Oliver Lewis

Punch political cartoon close reading assignment

Punch magazine was a radical Victorian periodical first published in 1841 that commented on topical

social events and political movements through the medium of cartoons. By the 1850s Punch’s

ideology became slightly more conservative to remain popular with the mainly middle class

readership. Despite this, it still took a radical perspective on revolutionising the nation’s perspective

of public health, most notably, cholera. John Leech’s ‘A Court for King Cholera’ (1852) depicts an

overcrowded street with a prominent pile of waste in the foreground, outlining the influx of people

and poor sanitary conditions as a consequence to industrialisation. Another Leech cartoon, ‘Father

Thames Introducing his Offspring to the Fair City of London’ (1858), depicts revulsion at what the

River Thames has become. Although the cartoon features the fictional caricature of the filthy river,

Father Thames, it also mirrors a topical historical event. Published in the unusually hot summer of

1858 it parodies The Great Stink, the closure of the Houses of Parliament until winter due to an

unbearable stench coming from the sewage saturated Thames. Leech uses bathos, an anti-climax

which creates a comic effect, to construct a specific pathway for readers to follow the pockets of

action within ‘A Court for King Cholera’. By doing this, he is able to engage readers with historical

context of germ theory until ‘King Cholera’ is found. Within both cartoons Punch portrays London

open to trade and travel as vulnerable, as foreign threats appear to be a factor in the spread of

disease. Applying Mikhail Bakhtin’s definition of the grotesque, which “exaggerates and caricatures

the negative, the inappropriate . . . [distinguishing] from the clownish and from burlesque” (306)

both cartoons use this technique to accentuate the toxicity of London. A gendered reading of ‘Father

Thames Introducing his Offspring to the Fair City of London’ suggests the doomed nature of

feminised London. Following from this both cartoons trivialise representations of death, using

imagery of the burlesque to suggest that in its current state London is a doomed city. Although both

cartoons use a range of comic devices to provoke humour or even invoke laughter, it prompts a

political afterthought through social satire.

1

Oliver Lewis

Punch’s specific word choice of the title of ‘A Court of King Cholera’ becomes comic through

bathos, as connotations of a king’s court evoke images of grandeur, yet instead the setting is simply

a busy city street. With no ‘King Cholera’ in initial sight, Leech sets up a visual journey within the

cartoon as readers attempt to find him within the pockets of action. Leech does this by loading the

image with multiple references outlining popular factors and causes to the spread of cholera, each

the depiction of one progressively more disturbing than the last. Starting on the left side of the

cartoon, a washing line with clothes drifting in the wind acts as a hint towards the widely believed

miasma theory, as illness was contracted through being subjected to ‘bad air’. Similarly, the crowded

mass of people in the centre of the cartoon makes an indirect reference to the contagion theory of

disease, which argued the transmission of illness occurred between people through direct contact.

The depiction of the crowd is troubling as Leech embellishes the composition of the wood etching,

using lines to shade characters and consequently blur figures into one another. This representation

of an overwhelming mass movement of people presents a sense of city-life chaos, as both characters

in the cartoon and its readers are unable to fully understand the scene with clarity. Finally, readers

encounter the true representation of ‘King Cholera’ being carried into the image from the right side

of the frame: a coffin. The effect of this visual journey richly filled with medical hearsay builds up the

expectations of readers, only to be disappointed when they see and acknowledge the deadly

consequences of cholera.

The representations of trade and travel become synonymous with distrust and the

grotesque body. By the 1850s the Thames was used as a major trading post, signified by the factory

in the background of ‘Father Thames Introducing his Offspring to the Fair City of London’, powered

by flowing water to increase import and export opportunities. The smog from the smoke stacks

creating an ominous tone, as Leech emphasises the dangers of industry. The illustration of Father

Thames’ offspring emerging from the polluted river is ironic, as each of the figures display symptoms

of the diseases they are named after. Scrofula is portrayed as malnourished with a swollen stomach,

whilst Diphtheria’s upper respiratory tract is accentuated as Father Thames chokes her. These

2

Oliver Lewis

images would conform to Mikhail Bakhtin’s style of the comic grotesque, attributes including

