{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_16233/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_16233","id":"gutenberg_16233","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16233","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Comedy","Wit and humor -- History and criticism"],"text":"Produced by David Starner, Louise Hope and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                  Series Two:\n                _Essays on Wit_\n\n                     No. 4\n\n\n               [Corbyn Morris]\n  _An Essay towards Fixing the True Standards\n of Wit, Humour, Raillery, Satire, and Ridicule_\n                    (1744)\n\n\n\n\n            With an Introduction by\n               James L. Clifford\n                      and\n             a Bibliographical Note\n\n\n\n\nThe Augustan Reprint Society\nNovember, 1947\nPrice: $1.00\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nGENERAL EDITORS\n\nRICHARD C. BOYS, University of Michigan\nEDWARD NILES HOOKER, University of California, Los Angeles\nH.T. SWEDENBERG, JR., University of California, Los Angeles\n\n\nADVISORY EDITORS\n\nEMMETT L. AVERY, State College of Washington\nLOUIS I. BREDVOLD, University of Michigan\nBENJAMIN BOYCE, University of Nebraska\nCLEANTH BROOKS, Yale University\nJAMES L. CLIFFORD, Columbia University\nARTHUR FRIEDMAN, University of Chicago\nSAMUEL H. MONK, University of Minnesota\nJAMES SUTHERLAND, Queen Mary College, London\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n                 INTRODUCTION\n\nThe _Essay_ here reproduced was first advertised in the London _Daily\nAdvertiser_ as \"this day was published\" on Thursday, 17 May 1744 (The\nsame advertisement, except for the change of price from one shilling\nto two, appeared in this paper intermittently until 14 June). Although\non the title-page the authorship is given as \"By the Author of a\nLetter from a By-stander,\" there was no intention of anonymity, since\nthe Dedication is boldly signed \"Corbyn Morris, Inner Temple, Feb. 1,\n1743 [44].\"\n\nNot much is known of the early life of Corbyn Morris. Born 14 August\n1710, he was the eldest son of Edmund Morris of Bishop's Castle,\nSalop. (_Alumni Cantabrigienses_). On 17 September 1727 he was\nadmitted (pensioner) at Queen's College, Cambridge, as an exhibitioner\nfrom the famous Charterhouse School. Exactly when he left the\nuniversity, or whether he took a degree, is not certain.\n\nMorris first achieved some prominence, though anonymously, with\n_A Letter from a By-stander to a Member of Parliament; wherein is\nexamined what necessity there is for the maintenance of a large\nregular land-force in this island_. This pamphlet, dated at the end,\n26 February 1741/42, is a wholehearted eulogy of the Walpole\nadministration and is filled with statistics and arguments for the\nMercantilist theories of the day. At the time there was some suspicion\nthat the work had been written either by Walpole himself or by his\ndirection. When the _Letter from a By-stander_ was answered by the\nhistorian Thomas Carte, an angry pamphlet controversy ensued, with\nMorris writing under the pseudonym of \"A Gentleman of Cambridge.\"\nThroughout, Morris showed himself a violent Whig, bitter in his\nattacks on Charles II and the non-jurors; and it was undoubtedly this\nfanatical party loyalty which laid the foundation for his later\ngovernment career.\n\nThe principal facts of Morris's later life may be briefly summarized.\nOn 17 June 1743 he was admitted at the Inner Temple. Throughout\nthe Pelham and Newcastle administrations he was employed by the\ngovernment, as he once put it, \"in conciliating opponents.\" From\n1751 to 1763 be acted as Secretary of the Customs and Salt Duty in\nScotland, in which post he was acknowledged to have shown decided\nability as an administrator. From 1763 to 1778 he was one of the\ncommissioners of customs. He died at Wimbledon 22 December 1779\n(_Musgrave's Obituary_), described in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ as a\n\"gentleman well known in the literary world, and universally esteemed\nfor his unwearied services and attachment to government.\"\n\nThroughout his long years of public service he wrote numerous\npamphlets, largely on economic and political questions. Merely the\ntitles of a few may be sufficient to indicate the nature of his\ninterests. _An Essay towards Deciding the Question whether Britain be\nPermitted by Right Policy to Insure the Ships of Her Enemies _(1747);\n_Observations on the Past Growth and Present State of the City of\nLondon_ (containing a complete table of christenings and burials 1601-\n1750) (175l); _A Letter Balancing the Causes of the Present Scarcity\nof Our Silver Coin_ (1757).\n\nIt would be a mistake, however, to consider Morris merely as a\nstatistical economist and Whig party hack. A gentleman of taste and\nwit, the friend of Hume, Boswell, and other discerning men of the day,\nhe was elected F.R.S. in 1757, and appears to have been much\nrespected. In later life Morris had a country place at Chiltern Vale,\nHerts., where he took an active delight in country sports. One\nof his late pamphlets, not listed in the _D.N.B_. account of him,\nentertainingly illustrates one of his hobbies. _The Bird-fancier's\nRecreation and Delight, with the newest and very best instructions for\ncatching, taking, feeding, rearing, &c all the various sorts of SONG\nBIRDS... containing curious remarks on the nature, sex, management,\nand diseases of ENGLISH SONG BIRDS, with practical instructions for\ndistinguishing the cock and hen, for taking, choosing, breeding,\nkeeping, and teaching them to sing, for discovering and caring their\ndiseases, and of learning them to sing to the greatest perfection_.\n\nAlthough there is little surviving evidence of Morris's purely\nliterary interests, a set of verses combining his economic and\nartistic views appeared in a late edition of _The New Foundling\nHospital for Wit_ (new edition, 1784, VI, 95). Occasioned by seeing\nBowood in Wiltshire, the home of the Earl of Shelburne, the lines are\nentitled: \"On Reading Dr. Goldsmith's Poem, the Deserted Village.\"\n\nThis was the man who at the age of thirty-three brought out _An Essay\ntowards Fixing the True Standards of Wit, Humour, Raillery, Satire,\nand Ridicule_. That it was ever widely read we have no evidence, but\nat least a number of men of wit and judgment found it interesting.\nHorace Walpole included it in a packet of \"the only new books at all\nworth reading\" sent to Horace Mann, but the fulsome dedication\nto the elder Walpole undoubtedly had something to do with this\nrecommendation. More disinterested approval is shown in a letter\nprinted in the _Daily Advertiser_ for 31 May 1744. Better than any\nmodern critique the letter illustrates the contemporary reaction to\nthe _Essay_.\n\n  Christ Church College, Oxford,\n\n  SIR:\n\n  I have examin'd the _Essay_ you have sent me for _fixing the true\n  Standards of Wit, Humour, &c._ and cannot perceive upon what\n  pretence the Definitions, as you tell me, are censured for\n  Obscurity, even by Gentlemen of Abilities, and such as in other\n  Parts of the Work very frankly allow it's Merit: the Definition\n  of Wit, which presents itself at first, you say is, particularly\n  objected to, as dark and involv'd; in answer to which I beg Leave\n  to give you my plain Sentiments upon it, and which I apprehend\n  should naturally occur to every Reader: In treating upon Wit, the\n  Author seems constantly to carry in his View a Distinction\n  between _This_ and _Vivacity_: there is a Lustre or Brilliancy\n  which often results from wild unprovok'd Sallies of Fancy; but\n  such unexpected Objects, which serve not to _elucidate_ each\n  other, discover only a Flow of Spirits, or rambling Vivacity;\n  whereas, says he, Wit is the Lustre which results from the\n  quick _Elucidation_ of one Subject, by the just and unexpected\n  Arrangement of it with another Subject.--To constitute _Wit_,\n  there must not only arise a _Lustre_ from the quick Arrangement\n  together of two Subjects, but the new Subject must be naturally\n  introduced, and also serve to _elucidate_ the original one: the\n  Word _Elucidation_, though it be not new, is elegant, and very\n  happily applied in this Definition; yet I have seen some old\n  Gentlemen here stumble at it, and have found it difficult to\n  persuade them to advance farther:--I have also heard Objections\n  made to the Words _Lustre_ and _Brilliancy_ of Ideas, though they\n  are Terms which have been used by the _Greeks_ and _Romans_, and\n  by elegant Writers of all Ages and Nations; and the Effect which\n  they express, is  perfectly conceiv'd and felt by every Person of\n  true Genius and Imagination.\n\n  The Distinctions between _Wit_ and _Humour_, and the Reasons\n  why _Humour_ is more pleasurably felt than _Wit_, are new and\n  excellent: as is the Definition of an _Humourist_, and the happy\n  Analysis of the Characters of _Falstaff_, _Sir Roger de Coverly_,\n  and _Don Quixote_; But, as you say, the Merit of these Parts is\n  universally allowed; as well as the Novelty, and liberal Freedom\n  of the [word apparently omitted]; which have such Charms in my\n  Eye, as I had long ceased to expect in a Modern Writer.\n\n                                      I am, &c\n  25 May, 1744\n                                        J---- W----\n                                         [not identified]\n\nIf the \"Gentlemen of Abilities\" of the day found some of Morris's\ndefinitions obscure, modern readers will find them more precise than\nthose of most of his predecessors. All who had gone before--Cowley,\nBarrow, Dryden, Locke, Addison, and Congreve (he does not mention\nHobbes)--Morris felt had bungled the job. And although he apologizes\nfor attempting what the great writers of the past had failed to do, he\nhas no hesitation in setting forth exactly what he believes to be the\nproper distinctions in the meanings of such terms as wit, humour,\njudgment, invention, raillery, and ridicule. The mathematician and\nstatistician in Morris made him strive for precise accuracy. It was\nall very clear to him, and by the use of numerous anecdotes and\nexamples he hoped to make the distinctions obvious to the general\nreader.\n\nThe _Essay_ shows what a man of some evident taste and perspicacity,\nwith an analytical mind, can do in defining the subtle semantic\ndistinctions in literary terms. Trying to fix immutably what is\ncertain always to be shifting, Morris is noteworthy not only because\nof the nature of his attempt, but because he is relatively so\nsuccessful. As Professor Edward Hooker has pointed out in an\nIntroduction to an earlier _ARS_ issue (Series I, No. 2), his is\n\"probably the best and clearest treatment of the subject in the first\nhalf of the eighteenth century.\" It may be regretted that political\nand economic concerns occupied so much of his later life, leaving him\nno time for further literary essays.\n\nIn the present facsimile edition, for reasons of space, only the\nIntroduction and the main body of the _Essay_ are reproduced. Although\nMorris once remarked to David Hume that he wrote all his books \"for\nthe sake of the Dedications\" (_Letters of David Hume_ ed. Greig, I,\n380), modern readers need not regret too much the omission of the\nfulsome 32 page dedication to Walpole (The Earl of Orford). Morris\ninsists at the beginning that the book was inspired by a fervent\ndesire of \"attempting a Composition, independent of Politics, which\nmight furnish an occasional Amusement\" to his patron. The praise which\nfollows, in which Walpole is said to lead \"the _Empire_ of _Letters_,\"\nis so excessive as to produce only smiles in twentieth century\nreaders. Walpole is praised for not curbing the press while\nnecessarily curbing the theatre, his aid to commerce and industry,\nindeed almost every act of his administration, is lauded to the skies.\nThe Church of England, in which \"the _Exercise_ of _Reason_ in the\nsolemn Worship of God, is the sacred _Right_, and indispensible\n_Duty_, of Man,\" receives its share of eulogy. In every connection the\nTories are violently attacked.\n\nThe Dedication ends in a peroration of praise for Walpole's public\nachievements which \"shall adorn the History of _Britain_,\" and for his\n\"_Private Virtues_ and all the _softer Features_\" of his mind. His\nhome of retirement is referred to in the lines of Milton:\n\n  \"Great Palace now of Light!\n  Hither, as to their Fountain, other Stars\n  Repairing, in their golden Urns, draw Light;\n  And here [sic] the Morning Planet gilds her Horns.\"\n\n      [P.L. 7. 363-66]\n\n\"Thus splendid, and superior, your Lordship now flourishes in\nhonourable Ease, exerting universal Benevolence....\" But in\ndedications, as in lapidary inscriptions, as Dr. Johnson might\nhave agreed, a writer need not be upon oath.\n\nAt the end of the _Essay_ Morris reprinted two essays from _The\nSpectator_, Nos. 35 and 62, and William Congreve's \"An Essay concerning\nHumour in Comedy. To Mr. Dennis\" (Congreve's _Works_, ed. Summers, III,\n161-68). Since these are readily available, they have not been included\nin this edition.\n\nThe present facsimile is made from a copy owned by Louis I. Bredvold,\nwith his kind permission.\n\nJames L. Clifford\n\nColumbia University\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Transcriber's Note:\nThe ARS edition included an errata slip, reproduced here. Where\ntext was changed or deleted, the original is given in brackets.\nCorrections to the _Essay_ itself are listed after the ARS errata.]\n\nPlease paste the following in your copy of Corbyn Morris's\n_Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit_....\n\n(_ARS_, Series One, No. 4)\n\nERRATA\n\nINTRODUCTION:\n\npage 5, line 1--\"word apparently omitted\" should be inclosed in\nbrackets.\n\npage 5, line 6--\"not identified\" should be inclosed in brackets.\n\npage 6, line 5--the first \"of\" should be omitted.\n    [\"modern readers need not regret too much of the omission\n      of the fulsome 32 page dedication\"]\n\npage 6, line 12, should read\n  \"Walpole is praised for not curbing the press while necessarily\n  curbing the theatre, his aid to commerce\".\n    [\"Walpole is praised for not curbing the theatre; his aid to\n      commerce\"]\n\npage 6, line 25--\"sic\" should be inclosed in brackets, as also\n\"P.L. 7. 363-66\" in the next line.\n\n\n[ ESSAY ON WIT:\n\npage viii: Whence in _Aristotle_ such Persons are termed\n  \"epidexioi\", dexterous Men\n    The Greek _may_ read \"epidezioi\"; the letter-form makes it\n    uncertain.\n\npage 14: ... without any Reference to their whimsical _Oddities_\n  or _Foibles_;\n    Text reads _Oddistie_.\n\npage 20 and elsewhere: \"Biass\" is an attested variant spelling;\n  it has not been changed.\n\npage 25: \"teizes\" (modern \"teases\") is an attested variant spelling;\n  it has not been changed.\n\npage 40: --It is therefore no wonder that Signior _Don Quixote of\n  la Mancha_ ...\n    Text reads _Quoxote_. ]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n           *       *       *       *\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n                      An\n                     ESSAY\n\n              Towards Fixing the\n                TRUE STANDARDS\n                      of\n             WIT, HUMOUR, RAILLERY,\n              SATIRE, and RIDICULE.\n\n\n             To which is Added, an\n                    ANALYSIS\n              Of the CHARACTERS of\n\n        An HUMOURIST, Sir John Falstaff,\n              Sir Roger De Coverly,\n                and Don Quixote.\n\n\n\n        Inscribed to the RIGHT HONORABLE\n            ROBERT Earl of ORFORD.\n\n              By the AUTHOR of a\n           LETTER from a BY-STANDER.\n\n            ---- _Jacta est Alea_.\n\n\n                    LONDON:\n\n  Printed for J. ROBERTS, at the Oxford-Arms,\n      in Warwick-lane; and W. BICKERTON,\n       in the Temple-Exchange, near the\n       Inner-Temple-Gate, Fleet-Street.\n\n                  M DCC XLIV.          [Price 2s.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n                 INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nAn Attempt to _describe_ the precise _Limits_ of WIT, HUMOUR,\nRAILLERY, SATIRE and RIDICULE, I am sensible, is no easy or slight\nUndertaking. To give a _Definition_ of WIT, has been declared by\nWriters of the greatest Renown, to exceed their Reach and Power; and\nGentlemen of no less Abilities, and Fame, than _Cowley_, _Barrow_,\n_Dryden_, _Locke_, _Congreve_, and _Addison_, have tryed their Force\nupon this Subject, and have all left it free, and unconquered. This,\nI perceive, will be an Argument with some, for condemning an _Essay_\nupon this Topic by a young Author, as rash and presumptious. But,\nthough I desire to pay all proper Respect to these eminent Writers,\nif a tame Deference to great Names shall become fashionable, and the\nImputation of Vanity be laid upon those who examine their Works, all\nAdvancement in Knowledge will be absolutely stopp'd; and _Literary_\nMerit will be soon placed, in an _humble Stupidity_, and _solemn\nFaith_ in the Wisdom of our Ancestors.