本文是历史专业的代写Essay范例，题目是“Hierarchy of Censorship in 1789-1814 France（1789-1814年法国的审查制度）”，在18世纪和19世纪早期的法国，随着统治机构的许多变化，可以看到许多正式的审查方法和制度。例如，privilège和旧政权Régime期间的默许，法国大革命开始时的新闻自由，审查办公室和图书馆馆长的建立，以及拿破仑政权期间短暂的新闻自由。
审查的惩罚方法，如流放，监禁，处决，以及监禁作品本身，在这些时代中一直存在。一些非正式的审查方法也一直被看到，如自我审查，市场力量和编辑审查。因此，很难确定是否存在“une censure”或“des formes de censure”。这在一定程度上也是由于这些词的模糊性。单词“forme”(2020)通常可以被定义为某物物化的方式，也可以被定义为某物结构的方式，比如系统。然而，“形式”一词(2020)也可以被定义为礼貌和礼仪规则的遵守方式。在审查制度的背景下，这可能意味着创作者如何遵循，或被迫遵循，在任何给定的时间可以出版的当前观念。此外，“censure”(2020)有许多可能的定义，从对出版物进行事先检查，以确定该出版物是否可以和应该向负责检查或审查行动的机构或系统公布。
During eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century France, with the many changes in ruling bodies, many formal methods and systems of censorship can be seen. For example, privilège and permission tacite during the Ancien Régime, the freedom of the press at the start of the French Revolution, the creation of a censorship office and Directeur de la Librairie, as well as another short-lived freedom of the press during the Napoleonic regime. Punitive methods of censorship, such as exile, imprisonment, execution and also the imprisonment of the written works themselves were consistently present through these eras. Some informal methods of censorship were also consistently seen, such as self-censorship, market forces and editorial censorship. Due to this, it is difficult to ascertain whether there is ‘une censure’ or ‘des formes de censure’. This is also due, in part, to the ambiguity of these words. The word ‘forme’ (2020) can generally be defined as the way in which something materialises or but also the way in which something is structured, like a system. However, the word ‘formes’ (2020) can also be defined as the ways in which the rules of politeness and decorum can be conformed to. In the context of censorship, this could mean how creators conform to, or are forced to conform to, the current ideas of what can be published at any given time. Furthermore, ‘censure’ (2020) has many possible definitions ranging from prior inspection of a publication to determine whether it can and should be published to the body or the system responsible for the inspection or the action of censoring.
As well as the aforementioned systems and methods of censorship, there is also another aspect that remained constant, arguably prevailing, above all others: fear. That is to say the fear of further, more severe forms of censorship, such as prohibition of work or imprisonment. It could even be suggested that a hierarchy of censorship exists in which each form of censorship is a “level” and the fear of the next, more severe “level” is the way in which the ruling body of France at a given time exercises control over the publication and circulation of printed material and punishes those who attempt to subvert it. In Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish. A Birth of Prison, Foucault discusses observation and surveillance, as well as normalizing judgement and examination, as presuppositions to exercising discipline and control (1977, p.170). Contextualising this theory in terms of censorship in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century France, it could be argued that fear is a presupposition to exercising discipline and control. That is to say that the governing bodies of France at a given point use the fear of the further “levels” of the hierarchy of censorship, such as banning publications or the imprisonment and execution of authors, in order to control the circulation and publication of ideas and discipline those who subvert it. Foucault also makes reference to another hierarchy in which the notions of observation and surveillance were exchanged for a pedagogical function, in which “pupils” are taught and guided and their mistakes are corrected. Any “troublemakers” are marked down (1997, p.176). This could also be put into the context of French censorship, using the example of Article 17, Chapter V of the Constitution of September 1791 which states that people may be punished for publishing material that intentionally incites criminal behaviour. This example, in part, teaches what can and cannot be published, and any “troublemakers”, that is to say anyone who chooses to publish such material anyway, could be prosecuted and punished. The fear of this acting as an incentive to be compliant and submit to one of the lesser “levels” of censorship, such as self-censoring.
