Q: COMEDY: ITS NATURE AND KINDS

Comedy in Ancient Times

Comedies have been written since times immemorial. Among the ancients,Aristophanes,
Plautus and Terence were great writers of comedy whose comedies have been a source of inspiration to
subsequent practitioners of the art. Meander, Moliere, Shakespeare and Ben Jonson are some modern
writers of comedy. But while much has been written on Tragedy since the times of Aristotle down to
present day, not much attention has been given to the art of comedy. Comedy has been treated as mere
amusement, its purpose being generally considered as that of merely giving relief to tired minds. The
general view has been that comedy provides laughter, and laughter serves as a sort of change from the
serious pre-occupations of life.
For these reasons there has been a tendency among scholars to dismiss comedy as a sort of inferior
art. This is also the view of Aristotle who devotes practically the whole of his Poetics to the study of
Tragedy, and summarily dismisses comedy in a brief paragraph. According to the Greek philosopher,
Comedy is a representation of character of a lower type, worse than the average. By ‘lower’ or ‘worse’
Aristotle does not mean morally ‘bad’ but only ridiculous. He then defines the ridiculous, “as a species of
the ugly. It is that species of the ugly which does not cause any pain or harm to others. Rather, it is
productive of laughter. He has not much more to say about the nature and function of Comedy.
Meredith’s View of It
It is only in comparatively recent times that critics like Meredith and Bergson have devoted due
attention to a consideration of the nature and function of comedy, and subsequent discussions of
comedy have generally followed these critics. George Meredith in his Idea of Comedy is firmly of the
view that Comedy appeals to the intelligence pure and simple, and aims not at our ribs or armpits but at
our heads. In other words, Comedy is artificial and its main function is to focus attention on what ails the
world. It “strips folly to the skin.” And upon vice wields a, “shrieking scourge”. Comedy is critical, but in
its scourge of folly and vice there is no contempt or anger. As Meredith puts it, “Derisive laughter
thwarts the comic idea. The laughter of Comedy is impersonal, and of unrivalled politeness, nearer a
smile.” The Pure or High Comedy, as Meredith calls it, is entirely free from the wrath or zeal of the
reformer or the moralist, for them Comedy would degenerate into satire. Comedy exposes and ridicules
folly and vice, but without the anger of the reformer.
In thus making his Comedy critical, Meredith is merely describing his ideal of Comedy, for he must
have been fully aware of the kindly and generous laughter which is aroused by the comedy of
Shakespeare. By not including such generous laughter in his account, he deliberately narrows down the
range of Comedy. This is so because the purpose of his essay on Comedy is mainly social. He was writing
in the Victorian Age, in the age of Ruskin and Arnold, when literature was required to serve the ends of
culture, and Victorian view of literature frequently carries him off his feet. Hence he demands from
Comedy “thoughtful laughter”, laughter which would make us think of the ills of society; merely hearty,
kindly and generous laughter is not enough for him. In all this he reveals the influence of Moliere; his
idea of comedy is largely Frenchified. It is only towards the end of his essay that he recognizes the power
of Shakespeare to rouse rib-shaking laughter and calls him the unapproachable monarch of the world of
comedy. But this is so because his laughter is, “the laughter of heart and mind in one.” Shakespeare is
great because he provides that laughter of the mind which true comedy should arouse. But the trouble
with Shakespeare is that there is so much else in his comedy. There is also much laughter of the heart,
“and the laughter of the heart and mind are often so inextricably interfused.” Meredith’s conception of
comedy is a narrow one; it does not include in its sweep the Shakespearean comedy, or, for that matter,
the comedy of Aristophanes and Cervantes.
Bergson’s View
In this essay On Laughter, Bergson take a position quite close to that of Meredith. In his view also
the laughter of Comedy appeals to, “intelligence pure and simple,” and is characterised by an absence of
feeling. Comedy laughs at some person or incident out of keeping with our social mode or habit, and the
purpose of this laughter is always corrective. It asserts instructively, and without benevolence – for such
laughter cannot be kind, no laughter can – the surprise of society that anyone should so isolate himself,
and with such unconsciousness of his oddity, from the ordinary responses, the customary give and take,
of the community in which he lives. Thus the laughter of Comedy is not kind or sympathetic, and it is
aimed at some oddity in character and behaviour, so that, that particular deviation from what is normal
or usual may be reformed and corrected. To quote Bergson himself, “Laughter is above all corrective
……… by laughter society avenges itself for the liberties taken with it, it would fail in its object, if it bore
the stamp of sympathy or kindliness.”
