France, 1750-1889

Moreover, many events reinforced French policy and the Gazette swiftly reported them.However, over the course of the century, in presenting the domestic politi- cal structures of other

7 France, –

Jack Censer

By, educated Frenchmen and women had gained wide experience

of reading periodicals, even though a half-century earlier, periodicalsfeatured little even in the lives of the elite.Although many other kinds ofperiodicals served the general public – primarily advertisers and literaryjournals – newspapers attracted the most interest French eighteenth-century readers, who understood the politics of culture extremely welland tended to see cultural politics as that arena left open when politicswas censored or obscured, saw newspapers, with their political emphasis,

as the most significant of all serial publications Perhaps future analystsmight find gender or class or regional differences played a part in thepublic’s assessment, but it does appear that, for the educated, politics,narrowly conceived, trumped cultural and other disputes For these rea-sons, and because the chapter by Simon Burrows on ‘The CosmopolitanPress’ above has already given considerable information on the busi-ness, structure and control of the French press, this chapter concentrates

on the political messages circulating in the press inside ancien regimeFrance

The French political press originated in  when Th´eophraste

Renaudot, under the aegis of Cardinal Richelieu, founded the Gazette

de France Closely tied to the government, this newspaper depended on

and reflected royal policy While handbills, fliers and manuscript rials abounded, the government squashed any effort to begin alternativeserial publications because it had guaranteed a monopoly to Renaudot.Nonetheless, within fifteen years, new Francophone organs establishedthemselves across the border to address the French market and otherreaders throughout Europe By the mid-eighteenth century, this politi-

mate-cal press consisted of the Gazette de France and several extra-territorial

gazettes, though only a few were allowed to enter France An alteration

of policy in the late s opened the borders to about a dozen moreperiodicals.The six most important were based in four Dutch cities (TheHague, Amsterdam, Leiden and Utrecht), Avignon and Germany (the

Courier du Bas-Rhin, founded in).Along with the Gazette de France,



 Jack Censer

these papers shared a sombre style and comprehensive coverage, thoughthey differed over the treatment of non-political fare Whatever their simi-larities in appearance, all extra-territorial papers enjoyed an independence

from France totally unavailable to the Gazette.

Throughout the period to early , the Gazette de France and

its relatives provided the lion’s share of political information to porary readers Nevertheless, several journalists experimented with alter-native approaches, including a handful of adventurers who produced the

contem-published equivalent of the gossipy nouvelles `a la main.But after,some really important innovations appeared In , the governmentaccepted a proposal by the press tsar Charles-Joseph Panckoucke to pub-

lish a paper under its guidance – the Journal de Gen`eve – that would claim

a foreign provenance but actually be based in France Two years later,

he added a literary section, which also appeared in another of his papers,

the Journal de Bruxelles By  the political sections of both papershad also become identical In the same year, Panckoucke’s widely read

Mercure de France added the political portion of the Brussels sheet to its

pages.These two French organs differed from other newspapers becausethey were clearly – at least to twentieth-century observers – published inFrance, yet claimed a foreign origin Although their copy resembled that

of the foreign papers, the government had more direct levers of control

In contrast to older papers they also adopted a magazine-like appearance,with fewer and longer articles than their predecessors In the mid-s,yet another type of news organ emerged, when the Foreign Minister, theCount de Vergennes, to further his policy of supporting the American

revolutionaries against the British, established then subsidised the Affaires

de l’Angleterre et de l’Amerique From its inception in , the Affaires

de l’Angleterre et de l’Amerique was distinguished by a far more analytic

style than that of any other political paper. This strategy had been triedearlier, in the mid-s, but without major effect.The London-based

Courier de l’Europe, which had begun in like other foreign gazettes,also became a heavily controlled organ to support French foreign policy.Although these papers enjoyed a mixture of independence and depen-dence which was seemingly little different to Panckoucke’s journals, thegovernment was playing a risky game in hoping this controlled mediumwould damage the more independent competitors

