See BOTANY, c. iii., Nat. Ord. Cucurbitaceae.

PUN is defined by Addison, in a paper in which he traces the history of punning from its original to its downfall (Spectator, No. 61), as “a conceit arising from the use of two words that agree in the sound but differ in the sense.” To render this definition less objectionable, it may be varied into—a conceit produced by the novelty and unexpectedness arising from the use of two words that agree in the sound, but differ in the sense, or of one word used with a double application. Addison observes, in the paper just mentioned, that “Aristotle, in the eleventh chapter of his Rhetoric, describes two or three kinds of puns, which he calls paragrams, among the beauties of good writing, and produces instances of them out of some of the greatest authors in the Greek tongue.” “Cicero,” he goes on to observe, “has sprinkled several of his works with puns; and in his book, where he lays down the rules of oratory, quotes abundance of sayings, as pieces of wit, which also, upon examination, prove arrant puns.” The age in which this species of wit chiefly flourished was in the reign of King James I. His majesty was a tolerable punster, and the taste of the sovereign was studied by the courtiers and by the clergy. The greatest authors, in their most serious works, made frequent use of puns. The sinner was punned into repentance, and in the theatres tears were solicited and got at no higher price. Quintilian and Longinus seem to have been the first among the ancients to distinguish between puns and true wit.

The writer of a clever paper in the Guardian, No. 36, named Birch, in “A Modest Apology for Punning,” draws the distinction between the extemporaneous puns of conversation, and the deliberate and grave use of this species of false wit in general composition. While defending the pun as a means of enlivening the dull wits of those engaged in common conversation, he nevertheless affirms, “I look upon premeditated quibbles and puns committed to the press as unpardonable crimes. There is as much difference betwixt these and the starts in common discourse, as betwixt casual encounters and murder with malice prepense.”