INDEED, comedy is the proper province of humour. Wit is called in solely as an auxilary, humour predominates. The comic poet bears the same analogy to the author of the mock-heroic, that the tragic poet bears to the author of the epic. The epos recites, and, advancing with a step majestic and sedate, engageth all the nobler powers of imagination, a sense of grandeur, of beauty, and of order; tragedy personates, and thus employing a more rapid and animated diction, seizeth directly upon the heart. The little epic, a narrative intended for amusement, and addressed to all the lighter powers of fancy, delights in the excursions of wit: the production of the comic muse being a representation, is circumscribed by narrower bounds, and is all life and activity throughout. Thus Buck, ingham says, with the greatest justness, of comedy,

Humour is all. Wit should be only brought

To turn agreeably some proper thought *.

THE pathetic and the facetious not only differ in subject and effect, as will appear upon the most superficial review of what hath been said, but also in the manner of imitation. In this the man of humour descends to a minuteness which the orator disdains. The former will often successfully run into downright mimicry, and exhibit peculiarities in voice, gesture, and pronunciation, which in the other would be intolerable. The reason of the difference is this: That we may divert, by exciting scorn and contempt, the in

* Essay on poetry.

dividual must be exposed; that we may move, by interesting the more generous principles of humanity, the language and sentiments, not so much of the individual, as of human nature, must be displayed. So very different, or rather opposite, are these two in this respect, that there could not be a more effectual expedient for undoing the charm of the most affecting representation, than an attempt in the speaker to mimic the personal singularities of the man for whom he desires to interest us. On the other hand, in the humorous, where the end is diversion, even over-acting, if moderate, is not improper.

Ir was observed already, that, though contempt be the only passion addressed by humour, yet this passion may with propriety and success be assailed by the severer eloquence, where there is not the smallest tincture of humour. This it will not be beside our purpose to specify, in order the more effectually to shew the difference. Lord Bolingbroke, speaking of the state of these kingdoms from the time of the Restoration, has these words: "The two brothers, Charles "and James, when in exile, became infected with po

66

pery to such degrees as their different characters ad"mitted of. Charles had parts; and his good underderstanding served as an antidote to repel the poison. James, the simplest man of his time, drank off "the whole chalice. The poison met, in his compo“sition, with all the fear, all the credulity, and all the obstinacy of temper proper to increase its virulence, "and to strengthen its effect.-Drunk with supersti

“tious and even enthusiastic zeal, he ran headlong in"to his own ruin, whilst he endeavoured to precipitate 66 ours. His parliament and his people did all they "could to save themselves, by winning him. But all "in vain. He had no principle on which they could "take hold. Even his good qualities worked against "them; and his love of his country went halves with "his bigotry. How he succeeded we have heard "from our fathers. The revolution of one thousand "six hundred and eighty-eight saved the nation, and "ruined the king*." Nothing can be more contemptuous, and at the same time less derisive, than this representation. We should readily say of it, that it is strongly animated, and happily expressed; but no man who understands English would say, it is humorous. I shall add one example from Dr Swift. I "should be exceedingly sorry to find the Legislature "make any new laws against the practice of duelling, "because the methods are easy and many for a wise “man to avoid a quarrel with honour, or engage in it "with innocence. And I can discover no political "evil in suffering bullies, sharpers, and rakes, to rid "the world of each other by a method of their own, "where the law hath not been able to find an expedient +."

FOR a specimen of the humorous, take as a contrast to the two last examples, the following delineation of a fop:

Sir Plume (of amber snuff-box justly vain,
And the nice conduct of a clouded cane)
With earnest eyes and round unthinking face,
He first the snuff-box open'd, then the case,

And thus broke out, "My Lord, why,-what the devil? "Z-ds!-damn the lock!-'fore Gad, you must be civil!

Plague on't!-'tis past a jest,-nay prithee,-pox!

"Give her the hair."-He spoke and rapp'd his box.
"It grieves me much," replied the peer again,
"Who speaks so well, should ever speak in vain ;
"But

*

This, both in the descriptive and the dramatic part, particularly in the draught it contains of the baronet's mind, aspect, manner, and eloquence, (if we except the sarcastic term justly, the double sense of the word open'd, and the fine irony couched in the reply) is purely facetious. An instance of wit and humour combined, where they reciprocally set off and enliven each other, Pope hath also furnished us with in another part of the same exquisite performance.

Whether the nymph shall break Diana's law,

Or some frail china jar receive a flaw;
Or stain her honour, or her new brocade;
Forget her prayers, or miss a masquerade;
Or lose her heart, or necklace, at a ball;

Or whether heaven has doom'd that Shock must fall †.

This is humorous, in that it is a lively sketch of the female estimate of mischances, as our poet's commentator rightly terms it, marked out by a few striking

Rape of the Lock, Canto 4.

Rape of the Lock, Canto 2.

Sect. II.

Of humour.

lineaments. It is likewise witty, for, not to mention the play on words like that remarked in the former example, a trope familiar to this author, you have here a comparison of a woman's chastity to a piece of porcelain, her honour to a gaudy robe,- her prayers to a fantastical disguise her heart, to a trinket; and all these together to her lap-dog, and that founded on one lucky circumstance (a malicious critic would perhaps discern or imagine more) by which these things, how unlike soever in other respects, may be compared, the impression they make on the mind of a fine lady.

HUDIBRAS, so often above quoted, abounds in wit in almost all its varieties; to which the author's various erudition hath not a little contributed. And this, it must be owned, is more suitable to the nature of his poem. At the same time, it is by no means destitute of humour, as appears particularly in the dif ferent exhibitions of character given by the knight and his squire. But in no part of the story is this talent displayed to greater advantage than in the consultation of the lawyer*, to which I shall refer the reader, as the passage is too long for my transcribing. There is, perhaps, no book in any language wherein the humorous is carried to a higher pitch of perfection, than in the adventures of the celebrated knight of La Mancha. As to our English dramatists, who does not acknowledge the transcendent excellence of Shakespeare in this province, as well as in the pathetic?

*Part III. Canto 3.