Criticism of It
No doubt, many forms of vanity, self-love and affectation are covered up by this view of the comic,
but there is much else in English Comedy, specially Shakespearean Comedy, which is excluded from the
Bergsonian world of Comedy. Says Gordon: “Whatever his sense of humour, he has none of the simple
fun (of Shakespeare) and is bounded in his view of Comedy by the classical stage of France – by that
comedy of types of which Moliere is the acknowledged master, and to which Shakespearean Comedy
offers the boldest antithesis. How, otherwise, can he define Laughter as by its nature devoid of feeling,
or if tinged at all with feeling, then unbenevolent? There is friendly as well as unfriendly laughter, as we,
rude island-readers of Shakespeare, know; nor can anything exceed in that way the kindness, the
rejoicing and protective kindness, which we feel for the humorists and grotesques of the Shakespearean
stage. So little is our laughter on those occasions a social gesture, a social corrective, a lash of the whip
to bring anomalies into the social fold – so little do we feel this that, on the contrary, we would not have
them altered by a hair, and desire nothing so much as that they should go on ad infinitium being
precisely the absurd anomalies they are. The reason for this, though it escaped Bergson, is that
Shakespeare habitually creates not types, but men and women that are as real to us to-day as when
Shakespeare made them – and have acquired in our companionable affection as historic as well as a
dramatic being.” Bergson’s idea of the nature and function of Comedy is a narrow one for he does not
take into account that entirely joyous and sympathetic laughter, without any sense of social
responsibility, which is such a marked feature of Shakespearean Comedy as distinguished from the
classical comedy, best represented in England by the comedy of Ben Jonson. The rib-shaking hilarious
laughter of Shakespeare may be irresponsible, but all the same it has been a perennial source of delight
and amusement. It satisfies some deep and permanent need of human nature, the need to relax and
forget the burden of living.
Conclusion
To sum up: there are two views of Comedy. According to the first view the function of Comedy is
neither to arouse the emotions nor to correct and reform. Its function is merely to provide lighthearted
fun, and the more hilarious the laughter the better. This is the English or Shakespearean idea of Comedy.
According to the second view, the function of Comedy is mainly corrective. This function is performed by
laughing at vanity, affectation, and other forms of deviation from the expected and the normal. This is
the classical or the French concept of Comedy. The second kind of comedy, the corrective comedy, is
distinguished from satire by an absence of the warth or indignation which characterises the satirist. Its
laughter is thoughtful, but it is impersonal. In the comedy of Shakespeare there is often an intermingling
of both these species much rib-shaking fun is entwined with thoughtful laughter.
Q: COMEDY: ITS NATURE AND KINDS
Comedy in Ancient Times
Comedies have been written since times immemorial. Among the ancients,Aristophanes,
Plautus and Terence were great writers of comedy whose comedies have been a source of inspiration to
subsequent practitioners of the art. Meander, Moliere, Shakespeare and Ben Jonson are some modern
writers of comedy. But while much has been written on Tragedy since the times of Aristotle down to
present day, not much attention has been given to the art of comedy. Comedy has been treated as mere
amusement, its purpose being generally considered as that of merely giving relief to tired minds. The
general view has been that comedy provides laughter, and laughter serves as a sort of change from the
serious pre-occupations of life.
For these reasons there has been a tendency among scholars to dismiss comedy as a sort of inferior
art. This is also the view of Aristotle who devotes practically the whole of his Poetics to the study of
Tragedy, and summarily dismisses comedy in a brief paragraph. According to the Greek philosopher,
Comedy is a representation of character of a lower type, worse than the average. By ‘lower’ or ‘worse’
Aristotle does not mean morally ‘bad’ but only ridiculous. He then defines the ridiculous, “as a species of
the ugly. It is that species of the ugly which does not cause any pain or harm to others. Rather, it is
productive of laughter. He has not much more to say about the nature and function of Comedy.
