Burton J Jones, Jr. Set in Linotype Baskerville and printed at Harvard University Printing Office, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Bound by Stanhope Bindery, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts

PREFACE

Source material for the history of the book trade in France before the Revolution exists in abundance. During the period itself there was much publication of laws, bibliographies, works of reference, craft manuals, and so on. Within the past hundred years, and espe-

cially about the turn of the present century, a mass of pertinent documents and other data has appeared in learned journals, trade magazines, bibliographies, general histories of France, and elsewhere. Among the more important of these items we should men-

tion, first of all, Gallia typographica, which Georges Lepreux planned as a series of twenty-one volumes of biographical sketches and documents for the printers, type founders, binders, and dealers up to 1791. This project was interrupted by the first World War, after 1t had reached five volumes. In the second place, the twelve volume Bibliographie lyonnaise by Henri Louis Baudrier and his son Julien, covering the printers of Lyon, was published from 1895 to 1921. In 1903 Louis Radiguer issued an account of the master printers and their workmen in which he devoted the first section to the ancien régime. In 1905 Paul Mellottée brought out an excellent, though now somewhat antiquated, economic history of printing. Louis Morin at the same time wrote extensively on printing at Troyes. More recently, Georges Renard, Henri Jean Martin, and

Paul Chauvet have resumed the tradition. The range of all this investigation and publication may be seen by a glance at the footnotes in the present volume. A great part of the modern books and articles have been based upon two enormous collections now preserved in the archives of the Bibliothéque Nationale in Paris. The first of these, comprising the manuscript records of the printers’ and publishers’ guild, consists of 2447 folio volumes, each measuring about sixteen by twenty-

four inches and four inches thick. The second, the 133 folio volumes known as the Collection Anisson, was formed by the chief inspector of the book trade in the middle of the eighteenth century, Joseph d’Hémery, and sold by him to Jacques Anisson DuPerron;

vi PREFACE it is a well-arranged gathering of all sorts of trade memorabilia. Henri Omont made a summary checklist of the contents of the first collection in 1886; Ernest Coyecque made a rather full inventory of the second, which was issued in two volumes in 1899.

During the 1920’s the distinguished economists Prosper Boissonade and Lucien Febvre called attention several times to the fact that French scholars had provided a great amount of scattered and fragmentary material outside the archives that should be synthesized into an account of the early book trade. The neglect of this field is all the more surprising when one realizes that the trade in

Germany and in England had by that time received adequate treatment. None of the works we have mentioned above parallels the present study. They are primarily, if not exclusively, concerned with the history of printing; we are here concerned with the more comprehensive publishing industry — or profession, if you will. In this context, printing is an auxiliary trade, a single element in a larger total. But since printers were the only craftsmen — except the binders for a rather long period — who shared with the publishers membership in the book guild, printing must necessarily claim much of our attention. This book is not, however, a history of French typography or type founding. Furthermore, since publishers are interested in many other fields than belles-lettres, this is not a history of literature. Its main purpose is to survey the business of making, marketing, and distributing all kinds of books from the end of the incunabula period down to the Revolution, with rather incidental treatment of manufacturing questions. The point of view is that of the behavioral sciences rather than that of the humanities or the mechanical arts. The general plan is simple: we take up in succession the economic status of the authors, the masters in the guild, the journeymen printers and dealers, the apprentices, and (with less detail) the papermakers, the illustrators, and the binders. Human life, however, cannot be divided sharply into mutually exclusive areas, and so our elements should finally coalesce into a unified picture of a highly intelligent group of men communicating their thought to

their own time and to the future through the instrumentality of a no less interesting group preoccupied with the technicalities of

PREFACE vii organization, management, selling, printing, binding, engraving, and papermaking. Fumbling and experimenting at first, they end by being the effective makers and carriers of the ark of civilization. The reader should be advised of a few of the mechanics of writing that I have utilized. I have given a good many dates, but only where clearness demanded an indication of chronology. ‘The use of a roman numeral in connection with a man’s name — for instance, Robert (I) Estienne, Fédéric (II) Morel — indicates that he was the first or second of that given name. The footnotes are intentionally

full in order to serve as a guide to future investigators. Finally, certain general topics — the value of money, the civil government, and the guild system — have been treated in the Appendices because they required more discussion than was advisable in the text itself or in footnotes. Three chapters have found earlier publication in slightly dif-

ferent form: Chapter XI, “The Protection of Literary Property,” in The Romanic Review for April 1951; Chapter IV, “Censorship, ” in the Boston Public Library Quarterly for January and April 1954;

and Section 4 of Chapter VIII, “Maintenance of Quality,” in the Gutenberg Jahrbuch for 1952. I am grateful to the editors of these publications for permission to incorporate the material in this book.

I cannot adequately acknowledge all the help extended to me in the course of this investigation. I must, however, mention with warm thanks Professor Arthur F. Whittem and Dr. Fritz L. Redlich of Harvard University; Dr. Vincenzo Cioffari of D. C. Heath and

Company, Boston; Milton E. Lord and Zoltan Haraszti of the Boston Public Library; Professor Nathan Edelman and Professor Frederic C. Lane of the Johns Hopkins University; and Robert H. Haynes, Miss Alice Reynolds, and other officers of the Harvard College Library. I am especially grateful to Professor Arthur Harrison Cole of Harvard University, who through all the years of my research and writing has stood by with unflagging interest, encouragement, and friendship. David T. Pottinger Cambridge, Massachusetts 14 November 1957

CONTENTS PART ONE

AUTHORS IN THE ANCIEN REGIME I. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS 4 rt. Social Classes 5

2. Education 13 3. Religion 20

II. THE AUTHOR AND HIS PUBLIC 22 I. Book Production 23 2. Kinds of Books Published 28

3. Formats 39 III. AUTHOR, PUBLISHER, AND PRINTER 43 I. Authorand Publisher 43 2. Authorand Printer 45 3. Proofreading 49 IV. CENSORSHIP 54 1. The Nature of Censorship 54 2. The Censoring Authorities 60 3. Malesherbes as Director of the Book Trade _ 66

4. Censorship Administration in Practice 70 5. Evasions of the Law 72 6. Penalties for Violations of the Law 16

V. REWARDS OF AUTHORSHIP 82 1. Inherited or Acquired Wealth 82

2. Patronage 85 3. Ecclesiastical Preferment go 4. Professional and Other Occupations 92 5. Income from Literary Work 95

x CONTENTS PART TWO

DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE VI. THE BROTHERHOOD OF ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST 107

VII. ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK GUILD 111 zr. Number of Workers 111 2. Earliest Trade Conditions 114 3. Organization during the Sixteenth Century 117 4. Organization during the Seventeenth Century 122 5. Organization during the Eighteenth Century 131 6. The Guild asa Family Monopoly 136 7. Trade Activity outside the Guild 138

VIII. ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 146 rt. The Chancellor and the Director of the Book Trade 146 2. Police Inspection 1447 3. Guild Prerogatives 149 4. Maintenance of Quality 156

5. Internal Management 160 PART THREE

THE MASTERS IX. THE MASTER PRINTERS 173 zr. Development of the Printing Craft 173

2. Shop Equipment 175 3. Capital Investment 1479

4. Shop Management 182

X. THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 184 zr. Development of Bookselling and Publishing 184

2. Capital Investment 190 3. Restrictions on Booksellers and Publishers 192 4. Relations with Printers 194 5. Relations with Other Publishers 197 6. Relations with the Public 201 7. The Publisher's Wealth 207

CONTENTS x1 XI. PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 210 1. The System of Privileges 210 2. The Struggle for Protection in the Seventeenth Century 216 3. Practice and Theory in the Eighteenth Century 223 4. Final Attempts at Reform 234 PART FOUR

THE WORKMEN XII. THE JOURNEYMEN 241 r. Journeymen and Alloués 241 2. Deteriorating Position of the Journeymen 244 3. Terms of Employment 247 4. Relations with the Masters; Wages 252 5. Workmen’s Associations 255

6. Strikes 262 XIII. TITHE APPRENTICES 269 1. Necessity for Apprenticeship 269 2. Prerequisites for Apprenticeship 271 3. Formalities of Induction and Discharge 273 4. Apprenticeship Fees 276 5. The Master's Duties 277 6. Term of Service 278 7. Number of Apprentices 279 8. Social Conditions 281 PART FIVE

AUXILIARY TRADES XIV. PAPERMAKING 289 XV. BOOK ILLUSTRATION 310

XVI. BINDING 324 CONCLUSION 341 APPENDICES

A. Money and Purchasing Power 351; B. Some Details of Civil Government 353; C. The Guild System 354

INDEX 357

ILLUSTRATIONS THE UNIVERSITY QUARTER OF PARIS facing page 96 Courtesy of the Harvard College Library. Engraving by N. de Fer; from Nicolas de La Mare, Trazté de la police, 4 vol. (Paris, 1705), I, 87, “Huiti¢éme plan de Paris.”

The book trade was confined to the University Quarter, though dealers might also have a shop in the Palais de Justice just across the river. The broad street running from top to bottom at the center of the map is the Rue Saint Jacques, where most of the bookshops were located. ‘The Church of Saint Mathurin and the Church of Saint Jean de Latran were on this street half way between the river and the bottom of the map. The Sorbonne is just below these churches.

CHURCH OF THE MATHURINS facing page 97 Courtesy of the Harvard College Library. Engraving by Ransonnette; from Aubin Louis Millin, Antiquités nationales, 5 vol. (Paris, 1790-1795), III, xxxii. This was the church in which the Brotherhood of Saint John the Evangelist held its religious ceremonies. Headquarters of the guild were for many years

next door. The church was destroyed during the Revolution.

MALESHERBES (1721-1794) facing page 112 Courtesy of Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris. Duplessis 29160.19. Engraving by C. E. Gaucher. Director of the Book Trade (1750-1763); author of Mémoires sur la librairie et sur la liberté de la presse (Paris, 1809); beheaded during the Revolution.

JOSEPH D’HEMERY (1722-1806) facing page 112 Courtesy of Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris. Duplessis 21098. Engraving by N. F. Regnault, ca. 1780. From 1748 until the Revolution d’Hémery held several inspectorships and

was popularly known as Inspector General of the Book Trade (cf. post, pp- 147-149). He formed the extensive collection of trade memorabilia which he sold later to Jacques Anisson DuPerron and which is now called the Collection Anisson (B. N. mss. frang. 22061-22193).

SEBASTIEN CRAMOISY (1585-1669) facing page 113 Courtesy of Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris. Duplessis 11081. Engraving by Gilles Rousselet, 1642.

Consul or Alderman of Paris, Overseer of the Poor, Royal Printer (16331664), Director of the Imprimerie Royale (1640-1669), and the most powerful publisher of the seventeenth century (cf. post, pp. 198-200).

X1V ILLUSTRATIONS SHOPS IN THE PALAIS DE JUSTICE facing page 256 Courtesy of Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris. Blum 1065. Engraving by Abraham Bosse.

This plate shows three shops in one of the corridors of the Palais. ‘The one on the right is for the sale of lace collars and cuffs. The one in the center is a “gift shop” selling fans, gloves, ribbons, masks, etc. ‘The one on the left is a bookshop; names of bestselling authors and books are written above the shelves, and the stock is also displayed on the counter.

PAPERMAKING facing page 257 Courtesy of the Harvard College Library (Houghton Library). Engraved by Billé, 1776; from Josephe Jérdme Le Francais de Lalande, Art de faire le papier (n. p., [1776?]), Plate VIII. The upper section shows, on the left, a workman dipping his mold in the

vat of pulp; in the center, a man turning out the mold onto the felt; on the right, two men lifting the paper onto a pile for taking to the drying loft. Molds, presses, and other tools are scattered in the foreground.

The lower section shows the drying loft in the attic of the mill, with women placing the sheets of paper on the racks.

ENGRAVER’S WORKROOM AND SALESROOM facing page 272 Courtesy of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Giraudon 18301. Etching by Abraham Bosse, January 1642.

The workman on the right is preparing a plate in tazlle-douce; the one on the left is making an etching. In the rear, three customers are looking over the display of finished engravings offered for sale.

ENGRAVER’S PRESSROOM facing page 273 Courtesy of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Giraudon 18302. Etching by Abraham Bosse, January 1642.

The two men on the left are inking plates; the third is pulling the impression. Note how different this press is from the familiar one used in typographical printing. Finished prints are hanging on the lines to dry.

“Part One

AUTHORS IN THE ANCIEN REGIME

Authors are the primary and in many ways the most important element in the publishing business. Without them there would be no manuscripts and none of the complicated processes by which

the thought of an individual is transmitted to great numbers of contemporary and future readers. Our study must therefore begin with the author. Our task would be much simpler in many respects if we had anything like the statistics that are available for the last seventyfive or one hundred years. French bibliographers, however, have

not yet produced any companions to the short-title catalogues which have proved so useful for investigations of the English book trade. There are, it is true, a number of statistical analyses covering restricted periods of time or special categories of books but none that attempt an inclusive survey of the whole body of writing published during the ancien régime. Valuable though such fragments are, we have been obliged to seek a fresh basis for our wider discussion of authorship. This basis we have fixed in a selection of six hundred biographies of writers included in Hoefer’s Biographie universelle, Nicéron’s Hommes illustres, and the dictionaries of Moréri and Bayle. Two hundred are from the sixteenth century, two hundred from the seventeenth, and two hundred from the eighteenth. A large proportion were suggested by recent catalogues of French, English,

and American booksellers, and these were supplemented from Thomas’ catalogue, Tschemerzine, and other bibliographies, with

a final random choice from Hoefer to make up the total. Only those were included for whom an adequate sketch could be found. In addition the list was checked to secure alphabetical distribution and chronological spread over each century.

For each author the analysis covers his dates, place of birth and of death, ancestry, education, occupation other than authorship, and data regarding his publications. The latter include only first editions published in France during the author’s lifetime; they omit second and later editions, the second of two formats

4 AUTHORS IN THE ANCIEN REGIME published simultaneously, collected editions, contributions to memoirs of learned societies, and pamphlets. The total number of titles is 1468 for the sixteenth century, 1899 for the seventeenth, and 1584 for the eighteenth through 1791 — a grand total of 4951. Further analysis also shows the format and the language (French or Latin) and makes a simple classification of subjects treated. No one should claim absolute uniformity and accuracy in the compilation of so large a body of material, nor is there any need for meticulous exactness since the data are intended merely as a guide in lending some precision to otherwise generalized conclusions. From our figures, for instance, we cannot find out what was being read in any decade though we can find out what was being written

and published. We cannot deduce anything regarding the purchasers of these books though we do learn a good deal about the status of the authors. We can follow various trends among the more intelligent groups of readers but we have little indication of the vast amount of ephemeral publication which from the beginning kept the presses busy. There had to be an author, or an authoreditor, for all the anonymous chapbooks, dream books, story books, cook books, health hints, and so on, as well as the floods of controversial pamphlets on religion and politics. ‘These authors were the harmless or the maleficent drudges of the trade. Their names, if ever they were known, have sunk into oblivion along with their work. For our purposes they must simply be left out of account.

CHAPTER I

SOCIAL DETERMINANTS Lhe social determinants of authorship — all those elements of life

which concern the writer’s position in the total population, the social and financial standing of his family, his education, and his religion — call for first consideration. ‘They not only place the author against his background but they have a direct bearing upon the size of the book market and the recruiting and enlarging of a body of writers to meet the demands of the trade and its public.

SOCIAL DETERMINANTS 5 1. Social classes

Since there was no census in France until 1801,1 population studies show wide divergences in their estimates of the totals for the ancien régime. The figure probably reached 19.5 million by 1500,? but the wars of religion reduced it to about 14 million in 1590.2 Quesnay, writing in the Encyclopédie in 1756, placed it at 24 million for 1660, at 19.5 million in 1400, and down still further to 16 million in 1756.4 Expilly gave a total of a little under 21 million in 1764 and just over 22 million in 1768.° ‘The highest estimate of all is that of Lazowski, an inspector of manufactures, with 28 million in 1787.®

On the whole the population was rural. Although Paris had grown from about 300 thousand in 1550 to twice that number in 1768,7 Lyon with 135 thousand was the only other city at the end

of the eighteenth century with more than 100 thousand. Lille comes next with 67 thousand and Nimes with 50 thousand; Dijon was low with 20 thousand.®

Historians have adopted various classifications in their efforts to present a coherent view of French society before the Revolution; for our purpose it is sufficient to use the broad divisions recognized by the ancient assembly of the States-General: the First Estate, or clergy; the Second Estate, or nobility; and the Third Estate, comprising all the remaining inhabitants. ‘The Estates, however, were classes rather than castes;® there was continual movement both upward and downward from one to another, and no man was irrevocably bound to the rank in which he was born. The clergy included all the ecclesiastics of the realm from the 1 Henri Sée, La France économique et sociale au XVIII® siécle (Paris, 1925), pp.

eT Lucien Schéne, Histoire de la population frangaise (Paris, 1893), p. go. ’ Emile Levasseur, La Population francaise, 3 vols. (Paris, 1889-1892), I, 284-288. * Encyclopédie, VII, 812-831, s. v. Grain. 5 Jean Joseph Expilly, Dictionnaire géographique, historique et politique des Gaules et de la France, 6 vols. (Paris, 1762-1779), III, 121-126; V, 808. ® Schone, pp. 215-216.

7 Abel Lefranc, La Vie quotidienne au temps de la renaissance (Paris, 1938), p. 165; Georges Mongrédien, La Vie quotidienne sous Louis XIV (Paris, 1948), p. 29; Pierre Clément, La Police sous Louis XIV (Paris, 1866), p. 147; Expilly, * Henry Sée, Histoire économique de la France, 2 vols. (Paris, 1939-1942), I, 352. ® Joseph Aynard, La Bourgeoisie frangaise (Paris, 1934), pp. 313-317.

6 AUTHORS IN THE ANCIEN REGIME ten wealthy and powerful archbishops, along through the members of various monastic Orders, and down to the humble parish priests, vicars, and curates. Their number was never very large, probably not more than 175 or 200 thousand in the latter part of the eighteenth century.?°

The nobility was made up of several groups of diversified ancestry. At first it consisted of the almost completely independent sovereign seigneurs who shared the soil of France in the earliest Middle Ages. ‘Their descendants — the nobility “‘of the sword” — had, however, largely disappeared by the seventeenth century, and

this rank was henceforth an aristocracy of wealth rather than of birth. Rich merchants and tax farmers, high dignitaries such as members of the Council of State and the provincial governors or intendants, and prominent members of the legal profession rose directly or through marriage into this new nobility ‘‘of the robe.” During the eighteenth century there was a complete fusion with the older group.! The whole Second Estate comprised in 1789 not more than 52 thousand families, with an estimated 220 thousand members.??

All the population not included in the clergy or the nobility made up the Third Estate. It comprised various classes such as the

peasants, the workmen in the towns, the squireens in their rural manors, and the taxpayers in general. ‘The great mass enjoyed few

rights or privileges; only an upper group among them, the bourgeoisie, had a significance comparable to that of the clergy or the nobility. It is this division of the Third Estate, the bourgeoisie, that 1s from many points of view the most interesting element in the social

structure of the ancien régime. These people had a strongly developed sense of the value of money. They were thrifty. ‘They saved

tiny profits, built them up with avaricious zeal, and became the first capitalists. The clergy and the nobility, of course, had far more 10Sée, France économique, pp. 54-55; Expilly, II, 365; Marcel R. Reinhard, Histoire de la population mondiale, 1700-1948 (Paris, 1949), p. 101; Levasseur, I, 288-229.

Marie Kolabinska, La Circulation des élites en France (Lausanne, 1912), p. 74; Antoine Fureti¢re, Dictionnaire universel, 3 vols. (La Haye, 1690), II, s. v. Noblesse; Sée, France économique, pp. 94-98; Philippe Sagnac, La Formation de la société frangaise moderne, 2 vols. (Paris, 1945-1946), II, 54-61, 169; I, 35-37. 43 Levasseur, I, 229.

SOCIAL DETERMINANTS | money, but they were interested only in how to spend it; the bourgeoisie knew how to manage their funds and at an early date were often able to give their daughters twice as large a dowry as that of the princesses of the blood.1* Thus they could climb into the higher ranks and satisfy their love for social distinction. Even greater was

their longing for security, a trait that accounts for their large purchases of landed property (always at bargain prices) and their liking for posts in the civil service.* They had a vast respect for culture and learning; they filled their houses with good furniture and they sent their sons to secondary school and university. At first their deep religious feeling was evident in an austerity of manners but in the seventeenth century this was lightened by the Catholic humanism of Francois de Sales. One may accuse them of greed, rigidity, and snobbishness, but one must also admire their stability, their honesty, their shrewdness, and their ambition. The bourgeoisie, however, was characterized by sharp lines of demarcation between the high and the middle and the low strata. In the seventeenth century, after the nobility of the robe became a recognized class including the members of the Parlements and other sovereign courts, the high bourgeoisie consisted of the officers of bailiwicks, seneschals’ courts, presidials, and provostships, and

the bankers and other financiers; below them were the avocats, notaries, registrars, procureurs, and other lawyers. Most of the lawyers of the lower rank might be considered as belonging to the

middle bourgeoisie, a group which sought honor and position rather than wealth. It also included the physicians, and especially the professors of medicine in the Universities of Paris and Montpellier, with the surgeons and apothecaries far behind. Here too we should place the University professors, wealthy printers and publishers, architects, and artists. In the petty bourgeoisie were the heads of the six powerful merchant guilds of Paris and other cities and the masters of various crafts in a rigidly defined scale of

dignity.5 The “high” group was rather a minority; the “petty,” though made up of greater numbers, was rich, intelligent, and scornful of the artisans, the small shopkeepers, and the peasants so % Régine Pernoud, Les Origines de la bourgeoisie (Paris, 1947), p. 86. “ Pernoud, chapter 5; Aynard, pp. 245-247; Sagnac, I, 106.

%Sée, France économique, pp. 161-165; Charles Normand, La Bourgeoiste francaise au XVITI* siécle (Paris, 1908), 211-232; Lefranc, pp. 129—135.

8 AUTHORS IN THE ANCIEN REGIME far beneath them in prestige. The distinguishing mark of all grades was that the members did not work with their hands; they enjoyed an income from their investments or they managed a business organization or they were engaged in a profession. And of the professions, the law was the most highly regarded.

In 1780 Expilly calculated a total of 4 million for the bourgeoisie, including businessmen, merchants, and artisans.'® ‘To this

should be added his figures of 300 thousand officeholders and magistrates and g5 thousand university professors, lawyers, physicians, and surgeons.

To indicate exactly the position of specific authors in this social pattern would require a mass of contemporary statistics which un-

fortunately do not exist. We therefore turn to our group of six hundred men and from them shall seek to gain certain indications which may fairly be considered true of authors in general. ‘The

biographical sketches on which we rely do not state the family connections of 291 men (48.5 per cent). Of the remaining 309 there were 17 with relatives in ecclesiastical positions, 85 families among the nobility of the sword or in military or naval posts, and 207 in the Third Estate.

We might naturally expect a larger number of boys to be influenced by the intellectual interests that must have prevailed in families where at least one member was attracted by the Church

as a career. Actually we have included four who had no more connection than that of protégé to a churchman: Claude Fauchet (1530-1601) to Cardinal de Tournon, Gilbert Genebrard (15371597) to the Bishop of Clermont, Gentian Hervet (1499-1584) to Cardinal Pole and Cardinal Cervin, and Lefévre d’Etaples (145515,37) to the abbot of St. Germain des Prés. Most of the others were nephews to prominent ecclesiastics. Restif de la Bretonne (1734—

1806) was younger brother to a churchman. The family of Jean Calvin (1509-1564) had many connections with the Church. Isaac Casaubon (1559-1614) was the son of the Protestant minister in a village in the Dauphine. Since the higher positions in the armed services were open to

practically none but members of the Second Estate in the tra16 Reinhard, p. 100.

SOCIAL DETERMINANTS 9 ditional sense of the term, we may possibly include among the eighty-five families we have placed in this category nine that were

connected with the army or the navy. Descartes’ father was an officer who distinguished himself in the defense of Poitiers against

the Huguenots; the grandfather of Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) commanded the Hungarian troops for seventeen years; the father of Michel de Marolles (1600-1681) was a captain of the king’s

Swiss guards; Bernard Forest de Belidor (1693-1761) lost his parents in infancy and was adopted by an artillery officer. ‘The father of Francois Pétis de la Croix (1653-1713) is also included because he was royal interpreter for Turkish and Arabic, a post that implies close association with the old nobility. Nine others, all but one of whom were born in the provinces, came from the lower ranks of the nobility, those impoverished families that had barely enough income to launch their sons on a career among the envied group at Court. In a number of cases it is rather difficult to say whether a family belonged to the feudal nobility or to the new nobility of the robe.

There can be no doubt of Francois Malherbe (1555-1638), who claimed descent from a companion of William the Conqueror and from a Crusader; nor Pierre Pithou (1539-1596), who traced his ancestry back to a Crusader of 1190; nor René Joseph ‘Tournemine (1661-1739), who was a descendant of the Plantagenets; nor Jean Francois de Neufforge (1714~1791), whose family had been famous since the fifteenth century. Accounts differ regarding the father of

Pierre Matthieu (1563-1621), some saying that he was a weaver, others that he was a nobleman at the court of Henry IV. All the others are described as of “ancient, noble family” or of a “noble” family obviously old and wealthy. In any case the old nobility shows up favorably with 27.5 per cent of the 309 authors whose ancestry can be surely fixed in our list, or even with 14.16 per cent of the whole group of 600. When we consider the 207 families that were definitely in the group of the bourgeoisie, we need not make too fine distinctions among the 94 whom we can identify with the law or with semilegal

positions in the State. They may all be placed in the high bourgeoisie. In wealth, education, social position, and care for their sons they exhibit the characteristic virtues of this class. And the

10 AUTHORS IN THE ANCIEN REGIME sons themselves extended the family reputation as far into the future as literary prominence can provide for. In this group we may also include seven families connected with public finance, eleven fathers who were either physicians or surgeons, six who were apothecaries, seven engaged in the book trade, two teachers, and two architects. Nineteen families are described as “good,” and three fathers as ‘well educated.” ‘There are

eleven merchant families, most of them wealthy; outstanding among them is that of Jacques Savary des Bruslons (16547-1716), maintaining a high reputation in business from the middle of the

sixteenth century. Six of our authors were sons of farmers, the small landholders (laboureurs) who were just on the borderline between bourgeoisie and peasantry.

Some thirteen authors described as coming from “poor but honest” families may well be included among the middle bourgeoisie if only because they exhibit in high degree the climbing characteristics of that class. René Benoit (1521—1608) rose to be dean of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, preacher and confessor to Mary Stuart, and one of the two churchmen who gave instruction to Henry IV just before his conversion. Jean Fernel (1497-1558) paid his way through medical school by teaching and was finally recognized as ‘‘the modern Galen.” Guillaume Postel (1505-1581), a village schoolmaster, had his money stolen on his way to Paris and was in a hospital for two years as a result of the beating given him by the thieves; and yet he lived to become a prodigy of learning with forty-seven books to his credit. Geoffroi Tory (1480-1533) was the reformer of French typography. Edmond Richer (15551631) was one of a committee of four who drew up a schedule of

reforms for the University of Paris. And in the late eighteenth century Jean Francois Marmontel (1723-1799) proved that the conventional success story was still possible.

Finally, from the petty bourgeoisie there are twenty-four artisan families — far beneath the haughty lawyers and magistrates — among whom we find a wide range of trades. ‘There are the sons

of three cutlers, two goldsmiths, two printers, two watchmakers,

two pastry cooks, a maker of purses, a fuller, a potter, a trunk maker, a pewterer, a cooper, a tapestry maker, a weaver, a worker in silk, a type founder, a glover, and a button maker. ‘The father

SOCIAL DETERMINANTS 11 of Ambroise Paré (1517—1590), the founder of modern surgery, was a poor trunk maker, and he himself began his career in the

usual way of apprentice to a barber-surgeon. Bernard de La Monnoye (1641-1728) was the son of a rather well-to-do pastry cook who was able to give his son a good education. Moliére’s

father was either a tapestry maker or an upholsterer. Charles Rollin (1661-1741), the great educator and rector of the University of Paris, was the son of a cutler and himself a master in that trade. Diderot’s family had been cutlers for two centuries before his birth. Beaumarchais (1732-1799) learned the trade of watchmaker in his father’s shop. Most of the families in this group seem to illustrate the tendency of the petty bourgeois to live austerely and save money over several generations until at last the opportunity would come to start a gifted son on the perilous voyage to possible distinction.

An analysis of the geographical status of our six hundred authors confirms the theory of the tendency of modern civilization toward

urban development. Our sources fail to give any indication of the places of birth and death for forty-five men or 7.5 per cent. A total of 440 were born outside Paris (73.34 per cent) but only 152 (25.33 per cent) died outside Paris. There were 109 (18.16 per cent) who were born in the capital, and 270 (45 per cent) who died there. The various figures are most conveniently shown in the accompanying table.

SIX HUNDRED AUTHORS

Place of birth and death, by centuries

16th r7th 18th Per cent

century century century Total of 600

Born outside Paris; died ? 57 30 26 113 18.83

Born outside Paris; died Paris 47 72 71 190 31.66 Born outside Paris; died outside 52 33 52 137 22.83

Born Paris; died ? 8 4 5 20 3.34 Born Paris; died Paris 13 32 29 74 12.34 Born Paris; died Paris outside23 2 1022 6151.00 2.50 Born ?; died Unidentified 18 14 13 45 7.50

12 AUTHORS IN THE ANCIEN REGIME SIX HUNDRED AUTHORS

Place of birth and death, summary

lace of Birth =—s—= SF S © cs Ss q3 Ss 2298 8 a3 Ss 2298 4 a3 2Ss288S

1500-1509 34 Qs 4.5 1600-1609 105 42 21.0 1700-1709 175 71 35.5 1510-1519 53 18 9.0 1610-1619 148 44 22.0 1710-1719 122 59 29.5 1520-1529 44 19 Q.1 1620-1629 116 42 21.0 1720-1729 100 56 28.0 1530-1539 73 32 16.0 1630-1639 182 45 22.5 1730-1739 112 56 28.0 1540-1549 148 5O 25.0 1640-1649 264 58 29.0 1740-1749 136 66 33.0 1550-1559 292 72 36.0 1650-1659 232 64 32.0 1750-1759 264 97 48.5 1560-1569 273 66 33.0 1660-1669 246 68 34.0 1760-1769 237 8h 42.5 1570-1579 260 72 36.0 1670-1679 208 60 30.0 1770-1779 207 85 42.5 1580-1589 105 66 33.0 1680-1689 196 72 36.0 1780-1789 194 53 26.5 1590-1599 96 43 21.5 1690-1699 202 72 36.0 1790-1791 37 23 11.5 18 Daniel Mornet, “Les Enseignements des bibliothéques privées 1750-1780,” Revue d’histoire littéraire de France, XVII (July-Sept., 1910), 449-496.

28 AUTHORS IN THE ANCIEN REGIME cipal” works are listed; Mornet suggests doubling the number of

items in order to arrive at the actual number in the collection. Now it must be remembered that the private home library was

one of the indispensable ornaments of the bourgeois household, a mark of social distinction. In the absence of anything like our universal public library system, such collections were also of practical usefulness in any cultured family. Nevertheless two-thirds of them would seem to have been rather small, and less than onefifth could be described as imposing. As a further contribution to the problem the accompanying tables and the graph represent an analysis of the number and kinds

of books represented in the work of our six hundred authors. We find a drop in the number of active authors from 1590 t9 1639 and again from 1710 to 1739, and the number of publications follows the same curve. The explanation is that each period was a time of economic and social distress in the country at large and

of unsettlement and reorganization in the book industry itself. We find, too, that readers in the ancien régime were supplied with books on all the subjects that interest the public of our own day; the only kind of book that we miss from these lists is the “juvenile,” the book written specifically for younger readers.

2. Kinds of books published

One of the most profitable elements in the publishing business was that large and indefinite class known as “‘popular” books. These were distributed by the hawkers in the city streets and by the wandering peddlers through the country districts who added books to the miscellaneous collections in their packs. Among them were the almanacs, which were to be found in even the poorest homes. These almanacs were epitomes of useful information on the calendar, weather, medicine, manners, and ethics, together with verses, riddles, proverbs, jokes, and anecdotes. ‘Then there were brief manuals of devotion, saints’ lives, carols, health hints,

fairy stories, romances of chivalry, etiquette, the interpretation of dreams, prophecies, and the like. Printed on cheap, rough paper and adorned with crude woodcuts, these books were read on feast days to the assembled villagers by the local schoolmaster or squire, or they were pored over at the fireside, carried to the

THE AUTHOR AND HIS PUBLIC 29 fields, read and re-read hundreds of times, talked about on every occasion, and eventually recited by heart. Black with years of thumbing, they were carefully noted in every peasant’s inventory SIX HUNDRED AUTHORS

Curve of production (4951 titles = 100 per cent)

0%

5%

4%

3%

2% | 1%

N NAN NNANDNNDNANDNANDANAAANADAAQAD GD AQAA ADD A OF N DP MO PW AWOH AN PMO MAW QAO KH ANA HMTPWMIO ED AO

Te MMe MO

WMWMMNMMNMN MAMMA WW WOO OO OOO O OO KRrhMRemRRMR Mme eR ~~ PE

O00 NDATMO 0 oO0oO0O OOAMNGNDTMO 0O0 00 000A00000000000 0 BD 90 ORM MW AOH QAO eA ATMO EO

Fe a

and bequeathed as a precious possession. ‘There is no way to estimate the number of titles or the size of the editions, but we know

that throughout the ancien régime they supplied a real need for entertainment and fostered some desire for education among the lowest classes. Gradually the petty bourgeoisie advanced to the

30 AUTHORS IN THE ANCIEN REGIME »,og, By ‘Nok ¥ cw aae MsBR A fryoe a ;. * se} 2 oe eee eka

2y at \" S"Usk an Ses SF* ai \\ SNe ENatlwae $45. ,3 ene eee eee = ai ie oO: ireek: 2ONN\ cg BE “¥eseine : he

15.3 uy 5— gasa SS wo:: Renn ae “oe Aes {a its Pa,y?. Son %?Beene aly

ee Fe

. Se SS ihelas - eee | ee eee eae ee See Ee Bees ree : ; Sigewna eS Lato Retiree

ssoviinint

Ue ee Srenes ep ieey eine ISS wotiee nie eld eet het anenining ioe SatnaBIH e ate Sata wetelnee

susan Ea Eee Seetae eee crsonteasense Se AoEssggeines: Saagerr ee = ORES SENSgoo PS SORES ee eeee ee pyres sesieduae Bo ners iosdtvente etelted Seereeoegee caR seangsneioe Se Reo Be eer agent Se MUG RR SShesia es SEES Mintiensone cna Secinnnss EES Na ieee

nee ee ee eens eee ee ee rEeshechebaangerie gion Rerereceie sn nt are :

cgi ee Eo S 2tinanen ,,LhrUr oeCE eaeRR One Sens J gsnbigi tnoSEE anaes ia r—“‘“ Soe LES Beene eenese ae eeSERRE ee Se ESBigerae FINSEEE Bete Darien Soneenameeee eee See =rere Bates eer—~——C“ . ee seco sipatghscwnehagee crates: fecitieaie SEeae ee 3a

0Se ee —|.eeeBERS =EERE aDUES ee comes Nena ACen Nien SEIS pone wanes paacenemanes Sea arene rea Soenednssesetr! ee eee eeooyo age ee 2SeteER SSE ean SEPeees fehl ROS TREES, Waeeeass ee —r——— re ee — SEES ae PONIES, peeneaaente: seiTal picetscretntee canoes eras Seca CF rrrrt—B pera BPEL EES oesnes: — ee — ae aHE es Bree SEE“AEE SeisJ ar ss eee ESE ELS — s TEES toe BSE ey ——eEB ean JEREEES rr ee fs 2 eS eee eens ie oe SEES oko Serre ee Dareaecieenree Sonn EEES ae .. HES EROS oo ike Ee: ee eee ee re ee PR cerioenag SE ensitiecettie oOESS inte an EEE ee — 2Seesie ase AEE OODLE es ae re“AEM eeEES ea neEE CASAS SETLIST A een nee = 42 TE ae eens eee 2s SSE Soy os SES eee lr 2wie RS ae ree SSRRE SESE EDD Sy Se ONES ae aa hd — SECEES SOESERES _ SLE r—~—“‘iCQW® Seem aoeSE POSER ANSag PM neeONES 8 cee mens Sr EE eee CESSES SUPER LUNS stsVESEOESS WS SINE ———™s ee rr ee cS ae oe arene neha ee ee Sameer reser neers eed

.. SES ee: oe =—rrs—=EE oe ee Es ee ees ae —rrr—=*. F###@4 SEL Sseg ee eeee ate: “,oe peers Sane iee rg Ce _< Ses —apees pen Sess ee OES EE erty ee oe ee ene “::::: .=e SEES EEE kg ae ee Sa ae PEE PBT ao a aESS PEE _ =. ee BS Se ee eee pene t e Ese rere ieee es fe Ee G eee Ee —” Ee fi teres eee CEE hg ees oes i Ne See eC eee ; ne: eae fC se £ Be BCeeers eSSeen ae Ben ae nade Tein ASUS Ons Mee OS ER Uae: :. : Moeee et Pe a. Meetings of the guild on 26 and 27 March 1721, attended by 123 booksellers and 34 printers,

voted overwhelmingly in favor of nonlimitation. The printers, however, were strong enough to hold up other guild business and to induce the Parlement to refuse registration for the law. After various committees had failed to arbitrate the dispute, Chancellor D’Aguesseau in desperation decided to try his own hand at a fresh and comprehensive solution. Basing his attempt upon tradition as well as upon earlier laws, he added new provisions to take care of the current situation. His code was submitted

to the Council of State in February 1723 and approved on the twenty-eighth of the month. It was not perfect but it was satisfactory enough for all practical purposes. Drawn originally for Paris only, it became the law for the whole kingdom 24 March 1744. Though it was in theory suspended in 1777, many of its provisions remained in force down into the middle of the nineteenth century.®®

5. Organization during the eighteenth century The code of 1723 © begins with an acknowledgment of the position of the printers and book dealers as members and officers of the University and a detailed recital of their privileges in matters of taxation. The second section limits the exercise of the book 5? Claude Marin Saugrain, Code de la librairie et de l’imprimerte (Paris, 1744), pp. 461-462. 58 Radiguer, pp. 125-128; Mellottée, pp. 196-199; Isambert, X XI, 216. 8 Tromp, pp. 77-78. ® Isambert, XXI, 217-251; Saugrain, passim.

132 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE business to masters of the guild. Section VI, Article 49, orders that

the law of August 1686 shall be faithfully observed except for those clauses specifically altered by the present law. This means that the official list of printers continued to be limited to thirtysix. But the law, now recognizing the injustice of the provision that gave a preference to sons and sons-in-law of printers, stated that if an outsider could prove superior ability by an examination in the presence of the lieutenant general of police, then he would get the coveted place. The vital point of eligibility to office and therefore to ultimate

general management is changed, though still in favor of the dealers. On 8 May each year the guild is to elect two wardens in place of those who had already served two years. A syndic is to be chosen biennially but hereafter he shall be a former warden,

the choice alternating between a dealer and a dealer-printer. The office is not to be filled more than twice in succession by a man from either category. When the syndic is a dealer-printer, only one of his assistants shall be a printer; thus the board of management shall always consist of three dealers and two printers

or printer-dealers. Elections are to be held in guild headquarters in the presence of the lieutenant-general of police and the attorney of the Chatelet. Choice is to be by plurality of votes in an assembly made up of the syndic and wardens in office, former syndics and wardens, and sixteen members at large, eight of these being printers who have not held office and who are to be named by the present officers and the anciens. The new officers are to be immediately sworn in.

Convocations for the transaction of extraordinary business are to be attended by a group similar to that of the electors. In all gatherings the syndic shall have precedence, and the wardens shall observe the order of their election. All masters and workmen are enjoined to treat the syndic and wardens with respect, to obey their official orders, and to refrain from harming them or speaking ill of them. The University had never been reconciled to the edict of 1686, which deprived it of at least nominal control over the manufacture and sale of books. It was still less satisfied with the law of 17239. The guild resented not only the University’s claim that it should

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK GUILD 133 continue to have twenty-four official representatives but all other

attempts at interference as well. The University, on the other hand, insisted that if the guild enjoyed academic privileges, it should be willing to submit to University control. The long debate was ended by the law of 10 December 1725. All dealers and printers not already matriculated in the University were to take

an oath before the Rector and he would then grant them letters of matriculation without charge. ‘Those who had previously been

made sworn dealers would be received into the guild without charge and would take an oath before the lieutenant general of police. Not more than three professors who after seven years of consecutive service to the University wished to give up teaching

were to be admitted to the guild as booksellers on warrant of the Rector without examination or fees and after taking the usual oath before the civil authorities.*1 At least twelve guild members, two of them former syndics or wardens, were to take part in academic processions. Newly elected officers should be presented by their predecessors to the Rector on the day of election or the next day. The Rector’s orders for general processions should be sent

to the syndic and wardens and posted inside and outside guild headquarters. ‘The syndic and wardens should present to the Rector on the Feast of the Purification a candle of white wax weighing one pound. On g March 1726 two hundred printers and dealers who were not on the rolls of the University attended a full convocation and took an oath before the Rector. Forty others who were sick or out of town sent their excuses. All this may seem childish mummery to us who have forgotten the ancient regard for ceremonies and

processions, but at the same time the proceedings had an important symbolical meaning. The University was satisfied that it

had gained a point, a significant one at that. The guild, on the other hand, soon discovered that the goodwill of the University was worth an oath, a procession, and a candle.

The structure of the guild as a corporation of master book dealers and printers was virtually fixed by the code of 1723. No one thought of changing its essential organization in spite of the * Tromp, p. 45. ® Lottin, p. 193; Jourdain, II, 190-194.

134 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE storms that centered over the trade in the eighteenth century. These conflicts did little to disturb the masters’ position; ® they

concerned the operation of the guild machinery and involved mainly the three perennial problems of labor, censorship, and the protection of literary property — problems which even under today’s conditions are fundamental. When Turgot abolished the guilds in February 1776,°* he excepted the apothecaries (who con-

trolled the trade in medicines, drugs, poisons, and other items closely related to public health), the goldsmiths and the silversmiths (whose activities affected the moneys and finances of the

nation), and the book trade. Not that these three did not need reform, but they were considered so important that only long and serious thought should be given to proposals for changes in them. On 30 August 1774, after the other guilds had already been reestablished, the government issued six new decrees for the book trade.® ‘These covered the duration of publishing privileges, the formalities for the reception of masters, semiannual sales of privileges and stocks of books, piracy, the position of workmen, and a comprehensive rearrangement of guilds throughout the country. Three guilds (Limoges, Rennes, and Vitry) were suppressed and the members assigned to other jurisdictions. Five new ones were created — at Besancon, Caen, Poitiers, Strasbourg, and Nancy. Officers were to be elected at once for the new guilds, to serve till January 1779; but two of the wardens in each were to be replaced in December 1778, after which the pattern of the Paris guild was to be followed. Henceforth there were twenty guilds, with generally uniform characteristics and duties exercised over a contiguous region. ‘The list of cities is Amiens, Angers, Besancon, Bordeaux, Caen, Chalons-sur-Marne, Dijon, Lille, Lyon, Marseilles, Mont-

pellier, Nancy, Nantes, Orléans, Paris, Poitiers, Reims, Rouen, Strasbourg, and Toulouse.®

These six edicts fell flat. ‘The Parlement refused to register them. The storm of protests from the Paris booksellers merely led to an inconclusive series of arguments and lawsuits. Actually the government threw in its hand and did little to enforce adoption. 6 Isambert, XXI, 304-905, 312-315; XXII, 117. 6 Renard, I, 110-115; Lespinasse, I, 169. 6 Jsambert, XXV, 108-128. ® Ysambert, XXV, 116; Bar, pp. 12-13.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK GUILD 135 It recognized its inability to cope with the revolutionary ideas which gave rise to an overwhelming mass of pamphlets, books, and journals. Although Lottin solemnly continued up to 1789 to acknowledge the existence of only the thirty-six authorized Paris printers, a great number of new shops were opened and kept hard

at work without any attention to the rules of the trade or the position of the guild. In 1790 there were two hundred printers in the city.®

In 1788 when the call went out for the assembly of the StatesGeneral to meet on 1 May 1789, the various book guilds either set forth their own programs for reforms to be suggested or else joined

other guilds in submitting one. The booksellers and printers of Alencon, for instance, complained of the excessive duties on paper

and cardboard and about the unfairness of the laws regarding privileges.6° ‘The five members of the guild at Angers adopted the general cahier drawn up by the consuls of the city and in addi-

tion called attention to the ruinous effect of the high taxes on paper. High taxes, tight credit, the chaotic system of weights and measures, complexity of barriers and customhouses on roads and rivers, the withdrawal of successful businessmen and their sons from active life into the idleness of the nobility and the clergy, these and numerous other specifications show that the good citizens of Angers were alive to the economic shortcomings of their day.®

And of these citizens the bookmen were by no means the dullest witted, we may be sure. But the human instinct for association and mutual help that had started the brotherhood and the guild on their way so many decades before came again into evidence. Between 1789 and 1791 the printers organized strong clubs for professional and philanthropic purposes. The one in Paris had twelve hundred members. As most of them were journeymen, apprentices, and working proprietors of shops, the matters that chiefly concerned them were wages and the status of apprentices.” % Bar, p. 18.

René Jouanne, Cahiers de doléances des corps et corporations de la ville d’Alengon pour les états généraux de 1789 (Alencon, 1929), pp. 45-46.

8% A, Le Moy, Cahier de doléances des corporations de la ville d’Angers .... 2 vols. (Angers, 1915, 1916), I, 5-20. ® Bar, pp. 30-31.

136 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE After the fateful night of 4 August 1789 the book guild was legally dead along with all the other relics of “feudalism.” It feebly

went through the accustomed motions, however, until 27 July 1790, when it definitely gave up.

6. The guild as a family monopoly Throughout its history the book guild illustrates a basic tenet of all the economic theory and of all the business practice of the ancien régime, that is, the necessity for monopolistic control in each craft. Every guild fought interlopers and infringers. ‘The

statutes of every guild held that heredity constituted a prior claim to admission; sons and sons-in-law were favored by specially

easy requirements and so were those journeymen who married the widows of deceased members. In this way, more perhaps than any other, the group spirit and the economic solidarity of every trade was fostered. Indeed, some crafts became, is it were, organized

clans to which only members of certain families were admitted. For instance, in Paris from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries the butcher trade was in the hands of only four families, and in Limoges it was controlled by six families from the Middle Ages

to our own day.” The book trade, it is true, can show no such amazing record and yet the interfamilial connections became extremely complicated at an early date and assumed a vital part in the establishment of guild monopoly. One thinks immediately of the Estienne, the Petit, and the Cramoisy clans, the Cousteliers, the Morels, the Didots, and many others. Of the 1840 names on Renouard’s list

for the sixteenth century, there were 317 who had family connections with others on the list, and all of these were among the soundest and most important. In view of Lottin’s confessed pride in genealogical matters there is no reason to question his statement that in 1788 there were still twenty-seven families that had been represented in the guild for from a hundred to two hundred and fifty years.7? ‘These were: Dupuis (1539), Thiboust (1544), Ballard (1551), Martin (1573), 71 Emile Coornaert, Les Corporations en France avant 1789, 3d ed. (Paris, 1941),

i. S Lottin, part 1, p. Ix.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK GUILD 137 Nyon (1580), Gueffier (1582), Lottin (1589), Saugrain (1596), Barrios (1606), Musier (1610), Guénard de Monville (1614), Dehansy (1621), Cavelier (1626), LeGras (1629), Clousier (1631), D’Houry (1649), Desprez (1651), Hérissant (1654), Knapen (1654),

De Bure (1660), Quillan (1660), Lesclapart (1662), Chardon (1666), Fétil (1679), Jombert (1686), Leclerc (1687), and Robustel (1689). The name of Guénard de Monville is not, however, mentioned in his index. Curiously enough, too, he failed to include on

his roll of honor the Marchand family, which he later lists as having started in 1483 — some 305 years of service!

This list does not by any means exhaust the number of families that belonged to the trade for more than 100 years; in fact, there is a total of 109 others in Lottin’s index. Some of these had died out a longer or shorter time before 1789 and are therefore not listed by him. Especially noteworthy are the Du Pré’s (1486-1775) for 289

years; the Prévosts (1527-1788) for 261 years; the Le Roi’s (1517-1740) for 223 years; the Thierry’s (1534-1734) for 200 years. Twenty-one other families not in Lottin’s list were in the guild from 100 to 110 years; and eleven from 171 to 180 years. These are impressive figures for any day and generation. ‘They would have to be revised if we had the data for meticulously exact tabulation; but as it 1s, they strikingly illustrate the monopolistic

and exclusive character of the book business during the ancien régime. To clinch the point we would add that Renouard gives us the names of the Barrois family that started business in 1600 and the Bradel family that began in 1586, both of whom continued

with uninterrupted succession down to the middle of the nineteenth century.

Again without placing too much dependence upon Lottin, it is interesting to approach this matter of familial dominance in the guild through another analysis of his data. Of his total of 3521 individuals received as masters during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, he identifies 918 as sons of masters, 165

as sons-in-law, 552 as widows, 113 as brothers or cousins or nephews, and 135 as nominees of the Chancellor. Most of these last may be assumed to have relationship to other members or to have bought out a deceased member’s business. In other words, at least 1748 and possibly 1883 were closely connected with the

138 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE existing organization, a total of roughly one half. Only 190 came up through the usual apprenticeship. One would like to know by what process the remainder qualified for entrance. At any rate the number of familial admissions increases from 22 per cent for the

sixteenth century to 48 per cent for the seventeenth and to 68 per cent for the eighteenth. In most general terms these percentages indicate the line along which guild membership developed.

4. Trade activity outside the guild In addition to the regular business of the book trade, the guild was

obliged to keep an eye upon a large number of miscellaneous activities, some of which were carried on with a good deal of independence. All this was fringe business of varying importance.

The first item was the buying and selling of waste paper and old parchment. ‘These were used especially in the binding of books,

but they were valuable in many other departments as well. The law of 1618 reserved this trade for regular guild members, but by 1686 it was opened to wives and widows of binders and of journeymen printers and booksellers also. They were obliged to register with the guild. Furthermore they were forbidden to buy from the children and servants of other dealers, from students, and

from unknown persons. A careful record had to be kept of all transactions, with name and address of each seller.” Another group of possible infringers on book trade prerogatives

was the guild of appraisers and auctioneers. In the seventeenth century their interference was menacing but could still be dealt with through two clauses in the law of 1618 and a repetition in 1686. The appraising, inventorying, and sale of collections of books, presses, and types were restricted to accredited booksellers and printers. Printing equipment could be sold only by permission

of the police lieutenant and in the presence of the syndic and wardens, and the names of purchasers had to be entered in a special register. An appraiser could not take advantage of his favored posi-

tion but could buy only as the last and highest bidder in the ensuing auction. The law of 1723, however, devotes eleven clauses to this kind of business — an eloquent indication of the development of book % Saugrain, pp. 79, 86; Isambert, XX, 9-10; Tromp, pp. 143-144.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK GUILD 139 collecting and the rise of the educational level. Only members of the book guild are to make appraisals and only when requested to do so by the heirs of the collector; as a check, the guild is to send a list of members every year to the syndic of the notaries and of the auctioneers. ‘The fee is to be six livres for each appraisal. Individual

owners are likewise forbidden to hold a voluntary public sale of collections. In the very first place the guild officers must inspect the books and set aside and list all those that are banned or have been

printed without a permit. A duplicate list is to be sent to the owners, and such books are to be confiscated. The original is to be

sent to the police for transmission to the Director of the Book Trade. ‘The lieutenant general, and he alone, is to issue a permit for selling the rest. When a group of dealers buy a collection, it must be sent within a week to headquarters, there to be divided. A single purchaser may send the books directly to his own shop as soon as they have been inspected again by the officials. In the case of a deceased publisher’s stock, the sale may take place only in the guild hall and in the presence of the officers. Sale of a printing shop or any portion of its equipment can be held only by permission of the lieutenant general of police, in the presence of the syndic and wardens, and only to regular printers. When a printer dies without leaving a widow or children able to continue his business, the screws of his presses must be taken to the guild hall and kept there until the shop is sold.

