The World Turned Upside Down or the Folly of Man, Pubd by G. Thompson, No. 43 Long Lane Wst Smithfield, LONDON.
The World Turned Upside Down is an old English ballad whose lyrics imagine a world in which natural hierarchy has been inverted, causing predators to become prey and men to labour at the behest of animals. The first printed edition of the song was published in the late 1640s and it remained an active part of English print culture until the early nineteenth-century. Its enduring appeal undoubtedly owing something to the fact that it works both as a piece of superficially absurd humour and as a vehicle for more subtle forms of social and political satire. When used in a political context, the message conveyed by The World Turned Upside Down is almost invariably a conservative one which reinforces the concept of a naturally or divinely ordained order within society and the dangers associated with attempting to disrupt this. As the concluding stanza of a delightfully illustrated pamphlet edition of the song published in 1806 makes clear:
Thus we can see the world’s best as it is,
All sorrow can ne’er be prevented,
Then be ev’ry man patient with his,
For we’re Fools if we are not contented.
At least three different versions of The World Turned Upside Down or the Folly of Man were published in London in or around the 1790s. Two of these can be found in the British Museum and the third is illustrated here. All three were issued without publication dates but the first is likely to have been by Henry Bowles and Samuel Carver. The British Museum’s catalogue indicates that their copy of the print is itself a later reissue of a plate that Henry probably inherited from his great-grandfather Thomas Bowles (fl. 1695 – 1721). Whether Thomas was the originator of the design is unclear, as the Museum catalogue also highlights the existence of a near identical French print that was published in Paris in 1719.
At some point during the first half of the 1790s, the printer John Evans commissioned George Thompson to produce a copy of Bowles & Carver’s print. Thompson took one of the original prints, traced it and engraved the tracing onto copper, producing an image in which the pictures all appear in reverse. The copy was then published with Evans name and address in the publication line. We can be reasonably certain of the publication date as Evans was active at the address given between 1790 and 1796. Thompson must have retained the plate though, as he later tried to expunge Evans details and replace them with his own. Fortunately for us, he was only partially successful and the faint traces of Evans name that are still visible beneath the revised publication line indicate that this print is the later of the two versions. Thompson give his address as 43 Long Lane, Smithfield, and is known to have been active there from 1793 until his death in 1826.
Thompson and Evans were next door neighbours and frequent collaborators but the precise nature of their business relationship is unknown. Evans’s newspaper advertisements from the 1800s suggest he too may have operated out of the 43 Long Lane (his business premises already included nos. 41-42) but curiously this address never appears on his prints and was used exclusively by Thompson. My best guess is that Thompson and Evans operated some kind of informal business partnership, with the former engraving, the latter printing and the two combining or acting individually to finance the cost of realising their designs on an ad hoc basis.
The design consists of a series of engraved vignettes accompanied by a line of text which explains what’s happening in the picture. Collectively, they present a dystopian view of life in a world where man no longer reigns supreme. Children beat their fathers, wives guard their emasculated husbands and animals exact brutal revenge on their former masters. Crucially the subtitle of the print – “…or the Folly of Man” – suggests that the male victims of these atrocities are in some way culpable for their own downfall having presumably consented to relinquish their dominion over the world by embracing dangerous, new fangled notions, of equality and liberality. It’s a message that presumably found a receptive audience amongst Thompson’s customers and which would have sat well alongside his engravings and mezzotints of British military victories, notable members of the Anglican clergy and genre prints that wallow in cosy scenes of bourgeois domesticity.
This print goes under the hammer in London next week and is estimated to fetch £400 – £600.
Old Drybones quenching a Flame (c.1785), British Museum, London. Attributed to William Holland as publisher by Tim Clayton in his recent book on James Gillray
The creation of the Society for the Suppression of Vice (SSV) in 1802 heralded the beginning of an unprecedented campaign of legal harassment against the members of London’s print-selling community. Concerned by the harm its members felt were being inflicted on the society by the proliferation of pornographic images, the SSV employed agents tasked with securing the arrest and prosecution of those who dealt in what contemporaries typically referred to as “indecent prints.” Around half a dozen print-sellers were arrested and charged on the basis of evidence supplied by the Society, with all receiving prison terms ranging from six months to two years in duration and some also being subjected to a turn in the public pillory for good measure. But the campaign proved damaging to the moralists, with revelations about the use of paid informers and the dubious tactics they employed exposing the SSV to criticism and provoking a schism amongst its members. Further activity was quietly suspended in the spring of 1803, and it would be several years before the Society felt confident enough to unleash its solicitors on a print-seller again. To those us with an interest in eighteenth-century prints, the events of 1802-03 are noteworthy for what they reveal about the illicit trade in printed pornography, which was closely associated with the world of graphic satire and caricature. They also indicate that the taming of contemporary print culture which is typically associated with the rise of the middle-class preoccupation with outward displays of propriety and respectability from the 1820s, had been prevalent in London society for at least a generation before that. [1]
The SSV was formed in London in March 1802 by religious conservatives who had grown increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress which had been made by an earlier society dedicated to the enforcement of the 1787 proclamation against immorality and vice. That group had predominantly been an aristocratic society, concerned about irreligious behaviour but content to limit its activities to lobbying politicians, judges and magistrates in favour of new laws and tougher sentences. In contrast, the men and women of the SSV were principally drawn from the ranks of the middling classes and the benches of London’s evangelical chapels and they sought to wage a more active war against God’s enemies in the metropolis. [2] Chief amongst those enemies were those who had “…raised into existence a pestilent swarm of BLASPHMOUS, LICENTIOUS AND OBSCENE BOOKS AND PRINTS which are insinuating their way into the recess of private life to the destruction of all purity of sentiment, and all correctness of principles.” [3] Pornography was regarded as being particularly dangerous because of the beguiling effect it was thought to have on women and young people, as one of the Society’s representatives explained:
When a robber commits his depredations on the property of people on the highway, there is an end to it… Here, however, is a constant course of life, a regular profession of debauching the minds and morals of youth of every description. God only knows how many may grow up to be men and women, having their principles and habits corrupted and tainted by these seeds of vice, so early implemented in them! Women who have nothing so great as virtue to recommend them, and who would otherwise retain it unsullied, being thus early debauched, are liable to be led into every species of iniquity. [4]
There was also a political dimension to the SSV’s outlook and its no coincidence that John Reeve and other members of the Association for Preserving Liberty and Property against Republicans and Levellers were amongst its founding members. Loose morals, they feared, would lead to loose politics and any activity that encouraged the poor to deviate from a Christian message of austerity and obedience was regarded as a potential backdoor for republican revolution. [5]