Meredith’s View of It
 It is only in comparatively recent times that critics like Meredith and Bergson have devoted due
attention to a consideration of the nature and function of comedy, and subsequent discussions of
comedy have generally followed these critics. George Meredith in his Idea of Comedy is firmly of the
view that Comedy appeals to the intelligence pure and simple, and aims not at our ribs or armpits but at
our heads. In other words, Comedy is artificial and its main function is to focus attention on what ails the
world. It “strips folly to the skin.” And upon vice wields a, “shrieking scourge”. Comedy is critical, but in
its scourge of folly and vice there is no contempt or anger. As Meredith puts it, “Derisive laughter
thwarts the comic idea. The laughter of Comedy is impersonal, and of unrivalled politeness, nearer a
smile.” The Pure or High Comedy, as Meredith calls it, is entirely free from the wrath or zeal of the
reformer or the moralist, for them Comedy would degenerate into satire. Comedy exposes and ridicules
folly and vice, but without the anger of the reformer.
In thus making his Comedy critical, Meredith is merely describing his ideal of Comedy, for he must
have been fully aware of the kindly and generous laughter which is aroused by the comedy of
Shakespeare. By not including such generous laughter in his account, he deliberately narrows down the
range of Comedy. This is so because the purpose of his essay on Comedy is mainly social. He was writing
in the Victorian Age, in the age of Ruskin and Arnold, when literature was required to serve the ends of
culture, and Victorian view of literature frequently carries him off his feet. Hence he demands from
Comedy “thoughtful laughter”, laughter which would make us think of the ills of society; merely hearty,
kindly and generous laughter is not enough for him. In all this he reveals the influence of Moliere; his
idea of comedy is largely Frenchified. It is only towards the end of his essay that he recognizes the power
of Shakespeare to rouse rib-shaking laughter and calls him the unapproachable monarch of the world of
comedy. But this is so because his laughter is, “the laughter of heart and mind in one.” Shakespeare is
great because he provides that laughter of the mind which true comedy should arouse. But the trouble
with Shakespeare is that there is so much else in his comedy. There is also much laughter of the heart,
“and the laughter of the heart and mind are often so inextricably interfused.” Meredith’s conception of
comedy is a narrow one; it does not include in its sweep the Shakespearean comedy, or, for that matter,
the comedy of Aristophanes and Cervantes.
Bergson’s View
In this essay On Laughter, Bergson take a position quite close to that of Meredith. In his view also
the laughter of Comedy appeals to, “intelligence pure and simple,” and is characterised by an absence of
feeling. Comedy laughs at some person or incident out of keeping with our social mode or habit, and the
purpose of this laughter is always corrective. It asserts instructively, and without benevolence – for such
laughter cannot be kind, no laughter can – the surprise of society that anyone should so isolate himself,
and with such unconsciousness of his oddity, from the ordinary responses, the customary give and take,
of the community in which he lives. Thus the laughter of Comedy is not kind or sympathetic, and it is
aimed at some oddity in character and behaviour, so that, that particular deviation from what is normal
or usual may be reformed and corrected. To quote Bergson himself, “Laughter is above all corrective
……… by laughter society avenges itself for the liberties taken with it, it would fail in its object, if it bore
the stamp of sympathy or kindliness.”
Criticism of It
No doubt, many forms of vanity, self-love and affectation are covered up by this view of the comic,
but there is much else in English Comedy, specially Shakespearean Comedy, which is excluded from the
Bergsonian world of Comedy. Says Gordon: “Whatever his sense of humour, he has none of the simple
fun (of Shakespeare) and is bounded in his view of Comedy by the classical stage of France – by that
comedy of types of which Moliere is the acknowledged master, and to which Shakespearean Comedy
offers the boldest antithesis. How, otherwise, can he define Laughter as by its nature devoid of feeling,
or if tinged at all with feeling, then unbenevolent? There is friendly as well as unfriendly laughter, as we,
rude island-readers of Shakespeare, know; nor can anything exceed in that way the kindness, the
rejoicing and protective kindness, which we feel for the humorists and grotesques of the Shakespearean
stage. So little is our laughter on those occasions a social gesture, a social corrective, a lash of the whip
to bring anomalies into the social fold – so little do we feel this that, on the contrary, we would not have
them altered by a hair, and desire nothing so much as that they should go on ad infinitium being
precisely the absurd anomalies they are. The reason for this, though it escaped Bergson, is that
Shakespeare habitually creates not types, but men and women that are as real to us to-day as when
Shakespeare made them – and have acquired in our companionable affection as historic as well as a
dramatic being.” Bergson’s idea of the nature and function of Comedy is a narrow one for he does not
take into account that entirely joyous and sympathetic laughter, without any sense of social
responsibility, which is such a marked feature of Shakespearean Comedy as distinguished from the
classical comedy, best represented in England by the comedy of Ben Jonson. The rib-shaking hilarious
laughter of Shakespeare may be irresponsible, but all the same it has been a perennial source of delight
and amusement. It satisfies some deep and permanent need of human nature, the need to relax and
forget the burden of living.