The assortment of political periodicals emerging in the s also

included the Annales politiques, civiles et litt´eraires du dix-huiti`eme si`ecle,

begun in by Simon-Nicolas-Henri Linguet Linguet’s journal bled the foreign gazettes in that it was a privately run journal published

resem-abroad, but the comparison ends there Like the Affaires de l’Angleterre

et de l’Amerique, the Annales was a journal with a focus, in this case

s to a dozen in the late s and nineteen by the end of the ancienregime – and these totals only include papers that lasted at least threeyears and circulated legally The papers’ readership also apparentlyincreased, from a combined weekly circulation of, during the War

of Austrian Succession to, during the American Revolution, and

this figure does not include Linguet’s wildly popular Annales, which

appeared spasmodically In peace these numbers sagged considerably,

probably at least by one-half, if the experience of the Courrier d’Avignon

after the Seven Years War is typical In France, the readers seeminglycame from the educated elite and almost half of them were nobles Giventhe small proportion of nobles in the overall population, they constituted

a huge proportion of the newspapers’ clients

Within the constraints imposed by the government, this panoply ofprint organs competed for the attention of the French public The rest ofthis chapter assesses how problematic this was for the Bourbon govern-ment, focusing narrowly, and thus sharply, on politics This allows us toaddress the audience’s understanding of the French government, surelythe most significant question for French people But concentrating onFrance does not mean we should ignore foreign news, both becauseforeign developments had implications for France and because readers,recognising that the government influenced the press, hoped to learnabout their own land through a variety of portals

The conservative end of the ancien regime political spectrum was rally marked by royal self-justifications about the monarch’s divine right

gene-to rule The polar opposite is more difficult gene-to fix, as it lay in tested ground, for, while never envisioning a revolution, many contem-poraries scorned, and some even vilified, both Louis XV and Louis XVI.Although some scholars have placed the press close to the conserva-tive pole,a few historians claim to have identified an evolution towardradicalism. The most conservative political journal under the ancien

con-regime was the monarch’s own Gazette de France.Although this dical shared much stylistically with the other gazettes, its unique role asthe representative of the royal viewpoint gave it a certain distinctiveness.The paper presented events in an opaque manner, but made its overall

perio- Jack Censer

viewpoint apparent through endless repetition, as well as occasionalexemplary coverage and injections of opinion In the absence of editorialcomment, its position was not forcefully presented but reasonably clear

To understand the results of this approach, it is necessary to examinefirst domestic, then foreign, affairs When directly covering France, the

Gazette’s editors tried to bolster the image of the monarchy and monarch,

by emphasising the king in his ceremonial and familial role The otherinstitutions of state and prominent individuals appeared only as they cir-culated through the royal domain The mysteries of state – a term referring

to monarchical habits whose actual practice was reserved to the king andshrouded from the public – remained absolutely safe in the hands of the

Gazette.

In its coverage of France’s foreign policy, however, this government

organ produced a more mixed picture As a paper of record, the Gazette

de France’s reports generally accorded with how an unfettered educated

elite would have interpreted events As such, the domestic and militaryfailures of France’s allies and successes of her enemies would eventuallysurface The same was true of France’s own military ventures In this way,royal policies came under scrutiny But one should not overemphasise thisopenness, because the government occasionally imposed a certain pro-pagandistic angle, or more often simply omitted problems, though theyfrequently resurfaced later in a rather distorted manner Moreover, many

events reinforced French policy and the Gazette swiftly reported them.However, over the course of the century, in presenting the domestic politi-

cal structures of other countries, the Gazette de France developed a more

challenging coverage of France To explore this evolution requires

exami-ning the Gazette’s reporting In the s and early s the Gazette’s

reporting of the affairs of other countries emphasised the role of theprimary political authority When the countries covered were monar-chies, personal rule and the ruler’s intervention into daily affairs receivedattention, as it did in coverage of France But by the end of the ancienregime, the paper reported, at least obliquely, much more conflict andstressed the actions of competing elites rather than that of the rulers them-selves Perhaps this point is best demonstrated by contrasting two issues

of the Gazette: one from, the other from 

In, the Gazette de France published a twelve-page weekly edition.

