From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 11:44:15 MDT
Amara Graps <amara@amara.com> writes:
> I wonder what are the latest thoughts regarding Aristotle's "lost" second
> book on comedy ?
>
> Apparently Aristotle alluded to his writings about laughter, but since
> very little by him on that topic is known/found, his written work on the
> topic of comedy and laughter are thought to be "lost". At least that is
> what I have discovered in briefly following up this subject today.
>
> Does anyone have more up-to-date information about Aristotle's lost
> book on comedy/laughter?
Interesting. I did a google probably much the same as you would have
I expect, (or probably less adeptly), and I'm not ever sure its more than
an "old" urban myth.
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/eh/eng/skc/artlaugh.htm
Seems to be at least an academic paper on the subject written in 1998.
A find on "lost" pulls up the following paragraph.
"Up until the middle of the eighteenth century, an Aristotelian conception
governed theories of laughter. Not that Aristotle had much to say on the
subject. It may be that the medieval rumour that Aristotle had written a
now LOST book on comedy is true: but judging from the little that Aristotle
has to say on the subject of comedy in the rest of his work, it does not
seem likely to have been a very substantial work. Aristotle shares with
Plato the idea that laughter is derision, or the expression of superiority.
Aristotle saw laughter as proceeding from `the joy we have in observing
the fact that we cannot be hurt by the evil at which we are indignant'.
Insofar as we tend to laugh at the lowly and the undignified (what is ugly
without being offensive, as Aristotle says, in an interesting prefiguring
of
aesthetic language), laughter should be kept within bounds, since laughing
too much at what is ridiculous or unbecoming starts to put your own
dignity on the line. Aristotle is here in concord with Plato, who
recommended the banning of depictions of gods or heroes doubled up
in laughter on the grounds that it was unbecoming and conducive to
disrespect for the divine."
-----
How far did you get towards concluding there might actually have
been such a book?
For some reason that I don't get, the formal study of laughter has never
really intrigued, as much as it should. The last time I heard of "a theory
of emotion" Schacter was it's proponent. Curiously he argued (if memory
serves) that we sense "something" as a sort of arousal then look around
to the world for context on how to interpret or label that feeling of
arousal
back to ourselves. This creates an opportunity for quick suggestive types
like comics and rhetoricians.
When rhetoric was in vogue in Rome and Greece the study of the power
of ridicule in debate must have reached a pretty fair level.
Based on Schacter's notions I reckon a very good way to move a
crowd inclined to laugh at ridicule may be a quick rejoinder that moves
them instead to another emotion like pity or regret.
Consider Mark Antony's speach in Shakespeares Julius Ceasar. "I come
to bury Ceasar not to praise him" etc. Antony seduces a crowd to action
with words that are superficially accolades about "honorable men" yet
plants the suggestion incrementally that the honorable men are anything
but.
I reckon something may turn on the way we mentally process "nots" and
"negatives". We consider propositions in the affirmative and then it takes
another "CPU cycle" to add the "not" or the logical reversal in there.
Maybe the switch is dramatic from one part of the brain (imagery) and
yet subtle from another (linguistic) and laughter thus comes as a release
as the parts come together.
Or maybe not :-)
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 31 2003 - 11:52:46 MDT