<h3 class="chapterhead"><SPAN name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II"></SPAN>CHAPTER II.</h3>
<p class="hanging">DEFINITION OF THE WORD HUMBUG.—​WARREN OF LONDON.—​GENIN, THE
HATTER.—​GOSLING’S BLACKING.</p>
<p>Upon a careful consideration of my undertaking to give an account of the
“Humbugs of the World,” I find myself somewhat puzzled in regard to the
true definition of that word. To be sure, Webster says that humbug, as a
noun, is an “imposition under fair pretences;” and as a verb, it is “to
deceive; to impose on.” With all due deference to Doctor Webster, I
submit that, according to present usage, this is not the only, nor even
the generally accepted definition of that term.</p>
<p>We will suppose, for instance, that a man with “fair pretences” applies
to a wholesale merchant for credit on a large bill of goods. His “fair
pretences” compre<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_19" id="Page_19"></SPAN></span>hend an assertion that he is a moral and religious
man, a member of the church, a man of wealth, etc., etc. It turns out
that he is not worth a dollar, but is a base, lying wretch, an impostor
and a cheat. He is arrested and imprisoned “for obtaining property under
false pretences” or, as Webster says, “fair pretences.” He is punished
for his villainy. The public do not call him a “humbug;” they very
properly term him a swindler.</p>
<p>A man, bearing the appearance of a gentleman in dress and manners,
purchases property from you, and with “fair pretences” obtains your
confidence. You find, when he has left, that he paid you with
counterfeit bank-notes, or a forged draft. This man is justly called a
“forger,” or “counterfeiter;” and if arrested, he is punished as such;
but nobody thinks of calling him a “humbug.”</p>
<p>A respectable-looking man sits by your side in an omnibus or rail-car.
He converses fluently, and is evidently a man of intelligence and
reading. He attracts your attention by his “fair pretences.” Arriving at
your journey’s end, you miss your watch and your pocket-book. Your
fellow passenger proves to be the thief. Everybody calls him a
“pickpocket,” and not withstanding his “fair pretences,” not a person in
the community calls him a “humbug.”</p>
<p>Two actors appear as stars at two rival theatres. They are equally
talented, equally pleasing. One advertises himself simply as a
tragedian, under his proper name—the other boasts that he is a prince,
and wears decorations presented by all the potentates of the world,<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_20" id="Page_20"></SPAN></span>
including the “King of the Cannibal Islands.” He is correctly set down
as a “humbug,” while this term is never applied to the other actor. But
if the man who boasts of having received a foreign title is a miserable
actor, and he gets up gift-enterprises and bogus entertainments, or
pretends to devote the proceeds of his tragic efforts to some charitable
object, without, in fact, doing so—he is then a humbug in Dr. Webster’s
sense of that word, for he is an “impostor under fair pretences.”</p>
<p>Two physicians reside in one of our fashionable avenues. They were both
educated in the best medical colleges; each has passed an examination,
received his diploma, and been dubbed an M. D. They are equally skilled
in the healing art. One rides quietly about the city in his gig or
brougham, visiting his patients without noise or clamor—the other
sallies out in his coach and four, preceded by a band of music, and his
carriage and horses are covered with handbills and placards, announcing
his “wonderful cures.” This man is properly called a quack and a humbug.
