Irodalom | Humor » Roman laughter, Wit and Transgression in Roman Literature and Thought

Source: http://www.doksinet Roman laughter: wit and transgression in Roman literature and thought Term 1, week 1: Theories, taxonomies, terminology: joking ancient and modern HANDOUT Humour in Western Philosophy: important passages to consult 1. Plato, Republic (388e): the Guardians of the state should avoid laughter, “for ordinarily when one abandons himself to violent laughter, his condition provokes a violent reaction.” Especially disturbing to Plato were the passages in the Iliad and the Odyssey where Mount Olympus was said to ring with the laughter of the gods. He protested that “if anyone represents men of worth as overpowered by laughter we must not accept it, much less if gods.” 2. Plato, Philebus (48–50): the enjoyment of comedy as a form of scorn “Taken generallythe ridiculous is a certain kind of evil, specifically a vice.” That vice is self-ignorance: the people we laugh at imagine themselves to be wealthier, better looking, or more virtuous than they really

are. In laughing at them, we take delight in something eviltheir self-ignorance and that malice is morally objectionable. In the ideal state, therefore, comedy should be tightly controlled. 3. Plato, Laws, 7: 816e; 11: 935e: “We shall enjoin that such representations be left to slaves or hired aliens, and that they receive no serious consideration whatsoever. No free person, whether woman or man, shall be found taking lessons in themNo composer of comedy, iambic or lyric verse shall be permitted to hold any citizen up to laughter, by word or gesture, with passion or otherwise”. 4. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 4, 8: “Since life includes rest as well as activity, and in this is included leisure and amusement, there seems here also to be a kind of intercourse which is tasteful; there is such a thing as saying- and again listening to- what one should and as one should. The kind of people one is speaking or listening to will also make a difference Evidently here also there is both an

excess and a deficiency as compared with the mean. Those who carry humour to excess are thought to be vulgar buffoons, striving after humour at all costs, and aiming rather at raising a laugh than at saying what is becoming and at avoiding pain to the object of their fun; while those who can neither make a joke themselves nor put up with those who do are thought to be boorish and unpolished. But those who joke in a tasteful way are called ready-witted, which implies a sort of readiness to turn this way and that; for such sallies are thought to be movements of the character, and as bodies are discriminated by their movements, so too are characters. The ridiculous side of things is not far to seek, however, and most people delight more than they should in amusement and in jesting. and so even buffoons are called ready-witted because they are found attractive; but that they differ from the ready-witted man, and to no small extent, is clear from what has been said. To the middle state

belongs also tact; it is the mark of a tactful man to say and listen to such things as befit a good and well-bred man; for there are some things that it befits such a man to say and to hear by way of jest, and the well-bred mans jesting differs from that of a vulgar man, and the joking of an educated man from that of an uneducated. One may see this even from the old and the new comedies; to the authors of the former indecency of language was amusing, to those of the latter innuendo is more so; and these differ in no small degree in respect of propriety. Now should we define the man who jokes 1 Source: http://www.doksinet well by his saying what is not unbecoming to a well-bred man, or by his not giving pain, or even giving delight, to the hearer? Or is the latter definition, at any rate, itself indefinite, since different things are hateful or pleasant to different people? The kind of jokes he will listen to will be the same; for the kind he can put up with are also the kind he

seems to make. There are, then, jokes he will not make; for the jest is a sort of abuse, and there are things that lawgivers forbid us to abuse; and they should, perhaps, have forbidden us even to make a jest of such. The refined and well-bred man, therefore, will be as we have described, being as it were a law to himself. Such, then, is the man who observes the mean, whether he be called tactful or ready-witted. The buffoon, on the other hand, is the slave of his sense of humour, and spares neither himself nor others if he can raise a laugh, and says things none of which a man of refinement would say, and to some of which he would not even listen. The boor, again, is useless for such social intercourse; for he contributes nothing and finds fault with everything. But relaxation and amusement are thought to be a necessary element in life.” 5. Aristotle, Rhetoric (2, 12): wit is educated insolence ie Aristotle agreed with Plato that laughter expresses scorn. 6. Aristotle, Rhetoric