This essay will discuss the existence of ‘une censure’ that can be defined as a system of censorship that functioned as a hierarchy, employing fear as the principle method of controlling the publication and circulation of printed material or whether there was ‘des formes de censure’ that can be defined as multiple systems of censorship. This discussion will take place via an examination of the censorship that can be seen during the Revolutionary period (1789-1799), via examination of examples of the Revolutionary Press, primarily Nouvelles Politiques and Quotidienne, and during the Napoleonic era and the beginning of the Restoration (1804-1814), via an examination of Germaine de Staël’s De L’Allemagne. The main scholar that this essay will look to as an authority of the Revolutionary Press is Jeremy Popkin, due to the volume of his work in this field and his expertise on the right-wing press. The main scholar that this essay will look to as an authority on Staël is J. Christopher Herold, due to the book written about her life.
The Revolutionary Press革命的新闻
The Revolutionary Press was chosen due to the frequency with which newspapers are printed, as this made them a target for censors as, in order to continue to publish, they had to submit to censorship (Censer, 1994, p. 139). Nouvelles Politiques and Quotidienne have been chosen specifically as they were printed with some consistency during the period from 1792 to 1800 (Popkin, 1980, p. 23). While during the Ancien Règime newspapers had to obtain privilège in order to publish a periodical and each edition had to have prior approval before it was printed (Popkin, 1990, p. 17), at the start of the Revolution the system of censorship had changed. From 1789 to 1791, the Revolutionary Press enjoyed relative freedom (Gough, 1988, p. 44). The Constitution of September 1791 stated in Title 1 that every person had the freedom to write, print and publish without having to submit to pre-publication censorship. Even though the Revolutionary newspapers did not have to have permission in order to publish in this period, this does not mean that they were not subject to any censorship after publication, due to the ambiguity of the liberty given in Title 1 and the fact that it refers only to censorship before publication
选择革命出版社是因为报纸印刷的频率，因为这使他们成为审查者的目标，为了继续出版，他们必须接受审查(Censer, 1994, p. 139)。《新政治》(Nouvelles Politiques)和《每日新闻》(Quotidienne)被特别挑选出来，因为它们在1792年至1800年间的印刷具有一定的一致性(Popkin, 1980年，第23页)。在Règime时代，报纸必须获得privilège才能出版期刊，而且每个版本在印刷前都必须获得事先批准(Popkin, 1990，第17页)，革命开始时，审查制度已经改变。从1789年到1791年，革命出版社享有相对自由(Gough, 1988，第44页)。1791年9月的宪法第1条规定，每个人都有写作、印刷和出版的自由，而不必接受出版前的审查。尽管革命报纸没有许可为了在这一时期,这并不意味着他们不受任何审查出版后,由于歧义的自由给标题1,它仅指审查之前出版。
According to Popkin, from its inception, Nouvelles Politiques did not show a strong political stance and mainly covered foreign news and the Convention (Popkin, 1980, p. 18). This shows self-censorship as a method of censorship, before any formal method of censorship. It is arguable that this is the first “level” in a singular system of censorship which functioned as hierarchy. It could further be argued that Nouvelles Politiques submitted to self-censorship due to fear, as its owner was previously the owner of Gazette Universelle which was previously banned due to the journée of 10 August 1792 (Gough, 1988, p. 88). Thus, showing evidence of a singular system of censorship which controls circulation of ideas through fear.
Popkin认为，Nouvelles Politiques从创立之初就没有表现出强烈的政治立场，主要报道外国新闻和大会(Popkin, 1980, p. 18)。这表明自我审查是一种审查方法，先于任何正式的审查方法。可以说，这是作为等级制度的单一审查制度的第一个“层次”。还可以进一步说，Nouvelles Politiques是出于恐惧才接受自我审查的，因为它的所有者以前是Gazette universele的所有者，后者曾因1792年8月10日的journée而被禁止(Gough, 1988，第88页)。因此，这证明了一种单一的审查制度通过恐惧来控制思想的传播。
Quotidienne showed a stronger political stance and gave full coverage of political activity in Paris (Popkin, 1980, p. 18) and was subject to further “levels” of censorship. For example, in August of 1793, Quotidienne printed an “Address to the French from the leaders of the Catholic and Royal Armies” (Popkin, 1980, p. 19). Because of this, members of staff were imprisoned and the following note to reader was published: “We owe our reader an account of a little incident that may slightly influence the editing of this paper… a few days in jail have permitted us to think things over….” (Popkin, 1980, p. 19). Unlike Nouvelles Politiques, Quotidienne did not submit to self-censorship and, therefore, was subjected to further “levels” of censorship, in the form of punitive methods. After this note, the paper became more neutral in nature (Popkin, 1980, p. 19). This is important because it shows that the paper submitted to censoring themselves due the punitive methods that their staff were subjected to. This supports the argument that there is one system of censorship, that functioned as a hierarchy, using fear to control ideas in the printed format.
