[45] See p. 85.
[46] I have been fortunate in ascertaining Mr. Milliken's own estimate of 'Arry in a private letter to a friend. Although it was not written for publication, I have received permission to quote the following sentences:—
"'Arry—as you say—the essential Cad, is really appalling. He is not a creature to be laughed at or with. My main purpose was satirical—an analysis of and an attack on the spirit of Caddishness, rampant in our days in many grades of life, coarse, corrupting, revolting in all. I might have confined myself to the 'Humours of 'Arry,' when my work would have been more genial, and, to many, more attractive. But then I should have missed my mark. On the other hand, I might have made it a more realistic study, but then I should have got very few readers, and certainly no place in the Punch pages. So it was a compromise; not a consistent study of an individual Cad, but of the various characteristics of Caddishness. It has been said that an ordinary cad could not have done or said or known all that my 'Arry did. Quite true, quite well known to me while writing; and indeed I forestalled the objection in the preface of the book.... As to 'Arry's origin, and the way in which I studied him, I have mingled much with working men, shop-lads, and would-be smart and 'snide' clerks—who plume themselves on their mastery of slang and their general 'cuteness' and 'leariness.' I have watched, listened, and studied for years 'from the life,' and I fancy I've a good memory for slang phrases of all sorts; and my 'Arry 'slang,' as I have said, is very varied, and not scientific, though most of it I have heard from the lips of street-boy, Bank-holiday youth, coster, cheap clerk, counter-jumper, bar-lounger, cheap excursionist, smoking-concert devotee, tenth-rate suburban singer, music hall 'pro' or his admirer," etc. etc.
[47] Connection with Punch has run strangely in families—as the reader may see by reference to the "Family Trees" on the next page.
[48] Having mentioned the name of Edmund Yates, I may here contradict the statement that that distinguished journalist ever wrote for Punch. The belief arose partly through Martin F. Tupper's "My Life as an Author":—"I remember also how he dropped in on me at Albany one morning, just as I happened to be pasting into one of my books a few quips and cranks anent my books from Punch. He adjured me 'not to do it! for Heaven's sake spare me!' covering his face with his hands. 'What's the matter, friend?' 'I wrote all those,' added he in earnest penitence, 'and I vow faithfully never to do it again!' 'Pray don't make a rash promise, Edmund, and so unkind a one too; I rejoice in all this sort of thing—it sells my books, besides—I'se Maw-worm—I likes to be despised!' 'Well, it's very good-natured of you to say so, but I really never will do it again;' and the good fellow never did—so have I lost my most telling advertisement" (p. [326]). Considering, however, that Yates was on the worst of terms with Mark Lemon, we may easily believe that he did not contribute to his paper, and as during his early friendship with Mr. Burnand he never hinted at writing for Punch as an outsider, the statement may be dismissed. Moreover, so fantastic is the scene described that, if strictly accurate, it was most likely a practical joke played off upon the egotistical old gentleman, whose worst enemies never accused him of a sense of humour.
[49] "Fors," 1874 (p. 125).
[50] See Punch, p. 237, Vol. I.
[51] It may be stated that Doyle contributed a ewe-lamb of literature to Punch (May 13th, 1843), entitled "High Art and the Royal Academy" (Vol. XVI., p. 197).
[52] This conversation took place in April, 1889.
[53] Since 1892, I may explain, Sir John Tenniel and Punch have moved with the times. Sir John now draws his cartoons upon the Chinese-whitened surface of cardboard, and they are photographed on the block in the usual way.