After this short history of punning, one would wonder how it should
be so entirely banished out of the learned world as it is at
present, especially since it had found a place in the writings of
the most ancient polite authors. To account for this we must
consider that the first race of authors, who were the great heroes
in writing, were destitute of all rules and arts of criticism; and
for that reason, though they excel later writers in greatness of
genius, they fall short of them in accuracy and correctness. The
moderns cannot reach their beauties, but can avoid their
imperfections. When the world was furnished with these authors of
the first eminence, there grew up another set of writers, who gained
themselves a reputation by the remarks which they made on the works
of those who preceded them. It was one of the employments of these
secondary authors to distinguish the several kinds of wit by terms
of art, and to consider them as more or less perfect, according as
they were founded in truth. It is no wonder, therefore, that even
such authors as Isocrates, Plato, and Cicero, should have such
little blemishes as are not to be met with in authors of a much
inferior character, who have written since those several blemishes
were discovered. I do not find that there was a proper separation
made between puns and true wit by any of the ancient authors, except
Quintilian and Longinus. But when this distinction was once
settled, it was very natural for all men of sense to agree in it.
As for the revival of this false wit, it happened about the time of
the revival of letters; but as soon as it was once detected, it
immediately vanished and disappeared. At the same time there is no
question but, as it has sunk in one age and rose in another, it will
again recover itself in some distant period of time, as pedantry and
ignorance shall prevail upon wit and sense. And, to speak the