The course of events that unfolded in 1802-03 is broadly as follows: the first arrest to be openly attributed to the SSV was that of Thomas Gainer, an itinerant trader who was condemned at the Middlesex sessions in September 1802. Gainer was accused of selling a quantity of indecent books and prints to a man named Robert Gray, who admitted under cross-examination that he was a paid agent of the SSV. [6] John Harris was snared by Gray and jailed on similar charges a month later. He had kept a stall that stood against the wall of the Privy Garden in Whitehall for many years and ostensibly dealt in song-sheets and “funny” prints but was also commonly known to stock pornographic material [7]. However, the revelation of Gray’s status caused unease which was reflected in a decision by the Court of King’s Bench to refer another a case back to the magistrates on the grounds that “the defence… rests upon the character of Gray, who is the Informer, and probably the only witness on this occasion” and was therefore regarded as circumspect. [8]
Initially undeterred, the Society pressed magistrates to proceed with the prosecution of Baptista Bertazzi, another itinerant printseller who had crossed paths with Robert Gray, the following month. The case proved to be something of a disaster as it brough fresh revelations about Gray’s unsavoury past as government informer and further allegations of entrapment and even the suggestion that Gray was bribing the police. The jury had little choice but to return a guilty verdict – Bertazzi having admitted that he’d sold pornography – but recommended that the court show mercy on account of his having been induced to procure the offending items by someone with a financial interest in securing his arrest. [9] Outraged at this display of clemency and the signals it might send, the SSV lodged an appeal with the Court of King’s Bench. The appeal was heard before Lord Ellenborough in February 1803. Ellenborough was an arch-conservative and may even have been colluding with the members of the Society’s executive committee at the time. He duly returned the harshest possible verdict – two years imprisonment, including time in the pillory – but the apparent victory also marked a tacit moment of retreat for the forces of morality. [10]
The appeal against the jury’s verdict in the Bertazzi case was heard on the same day as the Society also presented evidence against the print-seller Ann Aitken. Ann was the wife of James Aitken, a former publisher of James Gillray’s and the owner of print-shop near Leicester Square, who had been jailed for selling obscene material in June 1802. [11] Poverty forced Ann to persist in the trade and in early 1803 she unwittingly sold an explicit drawing to a member of the SSV who was posing a customer. The case was the first to appear before a court in months in which Robert Gray did not feature and it probably marks the point at which the Society severed its connection with this unsavoury individual. Gray himself was later said to have been found guilty of fraud and transported to Australia. [12]
By now the members of the Society were in open disagreement with one another, with the evangelicals in particular growing ever more vocal in their criticism about the use of subterfuge and other forms of deceit to entice individuals to incriminate themselves. Furthermore, they were alarmed by the publicity the trials had attracted and concerned that this would have the counterproductive effect of advertising pornographic material to the public. In contrast, the majority of the members of the SSV’s executive committee seemed to have remained unrepentant in the view that indecent prints were a menace to society and that the ends justified the means. Nevertheless, they were clearly chastened by their experience and did not consider bringing charges against a print-seller again until December 1806. Even then, their solicitor felt the need to use his opening statement to launch a pre-emptive defence of the Society’s record, claiming that they’d been unfairly characterised as “wild fanatics, who were promoting the very purposes which it was their object to suppress.” [13]
So what does this episode tell us about the trade in indecent prints and why is it relevant to those of us with an interest in the caricatures of this period? To answer the latter question first; it’s relevant because in many cases caricatures and humorous prints were sold alongside sexually explicit material. James and Ann Aitken published and sold prints by Gillray, Isaac Cruikshank and William Dent at the front of their shop, but also kept a backroom into which customers could be ushered to peruse more risqué material in privacy. They were by no means an exception either, with their being reasonably compelling evidence to suggest that William Holland S.W. Fores were amongst the other leading caricature publishers of the day who also dabbled in pornography. Their motivation for doing so was straight-forwardly commercial, as one observer of the trade made clear: “….without seeking much about [one can find] half a dozen opulent book and printsellers have several hundreds of pounds invested in this sort of property the great profit upon which, from the secrecy of the sale, induces them to run the hazard”. [14] The failure to pursue the individuals responsible for publishing these prints was one of the chief criticisms levelled at the SSV during 1802-03, with even friendly newspaper editorials stating that “… “We wish that the Society would exert themselves in suppressing similar infamous publications with some of the more opulent Vendors in the West End of the Town.” [15] In fact it was later suggested that Gray had gathered evidence implicating a number of other print-shop owners in the production and sale of pornography but that these cases had been hushed up in exchange for a £20 donation to the SSV. [16]
The trials reveal somethings about the otherwise obscure world occupied by the network of small retailers, supplied from the backdoors of London’s print-shops who sold prints on London’s streets. Many of them seem to have been marginal figures – immigrants, the disabled, women – whose career options were limited by their status and with lives characterised by extreme levels of poverty. Indeed, was poverty that made them such easy targets, as they could not afford to exercise the same level of discretion as a more affluent trader would when faced with a stranger who was offering money in exchange for the opportunity to obtain illicit material. Their outsider status also made them easier to prosecute, with Thomas Gainer’s jury being advised to discount the testimony of three witnesses who’d appeared to corroborate his alibi on the basis that they were “Italians and Foreigners”, while a previous conviction for homosexuality was used to brand Harris as an “incorrigible” deserving of the most severe punishment. [17]
We also learn something about the cultural practices that surrounded the sale of indecent prints. Even if the places and individuals involved in the trade in pornography was regarded as something of an open secret amongst Londoners, such prints were never freely offered for sale and always masked behind other types of prints and the use of euphemistic language. Harris for example, would sound potential customers out by gauging their reaction to his dirty jokes, before enquiring if they wished to purchase some “funny prints” or “novelties” and then leading them behind the Banqueting House where a transaction could be concluded privately. [18] Bertazzi was said – perhaps somewhat implausibly – to have maintained an even more elaborate routine. He would ask customers if they were interested in any “game” pictures “upon which he produced some game birds, such as peasants; and then, if they said that was not the sort [they were looking for], he at length exhibited these representations of the most obscene sensuality.” [19]
The question of who bought these prints is more difficult to answer. Robert Gray said that Gainer, Harris and Bertazzi’s customers included seemingly respectable women, servant girls, school children and the proprietors of several finishing schools. However, he failed to produce a shred to evidence to substantiate these claims and they were almost certainly a fantasy concocted to prejudice a jury in the hopes of securing a guilty verdict. Given the over-abundance of female nudity on display in the erotic prints that survive from this era, their relentless focus on male gratification and the inflated prices they commanded, it seems far more likely that their principle audience was made up of middle and upper class men, similar to those who made up the majority of the SSV’s members. There is perhaps therefore more than a ring of truth to the claim made by a later critic of the Society who observed that there was “A noted picture-shop of York-street, Covent Garden, [which] sells abundance of these articles by the vehicle of women of the town, whose nightly attendance at taverns and the play houses enables them to deal largely in this way with the gentlemen.” [20]
