Punch (94.1888)

March 3, 1888.] PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

97

THERE 'S NOTHING LIKE A LITTLE MUTUAL FLATTERY.

M. Ic Ficomte Sector du Graillon. " Do you know, Serr Jems, ven I 'eaeed
you spio French for ze first time, I tared you, by your Accent, for a
Frenchman!"

Sir James. " Kwaw, vraymonq, Veecont ? Oh—ay mwaw, kong je voos

ay yew poor la premia1r fwaw, j'ay ponxay, par voter mannyair de
voos haeillyay, de marshy, ay de monty a sheval, ker voos etty oon

Ossla y!___[They swear eternal friendship.

MORE CANTERBURY TALES.

Sir,—Any impartial reader who has followed the con-
troversy that has recently taken place in the columns
of the Times, hetween Canon Routledge and Father
Morris on the nature of the blows inflicted on the head
of St. Thomas, must admit that in his latest rejoinder
the worthy Canon has decidedly the advantage of his
ingenious opponent. "Let him," asks the Canon,
bringing matters to a practical test, "try the experi-
ment on some one,—not with a sword," he considerately
adds, " but with a stick." That this is what the Canon
has been doing, and has probably had a Verger, or

Eerhaps even the Dean _ himself, down "on the flat of
is stomach," as the Saint was said to have been, and
has been whacking vigorously at his head, there can
be no sort of doubt. For he relates his experience
under the circumstances, adding that anybody who
makes a similar attack, "will find that a blow aimed
vertically at the crown of the head would glance down
either the right or the left side."

This appeal to practical experiment for verifying
antiquarian theory has struck me as most happy, and,
taking quite a morbid interest in the late controversy,
I have already acted several times on the Canon's
spirited suggestion, and have felled in turns my grand-
mother, the butler, two uncles, and a tax-collector with
an umbrella, with varying results; yet though I have
always aimed the blow "vertically," to the best of my
ability, at the crowns of their respective heads. I cannot
fay that in all cases I have succeeded in hitting them.
Hence my experience has been hitherto somewhat in-
conclusive, but I am hoping that a few more chance
trials will afford me an opportunity of perfecting it.

Meantime, I shall be interested in noting whether
Father Morris acts upon the Canon's hint. I have no
doubt, could he persuade his superior, or even a lay
brother or two, to let him "go for" their heads with a
hockey stick, he might throw so much light upon the
matter as to considerably modify the rather limited
view to which he has as yet, as far as I have interpreted
his letters, confined himself in relation to it. Trusting
we shall hear still something further from him,—I am, Sir,
your obedient servant, A Practical Antiquarian.

"The Great 'Twinge' Brethren." — Gout and
Rheumatism. _

PLAY-TIME.

I suggested last week a course (to which I admitted there were
many objections) for ameliorating the generally unhappy conditions
of theatrical premieres. By presenting plays first to an audience of
experts, many of the otherwise inevitable disadvantages of First
Nights might be avoided. An excellent critical confrere, who is one
of those whom Matt Arnold styles, "the young lions of the Daily
Telegraph" roars with laughter at this notion of mine as being
" curious and comical." . .

Perhaps so: yet what, in their original intention, were " private
views," in artists' studios, of the pictures before they left the easel,
but appeals to critical judgment, professional and amateur, so that
any defects might be remedied, previous to their appearance on the
walls of the Academy, Grosvenor, or elsewhere ? Mind, I don't say
that this was the only private view that occurred to the artists who
initiated the idea. Have I not been present at genuine " private
views " (not one of those idiotic fashionable Sunday gatherings which
are the abuse of the original purpose) when a thoughtful suggestion
has been made, and has been subsequently adopted by the artist to the
manifest improvement of the picture ? Certainly I have.

Has not my excellent friend, as a professional critic, any expe-
rience of being asked to read a play, and advise upon it ?^ Well,
this is one step towards the production of a piece in camera. And
the next step ? has it not been frequently adopted? Are there not
Operas to which musical and dramatic critics are admitted before
the work is made public ? What are they there for ? _ If merely
to write a notice, or for other journalistic purposes, no criticism is in
question; but if it is to assist themselves in writing a more thoughtful
criticism than usual, then I contend that this preliminary hearing
is an aid towards an honest discharge of the critic's duty. But if the
critics, among whom I include a variety of experts, are there for
the purpose of presenting their notes on what they consider errors
and defects to those responsible for the production, then in many
cases the public, and all concerned in bringing out the work, would
be the gainers.

Tom Taylor's Hidden Hand was heard in camera, and so have
been, I dare say, many other pieces; but this case I happen to

remember, having witnessed it, and having heard many sugges-
tions made to the author, though, if I remember rightly, as next
night's performance was the public one, this interval did not give
sufficient time for rectification. All sorts of possible faults in
scenery and costume might be set right if the piece were given one
week before production in the presence of an audience composed
not only of dramatic critics, but of other artistic experts. There
is nothing very_ "curious or comical" in such a proceeding - but
there is something both "curious and comical" in the supposition
of public opinion being in any way influenced by a criticism written
in "hot haste" for the mere sake of being among the first iin the
field with " an item of news." Jack-in-the-Box

Our Booking-Of:etce.—In Longman's Magazine for March Mr
Rider Haggard gives us A Suggested Prologue to a DramntiZj
Version of " She." His stage-directions are delightfully fresh Tn
the set of the scene is to be a " Statue of Truth looming up in back
ground." There are only two characters in it, Ayesha ln& A»ie-
nastas, of whom the former has five speeches of nine seven ri Jbt
nine, and nineteen lines respectively ; and the latter has three'
speeches of thirteen, twelve, and nine lines. All this talkee rnlfceo
is of the gloomiest description, and the action takpq r>l<,nQ 1~B~LbUKee

years. Two thousand years! O ma Jre?' olT^T^v
Mummy! _Baron ke Bo™k Worms?

The Point of " The Lancet." Punch says that in this

case (referring to a gentle touch from it last week) he doesn't see
the point, nor feel it. But, on second thoughts, the point of a
Lancet in a case would not be visible, even through the magnifying

glass of Mr.-" Oh, no, we mustn't mention him"—or to the acute

perception of Doctor -hush!—no—" his name is never heard "

and if Mr. Punch breathed it, no matter how gentle the breath 'it
might be felt in some quarters as " a puff." Well, "approbation
from Sir Hubert Stanley is praise indeed I"

vol. xciv.