Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:00:38.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Uses of Laughter in Greek Culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Stephen Halliwell
Stephen Halliwell
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The proposition that man is the only animal capable of laughter is at least as old as Aristotle (Parts of Animals 673a8). In a strictly physical sense, this is probably false; but it is undoubtedly true that as a psychologically expressive and socially potent means of communication, laughter is a distinctively human phenomenon. Any attempt to study sets of cultural attitudes towards laughter, or the particular types of personal conduct which these attitudes shape and influence, must certainly adopt a wider perspective than a narrowly physical definition of laughter will allow. Throughout this paper, which will attempt to establish part of the framework of such a cultural analysis for the Greek world of, broadly speaking, the archaic and classical periods, ‘laughter’ must be taken, by a convenient synecdoche, to encompass the many behavioural and affective patterns which are associated with, or which characteristically give scope for, uses of laughter in the literal sense of the word. My concern, then, is with a whole network of feelings, concepts and actions; and my argument will try to elucidate the practices within which laughter fulfils a recognizable function in Greek societies, as well as the dominant ideas and values which Greek thought brings to bear upon these practices. The results of the enquiry will, I believe, give us some reason to accept a rapprochement between the universalist assumption for which my epigraph from Johnson speaks (and which most grand theorists of laughter appear to have made) and the recognition of cultural specificity in laughter's uses for which many anthropologists would argue, as emphatically asserted, from a Marxizing point of view, in the quotation from Vladimir Propp.

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , December 1991 , pp. 279 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 An embryonic version of this article was given to the Triennial Meeting of the Greek and Roman Societies, held in Oxford, July 1988: I am grateful to all participants, even those who were (wrongly) disappointed that I did not make them laugh. A later version was read to the Classics Department of Boston University in April 1991.

2 For ethological evidence see Darwin, C., The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (London, 1872; rpr. Chicago, 1965), pp. 131–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, van Hooff, J. in McFarland, D. (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Animal Behaviour (Oxford, 1981), pp. 171–3Google Scholar: this suggests some interesting links with human laughter – the element of surprise; release of tension; mock-seriousness; social communication. On the claim that man is the only laughing animal (cited anciently also at Lucian, Vit. Auct. 26, as Peripatetic) cf. Douglas, M., ‘Do Dogs Laugh?’, in Implicit Meanings (London, 1975), pp. 83–9.Google Scholar

3 I have been unable to see either Woodbury, L., Quomodo risu ridiculoque Graeci usi sint (Harvard diss., 1944)Google Scholar, or Plebe, A., La nascita del comico (Bari, 1956)Google Scholar. Grant, M. A., The Ancient Rhetorical Theories of the Laughable (Wisconsin, 1924)Google Scholar, remains a useful survey of formal ancient discussions of the subject. An example of the study of laughter within a particular author (Herodotus) is Lateiner, D., ‘No Laughing Matter’, TAPA 107 (1977), 173–82.Google Scholar

4 For various illustrations of the notion of playful laughter see Theog. 1211 (n.b. tension with δεννξειν), Herod. 2.173–174.1 (Amasis, but Greek concepts), Ar. Frogs 375–6, 392, Isoc. 10.11, Xen. Cyr. 2.3.18, 5.2.18, Pl. Laws 816e10, Arist. EN 1108a13, 23, 1127b–8b, 1177a4, Rhet. 1371b33–1372a2, 1380b3, Antiphanes fr. 218.4 K.

5 Other direct exemplifications of the playful/consequential contrast are Xen. Cyr. 2.2.12–16, Pl. Ap. 24c (the oxymoron, σπουδι χαριεντξεται: for the latter term cf. n. 13 below), Arist. EN 1128a4–b4, EE 1234a4–23. Also pertinent is Aristotle's distinction between ψγος and τ γελοῖον at Poet. 1448b27–38, 1449a32–7: cf. Nagy, G., The Best of the Achaeans (Baltimore, 1979), ch. 14Google Scholar. On the coalescence of the two poles in the notion of σπουδαιολλοιον, see Giangrande, L., The Use of Spoudaiogeloion in Greek and Roman Literature (Mouton, 1972).Google Scholar

6 This term suggests the deliberate, habitual activity of a jester, parasite or the like: see my note on Pl. Rep. 10.606c7–9, and cf. below with n. 48.