Staël also showed evidence of submitting to self-censorship in De L’Allemagne. She followed Nouvelles Politiques example and did not talk about France, as she focused on Germany (Staël, 2008, p. 315). However, Staëlwas still subject to the censorship and was forced to edit certain sections in order to publish because, as the duc de Rovigo, Minister of Police at the time stated, France did not fight a fifteen-year long war for someone as famous as Staël to write a book about Germany and not mention France (Staël, 2008, p. 315).
Staël也显示了在德阿勒玛涅提交自我审查的证据。她以《新政治》(Nouvelles Politiques)为榜样，没有谈论法国，而是关注德国(Staël, 2008，第315页)。然而,Staelwas仍然受制于审查和被迫编辑为了某些部分发表,因为罗维戈公爵,当时警察部长说,法国没有打长了15年,战争和Stael一样出名的人写一本关于德国和法国没有提到(Stael, 2008年,p . 315)。
It is interesting that differing regimes in France not only had different systems of censorship, but also different definitions of what ideas should be censored. That is to say, during the Revolutionary period, Nouvelles Politiques suffered little interference, due in part to its neutral tone on political activity in Paris. Whereas Staël, during the Napoleonic regime, was censored and exiled for not being overtly positive towards France and Napoleon. While it could be argued that there was one system of censorship that exercised control through fear and was constant throughout the Revolutionary period to the Napoleonic regime, this suggests that there were multiple changes to what constituted censorable material. As Nouvelles Politiques remained impartial on matters of Parisian politics and largely managed to avoid being censored, whereas Staël remained silent on France and Napoleon, and was censored.
Suppression of publications抑制的出版物
When self-censorship failed, suppression was one of the keys ways in which the Revolutionary Press was censored and controlled during the Revolutionary era. It was also used as a method of censoring Staël’s De L’Allemagne, as will be seen later in this essay. Although after the previous imprisonment of the editors, Quotidienne published with a more neutral tone, it still was subjected to further censorship when it was suppressed in October 1793 (Popkin, 1980, p. 19). Popkin reasons that this was due to the coverage of Brissot’s, an early advocate of freedom of the press (Popkin, 1990, p. 181) and Marie Antionette’s trails (Popkin, 1980, p. 19). From this, it could be argued that there is not one singular system of censorship functioning as a hierarchy, as Quotidienne continued to self-censor by only providing coverage of the trials rather than a commentary (Popkin, 1980, p. 19) and therefore did not subvert the first “level” of the hierarchy censorship but was still subject to further censorship.
当自我审查失败后，镇压是革命时代革命媒体被审查和控制的关键方式之一。它也被用作审查Staël的《De L’allemagne》的方法，这将在本文后面看到。尽管在编辑们之前被监禁之后，《每日新闻》以更中性的语气出版，但在1793年10月被取缔时，它仍受到进一步的审查(Popkin, 1980，第19页)。波普金认为这是由于布里索的报道，布里索是新闻自由的早期倡导者(波普金，1990，第181页)和玛丽·安蒂内特的足迹(波普金，1980，第19页)。由此，可以认为，没有一个单一的审查制度作为一个等级制度发挥作用，因为《每日新闻》继续自我审查，只提供审判的报道，而不是评论(Popkin, 1980，第19页)，因此没有颠覆等级制度审查的第一“层次”，但仍然受到进一步的审查。
This suppression of Quotidienne provided little control in this case, as the owners started a new newspaper under a different title, and Quotidienne became Trois Décades (Popkin, 1980, p. 19). According to Popkin, Trois Décades contained “little controversial material (1980, p. 19). This shows that, even though Quotidienne essentially continued to publish and circulate its ideas, it again submitted to self-censorship by returning to a more neutral tone. This suggests that there was a singular system of censorship that functioned as a hierarchy as Quotidienne began to self-censor after facing a more severe “level” of censorship. This is also important because it suggests that the system used fear to enforce censorship and therefore control of the publication and circulation of printed content. Although, it could be argued that this is not the case as the fear produced from the suppression of Quotidienne was not enough to prevent the editors from starting a new paper.
