UC-NRLF 
 
 . 
 
 
 I 
 
. ^ .^ _ . ,, 
 
 EESE LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 l{(\-('iirJ 
 Stress/oils No. 
 
in Criticism 
 
 TO 
 
 WILLIAM ROSCOE, ESQ; F.R.S. 
 
 MEMBER OF THE BELLA CRUSCA SOCIETY OF FLORENCE, 
 
 F.R.S.L. 
 IN ANSWER 
 
 TO HIS 
 
 LETTER TO THE REVEREND W. L. BOWLES 
 
 ON THK 
 
 CHARACTER AND POETRY OF POPE. 
 
 It U never too late to learn. Proverb. 
 
 WITH 
 
 d?urtf)*r Hestfon* in rftictetn 
 
 TO A 
 
 QUARTERLY REVIEWER. 
 
 What is Sauce for the GOOSE, is Sauce for the GANDEB. Proverb. 
 
 BY THE REV. WILLIAM LISLE BOWLES, 
 
 LATE EDITOR OF POPE'S WORKS IN TEN VOLUMES. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 HURST, ROBINSON, AND CO. CHEAPSIDE, 
 AND WATERLOO-PLACE. 
 
 1826. 
 
FEINTED BT RICHARD CRUTTWELL, 
 ST. JAMES'-STREET, BATH. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 I cannot too often and too earnestly repeat, 
 (as, even among sensible men, tliere is still so much mis- 
 understanding on the subject,) that tliere is not, nor ever 
 has been, a QUESTION about the old story of "ART and 
 " NATURE" with reference to the poetry of Pope. 
 
 The subject of " Art and Nature" was originally a mere 
 incidental half-sentence, leading to the main proposition, 
 respecting Pope, that " Satires and Moral Essays, however 
 "perfectly executed, could not entitle the writer to the FIRST 
 * and hig/test rank in poetry, the eternal basis of which 
 " is founded on t/te uncJiangeable PASSIONS of tlie HUMAN* 
 " HEART, not on varying manners and modes of ARTI- 
 " FICIAL LIFE'' 
 
 It was Lord BYRON who rang the peal on NATURE 
 and ART! As Lord BYRON, in his unsubstantiated but 
 shewy rhetoric, brougftt various instances to prove, that in 
 every instance enumerated, from the ship on the sea to the 
 fallen temples of Athens, poetry derived tter most interesting 
 materials from works o/"art; it was necessary to prove that 
 all his instances, so far from establishing his position, 
 established the contrary: for instance, that a sailing ship 
 became chiefly a beautiful poetical object from its association 
 
with the sea, the, light the windy the storm, the air, 
 moral associations empower over the vast element on which 
 it moved. The sympathies excited, when the objects of a 
 distant voyage to unknown lands, *c. were contemplated 
 these added to t/ie poetical interest. 
 
 So also in buildings, as the Pyramids, *c. such objects 
 derive their poetical interest from moral associations, tradi- 
 tions, time, antiquity, solitudes, fyc. I was thus obliged, as 
 it were, in self-defence, to follow Lord BYRON* 's instances, 
 and shew him it was the same in all. No farther than this 
 have lever been concerned about the question of 66 Nature 
 "and Art" 
 
 I thought it right to say this, because I have found, 
 among the most sensible minds, that the idea of the ETERNAL 
 discussion of " NATURE and ART" starts up, when any 
 thing is mentioned about Pope ; and, as usual, I have the 
 blame for pur suing a subject, ad nauseam; when the onus 
 probandi was imposed on me, in self-defence, of shewing all 
 Lord BYRON'S fallacies on the subject! ! 
 
 In the following pages there is scarcely a word on this 
 subject; but some things, I trust, will be found, not only 
 substantially justifying myself as Editor of Pope, but 
 further and materially illustrating passages and characters 
 in the works, of this distinguished poet. 
 
 
, 
 
 
 DctHcattoiu 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REV. RICHARD WARNER, 
 
 Author of Practical Sermons; Illustrations of the Scotch Novels ; History 
 of Bath, and of Glastonbury Abbey; tfc. $c* 
 
 MY DEAR FRIEND, 
 
 I Take the liberty of addressing to you, 
 as a well-known Scholar, Clergyman, and Gentle- 
 man, in the neighbourhood of Bath, the following 
 pages; not merely to express my respect and regard, 
 but, chiefly, because you are personally acquainted 
 with the Gentleman who wrote out the extracts from 
 Roscoe's Pope for me, " even to the tiring of his 
 " fingers !" This Gentleman, so amiable in private 
 life, and so highly esteemed, is unwilling to have 
 his name brought before the public ; not that he 
 fears fair and just criticism, but because he shrinks 
 from contumelious and illiberal insinuations ! No 
 human being but one, who must have JUDGED^-OW 
 his own FEELINGS, and jiave been nurtured from 
 
his infancy in the school of Pope's duplicity, could 
 for a moment have entertained a suspicion, without 
 the least pretence of evidence, that the corres- 
 pondence in my " Final Appeal" was a fabrication ; 
 a " CLUMSY CONTRIVANCE" of my own, that I 
 might make a parade of answering such arguments 
 in Mr. Roscoe's Pope as I deemed answerable, 
 and pass over, cunningly > such as I was convinced 
 admitted of no reply ! This despicable insinuation, 
 the folly of which will be seen in the ensuing pages, 
 is all the thanks I got for entering the field of 
 controversy in the fairest, and most honourable 
 manner ; that is, at a great expense, and with dul- 
 ness enough to sink my mum work, giving my 
 opponent the advantage of first stating his own 
 arguments at large, in his own words, and then 
 subjoining my reply ! 
 
 You know the plain fact ; but to strike at the 
 root of such insinuations, which could proceed 
 from none but the basest and meanest of mankind, 
 I shall relate the circumstances as they occurred 
 relative to this correspondence. They are as follow. 
 
 I called on a literary friend in Bath, and the 
 moment I entered the room, he told me that he 
 had -'just been writing a long letter to me,' 9 
 which letter lay on the table. I asked, " on what 
 44 subject ?" He said, " he had been reading 
 ** Roscoe's Life of Pope, and found so much re- 
 <% lilting to me in it, and so many opinions of 
 
vii 
 
 "mine, critical and moral, disputed, not very 
 "respectfully, that he had transcribed some of 
 " the chief objections, and meant to have sent 
 " the letter hy the post ; that, supposing I had 
 " not seen Roscoe's edition, I might use my 
 " discretion as to whether I thought his argu- 
 " ments might require any answer! !" I informed 
 him I had not seen Roscoe's edition of Pope ; 
 but from what I had heard of it, I did not think I 
 should give myself any concern about the matter, 
 as I had weighed deliberately all I had said in 
 my edition, and that it was a matter of indifference 
 whether other people agreed with me or not. 
 
 * However,' I continued, ' I would take the letter; 
 c and if I thought Mr. Roscoe's observations en- 
 
 * titled to any answer, I would send the identical 
 ^letter to the Printer, with my answer subjoined ; 
 ' and I added, as he had begun, I should be fur- 
 
 * ther obliged to him, should any thing more in 
 
 * Roscoe's work concerning me occur, if he would 
 
 * extract it. f On reading the first letter, I thought 
 it necessary to answer the extracts it contained, 
 and put it as it was written into the Printer's 
 hands ; the other letters followed ; and this the 
 Printer can testify. 
 
 This plain statement will be quite sufficient, to 
 shew the ground of that ingenuous insinuation* 
 worthy the defender of the stratagem of Pope in 
 regard to his letters that my correspondence was 
 
Vlil 
 
 * c a clumsy contrivance" of my own, that only 
 those passages should be selected from Roscoe's 
 edition which I thought most easy to answer!!! 
 
 When the reader has remarked my answer to 
 " the well-observing" Roscoe, on the character of 
 Bufo, he will judge whether any thing was con. 
 cealed, from conscious inability to meet such an 
 arguer! 
 
 All I ever wished was a fair unprejudiced hear- 
 ing; whether I shall obtain that, in my life, I know 
 not. I have been so long condemned by a 
 particular, inveterate party, that I cannot suffer 
 what is here said to go before the public, without 
 returning my thanks to those Gentlemen con- 
 cerned with the periodical press, who, having seen 
 how unjustly I have been attacked on one side, by 
 unprincipled exaggerations, and unfairly met, on 
 the other, by the most despicable evasions, have, 
 whenever occasion offered, spoken as they felt. 
 With every wish for the health, welfare, and 
 happiness of yourself and family, and prayer of 
 added years to ALL, believe me most truly, 
 
 W, L. BOWLES. 
 
 Bremhill,Jan.7,lS26. 
 
TO THE PUBLIC, 
 
 THE Public may well be tired of any thing 
 tiibre on the subject of Pope, or his Poetry ! 
 I hoped my " Final Appeal" would have been 
 indeed "final" but Mr. Roscoe has thought it 
 right to send into the world something in the 
 shape of an answer, in a Letter addressed to me. 
 Though it may be objected that I have " more 
 " last words" as I said I should take no further 
 notice, unless Mr. Roscoe chose to reply, I am 
 now compelled again, and assuredly for the LAST 
 time, to expose his tissue of irrelevancies, shallow 
 sophisms, artful evasions, unjust reflections, and 
 flippant personalities, which he has brought for- 
 ward under the name of a reply to arguments 
 which he could not better answer. 
 
 To give the public an idea of the chief 
 topics of Mr. Roscoe's Letter addressed to me, on 
 the subject of my " Final Appeal" relative to 
 
11 
 
 Pope, &c. it may be necessary to premise a few 
 explanatory circumstances. 
 
 The objects in dispute, as far as they are promi- 
 nent in his Letter, are few. No argument is met 
 fairly ; and his whole Letter appears to be a 
 vehicle of disappointed irritation ; a feeble effort to 
 wound personal feelings, where argument and 
 common sense foil him, 
 
 On this account, he has revived Lord Byron's 
 satire, in which I am accused of " envy, hatred, 
 i( and malice /" On this account, he has occu- 
 pied seven or eight pages, with splenetic obser- 
 vations on a piece of satire written by myself 
 solely in consequence of insulting provocations. 
 Of the origin and cause of this piece of satire, 
 Mr. Roscoe, most ingenuously, says not a word, 
 that he might fix intemperance and acrimony on 
 me, when he knew that the origin was simply this. 
 His " j?idus Achates" the late Mr. Gilchrist, 
 among other opprobrious reflections, had declared, 
 that those Poems, which Mr Roscoe, in the supe- 
 riority of his erudition and taste, calls " sentimental 
 " sonnets 9 ' were " the superstratum of innate 
 " vulgarity !" of which innate vulgarity, he who 
 never knew me must be a consummate judge ! and 
 as if his decision, supposing him competent to 
 judge, ought to be admitted as infallible as that of 
 a certain Beau Nash, arbiter elegantiarum at 
 Bath ! ! And then be it further asked, what 
 
... 
 
 Ill 
 
 has this to do with the question of Pope ? In 
 answer to so flippant and irrelevant a remark, I 
 observed, that, on this particular occasion, I would 
 leave my <c sentimental sonnets," and try what I 
 could do in the satiric line, for no better subject 
 could be given than himself! ! 
 
 I then wrote the lines which have caused such 
 anxious inquiry in Mr. Roscoe, as to who can 
 be the " dark reviler," the " vile miscreant !" and 
 to whom the " fiendish claws/* and the " fiendish 
 " character" can apply, which I applied first to an 
 anonymous reviler who made Reviews vehicles of 
 personal abuse, and in particular to him, by name* 
 who was the intemperate one of these revilers ! With 
 wonderful powers of invention, and equal justice 
 and chanty, Mr. Roscoe applies the character to 
 myself, who never was a reviewer, and never 
 dealt in calumnies ! 
 
 The impotence of anger, which has gratuitously 
 revived Lord Byron's severe verses, and the tri- 
 umphant parade with which Mr. Roscoe has again 
 trumped up lines of satiric retaliation, written under 
 feelings of provocation at the moment, and long by 
 me forgotten, I leave the reader to appreciate. 
 
 But as Mr. Roscoe, for no other reason than as 
 he hopes to inflict a wound on me, has not suffered 
 even the peaceful grave to interpose its awful 
 silence on conflicting passions, it may be necessary 
 to explain, though as briefly as possible, some of 
 
IV 
 
 the circumstances in the controversy, which led to 
 any severity of retaliation on my part. 
 
 I must, therefore, solicit the reader's attention, 
 very unwillingly, to an extract of a letter from the 
 late unfortunate Eidtor of the London Magazine, 
 in which appeared the first outrageous attack on my 
 character as a man, and my feelings as a Christian 
 Minister. 
 
 u London, -^ 
 
 " I have Felt anxious to address you in my 
 " private capacity, to express my regret, that, on two 
 "several occasions, I have been compelled to admit, 
 " as Editor, communications of correspondents, who 
 " take different views of your literary merit than what 
 "I entertain, and HAVE LONG ENTERTAINED! 
 " But, in a review of Spence's Anecdotes, &c. the 
 "article SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, had 
 " I not been dangerously ill at the time." 
 
 This Gentleman was an entire stranger;* and 
 the writer of the article on my Life of Pope, 
 which he " would not have admitted, had he not 
 " been on the bed of sickness," was his own parti- 
 cular friend ! The reader will judge of the original 
 provocation by this fact alone. 
 
 A misunderstanding having afterwards taken 
 place between Mr. Scott, the then Editor of the 
 London Magazine, and myself, respecting a per- 
 
 * Except having accidentally seen him at Mr. Moore's 
 lodgings) for five minutes. 
 
mission to allude to his testimony, which he con- 
 ceded to me, formally and unrestrictively, as can 
 be proved by a second letter ; a third letter was 
 got up between him and Mr. Roscoe's Achates, in 
 apparent contradiction of all he had said before. 
 This letter Mr. Gilchrist published, and quo 
 animo must be apparent. As Mr. Roscoe has, 
 in so ingenuous and manly a manner, revived Lord 
 Byron's satire, for want of better arguments, he 
 may be glad to revive this letter ; and if such 
 expedients may stand him or his cause in any 
 stead, he is welcome to them ; but the public wiJJ. 
 judge of the hopelessness of a cause supported by 
 such means! 
 
 I have most unwillingly alluded to these facts, 
 hoping that every thing that passed between 
 me and Mr. Gilchrist, now the grave has closed 
 upon him, would have been forgotten : and so fa,r 
 were any unkind feelings from my heart, that the 
 moment I heard he was no more, I wrote to my 
 then booksellers, Messrs. Longman and Co. re- 
 questing them TO DESTROY ANY PUBLICATION OF 
 
 MINE, in which, though but in retaliation, I had 
 
 SPOKEN OF HIM WITH DISRESPECT, that NO RE- 
 MEMBRANCE, ON MY PART, OF LITERARY HOSTI- 
 LITY, should remain, but be for ever buried in the 
 grave with him who caused it. 
 
 This was the purport of my letter, of the truth 
 
kf 
 
 VI 
 
 of which I have no doubt those respectable Gentle* 
 men would give evidence. 
 
 The remembrance of these forgotten bickerings, 
 Mr. Roscoe, for apparent reasons, chooses to revive; 
 forgetful how little it can affect me, who have only 
 ia plain story to tell. 
 
 Mr. Roscoe, then, will in vain resort to the 
 hardiness of assertion, that / have scattered the 
 dirt about with so liberal a hand, that, in my 
 " hatred to Pope, I have sought to daub with this 
 " adhesive material his defenders ;" when the very 
 reverse of this is the truth, as Mr, Roscoe knows. 
 
