Endnotes

1. Male pronouns are used to refer to the artist throughout this book, not because this is or was representative of the gender of visual artists. Rather, I have made this choice to reflect art-world satire’s near total exclusion of women artists from the representational realm.

2. On the representation of the artist in the West, see Rudolf Wittkower and Margot Wittkower, Born under Saturn; the Character and Conduct of Artists: A Documented History from Antiquity to the French Revolution (New York: Random House, 1963); Ernst Kris and Otto Kurz, Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist: A Historical Experiment (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979); Deanna Petherbridge and Anita Viola Sganzerla, Artists at Work, eds. Ketty Gottardo and Rachel Sloan (London: The Courtauld Gallery, 2018), exhibition catalog.

3. Claudia Denk, “‘Chardin n’est pas un peintre d’histoire, mais c’est un grand homme’: Les autoportraits tardifs de Jean-Siméon Chardin,” in L’art et les normes sociales au XVIIIe siècle, eds. Thomas W. Gaehtgens, et al. (Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, 2001), 279–312. For shifting representational modes in portraiture and their relationship to the status of the artist, see Hannah Williams, Académie Royale: A History in Portraits (Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2015).

4. Nathalie Heinich, Du Peintre à l’artiste artisans et académiciens à l’âge classique (Paris: Les Ed. de Minuit, 1993); Heinich, L’Élite artiste: Excellence et singularité en régime démocratique (Paris: Gallimard, 2005).

5. Thierry Laugée, Figures du génie dans l’art français (1802–1855) (Paris: Presses de l’université Paris–Sorbonne, 2016).

6. On Europe’s eighteenth-and nineteenth-century art market and its relationship to the signature of the artist, see Charlotte Guichard, La Griffe du peintre: La valeur de l’art (1730–1820), L’univers Historique (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 2018); Patrick Michel, Le commerce du tableau à Paris dans la seconde moitié du XVIIIe siècle: Acteurs et pratiques (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion, 2007); Patrick Michel, Peinture et plaisir: Les goûts picturaux des collectionneurs parisiens au XVIIIe siècle (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2010); Burton B. Fredericksen, “Survey of the French Art Market Between 1789 and 1820,” in Collections et marché de l’art en France 1789–1848, eds. Monica Preti Hamard and Philippe Sénéchal (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2006), 19–34.

7. Alain Bonnet and France Nerlich, eds., Apprendre à peindre: Les ateliers privés à Paris, 1780–1863 (Tours, France: Presses universitaires François-Rabelais, 2013).

8. Pierre Bourdieu, “The Production of Belief: Contribution to an Economy of Symbolic Goods,” in The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. Randal Johnson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 74.

9. A few librarians and art amateurs published initial studies of art-world satire in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. See Charles-Philippe de Chennevières-Pointel, Portraits inédits d’artistes français (Paris: Vigneres, Rapilly, 1852); Thomas Arnauldet, Notes sur les estampes satiriques bouffonnes ou singulières relatives a l’art et aux artistes francais pendant les XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (J. Claye, 1859); André Blum, L’Estampe satirique et la caricature en France au 18e siècle (Paris: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1910); Prosper Dorbec, “La peinture Française, de 1750 à 1820, jugée par le factum, la chanson et la caricature,” Gazette des beaux arts 56 (1914): 69–160; Dorbec, “La peinture au temps du Romantisme, jugée par le factum, la chanson et la caricature,” Gazette des beaux arts 60 (1918): 273–95. Most recently, art-world caricature has been recommended as a topic ripe for study; see Laurent Baridon and Martial Guédron, “Caricaturer l’art: usages et fonctions de la parodie,” in L’Art de la caricature, ed. Ségolène Le Men, Les Arts en cor respondance (Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest, 2011), 87–108.

10. Where individual works of art-world satire have, very rarely, been included in scholarly work, they have primarily served an illustrative purpose in support of a separate topic of study. A few examples include Thomas E. Crow, Painters and Public Life in 18th-Century Paris (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985), 7–11; Pierre Georgel and Anne-Marie Lecoq, La Peinture dans la peinture (Paris: Adam Biro, 1987), exhibition catalog; Ewa Lajer-Burcharth, Necklines: The Art of Jacques-Louis David after the Terror (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999), 221, 249; Eva Bouillo, Le Salon de 1827: Classique ou romantique? (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2009), 10, 23.

11. Philippe Kaenel, Le Métier d’illustrateur (1830–1880): Rodolphe Töpffer, J.-J. Grandville, Gustave Doré (Geneva: Droz, 2005).

12. My use of the term “panoramic fiction” is shared by Martina Lauster. Walter Benjamin first gave the genre this name in 1935. See Martina Lauster, Sketches of the Nineteenth Century: European Journalism and Its Physiologies, 1830–50 (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007); Walter Benjamin, “Paris, the Capital of the Nineteenth Century. Exposé of 1935,” in The Arcades Project, ed. Rolf Tiedemann, trans. Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin, 1st English edition (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002), 5.

13. Howard Saul Becker, Art Worlds, 25th anniversary ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 34.

14. Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production.

15. I use “world” simply because it sounds much more natural to the Anglophone ear than “field” or champ. This book is deeply indebted to Bourdieu, “The Field of Cultural Production, or The Economic World Reversed,” in The Field of Cultural Production, 29–73.

16. Erika Schneider’s work on the struggling artist in America acknowledges that French bohemianism was responsible for the trope. See Erika Schneider, The Representation of the Struggling Artist in America, 1800–1865 (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2015), 3.

17. “Inglorious artist,” “struggling artist,” and “starving artist” are largely used interchangeably throughout this text.

18. Kathryn Desplanque, “A Physiology of the Inglorious Artist in Early Nineteenth-Century Paris,” in The Mediatization of the Artist, eds. Sandra Kisters and Rachel Esner (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 197–214.

19. Séverine Sofio, Artistes femmes: La parenthèse enchantée, XVIIIe–XIXe siècles (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2016); Paris Amanda Spies-Gans, “Exceptional, but Not Exceptions: Public Exhibitions and the Rise of the Woman Artist in London and Paris, 1760–1830,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 51, no. 4 (July 28, 2018): 393–416; Paris A. Spies-Gans, A Revolution on Canvas: The Rise of Women Artists in London and Paris, 1760–1830 (London: Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, 2022).

20. In his investigation of parody as a form of satirical transformation in French literature, Daniel Sangsue provides helpful definitions of a variety of satirical transformations, including pastiche, burlesque, and parody. See Daniel Sangsue, La Parodie (Paris: Hachette, 1994), especially 22–26; Ivo Nieuwenhuis, “Enlightenment Subverted: Parody as Social Criticism in Pieter van Woensel’s Lantaarn,” in The Power of Satire, eds. Marijke Meijer Drees and Sonja de Leeuw (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2015), 217–34.

21. Heinich, Du Peintre à l’artiste; Heinich, L’Élite artiste.

22. Heinich, Du Peintre à l’artiste, 33–34.

23. Paul Oskar Kristeller, “The Modern System of the Arts: A Study in the History of Aesthetics Part I,” Journal of the History of Ideas 12, no. 4 (1951): 496–527; Kristeller, “The Modern System of the Arts: A Study in the History of Aesthetics (II),” Journal of the History of Ideas 13, no. 1 (1952): 17–46; Annie Becq, Genèse de l’esthétique française moderne: De la raison classique à l’imagination créatrice, 1680–1814, 2 vols., Evolution de l’humanité 9 (Paris: Albin Michel, 1994).

24. Karen-edis Barzman, The Florentine Academy and the Early Modern State: The Discipline of Disegno (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

25. Christian Michel, L’Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture (1648–1793): La naissance de l’École française (Geneva: Librarie Droz, 2012).

26. Williams, Académie Royale.

27. Jean Chatelus, Peindre à Paris au XVIIIe siècle (Nîmes, France: Editions J. Chambon, 1991), 224–25; Aileen Ribeiro, The Art of Dress: Fashion in England and France 1750 to 1820 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995).

28. Heinich, L’Élite artiste; George Levitine, “The Eighteenth-Century Rediscovery of Alexis Grimou and the Emergence of the Proto-Bohemian Image of the French Artist,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 2, no. 1 (1968): 58–76; Levitine, “Les origines du mythe de l’artiste bohème en France: Lantara,” Gazette des beaux-arts 6, no. 86 (1975): 49–60.

29. Alain Bonnet, L’enseignement des arts au XIXe siècle: La réforme de l’École des beauxarts de 1863 et la fin du modèle académique (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2006); Bonnet, Artistes en groupe: La représentation de la communauté des artistes dans la peinture du XIXe siècle (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2007); Anthony Glinoer and Vincent Laisney, L’Âge des cénacles. Confraternités littéraires et artistiques au XIXe siècle (Paris: Fayard, 2013); Bonnet and Nerlich, eds., Apprendre à peindre.

30. Heinich, L’Élite artiste, 147–97, 211.

31. Francis Haskell, “The Old Masters in Nineteenth-Century French Painting,” in Past and Present in Art and Taste: Selected Essays (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), 90–116; Bonnet, Artistes en groupe; Alain Bonnet and Laurent Tamanini, eds., L’artiste en représentation: Images des artistes dans l’art du XIXe siècle (Lyon, France: Fage, 2012); Laugée, Figures du génie dans l’art français; Mary Gluck, Popular Bohemia: Modernism and Urban Culture in Nineteenth-Century Paris (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).

32. Laugée, Figures du génie dans l’art français, 11–22. See also Becq, Genèse de l’esthétique française moderne; Mary D. Sheriff, Fragonard: Art and Eroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).

33. Laugée, Figures du génie dans l’art français (1802–1855), 42. Laugée’s study acknowledges that this newfound definition of genius began to develop in the late eighteenth century. See also Christian Michel, Le célèbre Watteau (Geneva: Droz, 2008).

34. Laugée, Figures du génie dans l’art français (1802–1855), 217–45; 272–79.

35. Ribeiro, The Art of Dress, 83–85.

36. George Levitine, The Dawn of Bohemianism: The Barbu Rebellion and Primitivism in Neoclassical France (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978), 55–67.

37. Jerrold E. Seigel, Bohemian Paris: Culture, Politics, and the Boundaries of Bourgeois Life, 1830–1930 (New York: Viking, 1986); Elizabeth Wilson, Bohemians: The Glamorous Outcasts (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000); Gluck, Popular Bohemia.

38. Gluck, Popular Bohemia, 28–32. For more on bourgeois fashion, see Philippe Perrot, Fashioning the Bourgeoisie: A History of Clothing in the Nineteenth Century, trans. Richard Bienvenu (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994).

39. Auguste Jal, “Les Soirées d’artistes,” in Paris, ou le livre des cent-et-un, 15 vols. (Paris: Ladvocat, Libraire, 1831), 1: 109–45.

40. For an account of the intellectual history of aestheticism and its relationship to art social, see Neil McWilliam, “Introduction,” in Dreams of Happiness: Social Art and the French Left, 1830–1850 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 3–30.

41. This is especially evident in Chapter 2, “Freedom and the Social Function of the Artist,” in Oskar Bätschmann, The Artist in the Modern World (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997); Martin Warnke, The Court Artist: On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist, trans. David McLintock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

42. Warnke, The Court Artist, xiii.

43. Bätschmann, The Artist in the Modern World, 58–80.

44. Fernand Braudel, The Wheels of Commerce: Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th Century, trans. Siân Reynolds, vol. 2 (New York: Harper & Row, 1982); Larry Neal, The Rise of Financial Capitalism: International Capital Markets in the Age of Reason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Jürgen Kocka and Marcel van der Linden, eds., Capitalism: The Reemergence of a Historical Concept (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016).

45. Neil McWilliam, “Art, Labour and Mass Democracy: Debates on the Status of the Artist in France Around 1848,” Art History 11, no. 1 (1988): 64–87; Ben Davis, 9.5 Theses on Art and Class (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2013); Martin Myrone, Making the Modern Artist: Culture, Class and Art-Educational Opportunity in Romantic Britain (London: Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, 2020).

46. Bamber Gascoigne, How to Identify Prints: A Complete Guide to Manual and Mechanical Processes from Woodcut to Inkjet (New York: Thames & Hudson, 2004); Antony Griffiths, Prints and Printmaking: An Introduction to the History and Techniques, 2nd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010); Griffiths, The Print before Photography: An Introduction to European Printmaking, 1550–1820 (London: The British Museum Press, 2016).

47. Patricia Mainardi is especially attentive to this lacuna in Another World, structuring the book around a core set of image formats. See Mainardi, Another World: Nineteenth-Century Illustrated Print Culture (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017).

48. While the Maison Aubert and Charles Philipon figure in almost any study on July Monarchy caricature and illustration, there are only a few studies that concentrate on the publishers and their enterprise. See Mainardi, Another World, 55–71; James B. Cuno, “Charles Philipon and La Maison Aubert: The Business, Politics, and Public of Caricature in Paris, 1820–1840” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1985); David S. Kerr, Caricature and French Political Culture 1830–1848: Charles Philipon and the Illustrated Press (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

49. Antoine de Baecque, La Caricature révolutionnaire (Paris: Presses du CNRS, 1988); Claude Langlois, La Caricature contre-révolutionnaire (Paris: Presses du CNRS, 1988); Claudette Hould and James A Leith, eds., Iconographie et image de la Révolution française (Montréal: Association canadienne-française pour l’avancement des sciences, 1990); James B. Cuno, ed., French Caricature and the French Revolution, 1789–1799 (Los Angeles: Grunwald Center for the Graphic Arts, Wight Art Gallery, University of California, Los Angeles; Distributed by the University of Chicago Press, 1988), exhibition catalog; Philippe Bordes and Régis Michel, eds., Aux armes & aux arts! Les arts de la révolution, 1789–1799 (Paris: Adam Biro, 1988); Claudette Hould, ed., L’Image de la révolution française (Québec: Musée du Québec, 1989); Michel Vovelle, La Révolution française: Images et récit, 1789–1799, 5 vols. (Paris: Livre club Diderot/Messidor, 1986). In the early 2000s, Revolutionary caricature was revisited and recontextualized among visual culture more generally in the following studies: Joan B. Landes, Visualizing the Nation: Gender, Representation, and Revolution in Eighteenth-Century France (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001); Rolf Reichardt, Visualizing the Revolution: Politics and Pictorial Arts in Late Eighteenth-Century France (London: Reaktion, 2008); Reichardt, “The French Revolution as a European Media Event,” in European History Online, ed. Wolfgang Schmale, trans. Christopher Reid (Mainz, Germany: Leibniz Institute of European History, August 27, 2012), http://www.ieg-ego.eu/reichardtr-2010-en.