Despite Nouvelles Politiques’ tendency to submit to self-censorship, it was also not immune to further censorship, as it was affected by the censorship measures of the coup d’état of fructidor (4September 1797). Both Nouvelles Politiques and Quotidienne were banned, effectively ending the circulation of their ideas, their editors were forced into hiding and exile, and Charles Lacratelle, editor of Nouvelles Politiques, was arrested (Popkin, 1980, p. 22). It could be argued that this does not support the idea of one system of censorship as both papers were printing with a “less provocative tone” at this time (Popkin, 1980, p. 21). Even though they were both submitting to self-censorship, they were both subjected to further methods of censorship. However, the measures of this coup d’état did serve to produce an environment where advocation of freedom of the press caused insecurity (Popkin, 1990, p. 175). It could therefore be argued that it caused other publications to censor any ideas of freedom of the press, again showing a singular system where censorship is enforced by fear.
尽管新派政治倾向于自我审查，它也不能幸免于进一步的审查，因为它受到了frutidor état政变(1797年9月4日)的审查措施的影响。《新政治报》和《每日新闻报》都被禁止，有效地终止了它们思想的传播，它们的编辑被迫躲藏和流亡，《新政治报》的编辑查尔斯·拉克拉特尔被逮捕(波普金，1980年，第22页)。可以认为，这并不支持一种审查制度的观点，因为这两份报纸当时都以“不那么具有挑衅性的语气”印刷(Popkin, 1980，第21页)。尽管他们都接受了自我审查，但他们都受到了进一步的审查。然而，这次政变的措施état确实产生了一种环境，在这种环境中，鼓吹新闻自由造成了不安全(Popkin, 1990，第175页)。因此可以说，它导致了其他出版物对任何关于新闻自由的想法进行审查，这再次表明了一种单一的制度，即审查制度是由恐惧强制执行的。
As previously stated, punitive methods of censorship can be seen as part of the coup d’état of fructidor. Interestingly, according to Hugh Gough, punitive methods were more lenient in the provinces than in Paris (Gough, 1988, p. 102), where Nouvelles Politiques and Quotidienne were published. This is evidenced by the events of ventôse II (March 1794), in which the owner of Quotidienne was executed, following a raid on the paper (Popkin, 1980, p. 19). This suggests that more than one system of censorship exists, depending on where in France the works were being published as different punishments were used.
Another aspect that suggests more than one system of censorship is that of the personal connections of those responsible for running the newspapers. While for some periods both Nouvelles Politiques and Quotidienne were publishing with neutrality, Nouvelles Politiques was able to avoid censorship more often than Quotidienne, as evidenced by its aforementioned suppression in October 1793. Popkin argues that Nouvelles Politiques’ connections, for example, its connection to Jacobin deputy provided some protection against interreference from the police, were helpful in avoiding censorship (1980, p. 16). This suggests that there was more than one system of censorship, as those with connections may have avoided censorship, even when publishing in the same tone as those who were subjected to it.
Another interesting method of censorship that the suppression of newspapers brings to light is the effect of market force. As stated in the introduction, the effect of market forces is a type of informal censorship that can be seen in the period 1789-1814. The suppression of newspapers caused them to lose their readership, even if they were to continue publishing using a different name. As was the case with Quotidienne which would continue to be published under many names after the coup d’état until 1800 (Popkin, 1980, p. 23). However, an editor of Quotidienne later wrote that the instability of the paper caused it to lose readers (Popkin, 1980, p. 23). Therefore, it is also arguable that the suppression of newspapers, even though they would reappear, was part of the singular system of censorship. If newspapers chose not to censor themselves, they would face being banned and, although they could continue to publish ideas, changing titles would cause them to lose their readership, thereby, not only reducing the circulation of said ideas, but the profit to be made from the business. Thus, if newspapers wanted to continue to have their ideas circulated on a large scale, or on any scale, they would have to submit to self-censorship.
