to its first principles, I have examined it, only as it is found to operate, for the most part, in the generality of mankind.

CHA P. IV.

An attempt to account for the fuperiority of the moderns in Ludicrous Writing.

T seems to be generally acknowledged, that the

IT ferests are fuperior to nohe ancient Greeks

and Romans, in every fort of Ludicrous Writing. If this be indeed the cafe, it is a fact that deferves the attention of thofe authors who make Wit, or Humour, the fubject of their inquiry; fince the fame reasonings that account for this fact must throw light on the philofophy of laughter. But by those people who argue for argument's fake, probable reasons might be urged, to fhow, that we are not competent judges of the ancient humour, and therefore cannot be certain of the fuperiority of the modern. Were I to defend this fide of the queftion, the following should be my arguments.

Every thing that gives variety to the thoughts, the manners, and employments of men, muft alfo diverfify their converfations and compofitions in general, and their wit and humour in particular. Accord

Ee 3

Accordingly we find, that almost every profeffion in life has a turn of humour, as well as of thinking and acting, peculiar to itself. The foldier, the seaman, the mechanic, the hufbandman, is more amused by the conversation of people of his own trade, than by that of others: and a species of wit fhall be highly relished in one club or fociety, which in another would be but little attended to. We need not wonder, then, that in the humour of each country there fhould be fome peculiar character, to the forming of which, not only the language and manners, but even the climate and foil, muft contribute, by giving a peculiar direction to the pursuits and thoughts of the inhabitants. Nor need we wonder, that each nation should be affected moft agreeably with its own wit and humour. For, not to mention the prejudice that one naturally entertains in favour of what is one's own, a native must always underftand, better than foreigners can, the relations, contrarieties, and allufions, implied in what is ludicrous in the fpeech and writings of his countrymen.

Shakespeare's humour will never be adequately relished in France, nor that of Moliere in England and tranflations of ludicrous writings are feldom popular, unless they exhibit something of the manners and habits of thinking, as well as the language, of the people to whom they are addreffed. Echard's Terence, from having adopted fuch a multitude of our cant phrases, and pro

verbial

verbial allufions, is perhaps more generally relished in Great Britain, than a more literal and more elegant verfion would have been. Sancho Pança diverts us more in Motteux's Don Quixote, than in Jervas's Tranflation, or Smollet's; because he has more of the English clown, and lefs of the Spaniard, in the former, than in the latter. And a certain French author, to render his Translation of Tom Jones more acceptable to his countrymen, and to clear it of what he foolishly calls English phlegm, has greatly abridged that incomparable performance, and, in my opinion, expunged fome of the finest paffages; those converfation-pieces, I mean, which tend more immediately to the elucidation of the characters, than to the progress of the story.

May there not, then, in ancient authors, be many excellent ftrokes of wit and humour, which we misapprehend, merely because we cannot adequately relish? The dialogues of the Socratic philofophers abound in pleafantry, which is no doubt entertaining to a modern reader, but which does not at all come up to thofe expectations that one would be apt to form of it from the high encomiums of Cicero, and other ancient critics: and may not this be partly imputed to our not fufficiently understanding the Socratic dialogues? To us nothing appears more paltry in the execution, than the ridicule with which Aristophanes perfecuted Socrates: and yet we know, that it operated with wonderful energy on the Athenians,

who, for refinement of taste, and for wit and humour, were diftinguished among all the nations of antiquity. Does not this amount to a prefumption, that we are no competent judges of the humour of that profligate comedian ?

Let it be remarked, too, that the sphere most favourable to wit and humour is that which is occupied by the middle and lower ranks of mankind; perfons in high stations being obliged to maintain a reserve unfriendly to rifible emotion, and to reduce their behaviour to an artificial uniformity, which does indeed answer many important purposes, but which, for the moft part, difqualifies them for filling any eminent place in humourous description. Now we are much in the dark in regard to the manners that prevailed among the Greeks and Romans of the lower fort; and there must have been, in their ludicrous writings, as there are in ours, many nice allufions to trifling customs, to the news of the day, and to characters and incidents too inconfiderable to be minded by the hiftorian, which none but perfons living at the time, and in a particular place, could ever comprehend; as the writers of those days had no notion of the modern practice of illuftrating their own works with marginal annotations. Many authors, too, are loft; and with them has pro bably perifhed (as we remarked already) the ludicrous effect of innumerable parodies and turns of expreffion, to be met with in Ariftophanes, Plautus, Lucian, Horace, and other witty ancients.

It is at least certain, that there are in Shakespeare many parodies and allufions, the propriety of which we cannot eftimate, as the authors, cuftoms, and incidents, referred to, are already forgotten.

From the caufes now hinted at, works of wit and humour would appear to be lefs to be less permanent in their effects, and more liable to become obfcure, than any other literary compofitions. Commentaries are now neceffary to make Hudibras and the Dunciad thoroughly intelligible: and what a mysterious rhapsody would the Rape of the Lock be to thofe, who, though well inftructed in the language of Hooker and Spenfer, had never heard of fnuff or coffee, watches or hoop petticoats, beaus or lap-dogs, toilettes or card-tables! But the reasonings of Euclid and Demofthenes, the moral and natural paintings of Homer and Virgil, the pathos of Eloifa's Epistle to Abelard, the descriptions of Livy and Tacitus, can never stand in need of commentaries to explain them, fo long as the Greek, Latin, and English languages are tolerably understood; because they are founded in those suggestions of human reason, and those appearances in the moral and material world, which are always the fame, and with which every intelligent obferver muft in every age be acquainted.

I would not infinuate, that all forts of Ludicrous writing are equally liable to lose their effect, and be misunderstood. Those must preserve their relish unimpaired through ages, which allude,to our more permanent follies and abfurdities; like

Horace's