Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

L’art de la caricature

 | 
Ségolène Le Men

Annexes

Annexe 1. Managing the Image of France - the Surveillance of Images by the Direction de l’Imprimerie, 1810-1881

George D. McKee

Texte intégral

  • 1 . McKee George D., « Surveillance officielle de l’estampe entre 1810 et 1830 : le dépôt légal, la B (...)

1The official record of the publication of prints and photographs in France he during the 19th century exists in two forms : the manuscript registers which survive at the Archives nationales de France, noting works received he during the 19th century exists in two forms : the manuscript registers which survive at the Archives nationales de France, noting works received in legal deposit, and a published listing carried in the weekly issues of the official journal of the book trade, La Bibliographie de la France. The procedure of legal deposit for prints, which generated this documentation, was required by law and enforced by prosecution after 1814 – probably, it had been required for the publication of prints ever since the summer 1810 when its administration was transferred from the Cabinet des Estampes at the Bibliothèque impériale to the newly created Direction général de l’Imprimerie et de la Librairie. The publication of an official journal for notices of works received in legal deposit was the subject of an Imperial decree in October 1811 – a decree had become necessary because the national police had just suppressed the quasi-official journal which previously carried the notices of authorized publications1.

2The listings of prints and photographs in the Bibliographie de la France and its antecedent, the Journal général de l’Imprimerie, now form a digital resource for historical research known as the Image of France ; the resource also contains the record of prints received at the Library before 1810, following the establishment of legal deposit for the protection of copyright in July, 1793. Freely consulted on the Internet at : <http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/​efts/​ARTFL/​projects/​mckee/​>

  • 2 . Between 1998 and 2006, the resource Image of France comprised only of the listings of prints from (...)

3It comprises almost 112,000 notices concerning, probably, four or five times as many single sheet works. The resource – which is purely enumerative and contains no images – consists of the information filed by artists, photographers, printers and publishers at legal deposit, along with the date of the notice in the journal ; usually, the date of a work’s actual deposit was within the previous month or so. Like the official journal, then, the Image of France traverses the governments, revolutions and warfare of the 19th century in a weekly chronology of the production of imagery in single sheets – including multi-sheet series, cards, and simlar printed artifacts such as games, calendars, diagrams and fans-authorized for French distribution and export. Its coverage has been terminated in 1880 out of practical necessity, although the journal carried listings of newly published imagery well into the twentieth century. The limit of the Image of France corresponds roughly with the end of the regime of surveillance and regulation instituted by Bonaparte and dissolved by the « Loi sur la liberté de la presse » of 1881. By this time, moreover, the market for single sheet prints would have been dissolving, with the development of photographic printing and the proliferation of images disseminated with, alongside and within printed text, i. e., illustrations. The listings of prints and photographs in the Bibliographie de la France do not include textual illustrations in books and journals, unless an image were also issued separately, and the same, consequently, is true of the Image of France2.

  • 3 . The Image of France website provides a chronology of relevant legislation (1785-1881), with refer (...)

4Also, certainly, it is reasonable to suppose that the official record was much more thorough in an era of potentially severe regulatory law before 1881 than afterwards. When consulting the listings, it is useful to keep in mind the relative incentive of legal compliance of the various parties to the publication of a print (or photograph). Since the 17th century, for example, the practice of engraving had benefitted from the legal status of a so-called liberal art; and while engravers were always subject to prosecution for the content of their work, their practice was not revocable. The practice of lithographic printers, on the other hand, required licensing by the state after 1817 and was highly subject to revocation. Whereas a work’s artist would not always have been legally responsible for its deposit, unless the artist were also shown to have published and distributed it, lithographic printers were always responsible for the filing of every edition from their presses. Legislation of 1852 extended licensing and the obligation for filing to printers en taille-douce, many of whom welcomed the status as a commercial advantage. Photographic printers do not appear to have needed licenses, but they too were responsible for the filing of publications from their presses, following a ruling of the cour de cassation in 1862. The licensing of printers was finally abrogated in 1881, but a work’s printer remained responsible for its legal deposit for several generations thereafter3.

  • 4 . Cf. remarks on filings before 1830 in McKee, p. 32-35 ; the error contained in « Table #1 » (p. 3 (...)

5This procedure has two specific consequences for research of the listings of imagery in the journal and the Image of France. Before 1848, the titles of prints often appear to have been grouped together without design, presumably, in the manner filed, reflecting the convenience and production habits of the printers who made the filings, rather than any meaningful collection of subjects. In the registers of legal deposit after 1839, these groupings within a single filing were analyzed numerically by individual title, which had a considerable impact on the numerical totals for each year, yielding a much more accurate statistic of print production than the totals of listings in the journal4.

