DOI Heft:
November 30, 1889
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17688#0261
256
PUNCH, OP THE LONDON CHARIVARI. [November 30, 1889.
ROYALTY AND REVOLT.
King Arthur and the burden of Royalty—The Coming Mimes.
The theatrical thermometer of the Royalty has gone down to freezing-
point with The Neic Corsican Brothers. Blame not alone the bard
“ Actor, Manager, and Arthur too ” (to himself). “ My ! what a frost! ”
Mr. Cecil Raleigh,—whose Great Pink Pearl was an ornament to
the stage, and who is the author of several good things,—but blame
everybody, including Mr. Aether Roberts, who had anything to do
with the production of this apparently plotless and witless extrava-
ganza. Perhaps the author was attempting to give us something
quite novel, and in this he has succeeded, for it is not within my ex-
perience to see Arthur Roberts absolutely dull, as he was, except
for a few moments when he did a bit of his own peculiar comic
business, and at another time when he gave imitations of the Music-
hall style of vocalisation. This last the audience would have had
over and over again, but Arthur positively declined. There is no
other burlesque actor or actress of note in the piece, and so the whole
weight, which Sandow and Samson would stagger under, is on poor
Arthur’s shoulders.
The Composer, too, has made a mistake, and light, sparkling
catchy music is conspicuous by its absence. The compositions
may be scholarly, admirable, and all that a musician could wish, but
the patrons of opera bouffe and extravaganza know the sort of thing
they want, ana it’s no use giving them German Meyerbeer when
they demand Parisian Offenbachanalian champagne. A Composer
who rejoices in the name of Slaughter ought to write killing melo-
dies. The best thing is a Chorus of “Hullo There !” sung by the
Members of The Carnation Club. If Arthur Roberts had, at least,
three good comic songs and an eccentric duet, with—with—well, who
is there there to sing it with him ? And if the piece were cut down,
so as to play from 9'30 to 11, it might have a chance, as, nowadays, a
bad start frequently results in a long run and a brilliant finish. But
Arthur must have two or three strong and talented assistants to
pull this coach along.
“ Les Deux Ajax.”—There are to be two Pantomimes this year ;
one of course, “ The Annual,” at Drury Lane, and the other at Her
Majesty’s. The
first under Augus-
tus Druriolanus
Imperator, and
the Opposition un-
der “ Charles”—
not “his friend,”
and not the
Charles who has
been up a tree in
the Royal Oak at
Drury Lane,—but
Charles his
brother. The
latter, says that
Druriolanus has
taken the idea of
a certain Grand
Procession from
him. This Drurio-
lanus denies, and,
as far as we can
judge, disproves.
The question if
left in doubt is, wlucli has “ stolen a march” on the other? Solvitur
ambulando. Perhaps, they may yet come together at the fraternal
festivity of Christmas, and, embracing, may exclaim with the two
characters in The Beggar's Opera, “Brother! Brother! we were
both in the wrong! ”
Reconciliation.
“ A consummation devoutly to be -wished.”
THE HEXLEY-SPUNSER CONTROVERSY.
The Smoking-room of the Adelhaide Club. Time, Afternoon.
Old Gentleman (turning over recent numbers of “ The Times").
It’s the duty of every English citizen, my son tells me, to study
the science of political ethics. And I believe he ’s right. What’s
the use of talking about the Land Question, or any other question,
until you’ve got the light of clear, impartial, impersonal inquiry
shed upon it. That’s what he says, and there’s a good deal in it.
When two men like Hexley and Spunser discuss anything, they
stick to the point. There are no digressions, no personal recrimina-
tions, nothing but calm sober inquiry. Now then, let’s begin some-
where in the middle. Never mind the introductory letters.
\_Selects any Number of “ The Times," and reads.
“Sir,—As Professor Hexley admits that his friend A. B.’s dog
is white,—as, by implication, he admits white is closely allied to
grey,—as he acknowledges the possibility of a shade of grey being
mistaken for black by gas-light, I do not see in what respect his views
on the compensation for inconveniences caused by compulsory
muzzles are other than analogous to myown opinions on the precisely
similar point discussed by me in my last letter ? ”
I had an idea that it was all about the Land Question. Well, I sup-
pose this is a side-issue, or an illustration, or something in that way.
Perhaps I ought to have begun a few days back. No matter—I’ll
just skip a few lines, and go on again.
‘1 And as I have already shown that all difficulties with regard to
unearned increment, relative ethics, linoleum, hair-wash, bindles,
and speculative diagnosis are fully dealt with in my little book, The
Data of Ethics, which should be on every man’s book-shelves, it only
remains for me to point out, that it is the special province of the
exact sciences—as Professor Hexley himself knows—never to have
the same opinion for ten minutes together. I regret that anyone
should have supposed that I intended any of my conclusions—which
were all of them reasoned truth—to be ever treated as such. At
the same time, I fail to see that any one of my theories is any the
less practical because it was not intended to work, will not work,
and would not be any good if it did. I may, therefore, leave the
Land Question, and pass on to a consideration of absolute political
ethics.”
