LAUGHTER.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XVLI, Issue 13, 27 September 1911, Page 33

LAUGHTER.

nWGHTER? Who does not enjoy a good laugh? Laugh and grow fat, laugh and live long. The whole world holds out a glorious welcome to that long line of men and women, from Rabelais to Harry Lander, who have made them laugh, who have produced “laughter for all time. ' “Lauuh, and the world laughs with you.” declares the modern poetess, and Rabelais adds, “because it is proper to man 'fo laugh”; and so the great god Laughter, “holding both his sides,” has dominion in every breast in every clime. And how -diverge, jire his high-priests How Smollett from Caran d’Ache, Thackeray from Dan Leno, Charles Dickens from Charles Hawtrey, Liston from Mark Twain. John Leech from Mr. Pelissier, and Corney Grain from Mr. W. AV. Jacobs. These are lords of laughter, the "funny men” who set the talde, the drawing-room, the theatre, and the library in a roar; whose public speedier are punctuated with (laughter) an;! on-eat laughter), and for whom the -standing-room only” signs are brought into requisition. One has only to glance at the accompanying photograph to see that the late' Queen Victoria could laugh heartily upon occasions, and there

are many instances related of her capacity for laughter. Indeed, laughing has become a characteristic of those occupying high office and a passport to the good opinions of the public. Yet. after all, what is laughter? An American humorist has called it “an undignified widening of the human mouth. eompanied by a noise resembling a ugh in the effort to avoid swallowing a chestnut.” ' Laughter,” says Professor Sir Charles ■ll, “is a convulsive action of the diaiiragm. In this state the person draws full breath and throws it out in intercpted, short, and audible cachinnations. I his convulsion of the diaphragm is the rincipal part of the physical manifestoion of laughter; hut there are several accessories, especially the sharp vocal tteranee arising from the violent ten ion of the larynx and the expression of lie features, this being a more intense urn of the smile. In extreme cases the _ves are moistened by the effusion from file lachrymal glands.” There you have a scientific definition. But it is clear that mankind would hard ly take the trouble to go through that experience if that was all that laughter consisted of. They would not regard Dickens or Mark Twain as a benefaet.: merely because a perusal of their writngs produced that. No; even the philosophers know that laughter is something better than that—something internal—that there is such a thing as silent laugher. Hobbes calls laughter “a sudden glory arising from a sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly.” But this, while good for the man chasing his hat in the wiml, or with the legend “Please kick me” tied to his coat-tails, does not cover the ground as fully as it might. Still,

it is not a bad deli nit ion of the causes which produce that muvh-desired “convulsive action of the diaphragm.” If a laugh is a benefaction and the provoker of a laugh a benefactor, why are th?re more statues to dull -people than to witty ones? Who was the greatest laugh-promoter in history? It was said of Sydney Smith that he was the father of ten million laughs. said Lord Rosebery, recently “is a physical necessity. We live under a sunless sky. surrounded by a melancholy ocean, and it is a physical necessity for the English nation—even for the Scotch nation and the Welsh nation —to laugh. It exhilarates all social relations. Was not.” his lordship added, “the laugh of Sir Erank Lock wood somethink that would make a stuffed bird rejoice? And those who listened to 'the splendour of merriment which he could impart by that laugh realize the intense value of that emotional exercise.” In speaking of laughter, it is necessary for us to inquire into 'the celebrated causes of laughter, and if they bp literary to ask. “Which is the funniest book ever written?” To this question various authorities have returned various answers. The Prince Consort. Mr. Gladstone. Lord Jeffrey, Leigh Hunt, and an imposing list of eminent persons down to Lord Rosebery have pronounced in favour of “The Pickwick Papers.” “There is no book on the shelves of the world’s library.” said a recent American Ambassador, “quite as funny as ‘Pickwick.’ Its nearest rival is ‘Don Quixote,’ and that is also the saddest book ever written.” A large number of the most humorous artists of the day were once asked which was the funniest picture ever drawn, and a majority of them (among them the late Linley Sambourne) voted for “A Gentleman Chasing a Bluebottle,” by John Leech, which first saw the light very many years ago in the pages of “Punch.” But there is a long line of comic draughtsmen from Hogarth through Gillray, Rowlandson. CruikAhank. Gavarni, Leech. Busch. Caran d’Ache. Opper. Phil May. down to Mr. Raven Hill, who have created, and still continue to create, hearty laughter. Once, at laughter by a clever study of laughter. As to laughter-provoking plays, this number is so great that a choice of the drollest would be very difficult. Johnson’s opinion of Goldsmith’s “She Stoops to Conquer” may be recalled; “T know of no comedy which has answered so much the great end of comedy, making our audience merry.” Goldsmith was quite content to make 'laughter the test. “Did it make you laugh?” he asked a Royal Academician who was hesitating about a criticism. “Exceedingly.” “Then that’s all I require.” replied the author. Tt is said that a manager whose theatre was somewhat in need of repair issued the following statement to his natrons:— “The cracks in the walls and ceiling of this theatre are not due 'to age or neglect, but are the result of the mighty roars and peals of laughter on the part of the audiences at ‘Charley’s Aunt.’