Why? Not because he cheats or imposes upon the public, for he does not,
but because, as generally understood, “humbug” consists in putting on
glittering appearances—outside show—novel expedients, by which to
suddenly arrest public attention, and attract the public eye and ear.</p>
<p>Clergymen, lawyers, or physicians, who should resort to such methods of
attracting the public, would not, for obvious reasons, be apt to
succeed. Bankers, insurance-agents, and others, who aspire to become
the<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_21" id="Page_21"></SPAN></span> custodians of the money of their fellow-men, would require a
different species of advertising from this; but there are various trades
and occupations which need only notoriety to insure success, always
provided that when customers are once attracted, they never fail to get
their money’s worth. An honest man who thus arrests public attention
will be called a “humbug,” but he is not a swindler or an impostor. If,
however, after attracting crowds of customers by his unique displays, a
man foolishly fails to give them a full equivalent for their money, they
never patronize him a second time, but they very properly denounce him
as a swindler, a cheat, an impostor; they do not, however, call him a
“humbug.” He fails, not because he advertises his wares in an <i>outre</i>
manner, but because, after attracting crowds of patrons, he stupidly and
wickedly cheats them.</p>
<p>When the great blacking-maker of London dispatched his agent to Egypt to
write on the pyramids of Ghiza, in huge letters, “Buy Warren’s Blacking,
30 Strand, London,” he was not “cheating” travelers upon the Nile. His
blacking was really a superior article, and well worth the price charged
for it, but he was “humbugging” the public by this queer way of
arresting attention. It turned out just as he anticipated, that English
travelers in that part of Egypt were indignant at this desecration, and
they wrote back to the London Times (every Englishman writes or
threatens to “write to the Times,” if anything goes wrong,) denouncing
the “Goth” who had thus disfigured these ancient pyramids by writing on
them in monstrous<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_22" id="Page_22"></SPAN></span> letters: “Buy Warren’s Blacking, 30 Strand, London.”
The Times published these letters, and backed them up by several of
those awful, grand and dictatorial editorials peculiar to the great
“Thunderer,” in which the blacking-maker, “Warren, 30 Strand,” was
stigmatized as a man who had no respect for the ancient patriarchs, and
it was hinted that he would probably not hesitate to sell his blacking
on the sarcophagus of Pharaoh, “or any other”—mummy, if he could only
make money by it. In fact, to cap the climax, Warren was denounced as a
“humbug.” These indignant articles were copied into all the Provincial
journals, and very soon, in this manner, the columns of every newspaper
in Great Britain were teeming with this advice: “Try Warren’s Blacking,
30 Strand, London.” The curiosity of the public was thus aroused, and
they did “try” it, and finding it a superior article, they continued to
purchase it and recommend it to their friends, and Warren made a fortune
by it. He always attributed his success to his having “humbugged” the
public by this unique method of advertising his blacking in Egypt! But
Warren did not cheat his customers, nor practice “an imposition under
fair pretences.” He was a humbug, but he was an honest upright man, and
no one called him an impostor or a cheat.</p>
<p>When the tickets for Jenny Lind’s first concert in America were sold at
auction, several business-men, aspiring to notoriety, “bid high” for the
first ticket. It was finally knocked down to “Genin, the hatter,” for
$225. The journals in Portland (Maine) and Houston (Texas,) and all
other journals throughout the United<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_23" id="Page_23"></SPAN></span> States, between these two cities,
which were connected with the telegraph, announced the fact in their
columns the next morning. Probably two millions of readers read the
announcement, and asked, “Who is Genin, the hatter?” Genin became famous
in a day. Every man involuntarily examined his hat, to see if it was
made by Genin; and an Iowa editor declared that one of his neighbors
discovered the name of Genin in his old hat and immediately announced
the fact to his neighbors in front of the Post Office. It was suggested
that the old hat should be sold at auction. It was done then and there,
and the Genin hat sold for fourteen dollars! Gentlemen from city and
country rushed to Genin’s store to buy their hats, many of them willing
to pay even an extra dollar, if necessary, provided they could get a
glimpse of Genin himself. This singular freak put thousands of dollars
into the pocket of “Genin, the hatter,” and yet I never heard it charged
that he made poor hats, or that he would be guilty of an “imposition
under fair pretences.” On the contrary, he is a gentleman of probity,
and of the first respectability.</p>
<p>When the laying of the Atlantic Telegraph was nearly completed, I was in
Liverpool. I offered the company one thousand pounds sterling ($5,000)
for the privilege of sending the first twenty words over the cable to my
Museum in New York—not that there was any intrinsic merit in the words,
but that I fancied there was more than $5,000 worth of notoriety in the
operation. But Queen Victoria and “Old Buck” were ahead of me. Their
messages had the preference, and I was compelled to “take a back seat.”</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_24" id="Page_24"></SPAN></span>By thus illustrating what I believe the public will concede to be the
sense in which the word “humbug” is generally used and understood at the
present time, in this country as well as in England, I do not propose
that my letters on this subject shall be narrowed down to that
definition of the word. On the contrary, I expect to treat of various
fallacies, delusions, and deceptions in ancient and modern times, which,
according to Webster’s definition, may be called “humbugs,” inasmuch as
they were “impositions under fair pretences.”</p>
<p>In writing of modern humbugs, however, I shall sometimes have occasion
to give the names of honest and respectable parties now living, and I
felt it but just that the public should fully comprehend my doctrine,
that a man may, by common usage, be termed a “humbug,” without by any
means impeaching his integrity.</p>
<p>Speaking of “blacking-makers,” reminds me that one of the first
sensationists in advertising whom I remember to have seen, was Mr.