50. Griselda Pollock, “Thinking Sociologically: Thinking Aesthetically. Between Convergence and Difference with Some Historical Reflections on Sociology and Art History,” History of the Human Sciences 20, no. 2 (2007): 141–75.

51. For an exploration of eighteenth-century portrait charges, see Jessica Lynn Fripp, “Caricature, Pedagogy, and Camaraderie at the French Academy in Rome, 1770–1775,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 53, no. 1 (Fall 2019): 43–67.

52. Fripp, “Caricature, Pedagogy, and Camaraderie”; Charlotte Guichard, “Connoisseurship: Art and Antiquities,” in The Saint-Aubin ‘Livre de Caricatures’: Drawing Satire in Eighteenth-Century Paris, eds. Colin Jones, Juliet Carey, and Emily Richardson, SVEC 6 (Oxford: University of Oxford, 2012).

53. Gluck, Popular Bohemia; Philippe Hamon, Imageries: Littérature et Image au XIXe Siècle, 2nd ed. (Paris: J. Corti, 2007).

54. Irina Rajewsky, “Intermediality, Intertextuality, and Remediation: A Literary Perspective on Intermediality,” Intermédialités: Histoire et Théorie Des Arts, Des Lettres et Des Techniques 6 (January 1, 2005): 43.

55. Werner Wolf provides his definition of transmediality, which he offers as a sub-category to Irina Rajewsky’s intermediality. See Wolf, “(Inter)Mediality and the Study of Literature,” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 13, no. 3 (September 1, 2011): 5.

56. Neil McWilliam, et al., A Bibliography of Salon Criticism in Paris from the Ancien Régime to the Restoration, 1699–1827 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Arlette Farge, Dire et mal dire: L’opinion publique au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Seuil, 1992); Richard Wrigley, The Origins of French Art Criticism: From the Ancien Régime to the Restoration (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993); Robert Darnton, The Forbidden Bestsellers of Pre-Revolutionary France (New York: W.W. Norton, 1995).

57. Physiognomies were a genre of illustrated pamphlet writing where authors invented and commented on urban social types in comedically sociological tones. See Benjamin, “Paris, the Capital of the Nineteenth Century. Exposé of 1935”; Judith Wechsler, A Human Comedy: Physiognomy and Caricature in 19th Century Paris (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); Vanessa R. Schwartz, Spectacular Realities: Early Mass Culture in Fin-de-Siècle Paris (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998); Lauster, Sketches of the Nineteenth Century. On the notion of the spectacle, see Guy Debord, La Société du spectacle (Paris: Buchet/Chastel, 1967).

58. Neil McWilliam, Vanessa Schwarz, Ségolène Le Men, and others have astutely pointed out that visual culture studies has its roots in the social history of art as practiced in the 1970s and 1980s, and actualizes some of the unfulfilled promises of that field by taking up feminist and postcolonial critiques of art historical study to work outside of, and indeed to critique, its canon. For recent reflections on the social history of art, see Neil McWilliam, “Vers une histoire de l’histoire sociale de l’art,” in Histoires sociales de l’art: Une anthologie critique, eds. Johanne Lamoureux, Neil McWilliam, and Constance Moréteau, trans. Jean Pietri, 2 vols. (Dijon: Presses du réel, 2016), 1: 13–39; Quentin Deluermoz, et al., “Le XIX sècle au prisme des visual studies: Entretien de Quentin Deluermoz et Emmanuel Fureix avec Manuel Charpy, Christian Joschke, Ségolène Le Men, Neil McWilliam, Vanessa Schwarz,” Revue d’histoire du XIXe siècle 49, no. 2 (2014): 139–75.

59. For a considered discussion of the status of those images valued for their “documentary” applications, see Richard Taws, The Politics of the Provisional: Art and Ephemera in Revolutionary France (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2013). On the history of the French National Library’s printed image and Qb collections, see Charles Poisson, Mémoire sur l’oeuvre historique de la ville de Paris (Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1867); Madeleine Dubois, Les origines du Musée Carnavalet: La formulation des collections et leur accroissement, 1870–1897, vol. 1 (Paris: Ecole du Louvre, 1947); Michel Hennin, Les Monuments de l’histoire de France: Catalogue des productions de la sculpture, de la peinture et de la gravure relatives à l’histoire de la France et des Français (Paris: J.F. Delion, 1856); Georges Duplessis, Inventaire de la collection d’estampes relatives à l’histoire de France léguée en 1863 à la Bibliothéque Nationale, vol. 1 (Paris: H. Menu, 1877), especially François-Louis Bruel’s “Introduction,” xvii–xxxvii; Paul-André Lemoisne, Les Collections historiques du Cabinet des Estampes (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1933).

60. Chennevières-Pointel, Portraits inédits d’artistes français.

61. Arnauldet, Notes sur les estampes satiriques

62. I am indebted to Rémi Mathis for his insights in attempting to determine the date of Kc 164’s constitution. Henri Bouchot, Le Cabinet des Estampes de la Bibliothèque nationale: Guide du lecteur et du visiteur catalogue général et raisonné des collections qui y sont conservées (Paris: E. Dentu, 1895), 189–90. For an epistolary history of the origin of the Département des Estampes’s call number series, see W. McAllister Johnson, ed., Hugues-Adrien Joly, Lettres à Karl-Heinrich von Heinecken. 1772–1789 (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1988). Bouchot later became the director of the Département des Estampes (1898–1906).

63. These articles have since been gathered together and are accessible as André Blum, L’Estampe satirique et la caricature en France au 18e siècle (Paris: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1910).

64. Dorbec, “La peinture Francaise” and “La peinture au temps du Romantisme.”

65. Baridon and Guédron, “Caricaturer l’art.”

66. My corpus includes exactly nine images published just after 1848.

67. On Salons caricatureaux, see Thierry Chabanne, Les Salons caricaturaux: Catalogue (Paris: Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1990); Yin-Hsuan Yang, “Les Premiers Salon caricaturaux au XIXe siècle,” in L’art de la caricature, ed. Ségolène Le Men, Les arts en correspondance (Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest, 2011), 53–72; Yang, “Les salons caricaturaux au XIXe siècle: Des origines à l’apogée” (PhD diss., Paris 10, 2012). Any Salons caricatureaux I found in my research were promptly handed off to Julia Langbein. See Langbein, Laugh Lines: Caricaturing Painting in Nineteenth-Century France (London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts, 2022).

68. I am indebted to Angela Zoss, data visualization librarian at Duke University, for recommending I use QDA software and for introducing me to Charlotte Clark from Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, who coached me in my use of the software.

69. See, for instance, the Library of Congress’s Thesaurus for Graphic Materials, 2007, https://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/tgm/, and the Getty Research Institute’s Art & Architecture Thesaurus Online, 2017, https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat.

70. Franco Moretti, Distant Reading (London: Verso, 2013). For additional thoughts on the methodological implications of distant looking in the digital humanities, see Kathryn Desplanque, “Cultural Evolutionary Modeling in the Data-Driven Humanities.” The Art Bulletin 106, no. 2 (April 2, 2024): 25–28.

71. Bruno Latour, “Visualisation and Cognition: Drawing Things Together,” in Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture, Past and Present, eds. Elizabeth Long and Henrika Kuklick (Greenwich, CT: Jai Press, 1986), 1–40.

72. Images and metadata will be available in the Carolina Digital Repository in perpetuity within the subcollection “Inglorious Artists” at https://doi.org/10.17615/3VX0-3R60. The Omeka S database will not be hosted by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in perpetuity. While it is hosted by this institution, it is available to consult at https://digitalresearch.lib.unc.edu/s/inglorious-artists.

73. I am indebted to Agnès Graceffa’s scholarship for my use of the term cursus honorum to refer to the artist’s path to success. See “Le Statut de l’artiste en France depuis la fin du Moyen Âge: Pluralité et fragilité,” in Vivre de son art: Histoire du statut de l’artiste, XVe–XXIe siècle, ed. Agnès Graceffa (Paris: Hermann Editeurs, 2012), 19.

74. Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production, 75.

75. On the legacy of these class relations in the contemporary art world, see Davis, 9.5 Theses on Art and Class.

76. Arjun Appadurai, “Introduction,” in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. Arjun Appadurai (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Tim Ingold, “Materials against Materiality,” Archaeological Dialogues 14, no. 1 (June 2007): 1–16.

1. “Gravure,” L’Avant Coureur, July 18, 1763, 460.

2. A bambochade is a small painting, drawing, or cast that portrays a grotesque or burlesque rural scene.

3. Though Jean Henri Marchand is largely forgotten now, his contemporary of a more renowned reputation but similar calling, Louis Sébastien Mercier, apparently admired his insights. See Jean-Henri Marchand, Voltairomania: L’avocat Jean-Henri Marchand face à Voltaire, ed. Anne-Sophie Barrovecchio (Saint-Étienne, France: Université de Saint-Etienne, 2004), 7. Jean-Henri Marchand, Tableaux d’un Poète, Poésies d’un Peintre, 41–43, accessed April 12, 2024, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k111795v.

4. “Gueux, Gueuse,” in Le Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 1st ed., 1694, https://artfl-project.uchicago.edu/content/dictionnaires-dautrefois; “Gueux, Euse,” in Dictionnaire de la Langue Française (Littré), Tome 2, 1873, https://artfl-project.uchicago.edu/content/dictionnaires-dautrefois.

5. This attribution is made in an 1850 sales catalog for the artist Jules Goddé (1812–1876). See Jules Goddé, Catalogue raisonné des livres, pièces et documents, mansucrits et autographes relatifs aux arts de peinture, sculpture, gravure, et architecture, traités, théoriques et pratique, histoire, biographies, ouvrages a figures, receuils d’estampes, costumes et ornements (Paris: L. Potier, 1850), 122.

6. Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. Randal Johnson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 35–43.

7. Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production, 43.

8. Christian Michel, L’Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture (1648–1793): La naissance de l’École française (Geneva: Librarie Droz, 2012), 22–24.

9. Michel, L’Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture, 25–26.

10. Jules Guiffrey, Histoire de l’Académie de Saint-Luc (Paris: Champion, 1915), 1–16. Bruno Guilois, “Le statut de l’artiste/artisan au début du XVIIIe siècle,” Billet, 124-Sorbonne. Carnet de l’École Doctorale d’Histoire de l’art et Archéologie (blog), accessed May 11, 2021, https://124revue.hypotheses.org/2394. Guilois’s dissertation on the Corporation des maîtres peintres and their Académie Saint-Luc will not be accessible to the public and will not be published until, unfortunately, after the publication of this book.

11. Karen-edis Barzman, The Florentine Academy and the Early Modern State: The Discipline of Disegno (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 23, 59.

12. Barzman, The Florentine Academy and the Early Modern State, 145–46; Paul Oskar Kristeller, “The Modern System of the Arts: A Study in the History of Aesthetics Part I,” Journal of the History of Ideas 12, no. 4 (1951): 469–527 (507–8).

13. While there are many excellent investigations of the notion of disegno in the visual arts, one of the most recent and thorough was recommended me by Mary Pardo, to whom I am deeply grateful. See Barzman, The Florentine Academy and the Early Modern State, 145.

14. Nathalie Heinich, Du Peintre à l’artiste artisans et académiciens à l’âge classique (Paris: Les Ed. de Minuit, 1993).

15. Natacha Coquery, “Les hôtels parisiens du XVIIIe siècle: Une approche des modes d’habiter,” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 38, no. 2 (1991): 205–30; Natacha Coquery, L’hôtel aristocratique: Le marché du luxe à Paris au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1998); Natacha Coquery, Tenir boutique à Paris au XVIIIe siècle: Luxe et demi-luxe (Paris: Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques, 2011).

16. Patrick Michel, Le commerce du tableau à Paris dans la seconde moitié du XVIIIe siècle: Acteurs et pratiques (Villeneuve d’Ascq, France: Presses universitaires du Septentrion, 2007), 25–36; Guillaume Glorieux, A l’enseigne de Gersaint: Edme-François Gersaint, marchand d’art sur le Pont Notre-Dame, 1694–1750 (Seyssel, France: Champ vallon, 2002).

17. Reed Benhamou, Public and Private Art Education in France: 1648–1793, vol. 308, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1993), 46–89.

18. Gérard-Georges Lemaire, Histoire du Salon de peinture (Paris: Klincksieck, 2004), 41.

19. Three vastly different dates have been given for the establishment of the Corporation’s drawing school, named the Académie de Saint-Luc. Guiffrey dates the Académie de Saint-Luc’s statutes to 1730 and 1738. Katie Scott more recently discovered that the Corporation was permitted to hold an academy on the liberal arts model from 1705. Most recently, Charlotte Guichard dates the drawing school to 1649. See: Guiffrey, Histoire de l’Académie de Saint-Luc, 20–28; Scott, “Hierarchy, Liberty and Order: Languages of Art and Institutional Conflict in Paris (1766–1776),” Oxford Art Journal 12, no. 2 (1989): 60; Guichard, “Arts libéraux et arts libres à Paris au XVIIIe siècle: Peintres et sculpteurs entre corporation et Académie royale,” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 49, no. 3 (2002): 56.

20. Séverine Sofio, Artistes femmes: La parenthèse enchantée, XVIIIe–XIXe siècles (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2016), 22–23. These privileges include exemptions from military service and from paying taxes d’industrie et de commerce. For a list of privileges, see Guichard, “Arts libéraux et arts libres à Paris au XVIIIe siècle,” 57–58.

21. Scott, “Hierarchy, Liberty and Order,” 61–64.

22. Scott, “Hierarchy, Liberty and Order,” 63, 67–68; Guichard, “Arts libéraux et arts libres à Paris au XVIIIe siècle,” 55.