\n\nWhereas, if I rightly apprehend, _an Ambition  to excell_ is the\nPrinciple which should animate a Writer, directed by a _Love_ of\n_Truth_, and a _free Spirit_ of _Candour_ and _Inquiry_. This is the\n_Flame_ which should warm the rising Members of every Science, not a\npoor Submission to those who have preceded. For, however it may be\nwith a _Religious_ DEVOTION, a _Literary_ One is certainly the CHILD\nof _Ignorance_.\n\nHowever, I must acknowledge, that where I have differed from the great\nAuthors before mentioned, it has been with a Diffidence, and after the\nmost serious and particular Examination of what they have delivered.\nIt is from hence, that I have thought it my Duty, to exhibit with the\nfollowing _Essay_, their several Performances upon the same Subject,\nthat every Variation of mine from their Suffrage, and the Reasons upon\nwhich I have grounded it, may clearly appear.\n\n\nThe following _Ode_ upon WIT is written by Mr. _Cowley_.\n\n                  ODE of WIT.\n\n                       I.\n\nTell me, oh tell!, what kind of Thing is _WIT_,\n  Thou who _Master_ art of it;\nFor the _first Matter_ loves Variety _less_;\nLess _Women_ love't, either in _Love_ or _Dress_.\n  A thousand diff'rent Shapes it bears,\n  Comely in thousand Shapes appears;\nYonder we saw it plain, and here 'tis now,\nLike _Spirits_ in a Place, we know not _how_.\n\n                      II.\n\n_London_, that vents of _false Ware_ so much Store,\n  In no _Ware_ deceives us more;\nFor Men, led by the _Colour_, and the Shape,\nLike _Zeuxis' Bird_, fly to the painted Grape.\n  Some things do through our Judgment pass,\n  As through a _Multiplying Glass_:\nAnd sometimes, if the _Object_ be too far,\nWe take a _falling Meteor_ for a _Star_.\n\n                      III.\n\nHence 'tis a _Wit_, that greatest _Word_ of Fame,\n  Grows such a common Name;\nAnd _Wits_, by our _Creation_, they become;\nJust so as _Tit'lar Bishops_ made at _Rome_.\n  'Tis not a _Tale_, 'tis not a _Jest_,\n  Admir'd with _Laughter_ at a Feast,\nNor florid _Talk_ which can that _Title_ gain;\nThe _Proofs_ of _Wit_ for ever must remain.\n\n                      IV.\n\n'Tis not to force some Lifeless _Verses_ meet,\n  With their five gouty Feet.\nAll ev'ry where, like _Man's_, must be the _Soul_,\nAnd _Reason_ the _inferior Pow'rs_ controul.\n  Such were the _Numbers_ which could call\n  The _Stones_ into the _Theban_ Wall.\nSuch _Miracles_ are ceas'd, and now we see\nNo _Towns_ or _Houses_ rais'd by _Poetry.\n\n                       V.\n\nYet 'tis not to adorn, and gild each Part,\n  That shews more _Cost_ than _Art_.\n_Jewels_ at _Nose_, and _Lips_, but ill appear;\nRather than _all Things Wit_, let _none_ be there.\n  Several _Lights_ will not be seen,\n  If there be nothing else between.\nMen doubt; because they stand so thick i' th' Sky.\nIf those be _Stars_ which paint the _Galaxy_.\n\n                      VI.\n\n'Tis not when two like Words make up one Noise;\n  Jests for _Dutch Men_, and _English Boys_.\nIn which, who finds out _Wit_, the same may see\nIn _An'grams_ and _Acrostiques Poetry_.\n  Much less can that have any Place,\n  At which a _Virgin_ hides her Face;\nSuch _Dross_ the _Fire_ must purge away; 'Tis just\nThe _Author blush_, there where the _Reader_ must.\n\n                      VII.\n\n'Tis not such _Lines_ as almost crack the _Stage_,\n  When _Bajazet_ begins to rage;\nNot a tall _Metaphor_ in th' _bombast Way_,\nNor the dry Chips of short-lung'd _Seneca_.\n  Nor upon all Things to obtrude,\n  And force some odd _Similitude_.\nWhat is it then, which like the _Pow'r Divine_,\nWe only can by _Negatives_ define?\n\n                     VIII.\n\nIn a true Piece of _Wit_, all Things must be,\n  Yet all Things there _agree_;\nAs in the _Ark_, join 'd without Force or Strife,\nAll _Creatures_ dwelt; all _Creatures_ that had Life.\n  Or as the _primitive Forms_ of all,\n  (If we compare great Things with small)\nWhich without _Discord_ or _Confusion_ lie,\nIn the strange _Mirror_ of the _Deity_.\n\n                      IX.\n\nBut _Love_, that moulds _one Man_ up out of _two_,\n  Makes me forget, and injure you.\nI took _You_ for _Myself_, sure when I thought\nThat You in any thing were to be taught.\n  Correct my Error with thy Pen,\n  And if any ask me then,\nWhat thing right _Wit_, and Height of _Genius_ is,\nI'll only shew your _Lines_, and say, _'Tis this_.\n\nThe _Spirit_ and _Wit_ of this _Ode_ are excellent; and yet it is\nevident, through the whole, that Mr. _Cowley_ had no clear Idea of\n_Wit_, though at the same time it _shines_ in most of these Lines:\nThere is little Merit in saying what WIT _is not_, which is the chief\nPart of this _Ode_. Towards the End, he indeed attempts to describe what\n_it is_, but is quite vague and perplex'd in his Description; and at\nlast, instead of collecting his scatter'd Rays into a _Focus_, and\nexhibiting succinctly the clear Essence and Power of WIT, he drops the\nwhole with a trite Compliment.\n\nThe learned Dr. _Barrow_, in his _Sermon against foolish Talking and\nJesting_, gives the following profuse Description of WIT.\n\n  But first it may be demanded, What the Thing we speak of is? Or\n  what the Facetiousness (or _Wit_ as he calls it before) doth\n  import? To which Questions I might reply, as _Democritus_ did to\n  him that asked the Definition of a Man, _'Tis that we all see and\n  know._ Any one better apprehends what it is by Acquaintance,\n  than I can inform him by Description. It is indeed a Thing so\n  versatile and multiform, appearing in so many Shapes, so many\n  Postures, so many Garbs, so variously apprehended  by several\n  Eyes and Judgments, that it seemeth no less hard to settle a\n  clear and certain Notion thereof, than to make a Portrait of\n  _Proteus_, or to define the Figure of the fleeting Air. Sometimes\n  it lieth in pat Allusion to a known Story, or in seasonable\n  Application of a trivial Saying, or in forging an apposite Tale:\n  Sometimes it playeth in Words and Phrases, taking Advantage from\n  the Ambiguity of their Sense, or the Affinity of their Sound:\n  Sometimes it is wrapp'd in a Dress of humorous Expression:\n  Sometimes it lurketh  under an odd Similitude: Sometimes it\n  is lodged in a sly Question, in a smart Answer, in a quirkish\n  Reason, in a shrewd Intimation, in cunningly diverting, or\n  cleverly retorting an Objection: Sometimes it is couched in a\n  bold Scheme of Speech, in a tart Irony, in a lusty Hyperbole,\n  in a startling Metaphor, in a plausible Reconciling of\n  Contradictions, or in acute Nonsense; Sometimes a scenical\n  Representation of Persons or Things, a counterfeit Speech, a\n  mimical Look or Gesture passeth for it. Sometimes an affected\n  Simplicity, sometimes a presumptuous  Bluntness giveth it Being.\n  Sometimes  it riseth from a lucky Hitting upon what is Strange;\n  sometimes from a crafty wresting obvious Matter to the Purpose.\n  Often it' consisteth in one knows not what, and springeth\n  up one can hardly tell how. Its ways are unaccountable, and\n  inexplicable,  being answerable to the numberless Rovings of\n  Fancy, and Windings of Language.  It is, in short, a Manner\n  of Speaking  out of the simple and plain Way (such as Reason\n  teacheth, and proveth Things by) which by a pretty, surprizing\n  Uncouthness  in Conceit or Expression, doth affect and amuse the\n  Fancy, stirring in it some Wonder, and breeding some Delight\n  thereto. It raiseth Admiration, as signifying a nimble Sagacity\n  of Apprehension, a special Felicity of Invention, a Vivacity  of\n  Spirit, and Reach of Wit, more than vulgar; it seeming to argue a\n  rare Quickness of Parts, that one can fetch in remote Conceits\n  applicable; a notable Skill that he can dextrously accommodate\n  them to the Purpose before him; together with a lively Briskness\n  of Humour, not apt to damp those Sportful Flashes of Imagination.\n  (Whence in _Aristotle_ such Persons  are termed \"epidexioi\",\n  dexterous Men, and \"eutropoi\", Men of facile or versatile\n  Manners, who can easily turn themselves to all Things, or\n  turn all Things to themselves.) It also procureth Delight,\n  by gratifying Curiosity with its Rareness, or Semblance of\n  Difficulty. (As Monsters,  not for their Beauty, but their\n  Rarity; as juggling Tricks, not for their Use, but their\n  Abstruseness, are beheld with Pleasure;) by diverting the Mind\n  from its Road of serious Thoughts, by instilling Gaiety, and\n  Airiness of Spirit; by provoking to such Disposition of Spirit\n  in Way of Emulation, or Complaisance; and by seasoning Matters\n  otherwise distasteful or insipid, with an unusual and thence\n  grateful Tange.\n\nThis Description, it is easy to perceive, must have cost the Author of\nit a great deal of Labour. It is a very full Specimen of that Talent\nof entirely _exhausting_ a Subject, for which Dr. _Barrow_ was\nremarkable; and if the _Point_ was, to exhibit all the various Forms\nand Appearances, not of WIT only, but of _Raillery_, _Satire_,\n_Sarcasms_, and of every Kind of _Poignancy_ and _Pleasantry_ of\nSentiment, and Expression, he seems to have perfectly succeeded; there\nbeing perhaps no Variety, in all the Extent of these Subjects, which\nhe has not presented to View in this Description.--But he does not\npretend to give any _Definition_ of WIT, intimating rather that it is\nquite impossible to be given: And indeed from his Description of it,\nas a _Proteus_, appearing in numberless various Colours, and Forms;\nand from his mistaking, and presenting for WIT, other different\nMixtures and Substances, it is evident that his Idea of it was quite\nconfused and uncertain: It is true, he has discovered a vast Scope of\nFertility of Genius, and an uncommon Power of collecting together a\nMultitude of Objects upon any Occasion, but he has here absolutely\nmistaken his work; for instead of exhibiting the Properties of WIT in\na clearer Light, and confuting the _false Claims_ which are made to\nit, he has made it his whole Business to perplex it the more, by\nintroducing, from all Corners, a monstrous Troop of new unexpected\n_Pretenders_.\n\n_Dryden_, in the Preface to his _Opera_, entitled, _The State of\nInnocence_, or _Fall of Man_, gives the following _Decree_ upon WIT.\n  The _Definition of WIT_, (which has been so often attempted, and\n  ever unsuccessfully  by many Poets) is only this: That it is _a\n  Propriety of Thoughts and Words; or in other Terms, Thoughts and\n  Words elegantly adapted to the Subject_.\n\nIf Mr. _Dryden_ imagined, that he had succeeded _himself_ in this\n_Definition_, he was extremely mistaken; for nothing can be more\ndistant from the Properties of WIT, than those he describes. He\ndiscovers no Idea of the _Surprize_, and _Brilliancy_ of WIT, or of\nthe sudden _Light_ thrown upon a Subject. Instead of once pointing at\nthese, he only describes the Properties of clear _Reasoning_, which\nare _a Propriety of Thoughts and Words_;--Whereas WIT, in its sudden\n_Flashes_, makes no Pretension to _Reasoning_; but is perceived in the\npleasant _Surprize_ which it starts, and in the _Light_ darted upon\na Subject, which instantly vanishes again, without abiding a strict\nExamination.\n\nThe other Definition he gives, which is, _Thoughts and Words elegantly\nadapted to the Subject_, is very different from the former, but\nequally unhappy.\n\nFor _Propriety_, in _Thoughts_ and _Words_, consists in exhibiting\n_clear, pertinent Ideas_, in _precise_ and _perspicuous Words_.\n\nWhereas ELEGANCE consists in the _compt_, _well pruned_ and _succinct\nTurn_ of a Subject.\n\nThe Object of the _First_, is to be _clear_, and _perspicuous_; whence\nit often appears in pursuit of these, not _compt_ or _succinct_:\nWhereas the _Essence_ of ELEGANCE is to be _compt_ and _succinct_,\nfor the Sake of which Ornaments it often neglect _Perspicuity_, and\n_Clearness_.--In  short, a _Propriety_ of Thoughts and Words, may\nsubsist without any _Elegance_; as an _Elegance_ of Thoughts and Words\nmay appear without a perfect _Propriety_.\n\nThe last _Definition_, as it is thus very different from the former is\nalso equally unhappy: For ELEGANCE is no _essential_ Property of WIT.\n_Pure_ WIT resulting solely from the _quick Elucidation_ of one\nSubject, by the sudden _Arrangement_, and _Comparison_ of it,\nwith another Subject.--If the two Objects _arranged_ together are\n_elegant_, and _polite_, there will then be superadded to the WIT,\nan _Elegance_ and _Politeness_ of Sentiment, which will render the\nWIT more amiable. But if the Objects are _vulgar_, _obscene_, or\n_deformed_, provided the _first_ be _elucidated_, in a lively Manner,\nby, the sudden _Arrangement_ of it with the _second_, there will be\nequally WIT; though, the Indelicacy of Sentiment attending it, will\nrender such WIT shocking and abominable.\n\nIt is with the highest Respect for the great Mr. _Locke_, that I\ndeliver his Sentiments upon this Subject.\n\n  And hence, perhaps, may be given some Reason of that common\n  Observation, that Men who have a great deal of _Wit_, and prompt\n  Memories, have not always the clearest Judgment or deepest\n  Reason: For _Wit_ lying most in the Assemblage of _Ideas_, and\n  putting those together with Quickness and Variety, wherein can be\n  found any Assemblance or Congruity, thereby to make up pleasant\n  Pictures, and agreeable Visions in the Fancy. _Judgment_, on the\n  contrary, lies quite on the other side; in separating carefully\n  one from another, _Ideas_, wherein can be found the least\n  Difference, thereby to avoid being missed by Similitude, and\n  by Affinity to take one thing for another. This is a Way of\n  proceeding quite contrary to Metaphor and Allusion; wherein for\n  the most Part lies that Entertainment and Pleasantry of _Wit_,\n  which strikes so lively on the Fancy, and therefore is acceptable\n  to all People, because its Beauty appears at first Sight, and\n  there is required no Labour of Thoughts to examine what Truth,\n  or Reason, there is in it. The Mind, without looking any further,\n  rests satisfied with the Agreeableness of the Picture, and the\n  Gaiety of the Fancy. And it is a kind of an Affront to go about\n  to examine it by the severe Rules of Truth, and good Reason,\n  whereby it appears, that it conflicts in something that is not\n  perfectly conformable to them.\n\nIt is to be observed that Mr. _Locke_ has here only occasionally,\nand passantly, delivered his Sentiments upon this Subject; but yet he\nhas very happily explained the chief Properties of WIT. It was _his_\nRemark _First_, that it lies for the most _Part_ in _assembling_\ntogether with _Quickness_ and _Variety_ Objects, which possess an\n_Affinity_, or _Congruity_, with each other; which was the _first_\njust Information obtained by the literary World, upon this Subject.\n\nAs to what he adds, That the Intention, and Effects, of this\n_Assemblage_ of _similar_ Objects, is _to make up pleasant Pictures,\nand agreeable Visions in the Fancy_, it is, as I humbly apprehend, not\nquite perfect: For the Business of this _Assemblage_ is not merely to\nraise pleasant Pictures in the Fancy, but also to _enlighten_\nthereby the _original_ Subject.--This  is evident; because in such\n_Assemblages_, the only Foundation upon which the _new Subject_\nis suddenly introduced, is the _Affinity_, and consequently the\n_Illustration_, it bears to the _first_ Subject.--The Introduction of\npleasant Pictures and Visions, which present not a new _Illustration_,\nand _Light_, to the _original_ Subjects, being rather wild Sallies of\n_Vivacity_, than well-aimed, apposite Strokes of WIT.\n\nIt is Mr. _Locke_'s Conclusion, at last, That WIT _consists in\nsomething that is not perfectly conformable to Truth, and good\nReason_.--This is a _Problem_ of some Curiosity; and I apprehend\nMr. _Locke_'s Determination upon it to be right:--For the _Direction_\nof WIT is absolutely different from the _Direction of_ TRUTH and GOOD\nREASON; It being the Aim of WIT to strike the _Imagination_; of TRUTH\nand GOOD REASON, to convince the _Judgment_: From thence they can\nnever be perfectly coincident.\n\nIt is however true, that there may be Instances of WIT, wherein the\n_Agreement_ between the two Objects shall be absolutely _just_, and\nperceived to be such at the first Glance. Such Instances of WIT, will\nbe then also _Self-evident_ TRUTHS. They will _both_ agree in their\nobvious, and quick _Perspicuity_; but will be still different in this,\nthat the Effort of the _One_ is to strike the _Fancy_, whereas the\n_Other_ is wholly exerted in gratifying the _Judgment_.