THE PARIS PRESS.
French Governments and the Press--The Press under Napoleon--Some Account
of the Leading Paris Papers--The _Figaro_.
Under the ancient Monarchy journalism could scarcely be said to exist in
France, and the censorship exercised over books was so severe that all
political works of a critical character written by Frenchmen had to be
published in Holland or in England. Arthur Young saw in the absence of
newspapers one of the causes of the panic which seized whole classes and
entire neighbourhoods on the outbreak of the Revolution. Absurd rumours
were put into circulation, and there were no journals by which to test
their accuracy; for if the press is sometimes a purveyor of gossip, it
is above all a corrector of false intelligence. A decree of the year
1728, to go back no further, punished by branding, the pillory and the
gallows, those who printed, composed, or distributed “works considered
criminal.” Some years afterwards the parliament of Paris, which at this
time was exposed to many attacks, adopted a declaration which condemned
to hanging anyone who penned or printed writings which tended to assail
religion, to disturb men’s minds, to undermine the authority of the
king, or to trouble the order and tranquillity of his dominions. No
great use was made of this law, for the Bastille sufficed to silence
those who spoke too loudly; but it was always agreeable to know that, if
necessary, objectionable writers could have their pens snatched from
them for ever.
The Revolution overthrew that majestic edifice in which France had so
long slumbered in peace. The Constitution of 1791 set forth that, “the
free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious
of men’s rights.” It provided that every citizen should be free to
“speak, write, print, without his writings being liable to inspection or
censorship before publication.”
This uncurbed liberty, however, was necessarily of short duration. In
the famous Constitution of 1793, which was never put in force, the
Convention guaranteed to every Frenchman “liberty of the press,” a maxim
which always looks well as a decoration on the frontispiece of the
Constitutional Temple; but the decree of the 29th of March, 1793,
modified this excessive licence by a little article couched in these
terms:--“Anyone who shall have composed or printed writings which aim at
the dissolution of the national representation, and the re-establishment
of royalty or any other power which arrogates the sovereignty of the
people, shall be arraigned before the tribunal extraordinary and
punished with death.” The Convention did not reconstruct the Bastille;
but it sent a number of journalists to the guillotine by way of warning
to their fellows. The warning, however, was lost on Frenchmen, who, with
their natural characteristics, preferred to forfeit their head rather
than their tongue, and died jesting at the executioner.
The Directory followed the example of the Convention. The Constitution
of the year III. declares, in article 353, that “no one can be prevented
from saying, writing, printing, or publishing his thoughts,” but a law
of the 27th Germinal, in year IV., added the following clause: “All
those shall be punished with death who by their speeches, or their
printed writings, whether circulated or placarded, provoke the
dissolution of the National Assembly or that of the Executive Directory
... or the re-establishment of royalty, that of the Constitution of
1793, that of the Constitution of 1791, or of any other government, save
the one established by the Constitution of 1791, accepted by the French
people, etc.” With this important exception the law is clement enough;
nor, indeed, were the authorities anxious to enforce the death clause
where a milder punishment would serve the turn. The Directory, after the
18th Fructidor, instead of shooting ill-behaved journalists, contented
itself with sending out forty-five of them to colonise Sinnamary, at the
same time placing the journals under the supervision of the police, who
could summarily suppress them. The Directory, moreover, acting perhaps
on the principle of equality before the law, imposed a stamp-duty on all
journals, so that Thought, like other commodities, began to contribute
its share to the State by which it was protected.
