“And yet it is no trifle to be a good caricaturist,” exclaimed Professor
Wilson, writing an article on Cruikshank, in Blackwood, in July 1823.
“Forbid the thought, ye shades of Bunbury and Gillray! forbid it, even
thou, if thou be still in the land of the living, good Dighton! forbid
it, charming, laughter-moving Rowlandson! Bunbury was a great genius,
and would have been a great caricaturist, had he been possessed of art
at all in proportion to his imagination. But he could not draw--not he.
As far as faces went, he was at home, and admirable; and even as to
the figure, provided he was allowed the benefit of loose breeches and
capacious coats, and grizzly wigs, and tobacco smoke, he could get
on well enough. But this is not the thing. The caricaturist should
be _able_ to represent everything; and then he can represent what he
chooses in a very different style from that of a man whose ignorance,
not his choice, limits the sphere of his representation. Rowlandson,
again, is a considerable dab at drawing; but, somehow or other, his vein
is ultra, his field is not comedy, but farce--buffoonery--and this
will not do with the English temperament, except for merely temporary
purposes. The Rev. Brownlow North (worthy of bearing that illustrious
name, O Christopher!) is another capital caricaturist.... Gillray was
in himself a host. He is the first name on the list of Political
Caricaturists, strictly so called. George III. (honest man!), and
Boney, and Fox, and Sheridan, and Pitt, and Windham, and Melville, and
Grenville, are his peculiar property. His fame will repose for ever on
their broad bottoms. Cruikshank may, if he pleases, be a second Gillray;
but, once more, this should not be his ambition. He is fitted for a
higher walk. Let him play Gillray, if he will, at leisure hours--let him
even pick up his pocket-money by Gillrayizing; but let him give his days
and his nights to labour that Gillray’s shoulders were not meant for,
and rear (for he may) a reputation such as Gillray was too sensible a
fellow to dream of aspiring after.”
This article was provoked by the success of “Life in London,”
illustrated by the brothers Robert and George Cruikshank, followed by
that revelation of George’s genius, his “Points of Humour,” and not by
the scores of political caricatures he was throwing off for Humphrey,
Fores, and others. He had not yet broken away from the uncongenial
political ground to the social; but he had opened that vast gallery of
London scenes which he had been accumulating during twenty years of hard
toil in the metropolis. Wilson gives us a peep behind the curtain of
Cruikshank’s life at this time, as he had heard it described over
a glass with Egan and other roystering friends. He even ventures to
lecture his protégé:--
“It is high time that the public should think more than they have
hitherto done of George Cruikshank; and it is also high time that
George Cruikshank should begin to think more than he seems to have
done hitherto of himself. Generally speaking, people consider him as
a clever, sharp caricaturist, and nothing more--a freehanded, comical
young fellow, who will do anything he is paid for, and who is quite
contented to dine off the proceeds of a ‘George IV.’ to-day, and those
of a ‘Hone’ or a ‘Cobbett’ to-morrow. He himself, indeed, appears to be
the most careless creature alive, as touching his reputation. He
seems to have no plan--almost no ambition--and, I apprehend, not much
industry. He does just what is suggested or thrown in his way, pockets
the cash, orders his beef-steak and bowl, and chaunts, like one of his
own heroes,--
‘Life is all a variorum,
We regard not how it goes.’
Now, for a year or two, to begin with, this is just as it should be.
Cruikshank was resolved to see _life_; and his sketches show that he has
seen it, in some of its walks, to purpose. But life is short, and art is
long; and our gay friend must pull up.” Then the Professor remarks that
perhaps he is not aware of the fact himself, but a fact it undoubtedly
is, that he possesses genius--genius in its truest sense--strong,
original, English genius. “Look round the world of Art,” says the
Professor, and ask, how many are there of whom anything like this can
be said? Why, there are not half a dozen names that could bear being
mentioned at all; and certainly there is not one, the pretensions of
which will endure sifting more securely and more triumphantly than that
of George Cruikshank.”
He is venerated as “a total despiser of that venerable humbug” which
was “the prime god of the idolatry” of his contemporaries. The lecturer
proceeds:--
“I am of opinion that George Cruikshank is one of the many young
gentlemen whose education (like that of the English opium-eater) has
been neglected. But there is no time lost; he has, I hope, a long life
and a merry one before him yet; and he may depend upon it, his life will
be neither the shorter nor the duller for his making it something of a
studious one. He should read--read--read. He should be indefatigable in
reading. He should rise at six in the morning. If he can’t work till
he has had something to settle his stomach (my own case), he can have a
little coffee-pot placed on the hob over-night, and take a cup of that
and a single crust of toast, and he will find himself quite able for
anything. What a breakfast he will be able to devour about nine or
half-past nine, after having enriched his mind with several hours of
conversation with the greatest and the wisest of his species! He may
rely upon it, this hint is worth taking. Then let him draw, etch, and
paint, until about two o’clock p.m., then take a lounge through the
streets, to see if anything is stirring--step into Westminster Hall, the
fives court, the Rev. Edward Irving’s chapel (if it be Sunday), or any
other public place, jotting down à la Hogarth all the absurd faces he
falls in with upon his finger-nails. A slight dinner and a single bottle
will carry him on till it is time to go to the play, or the Castle
Tavern, or the House of Commons, or the evening preaching, or the Surrey
lecture, or the like. At first sight it may appear that I am cutting
short the hours of professional exertion too much, but this I am
convinced is mere humbug. Does the author of Waverley eat, or drink,
or ride, or talk, or laugh, a whit the less because he writes an octavo
every month? No such thing. Does Jeffrey plead his causes a bit
the worse because he is the editor of the _Edinburgh Review?_ Does
Wordsworth write worse poems, for collecting the taxes of Cumberland; or
Lamb, worse Elias, for being clerk to the India House? The artists are
all of them too diligent--that is the very fault I want to cure them of.
