The Dominion. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1913. LAUGHTER.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1860, 20 September 1913, Page 6

The Dominion. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1913. LAUGHTER.

'A has beon_ described as "a man who is of a different opinion," and onoiis forcibly reminded of this satirical definition by oertain cablegrams which have appeared, in The Dominion during the present week recording some of tho. novel opinions expressed at the meeting of tho British Association for the Advancement of Science. A wonderful variety of subjects has been dealt with, and many strango views havo been propounded. The men "of a different opinion" naturally think it undignified to accept' traditional ideas without question, and they seem to tako a real delight in saying things that will startle tho man in tho street. Nothing is sacrcd from their inquisitive probing, but as fast as ono of them sets up a theory another knocks it over. This sort of thing has its comic side, but to laugh at in congress of scientists is a serious matter, for they find oven in laughter a matter, for analysis; and Dr. M'Dougall, a learned psychologist from Oxford, takcß Hold of it, explains it and dissects it until it seems to disappear altogether', leaving tho world a little sadder than it before. Ho tells us that laughter, primarily and fundamentally, was merely an antidote to man's sympathetic tendencies, and that Nature created it as a protective reaction against them. No doubt a good laugh is often a reliof to tho feelings, and it does help to keep us from brooding over the sufferings of our friends and neighbours; but it is very doubtful if its origin can be fully or satisfactorily explained in this way. Dr. M'Dougall docs not go far enough back: ho does not get to the beginning. A dog laughs from sheer pleasure, and Darwin tello us that a youAK chimpanzee will chucklc

when ticklcd. It is also stated that when Dr. Hermes (Director of tho Berlin Aquarium) played with a chimpanzee, a contortion of tho cornor of its mouth "resembling a somewhat sardonic smile" at once became visible. Animals, however, can hardly be Baid to laugh as man does, yet in spite of their limitations in this respect they do not seem to worry themselves very much over tho misfortunes of their mates; nor is there much ovidence to show that excessive tenderheartedness was one of tho weaknesses of primitivo man. Laughter may have developed into a useiul antidote aginst sympathy _ in the course of its history, but its origin and explanaton must probably, bo sought elsewhere.

Laughter in its most elementary form seems to be an expression of sheer pleasure in living. A child often claps its hands and laughs for joy. Then there is the laugh that arises out of the sense of humour j the laugh of seorn and derision ? oi uiobciiicaa and triumph; and at times people laugh in sorrow, and weep for joy. Like all the deepest elements in human nature, the idoa of tho comic and its expression in laughter defies complete explanation. It is one of tho strango things which make us feel tho truth of the saying that man is "the glory, jest, and riddle of the earth." Some of tho world's greatest philosophers have put forward various theories regarding tho sense of humour. A recent writer states that Plato places oomedy "in tho heaven of man's highest endeavour"; and Aristotle defines the ludicrous as "a defect of some sort, and an ugliness which is not painful or destructive." M. Berg-, son, who is pirobably the most interesting personality in the philosophical world at the present time, has devoted a good deal of attention to laughter, and has come 'to the conclusion that tho ludicrous cannot exist outside the limits of the strictly human. Ho contends that anything else can only be ludicrous in so far as somo mark is put on it or use made of it which gives it a resemblance to human beings. Incongruities or maladjustments are necessary elements of comedy, and M. Bergson, like Dr. M'Dougall, thinks that laughter has a utilitarian value by assisting man, in that prooess of adaptation to environment which is essential to progress. For. instance, if a man falls over in an awkward manner, without seriously hurting himself, wo laugh at him for his lack of power of adjustment, and our fun at his expense tends to sharpen him up and make him more careful. In other words, laughter may bo educative. Other authorities on the subject seriously arguo that wo do not laugh because we aro glad, nor cry because wo are sad: but that we! aro glad because we laugh, and sad because wo cry. Limits of space, howover, prevent us from pursuing this interesting lino of thought. Laughter in its deeper aspects is novor far from tears, and no ono knew better than tho ancient Greeks tho close relationship between comedv and tragedy. Tho writor of tho book of Ecclesiastes, and who found so much vanity and vexation of spirit in_ tho world, may have had something of this sort in his mind when ho declared that "Sorrow is better than laughter; for by the sadness of the countenance tho heart is made glad." Tho same idea is expressed with touching simplicity by tho i Hebrew poet, who wrote:

Even in laughter tho heart is, sorrowful j And tuo end of mirth is Keaviness. .

This reminds one of the words the Greek writer puts in the mouth of Antigone: "I laugh in sorrow if I laugh at thee." Walter Pater has a similar idea in mind when ho refers to "the laughter which blends with, tears, and oven with the subtleties_ of tho imagination, and which in its most exquisite motives is one with pity." The last two of tho above quotations aro given by the Anglican Bishop of Tasmania {Dr. Mercer), in a rather daring article which appeared in the Hibbert Journal not long ago. In this article Dr. Mercer, who is ammosst s independent and unconventional thinker, discussed the question whether the sense of humour has a place among the Divine attributes. Ho points out that' the Psalmist does not hesitate to say tEatf: "He that sitteth in tho heavens shall laugh," and havo the wicked in derision j but we must not take such | poetic language too literally. Nevertheless, the words may give expres--1 sion to some deep underlying truth. Of course, physical laughter, and the laugh of malice or triumph, must be set aside in this connection; but the Bishop thinks that humour in its noblest and deepest aspects need not be unworthy of the Divine mind —such humour, for instance, as that described in Walter Pater's words, or that appreciation of the ludicrous and the incongruous which "implies a particular exercise of mental power in the highest products of which thero need bo nothing derogatory to personal worth or dignity." That laugh of the soul, in which the laugh of the body disappears and the subtleties of the intellect are subordinated to the finer emotions, may, says Dr. Mercer, have its "root ana ground in the spiritual sphere which culminates in God." This specially refers to that _ tender insight into the heart of things; that tension involved in genuine laughter, and the relief it affords as a mode of reconciliation. Tho Bishop illustrates his point by reference to that gentle touch of humour shown by Sir Thomas More in the face of death, when he moved his Beard away from tho executioner's block with the words: "Pity that should bo cut which never oommitted treason." Here we havo a pathetic examplo of that laughter which blends with toars; of that fundamental connec- j tion betweon comedy and tragedy; and of that noble humour which helps to remove the sting from death itself.