References
V. Gatrell, City of Laughter. Sex and Satire in Eighteenth-Century London, (London, 2006), pp. 417-34.
M. J. D. Roberts, The Society for the Suppression of Vice and Its Early Critics, 1802-1812, The Historical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 1983), pp. 159-176.
An address to the public, from the Society for the Suppression of Vice, (London, 1803), p.43.
Bury & Norwich Post, 27th October 1802, p.4.
Roberts, ibid, pp. 164-5.
Morning Herald, 21st September 1802, p.3, London Chronicle, 21st September 1802, p.5, and True Briton, 22nd September 1802, p.4.
Mirror of the Times, 16th October 1802, p.4., London Chronicle, 23rd October 1802, p.6., Morning Post 23rd October 1802, p.3, Sun 28th October 1802, p.4, and True Briton, 23rd October 1802, p.3.
Sun, 28th October 1802, p.4.
True Briton, 1st December 1802, pp.3-4.
Oracle and Daily Advertiser, 21st February 1803, p.3. Ellenborough met with members of the SSV’s executive committee prior to their general meeting in February 1805 and offered them advice on the legality of using subterfuge to secure evidence which could be used as the basis for an arrest. It’s not inconceivable that he may have been in touch with the Society two years earlier, particularly given his obvious and outspoken support for their cause. See British Press, 21st February 1805 p. 3. For a more detailed summary of the Bertazzi case see my earlier post on the subject: https://theprintshopwindow.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/bertazzi-versus-the-king-censoring-graphic-prints/
The circumstances surrounding James Aitken’s arrest in June 1802 were similar to those of Gainer, Bertazzi and other victims of Robert Gray’s. – the prosecution’s case rested entirely on the testimony of a “gentleman” who claimed to have visited Aitken’s shop to buy a plan of the Paddington Canal, only to be offered obscene material by Aitken’s wife, Ann, who was serving behind the counter. He was then said to have been “induced” – whether by his conscience or a third party is unclear – to return to the shop a few days later, purchase the book and present it to the magistrate. Aitken would have been a likely target for Gray and the SSV, having previously been convicted for selling obscene material and therefore known to be dealing in that branch of the print-trade. However, the truth of the matter is obscured by the vague nature of the accounts of the trial which appeared in the press. General Evening Post, 3rd July 1802, p.2., Oracle and the Daily Advertiser 11th June 1802, p3. and Morning Herald 2nd July 1802, p.3.
Oracle and Daily Advertiser, 21st February 1803, p.3 and Star 21st February 1803, p.4. The claim the Gray was transported was made in The Scourge, May 1811 pp. 377-9.
See the account of the Society’s general meeting which appears in British Press 21st October 1805, p.3. Morning Chronicle, 6th December 1806, p.3. Edward Rich was prosecuted by the SSV for “selling certain scandalous and obscene books, distinguished by beastly and indecent prints, at a stall close by the Admiralty.” Notably, he prosecuted on the basis of evidence provided by four members of the SSV’s executive committee, suggesting that the idea of employing professional spies had been permanently abandoned. British Press, 19th December 1806. p.3.
The Scourge, May 1811 pp. 377-9. The involvement of Holland and Gillray in the production and sale of indecent prints is covered in Tim Clayton, James Gillray A Revolution in Satire, (London, 2022) pp. 88 – 93. Fores’s involvement in the trade was revealed in the testimony one of his shopmen gave before a civil court in 1802. When asked if a customer order a complete set of Fores’s prints would receive any obscene items, the employee replied that would be the case “unless an exception were made”. Morning Post, 17th February 1802, p. 3. Fores’s son Richard was later found guilty of selling indecent prints and jailed. See Gatrell, pp.537-8.
Oracle and Daily Advertiser, 24th August 1802, p.3.
Scourge, ibid.
Gainer and Bertazzi were identified as Italians by the press. The surnames of the three men charged on evidence supplied by Robert Gray in October 1802 who the Court of King’s Bench declined to prosecute – Baptucci, Cantelope and Aldrick – suggest that at least two of them were very likely to have been Italian immigrants too. For the characterisations of Gainer see Sun, 21st September 1802, p.2. and for Harris see Mirror of the Times, 16th October 1802, p.4.
I’m back! The opportunity to sneak a post onto the blog finally appeared in the dying embers of 2022 and so here we are. Whether this becomes a regular occurrence in the year ahead remains to be seen, but for now let’s pour ourselves a festive drop and take a look at C.J. Grant’s first foray into the world of caricature magazines.
