Had Mr. Besant given us definitions of "humor" and "humorist," we might
possibly not have been satisfied with them, but they would at least have
enabled us to understand what sense he attaches to the words, and what
principle determined him in selecting the writers embraced in his
category. In the first page of his book he speaks of humor as "a branch"
of satire; in the second he identifies French satire as the "esprit
gaulois;" in the third he tells us that "the French type for satire and
humor has preserved one uniform character from generation to
generation;" and in his last page he claims superiority for the French
over the English humorists, on the ground that "Rabelais has a finer wit
than Swift," that "we have no political satire so good as the _Satyre
Menipee_," "no English humor comparable for a moment with that of the
fabliaux," "no letter-writer like Voiture," "no teller of tales like La
Fontaine," and "no _chansonnier_ like Beranger." Now, it is evident that
this is a comparison not of French and English humorists, but of certain
classes of writers in the two languages in reference to their
manifestation of humor. We have no fabulist like La Fontaine, no
song-writer equal to Beranger; but then we do not think of citing our
fables and songs as the highest examples of English humor. It would be
easy to array a list of names as a set-off against that of Mr. Besant.
But this is needless. Humor, in the sense in which the word is commonly
understood, may almost be said to be a distinctive quality of English
literature, which is pervaded by it in a far greater degree than that of
any other people. It is a leading trait in all the great English
novelists, from Fielding to Thackeray and George Eliot, without
excepting Richardson, in whom it is least conspicuous; it is the chief
attribute of our finest essayists, from Addison to Charles Lamb; it is
harmoniously blended with the fresh and simple pathos of Chaucer and
with the passionate moodiness of Carlyle: it holds equal sway with the
tragic element in the world created by Shakespeare. When Mr. Besant says
that "there is no English humor comparable for a moment with that of the
fabliaux," we are forced to suppose either that he uses the word "humor"
in some unexplained and inexplicable sense, or that he leaves out of the
account what would generally be considered the greatest of humorous
productions. The puzzle increases when we find him omitting all mention
of Le Sa