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 ‘He wrote to the Times Hood pretended that, when he heard ‘Those Evening Bells,’ they did but remind him of ‘Recalling only how a Peel 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, 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: 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 ‘As once the Pope with fury full, Again, when Archdeacon Hale figured prominently in the old churchyard controversy, Punch observed: ‘The intramural churchyard’s reeking pale 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:
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 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, 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, 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 ‘When I was young and debonair, 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. |