 Except in the single case of outrageous provoca- 
 tion, I defy him to bring forward ONE SENTIMENT 
 ^-ONE SENTENCE ONE WORD, which a Gentleman 
 would not use to a Gentleman. 
 
 I have already quoted an extract from the letter 
 of the late unfortunate and lamented Editor of the 
 London Magazine. 
 
 On the last letter of Mr. Gilchrist, which 
 charges me with duplicity and falsehood, I made 
 no remarks whatever, having for once exposed such 
 a " mode of controversy" as he the friend, the Fidus 
 Achates, of Mr. Roscoe, thought fit to adopt ; and 
 turning with scorn from the man who said I ac- 
 cused Pope of an attempt to commit a rape, and 
 who called Dr. Warton " a dead schoolmaster ! !** 
 
 I condescended to notice some of his first scurri- 
 lities, and unfortunately attributed to the same 
 
vii 
 
 hand a piece of criticism in the Quarterly Review, 
 
 but beyond this, I defy the ONLY DEFENDER of 
 
 personal scurrilities to prove that in all my 
 
 I/ writings, and even controversies, having answered 
 
 \ % * Mr. Brougham, Mr. Campbell, and Lord Byron, 
 
 
 
 * / I ever uttered ONE WORD of bitterness or UNKIND- 
 NESS or even incivility. 
 
 In conclusion I should be most happy to avail 
 myself of any opportunity, manfully or ingenuously 
 to confess where I have been wrong, totally regard- 
 less of any reasonings of Mr. Roscoe. 
 
 I now come to the notable piece of criticism, in 
 the front of the Quarterly Review, No. 64, in the 
 year 1825, in the article on Roscoe's Edition of 
 Pope's Works. 
 
 This article, ostensibly on Mr. Roscoe's edition 
 of Pope, contains very little on that subject, a great 
 deal on other Editors, and most of all on Bowles 
 il in particular." 
 
 Mr. Bowles, therefore, being the only one of 
 those Editors living, and having been so particu- 
 larly distinguished, feels himself " particularly" 
 called upon to meet the more redoubtable critic, 
 who succeeds the weak and angry Roscoe. 
 
Vlil 
 
 The edition of Pope which has my name was 
 published nearly twenty years ago. 
 
 I need not detail the circumstances that led me, 
 as a pupil of the late Dr. Warton, the previous 
 editor, to engage in this undertaking. 
 
 This edition of Pope passed muster very well 
 when it was published. It contained many original 
 and some most interesting letters. For the notes 
 on the poetry, praise, however "faint" has been 
 given by this reviewer; but my hostility to the poet's 
 moral character is "still unaccountable." And 
 the review closes a series of abuse, more or less ran- 
 corous, on my edition, and on me " m particular!!" 
 
 My only gentlemanly opponents were Mr. 
 Campbell and Lord Byron. I do not speak of 
 Lord Byron's satire, but of his letter to Mr. 
 Murray : and such opponents Mr. Roscoe classes 
 with a reptile, who took advantage of his friend's 
 illness to crawl out, and pollute with poisonous 
 slime the page of a most respectable periodical 
 publication ? 
 
 The Quarterly now opened its first battery. Of 
 the battle I shall say nothing, and I shall pass over 
 the little personalities relating to the "family of 
 "the Bowks' s"* who talked about " NATURE for 
 " three thousand years !" Cne of that family has 
 since shaken hands with this Quarterly Reviewer, 
 
 * It was on this account 1 attributed it to Gilchrist. 
 
ix 
 
 lias partaken his salt, forgotten what was said disre- 
 spectfully of the " BOWLES'S/' and wishes him sin- 
 cerely long health and leisure in his interesting 
 literary pursuits, which have added to the stock of 
 public instruction and amusement ; and may he have 
 no further " quarrel" with any of the family of the 
 Bowles's, or any one else, as long as he lives ! 
 
 I allude to these circumstances reluctantly, and 
 have hitherto avoided doing so as much as possible; 
 but my opponents have so leagued a literary 
 cause with incessant personalities, I am in some 
 measure compelled to say thus much, that the 
 reader also may better understand the connection 
 of the causes which led to the most acrimonious 
 part of the contest, and judge, from facts, of 
 the treatment 1 have received, and given in return. 
 This brief history is, on the present occasion, 
 the more necessary, as the Reviewer has recurred 
 to some expressions of mine, with an affected 
 sarcasm on the treatment in the controversy with 
 Lord Byron, with which " I seemed delighted." 
 
 I will say, such a contest with such a mind, in 
 comparison with the vulgarity which I had before 
 experienced from " him of the London," was 
 delightful; and I will explain the reason. 
 
 Lord Byron alluded to some tale, I know not 
 what of my early years it was in bad taste. I 
 am ignorant, to this day, of the circumstance to 
 which he alluded j but I suppose I was not more 
 
free from youthful indiscretions than many better 
 and wiser men. I smiled at his Lordship's enter- 
 taining illustration of my ideas, of the minute 
 descriptions of external nature, by his exemplifica- 
 tion, from poor Sheridan, of Whitbread's descrip- 
 tion of the Phoenix, who, as Sheridan related the 
 story, described " his Phcenix like a poulterer ! !" 
 
 I paid in kind an illustration of my temper, 
 which he brought from a sensitive DOCTOR on 
 board a ship ; but I was conscious that I had the 
 advantage of the argument, and even those who 
 thought I must succumb under such a powerful 
 hand, admitted I had " thrown light on the 
 " subject." 
 
 In this contest, with such a person as Lord 
 Byron, all was light, airy, and good-humoured, on 
 his part. Lord Byron, as a man of genius, never 
 took paltry advantages, by quibbling about words. 
 
 The most irksome and irritating kind of con- 
 troversy is to be engaged with an etourdi, who does 
 not, and cannot be made to perceive the main 
 bearing of your arguments, but seizes on some 
 corner, thinks he gains advantage by verbal quib- 
 bling, and instead of stating clearly tangible ideas, 
 gets up a heap of words, elaborately and confusedly, 
 which you cannot understand, and which he does 
 not understand himself. 
 
 So true it is, 
 " Your true no meaning puzzles more tlan sense." 
 
XI 
 
 From all this mode of warfare Lord Byron 
 was clear. His sound understanding was above 
 cavilling. 
 
 It is no wonder, then, having been assailed 
 by the muddy missiles of such a niind as that 
 possessed by him, whom Roscoe would unite as 
 my opponent with Lord Byron and Mr. Camp- 
 bell, that, with minds such as theirs, controversy 
 itself was delightful. 
 
 Lastly, 1 could not be insensible to the advantage 
 in having Lord Byron for my antagonist, by being 
 able to get a hearing ! Though I cannot suppose 
 that my answer was half so extensively read as his 
 Letter, yet the sale was rapid, and the answer was 
 read, which alone was of service to me. 
 
 I must here do willing justice to the publisher 
 of Lord Byron's Letter. 
 
 In the most prompt manner, Mr. Murray con- 
 sented to publish my answer, and to this circum- 
 stance, likewise, I must attribute considerable 
 success in the dispersion : and I also must add, that, 
 as far as the publisher of Lord Byron's Letters was 
 concerned, I always experienced from him the 
 utmost fairness of conduct, and urbanity of man- 
 ners. Some raillery in the following pages, I trust 
 he will forgive. 
 
 I shall pass over some minor antagonists, and a 
 
Xll 
 
 little bush-fighting, till we come to Roscoe, the 
 Member of the Academy of Delia Crusca at 
 Florence, armed at all points, with a Mouse and 
 Frog rampant, on his shield, for supporters, and a 
 lance of a Bullrush, and a Cucumber for his crest, 
 in defence of a degraded poet, and his peerless 
 princess. 
 
 As to poetry, the " invariable principles" every 
 attack has made stronger. The fundamental posi- 
 tions were not so much respecting NATURE and 
 ART, as PASSIONS! and Roscoe's attack only shews 
 that these principles are not only invariable, but 
 invulnerable. 
 
 Leaving, therefore, Mr. Roscoe, I proceed to 
 take up the gauntlet of the Reviewer, with the con- 
 sciousness of being somewhat unworthily treated ; 
 yet not unconscious, also, of my own strength, 
 aud the justice of my cause. 
 
 In the mean time, I have only to say to the 
 reader, 
 
 For us, and this our " controversy," 
 
 Here stooping to jour clemency, 
 
 We beg your hearing patiently ! 
 
 There is one point on which I earnestly solicit 
 the candour of the reader. 
 
 The Pope-pollution defenders first arraigned 
 me for imputing any sentiments to him, but those of 
 
Xlll 
 
 Virtuous purity ; and when I am absolutely obliged 
 in self-defence, to bring forward passages which I 
 should not otherwise have thought of producing 
 before the public, they turn round and accuse me 
 of indulging in the gratification of fishing for 
 such filth ! 
 
 Their own obstinacy forces the ungrateful task 
 on me, and then I am arraigned on a fresh charge. 
 
 I never should have quoted the passage from 
 Pope's letter to Lady Mary, if I had not been com- 
 pelled to shew the daringness of their denial. 
 
 For the passages of this kind, which they them- 
 selves have forced out, I ask no candour of them. 
 I know well enough what to expect from such 
 pollution defenders; but I throw myself on the 
 candour of every fair-judging and liberal mind. 
 
 Who brought into the full blaze of light Pope's 
 most disgusting impurities ? His DEFENDERS 1 
 Who caused the obscene Imitation of Horace, of 
 which I said not one word in my Life of Pope, to 
 be brought into such infamous publicity ? Pope's 
 DEFENDERS ! Who forced out the specimens 
 some of which were too scandalous to be printed, 
 even in self-defence who forced out these speci- 
 mens of his decency to married and unmarried 
 women? His DEFENDERS ! Who dragged all his 
 frailties most glaringly into light? His later stupid 
 his besotted his hypocritical and his BLIND O r* f 
 DEFENDERS ! ! ! although their insane resentment 
 
 XTNIVERS 
 
XIV 
 
 constantly recoils on themselves, and gives me, 
 whom they vainly try to overwhelm, fresh advan- 
 tages at every step ; and instead of overwhelming 
 mo, has overwhelmed themselves, by giving me 
 the advantage of consigning them to contempt and 
 ridicule, as will be confirmed in the following pages! 
 
 " Lot the gall'cl jades wince, 
 " Our withers are unwrung ! !" 
 
 Hamlet. 
 
 Brcmliill, Nov. 15/7/, 
 
LETTERS 
 
 TO 
 
 WILLIAM ROSCOE, ESQ. F.R.S 
 
 MEMBER OF THE BELLA CRUSCA SOCIETY OF FLORENCE, AND 
 ASSOCIATE OF THE FIRST CLASS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY 
 OF LITERATURE IN ENGLAND. 
 
A LETTER, &c. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 I sincerely regret that I feel myself 
 obliged to add to that character for " pertinacity," 
 which you have ascribed to me, by making some 
 reply to the public letter J have had the honour of 
 receiving from you. 
 
 If it be " pertinacious" not to submit to have 
 sentiments attributed to me, which I disavow ; if 
 it be " pertinacious" to reply to unsubstantial argu- 
 ments ; I fear you will think me as " pertinacious" 
 as ever. 
 
 Yet, however stealing years may admonish me 
 of "discretion" I am not aware of any " extra- 
 " ordinary'* manner in which I have " carried on 
 " controversies" but I am aware of the " extra - 
 " ordinary" manner in which controversies have 
 been carried on towards myself. 
 
 As to "vexation" or "disadvantages," to be 
 " vexed" I must have felt that I deserved the per- 
 
sonal abuse I have received ; and as to " disadvan- 
 " tage" I could feel none, when Lord Byron, and 
 still less Mr. Roscoe, puffing like Falstaff after the 
 battle was over, could not shake those principles 
 which I laid down as the basis of appreciating the 
 V highest character of poetry. 
 
 The " 'vexation 99 and sense of " disadvantage" 
 are confined to your own breast ; and I suspect that 
 what I have to say will not tend to lessen them ; I 
 am at least relieved from any further apprehension 
 of giving pain to a Gentleman, whom I sincerely 
 wished to respect. 
 
 I shall not here stoop to make any comparison 
 between the " extraordinary 99 treatment in this 
 contest which / have received) but at once set 
 before the public a specimen of your superior 
 " courtesy," and fairness of argument ! 
 
 With the eagerness of insult, you seize the first 
 passage on which you can ha"ng a disingenuous 
 piece of personality, and say you have seldom 
 seen any thing so " pathetic !" 
 
 With the same generous purpose you gratui- 
 tously revive conscious of your own impotence 
 Lord Byron's bitterest lines; and with equal man- 
 liness of feeling, and happiness of invention, devote 
 seven pages of a two shilling pamphlet to decide 
 the impoKtent question, whether to myself are not 
 most applicable some verses written under a sense 
 of provocation, and undeserved insult, of which 
 
provocation you take care not to say one word ; 
 manifesting an equal regard to the justice, as to the 
 happiness, of the application ! 
 
 In the course of your letter, your mildest desig- 
 nation of me is, that I am a writer of " sentimental 
 " sonnets :" And it would not be believed by any 
 liberal and honourable mind, that, merely because I 
 said, in my " Final Appeal," that a " resident 
 " Clergyman'* hadmore important occupations than 
 criticisms, my opponent gives to the writer of 
 " sentimental sonnets" the more " degrading" 
 appellation of " resident Clergyman ! I" 
 
 Now, Sir, if I am not mistaken, before he lays 
 down his pen, the " writer of sentimental sonnets" 
 will give the " writer of the Life of Lorenzo, 
 " the member of the Delia Crusca Society of 
 " Florence !" aye, " and the associate of the 
 " FIRST CLASS of the Royal Society of Litera- 
 ture," a lesson which he will remember during 
 the remainder of his life ! The " resident Cler- 
 " gyman of the Church of England" will only point 
 out a text, which, it is apparent, the writer of the 
 letter to W. L. B. has never properly reflected 
 upon recommending him not to " strain at 
 " GNATS, and swallow CAMELS !" not to speak 
 with respect of a coarse assailant, and to reserve all 
 his contumelious missiles for that just severity of 
 language, which nothing but vulgar personalities 
 and direct falsehoods extorted ! 
 
As far as self is concerned, I must beg pardon 
 of every generous mind for obtruding that which 
 is imposed on me ; but I must do it, however reluc- 
 tantly, rather than submit to the daring insinuation 
 that I ever uttered a word of severity in contro- 
 versy, except such as aggression and obloquy wrung 
 from me ; and this only in the case of one man, 
 whose conduct you defend, and whose example, 
 with an under tone, you copy. On the contrary, 
 I have spoken of you, Sir, not only with courtesy, 
 but with sincere respect and kindness. Some 
 raillery on Chess-Men, Mice and Frogs and a 
 smile respecting the annotations of Dr. Solomon, 
 of Liverpool, on the Syphilis, might, I should 
 hope, be pardoned, for no one could answer such 
 arguments gravely. I have shewn something of your 
 *' extraordinary" MODE of literary controversy" 
 in return.* 
 
 Having thus set before the reader a sample of 
 your courtesy, leaving for the present minor parts, 
 
 * The happiness of applying to me the description of 
 a " FIEND" is surely an ample retaliation for my little joke 
 about the annotations of Dr. Solomon, of Liverpool j who 
 was celebrated for his treatment of a very foul malady, 
 the " unfavourable subject" of a very elegant Poem ! 
 It may not be un-appropriate to add, that this celebrated 
 Doctor had his " Temple of Fame}' at Gilead Hall, 
 surmounted by the figure of the Goddess, whose head 
 was gilt like a pill, having the Syphilis in one hand, 
 and the annotations in the other the emblem of the 
 " SUBLIME" in a certain School of Poetry. 
 
