40

T

CHAP. XII.

RIDICULE.

de

His fubject has puzzled and vexed all the critics. Ariftole gives a finition of ridicule, obscure and

imperfect *. Cicero handles it at great length; but without giving any fatisfaction. He wanders in the dark, and misses the distinction betwixt risible and ridiculous. Quintilian is sensible of this distinction; but has not attempted to explain it. Luckily this fubject lies no longer in obscurity. A risible object produceth an emotion of laughter merely ||. A ridiculous object is improper as well as risible; and produceth a mixt emotion, which is vented by a laugh of derifion or fcorn **.

Having therefore happily unravelled the abstruse and knotty part, I proceed to what may be thought further necessary upon this subject.

Burlesque is one great engine of ridicule. But it is not confined to that fubject; for it is clearly diftinguishable into burlesque that excites laughter merely, and burlesque that provokes derision or ridicule. A grave subject in which there is no impropriety, may be brought down by a certain colouring fo as to be risible. This is the cafe of Virgil Travestie*. And it is the case of the Secchia Rapitat. The authors laugh first at every turn, in order to make their readers laugh. The Lutrin is a burlesque poem of the other fort. The author Boileau, lays hold of a low and trifling incident to expose the luxury, indolence, and contentious fpirit of a set of monks. He turns the fubject into ridicule by dreffing it in the heroic style, and affecting to confider it as of the utmost dignity and importance; and though ridicule is the poet's aim, he himself carries

* Scarron.

+ Taffoni.

VOL. II.

F

all

all along a grave face, and never once bewrays a smile. The oppofition betwixt the fubject and the manner of handling it, is what produces the ridicule. In a compofition of this kind, no image professedly ludicrous ought to have quarter; because such images destroy the contraft.

Though the burlesque that aims at ridicule, produces its effect by elevating the style far above the subject, yet it has limits beyond which the elevation ought not to be carried. The poet, consulting the imagination of his readers, ought to confine himself to such images as are lively and readily apprehended. A strained elevation, foaring above an ordinary reach of fancy, makes not a pleasant impreffion. The mind fatigued with being always upon the stretch, is foon disgusted; and if it perfeveres, becomes thoughtless and indifferent. Further, a fiction gives no pleasure, unless where painted in so lively colours as to produce fome perception of reality; which never can be done effectually where the images are formed with labour or difficulty. For these reasons, I cannot avoid condemning the Batrachomuo

machia faid to be the compofition of Homer. It is beyond the power of imagination, to form a clear and lively image of frogs and mice acting with the dignity of the highest of our species: nor can we form a conception of the reality of such an action, in any manner so distinct as to interest our affections even in the flightest degree.

The Rape of the Lock is of a character clearly diftinguishable from those now mentioned. It is not properly a burlesque performance, but what may rather be termed an heroi-comical poem. It treats a gay and familiar subject, with pleasantry and with a moderate degree of dignity. The author puts not on a mask like Boileau, nor professes to make us laugh like Tassoni. The Rape of the Lock is a genteel and gay species of writing, less strained than the others mentioned; and is pleasant or ludicrous without having ridicule for its chief aim; giving way however to ridicule where it ari ses naturally from a particular character, such as that of Sir Plume. Addison's Spectator upon the exercise of the fan * is ex

• N° 102.

F2

tremely tremely gay and ludicrous, resembling in its fubject the Rape of the Lock.

Humour belongs to the prefent chapter, because it is undoubtedly connected with ridicule. Congreve defines humour to be "a fin

gular and unavoidable manner of doing or "faying any thing, peculiar and natural to one man only, by which his speech and ac"tions are diftinguished from those of other men." Were this definition just, a majeftic and commanding air, which is a fingular property, is humour; as also that natural flow of eloquence and correct elocution which is a rare talent. Nothing juft or proper is denominated humour; nor any fingularity of character, words, or actions, that is valued or respected. When we attend to the character of an humorist, we find that the peculiarity of this character leffens the man in our esteem: we find that this character arifes from circumstances both rifible and improper, and therefore in some measure ridiculous.

Humour in writing is very different from humour in character. When an author infifts upon ludicrous subjects with a profeff