We have already mentioned the continual struggle between the printers’ guild and that of the haberdashers. These dealers in smallwares naturally took care of the great demand for chapbooks and books of prayers throughout the country districts where the regular booksellers had no outlets; but the limits of such business were always debatable. In 1616 the haberdashers were restricted to

the selling of almanacs, alphabets, and books of hours printed outside Paris, but in 1686 and again in 1723 they were forbidden to sell any books whatever, with the exception in 1723 that wholesalers in Paris might deal in small books printed outside the city. Even though the guild was fairly successful in its insistence on this

point, we must nevertheless conclude that the curbs were never very effective.” % Saugrain, pp. 56 ff.

140 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE Another group of book peddlers was made up of the libraires étalans and the colporters. The first were a set of poor fellows who haunted the riverbanks and the bridges with their small stocks of secondhand volumes and pamphlets. ‘They were tolerated only because they were persistent.® ‘The colporters, however, though in much the same category, did get official recognition. They were not allowed to have apprentices or to keep a shop or to order any print-

ing in their own name. They were obliged to carry their goods in a bag fastened about the neck and could have only almanacs, laws, and pamphlets, not over eight pages long, printed by a master of the guild.7® Later they were obliged to wear a copper badge on the

front of the coat. In 1686 the occupation was restricted to those who had served an apprenticeship in some branch of the trade but were no longer robust enough to be regularly employed in a shop. Their names were to be entered on the guild register after they had been received by the police officials. The eight oldest were allowed

to sell in the halls of the Palace of Justice, and the others to go wherever they wished in the city.*7 Their number was limited to twelve in 1618 but went up to twenty in 1651, to forty-six in 1711,

and to a hundred and twenty in 1722. They kept increasing so rapidly, however, that in 1740 the police had to order a complete check and investigation. ‘Their importance in the distribution of books may best be estimated from the fact that special regulations for them were issued in 1699, 1711, 1722, and 14732, and that no less than six articles (6g—74) are devoted to their activities in the code of 1729.78

If the booksellers were disturbed by the peddlers, the printers were no less worried by the engravers and print makers. From the

time of Henry III the latter were forbidden to have in their possession any fonts of type or any presses except those that were specially adapted for the printing of engraved plates. If they wished to print a caption below the engraving, they must call in a regular printer for the work, and even then the caption must not be longer than ten lines nor carried over to the reverse side. Imported plates must be inspected by the guild officers. All engravers must register % Saugrain, p. 112; Martin, p. 307. *Tsambert, XVI, 123. 7 Isambert, XX, 15-16. 8 Saugrain, pp. 231~—248.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK GUILD 141 with the guild. Engravings, maps, portraits, and so on must be covered by a privilege from the Chancellor. In 1714 the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture was given a general privilege for the publication of its own engravings and monographs through its appointed publisher.”®

All the other Academies had their own printers and publishers

“by appointment” who had general privileges, and so did the hierarchy of each diocese, the various monastic orders, and even the King himself. The official printers for the clergy had sole right to issue the prayer books, missals, catechisms, notices, and other church material for their own diocese — a truly enormous and most profitable amount of work in every case. ‘The monastic booksellers issued not only liturgical books conformable to the use adopted by

the Order but works written by the members; and they also had

the lucrative monopoly of supplying all sorts of books to the libraries of the Orders.®°

The appointment as printer to the French Academy was one of the most distinguished for it involved the publication of the standard dictionary of the language. From its beginning in 1634 to its

suppression in 1793, the Academy chose the incumbent of the office from the Camusat, the Coignard, or the Brunet family. Since

the succession was as highly prized and as jealously guarded as

membership in the guild itself, we may say that here was an example of a monopoly within a monopoly.*!

Besides four printers ‘following the Court,” the King appointed from time to time certain Royal Printers. Lepreux has defined the term thus: “a royal official charged with the exclusive printing of governmental Acts or other designated works and enjoying, as a guarantee of the authenticity and purity of his texts and to assure their rapid publication, all the immunities and ad-

vantages proper to the function of both special and _ personal privileges.” ®?

Although the edict establishing the office cannot be found in 7 Saugrain, pp. 335, 460 ff. 6 Martin, pp. 303~305.

81 Paul Delalain, Les Libraires et imprimeurs de l Académie Francaise de 1634 a& 1793 (Paris, 1907), passim.

82 Georges Lepreux, Gallia typographica, série parisienne; Livre d’or des imprimeurs du roi (Paris, 1911), p. 34.

142 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE the archives, we know that in 1487 Pierre Le Rouge was called a Royal Printer. His first recorded successors were Geoffrey ‘Tory and Olivier Mallard. Francis I began special designations by appointing a Royal Printer for Greek, one for Latin, one for Hebrew, one for French, and one for music. In 1553 Henry II created one

for mathematics, and in 1630 Louis XIII appointed one for oriental languages. Special printers ceased to exist by the end of the sixteenth century, except for Antoine Vitré’s term as printer for oriental languages and except for the office of printer for music which was handed down from father to son in the Ballard family to

the end of the ancien régime. “Ordinary” Royal Printers con-

tinued to exist beside these extraordinary ones; Robert (II) Estienne, in 1568, was the first to adopt the plainer title. All appointed printers had the right to print royal Acts, though occasionally the King granted a temporary monopoly on a specified law. The importance and profitable nature of this work may be seen from the tremendous but still incomplete mass of it preserved

in six hundred volumes in the national archives. Edicts, ordonnances, déclarations, letters patent; arréts of Councils, of Parlements, and of sovereign courts — thousands and thousands of these

and other documents testify to the extent of this form of state subsidy. There was great rivalry for the work among the royal printers, and a host of pirates attempted to snatch a share for themselves.** In 1594 Henry IV tried to limit it to Pierre L’ Huillier

and Jamet Mettayer, with Fédéric (III) Morel coming in after Mettayer’s death. When Louis XIII gave Antoine Estienne an appointment, discord broke out again, not to be calmed until Fédéric (IV) Morel and Pierre Mettayer were designated as the only ones to enjoy the privilege. Finally after thirty years of struggle among themselves and against the pirates, the royal printers settled down; at the end of the seventeenth and throughout the eighteenth centuries the regular printers seldom ventured to interfere with established practice.*®

Lepreux has estimated that there were ninety-seven Royal Printers during the ancien régime. He points out that the high 8 Lepreux, Gallia typographica, pp. 43-49. & Lepreux, Gallia typographica, pp. 41, 34-38. 8 Isambert, XVI, 135-136. 8 Lepreux, Gallia typographica, pp. 38-41; Isambert, XX, 461, 52.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK GUILD 143 quality of their work indicates the value of the office in conserving

the best traditions of the craft. The holders were selected with care and often on the basis of heredity. Love of the art united with

family pride to make the office a symbol of artistic mastery. Dignity and honor were added because the printer was officially a

member of the Royal Household and therefore distinguished in the community. And of course a large amount of unsolicited business flowed into the shop as a result and increased the gains from

State work. :

All these special appointments, however, needed careful watch-

ing on the part of the guild. From time to time there were attempts to evade the authority of the corporation by securing an appointment as printer or bookseller to a Council or by the simpler way of purchasing letters of mastership. In Article 43 the code of

1723 reflects the traditional refusal of the craft to countenance such short cuts. It says, ‘“‘No one shall be able to keep a printing office or a bookshop in Paris, or assume the rank of bookseller or printer, on the authority of any letters or any privilege whatever unless he has been received master in the guild” according to the

traditional procedure. An arrét of 17 September 1730 makes it definite that even the four booksellers following the Court must be guild members and are subject to inspection by the syndic and wardens.8?

By far the most important of all the independent shops was the Imprimerie Royale.®® Since the law establishing it has not been found, the exact date of its inception is not known. On 13 March 1640 an arrét was issued against the papermakers, who had evidently increased their prices upon the announcement of plans for

the new government shop; a ceiling was set and sales were restricted.8? On 16 June of the same year Sublet de Noyers, Royal Superintendent of Buildings and Manufactures, secretly asked the Dutch ambassador to send him four compositors and four pressmen. That the shop opened some time in 1640 is established by 87 Saugrain, pp. 187-188.

88 The standard history of the Royal Printing Office is Auguste Joseph Bernard,

Histoire de limprimerie royale du Louvre (Paris, 1867); a brief account will be found in the catalogue for an exhibit of books held in 1951, L’Art du livre a l’imprimerie nationale des origines a nos jours (Paris, 1951). 6° Levasseur, II, 189.

144 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE two facts: first, Richelieu paid it his first visit on 17 November; and second, the tenth anniversary was marked in 1650 by the publication of a collection of Latin, Greek, and French poems with

the title Typographia regia. The initial impulse probably came through Richelieu’s policy of setting up royal manufacturers in various crafts as well as through his longtime interest in fine printing and bookmaking.

The new establishment was located in the Louvre on the ground floor of the Galerie de Diane. Sublet de Noyers was the first

Director, with Sébastien Cramoisy as technical director, Edme Martin as superintendent of presswork, and ‘Tanneguy Lefebvre as inspector. Actual control was in the hands of Cramoisy. He, like all his successors to 1793, was also a Royal Printer and a private businessman, and at times it was impossible to distinguish in just which capacity he was acting.

From the first the shop specialized in sumptuous folios, for which Poussin and other famous artists designed title pages and frontispieces. Much attention was paid to ornamentation of text pages, and thus new standards of book decoration were set. The first volume to be issued was the Imitatio Christi, and this was followed by a Virgil and by a Greek New Testament. Seventy folios were published in two years. At the same time there were special facilities for printing all Acts of the Councils, work for the King’s Household, confidential work, such items as passports, certificates, and paper money, and certain laws which the King ordered printed

at his own expense. The cost of all this was high, as might be expected. The total for the first seven years came to 368,731 livres, of which 120,185 livres was for 1642 alone. But the resulting ad-

miration was equally high: the King had to forbid the selling of any type to foreign printers and also to forbid outsiders to hire workmen from the Louvre without a note of dismissal from the Director.

In 1669 Cramoisy was succeeded by his grandson, Sébastien Mabre-Cramoisy, then twenty-six years old. In his time the Press continued to be distinguished for scholarly works of large format with many engravings, but the prices of the magnificent books of earlier years were so high that sales were slow. Mabre-Cramoisy bought them for his own account and lowered the prices but the

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK GUILD 14% demand was not much increased. After his death in 1688 his widow was allowed to carry on until 1691. From that date until 1793 (and then again from 1809 to 1823) the Anisson family were in control. The first of the clan, Jean, was

with his brother Jacques the owner of a shop at Lyon which was one of the most important in France; they had an especially large trade with Spain and Italy. Jean wanted to start a branch in Paris but was steadily opposed by the Paris guild. In 1687 Du Cange, whose Greek Dictionary he had published, urged his being given the reversion of the directorship of the Imprimerie Royale in the event of Mabre-Cramoisy’s death. When that occurred 10 June 1688, Anisson played safe and took no steps toward the coveted office until 1691. On 29 January 1691 he was admitted to the guild and also assumed charge of the Press. He resigned in 17047 and died in 1721. He was succeeded by his nephew Claude Rigaud (17047— 1726), by Louis-Laurent Anisson (1725-1753), by Jacques AnissonDuperron (1753-1788), and finally by Etienne-Alexandre- Jacques Anisson-Duperron, who was guillotined in 1794.

The various members of the family also had close relations with the Académie des Sciences. Claude Rigaud was their official publisher as well as publisher to the Académie des Inscriptions. The last of the family was a member of the Académie des Sciences and read many papers at its meetings; he demonstrated his practical scientific skill by inventing a new and faster press. The magnificence of the output of the Imprimerie Royale was

undiminished during the eighteenth century. All the great enoravers of the time contributed illustrations — Cochin fils, Boucher,

Fragonard, Moreau le Jeune, Gravelot, Coypel, Simonneau, and others. Among the impressive publications were Joseph Desormaux’s Histoire de la maison de Bourbon (5 vols., quarto, 1772— 1788); Réaumur’s Mémoires pour servir a histoire naturelle des

insectes (6 vols., quarto, 1736-1742); Histoire naturelle des oiseaux, by Buffon, Guéneau de Montbéilard, and the abbé Bexon (10 vols., folio, 1771-1786); Buffon’s Oeuvres completes (27 vols., 12m0, 1774-1789); and Pierre Fulcrand de Rosset’s L’Agriculture, Poéme (2 vols., quarto, 1774-1783).

From time to time during the eighteenth century three other much smaller shops had been set up in Paris and in Versailles to

146 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE help take care of confidential governmental printing. After 1775 orders for all three were routed through the Imprimerie Royale and the supervision was combined in the one establishment. CHAPTER VIII

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 1. The Chancellor and the Director of the Book Trade

The prime object of the book guild was to provide an official means of enforcing the royal laws regarding the industry. These laws, like those for all other industries during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, were based on a concept of rigid monopolistic

control administered by a small group of elected officers and extending down to the most minute items of technical and social activity. T’o be effective the group needed the co-operation of a

strong centralized government; and since such a government existed only in theory during most of the seventeenth century, the history of the book trade during that time reflected the larger struggle of the nation toward royal absolutism.!

Accordingly it was not until the 1680's, after Colbert had carried through his economic reforms, that we find the royal Chancellor at last in full control of the situation but burdened with so much work in this connection that he was ready to delegate his authority to a subordinate known as the Director of the Book Trade. This official worked through two departments: the bureau contentieux de la librairie, which handled disputes between dealers and printers; and the bureau gracieux, in charge of the censorship, which was administered by a staff of readers. All the business details of the Director’s office were carried out by a group of undersecretaries, eight working concurrently from 1688 to 1703, sixteen from 1704 to 1715, six from 1715 to 1724, three from 1724 to 1755, and one thereafter. In addition the Director had several other assistants: © Tromp, pp. 152-153. 1 Marcel Bar, L’Organisation et l’action syndicales dans la typographie francaise: patrons, ouvriers (Paris, 1907), pp. 8-10; Georges Renard, Les Travailleurs du livre et du journal, 3 vols. (Paris, 1925), I, 74~78.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 147 from 1717 onward, a special bureau for publishing matters, made up of members from the Privy Council and masters of requests;

from 1737, a general secretary; and near the end of the ancten régime a deputy chief for all the chancellery offices of the trade.?

2. Police inspection On a different level of authority the trade was now obliged to work with the police more closely than ever before. Here the chief officer was the lieutenant of the Chatelet, who was immediately responsi-

ble to the Provost of Paris. At first the Chatelet, the police headquarters, had acted as a supplement to the syndic and wardens for implementing their decisions, but later it was quite independent. Since the lieutenant was free from entangling trade alliances, he was able to develop his powers in accordance with changing conditions, and the machinery of his supervision became more and more complex in the course of time.

He was assisted by civil and criminal lieutenants, notaries and advocates of the King, and special police censors for small books and pamphlets. As his staff became more co-ordinated during the eighteenth century, the most important of his subordinates were the inspectors, who were divided into four classes: 1. In the first there were twenty permanent inspectors, each attached to one of the twenty districts or wards of Paris. Within his own territory each had general police supervision. In addition, each was charged, without limitation of area, with oversight of one special category of municipal interest — games, nurses, orphans, money lenders, and so on. One of them was assigned to books; from 1760 to 1764 Joseph d’Hémery held this office as inspector of the Luxembourg district. Along with these twenty we may place the inspector of the customhouse, who was also an inspector of books; this double office was held from 1755 to 1791 by Gromaire

de la Bapaumerie.? :

2. A varying number of other special inspectors were em-

ployed for permanent or temporary jobs. At the beginning of the 2 Augustin Martin Lottin, Catalogue chronologique des libraires et des librairesimprimeurs de Paris (Paris, 1789), Part 1, pp. 136, 180, 251, and later unnumbered me Franc Bacquié, Les Inspecteurs des manufactures sous l'ancien régime 1669-1792 (Paris, 1927), pp. 124, 138.

148 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE eighteenth century one of these inspectors was appointed for the book trade; he was Francois Le Roux, who died 1n 1722. D’Hémery

succeeded to this office 22 June 1748. At the same time another police officer was employed to go to guild headquarters at long intervals and make up a list of work suspended or not withdrawn within a year or two of the issuance of a permit. D’Hémery took over this office also in 1760.

3. Another inspectorship was set up by edict of 24 June 1737. The holder went to guild headquarters every ‘Tuesday and Friday to be present at the examination of books sent in from the customhouse and he was obliged to make a detailed report on each case to the lieutenant general. Beauchamps, the first of these appointees,

remained until 26 April 1757, when he was replaced by Salley and D’Hémery. The latter shouldered most of the responsibility. 4. A fourth office was established in 1741 for the examination

of books and engravings coming by river from Rouen to Paris. After two incumbents had served, D’Hémery assumed this work 10 June 1748.4

This remarkable man, whose services to the book trade are comparable only to those of Malesherbes, thus at one time or another occupied every one of the inspectorships within control of the Provost. On 29 November 1757 Bertin, the newly appointed lieutenant general, confirmed him in all the offices he then held. Finally, on 22 April 1760 the Council of State did likewise and in

addition authorized him to enter and investigate all bookshops, printing offices, and foundries and to report infractions of the law. Henceforth he was popularly called the Inspector General of the

Book Trade, though the title was never conferred officially. He resigned the Luxembourg office in 1764, but he spent the next thirty years until the Revolution in his other offices, a record of more than half a century as a faithful public servant.®

D’Hémery, then, was Inspector General, responsible to the Provost of Paris. He and his assistants worked side by side with the Director of the Book Trade and the latter’s assistants, who were responsible to the Chancellor. Both of these groups worked along ‘Edouard Tromp, Etude sur l’organisation et histoire de la communauté des libraires et imprimeurs de Paris (1618-1791) (Paris, 1922), pp. 86-87. “Ernest Coyecque, Inventaire de la collection Anisson, 2 vols. (Paris, 1900), I, V—XEXV.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 149 with the syndic and wardens of the guild, who represented the masters themselves and who were responsible to both the Provost and the Chancellor. Thus we have three interlocking administrative groups for the book business, each an independent organization with special duties but all overlapping at numerous points.

3. Guild prerogatives The guild bureaucracy also had a complex development. ‘There was an increasing amount of official guild printing, which was en-

trusted to the printer to the guild. This officer was always the syndic if the latter were a printer as well as a dealer; otherwise the work went to the older of the printer-wardens. ‘Then there was the clerk of the guild, who was also the caretaker of headquarters; the

first one mentioned by Lottin was Charles Bourdon, from about 1697 to 1715. Third, it became necessary in the eighteenth century

to retain lawyers to represent the corporation in matters coming before the royal councils and the Chatelet, and there were also an archivist and a secretary. The elected officers, like those in all other guilds, had a long

and bewildering list of duties which must have consumed time and energy and involved heavy responsibilities. There was rotation

of office among the various groups of members, and no excuse from the call to service. Attendance at meetings was also compulsory: absence was punished by a fine; attendance was rewarded

by a silver token, or by two tokens if the occasion called for the wearing of the academic costume of robe and bands. The chief duties of the syndic and wardens involved the main-

tenance of guild prerogatives, watchfulness over professional standards of quality of the product, observance of the laws regarding permits and privileges, and administration of guild business. We have already discussed, in the chapter on censorship, the matter

of permits; and we shall consider privileges or the protection of literary property a little later. We shall now turn our attention to the other three groups of duties for which the guild officers were responsible.

“To guard the guild,” to protect the corporate unity of the craft, to be alert to the slightest infringement upon its rights — all this

150 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE was no perfunctory task. ‘The predominantly religious attitude of

the ancien régime led to the idealistic but vivid concept of the guild and the Brotherhood as one large family, the children of the King himself.® ‘The group had certain standards to live up to and frequent calls to exhibit itself to best advantage before the general public. ‘The laws were the rules of group living, and those who did not wish to follow them must be dealt with severely. Again, certain rights had been purchased from the government by the expendi-

ture of money, and these must be protected just like any other property. ‘Io carry out this primary duty the officers had to keep the guild members together in a limited area and then to fight a ceaseless battle against interlopers of all sorts, against the University and rival guilds, and against foreigners. Convenience of supervision carried over into the ancien régime the medieval rule that all members of the book trade must live and

do business within the University quarter of Paris. The fundamental law of 1618 (article 30) says that no bookseller, printer, or binder shall have more than one shop and it shall be located within the University, below St. Yves, or outside the Palace of Justice,

where the Parlement met. As a natural concession to religious groups, dealers in prayer books and devotional pamphlets might sell elsewhere but only if they restricted themselves to this class of books.” Portable displays and sales arrangements were strictly forbidden (article 31).® The law of 1686 goes further in several details. Booksellers and printers who have both a printing and a sales shop must keep them

in one establishment, and not separately, within the University quarter. Dealers who do not have a printing shop may also sell in the precincts of the Palace; and if they specialize in prayer books ®*Henri Hauser, Les Débuis du capitalisme (Paris, 1927), p. 114; Hauser, “Des divers modes d’organisation du travail dans Vancienne France,’ Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, p. 379; Etienne Martin Saint-Léon, Histoire des corporations de métiers, 4th ed. (Paris, 1941), p. 171; Emile Coornaert, Les Corporations en France avant 1789, 3d ed. (Paris, 1941), pp. 108, 231-236; Francois Olivier-Martin, L’Organisation corporative de la France d’ancien régime (Paris, 1938), pp. 93, 1217; Emile Levasseur, Histoire des classes ouvriéres et de l'industrie en France avant 1789, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Paris 1900-1901), I, 293-300, 574. * Maurice Cauchie, “La Réglementation du commerce des livres en 1649,” Revue des bibliothéques, XXXIII (1923), pp. 271-273. *Isambert, Jourdan, Decrusy, Recueil général des anciennes lois frangaises, 29 vols. (Paris, 1821-1893), XVI, 117-125.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 151 exclusively, they may sell in the rue Notre Dame as well. The law then defines once more the phrase “University quarter” with great care and specifies the boundary streets. But printers and publishers are forbidden to keep a shop within a college or a monastery, these being privileged locations into which the arm of the police could not reach. Printers were also forbidden to post, in any place other

than the actual location of their shop, a notice that they were equipped to print law briefs, legal notices, and the like.®

By 1723 the mere bookseller was no longer able to keep his whole stock in his little shop but had to store his reserves of varied titles in a warehouse; and the marketing of large-scale investments of capital such as the many volumes of Moréri’s Dictionary, printed

over a number of years, led to sale by subscription for a series rather than the sale of a single self-contained item. The code of 1723, after repeating the previous restrictions, therefore permits dealers to maintain warehouses within the traditional area in colléges, religious houses, and other.places apart from their regular dwellings. These are to be used for storage, not for sales, and the location must be recorded in the guild registers. ‘They must also be open to inspection by the syndic and wardens on notice given to the owner. Earlier efforts to ensure convenience for inspection were now

sharpened by two clauses: first, all dealers who have a printing

shop must put up a sign to this effect in the place where it is located; and second, a dealer may maintain only one shop for the

sale of books and shall not have any display space or portable stand on bridges, quais, or elsewhere.

The law of 11 December 1544, which required that the name of the author and the name and address of the printer be included at the beginning of every book on religion ’° was largely a matter of censorship, a device to spot responsibility for heretical works. It was soon extended to all other kinds of books and in this form was emphasized again and again in the laws. At a very early date the use of individual trademarks had become common practice, ®Isambert, XX, 8-10.

10Isambert, XIII, 37-38; Antoine Fontanon, Les Edits et ordonnances des roys de France depuis S. Loys tusques a present, 2d ed., 4 vols. (Paris 1585), IV, 373-374.

152 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE and in 1541 there were severe warnings against misappropriation of a competitor’s mark. Furthermore, no one, especially the widow of a printer or dealer, was to act as the fictitious proprietor of a shop, the actual conduct being in the hands of another person who might not be able to meet legal requirements. All this was of course a matter of business and craft honesty which lay close to the heart of every guild official. But even more it was a matter of protecting the guild against interlopers, making sure that practice was strictly limited to accredited members. Preservation of this fundamental concept was so important a

part of the officials’ work that it seems necessary to quote the pertinent articles (4 and 5) of the 1723 code:

4. Persons of every quality and condition whatever other than publishers and printers are forbidden to engage in the commerce of books, to sell or distribute them, to cause them to be advertised for sale in their name whether they say they are the authors or otherwise; to keep a shop or warehouse for books; to buy for resale in bulk or at retail, in lodgings or other places, even under pretense of sale by auction, any books bound or unbound, large or small, new or secondhand, or any old or so-called waste paper. The penalty shall be five hundred livres fine, confiscation, and exemplary punishment. His Majesty also forbids printers and billposters to print or post any notices giving indication of the sale of books elsewhere than in the shops of publishers

and printers, under similar penalties. Furthermore, authors and all others than said printers are forbidden to have or to hold in any place whatever and under any title or pretext any presses, types, or printing equipment; under penalty of exemplary punishment, confiscation of presses and type, and three thousand livres fine.

5. And since certain porters of crates and other self-styled haberdashers, under pretense of selling books of hours and small pamphlets,

have often transported, sold, and distributed defamatory brochures, memoirs against the State and religion, and books forbidden or pirated

to the detriment of the privileges granted by us, we forbid the said porters and so-called haberdashers and others who are not guild members to have or sell or distribute any printed books of whatever kind

or quality they may be; under penalty of corporal punishment and confiscation of said books and any accompanying merchandise. His Majesty does not, however, intend to forbid the merchant haberdashers,

wholesalers of the city of Paris, to sell ABC’s, almanacs, and small prayer books, printed outside the said city; but they may not sell any other books. In case of infraction His Majesty permits the syndic and

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 153 wardens to seize such books upon authority granted by the lieutenant

general of police. These two articles of the law of 1723 served the double purpose

of keeping a police check on permits and a guild check on unauthorized printers and dealers. Clandestine printing was, however,

an insoluble problem in the face of a steadily increasing demand for such work and the limitation of the legal number of shops. Like many other violators of the law, the chambrelans were usually a step ahead of the police. Far above the poor fellows of this class were the many aristo-

cratic people who took up printing as a hobby. Louis XIII had a little shop of his own in the Louvre. From 1718 to 1727 Jacques Collombat taught the young Louis XV the rudiments of the craft at “l’imprimerie du cabinet du roi,” where His Majesty turned out a number of placards and other small pieces. Several members of

the royal family followed his lead. Benjamin Franklin had a private press at Passy while he resided at Court as agent for the American colonies.!* Such ventures as these were of course excep-

tions to all rules, but leniency stopped at that point. The law of 21 December 1630 forbade “private individuals of quality” to keep printing equipment in their houses, and the law of 10 May 1728 (Article 12) and of 16 April 1757 (Article 4) extended this to include all kinds of ecclesiastical organizations in city or in country.*

Not only the prerogatives of the guild but almost every other aspect of the book business was affected by the element of foreign

trade. The literatures of other countries aroused the interest of Frenchmen at all times, as we can see from the multitude of translations from English, German, Spanish, and Italian that swelled the publishers’ lists. In the sixteenth century the avalanche of imported Lutheran books menaced both Church and State. After the revoca-

tion of the edict of Nantes (1685) the refugee Huguenot dealers 11Ysambert, XXI, 218-219.

#2 Paris, Biblioth¢que nationale, L’Art du livre a Vimprimerie nationale (Paris, 1951), p. 97; Henri Omont, “Les Imprimeries parisiennes en 1721; limprimerie de Jacques Collombat,” Bulletin de la société de Vhistoire de Paris, XVIII (1891), 3545; and XXXV (1908), 222. 18 Luther S. Livingston, Franklin and his Press at Passy (New York, 1914). 4 Tsambert, XXI, 315, and XXII, 272-274.

154 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE in Holland and Germany and Switzerland sponsored an even greater influx of seditious and pirated works. Nor was the traffic all one way. Savary des Bruslons estimated that in 1688 from twelve to fifteen hundred packages of books manufactured in Paris, Lyon,

and other centers passed through Marseilles bound for Spain, Portugal, Piedmont, Italy, Provence, and Languedoc, each package being worth three or four hundred livres.1® From the beginning of the guild regime all books coming into Paris from foreign countries or other French cities were taken to guild headquarters to be opened and inspected by the syndic and wardens. Foreigners were not allowed to keep a shop or a warehouse or a printing office or to advertise their books; and Paris dealers

were forbidden to act as agents or jobbers for outside dealers. Foreigners could transact business in the capital for only three weeks, and they could not withdraw their cases of books from the

customhouse without an order from the syndic. Guild officials could not buy or order or reserve any books while making their inspection nor for twenty-four hours afterward. Contraband books were seized, and one third of them set aside for the benefit of the syndic and wardens.*®

These stipulations were repeated in 1686. ‘The time for inspections was then definitely set for two o’clock every ‘Tuesday and Friday afternoon. At least three of the officers must be present, and they must be furnished in advance with schedules of the contents of all boxes, crates, and other packages. Contraband books were to be seized, along with other books and miscellaneous merchandise in the same package. The officials were again forbidden to buy or exchange any items till after twenty-four hours, though it 1s evident that other dealers could in the meantime get what they wanted.” As we would expect, the law of 1723 enters into greater detail. The second article affirms the traditional freedom from taxation of any sort for every kind of publication; all degrees and ranks of tax collectors are enjoined to allow free entry and exit for books

and types. To facilitate the work, all bundles are to be plainly marked. 18 Jacques Savary des Bruslons, Dictionnaire universel du commerce, Supplement (Paris, 1730), cols. 403-406. 6 Jsambert, XVI, 121-123. M% Isambert, XX, 18.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 155 Foreign dealers are not allowed to have French agents nor to stay in town more than three weeks, live elsewhere than in the University quarter, or deal with any but Paris booksellers. Truck drivers, coachmen, and other messengers are forbidden to deliver packages to the addressees; they must go directly to the customhouse for transfer to the guild hall. If a dealer comes across books mixed up with other goods, he must hand them over for inspection. Packages are not to be opened and inspected in transit; they are to

go to their destination under bond which in the case of foreign goods is to be secured at the first office of entry. Material from the provinces is to be sealed at the point of departure.1® The carrier is to sign a register and is to promise to deliver the packages to the Paris customhouse and to bring back a receipt for the goods from the Paris officers. Packages of books are to enter the kingdom only through Paris, Rouen, Nantes, Bordeaux, Marseilles, Lyon, Strasbourg, Metz, Amiens, and Lille. ‘The syndic and wardens, if asked to do so, must certify to the actual condition of packages on arrival so that responsibility for damaged ones may be fixed. Packages not claimed or removed within a year are to be opened

upon order of the lieutenant general in the presence of a special commissioner; and he shall deliver a report to his superior, who will take appropriate action. Confiscated books are to be kept in the guild hall until the government decides upon disposition. Since a considerable proportion of imported books had always reached Paris by way of Rouen on boats, it was decided by the law of 14 September 1741 that all Rouen shipments must be sent by

water. he master of the boat was to send ahead by post to the lieutenant general a schedule showing the number of packages, the consignee, and his address.1®

Before long it was discovered that foreign dealers were guilty of a bit of sharp practice. They often showed samples to Paris booksellers and took orders with a promise to fill them as soon as the books were printed. But then they sent large quantities to other persons who acted as their representatives contrary to the law, and

did not fill the orders that were paid for until the cream of the 18Tsambert XXI, 242.

#® Claude Marin Saugrain, Code de la librairie et de l'tmprimerie de Paris (Paris, 1744), PP. 320-326.

156 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE market had been skimmed. This led to the law of 11 April 1740 which repeated the prohibitions against jobbers and sales representatives.2° Books of foreign publishers were not to be sold until all engagements made with the Paris dealers had been fulfilled.

4. Maintenance of quality Watchfulness over the quality of printing constituted the second group of the syndicate’s administrative duties.?1 This was a matter

of concern from very early times. Chevillier is torn between his admiration for Vascosan and the Estiennes on the one hand and, on the other, his scorn for the ignorant, drunken scoundrels whose product disgraced the craft in his day. In 1541 the masters of Lyon were already comparing the good old days when their books were unrivaled for quality with the ruin of their business resulting from

the long strike of the journeymen.?? In 1569 the great Henri Fstienne expressed his utter discouragement in his Querimonia Artis Typographicae, in which he remarks that some printers could not even identify the letters in their own name! ?8 Rather more objective evidence on the subject is furnished by the preambles to the various laws. The one for 16 June 1618 points out that in the recent period of civil war neglect of the regulations had reduced the trade to a shadow of its former self and its ancient splendor had departed.** ‘The law of 1649 states: “So few good books are being printed in Paris, and negligence in those that are being printed is so evident from the poor paper and the scarcity of

corrections that we must say it is a sort of disgrace and we must recognize that it brings great harm to our State.” 75> The edict of August 1686 emphasizes the contrast to a happier past: ‘““The print-

ing done in this kingdom was once brought to such a degree of perfection that it was esteemed and sought after far beyond all other in foreign countries and, this success having brought to light

many excellent works, it built up a large commerce over a long 7° Isambert, XXII, 127-128.

71 Material in the following section has been adapted from David T. Pottinger, “Standards of Quality in French Printing, 1500-1790,” Gutenberg Jahrbuch 1952 (Mainz, 1952), pp. 146-151.

2 Isambert, XII, 763. *8 André Chevillier, L’Origine de Vimprimerie de Paris (Paris, 1694), p. 187. *“Tsambert, XVI, 117.

"Tromp, p. 73.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 157 series of years right down to recent times. But now all sorts of people without ability or experience or any of the other qualities required by our ordinances and regulations have been carelessly admitted in great numbers to the profession of master printers and publishers. Hence have grown many great disorders which have been harmful to the State.” 26 Similar complaints are expressed far down into the eighteenth century; d’Argenson, for instance, reports that at Cardinal Fleury’s levee on 11 May 1738 much of the talk concerned the poor quality of current printing.** All these complaints must be viewed in the light of the general economic thought and practice of the ancien régime. Maintenance of standards of workmanship, of the high quality of the nation’s manufactures, was a cardinal principle of mercantilism. Goods of

high or superior grade contributed to the national glory and stimulated both domestic and foreign trade. Keeping quality high was an important function of the general government as well as of the guild officers. Beyond these economic considerations, however, mercantilism stressed certain moral ideals, an inheritance from medieval thought

which persisted down to the era of capitalism and its emphasis on profits as a dominant business motive.”8 According to this moral point of view, deceit or fraud is one of the greatest sins. If all men are brothers, there is no place for competition, sharp practice, attempts to make the purchaser buy what he does not want, or the offer of goods which the seller knows to be other than what they appear to be. The opposition of the Church to injustice, greed, and falsehood had over the centuries a powerful effect upon business

practice. Quality of the product was a basic requirement of all manufacture. Translated into the specific terms of the book trade, the mer-

cantilist attitude made it incumbent upon the government to see that authors, publishers, and printers supplied the public with all sorts of books, pamphlets, and other reading matter that was *6 Isambert, XX, 6.

. Journal et mémoires du Marquis d’Argenson, ed. E. J. B. Rathery, 9 vols. (Paris, 1859-1867), I, 309.

28 Maurice de Gailhard-Bancel, Les Anciennes corporations de métiers et la lutte contre la fraude dans le commerce et la petite industrie (Paris, 1912), pp. 1133 9}.

158 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE free from theological, moral, political, or scientific error, well printed on good paper with a minimum of proofreading mistakes, and sold at a fair price. In other words, standards of quality were applied (1) to textual content and (2) to materials used in manu-

facture. It should not be necessary to point out that efforts to maintain high standards were never an isolated activity but an integral part of the total administrative control over printing and publishing. Fear of heresy and sedition, a paternal concern for the safety of the State and of the souls of its citizens, played perhaps an even greater part than pride of craftsmanship. All that

sort of supervision, however, fell primarily within the purview of the Director of the Book Trade and his board of censors and not of the craft itself. The guild officers, on the other hand, were more immediately concerned with technical questions of materials. The first mention of the physical aspects of the book is found in the edict of Gaillon

(May 1571). The masters are to see to it that the printing in each city is done well and properly, that is, correctly and on good

paper with type that is not too much worn.” The requirement is repeated in all later regulations in much the same terms. The law of August 1686 says, “All publishers and printers shall cause

to be printed and shall print all books with good type, on good paper, and correctly.” The code of 1723 emphasizes the matter by mentioning it twice — in Articles 9 and 88. ‘This time, however,

the clause has a deeper connotation than before; compliance involved measuring up to new standards set by the technical advances that began toward the end of the seventeenth century and continued throughout the eighteenth. Paper had improved beyond that of Holland and Italy. Presses were more accurately adjusted and could turn out a larger amount of work. ‘The more delicate and graceful types of the Didots, Fournier, and Luce were

replacing the heavier ones of an earlier day. Uniform standards of height-to-paper were adopted and enforced. The best types and ornaments were being made of stronger and tougher material. From an early date shop pride was fostered and poor work identified by the requirement that the printer’s mark be placed in every edition and that the name of the author or commentator and the °° Isambert, XIV, 237; Saugrain, p. 276; Tromp, p. 18.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 159 name and address of the printer and of the publisher be placed at the beginning of each book.®°

To carry out the numerous regulations kept the syndic and wardens, together with the police inspectors, fully occupied in a continual round of visits throughout the University quarter and far more busy than the four “great” booksellers had been in the days before the guild was established. The law of 1618 enjoined them to make inspections according to previous edicts. The law of 1649 called for semiannual visits, but that of 1686 and the code

of 1723 set them for once in three months or more often if advisable. ‘The visit should be made unexpectedly, and masters were obliged to admit the officers freely to every part of the shop and

the warehouse. Shops in colléges, religious houses, and other privileged places were to be included. The syndic is to make a written report to the lieutenant general regarding conditions in each shop — the books being printed; the number of apprentices,

journeymen, and other workmen employed, and the quality of their work; the number of presses; the amount of type and its condition; and the name of any printer who attempted to keep the inspectors out. Similar inspection was to be made of the shops of makers of wallpaper, fancy papers, and engravings, to see that

they were not printing or selling dissolute pictures, that they had only the roller presses used in their special kind of work, and

that their supply of type did not exceed what would be needed for a caption of six lines. The penalty for infraction of the law regarding quality was confiscation of the edition and payment of a fine of a thousand livres, half to go to the informer and half to the general expenses of the guild. The law of 10 April 1725 went so far as to threaten the publisher with loss of his permit and privilege for the book. Penalties for other infractions were much heavier, but the authorities evidently assumed that books condemned on the score of quality were likely to fail in the larger requirements as well. It is needless to point out that the printers of the ancien régime

never developed cheap, acceptable printing aimed at a mass market, as the twentieth century has done. ‘They had no conception of the conditions under which we work. Their aim was 8 Saugrain, p. 89; Isambert, XIII, 37.

160 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE almost what we would call a “luxury product.” Although the government complained again and again of failure to attain the ideal, such official pessimism, as de Gailhard-Bancel suggests,** is proof that it was always keenly aware of quality and was untiring in its efforts to keep the whole level of performance as high as possible. And as for the inspectors who had to execute the laws

in this respect along with a multitude of other duties, there is no reason to accuse them of dereliction; they seem to have worked hard at the job of making their craft an ornament of their country and time.

5. Internal management The third group of duties concentrated in the hands of the syndic and wardens involved the administration of guild business, the internal management of the corporation. The reception of new masters was one of the most important details. Chevillier quotes from the University records to show that in the earlier days can-

didates always took an oath of office from the Rector after an examination to establish their eligibility. Francis I remarked in the edict of 1521 that anyone who wished to do so might become a master, that is, the craft was “free’’; but there is every reason to

believe that the academic requirements were still in full force. Article 20 of the edict of Gaillon (May 1571) has nothing to say about the University examination; a certificate signed by two master printers and two master publishers was now sufficient evidence of professional ability. By 1686 conditions had become more complex. Now a candidate, even one who had bought a letter of mastership, must have served an apprenticeship of four complete and consecutive years, must in addition have worked as a journeyman for three years, be at least twenty years old, have enough knowledge of Greek and Latin to warrant his obtaining a certificate from the Rector, and be a Frenchman of good moral standing and of the Catholic faith. ‘Two masters of the guild must certify that he is capable of exercising the craft. When these conditions have been fulfilled, he must take an oath before the lieuten-

ant general of police. There was no charge for this but the candidate must pay the syndic three hundred livres for the general %1 De Gailhard-Bancel, p. 235.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 161 guild treasury, a startling increase over the fee of sixty livres required in the law of 1618. Sons of masters were to pay only one hundred livres. A journeyman marrying the widow or daughter

of a master was to pay thirty livres. Laws were usually broken for no reason at all, but occasionally there was pressing need for a special ruling, as we learn from the story of Jean Joseph Barbou’s reception as a master in Paris. Early in 1703 his father, Pierre Barbou of Lyon, learned that the guild was in serious financial straits. It had been unable to raise the sum of 10,450 livres needed for release from execution of the edicts of March 1691 putting up for sale the offices of syndic and wardens,

of August 1701 for heredity of the office of auditor, and of July 1702 for an office of treasurer, all of these offices implying at the same time confirmation of perpetual freedom from the taxes on the arts and crafts. Pierre proposed to lend this money at 5 per cent interest provided his son should be received as master dealer.

On 13 November the guild accepted and then proceeded to ask the consent of the royal commissioner of finances. ‘The Chancellor, d’Argenson, agreed on 8 December, and Jean Joseph Barbou was received 8 January 1704. He is duly listed by Lottin for that date.

His father’s payment seems to have included the regular fee, which had been increased by the law of 11 September 1703 to six hundred livres plus a further sum assessed according to the candidate’s means.**

Formalities and requirements did not diminish as time went on. The code of 172334 added the passing of an examination, which

had to be taken by every candidate even though he might be the son of a master or the husband of a former master’s widow. Dealer candidates were to be questioned on the practice of bookselling; printers were to give proof of their skill in the craft as well as of their knowledge of bookselling. ‘The test, which was to last two hours or more, was to be administered by the syndic and wardens accompanied by four former officials — two of them printers — and four others who had not held office but had been masters for at least ten years. The candidate was to choose these eight men by 82 Isambert, XX, 14-15.

83 Paul Ducourtieux, “Comment on devenait libraire et imprimeur a Paris au XVIII® siécle,” Le Bibliophile Limousin, 2° série, XII (1897), 85-89. % Isambert, XXI, 227 ff.

162 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE lot. A two-thirds vote was necessary for passing. The syndic and

wardens were to make out a report at once, and the candidate was to give each examiner six tokens worth six livres. Successful dealer candidates were to be received without further

formalities by the syndic and wardens. As for printer candidates, the report of the examination was to be sent together with other

data to the lieutenant general of police for transmission to the Chancellor. ‘The latter was then to issue an arrét of the Council authorizing the admission to mastership.

From the registers for 1750 Ducourtieux has distinguished five steps in the process of becoming a master printer.*®> These show how closely the government supervised the craft. No one could become one of the thirty-six authorized printers unless he

succeeded to a vacant shop by inheritance or purchase; and he was usually already a bookseller member of the guild. In the first place the candidate addressed a petition to the King, accompanied by a certificate showing that he had served his apprenticeship; one from the Rector testifying to his familiarity with Latin and Greek; one for his reception as dealer; two certificates of character, one from his parish priest and one signed by a member of the guild; and a sixth that was the resignation of the retiring printer or the widow of a deceased printer in favor of the applicant. The King then ordered him to apply to the guild and take the usual exami-

nation. Next the syndic and wardens inspected the shop being turned over to the new owner and chose by lot eight examiners,

four former officers and four who had never been officers. At the examination each in turn asked questions. If the balloting was favorable, the candidate was given a report which he sent to the lieutenant general. The Council of State was also notified, and it passed an arrét ordering the guild to receive the man after

he had taken an oath before the lieutenant general. With all these documents in hand the guild formally elected him a printer member, and he signed the register and paid the fee of five hundred livres.

The law of August 17747 gives detailed instructions for the conduct of the examination.** First of all the candidates must pass % Ducourtieux, loc. cit. % Ysambert, XXV, 118.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 163 the test for admission as a dealer. Then at an unspecified date before the printing examination the officers chose eight articles connected with the craft, and these were shown to the candidate before being locked up till the great day. When the eight examiners assembled, the first took one of the articles from the box and used

it as a basis for his questions; and so they proceeded, each one taking out an article at random until there were no more. Finally there was a test on the general management of a printing shop, but in this part the candidate had no warning of the questions. The report was sent to the Chancellor along with a copy of the man’s baptismal record, a certificate of his adherence to the Catho-

lic faith, his apprenticeship contract duly discharged, and certificates from the masters with whom he had worked since his apprentice days. After reception in the guild hall in the presence of the former syndics and wardens, and after payment of the fees, he took the oath at the Chatelet. A much more practical sort of examination was that taken at Troyes on 10 December 1659 by Edme de Barry. It lasted from 9g A.M. to 6 P.M. but would not have taken so much time if he had

known his trade better. The test consisted in his setting about half a folio page, correcting it, imposing it, and distributing it.*”

Second in importance only to the reception of new masters was the election of guild officers. The law of June 1618 says that all dealers, printers, and binders shall assemble at headquarters at 2 P.M. on the eighth of May each year and proceed to the choice of a syndic and two of four wardens, the latter to replace two who had already served two years. They are to be sworn in immediately. Accordingly, on 17 July 1618 the assembly convened in the presence of the Provost of Paris and the King’s procureur of the Chatelet, listened to the reading of the proposed guild reg-

ulations, noted various objections, and then elected the first syndicate.®8 Nicolas du Fosse was the first syndic, and his assistants

were Regnault (II) Chaudiére, Nicolas Buon, Pierre Le Mur, and Edme (I) Martin. On Wednesday 8 May 1619 Francois Julliot 87 Louis Morin, “Histoire corporative des artisans du livre a Troyes,” Mémoires

de la société académique ...de VAube, 3° série, XXXVI (1899), 293-433 and XXXVII (1900), 1-159.

8 Lottin, Part I, p. 75.

164 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE and Gabriel (I) Clopejau were chosen wardens to replace Chaudiére and Buon. On 4 August 1620 Laurent Sonnius was elected the second syndic, Julliot and Clopejau remained as wardens, and ‘Thomas Blaise and Gilles (I) Blaisot replaced Le Mur and Martin.

Between 1618 and 1789 there were sixty syndicates, with change of wardens near the middle of each. Thus there were a hundred and twenty elections. Of these, only nine were held on 8 May. Fourteen others were held on various days in May. Thirteen syndicates lasted less than the statutory two years, fourteen within a few days of the term one way or the other. But of the rest, eighteen lasted more than three years, the longest seven years, eleven months, and twelve days (1690-1698), the second longest seven years, five months, and twenty-nine days (1679-1687). The last election was held on Monday 11 September 1786, when André Francois Knapen was made syndic.

One reason for these irregular terms undoubtedly was the reluctance of members to serve. Not only did the duties call for a vast deal of time that the head of a shop could ill spare from his own concerns but, at first especially, there was danger of real bodily harm. In the 1630’s and 1640's the peddlers and other hangers-on packed the guild meetings and made so much noise that no one could be heard. Fist fights broke up the proceedings, and stones were thrown at the carriages of the police when they came to meetings. On one occasion the shouting and swearing became so violent that the magistrates got up and left, declaring they would never again enter the headquarters of a guild that was worse than a gathering of fishwives.®? Although conditions improved a little after this, there was no permanent reform. The code of 1723 orders all printers, publishers, founders, binders, gilders, journeymen, workmen, apprentices, colporters, and others

to treat the syndic and wardens with honor, to obey them in the course of their duty, and to refrain from insulting, mistreating, or slandering them. Regular meetings of the guild were scheduled for ‘Tuesdays or 8° Georges Lepreux, “Une enquéte sur l’imprimerie de Paris en 1644,” Le Bibliographe moderne, XIV (1910), 7-9.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 165 Thursdays at one o'clock, the clerk delivering advance notice by hand to the members entitled to attend.4° Extraordinary sessions

could be called when necessary by the officers. There was an honest attempt to arbitrate disputes and thus avoid costly litigation between members. Enticing another’s workmen from him, keeping a shop open on Sunday or a holy day, working after the

legal closing time, and such matters were thrashed out. There were also various administrative decisions to make, setting dates for examinations, receiving new masters, keeping the records in

order and making out reports, arranging for the inspection of books, and devising means for enforcing the general regulations. And there was much talk about the good estate of the trade and of methods for restoring it to the glorious condition it had enjoyed in its early days. The honor of the guild, its standing in the business world, its claims to the highest regard, all this was a fundamental element in the economic and personal life of these citizens

of the good city of Paris. Rivalries and quarrels were after all ephemeral disturbances of the corporate well-being. The real spirit of these men was evident on such occasions as the recovery of their young King Louis XV after a sudden and mysterious illness that lasted from 31 July to 4 August 1721. The celebration extended through three days and was nowhere more

fervent than in the rue Saint Jacques where the printers and booksellers made a fine illumination with Chinese lanterns. Jacques Osmont, at the sign of The Olive Tree, outdid the others. The three balconies of his house were magnificently adorned with lanterns, and over the front of his shop there were two beautiful transparencies lighted from behind. On one was an adaptation of Isaiah 66:10, “Gaudete universi qui luxistis super regem (Rejoice all ye who have mourned for the King).”’ On the other was a clause from Hosea 14:6, “Quia erit quasi oliva gloria eius (His beauty shall be as the olive tree).’’*4

No small part of the syndic’s responsibility was maintaining the

numerous registers and making the infinite number of reports ‘Tromp, p. 54. “EE. J. F. Barbier, Journal historique et anecdotique, 4 vols. (Paris, 1847~1856), I, 98-99.

166 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE required by the laws, as well as seeing that the minutes of the meetings were properly kept. The voluminous archives of the guild bear mute testimony to the vast amount of clerical work that

was involved. Six folio volumes are devoted to minutes alone. Others hold the registers of masters, journeymen, and apprentices;

of permits and privileges; of colporters and workmen and billposters; of books received for the benefit of the guild; of books sent from the customhouse to headquarters for inspection; of condemned books; of orders issued by the Directors General; and so on. Scarcely a detail seems to have been omitted, and the amount of labor represented is appalling.* Equally impressive are the records of the guild’s financial accounts. The receipts are to a large extent the fees from new masters

and the contributions which after 1679 amounted to six livres from each member, sums from the sale of sample copies of publications, fines and judgments in favor of the guild, proceeds from confiscated books, and legacies and various special gifts. On 26 March 1614 the members voted that each should donate one copy of every book he published, to be sold to help the guild carry on its lawsuits; this source of revenue was continued till the very end of our period.* Expenses covered the rent and maintenance of headquarters, the cost of meetings, salaries of the clerk and other employees, lawsuits and legal advice, and participation in public ceremonies. On 23 March 1722 it was voted to give a token worth thirty sols to each member who reported promptly for a meeting. Later, two tokens were given at certain long sessions and for attendance at various public functions. ‘The total number of tokens sometimes

ran as high as 264. The last distribution was to those who took part in the procession of the Rector on 18 March 1791. ‘Then again, it was necessary to meet numerous governmental assessments and the interest charges on loans used for buying offices. Although theoretically exempt from taxation, the guild actually paid during the eighteenth century annual sums ranging from 42 Henri Omont, “Inventaire sommaire des archives de la chambre syndicale ... mss, fr. 21813-22060,” Bulletin de la société de histoire de Paris, XIII (1886), 151-159, 174-187.

Tromp, pp. 157-161, 167.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 167 six to fifteen thousand livres.*+ For allocation of the two levies

known as the capitation and the vingtiéme the guild officers, assisted by eight ad hoc royal commissioners, divided the whole

membership into sixteen classes according to the size of each establishment and set proportionate contributions.*° The syndicate were finally responsible for the financial condi-

tion both of the brotherhood and of the guild. Article 55 of the law of 1686 directs the brotherhood officers to render their accounts only to the active syndic and wardens, the former syndics, and the two most recently retired wardens. Article 56 says that the syndic shall account for receipts and expenditures and the admin-

istration of property within three months, at latest, of the day when he steps down. The same procedure is indicated in the code

of 1723. The penalty for late filing of the statement is deprivation of rank and vote; but this fine was never exacted. ‘The accounts are to be audited by the active syndicate and the past syndics

and wardens and are to be reported to the assembled guild by a past syndic or warden selected for this purpose. Tromp gives three examples of guild accounting.*® On 11 April 1675 Louis (IIT) Sévestre, syndic from 9 June 1670 to 8 May 1671 presented his report (nearly four years late!) and it was voted

to audit. On 14 June the report was read, showing receipts of 115 livres and expenses of 553 livres g sols. ‘The balance of 438 livres g sols due to Sévestre was advanced in cash by Denys (II)

Thierry, the syndic at the time. One of the wardens, however, called attention to the fact that Sévestre had already received 55

livres for having released a package of books by order of the customhouse and that this sum was not included in his accounts.

