An essay on laughter : its forms, its causes, its development and its value

Front matter

. em

Class AD0.0..

Book N95 a ee Ce cop. 4

Preface

THE present work is, I believe, the first attempt to treat on a considerable scale the whole subject of Laughter, under its various aspects, and in its connections with our serious activities and interests. As such, it will, I feel sure, lay itself open to the criticism that it lacks completeness, or at least, proportion. A further criticism to which, I feel equally sure, it will expose itself, is that it clearly reflects the peculiarities of the experience of the writer. The anticipation of this objection does not, however, disturb me. It seems to me to be not only inevitable, but desirable—at least at the present stage of our knowledge of the subject—that one who attempts to understand an impulse, of which the intensities and the forms appear to vary greatly among men, of which the workings are often subtle, and of which the significance is by no means obvious, should, while making full use of others’ impressions, draw largely on his own experience.

_ Portions of the volume have already appeared in Reviews. Chapter I. was published (under the viii PRERACE title “ Prolegomena to a Theory of Laughter”) in The Philosophical Review, 1900 ; Chapter V., in the Revue Philosophique, 1902; and Chapter VIII., in The International Monthly, 1901. The parts of Chapters ITI. and VI. which treat of the psychology of tickling appeared in the Compte rendu of the Fourth International Congress of Psychology (IV™ Congres International de Psychologie), Paris, 1901. Some of the ideas in Chapter X. are outlined in an article on ‘“‘The Uses of Humour,” which appeared in The National Review, 1897.

Some of my obligations to other writers and workers have been acknowledged in the volume. For friendly assistance in reading the proofs of the work I am greatly indebted to Mr. Carveth Read, Dr. Alexander Hill, Prof. W. P. Ker, Mr. Ling Roth, Dr. W. H. R. Rivers, Miss C. es and Miss Alice Woods.

Chapter I. Introductory

Objections to a serious study of laughter

Previous treatment of subject by philosophers

Their way of dealing with facts .

Examination of an illustration given by Dr. Tides Common defects of theories . : Difficulties of attempt to treat subject Golsntiddally ; Scope of inquiry : é : :

CHAPTER II. Tus SMILE AND THE LAUGH

Need of studying the bodily process in laughter . Characteristics of the movements of the smile Expressive function of the smile.

Continuity of processes of smiling and eae es Characteristics of the movements of laughter Concomitant organic changes during laughter Physiological benefits of laughing

Effects of excessive laughter.

The laugh as expression

Relation of expression to feeling in eee Interactions of joyous feeling and organic concomitants Deviations from the normal type of laugh .

CHAPTER III. Occasions AND CausEs oF LAUGHTER

i. Laughter as provoked by sense-stimulus: tickling . Ticklish areas : Characteristics of the scanttics of saline Motor reactions provoked by tickling .

53 56 x CONTENTS

How far attributes of sensation determine laughter of tickling .

The mental factor in effect of tickling Objective conditions of successful tickling . : . Tickling as appealing to a particular mood. 2. Other quasi-reflex forms of laughter a Varieties of automatic or “ nervous” laughter Common element in these varieties: relief from strain 3. Varieties of joyous laughter Prolonged laughing fit .

The essential element in joyous iaaehics Occasions of joyous laughter (a) Play . (0) Teasing as ey siGcmiink (c) Practical joking and laughter . (2) Laughter as an accompaniment of raed

(e) Occasions of unusual solemnity as provoking laughter .

Physiological basis of laughing habit . : : : :

Chapter IV. Varieties Of The Laughable

The objective reference in laughter Universal element in the laughable Groups of laughable things . : : : E “(1) Novelty and oddity Prater fy ae : : \ 2) Bodily deformities . : _ (8) Moral deformities and vices . (4) Breaches of order and rule (5) Small misfortunes . a Sains : i ORE Tee (6) References to the indecent (7) Pretences (8) Want of Eeowinins: or skill (9) Relations of contrariety and incongruity (10) Verbal play and witticism : Co-operation of different laughable aire 4 (11) Manifestations of playfulness in objects : (12) Spectacle of successful combat . ‘ : : ;

Chapter V. Theories Of The Ludicrous

1. The Theory of Degradation . ; : ; Aristotle’s theory.

Theory of Hobbes

PAGE

119 120 120.

