a writer in the yorkshire evening post is very angry indeed with my performances in this column. his precise terms of reproach are, "mr. g. k. chesterton is not a humourist: not even a cockney humourist." i do not mind his saying that i am not a humourist—in which (to tell the truth) i think he is quite right. but i do resent his saying that i am not a cockney. that envenomed arrow, i admit, went home. if a french writer said of me, "he is no metaphysician: not even an english metaphysician," i could swallow the insult to my metaphysics, but i should feel angry about the insult to my country. so i do not urge that i am a humourist; but i do insist that i am a cockney. if i were a humourist, i should certainly be a cockney humourist; if i were a saint, i should certainly be a cockney saint. i need not recite the splendid catalogue of cockney saints who have written their names on our noble old city churches. i need not trouble you with the long list of the cockney humourists who have discharged their bills (or failed to discharge them) in our noble old city taverns. we can weep together over the pathos of the poor yorkshireman, whose county has never produced some humour not intelligible to the rest of the world. and we can smile together when he says that somebody or other is "not even" a cockney humourist like samuel johnson or charles lamb. it is surely sufficiently obvious that all the best humour that exists in our language is cockney humour. chaucer was a cockney; he had his house close to the abbey. dickens was a cockney; he said he could not think without the london streets. the london taverns heard always the quaintest conversation, whether it was ben johnson's at the mermaid or sam johnson's at the cock. even in our own time it may be noted that the most vital and genuine humour is still written about london. of this type is the mild and humane irony which marks mr. pett ridge's studies of the small grey streets. of this type is the simple but smashing laughter of the best tales of mr. w. w. jacobs, telling of the smoke and sparkle of the thames. no; i concede that i am not a cockney humourist. no; i am not worthy to be. some time, after sad and strenuous after-lives; some time, after fierce and apocalyptic incarnations; in some strange world beyond the stars, i may become at last a cockney humourist. in that potential paradise i may walk among the cockney humourists, if not an equal, at least a companion. i may feel for a moment on my shoulder the hearty hand of dryden and thread the labyrinths of the sweet insanity of lamb. but that could only be if i were not only much cleverer, but much better than i am. before i reach that sphere i shall have left behind, perhaps, the sphere that is inhabited by angels, and even passed that which is appropriated exclusively to the use of yorkshiremen.
no; london is in this matter attacked upon its strongest ground. london is the largest of the bloated modern cities; london is the smokiest; london is the dirtiest; london is, if you will, the most sombre; london is, if you will, the most miserable. but london is certainly the most amusing and the most amused. you may prove that we have the most tragedy; the fact remains that we have the most comedy, that we have the most farce. we have at the very worst a splendid hypocrisy of humour. we conceal our sorrow behind a screaming derision. you speak of people who laugh through their tears; it is our boast that we only weep through our laughter. there remains always this great boast, perhaps the greatest boast that is possible to human nature. i mean the great boast that the most unhappy part of our population is also the most hilarious part. the poor can forget that social problem which we (the moderately rich) ought never to forget. blessed are the poor; for they alone have not the poor always with them. the honest poor can sometimes forget poverty. the honest rich can never forget it.
i believe firmly in the value of all vulgar notions, especially of vulgar jokes. when once you have got hold of a vulgar joke, you may be certain that you have got hold of a subtle and spiritual idea. the men who made the joke saw something deep which they could not express except by something silly and emphatic. they saw something delicate which they could only express by something indelicate. i remember that mr. max beerbohm (who has every merit except democracy) attempted to analyse the jokes at which the mob laughs. he divided them into three sections: jokes about bodily humiliation, jokes about things alien, such as foreigners, and jokes about bad cheese. mr. max beerbohm thought he understood the first two forms; but i am not sure that he did. in order to understand vulgar humour it is not enough to be humorous. one must also be vulgar, as i am. and in the first case it is surely obvious that it is not merely at the fact of something being hurt that we laugh (as i trust we do) when a prime minister sits down on his hat. if that were so we should laugh whenever we saw a funeral. we do not laugh at the mere fact of something falling down; there is nothing humorous about leaves falling or the sun going down. when our house falls down we do not laugh. all the birds of the air might drop around us in a perpetual shower like a hailstorm without arousing a smile. if you really ask yourself why we laugh at a man sitting down suddenly in the street you will discover that the reason is not only recondite, but ultimately religious. all the jokes about men sitting down on their hats are really theological jokes; they are concerned with the dual nature of man. they refer to the primary paradox that man is superior to all the things around him and yet is at their mercy.
quite equally subtle and spiritual is the idea at the back of laughing at foreigners. it concerns the almost torturing truth of a thing being like oneself and yet not like oneself. nobody laughs at what is entirely foreign; nobody laughs at a palm tree. but it is funny to see the familiar image of god disguised behind the black beard of a frenchman or the black face of a negro. there is nothing funny in the sounds that are wholly inhuman, the howling of wild beasts or of the wind. but if a man begins to talk like oneself, but all the syllables come out different, then if one is a man one feels inclined to laugh, though if one is a gentleman one resists the inclination.