The guild thereupon deducted the amount. The meeting of 4 June 1680 examined the accounts of Edme (1) Couterot, syndic from 25 June 1677 to 23 August 1679. This

time they were only about nine months overdue. The receipts came to 901 livres, the expenses to 2401 livres 2 sols 6 deniers. The difference was paid to Couterot by the syndic, Charles Angot.

The last accounting in the guild registers is dated 28 June “Louis Radiguer, Maitres imprimeurs et ouvriers typographes (Paris, 1903), pp. 130-136.

"Tromp, p. 111. Tromp, pp. 161-167.

168 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK TRADE 1789, when the assembly met to receive the report of Charles Guillaume Le Clerc, the syndic from 18 May 1780 to 11 September 1786. It was about two years and seven months late. The receipts came to 90,999 livres 3 sols 1 denier, the expenses to 67,621 livres 17 sols 2 deniers. This is a favorable balance of 23,377 livres 5 sols 11 deniers. ‘The tremendous increase of these totals over

those submitted by Sévestre a little more than a century before is striking. One can only wonder whether the trade was as completely wrecked as the publishers had for many years been insisting that it was. At any rate the guild was easily able to appropriate 1200 livres for poor relief 13 January 1789 and to make a present of 20,000 livres to the National Assembly 30 September 1789.

The final housekeeping detail for us to consider is the location of guild headquarters. In 1582 the Mathurin Fathers gave the

publishers, printers, and binders a small room in their large building in the shadow of the Sorbonne next to their church and the Hotel de Cluny. When the guild was established in 1618, this became the official “Chambre syndicale des libraires et des imprimeurs,” a title which was used not only for the meeting place but also as the legal designation of the corporation itself. This space proving too restricted, a move was made in 1630 to the Collége Royal. But since the trucking of books and the violent

character of the meetings disturbed the professors’ lectures, the guild was forced to make another move in 1679. After staying a few months in the College de Cambrai, it went to the cloister of Saint Benoit in October 1679. In 1682 it was back with the Mathurins, where it remained until 17247. The final home, from 1727 to 1791, was in the rue du Foin.**

In spite of our own vast and complicated system of agencies, bureaus, and inspectors, American businessmen have rarely been

faced with the problems engendered by the wholesale governmental regulation that French industry, and especially the book trade, had to cope with throughout the ancien régime. The only possible parallel is the abortive National Recovery Administration ‘7 Paul Mellottée, Histoire économique de Vimprimerie (Paris, 1905), pp. 173175; Tromp, pp. 171-197.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOOK TRADE 169 which was designed to meet the great depression of the 1930's. The chaos of those three years of setting up control machinery and attempting to reconcile widely divergent interests was nothing, comparatively speaking, to what the book guild had to meet for nearly three centuries. That the publishers and printers worked so valiantly and so loyally to solve their problems in the light of what economic knowledge they had calls for our highest admiration for them as citizens and as businessmen.

Part Three

THE MASTERS

CHAPTER IX

THE MASTER PRINTERS 1. Development of the printing craft

P rinting as a craft offers an excellent example of industrial development. When the first workers arrived from Germany in Paris, they brought only a small supply of type, their punches, matrices, and molds, and a small press. ‘They cast their own type, set the copy, proofread it with their employers’ help, and ran off the edition. ‘There was no more division of labor than there had ever

been in the multiplication of copy. A further step came rather quickly, however, with increased orders for books and the general growth of business. Still, the casting of type remained for several

decades a part of the regular operations of each establishment just like composition and presswork, and the owner of the shop par-

ticipated in all sorts of work from dealing with authors to selling the final product at retail. A good instance of the usual arrangement is to be found in the shop of Robert Estienne.* In 1538 Junius Rabirius called upon Estienne to arrange for the printing of two books he had just written. Admitted at once to the head office, he found the master himself correcting and editing proof along with a group of other scholars similarly occupied. The two men went to a quiet corner to talk over the author’s business. The printer offered to take him not only into his shop but into his family. In these delightful surroundings he lived for some time. Workmen, wife, servants, customers, children, all conversed only in purest Latin “just as though they were living out a play by Terence or Plautus.” The food and drink were good,

the fire on the hearth banished the winter's rage, and the conversation after the day’s labor was cheering and stimulating. It was an ideal sort of life. 1 Elizabeth Armstrong, Robert Estienne, Royal Printer, An Historical Study of the Elder Stephanus (Cambridge, Eng., 1955), pp. 58-63.

144 THE MASTERS Scarcely more than ten years later this happy familial industry came to an end, for Estienne, who was a Protestant, considered it safer to flee to Geneva than to face religious persecution in Paris.

The situation in other shops too had changed: the cleft between employers and employees had led to violent labor troubles, the Opposing interests of booksellers and printers had become more evident, the government interfered more vigorously in order to protect itself from heresy and sedition, the University’s control of the craft was breaking down. Nevertheless the book business remained practically “free’; almost anyone could engage in it if he had money enough to buy some equipment and pay the dues of the Brotherhood of St. John.” The result was that there were far more shops and printers than the market required. ‘There were complaints that many of the printers could neither read nor write, and at any rate there must have been some proportion who did not know Latin, the language in which all important books were written. The only business that could come to these ignorant and poorly equipped fellows was the ephemeral work of subversive pamphleteers. The shops continued to be small, with the owner doing much of the labor.?

The ground was thus prepared for the government to extend to the book trade its policy of controlling industry by means of the

guild system. The transition from a free to a regulated craft was the easier because printing was both mechanical, requiring relatively complicated machines, and capitalistic, separating owners from workers by the necessity for a considerable investment. In all but the smallest shops the sixteenth century saw the development of a rather sharp distinction between the type casters, compositors, proofreaders, and pressmen. This in turn involved planning and, furthermore, management; and the combination of investment and management produced a group of capitalists, a body

of masters, who were determined to protect their own position by keeping off undesirable recruits.‘ * Georges Renard, Les Travailleurs du livre et du journal, 3 vols. (Paris, 1925),

» a john U. Nef, “Industry and Government in France and England 1540-1640,” Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society (Philadelphia, 1940), pp. 13-21. *Henri Hauser, Les Débuts du capitalisme (Paris, 1927), pp. 1-17.

THE MASTER PRINTERS 175 The fundamental law of 1618 accordingly stipulated that a master printer must have served four years as an apprentice, and a master bookseller five years, consecutively in each case, with an exception only for sons of masters.® The law of 1649 strengthened

this requirement by adding that the candidate for mastership, even if he were the son or son-in-law of a master, must also have served three years as a journeyman as well as having been certified

by the Rector of the University as knowing the rudiments of Latin and Greek.® By 1686 there were further limitations: the candidate must, in addition, be at least twenty years old, must be a native (“tous étrangers seront exclus’’), give evidence of good

character and of adherance to the Catholic faith, and present certificates of technical ability signed by two members of the guild. Sons and sons-in-law of masters and those journeymen who married

the widow or daughter of a master must prove their qualifications; but on the procedure to this end the law is silent. After the binders had been separated from the printers by the law of 4 September 1686, those who were trained in both crafts must choose between the two, and sons of binders could no longer claim

any right of succession to membership in the book guild.? The code of 1723 excluded all candidates who had no qualification other than the purchase of a letter of mastership or a special privilege. To the requirements previously set up it adds an important one, namely, that all candidates, whether sons or sons-inlaw of masters or only apprentices, must pass a technical examination. The law of 30 August 1777 ® gives careful directions for the examination, which should include questions not only on the use of various printing tools but also on the general management of a shop.

2. Shop equipment More stringent, however, than any of these limitations on new masters was the requirement that the candidate must give evidence 5 Claude Marin Saugrain, Code de la librairie et de limprimerie de Paris (Paris, 1744), P. 131.

6 Saugrain, p. 182. * Saugrain, p. 183.

SIsambert, Jourdan, Decrusy, Recueil général des anciennes lois frangaises, 29 vols. (Paris, 1821-1833), XXV, 117-119.

176 THE MASTERS of owning a suitable amount of equipment. In 1586 he had to own two presses and enough other material to keep them busy.® In 1686

he must individually, and not as a partner, own two presses and a good supply of type. The specifications in 1713 are more definite: at least four presses, eight fonts of roman with suitable italic from

Gros-Canon (44 point) to Petit-Texte (8 point); and those who do not meet the requirement within three months from the time of their reception are to be forever excluded from the mastership. In 1723 the candidate who has passed the examination must prove that he owns at least four presses and certain amounts of new type — enough Gros-Romain (18 point), Saint-Augustin (14 point), and Cicéro (12 point) to set at least three sheets in each; enough Petit-

Romain (10 point) for two sheets; and the other sizes in the customary proportions. During the interval between the examination and the taking of the oath the screws of the presses are to be kept in headquarters, thus precluding the possibility of using them.*° Masters are forbidden to lend a candidate any presses, cases, or fonts; and to prevent this, every printer must have his name carved on his presses and cases. Within three months after the

publication of this law (1723) the syndic and wardens were to make a general inspection of all shops and give an exact report of incomplete establishments; the proprietors were allowed two years in which to make up all deficiencies. On subsequent tours of inspection, which were scheduled for every three months, the officers were to report incomplete shops to the lieutenant general of police within three days.

Limitation of the number of printers to thirty-six brought about a situation in which these requirements were much more vigorously enforced than was the case with most other laws. In 1705, for instance, Jacques Collombat, printer to the Duchess of Burgundy and Printer to the King, was a supernumerary and so faced with the possibility of having his shop closed at any moment.

There were so many competitors for every vacancy that might oecur on the legal list that he was unable to make the grade until *Louis Radiguer, Maitres imprimeurs et ouvriers typographes (Paris, 1903), pp. 116—118.

Saugrain, pp. 208-209. “Isambert, XXI, 233-235; Georges Lepreux, Gallia typographica, série parisienne; Livre d’or des imprimeurs du roi (Paris, 1911), pp. 38-41.

THE MASTER PRINTERS 174 1709, when several printers were found to be below the standard. Even at that he had a bitter struggle to get into the guild.'?

After the edict of 1686 almost all printers had at least ten fonts, two thousand pounds in weight. But there were, of course, great variations. In 1615, Mathieu Le Blanc, whose family according to Lottin was in business from 1557 to 1635, had only 120 pounds of Petit-Romain (10 point). In 1636 Yves Girardon of Troyes had four thousand pounds in eighteen sizes. In 1743 Francois d’Emery had 9630 pounds in assorted sizes. In 1690 Jean Baptiste (II) Coignard had three presses in service and employed five journeymen and two apprentices. The growth of his business as printer to the French Academy and partner in the publication of Moréri’s Dictionary is shown by the fact that in 1694 he had four presses with fourteen journeymen and in 1700 had six presses with twenty-one workers. In 1679 Francois Muguet (1630-1702), one of the busiest printers of the time, had seven presses but no apprentices; in 1692, nine presses (one of them dismantled) and ten journeymen; in 1701, ten presses (two dismantled), eleven journeymen, and three apprentices. In 1700 Christophe Ballard,

Printer to the King for music and a partner with Guillaume Desprez in the publication of the Bible translated by Lemaistre de Sacy, had four presses, nine journeymen, and two apprentices.¥

So far as equipment is concerned, the Imprimerie Royale is quite the most interesting of all establishments of the ancien régime. As in most cases of government subvention, there was seldom any consideration of costs, but in spite of extravagance the material accumulated during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries represents a high standard. The inventory of Antoine Vitré, made in 1670, shows seven presses, one of them in poor condition,

three Greek fonts, one Hebrew, and nine roman and italic. An inventory of 1687, made at the death of Mabre-Cramoisy, showed little change. After Jean Anisson took charge in 1691, there was much expansion. First, he transferred from storage in the Bibliothéque du Roi the valuable fonts of Arabic, Syriac, Turkish, and

Persian types collected by Savary de Bréves during his twentytwo years as French ambassador at Constantinople and bought by 12 Lepreux, pp. 137-138. #8 Lepreux, pp. 130, 444, 80.

178 THE MASTERS Vitré in 1632, and also the fonts of Arabic and Ethiopic ordered by Vitré from Jacques de Sanlecques in the same year (1632). Next, Anisson commissioned the cutting of twenty-one sizes of a new roman and italic to be reserved for the exclusive use of the press. In 1692 acommittee of the Académie des Sciences drew up an

elaborate report on the geometrical requirements for an optically satisfactory type. Philippe Grandjean, interpreting these directions rather freely, engraved the so-called Romain du Roi in the years between 1694 and 1714. After his death Jean Alexandre and Louis

Luce continued the work. In 1715 the oriental fonts were increased by a series of 86,000 Chinese characters engraved on wood

under the direction of M. de Fourmont of the Académie des Inscriptions. A new series of Hebrew was also designed by the abbé Bignon. When Louis Laurent Anisson was made Director in 1725, room was provided for sixteen or seventeen presses, and all the punches and matrices were brought together in the Louvre.

In the succeeding years Luce and Alexandre continued to add extensively to the types and ornaments. During the century the private business of the Anisson family

became so much confused with their work for the government that separation of the two was almost impossible in an inventory taken in 1790-1791. ‘here were then more than eighty presses

in operation but only ten belonged to the King. There were 10,662 pounds of type to the national credit, and 22,443 punches, 26,397 matrices, 109 molds, and go frames or stands for holding the type cases. An unspecified amount of material was claimed by the Director as his private property.1 Besides the press and the type, every printing shop needed a

good deal of other furniture. An early list of this is to be found in the inventory of the estate of Jeanne Potiére, wife of the printer Jacques Ferrebouc, dated 17 Janunary 1523. Here among other

articles we find two iron frames, a stone for pounding the vermilion used in red ink, extra tympans and platens, type cases and frames, stools for the compositors, tables, galleys, sponges, and so on.!® ‘There would also be a trough in which to wet the 14 Auguste Joseph Bernard, Histoire de l’imprimerie royale du Louvre (Paris, 1867), troisi¢me section, passim, and Appendix III. 15 Ernest Coyecque, “Cing librairies parisiennes sous Francois I, 1521-1529,” Mémoires de la société de Vhistoire de Paris, XXI, 53-136.

THE MASTER PRINTERS 179 paper, a stove and a copper pot of special shape for cooking varnish,

leather and wool for making ink balls, knives, hammers, shears, composing sticks, twine for tying up the pages, and other small

items, all of which would be necessary at some time or other in the course of a job.7¢

3. Capital investment The various preliminary requirements we have thus far discussed represent the investment of a considerable amount of capital before a young fellow in his twenties could attempt to open a shop. Even in the ancien régime seven years of instruction and intern-

ship were no less burdensome than the long period required in our own day as preparation for law and medicine. ‘Then he had to lay in a supply of paper, rent a shop and perhaps a warehouse, and hire workmen. In the eighteenth century the fees for admission to the guild were high, the examination alone cost seventy-

eight livres, membership in the Brotherhood of St. John had to be provided for, and there was the implied obligation of giving a banquet, contributing something to the poor, and making an additional gift for the general expenses of the guild. There was almost no time when a poor boy could work his way upward from the case to the dignity of mastership. The road could be open only to one whose parents and even grandparents had practiced the utmost thrift or one who married the widow or daughter of a master. By 1581 at latest the rich capitalists were in control of the printing craft.” When the guild was set up in 1618, the men in business at the

moment were not required to pay a fee for taking the oath of membership.1® In the case of new masters, sons of members and

journeymen marrying a widow or daughter were subject to no charge except that for the Brotherhood, but journeymen without this connection had to pay sixty livres. This sum was increased to three hundred livres as early as 1649.1® In 1686 sons were charged

a hundred livres, journeymen three hundred or, if they married 1% Bertrand-Quinquet, Traité de ’tmprimerie (Paris, 1798), pp. 269-270. 17 Henri Hauser, Ouvriers du temps passé, 5th ed. (Paris, 1927), pp. 241-253; Hauser, Débuts, p. 24.

18 Isambert, XVI, 125. )

1° Radiguer, p. 114.

180 THE MASTERS a widow or a daughter, only thirty.2° In 1723 the amounts were far greater: for new booksellers, a thousand livres; for new dealer-

printers, fifteen hundred; and for printers who had previously been received as dealers, five hundred at the time of the second reception. Furthermore, the candidate gave the syndic twelve silver tokens, each warden six, and each ancien two. For sons and husbands the fees were only six hundred livres for booksellers, three

hundred additional for printers at a later date, and nine hundred for bookseller-printers. After 1725 the ceremony of presentation to the Rector of the University cost six livres. In 17477 sons paid twelve hundred livres as printer-dealers; husbands paid thirteen hundred as dealers and three thousand as dealer-printers; and nonfamily journeymen paid two thousand as dealers and three thousand as dealer-printers. We cannot imagine that the candidate escaped paying for the certificate that testified to his good character and his adherence to the Catholic Church; but since the amount varied according to his generosity, we cannot set a definite figure.”?

Nor is it surprising to find wide divergences in the contributions Lepreux has listed as voluntary gifts to the needs of the guild from various Printers to the King at the time of their reception.”* Charles Morel’s gift of three écus in 1627 was considered very generous and so was Jacques (I) Langlois’s quarter of an écu for the poor in 1633. In 1653 Frédéric Léonard gave the guild four hundred livres for general expenses and ten livres four sols for the poor. In 1658 Jean Baptiste Coignard and his brother Charles each gave nine livres for the guild and fifteen sols for the poor, but in 1690 Elie Jean Baptiste Coignard gave two hundred livres for the guild. Other large sums were three hundred livres from Jacques Gabriel Clousier in 1773, one hundred from Jacques

Collombat in 1710, one hundred for the guild and three for the poor from Francois Muguet in 1658. In 1640 Robert (II) Ballard gave ten livres eight sols for the guild and one écu for the poor, but in 1666 Christophe Ballard gave thirty-two livres five sols for * Isambert, XX, 14; Saugrain, pp. 193-195. 21Paul Mellottée, Histoire économique de limprimerie (Paris, 1905), p. 275. 2 Lepreux, passim.

THE MASTER PRINTERS 181 the guild and only fifty sols six deniers for the poor. Sébastien Mabre-Cramoisy was generous in 1659 with sixty-six livres for the

guild and six for the poor. Jean de la Caille was near the bottom of the list when in 1642 he gave three livres for the guild and thirty sols for the poor. These amounts may have varied according to the exigencies of the moment but there never was a time when the organization was not in low financial condition and did not need generous supporters. The cost of equipment of course fluctuated from time to time. In 1599 the printer Guillaume Bynot bought two presses for one hundred écus, twenty-five of which were in cash.?? In 1702 Jean

Baptiste Alexandre Delespine bought the printing equipment and publisher’s stock of Etienne Michallet for seventy thousand livres; although there is no way of fixing the value of either item,

the total indicates the great amount of capital required at this date.*4 In 1719 Jacques Collombat sent the King a bill for 768 livres sixteen sols for expenses connected with the hobby press of Louis XV; this did not include basic equipment (the shop was in

running condition) but only ink, new fonts of type, binding, paper, engravings, frames and glass for broadsides, and so on.” On 6 June 1743 the shop of Francois d’Emery with five presses and g600 pounds of type was sold to Joseph Saugrain for about 11,500 livres.2® Radiguer quotes a document of 1765 which gives

a price of 414.30 livres for a press and an equal amount for the

type to keep one press in operation, or a total of about four thousand livres for a shop of four presses.?” Mellottée, however, gives three hundred livres as the cost of a new press at the same date, and four or five hundred livres as the cost in 1786, with an average cost of four thousand livres for a complete shop.?® He calculates that during the middle years of the eighteenth century a journeyman, without family connections, who wished to set up %Jér6me Pichon et Georges Vicaire, Documents pour servir ad Vhistoire des libraires de Paris 1486-1600 (Paris, 1895), p. 186. 4 Lepreux, p. 189. ** Georges Lepreux, “Un compte d’imprimeur du roi,” Revue des bibliothéques, XXIV (1914), 161-164. * Mellottée, p. 385. 7 Radiguer, pp. 115-116. * Mellottée, pp. 384, 376.

182 THE MASTERS as a printer must have a capital of at least eight thousand livres.

Provision for so large a fixed investment must have been difficult but in addition the printer had to have access to enough liquid capital to cover the accounts of customers who paid slowly. By the middle of the seventeenth century the Paris publishers paid printing costs only as books were sold. On 31 March 1651 Cramoisy

owed Edme Martin 7862 livres for books printed between 1622 and 1641, but the printers were so much under the thumb of the dealers that the Martins did not dare to sue for the payment of the debt until 1679. Again, in 1684 the widow of Jean Libert, the printer, sued the Cramoisy heirs for 27,000 livres on books furnished by her husband to Sébastien Cramoisy between 1610 and 1632. Cramoisy’s promises, his position as alderman, and payments

on account had intimidated the Liberts into silence for years and years but at last their own estate had to be settled.”® Casual reading of the various laws seems to indicate that the printers escaped many taxes through their connection with the University. But there were many ways to make up for this exemp-

tion. Special ‘‘gifts,’ for instance, were demanded in time of national danger or national rejoicing, and most contacts with the

government bureaucracy involved the payment of fees. There was no way of escaping the tax gatherer completely. 4. Shop management Even within the walls of his own shop the master was not free to conduct his business as he pleased. The shop could not be opened for work or for the sale of books on Sundays or on any of the many Church feast days, though in case of necessity workmen might prepare and dampen paper at hours when there were no church services. When one considers that there were accordingly about 140 nonworking days in the year, one realizes the obstacles to economical scheduling and continuity of production. On working days the door of the shop must be kept open or else closed with * Henri Jean Martin, “L’Edition parisienne au XVII° siécle,” Annales: économies, sociétés, civilisations, 7° année, no. 3 (juillet-septembre, 1952), 308n; for the general lack of cash working capital, see Jean Meuvret, “Circulation monetaire et utilisation économique de la monnaie dans la France du XVI° et XVII® siécles,” Etudes d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, I (1947), 21.

THE MASTER PRINTERS 183 only a simple latch and there must be no back door or other way

of escape in case of a surprise visit from the inspectors. ‘The noisiest part of the equipment, the press, must be the kind regularly used in printing and not the engravers’ press that used rollers instead of ink balls and was thus a great deal quieter in its Operation. The printer was allowed to hire whatever workmen he pleased,

whether they had an apprenticeship certificate or not, the preference being given to those who had been trained in Paris. ‘The journeyman or workman, however, had to be at liberty to take the job, that is, he must have a note from his last employer certi-

fying to the fact that he had finished the job on which he had worked and that he was free to go to another shop. In the eighteenth century the master was obliged to declare each week in the

guild headquarters the workmen who had left his service and those he had taken on. He could discharge men for good cause but he must not entice men away from the shop of another master.

The important point was that continuity of work must be maintained. The law of 9 October 1724 required that each master keep a weekly record of all his employees with the jobs they were work-

ing on and their wages, and that this record should be available to the inspectors at any time.*° As for general management, the working day was at first seven-

teen hours long but in 1571 it was fifteen or sixteen hours and by 1650 it had been reduced to fourteen — from five in the morning till nine at night in the summer, and from 7 A.M. to 8 P.M. in the winter. In 1774 it was proposed to make it an hour longer

without increase in pay. These hours, of course, included the intervals for meals and for occasional rests. Production increased from a maximum of 300 sheets per day or 20 an hour in the fif-

teenth century to 3500 sheets a day or 200 an hour in 1571. In 1650 it decreased to 2500 sheets a day in black and 2200 in red and black, but in 1654 it went up to 2700 in black and 2500 in red and black. In 1786 it stood at 250 sheets an hour.*? 80 Saugrain, p. 165.

31 Renard, I, 98; Mellottée, p. 382; Don Cameron Allen, “Some Contemporary Accounts of Renaissance Printing Methods,” The Library, Fourth Series, XVII (1937), 167-171.

184 THE MASTERS CHAPTER X

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 1. Development of bookselling and publishing

In general terms we may say that the modern book printer is a craftsman who produces certain articles of commerce for a customer, the publisher. The publisher’s first care is to establish his list, the group of books which he will eventually offer for public sale. He must have the ability to guess rather accurately what kinds of books his potential customers will want and what specific manuscripts will meet this demand. He either persuades authors

to write appropriate manuscripts or he selects them from what is offered to him. Obviously he must have an intimate knowledge

of trends in public taste if he is a “trade” publisher or in his narrower field if he limits himself to a special category of books.

His choice will be further guided by the size of his budget, for like any other businessman he must not overextend his investments. In the next place he must have sufhcient knowledge of manufacturing to be able to prepare a manuscript for the printer, convey to the printer his conception of the ultimate appearance of the product, and follow all the details of converting the author’s work into a marketable entity. Finally, he must know the mechanics of distribution — the functions of the jobber, the depository manager, the traveling salesman, the retail bookseller, the advertising agent, the reviewer, and the banker who keeps all these avenues of trade open. Many details of management fill in these larger out-

lines. ,

The first printers had no idea of this complicated organization,

no conception of the fact that they were really mass producers who would need a mass market. They thought of the demand as scarcely more than local, centered in the neighboring diocese or university. But the pressure for expansion soon became evident.

In Italy Sweynheim and Pannartz, with their eyes only on the mechanics of printing, quickly found that they had a house full of books but empty of food.1 In Germany Fust and Schoeffer, + Wilhelm H. Lange, Das Buch im Wandel der Zeiten, 2d ed. (Hamburg, 1942),

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 185 Gutenberg’s former partners, met the need by going forth on selling trips as far as Paris.? Nevertheless it took several decades be-

fore the printer saw that he could not succeed if he depended solely upon direct dealings with local customers. Bibles and prayer books provided a definite market for such men as Fust, but the demand of the humanist scholars for the ancient classics and for textbooks involved a larger problem. ‘The printer now had to possess a good acquaintance with the learned

world, know where manuscripts could be found, and be able to enlist the services of competent editors and proofreaders. Some printers acted without intermediaries. Robert Estienne, for instance, established his own text for his Latin dictionary and edited,

printed, and sold it himself —a task as ambitious in its time as the publication of the Oxford English Dictionary in the present century.

As soon as the printer discovered that he could not leave his shop unattended while he was away on a selling trip, he began to employ traveling salesmen for developing a broader basis for sales. These men concentrated on university centers and the larger cities,? and before the end of the fifteenth century covered prac-

tically all of western Europe. Their method was to send ahead announcements and broadsides listing the books on hand and indicating the place and date of the sale but never the prices or names of printers.5 Since most of the books were in Latin, there was no barrier of language to overcome. Further increases in the scope of marketing made it necessary for the printer, who was now almost a publisher, to set up fixed sales branches and offices in the more distant parts of the field. This kind of “agency business” provided unified control from a center, gave communication with travelers, and saved time and capital.® Before the end of the fifteenth century the device was used by Koberger, the German publisher, who had offices in Lyon p. 174; Waldemar Koehler, Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der buchgewerblichen Betriebsformen seit Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst (Basel, 1897), pp. 17-19. Ludwig Elster, Adolf Weber, Friedrich Wieser, Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 4th ed., 9 vols. (Jena, 1926-1929), II, 72-76. ® Richard Mumendey, Von Biichern und Bibliotheken (Bonn, 1950), pp. 308-313. * Koehler, pp. 24-26. 5 James W. Thompson, The Frankfort Book Fair (Chicago, 1911), pp. 15-17. 6 Koehler, pp. 26-29.

186 THE MASTERS and Paris; by Josse Badius, with a Paris branch;? by Aldus, who had an office in Paris; and by many others. ‘These agencies were also in large measure retail bookshops. In the next stage of development both retailers and travelers

began to carry the books of several central houses. In modern parlance, they became “jobbers” as well as agents for a single printer. At this point we see the emergence of the true publisher, for now distribution was becoming as important as manufacture and was attracting the attention of investors who were not necessarily printers. ‘The line was becoming marked between retailers and wholesalers. ‘The printer-retailer and the local bookseller did

not, of course, cease to function; the point is that by 1500 the method of reaching customers beyond a local clientele had been established. At that time we find Antoine Vérard, Simon Vostre, Geoffroy de Marnef, and Jean Petit in Paris, who unified in themselves the various operations of the book business. Another prominent example is Fédéric Morel, who was not only a learned printer but a real publisher as well. He did not wait for customers for a book but sent his travelers with it in a great radius around Paris. Antoine Mizaud in the preface to his Artifictosa methodus comparandorum fructuum tells us that Morel made the book known “oppidatim et regionatim” and even in Germany and did such a good job that he sold out the first edition and asked the author for revisions for a second edition. This preface indicates that Morel had correspondents to sell in the provinces and abroad the books he printed. On the other hand, foreign dealers sought his help in their trade; we learn from a note dated 5 May 1561 that he handled several publications for Plantin.®

Early in the sixteenth century traveling salesmen from all over western Europe began to concentrate their activities at Frankfort

on the Main, which now became the focus of the international as well as the German book trade. At the two great fairs held in the spring and in the autumn the city was filled with dealers and printers’ representatives, retail buyers, writers and learned men from every country.® From France the fairs attracted dealers like 7 Lange, p. 187. 8 Joseph Dumoulin, Vie et oeuvres de Fédéric Morel (Paris, 1901), pp. 62-64. ® Thompson, pp. 41-67.

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 187 Jacques Dupuis,?° Chrétien Wechel, and Robert Estienne. In 1574 Henri Estienne wrote a vivid account of the fair and all its attractions.14 About 1750, however, the prestige of Frankfort had declined and Leipzig had taken its place as the trade center. For many decades fairs were a vital element in the book business. In France there were four of them each year at Lyon, near Paris those of St. Germain and St. Laurent were prominent, and

there were others at Nimes and Rouen. In 1621, according to Peiresc, Abraham Pacard and Sébastien Cramoisy were the only publishers doing any large business outside of France, though Sonnius and de La Noue exported a good many prayer books to

Spain.?? Louis Billaine had a large branch in Rome which he sold before his death in 1652 for 25,000 livres.1® After 1650 French

publishers almost completely ceased being represented at Frank-

fort and began to concentrate their business in Paris, where it was more and more controlled by the guild and by the Director of the Book Trade.** ‘Thereafter the Paris publishers maintained their own branches in other parts of the kingdom, dominated the national trade, and dealt with foreign representatives who came

to them.

At the fairs, and especially at Frankfort, the practice of exchange was common in the beginning; books were exchanged on

the basis of the number of sheets in the volume or, in the case of costly works or those in large format, several sheets were exchanged for one. Printers who acted as agents for papermakers also exchanged unprinted paper for books.1® Since there was no

consideration of textual content, there were naturally a good many unprofitable exchanges but it was long before dealers adopted 10 BGrsenverein der deutschen Buchhindler, Geschichte des deutschen Buchhan-

dels, 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1886-1913), I, Friedrich Kapp, Bis in das siebzehnte Jahrhundert, pp. 458-459. The title of Estienne’s work is Nundinarum Francofordiensium seu Francofordiensis Emporit Encomium; it is published with a French translation on opposite pages by Isidore Liseux (Paris, 1875), and with an English translation and notes by James W. Thompson (Chicago, 1911). Lettres de Petresc, ed. Philippe Tamizey de Larroque, 7 vols. (Paris, 1898), VL, 453-461.

#8 Jean de La Caille, Histoire de limprimerie (Paris, 1698), p. 260. 144 Hans Widmann, Geschichte des Buchhandels vom Altertum bis zur Gegenwart (Wiesbaden, 1952), p. 58; Kapp, III, 18.

Kapp, I, 519.

6 Lange, pp. 191~192.

188 THE MASTERS the system of the fixed retail price with a discount schedule. Discounts, however, were never high; and prices to the retail buyer

were eventually dictated by conditions in the local rather than in the national or international market. With the main lines of the French trade settled by 1600, publishers began to specialize. ‘The great combines headed principally by Cramoisy — which we shall discuss a little later — were generally devoted to books for the Church, and especially to those for the Jesuits. Cellier and Vendosme turned their efforts to Protestant

books; Desprez, Roulland, Savreux, and Le Petit to Jansenist books; Du Bray, Quinet, Rocolet, and Courbé to romances and plays. Camusat developed a general line of solid worth.” Jean Billaine and his son Louis were sole publishers to the Benedictines.18 Claude Barbin, among the most famous of the time, brought out the works of Moliére, Racine, La Rochefoucauld, La Fontaine, Boileau, Furetiere, Saint Evremond, Malherbe, and

Perrault; he also published the extremely influential and successful Recueil Barbin, a five-volume anthology of French poetry from Villon up to 1692 with brief biographies.!® The house of Barbou from 1604 to 1763 issued fifty Latin classics, together with

ninety feuilles classiques, a sort of “work book” containing a short selection from Virgil or Cicero printed with wide spaces between words and lines so that the student could write in his translation.?°

Of the successes we have abundant records; almost complete silence has fallen over the failures. Yet the number of titles that turned out to have little or no appeal to the reading public must have been proportionately as great as it is now. In 1767 Diderot

declared that out of ten ventures only one at most was really successful, that there might be four others on which the publisher recovered his investment after a long time, and that the remaining five would show a loss.2! Even with textbooks, which are usually 17 Jeanne Duportal, Etude sur les livres a figures edités en France de 1601 a 1660 (Paris, 1914), pp. 58-59. 8 La Caille, p. 260. 19 Dictionnaire des lettres frangaises: le XVII*° siécle, ed. Georges Grente (Paris, 1954), PP. 129-130. * Paul Ducourtieux, Les Barbou (Paris, 1896), pp. 160-161. 21 Denis Diderot, Zuvres completes, 20 vols. (Paris, 1875-1877), XVIII, 38~39.

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 189 thought to be least risky, there were dangers; the Barbou firm fell into real difficulties when the Jesuits were expelled in 1762 and their schools were closed.

Thus far we have attempted to distinguish between the printer (tmprimeur) and the dealer or publisher (li:braire). The difference

is all the more blurred because most of the great publishers are designated as libraires-imprimeurs. The term indicates that the publisher had been received by the guild not only as a master distributor but as a master craftsman. While the trade was in the process of reducing the number of master printers, there were of course many simple imprimeurs; but for the eighteenth century, the time when publishing was well developed, few of them were left and printing was tightly controlled by the publishers who were master printers as well.

The term l:braire, however, was also applied to the retail bookseller, and, again without differentiation, to both the seller of old books and the seller of new books. As the Encyclopédie puts

it, the former required an extensive knowledge of editions and their values which could be reached only by a daily study of rare books, while the latter had to follow the fluctuations of public taste.2? Among the retailers we must include the colporters and peddlers, whose activity far exceeded the distributing power of the legal trade.*3

The largest number of bookshops was found in university towns and in towns where a Parlement sat, with ecclesiastical and

military centers next in order. There were practically none in maritime cities such as Le Havre, Marseilles, and Toulon.” There were comparatively few in any provincial town until well along

in the sixteenth century though there was a tremendous sale of heretical and subversive writings through the colporters. The seventeenth century was a golden age for the retailers in Paris; there were about a hundred of them in the Palace alone, and seventy-one in the rue St. Jacques.”> City shops supplied wealthy 22 Encyclopédie, IX, 479.

*8 Jean Alexis Neret, Histoire illustrée de la librairie et du livre frangais (Paris, 1953)» PP- 94-95-

# Neret, p. 93. * Francois de Dainville, “D’aujourd’hui a hier, la géographie du livre en France

190 THE MASTERS rural customers by mail but left the mass of country sales to the book peddlers.Ӣ

During the eighteenth century the picture changed completely.

The number of retail shops had grown beyond the needs of the business. Diderot asserted in 17647 that it would be hard to find

a dozen authorized booksellers in Paris who had two suits of clothes, and that four of the dozen were supported not by their shops but by private incomes. Doubtless there was a good deal of inertia among them, and inability to struggle against the sharp-

ness and vigor of the peddlers who sought out customers and feared no risks in pursuing their illicit efforts.?” Nevertheless there is a brighter side. Bookshops, especially in the provincial towns, developed into social centers comparable to the London coffee houses; the Académie Francaise, for example,

had its beginnings and earliest meetings in Camusat’s shop in Paris. Educated, interesting people browsed among the new books.

Authors tried out unpublished works before such sympathetic audiences. Often the proprietor added a reading room, such as the one that the bookseller Elies opened at Niort in 1766.78 Whether we see the bright or the gloomy side, we cannot overlook the steadily increasing demand for reading matter. Pamphlets

and books met a need that is satisfied in our day not only by volumes on current affairs but by the large metropolitan newspapers, the national magazines, and the tendential weeklies. Sales figures may in many cases seem exaggerated at first and doubtless would really be so if it were not for the lively and persistent activ-

ity of unofficial rather than legal retailers. 2. Capital investment The capital investment of the publisher and the retailer was far

larger than that of the printer. Even in the sixteenth century, as Levasseur notes, an edition of Galien involved the risking of twenty thousand livres, and a seven-volume commentary on the de 1764 4 1945,” Courrier graphique, no. 50 (16° année, jan.—fév., 1951), 43-453 Duportal, pp. 48-58. 7° De Dainville, Courrier graphique, no. 51 (16° année, mars—avril, 1951), 33-36. 7 Neret, pp. 84-86. *8 Prosper Boissonade, Essai sur l’organisation du travail en Poitou, 2 vols. (Paris, 1900), I, 464.

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 191 Bible sixty thousand livres.?® When the bookseller Jehan Moreau

in 1568 bought the library of the late Guy Apollo, a councillor at the Chatelet, he had to pay the widow the fairly large sum (for that time) of fifty-five livres in cash, a price agreed upon after appraisal by two lawyers. In 1600 an inventory of the stock of the publisher Jehan Houzé placed its value at 1666 écus &1 sols.?° In

1673 Frédéric (I) Léonard acquired the Huré stock for a sum in excess of ninety-five thousand livres.24 When Charles Jean Baptiste Delespine was received into the guild in 1726 he already owned a large stock that he had gathered by occasional purchases;

and when he and Jean Francois Josse formed a partnership ten years later, they paid more than one hundred and fifty thousand livres for a large addition. In this case, as in all others since the earliest days, the price included not only the printed volumes but privileges, that is, publication rights.®? The issuing of expensive and often slow-selling works was no more possible than it is now without some kind of subsidy. As we have already said, many of the works of Buffon and other scholars were issued at government expense by the Imprimerie Royale, or by an Academy or a religious congregation. Antoine Vitré could not have undertaken his scholarly publications, many of them in oriental languages, if he had not had subsidies from the King or from the Church of France, for which he was official printer. For his heptaglot Bible, which cost 300,000 livres, he found a patron

in the wealthy scholar Gui Michel Le Jay. He was also given a great deal of profitable printing by the Compagnie des Usages, which ordered thousands of dictionaries and religious books in oriental languages for gratuitous distribution by missionaries in Asia.*3 In 1707 Jean Baptiste (II) Coignard was given an extension for the privilege on the very profitable Moréri Dictionary in return

for his agreeing to publish Anselmo Bandurus’s Antiquitates * Emile Levasseur, Histoire des classes ouvriéres et de Vindustrie en France avant 1789, 2d ed., 2 vols, (Paris, 1900-1901), II, 31.

% yér6me Pichon et Georges Vicaire, Documents pour servir a Vhistoire des libraires de Paris 1486-1600 (Paris, 1895), pp. 158, 189.

* Georges Lepreux, Gallia typographica, série parisienne: Livre d’or des imprimeurs du roi (Paris, 1911), p. 312 n4. * Lepreux, pp. 196-198. * Henri Jean Martin, “L’Edition parisienne au XVII° siécle,” Annales: économies, sociétés, civilisations, 7° année, no. 3 (juillet-septembre, 1952), 309 72.

192 THE MASTERS Constantinopolitanae.** ‘The Chancellor said very frankly that if he were to. encourage science and letters he would have to grant continuations of privileges for profitable books only in return for the printing of scholarly works.®

Another charge on the publisher’s capital was the rent for a house and shop and for storage space. In the documents published by Pichon and Vicaire we find notes on a good many leases from

the sixteenth century. Jehan Mouchet (1562) paid 36 livres a year for two shops in the Palace, one on the ground floor, the other just above it. In 1564 the rent of a furnished room and closet was 4 livres a month. In 1580 the price of a shop, an upper room, and the attic was 2314 écus, and of cellar, office, shop, chambers, and

attic 40 écus, but the lessee had to take these quarters for nine years and make any necessary repairs. In other instances the rent of a house varied from 26% écus a year to 66% écus and to 110 livres.6

3. Restrictions on booksellers and publishers Although the publisher and the retailer as members of the guild enjoyed at least nominal freedom from numerous business taxes and civic duties, they were subject to many restrictions. Equally

with the printer they were held responsible for the quality of books. The shop must be in the University quarter or within the Palace; though if the business were limited to the sale of prayer books and arréts, it might be carried on in the general neighborhood of a church or the Palace. A printer-dealer must keep both printing office and bookshop in one and the same location unless he had a special royal permit.®” The dealer could have only one shop or warehouse open for the sale of books. On the front he must put up a sign carrying his name and indicating that books might be purchased there. He was forbidden to maintain any exhibit or portable shop on the bridges, quais, riverbanks, or in privileged places or in any other merchant’s % Martin, 310 71. * Lepreux, pp. 130-131; Paul Delalain, Les Libraires et imprimeurs de l’Académie frangaise de 1634 a4 1793 (Paris, 1907), p. 72. * Pichon et Vicaire, pp. 142, 146, 104, 145, 150, 160. ** Claude Marin Saugrain, Code de la librairie et de l’imprimerie de Paris (Paris, 1744), PP. 13, 97-102.

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 193 shop. The authorities ordered the strictest observance of this rule at Christmas and New Year’s, when almanacs and small gift books were much in demand. The shop must be kept closed on Sundays and church feast days. After 1649 the restrictive rules were applied

even more vigorously, and publishers were forbidden to set up shops or exhibits at the fairs of St. Germain and St. Laurent.®® Booksellers, and especially dealers in secondhand books, were

warned to keep an eye on the provenance of volumes offered to them and to refuse to buy from unknown or suspicious persons, schoolboys, or servants. A curious police order of 31 October 1725 gives a special warning against certain women who frequented the gates and neighborhood of schools and sold fruit, candy, and cakes

to the pupils, taking books and even clothing in exchange if the boys had no money. This sort of barter and the eventual realization of cash from the proceeds were subjected to heavy fines, and one may hope, for the sake of both schoolboys and booksellers, that the trade was quickly suppressed.*°

Dealers were allowed to have a warehouse, not open to the public, provided it were within the specified bounds and the

address entered on a register at headquarters. Some dealers, especially those in Lyon, had in the early eighteenth century attempted to evade other provisions of the law by renting storage space in colléges and religious houses, from which they issued a

quantity of pirated editions and subversive books. The laws of 1704, 1711, and 1723 therefore forbade the heads of religious houses to rent any room to a dealer unless the applicant could prove he was complying with guild regulations.*° Publishers from cities outside Paris or from foreign countries were not allowed to stay more than three weeks in Paris for business purposes, the time to be calculated from the day their bundles

were inspected by the syndic. On the other hand, reception into the Paris guild gave a dealer the right to remain and carry on business in all other cities of the kingdom merely by showing his credentials to the local authorities. Publishers visiting Paris were furthermore obliged to keep their merchandise within the Uni$8 Saugrain, pp. 106-126, 255-256. % Saugrain, pp. 85-88. “9 Saugrain, pp. 102-104, 271.

194 THE MASTERS versity quarter, and they were not allowed to sell at retail to the general public. All books imported either by visiting dealers or for the account of Paris dealers must be inspected on a ‘Tuesday or a

Friday by at least three guild officers. Truck drivers and other carriers might not deliver packages marked ‘‘Books” or ““T'ype’’ to the consignee but only at the customhouse or guild headquarters.*!

4. Relations with printers

Although these restrictions were severe, the guild could not prevent the working of general economic forces. ‘The trend, from beginning to close of the ancien régime, was toward higher costs both of labor and of material. ‘The publishers’ first reaction was to

fight their workmen’s demands for higher wages, a struggle in which the employers were temporarily successful. Their next step

was to fight the printing group within the guild, but here they were unsuccessful. We have few indications of printing costs before the end of the

eighteenth century. In 1574 Galliot du Pré paid Fleury Prévost 525 livres for printing one hundred sheets of the Histoire de Palmerin d@’ Olive and of the Primaléon de Gréce, du Pré furnishing

the paper.*” After 1640 heavy taxes on paper, which was formerly untaxed, drove costs up, and to this were added the higher costs of

transportation, a higher payment to the author, and higher fees for the renewal of privileges.** Ducourtieux has calculated the costs of a representative volume

issued by the Barbou firm in 1725. It would be a 12mo of twenty-

four sheets (576 pages) in an edition of fifteen hundred copies (three reams of paper) bound in full sheepskin. In round figures the composition would be about 240 livres, presswork 360 livres, paper 300 livres, overhead 300 livres, and binding 600 livres. ‘The total would be 1800 livres, or 1 livre 5 sols per copy. ‘The book would be sold at 2 livres 10 sols. But from the selling price it would

be necessary to subtract the costs of publicity, discounts to the “ Saugrain, pp. 198, 249-255, 278-208. “2 Pichon et Vicaire, p. 39. 4 Martin, 311-313; Edouard Tromp, Etude sur l’organisation et Vhistoire de la communauté des libraires et imprimeurs de Paris (1618-1791) (Nimes, 1922), pp. 80— 82.

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 195 booksellers, gift copies, and a number of other publishing charges.*4

In the eighteenth century Paris compositors generally worked by the day, “en conscience,” their wages amounting to three livres. Prices for a sheet of composition of course varied according to the size of type and of the sheet. A folio of Gros-Romain (18 point), fifty lines to the page, without footnotes, cost 3 livres 5 sols for a sheet of four pages; with notes, 4 livres; with footnotes and sidenotes, 5 livres. Composition of a folio sheet, four pages of Cicéro (12 point), sixty-eight lines to the page, cost respectively 6 livres 10 sols; 7 livres; and 8 livres 15 sols. A quarto sheet, eight pages of Cicéro, forty-eight lines to the page, cost 7 livres; or, with footnotes and sidenotes, g livres. A quarto sheet, eight pages of Petit-Romain

(10 point), without foot and sidenotes, cost 11 livres; with, 14 livres. An octavo sheet of sixteen pages in Cicéro, thirty-eight lines to the page, came to 7 livres 10 sols; and g livres. In Petit-Romain, forty-four lines to the page, the cost was 11 livres 10 sols; and 16 livres 10 sols. A duodecimo sheet, twenty-four pages of Philosophie (11 point), thirty-three lines to the page, came to 8 livres 10 sols. Presswork varied from four to five livres per thousand according to format. Mellottée * gives the following details:

Folio: 100 sheets 12 sols

200 sheets 1livre 4 sols

300 sheets 1 livre 16 sols 500 sheets 2 livres 5 sols 1000 sheets 5 livres 2000 sheets 10 livres

Quarto: 100 sheets 12 sols

200 sheets 1livre 4 sols

300 sheets 1 livre 16 sols 500 sheets 2 livres 5 sols

1000 sheets 4 livres 10 sols

2000 sheets g livres

“ Ducourtieux, p. 296n. * Paul Mellottée, Histoire économique de l’imprimerie (Paris, 1908), p. 446.

196 THE MASTERS

Octavo: 500 sheets 2 livres 10 sols 1000 sheets 4 livres 10 sols

2000 sheets g livres

To these costs was added the charge for paper, for incidentals, and for overhead, and also the printer’s profit. At the time of the

Revolution a good printer charged 50 per cent of the cost of composition and presswork for incidentals and overhead and 25 per cent for profit. Some shops simply doubled the cost of composition and presswork.*®

Up to 1630 or 1640 a ream of “‘couronne fine” paper from Auvergne cost 52 sols; “petit écu,’”’ 3 livres 5 sols; “grand écu,” 4 livres; ‘grand raisin,” 7 livres. In 1678 the same brands, though of inferior quality, cost 3 livres; 5 livres 10 sols; 5 livres 10 sols; and 13 livres, respectively. The average cost of a ream in the eighteenth century was 8 livres. The average cost of manufacture was 10, 11, or 12 livres for the

first hundred sheets, including paper, and 6 livres for additional

hundreds; that is, from 64 to 66 livres per thousand sheets. Mellottée 47 quotes a cost of 10 livres (in 1771) for an edition of one hundred copies of a quarto pamphlet in Gros-Romain. ‘This price includes composition, proofreading, correcting, presswork,

paper, ink, and profit. In winter there would be an additional charge of 3 or 4 sols per sheet for candles. Mellottée 48 also quotes an analysis of the cost of a sheet of the Encyclopédie in 1750. A sheet set in Cicéro (12 point), two columns of seventy-seven lines each, without footnotes and sidenotes, cost 6 livres 15 sols. Presswork of a sheet, both sides, 4250 copies at 4 livres 10 sols per thousand, came to 18 livres. Profit was 12 livres 7 sols 6 deniers. A ream of paper cost 8 livres 10 sols, and the total

for the eight reams ten hands used for each signature was 68 livres. The total cost per signature was thus 105 livres, but this figure must be considered a minimum. In 1783 the Convention asked the printer Couret de Villeneuve 6 Mellottée, p. 447; Bertrand-Quinquet, Traité de ltimprimerie (Paris, 1798), PP. 252-254. 47 Mellottée, p. 448.

* Mellottée, p. 449.

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 197 to fix the tariff for printing done for the government. He said, “Let

us take for example a sheet of octavo in Cicéro, leaded, printed in an edition of one thousand copies. . . . We need two reams of paper at eight livres; or sixteen livres. Cost of composition, proofreading, and correcting, twelve livres. Presswork, six livres. Total, without paper, eighteen livres. Overhead, nine livres; profit of 25

per cent, 4 livres 10 sols. ‘Total without paper, 32 livres. Grand total, 48 livres.” *

5. Relations with other publishers The general picture of the relations among the publishers themselves is one of discord, theft, and litigation. There was always an intense rivalry among those in Paris. The ethics of the trade were only slightly developed, pirating was easy, and the poorer or less scrupulous men helped themselves to material which their richer and more scholarly colleagues had secured at great cost. ‘he appearance of a best seller was always greeted with infringements printed either in Paris or in the provinces. The struggle between metropolis and province centered eventually in Lyon, which had been scarcely secondary to Paris during

the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries until the depression caused by the religious wars transferred the primacy either to Paris

or to the neighboring Geneva. Almost the only large enterprise still left in Lyon was the Grande Compagnie des Libraires which had specialized since its founding in 1519 in magnificent folios of civil and canon law.®° The real fight began about 1640 under the lead of the Anisson family, with a number of others from Rouen, Cologne, Mons, and Liége joining in 1660. After ruining the great Paris firms of Berthier, Desprez, and the Compagnie des Usages, the Anissons went on to the management of the Imprimerie Royale and the establishment of a Paris branch of their house. The bitter

opposition they encountered from the Paris guild could not stop their progress, but the provincial publishers, in spite of the Anisson success, had not really improved their position and continued the struggle down to the Revolution.

The local fight in Paris between the few rich houses and the *° Mellottée, pp. 451-452.

5 Martin, 315-316.

198 THE MASTERS many poorer ones was no less bitter. ‘The former gained control of

the profitable trade in Church books after the middle of the sixteenth century. They had begun by forming a temporary association or company for the publication of one or another expensive work in theology or law; thus Guillaume (I) Merlin was frequently in partnership after 1558 with Michel Des Boys and

Sébastien Nivelle. From 1589 to 1593 Nicolas and Robert (1) Nivelle were associated with Rollin Thierry as publishers to the Sainte-Union.*! In June 1560 Jacques (I) Kerver obtained an exclusive privilege for printing liturgical books for the diocese of Paris and later obtained from Pius V and Gregory XIII the privi-

leges for the French publication of the usages or prayerbooks authorized by the Council of Trent. When Kerver died in 1583, the Compagnie des Usages or Societas typographica librorum offici ecclesiastici ex decreto Concilii Tridentini was formed to acquire

his stock and carry on his privileges. At first it was composed of Sébastien Nivelle, Michel Sonnius, ‘Thomas Brumen, and GuilJaume de la Noue. In 1597 it comprised Sébastien Nivelle, Michel Sonnius, Guillaume Chaudiere, Guillaume de La Noue, Claude Chappelet, Jean Corbon, Jean Mettayer, and Pierre Lhuillier. In 1603 Chaudiére and de La Noue, who had died, were replaced by

Laurens Sonnius, Pierre Mettayer, and Clovis Eve. When the privilege expired in 1630-1631, it was granted to Richelieu, who assigned it to a new company headed by his intimate friend Sébastien Cramoisy.* The latter was by all odds the most powerful publisher of the seventeenth century. He issued books for the Cistercians and the

Jesuits, for the Church of Paris, and for a number of colléges. He was Royal Printer and as such had a monopoly on printing the laws concerning money and finance. He was personal publisher to Richelieu, who placed him in charge of the Imprimerie Royale at * Philippe Renouard, “Imprimeurs parisiens, libraires, fondeurs de caractéres et correcteurs d’imprimerie jusqu’a la fin du XVI® siécle,” Revue des bibliothéques, XLI (1931), 276; XLII (1932), 259-260; XLIII (1933-1934), 370. The Sainte-

Union (The League or The Holy League) was an association, at first of nobility and clergy but later of all ranks, formed in 1576 to defend Catholicism and strengthen

the power of Henry III. In 1585 it was reorganized to oppose Henri de Navarre, Protestant claimant to the throne. The civil war was ended by the edict of Nantes in 1598, and the League ceased. “ Lepreux, pp. 374-375.