The Caricaturist, A Monthly Show Up was a produced by Grant, published by Edward King and sold from the latter’s “news agency office” [1] on London’s Chancery Lane from circa July 1831 until December 1832. Examples are scarce and frequently found in a mutilated state, with the masthead having been trimmed off (as with many of the examples shown here) or even the entire sheet cut up into scraps. As is so often the case with satirical prints from this period, those copies that have survived and found their way into institutional collections are not catalogued in any detail. [2] Nevertheless The Caricaturist is worthy of note for the obvious role it played in influencing the form and content of both of Grant’s most well-known works – The Political Drama (1833 – 1836) and Every Body’s Album & Caricature Magazine (1834 – 1835) – and also as an example of the way in which satirical prints were changing in the second quarter of the nineteenth-century, as new technologies and an influx of middle class consumers displaced the conventions of late eighteenth-century caricature.
At this point it’s perhaps worth our while to take a short diversion and explain the use of the word ‘magazine’ when talking about the satirical print trade of this era. While we think of a magazine as a glossy periodical consisting of text and pictures, our forefathers applied the word differently and indeed its use seems to have changed somewhat during the first three decades of the nineteenth century. The title ‘caricature magazine’ was initially used as a term of reference for an otherwise unrelated sets of single sheet prints that were bound behind a title page and sold either collectively or on a serialised basis. Its use in this context lent heavily on the military etymology of ‘magazine’ as the word for a place in which arms and ammunition were stored. It does seem coincidental that caricatures themselves had been referred to as ‘squibs’ – a slang term for a bomb – for a decade or two before ‘magazine’ seems to have crept into general use as a collective noun for sets of such prints.[3] But from 1825 onwards the word was associated with a specific type of satirical publication; folio-sized sheets carrying several smaller engravings which were published serially under a shared title. The format combined aspects of the humorous scrap album sheets that were becoming extremely popular during the 1820s, with the equally novel appearance of a graphic newspaper. [4] It took off rapidly after 1830 and several different titles were published in London, including most notably McLean’s Monthly Sheet of Caricatures or The Looking Glass (1830 – 1836), The Odd Volume (1834) and the aforementioned Every Body’s Album… It was claimed that the latter title eventually achieved sales figures numbering in the tens of thousands, if true, demonstrates that the most successful caricature magazines were comparable to national newspapers in the size and geographic spread of their audiences. [5]
Caricaturist No. 10, May 1832
From the perspective of a customer walking into a print-shop in the early 1830s, the appeal of the format is self-evident; magazines offered the opportunity to purchase several smaller caricatures for the price of a single old-fashioned copperplate engraving. An advertisement for the first edition of The Caricaturist, which appeared in July 1831, indicates that Grant and King were not only aware of this but made in integral to their marketing. An advertisement for the first number informs us that customers can expect “nearly 30 original Lithographic Designs” arranged on four pages for a price of 1s. 6d. per uncoloured copy, making The Caricaturist “[t]he Cheapest Work of the kind” available. [6] This aggressive approach to pricing ultimately proved to be unsustainable and within twelve months the number of engravings had been cut by half. [7] But by then the magazine had an established viewership and it appears that – whether by accident or design – the earlier editions were effectively ‘loss leaders’ that allowed Grant and King to carve a niche for themselves in an otherwise crowded marketplace.
The Caricaturist offered its viewers a mix of social and political satire in each monthly issue. The social satires frequently reflect the contemporary taste for visual puns and are usually either wince-makingly unfunny or crassly insensitive by today’s standards. Issue No. 8 for example, published when Britain was gripped by the early phases of a global cholera pandemic that would kill several thousand people in London alone within a few months, features a small caricature of death making a pile of coffins as he gloats: “Who says Trade’s Dead”. Another panel from an unnumbered plate contains an engraving of a peg-legged naval veteran attempting to run by “Putting his Best Leg Foremost”. Other topics include the comic mixing of high and low culture, the dubious delights that supposedly await those emigrating to Britain’s antipodean colonies and the popular theatre. Grant had previously attempted to establish himself as a writer of comic theatre and evidence of his continued interest in melodrama and the stage appears in many his caricatures throughout the 1830s. [8]
Caricaturist, No. 14, September 1832
Political subjects dominated though and seem to have accounted for around three quarters of the images engraved for each issue. Unsurprisingly, given Grant’s blossoming association with the Radical movement which called for universal manhood suffrage and sweeping constitutional reform, the editorial tone of the satires is virulently and frequently violently anti-conservative in its outlook. The monarch, the Tory party and the various institutions of church and state that make up the establishment are represented as being engaged in a war against the interests and liberties of the British people. The theme of confrontation is applied literally to a number of frenetic battle scenes, including most notably TO BE or NOT to BE. That’s the QUESTION – A National to be Free She Only Wills It, [Plate 2] in which slapstick violence provides a light-hearted veneer to an otherwise deeply subversive image in which factory workers are shown massacring an army led by the Duke of Wellington. It’s a picture which reflects the radical tone that crept into the later editions of the series. For example, The Slumbering Lion from issue No. 10, shows us a heavily armed John Bull dozing ominously on the front bench of the House of Commons as he awaits the outcome of the second reading of the Reform Bill. Selling Off [Plate 3] sounds a similar warning note in its depiction of John Bull as a street vendor doing a brisk trade in miniature models of revolutionary guillotines. In this respect, The Caricaturist undoubtedly presaged C.J. Grant’s move towards a more uncompromising and aggressive form of satire that would find its fullest expression in The Political Drama.
