The following sections of this BookRags Literature Study Guide is offprint from Gale's For Students Series: Presenting Analysis, Context, and Criticism on Commonly Studied Works: Introduction, Author Biography, Plot Summary, Characters, Themes, Style, Historical Context, Critical Overview, Criticism and Critical Essays, Media Adaptations, Topics for Further Study, Compare & Contrast, What Do I Read Next?, For Further Study, and Sources.
(c)1998-2002; (c)2002 by Gale. Gale is an imprint of The Gale Group, Inc., a division of Thomson Learning, Inc. Gale and Design and Thomson Learning are trademarks used herein under license.
The following sections, if they exist, are offprint from Beacham's Encyclopedia of Popular Fiction: "Social Concerns", "Thematic Overview", "Techniques", "Literary Precedents", "Key Questions", "Related Titles", "Adaptations", "Related Web Sites". (c)1994-2005, by Walton Beacham.
The following sections, if they exist, are offprint from Beacham's Guide to Literature for Young Adults: "About the Author", "Overview", "Setting", "Literary Qualities", "Social Sensitivity", "Topics for Discussion", "Ideas for Reports and Papers". (c)1994-2005, by Walton Beacham.
All other sections in this Literature Study Guide are owned and copyrighted by BookRags, Inc.
Author: Corbyn Morris
Commentator: James L. Clifford
Release Date: July 7, 2005 [EBook #16233]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ASCII
*** Start of this project gutenberg EBOOK fixing the true standards of wit ***
Produced by David Starner, Louise Hope and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net.
Series Two:
Essays on Wit
No. 4
[Corbyn Morris]
An Essay towards Fixing the True Standards
of Wit, Humour, Raillery, Satire, and Ridicule
(1744)
With an Introduction by
James L. Clifford
and
a Bibliographical Note
The Augustan Reprint Society
November, 1947
Price: $1.00
* * * * *
Richard C. Boys, University of Michigan
Edward Niles Hooker, University of
California, Los Angeles
H.T. SWEDENBERG, Jr., University of California,
Los Angeles
Emmett L. Avery, State College of Washington
Louis I. Bredvold, University of Michigan
Benjamin Boyce, University of Nebraska
CLEANTH Brooks, Yale University
James L. Clifford, Columbia University
Arthur Friedman, University of Chicago
Samuel H. Monk, University of Minnesota
James Sutherland, Queen Mary College, London
* * * * *
The Essay here reproduced was first advertised in the London Daily Advertiser as “this day was published” on Thursday, 17 May 1744 (The same advertisement, except for the change of price from one shilling to two, appeared in this paper intermittently until 14 June). Although on the title-page the authorship is given as “By the Author of a Letter from a By-stander,” there was no intention of anonymity, since the Dedication is boldly signed “Corbyn Morris, Inner Temple, Feb. 1, 1743 [44].”
Not much is known of the early life of Corbyn Morris. Born 14 August 1710, he was the eldest son of Edmund Morris of Bishop’s Castle, Salop. (Alumni Cantabrigienses). On 17 September 1727 he was admitted (pensioner) at Queen’s College, Cambridge, as an exhibitioner from the famous Charterhouse School. Exactly when he left the university, or whether he took a degree, is not certain.
Morris first achieved some prominence, though anonymously, with A Letter from a By-stander to a Member of Parliament; wherein is examined what necessity there is for the maintenance of a large regular land-force in this island. This pamphlet, dated at the end, 26 February 1741/42, is a wholehearted eulogy of the Walpole administration and is filled with statistics and arguments for the Mercantilist theories of the day. At the time there was some suspicion that the work had been written either by Walpole himself or by his direction. When the Letter from a By-stander was answered by the historian Thomas Carte, an angry pamphlet controversy ensued, with Morris writing under the pseudonym of “A Gentleman of Cambridge.” Throughout, Morris showed himself a violent Whig, bitter in his attacks on Charles II and the non-jurors; and it was undoubtedly this fanatical party loyalty which laid the foundation for his later government career.
The principal facts of Morris’s later life may be briefly summarized. On 17 June 1743 he was admitted at the Inner Temple. Throughout the Pelham and Newcastle administrations he was employed by the government, as he once put it, “in conciliating opponents.” From 1751 to 1763 be acted as Secretary of the Customs and Salt Duty in Scotland, in which post he was acknowledged to have shown decided ability as an administrator. From 1763 to 1778 he was one of the commissioners of customs. He died at Wimbledon 22 December 1779 (Musgrave’s Obituary), described in the Gentleman’s Magazine as a “gentleman well known in the literary world, and universally esteemed for his unwearied services and attachment to government.”
Throughout his long years of public service he wrote numerous pamphlets, largely on economic and political questions. Merely the titles of a few may be sufficient to indicate the nature of his interests. An Essay towards Deciding the Question whether Britain be Permitted by Right Policy to Insure the Ships of Her Enemies (1747); Observations on the Past Growth and Present State of the City of London (containing a complete table of christenings and burials 1601- 1750) (175l); A Letter Balancing the Causes of the Present Scarcity of Our Silver Coin (1757).
It would be a mistake, however, to consider Morris merely as a statistical economist and Whig party hack. A gentleman of taste and wit, the friend of Hume, Boswell, and other discerning men of the day, he was elected F.R.S. in 1757, and appears to have been much respected. In later life Morris had a country place at Chiltern Vale, Herts., where he took an active delight in country sports. One of his late pamphlets, not listed in the D.N.B. account of him, entertainingly illustrates one of his hobbies. The Bird-fancier’s Recreation and Delight, with the newest and very best instructions for catching, taking, feeding, rearing, &c all the various sorts of SONG BIRDS... containing curious remarks on the nature, sex, management, and diseases of ENGLISH SONG BIRDS, with practical instructions for distinguishing the cock and hen, for taking, choosing, breeding, keeping, and teaching them to sing, for discovering and caring their diseases, and of learning them to sing to the greatest perfection.
Although there is little surviving evidence of Morris’s purely literary interests, a set of verses combining his economic and artistic views appeared in a late edition of The New Foundling Hospital for Wit (new edition, 1784, VI, 95). Occasioned by seeing Bowood in Wiltshire, the home of the Earl of Shelburne, the lines are entitled: “On Reading Dr. Goldsmith’s Poem, the Deserted Village.”
This was the man who at the age of thirty-three brought out An Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit, Humour, Raillery, Satire, and Ridicule. That it was ever widely read we have no evidence, but at least a number of men of wit and judgment found it interesting. Horace Walpole included it in a packet of “the only new books at all worth reading” sent to Horace Mann, but the fulsome dedication to the elder Walpole undoubtedly had something to do with this recommendation. More disinterested approval is shown in a letter printed in the Daily Advertiser for 31 May 1744. Better than any modern critique the letter illustrates the contemporary reaction to the Essay.
Christ Church College, Oxford,
SIR:
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’dPage 4
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
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.
James L. Clifford
Columbia University
* * * * *
[Transcriber’s Note: The ARS edition included an errata slip, reproduced here. Where text was changed or deleted, the original is given in brackets. Corrections to the Essay itself are listed after the ARS errata.]
Please paste the following in your copy of Corbyn Morris’s Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit....
(ARS, Series One, No. 4)
INTRODUCTION:
page 5, line 1—“word apparently omitted” should be inclosed in brackets.
page 5, line 6—“not identified” should be inclosed in brackets.
page 6, line 5—the first “of”
should be omitted.
["modern readers need not
regret too much of the omission
of the fulsome
32 page dedication”]
page 6, line 12, should read
“Walpole is praised for not curbing
the press while necessarily
curbing the theatre, his aid to commerce”.
["Walpole is praised for not
curbing the theatre; his aid to
commerce”]
page 6, line 25—“sic” should be inclosed in brackets, as also “P.L. 7. 363-66” in the next line.
[ ESSAY ON WIT:
page viii: Whence in Aristotle such Persons
are termed
“epidexioi”, dexterous Men
The Greek may read
“epidezioi”; the letter-form makes it
uncertain.
page 14: ... without any Reference to their whimsical
Oddities
or Foibles;
Text reads Oddistie.
page 20 and elsewhere: “Biass” is
an attested variant spelling;
it has not been changed.
page 25: “teizes” (modern “teases”)
is an attested variant spelling;
it has not been changed.
page 40: —It is therefore no wonder
that Signior Don Quixote of
la Mancha ...
Text reads Quoxote.
]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
An
ESSAY
Towards Fixing the
TRUE STANDARDS
of
WIT, HUMOUR, RAILLERY,
SATIRE, and RIDICULE.
To which is Added, an
ANALYSIS
Of the CHARACTERS of
An HUMOURIST, Sir John Falstaff,
Sir Roger De Coverly,
and Don Quixote.
Inscribed to the RIGHT HONORABLE
ROBERT Earl of ORFORD.
By the AUTHOR of a
LETTER from a BY-STANDER.
—— Jacta est Alea.
LONDON:
Printed for J. ROBERTS, at the Oxford-Arms,
in Warwick-lane; and W. BICKERTON,
in the Temple-Exchange, near the
Inner-Temple-Gate, Fleet-Street.
M DCC XLIV. [Price 2s.]
* * * * *
INTRODUCTION.
An Attempt to describe the precise Limits of WIT, HUMOUR, RAILLERY, SATIRE and RIDICULE, I am sensible, is no easy or slight Undertaking. To give a Definition of WIT, has been declared by Writers of the greatest Renown, to exceed their Reach and Power; and Gentlemen of no less Abilities, and Fame, than Cowley, Barrow, Dryden, Locke, Congreve, and Addison, have tryed their Force upon this Subject, and have all left it free, and unconquered. This, I perceive, will be an Argument with some, for condemning an Essay upon this Topic by a young Author, as rash and presumptious. But, though I desire to pay all proper Respect to these eminent Writers, if a tame Deference to great Names shall become fashionable, and the Imputation of Vanity be laid upon those who examine their Works, all Advancement in Knowledge will be absolutely stopp’d; and Literary Merit will be soon placed, in an humble Stupidity, and solemn Faith in the Wisdom of our Ancestors.
Whereas, if I rightly apprehend, an Ambition to excell is the Principle which should animate a Writer, directed by a Love of Truth, and a free Spirit of Candour and Inquiry. This is the Flame which should warm the rising Members of every Science, not a poor Submission to those who have preceded. For, however it may be with a Religious DEVOTION, a Literary One is certainly the CHILD of Ignorance.
However, I must acknowledge, that where I have differed from the great Authors before mentioned, it has been with a Diffidence, and after the most serious and particular Examination of what they have delivered. It is from hence, that I have thought it my Duty, to exhibit with the following Essay, their several Performances upon the same Subject, that every Variation of mine from their Suffrage, and the Reasons upon which I have grounded it, may clearly appear.
The following Ode upon WIT is written by Mr. Cowley.
ODE of WIT.
I.
Tell me, oh tell!, what kind of Thing is WIT,
Thou who Master art of it;
For the first Matter loves Variety less;
Less Women love’t, either in Love
or Dress.
A thousand diff’rent Shapes it bears,
Comely in thousand Shapes appears;
Yonder we saw it plain, and here ’tis now,
Like Spirits in a Place, we know not how.
II.
London, that vents of false Ware so
much Store,
In no Ware deceives us more;
For Men, led by the Colour, and the Shape,
Like Zeuxis’ Bird, fly to the painted
Grape.
Some things do through our Judgment pass,
As through a Multiplying Glass:
And sometimes, if the Object be too far,
We take a falling Meteor for a Star.
III.
Hence ’tis a Wit, that greatest Word
of Fame,
Grows such a common Name;
And Wits, by our Creation, they become;
Just so as Tit’lar Bishops made at Rome.
’Tis not a Tale, ’tis
not a Jest,
Admir’d with Laughter at
a Feast,
Nor florid Talk which can that Title
gain;
The Proofs of Wit for ever must remain.
IV.
’Tis not to force some Lifeless Verses
meet,
With their five gouty Feet.
All ev’ry where, like Man’s, must
be the Soul,
And Reason the inferior Pow’rs
controul.
Such were the Numbers which could
call
The Stones into the Theban
Wall.
Such Miracles are ceas’d, and now we
see
No Towns or Houses rais’d by Poetry.
V.
Yet ’tis not to adorn, and gild each Part,
That shews more Cost than Art.
Jewels at Nose, and Lips, but
ill appear;
Rather than all Things Wit, let none
be there.
Several Lights will not be seen,
If there be nothing else between.
Men doubt; because they stand so thick i’ th’
Sky.
If those be Stars which paint the Galaxy.
VI.
’Tis not when two like Words make up one Noise;
Jests for Dutch Men, and English
Boys.
In which, who finds out Wit, the same may see
In An’grams and Acrostiques Poetry.
Much less can that have any Place,
At which a Virgin hides her Face;
Such Dross the Fire must purge away;
’Tis just
The Author blush, there where the Reader
must.
VII.
’Tis not such Lines as almost crack the
Stage,
When Bajazet begins to rage;
Not a tall Metaphor in th’ bombast
Way,
Nor the dry Chips of short-lung’d Seneca.
Nor upon all Things to obtrude,
And force some odd Similitude.
What is it then, which like the Pow’r Divine,
We only can by Negatives define?
VIII.
In a true Piece of Wit, all Things must be,
Yet all Things there agree;
As in the Ark, join ’d without Force
or Strife,
All Creatures dwelt; all Creatures that
had Life.