7 The idea of laughter as a disfiguring emotion (cf. the legend of Hipponax's ugliness, Pliny, NH 36.12), incompatible with dignity and idealization, may explain its rarity in Greek visual art: see Kenner, H., Weinen und Lachen in der griechischen Kunst (Vienna, 1960), pp. 62–91Google Scholar. Different views of the ‘archaic smile’ in Greek art are given by Boardman, J., Greek Sculpture: the Archaic Period (London, 1978), p. 66Google Scholar, and Yalouris, N., ‘Das archaische “Lächeln” und die Geleontes’, Antike Kunst 29 (1986), 3–5.Google Scholar

8 Cf. Kirk, G. S., The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. 1: bks. 1–4 (Cambridge, 1985), on 1.599–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Three recent discussions of Thersites, on lines very different from mine, are: Thalmann, W. G., ‘Thersites: Comedy, Scapegoats, and Heroic Ideology in the Iliad’, TAPA 118 (1988), 1–28Google Scholar, Postlethwaite, N., ‘Thersites in the Iliad’, G & R 35 (1988), 123–36Google Scholar, Meltzer, G. S., ‘The Role of Comic Perspectives in Shaping Homer's Tragic Vision’, CW 83 (1990), 265–84Google Scholar. Some light remarks on Homeric laughter are made by Clarke, H. W., ‘The Humor of Homer’, CJ 64 (1969), 246–52Google Scholar. The range of Homeric γλως is distinguished by psychological subtlety: in addition to the references in nn. 11, 22, 25, 26, 40, 45, 50 below, see e.g. Il. 4.356 (appeasement), 6.404, 471, 484 (poignant affection), 514 (self-confidence), 7.212 (grim fierceness), 10.400, 565 (ironic sadism), 14.222–3 (satisfaction), 21.408, 434 (triumph), 23.784, 840 (?benign Schadenfreude); Od. 18.163 (?giddiness), 20.301–2 (‘sardonic’), 345ff. (mania), 22.371 (reassurance), 23.1, 59 (hysterical relief).

10 On the ‘pain’ caused by laughter see e.g. Pind. P. 2.53 (the ‘bite’ of defamation), Isoc. 1.31, Arist. EN 1128a7, 26, Alexis fr. 156.3 K; cf. the implications of Men. Epitr. fr. 10 G.–S.

11 E.g. Hom. Od. 14.463–6, [Hes.] Scut. 278–85, Ar. Birds 732, Frogs 318–36, 384–93, Pl. Euthyd. 277d–e (ritual mockery?), Men. Sam. 41–6. Demodocus' comic tale of Ares and Aphrodite (on which see Brown, C. G., ‘Ares, Aphrodite and the Laughter of the Gods’, Phoenix 43 [1989], 238–93)CrossRefGoogle Scholar is accompanied by dancers at Od. 8.256f. Very different conjunctions of dancing with laughter occur at e.g. Ar. Clouds 1078, Wasps 1305, and cf. n. 22 below.

12 Epicharmus fr. 148, Lys. 3.43, Dem. 54.19, Alexis fr. 156 K, Pl. Laws 934e–5d; cf. Ar. Clouds 1373–6, Arist. Metaph. 1023a30f. For a modern legal parallel see Feinberg, J., Offense to Others (New York, 1985), pp. 224ff.Google Scholar

13 Deprecatory uses of χρις occur at e.g. Eur. fr. 492 N2, Dem. 18.138; Eup. fr. 172 PCG (159 K) uses χαρεντα of parasites' humour (cf. Ar. fr. 171 PCG [166 K], Diodorus fr. 2.33 PCG/K). At Arist. EN 1128a15ff. χαρεις is apparently a synonym of εὐτρπελος.

14 Cf. Kenner (n. 7).

15 Cf. Plut. Lye. 12 on the teaching of Spartan boys παξειν…κα σκώπτειν ἄνευ βωμολοχας. This same passage refers to the need for boys to be trained to endure σκώμματα (cf. n. 28); cf. Ar. Clouds 992 (the young should blush when chaffed), Pl. Rep. 5.451a2 (sensitivity to laughter is παιδικν). This all reflects a larger educational concern with σωϕροσνη: cf. Aeschin. 1.7–11.

16 See Nagy (n. 5), ch. 13, §3 n. 3. But Ar. Frogs 358 seems to recover a little of this original sense; cf. n. 41 below.

17 Ar. Clouds 537; cf. Eup. fr. 261 (244 K) and Pl. Laws 2.658d2: for a different view of this context see Arist. Pol. 1336b20–1.

18 Rep. 8.563a.

19 The Sausage-seller is addressed as νεανικώτατε at 611 (the point could, of course, be clear from his mask); about the chorus there is no doubt (esp. 556, 731): the Knights' responses to the contest of abuse are regularly (if in a stylized manner) reminiscent of a jeering, encouraging crowd of onlookers at a slanging match: see e.g. 460, 616ff., 683ff., 756ff., 836ff., 941).

