CRITIQUING THE FRENCH THE SATIRICAL MONUMENTS OF JAMES GILLRAY AND GEORGE CRUIKSHANK by CHYNA N. BOUNDS A THESIS Presented to the Department of the History of Art and Architecture and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts September 2016 ii THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Student: Chyna N. Bounds Title: Critiquing the French: The Satirical Monuments of James Gillray and George Cruikshank This thesis has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree in the Department of the History of Art and Architecture by: Nina Amstutz Chairperson Maile Hutterer Member Keith Eggener Member and Scott L. Pratt Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded September 2016 iii © 2016 Chyna N. Bounds iv THESIS ABSTRACT Chyna N. Bounds Master of Arts Department of the History of Art and Architecture September 2016 Title: Critiquing the French: The Satirical Monuments of James Gillray and George Cruikshank In eighteenth-century England, general anxieties towards the unchecked and excessive British power and authority were caricaturized in images depicting France and its people. Extensive literature has been published on the representations of French individuals and symbols in satirical prints, yet scholars have neglected the role of monuments in satirical imagery. This thesis looks at James Gillray’s Siege de la Colonne de Pompée—Science in the Pillory (1799) and Design for Naval Pillar (1800) and George Cruikshank’s A view of the grand triumphal pillar (1801) to unveil how British printmakers utilized satirical monuments to warn viewers of both Napoléon Bonaparte’s threat to the European continent and the harmful actions of their own British governmental figures. The role of monument culture, victory culture, nationalism and print distribution is also analyzed to highlight the affect of these prints on the British, and larger European, publics. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Chyna N. Bounds GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minneapolis Colorado State University, Fort Collins DEGREES AWARDED: Master of Arts, Art History, University of Oregon, 2016 Bachelor of Arts, Art History, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 2013 AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: British Art Satirical Prints PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Graduate Teaching Fellow, University of Oregon, 2015-2016 Curatorial Intern, Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, 2014-2016 Marketing and Public Relations Specialist, Walker Art Center, 2012-2014 GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: Marian C. Donnelly Student Award Scholarship, University of Oregon, 2015 Marian C. Donnelly Student Travel Grant Scholarship, University of Oregon, 2015 PUBLICATIONS: Bounds, Chyna. Expanding Frontiers: The Jack and Suzy Wadsworth Collection of Postwar Japanese Prints. Eugene: University of Oregon, 2015. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writing of this thesis would not have been possible without the steady support, guidance, encouragement and patience of Nina Amstutz. I would also like to thank the members of my thesis committee: Maile Hutterer and Keith Eggener for their support, ideas and time with this thesis process. Special thanks to the Department of the History of Art and Architecture at the University of Oregon for their generous grant funding that made thesis research travel to London possible. I would also like to thank the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art for allowing me to curate an exhibition of satirical prints and of post-war prints. The support of June Black, Jody Seasonwein, Anne Rose Kitagawa and Jill Hartz, among many others, has been unparalleled and I will be eternally grateful for the experiences they have presented me. vii For my parents, sister and little. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 The Role of Monuments and Nationalism in the Eighteenth Century .................. 4 II. SIEGE DE LA COLONNE DE POMPÉE—SCIENCE IN THE PILLORY ........ 10 Napoléon’s Egyptian Campaign ........................................................................... 12 Depicting Napoléon’s Scientific Conquests ................................................... 14 Gillray’s Manipulations of Pompey’s Pillar ................................................... 21 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 23 III. DESIGN FOR NAVAL PILLAR ......................................................................... 24 The Duck of Clarence’s Naval Pillar Project ........................................................ 24 James Gillray’s Involvement and the British Jack Tar ......................................... 27 Charles James Fox and the Bonnet-Rouge ..................................................... 31 Britannia Triumphant? .............................................................................. 36 Conclusion .................................................................................... 37 IV. A VIEW OF THE GRAND TRIUMPHAL PILLAR ........................................... 39 Cruikshank’s Print & Napoléon’s Return ............................................................. 40 Failure & Death: The Base of the Pillar ................................................................ 46 The Bloodied Skeleton .................................................................................... 48 Napoléon & Mercy ................................................................................... 53 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 54 V. PRINT CULTURE & CONCLUSION .................................................................. 55 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 59 ix Chapter Page APPENDIX: FIGURES .............................................................................................. 61 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................... 98 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION James Gillray (1756-1815) was the most prominent printmaker in London at the end of the eighteenth-century, a period also known as the “golden age of caricature.”1 Originally creating prints in the highly finished, almost sculptural manner of Italian engraver Francesco Bartolozzi (1728-1815), Gillray later began creating satirical images that scrutinized the rule of King George III (1738-1820) and his political cabinet. 2 Printmakers such as George Cruikshank (1792-1878) followed in Gillray’s artistic footsteps, creating images that highlighted the failings of British politicians as much, if not more, than their French counterparts. As historian John Richard Moores details in his book Representations of France in English Satirical Prints 1740-1832, British satirists projected their own governmental failings onto images of the French “Other.”3 At the onset of the French Revolution (1789- 1799), British caricaturists took the opportunity not only to express their disapproval of French rulers, but also to illustrate their general anxieties toward the unchecked and 1 Diana Donald, The Age of Caricature: Satirical Prints in the Reign of George III (New Haven: Published for the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art by Yale University Press, 1996), 2 and 5. The “golden age of caricature” is regarded as the years between 1780-1830. The craze for satirical prints emerged at this time due to the remarkable growth of the British print industry. Print businesses especially grew beginning in the early 1790s at the onset of the French Revolution. At this time large-scale political sponsorships of prints boosted production and sales. 2 Draper Hill, Mr. Gillray the Caricaturist, A Biography (London: The Phaidon Press, 1965), 21. Despite many of Gillray’s prints focusing on King George III, the printmaker’s political allegiances were never stable. Up until the mid-1790s, nearly every political party and figure was subjected to being satirically illustrated in his prints. However, beginning in 1797 Gillray secured a secret annual pension of £200 from William Pitt, leader of the Tory party. Gillray received this pension in exchange for the production of images that negatively portrayed the Whig Opposition. Gillray’s brief alignment with pro-government forces came to an end with the fall of Pitt’s government in 1801. From that point on, Gillray resumed creating prints ridiculing both the Government and Opposition. 3 John Richard Moores, Representations of France in English Satirical Prints 1740-1832 (England: Palgrave Macmillian, 2015), 51. 2 excessive power of the Tory and Whig political parties, as well as the monarchy. The Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) amplified this print production, at times depicting French elite as triumphant and patriotic to expose the fragility of the Hanoverian dynasty and the political power system in more general terms.4 Extensive scholarship has been published on the representations of French individuals and symbols in British caricatures, yet scholars have neglected the role of monuments in satirical imagery. This thesis aims to address this gap in scholarship by focusing on three prints that critique both the reign of Napoléon Bonaparte (1769-1821) and the British government through depictions of satirical pillars. By analyzing two prints by James Gillray and one print by George Cruikshank, this thesis highlights how caricaturists utilized satirical monuments to warn viewers of Napoléon’s threat against Europe and the harmful actions of their own British governmental figures. The three prints chosen for this discussion are Gillray’s Siege de la Colonne de Pompée—Science in the Pillory (1799) and Design for Naval Pillar (1800) and Cruikshank’s A view of the grand triumphal pillar (1815). These three prints were selected as case studies for numerous reasons. On a visual level, they all feature a centralized pillar, located near a body of water, with a landmass in the distant left corner. The prints were also chosen due to the rarity of their design. Siege de la Colonne is the only example of an actual pillar in Gillray’s oeuvre. Additionally, Design for Naval Pillar and A view of the grand triumphal pillar are the only fictitious naval pillars in Gillray and Cruikshank’s oeuvres, respectively. However, the most important 4 Ibid., 68. 3 commonality of these prints is how they, in one way or another, comment on French activity under the reign of Napoléon. Gillray’s print Siege de la Colonne de Pompée is the artist’s first prominent example that uses a monument as a focal point for illuminating the political issues between the British and the French and is the basis for the first section. Illustrating Pompey’s Pillar in Alexandria, Egypt, the print highlights Britain’s views of Napoléon’s expedition and emphasizes France’s scientific and militaristic shortcomings. In a scientific context, Siege de la Colonne mocks Napoléon’s newfound Commission des Arts et des Sciences by caricaturizing the general and members of the Commission being attacked by Egyptian inhabitants, as their publications and scientific instruments fall to the ground and break. Militaristically, the print comments on Napoléon’s inability to control the entirety of Egypt. At the time of Siege de la Colonne’s publication, Napoléon’s army was at an all time low. Having been defeated by British Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson (1758-1805) in the Battle of the Nile in August of 1798, Napoléon’s army was fragmented and deflated from the devastating loss. The print therefore acts as a visual indicator of Britain’s superiority, both scientifically and militaristically, over France. The second section focuses on Gillray’s Design for Naval Pillar. Rather than depicting an actual monument, Gillray created his own satirical pillar to subtly criticize the British governmental system. Located at the edge of the sea and composed of ship wreckage, the satirical pillar initially appears as an overtly anti-French monument. However, iconographic symbols of a deceased sailor, the bonnet-rouge and the figure of Britannia, embedded within the pillar’s shaft and capital, suggest an alternative critique 4 against the British government. This section highlights Design for Naval Pillar’s dual critique by analyzing Gillray’s larger oeuvre to reassign the aforementioned symbols with new meanings. The final section features an analysis of Cruikshank’s A view of the grand triumphal pillar. Basing the overall structure of the print off Gillray’s Design for Naval Pillar, Cruikshank’s satirical pillar initially appears as a strictly Francophobic image speaking towards Napoléon’s return from the Island of Elba. However, as this chapter asserts, A view of the grand triumphal pillar acts more broadly as a warning for the unregulated politics of Napoléon affecting the larger European continent. The Role of Monuments and Nationalism in the Eighteenth Century A discussion on the broader culture of monuments is required for a full understanding of the effect of these three works. The word “monument” commonly designates a grandiose piece of architecture or imposing piece of public sculpture, often with funerary connotations.5 Additionally, monuments are linked historically to great empires of the past. The pyramids of Egypt, the statues of gods, goddesses, statesmen and philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome, and the triumphal columns and arches of the Roman Empire, are all forms of monuments recalling the actions of a particular ruler or nation.6 During the eighteenth century, Britain followed this tradition by erecting many monuments celebrating or commentating on some aspect of the British Empire. 5 Charlotte Chastel-Rousseau, Reading the Royal Monument in Eighteenth-Century Europe (England: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2011), 1. 6 Joan Coutu, Persuasion and Propaganda: Monuments and the Eighteenth-Century British Empire (Ithaca: MQUP, 2006), 8. 5 With the purpose of acting as a historical record, public monuments were built in the attempt to link nation and empire. Being public, in terms of commission, location and iconography, and infused with the notion of permanence, public monuments acted as the perfect memorial to emphasize an empire’s timelessness and posterity.7 The pillar, in particular, helped reinforce this idea through its highly visible appearance. The period following Lord Nelson’s victory at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 has been seen as a crucial moment for the reconfiguration of British wartime patriotism.8 The rise of public monuments, honoring wartime expeditions, coincides with the upsurge of victory culture. Not only did Nelson’s Battle of the Nile mark public celebrations of naval success, but also the commercial expansion of recognizing victories.9 Production of patriotic products, such as commemorative tea trays, cream jugs, beer-cans, and tobacco and snuffboxes was immediately started once news of the Nelson’s victory reached Britain in October of 1798. Additionally, plays such as Thomas John Dibdin’s (1771- 1841) Covent Garden production The Mouth of the Nile and The Naval Pillar; or Britannia Triumphant emerged in the public sphere.10 This period therefore is prolific not only for the emergence of victory culture, but also for developments in the social structures of patriotic display and nationalism. 7 Ibid. The permanence of a monument confirms an empire’s power, the timelessness suggests the empire has always existed, and posterity implies that the empire, like its monuments, will last forever. 8 Timothy Jenks, Naval engagements: patriotism, cultural politics and the Royal Navy 1793-1815 (London: Oxford University Press, 2006), 124. 9 Ibid., 127. Following the Battle of the Nile celebration, significant illuminations took place the following year, honoring Admiral Warren’s victory off Ireland, the initial success of the ultimately ill-fated Helder expedition, and the British victory over Tipu Sultan at Seringapatam. Due to the frequency of victory celebrations, this period can be seen to have experience, not only the proliferation of victory culture, but also an equally noteworthy series of developments in the social structures of patriotic display. 10 Ibid., 128. 