CONTENTS xi

PAGE Prof. Bain’stheory . : : : : : - ot Criticism of theory of deceatakien : : : : : . 122

2. Theory of Contrariety or Incongruity . : ; ; : - 125 Kant’s theory of nullified expectation . : . : ‘ . 126 Criticism of Kant’s theory . : ‘ : : . 126 Function of surprise in effect of the jodiekus - : - -) 22g: Schopenhauer’s theory of incongruity . : . Z : . 180 Criticism of Schopenhauer’s theory . : Papen? ; - des Different forms of the incongruous . : - : ; . 134

Summary of criticism of theories . - : : : 5 : . 185

Attempts to unify the two principles . ; : a toe

The laughable as failure to comply with a social bettie : - 39

How primitive laughter comes into effect of the ludicrous . : . 140

Relation of sudden gladness to release from constraint : ; . 141

Element of contempt in effect of the ludicrous . ; - : . 142

Laughter and the play-mood 5 : - - ; . 145

The play-mood in the effects of the Pusliutoue ; : : 7 . 149

Summary of results of inquiry into theories . : - - . 153

Chapter VI. The Origin Of Laughter

Problem of the origin of laughter in the race. : ‘ : . 155.

Supposed rudiments of mirth in animals . : - : : 66

The dog’s manifestations of a sense of fun . : - - : . 1859

The mirthful displays of the ape . : : - 162

First appearance of laughter in child: ate of the first aie : . 164

Date of the first laugh . ; : ; : i : ; 2 . 166

The laugh as following the smile . : , ; : : ; . 168

Order of the two in the evolution of the race. : : : . 170

Conjecture as to genesis of the human smile . : ; : mp!

How the primitive smile may have grown into the laugh . : selts

Problem of the evolution of the laughter of tickling . - : veda O

Effects of tickling in animals 2 , : : : Ares ie iy

Date of first response to tickling in the child - : : : Bey i)

Tickling as inheritance from remote ancestors . : ; : TS

Value of evolutional theories of tickling . : - : - +) 481

How laughter may have come into tickling 5 = : - . 183

Chapter VII

DEVELOPMENT OF LAUGHTER DURING THE First THrex YEARS OF LIFE.

Problem of the early development of laughter in the individual . 186 Development of smile and laugh as movements . : ; ‘ . 188 xii CONTENTS

PAGE The general process of emotional development . . ° . 189 Relation of laughter of joy to that of play . - ‘ : ‘ . 194 Development of laughter of joy . ; : é 5 : : cea KS) Emergence of laughter of surprise : 2 - . : , - 197 First laughter of release from strain . 4 - ‘ : : ae OY Crude form of laughter of jubilation . ‘ ‘ 7 ‘ . 2) 298 Development of laughter as accompaniment of play . : : oo tie )e)

Early forms of laughing impishness . ‘ : A : : - 201 First manifestations of rowdyish laughter . : A ee - 203

Germs of roguish laughter . : : : : : : « 205 First crude perceptions of the ivoahabis : . ‘ 5 . - 207 The mirthful greeting of sounds . é ; DAE gy the : . 209 Early responses to the funny in the visible ee : 5 ; - 212 First enjoyment of pretences ‘ : : : . : . . 214 Early laughter at the improper . . : : ‘ ‘ . 215 Dim perceptions of the incongruous and os absurd . Ts ic . 216 Early sense of verbalfun . ; = : - - ‘ - 3 BLT Summary of results. ; ; : : ¢ 3 : ; Pies? is)

