If, following the suggestion of Dr. Johnson ( Rambler no . 125), we confine ourselves to purpose and ignore the more accidental feature of means, we should have no difficulty in arriving at an acceptable definition off. Its object is to provoke the spectator to laughter, not the reflective kind which comedy (q.v.) is intended to elicit but the uncomplicated response of simple enjoyment. Its means are often shared by other comic forms such as burlesque (q.v.), thus giving rise to frequent confusion among them. Once purpose is established, these means are not hard to visualize. F. exploits the surprise of sudden appearance or disclosure, the mechanism suggested by excessively physical action, repetition, gross exaggeration of character, frequent sexual byplay, and so on. Since it does not share with higher comedy the responsibility of commentary on social conduct, it may pursue its laughter into a world of fantasy where the unpredictable, even the impossible, is commonplace.
The origins of f. are hidden in the mists of prehistory, since the propensity to horseplay seems as natural to humanity as the trait of laughter, which is sometimes alleged to separate us from the other animals. The presence of f. in Aristophanes and the Roman comic writers and its popularity in the mimes and early Atellan fs. of the Romans attests to its early appeal. Something of the crude horseplay common to f. and such kindred forms as burlesque, mime (q.v.), and satyr play may be observed in surviving vase paintings and statues. The first plays of record to bear the name were Fr., for the name was devised in France from Lat. farcire “to stuff.” The 15th c. reveals Fr. f. at an early peak as it was developed esp. by the “joyous societies” who contrived numerous pieces from the stuff of folklore and fabliau (q.v.).
Usually rendered in lively octosyllabic couplets, these medieval Fr. fs. exploited themes of commercial trickery and sexual infidelity to show a life, both coarse and vibrant, where conventions—particularly the conventional respect for women and the clergy—were flouted. Two examples of many may be cited: Le Meunier et le gentilhomme (ca. 1550), which treats a folk motif traceable as far back as the 7th c. and appearing on four continents, and Maître Pierre Pathelin (ca. 1465), most famous of all.
Subsequently, f. never quite regained in France the popularity it had attained in the Middle Ages, yet it enjoyed renewed popular esteem even under Fr. Classicism, when Molière as both actor and playwright helped restore it to theatrical recognition. It managed to survive the competition of both drame bourgeois in the 18th c. and mélodrame and romantic drama in the 19th, though perhaps no name greater than that of Labiche came to its support. Meanwhile Spain and Germany had their writers of f. In the case of Italy, the bulk of f. was supplied by the improvisations of the widely popular and influential commedia dell’arte troupes, which flourished from the 16th to the 18th c.
The first Eng. f. writer of note—there are f. episodes in the earlier mystery plays—is John Heywood (16th c), a somewhat isolated figure in that he chose to borrow from Fr. f. and also developed an independent genre. The common practice, following the triumph of Cl. models just as the professional Eng. theatre was beginning, was to mix farcical episodes in with more serious matter. In Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors , for example, or Merry Wives , in Jonson’s Silent Woman , even more in such popular anonymous plays as Mucedorus , we find f. scenes mingled with intrigue, romance, and the satirical portraiture of comedy of humors (q.v.). Only in the droll of the Commonwealth period was Eng. f. independent of other forms. With the establishment of the afterpiece at the beginning of the 18th c. and the consequent demand for short pieces in the Eng. repertory, f. came into its own as a distinct genre. For much of the next two centuries it thrived vigorously. As taste declined, f. took its place, with sentimental comedy and melodrama, as one of the staples of theatrical fare. Of the hundreds of fs. written in this period, few appeared worthy of preservation. Only in the 20th c., with Wilde and Pinero, did f. aspire to be literary, an aspiration usually fatal to a dramatic genre. Though it continued to have a place in the popular theatre of the 20th c., it no longer enjoys quite the vogue it did in the 17th and 18th cs. Even in the cinema, where with Chaplin and other producers of short pieces it had a renewal of life, the more traditional f. with human actors has been displaced by the animated cartoon and short segments for television such as The Three Stooges.
User Comments Add a comment…