“The Farthing Rushlight.”THE PRINCE OF WALES, WITH FOX, SHERIDAN, AND HIS WHIG ASSOCIATES, TRYING IN VAIN TO BLOW OUT POOR OLD GEORGE.
“The Farthing Rushlight.”
THE PRINCE OF WALES, WITH FOX, SHERIDAN, AND HIS WHIG ASSOCIATES, TRYING IN VAIN TO BLOW OUT POOR OLD GEORGE.
The author desires to express his sense of obligation to the several publishers who have courteously granted him permission to reproduce drawings, the copyrights of which are vested in themselves; and at the same time to state his regret that other publishers, similarly situated with respect to other works, have not seen their way to render it possible for him to supply specimens of the style of certain artists, two of whom in particular, John Leech and H. K. Browne, must needs be conspicuous by their comparative absence.Such Caricatures and Book Illustrations as have seemed specially desirable—of which the copyrights have lapsed and no editions are at the present day in print—have been engraved for this work byMr. William Cheshire.
The author desires to express his sense of obligation to the several publishers who have courteously granted him permission to reproduce drawings, the copyrights of which are vested in themselves; and at the same time to state his regret that other publishers, similarly situated with respect to other works, have not seen their way to render it possible for him to supply specimens of the style of certain artists, two of whom in particular, John Leech and H. K. Browne, must needs be conspicuous by their comparative absence.
Such Caricatures and Book Illustrations as have seemed specially desirable—of which the copyrights have lapsed and no editions are at the present day in print—have been engraved for this work byMr. William Cheshire.
ENGLISH CARICATURISTS.
Ifyou turn to the word “caricatura” in your Italian dictionary, it isDefinition of Caricaturejust possible that you will be gratified by learning that it means “caricature”; but if you refer to the same word in old Dr. Johnson, he will tell you, with the plain, practical common-sense which distinguished him, that it signifies “an exaggerated resemblance in drawings,” and this expresses exactly what itdoesmean. Any distinguishing feature or peculiarity, whether in face, figure, or dress, isexaggerated, and yet the likeness is preserved. A straight nose is presented unnaturally straight, a short nose unnaturally depressed; a prominent forehead is drawn unusually bulbous; a protuberant jaw unnaturally underhung; a fat man is depicted preternaturally fat, and a thin one correspondingly lean. This at least was the idea ofcaricatureduring the last century. Old Francis Grose, who, in 1791, wrote certain “Rules for Drawing Caricaturas,” gives us the following explanation of their origin:—“The sculptors of ancient Greece,” he tells us, “seem to have diligently observed the form and proportions constituting the European ideas of beauty, and upon them to have formed their statues. These measures are to be met with in many drawing books; a slight deviation from them by the predominancy of any feature constitutes what is called character, and serves to discriminate the owner thereof and to fix the idea of identity. This deviation or peculiarity aggravated, forms caricatura.”
As a matter of fact, the strict definition of the word given by Francis Grose and Dr. Johnson is no longer applicable; the word caricature includes, and has for a very long time been understood to include, within its meaning any pictorial or graphic satire, political or otherwise, and whether the drawing be exaggerated or not: it is in this sense that Mr. Wright makes use of it in his “Caricature History of the Georges,” and it is in this sense that we shall use it for the purposes of this present book.
Rowlandson.]THE TRUMPET AND THE BASSOON.Rowlandson.][January 1st, 1796.“ANYTHING WILL DO FOR AN OFFICER.”“What shall we do with him?”“Do with him? Why, make an officer of him!”[Face p. 2.
Rowlandson.]
THE TRUMPET AND THE BASSOON.
Rowlandson.]
[January 1st, 1796.
“ANYTHING WILL DO FOR AN OFFICER.”
“What shall we do with him?”
“Do with him? Why, make an officer of him!”
[Face p. 2.
T. Rowlandson.][April 13th, 1807.“ALL THE TALENTS.”The “Broad-Bottom Administration,” known as “All the Talents,” showing the several qualifications of the Ministry.[Face p. 3.
T. Rowlandson.]
[April 13th, 1807.
“ALL THE TALENTS.”
The “Broad-Bottom Administration,” known as “All the Talents,” showing the several qualifications of the Ministry.
[Face p. 3.
Since the commencement of the present century, and moreChange in the Spirit of English Caricature.especially during the last fifty years, a change has come over the spirit of English caricature. The fact is due to a variety of causes, amongst which must be reckoned the revolution in dress and manners; the extinction of the three-bottle men and topers; the change of thought, manners, and habits consequent on the introduction of steam, railways, and the electric telegraph. The casual observer meeting, as he sometimes will, with a portfolio of etchings representing the men with red and bloated features, elephantine limbs, and huge paunches, who figure in the caricatures of the last and the early part of the present century, may well be excused if he doubt whether such figures of fun ever had an actual existence. Our answer is that they not only existed, but were very far from uncommon. Our great-grandfathers of 1800 were jolly good fellows; washing down their beef-steaks with copious draughts of “York or Burton ale,” or the porter for which Trenton, of Whitechapel, appears to have been famed,1fortifying themselves afterwards with deeper draughts of generous wines—rich port, Madeira, claret, dashed with hermitage—they set up before they were old menpaunches and diseases which rendered them a sight for gods and men. Reader, be assured that the fat men who figure in the graphic satires of the early part of the century were certainlynotcaricatured.
