قراءة كتاب Punch, or the London Charivari, Volume 152, June 6, 1917
تنويه: تعرض هنا نبذة من اول ١٠ صفحات فقط من الكتاب الالكتروني، لقراءة الكتاب كاملا اضغط على الزر “اشتر الآن"
Punch, or the London Charivari, Volume 152, June 6, 1917
ASCERTAINING WHETHER FOOD GIVEN TO FOWLS IS FIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
VICARIOUS REPRISALS.
I never countenanced the Hun in any sort of way—
He always does what isn't done and won't learn how to play—
But never have I felt estranged quite as I do to-day.
Till now I've strafed him like the rest, as natural and right,
But now my spirit is obsessed by bitter private spite;
And if he wants to know the cause—no mail came up to-night.
The sun must plod his weary course, the long night wax and wane,
To-day's strong rumours lose their force for others as insane,
The ration cart crawl up once more before we hope again.
Who is to blame what man can guess? I do not want to know,
The U-Boats or the Q.M.S., the Censor or the snow—
It cannot modify the fact that warps my nature so.
Although I may not vent my spleen upon the stricken Mess,
Where fancies of what might have been add gall to bitterness,
I mean to cause some sentient thing confusion and distress.
And who so handy as the Hun? I know what I will do,
I will prevent to-morrow's sun with avid zeal and new,
Betaking me to some O. Pip that gives a charming view;
Each Teuton nose that dares to lift above the tunnelled ground
Shall be saluted with its swift and dedicated round,
Till all the burrows of the Bosch with panic shall resound.
And by this wrath it shall be known when there is like delay,
Till far beyond my trembling zone pale Hun to Hun shall say,
"It's no use crying Kamerad—he's had no mail to-day!"
Unchained.
"FIGHTING IN PORTUGUESE EAST AFRICA.
The gorgonzola column also fought a vigorous action, inflicting great losses on the rebels."—Evening Chronicle.
"The standard ship now being built in British shipyards to make good the loss of tonnage due to submarine warfare, is of about 8,000 tons, and all the ships already laid down are of identical pattern.
Eight thousand tons seems to have been hit upon as a middle size between 6,000 and 10,000 tons."—Pearson's Weekly.
A very good hit too.
From an Indian cinema advertisement:—
"'The Marble Heart' from 'King Baggot': A splendid drama dealing with the loves of a young sculptor whose daydreams partake of an astral separation from his own self, and carry him to the scenes of the times in which his 3 statues were living persons. We are introduced to old Greece, and meet Diagones; Georges; Philideas and live over again the old times."—Civil and Military Gazette (Lahore).
But with a lot of nice new friends.
AGAINST TYRANNY.
RUSSIA (drawing her sword again in the common cause). "IF I CAN'T KEEP FAITH WITH THE FRIENDS OF FREEDOM, HOW AM I FIT TO BE FREE?"
Short. "WE MUST WAIT TILL THE BOYS COME MARCHING HOME, AND THEN THE PROFITS 'LL GO UP."
Codlin. "OH, WILL THEY? MEBBE THAT BOMBIN' 'LL HAVE MADE 'EM PRETTY TIDY SHOTS."
WHO SHALL DECIDE?
(An echo of the Romney cause célèbre.)
In view of the attacks on their honourable calling by Sir THOMAS JACKSON and others, in The Times and elsewhere, the Art critics of London called a public meeting to consolidate their position. The Chair was taken by Sir WILLIAM RICHMOND, who was supported by Mr. HUMPHRY WARD, Mr. A.S. TEMPLE, and numerous other gentlemen who know a Romney when they see it, or who earn an honest livelihood by distributing adjectives, good or bad, among painters.
Sir WILLIAM RICHMOND, referring to a recent lawsuit, said that it was monstrous that careful conclusions based upon a long life of study should be upset by the production of a pencil sketch, and he called for the removal of Mr. Justice DARLING from the Bench. Art criticism was not a mere matter of caprice, as people were now pretending, but an exact science. If a qualified man, not only a theorist but a practical craftsman, after years of preparation, stated that a picture was by such and such a painter, it was by him. The mere fact that someone named OZIAS HUMPHRY had made a small sketch resembling a large oil painting proved nothing. (Loud cheers.) The speaker said that he was glad to hear those sounds. But he would go further. The conclusion of the recent case was described as dramatic. He had a far more dramatic possibility up his sleeve. Suppose it should be discovered—as it might be, nothing being impossible—suppose it should be discovered that ROMNEY chose to paint some of his pictures under the pseudonym of OZIAS HUMPHRY. What then? (Terrific sensation.) They had all heard of the SHAKSPEARE-BACON controversy. The ROMNEY-HUMPHRY controversy might be destined to eclipse that. (Profound excitement.) He, the speaker, personally was not prepared to let the matter rest where it did. His honour as an Art critic was at stake.
An even greater sensation was caused at this juncture by a rush of cold air in the hall, followed by the appearance of a ghostly shape, which announced itself to be the shade of OZIAS HUMPHRY himself. If anyone doubted his identity or suggested that he did not paint his own pictures he should take very prompt action indeed. The art of haunting was by no means extinct. (Here the Chairman hurriedly left the room.) The shade, continuing, caused some consternation by stating that the picture which had led to litigation the other day was by no means the only supposed Romney that he had painted. He could name several in collections within a mile or two of the spot where he was then standing. (At this point Mr. HUMPHRY WARD swooned and was carried out by Mr. ROBERTS.)
Mr. A.S. TEMPLE remarked that no doubt the shade of OZIAS HUMPHRY attended that meeting in all good faith, but for his part he thought that he would have shown better taste had he kept away. In fact everyone would be happier if OZIAS HUMPHRY had never existed. It was not Art critics that should be pitched into, but painters whose styles resembled each other. They were the real nuisance. It was the duty of artists to be distinctive, and it was the duty of Art critics to keep them so. No doubt, as SHAKSPEARE knew, there was a certain humour to be extracted from men who were exactly alike, such as the two Dromios, but when painters painted alike there was no fun in it at all.
Mr. JOHN SMITH testified to the fact that he had no interest in a picture unless he knew who painted it; and even then he was not interested unless the name of the painter was a familiar one. If Art critics provided these names, it was obviously desirable that their services should be retained; but it was confusing if the Art critics disagreed among themselves. All