The number of July  was no different from usual Of the three news bulletins on foreign matters in this issue, one covered armedconflict, and the remainder related the internal political situations of manyEuropean countries – including Scandinavian, German and Italian states,Great Britain and Spain Regardless of the country described, the onlysignificant place for political contestation implicitly lay within the ruling

sixty-France– 

elite, since the Gazette reported not only on sovereigns, but on ministers,

diets, parliaments and significant personages at court This coverage paid

no attention to problems between these elites and their rulers but tacitly

recognised divided authority Whatever potential tensions the Gazette’s

pattern of reporting implied tended to be nullified by the enthusiasmthe paper manifested toward each country’s leader Twenty-seven of thesixty-three articles exclusively described the sovereign and consort, andthe attitudes expressed supplemented this volume of attention While the

Gazette routinely noted the intermediate bodies and courtiers, it only

concentrated on the rulers of state Thus the lead article in the issue

of  July praised the resolution and diligence shown by the Swedishking in rebuilding fire-ravaged Stockholm Even more significant, theseencomiums merely reinforced the yet stronger plaudits of the preceding

week’s description of the actual fire The Gazette noted that ‘the wind

was blowing directly on the port, the storehouses and artillery depot; it

is only by the presence of the Monarch and by the admirable tions that His Majesty ordered, that these depots, so precious to thedefence of the state, have been saved’ Other monarchs were similarlypraised in the same issue for apparently crucial interventions of theirown

disposi-By thes, the Gazette de France published four pages twice weekly in

far smaller print The issue dated November  resembles any other,and includes material from Warsaw, Madrid, Vienna, Naples, London,The Hague and Versailles But if physical changes in the paper over thepreceding thirty years had been slight, there had been significant, if subtle,alterations in content There had been little shift in its coverage of conflictbetween the ruling elite and the population at large: democratic revolu-tions abroad and local, more ‘social’ insurgencies scarcely received notice.Yet, the coverage of politically constituted entities did undergo a signifi-cant change Only four articles directly concerned the monarch Now,

the Gazette’s portrayal of the elite showed a variety of elements without

any one pre-eminent For the most part, articles simply recounted howvarious officials and courtiers performed their political and social duties.But this disintegration of monarchical leadership could also suggest limits

to sovereign authority The manifesto promulgated by the Polish GrandChancellor before a meeting of the Diet and published as the lead story

on November provides an excellent example Instead of leading, theChancellor was pleading Rather than commanding, the official ‘stronglyrecommended’, ‘reiterated’, and ‘wished’ Of course, Polish officials hadalways approached the Diet that way, but this case was hardly unique in

the Gazette at this time, and in general the paper now envisaged authority

as shared

 Jack Censer

A wide reading in the Gazette of the late s and early s andthe lates and early s, though inevitably impressionistic, furthervalidates this pattern To be sure, coverage of military campaigns in bothperiods, despite the appearance of officers and generals, usually seemsimplicitly to focus on kings Military affairs were, after all, emanations ofroyal power But in other spheres of political activity, one sees the pre-dicted paradigm During the earlier period, even the reports of internalcrises centred on the King’s government For example, one report fromLondon in stated: ‘As contraband is always proceeding despite themeasures taken by the government, and since the Isle of Man, by itslocation, contributes much to illicit commerce, the government wouldlike to unite this island with Great Britain.’Similarly, reports of uprisings

or disturbances, especially in European colonies, typically concluded byannouncing the resumption of order. The implicit assumption behindthe phrasing of these reports was that government had a single leader

And the Gazette always placed great emphasis on the sovereign’s

leader-ship: it even viewed George III, the constitutional monarch of Britain, as

an absolutist.

From the lates, important exceptions can be found to the common

reportorial tendencies of the Gazette Under the influence of Vergennes,

some positive reporting of the Americans and their Revolution filteredinto the paper, although it never printed the text of the Declaration

of Independence.Moreover, sometimes the paper presented

monar-chic actions as responses to unavoidable moral dicta and hence treated

monarchs as something less than free agents, acting according to ethicalconstraints.While this did not overturn the Gazette’s view of ancienregime governance as the rule of competing bodies, it did modify evenfurther the paper’s emphasis on personal rule

