The History of "Punch" Part 17

"When with a kind relief Those eyes rain tears, O might this thought employ!

Him whom she loved we loved. We shared her joy, And will not be denied to share her grief."

_Punch_ always had a number of b.u.t.ts on hand--men whom he attacked for their delinquencies, real or imaginary, or whom on account of idiosyncrasies he thought to be fair game, just for the fun of it. One of the first of these was Lord William Lennox, a n.o.bleman of literary pretensions, whose efforts, however, were said to be more pretentious than literary. His novel of "The Tuft-Hunter" was quickly "spotted" by the critics, and Hood was the first to declare that the book was little else than a patchwork from his own "Tylney Hall," from "The Lion," and from Scott's "Antiquary," though the "names and epithets" were changed.

"Such kind of borrowing as this," Milton has said, "if it be not bettered by the borrower, among good authors is accounted plagiare;" and as plagiarism of the most unblus.h.i.+ng character _Punch_ adjudged it. Hood himself contributed his mite to the discussion in the paper in the form of the following:--

"EPIGRAM

"_On the 'Tuft-Hunter,' by Lord William Lennox._

"A duke once declared--and most solemnly, too--That whatever he liked with his own he would do; But the son of a duke has gone further and shown He will do what he likes when it isn't his own!"

And it was Hood who inspired Jerrold with the idea of the biting article headed "Daring Robbery by a n.o.ble Lord-_Punch's_ Police." In this instance _Punch_ was genuinely indignant, and he proceeded to make Lord William's life a burden to him with such announcements as: "Shortly will be published, in two volumes, 8vo, a new work, ent.i.tled 'Future and Never,' by Lord W. Lennox, author of Carlyle's 'Past and Present,' etc.

etc., and of Wordsworth's 'We are Six and One';" and again "Prize Comedy by Lord W. Lennox: 'Academy for Scandal';" while a portion of _Punch's_ preface to his sixth volume (1844) was supposed to be written by Lord William, and presented a most laughable compound of sayings and quotations, with slight alteration, from well-known authors. But when _Punch_ dropped him, the unhappy author was not left alone, for the "Great Gun" and other journals picked him up, and played with what remained of his literary reputation.

It was in his second number that _Punch_ began his persistent ridicule of Jullien, the famous _chef d'orchestre_ who introduced the Promenade Concerts to Drury Lane, with such prodigious success. The poem, from the pen of W. H. Wills, began characteristically--"One--cras.h.!.+ Two--clas.h.!.+

Three--das.h.!.+ Four--smas.h.!.+" and, not wholly without malevolence, described the popular conductor as a

"_ci-devant_ waiter Of a _quarante-sous traiteur_ "--

thus laying the foundation for the charges of musical ignorance, illiteracy, musical-"ghost"-employment, and other imposture, under which he suffered in this country nearly all his life. Jullien indignantly denied the hard impeachment, and declared that he began his musical life as a fifer in the French navy, and had in that capacity been present on a man-o'-war at the battle of Solferino in 1829. His a.s.sailant accepted the statement as to his military achievement, adding the suggestion that after working himself up to more than concert pitch, and "holding in his hand one sharp, which he turned into several flats," Jullien withdrew from the service on account of the discord of battle, particularly as the shrieks of the wounded were horribly out of tune.

_Punch_ fell back on Jullien's well-oiled ringlets, his general _tenue_ and violent gesticulation, and, with better cause, on his "Row Polka,"

and on those wild and frenzied quadrilles in which the music in one part was "accentuated with a salvo of artillery." But _Punch_, ignoring the better part of Jullien's musical ability, made no allowance for the curious quality of his mind, which was evidently ill-balanced, and indeed was finally overthrown. Jullien's vanity, for example, was sublime, rivalling that of the Knellers and Greuzes of earlier days; and his biographer sets forth how, in the scheme he imagined for the civilisation of the world by means of music, he had determined (though essentially a "dance musician") to set to music the Lord's Prayer. It could not fail, said Jullien, to be an unprecedented success, with two of the greatest names in history on its t.i.tle-page! The musician ultimately died through over-work, the consequence of an honourable attempt to meet his liabilities.

