to “stop out” or dim the ink on it, so that tonal variations or masses of light and shade were emphasized,
as in paintings. These plates were used to make transfers onto coated paper and then onto a canvas.
Vitreous colors were used and the whole was finished and varnished like a painting (Alexander, 1992,
150–160). Avant la lettre or first impression prints (made before the plate became worn or any text was
added) became regarded as rare, collectable objects (Smentek, 2007, 226).
It became more common to buy prints as an investment, especially those in the “fine art print” category.
Collectors of prints became expert in classifying them according to artist, printmaker, subject, technique
or genre. Prints of Chardin’s genre subjects became particularly popular, inviting the viewer to enter into
a fictional world imbued with moral and emblematic significance (Scott, 2000, 61–76). Topicality could
also influence trade. Some of the military scenes painted by Watteau, and his fêtes galantes, played on a
contemporary vogue for fashion prints and prints on military and theatrical subjects (Plax, 2000, 118).
Some prints capitalized on the public’s desire to see images of notorious criminals (Pointon, 1993, 91).
Political, social and intellectual concerns affected the market, as did systems of censorship. Satirical
prints from Britain were popular in more autocratic states, where they were appreciated by the liberal
minded as emblems of free speech (Donald, 1996, 20). In Germany, where there was relatively little
knowledge of the British events or people represented, this gave rise to the need for printed
commentaries, as in the journal London und Paris in 1798, where there were copies of and commentaries
on Gillray’s prints (Banerji and Donald, 1999, xiii–xiv). Conversely, in Spain Goya’s satirical print
series, Los Caprichos, (1799) was accompanied by “elusive” captions unlikely to rouse the suspicions of
the Spanish authorities. His prints satirized through the use of caricature contemporary clergy, monks,
religious superstition, the Inquisition and the pretentions of the nobility (Figure 5.2). In spite of the fact
that Goya’s previous work had won the favor of the Royal Family, the Inquisition stopped further sales of
the prints soon after their release (Hofer, 1969, 1–6). In France and Italy, the print trade was often forced
to operate beneath the radar of censorship. In Italy libels and lampoons were considered capital offences:
the satirical works of Pietro Longhi offer mild social critique rather than any radical challenge to the
(Catholic) church or state (Craske, 1997, 84–86).
Caricature prints, popular from the 1770s, targeted a range of victims, from general social types to
specific individuals, and became increasingly political in nature. The mezzotint “droll” lampooned
contemporary social types (such as the nouveau riche) in a largely apolitical way. It became more
common to issue prints intended to blacken the social reputations of wellknown individuals. These
included in the 1780s the infamous Prince Regent (later George IV) and his circle, who led lives of
unadulterated pleasure and luxury. The firm of Carington Bowles was dominant in the field of comic
mezzotints. Political satire became widespread as politics itself became a national preoccupation.
Throughout the century, satirical prints of all kinds used a complex language of symbols inherited from
earlier Renaissance and seventeenthcentury emblem books and adapted to the needs of different
audiences – for example, the use of symbols in shop signs, coins and broadsheets was a “code”
accessible to the “lower” orders (Donald, 1996, 47–57). Although Hogarth was not primarily interested
in political topics, and claimed to prefer “natural” modes of representation to the use of caricature, he
established a tradition of densely packed print images full of complex, allusive meanings. This prepared
the territory for later satirists such as James Gillray and Thomas Rowlandson (1756–1827).
Political factions often sponsored Gillray, Rowlandson and other artists, sometimes secretly. It is difficult
to determine, however, the extent to which their choices of subject or style were dictated by actual
political allegiances or financial need. While Gillray’s early career as a satirist embraced subjects from
both radical oppositional and “loyalist” or conservative politics, he later focused on attacks on radical
and oppositional activists such as Charles James Fox (1749–1806), Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751–