So What Is the Price of the Saint-Brieuc Manuscript? 850,000 Euros or 1.2 Million Euros

or the negotiating margin that a bookshop’s source code hands to its customers

Dear bibliophiles, good day.

By Olympe Marcelet, inspector of platforms, of emphatic keywords and of prices one would rather not display.

My colleague Raturon published yesterday the fine story of the Saint-Brieuc manuscript and its 3 successive prices. The first 2 appear in the sale record: estimated at €200 to €300, lot 77 was knocked down at €85,000, or €103,360 with the 21.6% buyer’s fees. He left me the 3rd, which can be found nowhere. Or almost…

The manuscript’s listing at the dealer’s is a model of its kind: complete, precise, learned, with the dating, the scriptorium, the collation, the pastedowns, 2 named and dated expert opinions, the provenance traced back. Where the price should appear, a single word: Inquire.

The custom is old and respectable. Beyond a certain amount, the price is not displayed, it is spoken. The buyer of a 9th-century codex is not a passing customer, and a dealer has the right to know whom he is talking to before talking money.

I have nothing to say against this convention, which still distinguishes an antiquarian bookshop from an ordinary sales site. After all, we are not on Catawiki or eBay…

It rests, however, on an assumption that is no longer true in a digital world: that the price is to be found only where the seller put it.

The pages of this site, like those of nearly all online trade, emit a series of tags invisible on screen… which for me are so many invitations to put on my spectacles.

They have telling names (the amount, the currency, the formatted label meant for social networks) and they exist to be read by machines: the preview that unfolds when a link is pasted into a messaging app, the comparison engines that harvest catalogues, the indexing robots. The shop generates them automatically from the “price” field of its own database. Hiding the display on screen does not empty that field; it remains readable at the tag level.

They can be read in 3 seconds, with no particular skill, by displaying the page’s source code. On the manuscript’s listing, as I write, they carry an amount: €850,000.

Another listing from the same shop confirms the mechanism: the autograph letter from Kafka to Robert Klopstock shows €45,000 on screen, and its tag carries the same amount, in the same field. In both cases the price is entered and transmitted. Only its display changes.

Now, as Alcide Raturon pointed out, an online publication by the Boston fair, whose 48th edition opens on 6 November, shows a different amount for this same manuscript: $1.4 million, or about €1.2 million.

2 figures in writing, then. One quietly announced to the public 2 months before the fair. The other entered in the listing, invisible on screen, readable by anyone who opens the source code. Some €350,000 separate them.

I have no idea what the lower figure represents, and I will refrain from deciding. A price asked earlier, which the update did not reach. A floor the dealer set for himself and entered in his system. The threshold below which he will not go. Each of these hypotheses is plausible, and I have no way of choosing between them.

The practical effect is the same in all 3 cases.

A collector who turns up at the stand in November, having spent 3 seconds in the source code, will not open the conversation at 1.4 million. He knows that a lower figure exists, written by the seller himself, and he knows by how much. The convention of price on request existed so that the dealer would choose the moment, the interlocutor and the amount he names. The technical layer of his own shop has transferred that advantage to whoever thinks of looking. And that potentially makes for a handsome saving.

I specify, to cut short any quibble, that none of this contravenes the customs of the trade. The customs code of the International League of Antiquarian Booksellers has an article on price clarity, but it concerns material offered in open shops and at fairs, not websites. Price on request online is beyond reproach. The consequence is this: at Boston, in November, this manuscript should carry a clearly indicated price. The figure will thus become public in 2 months, on a label, in front of everyone. The discretion at issue here will have lasted only as long as the online catalogue.

I have verified the mechanism on only 1 shop and 2 listings, one with the price displayed and the other without, and I have not inspected colleagues who follow the same custom. I would be surprised if Vienna were the only one concerned: this is the behavior of an online shop, not a Viennese invention, and those who recognize themselves will go and look at their own source code before smiling at this one.

Dear bibliophiles, dear booksellers, to your tags.

Editor’s note. Dealer’s listing: display “Inquire,” product tags carrying €850,000, last modification stated as 27 July 2026, 5 days after the second of the 2 expert opinions cited in the entry. Readings taken on 31 August 2026; the values may have changed since.

GUILDE · OM/BALISES

Document classified: restricted circulation.

La lettre du bibliophile

Si cette chronique vous a plu : recevez trois nouvelles par semaine — livres rares, reliures, enchères, et les Dossiers IGLI. 18 ans d'archives, quelques milliers de lecteurs.

Pas de pub, pas de revente de données. Désabonnement en un clic.

À lire ensuite

De auctionibus: a Little Handbook for the Well-Advised Auctioneer

By Barthélémy d’Arcole, Inspector of Bibliophilic Aesthetics and Modern Heresies to the Guilde des Bibliopolicés.

Dear bibliophiles, good day.

In March 1981, in a library in Milan, an Italian semiologist gave a lecture to librarians in which he set out, in perfect seriousness, the rules for making a library thoroughly hostile to its readers. There was a good deal of laughter; nothing changed; the text has become a classic. I borrow his method here and turn it on another edifice, one the Guild frequents more often.

For there is an abundant literature on how to sell. There is none on how to sell well to few people, which is nonetheless the art most practised in the profession and the only one in which our age has made measurable progress… or even on how not to sell, and that generally conceals darker designs.

Below will be found the eight precepts that govern this art. I did not invent them: I noted them down, then put them in the imperative, which is the only operation a semiologist is permitted to perform on a custom.

1. Arrange the catalogue in an order no one can guess.

Neither alphabetical, nor chronological, nor thematic: the order in which the boxes arrived. An incunable between a solfège method and a lot of postcards, then forty numbers of twentieth-century literature, then, without warning, three manuscripts.