Sir Peter Laurie was another favourite quarry, who almost from the beginning was singled out of the Corporation, of which he was really one of the most efficient members, because he aimed at "putting down" by the stern administration of justice what, perhaps, could only be dealt with by sympathy. _Punch_ chose to interpret Sir Peter's views into regarding poverty less as a misfortune than as _prima-facie_ evidence of the poor man's guilt or folly; but it was when the well-meaning alderman so far "opened his mouth as to put his foot into it," by declaring, when trying a case, "that it was his intention to put down suicide," that Jerrold's pen stuck him on to _Punch's_ page, and heaped ridicule on him from every point of view. Alderman Moon, the famous print-seller of Threadneedle Street, was another b.u.t.t--the more unjustly (though he certainly did sometimes cut a ridiculous figure) as he rendered real service to artists, and looked upon English art and its patronage in a broad and patriotic way, even while he made his own fortune in doing so.

This, however, he did not succeed in retaining, and his acts and motives were sneered at, and his "testimonial" fatally ridiculed.

Then Harrison Ainsworth, as much for his good-looks and his literary vanity, as for his tendency to reprint his romances in such journals as came under his editors.h.i.+p, was the object of constant banter. An epigram put the case very neatly:--

Says Ainsworth to Colburn,[22]

"A plan in my pate is, To give my romance, as A supplement, _gratis_."

Says Colburn to Ainsworth, "'Twill do very nicely, For that will be charging Its value precisely."

Harrison Ainsworth could not have his portrait painted, nor write a novel of crime and sensation, without being regarded as a convenient peg for pleasantry. Similarly did Tom Taylor fall foul of Bulwer Lytton (p.

91, Vol. IX.) by reason of the dedication of "Zanoni" to Gibson the sculptor, in which it was said that the book was not for "the common herd." The story of Lytton's castigation by Tennyson is duly related where the Laureate's contributions to _Punch_ are spoken of. In Lytton's case, at least, _Punch_ forgot to apply Swift's aphorism that a man has just as much vanity as he has understanding.

Of the artists, Turner perhaps lent himself most to _Punch's_ satire.

Ruskin had not yet arisen to champion the mighty painter's ill-appreciated art; and Turner's colour-dreams, in which "form" was often to a great extent ignored, were not more tempting to the satirical Philistine than those extraordinary quotations from his formless epic, called "The Fallacies of Hope," extracts from which he loved to append to his pictures' t.i.tles. Nothing could be better in the way of satire than the manner in which _Punch_ turned upon the poor painter, and "guy'd" his picture with a burlesque of his own poetic "style." It was in the Royal Academy of 1845 that the artist exhibited his celebrated "Venice--Returning from the Ball;" and this is how _Punch_ received it:--

"Oh! what a scene!--Can this be Venice? No.

And yet methinks it is--because I see Amid the lumps of yellow, red, and blue Something which looks like a Venetian spire.

This in my picture I would fain convey; I hope I do. Alas! _What_ FALLACY!"

Turner, unhappily, was acutely sensitive to these attacks; but _Punch_ cared little for that, and probably--to do him justice--knew still less.

It is, however, notable that--doubtless on account of that very common-sense which has nearly always kept him right on great questions--_Punch_ has usually in art been nearly as much a Philistine as the public he represents. When Sir Edward Burne-Jones burst forth into the artistic firmament, _Punch_ joined, if not the mockers, at least the severer critics. "BURN JONES?" said he; "by all means do." Of the exquisite "Mirror of Venus" and "The Beguiling of Merlin" he ignored the poetry, and saw little but the quaintness, his criticism being the more weighty for its being clever. Of the first-named picture he observed:--

"Or crowding round one pool, from flowery shelves A group of damsels bowed the knee Over reflections solid as themselves And like as peasen be."

While in the latter

"... mythic Uther's diddled _son_ was seen Packed in a trunk with cramped limbs awry, Spell-fettered by a Siren, limp and lean, And at least twelve heads high."

No doubt, the grounds of _Punch's_ opposition were not only those which are recognised as belonging to the humorist; they consisted not a little in that healthy hatred of the affectation with which so much good art is husked. In more recent times _Punch_ did not ignore the fine decorative qualities of Mr. Aubrey Beardsley's art, though he plainly loathed the morbid ugliness of much of its conception and detail.