In connection with the subject of graphic satire, the names of theThe three great Caricaturists of the Last Century.three great caricaturists of the last century—Gillray, Rowlandson, and Bunbury—are indispensable. The last, a gentleman of family, fortune, and position, and equerry to the Duke of York, was, in truth, rather an amateur than an artist. Rowlandson was an able draughtsman, and something more; but his style and his tastes are essentially coarse and sensual, and his women are the overblown beauties of the Drury Lane and Covent Garden of his day. George Moutard Woodward, whose productions he sometimes honoured by etching, and whose distinguishing characteristics are carelessness and often bad drawing, follows him at a respectful distance. The genius of James Gillray has won him the title of the “Prince of Caricaturists,” a title he well earned and thoroughly deserved. The only one of the nineteenth century caricaturists who touches him occasionally incaricature, but distances him in everything else, is our George Cruikshank.
Commencing work when George the Third was still a young man, Gillray and Rowlandson necessarily infused into it some of the coarseness and vulgarity of their century. With Gillray, indeed, this coarseness and vulgarity may be said to be rather the exception than the rule, whereas the exact contrary holds good of his able and too often careless contemporary. As might have been expected, every one who excites their ridicule or contempt is treated and (in their letterpress descriptions) spoken of in the broadest manner. Bonaparte is mentioned by both artists (in allusion to his supposed sanguinary propensities) as “Boney, the carcase butcher;” Josephine is represented by Gillray as a coarse fat woman, with the sensual habits of a Drury Lane strumpet; Talleyrand, by right of his club foot and limping gait, is invariably dubbed “Hopping Talley.” The influence of both artists is felt by those who immediately succeeded them. The coarseness, for instance, of Robert Cruikshank, when he displays any at all, which is seldom, is directly traceable to the influenceof Rowlandson, whom (until he followed the example of his greater brother) he at first copied.
Gillray wrought much the same influence upon George Cruikshank.Influence of Gillray on Cruikshank.I have seen it gravely asserted by some of those who have written upon him,2that this great artist never executed a drawing which could call a blush into the cheek of modesty. But those who have written upon George Cruikshank—and their name is legion—instead of beginning at the beginning, and thus tracing the gradual and almost insensible formation of his style, appear to me to have plunged as it were intomedias res, and commenced at the point when he dropped caricature and became an illustrator of books. Book illustration was scarcely an art until George Cruikshank made it so; and the most interesting period of his artistic career appears to us to be the one in which he pursued the path indicated by James Gillray, until his career of caricaturist merged into his later employment of a designer and etcher of book illustration, by which no doubt he achieved his reputation. In answer to those who tell us that he never produced a drawing which could call a blush into the cheek of modesty, and never raised a laugh at the expense of decency, we will only say that we can produce at least a score of instances to the contrary. To go no further than “The Scourge,” we will refer them to three: hisDinner of the Four-in-Hand Club at Salthill, in vol. i.; hisReturn to Office(1st July, 1811), in vol. ii.; and hisCoronation of the Empress of the Nares(1st September, 1812), in vol. iv.
As the century passed out of its infancy and attained the maturerRevolution effected by H. B.age of thirty years, a gradual and almost imperceptible change cameover the spirit of English graphic satire. The coarseness and suggestiveness of the old caricaturists gradually disappeared, until at length, in 1830, an artist arose who was destined to work a complete revolution in the style and manner of English caricature. This artist was John Doyle,—the celebrated H. B. He it was that discovered that pictures might be made mildly diverting without actual coarseness or exaggeration; and when this fact was accepted, the art of caricaturing underwent a complete transition, and assumed a new form. The “Sketches” of H. B. owe their chief attraction to the excellence of their designer as a portrait painter; his successors, with less power in this direction but with better general artistic abilities, rapidly improved upon his idea, and thus was founded the modern school of graphic satirists represented by Richard Doyle, John Leech, and John Tenniel. So completely was the style of comic art changed under the auspices of these clever men, that the very name of “caricature” disappeared, and the modern word “cartoon” assumed its place. With the exception indeed of Carlo Pellegrini (the “Ape” ofVanity Fair), and his successors, we have now no caricaturist in the old and true acceptation of the term, and original and clever as their productions are, their compositions are timid compared with those of Bunbury, Gillray, Rowlandson, and their successors, being limited to a weekly “exaggerated” portrait, instead of composed of many figures.
James Gillray.[May 14th, 1799.“THE GOUT.”W. H. Bunbury,etched byGillray.][1811, pubd. May 15th, 1818.“INTERIOR OF A BARBER’S SHOP IN ASSIZE TIME.”[Face p. 5
James Gillray.
[May 14th, 1799.
“THE GOUT.”
W. H. Bunbury,etched byGillray.]
[1811, pubd. May 15th, 1818.
“INTERIOR OF A BARBER’S SHOP IN ASSIZE TIME.”