\n\nThe Sentiments of Mr. _Addison_ upon WIT, are professedly delivered in\nthe _Spectator_ No. 62. annexed to the following _Essay_. He has there\njustly commended Mr. _Locke_'s Description of WIT; but what he adds,\nby Way of Explanation to it, that the _Assemblage_ of Ideas must be\nsuch as shall give _Delight_, and _Surprize_, is not true, in regard\nto the Former, _Delight_ being no _essential_ Property of WIT; for\nif the _original_ Subject be unpleasant, or deformed, the sudden\nunexpected _Arrangement_ of a _similar_ Object with it, may give us\n_Surprize_, and be indisputably WIT, and yet be far from creating any\n_Delight_.\n\nThis Gentleman has also given the following Example, in order to\nillustrate the Necessity there is, that _Surprize_ should be always\nan Attendant upon WIT.\n\n  \"When a Poet tells us, the Bosom of his Mistress is as white as\n  Snow, there is no _Wit_ in the Comparison; but when he adds,\n  with a Sigh, that it as cold too, it then grows to Wit.\"\n\n--To compare a Girl's _Bosom_ to _Snow_ for its _Whiteness_ I\napprehend to be WIT, notwithstanding the Authority of so great a\nWriter to the contrary. For there is a _Lustre_ resulting from the\n_natural_ and _splendid Agreement_ between these Objects, which will\n_always_ produce WIT; such, as cannot be destroyed, though it will\nquickly be rendered _trite_, by frequent Repetition.\n\nThis _Problem_, _How far_ SURPRIZE _is, or is not, necessary to_ WIT,\nI humbly apprehend, may be thus solved.--In Subjects which have a\n_natural_ and _splendid Agreement_, there will always be WIT upon\ntheir _Arrangement_ together; though when it becomes _trite_, and not\naccompanied with _Surprize_, the _Lustre_ will be much faded;--But\nwhere the _Agreement_ is _forced_ and _strained_, _Novelty_ and\n_Surprize_ are absolutely necessary to usher it in; An unexpected\n_Assemblage_ of this Sort, striking our Fancy, and being gaily\nadmitted at first to be WIT; which upon frequent Repetition, the\n_Judgment_ will have examined, and rise up against it wherever it\nappears;--So that in short, in Instances where the _Agreement_ is\n_strained_ and _defective_, which indeed are abundantly the most\ngeneral, _Surprize_ is a necessary _Passport_ to WIT; but _Surprize_\nis not necessary to WIT, where the _Agreement_ between the two\nSubjects is _natural_ and _splendid_; though in these Instances\nit greatly heightens the _Brillancy_.\n\nThe subsequent Remark of Mr. _Addison_, _That the Poet, after saying\nhis Mistress's Bosom is as white as Snow, should add, with a Sigh,\nthat it is as cold too, in order that it may grow to_ WIT, is I fear,\nvery incorrect. For as to the _Sigh_, it avails not a Rush; and this\nAddition will be found to be only a _new_ Stroke of WIT, equally\n_trite_, and less perfect, and natural, than the former Comparison.\n\nIt may also be observed, That Mr. _Addison_ has omitted the\n_Elucidation_ of the _original_ Subject, which is the grand Excellence\nof WIT. Nor has he prescribed any _Limits_ to the Subjects, which are\nto be arranged together;  without which the Result will be frequently\nthe SUBLIME or BURLESQUE; In which, it is true, WIT often appears,\nbut taking their whole Compositions together, they are different\nSubstances, and usually ranked in different _Classes_.\n\nAll that Mr. _Congreve_ has delivered upon WIT, as far as I know,\nappears in his _Essay_ upon HUMOUR, annexed to this Treatise. He\nthere says,\n  To define HUMOUR, perhaps, were as difficult, as to define WIT;\n  for, like that, it is of infinite Variety.\n--Again, he afterwards adds,\n  But though we cannot certainly tell what WIT is, or what HUMOUR\n  is, yet we may _go near_ to shew something, which is not WIT, or\n  not HUMOUR, and yet often mistaken for both.\n--In this _Essay_, wherein he particularly considers HUMOUR, and\nthe Difference between _this_, and WIT, he may be expected to have\ndelivered his best Sentiments upon both: But these Words, which I\nhave quoted, seem to be as important and precise, as any which he has\noffered upon the Subject of WIT. As such, I present them, without any\nRemarks, to my Reader, who, if he only _goes near_ to be _edified_ by\nthem, will discover a great Share of _Sagacity_.\n\nThe Sentiments of these eminent Writers upon WIT, having thus been\nexhibited, I come next to the Subject of HUMOUR. This has been\n_defined_ by some, in the following Manner, with great _Perspicuity._\n--HUMOUR is the genuine WIT of _Comedies_,--which has afforded\nvast Satisfaction to many _Connoissures_ in the _Belles Lettres_;\nespecially as WIT has been supposed to be incapable of any\n_Definition._\n\nThis Subject has also been particularly considered by the\n_Spectatator_ No. 35. inserted at the End of the following\n_Essay_. Mr. _Addison_ therein _gravely_ remarks, that\n  It is indeed much easier to describe what is not HUMOUR, than\n  what it is;\nwhich, I humbly apprehend, is no very _important_ Piece of\nInformation.--He adds,\n  And very difficult to define it otherwise, than as _Cowly_ has\n  done WIT, by Negatives.\nThis Notion of _defining_ a Subject by _Negatives_, is a favourite\n_Crotchet_, and may perhaps be assumed upon other Occasions by future\nWriters: I hope therefore I shall be pardoned, if I offer a proper\nExplanation of so good a _Conceit_;--To declare then, _That a Subject is\nonly to be_ DEFINED _by_ NEGATIVES, is to cloath it in a _respectable_\nDress of _Darkness_. And about as much as to say, That it is a _Knight_\nof _tenebrose Virtues_; or a _serene Prince_, of the _Blood_ of _Occult\nQualities_.\n\nMr. _Addison_ proceeds,\n  Were I to give my own Notions of HUMOUR, I should deliver them\n  after _Plato's_ Manner, in a Kind of Allegory; and by supposing\n  HUMOUR to be a Person, deduce to him, all his Qualifications,\n  according to the following Genealogy: TRUTH was the Founder of\n  the Family, and the Father of GOOD SENSE; GOOD SENSE was the\n  Father of WIT, who married a Lady of a collateral Line called\n  MIRTH, by whom he had Issue HUMOUR.\n--It is very unfortunate for this _Allegorical_ Description, that\nthere is not one Word of it just: For TRUTH, GOOD SENSE, WIT, and\nMIRTH, represented to be the immediate _Ancestors_ of HUMOUR; whereas\nHUMOUR is derived from the _Foibles_, and whimsical _Oddities_\nof _Persons_ in real Life, which flow rather from their\n_Inconsistencies_, and _Weakness_, than from TRUTH and GOOD SENSE;\nNor is WIT any _Ancestor_ of HUMOUR, but of a quite different\n_Family_; it being notorious that much HUMOUR may be drawn from\nthe Manners of _Dutchmen_, and of the most formal and dull Persons,\nwho are yet never guilty of WIT. Again, MIRTH is not so properly\nthe _Parent_ of HUMOUR, as the _Offspring_.--In short, this whole\n_Genealogy_ is a _nubilous_ Piece of Conceit, instead of being any\n_Elucidation_ of HUMOUR. It is a formal Method of trifling, introduced\nunder a deep Ostentation of Learning, which deserves the severest\nRebuke.--But I restrain my Pen, recollecting the _Visions_ of MIRZA,\nand heartily profess my high Veneration for their admirable Author.\n\nThe _Essay_ upon HUMOUR, at the End of this Treatise, written by\nMr. _Congreve_, is next to be considered. It appears, that at first\nhe professes his absolute Uncertainty in regard to this Subject; and\nsays, \"_We cannot certainly tell what_ WIT _is, or what_ HUMOUR _is_.\"\nBut yet, through his whole Piece, he neglects the Subject of HUMOUR in\ngeneral, and only discourses upon the HUMOUR, by which he means barely\nthe _Disposition_, of Persons: This may particularly appear from the\nfollowing Words.\n\n  A Man may change his Opinion, but I believe he will find it a\n  Difficulty to part with his HUMOUR; and there is nothing more\n  provoking than the being made sensible of that Difficulty.\n  Sometimes we shall meet with those, who perhaps indifferently\n  enough, but at the same time impertinently, will ask the\n  Question, WHY ARE YOU NOT MERRY? WHY ARE YOU NOT GAY, PLEASANT,\n  AND CHEARFUL? Then instead of answering, could I ask such a\n  Person, WHY ARE YOU NOT HANDSOME? WHY HAVE YOU NOT BLACK EYES,\n  AND A BETTER COMPLEXION? Nature abhors to be forced.\n\n  The two famous Philosophers of _Ephesus_ and _Abdera_, have their\n  different Sects at this Day. Some weep, and others laugh at one\n  and the same Thing.\n\n  I don't doubt but you have observed several Men laugh when they\n  are angry; others, who are silent; some that are loud; yet I\n  cannot suppose that it is the Passion of ANGER, which is in\n  itself different, or more or less in one than t'other, but that\n  it is the HUMOUR of the Man that is predominant, and urges him to\n  express it in that Manner. Demonstrations of PLEASURE, are as\n  various: One Man has a HUMOUR of retiring from all Company, when\n  any thing has happened to please him beyond Expectation; he hugs\n  himself alone, and thinks it an Addition to the Pleasure to keep\n  it a Secret, &c.\n\nAll which, I apprehend, is no more than saying; That there are different\n_Dispositions_ in different _Persons_.\n\nIn another Place, he seems to understand by _Humour_, not only the\n_Disposition,_ but the _Tone_ of the _Nerves_, of a Person,\nthus,\n\n  \"Suppose MOROSE to be a Man naturally splenetic, and melancholy;\n  is there any thing more offensive to one of such a DISPOSITION\n  (where he uses the Word instead of _Humour_) than Noise and\n  Clamour? Let any Man that has the Spleen (and there are enough in\n  England) be Judge. We see common Examples of this HUMOUR in\n  little every Day. 'Tis ten to one, but three Parts in four of the\n  Company  you dine with, are discomposed, and started at the\n  cutting of a Cork, or scratching of a Plate with a Knife; it is\n  a Proportion of the same HUMOUR, that makes such, or any other\n  Noise, offensive to the Person that hears it; for there are\n  others who will not be disturbed at all by it.\n\nAt this Rate every _Weakness_ of _Nerves_, or _Particularity_ of\n_Constitution,_ is HUMOUR.\n\nIt is true, he justly points out in another Place the different\nSentiments, which ought to be adapted to different _Characters_ in\n_Comedy_, according to their different _Dispositions_, or, as he\nphrases it, _Humours_: As for Instance, he very rightly observes,\n  That a Character of a splenetic and peevish HUMOUR, Should have\n  a satirical WIT. A jolly and sanguine HUMOUR should have a\n  facetious WIT.\n--But still this is no Description of what is well felt, and known, by\nthe general Name of HUMOUR.\n\nHowever, as what I have already quoted, may appear to be only his\nlooser Explanations, it will be necessary to deliver his more closed\nand collected Sentiments upon this Subject. These he gives in the\nfollowing Words,\n  I should be unwilling to venture, even in a bare _Description_ of\n  _Humour_, much more to make a _Definition_ of it; but now my Hand\n  is in, I will tell you what serves me instead of either. I take\n  it to be, _A singular and unavoidable Manner of doing or saying\n  any thing, peculiar and natural to one Man only, by which his\n  Speech and Actions are distinguished from those of other Men.\"\n--This Description is very little applicable to HUMOUR, but tolerably\nwell adapted to other Subjects.--Thus, a Person, who is happy in a\nparticular _Grace_, which accompanies all his Actions, may be said to\npossess _a singular and unavoidable Manner of doing or saying any\nthing, peculiar and natural to him only, by which his Speech and\nActions are distinguished from those of other Men_. And the same\nmay be said of a Person of a peculiar _Vivacity_, _Heaviness_,\nor _Awkwardness_.--In  short, this Description is suited to any\n_Particularity_ of a Person in general, instead of being adapted\nto the _Foibles_ and _whimsical Oddities_ of Persons, which alone\nconstitute HUMOUR.\n\nThese are the only Pieces upon WIT, and HUMOUR, which have fallen\nwithin my Knowledge; I have here fairly delivered them at length;\nand from the Respect which is due to such eminent Writers, have\ndistinctly and deliberately examined the Merit of each.--As to my\nown _Performance_, which is now submitted to the Public, I have to\nwish, that it may gain a candid and strict Examination. It has been\nmy Endeavour to give _Definitions_ of the Subjects, upon which I have\ntreated; A _Plan_ the most difficult of all others to be executed by\nan Author; But such an one, as I apprehend, deserves to be more\ngenerally introduced, and established. If once it was expected by the\nPublic, that _Authors_ should strictly _define_ their Subjects, it\nwould instantly checque an Inundation of Scribbling. The _desultory_\nManner of Writing would be absolutely exploded;  and _Accuracy_ and\n_Precision_ would be necessarily introduced upon every Subject.\n\nThis is the _Method_ pursued in Subjects of _Philosophy_; Without\nclear and precise _Definitions_ such noble Advances could never have\nbeen made in those Sciences; And it is by the Assistance of _these_\nonly, that Subjects of _Polite Literature_, can ever be enlightened\nand embellished with just Ornaments. If _Definitions_ had been\nconstantly exacted from Authors there would not have appeared _one\nhundreth_ Part of the present Books, and yet every Subject had been\nbetter ascertained.--Nor will this Method, as some may imagine, be\nencumbered with Stiffness; On the contrary, in _illustrating_ the\nTruth of _Definitions_ there is a full Scope of the utmost Genius,\nImagination, and Spirit of a Writer; and a Work upon this _Plan_ is\nadorned with the highest Charms appearing with _Propriety_,\n_Clearness_, and _Conviction_,  as well as Beauty.\n\nIt is true, that the Difficulties, which attend an able Execution\nof this _Method_, are not open to a careless Eye; And it is some\nMortification to an _Author_ upon this _Plan_, that his greatest\n_Merit_ is likely to lie concealed; A _Definition,_ or _Distinction,_\nwhich after much Attention and Time he has happily delivered with\n_Brevity_ and _Clearness_, appearing hereby quite obvious, to others,\nand what they cannot imagine could require Pains to discover.\n\nAs to the _Examples_, by which I have illustrated the _Definition_ of\n_Wit_, they are _common_ and _trite_; but are the best, which I could\nfind upon deliberate Enquiry. Many Modern instances of _Wit_, which\nleft very lively Impressions upon me, when I heard them, appearing\nupon Re-examination to be quite strained and defective. These, which\nI have given, as they are thus _trite_, are not designed in themselves\nfor any Entertainment to the Reader; but being various, and distant\nfrom each other, they very properly serve to explain the Truth, and\nExtent of the _Definition_.\n\nThe Character of an HUMOURIST, I expect, will be strange to most of\nmy Readers; and if no Gentleman is acquainted with a _Person_ of this\n_Cast_, it must pass for a _Monster_ of my own Creation;--As to the\nCharacter of Sir _John Falstaff_, it is chiefly extracted from\n_Shakespear_, in his 1st Part of King _Henry_ the _IVth_; But so far\nas _Sir John_ in _Shakspear's_ Description, sinks into a _Cheat_ or a\n_Scoundrel_, upon any Occasion, he is different from that _Falstaff_,\nwho is designed in the following _Essay_, and is entirely an amiable\nCharacter.\n\nIt is obvious, that the Appearance, which _Falstaff_ makes, in the\nunfinished Play of _The Merry Wives of Windsor_, is in general greatly\nbelow his true Character. His Imprisonment and Death in the latter\nPart of King _Henry_ the _IVth_, seem also to have been written by\n_Shakespear_ in Compliance with the _Austerity_ of the Times; and in\norder to avoid the Imputation of encouraging _Idleness_ and mirthful\n_Riot_ by too amiable and happy an Example.\n\nThe Criticism, which I have made, upon _Horace_'s Narrative of his\n_Adventure_ with an _Impertinent Fellow_, I offer with Respect; And\nbeg leave to observe that the chief Part which I object to, is the\n_Propriety_ of his introducing himself in so _ridiculous a Plight_;\n  --Dum sudor ad imos\n  Manaret Talos;\nAnd\n  Demitto Auriculas, ut iniquae mentis Acellus\n  Cum gravius dorso subiit onus.\nAnd other Representations of the same sort, seem to place _Horace_\nin a very mean and ludicrous Light; which it is probable he never\napprehended in the full Course of exposing his Companion;--Besides,\nthe Conduct of his Adversary is in several Places, excessively, and,\nas it may be construed, _designedly_, insolent and contemptuous; and\nas no Merit or Importance belongs to this Person, there appears no\nReason why _Horace_ should endure such Treatment; or, if the other was\ntoo _powerful_ for him, it is not an _Adventure_ of _Honour_; or what\n_Horace_ should chuse to expose to the World in this manner, with all\nthe Particulars of his own despicable Distress.\n\nHowever, the _Mirth_ which results from this Narrative, as it\nnow stands, is perhaps rather the stronger at first, by the full\n_Ridicule_ which lies against _Horace_, and his Adversary;--But, upon\nReflection, there arises a Disgust, at the Impropriety of _Horace's_\nexposing his own _Meanness_, as well as at the nauseous _Impudence_\nof his Companion.