The circulation and reception of political caricature underwent a cycle of repression and liberalization throughout every predominant government in France between 1789 and 1881.  Three basic themes summarize the reason for and the effects of censorship of political caricature in nineteenth-century France.  Every form of government – monarchy, empire, or republic – feared the potential power of political caricature.  Their fear resulted in an attempt to control and restrain printed imagery.  Second, the application of censorship fluctuated according to the political climate.  During periods of relative stability, censorship laws were liberalized or eliminated.  A contentious political climate, however, resulted in extremely repressive measures designed to quell the influence of political caricature.  Lastly, the nature of caricature reflected the political climate and the degree of governmental regulation.  Caricature themes often shifted from political to social during periods of censorship.  Caricaturists began to fight against government repression through clever graphic strategies, such as including satirical political allusions within otherwise benign drawings.

French governments in the nineteenth century consisted of either a single ruler or a small ruling class, and suppressing dissension of citizens was a perilous task.  Only a small, wealthy section of the population made up the influential group of citizens within the July Monarchy, resulting in a general disregard for the impoverished majority.  The vastly outnumbered authorities developed several methods of controlling the general population, of which their greatest invention was censorship of political caricature.  Caricature overcame the illiteracy of the lower classes, enabling even the lowest levels of society to become involved in political and social matters.  Caricature became widely accessible to all levels of society, and the government feared an uprising of the class who suffered the most from government actions:  the uneducated, disadvantaged laborers.    

The Fitz-James amendment of 1820, proposed during The Restoration, put further restrictions on the distribution of caricatures.  It stated that no printed drawing may be published, displayed or sold without prior authorization from the government (105).  The proposal allowed the government to control all graphic depictions, not just political caricatures.  Complaints against the amendment claimed the government had grossly exaggerated the impact of harmless drawings and had broadened its authority to the point where there was no longer a limit on their actions.  The bill of 1820 contributed to almost sixty years of censorship.   

Caricaturists, however, did not allow themselves to be silenced so easily.  After 1815, lithography was the most prevalent method of creating prints of all kinds, including political caricature.  Compared to the traditional techniques of engraving, lithography created thousands of prints from a single drawing.  It was also easier to use and cheaper to publish.  Viewed as highly threatening by the government, lithography could more effectively produce and circulate seditious images.  This gave the authorities reason to return to oppressive press laws, this time in the form of the September Laws of 1835.  Under the law, the variety of press crimes were expanded, penalties and security deposits were increased, and censorship of caricature was reintroduced.

Government paranoia continued to increase as new techniques for quelling dissent in political caricatures were created.  During the Second Republic, a personal authorization rule was added requiring caricaturists to obtain permission from the subjects of their drawings.  The rule made the process incredibly time-consuming, making it nearly impossible for caricaturists to publish current events.  The effect was that journals did not have the money to cover the expenses imposed by the rule, and it limited caricaturists’ subjects to those of the past.  In the Second Empire under Napoleon III, the emperor’s fear of dissenting imagery was so great he created censorship bans that affected not only caricaturists and the press, but also well-known, traditional artists, such as Gustave Courbet and Edouard Manet.  In 1877, during the “Monarchist Republic,” the authorities expanded their discretion even further.  The censors rejected drawings based on criteria that created a direct threat to the regime, as well as prints that did not explicitly depict seditious imagery.  Government paranoia had increased to the point where censors expected drawings to contain rebellious elements and images; when they could not find the allusions, they suspected caricaturists of concealing their true intentions. 

The oppressive and irrational reactions to political caricature indicate the unstable political climate in France during the nineteenth century.  While the government’s fear of oppositional political caricatures led to a struggle to control satirical imagery, censorship liberalized when the political climate was stable.  It was difficult to predict, however, what would be tolerated at any given time.  Caricaturists frequently complained that censors were completely arbitrary, often basing their decisions on the bias of the regime in power at that time.  In addition, they often refused to give any explanation for disallowing a drawing.

It seemed that history was doomed to repeat itself with the overturning of every government in France between 1789 and 1881.  A short period of “liberty” to gain the favor of the citizens was followed soon after by repression in the form of censorship and press laws.  In 1852, two months after President Bonaparte overthrew the constitutional regime, censorship of images was reinstated, taken almost word-for-word from the September Laws from seventeen years earlier.

With the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, political caricature was free from repression.  The new government neglected to continue the previous restrictions of the Empire, resulting in an explosion of individually distributed cartoons.  The complete abolition of censorship, however, was not possible during a highly contentious period.  Only when political conditions were right did censorship lose its power.  First, both left- and right-wing caricaturists agreed in their dislike of the government’s ability to suppress their views.  Second, the new republican government became increasingly more stable, resulting in the reduction of controversial subjects.  The republicans in power gradually realized the need for freedom of expression in society and increasingly allowed caricature to be free from oppressive constraints.