[Face p. 5
But caricature was destined to receive its final blow at the hands of that useful craftsman the wood-engraver. The application of wood-engraving to all kinds of illustration, whether graphic or comic, and the mode in which time, labour, and expense are economised, by the large wood blocks being cut up into squares, and each square entrusted to the hands of a separate workman, has virtually superseded the old and far more effective process of etching. Economy is now the order of the day in matters of graphic satire as in everything else; people are no longer found willing to pay a shilling for a caricature when they may obtain one for a penny. Hence it has come to pass, that whilst comic artists abound, the prevailing spirit of economy has reduced theirproductions to a dead level, and the work of an artist of inferior power and invention, may successfully compete for public favour with the work of a man of talent and genius like John Tenniel, a result surely to be deplored, seeing there never was a time which offered better opportunities for the pencil of a great and original caricaturist than the present.3
It is a common practice, and I may add mistake, with writersMistake of those who compare modern Caricaturists with Hogarth.on comic artists or caricaturists of our day, to compare them with Hogarth. Both Hogarth and the men of our day are graphic satirists, but there is so broad a distinction between the satire of each, and the circumstances of the times in which they respectively laboured, that comparison is impossible. Those who know anything of this great and original genius, must know that he entertained the greatest horror of being mistaken for acaricaturistpure and simple; and although he executed caricatures for special purposes, they may literally be counted on the fingers. “His pictures,” says Hazlitt, “are not imitations of still life, or mere transcripts of incidental scenes and customs; but powerfulmoralsatires, exposing vice and folly in their most ludicrous points of view, and with a profound insight into the weak sides of character and manners, in all their tendencies, combinations, and contrasts. There is not a single picture of his containing a representation of mere pictorial or domestic scenery.” His object is not so much “to hold the mirror up to nature,” as “to show vice her own feature, scorn her own image.” “Folly is there seen at the height—the moon is at the full—it is the very error of the time. There is a perpetual error of eccentricities, a tilt and tournament of absurdities, pampered with all sorts of affectation, airy, extravagant, and ostentatious! Yethe is as little a caricaturistas he is a painter of still life. Criticism has not done him justice, though public opinion has.”4“A set of severer satires,” says Charles Lamb, “(for they are not so much comedies, which they have beenlikened to, as they are strong and masculine satires), less mingled with anything of mere fun, were never written upon paper or graven upon copper. They resemble Juvenal, or the satiric touches in Timon of Athens.”
W. Hogarth.][“Mariage à la Mode.”Paul Sandby.][Anti-Hogarthian Caricature.“A Mountebank Painter demonstrating to his admirers and subscribers that crookedness is yemost beautifull.”[Face p. 7.
W. Hogarth.]
[“Mariage à la Mode.”
Paul Sandby.]
[Anti-Hogarthian Caricature.
“A Mountebank Painter demonstrating to his admirers and subscribers that crookedness is yemost beautifull.”
[Face p. 7.
Hogarth was a stern moralist and satirist, but his satires haveCharacter of Hogarth’s Satires.nothing in common with the satires of the nineteenth century; such men as the infamous Charteris and the quack Misaubin figure in his compositions, and their portraits are true to the life. Although his satire is relieved with flashes of humour, the reality and gravity of the satire remain undisturbed. TheMarch to Finchleyis one of the severest satires on the times; it shows us the utter depravity of the morals and manners of the day, the want of discipline of the king’s officers and soldiers, which led to the routs of Preston and Falkirk, the headlong flight of Hawley and his licentious and cowardly dragoons. Some modern writers know so little of him that they have not only described his portrait of Wilkes as acaricature, but have cited the inscription on his veritable contemporarycaricatureof Churchill in proof of the assertion. Now what says this inscription? “The Bruiser (Churchill, once the Reverend), in the character of a Russian Hercules, regaling himself after having killed the monsterCaricatura, that so severely galled his virtuous friend, the heaven-born Wilkes.” Hogarth’s use of the wordcaricaturaconveys a meaning which is not patent at first sight; Wilkes’s leer was the leer of a satyr, “his face,” says Macaulay, “was so hideous that the caricaturists were forced in their own despite to flatter him.”5The real sting lies in theaccuracyof Hogarth’s portrait (a fact which Wilkes himself admitted), and it is in this sarcastic sense that Hogarth makes use of the word “caricatura.”
Turning from Hogarth to a modern artist, in spite of his faults ofGustave Doré.most marvellous genius and inventive faculty, I frequently find critics of approved knowledge and sagacity describing the late Gustave Doré as a caricaturist. It may seem strange at first sight to introduce the name of Doré into a work dealing exclusively withEnglish caricature art, and I do so, not by reason of the fact that his works are as familiar to us in England as in France, not because he has pictorially interpreted some of the finest thoughts in English literature, but because I find his name so constantly mentioned in comparison with English caricaturists and comic artists, and more especially with our George Cruikshank. Now Gustave Doré is, if possible, still less a caricaturist than our English Hogarth. I have seen the ghastly illustrations to the licentious “ContesDrolatiques” of Balzac cited in proof of his claims to be considered a caricaturist. I will not deny that Doré did try his hand once upon a time at caricature, and if we are to judge him by these attempts, we should pronounce him the worst French caricaturist the world ever saw, which would be saying a great deal; for a worse school than that of the modern French caricaturists (and I do not except even Gavarni, Cham, or Daumier), does not anywhere exist. That this man of marvellous genius had humour I do not for one moment deny; but it was the grim humour of an inquisitor or torturer of the middle ages—of one that revels in a perfect nightmare of terror.6Genius is said to be nearly allied to madness; and if one studies some of his weird creations—such, for instance, asThe Judgment Dayin the legend of “The Wandering Jew”—the thought involuntarily suggests itself that a brain teeming with such marvellous and often morbid conceptions, might have been pushed off its balance at any moment. Gustave Doré delights in lofty, mediæval-gabled buildings, with bartizans and antique galleries; in steep streets, dominated by gloomy turrets; in narrow entries, terminating in dark vistas; in gloomy forests, crowded with rocky pinnacles; in masses of struggling, mutilated men and horses; in monstrous forms of creeping, crawling, slimy, ghastly horror. By the side of the conceptions of Gustave Doré—testefor instance the weird pictures of “The Wandering Jew” already mentioned—George Cruikshank sinks at times intoinsignificance; and yet side by side with George Cruikshank, as a purely comic artist or caricaturist, Doré is beneath mediocrity.