Their pallets are never off their thumbs--their sticks are eternally in
their fingers.”
He goes on to say that the advantage of a little proper reading may be
illustrated by the history of George Cruikshank, “as well as by that
of any other individual I have the pleasure of not being personally
acquainted with.” He commends Cruikshank’s early caricatures as “in
their several ways excellent things.”
“But,” he exclaims, “what a start did he make when his genius had
received a truer and diviner impulse from the splendid imagination of
an Egan! How completely, how _toto colo_ did he out-Cruikshank himself,
when he was called upon to embody the conceptions of that remarkable
man in the designs of Tom and Jerry! The world felt this--and he himself
felt it.
“Again, no disparagement to my friend Pierce Egan (who is one of the
pleasantest as well as one of the greatest men now extant, and with
whom, last time I was in town, I did not hesitate to crack a bottle
of Belcher’s best), Cruikshank made another, and a still more striking
stride, when he stepped from Egan to Burns, and sought his inspiration
from the very best of all Burns’s glorious works, ‘The Jolly Beggars.’
It is of this work (the ‘Points of Humour’) that I am now to speak. It
was for the purpose of puffing it and its author, and of calling upon
all who have eyes to water and sides to ache to buy it, that I began
this leading lecture. It is, without doubt, the first thing that has
appeared since the death of Hogarth. Yes, Britain possesses once more an
artist capable of seizing and immortalizing the traits of that which
I consider as by far the most remarkable of our national
characteristics--the _Humour_ of the People. _Ex pede_ Herculem: the
man who drew these things is fit for anything. Let him but do himself
justice, and he must take his place _inter lumina Anglorum_.”
Of “Life in London,” and “Life in Paris,” which followed it, Thackeray,
writing seventeen years after Wilson, utters the opinion which is
likely to be the final one on the literary and artistic merits of these
works:--“A curious book, called ‘Life in Paris,’ published in 1822,
contains a number of the artist’s plates in the aquatint style; and
though we believe he had never been in that capital, the designs have a
great deal of life in them, and pass muster very well. A villainous race
of shoulder-shrugging mortals are his Frenchmen indeed. And the heroes
of the tale, a certain Mr. Dick Wildfire, Squire Jenkins, and Captain
O’Shuffleton, are made to show the true British superiority on every
occasion when Britons and French are brought together. This book was one
among the many that the designer’s genius has caused to be popular; the
plates are not carefully executed, but, being coloured, have a pleasant,
lively look. The same style was adopted in the once famous book called
‘Tom and Jerry, or Life in London,’ which must have a word of notice
here; for, although by no means Mr. Cruikshank’s best work, his
reputation was extraordinarily raised by it. Tom and Jerry were as
popular twenty years since as Mr. Pickwick and Sam Weller now are;
and often have we wished, while reading the biographies of the latter
celebrated personages, that they had been described as well by Mr.
Cruikshank’s pencil as by Mr. Dickens’s pen.
“As for Tom and Jerry, to show the mutability of human affairs, and the
evanescent nature of reputation, we have been to the British Museum and
no less than five circulating libraries in quest of the book, and ‘Life
in London,’ alas, is not to be found at any one of them. We can only,
therefore, speak of the work from recollection, but have still a very
clear remembrance of the leather gaiters of Jerry Hawthorn, the green
spectacles of Logic, and the hooked nose of Corinthian Tom. They were
the schoolboys’ delight; and in the days when the work appeared, we
firmly believed the three heroes above named to be types of the most
elegant, fashionable young fellows the town afforded, and thought
their occupations and amusements were those of all high-bred English
gentlemen. Tom knocking down the watchman at Temple Bar; Tom and Jerry
dancing at Almack’s; or flirting in the saloon at the theatre; at the
night-houses, after the play; at Tom Cribb’s, examining the silver cup
then in the possession of that champion; at Bob Logic’s chambers, where,
if we mistake not, ‘Corinthian Kate’ was at a cabinet piano, singing a
song; ambling gallantly in Rotten Row, or examining the poor fellow at
Newgate who was having his chains knocked off before hanging; all
these scenes remain indelibly engraved upon the mind, and so far we are
independent of all the circulating libraries in London.
“As to the literary contents of the book, they have passed sheer away.
It was, most likely, not particularly refined; nay, the chances are that
it was absolutely vulgar. But it must have had some merit of its own,
that is clear; it must have given striking descriptions of life in some
part or other of London, for all London read it, and went to see it in
its dramatic shape. The artist, it is said, wished to close the career
of the three heroes by bringing them all to ruin; but the writer, or
publishers, would not allow any such melancholy subjects to clash the
merriment of the public, and we believe Tom, Jerry, and Logic were
married off at the end of the tale, as if they had been the most moral
personages in the world. There is some goodness in this pity which
author and the public are disposed to show towards certain agreeable,
disreputable characters of romance. Who would mar the prospects of
honest Roderick Random, or Charles Luface, or Tom Jones? Only a very
stern moralist indeed. And in regard of Jerry Hawthorn and that hero
without a surname, Corinthian Tom, Mr. Cruikshank, we make little doubt;
was glad in his heart that he was not allowed to have his way.”