\n\nAs to _uncommon_ Words, if any such appear in this _Introduction_,\nor in the following _Essay_, I hope they want neither _Propriety_,\n_Clearness_, nor _Strength_;--And if the _Length_of this Piece to an\n_Essay_ so _short_ shall happen at first to _disturb_ any _Critic_,\nI beg leave to inform him, that all, which can be fairly collected\nfrom it, is only, that it may have cost _me_ the more Trouble;--But\nupon mentioning the _Length_ of this Piece, what behoves me the most,\nis, to return my Thanks to two _Gentlemen_, who suffered me to read to\nthem the whole, as it was gradually written; And by whose _judicious_\nand _friendly Instructions_ in the Course of it, my own _Imagination_\nwas often prevented from running into _Riots_.\n\nHowever, I am far from imagining, that I have always been reduced\nwithin just Bounds; And now feel a sufficient Share of _Concern_ and\n_Anxiety_, for the _Fate_ of this Work;--Yet, I humbly apprehend, that\n_this_ must freely be allowed me, that I have not been a _Plagiary_;\nBut have constantly delivered my own _original_ Sentiments, without\n_purloining_ or _disfiguring_ the Thoughts of others; An _Honesty_,\nwhich, I hope, is laudable in an _Author_; And as I have not _stolen_,\nneither have I _concealed_, the _Merit_ of other Writers.\n\nIt will also be found, as I humbly apprehend, that I have never\n_shunned_ the Subject: I mention this particularly, because it is\nthe Practice of many eminent Writers, after much _curvetting_ and\n_prauncing_, suddenly to wheel, and retire, when they are expected\nto make their most full Attack.--These Gentlemen, it is true, very\nhappily avoid _Danger_, and advance and retreat in _excellent Order_:\nBut, with their Leave, I must observe that they never do any\n_Execution_; For Subjects, which have not been surveyed, and laid\nopen, are like _fortified Places_; and it is the Business of a\n_Writer_, as well as of a _Soldier_, to make an Attack;--This has been\nthe Conduct I have held in the following _Essay_; and however I may\nbe _shattered_ upon any Occasion, I hope it will appear (if I may be\nallowed the Expression) that I have fairly _charged_ the Subjects.\n\nHaving offered these Circumstances in my Favour, I must frankly\nacknowledge, that I am not able to plead any _Hurry_ or _Precipitancy_\nin the publishing of this Work, in Excuse of its Errors; Though\nI clearly understand, that by making this Discovery, I absolutely\ndeprive myself of the most _genteel_ and _fashionable Screen_ now used\nby Authors;--But I imagined, that it became me to spare no Labour or\nAttention upon a Work, which I should presume to offer to the World;\nHappening to esteem this _Care_ and _Concern_, a _Respect_ due to the\n_Public_, and the proper Species of _Humility_ and _Modesty_ in an\n_Author_.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n                      An\n                     ESSAY\n                      on\n          Wit, Humour, Raillery, & c.\n\n\n  WIT is the LUSTRE resulting from the quick ELUCIDATION of one\n  Subject, by a _just_ and unexpected ARRANGEMENT of it with\n  another Subject.\n\nThis _Definition_ of WIT will more clearly appear by a short\nExplanation.\n\nIt is the Province of WIT to _elucidate_, or _enlighten_ a Subject,\nnot by reasoning upon that Subject, but by a just and unexpected\nIntroduction of another _similar_, or _opposite_ Subject; whereby,\nupon their _Arrangement_ together, the _original_ Subject may be _set\noff_, and more clearly _enlighten'd_, by their obvious Comparison.\n\nIt may be proper, for the sake of Distinction, to call the Subject,\nwhich is the Basis and Ground-work, the _original_ Subject; and that\nwhich is introduced, in order to _elucidate_ it, the _auxiliary_\nSubject.\n\nThat there be always an apparent Chain or Connexion, or else an\nobvious Agreement or Contrast, between the two Subjects, is absolutely\nrequir'd, in order that the _Auxiliary_ one may be _justly_\nintroduced; otherwise, instead of WIT, there will only appear\na rambling _Vivacity_, in wild, unprovoked Sallies.\n\nAnd yet _every just_ or _natural_ Introduction of an _auxiliary_\nSubject will not produce WIT, unless a new _Lustre_ is reflected\nfrom thence upon the _original_ Subject.\n\nIt is further to be observed, that the Introduction of the _auxiliary_\nSubject ought not only to be _just_, but also _unexpected_, which are\nentirely consistent together; For as every Subject bears various\nRelations and Oppositions to other Subjects, it is evident that each\nof these Relations and Oppositions upon being exhibited, will be\n_unexpected_ to the Persons, who did not perceive them before; and\nyet they are _just_ by Supposition.\n\nIt is upon such _unexpected_ Introductions of _auxiliary_ Subjects,\nthat we are struck with a _Surprize_; from whence the high\n_Brilliancy_ and _Sparkling_ of WIT, result.\n\nWhereas _Auxiliary_ Subjects, introduced upon such Occasions, as they\nhave been frequently exhibited before, are apt to fall dull, and heavy\nupon the Fancy; and unless they possess great natural Spirit, will\nexcite no sprightly Sensation.\n\nIt is also necessary to observe, that, in WIT, the Subjects concern'd\nmust be _ordinary_ and _level_; By which are intended, not such as\nare _common_, but such as have no _extraordinarily exalted_, or\n_enlarged_, Qualities; and are not _unsizeable_ in the particular\nCircumstances in which they are compared to each other;--otherwise it\nis easy to perceive, that the Result of their _Arrangement_ will not\nbe so properly WIT, as either the SUBLIME, or BURLESQUE.\n\nTo all this is to be added, that either _Gallantry, Raillery_,\n_Humour_, _Satire_, _Ridicule_, _Sarcasms_, or other Subjects, are\ngenerally blended with WIT; It has been for want of this Discovery,\nand of a proper Separation of these Subjects, that the Attempts which\nhave hitherto been made to _define_ WIT, have been all involv'd and\noverwhelm'd in Perplexity; For the different Mixtures of these foreign\nIngredients with WIT, have discover'd such various and opposite\n_Colours_ and _Substances_, as were impossible to be comprehended in\none certain steady _Definition_;--Whereas _pure_ WIT alone, constantly\nappears in _one uniform_ Manner; which is, _In the _quick Elucidation_\nof one Subject, by _unexpectedly_ exhibiting its _Agreement_ or\n_Contrast_ with another Subject_.\n\nIt is proper in this Place, to distinguish between WIT, SIMILES,\nand METAPHORS. SIMILES, though they _illustrate_ one Subject, by\n_arranging_ it with another Subject, are yet different from WIT,\nas they want its _sudden_ and _quick Elucidation_.\n\nAgain; In WIT, the _Elucidation_ is thrown only upon _one_ Point of a\nSubject; or if more Points be _elucidated_, they are so many different\nStrokes of WIT;--Whereas every SIMILE touches the Subject it\n_illustrates_ in _several Points_.\n\nIt is from hence, that the _Elucidation_, as before mention'd, arising\nfrom a SIMILE, is _slower_ than from WIT; But then is is generally\nmore _accurate_ and _compleat_;--In short, WIT, from its _Quickness_,\nexhibits more _Brilliancy_, But SIMILES possess greater _Perfection_.\n\n  A METAPHOR, is the _Arrayment_ of one Subject, with the _Dress_,\n  or _Colour_, or any _Attributes_, of another Subject.\n\nIn WIT, the two Subjects are suddenly confronted with each other,\nand upon their joint View, the _original_ one is _elucidated_ by the\nobvious _Agreement_ or _Contrast_ of the _auxiliary_ Subject.\n\nBut METAPHOR goes further, and not content with _arranging_ the two\nSubjects together, and exhibiting from thence their _Agreement_ or\n_Contrast_, it actually snatches the Properties of the _auxiliary_\none, and fits them at once upon the _original_ Subject.\n\nIt is evident from hence, that there may be WIT without any METAPHOR;\nBut in every just METAPHOR there is WIT; The _Agreement_ of the two\nSubjects being in a METAPHOR more strictly and sensibly presented.\n\nThere is also this Difference between WIT and METAPHOR, that in WIT\nthe _original_ Subject is _enlighten'd_, without altering its _Dress_;\nwhereas in METAPHOR the _original_ Subject is cloathed in a _new\nDress_, and struts forwards at once with a different _Air_, and with\nstrange _unexpected Ornaments_.\n\nIt is from hence, that by METAPHOR a more masculine Air and Vigour is\ngiven to a Subject, than by WIT; But it too often happens, that the\nMETAPHOR is carried so far, as instead of _elucidating_, to obscure\nand disfigure, the _original_ Subject.\n\nTo exhibit some Examples of WIT.\n\n\n1.\n\n_Henry_ the IVth of _France_, intimating to the _Spanish_ Ambassador\nthe Rapidity, with which he was able to over-run _Italy_, told him,\nthat _if once he mounted on Horseback, he should breakfast at_ Milan,\n_and dine at_ Naples; To which the Ambassador added, _Since your\nMajesty travels at this rate, you may be at Vespers in_ Sicily.\n\nThe Introduction of the _Vespers_ at SICILY is here _natural_, and\neasy; as it seems only to be carrying on his Majesty's Journey at the\nsame rate, and to compleat the Progress of the Day; But it ushers at\nonce into View the _Destruction_ of the _French_ upon a _similar_\nOccasion, when they formerly over-ran SICILY, and were all massacred\nthere at the ringing of the Bell for _Vespers_;--The sudden\nIntroduction and _Arrangement_ of this Catastrophe, with the\nExpedition then threaten'd, sets the Issue of such a Conquest in\na new _Light_; And very happily exhibits and _elucidates_ the Result\nof such vain and restless Adventures.\n\nIt may be observed, that the _quick_ Introduction and _Arrangement_\nof any former Conquest of _Italy_ by the _French_, with the Expedition\nthen threaten'd, would have exhibited WIT; whatever the Issue had been\nof such former Conquest; But in this Instance, there sits couched\nunder the WIT, a very _severe Rebuke_ upon the _French_ Monarch.\n\n\n2.\n\n_Alexander_ the VIth was very busily questioning the Ambassador of\n_Venice_, Of whom his Masters held their Customs and Prerogatives of\nthe Sea? To which the Ambassador readily answer'd; _If your_ HOLINESS\n_will only please to examine your Charter of St._ PETER's _Patrimony,\nyou will find upon the Back of it, the Grant made to the_ VENETIANS\n_of the_ ADRIATIC.\n\nThe Authority of the _Grant_ to the _Venetians_ is in this Instance\nthe _original_ Subject, which is thus suddenly _elucidated_ to the\n_Pope_, by _arranging_, and connecting it with the holy _Charter_ of\nSt. _Peter_'s Patrimony; There is a peculiar Happiness in the Address\nof this Answer to the _Pope_, as he was obliged to receive it as a\nsatisfactory Account of the Truth of the _Grant_, and a clear\n_Elucidation_ of its sacred Authority.\n\nIn this Instance, besides the WIT which shines forth, the _Pope_ is\nseverely expos'd to your _Raillery_, from the Scrape into which he has\nbrought the _Charter_ of St. _Peter's_ Patrimony, by his Attack of the\n_Ambassador_; The _fictitious_ Existence of both the _Charter_ and\n_Grant_ being sarcastically pointed out, under this respectable Air\nof _Authenticity_.\n\n\n3.\n\nUpon the Restoration Mr. _Waller_ presented a congratulatory Copy of\nVerses to King _Charles_; His Majesty, after reading them, said,--\n_Mr_. Waller, _these are very good, but not so fine as you made upon\nthe_ PROTECTOR.--To which Mr. _Waller_ return'd,--_Your Majesty will\nplease to recollect, that we Poets always write best upon_ FICTIONS.\n\nThe _original_ Subject in this Instance is _the superior Excellence of\nMr_. WALLER's _Verses upon_ Cromwell; This he most happily excuses, by\nstarting at once, and _arranging_ along with them, the Remark, that\n_Poets have always excell'd upon Fiction_; whereby he unexpectedly\nexhibits his _more excellent_ Verses to _Cromwell_, as a plain\n_Elucidation_ of the _fictitious_ Glory of the Protector; And\nintimates at the same time, that the _Inferiority_ of his present\nPerformance was a natural _Illustration_ of his Majesty's _real_\nGlory;--Never was a deep Reproach averted by a more happy Reply; which\ncomprehends both the highest Compliment to his Majesty, and a very\nfirm poetical Excuse of the different Performances.\n\n\n4.\n\n_Leonidas_ the _Spartan_ General, when he advanced near the _Persian_\nArmy, was told by one of his own Captains, that _their Enemies were so\nnumerous, it was impossible to see the Sun for the Multitude of their\nArrows_; To which he gallantly reply'd, _We shall then have the\nPleasure of fighting in the Shade_.\n\nThe vast Cope of _Persian_ Arrows is here the _original_ Subject;\nwhich instead of being observed by _Leonidas_ with Terror, presents\nto his Fancy the pleasant Idea of a cool _Canopy_. There is an\n_Agreement_ and Affinity between the two Objects, in regard to the\n_Shelter from the Sun_, which is at once obvious, and _unexpected_;\nAnd the Cloud of the Enemies Arrows is thus gaily _elucidated_, by the\n_Arrangement_ and Comparison of it with so desirable an Object as\n_shady Covering_.\n\nThis Saying of the _Spartan_ General has been handed through many Ages\nto the present Time; But the chief Part of the Pleasure it gives us,\nresults not so much from the WIT it contains, as from the _Gallantry_,\nand _chearful Spirit_, discover'd in Danger, by _Leonidas_.\n\n\n5.\n\nAn Instance of WIT in the _Opposition_, I remember to have read\nsomewhere in the _Spectators_; where Sir _Roger de Coverley_\nintimating the Splendor which the perverse Widow should have appear'd\nin, if she had commenced Lady _Coverley_, says:\n\n_That he would have given her a_ Coalpit _to have kept her in_ clean\nLinnen: _And that her Finger should have_ sparkled _with one hundred\nof his richest_ Acres.\n\nThe joint Introduction of these _opposite_ Objects, as a _Coalpit_\nwith _clean Linnen_, and _dirty Acres_ with the _Lustre_ of a _Jewel_,\nis _just_ in this Instance, as they really produce each other in their\nConsequences; The _natural Opposition_ between them, which is strongly\n_elucidated_ by their _Arrangement_ together, and at the same time\ntheir _unexpected Connexion_ in their Consequences, strike us with a\n_Surprize_, which exhibits the _Brilliancy_ and _Sparkling_ of WIT.\n\nThere is also in this Instance, besides the WIT, a Spirit of\n_Generosity_, and _Magnificence_, discover'd by Sir _Roger_, from\nthe known Value of a _Coalpit_, and of so many rich _Acres_.\n\nThis Kind of WIT, resulting from the sudden _Arrangement_ together of\ntwo _opposite_ Objects, is rarer, than that which is obtained from\ntwo _similar_ Objects; It abounds with a high _Surprize_, and\n_Brilliancy_; and also strongly _elucidates_ the _original_ Object,\nfrom the _Contrast_ presented between _this_, and the _auxiliary_ one;\nIn the same manner as _White_ is more clearly set _off_, by being\narranged with _Black_.\n\nIt may be proper to observe, that WIT, besides being struck out by\n_just_, and _direct_ Introductions of _auxiliary_ Subjects, is also\nsometimes obtain'd by _Transitions_ from one Subject to another, by\nthe Help of an _equivocal Word_; which like a _Bridge_, with two\nRoads meeting at the End of it, leads to two different Places.\n_Transitions_, thus made from the right Course, have indeed the\nPretence of being _natural_; but they ought always to lead us\nto something _brilliant_ or poignant, in order to justify their\n_Deviation_; and not to end only at a ridiculous PUN, void of all\nSpirit and Poignancy.\n\nThe WIT, in such Instances, results, as in all others, from the quick\n_Arrangement_ together of two Subjects; But that, which was first\nintended for the _original_ one, is dropped; And a new _original_\nSubject is started, through the _double Meaning_ of a Word, and\nsuddenly _enlighten'd_.\n\nTo give a _trite_ Instance of this kind of WIT.\n\nA PEER coming out of the House of Lords, and wanting his Servant,\ncalled out, _Where's my Fellow?_ To which another PEER, who stood by\nhim, returned, _Faith, my Lord, not in_ England.\n\nA Transition is here unexpededly made from the Sense intended in the\nQuestion to another Point, through the double Meaning of the word\n_Fellow_; it being obvious, that his Lordship's _Servant_ is the\nSense of the Word in the Question; and what Person is _like_ to his\nLordship, the Construction put upon it in the Answer: Thus a new\n_original_ Subject is started, and being suddenly _arranged_ with all\nthat appear _similar_ to it, is _enlighten'd_ thereby, being found to\nhave no _equal_ in _England_.\n\nHowever, though WIT may be _thus_ struck out, and also appears in the\n_Contrast_ with great _Brilliancy_, yet the highest and most perfect\nInstances of it result from the sudden and _direct Arrangement_\ntogether of two Objects, which hold a perspicuous and splendid\n_Agreement_ with each other; It is then adorn'd with the Charms of\n_Propriety_, _Clearness_ and _Illustration_; It dispels the Darkness\naround an Object, and presents it diftinctly and perfectly to our\nView; chearing us with its _Lustre_, and at the same time informing us\nwith its _Light_.