20 Rep. 10.607c7; n.b. the ref. to βωμολοχα in the same context.

21 [Dem.] 60.26 on νειδος and βλασϕημα in democratic cities is especially relevant here; cf. e.g. the fear of shaming taunts at Horn. Il. 3.242.

22 See e.g. Hom. Il. 4.176–81 (the Trojans imagined dancing and mocking on Menelaus' tomb), Soph. Aj. 988–9, Eur. HF 731–3. The potency of such mockery is reflected in the traditional injunction against it: e.g. Hom. Od. 22.412, Archil, fr. 134 W, Chilon apud D. L. 1.70, Eur. El. 900–2.

23 E.g. Ant. 839, Aj. 79, 196–9, 367, 382, 958, OT 1422, Phil. 1125.

24 Aeschin. 2.181–2, Men. Epitr. fr. 10 Sandbach.

25 Eur. Bacch. 854–5, Ar. Kn. 319–21, Wasps 542, 1287, Frogs 1089ff. (with Pl. Rep. 10.613d7–8). Other refs. to public derision: Horn. Il. 23.784, 840, Archil, fr. 172 W, Semon. fr. 7.74 W, Ar. Kn. 319–20, Lys. 3.9?, Thphr. Char. 6.7; cf. Brown, op. cit. (n. 11).

26 Ar. Peace 1015ff. (cf. Ach. 854), Hyp. 2.2 (with n. 48 below), 3.12, Pl. Laws 935b; cf. the scene of νεῖκος, with cheering crowds, at Horn. Il. 18.497–503.

27 E.g. Soph. Aj. 196–9, 955–60, El. 794, Eur. El. 901–2, Ar. Ach. 479, 631, Wasps 1319–20, Xen. Cyr. 5.2.18, 8.1.33, Dem. 9.60, 19.46, 22.63, Aeschin. 2.181, Pl. Prt. 355c8, Arist. Top. 144a5–8, Rhel. 1379a29–30.

28 Thphr. Char. 6.2, where the text is, however, contentious; cf. ibid. 7.8 (a milder form), Men. fr. 614 (Kock), Arist. EN 1126a7–8. For the distinct ethic of being able to take a joke, see e.g. Pl. Rep. 451al–2, Aeschin. 1.126, Philemon fr. 23 K, Arist. Rhet. 1381a34–6, EE 1234a15–16.

29 σλγεια and ὔβρις: Lys. 24.15, Dem. 21.1, 31, 24.143. Other applications of the σελγ- group to lewd, vulgar or unseemly laughter: e.g. Eup. frr. 172.15 (159 K), 261 (244 K), Ar. Wasps 61 (νασελγ-), Dem. 2.19, Isaeus 3.13. On Ariston's preference for a charge of αἰκα rather than ὔβρις see MacDowell, D., The Law in Classical Athens (London, 1978), pp. 131–2.Google Scholar

30 Some such behaviour is presumably the sense of περικοκκξειν (or -ξειν?) at Ar. Kn. 697; cf. id. Thesm. 1059, with Taillardat, J., Les Images d'Aristophane2 (Paris, 1965), §§331–2.Google Scholar

31 Dem. 54.13–14. On the sexual connotations of the clubs' names see Griffith, J. G., ‘ΛHKΥΘION AΠΩΛEΣEN: A Postscript’, HSCP 74 (1970), 43–4Google Scholar [rpr. in Newiger, H.-J. (ed.), Aristophanes und die alte Komödie (Darmstadt, 1975), pp. 380–2].Google Scholar

32 Note Ariston's further attempt, at §23, to suggest that the behaviour of Conon and his sons threatens order and subordination within the family.

33 A brief account: MacDowell (n. 29), pp. 126–9. Some details are discussed in my forthcoming article, ‘Comic Satire and Freedom of Speech in Classical Athens’, JHS 111 (1991).Google Scholar

34 Arist. EN 1128a31–2 evidently refers to more than one city; the evidence for a Zaleucan law of slander in 7th cent. Locri is late: Stob. 44.19.