6 Despite nationalism becoming one of the most influential political and cultural forces in the modern world—giving populations emotional attachments to a larger community—the notion of a distinct nationalist identity has only transpired within the last two or three centuries.11 As detailed by historian Ernest Gellner, the transition into the age of industrialization acted as a catalyst for the age of nationalism. The emergence of standardized education, a national bureaucracy and urbanization further allowed nationalism to take root.12 To Gellner, education in particular allowed for the growth of nationalism as it promoted a cultural homogeneity by teaching everyone the same language and history, thus molding a collective identity.13 With Britain’s renewed confidence from the aforementioned naval victories in the late-eighteenth century, public monuments, and in this case specifically the pillar, played into the cultural unification of the nation. However, as historian Charlotte Chastel- Rousseau indicates, historians continue to debate for whom these monuments were created. In her publication Reading the Royal Monument in Eighteenth-Century Europe, she notes how royal monuments had a dual role of ensuring the presence of the monarchs, as well as subjugating their subjects.14 Timothy Jenks addresses naval pillars specifically in his text Naval engagements: patriotism, cultural politics and the Royal Navy 1793-1815 and proposes numerous audiences for naval pillars. In regards to the Naval Pillar Project of 1799-1800 led by the 11 Lloyd S. Kramer, Nationalism in Europe and America: Politics, Cultures and Identities since 1775 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011), 7. 12 Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 39-40. 13 Ibid., 39. 14 Chastel-Rousseau, 2. 7 Duke of Clarence William IV (1765-1837), detailed in full in chapter three, Jenks indicates that heroic admirals and common seaman are only two possible audiences for the wartime monument. Those who contributed financially to wartime projects also act as the intended spectators, as donating to such projects was considered a patriotic display.15 This background in monument culture and nationalism therefore plays into the reception of Gillray’s and Cruikshank’s prints. Created to highlight unjust ruling by both the British and the French, the prints speak to the entire British public and assign the wider European public as the audience. Rather than commending the elite for sponsoring such monuments, Gillray goes so far as to include them through iconographical symbols, as will be discussed in the third chapter. 15 Jenks, 172. The names of individuals who donated to projects such as the Naval Pillar Project were regularly published in newspapers, allowing for wider audiences to know who specifically was responsible for the monument’s erection. 8 CHAPTER II SIEGE DE LA COLONNE DE POMPÉE—SCIENCE IN THE PILLORY Gillray’s print Siege de la Colonne de Pompée—Science in the Pillory is an early example of how the artist used a monument to comment on the French government and the reign of Napoléon (Figure 1). Depicting Napoléon and members of his expedition atop Pompey’s Pillar in Alexandria, Egypt, the print critiques Napoléon’s newfound Commission des Arts et des Sciences and their attempted scientific conquests. More so than simply ridiculing the French endeavors, the print speaks to Britain’s scientific and imperial superiority over Napoléon’s then-unsuccessful expedition. The eighteenth century represented a distinct era in Britain’s organizational and institutional history of science. Building off the Royal Society of London (1662)—and its French counterpart, the Académie Royale des Sciences (1666)—scientific enterprise became newly solidified.16 Labeled “the Age of Academies,” the eighteenth century saw a new formation of scientific, literary and philosophical societies.17 In addition to a new scientific emergence at home, the British voyages of George Anson (1697-1762) and James Cook (1728-1779) allowed Britain to establish footholds in India (1757) and the 16 James III McClellan, “Scientific Institutions and the Organization of Science,” The Cambridge History of Science Volume 4: Eighteenth-Century Science (2003), 87. 17 Bernard de Fontenelle coined the expression in the eighteenth century. See Roger Hand, “The Age of Academies,” in Tore Frängsmyr (ed.), Solomon’s House Revisited: The Organization and Institutionalization of Science (Canton, MA: Science History Publications, 1990), pp. 3-14. Various societies appeared in Great Britain, including but not limited to, Manchester (1781), Derby (1783) and Newcastle-Upon-Tyne (1793). 9 South Pacific Ocean (1770)—establishing, at the time, a much greater international colonial presence than France.18 Siege de la Colonne not only indicates Napoléon’s failures compared to the British in terms of scientific progress—as the treaties, books and scientific tools literally go down in flames—but also France’s lagging military prominence. Although Napoléon was able to initially secure Egypt through his victory against the Mamelukes in the Battle of the Pyramids on July 21, 1798, less than a month later he suffered a devastating setback to the British Royal Navy in the Battle of the Nile.19 Taking place from August 1- 3 and led by British Admiral Lord Nelson, the Battle of the Nile saw the death of Napoléon’s Vice-Admiral François-Paul Brueys d’Aigalliers (1753-1798), the sinking of the French flagship L’Orient, and the surrender of the French ships Tonnant and Timoléon.20 Napoléon, who remained in Alexandria for the entirety of the battle, severely criticized Brueys and the fleet for falling to the British.21 The left corner of Siege de la Colonne may subtly reference the Battle of the Pyramids and Battle of the Nile. The Pyramids of Giza appear in the background of Gillray’s print, under a dense haze and separated from Alexandria by a large river. Located just in front of them is a stampede of Bedouins holding torches and banners. These combatants may be an allusion to the perceived role reversals of power between 18 Rob Iliffe, “Science and Voyages of Discovery,” The Cambridge History of Science Volume 4: Eighteenth-Century Science (2003): 620. Iliffe states that these “voyages of discoveries” might be connected loosely to “scientific expeditions” for the observations made in ethnography and natural history. 19 The Battle of the Pyramids, also known as the Battle of Embabeh, occurred between Napoléon and the Mamelukes, on the Emperor’s expedition to Cairo. The French, with a decisive numerical superiority, deployed continuous waves of troops in divisional squares, obliterating the Mameluke cavalry. 20 Christopher J. Herold, Bonaparte in England (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1962), 116-120. 21 Ibid., 122. 10 the French Republic and Egyptian inhabitants. Whereas Napoléon was? previously able to defeat the Mamelukes, the print highlights his inability to gain control over the entire nation from his loss to the British, and the then alleged overthrow by the Pasha of Rhodes. Napoléon’s Egyptian Campaign Napoléon Bonaparte (1769-1821) began his Egyptian campaign by invading and capturing the city of Alexandria on July 2, 1798. Despite an outbreak of minimal warfare on the east and north sides of Alexandria, led by General Jacques-François Menou (1750- 1810) and General Jean-Baptiste Kléber (1753-1800), respectively, the French quickly scaled the city’s fortifications and Napoléon entered the city proper, taking up quarters next to Pompey’s Pillar.22 Considering the historical implications of columns being associated with rulers of antiquity, it is unsurprising that Napoléon chose Pompey’s Pillar as his base location. The general’s reasoning for occupying Egypt was twofold. Foremost, it controlled the way to India, providing the opportunity to seize the country from British control. More importantly, it was a land of a legendary ancient civilization that, if conquered, would bestow upon Napoléon a historical lineage to great rulers of the past such as Julius Caesar, Augustus and Alexander the Great.23 In antiquity, Egypt repaid its conquerors handsomely with immense power, riches and trophies worthy of their greatness: 22 Ibid., 66-67. 23 David Jeffreys, View of Ancient Egypt since Napoleon Bonaparte: Imperialism, Colonialism and Modern Appropriations (Great Britain: UCL Press, 2003), 23. 11 obelisks.24 As he had done in his earlier expedition to Italy (1792-1797), Napoléon ordered his troops to gather artifacts to send home to France. Within months of landing at Alexandria, Napoléon’s men cleared the sand away from a fallen obelisk, now known as Cleopatra’s Needle, to begin preparation for its transfer to Paris.25 One of Napoléon’s engineers recalled the general announcing plans to bring the obelisk back to Paris to demonstrate to Europe that he “had been there, where Alexander and Caesar had conquered.”26 Although Cleopatra’s Needle did not return to Paris under Napoléon, the intention of transporting the pillar home demonstrated the General’s long-term ambitions for his Egyptian campaign. Despite Pompey’s Pillar being a column and not an obelisk, it still held historical value to Napoléon. Initially thought to be a monument raised over the remains of Pompey by Julius Caesar, the pillar proved to not belong to Pompey but to another ruler— Diocletian.27 Erected during the Greco-Roman period by the people of Alexandria, the pillar originally honored Emperor Diocletian (224-311AD) as indicated by an inscription. Commemorating his rule the inscription reads: “To the right and good emperor, the protector of god of Alexandria, Diocletian, who has never been beaten. Therefore Postumus [sic] constructed the pillar.”28 Despite this dedication to Diocletian, it became known as “Pompey’s Pillar.” The Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities credits the 24 Brian A. Curran and Anthony Grafton, Pamela O. Long, Benjamin Weiss, Obelisk: A History (Massachusetts: Burndy Library Publications, 2009). 233. 25 Ibid. 26 Robert Solé, Le grand voyage de l’obélisque (Paris, 2004) II. Translation from Curran, 233. 27 “Pompey’s Pillar,” The North-American Review and Miscellaneous Journal, vol 3., no.8 (July 1816), 192. 28 “Pompey’s Pillar,” Supreme Council of Antiquities, accessed January 2016, http://www.sca- egypt.org/eng/SITE_Pompeys_Pillar.htm. 12 naming of the pillar to legends of the altercations between Pompey and Julius Caesar, stating that after Pompey was defeated by Caesar and returned to Egypt, only to be assassinated, his head was placed atop the pillar in a funerary jar.29 Despite the lack of validity to such rumors, Napoléon was familiar with the conquests of Caesar and Pompey and therefore chose Pompey’s Pillar as to further connect himself with great Roman rulers of the past. Depicting Napoléon’s Scientific Conquests James Gillray fictionalizes Napoléon’s residence near Pompey’s Pillar in his print Siege de la Colonne de Pompée by numerous satirical manipulations. Referencing Napoléon’s Egyptian campaign and his scientific endeavors, Gillray placed the General atop the pillar accompanied by a group of eight terrified and angry French scholars. Napoléon, indicated by his characteristic plumed cocked hat, holds a sign reading Vive MAHOMET Qui protegoit les Sciences, while grotesquely shouting down to a group of Turks and Bedouins who besiege the base of the column.30 A ninth man on the left hand side dangles off the column. Two individuals on the right fall towards spears held by their captors, having been shot down from their hot air balloon. Numerous books, treaties and scientific instruments haphazardly fall from the pillar and appear broken on the ground, signaling the fall of both Napoléon and his recently established Commission des Artes et des Science. 29 Ibid. 30 Mary Dorothy George, Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires in the British Museum: Division I, Political and Personal Satires; In the British Museum VII, Vol. 7 (London: Forgotten Books, 2012), 535- 536. The plaque reads “Long live Muhammad protector of the Sciences.” 13 Gillray outlines the aforementioned scene by an inscription at the bottom of the print. Using letters from French General Kléber as inspiration, it reads: It appears by an Intercepted Letter from General Kleber, dated “Alexandria, 5 Frimaire, 7th Year of the Republic” [27 Nov. 1798], that, when his Garrison was obliged to retire into the New-Town at the approach of the Turkish Army under the Pasha of Rhodes, a party of the Scavans, who had ascended Pompey’s Pillar for Scientific Purposes were cut off by a Band of Bedouin Arabs, who having made a large Pile of Straw and dry Reeds at the foot of the Pillar, set Fire to it, and rendered unavailing the gallant Defence [sic] of the learned Garrison, of whose Catastrophe the above Design is intended to convey an idea.31 Despite Gillray basing his image on historical materials, he constructs the scene theatrically and removes any semblance of historical correctness—acknowledging that the “Design is intended to convey an idea.”32 This is a significant act on the part of Gillray because by labeling the scene as “convey[ing] an idea,” he speaks to the transferability of Napoléon’s actions and indicates the possibility of this scene occurring at historical monuments in other countries. The letter Gillray referenced stems from the intercepted letters of General Kléber, a commander of a division of the Army of the Orient, who set sail for Egypt in May of 1798. Seized by the British Royal Navy, Kléber’s letters conveyed “a sort of censure upon Bonaparte,” detailing the discontent of various officers.33 The letters were widely 31 James Gillray, Siege de la Colonne—Science in the Pillory c. 1799. Hand-colored etching; 56 x 42.5 cm. Published 6 March 1799 by Hannah Humphrey. My italics. 32 Ibid. 33 Elizabeth Vassall Fox Holland, The Journal of Elizabeth Lady Holland (1791-1811), vol. ii (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1908), 42. Kléber, who was in charge of finding employment for the engineers, cartographers and other technicians composing the Alexandria contingent, wrote to Napoléon on behalf of architect Charles Norry (1756-1832) and astronomer François Marie Quenot (b. 1761), in an attempt to facilitate their expeditions home. Napoléon denied Kléber’s requests. This, along with the unfavorable conditions the workers were placed under, as detailed in Charles-Roux’s Bonaparte Gouverneur d’Égypte (Paris, 1935), perhaps play into Kléber’s dissatisfaction towards Napoléon. 14 circulated with three editions published in 1789, 1799 and 1800 in English, French and German.34 Although based on factual letters, the inscription as a whole is a fabricated statement. Despite Gillray chronicling the date of the letter as 27 November 1798, the authentic intercepted letters of Kléber were dated from July to September.35 Gillray’s inscription was also fictitious, likely unintentionally, as Kléber’s army did not face the Pasha of Rhodes until March 18, 1799 at the Battle of Mount Tabor. However, it is likely that Gillray used London newspaper articles for the content of the inscription. In December of 1798, numerous newspapers falsely reported the “Death of Buonaparte” and the recapturing of Alexandria by the “Pacha [sic] of Rhodes.”36 As the Hereford Journal stated: The fate of the French expedition to Egypt appears to be at length finally decided, by the death of Buonaparte, and the massacre of a considerable part of his army…Accounts, we understand, have also been received by Government of the recapture of Alexandria by the Pacha [sic] or Rhodes, assisted by the English squadron.37 Napoléon was, however, very much alive, having set out for a trip to Suez on December 24, 1798.38 Regardless of this oversight, the inscription is especially informative of the scientific and cultural offensive Napoléon employed at the onset of his Egyptian 34 George, Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires in the British Museum: Division I, Political and Personal Satires; In the British Museum VII, Vol. 7, 538 35 Ibid., 536. 36 “Death of Buonaparte,” Hereford Journal (London), 19 December 1798. Similar headlines and articles were reported in the Newcastle Courant (22 December 1798), Staffordshire Advertiser (22 December 1798) and Aberdeen Journal (24 December 1798). 37 Ibid. 38 Herold, 221. 