\n\nThus, a Gentleman was observing, that _there was_ somewhat _extremely\npleasing in an excellent_ Understanding, _when it appeared in a\nbeautiful_ Person; To which another returned, _It is like a fine_\nJewel _well set_; You are here pleased with the Happiness, Propriety,\nand Splendor of this _new_ Object, which finely _elucidates_ the\noriginal Sentiment;--In short, it is the Excellence of WIT, _to\npresent the_ first Image _again to your mind, with new unexpected_\nClearness _and_ Advantage.\n\nIt is also proper to add, that there may be WIT in a _Picture_,\n_Landscape_, or in any _Prospect_, where a gay unexpected _Assemblage_\nof _similar_, or _opposite_ Objects, is presented.\n\n  JUDGMENT, is the Faculty of discerning the various _Dimensions_,\n  and _Differences_, of Subjects.\n\n  INVENTION is the Faculty of finding out new _Assortments_, and\n  _Combinations_, of _Ideas_.\n\n  HUMOUR is any _whimsical Oddity_ or _Foible_, appearing in the\n  _Temper_ or _Conduct_ of a _Person_ in _real Life_.\n\nThis _whimsical Oddity_ of Conduct, which generally arises from the\nstrange _Cast_, or _Turn_ of Mind of a _queer_ Person, may also result\nfrom _accidental_ Mistakes and Embarrassments between other Persons;\nwho being misled by a wrong Information and Suspicion in regard to a\nCircumstance, shall act towards each other upon this Occasion, in the\nsame _odd whimsical_ manner, as _queer_ Persons.\n\nIf a _Person_ in real Life, discovers any odd and remarkable\n_Features_ of Temper or Conduct, I call such a Person in the _Book_\nof _Mankind_, a _Character_. So that the chief Subjects of HUMOUR are\nPersons in real Life, who are _Characters_.\n\nIt is easy to be perceived, that HUMOUR, and WIT are extremely\ndifferent.\n\nHUMOUR appears only in the _Foibles_ and _whimsical Conduct_ of\n_Persons_ in real Life; WIT appears in _Comparisons_, either between\n_Persons_ in real Life, or between _other Subjects_.\n\nHUMOUR is the _whimsical Oddity_, or _Foible_, which fairly appears in\nits Subject, of itself; whereas WIT, is the _Lustre_ which is thrown upon\n_one_ Subject, by the _sudden Introduction_ of another Subject.\n\nTo constitute HUMOUR, there need be no more than _one_ Object\nconcern'd, and this must be always some _Person_ in _real Life_;--\nwhereas to produce WIT, there must be always _two_ Objects _arranged_\ntogether, and either or both of these may be _inanimate_.\n\nHowever, though HUMOUR and WIT are thus absolutely different in\nthemselves, yet we frequently see them blended together.\n\nThus if any _Foible_ of a _Character_ in real Life is _directly_\nattacked, by pointing out the unexpected and ridiculous _Affinity_ it\nbears to some _inanimate_ Circumstances, this Foible is then ridiculed\nwith WIT, from the _Comparison_ which is made.--At the same time, as\nthe _whimsical Oddity_ of a _Character_ in real Life is the _Ground_\nof the whole, there is also _Humour_ contain'd in the Attack.\n\nIf instead of referring the _Foible_ of a Person to any _inanimate_\nCircumstance, the _Allusion_ had been made to any other ridiculous\n_Person_ in _real Life_; As a _conceited Fellow_, perpetually\nrecommending his own Whims, to a _Quack-Doctor_;--This _Foible_\nwill then be ridiculed with HUMOUR; which is likewise the original\n_Ground_: At the same Time, from the _Comparison_ which is made, there\nis apparently WIT in the Description.\n\nSo that where-ever the _Foible_ of a _Character_ in real Life is\nconcern'd, there HUMOUR comes in; and wherever a sprightly unexpected\n_Arrangement_ is presented of two _similar_, or _opposite_ Subjects,\nwhether animate or inanimate, there WIT is exhibited.\n\nHUMOUR and WIT, as they may thus both be united in the same Subject,\nmay also separately appear without the least Mixture together; that\nis, there may be HUMOUR without WIT, and WIT without HUMOUR.\n\nThus, if in order to expose the _Foible_ of a _Character_, a _real\nPerson_ is introduc'd, abounding in this _Foible_, gravely persisting\nin it, and valuing himself upon the Merit of it, with great Self-\nsufficiency, and Disdain of others; this _Foible_ is then solely\nridiculed with HUMOUR.\n\nAgain, if a gay unexpected _Allusion_ is made from one _inanimate_\nObject to another, or from one _Person_ in _real_ Life to another,\nwithout any Reference to their whimsical _Oddities_ or _Foibles_;\nthere WIT only appears.--Various Instances of which, independent of\nHUMOUR, have been already exhibited.\n\nA _Man_ of WIT is\n  he, who is happy in _elucidating_ any Subject, _by a just and\n  unexpected Arrangement_ and _Comparison_ of it with another\n  Subject.\n\nIt may be also proper to describe a _Man_ of HUMOUR, and an HUMOURIST,\nwhich are very different Persons.\n\nA _Man_ of HUMOUR is\n  one, who can happily exhibit a weak and ridiculous _Character_\n  in real Life, either by assuming it himself, or representing\n  another in it, so naturally, that the _whimsical Oddities,_ and\n  _Foibles,_ of that _Character,_ shall be palpably expos'd.\n\nWhereas an HUMOURIST\n  is a _Person_ in real Life, obstinately attached to sensible\n  peculiar _Oddities_ of his own genuine Growth, which appear in\n  his Temper and Conduct.\n\nIn short, a _Man_ of _Humour_ is one, who can happily exhibit and\nexpose the Oddities and Foibles of an _Humourist_, or of other\n_Characters_.\n\nThe _Features_ of an HUMOURIST being very remarkable and singular,\nseem justly to deserve an explicit Description. It is then to be\nobserv'd, that an _Humourist_, at the same time that he is guided in\nhis Manners and Actions by his own genuine original Fancy and Temper,\ndisdains all _Ostentation_; excepting that alone of his _Freedom_ and\n_Independency_, which he is forward of shewing upon every Occasion,\nwithout Ceremony; he is quite superior to the _Affectation_ of a\nVirtue or Accomplishment, which he thinks does not belong to him;\nscorns all _Imitation_ of others; and contemns the rest of the World\nfor being servilely obedient to Forms and Customs; disclaiming all\nsuch Submission himself, and regulating his Conduct in general by his\nown _Conviction_,\n\nThe _Humourist_ is forward upon many Occasions to deliver his Opinion,\nin a peremptory Manner, and before he is desir'd; but he gives it\nsincerely, unbiass'd by _Fear_ or _Regard_, and then leaves it to the\nPersons concern'd to determine for themselves; For he is more pleas'd\nin the Bottom to find his Opinion _slighted_, and to see the Conduct\nof others agreeable to that System of Folly and Weakness, which he has\nestablished with himself, to be the Course of their Actions.--To view\na rational Conduct, even in pursuance of his own Advice, would greatly\ndisappoint him; and be a Contradiction to this _System_ he has laid\ndown;--Besides it would deprive him of an Occasion of gratifying his\nSpleen, with the Contempt of that Folly, which he esteems to be\nnatural to the rest of Mankind; For he considers himself in the World,\nlike a _sober_ Person in the Company of Men, who are _drunken_ or\n_mad_; He may advise them to be calm, and to avoid hurting themselves,\nbut he does not expect they will regard his Advice; On the\ncontrary, he is more pleas'd with observing their _Freaks_ and\n_Extravagancies_.--It is from hence that he discourages and\ndepreciates all who pretend to _Discretion_; Persons of this Temper\nnot yielding him Sport or Diversion.\n\nIt is certain that the _Humourist_ is excessively _proud_, and yet\nwithout knowing or suspecting it. For from the Liberty which he\nfrankly allows to others, of rejecting his Opinion, he is fully\npersuaded, that he is free from all _Pride_; But tho' he acts in this\nCircumstance without over-bearing, it has already appear'd, not to be\nthe Effect of his _Humility_, but of a different Motive; a Pleasure\nwhich he takes in observing the Extravagancies of others, rather\nthan their Discretion. But to demonstrate his _Pride_, besides the\nperemptory Manner in which he delivers his Opinion, and conducts\nhimself upon every Occasion, without any Deference to others, there is\nthis Circumstance against him; that he is the most stung by a Defeat,\nupon any Topic, of all Men living; And although he disregards\nAccusations of Roughness and Oddity, and rather esteems them to\nbe meritorious; yet he will never admit, that he has been fairly\noverthrown in a Debate.\n\nIt is odd to observe how the _Humourist_ is affected by _contemptuous_\nTreatment. An Insult of this Sort, which justly excites the\n_Resentment_ of others, _terrifies_ him: It sets him upon _suspecting_\nhimself, and upon doubting whether he be really that Person of\nsuperior Sense to the rest of the World, which he has long fancied.\nThe Apprehension, that he actually deserves the Contempt which is put\nupon him, and that he is no more than one of the common Herd, almost\ndistracts him; And instead of violently depreciating, or attacking\nagain, the Person who has contemn'd him, he will incessantly court his\nFavour and good Opinion, as a Cordial he wants, though without seeming\nto do so. This is a very extraordinary Weakness, and such as the\n_Humourist_ would be infinitely uneasy to find ever observ'd.\n\nThe _Humourist_, though he quickly espies, and contemns the\n_Contradictions_ of others, is yet wilfully attach'd to several\nhimself, which he will sometimes persue through a long Course of his\nown Mortification.--It may be often observ'd, that he will avoid the\nCompany he likes, for fear they should think he needs their Support.--\nAt the same time, if he happens to fall into Company, which he tallies\nnot with, instead of avoiding this Company, he will continually haunt\nthem: For he is anxious, lest any Imputation of a Defeat should stand\nout against him, and extremely sollicitous to wipe it away; Besides,\nhe cannot endure it should be thought that he is driven from the Pit.\n--Thus, in the first Instance, his _Pride_ shall persuade him to\nneglect the Company he likes; and shall force him, in the last, to\nfollow the Company he hates and despises.\n\nIt is also observable that the _Humourist_, though he makes it his\nPoint to regulate his Conduct only by his own Conviction, will\nsometimes run counter to it, merely from his Disdain of all\n_Imitation_. Thus he will persist in a wrong Course, which he knows\nto be such, and refuse his Compliance with an Amendment offer'd by\nothers, rather than endure the Appearance of being an _Imitator_. This\nis a _narrow_ Side of the _Humourist_; and whenever he is turn'd upon\nit, he feels great Uneasiness himself. It strikes a durable Pain\ninto his Breast, like the constant gnawing of a Worm; and is one\nconsiderable Source of that Stream of Peevishnesss incident to\n_Humourists_.\n\nUpon the same Principle of scorning all _Imitation_, the _Humourist_\nseldom heartily assents to any speculative Opinion, which is deliver'd\nby another; for he is above being inform'd or set right in his\nJudgment by any Person, even by a Brother _Humourist_. If two of this\n_Cast_ happen to meet, instead of uniting together, they are afraid of\neach other; and you shall observe _one_, in order to court the good\nOpinion of the _other_, produce a Specimen of his own Perfection as an\n_Humourist_; by exhibiting some unusual Strain of _sensible Oddity_,\nor by unexpectedly biting a poor _Insipid_; which the other\n_Humourist_ shall answer again in the same manner, in order to\ndisplay _his_ Talents.\n\nThese are the _Foibles_ and _narrow_ Whims of a perfect _Humourist_.\nBut, on the other hand, he stands upon a very enlarged Basis; Is a\nLover of Reason and Liberty; and scorns to flatter or betray; nor will\nhe falsify his Principles, to court the Favour of the Great. He is not\ncredulous, or fond of Religious or Philosophical Creeds or Creed-\nmakers; But then he never offers himself to forge Articles of Faith\nfor the rest of the World. Abounding in poignant and just Reflections;\nThe Guardian of Freedom, and Scourge of such as do wrong. It is _He_\nchecks the Frauds, and curbs the Usurpations of every Profession. The\nvenal Biass of the assuming Judge, the cruel Pride of the starch'd\nPriest, the empty Froth of the florid Counsellor, the false Importance\nof the formal Man of Business, the specious Jargon of the grave\nPhysician, and the creeping Taste of the trifling Connoisseur, are all\nbare to his Eye, and feel the Lash of his Censure; It is _He_ that\nwatches the daring Strides, and secret Mines of the ambitious Prince,\nand desperate Minister: _He_ gives the Alarm, and prevents their\nMischief. Others there are who have Sense and Foresight; but _they_\nare brib'd by Hopes or Fears, or bound by softer Ties; It is _He_\nonly, the _Humourist_, that has the Courage and Honesty to cry out,\nunmov'd by personal Resentment: He flourishes only in a Land of\n_Freedom_, and when _that_ ceases he dies too, the last and noblest\n_Weed_ of the Soil of _Liberty_.\n\nIt is a palpable _Absurdity_ to suppose a Person an _Humourist_,\nwithout excellent Sense and Abilities; as much as to suppose a _Smith_\nin his full Business, without his _Hammers_ or _Forge_.--But the\n_Humourist_, as he advances in Years, is apt to grow intolerable to\nhimself and the World; becoming at length, uneasy, and fatigued with\nthe constant View of the same Follies; like a Person who is tir'd\nwith seeing the same Tragi-Comedy continually acted. This sowres his\nTemper; And unless some favorable Incidents happen to mellow him, he\nresigns himself wholly to Peevishness.--By which Time he perceives\nthat the World is quite tir'd of _him_.--After which he drags on the\nRemainder of his Life, in a State of _War_ with the rest of Mankind.\n\nThe _Humourist_ is constitutionally, and also from Reflection, a Man\nof _Sincerity_.--If he is a _Rogue_ upon any Occasion, he is more\nwilfully one, and puts greater Violence upon himself in being such,\nthan the rest of the World; And though he may generally seem to have\nlittle _Benevolence_, which is the common  Objection against him,\nit is only for want of proper Objects; for no Person has certainly\na quicker _Feeling_; And there are Instances frequent, of greater\nGenerosity and humane Warmth flowing from an _Humourist_, than are\ncapable of proceeding from a weak _Insipid_, who labours under a\ncontinual Flux of Civility.\n\nUpon the whole, the _Humourist_ is perhaps the least of all others,\na _despicable_ Character. But Imitations, which are frequently seen\nof this Character, are excessively despicable.--What can be more\nridiculous, than a Wretch setting up for an _Humourist_, merely upon\nthe Strength of disrelishing every Thing, without any Principle;--The\nServants, Drawers, Victuals, Weather,--and growling without Poignancy\nof Sense, at every new Circumstance which appears, in public or\nprivate. A perfect and compleat _Humourist_ is rarely to be found;\nand when you hear his _Voice_, is a different Creature.--In writing to\n_Englishmen_, who are generally tinged, deeply or slightly, with the\n_Dye_ of the _Humourist_, it seem'd not improper to insist the longer\nupon this Character; However, let none be too fond of it; For though\nan _Humourist_ with his Roughness is greatly to be preferr'd to a\nsmooth _Insipid_, yet the Extremes of both are equally wretched:\n_Ideots_ being only the lowest Scale of _Insipids_, as _Madmen_ are no\nother than _Humourists_ in Excess.\n\nIt may be proper to observe in this place, that though all\n_Ostentation_, _Affectation_, and _Imitation_ are excluded from the\nComposition of a perfect _Humourist_; yet as they are the obvious\n_Foibles_ of some Persons in Life, they may justly be made the Subject\nof _Humour_.\n\nFor HUMOUR extensively and fully understood, is _any remarkable_\nOddity _or_ Foible _belonging to a_ Person _in_ real Life; _whether\nthis_ Foible _be constitutional, habitual_, or _only affected; whether\npartial in one or two Circumstances; or tinging the whole Temper and\nConduct of the_ Person.\n\nIt has from hence been observ'd, that there is more HUMOUR in the\n_English_ Comedies than in others; as we have more various odd\n_Characters_ in real Life, than any other Nation, or perhaps than\nall other Nations together.\n\nThat HUMOUR gives more Delight, and leaves a more pleasurable\nImpression behind it, than WIT, is universally felt and established;\nThough the Reasons for this have not yet been assign'd.--I shall\ntherefore beg Leave to submit the following.\n\n1. HUMOUR is more _interesting_ than WIT in general, as the _Oddities_\nand _Foibles_ of _Persons_ in _real Life_ are more apt to affect our\nPassions, than any Oppositions or Relations between _inanimate_\nObjects.\n\n2. HUMOUR is _Nature_, or what really appears in the Subject, without\nany Embellishments; WIT only a Stroke of _Art_, where the original\nSubject, being insufficient of itself, is garnished and deck'd with\nauxiliary Objects.\n\n3. HUMOUR, or the Foible of a _Character_ in real Life, is usually\ninsisted upon for some Length of Time. From whence, and from the\ncommon Knowledge of the Character, it is universally felt and\nunderstood.--Whereas the Strokes of WIT are like sudden _Flashes_,\nvanishing in an Instant, and usually flying too fast to be\nsufficiently marked and pursued by the Audience.