ridicule, when Atterbury could thus define it: "Wit, indeed, as it
implies, a certain uncommon Reach and Vivacity of Thought, is an
Excellent Talent; very fit to be employ'd in the Search of Truth...."
So the anonymous author of _A Satyr upon a Late Pamphlet Entitled, A
Satyr against Wit_ (1700) could rhapsodize:

Wit is a Radiant Spark of Heav'nly Fire,
Full of Delight, and worthy of Desire;
Bright as the Ruler of the Realms of Day,
Sun of the Soul, with in-born Beauties gay....

So Corbyn Morris in his _Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of
Wit, Humour, Raillery, Satire, and Ridicule_, 1744, probably the best
and clearest treatment of the subject in the first half of the
eighteenth century, wrote (p. 1): "Wit is the Lustre resulting from
the quick Elucidation of one Subject, by a just and unexpected
Arrangement of it with another Subject." And so the author of the
essay "Of Wit" in the _Weekly Register_ for July 22, 1732, ventured
his opinion (reprinted in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, II, 861-862):

Wit is a Start of Imagination in the Speaker, that strikes
the Imagination of the Hearer with an Idea of Beauty common
to both; and the immediate Result of the Comparison is the
Flash of Joy that attends it; it stands in the same Regard
to Sense, or Wisdom, as lightning to the Sun, suddenly
kindled and as suddenly gone....

But for the most part wit was becoming an expression of mirth or
ridicule in which fancy was primarily involved; at its best wit was
coupled with politeness and elegance in conversation, and at its worst