1949: A Put Down for the Crusader
Here the modern ‘twist’ is that at the outset of his journey the crusader’s wife reminds him of his weakness. I suspect that the modern situation that the cartoonist is thinking about is of the husband going off on a business trip.
In reality sherbet would not be the crusader’s biggest concern.
1949: Public-Spirited Motorist
I have found this cartoon quite puzzling. Clearly the motorist is offering a lift to the people who have left the queue. It will be a tight fit to get four passengers into what looks like a Morris Minor, but that’s isn’t my problem. I just wonder what is the point of the joke.
I dismiss the possibility that the motorist is asking for money from his would-be passengers. The facial gestures and the general body language render such an idea impossible. So why is the gent with the trilby asking the man with the bowler whether the motorist is entitled to make his benevolent offer?
A great deal has changed since 1949 but I think that I can guess what this cartoon is really about. It was not only rationing that had remained in force until well after the end of the war. There were lots of wartime rules and regulations that were still in place and which the government was reluctant to abolish. There was then still a belief that centralised control, which had helped win the war, was still a good basis for running the country in peacetime.
It is with this background that the two ‘official’ looking gents disapprove of any initiative that has not been properly authorised. The cartoonist, I am pretty sure, favours the motorist.
Having shown all my 1949 cartoons I now want to go back to 1935. On looking through these cartoons I find that there is an even bigger emphasis on the concerns of the upper middle classes than there had been in 1931 and 1932. I think I can account for this.
The Great Depression was still very much in the background to all the ‘humour’. I reckon that Punch would inevitably have suffered from a certain fall in readership. My theory is that there was a conscious decision to entertain the remaining customers who were willing and able to go on buying the magazine.
1935: Entertaining the Rich
This is a good example of what I have in mind. A fancy dress party is a welcome diversion for wealthy people with time on their hands.
The husband feels badly done by. Whereas he has been prudent his wife has flaunted herself in and out of doors, to say nothing of a bit of flirting by an open window. Yet it is he who catches cold and it is she who adopts the role of a ministering angel.
Just to say that I am enjoying this feature. Punch was a very particular publication, wasn’t it? Very Curate’s Egg as far as I am concerned, some bits wonderful, some almost unintelligible
Glad you like it dinahsmum.
1935: Cynicism About the Professions 1
This is the first of four cartoons in which professionals are roundly debunked. The first candidate for this treatment is an eminent medical man. The joke here is that instead of using the habitual cloak of professional delicacy Sir Percy guarantees success just as a commercial advertisement would do. He even employs an early version of the ‘no win no fee’ agreement being offered by today’s lawyers.
Sir Percy’s mention of his Pay-Way system reminds me of an article I have read. It described how a company called Drage pioneered an up-market hire purchase system called Pay-Way. Their advertisements consisted of interviews with the owner, a Mr Drage, by people called Everyman. Clearly the cartoonist is linking Sir Percy with the then prominent ‘never never’ commercial undertaking.
http://www.exacteditions.com/print/20685/21356/30269/3/17
I may be wrong here but I suspect there is an additional dig in the list of Sir Percy’s qualifications. Obviously fellowship of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons and Physicians is appropriate. But what about the FRCVS which covers veterinary surgeons? I wonder if the cartoonist put this in as an extra joke.
1935: Cynicism About the Professions 2
This time barristers are given the debunking treatment. Mr Blackstone cheerfully accepts that Mr Anybody is as guilty as hell but he promises to get him off. In the tradition of modern advertisements he blatantly offers to show how many hardened criminals have been found Not Guilty because they had been defended by this brilliant lawyer.
We note the shifty look of the Anybodys. Mrs Anybody reveals her lack of breeding by telling Mr Blackstone that he is ‘a fair treat’.
1935: Cynicism About the Professions 3
Public Schools are under scrutiny today. The Nobodys have plenty of money to splash about but, being self-made, they are given this name because they are not acceptable to the readers of Punch. They and Dr Eloysius speak frankly about the extra status possessed by a school simply because of its high fees. The young boy will surely become a ‘gentleman’ though whether he will get much of an education is another matter.
The headmaster is wearing top of the range spats.
1935: Cynicism About the Professions 4
Sir Rubens Vandyke is clearly a fashionable portrait painter who earns his fees by flattering his sitters. Since his clients are called the Somebodys it follows that they must posses the readers of Punch seal of approval.
At first I was somewhat puzzled about what is actually wrong with little Miss Somebody. Closer examination shows that the child has a squint. It would not require a great of skill to cover up this defect.
1935: To Give Employment To The Artisan
At first sight this cartoon seems to be satirising the idle rich but I have now reconsidered this interpretation.
While m’lady is certainly rich she is not idle. Although surrounded by splendour she is quietly stitching her sampler. Although she lives in a palatial building I would have thought that there was a comfortable drawing room which would suit her better. In such a room the mistletoe could have been fixed with much less difficulty.