\n\n4. HUMOUR, if the Representation of it be just, is compleat and\nperfect in its Kind, and entirely fair and unstrain'd.--Whereas in the\nAllusions of WIT, the Affinity is generally imperfect and defective in\none Part or other; and even in those Points where the Affinity may be\nallow'd to subsist, some Nicety and Strain is usually requir'd to make\nit appear.\n\n5. HUMOUR generally appears in such Foibles, as each of the Company\nthinks himself superior to.--Whereas WIT shews the Quickness and\nAbilities of the Person who discovers it, and places him superior\nto the rest of the Company.\n\n6. Humour, in the Representation of the _Foibles_ of _Persons_ in\n_real Life_, frequently exhibits very _generous benevolent_ Sentiments\nof the Heart; And these, tho' exerted in a particular odd Manner,\njustly command our Fondness and Love.--Whereas in the Allusions of WIT,\n_Severity_, _Bitterness_, and _Satire_, are frequently exhibited.--And\nwhere these are avoided, not worthy amiable Sentiments of the _Heart_,\nbut quick unexpected Efforts of the _Fancy_, are presented.\n\n7. The odd Adventures, and Embarrassments, which _Persons_ in _real\nLife_ are drawn into by their _Foibles_, are fit Subjects of _Mirth_.\n--Whereas in pure WIT, the Allusions are rather _surprizing_, than\n_mirthful_; and the _Agreements_ or _Contrasts_ which are started\nbetween Objects, without any relation to the _Foibles_ of _Persons_\nin real Life, are more fit to be _admired_ for their _Happiness_ and\n_Propriety_, than to excite our _Laughter_.--Besides, WIT, in the\nfrequent Repetition of it, tires the Imagination with its precipitate\nSallies and Flights; and teizes the Judgment.--Whereas HUMOUR, in the\nRepresentation of it, puts no Fatigue upon the _Imagination_, and\ngives exquisite Pleasure to the _Judgment_.\n\nThese seem to me to be the different Powers and Effects of HUMOUR and\nWIT. However, the most agreeable Representations or Competitions of\nall others, appear not where they _separately_ exist, but where they\nare _united_ together in the same Fabric; where HUMOUR is the _Ground-\nwork_ and chief Substance, and WIT happily spread, _quickens_ the\nwhole with Embellishments.\n\nThis is the Excellency of the _Character_ of Sir _John Falstaff_;\nthe _Ground-work_ is _Humour_, the Representation and Detection of\na bragging and vaunting _Coward_ in _real Life_; However, this alone\nwould only have expos'd the _Knight_, as a meer _Noll Bluff_, to the\nDerision of the Company; And after they had once been gratify'd with\nhis Chastisement, he would have sunk into Infamy, and become quite\nodious and intolerable: But here the inimitable _Wit_ of Sir _John_\ncomes in to his Support, and gives a new _Rise_ and _Lustre_ to his\nCharacter; For the sake of his _Wit_ you forgive his _Cowardice_; or\nrather, are fond of his _Cowardice_ for the Occasions it gives to his\n_Wit_. In short, the _Humour_ furnishes a Subject and Spur to the\n_Wit_, and the _Wit_ again supports and embellishes the _Humour_.\n\nAt the _first_ Entrance of the _Knight_, your good Humour and Tendency\nto _Mirth_ are irresistibly excited by his jolly Appearance and\nCorpulency; you feel and acknowledge him, to be the fittest Subject\nimaginable for yielding _Diversion_ and _Merriment_; but when you\nsee him immediately set up for _Enterprize_ and _Activity_, with his\nevident _Weight_ and _Unweildiness_, your Attention is all call'd\nforth, and you are eager to watch him to the End of his Adventures;\nYour Imagination pointing out with a full Scope his future\nEmbarrassments. All the while as you accompany him forwards, he\n_heightens_ your Relish for his future Disasters, by his happy Opinion\nof his own Sufficiency, and the gay Vaunts which he makes of his\nTalents and Accomplishments;  so that at last when he falls into a\nScrape, your Expectation is exquisitely gratify'd, and you have the\nfull Pleasure of seeing all his trumpeted Honour laid in the Dust.\nWhen in the midst of his Misfortunes, instead of being utterly\ndemolish'd and sunk, he rises again by the superior Force of his\n_Wit_, and begins a _new_ Course with fresh Spirit and Alacrity;\nThis excites you the more to _renew_ the Chace, in full View of his\n_second_ Defeat; out of which he recovers again, and triumphs with\nnew Pretensions and Boastings. After this he immediately starts upon\na _third_ Race, and so on; continually detected and caught, and\nyet constantly extricating himself by his inimitable _Wit_ and\n_Invention_; thus yielding a perpetual _Round_ of Sport and Diversion.\n\nAgain, the genteel _Quality_ of Sir _John_ is of great Use in\nsupporting his Character; It prevents his _sinking_ too low after\nseveral of his Misfortunes; Besides, you allow him, in consequence of\nhis _Rank_ and _Seniority_, the Privilege to dictate, and take the\nLead, and to rebuke others upon many Occasions; By this he is sav'd\nfrom appearing too _nauseous_ and _impudent_. The good _Sense_\nwhich he possesses comes also to his Aid, and saves him from being\n_despicable_, by forcing your Esteem for his real Abilities.--Again,\nthe _Privilege_ you allow him of rebuking and checking others, when he\nassumes it with proper Firmness and Superiority, helps to _settle_\nanew, and _compose_ his Character after an Embarrassment; And reduces\nin some measure the _Spirit_ of the Company to a proper _Level_,\nbefore he sets out again upon a fresh Adventure;--without this, they\nwould be kept continually _strain'd_, and _wound up_ to the highest\nPitch, without sufficient Relief and Diversity.\n\nIt may also deserve to be remark'd of _Falstaff_, that the _Figure_\nof his _Person_ is admirably suited to the _Turn_ of his _Mind_; so\nthat there arises before you a perpetual _Allusion_ from one to the\nother, which forms an incessant Series of _Wit_, whether they are in\n_Contrast_ or _Agreement_ together.--When he pretends to _Activity_,\nthere is _Wit_ in the _Contrast_ between his _Mind_ and his _Person_,\n--And _Wit_ in their _Agreement_, when he triumphs in _Jollity_.\n\nTo compleat the whole,--you have in this Character of _Falstaff_,\nnot only a free Course of _Humour_, supported and embellish'd with\nadmirable _Wit_; but this _Humour_ is of a Species the most _jovial_\nand _gay_ in all Nature.--Sir _Jobn Falstaff_ possesses Generosity,\nChearfulness, Alacrity, Invention, Frolic and Fancy superior to all\nother Men;--The _Figure_ of his _Person_ is the Picture of Jollity,\nMirth, and Good-nature, and banishes at once all other Ideas from your\nBreast; He is happy himself, and makes you happy.--If you examine him\nfurther, he has no Fierceness, Reserve, Malice or Peevishness lurking\nin his Heart; His Intentions are all pointed at innocent Riot and\nMerriment; Nor has the Knight any inveterate Design, except against\n_Sack_, and that too he _loves_.--If, besides this, he desires to\npass for a Man of _Activity_ and _Valour_, you can easily excuse so\nharmless a _Foible_, which yields you the highest Pleasure in its\nconstant _Detection_.\n\nIf you put all these together, it is impossible to _hate_ honest\n_Jack Falstaff_; If you observe them again, it is impossible to avoid\n_loving_ him; He is the gay, the witty, the frolicksome, happy, and\nfat _Jack Falstaff_, the most delightful _Swaggerer_ in all Nature.--\nYou must _love_ him for your _own_ sake,--At the same time you cannot\nbut _love_ him for _his own_ Talents; And when you have _enjoy'd_\nthem, you cannot but _love_ him in _Gratitude_;--He has nothing to\ndisgust you, and every thing to give you Joy;--His _Sense_ and his\n_Foibles_ are equally directed to advance your Pleasure; And it is\nimpossible to be tired or unhappy in his Company.\n\nThis _jovial_ and _gay_ Humour, without any thing _envious_,\n_malicious_, _mischievous_, or _despicable_, and continually\n_quicken'd_ and adorn'd with _Wit_, yields that peculiar Delight,\nwithout any _Alloy_, which we all feel and acknowledge in _Falstaff's_\nCompany.--_Ben Johnson_ has _Humour_ in his _Characters_, drawn with\nthe most masterly Skill and Judgment; In Accuracy, Depth, Propriety,\nand Truth, he has no _Superior_ or _Equal_ amongst _Ancients_ or\n_Moderns_; But the _Characters_ he exhibits are of _satirical_, and\n_deceitful_, or of a _peevish_ or _despicable_ Species; as _Volpone_,\n_Subtle_, _Morose_, and _Abel Drugger_; In all of which there is\nsomething very justly to be _hated_ or _despised_; And you feel\nthe same Sentiments of _Dislike_ for every other _Character_ of\n_Johnson_'s; so that after you have been _gratify'd_ with their\n_Detention_ and _Punishment_, you are quite tired and disgusted with\ntheir Company:--Whereas _Shakespear_, besides the peculiar _Gaiety_ in\nthe _Humour_ of _Falstaff_, has guarded him from disgusting you with\nhis _forward Advances_, by giving him _Rank_ and _Quality_; from being\n_despicable_ by his real good _Sense_ and excellent _Abilities_; from\nbeing _odious_ by his _harmless Plots_ and _Designs_; and from being\n_tiresome_ by his inimitable Wit, and his new and incessant _Sallies_\nof highest _Fancy_ and _Frolick_.\n\nThis discovers the _Secret_ of carrying COMEDY to the highest Pitch of\nDelight; Which lies\n  in drawing the Persons exhibited, with such chearful and amiable\n  _Oddities_ and _Foibles_, as you would chuse in your own\n  _Companions_ in _real Life;\n--otherwise, tho' you may be diverted at first with the _Novelty_ of a\nCharacter, and with a proper _Detection_ and _Ridicule_ of it, yet its\n_Peevishness_, _Meanness_, or _Immorality_, will begin to disgust you\nafter a little Reflection, and become soon _tiresome_ and _odious_; It\nbeing certain, that\n  whoever cannot be endured as an _accidental_ Companion in _real\n  Life_, will never become, for the very same Reasons, a _favorite\n  comic Character_ in the Theatre.\n\nThis _Relish_ for _generous_ and _worthy_ Characters alone, which\nwe all feel upon the _Theatre_, where no Biass of Envy, Malice, or\npersonal Resentment draws us aside, seems to be some Evidence of our\n_natural_ and _genuin_ Disposition to _Probity_ and _Virtue_; tho' the\nMinds of most Persons being early and deeply _tinged_ with vicious\nPassions, it is no wonder that _Stains_ have been generally mistaken\nfor _original Colours_.\n\nIt may be added, that _Humour_ is the most exquisite and delightful,\nwhen the _Oddities_ and _Foibles_ introduc'd are not _mischievous_ or\n_sneaking_, but _free_, _jocund_, and _liberal_; and such as result\nfrom a generous Flow of Spirits, and a warm universal _Benevolence_.\n\nIt is obviously from hence, that the _Character_ of Sir _Roger_ de\n_Coverly_ in the _Spectators_ is so extremely agreeable. His _Foibles_\nare all derived from some amiable Cause.--If he believes that _one\nEnglishman_ can conquer _two Frenchmen_, you laugh at his _Foible_,\nand are fond of a _Weakness_ in the Knight, which proceeds from his\nhigh Esteem of his _own Country-men_.--If he chuses you should employ\na _Waterman_ or _Porter_ with _one_ Leg, you readily excuse the\nInconvenience he puts you to, for his worthy regard to the Suffering\nof a brave _Soldier_.--In short, though he is guilty of continual\nAbsurdities, and has little Understanding or real Abilities, you\ncannot but _love_ and _esteem_ him, for his _Honour_, _Hospitality_,\nand universal _Benevolence_.\n\nIt is indeed true, that his _Dignity_, _Age_, and _Rank_ in his\nCountry, are of constant Service in _upholding_ his Character.\nThese are a perpetual _Guard_ to the Knight, and preserve him from\n_Contempt_ upon many Occasions.--All which corresponds entirely with\nthe fore-going _Remark_. For you would be fond of Sir _Roger's_\nAcquaintaince and Company in _real Life_, as he is a Gentleman of\n_Quality_ and _Virtue_; You love and admire him in the _Spectators_\nfor the _same_ Reasons; And for these also he would become, if he was\nrightly exhibited, a _favorite_ Character in the _Theatre_.\n\nIt may be proper to observe in this Place, that the _Business_\nof COMEDY is to exhibit the whimsical _unmischievous Oddities_,\n_Frolics,_ and _Foibles_ of _Persons_ in _real Life_; And also to\n_expose_ and _ridicule_ their _real Follies_, _Meanness_, and _Vices_.\nThe _former_, it appears, is more pleasurable to the Audience, but the\n_latter_ has the Merit of being more instructive.\n\nThe _Business_ of TRAGEDY is to exhibit the _Instability_ of _human_\nGrandeur, and the unexpected _Misfortunes_ and _Distresses_ incident\nto the _Innocent_ and _Worthy_ in all Stations.--And also to shew the\nterrible Sallies and the miserable Issue and Punishment of ungovern'd\nPassions and Wickedness.--The _former_ softens the Heart and fills it\nwith Compassion, Humility and Benevolence.--Compositions of this Sort\nare the highest, most admirable, and useful in all Nature, when they\nare finish'd with Propriety and Delicacy, and justly wrought up\nwith the Sublime and Simplicity.--The _latter_ Species of _Tragedy_\nterrifies and shocks us, in exhibiting both the Crimes and the\nPunishments. It threatens us into Moderation and Justice, by shewing\nthe terrible Issue of their Contraries. Pieces of this Sort, conducted\nwith Propriety, and carrying Application to ourselves, can scarcely be\ndesireable; But as they are generally conducted, they amount only to\ngiving us an absurd Representation of a Murther committed by some\nfurious foaming _Basha_, or _Sultan_.\n\nTo return.--_Johnson_ in his COMIC Scenes has expos'd and ridicul'd\n_Folly_ and _Vice_; _Shakespear_ has usher'd in _Joy_, _Frolic_ and\n_Happiness_.--The _Alchymist_, _Volpone_ and _Silent Woman_ of\n_Johnson_, are most exquisite _Satires_. The _comic_ Entertainments of\n_Shakespear_ are the highest Compositions of _Raillery_, _Wit_\nand _Humour_. _Johnson_ conveys some Lesson in every Character.\n_Shakespear_ some new Species of Foible and Oddity. The one pointed\nhis Satire with masterly Skill; the other was inimitable in touching\nthe Strings of Delight. With _Johnson_ you are confin'd and\ninstructed, with _Shakespear_ unbent and dissolv'd in Joy. _Johnson_\nexcellently concerts his Plots, and all his Characters unite in the\none Design. _Shakespear_ is superior to such Aid or Restraint; His\nCharacters continually sallying from one independent Scene to another,\nand charming you in each with fresh Wit and Humour.\n\nIt may be further remark'd, that _Johnson_ by pursuing the most useful\nIntention of _Comedy_, is in Justice oblig'd to _hunt down_ and\n_demolish_ his own Characters. Upon this Plan he must necessarily\nexpose them to your _Hatred_, and of course can never bring out an\namiable Person. His _Subtle_, and _Face_ are detected at last, and\nbecome mean and despicable. Sir _Epicure Mammon_ is properly trick'd,\nand goes off ridiculous and detestable. The _Puritan Elders_ suffer\nfor their Lust of Money, and are quite nauseous and abominable; And\nhis _Morose_ meets with a severe Punishment, after having sufficiently\ntir'd you with his Peevishness.--But _Shakespear_, with happier\nInsight, always supports his Characters in your _Favour_. His Justice\n_Shallow_ withdraws before he is tedious; The _French_ Doctor, and\n_Welch_ Parson, go off in full Vigour and Spirit; Ancient _Pistoll_\nindeed is scurvily treated; however, he keeps up his Spirits, and\ncontinues to threaten so well, that you are still desirous of his\nCompany; and it is impossible to be tir'd or dull with the gay\nunfading Evergreen _Falstaff_.\n\nBut in remarking upon the Characters of _Johnson_, it would be unjust\nto pass _Abel Drugger_ without notice; This is a little, mean,\nsneaking, sordid Citizen, hearkening to a Couple of Sharpers, who\npromise to make him rich; they can scarcely prevail upon him to resign\nthe least Tittle he possesses, though he is assur'd, it is in order to\nget more; and your Diversion arises, from seeing him _wrung_ between\n_Greediness_ to _get_ Money, and _Reluctance_ to _part_ with any for\nthat Purpose. His Covetousness continually prompts him to follow the\nConjurer, and puts him at the same Time upon endeavouring to stop his\nFees. All the while he is excellently managed, and spirited on\nby _Face_. However, this Character upon the whole is _mean_ and\n_despicable_, without any of that free spirituous jocund Humour\nabounding in _Shakespear_. But having been strangely exhibited upon\nthe Theatre, a few Years ago, with odd Grimaces and extravagant\nGestures, it has been raised into more Attention than it justly\ndeserved; It is however to be acknowledg'd, that _Abel_ has no\nHatred, Malice or Immorality, nor any assuming Arrogance, Pertness\nor Peevishness; And his eager Desire of getting and saving Money, by\nMethods he thinks lawful, are excusable in a Person of his Business;\nHe is therefore not odious or detestable, but harmless and inoffensive\nin private Life; and from thence, correspondent with the Rule already\nlaid down, he is the most capable of any of _Johnson_'s Characters, of\nbeing a Favourite on the Theatre.