According to Mr. Sala, only a few of the pictures in “Life in London”
were the production of George Cruikshank. “We are not even quite
certain,” he says, “as to whether the irresistibly ninth provoking group
of ‘Dusty Bob and Black Sal’ can be claimed by him. Robert Cruikshank
was the chief illustrator of Pierce Egan’s questionable _magnum opus_;
and, oddly enough, until attention was drawn to George’s commanding
talents by Professor Wilson and _Blackwood_, it was Robert or ‘Bob’
Cruikshank who was imagined, by a careless public, to be the genius
of the family. His more gifted brother, nevertheless, was the sole
illustrator in some forty admirable aquatint engravings of a kind of
_pendant_ to ‘Life in London,’ called ‘Life Paris.’ The letterpress of
this production was not furnished by Pierce Egan; nor could George at
the end of his life remember by whom it was written, although the man’s
name, he was wont to say, ‘was always on the tip of his tongue.’”
George Cruikshank’s sketches of the Boulevards and the Palais Royal,
elaborated from sketches furnished to him, were wonderfully spirited and
true; albeit he had never been across the Channel Indeed, he never got
beyond a French seaport in the course of his long life.
A day at Boulogne comprehended all his continental experiences. His
contemporary, Bryan Waller Procter, had never seen the ocean when
he wrote “The Sea”; again, neither Schiller nor Rossini had seen
Switzerland when they wrote their “William Tell.” Cuthbert Bede asserts
that Cruikshank originated “Life in London,” and “was greatly displeased
and distressed at the way in which the author wrote up to his designs.”
In those days the Cruikshanks were not in a position to command Pierce
Egan. It is clear that the designs illustrate the written work. It is
quite true that George lamented the coarseness and the plan of it;
but the plates have, throughout, his signature in conjunction with his
brother’s.
Mr. Percy R. Cruikshank, the son of Robert Isaac, had the following
account of the origin of Tom and Jerry from his father: “The wonderfully
successful Tom and Jerry, or Life in London, although ostensibly Pierce
Egan’s idea, was universally given to George Cruikshank, whereas the
original notion and very designs were mostly Robert’s. He conceived the
notion, and planned the designs, while showing a brother-in-law, just
returned from China, some of the “life” which was going on in London
at the time. He designed the characters of Tom, Jerry, and Logic from
himself, brother-in-law, and Pierce Egan, keeping to the likenesses of
each model. Robert offered the work to Messrs. Sherwood, Gilbert, and
Piper, of Paternoster Row, who saw nothing in it, but at length accepted
the offer, and by doing so realized a large sum of money, the etchings
taking immensely.... George Cruikshank, shortly before his death, said
to his nephew Percy, “When your father proposed Tom and Jerry to me, I
suggested that it should be carried out in a series of oil paintings,
after the manner of Hogarth, but he objected, considering etching was
safer, and more rapidly convertible into ready money.” *
* In the introduction to the 1869 edition of the work, Mr.
John Camden Hotten supposes the following origin: “One day
it occurred to the editor of _Boxiana_ that if Londoners
were so anxious for books about country and out-of-door
sports, why should not provincials, and even cockneys
themselves, be equally anxious to know something of ‘Life in
London’? The editor of Boxiana was our Pierce Egan, who, as
the literary representative of sport and high life, had
already been introduced to George IV. The character of the
proposed work was mentioned to the King, and His Gracious
Majesty seems to have heartily approved of it, for he at
once gave permission for it to be dedicated to himself. The
services of Messrs. I. R. and George Cruikshank were secured
as illustrators, and on the 15th of July, 1821, the first
number, price one shilling, was published by Messrs.
Sherwood, Neely, and Jones, of Paternoster Row.”
To the Tom and Jerry plates Thackeray returned in a _Roundabout Paper_
in the _Cornhill Magazine_, after a visit to the British Museum to
renew his acquaintance with the lively pair, or Thomas and Jeremiah--his
“witty way,” he says, of calling them. He found the reading so-so--“even
a little vulgar, well, well.”
“But the pictures!” he exclaims. “Oh! the pictures are noble still!”
That George Cruikshank did not withdraw his name or his etching-needle
from the adventures of Tom and Jerry, at any time of their career of
extraordinary success, is proved by one or two facts. When, after all
the theatres had been filled with dramatic versions of Egan’s “Life in
London,” and the author himself prepared an extravaganza on his book
for Astley’s in 1822, the songs and parodies introduced into it
appeared “with a highly finished picture of the pony races, by George
Cruikshank.”