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 199 its founding. He had extensive connections in the principal cities of the provinces as well as in Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands. In 1626 he was a member of a company founded by Richelieu to advertise and develop Canada. In 1639 he was an alderman of Paris. About 1640 Cramoisy’s Compagnie des Usages had a corner on

the paper manufactured by the mills of central France. It employed a dozen presses and did an annual business of 50,000 écus with Spain. In 1660 the merchandise in its warehouses was valued at more than 200,000 livres.

In 1669 his grandson Mabre-Cramoisy became head of the publishing house as well as of the Imprimerie Royale and added to his own list such authors as Rapin, Maimbourg, Bouhours, Bossuet, and Fléchier. From 1620 to 1690 the firm issued more than 2500 titles, not counting thousands of fugitive pieces and official Acts. ‘This was more than the output of any other French or foreign publisher of the time. The second great partnership of the period was the Compagnie de la Navire or the Grand’Navire which for a century after 1582 controlled the works of the principal Church Fathers. In 1586 the members were, according to Lottin, Jean Baptiste Dupuis, Jacques Dupuis, Sébastien Neville, and Michel Sonnius. In 1631 the Com-

pany was headed by Sébastien Cramoisy and included Gabriel Cramoisy, Denis Moreau, Claude Sonnius, Jean Branchu, Denis Thierry, and Denis Bechet. In 1641 they obtained a privilege for the works of Saint Bernard for fifteen years, but about the same time Gervais Alliot was given a privilege for a slightly different text. Cramoisy had no difficulty in getting a judgment against this competitor.®8

Another but less powerful group was headed by Antoine Vitré, whose activities as syndic of the guild we have already considered.

He was printer to the Church of France, a friend of Philippe de Champaigne and of the great Jansenists, and a specialist in the publication of oriental books. He grouped around him Guillaume

Desprez, the publisher of Arnauld and Pascal; Savreux, who brought out an edition of the Provinciales; and the important publishers Pierre Le Petit, Muguet, and Léonard. The bitter Lepreux, pp. 165-166.

200 THE MASTERS quarrels created by Jansenism gave this partnership an eager public.

The publishers ‘of the Palace’ differed from the three preceding associations in that they devoted their attention to poetry, drama, and belles-lettres. Abel Langelier, Mathieu Ouillemot, and Toussaint du Bray issued the works of Malherbe and of the poets of the beginning of the century. Rocollet published Balzac; Courbé, the Précieux; Sommaville, poetry and drama; Scarron, the work of de Luynes and Quinet; Thierry and Barbin, the work of Moliére, Racine, and Boileau. Partnerships were temporary agreements and seldom covered more than one title. Only Rocollet and Courbé gained much financial success.*4 Lottin lists several other less important companies — the Com-

pagnie Ayant pour Marque la Ville de Paris (Bibliopolae Urbis Parisiensis Consortes), 1608, which consisted of Nicolas Buon, Claude Chappelet, Sébastien Cramoisy, Robert Fouet, Claude Morel, and Marc Orry; the Compagnie pour les Editions Grecques

(Societas Graecarum Editionum), 1624; and the Compagnie de Libraires Ayant pour Marque le Soleil, 1629. Although the partners in these various associations differed from time to time, it is interesting to see how closely interlocking they were. The Sonnius family belonged to no less than six, the Cramoisy family to four, the Morels to three, and the Chappelets to two. Michel Sonnius, Jean Sonnius, Sébastien Cramoisy, and Denis Moreau each belonged to three. The tightness of the monopoly is all the more evident when we recall the close familial relationships of all these men. Evidently no one could get into printing or publishing unless he “belonged.” The device of joint publishing for one title or for an extensive work continued to flourish in the eighteenth century. In 1734 the Compagnie pour les Nouveaux Usages de Paris was formed with

a long list of partners that includes such names as Coignard, Hérissant, Saillant, Lottin, Desaint, Didot, and Barrois.®> In 1749

André Francois Le Breton was approached by an Englishman, John Mills, who proposed a translation of a very successful English 4 Martin, 306, 304 n2, 306-307; Augustin Martin Lottin, Catalogue chronologique des imprimeurs et libraires de Paris depuis 1470 jusqu’a présent (Paris, 1789), p. 79. 5 Lottin, Part 1, p. 205.

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 201 work, Chambers’ Cyclopedia. Le Breton had made a fortune from the Almanach royale, which he had inherited from his grandfather

and had greatly improved. He therefore listened favorably to Mills’s scheme and at once formed a partnership for the work with

Claude Briasson, Laurent Durand, and Michel Antoine David. The capital was 20,000 livres, half of it furnished by Le Breton. Although Mills was well paid, he did practically no work. ‘The

partners therefore got hold of Diderot, who in turn enlisted d’Alembert and other helpers. Their labors resulted in a work that was far different from a translation of Chambers and a far more extensive enterprise, the magnificent Encyclopédie.”®

6. Relations with the public A publisher’s relations with his authors, his printer, and other publishers are important, but the vital point in the whole business is the moment when he goes before the reading public. His sales and the way he manages them are the final test of his professional judgment. During the ancien régime he had none of the devices of modern high-pressure advertising to promote sales and yet he managed to reach distribution totals that are amazingly high in view of his limited market. In the earliest days, while business was still in the shadow of

medieval practice, any attempt to attract attention was not only unethical but illegal. The law forbade the use of any trick, even coughing or sneezing, to divert a customer who had stopped in front of another merchant’s window; he must stand directly in front of one’s own shop before one could call to him. In market places positions were rotated in order to overcome advantages or disadvantages of location. Down into the eighteenth century advertising was considered a device to cover deceit.®"

At first the bookseller had little need of publicity. The interest and curiosity aroused by the novel art of printing were sufficient to let everyone in the restricted academic group know just what books were in process and when they would be available. ‘There is some evidence to indicate that on the day of publication the dealer % Lepreux, pp. 301-305. 5? Emile Coornaert, Les Corporations en France avant 1789 (Paris, 1941), p. 256.

202 THE MASTERS was ready with small slips of paper which he distributed in places of assembly or on the streets to announce the title and the location of his shop.®§ Less effective, perhaps, was the announcement on the

title page or in the colophon at the end of the book that the work was on sale in so-and-so’s shop; this could, of course, reach the eye only of someone who saw the volume in the possession of an owner of it. The title page was the more important, and here was set forth

at length, as Mrs. Armstrong says, all that is now written in the blurb on the jacket. The preface offered a larger opportunity; it often gave a long account of the publisher’s aims and difficulties or it promised a new and more nearly perfect edition or it summarized the contents or it announced other books in the same field. Robert

Fstienne made no use of the dedication page as many of his colleagues did, but he issued classified catalogues which were merely lists of titles without any descriptions.®® As business developed, the publication of sets and many-volume

works became common. The government regulated this business very Closely, the laws insisting that every prospectus must include a sample page printed in the style and on the paper to be used. By the middle of the eighteenth century this kind of marketing was not at all unusual; Bruyset of Lyon in 1762 announced his edition of Rousseau’s Emile by sending a printed circular letter to a list of three hundred prospects throughout the kingdom.®

There is little to indicate the size of editions at any period, but practice seems to have settled down to a thousand or fifteen hundred copies for books of general interest, and from six hundred to eight hundred for scholarly works. It is sometimes hard to de-

termine the number because a “new” edition might consist of sheets of the first printing dressed up with a cancel title page bearing a new date. Voltaire once said that if a book were serious its

public was only forty or fifty readers; if pleasant, four or five hundred; and in the case of a play, about eleven or twelve hundred. 58 Léopold Deslisle, ‘‘Une réclame de la librairie parisienne des Marnef,” Bulletin de la société de Vhistoire de Paris, XX (1893), 4-8. 5 Elizabeth Armstrong, Robert Estienne, Royal Printer, An Historical Study of the Elder Stephanus (Cambridge, Eng., 1955), pp. 18-26. 6 Pierre Grosclaude, La Vie intellectuelle a4 Lyon dans la deuxiéme moitié du XVIII? siécle (Paris, 1933), p. 190.

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 203 Figures, however, even for the sixteenth century indicate that this dictum was altogether too harsh.* In 1545 Chaudieére sold five hundred copies of Articles des pardons, donnez aux bienfatteurs de Ostel-Dieu, issued a second edition of five hundred in 1546, and a third edition of one thousand in 1547. Marot’s translation of the Psalms (1543) sold ten thousand copies in the Geneva edition. Rabelais remarked that more copies of Gargantua (1535) had been sold in two months than of the Bible in nine years. The greatest of the early successes, however, was Voiture’s Geuvres collected after his death (1648) by his nephew Martin de Pinchesne and reprinted at least twenty-two times in the seventeenth century and nine more im the eighteenth.

For the eighteenth century we have a long array of figures covering all sorts of books large and small and on a great variety of

subjects. Montfaucon’s Antiquité expliquée, a vast treasury of classical antiquities, was published by subscription in ten volumes in 1719; the first edition, of eighteen hundred copies, was sold out in two months, a second came out the same year, and a supplement in five volumes appeared soon afterward.® An occasional pamphlet of seven pages, Mémoire pour les steurs Samson, issued by Philippe Nicolas Lottin in 1730, sold three thousand copies in a few weeks. Another occasional book, Moreau’s Lettre du Chevalier de X, sold ten thousand in a week, after which there were countless pirated editions. ‘The same publisher, Simon, made another killing with a

quick printing of the report of Damiens’ trial for the attempted murder of Louis XV (1757); he got out almost simultaneously a first edition in three volumes, a second quarto edition in one volume, and a duodecimo edition in four volumes.® Still another work of news value was the poem which Voltaire dashed off as soon

as he heard of the victory at Fontenoy on 11 May 1745; printed at

once, it reached a fifth edition by 21 May and a seventh on 24 * D’Avenel, Les Revenus d’un intellectuel (Paris, 1922), pp. 283, 312-313. . % Mellottée, p. 440; d’Avenel, pp. 283-301; Georges Mongrédien, La Vie littéraire au XVII° siécle (Paris, 1947), pp. 239-240. * John Edwin Sandys, History of Classical Scholarship, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Eng., 1908), ITI, 387.

%&E, J. F. Barbier, Journal historique et anecdotique, 4 vols. (Paris, 1847~—1856),

° 8 Jacob Nicolas Moreau, Mes souvenirs, ed. Camille Hermelin, 2 vols. (Paris, n. d.), I, 50-51; Barbier, IV, 216, 222, 225.

204 THE MASTERS May.® Voltaire had other successes with his Henriade (1728), two thousand copies in the first edition; his Commentaries on Corneille (1764), twenty-five hundred; and his Szécle de Louts XIV (1751), three thousand. Twenty-two editions of Montesquieu’s L’Esprit des

lots (1748) were sold in a year and a half, but the total may not have been more than thirty-five hundred copies. Crébillon’s tragedy Catalina (1749) sold five thousand in the first week, an unparalleled success even for a popular drama; ® but he was not always so profitable, for when his G/uvres were printed in two volumes at the Imprimerie Royale (1750), his patron Madame Pompadour had to buy up four hundred copies.*® One of the greatest publishing successes of our period was the Encyclopédie. The first volume, which appeared on 28 June 1751,

got the work off to a good start; but on 20 September Grimm reported that by a revulsion of feeling it was generally scoffed at. By 15 September 1754, when the fourth volume was on the point

of coming out, the tide had swung back again, the subscription list had reached three thousand, and the reputation of the undertaking was enormous.® The final printing order was for 4250 copies.

In 1754 all Paris was excited by Danguel’s Des avantages et désavantages de la France et de la Grande-Bretagne. It was considered more interesting than any novel, more profound than the Esprit des lois; it was the sole topic of conversation at Paris supper tables; d’Argenson called it the book of books and regretted that it was so short. It went into a second edition within a fortnight.”

Of similar international interest was Moreau’s L’Observateur hollandais, published from 1755 to 1759 as a series of forty-six letters on the relations between France and England; the second letter reached a sale of more than eight thousand, and the whole work was widely distributed throughout Europe. In 1762 Moreau 6 Charles Nisard, Mémoires et correspondances littéraires et historiques de Suard inédits (Paris, 1858), p. 58. 8? Frederic Melchior, Baron de Grimm, Diderot, Raynal, Meister, etc., Correspond-

ance littéraire, philosophique, et critique, ed. Maurice Tourneux, 16 vols. (Paris, 1877-1882), I, 260.

6 Grimm, II, 23. 6 Grimm, II, 73, 407.

7 Journal et mémoires du Marquis d’Argenson, ed. E. J. B. Rathery, 9 vols. (Paris, 1859-1867), VIII, 274.

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 205 once again did some political hackwork, but this time his Remontrances de la Cour des Aides de Provence had a circulation of only some fifteen hundred. Several years later, in 1773, he had a good deal of trouble with his book Discours sur la justice; the King ordered the printing of three thousand copies at the Imprimerie des Affaires Etrangéres but for various reasons the work did not appear until 1775 and then in a much smaller edition, of which only twelve hundred were for sale.” As the century moved on to its fateful close, the demand for reading matter on current affairs increased rapidly. The circulation of the Mercure went up in 1778 to the large total of seven thousand,

thus making it the most widely circulated journal in Europe.” In 1775 Morellet’s La Théorie du paradoxe, an argument supporting Turgot’s campaign for free trade in grain, went into a second edition of two thousand within a week.”? Necker’s famous Compte rendu, printed at the Imprimerie Royale in 1781, sold at

the rate of three thousand a day and went far beyond a total of forty thousand.” Although book prices in the sixteenth century were much lower than in the fifteenth, they did share in the rise that affected all goods. Before the invention of printing the prices of books and the amount of the dealer’s profit were fixed by university statutes. Textbooks were still subject to regulation in 1571; 7° the edict of Gaillon, article 24, sets a maximum price of three deniers for an octavo sheet of sixteen pages in Latin with large type and no notes, for the same amount in Greek not more than six deniers, and other books in smaller type or on larger paper than textbooks pro rata. If costs went down, the booksellers were instructed to lower prices

in accordance with the advice of the University and book trade officials. Robert Estienne, Simon de Colines, and Chaudiére priced ™ Moreau, I, 120, 337, 342.

Jean Francois de La Harpe, Correspondance litiéraire, 6 vols. (Paris, 1801— 1807), II, 300.

% Mémoires de l’'abbé Morellet, ed. Joseph Victor LeClerc, 2 vols. (Paris, 1821), I, 227~229.

4 La Harpe, III, 204. % ‘Toussaint Gautier, “Dictionnaire des confréries et corporations d’arts et métiers,” Nouvelle encyclopédie théologique, ed. Jacques Paul Migne (Paris, 1854), 50, cols. 1101-1108.

206 THE MASTERS small pamphlets on grammar at from two to eight deniers; octavos at one to six sols; quartos from ten to twelve sols; 16mos from three to five sols; and folios from fifteen to twenty-five sols. ‘The most

expensive volumes in the catalogues of Chaudiére and Robert Estienne were the Supplementum chronicorum and the two volumes of the Promptuarium divini juris; each cost forty sols. ‘The various editions of Chaudiére’s Articles des pardons (1545-1547) differed a good deal in price, the first selling for a hundred sols, the second for fifty sols, and the third for sixty sols.“¢ Other publishers charged eight sols for a Tacitus, three for a Virgil, and six for a Montaigne. In general Robert Estienne priced his books within the reach of poor students: Sallust three sols, Caesar ten sols, Lucain three sols, Juvenal and Persius twenty deniers, and ‘Terence five sols.77 Pichon and Vicaire give a great many appraisals of sixteenth-century libraries, with remarkably low figures for every item; but there is no way to tell whether these figures represent retail prices for new books or the price for sale to a second-hand dealer.

D’Avenel estimates that the current price of an octavo volume in the eighteenth century was from fifteen to twenty francs.’® In 1720 the second, corrected edition of Baillet’s Les Jugemens des savants was offered by advance subscription for thirty francs for the set of seven quarto volumes, and forty francs after complete publication.”® After the famous Letire de Louis XIV a4 Louis XV (eighteen pages quarto) had been condemned by the Parlement in 1723, the price soared to twelve livres and copies were hard to find because several peddlers had been clapped into the Bastille for selling it.8° Abbé Quesnel’s rather insignificant Almanach du diable for 1734 was originally priced at twenty-four sous; but after it was banned, it went up to three livres and then to twelve and

fifteen livres.2t A small pamphlet of thirty pages, Intéréts de limperatrice-reine, des rois de France et d’Espagne, et de leurs principaux alliés (1748), brought six francs.8? The Encyclopédie, 7 Mellottée, pp. 440-441. 7 Lepreux, p. 226. 8 D’Avenel, p. 357. % Mathieu Marais, Journal et mémoires, 4 vols. (Paris, 1863~1868), I, 395. 6° Barbier, IT, 6.

& Barbier, II, 126-127. @ Grimm, I, 201.

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 207 planned for eleven volumes, was offered to advance subscribers for

280 livres the set, of which only 60 livres was to be paid immediately, the rest as the volumes were published; the price to nonsubscribers was set at 372 livres.®? A pirated and compromising

edition of Voltaire’s La Pucelle, printed at Frankfort in 1754 on the basis of a stolen manuscript, was put on sale in Paris for four louis. The set of twelve octavo volumes of Voltaire’s annotated edition of Corneille (1764) cost two louis.®® The author of a pam-

phlet Réflexions philosophiques sur le plaisir, which appeared in 1783, was sO anxious to have it gain a wide distribution that he arranged to have it priced at twenty-four sols instead of the thirty sols it would normally bring.®¢

These varying figures indicate that there is little point in trying to fix a customary or an average price for books at any one moment. Prices were certainly determined, as they are today, by all sorts of circumstances and fluctuated according to the publisher’s estimate of the market. Beyond this, the figures show that many of

our own trade practices were well known at an early date. Book clubs are probably the only new distribution scheme that has originated in our time, and yet even the clubs are merely a variation of the subscription method of selling.

4. The publisher's wealth There were plenty of poor booksellers and publishers during the ancien régime. ‘They aired their grievances whenever a profitable privilege expired or when they were caught in a piracy or some other sharp practice. On the other hand it is not at all surprising

to find a large number of extremely rich publishers, men who could associate on equal footing intellectually with their authors and socially with their aristocratic customers, who could give their daughters very large dowries and buy exalted offices in the government for their sons. In the sixteenth century wealth in most cases must have come 88 Grimm, I, 486. * Grimm, II, 466.

Louis Petit de Bachaumont, Mémoires secrétes pour servir ad V’histoire de la république des lettres en France depuis MDCCLXII jusqu’a nos jours . . . , 36 vols. (London, 1780-1789), I, 101; II, 41. * La Harpe, IV, 88.

208 THE MASTERS from other sources than the book trade. The Badius and the Estienne families and a few others did get their money originally

from publishing but they were probably exceptions to the rule. When Adrien Turnébe, professor of the Collége Royale and King’s Printer for Greek, was married in 1551, he settled on his wife an

income that would amount to a hundred livres, together with clothes, rings, and jewels to the value of nine hundred livres tour-

nois, if they had children; if they did not have a family, the amounts would be about half. If he died before she did, she would also inherit an estate of nineteen acres. She did survive him, as a matter of fact, for nearly twenty-five years and increased her fortune immensely by her clever dealings in real estate. In 1581 she bought for her oldest son the office of first president of the Cour

des Monnaies for the large sum of six thousand gold écus, four thousand in cash and the remainder in an 8.5 per cent annuity. Jehan André gave his daughter a dowry of two hundred livres, a settlement of one hundred livres, and rings and jewels worth fifty livres. His own wife left an estate of 496 livres, 12 sols, six gold buttons, a promissory note of thirty-four livres, and a bond worth 250 livres; in addition she gave an endowment of five hundred livres to the church of St. Jacques-la-Boucherie. The daughter of Thielman (IJ) Kerver had the handsome dowry of fifteen hundred écus. The widow of Nicolas Roffet was owner of half a house which brought her in five écus in rent, but she probably had other income as well.8?

Figures from the seventeenth century are even more impressive. Antoine Vitré, it is true, left only a small estate, a little more than twelve thousand livres. Sébastien Cramoisy’s daughter had a dowry of fifteen thousand livres. When Cramoisy died in 1669, his fortune exceeded for hundred thousand livres.®§ ‘Toward the end of the century Fédéric Morel supplied the government with a vast number of books to be distributed among the “converted’’ Protestants; total sales came to more than 200,000 francs. At his death he left more than a million francs.®° Although Desprez, Savreux,

and Le Petit were imprisoned from time to time for publishing 8’ Pichon et Vicaire, pp. 65~70, 57-58, 51-52, 101. 8 Martin, pp. 306-310. 8° Primi Visconti, “Mémoires sur la cour de Louis XV,’ Revue de Paris, 15° année (15 juillet 1908), p. 333.

THE MASTER LIBRAIRES 209 books by the Port Royal authors, they managed to build up considerable fortunes. When Desprez died in 1709, he had a stock valued at 226,357 livres. Frédéric Léonard gave his daughter a dowry of 120,000 livres; his social success is indicated by the fact that the Dauphin was a witness to the marriage contract and that the family’s country house was the chateau of Bois-Préau near Mal-

maison.

Francois Muguet, who published the magnificent scholarly folios of the Benedictines of Saint Maur, was less fortunate. He got into financial troubles through transactions in printing-office equip-

ment and at his death had liabilities of eighty thousand livres. His widow, however, continued the business with much more skill, and when she died in 1720 at the age of eighty-eight, she had not

only wiped out this indebtedness but had accumulated a considerable estate in addition.*! Two of the most profitable pieces of literary property down to the Revolution were the Almanach royal and the Calendrier du cour. The former, begun by Laurent d’Houry in 1684, gave Le Breton an annual income of 65,000 livres.°? The Calendrier, which Collombat began publishing in 1700, gave him 20,000 livres a year.° When his estate was appraised in 1752, the capital value of this item was set first at 100,000 livres, which was later increased to 120,000 livres. Collombat’s private library was sufficiently valuable

to warrant its being appraised separately. His publishing stock, listed in an inventory of seventeen pages, was valued at 30,049 livres 10 sols, including the privileges on certain books, copperplates and woodcuts, sheet stock, and the furniture of the shop and the warehouse. These figures do not include his printing office and his foundry, the inventory of which has been lost.* When Francois Didot, the first of that illustrious family, died in 1757, his widow received 230,000 francs for the stock and privileges of Prévost’s Manuel lexique, Ladvocat’s dictionary, and Vosgien’s dictionary. In 1706 the heirs of Jean Boudot sold the privilege of his Latin-French dictionary for 48,000 francs; this work ® Martin, p. 307 71. * Lepreux, pp. 447-450. * D’Avenel, p. 313. ®% Bulletin de la société de Vhistoire de Paris, 18° année (1891), p. 357. *% Lepreux, pp. 140-142, 154-155.

210 THE MASTERS was reprinted thirty times between 1704 and 1825. In 1768 Jean Baptiste (III) Coignard left an income of sixty thousand livres built up from the publishing stock that formed his wife’s dowry, from his own and his father’s stock, and from the profits of his printing shop and various government offices. He bequeathed a fund yielding eight hundred livres a year to help the four oldest disabled foremen and workers, and another yielding more than

four hundred livres income for poor journeymen. Both these funds, though much reduced, were still in existence when Lepreux

wrote in 1911.9° During his lifetime he had already (in 1749) established a foundation, in the University of Paris, yielding an income of three hundred livres, to be devoted to an annual prize for the Master of Arts who wrote the best paper on a subject set by the University. ‘The award lasted till the Revolution. He also left each of his six children 31,000 livres.%*

A final example of a printing-publishing fortune is that of Laurent-Francois Prault who died in 1780 leaving to his three sons a printing shop and equipment worth 39,836 livres, a house valued

at 22,000 livres, a publishing stock amounting to 82,729 livres, and a stock of government documents worth 28,580 livres.°* The total came to 173,145 livres. CHAPTER XI

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 1. The system of privileges Protection of literary property was one of the central problems in the publishing world of the ancien régime. A number of considerations made it especially difficult: first, the ease with which a printed volume can be reprinted in facsimile; the laxity of the laws designed to confer monopolistic ownership of a text; third, inadequate precautions against smuggling books across the frontiers; %® D’Avenel, p. 55.

* Lepreux, p. 135; Delalain, pp. 82 ff. * Charles Jourdain, Histoire de l'Université de Paris au XVII*° et XVIII* siécle, 2 vols. (Paris, 1888), II, 272; Delalain, p. 7o. ® Lepreux, p. 485.

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 211 and, especially at the beginning, the deeply rooted medieval tradition that the contents of a book were common property, something

quite distinct from the physical media of type, paper, and ink through which they were first presented to the public.

The author least of all had any “rights.’’ He sold his manuscript to a publisher and thereafter had no financial interest in it. He could not print and sell his own books but was obliged to deal

with a member of the guild.t He might be given a small additional payment for a revised edition though not for new printings. Many decades passed before he was paid by an annuity which some-

what resembled our royalty arrangement. Throughout the ancien régime, therefore, protection against piracy was an issue only among rival publishers, each of whom sought to hold onto, as long as possible under increasing competition, exclusive publishing rights to titles he had originally bought. There was no general law against piracy until 1618. Publishers, in accordance with the business practice of the time, applied for a “privilege,” a special law granting a monopoly on sales for a certain term — one, two, ten, sometimes as much as fifty years. The

author might obtain a privilege for a book of his own, but he always sold it to the publisher along with the manuscript.” After Francis I became alarmed at the great influx of Lutheran

books from Germany, no book could legally be issued until the publisher had obtained a permit, granted at first by the inspectors of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris or, after 11 May 1612, by the Chancellor. The permit, however, was entirely distinct from the privilege. As Pouillet says, ““The permit to

print was not the privilege, and it remained legally obligatory even after the system of privileges came into existence. It preceded

the privilege, and the privilege could not be granted before permission to print had been obtained.” * A confusion, however, soon

arose in the use of the two terms so that we find contemporary 1Edict of 1 June 1618. Isambert, Jourdan, Decrusy, Recueil général des anciennes lois frangaises, 29 vols, (Paris, 1821-1833), XVI, 120; L. N. Cristea, Contribution a l’étude du droit d’auteur (Paris, 1938), pp. 63, 78. *Paul Mellottée, Histoire économique de Vimprimerie (Paris, 1905), pp. 79, 81. 3A. C. Renouard, Traité des droits d’auteur dans la littérature, les sciences, et les beaux-arts, 2 vols. (Paris, 1838), I, 31-105, 57; Isambert, XVI, 26-28, 120. *E. Pouillet, Traité théorique et pratique de la propriété littéraire et artistique et du droit de représentation, 3d ed. (Paris, 1908), p. 7.

212 THE MASTERS laws as well as other documents using “permit’’ and “‘privilege”’ interchangeably. Nevertheless the actual distinction remained and must be kept clearly in mind in our discussion. ‘The permit conveyed the censor’s approval of the text and had nothing to do with

the ownership of that text; the privilege conveyed the King’s grant of a sales monopoly for a limited term. It should be noted that although many books, especially in the early sixteenth century, were issued without a privilege, they always had to carry the approval of an inspecting authority.®

Though the lawmakers of the ancien régime had no pattern in mind, it is possible to make a rough classification of privileges.®

In a first category are the general and the special: general ones granted for the whole country and for a specific book; general ones

granted either for the whole country or for a specific locality and and for a series of books; special ones granted for a single work and a single locality. In a second category are those granted for a limited term and those without term. The most important are the special and temporary, that is, those granted for a single work for a specified territory and for a limited time. General privileges were rather unusual and were forbidden by the laws of 7 June 16597 and 4 June 1674.8

Early privileges were not obligatory but purely optional. If the publisher wanted one, he might make application to the Chancellor, the Parlement of Paris, the University, the Provost of Paris,

or the Chief of Police of Paris. Protestant publishers were of course unable to meet the requirements for a censor’s permit and therefore for a privilege — a situation which caused so much disorder that Charles IX issued an edict 10 September 1563 making it necessary to obtain one sealed by the Chancellor.?° There is no point in trying to establish what book can claim

the minor distinction of being the first issued with a privilege. 5 Renouard, I, 109.

6 Cristea, pp. 65-67; H. Falk, Les Priviléges de librairie sous l’ancien régime (Paris, 1906), p. 71.

7Isambert, XVII, 370. § Claude Saugrain, Code de la librairie et de ’imprimerie (Paris, 1744), p. 366; Isambert, XIX, 135; F. Malapert, “Histoire abrégée de la législation sur la propriété littéraire avant 1789,” Journal des Economistes, 4° série, no. 35, November 1880, p. 280. ®Edouard Maugis, Histoire du Parlement de Paris, 3 vols. (Paris, 1913-1916), II, 314; Malapert, p. 268. 10 André Chevillier, L’Origine de l’timprimerie de Paris (Paris, 1694), pp. 395-396.

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 213 Chevillier says that the oldest he could find in the library of the Sorbonne in 1694 were the one given by Louis XII in 1507 to Antoine Vérard for an edition of St. Paul’s Epistles with French annotations, one given by the Parlement 12 January 1508 to Berthold Rembolt for an edition of St. Bruno, and others dated in 1509, 1511, 1517, and 1518. He notes that the Parlement had evidently given others before 1508." This last statement is borne out by the colophon for the Chronique de Gennes: Here ends the chronicle of Genoa and Milan abridged, with the ordinances and laws made in the said city of Genoa by King Francis, the seventh of that name. Printed at Paris by Eustace de Brie, merchant publisher, living at the [sign of the] Wooden Shoe behind the [church of the] Magdalene. And to him the court of Parlement and the attorney of the King have given one year of time to sell and distribute said books; and all publishers and printers and all others are forbidden to print said book within one year next following the commencement of the seventeenth day of June 1507 and the said day 1508. Many early sixteenth-century books give notice of being “pro-

tected” merely by carrying on the title page the phrase “Cum gratia & privilegio Christianissimi Francorum Regis,” or “Cum privilegio Regis ad decennium,” or “Avec privilege du Roi,” or “Cum amplissimo Regis privilegio,” “Cum privilegio,” or “Avec privilege.” In some cases the privilege or an extract is also printed

on a later page. Early privileges were likely to be brief; for example, the following is printed on the verso of the title page of G. Budaei Parisiensis Virit Clarissimi Vita, by Ludovicus Regius Constantinus, issued by Jean de Roigny of Paris in 1542: Jean de Roigny, publisher juré of the University of Paris, is per-

mitted to cause to be printed and to put on sale a book entitled G. Budaei Vita, by Ludovicus Regius, newly written and printed; and all other publishers and printers are forbidden to print or sell it for two years upon penalty of confiscation of said books and arbitrary fine.

Later privileges, especially after the law of 1566, which required quotation in full, take up considerable space.** An interesting ex1 Other privileges may be found in Bulletin de la Société de V’histoire de Paris, 21° année (1894), pp. 139-140, and in Isambert, XII, 103-105 and XIII, 358. 2 Saugrain, p. 357.

214 THE MASTERS ample is that which fills over a folio page of la Mothe Le Vayer’s Conseiller d’estat ordinaire, printed by Augustin Courbé in 1662. This is further interesting because it is a general privilege and because it was granted to the author himself. The vital part in the text of the privilege is the term of years it covers and the warning against piracy. ‘These two items were the practical expression of the objects of the document; that is,

to allow the publisher sufficient time to recoup his investment without competition, to protect the trade as a whole from competition that would come from the importation of foreign books, and to protect members of the guild from piracies issued by other members.1® In an effort to facilitate the detection of illegal publication, a law was passed 11 December 1547 requiring that the

name of the author and the name and address of the printer be included at the beginning of every book on religion.1* ‘This condi-

tion was quickly extended and made to cover books on all other subjects.

Another stipulation in the laws, and one which continually caused much trouble, was that copies of every book on which a privilege was granted should be deposited with the authorities. The first mention of this is in a law of Francis I, dated 8 December

1536, which forbids selling or sending to a foreign country any books or pamphlets in any language unless a copy has been sent to the librarian of the Chateau of Blois.t° The next mention is in the ordonnance of Montpellier, 28 December 1537. In later laws the number of copies to be deposited varied from time to time; in 1785 the requirement was nine. By the middle of the sixteenth century the volume of publication had reached considerable proportions. ‘To the editions of the classics was being added an increasing amount of work by contem-

porary authors on all varieties of subject matter. Reprints and 18 Maugis, II, 310; Renouard, I, 106; Pouillet, p. 6. 14 Isambert, XIII, 37-38; Antoine Fontanon, Les Edicts et ordonnances des roys de

France depuis S. Loys ivsques a present ..., 2d ed., 4 vols. (Paris, 1585), IV, 37337 ss Saugrain, p. 415; Renouard, I, 43 m1. All the documents on deposit copies may be found in Henri Lemaitre, Histoire du dépot légal, 1° partie (France), (Paris, 1910). See also Robert Crousel, Le Dépét légal (Toulouse, 1936); Georges Lepreux, Gallia typographica, série parisienne, t. 1: Livre d’or des imprimeurs du rot (Paris, 1911), p. 203; Charles Mortet, Le Bibliographe modern, 1910, pp. 347-353-

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 215 translations of foreign works increased the totals. As a result there arose a bitter quarrel regarding the distinction between privileges

for ‘‘ancient” books and privileges for “new” or contemporary books.

At the same time began an even more serious dispute, one that was never really settled in the ancien régime — the whole matter

of the renewal or continuation of privileges. It is quite understandable that at the expiration of a privilege a publisher could plead for a renewal on the ground that he had not recovered his costs or that he found a large and slow-moving stock of unsold copies on his hands. But the granting of a long renewal or of a series of renewals might have, and actually did have, the effect of

changing the publisher’s attitude. He no longer thought of his privilege as a temporary favor but as a guarantee of indefinite or even perpetual rights. The lines were soon drawn between a small group of Paris publishers with valuable privileges and, on the other side, the publishers in the provincial cities 1*® and the poorer ones in Paris, who had few privileges and found it difficult to build up their lists. Although the law of 10 September 1563, as we have just said,

concentrated the granting of original privileges in the hands of the King, the Parlement of Paris took a vigorous part in the matter of renewals. In general it tried to impose a limit on the term and to substitute regularity for the arbitrary actions of the government. Its arrét of 18 April 1578 forbade requests for renewal for either an ancient or a contemporary book unless there were an increase in the amount of the text, that is, a real revision or new edition.! In 1579 it decreed that in future privileges should be issued only

for contemporary books.'® It annulled (15 March 1586) a privilege that had been granted for an edition of Seneca, revised and annotated by Muret, on the ground that the work had been printed 16 Mellottée, p. 452, says that at the beginning of the sixteenth century there were printing shops in more than forty cities of France, and at the beginning of the eighteenth century there were 158 cities with one or more shops (p. 459). In the first quarter of the seventeenth century there were 270 master printers and publishers in Paris (p. 456). 17M. Gastambide, Historique et théorie de la propriété des auteurs (Paris, 1862), p. 16; Renouard, I, 109. 18—, Laboulaye et C. Guiffrey, La Propriété littéraire au XVIII° siécle (Paris, 1859), PP- 456, 528-529.

216 THE MASTERS some time before in Rome.!® Occasionally the King’s Council would issue a decision in line with the Parlement’s point of view, but on the whole the government favored the attitude of the more powerful publishers.

2. The struggle for protection in the seventeenth century By 1600 the direction in which the book trade was to develop had been pretty well settled. During the seventeenth century the government in its efforts to stamp out sedition and heresy was obliged to issue frequent decrees requiring preliminary censorship approval of a manuscript and forbidding the sale of a book unless the name of author and printer were given at the beginning and a copy of the privilege at either the beginning or the end. By a law of 2 October 1643 printers were forbidden to start a job unless they had given notice to the syndic of the guild and had shown him the Chancellor’s permit. By the general law of 1649 all privileges had to be registered in the syndic’s office within a week of the grant.?° From time to time the monopoly on the sales of various special classes of publications was the subject of legal enactment. A déclar-

ation of Louis XIII, issued 11 May 1612 and renewed in January 1626, authorized the various courts to set their own regulations for the publication of their edicts and judgments. In 1687 Frédéric Léonard was given sole right to print laws concerning governmental finances. In 1690 the Parlement forbade the printing of any of its decrees without its special permission, and in 1696 it forbade the printing of pamphlets for litigants unless the pamphlets were signed by the litigants’ attorneys.?}

Almanacs and ABC’s had always been in the public domain; the continuance of this status was assured by the legislation of June 1618 and August 1686. On the other hand there was strict control over other kinds of pamphlets, broadsides, and placards, the Paris Chief of Police rather than the Council being the author-

izing official in this instance. In 1682 the Council forbade the 1° Cristea, p. 72.

* Saugrain, pp. 359, 360; Cristea, p. 79. *%Ysambert, XVI, 26-28, 164, and XX, 52, 101; Saugrain, p. 426; Pierre Jacques

Brillon, Dictionnaire des arréts ou jurisprudence universelle des Parlements de France, nouvelle édition, 6 vols. (Paris, 1727), III, 249.

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 217 printing of theses unless approved by the dean of the Faculty of the University of Paris.?? Another kind of small but very profitable books was the Usages,

that is, breviaries, missals, and other devotional works. When the States-General met in 1614, the provincial publishers appealed to it against the attempts of the Paris publishers (the Compagnie des Usages) to monopolize the privileges for the Trentine Usages. The protests were unanswered, and the question came up again when the original privileges expired in 1630. The Paris publishers, no one of whom could have alone paid the necessary fees and handled the business, formed themselves into four groups, each competing

for the renewal. By letters patent of g December 1631 it was granted to Richelieu on the ground that such books should be under the supervision of an ecclesiastic.?8 He was given the right to choose his publishing agents and to grant them exclusive sales rights for thirty years. This was a “general” privilege, the use of which might be explained by the nature of the literary property itself. A comparable

one was granted 15 April 1667 by Louis XIV to the Duke of Roannés, Count de la Feuillade.** At the end of the campaign in Flanders that year Louis found the treasury empty, so that there was no ready cash with which to reward the Duke for his services. So Louis gave him a general privilege, good for fifty years, to print

and sell ordinances, formulaires, edicts, declarations, arréts, and other such documents. Roannés on 14 April 1668 ceded a third of the privilege to Denis Thierry and his associates. Even at that late date, it would seem, the “privilége en librairie” was very much a part of the general system of privileges by which the King controlled the state.

The requirement of depositing copies in the King’s library now became a definite condition for the granting of a privilege, and a publisher was not supposed to be covered until the day he deposited the copies.” For a long time only two were demanded. Article 9 of the edict of August 1686 called for two for the King’s 2 Saugrain, pp. 426; 460; 361, 369; 381. * Malapert, pp. 270-279; Lepreux, pp. 374-375. 74 Malapert, pp. 277-270. * Saugrain, pp. 395, 415; Isambert, XVI, 106-108; Pierre Guenois, Grande conférence des ordonnances et edicts royaux, 3 vols. (Paris, 1678), II, 1089.

218 THE MASTERS library and one for the syndic of the guild. It is typical of the period that it was difficult to enforce even so simple a requisite. An arrét of 17 May 1672, for instance, decreed that all authors, publishers, and printers who had obtained privileges within the preceding twenty years should, within fifteen days after the promulgation of the law, furnish to the Keeper of the King’s Library two copies of all books not previously deposited. Four years later (1 May 1676) a similar law was issued, the penalty for noncompliance being confiscation and sale of the edition and a fine of 1500 livres. All this did no good, however, for on 31 January 1685 the law of 1672 was repeated and confirmed together with the penalties of 1676.6 By this time, of course, the library was in many cases thirty-three years in arrears! Delinquent publishers, says the arrét, “shall be forced to obey by all due and reasonable means.” That the far greater tort of piracy should be widespread under such circumstances is scarcely cause for surprise. Falk is undoubtedly correct when he says that all publishers did some pirating and

were therefore not too rigorous in pursuing infractions of their own rights.2” They were most severe in cases when a provincial publisher was involved, but that was due to the determined efforts

of the Paris publishers to monopolize all branches of the trade. Fven at that, it must have been possible for a clever provincial printer to escape detection a good many times. Furthermore, the less prosperous printers and publishers in Paris itself were easily able to take a successful title, reproduce it exactly in every detail down to privilege, name of printer, and the like, and quietly absorb a large number of sales before being detected. Or the pirated edition might not be an exact copy; even though printed a few doors from the shop of the authorized publisher, it might be given a different format and carry the name and address of a foreign printer — a real or fictitious person in a real or fictitious town in Holland, Belgium, or Switzerland. Since there was no international protection and since smuggling was not even a fine art, such violations of the law were hard to detect and harder still to prove. *6 Saugrain, pp. 397, 396; 416-418; Isambert, XX, 6-20; XIX, 489.

Falk, p. 145. This statement is borne out by the many documents in the Collection Anisson on specific piracies; see Ernest Coyecque, Inventaire de la collection Anisson, 2 vols. (Paris, 1900), I, 145—166.

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 219 And finally, of course, the piracy might be a genuine piece of foreign work. The financial stakes involved in the competition from an unau-

thorized edition of a popular book were very considerable. ‘The Paris publisher Guillaume (I) Desprez (1630-1708), for instance, had paid over 33,000 livres for the privilege for Lemaistre de Sacy’s

translation of the Bible when he bought it from Issaly, the legatee of de Sacy. Desprez’s struggle to protect his investment led to two famous lawsuits, one against F. Godard, who imported an edition

pirated by the printer Jean Francois Broncart of Liége, and the other against the Paris printers André Pralard and Lambert Roulland.?8

Officials of the guild must have spent a large part of their time

in searching for books smuggled in from abroad and in running down piracies, for the records contain many instances in which the law was invoked and the penalty applied. In 1625 Sébastien

Cramoisy claimed that he had a right to get books printed in Lorraine in virtue of a brevet granted him by the King to serve as publisher and printer to the Duke of Lorraine. An arrét of the Council 18 November 1625 forbade him to have any books printed outside of France so long as he was connected with the University of Paris.?® ‘The Chatelet on 21 March 1654 confiscated certain contraband volumes found in six cases of books sent from abroad to the banker Gaspard Vauganger. ‘The syndic and wardens of the guild obtained a judgment of the Chatelet 7 March 1663 against Francois Foppens, a bookseller of Brussels, who had sent to Paris two casks in which were found various pirated books. The casks were confiscated and the books sold; of the proceeds forty-eight livres went to Etienne Dallin — evidently the informer — and the

remainder went half to the Chatelet for repairs on the building and half to the guild. In 1664 Florentin Lambert, a bookseller, received two packages from Flanders containing pirated books; he swore to the syndic, Edme Martin, that he had not ordered them. They were confiscated and sold for the benefit of the guild. In 1680 Raymond Basset tried to smuggle three bundles of pirated * Lepreux, pp. 205-206. * Lepreux, Gallia typographica, série parisienne, documenta, pp. 46 ff.

220 THE MASTERS books into Paris, but he was caught and the books were turned over by the syndic to the owners of the privileges.°®°

But the punishment might be much more costly for the offender. Saugrain cites instances where fines of 200, 400, 500, or as much as 1500 livres were levied. An arrét of the Council 11 September 1665 authorized the holders of privileges or continuations to seize and put under guard all copies of pirated books, together with the presses, types, and other material used in the printing; and the case was to be brought before the Council for judgment.

An arrét of the Parlement 26 February 1671 provided that any publisher or printer who counterfeited in a pirated book the privilege and the name of the owner of the privilege, should be permanently deprived of his connection with the guild.#! During the greater part of the seventeenth century the struggle continued over the status of classical (“ancient’’) books and over continuations of privileges. ‘The law of 16 June 1618 again forbade

the granting of a continuation for ancient books except for an enlarged edition; otherwise they were in the public domain.?? On this occasion nothing was said about privileges for contemporary works, which were evidently still subject to arbitrary decision on the part of the authorities. By a law issued 19 January 1626 and renewed 27 December 1627, ancient texts were definitely exempted from any need for a privilege. Gradually, however, the government extended its controls and the Chancellor warned the guild in 1647 that henceforward no book, of whatever size or on what-

ever subject, should be printed without a privilege. When the guild asked that ancient books be exempted as before, there was complete refusal. No book could now be freely printed even though the privilege had expired; at least a renewal was required. In December 1649 new general regulations were drawn up for

the trade. ‘These permitted the renewal of privileges for ancient books, but other publishers might be given a concurrent privilege for issuing the same text in a different format. To prevent competition it was also ordered that all privileges should be registered with

the guild. At the same time the Council issued a special arrét on 99 Saugrain, pp. 391; 421-422; 424. % Saugrain, pp. 361, 422, 423, 425.

* Isambert, XVI, 124; Cristea, p. 77; Renouard, I, 120; Mellottée, p. 66.

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 221 privileges (20 December 1649). This law forbade piracy, required

printing of the privilege at the beginning or end of a book, insisted upon registration within a month of the grant, forbade renewal of a privilege until the original had expired, and gave preference to original owners in case of renewal. ‘There was much

opposition from the nonprivileged publishers. At this point the quarrel was further complicated by the fact that on 17 March 1650

the guild held a meeting and decided on ten new articles, not related to privileges, to be presented to the Parlement for addition to the statutes of the preceding December. Some three hundred

publishers, printers, and binders opposed this action and asked that the law of 1618 be kept in force. The University also protested, claiming that the publishers of Paris were trying to dominate the trade and ruin those in the provinces. The regulation of 1649 was finally registered without the section on privileges. During the next few years the Parlement continued its opposition to renewals and on 7 September 1657 forbade any renewal unless

the reprint contained at least 25 per cent of new material. The Council also held to its precedents and granted renewals; in 1663 it decreed that “letters of continuation” should be obeyed in spite of the Parlement’s regulations to the contrary.?? The not inconsiderable revenue obtained from renewals as well as from original privileges doubtless played a part in the Council’s attitude. By 1660 the number of piracy suits had increased so greatly that all such litigation was turned over to the attention of certain members of the Council, and twenty-six of the leading Paris publishers

banded together for sending their own inspectors to Lyon and other towns every year.*4 Finally in 1664 all the difficulties came to a head in a suit between Georges Josse, a Paris publisher, as plain-

tiff, and Clément Malassis, a Rouen publisher, and Pierre de La Motte, a Rouen printer, as defendants. Josse had obtained renewals of his privileges for three books by Matthieu Beuvelet, Les Méditations chrétiennes et ecclésistiques, La Vraye et solide dévotion, and L’Instruction sur le manuel. Malassis, supported by his

colleagues in Rouen and by the publishers of Lyon, protested 88 Cristea, p. 79; Renouard, I, 121-128; Chevillier, pp. 338-339; Gastambide, p. 21.

* Henri Jean Martin, “L’Edition parisienne au XVII° siécle,” Annales: économies, sociétés, civilisations, 7° année, no. 3 (juillet-septembre, 1952), 316-317.

222 THE MASTERS against the “injustice” of the renewals by pirating the books. Josse was supported by the Paris guild, the syndic of which was Antoine Estienne. Josse’s case was based upon the regulations of 1649 and

upon the exhibition of copies, furnished by Estienne, of ninetyseven renewals for various books granted by Louis XIII and Louis XIV to publishers in Paris, Lyon, Rouen, and other cities between 1641 and 1664. Malassis pointed out that the articles on renewals in the law of 1649 had not been registered and also cited the arrét of 7 September 1657 as well as other arréts of the Parlement. ‘The issue between the validity of arréts issued by the King’s Council and that of arréts of the Parlement was clearly drawn. ‘There could be no doubt of the decision in view of the general policy pursued by Louis and Colbert. The Council, 9 August 1664, fined Malassis and La Motte 6000 livres and confiscated their editions.*®° Shortly afterward (27 February 1665) the Council followed up its victory by confirming all privileges previously granted to publishers in various cities. It further ruled that in the future an appli-

cant for a renewal must present his petition one year before the expiration of the original,®* that there sould be no requests for privileges or continuations for ancient texts unless there were “‘con-

siderable” additions and corrections, that other publishers would be allowed to reissue ancient texts without revisions or additions, that original privileges must be registered with the Paris guild, and renewals with the guilds in Paris, Lyon, Roen, ‘Toulouse, Bordeaux, and Grenoble, and that there might not be a delay of more than six months between the granting of a privilege and the beginning of manufacture. Most important of all, in some ways, was a clause which stressed the King’s right to summon a pirating publisher before the Council. This was a further blow at the authority of the Parlement in such matters. The law of 1665 finally drew a distinction betwen old books and contemporary books, a distinction that was further clarified by the law of 19 June 1671 which defined an ancient author as one who had died before the “invention” of printing, that is, before % Cristea, p. 83; Falk, p. 85; Renouard, I, 140. The documents are in the Collection Anisson; see Coyecque, I, 147-148. A copy of the judgment is to be found in Lepreux, Gallia typographica, série departmentale, 4 vols. (Paris, 1909-1913), III, 2, Pp. 194-195. 86 Saugrain, pp. 360, 376.

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 223 the introduction of printing into France in 1470. The law, however, did nothing to decrease the arbitrary nature of the privilege and of continuations; there was no attempt to establish regularity and uniformity. But on the whole a fair compromise had been worked out: the provincial publishers were given access to the important body of classical texts, and the privileged publishers were encouraged to look forward to long possession of their monopolies of modern authors.

There now ensued a period of calm on this point, but new quarrels on other trade practices led in 1686 to a fresh set of general regulations which included articles on privileges and piracy.®" These confirmed the arrét of 1665, thus strengthening the Council’s position in conformity with the prevailing effort to centralize administrative powers.

3. Practice and theory in the eighteenth century At the beginning of the eighteenth century the publisher had increasing need to guard his investments, follow up advantages, and meet the tricks of his competitors. General conditions in the trade at this period are revealed in a pamphlet, Mémoire sur les vexa-

tions qu’exercent les libraires et imprimeurs de Paris, attributed to Pierre Jacques Blondel and issued in 1725.28 Marais, writing at

the time it came out, thought it a faithful picture, but Renouard considered its virulence rather overdone. With a mere nod to certain honest publishers, Blondel calls the majority of them Jews, Arabs, harpies, vile traffickers, who cheat the public by charging outrageous prices for books printed on poor paper with muddy ink and worn types and shockingly bad proofreading. ‘They have developed the privilege, he says, into an instrument for controlling the supply, and thus the prices, of books. ‘They demand continuations on the ground that they have not recovered the costs of the first edition — though in one case a title was in the thirty-sixth edition! They secure subscriptions but delay manufacture and, in sets of several volumes, postpone the appearance of the last in order to 7 Renouard, I, 142; Isambert, XX, 6-20; Saugrain, pp. 363, 424, 460, 368, 376,

eT eA modern reprint, with introduction and notes by Lucien Faucou, was issued in Paris in 1879. There is some question of authorship, which Faucou decides in favor of Pierre Jacques Blondel (1674-1739).

224 THE MASTERS stretch out the term of the privilege. They fatten upon exorbitant profits at the expense of the general public and of poor students. They form a close group fenced in by regulation after regulation; but these laws are all designed for their advantage rather than for the benefit of the public. The second section of Blondel’s pamphlet considers the relation between publishers and authors. He points out that the author gets little return for his work, whereas the publishers on the whole have become a rich group. Once the investment for a book has been recovered, the author should get a reasonable part of the profit so long as the book continues to sell. One reason for the unfortunate situation of authors is the law which forbids anyone to have a book printed in his own name and sold by others than publishers. In an attempt to evade this law, some authors have paid printing costs and have distributed the edition among a certain number of booksellers on a sales basis. ‘The booksellers, however, have blocked this scheme by discouraging sales — telling would-be customers that the books were not yet bound, that all copies were in the warehouse, and even pretending that the market was filled with pirated copies. The importance of Blondel’s pamphlet lies in the fact that here for the first time we have any recognition of the author’s economic rights in his own work.®® No one before had said: It is just that each man should live by his own trade and that in proportion to his skill, his labor, his attention, and his credit, he should find in his business the means to support his family and even to estab-

lish it... . For the same reason that publishers should gain their

livelihood, the bread should not be snatched from the authors’ hands. The publisher is made for the author, and not the author for the publisher. The latter is a merchant who sells. The author is a man who

thinks and invents. The book he makes is his own work, and the printer or publisher merely distributes copies among the public — for 8 Some writers have found an early suggestion of author’s rights in connection with an arrét of 15 March 1586 by which the Parlement canceled a privilege granted

for an edition of Seneca with notes by Muret. The work had been first published several years before in Rome. The advocate Marion spoke for the court. He pointed

out that although the author is originally complete master of his work and can even withhold it from the public, he loses his private rights in it as soon as it has been published and thereafter has no control over it. If Marion did have a conception of the author’s real position, he did not use the idea in such a way as to advance the author’s economic interests. See Renouard, I, 111-112, and Cristea, pp. 73-74:

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 225 money, of course. Why, then, does the publisher gather all the fruit of the work and the author get almost nothing?

