Sir, can you tell where young Pandorus lives,
That was surnamed here the prodigal :
He that so much for his silk stockings gives,
Till nought is left to buy him shoes withal?

Oh blame him not, to make what show he can,
How should be else be thought a Gentleman?

Thomas Bancroft writes of the Spheres (Book I. 5):

What are those ever-turning heavenly spheres,
But wheels that, from our cradles to our urns,
Wind up our threads of life that hourly wears?
And they that soonest die have happiest turns.

Samuel Sheppard thus addresses Cupid (Book III. 19):

God of hearts, prithee begone,

Forsake my homely mansion,
Thy deity is all too great

On parsley for to make thy meat,

Such as to my Lares I

Offer up nocturnally;

Lucullus doth not harbour here,

But Cato with his beard austere.

Although the Epigrammatists who flourished at the period of the Rebellion wrote little on politics, it is evident that they were affected by the events of the times. With scarcely an exception they were on the royal side, and their loyal and poetic temperament made them despise the irreverence and sourness of Puritanism. This gave warmth to their satire, which in the case of some seems to have been contrary to their natural feelings. The poet Drummond may be taken as an instance. No writer of epigrams of that age was so much imbued with the Greek tone and manner, or so successfully caught the ancient spirit. Witness the following invocation to sleep:

How comes it, Sleep, that thou

Even kisses me afford

Of her, dear her, so far who's absent now?

How did I hear those words,

Which rocks might move, and move the pines to bow?
Ah me! before half day

Why didst thou steal away?

Return; I thine for ever will remain,

If thou wilt bring with thee that guest again.

And yet so greatly did Pym and the other rebels raise
his wrath, that he could pen an epigram more cutting in
its satire than can perhaps be found in any other author:
When lately Pym descended into hell,
Ere he the cups of Lethe did carouse,

What place that was, he called aloud to tell;
To whom a devil-"This is the Lower House."

But the Restoration produced a great change in epigrammatic literature. The revulsion from Puritanism was carried to excess. Love-sonnets became the fashion; many of them were of an epigrammatic character, and the stricter epigrams took the same tone. The influence of the theme of love on this style of literature becomes immediately apparent. The language is softened, the poetry smoother, the sentiments more refined. And whilst, as we have seen, the Epigrammatists had been hitherto, for the most part, a separate class-men who as general poets are unknown-we now find that the great poets are the writers of epigrams, which they polished with as much care as they bestowed upon longer poems. They wrote but few, it is true, but these were of higher character, and from this period, as is well remarked in an admirable article on epigrams in the 233rd No. of the "Quarterly Review," "it will be found that the greater the poet, the more marked is his addiction to the Greek pattern; while the coarser style, more akin to the Latin, is chiefly met with in the off-hand wit of the mere man of pleasure, who wrote because it was the fashion, and because he had a gift, if indeed that be a gift, which confers the power of being personal, or severe, in as large, if not larger, measure than brilliant and terse." This applies fully to Waller, Dryden, and others who came after them; but there is one marked exception to the general rule. Prior ranks among the greater poets, but his epigrams are, with a few exceptions, of the very lowest type. He knew well, and translated some of the Greek epigrams, but he chiefly delighted in taking Martial as his pattern, lowered into more foolish puerility through French sources. False hair and eyes, rouge and enamel, the age of Phillis, and the tropes of Lysander, form the staple of his epigrams. He wrote some of considerable elegance, it must

be granted, but scarcely any of a very high character, and there is a sense of disappointment in the examination of his productions. Not so with Pope. In his writings we perpetually discover some elegant epigrammatic turn; satire so polished, that it cannot offend; and humour so delicate, that it satisfies the most fastidious. But epitaphs may be considered Pope's speciality. He was celebrated in his own day for this style of composition, and has retained his fame to the present. He has perhaps been overrated in this respect. It is necessary that a few remarks should be made upon epitaphs as a particular form of epigrammatic poetry, and it may be convenient to do so at this point, in order that a just judgment may be formed of his powers as a writer of monumental inscriptions.

The chief intention of an epitaph is to perpetuate the memory and character of the person on whose tomb it is placed, as an example of virtue. For this purpose the name must be given, and such account of his work in life as is requisite for the object in view. The more remarkable have been a man's actions, the less need there is for description; and the fewer the words, the higher the encomium. This was felt by Simonides, when he wrote the epitaph on Adeimantus (Jacobs I. 66, xxxv., translated by Merivale):

Here Adeimantus rests-the same was he

Whose counsels won for Greece the crown of liberty.

