PUNS AND PATRONYMICS.

Probably there are few things more common, and at the same time more

opposed to good taste, than punning upon people's names. Possibly the

impertinence of it has some attraction; for, of course, all such

'witticisms' are impertinent--unless, indeed, a man puns on his own

name, or, if he puns upon another's, takes care to make the observation

complimentary. No doubt, neither Mrs. Cuffe nor Mrs. Tighe was very

offended when Sydney Smith described one as 'the cuff that every one

would wear,' and the other as 'the tie that no one would loose.' These

are word-plays of the innocuous sort. Would that all such jests were

equally inoffensive!

However, it is of little use to complain of a 'stream of tendency' which

cannot be diverted from its course. The most distinguished people have

had to tolerate the liberties taken with their names. Even the first of

men has had to suffer, Hood having long ago said what a pity it was

that, when Eve offered him the apple, poor Adam was not adam-ant. And

when one turns to the celebrities of one's own country, one finds that

many of them have had to endure attentions of the kind. There was, for

example, that distinguished Marquis of whom it was said on one occasion

that 'The nation's asleep, and the minister Rockingham.' There was also

that Mr. Ward, afterwards Lord Dudley, of whom Byron declared that he

would return to the Whigs if they would re-Ward him. How hard, again,

was _Punch_ upon Sir Francis Head, for his well-known apologia for Louis

Napoleon:

'He wrote to the _Times_

In defence of the crimes

Disgraceful to the heart and to the Head, Head, Head.'

Hood pretended that, when he heard 'Those Evening Bells,' they did but

remind him of the statesman who had invented and established the

income-tax:

'Recalling only how a Peel

Has taxed the comings-in of Time!'

That Mr. Disraeli's popular diminutive should suggest punning was

inevitable, and so we find Shirley Brooks proposing, in 1865, that,

'Having finished his Iliad and ceased to be busy,

Lord Derby should try and translate his Odd-Dizzy.'

The annals of the Church are no more free from jingles on names than

those of any other institution. Familiar to many is the laconic epitaph

on Archbishop Potter:

'Alack and well-a-day:

Potter himself is turned to clay!'

Horace Walpole wrote bitterly of Thomas Secker, Archbishop of

Canterbury, that 'His grace signed his own proper name--Thomas _Cant._,'

which would certainly have read better as 'Thomas Cantuar.' But the

bishops' signatures have always been regarded as fair game. What puns

have been made on the unhappy, because so obvious, 'Oxon!' In 1848,

when Bishop Hampden was accused of heresy by the party headed by the

Bishop of Oxford, the would-be satirist wrote that

'As once the Pope with fury full,

When Luther laid his heavy knocks on,

At the Reformer loosed a Bull--

So these at Hampden set an Ox-on.'

Again, when Archdeacon Hale figured prominently in the old churchyard

controversy, _Punch_ observed:

'The intramural churchyard's reeking pale

Breathes health around it, says a reverend party;

But though the spot may keep a parson Hale,

Can people who in-hale its fumes be hearty?'

Turning to the records of the other professions, one finds a good deal

of the same sort of thing. Literature affords such examples as those

which are supplied in the well-known lines by John Henley on William

Broome and by Lord Byron on Tom Moore ('Now 'tis Moore that's Little').

There were journal writers before Greville and Carlyle, and, when Lady

Bury published her 'Diary of the Times of George IV.,' Hood, no doubt,

was justified in crying, as he did:

'Oh, may I die without a Diary,

And be interred without a Bury-ing!'

In a very different spirit were James Smith's lines on Miss Edgeworth's

works:

'Good and bad join in telling the source of their birth;

The bad own their _edge_, and the good own their _worth_.'

The vocal and histrionic arts have often had their victims. Who can

possibly have forgotten Luttrell's famous compliment to Miss Tree:

'On this Tree when a nightingale settles and sings,

The Tree will return her as good as she brings.'