Thus the amateur will be able to look up nothing: he will have to read everything. Whoever has read your four hundred and twelve lots will have paid his entrance fee in time, the one currency you do not invoice and yet levy on each of them. It will be objected that alphabetical order has solved this problem since Callimachus, around 250 BC. The answer is that it solves the wrong problem.

2. Make up your lots of one desirable item and six that are not.

“Lot of fourteen miscellaneous volumes, including an Elzevir.” The amateur who wants the Elzevir will carry off the other thirteen, which he does not want, which he cannot throw away — one does not throw away a book, it is the last taboo of a civilisation that has not many left — and which he will therefore end by reselling.

You will not have sold him a book: you will have handed him a problem. And since this problem can only be solved in a saleroom, your buyer of today is your seller of tomorrow. The composite lot is not a defect of classification, it is a reproductive organ: it manufactures stock, transport and commission out of nothing, indefinitely, like those machines that eighteenth-century mechanicians dreamed of, which were to run without being fed.

3. Let the bidding advance by a rule you will never state.

Fifty, eighty, ninety-six, one hundred, one hundred and twenty, one hundred and fifty, one hundred and eighty, two hundred, two hundred and twenty, five hundred and twelve. The sequence is neither arithmetic nor geometric; it is written down nowhere; it is perfectly known to all who count.

Whoever announces ninety will have singled himself out to the whole room with the efficiency of a foreign accent. Do not correct him — one never corrects. Go up to one hundred with perfect courtesy, which is the finished form of exclusion.

4. Put into every description a term whose definition helps in no way.

“Light dampstain in the margin,” “a few scattered spots of foxing,” “copy a little short in the margins,” “binding slightly later.” These expressions all have a precise, attested meaning, which can be looked up in any handbook — and knowing them tells you nothing about the condition of the object, since everything rests on light, a few, a little and slightly, four adverbs for which no bibliographer has ever fixed the scale.

Your language therefore does not serve to describe. It serves to signal that a language is being spoken. Linguists call this the phatic function: the message carries no information, it checks that the channel exists and that your interlocutor exists.

5. Publish your results exclusive of fees.

It is the French custom, and it must be kept: a lot knocked down at one thousand euros cost the winner twelve hundred and fifty or thirteen hundred, but it is one thousand that will enter the databases, one thousand that the experts will cite, one thousand that will serve as an estimate in ten years, one thousand that will be compared with a London result calculated by another convention.

You will thus write the history of rare-book prices in a currency nobody has ever paid. This is not falsification: it is a convention, and conventions presuppose an informed reader. It happens only that the informed reader is here precisely the one for whom the information was no longer of any use.

6. Make the room inhospitable.

Folding chairs, excessive heating, no cloakroom, no surface on which to set down a catalogue. This will be put down to negligence; it is a sorting. The curious leave, the professional stays, for he has been before and will come again. An establishment that discourages passers-by is not badly kept: it is kept for something else.

7. Multiply the channels until no one knows any longer where the sale is.

In the room, by telephone, on three platforms, with different fees for each and deadlines that do not match. Whoever nonetheless manages to establish where he is bidding, at what total price and under what right of withdrawal will have passed your real entrance examination.

8. Never answer a precise question.

To “is leaf 137 present?”, answer that the lot may be viewed at the exhibition. This is not a refusal, it is a displacement: the question concerned the object, the answer concerns the procedure, and since the procedure is irreproachable, the question ceases to exist.

It remains to say what one manufactures by applying these eight precepts, and one would be wrong to answer: deception. No profession is capable of coordinating itself for three centuries in lying; it manages very well in ritual.

Together, these rules produce a community.

A device that methodically discourages the newcomer does not lose clients at random: it retains those who agree to learn a code. To know that after one hundred and twenty comes one hundred and fifty; to know that a few spots of foxing means “go and look”; to know that a result is understood exclusive of fees and must be marked up in one’s head; to know that one never buys the Elzevir alone, and to plan in advance what one will do with the other thirteen; to know that the precise question is not put by telephone but at the exhibition, in a low voice, to the right person. This body of knowledge is learned nowhere, written nowhere, and constitutes exactly what medievalists call an initiation.

The auction house is therefore not a deficient market. It is a restricted-entry market that has kept the forms of the open market. It resembles a public place as the Latin Mass resembled a speech: everyone could attend, a minority knew what was said there, and this asymmetry was not a defect of the rite — it was its function.

Hence the very particular irritation aroused by online platforms. They are reproached for their approximate descriptions and their superlatives. Their scandal lies elsewhere: they have put the code in writing. They sort the catalogue by ascending price, display the total, fees included, before the bid, sell item by item, answer by message, and the reply stays written. They have desacralised, and we know what one gains by desacralising: a wider public and a dissolved community.

The title of this manual must therefore be corrected. These eight precepts do not serve to discourage the buyer: they serve to distinguish the one who is discouraged from the one who is adopted.

And if you have read this far nodding at each article, it is because you are not an auctioneer, because you have long been on the right side of the sorting, and because you no longer have any reason to complain of it.

References. Umberto Eco, De Bibliotheca, trans. Eliane Deschamps-Pria, Paris, L’Échoppe, 1986 (lecture delivered in Milan on 10 March 1981). Roman Jakobson, “Linguistique et poétique,” in Essais de linguistique générale, vol. I, Paris, Éditions de Minuit, 1963, for the phatic function. Luciano Canfora, La Véritable Histoire de la bibliothèque d’Alexandrie, Paris, Desjonquères, 1988, on Callimachus’s classifications. Book of Judges, XII, 5-6, for the password and the use made of it.

GBA/DE-AUCTIONIBUS

Document classified: restricted circulation – given the number of active bibliophiles and auctioneers….

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.