The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1907-10-31


Paper Read Before the Chautastqua Circle
TITS always well, before proceeding
to any discussion of humor, to re-
state the distinction between hu.
NOR and wit, which is seldom
defined. Humor, then, according to
Webster, is athat quality of the imsgin-
alton which gives to ideas wild or
fantastic turn and tends to excite
laughter or mirth by ludicrous inn
ages or representations" white wit,
according to the clearest definition of
It ever given, that by Pope, is "what
oft was thought, but ne'er SO we'll ex-
pressed In other words, to be hu-
tnorist, q man requires originality in
idea, while wit needs, first of all,
originality in expression.
1t is very easy to lose sight of this
distinction, for the reason that many,
if not most, of the great humorists
have also been correspondingly witty
and it is evident that, in literature, the
expression is so intimately connected
with the idea that it is extremely diff
cult to distinguish them or discover
where one ends and the other begins.
| make no apology for dragging
Arist0phanes into this dissertation, for
tn Arist0phanes you will End the key
stone on which the whole superstruc-
ture Of humor and wit has been erected.
There is great deal of Aristophanes
IN Bernard Shaw, and something of
tsimsia Inirth-mskers so widely apart as
Pinsro and Mark Twain. l hasten to
add that I have not the slightest in
tenti0n Of asserting that the latter
founded the poetic legend Of the Jump
ing Frog on the "Frogs" OF the Greek
hamorist. In Aristophanes, then, it Is
possible to discover ell the elements of
the paiitest Of polite comedies and at
the same time all the method by which
the siap-stick comedian retaines his
vogue, together with much that the
nice taste OF King Edward (may his
shadow never grow less!, would reject
as unfit for presentation. But Aristo-
phanes is apt to be disconcerting. In
The midst of an exqulsitely poetic pas
sage, in one of those lyric choruses
which seem temporarily to surpsss
anything ever written in any language:
lin the very midst of this enthusi-
astic penetration into idealism, Afis-
tophanes brings you to earth with a
5est which, even when it is not absO-
luteiy scurrilous, shocks you by its ir-
reverence.
But before proceeding to trace the
development Of humor any further let
us turn to literature in which humor
has no place, that collection of books
which we call the Bible. Taking q
marrow and puritanical view of the
Bible, it would of course be sacriiege
to even discuss the absence OF humOr
from its pages. But inasmnch as the
Bible is, whatever else it may be, the
record Of the progress of a nation, it
seems reasonable toinfer that the Jews,
as Bation, are lacking in that sixth
senee-the sense of humor--which no
true Yankee is supposed to have ever
lacked. The mocking spirit of Heine
may arise to dispute this point, but he
is the solitary exception to long line
of intense, earnest fanatics Tor enthusi-
asts, the terms being synonymous.
Considering the Romans for an instant.
it will be evident that the lack of this
sixth sense is no bar to q nations ma
teriai or intellectual efficiency.
In the beginnings of modern liter
ature it is possible to trace the elements
of hnmor. crude as they appear. The
humor Of Chaucer and Boccaccio, al
ways natural when at its worst, is
broad in every sense of the word. 1t is
of the kind that produces not q gently
c0ntemptu0us smile, such IS q perusal
of Pope might bring about, but hearty
laugh or nothing. 1t is worthy of re-
mark that this hearty y-laugh-or-nothing
variety Of hnmor has its exponents At