But grand simplicity suffices only for the few-for such men as Columbus and Shakespeare, Newton and Wellington. The majority require a longer epitaph to preserve the memory of their existence, their deeds, and their virtues. To keep the just mean between fulsome adulation and insufficient commemoration, constitutes the chief difficulty in the composition of sepulchral memorials. Recourse may again be had to Simonides for an example of an ancient epitaph, which in few and simple lines tells the name of the dead, her history, and her character. It is on Archedice, the daughter of Hippias (Jacobs I. 68, xlvii., translated by Merivale):

Daughter of him who rul'd th' Athenian plains,
This honour'd dust Archedice contains.

Of tyrants, mother, daughter, sister, wife-
Her mind was modest, and unstain'd her life.

Again, an epitaph should not be merely general in praise. The particular characteristics of the dead should be clearly stated, so that the inscription may be suitable to that individual alone on whose tomb it is engraved; otherwise no certain idea of the deceased is gained by the reader, and nothing definite is impressed on the memory. As an example, a Greek epitaph on Euphemius by S. Gregory Nazianzen may be cited (translated by H. S. Boyd):

Euphemius slumbers in this hallow'd ground,
Son of Amphilochus, by all renown'd:"
He whom the Graces to the Muses gave,
Tuneful no more, lies mouldering in the grave;
The minstrels came to chaunt the bridal lay,
But swifter Envy bore her prize away.

Here some certain information is given. We learn the man's name and that of his father, that he was beautiful in person, with the soul of a poet, and that he died young upon the eve of marriage.

Now, in what respect do Pope's epitaphs display or fall short of the requirements of this style of composition? First, with regard to the name of the dead. His inscriptions have been satirically called "Epitaphs to be let," because he constantly omits all mention of the person whom he is praising. And, secondly, with regard to distinctive characteristics, the same satire is applicable; for in many cases his epitaphs are so indefinite that they would suit as well other persons as those for whom they are intended. In that on Simon Harcourt, the second fault is very conspicuous, for in eight lines we learn nothing but that he was Pope's friend, a good son, and that his death gave his father and his friend much concern. The first fault is not, however, found; for "this epitaph," says Dr. Johnson, "is principally remarkable for the artful introduction of the name, which is inserted with a peculiar felicity, to which chance must concur with genius, which

no man can hope to attain twice, and which cannot be copied but with servile imitation":

To this sad shrine, whoe'er thou art, draw near,
Here lies the friend most lov'd, the son most dear:
Who ne'er knew joy, but friendship might divide,
Or gave his father grief but when he died.

How vain is reason, eloquence how weak!
If Pope must tell what Harcourt cannot speak.
Oh! let thy once-lov'd friend inscribe thy stone,
And with a father's sorrows mix his own.

Pope's finest epitaph, because the noblest memorial of God-given intellect in the fewest words, is that on Sir Isaac Newton; but most of his monumental inscriptions are on men who were not of sufficient celebrity to be exempt from the necessity of some particulars of their history being recorded on their tombs. It is in these he fails. He either gives no details, or is fulsome in his praise. Of the latter character is the one on Craggs, who was a respectable statesman, but not the all-perfect man described by Pope:

Statesman, yet friend to truth! of soul sincere,

In action faithful, and in honour clear!

Who broke no promise, serv'd no private end,
Who gain'd no title, and who lost no friend;

Ennobled by himself, by all approv'd,

Prais'd, wept, and honour'd by the Muse he lov'd.

To these lines cannot be denied the praise of much beauty; but they have the effect (which should never be the case in an epitaph) of unreality-of bestowing the flattery of affection, rather than the impartial justice of truth.

During the eighteenth century many Epigrammatists of considerable note flourished, a few accepting the Greek type, but the majority the Roman, though in the writings of most of them some pieces may be found which have all the elegance and simplicity of the former, whilst but a small section ventured upon the imitation of the worst specimens of the latter. Aaron Hill and Garrick were men who thoroughly understood epigram-writing. Both abound in humour, especially the latter. Both could be tender, and, throwing aside satire, write with grace of diction and

с