Abstract
The radical London satirist William Hone was tried in 1817 on three separate charges of blasphemous libel. His three acquittals are generally attributed to the courtroom laughter he provoked, as well as to the careful distinction he drew between the secular “object” of his attacks (the government ministers) and the sacred “subject” in which he couched them (the Anglican liturgy). By its nature, however, laughter never hits its target without inflicting collateral damage. Late in life, Hone not only confessed his impiety but confronted its ontological implications: that laughter destabilizes the “subject” in a way not susceptible to adjudication.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