Or as the primitive Forms of all,
(If we compare great Things with small)
Which without Discord or Confusion lie,
In the strange Mirror of the Deity.
IX.
But Love, that moulds one Man up out
of two,
Makes me forget, and injure you.
I took You for Myself, sure when I thought
That You in any thing were to be taught.
Correct my Error with thy Pen,
And if any ask me then,
What thing right Wit, and Height of Genius
is,
I’ll only shew your Lines, and say, ’Tis
this.
The Spirit and Wit of this Ode are excellent; and yet it is evident, through the whole, that Mr. Cowley had no clear Idea of Wit, though at the same time it shines in most of these Lines: There is little Merit in saying what WIT is not, which is the chief Part of this Ode. Towards the End, he indeed attempts to describe what it is, but is quite vague and perplex’d in his Description; and at last, instead of collecting his scatter’d Rays into a Focus, and exhibiting succinctly the clear Essence and Power of WIT, he drops the whole with a trite Compliment.
The learned Dr. Barrow, in his Sermon against foolish Talking and Jesting, gives the following profuse Description of WIT.
But first it may be demanded, What the Thing we speak of is? Or what the Facetiousness (or Wit as he calls it before) doth import? To which Questions I might reply, as Democritus did to him that asked the Definition of a Man, ’Tis that we all see and know. Any one better apprehends what it is by Acquaintance, than I can inform him by Description. It is indeed a Thing so versatile and multiform, appearing in so many Shapes, so many Postures, so many Garbs, so variously apprehended by several Eyes and Judgments, that it seemeth no less hard to settle a clear and certain Notion thereof, than to make a Portrait of Proteus, or to define the Figure of the fleeting Air. Sometimes it lieth in pat Allusion to a known Story, or in seasonable Application of a trivial Saying, or in forging an apposite Tale: Sometimes it playeth in Words and Phrases, taking Advantage from thePage 9
Ambiguity of their Sense, or the Affinity of their Sound: Sometimes it is wrapp’d in a Dress of humorous Expression: Sometimes it lurketh under an odd Similitude: Sometimes it is lodged in a sly Question, in a smart Answer, in a quirkish Reason, in a shrewd Intimation, in cunningly diverting, or cleverly retorting an Objection: Sometimes it is couched in a bold Scheme of Speech, in a tart Irony, in a lusty Hyperbole, in a startling Metaphor, in a plausible Reconciling of Contradictions, or in acute Nonsense; Sometimes a scenical Representation of Persons or Things, a counterfeit Speech, a mimical Look or Gesture passeth for it. Sometimes an affected Simplicity, sometimes a presumptuous Bluntness giveth it Being. Sometimes it riseth from a lucky Hitting upon what is Strange; sometimes from a crafty wresting obvious Matter to the Purpose. Often it’ consisteth in one knows not what, and springeth up one can hardly tell how. Its ways are unaccountable, and inexplicable, being answerable to the numberless Rovings of Fancy, and Windings of Language. It is, in short, a Manner of Speaking out of the simple and plain Way (such as Reason teacheth, and proveth Things by) which by a pretty, surprizing Uncouthness in Conceit or Expression, doth affect and amuse the Fancy, stirring in it some Wonder, and breeding some Delight thereto. It raiseth Admiration, as signifying a nimble Sagacity of Apprehension, a special Felicity of Invention, a Vivacity of Spirit, and Reach of Wit, more than vulgar; it seeming to argue a rare Quickness of Parts, that one can fetch in remote Conceits applicable; a notable Skill that he can dextrously accommodate them to the Purpose before him; together with a lively Briskness of Humour, not apt to damp those Sportful Flashes of Imagination. (Whence in Aristotle such Persons are termed “epidexioi”, dexterous Men, and “eutropoi”, Men of facile or versatile Manners, who can easily turn themselves to all Things, or turn all Things to themselves.) It also procureth Delight, by gratifying Curiosity with its Rareness, or Semblance of Difficulty. (As Monsters, not for their Beauty, but their Rarity; as juggling Tricks, not for their Use, but their Abstruseness, are beheld with Pleasure;) by diverting the Mind from its Road of serious Thoughts, by instilling Gaiety, and Airiness of Spirit; by provoking to such Disposition of Spirit in Way of Emulation, or Complaisance; and by seasoning Matters otherwise distasteful or insipid, with an unusual and thence grateful Tange.
This Description, it is easy to perceive, must have cost the Author of it a great deal of Labour. It is a very full Specimen of that Talent of entirely exhausting a Subject, for which Dr. Barrow was remarkable; and if the Point was, to exhibit all the various Forms and Appearances, not of WIT only, but of Raillery, Satire, Sarcasms, and of every Kind of Poignancy and Pleasantry
Dryden, in the Preface to his Opera,
entitled, The State of
Innocence, or Fall of Man, gives the following
Decree upon WIT.
The Definition of WIT, (which has
been so often attempted, and
ever unsuccessfully by many Poets) is
only this: That it is a
Propriety of Thoughts and Words; or in
other Terms, Thoughts and
Words elegantly adapted to the Subject.
If Mr. Dryden imagined, that he had succeeded himself in this Definition, he was extremely mistaken; for nothing can be more distant from the Properties of WIT, than those he describes. He discovers no Idea of the Surprize, and Brilliancy of WIT, or of the sudden Light thrown upon a Subject. Instead of once pointing at these, he only describes the Properties of clear Reasoning, which are a Propriety of Thoughts and Words;—Whereas WIT, in its sudden Flashes, makes no Pretension to Reasoning; but is perceived in the pleasant Surprize which it starts, and in the Light darted upon a Subject, which instantly vanishes again, without abiding a strict Examination.
The other Definition he gives, which is, Thoughts and Words elegantly adapted to the Subject, is very different from the former, but equally unhappy.
For Propriety, in Thoughts and Words, consists in exhibiting clear, pertinent Ideas, in precise and perspicuous Words.
Whereas ELEGANCE consists in the compt, well pruned and succinct Turn of a Subject.
The Object of the First, is to be clear, and perspicuous; whence it often appears in pursuit of these, not compt or succinct: Whereas the Essence of ELEGANCE is to be compt and succinct, for the Sake of which Ornaments it often neglect Perspicuity, and Clearness.—In short, a Propriety of Thoughts and Words, may subsist without any Elegance; as an Elegance of Thoughts and Words may appear without a perfect Propriety.
The last Definition, as it is thus very different from the former is also equally unhappy: For ELEGANCE is no essential Property of WIT. Pure WIT resulting solely from the quick Elucidation of one Subject, by the sudden Arrangement, and Comparison of it, with another Subject.—If the two Objects arranged together are elegant, and polite, there will then be superadded to the WIT, an Elegance and Politeness of Sentiment, which will render the WIT more amiable. But if the Objects are vulgar, obscene, or deformed, provided the first be elucidated, in a lively Manner, by, the sudden Arrangement of it with the second, there will be equally WIT; though, the Indelicacy of Sentiment attending it, will render such WIT shocking and abominable.
It is with the highest Respect for the great Mr. Locke, that I deliver his Sentiments upon this Subject.
And hence, perhaps, may be given some Reason of that common Observation, that Men who have a great deal of Wit, and prompt Memories, have not always the clearest Judgment or deepest Reason: For Wit lying most in the Assemblage of Ideas, and putting those together with Quickness and Variety, wherein can be found any Assemblance or Congruity, thereby to make up pleasant Pictures, and agreeable Visions in the Fancy. Judgment, on the contrary, lies quite on the other side; in separating carefully one from another, Ideas, wherein can be found the least Difference, thereby to avoid being missed by Similitude, and by Affinity to take one thing for another. This is a Way of proceeding quite contrary to Metaphor and Allusion; wherein for the most Part lies that Entertainment and Pleasantry of Wit, which strikes so lively on the Fancy, and therefore is acceptable to all People, because its Beauty appears at first Sight, and there is required no Labour of Thoughts to examine what Truth, or Reason, there is in it. The Mind, without looking any further, rests satisfied with the Agreeableness of the Picture, and the Gaiety of the Fancy. And it is a kind of an Affront to go about to examine it by the severe Rules of Truth, and good Reason, whereby it appears, that it conflicts in something that is not perfectly conformable to them.
It is to be observed that Mr. Locke has here only occasionally, and passantly, delivered his Sentiments upon this Subject; but yet he has very happily explained the chief Properties of WIT. It was his Remark First, that it lies for the most Part in assembling together with Quickness and Variety Objects, which possess an Affinity, or Congruity, with each other; which was the first just Information obtained by the literary World, upon this Subject.
As to what he adds, That the Intention, and Effects, of this Assemblage of similar Objects, is to make up pleasant Pictures, and agreeable Visions in the Fancy, it is, as I humbly apprehend, not quite perfect: For the Business of this Assemblage is not merely to raise pleasant Pictures in the Fancy, but also to enlighten thereby the original Subject.—This is evident; because in such Assemblages, the only Foundation upon which the new Subject is suddenly introduced, is the Affinity, and consequently the Illustration, it bears to the first Subject.—The Introduction of pleasant Pictures and Visions, which present not a new Illustration, and Light, to the original Subjects, being rather wild Sallies of Vivacity, than well-aimed, apposite Strokes of WIT.
It is Mr. Locke’s Conclusion, at last, That WIT consists in something that is not perfectly conformable to Truth, and good Reason.—This is a Problem of some Curiosity; and I apprehend Mr. Locke’s Determination upon it to be right:—For the Direction of WIT is absolutely different from the Direction of TRUTH and GOOD REASON; It being the Aim of WIT to strike the Imagination; of TRUTH and GOOD REASON, to convince the Judgment: From thence they can never be perfectly coincident.
It is however true, that there may be Instances of WIT, wherein the Agreement between the two Objects shall be absolutely just, and perceived to be such at the first Glance. Such Instances of WIT, will be then also Self-evident TRUTHS. They will both agree in their obvious, and quick Perspicuity; but will be still different in this, that the Effort of the One is to strike the Fancy, whereas the Other is wholly exerted in gratifying the Judgment.
The Sentiments of Mr. Addison upon WIT, are professedly delivered in the Spectator No. 62. annexed to the following Essay. He has there justly commended Mr. Locke’s Description of WIT; but what he adds, by Way of Explanation to it, that the Assemblage of Ideas must be such as shall give Delight, and Surprize, is not true, in regard to the Former, Delight being no essential Property of WIT; for if the original Subject be unpleasant, or deformed, the sudden unexpected Arrangement of a similar Object with it, may give us Surprize, and be indisputably WIT, and yet be far from creating any Delight.
This Gentleman has also given the following Example, in order to illustrate the Necessity there is, that Surprize should be always an Attendant upon WIT.
“When a Poet tells us, the Bosom
of his Mistress is as white as
Snow, there is no Wit in the Comparison;
but when he adds,
with a Sigh, that it as cold too, it then
grows to Wit.”
—To compare a Girl’s Bosom to Snow for its Whiteness I apprehend to be WIT, notwithstanding the Authority of so great a Writer to the contrary. For there is a Lustre resulting from the natural and splendid Agreement between these Objects, which will always produce WIT; such, as cannot be destroyed, though it will quickly be rendered trite, by frequent Repetition.
This Problem, How far SURPRIZE is, or is not, necessary to WIT, I humbly apprehend, may be thus solved.—In Subjects which have a natural and splendid Agreement, there will always be WIT upon their Arrangement together; though when it becomes trite, and not accompanied with Surprize, the Lustre will be much faded;—But where the Agreement is forced and strained, Novelty and Surprize are absolutely necessary to usher it in; An unexpected Assemblage of this Sort, striking our Fancy, and being gaily admitted at first to be WIT; which upon frequent Repetition, the Judgment will have examined, and rise up against it wherever it appears;—So that in short, in Instances where the Agreement is strained and defective, which indeed are abundantly the most general, Surprize is a necessary Passport to WIT; but Surprize is not necessary to WIT, where the Agreement between the two Subjects is natural and splendid; though in these Instances it greatly heightens the Brillancy.
The subsequent Remark of Mr. Addison, That the Poet, after saying his Mistress’s Bosom is as white as Snow, should add, with a Sigh, that it is as cold too, in order that it may grow to WIT, is I fear, very incorrect. For as to the Sigh, it avails not a Rush; and this Addition will be found to be only a new Stroke of WIT, equally trite, and less perfect, and natural, than the former Comparison.
It may also be observed, That Mr. Addison has omitted the Elucidation of the original Subject, which is the grand Excellence of WIT. Nor has he prescribed any Limits to the Subjects, which are to be arranged together; without which the Result will be frequently the SUBLIME or BURLESQUE; In which, it is true, WIT often appears, but taking their whole Compositions together, they are different Substances, and usually ranked in different Classes.
All that Mr. Congreve has delivered upon WIT,
as far as I know,
appears in his Essay upon HUMOUR, annexed to
this Treatise. He
there says,
To define HUMOUR, perhaps, were as difficult,
as to define WIT;
for, like that, it is of infinite Variety.
—Again, he afterwards adds,
But though we cannot certainly tell what
WIT is, or what HUMOUR
is, yet we may go near to shew
something, which is not WIT, or
The Sentiments of these eminent Writers upon WIT, having thus been exhibited, I come next to the Subject of HUMOUR. This has been defined by some, in the following Manner, with great Perspicuity. —HUMOUR is the genuine WIT of Comedies,—which has afforded vast Satisfaction to many Connoissures in the Belles Lettres; especially as WIT has been supposed to be incapable of any Definition.