15 campaign. A supplemental and wittily constructed inscription further highlights Gillray’s awareness of both past and contemporary issues: To study Alexandria’s store Of Science, Amru deem’d a bore; And, briefly, set it burning. The Man was Ignorant, ‘tis true, So sought one comprehensive view Of the Light shed by Learning, Your modern Arabs, grown more wise, French vagrant Science duly prize; They’ve fairly bit the biters. They’ve learnt the style of Herbert’s Jokes; Amru to Books confin’d his Hoax; These Bedouins roast the Writers.39 This inscription references Napoléon’s formation of the Commission des Artes et des Science, a group assigned the task of investigating both the ancient and modern aspects of Egypt. In the inscription Gillray references Amru (585-556 AD) who “deem’d [Alexandria’s sciences] a bore.”40 A distinguished leader of the Saracens and conqueror of Egypt, Amru destroyed a noble collection of manuscripts at Alexandria in 642 AD under the request of Caliph Omar (b. 579 AD).41 Although Amru desired to preserve the collection, the Caliph wrote to him stating: “If these writings of the Greeks agree with the Koran, or book of God, they are useless, and need not be preserved; if they disagree, they are pernicious, and ought to be destroyed,” and the library was subsequently burned.42 Gillray however commends the “modern Arabs” for fighting against the wandering 39 Gillray, Siege de la Colonne—Science in the Pillory. 40 Amru is also referred to as Amrou and Amr ibn al’Aas. 41 Joseph and Edward Parker, The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia: Volume 1 (Philadelphia: William Brown, 1832), 693. The term “Saracens” has evolved throughout history. In the early centuries CE, Greek and Latin writings used the term to refer to those living near the Roman province of Arabia, distinguishing them as a separate group of people from the Arabs. In the Early Medieval era the term became associated with Arab tribes. In Western languages before the sixteenth century, “Saracen” had become synonymous with Muslim Arabs. 42 Ibid., 394 and 693. During the siege of Alexandria by Julius Caesar the library was partially burned. Amru destroyed the remaining library. 16 French, relating them to the writers of Jacques Hébert’s (1757-1794) radical newspaper Le Père Duchesne, as a way to “bite the biters” and “roast the Writers.”43 The “Writers” Gillray refers to were the more than 160 “savants”—including engineers, botanists, archaeologists, mathematicians, naturalists and poets—that Napoléon brought to Egypt to establish the Institute of Egypt in Cairo.44 Modeled on the Institute of France in Paris, Napoléon’s Institute had the objectives of, I. Progress and propagation of the sciences in Egypt. II. Research, study and publication of natural, industrial, and historical data on Egypt. III. To give advice on the different questions on which its members will be consulted by the government.45 The presence of so many civilians of undeniable distinction in the midst of a military body was unprecedented and speaks to Napoléon’s goal of securing Egypt as the power base for his world empire.46 In Siege de la Colonne, Gillray likens the objectives of Napoléon’s Commission des Arts et des Sciences to absurd and unattainable ideas such as the rebuilding the Tower of Babel and making man immortal, while simultaneously signaling that any quest made towards flight will also be unsuccessful. Tumbling over the left side of the Siege de la Colonne are numerous scientific instruments, books and papers on which Gillray has inscribed satirical titles to reinforce this idea. 43 George Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires in the British Museum: Division I, Political and Personal Satires; In the British Museum VII, Vol. 7, 537. Established during the French Revolution, Le Père Duchesne was edited by Jacques Hébert. Père Duchesne was a character representing the man of the people who denounced abuses and injustice. Hébert was seen as an enemy of the Republic and was guillotined on 24 March 1794. 44 Robert Anderson and Ibrahim Fawzy, Egypt Revealed (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 1987), 7. 45 Correspondance de l’armée française en Egypte, IV (Paris, Year VII), 283. Translated Herold, 151. 46 Ibid, Jeffreys, 2. 17 To the left of Napoléon, a plump man prepares to hurl a globe and an unidentifiable device to the besiegers below. A man underneath him throws a large book with the title “Le Ciel Revolutionné ou les Constellations Sans-culottisés.”47 Dangling off the edge of the column, a man appears with a paper reading “Project pour rendre les Hommes Immortels.”48 Three more books cascade off the side of the pillar with titles reading (from top to bottom): “Ebauche d’un Syfteme [sic] de Légiflation [sic] pour une Colonie d’Anthropophages,” “Traité fur la Guillotine par un Théophilanthrope,” and “Sur le Réédification de la Tour del Babel” (Figure 3).49 A fourth publication titled “Encyclopédie, Edit: de Paris, Vol: LX” is about to be impaled on a Turk’s spear, while a fifth, opened to a page reading “Tableau de Logarithms” falls towards the ground (Figure 4).50 A final book reading “Projet de Fraternisation avec les Bedouins” hits one of the assailants and strikes him to the ground.51 Behind him lies an open journal reading “Le Contract Social” (Figure 5).52 Various scientific tools are thrown over the side of the pillar, and broken on the ground. Whereas the left side of the print depicts the overthrowing of scientific objects and various treaties, Gillray dedicates the right side to the failure of flight. Behind the man wearing a skullcap on the right, presumed to be mathematician Gaspard Monge 47 Gillray, Siege de la Colonne—Science in the Pillory. The book translates to “Heaven revolutionized or the sans-culottes constellations.” 48 Ibid., “Project for making men immortal,” 49 Ibid., “Outlining a system of legislation for a colony of cannibals,” “Treaty on the Guillotine of Theophilantropy,” and “The rebuilding of the Tower of Babel.” 50 Ibid., “Encyclopedia of Paris, Vol. 60,” “Table of Logarithms.” 51 Ibid., “Project of Fraternization with the Bedouins.” 52 Ibid., “The Social Contract.” 18 (1746-1818), a figure with large white wings fastened to his shirt preparing to jump off the pillar. Further to the right, two men fall out of a hot air balloon reading “La Diligence D’Abissynie,” shot down by an attacker with a musket.53 Three books titled “Les Ruines par le Cit: Volney,” “Traité sur la Velocité des Corps Descendants,” and “Theorie de l’Aerostation” fall between the boat and the two figures (Figure 6).54 By depicting shattered scientific objects and books about to be destroyed, Gillray indicates the futility of the Commission’s objectives. Gillray also balances each side of the print with his iconic symbol of a spear probing the rear of a man. On the left side of the print a spear is in the moment just before striking the “Encyclopédie, Edit: de Paris, Vol: LX” (Figure 7). Similarly, on the right side a savant is about to be struck with an arrow shot from a Turk below (Figure 8). By including this iconography on each side of the print Gillray visually signifies the end of the French scholars, and thus Napoléon’s endeavors, as well as the foundation of their intellectual studies. As will be displayed in the following section, Gillray did not limit this visual iconography strictly to French individuals, but also used it against members of his own government.55 The print L’Insurrection de l’Instutut Amphibie—The Pursuit of Knowledge, is another example of Gillray caricaturizing Napoléon’s scientific endeavors (Figure 9). A scene of ludicrousness, Gillray depicts two Frenchmen who have attempted to domesticate a pair of crocodiles. In the foreground a crocodile clasps down on the leg of 53 Ibid., “The Diligence of Abyssinia.” 54 Ibid., “The Ruins of the Cit: Volney,” “Treaty on the Velocity of Descending Corpses,” and “Theory of Ballooning.” 55 See James Gillray, The tree of liberty must be planted immediately! and Design for Naval Pillar, 1800. 19 one of the men who has attempted to ride it. Flailing his arms, he releases a halter and a whip, while his saddle lies to the right of the pair. On the ground is a large book titled Sur l’Education du Crocodile with three plates that have fallen out. In the first plate a Frenchman rides a crocodile, in the second he drives a high phaeton drawn by a pair of crocodiles and in the third, a small boat is towed through the water by a crocodile.56 In the upper right of the print another terrified Frenchman attempts to escape a crocodile biting down on his coat tails. As he runs out of the scene he drops a book titled Les Droits du Crocodile.57 This print shows how Gillray’s attack on Napoléon’s Egyptian expedition was not limited to Siege de la Colonne. Gillray’s Manipulations of Pompey’s Pillar Despite depicting a historical monument, numerous discrepancies arise between Gillray’s representation of Pompey’s Pillar and the actual monument in Alexandria (Figure 10). Although the factual representation of monuments is not a central idea in the construction of satirical images, Gillray has manipulated Pompey’s Pillar to such an extent that he circumvents any and all historical significance of the column. His reduction of scale and distortions to the formal qualities of the pillar transform the recognizable monument into an image of fiction. This action by Gillray adds to the satirical message by acting as a visual pun against Napoléon’s height. Standing approximately eighty-eight feet from capital to base according to modern day measurements, Pompey’s pillar appears less than a fifth of its actual size in 56 James Gillray, L’Insurrection de l’Institut Amphibie—The Pursuit of Knowledge, 1799. The book translates to “On the Education of the Crocodile.” 57 Ibid., “The Rights of the Crocodile.” 20 Gillray’s print.58 This diminution of scale reinforces this idea when compared with contemporary images of the pillar, such as the reproduction in British Admiral William Henry Smyth’s Ædes Hartwellianæ; or, Notices of the manor and mansion of Hartwell (1851) (Figure 11).59 Although likely a practical decision on Gillray’s part to incorporate both the entire pillar and the series of figures atop it, diminishing the pillar to only a fragment of its size strips it of its grandeur as the largest column constructed outside the imperial capitals of Rome and Constantinople.60 The pillar’s reduced size may be a visual pun referencing Napoléon’s short stature. As discussed in more detail in the following section, Gillray created the character “Little Boney” to depict Napoléon in caricatures. By associating Napoléon with a shortened, and virtually fictive, monument Gillray belittles the Emperor’s conquests. Furthermore, situating him atop the pillar with grotesque features and tattered clothing strips him of the grandeur associated with infamous past rulers such as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. In addition to diminishing the pillar’s height, Gillray has also adorned the column with attributes of European architecture. The pillar’s shaft is illustrated as a traditional fluted Greek column, while the capital relates more closely to the Corinthian structures found in London, similar to those found at St. Paul’s Cathedral (Figure 12-14). Although not an exact replica, Gillray’s version of Pompey’s Pillar acts as a hybrid Euro-Egyptian 58 The Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities lists the pillar at approximately 27 meters, or 88.5827 feet. Figuring the dangling man is of an average male height of 5’7”, the pillar in Gillray’s print can be roughly estimated as 17 feet high from capital to base. 59 Captain W.H. Smyth, Ædes Hartwellianæ; or, Notices of the manor and mansion of Hartwell (London: John Bowyer Nicholas and Son, Parliament Street, 1851), 198. 60 Smyth, 196 and Jean-Pierre Adam, “A propos du trilithon de Baalbek. Le transport et le mise en oeuvre des mégalithes,” Syria, tomb 54, fascicule 1-2 (1977): 51. 21 structure. Gillray’s intended locality of the overall scene explains his embellishment of the column with European designs. By illustrating Pompey’s Pillar as a Corinthian column, the print, and therefore the actions of Napoléon within the print, obtain a dual citizenship. While the Napoléon’s conquests physically take place in Egypt, they are symbolically located in Europe and signal the threat of Napoléon’s reign extending to the entire continent. By making the pillar appear similar to those found throughout London and Europe, the threat of Napoléon’s reign is not isolated by Egyptian borders—a visual theme that will later appear in the work of George Cruikshank. Conclusion James Gillray’s Siege de la Colonne de Pompée—Science in the Pillory presents a critical interpretation of Napoléon’s scientific endeavors directly related to the Commission des Arts et des Sciences. Mocking the various treaties and publications produced under the Commission and depicting scientific instruments broken at the feet of the Turks and Bedouins, Gillray diminishes the value of Napoléon’s intellectual conquests in comparison to the British and signifies the short lived nature of the program. The manipulations of Pompey’s Pillar, most notably its reduction of size and Corinthian ornamentation, jabs at Napoléon’s short stature while still recognizing him as a potential threat to Europe as a whole. The monument overall contains a dual purpose of promoting British authority over Napoléon and the French Republic, both scientifically and militaristically, without fully displacing Napoléon’s ambition of securing rule over the entire European nation. 22 CHAPTER III DESIGN FOR NAVAL PILLAR In the eighteenth-century, various printed images sought to express Britain’s naval power over France. James Gillray’s print Design for Naval Pillar (Figure 15) is one such work that scholars have previously deemed as a print glorifying such naval prominence. Published in 1800, the print was a mock public “submission” to the Duke of Clarence’s “Naval Pillar or Monument Project.”61 Upon first inspection, the viewer is overwhelmed with an almost propagandistic print emphasizing the English naval achievements over France. However, closer investigation of the pillar reveals symbols that suggest an alternative purpose. Rather than praising Britain’s naval achievements, Design for Naval Pillar expresses general anxieties towards the unchecked and excessive British power and authority. Through the three main symbols of the deceased sailor, bonnet-rouge, and the figure of Britannia, Gillray’s satirical pillar actively criticizes both England, under a veil of patriotism, and the French as a defeated enemy. The Duke of Clarence’s Naval Pillar Project Due to the low literacy rates of the public in late eighteenth-century England, public monuments and memorial architecture played a crucial role in presenting the British masses with a national identity.62 The Duke of Clarence’s unsuccessful “Naval Pillar or Monument Project” of 1799-1800 was one such attempt to idealize the efforts of 61 James Gillray did not actually submit the pillar to the Duke of Clarence’s competition. 62 As pointed out in the introduction, this was a period where the British public congregated around the wartime victories of Lord Nelson and his naval contemporaries. Public monuments, such as pillars, were erected and formed a cultural unification between both the literate and illiterate British public. 23 the British navy in a monument the general public could understand.63 Although an earlier monument was proposed to celebrate the efforts of Admirals Earl Richard Howe (1726-1799) and Sir John Jervis St. Vincent (1735-1823) at the Battles of Cape Saint and Camperdown, the naval project was not given a decisive impetus by the Duke’s committee until the news of Admiral Sir Horatio Nelson’s (1758-1805) epic victory against the French in the Battle of the Nile. 64 The committee of the Duke of Clarence William Henry IV (1765-1837), his royal brothers, Parliament, the Pitt ministry and the Admiralty, placed an announcement in The Gentleman’s Magazine in February of 1798, for the monument to be, Under the auspices of His Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence, in the year 1798, by voluntary subscription, as a testimony of public admiration and gratitude to the heroes who, by the blessing of Providence, as a most important and perilous crisis, defeated (within the space of a few months) three formidable naval powers, combined together for the declared purpose of subverting the Constitution, Religion and Liberties of Great Britain.65 Compared to previous naval monuments and memorials, this naval project was novel. With the intent that the erection of the pillar occur before the war’s end, it was meant to recognize the already successful British naval battles, while also anticipating the triumphs of future endeavors. The pillar committee envisioned the monument as the British counterpart to war monuments of antiquity such as the columns of Trajan, Antonius and 63 Timothy Jenks, Naval engagements: patriotism, cultural politics and the Royal Navy 1793-1815 (London: Oxford University Press, 2006), 168. 