See alsoCaricature onWikipedia; and our1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
CARICATURE (Ital.caricatura,i.e. “ritratto ridicolo,” fromcaricare, to load, to charge; Fr.charge), a general term for theart of applying the grotesque to the purposes of satire, and forpictorial and plastic ridicule and burlesque. The word, “caricatura”was first used as English by Sir Thomas Browne (1605–1682),in hisChristian Morals, a posthumous work; it is nextfound, still in its Italian form, in No. 537 of theSpectator; itwas adopted by Johnson in his dictionary (1757), but does notappear in Bailey’s dictionary, for example, as late as 1773;and it only assumed its modern guise towards the end of the18th century, when its use and comprehension became general.
Little that is not conjectural can be written concerningcaricature among the ancients. Few traces of the comic arediscoverable in Egyptian art—such papyri of a satirical tendencyas are known to exist appearing to belong rather to the class ofithyphallic drolleries than to that of the ironical grotesque.Among the Greeks, though but few and dubious data are extant,it seems possible that caricature may not have been altogetherunknown. Their taste for pictorial parody, indeed, has beensufficiently proved by plentiful discoveries of pottery paintedwith burlesque subjects. Aristotle, moreover, who disapprovedof grotesque art, condemns in strong terms the pictures of acertain Pauson, who, alluded to by Aristophanes, and the subjectof one of Lucian’s anecdotes, is hailed by Champfleury as thedoyen of caricaturists. That the grotesque in graphic art conceivedin the true spirit of intentional caricature was practisedby the Romans is evident from the curious frescoes uncoveredat Pompeii and Herculaneum; from the mention in Pliny ofcertain painters celebrated for burlesque pictures; from thecurious fantasies graven in gems and called Grylli; and fromthe number of ithyphallic caprices that have descended tomodern times. But in spite of these evidences of Greek andRoman humour, in spite of the famous comic statuette of Caracalla,and of the more famousgraffito of the Crucifixion, thecaricaturists of the old world must be sought for, not amongits painters and sculptors, but among its poets and dramatists.The comedies of Aristophanes and the epigrams of Martial were,to the Athens of Pericles and the Rome of Domitian, what theetchings of Gillray and the lithographs of Daumier were to theLondon of George III. and the Paris of the Citizen King.
During the middle ages a vast mass of grotesque material wasaccumulated, but selection becomes even more difficult thanwith the scarce relics of antiquity. With the building of thecathedrals originated a new style of art; a strange mixture ofmemories of paganism and Christian imaginings was calledinto being for the adornment of those great strongholds of urbanCatholicism, and in this the coarse and brutal materialism ofthe popular humour found its largest and freest expression.On missal-marge and sign-board, on stall and entablature, ingargoyle and initial, the grotesque displayed itself in an infinitevariety of forms. The import of this inextricable tangle ofimagery, often obscene and horrible, often quaint and fantastic,is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. We recognize theprevalence of three great popular types or figures, each of whichmay be credited with a satirical intention—of Reynard the Fox,the hero of the famous medieval romance; of the Devil, thatpeculiarly medieval antithesis of God; and of Death, the sarcasticand irreverent skeleton. The popularity of the last isevidenced by the fact that no fewer than forty-three towns inEngland, France and Germany are enumerated as possessingsets of the Dance of Death, that grandiose all-levelling series ofcaprices in the contemplation of which the middle ages foundso much consolation. It was reserved for Holbein (1498–1554),seizing the idea and resuming all that his contemporaries thoughtand felt on the subject, to produce, in his fifty-three magnificentdesigns of the Danse Macabre, the first and perhaps the greatestset of satirical moralities known to the modern world.
It is in the tumult of the Renaissance, indeed, that caricaturein its modern sense may be said to have been born. The greatpopular movements required some such vehicle of comment orcensure; the perfection to which the arts of design were attainingsupplied the means; the invention of printing ensured itsdissemination. The earliest genuine piece of graphic irony thathas been discovered is a caricature (1499) relating to Louis XII.and his Italian war. But it was the Reformation that producedthe first full crop of satirical ephemerae, and the heads of Lutherand Alexander VI. are therefore the direct ancestors of the masksthat smirk and frown from the “cartoons” ofPunch and theCharivari. Fairly started by Lucas Cranach, a friend of Luther,in hisPassionale of Christ and Antichrist (1521), caricature wasnaturalized in France under the League, but only to pass intothe hands of the Dutch, who supplied the rest of Europe withsatirical prints during the whole of the next century. A curiousreaction is visible in the work of Pieter Breughel (1510–1570)towards the grotesquediablerie and macaberesque morality ofmedieval art, the last original and striking note of which iscaught in the compositions of Jacques Callot (1593–1635), and,in a less degree, in those of his followers, Stefano della Bella(1610–1664) and Salvator Rosa (1615–1673). On the otherhand, however, Callot, one of the greatest masters of thegrotesque that ever lived, in certain of hisCaprices, and in histwo famous sets of prints, theMisères de la guerre, may be saidto anticipate certain productions of Hogarth and Goya, and soto have founded the modern school of ironicgenre.