CHAPTER VIII. Tam LAUGHTER OF SAVAGES

Sources of our knowledge of savage laughter 5 , ; ; . 220 Different views of travellers on the subject . - “ ; ‘ - 220 Laughter as a salient characteristic of savages . - : - . 223 Descriptions of their movements of laughter . : 7 5 . 227 Abundance of good spirits . : , 3 A - : . 228 Laughter as accompaniment of siuaies d é : : 5 . 228 Laughter and fondness for teasing 3 : : 3 : : . 229 Rough practical jokes . : 5 : ‘ ; : . 230 ‘The way in which laughter is eae : - é ; . . 232 Laughter of superiority and contempt. : : : i : . 233 Indecent character of jocosity . . ; ; 3 s : . 234 Appreciation of the laughably odd : ; ; = é : . 235 Ridicule of foreign ways : : s : 5 “ . 237 Laughter at the doings of the white man. : : : : . 238 Laughter of the expert at the ignoramus . : : : . 240 Savage society and the white man’s gaucherie . 5 ; 5 . 241 Germ of sense of the absurd . : ay mates a é ° : . 242 The ridiculing of fellow-tribesmen : ¢ : : : » 244 Reciprocal laughter of the men and the women . ; P ; . 245 Example of dry humour 5 - - : : : . 246 Organisation of laughter as ee eeanane : ; 5 : . 247

CONTENTS xiit

PAGE Germs of the mimetic art . : : : . : . . 247 Differentiation of professional jesters, a ° . ’ . . . 249. Amusing songs and stories . : . : : 2 : . 250 Co-existence of different levels of iewenier 7 é d : . eget) How to manage the savage by laughter : é : ‘ ; - 252

Chapter IX

Connection between laughter and social life : : i : . 254 Contagiousness of mirth as social quality . C : : i . 255 Social uses of laughter . é : c : : 5 ye Class-differentiation as condition of icine : : : 5 . 258 How social grouping widens the field of the laughable - . + 259 Utility of reciprocal group-laughter . ¥ : ; : : . 261 Screwing up members of other groups z : = : R - 261 Laughter of superiors at inferiors : ; ; é : : . 263 Quizzing of authorities by subjects . : é : . . . 264 Mirthful turning on task-masters : ; A A ; 3 - 265 Woman’s laughing retort . ; ; : : i 3 . 267 Corrective function of laughter of ead eae ; . . 268 Conciliatory service of group-laughter . ‘ : i 5 » 269 Summary of social utilities of laughter : : . : Se Laughter of other groups as corrective of eta cah ice ; : . 272 Social movements as influencing laughter . : a P : . 272 Changes of fashion 5 . : . 5 . C . . . 278 Fashion andcustom . : : : 5 - . . = » 275 Merry aspects of movements of fashion : ‘ : : ‘ - 276 Droll side of descent of fashion to lower ranks . ; ; : ari OUE Laughter at the old-fashioned . ge girvesin Fac We cp brash mobi) Stee eee The movement of progress . : : : : : . 279 Mirthful greeting of new ideas and ies ‘ : : : . 280 Laughing away effete customs . ° . - : > eo Influence of mirthful spirit on social ahanaes : A 4 F . 288 Effect of evolution of culture groups . ; é - 9 ; . 283 Effect of minuter subdivision of sets . : : ° : : . 285 Effect of progress in breaking down group-barriers . - é . 286 Droll aspects of transition of society to a plutocratic form . « 287 Refining effect of culture-movement on hilarity . : : : . 288 Decline of older voluminous merriment . : : : A . 290 Conflict between popular mirth and authority . : : - 29% Combination of standards in popular estimate of inagtanle ‘ . 298

Preparation for individual laughter. : : . : . . 295 xiv CONTENTS CHAPTER X.

LAUGHTER OF THE INDIVIDUAL : Houmowur.

‘Definition of humour .

Characteristics of humour

Intellectual basis of humorous ae

Humorous contemplation as binocular

The field of the laughable for the humorist. Modification of the conative attitude in humour Complexity of humour as feeling . , : 3 Problem of fusion of dissimilar feelings

Facts explained by our analysis of humour Variations of humour with race and nationality . Temperament and individuality in humour : Humour as enlarging range of laughing activity . The finer detection of the amusing in character . : The appreciation of unfitness of men to circumstances Character-study as a pastime

Laughter as permeating sphere of serious

Effect of kindliness in extending range of laughter Scope for amusing form of self-scrutiny

Laughter as mode of self-correction . 3 . : How humour aids a man in dealing with others Laughing away the smaller troubles

Service of humour in the greater troubles . Humorous contemplation of social scene

Amusing aspects of the fine world :

The journal as medium of amusing self-display .

The social spectacle of the past and of the present Humour in contemplation of social scene in seasons of stress The manifestations of war-temper as humorous spectacle .