  • 5 . Cf. Listings for Jean-Pierre-Marle Jazet (1788-1871), Bibliothèque nationale, Département des Est (...)

6Secondly, because artists were often not subject to the obligation of deposit – and, consequently, not involved in its procedure – the names of artists in the official record tend to be descriptively handled and may be omitted altogether, if not negligently transcribed. Artists’names occur in every variety and in all kinds of unexpected error, truly, « au gré du rédacteur ». The absence of any indexing of the names of artists in the official journal similarly implies that artistic attribution was not a primary concern in the anticipated use of this information – nor, perhaps, even, in tracing a print’s distribution and origin. The example of the artist Jean-Pierre Jazet is notable because he would also have filed some of his own works, being a dealer and publisher, as well as a prolific print-maker ; yet the Bibliographie de la France records him as « Jazel » on eleven occasions, and twice it is « Chazet5 ». Honoré Daumier’s prints are routinely listed only with reference to his monogram « H. D. », not his name – which has the benefit, at least, of minimizing the occurrence of spelling or printing error. The Image of France conserves these practices.

  • 6 . ANF, F18, 2342, pièce 4, circular of Direction général de l’Imprimerie to inspecteurs de la Libra (...)

7Agents of the police were instructed to consult the journal’s listings to determine whether on not a provocative print were properly filed and authorized6, but administrators certainly recognized the difficulties of consultation. In the words of one report :

  • 7 . ANF, F1b (I), 272 5, dossier Lépincy, report by Cavé, internally datable 1846.

[…] Chaque numéro du journal annonce dans un pêle-mêle inextricable les titres ainsi que la désignation des gravures et estampes autorisées7.

8This problem was specifically addressed by the King in his ordonnance of 9 septembre 1835, by means of reference to the prints’subject matter :

Art. 3. Les autorisations... seront insérées, chaque semaine, par ordre alphabétique et de matières, dans le Journal général de la librairie.

9Subject headings, however, did not appear in the journal until January 1848, and title alphabetization beneath the headings was not always rigorous. The Image of France provides a list of all of the subject headings (with minor normalizations of wording) used with the listings of prints in the journal over the next 32 years.

  • 8 . Tear-off stump forms are sometimes found unused in the depository registers after 1851 – e. g., * (...)

10A predominant concern for subject matter in the preparation of the listings is also evident from the addition of brief descriptions of the prints’subjects following the record of their titles during the 1840’s. Occurring in the registers of legal deposit as well as in the journal, these descriptions would have served as an aid to surveillance, although it is not clear that the added wording was required at the prints’deposit, rather than provided by the bureau’s agents. Depository forms used at some eras during the 19th century include alongside title information a space in which to record what the print (or photograph) represented, but this need not mean that the information was required8.

  • 9 . Cf. two versions of the subject « Zaïda la favorite, d’après Casado del Alisad » : the photograph (...)

11In passing, let’s also note that listings of photographs are interfiled under all relevant subject headings throughout the enumeration of prints in the journal, despite the use of a special subject heading for Photographies before 1857. Briefly, in 1852-1853, the journal carried an entirely independent rubric for photographs with separately numbered listings, which are included in the Image of France. In 1865, the Bureau of Printing opened a separate series of registers for the legal deposit of photographs, although on some occasions, if not routinely, photogravures were recorded in the registers for prints, not with photographs9. It would be hazardous to try to identify the earliest notices of photographs in the legal deposit registers or in the journal, however, because the wording dos not usually distinguish between photographs, on the one hand, and lithographs or engravings which were made after photographs.

  • 10 . See figures for « Délits de la presse et contraventions aux lois sur la librairie » in the annual (...)
  • 11 . Bulletin des arrêts de la cour de cassation rendus en matière criminelle, t. 32 (1827), p. 968-97 (...)
  • 12 . Bellet Roger, Presse et journalisme sous le Second Empire, Paris, 1967, p. 16.