In England one of the earliest caricatures extant is that in themargin of the Forest Roll of Essex, 5, ed. 1, now at the RecordOffice; it is a grotesque portrait of “Aaron fil Diabole” (Aaron,son of the devil), probably representing Cok, son of Aaron. Itis dated 1277. Another caricature, undated, appears on a Rollcontaining an account of the tallages and fines paid by Jews,17. Henry III., belonging to 1233 (Exch. of Receipt, Jews’ Roll,No. 8). It is an elaborate satirical design of Jews and devils,arranged in a pediment. During the 16th century, caricaturecan hardly be said to have existed at all,—a grotesque of MaryStuart as a mermaid, a pen and ink sketch of which is yet to beseen in the Rolls Office, being the only example of it known.The Great Rebellion, however, acted as the Reformation haddone in Germany, and Cavaliers and Roundheads caricaturedeach other freely. At this period satirical pictures usually didduty as the title-pages of scurrilous pamphlets; but one instanceis known of the employment during the war of a grotesqueallegory as a banner, while the end of the Commonwealthproduced a satirical pack of playing cards, probably of Dutchorigin. The Dutch, indeed, as already has been stated, were thegreat purveyors of pictorial satire at this time and during theearly part of the next century. In England the wit of thevictorious party was rather vocal than pictorial; in France thespirit of caricature was sternly repressed; and it was fromHolland, bold in its republican freedom, and rich in paintersand etchers, that issued the flood of prints and medalswhich illustrate, through cumbrous allegories and elaborate symbolization, the principal political passages of both the formercountries, from the Restoration (1660) to the South Sea Bubble(1720). The most distinguished of the Dutch artists was Romainde Hooghe (1638–1720), a follower of Callot, who, without anyof the weird power of his master, possessed a certain skill ingrouping and faculty of grotesque suggestiveness that made hispoint a most useful weapon to William of Orange during the longstruggle with Louis XIV.
The 18th century, however, may be called emphatically theage of caricature. The spirit is evident in letters as in art; inthe fierce grotesques of Swift, in the coarsercharges of Smollett,in the keen ironies of Henry Fielding, in the Aristophanictendency of Foote’s farces, no less than in the masterly moralitiesof Hogarth and the truculent satires of Gillray. The first eventthat called forth caricatures in any number was the prosecution(1710) of Dr Sacheverell; most of these, however, were importationsfrom Holland, and only in the excitement attendant on theSouth Sea Bubble, some ten years later, can the English schoolbe said to have begun. Starting into active being with theministry of Walpole (1721), it flourished under that statesmanfor some twenty years,—the “hieroglyphics,” as its prints werenamed, graphically enough, often circulating on fans. It continuedto increase in importance and audacity till the reignof Pitt (1757–1761), when its activity was somewhat abated.It rose, however, to a greater height than ever during the ruleof Bute (1761–1763), and since that time its influence hasextended without a check. The artists whose combinationsamused the public during this earlier period are, with fewexceptions, but little known and not greatly esteemed. Amongthem were two amateurs, Dorothy, wife of Richard Boyle,3rd earl of Burlington, and General George Townshend (afterwards1st Marquess Townshend); Goupy, Boitard and Liotardwere Frenchmen; Vandergucht and Vanderbank were Dutchmen.This period witnessed also the rise of William Hogarth(1697–1764). As a political caricaturist Hogarth was notsuccessful, save in a few isolated examples, as in the portraitsof Wilkes and Churchill; but as a moralist and social satiristhe has not yet been equalled. The publication, in 1732, of hisModern Midnight Conversation may be said to mark an epoch inthe history of caricature. Mention must also be made of PaulSandby (1725–1809), who was not a professional caricaturist,though he joined in the pictorial hue-and-cry against Hogarthand Lord Bute, and who is best remembered as the founder ofthe English school of water-colour; and of John Collet (1723–1788),said to have been a pupil of Hogarth, a kindly and industrioushumorist, rarely venturing into the arena of politics.During the latter half of the century, however, political caricaturebegan to be somewhat more skilfully handled than of old byJames Sayer, a satirist in the pay of the younger Pitt, whilesocial grotesques were pleasantly treated by Henry WilliamBunbury (1750–1811) and George Moutard Woodward. Thesepersonalities, however, interesting as they are, are dwarfed intoinsignificance by the great figure of James Gillray (1757–1815),in whose hands political caricature became almost epic forgrandeur of conception and far-reaching suggestiveness. It isto the works of this man of genius, indeed, and (in a less degree)to those of his contemporary, Thomas Rowlandson (1756–1827),an artist of great and varied powers, that historians must turnfor the popular reflection of all the political notabilia of the endof the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries. Englandmay be said to have been the chosen home of caricature duringthis period. In France, timid and futile under the Monarchy,it had assumed an immense importance under the Revolution,and a cloud of hideous pictorial libels was the result; but eventhe Revolution left no such notes through its own artists, thoughFragonard (1732–1806) himself was of the number, as came fromthe gravers of Gillray and Rowlandson. In Germany caricaturedid not exist. Only in Spain was there to be found an artistcapable of entering into competition with the masters of thesatirical grotesque of whom England could boast. The worksof Francesco Goya y Lucientes (1746–1828) are described byThéophile Gautier as “a mixture of those of Rembrandt,Watteau, and the comical dreams of Rabelais,” and Champfleurydiscovers analogies between him and Honoré Daumier, thegreatest caricaturist of modern France.