This transformation in the Gazette’s portrayal of internal politics

occur-red seamlessly over time Gradually the paper paid less attention to rchical authority and gave more space to competition, at least with otherconstituted powers, and especially during the democratic revolutionstowards the end of the century A new view, not of subordinate politicalorgans and individuals, but of the monarchy, primarily characterised thechange Indeed, one simply finds fewer items about the sovereign The

mona-reasons for this glacial shift in the Gazette’s representation of monarchy

are unclear, but whatever the cause, such a general tendency posed culties, at least in theory, for the French state Envisioning foreign govern-ments as functioning through competing bodies and divided authorityundermined the royal administration’s officially sanctioned absolutistview of French governance In fact, the practice of Bourbon governmentwas more flexible than the theory, and the public, which already believed

diffi-France– 

in contestation with the crown, was only too willing to accept this newvision Readers could juxtapose articles about foreign governmentsagainst those concerning France, permitting them to perceive the latterstories as unrepresentative and less realistic Of course, the resultantcontrast between French and foreign governments provided at most anindirect critique, and in all probability the government permitted the

Gazette to take an implicitly positive view of alternative political structures

only because of the mildness of the threat Probably, this new reportingmainly reflected a shift in political structures (or understanding aboutthese structures) which the government simply ignored. Yet if prob-

lematic news seeped out even in the government sponsored Gazette, the

extra-territorial gazettes posed far greater difficulties

For a variety of reasons, but above all the relative influence of theFrench state, the foreign gazettes published a wide range of opinion onFrance This diversity becomes apparent if we contrast the reporting oftwo of them, one among the most, the other the least, adventurous in their

views of France Least pointed was the Courrier d’Avignon, which was

published in a Papal enclave surrounded by France It generally appearedbi-weekly in a four-page edition with sporadic supplements until itsdemise in and was priced at  livres for an annual subscription

The Courrier d’Avignon was founded in  by Fran¸cois Mor´enas, alocal writer, and the Giroud family, established Avignon publishers, andsurvived until  In , the Girouds gained complete control, but

by Mor´enas was once again serving as their editor This ment lasted until, when the French, in a dispute with the Pope overGallicanism, occupied Avignon The Bourbon monarchy, which custo-

arrange-marily allowed only the Gazette de France to publish news within its ders, outlawed the Courrier d’Avignon Mor´enas immediately requested

bor-and received permission to continue the newspaper from Monaco, other Papal territory In late, when the French evacuated Avignon,Mor´enas had just died Even though anonymous editors successfully

an-maintained the Courrier de Monaco for six months in, Bourbon cials had always perceived Monaco as a temporary solution and insisted

offi-that the Courrier de Monaco resume in Avignon Joachim Le Blanc, an

important French official there, received the privilege to publish inand when he died, in, his widow assumed control and operated ituntil  The Le Blancs hired as their editors successively the abb´eRoubaud (–), Jean-Baptiste Artaud (–) and finally SabinTournal, who would achieve fame in the Revolution.The Bourboninvasion of Avignon and the forced relocation of its newspaper revealclearly the ultimate and exceptional power the French possessed over

both the city and the Courrier d’Avignon To promote their own policies,

 Jack Censer

the French authorities occasionally intervened in news reporting On thewhole, they limited themselves to minor adjustments, but from time totime they sought to influence news about individual countries more sys-tematically In addition to such sporadic coercive measures, the Frenchissued a stream of propaganda promoting their own view of politics.

In this restrictive environment, the Courrier d’Avignon’s coverage of

France was much less challenging than that of the Dutch gazettes; yet itnevertheless enjoyed some independence.The portrayal of the domestic

politics of foreign countries went well beyond that in the Gazette and

yielded a stronger critique Little changed in its portrayal of how tional bodies functioned – whether sharing or monopolising authority –across our period But as democratic movements emerged, they weretreated dispassionately, often favourably, suggesting a world with many

tradi-choices Although the Courrier d’Avignon downplayed, or even omitted,

reference to rioters (as in the case of London’s Gordon Riots in ),thus differentiating them from revolutionaries, its coverage admitted theexistence of both conflicting elites and political upheavals.The implicitcontrast with static absolutism made this coverage more challenging than

that in the Gazette de France All this provided the possibility of

contempla-ting absolutism critically; coverage of large-scale changes suggested majoralternatives

The Courrier d’Avignon also embarked on a different tack from the

Gazette de France by sustained reporting of potential aspersions on

France’s friends or by ennobling her enemies For example, the paper’streatment of British politics from mid- to late  under a Londondateline was clearly contrary to French governmental interests In this

period, the French were at war with their traditional rival; yet the Courrier

d’Avignon praised the British authorities and downplayed any

opposi-tion to them The paper persisted in praising George III explicitly andimplicitly for his performance as chief executive, his paternal relationshipwith parliament and the people, and his position in a brilliant court.