Conclusion
To sum up: there are two views of Comedy. According to the first view the function of Comedy is
neither to arouse the emotions nor to correct and reform. Its function is merely to provide lighthearted
fun, and the more hilarious the laughter the better. This is the English or Shakespearean idea of Comedy.
According to the second view, the function of Comedy is mainly corrective. This function is performed by
laughing at vanity, affectation, and other forms of deviation from the expected and the normal. This is
the classical or the French concept of Comedy. The second kind of comedy, the corrective comedy, is
distinguished from satire by an absence of the warth or indignation which characterises the satirist. Its
laughter is thoughtful, but it is impersonal. In the comedy of Shakespeare there is often an intermingling
of both these species much rib-shaking fun is entwined with thoughtful laughter.
Q: COMEDY: ITS NATURE AND KINDS
Comedy in Ancient Times
Comedies have been written since times immemorial. Among the ancients,Aristophanes,
Plautus and Terence were great writers of comedy whose comedies have been a source of inspiration to
subsequent practitioners of the art. Meander, Moliere, Shakespeare and Ben Jonson are some modern
writers of comedy. But while much has been written on Tragedy since the times of Aristotle down to
present day, not much attention has been given to the art of comedy. Comedy has been treated as mere
amusement, its purpose being generally considered as that of merely giving relief to tired minds. The
general view has been that comedy provides laughter, and laughter serves as a sort of change from the
serious pre-occupations of life.
For these reasons there has been a tendency among scholars to dismiss comedy as a sort of inferior
art. This is also the view of Aristotle who devotes practically the whole of his Poetics to the study of
Tragedy, and summarily dismisses comedy in a brief paragraph. According to the Greek philosopher,
Comedy is a representation of character of a lower type, worse than the average. By ‘lower’ or ‘worse’
Aristotle does not mean morally ‘bad’ but only ridiculous. He then defines the ridiculous, “as a species of
the ugly. It is that species of the ugly which does not cause any pain or harm to others. Rather, it is
productive of laughter. He has not much more to say about the nature and function of Comedy.
Meredith’s View of It
It is only in comparatively recent times that critics like Meredith and Bergson have devoted due
attention to a consideration of the nature and function of comedy, and subsequent discussions of
comedy have generally followed these critics. George Meredith in his Idea of Comedy is firmly of the
view that Comedy appeals to the intelligence pure and simple, and aims not at our ribs or armpits but at
our heads. In other words, Comedy is artificial and its main function is to focus attention on what ails the
world. It “strips folly to the skin.” And upon vice wields a, “shrieking scourge”. Comedy is critical, but in
its scourge of folly and vice there is no contempt or anger. As Meredith puts it, “Derisive laughter
thwarts the comic idea. The laughter of Comedy is impersonal, and of unrivalled politeness, nearer a
smile.” The Pure or High Comedy, as Meredith calls it, is entirely free from the wrath or zeal of the
reformer or the moralist, for them Comedy would degenerate into satire. Comedy exposes and ridicules
folly and vice, but without the anger of the reformer.
In thus making his Comedy critical, Meredith is merely describing his ideal of Comedy, for he must
have been fully aware of the kindly and generous laughter which is aroused by the comedy of
Shakespeare. By not including such generous laughter in his account, he deliberately narrows down the
range of Comedy. This is so because the purpose of his essay on Comedy is mainly social. He was writing
in the Victorian Age, in the age of Ruskin and Arnold, when literature was required to serve the ends of
culture, and Victorian view of literature frequently carries him off his feet. Hence he demands from
Comedy “thoughtful laughter”, laughter which would make us think of the ills of society; merely hearty,
kindly and generous laughter is not enough for him. In all this he reveals the influence of Moliere; his
idea of comedy is largely Frenchified. It is only towards the end of his essay that he recognizes the power
of Shakespeare to rouse rib-shaking laughter and calls him the unapproachable monarch of the world of
comedy. But this is so because his laughter is, “the laughter of heart and mind in one.” Shakespeare is
great because he provides that laughter of the mind which true comedy should arouse. But the trouble
with Shakespeare is that there is so much else in his comedy. There is also much laughter of the heart,
“and the laughter of the heart and mind are often so inextricably interfused.” Meredith’s conception of
comedy is a narrow one; it does not include in its sweep the Shakespearean comedy, or, for that matter,
the comedy of Aristophanes and Cervantes.