The satirical grotesque of the 18th century had been characterizedby a sort of grandiose brutality, by a certain vigorousobscenity, by a violence of expression and intention, that appearmonstrous in these days of reserve and restraint, but thatdoubtless sorted well enough with the strong party feelings andfierce political passions of the age. After the downfall of Napoleon(1815), however, when strife was over and men were weary andsatisfied, a change in matter and manner came over the caricatureof the period. In connection with this change, the nameof George Cruikshank (1792–1878), an artist who stretcheshands on the one side towards Hogarth and Gillray, and on theother towards Leech and Tenniel, deserves honourable mention.Those of Cruikshank’s political caricatures which were designedfor the squibs of William Hone (1779–1842) are, comparativelyspeaking, uninteresting; his ambition was that of Hogarth—theproduction of “moral comedies.” Much of his work, therefore,may be said to form a link in the chain of developmentthrough which has passed that ironicalgenre to which referencehas already been made. In 1829, however, began to appear thefamous series of lithographs, signed H.B., the work of JohnDoyle (1798–1868). These jocularities are interesting otherwisethan politically; thin and weakly as they are, they inauguratedthe style of later political caricature. In France, meanwhile,with the farcical designs of Edme Jean Pigal (b. 1794) and therealistic sketches of Henri Monnier (1805–1872), the admirableportrait-busts of Jean Pierre Dantan the younger (1800–1869)and the fine military and low-life drolleries of Nicolas ToussaintCharlet (1792–1845) were appearing. Up to this date, thoughjournalism and caricature had sometimes joined hands (as inthe case of theCraftsman and theAnti-Jacobin, and particularlyinLes Révolutions de France et de Brabant andLes Actes desApôtres), the alliance had been but brief; it was reserved forCharles Philipon (1802–1862), who may be called the father ofcomic journalism, to make it lasting. The foundation ofLaCaricature, by Philipon in 1831, suppressed in 1835 after a briefbut glorious career, was followed byLe Charivari (December1832), which is perhaps the most renowned of the innumerableenterprises of this extraordinary man. Among the artists heassembled round him, the highest place is held by HonoréDaumier (1808–1879), a draughtsman of great skill, and acaricaturist of immense vigour and audacity. Another ofPhilipon’s band was Sulpice Paul Chevalier (1801–1866), betterknown as Gavarni, in whose hands modern social caricature,advanced by Cruikshank and Charlet, assumed its presentguise and became elegant. Mention must also be made ofGrandville (J. I. I. Gérard) (1803–1847), the illustrator of LaFontaine, and a modern patron of the medieval skeleton; ofCharles Joseph Traviès de Villers, the father of the famoushunchback “Mayeux”; and of Amedée de Noé, or “Cham,”the wittiest and most ephemeral of pictorial satirists. In 1840the pleasantries of “H.B.” having come to an end, there wasfounded, in imitation of this enterprise of Philipon, the comicjournal which, under the title ofPunch, or the London Charivari,has since become famous all over the world. Among its earlyillustrators were John Leech (1817–1864) and Richard Doyle(1824–1883), whose drawings were full of the richest grotesquehumour.
In 1862 Carlo Pellegrini, inVanity Fair, began a series ofportraits of public men, which may be considered the mostremarkable instances of personal caricature in England.
For the later developments of caricature, it is convenient to takethem by countries in the following sections:—
Great Britain.—During the later 19th century the term caricature,somewhat loosely used at all times, came gradually to cover almostevery form of humorous art, from the pictorial wit and wisdom ofSir John Tenniel to the weird grotesques of Mr S. H. Sime, from thegay pleasantries of Randolph Caldecott to the graceful but sedatefancies of Mr Walter Crane. It is made to embrace alike the socialstudies, satirical and sympathetic, of Du Maurier and Keene, thepolitical cartoons of Mr Harry Furniss and Sir F. C. Gould, theunextenuating likenesses of “Ape,” and “Spy,” and “Max,” the subtle conceits of Mr Linley Sambourne, the whimsicalities of MrE. T. Reed, the exuberant burlesques of Mr J. F. Sullivan, thefrank buffooneries of W.G. Baxter, Of these diverse forms of graphichumour, some have no other object than to amuse, and therefore donot call for serious notice. The work of Mr Max Beerbohm (“Max”)has the note of originality and extravagance too; while that of“Spy” (Mr Leslie Ward) inVanity Fair, if it does not rival theoccasional brilliancy of his predecessor “Ape” (Carlo Pellegrini,1839–1889), maintains a higher average of merit. The pupil, too, ismuch more genial than the master, and he is content if his pencilevokes the comment, “How ridiculously like!” Caricature of thiskind is merely an entertainment. Here we are concerned ratherwith those branches of caricature which, merrily or mordantly,reflect and comment upon the actual life we live. In treating ofrecent caricature of this kind, we must give the first place toPunch.Mr Punch’s outlook upon life has not changed much since the’seventies of the last century. His influence upon the tone ofcaricature made itself felt most appreciably in the days of JohnLeech and Richard Doyle. Their successors but follow in their steps.In their work, says a clever German critic, is to be found no vestigeof the “sour bilious temper of John Bull” that pervaded thepictures of Hogarth and Rowlandson. Charles Keene (1823–1891)and Du Maurier (1834–1896), he declares, are not caricaturists orsatirists, but amiable and tenderly grave observers of life, friendlyoptimists. The characterization is truer of Keene, perhaps, than ofDu Maurier. Charles Keene’s sketches are almost always cheerful;almost without exception they make you smile or laugh. In manyof Du Maurier’s, on the other hand, there is an underlying seriousness.While Keene looks on at life with easy tolerance, an amusedspectator, Du Maurier shows himself sensitive, emotional, sympathetic,taking infinite delight in what is pretty and gay andcharming, but hurt and offended by the sordid and the ugly. Thuswhile Keene takes things dispassionately as they come, seeing onlythe humorous side of them, we find Du Maurier ever and anonattacking some new phase of snobbishness or philistinism or cant.For all his kindliness in depicting congenial scenes, he is at times asunrelenting a satirist as Rowlandson. The otherPunch artists,whose work is in the same field, resemble Keene in this respect ratherthan Du Maurier. Mr Leonard Raven-Hill recalls Charles Keenenot