对报纸的压制所带来的另一种有趣的审查方法是市场力量的影响。正如引言中所述，the effect of market forces是一种非正式审查，可以在1789-1814年间看到。对报纸的压制使它们失去了读者群，即使它们继续使用不同的名称出版。就像《每日新闻》(Quotidienne)的情况一样，在政变后état直到1800年还在以许多名字出版(Popkin, 1980年，第23页)。然而，《每日新闻》的一位编辑后来写道，报纸的不稳定性导致它失去了读者(Popkin, 1980，第23页)。因此，对报纸的压制也是有争议的，尽管它们会重新出现，但这是单一的审查制度的一部分。如果报纸选择不进行自我审查，它们将面临被禁止，尽管它们可以继续发表观点，但更换标题将导致它们失去读者，因此，不仅会减少这些观点的发行量，还会减少商业利润。因此，如果报纸想要继续让自己的想法大规模传播，或者任何规模，他们就必须接受自我审查。
The use of market forces as a form of censorship can also be seen with De L’Allemagne.After it was seized and any copies and all printing equipment were destroyed, Staël’s editor, Nicolle, was forced to file for bankruptcy to the amount of 900,000 francs (Herold, 1959, p. 385). While the destruction of Staël’s publisher’s business may have been an unintentional effect, this served as a message to other publishers who may have published Staël’s work to discourage them from doing so (Herold, 1959, p. 397). Therefore, it could be argued that one system of censorship that relies on fear does exist and extends beyond authors, to publishers as well. However, as previously stated, the consequences Nicolle faced, even though they were useful to Napoleon’s aim, could have been unintentional.
According to Herold, Staël’s De L’Allemagne was an attempt to present information about Germany to an educated, French audience (1959, p. 381). From this work, many examples of censorship can be seen and, as Staël attempted to published during the Napoleonic Regime and eventually did during the Restoration, the way in which censorship functioned during this time can also be seen. For these reasons, and for the wealth of information available, such as correspondence from Staël herself and De L’Allemagne’s censorship reports, De L’Allemagne has been chosen for this essay.
Moving into the Napoleonic regime, a change in system of censorship can be seen with the return to pre-publication censorship. In 1810, Napoleon set up an office of censorship, under a Directeur de la Librairie, in which works were sent to censors who would then either approve, deny or request certain changes to them, giving authors the opportunity edit their works and prevent problems after publication (Herold, 1959, p. 385). This alone suggests that there was one system of censorship as this was a ratified system that was applied to all authors and all works. Having this system in place supports Foucault’s hierarchy of observation, and therefore the hierarchy of censorship suggested in this essay, as it normalises judgement and examination, allowing them to become presuppositions to control. Therefore, it could also be argued that this singular system functioned as a hierarchy and used fear to control the publication and circulation of content, as not submitting to pre-publication censorship could cause the seizure of works after publication (Herold, 1959, p. 385).
进入拿破仑政权，审查制度的变化可以看到，出版前审查的回归。1810年，拿破仑在图书馆馆长的领导下设立了一个审查办公室，在这个办公室里，作品被送到审查员手中，然后审查员会批准、拒绝或要求对作品进行某些修改，给作者编辑作品的机会，防止出版后出现问题(Herold, 1959, p. 385)。仅这一点就表明存在一种审查制度，因为这是一种被批准的制度，适用于所有作者和所有作品。这一体系的存在支持了福柯的观察层次，也因此支持了本文中提出的审查层次，因为它使判断和检查正常化，使它们成为控制的前提。因此，也可以认为，这个单一的系统作为一个等级制度，利用恐惧来控制内容的出版和流通，因为不遵守出版前的审查可能导致作品出版后被没收(Herold, 1959，第385页)。
As previously stated, it could be argued that Staël already submitted to the first “level” of censorship, self-censorship, by choosing not mention France or Napoleon (Staël, 2008, pp. 309-310) in De L’Allemagne, rather than publishing anti-French, anti-Napoleonic work. As it was known at the time, Napoleon expected all artistic works, including books, to show him in a positive light and praise him, as they had once done for King Louis XIV (Winegarten, 1985, p. 17). As Staël had already been ordered to say forty leagues away from Paris for seven years under the Napoleonic regime (Winegarten, 1985, p. 122), it is not inconceivable that she would self-censor in order to avoid the seizure of her work and further punitive methods of censorship. This again shows a singular system of censorship that functioned as a hierarchy and used fear to enforce censorship and control.
The same could be argued for the voluntary submission of her work for examination by the Directeur de la Librairie (Staël, 2008, p. 273) rather than attempting to publish illegally or outside of France. This also shows evidence of a singular system of censorship, one that used fear as a method of control, as Staël abided by the system set up by Napoleon in order to avoid further punitive methods. This is furthered by Staël’s acceptance of changes to the first volume of De L’Allemagne and willingness to correct them (Herold, 1959, pp. 383-384).
