An Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit, Humour, Railery, Satire, and Ridicule | Page 8

becomes trite, and not
accompanied with Surprize, the Lustre will be much faded;--But where
the Agreement is forced and strained, Novelty and Surprize are
absolutely necessary to usher it in; An unexpected Assemblage of this
Sort, striking our Fancy, and being gaily admitted at first to be WIT;
which upon frequent Repetition, the Judgment will have examined, and
rise up against it wherever it appears;--So that in short, in Instances
where the Agreement is strained and defective, which indeed are
abundantly the most general, Surprize is a necessary Passport to WIT;
but Surprize is not necessary to WIT, where the Agreement between the
two Subjects is natural and _splendid_; though in these Instances it
greatly heightens the Brillancy.
The subsequent Remark of Mr. Addison, _That the Poet, after saying
his Mistress's Bosom is as white as Snow, should add, with a Sigh, that
it is as cold too, in order that it may grow to_ WIT, is I fear, very
incorrect. For as to the Sigh, it avails not a Rush; and this Addition will
be found to be only a new Stroke of WIT, equally trite, and less perfect,
and natural, than the former Comparison.
It may also be observed, That Mr. Addison has omitted the Elucidation
of the original Subject, which is the grand Excellence of WIT. Nor has
he prescribed any Limits to the Subjects, which are to be arranged
together; without which the Result will be frequently the SUBLIME or
BURLESQUE; In which, it is true, WIT often appears, but taking their
whole Compositions together, they are different Substances, and
usually ranked in different Classes.
All that Mr. Congreve has delivered upon WIT, as far as I know,
appears in his Essay upon HUMOUR, annexed to this Treatise. He
there says, To define HUMOUR, perhaps, were as difficult, as to define
WIT; for, like that, it is of infinite Variety. --Again, he afterwards adds,
But though we cannot certainly tell what WIT is, or what HUMOUR is,
yet we may go near to shew something, which is not WIT, or not
HUMOUR, and yet often mistaken for both. --In this Essay, wherein he
particularly considers HUMOUR, and the Difference between this, and
WIT, he may be expected to have delivered his best Sentiments upon

both: But these Words, which I have quoted, seem to be as important
and precise, as any which he has offered upon the Subject of WIT. As
such, I present them, without any Remarks, to my Reader, who, if he
only goes near to be edified by them, will discover a great Share of
Sagacity.
The Sentiments of these eminent Writers upon WIT, having thus been
exhibited, I come next to the Subject of HUMOUR. This has been
defined by some, in the following Manner, with great _Perspicuity._
--HUMOUR is the genuine WIT of Comedies,--which has afforded vast
Satisfaction to many Connoissures in the _Belles Lettres_; especially
as WIT has been supposed to be incapable of any _Definition._
This Subject has also been particularly considered by the Spectatator
Nº. 35. inserted at the End of the following Essay. Mr. Addison therein
gravely remarks, that It is indeed much easier to describe what is not
HUMOUR, than what it is; which, I humbly apprehend, is no very
important Piece of Information.--He adds, And very difficult to define
it otherwise, than as Cowly has done WIT, by Negatives. This Notion
of defining a Subject by Negatives, is a favourite Crotchet, and may
perhaps be assumed upon other Occasions by future Writers: I hope
therefore I shall be pardoned, if I offer a proper Explanation of so good
a _Conceit_;--To declare then, That a Subject is only to be DEFINED
by NEGATIVES, is to cloath it in a respectable Dress of Darkness.
And about as much as to say, That it is a Knight of _tenebrose Virtues_;
or a serene Prince, of the Blood of Occult Qualities.
Mr. Addison proceeds, Were I to give my own Notions of HUMOUR, I
should deliver them after _Plato's_ Manner, in a Kind of Allegory; and
by supposing HUMOUR to be a Person, deduce to him, all his
Qualifications, according to the following Genealogy: TRUTH was the
Founder of the Family, and the Father of GOOD SENSE; GOOD
SENSE was the Father of WIT, who married a Lady of a collateral Line
called MIRTH, by whom he had Issue HUMOUR. --It is very
unfortunate for this Allegorical Description, that there is not one Word
of it just: For TRUTH, GOOD SENSE, WIT, and MIRTH, represented
to be the immediate Ancestors of HUMOUR; whereas HUMOUR is

derived from the Foibles, and whimsical Oddities of Persons in real
Life, which flow rather from their Inconsistencies, and Weakness, than
from TRUTH and GOOD SENSE; Nor is WIT any Ancestor of
HUMOUR, but of a