23. Réponse au Mémoire relative à la Liberté des Arts de Peinture et Sculpture et observations sur le projet de Déclaration dressé en conséquence, [1775], A.N., O1 1927. For a rigorous and insightful analysis of this and other documents related to this conflict, see Scott, “Hierarchy, Liberty and Order,” 68.

24. James Farr’s scholarship is dedicated to exploring this in early modern Europe, and France in Particular: “Guilds and the Organization of Work,” in Artisans in Europe, 1300–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 20–32; The Work of France: Labor and Culture in Early Modern Times, 1350–1800 (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008).

25. Guichard, “Arts libéraux et arts libres à Paris au XVIIIe siècle.”

26. Steven L. Kaplan, La fin des corporations, trans. Béatrice Vierne (Paris: Fayard, 2001).

27. Déclaration du roi en faveur de l’Académie royale de Peinture & de Sculpture, 1777, Paris: Imprimerie Royale (AN AD VIII, 1). Sofio, Artistes femmes, 27.

28. Bourdieu, “The Production of Belief: Contribution to an Economy of Symbolic Goods,” in The Field of Cultural Production, 74–75.

29. Sofio, Artistes femmes, 24–25.

30. Jean-Claude Yon, Une histoire du théâtre à Paris: De la Révolution à la Grande Guerre, Collection Historique (Paris: Aubier, 2012), 11–13, 24–30.

31. Robert M. Isherwood, Farce and Fantasy: Popular Entertainment in Eighteenth-Century Paris (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).

32. Robert Isherwood, cited above, uses the Bakhtinian approach to the carnivalesque to resuscitate the théâtres du foire as important cultural phenomenon. He is followed by two rigorous studies on this phenomenon and its position in relation to official institutions. See David Trott, Théâtre du XVIIIe siècle: Jeux, écritures, regards (Montpellier: Editions espaces 34, 2000); Isabelle Martin, Le Théâtre de La Foire: Des tréteaux aux boulevards, vol. 10, SVEC 2002 (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2002).

33. Isherwood, Farce and Fantasy, 23l; Yon, Une histoire du théâtre à Paris, 12, 275–79, 293.

34. Trott, Théâtre du XVIIIe siècle: Jeux, écritures, regards, 137–82; Yon, Une histoire du théâtre à Paris, 13–14, 58–59, 291–94.

35. Yon, Une histoire du théâtre à Paris, 13–14.

36. On this topic, see Arlette Farge, Dire et mal dire: L’opinion publique au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Seuil, 1992); Robert Darnton, The Forbidden Bestsellers of Pre-Revolutionary France (New York: W.W. Norton, 1995).

37. Pierre Wachenheim, “Art et politique, langage pictural et sédition dans l’estampe sous la règne de Louis XV” (PhD diss., Université Paris 1, 2004), see especially 57–59.

38. As we will discuss below, Étienne La Font de Saint-Yenne was already bemoaning the decline of the French progrès des arts for twenty years, accusing the French art-world of having succumbed to private interests: La Font de Saint-Yenne, Réflexions sur quelques causes de l’état present de la Peinture en France: Avec un examen des principaux ouvrages exposés au Louvre le mois d’août 1746. (La Haye, 1747); La Font de Saint-Yenne, L’Ombre du grand Colbert, le Louvre et la ville de Paris, dialogue: Réflexions sur quelques causes de l’état présent de la peinture en France avec quelques lettres de l’auteur à ce sujet, 1752.

39. Barthélémy Jobert and Richard Wrigley, “The ‘Travaux d’encouragement’: An Aspect of Official Arts Policy in France under Louis XVI,” Oxford Art Journal 10, no. 1 (1987): 3–14.

40. The sale of the Salon’s livrets suggest a rapidly growing audience. See Udolpho van de Sandt, “Le Salon de l’Académie de 1759 à 1781,” in Diderot & l’Art de Boucher à David (Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985), 79–84, exhibition catalog.

41. Michel, Le commerce du tableau à Paris, 207–10.

42. Sofio, Artistes femmes, 45–46.

43. Laura Auricchio, “Pahin de La Blancherie’s Commercial Cabinet of Curiosity (1779–87),” Eighteenth-Century Studies 36, no. 1 (2002): 47–61; Sofio, Artistes femmes, 46–49.

44. Auricchio, “de La Blancherie’s Commercial Cabinet of Curiosity,” 48.

45. Christophe Charle, La Dérégulation culturelle: Essai d’histoire des cultures en Europe au XIXe siècle (Paris: Presse Universitaire de France, 2015), 65.

46. Michael Kwass, “Consumption and the World of Ideas: Consumer Revolution and the Moral Economy of the Marquis de Mirabeau,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 37, no. 2 (January 1, 2004): 187–213; Joëlle Raineau, “Le discours sur la décadence de la gravure de l’Ancien Régime à la Restauration,” in Interkulturelle Kommunikation in Der Europäischen Druck-graphik Im 18. Und 19. Jahrhundert/The European Print and Cultural Transfer in the 18th and 19th Centuries/Gravure et communication interculturelle en Europe aux 18e et 19e siècles, eds. Philippe Kaenel and Rolf Reichardt (Hildesheim, Germany: Olms, 2007).

47. Amongst these fourteen pieces of short pamphlet fiction, twelve are from Louis Sébastien Mercier’s lengthy Tableau de Paris.

48. Louis Anséaume, Le peintre amoureux de son modéle (Paris: Duchesne, 1757); Antoine-Alexandre-Henri Poinsinet, Gilles, garçon peintre, z’amoureux-t-et rival (Paris: Duchesne, 1758); Claude-Henri Watelet, La maison de campagne à la mode, ou La comédie d’après nature (Paris: Prault, 1784).

49. Bertrand Marret, Portraits de l’artiste en singe: Les singeries dans la peinture (Paris: Somogy éditions d’art, 2001): 59–66. For more on this, see my forthcoming contribution “The Monkey Artist and his Donkey Public: French Art-World Caricature, the Animal Menagerie, and the Digital Humanities,” in Romantic Beasts: Mundane and Magical Figures of Global Romanticism, eds. Christopher Clason and Michael Demson (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, forthcoming).

50. Deshay’s Le singe peintre, in the musée des Beaux-Arts of Rouen, is undated but was likely painted in the 1740s.

51. This image can be viewed in the Carolina Digital Repository at the permalink https://doi.org/10.17615/1hp3-pe92.

52. Deepest thanks to Lawrence Principe for his generosity in drawing my attention to these correspondences. See Lawrence Principe and Lloyd DeWitt, Transmutations—Alchemy in Art: Selected Works from the Eddleman and Fisher Collections at the Chemical Heritage Foundation (Philadelphia: Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2002); Principe, The Whole of Nature and the Mirror of Art: Images of Alchemy from the Roy G. Neville Historical Chemical Library (Philadelphia: Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2006); Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, Synthesis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013), 195–97; Simona Cohen, “Ars Simia Naturae: The Animal as Mediator and Alter Ego of the Artist in the Renaissance,” Explorations in Renaissance Culture 43 (December 9, 2017): 202–31.

53. On verse in French prints more broadly, see W. McAllister Johnson, Versified Prints: A Literary and Cultural Phenomenon in Eighteenth-Century France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012).

54. This verse appears in Watelet’s poem: Claude-Henri Watelet, L’art de peindre: Poëme; Avec des réflexions sur les différentes parties de la peinture (H. L. Guérin & L. F. Delatour, 1760), 5–6. Unless otherwise noted all translations are the author’s own. The lettering on the print indicates that this is a reproductive engraving that translates a painting by Delarue from the cabinet of le Chevalier de Damery (1723–1803). For more on the Chevalier de Damery’s collection and engravings after it, see W. McAllister Johnson, Véronique Meyer, and Stéphane Roy, “Le Chevalier Damery (1723–1803) et la gravure de collections privees en France au XVIIIe siecle,” Nouvelles de l’estampe, no. 223 (2009): 9–49.

55. Annie Becq, Genèse de l’esthétique française moderne: De la raison classique à l’imagination créatrice, 1680–1814, 2 vols., Evolution de l’humanité 9 (Paris: Albin Michel, 1994): 79–94.

56. Mercure de France. November 1743: 27.

57. A painting of the Spoëde caricature against Bolureau appeared on the private market at Collin du Bocage in Paris on the June 17, 2009, as Lot 33.

58. Trott, Théâtre du XVIIIe siècle: Jeux, écritures, regards, 161.

59. This image can be viewed in the Carolina Digital Repository at the permalink https://doi.org/10.17615/ezdc-gx57.

60. Richard Wrigley, The Origins of French Art Criticism: From the Ancien Régime to the Restoration (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).

61. Saint-Yenne, Réflexions sur quelques causes de l’état present de la Peinture en France; Saint-Yenne, L’Ombre du grand Colbert, le Louvre et la ville de Paris, dialogue.

62. Thomas E. Crow, Painters and Public Life in 18th-Century Paris (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985), 8–9; Melissa Lee Hyde, Making up the Rococo: François Boucher and His Critics (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2006), 136–37.

63. On the tree of Cracow and its role in eighteenth-century gossip mongering, see Robert Darnton, “An Early Information Society: News and the Media in Eighteenth-Century Paris,” The American Historical Review 105, no. 1 (2000): 1–35.

64. On physiognomy as an indicator of moral character and virtue in graphic satire see Laurent Baridon and Martial Guédron, Corps et arts: physionomies et physiologie dans les arts visuels (Paris: Harmattan, 1999); Baridon and Guédron, Homme animal: Histoires d’une face à face (Paris: Musées de Strasbourg, 2004).

65. Entry 0123 and 0125 in Neil McWilliam et al., A Bibliography of Salon Criticism in Paris from the Ancien Régime to the Restoration, 1699–1827 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 37. Charles-Nicolas Cochin, Les Misotechnites aux enfers, ou Examen des observations sur les arts, par une société (Amsterdam, 1763). For a complete analysis of Cochin’s arguments in his satirical text, see Stéphane Peltier, “Les Misotechnites aux enfers ou l’imposture de la critique selon Charles-Nicolas Cochin,” in L’invention de la critique d’art, eds. Pierre-Henry Frangne and Jean-Marc Poinsot (Rennes, France: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2002), 107–20.

66. Both Thomas Crow and Richard Wrigley’s work have established the terms of this debate about the art critic as representative of the public, and how these claims to possessing a goût naturel were contested. Crow, Painters and Public Life, 11–22; Wrigley, The Origins of French Art Criticism, 97–119.

67. Academicians from the Académie royale and the Académie Saint-Luc both secured exemptions to carry marks of nobility on them. See Jean Chatelus, Peindre à Paris au XVIIIe siècle (Nîmes, France: Editions J. Chambon, 1991), 224–25.

68. Louis Sébastien Mercier, “Vente de Tableaux,” in Tableau de Paris; Nouvelle édition, Corrigée & augmentée, vol. 10 (Amsterdam, 1788), 80.

69. Mercier, “Vente de Tableaux,” 85; Mercier, “Ecole gratuite de Dessin,” in Tableau de Paris, 10: 99. The École gratuite was a private institution founded by Jean-Jacques Bachelier in 1766 to teach artisans to draw as a basis for craft applications. For more, see Benhamou, Public and Private Art Education in France, 308:13–42.

70. Louis Sébastien Mercier, “Les Greniers,” in Tableau de Paris; Nouvelle édition, Corrigée & augmentée, vol. 1, Part 1 (Amsterdam, 1783), 6. By the tenth volume of the new edition of Le Tableau de Paris, Dunker’s engravings had been published. Mercier makes clear his disapproval of these engravings. Referring only to a Swiss engraving endeavor, he calls them “les plus plates & les plus discordantes [ . . . ] un soufflet aux beaux-arts” (the flattest and most discordant [ . . . ] a blow to the fine arts), Mercier, “Graveurs,” in Tableau de Paris, 10: 97.

71. Louis Sébastien Mercier, “Oisifs,” in Tableau de Paris; Nouvelle édition, Corrigée & augmentée, vol. 1, Part 2 (Amsterdam, 1782), 233–34; Louis Sébastien Mercier, “Sallon de Peinture,” in Tableau de Paris; Nouvelle édition, Corrigée & augmentée, vol. 5 (Amsterdam, 1782), 319–20.

72. Louis Sébastien Mercier, “Peintres en Portraits,” in Tableau de Paris; Nouvelle édition, Corrigée & augmentée, vol. 6, 12 vols. (Amsterdam, 1782), 14–17.

73. Louis Sébastien Mercier, “Tableaux, Dessins, Estampes, &c.,” in Tableau de Paris; Nouvelle édition, Corrigée & augmentée, vol. 4, 12 vols. (Amsterdam, 1782), 54–57; Mercier, “Vente de Tableaux.”

74. R. de S.J. Pingebat, “Abjuration d’un Vieux Peintre,” in Tableaux d’un Poète, Poésies d’un Peintre (Pittorescofolis: J.-H. Marchand, 1771), 41–43.

75. de S.J. Pingebat, “Abjuration d’un Vieux Peintre,” 41.

76. Johann Caspar Lavater, Essai sur la physiognomie: Destiné a faire connoître l’Homme & à le faire Aimer, 4 vols. (Hague: Jaques van Karnebeek, 1781–1803); Baridon and Guédron, Corps et arts: Physionomies et physiologie dans les arts visuels.

77. Reed Benhamou, Regulating the Académie: Art, Rules and Power in Ancien Régime France (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2009), 35 fn 144; Sofio, Artistes femmes, 105.

78. Vincent Milliot, Les “Cris de Paris”, ou, Le peuple travesti: Les représentations des petits métiers parisiens (XVIe–XVIIIe siècles), Histoire moderne 30 (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1995).

79. Bonnart’s Revandeuse can be viewed on Gallica at the permalink: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8407149t. Milliot only briefly mentions the frequently caricatural faces of criers in Cris de Paris, 176. Lavater’s writings were available to French audiences before their first translation. In that translation, interrupted by the French Revolution, most of Lavater’s reflections on the moral inferences we can draw from different forms of ugliness can be found in his Essai sur la physiognomie: Destiné a faire connoître l’Homme & à le faire Aimer (Hague: Jaques van Karnebeek, 1803), 4: 3–17.

80. Guillaume-René Le Fébure, Le Connoisseur (Geneva: D’Houry, 1773); Antoine-Louis Rouillé, Le Connoisseur (Paris: Emmanuel Flon, 1789); Benoit-Joseph Marsollier des Vivetères, Le Connoisseur (Paris: Brunet, 1793).

