4 On Laughter
I read the other day in a quotation from the letters of Lord Chesterfield （I trust and hope it was from the letters）a phrase about laughter which stuck in my memory and which，therefore，I cannot give you word for word，for the memory transforms all things；and that is its proper province，seeing that Memory is the creator of legend and the maker of happiness for men，causing as she does all things to pass into a golden mist.
Well，then，as I was saying，the phrase was somewhat to this effect，‘Audible laughter is unworthy of a gentleman，for the sound of it is unpleasant and the contortion of the features ridiculous.’ I will not deceive you. I did not read this in the book itself，I saw it in a newspaper. I will not boast. But，on the other hand，I will not be hypocritically humble and pretend that I have not read the Letters of Lord Chesterfield，for I have. I bought a second-hand copy at a bookstall in an English seaport town a year ago. I took it out to sea with me：there I read the letters in the bunk of my little boat，and very good I found them. Lord Chesterfield seems to have been one of those men who worked like a carpenter to a mark. He did not bother himself with general ideas like Vauvenargues，or that pasty-faced Marcus Aurelius. No，he said to himself，‘What ought I to do for this unfortunate son of mine in his peculiar position — what advice ought I to give？’ And he gave it （in my judgment）very well and directly.
Read him on clothes in particular；he is first-rate. I recommend every illegitimate son of a very rich and pompous father to read those letters. They are of value to us all；even to those of us who are of the base，legitimate middle classes.
Well，then，that is what Lord Chesterfield said about laughing. Perhaps he himself sometimes laughed；but he did not want his illegitimate son to laugh，and that was just as well. If I choose to laugh quite loudly or ‘audibly’ （as his Lordship would have said），both at Lord Chesterfield and his son，that is my business；but I warn you that I shall continue to do so，not only at Lord Chesterfield and his son，but at a good many other things：because，however much I may dislike the noise made by the laughter of others，I have no objection whatever to my own；when I perceive that this in its turn cause annoyance to third parties I remain indifferent. As for the contortion of the features，I answer，what were features made for？It is by their contortion in a greater or lesser degree that we convey emotion from soul to soul；a very noble part for any mere material things to play，and I hope the features are proud of it. Schoolboys are told that Hobbes said，‘Laughter is a sudden glory.’ （I hope he did — I'am not looking it up，for the weather has turned fine again，and I am in no mood for research.）Schoolboys being told this，think it is nonsense and means nothing. They are quite right. There is a better definition of laughter which I will now give you without looking up any book. I make it up entirely out of my own head for the advantage of my fellow-beings. Note it carefully；indeed，you will do well to write it down. Genuine laughter is the physical effect produced in the rational being by what suddenly strikes his immortal soul as being damned funny. This is a first-rate definition.
Observe its admirable qualities. First of all it is circular，as all definitions should be，for the word ‘funny’ is a begging of the question；and since all definitions must ultimately go back to postulates which cannot be proved or themselves defined，why not begin at the beginning and make your indefinable definition at once？I see no harm in it. After all，is it what the lawyers do when they say that ‘a reasonable rate of interest’ is deemed to be ‘a rate of interest not unreasonable under the circumstances.’ Or，again，‘reasonable care’ is the care which any reasonable man will take — and so on. But apart from its being circular this definition pleases me because its various parts are so beautifully adjusted.
Thus，consider the word ‘sudden，’ the only one in which I overlap with Hobbes. We do not laugh out loud at a joke which we have known all our lives，however good it is. We chuckle or snigger — we do not laugh. If an old gentleman slips getting out of a bus and falls down on the road，we laugh heartily. If another does the same thing five minutes later，you do not laugh so much. The third time you might even take the trouble to pick the old gentleman up and be kind to him. The fourth time the accident would seem tragic.
Again，you may read in the accounts of political speeches ‘loud laughter，’ but never （save in our humbugging daily papers）do you really get loud laughter from the politician's stage-army，unless the politician has made a more conspicuous fool of himself than usual. I have heard loud laughter at politicians in my time，but never at their jokes，which are always carefully prepared.
I remember hearing it once in the House of Commons itself — genuine，spontaneous，loud laughter. It was when a ‘Distinguished Statesman’ — for so he would have called himself — was attempting to pronounce the word ‘abominable.’ It was after dinner，and the atmosphere of the House of Commons is like nothing on earth. I do not mean that it is worse than anything on earth，although certainly as I remember it，it was worse than any other I had known. I mean that it has a secret of its own for reducing vitality. Well，anyhow，this great man tried that word ‘abominable’ from several points of the compass — now he tried ‘Abominable，’ then ‘Abdominable，’ ‘Anonbibubble，’ and anon ‘Andobimoddle.’ At the end he looked up，cleared his throat，and said in the most distinct resonant fashion，separating each syllable，‘Abom-in-able.’ But by that time he had forgotten what it was that he had called abominable. It was all very distressing，and I hope does not happen to-day. I am talking of the bad old times of my early middle age，when the Houses of Commons had something ridiculous and degraded about it.