Gustave Doré.][From “Contes Drolatiques.”“SERGEANT-OF-THE-JUSTICE TAUPIN.”Gustave Doré.][From “Contes Drolatiques.”“THE ABBOT OF MARMOUSTIERS.”[Back to p. 8.
Gustave Doré.]
[From “Contes Drolatiques.”
“SERGEANT-OF-THE-JUSTICE TAUPIN.”
Gustave Doré.]
[From “Contes Drolatiques.”
“THE ABBOT OF MARMOUSTIERS.”
[Back to p. 8.
Gustave Doré.][From “Contes Drolatiques.”“THE LANDLORD OF THE THREE BARBELS.”Gustave Doré.][From “Contes Drolatiques.”MONSEIGNEUR HUGON.[Back to p. 9.
Gustave Doré.]
[From “Contes Drolatiques.”
“THE LANDLORD OF THE THREE BARBELS.”
Gustave Doré.]
[From “Contes Drolatiques.”
MONSEIGNEUR HUGON.
[Back to p. 9.
Artists and art critics not unnaturally regard caricature with someMr. Hamerton’s observations on Caricature.disfavour. “Art,” says Hamerton, “with a great social or political purpose, is seldom pure fine art; artistic aims are usually lost sight of in the anxiety to hit the social or political mark, and though the caricaturist may have great natural facility for art, it has not a fair chance of cultivation.” Writing of Cruikshank’s “etchings” (and I presume he refers to those which are marked with comic or satirical characteristics), he says: “They are full of keen satire and happy invention, and their moral purpose is always good; but all these qualities are compatible with a carelessness of art which is not to be tolerated in any one but a professional caricaturist.”7Now all this is true, and moreover it is fairly and generously stated; on the other hand, Mr. Hamerton will probably admit that no artist is likely to succeed in graphic satire, unless he be a man of marked artistic power and invention.
While treating incidentally of the etchings of artists who have distinguished themselves as graphic satirists or designers, with etching itself as anartthis work has no concern. For those who would be initiated into the mysteries of etching and dry point, negative and positive processes, soft grounds, mordants, or the like, the late Thomas Hood has left behind him a whimsical sketch of the process, which, imperfect as it is, will not only suffice for our purpose, but has the merit probably of being but little known:—
“Prepared by a hand that is skilful and nice,The fine point glides along like a skate on the ice,At the will of the gentle designer,Who, impelling the needle, just presses so much,That each line of her labourthe copper may touch,As if done by a penny-a-liner.*****Certain objects however may come in your sketch,Which, designed by a hand unaccustomed to etch,With a luckless result may be branded;Wherefore add this particular rule to your code,Let all vehicles take thewrongside of the road,And man, woman, and child beleft-handed.Yet regard not the awkward appearance with doubt,But remember how often mere blessings fall out,That at first seemed no better than curses:So, tillthings take a turn, live in hope, and dependThat whatever is wrong will come right in the end,And console you for all yourreverses.*****But the acid has duly been lower’d and bitesOnly just where the visible metal invites,Like a nature inclined to meet troubles;And behold as each slender and glittering lineEffervesces, you trace the completed designIn an elegant bead-work of bubbles.*****But before with the varnishing brush you proceed,Let the plate with cold water be thoroughly freedFrom the other less innocent liquor;After which, on whatever you want to protect,Put acoatthat will act to that very effect,Like the black one which hangs on the vicar.Then the varnish well dried—urge the biting again,But how long, at its meal, theeau fortemay remain,Time and practice alone can determine:But of course not so long that the mountain, and mill,The rude bridge, and the figures—whatever you will—Are as black as the spots on your ermine.It is true, none the less, that a dark looking scrap,With a sort of Blackheath and Black Forest, mayhap,Is considered as rather Rembrandty;And that very black cattle and very black sheep,A black dog, and a shepherd as black as a sweep,Are the pets of some greatdilettante.*****But before your own picture arrives at that pitch,While the lights are still light, and the shadows, though rich.More transparent than ebony shutters,Never minding what Black-Arted critics may say,Stop the biting, and pour the green blind away,As you please, into bottles or gutters.Then removing the ground and the waxat a heat,Cleanse the surface with oil, spermaceti or sweet—For your hand a performance scarce proper—So some careful professional person secure,For the laundress will not be a safe amateur,To assist you incleaning the copper.*****Thus your etching complete, it remains but to hintThat with certain assistance from paper and print,Which the proper mechanic will settle,You may charm all your friends—without any sad taleOf such perils and ills as beset Lady Sale—With a fineIndia Proof of your metal.”8
“Prepared by a hand that is skilful and nice,
The fine point glides along like a skate on the ice,
At the will of the gentle designer,
Who, impelling the needle, just presses so much,
That each line of her labourthe copper may touch,
As if done by a penny-a-liner.