merely in temperament but in technique; like Keene, too, hefinds his subjects principally inbourgeois life. Mr J. BernardPartridge, though, like Du Maurier, he has an eye for physicalbeauty, is a spectator rather than a critic of life, yet he has madehis mark as a “cartoonist.” Phil May (d. 1903), a modern Touchstone,is less easily classified. Though he wears the cap and bells,he is alive to the pity of things; he sees the pathos no less than thehumour of his street-boys and “gutter-snipes.” He is, however, ajester primarily: an artist, too, of high achievement. Two othersstand out as masters of the art of social caricature—FrederickBarnard and Mr J. F. Sullivan. Barnard’s illustrations to Dickens,like his original sketches, have a lively humour—the humour ofirrepressible high spirits—and endless invention. High spirits andinvention are characteristics also of Mr Sullivan. It is at the Britishartisan and petty tradesman—at the grocer given to adulterationand the plumber who outstays his welcome—that he aims his mostboisterous fun. He rebels, too, delightfully, against red tape and allthe petty tyrannies of officialdom. In political caricatureSir John Tenniel(q.v.) remained the leading artist of his day. The death ofAbraham Lincoln, Bismarck’s fall from power, the tragedy ofKhartum—to subjects such as these, worthy of a great painter,Tenniel has brought a classic simplicity and a sense of dignityunknown previously to caricature. It is hard to say in which fieldTenniel most excels—whether in those ingenious parables in whichthe British Lion and the Russian Bear, John Chinaman, JacquesBonhomme and Uncle Sam play their part—or in the ever-changingscenes of the great parliamentary Comedy—or in sombre dramasof Anarchy, Famine or Crime—or in those London extravaganzasin which the symbolic personalities of Gog and Magog, Father Thamesand the Fog Fiend, the duke of Mudford and Mr Punch himself,have become familiar. Subjects similar to these have been treatedalso for many years by Mr Linley Sambourne in his fanciful and oftenbeautiful designs. In the field of humorous portraiture also, as incartoon-designing, Mr Sambourne has made his mark, and he maybe said almost to have originated, in a small way, that practice ofillustrating the doings of parliament with comic sketches in whichMr Furniss, Mr E. T. Reed and Sir F. C. Gould were his mostnotable successors. Mr Furniss satirized the Royal Academy aseffectively as the Houses of Parliament, but he has been above allthe illustrator of parliament—the creator of Mr Gladstone’s collars,the thief of Lord Randolph Churchill’s inches, the immortalizer of somany otherwise obscure politicians who has worked the House ofCommons and its doings into so many hundreds of eccentric designs.But Mr Furniss was never, like Sir F. C. Gould (of theWestminsterGazette), a politician first and a caricaturist afterwards. Gould isan avowed partisan, and his caricatures became the most formidableweapons of the Radical party. Caustic, witty and telling, notspecially well drawn, but drawn well enough—the likenesses unfailinglycaught and recognizable at a glance—his “Picture Politics”won him a place unique in the ranks of caricaturists. There is noevidence of such strenuousness in the work of Mr E. T. Read (ofPunch). In his parliamentary sketches, as in his “Animal Land”and “Prehistoric Peeps,” Mr Reed is a wholly irresponsible humoristand parodist. One finds keen satire, however, in those “Ready-madeCoats of Arms,” in which he turned at once his heraldic loreand his insight into character to excellent account. In his moreserious picture in which he has drawn a parallel between thetricoteusesawaiting with grim enjoyment the fall of the guillotine and thosemodern English gentlewomen who flock to the Old Bailey as to theplay, we have the true Hogarthian touch. Mr Gunning King,Mr F. H. Townshend, Mr C. E. Brock, Mr Tom Browne, are among theyounger humorists who have advanced to the front rank. Thoughthere have been some notable competitors withPunch, there hasnever been a really “good second.” In Matt Morgan theTomahawk(1865–1867) could boast an original cartoonist after Tenniel’s style,but without Tenniel’s power and humour. Morgan’sTomahawkcartoons gained in effect from an ingenious method of printing intwo colours. In Fred Barnard, W. G. Baxter, and Mr J. F. Sullivan,Judy (founded in 1867) possessed a trio of pictorial humorists of thefirst rank, and in W. Bowcher a political cartoonist thoroughly tothe taste of those hot and strong Conservatives to whomPunch’sfaint Whiggery was but Radicalism in disguise. His successor, MrWilliam Parkinson, was not less loyal to Tory ideas, though moreurbane in his methods.Fun has had cartoonists of high merit inMr Gordon Thomson and in Mr John Proctor, who worked also forMoonshine (founded in 1879, now extinct).Moonshine afterwardsenlisted the services of Alfred Bryan, to whose clever pencil theChristmas number of theWorld was indebted for many years.AllySloper, founded in 1884, is notable only as the widely circulatedmedium for W. G. Baxter’s wild humours, kept up in the same spiritby Mr W. F. Thomas, his successor.Pick-me-up could once count astaff which rivalled at least the social side ofPunch; Mr Raven-Hill,Phil May, Mr Maurice Greiffenhagen and Mr Dudley Hardy allcontributed in their time to its sprightly pages, while Mr S. H. Simemade it the vehicle for his “squint-brained” imaginings. TheWillo’ the Wisp, theButterfly and theUnicorn, kindred ventures, thoughon different lines, all met with an early death.Lika Joko, foundedin 1894 by Mr Harry Furniss, who in that year abandonedPunch,and afterwardsFair Game, were also short-lived. To this brief listof purely comic or satirical journals should be added the names ofseveral daily and weekly publications—and among monthlies theIdler, with its caricatures by Mr Scott Rankin, Mr Sime and MrBeerbohm—which have made a special feature of humorous art.Among these are theGraphic, whose Christmas numbers were firstbrightened by Randolph Caldecott; theDaily Graphic, enlivenedsometimes by Phil May and Mr A. S. Boyd;Vanity Fair, with itsgrotesque portraits;Truth, to whose Christmas numbers Sir F. C.Gould contributed some of his best and most ambitious work,printed in colours; theSketch, with Phil May and others;Blackand White, with Mr Henry Meyer; thePall Mall Gazette, first withSir F. C. Gould, and later with Mr G. R. Halkett. TheSt Stephen’sReview, whose crudely powerful cartoons, the work of Tom Merry,were so popular, ceased publication in 1892. A tribute should bepaid in conclusion to the coloured cartoons of theWeekly Freemanand other Irish papers, often remarkable for their humour and talent.(See alsoCartoon andIllustration.)
