La Muse S'amuse
THE CONTRIBUTORS’ CLUB.
IN a recent evening company of good friends and fellows, of the literary craft, the Epigram became the subject of discussion, and subsequently of experiment. We had among us, on this occasion, both the professional and the amateur poet, and, in addition to these, a very choice laity, —connoisseurs, privileged to criticise, and who could tell to a nicety, as though each one had been the king’s taster, the degree of “ distinction ” and the exact “ touch of quality ” possessed severally by either the professional or the amateur poet.
“ The epigram,” grumbled one of this choice laity,— “ I don’t think much of the epigram. It’s a sign of genius running to seed, just as when a plant puts forth smaller and smaller flowers toward autumn. In my opinion, it goeth before the fall of any epoch of literary brilliancy.”
“ I agree with you,” added another censorious layman ; “ only it seems to me even worse than that. The epigram is distinctly vulgar. Its Smartness and catchiness, its tendency to punning, ought to be enough to condemn it, for a true poet.”
Still another note of objurgation : “ It is even worse than vulgar ; it is atheistical Its cynicism, when it does n’t call God to account, amuses itself with running on what it would consider the pretended virtues of mankind.”
“ But,” ventured one of the counsel for the defense, " the epigram has been employed at times by the best order of genius, from the ancients to the moderns. In discreet hands, there is nothing like it for packing ' infinite riches in a little room.’”
“ I object,” said another, “to the charge of vulgarity and atheism made against the epigram. Of course it may be diverted to base uses ; but think how often the poets have made it express a profound moral truth, how often some strain of hero-worship has been blended with its terse directness. What a sweep of vision, what a swing, there is in the epigram on Francis Drake ! Just listen : —
If man were silent here ;
The sun himself cannot forget
His fellow-traveler ! ’
Or take those lines from Dryden, beginning, —
Greece, Italy, and England did adorn.’
For further proof that the epigram may possess dignity and nobility of purpose, one has but to refer to old Herbert with his pithy couplets, such as this: —
Hath a true grief and tlie best faith of all.’
This surely has the quality and the form of the epigram, and it is not smart nor cynical.”
“ I don’t know,” said an objector, " about that matter of ' quality and form.’ It seems to me that none of these specimens, however remarkable as verse, is a true epigram. They don’t fall under Martial’s prescription, which requires not only honey, but a little sting.”
“ I should like to put in a word right here,” observed one of the good listeners of the company. " I have noticed the recent vogue of short flights in verse. These flights don’t appear to me to result in epigrams, even where the intent is to be humorously satiric.”
“ I know what you mean,” said our Champion Interrupter, “ the quatrain ” —
“ I believe they call them quatrains.” calmly rejoined the Good Listener. “ I notice a great many graceful and lovely fourline performances. I should n’t call them epigrams, and I do not know that their authors would. They are rather like little lyrics, — often perfect little lyrics, — in which the sting, if there is any, is no more than that which honey gives to sensitive throats.”
It was now the Interrupter’s legitimate turn. “ I happen to remember a good example of the quatrain, — the ‘ perfect little lyric ’ you mention. And it is about The Lyric. It’s Aldrich’s ‘ touch,’ one might know.
Ever on the lip,
Rather than the epic
Memory lets slip ! ’
Yes, I should call that a lyric in miniature rather than an epigram.”
“ Or say an epigram made on the wing by delicious Ariel himself ; ” and the speaker, who would have been called Moderator, bad our informal circle recognized parliamentary offices, indicated that it was now “ in order ” to announce the subjects for metrical contest. No limitations as to metrical form were assigned, nor was any moral stricture made, except against absolute punning. The subjects announced were as follows : Patriotism, Vanity, Similia Similibus, The Editor, Traveling for Health. One of the contestants produced three “ epigrams ” in the given time ; another had two to show, while the rest contented themselves with but one apiece.
The results, without further introduction, are subjoined.
PATRIOTISM (I.).
(A true incident. Comment by the poet.)
As the I)tiro is crossed with a bound ;
“ Only we call them gutters,” the patriot mutters,
And he spat on the foreigner’s ground!
PATRIOTISM (II.), ANAXAGORAS.
“ Wand’rer, why dost thou not thy country prize? “
He raised to heaven his tranquil, smiling eyes, —
“ I do,” he answered ; “ there my country lies ! ”
VANITY (I.).
My front face, — alas !
I see in the glass
The praises men lavish are true !
My side face I turn,
And with rapture they learn
That Clytie is flashed into view !
These flatteries cloy me,
These transports annoy me.
Now, Grace dear, what am I to do ?
VANITY (II.).
How poor, when of its lordly gear divest 1
So, Venus’ bird, if his gay plumage fall,
In abject grief hides under hedge or wall.
SIMILIA SIMILIBUS.
But when he came before the congregation,
Lulled by the Reverend Beetle’s droning flight,
They peaceful slept from text to peroration.
THE EDITOR (I.).
Then, all at once, from mere caprice selects
Some trivial thing not worth the reader’s pains.
(’T is thus my rival’s verse an audience gains.)
THE EDITOR loquitur.
TRAVELING FOR HEALTH (I.).
“ She travels for health, I opine.”
“ Yes, my wife is abroad,” he grimly replied ;
“ She’s abroad — not for her health, but mine !”
TRAVELING FOR HEALTH (II.).
A mile from home a healing spring I found.
“ Here’s health — but mark!” (the naiad smiled advice)
“ Each day on foot you here must journey twice.”
The above having been read, the reader, who was an approver of the epigram, looked triumphantly about with the air of having vanquished opposition. “ What do you say to these ? ”
“ I should say,” our chief censor remarked, mingling a placebo with his criticism,