12There are fundamental questions about the legal status of print registration as a form of authorization to publish : for example, did registration assure immunity from prosecution ? – was the Bureau of Printing empowered to refuse registration ? Clearly, the publication of prints without registration was prosecuted : acquittals and convictions for this charge were officially tabulated alongside other délits de la presse10. Furthermore, any right of publication provided by a filing would never have been a protection against the subsequent prosecution of criminal libel and defamation : an important purpose of the requirement of legal deposit was to facilitate review and referral for the deliberation of prosecution. These questions became still more subtle with the legislation of apriori censorship of prints, which created explicit authority to obstruct distribution, as well as public exhibition, before a print was made available to the public. According to the courts, the censor’s specific approval was required for publication, in addition to the receipt of legal deposit (1827) ; but apparently, even the censor’s approval was not always a guarantee against subsequent prosecution11. The procedures of registration and authorization were both administered by the Bureau of Printing, although there was an ancillary office in the National Police for the review of illustrations in journals during the Second Empire12. A priori censorship of prints (and, of course, photographs) was in effect between 1820-1830, 1835-1848 and 1852-1881 ; and the official record of publishing would have carried this further signification during these years.

  • 13 . The only systematic reference to the registres de la correspondance of the Bureau de l’Imprimerie (...)
  • 14 . The Daumier reference, *F0, 4603, 16 déc. 1831, item 1321, is among a long series of referrals of (...)

13Unfortunately, the bureau’s papers are not an especially rich source for studying its surveillance of print publishing. In the words of the report quoted above, « n’ayant pu être classés dés l’origine avec tout l’ordre convenable », the papers offer occasional insights but rarely any overview of policy, procedures and laws. Future research needs to consider, as well, the bureau’s registers of correspondence – the record of its exchanges with the public and other governmental offices, such as the police and the state prosecutor. All but unknown to scholarship, the registers note the nature of incidents, the principal individuals and, often, the titles of problematic works13. Here, for example, is found the first sign of alarm over Daumier’s lithograph « Gargantua », registered for legal deposit by the printer Delaporte on 16 December 1831 and on the same day referred to the procureur du roi for consideration of prosecution. There being no censor at the time to obstruct its publication, it was listed for sale in the Bibliographie de la France, December 2414.

  • 15 . ANF * F0, 4603, 2 avril 1830, item 350, on the day following publication of the issue, itself, ac (...)

14A year and a half earlier, this source recorded another celebrated incident : deferral for prosecution of the issue of the journal La Silhouette containing Philippon’s drawing of Charles X as a Jesuit. Here we learn that the journal’s printer, when summoned to the Bureau’s offices, claimed the print had been furnished to him « par le gérant du journal » and inserted without his knowledge while he was on jury duty at the Cour Royal ; prosecution was sought for publication without authorization, « sans préjudice des poursuites que. paraîtra sans doute devoir nécéssiter le sujet même du dessin », and two of the journal’s directors (but not Philippon) were later convicted of libel against the King15.

15The registers of correspondence were meticulously prepared in this period, after January 1828, because they also served as feuilles de travail for purposes of administrative review of the bureau’s activities. Consequently, some of the glosses are quite extensive. Another example from the spring of 1830 raises the question that the civil servants at the Bureau of Printing may not have always been entirely sympathetic with the final round of ultra royalist administrators ; it is a remonstrance to the police to exercise greater discretion in their pursuit of inflammatory prints, in this case, evidently, caricatures. Unfortunately for the historian, if not for those associated with the prints’publication, their identity is not disclosed :

  • 16 . ANF * F (0), 4603, 9 juin 1830, item 636.

En réponse à sa lettre [2 juin 1830] on lui annonce que les deux lithographies qui y étaient jointes, avaient déjà été soumises. On n’y a rien vu, sous le rapport des mours en religieux qui put à la rigeur en empêcher la poublication [sic], et elles ont, en conséquence été autorisées. Il remarquera que dans l’exercice du droit de censure que la loi confère au gouvernement à l’égard des planches gravées, il est très difficile, pour ne pas dire impossible de fixer le point où finissent les choses permises et où commencent les choses défendues. On ne doit pas d’ailleurs confondre l’enjouement et la gaité avec la License et le vice, et tous ce qui ne porte pas ce dernier caractère ne saurait être repoussé. Voilà pourquoi quelques caricatures, offrant peut être des allusions indirectes mais inoffensives ont été permises. Au reste, lorsque M. M. les Commissaires de police doutèrent qu’une gravure, qui leur paraîtra blesser les convenances publiques, ait été approuvée, ils se transporteront chez l’auteur ou l’éditeur, et se feront représenter la permission inscrite sur une épreuve qui, aux termes des règlemens, doit rester entre ses mains. Dans le cas où cette justification ne pourrait être faite, ils opéreraient la saisie de la gravure, dresseraient procès verbal de contravention, et il transmettraient le tout, afin qu’on puisse, après vérification, déférer les contravenants au Procureur du Roi16.

