POE 
temptation of any paflion is an original fource of human 
pleafure. 
Whether the imagination contemplate nature or otir- 
felves, whether the beautiful orfublime engage it, it muft 
have variety. It is true, we recur to fome thoughts with 
pleafure, for life 5 but we cannot keep them always 
before us, we muft have change. The famous line of 
beauty of Hogarth is well explained on this principle. 
There is, of courfe, no more beauty in one curve than 
another, further than that, the human form being our 
ftandard of beauty, we affociate Hogarth’s line with our 
own form. But certainly curved lines, taken generally, 
having more variety than ftraight ones, are more pleafant. 
A circle is often a beautiful form j and not, as Hogarth 
feetns to think, clomfy. The pyramids of Egypt are 
fublime, yet they are compofed of ftraight - lines ; but 
then one author fays, the pyramid, as it declines, (hows 
variety. It may be fo ; but probably a large fquare of 
the fame lize would be as much admired. Again; how 
unpleafant would a building appear without ftraight 
lines. Certainly variety is every thing: the curve lets 
off the right line, and vice verfa. Still there is, it muft 
be granted, more variety in curved lines, but not in any 
particular curve; fo the line of beauty is nonfenfe. 
From the fame love of variety we deduce the love for 
novelty. Every body knows, that, when old impreflions 
ceafe to give pleafure, new ones are attended with ex¬ 
treme delight. Hence arifes that love for the new, 
which, united with a little of the falfe fublime, forms 
the marvellous. This ingredient in the works of the 
imagination lias a very agreeable effeft with all; but it 
operates ftrongeft on thofe who have not cultivated the 
perception of the beautiful and fublime. Thus fc'hool- 
girls, who have a relifit for the elegance of Thomfon or 
Pope, read with avidity the wonderful and improbable 
tales of the romances of the tail century. 
There is ftill another kind of joy the imagination has 
to do with ; the perception of the ludicrous. Like all 
the other imaginative pleafures, it is connected with a 
ipecies of general delight. In this inftance, laughter. 
A definition of the ludicrous is puzzling : nobody has 
gone further than the explanation of wit. This is chiefly 
occupied with the difcrepances or incongruities of thole 
things that have a certain analogy. Now, if fuch analogy 
do not exift in the things compared, but only in the 
words defignating them, we make a pun-, but, if there be 
a real analogy in one refpeft and a difference in another, 
the difcovery conftitutes wit. 
This idea was entertained by Beattie, who defines the 
laughable to be, “ an uncommon mixture of relation and 
contrariety, exhibited, or fuppofed to be united, in the 
fame afiemblage.” It is putin form by Jackfon of Exeter, 
(the author of fome profound Philofophical EiTays.) He 
fays, “ Wit is the dexterous performance of a legerdemain 
trick, by which, one idea is prefented and another fub- 
ftituted.” This is the fame idea virtually as Beattie’s ; 
for there muft be an analogy between the fir ft idea and the 
fecond ; or they could not be fubftituted. But neither of 
thefe truly define wit; flnce many things maybe pointed 
out which have both likenefs and difference, and yet are 
not witty. The rule is, however, pretty general, as far 
as regards repartee; but, when applied to many things 
ludicrous in themfelves, it fails. Is not the laughable 
generally the bad ? the pure unadulterated evil ? the very 
contrail of beauty ? We generally laugh at the utterly 
carelefs; and nothing feems made for ill; all we do 
wrong feems the excels of fome good-tending impulfe; 
while in beautiful things we always obferve fome ten¬ 
dency to an end. In evil we fee no fuch tendency. We 
admire every thing ufeful, then, and defpife every thing 
ufelefs; and ill is ufelefs. Ill is always defpifed. Is it 
always laughed at ? Yes, unlefs it is fearful, unlefs it has 
a tendency to promote more evil. Thus the foldier who 
deferts the field is laughed at by the people in general : 
but his commander, feeing the danger refulting to others 
T R Y. 743 
from the example, looks ferious, and has him (hot. 