35 Pl. Laws 934d–936b, Arist. Pol. 1336b3–23 (cf. EN 1128a31–2).

36 ϕθνος: Pind. P. 11.28–9, Herod. 7.237.2–3, Lys. 3.9, Dem. 9.54, Pl. Phlb. 48a–50b; cf. Mader, M., Das Problem des Lachens und der Komödie bei Platon (Stuttgart, 1977), pp. 13–28, Nagy (n. 5), pp. 223–32Google Scholar. πιχαιρεκακα: Theog. 1041–2, Soph. Aj. 961, Lys. 3.9 (with ϕθονεῖν), Xen. Mem. 3.9.8, Arist. EN 1108b1–6, Rhet. 1386b34ff.

37 βασκανειν: LSJ s.v.; cf. t he link with ϕθνος and demagogic διαβολ at Ar. Kn. 103. βασκανειν obviously represents a link with belief in verbal magic: cf. e.g. Johnson, B., The Lost Art of Profanity (New York, 1948)Google Scholar, Elliott, R. C., The Power of Satire (Princeton, 1960).Google Scholar

38 Wasps 1320; cf. γροικα and λοιδορα at Arist. Rhet. 1418b26; γροικα as humourlessness, Arist. EE 1234a5–10, is distinct.

39 Orators and αἰσχρολογα: e.g. Lys. fr. 53 Thalheim, Dem. 2.19, 54.9, 17, Aeschin. 1.37–8, 45, 52, 55, 70, 76, Arist. Rhet. 1408a17‐18, Rhet. Alex. 1441b20–3. For the concept of ασχρολογα cf. Arist. Rhet. 1384b19–20, 1405b8 ff., with Soph. OT 1409, Isoc. 1.15; ps. Longin. Subl. 43.3 and 5 gives a clear statement of the link between actual and verbal ασχος.

40 Hom. Il. 20.251–5, Chilon apud D.L. 1.70, Ar. Kn. 1400, 1403, Wasps 496–9, 1388ff., Frogs 549ff., 857–8, Wealth 426–8, 43–-6, Pl. Rep. 395d6–7, Laws 935a1. The kind of evaluation involved here has been dubbed ‘charientic’ (cf. n. 13 above) by Glassen, P., ‘Charientic Judgments’, Philosophy 33 (1958), 138–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar, though I would not accept his sharp separation from moral and aesthetic categories.

41 Ar. Clouds 537–62, Peace 739–51, Wasps 57–66, Frogs 1–18; cf. Eup. frr. 172.15 (159 K), 261 (244 K). βωμολοχα is always pejorative, even in Aristophanes: e.g. Kn. 1358, Clouds 910 (where the sense is ‘nothing sacred’? cf. n. 15 above); cf. Isoc. 7.49, 15.284, Pl. Rep. 606c (with my note), Arist. EE 1234a5–10. γοραῖος and abuse: see esp. Ar. Kn. 218, 636–8, 1258, Thphr. Char. 6.2. Other disapproval of vulgar laughter: e.g. Eur. fr. 492 N2, Isoc. 1.15, Arist. EN 1128a2ff., Rhet. 1419b6–8.

42 Dem. 2.20; cf. Athen. 260a–c, 614e.

43 The lability of values and evaluative vocabulary in this area is itself an important symptom of tension: see Isoc. 15.284, Arist. EN 1128a15.

44 Heath, M., Political Comedy in Aristophanes (Hypomnemata 87, Göttingen, 1987), 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar, offers a somewhat different interpretation: I cannot agree that Socrates' reaction need be ‘extraordinary’; it need only have an agreeable aptness or well-turned wit to make it suitable for an anecdote.

45 Festivity and laughter: e.g. Ar. Ach. 241–79, Clouds 623, Peace 339–45, Birds 732, Frogs 375–6, Pl. Laws 657d, Arist. Rhet. 1380b3, Men. Sam. 38–46, Demetr. Eloc. 170. Laughter and symposia, kōmoi, drink, etc.: Hom. Il. 1.595ff. (see above), Od. 14.463–6, Theog. 309–11, Herod. 2.173–4, Eur. Alc. 804, Bacch. 376–86, Pl. Laws 637a–b, Alexis fr. 156, 1–3 K. For the dangers of laughter and drink cf. n. 50 below.

46 πομεεειν: Dem. 18.11, 124, Men. Perinth. fr. 9 Sandbach.

47 Waggons: Pl. Laws 1.637b, Dem. 18.122, Philemon fr. 43 K, Men. Perinth. fr. 9 Sandbach. Masks: Dem. 19.287, Thphr. Char. 6.3 (where we need a negative), both referring to κμοι.

