The Foundations of the Anglo-American Tradition of Political Satire and Comic Art: The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries

Abstract

Historians of political cartoons (and indeed, historians more generally) are accustomed to working within defined national traditions. Full-length histories and collections of political cartoons are more often than not focused on the political history of important nation-states (Dewey, 2007; Hess and Northrop, 2013; Desbarats and Mosher, 1979; Lindsay, 1979); exhibitions of political cartoons are likewise largely given-over to highlighting the importance of national politics and national context (Batchelor, Lewisohn and Myrone, eds, 2010); and relatively few thematic histories exist that try to take a transnational approach (Harder and Mittler, eds, 2013; Robbins, 2013: 398-403; Dyrenfurth and Quartly, 2009), or examine the way cartoonists of all nations approached a particular issue or issues (Bryant, 2005; 2006; 2008 and 2009). In many ways, the national focus is an intuitive approach, given political cartoons and graphic satire are most often constructed in response to matters of national (but also local, and international) importance. Many excellent studies have also sought to show how cartoons have been absolutely intrinsic to the creation of national identities (e.g. Dewey, 2007; Hess and Northrop, 2013; Desbarats and Mosher, 1979; Lindsay, 1979), and one cannot fault these for their rigour, their choice of subject-matter, or their focus. While certainly valuable in their own right, therefore, such nationally-focused studies are also by definition narrowly-focused; and neglect developments that permeated and transcended national borders. They often ignore or downplay significant cross-fertilization between cartoonists of different nationalities, or. -- more critically -- the transnational movement of cartoonists from one context to another (and sometimes back again). Transnational approaches have been extremely revealing and useful in breaking new ground in other fields (e.g. Grant, Levine, and Trentmann, eds, 2007), especially where the norms and customs of particular fields are well-established and entrenched (and therefore limited in what new insights they can reveal).