Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 12.djvu/404

390 CEITICAL NOTICES: and the attempts to add on other determinations of justice, bene- ficence and what not, apart from a reconstruction of the idea of self, only heap contradiction on contradiction. In Mr. Sidgwick's criticism of Martineau (of whose writings I know very little) we seem to get a crucial instance of that separa- tion between motive and consequence which I ventured to refer to above as fatal to ethical theory. Martineau, as is well known, ranked motives according to a scale ; Sidgwick holds that inten tions directed to outward effects, and not motives as distinguished from intentions, are primarily of consequence in the moral judgment (p. 353). Roughly speaking, Sidgwick's view seems much the better, for motive is to intention as part to whole, and it is much easier to suppose a "good " motive with a "bad" intention, which constantly occurs from ignorance, than a " bad " motive with a "good," i.e. enlightened, intention. Still as the latter is possible, e.g., when the selfish part of the good intention is the motive and the rest is mere consequence, we see that neither view is satis- factory. What we would judge, if we could know it, would be the whole foreseen consequences of action, on the one hand, and, on the other, the whole state of mind in acting, according to what, in them, it wills or only accepts or even is averse to. I should like once more in concluding to recognise the excellence of the Analytical Summary ; the only fear is that it may prove too tempting to students. BERNARD BOSANQUET. An Essay on Laughter, its Forms, its Causes, its Development and its Value. By JAMES SULLY, M.A., LL.D. London : Long- mans, Green & Co., 1902. Pp. xvi., 441. PROF. SULLY has added a substantial contribution to English psy- chological literature in his recent entertaining volume on Laughter. This latter quality is by no means a universal attribute of the numerous works in existence dealing with some or other aspect of the subject. In the minds of many philosophers an exceptionally serious not to say ascetic temper seems to be an essential requisite for the scientific treatment of this topic. Even Schopenhauer, a thinker by no means devoid of humour, originally, as Prof. Sully reminds us (p. 6), deemed it " superfluous " to illustrate his theory by examples, and when later he took compassion on the "intellectual sluggishness" of his readers his first exhilarating illustration is " the amusing look of the angle formed by the meet- ing of the tangent and the curve of a circle " ! Fortunately for us, Dr. Sully has adopted a different view of the obligations of the scientific psychologist and betrays no timidity lest his reputation as scientist or metaphysician may be compromised by his showing too much indulgence for the human nature which clings even to the student of psychology.