81. For more on the Assemblée de Brocanteurs image see Kathryn Desplanque, “Repeat Offenders: Reprinting Visual Satire Across France’s Long Eighteenth Century,” RACAR 40, no. 1 (2015): 17–26. For an analysis of the donkey as ignorance in emblem books, see Desplanque, “A Satirical Image against Jean-Baptiste Greuze: Celebrity, Printmaking, and the Public Woman,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 50, no. 1 (2016): 32–34.

82. Chapeau bras translates literally to hat arm and refers to a hat designed to be compressed and held under the arm.

83. For a thorough investigation of Le Brun’s career see Fabienne Camus, “Jean Baptiste Pierre Le Brun: Peintre et marchand de tableaux (16 février 1748–7 août 1813)” (PhD diss., Université Paris–Sorbonne, 2000).

84. This image can be viewed in the Waddeson Manor image library as item 675.293 at the permalink https://waddesdon.org.uk/the-collection/item/?id=17189. Charlotte Guichard makes this identification. See Guichard, “Connoisseurship: Art and Antiquities,” in The Saint-Aubin ‘Livre de Caricatures’: Drawing Satire in Eighteenth-Century Paris, eds. Colin Jones, Juliet Carey, and Emily Richardson, SVEC 6 (Oxford: University of Oxford, 2012), 283–300. For more on Pierre-Jean Mariette’s diverse activities, see Kristel Smentek, Mariette and the Science of the Connoisseur in Eighteenth-Century Europe (Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2014).

85. La confession publique du brocanteur (Amsterdam, 1776).

86. La confession publique du brocanteur, 27–29.

87. La confession publique du brocanteur, 29–32.

88. La confession publique du brocanteur, 6.

89. Charlotte Guichard, Les Amateurs d’art à Paris au XVIIIe siècle (Seyssel, France: Champ Vallon, 2008), 23–52.

90. François Charles Joullain, Réflexions sur la peinture et la gravure (Metz: C. Lamort, 1786); Raineau, “Le Discours Sur La Décadence de La Gravure de l’Ancien Régime à La Restauration.”

91. Desplanque, “A Satirical Image against Jean-Baptiste Greuze.” I will forever be indebted to Stéphane Roy for exposing me to this image, which ultimately launched my interest in graphic satire. And to W. McAllister Johnson, who collected this image, made it accessible, and generously donated much of his research to me to assist a young graduate student with her first publication.

92. Kathryn Desplanque, “Following the Print Trail of Jean-Baptiste Greuze: Reputation, Representation, and the Print Market in Late Eighteenth-Century Paris,” (MA thesis, Carleton University, 2011).

93. William H. Sewell, Work and Revolution in France: The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 162–93; Michael Sonenscher, Work and Wages: Natural Law, Politics, and the Eighteenth-Century French Trades (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); Cynthia Maria Truant, The Rites of Labor: Brotherhoods of Compagnonnage in Old and New Regime France (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994).

94. Emma Rothschild, Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet, and the Enlightenment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001); William H. Sewell, Capitalism and the Emergence of Civic Equality in Eighteenth-Century France, Chicago Studies in Practices of Meaning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021); Michael Kwass, The Consumer Revolution, 1650–1800, Euro New Approaches to European History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2022).

1. Thank you to Maria Ruvoldt for assisting me in deciphering the iconography of this bas relief.

2. Pas-Tenté translates literally to “Not-Attempted,” but is a play on the word patente, which meant license.

3. Stéphane Roy, “Un Aspect méconnu de la gravure révolutionnaire: L’oeuvre et les activités de Paul-André Basset, éditeur et marchand d’estampes Parisien (1789–1794)” (MA thesis, Université de Québec à Montréal, 1995), 47; Bertrand Tillier, A la Charge! La caricature en France de 1789 à 2000 (Paris: Editions de l’Amateur, 2005), 150.

4. Antoine de Baecque, La Caricature révolutionnaire (Paris: Presses du CNRS, 1988), 25. A 1978 dissertation on loose-leaf popular imagery in the eighteenth century briefly segues from its preference for images with artist or publisher indicated to treat anonymous engravings, and through a comparison in dictionaries of publishers, estimates that 147 French publishers were only publishing anonymous works. She indicates many of these were anonymous works were satirical. Danielle Lambalais-Vuianovith, “Etude quantitative des thèmes traités dans l’image volante française au XVIIIe siècle” (PhD, Université de Paris IV–Sorbonne, 1978), 252–70.

5. Philippe Bordes, La Révolution par la gravure (Vizille: Musée de la Révolution française, 2002); Rolf Reichardt, “Contemporary Images of Revolutionary Change,” in Visualizing the Revolution: Politics and Pictorial Arts in Late Eighteenth-Century France (London: Reaktion, 2008); Richard Taws, The Politics of the Provisional: Art and Ephemera in Revolutionary France (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2013). On these two publishers, see Stéphane Roy, “Un Aspect méconnu de la gravure révolutionnaire: L’oeuvre et les activités de Paul-André Basset, éditeur et marchand d’estampes Parisien (1789–1794)”; Pierre Casselle, “Pierre-François Basan, marchand d’estampes à Paris (1723–1797),” Paris et Ile-de-France Mémoires 33 (1982): 98–185.

6. Claude Langlois, La Caricature contre-révolutionnaire (Paris: Presses du CNRS, 1988), 7–13.

7. For accounts of these debates within the Académie, see Séverine Sofio, Artistes femmes: La parenthèse enchantée, XVIIIe–XIXe siècles (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2016), 111–50; Christian Michel, L’Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture (1648–1793): La naissance de l’École française (Geneva: Librarie Droz, 2012), 132–46; Claudette Hould, “Les Beaux-arts en révolution: Au bruit des armes les arts se taisent!,” Etudes françaises 25, no. 2–3 (1989); Françoise Waquet, “La Bastille académique,” in La Carmagnole des muses: L’homme de lettres et l’artiste dans la Révolution, ed. Jean-Claude Bonnet (Paris: Armand Colin, 1988).

8. Hould, “Les Beaux-arts en révolution,” 195–96.

9. Sofio, Artistes femmes, 113, 115.

10. On d’Angivillier’s efforts to establish a national museum in 1777, see Andrew McClellan, Inventing the Louvre, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 49–90.

11. Udolpho van de Sandt, “Institutions et concours,” in Aux armes & aux arts! Les arts de la révolution, 1789–1799, ed. Philippe Bordes and Régis Michel (Paris: Adam Biro, 1988), 141–42.

12. Jean-François Heim, Claire Béraud, and Philippe Heim, Les Salons de peinture de la Révolution française, 1789–1799 (Paris: C.A.C. Sarl., 1989), 38.

13. Katie Scott, Becoming Property: Art, Theory and Law in Early Modern France (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), 281–304.

14. Heim, Béraud, and Heim, Les Salons de peinture de la Révolution française, 1789–1799, 45.

15. van de Sandt, “Institutions et concours,” 141.

16. Sofio, Artistes femmes, 127–31; Hould, “Les Beaux-arts en révolution,” 194–97.

17. Annie Jourdan and Annie Becq point out the many discursive valences of this public-private divide. See Jourdan, Les monuments de la révolution, 1770–1804: Une histoire de représentation (Toronto: Champion; Slatkine, 1997), 292–94; Becq, “Artistes et marché,” in La Carmagnole des muses: L’homme de lettres et l’artiste dans la Révolution, ed. Jean-Claude Bonnet (Paris: Armand Colin, 1988), 90.

18. For a full account of the concours and artists’ submissions, see Jourdan, Les monuments de la révolution, 327–96.

19. Jourdan, Les monuments de la révolution, 397–419.

20. Edouard Pommier, “Les Arts en Révolution, ou le patrimoine de la Liberté,” in Le progrès des arts réunis, 1763–1815: Mythe culturel des origines de la Révolution à la fin de l’Empire, ed. Daniel Rabreau and Bruno Tollon (Pessac, France: CERCAM, Université Michel de Montaigne, Université de Toulouse Le Mirail, 1992), 3–4.

21. Jean-Claude Yon, Une histoire du théâtre à Paris: De la Révolution à la Grande Guerre (Paris: Aubier, 2012) 13–14, 33–49.

22. François-Pierre-Auguste Léger, Nicaise, Peintre (Paris: Cailleau, 1793); Jacques-André Jacquelin and A.-M. Lafortelle, Le Peintre dans son ménage (Paris: Fages, 1799).

23. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are the author’s own. Jacquelin and Lafortelle, Le Peintre dans son ménage, 12.

24. Fabre d’Eglantine, Philippe-François-Nazaire, L’intrigue épistolaire, 2nd ed. (Paris: Moutardier, 1802); Pierre-Yves Barré, et al., Le peintre français à Londres (Paris: Mlle Masson, 1802); Benoit Pelletier-Volméranges, Clémence et Waldémar ou Le peintre par amour (Paris: Barba, 1803). Clémence et Waldémar does not indicate where the play was staged, which would help to indicate the audience it was destined for.

25. Fabre d’Eglantine, L’intrigue épistolaire, 44.

26. This play, staged and published in 1803, predates Antoine-Jean Gros’s famous 1806 painting, Bataille d’Aboukir, 25 juillet 1799, which can be seen at Versailles. Barré, et al., Le peintre français à Londres, 23–25.

27. François-Pierre-Auguste Léger, René de Chazet, Emmanuel Dupaty, and Noël Aubin, Le déménagement du sallon, ou Le portrait de Gilles (Libraire au Théâtre du Vaudeville, 1798); Michel-Nicolas Balisson de Rougement, and Charles-François-Jean-Baptiste Moreau de Commagny, Les portraits au Salon, ou Le mariage imprévu (Barba, 1801); Joseph Ernest Sutton de Clonard, Croutinet, ou Le salon de Montargis (Fages, 1802).

28. Léger, et al., Le déménagement du sallon, ou Le portrait de Gilles, 43–44.

29. Balisson de Rougement and Moreau de Commagny, Les portraits au Salon, ou Le mariage imprévu, 3.

30. Sutton de Clonard, Croutinet, ou Le salon de Montargis, 13–14.

31. On the political and satirical valences of Revolutionary dress, see Richard Wrigley, The Politics of Appearances: Representation of Dress in Revolutionary France (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

32. On Marie Antoinette’s representation as a monster, see Chantal Thomas, “The Female Monster,” in The Wicked Queen: The Origins of the Myth of Marie-Antoinette, trans. Julie Rose (New York: Zone Books, 1999), 105–36.

33. Though the image is undated and its subject matter suggests it should be an Imperial or Restoration image, the letter states that it was D. à la Direction gl. (deposited to the Direction générale), an abbreviation only used from 1795 to 1799. Antony Griffiths, Prints and Printmaking: An Introduction to the History and Techniques (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010), 134.

34. Philippe Kaenel points out that artists generally did not self-identify as illustrators nor did that exist as a professional category until well into the nineteenth century. See Kaenel, Le Métier d’illustrateur (1830–1880): Rodolphe Töpffer, J.-J. Grandville, Gustave Doré (Geneva: Droz, 2005), 139.

35. Literally translated, a “coup de feu” is a gunshot. Idiomatically, it can be used to refer to a period of intense activity.

36. Portraiture operates as deus ex machina in the following Revolutionary, Directory, and Consulate plays: Léger, et al., Le déménagement du sallon, ou Le portrait de Gilles; Balisson de Rougement and Moreau de Commagny, Les portraits au Salon, ou Le mariage imprévu; Sutton de Clonard, Croutinet, ou Le salon de Montargis; Pelletier-Volméranges, Clémence et Waldémar ou Le peintre par amour.

37. This likely imagines the Apollo Belvedere in its placement in the Vatican Museum. Shortly thereafter, it was taken to Paris after Napoleon Bonaparte’s spoliation of Rome and returned to Rome again fifteen years later.

38. The sitter, who has dozed off nearby, seems to have let a piece of art criticism fall to his feet. The periodical, Nouvelles des Arts, was published by Charles-Paul Landon from 1801 to 1805.

39. On this topic, see Edouard Pommier, “De l’art libéral à l’art de la Liberté: Le débat sur la patente des artistes sous la Révolution et ses antécédents dans l’ancienne théorie de l’art,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire de l’art français / Société de l’histoire de l’art français (1993): 147–67. Katie Jarvis provides an excellent overview of the patente laws and is primarily interested in how they impacted the Dame des Halles in “Commercial Licenses as Political Contracts: Working Out Autonomy and Economic Citizenship,” in Politics in the Marketplace: Work, Gender, and Citizenship in Revolutionary France (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 201–29. Thank you to Michael Kwass for his insight and guidance around the patente, commerce, and debates around luxe.

40. Pommier, “De l’art libéral à l’art de la Liberté,” 147–48.

41. Auguste Renou, Adresse à l’Assemblée Nationale, Relativement aux Patentes pour les Lettres, les Sciences & Beaux-Arts (1792).

42. Some of these printed reports include: Claude Larmagnac, Rapport fait par Larmagnac, Député de Saone et Loire sur la résolution du 28 frimaire, relative aux Patentes des Médecins, Chirurgiens, Peintres, etc. (Imprimeria nationale, 1796); Jean-Baptiste Crenière, Opinion de Créniere sur la résolution tendante à exempter du droit de patente les Officiers de santà jadis connus sous les noms de Médecins et Chirurgiens, et les Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs et Architectes (Imprimerie nationale, 1796); Jean-Barthélemy Le Couteulx-Canteleu, Opinion de Lecouteulx-Canteleu, sur la Résolution du Conseil des Cinq-Cents relative aux Patentes (Imprimerie nationale, 1796).

43. Quatremère de Quincy, Rapport fait par Quatremère au nom d’une commission spéciale, sur l’exemption du droit de patente en faveur des Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs & Architectes (Imprimerie nationale, 1797).

44. I am here using “distinction” in the sense that Pierre Bourdieu elaborates in his seminal book. See Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987). Bourdieu discusses how “art business” operates on pre-capitalist logic via a series of negations and disavowals of the economic in his essay “The Production of Belief: Contribution to an Economy of Symbolic Goods,” in The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. Randal Johnson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 74–111.