64 Ibid, 169. The Battle at Cape Saint occurred on February 14, 1797. The Battle of Camperdown followed on October 11, 1797. 65 Sylvanus Urban, The Gentleman’s Magazine: and Historical Chronicle. For the Year MDVVXCVIII, Vol. 83, (London: Printed by John Nicholas, at Cicero’s Head, Red Lion Passage, 1798), 100. 24 Pompey. This idea became further intensified with the Battle of Nile occurring in Egypt—a geographical location of the ancient world.66 Artists and architects such as John Flaxman (1755-1826), Alexander Dufour (1760-1835) and John Opie (1761-1807) all proposed colossal statues highlighting the triumphs of Lord Nelson and his contemporaries.67 Conflicts quickly emerged between sculptor John Flaxman and architect Alexander Dufour as to how the monument should be constructed. Flaxman proposed a gigantic statue of Britannia Triumphant (Figure 16) on Greenwich Hill stressing, “how much more sentiment and interest there is in a fine human figure than can possibly be produced in the choicest piece of Architecture.” 68 Dufour countered Flaxman’s argument stating: “If we wished to perpetuate his [a hero’s] memory, a piece of Architecture is better calculated for the purpose than a Statue…It is to the Pillars of Trajan, Antoninus, Pompey…and their inscriptions, which have survived so many ages, that we are indebted for the memory of these great men; while their statues’ have been mostly destroyed.”69 John Opie further defied Flaxman’s statue proposal writing: A colossal statue might do more, in some respects, than a column, but in magnitude and effect it must be inferior…the ideas suggested by it would be of too refined and abstracted a nature to allow it to be very instructive, and it must at last partake of too 66 Jenks, 169. 67 The Duke of Clarence’s advertisement required that the statue be at least 230ft tall. 68 John Flaxman, A Letter to the Committee for Raising the Naval Pillar or Monument, Under the Patronage of his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence by John Flaxman, Sculptor (London: G. Woodfall, No. 22, Paternoster-Row, 1799), 7. 69Alexander Dufour, Letter to the Nobility and Gentry Composing the Committee for Raising The Naval Pillar, or Monument, Under the Patronage of His Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence; in Answer to the Letter of John Flaxman, Sculpture, to the Committee on that Subject (London: 1800). 15. No surviving image of Dufour’s monument exists. 25 much of the uniformity of a pillar, to be capable of affording that plenitude and succession of entertainment which ought always to accompany great durability.70 The committee ultimately selected Opie’s proposal for A Temple of National Virtue. Although no image of Opie’s monument exists, textual records state that the design was a circular structure that incorporated statues of naval heroes accompanied by historical paintings and colossal sculptures of King George III and Neptune paying homage to Britannia.71 However, after the fall of the Pitt ministry the “Naval Pillar Project” was abandoned due to a lack of governmental and national financial support. James Gillray’s Involvement and the British Jack Tar Gillray, aware of the naval project and the rivalries between architects and sculptors, responded by creating a satirical pillar emphasizing the irreconcilability of the various proposals.72 Criticizing the politicization and idealization of the Navy’s image, Gillray’s pillar merges the designs of Flaxman, Dufour and Opie. Employing sculptural forms to create an architectural monument, Gillray’s pillar contains an incredible three- dimensionality despite being a two-dimensional print. Rather than creating a satirical pillar with painted images, Gillray crafted each individual part of Design For Naval Pillar, signifying each symbol’s importance. Gillray depicted the elements of the pillar 70 John Opie, ‘A Letter addressed to the editor of the True Briton, on the Proposal for erecting a public memorial to the naval glory of Great Britain,’ Library of the Fine Arts, 4, 1832, 61-4, 63. Cited in Alison Yarrington, The Commemoration of the Hero, 1800-1864: Monuments to the British Victors of the Napoleonic Wars (New York: Garland, 1988), appendix 338-9. 71 Emma Major, Madam Britannia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 64. No surviving image of Opie’s monument exists. 72 Gillray would have been aware of the ‘Naval Pillar Project’ through various publications. Details about the project was published in newspapers such as The Gentleman’s Magazine, True Briton, the Morning Chronicle and the Morning Herald. 26 whether a hat, canon or deceased sailor, to convey the improbable erection of the actual monument. Not only critiquing the actual project, the elements of Gillray’s pillar ridiculed the British competitors, sponsors, commenters and ruling elite. Unlike the French State prints directed towards attacking the enemy and boosting moral, English prints of the Revolution condemned the Ministry almost as much as their adversaries. The first element of Gillray’s pillar that calls for reexamination is the ship worker in the middle of the pillar (Figure 17). Discernable by his stripped pants and wooden shoes, scholars have previously identified the sailor as French.73 However, evidence suggests that Gillray was truly representing a British ‘Jack Tar,’ specifically the Duke of Clarence. Throughout the 1600s British naval officers used the word ‘tar’ to describe lower ranking seamen. An intrinsic element of life at sea, barrels of tar were stored on board for the waterproofing and protection of the ship, defending against shipworm attacks and preventing ropes from rotting against the damaging sea elements. Encompassing all aspects of ship life—even the skin and clothing of the seamen who used it to waterproof their hats and coats—‘tar’ became a familiar term for a sailor.74 The origin of the name ‘Jack’ is disputed, but as a familiar nickname for John, it was frequently used as a generic name for sailors of the common masses.75 In art, the term ‘Jack Tar’ first appears in William Hogarth’s 1756 print The Invasion Plate 1: 73 British historian Mary Dorothy George (1878-1971) who compiled the last seven volumes of the Catalogue of Political and Personal Satire Preserved in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum developed a large part of the scholarship on the ‘golden age’ of British satirical printmaking and its leading artists James Gillray, Thomas Rowlandson and George Cruikshank. George identified the sailor as a French individual and many scholars have followed her reading. 74 Roy and Leslie Adkins, Jack the Tar. Life in Nelson’s Army (Great Britain: Little, Brown, 2009), xxix. 75 Ibid, xxviii. 27 France (Figure 18). Verses beneath the print written by David Garrick read, “See John the Soldier, Jack the Tar, With Sword & Pistol arm’d for War.”76 Although Hogarth’s influence on Gillray was limited, prints such as The Invasion Plate were central to the tradition of English satirical art and Gillray was undoubtedly familiar with his body of work.77 Gillray produced multiple caricatures of the British Jack Tar before and after A Design for Naval Pillar. Most notably, his 1795 print A True British Tar (Figure 19) depicts the Duke of Clarence and provides evidence for an ulterior identity of the sailor in the pillar. Dressed as a Jack Tar, the Duke is not only condemned for his Bond-street activities and extramarital affairs, but also for his failed attempts to establish prominence as a naval leader.78 Having been rejected repeatedly for a command at sea by the Board of Admiralty, the Duke approached his father King George III and requested to be appointed the First Lord of Admiralty. Met with a firm refusal, he continued petitioning for placement as command of the Mediterranean fleet. Sharply rebuffed again, the Duke was assigned to the lower status of command of the militia.79 A True British Tar can therefore be read as a mockery against the Duke of Clarence’s unsuccessful attempts at naval admiralty, while simultaneously foreshadowing the failures of his future naval endeavors. Rather than appearing as a high-ranking 76 Ibid. 77 Richard Godfrey, James Gillray: The Art of the Caricature (London: Tate Publishing, 2001), 14. 78 R.H. Evans and Thomas Wright, Historical and Descriptive Account of the Caricatures of James Gillray (London: Benjamin Blom, 1851), 64. Inscription on A True British Tar reads: “Damn all Bond-Street- Sailors I say, a parcel of smell-smocks! they’d sooner creep into a Jordan than face the French! _dam me!” The Duke’s extramarital affairs were with Irish actress Dorothea Bland who was more commonly known as ‘Mrs. Jordan.’ 79 Christopher Hibbert, George IV Prince of Wales, 1762-1811 (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1971), 177. 28 officer, as a royal would have expected to be, Gillray demotes him to a pouting seaman of the common masses. Throughout the 1790s, exaggerated body proportions became a noticeable tool Gillray employed to identify those of the upper class whose behavior negatively effected the general British population. Gillray therefore dressed the Duke in the garb of a Jack Tar and used corpulence to identify his sluggish and immoral character, as well as his lack of authority. The Duke of Clarence’s brother, George IV, the Prince of Wales (1762-1830), spurred Gillray’s hatred towards the Duke. Recognized as a gormandizing, irresponsible, extravagant drunkard by the majority of the British public and royal family, the Prince of Wales became an unsurprising target for many of Gillray’s caricatures.80 By the end of the eighteenth century the Duke remained the only member of the royal family who publicly supported his brother, therefore subjecting himself to Gillray’s visual attacks. The pair are depicted alongside one another in Gillray’s 1804 print L’Assemblée Nationale;-or- Grand co-operative meeting at St. Ann’s Hill (Figures 20-21).81 Illustrated in a blue coat facing his brother, Gillray caricaturizes the Duke with a smug demeanor, pointing his nose upwards.82 As in A True British Tar Gillray has situated the Duke’s eyes between a low baring brow, plump cheeks and a robust chin. From the publication dates of these A True British Tar and L’Assemblée Nationale in 1795 and 1804, 80 Ibid, 38. See James Gillray, A Voluptuary under the horrors of Digestion, 1792 and Visiting the Sick, 1806. 81 Christiane Banerji, Gillray Observed: The Earliest Account of his Caricatures in London und Paris. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 194-195. 82 Mary Dorothy George, English Political Caricature, 1793-1831 (London: Oxford University Press, 1960), 76. The Prince of Wales was so distraught by L’Assemblée Nationale, that he paid a large amount of money for the destruction of the plate. 29 respectively, it is apparent that Gillray’s malice towards the Duke was still in effect at the time of Design for Naval Pillar’s creation. Gillray’s portrayal of the Duke in A True British Tar, when understood as a representation of his negative feelings toward the Duke’s reign, calls for a reassessment of the identity of the deceased sailor in the pillar. The corpse may allude to what Gillray suspected would happen to the Duke if he were appointed the head of a naval fleet— ending in his demise and subsequent entanglement with the wreckage of his enemies. Although it cannot be confirmed that the deceased sailor is the Duke, the relationship between Gillray’s earlier depictions of him and the Duke’s role as the head of the ‘Pillar Project’ cannot be ignored. Charles James Fox and the Bonnet-Rouge The insertion of the central “Liberté” inscribed bonnet-rouge, beneath the capital of the pillar, is another section of Design for Naval Pillar calling for reevaluation (Figure 22). Worn by lower class radical partisans, the bonnet-rouge became a notorious symbol of the French Revolution. However, Gillray casts the red cap into a British context by depicting it atop the head of the British Whig politician Charles James Fox (1749-1806). In at least twenty prints, beginning seven years prior to Design for Naval Pillar’s publication, Gillray portrayed Fox as either wearing or in association with the bonnet- rouge.83 Welcoming the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789, Fox quickly became one of the most detested politicians of the 1790s. Although accorded a seat in Parliament 83 See James Gillray, A Democrat;-or-Reason and Philosophy, 1793, Dumourier dining in state at St. James’s, on the 15th of May, 1793, 1793 and The Real Cause of the Present High-Price of Provisions, 1795. 30 by his father in 1768, Fox almost immediately found himself at odds with King George III. His open opposition to many of the King’s bills resulted in his forced removal from the government in 1774. Fox subsequently emerged as a Rockingham Whig and acquired his longstanding belief that the King was the only direct threat to the constitution.84 Over the span of his life, Fox traveled multiple times to France—a “great hobby” turned family tradition—and developed a pronounced appreciation for all things French.85 During these trips Fox formed close relationships with the French liberal aristocrats who acted as his interpreters and who later played integral roles in the first years of the French Revolution.86 Marquis de Lafayette (1757-1834), Louis Philippe II Duc d’Orléans (1747-1793) and Prince Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand (1754-1838) became Fox’s closest confidants and considered themselves ‘French Whigs.’87 When followers of Fox inundated France at the start of the Revolution in 1789, Lafayette, Orléans and Talleyrand chaperoned the group, trying to persuade Fox to join.88 From these interactions, it is apparent that Fox held intimate knowledge about France. On numerous occasions he acted as an intermediary for France and his own country: Frenchmen consulted him on constitution making and Englishmen, likewise, on 84 D.T. Johnson, “Charles James Fox: From Government to Opposition, 1771-1774,” The English Historical Review 89, no. 353 (1974): 750, and “Charles James Fox and the Whig Opposition in 1792,” Cambridge Historical Journal 9, no. 3 (1949). The Rockingham Whigs were a group first led by Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham, who strongly opposed King George III’s influence on Parliament and aimed to prevent a reassertion of royal power. 85 Charles James Fox to his brother Henry Edward Fox, 31 October, 1831, The Earl of Ilchester, Chronicles of Holland House 1820-1900 (New York: E.P. Dutton and Company Inc.: 1938), 146. 86 L.G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1992), 109. 87On one of his visits to France Fox called Lafayette, Orléans and Talleyrand ‘French Whigs.’ Fox even co- owed race horses with the Duc de Lauzun, Armand Louis de Gontaut (1747-1793). 88 Mitchell, 109-110. 31 the state of France. Influenced by such close interactions, Fox largely supported the French Revolution and the end of the absolutist order—interpreting it as a late Continental imitation of Britain’s Glorious Revolution of 1688.89 From these associations, the majority of Britain considered Fox a French sympathizer, placing the worries of the enemy over the military efforts of his own country.90 Initially sympathetic to the Revolution, Gillray’s opinions changed once battles grew bloodier and the French became more of a threat to Britain. After the execution of Louis XVI on January 21, 1793 and subsequent declaration of war by France on England on February 1, Gillray’s depictions of the French transformed from worthy opponents into demons of violence and depravity.91 As evident in his print A Paris Beau (Figure 23) Gillray regarded the French Revolutionary soldiers as manic and barbaric individuals. In repeatedly depicting Fox wearing the bonnet-rouge, Gillray ultimately likened his behaviors to that of the Paris Beau. As the war raged on, Gillray’s renderings of Fox intensified, eventually equating him to the devil, as apparent in The Tree of Liberty-with, the Devil tempting John Bull (Figure 24). Gillray was not the only printmaker associating Fox with the radical politics of France and the bonnet-rouge. Artists Isaac Cruickshank (1756-1811), Thomas Rowlandson (1756-1827) and J Cooke appropriated Gillray’s motif in their own work. Cruikshank even mimicked specific scenes of Gillray’s that dealt with the “French 89 The Glorious Revolution, of 1688 was the overthrow of England’s King James II by a union of English Parliamentarians with the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau. 90 Mitchell, 110. 