Perhaps no one was more heartily attacked than Charles Kean--"Young Kean," it was the fas.h.i.+on to call him--probably because between Jerrold and the actor there had been a serious quarrel. As to this, which took its rise in the pre-_Punch_ days, nothing need here be said; it is fully dealt with in the wit's biography. In the words of the present Editor: "Only tardily was something like justice done to Kean's influence on the drama of our time, by _Punch_, who had been one of the first to sound the note of warning about that 'stage-upholstery' which was the first sign of the growth of realism in dramatic art." _Punch_ loved to contrast the younger Kean with his more gifted father, and had no patience with the raucous voice and bad enunciation of the son; but his sketch of the actor as Sardanapalus (1853), "with a wine-cup of the period," sets on record one of the most perfect archaeological revivals that had ever been seen on the English stage. But it was Kean's "Mephistopheles" (1854) that afforded _Punch_ his chance, for the actor's realisation was so wide of Goethe's creation that it was a Frenchified demon, played as a comic character. _Punch_ admitted the beauty of the production, but said that "as a piece of show and mechanism (wires unseen) it will draw the eyes of the town, especially the eyes with the least brains behind them." Kean's performance was denounced as devoid of life and beauty, but generous praise was accorded to his newly made-up nose, to which the best part of the criticism was devoted. "It has the true demoniacal curve," he said; "we never saw a better view of the devil's bridge." And so, throughout, _Punch_ dogged Kean's progress. But as time went on, his criticism lost the taint of personal feeling; and Kean was recognised at last as our leading tragedian, though to the end he was never accepted as a great actor.

A pretty accurate estimate as to _Punch's_ pet "black beasts" and popular b.u.t.ts at this time may be formed by the list drawn up in the paper of those persons whom _Punch_ would exercise his right to "challenge" if, in accordance with Mr. Serjeant Murphy's suggestion in the House of Commons, _Punch_ were put upon his trial for conspiracy, apropos of Cobden. From such a jury, we are told, there would be struck off, in addition to those names already given, Mr. Grant (author of "The Great Metropolis"), Baron Nathan the composer, Alderman Gibbs, D. W.

Osbaldiston (of the Surrey Theatre), Colonel Sibthorpe, and Moses the tailor.

In dealing with the work of Jerrold, I draw attention to the merciless onslaught on Samuel Carter Hall, editor of the "Art Journal" and founder of the "Art Union," as it was at first called. Hall was Pecksniff; the "Art Union" was "The Pecksniffery;" and _Punch_ courted the libel action which Hall threatened but failed to bring. That "the literary Pecksniff"

took this course could not but create a bad impression at the time, and Hall has therefore been put down as one of the b.u.t.ts whom _Punch_ had justly a.s.sailed. Of course his sententious catch-phrase of appealing to "hand, head, and heart" was always made the most of, and _Punch_ delighted in paraphrasing it as "gloves, hat, and waistcoat."

But the two non-political persons whom _Punch_ most persistently and vigorously attacked were Mr. James Silk Buckingham and Mr. Alfred Bunn; and these two campaigns must, perhaps, be counted the most elaborate of their kind which _Punch_ has undertaken in his career--though in neither had he very much to be proud of when all was said and done. Mr. J. S.

Buckingham, sometime Member of Parliament, was a gentleman philanthropically inclined and of literary instincts, a man who had travelled greatly, and who in many of the schemes he had undertaken--including the founding of the "Athenaeum" in 1828--had usually had the support of a number of the most reputable persons in the country. His latest idea was the establis.h.i.+ng of the British and Foreign Inst.i.tute--a sort of counterpart in intention of the present Colonial Inst.i.tute; but as all of Mr. Buckingham's schemes had not succeeded, and as he retained chambers in the club-house of what _Punch_ insisted upon calling the "British and Foreign [or 'Outlandish'] Dest.i.tute," the journal was convinced that something more than a _prima-facie_ case had been made out against the promoter, who, being a.s.sumed to live upon the members' subscriptions, was harried in the paper from its first volume, chiefly at first by the slas.h.i.+ng pen of Jerrold, and--in small paragraphs--by the more delicate rapier of Horace Mayhew. These charges of mal-administration and other offensive imputations against a semi-public man whose chief faults seem to have been an over-sanguine temperament and a slight disposition towards self-advertis.e.m.e.nt, attracted wide notice, and _Punch_ devoted in all considerable s.p.a.ce to the prosecution of this mistaken campaign. Unfortunately for Buckingham, a member of the Inst.i.tute, a Mr. George Jones--who had published a good deal of dramatic nonsense under the t.i.tle of "Tec.u.mseh"--came to his support with a ridiculous, inflated letter, which _Punch_ promptly printed with the signature engraved in facsimile. Thereupon Jones, finding the doubtful honour of publicity unexpectedly thrust upon him, denounced the letter as a forgery; so _Punch_, had it lithographed and circulated among the members, "just to show how good the forgery was."

