knowledge of them. In the former, the creative mind is more marked, and,
a man though he laughs much, if he be dull in words is only considered
to have mirth, _i.e._, joyousness or a sense of the ludicrous, not
humour. The gift can only be brought prominently forward in speech or
writing, and thus humour comes to be often regarded as a kind of
ingredient or seasoning in a speech or book, if not actually synonymous
with certain sentences or expressions. Still we always confine the name
to human productions, as, for instance, gestures, sayings, writings,
pictures, and plays.

The recognition of the mental character of humour did not necessarily
imply any knowledge as to the authority, instability, or constancy of
the feeling--that could only be acquired by philosophical investigation.
Nor have we yet so far ascertained its character as to be able to form
humorous fancies upon any fixed principle. We are guided by some sense
of the ludicrous which we cannot analyse; or we introduce into new and
similar cases relationships in things which we have observed to be
amusing. Some forms are so general that they will produce a vast number
of jests, and we thus seem to have some insight into the influences that
awaken humour, but we see only approximately and superficially, and can
merely produce good results occasionally--rather by an accident than
with any certainty.




INTRODUCTION.

PART I.