Bergson’s View
In this essay On Laughter, Bergson take a position quite close to that of Meredith. In his view also
the laughter of Comedy appeals to, “intelligence pure and simple,” and is characterised by an absence of
feeling. Comedy laughs at some person or incident out of keeping with our social mode or habit, and the
purpose of this laughter is always corrective. It asserts instructively, and without benevolence – for such
laughter cannot be kind, no laughter can – the surprise of society that anyone should so isolate himself,
and with such unconsciousness of his oddity, from the ordinary responses, the customary give and take,
of the community in which he lives. Thus the laughter of Comedy is not kind or sympathetic, and it is
aimed at some oddity in character and behaviour, so that, that particular deviation from what is normal
or usual may be reformed and corrected. To quote Bergson himself, “Laughter is above all corrective
……… by laughter society avenges itself for the liberties taken with it, it would fail in its object, if it bore
the stamp of sympathy or kindliness.”
Criticism of It
No doubt, many forms of vanity, self-love and affectation are covered up by this view of the comic,
but there is much else in English Comedy, specially Shakespearean Comedy, which is excluded from the
Bergsonian world of Comedy. Says Gordon: “Whatever his sense of humour, he has none of the simple
fun (of Shakespeare) and is bounded in his view of Comedy by the classical stage of France – by that
comedy of types of which Moliere is the acknowledged master, and to which Shakespearean Comedy
offers the boldest antithesis. How, otherwise, can he define Laughter as by its nature devoid of feeling,
or if tinged at all with feeling, then unbenevolent? There is friendly as well as unfriendly laughter, as we,
rude island-readers of Shakespeare, know; nor can anything exceed in that way the kindness, the
rejoicing and protective kindness, which we feel for the humorists and grotesques of the Shakespearean
stage. So little is our laughter on those occasions a social gesture, a social corrective, a lash of the whip
to bring anomalies into the social fold – so little do we feel this that, on the contrary, we would not have
them altered by a hair, and desire nothing so much as that they should go on ad infinitium being
precisely the absurd anomalies they are. The reason for this, though it escaped Bergson, is that
Shakespeare habitually creates not types, but men and women that are as real to us to-day as when
Shakespeare made them – and have acquired in our companionable affection as historic as well as a
dramatic being.” Bergson’s idea of the nature and function of Comedy is a narrow one for he does not
take into account that entirely joyous and sympathetic laughter, without any sense of social
responsibility, which is such a marked feature of Shakespearean Comedy as distinguished from the
classical comedy, best represented in England by the comedy of Ben Jonson. The rib-shaking hilarious
laughter of Shakespeare may be irresponsible, but all the same it has been a perennial source of delight
and amusement. It satisfies some deep and permanent need of human nature, the need to relax and
forget the burden of living.
Conclusion
To sum up: there are two views of Comedy. According to the first view the function of Comedy is
neither to arouse the emotions nor to correct and reform. Its function is merely to provide lighthearted
fun, and the more hilarious the laughter the better. This is the English or Shakespearean idea of Comedy.
According to the second view, the function of Comedy is mainly corrective. This function is performed by
laughing at vanity, affectation, and other forms of deviation from the expected and the normal. This is
the classical or the French concept of Comedy. The second kind of comedy, the corrective comedy, is
distinguished from satire by an absence of the warth or indignation which characterises the satirist. Its
laughter is thoughtful, but it is impersonal. In the comedy of Shakespeare there is often an intermingling
of both these species much rib-shaking fun is entwined with thoughtful laughter.
Q: COMEDY: ITS NATURE AND KINDS
Comedy in Ancient Times
Comedies have been written since times immemorial. Among the ancients,Aristophanes,
Plautus and Terence were great writers of comedy whose comedies have been a source of inspiration to
subsequent practitioners of the art. Meander, Moliere, Shakespeare and Ben Jonson are some modern
writers of comedy. But while much has been written on Tragedy since the times of Aristotle down to
present day, not much attention has been given to the art of comedy. Comedy has been treated as mere
amusement, its purpose being generally considered as that of merely giving relief to tired minds. The
general view has been that comedy provides laughter, and laughter serves as a sort of change from the
serious pre-occupations of life.