Yet there are .some people who cannot laugh—who are wholly unable to enjoy either the physical or the mental luxury of a laugh. Thus, it was said of \\ illiam 111. that he was utterly at a loss to understand wha't could be got out of laughter except loss of dignity, which is on a par with the Scot. who. when told that it required a surgical operation to get a joke into the head of one of his countrymen, asked. “And why should you wish to get it in?’ “Io make you laugh, of course.” was the reply. “An’ do ye think I've naethin’ better to do than sic silly nonsense?” There are many persons in history who have been, according to common report, incapable of laughter. Queen Mary 1., • John Knox. Robespierre, and Moltke are. examples. The Iron Duke himself rarely, if ever, went beyond a grunt. In fiction there are many such: Scrooge, for instance. But he reformed, and one day he broke into a man. “Real ly. for a man who had been out of practice for so many years, it was a splendid laugh, a most illustrious laugh 'rhe father of a long, long line of bril liant laughs!” Dr. Johnson, it will be remembered, was of rather a heavy. melancholy temperament, and yet he sometimes gave way. “And.” Boswell tells us. “upon such occasions T never heard a man laugh more heartily.” Johnson's laugh however, his biograper adds, was as re markable as any circumstance in his manner. It was a kind of good-hu-moured growl. Tom Davies described it droily enough: “He laughs like a rhino ceros.” Has anybody ever heard a rhino eeros laugh?

Douglas Jerrold wrote, “The Anatomy of a Laugh.” in which a laugh was divided into several species, as: 1. A convulsive laugh, 2. A jolly laugh. 3. A pleasant laugh. 4. A polite laugh. 5. A scornful laugh. (>. A sneering laugh. 7.

A frigid laugh, and S. A laugh on one side of the face. But the list could be largely extended. There is the foolish laugh, the peevish laugh, and the ironic laugh—• the latter very often met with in tho Housed of iParliamei^t. indeed, n

study of Parliamentary laughter ought to prove fruitful. Never, perhaps, v.as there truer and more natural laughter than when Sir Boyle Roche, M.P., declared gravely "Mr. Speaker, Sir, I smell a rat; 1 see it floating in the air; but, Mr Speaker, 1 will nip it in the bud.” Bulls are a frequent cause of laughter in the House. Only the other day members were convulsed by the statement from the Opposition benches: ‘‘Mr Speaker, 1 support the Bill as it stands unreservedly. (Cheers.) Of course, there will have to be several alterations.” (Great laughter.) A few weeks ago an M.P., who is also a distinguished novelist, created roars of laughter by observing: “Sir, the sting of this resolution is, like that of