(311): “And what Theodorus calls ‘novel expressions’ arise when what follows is paradoxical, and, as he puts it, not in accordance with our previous expectation; just as humorists make use of slight changes in words. The same effect is produced by jokes that turn on a change of letter; for they are deceptive. These novelties occur in poetry as well as in prose; for instance, the following verse does not finish as the hearer expected: ‘And he strode on, under his feetchilblains,’ whereas the hearer thought he was going to say “sandals.” This kind of joke must be clear from the moment of utterance 7. Cicero, in On the Orator (ch 63): “The most common kind of joke is that in which we expect one thing and another is said; here our own disappointed expectation makes us laugh. 8. Quintilian, The Orator’s Education 636-9: “For I do not think that anybody can give an adequate explanation, though many have attempted to do so, of the cause of laughter, which is excited not

merely by words or deeds, but sometimes even by touch. Moreover, there is great variety in the things which raise a laugh, since we laugh not merely at those words or actions which are smart or witty, but also at those which reveal folly, anger or fear. Consequently, the cause of laughter is uncertain, since laughter is never far removed from derision. For, as Cicero says, "Laughter has its basis in some kind or other of deformity or ugliness," and whereas, when we point to such a blemish in others, the result is known as wit, it is called folly when the same jest is turned against ourselves. Now, though laughter may be regarded as a trivial matter, and an emotion frequently awakened by buffoons, actors or fools, it has a certain imperious force of its own which it is very hard to resist. It often breaks out against our will and extorts confession of its power, not merely from our face and voice, but convulses the whole body as well. Again, it frequently turns the scale in

matters of great importance, as I have already observed: for instance, it often dispels hatred or anger” 9. Epictetus Enchiridion (33) advises “Let not your laughter be loud, frequent, or unrestrained” His followers said that he never laughed at all. These objections to laughter and humour influenced early Christian thinkers, and through them later European culture. They were reinforced by negative representations of laughter and humour in the Bible, the vast 2 Source: http://www.doksinet majority of which are linked to hostility. The only way God is described as laughing in the Bible is with hostility. See eg 10. Psalm 2:2–5: “The kings of the earth stand ready, and the rulers conspire together against the Lord and his anointed king . The Lord who sits enthroned in heaven laughs them to scorn; then he rebukes them in anger, he threatens them in his wrath.” The Christian European rejection of laughter and humour continued through the Middle Ages. Among the strongest

condemnations came from the Puritans, who wrote tracts against laughter and comedy, and when they came to rule England in the mid-17th century, outlawed comedies. At this time, too, the philosophical case against laughter was strengthened by Thomas Hobbes and René Descartes.See eg 11. Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651 [1982]) Part I, ch 6: “Sudden glory, is the passion which makes those grimaces called laughter; and is caused either by some sudden act of their own, that pleases them; or by the apprehension of some deformed thing in another, by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud themselves. And it is incident most to them, that are conscious of the fewest abilities in themselves; who are forced to keep themselves in their own favor by observing the imperfections of other men. And therefore much laughter at the defects of others, is a sign of pusillanimity. For of great minds, one of the proper works is, to help and free others from scorn; and to compare themselves only with the most

able.” Hobbes describes human beings as naturally individualistic and competitive. That makes us alert to signs that we are winning or losing. The former make us feel good and the latter bad. If our perception of some sign that we are superior comes over us quickly, our good feelings are likely to issue in laughter. 12. Cf Descartes’ Passions of the Soul (c1649) Laughter accompanies three of the six basic emotionswonder, love, (mild) hatred, desire, joy, and sadness. Part 3 (“Of Particular Passions” art. 178–179): “Derision or scorn is a sort of joy mingled with hatred, which proceeds from our perceiving some small evil in a person whom we consider to be deserving of it; we have hatred for this evil, we have joy in seeing it in him who is deserving of it; and when that comes upon us unexpectedly, the surprise of wonder is the cause of our bursting into laughter And we notice that people with very obvious defects such as those who are lame, blind of an eye, hunched-backed,

