MR JAMES SMITH’S LECTURES.

Evening Star, Issue 2873, 4 May 1872, Page 2

MR JAMES SMITH’S LECTURES.

We were not surprised to find the lower hall of the Athenaeum crowded to excess on Thursday evening to hear Mr Smith’s second lecture—that on wit and humor. As Mr Justics Chapman, who presided, tritely observed in introducing the lecturer, it was remarkable for the excellence of its matter and the manner of its delivery. From first to last he kept his audience in roars of laughter by the excellent manner in which he told the innumerable jokes and witticisms, with which his remarks were plentifnly interspersed. Considering, said the lecturer, the number the eminence, and the special qualifications of the writers who have attempted to describe the nature, define the boundaries, and differentiate the qualities of wit and humor respectively, and who have failed to do so cither to their own satisfaction or to that of the student who consulted them, as the highest authorities on the subject, it would be an unpardonable piece of impertinence on his (Mr Smith’s) part to venture upon a very elaborate definition of the two things. In bis opinion the closest approximation to the trutli in respect to these great principles of mirth was that arrived at by an American essayist, who said that “ Wit exists by antipathy, and humor by sympathy. Wit laughs at things ; and humor laughs with them.” Into most forms of wit there entered some element of malevolence or misanthropy, or scorn, or cynicism, or envy, or scepticism—not always, but more often than not; whereas humor was genial, benevolent, tolerant, and humane. Instancing the wide difference between the two, he said wit was a portion of tho choice fruitage of the mind converted into vinegar; humor was the transformation of some of its generous juices into cxhilerating wine. Wit was tbe strong, fierce light which beats on tbe surface of things, hardening what it brightened. Humor was like the gentle rain which softly sinks into the grateful soil, with a fertilising and refreshing influence. Then followed a rapid glance at some of the witticisms of Henniker. Thackery, Dickens, S dney Smith, Jerrold, and other great lights ; and the lecturer proceeded :—He suspected that individual temperament had a great deal to do with wit and humor. He was inclined to bel eve also that much depended on national character : since it might he asserted that some nations were witty, whilst others were humorous. A serious and sedate people—a people whose character reposed on a basis of gravity and solidity—would produce more humorists than wits. 11 was so, for example, with the English, the Scotch, the German, and the Spanish. On the other hand, a people of a vivacious and volatile temperament, like the Irish,| the French, and the Italians, would produce many wits, but few humorists. Irish wit was spontaneous and natural, unconscious and unforced. It rose sparkling to the surface, like the bubbles in a glass of champagne. French wit, Hke the complexion of some of the French ladies, was somewhat artificial; and it was often sharpened by a little malke prepense. An Irishman’s repartee sprang to his lips unstudied : it was just as native to the mind of the bog-trotter as to that of the barrister. French wit, as he had said, was always flavored with malice; and some of the best witticisms in the language could not he quoted on account of their indelicacy or on account of their profanity, Scotch humor was dry, demure, and pawky. It was grave, if not solemn, in the midst of its drollery. It was externally rugged; but internally rich, like a pine apple. It made yon chuckle rather than laugh. What it wanted in superficial briliancy was made up for by its depth and solidity. The Americans were humorous, but seldom witty ; and this was in keeping with the national character : for they are at bottom a grave and saturnine people, witb a great fund of reserve, and a power of selfseclusion quite equal to that of your average Englishman. Their humor, however, differed from that of all other nations. It was racy of the soil; had great breadth, like American enterprise and American territory; and great extravagance, like the opulent classes of American society. It dealt in exaggeration and grotesque similitudes; it was sometimes terribly grim, and when it ran riot, its tricks resembled those of an elephant disporting himself in a plantation of sugar canes. One as amazed as well as amused by its vagaries. After making a brief reference to epigrammatists, to satirists, from Dryden to Byron, and to modern parodists, passing a compliment en passant to the cleverest of the many contributors to Melbourne Punch, Frederick Sinnett, and James Stiffe, the lecturer read Dr Barron’s exhaustive definition of wit and humor, fitting it clause by clause witb an apposite illustration, and concluded with a defence of cheerfulness, which is , worth quoting *• Cheerfulness,” remarked Mr Smith, “ifl both contagions and diffusive. A cheerful nature impresses something of its own airy grace and brigntness upon the minds of those with whom it is brought into contact. It makes the human face more beautiful and enables us to discern greater loveliness in that of nature. It disposes a man to take general and tolerant views of human character, and reconciles him to the vicissitudes of human life. It is the sign of both mental and be dily health ; an admirable antidote to the malice of our enemies and not less efficacious for the multiplication of our friends. Let us be grateful, then, to all wits and humorists who have filled the world with the sunshine of their own fine genial loving natures. For us they have made it infinitely more pleasant and more habitable by animating it with frolicsome creatures, and when we come to reckon up the blessings of this life—and they are neither inconsiderable in number nor small in magnitude—l think we must assign a foremost place to that faculty by which nature enables most of us, if not to originate, at anyrate to appreciate wit and humor.” Mr Grant in moving a vote of thanks to the lecturer for the “ graceful manner ” in which he treated his subject, combatted his conclusion that the Scotch were not wits ; and furnished Mr Stout, who seconded the vote, with the opportunity of cracking a joke at his (Mr Grant’s) expense, which he did by remarking that as the proverb told them that “ brevity was the soul of wit,” the audience had an example to the contrary in the person of the previous speaker, who showed that Scotchmen were not in favor e£ that. The Chairman said he would not pay the lecturer the ill compliment of putting the

Tote to the meeting; as he felt sure it would he carried by acclamation—but he would ask their gentle forbearance, while he made a few observatiens. So far as his reading went, he agreed with the observations of Mr Grant—that the Scotch writers were by no means deficient in wit; while he also thought they had considerablt humor. It appeared to him that there was nothing more difficult than to draw the line between wit and humor—it was as different as the light of the brightest day and the gloom and darkness of the darkest night. Yet who could say that day ended and darkness began without the one shding insensibly into the other. He took it that humor, to some extent, partook of this character. Mr Smith had attempted to drawtheline; he said rightly that humor partook of sympathy and kindness, with a cheerful view of human nature, whereas wit was caustic, sparkling, and severe. Humor was not humor which had not the element of wit about it; while no pungent wit struck the fancy at once unless it bad the element of humor about it. His Honor then went on to describe the pun, which was founded on an ambiguity either in the sense or sound of the middle term of a syllogism, and gave some laughable instances, winding up with an amusing illustration of Yankee humor. The vote of thanks to the lecturer was carried by acclamation.

Last evening, Mr Smith delivered his third lecture on “ Collingwood and Nelson ” to a large audience. 1 1 its close the Vice-Presi-dent of the Mutual Improvement Society intimated that Mr Smith had complied with a generally expressed wish, and agreed to redeliver his lecture on “ Wit and Humor on Tuesday next ; and to give a lecture on the writings of Dickens, instead of the second lecture announced on Shakespeare.