{"id":211,"date":"2022-02-12T20:52:43","date_gmt":"2022-02-12T20:52:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/dancebiographies\/?p=211"},"modified":"2022-02-12T20:52:43","modified_gmt":"2022-02-12T20:52:43","slug":"the-caricature-of-mlle-parisot-by-newton","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/dancebiographies\/2022\/02\/12\/the-caricature-of-mlle-parisot-by-newton\/","title":{"rendered":"The Caricature of Mlle Parisot by Newton"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By KEITH CAVERS<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two interesting points arise from a closer examination of Richard Newton\u2019s caricature of Parisot. It would be natural to take at face value the engraved titling of this print:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mademoiselle Parisot <\/p>

Sketched at the Opera by Rd Newton<\/p>

London Pub. by W Holland No. 50 Oxford St.<\/p>https:\/\/www.britishmuseum.org\/collection\/image\/48485001.<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
‘Mademoiselle Parisot’ by Richard Newton, \u00a9 British Museum.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The impression in the British Museum adds the year 1796 but if you look closely (and you can!) you will see that the date is added in manuscript \u2013 though there is the ghost of an engraved date which certainly ends in a \u201c6\u201d. In the impression held in the Theatre Collection at Harvard the full date survives \u2013 \u201c \u2026 April 28 1796\u201d though the \u201c8\u201d has been overwritten in ink to show an \u201c0\u201d. This is all very strange but if we apply George Chaffee\u2019s dictum \u201cAlways read the image\u201d I think we can explain away the anomaly in the engraved date.

If we look at the image – what do we see \u2013 we see Mlle Parisot dancing with two figures in the stage box but who are they? Well the British Museum impression, again in manuscript has the addition of \u201cD. of Queensbury\u201d and we might expect to see him as he appeared, and appeared readily identified, in a previous print which bears the titling \u201cA Peep at the Parisot<\/a>! with Q in the Corner!\/ I Cruikshank \/ London Pub May 7 1796 by S.W. Fores No. 50 Piccadilly.\u201d In that print he is also using a Dollond monocular to look up the dancer\u2019s skirt. The second occupant of the box who is also observing the dancer through a glass is also readily identifiable \u2013 it is Shute Barrington (1734-1826), Prince Bishop of Durham \u2013 he whose intervention in a Lord\u2019s debate on Divorce brought down a cascade of caricatures when he attacked French Opera Dancers <\/p>\n\n\n\n

who by their allurement of the most indecent attitudes, and most wanton theatrical exhibitions, corrupted the people.<\/p>The Parliamentary Register, vol. 5 (London: J. Debrett, 1798). Eighteenth Century Collections Online.<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n


The problem arises when we find that the noble prelate made his speech on 2nd March 1798, two years after the supposed engraving of the print!

I think that the solution is that Newton\u2019s print was engraved in 1798 and fraudulently dated 1796 to match the Cruickshank caricature \u2013 subsequently the erroneous date was erased from the plate and in the case of the British Museum impression someone who knew of the existence of the earlier date simply attempted to restore it. It makes every pictorial sense that this print belongs with those of the well documented 1798 costume controversy.1<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Royal Collection contains a drawing which has been catalogued thus:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mademoiselle Parisot, a ballet dancer, is watched by 2 old men, Duke of Queensbury and Barrington, Bishop of Durham (?). Copy of the print BM Sat. 8893.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m afraid I have not seen this drawing \u2018live\u2019 but (again through excellent internet access<\/a>) I think that this is undoubtedly the original drawing by Newton for the print and not a copy made from it. It would make no sense to shift the figure in making a copy of the print and in any case the drawing is clearly very superior to the subsequent engraving and a most charming (and presumably more accurate) portrait of this dancer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Detail of the Houghton Library copy of Newton’s ‘Mademoiselle Parisot’.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A Harvard impression gives “Oxford St April 20th<\/sup>\u00a0[or 28th<\/sup>\u00a0] 1796″ which has been removed in the British Museum impression \u2013 I suspect that it was published in 1798 with a false date \u2013 hence its removal from the plate \u2013 why? Goodness knows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
  1. Rauser, Amelia. 2020. The Age of Undress: Arts, Fashion, and the Classical Ideal in the 1790s<\/em>. Yale University Press, pp. 84-85. Editor’s note:<\/em> This source betrays the conflation of events relating to Mlle Parisot in 1796 and 1798 as observed above by Cavers.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Next post<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

    ‘Portraits of Mlle Parisot’ by Sarah McCleave will appear on 27 February.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    By KEITH CAVERS Two interesting points arise from a closer examination of Richard Newton\u2019s caricature of Parisot. It would be natural to take at face value the engraved titling of this print: Mademoiselle Parisot Sketched at the Opera by Rd Newton London Pub. by W Holland No. 50 Oxford St. https:\/\/www.britishmuseum.org\/collection\/image\/48485001. The impression in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[52,1],"tags":[35,56],"class_list":["post-211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dancebiography","category-uncategorised","tag-mlle-parisot","tag-richard-newton"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/dancebiographies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/dancebiographies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/dancebiographies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/dancebiographies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/dancebiographies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=211"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/dancebiographies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":223,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/dancebiographies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211\/revisions\/223"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/dancebiographies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/dancebiographies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/dancebiographies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}