France.—In that peculiar branch of art which is based on irony,fun, oddity and wit, and in which Honoré Daumier (1808–1879),next to “Gavarni” (1804–1866), remains the undisputed master,France—as has already been shown—can produce an unbrokenseries of draughtsmen of strong individuality. Though “Cham”died in 1879, Eugène Giraud in 1881, “Randon” in 1884, “AndréGill” in 1885, “Marcelin” in 1887, Edouard de Beaumont in 1888,Lami in 1891, Alfred Grévin in 1892, and “Stop” in 1899, a newgroup arose under the leadership of “Nadar” (b. 1820) and EtienneCarjat (b. 1828). Mirthful or satirical, and less philosophical thanof yore, neglecting history for incident, and humanity for the puppetsof the day, their drawings, which illustrate daily events, willperpetuate the manner and anecdotes of the time, though the illustrationsto newspapers, or prints which need a paragraph of explanation,show nothing to compare with thePropos de Thomas Virelocque by“Gavarni.” Quantity perhaps makes up for quality, and some ofthese artists deserve special mention. “Draner” (b. 1833) and“Henriot” (b. 1857) are journalists, carrying on the method firstintroduced by “Cham” in theUnivers Illustré: realistic sketches,with no purpose beyond the droll illustration of facts, amusing at thetime, but of no value to the print-collector. M. J. L. Forain, bornat Reims in 1852, studied at the École des Beaux Arts under JeanLéon Gérôme and J. B. Carpeaux. He first worked for theCourrierFrançais in 1887, and afterwards forFigaro; he was then drawninto the polemical work of politics. Though he has created somegreat types of flunkeydom, the explanatory story is more to himthan the picture, which is often too sketchy, though masterly.Reduced reproductions of his work have been issued in volumes, acommon form of popularity never attempted with Daumier’s finelithographs. M. A. L. Willette, born at Châlons-sur-Marne in 1857,a son of Colonel Willette, the aide-de-camp to Marshal Bazaine,worked for four years in Alexandre Cabanel’s studio, and so gainedan artistic training which alone would have distinguished him fromhis fellows, even without the delightful poetical fancy and Watteau-likegrace which are somewhat unexpected amid the ugliness of modern life. His work has the value, no doubt, of deep and variousmeaning, but it has also intrinsic artistic worth. M. Willette is, infact, the ideal delineator of the more voluptuous and highly spicedaspects of contemporary life. “Caran d’Ache,” a native of Moscow,born in 1858, borrowed from the German caricaturists—mainly fromW. Busch—his methods of illustrating “a story without words.”He makes fun even of animals, and is a master of canine physiognomy.His simple and unerring outline is a method peculiarly hisown; now and again his wit rises to grandiloquence, as in hisBellona, rushing on an automobile through massacre and conflagrations,and in hisÉpopée (Epic) of shadows thrown on a sheet.Among his followers may be included A. Guillaume and Gerbault.M. C. L. Léandre, born at Champsecret (Orne), in 1862, is, like“André Gill,” a draughtsman of monstrosities; he can get a perfectlikeness of a face while exaggerating some particular feature, giveshis figure a hump-back, as Dantan did in his statuettes, and has afacial dexterity which sometimes does scant justice to his veryoriginal wit. At the same time he has a true sense of beauty.M. Théophile A. Steinlen, born at Lausanne in 1859, went to Parisin 1881. He should be studied in his illustrations toBruant. Heknows the inmost core of the Butte-Montmartre, and depicts itwith realistic and brutal relish. M. Albert Robida, born at Compiègnein 1848, collaborated with Decaux in 1871 to foundLa Caricature;he is a paradoxical seer of the possible future and a curiosity-hunterof the past. Old Paris has no secrets from him; he knows all theold stones and costumes of the middle ages, and has illustratedRabelais; and for fertility of fancy he reminds us of Gustave Doré,but with a sense of movement so vibrant as to be almost distressing.“Bac,” born at Vienna in 1859, has infused a strain of the Austrianwoman into the Parisienne; representing her merely as a pleasure- andlove-seeking creature, as the toy of an evening, he has recordedher peccadilloes, her witcheries and her vices. Others who have shotfolly as it flies are M. Albert Guillaume, who illustrated the Exhibitionof 1900 in a series of remarkable silhouettes; “Mars”; “HenriSomm”; Gerbault; and Grün. M. Huard depicts to perfectionthe country townsfolk in their elementary psychology. M. HermannPaul, M. Forain’s not unworthy successor on theFigaro, is a cruelsatirist, who in a single face can epitomize a whole class of society,and could catalogue the actors of thecomédie humaine in a series ofdrawings. M. Jean Veber loves fantastic subjects, the gnomes offairy-tales and myths; but he has a biting irony for contemporaryhistory, as in theButcher’s Shop, where Bismarck is the blood-stainedbutcher. M. Abel Faivre, a refined and charming painter, is awhimiscal humorist with the pencil. He shows us monstrous women,fabulously hideous, drawing them with a sort of realism which isdroll by sheer ugliness. Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec startles us byextraordinary dislocations, scrawled limbs and inexplicableanatomy; he has left an inimitable series of sketches of MmeYvette Guilbert when she was at her thinnest. M. Felix Vallottonreproduces crows in blots of black with a Japanese use of the brush.M. G. Jeanniot, a notable illustrator, sometimes amuses himself bycontributing toLe Rire, Le Sourire, Le Pompon, L’Assiette auBeurre, &c., drawing the two types he most affects: the fashionableworld and soldiers. M. Ibels, Capiello and many more might beenumerated, but it is impossible to chronicle all the clever humorousartists of the illustrated papers.
