N° 83. TUESDAY, February 22. 1780.

Na paper published at Edinburgh, it would

be improper to enter into any comparison of the writers of this country with thofe on the other fide of the Tweed. But, whatever be the comparative rank of Scottish and English authors, it must furely be allowed, that, of late, there have been writers in this country, upon different fubjects, who are poffeffed of very confiderable merit. In one fpecies of writing, however, in works and compofitions of humour, there can be no fort of doubt that the English stand perfectly unrivalled by their northern neighbours. The English excel in comedy: several of their romances are replete with the most humorous reprefentations of life and character, and many of their other works are full of excellent ridicule. But, in Scotland, we have hardly any book which aims at humour, and, of the very few which do, ftill fewer have any degree of merit. Though we have tragedies written by Scots authors, we have no comedy, excepting Ramfay's Gentle VOL. III. Shepherd:

G

Shepherd; and, though we have tender novels, we have none of humour, excepting thofe of Smollet, who, from his long refidence in England, can hardly be faid to have acquired in this country his talent for writing; nor can we, for the fame reason, lay a perfect claim to Arbuthnot, who is a ftill more illuftrious exception to my general remark. There must be fomething in the national genius of the two people which makes this remarkable difference in their writings, though it may be difficult to difcover from what cause it arifes.

I am inclined to fufpect, that there is fomething in the fituation and prefent government of Scotland, which may, in part, account for this difference in the genius of the two countries. Scotland, before the union of the two kingdoms, was a feparate ftate, with a parliament and conftitution of its own. Now the feat of government is removed, and its conftitution is involved in that of England. At the time the two nations came to be fo intimately connected, its great men were lefs affluent than thofe of England, its agriculture was little advanced, and its manufactures were in their infancy. A Scotfman was, therefore,

in this fituation, obliged to exert every nerve, that he might be able to hold his place.

If preferment, or offices in public life, were his object, he was obliged to remove from home to a city, which, though now the metropolis of the united kingdoms, had formerly been to him a fort of foreign capital. If wealth was the object of his purfuit, he could only acquire it at home by great industry and perfeverance; and, if he found he could not eafily fucceed in his own country, he repaired to other countries, where he expected to be able to amafs a fortune. Hence it has been remarked, that there are more natives of Scotland to be found abroad than of any other country.

People in this fituation are not apt to indulge themselves in humour; and few humorous characters will appear. It is only in countries where men wanton in the extravagancies of wealth, that fome are led to indulge a particular vein of character, and that others are induced to delineate and exprefs it in writing. Befides, where men are in a fituation which makes it neceffary for them to push their way in the world, more particularly if they are obliged to do fo among ftrangers,

G 2

gers, though this may give them a firmness and a refolutenefs in their conduct, it will naturally produce a modeft caution and referve in their deportment, which muft chill every approach to humour. Hence, though the Scots are allowed to be brave and undaunted in dangerous fituations, yet bafhfulness, referve, and even timidity of manner, unless when they are called forth to action, are justly confidered as making part of their character. Men of this difpofition are not apt to have humour: it is the open, the careless, the indifferent, and the forward, who indulge in it; it is the man who does not think of intereft, and who fets himself above attending to the proprieties of conduct. But he who has objects of intereft in view, who attends with circumfpection to his conduct, and finds it neceffary to do fo, is generally grave and filent, and feldom makes any attempt at humour.

These circumftances may have had a confiderable influence upon the genius and temper of the people in Scotland; and, if they have given a particular formation to the genius of the people in general, they would naturally have a fimilar effect upon its authors: the

genius of an author commonly takes its direction from that of his countrymen.

To thefe caufes, arifing from the prefent fituation and government of our country, may be added another circumftance, that of there being no court or feat of the Monarch in Scotland. It is only where the court is, that the standard of manners can be fixed; and, of confequence, it is only in the neighbourhood of the court that a deviation from that ftandard can be exactly afcertained, or a departure from it be easily made the object of ridicule. Where there is no court, it becomes of little importance what drefs the people wear, what hours they obferve, what language they exprefs themfelves in, or what is their general deportment. Men living at a distance from the court become alío unacquainted with the rules of fashion which it establishes, and are unable to mark or point them out. But the great fubject for wit and ludicrous reprefentation arifes from mens having a thorough knowledge of what is the fafhionable ftandard of manners, and being able to feize upon, and hold out a departure from it, in an humorous point of view. In Scotland, therefore, which, fince the removal of the court, has become,