CHAPTER XI. THe LAUGHABLE IN ART: CoMEDY

Source of impulse of comic art . ‘ : : ‘ . Scope for laughter in art asawhole . ; j ; Origin of jocose literature

The dawn of comedy ‘

Comic incidents as development of child’s nis

Comic value of repetitions

Elements of trickery and dupery .

Comedy as reflecting movements of social igaghter

.

CONTENTS XV

PAGE Comic dialogue as display of wit . . . F . : : . 853 Theories of wit . ‘ , f hee : ; Aiea ee . oD4 Wit as intellect at play : : C : 5 : . . . 854 Wit and word-play : : : : , ; ; ; ° . 856 Character as comic material. : ; : : } 5 , . 3857 Mode of representation of characterin comedy . 3 ; : . 858 Comic character as type : : A : . 359 Development of elensetardsawies in Ae mes : ; . 859 Treatment of character in early English comedy j : : . 361 Moliére as comic portrayer . : : 5 : 3 : : . 864 His art of constructing character . ‘ : : . 364 Contrast of the anti-social person and the eal aacld : ; . 365 The abstract and the concrete in Moliére’s characters ; : - 865 The comic dénouement in Moliére’s plays . c é ; : - 868 Moliére’s point of view . ; : ; : : : . 3868 Characteristics of Comedy of peer Fe - . : . . 870 Lamb and Macaulay on moral aspect of comedy : ; : Arnel! Justification of Lamb’s view of Restoration Comedy . , : . 373 The social as distinct from the moral point of view . : : - 873 Slackening of social restraints by comedy . : : - A . 376 Limitations of field of comic presentation . : 4 ; : oun The comic point of view in fiction é ; ; : 4 . 3878 Laughter of mixed tone in literature : patina . . . : - 3880 Different degrees of seriousness in satire . : : : ° . 3881 Method of virulent satire . : ; ; : S : - 9882 Wit in satire . : ; : : . . 383 Contrast of satirical a canons iierataes : : A 5 . 384 The relation of witto humour . : : ; c ‘ : . 385 Boundaries of satire and humorous literature . é : é . 886 Humour as ingredient of prose fiction . , ; : . 3887 The boundaries of humour of fiction and of pilissonhe ; : . 3890 Humour in other species of literature . ; ; : : : . 890

CHAPTER XII. ULTIMATE VALUE AND Limitations or LAUGHTER

Need of bringing in philosophic point of view . : : . . 392 Philosophy as completion of individual criticism of life . 4 . 393 Room for laughter in philosophic contemplation : : F . 393 Philosophy as belittling our everyday world ; : Adheas . 394 Reasons why philosophers are not commonly humorists . 5 . 3895 Speculative Idealism as robbing our common world of interest . . 3896 Relation of Optimism and of Pessimism to laughter . ; : . 397

Possibilities of laughter in philosophic Scepticism . : : . 899 xvi CONTENTS

Conditions of development of philosophic humour

Humour in the final evaluation of life .

Service of philosophic humour :

Justification of the individual point of view : Legitimacy of an amused contemplation of one’s pend 5 Amused contemplation as favouring the survival of the unfit The philosopher’s preference for retirement

Point of yew gf contemplation of things by philosopilie Hameaae The contemplator as held by his social world ; : Points of view of humorist, comedian and satirist °

Question of total value of laughter

Alleged purifying function of comedy . : . . ‘ : Corrective function of social laughter ie : : : : Ridicule as a test of truth . : : A ° . Estimate of helpfulness of private inaghber

Place of laughter among human qualities .