Leonard Gosling, known as “Monsieur Gosling, the great French
blacking-maker.” He appeared in New York in 1830. He flashed like a
meteor across the horizon; and before he had been in the city three
months, nearly everybody had heard of “Gosling’s Blacking.” I well
remember his magnificent “four in hand.” A splendid team of blood bays,
with long black tails, was managed with such dexterity by Gosling
himself, who was a great “whip,” that they almost seemed to fly. The
carriage was emblazoned with the words “Gosling’s Blacking,” in large
gold letters, and the whole turnout was so elaborately ornamented and
bedizened that everybody stopped and<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_25" id="Page_25"></SPAN></span> gazed with wondering admiration. A
bugle-player or a band of music always accompanied the great Gosling,
and, of course, helped to <SPAN name="corr14" id="corr14"></SPAN>attract the public attention to his
establishment. At the turning of every street-corner your eyes rested
upon “Gosling’s Blacking.” From every show-window gilded placards
discoursed eloquently of the merits of “Gosling’s Blacking.” The
newspapers teemed with poems written in its praise, and showers of
pictorial handbills, illustrated almanacs, and tinseled souvenirs, all
lauding the virtues of “Gosling’s Blacking,” smothered you at every
point.</p>
<p>The celebrated originator of delineations, “Jim Crow Rice,” made his
first appearance at Hamblin’s Bowery Theatre at about this time. The
crowds which thronged there were so great that hundreds from the
audience were frequently admitted upon the stage. In one of his scenes,
Rice introduced a negro boot-blacking establishment. Gosling was too
“wide awake” to let such an opportunity pass unimproved, and Rice was
paid for singing an original black Gosling ditty, while a score of
placards bearing the inscription, “Use Gosling’s Blacking,” were
suspended at different points in this negro boot polishing hall.
Everybody tried “Gosling’s Blacking;” and as it was a really good
article, his sales in city and country soon became immense; Gosling made
a fortune in seven years, and retired but, as with thousands before him,
it was “easy come easy go.” He engaged in a lead-mining speculation, and
it was generally understood that his fortune was, in a great measure,
lost as rapidly as it was made.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_26" id="Page_26"></SPAN></span>Here let me digress, in order to observe that one of the most difficult
things in life is for men to bear discreetly sudden prosperity. Unless
considerable time and labor are devoted to earning money, it is not
appreciated by its possessor; and, having no practical knowledge of the
value of money, he generally gets rid of it with the same ease that
marked its accumulation. Mr. Astor gave the experience of thousands when
he said that he found more difficulty in earning and saving his first
thousand dollars than in accumulating all the subsequent millions which
finally made up his fortune. The very economy, perseverance, and
discipline which he was obliged to practice, as he gained his money
dollar by dollar, gave him a just appreciation of its value, and thus
led him into those habits of industry, prudence, temperance, and
untiring diligence so conducive and necessary to his future success.</p>
<p>Mr. Gosling, however, was not a man to be put down by a single financial
reverse. He opened a store in Canajoharie, N. Y., which was burned, and
on which there was no insurance. He came again to New York in 1839, and
established a restaurant, where, by devoting the services of himself and
several members of his family assiduously to the business, he soon
reveled in his former prosperity, and snapped his fingers in glee at
what unreflecting persons term “the freaks of Dame Fortune.” He is still
living in New York, hale and hearty at the age of seventy. Although
called a “French” blacking-maker, Mr. Gosling is in reality a Dutchman,
having been born in the city of Amsterdam, Holland. He is the father of
twenty-four child<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_27" id="Page_27"></SPAN></span>ren, twelve of whom are still living, to cheer him in
his declining years, and to repay him in grateful attentions for the
valuable lessons of prudence, integrity, and industry through the