This Subject has also been particularly considered
by the
Spectatator No. 35. inserted at the End of
the following
Essay. Mr. Addison therein gravely
remarks, that
It is indeed much easier to describe what
is not HUMOUR, than
what it is;
which, I humbly apprehend, is no very important
Piece of
Information.—He adds,
And very difficult to define it otherwise,
than as Cowly has
done WIT, by Negatives.
This Notion of defining a Subject by Negatives,
is a favourite
Crotchet, and may perhaps be assumed upon other
Occasions by future
Writers: I hope therefore I shall be pardoned,
if I offer a proper
Explanation of so good a Conceit;—To
declare then, That a Subject is
only to be DEFINED by NEGATIVES, is to
cloath it in a respectable
Dress of Darkness. And about as much as
to say, That it is a Knight
of tenebrose Virtues; or a serene Prince,
of the Blood of Occult
Qualities.
Mr. Addison proceeds,
Were I to give my own Notions of HUMOUR,
I should deliver them
after Plato’s Manner, in
a Kind of Allegory; and by supposing
HUMOUR to be a Person, deduce to him,
all his Qualifications,
according to the following Genealogy:
TRUTH was the Founder of
the Family, and the Father of GOOD SENSE;
GOOD SENSE was the
Father of WIT, who married a Lady of a
collateral Line called
MIRTH, by whom he had Issue HUMOUR.
—It is very unfortunate for this Allegorical
Description, that
there is not one Word of it just: For TRUTH,
GOOD SENSE, WIT, and
MIRTH, represented to be the immediate Ancestors
of HUMOUR; whereas
HUMOUR is derived from the Foibles, and whimsical
Oddities
of Persons in real Life, which flow rather
from their
Inconsistencies, and Weakness, than
The Essay upon HUMOUR, at the End of this Treatise, written by Mr. Congreve, is next to be considered. It appears, that at first he professes his absolute Uncertainty in regard to this Subject; and says, “We cannot certainly tell what WIT is, or what HUMOUR is.” But yet, through his whole Piece, he neglects the Subject of HUMOUR in general, and only discourses upon the HUMOUR, by which he means barely the Disposition, of Persons: This may particularly appear from the following Words.
A Man may change his Opinion, but I believe he will find it a Difficulty to part with his HUMOUR; and there is nothing more provoking than the being made sensible of that Difficulty. Sometimes we shall meet with those, who perhaps indifferently enough, but at the same time impertinently, will ask the Question, WHY ARE YOU NOT MERRY? WHY ARE YOU NOT GAY, PLEASANT, AND CHEARFUL? Then instead of answering, could I ask such a Person, WHY ARE YOU NOT HANDSOME? WHY HAVE YOU NOT BLACK EYES, AND A BETTER COMPLEXION? Nature abhors to be forced.
The two famous Philosophers of Ephesus
and Abdera, have their
different Sects at this Day. Some
weep, and others laugh at one
and the same Thing.
I don’t doubt but you have observed several Men laugh when they are angry; others, who are silent; some that are loud; yet I cannot suppose that it is the Passion of ANGER, which is in itself different, or more or less in one than t’other, but that it is the HUMOUR of the Man that is predominant, and urges him to express it in that Manner. Demonstrations of PLEASURE, are as various: One Man has a HUMOUR of retiring from all Company, when any thing has happened to please him beyond Expectation; he hugs himself alone, and thinks it an Addition to the Pleasure to keep it a Secret, &c.
All which, I apprehend, is no more than saying; That there are different Dispositions in different Persons.
In another Place, he seems to understand by Humour, not only the Disposition, but the Tone of the Nerves, of a Person, thus,
“Suppose MOROSE to be a Man naturally splenetic, and melancholy; is there any thing more offensive to one of such a DISPOSITION (where he uses the Word instead of Humour) than Noise and Clamour? Let any Man that has the Spleen (and there are enough in England) be Judge. We see common Examples of this HUMOUR in little every Day. ’Tis ten to one, but three Parts in four of the Company you dine with, are discomposed, and started at the cutting of a Cork, or scratching of a Plate with a Knife; it is a Proportion of the same HUMOUR, that makes such, or any other Noise, offensive to the Person that hears it; for there are others who will not be disturbed at all by it.
At this Rate every Weakness of Nerves, or Particularity of Constitution, is HUMOUR.
It is true, he justly points out in another Place
the different Sentiments, which ought to be adapted
to different Characters in Comedy, according
to their different Dispositions, or, as he
phrases it, Humours: As for Instance, he
very rightly observes,
That a Character of a splenetic and peevish
HUMOUR, Should have
a satirical WIT. A jolly and sanguine
HUMOUR should have a
facetious WIT.
—But still this is no Description of what
is well felt, and known, by the general Name of HUMOUR.
However, as what I have already quoted, may appear
to be only his
looser Explanations, it will be necessary to deliver
his more closed
and collected Sentiments upon this Subject. These
he gives in the
following Words,
I should be unwilling to venture, even
in a bare Description of
Humour, much more to make a Definition
of it; but now my Hand
is in, I will tell you what serves me
instead of either. I take
it to be, A singular and unavoidable
Manner of doing or saying
any thing, peculiar and natural to one
Man only, by which his
Speech and Actions are distinguished from
those of other Men.”
—This Description is very little applicable
to HUMOUR, but tolerably
well adapted to other Subjects.—Thus, a
Person, who is happy in a
particular Grace_, which accompanies all his Actions,
may be said to
possess a singular and unavoidable Manner of doing
or saying any
thing, peculiar and natural to him only, by which
his Speech and
Actions are distinguished from those of other Men.
And the same
may be said of a Person of a peculiar Vivacity,
Heaviness,
or Awkwardness.—In short, this
Description is suited to any
Particularity of a Person in general, instead
of being adapted
to the Foibles and whimsical Oddities
of Persons, which alone
constitute HUMOUR.
These are the only Pieces upon WIT, and HUMOUR, which have fallen within my Knowledge; I have here fairly delivered them at length; and from the Respect which is due to such eminent Writers, have distinctly and deliberately examined the Merit of each.—As to my own Performance, which is now submitted to the Public, I have to wish, that it may gain a candid and strict Examination. It has been my Endeavour to give Definitions of the Subjects, upon which I have treated; A Plan the most difficult of all others to be executed by an Author; But such an one, as I apprehend, deserves to be more generally introduced, and established. If once it was expected by the Public, that Authors should strictly define their Subjects, it would instantly checque an Inundation of Scribbling. The desultory Manner of Writing would be absolutely exploded; and Accuracy and Precision would be necessarily introduced upon every Subject.
This is the Method pursued in Subjects of Philosophy; Without clear and precise Definitions such noble Advances could never have been made in those Sciences; And it is by the Assistance of these only, that Subjects of Polite Literature, can ever be enlightened and embellished with just Ornaments. If Definitions had been constantly exacted from Authors there would not have appeared one hundreth Part of the present Books, and yet every Subject had been better ascertained.—Nor will this Method, as some may imagine, be encumbered with Stiffness; On the contrary, in illustrating the Truth of Definitions there is a full Scope of the utmost Genius, Imagination, and Spirit of a Writer; and a Work upon this Plan is adorned with the highest Charms appearing with Propriety, Clearness, and Conviction, as well as Beauty.
It is true, that the Difficulties, which attend an able Execution of this Method, are not open to a careless Eye; And it is some Mortification to an Author upon this Plan, that his greatest Merit is likely to lie concealed; A Definition, or Distinction, which after much Attention and Time he has happily delivered with Brevity and Clearness, appearing hereby quite obvious, to others, and what they cannot imagine could require Pains to discover.
As to the Examples, by which I have illustrated the Definition of Wit, they are common and trite; but are the best, which I could find upon deliberate Enquiry. Many Modern instances of Wit, which left very lively Impressions upon me, when I heard them, appearing upon Re-examination to be quite strained and defective. These, which I have given, as they are thus trite, are not designed in themselves for any Entertainment to the Reader; but being various, and distant from each other, they very properly serve to explain the Truth, and Extent of the Definition.
The Character of an HUMOURIST, I expect, will be strange to most of my Readers; and if no Gentleman is acquainted with a Person of this Cast, it must pass for a Monster of my own Creation;—As to the Character of Sir John Falstaff, it is chiefly extracted from Shakespear, in his 1st Part of King Henry the IVth; But so far as Sir John in Shakspear’s Description, sinks into a Cheat or a Scoundrel, upon any Occasion, he is different from that Falstaff, who is designed in the following Essay, and is entirely an amiable Character.
It is obvious, that the Appearance, which Falstaff makes, in the unfinished Play of The Merry Wives of Windsor, is in general greatly below his true Character. His Imprisonment and Death in the latter Part of King Henry the IVth, seem also to have been written by Shakespear in Compliance with the Austerity of the Times; and in order to avoid the Imputation of encouraging Idleness and mirthful Riot by too amiable and happy an Example.
The Criticism, which I have made, upon Horace’s
Narrative of his
Adventure with an Impertinent Fellow,
I offer with Respect; And
beg leave to observe that the chief Part which I object
to, is the
Propriety of his introducing himself in so
ridiculous a Plight;
—Dum sudor ad imos
Manaret Talos;
And
Demitto Auriculas, ut iniquae mentis Acellus
Cum gravius dorso subiit onus.
And other Representations of the same sort, seem to
place Horace
in a very mean and ludicrous Light; which it is probable
he never
apprehended in the full Course of exposing his Companion;—Besides,
the Conduct of his Adversary is in several Places,
excessively, and,
as it may be construed, designedly, insolent
and contemptuous; and
as no Merit or Importance belongs to this Person,
there appears no
Reason why Horace should endure such Treatment;
or, if the other was
too powerful for him, it is not an Adventure
of Honour; or what
Horace should chuse to expose to the World
in this manner, with all
the Particulars of his own despicable Distress.
However, the Mirth which results from this Narrative, as it now stands, is perhaps rather the stronger at first, by the full Ridicule which lies against Horace, and his Adversary;—But, upon Reflection, there arises a Disgust, at the Impropriety of Horace’s exposing his own Meanness, as well as at the nauseous Impudence of his Companion.
As to uncommon Words, if any such appear in this Introduction, or in the following Essay, I hope they want neither Propriety, Clearness, nor Strength;—And if the Lengthof this Piece to an Essay so short shall happen at first to disturb any Critic, I beg leave to inform him, that all, which can be fairly collected from it, is only, that it may have cost me the more Trouble;—But upon mentioning the Length of this Piece, what behoves me the most, is, to return my Thanks to two Gentlemen, who suffered me to read to them the whole, as it was gradually written; And by whose judicious and friendly Instructions in the Course of it, my own Imagination was often prevented from running into Riots.
However, I am far from imagining, that I have always been reduced within just Bounds; And now feel a sufficient Share of Concern and Anxiety, for the Fate of this Work;—Yet, I humbly apprehend, that this must freely be allowed me, that I have not been a Plagiary; But have constantly delivered my own original Sentiments, without purloining or disfiguring the Thoughts of others; An Honesty, which, I hope, is laudable in an Author; And as I have not stolen, neither have I concealed, the Merit of other Writers.
It will also be found, as I humbly apprehend, that I have never shunned the Subject: I mention this particularly, because it is the Practice of many eminent Writers, after much curvetting and prauncing, suddenly to wheel, and retire, when they are expected to make their most full Attack.—These Gentlemen, it is true, very happily avoid Danger, and advance and retreat in excellent Order: But, with their Leave, I must observe that they never do any Execution; For Subjects, which have not been surveyed, and laid open, are like fortified Places; and it is the Business of a Writer, as well as of a Soldier, to make an Attack;—This has been the Conduct I have held in the following Essay; and however I may be shattered upon any Occasion, I hope it will appear (if I may be allowed the Expression) that I have fairly charged the Subjects.
Having offered these Circumstances in my Favour, I must frankly acknowledge, that I am not able to plead any Hurry or Precipitancy in the publishing of this Work, in Excuse of its Errors; Though I clearly understand, that by making this Discovery, I absolutely deprive myself of the most genteel and fashionable Screen now used by Authors;—But I imagined, that it became me to spare no Labour or Attention upon a Work, which I should presume to offer to the World; Happening to esteem this Care and Concern, a Respect due to the Public, and the proper Species of Humility and Modesty in an Author.
* * * * *
An
ESSAY
on
Wit, Humour, Raillery, & c.
WIT is the LUSTRE resulting from
the quick ELUCIDATION of one
Subject, by a just and unexpected ARRANGEMENT
of it with
another Subject.
This Definition of WIT will more clearly appear by a short Explanation.
It is the Province of WIT to elucidate, or enlighten a Subject, not by reasoning upon that Subject, but by a just and unexpected Introduction of another similar, or opposite Subject; whereby, upon their Arrangement together, the original Subject may be set off, and more clearly enlighten’d, by their obvious Comparison.
It may be proper, for the sake of Distinction, to call the Subject, which is the Basis and Ground-work, the original Subject; and that which is introduced, in order to elucidate it, the auxiliary Subject.
That there be always an apparent Chain or Connexion, or else an obvious Agreement or Contrast, between the two Subjects, is absolutely requir’d, in order that the Auxiliary one may be justly introduced; otherwise, instead of WIT, there will only appear a rambling Vivacity, in wild, unprovoked Sallies.
