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

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 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