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'd and felt by every Person of true Genius and Imagination.
The Distinctions between Wit and Humour, and the Reasons why Humour is more pleasurably felt than Wit, are new and excellent: as is the Definition of an Humourist, and the happy Analysis of the Characters of Falstaff, Sir Roger de Coverly, and Don Quixote; But, as you say, the Merit of these Parts is universally allowed; as well as the Novelty, and liberal Freedom of the [word apparently omitted]; which have such Charms in my Eye, as I had long ceased to expect in a Modern Writer.
25 May, 1744
I am, &c
J---- W----
[not identified]

If the "Gentlemen of Abilities" of the day found some of Morris's definitions obscure, modern readers will find them more precise than those of most of his predecessors. All who had gone before--Cowley, Barrow, Dryden, Locke, Addison, and Congreve (he does not mention Hobbes)--Morris felt had bungled the job. And although he apologizes for attempting what the great writers of the past had failed to do, he has no hesitation in setting forth exactly what he believes to be the proper distinctions in the meanings of such terms as wit, humour, judgment, invention, raillery, and ridicule. The mathematician and statistician in Morris made him strive for precise accuracy. It was all very clear to him, and by the use of numerous anecdotes and examples he hoped to make the distinctions obvious to the general reader.
The Essay shows what a man of some evident taste and perspicacity, with an analytical mind, can do in defining the subtle semantic distinctions in literary terms. Trying to fix immutably what is certain always to be shifting, Morris is noteworthy not only because of the nature of his attempt, but because he is relatively so successful. As Professor Edward Hooker has pointed out in an Introduction to an earlier ARS issue (Series I, No. 2), his is "probably the best and clearest treatment of the subject in the first half of the eighteenth century." It may be regretted that political and economic concerns occupied so much of his later life, leaving him no time for further literary essays.
In the present facsimile edition, for reasons of space, only the Introduction and the main body of the Essay are reproduced. Although Morris once remarked to David Hume that he wrote all his books "for the sake of the Dedications" (Letters of David Hume ed. Greig, I, 380), modern readers need not regret too much the omission of the fulsome 32 page dedication to Walpole (The Earl of Orford). Morris insists at the beginning that the book was inspired by a fervent desire of "attempting a Composition, independent of Politics, which might furnish an occasional Amusement" to his patron. The praise which follows, in which Walpole is said to lead "the Empire of Letters," is so excessive as to produce only smiles in twentieth century readers. Walpole is praised for not curbing the press while necessarily curbing the theatre, his aid to commerce, indeed almost every act of his administration, is lauded to the skies. The Church of England, in which "the Exercise of Reason in the solemn Worship of God, is the sacred Right, and indispensible Duty, of Man," receives its share of eulogy. In every connection the Tories are violently attacked.
The Dedication ends in a peroration of praise for Walpole's public achievements which "shall adorn the History of Britain," and for his "Private Virtues and all the softer Features" of his mind. His home of retirement is referred to in the lines of Milton:
"Great Palace now of Light!
Hither, as to their Fountain, other Stars
Repairing, in their golden Urns, draw Light;
And here [sic] the Morning Planet gilds her Horns."
[P.L. 7. 363-66]
"Thus splendid, and superior, your Lordship now flourishes in honourable Ease, exerting universal Benevolence...." But in dedications, as in lapidary inscriptions, as Dr. Johnson might have agreed, a writer need not be upon oath.
At the end of the Essay Morris reprinted two essays from The Spectator, Nos. 35 and 62, and William Congreve's "An Essay concerning Humour in Comedy. To Mr. Dennis" (Congreve's Works, ed. Summers, III, 161-68). Since these are readily available, they have not been included in this edition.
The present facsimile is made from a copy owned by Louis I. Bredvold, with his kind permission.
James L. Clifford
Columbia University

[
]

[Transcriber's Note:
The ARS edition included an errata slip, reproduced here. A few typographical errors have also been corrected in the Essay itself. Changes to the text are marked like this.]

Please paste the following in your copy of Corbyn Morris's
Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit....
(ARS, Series One, No. 4)

ERRATA

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.
page 6, line 12, should read "Walpole is praised for not curbing the press while necessarily 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:
(as noted by transcriber)		page ix--Greek epidexioi may have been printed epidezioi; letter-form is ambiguous
page 14--"Oddistie" changed to "Oddities"
page 20 and elsewhere--"Biass" is an attested variant spelling
page 25--"teizes" (modern "teases") is an attested variant spelling
page 40--"Quoxote" changed to "Quixote"

[
]