man, generally, as a curious study, as remarkable for not exercising the
intellect with which he was endowed--not so much from censurable causes
as from some obliquity in mental vision. Not that he regarded him as
unaccountable--a fool in the ordinary acceptation of the word, is always
a responsible being, and not synonymous with an idiot.

The humour of this laughing sage, grounded upon deep philosophy, was so
little understood in his day that none were able to join in his
merriment, nor did he expect that they should be; if he was humorous to
himself, he was not so, and did not aim at being so, to others. On the
contrary, he was thought to be mad, and Hippocrates was directed to
inquire into his disorder, but the learned physician returned answer
that not he, but his opponents were deranged. Whether this story be a
fabrication or not, we may regard it as a testimony that wise men saw
much truth in his philosophy. Montaigne, in his Essay on Democritus and
Heraclitus, gives his preference to the former, "Because," he observes,
"men are more to be laughed at than hated," showing that he regarded him
as imputing folly to men rather than vice.

Even Socrates, whom we are accustomed to regard as the most earnest of
philosophers was by no means a melancholy man. Fully aware of the
influence exercised by humour, he often put his teachings into an
indirect form, and he seems to have first thus generally attracted
attention. He introduced what is called irony[10]--the using expressions
which literally mean exactly the opposite to what is intended. A man may
be either praised or blamed in this way, but Socrates' intention was
always sarcastic. He put questions to men, as if merely desiring some
information they could easily give him, while he knew that his inquiries
could not be answered, without overthrowing the theories of those he
addressed. Thus, he gave instruction whilst he seemed to solicit it. In