With the Consulate, France, as regarded press matters, went straight
back to the time of Louis XIV. The first article of a consular decree,
issued January 17th, 1800, disposed of journalism once and, if not for
ever, at least for a considerable time. It sets forth that the minister
of justice shall, so long as the war lasts, allow no more than thirteen
political journals, each of which is specified by name, to be published
at Paris. The fifth article of this decree provided for the instant
suppression of all newspapers inserting articles which might be wanting
in “the respect due to the social compact and the sovereignty of the
people, or to the glory of the French armies,” or which might print
“invectives against the governments and the nations allied to or in
friendly relations with the Republic, even though these articles were
extracted from foreign periodicals.” Nor did Napoleon’s vigilance cease
with this. He despised newspapers, but was afraid of books. Accordingly,
while the censorship was re-established for journals, printing and
publishing offices were made monopolies, and placed under surveillance
as in the best days of the old Monarchy. It was for the master to think,
to will, to act for all his subjects; he wished France and all Europe to
be occupied with him alone. The police took care that there should be
silence around him, and human thought was represented by the voice of
the cannon. On the fall of Napoleon a charter was given to France by the
restored Monarchy, in which the French were declared to possess the
right of publishing and printing their opinions conformably to the laws
intended to repress the abuse of this liberty. But the very first bill
introduced into the new assembly subjected pamphlets to the censorship,
and newspapers to the authorisation of the crown, while printers were
required to take out licences, which would only be continued on good
behaviour.
In 1815, during the Hundred Days, the emperor established the liberty of
the press, and the second Restoration maintained this concession. Only
for a time, however; on the assassination of the Duc de Berry, someone
discovered that “the real dagger which had stabbed the duke” was a
liberal idea; and a law was passed by which a Government authorisation
was required before starting a newspaper. The censorship was at the same
time re-established, while police courts were empowered to suspend and
suppress newspapers on the ground of evil tendencies. Finally, the
notorious “ordonnances” of 1830 suppressed liberty of the press
altogether. This led to the Revolution of July, and the charter accepted
by Louis Philippe on his accession to the throne declared that the
censorship was not only abolished but could never be re-established.
But the newspaper stamp was maintained, and no one could start a journal
without previously depositing a large sum as caution-money, with which
to pay damages in case of libel.
After the Revolution of 1848 liberty of the press was once more
proclaimed, and it seemed as though France might at last accustom itself
to free newspapers, even as Mithridates accustomed himself to poison.
Then, however, in 1851, came the _Coup d’état_, and once more the press
was fettered. A system of “warnings” and of “communiqués” was now
adopted. The communiqué was a notice addressed to the journal by the
Government, which the editor of the journal was obliged to insert. The
warnings were of two kinds--first and second; a first warning,
administered at will by the authorities, had no immediate effect; but
after a second warning, the journal receiving it could be at once
suppressed. “This ingenious system was so much admired that it was
forthwith adopted,” says M. Laboulaye in an article on the subject, “by
the four great states which march at the head of modern civilisation:
Spain, Turkey, Austria and Russia.” It was necessary, moreover, under
the Second Empire to obtain, before publishing a new journal, an
authorisation from the Government. The first newspaper established in
France was the _Gazette de France_, founded by the physician of Louis
XIII. in 1631; the most widely known and the most highly esteemed being
the _Journal des Débats_, founded by the Bertin brothers in 1789, the
great revolutionary year in which also the official organ under all
systems of government, _Le Moniteur Universel_, was started.
Among the contributors to the _Journal des Débats_ may be mentioned:
Michel Chevalier, Saint-Marc Girardin, John Lemoinne, Prévost Paradol,
Renan, and Taine; the dramatic criticisms of the journal were for many
years written by Jules Janin, and the musical criticisms by Berlioz.
The _Constitutionnel_ was founded at the time of the Restoration in
1815. The most celebrated of its editors was Dr. Véron, for some years
manager of the Opera, in which character he produced Meyerbeer’s _Robert
le Diable_. The most famous of the contributors to this journal was
Sainte-Beuve, who for a long succession of years published in it every
Monday one of those literary articles which, in their collected form,
are known throughout the civilised world as “Causeries du Lundi.” Before
contributing the “Causeries” to the _Constitutionnel_ (they were
continued and concluded in the _Moniteur_), Sainte-Beuve had published,
under the title of “Portraits,” a long series of biographical and
critical articles in the _Revue de Paris_, which, after the cessation of
that periodical, he went on with in the _Revue des deux Mondes_. M.