adoption of which they are honored as respectable and worthy members of
society.</p>
<p>I cannot however permit this chapter to close without recording a
protest in principle against that method of advertising of which
Warren’s on the Pyramid is an instance. Not that it is a crime or even
an immorality in the usual sense of the words; but it is a violent
offence against good taste, and a selfish and inexcusable destruction of
other people’s enjoyments. No man ought to advertise in the midst of
landscapes or scenery, in such a way as to destroy or injure their
beauty by introducing totally incongruous and relatively vulgar
associations. Too many transactions of the sort have been perpetrated in
our own country. The principle on which the thing is done is, to seek
out the most attractive spot possible—the wildest, the most lovely, and
there, in the most staring and brazen manner to paint up advertisements
of quack medicines, rum, or as the case may be, in letters of monstrous
size, in the most obtrusive colors, in such a prominent place, and in
such a lasting way as to destroy the beauty of the scene both thoroughly
and permanently.</p>
<p>Any man with a beautiful wife or daughter would probably feel
disagreeably, if he should find branded indelibly across her smooth
white forehead, or on her snowy shoulder in blue and red letters such a
phrase as this: “Try the Jigamaree Bitters!” Very much like this is the
sort of advertising I am speaking of. It is<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_28" id="Page_28"></SPAN></span> not likely that I shall be
charged with squeamishness on this question. I can readily enough see
the selfishness and vulgarity of this particular sort of advertising,
however.</p>
<p>It is outrageously selfish to destroy the pleasure of thousands, for the
sake of a chance of additional gain. And it is an atrocious piece of
vulgarity to flaunt the names of quack nostrums, and of the coarse
stimulants of sots, among the beautiful scenes of nature. The pleasure
of such places depends upon their freedom from the associations of every
day concerns and troubles and weaknesses. A lovely nook of forest
scenery, or a grand rock, like a beautiful woman, depends for much of
its attractiveness upon the attendant sense of freedom from whatever is
low; upon a sense of purity and of romance. And it is about as nauseous
to find “Bitters” or “Worm Syrup” daubed upon the landscape, as it would
be upon the lady’s brow.</p>
<p>Since writing this I observe that two legislatures—those of New
Hampshire and New York—have passed laws to prevent this dirty
misdemeanor. It is greatly to their credit, and it is in good season.
For it is matter of wonder that some more colossal vulgarian has not
stuck up a sign a mile long on the Palisades. But it is matter of
thankfulness too. At the White Mountains, many grand and beautiful views
have been spoiled by these nostrum and bedbug souled fellows.</p>
<p>It is worth noticing that the chief haunts of the city of New York, the
Central Park, has thus far remained unviolated by the dirty hands of
these vulgar advertisers. Without knowing anything about it, I have<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_29" id="Page_29"></SPAN></span> no
doubt whatever that the commissioners have been approached often by
parties desiring the privilege of advertising within its limits. Among
the advertising fraternity it would be thought a gigantic opportunity to
be able to flaunt the name of some bug-poison, fly-killer,
bowel-rectifier, or disguised rum, along the walls of the Reservoir;
upon the delicate stone-work of the Terrace, or the graceful lines of
the Bow Bridge; to nail up a tin sign on every other tree, to stick one
up right in front of every seat; to keep a gang of young wretches
thrusting pamphlet or handbill into every person’s palm that enters the
gate, to paint a vulgar sign across every gray rock; to cut quack words
in ditch-work in the smooth green turf of the mall or ball-ground. I
have no doubt that it is the peremptory decision and clear good taste of
the Commissioners alone, which have kept this last retreat of nature
within our crowded city from being long ago plastered and daubed with
placards, handbills, sign-boards and paint, from side to side and from
end to end, over turf, tree, rock, wall, bridge, archway, building and
all.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />