be with the manly Strokes of Wit and Satyr; for I am of the old Philofopher's Opinion, That if I muft fuffer from one or the other, I would rather it fhould be from the Paw of a Lion, than the Hoof of an Afs. I do not fpeak this out of any Spirit of Party. There is a moft crying Dulness on both Sides. I have feen Tory Acrofticks and Whig Anagrams, and do not quarrel with either of them, because they are Whigs or Tories, but because they are Anagrams and Acrofticks.

BUT to return to Punning. Having purfued the Hiftory of a Punn, from its Original to its Downfal, I fhall here define it to be a Conceit arifing from the ufe of two Words that agree in the Sound, but differ in the Sense. The only way therefore to try a Piece of Wit, is to tranflate it into a different Language: If it bears the Teft you may pronounce it true; but if it vanishes in the Experiment you may conclude it to have been a Punn. In fhort, one may fay of a Funn as the Country-man defcribed his Nightingale, that it is vox & præterea nihil, a Sound, and nothing but a Sound. On the contrary, one may reprefent true Wit by the Defcription which Ariftinetus makes of a fine Woman, when the is dreffed fhe is Beautiful, when the is undressed she is Beautiful: Or, as Mercerus has tranflated it more Emphatically, Induitur, formefa eft: Exuitur, ipfa forma eft.

C

N° 62.

Friday, May 11.

Scribendi recte Sapere eft & principium & fons. Hor.

M

R. Lock has an admirable Reflection upon the difference of Wit and Judgment, whereby he eadeavours to fhew the Reason why they are not always the Talents of the fame Perfon. His Words are as follow: And hence, perhaps, may be given fome Reason of that common obfervation, That Men who have a great deal of Wit and prompt Memories, have not always the cleareft Judgment, or deepest Reason. For Wit lying moft in the Assemblage of Ideas, and putting thofe together with Quick

Weft

nefs and Variety, wherein can be found any Refemblance or Congruity, thereby to make up pleasant Pictures and agreeable Vifions in the Fancy; Judgment, on the contrary,lies quite on the other Side, in feparating carefully one from another, Ideas wherein can be found the leaft Difference, thereby to avoid being mif-led by Similitude, and by Affinity to take one thing for another. This is a Way of proceeding quite contrary to Metaphor and Allufion; wherein, for the most part, lies that Entertainment and Pleafantry of Wit which strikes fo lively on the Fancy, and is therefore so acceptable to all People.

THIS is, I think, the beft and moft Philofophical Account that I have ever met with of Wit, which generally, though not always, confifts in fuch a Refemblance and Congruity of Ideas as this Author mentions. I fhall only add to it, by way of Explanation, That every Refemblance of Ideas is not that which we call Wit, unless it be fuch an one that gives Delight and Surprize to the Reader: Thefe two Properties feem effential to Wit, more particularly the laft of them. In order therefore that the Refemblance in the Ideas be Wit, it is neceffary that the Ideas fhould not lie too near one another in the Nature of things; for where the Likenefs is obvious, it gives no Surprize. To compare one Man's Singing to that of an other, or to reprefent the Whitenefs of any Object by that of Milk and Snow, or the Variety of its Colours by thofe of the Rainbow, cannot be called Wit, unless befides this obvious Refemblance, there be fome further Congruity difcovered in the two Ideas that is capable of giving the Reader fome Surprize. Thus when a Poet tells us, the Bofom of his Miftrefs is as white as Snow, there is no Wit in the Comparison; but when he adds, with a Sigh, that it is as cold too, it then grows into Wit. Every Reader's Memory may fupply him with innumerable Inftances of the fame Nature. For this Reason, the Similitudes in Heroick Poets, who endeavour rather to fill the Mind with great Conceptions, than to divert it with fuch as are new and furprizing, have feldom any thing in them that can be called Wit. Mr. Lock's Account of Wit, with this fhort Explanation, comprehends moft of the Species of Wit, as Metaphors, Similitudes, Allegories, Enigmas, Mottos, Parables, Fables, Dreams, Vifions, VOL. I. dramatick

L

dramatick Writings, Burlesque, and all the Methods of Allufion: As there are many other Pieces of Wit, (how remote foever they may appear at first Sight from the foregoing Defcription) which upon Examination will be found to agree with it.

AS true Wit generally confifts in this Refemblance and Congruity of Ideas, falfe Wit chiefly confifts in the Refemblance and Congruity fometimes of fingle Letters, as in Anagrams, Chronograms, Lipograms, and Acrosticks: Sometimes of Syllables, as in Echos and Doggerel Rhymes: Sometimes of Words, as in Punns and Quibbles; and fometimes of whole Sentences or Poems, caft into the Figures of Eggs, Axes or Altars: Nay, fome carry the Notion of Wit fo far, as to ascribe it even to external Mimickry; and to look upon a Man as an ingenious Person, that can refemble the Tone, Pofture, or Face of another,

AS true Wit confifts in the Refemblance of Ideas, and falfe Wit in the Refemblance of Words, according to the foregoing Inftances; there is another kind of Wit which confifts partly in the Refemblance of Ideas, and partly in the Refemblance of Words; which for Diftin&tion Sake I fhall call mixt Wit. This kind of Wit is that which abounds in Cowley, more than in any Author that ever wrote. Mr. Waller has likewife a great deal of it. Mr. Dryden is very fparing in it. Milton had a Genius much above it. Spencer is in the Same Clafs with Milton. The Italians, even in their Epic Poetry, are full of it. Monfieur Boileau, who formed himself upon the Ancient Poets, has every where rejected it with Scorn. If we look after mixt Wit among the Greek Writers, we fhall find it no where but in the Epigrammatifts. There are indeed fome Strokes of it in the little Poem afcribed to Musaus, which by that, as well as many other Marks, betrays it felf to be a modern Compofition. If we look into the Latin Writers, we find none of this mixt Wit in Virgil, Lucretius or Catullus; very little in Horace, but a great deal of it in Ovid, and fcarce any thing elfe in Martial.