91 Godfrey, 18. 32 Fox.”92 With such artists actively publishing caricatures paring Fox with the French red hat, it is arguable that viewers of Gillray’s Design for Naval Pillar would have immediately connected Fox to the bonnet-rouge beneath the capital, as will be discussed later. Taking into consideration the pairing of the hat with the disembodied green-pants figure, another visual commonality of Gillray’s previous work becomes apparent. Closer inspection reveals a spear between the individual’s legs, in the moment before a brutal probe. This imagery links to the 1797 print The tree of liberty must be planted immediately! (Figure 25), where the decapitated head of Fox balances on the tip of a similar spear, his eyes masked by the bonnet-rouge. The compilation of hat, figure and spear in Design for Naval Pillar may therefore be a similarly grotesque reference to the earlier print, with Fox’s head being replaced by the lower half on an ambiguous wounded figure. Toward the end of the eighteenth century and more significantly in the nineteenth century, Gillray informed the public of French cruelties through the use of a single figure: Napoléon Bonaparte (1769-1821). By the end of his career Gillray had produced forty- odd satires against the French leader. His earlier assaults on Napoléon portray him as a tall, gaunt, unthreatening foe, while his later works depict him as a diminutive figure.93 As Napoléon’s threat to Britain increased, so did Gillray’s reduction of his stature. He established the visual caricature of ‘Little Boney’ as a propaganda tool to perpetuate an 92 See James Gillray, The storm rising-or-the Republican Flotilla in danger, 1798 and Isaac Cruikshank, The raft in danger or the Republican crew disappointed, 1798. 93 See James Gillray, Fighting for the Dunghill:-or-Jack Tar setting Bunoaparte, 1798 and Armed-Heroes, 1803. 33 unintimidating version of Napoléon.94 A commonality between the earlier and later renderings of Napoléon is the inclusion of his bicorne hat with a tricolored cockade. Napoléon’s hat appears on the left-hand side of the bonnet-rouge, identifiable by its gold trim and red, white and blue cockade. Previous scholarship refers to the bicorne as a denotation of the naval conquering of Napoléon at the Battle of the Nile.95 As Napoléon was Gillray’s primary motif in prints about the French Revolution, it is curious that his hat is not the central focus. If the pillar were to be viewed solely as a declaration over French powers, Napoléon’s hat would have been a more appropriate centerpiece. Opposite of the bicorne, on the right-hand side of the pillar, sits a black hat with a white- feathered rim. A lack of French cockade problematizes political associations. Appearing in Gillray’s earlier print A new way to pay the National-Debt (Figure 26), the hat may represent those of King George III’s attendants. The insertion of this hat is important for it connects the activity of King George III with Fox and Napoléon. Anchored by the idea that the bonnet-rouge was meant as a symbol for Fox, the trio of hats forms a dialogue that bridges France and England together. Fox’s blatant associations with French political figures, with the bonnet-rouge as a signifier in Gillray’s print, and Fox’s British heritage allow him to posses a dual nationality. The hats as a group therefore suggest that the British, through the workings of individuals such as Fox, do not differ from the actions of French figures like Napoléon. This fact in itself overtly highlights the dual critique in Design for Naval Pillar. 94 Godfrey, 21. 95 Mary Dorothy George, Catalogue of Political and Personal in the British Museum: Division I, Political and Personal Satires; In the British Museum VII, Vol. 7 (London: Forgotten Books, 2012), 606-607. 34 Britannia Triumphant? The allegorical figure of Britannia at the summit of the pillar is a third motif that acts as a subtle attack against the British nation. Despite appearing stoically positioned with the figure of Victory in her palm, Gillray’s other known depictions of Britannia must be assessed to uncover her true meaning. In no other works that Gillray produced is Britannia executed with such a stark sense of authority.96 Either presented as a weakened figure or caricaturized as obese or infantile in Gillray’s other works, Britannia’s stoic stance in Design for Naval Pillar is an anomaly. In a well known example, The Genius of France Triumphant,-or-Britannia Petitioning for Peace (Figure 27), the national icon appears enfeebled, offering her crown and shield to a French figure with the head of a guillotine. Rather than radiating authority, she begs as Fox and other political figures stand behind her wearing the bonnet-rouge. In Nursery, with Britannia Reposing in Peace (Figure 28) Britannia is equated to an infant, vulnerably sleeping in a cradle with her thumb in her mouth. Gillray depicts her in such a manner in reference to her declined military and political power. Throughout the 1790s Britannia was bounded by propriety and remained a sedated opponent to the improper, energetic, bare-breasted figure of French Liberty. Her power became increasingly diminished and the figure “John Bull” slowly replaced her as the allegorical figure of Britain.97 John Bull became a more effective figure to emit patriotism to the British population because he was able to “speak for the British public 96 After consulting the artist’s catalogue raisonné, The Works of James Gillray, from the Original Plates, with the Addition of Many Subjects not before Collected, by Charles Whiting, which includes 627 prints by Gillray, I have not found Britannia rendered in a similar manner. 97 Major, 64. 35 in ways that she [Britannia] could not.”98 Between 1793 and 1811 the British army quadrupled in size—with scholars considering John Bull as an active dimension of the army identity.99 This alludes to the visual power John Bull held over Britannia. With this diminishing power, Britannia in Design for Naval Pillar does not hold as much significance as historians once thought. Her waning value as the icon of Britain and Gillray’s previous depictions of her as a weakened character suggests that her place atop the pillar is not one of authority. Rather, Britannia acts as a figure that turns her head at the first sight of political corruption, reigning over the improprieties of Britain. Conclusion The instability of Britain’s political sector is further reinforced by the construction of the pillar. Composed of ship wreckage and contorted figures, the pillar would be an unstable structure if built in reality. Elements such as the hourglass, netting and cannon appear haphazardly arranged, teetering against one another. This chase reflects the lack of organization in the British government. Rather than a monument promoting the British navy, Design for Naval Pillar acts as a warning to the navy—recognizing their French defeat at a momentary accomplishment. Gillray’s pillar has a dual critique: overtly highlighting Britain’s naval prominence over France with the inclusion of ship wreckage and Napoléon’s hat, while subtly criticizing the British nation through the insertion of the William IV Duke of 98 Tamara Hunt, Defining John Bull: Political Caricature and National Identity in Late Georgian England (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 144. 99 Catriona Kennedy, “John Bull into Battle: Military Masculinity and the British Army, 1793-1815,” Gender, War, Politics: The Wars of Revolution and Liberation in Transatlantic Comparison, 1775-1820, ed. K. Hagemann, G. Mettele, and J. Rendall (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 129. 36 Clarence, Charles James Fox and Britannia. Gillray’s hostility towards the Duke and Fox give him feasible motives for slyly including them within the shaft of the pillar. Furthermore, from the declining status of Britannia and the printmaker’s strong opinions of the nation’s lack of control, Britannia atop the pillar can be interpreted as reigning over the numerous political and national failures of England. 37 CHAPTER IV A VIEW OF THE GRAND TRIUMPHAL PILLAR When viewing George Cruikshank’s A view of the grand triumphal pillar, numerous iconological similarities arise with Gillray’s satirical pillar and his other works (Figure 29). As historian Mary Dorothy George pointed out in her study of the Cruikshank’s pillar, the overall design appears to be derived from Gillray’s Design for Naval Pillar.100 Despite this linkage back to Gillray’s work, a full examination of this connection, and the meaning of A view of the grand triumphal pillar, is in order. As previously stated, Design for Naval Pillar subtly attacks the British government through the Jack Tar, Charles James Fox and the bonnet-rouge and Britannia reigning atop the pillar. Cruikshank’s pillar similarly critiques the British while incorporating Gillray’s previously established iconography. Beyond just a Francophobic image specifically towards Napoléon and his return from Elba, A view of the grand triumphal pillar conveys Britain’s insecurities of the politics, society and culture resulting from Napoléon’s expansion to the larger European continent. Cruikshank was undoubtedly aware of Gillray’s production from his notoriety as London’s leading satirist and the fact that both artists employed Hannah Humphrey as their publisher. Gillray was such an iconic figure to Cruikshank that after the former’s death in June of 1815, Cruikshank bought Gillray’s worktable from Humphrey.101 From this admiration, it is therefore unsurprising that Cruikshank looked back to Gillray’s work 100 Mary Dorothy George, Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires in the British Museum IX, Vol. 9 (London: Forgotten Books, 2012), 540. 101 Robert L. Patten, George Cruikshank’s Life, Times, and Art, Volume 1: 1792-1835 (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 1992), 120. 38 as an influence for his own. A view of the grand triumphal pillar not only mimics the overall design of Gillray’s Design for Naval Pillar, but also includes three symbols that draw from another one of Gillray’s works, Political Dreamings!_Visions of Peace!_Perspective Horrors! (Figure 30). The red skeleton with the bonnet-rouge, the guillotine and the pairing of Napoléon and Mercy in Cruikshank’s work all appear in Political Dreamings! in a similar manner. A view of the grand triumphal pillar is therefore in dialogue with the two aforementioned Gillray prints and follows the dual critique of the British and French governments. Cruikshank’s Print & Napoléon’s Return A view of the grand triumphal pillar is satirical monument marking the spot where Napoléon entered France on his return from the island of Elba. Compositionally similar to Gillray’s Design for Naval Pillar, Cruikshank situated the pillar at the edge of sea with Elba, barren except for a gibbet, appearing in the distance of the left side of the print. Supported by a base inscribed with “Murder,” “Plunder,” “Ambition,” “Deceit,” and “Vanity,” a red skeletal figure is propped up by a guillotine and a bonnet-rouge covered spear. Balancing on the skeleton’s thorny crown is a smaller entablature on which another gibbet appears. Atop it Napoléon mercilessly flogs a blindfolded woman. She is identified as Mercy by Napoléon’s speech bubble, in which he says: “Ha! ha! you are Mercy are you but I’ll have no Mercy—so There you good for nothing jade take that for persuading the allied sovereigns to send me to elba [sic]—so take that: that & that!!!”102 102 George Cruikshank, A view of the grand triumphal pillar, 1815. Hand-colored etching; 40.5 x 25 cm. Published 12 May 1815 by Hannah Humphrey. The British Museum. 39 Tied to the crossbar on the left of the gibbet are Justice’s sword and scales, hanging awry. To the right a series of papers reading “Peace with Prussia,” “Proposals for Peace with Sweeden” [sic], “Proposals for Peace with England,” “Proposals to Austria,” “An Address to the Army & People of France,” “Decree for Abolishing the Slave Trade throughout France & her Colonies,” “New Constitution,” and “Proposals for Peace with Russia &c &c.” fall to the ground.103 Beneath the pillar an inscription identifies the scene as a remembrance of Napoléon’s return to France: “To be erected on the Spot where Corporal Violet, alias Napoleon landed, in France on returning from Elba on 3d [sic] of March 1815 in the department of La Var after the retirement of Ten Months.”104 The significance of this inscription, as will be explain in depth later, lies in Cruikshank titling Napoléon’s “Corporate Violet.” Napoléon was exiled from France following the coalition armies of Austria, Prussia, Russia and Sweden, led respectively by Prince Karl Philipp Schwarzenberg (1771-1820), General Gebhard Leberecht Blücher (1742-1819), General Leonty Leontyevich Bennigsen (1745-1826), and the Swedish crown prince Jean Bernadotte (1763-1844), defeating Napoléon’s troops in the Battle of Leipzig. Also known as the Battle of the Nations, this battle was one of the most severe of the Napoleonic wars and marked the end of the French Empire east of the Rhine.105 Beginning on 16 October of that year and lasting for three days, the battle left Napoléon’s army fragmented, with 103 Ibid. 104 Ibid. 105 Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "Battle of Leipzig", accessed April 10, 2016, http://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Leipzig. 40 close to 75,000 men lost through a combination of death in battle, captured POWs and defection.106 While Napoléon dealt with his bruised troops, Foreign Minister Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Péigord (1745-1838) took hold of the provincial government with the aim of restoring Louis XVIII and the Bourbon monarchy. On 6 April 1814 a distraught Napoléon abdicated his throne at Fontainebleau.107 Following his resignation the Treaty of Fontainebleau was drawn up on 11 April and stated: The allied powers have proclaimed the Emperor Napoleon to be the sole remaining obstacle to the re-establishment of peace in Europe, Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his oath, declares his renunciation of the thrones of France and Italy, for himself and his heirs, and that there is no personal sacrifice, even that of life itself, that he is not prepared to make in the interests of France.108 Napoléon arrived on Elba on 30 May 1814 with a personal of six hundred men. Almost a year after being bored and frustrated on the island, Napoléon could no longer abide by the enforced limitation of his new existence. Through various backchannels he arranged for a seven-vessel flotilla and a force of over 1,000 officers to aid in his return to France.109 On the morning of 26 February 1815 Napoléon set sail aboard the Inconstant and headed for France, reaching Cape d’Antibes on 1 March 1815.110 Despite having been overthrown, many anticipated the return of Napoléon. Cruikshank’s reference to him as “Corporal Violet” in A view of the grand triumphal pillar’s inscription relates directly to exiled Emperor’s lasting legacy in France. 106 Alan Schom, Napoleon Bonaparte (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), 680. 107 Ibid., 700. 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid., 708. 110 Ibid. 41 Supporters of Napoléon united together in France to venerate his reign, meeting in various locations to make toasts, sing songs and converse about the Emperor’s grandeur.111 Anticipating the Emperor’s return to be in the spring of 1815, the conspirators adopted the violet at the symbol of their cause, wearing the flower and color violet as a party distinction and later applying the name Corporal Violet to Napoléon.112 Those in allegiance with Napoléon were not wrong about his return—the Emperor did make his reappearance in Paris in the spring of 1815. The inscription accompanying Cruikshank’s A view of the grand triumphal pillar indicates Napoléon’s return stating: “To be erected on the Spot where Corporal Violet, alias Napoleon landed, in France on returning from Elba the 3d of March 1815 in the department of La Var after the retirement of Ten Months.” Despite Cruikshank recording Napoléon’s return occurring on 3 March 1815, he actually arrived on 1 March 1815.113 However, nearly two weeks past before the British public was made aware of Napoléon’s landing in France. Examiner, an independent weekly newspaper in London, published the account on 12 March 1815: An extraordinary sensation was yesterday morning produced by the intelligence from France of the landing of Bonaparte at Frojus, in the department of La Var, where he landed on his flight from Egypt. The first notice of this most memorable event was announced by Mr. Rosschild, the Exchange Broker, who sold stock to the amount of 600,000l. on the receipt of the news by express from France…the Ex-Emperor has landed, and he is aid to have 27,000 men under him.114 111 Sir Scott Walter, The Prose Works of Sir Walter Scott, Volume VI, containing The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte (Paris: A. and W. Galignani, 1827), 692. 