“It is not generally known,” says Mr. Hotten, “that George Cruikshank
painted a public-house sign to celebrate the success of _Dusty Bob_ in
‘Torn and Jerry.’ Walbourn, the comedian, who personated this character
with extraordinary success, kept the ‘Maidenhead’ public-house at
Battle Bridge, and the artist painted a whole-length portrait of him
in character, which was hung out as his signboard. Moncrieff (who
dramatized ‘Tom and Jerry’) used to say that the three characters, Tom,
Jerry, and Logic, stood for George Cruikshank, Robert Cruikshank,
and Pierce Egan; that many of the adventures in the book were in part
autobiographical, and that the portraits of the heroes in the pictures
bore a striking resemblance to the portraits of the three artists in
actual life.” If the artist did not paint a public-house sign, like
Hogarth, he carefully etched a large portrait of Mr. Walbourn as Dusty
Bob, with his fantail under his arm, which was published in St. James’s
Street; and prepared another copy of this same portrait, with a thin
additional line round the print, inscribed above, “Messrs. Reid and
Co.’s Entire,” and below, “W. Walboum, Wine and Spirit Merchant,
Maidenhead, Battle Bridge.” * Nor is this all; George was “in at the
death,” to use a phrase appropriate to Egan’s work. On the 1st February,
1823, a broadside was issued “for Pierce Egan,” from his “Tiny Crib,”
71, Chancery Lane, price one shilling, bearing an affecting title, “The
Tears of Pierce Egan for the Death of Life in London; or, The Funeral
of Tom and Jerry. By T. Greenwood, Esq. Dedicated to I. R. and George
Cruikshank.” The broadside which represents the joy of the Charlies at
Tom and Jerry being “floored” by death, and the funeral procession of
Tom and Jerry, is marked “G. Cruikshank fecit.” The back resembles
a sack of flour upon a post, and the front view suggests the idea of
‘Dusty Bob in a Blanket.’ ‘Lumber-Troopers,’ two very stout men, seated
at a table, smoking and drinking; other designs around.” *
* “Two rows of figures form the procession, which is led by
two crossing-sweepers, who clear the way; then boys with
links, mutes, jockeys, flower and match girls; Logic, with
his broken umbrella up; Kate and Sue, servants, pugilists,
and a man bearing the ropes of the prize-ring; Dusty Bob
and Sal, Billy Waters, Little Jemmy in his sledge, fish-
women, men with banners, ‘Charlies’ bringing up the rear,
dancing and shouting.”--_Mr. G. W. Reid’s Descriptive
Catalogue of the Works of George Cruikshank._
Dusty Bob was always a favourite character with George. The two
brothers, who enjoyed their frolics together very much in their early
days, having resolved to go to a masquerade at Covent Garden, Robert,
who was fond of dress, selected a gorgeous cavalier costume, while
George resolved to appear as a dustman. The dustman of those days, in
his Sunday clothes, was a picturesque object, with his well-blacked
fan-tailed hat, white flannel jacket, scarlet plush breeches, white
stockings, and neat gaiters. He had a liberal display of linen,
and about his neck a bright-tinted “Barcelona” kerchief. But George
Cruikshank resolved to go as the workaday dustman, as he had studied him
in his low haunts. He obtained a dustman’s old patched suit, begrimed
his face and hands artistically, put a dirty clay pipe in his mouth,
and strolled on a summer’s evening from Dorset Street to Covent Garden
Theatre, where, with all a dustman’s roughness, he presented his ticket.
The collector hesitated, amazed that so low a fellow could have obtained
possession of the ticket.
“Haint it reg’lar?” shouted the dustman.
The difficulty was cleared up by the appearance of the splendid cavalier
Robert, who took the dustman’s arm into the theatre, where he executed
the “double shuffle,” to the great diversion of the dissipated company.
That the adventures of Tom and Jerry and Logic were in some degree the
experiences of Egan and the brothers Cruikshank can hardly be doubted.*
It is quite clear that the artists “went the rounds” of dissipation, if
only to make up their pictures. Egan was at home in the scenes which he
described; nor, as we have seen, were the young Cruikshanks, in those
days, puritanical in their ways of life. George, we find, was reputed
to be so wild, that Professor Wilson, who admired his genius, admonished
him to bring himself down to a bottle at dinner, and to moderate his
amusements.
* G. Cruikshank had worked for Egan in 1814. He had etched
for him The Entrance of Louis XVIII, into Paris, as a
frontispiece to a Map-book, which was published by Egan, at
his establishment in Great Marlborough Street, in this year.
If we take “Life in London” in conjunction with the daily hand-to-mouth
work which George Cruikshank had been executing for the popular
publishers of caricatures, and particularly from the day when Mrs.
Humphreys invited him into her shop to take up the etching-needle of her
helpless invalid upstairs, we shall see that, although the young
artist had what would now be called strong moral proclivities and quick
sympathies, he was ready to conform to the spirit of the times, to hit
hard, and to make bold steps on very delicate ground.
The miscellaneous work which Cruikshank threw off, in the midst of the
labours of a higher class, and more congenial to his genius, between
1820 and 1830, was prodigious. He was, indeed, the pictorial chronicler
and satirist and moralist of the time. Before entering upon this part
of his labours, let us glance at the best collection of them to which
he gave a distinctive form. His “Points of Humour” are among the best
expressions of his observation and skill, in his vivacious mood. They
delighted his good friend and generous admirer, Thackeray. The mood,
the manner of the outlook upon passing events, often suggest Thackeray
himself. Cruikshank’s flunkeys were the progenitors of Jeames and Tummus
of Thackeray and Leech, as his beadles were the forefathers of Bumble.