Here, if ever, was a pun on a name defensible. Less well known is this

quatrain on the famous actor, William Farren, who died in 1861:

'If Farren, cleverest of men,

Should go to right-about,

What part of town will he be then?

Why, "Farren-done-Without"!'

Those ladies of beauty and fashion whose names were susceptible at once

of pun and compliment have naturally inspired the wits of their

respective days. Thus, it was said of the charming sisters Gunning,

that Cupid, perceiving that the beaux of the time were proof against his

darts, had now laid down his bow and conquered by 'gunning.' But perhaps

the best thing of the sort ever composed was Lord Lyttelton's tribute to

Lady Brown:

'When I was young and debonair,

The brownest nymph to me was fair;

But now I'm old and wiser grown,

The fairest nymph to me is Brown.'

Other celebrities could be named who came off badly in their encounter

with the punsters. But, indeed, the list of such jests might be

indefinitely extended, for the habit of making puns on patronymics has

always been very widely spread, and has found many a sympathetic

historian.

'YOURS TRULY.'

Nobody ever yet found very great difficulty in starting a letter. Young

lovers may have hesitated from time to time between such modes of

address as 'Dear,' 'Dearest,' 'Sweetest,' 'Darling,' and the like; but

only for a moment. Usually, the overburdened heart hits at once upon the

exact word or phrase which best expresses its ecstatic feeling. And so

with less impassioned matters. There is a well-recognised gradation in

the methods of epistolary salutation. The stranger is addressed as

'Sir,' the person of whom something is known as 'Dear Sir.' 'My Dear

Sir' accompanies a rather better acquaintance; 'Dear Mr. Brown' marks an

approach to intimacy; while 'Dear Brown' signifies the acme of

friendship and of _camaraderie_. Here, again, there may be a temporary

pause before passing from 'Sir' to 'Dear Sir,' and so forth, but in

general the transitions are sufficiently well emphasized to be obvious

to the average intelligence.

Very different is it with the other end of the letter. There we find

opportunity for the widest divergence. Royal or official, pompous or

irate, people have been known to finish an epistle, abruptly, with the

simple appendix of their name; but these are the exceptions which prove

the rule. And the rule is certainly to preface the name by some

expression of feeling, however brief and perfunctory. The least you can

do is to describe yourself as 'yours.' We find Sterne thus describing

himself to Garrick; while, by way of slight variety, Cowper, writing to

Joseph Hill, ends with a 'Yours, dear Joe.' Still further variety is

secured when, as in the case of Lord Eglinton addressing his countess in

1619, the hackneyed 'I remain, yours' takes the form of 'I rest,

yours'--a phrase which is not, however, likely to be often used. And let

it not be supposed that plenty of meaning cannot be thrown into the

'yours' alone. Take, for instance, the reply made by 'The' Macdonald,

when Glengarry claimed the chieftainship of the clan. 'As soon,' said

the former, 'as you can prove yourself my chief I shall be ready to

acknowledge you as such, but in the meantime I am yours, Macdonald.'

There, for once in a way, the 'yours' meant something.

When we go farther than the mere 'yours,' the possible variations are,

of course, endless. There is 'yours truly'--perhaps the most widely used

of all such combinations; but there are persons who rebel against its

tyranny, and who with daring originality substitute the heartier and

less conventional 'very truly,' 'most truly,' or 'right truly.' Second

only to 'yours truly' come 'yours faithfully' and 'yours sincerely,'

with their comparative 'very faithfully' and superlative 'most

sincerely;' and many people are well content to keep within the safe

borders of these wholly innocent and uncompromising forms. On the other

hand, less indifferent minds will go farther afield for their

qualifying adverbs, and say, with Sterne, 'very cordially yours,' or,

with Father Matthew, 'yours devotedly,' and so on. Whewell, asked once

for his autograph, signed himself 'yours autographically,' and of such

deviations there are abundant examples, mostly with a tendency to the

flippant. 'Yours ever' Byron declared himself to John Murray; 'yours

ever and evermore,' wrote Cowper to a friend; while Steele, in a letter

to his wife, protested that he was, with his whole heart, hers for

ever--which may be pronounced the best of the three.

