Search

Punch magazine was instrumental in shaping the figure of the New Woman in the popular imagination. Critical studies of the representation of the New Woman in Punch tend to focus on its misogynistic depictions of a ‘nagging New Woman [who] can never be quiet’ (26 May 1894, 252), but alongside these satires on the New Woman were pieces by female authors, some of whom could be described as New Women themselves. This article will focus on two pieces, published in Punch just over a decade apart, by women who were committed to the cause of women’s rights: Rosaline Masson’s poem ‘The Reason Why’ (1898) and Evelyn Sharp’s short story ‘The Wreck of “The Ark”’ (1909). The authors of both of these pieces poke fun at the stereotypes surrounding the New Woman without overtly criticising Punch for its frequent ridicule of this figure. Through my discussion of these pieces I will explore these authors’ motivations for publishing in Punch, rather than a publication with a more sympathetic attitude towards women’s rights, and I will examine the trade-off that required them to mute their feminism in return for a wider audience. The article will also explore how these authors, who were both intelligent, independent women who earned money through writing, made use of humour while publishing in a periodical in which such women were generally the targets of humour rather than the originators of it. This article will highlight the role of female writers in contributing to the portrayal of women in an influential periodical and will expand the view of Punch’s representation of the New Woman beyond the familiar satires and caricatures.

This article analyses Franco-British relations through Punch Magazine’s political cartoons dealing with European integration from 1950 to 1992. It consists of three parts. The first focuses on the personalities embodying the relations; the second investigates the cultural references leading readers to decipher implicit meanings to be shared with the cartoonists; finally, the third part examines how the representation of the Franco-British relations in Punch helps convey its perception of the European policy of the United Kingdom. This article argues that the study of the political cartoons in Punch conjures up the production of a visual and symbolic memory of some aspects of British foreign policy.

Copyright of French Journal of British Studies / Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique is the property of Centre de Recherches et d'Etudes en Civilisation Britannique and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Cartoons have been used in advertising in Great Britain for at least 200 years, to promote anything from alcohol and tobacco to motor cars and holidays. With the lifting of taxes on advertising in the British press in the nineteenth century, and the publication of the first major illustrated newspapers, pictorial advertising really took off and cartoons became a significant weapon in the advertiser's armoury. One particular drawing from 1884, by the Punch cartoonist Harry Furniss, became especially well known. Originally intended as a joke about a Pears' Soap advertisement featuring the actress Lillie Langtry (mistress of King Edward VII) it was later used to promote the brand itself. The caption for the cartoon even entered the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers new perspectives on the reception of the women’s dress reform movement in Britain and North America. Focusing on a central case study of a satirical letter and accompanying illustration parodying Bloomerism, which was published on both sides of the Atlantic, periodical editorials are analyzed in light of contemporary social and political attitudes. In contrast to commonly held assumptions about Bloomerism having failed because of deeply entrenched gender norms, it is instead asserted that the eventual backlash against the Bloomer fashion was a result of the British association with America’s poor showing at the Great Exhibition in London in 1851, and not necessarily because of inherent objections to its sartorial aesthetics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]