*****
Certain objects however may come in your sketch,
Which, designed by a hand unaccustomed to etch,
With a luckless result may be branded;
Wherefore add this particular rule to your code,
Let all vehicles take thewrongside of the road,
And man, woman, and child beleft-handed.
Yet regard not the awkward appearance with doubt,
But remember how often mere blessings fall out,
That at first seemed no better than curses:
So, tillthings take a turn, live in hope, and depend
That whatever is wrong will come right in the end,
And console you for all yourreverses.
*****
But the acid has duly been lower’d and bites
Only just where the visible metal invites,
Like a nature inclined to meet troubles;
And behold as each slender and glittering line
Effervesces, you trace the completed design
In an elegant bead-work of bubbles.
*****
But before with the varnishing brush you proceed,
Let the plate with cold water be thoroughly freed
From the other less innocent liquor;
After which, on whatever you want to protect,
Put acoatthat will act to that very effect,
Like the black one which hangs on the vicar.
Then the varnish well dried—urge the biting again,
But how long, at its meal, theeau fortemay remain,
Time and practice alone can determine:
But of course not so long that the mountain, and mill,
The rude bridge, and the figures—whatever you will—
Are as black as the spots on your ermine.
It is true, none the less, that a dark looking scrap,
With a sort of Blackheath and Black Forest, mayhap,
Is considered as rather Rembrandty;
And that very black cattle and very black sheep,
A black dog, and a shepherd as black as a sweep,
Are the pets of some greatdilettante.
*****
But before your own picture arrives at that pitch,
While the lights are still light, and the shadows, though rich.
More transparent than ebony shutters,
Never minding what Black-Arted critics may say,
Stop the biting, and pour the green blind away,
As you please, into bottles or gutters.
Then removing the ground and the waxat a heat,
Cleanse the surface with oil, spermaceti or sweet—
For your hand a performance scarce proper—
So some careful professional person secure,
For the laundress will not be a safe amateur,
To assist you incleaning the copper.
*****
Thus your etching complete, it remains but to hint
That with certain assistance from paper and print,
Which the proper mechanic will settle,
You may charm all your friends—without any sad tale
Of such perils and ills as beset Lady Sale—
With a fineIndia Proof of your metal.”8
Woodward,engr. byRowlandson.][“Desire,” Jan. 20th, 1800.DESIRE.W. H. Bunbury.][“Strephon and Chloe,” July 1st, 1804.SENTIMENTAL COURTSHIP.
Woodward,engr. byRowlandson.]
[“Desire,” Jan. 20th, 1800.
DESIRE.
W. H. Bunbury.]
[“Strephon and Chloe,” July 1st, 1804.
SENTIMENTAL COURTSHIP.
W. H. Bunbury.][“The Salutation Tavern,” July 21st, 1801.A FASHIONABLE SALUTATION.G. M. Woodward.][“General Complaint,”May 5th, 1796.“Don’t tell me of generals raised from mere boys,Though, believe me, I mean not their laurel to taint;But the general, I’m sure, that will make the most noise,If the war still goes on, will be General Complaint.”[Face p. 11.
W. H. Bunbury.]
[“The Salutation Tavern,” July 21st, 1801.
A FASHIONABLE SALUTATION.
G. M. Woodward.]
[“General Complaint,”May 5th, 1796.
“Don’t tell me of generals raised from mere boys,
Though, believe me, I mean not their laurel to taint;
But the general, I’m sure, that will make the most noise,
If the war still goes on, will be General Complaint.”
[Face p. 11.
1“Nor London singly can his porter boast,Alike ’tis famed on every foreign coast;For this the Frenchman leaves his Bordeaux wine,And pours libations at our Thames’s shrine;Afric retails it ‘mongst her swarthy sons,And haughty Spain procures it for her Dons.Wherever Britain’s powerful flag has flown,there London’s celebrated porter’s known.”—The Art of Living in London(6th edition 1805).2One quotation shall suffice. Mr. William Bates tells us in his admirable “Maclise Portrait Gallery”:—“Henevertransgressed the narrow line that separates wit from buffoonery, pandered to sensuality, glorified vice or raised a laugh at the expense of decency. Satireneverin his hands degenerated into savagery or scurrility. A moral purposeeverunderlaid his humour; he sought to instruct or improve when he amused.” Mr. Bates will, we hope, pardon us if we say that this is not quite the fact. George Cruikshank in truth was no better or worse than his satirical brothers, and his tone necessarily improved from the moment he took to illustrating books.3Since the above was written, strange to say, caricature appears to be showing symptoms of revival.4“The Fine Arts,” by William Hazlett, p. 29.5“Critical and Historical Essays,” vol. iii., p. 574.6We can scarcely call the wonderful series of historical cartoons which he executed at sixteencaricatures, even in the modern sense of the word. Whatever humour they possess is neutralized by the grim irony which, even at this early period, characterized his work.7“Etching and Etchers,” by Philip Gilbert Hamerton, third edition, p. 246.8Thomas Hood’s “Etching Moralized,” inNew Monthly Magazine, 1843, vol. lxvii. p. 4, andseq.