However, in spite of this, and the fact that the second volume was approved without change and the third was approved dependant on the deletion of eleven passages (Herold, 1959, p. 389), the duc de Rovigo banned the publication of De L’Allemagne in a letter to Staël dated the 3rd of October 1810 (Welschinger, 1882, p. 359). Furthermore, Staël was exiled to America, given just over a week to leave (Herold, 1959, p. 391). This is important because it suggests that there was more than one system of censorship because Staël was subject to further to censorship, the suppression of her book and exile, even though she accepted the changes suggested by the censors. That is to say, other authors who accepted and made the changes suggested would have been allowed to publish their work.
Three years after the suppression of De L’Allemagne in France, it was published in London, with the original letter banning its publication and ordering her to leave for America from the duc de Rovigo included in the preface (Herold, 1959, p. 391). The publication in England, despite being banned in France, is important as it suggests that the system, or systems as argued in the previous paragraph, of censorship in place at this time did not use fear to control content, as De L’Allemagne was still published. Therefore, its ideas were still circulated, if in England rather than in France. However, due to the fact that it was published in England, rather than illegally in France or in a closer country, the opposite can also be argued. Staël wrote that there was demand for De L’Allemagne from bookshops in Germany (Staël, 2008, p. 263) so she could have printed in there (Staël, 2008, p. 269) without waiting for the censors, but she did not. This is important, as is the duration of time that Staël waited before publishing in England, because it suggests that fear did in fact play a part in controlling the publication and circulation of ideas and, therefore, enforcing censorship.
Napoleon’s known dislike of women and female intellectuals in particular (Winegarten, 1985, p. 16) must be noted. This is evidenced by the code civil of 1804 which stripped women of many of their rights, for example, Article 213 stated that women must be obedient to their husbands. Therefore, it may be argued that treatment that Staël and De L’Allemagne received at the hands of the censorship of the Napoleonic era was not representative of the censorship of this period in general. As Herold admits, the system was bias against Staël (1959, p. 385). As with the Revolutionary Press, more than one system can be seen during the Napoleonic era, as here it can be seen the system employed depended on the author, as Staël and De L’Allemagne were subjected to a different, harsher system that other authors were.
拿破仑对女性，尤其是女性知识分子的厌恶是众所周知的(《酒园》，1985年，第16页)。1804年的《民法》就证明了这一点，该法典剥夺了妇女的许多权利，例如，第213条规定妇女必须服从丈夫。因此，我们可以认为，Staël和De L 'Allemagne在拿破仑时代的审查中所受到的待遇并不代表这一时期的审查。正如赫罗尔德承认的那样，该系统对Staël有偏见(1959年，第385页)。就像革命出版社一样，在拿破仑时代可以看到不止一种系统，在这里可以看到，系统的使用取决于作者，Staël和De L 'Allemagne受到了一个不同的，更严酷的系统，其他作者是。
In this essay, it has been discussed whether, in the period 1789-1814, there existed ‘une censure’, one system of censorship and whether that system can be described as a hierarchy of censorship that employs fear as a tool to enforce censorship and control the publication and circulation of ideas, or ‘des formes de censure’, multiple systems of censorship. It has shown evidence of a singular system of censorship, such as the office of censorship under the Directeur de la Librairie during the Napoleonic regime and the punitive methods of censorship that Quotidienne was subject to for not self-censoring. However, instances in which there was plurality of systems have also been seen. For example, the subjection Staël and De L’Allemagne to a harsher system of censorship than other authors and work at the time. As well as, the laxer system that Nouvelles Politiques was subject to due to the editors’ and owners’ personal connections. Therefore, it could be argued that there were multiple systems of censorship throughout the period 1789-1814.
However, this essay has also shown evidence that the system, or systems, of censorship function as hierarchy, in which fear is overarching force by which control over the publication and circulation of ideas is exercises. This idea is interesting as it is constant over multiple periods of France’s history and, therefore, warrants further investigation. As it can be seen in the throughout the examples in this essay, it could be argued that, while this essay has shown evidence of both multiple systems of censorship and one system of censorship at work, the underpinning of both is that of the use of fear as method of control. In this way, ‘une censure’ existed as a hierarchical system in which control exercised by fear. That is to say, one system that was used differently by multiple ruling bodies who all had different ideas of how censorship should be enforced but enforced it the same way, by using fear to control the publication and circulation of ideas.