For directness and vigor these words can be compared only to those with which Dr. Johnson a few years later proclaimed the rights of the author in England. In the meantime the situation had called forth a new law dated 4 September 1701. This fixed fees for permissions and privileges, allowed a publisher who had obtained a privilege to associate himself with other printers and publishers for manufacture and sale, removed the requirement that a book must be printed in the town where its publisher lived, and took away from provincial judges the power to grant privileges for ancient authors or for those on which a privilege had expired. The provincial publishers, espe-

cially those in Lyon, were quick to protest, but the Chancellor merely promised to do what he could to help them.* The preamble to an arrét of 13 August 1703 pointed out various current attempts to evade the letter as well as the spirit of the laws.*1 In entering books on the register of the Paris guild certain publishers were not definite regarding the number of years fixed by the privilege; others had been registering only by abbreviated and incomplete extracts from the privilege; still others made secret transfers of rights; and in many cases notice of registration had not been sent to other cities as stipulated in the arrét of 27 February 1665. The King therefore ordered that the term was to be counted

from the day the privilege was obtained and that all privileges granted in the past without specification of the term should be void. The arrét further said that all privileges must be recorded with the guild in Paris within three months, that all transfers must be entered in the same register at full length, and that the records should be open to the inspection of everyone. ‘The privilege must also be printed at the beginning or end of each copy. New registers were accordingly opened in the guild chamber at Paris; they fill twenty-four volumes now in the Bibliotheque Nationale.

The old requirement of the deposit of copies was repeated in an arrét of 17 October 1704, with the feeble admission that enSaugrain, pp. 363, 372, 376, 381, 384, 391; Falk, pp. 88, 90; Cristea, p. 85. “ Saugrain, pp. 387-389.

226 THE MASTERS forcement was difficult. Eight copies are demanded, and all authors, printers, publishers, and engravers throughout the kingdom are made responsible for delivering them to the syndic and wardens of the Paris guild. ‘The penalty for failure to do so was cancella-

tion of the privilege, confiscation of the edition for the benefit of the hospital nearest the place where such confiscation was made, and a fine of 1500 livres. To this the Lyon guild made strenuous objections. Finally on g May 1707 the Council ordered that the arrét be carried out, with the proviso that when the Lyon guild found the cost of the copies too great, it was to be recompensed by the Chancellor. But the regulation had to be repeated 16 December 1715, and the King ordered the Paris guild to.secure the missing deposits within eight days.** An arrét of 11 October 1720 repeated the requirement! Even more disturbing, however, must have been the evidently complete disregard of the law forbidding publication of material relating to suits pending before the various councils and courts. A déclaration of 12 May 1717 says that such pamphlets may be issued only if they are signed by an advocate or attorney “in the usual manner.”’ One difficulty with unsigned accounts was their inaccuracy, but more important for our present inquiry is the fact that the printing of governmental documents was reserved for

the six royal printers and that infringement of the monopoly caused a considerable loss to them.*

A déclaration issued 23 October 1713, which cleared up the interpretation of several obscure points in the edict of 1686 regarding the internal administration of the Paris guild, said almost nothing about the fundamental problem of privileges. Disagreement on certain of the articles led to a series of conferences in 1714, 1715, and 1717 but final settlement did not come until a new code was issued on 28 February 1723.4 We are already famil-

iar with the details of that code so far as the organization of the guild and the requirements of the censor’s office are concerned. At this point we confine our attention to the provisions regarding privileges; among these are the following. Within three months of 42 Saugrain, pp. 398-415, 464.

48Tsambert, XXI, 126; Saugrain, pp. 429-459. “ Saugrain, pp. 461-462; Isambert, XX, 608-611; XXI, 216-251.

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 227 the date the privilege is issued it must be recorded in the register of the Paris guild, without interlineation or erasure, and no book may be offered for sale before registration. The registers shall be open to everyone to make any inquiries or extracts he may wish. Books for which a privilege has been granted may be printed anywhere in the kingdom. Five copies must be deposited with the guild for governmental use and three copies for the use of the guild. All printers are forbidden to pirate books for which privileges or continuations have been granted. There is to be no mo-

nopoly on the printing and sale of reports, requests, petitions, certificates of burial, pardons, indulgences, and the like. Legal documents shall be printed only if the copy is signed by an author-

ized attorney; and edicts of the Parlement and of the Court of Aides of Paris may not be printed without special permission of these courts. Print and map makers must obtain a privilege from

the Chancellor or a permit from the Chief of Police and must register the plate or map with the guild. Various penalties are set forth for infraction of each provision of the law, usually cancellation of the privilege, confiscation of copies, and a stiff fine. The new, and in some ways the most important, part of the law is the concluding paragraph: His Majesty wills that the present law shall be executed according to form and tenor notwithstanding preceding regulations, which His Majesty hereby annuls as far as necessary; and if any opposition or obstacle is made to the present regulation, His Majesty reserves jurisdiction thereof and forbids it to all his courts and other judges; and for the execution of the present regulation all necessary letters shall be expedited.

In other words, this section confirmed and made more definite the King’s immediate control that had been developing since the settlement of the controversy between Josse and Malassis in 1664. ‘The

Parlement had no further authority over approbations, permissions, privileges, or piracies.

M. Guiffrey points out that the law was silent on a number of important details. It said nothing about whether a privilege could be granted to anyone other than the owner of the manuscript or whether only the author or the publisher could obtain a privilege or a continuation. It evidently assumed that when an author sold

228 THE MASTERS his manuscript to a publisher he at the same time transferred his ownership completely and irrevocably. All that the modern author and publisher understand by the term “rights” was quite outside the definition of the law. Thus the privilege was merely a police regulation partly designed to control the circulation of harmful books and partly designed to protect the publisher for a limited number of years while he was regaining his capital investment.* The letter of the law, at any rate, had not changed in two centuries. As soon as direct access to the King had been provided by the law of 1723, the provincial publishers and the poorer publishers of Paris renewed before the Chancellor the complaints they had been more and more frequently bringing before the Parlement.*® ‘They contended that a manuscript in and for itself was valueless, that the author could do nothing with it that would be commercially profitable. It became endowed with value only when the State issued a privilege for it, thus enabling a publisher to manufacture and sell copies which would give him a profit. Since the privilege was a temporary monopoly conferred by the State, the State in fairness to the trade as a whole should make the term of that monopoly as short as possible, should refuse continuations, and should make

the text available to all other publishers upon expiration of the original privilege. The result of prevailing practices in regard to continuations, said the petitioners, was to concentrate the book business in the hands of a few Paris publishers who had grown enormously wealthy from the monopoly and who would be satis-

fied with nothing less than perpetual ownership and control of privileges.

To defend their rights the Paris publishers in 1725 engaged Louis d’Héricourt, a learned and celebrated advocate of the Parle-

ment, to set forth their claims and determine the principles on which these claims rested.*7 His memoir is noteworthy as the earliest attempt in France to explore the theoretical nature of literary property and the rights involved in it. D’Héricourt began by stating the question thus: Is it just and “6 Laboulaye et Guiffrey, pp. 3-11, 16, 17. “6 Gastambide, p. 27; Renouard, I, 155. *" Laboulaye et Guiffrey, pp. 21-40; Renouard, I, 157; Cristea, pp. 93-102.

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 229 equitable to grant the provincial publishers permission to print books which belong to the publishers of Paris through their acquisition of authors’ manuscripts? His negative answer was contained in two “propositions.” In the first place, he argues, the publisher owns a work that he issues, solely because the manuscript has been transmitted to him by the author in return for a cash payment. The author owns the manuscript because it is the fruit of personal labor which he can dispose of as he wishes in order to gain a livelihood. Hence only the author or his representatives can legally pass his work over to

another and transmit a right equal to that of the author himself. The King cannot transmit such a right, by privilege or otherwise, so long as the author is alive or is represented by heirs. The course of legislation shows that the privilege was always intended as an assurance to the publisher and to the public that the work contains nothing contrary to religion or the rights of the King or of private individuals. Beyond this, however, the privilege is a mark of the King’s favor and a just method of inspiring the publisher to work for the glory of the kingdom and the good of the people. The King cannot sweep aside all precedents merely to please a group who have no real claim on the privileges already granted. Two points are noteworthy in this discussion. First is the practical confusion of the permit (the censor’s statement of approval)

and the privilege (the Chancellor’s grant of a sales monopoly). Second is the defining of the theoretical basis of the permissionprivilege as partly a sign of royal favor and partly an act of justice, both due to the publisher for his public-spirited efforts. D'Hericourt’s second “proposition” is that a publisher’s manuscripts — whether bought from authors or transferred from other publishers — are comparable to any other stock in trade; they are

his assets just like real or personal property. Since men are not merely animals, there must be a class of thinkers and writers; and these must be able to command advantages proportionate to the importance of their work. Such advantages can be realized only if

the writer is able to treat his manuscript as any other worker is able to treat the product of his industry, that is, transfer ownership for a price to anyone he chooses. The seller must be able to pass over to the new owner not only the manuscript itself but

230 THE MASTERS also the rights inherent in it. In other words, the acquisition of a manuscript is in no way different from the acquisition of a piece of real estate. ‘The publisher, therefore, who has bought and paid for a manuscript or who has bought a privilege or a share in a

privilege from another publisher, ought to be the perpetual owner just as if he had bought a piece of land. No one would be so foolish as to ask the King to give him a house because the present owner had had it for a long time; and yet that is exactly what the provincial publishers were asking. If the claims of these publishers were allowed, said d’ Héricourt, the foundations of society and of commerce would be ruined. ‘The

laws of property must apply to all citizens; otherwise it is foolish to be sober, thrifty, and industrious. ‘The statutes regulating the book trade should apply to all members equally and these statutes forbid applications for privileges that belong to other publishers. If the field is thrown open, the provincial publishers will also be in danger of losing their privileges to competitors. Mutual jealousy, which destroys business security, will become rampant. No publisher will be willing to buy a manuscript, and so the authors will stop working. Then the Dark Ages will return. D’Héricourt’s memoir thus took the new idea of the author’s

status which we have already noted in Blondel’s pamphlet and twisted it to suit the needs of the publishers. From that point of view, as Guiffrey says, it presented a sensible, moderate, well-expressed statement of the whole problem. ‘The government, however, was angered by the implied questioning of royal authority as well as by the general tone of the memoir. ‘The syndic and wardens of the guild were demoted, and the printer was forced to go into

hiding. On the other hand, the petitions of the provincial publishers were rejected. In many other addresses to the Chancellor about this time both

privileged and nonprivileged publishers urged their conflicting points of view.*® During the next three decades the arguments became more bitter as the trade was faced with the inescapable results of unbridled piracy. At last in 1759 the Dauphin, the son of Louis XV, asked the Director of the Book ‘Trade to draw up a report on the whole situation. ‘This Malesherbes did in five mem‘6 Falk, pp. 98-101; Cristea, pp. 104-105; Coyecque, I, 124, no. 40.

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 231 oirs,4® the fourth of which is devoted to the relations between authors and publishers. In it he foreshadows a growing concern on the part of the authorities for the author and a modification of the traditional attitude of favoring the privileged publishers. ‘This concern was practically demonstrated by three decisions of the King’s Council within the next few years. In 1761 it granted to the granddaughters of La Fontaine a fif-

teen-year privilege for his works, in spite of the fact that he had sold them during his lifetime to Barbin, who in turn had sold them to others after obtaining several renewals of his privilege. Sympathy with the impoverished situation of the La Fontaine heirs

may have had much to do with the Council’s action, but in any case the guild faced the possibility of a dangerous precedent. ‘The guild bought the privilege from the granddaughters.

In 1768 Luneau de Boisgermain was sued for selling books without belonging to the guild. As the author or editor of a large number of volumes he exchanged copies of his own books with the

publishers of Paris and of the provinces for other books and sold them to provincial retailers. At the same time he acted as a purchasing agent for out-of-town booksellers. ‘The Council on 30 Jan-

uary 1770 found against the guild and ordered it to pay damages and costs.

An arrét of the Council 20 March 14744 in behalf of Fénelon’s family decreed that continuations of privileges could not be granted

to publishers without the consent of an author’s heirs.°° A few years later, however, this arrét was revoked and a continuation was

granted to the original publishers. |

Both Malesherbes and his successor, Sartine, were bombarded

with petitions and memoirs from the two groups of publishers. One of the most significant was presented to Sartine in March 1764 by the Paris guild.*! We do not need to examine its arguments for

perpetuity of the privilege based upon historical considerations and upon d’Heéricourt’s comparison of literary and other property. Much more important is the argument that a publisher’s business is founded not so much on current best sellers as upon a backlist *©De Lamoignon de Malesherbes, Mémoires sur la librairie et sur la liberté de la presse (Paris, 1809); the fourth memoir is on pp. 107-244. 5° Renouard, I, 164; Cristea, pp. 127—130, 136-137. 51 Laboulaye et Guiffrey, pp. 43-120.

232 THE MASTERS of titles in slow but steady demand. If a publisher cannot renew the original privilege, says the guild, he will have no encouragement to invest in large, expensive works and he will be unable to keep important but slow-moving titles in print. The charge of monopoly is neatly countered by pointing out that a privilege is limited to one title and doesn’t prevent other publishers and authors from issuing other works on the same subject or in the same category. Ihe memoir closes with a number of excellent suggestions in regard to the retail selling of books. Before carrying the petition to his superiors, Sartine handed it over for comment to his assistant, Joseph d’Hémery. ‘The latter wrote a series of notes in the margins of the document, from which we may construct the new official attitude.®? He pointed out that the claim of the Paris publishers would lead to the ruin of printing publishing in the provinces, a dangerous control of the trade centered in Paris, and eventually the destruction of the Chancellor's authority. Sartine was evidently satisfied with d’Hémery’s com-

ments and transmitted the annotated petition to the Vice-Chancellor 19 July 1764. In August 1764 the provincial publishers came back with their reply to the memoir of March 1764.°% This was a serious study of authors’ rights. It proposed that permissions and privileges should

be granted only to authors; that an author should be at liberty to cede his privilege to any printer or publisher approved by the Vice-

Chancellor; that at the author’s death his works should fall into the public domain and all publishers should then be able to apply for a privilege for new editions; that all manuscripts found at the death of an author should belong to his family, who could choose a publisher to whom a limited and nonrenewable privilege might be granted. The memoir did not discuss the important question of the proper term for a privilege granted for a book in the public domain. It did point out a serious difficulty in the administration of the current laws: the guild registers, it said, were poorly kept, the entries copied in tiny or illegible handwriting, beginnings and endings of entries indistinguishable, entries beginning at the end of one volume and continued into a new one without indication, 8 Malapert, Journal des Economistes, 4° série, no. 39, 4° année, no. 3, March 1881, pp. 453-466; Coyecque, I, 138; Cristea, pp. 107-116. 8 Falk, pp. 102-104; Cristea, pp. 116-118.

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 233 and no index. Furthermore the registers had to be consulted in the presence of the guild officers and at times set by them. Mere physical obstacles were almost as great a drawback as the laws themselves. The remedy, it was suggested, was to put the records in the Chancellor’s office.

The memoir of March 1764 may possibly have been written by Diderot; at any rate there is a striking resemblance between it and

a Lettre sur le commerce de la librairie which he addressed to Sartine in July 1767. In this he advances only one new argument: absence of limitation on the term of privileges assures the financial

stability of the publishers and thus works to the advantage of authors. It must be said that, however valid this idea may seem, it shows a strange incapacity on Diderot’s part to appreciate the tendency of contemporary thinking. The publishers of Lyon now addressed the King.®® ‘Their memoir points out how easy it is for Paris publishers to get the renewal

of a privilege and how difficult it is for the provincial publishers. The latter cannot possibly take up the suggestion that they act as middlemen because the Paris publishers give a discount of only 12 or 15 per cent, carriage charges additional. Besides, the Paris publishers sell by mail to out-of-town customers and thus flood the market before agents can receive their supplies. ‘The petition ends by urging that no renewals be granted. On 15 October 1776 the publishers of Lyon, Rouen, ‘Toulouse,

Marseilles, and Nimes issued a long and important memoir in which they emphasized the nature of the privilege itself as a justification for their claims.5* The privilege, it says, is a device by which the government limits a purchaser’s natural right to do what

he wants with a book he has bought. But the privilege in turn should be limited because, once a writer has received a price for his work, the larger claims of society must be considered. For the author is not isolated: he is a member of society, and he has duties toward it just as he receives benefits from it. In other sections of & Denis Diderot, @uvres complétes, 20 vols. (Paris, 1875-1877), XVIII, 7-75; Bernard Grasset, ed., Lettre sur le commerce de la librairie (Paris, 1937); L. Brunel, “Observations critiques et littéraires sur un opuscule de Diderot,” RHL, X (janv.— mars 1903), 1-24; Cristea, pp. 123~127. & Falk, pp. 107-113; Cristea, pp. 118-122; Coyecque, I, 142. 6 Falk, pp. 113-123; Cristea, pp. 130-135; Coyecque, I, 143.

234 THE MASTERS the memoir the publishers assert, with appropriate instances in proof, that all continuations are contrary to the public good and that only complete freedom of business can restore prosperity, order, and unity to the book trade of Paris and of the provinces.

4. Final attempts at reform The flood of petitions finally produced definite action. On 30 August 1777 Louis XVI issued six arréts®* which modified, extended, or explained various provisions in the basic law of 1723. The fifth arrét regulated the term of privileges; the sixth concerned piracies. Only these two call for our attention. The fifth forbids the publication of contemporary books without a privilege. No one is to ask for a renewal unless the new edi-

tion contains at least 25 per cent of new material; but privileges for reprinting the original edition at the same time may be granted

to other publishers. The term shall be not less than ten years or the life of the author. An author who obtains a privilege in his own name may sell his own books; he shall enjoy the privilege in perpetuity but if he sells it to a publisher the term shall be reduced to the author’s lifetime. At the expiration of the privilege or the death of the author, the publisher may obtain permission to bring out one new edition; but a similar permission may be granted to other publishers. Permissions of this sort shall be granted upon the signature of the Director of the Book Trade; but he shall give every applicant a list of all former privileges for the book and

of the number of authorized copies. Privileges shall be granted only to those who pay the established fees. Privileges shall be recorded within two months in the registers of the guild in the district where the publisher lives. In the case of those who have obtained privileges prior to this arrét, Paris publishers shall within two months, and provincial publishers shall within three months,

submit a list to the maitre des requétes; and they shall then be granted a final privilege for each title. After such date those who have not submitted their lists need not hope for any renewals. The sixth arrét forbids the reprinting of any book, even after the expiration of the privilege, without permission. ‘The owner of a privilege may at his own risk, peril, and fortune, call in the aid Laboulaye et Guiffrey, pp. 123-150.

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY _ 2g5 of an inspector or a police commissioner to inspect shops and warehouses where he thinks he may find pirated copies of his own titles;

but in case no such copies are found, the proprietor of the shop may collect damages from the publisher. ‘Those who own editions pirated before the passage of this arrét shall bring the copies to the

guild chamber, where the warden and the inspector shall stamp the first page of each copy. Compliance with this provision shall relieve the pirating publisher of all liability for infraction of previous laws. After two months’ interval any pirated editions found unstamped shall be considered new piracies, and the owner shall be subject to the regular penalties. These two arréts aroused immediate and bitter criticism. A group of publishers’ widows, dressed in mourning, went to Fontainebleau to ask the Keeper of the Seals for a repeal. Protests were

submitted by the guild, by the Rector of the University, and by various Academies, and the wardens of the Paris guild refused to stamp pirated editions. Since there was no response from the Chancellery, the guild retained the advocate Cochut to draw up a petition to the King. Linguet and Pluquet, two influential pamphleteers of the day, recorded their opposition.*® The only protest that brought any action was that of the Académie Francaise which in its sessions of 7 February and 23 July 1778

voted that the government should be more explicit on certain points.®® The first is when an author, in order to avoid the trouble of selling his own books, leases to one or more publishers the right

to bring out one or more editions only; in such cases the author should not be considered to have lost his privilege through temporary transfer to a publisher. In the second place, the government should define the term of a privilege for a work that extends to anumber of volumes or that is likely to have a very slow sale. In the third place, it ought to be possible to make complaints of piracy in the usual judicial way and not in such risky fashion as the arréts laid down. In reply the Council on go July 1778 issued an arrét embodying these three items, the reason being frankly stated that these alone came from an unbiased source and were calculated to make the new laws more effective. 58 Renouard, I, 173; Laboulaye et Guiffrey, pp. 153, 159-220; 223-264; 267-358. ® Cristea, pp. 183-187. * Laboulaye et Guiffrey, pp. 363-366; Isambert, XXV, 370.

236 THE MASTERS Nevertheless the protests continued and with a bitterness that sometimes descended to personalities. ‘The publisher Leclerc, in a letter dated 19 December 1778 to De Néville,*! the Director of the Book ‘Trade, charges that the whole business is merely a plan to enrich the Director, who is not accountable to anyone for the new schedule of fees. He insists that the author has now been demoted from a position of respectability in the community and placed on a level with the tinker who has found a new method of plating kitchenware. ‘The letter advances no new principles or arguments but it is interesting for its revelation of the attitude of the privileged publishers. At the same time a number of friendly suits were instituted to test the law. One of these was an action of Paucton, author of a work called Métrologie, against the widow Desaint.® Some time before, she had bought the manuscript outright, paying a price based on the assumption that she would have perpetual ownership. When the new laws reduced her rights to ten years, she claimed that the contract had been changed and she refused to print the book or to continue installments on the purchase price. On 11 August 1778 the Chatelet ordered execution of the contract and maintained her in full ownership with exclusive and permanent right to print and sell the work notwithstanding the provisions of the law. ‘The Parlement confirmed this decision 10 February 1779.

' ‘The six arréts had not been submitted to the Parlement for registration, and the next move of the publishers was to force some action by this body. ‘Their situation was outlined to the court by d’Esprémenil on 23 April 1779. He summarized each of the laws

and showed that the failure to observe some and the confusion caused by others had resulted in complete disruption of the trade.

He also cited the various petitions offered by the publishers in explanation of their rights, questioned the justice of the new schedule of fees for privileges, and gave examples of several current

lawsuits instigated by the changes. The Parlement voted that the matter needed investigation and it therefore summoned the administration to present its side.® The government was represented by Advocate-General Séguier, *t Laboulaye et Guiffrey, pp. 379-446. ° Falk, pp. 135-137; Cristea, pp. 193-194; Renouard, I, 180. % Laboulaye et Guiffrey, pp. 463-483.

PROTECTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY 234 and the proceedings took place 10, 27, and 31 August 1779. His analysis was divided into three parts: first, a summary of the six arréts; second, a summary of various petitions and memoirs, such as those of Cochut and Leclerc, and documents regarding the Pauc-

ton and other suits; third, a long and admirable history of French publishing that explains the nature and evolution of privileges.% After hearing Séguier the Parlement took its annual vacation and did not return to a consideration of the subject until 25 July 1780. It then decided to present remonstrances to the King. But

the committee appointed to draw up the remonstrances never made its report. In 1787 the Paris publishers sent a new memoir to

the Chancellor showing that the laws were ineffective and that business was ruined.® The government, overwhelmed with far more serious difficulties than the affairs of any single industry, paid

no attention to the plea. Even after the beginning of the Revolution it continued as far as it could to carry out the existing regulations and especially to grant privileges.

The last privilege entered in the guild’s registers is dated 27 July 1790. A month later La Harpe addressed the Constituent Assembly on conditions at the Comédie Francaise, and on 13 January 1791 the Assembly passed a decree, sponsored by Le Chapelier, embodying the main points of La Harpe’s petition.® It recog-

nized the rights of a dramatist to control the representation (not the publication) of a play during his lifetime and the continuance of the right in the person of his heirs or assigns for five years after his death. Thus the way was prepared for a decree of the Convention (19-24 July 1793) covering the publication of literary work.

The vital point of this decree is in the first Article: “Authors .. . shall enjoy during their whole life the exclusive right to sell their works . . . and to transfer their ownership in whole or in part.” The law now uses the word right. The protection of literary property no longer rests upon privilege or special favor; it is henceforth

a right which the author can claim. The privilége du roi has become the droit d'auteur. * Laboulaye et Guiffrey, pp. 484-596. & Laboulaye et Guiffrey, pp. 599-616.

Cristea, pp. 226-239.

“Part Four

THE WORKMEN

CHAPTER XII

THE JOURNEYMEN

1. Journeymen and alloués 7 Most of the manual labor in printing offices and in retail bookshops was performed by the journeymen (compagnons), the unskilled workmen (alloués), and the apprentices. The journeyman was theoretically a man who had finished his apprenticeship but had not yet been received as master in the guild or had not taken an

examination. On the other hand, he might have fulfilled all the requirements for mastership but be unable to command enough capital to set up a shop. In printing and in other crafts where the number of masters was restricted by law he might be a master who was merely waiting for a vacancy to occur in his own group. Or

again, he might be a master who had gone into bankruptcy and was obliged to work for wages in the shop of a former colleague. Position on the payroll rather than in the guild hierarchy was the distinguishing mark of the journeyman.} Printing shops made no distinction between the journeyman compositor and the journeyman pressman; the workman was normally capable of serving either at the case or at the press, for apprentices received instruction in both departments.? ‘The mercantile character of publishing and bookselling made the journeymen in these branches of the trade a less controversial factor in the total labor situation even though their numbers were very large.? Our

discussion will therefore be concerned with the craftsman, the

journeyman printer, almost exclusively. |

Although this class was in a general way fairly well protected 1 Henri Hauser, Ouvriers du temps passé, 5th ed. (Paris, 1927), p. 44.

Louis Morin, Essai sur la police des compagnons imprimeurs sous I’ ancien régime (Paris, 1898), p. 4. ®Emile Levasseur, Histoire des classes ouvriéres et le lindustrie avant 1789, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Paris, 1900-1901), II, 485.

242 THE WORKMEN from the competition of casual, itinerant, and immigrant rivals,‘ they were continually on the defensive in the masters’ struggle to lower costs by the employment of cheaper help.® Apprentices, who

cost the master almost nothing, were useful especially in the last year or two of their service. A more serious threat was the practice of many masters in the late seventeenth century and throughout the eighteenth of hiring alloués. ‘These were unskilled laborers, “lumpers,” men who had not served an apprenticeship and who could not meet the conditions of instruction demanded of journeymen on the way up the industrial ladder. ‘The legal right to employ

such workers was not recognized until 1713, when masters were authorized to take on as many as they needed; but even then, regular journeymen were to be given the preference if they were satisfied to accept the lower wage scale of the alloués.® ‘The same provi-

sion is found in Article go of the code of 1723. In 1724, however, the government ordered all Paris printers to hire at least one alloué

within the next six months, and those who had more than four presses were to take two. The guild registers show that 440 were hired in Paris during the period from 27 August 1723 to 15 February 1788. A memoir of 1755 says that some masters have three or four and that in some years there were as many as 300 in the city. In 1755 there were 150. Contracts called for a term of from two to six years of service. A very few became regular apprentices or journeymen but there were many who were dismissed for bad conduct or who ran away. In spite of its unsatisfactory nature the status of the alloués was confirmed by the law of 1777.7 It is difficult to estimate the proportion of journeymen to masters in industry as a whole. Nevertheless we can say with certainty

that the former made up the immense majority of the working class. ‘Che preponderance began as far back as the fourteenth cen-

tury in the textile crafts and increased with the development of capitalism and the gradual exclusivism of the guilds by which membership became a family concern. By the sixteenth century a * Hauser, pp. 52-58; Etienne Martin Saint-Léon, Histoire des corporations de métiers..., 4th ed. (Paris, 1941), pp. 381-383. 5 Georges Renard, Les Travailleurs du livre et du journal, 3 vols. (Paris, 1925),

” Claude Marin Saugrain, Code de la librairie et de l’imprimerie de Paris (Paris, 1744), p. 146.

7 Morin, pp. 36, 29-31.

THE JOURNEYMEN 243 permanent class of journeymen had been created throughout western Europe.® According to a census by Le Tellier there were in the Paris of 1682 about 17,085 masters and 38,000 journeymen in all crafts. In 1725 there were 25,000 masters and 60,000 journeymen.® Only a very small segment of these workers were employed in the printing shops. Most of the latter were small, especially in the early days, and the master could himself attend to all the business with some help from his wife and children. Even though the firm of Godard and Merlin was an extremely prosperous one in 1538,

it is rather difficult to believe that it employed two hundred and fifty or even two hundred workmen. In 1565 Plantin, in Antwerp, had twenty-one pressmen, eighteen compositors, three apprentices, two type founders, and a shop boy, together with five proofreaders. Mrs. Armstrong calculates that “the staff required by [Robert] Estienne would be of the same order, and we may visualize up to fifty employees at the press when Estienne was at the height of his activity at Paris.” #° In 1644 the seventy-three shops in Paris employed two hundred and fifty-seven journeymen and ninety-four

apprentices; only eight shops had nine or more journeymen and apprentices, and the largest, that of Edme Martin, had only sixteen journeymen and two apprentices." In 1666 the seventy-nine shops, although equipped with two hundred and sixteen presses, had only two hundred and twenty-two journeymen and sixty-nine apprentices. In 1696 there were only forty-four shops; these employed one

hundred and sixty-eight journeymen and three apprentices —a remarkable decrease.

Figures for the eighteenth century are out of all proportion to those for the seventeenth. In neither case, of course, was there any accurate enumeration but the source of our information for the later period would seem to indicate at least a tendency to exaggerate in order to prove the writer’s point. Blondel, who was certainly not a restrained judge, is responsible for saying that in 1725 8 Henri Hauser, “Journeymen’s societies,’ Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York, 1932), IV, 425~427.

®Henri Crepin, La Liberté du travail dans Vancienne France (Vézelay, 1937), p. 25; Levasseur, IT, 319.

Elizabeth Armstrong, Robert Estienne, Royal Printer, An Historical Study of the Elder Stephanus (Cambridge, Eng., 1955), p. 57.

"Henri Jean Martin, “L’Edition parisienne au XVII° siécle,” Annales: économies, sociétés, civilisations, 7° année, no. 3 (juillet-septembre, 1952), 309 n3 and m4.

244 THE WORKMEN there were six hundred journeymen printers in Paris.12 A memoir of 1755 gives seven to eight hundred as the ordinary total. Five or six hundred of these were employed during the busy season while

the Parlement was in session, but not more than three or four hundred at other times. Three hundred were natives of foreign countries and two hundred came from other parts of the kingdom. In 1765 d’Hémery reported to the lieutenant of police that there were then six hundred in Paris.%° In the provincial towns the situation was more nearly what one

would expect. ‘There were ten masters and ten journeymen at Troyes in 1701. Jacques Oudot employed five of them, his brother two, and three others one each; five masters worked alone. In 1764

there were three masters and thirty journeymen at Troyes, Jean Garnier alone having nineteen of them. At Dijon a census of 1787 showed four masters and thirty-one journeymen."*

2. Deteriorating position of the journeymen In all industries throughout the ancien régime the economic position of the journeyman tended to deteriorate from his quasi-equal familial status as a companion working with his master to that of a hired “hand.” Even among the masters a sharp distinction grew up between the richer and the poorer, the former absorbing the lucrative mercantile function and the latter becoming dependent industrialists. The merchant guilds, the famous Six Corps of Paris, asserted and maintained a social superiority over the craft guilds. Sometimes whole guilds became financially dependent upon an individual or a group of capitalists, as did the butchers of Paris, the weavers, and the silkworkers of Toulouse. The printers, especially in Paris and Lyon, became subordinate to the booksellers, who more and more developed into real publishers. There was always, however, at least a little room at or near the top of every craft for the enterprising and pushing journeyman in spite of his lack of capital. He might, for instance, be allowed to 12 Pierre Jacques Blondel, Mémoire sur les vexations qu’exercent les libratres et imprimeurs de Paris (Paris, 1874), pp. 60, 63. 18 Paul Chauvet, “Compagnons imprimeurs et imprimeries clandestines 4 Paris sous Louis XV,” Revue d’Histoire économique et sociale, XXVI (1940-1947), 169. 14 Morin, p. 9.

% Arthur Birnie, “The Growth of Industry in Europe,” European Civilisation, ed. Edward Eyre, 7 vols. (New York, 1937), V, 260-266; Hauser, Ouvriers, pp. 73-76.

THE JOURNEYMEN 245 contribute what he could to the invested funds of the business; this form of contract, known as the commandite, closely resembled

our arrangement of permitting the employees to buy stock in a firm for which they are working. Or again, a master might withdraw from the personal management of a business and hand over the details to a clever workman in return for a yearly income, a

censive as it was called. He thus became a silent partner. The Chatelet forbade this subterfuge in 1646 and again in 1648.16

Both these arrangements were fairly common in the printing business. ‘The way to this form of management was made the easier by the practice of allowing a widow to carry on her husband’s shop

after his decease and often for many years until either her sons grew up or she herself married her foreman. She must at all times have been closely associated with the head journeyman, or foreman, and he must have carried on the practical technical operations as though he were the actual owner. The distinction between him and the late master was probably very slight in the minds of the ordinary journeymen, the apprentices, and the customers. He had to make the enterprise keep afloat and pay an income to the widow as well as wages to the staff.

Morin gives two pertinent examples from Troyes. In 1673 Claude Febvre, a master dealer, asked for permission to add a printing shop to the bookselling business he had conducted for thirty years. Except for the incidental knowledge he had gained from printing several books in partnership with his father he did not know the craft, but he cited the cases of three Paris publishers (Frédéric Léonard, Denis ‘Thierry, and Pierre Petit) who had recently been received as printers upon presenting an experienced journeyman for whom they held themselves responsible. Febvre himself, in like manner, now presented Edme Pinard, who had been an apprentice in ‘Troyes and had worked there for more than twenty years. The lieutenant general of police authorized Febvre to take the oath and, even though the guild objected, he seems to have become a legal printer. The second case was less fortunate. In May 1706 Pierre Herluison, a master printer and publisher, ceded to his journeyman Jean Maslot all his rights. Maslot was to carry on the business un*6 Morin, p. 25.

246 THE WORKMEN der Herluison’s name during the latter’s lifetime and that of his wife, he was to promise to observe all the guild rules and to pay the brotherhood fees, and was to give Herluison twenty livres a year. The contract, however, was canceled ten days later. The aggressive journeyman had another even more profitable way to satisfy his ambition. ‘The big money was always to be found

in the clandestine shops from which poured a steady stream of pirated books and of the quick selling pamphlets that could never meet the censors’ approval. Most of these shops were in the hands

of journeymen who generally had someone behind them rich enough to provide the equipment and influential enough to warrant starting the enterprise with little or no fear of the authorities. The concealed owner was naturally far less exacting in regard to letters of recommendation and other details of personnel practice

and he paid far higher wages than the official schedule. If the police made a raid, the journeyman-foreman-operator got off with a small fine or a couple of hours in the pillory, whereas a master would be punished very severely. A great many other shops were

run by journeymen in their own free time and with type stolen from their masters. Of course neither the Parlement nor the police nor the Director of the Book Trade could make their will felt in such circumstances. D’Hémery recognized the situation and in a report to the lieutenant general in 1765 sketched a plan of drastic action. Blaming

the journeymen alone for the great increase in the number of illegal shops, he would have the police set up two new registers as a means for keeping a strict watch over their movements and for

detecting the earliest indication of criminal attempts. The first would contain data gathered from each workman — his name and

surname, age, birthplace, address, the name of the master with whom he had learned his trade, and a list of the shops in which he

had worked. The second would contain data from the masters showing the names of all newly hired men and of all who left a shop.

A different proposal is found in a memoir of this same year, 1765. The writer of this document would recruit journeymen printers as auxiliary police. The whole country would thus be covered by faithful, expert agents who would know what was going

THE JOURNEYMEN 247 on by the simple process of keeping their ears open for gossip in the taverns. ‘To keep track of the number of men and their movements there would be two registers, one for the police and one for the guild officials, with full data on each individual. Unexplained leaving of an employer or absence of a month from visible employment would be considered evidence of association with an illegal shop and a hint for immediate investigation. Neither of these proposals was taken up by the authorities; and even if they had been, they. would have meant merely a new mass of paper work rather than effective action. Sartine himself, Malesherbes’ successor, recognized that the only way to solve the problem was to alter the whole temper of society. And that upheaval was delayed for another quarter of a century.”

3. Terms of employment These two methods of circumventing guild exclusiveness — (1) practical control of a shop by acting as tenant or agent of a master and (2) setting up an illegal outfit — were for none but the most irrepressible journeymen; the great body of workers were hemmed in by increasingly severe burdens. Employment was unstable and on amore or less casual basis. Contracts were generally verbal and almost never renewed. Pressmen were usually hired for a year but

the more frequent term both for them and for compositors was either a month or the duration of a particular job.1® In the first arrangement the man agreed to do a certain number of pages each day and was paid without regard to holidays; in the second he was

paid by the sheet. The master, of course, had to keep a balance between the two departments of the shop and see that neither one was idle while waiting for the other to catch up. From his point of view, paying by the sheet or “by form” had the advantage of giving him more leeway in his calculations for he did not in this case pay for idle time. There was a third class of employees, at least in the larger shops, the workers en conscience. ‘These were generally the foreman and the men whose length of service entitled

them to respect and to more or less freedom in the handling of their work. 7 Chauvet, pp. 169-172. #8 Morin, pp. 5-8; Hauser, Ouvriers, pp. 64-68; Levasseur, II, 509 n2.

248 THE WORKMEN The temporary nature of most employment led to keen competition among the masters for the more skillful workmen, and this in spite of the fact that the supply of labor seems to have been large. The edict of Villers-Cotterets (1539) 1° and all the later general laws forbade masters to entice away the journeymen of their colleagues. ‘The practice begun thus early became more and more troublesome, and in the edict of Gaillon (1571) there is a definite attempt to put an end to it. Henceforth no journeyman is to be hired unless the new master has checked to see that the man has finished the job he had previously been engaged for and the man must present a letter of dismissal from his former master.*° There were several sides to the problem here involved. ‘The authorities wanted to keep an eye on all workmen in order to suppress heretical and seditious printing. ‘The masters were concerned

to maintain continuous and efficient production in their shops. The workers, stung by the indignity of close surveillance, insisted upon freedom to move about and to make the best bargains they could in the labor market. In 1664, for instance, they asserted that they were responsible, settled citizens of Paris, most of them with families and many of them graduates of the University. Again and

again they pointed out that they were the real experts, that the masters had no technical knowledge but only a supply of money.?!

The first guild statutes (1618) repeated the requirement of 1571 regarding the letter of dismissal. On 14 July 1654 the Parlement reaffirmed it; if masters were caught disobeying it, they were liable to any fine the court might fix, but the journeyman was to

be forced, without any pretense of a hearing and merely on the master’s request, to return to his master. Unscrupulous masters were evidently quick to see how the requirement might be perverted into blacklisting; at any rate the journeymen in 1658 complained, ineffectually, that they were being thus unfairly treated. The law of 1686, however, continued to forbid masters to offer better terms to workers from other shops and to hire anyone without a letter of dismissal. The provision appears again in the code 1G, A. Crapelet, Etudes pratiques et littéraires sur la typographie (Paris, 1837), re % Antoine Fontanon, Les Edicts et ordonnances des rois de France depuis S. Loys iusques a présent, 2d ed., 4 vols. (Paris, 1585), IV, 474-475. 1 Morin, pp. 27-29; Hauser, Ouvriers, pp. 215-226.

THE JOURNEYMEN 249 of 1723, with the additional requirement that masters and widows must declare each week at headquarters the names of those whom they had hired and those who had left their shop. This was changed somewhat in the law of g October 1724; masters are now to keep a weekly record of all employees, the work they are doing, and

the wages they have earned, this record to be available to the syndic and wardens upon demand. And in order to prevent fraud the master must verify the signature on the letter of dismissal before turning it in to headquarters. All these details were repeated in 1728, 1731, and 1737.” The law of 30 August 177” saw the final attempt to keep track of the workmen. All journeymen printers are to record, on a special register in the guild, their name, age, birthplace, address, employ-

ers name, and length of service. Fach one shall receive a parchment ticket (cartouche) signed and sealed by the syndic and wardens; the fee is to be thirty sous. This ticket must be presented on

demand of the guild officials; replacement of a lost ticket is to cost fifteen sous. A man leaving a shop must bring or send his card

to headquarters, and on it the master shall note his consent and the reason for leaving, all of which information shall be entered on the register. The syndic and one of the wardens shall visé the ticket, the fee being twenty-five sous. The masters are to report changes in personnel to headquarters and twice a month are to report absences for illness or private business and cases of bad con-

duct. The master must note on the man’s ticket the initial date of employment. Each guild shall take a yearly census of workmen in its jurisdiction and shall inspect the work tickets. ‘This record is to be circulated to other guilds. Dealers and sons of dealers or of dealer-printers working in a shop are to be exempt from the requirement of registration and ticket upon proof of their status. Foremen and workers en conscience are, however, included in the law. All complaints of either masters or workmen are to be settled by the guild officials, with right of appeal to the Chancellor or the Keeper of the Seals.”8

To show that this law was completely neglected Morin says he 2 Saugrain, pp. 152, 149-150, 162-165, 154-159; Morin, pp. 25, 32. *8Isambert, Jourdan, Decrusy, Recueil général des anciennes lois frangaises, 29 vols, (Paris, 1821-1833), XXV, 123-128; Levasseur, II, 668.

250 THE WORKMEN consulted two folios in the archives, the first labeled Register of journeymen printers working at Paris, Compiegne, Meaux, Senlis, and Sens” (240 leaves); the second, “Register of journeymen printers without work’ (159 leaves). The first had no entries for Paris, Compiégne, and Senlis; Bertrand of Sens gave data on his two workmen; Courtois of Meaux on his two compositors and one pressman. The second volume was absolutely blank. ‘These were the only pertinent records Morin found in any of the archives.** The impermanent nature of much journeyman employment is evidenced not only by the letters of dismissal but also by the frequent insistence upon a man’s giving his master sufficient warning of his intention to leave the shop. The laws of 1539 and 1541

say that the journeyman must not leave until he has finished the job he has in hand nor without giving a week’s notice, thus allowing the master and the other workmen time for readjustments.”° When these stipulations were repeated in the edict of Gaillon, the men were able to gain the attention of the Parlement for their side of the story. At a session of the court on 8 April 1572 they pointed

out that they could not easily give notice because they almost never had complete copy for a job and therefore could not estimate how long it would take and furthermore that the masters often interrupted a job either voluntarily or involuntarily. ‘To satisfy this objection the decree of 10 September 1572 said that the masters must warn the men eight days ahead of the end of a job, and that if the work was interrupted, they must furnish an equivalent dur-

ing the interim, though the men might leave if the interruption lasted more than three weeks.”® ‘This reciprocal arrangement

brought a long period of quiet. The code of 1723 added that all workers en conscience must give the master two months’ notice but the master need give them only one month’s. In 17747 such workmen must give one month’s notice whereas the masters need give them only two weeks’. At all times the master was free to dismiss a workman summarily for good and sufficient cause such as

the use of blasphemous language, insubordination, general disobedience, and immorality.?* 4 Morin, p. 38. % Fontanon, IV, 468, 474~475. * Hauser, Ouvriers, pp. 68-73, 226-230; Fontanon, IV, 476-477. 7 Saugrain, pp. 168, 161; Isambert, XXV, 126-127.

THE JOURNEYMEN 251 Another, and most serious, element in the progressive deterioration of the journeymen’s economic and social status was the competition of apprentices, alloués, foreigners, and others who represented cheap labor. The masters’ answer to the demand for lower prices of books was lower wages. No one at the time could have thought of the alternative of more economical management. For the journeyman, as for the masters in their own sphere, the only course was ceaseless opposition to interlopers.

The preamble of the edict of Villers-Cotterets (1539) attributes all the difficulties of the craft to the determination of the journeymen not to work with the apprentices. The law confirmed the masters’ right to take on whatever apprentices they wished and forbade any molestation of the boys. It also gave the masters full authority to divide a rush job among as many workers as might seem necessary. Nor was there to be any portal-to-portal pay; wages were to be calculated from the time a press started working until the moment it stopped. When this law was extended in 1541 to cover the city of Lyon, the master was given the right to let out part of a rush job to another shop, if necessary, as well as to rearrange work in his own. ‘The government was well aware that the

men were aiming at restriction of the labor supply not only for their own craft advantage but as an object lesson to all other journeymen throughout the kingdom.”® The men gained some clarification of the situation as a result

of their protests against the edict of Gaillon which in 1571 reaffirmed the provisions of earlier laws. ‘The decree of 10 September 1572 contained an important new ruling. Masters are to have

no more than two apprentices for each working unit, one at the press and one at the case. ‘he men may agree to more than two but in any event the boys shall do only easy minor work and not more

than two shall be assigned to a press at one time. Furthermore, they shall be taught by the master himself and shall not divert the journeymen from their own work. The law also says that the masters must be honest about rush jobs and not try to accelerate work in order to make up for a holiday. Again, the master must begin presswork one day after the compositor had prepared the form, a provision obviously aimed at any concentration of work that would * Fontanon, IV, 469-470.

252 THE WORKMEN lead to urgency in operating the presses. Masters are allowed to hire any journeymen they think can best do the work, who will be most obedient and most expert, without any preference for men from Paris or Lyon over those from other French cities. But those from Paris and Lyon are to be preferred to foreigners. The competition from apprentice labor was lessened by the law of 1649 restricting their number to one per shop. As a result, the number of journeymen was soon so greatly decreased that they

became more insolent and unbearable than ever and on 14 July 1654 the ranks were opened again for a period of ten years. In 1729

the number was again limited to one, and on 12 July 1724 it was ordered that no new ones should be taken for six years. In 1730 this was renewed for another six years, and in 1741 for ten years.?°

To supply the need for unskilled labor for handling odd jobs, the practice of hiring alloués arose and was finally recognized by law.

4. Relations with masters; wages Any general view must lead one to sympathize rather strongly with the journeyman. He had to be fairly well educated before he could begin his four years of apprenticeship; and when that time was finished, he still had to serve at least three years before he could hope to become a master. And for practically everyone the mastership could never be anything but a hope. In the meantime he was the object of vilification from all sides. He was said to be the cause of disorder inside and outside the shop. He cared only for money

and had no appreciation of the artistic side of his craft. He was drunken and immoral. In time of national danger such as the disturbance of the Fronde, the government, the masters, the Parlement, the Sorbonne all played fast and loose with his representatives and turned down every effort for industrial peace.®° Abbé Blondel rose vigorously to the defense of the journeymen and, under the cover of anonymity, was not hesitant about calling

the names of particularly objectionable masters. He said that the men had never given cause for serious complaint on the score of leaving a job unfinished. Of course there must be a few drunkards #9 Saugrain, pp. 131, 137-139; Morin, p. 25. * Renard, I, 93~94.

THE JOURNEYMEN 253 among so large a group as six hundred but on the other hand wages were so small that no one had enough money to buy any great amount of drink. This was only an excuse brought out to appease an author who complained of delays in doing his work; the truth was that the masters were always ready to drop a large job and rush through a more profitable pamphlet.*! Blondel asserted that the masters were so stingy that they would

have liked to hire the waterboys as workmen and use their own wives as proofreaders. Their treatment of the men was worse than that accorded the slaves in Algeria. At this rate learned men will soon be found leaving France for foreign countries where they will not have to do business with such shameful pirates as Jean Baptiste Christophe Ballard, Pierre Charles Emery, Joseph Barbou, Nicolas Simart, and Christophe (II) David.*?

Then he goes on to give a specific instance of an attempt to break the labor market. Barbou and David had recently asked Francois Montalan, who had foreign correspondents, to get some

journeymen for them from Germany, promising to give them three livres a day in addition to food, laundry, and lodging. Eight

men came but, unfortunately, as it appeared in the sequel, they did not bring Montalan’s letter, which conveyed a written promise

if not exactly a contract. Barbou employed six, and David two. After they had worked three days, Barbou said he was dissatisfied because they were totally ignorant of French and did not work in the French fashion. He therefore proposed giving them only two livres a day, without food or lodging, on condition that they stay three years. Upon their refusal to agree to such a breach of promise, he shut them up in the shop for a day without food. ‘They made so much noise, however, that he finally had to release them. Now all they wanted was to go home, but Barbou held onto their prop-

erty. The journeymen printers took pity on them and made a collection to help them off. Such treatment of foreigners is bad enough, said Blondel; but aside from that, why were these strangers

brought in when there was not enough to occupy the large number of workers already in Paris? Pretty soon, he cried, we’ll be importing negroes to work in the printing shops just as we use them on the sugar and indigo plantations of the West Indies! ‘This is %1 Blondel, pp. 59-61.

* Blondel, pp. 65-68; Paul Ducourtieux, Les Barbou (Paris, 1896), p. 298.

284 THE WORKMEN no way to treat intelligent, well-educated, and technically skilled citizens!

Then as now the question of wages was the chief bone of contention between employers and men. Saturday was the usual payday but some masters made it Sunday. Payment might, however,

be made monthly if so agreed. During the greater part of the sixteenth century food was included as had long been the custom, but in 15472 this was emphatically forbidden. The edict of Gaillon

stated that ‘master printers shall pay good workers such wages as they think proper in view of their dexterity and diligence and the amount of work they can do each day; and there shall be no objection from those who are idle or less skillful.” Upon the men’s protest this was made more definite the next year and the rate for Paris was set at eighteen livres per month as a maximum, or twelve sols per day. Outside Paris the providing of meals continued for some time.*3

The rate of eighteen livres per month, without “keep,” was continued by the statutes of 1618. In 1650 the number of sheets required for each day was reduced from 2650 to 2500 in black or 2200 in red and black, with no diminution of wages. The law of 14 July 1654 set the much higher scale of twenty-seven livres for ordinary work, twenty-eight for difficult work, and thirty-three for Greek composition. The men, however, were still dissatisfied, demanding fifty livres in view of the high cost of living and asking for special negotiations for extraordinary work. Only the second of these requests was granted.*#

Various arrangements are found at Troyes. In 1626 a journeyman was engaged for a year for food, lodging, and eighteen livres payable half at the end of six months. In 1655 a man was hired for ten sous a day, with the promise of additional pay if he turned out more than 2600 sheets. In 1691 another man agreed for eight livres

a month and his living. In 1640 Nicolas Le Coeur promised Jacques Oudet, a master printer, to serve him for two years and to pay him thirty-six sols for each day he failed to report for work unless he had a good excuse. Le Coeur was to work from 5 A.M. to 88 Fontanon, IV, 474, 477; Morin, p. 4; Hauser, Ouvriers, pp. 92-100. 4 Marcel Bar, L’Organisation et l’action syndicales dans la typographie frangaise (Paris, 1907), pp. 27-29.