1
“Nor London singly can his porter boast,Alike ’tis famed on every foreign coast;For this the Frenchman leaves his Bordeaux wine,And pours libations at our Thames’s shrine;Afric retails it ‘mongst her swarthy sons,And haughty Spain procures it for her Dons.Wherever Britain’s powerful flag has flown,there London’s celebrated porter’s known.”
“Nor London singly can his porter boast,
Alike ’tis famed on every foreign coast;
For this the Frenchman leaves his Bordeaux wine,
And pours libations at our Thames’s shrine;
Afric retails it ‘mongst her swarthy sons,
And haughty Spain procures it for her Dons.
Wherever Britain’s powerful flag has flown,
there London’s celebrated porter’s known.”
—The Art of Living in London(6th edition 1805).
2One quotation shall suffice. Mr. William Bates tells us in his admirable “Maclise Portrait Gallery”:—“Henevertransgressed the narrow line that separates wit from buffoonery, pandered to sensuality, glorified vice or raised a laugh at the expense of decency. Satireneverin his hands degenerated into savagery or scurrility. A moral purposeeverunderlaid his humour; he sought to instruct or improve when he amused.” Mr. Bates will, we hope, pardon us if we say that this is not quite the fact. George Cruikshank in truth was no better or worse than his satirical brothers, and his tone necessarily improved from the moment he took to illustrating books.
3Since the above was written, strange to say, caricature appears to be showing symptoms of revival.
4“The Fine Arts,” by William Hazlett, p. 29.
5“Critical and Historical Essays,” vol. iii., p. 574.
6We can scarcely call the wonderful series of historical cartoons which he executed at sixteencaricatures, even in the modern sense of the word. Whatever humour they possess is neutralized by the grim irony which, even at this early period, characterized his work.
7“Etching and Etchers,” by Philip Gilbert Hamerton, third edition, p. 246.
8Thomas Hood’s “Etching Moralized,” inNew Monthly Magazine, 1843, vol. lxvii. p. 4, andseq.
AlthoughGillray began his work in 1769,—thirty years beforeProposed method Of Arrangement.our century commenced, and Rowlandson five years later on, in 1774, their labours were continued some years after 1799, and are so interwoven, so to speak, with the work of their immediate successors, that it is almost impossible in a work dealing with nineteenth century caricaturists to omit all mention of them. In collecting too materials for the present treatise, we necessarily met with many anonymous satires, without signature, initials, or distinguishing style, which may be, and some of which are probably due to artists whose pencils were at work before the century began. Even if equal in all cases to the task of assigning these satires to the particular hands which designed and executed them, we submit that little real service would be rendered to the cause of graphic satire. It appears to us therefore that the most convenient method will be to indicate in this and the following chapterssomeof the leading topics of caricature during the first thirty years of the century, and to cite in illustration of our subject such of the work of anonymous or other artists, for which no better place can be assigned in other divisions of the work.
James Gillray.[June 20th, 1789.SHAKSPEARE SACRIFICED, OR THE OFFERING TO AVARICE.Alderman Boydell, as High Priest within the magic circle, preparing an oblation to Shakspeare; the demon of Avarice, seated upon the List of Subscribers, hugging his money-bags; Puck on his shoulders blowing bubbles of “immortality” to the promoter of the “Gallery” about to be published. Shakespeare himself, obscured by the Aldermanic fumes. Figures of Shakspearean characters above.[Face p. 12.
James Gillray.
[June 20th, 1789.
SHAKSPEARE SACRIFICED, OR THE OFFERING TO AVARICE.
Alderman Boydell, as High Priest within the magic circle, preparing an oblation to Shakspeare; the demon of Avarice, seated upon the List of Subscribers, hugging his money-bags; Puck on his shoulders blowing bubbles of “immortality” to the promoter of the “Gallery” about to be published. Shakespeare himself, obscured by the Aldermanic fumes. Figures of Shakspearean characters above.
[Face p. 12.
The attention of the public during the first fifteen years of the century was mainly directed to the progress and fortunes of the great national enemy, Napoleon Bonaparte. The hatred with which he was regarded in this country can scarcely be appreciated in these days; and in order that the cause of this bitter antipathy may beunderstood, it will be necessary for us to consider Bonaparte’s general policy in relation to ourselves.
The close of the century had been signalized in France by the18th Brumaire.memorable revolution of “the eighteenth Brumaire.” The Directory had ceased to exist, and a provisional consular commission, consisting of “Citizens” Sieyes, Ducos, and Bonaparte, was appointed. On the 13th of December, the legislative committees presented the new constitution to the nation, the votes against it being 1,562 as against 3,012,659 in its favour. Bonaparte was nominated first consul for ten, and Cambacères and Lebrun (nominal) second and third consuls for five years.