And yet every just or natural Introduction of an auxiliary Subject will not produce WIT, unless a new Lustre is reflected from thence upon the original Subject.
It is further to be observed, that the Introduction of the auxiliary Subject ought not only to be just, but also unexpected, which are entirely consistent together; For as every Subject bears various Relations and Oppositions to other Subjects, it is evident that each of these Relations and Oppositions upon being exhibited, will be unexpected to the Persons, who did not perceive them before; and yet they are just by Supposition.
It is upon such unexpected Introductions of auxiliary Subjects, that we are struck with a Surprize; from whence the high Brilliancy and Sparkling of WIT, result.
Whereas Auxiliary Subjects, introduced upon such Occasions, as they have been frequently exhibited before, are apt to fall dull, and heavy upon the Fancy; and unless they possess great natural Spirit, will excite no sprightly Sensation.
It is also necessary to observe, that, in WIT, the Subjects concern’d must be ordinary and level; By which are intended, not such as are common, but such as have no extraordinarily exalted, or enlarged, Qualities; and are not unsizeable in the particular Circumstances in which they are compared to each other;—otherwise it is easy to perceive, that the Result of their Arrangement will not be so properly WIT, as either the SUBLIME, or BURLESQUE.
To all this is to be added, that either Gallantry, Raillery, Humour, Satire, Ridicule, Sarcasms, or other Subjects, are generally blended with WIT; It has been for want of this Discovery, and of a proper Separation of these Subjects, that the Attempts which have hitherto been made to define WIT, have been all involv’d and overwhelm’d in Perplexity; For the different Mixtures of these foreign Ingredients with WIT, have discover’d such various and opposite Colours and Substances, as were impossible to be comprehended in one certain steady Definition;—Whereas pure WIT alone, constantly appears in one uniform Manner; which is, In the quick Elucidation_ of one Subject, by unexpectedly exhibiting its Agreement or Contrast with another Subject_.
It is proper in this Place, to distinguish between WIT, SIMILES, and METAPHORS. SIMILES, though they illustrate one Subject, by arranging it with another Subject, are yet different from WIT, as they want its sudden and quick Elucidation.
Again; In WIT, the Elucidation is thrown only upon one Point of a Subject; or if more Points be elucidated, they are so many different Strokes of WIT;—Whereas every SIMILE touches the Subject it illustrates in several Points.
It is from hence, that the Elucidation, as before mention’d, arising from a SIMILE, is slower than from WIT; But then is is generally more accurate and compleat;—In short, WIT, from its Quickness, exhibits more Brilliancy, But SIMILES possess greater Perfection.
A METAPHOR, is the Arrayment of
one Subject, with the Dress,
or Colour, or any Attributes,
of another Subject.
In WIT, the two Subjects are suddenly confronted with each other, and upon their joint View, the original one is elucidated by the obvious Agreement or Contrast of the auxiliary Subject.
But METAPHOR goes further, and not content with arranging the two Subjects together, and exhibiting from thence their Agreement or Contrast, it actually snatches the Properties of the auxiliary one, and fits them at once upon the original Subject.
It is evident from hence, that there may be WIT without any METAPHOR; But in every just METAPHOR there is WIT; The Agreement of the two Subjects being in a METAPHOR more strictly and sensibly presented.
There is also this Difference between WIT and METAPHOR, that in WIT the original Subject is enlighten’d, without altering its Dress; whereas in METAPHOR the original Subject is cloathed in a new Dress, and struts forwards at once with a different Air, and with strange unexpected Ornaments.
It is from hence, that by METAPHOR a more masculine Air and Vigour is given to a Subject, than by WIT; But it too often happens, that the METAPHOR is carried so far, as instead of elucidating, to obscure and disfigure, the original Subject.
To exhibit some Examples of WIT.
1.
Henry the IVth of France, intimating to the Spanish Ambassador the Rapidity, with which he was able to over-run Italy, told him, that if once he mounted on Horseback, he should breakfast at Milan, and dine at Naples; To which the Ambassador added, Since your Majesty travels at this rate, you may be at Vespers in Sicily.
The Introduction of the Vespers at SICILY is here natural, and easy; as it seems only to be carrying on his Majesty’s Journey at the same rate, and to compleat the Progress of the Day; But it ushers at once into View the Destruction of the French upon a similar Occasion, when they formerly over-ran SICILY, and were all massacred there at the ringing of the Bell for Vespers;—The sudden Introduction and Arrangement of this Catastrophe, with the Expedition then threaten’d, sets the Issue of such a Conquest in a new Light; And very happily exhibits and elucidates the Result of such vain and restless Adventures.
It may be observed, that the quick Introduction and Arrangement of any former Conquest of Italy by the French, with the Expedition then threaten’d, would have exhibited WIT; whatever the Issue had been of such former Conquest; But in this Instance, there sits couched under the WIT, a very severe Rebuke upon the French Monarch.
2.
Alexander the VIth was very busily questioning the Ambassador of Venice, Of whom his Masters held their Customs and Prerogatives of the Sea? To which the Ambassador readily answer’d; If your HOLINESS will only please to examine your Charter of St. PETER’s Patrimony, you will find upon the Back of it, the Grant made to the VENETIANS of the ADRIATIC.
The Authority of the Grant to the Venetians is in this Instance the original Subject, which is thus suddenly elucidated to the Pope, by arranging, and connecting it with the holy Charter of St. Peter’s Patrimony; There is a peculiar Happiness in the Address of this Answer to the Pope, as he was obliged to receive it as a satisfactory Account of the Truth of the Grant, and a clear Elucidation of its sacred Authority.
In this Instance, besides the WIT which shines forth, the Pope is severely expos’d to your Raillery, from the Scrape into which he has brought the Charter of St. Peter’s Patrimony, by his Attack of the Ambassador; The fictitious Existence of both the Charter and Grant being sarcastically pointed out, under this respectable Air of Authenticity.
3.
Upon the Restoration Mr. Waller presented a congratulatory Copy of Verses to King Charles; His Majesty, after reading them, said,— Mr. Waller, these are very good, but not so fine as you made upon the PROTECTOR.—To which Mr. Waller return’d,—Your Majesty will please to recollect, that we Poets always write best upon FICTIONS.
The original Subject in this Instance is the superior Excellence of Mr. WALLER’s Verses upon Cromwell; This he most happily excuses, by starting at once, and arranging along with them, the Remark, that Poets have always excell’d upon Fiction; whereby he unexpectedly exhibits his more excellent Verses to Cromwell, as a plain Elucidation of the fictitious Glory of the Protector; And intimates at the same time, that the Inferiority of his present Performance was a natural Illustration of his Majesty’s real Glory;—Never was a deep Reproach averted by a more happy Reply; which comprehends both the highest Compliment to his Majesty, and a very firm poetical Excuse of the different Performances.
4.
Leonidas the Spartan General, when he advanced near the Persian Army, was told by one of his own Captains, that their Enemies were so numerous, it was impossible to see the Sun for the Multitude of their Arrows; To which he gallantly reply’d, We shall then have the Pleasure of fighting in the Shade.
The vast Cope of Persian Arrows is here the original Subject; which instead of being observed by Leonidas with Terror, presents to his Fancy the pleasant Idea of a cool Canopy. There is an Agreement and Affinity between the two Objects, in regard to the Shelter from the Sun, which is at once obvious, and unexpected; And the Cloud of the Enemies Arrows is thus gaily elucidated, by the Arrangement and Comparison of it with so desirable an Object as shady Covering.
This Saying of the Spartan General has been handed through many Ages to the present Time; But the chief Part of the Pleasure it gives us, results not so much from the WIT it contains, as from the Gallantry, and chearful Spirit, discover’d in Danger, by Leonidas.
5.
An Instance of WIT in the Opposition, I remember to have read somewhere in the Spectators; where Sir Roger de Coverley intimating the Splendor which the perverse Widow should have appear’d in, if she had commenced Lady Coverley, says:
That he would have given her a Coalpit to have kept her in clean Linnen: And that her Finger should have sparkled with one hundred of his richest Acres.
The joint Introduction of these opposite Objects, as a Coalpit with clean Linnen, and dirty Acres with the Lustre of a Jewel, is just in this Instance, as they really produce each other in their Consequences; The natural Opposition between them, which is strongly elucidated by their Arrangement together, and at the same time their unexpected Connexion in their Consequences, strike us with a Surprize, which exhibits the Brilliancy and Sparkling of WIT.
There is also in this Instance, besides the WIT, a Spirit of Generosity, and Magnificence, discover’d by Sir Roger, from the known Value of a Coalpit, and of so many rich Acres.
This Kind of WIT, resulting from the sudden Arrangement together of two opposite Objects, is rarer, than that which is obtained from two similar Objects; It abounds with a high Surprize, and Brilliancy; and also strongly elucidates the original Object, from the Contrast presented between this, and the auxiliary one; In the same manner as White is more clearly set off, by being arranged with Black.
It may be proper to observe, that WIT, besides being struck out by just, and direct Introductions of auxiliary Subjects, is also sometimes obtain’d by Transitions from one Subject to another, by the Help of an equivocal Word; which like a Bridge, with two Roads meeting at the End of it, leads to two different Places. Transitions, thus made from the right Course, have indeed the Pretence of being natural; but they ought always to lead us to something brilliant or poignant, in order to justify their Deviation; and not to end only at a ridiculous PUN, void of all Spirit and Poignancy.
The WIT, in such Instances, results, as in all others, from the quick Arrangement together of two Subjects; But that, which was first intended for the original one, is dropped; And a new original Subject is started, through the double Meaning of a Word, and suddenly enlighten’d.
To give a trite Instance of this kind of WIT.
A PEER coming out of the House of Lords, and wanting his Servant, called out, Where’s my Fellow? To which another PEER, who stood by him, returned, Faith, my Lord, not in England.
A Transition is here unexpededly made from the Sense intended in the Question to another Point, through the double Meaning of the word Fellow; it being obvious, that his Lordship’s Servant is the Sense of the Word in the Question; and what Person is like to his Lordship, the Construction put upon it in the Answer: Thus a new original Subject is started, and being suddenly arranged with all that appear similar to it, is enlighten’d thereby, being found to have no equal in England.
However, though WIT may be thus struck out, and also appears in the Contrast with great Brilliancy, yet the highest and most perfect Instances of it result from the sudden and direct Arrangement together of two Objects, which hold a perspicuous and splendid Agreement with each other; It is then adorn’d with the Charms of Propriety, Clearness and Illustration; It dispels the Darkness around an Object, and presents it diftinctly and perfectly to our View; chearing us with its Lustre, and at the same time informing us with its Light.
Thus, a Gentleman was observing, that there was somewhat extremely pleasing in an excellent Understanding, when it appeared in a beautiful Person; To which another returned, It is like a fine Jewel well set; You are here pleased with the Happiness, Propriety, and Splendor of this new Object, which finely elucidates the original Sentiment;—In short, it is the Excellence of WIT, to present the first Image again to your mind, with new unexpected Clearness and Advantage.
It is also proper to add, that there may be WIT in a Picture, Landscape, or in any Prospect, where a gay unexpected Assemblage of similar, or opposite Objects, is presented.
JUDGMENT, is the Faculty of discerning
the various Dimensions,
and Differences, of Subjects.
INVENTION is the Faculty of finding out
new Assortments, and
Combinations, of Ideas.
HUMOUR is any whimsical Oddity
or Foible, appearing in the
Temper or Conduct of a Person
in real Life.
This whimsical Oddity of Conduct, which generally arises from the strange Cast, or Turn of Mind of a queer Person, may also result from accidental Mistakes and Embarrassments between other Persons; who being misled by a wrong Information and Suspicion in regard to a Circumstance, shall act towards each other upon this Occasion, in the same odd whimsical manner, as queer Persons.
If a Person in real Life, discovers any odd and remarkable Features of Temper or Conduct, I call such a Person in the Book of Mankind, a Character. So that the chief Subjects of HUMOUR are Persons in real Life, who are Characters.
It is easy to be perceived, that HUMOUR, and WIT are extremely different.
HUMOUR appears only in the Foibles and whimsical Conduct of Persons in real Life; WIT appears in Comparisons, either between Persons in real Life, or between other Subjects.
HUMOUR is the whimsical Oddity, or Foible, which fairly appears in its Subject, of itself; whereas WIT, is the Lustre which is thrown upon one Subject, by the sudden Introduction of another Subject.
To constitute HUMOUR, there need be no more than one Object concern’d, and this must be always some Person in real Life;— whereas to produce WIT, there must be always two Objects arranged together, and either or both of these may be inanimate.
However, though HUMOUR and WIT are thus absolutely different in themselves, yet we frequently see them blended together.
Thus if any Foible of a Character in real Life is directly attacked, by pointing out the unexpected and ridiculous Affinity it bears to some inanimate Circumstances, this Foible is then ridiculed with WIT, from the Comparison which is made.—At the same time, as the whimsical Oddity of a Character in real Life is the Ground of the whole, there is also Humour contain’d in the Attack.
If instead of referring the Foible of a Person to any inanimate Circumstance, the Allusion had been made to any other ridiculous Person in real Life; As a conceited Fellow, perpetually recommending his own Whims, to a Quack-Doctor;—This Foible will then be ridiculed with HUMOUR; which is likewise the original Ground: At the same Time, from the Comparison which is made, there is apparently WIT in the Description.