mr. max beerbohm, i remember, professed to understand the first two forms of popular wit, but said that the third quite stumped him. he could not see why there should be anything funny about bad cheese. i can tell him at once. he has missed the idea because it is subtle and philosophical, and he was looking for something ignorant and foolish. bad cheese is funny because it is (like the foreigner or the man fallen on the pavement) the type of the transition or transgression across a great mystical boundary. bad cheese symbolises the change from the inorganic to the organic. bad cheese symbolises the startling prodigy of matter taking on vitality. it symbolises the origin of life itself. and it is only about such solemn matters as the origin of life that the democracy condescends to joke. thus, for instance, the democracy jokes about marriage, because marriage is a part of mankind. but the democracy would never deign to joke about free love, because free love is a piece of priggishness.
as a matter of fact, it will be generally found that the popular joke is not true to the letter, but is true to the spirit. the vulgar joke is generally in the oddest way the truth and yet not the fact. for instance, it is not in the least true that mothers-in-law are as a class oppressive and intolerable; most of them are both devoted and useful. all the mothers-in-law i have ever had were admirable. yet the legend of the comic papers is profoundly true. it draws attention to the fact that it is much harder to be a nice mother-in-law than to be nice in any other conceivable relation of life. the caricatures have drawn the worst mother-in-law a monster, by way of expressing the fact that the best mother-in-law is a problem. the same is true of the perpetual jokes in comic papers about shrewish wives and henpecked husbands. it is all a frantic exaggeration, but it is an exaggeration of a truth; whereas all the modern mouthings about oppressed women are the exaggerations of a falsehood. if you read even the best of the intellectuals of to-day you will find them saying that in the mass of the democracy the woman is the chattel of her lord, like his bath or his bed. but if you read the comic literature of the democracy you will find that the lord hides under the bed to escape from the wrath of his chattel. this is not the fact, but it is much nearer the truth. every man who is married knows quite well, not only that he does not regard his wife as a chattel, but that no man can conceivably ever have done so. the joke stands for an ultimate truth, and that is a subtle truth. it is one not very easy to state correctly. it can, perhaps, be most correctly stated by saying that, even if the man is the head of the house, he knows he is the figurehead.
but the vulgar comic papers are so subtle and true that they are even prophetic. if you really want to know what is going to happen to the future of our democracy, do not read the modern sociological prophecies, do not read even mr. wells's utopias for this purpose, though you should certainly read them if you are fond of good honesty and good english. if you want to know what will happen, study the pages of snaps or patchy bits as if they were the dark tablets graven with the oracles of the gods. for, mean and gross as they are, in all seriousness, they contain what is entirely absent from all utopias and all the sociological conjectures of our time: they contain some hint of the actual habits and manifest desires of the english people. if we are really to find out what the democracy will ultimately do with itself, we shall surely find it, not in the literature which studies the people, but in the literature which the people studies.
i can give two chance cases in which the common or cockney joke was a much better prophecy than the careful observations of the most cultured observer. when england was agitated, previous to the last general election, about the existence of chinese labour, there was a distinct difference between the tone of the politicians and the tone of the populace. the politicians who disapproved of chinese labour were most careful to explain that they did not in any sense disapprove of chinese. according to them, it was a pure question of legal propriety, of whether certain clauses in the contract of indenture were not inconsistent with our constitutional traditions: according to them, the case would have been the same if the people had been kaffirs or englishmen. it all sounded wonderfully enlightened and lucid; and in comparison the popular joke looked, of course, very poor. for the popular joke against the chinese labourers was simply that they were chinese; it was an objection to an alien type; the popular papers were full of gibes about pigtails and yellow faces. it seemed that the liberal politicians were raising an intellectual objection to a doubtful document of state; while it seemed that the radical populace were merely roaring with idiotic laughter at the sight of a chinaman's clothes. but the popular instinct was justified, for the vices revealed were chinese vices.
but there is another case more pleasant and more up to date. the popular papers always persisted in representing the new woman or the suffragette as an ugly woman, fat, in spectacles, with bulging clothes, and generally falling off a bicycle. as a matter of plain external fact, there was not a word of truth in this. the leaders of the movement of female emancipation are not at all ugly; most of them are extraordinarily good-looking. nor are they at all indifferent to art or decorative costume; many of them are alarmingly attached to these things. yet the popular instinct was right. for the popular instinct was that in this movement, rightly or wrongly, there was an element of indifference to female dignity, of a quite new willingness of women to be grotesque. these women did truly despise the pontifical quality of woman. and in our streets and around our parliament we have seen the stately woman of art and culture turn into the comic woman of comic bits. and whether we think the exhibition justifiable or not, the prophecy of the comic papers is justified: the healthy and vulgar masses were conscious of a hidden enemy to their traditions who has now come out into the daylight, that the scriptures might be fulfilled. for the two things that a healthy person hates most between heaven and hell are a woman who is not dignified and a man who is.