Nestor Roqueplan, who, like Dr. Véron, was for some time manager of the
Opera, contributed dramatic criticisms for many years to the
_Constitutionnel_, and no more brilliant articles of the kind were ever
penned. The musical critic was at this time the notorious P. A.
Fiorentino, who afterwards joined the staff of the _Moniteur_.
_La Presse_ was founded in 1836 by Émile de Girardin, and it must always
be remembered as the first cheap journal started in France, and indeed
in all Europe. Paris has now newspapers at two sous and even one sou;
but in 1836 a journal at three sous, the price at which _La Presse_ was
issued, seemed a marvel; and M. de Girardin’s enemies of the established
journals hinted in no doubtful terms that his journal at three sous
could only exist through the aid of a Government subvention. It has been
related elsewhere how an innuendo to this effect from Armand Carrel led
to a duel in which Carrel, while inflicting a serious wound on M. de
Girardin, was himself shot dead. Many years later than 1836, when _La
Presse_ was started, the invariable price of a London morning newspaper
was fivepence; there was a penny stamp on each number issued, and an
impost of eighteenpence on each advertisement. The cheap press has only
been rendered possible in England by the removal of the newspaper-stamp,
the advertisement-stamp, and finally the duty on paper.
From 1836 to 1856 _La Presse_ was edited by M. de Girardin; his
successor was M. Nefftzer, who afterwards founded that excellent paper
_Le Temps_. _La Presse_ then passed beneath the direction of M.
Guéroult, who left it to found _L’Opinion Nationale_; and afterwards of
M. Peyrat and others. The dramatic, and musical, and artistic feuilleton
of _La Presse_ was originally in the hands of the incomparable Théophile
Gautier, whose collected articles are as remarkable for searching and
subtle criticism as for brilliant description. He was succeeded by Paul
de Saint-Victor, whose contributions were scarcely inferior to those of
his distinguished predecessor. Paul de Saint-Victor is far less
generally known in England than Théophile Gautier. A good idea of his
remarkable talent may be formed from his volume on tragedy and comedy,
“Les deux Masques.”
When in 1852 it was determined to improve as much as possible the
official organ of the newly established Empire, as of previous
Governments in France, a number of the most popular writers were tempted
to the _Moniteur_ by offers of increased pay. Théophile Gautier quitted
the _Presse_ for the official journal, and P. A. Fiorentino, without
quitting the _Constitutionnel_, wrote musical criticisms for it under a
_nom de plume_ which concealed his identity from no one interested in
journalism. This last-named journalist, Italian by nationality, was by
no means an honour to the French press; he was more than suspected of
taking bribes, and when the Society of Men of Letters instituted an
inquiry into his conduct, he attacked the secretary of the society so
violently in the paper called _Le Corsaire_, that a challenge and a duel
ensued. Amédée Achard was run through the body, and Fiorentino passed
some weeks in prison. Achard did not die, nor did Fiorentino lose his
position on the press. The accusation made against him by the Society of
Men of Letters was that he acted at once as musical critic and musical
agent; and it might fairly be presumed that singers on whose salaries he
received a commission were more carefully looked after and more warmly
praised than those who did not employ his services. He is said to have
attempted to justify himself to some of his friends by representing
himself as the “Artists’ advocate”--“L’avocat des artistes;” though his
true function, the one which he was understood by the editor of his
newspaper and by his readers to have undertaken, was that of critic or
judge. To the accusations brought against him by the Society of Men of
Letters he replied, however, by a simple denial; and the object of the
duel he had sought with Amédée Achard was evidently to prevent such
accusations from being brought against him in the future.
Another journal, started under the Empire with imperial support, and
with M. Granier de Cassagnac, father of the well-known writer, deputy
and duellist of the same name, as editor, called _Le Pays_, was well and
daringly written, but found no favour with the public. Neither, as a
matter of fact, did the _Moniteur_, notwithstanding the brilliancy of
the writers attracted to its columns from other journals.