So that where-ever the Foible of a Character in real Life is concern’d, there HUMOUR comes in; and wherever a sprightly unexpected Arrangement is presented of two similar, or opposite Subjects, whether animate or inanimate, there WIT is exhibited.
HUMOUR and WIT, as they may thus both be united in the same Subject, may also separately appear without the least Mixture together; that is, there may be HUMOUR without WIT, and WIT without HUMOUR.
Thus, if in order to expose the Foible of a Character, a real Person is introduc’d, abounding in this Foible, gravely persisting in it, and valuing himself upon the Merit of it, with great Self-sufficiency, and Disdain of others; this Foible is then solely ridiculed with HUMOUR.
Again, if a gay unexpected Allusion is made from one inanimate Object to another, or from one Person in real Life to another, without any Reference to their whimsical Oddities or Foibles; there WIT only appears.—Various Instances of which, independent of HUMOUR, have been already exhibited.
A Man of WIT is
he, who is happy in elucidating
any Subject, by a just and
unexpected Arrangement and Comparison
of it with another
Subject.
It may be also proper to describe a Man of HUMOUR, and an HUMOURIST, which are very different Persons.
A Man of HUMOUR is
one, who can happily exhibit a weak and
ridiculous Character
in real Life, either by assuming it himself,
or representing
another in it, so naturally, that the
whimsical Oddities, and
Foibles, of that Character,
shall be palpably expos’d.
Whereas an HUMOURIST
is a Person in real Life, obstinately
attached to sensible
peculiar Oddities of his own genuine
Growth, which appear in
his Temper and Conduct.
In short, a Man of Humour is one, who can happily exhibit and expose the Oddities and Foibles of an Humourist, or of other Characters.
The Features of an HUMOURIST being very remarkable and singular, seem justly to deserve an explicit Description. It is then to be observ’d, that an Humourist, at the same time that he is guided in his Manners and Actions by his own genuine original Fancy and Temper, disdains all Ostentation; excepting that alone of his Freedom and Independency, which he is forward of shewing upon every Occasion, without Ceremony; he is quite superior to the Affectation of a Virtue or Accomplishment, which he thinks does not belong to him; scorns all Imitation of others; and contemns the rest of the World for being servilely obedient to Forms and Customs; disclaiming all such Submission himself, and regulating his Conduct in general by his own Conviction,
The Humourist is forward upon many Occasions to deliver his Opinion, in a peremptory Manner, and before he is desir’d; but he gives it sincerely, unbiass’d by Fear or Regard, and then leaves it to the Persons concern’d to determine for themselves; For he is more pleas’d in the Bottom to find his Opinion slighted, and to see the Conduct of others agreeable to that System of Folly and Weakness, which he has established with himself, to be the Course of their Actions.—To view a rational Conduct, even in pursuance of his own Advice, would greatly disappoint him; and be a Contradiction to this System he has laid down;—Besides it would deprive him of an Occasion of gratifying his Spleen, with the Contempt of that Folly, which he esteems to be natural to the rest of Mankind; For he considers himself in the World, like a sober Person in the Company of Men, who are drunken or mad; He may advise them to be calm, and to avoid hurting themselves, but he does not expect they will regard his Advice; On the contrary, he is more pleas’d with observing their Freaks and Extravagancies.—It is from hence that he discourages and depreciates all who pretend to Discretion; Persons of this Temper not yielding him Sport or Diversion.
It is certain that the Humourist is excessively proud, and yet without knowing or suspecting it. For from the Liberty which he frankly allows to others, of rejecting his Opinion, he is fully persuaded, that he is free from all Pride; But tho’ he acts in this Circumstance without over-bearing, it has already appear’d, not to be the Effect of his Humility, but of a different Motive; a Pleasure which he takes in observing the Extravagancies of others, rather than their Discretion. But to demonstrate his Pride, besides the peremptory Manner in which he delivers his Opinion, and conducts himself upon every Occasion, without any Deference to others, there is this Circumstance against him; that he is the most stung by a Defeat, upon any Topic, of all Men living; And although he disregards Accusations of Roughness and Oddity, and rather esteems them to be meritorious; yet he will never admit, that he has been fairly overthrown in a Debate.
It is odd to observe how the Humourist is affected by contemptuous Treatment. An Insult of this Sort, which justly excites the Resentment of others, terrifies him: It sets him upon suspecting himself, and upon doubting whether he be really that Person of superior Sense to the rest of the World, which he has long fancied. The Apprehension, that he actually deserves the Contempt which is put upon him, and that he is no more than one of the common Herd, almost distracts him; And instead of violently depreciating, or attacking again, the Person who has contemn’d him, he will incessantly court his Favour and good Opinion, as a Cordial he wants, though without seeming to do so. This is a very extraordinary Weakness, and such as the Humourist would be infinitely uneasy to find ever observ’d.
The Humourist, though he quickly espies, and contemns the Contradictions of others, is yet wilfully attach’d to several himself, which he will sometimes persue through a long Course of his own Mortification.—It may be often observ’d, that he will avoid the Company he likes, for fear they should think he needs their Support.— At the same time, if he happens to fall into Company, which he tallies not with, instead of avoiding this Company, he will continually haunt them: For he is anxious, lest any Imputation of a Defeat should stand out against him, and extremely sollicitous to wipe it away; Besides, he cannot endure it should be thought that he is driven from the Pit. —Thus, in the first Instance, his Pride shall persuade him to neglect the Company he likes; and shall force him, in the last, to follow the Company he hates and despises.
It is also observable that the Humourist, though he makes it his Point to regulate his Conduct only by his own Conviction, will sometimes run counter to it, merely from his Disdain of all Imitation. Thus he will persist in a wrong Course, which he knows to be such, and refuse his Compliance with an Amendment offer’d by others, rather than endure the Appearance of being an Imitator. This is a narrow Side of the Humourist; and whenever he is turn’d upon it, he feels great Uneasiness himself. It strikes a durable Pain into his Breast, like the constant gnawing of a Worm; and is one considerable Source of that Stream of Peevishnesss incident to Humourists.
Upon the same Principle of scorning all Imitation, the Humourist seldom heartily assents to any speculative Opinion, which is deliver’d by another; for he is above being inform’d or set right in his Judgment by any Person, even by a Brother Humourist. If two of this Cast happen to meet, instead of uniting together, they are afraid of each other; and you shall observe one, in order to court the good Opinion of the other, produce a Specimen of his own Perfection as an Humourist; by exhibiting some unusual Strain of sensible Oddity, or by unexpectedly biting a poor Insipid; which the other Humourist shall answer again in the same manner, in order to display his Talents.
These are the Foibles and narrow Whims of a perfect Humourist. But, on the other hand, he stands upon a very enlarged Basis; Is a Lover of Reason and Liberty; and scorns to flatter or betray; nor will he falsify his Principles, to court the Favour of the Great. He is not credulous, or fond of Religious or Philosophical Creeds or Creed-makers; But then he never offers himself to forge Articles of Faith for the rest of the World. Abounding in poignant and just Reflections; The Guardian of Freedom, and Scourge of such as do wrong. It is He checks the Frauds, and curbs the Usurpations of every Profession. The venal Biass of the assuming Judge, the cruel Pride of the starch’d Priest, the empty Froth of the florid Counsellor, the false Importance of the formal Man of Business, the specious Jargon of the grave Physician, and the creeping Taste of the trifling Connoisseur, are all bare to his Eye, and feel the Lash of his Censure; It is He that watches the daring Strides, and secret Mines of the ambitious Prince, and desperate Minister: He gives the Alarm, and prevents their Mischief. Others there are who have Sense and Foresight; but they are brib’d by Hopes or Fears, or bound by softer Ties; It is He only, the Humourist, that has the Courage and Honesty to cry out, unmov’d by personal Resentment: He flourishes only in a Land of Freedom, and when that ceases he dies too, the last and noblest Weed of the Soil of Liberty.
It is a palpable Absurdity to suppose a Person an Humourist, without excellent Sense and Abilities; as much as to suppose a Smith in his full Business, without his Hammers or Forge.—But the Humourist, as he advances in Years, is apt to grow intolerable to himself and the World; becoming at length, uneasy, and fatigued with the constant View of the same Follies; like a Person who is tir’d with seeing the same Tragi-Comedy continually acted. This sowres his Temper; And unless some favorable Incidents happen to mellow him, he resigns himself wholly to Peevishness.—By which Time he perceives that the World is quite tir’d of him.—After which he drags on the Remainder of his Life, in a State of War with the rest of Mankind.
The Humourist is constitutionally, and also from Reflection, a Man of Sincerity.—If he is a Rogue upon any Occasion, he is more wilfully one, and puts greater Violence upon himself in being such, than the rest of the World; And though he may generally seem to have little Benevolence, which is the common Objection against him, it is only for want of proper Objects; for no Person has certainly a quicker Feeling; And there are Instances frequent, of greater Generosity and humane Warmth flowing from an Humourist, than are capable of proceeding from a weak Insipid, who labours under a continual Flux of Civility.
Upon the whole, the Humourist is perhaps the least of all others, a despicable Character. But Imitations, which are frequently seen of this Character, are excessively despicable.—What can be more ridiculous, than a Wretch setting up for an Humourist, merely upon the Strength of disrelishing every Thing, without any Principle;—The Servants, Drawers, Victuals, Weather,—and growling without Poignancy of Sense, at every new Circumstance which appears, in public or private. A perfect and compleat Humourist is rarely to be found; and when you hear his Voice, is a different Creature.—In writing to Englishmen, who are generally tinged, deeply or slightly, with the Dye of the Humourist, it seem’d not improper to insist the longer upon this Character; However, let none be too fond of it; For though an Humourist with his Roughness is greatly to be preferr’d to a smooth Insipid, yet the Extremes of both are equally wretched: Ideots being only the lowest Scale of Insipids, as Madmen are no other than Humourists in Excess.
It may be proper to observe in this place, that though all Ostentation, Affectation, and Imitation are excluded from the Composition of a perfect Humourist; yet as they are the obvious Foibles of some Persons in Life, they may justly be made the Subject of Humour.
For HUMOUR extensively and fully understood, is any remarkable Oddity or Foible belonging to a Person in real Life; whether this Foible be constitutional, habitual, or only affected; whether partial in one or two Circumstances; or tinging the whole Temper and Conduct of the Person.
It has from hence been observ’d, that there is more HUMOUR in the English Comedies than in others; as we have more various odd Characters in real Life, than any other Nation, or perhaps than all other Nations together.
That HUMOUR gives more Delight, and leaves a more pleasurable Impression behind it, than WIT, is universally felt and established; Though the Reasons for this have not yet been assign’d.—I shall therefore beg Leave to submit the following.
1. HUMOUR is more interesting than WIT in general, as the Oddities and Foibles of Persons in real Life are more apt to affect our Passions, than any Oppositions or Relations between inanimate Objects.
2. HUMOUR is Nature, or what really appears in the Subject, without any Embellishments; WIT only a Stroke of Art, where the original Subject, being insufficient of itself, is garnished and deck’d with auxiliary Objects.
3. HUMOUR, or the Foible of a Character in real Life, is usually insisted upon for some Length of Time. From whence, and from the common Knowledge of the Character, it is universally felt and understood.—Whereas the Strokes of WIT are like sudden Flashes, vanishing in an Instant, and usually flying too fast to be sufficiently marked and pursued by the Audience.
4. HUMOUR, if the Representation of it be just, is compleat and perfect in its Kind, and entirely fair and unstrain’d.—Whereas in the Allusions of WIT, the Affinity is generally imperfect and defective in one Part or other; and even in those Points where the Affinity may be allow’d to subsist, some Nicety and Strain is usually requir’d to make it appear.
5. HUMOUR generally appears in such Foibles, as each of the Company thinks himself superior to.—Whereas WIT shews the Quickness and Abilities of the Person who discovers it, and places him superior to the rest of the Company.
6. Humour, in the Representation of the Foibles of Persons in real Life, frequently exhibits very generous benevolent Sentiments of the Heart; And these, tho’ exerted in a particular odd Manner, justly command our Fondness and Love.—Whereas in the Allusions of WIT, Severity, Bitterness, and Satire, are frequently exhibited.—And where these are avoided, not worthy amiable Sentiments of the Heart, but quick unexpected Efforts of the Fancy, are presented.
7. The odd Adventures, and Embarrassments, which Persons in real Life are drawn into by their Foibles, are fit Subjects of Mirth. —Whereas in pure WIT, the Allusions are rather surprizing, than mirthful; and the Agreements or Contrasts which are started between Objects, without any relation to the Foibles of Persons in real Life, are more fit to be admired for their Happiness and Propriety, than to excite our Laughter.—Besides, WIT, in the frequent Repetition of it, tires the Imagination with its precipitate Sallies and Flights; and teizes the Judgment.—Whereas HUMOUR, in the Representation of it, puts no Fatigue upon the Imagination, and gives exquisite Pleasure to the Judgment.
These seem to me to be the different Powers and Effects of HUMOUR and WIT. However, the most agreeable Representations or Competitions of all others, appear not where they separately exist, but where they are united together in the same Fabric; where HUMOUR is the Ground-work and chief Substance, and WIT happily spread, quickens the whole with Embellishments.