While it’s impossible to quantify the level of commercial success the magazine enjoyed, it certainly seems to have gained recognition and found an audience. Newspaper commentaries praised The Caricaturist for being “designed with a great deal of whim and broad humour” [9] and called it “droll and full of spirit”, predicting that… “[t]he artist, Grant, is likely to acquire a high distinction”. [10] An anonymous contributor to The Athenaeum even admitted that: “We have laughed heartily over it, and have ourselves dispatched a copy to friends abroad, as likely to give them a good idea of the feelings at home – and we recommend others do the same.” [11] While it’s almost certainly the case that at least some of these commentaries were not genuine, the relative longevity of the title and the rapidly expanding list of provincial retailers willing to act as official distributors of The Caricaturist indicates that a degree of praise – even self-reverential praise – may have been justified. [12]
Plate 1 – Undated copy [masthead trimmed]
This naturally brings us to the question of why The Caricaturist seems to have been discontinued shortly after its 17th issue was published in December 1832. The simplest and most plausible explanation is that it had ceased to be profitable for its publisher. A review which appeared in The Satirist newspaper published around the same time as the magazine’s final issue suggests a potential decline in its fortunes:
THE CARICATURIST, or Monthly Show-up, boasts its accustomed share of whim. We wonder the artist does not make an effort to curtail the extravagance of his invention; his humour would be more relishable, and the general effect of his wit much heightened. The lithographing of this monthly satire is sadly executed. It would be to the interest of the publisher to place it in the hands of abler artists than those at present engaged upon it. [13]
However, I find this review intriguing and can’t help but wonder if it hints at a more complex story involving a breakdown in relations between Grant and King. The Satirist had made several favourable references to The Caricaturist in 1831 and 1832 before performing a sudden volte to attack Grant. Many of these reviews were little more than thinly veiled advertisements and the repeated use of similar phrases indicates the possibility of them being the work of a single hand – maybe even that of King himself. [14] The incongruous tone of this article, which praises The Caricaturist while simultaneously calling on it’s publisher to sack the artist responsible for producing it, gives the impression of a dispute between the two men being played out surreptitiously in the pages of The Satirist. Grant certainly seems to have had a disputatious temper and would go onto to engage in a very public argument with the printseller Gabriel Shire Tregear in 1835. [15] An advertisement for The Caricaturist which appeared in The Satirist in October 1831 indicates that King may not have been lacking in his capacity to make enemies either, as it ends with the slightly jarring declaration that:
Plate 2 – Undated copy [masthead trimmed]
The encouragement E. King has met with for his first numbers of the Caricaturist will stimulate him to greater exertions; assuring the Public, neither threats nor bribes shall deter him from pursuing that course which had given such general satisfaction. [16]
Whatever reasons lay behind the decision to bring The Caricaturist to a halt, it certainly appeared to mark the end of Grant and King’s commercial relationship. The latter seems to have abandoned the publication of satirical prints altogether after 1832 and chosen to focus on the sale of newspapers. [17] Grant’s career as a caricaturist was still in the ascendant and within 3-4 months he would go onto produce the first plate from The Political Drama series. The publication of another caricature magazine – Everybody’s Album… – followed a year later, arguably marking the commercial and creative peak of his career before he too tumbled back into obscurity.
The Athenaeum, 10th December 1831, pp. 806 – 807 indicates that the price initially remained unaltered but the size of the publication was reduced to “a single folio sheet [with] some twenty or more caricatures”. This did not remain fixed however and although the July 1832 edition was priced at 2s, it’s size had been increased to include a second page of engravings Library of Trinity College Dublin OLS CARI-ROB 1296.
Ibid, 8th January 1832, p. 1. “Recently published by E. King. Chancery Lane, price 1s. 6d., No. V of a singularly novel and moral, graphical and quizzical, caustic and physical, political censorial and pictorial MONTHLY NEWSPAPER, entitled THE CARICATUIST, or MONTHLY SHEW UP… To be hand in Manchester, of C.H. Lewis, bookseller and general newspaper agent, 6 Market-street (by whom trade in this and the surrounding towns may be supplier) and of most printers, bookseller, and newsmen in the Kingdom.” A Mr Nightingale of the “Chronicle Office, Liverpool” became The Caricaturist’s second provincial wholesaler in the summer of 1832 – Ibid Satirist, 5th August 1832, p. 1.
Satirist, 9th December 1832, p. 3.
Ibid, 23rd October 1831, p.1., 8th January 1832, p. 1. & 5th August 1832, p. 1. The words ‘whim’ and ‘folly’ are repeatedly used in reviews and advertisements for the magazine and the phrase ‘hitting follies as they fly’ appears more than once, see and Athenaeum, ibid. Even if King did not write these reviews himself, his connection with the newspaper trade may have given him influence over their content.
Satirist, 4th September 1831, p. 1, 30th October 1831, p. 1, 8th January 1832, p.1. & 6th May 1832, p. 1. The frequency with which this statement appears in King’s advertisements is perhaps indicative of a deliberately marketing ploy intended to amplify the impact of Grant’s satire on those who appeared in The Caricaturist.
The statue which stands atop the 130-foot-high column at the centre of Newcastle upon Tyne in north-east England is that of Lord Charles Grey (1764 – 1845), Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1830 to 1834 and author of the first Reform Act. An inscription on the pedestal informs us that the column was erected in 1838 to thank Grey for “safely and triumphantly” delivering “the great measure of Parliamentary reform… after an arduous and protracted struggle… in the year 1832.” But Grey’s Monument – like many statues – is an exercise in history being written by the winners. It was paid for by a subscription of affluent upper-middle class townsmen who had been amongst the principle beneficiaries of the Whig government’s reforms.
The opinions that were not so readily captured in stone were those of thousands of ordinary men and women who had been instrumental to the success of the campaign to secure Parliamentary reform, only to find themselves completely excluded from the new constitutional settlement that the Reform Act ushered in. These were the people who were to put themselves at the forefront of the Radical and later Chartist movements that emerged as a distinct force in British politics during the mid-nineteenth century. The Radicals of the 1830s were predominately drawn from the ranks of the urban working and lower-middle classes and from dissenting Protestant denominations. They had been energised by the reformist agitations of the early 1830s but regarded the limited extension of the franchise achieved under the Reform Act as a betrayal. Radicalism was therefore a continuity reformist movement that vowed to continue campaigning inside and outside Parliament to secure universal manhood suffrage and other reforms that would tip the balance of political power in favour of the working man.
Radicalism found its principle expression in a vibrant and protean print-culture consisting of newspapers, pamphlets, broadsides, and other printed ephemera, including satirical images. The most notable example of the latter was The Political Drama, a series of 131 wood-engraved political satires produced by C.J. Grant, George Drake, and a small group of collaborators, between 1833 and 1836. Prints such as these sought to propagate the Radicalism by reducing the institutions of state to objects of mockery and public contempt. Their recurrent themes included the absurdity of monarchy, the venality of the aristocratic political class, the hypocrisy of the clergy and the many inequities of a society structured around the hierarchy of class and title.
