“To-morrow will be performed, in Mr. Holt’s long room, the new pantomime entertainment, in grotesque characters, called ‘The Adventures of Harlequin and Scaramouch; or, The Spaniard Trick’d,’ to which will be added an Optick, wherein will be represented in perspective several of the most noted cities and remarkable places in Europe and America, with a new Prologue and Epilogue addressed to the town. To begin precisely at six o’clock. Tickets to be had at Mr. Holt’s, at five shillings each.”
Ireland’s history of the New York stage preserves the next earliest record of mechanical puppets performed in this country. It refers to the New York Gazette of August, 1747:
“To be seen at the house of Mr. Hamilton Hewetson, at the sign of the Spread Eagle, near White Hall slip, Punch’s opera, ‘Bateman; or, The Unhappy Marriage,’ with a fine dialogue between Punch and his wife, Joan, acted by a set of lively figures.”
In August, 1749, the play of “Whittington and his Cat” was announced to be acted in New York city by Punch’s company of comedians, and in the following year the same company, supposed to be mechanical figures, were to have performed the “Norfolk Tragedy; or, The Babes in the Wood,” along with “Entertainments of Men and Women.”
Passing on to the time within the memory of the present generation, we find that Mr. Punch came into special favor about the year 1866, as may be gathered from the reports in the English newspapers of that time, Manvers and others of England’s best Punch and Judy players having left its shores to try their fortunes in America’s more favored channels.
In 1874 the demand for puppets was so great that it became difficult to meet the wants of the many professors that had decided to become performers. Notwithstanding the growing number of actors, in the fall of 1876 not one unemployed Punch and Judy performer could be found in New York city.
As to the puppet-show of “Punch and Judy,” it never is looked at by our people but as a mere joke; and a most effective part of that joke is the ultimate triumph of the hero; without it the representation would be not only “flat and stale,” but “unprofitable.” We have seen it so, for we remember a showman on one occasion not merely receiving little or no money, but getting lamentably pelted with mud, because, from some scruple or other, he refused to allow the victory over the Devil to Punch. Besides, it may surely deserve consideration, whether, wicked as Punch unquestionably is, the Devil is not the worse offender of the two, and, consequently, the more deserving of punishment. If so, poetical justice is satisfied.
Recently an American showman has introduced a very famous popular piece as a closing act to the comical tragedies of Mr. Punch, in which our hero, after having gained a victory over the demon, is eventually himself swallowed up by a great snake. (See the Act for Punch and his great $25,000 Box Trick.)