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