For these reasons there has been a tendency among scholars to dismiss comedy as a sort of inferior
art. This is also the view of Aristotle who devotes practically the whole of his Poetics to the study of
Tragedy, and summarily dismisses comedy in a brief paragraph. According to the Greek philosopher,
Comedy is a representation of character of a lower type, worse than the average. By ‘lower’ or ‘worse’
Aristotle does not mean morally ‘bad’ but only ridiculous. He then defines the ridiculous, “as a species of
the ugly. It is that species of the ugly which does not cause any pain or harm to others. Rather, it is
productive of laughter. He has not much more to say about the nature and function of Comedy.
Meredith’s View of It
It is only in comparatively recent times that critics like Meredith and Bergson have devoted due
attention to a consideration of the nature and function of comedy, and subsequent discussions of
comedy have generally followed these critics. George Meredith in his Idea of Comedy is firmly of the
view that Comedy appeals to the intelligence pure and simple, and aims not at our ribs or armpits but at
our heads. In other words, Comedy is artificial and its main function is to focus attention on what ails the
world. It “strips folly to the skin.” And upon vice wields a, “shrieking scourge”. Comedy is critical, but in
its scourge of folly and vice there is no contempt or anger. As Meredith puts it, “Derisive laughter
thwarts the comic idea. The laughter of Comedy is impersonal, and of unrivalled politeness, nearer a
smile.” The Pure or High Comedy, as Meredith calls it, is entirely free from the wrath or zeal of the
reformer or the moralist, for them Comedy would degenerate into satire. Comedy exposes and ridicules
folly and vice, but without the anger of the reformer.
In thus making his Comedy critical, Meredith is merely describing his ideal of Comedy, for he must
have been fully aware of the kindly and generous laughter which is aroused by the comedy of
Shakespeare. By not including such generous laughter in his account, he deliberately narrows down the
range of Comedy. This is so because the purpose of his essay on Comedy is mainly social. He was writing
in the Victorian Age, in the age of Ruskin and Arnold, when literature was required to serve the ends of
culture, and Victorian view of literature frequently carries him off his feet. Hence he demands from
Comedy “thoughtful laughter”, laughter which would make us think of the ills of society; merely hearty,
kindly and generous laughter is not enough for him. In all this he reveals the influence of Moliere; his
idea of comedy is largely Frenchified. It is only towards the end of his essay that he recognizes the power
of Shakespeare to rouse rib-shaking laughter and calls him the unapproachable monarch of the world of
comedy. But this is so because his laughter is, “the laughter of heart and mind in one.” Shakespeare is
great because he provides that laughter of the mind which true comedy should arouse. But the trouble
with Shakespeare is that there is so much else in his comedy. There is also much laughter of the heart,
“and the laughter of the heart and mind are often so inextricably interfused.” Meredith’s conception of
comedy is a narrow one; it does not include in its sweep the Shakespearean comedy, or, for that matter,
the comedy of Aristophanes and Cervantes.
Bergson’s View
In this essay On Laughter, Bergson take a position quite close to that of Meredith. In his view also
the laughter of Comedy appeals to, “intelligence pure and simple,” and is characterised by an absence of
feeling. Comedy laughs at some person or incident out of keeping with our social mode or habit, and the
purpose of this laughter is always corrective. It asserts instructively, and without benevolence – for such
laughter cannot be kind, no laughter can – the surprise of society that anyone should so isolate himself,
and with such unconsciousness of his oddity, from the ordinary responses, the customary give and take,
of the community in which he lives. Thus the laughter of Comedy is not kind or sympathetic, and it is
aimed at some oddity in character and behaviour, so that, that particular deviation from what is normal
or usual may be reformed and corrected. To quote Bergson himself, “Laughter is above all corrective
……… by laughter society avenges itself for the liberties taken with it, it would fail in its object, if it bore
the stamp of sympathy or kindliness.”
