20
heir 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 Negative