centre, the privileges issued in the Electorate of Saxony assume an
increasing importance, and from 1598 we find that these electoral
privileges are being largely secured by publishers throughout Germany.
A commission was appointed by the Elector to take the supervision of
the Book-Fair, and the literary responsibilities of this electoral
commission very soon largely exceeded those of the imperial commission
sitting in Frankfort, the more particularly as, after 1627, an imperial
privilege, unless confirmed by the Leipzig commission, was very
frequently disregarded altogether by the Leipzig book-dealers. While
the imperial and the Saxon privileges are, in connection of course
with their influence upon the book-trade of Frankfort and of Leipzig,
the best known and the most frequently referred to in the history of
literary production in Germany, the encouragement given to the trade of
printing and publishing by certain so-called “particular” privileges
must not be lost sight of. An early example of this class was the
“Letter of aid and protection” (_Schirm und Versprech-brief_) which the
Elector Frederic I., as Landgrave of Alsace, in 1466, gave to master
Heinrich Eckstein, “for the purpose of furthering his good trade of
printing,” ecclesiastical and lay protection by water and by land. A
more comprehensive and more “particular” privilege was that previously
referred to which had been issued, in 1469, by the Senate of Venice
to the German printer, Johann von Speyer (Johann de Spira), under
which was given, for the term of ten years, the exclusive right to do
printing within the Venetian dominions.
Throughout the German realm, this form of the protection or
encouragement of book-production appears to have been exercised chiefly
by the imperial cities. There was evidently among the earlier German
publishers a good deal of dependence upon what would now be called the
courtesy of the trade, an understanding under which the publishers or
printers in any one State, or at least in any one town, would refrain
from interference with each other’s undertakings. This understanding
or arrangement was, however, assisted by the short-term privileges, a
protection already referred to issued by the municipalities, or their
magistrates, and forbidding interference for periods ranging from six
months to five years.
In Brandenburg, the development of the system of privileges was of
necessity retarded by the slow progress made within the electorate by
the business of book-publishing or book-selling. Between the years
1544 and 1575, the present capital of the German Empire contained not
a single printing-press (several attempts made previous to 1544 to
establish a printing business having failed), and what little printing
work it required it was obliged to have done in Wittenberg or Frankfort
on the Oder. In 1567, Johann Eichhorn, of Frankfort on the Oder,
received a privilege to carry on a printing business, which privilege
provided that within the entire Mark no competing printing-office
should be authorised or permitted.
The first book-dealer in Berlin was Hans Werner, who, in 1594,
established his printing-office and shop on the Cologne side of the
Spree. He secured from the Elector John George, “for the furtherance of
public interests,” a privilege authorising the publication of certain
works (in the main, text-books and books for Church worship) which had
passed the censorship of the Faculty of the University of Frankfort
on the Oder. Any parties reprinting these books were to be fined two
hundred thalers, half of the fine going to Werner. He also received an
authorisation to establish a bindery, in the event of the work done
for him by the existing bindery proving unsatisfactory. He was further
exempted from municipal taxes on the condition that he should not
overcharge the citizens of Berlin for his books. It is not stated by
what authority the question of overcharging was to be determined.
For twenty years, Werner’s establishment remained the only book concern
in Berlin. In 1613, he fell into disfavour with the Elector, John
Sigismund (who had become a convert to Calvinism), by refusing to
publish the writings of the Reformed Church. His privilege was not
withdrawn, but a new privilege was issued to the Brothers Hans, with
whom was associated Samuel Kalle, for the publication of religious
and theological works. The new firm received, either from the Elector
or from the municipality, a gift of sufficient lumber with which to
build its shop. By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the number
of privileged book-dealers in Berlin had risen to four, but at that
date but one, Michael Rudiger, was a publisher on his own account.
In 1702, The Orphanage Publishing Concern of Halle (_das Hallische
Waisenhaus_), a firm still in existence, was authorised to open a
book-shop in Berlin. With the exception of the productions of this
Orphanage Press in Halle, the publications of Brandenburg-Prussia,
during the reign of the first two kings, were in the main restricted to
Bibles, Hymnals, calendars, and text-books. The privileges in the new
Prussian kingdom, while in form merely authorisations for the printing
of books, covered, in fact, considerably more than such authorisations.
They included protection against reprinting or piracy, guarantees
against local competition, freedom from taxes and imposts, and not
infrequently assurances of material aid in establishing a book-business
and in carrying it through its first and most difficult period. The
earlier Prussian monarchs were evidently fully appreciative of the
importance to the higher welfare of the state of this new business of
publishing, and were ready to do whatever might be within the power of
the Government to encourage its development.
With the increase of book-production in Prussia and in North Germany
generally, we find a change in business methods, and a tendency to
separate the work of publishing from that of printing. With this change
comes a different arrangement of privileges, and a closer distinction
between authorisations or protections issued for literary productions
and concessions granted for the purpose of furthering certain trade
undertakings. The former class came to be known as “general” and the
latter as “special” privileges; they were also spoken of respectively
as publishing privileges and printing privileges (_Verlags und Drück
Privilegien_). Under the latter classification came calendars and
periodicals. Roughly speaking, the former class of privileges had for
their purpose what we should now term the protection of copyrights, and
the latter the prevention or limitation of competition. The imperial
“general” privileges continued to be substantially limited in their
range to the imperial cities, at least in so far as they carried with
them monopoly rights.
The Saxon “general” privileges were found to confuse or interfere
with the working of the Leipzig Book-Fair privileges, and with the
beginning of the seventeenth century they ceased to be issued. The
Fair privileges did not undertake to confer any “monopoly” rights for
a literary undertaking, but simply to secure for a work the right to
be offered to the book-trade of Germany, in so far at least as this
trade now concentrated itself in Leipzig. The fees for this Book-Fair
privilege went into the treasury of the Fair.
The privileges issued by the Book-Fairs or Book-Trade Associations of
Frankfort and Leipzig are peculiar in the respect that they make no
distinction between publishing and printing authorisations (_Verlags
und Drück Privilegien_). Through this lack of recognition of a
distinction which had always heretofore obtained, and also by reason
of the similar form given to the special privileges whose short terms
called from time to time for renewal, not a little confusion arose
in the work of regulating the relations of the book-trade. It is, in
fact, only surprising that the confusion and the difficulty were not
greater,--considering that general and special privileges, not only
imperial and Saxon and Prussian, but emanating also from various of
the principalities of the empire, together with the trade privileges
of the Frankfort and Leipzig Associations, were all more or less in
force for any one assortment of books that could be offered for sale
at the two Fairs. It was not until the eighteenth century that the
confusing and inadequate system of imperial and local privileges was
replaced by interstate copyright conventions which secured a uniformity
of protection for literary property throughout the States of the German
Empire.
The historian Luden says:
“The printing-press is important, not so much on the ground of its
reproduction or multiplication of copies of a written work, but because
of the assurance that these copies will be distributed. It is hardly
to be denied that in the thought of trafficking in ideas there is
something repelling from which it is difficult to free one’s mind.”[158]
When Luden was writing, the “war of liberation” had just been brought
to a close, and, for the first time since the battle of Jena, the
territory of North Germany was free from the presence of the invader.
It was less than a decade since the publisher Palm had been shot,
under the instructions of Napoleon, for printing a pamphlet in defence
of the liberty of Germany. The Weimar historian and the other German
writers of his time might well have been interested in the question of
the right of authors to secure an untrammelled circulation for their
productions. At this time, however, nearly a century after the death of
Palm, a martyr to the cause of the freedom of the Press, the imperial
Government of Germany is not yet prepared to concede such freedom to
its political critics. The Palm of to-day would indeed not be shot, but
he might be imprisoned and his Press would certainly be stopped.
It was speedily realised that while the production of books could
be developed almost indefinitely, the practicability of securing a
remunerative distribution of books would be very closely limited
unless the inadequacy of the ordinary trading regulations could be
supplemented by a special system of legislation planned to meet the
special requirements of this new object of trade.
In the beginning of the book-making industry, the printer was known
simply as printer, as it was understood without further specification
that he must also be the publisher of the works printed by him. Soon,
however, we find associated with his undertakings the names of partners
who had nothing directly to do with the book-manufacturing, but who
contributed their aid either for the sake of literary development or
for some other motives apart from the thought of business profit,
and in the lists of such associates occur the names of nobles, of
ecclesiastics, and of wealthy scholars. Later, we find record of
printing-houses of larger resources who did not need and did not
accept coöperation from outsiders; while, as a still later development
come the publishing firms who have separated themselves altogether
from the technical work of book-manufacturing and who employ only
the presses and the binderies of other concerns. With the beginning
of the sixteenth century, begins a transformation of book-printers
into simple book-dealers or publishers. This change was, of course,
however, far from being universal, but limited itself in the main to
the book-concerns of the two Fair-centres, Frankfort and Leipzig.
A little later is to be noted an increase in the number of the
publications, the risk and outlay for which were greater than could
safely be assumed by a single publisher, and in the production of which
several publishers were associated, unless the individual publisher had
secured the necessary aid from some princely friend, or occasionally
even from a corporation (like the Town Council of Nuremberg).
Erasmus, writing in the year 1523, concerning the publishing House
of Johann Froben of Basel, speaks of the three methods under which
Froben’s books were placed in the market. The smaller works, for which
the risk was not too considerable, he would publish as ventures of his
own; while for the more important undertakings, he would often secure
the aid of some outside capitalist, for whom Froben would act simply
as a commission agent. The third method was to give shares in the
venture to fellow publishers like Lachner, also of Basel, Koberger of
Nuremberg, and Birckmann of Cologne.
Even with such arrangements, however, for the division of editions
between firms having each its own special channels of distribution,
the facilities for placing books in the hands of buyers, and probably
also the actual demand on the part of any possible buyers, remained
very inadequate in proportion to the means of production and to the
pressure for production. Books which were very much wanted by a
certain number of readers, were not wanted by enough people to ensure
a remunerative sale, and hence resulted not a few disappointments,
losses, and misfortunes to printers and to publishers. Luther, in his
_Table-Talk_, makes reference to these troubles of the printers, but
believes the cause of the same to be simply the commercial greed and
lack of intellectual interest on the part of the public.
The period 1650-1764 witnessed the growth of the system of
book-exchange, under which, publishers in disposing of their
productions were obliged to accept in payment the stock of other
publishers, and the net market value of books came to be measured
in other books. This method, if it did not add very promptly to the
receipts of the dealers, had at least the advantage of facilitating
the distribution of books, and of furthering the organisation of the
book-trade. In concentrating into the hands of a single individual
the business of publishing, distributing, and retailing books, it
necessitated the giving of exclusive attention to the work of handling
books.
In the “printers’ period,” the men who interested themselves in the
management of printing ventures were very apt to interest themselves
also in other business undertakings. Döring, for instance, was in the
first place a goldsmith, and only secondly a printer. Lotter, who did
some of the first printing for Luther, kept a wine-shop and an inn, in
which he not infrequently had Luther as his guest. Cranach, in addition
to being a painter and an apothecary, carried on a shop for the sale
of books and printing-paper, and finally, in 1524, established a
printing-office, and, associating with himself Döring, entered upon the
production of a complete set of the writings of Luther.[159]
The necessity of securing for the work of a printing-office the
services of scholarly assistants for the proof-reading was speedily
recognised. Not many printers were competent to take the responsibility
assumed by the Venetian Aldus, of revising and even of annotating
the texts as printed, and many were the complaints concerning
the grievous errors contained in the earlier volumes printed in
Germany, and the unfavourable comparisons made between the work of
the German compositors and that which came from the earlier Italian
or Paris printers. Authors contended, with Luther, that the first
and chief right of an author was to have his message correctly
presented to his readers, while scholarly readers were outspoken
in their protests against the marring through the vagaries and
blunders of the typesetters of the beauty of classical texts or the
purport of theologic instruction. The better printing-houses finally
associated with their work scholarly editors who took charge, not
merely of the proof-reading but of the general supervision of the
manuscripts or texts as these passed through the press; and the work
of a “press-corrector” came to be considered as professional in its
requirements and importance.[160]
There was, nevertheless, in certain scholarly circles, a prejudice
against the receipt of money for literary work, or, as Erasmus put
it, against being paid by one’s printer. The objection of Luther to
gaining pecuniary advantage from his writings rested, however, upon the
different ground that his literary work was carried on for the cause of
the Lord and that “Christ had already rewarded him a thousandfold.”
