It will doubtless be the opinion of many a reader that a Prefatory Essay on such a subject as Punning can possess little of interest, and nothing of novelty. I would, however, request any one entertaining this idea to suspend his judgment till he has given the matter ampler consideration.
In addressing these preliminary remarks to punsters in general, I think I have taken effectual means to render them of universal interest. When a certain author, who had dedicated one of his volumes "to those who think," was charged with want of judgment in catering for such a limited number of individuals, he justified his discernment by observing, that, however little numerous the body of thinking people might be, every reader would at least rank himself in that class. Our question can stand on much broader ground; for we assert, without fear of contradiction, that of the many judicious persons who, without doubt, will peruse and patronise these pages, not one will be found who is not only, se judice, a punster, but who has not, probably "many a time and oft," exhibited among his boon companions whatever portion of talent he may possess in that line of wit. It has been asked by a well-known writer, "Did any man of liberal education ever go through his teens without perpetrating the crime of making verses?" I am contented to wave the narrow distinction, by which uneducated persons would be excepted, and, with respect to the nobler and far more generally diffused art of punning, would inquire, Does any one, whatever be his rank or attainments, reach his twentieth year, without (we will not speak so inaccurately as to say, perpetrating the crime, but) contributing one or more puns to the common stock? Certainly not. What the ancients rather hyperbolically asserted of writing (for the many, who were uninstructed in the mechanical part of that art, could not by possibility have exercised it), Scribimus indocti doctique, is literally true as applied to punning: lettered and unlettered, all alike pun away. From the humble son of Crispin, who, having nothing but one of his sutorial weapons at hand wherewith to despatch his cotelette de bœuf, remarked that his all was at stake, to the gifted Sheridan, who discovered that Doctors' Commons was the greatest thoroughfare in England, in virtue of the old adage, "where there is a WILL there is a WAY," each man sports his calembourg.
Still, as it frequently happens that what is most generally practised, is far from being best understood, so is it with punning. It has been too much the case to treat it with levity and inconsiderateness; to regard it as mere trifling; to view it at best as a feeble missile from the armoury of wit, only adapted for the "puny (query punny?) whipster," and which those who are qualified to wield more valuable weapons would scarcely deign to employ. I trust that, in the course of these introductory observations, I shall effectually dispel all such erroneous prejudices, and shall satisfactorily assert the true dignity of the art, so that my readers may join with me in exclaiming,
"Punica se quantis attollet gloria rebus!"
and may perceive, that it is not only venerable from its antiquity, and supported by the authority of persons of taste and learning, who have invariably cultivated it, but is likewise highly beneficial to the bodily health, moral feeling, and intellectual improvement of the community.
With respect to its antiquity, we find it treated of by the most eminent writers upon rhetoric among the ancients, who not only class it among the beauties of language, but have stamped it with the dignity of a distinct figure of speech, assigning to it an appropriate name. I make no observations upon the injudicious attempts of some modern commentators to ally it to the paranomasia, it being evidently the antanaclasis of the rhetoricians. The great Aristotle (Rhet. ch. 11.) enumerates two or three different species of παραγραμματα, the name he gives to puns, in his remarks upon this figure, and cites examples of each kind, with expressions of commendation, from some of the most celebrated Greek authors. In Cicero's treatise on Oratory, a variety of instances of the antanaclasis are quoted, and highly praised by him for their wit. His own puns, with which his works abound, are more distinguished for their number than their excellence: humour does not appear to have been his forte, but his frequent attempts at punning sufficiently evince the high estimation in which it was held by himself and his contemporaries. The ancient poets, strange as it may appear, were not, in general, adepts in this art, if we except Aristophanes among the Greeks, and Ovid and Martial among the Latins. From the two last mentioned writers (the former of whom indeed would readily furnish a cento of puns) I beg leave to select two examples. The one is where Ovid makes Leander say, "Posito cum veste timore;" the other is the well-known epigram by Martial on the emperor Nero:
"Quis negat Æneæ natum de stirpe Neronem?
Sustulit hic matrem, Sustulit ille patrem."
I adduce these examples, because Addison, after erroneously defining a pun to be merely "a conceit arising from the use of two words that agree in the sound, but differ in the sense," goes on to inform us that if translated into a different language, it will vanish in the experiment; in fact he would represent it as vox et præterea nihil, a sound, and nothing but a sound. Unquestionably there are a multitude of puns that might answer this description, but it is far from being applicable to all. In the two instances I have just brought forward, the words posito and sustulit can be exactly translated into English, and both the sense and the pun retained. The truth is, that Addison, like many more who have thought proper to be very severe on the talents of the punning fraternity, was evidently not very accurately acquainted with the nature of what he was attacking.
If the plea of antiquity can thus be justly advanced in favour of punning, the continued adherence of all nations in all periods to the practice, may likewise with reason be urged in its support. Nor are its ramifications of slight importance. It may be considered as the origin of technical terms, most of which, if properly analysed, will prove to be virtual puns or conundrums; as the parent of double entendre of every description; and even as containing the germs of that slang formerly confined to the lower walks of life, but, in our more enlightened days, emulously studied even among the Corinthian pillars of polished society.
The number of final letters, which among the French are mere ciphers in pronunciation, has always given them a decided advantage in puns of mere words over every other nation. Their writings and conversation are alike replete with them; but they are almost invariably of that kind alluded to by Addison, which are lost if clothed in any but their native dress. Indeed this is almost a necessary consequence of the very circumstance already alluded to, which ensures them such superior facility in the production of puns. A brace of these I shall present my readers with, both as exhibiting a strong confirmation of what I have above said, and as being of modern date, and, in my opinion, of sterling excellence. The first of these is the reply made by a Parisian wit, to a person who asked him what was the true distinction between a flea and a louse. He answered that they were only disciples of different philosophers: the lice being followers of Epictetus (des pique-têles), and the fleas of Epicurus (des piqueurs). The other is an epigram, much talked off at the time of its appearance in the French metropolis, written by some wag, under a picture of Louis XVIII. painted by Le Gros, and placed in one of the public exhibitions. The striking resemblance of the head and neck of that monarch to those of a rabbit is well known; and of this circumstance the malicious epigrammatist thus happily avails himself in the pasquinade referred to: