DOI Heft:
May 12, 1866
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16877#0203
PUNCH OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
195
May 12, 1866.]
REMARKABLE DREAM
Communicated by our Artist.—He thought the Royal Academy had Decreed that Exhibitors were to Hang tketr own
Pictures. That, thereupon, he rushed, with the Speed oe Lightning, with his great Work down to Trafalgar Square.
With Herculean Strength and graceful Courtesy he Trampled down all before him, Scattered the Associates, Pulverised
THE K.A.’s, AND FIXED IMMOYEABLY IN THE PLACE OF HONOUR THE ONLY WORK OF GENIUS OF THE YEAR.
AN AFFAIR OK FOLLY.
There was a time when every gentleman mixing in Society was con-
stantly in clanger of being obliged to run the risk of having bis brains
blown out for nothing. He was forced, on pain of infamy, to fight a
duel with any man of his own order who might happen to strike him a
blow or call him a liar. Tt was incumbent on him to demand satisfac-
tion for the insult which he had received. The only satisfaction he
could possibly obtain was that of killing the fellow whom he had been
obliged to challenge. And then he had either to stand the anxiety and
expense at least of a trial for murder, or to expatriate himself, if he
could escape. Thus any ruffian of a certain standing, if reckless, en-
joyed the privilege of being able to compel the best of his betters to
allow him to attempt his life. A ruffian, who was also a fool and vain-
glorious. would very often avail himself of this privilege, and force a
good and wise man to stake brains against trash contained in a skull.
Hence the “bully” and the “fire-eater” were common characters of
ihe time: As the challenged party had the choice of weapons, you
could, if you were a desperate villain, and an expert swordsman or a
dead shot, by offering an insult that would insure yon a challenge,
practically murder with impunity anybody you chose who was not as
cunniDg of fence or sure of aim as yourself. Every atheist was at
liberty to tyrannise over every Christian man who believed that he had
a soul to imperil. At last, a linen-draper was shot in a duel on Wim-
bledon Common, and duelling went out of fashion ; the rather that one
of the seconds narrowly escaped the gallows, and got two years’ im-
prisonment.
Now the few fools and brutes who want to indulge in duelling
must resort to some other land, amongst whose natives civilisation
has not abolished that barbarous absurdity. This condition is pleas-
ingly illustrated as follows:—
.Alleged Duel at Calais.—The article in La France, stating that a duel was
Aoout to take place between Captain Norton and Captain Price, has but little
foundation in fact. To constitute a parti carve for a duel the presence of two
principals and two seconds is required ; but in this instance there was only one
principal, without even a second, and consequently, the affair is a coup manque, the
chief actor being left alone in his gloiy.”
Thus far the Post. When the practice of duelling was prevalent in
these dominions, it appears to have been most rife in that part of them
called Ireland. Here, in England, the character of duellist is repre-
sented as having been very commonly combined with that of Irishman.
But the mirror that is held up to Nature now no longer reflects any
Sir Lucius 0’Trigger. Duels are even as uncommon on the other side
of St. George’s Channel as they are on this. Still, however, one may be
permitted to remark that the affair of folly above described was a regular
Irish duel. Why ?—why of course, because it was a duel wherein only
one party was engaged. It conversely resembled a solo of four, which
could occur in only a Hibernian opera. Instead of being a parti carre,
says the Post, the affair was a coup manque. Of necessity, a parti to be
carre must consist of at least four persons ; but an exception may be
taken to the remark that, because in this instance there was but one,
“ consequently the affair is a coup manque.” No coup was manque
where no coup was aimed; and one would prefer to style the alleged
monoduel at Calais a bull-fight, although the bull therein implicated ,
does not go on all-fours.
Moreover, this affair of folly need not have been a coup manque by
any means. The duellist who found himself with nobody to fight,
might have blown his own brains out. He then would have given him-
self all the satisfaction that he could have received from an antagonist.
Then, too, he would indeed have been left alone in his glory, such glory
as a slain duellist has; and also, he would have rid the world of a great
blockhead.
The Pope, by the way, has cashiered Signor Costa for fighting a
duel with a Neapolitan refugee. Honour to the Pope He can do
what is right when he pleases. Signor Costa is an officer in the
Pontifical Guards, and of course his dismissal from that corps will not
affect the Opera at Covent Garden.
