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 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."