It is the frequent habit of French caricaturists to employ anom-de-guerre.We therefore give here a list of the genuine namesrepresented by the pseudonyms used above, together with othersfamiliar to thepublic:—
| “André Gill” | = L. A. Gosset de Guine (1840–1885). |
| “Bac” (“Cab” and “Saro”) | = Ferdinand Bach (b. 1859). |
| “Caran d’Ache” | = Emmanuel Poiré. |
| “Cham” | = Comte Amédée de Noé (b. 1818). |
| “Crafty” | = Victor Gérusez (b. 1840). |
| “Draner” (and “Paf”) | = Jules Renard (b. 1833). |
| “Faustin” | = Faustin Betbeder (b. 1847). |
| “Gavarni” | = S. G. Chevalier (1804–1866). |
| “Gédéon” | = Gédéon Baril (b. 1832). |
| “Grandville” | = J. I. I. Gérard (1803–1847). |
| “Henriot” (and “Piff”) | = Henri Maigrot (b. 1857). |
| “Henri Somm” | = Henri Sommier (b. 1844). |
| “Job” | = J. O. de Bréville (b. 1858). |
| “Marcelin” | = Émile Planat (1825–1887). |
| “Mars” | = Maurice Bonvoisin (b. 1849). |
| “Moloch” | = Colomb (b. 1849). |
| “Montbard” | = C. A. Loye (1841–1905). |
| “Nadar” | = Félix Tournachon (b. 1820). |
| “Pasquin” | = Georges Coutan (b. 1853). |
| “Pépin” | = Ed. Guillaume (b. 1842). |
| “Randon” | = Gilbert (1814–1845). |
| “Sahib” | = L. E. Lesage (b. 1847). |
| “Said” | = Alphonse Lévy (b. 1845). |
| “Sem” | = George Goursat. |
| “Stop” | = L. P. Morel-Retz (b. 1825). |
Germany.—During the later 19th century German caricatureflourished principally in the comic papersKladderadatsch of BerlinandFliegende Blätter of Munich; the former a political paper withlittle artistic value, in which the ideas alone are clever, whilst theillustrations are merely a more or less clumsy adjunct to the text,while theFliegende Blätter, on the contrary, has artistic merit aswell as wit. Wilhelm Busch (b. 1832), the most brilliant Germandraughtsman of the last generation, made hisdêbut with an illustratedpoem “The Peasant and the Miller,” and won a world-wide reputationwith the following works:Pater Filucius,Die Fromme Helene,Max und Moritz,Der heilige Antonius,Maler Kleksel,BalduinBählamm,Die Erlebnisse Knopps des Junggesellen. Busch standsalone among the caricaturists of his nation, inasmuch as he is boththe author and the illustrator of these works, his witty doggerelsupplying Germany with household words. The drawings thataccompany the text are amazing for the skill and directness withwhich he hits the vital mark. A flourish or two and a few touchesare enough to set before us figures of intensely comical aspect. Thisdistinguishes Busch from Adolf Oberländer (1845), who became thechief draughtsman onFliegende Blätter. Busch’s drawings wouldhave no meaning apart from the humorous words. Oberländerworks with the pencil only. Men, animals, trees, objects, are endowedby him with a mysterious life of their own. Without thehelp of any verbal joke, he achieves the funniest results simply byseeing and accentuating the comical side of everything. Hisdrawings are caricature in the strict sense of the word, its principlebeing the exaggeration of some natural characteristic. The newgeneration of contributors toFliegende Blätter do not work onthese lines. Busch and Oberländer were both offshoots of the romanticschool; they made fun of modern novelties. Hermann Schlittgen,Meggendorfer, H. Vogel-Plauen, Réne Reinicke, Adolf Hengelerand Fritz Wahle are the sons of a self-satisfied time, triumphing inits ownchic, elegance and grace; hence they do not parody whatthey see, but simply depict it. The wit lies exclusively in the text;the illustrations aim merely at a direct representation of street ordrawing-room scenes. It is this which gives toFliegende Blätterits value as a pictorial record of the history of German manners. Itspages are a permanent authority on the subject for those who desireto see the social aspects of Germany during the last quarter of the19th century onwards. At the same time a falling-off in the brilliancyof this periodical was perceptible. Its fun became domestic andhomely; it has faithfully adhered to the old technique of wood-engraving,and made no effort to keep pace with the modern methodsof reproduction. German caricature, to live and flourish, was notkeeping pace with the development of the art; it had to take intoits service the gay effects of colour, and derive fresh inspirationfrom the sweeping lines of the ornamental draughtsman. This led to theappearance of three new weekly papers:Jugend,Das NarrenschiffandSimplicissimus.Jugend, started in 1896 by Georg Hirthin Munich, collected from the first a group of gifted young artists,more especially Thöny, Bernhard Pankok and Julius Diez, whobased their style on old German wood-engraving; Fidus, wholavished the utmost beauty of line in unshaded pen-and-ink work;Rudolf Wilke, whose grotesques have much in common with Forain’sclever drawings; Angelo Jank and R. M. Eichler, who work with a delightfulbonhomie. Among the draughtsmen on theNarrenschiff(The Ship of Fools), Hans Baluschek is worthy of mention as havingmade the types of Berlin life all his own; and while this paper givesus for the most part inoffensive satire on society,Simplicissimus,first printed at Munich and then at Zurich, under the editorship ofAlbert Langen, shows a marked Socialist and indeed Anarchisttendency, subjecting to ridicule and mockery everything that hashitherto been held as unassailable by such weapons; it reminds usof the scathing satire of Honoré Daumier inLa Caricature at thetime of Louis Philippe. Thomas Theodor Heine (1867) is unsurpassedin this style for his power of expression and variety of technique.We must admire his delicate draughtsmanship, or again, his drawingof the figure with the heavy line of heraldic ornament, and his broadand monumental grasp of the grotesque. His laughter is ofteninsolent, but he is more often the preacher, scourge in hand, whoruthlessly unveils all the dark side of life. Next to him come Paul,an incomparable limner of student life and the manners and customsof the Bavarian populace; E. Thöny, a wonderfully clever caricaturistof the airs and assumption of the PrussianJunker and thePrussian subaltern; J. C. Eugh and F. von Regnieck, who makefun of the townsman and political spouter in biting and searchingsatire. The standard of caricature is at the present time a high onein Germany; indeed, the modern adoption of the pen-line, whichhas arisen since the impressionists in oil-painting repudiated line,had its origin in the influence of caricature.
United States.—The proverbial irreverence of the American mindeven towards its most cherished personages and ideals has made itparticularly responsive to the appeal of caricature. At first animportation, it developed but slowly; then it burst into luxuriantgrowth, sometimes exceeding the limits of wise and careful cultivation.In the early period of American caricature, almost the onlynative is F. O. C. Darley (1822–1888), an illustrator of some importance;the other names include the engraver Paul Revere (chieflyfamous for a picturesque exploit in the War of Independence); aScotsman, William Charles; the Englishmen, Matt Morgan andE. P. Bellew; and the Germans, Thomas Nast and Joseph Keppler.