Erasmus made it a ground for criticism upon Ulrich von Hutten that the
latter had permitted himself to accept money from his printer.[161]
Brunsel, the defender of Hutten, denied that he had ever been paid for
his writings, but contended further that if such payment had been made,
it was no reason for reproach. A workman had a right to be paid for his
work. In any case, said Brunsel, such a criticism came with a bad grace
from Erasmus, who had been under pay with Aldus Manutius of Venice and
with Froben of Basel. From the latter he was said to have received a
yearly honorarium of two hundred guldens, in payment apparently of
editorial service. There is record of a payment by Aldus, in 1508, of
twenty pieces of gold for some work done by Erasmus in revising and
preparing for the Press the text of the poems of Plautus.[162] Thomas
Murner received, in 1514, for his _Geuchmatt_ four guldens,[163]--a
sum which, as Schurmann points out, was not so inconsiderable, when we
remember that the scholar Pellican had been able to support himself
for a year on sixteen guldens.
The jurist, Ulrich Zasius, received, in 1526, from his publisher in
Basel for his _Intellectus Juris Singulares_, fifty guldens. Conrad
Gesner, writing from Lausanne in 1539, complains that he has not been
able to put as thorough work into his books as they deserved, because,
he says, “I am, like others of my class, under the necessity of writing
for daily bread.”[164] A remark of Gesner, in 1558, that the publishers
wanted big books, and were unwilling to accept small volumes even as a
gift, is of interest as indicating that, even at that early period, the
book-trade of the Continent had behind it an experience by the lessons
of which it could profit.
The relatively large prices paid as compensation for the literary
undertakings referred to in the earlier records, are evidence that
for these undertakings the initiative had been on the part of the
publishers. In the cases in which the literary suggestion came from the
authors, the compensation was usually materially smaller, or, in case
the venture did not prove remunerative, often disappeared altogether.
The question of the proper rate or extent of the compensation to
authors, was of necessity further complicated by the growth of the
exchange system, before referred to. When the publisher, out of an
edition of a thousand copies had disposed of five or six hundred, and
had received pay for the same in miscellaneous stock, a large portion
of which might remain in his warehouse for years, it was certainly not
easy to determine what portion of the edition ought properly to be
considered as having been sold, and to be so accounted for.
The custom soon arose of putting the author’s compensation into the
shape of books. Sometimes he would receive a certain number of copies
of his own work only, and sometimes, in addition, a selection of the
books against which his own had been exchanged. In the smaller number
of cases only was the author able to arrange for a portion at least of
his pay in money.[165]
The free copies of his book which came to the author were, however,
not infrequently utilised as a means of securing cash receipts. These
were the copies reserved for the patron who had “graciously accepted”
the dedication of the book. The dedications were too often not simple
expressions of personal friendship or of scholarly appreciation, but
fulsome laudations and exaggerated flatteries, which were meant to be
paid for in hard cash.
Kapp, in decrying this business of selling dedications or of printing
dedications, associates it directly with the demoralising practice
of accepting honorariums from publishers.[166] He fails, however, to
draw the inference, which appears to be a natural one, that after two
centuries of publishing (of printed books) the labours of the writers
of the books were so inadequately remunerated that they were driven
to emulate Martial and his associates of the later Augustan age and
to look to patrons (bribed with dedications) for a payment for their
productions.
The real difficulty, as Schurmann points out, lay in the necessitous
and uncertain position of the scholarly classes, who were driven to put
more labour into the writing of books than the community of the time
was prepared to compensate.
Erasmus treated with indifference the charge of von Hutten that he made
his dedications a subject of trade, and he probably had sufficient
warrant for his indifference. In the case of not a few of the works of
Erasmus, as with many other books of the time, it seems evident that in
exchange for the dedication, the “patron” of literature had provided
in exchange for the compliment the funds requisite for the printing
of the book, or sometimes even for the support of the author while
it was being written. It occasionally happened (though probably never
with any books of Erasmus) that the “patron” failed to receive the
full consideration for his services, as there are instances of books
in which the author’s dedication appears only in the author’s “free
copies,” or even only in the portion of the author’s supply which was
to be delivered to the patron. For other copies of his supply the
author might arrange with some other patron for a dedication, while in
the copies left in the hands of the publisher, still a third dedication
might be used, the earnings of which last had, under the agreement,
been reserved by the publisher.[167]
According to Kirchhoff[168] and Kapp[169] this business of selling
dedications had by the beginning of the seventeenth century reached
very large proportions. The Magistracy of the city of Leipzig made
announcement, in 1594, that they would authorise no more dedications,
having been altogether overburdened with them. In 1606, when the
philologist Goldast asked permission of the Burgomaster of Memmingen to
dedicate to him a new Commentary, he was cautioned that he would have
to content himself with an honorarium of a ducat, as the magistrates of
that place were receiving each day similar applications.
As late as 1798, the Senate of Hamburg gave notice that future
dedications of literary productions would no longer receive
acknowledgment unless written authorisations for the same had been
previously secured. An instance occurred in 1887, in which this
regulation concerning a written authorisation was relied upon with some
literalness of interpretation. A musical composition had been dedicated
to the “Shade” of the composer Hummel, on the fiftieth anniversary of
his death. A notice was issued by the poet Castelli, on behalf of the
Hummel family, that this dedication must be withdrawn unless a written
authorisation could be shown from the “Shade” of the departed composer.
According to Kapp, the practice of authors undertaking the publication
of their works at their own risk and expense (_selbst-verlag_)
developed during the same period as the dedication system, and together
with the latter, came in great part to a close towards the end of the
eighteenth century. Trade difficulties arose in connection with the
handling by the authors of the editions of their own books, as it
became necessary for them to follow the general trade practice of the
time and to accept their payment or a portion of their payment in the
stock of the dealers to whom they made sales. Feeling, however, in no
way bound by the regulations of the book-trade, they were ready to
sell this exchange stock at prices often considerably below those of
the regular book-market, a practice which naturally produced confusion
and dissatisfaction among the dealers. In this practice the authors of
Germany enjoyed a much greater freedom of action than was possessed at
the time by their brethren in France, where the organised book-dealers
had succeeded in limiting to members of their own body the right to
sell books.
How far the protests of the book-trade may have succeeded in checking
this practice on the part of the authors of entering into bookselling
business without being willing to submit themselves to bookselling
regulations, it is not easy to determine from the records available.
It is probable, however, that the most effective check was the
disappointing results secured by the authors themselves from by far the
larger portion of their publishing and bookselling ventures.
Towards the end of the eighteenth century the method of subscription
publishing, which apparently had originated in England, began to be
followed, particularly in the case of books issued directly by their
authors. Under this method, subscriptions and advance payments were
secured from subscribers interested in the undertaking and willing to
purchase one or more copies, and the moneys so advanced were expected
to be utilised in the production of the book, and were as a rule so
applied. Even publishers found this subscription method a convenience
and an advantage in diminishing the risk of the speculation in an
undertaking of importance. In the case, however, of books issued by
publishers on the subscription plan, it was not usual to receive any
money from the subscribers until the books were delivered.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
CHAPTER III.
REGULATIONS FOR THE CONTROL AND THE CENSORSHIP OF THE PRINTING-PRESS IN
FRANCE.
1500-1700.
=Conflicting Authorities.=--The invention of printing came into
the world at a period when men’s minds were agitated by one of the
fiercest contests about ideas that history had known. This new art
gave voice and wings to thought at the very time when thought stood
for war and when opinions, under the name of creeds, were bringing men
into fierce combat with each other. Those whose beliefs were wrong
(that is to say, those who at any particular time or place happened
to be the weaker party) were burned by those whose beliefs were right
(that is, by the stronger), and questions of religion were powerful
enough to bring nations into battle against each other. To permit
the peaceable production and distribution of literature advocating
doctrines sufficiently pernicious to be themselves cause for war, would
have been not only illogical but practically impossible. It would have
constituted, in effect, failure to keep the faith, and treason to the
State.
The general constitution of society was no more compatible than
were the religious passions of the time with an unrestricted and
unsupervised production and distribution of literature. Monopoly
was, or was believed to be, an industrial necessity. Each branch or
division of industry, trade, or commerce was closely organised and
strictly limited in its range. These guild organisations, with their
accompanying prohibition of the exercise of individual and unorganised
industry, served to maintain order and to protect artisans against all
kinds of exactions, and in various other ways worked for the benefit
of the artisans and trades as associated. The guilds also rendered an
important service to the community in protecting the general public
against frauds and misdealings, for, as well from self-interest as
from public spirit, they took upon themselves the supervision of
the integrity and morality of their members. The associated trades
of printing, publishing, and bookselling came under conditions and
restrictions similar in the main to those regulating the business
of the other commercial guilds, and like these, they undertook to
establish a monopoly of the rights and privileges connected with the
manufacture and sale of their productions.
The contests and quarrels of the “regular” or guild dealers, whether
with authors, who wanted to retain the right to sell their own books,
or with religious communities, which (in continuation of their old
literary practices) claimed the privilege of using printing-presses of
their own, or with the drapers and fancy goods dealers, who wanted to
sell not only almanacs and primers (_abécédaires_) but also general
literature, or against the pedlars and street vendors, who attempted to
exercise the full privileges of booksellers, were endless; but while
differing in many details, these contests were similar in principle to
those carried on by other industrial guilds against outsiders trying to
invade their monopolies.
The official censorship of publications began with the reign of Francis
I., although there are instances in the previous reign of the issue
of certain “permits” or approvals. These earlier permits were not
connected with any conditions or restrictions imposed on the authors
or publishers. They were for the most part secured at the instance of
those interested in the publication, sometimes as a matter of prudence
or from dread of future interference, but more frequently in order to
give credit or standing to the undertaking.
According to Peignot,[170] the earliest printed book which contains
record of such official approval was printed in Esslingen in 1475. It
was a reissue of the _Tractatus Petri Nigri contra perfidos judæos_,
and bore a certificate of having been corrected and approved by the
Bishop of Ratisbon. This instance antedates the publication of the
_Phœnix_ of Peter of Ravenna (referred to by Pütter and others as the
first book printed under a privilege), which was issued in Venice in
1491.[171]
In 1515, a Bull of Leo X. (previously referred to in the chapter on
Venice) ordered that no licence should be given for the printing
of a book until it had been examined and approved by an authorised
representative of the Church. The authority of the Church to take into
its own hands the supervision of literature was, as we have seen, from
the outset contested in Venice, and was never accepted in Germany.
In France, on the other hand, the necessity for such ecclesiastical
supervision was at once admitted, with the condition that the
censorship should always be exercised under the authority and direction
of the Crown. The jurisdiction over printers and publishers, originally
conferred upon the University, continued to be exercised with more
or less effectiveness during two centuries after the invention of
printing, and traces of it existed even as late as 1789. The University
gave approval, issued privileges, and fixed penalties. An approval had
to do with the contents or character of the work, and was evidence
that it had been examined and had been accepted as containing nothing
unsound in doctrine, detrimental to the morals of the community, or
dangerous to the safety of the State.
In the earlier periods of publishing in France, the ecclesiastical
censorship as to matters of doctrine was exercised through the
Theological Faculty of the University. A privilege gave to its holder
a right (usually exclusive) to control the sales of the work specified
and sometimes of the entire subject to which the work was devoted,
for a given territory and a certain term of years. In 1498, certain
publishers printed a description of the funeral procession of Charles
VIII., in which procession the Faculty of the University had occupied
a position of honour. The printed account was inaccurate, _Super
modo incedendi_. The publishers were brought before the deputies
of the University, and after they had been heard in their defence,
their editions of the inaccurate book were condemned to be burned _in
processionibus universitatis_.
In 1518, the University issued, by means of placards posted about the
city, an edict prohibiting all publishers, under pain of forfeiture
of their University privileges and franchise, from printing the
_Concordat_ between Francis I. and Leo X. The King, indignant at such
an exercise of authority on the part of the University, wrote to the
Parliament of Paris demanding that the mandate of the University be
declared null and void, and that the Rector, Dean, and professors
who had issued the same be punished. He further directed that the
_Concordat_ should at once be delivered to good and trustworthy
printers, with instructions to lose no time in printing supplies of
the same. The Parliament decided that the University must not concern
itself with matters of state or with the affairs of the King, under
penalty of loss of its own privileges, and the printing and publication
of the _Concordat_ appear to have proceeded in due course. It must be
borne in mind that the Parliament of Paris was not a legislative body,
as might be inferred from the later use of the name, but a high court
of justice, exercising the functions of a Court of Appeals.
Several such “Parliaments” were established at different periods in the
great cities of the kingdom, but that of Paris was the most ancient
and important. Its foundation is ascribed to Louis XI., about 1150.