I think that the cartoonist has designed this joke on this incongruous situation. It certainly gives him a chance to indulge his passion for drawing large architectural interiors.
More fancifully he may even have drawn six workmen arriving to show that the lady has heeded Hilaire Belloc’s admonition.
Lord Finchley tried to mend the Electric Light
Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right!
It is the business of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan.
1935: Don’t Just Stand There: Do Something
The lady motorist is accustomed to bossing people about. The police sergeant knows his place but we can guess what he would like to say.
I wouldn’t have expected to see the word ‘date’ used in its present-day meaning as early as 1935. I now assume that this reflects the influence of the ‘talkies’ coming out of Hollywood.
1935: What She Really Really Wants?
Here is more cynicism about the attitudes of rich people during the Great Depression. Later we will look at the opposite attitude of a similarly placed man imagining the ‘perfect’ wife expecting similar selfish benefits.
1935: Bagsnatcher Wants Police Protection
The athletic looking lady is not trying to arrest the would-be bag snatcher. She is meting out on-the-spot punishment.
The miscreant knows better than to fight back. This could be either because even he knows that he should not hit a woman or because she is obviously stronger than he is. It’s a moot point.
Normally he would try to avoid any contact with the ‘perleece’ but now he yearns for someone to order her to stop hitting him.
1935: Another Burglary Cartoon
Burglars figure in many different periods in the history of Punch. It is hardly surprising that during the Depression we see instances of bag snatching and breaking and entering. Here the householder has been unwise enough to try and tackle a more powerful adversary. He is indeed ‘damaged’.
What he really means that, if caught, the intruder can expect a much harsher sentence than if he had simply grabbed his loot without any violence. The burglar takes his words literally. He knows he is taking a risk and does not regard it as frivolous.
1935: Two ‘Heroes’
I assume that what the cartoonist means is that his ‘heroes’ are taking a stand (with the artist’s approval) against what is expected of them.
The first example seems to hinge on what happens when goods are sold during a sale. I am assuming that bulky items not sold in a sale are delivered as a matter of course. So we see in the picture that husbands are all on hand to carry home the reduced items. The current hero is rebelling at this practice and insists that even sales items should be delivered. This comes as a big shock to his wife, the sales staff and other customers alike.
We see again a relentless concentration on the concerns of the fairly affluent thus giving comfort to those readers of Punch who had avoided the worst effects of the Depression.
The second ‘hero’ has changed sides in the perpetual conflict between the arties and the hearties. Apparently the arties were also known as the neo-Georgians. (King George the Fifth was on the throne.)
Hearties were expected to be more at home at a football match than in a literary salon. The cartoonist is having a lot of fun in depicting the renegade and the still convinced arties.
1935: Two More ‘Heroes’
The first of today’s ‘heroes’ totally rejects the practice of tipping. He gets dirty looks from the waiters and a shocked reaction from the diners. I would have thought that such an attitude was considered unworthy of a gentleman yet the artist seems to expect us to side with the maverick.
The second ‘hero’ (a complete wimp, by the way) is attempting to forbid his mutinous wife and daughters from using rouge and lipstick because this practice leaves unsightly marks in the bathroom. Surely the cartoonist realises that such a ban would not be enforceable.
I just wonder if the readers are expected to substitute the word ‘idiot’ for ‘hero’?
1935: Is this the First Outing of an Old Chestnut?
Here George Belcher, quite untypical of Punch cartoonists in 1935, again shows himself totally uninterested in the concerns of the upper middle classes.
Here, in what might well be the first outing of an oft-repeated joke, the clergyman is simply asking whether he is addressing a little girl or a little boy. The child takes his question to refer to school attendance. This was a reasonable interpretation since at the time primary level schools were designated girls, boys or mixed infant.
Until the post-war educational reforms this joke was to be repeated in many different contexts, not all of them as innocent as this one.
1935: A Londoner Looks Down on the Provinces
We see here the assembled worthies of a provincial city or large town. Various carefully drawn characters are displayed. On the whole I feel that the artist is not overly impressed by this gathering. The pompous chairman has won no plaudits either from the audience or from the harassed looking speaker who seems to be far from satisfied with his notes.
The presence of two clergymen is quite authentic. The man in the front row is either a bishop or at least an archdeacon. I seem to remember that in the early days of the BBC’s ‘Any Questions’ it was thought quite normal to include the local bishop on the panel. Not anymore…
1935: Laughing at Snobbery
Clearly the joke is on those who are overawed by aristocratic titles. But the confident manner in which this absurd claim is being made is a realistic example of the widespread deference which today is outdated – with the sole exception of attitudes to royalty.
1935: Logic
Mabel has assimilated a grown-up saying and uses it to justify herself. I wonder what she will get up to when she reaches adulthood?
1935: Burglary Once Again
Nigel’s wife is unable to see that he is the unwilling host at the supper enjoyed by his ‘friends’ who on this occasion don’t appear in masks. The fare seems to consist of just beer, cake and cigars. Nigel isn’t likely to tell his wife to call the police.
