This is partly because the progressing art of printing brought about the influx of many elements into literature at that time, and also because then appeared the work of three of the greatest of the world’s humorists.
Shakespeare in England, Rabelais in France and Cervantes in Spain, gave us their immortal works.
Earlier in the century Thomas More in his Utopia and Nicholas Udall in his Ralph Royster Doyster wrote in humorously satiric vein, but these works are difficult to quote from satisfactorily.
Having reached the period when Humor began to be produced in various countries independently of one another, it becomes necessary to modify our strict chronological arrangement and consider the nations and their humorists separately.
Before this, broadly speaking, literature should be considered as a whole, but as great names began to appear in certain widely separated localities, a national division must be made.
And so, continuing in England, we come to William Shakespeare.
With Shakespeare’s greatness as a poet and dramatist we are not here concerned, but there are some critics who dispute his preeminence as a humorist.
While Hazlitt declared that in his opinion Molière was as great or greater than Shakespeare as a comic genius; Doctor Johnson, on the other hand, held that Shakespeare’s comedies are better than his tragedies.
However, few are found to support Johnson’s opinion, and Hazlitt qualifies his by saying that as Shakespeare’s imagination and poetry were the master qualities of his mind, the ludicrous was forced to take second place.
Both these worthies, however, agree on the question of Falstaff’s greatness, and Hazlitt takes this attitude.