The name of Thomas Nast overshadows and sums up Americanpolitical caricature. Nast, who was born in Bavaria in 1840, was brought to America at the age of six; and his training and all hisinterests were strongly American. At fourteen he was an illustratoronLeslie’s Weekly, and was sent at twenty to England to illustratethe famous Sayers-Heenan prize-fight. He then went as recorderof Garibaldi’s campaign of 1860. He returned to America knownonly as an illustrator. The Civil War did not awaken his latentgenius till 1864, when he published a cartoon of fierce irony againstthe political party which opposed Lincoln’s re-election and advocatedpeace measures with the Southern confederacy. This cartoon notonly made Nast famous, but may be said to contain the germ ofAmerican caricature; for all that had gone before was too crude intechnique to pass muster even as good caricature.
The magnificent corruption of Tammany Hall under the leadershipof William M. Tweed, the first of the great municipal “bosses,”gave Nast a subject worth attacking. Siegfried, earnest but light-hearted,armed with the mightier sword of the pen of ridicule,assailed the monster ensconced in his treasure-cave, and after along battle won a brilliant victory. Nast did not always rely on amere picture to carry his thrust; often his cartoon consisted of onlya minor figure or two looking at a large placard on which a long andpoignantly-worded attack was delivered in cold type. At other timesthe most ingenious pictorial subtlety was displayed. This long seriessounds almost the whole gamut of caricature, from downrightridicule to the most lofty denunciation. A very happy device wasthe representation of Tweed’s face by a money-bag with only dollarmarks for features, a device which, strangely enough, made acuriously faithful likeness of the “boodle”-loving despot. When,finally, Tweed took to flight, to escape imprisonment, he was recognizedand caught, it is said, entirely through the wide familiaritygiven to his image in Nast’s cartoons.
When Nast retired fromHarper’s Weekly, he was succeeded byCharles Green Bush (born 1842; died 1909). With even greatertechnical resources, he poured forth a series of cartoons ofremarkable evenness of skill and interest; he soon left weekly fordaily journalism. He never won, single-handed, such a battle asNast’s, but his drawings have a more general, perhaps a more lastinginterest. When he leftHarper’s Weekly he was succeeded by W. A.Rogers, who composed many ingenious and telling cartoons.
The vogue which, through Nast,Harper’s Weekly gave to caricature,prepared the way for the first purely comic weekly paper,Puck, founded by two Germans, and for long published in a Germanas well as an English edition—a journal which has cast its influencegenerally in favour of the Democratic party. It is worth notingthat not only the founders but the spirit of American caricaturehave been rather German than English, the American comic papersmore closely resemblingFliegende Blätter, for example, thanPunch.One of the founders ofPuck was Joseph Keppler (1838–1894), longits chief caricaturist.
The Republican party soon found a champion inJudge, a weeklysatirical paper which resemblesPuck closely in its crudely colouredpages, though somewhat broader and less ambitious in the spirit andexecution of its black-and-white illustrations. These two papershave kept rather strictly to permanent staffs, and have furnishedthe opening for many popular draughtsmen, such as BernhardGillam (d. 1896), and his brother, Victor; J. A. Wales (d. 1886);E. Zimmerman, whose extremely plebeian and broadly treated typesoften obscure the observation and Falstaffian humour displayed inthem; Grant Hamilton; Frederick Opper, for many years devotedto the trials of suburban existence, and later concerned in combatingthe trusts; C. J. Taylor, a graceful technician; H. Smith; Frank A.Nankivell, whose pretty athletic girls are prone to attitudinizing;J. Mortimer Flagg; F. M. Howarth; Mrs Frances O’Neill Latham,whose personages are singularly well modelled and alive; and MissBaker Baker, a skilful draughtswoman of animals.
A stimulus to genuine art in caricature was given by the establishment(1883) of the weeklyLife, edited by J. A. Mitchell, a cleverdraughtsman as well as an original writer. It is to this paper thatAmerica owes the discovery and encouragement of its most remarkableartist humorist, Charles Dana Gibson, whose technique hasdeveloped through many interesting phases from exceeding delicacyto a sculpturesque boldness of line without losing its rich texture,and without becoming monotonous. Mr Gibson is chiefly belovedby his public for his almost idolatrous realizations of the beautifulAmerican woman of various types, ages and environments. Hisworks are, however, full of the most subtle character-observations,and American men of all walks of life, and foreigners of every type,impart as much importance and humour to his pages as his “Gibsongirls” give radiance. His admitted devotion to Du Maurier, inreverence for the beautiful woman beautifully attired, has led somecritics to set him down as a mere disciple, while his powerful individualityhas led others to accuse him of monotony; but a seriousexamination of his work has seemed to reveal that he has gonebeyond the genius of Du Maurier in sophistication, if not in variety,of subjects and treatment. As much as any other artist Mr Gibsonhas studiously tried new experiments in the new fields opened bymodernized processes of photo-engraving, and has been an importantinfluence in both English and American line-illustration.
Among other students of society, particular success has beenachieved by C. S. Reinhart (1844–1896), Charles Howard Johnson(d. 1895), H. W. M‘Vickar, S. W. van Schaick, A. E. Sterner, W. H.Hyde, W. T. Smedley and A. B. Wenzell, each of them stronglyindividual in manner and often full ofverve and truth.
Life, and other comic papers, including for many yearsTruth,also brought forward caricaturists of distinct worth and a markedtendency to specialization. F. E. Atwood (d. 1900) was ingeniousin cartoons lightly allegorical; Oliver Herford has shown a fascinationelusive of analysis in his drawings as in his verse; T. S. Sullivanthas made a quaintly intellectual application of the old-world devicesof large heads, small bodies, and the like; Peter Newell has developedindividuality both in treatment and in humour; E. W. Kemble isnoteworthy among the exploiters of negro life; and H. B. Eddy,Augustus Dirk, Robert L. Wagner, A. Anderson, F. Sarka and J.Swinnerton have all displayed marked individuality.