“Mr. Cruikshank’s next important public appearance,” says Mr. Thackeray,
“was with his ‘Points of Humour’ * (1822 and 1824), after ‘Life in London
and Paris’--some twenty copper-plates selected from Various works.”
* In a note to his essay on George Cruikshank in
_Blackwood_, Professor Wilson says:--“The ‘Points of Humour’
are to appear in occasional numbers. No. I. contains about a
dozen etchings, and fifty pages of very well written
letterpress. The work is published by C. Baldwyn, Newgate
Street, London, and the price per number is only eight
shillings, which is dog-cheap, as things go.”
“The collector of humorous designs,” Mr. Thackeray remarks, “cannot fail
to have them in his portfolio, for they contain some of the very best
efforts of Mr. Cruikshank’s genius; and though not quite so highly
laboured as some of his later productions, are none the worse, in our
opinion, for their comparative want of finish. All the effects are
perfectly given, and the expression as good as it could be in the
most delicate engraving upon steel. The artist’s style, too, was then
completely formed; and, for our part, we should say that we preferred
his manner of 1825 to any which he has adopted since. The first picture,
which is called ‘The Point of Honour,’ illustrates the old story of the
officer who, on being accused of cowardice for refusing to fight a duel,
came among his brother officers, and flung a lighted grenade down upon
the floor, before which his comrades fled ignominiously. This design is
capital, and the outward rush of heroes, walking, trampling, twisting,
scuffling at the door, is in the best style of the grotesque. You see
but the back of most of these gentlemen, into which, nevertheless, the
artist has managed to throw an expression of ludicrous agony that one
could scarcely have expected to find in such a part of the human figure.
The next plate is not less good. It represents a couple who, having
been found one night tipsy, and lying in the same gutter, were, by a
charitable though misguided gentleman, supposed to be man and wife, and
put comfortably to bed together. The morning came: fancy the surprise
of this interesting pair when they awoke and discovered their situation.
Fancy the manner, too, in which Cruikshank has depicted them, to which
words cannot do justice. It is needless to state that this fortuitous
and temporary union was followed by one more lasting and sentimental,
and that these two worthy persons were married, and lived happily ever
after.
“We should like to go through _every_ one of these prints. There is the
jolly miller, who, returning home at night, calls upon his wife to
get him a supper, and falls to upon rashers of bacon and ale. How he
gormandises, that jolly miller! rasher after rasher,--how they pass away
frizzling and smoking from the gridiron down that immense grinning gulf
of a mouth. Poor wife! how she pines and frets at that untimely hour of
midnight to be obliged to fry, fry, fry perpetually, and minister to the
monster’s appetite. And yonder in the clock, what agonised face is that
we see? By heavens, it is the squire of the parish! What business has he
there? Let us not ask. Suffice it to say, that he has, in the hurry of
the moment, left upstairs his brs---- his--psha! a part of his dress,
in short, with a number of bank-notes in the pockets. Look in the next
page, and you will see the ferocious, bacon-devouring ruffian of a
miller is actually causing this garment to be carried through the
village, and cried by the town-crier. And we blush to be obliged to
say that the demoralised miller never offered to return the bank-notes,
although he was so mighty scrupulous in endeavouring to find an owner
for the corduroy portfolio in which he had found them.
“Passing from this painful subject, we come, we regret to state, to a
series representing personages not a whit more moral. Burns’s famous
‘Jolly Beggars’ have all had their portraits drawn by Cruikshank.”
[Illustration: 169]
George Cruikshank’s “Phrenological Illustrations” (1826), “Illustrations
of Time” (1827), and “Scraps and Sketches” (1828), in which the
celebrated scene “What is Taxes, Thomas?” will be found all published by
the artist himself, may be said to have furnished the pictorial material
for the first attempt at illustrated journalism. Mr. J. C. Rogers, a
friend of Cruikshank’s, describes the transaction as he had it from the
wronged artist. *
* Notes and Queries, 4th series, vol. v., p. 301.
“The ‘Gallery of Comicalities,’ originated in the circumstance that some
forty years ago he (George Cruikshank) was applied to by Mr. Dowling,
the editor of _Bells Life in London_--with whom he had been on terms of
intimacy--for leave to reproduce some half-dozen of the etchings from
his works called ‘Phrenological Illustrations,’ ‘Illustrations of Time,’
and ‘Scraps and Sketches,’ in the pages of the journal named. Acting on
the qualified permission so obtained, Mr. Claremont, the proprietor, to
the utter astonishment of the artist, appropriated for his newspaper the
whole, or nearly all, of George Cruikshank’s designs, contained in the
works in question. When remonstrated with by the artist, and required
to stay the issue of the number of the paper in which these appeared,
on the ground that it was seriously interfering with the sale of the
artists own works, Mr. Claremont, through his editor, peremptorily
declined. Consulting a professional friend holding a post in the Court
of Chancery, to know whether an injunction might not be obtained to
restrain Mr. Claremont in the course he had thought proper to follow,
the artist was advised to suffer the wrong rather than enter into
litigation, the result of which in any court would entail pecuniary
loss.
“These illustrations, I have said, first appeared in the columns of
_Bells Life in London_, under the heading, ‘Gallery of Comicalities.’
