The Project Gutenberg EBook of Social Pictorial Satire, by George du Maurier

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

Title: Social Pictorial Satire

Author: George du Maurier

Release Date: July 7, 2004 [EBook #12834]

Language: English

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOCIAL PICTORIAL SATIRE ***

Produced by Ben Courtney, Keith M. Eckrich and the PG Online Distributed Proofreaders

SOCIAL PICTORIAL SATIRE

[Frontispiece: Mr. and Mrs. Candle.

From the original drawing by JOHN LEECH. In the possession of JOHN KENDRICK BANGS. Esq. The lower portion has never before been reproduced.]

SOCIAL PICTORIAL SATIRE.

By GEORGE DU MAURIER,

Author of "Trilby" "The Martian" &c.

WITH ILLUSTRATIONS

MDCCCXCVIII

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Mr. and Mrs. Caudle

John Leech

"In the Bay of Biscay O"

A Specimen of Pluck

One of Mr. Briggs's Adventures in the Highlands

Thank Goodness! Fly-fishing has begun!

"The jolly little Street Arabs"

Doing a little Business

A Tolerably Broad Hint

Charles Keene

The Snowstorm, Jan. 2, 1867

Waiting for the Landlord!

A Stroke of Business

"None o' your Larks"

An Affront to the Service

"Not up to his Business"

George du Maurier

Feline Amenities

The New Society Craze

A Pictorial Puzzle

Refinements of Modern Speech

"Reading without Tears"

The Height of Impropriety

Things one would wish to have expressed differently

SOCIAL PICTORIAL SATIRE

It is my purpose to speak of the craft to which I have devoted the best years of my life, the craft of portraying, by means of little pen-and-ink strokes, lines, and scratches, a small portion of the world in which we live; such social and domestic incidents as lend themselves to humorous or satirical treatment; the illustrated criticism of life, of the life of our time and country, in its lighter aspects.

The fact that I have spent so many years in the practice of this craft does not of itself, I am well aware, entitle me to lay down the law about it; the mere exercise of an art so patent to all, so easily understanded of the people, does not give one any special insight into its simple mysteries, beyond a certain perception and appreciation of the technical means by which it is produced—unless one is gifted with the critical faculty, a gift apart, to the possession of which I make no claim.

There are two kinds of critics of such work as ours. First there is the wide public for whom we work and by whom we are paid; "who lives to please must please to live"; and who lives by drawing for a comic periodical must manage to please the greater number. The judgment of this critic, though often sound, is not infallible; but his verdict for the time being is final, and by it we, who live by our wits and from hand to mouth, must either stand or fall.

The other critic is the expert, our fellow-craftsman, who has learned by initiation, apprenticeship, and long practice the simple secrets of our common trade. He is not quite infallible either, and is apt to concern himself more about the manner than the matter of our performance; nor is he of immediate importance, since with the public on our side we can do without him for a while, and flourish like a green bay-tree in spite of his artistic disapproval of our work; but he is not to be despised, for he is some years in advance of that other critic, the public, who may, and probably will, come round to his way of thinking in time.

The first of these two critics is typified by Molière's famous cook, who must have been a singularly honest, independent, and intelligent person, since he chose in all cases to abide by her decision, and not with an altogether unsatisfactory result to Mankind! Such cooks are not to be found in these days—certainly not in England; but he is an unlucky craftsman who does not possess some such natural critics in his family, his home, or near it—mother, sister, friend, wife, or child—who will look over his shoulder at his little sketch, and say:

"Tommy [or Papa, or Grandpapa, as the case may be], that person you've just drawn doesn't look quite natural," or:

"That lady is not properly dressed for the person you want her to be—those hats are not worn this year," and so forth and so forth.

When you have thoroughly satisfied this household critic, then is the time to show some handy brother-craftsman your amended work, and listen gratefully when he suggests that you should put a tone on this wall, and a tree, or something, in the left middle distance to balance the composition, and raise or depress the horizon-line to get a better effect of perspective.

In speaking of some of my fellow-artists on Punch, and of their work, I shall try and bring both these critical methods into play—promising, however, once for all, that such criticism on my part is simply the expression of my individual taste or fancy, the taste or fancy of one who by no means pretends to the unerring acumen of Molière's cook, on the one hand, and who feels himself by no means infallible in his judgment of purely technical matters, on the other. I can only admire and say why, or why I don't; and if I fail in making you admire and disadmire with me, it will most likely be my fault as well as my misfortune.

I had originally proposed to treat of Richard Doyle, John Leech, and Charles Keene—and finally of myself, since that I should speak of myself was rather insisted upon by those who procured me the honour of speaking at all. I find, however, that there is so much to say about Leech and Keene that I have thought it better to sacrifice Richard Doyle, who belongs to a remoter period, and whose work, exquisite as it is of its kind, is so much slighter than theirs, and fills so much less of the public eye; for his connection with Punch did not last long. Moreover, personally I knew less of him: just enough to find that to know was to love him—a happy peculiarity he shared with his two great collaborators on Punch.

John Leech! What a name that was to conjure with, and is still!

I cannot find words to express what it represented to me of pure unmixed delight in my youth and boyhood, long before I ever dreamed of being an artist myself! It stands out of the path with such names as Dickens, Dumas, Byron—not indeed that I am claiming for him an equal rank with those immortals, who wielded a weapon so much more potent than a mere caricaturist's pencil! But if an artist's fame is to be measured by the mere quantity and