[53] Valuable beginnings may be found here and there; for example, in the entertaining volume of a French comedian, _Le Rire_, par (B. C.) Coquelin, cadet. [54] _Iliad_, ii., 212 ff. [55] _Loc. cit._ [56] There is, of course, often a reciprocal effect in these cases, the non-compliant intruder serving to show up the absurd monotony of the row. [57] See an article, “The Analytical Humorist,” by H. D. Traill, _Fortnightly Review_ (N.S.), vol. lx., p. 141. [58] Mr. Kipling suggests that the want of a proper nose in a family is regarded as a disgrace among the Hindoos (_Kim_, p. 81). [59] It may be well to add, by way of caution, that the feeble semblance of laughter which a modern theatre-goer is apt to produce when he sees something _risqué_ is not a simple form of laughter at the indecent. It is the outcome of a highly artificial attitude of mind, in which there is an oscillation of feeling between the readiness of the natural man to indulge and the fear of the civilised man that he may be carried too far. [60] _Op. cit._, p. 45. [61] Compare above, pp. 13 ff. [62] As our mode of classification shows, we may regard these as primarily instances of laughable degradation. Nevertheless, some apprehension of contradiction is clearly involved. [63] From a speech delivered by Sir John Parnell in the Irish House of Commons, 1795. See W. R. Le Fanu, _Seventy Years of Irish Life_, ch. xvi. (“Irish Bulls”). [64] See Bergson, _op. cit._, p. 45. [65] _Poetics_, v. i. (Butcher’s translation). [66] A further and most important enlargement of Hobbes’ principle is made by Bain when he urges that the spectacle of degradation works upon us, not merely by way of the emotion of power or glory, but by way of the feeling of release from constraint. This point will more conveniently be dealt with later. [67] Compare above, p. 100. [68] Kant’s contribution to the theory of the ludicrous is contained in a single “Remark” appended to a discussion of the Fine Arts and Taste. See Dr. Bernard’s translation of his _Kritik of Judgment_, pp. 221–4. [69] Article “On the Philosophy of Laughing,” by the Editor, _The Monist_, 1898, p. 255. [70] I find after completing this paragraph that the point dealt with, namely, that surprise, in the sense of the effect of mental unpreparedness, is not an invariable antecedent of our response to the laughable, has been urged by a French writer, M. Courdaveaux. His critic, M. Dugas, does not seem to me to have effectually combated it. (See Dugas, _op. cit._, p. 63 ff.) [71] See above, p. 6. [72] Compare what was said above _à propos_ of the child and the hat, p. 14. [73] _Cf._ above, p. 114; also the article in _The Monist_ already quoted. [74] _English Comic Writers_, lect. i., “Wit and Humour”. [75] “The Physiology of Laughter,” _Essays_, i., p. 206. [76] According to Fouillée, contrast is the formal element, faultiness (“le défaut”), the material. See Dugas, _op. cit._, p. 85 ff.