The Paris Parliament was originally used as a kind of circuit court,
accompanying the King wherever he went. It was, however, finally fixed
at Paris, in 1302, by Philip the Fair. Its members were at first
appointed by the Crown, but Francis initiated the practice of selling
the seats. The most important function of the Parliament appears
to have been the registration of the laws, edicts, and ordinances
promulgated by the King. The Parliament gradually assumed a certain
degree of political power, and frequently refused to register laws of
which it did not approve, and from these refusals spirited contests
arose with the Crown. The Parliament of Paris (together with all the
Parliaments of France) was finally suppressed in 1790, by a decree of
the constituent assembly. It appears from the history of this case of
the _Concordat_ that no question was raised concerning the right of the
University to control the printers of Paris, excepting as to matters
belonging to the King; while the higher authority of the Parliament was
not contested.
The first formal institution in France of supervision of publications
or literary censorship dates from the ordinance of 1521. _Lectum est
quoddam regis mandatum prohibitorium ne librarii aut typographii
venderent aut ederent aliquid, nisi auctoritate universitalis et
Facultatis Theologiæ, et Visitatione facta._[172] (Printers and
publishers are forbidden to print or to sell any work which has not
first been examined by the University authorities and received the
authorisation of the University and of the Faculty of Theology.) The
special authority given to the latter shows that it was still the risk
of heresy and schism which excited the greatest dread among those
supervising the literature of the community. The edict of Charles V.,
also issued in 1521, prescribed similar regulations for the several
countries of his dominions and made offenders against these regulations
liable to the penalties for treason (_lèse-majesté_).
Parliament exercised authority not only for the condemnation of
books (a jurisdiction which it had always claimed, even prior to the
invention of printing) but also to extend general prohibitions, with or
without conditions. As an example, an edict of February, 1525, which
was ordered to be published by heralds at the sound of the trumpet,
directed (among a number of other measures planned to stamp out the
heresies which were spreading through the realm) all persons having
in their possession copies of the Old or the New Testament, or any
portions of the same, to deliver such books to the court notaries,
and forbade all printers to print and all dealers to sell any copies
of said books under penalty of confiscation of their goods and
banishment from the kingdom. This prohibition was renewed in 1527.
In 1542, Parliament forbade the printing or selling, without special
authorisation, of the royal ordinances and edicts.
=Parliament, the University, and the Book-Trade.=--The Parliament
reserved to itself the final authority in the supervision of the
book-trade, but it occasionally thought proper to secure, in
connection with some literary undertaking of importance, the counsel
of the University. In 1523, C. Resch, a licensed publisher, having
asked for a permit for the publication of the paraphrases made by
Erasmus of the Gospels of S. Mark and S. Luke, Parliament referred
the application to the Rector, Dean, and Theological Faculty of the
University for examination and report. The report being adverse, the
application was denied. In 1523, Parliament had seized the books of a
bookseller named Louis de Berquin. They were submitted to the Faculty
of Theology and having been adjudged heretical, were duly burned.
In 1529, on similar grounds, the same fate was awarded to Berquin
himself. In 1521, two decrees were issued by Parliament forbidding,
under penalty of banishment and the payment of five hundred livres
(francs), the printing, either in French or in Latin, of any work on
Christian doctrine, or on the interpretations of Scripture, that had
not first been approved by the Theological Faculty or its deputies. A
decree of 1535 forbade the printing of any work of medical science,
which had not received the approval of three “good and notable”
doctors of the Faculty of Medicine of the University. A decree of the
same year forbade the publication of any fortune-telling books or
almanacs, under penalty of imprisonment and a fine of ten marks. A
decree of 1542 forbids the offering for sale of any book not bearing
a certificate showing that it had been examined and approved by the
clerks or deputies of the Faculty of the University having charge of
the subject to which the book was devoted. In the cities where there
was no university, these examinations, in all classes of subjects, were
entrusted to the vicars or representatives of the Bishop or to doctors
of theology.
The tendency became more marked from decade to decade to place in the
control of the Church the supervision of the entire literary production
of the kingdom. Conflicts of authority arose from time to time between
the University and Parliament, conflicts in which the advantage usually
rested with the latter body, which claimed the final jurisdiction, and
which had behind it the authority requisite to enforce its decisions.
In 1526, the University had authorised the printing of certain
dissertations against Fabri and Erasmus, written by Dr. Noel Beda.
King Francis wrote to the Parliament directing it to cause the sale of
these books to be prohibited. He added further general instructions
that Parliament must enforce the previous regulations under which
no books were to be printed or sold, either in Paris or elsewhere,
which had not first been examined and approved by the members of the
court deliberating together. The prohibition includes even such books
as might have been written by members of the University. The task
of a censorship of this kind, imposed not upon a select, scholarly
committee, but upon a comparatively large body of consultation, must
have been, as the literary production increased, one of no little
difficulty.
It would appear, also, from such record as has reached us of the
complaints of the publishers who had literary undertakings in train,
and of the scholars, instructors, and students who were waiting for the
books, that many serious and costly delays must have been caused by
the physical impossibility of securing from the Court of Parliament a
prompt decision upon the various literary schemes submitted.
It appears from the letter of King Francis, first, that the King had
sufficient sympathy with the Reformers to be unwilling to have Erasmus
attacked; and, secondly, that, even in matters of theological doctrine,
the final decision was entrusted not to the Faculty of Theology, but
to the Court of Parliament. Bayle, writing some time later, and having
a cordial distrust for the Catholic Faculty of the University of his
generation, regretted that these wise regulations could not have
continued indefinitely.[173] Chevillier, on the other hand, thinks that
the King’s confidence had been abused, and that his “_grand douceur
de caractère_” had caused him to be too gentle to those accused of
heresy. Chevillier goes on to say that the King in the end recognised
the justice of the position taken by the Theological Faculty of the
University in defence of the Church against its enemies. He got rid of
his prepossessions in favour of Erasmus, and, in 1531, he gave a direct
royal authorisation to the publisher Badius for the printing of Albert
Pio’s big treatise (in twenty-four books) against Erasmus.
In February, 1534, the King sent to the Court of Parliament letters
patent, under which the Court was instructed to select twenty-four
persons qualified and trustworthy, from among whom the King would
select twelve. To these twelve should be given, until further
instructions, the exclusive privilege of printing books. Said books
were to be printed in the city of Paris and nowhere else, and were to
comprise only those which had been already approved as required for
the public welfare. No new compositions whatever were to be licensed.
The penalty for infraction of this ordinance was death by hanging.
Legislation of this sort might be considered as somewhat discouraging
to literary production, and as evidence of increasing dread on the part
of the authorities of the intellectual activities and fermentation
which characterised the period of the Reformation.
The prohibition against the publication of any new works gives the
impression that the activity of literary or controversial production
was on the side of the Reformers, and that it was thought to be of
the first importance to restrain the publication and distribution of
the writings of the Reformers, even at the inconvenience of hindering
at the same time the publication of sound Catholic doctrine. What
the King wanted to bring about was evidently the cessation of all
religious, or rather of all theological controversy, and it was, in
part at least, due to his policy in that matter that the mass of
controversial literature produced during the Reformation was so much
smaller in France than in Germany or in Switzerland. It is to be borne
in mind that for the theological literature, and, in fact, for all the
scholarly literature of the sixteenth century, the political boundaries
did not imply, as they do to-day, barriers of language. The literary
language of Europe was Latin, and the scholars of Europe, coming,
through this common language, into direct relations with each other,
were in a better position to carry on international controversies
than would be the case to-day. There was nothing but the poverty of
buyers or the prohibitory edicts of the rulers to prevent the general
circulation among all scholarly readers of any work of importance
on the all-absorbing issues of the time. The letters patent, above
referred to, were, says Renouard, never registered by Parliament,
and it does not appear that they were ever effectively carried into
execution.
=The Beginning of Legislation for the Encouragement of
Literature.=--The restricting edicts continued through the first half
of the sixteenth century, but towards 1550, they began to include
provisions referring to the development and encouragement of good
literature.
The ordinance of March 7, 1537, provides:
1st. (in reiteration of previous acts) that no work shall be printed
in the kingdom in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Chaldee, Italian,
Spanish, German, French, or other tongues, which had not first
secured the King’s approval (given through the royal librarian). The
list of languages through which it was supposed that evil might be
instilled into the minds of good Frenchmen, was certainly sufficiently
comprehensive. It is difficult to imagine any very serious risk of the
dissemination of false doctrine or of the corrupting of the public
morals through the circulation of works in Chaldee.
2d. That a copy of each book when printed be deposited in the library
of the royal château of Blois, being delivered for the purpose to the
King’s trusty councillor and treasurer, the Abbé Réclus Mellin de
Saint-Gelais, librarian of said château, or to one of the deputies to
be appointed by him for the purpose in each of the universities and
important cities of the kingdom, a certificate being given as evidence
of the delivery of the book.
3d. That a copy of each book printed abroad, and which it was desired
to offer for sale in France, should, in like manner, be submitted for
inspection, and that its sale in France could be authorised only if
said book should be found worthy of being placed in the Royal Library,
this inspection being necessary for the purpose of avoiding the risk
of introducing into the kingdom works containing wicked errors such as
have heretofore been found in books imported from abroad.
If copies of these imported works were certified as fit for sale in
France and as worthy of acceptance for the Royal Library, the librarian
was to make payment for them at the same price as that charged to
others. The ground given for the collection in the Royal Library of
copies of all works issued in France or imported into the kingdom, was
the importance of preserving for future generations valuable literature
which might otherwise have disappeared altogether from the memory of
man, or which might in later issues have been altered from the original
and accurate text. This edict of 1537 may therefore be considered as
the first step towards the formation of a library for the preservation
of the national literature. It was also the earliest example in France
of the securing an authorisation for the publication of a book (a
concession that was not yet a copyright and was not always even a
privilege) in consideration of a tax imposed for the benefit of the
nation, said tax comprising a single copy of the work authorised.
On March 20, 1537, appeared a second ordinance giving further details
of the new measures. The preamble is worth quoting, because it sets
forth clearly the main purpose which was kept in view in all these
earlier regulations of literary production, namely, the restriction of
the circulation of error and the assuring of the defence of the holy
faith against the assaults of heretics:
_François, etc. Comme, par tous les moyens que possible a été, nous
avons obvié et empêché que les erreurs et infidèles interprétations
déviant de notre sainte foi et religion chrétienne ne aient été reçues
en notre royaume._... An ordinance of 1538 appoints Conrad Néobar
printer for the King in Greek, under the following conditions:
1st. Religious works must secure the approval of the Faculty of
Theology, and profane works that of the Faculty of Belles-Lettres.
2d. A copy of each work printed must be given to the Royal Library,
_afin que, si quelque calamité publique vient à affliger les lettres,
la postérité puisse trouver là une ressource qui permette de réparer en
partie une perte des livres_.
3d. That each book issued by Néobar shall contain the announcement that
he is “printer to the King” and that his Greek printing-office has
been instituted under the royal protection, _afin que non seulement ce
siècle, mais aussi la postérité, comprenne avec quel zèle et quelle
bienveillance nous avons traité la litérature, et que la postérité,
avertie pas notre example, croie devoir faire de même, pour constituer
et encourager les études_.
In order to guarantee Néobar against the risk of loss, as the demand
for books in Greek was hardly likely to prove remunerative, the King
agreed to pay him per year the sum of one hundred gold crowns, equal
in currency to about two hundred dollars, but representing, of course,
at that time, a much larger purchasing power. Néobar’s business was
also to be free of taxes, and to enjoy the other privileges previously
accorded to the publishers of the University. Other printers and
publishers were forbidden to print or to import editions of the works
issued by Néobar, he being granted an exclusive monopoly or copyright
of five years for books which were first published by him, whether
these were the productions of modern scholars or were taken from old
manuscripts, and of two years for books which had been reprinted by him
in revised and more complete form from earlier editions.
The fury of civil war and the bitterness of religious dissension,
continued to give a special character to the laws affecting printing
and publishing and to the enforcement of these. There were also
instances in which the severities of the courts preceded those of the
legislators. In 1545, the records of the _Chambre syndicale de la
librairie_, the sub-court charged with the control of publishing, show
that a certain Étienne Polliot was sentenced for importing and selling
heretical books. He was compelled to carry a bundle of his publications
to the market-place, where he and his books were burned together. In
1546, the publisher Étienne Dolet, himself the author of a number of
books, published in both Latin and French, was burned in the Place
Maubert, for his obstinate persistence in the heresy of Calvin. Dolet
is credited with having uttered at the stake the following line: _Non
dolet ipse Dolet, sed pia turba dolet._ [It is not Dolet who grieves,
but a pious crowd (of witnesses).]
The ordinances of 1557 and 1560 punished with death, as guilty of
treason, the authors, printers, publishers, and sellers or distributors
of books which had been condemned as pernicious or libellous. The
declaration of July 17, 1561, sentenced to the penalty of the lash
for the first offence and to that of death for the second, all
printers, sellers, and distributors of inflammatory or libellous
publications. Letters patent of 1563 fixed the penalty of hanging
or strangling for the offence of printing a book without the royal
authorisation. The often quoted ordinance of Moulins, of 1566, renews
the same prohibitions, which were further confirmed in 1570, 1571,
1586, and later. It is not easy to understand why such reiteration of
prohibitions and of penalties was required, or why the provisions of
any particular ordinance, or letters patent, should not have remained
in force until repealed, or at least until the close of the reign.
