An Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit, Humour, Railery, Satire, and Ridicule (1744) — Context and Discussion

This was the man who at the age of thirty-three brought out _An Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit, Humour, Raillery, Satire, and Ridicule_. That it was ever widely read we have no evidence, but at least a number of men of wit and judgment found it interesting. Horace Walpole included it in a packet of "the only new books at all worth reading" sent to Horace Mann, but the fulsome dedication to the elder Walpole undoubtedly had something to do with this recommendation. More disinterested approval is shown in a letter printed in the _Daily Advertiser_ for 31 May 1744. Better than any modern critique the letter illustrates the contemporary reaction to the _Essay_.

Christ Church College, Oxford,

I have examin'd the _Essay_ you have sent me for _fixing the true Standards of Wit, Humour, &c._ and cannot perceive upon what pretence the Definitions, as you tell me, are censured for Obscurity, even by Gentlemen of Abilities, and such as in other Parts of the Work very frankly allow it's Merit: the Definition of Wit, which presents itself at first, you say is, particularly objected to, as dark and involv'd; in answer to which I beg Leave to give you my plain Sentiments upon it, and which I apprehend should naturally occur to every Reader: In treating upon Wit, the Author seems constantly to carry in his View a Distinction between _This_ and _Vivacity_: there is a Lustre or Brilliancy which often results from wild unprovok'd Sallies of Fancy; but such unexpected Objects, which serve not to _elucidate_ each other, discover only a Flow of Spirits, or rambling Vivacity; whereas, says he, Wit is the Lustre which results from the quick _Elucidation_ of one Subject, by the just and unexpected Arrangement of it with another Subject.--To constitute _Wit_, there must not only arise a _Lustre_ from the quick Arrangement together of two Subjects, but the new Subject must be naturally introduced, and also serve to _elucidate_ the original one: the Word _Elucidation_, though it be not new, is elegant, and very happily applied in this Definition; yet I have seen some old Gentlemen here stumble at it, and have found it difficult to persuade them to advance farther:--I have also heard Objections made to the Words _Lustre_ and _Brilliancy_ of Ideas, though they are Terms which have been used by the _Greeks_ and _Romans_, and by elegant Writers of all Ages and Nations; and the Effect which they express, is perfectly conceiv'd and felt by every Person of true Genius and Imagination.

The Distinctions between _Wit_ and _Humour_, and the Reasons why _Humour_ is more pleasurably felt than _Wit_, are new and excellent: as is the Definition of an _Humourist_, and the happy Analysis of the Characters of _Falstaff_, _Sir Roger de Coverly_, and _Don Quixote_; But, as you say, the Merit of these Parts is universally allowed; as well as the Novelty, and liberal Freedom of the [word apparently omitted]; which have such Charms in my Eye, as I had long ceased to expect in a Modern Writer.

I am, &c 25 May, 1744 J---- W---- [not identified]

If the "Gentlemen of Abilities" of the day found some of Morris's definitions obscure, modern readers will find them more precise than those of most of his predecessors. All who had gone before--Cowley, Barrow, Dryden, Locke, Addison, and Congreve (he does not mention Hobbes)--Morris felt had bungled the job. And although he apologizes for attempting what the great writers of the past had failed to do, he has no hesitation in setting forth exactly what he believes to be the proper distinctions in the meanings of such terms as wit, humour, judgment, invention, raillery, and ridicule. The mathematician and statistician in Morris made him strive for precise accuracy. It was all very clear to him, and by the use of numerous anecdotes and examples he hoped to make the distinctions obvious to the general reader.

The _Essay_ shows what a man of some evident taste and perspicacity, with an analytical mind, can do in defining the subtle semantic distinctions in literary terms. Trying to fix immutably what is certain always to be shifting, Morris is noteworthy not only because of the nature of his attempt, but because he is relatively so successful. As Professor Edward Hooker has pointed out in an Introduction to an earlier _ARS_ issue (Series I, No. 2), his is "probably the best and clearest treatment of the subject in the first half of the eighteenth century." It may be regretted that political and economic concerns occupied so much of his later life, leaving him no time for further literary essays.

