- and Thomas Paine (1737–1809), who saw the French Revolution as an opportunity to canvas for
more widespread voting and economic rights in Britain (Donald, 1996, 26, 163–183). One possible
explanation is that as wealthier landowners began to abandon oppositional politics, there was less
financial support for radical causes. On the other hand, the Association for the Preservation of Liberty and
Property against Republicans and Levellers, founded in 1792 by the conservative judge John Reeves
(1752–1829), enjoyed strong government support and actively used the production and dissemination of
prints as a propaganda tool (Donald, 1996, 146–157). Gillray and Rowlandson were among those artists
who benefited from the Society’s commissions and used them to express fears of the possible dire
consequences of allowing any “infectious” revolutionary fervor to undermine the social and political
order, or the power of monarchs and the church, in Britain (Donald, 1996, 149–150). Such powerful
forces easily defeated the faltering efforts of workers and artisans to form their own political
organizations. Gillray’s continuing success lay largely in his flexibility within a changing market and his
ability to derive subjects from the dreams (or illusions) of all sides of a conflict (Paulson, 1983, 183–
211). As the demand for more sophisticated political satire grew, he was able to adapt the learned
rhetoric of classical history painting to more complex allegories relating to systems of government rather
than lampooning individual politicians, and aimed at a more cultivated consumer (Donald, 1996, 60–74).
Political satirical prints were normally etchings done quickly in order to respond rapidly to contemporary
events. Political crises prompted peaks in the market, such as the attempts in the 1760s, by the radical
politician John Wilkes (1725–1797), to arouse popular support in favor of voting reform (and, later, the
American War of Independence) in opposition to the government (Hallett, 2006f, 234–235). The market in
Britain for satirical political prints, followed smartly by that for social satire, peaked in the 1780s to the
1820s, when contemporary events provided plenty of rich material and a wider public engaged with
political events and issues. In the 1780s, the political opposition of Fox to the Prime Minister William
Pitt the Younger (in office for most of the period 1783–1806), the French Revolution and revolutionary
wars, provided fertile subject matter. From the 1760s caricature was often used in such prints in order to
ridicule Britain’s “enemies,” both within and beyond its national borders. George Townshend (1724–
1807) established a high reputation in the genre. Gillray and Rowlandson responded with equal vigor to
later events, although Gillray was, of the two, the more focused on political events and figures. In spite of
the fact that Rowlandson concentrated, like many of his contemporaries, on the Fox versus Pitt disputes,
incidentally changing sides as his and his patrons’ fortunes dictated, many of his several thousand prints
were dedicated to a comedy of contemporary manners, in which the themes were often driven by
humorous observation of social life at venues such as racecourses, Vauxhall Gardens, theatres and pubs.
Satirical prints were often regarded as unseemly by more highminded members of society and were not
considered suitable for ladies.
There was less censure, toward the end of the century, of gently humorous social satires (Alexander,
1998, 10–13). Even British political prints were normally sold openly, legal “warnings” being the main
deterrent to the sale of any subject considered subversive. The situation changed somewhat in the 1790s,
following the King’s 1787 proclamation against “loose and licentious prints, Books and Publications.”
There was more proactive censorship, and even the occasional imprisonment of printsellers, although
such prosecutions were often justified through charges against indecency, easier to prove in relation to
semantically complex prints than political subversion.
Print distributors in France often relied on clandestine sales and circulation for controversial subjects. In
the preRevolutionary period, celebrity portraits, allegories relating to contemporary social and political
crises, sentimental scenes and licentious prints were particularly popular (Smentek, 2007, 222). Pre
Revolutionary and Revolutionary propagandists used the circulation of prints to intensify opposition to the
royal family. There was a particularly aggressive campaign against Marie Antoinette, with defamatory