Although Bonaparte, as soon as he was appointed First Consul, made direct overtures to the king of England with a view to peace, he had himself to thank if his overtures met with no corresponding return. To accomplish the revolution of the “eighteenth Brumaire,” he had found it necessary to quit Egypt. The English knew the French occupation of Egypt was intended as a direct menace to British interests in India. Lord Granville, therefore, in his official reply, without assuming to prescribe a form of government to France, plainly but somewhat illogically intimated that the “restoration of the ancient line of princes, under whom France had enjoyed so many centuries of prosperity, would afford the best possible guarantee for the maintenance of peace between the two countries.” This New Year’s greeting on the part of Lord Granville put an end, as might have been expected, to all further communications.
The French, however, had no business in Egypt, and England was resolved at any cost to drive them out of that country. With this object in view, the armament under the command of Sir Ralph Abercrombie effected its disembarkation at Aboukir on the 8th of March, 1801. A severe though indecisive action followed five days afterwards. On the 20th was fought the decisive battle of Alexandria. General Hutchinson, on the death of the English commander, followed up the victory with so much vigour and celerity, that early in the autumn the French army capitulated, onThe French driven out of Egypt.condition of being conveyed to France with all its arms, artillery, and baggage. The capitulation was signed just in time to save French honour; for immediately after the conclusion of the treaty, a second British force, under the command of Sir David Baird, arrived from India by way of the Red Sea. Bonaparte’s favourite project of making Egypt anentrepôtfor the conquest of Hindostan was thus most effectually checkmated.9
On the 1st of October, 1801,preliminariesof peace between France and Great Britain were signed in Downing Street; on the 10th, General Lauriston, aide-de-camp to the First Consul, having arrived with the ratification of these preliminaries, the populace took the horses from his carriage and drew it to Downing Street. That night and the following there was a general illumination in London.
The “preliminaries” referred to were those of the very unsatisfactory “Peace of Amiens,” as it was called. Its terms, by no means flattering to this country, were shortly these: France was to retain all her conquests; while, on the other hand, the acquisitions made by England during the war were to be given up. Malta and its dependencies were to be restored (under certain restrictions) nominally to the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem; the French were to evacuate Naples and the Roman States; and the British Porto Ferrago, and all the ports possessed by them in the Mediterranean and the Adriatic.
James Gillray.[Sept., 1796.A PEEP AT CHRISTIE’S, OR TALLY-HO AND HIS NIMENEY PIMENEY TAKING THE MORNING LOUNGE.A study of Lord Derby and Miss Farren (the actress), a few months before their marriage, enjoying the Fine Arts, he studying “The Death of Reynard,” she “Zenocrates and Phryne.”[Face p. 14.
James Gillray.
[Sept., 1796.
A PEEP AT CHRISTIE’S, OR TALLY-HO AND HIS NIMENEY PIMENEY TAKING THE MORNING LOUNGE.
A study of Lord Derby and Miss Farren (the actress), a few months before their marriage, enjoying the Fine Arts, he studying “The Death of Reynard,” she “Zenocrates and Phryne.”
[Face p. 14.
All this time a violent paper war had been maintained between the English press and theMoniteur, the official organ of the Consular Government. In the month of August, 1802, Bonaparte prohibited the circulation of the English newspapers, and immediately after the issue of the order, the coffee houses and reading rooms were visited by his police, who carried away every English journal upon which they could lay their hands. By way of answerBonaparte establishes an English Newspaper in Paris.to English abuse (to which Napoleon was singularly sensitive), the First Consul now established an English newspaper in Paris, which was thenceforth unceasingly occupied in vilifying the Government and people of England. This paper was calledThe Argus, and an Englishman, one Goldsmith,—whilom proprietor of theAlbionnewspaper in London,—was actually found mean enough to undertake the peculiarly dirty office of its editor.
Thedenouementwas not long delayed. On the 13th of March, 1803, occurred the extraordinary and well-known scene between the First Consul and the English ambassador, Lord Whitworth. Bonaparte, in the presence of a numerous and astonished Court, vehemently accused England of breach of faith in not carrying out the provisions of the treaty, by still remaining in possession of Malta. The episode appears to have been of an extraordinary character, and the violence and ferocity of Bonaparte’s language and behaviour, maintained till the very close of the interview, must have contrasted strangely with the coolness of the English ambassador.
The restoration of Malta to the Knights of St. John was of course a mere nominal restitution, for, except in name, the Knights of St. John had ceased to exist. The First Consul really wanted the island for himself; and while he accused us of breach of faith, was himself acting all the while contrary to the spirit of the treaty of Amiens. While requiring that we should drive the royalist emigrants from our shores, he demanded that the English press should be deprived of its liberty of speaking in such frank terms of himself and his policy. His unfriendly conduct did not end here. At this very time he was actively employed in fomenting rebellion in Ireland, and in planting (under the nominal character of consuls) spies along our coast, whose treacherous objects were accidentally discovered by the seizure of the secret instructions issued to one of these fellows at Dublin. “You are required,” said this precious document, “to furnish a plan of the ports of your district, with a specification of the soundings for mooring vessels. If no plan of the ports can be procured, you are to point out with what windvessels can come in and go out, and what is the greatest draught of water with which vessels can enter the river deeply laden.”
Still there was no actual breach of the nominal peace between the two countries until the 12th of May, on which day Lord Whitworth left Paris. He landed at Dover on the 20th, meeting there General Audreossi, Napoleon’s minister to the English Court, on the point of embarking for France.