This rare illustrated broadside is another example of Radical satire from this period. It was probably published to coincide with the Parliamentary debates on a proposed repeal of the Window Tax which were brought before the House of Commons by Radical MPs in April 1833. The Radicals regarded the tax on windowpanes as an unfair charge on two of the basic necessities of light and one that fell disproportionately upon the shoulders of urban households. “The tax on windows, with its prying inspectors and restraints on light and air, ought not to exist for a single year in a country aspiring to free Government and a civilised fiscal system” [1] thundered a supportive newspaper editorial published at the time of the debates. Ultimately, the campaign proved to be unsuccessful as the Whig administration would not countenance the repeal of a tax that accounted for a large and growing proportion of public revenue. The Window Tax would therefore remain on the statute until 1851 when it was replaced by a simplified system of property tax.
The title: A Form of Prayer, To be Said by Persons of both Sexes throughout the Land of Locust, By Timothy Pindarie, the last of the Pindars, relates to the text which covers the bottom half of the page. It is a satirical sermon in which the people are encouraged to pray that “…the corrupted Whigites [sic] doth perform the promises they have heaped upon & doeth one thing that is of benefit to the People” by repealing the Window Tax and “giving notice to all Tax Eaters and Gatherers.” Religious parodies such as this were an established part of the Radical canon and harked back to notorious satires of earlier generations, such as those published by William Hone (1780 – 1842) during the Peterloo era, in which attacks against reactionary government policies were dressed up in the form of mock Anglican liturgies. Contemporary viewers would also have recognised that pseudonym Timothy Pindarie as a refence to the satirical writings of John Wolcot (1738 – 1819), who had published a series of essays mocking the King and other establishment figures in the 1780s under the pen name Peter Pindar.
The wood engraved image is similarly derivative, being modified copy of a caricature from 1831 entitled: The reformers’ attack on the old rotten tree; or the foul nests of the cormorants in danger. It’s not clear who created the original version of this caricature, as several editions seems to have been produced by different artists and publishers around the same time. The woodblocks used to create this image were originally engraved with a version of The reformers’ attack… which was then modified a year or two later to make the satire relevant to the debates on the Window Tax. The words “Window Tax” and “Light” have been carved over the names of the rotten boroughs that previously appeared on two of the birds nests and the labelling on the tree has also been amended from “Rotten Borough System” to “Rotten Tax System”. Unfortunately, I’ve been unable to locate a copy of this plate in its original state but the British Museum collection includes another wood-engraved broadsheet of The reformers’ attack… which provides a good indication of what it would have looked like.
Other changes include the removal of the King and Queen from the background of the design and modifications to the labelling and features of the politicians surrounding the tree. In the original caricature, the Whig ministers are shown cutting down the tree while the Tories try to prop it up. To reflect the fact that many of the Whigs were now regarded as enemies of reform, the engraver has added the names of Radical politicians to the blades of the axes carried by the figures on the left. The caricatured likeness of the Whig Lord Brougham (1778 – 1868) has also been engraved over that of the Tory James Scarlett (1769 – 1844) on the right. Unfortunately, the engraver has either neglected or been unable to erase Brougham from group of politicians on the left where he can be clearly identified by his judicial robes. The Lord Chancellor is therefore rather confusingly depicted on both sides of the struggle. This error, along with the large white line that runs diagonally through the centre of the image, which either caused by a crack in the plate or the separation of two plates during printing, provides further indication that speed and economy were the main concerns of the publisher.
The publication line is that of John Vandenbergh Quick (1792 – 1858), a printer, wood-engraver, and publisher of printed ephemera. Quick was descended from a long-line of Dutch and Flemish printers. His maternal grandfather was Simon Vandenbergh (1728 – 1808), a successful book publisher and outspoken advocate of freedom of speech and publication. Quick had established his own publishing business by 1823 and would spend the next thirty years producing materials such as paper toys, ballad-sheets, broadsides, and penny dreadfuls. When the Thames Tunnel opened in 1843 he took out a lease on one of the concession stands located inside the tunnel, set up a printing press down there and began publishing a novelty newspaper whose publication line boasted that it was “printed by authority, 76 feet below the high-water mark.” Quick’s subterranean premises also did a roaring trade in pop-up peep shows of the Thames Tunnel which were sold to thousands of sightseers who flocked through it every day. The tunnel peep shows were said to have made Quick a fortune. However, he squandered the money on an ill-judged venture to republish great works of literature for the common man. The series began with a cheap edition of Antiquities of the Jews, a 2,000-year-old tract on Jewish history running to several hundred pages in length which unsurprisingly failed to become a bestseller and wiped out Quick’s profits.
A Designing Character. Almost certainly a self-portrait. The publication line reads: “Drawn, Etched & Published by Joe Lisle” c.1828.