\n\nIt appears, that in Imagination, Invention, Jollity and gay Humour,\n_Johnson_ had little Power; But _Shakespear_ unlimited Dominion. The\nfirst was cautious and strict, not daring to sally beyond the Bounds\nof Regularity. The other bold and impetuous, rejoicing like a Giant to\nrun his Course, through all the Mountains and Wilds of Nature and\nFancy.\n\nIt requires an almost painful Attention to mark the Propriety and\nAccuracy of _Johnson_, and your Satisfaction arises from Reflection\nand Comparison; But the Fire and Invention of _Shakespear_ in an\nInstant are shot into your Soul, and enlighten and chear the most\nindolent Mind with their own Spirit and Lustre.--Upon the whole,\n_Johnson_'s Compositions are like finished Cabinets, where every\nPart is wrought up with the most excellent Skill and Exactness;--\n_Shakespear_'s like magnificent Castles, not perfectly finished or\nregular, but adorn'd with such bold and magnificent Designs, as at\nonce delight and astonish you with their Beauty and Grandeur.\n\n\n  RAILLERY is a genteel poignant Attack of a _Person_ upon any\n  _slight Foibles_, _Oddities_, or _Embarrassments_ of his, in\n  which he is tender, or may be supposed to be tender, and\n  unwilling to come to a free Explanation.\n\n  SATIRE is a witty and severe Attack of _mischievous Habits_ or\n   _Vices_;\n\n  RIDICULE is a free _Attack_ of any _Motly Composition_, wherein a\n  real or affected _Excellence_ and _Defect_ both jointly appear,\n  _glaring_ together, and _mocking_ each other, in the same\n  _Subject_.\n\nHence the Aim of _Raillery_, is to please you, by some little\n_Embarrassment_ of a _Person_; Of _Satire_, to scourge _Vice_, and\nto deliver it up to your just _Detestation_; And of _Ridicule_, to\nset an Object in a mean ludicrous Light, so as to expose it to your\n_Derision_ and _Contempt_.\n\nIt appears therefore that _Raillery_ and _Ridicule_ differ in several\nCircumstances.\n\n1. _Raillery_ can only be employ'd in relation to _Persons_, but\n_Ridicule_ may be employ'd in what relates either to _Persons_, or\nother _Objects_.\n\n2. _Raillery_ is us'd only upon _slight_ Subjects, where no real\nAbilities or Merit are questioned, in order to avoid degrading the\nPerson you attack, or rendering him contemptible; Whereas _Ridicule_\nobserves no such Decency, but endeavours really to degrade the Person\nattack'd, and to render him contemptible.\n\n3. _Raillery_ may be pointed at a whimsical Circumstance, only because\na Person is known to be tender upon it; and your Pleasure will arise\nfrom the _Embarrassment_ he suffers, in being put to an Explanation;--\nThus a young Gentleman may be _rallied_ upon his Passion for a Lady;--\nAt the same Time there may be no Ground for _Ridicule_ in this\nCircumstance, as it may no way deserve your _Derision_ or _Contempt_.\n\n4. As it thus appears that there are Subjects of _Raillery_, into\nwhich _Ridicule_ cannot justly be admitted; So there are Subjects\nof _Ridicule_, wherein your Derision and Contempt are so strongly\nexcited, that they are too gross for _Raillery_;--As a person tossed\nin a Blanket; or the unfortunate Attack which another has made upon a\nWindmill.\n\n5. In short, _Raillery_, if the Adventures it is turn'd upon are\ntoo _gross_ and _luscious_, becomes _Ridicule_; And therefore, in\nComparison together, _Raillery_ appears like _Wine_ of a thin Body,\nand delicate poignant Flavour; _Ridicule_, like a _Wine_ which is\nfuller, and more rich, and luscious.\n\n_Quixote_ is a Character, wherein _Humour_ and _Ridicule_ are finely\ninterwoven;--It is not a Subject of _Satire_, as the Knight is free\nfrom all Badness of Heart, and Immorality; Nor properly of _Raillery_,\nhis Adventures in general being too _gross_ and _disastrous_;-- The\n_Humour_ appears, in the Representation of a Person in real Life,\nfancying himself to be, under the most solemn Obligations to attempt\n_hardy_ Atchievements; and upon this Whimsy immediately pursuing the\nmost romantic Adventures, with great Gravity, Importance, and Self-\nsufficiency; To heighten your Mirth, the _hardy_ Atchievements to be\naccomplish'd by this Hero, are wittily contrasted by his own\nmeagre weak Figure, and the _desperate Unfierceness_ of his Steed\n_Rozinante_;--The _Ridicule_ appears in the strange Absurdity of the\nAttempts, upon which the Knight chuses to exercise his Prowess; Its\nPoignancy is highly quicken'd, and consequently the Pleasure it gives\nyou, by his miserable Disasters, and the doleful Mortifications of all\nhis Importance and Dignity;--But here, after the Knight, by diverting\nyou in this manner, has brought himself down to the lowest Mark, he\nrises again and forces your Esteem, by his excellent Sense, Learning\nand Judgment, upon any Subjects which are not ally'd to his Errantry;\nThese continually act for the Advancement of his Character; And with\nsuch Supports and Abilities he always obtains your ready Attention,\nand never becomes heavy or tedious.\n\nTo these you are to add the perfect _good Breeding_ and _Civility_ of\nthe Knight upon every Occasion; which are some Kind of Merit in his\nFavour, and entitle him to Respect, by the Rules of common Gentility\nand Decency; At the same time his Courage, his Honour, Generosity,\nand Humanity, are conspicuous in every Act and Attempt; The _Foibles_\nwhich he possesses, besides giving you exquisite Pleasure, are wholly\ninspir'd by these worthy Principles; Nor is there any thing base, or\ndetestable, in all his Temper or Conduct; It was from hence that the\nDUKE and the DUTCHESS were extremely delighted with his Visit at their\n_Castle_; And you yourself, if he existed in real Life, would be fond\nof his Company at your own Table; which proves him, upon the whole, to\nbe an amiable Character;--It is therefore no wonder that Signior _Don\nQuixote of la Mancha_ has been so courteously receiv'd in every\nCountry of _Europe_.\n\nThus delightfully wrought, as this History is, with _Humour_ and\n_Ridicule_, yet _Cervantes_, still fearful of tiring you with too much\nof the _Errantry_, has introduc'd the most charming Variety of other\nAdventures; --All along in the pacific Intervals, you are inform'd of\nthe private Occurrences between the Knight and his 'Squire; And from\nthese, where it is least to be expected, you are surpriz'd with the\nmost high and delicious Repast;-- Nothing can be more pregnant with\nMirth, than the Opposition continually working between the grave\nSolemnity and Dignity of _Quixote_, and the arch Ribaldry and Meanness\nof _Sancho_; And the Contrast can never be sufficiently admir'd,\nbetween the _excellent fine Sense_ of the ONE, and the _dangerous\ncommon Sense_ of the OTHER.\n\nIt is here that the Genius and Power of _Cervantes_ is most admirably\nshewn; He was the greatest Master that ever appear'd, in finely\nopposing, and contrasting his Characters. It is from hence that you\nfeel a Poignancy and Relish in his Writings, which is not to be met\nwith in any others; The natural Reflexions and Debates of _Quixote_\nand _Sancho_ would have been barren, insipid, and trite, under other\nManagement; But _Cervantes_, by his excellent Skill in the _Contrast_,\nhas from these drawn a Regale, which for high, quick, racy Flavour,\nand Spirit, has yet never been equall'd.\n\nIt may here be enquir'd, What Species of Composition or Character is\nthe most pleasurable, and mirthful, in all Nature?--In _Falstaff_,\nyou have _Humour_ embelish'd with _Wit_; In _Quixote_, _Humour_ made\npoignant with _Ridicule_; And it is certain that _Humour_ must always\nbe the Ground-work of such Subjects, no Oddities in inanimate Objects\nbeing capable of interesting our Passions so strongly, as the Foibles\nof Persons in real Life;--The chief Substance of _Johnson_'s\nCompositions is _Humour_ and _Satire_; upon which Plan, as hath been\nalready observ'd, he is oblig'd to demolish, and render detestable,\nhis own Characters;--_Humour_ and _Raillery_ are also capable\nof furnishing a Repast of quick Relish and Flavour; In written\nCompositions, the Attack of the _Raillery_, as well as the Reception\nof it, may be happily conducted, which in other accidental Encounters\nare liable to Hazard; All Peevishness or Offence is thus easily\navoided, and the Character attack'd is sav'd from being really\ncontemptible;--But then indeed the Pleasure you are to receive\ngenerally depends upon the Confusion of the Person attack'd, without\nthere being in reason a sufficient Cause for this Confusion;--It is\nfor want of this just Foundation, that the Pleasure arising  from\n_Raillery_ is apt to come forth with less Freedom, Fulness, and\nConviction, though with more Delicacy, than that which is derived\nfrom _Wit_, or _Ridicule_;--However, _Humour_ and _Raillery_ united\ntogether, when the _Raillery_ is founded upon some _real_\nEmbarrassment in the Circumstance, as well as in the Confusion of the\nPerson attack'd, will furnish a very high Entertainment; which has\nPretensions to rival either _Humour_ and _Wit_, or _Humour_ and\n_Ridicule_.\n\nTo give an Instance of _Humour_ and _Raillery_, I shall insert\n_Horace_'s famous Description of his Embarrassment with an impertinent\nFellow. This indeed is entitl'd, in almost all the Editions of\n_Horace_, a _Satire_, but very improperly, as the Subject is not\n_Vice_ or _Immorality_;\n\n  Ibam forte via sacra, sicut meus est mos,\n  Nescio quid meditans nugarum, at totus in illis:\n  Accurrit quidam notus mihi nomine tantum;\n  Arreptaque manu, Quid agis, dulcissime rerum?\n  Suaviter, ut nunc est, inquam: & cupio omnia quae vis.\n  Cum affectaretur, Num quid vis? occupo. At ille,\n  Noris nos, inquit; docti sumus. Hic ego: Pluris\n  Hoc, inquam, mihi eris. Misere discedere quaerens,\n  Ire modo ocyus, interdum consistere: in aurem\n  Dicere nescio quid puero: cum sudor ad imos\n  Manaret talos. O te, Bollane, cerebri\n  Felicem: aiebam tacitus! Cum quidlibet ille\n  Garriret, vicos, urbem laudaret; ut illi\n  Nil respondebam: Misere cupis, inquit abire.\n  Jamdudum video: sed nil agis: usque tenebo:\n  Persequar: hinc quo nunc iter est tibi? Nil opus est te\n  Circumagi: quemdam volo visere, non tibi notum:\n  Trans Tiberim longe cubat is, prope Caesaris hortos.\n  Nil habeo quod agam, & non sum piger: usque sequar te,\n  Demitto auriculas ut iniquae mentis asellus,\n  Cum gravius dorso subiit onus. Incipit ille:\n  Si bene me novi, non Viscum pluris amicum,\n  Non Varium facies; nam quis me scribere plures\n  Aut citius possit versus? quis membra movere\n  Mollius? invideat quod & Hermogenes, ego canto.\n  Interpellandi locus hic erat: Est tibi mater,\n  Cognati, queis te salvo est opus? Haud mihi quisquam:\n  Omnes composui. Felices! nunc ego resto:\n  Confice: namque instat fatum mihi triste, Sabella\n  Quod puero cecinit divina mota anus urna,\n  Hunc neque dira venena, nec hosticus auferret ensis,\n  Nec laterum dolor, aut tussis, nec tarda podagra;\n  Garrulus hunc quando consumet cumque loquaces.\n  Si sapiat, vitet, simul atque adoleverit aetas.\n  Ventum erat ad Vestae, quarta jam parte diei\n  Praeterita; & casu tunc respondere vadato\n  Debebat: quod ni fecisset, perdere litem.\n  Si me amas, inquit, paulum hic ades. Inteream, si\n  Aut valeo stare, aut novi civilia jura:\n  Et propero quo scis. Dubius sum quid faciam, inquit;\n  Tene relinquam, an rem. Me, sodes. Non faciam, ille;\n  Et praecedere coepit. Ego, ut contendere durum est\n  Cum victore, sequor. Mecaenas quomodo tecum?\n  Hinc repetit. Paucorum hominum, & mentis bene sanae.\n  Nemo dexterius fortuna est usus. Haberes\n  Magnum adjutorem, posset qui ferre secundas,\n  Hunc hominem velles si tradere: dispeream, ni\n  Summosses omnes. Non isto vivimus illic\n  Quo tu rere modo, domus hac nec purior ulla est,\n  Nec magis his aliena malis: nil mi officit unquam,\n  Ditior hic, aut est quia doctior: est locus uni\n  Cuique suus. Magnum narras, vix credibile. Atqui\n  Sic habet. Accendis, quare cupiam magis illi\n  Proximus esse. Veils tantummodo: quae tua virtus,\n  Expugnabis; & est qui vinci possit: eoque\n  Difficiles aditus primos habet. Haud mihi deero,\n  Muneribus servos corrumpam: non, hodie si\n  Exclusus fuero, desistam: tempera quaeram:\n  Occurram in triviis: deducam. Nil sine magno\n  Vita labore dedit mortalibus. Haec dum agit, ecce\n  Fuscus Aristius occurrit mihi carus, & illum\n  Qui pulchre nosset. Consistimus. Unde venis? &\n  Quo tendis? rogat, & respondet. Vellere coepi,\n  Et prensare manu lentissima brachia, nutans,\n  Distorquens oculos, ut me eriperet. Male salsus\n  Ridens dissimulare: mecum jecur urere bilis.\n  Certe nescio quid secreto velle loqui te\n  Aiebas mecum. Memini bene; sed meliori\n  Tempora dicam: hodie tricesima sabbata, vin'tu\n  Curtis Judaeis oppedere? Nulla mihi, inquam,\n  Religio est. At mi, sum paulo infirmior; unus\n  Multorum ignosces; alias loquar. Hunccine solem\n  Tam nigrum surrexe mihi: Fugit improbus, ac me\n  Sub cultro linquit. Casu venit obvius illi\n  Adversarius; &, Quo tu turpissime! magna\n  Inclamat voce; &, Licet antestari? Ego vero\n  Oppono auriculam; rapit in jus. Clamor utrinque\n  Undique concursus. Sic me servavit _Apollo_.\n\n[Transcriber's Note:\nSee end of _Essay_ for translation information.]\n\nThe Intention of _Horace_ in this Piece, is to expose an _impertinent_\nFellow, and to give a ludicrous Detail of his own _Embarrassment_;\nYour Pleasure arises from the View which he gives you of his own\nMortification, whereby he lays himself fairly open to your _Raillery_;\nThis is the more poignant, and quick, from the real Distress which you\nsee he endur'd, in this odd Attack; At the same Time the particular Turn\nof the Fellow, who chose in this Manner to pin himself upon another, is\na very odd Species of impertinent _Humour_.--This Piece, as it stands,\nirresistibly forces your Mirth, and shakes you with Laughter; But to\na Person of Discernment, it is chiefly at _Horace_'s Expence; Who in\nreceiving and enduring such insolent Treatment, appears in a Light too\nlow and ridiculous, though he has thought fit himself to exhibit the\nScene again for the Diversion of the Public;\n\nThe\n      Misere, cupis, ---- abire,\n  Jamdudum video, sed nil agis, usque tenebo,\n  Persequar;--\n\nwas an absolute Insult; And very unfit to be related by the Person\nwho suffer'd it, as a Matter of Merriment;--Besides this Tameness\nof _Horace_, the Impudence of the Fellow is excessively nauseous and\ndisgusting at the Bottom, though the whole carries a Froth of _Raillery_\nand _Humour_ upon the Surface.\n\nThe Truth is, that this Piece, as it stands, would have properly\nproceeded from another Person, who had intended to expose the\nImpertinence and Impudence of the Fellow, and freely to _rally_ poor\n_Horace_, with some Mixture of _Ridicule_, upon his unfortunate\nEmbarrassment; upon this Basis it will appear with Propriety; Without\nwhich all Compositions of _Wit_, or _Humour_, or _Taste_, tho' at\nfirst they may pleasurably strike the Fancy or Sight, are at last\ndisgusting to the Judgment.\n\nHaving here occasionally offer'd some Remarks upon this Composition,\nas it now stands, it may be proper to point out the Manner in which\nthe _Humour_ and _Raillery_ of such an Embarrassment, might have been\ncarried to the highest Pitch; And the Description of it have been\ngiven by _Horace_ himself, without any Diminution of his own Gentility\nor Importance;--Imagine then that he had been join'd in his Walk by a\nweak, ignorant Person, of Good-nature, and  the utmost Civility; one\nwho fancy'd himself possessed of the greatest Talents, and fully\npersuaded that he gave all he convers'd with a particular Pleasure;--\nUpon such an Attack, no Resentment or Anger could have been decently\nshewn by _Horace_, As the Person thus pestering him, was all the while\nintending the highest Compliment; And must therefore be received, and\nattended to, with perfect Complaisance; The _Humour_ of this Person\nwould have been very entertaining, in the strange Conceit which he\nheld of his own Abilities, and of the paticular Pleasure he was\ngranting to _Horace_, in condescending to give him so much of his\nCompany; In these Sentiments he should regard all _Horace_'s Excuses,\nEndeavours, and Struggles to be gone, as Expressions of his Sense of\nthe Honour done him; which should be an Argument with this Person for\nobstinately persisting to honour him still further; All the while he\nmust be supported by some _real Importance_ belonging to him, attended\nwith _good Breeding_, and strengthened by such occasional Instances\nof _Sense_, as may secure him from being trampled upon, or becoming\nabsolutely contemptible; In such an Adventure the Mortification, and\nDistress of _Horace_, would be excessively whimsical and severe;\nespecially as he would be depriv'd of all Succour and Relief; being in\nDecency oblig'd, not only to suppress all Anger or Uneasiness, but,\nwhat is exquisitely quick, to receive this whole Treatment with the\nutmost Complacency; An _Embarrassment_ of this sort, finely described,\nwould have yielded the greatest Pleasure to the Reader, and carried\nthe _Raillery_ upon _Horace_, without hurting or degrading him, to the\nhighest Degree of _Poignancy_;  And from hence may be conceiv'd, what\ndelightful Entertainments are capable of being drawn from _Humour_ and\n_Raillery_.