Criticism of It
No doubt, many forms of vanity, self-love and affectation are covered up by this view of the comic,
but there is much else in English Comedy, specially Shakespearean Comedy, which is excluded from the
Bergsonian world of Comedy. Says Gordon: “Whatever his sense of humour, he has none of the simple
fun (of Shakespeare) and is bounded in his view of Comedy by the classical stage of France – by that
comedy of types of which Moliere is the acknowledged master, and to which Shakespearean Comedy
offers the boldest antithesis. How, otherwise, can he define Laughter as by its nature devoid of feeling,
or if tinged at all with feeling, then unbenevolent? There is friendly as well as unfriendly laughter, as we,
rude island-readers of Shakespeare, know; nor can anything exceed in that way the kindness, the
rejoicing and protective kindness, which we feel for the humorists and grotesques of the Shakespearean
stage. So little is our laughter on those occasions a social gesture, a social corrective, a lash of the whip
to bring anomalies into the social fold – so little do we feel this that, on the contrary, we would not have
them altered by a hair, and desire nothing so much as that they should go on ad infinitium being
precisely the absurd anomalies they are. The reason for this, though it escaped Bergson, is that
Shakespeare habitually creates not types, but men and women that are as real to us to-day as when
Shakespeare made them – and have acquired in our companionable affection as historic as well as a
dramatic being.” Bergson’s idea of the nature and function of Comedy is a narrow one for he does not
take into account that entirely joyous and sympathetic laughter, without any sense of social
responsibility, which is such a marked feature of Shakespearean Comedy as distinguished from the
classical comedy, best represented in England by the comedy of Ben Jonson. The rib-shaking hilarious
laughter of Shakespeare may be irresponsible, but all the same it has been a perennial source of delight
and amusement. It satisfies some deep and permanent need of human nature, the need to relax and
forget the burden of living.
Conclusion
To sum up: there are two views of Comedy. According to the first view the function of Comedy is
neither to arouse the emotions nor to correct and reform. Its function is merely to provide lighthearted
fun, and the more hilarious the laughter the better. This is the English or Shakespearean idea of Comedy.
According to the second view, the function of Comedy is mainly corrective. This function is performed by
laughing at vanity, affectation, and other forms of deviation from the expected and the normal. This is
the classical or the French concept of Comedy. The second kind of comedy, the corrective comedy, is
distinguished from satire by an absence of the warth or indignation which characterises the satirist. Its
laughter is thoughtful, but it is impersonal. In the comedy of Shakespeare there is often an intermingling
of both these species much rib-shaking fun is entwined with thoughtful laughter.
Q: COMEDY: ITS NATURE AND KINDS
Comedy in Ancient Times
Comedies have been written since times immemorial. Among the ancients,Aristophanes,
Plautus and Terence were great writers of comedy whose comedies have been a source of inspiration to
subsequent practitioners of the art. Meander, Moliere, Shakespeare and Ben Jonson are some modern
writers of comedy. But while much has been written on Tragedy since the times of Aristotle down to
present day, not much attention has been given to the art of comedy. Comedy has been treated as mere
amusement, its purpose being generally considered as that of merely giving relief to tired minds. The
general view has been that comedy provides laughter, and laughter serves as a sort of change from the
serious pre-occupations of life.
For these reasons there has been a tendency among scholars to dismiss comedy as a sort of inferior
art. This is also the view of Aristotle who devotes practically the whole of his Poetics to the study of
Tragedy, and summarily dismisses comedy in a brief paragraph. According to the Greek philosopher,
Comedy is a representation of character of a lower type, worse than the average. By ‘lower’ or ‘worse’
Aristotle does not mean morally ‘bad’ but only ridiculous. He then defines the ridiculous, “as a species of
the ugly. It is that species of the ugly which does not cause any pain or harm to others. Rather, it is
productive of laughter. He has not much more to say about the nature and function of Comedy.
Meredith’s View of It
 It is only in comparatively recent times that critics like Meredith and Bergson have devoted due
attention to a consideration of the nature and function of comedy, and subsequent discussions of
comedy have generally followed these critics. George Meredith in his Idea of Comedy is firmly of the
view that Comedy appeals to the intelligence pure and simple, and aims not at our ribs or armpits but at
our heads. In other words, Comedy is artificial and its main function is to focus attention on what ails the
world. It “strips folly to the skin.” And upon vice wields a, “shrieking scourge”. Comedy is critical, but in
its scourge of folly and vice there is no contempt or anger. As Meredith puts it, “Derisive laughter
thwarts the comic idea. The laughter of Comedy is impersonal, and of unrivalled politeness, nearer a
smile.” The Pure or High Comedy, as Meredith calls it, is entirely free from the wrath or zeal of the
reformer or the moralist, for them Comedy would degenerate into satire. Comedy exposes and ridicules
folly and vice, but without the anger of the reformer.
