awaken them. We cannot trace any
common elements in sugar and scent, or in leaves and emeralds, by which
to define sweetness and viridity; but we think we can discern some in
the ludicrous. The mere grouping of certain things under one head seems
to show that mankind notices some similarity between them. But
definition requires more than this; attributes must be observed, and
such as are common to all the instances, and where it has been attempted
there has been a conviction that such would be found, for without them
it would be impossible. When this belief is entertained, a definition is
practicable, regarding it not as a perfect or final, but as a possible
and approximate limitation. To define accurately, we should summon
before us every real circumstance which does, or imaginary one which
could, awaken the feeling, and every real and imaginary circumstance
which, though very similar, has not this effect. The greater the variety
of these instances which have the power, the fewer are the qualities
which appear to possess it; and the greater the variety of instances
which have it not, the greater the number of the qualities we attribute
to it.

It follows that the more numerous are the particulars to be considered,
the more difficult it is to form a definition, and this may have led
some to say that the ludicrous, which covers such a vast and varied
field, lies entirely beyond it. We might think that we could add and
subtract attributes until words and faculties failed us, until, in the
one direction, we were reduced to a single point, in fact, to the
ludicrous itself--while in the other we are lost in a boundless expanse.
To be satisfied with our definition, we must form a narrower estimate of
the number of instances, and a higher one of our powers of
discrimination.

But there is an alternative--although amusing objects and circumstances
are almost innumerable, as we may have gathered from the last chapter,
we may claim a license, frequently allowed in other cases, of drawing
conclusions from a considerable number of promiscuous examples, and
regarding them as a fair sample of the whole. Such a view has no doubt
been taken by many able men, who have attempted to define the ludicrous.
An eminent German philosopher even said that he did not despair of
discovering its real essence.

It must be admitted that we have no actual proof that the provocatives
of the ludicrous are innumerable or utterly heterogeneous, nor an