\n\nIt is also easy to apprehend, that the several Subjects of _Wit_,\n_Humour_, _Raillery_, _Satire_, and _Ridicule_, appear not only\n_singly_ upon many Occasions, or _two_ of them combined together,\nbut are also frequently united in other Combinations, which are\nmore _complicate_; An Instance of the Union together of _Humour_,\n_Raillery_, and _Ridicule_, I remember to have read somewhere\nin _Voiture_'s Letters; He is in _Spain_, and upon the Point of\nproceeding from thence to some other Place in an _English_ Vessel;\nAfter he has written this Account of himself to a Lady at _Paris_,\nhe proceeds in his Letter to this Purpose;\n\n  \"You may perhaps apprehend, that I shall be in some Danger this\n  Voyage, of falling into the Hands of a _Barbary_ Corsair; But to\n  relieve you from all such Fears, I shall beg Leave to tell you,\n  what my honest Captain has inform'd me himself, for my own\n  Satisfaction; He suspected, it seems, that I might have some\n  Uneasiness upon this Head; and has therefore privately assured\n  me, that I have no need to be afraid of being taken with him; for\n  that whenever  it is likely to come to this, he will infallibly\n  blow up the Ship with his own Hands;--After this, I presume, you\n  will be perfectly easy, that I am in no Danger of going to\n  _Sallee_;\"\n\nThis is exquisitely _rich_; The brave and odd Fancy of the _English_\nCaptain, in finding out for himself, and _privately_ communicating to\n_Voiture_, this Method of Security from Slavery, abounds with the\nhighest _Humour_; At the same time the honest Tar, as a _Projecter_,\nis excessively open to _Ridicule_, for his Scheme to blow them all\nup, in order to prevent their being taken Prisoners; There is besides\nthese, a very full _Raillery_, which _Voiture_ here opens upon\n_himself_; For as this Adventure, which he is going to be engaged in,\nhas been attended, as yet, with no Mischief; nor is certain to be so,\nthe whole is to be consider'd, at present, as only a slight Scrape;\nespecially as he exhibits it in this manner himself, and invites you\nto make it the Object of your Pleasure, and _Raillery_;--It may also\nbe observ'd, that the _Humour_ in this Subject, which flows from the\n_Captain_, is adorn'd with a very peculiar, and pleasing _Propriety_;\nAs it is not barely a _Whim_, or the Result of an _odd Sourness_ or\n_queer Pride_, but the Effect of his _Courage_, and of that Freedom\nfrom all Terror at Death, which is perfectly amiable in his Character.\n\nThere are other Combinations of _Wit_, _Humour_, _Raillery_, _Satire_,\nand _Ridicule_, where _four_ of them, or all _five_, are united in\none Subject;--Like various _Notes_ in _Music_, sounding together, and\njointly composing one exquisite Piece of Harmony;--Or like different\n_Rays_ of _Light_, shining together in one _Rainbow_: It is pleasant\nto _divide_ these _Combinations_, and to view as with a _Prism_, the\ndifferent Rays united in each; of which _Humour_, like the _Red_, is\neminent for its superior Force and Excellence;--When  the Judgment is\nthus capable of parting, and easily assigning the several Quantities,\nand Proportions of each, it heightens our Pleasure, and gives us an\nabsolute Command over the Subject; But they are often so intimately\nmix'd, and blended together, that it is difficult to separate them\nclearly, tho' they are all certainly felt in the same Piece;--Like\nthe different _Flavours_ of rich _Fruits_, which are inseparably\nmix'd, yet all perfectly tasted, in one _Pine-Apple_.\n\n_Raillery_, and _Satire_, are extremely different;\n\n1. _Raillery_, is a genteel poignant Attack of _slight_ Foibles and\nOddities; _Satire_ a witty and severe Attack of _mischievous_ Habits\nand Vices.\n\n2. The _Intention_ of _Raillery_, is to procure your _Pleasure_, by\nexposing the little Embarrassment of a Person; But the _Intention_\nof _Satire_, is to raise your _Detestation_, by exposing the real\nDeformity of his Vices.\n\n3. If in _Raillery_ the Sting be given too deep and severe, it\nwill sink into Malice and Rudeness, And your Pleasure will not be\njustifiable; But _Satire_, the more deep and severe the Sting of it\nis, will be the more excellent;  Its Intention being entirely to root\nout and destroy the Vice.\n\n4. It is a just Maxim upon these Subjects, that in _Raillery_ a\ngood-natur'd Esteem ought always to appear, without any Resentment\nor Bitterness; In _Satire_ a generous free Indignation, without any\nsneaking Fear or Tenderness; It being a sort of partaking in the Guilt\nto keep any Terms with Vices.\n\nIt is from hence that _Juvenal_, as a _Satirist_, is greatly superior\nto _Horace_; But indeed many of the short Compositions of _Horace_,\nwhich are indiscriminately ranged together, under the general Name\nof _Satires_, are not properly such, but Pieces of _Raillery_ or\n_Ridicule_.\n\nAs _Raillery_, in order to be decent, can only be exercised upon\n_slight_ Misfortunes and Foibles, attended with no deep Mischief, nor\nwith any Reproach upon real Merit, so it ought only to be used between\n_Equals_ and _Intimates_; It being evidently a Liberty too great to\nbe taken by an _Inferior_; and too inequitable to be taken by a\n_Superior_, as his Rank shields him from any Return.\n\n_Raillery_ is the most agreeable, when it is founded on a _slight_\nEmbarrassment or Foible, which upon being unfolded, appears to have\narisen from the _real Merit_, or from the _Excess_ of any _Virtue_,\nin the Person attack'd.\n\nBut yet this Embarrassment must always be _real_, and attended with\nthe Chagrin or Confusion of the _rally'd_ Person, or capable of being\nfairly suppos'd to have been so; otherwise the Attack will be void of\nall Poignancy, and Pleasure to the Company; And evaporate either into\n_indirect Flattery_, or else into the _Insipid_.\n\nThus, to attack a _fine Lady_ upon the Enemies  she has made, by the\nmischievous Effects of her Beauty, will be properly genteel indirect\n_Flattery_--if it be well conducted,--otherwise,  the _Insipid_; But\nit cannot be deem'd _Raillery_; It being impossible to suppose the\nLady _really_ chagrin'd by such an imaginary Misfortune, or uneasy\nat any Explanation upon this Subject;\n\n_Raillery_ ought soon to be ended; For by long keeping the Person\nattack'd, even in a _slight_ Pain, and continuing to dwell upon\nhis Mis-adventures, you become rude and ill-natur'd;--Or  if the\n_Raillery_ be only turn'd upon an Embarrassment, arising from the\nExcess of Merit or Abilities, Yet if it be long confined upon the same\nSubject, the Person it is pointed at, will either suspect that your\nAim is, to leave some _Impression_ against him, or else that you are\ndesigning him a tedious dark _Compliment_; And accordingly he will\neither regard you with Hatred or Contempt;--Much  less should a\nPerson, who introduces himself as a Subject of _Raillery_, insist long\nupon it; For either he will be offensive in engrossing all Attention\nto himself; or if the Company are pleas'd, it must be by his\nBuffoonery.\n\nThe Difference between _Satire_, and _Ridicule_, has been already\npointed out;--_Satire_ being always concerned with the _Vices_ of\n_Persons_;--Whereas _Ridicule_ is justly employ'd, not upon the\n_Vices_, but the _Foibles_ or _Meannesses_ of _Persons_, And also upon\nthe _Improprieties_ of other Subjects; And is directed, not to raise\nyour _Detestation_, but your _Derision_ and _Contempt_;--It being\nevident that _Immoralities_ and _Vice_ are too _detestable_ for\n_Ridicule_, and are therefore properly the Subject of _Satire_;\nWhereas _Foibles_ and _Meannesses_ are too _harmless_ for _Satire_,\nand deserve only to be treated with _Ridicule_.\n\nThe usual Artillery of _Ridicule_ is _Wit_; whereby the _Affinity_\nor _Coincidence_ of any Object with others, which are absurd and\ncontemptible, is unexpectedly exhibited;--There is also another, very\nforcible, Manner in which _Ridicule_ may act; And that is by employing\n_Humour_ alone; Thus the Foible or Queerness of any Person will be\nmost fully _ridicul'd_, by naturally dressing yourself, or any other\nPerson in that Foible, and exerting its full Strength and Vigour.\n\n  The POLITENESS of a Subject is the _Freedom_ of that Subject\n  from all _Indelicacy_, Aukardness_, and _Roughness_.\n\n  GOOD BREEDING consists in a _respectful_ Carriage to others,\n  accompany'd with _Ease_ and _Politeness_.\n\nIt appears from hence that GOOD BREEDING and POLITENESS differ in\nthis; that GOOD BREEDING relates only to the Manners of _Persons_\nin their Commerce together; Whereas Politeness may relate also to\n_Books_, as well as to _Persons_, or to any Subjects of Taste and\nOrnament.\n\nSo that _Politeness_ may subsist in a Subject, as in a _Cornish_, or\n_Architrave_, where _good Breeding_ can't enter; But it is impossible\nfor _good Breeding_ to be offer'd without _Politeness_.\n\nAt the same time _good Breeding_ is not to be understood, as merely\nthe _Politeness_ of _Persons_; But as _Respect_, tender'd with\n_Politeness_, in the Commerce between _Persons_.\n\nIt is easy to perceive, that _good Breeding_ is a different Behaviour\nin different Countries, and in the same Countries at different\nPeriods, according to the Manners which are us'd amongst _polite_\nPersons of those Places and Seasons.\n\nIn _England_ the chief Point of it _formerly_ was plac'd, in carrying\na _Respect_ in our Manners to all we convers'd with; whence every\nOmission of the slightest Ceremony, as it might be construed into\na want of _Respect_, was particularly to be avoided; So that _good\nBreeding_ became then\n  a precise Observance and Exercise of all the Motions and\n  Ceremonies, expressive of Respect, which might justly be paid\n  to every Person;\n--This, as it is easy to imagine, requir'd much Nicety in the\nAdjustment upon many Occasions, and created immense Trouble and\nConstraint, and most ridiculous Embarrassments.\n\nHowever, these Modes of _good Breeding_ were not to be abolished,\nas it was impossible to dispense with the _Respect_ annex'd to them,\nwithout some further Pretence than of their _Inconvenience_ only;\nwhich no Person could decently urge, or admit in his own behalf,\nwhen it was his Province to pay any Ceremonies to another; In this\nDifficulty it was at last happily observ'd, for the Advantage of\ngenteel Commerce and Society, that _whatever gives Trouble, is\ninconsistent with Respect_; Upon which Foundation, all Ceremonies\nwhich create Embarrassments or Trouble to either Side, are now justly\nexploded; And the _Ease_ of each other is the Point most peculiarly\nconsulted by _well-bred_ Persons.\n\nIf this Attention to _Ease_ was properly conducted, so that it might\nalways appear to have _Respect_ for its Motive; And only to act in\nObedience to _that_, as the ruling Principle, it would then comprehend\nthe just Plan of _good Breeding_; But as _this_ was formerly\nencumber'd with Ceremonies and Embarrassments, so the modern _good\nBreeding_ perhaps deviates too far into Negligence and Disregard;\n--A Fault more unpardonable than the former; As an Inconvenience,\nevidently proceeding from the _Respect_ which is paid to us, may be\neasily excus'd; But a Freedom, which carries the Air of _Neglect_ with\nit, gives a lasting Offence.\n\n  BEAUTY is the delightful _Effect_ which arises from the\n  _joint Order_, _Proportion_, and _Harmony_ of all the Parts\n  of an _Object_.\nAnd\n  to have a good TASTE, is to have a just _Relish_ of BEAUTY.\n\n      *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Transcriber's Note:\n\nTranslations of Horace _Satire_ I.9 are available from Project\nGutenberg as e-text 5419 (verse translation, plain text) or\n14020 (prose translation, text or html).]\n\n      *       *       *       *       *\n          *       *       *       *\n      *       *       *       *       *\n\n[CORBYN MORRIS]\n\nAn / Essay / Towards Fixing the / True Standards / of / Wit, Humour,\nRaillery, / Satire, and Ridicule. / To which is Added, an / Analysis /\nOf the Characters of / An Humourist, Sir John Falstaff, Sir Roger / De\nCoverly, and Don Quixote. / Inscribed, to the Right Honorable / Robert\nEarl of Orford. / [rule] / By the Author of a / Letter from a By-\nStander. / [rule] /--Jacta est Alea. / [double rule] / London: /\nPrinted for J. Roberts, at the Oxford-Arms, in War- / wick-lane; and\nW. Bickerton, In the Temple-Ex- / change, near the Inner-Temple-Gate,\nFleet-street. / M DCC XLIV. [Price 2 s.] /\n\nCollation: A, a-c, in fours; d in two; a-d, in fours; B-K in fours;\nL in two. A, title; verso blank; A^2-d, dedication; d^2 erratum and\nadvertisements; a-d^4, Introduction; B-L^2, text.\n\nThe first edition. A second edition was published in 1758.\n\nColton Storm\nClements Library\n\n      *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n                  ANNOUNCING\n\n                     the\n\n                _Publications_\n\n\n                      of\n\n\n                 THE AUGUSTAN\n\n                REPRINT SOCIETY\n\n\n\n_General Editors_\n\nRICHARD C. BOYS\nEDWARD NILES HOOKER\nH.T. SWEDENBERG, JR.\n\n\n      *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n       _THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY_\n\n               Makes Available\n\n\n   _Inexpensive Reprints of Rare Materials_\n\n\n                    from\n\n           ENGLISH LITERATURE OF THE\n\n      SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES\n\n\nStudents, scholars, and bibliographers of literature, history, and\nphilology will find the publications valuable. _The Johnsonian News\nLetter_ has said of them: \"Excellent facsimiles, and cheap in price,\nthese represent the triumph of modern scientific reproduction. Be sure\nto become a subscriber; and take it upon yourself to see that your\ncollege library is on the mailing list.\"\n\nThe Augustan Reprint Society is a non-profit, scholarly organization,\nrun without overhead expense. By careful management it is able to\noffer at least six publications each year at the unusually low\nmembership fee of $2.50 per year in the United States and Canada, and\n$2.75 in Great Britain and the continent.\n\nLibraries as well as individuals are eligible for membership. Since\nthe publications are issued without profit, however, no discount can\nbe allowed to libraries, agents, or booksellers.\n\nNew members may still obtain a complete run of the first year's\npublications for $2.50, the annual membership fee.\n\nDuring the first two years the publications are issued in three\nseries: I. Essays on Wit; II. Essays on Poetry and Language; and III.\nEssays on the Stage.\n\n      *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPUBLICATIONS FOR THE FIRST YEAR (1946-1947)\n\nMAY, 1946: Series I, No. 1--Richard Blackmore's _Essay upon Wit_\n(1716), and Addison's _Freeholder_ No. 45 (1716).\n\nJULY, 1946: Series II, No. 1--Samuel Cobb's _Of Poetry_ and\n_Discourse on Criticism_ (1707)\n\nSEPT., 1946: Series III, No. 1--Anon., _Letter to A.H. Esq.;\nconcerning the Stage_ (1698), and Richard Willis' _Occasional Paper_\nNo. IX (1698).\n\nNOV., 1946: Series I, No. 2--Anon., _Essay on Wit_ (1748), together\nwith Characters by Flecknoe, and Joseph Warton's _Adventurer_ Nos. 127\nand 133.\n\nJAN., 1947: Series II, No. 2--Samuel Wesley's _Epistle to a Friend\nConcerning Poetry_ (1700) and _Essay on Heroic Poetry_ (1693).\n\nMARCH, 1947: Series III, No. 2--Anon., _Representation of the Impiety\nand Immorality of the Stage_ (1704) and anon., _Some Thoughts\nConcerning the Stage_ (1704).\n\n\nPUBLICATIONS FOR THE SECOND YEAR (1947-1948)\n\nMAY, 1947: Series I, No. 3--John Gay's _The Present State of Wit_;\nand a section on Wit from _The English Theophrastus_. With an\nIntroduction by Donald Bond.\n\nJULY, 1947: Series II, No. 3--Rapin's _De Carmine Pastorali_,\ntranslated by Creech. With an Introduction by J. E. Congleton.\n\nSEPT., 1947: Series III, No. 3--T. Hanmer's (?) _Some Remarks on the\nTragedy of Hamlet_. With an Introduction by Clarence D. Thorpe.\n\nNOV., 1947: Series I, No. 4--Corbyn Morris' _Essay towards Fixing the\nTrue Standards of Wit_, etc. With an Introduction by James L.\nClifford.\n\nJAN., 1948: Series II, No. 4--Thomas Purney's _Discourse on the\nPastoral_. With an Introduction by Earl Wasserman.\n\nMARCH, 1948: Series III, No. 4--Essays on the Stage, selected, with\nan Introduction by Joseph Wood Krutch.\n\n\nThe list of publications is subject to modification in response to\nrequests by members. From time to time Bibliographical Notes will be\nincluded in the issues. Each issue contains an Introduction by a\nscholar of special competence in the field represented.\n\nThe Augustan Reprints are available only to members. They will never\nbe offered at \"remainder\" prices.","title":"An Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit, Humour, Railery, Satire, and Ridicule (1744)","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":21533}