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 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
Flögel's "Geschichte der Komischen Litteratur" (1786), and Léon Dumont's