In the present facsimile edition, for reasons of space, only the Introduction and the main body of the _Essay_ are reproduced. Although Morris once remarked to David Hume that he wrote all his books "for the sake of the Dedications" (_Letters of David Hume_ ed. Greig, I, 380), modern readers need not regret too much the omission of the fulsome 32 page dedication to Walpole (The Earl of Orford). Morris insists at the beginning that the book was inspired by a fervent desire of "attempting a Composition, independent of Politics, which might furnish an occasional Amusement" to his patron. The praise which follows, in which Walpole is said to lead "the _Empire_ of _Letters_," is so excessive as to produce only smiles in twentieth century readers. Walpole is praised for not curbing the press while necessarily curbing the theatre, his aid to commerce and industry, indeed almost every act of his administration, is lauded to the skies. The Church of England, in which "the _Exercise_ of _Reason_ in the solemn Worship of God, is the sacred _Right_, and indispensible _Duty_, of Man," receives its share of eulogy. In every connection the Tories are violently attacked.

The Dedication ends in a peroration of praise for Walpole's public achievements which "shall adorn the History of _Britain_," and for his "_Private Virtues_ and all the _softer Features_" of his mind. His home of retirement is referred to in the lines of Milton:

"Great Palace now of Light! Hither, as to their Fountain, other Stars Repairing, in their golden Urns, draw Light; And here [sic] the Morning Planet gilds her Horns."

"Thus splendid, and superior, your Lordship now flourishes in honourable Ease, exerting universal Benevolence...." But in dedications, as in lapidary inscriptions, as Dr. Johnson might have agreed, a writer need not be upon oath.

At the end of the _Essay_ Morris reprinted two essays from _The Spectator_, Nos. 35 and 62, and William Congreve's "An Essay concerning Humour in Comedy. To Mr. Dennis" (Congreve's _Works_, ed. Summers, III, 161-68). Since these are readily available, they have not been included in this edition.

The present facsimile is made from a copy owned by Louis I. Bredvold, with his kind permission.

[Transcriber's Note: The ARS edition included an errata slip, reproduced here. Where text was changed or deleted, the original is given in brackets. Corrections to the _Essay_ itself are listed after the ARS errata.]

Please paste the following in your copy of Corbyn Morris's _Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit_....

(_ARS_, Series One, No. 4)

page 5, line 1--"word apparently omitted" should be inclosed in brackets.

page 5, line 6--"not identified" should be inclosed in brackets.

page 6, line 5--the first "of" should be omitted. ["modern readers need not regret too much of the omission of the fulsome 32 page dedication"]

page 6, line 12, should read "Walpole is praised for not curbing the press while necessarily curbing the theatre, his aid to commerce". ["Walpole is praised for not curbing the theatre; his aid to commerce"]

page 6, line 25--"sic" should be inclosed in brackets, as also "P.L. 7. 363-66" in the next line.

page viii: Whence in _Aristotle_ such Persons are termed "epidexioi", dexterous Men The Greek may read "epidezioi"; the letter-form is ambiguous.

page 14: ... without any Reference to their whimsical _Oddities_ or _Foibles_; Text reads _Oddistie_.

page 20 and elsewhere: "Biass" is an attested variant spelling; it has not been changed.

page 25: "teizes" (modern "teases") is an attested variant spelling; it has not been changed.

page 40: --It is therefore no wonder that Signior _Don Quixote of la Mancha_ ... Text reads _Quoxote_. ]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Towards Fixing the TRUE STANDARDS of WIT, HUMOUR, RAILLERY, SATIRE, and RIDICULE.

To which is Added, an ANALYSIS Of the CHARACTERS of

An HUMOURIST, Sir John Falstaff, Sir Roger De Coverly, and Don Quixote.

Inscribed to the RIGHT HONORABLE ROBERT Earl of ORFORD.

By the AUTHOR of a LETTER from a BY-STANDER.

---- _Jacta est Alea_.