In thus making his Comedy critical, Meredith is merely describing his ideal of Comedy, for he must
have been fully aware of the kindly and generous laughter which is aroused by the comedy of
Shakespeare. By not including such generous laughter in his account, he deliberately narrows down the
range of Comedy. This is so because the purpose of his essay on Comedy is mainly social. He was writing
in the Victorian Age, in the age of Ruskin and Arnold, when literature was required to serve the ends of
culture, and Victorian view of literature frequently carries him off his feet. Hence he demands from
Comedy “thoughtful laughter”, laughter which would make us think of the ills of society; merely hearty,
kindly and generous laughter is not enough for him. In all this he reveals the influence of Moliere; his
idea of comedy is largely Frenchified. It is only towards the end of his essay that he recognizes the power
of Shakespeare to rouse rib-shaking laughter and calls him the unapproachable monarch of the world of
comedy. But this is so because his laughter is, “the laughter of heart and mind in one.” Shakespeare is
great because he provides that laughter of the mind which true comedy should arouse. But the trouble
with Shakespeare is that there is so much else in his comedy. There is also much laughter of the heart,
“and the laughter of the heart and mind are often so inextricably interfused.” Meredith’s conception of
comedy is a narrow one; it does not include in its sweep the Shakespearean comedy, or, for that matter,
the comedy of Aristophanes and Cervantes.
Bergson’s View
In this essay On Laughter, Bergson take a position quite close to that of Meredith. In his view also
the laughter of Comedy appeals to, “intelligence pure and simple,” and is characterised by an absence of
feeling. Comedy laughs at some person or incident out of keeping with our social mode or habit, and the
purpose of this laughter is always corrective. It asserts instructively, and without benevolence – for such
laughter cannot be kind, no laughter can – the surprise of society that anyone should so isolate himself,
and with such unconsciousness of his oddity, from the ordinary responses, the customary give and take,
of the community in which he lives. Thus the laughter of Comedy is not kind or sympathetic, and it is
aimed at some oddity in character and behaviour, so that, that particular deviation from what is normal
or usual may be reformed and corrected. To quote Bergson himself, “Laughter is above all corrective
……… by laughter society avenges itself for the liberties taken with it, it would fail in its object, if it bore
the stamp of sympathy or kindliness.”
Criticism of It
No doubt, many forms of vanity, self-love and affectation are covered up by this view of the comic,
but there is much else in English Comedy, specially Shakespearean Comedy, which is excluded from the
Bergsonian world of Comedy. Says Gordon: “Whatever his sense of humour, he has none of the simple
fun (of Shakespeare) and is bounded in his view of Comedy by the classical stage of France – by that
comedy of types of which Moliere is the acknowledged master, and to which Shakespearean Comedy
offers the boldest antithesis. How, otherwise, can he define Laughter as by its nature devoid of feeling,
or if tinged at all with feeling, then unbenevolent? There is friendly as well as unfriendly laughter, as we,
rude island-readers of Shakespeare, know; nor can anything exceed in that way the kindness, the
rejoicing and protective kindness, which we feel for the humorists and grotesques of the Shakespearean
stage. So little is our laughter on those occasions a social gesture, a social corrective, a lash of the whip
to bring anomalies into the social fold – so little do we feel this that, on the contrary, we would not have
them altered by a hair, and desire nothing so much as that they should go on ad infinitium being
precisely the absurd anomalies they are. The reason for this, though it escaped Bergson, is that
Shakespeare habitually creates not types, but men and women that are as real to us to-day as when
Shakespeare made them – and have acquired in our companionable affection as historic as well as a
dramatic being.” Bergson’s idea of the nature and function of Comedy is a narrow one for he does not
take into account that entirely joyous and sympathetic laughter, without any sense of social
responsibility, which is such a marked feature of Shakespearean Comedy as distinguished from the
classical comedy, best represented in England by the comedy of Ben Jonson. The rib-shaking hilarious
laughter of Shakespeare may be irresponsible, but all the same it has been a perennial source of delight
and amusement. It satisfies some deep and permanent need of human nature, the need to relax and
forget the burden of living.
Conclusion
To sum up: there are two views of Comedy. According to the first view the function of Comedy is
neither to arouse the emotions nor to correct and reform. Its function is merely to provide lighthearted
fun, and the more hilarious the laughter the better. This is the English or Shakespearean idea of Comedy.
According to the second view, the function of Comedy is mainly corrective. This function is performed by
laughing at vanity, affectation, and other forms of deviation from the expected and the normal. This is
the classical or the French concept of Comedy. The second kind of comedy, the corrective comedy, is
distinguished from satire by an absence of the warth or indignation which characterises the satirist. Its
laughter is thoughtful, but it is impersonal. In the comedy of Shakespeare there is often an intermingling
of both these species much rib-shaking fun is entwined with thoughtful laughter.