As mentioned above, the classifications suggested by the majority of aesthetic and poetic theories are unacceptable and we need to look for new and more reliable ways of systematization. I will begin with the fact that the comic and laughter are not abstract elements. It is people who laugh, and the comic cannot be studied outside the psychology of laughter and the perception of the comic. Therefore the question of the different types of laughter will be raised first. One may ask: Are certain forms of the comic linked to certain kinds of laughter? We have to decide and note how many types of laughter can be determined altogether, and which ones are more important. This has already been addressed in Russian literature, and the most complete and noteworthy attempt to list the kinds of laughter was made neither by philosophers nor by psychologists but by the theorist and historian of Russian film comedy, Yurenev,1 who wrote that ‘laughter can be joyful and sad, kind and irate, clever and silly, proud and warm-hearted, indulgent and fawning, contemptuous and scared, offensive and encouraging, impudent and shy, friendly and hostile, ironic and ingenuous, sarcastic and naive, tender and rough, significant and groundless, triumphant and justificatory, shameless and confused. The list can be extended: cheerful, mournful, nervous, hysterical, humiliating, physiological, bestial. There can even be melancholy laughter!’ (1964b, 8).
This list, established through observation of life rather than abstract reflection, is remarkable for its detail, brilliance, and vitality. Later Yure-nev develops his observations and shows that different types of laughter are associated with the differences that exist in human relations, which are one of the main subjects of comedy. It should be emphasized that the author begins his research into Russian comic films by focusing on the types of laughter. This proved to be important for him and it is equally important for me. For Yurenev, the issue of the types of laughter is crucial because different types of laughter are inherent in different kinds of comic intrigues. It is imperative to find an answer to the question of whether or not certain kinds of laughter are linked to certain types of comic. Yurenev’s list is very detailed though it is not complete, as his nomenclature does not include the type of laughter that according to my data happens to be most important for understanding works of literature and art, namely, ridiculing laughter. He did in fact take this type of laughter into account later on; he simply did not include it in the list. Developing his idea that certain types of laughter correspond to certain kinds of human relations, he wrote: ‘Human relations that occur during laughter and in connection with laughter vary: people ridicule, deride, scoff’ (8). Thus ridicule is placed first, which is very important.
Long ago, Lessing2 in his HamburgischeDramaturgie (Hamburg Dramaturgy) said that ‘laughter and ridicule are not far removed from each other’ (1954, 149). I will begin by studying ridicule, but will neither supplement nor classify Yurenev’s list, and will initially select ridiculing laughter from all other possible types. As we will see, this is the only type of laughter that is strongly connected with the sphere of the comic. It suffices to mention, for example, that the vast domain of satire is based on ridiculing laughter. It is also this type of laughter that we encounter most often in real life. When we examine Repin’s3 painting that represents Zaporozhian Cossacks4 composing a letter to the Turkish sultan, we see a great variety of shades of laughter, from loud rolling laughter to mischievous giggling and a delicate smile that is barely evident. Even so, it is obvious that all the Cossacks depicted by Repin are laughing in the same way, namely, with ridiculing laughter. After noting the first and main type of laughter, we must study it in greater detail. According to which feature or features should the subcategories be classified? The materials show that the most expedient technique is to arrange them in terms of what causes laughter. To put it simply, one must determine what makes people laugh. What exactly do they find funny? In short, the material can be organized systematically according to the objects of ridicule.
It so happens that one can laugh at persons in nearly any situation, suffering being an exception already noted by Aristotle. A person’s appearance, his or her face, figure, or mannerisms, can turn out to be funny; his or her judgments in which a lack of wit is revealed may be comical. A person’s character, his or her moral life, aspirations, desires, and objectives delimit a special domain of ridicule. A person’s speech can also prove to be funny as a manifestation of qualities that were inconspicuous when he or she kept silent. In short, a person’s physical, intellectual, and moral life can become an object of laughter in real life.
We find the very same thing in literature: in any genre of humorous works, an author depicts a character in a way that emphasizes traits that are also subject to ridicule in real life. Sometimes it is enough just to show a person the way he or she is, to represent or portray that person; but sometimes it is not. What is funny should be examined, and the sources of it that are identical in both life and fiction should be studied. Sometimes the person himself or herself unintentionally reveals some funny aspects of his or her nature and actions; sometimes the ridiculer who acts in the very same way both in life and in fiction does so deliberately. Some special techniques show what is funny in a person’s appearance, ideas, or behaviour. To classify according to the objects of ridicule is to do so according to the artistic devices by which laughter is caused. A person’s figure, thoughts, and aspirations are ridiculed in different ways. Moreover, there are common devices for different objects of ridicule -parody, for example. Thus the devices of ridicule break down into more particular and more general ones. Russian scholars have already identified the need and possibility for this kind of classification, even though it has not actually been done: ‘It is quite evident that it is appropriate and necessary to classify the artistic devices used for the comic treatment of material taken from life’ (Borev5 1957, 317).