195
May 12, 1866.]
REMARKABLE DREAM
Communicated by our Artist.—He thought the Royal Academy had Decreed that Exhibitors were to Hang tketr own
Pictures. That, thereupon, he rushed, with the Speed oe Lightning, with his great Work down to Trafalgar Square.
With Herculean Strength and graceful Courtesy he Trampled down all before him, Scattered the Associates, Pulverised
THE K.A.’s, AND FIXED IMMOYEABLY IN THE PLACE OF HONOUR THE ONLY WORK OF GENIUS OF THE YEAR.
AN AFFAIR OK FOLLY.
There was a time when every gentleman mixing in Society was con-
stantly in clanger of being obliged to run the risk of having bis brains
blown out for nothing. He was forced, on pain of infamy, to fight a
duel with any man of his own order who might happen to strike him a
blow or call him a liar. Tt was incumbent on him to demand satisfac-
tion for the insult which he had received. The only satisfaction he
could possibly obtain was that of killing the fellow whom he had been
obliged to challenge. And then he had either to stand the anxiety and
expense at least of a trial for murder, or to expatriate himself, if he
could escape. Thus any ruffian of a certain standing, if reckless, en-
joyed the privilege of being able to compel the best of his betters to
allow him to attempt his life. A ruffian, who was also a fool and vain-
glorious. would very often avail himself of this privilege, and force a
good and wise man to stake brains against trash contained in a skull.
Hence the “bully” and the “fire-eater” were common characters of
ihe time: As the challenged party had the choice of weapons, you
could, if you were a desperate villain, and an expert swordsman or a
dead shot, by offering an insult that would insure yon a challenge,
practically murder with impunity anybody you chose who was not as
cunniDg of fence or sure of aim as yourself. Every atheist was at
liberty to tyrannise over every Christian man who believed that he had
a soul to imperil. At last, a linen-draper was shot in a duel on Wim-
bledon Common, and duelling went out of fashion ; the rather that one
of the seconds narrowly escaped the gallows, and got two years’ im-
prisonment.
Now the few fools and brutes who want to indulge in duelling
must resort to some other land, amongst whose natives civilisation
has not abolished that barbarous absurdity. This condition is pleas-
ingly illustrated as follows:—
.Alleged Duel at Calais.—The article in La France, stating that a duel was
Aoout to take place between Captain Norton and Captain Price, has but little
foundation in fact. To constitute a parti carve for a duel the presence of two
principals and two seconds is required ; but in this instance there was only one
principal, without even a second, and consequently, the affair is a coup manque, the
chief actor being left alone in his gloiy.”
Thus far the Post. When the practice of duelling was prevalent in
these dominions, it appears to have been most rife in that part of them
called Ireland. Here, in England, the character of duellist is repre-
sented as having been very commonly combined with that of Irishman.
But the mirror that is held up to Nature now no longer reflects any
Sir Lucius 0’Trigger. Duels are even as uncommon on the other side
of St. George’s Channel as they are on this. Still, however, one may be
permitted to remark that the affair of folly above described was a regular
Irish duel. Why ?—why of course, because it was a duel wherein only
one party was engaged. It conversely resembled a solo of four, which
could occur in only a Hibernian opera. Instead of being a parti carre,
says the Post, the affair was a coup manque. Of necessity, a parti to be
carre must consist of at least four persons ; but an exception may be
taken to the remark that, because in this instance there was but one,
“ consequently the affair is a coup manque.” No coup was manque
where no coup was aimed; and one would prefer to style the alleged
monoduel at Calais a bull-fight, although the bull therein implicated ,
does not go on all-fours.
Moreover, this affair of folly need not have been a coup manque by
any means. The duellist who found himself with nobody to fight,
might have blown his own brains out. He then would have given him-
self all the satisfaction that he could have received from an antagonist.
Then, too, he would indeed have been left alone in his glory, such glory
as a slain duellist has; and also, he would have rid the world of a great
blockhead.
The Pope, by the way, has cashiered Signor Costa for fighting a
duel with a Neapolitan refugee. Honour to the Pope He can do
what is right when he pleases. Signor Costa is an officer in the
Pontifical Guards, and of course his dismissal from that corps will not
affect the Opera at Covent Garden.