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_,