48 Parasites/γελωτοποιο: Epicharmus fr. 35.3–4, Eup. fr. 172 (159 K), Xen. Symp. 1.11–16, Anaxandr. fr. 10 K, Athen. 614c–e (where, with 260b, we have a strange ?club of jesters: cf. Ar. Ach. 605, with Rennie's note). Cf. also Ar. Ach. 854–9, with my note at LCM 7 (1982), 153: I would now add that I take Hyp. 2.2 to b e suggesting a kind of perverted parasitism – mockery of the city in the agora, followed by dining in the prytaneum – against Democrates.

49 Hom. Hymn Hermes 55–6 cannot refer to ordinary abuse; the simile implies an element of spontaneous wit in a celebratory context: cf. West, M. L., Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus (Berlin, 1974), p. 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Allen, T. W., Halliday, W. R. and Sykes, E. E., The Homeric Hymns (Oxford, 1963)Google Scholar, ad loc., cite irrelevant passages from Pindar and Herodotus. But the spirit of such badinage could be perverted; this is what Homer gives us, I suggest, in the suitors' mockery of Telemachus at Od. 2.323–36. εἰασμς: e.g. Ar. Wasps 1308–13 (with MacDowell). Comic drama often draws on the character of stylized badinage (cf. Pl. Phdr. 236c): Clouds 908ff. is a striking instance, and much of the mutual abuse in Knights reflects the same point (see the amoebean features at e.g. 284–302, 367–81, 694–711).

50 Laughter, drink and unbridled behaviour, παροινα etc.: cf. Hom. Od. 14.463–6, Xen. Lac. 5.6, Ar. Wasps 1253–5, Ec. 142–3, Pl. Rep. 395e, Phdr. 240e, Dem. 2.19, 54.3–4, Hyp. 2.3.

5 Plut. Lyc. 12, 14, 17, 25.

52 Note the γδαστος βος of the Timon-like misanthrope in Phryn. Com. fr. 18 K.

53 See esp. Lys. 14.25, Isaeus 3.13–14, [Dem.] 59.33, Aeschin. 1.65, Pl. Rep. 500b3–4 (metaphor); cf. the image of War as a disruptive comast at Ar. Ach. 979–87.

54 Ar. Ach. 680, Wasps 567, 1287, Ec. 399–407, Thuc. 4.28.5, Pl. Euthph. 3c–e, Prt. 319c, Tht. 174c, Xen. Mem. 3.6.1, 3.7.7–8, Dem. 9.54, 19.23, 45–6, 54.13, 20, 60.26, Aeschin. 1.135, 175.

55 Lys. 24.18, Dem. 23.206; cf. Ar. Wasps 567.

56 Pl. Tht. 174c. Not all philosophers, of course, were as innocent as this suggests; indeed, the profession developed its own trade in abusive polemics: some consequences of this fact are discussed by Owen, G. E. L., ‘Philosophical Invective’, in Logic, Science and Dialectic (London, 1986), ch. 20.Google Scholar

57 For evidently, even self-consciously, comic elements of διαβολή see e.g. Andoc. 1.124, 131, Aeschin. 1.26, 33, Dem. 18.130 (Empousa), Hyp. 2.2, 7. A thorough enquiry into rhetorical diabolê, which I hope to undertake elsewhere, would need to discriminate carefully between different kinds and tones of abusiveness: for some pertinent distinctions cf. Feinberg (n. 12 above), ch. 14.

58 Healthy scepticism about the fertility-magic view is shown by Chandor, A. B., The Attic Festivals of Demeter (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1980), pp. 122–6Google Scholar, Henderson, J., The Maculate Muse (New Haven, 1975), pp. 13–18Google Scholar, Burkert, W., Greek Religion, Eng. tr. (Oxford, 1985), p. 105Google Scholar. Winkler, J. J., The Constraints of Desire (New York, 1990), ch. 7Google Scholar, explores ritual ribaldry within women-only festivals, arguing that it belongs to a distinctively female view of sex; but this would not account for ritual abuse between the sexes, as e.g. at Pellene (Paus. 7.27.9–10) or Anaphe (Apollod. Bibl. 1.9.26). The larger interpretation of ritual abuse obviously calls for discrimination between origins and developed (or debased) use. It is certainly possible to argue for a degree of secularization of the practice by the classical period in Athens: pertinent passages here, in various ways, are Ar. Ach. 247–79, Wasps 1361ff. (with Rusten, J., HSCP 81 [1977], 157–61)Google Scholar, the parodos of Frogs, and Arist. Rhet. 1336b16.

59 See Lys. fr. 53 Thalheim, Isoc. 8.14, Pl. Laws 934d–6b, Arist. Pol. 1336b3–23: I discuss these passages in the last part of the article cited in n. 33 above.