In the course of researching the precedence for this thesis, I quickly learned that the term “graphic satire” is almost exclusively used when discussing a certain genre of eighteenth-century English prints. The ‘golden age of satire,’ as it is frequently called, produced a massive body of graphic work, dominated by masters such as William Hogarth, George Bickham junior and James Gillray. However, these artists were not the first to create satirical graphic works. Many of the modes, methods and motivations used by Hogarth and his contemporaries had already been in operation for centuries, and remain relevant through to
this day.

What we behold in satire is not a neatly homiletic discourse — but the drama of an inflamed sensibility, or a cool and detached mind playfully exploring a moral topic.”
— Dustin Griffin, in Satire: A Critical Reintroduction

The ancient Greeks and Romans invented satire as an oratory and literary device, but it wouldn’t become overly apparent in the visual arts until the Renaissance. The word caricatura first appeared in the writings of Italian critics in 1646, and was derived from words indicating a loaded statement, or an exaggeration.¹ However, satirical caricatures can be found in works prior to that date, for example: in the paintings of Hieronymous Bosch, in the doodles of Leonardo Da Vinci, and in numerous drollery illuminations of the Middle Ages.

In my studies of these early examples, it became apparent that the satirical nature of these works is difficult to verify, as satire as a mode speaks of an artist’s intent. Art historians tend to label many of these works as moralizing — that is, that they adopt a holier-than-thou stance to persuade the viewer to choose virtue over vice. But the “moralizing” label is not limited to early satires — it’s a criticism that artists in Hogarth’s time had to contend with, and is even something that I myself have been accused of.

It seems that this criticism is a common misinterpretation of both graphic and literary satires. In his book, Satire: A Critical Reintroduction, Dustin Griffin muses:

“If the satirist’s job is to assure us, in no uncertain terms, that the established norms about good and bad, right and wrong, are solidly in place, one wonders how satire ever attracted any mature readers or retained their interest… The notion that clear moral standards are at the center of satire is likewise open to challenge… What we behold in satire is not a neatly homiletic discourse but the drama of an inflamed sensibility, or a cool and detached mind playfully exploring a moral topic.”²