But there is no reason in the world, to be sure, why we should cling to

the 'yours' in any shape or modification. There are multitudinous other

ways of being valedictory with effect. There is the simple word 'Adieu.'

'And so, my dear madam, adieu,' writes Pepys to a lady. 'With all my

love, and those sort of pretty things, adieu!' wrote the future Mrs.

Scott to her sweetheart, the Great Magician. And then there is the

English equivalent of the word--surely not less available. 'I wish you

were at the devil,' wrote Sir Philip Francis to Burke, 'for giving me

all this trouble, and so farewell!' In the old days, as we read in the

'Paston Letters,' they had a sufficiently formal fashion of concluding

epistles. 'By your cousin, Dame Elizabeth Brews'--'By your man, Thomas

Kela;' such are two examples of the custom. 'Written at Norwich, on St.

Thomas's even, in great haste, by your mother, Agnes Paston'--there is

another. 'From your Russell,' is the end of a letter from the famous

Lady Russell to her husband; and it does not read or sound untenderly.

Junius signed himself to Woodfall, 'your friend.' Less cold was Mrs.

Maclehose to Burns: 'I may sign, for I am already sealed, your friend,

Clarinda.'

The elaborate style of description has always largely obtained, as being

obviously suitable for so many occasions. Thus one is not surprised to

find the future Charles II. professing to be his father's 'most humble

and most obedient son and servant,' or to note how that very complete

letter-writer, James Howell, claimed to be the Countess of Sunderland's

'most dutiful servant.' Dr. Johnson did well to announce himself

haughtily as Chesterfield's 'most humble, most obedient servant;' while

what could Sir Walter Scott be to his Duke of Buccleuch other than 'your

Grace's truly obliged and grateful'? A similar sense of propriety

induced Hood, in a certain memorable epistle, to tell Sir Robert Peel

that he had the honour to be, Sir, his most grateful and obedient

servant. One cannot object, either, to the 'Your most obliged and

faithful friend' of Evelyn when addressed to Pepys, or to the 'Your very

faithful, humble servant' of Bishop Percy, when penned to Boswell. It

is, however, a little diverting to observe that Sir Simonds d'Ewes,

after addressing his ladylove as 'Fairest,' concludes with 'Your humble

servant,' and that the _Tatler_ of his time, rounding off a dedicatory

letter to his 'Prue,' says: 'I am, Madam, your most obliged husband, and

most obedient, humble servant, Richard Steele.'

Over and over again have letter-writers made their final description of

themselves so wholly a part of their last sentence that the former

cannot be dissociated from the latter. 'I have not room to tell you any

more,' wrote Stephen Duck to Joseph Spence in 1751, 'than that I am,

Dear Sir, your most affectionate.' 'These,' said her royal mistress to

Mrs. Delany in 1785, 'are the true sentiments of my dear Mrs. Delany's

very affectionate Queen, Charlotte.' Hood once finished a charming

epistle to a child in this way: 'Give my love to everybody, from

yourself down to Willy, with which and a kiss, I remain, up hill and

down dale, your affectionate lover, Thomas Hood.' Most people remember

the pithy correspondence between Foote and his mother: 'Dear Sam,--I am

in prison for debt; come and assist your loving mother, E.

Foote.'--'Dear Mother,--So am I; which prevents his duty being paid to

his loving mother by her affectionate son, Sam Foote.' Not everybody,

however, can wind up a letter so neatly as that. A certain commercial

house abroad was, perhaps, over-ingenious in its turn of phrase when,

writing to an English correspondent, and desiring to be very civil to

him, it said: 'Sugars are falling more and more every day; not so the

respect and esteem with which we are,' etc., etc.

By-ways in Book-land: Short Essays on Literary Subjects · 第 64 / 67 题