Avarice is laughed at. Lafcivioufnefs caufes laughter 
till it endangers the good of others ; then, as it becomes 
formidable, we reprimand it. We laugh at many other 
objefts ; but, when they are in the way of ferious bufinefs, 
they irritate us. All errors caufe laughter. On the 
ftage the vulgar laugh at the blows the Clown receives; 
that is, his meannefs in fubmitting to them excites 
their rifibility. The dirt of the Scotch engendering a 
certain troublefome animal is a common matter of joke : 
we fee no particular harm in it. The dirt of the Irifh, or 
of our own Englifh in the metropolis, people look very 
ferious at. Why ? Becaufe mifery and peftilence are 
too frequently connefled with it to make it funny. 
Many things are ludicrous from their oppofition to 
beauty. What difplays the beautiful objeCt man to 
greater advantage than riding ? What a perpetual fource 
of laughter in all countries is a bad horfeman ! We do 
not, after all, think our principle quite made out; but it 
is new, it will help others on perhaps. Well, the ludi- 
dous being thus fettled, we may apply it to the analyfis 
of wit pretty fuccefsfully; we may fay, that, befides point¬ 
ing out unobferved difcrepances, wit may arife by unex¬ 
pectedly fhowing the ludicrous. But enough of this. 
We dial! illuftrate thefe principles when we come to fpeak 
of Comedy. 
II. Of the Language of the Imagination. 
We have faid that the pleafures of the imagination 
have their fource in the fenfes. It cannot furprife us, 
then, that this faculty addrefles itfelf to the fenfes ; to 
that mod beautiful one, the ear. The firft works of the 
imagination were unqueftionably fung in mufical num¬ 
bers. The bards chaunted their infpirations to the found 
of the lyre; and the philofopher found that no maxim 
could be imprefied on their tribes, unlefs the reafon was 
fettered by this play on the. fenfe. Verfe had its rife en¬ 
tirely in this caufe ; and, wherever it has rifen, has been 
at firft the only vehicle of important truths, whether of 
legiflation or philofophy. 
The Latin and Greek verfification has immediate re-*’ 
ference to this fource, and refts on the tone of the voice, 
and noton th eempha/is: it is ftridlly mufical. Themodern 
verfe is, however, quite an artificial objeCt of pleafure. It 
arifes from the mere recurrence of articulated founds; 
that is to fay, the mere noife (if we may be allowed the ex- 
prefiion)’which emphafis caufes. And this accent, or degree 
of loudnefs, is the only tiling to be attended to in modern 
verfe. Whereas the Greeks and Latins feems to have 
done as fingers do; they paid no attention whatever to the 
accent, but only to the quantity ; that is to fay, to whether 
the fyllable was rapidly talked over, or whether the 
voice dwelt on it fo long as to make a mufical note of it; 
for it is obvious that the human voice cannot prolong a 
found without forming fuch note. Hence we fee the 
abfurdity of talking of trochees and iambics in modern 
poetry ; for thofe meafures were of long and fhort founds, 
whereas our diflyllables are loud or foft founds; and fo 
far is there from any connection between accent and 
length of tone, that 1110ft accented fyllables take a ftiorter 
time for pronunciation than unaccented ones. Indeed 
our accent is feldom other than a rapid and loud enun¬ 
ciation of a confonant, the vowels being fkipped over; 
e. g. mental might be produced menttil, without altering 
the quantity of the firft fyllable. The only place where 
the Englilh notice quantity is in the casfura or paufe; 
which is nothing more than making the fyllable before 
the caefura a long note ; for, having made it fo, you may 
(kip on to the reft of the line as fail as you pleafe, without 
in the lead hurting the effeft ; and if you make a ftiort 
note of the fame, and then wait, you will fpoil the 
melody. Take thefe two lines and try: 
Lives|through all life, extends|through all|extent ; 
Spreads| undivided 1 operateslunfpent. 
It is impoflible to trace the fteps by which the natural 
appeal 