a serpent, in its tail.” There was one member of Parliament of whom it was >aid that he had no sense of humour, only a laugh. "It began like a roar of distant waters, and then burst in a deafening cataract. It was contagious, overpowering, irresistible. All business in the House was suspended. The honourable gentleman addressing the Speaker sat down; the reporters in the Gallery closed their note-books. The mover of the motion withdrew it. Solvent nr risu tabulae.” It has been said that for natural primitive laughter there is nothing to compare with th<‘ article that is produced «it a Punch and Judy show; but the like is probably quite as often seen at a political meeting where feeling does not run verv high. A studs of laughter was recently made of a rough London street ’crowd at a Suffragist gathering, which is a striking object h‘sson in the merriment of the human male. On looking at the photograph. reproduced here, one can almost seem to hear the roar of laughter from a thousand throats at the sally of the speaker. Laughter in church would seem to be a good thing out of place, but there are thousands of instances of it, even amongst Scottish congregations. Tn England the chief clerical humorist for many years was the Rev. H. R. Haweis, who once announced from the pulpit. “I see someone has been criticising laughter in ’church. Lot me toll him that 1 would far rather see laughter in the House of God than envy and covetousness ami worldliness and uncharitableness. Laughter. innocent laughter, cheers and cleanses the heart and prepares it to receive the lessons of Christianity.” Tn the same way Air I). L. Moody in America and Air Spurgeon in England were no friends of a sail, dour religion. “Don’t tell me." said the former, “that Christ never laughed. Ih* was a man as we are; ami there were times when even His soul broke into pure laughter, and it issued from His lips even as the laughter <»f a little child.” Yet to the puritans laughter was said to have been ‘‘one of

the deadly sins,” and, according to Sydney Smith, even for a Methodist to have laughed a century ago was to have forfeited his claim to salvation.

In the courts of law laughter has latterly become a regular feature, and some of our judicial humorists have earned a brilliant reputation for the quality and frequency of their sallies. It is recalled that one eminent judge was so accustomed to convulsing the court that the clerk used to roar out automatica - ly, “Silence in court!” On one occasion the joke, though excellent, hung fire, and the only sound to be heard was the officer’s peremptory “Silence in Court!” The learned judge, nothing abashed, look-

ed around quizzically. “Why is there silence in court?” he asked. Mr Asquith is not precisely the laugher that Mr Balfour is, but Mr Lloyd George, on the other hand, is a far heartier laugher than Mr Austin Chamberlain or Mr Bonar Law. Even Lord Kitchener can occasionally give way to merriment. Mr Roosevelt’s laugh is as world-renowned as is the extensive smile of his successor, President Taft. Laughter clubs and Smile clubs are frequently reported in America. In 1872, a Laughter Club was formed of members who were supposed to have been implicated in the Tammany Hall exposure as a means of showing their scorn of the charges levelled against them, but it was disbanded in the following year. The existing Smile Club of America is founded on the principle that a smile at the right moment in times of doubt, difficulty. ami pain will do much to render life endurable. “When in doubt, smile. Face the problems, the temptations, the emergencies of life with a smile. Do not curse your luck. It won’t do you any good. A smile will.” To which is

added, “Try a smile first. You will be surprised how much good it will do you.” Briefly, the system might be described as "Self-Help-by-Smiles.” Apropos of the phrases “half a smile” and “to smile on the other side of one’s face,” these are not often taken as they are in the preceding portrait of Mr Eillie Norwood, literally. Half the face is smiling, the other half the very emblem of melancholy. And what shall be said of the laughter of children ' The unrestrained, rippling heart free contagious merriment that has in it no sophistication—that knows nothing of the arts and the cares ot this wicked world! One human sound the devil hateth. One music wholly undefiled, One rapture that with goodness niaketh, The laughter of a little child. Remember tile magnificent panegyric of laughter which Carlyle gives us in “Sartor Resartus”: “No man who has once heartily and wholly laughed can be altogether irreclaimably bad. How much lies in laughter, the cipher-key wherewith we decipher the whole man! Some men wear an everlasting barren simper; in the smile of others lies a cold glitter as of ice; the fewest are able to laugh, what can be called laughing, but only sniff and titter and snigger from the throat outwards; or at best produce some whiffling husky cachinnation, as if they were laughing through wool; of none such comes good. The man who cannot laugh is not only fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils, but his whole life is already a treason and a stratagem.”