even in the midst of its Trouble. Now, to touch a Paffion, is the fureft way to Delight; for nothing agitates like it. Agitation is the Health and Joy of the Soul, of which it is fo intirely fond, that even then, when we imagine we seek Repofe, we only feek Agitation. You know what a famous modern Critic has faid of Comedy.

Il faut que fes Acteurs badinent noblement,
Que fon Noeud bien forme fe denoue aisement :
Que l'Action marchant ou la Raifon la Guide,
Ne fe perde jamais dans une Scene vuide,
Que fon Stile humble & doux fe releve a propos,
Que fes difcours par tout fertiles en bons mots,
Soient pleins de Passions finement maniés,
Et les Scenes toujours l'une a l'autre liés.

I leave you to make the Application to Johnson→→→→ whatever I have faid myself of his Comedies, I fubmit to your better Judgment. For you, who after Mr. Wycherley, are incomparably the best Writer of it living, ought to be allowed to be the beft Judge too.

LETTER

I am Yours, &c.

LXXXVIII.

Congreve to Dennis, on Humour.

Dear Sir, γου YOU write to me, that you have entertained yourfelf two or three Days with reading feveral Comedies of feveral Authors; and your Obfervation is, that there is more of Humour in our English Writers, than in any of the other Comic Poets, ancient or modern. You defire

to

to know my Opinion, and at the fame time my Thought of that which is generally call'd Humour in Comedy.

I agree with you, in an impartial Preference of our English Writers in that Particular. But if I tell you my Thoughts of Humour, I must at the fame time confefs, that what I take for true Humour, has not been fo often written even by them, as is generally believed: and fome who have valued themselves, and have been efteem'd by others for that kind of Writing, have seldom touch'd upon it. To make this appear to the World, would require a long and labour'd Difcourse, and fuch as I neither am able nor willing to undertake. But fuch little Remarks as may be contain❜d within the Compafs of a Letter, and fuch unpremeditated Thoughts as may be communicated between Friend and Friend, without incurring the Cenfure of the World, or fetting. up for a Dictator, you shall have from me, fince you have enjoin'd it.

To define Humour, perhaps, were as difficult as to define Wit; for, like that, it is of infinite Variety. To enumerate the feveral Humours of Men, were a Work as endless as to fum up their feveral Opinions. And in my Mind the Quot Homines tot Sententiæ might have been more properly interpreted of Humour; fince there are many Men of the fame Opinion in many things, who are yet quite different in Humours. But tho' we cannot certainly tell what Wit is, or what Humour is, yet we may go near to fhew fomething which is not Wit, or not Humour, and yet often mistaken for both. And fince I have men. tioned Wit and Humour together, let me make the first Diftinction between them, and ob

3

ferve

ferve to you, that Wit is often mistaken for Hu

mour.

I have obferved, that when a few Things have been wittily and pleasantly spoken by any Character in a Comedy, it has been very ufual for thofe, who make their Remarks on a Play, while it is acting, to fay, Such a Thing is very humorously Spoken; There is a great deal of Humour in that Part. Thus the Character of the Perfon speaking, may-be, furprisingly and pleasantly, is miftaken for a Character of Humour; which indeed is a Character of Wit; but there is a great difference between a Comedy, wherein there are many Things humorously, as they call it, which is pleasantly spoken, and one where there are feveral Characters of Humour, diftinguifh'd by the particular and different Humours, appropriated to the feveral Perfons represented, and which naturally arise from the different Conftitutions, Complexions, and Difpofitions of Men. The faying of humorous Things does not diftinguish Characters; for every Perfon in a Comedy may be allowed to speak them. From a witty Man they are expected, and even a Fool may be permitted to ftumble on them by Chance. Tho' I make a Difference betwixt Wit and Humour, yet I do not think that humorous Characters exclude Wit: no, but the Manner of Wit fhould be adapted to the Humour. As for Inftance, a Character of a fplenetic and peevish Humour, fhould have a fatyrical Wit; a jolly and fanguine Humour, fhould have a facetious Wit: the former should speak pofitively; the latter carelefly : for the former obferves and fhews Things as they are; the latter rather overlooks Nature, and fpeaks Things as he would have them; and his

Wit

Wit and Humour have both of them a less Allay of Judgment than the others.

As Wit, fo its Oppofite, Folly, is fometimes miftaken for Humour.

When a Poet brings a Character on the Stage, committing a thousand Abfurdities, and talking Impertinencies, roaring aloud, and laughing immoderately, on every, or rather upon no Occafion; this is a Character of Humour.

Is any thing more common, than to have a pretended Comedy ftuff'd with fuch Grotesque Figures and Farce-Fools? Things that either are not in Nature, or if they are, are Monsters, and Births of Mifchance; and confequently, as fuch, fhould be ftifled, and huddled out of the way, like Sooterkins, that Mankind may not be shock'd with an appearing Poffibility of the Degeneration of a God-like Species. For my Part, I am as willing to laugh as any body, and as eafily diverted with an Object truly ridiculous: but at the fame time, I can never care for feeing Things that force me to entertain low Thoughts of my Nature. I don't know how it is with others, but I confess freely to you, I could never look long upon a Monkey without very mortifying Reflections; tho' I never heard any thing to the contrary why that Creature is not originally of a diftinct Species. As I don't think Humour exclufive of Wit, neither do I think it inconfiftent with Folly; but I think the Follies fhould be only fuch as Mens Humours may incline them to, and not Follies intirely abstracted from both Humour and Na

ture.

Sometimes perfonal Defects are misrepresented for Humours.

VOL. II.

H

I mean,

I mean, fometimes Characters are barbaroufly exposed on the Stage, ridiculing natural Defor mities, cafual Defects in the Senfes, and Infirmities of Age. Sure the Poet muft both be very ill-natur'd himself, and think his Audience fo, when he propofes, by fhewing a Man deform'd, or deaf, or blind, to give them an agreeable Entertainment; and hopes to raife their Mirth by what is truly an Object of Compaffion. But much need not be faid upon this Head to any body, especially to you, who in one of your Letters to me concerning Mr. Johnson's Fox, have juftly excepted againft this immoral Part of Ridicule in Corbaccio's Character; and there I muft agree with you to blame him, whom otherwife I cannot enough admire, for his great Mastery in true Humour in Comedy.

External Habit of Body is often mistaken for Humour.

By external Habit, I do not mean the ridiculous Drefs or Cloathing of a Character, tho' that goes a good way in fome received Characters; (but undoubtedly a Man's Humour may incline him to dress differently from other People) but I mean a Singularity of Manners, Speech and Behaviour, peculiar to all, or most of the fame Country, Trade, Profeffion or Education. I cannot think that a Humour, which is only a Habit, or Difpofition contracted by Ufe or Cuftom; for by a Difufe or Compliance with other Cuftoms, it may be worn off, or diverfified.

Affectation is generally mistaken for Humour. Thefe are indeed so much alike, that, at a diftance, they may be miftaken one for the other: For what is Humour in one, may be Affectation

in