ther.

I must add to these great authorities, which seem to have given a kind of
sanction to this piece of false wit, that all the writers of rhetoric
have treated of punning with very great respect, and divided the several
kinds of it into hard names, that are reckoned among the figures of
speech, and recommended as ornaments in discourse. I remember a country
schoolmaster of my acquaintance told me once, that he had been in company
with a gentleman whom he looked upon to be the greatest paragrammatist
among the moderns. Upon inquiry, I found my learned friend had dined
that day with Mr. Swan, the famous punster; and desiring him to give me
some account of Mr. Swan's conversation, he told me that he generally
talked in the _Paranomasia_, that he sometimes gave in to the _Ploce_,
but that in his humble opinion he shone most in the _Antanaclasis_.

I must not here omit that a famous university of this land was formerly
very much infested with puns; but whether or not this might arise from
the fens and marshes in which it was situated, and which are now drained,
I must leave to the determination of more skilful naturalists.

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 b