112 Ibid. 113 The first information to reach London was that Napoléon landed on the 3rd or 4th of March 1815. George, Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires in the British Museum, IX, Vol. 9. 539. 114 Examiner (London), 12 March 1815, 172. 42 Artists immediately seized the opportunity to produce caricatures of Napoléon as a violet. Artist Jean Dominique Étienne Canu (born 1768) created a puzzle print, Violette du 20 Mars 1815, depicting the concealed profiles of Napoléon, his wife Marie Louise (1791- 1847) and their son Napoléon II, King of Rome (1811-1832) (Figure 31). Napoléon, on the left hand side of the print, is indicated by his cocked hat formed out of a leaf. Marie Louise faces him on the right, her face shaped by the violet petals, with Napoléon II between them (Figure 32). The meaning behind Napoléon’s pairing with the violet was presented more clearly to the British public through the print Corporal Violette (Figure 33). Created anonymously after Jean Dominique Étienne Canu’s Violette du 20 Mars 1815, the image virtually replicates the earlier image. The only addition to the print is the inclusion of a lengthy text outlining the connection between the Emperor and the flower. An excerpt from the text reads: When Buonaparte was on the eve of leaving France, to take up his abode on the Island of Elba, he said to some of his adherents, that he would return with the Violet season…he did return with the Violet Season! Those partisans who were in secret, of his return to France of his seclusion, wore a Violet flower at their breasts; carried one of the above prints about their person; and always drank at their meeting to the health of Corporal Violet.115 Although it is unclear whether Napoléon’s followers in France actually carried prints such as Corporal Violette with them, it is recounted that they openly wore a flower or a violet ribbon to indicate their solidarity. In addition to this symbol, Napoléon’s supporters created their own secret phrases to convey their support in front of the unsuspecting Bourbons. When those wearing a flower or ribbon met a mutual friend wearing violet- 115 After Jean Dominique Étienne Canu, Corporal Violette, 1815. Letterpress, woodcut, hand-colored etching; plate 14.5 x 11 cm, sheet 34.7 x 19.3 cm. Published March 1815 by George Smeeton. The British Museum. 43 colored silks or watch-strings, they asked “Are you fond of the violet?” to which one would reply, “Ah! well.”116 Cruikshank himself joined in on caricaturizing Napoléon and the violet plant in his print The Peddigree [sic] of Corporal Violet (Figure 34). A companion piece to A view of the grand triumphal pillar, the print depicts the head of Napoléon as a young republican officer rising from a dunghill.117 His head is covered with a fungus in the form of a bonnet-rouge. Sprouting out from the cap is a large yellow sunflower with the head of Napoléon as Emperor, signified by his imperial crown made of stamens, in the center. A third head of Napoléon emerges from the crown, this time illustrating him as emaciated and desperate with a larger fungus projecting like an enormous hat (Figure 35). The plant culminates with Canu’s familiar grouping of violets but with an addition of more flowers and on a larger scale. Striding towards the Napoléon-dunghill are Blücher carrying a spade and Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (1769-1852) holding a broad hoe.118 Behind the two officers, the Tsar, Alexander I of Russia (1777-1825) shoulders a pickaxe. Louis XVIII, the King of France (1755-1824) cheers them on from the left corner, his splayed gouty legs preventing him from joining the other officials. In addition to referring to Napoléon as Corporal Violet in the inscription, Cruikshank also inserted two sets of violet groupings on each side of the pillar’s base. In contrast to the dilapidated earth surrounding the pillar, the flowers appear to be thriving 116 Montgomery Gibbs, Military Career of Napoleon the Great: An Account of the Remarkable Campaigns of the “Man of Destiny”; Authentic Anecdotes of the Battlefield as Told by the Famous Marshals and Generals of the First Empire (Chicago: Werner Co., 1895), 419. 117 Mary Dorothy George classifies the print as a companion piece to A view of the grand triumphal pillar in Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires in the British Museum, IX, Vol. 9, 549. 118 Wellesley was an Anglo-Irish soldier and statesman. His defeat of Napoléon in the Battler of Waterloo in 1815—less than two weeks after the production of this print—put him in the top rank of Britain’s military heroes. 44 in their environment. This lively nature of the floras perhaps suggests the reinvigorated campaign by Napoléon, who had been in France for two months at the publication of this print, and the fear that he would regain monumental control of Europe. However, Napoléon would never again reclaim total control over France, for less than two weeks after Cruikshank’s print Bonaparte was defeated in the Battle of Waterloo by the Seventh Coalition and subsequently exiled to St. Helena where he remained until his death in 1821.119 Failure & Death: The Base of the Pillar On the most basic level, A view of the grand triumphal pillar imitates the overall design of Gillray’s Design for Naval Pillar. Both monuments stand seaside with foreign lands in the distance of the left hand side. However, a closer look into Cruikshank’s column reveals subtle homages to Gillray’s earlier work. The base of the pillar, the red skeletal figure and the grouping of Napoléon and Mercy at the summit all relate back to either Gillray’s Design for Naval Pillar (1800) or Political Dreaming!_Visions of Peace!_Perspective Horrors! (1801). Starting at the base of the Cruikshank’s pillar, blocks of stone appear inscribed from left to right with the words “Murder,” “Plunder,” “Ambition,” “Deceit” and “Vanity” (Figure 36). Set atop the base is a smaller slab fronted by a series of skulls. Initially appearing to negatively relate to the reign of Napoléon, the words and how they are constructed are visually similar, whether intentionally or not, to the base in Design for Naval Pillar (Figure 37). Gillray’s print illustrates two bases inscribed with the names of prominent naval captains—the bottom “Howe,” “Parker,” “Nelson,” “St. Vincent,” and 119 Schom, 767. 45 “Bridport,” and the top “Duncan,” “Gardiner” [sic], “Keith,” and Hood.” Rather than referencing what stands atop it, Cruikshank’s base alternatively speaks to those mentioned in Design for Naval Pillar and exposes the artist’s insecurities towards his own government, specifically chastising the British Navy and equating those in charge of it, i.e. King George III, as authority figures who were as unjust as Napoléon. However, this is a purely speculative comparison based on visual similarities, as there is nothing to suggest Cruikshank’s disapproval of these specific naval officers. Superimposing Cruikshank’s column base upon Gillray’s brings forth pairings between the admirals and the negative virtues as listed by Cruikshank. By pairing Admiral Richard Howe, 1st Earl Howe (1726-1799) with “Murder,” Admiral Sir Hyde Parker (1739-1807) with “Plunder,” Admiral John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent (1735- 1823) with “Deceit” and Admiral Alexander Hood, 1st Viscount Bridport (1726-1814) with “Vanity,” Cruikshank assigns these negative qualities to the British navy in general, and thus expresses disapproval of the British government by default. However, Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson (1758-1805) paring with “Ambition” escapes Cruikshank’s wrath. Regarded as a national hero for his victory over Napoléon in the Battle of the Nile, Admiral Nelson was highly favored by the British public and was greatly mourned after his death in the Battle of Trafalgar. Even caricaturists such as Gillray and Cruikshank depicted him auspiciously in their prints.120 As previously outlined, the Battle of the Nile took place from 1-3 August 1798 between the British Royal Navy and the 120 See James Gillray, -the Death of Admiral-Lord-Nelson-in the moment of Victory!-, 1805 and George Cruikshank, Boney beating Mack and Nelson giving him a whack!! Or the British tars giving Boney his hearts desire ships, colonies & commerce, 1805. 46 French Republic in Aboukir Bay, Egypt.121 Despite Nelson being severely injured on the first day, he continued in command of the expedition and saw to the surrender of the French ships Tonnant and Timoléon.122 With Nelson’s death at the Battle of Trafalgar securing his position as one of Britain’s more heroic figures, it is understandable that the word “Ambition” would parallel the position of Nelson’s name in Gillray’s design. Rather than including four more titles for Admiral Adam Duncan, 1st Viscount Duncan (1731-1804), Admiral Adam Gardner, 1st Baron Gardner (1742-1809), Admiral George Keith Elphinstone, 1st Viscount Keith (1746-1823) and Admiral Samuel Hood, 1st Viscount Hood (1724-1816), Cruikshank illustrates the upper base with a row of skulls. With two skulls in profile, each at the edges of the slab, and seven facing frontally, the number of skulls correspond to the nine admirals Gillray included in Design for Naval Pillar. With three of the admirals from Gillray’s pillar still alive at the creation of A view of the grand triumphal pillar, it is possible that the skulls act as symbols representing those previously dead from battle while also predicting the imminent deaths and failures of Jervis, Elphinstone and Hood. The Bloodied Skeleton The central focus of Cruikshank’s pillar is the red skeleton, dripping with blood and adorned with a spiky crown of daggers (Figure 38). Resting a foot atop a Bible and an arm on a bloodied guillotine, the skeleton signifies potential threats of another Napoléon-like figure rising up to start yet another revolution. To reveal this alternative 121 Roy Adkins and Lesley Adkins, The War for All the Oceans: From Nelson at the Nile to Napoleon at Waterloo (New York: Viking, 2007), 21. 122 Ibid., 37. 47 meaning of the skeleton in A view of the grand triumphal pillar the emblem of death must be discussed in the larger context of British satirical prints. Cruikshank likely took inspiration from Gillray’s Political Dreamings!_Visions of Peace!_Perspective Horrors! when illustrating the red skeletal figure. Depicting British Whig statesman William Windham (1750-1810) amidst a dream, the print is filled with iconography discrediting British authority. Negative imagery such as the dome of St. Paul engulfed in flames, the Tower of London flying the French flag, a demon with the features of Charles James Fox and Napoléon holding a noose around Britannia’s neck are only a few indications in the print of the crumbing British system. The red skeleton appears on the left hand side on stilts in the form of spears. Straddling a pile of British trophies, one spear pierces a sheet reading “List of British Conquests: Cape of Good Hope Malta Egypt West India.”123 Wearing a large bonnet-rouge, the skeleton turns his grinning head towards Windham while holding a cord attached to a dripping blade of a guillotine in the background (Figures 39-40). Reminiscent of the figure of Death in other works by Gillray, Cruikshank has methodically rearranged the skeletal figure and attributes from Political Dreamings for his own meaning.124 Rather than a figure wearing the bonnet-rouge Cruikshank illustrates the hat hanging atop a spear and renders it in the form of a jester’s cap with a dangling bell and tricolor cockade.125 Whereas Cruikshank may have appropriated the visual 123 James Gillray, Political Dreamings!_Visions of Peace!_Perspective Horrors! 1801. Hand-colored etching; 26 x 36.2 cm. Published 9 November 1801 by Hannah Humphrey. 124 See James Gillray, Love in a coffin, 1784. 125 A similar visual depiction of this skeleton with a spiky crown and javelin can be seen in Cruikshank’s earlier print Buonaparte! Ambition and death!!, 1814. 48 details of the skeleton from his predecessor’s work, A view of the grand triumphal pillar marks his own creative process of pairing Napoléon with the symbol of Death. Not only did Cruikshank bookend Napoléon’s exile and return from Elba with prints featuring the skeleton, he continued to use the motif to critique the radical ideologies of the Emperor and the political state of France up until his death.126 His print Death of Liberty! Or Britannia & The Virtues of the Constitution in Danger of Violation from the Grt. Political Libertine, Radical Reform! of 1819 illustrates Death adorned with emblems of the French Revolution as he charges forth to grope Britannia (Figure 41). Death shields his face behind a smooth mask and is loaded with mock-Jacobin appurtenances and other symbols of treachery.127 He wears the bonnet-rouge along with a cape inscribed “Radical Reforms.” Atop the spike he holds another bonnet-rouge in the form of a fool’s cap from which a serpent emerges—recalling the iconography in A view of the grand triumphal pillar. Beneath Death’s cape is a hoard of demons and imps holding up various swords. The closest to Death is “Immortality,” followed by the fire-breathing and Medusa-haired “Blasphemy” who brandishes Thomas Paine’s (1737-1809) Age of Reason (1794).128 “Slavery,” made up of chains, and the skeletal “Starvation” follow, with “Robbery” and “Murder” behind them. Leaning on a rock inscribed with “Religion” and holding up a sword reading “Laws,” Britannia is overpowered by the group of atrocities as the British lion charges from the background to attempt a rescue. 126 For images of the skeleton pre-exile see Cruikshank’s The Imperial Family going to the Devil, 1814 and The Last March on the Conscripts-or Satan & his satellites hurled to the land of oblivion, 1814. For return from Elba see Escape of Buonaparte from Elba, 1815. 127 Haywood, 95. 128 Ibid. 49 Highly propagandistic, the print illustrates Cruikshank’s views of radical discourse as a catalyst for treachery and civil war. Despite Napoléon not being present in the print, it is as if his spirit has invaded the domestic political sphere.129 The print also speaks back to the conditions of England, as the skeletal figure relates to William Combe’s (1742-1832) The English Dance of Death: a sequence of seventy-two textually illustrated prints appearing each month between 1814 and 1816. A collaborative volume between Combe and printmaker Thomas Rowlandson (1756-1827), the book follows Death as he transforms the English countryside into a “bleeding Continent.”130 Cruikshank’s Death of Liberty! is most visually related to Rowlandson’s print The Masquerade (Figure 42). The most literal depiction of the “dance” of Death in the series, Rowlandson depicts Death unveiling himself to an assembly of horrified partygoers. Disguising himself as the devil, he rears back his spear and proudly displays his mask. The text accompanying the scene further illuminates the terror: “He rose in grim and grisly pride. The music ceas’d—the lights burn’d blue, And all was horrid to my view. He pois’d his dart, and danc’d along, With rattling step, amid the throng. Some scream’d their fears, and others fled, While the shape pac’d it over the dead.”131 This text indicates the deviousness of Death and his ability to transform initial deceive, in this case partygoers, but more broadly the general public. As historian Ian Haywood has proposed, another way to interpret this scene and The English Dance of Death as a whole is as an iconographic bridge between the 129 Ibid., 96. 130 William Combe, illustrated by Thomas Rowlandson, The English Dance of Death, Vol. I (London: R. Ackernamn’s Repository of Arts, 1815), 8. 131 Ibid., 176. 