Sorry. Shelley is the only legistlator for me. I dont recognise the lawman, Slyman, nor does Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Mallarme to name a few old long dead Frenchmen, about a law long dead . . . .
Long live prose, long live poetry, long live the prose poem.
> (Did not intend to spoof. What nudge might come forth from my direction
> would be one of a parting nudge. As my own isolation from any movement
> prohibits participation. My literary life it would appear has closed, as I
> enter middle age discovering what methodologies fall to me. Principally a
> talent for light verse.)
> However, one spoof which might serve as nudge would fall along the lines a
> decree a divorce for prose and poetry. As couple they haven’t been getting
> along. They quarrel. Throw things. Their spats are well known and disturb
> the neighbors. I hereby offer my services as magistrate to grant decree for
> I do this with the knowledge the participants our at their end. I hereby
> legally terminate the marriage. Those who protest may do by filling writs.
> Their disappointment shall be noted. I find no longer viable the holy bond
> between prose and poetry and declare the two divisible.
> Though prose and poetry are free to remarry, I would wish they allow for
> sufficient time to recover from their strife. The legal doctrines governing
> divorce and dominated by concepts of canon law apply.
> I grant a decree of divorce on the basis of incapability. Albeit there has
> risen examples of adultery and abandonment. I make invalid their marriage. I
> dissolve all ties between prose and poetry by powers invested in me by the
> Roman Catholic church.
> The separated state shall commence on this day, February 20th, 1998. I grant
> absolute divorce. The marriage-dissolution granted to both parties. As the
> two were both innocent and injured. However, in the face of considerable
> evidence, Poetry shall be able to obtain relief (that is, monies) from Prose
> who has done some wrong—the recognized grounds for payment may be attributed
> to willful misconduct, adultery, nefarious bad language, desertion; habitual
> drunkenness; conviction of a felony and impotence.
> The offenses amounting to cruel and inhuman treatment.
> Their brief marriage has caused much concern. The conflict of irreconcilable
> differences. All attempts have failed as renew vows between prose and
> poetry. The actual viability of the marriage had not a chance in Hell. They
> got on each others’ nerves.
> Moreover, their love affair was mere infatuation, and as poetry is without
> fault. A good kisser and well-mannered and perfect in every way, she could
> not be expected to sustain her vows with the glump, which was prose. He was
> a dog. A man of devious intent. Prose was a drunken sot.
> Poetry was angelic. Perfect. Musically inclined. Intelligent, beautiful, not
> given to vulgarity. Well-bred, most proper, not all jaunty. Poetry was
> cherry cheeked.
> I declare the two separate and apart. Prose’s gruffness and poetry genteel
> nature proved glaring and at odds. Incompatibility for this doomed
> marriage. The two bickering in public places. Throwing fits. Harsh words
> between the two have passed.
> Not since their honeymoon have they felt the wild passion. Indeed, after the
> first month they stopped holding hands. Whispers soon turned into shouts.
> Harsh murmurs. The endless misunderstandings, spats. Strident and clumsy the
> collapse of love’s union.
> (The incompetent matchmaker who put the two together has been reprimanded.
> How preposterous he should think that poetry would endure the oaf. Sloppy
> dresser, vagrant, bigamist, loud mouth, braggart, cigar smoker.)
> And with solemn and sincere apologies do hereby grant prose and poetry
> The Literary Magistrate
> Ernest Slyman
> email: [log in to unmask]