And so the stage-made misunderstanding is nothing more than one particular instance, one means—­perhaps the most artificial—­of illustrating the reciprocal interference of series, but it is not the only one.  Instead of two contemporary series, you might take one series of events belonging to the past and another belonging to the present:  if the two series happen to coincide in our imagination, there will be no resulting cross-purposes, and yet the same comic effect will continue to take place.  Think of Bonivard, captive in the Castle of Chillon:  one series of facts.  Now picture to yourself Tartarin, travelling in Switzerland, arrested and imprisoned:  second series, independent of the former.  Now let Tartarin be manacled to Bonivard’s chain, thus making the two stories seem for a moment to coincide, and you will get a very amusing scene, one of the most amusing that Daudet’s imagination has pictured. [Tartarin sur les Alpes, by Daudet.] Numerous incidents of the mock-heroic style, if analysed, would reveal the same elements.  The transposition from the ancient to the modern—­always a laughable one—­draws its inspiration from the same idea.  Labiche has made use of this method in every shape and form.  Sometimes he begins by building up the series separately, and then delights in making them interfere with one another:  he takes an independent group—­a wedding-party, for instance—­and throws them into altogether unconnected surroundings, into which certain coincidences allow of their being foisted for the time being.  Sometimes he keeps one and the same set of characters right through the play, but contrives that certain of these characters have something to conceal—­have, in fact, a secret understanding on the point—­in short, play a smaller comedy within the principal one:  at one moment, one of the two comedies is on the point of upsetting the other; the next, everything comes right and the coincidence between the two series is restored.  Sometimes, even, he introduces into the actual series a purely immaterial series of events, an inconvenient past, for instance, that some one has an interest in concealing, but which is continually cropping up in the present, and on each occasion is successfully brought into line with situations with which it seemed destined to play havoc.  But in every case we find the two independent series, and also their partial coincidence.

We will not carry any further this analysis of the methods of light comedy.  Whether we find reciprocal interference of series, inversion, or repetition, we see that the objective is always the same—­to obtain what we have called a mechanisation of life.  You take a set of actions and relations and repeat it as it is, or turn it upside down, or transfer it bodily to another set with which it partially coincides—­all these being processes that consist in looking upon life as a repeating mechanism, with reversible action and interchangeable parts.  Actual life is comedy just so far as it produces,