This ordinance of Moulins, issued by Charles IX., brings together under
one heading _privileges_ and _permits_. It is often referred to as
forming the beginning of the copyright system of France: _Défendons
aussi à toutes personnes que ce soit d’imprimer ou faire imprimer aucun
livre ou traité sans notre congé et permission et lettres de privilège
expédiées sous notre grand scel, auquel cas aussi enjoignons à
l’imprimeur d’y mettre et insérer son nom et le lieu de sa demeurance,
ensemble ledit congé et privilège, et ce sur peine de perdition de
biens et punition corporelle._
Monsieur Vitet[174] is of opinion that the wars of the League had
some influence in securing a certain freedom for publishing. The
government of the League did not undertake to free from restrictions
the printing-presses of Paris. It prohibited them, however, only from
such undertakings as seemed likely to prove of service to the enemies
of the League. On the other hand, there was at Tours a government which
was hostile only to such writings as were not royalist, and at Geneva
another government, the censures of which affected only that literature
which was not Protestant. Through these three limited censures came
into existence three fragments of publishing freedom. The power of the
printing-press in influencing public opinion may, as far as France is
concerned, be said to date from this period. Without question, during
the previous twenty years, the larger portion of the publications of a
religious, theological, and controversial character had come from the
side of the Protestants. Their mission was to preach and convince as
well as to fight, and the printing-press was as necessary to them as
were their muskets. The controversial writings were, however, largely
left unanswered, and their authors were reduced to the publishing of
monologues and, finally, for a time at least, to the abandonment of the
Press as an active agent in the contest.
On the other hand, when the Catholics, associated together in the
organisation of the League, had established themselves as a military
power, they undertook not only to extirpate Protestantism, but to
speak to the world more energetically and more authoritatively than
the Protestants had done. Nothing is more contagious than speech,
especially if such speech take upon itself a controversial form. As
soon, therefore, as the presses of the League became active, those of
the Protestants renewed their own activities, so that the civil and
religious wars had the double effect of freeing the printing-presses
from a large proportion of their previous restrictions, and of
increasing enormously the amount of the literary production of these
presses. It is to be noted, however, that production was for the time
limited almost exclusively to works in the department of theology,
while the publication of Greek, Roman, and Italian classics, no longer
encouraged by University supervision or by royal bounty, was naturally
checked. The grand campaign of the pamphlets was most active during the
years 1588-1589, after which the ardour of the pugnacious pens appears
to have slackened, until, in 1594, the victors terminated the contest
with the final pamphlet of the series, a Menippean satire, which is
said to have been no less useful to Henry IV. than the battles of
Arques and of Ivry.
The Edict of Nantes, which bears date 1598, contained a special
provision concerning the circulation of publications favouring the
so-called “reformed religion”: _Ne pourront les livres concernant
la dite religion, prétendue réformée, être réimprimés et rendus
publiquement qu’ès villes et lieux où l’exercice public de la dite
religion est permis; et, pour les autres livres qui seront imprimés
en autres villes, seront vus et visités tant par nos ordonnances.
Défendons très expressément l’impression, publication et vente de tous
livres, libelles et écrits diffamatoires, sous les peines contenues en
nos ordonnances, enjoignant à tous nos juges et officiers d’y tenir la
main._[175]
The essential point of this provision appears to be the restriction
of the sale of Protestant books to certain cities and districts (the
list of which is given elsewhere in the Edict), in which the public
exercise of said religion was authorised. It is worth noting, however,
also, that these Protestant books are practically classified as
libels and inflammatory writings. The difficulties in the way of the
authors and publishers of such books must have, at the time, been very
considerable. It does not appear that any provision was made for the
circulation of such publications between the cities in which they were
permitted to be issued, as such circulation must, of course, have taken
them across the “good Catholic” territory, within the boundaries of
which these Protestant books were incendiary libels. There could in
but few cases have been any possibility of securing within the limits
of any single Protestant city, such, for instance, as Rochelle, a
sufficient sale for a book to render its sale remunerative, or even to
return the outlay required; while there were no university funds or
royal bounties within the reach of Protestants with which to facilitate
the publication of unprofitable works. There is little probability,
therefore, that for the Protestant works published in France during
this period the authors were able to secure any compensation whatever,
while for the majority of such books the authors or others interested
must themselves have provided the investment required.
An enactment of 1618 codified the various separate regulations for the
supervision and control (_la police et la discipline_) of the business
of printing and of publishing. Among the previous regulations which
were repeated in detail in this enactment were those dating May, 1571,
the substance of which is as follows:
“The master printers now doing business in the city of Paris,
shall choose each year two from among their number with two of the
twenty-four master publishers certified (_jurés_) for the same year,
the functions of whom shall be to prevent the printing of any work
of a libellous or incendiary or heretical character; and to insure
the correctness and satisfactory quality of the editions which may
be printed in each city of the realm.” This last responsibility was
understood to cover not only an approval of the quality of the paper
and the presswork, but also a careful supervision of the correctness
of the type-setting and of the quality of the type, which must not be
worn (_trop usée_), and if these supervisors find errors calling for
reprimand, they are to make report of the same before either a civil or
a criminal judge according to the nature of the fault.
The said publishers are limited in the prices they are permitted to
charge for their publications, the price per sheet for works in Latin
(not including notes in Greek) not to exceed ten deniers, for works in
Greek not to exceed six deniers. There is a further clause providing
for a proportionate reduction in the schedule of prices specified,
whenever in the judgment of the Rector, deans, masters, and twenty-four
certified publishers of the University, a lessening of the cost of
production or of handling may justify such reduction.
In 1587, an order in council confirmed the exemption of the
book-business from all subsidies and from customs duties and municipal
tolls and taxes. In 1617, the Syndic and directors of the Guild of
publishers, printers, and binders submitted a request to the Provost
of Paris to be authorised to select for a special commission to take
into consideration the condition of the book-business, six certified
publishers, six non-certified publishers (practically book-dealers),
and six printers. To this commission were joined the Syndic of the
Guild and four of its board of directors, and under its recommendations
and as a result of investigations extending into the following year,
were drafted the regulations embodied in the letters patent of 1618.
The preamble says:
_Et d’autant que, parmi le bruit et l’insolence des armes, ceux qui
font profession des bonnes lettres ont été les plus oppressés et comme
réduits à néant, nous avons, en ensuivant les anciens vestiges de nos
prédécesseurs, apporté tout le soin à nous possible de les rétablir en
leur première splendeur, principalement en ce qui regarde notre fille
âinée, l’université de notre bonne ville de Paris_, etc.
It is to be noted that the profession of letters is made practically
synonymous with the University of Paris. The statutes contain
thirty-eight articles. The first confirms the franchises and immunities
of the Guild of publishers, printers, and binders.
Articles 2, 5, and 11 give consideration to the subjects of
apprenticeship, the admission of associates and of masters, the
obligation (for each master) of keeping not less than two presses in
running order, the rights of widows, etc.
The twelfth article prescribes that all printers and publishers must
print their books in handsome, legible type, carefully corrected, and
on good paper, and that each volume must bear at its beginning or
end the name and trade-mark of its publisher, and the record of the
privilege and permit under which it is issued; and in case the book has
been printed without permit, the entire edition is to be confiscated,
in addition to further penalties.
Article 13 provides that printers or publishers who issue books of
a libellous or defamatory character, shall be deprived of their
privileges and immunities, and shall, thereafter, be enjoined from
exercising the trade of printing or book-selling.
This article, however, was not intended to trench upon the sphere
of penal legislation. In this same year, 1618, a poet named Durand,
convicted of having written a libel against Louis XIII., was condemned
to be broken on the wheel and afterwards burned. Two brothers,
Italians, were executed with him, for having translated the book into
Italian.
Article 15 specifies that two copies of each book published were to
be deposited in the Royal Library (an increase of one copy over the
requirements of the enactment of 1571), one copy was to be given to the
Syndic, apparently for use in the Guild library, and four copies could
be retained for the printers and their associates.
Article 16 provides that for the future not more than one publisher,
one printer, and one binder should be admitted each year to the Guild,
the purpose being to reduce the membership of this.
Article 17 provides for the election each year of the Syndic and of two
of the deputies.
Article 18 gives consideration to the examination of books by the
syndics, to the restrictions to be placed upon the trade in France of
foreign book-dealers, to colporteurs, book-sales, etc.
Article 19 provides for the seizure of unauthorised foreign reprints of
French books.
Article 30 forbids any single individual or firm from having more than
one shop or printing-office, which must (doubtless for the greater
convenience of official supervision) be within the precincts of the
University.
Article 31 forbids the sale of books in book-stalls and book-carts.
These last two prohibitions were considered of sufficient importance to
be repeated in a separate act issued in 1630. They were directed more
particularly against the practice which was increasing among certain
persons of quality of keeping printing-presses in their houses.
Article 32 forbids, under penalty of confiscation of goods and 3000
francs fine, the printing outside of the kingdom of any work to be
issued with a French imprint, or the disguising or concealing of either
the publishing imprint or the record of the place of manufacture.
Article 38 provides that each publisher, printer, and binder must be
sworn before the Provost of Paris, or his deputy, in the presence of
the _procureur_ of the King.
The noteworthy changes brought about by the enactment were: the
reduction in the number of authorised publishers and printers, a
reduction to be brought about by the limitation of the new members to
one of each class per year, the transfer to the Provost of Paris of a
function heretofore exercised by the University, and the restriction
of the printing-presses in such a manner as to facilitate the police
supervision of the authorities.
=The Relations of the Crown to Literary Production and the Attempt of
the Church to Secure a Portion of the Control.=--The tendency of all
the enactments during the previous thirty years had been, as we have
seen, to concentrate in the hands of the Crown, acting directly through
its own subordinates, the control of literary production.
From time to time, however, the Court of Parliament reasserted its
claim to the exercise of a joint control with the King, and the
declaration of 1612 appears to have been issued in order to put an end
to any such claims.
_Défendant très expressément a nos âmes et nos feaux conseillers,
maîtres des requêtes, et gardes des sceaux de nos chancelleries, et de
nos cours de parlement, donner aucune permission d’imprimer livres ou
écrits, sur mêmes peines que dessus contre les imprimeurs ou librairies
qui auraient obtenu telles permissions._
Authorisation to publish was from this time on dependent on the
securing of permits sealed with the royal seal.
In 1624, four royal censors were instituted by letters patent. Two of
them were to have each six hundred livres a year, and the others, four
hundred livres. The first four censors, André Duval, Pierre Quedarne,
Jacques Messier, and François de Saint Père, were all doctors of the
Theological Faculty of Paris. The privilege of filling such vacancies
as might occur in the board was in the first place given to the College
of the Sorbonne. Notwithstanding this selection of the board from the
members of its own Faculty, the University, or at least the theological
division of the University, was seriously dissatisfied with losing its
ancient privileges of controlling directly the examination of religious
literature. In 1629, fresh regulations were issued by the Crown in
connection with the censorship, under which, works submitted for
publication, instead of being examined by a board appointed in advance,
were passed upon by censors particularly designated for each work by
the Chancellor or the Privy Seal. In 1658, the Chancellor Séguier
had designated three readers or examiners who again appear to have
constituted a permanent board.
Notwithstanding the edict of 1629, the Theological Faculty of the
University continued to claim the right to pass upon all publications
of a religious character. This right was also recognised in ordinances
of a later date, and the examinations of the Faculty were held
concurrently with those of the royal censors or of the deputies
designated by these. Under the ordinance of 1629, the publisher or
author seeking a permit to print was obliged to submit for examination
two complete copies of his manuscript, a requirement which could be
modified only under the authority of the Chancellor or Privy Seal.
The general result of the ordinance of 1629 was not in the direction
of freedom for the printing-press, but there were certain advantages
secured by the writers and makers of books in having consolidated into
one code restrictions and regulations which had heretofore existed
in isolated letters, ordinances, and edicts. The creation of royal
censors, an act harmonising with the centralising tendencies of the
times, may be understood also as a recognition on the part of the Crown
of the increasing influence of literature, and of the importance of
bringing literature into direct dependence upon the authority of the
monarch.