Land at last! But why does he leave it, especially when he has
not yet got there ? Of course, he may feel more at home with the—
with the (refers to paper)—ah, ves, “ absolute political ethics.”
* ‘ If anyone attempted to cure me of some complaint without
having previously consulted Professor Hexley’s Lessons on Elemen-
tary Physiology—a treatise which is invaluable to the medical
practitioner—I should at once denounce-”
This is all very well, but it’s neither Land Question, nor the—the
other thing. It almost seems as if the man was—but perhaps it’s
an illustration. There’s no saying-
“-1 should at once denounce him as a charlatan. Similarly,
Professor Hexley might just as well confess that any attempt to
solve a social or political problem without reference to one or more
of my published works would be madness. In fact, if he will only
scratch my back, I am perfectly willing to reciprocate the attention.
I have no desire to be combative, and I shall never write any more
letters on this subject as long as I live. Professor Hexley has only
to state his belief that absolute political ethics are a real exact science,
and all will be forgiven and forgotten, and I shall continue to recom-
mend his hand-book on physiology. This closes the controversy, as
far as I am concerned. If my letter to-day has—as I trust it has—
helped to make the great facts of absolute political ethics more clear
to your readers, it will not have been written in vain.
“Iam, &c., Herbert Spunser.”
More clear! Why, I know as much about it as I did when I
started. Perhaps it’s the other man who does the clear, impartial
inquiry.
[Selects the Number containing Professor Hexley’s reply, and reads.
“Sir,—After a careful perusal of Mr. Spunser’s letter in the
Times of to-day, I can only reiterate my declaration that I never
agree with anybody, except myself. Mr. Spunser’s efforts to prove
the contrary are founded on an ignorance of history, and his ethical
system rests on pure assumption. Mr. Spunser said that private
ownership in land was originally set up by force or fraud. He stole
that out of Rousseau, and I saw him take it myself.. I should be
ashamed! However, as Mr. Spunser, leaving the main issue aside,
has put me on my defence, I shall say no more about the Land
Question, but simply go for Mr. Spunser. His suggestion that
patients should be treated by deduction from physiological principles
was hardly prudent—addressed, as it was, to a man of my superior
attainments. No practitioner, who is sensible of the profound
responsibility which attaches to his office, will dream of treating
cholera or small-pox by deduction. He would use induction, and, if
the patient had both cholera and small-pox, there would be a reduc-
tion. There always ought to he a reduction on taking a quantity.
PUNCH, OP THE LONDON CHARIVARI. [November 30, 1889.
ROYALTY AND REVOLT.
King Arthur and the burden of Royalty—The Coming Mimes.
The theatrical thermometer of the Royalty has gone down to freezing-
point with The Neic Corsican Brothers. Blame not alone the bard
“ Actor, Manager, and Arthur too ” (to himself). “ My ! what a frost! ”
Mr. Cecil Raleigh,—whose Great Pink Pearl was an ornament to
the stage, and who is the author of several good things,—but blame
everybody, including Mr. Aether Roberts, who had anything to do
with the production of this apparently plotless and witless extrava-
ganza. Perhaps the author was attempting to give us something
quite novel, and in this he has succeeded, for it is not within my ex-
perience to see Arthur Roberts absolutely dull, as he was, except
for a few moments when he did a bit of his own peculiar comic
business, and at another time when he gave imitations of the Music-
hall style of vocalisation. This last the audience would have had
over and over again, but Arthur positively declined. There is no
other burlesque actor or actress of note in the piece, and so the whole
weight, which Sandow and Samson would stagger under, is on poor
Arthur’s shoulders.
The Composer, too, has made a mistake, and light, sparkling
catchy music is conspicuous by its absence. The compositions
may be scholarly, admirable, and all that a musician could wish, but
the patrons of opera bouffe and extravaganza know the sort of thing
they want, ana it’s no use giving them German Meyerbeer when
they demand Parisian Offenbachanalian champagne. A Composer
who rejoices in the name of Slaughter ought to write killing melo-
dies. The best thing is a Chorus of “Hullo There !” sung by the
Members of The Carnation Club. If Arthur Roberts had, at least,
three good comic songs and an eccentric duet, with—with—well, who
is there there to sing it with him ? And if the piece were cut down,
so as to play from 9'30 to 11, it might have a chance, as, nowadays, a
bad start frequently results in a long run and a brilliant finish. But
Arthur must have two or three strong and talented assistants to
pull this coach along.
“ Les Deux Ajax.”—There are to be two Pantomimes this year ;
one of course, “ The Annual,” at Drury Lane, and the other at Her
Majesty’s. The
first under Augus-
tus Druriolanus
Imperator, and
the Opposition un-
der “ Charles”—
not “his friend,”
and not the
Charles who has
been up a tree in
the Royal Oak at
Drury Lane,—but
Charles his
brother. The
latter, says that
Druriolanus has
taken the idea of
a certain Grand
Procession from
him. This Drurio-
lanus denies, and,
as far as we can
judge, disproves.