16It is possible that this request for discretion in the face of over-zealous policing less than two months before the royalist coup d’état was provided for the incidental counsel of le comte de Peyronnet, the recently designated Minister of the Interior.

  • 17 . Goldstein Robert Justin, Censorship of Political Caricature in Nineteenth-Century France, Kent (O (...)
  • 18 . McKee, p. 29.

17Not surprisingly, the documentation of apriori censorship is incomplete. Its legislation was always politically contentious, as R. J. Goldstein has shown17 ; and successive administrations may not have had much reason to accept responsibility for record of the censorial activities of their discredited predecessors. During the 1820’s, following the institution of apriori review, the Bureau of Printing regularly forwarded through the Ministry of the Interior statistics of the number of works refused authorization, but no record of titles appears to survive in the official archive18. Is it possible that none was ever produced ?

  • 19 . Driskell Michael Paul, « Singing the Marseillaise in 1840 : the case of Charlet’s censored prints (...)

18The register of refused prints after 1835 has been studied by M. P. Driskell19. Its manner of inscription shows it to have been retroactively copied from other documentation rather than maintained on a daily basis. The register includes some annotations of the eventual acceptance of prints after subsequent modifications, and the opportunity to obtain authorization by means of subsequent modification surely accounts for the occurrence of other similar examples, as well, in the listings of the Bibliographe de la France. However, this determination remains speculative because the record of refusals in this era dos not distinguish between the two categories of prints published with and without accompanying texts – i. e., single sheets and illustrations : after 1835, both were subject to apriori review, but only prints without accompanying texts are listed in the journal and in the Image of France.

  • 20 . ANF * F18 (VI), 49, containing sequentially numbered entries beginning 4256 (10 mars 1854) and en (...)

19Following the re-establishment of apriori censorship in 1852, the record of refused prints (and photographs) is fragmentary; and there is evidence of a system of internal reporting on the deliberation of problematic prints between more than one office; however, these references are numerically keyed and often too brief for identification of the prints20.

  • 21 . p. 202 ff.
  • 22 . These annotations were first mentioned to me by the late Patrick Laharie, conservateur of the ser (...)
  • 23 . A ruling which guided a ministerial circular of 3 avril 1852-see McKee, p. 31, note 28.

20The record of refused prints after 1871 has been summarized by Goldstein21. In addition, it is noteworthy that the registers of legal deposit for prints and photographs during this period often contain annotations such as « sans autorisation » and « S. A. », as well as the more frequent note : « sans étalage », evidently, to prohibit a work’s public exhibition, rather than its publication. Nonetheless, most of these works appear to have been announced for publication in the Bibliographie de la France - which would seem to contradict the censor’s intent. Still more puzzling is a series annotations in the legal deposit register of photographs between June 1871 and December 1873, noting retroactive annulments and withdrawals of authorizations during 1874 and 1875. That is to say, numerous listings of photographs recorded for legal deposit between 1871 and 1873 carry annotations dated in 1874 and 1875 that the works’authorization has been revoked. In one case, indeed, a photograph’s authorization was not only, thus, revoked but then, according to a later pencilled annoation, reinstated22. The legal constraints on censorship during this final decade of its apriori administration evidently merit further research. For example, an interpretation of the legal theory established in 1837, that exhibition and sale « sont des faits qui se renouvellent chaque jour » and, therefore, are subject to repeated authorization and refusal depending upon circumstances23, might allow for this kind of uncertainty, but it would seem to trivialize the notion of authorization.

  • 24 Cf. Goldstein, p. 238-39.

21As noted above, the rule of censorship, along with the licensing of printers and many other factors of the regime of surveillance instituted by Bonaparte, was ended by the so-called « loi sur la liberté de la presse » of 1881. The law also considerably narrowed the terms of criminal libel by the means of writings and images, while leaving in place ample grounds for prosecution during the following generation24.

  • 25 The transcribed listings are ANF * F18 (VI), 48, lfs. 2-43, « Dépot des estampes et planches gravé (...)

22Transcriptions of the surviving registers of refused prints and photographs before 1870 may now be studied at the Image of France website, separately from the main data file25. This work has been specially assisted by the Section du XIXe siècle of Archives nationales de France, since the registers themselves are not publicly communicable at the present time, due to their condition. The presentation of this documentation helps to illumine the circumstances in which the listings of authorized prints were produced ; and as a demonstration of the official management of the consumption of imagery during the 19th century, perhaps, it will encourage the study of incentives to visualize social norms and ideals under conditions of authoritarian constraint.