“Do you ever peak at a picture shop?” an anonymous contributor to The Weekly Dispatch newspaper asked its readers in January 1828. “Do you ever make one of the unprofitable customers at the outside of the print sellers in the Haymarket, Piccadilly and Brydges-street? Do you ever frequent Theatrical Houses? If you do, the facetious Joe Lisle cannot be unknown to you. Are you partial to punsters? If so, my present hero will find favour in your eyes.” The collection of barroom anecdotes and tall-tales contained within the article constitutes the only surviving account of the life of Joseph Lisle, a comedian, actor and artist who enjoyed a moderately successful career as a caricaturist in London during the 1820s and 30s. [1]
The earliest surviving examples of prints carrying both Lisle’s name and a date of publication were issued in March 1827, but he may have been working as an artist of a professional or semi-professional basis for months or even years before that. Indeed, Lisle’s biographer states that he began producing caricatures in 1820 after being fired from his job for attending a Radical political rally. While there are aspects of this story that I find difficult to believe, it’s entirely possible that Lisle’s career extended over a much longer period than is implied by the dating on his prints. [1] Printshops of the period often relied on amateur artists to keep them supplied with ideas for new caricatures and Lisle could have entered the trade via this route, providing sketches that were then engraved by others and published without his contribution being acknowledged. C.J. Grant – a near contemporary of Lisle’s – seems to have started his artistic career in a similar fashion, providing drawings for the caricaturist William Heath to pass off as his own work. [2]
If Lisle’s artistic career did begin in 1820 then his early work has either been lost or is yet to be identified. It is not until the late 1820s that prints bearing his name began to appear in the windows of several London printsellers, with Thomas McLean, G.S. Tregear and George Hunt being amongst his most noteworthy patrons. His caricatures usually dealt in pun-based humour and were chiefly rendered in etching and aquatint. George Hunt, who was an engraver as well as a printseller, helped Lisle to realise several of his designs on copper, although intriguingly did not publish all of the plates he etched. Typical examples of his work include The Man of Taste (c.1828 – 1830), which shows a man asking a butcher to cut him some boiled beef with “a Ham’y Knife to give it a Relish.” And Cheap Music (1820 – 1828), in which the owner of a music shop advises a frugal customer that the only “cheap fiddles” to be had in the area are the phoney elixirs sold by the quack doctor next door. His most substantial endeavour in the field of pun-prints was Joe Lisle’s Play Upon Words, a series of 40 engravings published in a collected edition by Thomas McLean in January 1828. Muggy Weather, the first plate in the series, sets the tone for what follows, showing group of labourers downing large mugs of beer to refresh themselves on a warm day. The humour my be decidedly old old fashioned by our standards but it undoubtedly appealed to his contemporaries, as another notice from The Weekly Dispatch makes clear:
[Mr W. Spooner of Regent Street has just published] several laughable and good-humoured satires on the prevailing follies of the day, in the execution of which our old acquaintance, the facetious Joe Lisle has displayed his usual keen perceptions of the ridiculous. Mr Lisle is certainly one of the cleverest caricaturists of the day. In the present sketches of the aquatic dangers, sporting blunders, and march of intellect pretensions of the Cockneys, are admirably hit off. Most of the figures are full of character, and the situations are irresistibly ludicrous [3]
Lisle was seemingly less preoccupied with overt forms of political or social satire, although his few forays into this field are worthy of consideration. The World. When a man is down – keep him down (1830) for example, offers a bleak view of the hardships of contemporary life and hints at Lisle’s Radical sympathies. The pro-Radical journal Figaro in London also recommended one of his political prints to its readers:
A clever caricature we have lately seen, executed by a Mr Joseph Lisle… represents two dustmen talking politics, and one, enquiring of the other, “I say, Bill, if the King vos to go into Vitecross-street, could he pay off the National Debt by taking the benefit of the Insolvent Act?” This is certainly a funny notion, but, nevertheless a decidedly wholesome one, for why should not William the Fourth rub off an unpleasant score by a six week residence in limbo. [4]
This association with the Radical movement seems to have flourished during the 1830s and may have led to commissions to produce prints. Lisle’s signature appears on the final plate of The Political Drama, a series of political satires published by the Radical printer George Drake between 1833 and 1836. C.J. Grant was primarily responsible for creating the series but abandoned it after the publication of its 130th number. A lull of several weeks followed before Lisle’s own attempt at Radical political satire was published as The Political Drama No. 131. The Modern Guy Fawkes; Or, the New Bronze Horse. However, the experiment evidently proved to be a failure as publication of the series ceased thereafter. [5] This print appears to be the last surviving caricature Lisle published and if his artistic career continued beyond 1836 then all evidence of this seems to have been lost. In seeking to explain why Lisle’s involvement in the production of humorous prints may have come to an end, we must now turn our attention to what is known about the other aspects of his life.
Joseph Lisle was born in 1798. Very little is known about his background but aspects of his later history point to the likelihood of a family that belonged to the middling classes of society and adhered to the Methodist faith. Lisle’s education extended well into his teenage years and would therefore have been considered above average by the standards of the day. However, his school days were characterised by truancy, misbehaviour and “a propensity for punning and caricaturing” [1] that chiefly manifested itself in the form of mockery and insolent retorts directed towards his teachers. Growing tired of the beatings the inevitably resulted from these encounters, Lisle left school at the age of 14 and proceeded to drift through a long series of short-lived apprenticeships. Amongst other things, he worked as a legal clerk, a linen draper, a watchmaker and a wood-engraver, before his despairing family prevailed on an uncle with a naval connection to secure him a midshipman’s berth and packed him off to sea. Lisle would later claim that he served aboard the ship that carried Napoleon Bonaparte off into exile – another story that perhaps needs to be treated with some scepticism – but otherwise seems to have been no more successful at holding down a job at sea than he was on land. By 1819 he had discharged himself from the Royal Navy on the grounds of poor eyesight – asserting that “it would not do to go to sea with spectacles” and returned home. [1]
Lisle threw himself into theatrical circles on returning to London, directing and starring in a romantic melodrama that received encouraging reviews in the press. [6] A short stint as a travelling actor followed and this may have also been when he began to monetize his artist talents, as his biographer notes that he supplemented his meagre income by offering his services as a miniaturist in the towns and cities through which he travelled. Over the course of the next few years, Lisle worked as an actor, writer, director and set designer, for London’s unlicensed theatres, specialising in comedy, melodrama and other forms of popular entertainment. By 1822, he was sufficiently well embedded in theatrical circles to co-found the Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes, a drinking club for actors and those with a professional connection to the stage. The Order prospered as a fraternal society and remains in existence today, securing Lisle a modest but enduring place in posterity. [7]
By 1839, Lisle had risen to manage the Queen’s Theatre in Charlotte Street near Tottenham Court Road. [8] This was one of London’s most successful unlicensed theatres and would go on to become a noted venue for music hall performances later in the nineteenth-century. This perhaps provides us with the most credible explanation as to why Lisle’s name began to disappear from prints from the mid-1830s onwards – his career as an artist was simply eclipsed by his on-going involvement in the theatre. His move into management also suggests that Lisle’s public profile had declined by the late 1830s and that his name was no longer the draw it had been a decade earlier.