45. Jarvis, “Commercial Licenses as Political Contracts.”

46. This licensing system continued in France until 1914 when income tax replaced it.

47. This exemption was revoked in 1795 and partially reinstated after complaints in 1797. Jarvis, “Commercial Licenses as Political Contracts,” 208–10.

48. Renou, Adresse à l’Assemblée nationale.

49. Pommier, “De l’art libéral à l’art de la Liberté.” The reports, in order, are: Louis Sébastien Mercier, Rapport et Project de Résolution, au Nom d’une Commission, sur La Pétition des Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs, Architectes, Relativement au Droit de Patents (Imprimerie nationale, 1796); Créniere, Opinion de Créniere; Larmagnac, Rapport fait par Larmagnac; Le Grand, Opinion de La Grand (député de l’Indre), sur la résolution du 28 frimaire, qui excepte du droit de patente les peintres, les médecins, &c.(Imprimerie nationale, 1796); Lecouteulx-Canteleu, Opinion de Lecouteulx-Canteleu; P.C.L. Baudin, Opinion de P.C.L. Baudin (des Ardennes) Sur la résolution du 18 Frimaire an V, qui excepte du droit de patente les officiers de santé, peintres, sculpteurs & graveurs (Imprimerie nationale, 1797); Meillan, Opinion de Meillan Sur la résolution du Conseil des Cinq-Cents, relative aux patentes (Imprimerie nationale, 1797); L.-J. Richou, Opinion de L.-J. Richou, sur la résolution du Conseil des Cinq-Cents du 18 frimaire an 5, qui excpte du droit de patentes les Officiers de santé, Peintres, Graveurs, &c. (Imprimerie nationale, 1797); de Quincy, Rapport fait par Quatremère au nom d’une commission spéciale; Vernier, Rapport fait par Vernier, sur la résolution du 21 vendémiaire, relative aux patentes (Imprimerie nationale, 1797).

50. de Quincy, Rapport fait par Quatremère au nom d’une commission spéciale.

51. Vernier, Rapport fait par Vernier.

52. Renou, Adresse à l’Assemblée nationale, 4.

53. Renou, Adresse à l’Assemblée nationale, 2, 7.

54. Mercier, Rapport et Project de Résolution, Au Nom d’une Commission.

55. Mercier, Rapport et Project de Résolution, Au Nom d’une Commission, 2–3.

56. Mercier, Rapport et Project de Résolution, Au Nom d’une Commission, 4.

57. Michael Kwass, “Between Words and Things: ‘La Querelle Du Luxe’ in the Eighteenth Century,” MLN 130, no. 4 (2015): 771–82.

58. Mercier, Rapport et Project de Résolution, Au Nom d’une Commission, 2. On this process of semantic drift, see Alain Rey, “Le nom d’artiste” Romantisme 17, no. 55 (1987): 5–22; Georges Matoré, “Le champ notionnel d’art et d’artiste entre 1827 et 1834,” in Méthode en lexicologie: domaine français (Paris: M. Didier, 1953), 99–117.

59. Mercier, Rapport et Project de Résolution, Au Nom d’une Commission, 5–7.

60. Mercier, Rapport et Project de Résolution, Au Nom d’une Commission, 7.

61. Donkey-Mercier has also been given the horns of light from the iconography of Moses, though the author has been unable to decipher how this relates to the caricature’s core insults. They are, perhaps, in this case being used to further debase Mercier by indicating cuckoldry.

62. Gregory S. Brown, A Field of Honor: Writers, Court Culture and Public Theater in French Literary Life from Racine to the Revolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 133–37.

63. Klaus Kiefer, “‘C’est incroyable’—Goethe et la gravure satirique du Directoire, ou: La comparaison infinie,” in Comparables et incomparables, Goethezeit Portal, 2013, https://www.goethezeitportal.de/home.html. Goethe’s collection also includes Mr L’Ane comme il n’y en a point and Eh bien, Messieurs! deux millions! These works are discussed above.

64. George Levitine, The Dawn of Bohemianism: The Barbu Rebellion and Primitivism in Neoclassical France (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978).

65. Kiefer, “‘C’est incroyable’—Goethe et la gravure satirique du Directoire, ou: La comparaison infinie.”

66. Crenière, Opinion de Crenière, 4, 6.

67. Lecouteulx-Canteleu, Opinion de Lecouteulx-Canteleu, 3, 5.

68. Baudin, Opinion de P.C.L. Baudin.

69. Meillan, Opinion de Meillan.

70. Le Grand, Opinion de La Grand.

71. Le Grand, Opinion de La Grand, 5.

72. Claudette Hould, Images of the French Revolution (Québec: Les Publications du Québec, 1989), 73.

73. Guillaume Glorieux, A l’enseigne de Gersaint: Edme-François Gersaint, marchand d’art sur le Pont Notre-Dame, 1694–1750 (Seyssel, France: Champ Vallon, 2002).

74. Encore un mot des artistes: Sur les patentes (Baudouin, imprimeur du Corps législatif, 1797).

75. Encore un mot des artistes, 1–2.

76. de Quincy, Rapport fait par Quatremère au nom d’une commission spéciale; Pommier, “De l’art libéral à l’art de la Liberté.”

77. de Quincy, Rapport fait par Quatremère au nom d’une commission spéciale, 8.

78. de Quincy, Rapport fait par Quatremère au nom d’une commission spéciale, 11.

79. William H. Sewell, Capitalism and the Emergence of Civic Equality in Eighteenth-Century France (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021); Bourdieu, “The Production of Belief.”

80. Ironically, this is a logic that the world of academia also shares. Bourdieu, “The Production of Belief,” 75.

81. Jean-Rémy Mantion, “Déroutes de l’art: La destination de l’oeuvre d’art et le débat sur le musée,” in La Carmagnole des muses: L’homme de lettres et l’artiste dans la Révolution, ed. Jean-Claude Bonnet (Paris: Armand Colin, 1988), 97–129; McClellan, Inventing the Louvre, 49–90.

82. Scholars have not commented upon the coincidence between the Salon’s opening date and the museum’s opening date in the same building. McClellan, Inventing the Louvre, 94–95.

83. McClellan, Inventing the Louvre, 104, 108–9.

84. McClellan, Inventing the Louvre, 124–25.

85. Heim, Béraud, and Heim, Les Salons de peinture de la Révolution française, 50, 55.

86. For a thorough account of this Commission’s activities and the debates surrounding them, see Isabelle Richefort, “La Commission Centrale des Sciences et des Arts en Italie (1796–1798),” in De l’usage de l’art en politique, eds. Guillaume Glorieux, Marc Favreau, Pauline Prevost-Marcilhacy, and Jean-Philippe Luis (Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise-Pascal, 2009), 98–115, especially 114–120.

87. Richefort, “La Commission Centrale des Sciences et des Arts en Italie,” 117–18. This text would be revised and published more widely as Considérations morales sur la destination des ouvrages de l’art in 1815, during the Restoration. Richefort estimates that Lettres à Miranda was published between April 5 and July 1796.

88. Richefort, “La Commission Centrale des Sciences et des Arts en Italie,” 119.

89. This image was published, and assumed to target a connoisseur, but received no other comment in Dario Gamboni, “L’image de la critique d’art, essai de typologie,” Quarante-huit/Quatorze 5 (1993), 48–49.

90. My thanks to David O’Brien for sharing his compelling insights on his edition of this satirical image, one of which is in his personal collection.

91. Richefort, “La Commission Centrale des Sciences et des Arts en Italie,” 124.

92. Michael Kwass, The Consumer Revolution, 1650–1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022).

93. Becq, “Artistes et marché”; Steven R. Adams, “‘Noising Things Abroad’: Art, Commodity, and Commerce in Post-Revolutionary Paris” Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide 12, no. 2 (2013); Monica Preti Hamard and Philippe Sénéchal, Collections et marché de l’art en France 1789–1848 (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2006).

94. Adams, “‘Noising Things Abroad’”; Sofio, Artistes femmes, 136.

95. Adams, “‘Noising Things Abroad.’”

96. van de Sandt, “Institutions et concours,” 141–42.

97. Barré, et al., Le peintre français à Londres, 5.

98. Barré, et al., Le peintre français à Londres, 5.

99. Valentine Toutain-Quittelier, “Le Diable d’argent et la Folie: Enjeux et usages de la satire financière autour de 1720,” in L’Image railleuse: La satire visuelle du XVIIIe siècle à nos jours, ed. Laurent Baridon, Frédérique Desbuissons, and Dominic Hardy (Paris: Publications de l’Institute national d’histoire de l’art, 2019).

100. Harvard University’s Baker Library has made Bernard Picart’s Monument consacré à la posterité en mémoire de la folie incroyable . . . accessible online: https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/ids:1280430$1i.

101. Institut de France, Histoire des cinq académies (Paris: Librairie académique Perrin, 1995); Léon Aucoc, L’Institut de France et les anciennes académies (Paris: E. Plon Nourrit et cie., 1889).

102. Sofio, Artistes femmes, 146–50.

103. France Nerlich, “Ateliers Privés. Enjeux et Problématiques,” in Apprendre à peindre: Les ateliers privés à Paris, 1780–1863, eds. Alain Bonnet and France Nerlich (Tours: Presses universitaires François-Rabelais, 2013).

104. The complete list of this membership is maintained by the Institut de France itself and can be found at http://www.academie-des-beaux-arts.fr/membres/.

1. Broadly, Philippe Hamon charts an increasing preoccupation with visuality in the nineteenth century in Imageries: Littérature et Image au XIXe Siècle, 2nd ed. (Paris: J. Corti, 2007).

2. Marie-Claude Chaudonneret’s monumental study of the Restoration and early July Monarchy is the most in-depth treatment of the role of the Directeur des Musées in this period. See Marie-Claude Chaudonneret, L’État et les artistes: De la Restauration à la monarchie de Juillet (1815–1833) (Paris: Flammarion, 1999).

3. Chaudonneret, L’État et les artistes, 11–14. It is in fact Lavallée who suggests the creation of a Musée des Artistes Vivants in 1818, which we will discuss below, to make up for the forced restitution of the French cultural spoliations.

4. Philippe Bordes, “Le Musée Napoléon,” in L’Empire des muses: Napoléon, les Arts et les Lettres, ed. Jean-Claude Bonnet (Paris: Belin, 2004), 79–90.

5. Régis Spiegel, “Le Louvre en 1810: De l’Histoire au mythe,” in Dominique-Vivant Denon et Benjamin Zix: Témoins et acteurs de l’épopée napoléonienne, 1805–1812 (Paris, France: L’Harmattan, 2000), 150–62. Bartolini’s bust can be viewed on the collections database of the Louvre Museum at https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010092380. Zix’s watercolor is viewable in the same database at https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl020210796.

6. Unless otherwise indicated all translations are the author’s own.

7. Blacas’s unfortunate name was deployed satirically in the same way when Louis XVIII fled upon Napoleon’s Hundred Days.

8. Institut de France, Histoire des cinq académies (Paris: Librairie académique Perrin, 1995), 20–32. To avoid confusion with the ancien régime’s Académie royale, the Institut’s Académie will be referred to as the Académie des Beaux-Arts.

9. Alain Bonnet, L’enseignement des arts au XIXe siècle: La réforme de l’École des beauxarts de 1863 et la fin du modèle académique (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2006), 111–14.

10. Séverine Sofio, Artistes femmes: La parenthèse enchantée, XVIIIe–XIXe siècles (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2016), 224.

11. Chaudonneret, L’État et les artistes, 121–49; Sofio, Artistes femmes, 160–61.

12. Bonnet, L’enseignement des arts au XIXe siècle.

13. Alain Bonnet and France Nerlich, eds., Apprendre à peindre: Les ateliers privés à Paris, 1780–1863 (Tours: Presses universitaires François-Rabelais, 2013).

14. Sofio, Artistes femmes, 169–70.

15. For excerpts from Denon’s correspondence with Napoleon in which he outlines his intentions and positions himself and Napoleon as gatekeepers, and the Salon as the venue for this gatekeeping, see Udolpho van de Sandt, “Le Salon,” in L’Empire des muses: Napoléon, les Arts et les Lettres, ed. Jean-Claude Bonnet (Paris: Belin, 2004), 59–78 (61–62).

16. van de Sandt, “Le Salon,” 64–65.

17. Annie Jourdan, Napoléon héros, imperator, mécène (Paris: Aubier, 1998), 254–87; Chaudonneret, L’État et les artistes, 122–24; Sofio, Artistes femmes, 274–86.

18. On these artists’ relationship to state patronage, in particular during the Empire, see Todd B. Porterfield and Susan L. Siegfried, Staging Empire: Napoleon, Ingres, and David (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006); David O’Brien, After the Revolution: Antoine-Jean Gros, Painting and Propaganda under Napoleon (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006); Sébastien Allard and Marie-Claude Chaudonneret, Le Suicide de Gros: Les peintres de l’Empire et la génération romantique (Montreuil, France: Gourcuff Gradenigo, 2010).

19. Harrison and Cynthia White proposed that the nineteenth-century artistic cursus honorum transitioned from an Academic system to a dealer-critic system. However, scholars have since demonstrated that it was not until the 1870s that a dealer-critic system truly replaced what preceded it. Rather, scholars have proposed that a Salon system dominated most of the nineteenth century, and in particular the early nineteenth century. See Harrison C. White and Cynthia A. White, Canvases and Careers: Institutional Change in the French Painting World (New York: Wiley, 1965); Chaudonneret, L’État et les artistes; David W. Galenson and Robert Jensen, Careers and Canvases: The Rise of the Market for Modern Art in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2002).

20. Udolpho van de Sandt counts fifteen, 668 livrets sold in 1802 and twenty-two, 638 livrets sold in 1804. This number spikes in 1810 at thirty-two, 459 livrets sold. See van de Sandt, “Le Salon,” 78.

21. William Hauptman, “Juries, Protests, and Counter-Exhibitions before 1850,” Art Bulletin 67 (1985): 95–109.

22. Hauptman, “Juries, Protests, and Counter-Exhibitions,” 97–98.

23. Sofio, Artistes femmes, 243; Hauptman, “Juries, Protests, and Counter-Exhibitions, 98.

24. Hauptman, “Juries, Protests, and Counter-Exhibitions.”

25. When the names of artists who submitted to the Salon are cross-checked with various almanacs and annuaires of artists, virtually all artists listed submitted artwork to the Salon, whether or not they were chosen to exhibit. Sofio, Artistes femmes, 285, 221.

