An Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit, Humour, Railery, Satire, and Ridicule (1744)

In Short

This treatise establishes precise critical boundaries between comedy's core categories: wit, humor, raillery, satire, and ridicule. Reacting against vague historical definitions, the text methodically defines each term using concrete literary illustrations. It examines why humor touches readers more deeply than intellectual wit, using character analyses of Sir John Falstaff, Don Quixote, and Morose to prove its thesis. By replacing loose poetic assumptions with analytical structure, the work survives as a foundational landmark in eighteenth-century literary theory and comedy criticism.

The Story

The inquiry opens by establishing the urgent need for analytical precision in literary criticism. Surveying past authorities—including Cowley, Dryden, Locke, and Addison—the argument reveals how earlier thinkers obscured the nature of comedy by offering contradictory or overly broad definitions. Dryden wrongly reduced wit to mere propriety of thought, missing its sudden brilliance, while Addison failed to set correct limits on how surprise functions within comparison. To build a firmer foundation, the text breaks down intellectual faculties into distinct parts, isolating judgment as the discernment of differences and invention as the combination of new ideas.

From these principles, the argument constructs its core distinction between wit and humor. Wit emerges not as mere elegance or reasoning, but as a sudden, surprising spark created when two distinct ideas align. It acts as an artistic embellishment, throwing rapid light on a subject before vanishing. Humor, by contrast, requires no second object or artful comparison. It resides entirely within real human nature, springing from the inherent foibles, eccentricities, and queer turns of mind that mark an individual character.

The thesis then explores why humor yields deeper, more enduring pleasure than wit. Wit showcases the superior agility of the speaker’s mind, often carrying a sting of bitterness or severe satire. Humor invites benevolent fondness. It allows readers to observe human foibles from a position of comfortable superiority without triggering envy or malice. This dynamic is illustrated through contrasting theatrical traditions. Ben Jonson’s comedy relies on malicious, deceitful, or peevish characters like Volpone, Morose, and Abel Drugger, who ultimately disgust the audience. Shakespeare and Cervantes succeed because they anchor their comedy in cheerful, lovable oddities, creating enduring affection for figures like Falstaff and Don Quixote.

The final phase systematically differentiates the aggressive modes of comedic writing: raillery, satire, and ridicule. Raillery operates as a polite, targeted attack on slight personal embarrassments, requiring real chagrin in the recipient without sinking into malice or indirect flattery. Satire functions as a moral weapon, properly directed at dangerous vices and immoralities to provoke detestation. Ridicule belongs exclusively to harmless foibles and absurdities, using either witty associations or humorous impersonations to trigger contemptuous laughter. The text concludes by insisting that all literary compositions must rest upon natural propriety, warning that ungrounded displays of technical skill will ultimately alienate a reader's judgment.

How It Unfolds

Challenging the old authorities The text examines definitions supplied by classic authors, demonstrating that Dryden confused clear reasoning with wit and that Addison overstated the necessity of surprise.

Establishing baseline faculties The argument defines the core operations of the human mind, separating judgment as the capacity to spot differences from invention as the ability to assemble new combinations of ideas.

Defining wit as sudden light Wit is framed as a quick, surprising alignment of two objects—whether noble or vulgar—that throws immediate, transient light upon a topic without attempting formal proof.

Isolating humor in human nature Humor is defined as the natural oddity or singular foible of a character in real life, requiring only one person rather than an artful comparison of separate ideas.

Analyzing the psychology of the humorist The text details how an eccentric individual behaves, showing how pride, fear of contempt, and an obsessive dread of being seen as an imitator drive peevish conduct.

Explaining why humor surpasses wit Six distinct reasons explain why humor gives greater pleasure than wit, emphasizing that natural human foibles engage human passions far more deeply than clever verbal strokes.

Contrasting Shakespeare and Ben Jonson The treatise contrasts Jonson’s peevish, deceitful characters with Shakespeare’s Falstaff, demonstrating that sustainable stage comedy requires lovable oddities rather than repulsive vices.

Mapping raillery, satire, and ridicule The final section draws sharp lines between social forms of comedy, assigning severe vices to satire, harmless flaws to ridicule, and delicate personal embarrassments to genteel raillery.

The People

The Author (Corbyn Morris) An analytical thinker and Whig pamphlet writer who seeks to fix the shifting vocabulary of literary criticism. He wants absolute precision in defining comedic terms, driven by an orderly mind that treats literary concepts with the rigour of statistical analysis.

Sir John Falstaff Shakespeare’s fat knight serves as the supreme embodiment of pure, delightful humor. He wants pleasure, camaraderie, and endless gaiety, unburdened by malice or envy. His high rank, real sense, and endless wit prevent his obvious flaws from ever disgusting the reader.

Don Quixote Cervantes’s delusional knight represents humor made poignant through contrast. Driven by romantic ideals that clash with reality, his earnest debates with Sancho Panza create a rich, hilarious flavor that relies on the natural opposition of their temperaments.

Morose and Abel Drugger Ben Jonson’s comedic figures embody peevishness and citizen greed. Morose seeks absolute silence, while Drugger wrangles between intense avarice and a reluctance to pay his accomplices. Their despicable or sour traits limit the audience's delight.

In Its Own Voice

"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."

Corbyn Morris rejects Dryden's definition of wit by illustrating its immediate, fleeting nature.

"HUMOUR is any whimsical Oddity or Foible, appearing in the Temper or Conduct of a Person in real Life."

The author establishes his foundational definition of humor, grounding it in human character rather than verbal play.

"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."

The treatise contrasts Jonson's rigid structural accuracy with Shakespeare's sweeping imaginative genius.

What It's Really About

Underneath its taxonomy of literary terms, the work explores the psychological mechanics of human pleasure and social judgment. It asks why certain forms of laughter warm the heart while others leave a bitter, cold aftertaste. The central argument contends that genuine human affection cannot be won through clever mental gymnastics or cruel exposures of vice. By dissecting why audiences embrace flawed figures like Falstaff while rejecting Jonson's petty misers, the text asserts that enduring comedy requires empathy, emotional truth, and a generous tolerance for human frailty.

Why Read It Today

This volume appeals to literary historians, theorists of comedy, and anyone fascinated by eighteenth-century intellectual debates. Reading it feels like sitting beside a precise, methodical mind determined to bring order to the chaotic world of humor. Morris writes with steady clarity, avoiding dense jargon in favor of direct comparisons and historical anecdotes.

The treatise does present clear historical challenges. Readers must navigate eighteenth-century typography, erratic capitalization, archaic spelling, and long, multi-clause sentences. Its rigid attempt to classify shifting semantic terms can occasionally feel pedantic, particularly when picking apart minor phrasing choices by Locke or Addison.

Yet the book remains remarkably rewarding. It provides a rare, transparent window into how Augustan critics analyzed literary craft, offering insights into Falstaff and Quixote that feel as fresh and psychologically sharp today as they did in 1744.