I shall set also before him the following specimens 
 of your fairness and honourable dealing in 
 argument ! 
 
 I had quoted an indelicate passage from one of 
 Pope's letters to Lady Mary, but referred to the 
 wrong letter. Oh ! cries Mr. Roscoe, it is not in 
 the letter referred to ! Trus. " I acknowledged 
 " my error" as to not having quoted the right 
 letter: but I only mistook one of Pope's letters 
 for another!* I then pointed out the real letter in 
 the same volume, quoted the passage about " taking 
 " off shifts" &c., and added, that I was " JUSTI- 
 " FIED in all I said" as to the fact, though I mis- 
 took one letter for another! You stated there was 
 no such passage in the letter referred to, and then 
 quote part of my answer. 
 
 " To this Mr. Bowles replies," 
 
 " I am sorry to be guilty of an oversight ; but this was 
 " inadvertently occasioned by mistaking one letter for 
 ' another. I concede, therefore, that what Mr. Roscoe 
 " says is just as to there not being a suppression of any 
 " gross passage in the letter to which I alluded. If the 
 " oversight had been pointed out, 1 should instantly 
 " have acknowledged it, with every expression of 
 " regret that I had made the mistake." 
 
 So far so good. But here you stop short, art- 
 
 * Dallaway's Edition of Lady Mary W. Montagu's 
 Letters, vol. ii. page 135. This is the letter to which I 
 ought to have referred 1 referred to the first letter of 
 Pope to Lady Mary, in this volume, instead of the third. 
 
6 
 
 fully avoiding to say a syllable of my having " de- 
 " clared that I was substantially justified ;" for 
 it affected Pope just as much, whether I had 
 mistaken one letter for another, or not ! ! And 
 you take care not to say a word about the indecorous 
 passage ! Here, however, it is again to front and 
 to shame you. 
 
 " Let us be like modest people, who, when they are 
 " close together, keep ALL decorums j but if they step a 
 *' little aside, or get to the other side of the room, can 
 " UNTIE garters, or TAKE OFF SHIFTS, without 
 " scruple!"* Dallaway's editionX Lady M. W, Mon- 
 tague's letter, vol. ii. page 135. 
 
 Like a fox that endeavours to puzzle the scent, 
 you speak with artful ambiguity of this same 
 f< formidable attack on Pope ;" and leave it to be 
 inferred that, by "my acknowledgment of error,** 
 Pope stood quite clear of the charge of indelicacy 
 and indecency attributed to him { 
 
 Note. If the reader compares letter %l in my edition, 
 volume vii. with the 3d letter from Pope to Lady Mary, 
 in Dallaway, beginning with " I no more think I can have/* 
 he will clearly understand this honourable treatment of an 
 honourable adversary ! In this letter is the passage, which 
 is omitted by Pope and Curll ! I would request those wh 
 have my edition of Pope, to mark the erratum foy 
 letter 1st, read letter 3d, vol. ii. Dallaway. 
 
 * What does the reader think of the decorous poet's 
 " serious" request to the same young married lady, to pro- 
 cure for him " a Fair Circassian ?" Page 282, voj. ii ? 
 Dallaway. 
 
By "formidable attack," it seems evident you 
 have not forgotten the charge made by the blind 
 hostility of your oracle, that because I said " Pope 
 " might have gone a step beyond decorum, I ac- 
 " cused him of an ATTEMPT TO COMMIT a rape ! !" 
 This is the manner in which my hostility to Pope 
 is proved by your defender of "calumniated 
 " worth!" 
 
 Your ingenuousness in omitting all mention of 
 the existence of the indecent passage, all mention of 
 my having said that I was "justified," putting for- 
 ward an indefinite charge " of 'formidable attack" 
 when you knew there was no formidable attack at 
 all, is so much in character with him whose dupli- 
 city you defend, that I shall leave the comment to 
 the generous feelings of every upright mind ! 
 
 A Friend of mine, of most eminent literary 
 talents, recommended me to publish only this one 
 instance of your honourable dealing in the News- 
 papers, as a reason for declining any contest with a 
 person capable of such deliberate deception ! I 
 have, however, thought it right, as your Letter 
 betrays such a spirit of bitterness, to expose further, 
 for this once, not only your evasion, but, as the 
 reader will see in the sequel, your sacred regard 
 for truth, and your amusing illustrations of my 
 poetical code I ! 
 
 But I must not omit another instance of equally 
 happy evasion, in this part of your letter. 
 
8 
 
 You tell me, that I proceed to explain the causes 
 that led me to make (what you call) so " FORMI- 
 " DABLE ATTACK on Pope, and the Lady in ques- 
 " tion," (adding) that, " however they might 
 " JUSTIFY ME in MY OWN ESTIMATION, they have 
 " no concern in the QUESTION AT ISSUE, and you 
 " shall therefore leave me in possession of all the 
 " advantages I can derive from it !" 
 
 Now I assert in answer, that you know very 
 well, that these " causes" (the mistaking one letter 
 for another) HAD EVERY THING TO DO WITH 
 THE QUESTION, the question being this, whether, 
 when such delicacy appeared in a letter to a 
 young married lady, an inference might not fairly 
 be drawn as to the origin of the quarrel between 
 Pope and Lady Mary, and that she might have been 
 subsequently offended by some trespass against 
 decorum, on his part, which he might never have 
 forgiven !* 
 
 He never did forgive her, whether this were 
 the cause of the animosity or not ! 
 
 I must also make some remark on your expres- 
 sions, that <e I may be justified in my own estima- 
 " tion /" I have not the least fear, after this plain 
 account, of being " JUSTIFIED in the ESTIMATION'* 
 of every upright and manly mind; and that the 
 
 * Remark ! The Lady at all events was cleared from 
 my imputation, and therefore my "formidable attack" is 
 against her ! Bravo ! mon Ami! 
 
condemnation will fall on wilful suppression, and 
 pitiful evasion ! 
 
 The "formidable attack" on the Gentleman 
 and Lady, forsooth, whom the manly critic 
 steps forth on this occasion to defend I have 
 just spoken of; but I must note one or two more 
 instances of your ingenuousness, before I quit this 
 part of your letter. 
 
 You say, triumphantly, there is no such passage 
 in the letter to which I first referred, in Dalla- 
 way's, and you add, " the only indelicate passage 
 "in the letter pointed out is in MR. BOWLES'S 
 " and the former EDITORS' !" 
 
 MR. BOWLES therefore stands in FRONT of these 
 offenders! Who were those FORMER EDITORS? 
 MR. POPE himself, and his FRIEND and executor 
 WARBURTON ! ! 
 
 Would it not have been as well to have said 
 " MR. POPE and all Editors," instead of " MR. 
 " BOWLES and the former Editors ! !" 
 
 MR. BOWLES would have been ' a clerical prig," 
 indeed, if, having undertaken an edition of Pope, 
 he had presumed to omit what MR. POPE was not 
 ashamed to retain!* 
 
 * We will set before the reader this passage, that he may 
 better understand it. It is presumed the passage to which 
 Mr. Roscoe alludes is as follows : Letter in Pope, page 20, 
 Dallaway, letter 1st: 
 
 " I must be content to shew my taste in life, as I do my 
 " taste in poetry, by having as little drapery as possi- 
 
 OFTHIV 
 OF 
 
10 
 
 But if "Mr." Pope did not suppress the passage 
 which " Mr." Roscoe probably alluded to, as given 
 by "MR. BOWLES %&& former Editors," there is 
 another passage in this same letter which " Mr." 
 Pope did suppress, or to which some well-known 
 lines in the Epistle to " Abelard" might be a 
 comment! 
 
 The " celebrated" poet might well say, " non 
 *' defensoribus istis /" What have you gained by 
 this wretched duplicity ? You have drawn the at" 
 tention to one letter of Pope, ari9 from this one let- 
 ter I shew six things, 1st, That the alterations are 
 material, not "slight" as you pretend ! 2dly 9 That 
 Pope had a " MOTIVE" for these alterations, which 
 you denied ! Sdly, You have forced out again the 
 indelicate passage which condemns Pope and his 
 
 " ble ! Not that I think every body naked so fine a sight 
 " as yourself, and a few others, would be, but because it is 
 " gone to use people to what they must be acquainted 
 "with," &c. 
 
 This was published by MR. POPE, and former Editors, 
 as well as MR. BOWLES; and MR. POPE, also, wrote a 
 commentary on it in verse, which is in his famous imitation 
 of Horace \ 
 
 After describing " a Lady with as little drapery as pos- 
 " sible" in a brothel, he exclaims 
 
 " Her I transported touch, transported view, 
 "And call her Angel Goddess Montagu'." 
 
 To set such manly and honourable conduct in the pro- 
 per light, I am obliged to say more than I wish. 
 
11 
 
 defender ! 4<thly, I have manifested incontrover- 
 tibly Pope's artful suppression! 5 tidy, I have 
 proved that I was perfectly "justified" in all that I 
 charged Pope with, though I mistook the letter ! 
 And sixthly, I have exposed the equal art and 
 evasion of yourself! " Call you this backing your 
 " friends ?" 
 
 One word more. Whether my " conjecture" 
 as to the origin of the Bard's unappeasable animosity 
 to the Lady were right or wrong, I " conjecture" 
 that "future" Editors of Pope will not pass 
 over this instance of ingenuous conduct in one 
 "former Editor." 
 
 There is another point, on which I think there 
 need not be " any conjecture at all'' and that is, 
 the sooner your edition of Pope, and your letter to 
 me, are forgotten, it will be the better for your NAME 
 as an AUTHOR, and your CHARACTER as a MAN ! 
 
 After this exposition of your ingenuous and 
 manly arts in controversy, I might be "justified," 
 according to your own courteous language, " in 
 " saying much more ;" but I suppress the feelings 
 of contempt, to let the plain circumstances speak 
 for themselves. 
 
 Perhaps it might be necessary to set you right 
 in one instance. You think, if I do not answer 
 your arguments, I either cannot, or that I assent 
 to your conclusions. 
 
 All the observations sent to me, concerning 
 
myself, I have answered, giving you the advantage, 
 without any partial suppressionany oblique 
 distortion, of stating fully your own sentiments 
 in your own words ; but I beg to undeceive you, 
 if you suppose for a moment that what I do not 
 answer, I cannot, or that therefore I necessarily 
 assent to your conclusions ! 
 
 With respect to Pope's obligation to Bolingbroke 
 for the philosophy of the Essay on Man, (if such 
 truisms, " as Mans a fool, yet GOD is wise," may 
 be called philosophy,') as you have brought forward 
 what you deem arguments in opposition to such an 
 opinion, it is enough for me that I have Pope's 
 authority on my side, who calls Bolingbroke 
 
 " His GUIDE, PHILOSOPHER, and FRIEND I" 
 
 I need not say a word of the absurdity of 
 attempting to answer such an argument as the 
 following. 
 
 Bolingbroke's Philosophy was not published 
 when Pope wrote his Essay, therefore Pope could 
 learn nothing of him, who had so many years been 
 his Guide or Philosopher ! 
 
 From what school you learnt your philosophy 
 as well as taste in poetry I shall not inquire, but 
 wherever and under what master you learnt these, 
 and your manly arts in controversy, after this 
 exposition I shall have no further contest with 
 SUCH a MIND! 
 
13 
 
 Having set these specimens of your " courtesy" 
 audjairness of reasoning before the reader, I shall 
 here briefly sum up the charges brought against 
 myself. 
 
 I have stood as a kind of culprit before you, 
 who, supported by other solemn and sage Popish 
 inquisitors, have brought forward from ten octavo 
 volumes commenting on them with proper acri- 
 mony the following charges ; that I, " not having 
 " the fear of God before my eyes," in a certain 
 edition of Pope's Works, did " there" maliciously 
 surmise, 
 
 First, That the cause of a great Poet's ran- 
 corous and unappeasable animosity towards a fair 
 Lady, whom he once loved, might be owing, after 
 using indelicate language in letters, to his 
 supposing that he might go a step "farther than 
 " decorum /" that the lady resented this, and the 
 amorous bard never forgave it ! 
 
 Secondly, That the said Editor of Pope, desig- 
 nated by the said Wm. Roscoe a most notorious 
 writer of" sentimental sonnets," and " a Resident 
 " Clergyman of the Church of " England," did 
 admit the error, in the haste of " transcription," 
 of having mistaken one of the said Pope's letters for 
 
14 
 
 another, from which Wm. Roscoe leaves the reader 
 to infer, with equal candour and truth, that W. L. 
 Bowles admitted that he falsely accused the said 
 Pope of writing indecently; when the indecency he 
 alluded to was and is to be seen, not in the letter 
 referred to, but in another in the same volume. 
 
 Thirdly, That in speaking of a particular trans- 
 action, which I professed most solemnly not to 
 believe, I used the expression of a certain noto- 
 rious " IF ;" which is a plain proof that I did 
 believe what I declared I DID NOT ! That, not 
 being sensible of my great wickedness therein, and 
 manifesting no signs of repentance, in defiance 
 of the said inquisitors, and William Roscoe, I have 
 "pertinaciously" and audaciously repeated ano- 
 ther " IF" in their faces. 
 
 Fourthly, That the late Dr. Warton and my- 
 self did not recollect, that when the Epistle on the 
 Character of Ladies was first published by Alex- 
 ander Pope, esq; the characters of " Atossa," 
 &c., were not included, which the defendant 
 humbly acknowledges, on the part of himself, and 
 his late master. 
 
 Fifthly, And whereas a wicked bookseller, 
 one Edmund Curll, did scandalously, as it hath 
 been alleged, publish, without the consent of 
 the said Pope, sundry letters written by the said 
 Pope, W. L. B. was led to believe that said Pope was 
 privy to this publication from various concurring 
 
15 
 
 circumstances, and chiefly because the authentic 
 letters, and those published by Curll, exhibited 
 the same corrections, omissions, and alterations, 
 slight or material, differing in many respects, 
 essentially, from the originals; and W. L. B. con- 
 tinues "pertinaciously" of the same opinion still, 
 notwithstanding Mr. Roscoe has devised a most 
 ingenious way of accounting for such alterations, 
 namely, "variations in transcribing;" which vari- 
 ations, like the bed of Proscrustes, are made to 
 suit the short and the long, and equally to account 
 for slight verbal alterations, and for whole letters 
 re-mamifactured, and elaborately compounded! ! 
 
 Furthermore, W. Roscoe not having answered 
 any of the arguments adduced by W. L. B. in sup- 
 port of his belief, \V. L. B. doth now " pertina- 
 " ciously" and openly declare, that if he ought to 
 be considered a great fool for admitting the evi- 
 dence that weighed with him in forming the 
 opinion that Alexander Pope was privy to the 
 clandestine publication of these letters, he must be 
 a much greater fool to be convinced by W. Ros- 
 coe's proofs to the contrary, however decisive they 
 might appear to himself. 
 
 Sixthly > That in printing a certain " narra- 
 *' tive," first in part, and secondly entire, the said 
 irreclaimable culprit exhibited the most manifest 
 duplicity, and hath not " VENTURED TO 
 " DENY" that he did absolutely, in the words of 
 
16 
 
 Mr. Roscoe, " substitute one document" for ano- 
 ther ; which he did, and does, indignantly deny ; 
 that the document, partly published in the 
 seventh volume of defendant's Tope, is not the 
 document he promised to publish ; which W. L. 
 B. upon his oath, if required, averreth it is, and 
 could be no other ! 
 
