at one phase of the
ludicrous, at one kind of humour, and had not a sufficient number of
examples before them--probably from the difficulty of recalling slight
turns of thought in widely scattered subjects. Add to this, that many of
them--constantly immersed in study--would have had some little
difficulty in deciding what did and did not deserve the name of humour.
Most of their definitions are far too wide, and often in supporting a
theory they make remarks which tend to refute it. The imperfect
treatment, which the subject had received, led Dugald Stewart to observe
that it was far from being exhausted.

The two principal publications which have appeared on humour, are
Floegel's "Geschichte der Komischen Litteratur" (1786), and Leon Dumont's
"Les Causes du Rire." The former is voluminous, but scarcely touches on
philosophy, without which such a work can have but little coherence.
The latter shows considerable psychological knowledge, but is written to
support a somewhat narrow and incomplete view. Mr. Wright's excellent
book on "The Grotesque in Literature and Art," is, as the name suggests,
principally concerned with broad humour, and does not so much trace its
source as the effects it has produced upon mankind. Mr. Cowden Clark's
contributions on the subject to the "Gentleman's Magazine," are mostly
interesting from their biographical notices.

To analyse and classify all the vagaries of the human imagination which
may be comprehended under the denomination of humour, is no easy task,
and as it is multiform we may stray into devious paths in pursuing it.
But vast and various as the subject seems to be, there cannot be much
doubt that there are some laws which govern it, and that it can be
brought approximately under certain heads. It seems to be as generally
admitted that there are different kinds of humour as that some
observations possess none at all. Moreover, when remarks of a certain
kind are made, especially such as show confusion or exaggeration, we
often seem to detect some conditions of humour, and by a little change
are able to make something, which has more or less the character of a
jest.

There is in this investigation a very formidable "Dweller on the
Threshold." We contend with great disadvantages in any attempts to
examine our mental constitution. When we turn the mind in upon itself,
and make it our object, the very act of earnest reflection obscures the
idea, or destroys the emotion we desire to