Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

"perfon to whom they relate; belonging

[ocr errors]

always to the fame order or clafs of be"ing; implying sentiment and defign; and "exciting no acute or vehement emotion of "the heart."-Whatever account we make of this definition, which to those who acquiefce in the foregoing reafonings may perhaps appear not quite fatisfactory, there is in the poem a paffage that deferves particular notice, as it seems to contain a more exact account of the ludicrous quality, than is to be found in any of the theories above mentioned. This paffage will be quoted in the next chapter.

CHA P. II.

Laughter feems to arife from the view of things incongruous united in the fame affemblage; I. By Juxta-pofition; II. As Caufe and Effect; III. By Comparison founded on Similitude; or, IV. United fo as to exhibit an oppofition of Meanness and Dignity.

OWEVER imperfect thefe Theories may appear, there is none of them deftitute

Ho

[ocr errors]

of merit and indeed the most fanciful philofopher seldom frames a theory, without confulting nature, in fome of her more obvious appearances. Laughter very frequently arifes from the view of dignity and meannefs united in the fame object; fometimes, no doubt, from the appearance of affumed inferiority *, as well as of fmall faults and unimportant turpitudes; and fometimes, perhaps, though rarely, from that fort of pride, which is defcribed in the paffage quoted from Mr Hobbes by Addison.

All these accounts agree in this, that the cause of laughter is fomething compounded; or fomething that difpofes the mind to form a comparison, by paffing from one object or idea to another. That this is in fact the cafe, cannot be proved a priori; but this holds in all the examples hitherto given, and will be found to hold in all that are given hereafter. May it not then be laid down as a principle, that “ Laughter "arifes from the view of two or more ob"jects or ideas, difpofing the mind to form

[ocr errors]

a comparison?" According to the theory

*Pope, Arbuthnot, and Swift, in fome of their most humourous pieces, affume the character, and affect the ignorance, of Grubftreet writers; and from this circumstance part of the humour of fuch papers will perhaps be found to arife. "Valde hæc ridentur (fays Ci"cero) quæ a prudentibus, quafi per difiimulationem non intelligendi, fubabfurde falfeque dicuntur." De Orat. II. 68.

VOL. II.

Xx

of

of Hobbes, this comparison would be between the ludicrous object and ourselves; according to those writers who mifapply Ariftotle's definition, it would feem to be formed between the ludicrous object and other things or perfons in general; and if we incline to Huchefon's theory, which is the beft of the three, we fhall think that there is a comparison of the parts of the ludicrous object, first with one another, and secondly with ideas or things extraneous.

Further Every appearance that is made up of parts, or that leads the mind of the beholder to form a comparison, is not ludicrous. The body of a man or woman, of a horfe, a fish, or a bird, is not ludicrous, though it confifts of many parts; — and it may be compared to many other things without raifing laughter: but the picture defcribed in the beginning of the Epistle to the Pifoes, with a man's head, a horse's neck, feathers of different birds, limbs of different beafts, and the tail of a fifh, would have been thought ludicrous eighteen hundred years ago, if we believe Horace, and in certain circumstances would no doubt be fo at this day. It would feem then, that "the

parts of a laughable affemblage must be in "fome degree unfuitable and heterogeneous.

Moreover: Any one of the parts of the Horatian monster, a human head, a horie's neck, the tail of a fifh, or the plumage of a fowl, is not ludicrous in itself; nor would

would those several parts be ludicrous, if attended to in fucceffion, without any view to their union. For to fee them difpofed on different shelves of a museum, or even on the fame shelf, no body would laugh, except perhaps the thought of uniting them were to occur to his fancy, or the paffage of Horace to his memory. It feems to follow, "that "the incongruous parts of a laughable idea

or object must either be combined fo as to "form an affemblage, or must be supposed to be fo combined."

May we not then conclude, that "Laugh66 ter arifes from the view of two or more "inconfiftent, unfuitable, or incongruous 66 parts or circumftances, confidered as u"nited in one complex object or affem

[ocr errors]

blage, or as acquiring a fort of mutual re"lation from the peculiar manner in which the mind takes notice of them?" The lines "from Akenfide, formerly referred to, feem to point at the fame doctrine:

τσ

Where-e'er the power of Ridicule displays
Her quaint-eyed vifage, fome incongruous form,
Some Stubborn diffonance of things combined,
Strikes on the quick obferver.

And, to the fame purpose, the learned and ingenious Dr Gerard, in his Effay on Tafe: "The fenfe of Ridicule is gratified by an "inconfiftence and diffonance of circum"ftances in the fame object, or in objects X x 2 nearly

[ocr errors]

"nearly related in the main; or by a fimili"tude or relation unexpected between things on the whole oppofite and unlike."

66

And therefore, instead of faying with Huchefon, that the caufe or object of laughter is an oppofition of dignity and mean"nefs;" I would fay, in more general terms, that it is, "an oppofition of fuit"ablenefs and unfuitablenefs, or of rela❝tion and the want of relation, united, or fuppofed to be united, in the fame affem"blage." -Thus the offices afcribed to the dagger of Hudibras feem quite heterogeneous; but we difcover a bond of connection among them, when we are told, that the fame weapon could occafionally perform them all. Thus, even in that mimicry, which difplays no oppofition of dignity and meannefs, we perceive the actions of one man joined to the features and body of another that is, a mixture of unfuitableness, or want of relation, arifing from the difference of perfons, with congruity and fimilitude, arifing from the famenefs of the actions. Thus, at first view, the dawn of the morning, and a boiled lobfter, feem utterly incongruous, unlike, and (as Biondello fays of Petruchio's stirrups) "of no kindred;" but when a change of colour from black to red is fuggefted, we recognize a likeness, and confequently a relation, or ground of comparison.

;

And here let it be obferved in general,

that,

« PředchozíPokračovat »