Relation of laughter to social affections

Restraint of laughter by society . : : ° : Control of laughter as part of moral galt eeniaetol

Prudential reasons for controlling laughter . - ‘

The promotion of a love of laughter in others . : : :

The claims of the agelast to be let alone. : ; :

The cultivation of laughter in the young . : a é

The status of laughter to-day

Causes of decline of popular mirth . ; : Characteristics of laughter of the hour : : c : Possibility of death of laughter . . ( : : 5 ; How its conservation may be effected . : : . ; ‘

Chapter I. Introductory

A WRITER who undertakes to discourse on laughter has to encounter more than one variety of irritating objection. He finds to his dismay that a considerable part of his species, which has been flatteringly described as the laughing animal, has never exercised its high and distinguishing capacity. Nay, more, he soon learns that a good many oppose themselves to the practice and are laughter-haters. This kind of person (0 yucdyeXws) is so possessed with the spirit of seriousness that the opposite temper of jocosity appears to him to be something shockingly wrong. All audible laughter is for him an ill-bred display, at once unsightly as a bodily contortion, and, as a lapse from the gravity of reason, a kind of mental degradation. This estimate of laughter as something unseemly is well represented in Lord Chesterfield’s Letters, in which the writer congratulates himself on the fact that since he has had the full use of his reason nobody has ever heard him laugh. In some cases this feeling of repugnance towards mirth and fun takes on more of an ethical aspect. The laugher is identified with the scoffer at all things worthy and condemned as morally bad—a view illustrated in the saying of Pascal: “Diseur de bons mots, mauvais caractére”,

Now it seems evident that one who en on laughter is bound to notice this ative of the laughter-hater. If he believes that the moods of hilarity and the enjoyment of the ludicrous have their rightful place in human experience, he must be ready to challenge the monopoly of wisdom claimed by the out-and-out sticklers for seriousness, and to dispute the proposition that the open, honest laugh connotes either a vulgar taste or a depraved moral nature.

Perhaps, however, our discourser need not distress himself about these rather sour-tempered laughter-haters. In these days we have to confront not so much opposition as indifference. Instead of the denouncer of mirth as vulgar or wicked, we have the refrainer from laughter, the nonlaugher pure and simple. As his Greek name “agelast ” (ayéXacrTos) suggests, this rather annoying type was not unknown in ancient times. In merry England, too, Shakespeare had met with the agelasts who would

Not show their teeth in way of smile, Though Nestor swear the jest be laughable.

Yet it is only of late that the variety has appeared in its full force. To what scanty proportions in these latter days the band of laughers has dwindled is suggested by the name which is now commonly given them, for “humorist” meant not so long ago an odd fellow or “eccentric”. Indeed, one of our living writers suggests that “as the world becomes more decorous humour becomes tongue-tied and obsolete ”.1

Even if we grant that the “gelasts” are getting reduced to the dimensions of a petty sect, the consideration need not deter us from choosing laughter as our theme. Those who have the perfect ear for music are probably but a tiny portion of the human family; yet nobody has suggested

1 Article on “ Humour” in the Cornhill Magazine, vol. xxxiii., pp. 318-26.

FOES AND FRIENDS OF LAUGHTER 3 that this is an argument against the writing of books on musical form, the science of thorough bass and the rest.

The friends of laughter have, however, always existed, and even in these rather dreary days are perhaps more numerous than is often supposed. In support of this idea one may recall the curious fact that, as the essayist just quoted remarks, we all shrink from the “awful imputation” implied in the words “You have no sense of humour”. This recognition of the capacity for appreciating a joke as @ human attribute which it is well not to be without is, of course, very far from being proof of a genuine love of fun in the recognisers themselves. Yet it at least attests the existence of this love in a respectable number of their fellows.

Now this true friend of laughter (0 giAdyeXos) may urge his own objection to our proposed discussion, an objection less irritating perhaps than that of the zealous laughter-hater and of the indifferent agelast, but on the other hand of a more penetrating thrust. He not unnaturally dislikes the idea of his daily pastime being made the subject of grave inquiry. He feels in its acutest form the resentment of the natural man on seeing his enjoyment ~ brought under the scalpel and lens of the scientific inquirer. He urges with force that the chucklings of humour are the very lightest and flimsiest of human things; and that to try to capture them and subject them to serious investigation looks much like the procedure of the child whose impulsive hand would seize and examine his dainty soap bubbles.

To these objections from the true friends of the mirthful god one owes it to reply courteously and at length. Yet the answer cannot well be given at the outset. A discourse on laughter can remove this kind of objection, if at all, only by showing in its own treatment of the subject that serious thought may touch even the gossamer wing of the merry sprite and not destroy; that all things, and so the lightest, are things to be comprehended, if only we can reach the right points of view; and that the problems which rise above the mental horizon, as soon as we begin to think about man’s humorous bent, have a quite peculiar interest, an interest in which all who can both laugh at things and > ponder on them may be expected to share.

