As our emotions are only excited with reference to human affairs, some
have thought that all laughter must refer to them. Pope says, "Laughter
implies censure, inanimate and irrational beings are not objects of
censure, and may, therefore, be elevated as much as you please, and no
ridicule follows." Addison writes to the same purpose. His words
are:--"I am afraid I shall appear too abstract in my speculations if I
shew that when a man of wit makes us laugh, it is by betraying some
address or infirmity in his own character, or in the representation he
makes of others, and that when we laugh at a brute, or even at an
inanimate thing, it is by some action or incident that bears a remote
analogy to some blunder or absurdity in reasonable creatures." It may
be questioned whether we always go so far as to institute this
comparison. Ludicrous events and circumstances seem often such as the
individuals concerned have no control over whatever, and betray no
infirmity. When we see a failure in a work of art, do we always think of
the artist? A lady told me last autumn that when she was walking in a
country town with her Italian greyhound, which was dressed in a red coat
to protect it from cold, the tradespeople and most others passed it
without notice, or merely with a passing word of commendation; but, on
meeting a country bumpkin, he pointed to it, burst out laughing, and
said, "Look at that daug, why, it's all the world like a littl' oss.
Pages:
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368