An Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit, Humour, Railery, Satire, and Ridicule | Page 9

quite different _Family_; it being notorious that
much HUMOUR may be drawn from the Manners of Dutchmen, and of
the most formal and dull Persons, who are yet never guilty of WIT.
Again, MIRTH is not so properly the Parent of HUMOUR, as the
Offspring.--In short, this whole Genealogy is a nubilous Piece of
Conceit, instead of being any Elucidation of HUMOUR. It is a formal
Method of trifling, introduced under a deep Ostentation of Learning,
which deserves the severest Rebuke.--But I restrain my Pen,
recollecting the Visions of MIRZA, and heartily profess my high
Veneration for their admirable Author.
The Essay upon HUMOUR, at the End of this Treatise, written by Mr.
Congreve, is next to be considered. It appears, that at first he professes
his absolute Uncertainty in regard to this Subject; and says, "We cannot
certainly tell what WIT _is, or what_ HUMOUR is." But yet, through
his whole Piece, he neglects the Subject of HUMOUR in general, and
only discourses upon the HUMOUR, by which he means barely the
Disposition, of Persons: This may particularly appear from the
following Words.
A Man may change his Opinion, but I believe he will find it a
Difficulty to part with his HUMOUR; and there is nothing more
provoking than the being made sensible of that Difficulty. Sometimes
we shall meet with those, who perhaps indifferently enough, but at the
same time impertinently, will ask the Question, WHY ARE YOU NOT
MERRY? WHY ARE YOU NOT GAY, PLEASANT, AND
CHEARFUL? Then instead of answering, could I ask such a Person,
WHY ARE YOU NOT HANDSOME? WHY HAVE YOU NOT
BLACK EYES, AND A BETTER COMPLEXION? Nature abhors to
be forced.
The two famous Philosophers of Ephesus and Abdera, have their
different Sects at this Day. Some weep, and others laugh at one and the
same Thing.

I don't doubt but you have observed several Men laugh when they are
angry; others, who are silent; some that are loud; yet I cannot suppose
that it is the Passion of ANGER, which is in itself different, or more or
less in one than t'other, but that it is the HUMOUR of the Man that is
predominant, and urges him to express it in that Manner.
Demonstrations of PLEASURE, are as various: One Man has a
HUMOUR of retiring from all Company, when any thing has happened
to please him beyond Expectation; he hugs himself alone, and thinks it
an Addition to the Pleasure to keep it a Secret, &c.
All which, I apprehend, is no more than saying; That there are different
Dispositions in different Persons.
In another Place, he seems to understand by Humour, not only the
_Disposition,_ but the Tone of the Nerves, of a Person, thus,
"Suppose MOROSE to be a Man naturally splenetic, and melancholy;
is there any thing more offensive to one of such a DISPOSITION
(where he uses the Word instead of _Humour_) than Noise and
Clamour? Let any Man that has the Spleen (and there are enough in
England) be Judge. We see common Examples of this HUMOUR in
little every Day. 'Tis ten to one, but three Parts in four of the Company
you dine with, are discomposed, and started at the cutting of a Cork, or
scratching of a Plate with a Knife; it is a Proportion of the same
HUMOUR, that makes such, or any other Noise, offensive to the
Person that hears it; for there are others who will not be disturbed at all
by it.
At this Rate every Weakness of Nerves, or Particularity of
_Constitution,_ is HUMOUR.
It is true, he justly points out in another Place the different Sentiments,
which ought to be adapted to different Characters in Comedy,
according to their different Dispositions, or, as he phrases it,
_Humours_: As for Instance, he very rightly observes, That a Character
of a splenetic and peevish HUMOUR, Should have a satirical WIT. A
jolly and sanguine HUMOUR should have a facetious WIT. --But still
this is no Description of what is well felt, and known, by the general

Name of HUMOUR.
However, as what I have already quoted, may appear to be only his
looser Explanations, it will be necessary to deliver his more closed and
collected Sentiments upon this Subject. These he gives in the following
Words, I should be unwilling to venture, even in a bare Description of
Humour, much more to make a Definition of it; but now my Hand is in,
I will tell you what serves me instead of either. I take it to be, _A
singular and unavoidable Manner of doing or saying any thing, peculiar
and natural to one Man only, by which his Speech and Actions are
distinguished from those of other Men." --This Description is very little
applicable to HUMOUR, but