But why all this insufficient rambling stuff about laughter，which I ought to have begun by compressing，as it deserves to be compressed？It is the greatest gift a man can have. Loud，happy，repeated and unrestrained laughter will never disturb a soul approaching damnation. It is not even to be found in the unhappy of this world. I except，of course，what is called forced laughter，such as the rich foolishly indulge in. As for laughter on the stage，I blame none for producing it. They have to earn their living. It is about as much like real laughter as the synthetic or imperial burgundies are like a stuff called Vosne；which，if you have not drunk it，why then you should.
I go back to my definition — laughter is provoked not only by what is sudden，but also in what is rational. I should very much like to hear the laughter of an angel，or even （if I were sufficiently armoured for that experience）the laughter of a demon. This I know，that animals do not laugh；a remark made some years before me by Rabelais，himself no mean laugher and provoker of laughter. Holy Writ，which is，on common admission，a second sort of Authority，and after its own fashion invaluable，says that dogs grin. They do. The same is true of foxes，for I have seen them do it. But no animal laughs，not even the hyena. I was in my twenty-fourth year when I went to the Zoo specially to hear whether the hyena could really laugh or not，and I spent a good deal of money which I could then ill afford，going again and again to Regent's Park until I got an opportunity. I found the hyena's effort was not a laugh at all，so that the old story about his ‘being confined behind iron bars，separated from his loving mate，deprived of the use of tobacco and the daily papers，yet laugh he does，and it is greatly to his credit，’ falls to the ground. The hyena's noise is a sort of violent objurgation or syncopated complaint，nothing so noble as a roar，but too proud to be a whine. Nor does the jackass laugh；it is but a proverb. The woodpecker comes nearest to it，and that is why he is called a yaffle；but he is not really laughing，he is only doing what all birds do，acting inanely without thinking，making the only noise he knows how to make，like a baby. Inanimate things，however，do laugh — waterfalls，skies under certain conditions，and，as we all know，the sea；of at any rate the Black Sea，which when you look at it westward from high enough up on the Caucasus is said to laugh ‘innumerably.’
I would continue upon this subject of laughter，which is indeed，inexhaustible （as in the species — mocking，sardonic，plaintive，imitative，sad，mean — offensive，childish，hearty，pleasant，friendly，gentlemanly，caddish and the rest of them），did I not discover by the number of the pages whereupon this immortal fragment is inscribed that I have reached my limit. Take it and be glad.
Belloc是译者特别爱读的作家之一。今此篇译竟，有两点感想想借此一说。一是他最好在文中引入闲文；二是他的幽默带有某种自然天成的特点。现在先说这前一点。什么叫引入闲文？引入闲文就是放着正文不说，而先去扯些别的，而于是便开始出题，离题，走题，跑题，于是便东拉西扯，旁出斜逸，忘了正途，行不由径（不是其旧义的径），或者说是出于好奇或逐新而去别谋新篇，另辟蹊径，其结果势将下笔千言，离题万里，大大违背了作文章程与修辞原理（比如coherence），但正是因为如此，才出现了精彩、热闹、生气、活跃、新鲜、趣味、兴致、读头，一句话，出现了艺术，尽管，严格地讲，这一切其本身就是违反艺术的规律的。可事情就是这么怪的：低级的违反是错误，高级的不遵守反而成了艺术！而这样下去，正文闲文，闲文正文，就越来越搅混到一起了，达到谁也分不清的地步，这里再重复一次，的确是好奇或逐新惹出了这么多的闲文，而它的趣味与艺术性也恰在于此。Belloc的文章正是这样。你再读一遍，看看那里面竟有多少闲文！这是一。其二是，他的幽默的那种自然天成的特点。这一点也与上面的闲文有关——正如闲文是在题材、主题、内容与写法上的某种偏离，幽默也是一种偏离，而在思想、观察、看法、认识等等方面呈露出来。纯粹的正规、传统、虔敬、平庸的思想是不出幽默的。幽默的出现，其本身就带着几分的欠正常与不正经。因而幽默不幽默，说到底，首先便是一个思维的性质与思想的方法的问题，是看事情时动不动脑筋的问题。所以，几乎是一条铁律，甚至金律，不动脑筋的人便没有幽默，而只有用脑的人才有，只有能独立思考，独立观察的人能用自己的眼睛去看事情的人才有，而一个其幽默的质量高，数量多，比例大，范围广，频度更经常的人，他的幽默便成了习惯性的，仿佛天然生成一般，而且到了这种程度，他就怎么写都幽默，只要写便幽默，并不想幽默和并不去追求幽默而仍然会幽默。而Belloc便正是这样的人和属于这种情形。他的幽默是轻松的和不太费力的——译者这么认为。