50 Napoleonic wars and the condition of England in the Regency period.132 With the resurgence of radical political movements in the postwar years, the ruling classes feared that the country was veering towards another revolution. With Napoléon’s past actions still fresh in the minds of the British public, the iconography of terror was easily transferred from the external enemy for the renewed domestic political threat.133 Cruikshank, like many other artists, mobilized the imagery of the Dance of Death. In Death of Liberty! he transforms death into a sinister and revolutionary ideological character. Not only recalling the spirit of Napoléon in Death of Liberty!, Cruikshank draws back on the traditional vignette of “Death and the Maiden,” an iconological pair found in Gillray’s Political-Ravishment, or, The Old Lady of Treadneedle Street in danger! of 1797 (Figure 43).134 Illustrating a scrawny William Pitt attacking an elderly woman as the personification of the Bank of England, Gillray attacks the government’s new policy of suspending cash payments by dressing the woman in banknotes.135 Pitt strides forward to grasp the woman in a similar manner as Death in Cruikshank’s Death of Liberty! By analyzing the skeletons in Cruikshank’s Death of Liberty! and comparing it to the composition of Gillray’s Political-Ravishment, the viewer receives insight into the meaning of Death in A view of the grand triumphal pillar. Whereas the red skeleton does signify the threat of Napoléon against the British realm, as it physically supports the 132 Haywood, 94. 133 Ibid., 95. 134 Gaining prominence in the Early Modern period with Baldung Grien’s (1484-1545) series Death and the Maiden (1518-20) the erotic death-embrace was a popular way to stress life’s fragility. 135 Ibid., 97. 51 Emperor as he flogs Mercy, it more generally expresses Britain’s anxiety of another figure rising to Napoléon’s caliber and the start of a new revolution. Napoléon & Mercy Originally depicting Napoléon flogging France at the summit of A view of the grand triumphal pillar, Cruikshank changed the figure to Mercy before the color edition of the print (Figure 44). Indicated as Mercy by Napoléon’s speech bubble, she gasps in terror, her hands tied to the gibbet, as she anticipates the Emperor’s next lash. Wearing his characteristic bicorne hat, Napoléon cranks back his right arm with a whip as the unbalanced scales of Justice hang above his head. Although identified as Mercy, the woman more broadly stands for the figure of Europe as a whole as the treaties falling from her cornucopia are all propositions of peace with countries in, or surrounding, Europe. Comparing the Napoléon and Mercy pairing in Cruikshank’s print to the coupling of Napoléon and Britannia in Gillray’s Political Dreamings further amplifies the presence of Europe in A view for the grand triumphal pillar (Figure 45). In Gillray’s print, Napoléon captures Britannia, binding her wrists and securing a noose around her neck. With her trident and shield broken at her side, she solemnly looks up as tears stream down her face. Napoléon appears dressed in his military garb with his right arm swung back—a position nearly identical as in Cruikshank’s etching. By mimicking Gillray’s coupling in Political Dreamings, Cruikshank adopts the vulnerability of Britannia and applies it to Europe as a whole—signifying that Britain should not be the only nation worried about Napoléon’s wrath. 52 The numerous peace treaties spilling out of her cornucopia further accentuate the validity of Mercy as a signifier for Europe. Falling out of the cornucopia are papers reading “Peace with Prussia,” “Proposals for Peace with Sweeden [sic],” “Proposals for Peace with England,” “Proposals to Austria,” “an address to the Army & People of France,” “Decree for Abolishing the Slave Trade throughout France & her Colonies,” “New Constitution,” and “Proposals for Peace with Russia.” With their falling, the various treaties become impossible achievements. Napoléon’s actions against Mercy are therefore taken against the entire European state and surrounding countries. Conclusion Initially considered as a print strictly expressing George Cruikshank’s Francophobic ideas, A view of the grand triumphal pillar alternatively contains symbols that propel the monument into the realm of caricatures that use images of the French to indicate nationwide insecurities through satirical monuments. James Gillray’s Design for Naval Pillar and Political Dreamings not only act as a basis for the design of Cruikshank’s pillar but also allow the latter artist to transform Gillray’s iconography into symbols of his own. The base of the pillar, the skeletal figure and Napoléon’s attack on Europe allows A view from the grand triumphal pillar to be viewed as a monument that relates to the unregulated politics of Napoléon and acts as a warning to all European nations. 53 CHAPTER V PRINT CULTURE & CONCLUSION In 2006 historian Vic Gatrell estimated that artists published more than 20,000 satirical and humorous print titles between 1771 and 1832.136 Produced and sold in London, circulated to country booksellers, and printed in European newspapers such as London und Paris, print culture extended past the boundaries of Britain, even reaching as far as the Americas.137 Due to the number of prints, their popularity, and circulation, the British public were subjected to the repeating motifs in Gillray’s and Cruikshank’s work, and therefore understood Siege de la Colonne, Design for Naval Pillar, and A view of the grand triumphal pillar as visual warnings for the possibility of another revolution. However, the question of who exactly saw satirical prints is debated among historians. In the early years of the eighteenth century standard prices for prints were listed as 6d for an uncolored image and 1s for colored.138 By 1800, these prices had doubled to 1s for a plain print and 2s for colored. Due to his popularity at the time, many of James Gillray’s larger colored prints sold for over 3s. Despite the print-buying audience expanding over the course of the eighteenth century to include portions of the 136 Vic Gatrell, City of Laughter: Sex and Satire in Eighteenth-Century London (London: Atlantic, 2006), 231-2, 239. 137 Moores, 7-8 and Donald, 80. An advertisement from a newspaper in Williamsburg, Virginia advertised the sale of a collection of approximately 200 prints as early as 1766. Popular newspapers in London such as John Almon’s Political Register, the Public Advertiser, the London Magazine, the Oxford Magazine and the Town and Country Magazine illustrated satirical prints. 138 Eirwen E.C. Nicholson, “Consumers and Spectators: The Public of the Political Print in Eighteenth- Century England,” History 81 (1996), 12. In the seventeenth century, pounds, shillings and pence were the basic currency of Britain. Values are generally expressed as £.s.d., or else l.s.d., as in £12 10s. 6d. or twelve pounds, ten shillings and sixpence. The pound sign stands for Libra, a pound weight in Latin, the s. is an abbreviation for shilling in English, and the d. stands for denarius or denarii (a Roman coin). 54 middle class, print prices were still too expensive for most people’s means.139 However, lower classes were able to view prints in other ways, though scholars cannot agree to the extent to which they were exposed.140 Bound volumes of prints were available for renting and printsellers such as Samuel William Fores (1761-1838) and William Holland (1757-1815) hosted print exhibitions charging an entry fee, though both options were still too costly for most.141 However, there were alternative methods for the London public to view prints. Historian Cindy McCreery speculates that those of the middle classes purchased prints together so that they could be pasted on the walls of taverns, shops and workshops.142 Prints were also displayed in the windows of printshops. A small number of prints depict the phenomenon of crowding outside printshop windows. The anonymous print Caricature Shop of 1801 and James Gillray’s Very Slippy-weather of 1808 illustrates the popularity of printshop displays (Figures 46-47).143 Depicting the shops of Piercy Roberts (1757-1815) and Hannah Humphrey (1745-1818), respectively, the prints show hordes of people of all classes congregating around the shop 139 Moores, 4. 140 Historian H T Dickenson argues that prints had a rather limited circulation among the political elite and the propertied middles classes of London, while Vic Gatrell argues that satirical images reached a much larger audience. 141 H.T. Dickinson, Caricatures and the Constitution, 1760-1832 (Alexandria, VA: Chadwyck-Healey, 1986), 15. 142 Cindy McCreery, The Satirical Gaze: Prints of Women in late Eighteenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon, 2004), 37. 143 For an earlier print featuring print shop fronts see, Edward Topham, A Macaroni Print Shop, 1772. 55 fronts. However, Gatrell dispels the idea that printshops attracted huge crowds, as there were fewer than ten such shops, all located in central London.144 Caricatures were also not exclusive to one format. Designs appeared on handkerchiefs, playing cards and decorative screens, as illustrations in books and in broadsides or other publications.145 Cheaper, bootleg versions of prints were also made available to wider audiences, extending the viewers of satirical imagery beyond those with access to printshops.146 With satirical images being highly reproduced, individuals both inside and outside of London’s perimeters would recognize the reoccurring themes crafted by artists such as Gillray and Cruikshank. The circulation of James Gillray’s prints in particular becomes crucial for the recognition of his repeated motifs and attacks against prominent political figures. By the time Gillray became fully exclusive to Humphrey in 1791 his work had already achieved a sizable following. Developing a cohesive style, Gillray attracted buyers who followed the artist’s production and began making collections of his prints.147 Occasionally pasted and bought as albums, Gillray’s prints were predominantly sold as individual entities, with the ability to reach a wider audience. The combination of Gillray’s prints appearing in publications, as bootleg copies and in the windows of printshops, in concurrence with the expanding acquisition of his prints by collectors demonstrates their ability of reaching a wide range of individuals. Both the public and other artists were therefore subjected to 144 Gatrell, 15. 145 Moores, 5. 146 Ibid., and Richard Clay, “Riotous Images: Representations of Joseph Priestly in British Prints during the French Revolution,” History of Education 37 (2008), 596. 147 Amelia Rauser, Caricature Unmasked: Irony, Authenticity, and Individualism in Eighteenth-Century English Prints (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2008), 97. 56 Gillray’s repeated visual motifs. Since George Cruikshank produced work during the same time and became equally as popular, viewers likely would have also been familiar with his satirical prints and embedded iconography. The number of people these prints reached plays an important role in how they were received. Similar to how political cartoons are used in the twenty-first century, British satirical prints sought to undermine the propaganda being produced by the Tory and Whig political groups. When paired with the aforementioned discussion about monument culture, it becomes clear that Gillray and Cruikshank sought to subvert the perceived nationalism and victory culture embedded within these pillar-prints. The extent to which these prints were distributed matters because it plays into how many people understood the messages of Gillray and Cruikshank. Was it only London’s elite who comprehended the political messages, or were the general masses also able to deduce the meaning of the presented images? Printmakers such as Gillray arguably intended for their images to be widely understood, as evidence by the inclusion of individuals from all classes looking at the pasted prints in the image Very Slippy- weather. In regards to the main images of this thesis, Siege de la Colonne, Design for Naval Pillar and A view of the grand triumphal pillar, distribution is integral to the meaning of the prints. With all three centralized around the idea of “threat”—both international and domestic—these images would have presented a more eye opening depiction of the current political state of Europe, rather than a strictly humorous one. By commenting on governmental issues through the use of pillars, contemporary viewers 57 would have likely regarded pillars and wartime monuments differently and begun to question the political ruling. Conclusion Since the upsurge of satirical images in the late eighteenth century, caricatures and political imagery have continued to permeate mass media. Consumed in one way or another by the rich and poor and educated and illiterate, satirical imagery formed political expressions and illuminated the interactions between classes, gender, and races. From the prints of James Gillray and George Cruikshank criticizing British and French activities, to UK cartoonist David Low’s (1891-1963) caricatures of Adolf Hitler, to Barry Blitt’s (b. 1958) New Yorker cover of the Obamas as terrorists, satirical artists continue to create controversial imagery aimed at the general public. Expressing their own personal political view, caricaturists use easily identifiable iconography in order to appeal to larger audiences.148 Given the aforementioned increase of Britain’s monument and victory culture in the eighteenth century caused by Britain’s continual naval achievements, Gillray and Cruikshank chose pillars to highlight unjust ruling. Gillray’s Siege de la Colonne de Pompée—Science in the Pillory and Design for Naval Pillar as well as Cruikshank’s A view of the grand triumphal pillar subvert the perceived nationalism associated with pillars. The prints alternatively warn public audiences against the threat of Napoléon, British governmental figures, and the possibility of another revolution. 148 Victor S. Navasky, The Art of Controversy: Political Cartoons and Their Enduring Power (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), 3. 58 With the notion of permanence and posterity being strongly associated with monuments, both Gillray and Cruikshank signal the timelessness of government corruption. By depicting Napoléon atop the pillar in both Gillray’s Siege de la Colonne and Cruikshank’s A view of the grand triumphal pillar, both artists use the French Emperor as the reigning threat to Europe and its surrounding countries. Gillray’s Design for Naval Pillar contains a similar message, but does not isolate the threat to be strictly French. Rather, the print indicates a domestic risk, speaking to the larger issue of unregulated politics. Overall, these three pillars all aim to signify potential threats to the European public through monuments that were originally association with nationalism, and specifically wartime victories. 59 APPENDIX FIGURES Figure 1: James Gillray, Siege de la Colonne de Pompée-Science in the Pillory, 1799. Hand-colored etching; 56 x 42.5 cm. Published 6 March 1799 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 60 Figure 2: James Gillray, detail of capital from Siege de la Colonne de Pompée-Science in the Pillory, 1799. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 61 Figure 3: James Gillray, detail of books on left side of Siege de la Colonne de Pompée- Science in the Pillory, 1799. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 62 Figure 4: James Gillray, detail of encyclopedia in Siege de la Colonne de Pompée- Science in the Pillory, 1799. Image taken from the British Museum, London. Figure 5: James Gillray, detail of “Projet de Fraternisation avec les Bedouins” in Siege de la Colonne de Pompée-Science in the Pillory, 1799. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 63 Figure 6: James Gillray, detail of right side of Siege de la Colonne de Pompée-Science in the Pillory, 1799. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 64 Figures 7: James Gillray, details of spear and encyclopedia in Siege de la Colonne de Pompée-Science in the Pillory, 1799. Image taken from the British Museum, London. Figure 8: James Gillray, detail of spear and man in Siege de la Colonne de Pompée- Science in the Pillory, 1799. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 65 Figure 9: James Gillray, L’Insurrection de l’Institut Amphibie—The Pursuit of Knowledge, 1799. Hand-colored etching; 25 x 35.6 cm. Published 12 March 1799 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 66 Figure 10: Pompey’s Pillar, located in Alexandria, Egypt, flanked by two sphinx sculptures, 297 AD. Image taken from itechcrackle.com. 67 Figure 11: British Naval Commander John Shortland atop Pompey’s Pillar, 1803. Image taken from page 198 of William Henry Smyth’s Ædes Hartwellianæ; or, Notices of the manor and mansion of Hartwell (Published 1851) by William Henry Smyth. 