It has been too readilj- inferred from the com- parative absence in NT of allusions to mirth, that Jesus was characterized bj' a certain sobrietj- of demeanour which precludes us from thinking of Him as ever laughing or even smiling, and that Christianity from the first discouraged anything in the form of laughter-provoking mirth. Thus the statements — ' AN e are never told that (Jesus) laughed, while we are once told that He wept ' (Farrar, Life of Christ, p. 242); 'we never read that Jesus laughed, and but once that He rejoiced in spirit ' (Jer. Taylor), and similar statements are based on nothing more than a dim and untrust- worthy tradition. t and convey an impression whicli is far from being warranted by the general tenor of the Gospel narrative. The common use of the title ' Man of Sorrows,' dictated no doubt by the deepest motives, and the conventional jiortraits of Christ, showing Him always pensive and often sorrowful, have been responsilile for fostering the thought of a Christ who was constantly grave, if not sad. A writer like Renan goes to the opposite extreme ; but there is at least as much supjiort for his representation of a teacher whose ' sweet gaiety- constantly found expression in lively reflexions and kindly pleasantries." :t What evidence there is, indeed, is on the whole against the traditional view. Jesus delinitelj' dissociated Himself from the austerer school of His time (Lk o^**"-, Mt 9'*, Mk 2'**) ; He made it a habit to enter convivial assemblies, and was a guest at feasts where laughter, jest, and song were a i)art of the order of the day;§ He watcheil, if He did net join in. the merry games of children (Lk 7"-). and loved their company. He chose, as an analogy for the joy of God over a redeemed soul, the exuberant nierry-
* See Trench, Si/noiii/m.", s. r. ; and cf. ' the pleasantries of fools' (xxiiris uui^t), Sir 20J3.
t The alleged Ep. of P. Lentulus, Procons. of Judaea, to the Roman Senate.
* Vie (ie Jes^i^. 1S79, p. 196.
§ Mersheim. describing marriage-feasts, says, ' Xot a few instances of riotous merriment and even dubious jokes on the jjart of the greatest Rabbis are mentioned' (Life and Times oj Jesus the Messiah, i. p. 35.=i).
10
LAUGHTER
LAUGHTER
making (Lk lo-^* ^') of a father to whom his son was restored,* and in bidding His disciples rejoice in their very tribulations, uses a word which suggests vehement demonstrations of joy (Lk 6-^). There is nothing in the Gospels to encourage the supposition that He frowned upon innocent mirth or checked its exhibition in His followers. On the contrary, on one occasion at least, He declined to interfere with a spontaneous outburst of ex- hilaration on their part (Lk 19^'). He bade them, even when they fasted, not be of a sad counten- ance (Mt Q^*^), and His chief concern was not so much to regulate the manner of their joy as to purify its motive (Lk 10'^").
Against the a priori view that Jesus never laughed, a view which is based upon a misdirected reverence and a one-sided conception of His nature, has to be set the consideration that such a view tends to dehumanize the ' Son of Man.' The faculty for laughter, as recent psychologists have shown, is eminently human, and its absence is a defect, t There may be saintly men to whom anything like boisterous hilarity is impossible, but he whose face is never lit with a smile, and whose voice never has the infectious ring of joy, is lacking in full- orbed humanity (cf. Carlyle, Sartor, ad init.). If Jesus showed the natural emotions of sorrow, there is every reason to suppose that He showed those of joy.
There is as little support for the view that the NT encourages a religion in which laughter finds no legitimate place. The first disciples of Jesus, like those of St. Francis, who became known as joculatores Domini, appear to have shown a vivacity and cheerfulness in complete contrast to the rigid and frigid demeanour engendered by Pharisaism ; and this attitude was encouraged by their Master, who did not expect ' the sons of the bride-chamber ' to mourn so long as the ' bride- groom ' was with them (Mt 9^^, cf. lu^- '^).
But there is more to be said. Nearly all the world's greatest teachers have employed laughter, in one or other of its subtler forms, as a means of gaining a hearing for the truth they had to deliver. Was Jesus an exception to this rule? Is there any real reason for refusing to apply to His case the saying, Ilidentem dicere verum quid vetat? Can it be said that He never used the Socratic method of proving the reasonableness of His teaching by showing the incongruous and even ridiculous position in which those who rejected it involved tliemselves? It has been very generally assumed that such a method was beneath the dignity, or foreign to the nature of the Son of God. Thus it is said, ' He brout^ht peace wher- ever He came, but He never awakened mirth . . . The inquiry whether Jesus had the sense of humour is not simply trivial and irreverent ; it betrays a fundamental misconception of that holy life of redeeming love.' J The question, however, cannot be so easily disposed of. In the Gospels there are sayings of Jesus which a rational exegesis finds it almost impossible to explain apart from the assumption that they show a vein of humour. Indeed, the writer jiist quoted admits that Jesus ' deigned to make use of the quaint and often humorous maxims so dear to the common folk.' It is allowed by writers of the most orthodox scliool that irony and satire Avere used by Jesus upon occasion ; if He saw fit to employ these sterner weapons, the gentler one of humour would not be beneath Him. When Jesus says to the Jews, 'Many good works have I showed you