As the degree of censorship shifted, so did the themes of caricature.  For example, between 1815 and 1820, political caricature flourished until censorship tightened in 1822.  Caricature shifted to social themes, concentrating mainly on current fashions or fads.  Political caricature, though in no way eradicated, was almost impossible to publish since it was seen as posing a direct threat to the regime.  In 1838, during the July Monarchy, Charles Philipon created a new caricature journal under the name of La Caricature Provisoire with the intention to publish non-political images.  Philipon strove to communicate his ideas through the satirizing of non-political subjects, focusing instead on “moral, literary, theatrical, artistic, industrial…[and other]” themes (165).

However, caricaturists often developed more combative techniques to spread their ideas while avoiding censorship.  A common, method of denouncing the government was by replacing a page in a journal where a forbidden caricature was to appear with a blank page, often with a protestation against the government’s action and a written description of the rejected image.  Another method used to protest censorship was by publishing drawings corrected by the censors in their obviously mutilated form.  Sometimes artists would erase or obscure parts of a drawing in a noticeable fashion so that the image still communicated their intention while avoiding prosecution.  For example, in 1872, L’Eclipse published an image by Andre Gill depicting President Thiers delivering a baby symbolizing money owed to Prussia after the French defeat in 1870.  At the bottom, three Royalists disappear behind a thick blanket of clouds, as well as an eagle representing Napoleon III.  Members of the public who were familiar with Gill’s position as a republican and the effect the payment to Prussia had on the Royalists could most likely figure out the identity of the clouded figures (54-55).

To avoid the personal authorization rule, journals often published caricatures with faces or heads missing.  Other clues within the image, however, often gave away the identity of the subject.  In La Lune Rousse, Andre Gill published a drawing of journalist Louis Veuillot with the face of a popular actress, Anna Judic, who did not have a highly respectable reputation (56).  In this way, the caricature was given more meaning, creating symbolism more damaging than if Veuillot himself had been depicted.  Another method artists use to avoid the personal authorization rule was to redraw a rejected depiction of a subject in a respectable fashion, gain his approval, then publish the original, claiming the written approval applied to the first drawing. 

Other methods of avoiding censorship included the use of pictorial allusions.  To avoid confrontation with the censors, caricaturists hid political commentary behind recognizable symbols.  In an 1875 publication of Le Don Quichotte, a candlesnuffer douses the flame of a candle atop a book labeled Education, symbolizing the stifling of enlightenment.  The use of animals as representations for political figures was another popular method of getting around censorship.  Animals were used to depict the potential subjects of caricatures in an 1880 publication of La Jeune Garde.  To protest the personal authorization rule, animals in the zoo are seen behind a fence with a label that reads, “It is forbidden to throw stones at the animals – without their permission” (59-60).   

In 1880, with the end of censorship in sight, a tremendous amount of new caricature journals sprang up.  The focus was on more trivial subjects, however, such as social life, fashion, and eroticism.  As fewer journals focused on political matters, the significance and power they previously enjoyed no longer existed.  Artistic quality declined, and journals became suggestive of pornography.  The reason for the decline in the quality and significance of caricature journals was also the goal caricaturists had struggled to achieve:  stability within the new republican regime.  The struggle against the constant threat posed by the authorities brought out the creativity, interest, and edge in caricature journals.  The fervor over struggles with previous governments was conspicuously absent within the republican rule. Without a fight, public interest declined, subjects of caricature were scarce, and artists grew lazy in creating images.  Political control was no longer dominated by a single ruler, but by a collective group of politicians.  This limited caricaturists’ ability to effectively mock those in power.

Between 1789 and 1880, caricature in France dealt with multiple cycles of repression and liberalization.  The power found in political images resulted in excessive measures to quell it.  Governments exposed their distrust and fear of the citizens they tried so desperately to control by instating censorship and punishing those who violated it.  Censorship was not, however, a constant force on caricature journals and the people of France; during periods of relative stability, the laws were liberalized and allowed for a moderate amount of free expression.  During contentious periods, caricature was restricted to social themes since political caricature was almost impossible to publish.  These repressive measures, however, did not stop caricaturists from expressing their views.  Artists and journals used a variety of creative techniques to combat the government’s oppressive forces.  The struggle for liberty through political caricature was a long, but ultimately successful one.  Freedom of expression exists today through freedom of the press as a result of caricaturists’ efforts to preserve their rights.