Corbyn Morris opens his 1744 essay not with abstract theory but with a pointed distinction: wit, he argues, is a sudden flash of likeness that surprises and delights, while humour is a more settled, peculiar cast of mind displayed in a person's conduct and conversation. From the first pages, Morris grounds his taxonomy in observable human behavior rather than in classical authority, a move that gives the work a distinctly modern, psychological flavor. Readers will notice how he builds each category through concrete examples—often drawn from the social world of the coffeehouse and the drawing room—rather than through mere definition. The essay's structure itself mirrors its subject: it proceeds by careful discrimination, separating what common usage often conflates.

The Opening Distinctions: Wit as Sudden Likeness

Morris wastes no time in setting his terms. Wit, he writes, is a quick perception of resemblance between ideas that seem unlike, and it strikes the mind with a pleasing surprise. He contrasts this with judgement, which discerns differences. The opening pages thus establish a clear, almost Lockean framework: wit is about association, judgement about separation. Morris insists that true wit must be both sudden and just—a flash that reveals a real correspondence, not a forced or fanciful one. This precision is typical of his method: he does not merely praise wit but defines its boundaries, excluding puns and mere wordplay as inferior. The reader is immediately placed in a world of careful mental operations, where each term must earn its place through exact description.

Humour and the Portrait of the Humourist

Perhaps the most memorable section of the essay is Morris's extended character of the Humourist. He paints a figure of proud independence, one who scorns imitation and regulates his conduct only by his own conviction. Yet this pride has a dark side: the Humourist is deeply stung by defeat, terrified by contempt, and will even court the favor of those who insult him. Morris notes a peculiar contradiction: the Humourist avoids company he likes for fear of seeming needy, yet haunts company he hates to avoid the appearance of retreat. This psychological portrait is drawn with a novelist's eye for paradox. Morris also observes that two Humourists meeting will not unite but compete, each displaying a specimen of his own oddity. The analysis is both clinical and satirical, offering a taxonomy of social behavior that remains recognizable.

Raillery, Satire, and the Social Dynamics of Ridicule

Morris distinguishes raillery from satire by their tone and target. Raillery, he suggests, is a playful, good-natured teasing among equals, while satire is sharper and aims at correction. Ridicule, in turn, is a weapon against folly and vice, but Morris warns it must be used with judgement. He examines how these forms operate in conversation: a well-placed jest can expose pretension, but if misapplied, it breeds resentment. The essay is particularly attentive to the social dynamics of laughter—who laughs, at whom, and why. Morris's examples often involve the delicate balance between wit and cruelty, and he insists that true ridicule should be guided by reason and benevolence. This section reveals Morris as a moralist as much as a theorist, concerned with the ethical use of comic forms.

Structure and Method: A System of Distinctions

Morris's essay is organized as a series of discriminations, each term defined against its neighbors. He moves from wit to humour, then to raillery, satire, and ridicule, building a ladder of increasing sharpness and social weight. The method is taxonomic, reminiscent of Linnaean classification, but applied to mental and social phenomena. Morris frequently uses contrast: wit is sudden, humour is settled; raillery is gentle, satire is severe. He also incorporates illustrative anecdotes and character sketches, such as the Humourist, to ground his abstractions. Readers should note how Morris's prose itself enacts his principles—it is clear, pointed, and often witty, demonstrating the very qualities he analyzes. The essay's structure rewards careful reading: each distinction prepares the next, and the whole forms a coherent system of comic theory.

The Role of the Commentator and Historical Context

James L. Clifford's introduction, written for the 1947 Augustan Reprint Society edition, provides essential context. He notes that Morris was a Whig pamphleteer and government official, and that his earlier Letter from a By-stander defended Walpole's administration. This political background may inform Morris's emphasis on liberty and his scorn for flattery and betrayal, which he attributes to the Humourist's positive traits. Clifford also traces the essay's publication history and its place in the tradition of British wit-theory, from Hobbes to Addison. Readers unfamiliar with eighteenth-century debates about wit and judgement will find Clifford's notes helpful, but Morris's text itself is remarkably accessible. The essay stands as a lucid, independent contribution to the philosophy of comedy, one that rewards both casual and scholarly reading.

Morris's essay is best approached as a series of interlocking definitions, each building on the last. Readers may find it useful to track how he uses the same example—a proud man's behavior, a witty retort—to illustrate different categories. The work rewards rereading: what seems like a simple distinction on first encounter often reveals deeper psychological insight. Morris writes with a clarity that belies the complexity of his subject, and his portrait of the Humourist alone makes the essay worth exploring. For those interested in eighteenth-century theories of mind or the social uses of laughter, this is a primary document of considerable value.