early humor

[calimac]

I was turning the crumbling leaves of an obscure 1880s magazine at the behest of the wizard of three rivers, and found this little item that caught my eye. Subsequent inquiry of Google Books shows that it was a fairly popular piece in its time, often reprinted, though the publication I saw it in is not online. This was certainly not its first appearance.

**

A duel was lately fought by Alex. Shott and John S. Nott; Nott was shot and Shott was not. In this case it was better to be Shott than Nott. There was a rumor that Nott was not shot, and Shott avows that he shot Nott, which proves that either the shot that Shott shot at Nott was not shot, or that Nott was shot notwithstanding. It may be made to appear on trial that the shot Shott shot shot Nott, or, as accidents with arms are frequent, it may be possible that the shot Shott shot shot Shott himself; when the whole affair would resolve itself into its original elements, and Shott would be shot and Nott would be not. We think, however, that the shot Shott shot shot not Shott but Nott. Anyway, it is hard to tell who was shot.

Comments

[holyoutlaw.livejournal.com]

By the end of that I was giggling.

[scribblerworks.livejournal.com]

I think the original writer of the piece had a very, very slow day and wanted to see how long he could draw the announcement out without repeating himself.

Classic!

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I was already chuckling at "Nott was shot and Shott was not," which is an inconvenient reaction to have in a hushed rare books reading room.