The question if
left in doubt is, wlucli has “ stolen a march” on the other? Solvitur
ambulando. Perhaps, they may yet come together at the fraternal
festivity of Christmas, and, embracing, may exclaim with the two
characters in The Beggar's Opera, “Brother! Brother! we were
both in the wrong! ”
Reconciliation.
“ A consummation devoutly to be -wished.”
THE HEXLEY-SPUNSER CONTROVERSY.
The Smoking-room of the Adelhaide Club. Time, Afternoon.
Old Gentleman (turning over recent numbers of “ The Times").
It’s the duty of every English citizen, my son tells me, to study
the science of political ethics. And I believe he ’s right. What’s
the use of talking about the Land Question, or any other question,
until you’ve got the light of clear, impartial, impersonal inquiry
shed upon it. That’s what he says, and there’s a good deal in it.
When two men like Hexley and Spunser discuss anything, they
stick to the point. There are no digressions, no personal recrimina-
tions, nothing but calm sober inquiry. Now then, let’s begin some-
where in the middle. Never mind the introductory letters.
\_Selects any Number of “ The Times," and reads.
“Sir,—As Professor Hexley admits that his friend A. B.’s dog
is white,—as, by implication, he admits white is closely allied to
grey,—as he acknowledges the possibility of a shade of grey being
mistaken for black by gas-light, I do not see in what respect his views
on the compensation for inconveniences caused by compulsory
muzzles are other than analogous to myown opinions on the precisely
similar point discussed by me in my last letter ? ”
I had an idea that it was all about the Land Question. Well, I sup-
pose this is a side-issue, or an illustration, or something in that way.
Perhaps I ought to have begun a few days back. No matter—I’ll
just skip a few lines, and go on again.
‘1 And as I have already shown that all difficulties with regard to
unearned increment, relative ethics, linoleum, hair-wash, bindles,
and speculative diagnosis are fully dealt with in my little book, The
Data of Ethics, which should be on every man’s book-shelves, it only
remains for me to point out, that it is the special province of the
exact sciences—as Professor Hexley himself knows—never to have
the same opinion for ten minutes together. I regret that anyone
should have supposed that I intended any of my conclusions—which
were all of them reasoned truth—to be ever treated as such. At
the same time, I fail to see that any one of my theories is any the
less practical because it was not intended to work, will not work,
and would not be any good if it did. I may, therefore, leave the
Land Question, and pass on to a consideration of absolute political
ethics.”
Land at last! But why does he leave it, especially when he has
not yet got there ? Of course, he may feel more at home with the—
with the (refers to paper)—ah, ves, “ absolute political ethics.”
* ‘ If anyone attempted to cure me of some complaint without
having previously consulted Professor Hexley’s Lessons on Elemen-
tary Physiology—a treatise which is invaluable to the medical
practitioner—I should at once denounce-”
This is all very well, but it’s neither Land Question, nor the—the
other thing. It almost seems as if the man was—but perhaps it’s
an illustration. There’s no saying-
“-1 should at once denounce him as a charlatan. Similarly,
Professor Hexley might just as well confess that any attempt to
solve a social or political problem without reference to one or more
of my published works would be madness. In fact, if he will only
scratch my back, I am perfectly willing to reciprocate the attention.
I have no desire to be combative, and I shall never write any more
letters on this subject as long as I live. Professor Hexley has only
to state his belief that absolute political ethics are a real exact science,
and all will be forgiven and forgotten, and I shall continue to recom-
mend his hand-book on physiology. This closes the controversy, as
far as I am concerned. If my letter to-day has—as I trust it has—
helped to make the great facts of absolute political ethics more clear
to your readers, it will not have been written in vain.
“Iam, &c., Herbert Spunser.”
More clear! Why, I know as much about it as I did when I
started. Perhaps it’s the other man who does the clear, impartial
inquiry.
[Selects the Number containing Professor Hexley’s reply, and reads.
“Sir,—After a careful perusal of Mr. Spunser’s letter in the
Times of to-day, I can only reiterate my declaration that I never
agree with anybody, except myself. Mr. Spunser’s efforts to prove
the contrary are founded on an ignorance of history, and his ethical
system rests on pure assumption. Mr. Spunser said that private
ownership in land was originally set up by force or fraud. He stole
that out of Rousseau, and I saw him take it myself.. I should be
ashamed! However, as Mr. Spunser, leaving the main issue aside,
has put me on my defence, I shall say no more about the Land
Question, but simply go for Mr. Spunser. His suggestion that
patients should be treated by deduction from physiological principles
was hardly prudent—addressed, as it was, to a man of my superior
attainments. No practitioner, who is sensible of the profound
responsibility which attaches to his office, will dream of treating
cholera or small-pox by deduction. He would use induction, and, if
the patient had both cholera and small-pox, there would be a reduc-
tion. There always ought to he a reduction on taking a quantity.