 Seventh, That the said defendant did attempt to 
 " degrade" the moral as well as poetical character 
 of the said Pope. As to the moral character, Mr. 
 Roscoe admits he, A. P. published a most profligate 
 piece of obscenity ;* and he W. L. B. averreth that 
 he, the said Pope, frequently wrote obscene notes 
 and verses to ladies, particularly some libertine 
 verses, addressed to Teresa Blount, and letters 
 containing various indecencies, unmeet for a young 
 lady's eyes, addressed to herself and her sister, too 
 gross to be printed in this refined age.t The 
 
 * Not published in youth, when he might have said 
 " lusisse pudet !" 
 
 f I earnestly desire it to be remembered, that, in speak- 
 ing of these undeniable circumstances, in my Life of Pope, 
 I abstained from every expression of direct censure, be- 
 cause I thought it ILLIBERAL to CONDEMN any man from 
 UNPUBLISHED writings ! ! And now the drivelling inqui- 
 sitors impudently turn round and say, " T am the last man 
 " in the world who ought to speak of indecencies of the 
 " kind," seeing that I made every charitable apology I 
 could think of in my Life of Pope! There was enough 
 to convict him of the grossest obscenity in his own pub- 
 lished works ! 
 
17 
 
 said W. L. B. hath also wickedly endeavoured to 
 "degrade" the moral character of the said Alex- 
 ander Pope, because when the said Martha Blount, 
 now in her grave nearly one hundred years, do- 
 mesticated with the same correct and most delicate 
 poet, (without saying that " the connection was 
 " criminal,") ventured to suppose the connec- 
 tion was not so pure as a certain panegyrist of this 
 pure bard would have us imagine* 
 
 Eighth, But not only has this culprit endea- 
 voured to "degrade" the moral character; he 
 equally endeavoured to "degrade" the " poetical" 
 character of Pope, by assigning to him a rank in 
 his art below Shakespeare, and Milton, and Spenser! 
 The said Editor adheres to this opinion, from the 
 nature of Pope's general subjects, which are chiefly 
 satires and moral pieces, and which the said W. L. 
 B. opines cannot, by any genius, be placed so high 
 in the rank of poetry as those poems which are 
 conversant with human passions; passions such 
 as have been pourtrayed by one William Shake- 
 speare, to whom Mr. Roscoe deemeth Pope equal! 
 That the said Editor has endeavoured to 
 " degrade' the said Pope, as a poet in classing 
 him below Shakespeare, Milton, and Spenser, not- 
 withstanding he, the said W. L. Bowles, has placed 
 him above Dryden, and in so doing, above all the 
 the poets in Johnson's Lives, and also above Ovid, 
 Juvenal, and Horace ! 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 Ninth, That Mr. Roscoe saitli the three most 
 offensive of all Pope's writings have been pub- 
 blished by two Reverend Editors, one of whom 
 is very respectable, (notwithstanding Mr. Roscoe's 
 oracle- that model of controversial courtesy, 
 Octavius Gilchrist called him " a dead school- 
 " master}!" 
 
 That the other Reverend Editor, who has pub- 
 lished two out of the three objectionable pieces, 
 (meaning W. L. B.) is only a writer of " sentimen- 
 " tal sonnets," and " a resident Clergyman of 
 " the Church of England!" 
 
 But this defendant for himself declares, that at 
 least he has rejected with disdain ONE of these 
 offensive POEMS ! As to having admitted the farce 
 
 o 
 
 called " Three Weeks after Marriage" perhaps 
 it might be allowed that *' second thoughts were 
 " best," and that therefore it ought to have been 
 suppressed ; and perhaps my opponent, upon second 
 thoughts might admit, considering how pertinacious 
 the said W. L. B. is, that he, W. R. might have 
 better let him alone ! 
 
 As to the charge of having published the 
 " Double Mistress" the said Editor conceives, 
 that when various Gentlemen and Ladies have read, 
 not what two Reverend Editors, but a Right 
 Reverend Editor and Pope himself admitted into 
 his authentic works, namely, January and 
 May a Certain Imitation of Chaucer Epistle to 
 
19 
 
 AbelardM\& sundry other poems, which are in 
 every library, they need not affect to be very squea- 
 mish if their eyes should happen to glance on 
 a page of the " DOUBLE MISTRESS !" 
 
 Lastly, Whereas the said William Roscoe hath 
 charged the said W. L. Bowles with having " per- 
 " tinaciously" written seven pamphlets ; the said 
 defendant is obliged to say, he does not think he 
 has written one too many, considering the " per- 
 c< tinacity" and absurdity with which he has had to 
 deal ; and he furthermore begs it may be taken into 
 consideration, that in a study, of which, it is pre- 
 sumed, the last Editor knows more than he does of 
 poetical criticism, exactly seven processes are 
 necessary to elicit the truth, namely, 1st, Decla- 
 ration Zd, Plea 3<f, Replication 4tth 9 Rejoin- 
 der 5th. Sur-rejoinder 6//i, Rebutter and 7^/z, 
 Sur-rebutter. The said Editor assures the public, 
 that if he is forgiven this last publication, which 
 may be considered as his sur-sur -rebutter, as long 
 as he lives, he shall take leave of Pope, and all that 
 concerns his works ! 
 
Such, Readers of this controversy, are my delin- 
 quencies ; and a better testimony to the edition of 
 Pope, which goes by my name, I could not wish. 
 I can safely declare that no opinion in that work 
 was ever advanced but upon conscientious and well 
 considered grounds. 
 
 But it is time, having been so long passively on 
 the defensive, to advance, in double quick time, 
 upon the enemy's quarters ! It will not be sup- 
 posed that I shall ferret through the volumes, or 
 any of them, of my opponent, with the invidious 
 purpose of detecting errors, sophistries, mistakes, 
 or opinions at variance with my own. Whatever 
 faults there may be, pace requiescant. I have only 
 looked at what most concerns myself; and set 
 before the public this ex pede Hercukm! 
 
 But, adhering to the faithful extracts, it 
 appears, that if I could not hit upon the ' ' inva- 
 ** riable Principles of Poetry," Mr. Roscoe has$ 
 having proved, from his critical principles, that 
 Pope stands in the same rank as a poet with our 
 great master of human passions, Shakespeare-,* 
 that both William Shakespeare and Alexander 
 
 * And so Henry the Fifth was like Alexander the 
 Great, being born at Monmouth, and there being a river 
 in Monmouth, and a river in Macedon. See Henry Vth* 
 
21 
 
 Pope are frequently " quoted," and that the works 
 of both are " adapted to purposes." What these 
 purposes are, it is not for the profane to inquire ; 
 and I shall resist an involuntary thought as to what 
 " purposes" some other works may be " adapted !" 
 
 But it is not enough, that this equality in poetical 
 rank is ascertained by such an infallible criterion ; 
 Mr. Roscoe has ready at hand several more perti- 
 nent instances to prove his positions ; such as the 
 Battle of Frogs and Mice, the Chess-Men of Vida, 
 &c. all of which, being " in the highest rank of 
 "poetry" so as fitly to class with the ILIAD of 
 Homer, with Paradise Lost, and with certain plays, 
 called Macbeth and Othello, by William Shake- 
 speare, do prove, beyond a doubt, that Pope ought 
 to rank with Homer, and Shakespeare, and Milton, 
 in his poetical character ; which I, not seeing the 
 consequences, have attempted to disprove ! ! 
 
 These critical observations are the very first that 
 occur in the question at issue between Mr. Roscoe 
 and myself. I shall not dive into the critic's Pan- 
 dora's box, to examine whether there may be "a 
 " store" of better stttffbehmd ; but I think the proof 
 here adduced will be thought " quantum suf." of 
 Mr. Roscoe's fitness for a work on criticism, partU 
 cularly to establish the great point, that Pope is 
 equal to Shakespeare ! 
 
 But, 
 
 " Mutemus clypeos, Danauiuque insignia nobis 
 " Ajtemus;" 
 
And here turning with a more decided attitude 
 on my opponent, I may take up somewhat 
 coarser weapons. I shall take up none so coarse 
 as those I might take from my principal aggres- 
 sors ; but if I did, of all men, Mr. Roscoe could 
 not object, seeing that he shews in this letter much 
 of a congenial spirit. 
 
 Your insignificant charges, and quibbling eva- 
 sions, are almost, Sir, beneath notice, as are your 
 silly criticisms ; but the case is different, when an 
 accusation is brought against me, before the public, 
 that I have promised one document, and delibe- 
 rately substituted another ! 
 
 This you say I have " not ventured to deny!" 
 Not ventured to deny? Sir, I DENY IT INDIG- 
 NANTLY ! I HAVE DENIED it proudly and indig- 
 nantly ! ! 
 
 Upon a point of so much importance I must 
 take down your exact words : they are these 
 
 " You have, however, called my attention to another 
 'subject, to which I SHOULD have THOUGHT you 
 
 "COULD NOT HAVE ALLUDED WITHOUT RELUC- 
 
 " TANCE. I mean YOUR suppression of POPE'S NAR- 
 " RATI VE of the method by \\liich his letters had been 
 " published, which you PROMISED tc give in your Ap- 
 pendix; and YOUR SUBSTITUTION of OTHI-R DO.CU- 
 " MENTS in ITS PLACE. THIS CHARGE yon have not 
 " ventured to deny ! !" 
 
 It happens that in my " Final Appeal," page 
 165, are these words : 
 
" As to substitution, I INDIGNANTLY DISCLAIM 
 " a THOUGHT of the KIND ! ! ! This, Sir, you call 
 
 "NOT VENTURING TO DENY ' !" 
 
 I allude, indeed, to this charge with reluctance, 
 not on account of any consciousness of doing what 
 I am charged with, but on account, Sir, of the 
 only answer I am compelled to give ! The above 
 quotation contains two direct FALSEHOODS : the 
 first, that I promised one document, and " sub- 
 " stituted ANOTHER!" And the other, that I 
 have not '* VENTURED to deny this ACCUSATION !'* 
 
 It is FALSE, that I promised to give Pope's 
 Narrative, for I did not know that he had written 
 one AVOWEDLY, as I am now told ! I dare you 
 to the proof, that I ever said I would publish 
 POPE'S NARRATIVE! 
 
 As Pope spoke of a CLANDESTINE collection 
 with a Narrative, I naturally supposed that this 
 collection of 1 7-3.5, with a Narrative, was that 
 collection of which he spoke ! 
 
 The internal evidence, and the reasons which led 
 me to conclude that Pope was privy to Curll's 
 edition of his letters, induced me to believe that 
 he was privy to this surreptitious edition, to which, 
 " the narrative" is appended, and it is s'ngular 
 that no name of any bookseller appears ! 
 
 But whether this be so or not, that document 
 which I promised to give, I did give in part as it 
 
appears in my edition, and subsequently to do 
 away a base imputation I published it entire. 
 
 Will you venture to say, that because, in allud- 
 ing to this document, I call it, in the Life of 
 Pope,* " the account which Curll gave," and in 
 the seventh volume, " a statement of the transac- 
 " tion," that therefore I must mean an entirely 
 different thing ! If you did, I hope MY OATH 
 would go as far as your assertion ! 
 
 You have not even a shadow of proof that I 
 promised one thing, and substituted another ! 
 Besides, I am sure you would have been more par 
 ticular in your description, if you thought you 
 could fix on me an attempt so base, and so easily 
 detected ! 
 
 What must the constitution of that mind be, 
 
 wriJch, without one shadow of proof, could suspect 
 
 another of being capable of such insidious fraud ! 
 
 And, after all, candid reader, remark the 
 
 reasoning ! 
 
 I am accused of " promising" to give " Pope's 
 *' Narrative of the transaction regarding the publica- 
 " tion of the letters," of absolutely " substituting 
 * another document" instead of the document I 
 promised and then this which I have published, 
 is Pope's own narrative ! 
 
 "Quo teneam, formas mutantem, Protea nodo?" 
 
 * It appeared in Curll's edition. Part is retained 
 by Warburton. The greater portion was suppressed, J 
 have no doubt, because it proved TOO MUCH 
 
25 
 
 For thus you account for the words in this nar- 
 rative and in Pope's " authentic preface" being the 
 same ; from whence I drew the conclusion that 
 Pope published the edition, narrative and all. This 
 is my conclusion now ; but in either case, where is 
 the SUBSTITUTION ? I have given a plain and 
 succinct account of all these circumstances, to the 
 best of my power ; but as to the charge of substi- 
 tution it is FALSE!* 
 
 I disdained to reply to this charge, when made 
 by a "respected" friend of yours. From him I 
 have not yet learned the language of controversy, 
 or I should call your conduct " hypocritical and 
 " designing," as having knowingly written what is 
 false. But I do not think so meanly of you. 
 Nevertheless the charge is FALSE, that I ever sub- 
 stituted one document for another; " that I did 
 " not venture 9 ' to deny such a charge, is doubly 
 FALSE ; for I denied it in my Appeal, and I deny 
 it now, boldly, proudly, indignantly. 
 
 When Coke, afterwards lord chief justice, ap- 
 peared as attorney-general against the persecuted 
 Raleigh on his trial, he told him that he was the 
 most impudent man in the whole kingdom ! Ra- 
 
 * I am deeply concerned to have been compelled to use 
 such language to a Gentleman whom I sincerely wished 
 to respect. 1 should not have done so, if this had not been 
 the third time the base charge had been advanced, once by 
 Mr. Roscoe's oracle, and twice by himself. 1 have, there- 
 fore, no alternative but of answering the charge as I have 
 /lone. 
 
26- 
 
 .eigh replied, "that may be a measuring cast 
 between us, Mr. Attorney!" So it shall be a 
 measuring cast, whether you or I are the greatest 
 blockheads, " Mr. Attorney !" but I will not suf- 
 fer you, with impunity to lay -to my charge that 
 which I pronounce before the public to be FALSE. 
 As a critic, I hold your opinion, and those of a cer- 
 tain school, in no very high estimation, but this 
 charge affects every thing that is estimable and 
 honourable among mankind. 
 
 Yet even this charge I attribute not, Sir, to your 
 own native disposition, but to the opiXioii KMOU, 
 the " evil communications which corrupt good 
 " manners ;" and as I am now advancing on you, 
 after having borne a taunting inquisition so long, 
 I attribute to the same cause your evasions in 
 this dispute ; your language, which nothing of 
 mine towards you could justify ; and I say, more- 
 over, that, whatever motives actuated you, your 
 not speaking with reprobation of such rank obsce- 
 nities,* and impudent profligacy, as the Imitation 
 of Horace, to which the Double Mistress is purity 
 itself, is equally DISHONOURABLE to your NAME, 
 
 * I must have been a traitor to truth and moral society, 
 if I had not spoken with decision concerning these and 
 other obvious features of Pope's character ; but I 
 spoke as willingly of his acknowledged virtues, and even 
 remarked on his acknowledged defects, not in a spirit of 
 uncharitable censure, but extenuating them as arising from 
 a life of sickness, and moral causes ! 
 
27 
 
 your AGE, your STATION, and your CHARACTER as 
 a MAN and a CHRISTIAN. 
 
