Punch and Shakespeare in the Victorian Era (review)

One of very few texts to examine the prolific output of Punch, this book will be a welcome addition to the earlier research of scholars like Richard Altick. Young's text will have a dual appeal to scholars of Shakespeare and of Punch.

The introduction to the book, "Punch and Its Readers, Writers and Artists," attempts to provide a context for understanding the magazine's origins and purpose. However, as this is not the sole purpose of the book, the result is a rather rushed and reductive overview which merely replicates the existing research of eminent scholars like Altick, before getting on to the more exciting analysis on representations of Shakespeare. It would have been more beneficial to reference the existing literature on Punch and make a more assertive claim for the subject of the book itself.

However, once Young moves on to the main focus of his work, the originality of the topic is clearly evident. The concept and term "Shakspearanity"—the "awareness and appreciation of all things having to do with Shakespeare"—was first coined by Douglas Jerrold in 1844. In their examination of the topic, the Punch staff had an interest in both readers of Shakespeare and in playgoers. The continued attention to "Shak-spearanity" in Punch is not surprising, given that many of the authors and writers for the magazine were involved in the collaborative production and performance of such plays as The Merry Wives of Windsor in 1848, later going on to form the Guild of Literature and Art in 1851 with Charles Dickens.

Though the chapters of Young's book are rather long, they are clearly divided and labelled with subheadings that make the text easy to use. Peter Lang has not stinted on the number of illustrations, and the result is a rich source of Punch's diverse verbal and visual style. Young is to be commended on the variety of pieces he uses in his analysis, moving beyond the selective use of main cuts that Punch is frequently the victim of. Instead, there are examples taken from characteristic one-line quips and social cuts, as well as the vignettes and illustrative letters. There is a full index of illustrations and a detailed bibliography which will facilitate reconsiderations of Punch itself in more detail. One particularly fascinating chapter analyses Shakespearean opera, ballet and hippodrama (plays performed on horseback). As Young notes, Punch was faced with the challenge of whether to celebrate how these more extreme appropriations of Shakespeare made his work more accessible to a wider audience, or whether to lampoon the frequently ridiculous results.

Despite the rich detail of the text, the conclusion is disappointingly vague: at just over one page, it is more a personal reflection of the importance of the project for the author than a conclusion so-called. That Shakespeare is probably not as ubiquitous in today's culture as it was in Victorian times seems an obvious conclusion to make, and this flat ending rather undermines the scope of the book as a whole.

Young's approach is more thematic than that of other Punch scholars like Patrick Leary, who have analysed the organisation and production of the magazine itself, its market, and its potential readers in more detail. However, Young's work is part of a return to more in-depth studies of single periodicals, and for this it must be welcomed. It will be as important for scholars seeking to examine Shakespeare's place in Victorian popular culture as it will be for researchers of Punch.

My own research has involved extensive archival work on the Punch collection, now held at the British Library. A little used resource is the Contributor Ledgers from 1843, which in Volume One record authors, artists, and suggestors, and in Volume Two record the work of the salaried members of staff, the Punch Brotherhood. Such ledgers are crucial in identifying the social networks which underpinned the Victorian periodical press, as RSVP's 2008 conference highlighted. Young...