This is the Excellency of the Character of Sir John Falstaff; the Ground-work is Humour, the Representation and Detection of a bragging and vaunting Coward in real Life; However, this alone would only have expos’d the Knight, as a meer Noll Bluff, to the Derision of the Company; And after they had once been gratify’d with his Chastisement, he would have sunk into Infamy, and become quite odious and intolerable: But here the inimitable Wit of Sir John comes in to his Support, and gives a new Rise and Lustre to his Character; For the sake of his Wit you forgive his Cowardice; or rather, are fond of his Cowardice for the Occasions it gives to his Wit. In short, the Humour furnishes a Subject and Spur to the Wit, and the Wit again supports and embellishes the Humour.
At the first Entrance of the Knight, your good Humour and Tendency to Mirth are irresistibly excited by his jolly Appearance and Corpulency; you feel and acknowledge him, to be the fittest Subject imaginable for yielding Diversion and Merriment; but when you see him immediately set up for Enterprize and Activity, with his evident Weight and Unweildiness, your Attention is all call’d forth, and you are eager to watch him to the End of his Adventures; Your Imagination pointing out with a full Scope his future Embarrassments. All the while as you accompany him forwards, he heightens your Relish for his future Disasters, by his happy Opinion of his own Sufficiency, and the gay Vaunts which he makes of his Talents and Accomplishments; so that at last when he falls into a Scrape, your Expectation is exquisitely gratify’d, and you have the full Pleasure of seeing all his trumpeted Honour laid in the Dust. When in the midst of his Misfortunes, instead of being utterly demolish’d and sunk, he rises again by the superior Force of his Wit, and begins a new Course with fresh Spirit and Alacrity; This excites you the more to renew the Chace, in full View of his second Defeat; out of which he recovers again, and triumphs with new Pretensions and Boastings. After this he immediately starts upon a third Race, and so on; continually detected and caught, and yet constantly extricating himself by his inimitable Wit and Invention; thus yielding a perpetual Round of Sport and Diversion.
Again, the genteel Quality of Sir John is of great Use in supporting his Character; It prevents his sinking too low after several of his Misfortunes; Besides, you allow him, in consequence of his Rank and Seniority, the Privilege to dictate, and take the Lead, and to rebuke others upon many Occasions; By this he is sav’d from appearing too nauseous and impudent. The good Sense which he possesses comes also to his Aid, and saves him from being despicable, by forcing your Esteem for his real Abilities.—Again, the Privilege you allow him of rebuking and checking others, when he assumes it with proper Firmness and Superiority, helps to settle anew, and compose his Character after an Embarrassment; And reduces in some measure the Spirit of the Company to a proper Level, before he sets out again upon a fresh Adventure;—without this, they would be kept continually strain’d, and wound up to the highest Pitch, without sufficient Relief and Diversity.
It may also deserve to be remark’d of Falstaff, that the Figure of his Person is admirably suited to the Turn of his Mind; so that there arises before you a perpetual Allusion from one to the other, which forms an incessant Series of Wit, whether they are in Contrast or Agreement together.—When he pretends to Activity, there is Wit in the Contrast between his Mind and his Person, —And Wit in their Agreement, when he triumphs in Jollity.
To compleat the whole,—you have in this Character of Falstaff, not only a free Course of Humour, supported and embellish’d with admirable Wit; but this Humour is of a Species the most jovial and gay in all Nature.—Sir Jobn Falstaff possesses Generosity, Chearfulness, Alacrity, Invention, Frolic and Fancy superior to all other Men;—The Figure of his Person is the Picture of Jollity, Mirth, and Good-nature, and banishes at once all other Ideas from your Breast; He is happy himself, and makes you happy.—If you examine him further, he has no Fierceness, Reserve, Malice or Peevishness lurking in his Heart; His Intentions are all pointed at innocent Riot and Merriment; Nor has the Knight any inveterate Design, except against Sack, and that too he loves.—If, besides this, he desires to pass for a Man of Activity and Valour, you can easily excuse so harmless a Foible, which yields you the highest Pleasure in its constant Detection.
If you put all these together, it is impossible to hate honest Jack Falstaff; If you observe them again, it is impossible to avoid loving him; He is the gay, the witty, the frolicksome, happy, and fat Jack Falstaff, the most delightful Swaggerer in all Nature.— You must love him for your own sake,—At the same time you cannot but love him for his own Talents; And when you have enjoy’d them, you cannot but love him in Gratitude;—He has nothing to disgust you, and every thing to give you Joy;—His Sense and his Foibles are equally directed to advance your Pleasure; And it is impossible to be tired or unhappy in his Company.
This jovial and gay Humour, without any thing envious, malicious, mischievous, or despicable, and continually quicken’d and adorn’d with Wit, yields that peculiar Delight, without any Alloy, which we all feel and acknowledge in Falstaff’s Company.—Ben Johnson has Humour in his Characters, drawn with the most masterly Skill and Judgment; In Accuracy, Depth, Propriety, and Truth, he has no Superior or Equal amongst Ancients or Moderns; But the Characters he exhibits are of satirical, and deceitful, or of a peevish or despicable Species; as Volpone, Subtle, Morose, and Abel Drugger; In all of which there is something very justly to be hated or despised; And you feel the same Sentiments of Dislike for every other Character of Johnson’s; so that after you have been gratify’d with their Detention and Punishment, you are quite tired and disgusted with their Company:—Whereas Shakespear, besides the peculiar Gaiety in the Humour of Falstaff, has guarded him from disgusting you with his forward Advances, by giving him Rank and Quality; from being despicable by his real good Sense and excellent Abilities; from being odious by his harmless Plots and Designs; and from being tiresome by his inimitable Wit, and his new and incessant Sallies of highest Fancy and Frolick.
This discovers the Secret of carrying COMEDY
to the highest Pitch of
Delight; Which lies
in drawing the Persons exhibited, with
such chearful and amiable
Oddities and Foibles, as
you would chuse in your own
Companions in real Life;
—otherwise, tho’ you may be diverted
at first with the Novelty_ of a
Character, and with a proper Detection and
Ridicule of it, yet its
Peevishness, Meanness, or Immorality,
will begin to disgust you
after a little Reflection, and become soon tiresome
and odious; It
being certain, that
whoever cannot be endured as an accidental
Companion in real
Life, will never become, for the very
same Reasons, a favorite
comic Character in the Theatre.
This Relish for generous and worthy Characters alone, which we all feel upon the Theatre, where no Biass of Envy, Malice, or personal Resentment draws us aside, seems to be some Evidence of our natural and genuin Disposition to Probity and Virtue; tho’ the Minds of most Persons being early and deeply tinged with vicious Passions, it is no wonder that Stains have been generally mistaken for original Colours.
It may be added, that Humour is the most exquisite and delightful, when the Oddities and Foibles introduc’d are not mischievous or sneaking, but free, jocund, and liberal; and such as result from a generous Flow of Spirits, and a warm universal Benevolence.
It is obviously from hence, that the Character of Sir Roger de Coverly in the Spectators is so extremely agreeable. His Foibles are all derived from some amiable Cause.—If he believes that one Englishman can conquer two Frenchmen, you laugh at his Foible, and are fond of a Weakness in the Knight, which proceeds from his high Esteem of his own Country-men.—If he chuses you should employ a Waterman or Porter with one Leg, you readily excuse the Inconvenience he puts you to, for his worthy regard to the Suffering of a brave Soldier.—In short, though he is guilty of continual Absurdities, and has little Understanding or real Abilities, you cannot but love and esteem him, for his Honour, Hospitality, and universal Benevolence.
It is indeed true, that his Dignity, Age, and Rank in his Country, are of constant Service in upholding his Character. These are a perpetual Guard to the Knight, and preserve him from Contempt upon many Occasions.—All which corresponds entirely with the fore-going Remark. For you would be fond of Sir Roger’s Acquaintaince and Company in real Life, as he is a Gentleman of Quality and Virtue; You love and admire him in the Spectators for the same Reasons; And for these also he would become, if he was rightly exhibited, a favorite Character in the Theatre.
It may be proper to observe in this Place, that the Business of COMEDY is to exhibit the whimsical unmischievous Oddities, Frolics, and Foibles of Persons in real Life; And also to expose and ridicule their real Follies, Meanness, and Vices. The former, it appears, is more pleasurable to the Audience, but the latter has the Merit of being more instructive.
The Business of TRAGEDY is to exhibit the Instability of human Grandeur, and the unexpected Misfortunes and Distresses incident to the Innocent and Worthy in all Stations.—And also to shew the terrible Sallies and the miserable Issue and Punishment of ungovern’d Passions and Wickedness.—The former softens the Heart and fills it with Compassion, Humility and Benevolence.—Compositions of this Sort are the highest, most admirable, and useful in all Nature, when they are finish’d with Propriety and Delicacy, and justly wrought up with the Sublime and Simplicity.—The latter Species of Tragedy terrifies and shocks us, in exhibiting both the Crimes and the Punishments. It threatens us into Moderation and Justice, by shewing the terrible Issue of their Contraries. Pieces of this Sort, conducted with Propriety, and carrying Application to ourselves, can scarcely be desireable; But as they are generally conducted, they amount only to giving us an absurd Representation of a Murther committed by some furious foaming Basha, or Sultan.
To return.—Johnson in his COMIC Scenes has expos’d and ridicul’d Folly and Vice; Shakespear has usher’d in Joy, Frolic and Happiness.—The Alchymist, Volpone and Silent Woman of Johnson, are most exquisite Satires. The comic Entertainments of Shakespear are the highest Compositions of Raillery, Wit and Humour. Johnson conveys some Lesson in every Character. Shakespear some new Species of Foible and Oddity. The one pointed his Satire with masterly Skill; the other was inimitable in touching the Strings of Delight. With Johnson you are confin’d and instructed, with Shakespear unbent and dissolv’d in Joy. Johnson excellently concerts his Plots, and all his Characters unite in the one Design. Shakespear is superior to such Aid or Restraint; His Characters continually sallying from one independent Scene to another, and charming you in each with fresh Wit and Humour.
It may be further remark’d, that Johnson by pursuing the most useful Intention of Comedy, is in Justice oblig’d to hunt down and demolish his own Characters. Upon this Plan he must necessarily expose them to your Hatred, and of course can never bring out an amiable Person. His Subtle, and Face are detected at last, and become mean and despicable. Sir Epicure Mammon is properly trick’d, and goes off ridiculous and detestable. The Puritan Elders suffer for their Lust of Money, and are quite nauseous and abominable; And his Morose meets with a severe Punishment, after having sufficiently tir’d you with his Peevishness.—But Shakespear, with happier Insight, always supports his Characters in your Favour. His Justice Shallow withdraws before he is tedious; The French Doctor, and Welch Parson, go off in full Vigour and Spirit; Ancient Pistoll indeed is scurvily treated; however, he keeps up his Spirits, and continues to threaten so well, that you are still desirous of his Company; and it is impossible to be tir’d or dull with the gay unfading Evergreen Falstaff.
But in remarking upon the Characters of Johnson, it would be unjust to pass Abel Drugger without notice; This is a little, mean, sneaking, sordid Citizen, hearkening to a Couple of Sharpers, who promise to make him rich; they can scarcely prevail upon him to resign the least Tittle he possesses, though he is assur’d, it is in order to get more; and your Diversion arises, from seeing him wrung between Greediness to get Money, and Reluctance to part with any for that Purpose. His Covetousness continually prompts him to follow the Conjurer, and puts him at the same Time upon endeavouring to stop his Fees. All the while he is excellently managed, and spirited on by Face. However, this Character upon the whole is mean and despicable, without any of that free spirituous jocund Humour abounding in Shakespear. But having been strangely exhibited upon the Theatre, a few Years ago, with odd Grimaces and extravagant Gestures, it has been raised into more Attention than it justly deserved; It is however to be acknowledg’d, that Abel has no Hatred, Malice or Immorality, nor any assuming Arrogance, Pertness or Peevishness; And his eager Desire of getting and saving Money, by Methods he thinks lawful, are excusable in a Person of his Business; He is therefore not odious or detestable, but harmless and inoffensive in private Life; and from thence, correspondent with the Rule already laid down, he is the most capable of any of Johnson’s Characters, of being a Favourite on the Theatre.
It appears, that in Imagination, Invention, Jollity and gay Humour, Johnson had little Power; But Shakespear unlimited Dominion. The first was cautious and strict, not daring to sally beyond the Bounds of Regularity. The other bold and impetuous, rejoicing like a Giant to run his Course, through all the Mountains and Wilds of Nature and Fancy.
It requires an almost painful Attention to mark the Propriety and Accuracy of Johnson, and your Satisfaction arises from Reflection and Comparison; But the Fire and Invention of Shakespear in an Instant are shot into your Soul, and enlighten and chear the most indolent Mind with their own Spirit and Lustre.—Upon the whole, Johnson’s Compositions are like finished Cabinets, where every Part is wrought up with the most excellent Skill and Exactness;— Shakespear’s like magnificent Castles, not perfectly finished or regular, but adorn’d with such bold and magnificent Designs, as at once delight and astonish you with their Beauty and Grandeur.
RAILLERY is a genteel poignant Attack of a Person upon any slight Foibles, Oddities, or Embarrassments of his, in which he is tender, or may be supposed to be tender, and unwilling to come to a free Explanation.
SATIRE is a witty and severe Attack of
mischievous Habits or
Vices;
RIDICULE is a free Attack of any Motly Composition, wherein a real or affected Excellence and Defect both jointly appear, glaring together, and mocking each other, in the same Subject.