“exaggeration, hyperbolism [and] excessiveness” (303). Cholera is the only figure unable to stand

and appears to be drowning a creature in the process. This becomes both ironic and grotesque, as

symptoms of cholera include severe dehydration and explosive diarrhoea. Through this it becomes

clear Leech utilises grotesque imagery to invoke laughter and satirise the illnesses that are causing

pandemics across Europe. Although the depiction of Father Thames is also grotesque, it is much

more sinister than his offspring. Bakhtin elaborates further on the construction of the grotesque

body as “a body in the act of becoming. It is never finished, never completed; it is continually built,

created and builds and creates another body” (317). Using this theory it becomes clear that Leech

portrays Father Thames as a metonymy of the toxic state of the river, lacking any legs as his

poisonous body dissolves into the river. Grotesque imagery is more subtle within ‘A Court for King

Cholera’, found in the two characters whose backs are turned from the readers point of view

creating a sense of distrust. This reading is developed even further by their clothing, as both

characters appear to wear bandanas and eye patches, suggesting they are pirates. Bakhtin’s

grotesque theory suggests this is an attempt by Leech to keep the cartoon comic as “the eyes have

no part in these comic images; they express an individual so to speak . . . which is not essential to the

grotesque” (316). Though concealing the characters eyes through costume could be an attempt to

conform to the grotesque ideal in order to become comic, an alternative reading deviates from

Bakhtin’s classification. Using stereotypical costume associated with pirates, readers are able to

identify and treat these characters with caution, as Leech uses the grotesque as an allegory for

xenophobia. This is further supported by the deliberate positioning of the characters, standing below

a sign that states “LOGINS FOR TRAVELLERS”, creating the suggestion to readers that foreign

travellers or merchants are the cause for the public health epidemics, importing cholera and other

diseases into London.

A gendered reading of the ‘Father Thames Introducing his Offspring to the Fair City of

London’ cartoon suggests Leech exploits gender power dynamics to portray the feminine London

3

Oliver Lewis

violated by the masculine Father Thames. Leech establishes these power spheres through a stark

visual opposition, Lady London presented as a white-clad, pure and crowned female, symbols of

purity. Her crown represents the highest social class of the city, likely to be Queen Victoria. Her

clothing is reminiscent of a classical Greek deity, as she becomes the epitome of “fair” femininity.

Leech imbues incongruity her character, although her hand gesture depicts how she is repulsed by

what she is witnessing, Lady London looks her nose down at the creatures emerging from the

Thames. This may have been included to echo the nonchalant attitude of upper classes to the lower

class concern of poor public health. In comparison to Lady London, the depiction of Father Thames is

one of active violence, demonstrated as he strangles Diphtheria. His decrepit, oily and distorted

features become threatening to the “fair” woman, who transforms into a figure of vulnerability.

Although Lady London owns a shield, embellished with the coat of arms of London, she does not use

it to defend against the creatures emerging from the Thames. Instead, possibly paralyzed out of

shock she submissively holds it, putting London at risk as a consequence. This submission becomes

the tragic downfall of London, as Father Thames intends to “introduce” his offspring to the rest of

the city. The polluted riverbank bathetically undermines the image of a father showing the glories of

London to his children as Leech turns this into an image of horror. St. Paul’s Cathedral rising behind

Lady London overlooks the Thames acts as an iconic representation of the centre of London since its

initial construction in 604 AD. It appears to be sealed off for Father Thames and his “offspring” as

Lady London acts as a feminine and ultimately futile defence to the city. This interpretation, like the

image of the dense smog choking the city, creates an ominous political comment within the cartoon.

It seems inevitable that all of London will be infected by the destruction of Father Thames and his

offspring, as the “fair city of London” becomes a bathetic nostalgia.

In the forefront of ‘A Court for King Cholera’ a woman scavenges for food in a large pile of

waste. The pile is heavily shaded, evoking connotations of blackness and with it, decay. Following

from this insight, the energetic child performing a handstand on top of the pile becomes a

subversive figure of incongruity. Placing the child on top of the pile of rotting waste whilst others

4

Oliver Lewis

play on the floor Leech symbolically creates a tone of nonchalant acceptance, suggesting that life will

be wasted due to the appalling city conditions. Similarly, death within ‘Father Thames Introduces his

Offspring to the Fair City of London’ also appears to be an accepted fate within London as the

cartoon features several dead creatures floating within the Thames or on the riverbank. The cartoon

could be read as burlesque, caricaturing the government’s apathetic ‘laissez-faire’ approach to

finding a mandatory and wide-spread solution to the issue of public health. As the cartoon is littered

with corpses floating in the Thames readers may create an alternative meaning to the cartoon’s title:

contrasting to the three figures of disease, the actual “offspring” of Father Thames is in fact death.

