38.
mvp-aristotle-comment-38
NOTE 38.
5.1
P. 73. THE RIDICULOUS-A SPECIES OF TURPITUDE OR DEFORMITY; SINCE IT MAY BE DEFINED, &C.
It has been asserted by some writers of eminence, that Aristotle here speaks, not of what is laughable or ludicrous, in general, but only of the ridiculous, in that particular sense of the word, in which it is distinguished from the merely risible, and implies
laughter mixed with disapprobation or contempt. This, however, is certainly not what Aristotle has said; for the word
γελοιον
, which he uses, is as general as possible, and answers exactly to our word laughable. And it is in this general sense, justified, I think, by common usage, that I have used the word ridiculous in my version. For though in a philosophical speculation the distinction above-mentioned may be necessary for clearness, and is undoubtedly well founded, yet, in common language, the word ridiculous is never used with this nice appropriation, but applied, like its Latin original, to whatever excites laughter.
But it is objected, that, if Aristotle means the laughable in general, his account of the matter is false; because "men laugh at that, in which there is neither fault nor turpitude of any kind."
1
I answer, that this is true in English, but not true in Greek. Our word, turpitude, is confined, I think, to a moral sense, and I suppose is here so used by Dr. Beattie; and it is certainly true, that we laugh at many things that have in them no turpitude of that kind-nothing morally wrong. But the Greek word,
ΑΙΣΧΡΟΝ
, was a word of wide extent, and seems manifestly used here by Aristotle in its utmost latitude; comprehending every thing that is, in any degree, ugly or deformed, from atrocious villainy, the highest moral ugliness, to a ridiculous cast of features in an ugly face. It is the opposite to
ΚΑΛΟΝ
, which was used in a correspondent latitude of application. - The objections, which have been made to this passage, have chiefly, I think, been owing to this, that the objectors have not been sufficiently aware of the extensive signification in which the Greeks used the words,
καλον, αισχρον, –ἀρετη, κακια σπεδαιον, φαυλον-άμαρτημα
, &c. We trans-
late the words of antient authors by words to which we annex different ideas, and then raise objections and difficulties from our own mistakes. The consequence of taking
αισχρον
here in the restrained sense of moral turpitude, has been, that those writers, who have so taken it, have been obliged to deny, that
γελοιον
means laughable, because the laughable in general could not truly be defined, "a species of moral turpitude."
It plainly was not Aristotle's design here to enter into an accurate inquiry about the nature of laughter, and the distinction of risible and ridiculous objects. This he had perhaps done, in that part of this mutilated treatise, which related to Comedy, and to which he himself refers in his Rhetoric.
2
His purpose, here, seems to have been, merely to support and explain his account of Comedy; i. e. that it was
μιμησις φαυλοτερων
, "an imitation of bad characters;" that is, as he immediately limits the sense of the general term
φαυλον
, of ridiculous, or laughable, characters. Such, he continues, are properly denominated
φαυλοι, κακοι
, bad, &c. because the laughable (
γελοιον
) is one species of the
αισχρον
, taken in its most general sense. "But to what species, or class," it was obvious to ask, "does it belong?"-To that class, it is answered, of things
αισχρα
, which are neither destructive nor painful: for these, exciting terror or pity, are the property of Tragedy. And he asserts, I think, plainly, that the laughable in general,
το γελοιον
, i. e. every thing that excites laughter, is
ἁμαρτημα ΤΙ και αισχα ἀνωδυνον και φθαρτικον
-is, in some respect or other, faulty, wrong, deformed, but neither painful nor pernicious. What follows, about a ridiculous face, is, I think, clearly, not an illustration merely, as Dr. Campbell understands it to be, but an instance.
3
This seems evident from Aristotle's using the very word
αισχρον
; (
προσωπον αισχρον
) which he would hardly have done, had he just
before used the words
αισχρον
and
αισχ
, as Dr. Campbell and Dr. Beattie contend that he bas used them, in a moral sense only.
But it is objected "We can never suppose that Aristotle would have called distorted features 'a certain fault or slip.'" To call them a slip, would indeed found strangely; because that expression conveys the idea of something morally wrong. But when we say, that a very long nose, or a wide mouth, is a fault in a face, we use a very common expression; the word fault having, I think, the same latitude of application as the Greek word
ἀμαρτημα
.
It must be observed, however, that all Aristotle says is, that these two characters, deformity of some sort, and the absence of pain, or hurt, are to be found in every object of laughter: he neither says, nor implies, the converse that every thing so qualified is laughable. With respect to one of these characters the absence of pain or harm-there can be no doubt. It is only saying that we cannot laugh at that which shocks us. As to the other general character, deformity, ugliness, something wrong, &c. (
ἁμαρτημα ΤΙ και αισχα
) it seems to me, that these expressions, taken in that large sense, in which Aristotle plainly means to use them, amount to much the same as those used by modern philosophers to characterize the risible in general; such as, "incongruity, incongruous association, striking unsuitableness," "disproportion, inconsistence and dissonance of circumstances in the same object"
4
. With respect to works both of nature, and of art," says the ingenious and philosophical author of the Elements of Criticism, "none of
them are risible but what are out of rule, some remarkable defect or excess; a very long visage, for example, or a very short one. Hence nothing just, proper, decent, beautiful, proportioned, or grand, is risible."
5
This appears to me to be exactly the meaning, and to approach very near to the language, of Aristotle. For, of whatever may be thus characterized it surely may be said, that it has some species of fault, deformity, or distortion: in Aristotle's words,
ἁμαρτημα Τι και -αισχρον ΤΙ και ΔΙΕΣΤΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ
.
Aristotle's account, then, of the
γελοíον
, appears to be right, as far as it goes. It might, indeed, be objected to, as too general, had he given it as the result of an exact and particular analysis of the subject. But this, as I have already observed, was not his purpose in this place.
It is farther objected by Dr. Campbell, that to speak of laughter in general, "would have been foreign to Aristotle's purpose:" because, "laughter is not his theme, but Comedy; and laughter only so far as Comedy is concerned with it. Now the concern of Comedy reaches no farther than that kind of ridicule which relates to manners."
6
—Undoubtedly it was this kind of ridicule that Aristotle had principally in view. But I apprehend, that the Comedy here in question was concerned with the ridiculous or laughable in general. For Aristotle's notion of Comedy, as an excellent writer has observed, "was taken from the state and practice of the Athenian stage that is, from the old or middle Comedy, which answers to his description. The great revolution which the introduction of the new Comedy made in the drama, did not happen till afterwards."
7
Now the old and middle Comedy, as I have before observed, were no other than
what we should call Farce. To raise a laugh was so eminently their object, that the ridiculous (
το γελοιον
) is frequently used by Plato, as synonymous to Comedy, and substituted for it; as pity is also for Tragedy.
8
Nor was it even very "foreign to Aristotle's purpose" to instance in a ridiculous face; for that this also was an established source of fun in the Greek theatre, is well known from the curious account of the comic masks in Jul. Pollux; who says, particularly of those of the old Comedy, that they were ridiculous caricaturas of the persons represented:—
ἐπι το γελοιοτερον ἐσχηματισο
.
9
The Athenians were certainly not more delicate than Cicero, who thought, we know, that bodily deformities were "satis bella materies ad jocandum."
10
He, also, agrees perfectly with Aristotle, or rather follows him, in his account of the ridiculous: "Locus autem et regio quasi ridiculi TURPITUDINE ET DEFORMITATE QUADAM continetur."