Notes

1 . McKee George D., « Surveillance officielle de l’estampe entre 1810 et 1830 : le dépôt légal, la Bibliographie de la France, le projet Image of France et leurs statistiques », in Nouvelles de l’Estampe, n° 188 (mai-juin 2003), p. 22-35 and n° 189 (juillet-sept. 2003), p. 69. The registers of legal deposit for prints and photographs are enumerated in État sommaire des versements faits aux Archives nationales par les ministères … (Paris, …), p. 22-25 : * F18 VI 1-130 and * F18 VIbis 1-5 (Photographies) and p. 34, * F18 XI 1-23 (filings in the départements). The legal deposit listings after 1810 which are located in the Département des Estampes et des Photographies of the Bibliothèque nationale de France are, in fact, copies of these registers which were forwarded to the department along with the deposited works themselves ; cf. McKee, p. 26, note 16.

2 . Between 1998 and 2006, the resource Image of France comprised only of the listings of prints from 1811 to 1830 in the Bibliographie de la France ; the unpublished listings of prints in the registers of legal deposit at the Département des Estampes et des Photographies of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, from 1795 to 1810 (Réserve Ye10 pet. in-fol. and Ye79 pet. in-fol.) are being added in 2008. The Image of France has maintained its current Internet address since 2002, and no forthcoming change of address is anticipated.

3 . The Image of France website provides a chronology of relevant legislation (1785-1881), with references and annotations ; it is directly accessible at <http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~gmckee/ImofFr/Laws.htm>. See also McKee, p. 24, note 6.

4 . Cf. remarks on filings before 1830 in McKee, p. 32-35 ; the error contained in « Table #1 » (p. 34), a mislabeling of columns, is corrected in Nouvelles de l’Estampe, n° 189, p. 69. A presentation of annual statistics of the journal and the registers of legal deposit, 1810-1880, is forthcoming at the Image of France web site.

5 . Cf. Listings for Jean-Pierre-Marle Jazet (1788-1871), Bibliothèque nationale, Département des Estampes, Inventaire du fonds français après 1800, t. XI, p. 284-309. Receipts of some of his filings during the 1820’s are conserved at the Musée Goupil and have been brought to my attention by Régine Bigorne. Thanks to Philippe Bordes for calling to my attention to his listings in the Bibliographie de la France under the name « Chazet. »

6 . ANF, F18, 2342, pièce 4, circular of Direction général de l’Imprimerie to inspecteurs de la Librairie, 1 déc. 1814 ; F18, 329, dossier 65, piéce 231, « Sur le journal de l’imprimerie », on the need to maintain subscriptions for the préfet départementaux ; F0, 4603, 21 mai 1831, item 383, copies of the journal being forwarded to the Prefet de Police de la Seine, in response to his request of the Bureau of Printing, « D’une liste de tous les ouvrages declarés et déposés au Ministère depuis les évenements de juillet 1830 ».

7 . ANF, F1b (I), 272 5, dossier Lépincy, report by Cavé, internally datable 1846.

8 . Tear-off stump forms are sometimes found unused in the depository registers after 1851 – e. g., * F18 (VI), 51, 10 oct. 1851 and * F18 (VIbis), 3 end of 1873 listings. During the spring of 1820, brief descriptions of subjects were included in the legal deposit listings of prints dealing with the recent assassination of the heir apparent, possibly, to help clarify why prints on this troubling subject had been authorized for publication ; these descriptions are not found in the Bibliographie de la France.

9 . Cf. two versions of the subject « Zaïda la favorite, d’après Casado del Alisad » : the photograph, dépôt légal, 18 avril 1878, ANF, * F18 (VIbis), 5, n ° 280-289, authorized with « interdiction d’étalage » = Bibliog. de la Fr., 11 mai 1878, n ° 1390 (« Format album ») ; and the photogravure, dépôt légal, 27 mai 1878, ANF, * F18 (VI), 83, n ° 2157-2161, also authorized with « interdiction d’étalage » = Bibliog. de la Fr., 15 juin 1878, n ° 1744.

10 . See figures for « Délits de la presse et contraventions aux lois sur la librairie » in the annual volumes of Compte général de l’administration de la justice criminelle en France after 1826.

