1820.] Lecture on Verbicide — Bi/ a Man of the Laxo. 367 



week, and what is more, to that very Col. F. G. ; of course, therefore, 

 the joke was equivocal. "But," he continued, " Your ladyship, I beg 

 your pardon — but if you persevere, I shall have a bride-ill." " You 

 naughty man !" said her ladyship; whereupon her ladyship smiled, shook 

 up her feathers, and showed her fine teeth, but all to no purpose — nobody 

 laughed. She even stopped a party on the road, blushed, smiled, and 

 vowed, with tears in her beautiful eyes, that she would never, no never, 

 pardon such a spiteful joke — it was quite entirely too bad, so it was. 

 But nobody laughed. And why ? Because, although, the pun was 

 pretty well got up, it was not so well got up, as to hinder the idea of 

 collusion. Suppose now, that some third party had been employed to 

 meet the said C. D. and the said F. (i. at a place where they would be 

 certain of being overheard by other people of high fashion, such other 

 people being there, bona Jide. Suppose that, in reply to the colonel's 

 remark, which, of course would be whispered in such a way as to attract 

 especial notice, that " her ladyship's rein was too short," such third 

 party should say — " the fault is your own. Sir ; it is you that have 

 shortened her ladyship's reign." — " 1 1" — " Yes, you, and I desire to know 

 the reason." — " Oh," retorts the brave soldier, unwilling to quarrel 

 before the star of his idolatry, " oh, merely because I should not like 

 to have a bride-ill." Every body would laugh in such a case, and every 

 body would swallow the joke. Such is the advantage of playing into 

 each other's hands. The rule might, perhaps, be extended to cases of 

 a more serious nature. To give the matter an air of authenticity, cards 

 might be interchanged, or, if the principals knew each other, and agreed 

 not to hit, or, which is the same thing,* if they would agree to aim at 

 each other, even a shot or two might be interchanged without mischief, 

 whatever might be the wish of the seconds, who, under every such pre- 

 concerted affair, would know nothing of that which, in every similar 

 case, men have agreed to call the understanding of the parties. 4. MS. 

 Reports, 325. 



Rule II. — Show colour, when you give a joke, in black and white; 

 lay a good foundation. Remember that a story is not an epigram. It 

 may be ever so long, if it be clear ; and if the knob is, where it seldom 

 is, at the further end of the story. In telling a joke on paper, men use 

 fewer words than they do in relating it ; and why ? can it be, because 

 more words are necessary — more written words, to explain what, when 

 the story is told, a tone or a look, a shrug, or a gesture may explain 

 better than a score of words ? 



Case — Vide the Carew story (Rule I.) as reported in the Morning 

 Chronicle, about November 24th or 25th, 1825. In reading the joke 

 there, it has a very stupid, forced, unnatural aspect. , It is, indeed, 

 anything but a joke. And why ? partly because no colour is given, or 

 in other words, no gravamen is laid. Not a syllable is uttered concern- 

 ing the previous inquiry of vohat Carew, and which Carew, as provided 

 for, in our account of the case ; and partly, nay chiefly, because, by the 

 report in the M. C, the individual, who proposes the change of pro- 

 nunciation, appears to be the very individual who commits the pun. 

 Was ever such atrocity I Was ever such stupidity heard of ! I need 

 not say more. I hope you will avoid such fatal errors, in reporting 

 a joke. 



• See th? Poor Gendemai). 



