16”), as if the manner the book was bound affected its format. There is no fingerprinting, and neither the type nor the ornate letters are described with reference to existing dictionaries (no references to Vervliet or to the efforts of BaTyR), with instead entries such as “grande capitale à l’initiale” (“large initial capital letter” [242]). There is also a complete absence of consistency between entries for the section on literary genre, which ranges from the very general to the very specific. It is a shame that greater bibliographic knowledge and rigor were not brought to bear on the project. As a whole the two volumes still represent a valuable contribution to the field of authors’ privileges, though with clear limitations. The bias toward a literary approach of the subject for the French material is somewhat frustrating when compared with the quality and scope of the international contributions. The lack of bibliographic knowledge and wider understanding of the book world is also problematic. There is little attempt to understand the evolution of privileges because of economic, religious, or political circumstances. The publishers are, in this respect, the elephant in the room. They obtained the crushing majority of privileges bestowed in France—perhaps it is time that their role and influence were more fully recognized.

中文翻译：

---

早期现代法国的写作作为药物：文学意识和医学文化。多萝西娅·海奇。Regensburger Beiträge zur Gender-Forschung 9. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2017. x + 262 pp. €48。

16”），好像这本书的装订方式影响了它的格式。没有指纹识别，也没有参考现有词典（没有提到 Vervliet 或 BaTyR 的努力）来描述类型和华丽的字母，而是使用诸如“grande capitale à l'initiale”（“大首字母大写”之类的条目）大写字母”[242]）。文学体裁部分的条目之间也完全缺乏一致性，范围从非常普遍到非常具体。遗憾的是，没有为该项目带来更多的书目知识和严谨性。总的来说，这两卷仍然代表了对作者特权领域的宝贵贡献，尽管有明显的局限性。与国际贡献的质量和范围相比，法国材料偏向于文学方法的主题有点令人沮丧。缺乏书目知识和对图书世界的更广泛理解也是一个问题。由于经济、宗教或政治环境，很少有人试图了解特权的演变。在这方面，出版商是房间里的大象。他们获得了法国赋予的绝大多数特权——也许是时候更充分地承认他们的作用和影响了。或政治环境。在这方面，出版商是房间里的大象。他们获得了法国赋予的绝大多数特权——也许是时候更充分地承认他们的作用和影响了。或政治环境。在这方面，出版商是房间里的大象。他们获得了法国赋予的绝大多数特权——也许是时候更充分地承认他们的作用和影响了。