 You kindly inform me that the discussion has 
 taken a different turn ; and that from the question 
 of Pope's character, " MY OWN" has become in- 
 volved, and that, therefore, I have " something to 
 "do to defend myself!!"* 
 
 If any thing personally insulting has been 
 brought into view, it has been solely owing to 
 the unprincipled and unparalleled impudence of 
 one man, who, an utter stranger to me, was reduced 
 to such a mode of warfare in a cause which he 
 could not better defend ! " But I must be 
 " conscious of some cause for all this !" "Some 
 " cause*' for personal calumnies ! ! I can say, with 
 Pope, " if a catalogue were to be taken of my 
 " FRIENDS and ENEMIES, I need not blush for 
 " either:" but if I were such as I have been held 
 out, I were unworthy a place in honourable society- 
 
 You quote, (for personality seems to be your 
 object.,) that passage in which 1 spoke of the in- 
 sults I had received, as a reason in one instance 
 
 * Leaving the rest to time and truth, I cannot con- 
 clude this without wishing that an edition of Pope had fallen 
 into the hands of Mr. Croker. He would have done full 
 justice to Pope, without " setting down aught in malice" 
 against me. 
 
 What is the reason that my old and worthy friend 
 Dallaway never was " hauled over the coals ?" Pie has 
 spoken like a virtuous man, as he is, of Pope's character j 
 
28 
 
 only* of severity of language in reply ; and you 
 generously add, " you have seldom heard any 
 <c thing more pathetic." 
 
 I will tell you what is far more " pathetic" 
 the situation of him who filled a respectable station 
 in literature, endeavouring by petty chicanery to 
 evade the force of arguments that he cannot plainly 
 answer ! This is more " pathetic;" and still more 
 so, when, in his impotence of anger, he is reduced 
 to call on others for weapons of coarse defamation, 
 or elegant but unfounded satire ; and when, so far 
 from being able to hide his feelings of discomfiture, 
 equally blind and impotent with rage, he is reduced 
 to cry out "fiend!" 
 
 Could I have seen only tc wit" in the most pro- 
 fane, obscene, and immoral poem that ever dis- 
 graced a libertine in heart, and shut my eyes to its 
 atrocious depravity ; could I use Roscoe's BLACK- 
 ING or Roscoe's WHITING with the same ineffectual 
 attempt to daub the characters of the irreproach- 
 able, and to hide the stains of palpable impurity 
 had I manifested a fellow feeling with a celebrated 
 poet in all his littlenesses then it would have been 
 time for me to look indeed to my own character, 
 to save it from that shade which, I fear, as long 
 as your edition of Pope is remembered, will attach 
 to your's, both as a critic, and a man. 
 
 * With wonderful complacency, Mr. Roscoe classes 
 together as my opponents, Lord Byron, Mr. Camp bell, 
 and Mr. OCTAVIUS GILCHRIST!! 
 
I shall here give you a little time to pause, and 
 proceed to the subject of POETICAL CRITICISM, 
 in another letter ; and in the mean time, 
 
 I am, with due respect, &c. &c. 
 
 W. L. BOWLES. 
 
 A Schoolmaster of Sturminster-Newton, in Dorset- 
 shire, published a spelling-book, and fixed on the three 
 most important names he could find, to exemplify words of 
 five syllables, viz. NEBUCHADNEZZAR PELO- 
 PONNESUS Sturminster-Newton !! 
 
 A better illustration of Mr. Roscoe's TRIO would be, 
 Swift's celebrated simile, but, I beg it to be understood, 
 I speak only of the WRITINGS IN THIS CONTROVERSY, 
 not of the MAN, respecting the LAST NAME, which Mr. 
 Roscoe has taken so much pains to revive. 
 
 " A new-dropp'd ball of horse's dung, 
 " Mingling with apples in the throng, 
 " Said to a pippin plump and prim, 
 " See, brother, how WE APPLES swim !" 
 
 What language unlike that of a scholar and gentleman did 
 Mr. Campbell use? Mr. ROSCOE and GILCHRIST, if you 
 please Demetrius and Tigellus but not Mr. Campbell, 
 whom I beg to thank for the respect with which he spoke 
 of me in the Review of Medwin's Conversations, in the 
 New Monthly Magazine ! 
 
so 
 
 < THAT STRAIN I heard WAS of an HIGHER mood, 
 " Hut now iny OAT proceeds" &c. (Lycidas.) 
 
 TO THE 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE INVARIABLE PRINCIPLES 
 OF POETRY, TAKEN FROM MR. ROSCOE. 
 
 Toy S'awrauir/Co/xEyof.* Homer* 
 
 SIR, 
 
 I addressed to Lord Byron two 
 letters ; and I will not be less courteous to you, 
 who adhere so much to the " courtesies of lite- 
 "rature," and observe them so anxiously yourself! 
 
 When Lord Byron said that the ** INVARIABLE 
 cc PRINCIPLES of POETRY was the most modest title 
 " that book was ever baptized with,'* it would 
 have been more modest in his Lordship to have 
 used such expressions after he had shewn their 
 weakness ! 
 
 The writer in the Quarterly Review, who re- 
 viewed Spence's Anecdotes, has informed us, that 
 no provincial gentleman is properly qualified to 
 
 * See Final Appeal." 
 
31 
 
 write the life, and to be an editor, of the works of 
 Pope ! So I would say that it would not be the 
 worse for a critic on poetry, if he made himself ac- 
 quainted with such obsolete works as Longinus, 
 &c. He would then find, that in attacking those 
 principles, which I have called, and shall conti- 
 nue to call, " INVARIABLE," he attacks far wiser 
 men than either Mr. Roscoe or myself. 
 
 As I am informed that your letter may proba- 
 bly be read, where my " Final Appeal* ' will not 
 reach, I cannot help saying this will not be the 
 worse for your own argumentation ; for I " per- 
 " tinaciously" believe, wherever " my Appeal" 
 and your Mice and Frog reasonings are read 
 together, it will not be thought that you have the 
 best of the argument. In the mean time let me 
 request your attention, aud the attention of all 
 whom this letter may happen " to reach" to the 
 following observations on your reverting to your 
 old unfavourable subjects of poetry, such as 
 Chess-men, and a SOFA ! 
 
 My observation is this, and I would put a N.B. 
 to it, if I thought it more likely to draw your 
 atten tion. 
 
 When a place for Pope among the highest rank 
 of poets, such as that of Shakespeare, or Milton, 
 is demanded, notwithstanding his subjects in 
 general are indeed exquisitely treated, you 
 assume the question, which I deny, that such 
 
32 
 
 " unfavourable" subjects as you point out cati 
 ever be brought into the " highest rank of 
 " poetry !" 
 
 I assert of your " Mice and Frogs," and 
 "Wooden Warriors," I assert of these "un+ 
 "favourable" subjects, that if elegant poetry is 
 considered, your position is true, but nothing to the 
 purpose. 
 
 If you apply these instances to Pope, then your 
 arguments are to the purpose, but noijust; for 
 though it be readily granted that the Syphilis, (and 
 here I will say nothing about the Doctor,) and the 
 Mice, and the Chess-men, are elegant poems ; yet 
 as far as they prove Pope to be in thejlrst order 
 of poets they are good for nothing, inasmuch as 
 they are not, and cannot from their subjects, be 
 brought by any genius into the highest rank of poe- 
 try themselves which requires men, men and not 
 mice " passions 91 and living men ! living men, 
 and not wooden ones ! 
 
 Do you begin to see the force of this argument ? 
 Then answer it without evasion, or, I fear, those 
 whom " my Appear may reach, will not think it 
 proved, that Pope must be classed with the highest 
 poets, because a comparison is drawn from such 
 poems as you here enumerate ; for I suppose you 
 yourself will not think the Mice and Frogs can by 
 Homer himself be brought into the same poetical 
 rank as the Iliad ! 
 
35 
 
 But I must call the reader's attention to 
 Cowper, on whose "Task," rejecting all aid 
 from the Syphilis, the Wooden Warriors, and the 
 Frogs and Mice, you now rely. 
 
 Among " unfavourable subjects" which the 
 genius of the poet could exalt, you appealed 
 to Cowper's " SOFA !" My answer was, that if 
 you, " confining yourself*' to the " SOFA," could 
 shew that from this subject Cowper could pro- 
 duce any thing like exalted poetry, the point 
 would be conceded ! But I added, that Cow- 
 per, well knowing how little of poetry could be 
 made out of a settee, or from objects in his parlour, 
 leaves them at once. He is at the sea side in a 
 twinkling ! He escapes from the " little parlour" 
 entirely, he is devoted to " rural sights and rural 
 " sounds ," with her whose arm for " twenty years 
 " had been locked in his !" He paints the breathing 
 landscape, the river, the meadows, the elms, the 
 ploughman discerned at a distance ; he sets before 
 our eyes the bare common, and the houseless 
 wanderer, poor Crazy Kate! You expatiate on 
 these pictures; you gravely prate of affections 
 and sympathies of the heart; and, wrapt in 
 the complacency of answering Bowles, seem to 
 have forgotten that " every thing in the picture 
 "you describe is what Bowles requires, who 
 " had laid it down, that ' images from nature 
 " ' were more adapted to the higher orders of poetry 
 
 D 
 
31 
 
 t * 
 
 tlian any from art, that is, from art abstractedly $ 
 " 'and that passions, including of course sympathies, 
 " 'affections, and feelings of the heart, were more 
 " ' adapted to the higher order of poetry, than 
 " ' manners of artificial life, from which are derived 
 "'satires !'" 
 
 You inform me, in one passage of your letter, 
 that some of my opinions are to you " unaccount- 
 " able !" Your blindness to that which is so obvi- 
 ous, is just as " unaccountable'' 9 to me, when I 
 will be bold to say you are the only person ignorant 
 of your palpable discomfiture at every step.* 
 
 The first book of the Task is called, indeed, the 
 Sofa ! but there are not, I repeat, twenty lines 
 about a sofa in the whole book so called! It is 
 almost all " rural sights and sounds." 
 
 You yourself quote the following exquisite 
 passage : 
 
 " And witness, dear companion of my walks, 
 Whose arm this twentieth winter I perceive 
 Fast lock'd in mine, with pleasure such as love, 
 Confirmed by long experience of thy worth 
 And well-tried virtues, could alone inspire 
 Witness a joy that thou hast doubled long. 
 
 * If Mr. Roscoe is really ignorant of this discomfiture, 
 what wormwood must it be to him to read in many 
 respectable periodical publications, the account " of my 
 " signal victory," &c. ; and what wormwood, that his Frogs 
 and Mice shall not be able to get a single defender ! and 
 that the very Quarterly is as " Mute as a Mouse I" 
 
ss 
 
 Thou know'st my praise of nature most sincere, 
 And that my raptures are not cotijur'd up 
 To serve occasions of poetic pomp, 
 But genuine, and art partner of them all. 
 How oft upon yon eminence our pace 
 Has slacken'd to a pause, and we have borne 
 The ruffling wind, scarce conscious that it blew, 
 While admiration, feeding at the eye, 
 And still nnsaled, dwelt upon the scene. 
 Thence with what pleasure have we just discerned 
 The distant plough slow moving, and beside 
 His laboring team, that swerv'd not from the track, 
 The sturdy swain diminished to a boy! 
 Here Ouse, slow winding through a level plain 
 Of spacious meads, with cattle sprinkled o'er, 
 Conducts the eye along his sinuous course 
 Delighted. There, fast rooted in their bank, 
 Stand, never overlook* d, our favourite elms. 
 That screen the herdsman's solitary hut ; 
 While far beyond, and over thwart the stream, 
 That, as with molten glass, inlays the vale, 
 The sloping land recedes into the clouds ; 
 Displaying in its varied side the grace 
 Of hedge-row beauties numberless, square tow'r, 
 Tall spire, from which the sound of cheerful bells 
 Just undulates upon the listening ear, 
 Groves, heaths, and smoking villages, remote." 
 
 Well ! The " OUSE winding through a level 
 c< plain," " with cattle sprinkled over !" " the 
 "herdsman's solitary hut" "the smoMngtvillages, 
 are[all delectable pictures, and very like a" WHALE!'* 
 
 For what resemblance is there in this descrip- 
 tion, in the least, to " a Sofa ?" Not so much 
 
 * Hamlet. 
 
36 
 
 resemblance as there is between a certain sub- 
 stance called " chalk" and another called in 
 rural life cheese ! 
 
 With great naivete, you ask, why is it we find our 
 feelings interested, and our attention engaged ? and 
 in answering yourself, "shift your late unfavourable 
 <c subjects" to "common every~day sights!" "What 
 " is so common as a lady and gentleman walking 
 "out?" Certainly, but unfortunately for you, 
 the beauties of nature are not ^ unfavourable 
 "subjects" nor the feelings and sympathies of 
 affection, nor the delight of such contemplations, 
 in such scenes ! 
 
 Your reasonings remind me of a circumstance 
 which happened in my younger days : an Oxford 
 barber* named Blenkinsop, professed to have a 
 rhime instantly ready for any given word! I 
 proposed the words " Tom Warton." Without 
 the least hesitation he replied, "A rhime for Tom 
 " Warton !" 
 
 " Tom Warton of Trinity, 
 " Doctor of Divinity." 
 
 His rhime was nearly as good as your reasoning, 
 and the reasons not much better than the rhime, 
 for poor Tom was a Batchelor, not Doctor of 
 Divinity ! Your arguments are as much to the 
 purpose, as Trinity was a rhime to Warton \ and 
 
 conclusions as accurate. 
 Stick to your text" has been sometimes said, if 
 
37 
 
 " a resident Clergyman" rambles in his discourse j 
 So, Sir, take your next quotation, if you please, from 
 something relating to the " sofa" itself, and then 
 tell me whether Cowper could make poetry as 
 beautiful on such a subject, as he could of these pic- 
 tures of NATURE, these tender appeals to passion* 
 
 I told you that your appeal to Cowper was unfor- 
 tunate for your critical system, and I am sure 
 you will find it so. 
 
 I detained you a little while at Chess. 1 must 
 detain you a little longer to notice some particular 
 parts of Covvper's poetical imagery, and your own 
 happiness of illustration. 
 
 To do you full justice, I extract the following 
 passage from your letter ; 
 
 " I therefore MAINTAIN that if any poem could, more 
 " than another, demonstrate that * there is no poetry 
 tl * in any object, but what is to be ascribed to the 
 " ' genius of the poet/ or which could more fully refute 
 " the assertion, that the poetry is in the subject, and 
 " ' the art and powers in the poet,' it is the TASK OF 
 " COWPER ; throughout the whole of which, as if for 
 " the purpose of proving on what a slight and unimpor- 
 " tant foundation so beautiful a superstructure could be 
 " raised, the poet has, on circumstances of the most 
 M common occurrence, engrafted those numerous pas- 
 " sages which give variety and interest to his poem, 
 tf Such are his representations of Crazy Kate, of the 
 " Gypsies, the Clerical Coxcomb, the Tame Hare, the 
 "growing of Cucumbers, reading the Newspaper, 
 "the Woodman and I>o</:' 
 
38 
 
 Now, Sir, first, there is a little bit of wilful or 
 ignorant raisstatement peeping out from this ver* 
 biage, which you perhaps thought I should not 
 detect ! 
 
 I never said that " the poetry was in the sub- 
 " ject," independent of the powers of Poet ! I 
 said, and say, that some objects are more ADAPTED 
 to the HIGHEST character of POETRY, than others ! 
 PASSIONS more than manners of artificial life. 
 This is my main proposition. 
 