68 Figure 12: James Gillray, detail of capital in Siege de la Colonne—Science in the Pillory, c. 1799. Image taken from the British Museum, London. Figure 13: Detail of capital of Pompey’s Pillar, 297 AD. Image taken from itechcrackle.com. 69 Figure 14: Sir Christopher Wren, Corinthian capital from St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, 1711. Image taken from architecture.com. 70 Figure 15: James Gillray, Design for Naval Pillar, 1800. Hand-colored etching; 54.6 x 30.6 cm. Published 1 February 1800 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 71 Figure 16: William Blake, made after John Flaxman, Britannia Triumphant, 1799. Etcing and Engraving; 24.8 x 18.9 cm. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 72 Figure 17: James Gillray, detail from Design for Naval Pillar, 1800. Image taken from the British Museum, London. Figure 18: William Hogarth, The Invasion Plate 1: France, 1756. Etching. Image taken from the Charles Deering McCormick Library of Special Collections, Northwestern University. 73 Figure 19: James Gillray, A True British Tar, 1795. Hand-colored etching; 33.6 x 22.9 cm. Published 28 May 1795 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from National Portrait Gallery, London. 74 Figure 20: James Gillray, L’Assemblée Nationale; -or- Grand co-operative meeting at St. Ann’s Hill, 1804. Hand-colored etching; 33.3 x 46.4 cm. Published 1804 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from the British Museum, London. Figure 21: James Gillray, detail of Duke of Clarence in L’Assemblée Nationale-or- Grand co-operative meeting at St. Ann’s Hill, 1804. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 75 Figure 22: James Gillray, detail of bonnet-rouge from Design for Naval Pillar, 1800. Image taken from the British Museum, London. Figure 23: James Gillray, A Paris Beau, 1794. Hand-colored etching; 24.4 x 15.8 cm. Published 29 February 1794 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from the National Portrait Gallery, London. 76 Figure 24: James Gillray, The Tree of Liberty,-with, the Devil tempting John Bull, 1798. Hand-colored etching; 36.5 x 26.1 cm. Published 1798 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 77 Figure 25: James Gillray, The tree of liberty must be planted immediately!,1797. Hand- colored etching; 35.5 x 25.4 cm. Published 17 February 1797 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from the National Portrait Gallery, London. 78 Figure 26: James Gillray, A new way to pay the National Debt, 1786. Hand-colored etching; 42 x 52.9 cm. Published 21 April 1786 by William Holland. Image taken from the National Portrait Gallery, London. 79 Figure 27: James Gillray, The Genius of France Triumphant,-or-Britannia Petitioning for Peace, 1795. Hand-colored etching; 25.4 x 36.2 cm. Published 2 February 1795 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from the National Portrait Gallery, London. 80 Figure 28: James Gillray, The Nursery, with Britannia Reposing in Peace, 1802. Hand- colored etching; 23.5 x 34.5 cm. Published 4 December 1802. Image taken from the Art Institute of Chicago. 81 Figure 29: George Cruikshank, A view of the grand triumphal pillar, 1815. Hand-colored etching; 40.5 x 25 cm. Published 12 May 1815 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 82 Figure 30: James Gillray, Political Dreaming!:_Visions of Peace!_Perspective Horrors!, 1801. Hand-colored etching; 26 x 36.2 cm. Published 9 November 1801 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 83 Figure 31: Jean Dominique Étienne Canu, Violettes du 20 Mars 1815. Hand-colored etching; 14.1 x 9 cm. Published March 1815. Image taken from the British Museum, London. Figure 32: Jean Dominique Étienne Canu, detail of the profiles of Napoléon (1), his son (2) and Marie Louise (3) from Violettes du 20 Mars 1815, 1815. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 84 Figure 33: After Jean Dominique Étienne Canu, Corporal Violette, 1815. Letterpress, woodcut, hand-colored etching; plate 14.5 x 11 cm, sheet 34.7 x 19.3 cm. Published March 1815 by George Smeeton. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 85 Figure 34: George Cruikshank, The Peddigree of Corporal Violet, 1815. Hand-colored etching; 42 x 24.5 cm. Published 9 June 1815 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 86 Figure 35: George Cruikshank, detail of the heads of Napoléon in George Cruikshank’s The Peddigree of Corporal Violet, 1815. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 87 Figure 36: George Cruikshank, detail of base in A view of the grand triumphal pillar, 1815. Image taken from the British Museum, London. Figure 37: James Gillray, detail of base in Design for Naval Pillar, 1800. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 88 Figure 38: George Cruikshank, detail of skeleton, bonnet-rouge and guillotine in A view of the grand triumphal pillar, 1815. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 89 Figures 39: James Gillray, detail of skeleton wearing the bonnet-rouge in Political- Dreamings!_Visions of Peace!_Perspective Horrors!, 1801. Image taken from the British Museum, London. Figure 40: James Gillray, detail of the guillotine in Political-Dreamings!_Visions of Peace!_Perspective Horrors!, 1801. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 90 Figure 41: George Cruikshank, Death or Liberty! Or Britannia & The Virtues of the Constitution in Danger of Violation from the Grt. Political Libertine, Radical Reform!, 1819. Etching; 25 x 35.2 cm. Published 1 December 1819 by George Humphrey. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 91 Figure 42: Thomas Rowlandson, The Masquerade, illustration from The English Dance of Death (London, Ackermann, 1814-1816), 1814. Etching and aquatint; 13.4 x 22.8 cm. Image taken from De Young, Legion of Honor, San Francisco. 92 Figure 43: James Gillray, Political-Ravishment, or, The Old Lady of Treadneedle Street in Danger, 1797. Hand-colored etching; 25.9 x 36.4 cm. Published 22 May 1797 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from the National Portrait Gallery, London. 93 Figure 44: George Cruikshank, detail of Napoléon and France/Mercy in A view of the grand triumphal pillar, 1815. Image taken from the British Museum. Figure 45: James Gillray, detail of Napoléon and Britannia in Political- Dreamings!_Visions of Peace!_Perspective Horrors!, 1801. Image taken from the British Museum, London 94 Figure 46: Anonymous, Caricature Shop, 1801. Etching with stipple; 25.8 x 32.6 cm. Published September 1801 by P. Roberts. Image taken from the Lewis Walpole Library, Yale University. 95 Figure 47: James Gillray, Very Slippy-Weather, 1808. Hand-colored etching; 25.2 x 19.4 cm. Published 10 February 1808 by Hannah Humphrey. Image taken from the British Museum, London. 96 REFERENCES CITED Adam, Jean-Pierre. “A propos du trilithon de Baalbek. Le transport et le mise en oeuvre des mégalithes,” Syria, tomb 54, fascicule 1-2 (1977): 31-63. Adkins, Lesley and Roy Adkins. Jack Tar: life in Nelson’s navy. Little: Brown, 2008. Adkins, Roy and Lesley Adkins. The War for All the Oceans: From Nelson at the Nile to Napoleon at Waterloo. New York: Viking, 2007. After Jean Dominique Étienne Canu. Corporal Violette, 1815. Letterpress, woodcut, hand-colored etching; plate 14.5 x 11 cm, sheet 34.7 x 19.3 cm. Published March 1815 by George Smeeton. The British Museum. Anderson, Robert and Ibrahim Fawzy. Egypt Revealed. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 1987. Banerji, Christiane. Gillray Observed: The Earliest Account of his Caricatures in London und Paris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Butterfield, H. “Charles James Fox and the Whig Opposition in 1792.” Cambridge Historical Journal 9, no. 3 (1949): 293-330. Accessed February 27, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3020761. Chastel-Rousseau, Charlotte. Reading the Royal Monument in Eighteenth-Century Europe. England: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2011. Clarke, James Stanier and John McArthur. The Naval Chronicle: Volume 27, January- July 1812: Containing a General and Biographical History of the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom; with a Variety of Original Papers on Nautical Subjects. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Clay, Richard. “Riotous Images: Representations of Joseph Priestly in British Prints during the French Revolution.” History of Education 37 (2008): 585-603. Combe, William. The English Dance of Death, Vol. 1. London: R. Ackernamn’s Repository of Arts, 1815. Correspondance de l’armée française en Egypt. Paris, 1798. Coutu, Joan. Persuasion and Propaganda: Monuments and the Eighteenth-Century British Empire. Ithaca: MQUP, 2006. Cruikshank, George. A view of the grand triumphal pillar c. 1815. Hand-colored etching; 40.5 x 25 cm. Published 12 May 1815 by Hannah Humphrey. The British Museum. 97 Cruikshank, George and Laman Blanchard. George Cruikshank’s Omnibus. London: Tilt and Bogue, 1842. Curran, Brian A. and Anthony Grafton, Pamela O. Long, Benjamin Weiss. Obelisk: A History. Massachusetts: Burndy Library Publications, 2009. “Death of Buonaparte,” Hereford Journal (London), 19 December 1798. Dickinson, H.T. Caricatures and the Constitution, 1760-1832. Alexandria, VA: Chadwyck-Healey, 1986. Donald, Diana. The Age of Caricature: Satirical Prints in the Reign of George III. New Haven: Published for the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art by Yale University Press, 1996. Dufour, Alexander. Letter to the Nobility and Gentry Composing the Committee for Raising the Naval Pillar or Monument, Under the Patronage of His Royal Highness The Duke of Clarence; in Answer to the Letter of John Flaxman, Sculpture, to the Committee on that Subject. London: Printed for the author, at No. 30, Charing Cross, 1800. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "Battle of Leipzig", accessed April 10, 2016, http://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Leipzig. Evans, R.H. and Thomas Wright. Historical and Descriptive Account of the Caricatures of James Gillray. London: Benjamin Blom, 1851. Examiner (London), 12 March 1815. Flaxman, John. A Letter to the Committee for Raising the Naval Pillar or Monument, Under the Patronage of His Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence by John Flaxman, Sculptor. London: Printed for T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies, in the Strand; T. Payne, Mews-Gate; and R.H. Evans (Successor to Mr. Edwards), No. 26, Pall-Mall; By G. Woodfall, No. 22, Paternoster-Row, 1799. Gatrell, Vic. City of Laughter: Sex and Satire in Eighteenth-Century London. London: Atlantic, 2006. Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983. George, Mary Dorothy. Catalogue of Political and Personal in the British Museum: Division I, Political and Personal Satires; In the British Museum VII, Vol. 7. London: Forgotten Books, 2012. 98 George, Mary Dorothy. Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires in the British Museum, IX, Vol. 9. London: Forgotten Books, 1949. George, Mary Dorothy. English Political Caricature, 1793-1831. London: Oxford University Press, 1960. Gibbs, Montgomery. Military Career of Napoleon the Great: An Account of the Remarkable Campaigns of the “Man of Destiny”; Authentic Anecdotes of the Battlefield as Told by the Famous Marshals and Generals of the First Empire. Chicago: Werner Co., 1895. Gillray, James. Siege de la Colonne—Science in the Pillory, 1799. Hand-colored etching; 56 x 42.5 cm. Published 6 March 1799 by Hannah Humphrey. The British Museum. Godfrey, Richard. James Gillray The Art of Caricature. London: Tate Publishing, 2001. Herold, J. Christopher. Bonaparte in Egypt. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1962. Hibbert, Christopher. George IV Prince of Wales, 1762-1811. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1971. Hill, Draper. Mr. Gillray the Caricaturist, A Biography. London: The Phaidon Press, 1965. Holland, Elizabeth Vassall Fox. The Journal of Elizabeth Lady Holland (1791-1811), vol. ii. London, New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1908. Hunt, Tamara. Defining John Bull: Political Caricature and National Identity in Late Georgian England Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003. Ilchester, Earl of. Chronicles of Holland House 1820-1900. New York: E.P. Dutton and Company Inc., 1938. Iliffe, Rob. “Science and Voyages of Discovery.” The Cambridge History of Science Volume 4: Eighteenth-Century Science (2003): 618-646. Jeffreys, David. View of Ancient Egypt since Napoleon Bonaparte: Imperialism, Colonialism and Modern Appropriations. Great Britain: UCL Press, 2003. Jenks, Timothy. Naval Engagements: Patriotism, Cultural Politics and the Royal Navy 1793-1815. London: Oxford University Press, 2006. Johnson, D.T. “Charles James Fox: From Government to Opposition, 1771-1774.” The English Historical Review 89, no. 353 (1974): 750-784. Accessed February 27, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/566398. 99 Kennedy, Catriona. “John Bull into Battle: Military Masculinity and the British Army, 1793-1815,” Gender, War, Politics: The Wars of Revolution and Liberation in Transatlantic Comparison, 1775-1820, ed. K. Hagemann, G. Mettele, and J. Rendall. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Kramer, Lloyd S. Nationalism in Europe and America: Politics, Cultures and Identities since 1775. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011. La Jonquière, C. de. L’Expédition en Egypte, 1798-1801, vol. III. Paris, 1899-1907. Major, Emma. Madam Britannia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. McClellan, James III. “Scientific Institutions and the Organization of Science.” The Cambridge History of Science Volume 4: Eighteenth-Century Science (2003): 87- 106. McCreery, Cindy. The Satirical Gaze: Prints of Women in late Eighteenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004. Mitchell, L.G. Charles James Fox. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Montagu, Edward Wortley. “A Letter from Edward Wortley Montagu, Esquire, F.R.S. to William Watson, M.D.F.R.S. containing some new Observations on What is Called Pompey’s Pillar, in Egypt.” Philosophical Transactions, Vol. 57 (1767): 438-442. Moores, John Richard. Representations of France in English Satirical Prints 1740-1832. England: Palgrave Macmillian, 2015. Navasky, Victor S. The Art of Controversy: Political Cartoons and Their Enduring Power. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. Nicholson, Eirwen E.C. “Consumers and Spectators: The Public of the Political Print in Eighteenth-Century England.” History 81 (1996): 5-21. Opie, John. “A Letter addressed to the editor of the True Briton, on the Proposal for erecting a public memorial to the navy glory of Great Britain. Library of the Fine Arts 4 (1832): 61-64. Parker, Joseph and Edward. The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia: Volume 1. Philadelphia: William Brown, 1832. Patten, Robert L. George Cruikshank’s Life, Times, and Art, Volume 1: 1792-1835. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 1992. 100 “Pompey’s Pillar.” The North-American Review and Miscellaneous Journal, Vol. 3, No.8 (Jul., 1816): 192-194. “Pompey’s Pillar.” Supreme Council of Antiquities. Accessed January 2016. http://www.sca-egypt.org/eng/SITE_Pompeys_Pillar.htm. Rauser, Amelia. Caricature Unmasked: Irony, Authenticity, and Individualism in Eighteenth-Century English Prints. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2008. Roux, Charles. Bonaparte, Gouverneur d’Égypte. Paris, 1935. Schom, Alan. Napoleon Bonaparte. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997. Scott, Walter. The Life of Napoleon. Paris: A. and W. Galignani, 1828. Solé, Robert. Le grand voyage de l’obélisque. Paris, 2004. Smyth, Captain W.H. Ædes Hartwellianæ; or, Notices of the manor and mansion of Hartwell. London: John Bowyer Nicholas and Son, Parliament Street, 1851. Urban, Sylvanus. The Gentleman’s Magazine: and Historical Chronicle. For the Year MDVVXCVIII. Vol. 83 London: Printed by John Nicholas, at Cicero’s Head, Red Lion Passage, Fleet-Street, 1798. Volger, Richard. Graphic Works of George Cruikshank. New York: Dover Publications, 1979. Yarrington, Alison. The Commemoration of the Hero, 1800-1864: Monuments to the British Victors of the Napoleonic Wars. New York: Garland, 1988. Walter, Sir Scott. The Prose Works of Sir Walter Scott. Volume VI, containing The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte. Paris: A. and W. Galignani, 1827.