The problem of “popular representation” is likewise very complex. We can discern the so-called “popular” only indirectly by ascertaining the origins, production and destination of the print. As Lynn pointed out, most engravings were derived from fine paintings, portraits, or engravings and then reworked by the artist or engraver for a more general or plebeian audience. Thus, even so called “popular” wood-block prints or etchings were usually inspired by or derived from more elite sources. For example, the valorous victims in the “Massacre des prêtres dans le couvent des Carmes” might have been inspired by David’s celebrated “Sabine Women.” Though the anonymous artist uses a similar binary division of the battle scene, he shifts the political meaning of the composition by focusing on the government’s brutal treatment of the church and clergy. That is, the engraver develops a decidedly counter-revolutionary theme by portraying the vulnerability of the unarmed priests who are being assaulted by revolutionary marauders.

My guess is that many of these prints were designated for an urban audience. Since fine engravings were expensive, they could only be purchased by well-off customers. I would agree with Lynn that while many of the artists highlight the “agency” of the crowd, the designers also tended to restrain the representation of violence through abstraction, technical formality, or by distancing the audience from most unruly displays. With the exception of the Foulon/Bertier de Sauvigny narratives, a good number of prints in our sample modified the impact of violence by emphasizing symbolic or ritualized aspects of violence. It would stand to reason that pro-revolutionary printers and their team of engravers preferred to minimize crowd violence and class tensions to avoid offending a comfortable clientele so as to stay in business.