Jones forthwith began an action for libel, which _Punch_ defended. The genuineness of the doc.u.ment, however, was established, and Jones withdrew from the action, paying all costs.

The sins of Jones were naturally added to Buckingham's account, and the latter decided--as Leech once effectively threatened to do--to "draw"

and defend himself. He published a pamphlet ent.i.tled "The Slanders of _Punch_" felicitously quoting as his motto from Proverbs xxvi. 18, "As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, so is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?"--he appealed for justice to the public, and especially to "the 200,000 readers of _Punch_" denouncing the persecution, and making known the fact that Jerrold had originally applied for members.h.i.+p of his Inst.i.tute, but had failed to take up his election, whereupon his name was erased from the books. Ten thousand handbills were circulated, and six thousand copies of the threepenny pamphlet, in various editions, were sold. _Punch's_ answer was a whole page of savage, biting satire from Jerrold (p. 241, Vol. IX.), which, however, was too bombastic and "ultrafluvial" to be wholly effective. Thackeray's page article on "John Jones's Remonstrance about the Buckingham Business" (p. 261) was far more to the point--amusing, politic, and shrewd--and drew the quarrel within its proper limits, by imparting to it a more jocular tone. Addressing the paper, he says, "At page 241 you are absolutely serious. That page of _Punch_ is a take-in. _Punch_ ought never to be virtuously indignant or absolutely serious;" and with these words, re-affirming the maxim which _Punch_ had forgotten in his heat, he restored peace, patched up the paper's reputation for good-humour, and with a skilful word covered its retreat.

But _Punch_ found his Waterloo, as it was considered at the time, at the hands of Alfred Bunn. Bunn was the theatrical and operatic manager and man of letters--or, rather, as the letters were so insignificant, the "man of _notes_." As early as 1816 he had produced a volume of verse.

Such verse!--sentimental, washy, and "woolly" to a degree. Three years later he put his name to 'Tancred: a Tale,' by the author of 'Conrad: a Tragedy,' lately performed at the Theatre Royal, Birmingham--of which he was manager for a spell before he came to London--and from time to time he gave forth other works, such as "The Stage, both Before and Behind the Curtain," three volumes of rather shrewd "Observations taken on the Spot" (1840), and "Old England and New England" (1853). He delivered lectures, too, at the St. James's Theatre, three times a week, on the History of the Stage, and the Genius and Career of Shakespeare--lectures which he also delivered in America. His verses, though vapid balderdash for the most part, were well adapted to music, and his ballads "When other Lips and other Hearts," "The Light of other Days," "In Happy Moments Day by Day" (sung in Fitzball's "Maritana"), enjoyed enormous popularity.

Still, the whole att.i.tude, the whole bearing of the man--his showy, almost comic, appearance and his grandiloquence of expression--as well as the tremendous character of the wording of his theatrical bills, afforded points of attack from the moment that he caught the public eye, that no caricaturist or humorist could resist. As early as 1832 Jerrold was lampooning him in his "Punch in London." In the following year Thackeray held him up to ridicule in his "National Standard," that was fated to collapse a few months later, and honoured him with immortality in "Flore and Zephyr;"[23] and soon after, Gilbert a Beckett satirised him in "Figaro in London." In 1833 "Alfred the Little; or, Management! A Play as rejected at Drury Lane, by a Star-gazer," was another satire of distinct severity.

It is not surprising, therefore, that as soon as _Punch_ was started the wits combined to continue the game which they had already, separately enjoyed, and which the public presumably found amusing. The other papers joined in _Punch's_ cry, the "Great Gun" showing pre-eminent zeal in its stalking of "Signor Bombastes Bunnerini." From the moment of _Punch's_ birth onwards, Bunn was one of his most ludicrous and fairest b.u.t.ts.

When he wrote verse, he was "The Poet Bunn;" when he was annoyed at that, or anything else, he was "Hot Cross Bunn." His deposition from the management of Drury Lane and his appointment to the Vauxhall Gardens were coincident with _Punch's_ appearance, and the publication of his "Vauxhall Papers," ill.u.s.trated by Alfred Crowquill, again drew attention to himself. No sooner was the fierce controversy begun as to the propriety of including a statue of Cromwell among the Sovereigns of England in the new Palace of Westminster, a matter decided fifty years later, than _Punch_ gravely mooted the question--"Shall Poet Bunn have a Statue?" Then when his reign at Drury Lane was resumed, and opera was his grand enterprise, Bunn became _Punch's_ "Parvus Apollo," while Scribe's libretto to Donizetti's music was to be "undone into English"

by the Poet himself; and the persecuted manager was throughout the subject of some of the happiest and most comic efforts of Leech's pencil.

