"One day, reading in Mery's review the pretended recital of a comedy of which I was the author, I could not but admire its gaiety, grace, unexpected turns, and happy confusion, and I said to myself: 'Ah, if only this comedy were really the one I wrote!'" On another occasion, says the poet, at the theatre, "he said to me: 'What a superb drama!'--and he was perfectly right. The play, as he described it to me, was, in fact, superb, only unfortunately it had been entirely reconstructed by Mery on the absurd foundation imagined by Mr. * * *. The _denouement_ he invented--for though the third act was not finished, he spoke of the fifth as an old acquaintance--was of such tragic power and daring originality, that after hearing him expound it, I had no desire to witness Mr. * * *'s." Reviewers and dramatic critics of this kind are now, unhappily, rare. These few anecdotes sufficiently justify De Banville's claim that Mery was something altogether unheard of and fabulously original. He should have been (and probably was) the happiest of men, and his peculiar powers must have lightened his critical labours as much as they benefited those he criticised. He was as incapable of envy as Dumas was of rancour. Certainly no more lovable and agreeable creature ever haunted the slopes of Parnassus. I doubt if such men would be appreciated in our society. Ours is the reign of the glum Boeotian. We know not how to converse, and wits are as dead as kings' jesters. There is no scholarship in our senate, and the standard of oratory there would not have satisfied an Early Victorian debating society. If we talk less, assuredly we do not think the more. Every social, political, and religious idea that occupies our dull brains had entered into the consciousness of the men of the 'forties. They thought quickly and talked brilliantly. Their young men were youths--full of fire, enthusiasm, love, and fun. They did not talk about the advantages of devotion to business in early life. They were not born tired. Wonderful, too, as it may seem, people in those days used to like to meet each other in social converse, and were not ashamed to admit it. It was not then fashionable to affect a disinclination for society--the handiest excuse for an inability to talk and to think. Lola Montez learned in Paris what was meant by the _joie de vivre_. In '45 wit was at the prow and pleasure at the helm. XI DUJARIER