The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1907-10-31
Some Serious Remarks
on 11uinor.

%
the present day. with Mark Twain at
their head, and might almost suggest q
further division into four of the already
divided subjects forming the basis of
this paper.
Another point to notice is that there
is no connection between heroics and
hnmor. This is easily demonstrated
by search thru the writings. of hero
icists, whether poets as Ariosto, Tasso
or Milton, novelists as Scott, Fenimore
Cooper or Victor Hugo, or dramatists
as Corneille and Racine and all the
Elizabethans with the exceptions Of
Shakespeare and Ben Jonson, the latter
being excepted as not a heroiclst at all.
A further demonstration may be made
BY noticing the failure of humorists
like Addison and Of wits like Samuel
johnson when they attempted the
heroic. But when a writer has COM
bined the attributes of humorist ard
hero-worshipper, and the number of
these is limited, his name acquires an
even exaggerated renown. Cervantes
is of this class and so is Carlyle, while
Shakespeare is of course heroic, humor-
GUS aud much more also.
of the loud laugh humorists, one of
the best is Henry Fielding. The char
acter of Squire Western has been often
praised as second only to Falstaff, and
in .Psrson Adams, Fielding created the
first of q long line Of characters In
later novels who appeal not only to the
sixth sense but to the sympathy Of the
reader. There can be very little sym
patty for Falstaff and there certainly
is none for Dogberry. Bottom or Par
olies. But in the later Engli 81 novel,
almost every humorous character has
his lOvable side. Think for q minute
of Dickens, whose every minor char
acter radiates humor and pathos,
mingled sometimes to an absurd de-
gree, or Of George Eliot, who provides
the same kind Of comic relief to the
tragic directness Of her principal story.
1t is with Fielding that this idea was
first worked out, as you will find moth.
ing of it in Moliere's Tartuffe nor in
amy character Of Aristophanes, but the
germ OF the idea was Addison's Sir
3oger de. Coyerley. that gallant knight
who is far more iovable than Iaughable.
The discussion of the alliance of hu.
NOR with pathOs leads to another dis
tinction between humOr and wit.
namely, that humor deale With char
acter, wit with speech. 1t should be
observed that it is because Mark Twain
has succeeded in creating real characters
-Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer, even the
Connecticut Yankee, real person in
an impossible environment-that he
should be rated as pre-eminently q
hum0rist.
Looking for an instant at the wits
who have, according to their tempera-
ment, raised loud laugh or a gentle
smile, it will be Immediately observed
that none OF their characters can be-
said to be more than puppets. We re-
member some of the things that Vol
taire's Candide said, but forget Can.
dide and the same holds good of Ber-
nard Shaw's Candida, of those very mn
principled dramatists OF Charles IFS
day aud of Sheridan. their successor.
1t wonld no more be possible to form
romantic literary attachment for
Lady Teazle then it would be to be in
love with one of the heroines Of George
AIDES Fables In Slang.
1t is frequently said, and have fire..
qnently ridiculed the assertion, that an
Englishman has no sense of humor,
but it is perfectly true that the average
Engiishman has very little sense of
wit. There .is much humor in Punch,
for instance. that mnch-maligned Jour-
nal, but the wit is dull aud fully de-
serves the recent comment by Yankee
paper on the resignation Of the editor
OF Punch, after holding that Office for
nearly half . century, He must hase