At last, after supporting a six years' persistent cannonade, Bunn determined to strike a blow for liberty. His plan was to issue a reply--a swift and sudden attack, as personal and offensive as he could make it--in the form of _Punch's_ own self, enough like it in appearance to amuse the public, if not actually to deceive it. He secured the help of Mr. George Augustus Sala, then a young artist whose pencil was enlisted in the service of "The Man in the Moon," and who had as yet little idea of the journalistic eminence to which he was to rise. He had previously submitted sketches to Mark Lemon for use in _Punch_, which had been summarily and, as he tells me, "unctuously declined," and in his share of the work he doubtless tasted some of the sweets of revenge, and richly earned the epithet which Lemon thereupon applied to him of "graceless young whelp."

If the front page of this production be compared with Doyle's first _Punch_ cover on p. 47, the extent of the imitation will be appreciated.

The size was the same, and the _Punch_ lettering practically identical; but otherwise the resemblance was of a general character. If the design is examined, it will be seen that the groups are chiefly composed of _Punch's_ victims and his Staff. At the top the "Man in the Moon"

presides; below, the "Great Gun" is firing away at the dejected hunchback in the pillory. Toby is hanged on his master's own gallows; and the puppets are strewn about. Thackeray leans for support against Punch's broken big drum; Tom Taylor is beside him--Horace ("Ponny") Mayhew lies helpless in his box; while next to him Gilbert a Beckett is p.r.o.ne upon his face, leaving his barrister's wig upon the "block-head."

Jerrold, as a wasp, is gazing ruefully at the baton which has dropped from Punch's feeble hands; and Mark Lemon, dressed as a pot-boy, is straining himself in the foreground to reach his pewter-pot. Around float many of _Punch's_ b.u.t.ts, political and social. Wellington on the left and Brougham on the right play cup-and-ball with him. Louis Philippe has him on a toasting-fork, and Lord John Russell hangs him on a gallows-tree. Palmerston, Prince de Joinville, Jullien, Sibthorpe, Moses the tailor, Buckingham, and many more besides, are to be recognised. It was inscribed "No. 1,--(to be continued if necessary)"--a contingency, however, that did not arise.

It is usually considered that Bunn engaged a clever writer to write his text for him; but it is quite likely that he wrote the whole work himself, simply submitting it to the "editing" of some more experienced journalist, probably Albert Smith. Much of the manner is his own, and, as Mr. Joseph Knight agrees,[24] it "has many marks of Bunn's style, and is in part incontestably his."

His "Word" is directed at _Punch's_ "three Puppets--Wronghead (Mr.

Douglas Jerrold), Sleekhead (Mr. Gilbert a Beckett), and Thickhead (Mr.

Mark Lemon)--formidable names, Punch! and, as being three to one, formidable odds!" He refers to his friends having warned him not to rebel against Punch's attacks, as he is

a public character!! Pray, Punch, are not these, your puppets, public characters? Have they not acted in public, laboured for the public, catered for the public? Has not Douglas Jerrold been hissed off the stage by the public? Have not a Beckett's writings! been acted, and d.a.m.ned, in public? and as to Mark Lemon, there can be no doubt of _his_ being a public character, for he some time since kept a _public_-house!!! All ceremony therefore is at an end between us.... There may be other misdemeanours of which they have from time to time thought me guilty; but the grand one of all is, that I have taken the liberty of attempting to write poetry, and have produced on the stage my own works in preference to theirs....

Did you ever see them act, Punch? Did you ever see Douglas Jerrold in his own piece, ent.i.tled "The Painter of Ghent"? If not, I can only say you are a devilish lucky fellow! Did you ever see him and Mark Lemon act at Miss Kelly's theatre? and if so, did you ever see such an awful exhibition?... and if, as _they_ say, they _did_ "hold the mirror up to Nature," _I_ say it was only to _cast reflections_ upon her!! Did you read, Punch, the criticisms written _by_ themselves _upon_ themselves in the next day's papers? If you did not, you have a treat to come.

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE WRAPPER OF "A WORD WITH PUNCH." (_Designed by George Augustus Sala._)]