 Secondly j You say, " that throughout the book 
 " called the " Sofa," as if for the purpose of prov- 
 " ing on what a slight foundation so beautiful a 
 "structure could be raised, the poet has ' en- 
 <c ' grafted 9 on circumstances of the most ' com- 
 " * mon occurrence* these numerous passages !" 
 " Engrafted /" You might as well say your head 
 was " engrafted" on an old shoe ! ! or Salisbury 
 Plain on a wig-block ! ! 
 
 These affecting and beautiful pictures, " from 
 " the most common circumstances of life," that 
 is, from living Nature, have no more to do with 
 the Sofa than they have to do with " the man in the 
 " moon." 
 
 I am sorry to be so "pertinacious-," but I shall 
 not leave your list of poetical objects from Cow- 
 per, till I have still farther exemplified, from this 
 very list, your tact in poetical criticism ! 
 
 " Such," you gravely add, (poetical objects,) 
 
39 
 
 * 
 
 " are his representations of Crazy Kate, the 
 " Gipsies, the Clerical Coxcomb, the Tame Hare, 
 " the GROWING OF CUCUMBERS, Reading the 
 " Newspaper, and the Woodman and Dog." 
 
 All that can be said of the beauties of Crazy 
 Kate, the Gypsies, the Tame Hare, the Woodman 
 and Dog, who does not re-echo of the Clerical 
 Coxcomb, I shall say nothing, as, perhaps, he is 
 introduced as a sly set-off in the Doctor of Liver- 
 pool ! But, do you really think the " growing of 
 " Cucumbers' 9 has any affinity, or can be made to 
 have the most distant affinity, with poetry such as 
 the other subjects furnish ? I had almost said any 
 poetry at all ! 
 
 We have seen how affecting Cowper is, when the 
 subject is from NATURE and the PASSIONS. Let us 
 look at him then before his Cucumber Bed, leaning 
 over the "stercoraceous heap/' while thus he 
 blithely sings, 
 
 To raise the prickly and green-coated gourd 
 
 So grateful to the palate, and when rare 
 
 So coveted; else base, and disesteenfd 
 
 Food for ibe vulgar merely is an art 
 
 That toiling ages have but just matur'd, 
 
 And at this moment unassay'd by song. 
 
 Yet gnats have had, and FROGS and MICE, long since, 
 
 THEIR EULOGY ;* those sang the Mantuan Bard, 
 
 And these the Grecian, in ennobling strains; 
 
 * How little did Cowper imagine on what occasion 
 " their culoyy' would be MOST LOUDLY PROCLAIMED ! 
 
40 
 
 And in thy numbers, Phillips, shines for aye 
 
 The solitary Shilling. Pardon, then, 
 
 Ye sage dispensers of poetic fame, 
 
 Th' ambition of one, meaner far, whose pow'rs, 
 
 Presuming an attempt not less sublime, 
 
 Pants for the praise of dressing to the taste 
 
 Of critic appetite, no solid fare, 
 
 A CUCUMBER, while costly yet and scarce. 
 
 The Stable yields a STERCORACEOUS HEAP, &c. 
 
 Now, Sir, do you think this prose, for I will 
 not call it poetry, this " stercoraceous heap," as 
 good poetry as the affecting pictures we both 
 dwell upon with delight ? Come, come, no eva- 
 sion ! Which is most truly poetical, in your sense 
 of the word, this stuff, or the exquisite touches of 
 tenderness, and the varied descriptions of natural 
 scenery ? You will not, you cannot, you dare not 
 say the " Cucumber" in poetical beauty, is equal 
 to the sweet and affecting passages you have 
 quoted. Why is this ? The Cucumber is raised 
 by the same hand, and of course must be the 
 product of the same talents, as those which de- 
 scribed the other living scenes ? Then why this 
 lamentable contrast ? For this plain reason : Be- 
 cause the subject of the one was more " ADAPTED'* 
 to " POETRY" than the other ! As you have quoted 
 Horace, I may in turn appeal to him, who is some 
 little authority on my side, even against William 
 Roscoe, Member of the Delia Crusca Society of 
 Florence ! 
 
41 
 
 Horace says 
 
 Et qnae 
 Desperat tractata uitescere POSSE RELINQUIT ! 
 
 So some subjects in poetry no genius can exalt ; 
 and I sincerely wish that He who so exquisitely 
 pourtrayed poor Kate, the Woodman and Dog, 
 &c., had " relinquished" the disgusting " stereo- 
 " raceous heap," as one of those subjects, of which 
 he might say 
 
 Desperat tractata nitescere POSSE ! ! 
 
 You admit that such subjects (as sofa, cucumber, 
 &c.) are not SUBLIME or PATHETIC !" and so far 
 you have a " glimpse !" Nor do I know that they 
 " are ludicrous ;" but I know it is the " sublime 
 " and pathetic" that give Homer his rank in 
 poetry ! not his " FROGS! !" nor, if he had lived 
 in the days of " SOFAS," could a Sofa ! ! 
 
 Why will you try thus to deceive yourself? Do 
 you really imagine any thing is gained by these 
 palpable misstatements, and wretched sophistries ? 
 
 But I cannot yet leave this " prickly gourd " 
 for prickly I fear it will prove to you. As Cowper 
 has raised it, I may as well cut and dress it for 
 you, and then to eat it " with what appetite" 
 you may ! I cannot suffer you yet to get up from 
 your delectable fare, which you have presented 
 to me and which I here return. 
 
 But let me first a^kone question. 
 
Pray, to leave the metaphor, do you think the 
 passage on the " green-coated" gourd, and " ster- 
 "coraceous heap," as poetical as the Woodman 
 and Dog ? I have asked the question before ; but 
 I ask it now for the sake of a little Oxford logic. 
 
 Which of the two pictures, the Woodman and 
 Dog, or the stercoraceous heap, is most poetical ? 
 
 If you say, the " stercoraceous" heap, I fear the 
 boys of the nearest school will call you SOLOMON ! 
 If you say, ' the Prickly Gourd" is as good in 
 its kind as the Woodman and Dog, then I answer, 
 that kind is not so poetical, or capable of pro* 
 ducing poetry as beautiful, as the other. 
 
 If you say the Woodman and Dog is more 
 poetical, I tell you again, it is because the " subject 9 * 
 is more adapted to poetry ! And so I wish you 
 a good digestion of your own selected " prickly 
 gourd !" which I fear you will find as hard to 
 swallow, as Pistol found his leek I (Henry Vth.) 
 
 I shall not here speak of unconsequential rea- 
 sonings ; but rather wonder, what must be the con- 
 formation of cranium in a critic who gravely 
 quotes poetry drawn from the passions, the 
 affections, sympathies, and feelings of the heart, 
 and brings it in favour of such poetical subjects as 
 Chess-men* and Sofas ! ! 
 
 In such contradictions do they involve themselves, 
 
 * Mr. Roscoe is not content with the Chess-Men being 
 an elegant poem, " but it has been always considered" in 
 
43 
 
 who oppose the plainest dictates, not of criticism, 
 but of common sense, rather than the " perti- 
 " nacious Bowles " should triumph ! though tri- 
 umph he will, and does! 
 
 "Common occurrences!" Why the Sun is 
 an object more common than a Cucumber, for we 
 see the Sun every day, but the " stercoraceous 
 " heap** yields a Cucumber only once in a year ! 
 
 You bring me to painting again. I thought the 
 observation on Rubens's Taking down from the 
 Cross, as superior to any landscape, would have 
 been a sufficient answer to your illustrations from 
 painting ! (See Appeal. ) But you " pertinaci- 
 ously," and equally regardless of my former answer, 
 add, and " thus the excellence of a picture is 
 *' not determined by the nature of the subject !" 
 Who said it was ? Not I ; nor did I ever say that 
 the excellence of a poem was determined by the 
 nature of the subject. 
 
 Why this eternal evasion ? I affirm that 
 PARADISE LOST, executed as it is, must rank 
 higher, as a poem, than any poem in Pope ; because 
 the subject being more suited to the highest cha- 
 racter of poetry, and the execution equal to the 
 subject, it must, if there is any truth I will not 
 say in my principles, but in those of Aristotle, 
 
 " the hiyhest rank of Poetry !!" As high as the Iliad, 
 of course ! Can ABSURDITY go farther ! 
 
44 
 
 Longinus, Horace, &c., be superior, as poetry, 
 to any subjects which are less adapted to the higher 
 character of poetry, the execution of both subjects 
 being equal. 
 
 But to " painting/* 
 
 I have said, that the Taking down from the Cross 
 at Antwerp, executed as it is by Rubens, is far 
 more consonant to the noblest ideas of painting, than 
 any landscape. Will you attend to this distinction? 
 Can you really be so obtuse, after such repeated 
 expositions, as not to be able to perceive the differ- 
 ence between the statement that one subject may 
 be more adapted to the higher order of poetry 
 than another, and the statement you so pertinaci- 
 ously attribute to me, that "the subject alone 
 " decides the excellence of a poem and a painting !" 
 
 Notwithstanding your ineffectual appeal to 
 Rubens, you still "pertinaciously" adhere to your 
 illustrations from this enchanting art ! 
 
 " Destroy his flimsy sophistry in vain !*' 
 
 Come then, Sir, I will treat you r/ith a picture 
 in return. You have doubtless seen Hogarth's 
 inimitable composition, in the " ludicrous" style, of 
 an Alderman, his Wife, and Young Cockneys, 
 " long in populous cities pent" walking into the 
 country to enjoy the fresh air, and the " rural 
 nature," of that sub-urban retreat, called SAD* 
 LEU s WELLS ! 
 
45 
 
 * 
 
 The aforesaid Alderman is puffing in a hot 
 summer's day, with one child in his arms, his head 
 adorned with his best wig ! A milk-maid and 
 cow being in the back ground, the ingenious 
 artist has so contrived the objects, that the cow'y 
 horns (with an obvious allusion !) are seen as it 
 were mcontact, and immediately over the wig ! 
 
 Now, if referring to this picture, instead of a 
 painting by Rubens, you had said The horns of 
 the cow were " ENGRAFTED" on an Alderman's 
 WIG, I should have understood you ; for they 
 certainly may be said, with more propriety, to be 
 so " ENGRAFTED/' than a ploughman at work can 
 be said to be " ENGRAFTED" on a SOFA. 
 
 But, verily, " I have got a glimpse of UghC* 
 from your tenebrosity, because I admit the " ludi- 
 " crous" to be a part of poetry ! Yes, of poetry, 
 to be sure ; but not of poetry of the highest 
 character. Is it possible that " obfuscat'ion" itself 
 cannot see the difference ? 
 
 I think I have now said almost enough to make 
 me hope you are beginning to have a " glimpse'" 
 yourself ! 
 
 You are set in the stocks, without a foot to stir, 
 in the very stocks formed from your own "wooden 
 "illustrations;" yourself smiling all the while, as 
 if delighted with your situation ! 
 
 You raise a mist of verbiage, and quibbles, and 
 in this respect you appear to me to resemble some 
 
46 
 
 of those famous conjurers of old, who, when they 
 vretd vanquished raised a mist round them ; but 
 the mist does not hide the " ludicrous" figure in 
 which you appear, with a Frog and Mouse, ram- 
 pant, for supporter s t and a Cucumber for a crest j 
 There I leave you, to read a little from your 
 selected illustration, Goldsmith's " Deserted 
 "Village!" In this poem as we sit and talk 
 together quoniam convenimus which image do 
 you opine to be most poetical ? 
 
 The chest contrived a double debt to pay, 
 A bed by night, a cliest of drawers by day. 
 
 Or this, ' 
 
 Sweet Auburn, loveliest village of the plain, 
 Where health, &c. 
 
 But my object in drawing your attention to 
 Goldsmith, in the present instance, is not the 
 " game of Goose," which might rival the Chess- 
 men j but a line I would have you remember, when 
 you appeal to this poem again, 
 
 " For ev'n, tho' VANQUISHED, he could ARGUE still." 
 
 Deserted Village. 
 
 My arguments you call " fantastic reasonings ;" 
 if you think so, so much the happier for yourself, 
 "Ohte, Bollane!" (Horace.) 
 
 Talk of " Crazy Kate !" What can be that 
 intellect which can persuade an elderly gentleman 
 
47 
 
 that a " SOFA" is a subject adapted to poetry and 
 that " a crazy woman" in a common proves it ! 
 
 You complain of my writing seven pamphlets. 
 Notwithstanding I turn, without much trouble, 
 your own arguments against you, I fear if I were to 
 write seventeen Pamphlets, instead of SEVEN, I 
 could not beat into your head the difference be- 
 tween that which makes poetry, and that which 
 is " best adapted to," or, in other words, which 
 furnishes the most immortal materials for, poetry. 
 
 Aye, but one man can paint from native genius 
 better than another ! Cowper, for instance, than 
 you or I ! Therefore the subject does not signify J 
 but I say the subject does signify, for, though it be 
 true, and rather a truism, that there is an immense 
 difference between the poetical powers of one man 
 and those of another in using the materials fur- 
 nished, it is equally a truism, against which you 
 contend with all your might blindfold, brandishing 
 your weapons on this or that side, as it may happen, 
 c * not meaning," but " blundering round about 
 a meaning," that Homer could not place in the 
 highest rank of poems Mice ; nor Vida, Chess- 
 men; nor Fracastorius, a disease that shall be 
 nameless ; nor Cowper, a Cucumber ; nor Pope, 
 satires and moral essays ; and I affirm that this is 
 no detraction of Pope's genius as a poet, for Homer 
 could not do it, nor Shakespeare, nor Milton! 
 
 I ought to beg pardon of every sensible reader, 
 but lam obliged to do the best lean, to make 
 
i Q 
 
 Mr.Roscoe, if possible, more a master Q the subject. 
 
 Some fine morning, Sir, when you are taking a 
 walk on the banks of the Mersey, and perhaps 
 brushing the early dews towards Gilead Hall, the 
 truth will rush upon you like light, and then you 
 will be like the old Bourgeois Gentilhomme, who 
 talked PROSE all his life, without knowing it. 
 
 In like manner, even Doctor Solomon blun- 
 ders on the side of truth without knowing why, 
 but as one of the most eminent poets of the present 
 day observed to me, " it will come right at last.'* 
 
 In the mean while, why do you not meet the 
 question with an honest front ? 
 
 When you talk of " fantastic reasoning," with 
 an obliquity that becomes you and your cause, you 
 take care to leave out of sight the most pinching 
 part of the " fantastic reasonings," from the force 
 of which you can no more escape, than you can 
 jump over the Mersey. 
 
 But adieu! Furniture and Paintings we must 
 appeal to the classics, eruditissime domine ! 
 
 How unpoetical you tell us is " snow thaw- 
 " ing ;" yet how beautifully has Horace painted, 
 diffugere nives ! 
 
 Has he so ! If you had said " a boiling pot** 
 was an unpoetical image, I should have granted it ; 
 and as for the " thawing snows," what is there 
 after all in Horace of " thawing ?" Construe the 
 line! Nives the " snows" very well ! DIFFU- 
 
49 
 
 GERE, are " beginning to thaw," I suppose ! We 
 used to construe it differently at school ; and before 
 you again appeal to Horace, have the goodness to 
 look in those books, not very poetical, but very 
 necessary for some who may have lost what they 
 learnt at school a grammar and dictionary, and 
 then we will talk farther about Horace, who fails 
 you again, as much as Cowper, and I would 
 advise you in the mean time to tell us, what you 
 think of these lines 
 
 Ncque si quis scribal, uli nos 
 Sermoni propiora, putes HUNG ESSE poetam. 
 Ingenium cui sit, cui mens divinior, atque os 
 MAGNA SONATURUM 
 
 Which being paraphrased is, " call not him a 
 "poet, who writes Satires and Epistles, like me; 
 " but give the honour of this high name to him 
 " who not only has genius, and a more divine mind, 
 " but whose eloquence is directed to what is GREAT 
 " and LOFTY !" Not cucumbers, nor sausages! 
 
