ween Humour and the Ludicrous.

The ludicrous is in its character so elusive and protean, and the field
over which it extends is so vast, that few have ever undertaken the task
of examining it systematically. Many philosophers and literary men have
made passing observations upon it, but most writers are content to set
it down as one of those things which cannot be understood, and care not
to study and grapple with a subject which promises small results in
return for considerable toil. Moreover, the inquiry does not seem
sufficiently important to warrant the expenditure of much time upon it,
and there has always been a great tendency among learned men to
underrate the emotional feelings of our nature. Thus it comes to pass
that a much larger amount of our labour has been expended upon inquiring
into physical and intellectual constitution than upon the inner workings
of our passions and sentiments, for our knowledge of which, though
affecting our daily conduct, we are mostly indebted to the
representations of poets and novelists. Beattie well observes that
nothing is below the attention of a philosopher which the Author of
Nature has been pleased to establish. Investigations of this kind would
not be unrewarded, nor devoid of a certain amount of interest; and I
think that in the present subject we can, by perseverance, penetrate a
little distance into an almost untrodden and apparently barren region,
and if we cannot reach the source from whence the bright waters spring,
can at least obtain some more accurate information about the surrounding
country.

Notwithstanding all the obstructions and discouragements in the way of
this investigation a few great men have given it a certain amount of
attention. Aristotle informs us in his "Rhetoric" that he has dealt
fully with the subject in his Poetics, and although the treatise is
unfortunately lost, some annotations remain which show that it was of a
comprehensive character. Cicero and Quintilian in their instructions in
Oratory, made the study of humour a necessary part of the course, and
in modern days many ingenious definitions and descriptions of it are
found among the pages of general literature. Most philosophers have
touched the subject timidly and partially, unwilling to devote much time
to it, and have rather stated what they thought ought to be in
accordance with some pet theories of their own, than drawn deductions
from careful analysis. They generally only looked