Accounts of Lisle’s behaviour leave one with a decidedly mixed impression of the man. The fact he founded a successful fraternal society suggests a love of socialising and this is corroborated by a contemporary reference to him being “one of the merriest men in existence.” [1] However, even these favourable accounts hint at a quarrelsome nature and Lisle was described as “eccentric” by more than one acquaintance. [9] This eccentricity seems to have manifested itself in a love of rather vicious practical jokes. In 1822, following a quarrel about Lisle’s failure to repay a loan, the caricaturist challenged one of his acquaintances to a duel. A set of pistols was produced and the two men turned and fired on one another, whereupon Lisle dropped to the floor covered in blood, moaning that he was a dead man. His terrified opponent, believing he had just committed murder, was then induced to flee by Lisle’s friends, but not before leaving his watch and wallet to pay for the victim’s funeral. Of course the entire scenario was a set-up: Lisle had loaded the guns with powder but no bullets and produced the ‘wound’ by means of a hidden sponge soaked in bull’s blood. Lisle and his companions then spent the rest of the evening carousing at their victim’s expense. On another less celebrated occasion, Lisle convinced a dim-witted milkman to purchase expired theatre tickets from him and would have gone through with the con where it not for the merciful intervention of his own friends. [1]
Physically, he was a rather unimpressive specimen. His biographer quipped that he’d “never saw any one so thin to be alive” [1] and poor eyesight seems to have resulted in a lifelong dependence on glasses. His likeness is captured in a self-portrait entitled A Designing Character that Lisle probably published sometime during the late 1820s when he was at the height of his fame. The image shows Lisle in the stereotypical guise of a poor artist in his garret. It probably contains and element of affectation and may have been intended to serve as an advertisement for his more serious artistic side. There is evidence that Lisle may have attempted to broaden his artistic work to include more serious subjects such as portraiture and sporting subjects around this time, but none of these prints appear to have survived. [10]
Joseph Lisle died in November 1839 and was buried at the Countess of Huntingdon’s Chapel In the Parish of St James Clerkenwell, Spa Fields on 1st December. [11] The cause of death is unknown but it was obviously premature and an accident or sudden illness seem to be the most likely explanations. His career as a caricaturist was probably already over by the time of his death but his prints arguably represent a late-flourishing of the eighteenth-century traditions of humour that were rapidly dying out during the 1820s and 30s. His love of puns and aptitude for rendering them as a form of visual humour is perhaps his unique contribution to the genre and is a field of caricaturing in which he undoubtedly excelled. His name and legacy survive today almost solely thanks to his connection with the oddly-named Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes, a fitting epitaph for such an unusual character.
References
The Weekly Dispatch, 13th January 1828, p. 6. The level of personal insight and entirely uncritical tone of this biography strongly suggests that it was written by a friend of Lisle’s or even by the caricaturist himself. We know that Lisle was hired to produce illustrations for the Dispatch on at least one occasion (see below) and the favourable reviews he received from the newspaper suggest a connection to the editor. The timing of this article’s appearance coincided with the publication of Joe Lisle’s Play Upon Words and it’s possible that it was intended to serve as an extended advertisement for his work. Some of the claims made in the article are demonstrably false. The first of these is the story about Lisle’s entry into the print-trade. The author claims that Lisle’s employer gave him the day-off to attend the State Opening of Parliament in 1820 and “cheer his Majesty.” But Lisle ignored this instruction and instead “went to Spitalfields to shout for Hunt.” This incident cannot have taken place as described, as neither George III or the Prince Regent attended the opening of Parliament in 1820 and Henry Hunt was still in jail following his arrest in the aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre the previous year. The second claim on which we may cast doubt relates to Lisle’s service with the Royal Navy. His biographer states that he “sailed under Captain Hamilton with Bonaparte to St Helena.” However, Captain Charles Ross commanded HMS Northumberland, the vessel that famously carried Napoleon off into exile. It seems unlikely that Lisle would mistake the name of his former commanding officer and this raises the possibility that the story was concocted to make his naval service appear more glamourous than was actually the case.
M. Crowther, C.J. Grant’s Political Drama: Radicalism and Graphic Satire in the Age of Reform, (Amazon, 2020), p. 8.
The Weekly Dispatch, 18th August 1834, p. 6.
Figaro in London, 30th August 1834, p. 2.
An image and analysis of the print can be found in Crowther, Ibid.
The Monk of Naples; Or St Marco’s Eve opened at the East London Theatre on 7th September 1819. The critic for The Morning Post thought that the “story borders rather upon the romantic, but upon the whole, the situations and stage effect were of a novel and pleasing description. The scenery, splendid and appropriate… met with its due share of applause; and the Overture, Vocal and Dramatic Music… was received with reiterated plaudits. The piece was announced for repetition amidst a tumult of approbation, which will ensure it a favourite with the visitors of the East. Morning Post, 7th September 1819.
A reference to Lisle’s role in founding the Buffalos can be found in Egan, P., Pierce Egan’s Finish to the Adventures of Tom, Jerry and Logic, in their Pursuits Through Life in and Out of London, (London, 1830) p. 137. Information about the society can also be found at: https://www.raobgle.org.uk/
London Dispatch, 18th August 1839, p.8.
Egan uses the term in the work referenced above. It is also used in an article that appears in The Weekly Dispatch, 26th October 1828, p. 8. that refers to “Our eccentric, but highly talented friend Joe Lisle.”
Lisle’s biographer mentions that he worked as a miniaturist while touring the country with a group of actors in 1820. His ability to capture accurate portrait likenesses was also recognised by the editor of The Weekly Dispatch, who sent Lisle up to Bury St Edmunds in August 1828 to capture the likeness of a notorious murderer executed there. The Weekly Dispatch, 17th August 1828, p.4. Portraits and sporting prints can also be seen amongst the caricatures by Lisle that are depicted in the window of the printshop that appears in The Spectator. Very Fond of Prints & a Drawing-Master (1828).
Register of Burials At the Countess of Huntingdon’s Chapel In the Parish of St James Clerkenwell, Spa Fields, London From 1838 To 1849, RG4 / Piece 4367 / Folio 26. This was a Methodist chapel, hence the suggestion that Lisle’s family may have belonged to this faith.
The Printshop Window 