_L’Opinion Nationale_ first appeared in 1859, at the time of the war for
the liberation of Italy. The unity of Italy and the independence of
Poland were for many years its watchwords; and during the Polish
insurrection of 1863, as also during the long agitation that preceded
it, this journal was the recognised organ of oppressed nationalities. By
English readers interested in theatrical matters, _L’Opinion Nationale_
will be remembered as the journal in which M. Sarcey, the well-known
critic, made his literary _début_. M. Sarcey possesses, as a writer,
neither the ingenuity and charm of Jules Janin, nor the dazzling style
of Théophile Gautier, or of Paul de Saint-Victor, nor the delicate
observation of Nestor Roqueplan; but he is inspired, more perhaps than
any other critic, by taste, love, passion for the stage.
_Le Monde_ was started under that name in 1860 as a substitute for
_L’Univers_, which, placing the Pope before the Emperor and preferring
Rome to Paris, had got itself into trouble with the Government. It was
edited for many years by M. Louis Veuillot, most vigorous of
Ultramontane journalists, and author of several remarkable books,
including “Les Odeurs de Paris,” “Les Parfums de Rome,” and a curious
study of feudal rights and privileges, as, according to M. Veuillot,
they really existed in France before the Revolution.
_Le Temps_, one of the best of the Paris papers, after having been
discontinued for some years, was revived in 1861 by M. Nefftzer,
previously editor of _La Presse_. _Le Temps_ soon took rank as what the
French call a serious journal. For many years one of the most
interesting features of _Le Temps_ was the letter on English affairs
contributed from London by M. Louis Blanc. Among the other distinguished
contributors to _Le Temps_ may be mentioned M. Scherer, the literary
critic, and M. Louis Ulbach, chiefly known as a novelist, but who for
many years wrote for this journal its theatrical feuilleton. There are
plenty of papers published in Paris besides those we have mentioned,
some of them in the enjoyment of large circulations, but distinguished
by no marked features, or by none that possess special interest for
English readers. The best-known, however, of all the Paris journals is
the _Figaro_, published originally under the Restoration, and edited for
some time by Nestor Roqueplan. After numerous prosecutions, it ceased to
exist; suppressed practically if not formally by the Government.
[Illustration: EDMOND ABOUT.
(_From the Portrait by Paul Baudry._)]
But in 1854 the _Figaro_ (which, it need scarcely be said, derived its
name from the celebrated barber invented by Beaumarchais) was revived by
Mme. Villemessant, and it played an important part, though by no means a
consistent one, under the Second Empire. This it still continues to do;
and whatever its political views may be, it is the most amusing, the
most interesting, and one may almost say, the most literary journal in
Europe. Among the celebrated writers who have from time to time
contributed to its columns may be mentioned Edmond About, Théodore de
Banville, Henri Rochefort, B. Jouvin, Albert Wolff, and Henri de Pène,
who, for criticising the manners of French subalterns, found himself
exposed to the necessity of fighting all the lieutenants and
sub-lieutenants of the French army, a task from which he was saved by
being almost mortally wounded by the first of his antagonists. The cause
of M. de Pène’s encounter with the junior officers of the French army,
as represented by the clever swordsman who ran him through the lungs,
was an article, written by the contributor to the _Figaro_, on a ball
given at the École Militaire. The youthful officers were, he declared,
too constant and too eager in their attendance at the buffet; and he
added that when one of them had a plate of cakes offered to him by a
waiter, he said he was not sure that he could eat them all, but that he
would accept them nevertheless. The jest was an ancient one, but it
angered the young bloods of the Military School, and their indignation
demanded a victim, who at once offered himself in the person of the
author of the injurious statement.
The case of Henri de Pène and of so many other fighting journalists,
with the redoubtable Henri Rochefort and Paul de Cassagnac among them,
suggests that in France a newspaper-writer should be as much a master of
the sword as of the pen. This does not interfere with the fact that one
of the most gentle and amiable of modern French writers, M. Ernest
Legouvé, possessed the reputation of being the first fencer of his day.