 There is also another passage in Horace, on 
 which you might ponder 
 
 "Nee quisquam NOCEAT CUPIDO MIHI PACis at ille, 
 Qui me conimorit melius non tangere clamo, 
 Flebit, et insignis TOTA cantabitur URBE." 
 
 Which I thus paraphrase : 
 
 Assail not, as you love your souls, 
 The " pertinacious" Parson Bowles, 
 For though the cockney critics flout him, 
 When he is rous'd, he lays about him, 
 E 
 
Knocks Roscoe down, and in a trice 
 Scatters his Wooden Men and Mice, 
 " Hitches" the Doctor in a DITTY, 
 And sings his FAME through all the city ! 
 
 But we must beware of jokes ! it seems 
 you do not relish jokes, particularly jocose criti- 
 cisms on " WOODEN MEN," &c. 
 
 " Who shall decide, when Doctors disagree ?" 
 
 Pope. 
 
 But I hardly expected this severity from one, 
 who contends that the " ludicrous' 9 might be 
 brought into the highest rank of poetry \ Aye, 
 but the jokes of a Clergyman ! and a " resident 
 " Clergyman !" What have such persons to do 
 with jokes, so little in unison with their profession ? 
 
 Truly, St. Paul mentions among other things as 
 highly unbecoming, "foolish talking" and "jest- 
 " ing"* which are " not convenient ;" but I really 
 hope my jests are " convenient" for it is impos- 
 sible for Clerk or Layman to treat some things 
 in any other Way. 
 
 For my mere good-humoured quizzing, speak- 
 ing at the same time with the sincerest kindness 
 and respect, I am treated Oh ! ye gods and god- 
 desses as a "Jiend !" 
 
 I do most sincerely assure you, Sir, that when 
 I wrote the " Appeal," I felt great reluctance to 
 say one 'word that I thought would give you pain. 
 
 * Let Mr. Roscoe turn to Pope for specimens of 
 "filtkiness," and "jesting" which are not convenient. 
 
51 
 
 I would, even now, most willingly avoid it ; but, 
 when you have with such real rudeness, and in a 
 spirit so bitter, in your own " mode" of contro- 
 versy, provoked this unequal strife, while I say, 
 
 with Churchill, 
 
 I almost blush to know 
 My spirits could descend to such a foe; 
 
 I believe your best friends whatever " book- 
 " sellers and blockheads" may have done will 
 think your peace and your fame would have been 
 better consulted, had you suffered my jokes to be 
 passed over and forgotten. 
 
 I have had my jokes on your poetical criti- 
 cisms, but your letter, from the beginning to the 
 end, is an effort to wound persona! feelings! Isthis 
 " courtesy ?" Is it manliness ? 
 
 On this account you, like others, have shewn 
 a particular gratification in quoting Lord Byron's 
 memorable lines against Bowles ! 
 
 If POPE, whose fame and genius from the first 
 Have foil'd the best of critics, need the worst ; 
 Let BOWLES essay : each fault, each failing scan, 
 The first of poets was, alas ! but man. 
 Rake from each ancient dunghill every pearl, 
 Consult Lord Fanny, and conlide in CurM ; 
 Let all the scandals of a former age 
 Perch on thy pen, and flutter o'er thy page ; 
 Affect a candour which thou canst not feel, 
 Clothe envj r in the garb of honest zeal ; 
 Write as if St. John's self could still inspire, 
 And do from HATE, what Mallet did for hire ! 
 
 Syr on. 
 E 2 
 
Whilst d ulness sits complacent over a caricature, 
 which it was not able to draw itself, I shall just 
 take leave to parody some of the lines, and throw 
 them back to you. I am sorry that you have shewn 
 your " vexation" by thinking it necessary to intro- 
 duce these lines which all my opponents have by 
 heart ! Others have not forgiven a parody I made, 
 though they threw the first stone! I think I can 
 make this same satire sharp enough to suit other 
 critics besides Bowles, and YOU can have no reason 
 to complain ! Let us try but remember Byron 
 and Roscoe are odds against Bowles ! 
 
 If POPE, who, from the first, 
 
 Needed the best of critics, found the worst! 
 
 ROSCOE, essay ! an injudicious friend, 
 
 Alike his VIRTUES and his FAULTS commend ; 
 
 Hate and revile all those who cannot see 
 
 Wisdom and worth in big defects LIKE THEE ! 
 
 Gloss o'er his VENGEFUL hate, his FOUL DELIGHT 
 
 In RIBALDRY, his CUNNING, and his SPITE! 
 
 Bring forth thy " FROGS and MICE/' and " WOODEN 
 
 MEN," 
 
 Fit instances and types, to prove his pen 
 Can RIVAL SHAKESPEARE: Seize the critic throne, 
 ' A SOLOMON/ a second ' SOLOMON ;' 
 And kick thy feeble foot at Parson Bowles, 
 Who, like a FIEND," his goggling eyeballs rolls. 
 
 Bowles. 
 
 " There is a picture, a touch of the * sublime/ 
 " and * beautiful,' and * picturesque/ and ' ludi- 
 " ' crous' in poetry !" " Egad, Sir," as my old 
 master would say, " Worthy the pencil of Paul 
 Brill/' 
 
53 
 
 Write as if St. John's self could still inspire, 
 And do from HATE, what Mallet did for hire 
 
 Byron. 
 
 Spread o'er thy work a noisome compost rile 
 Of slavering froth, of DRIVEL and of BILE !" 
 
 Bowles. 
 
 There is a pastoral for you. 
 But we must not forget the peculiarly happy 
 lines applied to Bowles as a critic : 
 
 Or hadst thou liv'd in that congenial time, 
 
 To rave with Dennis, or with Ralph to rhyme, 
 
 Stray'd with the rest around his living head, 
 
 Nor rais'd thy hoof against the lion dead ; 
 
 A meet reward had CROWN'D thy glorious gains, 
 
 And link'd thee to the DUN c IAD for thy pains ! 
 
 Byron, 
 
 Well then listen again Thou egregious " mem- 
 " her of the Delia Crusca Society of Florence !" 
 
 ' BYRON te hoc vulnere, BYRON 
 Immolat." Virgil. 
 
 Oh ! had Apollo, who, so justly graced, 
 With ASS'S EARS CROWN'D MIDAS for his taste/ 
 Heard thee, in critic lore so skill'd and deep, 
 Descant on CO\YPER'S " stcrcoraceous heap!'* 
 With kindred clods he would have crown'd thy brains, 
 And LINK'D THEE TO A DUNGHILL for thy pains!" 
 
 Bowlct. 
 
 Thus urged, I could easily repay you for this 
 ' your mode" of controversy ; but I think I have 
 
said enough to prevent your quoting Byron again 
 and I spare you, from respect to your GREY HAIRS, 
 and your FORMER FAME !* 
 
 I can conceive your situation it is a "pathetic" 
 one ! I can feel for your mortification, and pity 
 you. Whatever fame you may have justly earned, 
 by your Life of Lorenzo, is irretrievably thrown 
 away, by your attempt at criticism ; and more by 
 the shifts, equivocations, and obliquities, to which 
 you have been reduced to have recourse. 
 
 You have already found, I believe, the situation 
 of an Editor of Pope, not to be that of a bed of 
 roses ; but having in consequence of your illi- 
 beral but impotent attack, been thus obliged, in 
 self-defence, to expose you, I shall hereafter leave 
 you to the rankling sense of that discomfiture, 
 and " vexation" you have brought needlessly on 
 yourself. 
 
 I would most willingly here have dropt the pen, 
 though much more remains behind ; but a few 
 words must be said on the picture of the " FIEND" 
 the application of which you think so happy. 
 
 The thought of the application seems to have 
 given you peculiar gratification, as you have dwelt 
 upon it through so many pages, evidently, con 
 
 Now, Sir, it will be magnanimous, and according to 
 " your mode** of controversy, to print this satiric retaliation^ 
 and leave out every word about the provocation? 
 
amore, and I should be sorry to throw cold watef 
 on any feelings of exultation, on account of this 
 final triumphant sally of your wit, but would 
 humbly suggest, whether the application might not 
 just as welly at least, suit him> who 'wilfully sup- 
 presses every word concerning the provocation that 
 occasioned it ; him who, with a kind of frenzied 
 disappointment that his arguments have been SQ 
 overthrown, or his sophistries derided, tears the turf 
 from the grave of his friend, to throw at his oppo- 
 nent, with equal anger and impotence ; I would ask 
 whether such a picture does not suit such a mind, 
 somewhat better than it suits him who, having been 
 assailed by the hardiest falsehoods and grossest 
 personal insults, turned at last sternly on his 
 assailant; who in no other instance ever uttered 
 a word of bitterness to one living being which 
 declaration he defies you to disprove ; who never 
 attempted to "degrade" Pope, unless it were 
 " degradation' not to exalt him to that pre- 
 posterous and gigantic height, to which the feel- 
 ings of indefinite and blind idolatry among some 
 exalted him ; who never " degraded," or sought 
 to t( degrade," his poetry, unless it were degrada- 
 tion to place him before all other English Poets, 
 and only below Shakespeare and Milton, in the 
 highest scale of poetry ; who never sought to 
 calumniate his Life, unless that be calumny which 
 represents him, as he has taken care to represent 
 
56 
 
 himself; conceding his talents and virtues, but 
 marking those predominant traits which cannot be 
 hid, traits which no biographer, when they are so 
 plainly written, ought from sacred duty to truth to 
 overlook; and which all his idolatrous worshippers 
 cannot put out the obvious traits amidst his 
 talents, and tenderest domestic virtues of VIN- 
 
 DICTIVENESS, DUPLICITY, and OBSCENITY ! 
 
 Upon these grounds I have stood, and I stand. 
 Your ingenious application of the " FIEND" will 
 neither hurt my character public or private ; and 
 with respect to such a disposition as the picture im- 
 plies, I can affirm that even in controversy I never 
 used a word of asperity, but with reluctance ; that 
 when the most insulting provocation wrung from 
 me harsh retaliation, one civil word would at any 
 time have disarmed me ; and I can assure you, Sir, 
 most solemnly, that though much remains behind, 
 I suspend the lash which I think you deserve, 
 and which I believe would have lacerated you to 
 the bone ! Nevertheless, as you have so ostenta- 
 tiously brought forward those satirical lines of mine, 
 the provocation for which you have kept entirely 
 out of sight, it is a pity that, after the pains you 
 have taken, you should go without some share in 
 them yourself, and therefore, for so many lines as 
 you have given me descriptive of a " FIEND," I 
 present you only two in return: 
 
The lines are these if I recollect rightly, 
 
 Whose HEART contends with his Saturnian HEAD, 
 A ROOT of HEMLOCK, and a LUMP of LEAD. 
 
 Only asking your acceptance of " the root ofhem- 
 " lock" in return for the " FIEND !" and " the lump 
 of kadi" for your " CHESS-MEN, and CUCUMBER," 
 
 I am, " with due respect," 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 W. L. BOWLES. 
 
 
 dPTH * 
 
 X7HIVJEBSITY 
 
58 
 POSTCRIPT, 
 
 You refer to two lines of mine, and 
 your reference is printed in capitals, with the 
 amiable intent of fixing on me a falsehood; because, 
 speaking generally, I said that my satire applied to 
 your friend, and not to Pope, and it is discovered 
 that two lines are applied to Pope ! 
 
 There is a ballad, by Poor Hudsford, in which 
 are these lines on Johnny Wilkes : 
 
 He made a fool 
 Of Alderman Bull, 
 And called Parson Home a liar ! 
 
 So I might parody these, as I have done Byron's 
 lines, and say of Roscoe, 
 
 He lifted bis head 
 " Engrafted" in lead, 
 And call'd Parson Bowles a liar ! 
 
 To spare you any future pain, I inform you, to 
 the best of my recollection, that " dark revile?' 99 
 is the " dark reviler" incog, being the anonymous 
 calumniator in the London Magazine, Gilchrist: 
 there are about ten lines, I believe, applied to him 
 in this character, and two to Pope : but the general 
 application is to him who first anonymously re- 
 viled me in a periodical publication, for which 
 the Editor apologized ; and to the same person, who 
 
afterwards published a tirade, nominatim, which 
 was a disgrace to literature. 
 
 I am afraid it will be thought I have given you 
 something worse than " brass 9 ' for " gold," when 
 I have given you only part of two lines for so 
 many bestowed on me. Consider, Sir, I have 
 never published an anonymous article in my life; 
 have never " calumniated' 9 any one, unless you 
 should say I have calumniated Pope which I deny. 
 Consider farther, I beseech you, that I am " a resi- 
 " dent Clergyman" and, as such, have a character 
 well known. I will not descend to appeal to those 
 who have known me long, rich and poor, against 
 heartless aspersions ; but I have shewn, at least, 
 when you direct envenomed shafts from another 
 quiver, when you point against my own breast the 
 weapon taken up in self-defence to oppose dark 
 revilers, and infuriated calumniators, and en- 
 deavour to fix on me the name and character of 
 reviler, calumniator, and fiend, (" Am I that 
 " name, Ligo?") the present I make you in return 
 is very small. 
 
 Knowing your obligations to others for weapons 
 against me, I had nearly forgotten your twenty or 
 thirty lines from the Dunciad\ \\ hat shall I do? 
 
 Here are Byron Roscoe Bowles versus 
 Bowles Pope himself, against me!! and the 
 ghost of Gilchrist !! 
 
 Apparent dirac 
 
GO 
 
 And worse than all, I am described as having 
 gained a " glimpse" from your tenebrious illumi- 
 nation of the " sublime," and " pathetic," and 
 " ludicrous," in poetry! 
 
 As I have given you so little in return for the 
 presents you have heaped upon me, what if I here 
 only beg your acceptance of four impromptu lines 
 for your long quotation from the Dunciad ! 
 
 No other critic has ever pointed out the remark- 
 able circumstance in Pope's Essay on the Charac- 
 ters of Men, that he has, very consistently with 
 his subject, introduced two female portraits Nar- 
 cissa, and the " Old Crone." 
 
 Suppose, then, I beg you to accept only four 
 lines, taking a hint from Pope's Epistle on the 
 Characters of Men ! 
 
 On POPE'S introducing an Old Woman among the 
 Characters of Men. 
 
 Pope placed an old woman 'mid portraits of men- 
 Hear tbis, ye bold critics, and tremble ; 
 
 Because be foresaw that ONE CRITIC would rise, 
 Wbo should most an OLD TTOMAN resemble. 
 
 Comment trouvez vous cela, mon ami ? 
 
 I have thus driven back the supernumerary 
 forces you have brought up against me in aid of 
 less effective allies, the " Mice and Frogs!" But 
 " you have now laid the axe to the trunk of my 
 <c INVARIABLE PRINCIPLES, and need not trouble 
 " yourself about the branches !" 
 
61 
 
 Do you really think so? If your axe were like 
 the " bipennis," described by Horace your favou- 
 rite classic, to whom you have before so successfully 
 appealed I should say, so far from your axe having 
 been " laid to the trunk" of my poetical code, the 
 TRUTH of that code, 
 
 Ab ipso 
 Sumit opes animumque ferro. 
 