26. Burton B. Fredericksen, “Survey of the French Art Market Between 1789 and 1820,” in Collections et marché de l’art en France 1789–1848, eds. Monica Preti Hamard and Philippe Sénéchal (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2006), 19–34; Darius Alexander Spieth and Marc Fumaroli, Revolutionary Paris and the Market for Netherlandish Art, Studies in the History of Collecting & Art Markets, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2018); Marie-Claude Chaudonneret, “Collectionner l’art contemporain (1820–1840): L’exemple des banquiers,” in Collections et marché de l’art en France 1789–1848, 273–82.

27. Stephen Bann and Stéphane Paccoud, eds., Histoires de coeur et d’épée en Europe, 1802–1850, L’invention Du Passé 2 (Paris: Hazan, 2014).

28. Eva Bouillo, Le Salon de 1827: Classique ou romantique? (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2009), 31, table 4.

29. For an exploration of the critical appraisal of the Classic-Romantic debate, see in particular Pontus Grate, Deux critiques d’art de l’époque romantique: Gustave Planche et Théophile Thoré (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1959); Bouillo, Le Salon de 1827: Classique ou romantique? Bouillo in particular points out that the 1827 Salon jury admitted a disproportionate quantity of painters in the new school (84 percent were admitted as opposed to 47 percent of Classical painters), 35.

30. An example can be found at the Musée de l’Armée, Paris, item number 994.78.

31. This image can be found in the Carolina Digital Repository at the permalink https://doi.org/10.17615/wbw8-t019.

32. There was no Prix de Rome near these dates that called for this subject matter. See Philippe Grunchec, The Grand Prix de Rome: Paintings from the École Des Beaux-Arts, 1797–1863, 2 vols. (Washington, DC: International Exhibitions Foundation, 1984).

33. G. Montcloux d’Epinay, Angela, ou L’atelier de Jean-Cousin (Paris: Mme Masson, 1814); Charles-Augustin Sewrin and Léonard Tousez, L’Atelier de peinture (Paris: Bezou, 1823).

34. Charles-François-Jean-Baptiste Moreau de Commagny and A.-M. Lafortelle, Monsieur Crouton, ou L’aspirant au Salon (Paris: Barba, 1814); Gabriel de Lurieu, Armand d’Artois, and Francis, Les Dames peintres, ou l’Atelier à la mode (Paris: Duvernois, 1827).

35. Charles-Auguste Sewrin and Léonard Tousez, L’Atelier de peinture (Paris: Bezou, 1823), 13.

36. de Lurieu, d’Artois, and Francis, Les Dames peintres, ou l’Atelier à la mode, 12–13.

37. Richard Wrigley shows that the arena metaphor featured prominently throughout Salon criticism, where the Salon is often imagined as the battleground for the progress of the arts. Wrigley, The Origins of French Art Criticism: From the Ancien Régime to the Restoration (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 51.

38. Alexis Meredith Clark, “A Republic of the Arts: Constructing Nineteenth-Century Art History at the Musée National Du Luxembourg, 1871–1914” (PhD diss., Duke University, 2014), 16–18, http://search.proquest.com/docview/1528554279/abstract/300D6B711CAD4678PQ/7. On the correspondences between eighteenth-and nineteenth-century concerns around the prevalence of genre mineures, see Pierre Vaisse, “Annexe sur l’image du marchand de tableaux pendant le XIXe siècle,” Romantisme 13, no. 40 (1983): 77–86; Richard Wrigley, “The Class of ’89: Cultural Aspects of Bourgeois Identity in the Aftermath of the French Revolution,” in Art in Bourgeois Society, 1790–1850, eds. Andrew Hemingway and William Vaughan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 130–53.

39. Chaudonneret, “Collectionner l’art contemporain (1820–1840): L’exemple des banquiers.”

40. Chaudonneret, L’État et les artistes, 34–35.

41. Geneviève Lacambre, “Les achats de l’Etat aux artistes vivants: Le musée de Luxembourg,” in La Jeunesse des musées: Les musées de France au XIXe siècle, ed. Chantal Georgel (Paris: Editions de la réunion des musées nationaux, 1994), 269–77, exhibition catalog; Luc Alary, “L’art vivant avant l’art moderne. Le Musée Du Luxembourg, premier essai de muséographie pour l’ ‘art vivant’ en France,” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 42, no. 2 (1995): 219–39.

42. These images can be found in the Carolina Digital Repository and Yale Collections under the permalinks https://doi.org/10.17615/848x-ht15 and https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/10723516.

43. Peggy Davis, “Entre la physiognomonie et les Physiologies: Le Calicot, figure du panorama parisien sous la Restauration,” Etudes françaises 49, no. 3 (2013): 63–85.

44. C’est un Morceau Capital translates roughly to “It’s a Critical/Capital Piece.” Capital can refer to importance and, literally, to capital as wealth. The title means to evoke this wordplay.

45. Linda Whiteley, “Art et commerce d’art en France avant l’époque impressionniste,” Romantisme 13, no. 40 (1983): 65–76; Nicholas Green, The Spectacle of Nature: Landscape and Bourgeois Culture in Nineteenth-Century France (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993); DeCourcy E. McIntosh, “The Origins of the Maison Goupil in the Age of Romanticism,” British Art Journal 5, no. 1 (2004): 64–76.

46. Rolf Reichardt cites a conversation with Stéphane Roy, who is currently revisiting his MA and PhD research on Basset, who asserts that Basset himself made this switch around 1795. Rolf Reichardt, Visualizing the Revolution: Politics and Pictorial Arts in Late Eighteenth-Century France (London: Reaktion, 2008), 41 n31.

47. Bertrand Tillier, A la Charge! La caricature en France de 1789 à 2000 (Paris: Editions de l’Amateur, 2005), 150. The Préfecture de police document was found at the Bibliothèque historique de la ville de Paris. Dated to November 4, 1809, it explicitly requests that publishers of “carricatures” deposit their image publications. It is signed by its targeted publishers, who figure throughout this corpus, such as Martinet and Basset. It can be found at the call number CP 4016.

48. Tillier, A la Charge!, 150; Robert Justin Goldstein, Censorship of Political Caricature in Nineteenth-Century France (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1989), 97–98; George D. McKee, “La Surveillance officielle de l’Estampe entre 1810 et 1830: Le dépôt légale, la Bibliographie de la France, le projet ‘Image of France’ et leurs statistiques,” Nouvelles de l’estampe (2003), 24.

49. Louis Hautecoeur, “Une Famille de graveurs et d’éditeurs Parisiens: Les Martinet et les Hautecoeur (XVIIIe et XIXe siècles),” Paris et Ile-de-France: Mémoires 18–19, no. 1967–1968 (1970): 205–340 (298).

50. Tillier, A la Charge!, 150; Goldstein, Censorship of Political Caricature in Nineteenth-Century France, 100–115; McKee, “La Surveillance officielle de l’Estampe entre 1810 et 1830,” 25–29.

51. Jean-Claude Yon, Une histoire du théâtre à Paris: De la Révolution à la Grande Guerre, Collection Historique (Paris: Aubier, 2012), 49, 56–60.

52. Performances before 1814 were limited to the Variétés, Vaudeville, and the Opéra-Comique, whereas after this date non-privileged theaters resurfaced, namely Théâtre du Gymanse Dramatique and Théâtres des Nouveautés.

53. Henri-Jean Martin and Roger Chartier, eds., Histoire de l’édition française: Le livre triomphant, 1660–1830 (Paris: Fayard, 1990), see especially 545–549.

54. Unlike engraving, lithography, a chemical process, employs the natural immiscibility of oil and water. A porous limestone is drawn upon with a waxy or oily medium, often a crayon. An etching process records and fixes the crayon’s markings. When the stone is dampened, undrawn areas of the stone dampen but drawn areas of the stone remain impermeable. When an oil-based ink is rolled over the stone, the ink fails to adhere to undrawn and wetted parts of the stone and only adheres to drawn areas of the stone. Like in etching and engraving, this process allows the image to be recorded on the matrix by filling positive space, whereas relief printing like woodcut and wood engraving require the engraver to carve away the negative space to leave positive areas behind. However, a skilled engraver or engraving workshop is necessary to act as intermediary between draughtsperson and finished print. In lithography, it is more feasible for the artist to draw directly on the stone themselves. It should be noted, however, that although lithography ostensibly permitted the illustrator to claim more ownership over the print, diminishing the distance between original artist and reproduction, Philippe Kaenel points out that a repasseur, someone more familiar with the particularities of limestone and the process by which the crayon drawing is etched into this porous stone, often interceded to help optimize the illustration for the etching process. Philippe Kaenel, Le Métier d’illustrateur (1830–1880): Rodolphe Töpffer, J.-J. Grandville, Gustave Doré (Geneva: Droz, 2005), 193.

55. Frédéric Chappey, De Géricault à Delacroix (Paris: Somogy éditions d’art, 2005), exhibition catalog; Antony Griffiths, The Print before Photography: An Introduction to European Printmaking, 1550–1820 (London: The British Museum Press, 2016); Marie-Claude Chaudonneret, “Le Statut et la réception de la lithographie en France dans les années 1820–1840,” in L’ Estampe un art multiple à la portée de tous, eds. Sophie Raux and Dominique Tonneau-Ryckelynck (Lille, France: Presses universitaires de Septentrion, 2008), 323–31.

56. Charlotte N. Eyerman, “Im Zeichen Der Grande Tradition. Lithographen Im Atelier Des Baron Gros, 1816–1835,” in Bilder Der Macht, Macht Der Bilder. Zeitgeschichte in Darstellungen Des 19. Jahrhunderts, eds. Michael F Zimmermann and Stefan Germer (Leipzig: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 2000), 176–91.

57. Robert Justin Goldstein suggests that Le Nain jaune and L’homme gris’s caricatures, which had already been the object of seizures and penalties, motivated the requirement for this brevet: Goldstein, Censorship of Political Caricature in Nineteenth-Century France, 104–5.

58. Corinne Bouquin, “Recherches sur l’imprimerie lithographique à Paris au XIXème siècle: L’imprimerie Lemercier (1803–1901)” (PhD diss., Paris 1, 1993), 33–36.

59. Bruno Delmas observes that, between 1830 to 1839, right bank imprimeurs-lithographes (61 percent), who were often also publishers of said imagery, overtook the left bank (31 percent). He observes that this move continued into the 1840s. Bruno Delmas, “Lithographie et lithographes à Paris dans la première moitié du XIXe siècle,” in Le Livre et l’historien: Études offertes en l’honneur du professeur Henri-Jean Martin, eds. Frédéric Barbier et al., vol. 6, Histoire et civilisation du livre (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1997), 744–45.

60. On the evolution of popular printed imagery across the nineteenth century, see Patricia Mainardi, Another World: Nineteenth-Century Illustrated Print Culture (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017).

61. Though my collection of art-world caricature does not include publications from the Bance family, scholarship demonstrates that they also participated in this serialization trend: Béatrice Bouvier, “Les Bance: Marchands d’estampes et libraires à Paris (1793–1862); portrait de famille.,” Nouvelles de l’estampe, 1999, 26–27.

62. Hautecoeur, “Une Famille de graveurs et d’éditeurs Parisiens.” Martinet retired in 1827, leaving his business to his daughter and her husband, Hermenegilde Hautecoeur, who underlined his association to the successful business of his father-in-law by signing his prints “Martinet-Hautecoeur” (311–321).

63. Catalogue des lithographies composant le fonds de Gihaut frères, imprimeurs-lithographes, éditeurs, et marchands d’estampes, boulevard des Italiens, No 5, à Paris (Paris: Imprimerie de Charpentier-Méricourt, 1830). For more on the albums of frères Gihaut, see Corinne Bouquin, “Les frères Gihaut: Éditeurs, marchands d’estampes et imprimeurs lithographes (1815–1871),” Nouvelles de l’estampe 10 (1989): 4–13.

64. Corinne Bouquin, “Les frères Gihaut: Éditeurs, marchands d’estampes et imprimeurs lithographes (1815–1871),” Nouvelles de l’estampe 10 (1989): 4–13; Kathryn Desplanque, “L’autoréférence dans l’album comique: Les illustrateurs et les éditeurs contre eux-mêmes dans la Restauration,” in L’Image railleuse, eds. Laurent Baridon, Frédérique Desbuissions, and Dominic Hardy, Actes de colloques (Paris: Publications de l’Institut national d’histoire de l’art, 2019), https://books.openedition.org/inha/8381.

65. Bouquin, “Les frères Gihaut.”

66. Paul Ledoux and Gabriel-Alexandre Belle, M. Sans-Souci, ou Le peintre en prison (Paris: Barba, 1818).

67. Ledoux and Belle, M. Sans-Souci, ou Le peintre en prison, 7.

68. Ledoux and Belle, M. Sans-Souci, ou Le peintre en prison, 11–13.

69. Emmanuel Théaulon and Adolphe Choquart, M. Ducroquis, ou Le peintre en voyage (Paris: Barba, 1828).

70. Théaulon and Choquart, M. Ducroquis, ou Le peintre en voyage, 18.

71. Théaulon and Choquart, M. Ducroquis, ou Le peintre en voyage, 11–15.

72. Eugène Scribe, Henri Dupin, and Antoine-François Varin, La Mansarde des artistes (Paris: Pollet, 1824), 9.

73. Charles-Auguste Sewrin and Léonard Tousez, Le Lithographe, ou Les Scènes populaires (Paris: Huet, 1823), 13.

74. Jules Champfleury, Histoire de l’imagerie populaire (Paris: Dentu, 1869), 191–211; Patricia Mainardi, “Popular Prints for Children . . . And Everyone Else,” Princeton University Library Chronicle 71, no. 3 (Spring 2010): 357–92.

75. Alexis Piron, “Crédit est Mort,” in Oeuvres complettes d’Alexis Piron, ed. Jean-Antoine Rigoley de Juvigny, vol. 5, 6 vols. (Paris: M. Lambert, 1776), 123–84.

