Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 12.djvu/407

JAMES SULLY, An Kxmuj <>// Lumjhter. "practical joking," combat and the strain of solemn situations. The next forty pages are devoted to a description and dassilica- tion of the leading groups of laughable things as an introduction to chapter v. Of all topics dealt with in the volume that handled in this chapter, the chief " theories of the ludicrous," has possessed by far the most interest and importance in the eyes of the philo- sophical student. Although the chapter contains much sound and acute criticism, I confess I had anticipated and would have welcomed a fuller and more exhaustive treatment of this subject in so large a work, a book, moreover, which devotes so much space to many comparatively minor questions. At the same time I frankly admit that this is a matter of personal taste. Still it is worthy of note that M. Dugas allots nearly three-fourths of his volume to this topic. Indeed the two books well merit compari- son on this subject. The similarity of stand-point and view of the two independent thinkers is very marked. Both criticise substanti- ally the same theories, both follow in the main the same lines, and both, apart from differences of detail, seem to come to much the same conclusion. Dr. Sully begins with the examination of the "theory of Degra- dation" (p. 119), including under it the contributions of Aristotle, Hobbes and Prof. Bain. In the brief observation of the first that the ludicrous (TO yeXotoi/) is a subdivision of the ugly (TOV aia-xpov) .and "consists in some defect or ugliness which is not painful or destructive " Dr. Sully finds the " germ of the principle of degradation " (p. 120). The famous statement of Hobbes that " the passion of laughter is nothing else but a sudden glory arising from a sudden conception of some emineucy in ourselves, by com- parison with the inferiority of others, or with our own formerly " presents, he considers, " a more careful attempt to construct a theory of the ludicrous by reference to something low or degraded " (p. 120). Finally, in Bain's definition of "the occasion of the ludicrous" as "the degradation of some person or interest pos- sessing dignity in circumstances that excite no other strong emo- tion," he finds as further improvements that consciousness of our own superiority need not come in, that the degraded object need not be a person, and also, as in Aristotle's theory, the limiting conditions (p. 122). With respect to both Hobbes and Bain the author's criticism seems to me just and discerning. Though apart from the sardonic egoism in which Hobbes takes such delight, and from the consequent one-sidedness which it gives to so many of his views, his account of the " sudden glory " arising from the sudden consciousness of "some eminency in ourselves" is, I believe, one of the most real contributions that has come from any quarter. But Prof. Sully is right in urging " that in the enjoyment of many forms of the ludicrous " we certainly are not " consciously realising our superiority to another," and that it fails to give " an exhaustive account of the several varieties of our laughing satisfaction," especi- ally of good-humoured laughter and children's merriment.