It seems evident that one who is to probe the spirit of fun in man, and to extract its meaning, should have special qualifications. It is by no means sufficient, as some would seem to suppose, that he should be able to think clearly. He must couple with the gravity of the thinker something of the intellectual lightness and nimbleness of the jester. That is to say, he must be in warm touch with his theme, the jocose mood itself, realising his subject at once vividly and comprehensively by help of a rich personal experience.

Now it cannot be said that those who have offered to teach us the secrets of laughter have commonly exhibited these qualifications in a conspicuous measure. It is a part of the whimsicality which seems to run through human affairs that the spirit of fun should be misunderstood not merely by the avowedly indifferent and the avowedly hostile, but by those who, since they offer to elucidate its ways, might be expected to have some personal acquaintance with it. The combination of a fine feeling for the baffling behaviour of this spirit with a keen scientific analysis, such as is found in Mr. George Meredith’s Essay on Comedy, seems to be a rarity in literature.

This want of the familiar touch is especially observable in a good deal of the treatment of laughter by philosophic writers. ‘ It is not necessary to dwell on the sublime subtleties of the metaphysicians who conceive of the comic as a “moment” in the dialectic process which the esthetic “Idea”

SOARING ABOVE THE SUBJECT 5 has to pass through. The account of the gyrations which the Idea has to describe, when once it passes out of that state of harmonious union with the sensuous image which we call “the beautiful,” reads strangely enough. Having, for reasons that are not made too clear, torn itself away from its peaceful companion (the image), and set itself up as antagonist to this in “the sublime,” the august Idea encounters the unpleasant retaliation of the image it has discarded in “the ugly,” where we see the determination of the injured party to defy its late companion; though, in the end, it revives from the “swoon” into which this rude behaviour of the image has plunged it, and recovers its legitimate claims—with which it would seem it was at the outset dissatisfied—in what we call “the ludicrous ”.

I have here tried to put the speculative subtleties of these Hegelian writers, so far as I am able to catch their drift, into intelligible English, and not to caricature them. Even favourable critics of these theories have found it difficult not to treat them with some amount of irony; and, so far as I am aware, no rehabilitator of Hegelian thought in England has as yet been bold enough to introduce to our insular mind a chapter of the sacred mysteries which, as they may well suspect, so easily lends itself to profane jesting.

How remote this kind of conception of the ludicrous is from the homely laughter of mortals may be seen in such attempts as are made by these Hegelian thinkers to connect the two. Hegel himself, in touching on the nature of comedy, asserted that “only that is truly comic in which the persons of the play are comic for themselves as well as for the spectators”. This seems to mean (it is always hazardous to say confidently what a Hegelian pronouncement does mean) that a large part of what the world has foolishly supposed to be comedy, including the plays of Moliére, are not so.!

It is, perhaps, too much to expect that the aspiring metaphysician, when, as he fondly thinks, he has gained the altitude from which the dialectic process of the Worldidea is seen to unfold itself, should trouble himself about so vulgar a thing as our everyday laughter. But laughter has its mild retaliations for the negligent, and the comedian of to-day, as of old, is more likely to pluck from those who tread the speculative cloud-heights material for his merriment than any further enlightenment on the mysteries of his craft.

It is, however, more to the purpose to refer to those theorists who make some show of explaining what the ordinary man understands by the ludicrous, and of testing their theories by an appeal to recognisable examples. It is instructive to note the cautiousness with which they will sometimes venture on the slippery “ empirical” ground. Schopenhauer, for example, in setting out his theory of the ludicrous—a theory which we shall deal -with later on—in the first volume of his chief work, thought it “superfluous” to illustrate his theory by example. In the second volume, however, he comes to the help of the “intellectual sluggishness ” of his readers and condescends to furnish illustrations. And what does the reader suppose is the first to be selected? The amusing look of the angle formed by the meeting of the tangent and the curve of the circle ; which look is due, he tells us, to the reflection that an angle implies the meeting of two lines which, when prolonged, intersect, whereas the straight line of the tangent