They were afterwards published separately by Mr. Claremont. A very large
number were sold, and large profits realized. George Cruikshank neither
received nor would have accepted a single farthing.... George Cruikshank
never contributed directly to the ‘Gallery of Comicalities,’ His
designs, obtained in the manner described, were copied by an ordinary
wood engraver from his etchings. The average cost of these, he informed
me, would not exceed thirty shillings each. Mr. Claremont, finding the
thing a profitable venture, continued the publication, and employed
Kenny Meadows and others to furnish new designs. It is asserted that if
there were any designs by his brother Isaac Robert, they were no doubt
appropriated in the same immoral manner.”
“The Gallery of Comicalities” was a great success. Mr. William Bates,
of Birmingham, says of it, in _Notes and Queries_, “I am happily able to
count myself among those collectors who possess these witty sheets--the
delight of my boyhood--in a perfect state.” The eight series into
which the gallery is divided, introduces us for the first time to
Kenny Meadows and John Leech, as well as to rich stolen fruit from
Cruikshank’s highly productive orchard; and, according to Mr. Bates,
to plentiful gleaning from the works of Isaac Robert Cruikshank. Here
Meadows’ sketches from Lavater appeared, including “The Phisogs of the
Traders of London,” and giving a foretaste of his “Heads of the People
and in the gallery are some of poor Seymour’s sketches of the “Sporting
Cockney,” and drawings by Chatfield,--an artist now forgotten, but
a light in the early times of Douglas Jerrold, Dickens, Thackeray,
Meadows,--and Leech’s early drawings; and the great variety of subjects
treated with a vigorous, fresh, racy humour by them and others, are
a foretaste of _Punch_ that was to start in a few years. The popular
appetite for caricature, and for humorous and sarcastic commentaries
on the subjects of the day, was diffused among the people by Cleave’s
coarser and cheaper pictorial gallery.
The taste for pictorial journalism was distinctly the creation of our
caricaturists. Founded by James Gillray and his humbler contemporaries,
it was developed by the genius of Rowlandson and George Cruikshank, and
so popularised by the latter, that his drawings were, as we have seen,
actually carried into the columns of a newspaper. Even this paper he may
be said to have indirectly created. _Bells Life in London_ originally
appeared in 1824, as _Pierce Egan’s Life in London, and Sporting
Gazette_. Egan was, when Tom and Jerry took the town by storm, the
sporting contributor to the _Weekly Dispatch_; and the success of this
work so roused the jealousy of the _Dispatch_ conductors, that they gave
Egan his _congé_. His dismissal, and the popularity he enjoyed at
the moment, emboldened him to start a paper on his own account. It
flourished awhile, and in 1827 Mr. Egan sold it to a Mr. Bell, who
placed his name upon the title-page, where Egan’s had stopd. So that the
journal which Mr. Cruikshank was indirectly instrumental in creating,
rewarded him by unceremoniously transferring his drawings to its
columns, and thus inaugurating the pictorial journalism of England.
The Phrenological Illustrations which Mr. Bell treated so
unceremoniously had enjoyed more than a year’s extraordinary popularity,
and had even been a topic in Christopher North’s “Noctes.” *
* November 1826.
“_Tickler_. James, a few minutes ago you mentioned the name of that
prince of caricaturists, George Cruikshank; pray, have you seen his
Phrenological Illustrations?
“_Shepherd._ That I hae,--he sent me the present as’ copy to Mount
Benger; and I thocht me and the haill hoose wud hae fain distracted wi’
lauchin. O sirs, what a plate is yon Pheeloprogeniteeveness! It’s no
possible to make out the preceese amount o’ the family, but there wad
seem to be somewhere about a dizzen and a half--the legitimate produce
o’ the Eerish couple’s ain fruitfu’ lines. A’ noses alike in their
langness, wi’ sleight vareeities, dear to ilka pawrent’s heart! Then
what kissing, and hugging, and rugging, and ridin on backs and legs,
and rockin o’ craddles, and speelin o’ chairs, and washing o’ claes, and
boilin o’ pirtawties! And ae wee bit spare rib o’ flesh twurlin afore
the fire, to be sent roun’ lick and lick about, to gie to the tongues of
the contented crew a meat flavour, alang wi’ the wershness o’ vegetable
maitter! Sma’ wooden sodgers gaun through the manuel exercise on the
floor--ae nine-pin stannin by himself amang prostrate comrades--a boat
shaped wi’ a knife, by him that’s gaun to be a sailor, and on the wa’,
emblematical o’ human Pheeloprogenitiveness (O bit that’s a kittle
word!) a hen and chickens, ane o’ them perched atween her shouthers,
and a countless cleckin aneath her outspread wings! What an observer o’
nature that chiel is! Only look at the back of the faither’s neck, and
you’ll no wonner at his family, for is’t no like the back o’ the neck
o’ a great bill?” Tickler declares that Language is almost as good,
and North himself says: “Not a whit inferior Veneration.” Then Tickler
observes: “George Cruikshank’s various and admirable works should be in
the possession of all lovers of the Arts. He is far more than the Prince
of Caricaturists,--a man who regards the ongoings of life with the eye
of genius; and he has a clear insight through the exterior of manners
into the passions of the heart. He has wit as well as humour--feeling as
well as fancy--and his original vein appears to be inexhaustible. Here’s
his health in a bumper.”
The Cruikshank of twenty years later would have been inexpressibly
shocked at the manner in which the Shepherd responded:
“George Cruikshank! But stop a wee, my tumbler’s dune. Here’s to him
in a caulker, and there’s no mony folk whose health I wad drink, during
toddy, in pure speerit.”