In distinction from the earlier period, the modern school ofAmerican caricature is strongly national, not only in subject, butin origin, training and in mental attitude, exception being madeof a few notable figures, such as Michael Angelo Woolf, born inEngland, and of a somewhat Cruikshankian technique. He cameto America while young, and contributed a long series of what maybe called slum-fantasies, instinct alike with laughter and sorrow,at times strangely combining extravagant melodrama with a mostplausible and convincing impossibility. His drawings must alwayslie very close to the affections of the large audience that welcomedthem. American also by adoption is Henry Mayer, a German bybirth, who has contributed to many of the chief comic papers ofFrance, England, Germany and America.
Entirely native in every way is the art of A. B. Frost (b. 1851), aprominent humorist who deals with the life of the common people.His caricature (he is also an illustrator of versatility and importance)is distinguished by its anatomical knowledge, or, rather, anatomicalimagination. Violent as the action of his figures frequently is, it isalways convincing. Such triumphs as the tragedy of the kind-heartedman and the ungrateful bull-calf; the spinster’s cat thatate rat poison, and many others, force the most serious to laughterby their amazing velocity of action and their unctuousness of expression.Frost is to American caricature what “Artemus Ward”has been to American humour, and his field of publication has beenchiefly the monthly magazine.
The influence of the weekly periodicals has been briefly traced.A later development was the entrance of the omnivorous dailynewspaper into the field of both the magazine and the weekly.For many years almost every newspaper has printed its daily cartoon,generally of a political nature. Few of the cartoonists havebeen able to keep up the pace of a daily inspiration, but C. G. Bushhas been unusually successful in the attempt. Yet an occasionalsuccess atones for many slips, and the cartoonists are known andeagerly watched. The most influential has doubtless been HomerC. Davenport, whose slender artistic resources have been eked outby a vigour and mercilessness of assault rare even in Americanannals. He has a Rabelaisian complacency and skill in making aportrait magnificently repulsive, and his caricatures are a vividexample of the school of cartoonists who believe in slashing ratherthan merely prodding or tickling the object of attack. CharlesNelan (1859–1904) frequently scored, and in the wide extent of theUnited States one finds keen wits busily assailing the manifold evilsof life. Noteworthy among them are: Thos. E. Powers, H. R.Heaton, Albert Levering, Clare Angell and R. C. Swayne.
Scandinavia.—Caricature flourishes also in the Scandinaviancountries, but few names are known beyond their borders. ProfessorHans Tegner of Denmark is an exception; his illustrations to HansAndersen (English edition, 1900) have carried his name whereverthat author is appreciated, yet his reputation was made in theDanishPunch, which was founded after the year 1870 but has longceased to exist. Alfred Schmidt and Axel Thiess have contributednotable sketches toPuk and its successorKlockhaus, but in pointof style they scarcely carry on the tradition of their predecessor,Fritz Jürgensen. Among humorous artists of Norway, Th. Kittelsenperhaps holds the leading place, and in Sweden, Bruno Liljefors,best known as a brilliant painter of bird life.
Bibliography.—Rules for Drawing Caricature,with an Essay onComic Painting, by Francis Grose (8vo, London, 1788);HistoricalSketch of the Art of Caricaturing, by J. Peller Malcolm (4to, London,1813);History of Caricature and Grotesque in Literature and Art, byThomas Wright (8vo, London, 1865);Musée de la caricature, byJaime; (a)Histoire de la caricature antique; (b)Histoire de lacaricature au moyen âge et sous la renaissance; (c)Histoire de lacaricature sous la réforme et la ligue; (d)Histoire de la caricaturesous la république, l’empire,et la restauration; (e)Histoire de lacaricature moderne (5 vols.), by Champfleury (i.e. Jules Fleury),(8vo, Paris);Le Musée secret de la caricature, by Champfleury (i.e.Jules Fleury), (8vo, Paris);L’Art du rire et de la caricature, byArsène Alexandre (8vo, Paris);Caricature and other Comic Art, byJames Parton (sm. 4to, New York, 1878);Le Miroir de la vie: laCaricature, by Robert de la Sizeranne (8vo, Paris, 1902), (tracingthe aesthetic development of the art and spirit of caricature);LaCaricature à travers les siècles, by Georges Veyrat (4to, Paris);LaCaricature et les caricaturistes, by Émile Bagaud (with a preface byCh. Léandre), (fo., Paris);Le Rire et la caricature, by Paul Gaultier(with a preface by Sully Prudhomme), (8vo, Paris, 1906), (a workof originality, dwelling not only on the aesthetic but on the essentially pessimistic side of satiric art);English Caricaturists and GraphicHumorists of the Nineteenth Century, by Graham Everitt (i.e. WilliamRodgers Richardson), (4to, London, 1886), (a careful and interestingsurvey);La Caricature en Angleterre, by Augustin Filva (8vo, Paris,1902), (an able criticism from the point of view of psycho-sociology);The History of Punch, by M. H. Spielmann (8vo, London, 1895),(dealing with caricature art of England during the half-centurycovered by the book);Magazine of Art,passim, for biographies ofEnglish caricaturists—“Our Graphic Humorists”;Social PictorialSatire, by George du Maurier (12mo, London, 1898);Les Mœurset la caricature en France, by J. Grand-Carteret (8vo, Paris, 1885);La Caricature et l’humeur français au XIX e siècle, by Raoul Deberdt(8vo, Paris);Les Maîtres de la caricature française en XIX e siècle,by Armand Dayot (Paris);Nos humoristes, by Ad. Brisson (4to,Paris, 1900);Les Mœurs et la caricature en Allemagne, &c., byJ. Grand-Carteret (8vo, Paris, 1885). See also biographies ofCharles Keene, H. Daumier, John Leech, &c., indicated under thosenames. (M. H. S.)
