,
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?