THE JOURNEYMEN 255 7 P.M. and receive instruction; he was to be paid five sous a day the first year and six the second; he was to receive more if he did more

than the usual amount.” During the eighteenth century the general wage level rose, espe-

cially after 1774, but at the end of the period the average pay for the textile workers in Languedoc was still only twenty or twentyfive sous per day, and in Rouen the average for all journeymen was twenty-five or thirty sous. In comparison, the rate of forty or fifty sous and even three livres (sixty sous) earned by the Paris printers was quite exceptional.®* Blondel insisted that if they were

paid in proportion to the outrageous prices the dealers set on books, they would get fifteen or twenty livres a day. As a matter of fact, he said, the most skillful got only three livres, and the masters did all they could to reduce that to twenty-five or thirty sous. He

admitted, however, that the compositor’s pay had gone up from three to four livres per sheet and that pressmen were getting fifty sols instead of thirty per form. Morin cites a manuscript note in a copy of Saugrain in the Troyes Library to the effect that workers en conscience got three livres a day; this must have been after 1744. He also cites a memoir that a journeyman working for the printer Simon on Panckoucke’s Encyclopédie méthodique (1781) got fifteen livres ten sous per sheet and wanted more; ** but this was certainly a very high payment. 5. Workmen’s assoctations

We have already pointed out how inaccurate are the pictures of industrial peace under the guild régime. ‘The journeymen printers, especially, are the last group one would expect to submit tamely to unfavorable and oppressive conditions. ‘The weapons in their struggle were the same as those of the modern worker — protests to the government, strikes, craft associations, and lawsuits. The earliest associations of craftsmen were the religious and mutual aid brotherhoods made up of masters and men. ‘Their development into labor organizations is, as Coornaert says, ‘‘another 8 Morin, pp. 6-8. %® Henri Sée, Esquisse d’une histoire économique et sociale de la France (Paris, 1929), P- 355:

8? Morin, pp. 38-39.

256 THE WORKMEN complicating factor added to a group of facts that are among the most confused in all guild life.” 3° Religious objectives soon degen-

erated into excuses for banquets and drunken brawls.®® But in certain crafts it is impossible to say whether economic organization

took place after or before the philanthropic organization, that is, whether the guild preceded the brotherhood or not. So far as printing goes, the brotherhood was much earlier, for the craft was part of the predominantly religious organization of the University. Both Church and State were opposed to all brotherhoods for many decades, and it was not until after 1660 that they were officially recognized and their place and activity were defined. By this time they had become forces of order and social stability, made up of masters

more often than not and developing and strengthening the religious aspects of the guilds. Associations of this sort met with no government disapproval until the laws of February 1776, April 174747, and 19 March 1786.*°

The purely religious brotherhood of the printers, that of St. John the Evangelist, was at first made up of masters, journeymen,

and apprentices, but early in the sixteenth century the journeymen seem to have withdrawn. ‘They formed another association under the patronage of St. Jean Porte Latine and had their headquarters in the close of the church of St. Jean de Latran. This was a privileged place under the authority of the Knights of St. John, and to it the power of the University did not extend. The organization was always a secret affair; we have no documents regarding

it, and our information comes only from incidental hints such as the memoir issued in 1572 by the master printers of Lyon in response to remonstrances of the journeymen published after the edict of Gaillon. ‘The existence of such an association both in Paris

and in Lyon is, however, the only way to explain the cause and the strength of the great strikes of the sixteenth century,*! the lesser

strikes of the eighteenth century, the origin of the numerous pro8 Emile Coornaert, Les Corporations en France avant 1789 (Paris, 1941), pp. 230—

oe 8° Edme de la Poix de Fréminville, Dictionnaire de la police (Paris, 1758), p. 184; Martin Saint-Léon, pp. 250-256. 40 Coornaert, pp. 231-236; Louis Germain-Martin, Les Associations ouvriéres au XVIII® siécle (Paris, 1900), pp. 44—65.

41 Renard, I, 57-61; Bar, pp. 19-23; Etienne Martin Saint-Léon, Le Compagnonnage, son histoire, ses coutumes, ses réglements, et ses rites (Paris, 1901), pp. 32-39.

eReeo a tee .

aes SRS epese: La BR a ee epee a Len OSTA E ST:

6 eS seee 23 aASS ES coSeeae abe RSSe 2 en See eens zi

ae See sate a a $ BRR: ee ee ne rae eS ee Spo Se $e —— 3 . ES Ss Bs eee SOBRE rod es ee SRROeCO EN Tere 333

BS Ree: Pore: x Soe Sr eS PARES 2 BSE

Bo aR Sg as SES ao: xs Rs aeSS Eee cenes ee . uesees 3SeSaaS Lea RS ee OOS ceBS ROS eS EX ae A, rneeranc ton, 46S 3SS eee Rs Ste pane $NG SRCee eR ese SECRET Cag asioe eee PEE ee SEE BRE re1ND Rp reggae naeeae Bes Bion. eee OR FE8 85Rte ORS Oe oiea2) pieSeer X55te ees poe ae — ee. eeaewe Pele

ee Ee asses

ee a Cae a ce oS Tee hae oe See ares gues

CON oe PeeeER eat pont aaunenants GOR ae SESS Ra BAF 9 Br Sigcreceioner ote ony praseeeses 3

Sees =ee Es neSER oe Seeees Se oe Sauce feos SN Eats: Rmx“aaa oe SRRE ShsES: SRSee Saran SSeS see: heey Sosenmeee eas Be SS x SRS ‘ss es Sec Bag z CER, RRS Se SeFP caeaa et 3 DE 5pa! Beesee at os. Seana ISR Pest aes eR sear Senses Seeoe ee pat SES OREN RRR Bits % »GSR, ae paintsé oe LAREN MNES Se 4TS “28H 2 AE Se oes ee og Sees RSE Naenane Sten ea UES ce = os Brake erisaanaanas Sees % ke 1g. aN aeBE ee ee a Beek Be Ses ee eee Hie — eine a eee Be: —— | OS ee ee Be Re ee oe Se As TBR ORO pgs See ne: BR ESE: SB phantet ce ont Eee ORR has Seer e sn aa Se Sees Seis pean = oe poe pees Thy Rs 4 ie 5 pete pieces = soars Sean Seo RES A os is apie. RS ages gee ose PIERS Gunnery Rig - yaa eS Se 3 Bt aay se ts eae oe 3 Ne ae ee es Sone ee wey. _ a ae Reet ote TOON ra a By FNS SENee oa S Ey 3 vee ¥, Bae SS Seater sese Bes SR SSR ee Ns aes _ moe - al eres Sk wes ela: ae ME EE it eee Sereetins ia ‘ ER I We8 Si ore es nese wea UR Baek tae

Ey EScoRae a Sate:TS eteeyNees sere OeesoreeeSRES a Beeeae: eat SEIooRRR SBERS aeSee Baga. SeeSSoe eaeSee eatsspats Ss Seas . Spent BSAO Scag segs EEbesita 5oO 6 eSS Ps oer EB&deie33 os SE gageeRSeSsoreeeats eee RE SSeS wis aaesWee natsSN eeerSees ee Se Seabee ata. reee OF he feeVee TES“nageon ReneS ee spre

Si Re ee 33eeSe SS a 4seca oe NS sgn ee oe . oeae aeaeaSH eee fgg BE axssccmesiicies on: Ee See RS5pases Se SaeS eeay Seueee Sereee eeoo. eee Sacer BossSee Be ea SONG oS seats Sera -ee Ssa3ae RRSBeaty Seth eee ‘Spans aa: BRI anee refe PARIt meres get ae yeeee SSO: eee Be $a es ere: Seas ae ae Be ee pees BES ak oy ad Re if ete geese oe | ee oe ag oe | . oe ee oe | fone ae: i. eee poecaes EERE Sass a3aaa AesReet ee aes: sine Se ee Sete eee soe Sern Ey cane Ly eer | ESB soe Sree is:SSeS arr Sees Ses Sastre $35 Seas $ Bees x ae BR‘ oe SE : Re BE pS he $3 Seats Sean.AS Recent “eeeof. seee Benson EeSS elseee RC pion aa ceed eePeg a poe vey ER eat hee. Reeencani paces Na =Bs hee 5aaSeaee SRC BE SiSeeees a ELIT THC Be regee eteATP. tisswe ores Sees ERR %: tf eee ae oo EES Ro 2 iia po ae ee Seni eee eee foe ee Be on ES See a BF Pa BesSeat 3 Bee oe Se Senate aa BS RE oe ateta ee ae aes eesBs a plo mo on x .a*. ot AREfi.i rye nly tee ae . v3 % oe eReSy LON Le $e ee:acts AS ee ts S >SEs $53aeRNe Sew Setsu ee38 StAS See5Sabie ey Pe SEES SS a»‘dla see cnn Loosg aeges season Rae . . .. tage . . . ene No Ot a $ “s oa Py Poste: Sites

BS Soe ESR 33 So Bassas Se cess Soe pa a eae Se eR aS oe Se SS me ee Bees See SK os wes Ps can vet n coe ee nuke Lo TES at: akiee Pa, ee By OE "rings is %. & ei OY ees end ay2ty so oS x Seah S oe ced Re ee ae re 3 ef erm ee oe = Sy ee: “ . re “oe igen’ ona Parra ends 2S NE git Sah een ae Be Boe a FB. bh ‘ 33 “4 a3 a Eos

€Seer&,so aBySi Lo eo ee aa Brae ea . pe Sy Age eS "ge Foe ne we re Fe eeerenaee eae aes ae: iS See @ “tng ge eae EE SS Bae eee Se eae 5 BSS SSEXS Pees ee yeoeeh Beeeaeo oe ee “! Se eee Re Bail PR”: 3 a a Seana Oo a . rn wns By a sree eae ea tk TESS atts “Se, Re Eons PM ae Bae eg Mg ‘ws ; Mt Res gE: ait

aeIMjie “ao eeSRRoeRecent ge:- 2 SPB E= geDoe eo See , aera| esPES aan carer | Moe Se SFBO S.33 Beg a Sa SNS ae OSES Se Ben 7 ‘te . eee? Siti hoki Fa, Biisosssc wel eet OE an we ee eat pete Hues are AE ar x oa eS Pere tog geS re. e a Reek Sees £€: fHtES ee

Lr Oe ayeres Rs SS Stooges anesoe eeek & Shee Re anfeeeecu Bee See St as. .cote: vote oo a wa on enladt * eneeh MCE : AeSewn Sees Egg mec Se “i Sah3SSeSie eoSee . SSBape aaa SR aes RrSS oeish te wet Sies Ses : CUnes ESReeerreia Theos Sots. Sn en Co eg Sees an SRS ye Bei % m5x3&j 4%mea ae a3BSSos aes Res ee ad eae Ee fw ee pe aie eT oo Be Seg zs, cut xf eas SE eee tS: — meeeae Se oe pepe ae 3 ss ~ Ea? A fee eS_— Pee et FS aeN RAGS aes asian ne Sage gs See Spake LS seat SESaek2Behe “ paniitee graree ts > fhessteceet onoeStes 43 SEES ae Oe Roepe ee ESstississ SES aeeagae eesseeeasey settee [ee tenetSe AS Shene a pees sessaeettons ; iSasaesase eeergtoret Shes 3: “OR a These

and other precedents were picked up in the laws of 1618, 1686, and 1723, the penalty for infraction being set at a fine of a thousand livres and service of double the amount of time remitted.

Breaking a contract might not, of course, be due to mutual agreement but to the action of the apprentice himself. There is nothing, however, except the appropriate clauses in the laws of 1686 and 1729 to indicate that running away from a master was an

offense that came up often in the printing business.”6 It is only natural to suppose that there were instances of it over the course of the years. The penalty was serving double the time of absence for the first offense and irrevocable exclusion from the trade for the second. Masters were obliged to notify the guild officers of an

unexplained absence so that it might be entered on the registers and on the contract. 7. Number of apprentices As we have already seen, the journeymen printers were constantly

aware of the fact that a large supply of apprentices was a disad* Philippe Renouard, Documents sur les imprimeurs parisiens, libraires .. . ayant exercé a Paris de 1450 a 1600 (Paris, 1901), pp. 24, 219; Saugrain, p. 135; Fontanon, IV, 482. 6 Isambert, XX, 12; XXI, 223, 240; Saugrain, pp. 141, 142, 276.

280 THE WORKMEN vantage to their own position.?” The publishers, on the other hand, were also aware that a large reservoir of labor would result in lower

manufacturing costs. For most of the sixteenth century masters were allowed to take as many apprentices as they wished, but on 10 September 1572 a regulation was issued that there should be no

more than two, both on the press or one at the case and one on the press, unless by special agreement between masters and men.”® ‘This arrangement was repeated 26 May 1615, and at the same time

master booksellers and binders were limited to one apprentice. The statutes of 1618 stipulated that a master printer with two presses could have only one, a master with more than two presses could have a maximum of three, and a master bookseller only one. In 1649 neither master printer nor master bookseller was allowed to have more than one.?® The effects upon the printing business were evident at once. By 1654 there were so few journeymen prin-

ters that the available ones were insolent and insufferable. The master printers therefore got permission to receive during the next ten years any apprentices who had a minimum knowledge of reading and writing.

Another crisis arose in 1724 just after the employment of alloués had been legalized by Article 30 of the code of 1723. The guild now voted that they would admit no more new apprentices either for printing or bookselling for a period of six years.®° This agreement was renewed for another six years on 17 July 1730, and for ten years on 25 February 1741. This last vote was confirmed by an arrét of the Council of State on 6 June 1741, and the urgency of the action is evidenced by the fact that the law was immediately printed and distributed to all masters and not merely proclaimed by the usual criers. ‘There was still another renewal on 21 June 1751.71

The results of all this action are plain from a count of the items in the guild registers. From 1601 to 1654 an average of 13 apprentices were entered annually. From 1657 to 1667 the figure rose to 7 Radiguer, pp. 29-33. *% Hauser, pp. 34-36; Etienne Martin Saint-Léon, Histoire des corporations de métiers, 4th ed. (Paris, 1941), pp. 377-380; Morin, “Les Apprentis,” p. 273; Fontanon, IV, 476. 9 Saugrain, p. 131. #9 Saugrain, pp. 137-139.

* Morin, “Les Apprentis,” p. 8.

THE APPRENTICES 281 27. The growing use of allouwés caused a drop to 6 a year from 166” to 1701. ‘This was succeeded by a normal period from 14701 to 1724,

with 14 as an average. From 1724 to 1741 it dropped to 2.27; but the register of alloués, which began in 1723, shows an average of 11 for these workers.*?

8. Social conditions Tradition has assigned the apprentice a position far inferior to that indicated by realistic observation. Whatever may be true of other industries, the beginner in the book trade could not have justified sentimentality on any score. In general he was a young man

in his twenties or even thirties who had studied for years and was

often a University graduate, broadly educated according to the standards of the time though perhaps not beyond a youthful sense

of fun. His investment gave him a strong incentive to industry and attention to business. In many cases he was the son of a wealthy merchant, of a councillor of state, of a clerk of court; or his spon-

sor might well be an important ecclesiastic.?3 If he were an extremely poor boy or a foundling from the Hospital, there were inspectors to see that he was well treated and that he did his work well. Apparently he kept in close touch with his family and friends,

whether he lived with his master or not; indeed there must have been many close ties of friendship between the two families. And after all, the apprentices of one period developed into the respected masters of the next as a result of both training and inheritance. Nevertheless there was considerable jealousy between appren-

tice and journeyman. The latter was quick to complain to the authorities about married apprentices, or those who had not signed a formal contract and registered with the guild, or those who could

not read and write Latin or Greek, or those who failed to meet every detail of the legal requirements. In fact, their complaints became so annoying to the courts at Troyes that they were forbidden in 1689 to start any new lawsuits on the matter.*4

On the other hand, the laws always linked apprentices with journeymen in forbidding acts of insubordination, thus suggesting * Radiguer, p. 43.

Radiguer, pp. 27-28. * Morin, “Les Apprentis,” pp. g—10.

282 THE WORKMEN at least undue influence if not community of sentiment. There were laws, too, against banquets and drinking when an apprentice began or ended his service. Doubtless there were many occasions of minor importance when the employees felt more congenial toward their own group than toward their employers. The blackest picture of the apprentice’s way of life has been

preserved for us in an anonymous poem for which a permit to print was issued 2 September 1710. The writer, addressing an intimate friend, promises that he will not exaggerate but will tell the literal truth in this bit of autobiography.*®® When he became old enough to think of choosing a career, he says, he sought the advice of several friends, one of whom urged him to try printing. The advantages of the trade were presented so

convincingly that he decided upon it at once and hurried off to start his induction. The Rector of the University, who became very friendly at the sight of a ducat, handed over to him a certilicate for Latin and Greek without too much inquiry. He then paid his respects to the syndic and wardens of the guild, swore to observe

all the rules and regulations, and was formally admitted to the craft.

Thereupon he ran to the shop where he had already arranged to serve his time. In the courtyard he found five or six ruffans who looked as shaggy as bears. One, with wooden shoes on his feet, was rolling a mangy hide around until he was breathless. Another, who was making up a batch of ink, had a face that for blackness would shame the blackest of the Three Wise Men. The boy’s natural feel-

ing of revulsion was not softened by the foreman’s harsh, gruff question, ‘“‘Are you the fellow that’s coming to be apprentice?” “Yes, sir.” “Well, you look strong enough to tackle any hard job.”

So he was ordered to shift a load of paper from the yard, up a hundred steps, and through a narrow door into a closet above the shop. When the work was scarcely half finished, the foreman yelled

to him to come down and light the candles, a task that required some instruction. Then he was sent to the cellar for a basket of charcoal and told to light it under the washtub. For this he had to use the bellows and blow with his mouth, until at last he was % “Ta Misére des apprentis imprimeurs” [1710], Edouard Fournier, ed., Variétés historiques et littéraires (Paris, 1856), V, 225-238.

THE APPRENTICES 283 smothered with ashes. ‘Thoroughly exhausted, he began to curse his choice of a craft. At eight o’clock he was told he could go to supper but on reaching his boarding house he found that the meal would not be served till midnight. So he fell sound asleep for a while in a corner of the kitchen. When his food was finally ready, he was so much disgusted

with his companions that he did not linger at the table. Hurrying off to find his resting place for the night, he went to the corner of the yard where there was a dark, damp den on the ground floor, exposed to every wind. Although there were no fleas or bugs, there were squadrons of snails covering the walls with slime. ‘I'wo boards with a thin mattress formed the bed. He had scarcely fallen asleep

when the bell rang and he had to open the door for the journeymen who were just getting home. In the darkness it was hard to find the lock and of course the path would be deep in snow during the winter. The men now called to him to make a fire, but at this he was so awkward that he filled the house with smoke and everyone rushed outdoors. Next he was sent to get some water; the well

was deep, he was tired, and the bucket always fell back when it neared the top. With the new day five or six of the men sent him out for wine and cheese and other food for their breakfast —no easy errand, for each had a fixed preference and would not accept a substitute even though the poor boy had to search for their orders in a dozen shops. The official chores now began. First he had to run all over Paris, no matter what the weather, to deliver proofs to authors who

never rewarded him with a tip. Then he had to go to the type founder’s, to the paper merchant’s, to the parchment maker’s, to

other shops for a pitcher or a broom or a pail or some oil; and sometimes, to make up the price of these purchases, he had to go into his own pocket for a penny. Sundays were no better, for the journeymen came back to the shop after a brief mass and made him help on the press. Before this he had to sweep and wash out the shop. Once a fortnight he had to clean up the yard and the next day pick over the sweepings for pieces of type, the good going to the case and the broken to the melting pot. And he had the messy and difficult job of making a batch of paste.

284 THE WORKMEN There were countless other minor but no less wearisome details. He got confused by the printers’ incomprehensible jargon; in the winter he had to stuff all the cracks where a draft might enter;

in the summer the lye water must be kept in the cellar so that it would not smell up the shop; there was paper to cut and pied type to distribute.

But in spite of all the drawbacks, concludes the author, he would not think of going into any other business!

So we too may consider his complaints as the wounds of a friend and not take them too seriously. Nevertheless we remember that the laws of 1539 and 1541 forbid the masters and journeymen to beat or threaten the apprentices,®* and that some eighteenth century contracts specify that the boy will be treated gently and humanely. And if the darkest aspect of the situation has a good deal

of truth, then perhaps we shall not find too much fault with the apprentice Nicolas Dominique Moreau and his retaliatory conduct. On 13 May 1740 the wife of his master, Jean de La Mesle, com-

plained to the police that for the three years he had been in the house he had constantly sworn at her and her sick husband; he refused to take orders from anyone and insisted on doing what he pleased; he brought boys and girls into the shop who broke everything in sight; he even used his fists and a knife to his mates. She feared for the safety of them all.

This unfortunate situation was probably duplicated now and again, but it would be wide of the mark to consider it typical. The great majority of masters and apprentices lived up to the standards

of conduct laid down by Audiger in his handbook of household management (Paris, 1692).87 Although this may represent an ideal, it certainly reflected the most approved practice of the time in most trades, and it shows a nice awareness of the reciprocal rights and duties of master and apprentice. When a merchant takes an apprentice, says Audiger, he should first acquaint him with the stock on hand both in the shop and in

the warehouse, show him the mark and number of the firm, and teach him the prices of all items. Then he must explain the sources of supply, the manufacturers and wholesalers both in Paris and in * Morin, “Les Apprentis,” p. 272; Morin, “Histoire,” pp. 371-3'72. 7 Audiger, La Maison reglée (Paris, 1692), pp. 151-164.

THE APPRENTICES 28 ¥ the provinces. Next the boy must learn how to account for all the merchandise, fold up goods and put them back in place, watch out (in unobtrusive and polite fashion) for thieves, keep his wits about him and call for the master or his wife when there is a crowd of customers. ‘Ihe boy must also know weights and measures so that neither master nor customer is cheated. He must be kept up to the

mark and learn to treat buyers politely and honestly, without brusqueness when they become difficult and exacting. Audiger is absolutely fair when he looks at the business from the apprentice’s point of view. His duty is to open the shop in the morning, close it at night, sweep it clean, put up the awning and

the display in the morning and take them down in the evening,

keep the sidewalk clean in front of the door, do his errands promptly, get well acquainted with the mark of the house and the prices so that if the master or clerks are absent he may serve the customers intelligently. He must know or learn how to write and calculate so that he will not be embarrassed by making a mistake. He must win the esteem of the master and his wife, look out for their interests at all times, win the friendship of the clerks so that they will teach him all the little points of the business. He must be faithful, civil, honest, and warn the master of any wrong that is

being done him. He must be on the watch for thieves at times when master and clerks are busy selling. In short, he must seriously

apply himself to every aspect of the business he wishes to learn. On the other hand, he must not waste time by doing servile tasks such as washing dishes, walking and amusing the children, cleaning shoes, and the like. He did not become an apprentice for that kind of menial service and no honest master would wish him to do it; that sort of thing disgusts apprentices and leads to their getting drunk and hating the job. The same just and dignified attitude is recommended for masters and apprentices in a workshop. The master of any craft should in the first place know how to assign work to his men and supervise it so that they will not have intervals of idleness or do defective

work. He must choose good workmen, pay them well, live up to the terms of his agreement regarding food and lodging, see that they do not drink or become dissipated, and dismiss any heavy drinkers for the good of the other men. He must see that his ap-

286 THE WORKMEN prentice does a good job in every particular and is not called upon for work that is not an element of the craft. As in the case of the merchant’s apprentice, however, there are many incidental jobs to be done. The boy must wash and sweep

the shop and the street in front of the door; collect the journeymen’s tools and put them in order; supply the journeymen with anything they need for their work, get food and drink for them, serve them promptly, and win their regard — for often it is they rather than the master who teach the boy his trade and so their goodwill can help him get on faster. Apprentices must always be the first to get up and the last to go to bed, never be idle or disobedient. In no case, however, is it necessary for an apprentice to do menial work. If he has given the master a fee, he should not submit to any requirement outside the craft itself, such as washing dishes and amusing the children, unless such service is specified

in the contract or in the statutes of the craft. On the other hand, if he has not paid the master a fee, he has evened up the account by taking service for a greater length of time, and there 1s still no need for him to become a domestic servant on the side. Actual practice in some trades may have often fallen below Audiger’s standards, and human frailty may have roughened the surface of personal relations all too frequently; but every consideration leads one to accept it as a rather faithful image of life not only in most trades but especially in the better printing offices and bookshops of Paris during the ancien régime.

Part Five

AUXILIARY TRADES

Most of the steps we have considered in the manufacture and dis-

tribution of a book were in the immediate control of the book guild. Paper and binding, however, were supplied by independent craftsmen, and illustrations were the work of a self-sufficient group of artists. ‘These three elements were of course just as essential as

typography for the completed book, but they were also used to meet other demands. We need investigate only their contribution to the book industry and only with enough detail to provide the background which the printers and publishers had to be aware of in their dealings with suppliers outside their own jurisdiction. CHAPTER XIV

PAPERMAKING Five requisites are listed by early writers as essential for making paper: water, rags, material for sizing, alum, and charcoal.! The last two, which were needed only in relatively small quantities, might be obtained and used anywhere. The quality of the water was, however, so important that it limited the location of mills to certain definite regions. In the first place, it should have a certain saponaceous and limey quality not found in all rivers. Then the possibility of drought in summer and freezing in winter dictated the choice of streams with a considerable current so that the wheel

setting the machinery in motion would not be subject to long seasonal interruptions. Finally, the danger of contamination ruled out areas near a town or other mills. The industry was therefore *'The earliest French description of papermaking is a Latin poem by Father Imberdis, a native of Ambert. Published in 1693, only one copy of the first edition is known, but a facsimile with a translation by Augustin Blanchet was issued in Paris in 1899. A more detailed account is “Art de faire le papier,” contributed by Joseph Jerome Le Francais de Lalande to the Descriptions des arts et métiers (1761-1788); see Arthur H. Cole and George B. Watts, The Handicrafts of France (Boston, 1952). To these descriptions of the craft should be added the article in volume XI of the Encyclopédie (1765) and that in volume V of the Encyclopédie méthodique: arts et métiers (1788).

290 AUXILIARY TRADES decentralized; the typical mill was a large, barnlike building in a lonely countryside, surrounded only by the houses and gardens of the workmen.? ‘The industrial and commercial problems were thus very different from those in all the other crafts connected with the book trade. The basic material was old rags, which were collected from a

wide territory by peddlers and mill agents. After a rather long process of sorting, watering, and fermenting, the rags were pounded

to a foamy pulp in vats; in the Dupuy mills at La Grandrive 150 pounds of rags reduced to 84 pounds of pulp.? With a remarkably fast and skillful series of motions a workman dipped a mold into

a vat containing the pulp, spread a thin layer evenly over the wire at the bottom of the frame, and then passed it to a second man who turned the contents onto a sheet of felt and covered it with another felt. In this way he built up a quire of twenty-five sheets, which were squeezed in a press, separated, and hung up to dry in the mill loft. They were next sized one by one in a vat of glue, dried again, smoothed and polished with a stone, inspected and counted, and wrapped in packages of five hundred sheets. ‘The whole business was impressive: it was noisy, the buildings shook

with the pounding of the beaters and the turning of the water wheel, and some of the rooms steamed with humid heat. Since every step depended on quickness of hand and accuracy of eye, it is amazing that the product was of such high and uniform quality. ‘There were as many as fifty-five or sixty varieties of paper, each in more or less settled use for a definite purpose — wrapping, printing, writing, and so on. Printers favored the brands known as carré simple (20 by 15 inches, weighing 16 to 18 pounds per ream of 500 sheets), cavalier (19 1/2 by 16 inches, weighing 15 to 16 pounds), and lombard (21 by 18 inches, weighing 22 to 24 pounds).‘

During the seventeenth century there were several hundred paper mills scattered through France.® The most important for the book trade were in the southeast and south, at Ambert, near 2C, M. Briquet, ‘Associations et gréves des ouvriers papetiers en France aux XVII*° et XVIII® siécle,” Revue internationale de sociologie, V (1897), 161-163.

Louis Apcher, “Les Dupuy de La Grandrive,” Mémoires de l’Académie des sciences, belles-lettres, et arts de Clermont-Ferrand, XXXVII_ (1937), }0—57.

Paul Ducourtieux, Les Barbou (Limoges, 1896), p. 166; Lalande, pp. 105-106; Encyclopédie, XI, 859-860.

5 Henri Alibaux, Les Premiers papeteries frangaises (Paris, 1926), p. 40.

PAPERMAKING 291 Lyon, Angouléme, Annonay, Thiers, and thereabouts.* Troyes and Essones had supplied the earliest printers of Paris but were not

able to meet later competition from mills in more favored situations.’

From the time paper was introduced into France from Lombardy in the early fourteenth century the makers and dealers were considered employees of the University of Paris, just as their predeces-

sors, the parchment makers, had always been. Their status was confirmed in 1488, when four dealers in Paris and seven manufacturers in ‘Troyes, Essones, and Corbeil were listed among the academic officers. The Faculty, however, found these businessmen no more easy to control than were the printers, and so after various disputes ® the Parlement in 1538 set up its own inspecting committee consisting of a bookseller, a printer, and a scribe, with

a fourth member added in 1551. Simon de Colines and Poncet Lepreux served on this board of experts until 1550. The arrangement was renewed and strengthened at various times until late in the century the University ceased to have any rights in the trade.?°

For many reasons governmental control over paper was far weaker than in most other crafts. First, there was no clear analysis of the diversified nature of the business. The term papetier was loosely used to designate the makers of all kinds of paper no matter what ®Briquet, pp. 163-165; Marcel Berthon, Les Associations professionelles et ouvriéres en Auvergne au XVIITI° siécle (Poitiers, 1935), p. 42; Maurice Tiffon, L’Industrie du papier 4 Angouléme (Bordeaux, 1909), pp. 11-13, 30; Francisque Michel, Histoire du commerce et de la navigation a4 Bordeaux, 2 vols. (Bordeaux, 1867-1870), IT, 245-248.

7Henri Jean Martin, “L’Fdition parisienne au XVII® siécle,’ Annales: économies, sociétés, civilisations, 7° année, no. 3 (juillet-septembre, 1952), 311-313; Eliza-

beth Armstrong, Robert Estienne: Royal Printer (Cambridge, Eng., 1954), p. 573 Jean Baptiste Louis Crevier, Histoire de Université de Paris, 7 vols. (Paris, 1761), III, 390; Henri Jean Martin, “Livre et de la librairie (Histoire du),” Dictionnaire des lettres frangaises: le XVII* siécle, ed. Georges Grente (Paris, 1954), pp. 625-626; Eugéne Campredon, Le Papier (Paris, 1901), pp. 3-7; H. Bourde de la Rogerie, “Notes sur les papeteries aux environs de Morlaix,” Bulletin historique et philologique du comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques, 1911, pp. 312-363. ® René de Lespinasse, Les Métiers et corporations de la ville de Paris, 3 vols. (Paris, 1886-1897), IIT, 671. ® Crevier, V, 89, 156-158, 261, 327-320. 10 Lespinasse, III, 672-675; Crevier, VI, 116-117.

292 AUXILIARY TRADES the ultimate purpose might be, whether the printing of fine editions or the wrapping of spices. ‘The term also covered not only the

retail dealers in letter paper, ink, pens, and what we now call “office supplies,” 14 but the middlemen in the large cities who acted

as agents for the manufacturers, selling wholesale to printers and publishers as well as to retailers. More fundamental was the nature of the manufacturing process itself. Each master had to concentrate attention on his own group of temperamental workmen, far from his markets and the ultimate consumers of his product. Mass legislation could never cover all the local variations of distinct regions. Here and there, as at Thiers and at Ambert, some grouping might be found in a brotherhood, an association of masters and journeymen, but it was only for religious and charitable purposes. On the whole the masters were never united, and the craft was free. Almost the only trace of guild influence was recognition of the grades of master, journeyman, and apprentice.” About 1570 the masters in Auvergne seem to have adopted a formal guild organization, which was legally recognized by an arrét of 30 April 1584; but no documents on the subject can be discovered. The edicts of 1581 and 1587 commanding all craftsmen to form guilds evoked no sign of obedience among the paper men. In 1582 Henry III issued a law for Thiers fixing the weight of the ream for various brands and the dimensions of the sheet, the num-

ber of sheets in a quire and of quires in a ream, and also setting up some inspectors; but after a few months these requirements lapsed.1* General regulations were issued in April 1599 specifying the qualifications for masters, journeymen, and apprentices, and

defining briefly the duties of the two wardens who were to be elected each year. But the document contains no definite instructions regarding the implementation of the rules or for the functioning of a corporate organization. When in the 1630’s Richelieu revived the government’s interest in the various crafts, he established an inspector or surveyor in 11 Alfred Franklin, Dictionnaire historique des arts, métiers, et professions exercés dans Paris depuis le XIII® siécle (Paris, 1906), p. 539. 12 Henri Gazel, Les Anciens ouvriers papetiers d’Auvergne (Clermont-Ferrand, 1910), pp. 20-25, 173-182. 18 Gazel, pp. 28-31.

PAPERMAKING 293 each one, including papermaking.* The latter was still further drawn within the general pattern by statutes issued in December 1659, but there is nothing distinctive about the rules; with a mere

change of designation they would have applied to any craft. In 1670, however, the masters of Auvergne were so foolish as to attract Colbert’s attention by increasing the price of paper ordered for the King, and the result was a new law (21 July 1671) for the

craft applicable to mills throughout the country. This law went into minute detail on many steps of manufacture and on the relations between masters and journeymen. Still more burdensome was

the tax law promulgated in June 1680, with exact instructions to masters, tax clerks, carriers, and consignees regarding compliance. Emphasis is still, however, on the individual mill and its master, not, as in the case of printing, upon the existence of an organization to act as the representative for a town or a district. The code of 1723 of course says nothing about the management

of the paper business. It merely repeats the earlier requirements that printers must use good paper and that only fully accredited members of the guild may sell old parchment and waste paper. Competition becomes evident again in the law of 14 April 1725 which forbids cardboard makers and dealers to sell any paper by the ream, quire, or sheet. ‘The law of 30 December 1727, passed

in an effort to halt a great decline in the craft, renews earlier specifications regarding details of manufacture, sorting sheets, collecting rags, and general conditions of work. It also establishes a

group of inspectors for the region of Ambert, where there had been none before.*”

In the face of continuing deterioration the government finally on 27 January 1739 issued a far more drastic and detailed law which came to be considered as the official code for papermaking. There are sixty-one articles covering every step of manufacture, setting up a guild organization, and laying down rules of management. A vigorous protest arose at once because it was technically

Briquet, p. 171.

44 Henri Sée, Histoire économique de la France, 2 vols. (Paris, 1939-1942), I, 260;

45 Isambert, Jourdan, Decrusy, Recueil général des anciennes lois frangaises, 29 vols, (Paris, 1821~1833), XIX, 244-246. 6 Lespinasse, III, 677. “” Briquet, p. 169; Gazel, p. 31.

294 AUXILIARY TRADES impossible to carry out many of the requirements.’® A revision issued 28 September 1741 offered some relief.” But even then the code was a dead letter. ‘That it was written by bureaucrats unaware of practical difficulties was enough to con-

demn it at once.?° The costs of setting up a paper mill and the risks of the business were so great that only thoroughly competent

men were attracted to the venture, and they did not propose to be dictated to by officials from Paris or any other town. Nor did they propose to allow their rivals, acting for the nonce as accredited inspectors, to cast an appraising eye upon the confidential aspects of their establishment. After 1750 at latest the formality of receiving masters was abandoned; the apprentice became a journeyman when his master thought he had had sufficient instruction, and the

journeyman became a master when he had enough capital to buy a mill. The guild, such as it was, petered out and the craft was free again. Until the Revolution two wardens were elected in most districts each year, but their chief duty was to accompany the regional inspector of manufactures on his visits.

Few paper mills were owned by the master in charge of actual operations. Generally the property belonged to a nobleman living at Court, to an ecclesiastical foundation, or to a religious congregation. It was rented to a tenant or contractor (fermier) — who also was an absentee in most cases — for a fixed period and for a predetermined sum payable either in money or in kind or in both; one mill in Angoumois was rented during the seventeenth century for 240 livres a year plus four reams of paper. The contractor was often a great Flemish or Dutch or even an English merchant and might be a master craftsman himself who

had gathered enough money for the speculation, though in the majority of cases he selected a master for technical processes. ‘The contractor’s own part usually was to advance capital to the master #8 Lalande, pp. 89-97; Emile Isnard, “Les Papeteries de Provence au XVIII° siécle,” Mémoires et documents pour servir a Vhistoire du commerce et de l'industrie en France, ed, Julien Hayem, 4° série (Paris, 1916), pp. 49-50. 19 Lalande, pp. 99-102.

2 Alexandre Nicolai, Histoire des moulins a papier du sud-ouest de la France, 1300-1800, 2 vols. (Bordeaux, 1935), I, 21; Gazel, pp. 32-35.

2 Tiffon, pp. 35-40; Campredon, pp. 7-14; Albert Garronat, L’Industrie du papier a Annonay (Lyon, 1926), pp. 173-176.

PAPERMAKING 298 to keep the enterprise going, attend to the distribution of the product, order shipments according to his customers’ needs, pay the rent to the owner, and look out for all the other outside details. He generally advanced from three to four thousand livres per vat, and the master was obliged to return such sums without interest when he retired. The contractor’s net annual profit might run as high as three thousand livres per vat. But though his income might be much greater than that of the owner of the property, he was considered of lower rank socially. The master was a man who had worked up through the grades

of apprentice and journeyman, in some instances had presented a chef-d’oeuvre to prove his skill, and as the son or even grandson

of a papermaker was thoroughly familiar with the traditions of the craft.?? He lived on the job. He himself was likely to take care of the delicate operation of sizing, and he spent much time in inspecting the work of his men at each step, especially the final sorting of the sheets. He was up at night to regulate the fermentation and beating.”® He dealt with the collectors who brought in the rags, and with the carters who transported the paper over the dangerous

roads to the warehouse of the contractor. Then he had to manage the men — and also the women employees. His basic interest was to cut down costs of labor and overhead. The master was free, it is true, from many of the troubles faced by managers in other crafts. The code of 1739 exempted him from the troublesome job of collecting the taille (income tax) and from lodging soldiers and the militia. He did not have to worry about markets and fluctuations in price. At the beginning of the year he arranged with the contractor for supplying the whole output at a fixed price and in fixed sizes. He was — in spite of labor troubles — the head of a familial industry, with all the personal responsibilities and satisfactions that come from handling a group of dependents in an isolated region. While his wife and her women prepared the daily food for the community, he and his men spent the long dry days of summer together in the fields or in the orchards surrounding the mill. All ate at the same table, all worked at the same tasks. 22 Nicolai, I, 55-59.

8 Apcher, p. 28.

296 AUXILIARY TRADES Financially the master’s position was at least as good as that of his immediate superior, the contractor. In the middle of the eighteenth century his profit was about 3000 livres a year, and by 1789 this sum had risen to 3751 francs.24 At the same time there was a

long-term appreciation in the value of his investment. A case in point is that of the Johannot firm. On 24 April 1634 the brothers Barthélemy and Matthieu Johannot of Ambert bought a grain mill,

to be converted to papermaking, in the village of Fays just outside the walls of Annonay; the price was 1600 livres. On 26 June they bought additional fields and water rights for 400 livres. A century later the value of the installation and equipment was at least from 18,000 to 20,000 livres.

Although the central government never succeeded in imposing full guild organization on the industry, 1t made numerous efforts to contro] the mastership. In 1659 it decreed that no one should act as master unless he had been formally received by the police of his district and had his name entered on a register. ‘The chief requirements were previous training as apprentice for four years and as journeyman for two, and presentation of proof of adherence to the Catholic faith; 7° these data were specified again in 1739. On the day of his reception he was obliged to contribute eleven livres to the regional brotherhood of St. Jean Porte Latine for social purposes. ‘The mastership fee varied from time to time: twelve livres ten sols in 1571 and 1584; fifty livres to the “guild” and fifty to the wardens in 1659; one hundred and fifty livres and

the “ordinary” fees in 1694. A widow was allowed to continue her husband’s business, and a widow or daughter could release an apprentice from his service by marrying him. Once a month a master had to comply with certain civic duties. He had to present to the nearest tax office a declaration covering the general situation in his mill, the weight of rags he had on hand, and the quantity, weight, and quality of paper he had made in the

previous month. Each batch of paper had to be taken to the tax office one month after sizing, there to be marked and wrapped and recorded by the clerks in their registers.”6 4 'Tiffon, pp. 38-40. * Lespinasse, III, 676-677. * Tsambert, XIX, 244-246.

PAPERMAKING 207 Division of labor prevailed in the paper mill. ‘The master’s wife, with one or two women helpers, was responsible for the preparation of food. Directly under the master was a foreman who was in charge of all manufacturing details — the two or three women who sorted the rags into heaps, the four journeymen and one or two apprentices

at each vat, and the three or four women who hung the sheets on the driers before and after sizing, smoothed and sorted them, and finally wrapped each ream. A mill with two vats might thus employ twenty or twenty-two people.?? In 1780 the Angoumois dis-

trict, with twenty-five mills and thirty-three vats, had six hundred workers.?® On the other hand three of the one-vat mills in Languedoc in 1786 had six workers each; another had thirteen, not counting apprentices.*® Each establishment of course needed a varying number of men to collect rags through the countryside. During the seventeenth century the average number of workers

at any one time was two thousand at Ambert, five hundred at Thiers, and three hundred at Chamaliéres, with a total of three thousand for the whole of Auvergne.®° In 1717, however, the number declined to scarcely fifteen hundred. The population of all the

district fluctuated a great deal in accordance with the prosperity or decline of the trade. There was a very great decrease after the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685, for many of the workers were Protestants and therefore found happier surroundings in Holland and Switzerland. The loss of such skilled craftsmen was a severe blow to the industry. The journeymen were always nomads, wandering from mill to

mill and from town to town.*! In order to check the validity of numerous reports regarding the instability of labor, Gazel examined the lists of married workers in the sixteen or seventeen mills

of Thiers for 1751 and 1754 and again for 1763 and 1765; he found that in 1754 only ten journeymen had not left the master 7” Gazel, pp. 47-54; Campdredon, pp. 9-14. *'Tiffon, p. 22. 2 Henri Stein, “Les Papeteries de Castres 4 la fin du XVIII° sitcle,” Bibliographe moderne, XXI_ (1922~1923), 5~7.

8° These figures may seem to contradict the previous statement that the mills were isolated, but it must be remembered that in the ancien régime communication between villages was extremely difficult because of poor roads. $1 Nicolai, I, 81.

298 AUXILIARY TRADES for whom they worked in 1751, and in 1765 only nine were still in the service of the master of 1763.5”

Until 1671 the masters had no legal way to cope with such a situation. ‘The law of that year forbade journeymen and apprentices to leave a master before the end of six months’ service and then only after giving six weeks’ notice. Masters, on the other hand, were forbidden to discharge a man without six weeks’ notice

or to hire a man who could not show a discharge card from his previous master. If a discontented worker tried sabotage in order to force his release, he was condemned to the same penalty he would have incurred if he had left before completing his six months’ term, that is, a fine of one hundred livres. ‘The requirement of six weeks’ notice was repeated in the laws of 1732 and 1739. The law of 1739 also threatened with a heavy penalty any master guilty of trying to induce another’s workmen to make a change; this practice seems to have been as common here as it was

among the printers. Throughout the eighteenth century, too, the government kept a careful but not wholly successful check on representatives of foreign mill owners in order to prevent emigration, especially to Spain and Italy. Outstanding among the disruptive forces in the labor situation was the prevalence of drunkenness. This was evidently excessive, by any standards. Wine was cheap and abundant, and the men lost no pretext for stopping work to take a drink.?? When a man was received as journeyman, he had to pay a fee, which consisted of a

feast lasting two or three days for all the journeymen in the district. Whenever he went on to a higher position in the mill, another feast was in order.34 When he abandoned his job, for no matter what cause, he went to the next mill and demanded his rente, that is, several drinks of wine. If he was not drunk already, he went to the next mill and so on down the river, consuming as much as he could before asking for work.®® ‘The men insisted 82 Gazel, pp. 109-110.

88 Henri Sée, L’Evolution commerciale et industrielle de la France sous l’ancien régime (Paris, 1925), p. 339; Gazel, pp. 187-228; Berthon, pp. 95-97; Briquet, pp. 173—

* Garonnat, pp. 176-186; Berthon, pp. 102-106; Germain Martin, Lois, édits, arréis, et réglements sur les associations ouvriéres au XVIII° stécle (Paris, 1900), pp. 87-88; ‘Tiffon, p. 44. 8 Sée, Evolution, p. 176.

PAPERMAKING 299 on having every afternoon free, on the pretext that they had to attend the religious services of the Brotherhood; but such gatherings were always followed by drinking bouts. If a man could not hold his liquor, he had to pay a fine to buy more for the others. Funerals and weddings were natural occasions for unlimited drinking.

There were numerous attempts at reform. In 1733 ‘Trudaine tried to cut down the number of Brotherhood meetings by suppressing the office of Chief in the groups; and when a strike was called in protest, he fined the richest of the men a hundred livres. When the Montgolfiers—a family of keen businessmen — were called to the Dauphiné in 1765 to reorganize the ruined mills at Rives, they pointed out two main troubles: first, the poor quality of the workers, and, next, excessive drinking. They recommended that much less wine be served and that it be watered one-third.*¢

Workmen seem to have been fairly well paid though they were continually agitating for higher wages, especially if they discovered any increase in a neighboring district. ‘Through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and indeed until about 1751, the pay included food, room, laundry, and sometimes two sets of clothing.?*

Three meals a day were provided. At Annonay in the middle of the eighteenth century dinner was a bowl of soup, a piece of butcher’s meat, and bacon or salt pork. For tea there were soup, vegetables (a mixture of peas, beans, truffles, and the like), and a bit of Gruyére cheese. Soup was served for supper and breakfast. Wine went with each meal, and when the men worked overtime they had a snack of a pot of wine and some bread. The annual quantities of food for four men amounted to forty charges of wine, fifty septiers of wheat, four pigs, seven or eight hundredweight of butcher’s meat, four minots of salt, three hundredweight of nut oil (for seasoning), five or six thousand eggs, one hundredweight of dried codfish or hake, and a large quantity of red truffles.%® According to a document of 1759 from Auvergne, the three meals of the five journeymen and two apprentices working for a certain 6 Gazel, pp. 154-157; Germain Martin, “Les Papeteries,” pp. 140-142; Germain Martin, La Grande industrie sous Louis XV (Paris, 1900), pp. 326-3209. 87 Sée, Histoire, I, 283.

8 Germain Martin, La Grande industrie, pp. 284— 286.

300 AUXILIARY TRADES master who had one vat cost an average of fifteen sols for each man, a total per diem cost of five livres five sols; the annual total, counting 296 work days, came to 1554 livres. The cost of food for

a woman was six sols a day, or an annual total of 355 livres for the four employed at the vat. ‘This master thus spent 1909 livres a

year for food. If a mill had four vats, as many of them had, the annual expense for food, especially in times of famine, was a heavy burden.*? In 1751 the masters and workmen of Angouléme agreed to give

up the supplying of food and to use the following money scale: workers at the vat, twenty-one to twenty-four livres a month; apprentices, fifteen livres; inspectors, twelve livres; sizers, twentyfour livres; women sorting rags, ten sols per bundle. ‘The rag collector, who needed two or three horses, got wages of from ninety

to a hundred livres a month plus ten sols a day.*° In 1772 the workmen at Thiers received twenty-seven to thirty-three livres a month, or three hundred and twenty-four to three hundred and ninety-six livres a year. This had risen in 1778 to thirty to thirtysix livres a month or three hundred and sixty to four hundred and thirty-two livres a year. In 1789 women got twenty livres a month.

It was thus possible for a married couple at ‘Thiers to earn in 1789 more than six hundred livres a year.*t Wages at Annonay and

Vidalon were much higher, and in addition the men at each vat were given four sols four deniers at the end of each day. In 1786 the wages at Castres were somewhat less. In most places there was payment for extra hours of work.

Besides the fifty-two Sundays there were nearly forty other holidays in the year. The men demanded and received wages for all these nonworking days. There were, of course, many other causes that might lead to cessation of work — drought in summer, ice in winter, flood, war, increases in the cost of rags, Increases in taxes, fluctuations in the demand for printing. But in comparison with other industries there was little enforced idleness.* The average length of the working day was twelve hours. ‘The ° Gazel, pp. 76-84. *" Nicolai, I, 72; Tiffon, pp. 48—49. “ Gazel, pp. 88-90. “2 Berthon, p. 98; Gazel, pp. 91-99.

PAPERMAKING 301 men had the habit of beginning at midnight in order to finish about noon and thus have the afternoon for spending in a tavern. This was a distinct hardship for masters and foremen, for most of their duties had to be performed during the day and they could not attend to business both night and day. There was, too, a great expense for candles, and because of the poor lighting the quality of the paper suffered and thieving was easy. The law of 1727 forbade workmen to begin before three in the morning, and the code of 1739 stipulated that half of the day’s work must be done before noon and half after. All attempts to change the customary hours were, however, unsuccessful. Women worked, as a rule, from five in the morning to four or five in the afternoon, with an hour out in the middle of the day.*?

The quasi-religious brotherhoods seem to have been much stronger among the paper workers than among the printers. In the seven-

teenth century, after the masters withdrew from them, they became devoted solely to the consolidation and maintenance of labor rights and craft customs. At first perhaps only local, they formed a national network by the middle of the eighteenth century. ‘They did not, however, bear any resemblance to the compagnonnages

in many other crafts. Each group worked locally to prevent outsiders from coming into the mills of the region, opposed increases in the number of apprentices, defended the right to collect fees on all sorts of pretexts, refused to work on other than the traditional schedule, and in general fought for better wages, food, and living conditions.*t To enforce their demands they levied heavy fines on both masters and fellow members and backed up such action by

instilling fear. Failure to comply with a judgment might put a timid master out of business entirely and would certainly prevent a recalcitrant worker from getting employment in any other mill in the country.

The readiest weapon against the master was the strike. We have accounts of very many of these from the late seventeenth and

the eighteenth centuries. In most cases the point at issue was a minor, almost a familial one, and work would not stop for more 48 Berthon, pp. 102-106; Briquet, p. 169; Gazel, pp. 69-76. 44 Sée, Evolution, p. 347.

302 AUXILIARY TRADES than a day or two. Whenever a master took a firm stand, he was likely to win. At any rate, old Pierre Montgolfier, who ruled with an iron hand, had no labor troubles for over sixty years. Apprenticeship in the paper industry shows little variation from that in printing and most other trades, though it was perhaps less formal. Few written contracts are to be found in the archives. Starting often as young as ten years of age, though the legal minimum was twelve, a boy was supposed to serve from six to eight years, but from two to three was the actual custom. As soon as he showed the necessary skill, he became a journeyman and received regular wages without waiting for the termination of the contract. Sons of masters, who did not need practical skill so much as man-

agerial ability, were obliged to serve an apprenticeship but only to remain with a father or widowed mother to the age of sixteen. When the apprentice began his term, he paid a fee of thirty livres and in addition gave a present of twenty-eight pints of wine each month to the journeyman who acted as his immediate teacher. After 1751 this was changed to a gift of forty sols a month.** As the power of the journeymen increased, they insisted upon certain limitations for apprentices. No one was admitted unless he

belonged to a papermaking family or was the son of a master or of a journeyman. Although the law of 1739 refused to confirm this “custom,” it continued in practice.

In 1776 the intendant Desmarets, who was eager to improve the paper trade in every way, proposed a reform that would have had a far-reaching effect upon the status of apprentices in all crafts.

Writing to a correspondent in Bordeaux, he suggested the establishment of a model mill, complete with the most recent and perfect machines, which should become a national center of instruction. Various provinces would contribute to the expenses. Several months later the plan was still under discussion, for he wrote to Necker in 1778 suggesting that it would be better to meet the costs by contributions from the towns that sent pupils rather than by contributions from the provinces.** If only Desmarets had been able to carry out the scheme, he would have been distinguished 6 Gazel, pp. 55-68; Tiffon, pp. 43-44. “6 Nicolai, I, 45-47.

PAPERMAKING 303 as the founder of one of the pioneer vocational schools of the world.

During most of the ancien régime, and especially in the eighteenth century, the paper industry suffered from scarcity of raw materials

as much as from the undependability of labor. In spite of every effort to protect the claims of each district,*’ rags were shipped from one to another and to foreign countries. Over the years there was naturally a tremendous increase in the cost. In the middle of the sixteenth century old rags were worth from fifty to sixty sols per charge (three hundred pounds). In 1739 the price was nineteen livres per charge; in 1779, from twenty-five to thirty livres; in 1789, about twenty-five livres.*®

The daily production rate of a mill varied of course according to the brands demanded by customers’ orders. It was possible to turn

out only one ream a day of grand-aigle measuring 36 1/2 inches by 28 3/4 inches and weighing 130 pounds to the ream. On the other hand a vat could produce four reams of grand raisin, while of still smaller sizes five, seven, or nine reams were possible. In Angoumois each vat was supposed to turn out twenty porses a day, the porse varying from seven to nine quires with a total weight

of about a hundred pounds. In other centers the rate was higher but the paper not so good. In 1780 Angoumois produced an annual average of 700,000 kilograms, valued at 700,000 francs.* The famous mills at Annonay, owned partly by the Montgolfiers and partly by the Johannots, did a very large export as well as domestic business. Pierre Montgolfier’s total annual sales were

more than eight thousand quintals (1,763,698 American pounds or 882 tons). The Johannots manufactured only about a fifth of this amount.°?

