DOI issue:
January 10, 1874
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16938#0019
January 10, 1874.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
11
(A REMINISCENCE OF BOXING-DAY.)
Sir Gorgy Guzzles. “Got a Pain, have you? Well, serve you Eight!
I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU AND THE OTHER SERVANTS SHOULD THINK IT
NECESSARY TO MAKE PlGS OF YOURSELVES ON ONE PARTICULAR DAY OF THE
Year, just because it happens to be the 25th of December ! ”
The Page. “ 0, Sir, please Sir ! Christmas makes no Difference to
you, Sir. You and her Ladyship can perform that Hoperation hevery
blessed Dayt of your Lives, Sir ! ” [A Month's Notice.
AS BROAD AS HIGH.
i An instructive article in tlie Saturday Review, on Lyell's Antiquity of Man,
j contains the remarkable passage following :—
“ Through all, as Sir Charles Lyell emphatically urges in closing his work, fortifying
| himself with the able advocacy of Dr. Asa Gray, it is to be kept in mind that there is
j nothing in the doctrine of transmutation, any more than in the simple extension of man’s
1 antiquity, to weaken the foundations of religion.”
; From the tenor of frequent articles on ecclesiastical subjects in the Saturday
| Revieiv, the readers of that well-written miscellany will probably infer that
i by religion it means that religion lire ached by very High Church Clergymen of
j the Church of England, and by Roman Catholic Priests—those, at least, of the
. Gallican school. People who look for theological information to the Saturday
Review will, some of them, perhaps, find themselves both enlightened and
astonished by a statement, in their estimation authoritative, representing ‘ ‘ the
doctrine of transmutation ” as not contrary to sound doctrine of divinity. They
j will,, no doubt, feel agreeably conscious that they have learned something in
; having been apprised, that what they were taught to believe a true account
j of.theageand ancestry of mankind, being rightly understood, is that man’s
i origin dates back through countless ages from a period of indefinite antiquity—
that his pedigree may be traced up to a marine Ascidian, that his first parents,
| so to call his more immediate progenitors, were anthropoid apes, and that the
' narrative declaring him to have lapsed from a primitive altitude is to be
taken really to signify that his existence began at the lowest degree of being,
whence he arose, and has been, on the whole, gradually ascending in the moral
and intellectual scale ever since.
Many a shallow sceptic will be confounded, if not corrected, by the announce-
ment that this explanation of the canonical history of mankind by no means
tends to weaken the foundations of religion—that is to say, the religion professed
and proclaimed by Dr. Pusey and Archdeacon Denison; to say nothing of
Dr. Newman, Archbishop Manning, and the Pope:
although, to weak and superficial minds, that exegesis
may seem a little too broad, perhaps, for Bishop
Colenso. To be sure, though, there is a sense, in which
the statement, that there is “nothing” in the doctrine
of transmutation “ any more than ” in the simple exten-
sion of man’s antiquity, to weaken the foundations of
religion, might be accepted by the most orthodox of
divines.
THE RED-HOT POKER,
At this festive season
Not a word of reason !
Or you talk high treason
Flat against the Crown.
0 the red-hot poker!
0 the mirth-provoker!
0 the screaming joker!
0 the rampant Clown!
0 the red-hot poker, &c.
Come, young fellow, turning
From the paths of learning,
For amusement burning,
Who art home from school.
Mistletoe and holly
Waken thoughts of folly;
Let us then be jolly :
Go and see the fool.
0 the red-hot poker, &c.
See him kick and whop men,
Smear and swab and mop men,
Cheat and swindle shopmen,
Burn the Pantaloon,
And, with fresh roars greeted,
Then himself, too, seated
On the poker heated :
What a great buffoon!
0 the red-hot poker, &c.
Gorge and act the glutton,
Steal, from folk that strut on,
Sundry legs of mutton,
Sausages, and geese;
Stuff in pocket ample :
Law and order trample ;
Set us youth example,
Cheeking the Police.
0 the red-hot poker, &c.
Nurse a baby, dress it,
Wash it, duck it, mess it.
Cram it, choke it, bless it;
Pretty little thing!
Dandle, dance, and jump it,
Bang it, bounce it, bump it,
Beat it, thwack it, thump it,
At its mother fling.
0 the red-hot poker, &c.
Make a slide of butter,
People throw in gutter,
Exclamations utter,
Causing boys and men
To forget all sorrow.
Two of them we ’ll borrow,—
“ How d’ye do to-morrow ? ”
Here we are again ! ”
0 the red-hot poker, &c.
Justice and Elegance.
We say a Brougham, a Hansom, an Orrery, a Stanhope,
a pair of Wellingtons, or of Bluchers, Columbia, America,
and in a score of other ways we recognise distinguished
men. Why (it occurred to us at the inauguration of the
New Post Office on New Year’s Eve) do we not, instead
of tormenting Greek scholars with such a word as
“ telegram,” call the thing a Wheatstone, and thus do
tardy justice to the benefactor of impatient mankind ?
Punch invites the universe to use the word in future.
He means to do so—which should be final.
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
11
(A REMINISCENCE OF BOXING-DAY.)
Sir Gorgy Guzzles. “Got a Pain, have you? Well, serve you Eight!
I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU AND THE OTHER SERVANTS SHOULD THINK IT
NECESSARY TO MAKE PlGS OF YOURSELVES ON ONE PARTICULAR DAY OF THE
Year, just because it happens to be the 25th of December ! ”
The Page. “ 0, Sir, please Sir ! Christmas makes no Difference to
you, Sir. You and her Ladyship can perform that Hoperation hevery
blessed Dayt of your Lives, Sir ! ” [A Month's Notice.
AS BROAD AS HIGH.
i An instructive article in tlie Saturday Review, on Lyell's Antiquity of Man,
j contains the remarkable passage following :—
“ Through all, as Sir Charles Lyell emphatically urges in closing his work, fortifying
| himself with the able advocacy of Dr. Asa Gray, it is to be kept in mind that there is
j nothing in the doctrine of transmutation, any more than in the simple extension of man’s
1 antiquity, to weaken the foundations of religion.”
; From the tenor of frequent articles on ecclesiastical subjects in the Saturday
| Revieiv, the readers of that well-written miscellany will probably infer that
i by religion it means that religion lire ached by very High Church Clergymen of
j the Church of England, and by Roman Catholic Priests—those, at least, of the
. Gallican school. People who look for theological information to the Saturday
Review will, some of them, perhaps, find themselves both enlightened and
astonished by a statement, in their estimation authoritative, representing ‘ ‘ the
doctrine of transmutation ” as not contrary to sound doctrine of divinity. They
j will,, no doubt, feel agreeably conscious that they have learned something in
; having been apprised, that what they were taught to believe a true account
j of.theageand ancestry of mankind, being rightly understood, is that man’s
i origin dates back through countless ages from a period of indefinite antiquity—
that his pedigree may be traced up to a marine Ascidian, that his first parents,
| so to call his more immediate progenitors, were anthropoid apes, and that the
' narrative declaring him to have lapsed from a primitive altitude is to be
taken really to signify that his existence began at the lowest degree of being,
whence he arose, and has been, on the whole, gradually ascending in the moral
and intellectual scale ever since.
Many a shallow sceptic will be confounded, if not corrected, by the announce-
ment that this explanation of the canonical history of mankind by no means
tends to weaken the foundations of religion—that is to say, the religion professed
and proclaimed by Dr. Pusey and Archdeacon Denison; to say nothing of
Dr. Newman, Archbishop Manning, and the Pope:
although, to weak and superficial minds, that exegesis
may seem a little too broad, perhaps, for Bishop
Colenso. To be sure, though, there is a sense, in which
the statement, that there is “nothing” in the doctrine
of transmutation “ any more than ” in the simple exten-
sion of man’s antiquity, to weaken the foundations of
religion, might be accepted by the most orthodox of
divines.
THE RED-HOT POKER,
At this festive season
Not a word of reason !
Or you talk high treason
Flat against the Crown.
0 the red-hot poker!
0 the mirth-provoker!
0 the screaming joker!
0 the rampant Clown!
0 the red-hot poker, &c.
Come, young fellow, turning
From the paths of learning,
For amusement burning,
Who art home from school.
Mistletoe and holly
Waken thoughts of folly;
Let us then be jolly :
Go and see the fool.
0 the red-hot poker, &c.
See him kick and whop men,
Smear and swab and mop men,
Cheat and swindle shopmen,
Burn the Pantaloon,
And, with fresh roars greeted,
Then himself, too, seated
On the poker heated :
What a great buffoon!
0 the red-hot poker, &c.
Gorge and act the glutton,
Steal, from folk that strut on,
Sundry legs of mutton,
Sausages, and geese;
Stuff in pocket ample :
Law and order trample ;
Set us youth example,
Cheeking the Police.
0 the red-hot poker, &c.
Nurse a baby, dress it,
Wash it, duck it, mess it.
Cram it, choke it, bless it;
Pretty little thing!
Dandle, dance, and jump it,
Bang it, bounce it, bump it,
Beat it, thwack it, thump it,
At its mother fling.
0 the red-hot poker, &c.
Make a slide of butter,
People throw in gutter,
Exclamations utter,
Causing boys and men
To forget all sorrow.
Two of them we ’ll borrow,—
“ How d’ye do to-morrow ? ”
Here we are again ! ”
0 the red-hot poker, &c.
Justice and Elegance.
We say a Brougham, a Hansom, an Orrery, a Stanhope,
a pair of Wellingtons, or of Bluchers, Columbia, America,
and in a score of other ways we recognise distinguished
men. Why (it occurred to us at the inauguration of the
New Post Office on New Year’s Eve) do we not, instead
of tormenting Greek scholars with such a word as
“ telegram,” call the thing a Wheatstone, and thus do
tardy justice to the benefactor of impatient mankind ?
Punch invites the universe to use the word in future.
He means to do so—which should be final.