76. This image can be found in the Carolina Digital Repository under the permalink https://doi.org/10.17615/f6ja-5j62.

77. Moreau de Commagny and Lafortelle, Monsieur Crouton, ou L’aspirant au Salon. For a deeper analysis of Crouton the shop sign painter, see Kathryn Desplanque, “Monsieur Crouton, The Shop Sign Painter: The Unexceptional Artist in Early Nineteenth-Century Satirical Print,” in Time, Media, and Visuality in Post-Revolutionary France (London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts, 2021), 147–68.

78. Moreau de Commagny and Lafortelle, Monsieur Crouton, ou L’aspirant au Salon, 19–20.

79. Moreau de Commagny and Lafortelle, Monsieur Crouton, ou L’aspirant au Salon, 38–39.

80. Desplanque, “Monsieur Crouton, The Shop Sign Painter.”

81. This image can be found in the Carolina Digital Repository at permalink https://doi.org/10.17615/ekhv-fz89.

82. This image can be viewed in the Carolina Digital Repository at permalink https://doi.org/10.17615/z8nw-j151.

83. This image can be found in the Carolina Digital Repository at permalink https://doi.org/10.17615/gs6h-ag89.

84. Pierre-Yves Barré, et al., Le peintre français à Londres (Paris: Mlle Masson, 1802).

85. George Levitine, “The Eighteenth-Century Rediscovery of Alexis Grimou and the Emergence of the Proto-Bohemian Image of the French Artist,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 2, no. 1 (1968): 58–76; George Levitine, “Les origines du mythe de l’artiste bohème en France: Lantara,” Gazette des beaux-arts 6, no. 86 (1975): 49–60.

86. Levitine, “The Eighteenth-Century Rediscovery of Alexis Grimou,” 60–62.

87. Levitine, “Les origines du mythe de l’artiste bohème en France: Lantara,” Gazette des beaux-arts 6, no. 86 (1975): 53–54.

88. Levitine, “Les origins du mythe de l’artiste bohème en France: Lantara,” 51. Levitine points out that the play seems to have been unsuccessful since it was never put into print.

89. Pierre-Yves Barré, et al., Lantara, ou Le peintre au cabaret (Paris: Fages, 1809), 34.

90. Barré, et al., Lantara, 29.

91. Le feu de la Composition translates directly to “The fire of Composing.” Fire in this case is used to refer to the flame of inspiration.

92. Sofio, Artistes femmes; Paris Amanda Spies-Gans, “Exceptional, but Not Exceptions: Public Exhibitions and the Rise of the Woman Artist in London and Paris, 1760–1830,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 51, no. 4 (July 28, 2018): 393–416; Paris A. Spies-Gans, A Revolution on Canvas: The Rise of Women Artists in London and Paris, 1760–1830 (London: Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, 2022).

93. There is a startling continuity in the strategies employed to diminish women’s presence within the art world. See Charlotte Foucher, Créatrices en 1900: Femmes artistes en france dans les milieux symbolistes, Thèses Illustrées (Paris: Mare & Martin, 2015).

94. These works can be viewed using the Carolina Digital Repository at the following locations: https://doi.org/10.17615/wkgr-5785; https://doi.org/10.17615/eejb-xz26.

95. For more on Angélique Mongez, see Gen Doy, Women and Visual Culture in Nineteenth-Century France, 1800–1852 (London: Leicester University Press, 1998), 95–129.

96. This image can be viewed in the Carolina Digital Repository at the permalink https://doi.org/10.17615/aht6–3h42.

97. This is likely the Athlète au disque dit “le Discophore” in the Louvre collection, acquired in 1807 from the Borghese collection (MR 159).

98. Armand Croizette and Antoine Jean-Baptiste Simonnin, M. Dupinceau, ou Le peintre d’enseigne (Paris: Barba, 1808).

99. De Lurieu, d’Artois, and Francis, Les Dames peintres, ou l’Atelier à la mode, 15.

100. Ann Bermingham, Learning to Draw: Studies in the Cultural History of a Polite and Useful Art (New Haven, CT: Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, 2000).

1. See Sandrine Berthelot’s encyclopedic modern edition of Murger’s text: Henry Murger, Scènes de la vie de bohème, ed. Sandrine Berthelot (Paris: Flammarion, 2012).

2. Murger, Scènes de la vie de bohème, 394. I relate Murger’s text to George Gissing’s New Grub Street (1891) in Kathryn Desplanque, “A Physiology of the Inglorious Artist in Early Nineteenth-Century Paris,” in The Mediatization of the Artist, eds. Sandra Kisters and Rachel Esner (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 197–214.

3. Albéric Second, “Rue Notre-Dame-de-Lorette,” in Les rues de Paris. Paris ancien et moderne, 1844: origines, histoire, monuments, costumes, moeurs, chroniques et traditions, ed. Louis Lurine, vol. 1 (Paris: Kugelmann, 1844), 138. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are the author’s own. On the notion of the cénacle as a dominant form of artistic sociability in mid-nineteenth-century Paris, see Vincent Laisney, “De la socialité bohémienne à la sociabilité cénaculaire (Les Scènes de la vie de bohème de Henry Murger),” in Le Mythe des Bohémiens dans la littérature et les arts en Europe (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2008), 295–314; Anthony Glinoer, La Querelle de la camaraderie littéraire: Les romantiques face à leurs contemporains (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 2008); Anthony Glinoer and Vincent Laisney, L’Âge des cénacles. Confraternités littéraires et artistiques au XIXe siècle (Paris: Fayard, 2013).

4. Théodore Barrière and Henri Murger, La Vie de Bohême (Paris: Michel Lévy frères, 1849).

5. Laisney, “De la socialité bohémienne,” 313–14.

6. Léon Noël, Félix Nadar, and Adrien-François Lelioux, Histoire de Mürger pour servir à l’histoire de la vraie bohème, par trois buveurs d’eau, contenant des correspondances privées de Mürger, 2nd ed. (Paris: Collection Hetzel, 1862).

7. Noël, Nadar, and Lelioux, Histoire de Mürger pour servir à l’histoire de la vraie, 9–15.

8. This image can be found on the British Museum’s online catalog as object 1886-1012-404 at the permalink https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1886-1012-404. Laurent Baridon, “La Carte vivante du Restaurateur de Grandville: les appétits d’une période de crise,” in La cuisine de l’oeuvre au XIXe siècle: Regards d’artistes et d’écrivains, eds. Bertrand Marquer and Éléonore Reverzy, Configurations littéraires (Strasbourg, France: Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, 2013), 107–28.

9. Louis Chevalier, Laboring Classes and Dangerous Classes in Paris during the First Half of the Nineteenth Century, trans. Frank Jellinek (New York: H. Fertig, 1973); Monique Eleb and Anne Debarre-Blanchard, Architectures de la vie privée: Maisons et mentalités, XVIIe–XIXe siècles (Bruxelles, Belgium: Archives d’architecture moderne, 1989); Sharon Marcus, Apartment Stories: City and Home in Nineteenth-Century Paris and London (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999); Christiane Dole, Élodie Massouline, and Miriam Simon, Le Peuple de Paris au XIXe Siècle (Paris: Paris Musées Editions, 2011); Nathalie Preiss and Jean-Marie Privat, eds., Le peuple parisien au XIXe siècle: Entre sciences et fictions (Strasbourg, France: Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, 2013).

10. The latter of these two images were published in the March 11, 1830, issue of La Silhouette to accompany an article entitled “Traité sur l’indifférence en matière de peinture; par M. C***” (92–93), which has often been attributed to Honoré de Balzac because several passages in it reappear in Balzac’s 1842 La Rabouilleuse.

11. Maria Ivens, Le Peuple-artiste, cet être monstrueux: La communauté des pairs face à la communauté des génies (Paris: Harmattan, 2002); Neil McWilliam, “A Revolutionary Aesthetic? The Politics of Social Art in France c. 1820–1850” (Seminar, Arts & Sociétés, Centre d’histoire de Sciences Po, 2004).

12. This term is challenging to translate. Soudure is a weld and forcée means forced or strained. Ivens essentially means a welded joint that has been forcibly and with strain joined together. Ivens, Le Peuple-artiste, cet être monstrueux, 11.

13. Ivens’s argument is very compatible with the contemporary critic Ben Davis’s in 9.5 Theses on Art and Class (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2013).

14. Marie-Claude Chaudonneret, L’État et les artistes: De la Restauration à la monarchie de Juillet (1815–1833) (Paris: Flammarion, 1999), 17, 24–26.

15. Institut de France, Histoire des cinq académies (Paris: Librairie académique Perrin, 1995), 34–35.

16. Alain Bonnet, L’enseignement des arts au XIXe siècle: La réforme de l’École des beauxarts de 1863 et la fin du modèle académique (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2006), 146–49.

17. Nancy Ann Roth, “‘L’Artiste’ and ‘L’Art Pour L’Art’: The New Cultural Journalism in the July Monarchy,” Art Journal 48, no. 1 (1989): 35–39; Chaudonneret, L’État et les artistes, 70–72; Adrien Goetz, “L’Artiste, une revue de combats des années romantiques (1831–1848)” (PhD diss., Paris IV, 1999); Anthony Glinoer, “À La Lisière de l’avant-Garde Esthétique: La Liberté, Journal Des Arts,” in Romantismes, l’esthétique en acte, ed. Jean-Louis Cabanès, Littérature Française (Nanterre: Presses universitaires de Paris Nanterre, 2013), 213–26, http://books.openedition.org/pupo/1540; Jean-François Luneau, “Art utile, art sociale, art pour l’art dans la première moitié du XIXe siècle,” in L’art social en France: De la Révolution à la Grande Guerre, eds. Catherine Méneux, Julie Ramos, and Neil McWilliam (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes; Institut national d’histoire de l’art, 2014), 63–78.

18. Robert Justin Goldstein, Censorship of Political Caricature in Nineteenth-Century France (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1989), 122–23.

19. We can find further evidence of the purely nominal liberty of the press in the early July Monarchy: the Maison Aubert, Charles Philipon, and his illustrators, in particular Honoré Daumier and Charles-Joseph Traviès (1804–1859), were subject to numerous seizures, penalties, and fines in the first few years of the regime. These trials pursued La Caricature on grounds similar to lèse-majesté, in which Philipon famously and successfully argued that his representation of pears in his caricatures only accidentally resembled Louis-Philippe. These restrictions passed from nominal to actual in 1835. Just a few months after an assassination attempt against Louis-Philippe by Giuseppe Marco Fieschi, a set of laws was passed that broadened existing censorship to include any allusion to foreign policy or domestic politics. La Caricature, whose graphic satires harshly criticized Louis-Philippe, was shuttered at the end of August in anticipation of this legislation, though it reappeared in 1837 and ran until 1843. Goldstein, Censorship of Political Caricature in Nineteenth-Century France, 133–43; David S. Kerr, Caricature and French Political Culture 1830–1848: Charles Philipon and the Illustrated Press (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 107–32.

20. Mary Gluck, Popular Bohemia: Modernism and Urban Culture in Nineteenth-Century Paris (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005); Martina Lauster, Sketches of the Nineteenth Century: European Journalism and Its Physiologies, 1830–50 (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).

21. Jean-Claude Yon, Une histoire du théâtre à Paris: De la Révolution à la Grande Guerre, Collection Historique (Paris: Aubier, 2012), 64–77; John McCormick, Popular Theatres of Nineteenth-Century France (London: Routledge, 1993), 201–5.

22. James B. Cuno, “Charles Philipon and La Maison Aubert: The Business, Politics, and Public of Caricature in Paris, 1820–1840” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1985), 106.

23. Both studies of these satirical periodicals center upon Charles Philipon and his editorial control. David S. Kerr’s motivation for his focus upon Philipon comes from the moment of the Maison Aubert’s legal association in 1838: Philipon retained half of the rights to the company, whereas Madame Aubert and her husband shared the other half. Kerr, Caricature and French Political Culture 1830–1848, 59.

24. Nina M. Athanassoglou-Kallmyer, “Prints, Politics and Satire under the Restoration,” in Eugène Delacroix: Prints, Politics, and Satire (1814–1822) (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991), 7–9.

25. Goldstein, Censorship of Political Caricature in Nineteenth-Century France, 101–4, 147–48, 157.

26. Cuno, “Charles Philipon and La Maison Aubert,” 124; Athanassoglou-Kallmyer, “Prints, Politics and Satire under the Restoration,” 9–10. Le Sphinx may have, again, been the same publication with the title changed presumably to evade censorship: Catalogue systématique et raissonné de tous les écrits périodiques de quelque valeur publiés ou avant circulé en France depuis l’origine du journal jusqu’à nos jours, avec extraits, notes historiques, critiques et morales, indication des prix que les principaux journaux ont atteints dans les ventes publiques, etc, précédé d’un essai historique et statistique sur la naissance et les progrès de la presse périodique dans les deux mondes (Didot, 1866), 348–50.

27. Some of Le Charivari’s most prolific illustrators, such as Paul Gavarni and Charles-Joseph Traviès, have yet to receive virtually any monographic treatment in art historical scholarship. For discussions of their work, see Beatrice Farwell and Robert Henning, The Charged Image: French Lithographic Caricature, 1816–1848 (Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Museum of Art, 1989), 13–14; Petra ten-Doesschate Chu and Gabriel P. Weisberg, eds., “Proto-Realism in the July Monarchy: The Strategies of Philippe-Auguste Jeanron and Charles-Joseph Traviès,” in The Popularization of Images: Visual Culture under the July Monarchy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 90–112. Therese Dolan has examined Gavarni’s critical reception: Therese Dolan, Gavarni and the Critics (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1981).

28. While Cuno points this out in his dissertation,“Charles Philipon and La Maison Aubert,” it has since become easily observable in the online Daumier Register, which carefully details the many venues within which the Maison Aubert might have published the same satirical image by Daumier (130–31).

29. Séverine Sofio, Artistes femmes: La parenthèse enchantée, XVIIIe–XIXe siècles (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2016), 284. Sofio also points out that, during the July Monarchy, the Institut was systematically more likely to reject female than male artists (see 251–72).