Printed for J. ROBERTS, at the Oxford-Arms, in Warwick-lane; and W. BICKERTON, in the Temple-Exchange, near the Inner-Temple-Gate, Fleet-Street.

M DCC XLIV. [Price 2s.]

An Attempt to _describe_ the precise _Limits_ of WIT, HUMOUR, RAILLERY, SATIRE and RIDICULE, I am sensible, is no easy or slight Undertaking. To give a _Definition_ of WIT, has been declared by Writers of the greatest Renown, to exceed their Reach and Power; and Gentlemen of no less Abilities, and Fame, than _Cowley_, _Barrow_, _Dryden_, _Locke_, _Congreve_, and _Addison_, have tryed their Force upon this Subject, and have all left it free, and unconquered. This, I perceive, will be an Argument with some, for condemning an _Essay_ upon this Topic by a young Author, as rash and presumptious. But, though I desire to pay all proper Respect to these eminent Writers, if a tame Deference to great Names shall become fashionable, and the Imputation of Vanity be laid upon those who examine their Works, all Advancement in Knowledge will be absolutely stopp'd; and _Literary_ Merit will be soon placed, in an _humble Stupidity_, and _solemn Faith_ in the Wisdom of our Ancestors.

Whereas, if I rightly apprehend, _an Ambition to excell_ is the Principle which should animate a Writer, directed by a _Love_ of _Truth_, and a _free Spirit_ of _Candour_ and _Inquiry_. This is the _Flame_ which should warm the rising Members of every Science, not a poor Submission to those who have preceded. For, however it may be with a _Religious_ DEVOTION, a _Literary_ One is certainly the CHILD of _Ignorance_.

However, I must acknowledge, that where I have differed from the great Authors before mentioned, it has been with a Diffidence, and after the most serious and particular Examination of what they have delivered. It is from hence, that I have thought it my Duty, to exhibit with the following _Essay_, their several Performances upon the same Subject, that every Variation of mine from their Suffrage, and the Reasons upon which I have grounded it, may clearly appear.

The following _Ode_ upon WIT is written by Mr. _Cowley_.

Tell me, oh tell!, what kind of Thing is _WIT_, Thou who _Master_ art of it; For the _first Matter_ loves Variety _less_; Less _Women_ love't, either in _Love_ or _Dress_. A thousand diff'rent Shapes it bears, Comely in thousand Shapes appears; Yonder we saw it plain, and here 'tis now, Like _Spirits_ in a Place, we know not _how_.

_London_, that vents of _false Ware_ so much Store, In no _Ware_ deceives us more; For Men, led by the _Colour_, and the Shape, Like _Zeuxis' Bird_, fly to the painted Grape. Some things do through our Judgment pass, As through a _Multiplying Glass_: And sometimes, if the _Object_ be too far, We take a _falling Meteor_ for a _Star_.

Hence 'tis a _Wit_, that greatest _Word_ of Fame, Grows such a common Name; And _Wits_, by our _Creation_, they become; Just so as _Tit'lar Bishops_ made at _Rome_. 'Tis not a _Tale_, 'tis not a _Jest_, Admir'd with _Laughter_ at a Feast, Nor florid _Talk_ which can that _Title_ gain; The _Proofs_ of _Wit_ for ever must remain.

'Tis not to force some Lifeless _Verses_ meet, With their five gouty Feet. All ev'ry where, like _Man's_, must be the _Soul_, And _Reason_ the _inferior Pow'rs_ controul. Such were the _Numbers_ which could call The _Stones_ into the _Theban_ Wall. Such _Miracles_ are ceas'd, and now we see No _Towns_ or _Houses_ rais'd by _Poetry.

Yet 'tis not to adorn, and gild each Part, That shews more _Cost_ than _Art_. _Jewels_ at _Nose_, and _Lips_, but ill appear; Rather than _all Things Wit_, let _none_ be there. Several _Lights_ will not be seen, If there be nothing else between. Men doubt; because they stand so thick i' th' Sky. If those be _Stars_ which paint the _Galaxy_.