Not even plant life can survive the contaminated streets of London, poignantly epitomised by the

small flowerpot above the sign for travellers within ‘A Court for King Cholera’. Lacking any leaves of

flowers, all that remains is a shrivelled stem. The drastic connotations evoked from this tiny detail

are colossal, as even nature cannot survive the murky city streets. This in turn acts as a subtle focal

point of industrial decay, presenting London as a toxic and unnatural place, home only to an ailing

society.

As both cartoons satirise filthy London, readers may become sickened as the laughter turns

to bitter political commentary. Theories on laughter can open this concept further, as Martin

Gardner cites Reinhold Niebuhr who theorises its socio-political effect:

Laughter . . . is a kind of no man’s land between faith and despair. We preserve our sanity by laughing at life’s surface absurdities, but that bitterness and derision is directed towards the deeper irrationalities of evil and death (15)

Applying this theory to the two cartoons it becomes clear that Punch utilises the comic technique of

the grotesque to engage its readership, making light of topical issues. Through this they are able to

create an afterthought by invoking laughter, unveiling a public furore at the lack of legislation to

improve public health in the city. Developing this interpretation further the facial expression of

Diphtheria, which is in the centre of the cartoon, gains a sense of ekphrasis is it in fact mirrors a

reader’s initial facial expression of shock at the polluted state of London. Through this laughter is

5

Oliver Lewis

coded with the intention of causing a visceral reaction for Punch’s readers, prompting a

revolutionary reaction. Punch takes a highly critical perspective at the lack of reform for public

health, as six years since the publication of ‘A Court for King Cholera’ the issue of public health

appears to have gotten worse. London not only faces the threat of cholera but also diphtheria and

scrofula too, as depicted in ‘Father Thames Introducing his Offspring to the Fair City of London’.

Although John Leech is the cartoonist for both images, the magazines treatment of disease

drastically alters in between publication of both cartoons. While ‘A Court for King Cholera’ suggests a

number of factors that could contribute to the spread of the disease, ‘Father Thames Introducing his

Offspring to the Fair City of London’ which was published later alluding that dirty water can be the

source of cholera. His assumption is backed by John Snow’s medical findings in 1854, proving that a

water pump contaminated with sewage in Broad Street, Soho was the sole cause of cholera deaths.

This demonstrates how Punch actively engaged with upcoming medical knowledge and theories,

with the aim of identifying an accurate long-term solution to resolve the threat public health posed

to society.

6

Oliver Lewis

7

Oliver Lewis

Works CitedBakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Massachussetts: Indiana University Press, 1984. Print.

Gardner, Martin. The Annotated Alice. London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1965. Print.

Leech, J. “A Court for King Cholera” (1858). Punch Magazine <http://punch.photoshelter.com/image?&_bqG=0&_bqH=eJxtj09TwjAQxT8NvXhBJAc7k0OaXeoqTZj8gekpg1gKCKjg6Nc36TDaUfew.b23ecls.wbjA4anZrYoP24_R8WYwXp9d3g9i_wmH7Fhfj2MlVMAK_nz9therTYv..a0zChYEA4HrKiqAQPeMwCSAdCz6ljJTGe08XcU_0bx_6gkV3efuThOILVXztSBrE5SG0IVZ6RVkmSDwSkKi3CRs7622jhuhHrIuhWDUMDfI3uLJhBwn9bf3e.2zDwe99TG0ZyM82IaRIlK1ulSFmQRKD4coxf032gmP1glFNLxc7M8rTbZvEuXXZepfwFvHHOT&GI_ID=> Date accessed 24/10/13.

Leech, J. “Father Thames Introducing His Offspring to the Fair City of London” (1858). Punch Magazine <http://punch.photoshelter.com/image?&_bqG=0&_bqH=eJxtj81OwzAQhJ.muXBpKnKJ5IPrXaptE7vyT0ROVqhCkxQq0UYI8fTYUQURsIf1N7MeW.sN9sPWDW.fH_v.cF.kCNm5en88nniervJVtszTZaicPBjBnpuxay93Y9e8tteEvAFucZGty3KRAZsZANEAmFl1qGjGM9j4O4p_o_h_VJCtp89sGEcQykmra09GRak0oQwzUjJKMl5jgdwg3OR.ro3Slmkud8m0o.cS2BjYGdSegLm4_7Ad.kw_nV_oGEYVaet44fkGpajjpcSLtafwcIje0H2jfvjBMiIXll3b5nLokmpKb6YuYv8CBKN0mg--&GI_ID=> Date accessed 24/10/13

8