The founding, in 1635, of the French Academy, had an important
influence as well upon the organisation of authors as upon the
relations of these with the Crown. It was the general scheme of
Richelieu, continued later by Louis XIV., in the first place to put
literature exclusively under the authority of the Crown, and secondly,
through privileges and favours, to secure its support for the interests
of royalty. It is evident that the King, or at least the King of this
date, neither created nor extended the supervision of literature, for
the idea had as yet occurred to none that the printing-press could be
left free. There was also, probably, no deliberate purpose to bribe
or corrupt the authors of the time. It was, however, no new idea for
men of letters to be dependent upon the favour of princes, and there
was, it is fair to remember, a certain direct advantage for literature
as well as for the Crown in adding to the social position and general
welfare of writers. While the edict establishing the Academy bore the
date of 1635, its incorporation was completed only by the _lettres
de cachet_, of July 10, 1637. In these letters appears the following
curious restriction:
“Provided, namely, that the members of said Assembly and Academy
shall concern themselves only with the history, embellishment, and
development of the French language,” a restriction which was evidently
acted upon, later, with considerable breadth of interpretation.
In 1686, a further enactment for the supervision of publishing and
printing was recorded in the Parliament of Paris. In this were
repeated the several provisions in the enactment of 1629, with the
following modifications: Three complete copies, instead of two, of
each book printed, should be deposited, and no additional printer
should be admitted into the Guild until the number of master-printers
had been reduced to thirty-six. There was also a provision forbidding
publishers from carrying on a printing business under their licence
as publishers. The board of control of the Guild is given special
authority for the examination of works imported from abroad, with the
purpose of preventing the circulation in France of _Livres ou Libelles
diffamatoires contre l’honneur de Dieu, le bien et répos de notre
état, ou imprimés sans nom d’auteur, ou du libraire, ou des livres
contrefaits sur ceux qui auront été imprimés avec privilége_, etc.
In the same year appeared an enactment, under which the bookbinders
and gilders were separated from the Guild of publishers and printers.
As in 1618 and in 1649, the University found ground for complaint
that these regulations had been framed without its participation. It
secured the appointment of a commission of State councillors to examine
into its complaint, but the report of the commission was adverse to
the contention of the University. Of its old responsibilities and
privileges for the supervision and control of literary undertakings,
there rested now with the University only certain inconsiderable forms,
and the restriction upon printers and publishers to carry on their
business in the University quarter.
The issue of permits and the charges to be paid for the same, were
regulated by letters patent of 1701, the provisions for pamphlets being
made different from those for books. The authorisation for the printing
and publishing of books was, as heretofore, to be granted under the
great seal. The authorisation for the printing of pamphlets was to
be given by the local magistrates, and after an examination of the
material by inspectors appointed by the magistrates for the purpose. A
pamphlet was defined to be a work containing not more than two sheets.
When the permit given under the great seal included a general privilege
securing for the publisher the exclusive control for the kingdom of
the work issued, the sum paid for the same was to be determined by the
general tariff of the great seal.
When the permit gives control over a limited district only, the
charge is made but one third of that for a general privilege. If the
authorisation includes no privilege, either general or limited, the sum
paid for the same shall be five livres.
When the works are published in series, the different parts of
which are issued at different times, each part must be examined and
authorised for itself; and each examination must in any case include
the prefaces, dedications, and supplements.
The “general privileges” associated with permits, referred to in
these letters, are not to be confounded with another class of general
privileges which were from time to time conceded directly by the Crown
either to individuals or to associations or companies as well for works
already composed as for those still to be written. This latter class
of royal privilege was abolished, and those in force at the time were
revoked, by orders in council of 1659 and 1686. An exception, however,
was made as late as 1714, in the case of certain general privileges
accorded by the Crown to the Academy of Letters, and to the Academy of
Painting and Sculpture.
A contest arose, in 1702, between the Chancellor de Pontchartrain and
the higher clergy on the question of certain general privileges which
the bishops claimed to be still in force. The bishops, possessing
already an unquestioned right to print, without special permits,
their episcopal charges and letters, and also the catechisms used for
the instruction of the young people of the diocese, thought they
could take advantage of the ardour of the King against Jansenism and
Quietism, gradually to extend their privileges so as to make these
include all works of a devotional character.
The Chancellor refused to give consideration to any such claims and the
resulting disputes continued over some years. The bishops contended
that, being themselves the final judges of the doctrines of the
Church, utterances made by them, or utterances or writings accepted by
them, could not with propriety be passed upon by others who were not
authorities upon points of doctrine.
The Chancellor simply maintained the binding force of the old
regulations, and took the ground that, while the Government would
always require the counsel of the bishops on literature involving
points of doctrine, the final decision as to the advisability of the
publication of any particular work must, as heretofore, rest with the
Crown. He undertook further to take all necessary measures to prevent
the publication of any works which might appear to be inimical to the
liberties of the Church of France.
Madame de Maintenon gave the weight of her influence in favour of the
bishops, the question having come up in tangible shape in connection
with certain works that the Bishops of Meaux and of Chartres had
written in controversy with a certain prolific writer named Simon, and
which were now in readiness for the press.
The King dreaded exciting the ire of the Jesuits and dreaded also,
says the chronicle, the risk of putting Madame de Maintenon into a bad
temper. He avoided, therefore, making a decision, and contented himself
with expressing the wish that the parties would arrange some adjustment
of the difficulty. An adjustment was finally arrived at, under which
the bishops withdrew their pretensions concerning the general oversight
of doctrinal literature, but reaffirmed their right (which had never
been disputed) to have their counsel taken before permits were issued
for any works of this class. The privilege was accorded to them (this
concession being practically the sole result of the issue) of printing
and publishing, without official permit, works written by themselves.
The control of documents concerning ritual and of catechisms was also
left in their hands.
Disputes subsequently arose concerning the interpretation of the
authority for the publication of works written by the bishops. They
themselves and their Jesuit allies, with the powerful aid of Madame
de Maintenon, contended that this authorisation covered all doctrinal
literature. The Chancellor, on the other hand, maintained that it was
limited to missals, rituals, books of the liturgy, and other official
volumes connected with the service of the Church. A formal decision
does not appear to have been arrived at, but in the subsequent practice
the view of the Chancellor was in the main adhered to.
Bossuet wrote to the King, to Cardinal de Noailles, and to Madame
de Maintenon several indignant protests concerning the attempt of
the Chancellor to control the utterances of the Church. It is not to
be thought of, says Bossuet, that the Holy Church of Christ shall
be compelled to submit, for the examination of magistrates, its
decrees, catechisms, and spiritual teachings upon matters which would
be confined strictly to the instructors of their flock. The Church
must be left free to print, sell, and distribute its prayers and its
instructions to its children and its ministers. The responsibility
that has been placed in the hands of the rulers of the Church for the
preservation of the faith and for the instruction of the people in
this faith, comes to them from Christ himself, and any attempt to take
away or diminish this responsibility is an attack upon the faith and
an intention to humiliate the Church.[176] The King, influenced by the
pleading of Bossuet, finally brought himself to a decision, which,
while not covering all the questions involved, gave to the bishops
whose works were at the moment under consideration the satisfaction
claimed. To the Bishop of Chartres was accorded, in 1703, a general
privilege for the term of ten years covering all breviaries, missals,
diurnals, antiphonals, graduals, processionals, episcopal letters,
psalters, hours, catechisms, ordinances, statutes, and pastoral
instructions which were required under the general usage of the
diocese.[177]
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
CHAPTER IV.
THE BEGINNINGS OF LITERARY PROPERTY IN ENGLAND.
1474-1709.
IN the preceding studies of the varying relations to the Government and
to the community of literary productions and of the gradual development
under the extension of the system of local privileges of the policy of
protecting and encouraging literary production, but little reference
has been made to the publishing methods and the conditions of literary
production in England. It was in fact the case that during the first
two centuries after printing, the conditions in England had very little
influence upon the development of any European system for controlling
or protecting literary production. The work of the earlier English
printers was, as we have seen, addressed much more to the tastes of
the local public than to the requirements of the scholars of Europe,
and while a certain proportion of books were, in England as on the
Continent, printed in Latin, this proportion was much smaller than with
the undertakings of the contemporary publishers of Holland, Germany,
and France.
While increasingly large importations were made from year to year,
more particularly from Paris, Amsterdam, Basel, and Cologne, of books
needed for use in Oxford, Cambridge, and London, the export during
these two centuries for Continental sale, of books printed in England,
was but inconsiderable. In the matter of legislative enactments, or
of the policy of the State towards literary production, we have seen
Paris following to some extent the precedents set in Venice. Upon this
same general system of privileges for short terms and for limited
territory, privileges gradually extended to longer terms and to cover
additional States. The earlier practice in Germany had on the whole
also been based upon the Italian precedents. Holland was the first of
the European States to issue privileges without conditions depending
upon censorship, but apart from this very essential distinction, the
Dutch privileges were, in form, very similar to those of Venice and
Milan. In no one of these countries does any particular attention
appear to have been given to the methods and practices of England, and
the English system for the regulation of literary property, a system
which grew up in connection with the practical monopoly given to the
Stationers’ Company, appears to have taken shape (English fashion)
with very little, if any, reference to Continental precedents. The
Stationers’ Company received its charter, by royal decree, in 1556
(two years after the marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain). It
constituted an organisation of the printing and publishing trade of
London which assumed to represent the publishing interests of the
country. The Company differed from the book-trade association of
Paris in that it had no direct connection with either of the two
Universities, and held its authority directly from the Crown. The
_libraires jurés_ of Paris were, it is to be remembered, members of
the University, and the regulations governing their operations formed
part of the law of the University. The members of the British Company,
on the other hand, were manufacturers and traders who had received
directly from the Crown a monopoly of the business of printing books,
and the regulations formed for them and by them required only the
approval of the royal authorities or representatives of the Crown,
and when this had been given, these regulations became the law
for the control of the book-trade, and for the control also of the
literary property (the property in “copy”) that was, from year to
year, coming into existence and increasing in importance. The basis
of the authority of the Stationers’ Company was the theory that all
printing was the prerogative of the King. While this theory was never
pushed to its logical conclusion, it secured a certain foundation in
the direct ownership and monopoly asserted and enforced by the Crown
in the printing of certain classes of literature which formed the
most considerable and remunerative of the earlier productions of the
English Press, such as prayer-books and other works of service of the
State Church, of which Church the King was the head, the editions
of the Bible, the cost of translating which had been borne by the
Crown, almanacs (on the ground that they were abstracted from the
prayer-book), year-books, Acts of State, etc. The assigns of the royal
copyright in almanacs were not always, however, able to support their
claim to an exclusive control. Scrutton cites one case (among several)
in which this claim was overruled.[178]
The printers did not attempt any opposition (which would in any case
have been futile) to these contentions of the Crown. They purchased
patents or privileges for the production of the King’s books or
publications owned by the Crown, and they found it to their advantage,
at a time when the Crown was all-powerful, to strengthen their position
with the community at large by securing the royal sanction and a royal
grant for the undertakings to the originating of which the Crown could
make no claim. Such property-right as could be said to exist in these
last was also derived from the royal grant. The distinctive feature
in the development of literary property in England may be said to be
the all-important part claimed and exercised by the Crown in its
creation and protection. I do not find in any other State of Europe a
parallel to the relation of the Crown to the beginnings of copyright.
Even in France, where the supervision of the Press passed eventually
into the direct control of the King, the royal edicts and privileges
give the impression rather of defining and of limiting than of creating
property in the “copy.” I do not overlook the contentions that came to
be argued out at a later date concerning the existence of copyright as
a property at Common Law, an existence apart from and independent of
a royal edict or of a legislative statute. I am merely pointing out
the actual form given to these preliminary undertakings of the English
printer-publishers, under which form they secured directly from royal
authority the right to hold and to defend their “copy.”
I will recall for the purposes of this summary, that the first
privilege in England bears date 1518, and was issued to Richard Pynson,
King’s Printer, the successor, second in line, to Caxton. In 1504, we
find the first record of the office of “Printer to the King,” when
William Faques placed on the title-pages of his books the term _Regius
Impressor_. The office apparently continued in existence, with rather
varying functions, until the revolution of 1688. The successor of
Faques was Richard Pynson, and he was the first English printer to use
the term _cum privilegio_, which appears on the title-page of one of
his books in 1518. The full wording of this privilege is worth quoting:
_Cum privilegio impressa a rege indulto, ne quis hanc orationem intra
biennium in regno Angliæ imprimat aut alibi impressam et importatam in
eodem regno Angliæ vendat._ This privilege gives a monopoly, for the
term of two years, for a certain _Orationem_. The date is fifteen years
later than that of the first privilege issued in France. The shortness
of the term is to be noted, the majority of French and Italian
privileges of this period being for from five to ten years. Pynson
prints on his title-pages simply _cum privilegio a rege indulto_,
without any reference to limit of term. In 1530, a privilege of seven
years is granted to an author in consideration of the value of his
work, and this appears to be the first record of an English copyright
being granted to an author.[179]
The first dispute about English copyright of which we have record,
arose about 1530, when a printer named Trevers reprinted, without
authorisation, a work the privilege for which had been issued to Wynkyn
de Worde. The preface to Worde’s second edition, issued in 1533,
contains a vigorous complaint at this piratical interference with his
rights, but does not inform us what steps, if any, had been taken to
defend these rights. Scrutton does not mention the name of the book,
but it was probably _The Mirroure of God for the Sinfull Soule_.
