Corbyn Morris - An Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit, Humour, Railery, Satire, and Ridicule (1744)
C >>
Corbyn Morris >> An Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit, Humour, Railery, Satire, and Ridicule (1744)
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 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
* * * * *
GENERAL EDITORS
RICHARD C. BOYS, University of Michigan
EDWARD NILES HOOKER, University of California, Los Angeles
H.T. SWEDENBERG, JR., University of California, Los Angeles
ADVISORY EDITORS
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
* * * * *
INTRODUCTION
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'd and felt by every Person of
true Genius and Imagination.
The Distinctions between _Wit_ and _Humour_, and the Reasons
why _Humour_ is more pleasurably felt than _Wit_, are new and
excellent: as is the Definition of an _Humourist_, and the happy
Analysis of the Characters of _Falstaff_, _Sir Roger de Coverly_,
and _Don Quixote_; But, as you say, the Merit of these Parts is
universally allowed; as well as the Novelty, and liberal Freedom
of the [word apparently omitted]; which have such Charms in my
Eye, as I had long ceased to expect in a Modern Writer.
I am, &c
25 May, 1744
J---- W----
[not identified]
If the "Gentlemen of Abilities" of the day found some of Morris's
definitions obscure, modern readers will find them more precise than
those of most of his predecessors. All who had gone before--Cowley,
Barrow, Dryden, Locke, Addison, and Congreve (he does not mention
Hobbes)--Morris felt had bungled the job. And although he apologizes
for attempting what the great writers of the past had failed to do, he
has no hesitation in setting forth exactly what he believes to be the
proper distinctions in the meanings of such terms as wit, humour,
judgment, invention, raillery, and ridicule. The mathematician and
statistician in Morris made him strive for precise accuracy. It was
all very clear to him, and by the use of numerous anecdotes and
examples he hoped to make the distinctions obvious to the general
reader.
The _Essay_ shows what a man of some evident taste and perspicacity,
with an analytical mind, can do in defining the subtle semantic
distinctions in literary terms. Trying to fix immutably what is
certain always to be shifting, Morris is noteworthy not only because
of the nature of his attempt, but because he is relatively so
successful. As Professor Edward Hooker has pointed out in an
Introduction to an earlier _ARS_ issue (Series I, No. 2), his is
"probably the best and clearest treatment of the subject in the first
half of the eighteenth century." It may be regretted that political
and economic concerns occupied so much of his later life, leaving him
no time for further literary essays.
In the present facsimile edition, for reasons of space, only the
Introduction and the main body of the _Essay_ are reproduced. Although
Morris once remarked to David Hume that he wrote all his books "for
the sake of the Dedications" (_Letters of David Hume_ ed. Greig, I,
380), modern readers need not regret too much the omission of the
fulsome 32 page dedication to Walpole (The Earl of Orford). Morris
insists at the beginning that the book was inspired by a fervent
desire of "attempting a Composition, independent of Politics, which
might furnish an occasional Amusement" to his patron. The praise which
follows, in which Walpole is said to lead "the _Empire_ of _Letters_,"
is so excessive as to produce only smiles in twentieth century
readers. Walpole is praised for not curbing the press while
necessarily curbing the theatre, his aid to commerce and industry,
indeed almost every act of his administration, is lauded to the skies.
The Church of England, in which "the _Exercise_ of _Reason_ in the
solemn Worship of God, is the sacred _Right_, and indispensible
_Duty_, of Man," receives its share of eulogy. In every connection the
Tories are violently attacked.
The Dedication ends in a peroration of praise for Walpole's public
achievements which "shall adorn the History of _Britain_," and for his
"_Private Virtues_ and all the _softer Features_" of his mind. His
home of retirement is referred to in the lines of Milton:
"Great Palace now of Light!
Hither, as to their Fountain, other Stars
Repairing, in their golden Urns, draw Light;
And here [sic] the Morning Planet gilds her Horns."
[P.L. 7. 363-66]
"Thus splendid, and superior, your Lordship now flourishes in
honourable Ease, exerting universal Benevolence...." But in
dedications, as in lapidary inscriptions, as Dr. Johnson might
have agreed, a writer need not be upon oath.
At the end of the _Essay_ Morris reprinted two essays from _The
Spectator_, Nos. 35 and 62, and William Congreve's "An Essay concerning
Humour in Comedy. To Mr. Dennis" (Congreve's _Works_, ed. Summers, III,
161-68). Since these are readily available, they have not been included
in this edition.
The present facsimile is made from a copy owned by Louis I. Bredvold,
with his kind permission.
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)
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.
["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
the 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_ of
Sentiment, and Expression, he seems to have perfectly succeeded; there
being perhaps no Variety, in all the Extent of these Subjects, which
he has not presented to View in this Description.--But he does not
pretend to give any _Definition_ of WIT, intimating rather that it is
quite impossible to be given: And indeed from his Description of it,
as a _Proteus_, appearing in numberless various Colours, and Forms;
and from his mistaking, and presenting for WIT, other different
Mixtures and Substances, it is evident that his Idea of it was quite
confused and uncertain: It is true, he has discovered a vast Scope of
Fertility of Genius, and an uncommon Power of collecting together a
Multitude of Objects upon any Occasion, but he has here absolutely
mistaken his work; for instead of exhibiting the Properties of WIT in
a clearer Light, and confuting the _false Claims_ which are made to
it, he has made it his whole Business to perplex it the more, by
introducing, from all Corners, a monstrous Troop of new unexpected
_Pretenders_.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6