11 . Bulletin des arrêts de la cour de cassation rendus en matière criminelle, t. 32 (1827), p. 968-970 (no. 320) ; notice of the ruling was posted in the Bibliographie de la France, 24 mars 1827, p. 264. An annotation to the law of 17 February 1852 reads : « Il est bien entendu, et il ne peut pas être contesté, que l’autorisation ne dispensant pas de la responsibilité légale … », Journal du Palais : lois, décrets, règlements et instructions d’intérêt générale, 1852 (t. V), p. 94 ; because this legislation was modelled upon that of 9 Sept. 1835, this interpretation probably dates from that era.

12 . Bellet Roger, Presse et journalisme sous le Second Empire, Paris, 1967, p. 16.

13 . The only systematic reference to the registres de la correspondance of the Bureau de l’Imprimerie appears to be in the bibliography of E. de Conihout, Recherches sur l’administration de la Librairie, 1815-1848, thesis, École des Chartes, 1980. Thanks are due to Mme Denise Ogilvie of the Section du XIXe Siècle at the Archives nationales de France for facilitating my consultation of these registers and for discussions concerning them.

14 . The Daumier reference, *F0, 4603, 16 déc. 1831, item 1321, is among a long series of referrals of prints from La Caricature since the previous May, all of them apparently announced for publication in the journal. Daumier’s eventual condemnation for libel against the state is quoted from the Gazette des Tribunnaux (23 fév. 1832) in Delteil Loys, Honoré Daumier : the early lithographs, catalogue raisonné, revision published by Alan Wofsy, San Francisco, 2005, p. 40-41 ; cf. general remarks by Childs Elizabeth C., « The Body Impolitic : Censorship and the Caricature of Honoré Daumier », in Suspended License : Censorship and the Visual Arts, Seattle, 1997, p. 148-184.

15 . ANF * F0, 4603, 2 avril 1830, item 350, on the day following publication of the issue, itself, according to Kerr David S., Caricature and French Political Culture, 1830-1848 : Charles Philippon and the Illustrated Press, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2000, p. 11-13 ; evidently, at this time, illustrations such as this, which were issued in the text of journals, were not subject to careful censorship prior to publication. The trial as narrated for readers of La Silhouette is discussed by Cuno James, Charles Philipon and La Maison Aubert., thesis, Harvard University, 1985, p. 100 ff.

16 . ANF * F (0), 4603, 9 juin 1830, item 636.

17 . Goldstein Robert Justin, Censorship of Political Caricature in Nineteenth-Century France, Kent (Ohio), Kent State University Press, 1989 ; even the discrete Jean-B. Duvergier hazarded a negative opinion in his annotation of this paragraph of the law of September 9, 1835, Collection complète des lois. (1835), p. 269-70.

18 . McKee, p. 29.

19 . Driskell Michael Paul, « Singing the Marseillaise in 1840 : the case of Charlet’s censored prints », in Art Bulletin, vol. 69, n ° 4, décembre 1987, p. 604-625 ; see also below, note 23.

20 . ANF * F18 (VI), 49, containing sequentially numbered entries beginning 4256 (10 mars 1854) and ending 12,907 (30 avril 1860); each entry notes the very brief title of a print (or photograph) and the disposition « bon » or « refusé », the vaste majority being « bon »; other registers surviving from before 1870 are noted below, note 23.

21 . p. 202 ff.

22 . These annotations were first mentioned to me by the late Patrick Laharie, conservateur of the series F18 ; in all of the cases I have examined, the works were listed in the usual manner in the Bib- liographiliographie de la France. The example of reinstated authorization is ANF F * 18 (VIbis), 2, no. 1018- 1019 (20 oct. 1871) = Bibliog. de la Fr., 1871, n ° 941 (18 novembre 1871), Honneur (l’) et l’argent soutiennent la France, d’après Mès. – Espoir, d’après Telory ; photo. Billard, publ. E. Bulla.

23 . A ruling which guided a ministerial circular of 3 avril 1852-see McKee, p. 31, note 28.

24 Cf. Goldstein, p. 238-39.

25 The transcribed listings are ANF * F18 (VI), 48, lfs. 2-43, « Dépot des estampes et planches gravées non autorisées » (1835-1847) ; * F18 (VI), 133, lfs. 2-21, « Enregistrement des planches non autorisées sans texte » (1859-1864), and in the same register, lfs. 42-46, « Enregistrement des planches non autorisées avec texte » (1859-1866)-see also additional commentary at the Image of France website.

Auteur

Binghamton University Libraries Jan. 31, 2007

© Presses universitaires de Paris Nanterre, 2011

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540