or who have received some public insult, are specially given to mockery; for, desiring to see all others held in as low estimation as themselves, they are truly rejoiced at the evils that befall them, and they hold them deserving of these.” 13. Immanuel Kant (1790 [1911], First Part, sec 54): “In everything that is to excite a lively convulsive laugh there must be something absurd (in which the understanding, therefore, can find no satisfaction). Laughter is an affection arising from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing. This transformation, which is certainly not enjoyable to the understanding, yet indirectly gives it very active enjoyment for a moment. Therefore its cause must consist in the influence of the representation upon the body, and the reflex effect of this upon the mind.” 14. Schopenhauer, A, 1818/1844 [1907], The World as Will and Idea (Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung): e.g of superiority theory “That the laughter of others at what

we do or say seriously offends us so keenly depends on the fact that it asserts that there is a great incongruity between our conceptions and the objective realities. For the same reason, the predicate “ludicrous” or “absurd” is insulting. The laugh of scorn announces with triumph to 3 Source: http://www.doksinet the baffled adversary how incongruous were the conceptions he cherished with the reality which is now revealing itself to him.” (Supplement to Book I, Ch 8) Eg of incongruity theory: “Many human actions can only be performed by the help of reason and deliberation, and yet there are some which are better performed without its assistance. This very incongruity of sensuous and abstract knowledge, on account of which the latter always merely approximates to the former, as mosaic approximates to painting, is the cause of a very remarkable phenomenon which, like reason itself, is peculiar to human nature, and of which the explanations that have ever anew been

attempted, as insufficient: I mean laughter . The cause of laughter in every case is simply the sudden perception of the incongruity between a concept and the real objects which have been thought through it in some relation, and laughter itself is just the expression of this incongruity.” (1818/1844 [1907], Book I, sec. 13) 15. Freud, The Joke and its Relation to the Unconscious, 1905: the psychic energy released when we tell jokes is the energy that would have repressed the emotions that are being expressed as the person laughs. Note laughter is not conceived by Freud as a release of repressed emotions themselves. According to Freud, the emotions which are most repressed are sexual desire and hostility, and so most jokes and witty remarks are about sex, hostility, or both. In telling a sexual joke or listening to one, we bypass our internal censor and give vent to our libido. Freud’s second laughter situation, “the comic,” involves a similar release of energy that is summoned

but is then found unnecessary. Here it is the energy normally devoted to thinking. An example is laughter at the clumsy actions of a clown As we watch the clown stumble through actions that we would perform smoothly and efficiently, there is a saving of the energy that we would normally expend to understand the clown’s movements. Our laughter at the clown is our venting of that surplus energy See eg Freud 1905, 254: “These two possibilities in my imagination amount to a comparison between the observed movement and my own. If the other person’s movement is exaggerated and inexpedient, my increased expenditure in order to understand it is inhibited in statu nascendi, as it were in the act of being mobilized; it is declared superfluous and is free for use elsewhere or perhaps for discharge by laughter.” Note that today almost no scholar in philosophy or psychology explains laughter or humour as a process of releasing pent-up nervous energy. 4 Source: http://www.doksinet

Exercise 1 Measuring the punchline: Erwartung und Aufschluss (set up and conclusion) in Martial’s Epigrams 1.10 Petit Gemellus nuptias Maronillae et cupit et instat et precatur et donat. adeone pulchra est? immo foedius nil est. quid ergo in illa petitur et placet? tussit. Gemellus is courting Maronilla, and he desires and presses and prays and gives. Is she so pretty? Couldn’t be uglier. So what does he see in her? She coughs. • How does close reading of this short poem help us to appreciate the boom-boom of the punchline? Exercise 2 Our language of humour, exposed Laugh, smile, giggle, belly laugh, chortle, chuckle, grin, smirk, simper, snigger, cackle, snort, shriek with laughter, peal/roar of laughter, in fits, convulsions, burst out laughing, guffaw, crack a smile, beam, break into a smile, crow, titter, cachinnate, split one’s sides, pee your pants, (nearly) die laughing, laugh in one’s beard, be in stitches, laugh oneself sick/silly/limp, laugh in one’s sleeve, be

tickled pink, nervous laughter, courtesy laugh, evil laugh, laughing hysterically. • Note (and discuss) the phrases which imply physical/mental incontinence or animality, or are gendered. 5