You are here

قراءة كتاب Punch, or the London Charivari, Volume 104, January 28, 1893

تنويه: تعرض هنا نبذة من اول ١٠ صفحات فقط من الكتاب الالكتروني، لقراءة الكتاب كاملا اضغط على الزر “اشتر الآن"

‏اللغة: English
Punch, or the London Charivari, Volume 104, January 28, 1893

Punch, or the London Charivari, Volume 104, January 28, 1893

تقييمك:
0
No votes yet
المؤلف:
دار النشر: Project Gutenberg
الصفحة رقم: 5

clitter-clatter,

The world could hardly furnish such another.

The Parrot was a bird

That could talk great bosh with gravity;

The Ape could be absurd

With an air of solemn suavity;

And which to take most seriously, when the mimes were both on show,

There were ill-conditioned scoffers who declared they did not know.

"I am very sure," said Jacko, and he twitched his tail with glee,

"That the only serious creatures in the country are 'We Three'—

You, Polly, honest Jack (an Irish House-dog), and Myself!"

(Here he pulled poor Poll's tail-feathers hard, and capered like an elf.)

Poll held on to his perch, he'd much tenacity of claw,

But performed, involuntarily a sort of sharp see-saw,

And he snorted and looked down

With a very beaky frown,

And his round orb grew as red as any carrot.

"'We Three'? your Twelfth-Night tag

Is mere thrasonic brag.

Tschutt! You'll make my tail a rag!

Wish you wouldn't pull and drag

At my feathers in that way!" cried the Parrot.

Chuckled Jacko, "This is prime!

What a dickens of a time

(Like the Parrot and the Monkey in the story)

We shall have! Teach you, no doubt,

Not to leave poor Jacko out

Next time when you are ladling round the glory.

I might share with honest Jack

If of yielding I'd the knack,

Or would stoop to play the flatterer or the flunkey.

Pretty Poll! It is my pride

To assist you—from outside!

And I hope you're duly grateful," said the Monkey.

"I perceive," cried Pretty Polly,

"It's all right, and awfully jolly!

But if you think to pull me from my perch

By the tail, you are mistaken.

Simian tricks will leave unshaken

My hold, though I may seem to sway or lurch.

A bird who knows his book

Can afford to cock a snook

At a chatterer who intrigueth against his chief.

'We Three'? You quote the Clown;

And you play him! Yes, I own

Pretty Poll may be pulled down,

But I do not think 'twill be by Monkey 'Mischief!'"


For a Byronic Exam.

Question. What proof exists that Lord Byron shared expenses with the Maid of Athens?

Answer. The line in which he says, "Maid of Athens, ere we 'part,'"—&c.

Q. Is there any allusion to billiards in this poem?

A. Certainly. It occurs where the Bard says to the Maid, "Take the rest."


"Again We Come To Thee, Savoy!" (vide old-fashioned duet).—It is rumoured that the separation, on account of incompatibility of temper, between a certain distinguished Composer and an eminent Librettist has come to an end. Its end is peace—that is, an Operatic piece. They have met; the two have embraced, and will, no doubt, live happily ever afterwards, on the same terms as before, with the third party present, whose good offices it is pretty generally understood (his "good offices" are "Number Something, The Savoy,"—but this is not an advertisement) have brought about this veritable "Reunion of Arts."


MISCHIEF!

MISCHIEF!



OUR BOOKING-OFFICE.

A VOCATION.

A VOCATION.

The Vicar. "Oh—That's your Boy, Smithers? And what's he going to be? A Shoemaker, like yourself?"

Smithers. "Oh no, Sir. He's uncommon fond of Animals, you see—so we're thinking of making him a Butcher!"

"Eton of Old, or, Eighty Years Since!" exclaimed the Baron, and, taking up the handsome volume recently published by Messrs. Griffith and Farran, he was soon absorbed in its pages.


"Rather disappointing," murmured the Baron, as he closed the book, and "read no more that day." "Why, with a good memory, a lively imagination, and a pleasant style, this 'Old Colleger' might have given us something far more amusing than he has done. Of course Anybody's Anecdotes of our Grand Old School will probably be interesting up to a certain point: and they might be made 'funny, without being vulgar.' But this worthy Octogenarian, be he who he may, has produced only a very matter-of-fact book, containing historic information likely to arrest the attention of an old or young Etonian, but only now and again does the author give us anything sufficiently amusing to evoke a laugh. However, in the course of perusal, I have smiled gently, but distinctly. Had the Octogenarian already told many of these stories to his intimates, to whom their narration caused as much facile entertainment as was given to the friends of Mr. Peter Magnus, when he signed himself 'Afternoon,' in substitution for his initials, 'P.M.'?" And it is related how Mr. Pickwick rather envied the ease with which Mr. Magnus's friends were entertained. If so, then is the Baron to the Octogenarian Etonian and his intimates as was Mr. Pickwick to "P. M." and his correspondents. There are some good tales about Keat and Hawtrey, and of course the book, as one among an Etonian series, has its own value for all who care about Eton of the past.


"Perdidi diem," says the Baron, "or at least the better part of it, in reading Zero the Slaver, by Lawrence Fletcher, who seems to me to be a promising pupil in the school of Rider Haggard and Louis Stevenson, but chiefly of the former. It was a beastly day, snow falling, and North-West-by-North wind howling, bitterly cold, and so," continued the Baron, "I was reduced to Zero. The construction of the plot is clever, as is also the description of a great fight, in the latter portion of the story; but, as a whole, the story is irritatingly ill-written, and tawdrily coloured, while italics are used to bring into prominence any description of some strongly sensational situation."

Few things so annoying to me, personally, as the romancer speaking of his chief puppets as "our friends." This Lawrence Fletcher is perpetually doing. Now his heroes are not "my friends," for, when I read, I am strictly impartial, at all events, through two-thirds of the book, and, if I learn to love any one or two (or more) of them, male or female, I should still resent the author's presuming to speak of them as "our friends." To do so from the first is simply impudent presumption on the part of the author, as why, on earth, should he assume that his creations—his children—should be as dear to us as they are to him?

No—"Our friends," so used, is a

Pages