Royal privileges continued to be issued during the sixteenth century,
while after 1556, the entries in the registers of the Stationers’
Company are made evidence of the exclusive rights to the persons named
for printing the book specified. Finally the privileges issued by the
King came to an end, being superseded by the registers of the Company.
The King’s privileges had been for specific, and usually for quite
brief, terms. The entries of “copies” on the Stationers’ registers made
no specification of terms, and such property rights as were indicated
or initiated by these entries were, therefore, for an indefinite term
and could be claimed to be in perpetuity. These Stationers’ Hall
entries were in certain respects similar to the records in the Land
Office of a western Territory or in the County Clerk’s office of a
State, records which serve as final evidence of the title or ownership
of the lands specified. The copyright registers served as do the land
records, for the transfers of ownership as well as for the original
certificate of ownership, and with the “copies” as with the parcels of
land, the ownership was understood to be based on the Common Law, and
to be in perpetuity. The King’s patents or grants for the “copies,”
the ownership of which, as previously specified, was claimed by the
Crown, continued to be given for specified terms, to certain favoured
individuals selected as “Printers to the King.” Apart from these books,
the specification of a limited term for the control of any particular
book ceases with the close of the royal privileges.
As before stated, the Stationers’ Company, in giving title to property
in a “copy” or literary production, acted as the representative of the
authority of the Crown, an authority which had, it was claimed, been
bestowed upon it by the royal charter. Under this royal authority,
the Stationers’ Company possessed for a long series of years the
monopoly of printing throughout the United Kingdom. Printing could
be done only by the members of the Company, and the by-laws adopted
by the Company for the regulation of printing, in so far as they did
not conflict with the statutes of the kingdom, became part of the
law of the land.[180] The purpose of the earlier English ordinances
concerning printing, and of the ordinances establishing the Stationers’
Company itself, was specified in substance as follows: “The order and
regulation of printing and of printing-presses in the interests of
Church and State.”[181] The operations of an association of printers,
an association which owed to the Crown its existence, its authority,
and the property rights in its valuable monopoly, could be supervised
and controlled to an extent that would not have been practicable with
the undertakings of printers acting independently. With reference to
the maintenance of the royal authority, it was certainly wise policy
for the Crown thus to secure and to maintain an effective control over
the work of the printing-press, this new instrument for influencing
public opinion. The later effect of this royal absolutism was,
curiously enough, to secure an earlier and more definite recognition in
England than was reached in any other country, for property in literary
production, and for the right of literary producers to control and to
enjoy the results of their labours. The fact that there was a property,
without limit or term, in the “copy” of a literary production, that
is, in its copyright, was understood to have been established by the
evidence of the Stationers’ registers, and by the assured practice,
extending over a series of years, of authors, printers, and publishers.
The control of the work of the Stationers was, in 1637, placed in the
hands of the Star Chamber, and the decree issued in that year by the
Chamber had for its immediate purpose the regulation and restraining
of the printing of “libellous, seditious, and mutinous books.” As an
essential detail of this regulation, it was again ordered that “every
book should be licensed and entered into the Register’s book of the
Company of Stationers.” The replacing, in 1640, of the absolutism
of the Star Chamber by the absolutism of the Long Parliament (an
absolutism no less arbitrary, though based upon a very different source
of authority) made no change in the completeness of the authority left
with the Stationers’ Company. The Parliamentary Ordinances of 1641, in
prohibiting printing or importing without the consent of the owner of
the copies of said books, constituted a clear statutory recognition of
property in “copy,” a recognition evidently resting, says Scrutton,
upon an understanding of its existence under the Common Law.[182] The
Act of 1643 for “redressing disorders in printing,” and the licensing
Act of 1662, while also having for their main purpose the control of
literature of political influence, continued to affirm or to imply
the existence of property in the “copy” of books. A reference in the
latter Act indicates that the owners of “copies” were at this time
not necessarily members of the Stationers’ Company. The inference is
that an author, in arranging to print his book through a licensed
stationer, did not always dispose of his copyright. The licensing Act
gave a statutory protection for copyright, a protection the provisions
of which were of necessity limited to the term of the Act itself and
of its several renewals, the last of which expired in 1694. While the
recovery of statutory penalties was thus limited, the expressions used
in the Act, as was the case with the preceding Acts, made continued
recognition, by expression or by implication, of the existence of
copyright property independent of the statute, the protection of which
could be maintained under the Common Law. The English authorities on
the subject, Maugham, Coppinger, Scrutton, and others, and the American
Drone, are at one in the opinion that, at the period in question, the
close of the seventeenth century, it was the general understanding that
authors possessed in their productions a perpetual right of property,
and that this right could be assigned. Such an understanding, an
understanding upon which were based Parliamentary Acts for regulation
and for licence, and in accord with which were carried on important and
continued business undertakings, marked a development in the conception
of literary property which had as yet been reached in no other
country. Scrutton admits that the records of the courts do not supply
the evidence that might be looked for in support of this contention.
There are, namely, no entries of prosecutions in the advisory courts
for printing without a licence.[183] He points out, however, that the
Stationers’ Company had under its charter summary rights of search,
seizure, and imprisonment, and that similar powers were confirmed
or renewed by the Licensing Acts. In case of infringement, therefore,
no recourse to the ordinary courts was needed, and no records of
proceedings would exist.
The Act of April, 1710,[184] known as the Act of Queen Anne, under
which a statutory protection for a term of fourteen years was given
to the author of a literary production, had the result of bringing to
a close for Great Britain the period of Common Law copyright. This
result was probably not intended by the legislators who framed the Act,
and was certainly not anticipated by the publishers at whose instance
the matter had been taken up, and who were simply applying for a more
specific and more effective protection (during such term as Parliament
saw fit to grant) for the property in their “copies,” of the existence
of which property there had as yet been no question. It was, in fact,
not until 1769 that any serious contention was raised against the
continued validity of copyright at Common Law. In that year the Common
Law right was maintained in the decision rendered in the famous case of
Millar _vs._ Taylor, a decision rendered the more noteworthy because
it was concurred in by Lord Mansfield, the greatest authority on the
subject of copyright whom Europe had thus far known.
In 1774, in the case of Donaldson _vs._ Becket, the issue was raised
for the second time, the property involved being the same in each suit,
the “copyright” of Thomson’s _Seasons_. In this case, the House of
Lords reversed its previous decision. Its conclusion was in substance:
first, that an author had a Common Law right to his production before
publication (ten judges in the affirmative and one dissenting); second,
that after the publication such Common Law right still rested in the
author (eight judges in the affirmative and three in the negative);
third, that under the statute of 1710, the author had lost his right
of action at Common Law and retained protection for his copyright
only during the term prescribed by the statute (six judges in the
affirmative and five in the negative); fourth, that the right at Common
Law possessed by the author and his assigns prior to 1710 had been
a right in perpetuity (seven judges in the affirmative, four in the
negative). In each of these votes, including that on the vital issue
of the effect upon the Common Law right of the statute of 1710, Lord
Mansfield was recorded in favour of the continued right of the author
at Common Law, and of the perpetuity of copyright, irrespective of the
effect of this statute.
The result of this decision in Donaldson _vs._ Becket was, as said, to
bring to a close what may be called the Common Law period of copyright
in England, and to replace this by a copyright protection limited to
terms of the successive statutes. This whole matter is in its date
beyond the period considered in the present narrative. For this reason,
notwithstanding the continued pertinence and importance of the issues
raised in these two noteworthy suits and the distinctive interest of
the arguments presented by the famous advocates on either side of the
question, it has not seemed to me in order to undertake to give here
any detailed analysis either of the arguments or of the two decisions
arrived at. It is proper, however, to make this brief reference to the
results of these two cases as well because the Act of 1710 marked,
as explained, a definite epoch in the history of literary property
in England, as because this Act, the discussions which gave rise to
it, and the much more important discussions which resulted from it
sixty years later, marked a development in England of a conception of
literary property and of an education of public opinion concerning it
which had not as yet been reached in any State in Europe. We find in
France no such discussions and no legislation based upon a recognition
of the principles underlying literary property, until the Convention
of 1793. It required a revolution to bring about in France a result
that in England was arrived at in regular course in the ordinary
development of law.
This brief reference to the development in England of the recognition
of the rights of literary producers may be fitly concluded with a
quotation from the eloquent plea of John Milton in behalf of the
liberty of the printing-press.
In 1644, an order for the regulation of printing was under
consideration in Parliament (the Long Parliament) which provided that
“No Book, Pamphlet, or Paper, shall be henceforth printed unless
the same be first approved and licensed by such as shall be thereto
appointed.” Milton had been a persistent opponent of the policy of
censorship and licensing, and in defiance of the ordinance of 1643 (an
ordinance in which the decrees of the Star Chamber abolished in 1640
had been in substance renewed) he had published in that year, without
licence and without printer’s name, his treatise on _Divorce_. The
Stationers’ Company, recognising the danger to their authority of a
defiance by an author like Milton, had the matter brought up in the
Commons. It was referred to the committee on printing and the order
above cited was the result. The famous _Areopagitica_, an oration
in the form of a pamphlet, was then written by Milton to protest
against the whole theory of the exercise by Government licensers of a
supervision and control of literature, or of the delegation of such
control to a commercial company which was the creation of Government.
The author of _Paradise Lost_ speaks as follows:
“For that part which preserves justly every man’s copy to himselfe,
or provides for the Poor, I touch not, only wish they be not made
pretenses to abuse and persecute honest and painfull men, who offend
not in either of these particulars. But that other clause of Licensing
Books, which we thought had dy’d with his brother Quadragesimal and
Matrimonial when the Prelats expir’d, I shall now attend with such a
Homily as shall lay before ye, first, the inventors of it to bee those
whom ye will be loath to own; next, what is to be thought in generall
of reading, whatever sort the Books be, and that this Order avails
nothing to the suppressing of scandalous, seditious, and libellous
Books, which were mainly intended to be suppresst; last, that it will
be primely to the discouragement of all Learning and the stop of Truth,
not only by disexercising and blunting our abilities in what we know
already, but by hindering and cropping the discovery that might bee yet
further made both in religious and civill Wisdome.
I deny not, but that it is of greatest concernment in the Church and
Commonwealth, to have a vigilant eye how Bookes demeane themselves
as well as Men; and thereafter to confine, imprison, and do sharper
justice on them as Malefactors. For Books are not absolutely dead
things, but doe contain a potencie of Life in them to be as active as
that Soule with whose progeny they are; nay, they do preserve as in a
violl the purest afficacie and extraction of that living intellect that
bred them. I know they are as lively, and as vigorously productive, as
those fabulous Dragons’ teeth, and being sown up and down, may chance
to spring up armed men. And yet, on the other hand, unlesse wariness be
us’d, as good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man
kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but hee who destroys a goode
Booke, kills Reason itselfe, kills the Image of God, as it were in the
eye. Many a Man lives a burden to the Earth; but a goode Booke is the
pretious life-blood of a master spirit, inbalm’d and treasur’d up on
purpose to a Life beyond Life. ’T is true, no age can restore a Life,
whereof perhaps there is no great losse; and revolutions of ages doe
oft recover the losse of a rejected Truth, for the want of which whole
Nations fare the worse. We should be wary therefore what persecution
we raise against the living labours of publick men, how we spill that
season’d Life of Man preserved and stor’d up in Books; since we see a
kinde of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes a martyrdome; and
if it extend to the whole impression, a kinde of massacre, whereof the
execution ends not in the slaying of an elementall Life, but strikes at
that ethereall and first essence, the breath of Reason itselfe, slaies
an Immortality rather than a Life.”[185]
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
CHAPTER V.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY.
I HAVE endeavoured in the foregoing pages to describe the varying
conditions under which was carried on, during the ten centuries
succeeding the fall of the Roman Empire, the production and
distribution of literature. The term “books” is, of course, not
strictly applicable to a large portion of the material produced by the
scribes during the manuscript period. As a matter of convenience, I
have used the phrase “production of literature” to cover what should,
speaking more precisely, properly be described as the reproduction or
multiplication of literature. The labour of the scribes during the
manuscript period was given, as has been noted, almost exclusively to
the production of copies of the more or less fragmentary texts that
had been preserved from the classic period, or from the writings of
the Church Fathers. The case was the same with the earlier printers,
whose undertakings were in like manner devoted to old-time literature
and with whom the production of a work by a contemporary writer was
a comparatively rare exception. During these ten centuries, not a
few writers did noteworthy work, and some of the great books of the
world’s literature belong to this manuscript period. Even, however,
with books recognised later as famous, the fame came but slowly, so
that the requirement for the multiplication of those for which demand
arose became the task of scribes of the generations succeeding that of
the author, rather than of those of his own time. An author like Pope
Gregory I. with the vast machinery of the Church at his disposal, was
in a position to secure for his writings an immediate distribution and
during his own lifetime, to trace the influence of their teachings.
