ch cases we
seem almost to acquire a sense, and, perhaps, for a similar reason we
speak of a sense of the ludicrous. We are also, perhaps, influenced by a
logical error--the ludicrous seems to us a simple feeling, and as every
sense is so, we conclude that all simple feelings are senses.

The ludicrous is not analogous to our bodily senses, in that it is not
affected in so constant and uniform a manner. The sky appears blue to
every man, unless he have some visual defect, but an absurd situation is
not "taken" by all. In the senses no ratiocination is required, whereas
the ludicrous does not come to us directly, but through judgment--a
moment, though brief and unnoticed, always elapses in which we grasp the
nature of the circumstances before us. If it be asserted that our
decision is in this case pronounced automatically, without any exercise
of reason, we must still admit that it comes from practice and
experience, and not naturally and immediately, like a sense. The
arguments taken from profit and expediency, which have led to a belief
in moral sense, would, of course, have no weight in the case of the
ludicrous.

CHAPTER XX.

Definition--Difficulties of forming one of Humour.

Some of the considerations towards the end of the last chapter may have
led us to conclude that our sense[20] of the ludicrous is not a variety
of emotions, but only one; and the possibility of our forming a
definition of it depends, not only upon its unity, but upon our being
able to trace some common attributes in the circumstances which awaken
it. But in one of the leading periodicals of the day, I lately read the
observation--made by a writer whose views should not be lightly
regarded--that "all the most profound philosophers have pronounced a
definition of humour to be hopelessly impracticable." I think that such
an important and fundamental statement as this may be suitably taken
into consideration in commencing our examination of the question. As a
matter of history, we shall find that it is erroneous, for several great
philosophers have given us definitions of the sense of the ludicrous,
and few have thought it indefinable. But those who took the former
course might be charged with wandering into the province of literature;
while the views of those who adopted the latter might be thought
incorrect with regard to definition, or unwarranted with regard to
humour. To suppose that a definition of humour would be of any great
va