actions, so Perier's instructions were evidently carried out. La Caricature' died, and its place was taken by 'Le Charivari.' Philipon it was who invented the famous pear which Louis Philippe's head was supposed to resemble. Upon a page of 'La Caricature' appears first a somewhat exaggerated portrait of the bourgeois monarch with heavy cheeks, a multiplicity of chins, and a rather narrow head. The second head loses a little detail and his hair is made to grow into a sharper point above the forehead; in the third the hair is beginning to look like a leaf, and still more detail disappears from the face; in the fourth, hair and whiskers have become leaves and the pear is complete. Prosecutions followed automatically, whereupon Philipon in Le Charivari,' Feb. 27, 1834, wrote an account on the title page of that journal of the various judgments under which he had suffered and had the article set up in print in the shape of a pear. Philipon was continually being put in gaol, issues of his paper constantly being seized, and a less obstinate man or a less courageous one would long ago have given in, but he never did, but fought for his principles throughout his life. Philipon invented a number of characters, which were to be the butts of public ridicule. Thus, Daumier made a puppet of Robert Macaire, Monnier of Joseph Prudhomme, Traviès of Mayeux, Gavarni of Vireloque-this last was a kind of tramp Diogenes-Mayeux the dwarf was symbolical of all the vices, Macaire was an impudent adventurer, the swindler of the stupid, Prudhomme the typical burgess. These last two have so passed into the language that they are not infrequently referred to as actual historical characters. Honoré Daumier had that temper of mind, kindly, but ferocious when need be, which loved to lash social evils; he hated sham of all kinds, and ruthlessly eliminated every taint of the sentimental from his work. He stuck to the truth. There is a certain tincture of caricature in almost all that he did, though he made definitely personal caricature portraits of individual people. He was a beautiful draughtsman with a style so original and distinct that his work may be said to shout his name down the length of a long gallery where it is hung. His high lights, his boney faces, his delicious sweeping curves, his treatment of hair, the joy he took

in the folds of a stock, or the lines of a well-cut coat, are entirely unmistakable.

In his history of 'Modern France' M. Emile Bourgeois tells us that

In the comic papers, especially the "Charivari," Daumier, with a fecundity and a vigour which spared no one, and a talent to which the greatest had to do homage, branded and exposed the middle class, its types, its oddities, its prejudices of all sorts. A Republican from the first, the advocate of every kind of liberty, in art as in politics, the foe of every restriction behind which private interest and satisfied selfishness could shelter themselves.

In England, after the Dightons, satiric art found its ablest exponents in John Doyle-H-B' of the 'Political Sketches'--Seymour, and Leech. Mr Parton describes their work as 'innocent and amusing' after the 'savage vulgarity' of the previous age; but there was little true caricature until Carlo Pellegrini began his twenty years' connexion with 'Vanity Fair' in 1869, under the name of Ape. He was a ruthless observer of those physical peculiarities which illumine the soul. His drawing, for example, of General Gordon almost precisely complements Mr Strachey's account of that gallant but strange character in 'Eminent Victorians.' His drawing of Swinburne made in 1874 almost cruelly suggests his subject's delicacy, though at the same time he makes the balance true by doing a little more than justice to his splendid brow. An extremely interesting study for this caricature was made by Ape upon a piece of blotting paper which was reproduced by Mr William Nicholson in 'The Winter Owl' for 1923. The late Sir Leslie Ward, who contributed to 'Vanity Fair' over the signature of Spy, made a few excellent caricatures in the early part of his career, such as those of Prof. Owen in 1873 and his 'Anthony Trollope' of the same year, but he soon fell into the habit of making 'mere' portraits which contained hardly any comment at all. Among the artists associated with 'Punch' and other periodicals, the late Harry Furniss made admirable caricatures from time to time, notably of Sir Richard Temple and Mr Gladstone, in the latter case taking full advantage of the famous collar.