Except, however, in such special cases, writers were obliged to content
themselves with such present measure of appreciation as might be given
by sympathetic readers or hearers in their own monasteries, leaving
such of their productions as possessed any abiding vitality to gain
repute with future generations of monkish readers, as copies slowly
made their way from _scriptorium_ to _scriptorium_.
During this long period in which the chief difficulty lay in the
distribution of books, and in which an author who had anything to say
to the world was only too happy if, during his own lifetime, it might
prove practicable to reach with his books any number of men outside
of his own immediate circle, there could, of course, be no question
of property or copyright control in the literary production. Such
property as might be said to exist in literature pertained solely to
the material form, the manuscript produced, which represented a certain
value for parchment and for labour.
After the time of Charlemagne, when there came to be, in a few Court
circles and in the homes of the more active-minded noblemen following
the fashion set by the Court, an interest in the preservation
of literature, we find record of compensation paid to literary
producers. Such compensation came first, naturally, to the scribes,
who possessed sufficient learning and technical skill to place before
the communities in which they themselves lived, the learning of the
past. Later, with the beginning of original writing in the form of
chronicles, there are instances of rewards or honours conferred upon
the monkish chroniclers by the kings or princes whose ancestors were
glorified, or whose personal deeds were commemorated. The rewards
for literary labour, rewards given, as said, almost exclusively to
clerics, most frequently took the form of ecclesiastical preferment.
A prebend or a bishopric cost little or nothing to the King, while
it meant for the author a very substantial compensation. It is the
clerical character of the author and the ecclesiastical nature of his
compensation which constitute the principal distinction between the
beginnings of compensation for literary labour in the Middle Ages and
the arrangements under which were rewarded the poet-chroniclers of the
later classic times. The authors of the earliest literature-producing
periods sang, as it will be remembered, under the incentive not of
princely gifts, but of popular appreciation.
The records of the Benedictine monasteries give evidence of the
production and accumulation of certain property in the form of
literature, property which increased in available value as methods
were developed for exchanges between the different monasteries of
the surplus copies of their texts, and which assumed still more
importance when, with a gradually developing interest in literature,
wealthy laymen were occasionally prepared to give in exchange for the
precious manuscripts, lands, cattle, moneys, or desirable privileges.
With the development in the respect for learning and letters which
in certain portions of Europe followed the establishment, under the
general direction of Alcuin, of the imperial schools of Charlemagne,
the influence and fame of the monasteries came to be measured very
largely by their respective literary activity, the importance of
the ancient codices preserved in the _scriptoria_, and the beauty
and accuracy of these texts. A monastery, the collections and the
_scriptorium_ of which had in this manner become famous, would be
visited by monastic scholars from distant parts who sought opportunity
to examine, and possibly to copy, the precious texts, and it was this
class of institutions that would be resorted to by the higher class of
recluses, who, retiring from the world, enriched with their fortunes
the Benedictine foundations. The schools of the literary monasteries
would also be selected for the training of the young princes and
noblemen, from whom in later years protection and endowments for their
_almæ matres_ could often be depended upon. When learning and literary
activity served in these several ways to bring to a monastery fame
and fortune, it was natural for the monks, whose service as scholars,
instructors, and scribes had proved most effective in the _scriptorium_
and in the schools, to be selected for honour and preferment, and
that the learned _armarius_ or _librarius_ should frequently become
the abbot, and should, later, find himself bishop or archbishop, or
even pope. The elevation to the papacy, in 999, of Sylvester II.,
previously known as Gerbert, Abbot of Bobbio, and as Bishop Gerbert, is
an example of such a progress from the _scriptorium_ to the leadership
of the Church. I do not, of course, undertake to say that either in
Gerbert’s time or during any century of the period in question, there
was throughout the monasteries and the ecclesiastical communities as a
whole, any universal respect for learning and for literary industry,
and that honours and preferment always followed in proportion to the
value of the scholarly service rendered. I only point out, as has been
stated in the chapters on the monasteries, that even in the so-called
“Dark Ages” of Europe, the ages of which the year 1000 may perhaps
have been the centre, this was very much more largely the case than
is always remembered by historians of a later period writing from a
Protestant point of view, some of whom, like D’Aubigné, have appeared
to contend that learning and literature had been buried during the
thousand years of Catholic rule, and had only been rediscovered by
Luther and Calvin. The groundlessness of this kind of contention has, I
think, been made clear in the brilliant dissertation on the Dark Ages
by the Protestant Maitland, while a mass of testimony in support of
Maitland’s views has been collected by Montalembert, evidence the value
of which may be weakened but cannot be nullified by the wordy eloquence
with which it is presented.
I have spoken of certain monasteries becoming the resort of literary
pilgrims on account of their ownership of some treasured manuscript
handed down from an earlier generation. When, as was frequently
the case, the production of copies of such a text was prohibited
altogether, or was permitted only to members of the monastery itself,
we have an example of a copyright control of the earlier kind,
a control resting upon the ownership not of the text but of the
parchment upon which the text had been placed. If, for instance, a
well authenticated copy of Augustine’s _City of God_ was held in the
_scriptorium_ of Fulda, and another copy, perhaps equally famous,
belonged to that of St. Gall, each monastery could prohibit the
copying of its own parchment, and could in this manner control the
“copyright” of its own particular text. It is to be borne in mind that
no two manuscripts could be in exact accord and that a particular
character or authority frequently attached to the text or version
presented in a particular parchment. Neither monastery could, in the
case imagined, assume any right to control what the later English law
termed the “copy” of S. Augustine’s treatise, but each exercised what
was in substance a copyright at Common Law over the text inscribed on
its own particular parchment. In the chapter on S. Columba, reference
was made to the famous copyright contention between Columba and the
Abbot Finnian, a case the date of which is given as 567, and which
was probably, therefore, the earliest copyright issue decided in
Europe. While the story itself is in all probability merely one of the
long series of legends which grew up about the brilliant Irish saint,
it may well have had some historic foundation. The more important
consideration, is, however, in the fact that whether the story were
true or not as applied to S. Columba, it represented an impression in
the mind of the chronicler Adamnan, writing not half a century after
the death of the saint, concerning the conception of property in a form
of ideas or of instruction, a property which, as made clear in the
story, was entirely apart from that inhering in the parchment itself.
The possibility of such a conception coming into the mind of a writer
of the seventh century, is certainly noteworthy.
Such a copyright control, beginning usually in the form of a
prohibition, was developed, later, to some extent into a property
right and a source of income. When the _armarii_ or _librarii_ came
to realise, first, that other copies of their precious texts were in
existence, so that no one monastery was in a position to monopolise
this piece of the literature or learning of a past generation; and
when, further, they came to understand that gain could be secured for
their monastery chest by conceding for pay the privilege of making one
or more copies of their codex, the practice of selling such privilege
became more and more frequent. It was, in fact, in this manner that
the earlier manuscript-dealers who succeeded in establishing a system
for the production and distribution of books in manuscript, secured
the larger proportion of the texts with which their own collections
would begin, the texts which formed what might be called the “copy” for
their workshops. Occasionally we read of an Aurispa or a Vespasiano
purchasing at a high price some famous and well authenticated so-called
original codex; that is to say, a parchment the date of the production
of which went back some centuries. More frequently, however, it is a
copying privilege which is paid for by the dealer, whose copyist is
permitted, under the strictest supervision, to visit the _scriptorium_
and to transcribe the parchment sheets, which are taken from the
carefully guarded _armarium_ and are closely watched or even sometimes
held by the jealous monks while the process of transcribing goes on.
Vespasiano sometimes secures from the _librarius_ of the monastery
a signed certificate to the effect that the “copy” produced for him
is a complete and accurate transcript. More frequently, however, at
this later time, during the century which preceded printing, the
_scriptoria_ of the monasteries had been so largely neglected that in
many institutions in which were to be found valuable manuscripts highly
cherished by their owners, there was no one in the fraternity who
was competent to give any judgment upon the accuracy of the scribe’s
transcript because there was no one who was able to understand the
purport of the manuscript itself.
This demoralised condition of the monastery collections and the apathy
and ignorance on the part of the monks controlling those collections,
was in many of the monastic centres still more marked during the half
century following the invention of printing, when the earlier printers
were largely dependent for their “copy” for both the classics and the
works of the Fathers, upon such parchments as might still have been
preserved in the monastic foundations. In a number of instances, these
first printers were obliged, as had been the later manuscript-dealers,
to pay for the privilege of examining, collating, and copying. They
were, however, frequently able to purchase from monks who no longer
valued a parchment even as a fetish, the so-called “original.” For
the printer, who had of necessity a larger responsibility for the
correctness of his text than rested upon the old manuscript-dealer,
the task of securing the “copy” for his compositors was not completed
when he had secured control of one manuscript. With not only a risk but
a certainty of errors in each parchment, it was necessary to collate
a number of parchments before the scholarly printer could feel any
assurance that the more pernicious errors at least had been detected
and eliminated. Henry Estienne the first speaks, for instance, of using
as the basis for one printed text no less than twelve manuscripts. The
first copyright known to Europe of the Middle Ages may therefore be
considered as that which inhered in the Common Law control of property
in the manuscript. It was a copyright which had, of course, nothing
whatever to do with the rights of an original producer in the literary
production.
Another form of literary property which did not represent literary
creation, came into existence when some enterprising _armarius_, not
having in his own collection some much-wanted manuscript, would make
the long journey to Rome or to Florence from Fulda, from St. Gall,
from Fleury, or even from far-off Glastonbury, and would there secure
the needed authority himself to prepare a transcript of some valued
codex. His manuscript, brought back to his own monastery, might remain
for years the only well authenticated copy of the text in question
existing in a large region. Such a manuscript represented, of course,
a considerable expenditure of skilled labour, of fatiguing travel,
and, occasionally, also of money, an expenditure or an investment
which entitled the parchment to be considered as in some sense a
property creation, the result of labour. While, as a matter of
scholarly fellowship or of Christian brotherhood, the privilege of
reading and the far greater privilege of copying such a manuscript,
might frequently be extended to fellow Benedictines, the practice of
securing some consideration for its use, and particularly for the
privilege of making a transcript, obtained not infrequently, and
was, under the circumstances, fully warranted. The control of such a
manuscript constituted a “copyright” of a somewhat different nature
from that previously referred to, which was maintained in the case
of some old-time codex that had been inherited or purchased in its
original form, and that did not represent any labour on the part of the
individual or the community claiming the ownership.
When the first printers began their work, they were of necessity
confronted with practically the same conditions and difficulties
in connection with the securing of “copy,” as those with which
the large manuscript-dealers had had to contend. Their task was,
in fact, as already indicated, a more difficult one than that of
the manuscript-dealers, because the standard for completeness and
correctness of text had become more exacting. The parchments required
for their work were, with hardly an exception, the property of
monasteries, and whether for purchase, for comparison, or for “copy,”
the printers were usually obliged to make substantial compensation for
right to copy. This right to copy might be described as a copyright
under limitations. The monastery which had received compensation from a
printer from Venice for the use of a particular parchment, felt itself
under no obligation to decline a similar application from the rival
printer of Lyons, or of Basel. The printers were thus estopped from
securing any control over the works of the particular author which
they proposed to present to the readers of their generation. They were
even unable to secure any exclusive right to the use of any particular
text of such author, unless, indeed, they had found means to purchase
the manuscript outright. A property control of some kind was essential
in order to justify the expenditure and the labour required to bring
the manuscript into print, and this was finally arrived at, although
inadequately enough, under the system of privileges.
While the first printing of books was done in Germany, and while the
number of books produced in Germany during the half century after
Gutenberg was much greater than in any other country, the beginning
of copyright protection for printed books is to be credited to
Italy. Gutenberg, Fust, and their immediate successors in Frankfort,
Nuremberg, Basel, and Cologne, entered upon their first publishing
undertakings without the aid of any government protection or
recognition, municipal, state, or imperial. In the chapter on the
early printers of Venice, I have described with some detail the system
of privileges, a system which, originating in Venice, was adopted in
the other Italian States, and which was followed in substance by the
other States of Europe. The privileges of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries were the precursor and the foundation of the later system of
copyright.