OUT of the innumerable Branches of mixt Wit, I fhall chufe one Inftance which may be met with in all the Writers of this Clafs. The Paffion of Love in its Nature has been thought to resemble Fire; for which Reafon the Words Fire and Flame are made ufe of to

fignifie

fignifie Love. The witty Poets therefore have taken an Advantage from the doubtful Meaning of the Word Fire, to make an infinite Number of Witticifms. Cowley obferving the cold Regard of his Miftrefs's Eyes, and at the fame Time their Power of producing Love in him, confiders them as Burning-Glaffes made of Ice; and finding himself able to live in the greatest Extremities of Love, concludes the Torrid Zone to be habitable. When his Miftress has read his Letter written in Juice of Lemmon by holding it to the Fire, he defires her to read it over a fe cond time by Love's Flames. When the weeps, he wifhes it were inward Heat that diftilled thofe Drops from the Limbeck. When she is abfent he is beyond eighty, that is, thirty Degrees nearer the Pole that when the is with him. His ambitious Love is a Fire that naturally. mounts upwards; his happy Love is the Beams of Heaven, and his unhappy Love Flames of Hell. When it does not let him fleep, it is a Flame that fends up no Smoak; when it is oppofed by Counfel and Advice, it is a Fire that rages the more by the Wind's blowing upon it. Upon the dying of a Tree in which he had cut his Loves, be obferves that his written Flames had burnt up and withered the Tree. When he refolves to give over his Paffion, he tells us that one burnt like him for ever dreads the Fire. His Heart is an Etna, that inftead of Vulcan's Shop inclofes Cupid's Forge in it. His endeavouring to drown his Love in Wine, is throwing Oil upon the Fire. He would infinuate to his Mistress, that the Fire of Love, like that of the Sun (which produces fo many living Creatures) fhould not only warm but beget. Love in another. Place cooks Pleasure at his Fire. Sometimes the Poet's Heart is frozen in every Breast, and sometimes fcorched in every Eye. Sometimes he is drowned in Tears, and burnt in Love, like a Ship fet on Fire in the Middle of the Sea.

THE Reader may observe in every one of these InLances, that the Poet mixes the Qualities of Fire with thofe of Love; and in the fame Sentence fpeaking of it both as a Paffion, and as real Fire, furprizes the Reader with thofe feeming Refemblances or Contradictions that make up all the Wit in this kind of Writing. Mixt Wit therefore is a Compofition of Punn and true Wit, and is more

or lefs perfect as the Resemblance lies in the Ideas or in the Words: Its Foundations are laid partly in Falsehood and partly in Truth: Reafon puts in her Claim for one Half of it, and Extravagance for the other. The only Province therefore for this kind of Wit, is Epigram, or thofe little occafional Poems that in their own Nature are nothing elfe but a Tiffue of Epigrams. I cannot conclude this Head of mixt Wit, without owning that the admirable Poet out of whom I have taken the Examples of it, had as much true Wit as any Author that ever writ; and indeed all other Talents of an extraordinary Genius.

IT may be expected, fince I am upon this Subject, that I fhould take Notice of Mr. Dryden's Definition of Wit; which, with all the Deference that is due to the Judgment of fo great a Man, is not fo properly a Definition of Wit, as of good Writing in general. Wit, as he defines it, is a Propriety of Words and Thoughts adapt ⚫ed to the Subject.' If this be a true Definition of Wit, I am apt to think that Euclid was the greatest Wit that ever fent Pen to Paper: It is certain there never was a greater Propriety of Words and Thoughts adapted to the Subject, than what that Author has made ufe of in his Elements. I fhall only appeal to my Reader, if this Definition agrees with any Notion he has of Wit: If it be a true one, I am fure Mr. Dryden was not only a better Poet, but a greater Wit than Mr. Cowley; and Virgil a much more facetious Man than either Ovidor Martial.

BOUHOURS, whom I look upon to be the most pe netrating of all the French Criticks, has taken Pains to fhew, That it is impoffible for any Thought to be beau tiful which is not juft, and has not its Foundation in the Nature of things: That the Bafis of all Wit is Truth; and that no Thought can be valuable, of which good Senfe is not the Ground-word. Boileau has endeavoured to inculcate the fame Notion in feveral Parts of his Wri tings, both in Profe and Verfe. This is that natural Way of Writing, that beautiful Simplicity, which we fo much admire in the Compofitions of the Ancients; and which no Body deviates from, but those who want Strength of Genius to make a Thought fhine in its own natural Beauties. Poets who want this Strength of Genius to give that Majestick Simplicity to Nature, which we