Hence the Aim of Raillery, is to please you, by some little Embarrassment of a Person; Of Satire, to scourge Vice, and to deliver it up to your just Detestation; And of Ridicule, to set an Object in a mean ludicrous Light, so as to expose it to your Derision and Contempt.
It appears therefore that Raillery and Ridicule differ in several Circumstances.
1. Raillery can only be employ’d in relation to Persons, but Ridicule may be employ’d in what relates either to Persons, or other Objects.
2. Raillery is us’d only upon slight Subjects, where no real Abilities or Merit are questioned, in order to avoid degrading the Person you attack, or rendering him contemptible; Whereas Ridicule observes no such Decency, but endeavours really to degrade the Person attack’d, and to render him contemptible.
3. Raillery may be pointed at a whimsical Circumstance, only because a Person is known to be tender upon it; and your Pleasure will arise from the Embarrassment he suffers, in being put to an Explanation;— Thus a young Gentleman may be rallied upon his Passion for a Lady;— At the same Time there may be no Ground for Ridicule in this Circumstance, as it may no way deserve your Derision or Contempt.
4. As it thus appears that there are Subjects of Raillery, into which Ridicule cannot justly be admitted; So there are Subjects of Ridicule, wherein your Derision and Contempt are so strongly excited, that they are too gross for Raillery;—As a person tossed in a Blanket; or the unfortunate Attack which another has made upon a Windmill.
5. In short, Raillery, if the Adventures it is turn’d upon are too gross and luscious, becomes Ridicule; And therefore, in Comparison together, Raillery appears like Wine of a thin Body, and delicate poignant Flavour; Ridicule, like a Wine which is fuller, and more rich, and luscious.
Quixote is a Character, wherein Humour and Ridicule are finely interwoven;—It is not a Subject of Satire, as the Knight is free from all Badness of Heart, and Immorality; Nor properly of Raillery, his Adventures in general being too gross and disastrous;— The Humour appears, in the Representation of a Person in real Life, fancying himself to be, under the most solemn Obligations to attempt hardy Atchievements; and upon this Whimsy immediately pursuing the most romantic Adventures, with great Gravity, Importance, and Self-sufficiency; To heighten your Mirth, the hardy Atchievements to be accomplish’d by this Hero, are wittily contrasted by his own meagre weak Figure, and the desperate Unfierceness of his Steed Rozinante;—The Ridicule appears in the strange Absurdity of the Attempts, upon which the Knight chuses to exercise his Prowess; Its Poignancy is highly quicken’d, and consequently the Pleasure it gives you, by his miserable Disasters, and the doleful Mortifications of all his Importance and Dignity;—But here, after the Knight, by diverting you in this manner, has brought himself down to the lowest Mark, he rises again and forces your Esteem, by his excellent Sense, Learning and Judgment, upon any Subjects which are not ally’d to his Errantry; These continually act for the Advancement of his Character; And with such Supports and Abilities he always obtains your ready Attention, and never becomes heavy or tedious.
To these you are to add the perfect good Breeding and Civility of the Knight upon every Occasion; which are some Kind of Merit in his Favour, and entitle him to Respect, by the Rules of common Gentility and Decency; At the same time his Courage, his Honour, Generosity, and Humanity, are conspicuous in every Act and Attempt; The Foibles which he possesses, besides giving you exquisite Pleasure, are wholly inspir’d by these worthy Principles; Nor is there any thing base, or detestable, in all his Temper or Conduct; It was from hence that the DUKE and the DUTCHESS were extremely delighted with his Visit at their Castle; And you yourself, if he existed in real Life, would be fond of his Company at your own Table; which proves him, upon the whole, to be an amiable Character;—It is therefore no wonder that Signior Don Quixote of la Mancha has been so courteously receiv’d in every Country of Europe.
Thus delightfully wrought, as this History is, with Humour and Ridicule, yet Cervantes, still fearful of tiring you with too much of the Errantry, has introduc’d the most charming Variety of other Adventures; —All along in the pacific Intervals, you are inform’d of the private Occurrences between the Knight and his ’Squire; And from these, where it is least to be expected, you are surpriz’d with the most high and delicious Repast;— Nothing can be more pregnant with Mirth, than the Opposition continually working between the grave Solemnity and Dignity of Quixote, and the arch Ribaldry and Meanness of Sancho; And the Contrast can never be sufficiently admir’d, between the excellent fine Sense of the ONE, and the dangerous common Sense of the OTHER.
It is here that the Genius and Power of Cervantes is most admirably shewn; He was the greatest Master that ever appear’d, in finely opposing, and contrasting his Characters. It is from hence that you feel a Poignancy and Relish in his Writings, which is not to be met with in any others; The natural Reflexions and Debates of Quixote and Sancho would have been barren, insipid, and trite, under other Management; But Cervantes, by his excellent Skill in the Contrast, has from these drawn a Regale, which for high, quick, racy Flavour, and Spirit, has yet never been equall’d.
It may here be enquir’d, What Species of Composition or Character is the most pleasurable, and mirthful, in all Nature?—In Falstaff, you have Humour embelish’d with Wit; In Quixote, Humour made poignant with Ridicule; And it is certain that Humour must always be the Ground-work of such Subjects, no Oddities in inanimate Objects being capable of interesting our Passions so strongly, as the Foibles of Persons in real Life;—The chief Substance of Johnson’s Compositions is Humour and Satire; upon which Plan, as hath been already observ’d, he is oblig’d to demolish, and render detestable, his own Characters;—Humour and Raillery are also capable of furnishing a Repast of quick Relish and Flavour; In written Compositions, the Attack of the Raillery, as well as the Reception of it, may be happily conducted, which in other accidental Encounters are liable to Hazard; All Peevishness or Offence is thus easily avoided, and the Character attack’d is sav’d from being really contemptible;—But then indeed the Pleasure you are to receive generally depends upon the Confusion of the Person attack’d, without there being in reason a sufficient Cause for this Confusion;—It is for want of this just Foundation, that the Pleasure arising from Raillery is apt to come forth with less Freedom, Fulness, and Conviction, though with more Delicacy, than that which is derived from Wit, or Ridicule;—However, Humour and Raillery united together, when the Raillery is founded upon some real Embarrassment in the Circumstance, as well as in the Confusion of the Person attack’d, will furnish a very high Entertainment; which has Pretensions to rival either Humour and Wit, or Humour and Ridicule.
To give an Instance of Humour and Raillery, I shall insert Horace’s famous Description of his Embarrassment with an impertinent Fellow. This indeed is entitl’d, in almost all the Editions of Horace, a Satire, but very improperly, as the Subject is not Vice or Immorality;
Ibam forte via sacra, sicut meus est mos,
Nescio quid meditans nugarum, at totus
in illis:
Accurrit quidam notus mihi nomine tantum;
Arreptaque manu, Quid agis, dulcissime
rerum?
Suaviter, ut nunc est, inquam: &
cupio omnia quae vis.
Cum affectaretur, Num quid vis? occupo.
At ille,
Noris nos, inquit; docti sumus. Hic
ego: Pluris
Hoc, inquam, mihi eris. Misere discedere
quaerens,
Ire modo ocyus, interdum consistere:
in aurem
Dicere nescio quid puero: cum sudor
ad imos
Manaret talos. O te, Bollane, cerebri
Felicem: aiebam tacitus! Cum
quidlibet ille
Garriret, vicos, urbem laudaret; ut illi
Nil respondebam: Misere cupis, inquit
abire.
Jamdudum video: sed nil agis:
usque tenebo:
Persequar: hinc quo nunc iter est
tibi? Nil opus est te
Circumagi: quemdam volo visere, non
tibi notum:
Trans Tiberim longe cubat is, prope Caesaris
hortos.
Nil habeo quod agam, & non sum piger:
usque sequar te,
Demitto auriculas ut iniquae mentis asellus,
Cum gravius dorso subiit onus. Incipit
ille:
Si bene me novi, non Viscum pluris amicum,
Non Varium facies; nam quis me scribere
plures
Aut citius possit versus? quis membra
movere
Mollius? invideat quod & Hermogenes, ego
canto.
Interpellandi locus hic erat: Est
tibi mater,
Cognati, queis te salvo est opus?
Haud mihi quisquam:
Omnes composui. Felices! nunc ego
resto:
Confice: namque instat fatum mihi
triste, Sabella
Quod puero cecinit divina mota anus urna,
Hunc neque dira venena, nec hosticus auferret
ensis,
Nec laterum dolor, aut tussis, nec tarda
podagra;
Garrulus hunc quando consumet cumque loquaces.
Si sapiat, vitet, simul atque adoleverit
aetas.
Ventum erat ad Vestae, quarta jam parte
diei
Praeterita; & casu tunc respondere vadato
Debebat: quod ni fecisset, perdere
litem.
Si me amas, inquit, paulum hic ades.
Inteream, si
Aut valeo stare, aut novi civilia jura:
Et propero quo scis. Dubius sum quid
faciam, inquit;
Tene relinquam, an rem. Me, sodes.
Non faciam, ille;
Et praecedere coepit. Ego, ut contendere
durum est
Cum victore, sequor. Mecaenas quomodo
tecum?
Hinc repetit. Paucorum hominum, &
mentis bene sanae.
Nemo dexterius fortuna est usus.
Haberes
Magnum adjutorem, posset qui ferre secundas,
Hunc hominem velles si tradere: dispeream,
ni
Summosses omnes. Non isto vivimus
illic
Quo tu rere modo, domus hac nec purior
ulla est,
Nec magis his aliena malis: nil mi
[Transcriber’s Note: See end of Essay for translation information.]
The Intention of Horace in this Piece, is to expose an impertinent Fellow, and to give a ludicrous Detail of his own Embarrassment; Your Pleasure arises from the View which he gives you of his own Mortification, whereby he lays himself fairly open to your Raillery; This is the more poignant, and quick, from the real Distress which you see he endur’d, in this odd Attack; At the same Time the particular Turn of the Fellow, who chose in this Manner to pin himself upon another, is a very odd Species of impertinent Humour.—This Piece, as it stands, irresistibly forces your Mirth, and shakes you with Laughter; But to a Person of Discernment, it is chiefly at Horace’s Expence; Who in receiving and enduring such insolent Treatment, appears in a Light too low and ridiculous, though he has thought fit himself to exhibit the Scene again for the Diversion of the Public;
The
Misere, cupis,
—— abire,
Jamdudum video, sed nil agis, usque tenebo,
Persequar;—
was an absolute Insult; And very unfit to be related by the Person who suffer’d it, as a Matter of Merriment;—Besides this Tameness of Horace, the Impudence of the Fellow is excessively nauseous and disgusting at the Bottom, though the whole carries a Froth of Raillery and Humour upon the Surface.
The Truth is, that this Piece, as it stands, would have properly proceeded from another Person, who had intended to expose the Impertinence and Impudence of the Fellow, and freely to rally poor Horace, with some Mixture of Ridicule, upon his unfortunate Embarrassment; upon this Basis it will appear with Propriety; Without which all Compositions of Wit, or Humour, or Taste, tho’ at first they may pleasurably strike the Fancy or Sight, are at last disgusting to the Judgment.
Having here occasionally offer’d some Remarks upon this Composition, as it now stands, it may be proper to point out the Manner in which the Humour and Raillery of such an Embarrassment, might have been carried to the highest Pitch; And the Description of it have been given by Horace himself, without any Diminution of his own Gentility or Importance;—Imagine then that he had been join’d in his Walk by a weak, ignorant Person, of Good-nature, and the utmost Civility; one who fancy’d himself possessed of the greatest Talents, and fully persuaded that he gave all he convers’d with a particular Pleasure;— Upon such an Attack, no Resentment or Anger could have been decently shewn by Horace, As the Person thus pestering him, was all the while intending the highest Compliment; And must therefore be received, and attended to, with perfect Complaisance; The Humour of this Person would have been very entertaining, in the strange Conceit which he held of his own Abilities, and of the paticular Pleasure he was granting to Horace, in condescending to give him so much of his Company; In these Sentiments he should regard all Horace’s Excuses, Endeavours, and Struggles to be gone, as Expressions of his Sense of the Honour done him; which should be an Argument with this Person for obstinately persisting to honour him still further; All the while he must be supported by some real Importance belonging to him, attended with good Breeding, and strengthened by such occasional Instances of Sense, as may secure him from being trampled upon, or becoming absolutely contemptible; In such an Adventure the Mortification, and Distress of Horace, would be excessively whimsical and severe; especially as he would be depriv’d of all Succour and Relief; being in Decency oblig’d, not only to suppress all Anger or Uneasiness, but, what is exquisitely quick, to receive this whole Treatment with the utmost Complacency; An Embarrassment of this sort, finely described, would have yielded the greatest Pleasure to the Reader, and carried the Raillery upon Horace, without hurting or degrading him, to the highest Degree of Poignancy; And from hence may be conceiv’d, what delightful Entertainments are capable of being drawn from Humour and Raillery.