'Tis not when two like Words make up one Noise; Jests for _Dutch Men_, and _English Boys_. In which, who finds out _Wit_, the same may see In _An'grams_ and _Acrostiques Poetry_. Much less can that have any Place, At which a _Virgin_ hides her Face; Such _Dross_ the _Fire_ must purge away; 'Tis just The _Author blush_, there where the _Reader_ must.

'Tis not such _Lines_ as almost crack the _Stage_, When _Bajazet_ begins to rage; Not a tall _Metaphor_ in th' _bombast Way_, Nor the dry Chips of short-lung'd _Seneca_. Nor upon all Things to obtrude, And force some odd _Similitude_. What is it then, which like the _Pow'r Divine_, We only can by _Negatives_ define?

In a true Piece of _Wit_, all Things must be, Yet all Things there _agree_; As in the _Ark_, join 'd without Force or Strife, All _Creatures_ dwelt; all _Creatures_ that had Life. Or as the _primitive Forms_ of all, (If we compare great Things with small) Which without _Discord_ or _Confusion_ lie, In the strange _Mirror_ of the _Deity_.

But _Love_, that moulds _one Man_ up out of _two_, Makes me forget, and injure you. I took _You_ for _Myself_, sure when I thought That You in any thing were to be taught. Correct my Error with thy Pen, And if any ask me then, What thing right _Wit_, and Height of _Genius_ is, I'll only shew your _Lines_, and say, _'Tis this_.

The _Spirit_ and _Wit_ of this _Ode_ are excellent; and yet it is evident, through the whole, that Mr. _Cowley_ had no clear Idea of _Wit_, though at the same time it _shines_ in most of these Lines: There is little Merit in saying what WIT _is not_, which is the chief Part of this _Ode_. Towards the End, he indeed attempts to describe what _it is_, but is quite vague and perplex'd in his Description; and at last, instead of collecting his scatter'd Rays into a _Focus_, and exhibiting succinctly the clear Essence and Power of WIT, he drops the whole with a trite Compliment.

The learned Dr. _Barrow_, in his _Sermon against foolish Talking and Jesting_, gives the following profuse Description of WIT.

But first it may be demanded, What the Thing we speak of is? Or what the Facetiousness (or _Wit_ as he calls it before) doth import? To which Questions I might reply, as _Democritus_ did to him that asked the Definition of a Man, _'Tis that we all see and know._ Any one better apprehends what it is by Acquaintance, than I can inform him by Description. It is indeed a Thing so versatile and multiform, appearing in so many Shapes, so many Postures, so many Garbs, so variously apprehended by several Eyes and Judgments, that it seemeth no less hard to settle a clear and certain Notion thereof, than to make a Portrait of _Proteus_, or to define the Figure of the fleeting Air. Sometimes it lieth in pat Allusion to a known Story, or in seasonable Application of a trivial Saying, or in forging an apposite Tale: Sometimes it playeth in Words and Phrases, taking Advantage from the Ambiguity of their Sense, or the Affinity of their Sound: Sometimes it is wrapp'd in a Dress of humorous Expression: Sometimes it lurketh under an odd Similitude: Sometimes it is lodged in a sly Question, in a smart Answer, in a quirkish Reason, in a shrewd Intimation, in cunningly diverting, or cleverly retorting an Objection: Sometimes it is couched in a bold Scheme of Speech, in a tart Irony, in a lusty Hyperbole, in a startling Metaphor, in a plausible Reconciling of Contradictions, or in acute Nonsense; Sometimes a scenical Representation of Persons or Things, a counterfeit Speech, a mimical Look or Gesture passeth for it. Sometimes an affected Simplicity, sometimes a presumptuous Bluntness giveth it Being. Sometimes it riseth from a lucky Hitting upon what is Strange; sometimes from a crafty wresting obvious Matter to the Purpose. Often it' consisteth in one knows not what, and springeth up one can hardly tell how. Its ways are unaccountable, and inexplicable, being answerable to the numberless Rovings of Fancy, and Windings of Language. It is, in short, a Manner of Speaking out of the simple and plain Way (such as Reason teacheth, and proveth Things by) which by a pretty, surprizing Uncouthness in Conceit or Expression, doth affect and amuse the Fancy, stirring in it some Wonder, and breeding some Delight thereto. It raiseth Admiration, as signifying a nimble Sagacity of Apprehension, a special Felicity of Invention, a Vivacity of Spirit, and Reach of Wit, more than vulgar; it seeming to argue a rare Quickness of Parts, that one can fetch in remote Conceits applicable; a notable Skill that he can dextrously accommodate them to the Purpose before him; together with a lively Briskness of Humour, not apt to damp those Sportful Flashes of Imagination. (Whence in _Aristotle_ such Persons are termed "epidexioi", dexterous Men, and "eutropoi", Men of facile or versatile Manners, who can easily turn themselves to all Things, or turn all Things to themselves.) It also procureth Delight, by gratifying Curiosity with its Rareness, or Semblance of Difficulty. (As Monsters, not for their Beauty, but their Rarity; as juggling Tricks, not for their Use, but their Abstruseness, are beheld with Pleasure;) by diverting the Mind from its Road of serious Thoughts, by instilling Gaiety, and Airiness of Spirit; by provoking to such Disposition of Spirit in Way of Emulation, or Complaisance; and by seasoning Matters otherwise distasteful or insipid, with an unusual and thence grateful Tange.