It admiringly chronicled the King’s activities as commander-in-chief ofthe military forces, and one report noted that the royal example inspiredthe war effort of the entire nation. This and similar encomiums re-

flected the Courrier d’Avignon’s favourable view of the British military

engagement

While this example shows how the Courrier d’Avignon could pursue

a line relatively independent of French interests, it would be unfair toregard its treatment of foreign affairs as uniformly or generally inimical

to France From the lates until the resumption of hostilities in themid-s, the Courrier d’Avignon rendered little judgement on France’s

foreign policy But treatment of the Seven Years War (–), a very

France– 

difficult conflict for the Bourbon government, proved far less favourable

to France The support offered during the previous conflict was replaced

by a muddle of coverage that surely would have displeased authorities

in Versailles Thereafter, from the mid-s until the mid-s, with

peace more or less the order of the day, the Courrier d’Avignon commented

little on French foreign policy, either explicitly or implicitly Yet duringthe American Revolution, an avalanche of praise for the Bourbons out-weighed the substantial endorsement, noted above, of Hanoverian policy

in the London section of the paper This commitment to French foreignpolicy endured almost into the mid-s, when the treatment of pro-blems elsewhere in Europe reduced its positive edge

An overview of the Courrier d’Avignon’s treatment of French policy

dur-ing the American Revolution casts light on its ambiguous approach to eign reporting Britain – as France’s main antagonist – was so important inFrench foreign policy considerations that examining the former throwsmuch light on the latter As earlier noted, from mid- to , theBritish government was treated positively in reports from London.Indeed, the paper singled out Lord North for favourable attention, andone report was particularly sympathetic After describing an attackbyCharles James Fox that condemned the entire North ministry, the perio-dical summarised the conclusion of the debate:

for-This bloody diatribe was finished with nothing resolved The minister tionally obliged to listen to all sorts of indignities, Lord N—H responded sensi-tively to the many reproaches He is accused of having betrayed his country andhaving accumulated emoluments and offices He offers to resign what the kinghas given him Attacked for his love for his family, he sheds tears at the memory ofthe death of a recently deceased son; numerous legislators, thinking that a goodfather cannot be dishonest, defend him.

constitu-To a society brimming with a new sentimentality, such phrases translatedinto a strong endorsement of North

Juxtaposed against such positive assessments, which also predominate

in reports from Britain in the years preceding the Boston Tea Party, weremany contrary views From to  and again after  assaults

on their government originated from various British provenances Whilethe king fared reasonably well, ministers received strong criticism In the

earlier period the Courrier d’Avignon adopted a strong anti-war stance,

a position directly contradicting the executive’s policy Before the breakof hostilities, the paper merely urged compromise with theAmericans, but once the Revolution erupted, it highlighted Britishatrocities One article in effect labelled British actions a crime, describing

out-a soldier who preferred to resign his commission rout-ather thout-an ‘out-adopt the

 Jack Censer

horrible alternative of stifling his humane impulses and bathing his hands

in the blood of his relatives, his comrades, and his compatriots’.The

Courrier d’Avignon also concentrated on failures in battle Even reviews

of British military successes were likely to point out the temporary andinconclusive nature of such victories. The newspaper also applaudedthe motives of the colonists and thus implicitly criticised ministers whotried to suppress such noble people In the paper’s view, the Americanspossessed wisdom, moderation and firmness.Although such positions

might also tarnish the monarch, the Courrier d’Avignon’s direct criticism

of ministers made them appear the principal target.

