[ 7^ 1 



As to that part of Hobbes's theory, which makes the triumph 

 arifing from comparifon a principal tfllcient caufe of the pleafure 

 attending on ridicule, I thinK we need only recur to our own 

 experience lor a confirmation of its truth. Why do not men 

 chufe to be laughed at ? certainly becaufe it indicates that they 

 are objeds of contempt. How happens it that a fportive word 

 is more feverely felt, and excites more lafting refentment, than 

 the keeneft reproaches ? Why do we hold it indecorous and pro- 

 fligate to laugh at our parents, benefadtors and feniors ? Why is 

 it held impious and profane to laugh at things divine and holy ? 

 Why do public fpeakers and controverfial writers endeavour to 

 turn the laugh againft their opponents ? W^hy is ridicule fo 

 powerful an engine of debate, even while it difclaims an appeal 

 to fober argument ? Surely becaufe the very effence of mirth is a 

 latent contempt, and there is a fort of general intuitive percep- 

 tion that ridicule degrades and vilifies its objedt. Hence it is, 

 that a perfon who laughs at his own foibles and defeds is 

 thought to fhow an extraordinary effort of good fenfe and good 

 humour, inafmuch as, by fo doing, he makes a painful facrifice 

 of felfifh feelings. We fee too, that many people can jeft freely 

 on their own infirmities, who will not bear the leaft degree of 

 raillery on that head from others ; undoubtedly this proceeds 

 from a feehng that ridicule implies contempt. When people 

 laugh at themfelves, the felf-humiliation is more than counter- 

 balanced by the felf-applaufe ; and, inflead of finking, they rife 

 in the opinion of the world, by a frank confefllon, which at 

 once fhows fortitude and good fenfe, and difarms envy by a 

 confefllon of weaknefs. The fad is, that people never do laugh 

 at themfelves except from fome political motive ^ either to 



acquire 