For two days before, that is to say on the 18th of May, 1803,England declares War.England had issued her declaration of war against France. In this document, our government alleged that the surrender of Malta to the knights of St. John of Jerusalem had been rendered impossible by the action of France and Spain, who had destroyed the independence of the Order itself. Reference was made to Bonaparte’s attempts to interfere with the liberty of the English press, and the indignities he had offered to our ambassador; but the real ground of quarrel was to be found in an official gasconade of Bonaparte’s, in which he declared that “Britain could not contend single handed against France,” a vainglorious boast, which (in those days at least) touched a chord which thrilled the patriotic feelings of every Englishman that loved his country.
Napoleon’s next step—a simply detestable action—was quite in accordance with the faithless policy which he pursued towards this country. The treaty of Amiens had induced crowds of English to cross the Channel, and on the specious pretext that two French ships had been captured prior to the actual declaration of war, he issued a decree on the 22nd of May, 1803, for the arrest and imprisonment of all Englishmen in France, over eighteen and under sixty years of age, all subjects of the king of England between those ages being considered, for the purpose of this outrageous order,as forming part of the English militia. This measure was carried out with the utmost rigour, and the eleven thousand English who thus became prisoners of war were deprived of their liberty fifteen years, and regained it only in 1814.
James Gillray.[January 11th, 1796.TWOPENNY WHIST.Mistress Humphrey and Betty, of St. James’ Street, their neighbour Mortimer (a well-known picture dealer) and a German guest.[A satire, by contrast, on the high stakes of “White’s” and “Boodle’s.”][Face p. 16.
James Gillray.
[January 11th, 1796.
TWOPENNY WHIST.
Mistress Humphrey and Betty, of St. James’ Street, their neighbour Mortimer (a well-known picture dealer) and a German guest.
[A satire, by contrast, on the high stakes of “White’s” and “Boodle’s.”]
[Face p. 16.
The feeling of the nation at this time may be judged by the debates in the Houses of Parliament. In the Commons, Mr. GreyEnglish Enthusiasm.moved an amendment, which, while it assured His Majesty of support in the war, expresseddisapprobation of the conduct of Ministers. This amendment was rejected by 398 to 67. The unanimity in the Lords was still greater. The official statement that England was unable to contend single-handed with France produced a violent outburst of indignation, and the amendment moved by Lord King, to omit words which charged France with the actual guilt and responsibility of breaking the treaty, was negatived by 142 to 10. This was on the 23rd of May. On the 20th of June a great meeting was held at Lloyds, for the purpose of promoting a subscription for carrying on the war. Six days later on, five thousand merchants, bankers, and other persons of position met at the Royal Exchange, and unanimously agreed to a declaration which expressed their determination to “stand or fall with their king and country.” This resolution or declaration was seconded by the Secretary to the East India Company, and the meeting did not separate until “God save the King” and “Rule Britannia” had been sung, and nine cheers had been given for England and King George. On the 26th of August, His Majesty reviewed the London volunteers in Hyde Park, in the presence of the French princes, General Dumouriez, and two hundred thousand spectators; this military spectacle being followed on the 28th by a review, in the same place, of the Westminster, Lambeth, and Southwark corps. The number of volunteers actually enrolled in the metropolis and outparishes at this time was forty-six thousand.
The following year saw the final end of the great French Revolution; the names of the puppet “second” and “third” consuls had been long omitted from the public acts of the French Government. The motives of this omission were soon abundantly apparent; and in the month of May, 1804, Bonaparte was proclaimed Emperor of the French.
Some writers have doubted whether Napoleon entertained any serious intention of invading this country; but to doubt such intention would be really to doubt whether Nelson fell at Trafalgar, for that crushing defeat was simply the sequel and outcome of thecollapse of the emperor’s plans. The details of the invasion scheme were fully explained to General Sir Neil Campbell by Napoleon himself at Elba, in 1814, and afterwards confirmed by him in precisely similar terms to O’Meara at St. Helena. Those plans were defeated by the suspicions and vigilance of Lord Nelson; by his habit of acting promptly upon his suspicions; by the alacrity with which the Admiralty of the day obeyed his warnings; by the prescience of Lord Collingwood; and by the consequent intercepting of the combined French and Spanish fleets off Ferrol by Sir Robert Calder, in July, 1806. The moment this happened, Napoleon saw that his game—so far at least as England was concerned—was at an end; and fertile in resources, he immediately carried out the second part of his programme. Then followed, as we know, the campaign of Austerlitz, the treaty of Presburg, the war with Prussia, and finally the battle of Jena, in October, 1806.
Ever bent on humiliating and crippling the resources ofBerlin Decree.England, Napoleon on the 1st of November, 1806, issued his memorable “Berlin Decree,” containing eleven clauses, of which this country formed the exclusive topic. By it, all trade and correspondence with the British Isles was prohibited; all letters and packets at the post office, addressed to England, or to an Englishman, or “written in English,” were to be seized; every subject of England foundin anyof the countries occupied by French troops or those of their allies, was to be made prisoner of war; all warehouses, merchandise, and property belonging to a subject of England were declared lawful prize; all trading in English merchandise forbidden; every article belonging to England, or coming from her colonies, or of her manufacture, was declared good prize; and English vessels were excluded from every European port.10This outrageous “decree” Bonaparte imposed upon every country that fell under the iron sway of his military despotism.