ghter and more various kind, and whimsically expressed in
his features, as well as in his words.[19] 'Natio comaeda est' was
the maxim of his mind and denoted the wide field of his humour. The
wit of Mr. Canning was of rarer and more refined workmanship, and
drew large ornament from classical sources. The 'Anti-Jacobin'
shows Mr. Canning's power in his youthful exuberance. When I knew
him it had been sobered, perhaps saddened, by the political
contrarities and other incidents of more advanced life, but had
lost none of its refinement of irony. Less obvious than the common
wit of the world, it excited thought and refined it--one of the
highest characteristics of this faculty.

"Lady Morley bore off the palm among the 'witty women' of the day.
She was never 'willing to wound.' Her printed pieces, though short
and scattered, attest the rare merits of her humour. The 'Petition
of the Hens of Great Britain to the House of Commons against the
Importation of French eggs,' is an excellent specimen of them."

In corroboration of this view of the different complexion of men's
humour I may mention that in the course of this work I have often had
the sayings of various wits intermixed and have always been able easily
to assign each to its author.

Considering the great diversity in the appreciation of the ludicrous,
the question arises is it merely a name for many different emotions, or
has it always some invariable character. To decide this we may ask the
question, Is one kind of humour better than another? Practically the
answer is given every day, one saying being pronounced "good" if not
"capital," and another "very poor," or a "mild" joke; and when we see
humour varying with education, and with the ages of men and nations, we
cannot but suppose that there are gradations of excellence in it.

Now, if we allow generally this ascending scale in the ludicrous, we
admit a basis of comparison, and consequently a link between the various
circumstances in which it is found. It may be objected that in the
somewhat similar case of Beauty, there is no connection between the
different kinds. But the ludicrous stands alone among the emotions, and
is especially in contrast with that of Beauty in this--that it is
peculiarly dependent on the judgment, as beauty is on the senses. That
we understand more about the ludicrous than about beauty is evident from
its being