PUNCH.—It is impossible to overlook the famous weekly that from its own pages could offer a fairly representative group of the work of any decade since it was established; a paper which, if it has not attracted every great illustrator, could nevertheless select a hundred drawings from its pages that might be fairly entered in competition with any other hundred outside them. But, at the same time, to give a summary of its record during the sixties, even as compressed as those of The Cornhill Magazine, Once a Week, etc., would occupy more pages than all the rest put together. Fortunately the labour has been accomplished quite recently. Mr. M. H. Spielmann's History of Punch supplies a full and admirably digested chronicle of its artistic achievements. So that here (excluding the staff-artists, Sir John Tenniel, Mr. Du Maurier, Mr. Linley Sambourne, and the rest, and the greatest Punch artist, Charles Keene, who was never actually upon its staff) it will be sufficient to indicate where admirers of the men of the sixties may find examples of their work for Punch; Sir John Millais appears twice upon p. 115 of vol. xliv. (1863) with a design to Mokeanna, Mr. F. C. Burnand's laughable parody, and again with Mr. Vandyke Brown's sons thrashing the lay figure, in the Almanac for 1865, a drawing that faces, oddly enough, one of Fred Walker's two contributions, The New Bathing Company, Limited, Specimens of Costumes to be worn by the Shareholders. The other Fred Walker, Captain Jinks of the 'Selfish,' is on p. 74 of vol. lvii. 1869; George J. Pinwell is an infrequent contributor from 1863 to 1869; Walter Crane appears but once, p. 33 (vol. li. 1866); Frederick Shields's three initials, which appeared in 1870, were drawn in 1867; M. J. Lawless is represented by six drawings, which appeared between May 1860 and January 1861; F. W. Lawson has some initials and one vignette in the volume for 1867; Ernest Griset appears in the Almanac for 1867; J. G. Thomson, for twenty years cartoonist of Fun, is an occasional contributor between 1861 and 1864; H. S. Marks appears in 1861, and Paul Gray, also with a few initials and 'socials,' up to 1865; Charles Keene's first drawing for Punch is in 1852, he was 'called to the table' in 1860, and on a few occasions supplied the political cartoon. The mass of his work within the classic pages is too familiar to need more than passing reference. The first drawing by 'George Louis Palmella Busson Du Maurier' appears in 1860, the Legend of Camelot, with five drawings, which are already historic, in 1866. These delicious parodies (here reproduced) of the pre-Raphaelite manner are as fascinating to-day as when they first appeared.
FUN
This popular humorous penny weekly, which is still running, would be forever memorable as the birthplace of the famous Bab ballads, with W. S. Gilbert's own thumb-nail sketches: yet it would be foolish to rank him as an illustrator, despite the grotesque humour of these inimitable little figures. The periodical, not (I believe) at first under the editorship of Tom Hood, the younger, began in September 21, 1861. The mass of illustrations must be the only excuse for failing to include an orderly summary; yet there is not, and there is certainly no necessity for, an elaborate chronicle of the paper, like Mr. Spielmann's admirable monograph in Punch. But those who are curious to discover the work of less-known men of the sixties will find plenty to reward their search. A clever parody of Millais' pre-Raphaelite manner is given as a tail-piece to the preface of vol. i. A. Boyd Houghton supplied the cartoons for a short period, November 1866 to April 6, 1867. At least those signed A. H. are attributed to him, and the first would almost suffice by itself to decide it, did any doubt exist. Another cartoonist, who signed his work with the device of a hen, is very freely represented. F. Barnard was also cartoonist for a long time—1869 onwards—and J. G. Thomson, for a score of years, did excellent work in the same department. The authorship of many of the drawings scattered through its pages is easily recognised by their style—others, as for instance one on page five of the Almanac for 1866, puzzle the student. It looks like a Paul Gray, but the monogram with which it is signed, although it is indecipherable, is certainly not 'P. G.' W. J. Wiegand, W. Brunton, H. Sanderson, Matt Stretch, Lieut. Seccombe, L. C. Henley, F. S. Walker, and F. W. Lawson (see for instance, Almanac for 1865, p. 11) contributed a great many of the 'socials' to the early volumes.
Then, as now, you find unconscious or deliberate imitations of other artists' mannerisms. A rash observer might attribute drawings here to C. Keene (Almanac for 1865, vi.), and credit Tenniel with the title-page to vol. iv. N.S.
Still, as a field to discover the work of young artists who afterwards become approximately great, Fun is not a very happy hunting-ground. Despite some notable exceptions, its illustrators cannot be placed even upon the average of the period that concerns us; the presence of a half a dozen or so of first-rate men hardly makes a set of the comic paper essential to a representative collection. After renewed intimacy with its pages there is a distinct feeling of disappointment. That its drawings pleased you mightily, and seemed fine stuff at the time, may be true; but it only proves that the enjoyment of a schoolboy cannot be recaptured in after-life if the quality of the drawing be too poor to sustain the weight of old-fashioned dress and jokes whose first sparkle has dimmed beyond restoration.
JUDY,
The twopenny rival to Punch, began life on May 1, 1867. Although Matt Morgan supplied many of the early cartoons and 'socials,' the really admirable level it reached in the eighties is not foreshadowed even dimly by its first volumes. With vol. ii. J. Proctor, an admirable draughtsman, despite his fondness for the decisive, unsympathetic line which Sir John Tenniel has accustomed us to consider part and parcel of a political cartoon, is distinctly one of the best men who have worked this particular form of satire. Afterwards 'W. B.' contributed many. The mass of work, in the volumes which can be considered as belonging to the period covered by this book, contains hardly a single drawing to repay the weary hunt through their pages. Yet the issues of a later decade are as certain to be prized by students of the 'eighties' as the best periodicals of the sixties are by devotees of that period.
PUNCH AND JUDY,
Beginning in October 1869, yet another paper on similar lines, ran a short but interesting career of twelve weeks, and continued, in a commonplace way, for a year or two longer. The reason the first dozen issues are worth notice here is that the illustrations are all by 'graphotype process' (which must not be confused with the far earlier 'glyptography'), and so appeal to students of the technique of illustration. The principle of the graphotype process, it is said, was discovered accidentally. The inventor was removing, with a wet camel-hair brush, the white enamel from the face of a visiting-card, when he noticed that the printing on it was left in distinct relief. After many experiments the idea was developed, and a surface of metal was covered with a powdered chalky substance, upon which the drawing was made with a silicate ink which hardened the substance wherever it was applied. The chalk was then brushed away and the drawing left in low but distinct relief on the metal-plate, from which electrotypes could be taken in the usual way. The experiment gained some commercial success, and quite a notable group of artists experimented with it for designs to an edition of Dr. Isaac Watts's Divine and Moral Songs, a most curious libretto for an artistic venture. In Punch and Judy the blocks are by no means bad as regards their reproduction. Despite the very mediocre drawing of the originals, they are nevertheless preferable to the cheap wood-engravings of their contemporaries. After its change, 'G. O. M.' (if one reads the initials aright), or 'C. O. M.,'contributes some average cartoons. When it first appeared, at least one schoolboy was struck with the curious difference of technique that the illustrations showed, and from that time onwards had his curiosity aroused towards process-work. Therefore, this lapse into anecdotage, in the short record of a venture otherwise artistically unworthy to be noticed here, may be pardoned.