As a rule the Dupuy mills at La Grandrive turned out from one to eight reams a day from each of the four vats, according to weight, size, and quality. From 1747 to 1754 they averaged 118 tons a year, worth 92,680 livres. From 1760 to 1764, a war period, “7 Germain Martin, La Grande industrie, pp. 243, 27.

Tiffon, p. 28. #9 Lalande, p. 104; Tiffon, pp. 29, 22.

5 Germain Martin, “Les Papeteries,’ pp. 138-140; Garonnat, pp. 123-125.

904 AUXILIARY TRADES the average fell to 80 tons, worth 59,800 livres. The average went up with the restoration of peace and reached 96 tons, worth 74,000 livres, from 1765 to 1780.51

A somewhat comparable curve may be traced in the value of

the product in Auvergne in the middle third of the eighteenth

century:

1738 811,600 livres

1740 645,100 ~ 1745 601,250 “ 1750 554,300 © 1758 687,150 “ 1770 1,000,000 “

So long as papermaking was more or less under University control, it enjoyed the customary academic freedom from taxation. Henry

II repeated the exemption in 1552, but Charles EX canceled it in 1564. Freedom was restored by letters patent of 14 August 1565, which were confirmed by Henry IV in 1595.°° In the next hundred years the struggle went back and forth — taxes were levied in 1633,

suppressed in 1648, re-established for a brief period in 1652, and finally revived in 1680. At the beginning of the eighteenth century

the great variety of imposts made an exorbitant total.5* Long before then the price to the ultimate consumer was double the price at the mill door, partly because of transportation charges but more because of taxes. Reporting to Colbert in 1670, Antoine Vitré said that consumers in Paris could no longer use paper from Angouléme, that is, the finest qualities. He asserted that this decline in the home market demand had greatly cut down the activity of the mills.

After Colbert the government tried to favor the industry by granting the workers special privileges such as exemption from the billeting of soldiers and from service in the militia (laws of 172% and 1739). But this did not touch the fundamental difficulty; war and taxes shut off both internal and external markets, and the 5! Apcher, pp. 50-57; 94.

Briquet, pp. 176-177. 8 Lespinasse, III, 675; Crevier, VI, 163. 4 Gazel, pp. 15-20.

PAPERMAKING 305 emigration of thousands of Protestants drained off the most expert workers into England and Holland. In 1750, for instance, one master at Ambert faced an increase from 198 to 896 livres in taxes. A levy on rags and glue, delays caused by arbitrary rules of inspection, river tolls, customs duties, insistence upon the employment of official porters — such were only a few of the annoying barriers

to trade. In 1759 and again in 17647 the Montgolfiers and the Johannots retained Jacques Montgolfier, their wholesaling representative in Paris, to bring their interests personally to the attention of the government. Since he had little success, Pierre Montgolfier finally proposed in 1782 that all duties and tolls should be

abolished and replaced by a tax at the source, that is, on each active vat in each mill. The authorities were much interested, but

his recommendations were not carried out until the time of the Revolution (law of 17 March 1791). It is hard to overemphasize the natural obstacles to trade presented by difficulties of transportation in the ancien régime. The printers of Lyon, it is true, were especially favored by having many mills in near proximity to the city, and the early printers of Paris were supplied from the neighborhood of ‘Troyes, a comparatively short

distance away. But in most cases shipments overland had to go in rude carts along muddy or dusty trails. Since all paper mills were situated in wild mountainous regions, the carter’s troubles were multitudinous from the very start of his trip. His day’s journey was lonely unless a band of robbers pounced upon him in the midst of the wilderness. He often had to camp out at night. In case of accident to horses or wagon, not to mention himself, he had no help. Transportation risks and costs were of course lower if shipment could be made at least partly by water. ‘The Dupuys of La Gran-

drive shipped by boat to Orléans and then forwarded by cart to Paris. Bordeaux and La Rochelle developed a considerable activity as points of shipment by sea to dealers in northern countries.® The Dutch are said to have paid less for French paper, as a matter of fact, than the Paris printers did. &H, J. Martin, “Livre,” pp. 625-626; H. J. Martin, “L’Edition,” pp. 311-313; Apcher, pp. 29-31.

306 AUXILIARY TRADES In the eighteenth century paper had, for all the various reasons we have considered, become so highly competitive an article that the government made an attempt to prevent any cornering of the market by an arrét of 12 December 1730 which forbade the individual tenant to make any contract for the sale of all the product of a mill to a single customer. The sale of any one brand or combination of brands to a buyer could not exceed one quarter of the total output. ‘There was nothing in the code of 1739 or any later law to revoke this limitation.*® As we have already said, the contractor or tenant of the mill was responsible for sales. He was often a Flemish or Dutch merchant who began as agent for English or other foreign customers or who bought on his own account. Many of these merchants finally settled down in the district and became tenants ready to advance capital to masters. In the sixteenth century the tenant shipped to the four sworn dealers who were officials of the University, and

the printers could buy only from these officials. This situation changed with the ending of academic control. ‘Thereafter the print-

ers in Lyon and other provincial cities continued in general to supply their needs by the old method of direct purchase from mills at no great distance from their establishments. In Paris also some

printers sent direct orders to nearby mills, but most of the Paris sales after 1600 were made through agents or correspondents. The Montgolfiers had sales agents and depots in 1739 at Paris, Orléans,

Roanne, Saint Rambert, Lyon, and Serriéres, keeping a stock of 3120 reams at these places. Matthew Johannot and his sons maintained warehouses in the same towns and kept a supply of 6350 reams on hand. In the middle of the eighteenth century the Paris agent of the Dupuy mills included among his customers the Anissons at the Imprimerie Royale, the Estiennes, the Baillys, Jombert, the Académie des Sciences, Petit, and others. Large paper transactions could not be handled on a cash basis and therefore the tenants and agents engaged more or less in a real credit business. Payment for rags and sizing material, for wages, and for general overhead could not wait upon the slowness of the publishers in paying their printers. Only the discounting of notes and letters of exchange through a bank could take care of the difh% Lalande, p. 977.

PAPERMAKING 3047 culty. After 1673 the endorsing of commercial paper became common. ‘Thomas Dupuy, for instance, who seldom used cash or direct exchange of merchandise, consigned paper to his agents in Paris or Lyon and at the same time sent them a note to cover.5” Perhaps the most intricate and extended accounts we have are those of the Barbou family, who engaged in every operation connected with the book trade. The parent house was at Limoges and there was a flourishing branch in Paris. In the early eighteenth century Jean Barbou of Limoges contracted with a number of paper masters for all their output, and among these was the mill on the Vienne River owned by his sister-in-law. In 1711 there were total shipments of 1180 reams valued at 3133 livres; in 1712, a total of 1750 reams, worth 5445 livres; in 1714 a total of 3146 reams, worth 12,084 livres. The sister-in-law evidently sent out her own shipments but she passed on to Jean the various bills on her customers in Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse, and Angers, and he filled her orders for equipment and merchandise. The Limoges house and the Paris branch office settled accounts at frequent intervals.°® After 1740

the amount of business in paper between the two diminished a great deal, probably as a result of the law of 1730. When we consider the importance of the foreign trade in paper over the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, it seems strange

that the government should have pursued a policy of rigorous technical controls and heavy taxation which resulted only in ruin. About 1650 France supplied more than ten thousand reams a year to Spain, more than 200,000 reams to England, and more than 400,ooo reams to Holland, Scandinavia, and Russia. By 1670, however, the total exports had dropped to 300,000 reams,°® and by the end of the century they were still lower. It was not until the second half of the eighteenth century that easing of restrictions brought relief and the return of a large measure of prosperity.

The price of paper by the ream fluctuated a good deal during the ancien régime, with a general tendency to increase. Robert (I) Estienne bought all his supply from the Pietrequin family of Troyes, then the center of the trade; in 1515 he paid fifteen sols 57 Apcher, p. 32.

8 Ducourtieux, pp. 177-179, 166. 6H. J. Martin, p. 312, m1.

308 AUXILIARY TRADES per ream, but in 1524 and in 1550 the price had gone up to twenty

sols.°° When Jehan Le Charron, the bookseller and paper merchant of Paris, died in 15547, an inventory of his stock showed a valuation of 1004 livres for several sorts of paper.*! The figure would indicate a very large supply.

The inventory of a Bordeaux merchant, dated 15 April 1665, is small in comparison and probably represents only a stationer’s stock for retail trade; but the prices of twenty-seven sols, sixteen sols, and twenty-five sols for varying sizes are worth noting.® Between 1650 and 1670 the scale for printing papers increased more than one third. In 1670 the fine paper from Angouléme cost three livres five sols per ream, the freight to Paris was thirty sols, and

there was a tax of sixteen sols. At the same time a substitute cost from twenty to seventy-five sols, with a tax of twelve sols. Thomas Dupuy in 1700 sold Anisson and Rigaud about twentyone tons of fine brands (raisin, écu, carré) valued at 15,620 livres.® ‘The Barbou family generally used the carré, which measured

38 by 50 cm and weighed sixteen or eighteen pounds per ream. The price varied from 54 sols to 4 livres in the early eighteenth century with an average of 31.7 sols. In the Barbou accounts paper is sometimes designated by the name of the book in which it was to be used; for example, “the Virgul’” was used in Catron’s edition

of Virgil. This cost 4 livres a ream. Again, the name “the St. Chrysostome” was similarly used; it cost from 4 livres 15 sols 6 deniers to 6 livres 10 sols. Prices increased from 1700 onward; the brand known as moyen cost g livres 10 sols in 1723-1726, and grand raisin was 6 livres 10 sols.® After 1740 the Barbou family was less successful and their place as the leading paper dealers of the country was taken by the Dupuy

family of La Grandrive. In 1740 Jean Joseph Dupuy sold to Anisson, the Director of the Imprimerie Royale, seventy-three bales, a total of more than thirty-nine tons, or 3896 reams. They were of fine or medium grades, and were valued at 32,140 livres. In 1744 ® Armstrong, p. 57.

% Jéréme Pichon et Georges Vicaire, Documents pour servir a Vhistoire des libraires de Paris, 1486-1600 (Paris, 1895), pp. 243-244. 82 Michel, II, 485. *® Apcher, p. 31.

* Ducourtieux, pp. 166, 175-176.

PAPERMAKING 309 the widow Estienne in Paris ordered from him three thousand reams of couronne longue in a special size for the collected edition

of Massillon.® Thomas (II) Dupuy, grandson of the founder of the mills, was even more successful. From 1747 to 1780 his mills sent out more than 3300 tons valued at 2,765,000 livres; that is, annually about 100 tons, worth some 83,¥00 livres — twice as much

as his father and a very high total for the time. But the price per ream of colombier fin weighing 100 pounds had gone from 45 livres in 1719 to 55 livres in 1755 and to 100 francs in 1798; and a ream of aigle fin weighing 150 pounds rose from 71 livres 5 sols in 1755 to 76 livres 10 sols in 1757 and to 145 francs in 14798.

Lalande gives a most interesting balance sheet for a mill in 1761. The first item on the expense side is 600 cwt. of rags, the quantity needed to keep operations going for a year without interruption. This would yield 400 cwt. of pulp, which would make three thousand reams of grand format. At an average of 8 livres per cwt. this would amount to 4800 livres for the rags. Sizing would cost 210 livres; alum, 40 livres; cloth, 150 livres; wages for workers at the vat (cash and food), 1356 livres; wages for the women who sorted the rags, 463 livres; wood and charcoal, 150 livres; maintenance of the mill, grease, and soap, 100 livres; a total of 7269 livres of expenses. He considered that there would be three hundred working days in the year, on each of which ten reams would be made, each weighing twelve to fourteen pounds. Two cwt. of pulp would make 1419 reams of first-quality paper weighing fourteen pounds each, worth 5 livres a ream; total, 7145 livres. Another 133 cwt. would yield 1111 reams of second quality, weighing twelve

pounds and worth 4 livres a ream; total, 4444 livres. The remain-

ing 67 cwt. would give 1111 reams of small size weighing six pounds each, worth 30 sols a ream; total, 1666 livres. The total revenue would come to 13,255 livres; profit, about 6000 livres.

All this is based on the supposition that there is no waste, but experience shows, he says, that even in a good mill more than a tenth of the paper turns out to be defective. Nevertheless there is enough profit to interest manufacturers.® 8 Apcher, p. 69. * Apcher, pp. 94, 89-91. *? Lalande, pp. 83-85.

310 AUXILIARY TRADES CHAPTER XV

BOOK ILLUSTRATION During the ancien régime engravings were, as they still are, a matter of lively interest to many consumers other than the printers and publishers of books. ‘The makers of playing cards, of wallpaper, and of decorated papers for a wide range of uses, depended upon the designers and engravers. The trade in loose prints as separate works of art was very large, and the historic collections of them are among the treasures of the world. It is no wonder that the aesthetic point of view has predominated in most considerations of the subject. Quite aside from the

masterpieces of illustration, an overwhelming delight is to be found even in the smallest decorated initials, in the garlands and bouquets used as headbands and tailpieces, and in the infinitely varied frames for portraits. Our inquiry, however, has little to do with this appeal to the eye. We must keep our attention on the fact that engravings were used to increase the sales value of a book and were therefore an item of expense in the publisher’s calculations. Book buyers demanded illustrations and decorations, and somebody had to pay the costs.

Although there were always very close relations between engravers and book printers, the two groups were entirely distinct. Loose prints were generally sold directly by the engraver from the shop connected with his studio? or else by booksellers as a side line. In the second half of the sixteenth century the print dealers

separated from the book dealers and formed an independent branch of commerce that quickly became well organized. Print sellers henceforth gained publicity for their wares through personal channels, exhibitions, and subscription offers,? while small dealers, colporters, and haberdashers took care of the fringe market as they did in the case of books. Illustration was nothing new when the printed book arrived. 1T. H. Thomas, French Portrait Engraving of the XVII and XVIII Centuries (London, 1919), p. 6. * Hans Furstenberg, Das franzdsische Buch im achtzehnten Jahrhundert und in der Empirezeit (Weimar, 1929), pp. 130, 133.

BOOK ILLUSTRATION 11 Practically all medieval manuscript books are brilliant with col-

ored initials, miniatures illustrating the text, and intricate patterns of vine and flower work decorating the margins. ‘The same sort of hand-decoration was added to the earliest printed books, so that the Gutenberg Bible, for instance, is as gorgeous a piece of work as any earlier (manuscript) volume. Within a very short time, however, the engraver supplanted the illuminator. Nevertheless the traditional division of labor con-

tinued. In the first place the publisher or printer-publisher had to decide whether a book were to be illustrated and, if so, just how much should be done. He must have found it necessary to consult the author; in fact it is often hard to make out whether author or publisher was the more actively concerned in this matter. Probably there was some preliminary agreement between the two and a good deal of conference with friendly advisers.®

Next came the selection of an artist or an artist-engraver; in many ways he corresponded in his department to the author of the text, for he had not only to conceive the design but to cooperate with various workmen in reproducing it. In the eighteenth century almost all the great painters except Watteau did some book illustrating. After the middle of the seventeenth century most of them belonged to the Royal Academy of Painters and Sculptors and worked more or less under its regulations.® By this time they had a professional status and were no longer the simple craftsmen they had once been considered.* Engravers too had become professional workers and were also members of the Royal Academy and not in a class with the makers of seals, signet rings and other jewelry, book clasps, and the like.” And finally the publisher had to deal with the printers of engravings, who were united in a regular guild but were sharply differentiated from the letterpress printers.® ®Léon Rosenthal, La Gravure (Paris, 1909), pp. 160-163; Jeanne Duportal, Etude sur les livres a figures édités en France de 1601 a 1660 (Paris, 1914), pp. 46-47.

*Louis Réau, La Gravure en France au XVIII° siécle: la gravure d illustration (Paris, 1928), p. 91.

5 René de Lespinasse, Les Métiers et corporations de la ville de Paris, 3 vols. (Paris, 1886-1897), II, 187-191. 6 Duportal, p. 109. * Rosenthal, p. 193; Lespinasse, II, 404. ® Duportal, pp. 10, 76 ne.

312 AUXILIARY TRADES During the ancien régime only two kinds of engraving were in use for illustrating: first, the woodcut; second, the copperplate (taille-

douce). ‘The former prevailed until about 1600, and then by a complete change of fashion there were none but copperplates until

Papillon made rather unsuccessful attempts in the middle of the eighteenth century to go back to the earlier style. Wood engravings were made on a piece of smoothed pearwood about one inch thick, cut lengthwise out of the tree. Later it was found that boxwood cut across the grain gave a harder surface on

which it was not so easy to make a slip of the knife. The artist drew his design directly on the wood in reverse or else on a piece of paper which was pasted face downward on the wood. With a small sharp knife and various other tools he then cut away all the areas that were to appear white in the final print. This left a surface of raised lines exactly like the surface of a piece of type.® Occasionally, in fact, the engraving was done on a piece of metal instead of on wood. The block could thus be set in the midst of type and be printed on the ordinary press at the same time as the rest of the paper. Most of the sixteenth-century woodcuts in books are anonymous so that it is difficult to attribute them to any definite artist. Some of the greatest men, however, did not hesitate to help with important books either by supplying an exact sketch or by supervising the work of the craftsman who did the actual cutting of the block.1° Sometimes the artist can be identified by the mention of

his name in a preface or in some contemporary document, but this is never possible in the case of cheap editions and such ephem-

era as almanacs.1! Generally there seem to have been intimate and friendly relations between artist and engraver that resulted in a happy collaboration.

Because of the typographical nature of the woodcut, every printer gradually amassed a quantity of them in his stock and was

in a position to lend other printers his decorated initials, head® Henri Bouchot, “La Préparation et la publication d’un livre illustré au XVI°* siecle, 1573-1588,” Bibliothéque de l’Ecole des chartes, LIII (1892), 617-619; Duportal, pp. 78-80. 10 Charles Mortet, “Le Livre 4 gravures du XVI° siécle,” Le Livre frangais (Paris, 1924), Pp. 50.

1 Robert Brun, Le Livre illustré en France au XVI° siécle (Paris, 1930), pp. 5-12; Thomas, pp. 6-9.

BOOK ILLUSTRATION 313 bands, tailpieces, and even his illustrations. ‘That one picture was made to do duty in a variety of possibly incongruous texts did not disturb either publisher or reader. When Papillon tried to revive the taste for woodcuts, he urged their exchange value as a distinct advantage over copperplates and boasted that some of his blocks had given from sixty to eighty thousand, in one case half a million, impressions.!? His statement is probably an exaggeration but at any rate there can be no doubt of the general utility and the cheapness of this form of ornamentation.” This adaptability, however, was something that could have an appeal only to an age that had little feeling for the more delicate qualities of artistic production. The same may be said of the relative simplicity and coarseness of the woodcut itself as an aesthetic medium."* The subjects of the illustrations, too, and the books

they were used in gradually failed to interest readers who had more or less shed the medieval tradition and were becoming conscious of themselves and the world around them. For in the livres a figures, which flourished in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the artist represented only characters he had never seen — saints, men and women from the Bible, heroes of chivalry. ‘The transformation to the modern point of view was suddenly completed in i600, after which date engraving on wood almost totally disappeared from books in the regular trade. Before leaving the subject of books illustrated by woodcuts

we should consider a revealing document of the late sixteenth century preserved in the Bibliothéque Nationale. In 1573 Louis de Gonzague, duc de Nevers, and his wife, Henriette de Cleves, set

up a foundation to provide a dowry each year in perpetuity for sixty poor girls from their manor. To advertise the benefaction they decided to publish a book explaining it. This book was still unfinished in 15747 and the agent to whom they had entrusted the details wrote the duke a long letter about the delays he was having to face at the very end of the job. He had laid in a supply of parch2 Firstenberg, pp. 156-157. 18 Duportal, pp. 81-84. 14 Hans W. Singer and William Strang, Etching, Engraving, and the Other Methods of Printing Pictures (London, 1897), p. 13, suggest that the fifteenth-century eye

did not see so many details as we do, and that this, rather than any imperfection of the hand, accounts for the character of early woodcuts. 15 Bouchot, pp. 612-623.

314 AUXILIARY TRADES ment and paper all ready for immediate printing and also enough cardboard and sheepskin for binding a hundred copies. He advised, however, that the special copies for the duke’s own use should be bound in red or black calfskin. A decision on this point should be reached at once because the presswork would take only a week. A second cause of trouble was that neither the notary Boreau nor his partner was willing to sign any copies without direct orders from the duke. Again, it would seem advisable to discard the sheets al-

ready printed and do them over again on better paper, but they could be used up in a less sumptuous edition for gifts to certain charitable and devout people who might thus be induced to add to the foundation. The greatest trouble came from an English artist

who had been engaged to supply a portrait of the duke and a drawing of his coat-of-arms as illustrations. The painter for some

reason or other did not care much for the commission and had hidden himself away for several days. When he did get to work, the result was even worse than the unacceptable portraits done by two previous artists. Nevertheless the agent had the block engraved and was sending a proof to his employer along with a revised and correct version of the arms, which had already been engraved in Italy. The agent thought that if the duke were to make a personal trip to his estate, the Englishman could improve matters himself by drawing the portrait from life on a piece of boxwood inserted in the block. At the same time the duchess’s portrait could be drawn and engraved entirely on boxwood. ‘“This holy work,” he goes on, “which shall last forever if God wills, deserves to have everything connected with it as exact as possible, and among other details your two portraits, for, as you know, Sir, there is scarcely anything that so much touches the hearts of simple people as the likenesses of their princes and lords which, being recognized by those now alive, hand down the memory of them to posterity.’’ He

thereupon proposes that the duke order a second and larger eneraving of his own portrait and add those of various illustrious persons of the day, to all of which he, the agent, would add brief biographies on facing pages, the whole to form a memorial that would be superior to the medals of the ancients. Whether he was successful or not in his suggestions for this second publication, his letter does give a remarkable account of an

BOOK ILLUSTRATION 315 editor’s difficulties and indicates how highly the men of the time regarded woodcut illustrations.

Although a few books toward the end of the sixteenth century were illustrated with copperplates, this style may be said to have flourished only in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. From 1600 to about 1660 the most popular form was the etching. In this, a polished plate of copper is covered with a thin film of varnish or “ground” on which the engraver draws with a needle, cutting down to the plate but not scratching it. ‘The back and edges are then covered with varnish and the plate is immersed in an acid bath which eats lines into the copper. ‘The lines intended for light printing are then stopped with varnish and those intended for darker

printing are exposed to further action by the acid. In this way varying degrees of light and shade are built up. Finally all the varnish is removed and the plate is cleaned and made ready for the impression.

In the case of line engraving (taille douce), which became more popular after 1660, the engraver uses a burin, a triangular tool with sharpened end, and works with it directly on the copper, varying the depth of the lines according to the shading desired.

To print either kind of copperplate it is necessary to have a rather heavy ink. This is flooded over the surface until all the incised lines are filled. ‘The plate is then wiped clean, leaving the ink only in the engraved lines. ‘The plate, covered with a sheet of paper, is next put on a press with a large roller which draws the ink from the lines and deposits it on the paper. ‘The process is just the opposite of that of letterpress or typographical printing.’® The great vogue of copperplate engravings called for the finest artists and designers and almost an army of craftsmen. One man would design and sketch the subject, another engrave it, another design and engrave the frame, and perhaps another do the lettering.17 Engraving became a profession that attracted many boys with artistic tastes. The parents of such a youngster would appren-

tice him at the age of thirteen or fourteen to an artist or to a master engraver just as though he were to learn a craft. A contract 46 Singer and Strang, pp. 29-30. 7 Rosenthal, pp. 228-232.

316 AUXILIARY TRADES would be signed before a notary by the master on the one side and the boy and his parents on the other. In the provinces the apprentice might pay a fee of 250 livres, but in Paris the sum was much larger, the students of a great artist paying as much as 1200 or 1600

livres a year. The course consisted in preparing plates, helping with backgrounds and costumes, and general assistance. At the end of the term of service the apprentice spent his next years as a regular assistant of the master, and his pay included lodging, food, and cash.18

After artist and engraver spent their greatest skill in making a plate, all their efforts might be ruined by a careless or ignorant printer. Much of the brilliance of a line cut depended upon expertness in inking and in running off the impression. Since the delicate lines began to show signs of wear rather quickly, fine edi-

tions for the luxury market were limited to not more than from two to four hundred copies. The average for other editions was not more than a thousand. If still more seemed advisable, the engraver had to supply duplicate plates. Whatever the number, the artist was given the first fifty prints for his own use.

The high cost of engravings at first restricted the use of them to title pages and frontispieces. For a long time headpieces and other incidental ornaments continued to be cut on wood, or on metal in the woodcut method. By the second half of the seventeenth century the frontispiece usually took the form of the author’s portrait, thus establishing a tradition that continues to our own day.?®

Since the whole business of supplying illustrations was partly a profession and partly a craft, the workers always exercised a jealous care to assert and maintain social position. The artists, as we have said, were members of the Royal Academy of Painters and

Sculptors, and in the second half of the eighteenth century the engravers also were finally admitted to the same body, the entrance test being the presentation of a chef-d’oeuvre, which was often the engraved portraits of two Academy members. ‘The coppersmiths who furnished the blank plates were of course members of a craft % Francois Courboin, L’Estampe francaise (Paris, 1914), pp. 21-22. 1” Henri Jean Martin, “Livre et de la librairie (Histoire du),” Dictionnaire des lettres frangaises: le XVII*° siécle, éd. Georges Grente (Paris, 1954), p. 628.

BOOK ILLUSTRATION 317 guild,” and the printers of engravings were organized in 1692.74 The industry as a whole, that is, all the workers except the artists, were united in the Brotherhood of St. Jean Porte Latine and celebrated his festival on the eighteenth of October. The choice of St. Jean as patron was a recognition of the saint’s escape from a vat of boiling oil, which was considered a symbol of the boiling of flaxseed oil, one of the dangerous operations in the preparation of engravers’ ink.”

In distinction from the livres a figures —the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century volumes illustrated by woodcuts — the engraved books of the next two centuries are known as livres a vignettes. In these the illustrators found their subjects in contemporary life, and for pure decoration they used a variety of garlands, wreaths, and other flowerwork. In other words, they abandoned the stiff simplicity of the medieval book and worked toward the free and lively effects of painting itself.

‘These later illustrators did not, however, confine their work to editions of belles-lettres. They were equally active in producing documentary engravings which became an essential addition to books on travel, archaeology, costume, architecture and architectural ornament, furniture, miltary science, various crafts, medals, natural science, jewelry, and so on. The volumes of plates illustrating the Encyclopédie are a sufficient example of the superb skill devoted to this kind of work.” As for volumes of more literary interest, it is noticeable that most of the illustrated books of the seventeenth century are second editions, the first having been issued without illustrations. Evidently authors and publishers waited to see how successful the book would be and then calculated the possibility of further sales with the help of engravings. In the next period there was not so much hesitancy, for the fashion of the time insisted upon a wealth of ornamentation and illustration as a condition of success.*4 * Alfred Franklin, Dictionnaire historique des arts, métiers, et professions exercés dans Paris depuis le XUTI* siécle (Paris, 1906), p. 371. #1 Lespinasse, III, 700. *2 Courboin, p. 5. *8 Courboin, pp. 134-142; Fiirstenberg, pp. 67-68, 126 ff.

* Jeanne Duportal, Contribution au catalogue général des livres a figures du XVII° siécle, 1601-1633 (Paris, 1914), pp. vii-ix.

318 AUXILIARY TRADES Such demand involved the publisher in added expense because

now he had to deal not only with the artist and engraver but also with two separate printers, one for the text and one for the engravings. No master could legally own and operate presses adapted for both kinds of work. The letterpress printer did his part first and sent the sheets to the other shop for finishing. At the latter were put in the engraved ornaments and decorated let-

ters, and the full-page illustrations were supplied on separate sheets. ‘These were later pasted in (“tipped in’’) at designated places

by the binder. Eventually the law extended the requirement of separate printing to include even woodcuts in spite of the fact that these could be better printed along with the text.

Governmental interference with the production of engravings, whether in loose sheets or in books, was just as persistent as in every other activity. In 1551 the edict of Chateaubriand forbade everyone to paint or portray, or cause to be painted, or to sell, buy,

have, hold, or ke€p any images, portraits, or figures contrary to the honor and reverence of the saints canonized by the Church.” In 1618 censorship was repeated in regard to the printing and sell-

ing of “dissolute” placards and plates, and this supervision was maintained in all subsequent laws.2* There was evidently, however, a very considerable supply of pornography at all times and plenty of buyers for such illicit engravings. When, for instance, the duke of Valentinois died 22 April 1751, his confessor persuaded him to have his servants burn, the day before, his collection of indecent prints valued at eighty thousand livres.?" In a more innocuous category, exploitation of a source of rev-

enue was probably at the basis of the law of 21 December 1667 which forbade printers and engravers to print plans and elevations of royal houses, statues, and ancient monuments unless such workers had been nominated by Colbert, the Superintendent of Royal Buildings. The only exception to government censorship was that **Tsambert, Jourdan, Decrusy, Recueil général des anciennes lois francaises, 29 vols. (Paris, 1821—1833), XIII, 189-208.

28 Claude Marin Saugrain, Code de la librairie et de ’imprimerie de Paris (Paris, 1744), P. 337-

** Frederic Melchior, Baron de Grimm, Diderot, Raynal, Meister, etc., Correspondance littéraire, philosophique, et critique, éd. Maurice Tourneux, 16 vols. (Paris, 1877-1882), II, 55.

BOOK ILLUSTRATION 319 in 1714 the Royal Academy of Painters and Sculptors was granted the sole right to pass upon the suitability for publication of all engravings and other printed material emanating from its members.?8 Up to the middle of the seventeenth century engraving escaped separate guild regulation probably because the making and printing of woodcuts was so intimate a part of the general printing busi-

ness. ‘Ihe practice of copperplate engraving was still so slightly independent in 1648 that when Mazarin founded the Royal Academy in that year he confirmed the professional freedom of painters and sculptors but said nothing about engravers. ‘The initial proposal looking toward an engravers’ guild came when Francois Mansart, himself an artist, asked for a privilege giving him control of all engraving with a division of the resulting profits between himself and the government. A mazarinade against him appeared in

1651 and this, together with a protest from the most influential

engravers, ended the matter. A few years later one Sieur de Lavenage, who is otherwise unknown, brought forth a suggestion that the King should create and sell two hundred masterships for engravers, etchers, and printers and dealers in engravings, on the

pattern of other crafts. This was a proposal for a real guild. Though it met the approval of a few engravers, it wounded the social pride of the majority. They protested to Chancellor Séguier in a petition that was probably written by the great artist-engraver Robert Nanteuil. Although the law of 4 February 1660 actually set

up a guild, it was almost immediately repealed by the edict of St. Jean de Luz, 26 May 1660. This confirmed the traditional freedom of the art and asserted that engravers were to be considered artists, not craftsmen or merchants, and were not to be restricted by masterships or guild organization or any other control. Freedom was again confirmed in 1683 and in 1742.”9 ‘The printers of engravings also remained free for a long time but at length in 1692 they had to yield to the irresistible tendency

of the period. At this moment their informal organization with elected wardens was threatened, like all other crafts, by the creation of wardenships to be sold as public offices. After buying up these positions for the considerable sum of thirty thousand livres, 8 Saugrain, pp. 460, 462-464.

*°Courboin, p. 59; Duportal, Etude, pp. iv, 12 ff.; Eugene Bouvy, Nanteuil (Paris, 1924), pp. 15-32.

320 AUXILIARY TRADES they petitioned for a guild (17 February 1692). Statutes were issued in May 1694. The general tenor of these regulations is familiar. A candidate

for the mastership must be a Catholic and must have served four years as apprentice and two years as journeyman. Anyone prac-

ticing the craft in May 1694 must join the guild within four months or be deprived of his mastership. Candidates were liable for an entrance fee of five hundred livres, or two hundred and fifty for sons of masters. One third of the fees were to be set aside in a guild treasury for overhead expenses. The syndics were to make four inspections each year and keep a register of contracts of apprenticeship. Masters might have only one shop, and this together with their houses must be located in the University quarter. They must keep a register of all jobs. Except for six printers ‘‘following the Court” and having shops in the Louvre, only regular masters might own a press. Syndics had the power to confiscate forbidden items. No one was to be elected a syndic until he had been a master for ten years. Journeymen might not do any work on their own account nor leave a master without finishing the work in hand. An apprentice who was absent must make up double the

lost time. Sundays and feast days were to be holidays. Widows might carry on a husband’s business. All should belong to the Brotherhood of St. Jean and pay a fee of thirty sols a year.°° There was a reorganization in 1776, when the fee for the mastership was reduced to three hundred livres, and still another and final one in 1782.

Both the government and the guild of letterpress printers kept a jealous eye on the printers of engravings, who had far too many chances to issue illegal material and to encroach upon the regular market. Every law for the printers’ and publishers’ guild therefore forbade the engravers’ printers to own fonts of type or presses for

typographical printing, and the officers of the older guild were empowered to make inspections to see that this rule was enforced.

If the printer of an engraving wanted to place an explanation at the bottom of a print, he must have the work done by a regular shop, and such a caption must not exceed six lines nor be carried over onto the reverse side. Engraving printers must register with ° Lespinasse, III, 716-717; Franklin, p. 397.

BOOK ILLUSTRATION 321 the older guild, but such registration did not convey the right to sell books or pamphlets or to carry on a bookselling business. Fur-

thermore all material imported by an engraving printer must go through the headquarters of the other guild for inspection. All these restrictions applied as well to dominotiers, imagers, and tapissiers, the printers of fancy papers, wall papers, and so on.*1 The laws of 17 March and 14 June 14791 abolished the engrav-

ing printers’ guild along with all others. The law of 17 March provided for a licensing fee as a preliminary to the exercise of any

profession, art, or craft, that for engraving printers being set at three hundred livres. At this time there were forty-three such masters in Paris.*?

Indications of prices for illustrations begin only with the seventeenth century, when engraving and printing were in the hands of a distinct group outside the regular printing shops. We know there were definite contracts between engraver and author or publisher but few have been found.*? Our information is therefore derived from indirect sources such as inventories and privileges.

About 1609 the publishers Langelier and Guillemot brought out three volumes illustrated jointly by the engravers ‘Thomas de Leu, Léonard Gaultier, and Jaspar Isac. ‘These books were a translation by Blaise de Vigenére of Images ou tableaux de plate pein-

ture des deux Philostrates, La Vie @Apollonius Thianée, and L’ Histoire des Turcs de Chalcondyle. In view of the fact that Lan-

gelier and Guillemot had spent four thousand écus for the engraved plates of these books, they were granted a privilege for twelve years.3* From an inventory of 1610 it appears that in the first of these books thirty-eight plates, valued at 324 livres, had been used. The same inventory values at 10 livres the thirteen woodcuts used in another book.®® These figures indicate a wide difference in costs especially when one considers that the useful life of the woodcuts was practically unlimited. Among the papers of Chancellor Séguier in the Bibliotheque * Saugrain, pp. 335-337) 459. ®2 Lespinasse, I, 188-193; Furstenberg, p. 131. 33 Duportal, Kiude, pp. 37-38. *4 Duportal, Etude, p. 21. 35 Martin, p. 628.

322 AUXILIARY TRADES Nationale there is a memorandum ** without date but probably from about 1635, which gives a number of interesting details of an agreement between the engraver Abraham Bosse and the physi-

cian Guy de la Brosse for the illustration of the latter’s book on the royal garden of medicinal plants.?? Bosse had contracted to engrave a thousand drawings of plants each on a copperplate sixteen by twelve inches. They were to be fairly simple, showing the outline of each plant with some crosshatching to indicate texture and shading. ‘The price was to be twenty-five livres each. This was

extremely low but, on the other hand, the order was unusually large and the amount of work on each plate was almost negligible for a skillful engraver. In addition to the plates of plants there were to be a title page of the same dimensions and with complete hatching and also two perspective plans of the gardens on much larger plates. Here we have three engravings in the elaborate style usual in books of the time. The price of the three was two thousand livres, this, at nearly seven hundred livres apiece, a much more representative figure

for such work. |

When Bosse got at the job, he found that the engraving of some of the larger plants required more hatching than he had expected. La Brosse for his part found that he would like to in-

crease the hatching in all the plates. ‘(his extra work was arranged for the additional sum of five livres for each of the thousand plates.

There were also several plates which the author wanted altered and a few to be done over again. He promised to satisfy Bosse for all such contingent work beyond the definite terms of the agreement.

Rather soon after the job began, La Brosse died, and Bosse had to consider just where he stood. He had begun and nearly completed two plans and the title page and had finished and delivered 120 of the more complicated plates for the text. At thirty livres each the latter would come to thirty-six hundred livres. If, however, the original order had been for 120 plates and no more, the price — so Bosse asserted — would have been at least four thou-

sand livres. With two thousand livres for the three special plates 5° B, N., ms. fran. 18967, fo. 86-87. 8? Duportal, Etude, pp. 37-38; André Blum, Abraham Bosse et la société frangaise

au XVII° siécle (Paris, 1924), pp. 190-192.

BOOK ILLUSTRATION 323 the total bill stood at six thousand livres. But this was not all. He had spent about fifteen hundred livres in advance payments for

the full number of blank plates and for preparations to handle the whole job expeditiously. The total was now seventy-five hundred livres. La Brosse had paid him only five thousand livres on account. Since La Brosse’s death several creditors of his estate had threat-

ened to have the plates seized, in whatever state they might be. The engraver was put to some expense in trying to ward off these attempts. In the meantime, the title page and twenty of the plant plates had deteriorated and would have to be repolished; actually only one hundred text plates and the two plans were in first-class condition. All this was of course so irritating to a man of Bosse’s temperament that he wanted to be rid of the quarreling and uncertainty. He therefore declared himself willing to take his loss of twenty-five hundred livres and deliver the plates in his possession if the Chancellor would discharge him from all further responsibility.

Bosse was more fortunate in 1654 when he supplied thirteen plates for an edition of Chapelain’s La Pucelle. He got thirteen hundred livres for his work, an average of a hundred livres per plate. The designs, however, were furnished by the painter Claude Vignon, and it is possible that Bosse had to share his thirteen hundred livres with Vignon.*®

Prices in general seem to have varied according to the amount

of work on a plate rather than on the artistic reputation of the engraver. At Bourges, in 1658, the little-known Edme Morel received thirty-six livres for furnishing certain coats-of-arms on a copperplate for an official volume. In contrast, the more famous Francois Collignon signed an agreement to engrave eight plates for one hundred livres, that is, twelve or thirteen livres each. But the great Nanteuil in 1670 turned down a dealer’s offer of one hun-

dred and fifty livres for doing a self-portrait and held out, unsuccessfully, for two hundred livres. Much later — in 1785 — the publisher Lamy paid the engraver Malbeste thirty-three hundred livres for a single plate.®® % Duportal, Eiude, pp. 38-39.

Auguste Jal, Dictionnaire critique de biographie et d’histotre, 2d ed. (Paris, 1872), pp. 172, 898.

324 AUXILIARY TRADES The cost of illustrations must of course have been considered part of the total expense of manufacturing a book. Coignard, for instance, signed a contract with Thomas Corneille 29 March 1700 for the Dictionnaire universel géographique et historique, according to which Coignard would be reimbursed for all expenses of printing as well as for the portrait frontispiece, the vignettes, and the decorated initials before Corneille received any part of the proceeds.*°

Besides cash payments for work there were the usual patronage

sources of income for an engraver. The post of graveur de la maison du rot carried a pension of five hundred livres; that of graveur de dessins du cabinet du roi, six hundred livres; and that of graveur des menus plaisirs du roi, twelve hundred livres. Some engravers were given free quarters in the Louvre. Dedication of a plate to a rich man, like the dedication of a book, might bring a large gift. Or special services might be rewarded as when Cochin received forty thousand livres from the Comte de Provence for his engravings for an edition of Tasso in 1784.

Because of the tremendous popularity of the illustrated book

in the eighteenth century as well as the unbounded interest in collecting prints, the social and economic position of most engravers was an enviable one. They lived in great comfort and were considered as ornaments of the age.*! And their reputation has not diminished in succeeding time. CHAPTER XVI

BINDING Binding is by far the oldest of the crafts connected with the book industry. Long before the invention of paper or type the scribes of the ancient world were faced with the necessity for protecting their scrolls, and with the adoption of the codex there was a further need for keeping the pages in order and holding them together Jal, p. 428. “ Furstenberg, p. 132.

A complete bibliography of material on binding up to 1933 is to be found in Wolfgang Mejer and H. Herbst, Bibliographie der Buchbinderliteratur, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1925-1933).

BINDING 325 for convenient reading. ‘The great manuscripts of the Middle Ages were enclosed between two wooden boards often left uncovered but generally wrapped with leather or velvet or satin with or without embroidery, and edged with iron, copper, gold, or silver and

still further ornamented with bosses, ivory insets, and jewels.1 Each binding was an individual product, a whole edition in itself,

and so too were the far more numerous copies of university textbooks which were issued with merely simple parchment or leather covers.

Even the introduction of printing, which resulted in a tremendous increase in the number of volumes to be bound, brought no essential change in the process of binding copy by copy. The tools were simple; the unit continued to be the single piece. In the fif-

teenth and early sixteenth centuries a bindery was part of each printing office and comparable to the type foundry, the composing room, the pressroom, and, in many cases, the retail bookshop. The binder was an integral part of the whole book-producing establishment. If Roffet, Geoffroy ‘Tory, Simon de Colines, Simon Vostre, and Jean de Tournes were the most important binders of the time, it was only because they were among the most important printers.

By the seventeenth century the industry had moved outside the printing shop into special quarters of its own but it was still under the control of the printers and publishers. Complete freedom did not come until 1686. It took many decades before such master binders as Padeloup, Derédme, and Dubuisson could feel themselves on an equal footing with their contemporary master printers and dealers.” Most shops were prepared to do three kinds of work — ordinary

editions for a publisher, more elaborate bindings of prayer books for a diocese, and special individual orders for wealthy collectors. It is the latter who were responsible for the magnificent bindings designed by great artists and executed without consideration of cost. Our concern, however, is with the unpretentious article that circulated in the general trade. Usually it was a plain piece of work but there might be a stamping of borders and flowers done with a 1Ernest Thoinan [pseud. for Antoine Ernest Roquet], Les Relieurs frangais 1500-1800 (Paris, 1893), p. 111. ? Marius-Michel, La Reliure francaise commerciale et industrielle depuis Vinvention de Vimprimerie jusqu’d nos jours (Paris, 1881), pp. 1-2.

326 AUXILIARY TRADES cold iron or wheel, or else blind stamping by a large metal plate. Both these kinds of leatherworking were familiar to craftsmen and customers because of their use in the making of harness and armor.

The whole process, indeed, was so subordinate in its nature that the master had little incentive to seek personal recognition for his work. Occasionally we find his name engraved on the metal plate, if he used one, or stamped in gilding on the inside of the cover, or, especially in the eighteenth century, on a little paper sticker pasted on the inner edge of the cover.? Most bindings, however, are anon-

ymous. From the first three quarters of the sixteenth century Thoinan was able to recover no more than twenty-one names of craftsmen, and of these Geoffroy Tory is the only one whose work can be certainly recognized.* Every effort was made to keep costs low in these early editions. The sewing was careful but the whole binding was stiff and rather coarse. Calfskins and sheepskins were generally used, not the finer

leathers. After 1550 there was no embossing but only a simple border or a central panel on the front cover.® ‘The binder often ran out of boards and, since he had no stock cardboard, he built up his cover from pamphlets and scraps of unsold books as well as other

waste paper from the printing shops. This practice explains not only the constant attention given to the disposal of waste paper but also the fate of the product of many unsuccessful publishing ventures. Incidentally, however, it has provided a good deal of valuable bibliographical data.® In spite of their occupying an inferior position, the binders did

not hesitate to insist upon their rights as members of the book trade and therefore employees of the University of Paris. In the late fifteenth century they joined their colleagues in protesting the imposition of certain taxes and thus helped to bring forth the important letters patent issued by Charles VIII in March 1488. This law decided that the number of bookmen who as officers of the University were exempt from taxes, should be reduced to a fixed $’Thoinan, pp. 112-113; Léon Gruel, Manuel historique et bibliographique de amateur de reliures, 2 vols. (Paris, 1887~—1905), II, 139-144. * Thoinan, p. 124. 5 'Thoinan, pp. 137-138. ®¢mile Chatelain, “Les Secrets des reliures,” Revue des bibliothéques, 16 année (juillet—-aotit, 1906), pp. 261-291; Marius-Michel, pp. 3-28.

BINDING 327 quota and be chosen from the jurés of the University. wo binders were named along with two scribes, two illuminators, twenty-five booksellers, four parchment makers, four paper merchants in Paris, and seven paper manufacturers. These men were to have general supervision of the trade. We do not know the exact duties of the two binders but they undoubtedly had to inspect the binderies and report to the four “great” bookdealers immediately responsible to the Faculty.7 This arrangement was confirmed g April 1513 by Louis XII when he excused the book trade from participating in

the “gift” of thirty thousand livres he had requested from Paris and other cities. The favored position was again confirmed by the law of 20 February 1595, which specifically includes the binders in its provisions.®

There was no doubt, then, that throughout the sixteenth century the binders were an integral part of the book industry. ‘The organization, as we have pointed out before, was a very loose one; printers and booksellers were at liberty to bind in their own shops the books they sold or made, and the binders reciprocally had the right to sell books. By the end of the century, however, this informal custom was disturbed by the rise of a new set of workers, the

gilders, the men who applied gold leaf to the ornamentation of bindings. The two crafts were absolutely distinct, and there were few who were able to practice both.® In earlier days gilding was free and independent, partly because there was only a small number of gilders and they had little to do beyond taking care of the few books ordered by princes, princesses, and collectors. Most of their business was in wall coverings, boxes, and other leatherwork. But toward the end of the century a vogue for bindings covered with gold ornament led a rather large number of men to turn their special skill in this direction. Although they knew nothing about sewing or casing a book, they insisted upon being recognized as

master binders and being granted all the rights attached to that dignity. Among these was the right to sell books. The older members of the trade made no objection at first, but increasing com7 Thoinan, pp. 14-15. 8 Antoine Fontanon, Les Edicts et ordonnances des rois de France depuis S. Loys tusques a présent, 2d ed., 4 vols. (Paris, 1585), IV, 479. ®°'Thoinan, pp. 126, 129-132.

328 AUXILIARY TRADES petition and difficulties of supervision soon brought protests and

irritations.

When the book guild was set up in June 1618, the fundamental regulations did nothing to reconcile the conflicting interests of the varied elements of the trade. Binders and gilders continued to be grouped indiscriminately with printers and booksellers.” For the next thirty years, therefore, the rivals continued their struggles. On 20 May 1634 when the Parlement ordered that, except for sons and sons-in-law of masters, only three new masters should be received in the guild each year, one of them was to be a binder. Several journeymen were nevertheless received from time to time until at last Antoine Vitré, the dictator syndic from 1639

to 1644, insisted that such tolerance should end and the law of 1634 be observed. The confirming regulation which he managed to put through in 1642 was not, however, registered by the Parlement, and seven more years of quarreling elapsed before further

serious attempts at settlement were made. During this time the binders made a futile complaint to the Parlement that they had never been represented by a syndic or even a warden. Another disturbing incident was that in 1647 nine journeymen gilders were received as masters upon giving proof of their ability, while six were turned down. These six joined a number of older guild members in opposing the proposed law of December 1649, which eventually failed of registration in the troubles of the Fronde and the war with Spain. ‘The men were received, however, on 15 January 1654 after three years of further working experience and in view of the fact that the guild then needed the fees they contrib-

uted.” Renewed attempts to establish peace were equally unsuccessful. On 16 December 1666 and again on 6 October 1667 the gov-

ernment defined the conditions of mastership and forbade the reception of new masters or the opening of any bookshop until His Majesty should order otherwise.1? But some guild members

10 'Thoinan, p. 27. |

“ Isambert, Jourdan, Decrusy, Recueil général des anciennes lois francaises, 29 vols. (Paris, 1821-1833), XVI, 117-125; Thoinan, pp. 23-26. ?'Thoinan, pp. 29-32. ** Thoinan, pp. 48-50.

BINDING 329 insisted upon what they considered their vested rights. Jacques Talon, for instance, a binder since 1661, opened a new printing shop in 1670 — but he was obliged to close it almost at once.** On

11 April 1674 the Conseil d’Etat strengthened the law of 1667 and ordered the closing of all shops opened by binders since that time.?® In June 1673, when the guild assembled for its annual elec-

tions, the binders harked back to their old complaint that they had not been represented in the office of warden although their duties as inspectors demanded such recognition. ‘The electors, aware of the justice of this position, chose two booksellers who were also binders; and, though the journeymen accused them of animosity and snobbishness, they were sworn in by the lieutenant of police.1* This incident brought another grievance into the open:

the printers and booksellers declared that the binders did not really want to live at peace with the rest of the guild but were plotting to withdraw and set up one of their own. Although this last solution was probably the best possible one, it was not advanced for several years. ‘Then in August 1683 the government made tentative proposals for new regulations regarding the printers and booksellers. ‘Thirty-four binders, as members of the guild, objected. Because of some success, they continued their protests until at last on 8 May 1685 the Conseil d’Etat ordered

them to stop bothering the syndic and wardens. A year later the government in a surprise move issued and had registered two new edicts, one for the printers dated 21 August 1686 and one for the binders dated 7 September 1686.17 The separation of the two factions was now nearly complete. The preamble of the binders’ code summarizes the long history of the quarrels and states that henceforth the guild of binders and

gilders shall be distinct and separate from the guild of printers and booksellers and that present members of the old corporation must decide within a month which they shall belong to. On the other hand, there was to be no separation of the religious brother4 Edouard Tromp, Etude sur Vorganisation et Vhistoire de la communauté des libraires et imprimeurs de Paris (1618-1791) (Nimes, 1922), pp. 31-38; Paul Mellottée, Histoire économique de l’imprimerie (Paris, 1905), pp. 183-185. % Marcel Bar, L’Organisation et Vaction syndicales dans la typographie frangaise (Paris, 1907), p. 10; Thoinan, pp. 53-56. #6 'Thoinan, pp. 51-53; Mellottée, pp. 185-191. 7 'Thoinan, pp. 56-59.

330 AUXILIARY TRADES hood, but the administration was to be transferred each year to the two retiring wardens of the older guild. Members of both guilds should continue to be ranked as officers of the University with all the traditional privileges.1® The right to bind, gild, and ornament books was vested solely in the master binders and gilders,

but printers and publishers might continue to fold, gather, sew, and cover in simple paper or parchment in their own shops. The provisions regarding apprentices were practically unaltered —a contract for three years, service of one year as journeyman, continuity of service. Ordinary candidates for the mastership must be of good reputation, at least twenty years old, know how to read and write, and be certified as capable by two masters. ‘They are to be received in order according to the dates of their apprenticeship contracts as found in the guild records and shall pay one hundred livres into the guild treasury. Sons of masters must pay thirty livres upon reception as masters, but there is no fee for those sons and journeymen who marry the daughter or widow of a master. Since no master binders or gilders have been received for a long time, no more than twelve journeymen who have completed an apprenticeship and three years of additional service may apply within the

next three months and become masters upon payment of thirty livres, sons and sons-in-law upon payment of ten livres. Binders and gilders must live and work in the University quarter though not in a collége or other privileged place. The fee for the wardens’ inspection is five sols for each visit and there shall be two visits a year. The wardens in office, the former wardens, and twelve other

masters shall annually elect two new wardens to serve in place of those who have served two years; to start the series, the King appointed the first four. The syndic and wardens of the printers’ guild were given the right to inspect binders’ shops as often as they wished.?®

Naturally there were protests and difficulties of adjustment. ‘The University was aggrieved because it had not been consulted. Vari-

ous binders who went on selling books found their stocks seized by the police. Others were slow in making their choice of a guild. Others assaulted the representatives of the printers who tried to #8 Marius-Michel, pp. 115-129.

19 Gruel, I, 66-70; Thoinan, pp. 60-64.

BINDING 331 make inspections. ‘The four appointed wardens refused to give up their positions; though one of them, Denis Nyon, died, he was succeeded by his brother Geoffroy without formal election. It was not until 31 May 1698 that the Chancellor corrected this situation; then he assembled twelve masters and the wardens and held an election of four new officers, two to serve two years and two for one year.

After that, elections were regular except that there were none in 1717, 1723, 1728, 1729, and 1731.?° Fully as serious was the failure

to observe the clause of the edict of 1686 admitting only twelve

new masters within the first three months after setting up the guild. On 24 March 1698 forty-seven members went to the lieutenant of police and accused the wardens of having received more than thirty in the interval, most of them with insufficient qualifications. Fifteen of them defended themselves against this charge, which seems to have been dismissed with a warning against repetition.”1

The status of binders’ sons was another long-continued source of dispute. Upon establishment the new guild counted forty-five members, all of them former booksellers and not printers.?? By 1698 there were many sons who claimed that since at the time of their birth their fathers were members of the old guild, they had a birthright claim to being received as masters in it without serving as apprentices or journeymen. The matter was brought before

the King for a ruling. He submitted it to Turgot, the maitre des requétes, and d’Argenson, the lieutenant general of police, with instructions to hear representatives of both guilds. He forbade the printers to receive in the meantime any binders’ sons who had not

fulfilled all the requirements demanded of candidates not sons of master printers and booksellers.”*

The housecleaning implied by all these various reforms of 1698 did little to establish peace. In 1700, for instance, the publishers complained that the price for gilding had been doubled and that the binders had adopted a cheaper and inferior method of sewing. In 1714 they accused the binders of buying leather out20 Gruel, I, 101-105.

4 'Thoinan, pp. 64-70, 103-107. 2 Gruel, I, 130-1931. * Claude Marin Saugrain, Code de la librairie et de l’imprimerie (Paris, 1744), pp. 183-187.

332 AUXILIARY TRADES side the guild headquarters. The binders, in turn, felt that the publishers were crowding them out of the brotherhood. This last situation was all the more serious because it involved social and religious as well as economic considerations. It was finally settled only when the two groups separated on 18 September 1730 and

divided the common property. The binders now went to the church of St. Hilaire and became members either of the brotherhood of St. Sacrament or the brotherhood of Notre Dame de Grace. ‘They continued, however, to observe the two feasts of St. John on 6 May and 27 December.*+

While these organizational changes were going on, there was also a continual effort to lower the costs of binding and to speed up the rate of production, both aims being an indication of the growth of the market for books. Early in the seventeenth century commer-

cial binders abandoned the use of plates for stamping covers and adopted the less expensive process of getting artistic effects with engraved wheels. Soon afterward they succeeded in establishing a

popular taste for the Dutch style of sturdy but pliable vellum covers with practically no gold ornament. This fashion was later supported by the style favored by the binders of Jansenist books, a simple, plain leather with a minimum of gold stamping. Vellum, calf, and sheepskin continued to be the materials most employed since morocco was far too expensive for ordinary work. A new bit of decoration, however, was discovered in the time of Louis XIV, when marbled end papers began to be employed.”5 After more than half a century of trial and error, the binders and

gilders decided that the rather simple statutes granted them in 1686 were no longer sufficient for the more complicated conditions of the mid-eighteenth century. The matter was debated in a series of guild meetings in January 1750. Finally on the seventeenth of the month a code of fifty-one articles was completed and the 175 masters signed a resolution appointing the four wardens a committee to submit the document to the King and to the Parlement.*6 "The King gave his consent on 7 March but ordered that *% Thoinan, pp. 71-78. * Marius-Michel, pp. 29-42. 78 Marius-Michel, pp. 134-13, 129-131.

BINDING 333 before registration his letters patent and the proposed statutes should be approved by the guild according to the usual formula. On 25, June the notaries of the Chatelet therefore accompanied the wardens to their headquarters, where they found seventy-two masters assembled. ‘The statutes were read aloud, and the guild voted unanimously that they should be registered.?7 The Parlement took its action on 4 September. Many of the articles of the code of 1750 reflect the methods of handling trade problems that we have already found in the law of 1686 and the printer-publisher code of 1723. We shall therefore point out only a few of the more striking details.*® Publishers and printers continue to enjoy the right to cover pamphlets and small books in paper or vellum without stiffening, and papermakers are allowed to make and sell blank books. No one other than the son or widow of a master is to operate a bindery unless he has served an apprenticeship of five years. ‘There is still the curious stipulation that no one shall be taken as apprentice unless he can read and write. After apprenticeship a man must serve three years as journeyman before applying for mastership. The syndic and wardens of the publishers’ guild continue to have the duty of inspecting binderies — a provision that implements the usual precautions regarding censored and pirated books. Two of the four wardens are to be elected annually on 8 May, but once in each biennium one of these is to be a gilder so that the board shall always consist of three binders and one gilder. ‘There 1s no provision for a syndic nor for a representative council such as the publishers had; the wardens acted as a board of managers, and general guild business was carried on in full assembly of all the masters, the penalty for nonattendance being a three livres’ fine. ‘The brotherhood is to be administered by the two retiring wardens, and the

accounts must not be mixed with those of the guild. Masters are no longer required to live within the University quarter, but the confines of permissible residence are carefully scheduled. Unlike the older organization, the binders’ guild was abolished by Turgot’s general law of 12 March 1776. Then when forty-four new craft guilds were set up on 23 August, the binders were joined ** Marius-Michel, pp. 136-137. *8 Marius-Michel, pp. 115-129.

334 AUXILIARY TRADES to the paper sizers, papermakers, and cardboard makers. Old masters merely had to pay a fee of fifty livres for membership, but only twenty-one did so while a hundred and ten others together with twenty-two widows refused. Under the new arrangement many masters added the selling of paper and office supplies to their regular business. ‘The final blow came of course with the vote of the Constituent Assembly on 17 March 1791 and the enacting of the Loi Le Chapelier on 16 June 1791.” As for the artistic side of the business, the eighteenth century was a period of general decadence in edition binding. The use of plates and lavish gilding returned to favor in the reign of Louis XV so that the work often reminds us of the seventeenth century, but toward the end of the period the tools showed wear and there were few new designs. Liturgical binders enriched their books with end papers of watered silk and embossed paper. From this time too dates the use of cardboard sides covered with marbled paper.®° We have already traced the gradual closing of the printer-publisher

guild by inheritance and intermarriage. The same development, perhaps to an accentuated degree, is found in the binders’ guild. The craft throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was controlled by dynasties such as the Padeloup family rather than

by individuals. With the mastership went large stocks of books, tools, and equipment of various sorts. ‘The personal work of the actual craftsmen — the artists who designed the patterns, the engravers who made the copper punches, the gilders who impressed the ornaments on the leather — all this remains anonymous.*!

For many years the guild was a rather small one; but about the middle of the eighteenth century there were in Paris no less than three hundred masters and four hundred journeymen.®? A law issued 10 January 1741 therefore forbade the taking of any new apprentices for the next ten years. The moratorium was extended for a further ten years on 27 March 1751. In 1745 the fees for the mastership were sharply increased to * Thoinan, pp. 97—100; Isambert, XVI, 43. 8° Marius-Michel, pp. 43-64.

%1 Hans Fiirstenberg, Das franzdsische Buch im achtzehnten Jahrhundert und in der Empirezeit (Weimar, 1929), pp. 168-169. *2 Gruel, I, 45.

BINDING 335 help the guild repay the sum of three thousand livres borrowed to redeem the proposed offices of inspectors and controllers. Sons of masters were now obliged to pay 120 livres instead of the 76 livres 10 sols that had been customary for some time; sons-in-law, 100

livres instead of 47 livres 10 sols; and journeymen, 300 livres instead of 137 livres 10 sols.*? The code of 1750 set still higher fees — 600 livres for journeymen, 200 for sons, and 150 for a son who married the daughter of a master.

In addition to the fee and the usual proofs of qualification, the binder candidate had to submit a chef-d’oeuvre. This requirement seems to have developed during the early eighteenth century, for it 1s not mentioned in the laws of 1618 and 1686 but is definitely stated in 1750. It is one more evidence of the ceaseless effort to apply a brake on the industry.

We hear little about the journeymen binders during the ancien régime. Despite the general laws against associations of workmen they had a brotherhood of their own to which each man contributed fourteen sols a week for sick comrades. Every year they assem-

bled on the Sunday in May nearest St. John’s Day and with their Wives spent two days in feasting at an inn.?4 Early in October 1776

they all went on strike for a reduction of working hours from sixteen to fourteen per day. Neither the masters nor the authorities

interfered because they hoped the disturbance would peter out when the men’s funds were exhausted. On the night of 13—14 Octo-

ber, however, the police rounded up six of the ringleaders and put them in a dungeon. ‘The next day the rank and file yielded unconditionally.®®

Limitation of the number of apprentices always appealed to the masters, not only in binding but in other crafts as well, as the best means of dealing with the surplus labor supply. In 1702, 1712, 172%, 1741, and 1751 this remedy was invoked but the restrictions were never observed carefully.

The troubles of the apprentice were chronicled in a poem of 1747 probably written by Dufréne, whose account of apprentice 8 'Thoinan, pp. 79-80. * Thoinan, p. 89. % Julien Hayem, “La Répression des gréves au XVIII° siecle,” Mémoires et documents pour servir @ V’histoire du commerce et de Vindustrie (Paris, 1911), I, 133.

336 AUXILIARY TRADES printers we have already discussed.®* The parents of the boy in this case had lofty dreams for his future. Nothing was good enough for

him, not even the ordinary schools. His mother therefore handled his formal education herself; but since she could not read well, the results were negligible. When he was ten, he was put onto the

street in the hope that he would be attracted to some craft. His father, Martin Collant (Glue), was a binder, the victim of a series

of ill fortunes that had gradually reduced him to poverty and despair. Nevertheless he managed to find the four hundred francs needed for indenturing the boy to a colleague in the same business, Mr. Headband of Mont St. Hilaire. After powdering his hair and washing his face, the boy went

with his father to be introduced to the master. The latter was a strange-looking fellow. He was just over four feet tall, his girth was two and a half feet, his chest and stomach sloped in unbroken line, his neck was thick and black, his unshaven chin large and flat, his mouth like a black forge, his little eyes had red rims, his nose was like a clove of garlic, his hair chestnut brown.

Mr. Headband received his pupil with a little lecture. “I am good and honest,” said he. “Henceforth I am to be your master and your father. You may be sure that through your conduct you will receive my praise or my punishment. Here’s what I want: first of all, obedience, respect for the mistress, and no sauciness or idleness. Be diligent, docile, affable, honest, not quarrelsome, submissive to the journeymen. Serve them without retorts, get up first to

open the shop, lose no time playing in the street, come back to the house instead of amusing yourself. If you break this contract, do not hope for mercy. As for instruction, that shall be a point of honor between us.” Although the contract should have been entered on the guild records, it was merely witnessed by the landlord of a neighboring tavern and sealed by a few bottles of wine. The boy was immediately sent on various errands for the mistress and the journeymen, but he returned empty-handed because no one would charge the purchases. Without any lunch he spent

the next few hours in getting water from the fountain, buying 8 Reproduced in Bulletin de la société de protection des apprentis, XXVIII (1895), 101-107.

BINDING 337 some wood, and peeling vegetables for dinner. ‘The meal was ready

at midnight and consumed in less than quarter of an hour. After supper the master with a wave of his hand indicated that his sleeping quarters would be an old garret above the shop with a ladder leading up to 1t. Without light or air and infested by mice and fleas, this room and its filthy heap of straw were far different from the couch and mattress and curtains he had had at home. No sooner did he doze off than he was forced to go down and open the door for a journeyman getting back from the tavern. The next day brought incessant commands: take down boxes,

cut strings, dry these books, open the door, shut the door, help with the marbling, cut these corners, take these books to the gilder — and over and over the cry, “Now show a little speed!” One day when he had been sent to a bookseller with a heavy bundle, he came back as tired as a galley slave. The mistress only scoffed at him and egged her husband on to beat him. Finally a girl working in the shop took pity on him and gave him some good advice. At the end of his apprenticeship they were married and, as usual, faced the future with renewed hope for an easier and happier life.

Like all other elements in the manufacture of books, the costs of binding show a steady increase during the ancien régime. A manuscript note on the flyleaf of a copy of Durand’s Rationale dated 1612 says that it was bought in Paris for six sous parisis and that the binding cost two sous. This is evidently the original cover — simple parchment without stamping or gilding. The volume is a duodecimo of 1250 pages.®”

On 2 December 1616 a merchant of Niort, Philip Georget, delivered to Jean Bichon, printer and bookseller of Saintes, ten folio works to be bound in fourteen volumes in red calfskin. The price was twenty-six livres, almost two livres a volume. This may have been rather high, but the books were large.®®

In 1650, when the prices of skins, cardboard, and gold had increased, twenty-eight Paris binders agreed on a scale of prices for 7 Bulletin du bibliophile, 1874, p. 533. 88 Henri Cluzot, “Un marché de relieur sous Louis XIII,” Bulletin du bibliophile, 1905, p. 12.

338 AUXILIARY TRADES prayer books: folios, two livres, five sols; quartos, one livre, fifteen sols; octavos, one livre; duodecimos, twelve sols.®®

In the seventeenth century the best skins came from Verneuil and Laigle; they were brought to guild headquarters in Paris and then allotted to the masters, who were forbidden to buy directly from the tanners. At the end of the century calfskins sold for nine

to ten livres a dozen; we do not know the size but they were probably small.° ‘The quality of gold leaf was always a bone of contention between gilders and suppliers. The Barbou firm sent considerable quantities from its Paris house to the branch in Limoges, the value of the shipments rising to 1453 livres for the years 1733~-1735.*

About 1750 the legal price for a full calf binding of a duodecimo was ten, eleven, or twelve sols. In 1736 calfskins had gone up to fifteen livres a dozen, in 1756 to thirty-five livres; in 1748 they came down to twenty-five livres. Accounts with the tanners were settled only by long-dated promissory notes, not by cash. In 1748 the tanners added eight dozen skins for each lot of sixteen

gross plus one dozen seconds for each gross. This bonus was at once auctioned separately at headquarters instead of being divided over individual purchases, and the sum was spent for a dinner for the wardens.*?

In 1751 the widow of Jean Barbou of Limoges had an inventory of her stock made as a preliminary to handing the business over to her son Martial. Among many interesting details are indications of binding prices. For plain parchment or sheepskin bindings the price per copy was one sol for 24mos; two sols for 18mos; three sols and three sols six deniers for duodecimos; five to ten sols

for octavos; and ten to twelve sols for quartos. For a duodecimo, a gilded parchment or sheepskin binding was valued at four sols six deniers; if there were a gold border, the value was six sols six deniers. For a duodecimo in calfskin with gold edges the binding was one livre; in shagreen with gold edges, two livres six deniers. Fine morocco bindings with gold edges were done in Paris; the binding of the Breviary of Limoges, four volumes octavo, was % Thoinan, p. 32. © 'Thoinan, pp. 43-46. “ Paul Ducourtieux, Les Barbou (Limoges, 1896), p. 175.

“ Thoinan, pp. 81-88.

BINDING 339 worth ten to twelve livres each; and the Missal of Limoges, a folio, was fourteen livres a copy.*? In contrast to these prices for ordinary trade bindings we have three accounts of special binding orders which indicate the prices

for elaborate piecework. In 1775 Pierre Jean Bradel contracted with the Marquis de Paulmy for the following scale of prices for full leather binding: folios, five livres; quartos, two livres ten sols; octavos and duodecimos, one livre. For merely covering with paper the prices were: folios, two livres ten sols; quartos, one livre four sols; octavos and duodecimos, eight sols.44 In 1782 Angeurrand bound 354 volumes, mainly folios and quartos, for the

King at the price of 1758 livres. In 1783 he bound 343 volumes for a total of 1890 livres; these were all done in morocco, a fact which partly explains the increase over the prices of a few years earlier.*5 * Ducourtieux, pp. 187-188. “ Gruel, I, 62-63. * Gruel, II, 24.

CONCLUSION

Our discussion in the preceding pages has considered one of the most significant impacts of politics and economics upon the intellectual world of the ancien régime in France. Since that period was oriented toward absolutism in politics and mercantilism in economics, the solution of all the problems in the book trade was sought in a progressively firm royal control over the industry.

Through all the pertinent legislation and other governmental activity of these three centuries we can trace the development of restrictions which, in a desperate effort to gain effectiveness, were loaded with threats of increasingly harsh penalties. During the sixteenth century, when reverence for theology and dread of heresy were dominant, the University seemed the natural protector of society from the subversive ideas rolling in over the frontiers from Germany. The University proceeded to its task with all the dignity and deliberateness it had inherited from the slowmoving Middle Ages; it could not give due weight to the fact that the printing press had introduced the new elements of speed and mass into the communication of ideas. Nor could it appreciate that there had arisen with the printing press a new kind of craftsman who was becoming adjusted to the accelerated tempo and also gaining industrial and political self-consciousness.

To implement the academic authority the government passed three fundamental laws during this century: the edict of VillersCotterets in 1541, the edict of Chateaubriand in 1551, and the edict of Gaillon in 1571. The central postulate of each is the controlling power of the University, acting through a representative group of twenty-four sworn bookdealers, over the output of the trade and over the status of the workmen. It is not difficult to see under the surface of each of these laws an ill-informed attempt to adapt the structure of the medieval book business to a new era.

As for the content of books, the authorities could never keep abreast of the flood of unacceptable publication. So far as labor was concerned, they seem to have accomplished their purpose, for

344 CONCLUSION the journeymen never again took the initiative in fomenting widespread trouble; there were always disputes between masters and workmen, it is true, but there was no repetition of the strikes that shook Paris and Lyon during the middle of the sixteenth century. So dynamic an industry as printing and publishing could not

long remain quiet under the inept control of the University. In 1618 the government finally decided that this was not enough for the conditions that characterized even the comparative peace imposed by the accession of Henry IV to the throne. The next step

was to organize the trade in the customary industrial form of a guild supervised by a committee of five members elected in the presence of the police officials. This solution recognized the economic self-sufficiency of the industry and at the same time linked

it to the executive structure of the country. Although the traditional authority of the University continued to receive acknowledgment till the end of the ancien régime, it was a purely formal and hollow arrangement. Shortly after the establishment of the guild, the industry was still more closely lined up under the civil authorities by the appointment of a board of lay censors under the direction of the Chancellor and also by the strengthening of a previous requirement that every book must be furnished with a “privilege,” a rudimentary form of copyright protection. Unrest now shifted to a new area. Throughout the seventeenth

century it centered upon the struggle between the printers and the publishers as to which should dominate the guild and, in the second place, between the powerful publishers who soon cornered the most profitable pieces of literary property and the poorer dealers in Paris and in the provinces. In the course of time the first of

these problems was settled in two ways: the number of printers was limited to thirty-six, and practically all master printers became master dealers also. Furthermore, the law of 1686 separated the binders from the guild and set them up in an organization of their own, thus eliminating a comparatively minor but no less irritating source of friction within the guild. For the protection of literary property, which involved questions of piracy and foreign trade, no adequate machinery was found until rather late in the nineteenth century, though the ancien régime did finally make considerable advances toward the theory of copyright law.

CONCLUSION 345 By the middle of the seventeenth century it was evident that the industry was no more able to control itself through the guild than the University had been able to control it through the group of sworn dealers. On the other hand, the government was becoming much stronger in every department as a result of the administration of Richelieu, Mazarin, and Colbert. The evidence of that increasing strength is shown by the incidental but firm development of the Chancellor’s supervision through the Director of the Book ‘Trade and the police development of a comprehensive bureaucracy under Joseph d’Hémery, unofficially known as the Inspector General of the Book Trade. Both the central government and the police were now in control, and the guild was more and more dependent upon them. ‘These fundamental changes were reflected in the statutes issued in 1723, which cleared up various points of dispute and which proved satisfactory enough to withstand all criticism from within. As a matter of fact, the industry itself was not concerned with

the initiation of the further changes promulgated by ‘ITurgot in 1777; these reflected the more liberal thinking of the time and were mainly concerned with improvement of the workmen’s personal status and with an amelioration of the conditions for granting privileges. With the fall of Turgot, his reforms were disregarded. Without definitely restoring the code of 1723, the guild adhered rather closely to its established practice until the Revolution swept it aside. A summary of this sort indicates in a general way the development of control over an important industry as the central authority endeavored to squeeze it into the pattern of the national economy.

Whether the system worked or not, the over-all plan was there,

and the book trade was made to conform at least in external arrangements with the general industrial pattern. But the book trade is more than manufacturing and distributing inert articles of commerce, and the external development from

a subsidiary administrative department of the University into a national industry is paralleled by an internal development that made it important for the government to reckon with it. That internal development is nowhere more dramatically seen than in the contrast between Michael Servetus writing during the six-

346 CONCLUSION teenth century on alchemy and demonology and Denis Diderot in the eighteenth century bringing out the thirty-five volumes of the broad-minded Encyclopédie. Tracing this vast change is, however, the task of the historian of ideas; it is sufficient here to point out that governmental efforts to control and obstruct the development of thought were quite ineffective. One is justified, however, in asking why the multitude of regulations were not more successful in bringing greater order and a larger measure of harmony into the book trade. The multiplicity of the laws may perhaps be explained by the fact that during the ancien régime France was struggling with the unprecedented ad-

ministrative problem of setting up orderly government for more populous areas than anything known in the past, and the method of procedure was not large-scale planning but endless repetition in louder and louder tones. There was little respect for the law, and authority was something to dodge rather than something to co-operate with. Perhaps we ourselves have not progressed much farther along this path — or so our newspapers would suggest — and perhaps if we could look at conditions exactly as the man of the ancien régime did, then we would not find his world so confusing. After all, there are a good many indications of happy relationships between the members of the book trade community. Intermarriages were the rule; there were many occasions for festivities and sociability; and there were plenty of instances of business co-operation that was financially successful. When we do our best

to visualize the man of the ancien régime, he turns out to be a rather understandable individual after all. Furthermore, even if control was unsuccessful, we must conclude that an extreme of repression was still less adapted to accomplish the end in view. Twice the government exerted all its power: first, in the suppression of the workers’ complaints, and second, in the revocation of the edict of Nantes. Although two centuries were to elapse after the edict of Villers-Cotterets and the edict of Gail-

lon, the stifled murmuring of the journeymen was finally dealt with in the edict of 1777 in a way that foreshadows a modern con-

ception of treating the demands of labor. And the revocation of the edict of Nantes actually led only to the ruin of the paper industry and the loss of skilled printers and dealers without diminishing

CONCLUSION 344 the influence of subversive books, which were thereafter issued in neighboring countries and smuggled into France. Sooner or later

it became evident that totalitarian methods are not profitable or effective.

The opposite side of this question — what effect did the growth of culture have upon the book trade — 1s rather more difficult to

answer. We can only point out, in the first place, that the kinds of books most in demand at the end of the eighteenth century were on entirely different subjects from those most successful in the fifteenth. Theology was high on the lists at all times, though with a change of emphasis from controversy over Lutheranism to controversy over Jansenism; but in the end readers’ interest was centered mainly on history and natural sciences and economics. What we cannot trace, however, is an indication of whether the trade itself took any initiative in bringing about such changes in demand, any indication of what possibly revolutionary manuscripts were rejected and never saw the light. In the second place, we can point out that the growth of culture was demonstrated by a willingness to buy books rather than, or in addition to, houses, land, various forms of entertainment, and so on, and that this is shown by the fact that the size of editions increased from about two or three hundred copies to a customary fifteen hundred or more and also that reprintings and new editions became much more frequent. Apart from such inquiries on the relations between culture and economics there are a host of others, some of them of a more specific or managerial type. ‘To these there can be no answer with-

out extensive search in the archives not only in France but in Holland and Switzerland and England. We would like to know more, for instance, about the capital structure of various firms, the financing of such large-scale enterprises as Moréri’s Dictionary,

the financial arrangements in great partnerships like the Grand’-

Navire, the methods of settlement between parent houses and branches, the payment for pirated and smuggled editions. The whole clandestine trade itself needs clarification that can come only with extensive search in the police records. ‘There are many unanswerable questions regarding the workings of the Chancellor’s office in the matter of permits and privileges. There are still

348 CONCLUSION others concerned with technical management of the printing shop

itself and the ultimate conduct of the publisher’s editorial and business offices. Such problems indicate the need for full-length business biographies of outstanding publishers like Panckoucke and the Anisson family, works that would parallel Renouard’s life of Fédéric Morel and Ducourtieux’s history of the Barbou family and Mrs. Armstrong’s study of Robert Estienne. A final query we may attempt to meet. Why were certain books commercially successful — not merely the works that have taken a place among the masterpieces of French literature but the many others, now forgotten, that we hear about in the memoirs of d’Argenson and Bachaumont and other observers? Many books, especially in the eighteenth century, sold thousands of copies in spite of the fact that there was no advertising in the modern sense, no adequate book reviewing, nothing but posters and catalogues to

herald their appearance to the general public. To explain this situation we would point out that there was always a large, homogeneous, and alert group of readers who discussed books and recommended them to one another. The influence of the salons and the book clubs was decisive, and the public followed the lead of such informed groups. ‘The ancien régime thus stumbled upon the best road to publishing success and all the experience of the trade

since that time has merely proved the soundness of this fundamental discovery.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

MONEY AND PURCHASING POWER It is desirable for a modern reader confronted with a mass of historical data expressed in terms of money to have some approximate measures of comparison with figures familiar to himself. To the layman it seems as though it would be rather simple for the economist to translate the denominations of the coins of one era into their equivalents at another time. Students of price history, however, point out many obstacles in the way of an easy solution of problems of conversion and of fluctuations in value. In the first place there

are no uniform and consistent series of prices comparable with one another but only an immense range and quantity of documents and incidental references, the interpretation of which would absorb the lifetime energies of a large group of investigators. In the next place the purchasing power of money was subject to frequent alterations in the amount of gold or silver minted in the coins of the realm. Again, there were significant alterations in the social values of money — in living conditions, in the demand for new products and the disappearance of demand for older goods, in the quality of commodities, in mere fashion, and in countless other details. Standards of wages are particularly difficult to express exactly because in many trades “food, wine, and pittance” — without further specification as to quality or quantity — were given in addition to sums of money. Any attempt to reconcile these multitudinous variations must be undertaken with caution and with the knowledge that a neat, simple, and minutely accurate answer to the problems of price history is impossible.

In the ancien régime the standard coin was called a livre or franc; it was divided into twenty sols or sous, and each sol was subdivided into twelve deniers. ‘There were a few other coins that circulated from time to time: the louis, under Louis XIV, was worth at first twenty livres but in the reign of Louis XV went up to thirty livres and eventually to thirty-six livres; the louis d’argent, first coined by Louis XIII and generally known as the écu, was the equivalent of three livres or sixty sous but finally declined to five sous. There have been several attempts to provide a means of expressing the value of these coins in terms current today. Some economists have taken a bushel of wheat or some such agricultural product as a standard and have

compared the number of coins which at various times would be paid for that bushel. It must be said, however, that every commodity is now entirely different from its so-called predecessor of, let us say, the sixteenth century and that there is therefore no valid comparison between the wheat of that time and the wheat grown and marketed at present. Others have compared the gold or silver content of the livre at various times with the proportion of precious metal in the 1956 franc. Although some valuable series of conver-

352 APPENDIX A sion coefficients have thus been worked out, it is evident that these coefhicients reveal nothing more than the variations in the amount of metal used at the royal mint in one or another coin and also evident that widely different results would be obtained in accordance with the choice of gold or of silver for the comparison because the ratios between the two metals have changed so radically.

Most approaches to our question lead only to a limitless field of inconclusive speculation. What we really want is some familiar standard by which we can roughly estimate the eagerness or the reluctance of a purchaser in a given period to buy a book instead of something else, the general level of daily comfort suggested by a certain amount of wages, or the financial success indicated by the possession of an estate of a certain value. For our purposes a suitable standard may probably be found in the income of the university professor. Over the centuries this class of workers has been subject to surprisingly few essential changes in professional methods and social status. ‘Throughout the ancien régime, it is true, teachers in the University of Paris and in the Collége de France complained of the cost of living and the smallness of the salaries; but they did so in much the same terms as those used by university professors of the twentieth century. In both periods, however, we find that the professor, as a rule, sticks to his job, lives under conditions that he finds congenial on the whole, adds to his salary various small fees and perquisites, enjoys a pension on retirement, and is not likely to leave either an accumulation of debts or a large estate upon his death. From the Middle Ages up to 1639 the professor in the Faculty of Arts of the University of Paris (the teacher in any one of the many colléges) had no professional income other than the fees he collected from the students in his own classes. The man with most students therefore got most salary. If a man were very popular, he might have as many as 150 or 200 students. The fee paid by each student in each course was four or five gold écus, ie., 12 or 15 livres. The basic salary of the professor might range, let us say, from 60 or 75 livres up to 3000 livres. At the beginning of the seventeenth century many teachers made a charge for the use of benches, tables, curtains, candles, and so on; but the government limited these fees to five or six écus for each student. In 1639 the University suddenly realized that it had a source of considerable revenue in its traditional monopoly of the courier services of the kingdom, services resembling the postal and express facilities of our time. The profits of the monopoly were henceforth used to pay professors’ salaries in addition to the students’ fees. Early payments varied from 71 to 112 livres for each man; in 1699 the share varied from 350 to 450 livres. During the seventeenth century, then, a professor with ten students might receive 150 livres a year from students’ fees, another 150 livres from incidental charges, and 470 livres from the courier monopoly; this is a total of 750 livres. On the other hand, a popular professor with 200 students might receive 6450 livres in all. In 1720, when the courier monopoly had been entirely taken over by the government, a larger share of the profits was given to the University but with the stipulation that all instruction should thereafter be free. Henceforth there was a fixed base salary of 1000 livres for professors of philosophy and rhetoric (the highest class under the Faculty of Arts), 800 livres for teachers in the next two lower classes, and 600 livres for those in the fourth, fifth, and sixth classes.

DETAILS OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT 353 In addition each professor shared in the residue of the courier profits left after the general expenses of the University were deducted; in 1720 the individual share was 520 livres. Later in the century there were additions to the courier fund; but during the whole of this hundred-year period the teachers of the Faculty of Arts had to be content with a stipend that all in all and for the most famous men never exceeded 1750 livres. Salaries in the University were always paid promptly every quarter. Conditions in the Collége de France were not so good because salaries were paid directly by the King and therefore were always in arrears. At the beginning in 1530 the stipend was 450 livres, which seems to have been equivalent to most of the salaries in the University at the time. In the reign of Henry III it went up to 600 livres, and toward the end of Henry IV’s reign the oldest professors were increased to goo livres. From 1618 to 1660 there was no change;

the average man received 600 livres and, in addition, a supplement varying from 80 to 600 livres according to his length of service. In the eighteenth century total salaries were reduced to 600 livres. After various schemes of improvement had been proposed, the Collége was united to the University in 1773 and salaries were raised to 1000 livres. In order to gain a feeling for the values of money over the decades of the ancien régime the reader will compare all these figures — and their implications — with the salary scales of various American universities of our own time.

He will not arrive at any exact table of equivalents but he will gain an insight into some of the difficulties of price history and of the fluctuations within the book trade.

APPENDIX B

SOME DETAILS OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT Although France was never quite an absolute monarchy, the King was regarded

as the supreme head of every department of government. He delegated his authority to various ministers and discussed all important decisions with the Conseil d’Etat, the Council of State. “Theoretically the Council of State was the brain of the vast organism of which the king was the heart.’”* ‘There were six ministers, of whom the Chancellor, at the head of justice, signed and sealed all laws in the name of the King. The most significant check on royal despotism was the Parlements. ‘There were fourteen of them in 1789 with seats at Aix-en-Provence, Besancon, Bordeaux, Dijon, Douai, Grenoble, Metz, Nancy, Pau, Rennes, Rouen, Trévoux, Toulouse, and Paris. The Parlement of Paris, which exercised jurisdiction over

a much greater extent of territory than any of the others, was always recognized as the leader. The functions of the Parlements were at first purely judiciary; they were appellate or supreme courts of justice. As such they naturally found it cont Walter L. Dorn, Competition for Empire 1740-1763 (New York, 1940), p. 30. Pages 23-35 of this book give an excellent summary of the whole government during the ancien régime.

35 4 APPENDIX B venient to collect and register every law issued by the King, and this duty de-

veloped into the power to make remonstrances in certain cases or even to refuse to approve a law by withholding registration. In case of refusal the King

either submitted to the court or he appeared before it in a ceremony known as a “bed of justice” and commanded acquiescence. In addition to reviewing the judgments of various lower courts the Parlement was charged with the duty of executing royal legislation and thus over the course of time acquired a large measure of political power. Each Parlement met at the central town of its jurisdiction in a building called the Palace of Justice or, more simply, the Palace. The corridors of this edifice were occupied by small dark shops for the sale of all sorts of goods. It was a strategic location for bookshops since the lawyers were not only rich customers but avid readers of all sorts of books. All the great booksellers in Paris had one shop and sometimes two in the Palace, and this was the only place outside the University quarter where it was legally permissible to maintain a bookshop. When a law was issued, it was read by the public criers at designated places

in the city and then printed and distributed by one of the royal printers. There were several names used to describe the laws — édits, arréts, déclarations, lettres patents, and so on; but no practical difference was indicated by these terms.2 The most important edicts were known by the name of the town in which the King happened to be at the moment of promulgation; thus we have the edict of Gazllon, of Nantes, of Fontainebleau, and so on. The police system of Paris had its headquarters in an ancient building, the Chatelet, originally a castle or fortress. ‘The word was eventually extended to include the police courts, which were courts only of first instance, located in the building. Here also were the offices of the Provost of the city and of the Lieutenant-General of Police.

APPENDIX C

THE GUILD SYSTEM When the printers and booksellers were organized in a guild in 1618, their activities were brought into conformity with an industrial and commercial pattern that was common in all European countries. ‘The distinction between masters and journeymen and apprentices was a natural one, and the development of distinct artisan groupings with religious, charitable, and craft objectives was inevitable. Nor is it surprising that by the beginning of the seventeenth century the guilds had become associations of masters exclusively.

Although there was no absolute uniformity in details, each guild had a monopoly of work in the craft and defended craft standards and prerogatives against all sorts of interlopers. Each group required of future members the fulfillment of such prerequisites as apprenticeship, presentation of a specimen 7A. Esmein, Cours élémentaire d@’histoire du droit frangais, 15th ed. (Paris, 1925), pp. 736-737; Germain Martin, Les Associations ouvriéres au XVIII* siécle (Paris, 1900), p. 44.

THE GUILD SYSTEM 355 of skill or the taking of an examination, an oath of loyalty, and an entrance fee; each imposed restrictions on methods of work and limited the number of apprentices; and each was administered by an assembly and an elected council or syndicate. ‘The essential aims of the system were economic — attained by the regulation of production and sale; social and moral — attained by emphasis on craft solidarity; and political — involving relations to the State, especially in matters of taxation and policing.

There was, however, no intercity combination of all the guilds of one craft; industry was entirely on a local, not a national, basis. Nor was there any intracity combination; journeymen had their unions, but the masters did not form any managerial coalition. Each guild, however, had many of the legal advantages of a modern corporation. Each had large financial capacities, could own real estate, and could raise common funds; could sue and be sued at law and could address the King by petition or remonstrance; and had a fixed rank in public ceremonials, which played an important part in the civic life of the time.

By the beginning of the sixteenth century we find in all the guilds a recognition of three grades of masters: the jeunes, who had been masters for less than ten years; the modernes, who had been from ten to twenty years in the guild; and the anciens, with more than twenty years, and the anciens bachelliers, anciens who had held a guild office. The jeunes could not be elected to office and often had no vote in craft deliberations; the modernes might fill an office but, again, might have no vote. In most of the larger guilds voting for officers was restricted to a comparatively small group of members, a sort of electoral college representative of the whole membership. The electors met on a specified day each year in the Chatelet and proceeded to choose by majority voice-vote a syndic and a varying number of wardens (usually four) known as jurés, gardes, or adjoints. Besides this committee of officers there was also an executive clerk who served as secretary to the wardens, made out reports of their meetings, kept the accounts, collected charitable assessments, and superintended the employment of workmen coming from other cities. The integrity of the guild system was threatened from many directions. As far back as 1485 Charles VIII created the “workmen following the Court,” who represented many crafts and were quite independent of guild affiliations. At an early date any craftsman who taught a trade to the poor and abandoned

children of the Hépital de Ja Trinité in Paris was made a master. In the towns there was always the chambrelan — the journeyman who assembled his wife, his children, a few still poorer journeymen, and some apprentices and competed at reduced prices in his own lodgings. The existence of all these exceptional groups did less to disturb the theory of a unified, general guild system than did the practice of selling masterships and other craft offices. Louis XI (1461-1483) began, or at least made common,

the selling of mastership letters on a solemn occasion such as a coronation, the birth of a Dauphin, or a royal entry into a town. These letters freed the purchasers from the need of serving as apprentices or journeymen; the guilds had to accept as qualified members men who had some money but little or no craft knowledge. Although the chief aim was to supply the royal treasury, the device was a great help to those who could not otherwise surmount the obstacles to regular admittance.

356 APPENDIX C The scheme, however, was so simple and at first so productive that it was overdone. Any pretext was invoked, and the number of letters increased from two in every guild on each occasion to as many as eight. Sales slowed down, especially when the guilds secretly added further assessments and almost ostracized the purchasers. Henry IV found the market so much oversupplied that

he annulled all the unsold letters of his predecessors in order to get rid of those he himself issued. In the eighteenth century, though the guilds were forbidden to receive any new masters until all the royal letters had been taken up, the latter often remained for ten years without purchasers. Variations of the scheme piled up during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In 1691 the King took from the guilds the right to elect their own wardens and then he created equivalent offices to be sold to the highest bidders. Auditors of accounts, treasurers of common funds, inspectors of weights and measures, supervisors of registers, keepers of the archives, disbursing treasurers — these and dozens of other offices were devised as sources of income outside the regular channels of taxation. There was no need to throw these offices into a public market. No guild could calmly regard such wholesale invasion of its practices and status. ‘They responded feverishly, selling their silver plate and other possessions, mortgaging their income for decades in advance, and adopting every conceivable device to buy up the offices rather than letting them go on general sale. Venality of offices was not, however, the only financial plague to afflict the guilds; they were continually burdened with the heavy expenses — from 800,000 to 1,000,000 livres annually — of numerous and intricate lawsuits. ‘The delimitation of crafts led to constant quarrels among closely related ones — the tailors and the second-hand clothes men; the harness makers, saddle makers, and bridle makers; the drapers, fullers, and dyers. Purely commercial suits,

such as demands for the payment of a letter of exchange, came before the commerce courts; but suits involving professional disagreement came in the first instance before the Chatelet, with appeal to the Parlement. And appeals might stretch the litigation endlessly; one suit lasted sixty-five years, another a century and a half. Each guild fought bitterly to maintain its own privileges and its monopoly.

INDEX

INDEX

Absolutism, 343 separation from book guild, 329, 344;

Académie Francaise, 36, 141 sons, 331 Academies, 36, 141 Bindery, part of early printing office, 324

Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Bindings, anonymous, 326; costs, 326,

Lettres, 33 337; elaborate, 334; leathers, cost of,

Accounts, settlement of, 182, 187 337; medieval mss, 325; prices, 337;

Advertising, 60, 201 small books, 333; styles of, 332, 334 Alloués, 242, 251, 280 Blondel, Pierre Jacques, 223, 252 Almanach royal, 65, 209 Books, additional matter, 71; on AmerAlmanacs, 28, 59, 139, 216 ica, 26; burning of, 76; changes in Amanuenses, 47 ; subject matter, 23, 33; classification of “Ancient” books, 220 subjects, 28-39; condemnation of, 64,

Anisson family, 145, 178, 197 73, 77; confiscation of, 77; expensive, Announcements of new books, 202 191; fine, 145; length of, 42; official Appraisers and auctioneers, 138 reports, 25; popular, 28; prices, 99, Apprentices (binding), 335-337 143, 205; production, 23-28; reasons Apprentices (engraving), 315 for success, 348; sales, 203; in several Apprentices (printing and publishing), volumes, 71; subversive, 72; of travel, age, 273; contracts, 274-278; duties, 25; on Turks, 26 282-286; educational background, 272; Booksellers, capital, 190-192; early, 115; examination, 274; fees, 276; induction income, 190; number of, 111-112, 128—

of, 273-276; marriage, 272; need for, 129; and publishers, 189; retailers, 269-271; number of, 251-252, 265- 186; superiority, 121; sworn, 111 266, 279-280; prerequisites, 271-273; Bookshops, number of, 189; provincial, social status of, 273, 274, 281; sons of 189 masters, 128; term of service, 160, 278 Bosse, Abraham, 322 Arrangements, with publisher, 44, 224 Bourgeoisie, 6, 8, 32

Astrology, 38, 57 Brochures, 25

Author and engraver, 310; geographical Brotherhood of St. John the Evangelist, status, 11; living conditions, 12; num- 107-110, 116, 167, 256, 317, 320 ber of, 27; and proofs, 51; publishers Bureau contentieux, 65, 146 as authors, 43, 93; “rights,” 211, 228, Bureau gracteux, 65, 146 232; social position, 89; wealthy, 82-

84, 97-100 Calendrier du cour, 209 Cancels, 53

Banishment, 80 Capital, for printing shop, 179-182

Bankruptcies, 130 Cartesianism, 38

Banquets, 110 Celebrations, 165

Benedictines, 45 Censors, board of, 61, 344; ignorance of, Bibliothéque du Roi, 26 73; number of, 65

Bibliothéque Nationale, 26 Censorship, administration, 70; evasions Binders, apprentices, 334; chef d’oeuvre, of, 72-76; inadequacy of, 67; nature 335; complaints, 326; fees for master- of, 54-60; penalties for violation of

ship, 334; guild of, 327, 329; inspec- law, 76-81; reforms proposed by tion of shop, 327, 330, 333; journey- Malesherbes, 69 men, 335; number of, 334; quarrels Chancellor, 146 with printers, 328; requirements of Chapel, 259 apprenticeship, 330; requirements for Chatelet, lieutenant of, 147

mastership, 330; revised statutes, 333; Church, influence on business, 1547

360 INDEX

Classes, social, 5-13 First Estate, size of, 6 Clergy, 141 Food, cost of, 299, 300 Collationeur, 50 Foreign trade, 155, 193, 197 Collége de France, 15, 88 Formats, 39-43

Colléges, 16

Colporters, 72, 140 _ Galley proofs, 52

Compagnie de la Navire (Grand’Navire), Galleys, as punishment, 80

Compagnie 1990 des U 9 Gallican Liberties, des Usages, 19 Gilders, 327, 332 21

Companionships (compagnonnages), 257 Godard nd Merlin, 243 Competition, among publishers, 223 Gonzague, Louis de, foundation for poor

Confrérie du Saint Sacrement, 258, 262 girls, 313

Contracts, publishing, 100-103 Government publications, 217

control: Oya’ 227], 343 Grande Compagnie des Libraires (Lyon),

opper plates, 312, 315 197 corrector, 50 Greek, knowledge of, 272 Copyists, number of, 111 Gratuities. roval , royal, 85-88

Council of St text, 55 Guild of printers and dealers, adminis-

Couric ° c ate, 353 tration of, 122; archives, 166; board of Court of Comm, 35? managers, 121; and civil authority,

Conf. ° ° MMETCE; 119 123; disorder in meetings, 164; election Culture, of 47136; of officers, 120, 121, 132, 163-164; , °prowth end of, entrance fee123, (seventeenth

Death ltv £ ‘olati century), 160; establishment of, 122;

ne , 3, penaity tor violating censor- examination for mastership, 161~163;

De. P ti , 9 families, 136, 137, 200; fees for masterDe at con 5 6 ship, 179; financial records, 166; fines,

Der, os! . COP i : . 1 217, 225 123; government control, 174; head-

peecuninan s, social, 4-22 quarters, 168; inspectors, 124, 1473

Dijon 5 rterna management limitaoO! popul , tiononofof,suffrage, 124, 126, 1001895 133; masters,

Director of Book Trade, 65, 146, 158, contributions of, 180; masters, recep-

Dicco tee 188 tion of, 127, 160; meetings, 165; num-

Drinkin , 2x0, 260, 260, 208 ber of (1777), 134; object of, 146; Droit - 59 2 B09» 29 officers of, 129; official printing, 149;

not qureur, 237 prerogatives, 149 ff.; trade problems in

Ecclesiastical f t sixteenth century, 118-120; quarrels,

. ° , , of, 164; trade 116-122 Editors, 50regulation, .

Editions sive Pe 202, $1 F 90-92 130; supervision, 150; syndics, number Education, 13-20; effectiveness of, 14; of Guild system, 355 girls, 13; theory, 35 Encyclopédie, 35, 45, 52, 96, 98, 201, 204 Haberdashers, 139 Engravers, 140, 145; guild of, 319; social d’Hémery, Joseph, 147, 148, 232, 345

position, 324 Heresy, 56, 59

Engravings, costs, 316, 323; dealers in, 4 Hericourt, Louis, 228

310; printers of, 316, 319, 320 History, books on, 33 Errata, 53 Holidays, 300 Etching, 315 Hours of work, 263, 300

Fairs, 186-187 Illustrations, costs of, 321; difficulties in,

Families, publishing, 200 311; of manuscripts, 310; printing of,

Feast days, 259 318; in second editions, 317 Fines, for nonattendance on guild meet- Illustrators, of books, 311

ings, 123; for workmen, 259 Immorality, 59, 318

INDEX 361 Imprimerie Royale, 143 ff., 177, 178; Librarians, 93

equipment, 177 Libraries, 27

Imprints, 74, 151 Lille, population of, 5 Imprisonment, 77, 79 Livres a figures, 313

Index of forbidden books, 57 Livres a vignettes, 317 Inspection, of books, 154, 221; of print- Luneau de Boisgermain, 231

ing shops, 159 Lyon, population of, 5, 197, 233, 261

Interlopers, 251. See also Monopoly Malesherbes, 230

Jansenism, 21, 22, 130, 199 Manuals of style, 51

Jesuits, 21 Manuscripts, prices for, 96

Journeymen, 355; associations, 256; aux- Marketing by mail, 202

iliary police, 246; chances of advance- Masters, duties to apprentices, 277; ment, 244; definition of, 241; employ- grades of, 355; number of, 137; rement, 247-252; enticement of, 248; quirements, 175 freedom of movement, 248; hostility to Mastership, 355

apprentices, 251, 281; letter of dis- Mathurin Fathers, church of, 108 missal, 248; notice of leaving, 250; Medicine, books on, 57 number of, 242; in papermaking, 297; Mercantilism, 157, 343 registers of, 246; status in eighteenth Molinists, 21 century, 268; tickets for, 249; treat- Molinosisme, 21 ment of, 253; weekly lists of, 249 Monastic orders, 141 Money, value of, 351

Labor troubles, 174, 343 Monopole, 263 La Brosse, Guy de, 322 Monopoly, 123, 136, 151

La Fontaine, granddaughters, 231 Montgolfier, Pierre, 305

Latin, books written in, 18; importance of, 14; knowledge of, 160, 272; struggle Nimes, population of, 5

with French, 19 Nobility, education of, 13; numbers of,

Law, books on, 41, 216, 227 6; of the robe, 35 Laws: 13 January 1535, 56; edict of

Villers-Cotterets (31 August 1539), 19, Offices, sale of, 355 42, 46, 49, 74, 119, 266, 343; 28 Decem- Orders, religious, 91 ber 1541, 265; edict of Chateaubriand Orthography, 48 (1551), 59, 318, 343; ordonnance of Moulins (February 1566), 57, 58; edict Palace of Justice, 124 of Gaillon (May 1571), 59, 118, 158, Pamphlets, 216 267, 343; edict of Nantes (1598), 21, Paper accounts, 307; cost analysis, 300;

80, 297; 16 June 1618, 39, 110, 122; foreign trade, 307; government conCode Michaud (January 1629), 63, 70; trol, 306; prices, 143, 307, 308; sales edict of St. Jean de Luz (26 May and distribution, 187, 306; sizes, 309, 1660), 319; 21 December 1667, 318; 290, 308

code of 1686, 108, 128; code of 1723, Papermaking, brotherhoods, 301; code, 59, 71, 181, 226; 25 June 1750, 333; 293; contractor, 294; control of work12 March 1776, 333; 30 August 1777, men, 298; cost of food, 299-300; cost

134, 234, 346 of materials, 303; government regula-

Laws, disregard for, 72, 159, 346; names tion, 293; guild, 292-293; inspection, applied to, 354; number of, 142; pen- 291-293; instability of employment, alties for violation, 7679; preambles, 297; investment, 296; masters, 292~295;

156 process of manufacture, 290, 295; pro-

Lawsuits, 236, 356 posals for school, 302; raw materials,

Lawyers, as authors, 93-94 289; strikes, 301; wages, 299-301 Letters of mastership, 128, 143 Paper mills, number of, 290, 297; or-

Libraires étalans, 140 ganization of, 294, 295, 297; ownership, Libraires-imprimeurs, 189 294; production, 303

362 INDEX Papetier, 291 Quality, of content, 156, 158; mainte-

Parchment, 46 nance of, 156-160; of material, 156, Parlement, 56, 57, 60, 353 158; penalties, 159 Partnerships, publishing, 198 Quietism, 21 Patronage, 85-89, 324

manship, 4 1, 108, 21

2 emma et see Colporters Religion, 20-22, 33; books on, 32, 58, 60,

Pensions, 85, 88, 89 Rent, for bookshop, 192 rnteeion vacite, By 67 Repression, , Romances, 37,ineffective, 41, 96346

Permit, 58, 61, 67, 71, 73, 211-212 Royal Academy of Painters and SculpSee ae as, one nb

Physicians, 5 Saint André des Arcs, church of, 108

Piracy, punishment for, 130, 218~219 Sai Uni 9

Poetry, 61 36,Saints’ 92 amtedays, mon,109 19 Police. » Ol, 354 Politics, books on, 6 Sale of offices, 190

, » 03 5 Salesmen, 185-186 Population, Salons, 35, 85 Pornography, 318 Scholars. 1 Port Royal, 22 Science ‘books on, 38 Ports of entry, Scriof,, 111 3 Prélecteur, 0 cribes,154 number Printers, of engravings, guild, 320; fol- eons Paates Size of, 6 lowing the Court, 141; investment, Shop mana oment. one

181-182; journeymen, 241-269; limita- Sj a 4d i. P . 8 tion of number, 128, 176, 344; num- cm - 5 0 6 aris, 119, 244

ber of, 112, 113, 125; quarrels with Sect livati 7) ae 99

dealers, 344; royal, 141; status of, 121 Shetee Conecal. nes I Printing: clandestine, 75, 125, 153, 246; Stationes hone °° clubs, 135; controlled by dealers, 189; Strikes eo 9 A » 45 costs of, 194; daily life in shop, 260; Subscri tion Pe ks 6. 20 equipment, 175-179, 1813 equipment, cy iit. for publication, 191

sale of, 139; foreign, 75; as a hobby, Svndi , P 19 153; number of shops in Paris, 112; yNeIe, 121, 124, 129

preparation of copy for, 48; sixteenth-

century conditions, 173 Taille douce, 312, 315

Privilege, definition of, 211; earliest, Taxation, 117, 129, 154, 182, 304, 326 212; evasions of law regarding, 225; Teachers, as authors, 93-94 last one, 237; Parlement and, 215; re- Textbooks, 25, 32, 115, 185 newal of, 215, 221; vital part, 214 Theology, importance of, 15, 32, 41

Prodigies, infant, 16 Third Estate, 6

Professionalism, among authors, 93 Trade marks, 151-152

Professors, salaries of, 352 Transportation, difficulties of, 305

Proofreading, 49-54, 93 Tric, 263

Publishers, attitude toward authors, 44— Type, amount in shop, 176; and presses, 45; capital investment, 190-192, 219; improvements in, 158 contracts, 95; failures, 188; journey- Type founders, 128 men, 241; program, 107; provincial,

197, 215, 228; relations with other Ultramontanes, 21

publishers, 197; relations with printers, Unigenitus, 22, 130

194-197; relations with public, 201- Universities, number of, 16; Paris, 15, 207; restrictions on, 192~—194 44, 56, 57, 60, 111, 115, 121, 133, 291, Publishing, development of, 184-190 343

Purchasing power, 351 University quarter, 124, 150

INDEX 363

Wages, 247, 254, 264 Wholesalers, 186

Wardens, 122, 129 Widows, 245, 274

Warehouses, 151 Woodcuts, 312

Waste paper, buying of, 138 Workers en conscience, 247, 250, 255 Wealth, of authors, 82-84; of publishers, | Working day, length, 183; number of, 182

207-210 Workmen following the Court, 355