The privileges granted by the Venetian Government were, as we have
seen, of four kinds. The first was in the shape of a sweeping monopoly,
under which the beneficiary was granted for a term of years the
exclusive right to carry on the business of printing in Venice. Of
this class there is but one example, dating from 1469, the details of
which are given in the chapter on Italy. The second kind, a little less
sweeping, gave to the beneficiary a monopoly for the production of all
books of a given class, or in a particular language. The first example
of this was the privilege granted, in 1495, to Aldus for the exclusive
printing of books in Greek. Under the same division may be classed the
privilege given a year or two later, also to Aldus, for the exclusive
use of the italic type, a form which was the invention of Aldus. These
two divisions of privileges have, of course, no logical connection with
copyright. The last named is rather of the character of a patent, while
the first two may properly be classed with commercial monopolies. There
is this distinction, however, that while commercial monopolies have,
as a rule, been granted for the purpose of enriching some favourite of
the Crown, or have in some manner represented jobbery at the expense of
the people, the legislators who granted the first printing privileges
had unquestionably honestly convinced themselves that in no other
way could the new art, the importance of which they were prepared to
appreciate, be effectively encouraged and established. It was doubtless
the case also that Aldus, in incurring expenditure in making Greek type
and in printing Greek books, was assuming very serious and speculative
risks, and was fairly entitled to all the encouragement which the State
could give to him.
The third class of privilege was that securing for an editor or
publisher a monopoly for the production of the works of some author of
a past generation, usually, in fact, for an author of classic times.
This is the form of privilege which, for two centuries succeeding
printing, is most frequently met with, and which constituted the
foundation on which the publishers of those two centuries carried on
their business. The general purpose is the same as that of the general
privileges previously specified, namely, to give to a printer-publisher
an encouragement or inducement to enter upon an expensive and
speculative undertaking which, without such special aid, might, from
a commercial point of view, have appeared impracticable. When Aldus
desired to undertake the production of the first printed edition of the
works of _Aristotle_, the difficult and venturesome undertaking was
made a little less venturesome by the action of the Senate of Venice in
prohibiting for a term of ten years the printing of any other editions
of _Aristotle_. It is to be borne in mind that such a privilege, while
sweeping in character, was very limited as to territory. There was
nothing in law to prevent the printing in Milan of the rival edition
of the _Aristotle_ which was prohibited in Venice, nor even the use
for such rival work of text and the editorial material appropriated
from the volumes of Aldus. The protection given (still within narrow
territorial limits) to such collated texts and original notes and
introductions, belongs in essence under the fourth class of privilege,
the class in which we find the first recognition of the principle of
copyright in a literary production for the sake of the producer or
of his assigns. The earliest European example of the third class of
privilege, which may be described as a publisher’s copyright, bears
date 1492, and was issued by the Venetian Senate to Bernardino de
Benaliis.
The fourth class of privilege was that securing to an author the
copyright of his own production. Such a privilege differed from modern
copyright only in being usually conditional upon or being the result of
the action of censors by whom it had to be “approved and privileged,”
and on the ground of the narrow limits of term and of territory. It
constituted or recognised a property right, but an extremely restricted
right, and a very small property. It is certainly curious that (with
the exception of the printing monopoly of 1469, which was a privilege
only in name) the earliest privilege of which there is record in Italy
or in Europe, was one issued to an author for his own production, and
which constituted, therefore, a copyright in the modern sense of the
term. This privilege was issued as early as 1486, by the Senate of
Venice, to Antonio Sabellico, for his _Decades Rerum Venetiarum_. No
term was specified, and the copyright might, therefore, be considered
as indefinite or perpetual. The second Venetian privilege, also without
term, was that issued in 1492, to Peter of Ravenna, for his _Phœnix_.
This has been referred to by Pütter and by other good authorities, as
the first copyright privilege issued in Europe. The discovery of the
earlier privilege of Sabellico, is due to Horatio Brown. The third
privilege, dating from 1493, and also issued in Venice, constituted a
very definite recognition of the existence of literary property, in
that it gave to a certain Daniele Barbaro, who had inherited from his
deceased brother, Hermolao Barbaro, the manuscript of the work, the
control for a term of ten years in the _Castigationes Plinii_. After
this time, the instances of privileges to authors are very few and far
between. It is the rule to find them issued to printer-publishers, and
except in so far as they covered original editorial labour put into the
work by the publishers, these privileges should be described rather as
trade monopolies (for very restricted territories), than as copyrights.
While the more enterprising of the printers of Venice, Milan, Rome,
and other cities, were, as described, occasionally able to secure
privileges also in other Italian States, these privileges did not give
any safe assurance of a proportionately extended market. In time of
war, all such interstate arrangements lapsed, while even in the times
of peace, it was very difficult and often impracticable to secure in
any “foreign” territory the enforcement of the protection granted,
or the collection of penalties prescribed. Such foreign privileges
could, as a rule, be considered rather as a permit or licence to sell
the original edition than as an undertaking on the part of a foreign
government to prevent the sale of an unauthorised edition. The range
of these privileges was, as noted, restricted in territory as well as
limited in effectiveness. During the century succeeding printing, it
was very seldom indeed that the attempt was made to secure a privilege
for an Italian publication for any territory outside of Italy, or for
a French publication outside of France, or for a German work outside
of Germany. An exception to this limitation was, however, afforded
by what were known as papal privileges which, in form at least,
conceded to the printers to whom they were issued exclusive control
not only within the States of the Church but for all the States of
the world that acknowledged the authority of the Church. There was,
however, practically no machinery for enforcing the authority of
the papal privileges. They gave to the book and to its publisher a
certain precedence and advantage with the faithful followers of the
Church over editions of the same work which had not the sanction of
the papal privilege. I can, however, find record of no instances in
which a publisher, whose papal privilege had been infringed, had
found it possible to enjoin the publication of a rival edition also
offered for sale in Catholic States. The material advantage of a papal
privilege was that it carried with it the assurance of the approval
of the Church concerning the character of the book. It constituted,
namely, evidence that the book had secured the approval of the Church
bureau of censorship, and (with an occasional exception) it preserved
it from interference on the part of local ecclesiastical censors,
whose prejudices were usually more bitter and whose ignorant dread of
heretical scholarship was greater, than was the case with the censors
associated directly with S. Peter’s.
It was the case with the local as well as with the papal privileges
that the protection and encouragement of the author was only a part,
and not infrequently the smaller part, of their purpose. It was
considered essential by the State no less than by the Church to retain
an effective supervision and control over the productions of the Press.
Before the privilege could be secured, the work must be submitted to
the censors and a favourable report must have been given. The privilege
was, therefore, in itself evidence that the work protected by it
contained no material considered dangerous by the political or the
ecclesiastical authorities of the State. To secure the benefit of even
such small measure of property protection as that given under the local
privilege for five or ten years, it was, as a rule, necessary that the
work should be practically non-committal in character, at least as far
as political or theological opinions were concerned.
The history of the Italian publishers shows what a serious burden
was from the outset placed upon the production of literature in the
peninsula, and how disastrous the effect was upon publishing enterprise
and publishing development, by the establishment of machinery for
political and ecclesiastical censorship, and by the necessity of
awaiting the approval of these censors before carrying to completion
publishing undertakings. In Italy, the trouble was in the main with
the Church, and, as a rule, with the authorities at Rome rather
than with the local ecclesiastics. In many of the cities, the local
representatives of the Church to whom was confided the first censorship
responsibility, were interested in and sympathised with the spirit
of local independence, while they also were in a position to realise
somewhat the difficulties caused to the new business of printing and
publishing by too strenuous an exercise of censorship authority. This
state of things was particularly true in Venice, where, as we have
seen, the municipal feeling was very strong, and where educated monks
like Paolo Sarpi were ready themselves to act as leaders in the contest
to defend against the aggression of the Church what was, practically,
the existence of the Press.
In France, where the operations of the Press were, during the first
half century of printing, much less important than in Italy, the first
privilege was issued in 1503. The official censorship of publications
began in 1515, with the accession of Francis I. There are instances
during the reign of Louis XII. of certain “permits” or “approvals”
being placed upon books, but these were not the result of examination
by official censors, and do not appear to have been connected with
any restrictions imposed upon the publishers. The Theological Faculty
of the Sorbonne succeeded, as has been noted in the record of the
Estiennes, in keeping up an active and fairly continuous supervision
of, and interference with, the publication of Bibles and of other books
claimed to belong to the department of theology. The University claimed
the right to supervise and control printing, on the ground that the
printers and publishers were the successors of the old-time University
scribes, the _stationarii_ and _librarii_, and were members of the
University, and that the printing-press was to be considered as part of
the machinery of higher education. There was certainly good foundation
for this claim, but, as it proved, the University was not sufficiently
strong to maintain its contention.
The importance of this new machinery for influencing public opinion was
speedily recognised by the Crown, and as the power of the monarch was
increased through the consolidation of the kingdom, the kings succeeded
in securing the practical control over the business of printing and
selling books. While it was the case, as has been noted in the history
of Robert Estienne, that the influence of Francis I. was, on the
whole, exercised to defend the Press against the oppression of the
theologians, the authority of Henry II. and of his successors was, as a
rule, exercised against the more liberal policy of the University and
in favour of a very close and frequently unduly burdensome supervision
of publishing undertakings. After the accession of Henry II. the
regulations concerning the Press, or at least that portion of the
Press regulations which were of essential importance, emanate from the
Crown. It is the royal chancellor, or his representative, who decides
what books shall receive the official permit, and what the term of
privilege is to be. This term, beginning in the reign of Francis with
five years, was gradually extended until, with the routine renewal, the
average length by the reign of Henry IV. was twenty years. The main
feature in the history of the Press in France is the authority and
the interference of the Crown, as in Italy it had been the exacting
censorship of the Church.
In Germany, the earlier printer-publishers found themselves, at
least up to the time of the Reformation, comparatively free from the
interference of the Church. For the sixty-eight years between the
date of Gutenberg’s printing-press and that of the Diet of Augsburg,
the printer-publishers were left free to print Bibles, editions of
the Fathers with new notes and commentaries, and such contemporary
writings as were found available (the list of these last being in
any case but inconsiderable), without interference from censors of
the Church and without any attempt at supervision or control on the
part of municipal, state, or imperial authorities. The immediate
and active use of the printing-press made by the Lutherans brought
about some change in this situation; a system of censorship was at
once established by the Church, and its authority was confirmed by
the Emperor. A sweeping prohibition was issued not only against all
Lutheran writings, but against all books, theological or other,
emanating from Protestants. In some of the cities which were most
faithful to the Catholic cause, these imperial-ecclesiastical edicts
were confirmed by the municipalities and attempts were made to enforce
their provisions upon the printing-presses and the bookshops within the
municipal territories. A few years later, as in North Germany the cause
of the Protestants organised and strengthened itself, the rulers of
certain Protestant States undertook, at the instance of Luther and his
associates, to establish censorship from a Protestant, or rather from a
Lutheran standpoint. The printing and the sale of Romanist books on the
one hand, and of Anabaptist and Zwinglian heresies on the other, were
prohibited, and the printing of any books was permitted only after the
approval of the official censors had been given.
Notwithstanding, however, this long series of prohibitions,
censorships, and supervisory edicts, imperial, state, and municipal,
the work of the German printer-publishers was interfered with to a
comparatively small extent. The issuing of edicts, regulations, and
proclamations, satisfied the official conscience and met the immediate
requirements of the authorities of Rome on the one hand, and of the
militant Protestants on the other.
They amounted, however, as far as the restriction of the Press was
concerned, to very little more than waste paper. The machinery for
their enforcement was never adequate, and the continued personal
interest in carrying out regulations and in enforcing penalties which
interfered with so important a German industry as that of printing,
appears never to have been keen. The political supervision or
censorship was no more effective or consistent than the ecclesiastical.
From time to time some book would be prohibited because it contained
material disrespectful or antagonistic to emperor, prince, or duke; but
the book prohibited in Augsburg could easily be printed in Nuremberg,
and the work interfered with in Leipzig found prompt distribution
from Wittenberg. Germany was too manifold, and the centres of
intellectual activity and of publishing enterprise were too numerous,
to make it practicable to carry out for the whole realm any general
censorship supervision or restriction. The attempt might be compared
to the experiment of blocking up in a volcanic region one or two of
the more active vents, with the certainty that the exploding forces
would immediately find new outlets. Individual undertakings might be
interfered with, but it was impossible to block the operations of the
printing-presses of Germany. In this respect the printer-publishers of
Germany had a material advantage over those of Paris, whose operations
were subjected to the supervision and to the authority (or rather, to
the conflicting authorities) of the University (and particularly of
the Theological Faculty of the Sorbonne), of the Parliament of Paris,
and of the Crown.