True caricature, which demands of the artist an

મ

uncompromising honesty, is little understood in an age when expediency does little to encourage what squeamishness finds difficult to accept. In England we love compromise, and nowadays, therefore, the savageries of Gillray and his school have given place in the popular press to innocuous banalities. True caricature is still scarce, but it makes up in subtlety and keen appreciation what it lacks in vigour. The most original and talented caricaturist of our time is Mr Max Beerbohm, who gathers at biennial exhibitions drawings of individuals, or groups which reflect the graces of a genuinely inspired mind. Perhaps the most significant fact which strikes the beholder at the first glance at a gallery full of Mr Beerbohm's drawings, is their gaiety, and the pleasure which he has taken in his work, a pleasure which communicates itself to the spectator before he has time to admire the individual drawings on their peculiar merits. His best caricatures are invariably made from memory: what is essential in a character remains and is noted in his mind, so that though he does not now make anatomical exaggerations of the extreme kind that he was used to do in his earlier work, sufficient emphasis is laid upon those features which seem best to interpret the subject. His work is full of originality and surprise. He is no more fond of exhibiting his victims' weaknesses than of doing justice to their finer qualities. He has a scholarly perception of values. Of late years his work, from a technical point of view, has enormously improved; and though caricature, as such, may be good even when it is recorded without artistic merit, the caricaturist who combines some aesthetic quality with his especial talent is obviously to be preferred. Anybody without the least notion of drawing,' wrote Kinglake in 'Eothen,' 'could still draw a speaking, nay scolding likeness of Keate. If you had no pencil, you could draw him well enough with a poker, or the leg of a chair, or the smoke of a candle.'

BOHUN LYNCH.

Art. 4.-SHORT HISTORIES OF BRITISH WARS.

1. A Short History of the British Army to 1914.

By

Eric William Sheppard, Captain, Royal Tank Corps. Constable, 1926.

2. The Naval Side of British History. By Geoffrey Callender. Christophers, 1924.

And other works.

WHILE the officers of the fighting forces have, in these days, an abundance of historical material at their disposal for studying their respective professions, the general student is confronted with many difficulties in mastering the wider aspects of war history. In this article an endeavour is made to indicate some of the general student's requirements; to emphasise the distinction between the conduct of war and the conduct of operations; to impress the need to consider the relationship of sea and land forces to each other; to call attention to the increased interest of such study; and to urge the necessity for giving due heed to the influence of warfare upon historical developments.

Before the influence of warfare upon British history can be appreciated in its true perspective, much research work will have to be undertaken, and the parts played respectively by navy and army in the development and defence of the British Empire can then be better coordinated. About six years ago, when a movement was on foot to establish an Institute of Historical Research in London, an eminent authority expressed the hope that a Chair of Naval History would be established, and another of Military History. He further expressed the view that—

'These [naval and military history] are two aspects of the same subject, particularly so far as the British Empire is concerned, and nothing has hampered its understanding more than the habit of treating each in isolation. They would overlap at every point, and most of the material for their study would have to be duplicated, unless the research libraries of the two departments were in close juxta-position, and under a common and effective control.'

6 The Claims of Historical Research in London.' Prof. A. F. Pollard. University of London Press, 1920.

The expression 'same subject,' in that quotation, might loosely be described as 'war history,' if that term were not too comprehensive. Under so wide a heading it would be necessary to take account of the political, social, ethical, diplomatic, and economic, as well as of the naval and military aspects of warfare. The habit of dealing with all these subjects in isolation has certainly hampered the intelligent study of war history, and vast arrears of research work must be made good before such study can be placed upon a satisfactory basis. In the pamphlet from which I have quoted, the point is made that no University in the British Empire has made adequate progress in specialisation for the post-graduate study of historical science. During the Great War it was possible to improvise in the United States of America a Board of National Historical Service for the purpose of bringing to bear, upon war-problems that arose, the light of historical knowledge of past experience, but the same course could not be followed in Great Britain because there were not, in British Universities, properly organised departments of history which could be converted to purposes of national investigation. All that could be done was to make more or less haphazard application to individual historians, and to rely upon the results of their single-handed efforts. The Institute of Historical Research, with facilities for such direction of research work, was subsequently established on the Bloomsbury site, which was offered by the Government to the University of London, but, that offer having been withdrawn, the future of the Institute is in doubt, in spite of its large accumulation of material and the world-wide influence that it has acquired during its six years of activity. We must, therefore, for the time being, postpone considering the writing or teaching of comprehensive war history in the English tongue. Material for research is abundant. Direction is lacking. If, however, for the expression war history' we substitute history of operations of war,' we can note a promising tendency of late years to recognise the inadequacy of dealing in water-tight compartments with sea and land operations in wars which have involved the employment both of fleets and of armies, and it may be that, in course of time, a historian of the first class will