Thackeray bears witness to the popularity of the Phrenological Sketches
as quaintly as Christopher North:--
“He is the friend of the young especially. Have we not read all the
story-books that his wonderful pencil has illustrated? Did we not
forego tarts, in order to buy his ‘Breaking-up,’ or his ‘Fashionable
Monstrosities’ of the year eighteen hundred and something? Have we
not before us, at this very moment, a print--one of the admirable
‘Illustrations of Phrenology’--which entire work was purchased by
a joint-stock company of boys, each drawing lots afterwards for the
separate prints, and taking his choice in rotation? The writer of this,
too, had the honour of drawing the first lot, and seized immediately
upon ‘Philoprogenitiveness--a marvellous print (our copy is not at
all improved by being coloured, which operation we performed on it
ourselves)--a marvellous print, indeed, full of ingenuity and fine
jovial humour. A father, possessor of an enormous nose and family, is
surrounded by the latter, who are, some of them, embracing the former.
The composition writhes and twists about like the Kermes of Rubens. No
less than seven little men and women in nightcaps, in frocks, in bibs,
in breeches, are clambering about the head, knees, and arms of the man
with the nose; their noses, too, are preternaturally developed--the
twins in the cradle have noses of the most considerable kind; the second
daughter, who is watching them; the youngest but two, who sits squalling
in a certain wicker chair; the eldest son, who is yawning; the eldest
daughter, who is preparing with the gravy of two mutton-chops a savoury
dish of Yorkshire pudding for eighteen persons; the youths who are
examining her operations (one a literary gentleman, in a remarkably neat
nightcap and pinafore, who has just had his finger in the pudding);
the genius who is at work on the slate, and the two honest lads who are
hugging the good-humoured washerwoman, their mother,--all, all, save
this worthy woman, have noses of the largest size. Not handsome,
certainly, are they, and yet everybody must be charmed with the picture.
It is full of grotesque beauty. The artist has at the back of his own
skull, we are certain, a large bump of philoprogenitiveness. He loves
children in his heart: every one of those he has drawn is perfectly
happy, and jovial, and affectionate, and as innocent as possible. He
makes them with large noses, but he loves them; and you always find
something kind in the midst of his humour, and the ugliness redeemed by
a sly touch of beauty.”
Pursuing this current of genial criticism, Thackeray has pointed out
that in Cruikshank’s “Sketch Book” the observer may gather a good deal
of information regarding the character of the individual man. “What
strikes his eye as a painter; what moves his anger or admiratiqn as a
moralist; what classes he seems most especially disposed to observe, and
what to ridicule. There are quacks of all kinds, to whom he has a mortal
hatred; quack dandies, who assume under his pencil, perhaps in his eye,
the most grotesque appearance possible--their hats grow larger, their
legs infinitely more crooked and lean; the tassels of their canes swell
out to a most preposterous size; the tails of their coats dwindle away,
and finish where coat-tails generally begin. Let us lay a wager that
Cruikshank, a man of the people, if ever there was one, heartily hates
and despises these supercilious, swaggering, young gentlemen; and his
contempt is not a whit the less laudable because there may be _tout soit
peu_ of prejudice in it. It is right and wholesome to scorn dandies,
as Nelson says it was to hate Frenchmen; in which sentiment (as we have
before said) George Cruikshank undoubtedly shares....
“Against dandy footmen he is particularly severe. He hates idlers,
pretenders, boasters, and punishes these fellows as best he may. Who
does not recollect the famous picture, ‘What is Taxes, Thomas?’ What is
taxes, indeed! Well may that vast, over-fed, lounging flunkey ask the
question of his associate Thomas, and yet not well, for all that Thomas
says in reply is, _I don’t know. O beati plushicolo_, what a charming
state of ignorance is yours! In the Sketch Book many footmen make their
appearance: one is a huge, fat Hercules of a Portman Square porter,
who calmly surveys another poor fellow,--a porter likewise, but out of
livery,--who comes staggering forward with a box that Hercules might
lift with his little finger. Will Hercules do so? Not he. The giant can
carry nothing heavier than a cocked-hat note on a silver tray, and his
labours are to walk from his sentry-box to the door, and from the door
back to his sentry-box, and to read the Sunday paper, and to poke the
hall fire twice or thrice, and to make five meals a day. Such a fellow
does Cruikshank hate and scorn worse even than a Frenchman.
“The man’s master, too, comes in for no small share of our artist’s
wrath. See, here is a company of them at church, who humbly designate
themselves ‘miserable sinners.’ Miserable sinners, indeed! O what floods
of turtle-soup, what tons of turbot and lobster-sauce, must have been
sacrificed to make those sinners properly miserable! My lady there, with
the ermine tippet and draggling feathers, can we not see that she lives
in Portland Place, and is the wife of an East India Director? She has
been to the opera over-night (indeed, her husband, on her right, with
his fat hand dangling over the pew-door, is at this minute thinking of
Mademoiselle Léscadie, whom he saw behind the scenes)--she has been to
the opera over-night, which with a trifle of supper afterwards--a
white and brown soup, a lobster salad, some woodcocks, and a little
champagne--sent her to bed quite comfortable. At half-past eight her
maid brings her chocolate to bed, at ten she has fresh eggs and muffins,
with, perhaps, a half-hundred of prawns for breakfast, and so can get
over the day and the sermon till lunch-time pretty well. What an
odour of musk and bergamot exhales from the pew! how it is wadded, and
stuffed, and spangled over with brass nails! what hassocks are there for
those who are not too fat to kneel! what a flustering and flapping of
gilt prayer-books! and what a pious whirring of Bible-leaves one hears
all over the church, as the doctor blandly gives out the text! To be
miserable at this rate, you must, at the very least, have four thousand
a year; and many persons are there so enamoured of grief and sin, that
they would willingly take the risk of the misery to have a life-interest
in the Consols that accompany it, quite careless about consequences, and
sceptical as to the notion that a day is at hand when you must fulfil
_your share of the bargain_.