The London reports in the Courrier d’Avignon openly accused ministers

of carrying out poor policies and immoral plans in violation of historicliberties The journal attacked an array of ministerial efforts, includingproposals for reorganising the East India Company,but its criticismfocused mainly on their ‘tyrannical’, ‘despotic’, and ‘arbitrary’ actionsagainst the Americans.Such efforts, which were designed to reduce theAmericans to ‘slavery’, would gain nothing and lead to a heavy loss ofBritish ‘blood’ and ‘treasure’.The newspaper also linked attacks onthe Americans’ freedom to a similar assault on the rightful liberties ofEnglishmen. Another article assailed the ministry for failing to allowthe king to receive the just complaints of the City of London in a suitablydecorous manner, and argued that such errors might lead to a loss ofconfidence in the crown and difficulty for the succession of the royalline.This threat contained some criticism of George III, but the Courrier

d’Avignon, at least on the surface, fired its salvos at the government for

standing between the people and the throne

After , the Courrier d’Avignon’s coverage resumed its diatribes

against the British ministry The paper depicted the chief failing of ters to be their role in the armed struggle, accusing them of persisting

minis-in the war agaminis-inst all reason, ruthlessly seekminis-ing to domminis-inate the whole ofEurope, and misleading the nation about the chances for peace.A newtone characterised the paper’s coverage of the government It began toscrutinise its activities far more closely, and reports consistently revealed

a group of men motivated by opportunism and necessity rather than tical principle.The Courrier d’Avignon reiterated its view that greed ledministers to their evil deeds,and the fall of the North ministry in March

poli- (reported on  April) strongly reinforced this criticism, since itsuggested the fate awaiting such politicians

The British ministry was castigated both in the high volume of criticalreports from Britain and the much more negative reports that filled the

Courrier d’Avignon’s American and Continental columns Most reports

from America between  and  clamoured for British resistanceand decried the executive They brutally assaulted the motives and

France– 

character of both the monarch and his advisors.Only a single reportsought to justify the King, and none admired his ministers.Reportsdramatically proclaimed support for popular sovereignty in Britain, ref-lecting the thinking of many Americans who wished to justify both theirown behaviour and the activities of their radical supporters in London.

As American news about Britain tapered off in, the paper began toprint reports supposedly penned on the Continent These reports assailedGeorge III and his advisors without reservation According to the paper’scolumns with Continental bylines, the King and his ministers set out todominate the seas in order to secure British economic and political pre-eminence: France and her allies had confronted the oppressor simply topreserve the freedom of the seas Suffering great losses in war and muchdisruption at home, Britain was supposedly unable to realise her goals

No polite praise for an adversary muted this attack.Nor did these ports view either parliament or the opposition party positively The overallpicture reflected the prevalent European opinion that Britain’s bellicositywas a function of the greed, corruption and cynicism of George III andhis ministers.

re-This analysis of British coverage in the Courrier d’Avignon gives texture

and resolution to the points made regarding foreign reporting and showsthe complicated messages available It also reveals, especially in its praisefor the North ministry from  to , how the Courrier d’Avignon could be more critical than the Gazette de France However, without precisely mimicking the Gazette, the Courrier d’Avignon could also treat

French foreign policy positively and did so impressively in the years ning up to the Revolution

run-At the other end of the spectrum of gazettes to the Courrier d’Avignon was the Gazette de Leyde, a paper whose view of French domestic poli-

tics illuminates the editorial policy of its Avignon-based rival Using the

Gazette de Leyde poses a difficulty, since the French government forbade

its legal circulation, apparently successfully, from to the late s.Nonetheless, this paper, though among the most aggressive, generallycame close enough to others of its type to justify it as a reasonable selec-

tion Among the most adventurous gazettes, the Gazette de Leyde held

many extra valuable resources True, it was somewhat reticent, mon to publications of its type, and the French government tried hard

com-to fetter sources so as com-to restrict access com-to news even among the mostindependent foreign journalists Even when the government could notactually bury damaging material, it tried to limit the problem by subsi-dising and thus controlling Pascal Boyer, who ran a Paris news bureauthat supplied the non-French journals during the s.Conversely,all Dutch publications could count on a home environment that waswilling to tolerate critical reporting And the local government, unlike the