It is also easy to apprehend, that the several Subjects of Wit, Humour, Raillery, Satire, and Ridicule, appear not only singly upon many Occasions, or two of them combined together, but are also frequently united in other Combinations, which are more complicate; An Instance of the Union together of Humour, Raillery, and Ridicule, I remember to have read somewhere in Voiture’s Letters; He is in Spain, and upon the Point of proceeding from thence to some other Place in an English Vessel; After he has written this Account of himself to a Lady at Paris, he proceeds in his Letter to this Purpose;
“You may perhaps apprehend, that I shall be in some Danger this Voyage, of falling into the Hands of a Barbary Corsair; But to relieve you from all such Fears, I shall beg Leave to tell you, what my honest Captain has inform’d me himself, for my own Satisfaction; He suspected, it seems, that I might have some Uneasiness upon this Head; and has therefore privately assured me, that I have no need to be afraid of being taken with him; for that whenever it is likely to come to this, he will infallibly blow up the Ship with his own Hands;—After this, I presume, you will be perfectly easy, that I am in no Danger of going to Sallee;”
This is exquisitely rich; The brave and odd Fancy of the English Captain, in finding out for himself, and privately communicating to Voiture, this Method of Security from Slavery, abounds with the highest Humour; At the same time the honest Tar, as a Projecter, is excessively open to Ridicule, for his Scheme to blow them all up, in order to prevent their being taken Prisoners; There is besides these, a very full Raillery, which Voiture here opens upon himself; For as this Adventure, which he is going to be engaged in, has been attended, as yet, with no Mischief; nor is certain to be so, the whole is to be consider’d, at present, as only a slight Scrape; especially as he exhibits it in this manner himself, and invites you to make it the Object of your Pleasure, and Raillery;—It may also be observ’d, that the Humour in this Subject, which flows from the Captain, is adorn’d with a very peculiar, and pleasing Propriety; As it is not barely a Whim, or the Result of an odd Sourness or queer Pride, but the Effect of his Courage, and of that Freedom from all Terror at Death, which is perfectly amiable in his Character.
There are other Combinations of Wit, Humour, Raillery, Satire, and Ridicule, where four of them, or all five, are united in one Subject;—Like various Notes in Music, sounding together, and jointly composing one exquisite Piece of Harmony;—Or like different Rays of Light, shining together in one Rainbow: It is pleasant to divide these Combinations, and to view as with a Prism, the different Rays united in each; of which Humour, like the Red, is eminent for its superior Force and Excellence;—When the Judgment is thus capable of parting, and easily assigning the several Quantities, and Proportions of each, it heightens our Pleasure, and gives us an absolute Command over the Subject; But they are often so intimately mix’d, and blended together, that it is difficult to separate them clearly, tho’ they are all certainly felt in the same Piece;—Like the different Flavours of rich Fruits, which are inseparably mix’d, yet all perfectly tasted, in one Pine-Apple.
Raillery, and Satire, are extremely different;
1. Raillery, is a genteel poignant Attack of slight Foibles and Oddities; Satire a witty and severe Attack of mischievous Habits and Vices.
2. The Intention of Raillery, is to procure your Pleasure, by exposing the little Embarrassment of a Person; But the Intention of Satire, is to raise your Detestation, by exposing the real Deformity of his Vices.
3. If in Raillery the Sting be given too deep and severe, it will sink into Malice and Rudeness, And your Pleasure will not be justifiable; But Satire, the more deep and severe the Sting of it is, will be the more excellent; Its Intention being entirely to root out and destroy the Vice.
4. It is a just Maxim upon these Subjects, that in Raillery a good-natur’d Esteem ought always to appear, without any Resentment or Bitterness; In Satire a generous free Indignation, without any sneaking Fear or Tenderness; It being a sort of partaking in the Guilt to keep any Terms with Vices.
It is from hence that Juvenal, as a Satirist, is greatly superior to Horace; But indeed many of the short Compositions of Horace, which are indiscriminately ranged together, under the general Name of Satires, are not properly such, but Pieces of Raillery or Ridicule.
As Raillery, in order to be decent, can only be exercised upon slight Misfortunes and Foibles, attended with no deep Mischief, nor with any Reproach upon real Merit, so it ought only to be used between Equals and Intimates; It being evidently a Liberty too great to be taken by an Inferior; and too inequitable to be taken by a Superior, as his Rank shields him from any Return.
Raillery is the most agreeable, when it is founded on a slight Embarrassment or Foible, which upon being unfolded, appears to have arisen from the real Merit, or from the Excess of any Virtue, in the Person attack’d.
But yet this Embarrassment must always be real, and attended with the Chagrin or Confusion of the rally’d Person, or capable of being fairly suppos’d to have been so; otherwise the Attack will be void of all Poignancy, and Pleasure to the Company; And evaporate either into indirect Flattery, or else into the Insipid.
Thus, to attack a fine Lady upon the Enemies she has made, by the mischievous Effects of her Beauty, will be properly genteel indirect Flattery—if it be well conducted,—otherwise, the Insipid; But it cannot be deem’d Raillery; It being impossible to suppose the Lady really chagrin’d by such an imaginary Misfortune, or uneasy at any Explanation upon this Subject;
Raillery ought soon to be ended; For by long keeping the Person attack’d, even in a slight Pain, and continuing to dwell upon his Mis-adventures, you become rude and ill-natur’d;—Or if the Raillery be only turn’d upon an Embarrassment, arising from the Excess of Merit or Abilities, Yet if it be long confined upon the same Subject, the Person it is pointed at, will either suspect that your Aim is, to leave some Impression against him, or else that you are designing him a tedious dark Compliment; And accordingly he will either regard you with Hatred or Contempt;—Much less should a Person, who introduces himself as a Subject of Raillery, insist long upon it; For either he will be offensive in engrossing all Attention to himself; or if the Company are pleas’d, it must be by his Buffoonery.
The Difference between Satire, and Ridicule, has been already pointed out;—Satire being always concerned with the Vices of Persons;—Whereas Ridicule is justly employ’d, not upon the Vices, but the Foibles or Meannesses of Persons, And also upon the Improprieties of other Subjects; And is directed, not to raise your Detestation, but your Derision and Contempt;—It being evident that Immoralities and Vice are too detestable for Ridicule, and are therefore properly the Subject of Satire; Whereas Foibles and Meannesses are too harmless for Satire, and deserve only to be treated with Ridicule.
The usual Artillery of Ridicule is Wit; whereby the Affinity or Coincidence of any Object with others, which are absurd and contemptible, is unexpectedly exhibited;—There is also another, very forcible, Manner in which Ridicule may act; And that is by employing Humour alone; Thus the Foible or Queerness of any Person will be most fully ridicul’d, by naturally dressing yourself, or any other Person in that Foible, and exerting its full Strength and Vigour.
The POLITENESS of a Subject is the Freedom
of that Subject
from all Indelicacy, Aukardness_,
and Roughness.
GOOD BREEDING consists in a respectful
Carriage to others,
accompany’d with Ease and
Politeness.
It appears from hence that GOOD BREEDING and POLITENESS differ in this; that GOOD BREEDING relates only to the Manners of Persons in their Commerce together; Whereas Politeness may relate also to Books, as well as to Persons, or to any Subjects of Taste and Ornament.
So that Politeness may subsist in a Subject, as in a Cornish, or Architrave, where good Breeding can’t enter; But it is impossible for good Breeding to be offer’d without Politeness.
At the same time good Breeding is not to be understood, as merely the Politeness of Persons; But as Respect, tender’d with Politeness, in the Commerce between Persons.
It is easy to perceive, that good Breeding is a different Behaviour in different Countries, and in the same Countries at different Periods, according to the Manners which are us’d amongst polite Persons of those Places and Seasons.
In England the chief Point of it formerly
was plac’d, in carrying
a Respect in our Manners to all we convers’d
with; whence every
Omission of the slightest Ceremony, as it might be
construed into
a want of Respect, was particularly to be avoided;
So that good
Breeding became then
a precise Observance and Exercise of all
the Motions and
Ceremonies, expressive of Respect, which
might justly be paid
to every Person;
—This, as it is easy to imagine, requir’d
much Nicety in the
Adjustment upon many Occasions, and created immense
Trouble and
Constraint, and most ridiculous Embarrassments.
However, these Modes of good Breeding were not to be abolished, as it was impossible to dispense with the Respect annex’d to them, without some further Pretence than of their Inconvenience only; which no Person could decently urge, or admit in his own behalf, when it was his Province to pay any Ceremonies to another; In this Difficulty it was at last happily observ’d, for the Advantage of genteel Commerce and Society, that whatever gives Trouble, is inconsistent with Respect; Upon which Foundation, all Ceremonies which create Embarrassments or Trouble to either Side, are now justly exploded; And the Ease of each other is the Point most peculiarly consulted by well-bred Persons.
If this Attention to Ease was properly conducted, so that it might always appear to have Respect for its Motive; And only to act in Obedience to that, as the ruling Principle, it would then comprehend the just Plan of good Breeding; But as this was formerly encumber’d with Ceremonies and Embarrassments, so the modern good Breeding perhaps deviates too far into Negligence and Disregard; —A Fault more unpardonable than the former; As an Inconvenience, evidently proceeding from the Respect which is paid to us, may be easily excus’d; But a Freedom, which carries the Air of Neglect with it, gives a lasting Offence.
BEAUTY is the delightful Effect
which arises from the
joint Order, Proportion,
and Harmony of all the Parts
of an Object.
And
to have a good TASTE, is to have a just
Relish of BEAUTY.
* * * * *
[Transcriber’s Note:
Translations of Horace Satire I.9 are available from Project Gutenberg as e-text 5419 (verse translation, plain text) or 14020 (prose translation, text or html).]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[CORBYN MORRIS]
An / Essay / Towards Fixing the / True Standards /
of / Wit, Humour,
Raillery, / Satire, and Ridicule. / To which is Added,
an / Analysis /
Of the Characters of / An Humourist, Sir John Falstaff,
Sir Roger / De
Coverly, and Don Quixote. / Inscribed, to the Right
Honorable / Robert
Earl of Orford. / [rule] / By the Author of a / Letter
from a By-
Stander. / [rule] /—Jacta est Alea. / [double
rule] / London: /
Printed for J. Roberts, at the Oxford-Arms, in War-
/ wick-lane; and
W. Bickerton, In the Temple-Ex- / change, near the
Inner-Temple-Gate,
Fleet-street. / M DCC XLIV. [Price 2 s.] /
Collation: A, a-c, in fours; d in two; a-d, in fours; B-K in fours; L in two. A, title; verso blank; A^2-d, dedication; d^2 erratum and advertisements; a-d^4, Introduction; B-L^2, text.
The first edition. A second edition was published in 1758.
Colton Storm
Clements Library
* * * * *
ANNOUNCING
the
Publications
of
THE AUGUSTAN
REPRINT SOCIETY
General Editors
RICHARD C. BOYS
EDWARD NILES HOOKER
H.T. SWEDENBERG, JR.
* * * * *
THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY
Makes Available
Inexpensive Reprints of Rare Materials
from
ENGLISH LITERATURE OF THE
SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES
Students, scholars, and bibliographers of literature, history, and philology will find the publications valuable. The Johnsonian News Letter has said of them: “Excellent facsimiles, and cheap in price, these represent the triumph of modern scientific reproduction. Be sure to become a subscriber; and take it upon yourself to see that your college library is on the mailing list.”
The Augustan Reprint Society is a non-profit, scholarly organization, run without overhead expense. By careful management it is able to offer at least six publications each year at the unusually low membership fee of $2.50 per year in the United States and Canada, and $2.75 in Great Britain and the continent.
Libraries as well as individuals are eligible for membership. Since the publications are issued without profit, however, no discount can be allowed to libraries, agents, or booksellers.
New members may still obtain a complete run of the first year’s publications for $2.50, the annual membership fee.
During the first two years the publications are issued in three series: I. Essays on Wit; II. Essays on Poetry and Language; and III. Essays on the Stage.
* * * * *
MAY, 1946: Series I, No. 1—Richard Blackmore’s Essay upon Wit (1716), and Addison’s Freeholder No. 45 (1716).
JULY, 1946: Series II, No. 1—Samuel Cobb’s Of Poetry and Discourse on Criticism (1707)
SEPT., 1946: Series III, No. 1—Anon., Letter to A.H. Esq.; concerning the Stage (1698), and Richard Willis’ Occasional Paper No. IX (1698).
NOV., 1946: Series I, No. 2—Anon., Essay on Wit (1748), together with Characters by Flecknoe, and Joseph Warton’s Adventurer Nos. 127 and 133.
JAN., 1947: Series II, No. 2—Samuel Wesley’s Epistle to a Friend Concerning Poetry (1700) and Essay on Heroic Poetry (1693).
MARCH, 1947: Series III, No. 2—Anon., Representation of the Impiety and Immorality of the Stage (1704) and anon., Some Thoughts Concerning the Stage (1704).
MAY, 1947: Series I, No. 3—John Gay’s The Present State of Wit; and a section on Wit from The English Theophrastus. With an Introduction by Donald Bond.
JULY, 1947: Series II, No. 3—Rapin’s De Carmine Pastorali, translated by Creech. With an Introduction by J. E. Congleton.
SEPT., 1947: Series III, No. 3—T. Hanmer’s (?) Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet. With an Introduction by Clarence D. Thorpe.
NOV., 1947: Series I, No. 4—Corbyn Morris’ Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit, etc. With an Introduction by James L. Clifford.
JAN., 1948: Series II, No. 4—Thomas Purney’s Discourse on the Pastoral. With an Introduction by Earl Wasserman.
MARCH, 1948: Series III, No. 4—Essays on the Stage, selected, with an Introduction by Joseph Wood Krutch.
The list of publications is subject to modification in response to requests by members. From time to time Bibliographical Notes will be included in the issues. Each issue contains an Introduction by a scholar of special competence in the field represented.
The Augustan Reprints are available only to members. They will never be offered at “remainder” prices.