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.
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
Please paste the following in your copy of Corbyn Morris’s
Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit....
(ARS, Series One, No. 4)
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 JohnFalstaff, Sir Roger
De Coverly, and Don Quixote.
Inscribed to the Right Honorable
Robert Earl of Orford.
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.