“Our artist loves to joke at a soldier, in whose livery there appears
to him to be something almost as ridiculous as in the uniform of
the gentleman of the shoulder-knot. Tall life-guardsmen and fierce
grenadiers figure in many of his designs, and almost always in a
ridiculous way. Here, again, we have the honest, popular English feeling
which jeers at pomp or pretension of all kinds, and is especially
jealous of all display of military authority. ‘Raw recruit,’ ‘ditto
dressed,’ ditto ‘served up,’ as we see them in the Sketch Book, are so
many satires upon the army. Hodge with his ribbons flaunting in his hat,
or with red coat and musket, drilled stiff and pompous, or that last,
minus leg and arm, tottering about on crutches, do not fill our English
artist with the enthusiasm that follows the soldier in every other part
of Europe. Jeanjean, the conscript in France, is laughed at, to be sure,
but then it is because he is a bad soldier; when he comes to have a
huge pair of moustachios and the _croix d’honneur_ to _briller_ on his
_poitrine cicatrisé_, Jeanjean becomes a member of a class that is
more respected than any other in the French nation. The veteran soldier
inspires our people with no such awe: we hold that democratic weapon the
fist in much more honour than the sabre and bayonet, and laugh at a man
tricked out in scarlet and pipeclay.”
“In the supernatural,” says Thackeray, “we find Cruikshank reigning
supreme. He has invented in his time a little comic pandemonium, peopled
with the most droll, good-natured fiends possible. We have before us
Chamisso’s ‘Peter Schlemil’ (1824), with Cruikshank’s designs translated
into German, and gaining nothing by the change.... He has also made
designs for Victor Hugo’s ‘Hans of Iceland.’ Strange, wild etchings were
those, on a strange, mad subject; not so good, in our notion, as the
designs for the German, books, the peculiar humour of which latter
seemed to suit the artist exactly. There is a mixture of the awful
and ridiculous in these, which perpetually excites and keeps awake the
reader’s attention; the German writer and the English artist seem to
have an entire faith in their subject. The reader, no doubt, remembers
the awful passage in ‘Peter Schleusihl,’ when the little, gentleman
purchases the shadow of that hero: ‘Have the kindness, noble sir, to
examine and try this bag.’ He put his hand into his pocket, and drew
thence a tolerably large bag of Cordovan leather, to which a couple of
thongs were fixed. I took it from him, and immediately counted out ten
gold pieces, and ten more, and ten more, and still other ten, whereupon
I held out my hand to him. ‘Done,’ said I, ‘it is a bargain; you shall
have my shadow for your bag.’ The bargain was concluded; he knelt down
before me, and I saw him with a wonderful neatness take my shadow from
head to foot, lightly lift it up from the grass, roll and fold it up
neatly, and at last pocket it. He then rose up, bowed to me once more,
and walked away again, disappearing behind the rose-bushes. I don’t
know, but I thought I heard him laughing a little. I, however, kept fast
hold of the bag. Everything around me was bright in the sun, and as yet
I gave no thought to what I had done.’ This marvellous event, narrated
by Peter with such a faithful, circumstantial detail, is painted by
Cruikshank in the most wonderful poetic way, with that happy mixture of
the real and supernatural that makes the narrative so curious, and like
truth.”
The artist, in short, in a wonderfully complete way, embodies the
author’s feeling, as well as his idea. He plays, as it were, with the
supernatural. Professor Wilson goes even farther. “Nobody, that has the
least of an eye for art, can doubt that Cruikshank, if he chose, might
design as many Annunciations, Beatifications, Apotheoses, Metamorphoses,
and so forth, as would cover York Cathedral from end to end. It is still
more impossible to doubt that he might be a famous portrait painter.
Now, these are fine lines both of them, and yet it is precisely the
chief merit of Cruikshank that he cuts them both, that he will have
nothing to do with them, that he has chosen a walk of his own, and that
he has made his own walk popular. Here lies genius; but let him do
himself justice, let him persevere and _rise_ in his own path, and
_then_, ladies and gentlemen, _then_ the day will come when his name
will be a name indeed, not a name puffed and paraded in the newspapers,
but a living, a substantial, perhaps even an illustrious, English name.
Let him, in one word, proceed, and, as he proceeds, let him think of
Hogarth.”
Under such encouragement as this, Cruikshank braced himself for work
worthy of his genius, even in the hurly-burly of the daily life he
led in London, and with the incessant demands upon him still, as the
pictorial moralist and satirist of his time,--demands which he answered
richly out of the inexhaustible fund of his fancy and humour,--as we
shall see.
[Illustration: 188]