30. Data is drawn from Sofio’s careful tabulations, listed in Tables 1 and 2 of her Appendix. See Séverine Sofio, “‘L’Art ne s’apprend pas aux dépens des meours!’ Construction du champ de l’art, genre et professionnalisation des artistes (1789–1848)” (PhD diss., The École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 2009), 678–80.

31. Sofio, Artistes femmes, 260–61.

32. Michael Marrinan, Painting Politics for Louis-Philippe: Art and Ideology in Orléanist France, 1830–1848 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988).

33. Sofio, “‘L’Art ne s’apprend pas aux dépens des meours!,’” 682–683.

34. Pétrus Borel, “Bruit que ces messieurs font courir,” La Liberté: Journal des arts, no. 2 (1832): 6–10; S. L., “A M. le Rédacteur en Chef de l’Artiste,” L’Artiste: Journal de la littérature et des beaux-arts 4, no. 9 (March 7, 1847): 16.

35. William Hauptman, “Juries, Protests, and Counter-Exhibitions before 1850,” Art Bulletin 67 (1985): 98–106.

36. Nicholas Green, The Spectacle of Nature: Landscape and Bourgeois Culture in Nineteenth-Century France (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993); Manuel Charpy, “Le théâtre des objets: Espaces privés, culture matérielle et identité bourgeoise. Paris, 1830–1914” (PhD diss., Université François-Rabelais de Tours, 2010), http://www.applis.univ-tours.fr/theses/2010/manuel.charpy_1701.pdf; Véronique Chagnon-Burke, “Rue Laffitte: Looking at and Buying Contemporary Art in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Paris,” Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide 11, no. 2 (2012), http://www.19thc-artworldwide.org/summer12/veronique-chagnon-burke-looking-at-and-buying-contemporary-art-in-mid-nineteenth-century-paris.

37. Helen Weston, “‘Les Marchands Sont plus Que Jamais Dans Le Temple’: The Revival of Monumental Decorative Painting in France during the July Monarchy (1830–1848),” in Art in Bourgeois Society, 1790–1850, eds. Andrew Hemingway, William Vaughan, and Andrew Carrington Shelton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 178–200.

38. Louis Clément de Ris, De l’oppression dans les arts et de la composition d’un nouveau jury d’examen pour les ouvrages présentés au salon de 1847 (Paris: P. Masgana, 1847), 3–8.

39. Clément de Ris, De l’oppression dans les arts et de la composition, 14–15.

40. These communities and the journals with which they were allied espoused elements of Saint-Simonian, but especially Fourierist and Republican, notions of art, as explored most carefully by Neil McWilliam in “A Revolutionary Aesthetic?”; Neil McWilliam, Dreams of Happiness: Social Art and the French Left, 1830–1850 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993); Maurice Alhoy, Annales de la Société libre des beaux-arts (Paris: Librairie Renouard, 1830); Eugène Pellatan, “Project d’association entre les artistes,” L’Artiste: Journal de la littérature et des beaux-arts 3, no. 5 (March 31, 1844): 196–98; Ivens, Le peuple-artiste, cet être monstrueux, 26–27, 32–41.

41. I discuss this image in “The Monkey Artist and His Donkey Public: French Art-World Caricature, the Animal Menagerie, and the Digital Humanities,” in Romantic Beasts: Mundane and Magical Figures of Global Romanticism, eds. Christopher Clason and Michael Demson (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 2005).

42. “Les Salons de Mme. Susse Frères,” L’Artiste: Journal de la littérature et des beauxarts, 1837, 53–55.

43. “Susse Frères,” 53.

44. “Susse Frères,” 54.

45. J. Cavero, Félicie Faizand de Maupeou, and Léa Saint-Raymond, “Géographie du marché de l’art parisien,” 2017, Artl@s, https://paris-art-market.huma-num.fr.

46. “Susse Frères,” 54.

47. This image can be viewed in the Carolina Digital Repository at the permalink https://doi.org/10.17615/61hf-wy94.

48. Maurice Alhoy, “A Propos de ce portrait et beaucoup d’autres,” in Le Musée pour rire (Paris: Aubert, 1839); Maurice Alhoy, “Les Séances de l’Atelier,” in Le Musée pour rire (Paris: Aubert, 1839).

49. Maurice Alhoy, “Causerie artistique,” in Le Musée pour rire (Paris: Aubert, 1839).

50. Alhoy, “Les Séances de l’Atelier,” np.

51. Manuel Charpy assumes that, in the July Monarchy, young painters’ mansarde studios would have been ill-suited to accommodating a bourgeois clientele. Charpy, “Le théâtre des objets,” 1085–1150.

52. This image can be viewed in the Carolina Digital Repository at the permalink https://doi.org/10.17615/0h77-ve88.

53. This image can be viewed in the Carolina Digital Repository at permalink https://doi.org/10.17615/bkdx-2d57.

54. This image can be viewed in the Carolina Digital Repository at the permalink https://doi.org/10.17615/6d4y-pw44.

55. William H. Sewell, Work and Revolution in France: The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 194–218; Neil McWilliam, “Art, Labour and Mass Democracy: Debates on the Status of the Artist in France Around 1848,” Art History 11, no. 1 (1988): 64–87; Ivens, Le Peuple-artiste, cet être monstrueux, 19–58.

56. Nicolas Brazier, Jean-Toussaint Merle, and Frédéric de Courcy, Dorvigny et Lantara, ou Les Artistes au cabaret (Paris: Barba, 1831); Saint-Amand and Hippolyte Lefebvre, Les débardeurs ou L’Atelier, le bal et l’étude (Paris: Prosper Nourtier, 1844).

57. Théodore Cogniard and Hyppolite Cogniard, Le Rapin, Scènes d’atelier (Paris: Barba, 1836), 13.

58. Théodore Cogniard and Hyppolite Cogniard, Le Modèle, Croquis d’atelier (Paris: Barba, 1831), 3.

59. See Georges Vigarello, “Les corps des pauvres” in Le Peuple de Paris au XIXe Siècle, 123–26.

60. Emmanuel Théaulon, Gabriel de Lurieu, and Frédéric de Courcy, Crouton chef d’école, ou Le Peintre véritablement artiste (Paris: Nobis, 1837).

61. Théaulon, de Lurieu, and de Courcy, Crouton chef d’école, 15–23.

62. It should also be mentioned that this is one of the only times that a near-contemporary painter is mentioned by name in the works discussed in this chapter. Théaulon, de Lurieu, and de Courcy, Les Dames peintres, 20.

63. Cogniard and Cogniard, Le Rapin, Scènes d’atelier, 13.

64. Lottin de Laval, “Rue et Faubourg-Saint-Honoré,” in Les rues de Paris; Paris ancien et moderne, 1844: Origines, histoire, monuments, costumes, moeurs, chroniques et tradition, ed. Louis Lurine, vol. 1 (Paris: Kugelmann, 1844), 343.

65. This image can be viewed in the Carolina Digital Repository at the permalink https://doi.org/10.17615/e50g-cc95.

66. Both images can be viewed in the Carolina Digital Repository at the respective permalinks: https://doi.org/10.17615/zhmd-5x34 and https://doi.org/10.17615/ffkc-mj33.

67. Cogniard and Cogniard, Le Rapin, Scènes d’atelier, 30–31.

68. For Mary Gluck’s summary of the battle, see Gluck, Popular Bohemia, 24–27.

69. Laisney, “De la socialité bohémienne,” 311.

70. Alhoy, “Causerie artistique,” np.

71. It should, however, be noted that throughout Le Musée pour rire, it is more likely that the story in fact illustrates the image—Gavarni’s image was published by Aubert a year earlier in 1838 with a different caption.

72. Women painters also all but disappeared from this satirical corpus in the July Monarchy, with the exception of the character Sydonie from La Leçon de dessin—an unnamed bas bleu whose pride the play’s protagonist has been tasked with breaking. Charles Desnoyer and Charles-Hippolyte Dubois-Davesnes, La Leçon de dessin ou Mon ami Polycarpe (Paris: Riga, 1830).

73. David Allen Harvey, “Forgotten Feminist: Claude Vignon (1828–1888), Revolutionary and Femme de Lettres,” Women’s History Review 13, no. 4 (December 1, 2004): 559–583 (566).

74. This is particularly evident in the secondary character, Rodrigues, a caricaturist sans souci who is jailed and flirts incorrigibly with women throughout the play, all of whom are aware that they cannot expect him to propose marriage: E.F. Varez, et al., Tout pour ma fille (Paris: Bezou, 1832).

75. Charles-Augustin Sewrin and Léonard Tousez, L’Atelier de peinture (Paris: Bezou, 1823), 17.

76. Cogniard and Cogniard, Le Rapin, Scènes d’atelier; Louis Huart, “Le Rapin,” in Le Musée pour rire (Paris: Aubert, 1839); Jacques-Germain Chaudes-Aigues, “Le Rapin,” in Les Français peints par eux-mêmes, vol. 1, 9 vols. (Paris: Curmer, 1841), 49–56.

77. Thierry Laugée, “De la craie au pinceau: un imaginaire illustré du génie enfant,” in Figures du génie dans l’art français (1802–1855) (Paris: Presses de l’université Paris–Sorbonne, 2016), 51–76.

78. Huart, “Le Rapin,” np.

79. Chaudes-Aigues, “Le Rapin,” 51.

80. Chaudes-Aigues, “Le Rapin,” 54.

81. Chaudes-Aigues, “Le Rapin,” 51–52.

82. Théaulon, de Lurieu, and de Courcy, Crouton chef d’école, 6.

83. McWilliam, Dreams of Happiness, especially 289–302.

84. Chantal Georgel, 1848, la République et l’art vivant (Paris: Fayard/Réunion des musées nationaux, 1998), 81.

85. For a selection of scholarship on art and the art world from 1848 to 1851, see T.J. Clark, The Absolute Bourgeois: Artists and Politics in France, 1848–1851 (London: Thames and Hudson, 1973); Pierre Angrand, “L’administration des Beaux-Arts et l’oeuvre de Daumier,” La Pensée: Revue du rationalisme moderne 177 (October 1974): 97–110; T.J. Clark, Image of the People: Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution, 1st paperback edition (London: Thames and Hudson, 1982); Pierre Vaisse, “Considérations sur la Seconde République et les beaux-arts,” Revue d’histoire du XIXe siècle. Société d’histoire de la révolution de 1848 et des révolutions du XIXe siècle 1 (June 1985); Marie-Claude Chaudonneret, La Figure de la République: Le concours de 1848, Notes et documents des musées de France 13 (Paris: Ministère de la culture et de la communication, Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1987); McWilliam, “Art, Labour and Mass Democracy”; Georgel, 1848, la République et l’art vivant; Albert Boime, Art in an Age of Civil Struggle, 1848–1871, A Social History of Modern Art, vol. 4 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).

86. Georgel, 1848, la République et l’art vivant, 12–26.

87. Chaudonneret, La figure de la République.

88. Marie-Claude Chaudonneret, “Le Décor inachevé pour le Panthéon,” in Paul Chenavard, 1807–1895: Le peintre et la prophète, ed. Marie-Claude Chaudonneret (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux; Musée des beaux-arts de Lyon, 2000), 67–79, exhibition catalog.

89. Bernard Zehrfuss, “L’Académie des Beaux-Arts,” in Histoire des cinq académies (Paris: Librairie académique Perrin, 1995), 279–338.

90. Georgel, 1848, la République et l’art vivant, 20–26.

91. Vaisse, “Considérations sur la Seconde République et les beaux-arts,” 67.

92. Georgel, 1848, la République et l’art vivant, 25–26.

93. The records of their meetings are relatively sparse but indicate the extent to which they upheld inclusive and democratic processes. See Archives nationales F 21 527.

94. Scholars of the Salons caricaturaux have neglected to consider the conservative strain that underwrites this imagery, which may have been equally as intent on deriding principles of equitability and their potential to foster mediocrity, as it was on providing a visual form of more accessible and entertaining art criticism.

95. Chaudonneret, “Le Décor inachevé pour le Panthéon.”

96. On the association between the social status of the artist and the notion of revelation in Saint-Simonian, Fourierist, and Republican notions of art social, see McWilliam, Dreams of Happiness.

97. Patricia Mainardi, Art and Politics of the Second Empire: The Universal Expositions of 1855 and 1867 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987); Patricia Mainardi, The End of the Salon: Art and the State in the Early Third Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

98. Louis Reybaud, Jérome Paturot à la recherche d’une position sociale, 2 vols. (Paris: Paulin, 1846); Louis Reybaud, Jérome Paturot à la recherche de la meilleure des républiques, 3 vols. (Paris: Michel Lévy frères, 1848). Thank you to Neil McWilliam for drawing my attention to this text.

99. Louis Reybaud, “L’Art républicain,” in Jérome Paturot à la recherche de la meilleure des républiques, vol. 2 (Paris: Michel Lévy frères, 1848), 41–42. The reference to the Third Estate recalls the ancien régime Estates-General. The exceptional convening of the Estates-General in 1789 marked the beginning of the French Revolution.

100. Reybaud, “L’Art républicain,” 53.

101. Chaudonneret, La figure de la République.

102. Reybaud, “L’Art républicain,” 56–60.

1. Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. Randal Johnson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 75.

2. Pierre Bourdieu, “The Market of Symbolic Goods,” in The Field of Cultural Production, 113.

3. John Ruskin, “The Political Economy of Art: Being the Substance (with Additions) of Two Lectures Delivered at Manchester, July 10th and 13th, 1857,” in Pre-Raphaelitism (New York: J. Wiley & Son, 1870), 11–125.

4. Ruskin, “The Political Economy of Art,” 24.

5. Clement Greenberg, “Avant-Garde and Kitsch,” in Art and Culture: Critical Essays (Boston: Beacon Press, 1965), 3–33.

6. Greenberg, “Avant-Garde and Kitsch,” 5. Serge Guilbaut, How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art: Abstract Expressionism, Freedom, and the Cold War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 33–36.

7. Hans Abbing, Why Are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2002).

8. Ben Davis, 9.5 Theses on Art and Class (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2013), 29.

9. “A Decade of Arts Engagement: Findings from the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, 2002–2012,” NEA Research Report (Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 2015); Orian Brook, et al., “Social Mobility and ‘Openness’ in Creative Occupations since the 1970s,” Sociology 57, no. 4 (November 17, 2022): 789–810.