History of English Humour, Vol. 1: With an Introduction upon Ancient HumourL'Estrange, A. G. K. (Alfred Guy Kingan)
Philosophy
History of English Humour, Vol. 1: With an Introduction upon Ancient Humour
L'Estrange, A. G. K. (Alfred Guy Kingan)
English wit and humor -- History and criticism; Wit and humor -- History and criticism
that men should not drink in Lent. A man, who comes for absolution, and
confesses to having been drunk in Lent, replies that fish should swim.
"Yes," returns the priest, "but in water." "I cannot enjoin your
prayer," he adds, "for you cannot say your Paternoster. It is folly to
make you fast because you never get meat. Labour hard, and get a dinner
on Sunday, and I will come and dine with you."
CHAPTER VII.
Jesters--Court of Queen Elizabeth--James I.--The "Counterblasts to
Tobacco"--Puritans--Charles
II.--Rochester--Buckingham--Dryden--Butler.
Professed fools seem to have been highly appreciated in the time of
Shakespeare. They do not correspond to our modern idea of a fool,
because there was intention in their actions, and yet we could not have
considered them to be really sensible men. Nor had they great talent,
their gifts being generally lower than those of our professed wits.
Addison observes that, "when a man of wit makes us laugh, it is by
betraying some oddness or infirmity in his own character," and at the
present day, not only do those who indulge much in humour often say
things approaching nonsense, and make themselves in other ways
ridiculous, but their object, being entirely idle diversion and
pleasantry, appears foolish and puerile. Those who cultivate humour are
not generally to be complimented on their success, and a popular writer
has thus classified fools--"First, the ordinary fool; secondly the fool
who is one, and does not know it; thirdly, the fool who is not satisfied
with being one in reality, but undertakes in addition to play the fool."
Thus, to a certain extent we may always regard a professed wit as a
silly fellow, but still at the present day the acts or sayings of an
absolute idiot or lunatic, would be depressing and offensive, and could
afford little amusement in any way except accidentally.[54] They would
resemble the incongruities in dreams which although strange are not
generally laughable. And if we are not amused with a fool, neither are
we with a man who imitates him, although Cicero says that humour
consists in a man who is not a fool, speaking as though he were one.
Some mistake supposed to be made by an ordinary man is what amuses us,
and although humorous sayings originated in an imitation of ludicrous
things, and Quintilian's observation sometimes holds good that the same
things, which if they drop from us unintentionally are foolish, if we
imitate them are humorous; still humour is not confined to this; there
is generally no such imitation, and the witty sayings of the present day
are seldom representations of such things as anyone would utter in
earnest, whether he were a fool or not.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account