backgrounds who were tired of anodyne or elitist commentaries on art. Libelles thrived on parody, the
burlesque and the carnivalesque (Crow, 1985, 93–94). Diderot’s critical accounts of the Salons held
between the years 1759 and 1781 were circulated in the journal the Literary Correspondence run by his
friend Grimm. This was circulated in manuscript form to a few (mainly foreign) clients, including
monarchs and wealthy dignitaries. Freed from censorship, Diderot was able to express his personal
views with some frankness. Like the Secret Memoires (Mémoires Secrets, 1762–1787), unpublished until
1783–1789 in London and the nineteenth century in France, another clandestine journal, Diderot’s Salons
were published much later than written.
The heavy intervention of the state in France’s cultural life delayed the foundation of an independent,
specialist art press there until after the Revolution: the first specialist art journal was established in 1799.
Such developments occurred much earlier in other nations, such as Germany and Italy (Wrigley, 1993,
201–206, 230), where specialist art periodicals appeared from the 1770s, including the Artistic
Miscellany (Miscellaneen artistischen Inhalts, 1779–1787) and its various successor journals, which
ran into the nineteenth century; Goethe’s Proplylaea (Die Propyläen, of which the title refers to the
gateway to the Acropolis; 1798–1801); and the Memoirs on the Fine Arts (Memorie per le Belle Arte;
1785–1788) (Burton, 1976, 3–4). Criticism had its place as a subgenre of journalism for much of the
century, except at times of political turmoil. It was frowned upon for much of the eighteenth century in
France for artists to turn their hand to reviewing the work of their peers or tread on the territory of the
Académie royale. However, some wrote critical accounts in defense of the work of friends and relatives
whose reputations had been compromised by critics.
More controversial pamphlets and reviews were often published anonymously, resulting in the need for
some authors to issue denials that they were responsible for them. Competition for sales and publicity
meant that authors often used accessible or witty titles to lure readers, or made great efforts to display
their erudition and credentials as critics. CharlesJoseph Mathon de la Cour (1738–1793) and Raphael
David Daudet de Jossan (dates unknown) were among those who used their critical writings as a means
of career and social advancement (Wrigley, 1993, 193–195), although the former became more radical in
his approach once established. In order to be taken seriously by the educated world, critics had to adopt a
suitably austere tone that set them apart from the banter offered by “lesser” writers. From the 1750s, they
often quoted the principles or rules underlying the arts as set out by the seventeenthcentury poet and
scholar Nicolas Boileau (1636–1711). Some critics saw their role as instructive, helping the public to
understand art in the manner previously established by Félibien and de Piles. Dictionaries of art became
more popular from the midcentury in order to assist more educated viewers (Wrigley, 1993, 258), and
to help bridge the gap between connoisseurs and the general public. Even pamphlet literature was
increasingly infused by the technical terminology of art. The wider public also assimilated such
terminology through conversation with dealers.
In less formal criticism wit, humour, slang and literary tableaux (imaginary “stagings” of painted scenes)
were increasingly incorporated into reviews in a spirit of ekphrasis, the ancient Greek device of a vivid
verbal description of a work of visual art for rhetorical purposes. This was particularly appropriate
where paintings themselves resembled theatrical tableaux, as was the case with many of Greuze’s genre
paintings, which gave the impression of “freezing” figures into fixed positions. Such devices could also
distance the authors of reviews from any charge of assaulting artists’ reputations or prevent them from
incurring the wrath of the public censors. It was important to know the rules governing the use of such
writing techniques, however, since reference to boulevard or street theatre would be seen as an insult to
any paintings to which they were applied: “bad” forms of theatricality in art included the use of blatantly
unnatural, “stagey” gestures, poses and expressions. The reputations of critics often hung on their finesse
in making such distinctions and on their tone, knowledge and conformity with the principles guiding the