It cannot be expected, that I should give a complete lift of thofe emotions that do commonly, in a found mind, bear down this ludicrous emotion. Several of them have been fpecified in the course of this inquiry. We have seen, from the examples given, that moral difapprobation, pity, fear, disgust, admiration, are among the number; to which every perfon, who attends to what paffes in his own mind, may perhaps be able to add feveral others.

I am well aware, that the comparative ftrength of our feveral emotions is not the fame in each individual. In fome the more ferious affections are fo prevalent, that the rifible difpofition operates but feldom, and with a feeble impulfe: in fome, the latter predominates fo much, that the others are fcarce able to counteract its energy. It is hardly poffible to arrive at principles fo comprehensive as to include the peculiarities of every individual. Thefe are fometimes fo inconfiftent with the general law of the fpecies, that they may be confidered as deviations from the ordinary course of nature. In tracing Sentimental Laughter to its first principles, I have examined it, only as it is found to operate, for the most part, in the lity of mankind,

genera

CHAP.

CHA P. IV.

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

T feems to be generally acknowledged, that the moderns are fuperior to the 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 those authors who make Wit, or Humour, the fubject of their inquiry; fince the fame reafonings that account for this fact muft throw light on the philofophy of laughter. But by those people who argue for argument's fake, probable reafons 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 question, the following fhould be my arguments.

Every thing that gives variety to the thoughts, the manners, and employments of men, must also tend to diverfify their converfations and compofitions in general, and

their wit and humour in particular. Accor-` dingly we find, that almost every profeffion in life has a turn of humour, as well as of thinking and acting, peculiar in fome degree to itself. The foldier, the feaman, the mechanic, the hufbandman, is more amufed by the converfation of people of his own trade, than by that of others: and a fpecies 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 should 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 fhould be affected most 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 understand, better than foreigners can, the relations, contrarieties, and allufions, implied in what is ludicrous in the speech and writings of his countrymen.

Shakespeare's humour will never be adequately relifhed in France, nor that of Moliere in England: and tranflations of ludicrous writings are feldom popular, unless they exhibit fomething of the manners and habits of thinking, as well as the language, of the people to whom they are addrefled. VOL. II. Echard's

3 M

Echard's Terence, from having adopted fuch a multitude of our cant phrafes, and proverbial 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 Translation, 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 some of the finest paffages; those conversation-pieces, I mean, which tend more immediately to the elucidation of the characters, than to the progrefs of the story.

May there not, then, in ancient authors, be many excellent strokes of wit and humour, which we mifapprehend, merely because we cannot adequately relish? The dialogues of the Socratic philofophers abound in pleasantry, 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

and

which Aristophanes perfecuted Socrates yet we know, that it operated with wonderful energy on the Athenians, who, for refinement of tafte, and for wit and humour, were distinguished 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 referve unfriendly to rifible emotion, and to reduce their behaviour to an artificial uniformity, which does indeed anfwer many important purpofes, but which, for the most part, disqualifies them for filling any eminent place in humorous 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 historian, which none but perfons living at the time, and in a particular place, could ever comprehend; as the writers of thofe 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 probably perifhed (as we remarked

3 M 2