I have examin'd the _Essay_ you have sent me for _fixing the true
Standards of Wit, Humour, &c._ and cannot perceive upon what
pretence the Definitions, as you tell me, are censured for
Obscurity, even by Gentlemen of Abilities, and such as in other
Parts of the Work very frankly allow it's Merit: the Definition
of Wit, which presents itself at first, you say is, particularly
objected to, as dark and involv'd; in answer to which I beg Leave
to give you my plain Sentiments upon it, and which I apprehend
should naturally occur to every Reader: In treating upon Wit, the
Author seems constantly to carry in his View a Distinction
between _This_ and _Vivacity_: there is a Lustre or Brilliancy
which often results from wild unprovok'd Sallies of Fancy; but
such unexpected Objects, which serve not to _elucidate_ each
other, discover only a Flow of Spirits, or rambling Vivacity;
whereas, says he, Wit is the Lustre which results from the
quick _Elucidation_ of one Subject, by the just and unexpected
Arrangement of it with another Subject.--To constitute _Wit_,
there must not only arise a _Lustre_ from the quick Arrangement
together of two Subjects, but the new Subject must be naturally
introduced, and also serve to _elucidate_ the original one: the
Word _Elucidation_, though it be not new, is elegant, and very
happily applied in this Definition; yet I have seen some old
Gentlemen here stumble at it, and have found it difficult to
persuade them to advance farther:--I have also heard Objections
made to the Words _Lustre_ and _Brilliancy_ of Ideas, though they
are Terms which have been used by the _Greeks_ and _Romans_, and
by elegant Writers of all Ages and Nations; and the Effect which
they express, is perfectly conceiv'd and felt by every Person of
true Genius and Imagination.
The Distinctions between _Wit_ and _Humour_, and the Reasons
why _Humour_ is more pleasurably felt than _Wit_, are new and
excellent: as is the Definition of an _Humourist_, and the happy
Analysis of the Characters of _Falstaff_, _Sir Roger de Coverly_,
and _Don Quixote_; But, as you say, the Merit of these Parts is
universally allowed; as well as the Novelty, and liberal Freedom
of the [word apparently omitted]; which have such Charms in my
Eye, as I had long ceased to expect in a Modern Writer.
I am, &c
25 May, 1744
J---- W----
[not identified]
If the "Gentlemen of Abilities" of the day found some of Morris's
definitions obscure, modern readers will find them more precise than
those of most of his predecessors. All who had gone before--Cowley,
Barrow, Dryden, Locke, Addison, and Congreve (he does not mention
Hobbes)--Morris felt had bungled the job. And although he apologizes
for attempting what the great writers of the past had failed to do, he
has no hesitation in setting forth exactly what he believes to be the
proper distinctions in the meanings of such terms as wit, humour,
judgment, invention, raillery, and ridicule. The mathematician and
statistician in Morris made him strive for precise accuracy. It was
all very clear to him, and by the use of numerous anecdotes and
examples he hoped to make the distinctions obvious to the general
reader.
The _Essay_ shows what a man of some evident taste and perspicacity,
with an analytical mind, can do in defining the subtle semantic
distinctions in literary terms. Trying to fix immutably what is
certain always to be shifting, Morris is noteworthy not only because
of the nature of his attempt, but because he is relatively so
successful. As Professor Edward Hooker has pointed out in an
Introduction to an earlier _ARS_ issue (Series I, No. 2), his is
"probably the best and clearest treatment of the subject in the first
half of the eighteenth century." It may be regretted that political
and economic concerns occupied so much of his later life, leaving him
no time for further literary essays.
In the present facsimile edition, for reasons of space, only the
Introduction and the main body of the _Essay_ are reproduced. Although
Morris once remarked to David Hume that he wrote all his books "for
the sake of the Dedications" (_Letters of David Hume_ ed. Greig, I,
380), modern readers need not regret too much the omission of the
fulsome 32 page dedication to Walpole (The Earl of Orford). Morris
insists at the beginning that the book was inspired by a fervent
desire of "attempting a Composition, independent of Politics, which
might furnish an occasional Amusement" to his patron. The praise which
follows, in which Walpole is said to lead "the _Empire_ of _Letters_,"
is so excessive as to produce only smiles in twentieth century
readers. Walpole is praised for not curbing the press while
necessarily curbing the theatre, his aid to commerce and industry,
indeed almost every act of his administration, is lauded to the skies.
The Church of England, in which "the _Exercise_ of _Reason_ in the
solemn Worship of God, is the sacred _Right_, and indispensible
_Duty_, of Man," receives its share of eulogy. In every connection the
Tories are violently attacked.
The Dedication ends in a peroration of praise for Walpole's public
achievements which "shall adorn the History of _Britain_," and for his
"_Private Virtues_ and all the _softer Features_" of his mind. His
home of retirement is referred to in the lines of Milton:
"Great Palace now of Light!
Hither, as to their Fountain, other Stars
Repairing, in their golden Urns, draw Light;
And here [sic] the Morning Planet gilds her Horns."
[P.L. 7. 363-66]
"Thus splendid, and superior, your Lordship now flourishes in
honourable Ease, exerting universal Benevolence...." But in
dedications, as in lapidary inscriptions, as Dr. Johnson might
have agreed, a writer need not be upon oath.
At the end of the _Essay_ Morris reprinted two essays from _The
Spectator_, Nos. 35 and 62, and William Congreve's "An Essay concerning
Humour in Comedy. To Mr. Dennis" (Congreve's _Works_, ed. Summers, III,
161-68). Since these are readily available, they have not been included
in this edition.
The present facsimile is made from a copy owned by Louis I. Bredvold,
with his kind permission.