This Description, it is easy to perceive, must have cost the Author of it a great deal of Labour. It is a very full Specimen of that Talent of entirely _exhausting_ a Subject, for which Dr. _Barrow_ was remarkable; and if the _Point_ was, to exhibit all the various Forms and Appearances, not of WIT only, but of _Raillery_, _Satire_, _Sarcasms_, and of every Kind of _Poignancy_ and _Pleasantry_ of Sentiment, and Expression, he seems to have perfectly succeeded; there being perhaps no Variety, in all the Extent of these Subjects, which he has not presented to View in this Description.--But he does not pretend to give any _Definition_ of WIT, intimating rather that it is quite impossible to be given: And indeed from his Description of it, as a _Proteus_, appearing in numberless various Colours, and Forms; and from his mistaking, and presenting for WIT, other different Mixtures and Substances, it is evident that his Idea of it was quite confused and uncertain: It is true, he has discovered a vast Scope of Fertility of Genius, and an uncommon Power of collecting together a Multitude of Objects upon any Occasion, but he has here absolutely mistaken his work; for instead of exhibiting the Properties of WIT in a clearer Light, and confuting the _false Claims_ which are made to it, he has made it his whole Business to perplex it the more, by introducing, from all Corners, a monstrous Troop of new unexpected _Pretenders_.

_Dryden_, in the Preface to his _Opera_, entitled, _The State of Innocence_, or _Fall of Man_, gives the following _Decree_ upon WIT. The _Definition of WIT_, (which has been so often attempted, and ever unsuccessfully by many Poets) is only this: That it is _a Propriety of Thoughts and Words; or in other Terms, Thoughts and Words elegantly adapted to the Subject_.

If Mr. _Dryden_ imagined, that he had succeeded _himself_ in this _Definition_, he was extremely mistaken; for nothing can be more distant from the Properties of WIT, than those he describes. He discovers no Idea of the _Surprize_, and _Brilliancy_ of WIT, or of the sudden _Light_ thrown upon a Subject. Instead of once pointing at these, he only describes the Properties of clear _Reasoning_, which are _a Propriety of Thoughts and Words_;--Whereas WIT, in its sudden _Flashes_, makes no Pretension to _Reasoning_; but is perceived in the pleasant _Surprize_ which it starts, and in the _Light_ darted upon a Subject, which instantly vanishes again, without abiding a strict Examination.

The other Definition he gives, which is, _Thoughts and Words elegantly adapted to the Subject_, is very different from the former, but equally unhappy.

For _Propriety_, in _Thoughts_ and _Words_, consists in exhibiting _clear, pertinent Ideas_, in _precise_ and _perspicuous Words_.

Whereas ELEGANCE consists in the _compt_, _well pruned_ and _succinct Turn_ of a Subject.