[68] Kant’s contribution to the theory of the ludicrous is contained in a single “Remark” appended to a discussion of the Fine Arts and Taste. See Dr. Bernard’s translation of his Kritik of Judgment, pp. 221–4.
[69] Article “On the Philosophy of Laughing,” by the Editor, The Monist, 1898, p. 255.
[70] I find after completing this paragraph that the point dealt with, namely, that surprise, in the sense of the effect of mental unpreparedness, is not an invariable antecedent of our response to the laughable, has been urged by a French writer, M. Courdaveaux. His critic, M. Dugas, does not seem to me to have effectually combated it. (See Dugas, op. cit., p. 63 ff.)
[71] See above, p. 6.
[72] Compare what was said above à propos of the child and the hat, p. 14.
[73] Cf. above, p. 114; also the article in The Monist already quoted.
[74] English Comic Writers, lect. i., “Wit and Humour”.
[75] “The Physiology of Laughter,” Essays, i., p. 206.
[76] According to Fouillée, contrast is the formal element, faultiness (“le défaut”), the material. See Dugas, op. cit., p. 85 ff.
[77] Hazlitt defines the ridiculous as the highest degree of the laughable, which is “a proper subject for satire,” loc. cit.