 The truth of my INVARIABLE PRINCIPLES derives 
 greater strength from your own clumsy attacks 
 against them ! 
 
 But your axe, I believe, less resembles the 
 classical instrument, described by Horace laid to 
 the trunk of the oak than that of a certain Neil 
 Cahagan, described by that poet who excelled so 
 much in the " ludicrous" Dean Swift. " On 
 " cutting down an Old Thorn on Market Hill" 
 he thus singeth. 
 
 But thou, the man ordain'd by fate, 
 Neal Cahagan, Hibernian clown, 
 With hatchet blunter than thy pate, 
 To hack, &c. 
 
 Your hatchet resembles the hatchet of this ho- 
 nest Irishman, but the " trunk" of my principles 
 has a happier fate than that of the Old Thorn 
 on Market Hill, for I believe, having defied some 
 hard storms, they will still rear their head, careless 
 alike of the Mice that gnaw, or blunt instrument 
 which recoils against yourself in your own hands ! 
 
62 
 
 I have only here presented you with a little twig 
 from these same branches, to make you remember 
 a lesson, which, if you had paid the least attention 
 to my seven pamphlets, you ought to have learnt 
 before, besides, perad venture, improving a little 
 your manners in controversy ! 
 
 The writer of ^ sentimental sonnets" 9 is satisfied 
 that he is now pretty even with the author of 
 Lorenzo de Medicis ; therefore, in taking leave, 
 he trusts you will forgive him, if he addresses you, 
 at parting, with a quotation from that poet, whom 
 Pope only equals, and who excels as much in the 
 " ludicrous" as the SUBLIME of poetry with a 
 trifling alteration in one word " Give me thy 
 " hand, Doctor : I am sorry I have beat thee, but 
 " while thou livest, keep a good tongue in thy head." 
 
 Tempest. 
 
 It has been coarsely and falsely said, that I 
 adulated Lord Byron, because he was a LORD ! ! 
 I treated him with civility, because he was a Gentle- 
 man, and because he spoke with civility, in his letter 
 to Mr. Murray, of me personally ! So far from 
 flattering him, if I had written to him a word of 
 
69 
 
 flattery* as many did, I could have received his 
 praise, I believe, as readily as his vituperation. 
 I thought it unmanly to write a syllable; but as I 
 did not at any time fear him living, and scorned 
 to flatter him ; now his faults are in the grave, and 
 I can have no hope of any courtesy, I conclude 
 with the following tribute to his memory, which 
 is not unappropriately, I hope, offered to the 
 public in this place. 
 
 CHILDE HAROLD'S LAST PILGRIMAGE. 
 
 Written after having read an Account of hit Funeral. 
 
 So ENDS CHILDE HAROLD HTS LAST PILGRIMAGE! 
 
 Above the Malian surge he stood, and cried, 
 
 ' LIBERTY !" and the shores from age to age 
 
 Renown'd, and Sparta's woods and rocks, replied, 
 
 " Liberty I" but a Spectre, at his side, 
 
 Stood, mocking and its dart uplifting high 
 
 Smote him he sunk to earth in life's fair pride ; 
 
 "While Sparta's rocks echoed a fainter cry, 
 
 And old llissus sigh'd " die, generous Exile, die !* 
 
 I will not ask sad Pity to deplore 
 His wayward errors, who thus early died : 
 Still less, CHILDE HAROLD now, thou art no more, 
 Will I speak aught of genius misapplied, 
 Or the past shadows of thy spleen or pride ; 
 But I will bid th' Arcadian uypress wave, 
 And pluck the laurel from Peneus' side, 
 And pray thy Spirit may such quiet have, 
 That not one thought unkind be murmur'd o'er thy grave, 
 
 F 
 
So ENDS CHILDE HAROLD HIS LAST PILGRIMAGE t 
 
 Ends in that region in that land renown'd, 
 
 Whose mighty genius lives in Glory's page, 
 
 Upon the Muses' consecrated ground, 
 
 His pale cheek fading, where his brows were bound 
 
 With their unfading wreath ! I will not call 
 
 The Nymphs* from Pindus* piny shades profound, 
 
 But strew some flowers upon thy sable pall, 
 
 And follow to the grave a Briton's funeral. 
 
 Slow move the plumed hearse the mourning train 
 I mark the long procession with a sigh, 
 Silently passing to that village fane, 
 Where, Harold, thy forefathers mouldering lie ; 
 Where sleeps that MOTHER, who with tearful eye, 
 Pondering the fortunes of thine onward road, 
 Hung o'er the slumbers of thy infancy ; 
 Who here, releas'd from every human load, 
 Receives her long-lost child to the same calm abode. 
 
 Bursting Death's silence could THAT MOTHER speak 
 When first the earth was heap'd upon thy head, 
 In thrilling, but with hollow accent weak, 
 She thus might give the welcome of the Dead 
 " Rest ! rest i the Passions which the heart misled, 
 
 ' Here, all are hush'd : the murmur of Life's Sea, 
 " Here, is not heard : Come, to my wormy bed ! 
 "When both shall wake FATHER, REMEMBER ME I 
 " And, Oh ! my SON, my SON HAVE MERCY UPON 
 THEE!" 
 
 * Who does not involuntarily repeat the beautiful and affecting 1 
 lines from the first Idyll of Theocritus, on the death of Daphnis, when 
 he thinks of the death of Lord Byron in Greece: 
 
 troe 
 
What is SAUCE for tlte GOOSE, is SAUCE for the GAXDEE! 
 
 BEING AN ANSWER 
 
 TO AN 
 
 tn tfje Cluarterlj) 
 
 AS FAR AS IT CONCERNS 
 
 MR. BOWLES'S EDITION OF POPE, 
 
 AND HIS 
 
 VIEW OF THAT POET'S CHARACTER, 
 
 F 
 
AN ANSWER, &c, 
 
 HAVING in my " Final Appeal" bid valete to 
 all my opponents, critics, bards, and " blockheads,"-^ 
 I should not have continued this apparently inter- 
 minable strife farther, but my old friend the Quar- 
 terly has turned out again, with something like renewed 
 spite, if not with renewed vigour, like Antaeus from the 
 ground : I have, therefore, determined, whilst my hand is 
 in, and whilst the " unfortunate" Mr. Roscoe is on the 
 ground, surrounded with sympathising mice and sighing 
 frogs, to turn for the last time to his bottle-holder ! 
 
 Whether Mr. Roscoe will lie quiet, I know not, and 
 care as little. He may try to bite at the heels ; but, 
 after the exposure of his wretched evasions, he is 
 beneath my further notice. 
 
 My new antagonist, armed with a quarter-staff, is 
 by no means to be disregarded, though I am a little 
 out of breath, and, what is worse, a little out of pocket ; 
 for if I had three hundred pounds for my edition of 
 Pope, I have spent nearly as much in defending 
 myself, getting all the abuse for nothing ! But, 
 
 " belli signum Laurent! Turnus ab aice 
 
 "Extulit," 
 
68 
 
 Before we set to, however, and whilst a ring is form- 
 ing, if a ring I may chance to get ; before we enter on 
 that which most concerns " Mr. Bowles in particular," 
 the part relating to poetical criticism, and the rank of 
 Pope in his art, will very shortly be dispatched. 
 
 And so we come precisely to the same conclusion, 
 at last! 
 
 My "invariable principles" have weathered every 
 storm, and have arrived safely in port ! They ought 
 to have THREE CHEERS ; for, I believe, it has been owing 
 to them that the question relating to Pope's supremacy 
 in his art has taken a tangible and definite shape. 
 
 Pope's rank is now acknowledged ; and the critic has 
 " degraded" him, as much as I did, in assigning him 
 exactly the same station ! ! He stands the FIRST in the 
 second class. This is all I ever contended for. The critic 
 has admitted the conclusion ; and though he, with avidity 
 of scrutiny and censure, omits nothing he can rake up 
 against me, " to put into his own sieve ;" this sieve is as 
 convenient for him as " my sieve" or " my memory" for 
 it retains, after careful sifting, whatever is collected 
 against me; but if there is any thing for me, such 
 as the whole concession of the poetical question, it 
 passes this without a word of acknowledgment ! ! 
 Bowles, Bowles, and " Bowles in particular" appears 
 in every part of every page, devoted to "particular" 
 vituperation; but not one word of Bowles, and his 
 '* invariable principles" of poetry, is heard, when the 
 substantiality of all he has contended for so long, which 
 has been so "pertinaciously" denied, disputed, or evaded, 
 is suddenly and without the least thought, as it should 
 seem, of " degrading" Pope conceded ! ! ! 
 
69 
 
 The Reviewer, indeed, can now find out, or thinks so, 
 that we might have come to nearly the same conclusion, 
 had the terms been a little more accurately defined. 
 
 I defined my terms, before I moved a step ; and no- 
 thing- but the grossest stupidity, or the most daring and 
 wilful perversion, could mistake them. But now we 
 arrive at the same conclusion, he can prove the dis- 
 agreement was owing to want of proper definition of 
 the terms ! ! 
 
 Can he prove that all my arguments have not been 
 misstated, perverted, misrepresented, that my cleverest 
 opponents did not fight with their own shadow ? That 
 his predecessor did not talk of " in-door nature" being 
 as much adapted to poetry as " out-door nature ?" That 
 " manners" might make poetry as excellent as "passions?" 
 That "the subject did not signify;" and that Roscoe 
 brought examples of " mice and frogs" to prove it? But 
 now he can find that there is not much difference ! Why 
 did he not find out this before ? Why must I write 
 seven pamphlets to prove that my critical positions 
 were never fairly met, and that the grossest perversions 
 were constantly resorted to ? 
 
 He begins now to see, that there is not much differ- 
 ence between me and my opponents ! Perhaps Roscoe 
 may at length get a "glimpse," and find out the 
 silliness of his arguments. 
 
 But even in the Quarterly Review, once the great 
 advocate of " in-door nature," we have no more insults 
 on " Infallible Principles of Poetry." They have kept 
 their way, 
 
 " Conquering the stream by force!" . 
 
 WE are quite dumb about the " family of Bowies' and 
 
70 
 
 *' Nature !" Notwithstanding the eulogy of Mr. Roscoe*s 
 *' enlightened criticisms," notwithstanding his triumphant 
 appeal to his " mice," all is given up and even the absur- 
 dity attributed to me, of saying that " Pope was no great 
 ^poet!" There is not, I repeat, a shade of difference 
 between the Reviewer's opinion and my own. I all 
 along contended for this, and no more, that Pope, 
 as a descriptive poet, was inferior to Cowper and 
 Thomson; as a lyric poet, failed: did not attempt 
 tragic or epic ; was unrivalled, and never, in my 
 opinion, to be equalled, in the Rape of the Lock, 
 and Epistle to Abelard; superior to all others, an- 
 cient or modern, as a didactic or satirical poet; but 
 as far as the noblest character and distinction of the 
 most elevated kind of poetry is required, it is indefinite 
 to call him the greatest English poet ; " for, from the 
 "nature of his subjects," however exquisitely treated, he 
 must rank inferior to Shakespeare, Milton, and Spenser ! ! 
 
 Warton says, " wit and satire are transitory, but 
 " nature and passions eternal !" " As if," says the 
 more sage commentator, " vicious passions, the most 
 " legitimate object of satire, were not as natural and 
 " eternal as torrents and volcanos !" 
 
 " As if," rebuts Mr. Bowles, " foibles and follies were 
 " not more legitimate objects of satire than vicious 
 " passions ! !" 
 
 What would the reader think of " Macbeth," a satire ; 
 x>r " Satan," a satire ? Why, Beau Nash would be a 
 be*g;er subject than IAGO ! What do you think, MR. 
 ROSCOE ? 
 
 'Having, however, thus come to an agreement, at last, 
 pp one great point at issue, respecting the station of Pope 
 
71 
 
 as a poet, so long disputed and at last conceded, I now 
 proceed to the consideration of that part of the article 
 in the Quarterly, the far greater part, in which my 
 opinions respecting Pope's moral character are canvassed, 
 if insidious abuse can be called canvassing, and in 
 which so much candour is displayed, by those who 
 inveigh so bitterly against the want of it in others. 
 
 But, before I enter into particulars, I must premise a 
 few words respecting the object, in exciting one general 
 impression of prejudice against me, both as an editor 
 and a man. 
 
 I will not here say a word of fairness. Fairness I 
 never expected from this quarter on such a subject, 
 or, indeed, on any other ; a circumstance nearly as " un- 
 " accountable" to me, as my conduct to Pope is " un- 
 " accountable" to the Reviewer ! I will not speak of 
 candour or common liberality ; but I will say, that I 
 did not believe one human being, having the advantage 
 of education, and mixing with cultivated society, could 
 have a heart so removed from all feelings of justice and 
 truth, as to bring forth charges, with every exaggeration, 
 to many of which I have replied, without saying one 
 word of the vindication. 
 
 The most striking proof of the Reviewer's candour 
 is his, apparently, throwing a doubt as to the existence 
 of my Bath Correspondent, as if I artfully wrote both 
 the letters, and the answers, in my " Final Appeal ! '* 
 But BOWLES is not quite such an ADEPT IN THE SCHOOL 
 OF POPE ! The Gentleman who took the pains of tran- 
 scribing the passages from Roscoe, is well known to every 
 respectable inhabitant of Bath ; and that part of my 
 pamphlet was printed from the identical letters ! Stu- 
 
72 
 
 pidity, moreover, puts on its most arch and sapient 
 sneer, because, after the extracts were printed, Mr. 
 Bowles thought it his duty, before publication, to 
 examine that part of Mr. Roscoe's work to which they 
 related. This examination the strictest justice required; 
 for he might add, that he could not have believed that 
 any one man in the kingdom would have made " adap- 
 *' tation to purposes" a criterion of the highest poetry ! ! 
 
 I wrote three letters to my correspondent on the sub- 
 ject ; and was only convinced, by ocular demonstration, 
 that there could be not such an " inadvertent" block- 
 head, but such blockhead at all! Will Mr. Roscoe's 
 edition and arguments stand such scrutiny as mine ! 
 Let such Critics as I have met criticise it, and how 
 would it fare ? or how, if I had thought it worth while 
 to criticise it myself?* 
 
 In my " Final Appeal *' all his arguments upon the 
 subjects in discussion are fully and fairly set before 
 the reader ! ! There could be neither distortion, or 
 garbling, or oblique suppressions. The arguments 
 stand fairly in front, and my answers directly follow ; 
 yet an insinuation is thrown out, even against the 
 very fairness of this proceeding ! ! The " indolent** 
 reader may forget what was said before ! ! So I 
 am to answer for Mr. Roscoe's lumbering lucubra- 
 tions, because a sense of justice, and a great addition 
 of expense, caused me to give them entire, that the 
 
 * Even this Reviewer lauds the notes where my " unaccountable" 
 hostility to Pope does not appear. So much, 
 
 "e'en against their will, 
 t( They have confess'd, and shall confess it still!" 
 
 The " sieve," however, lets throwjh all specification ! 
 
73 
 
 arguments and answers might stand as nearly side by 
 side as possible ! ! 
 
 I do not think the world of literature can produce 
 such unfairness, as to insinuate that even this mode of 
 controversy is unfair ! 
 
 It was impossible to devise a more fair way of answer- 
 ing the arguments of Mr. Roscoe, as far as I examined 
 them, than by printing entire in front without gar- 
 bling, or sinister quibbling, or more sinister omissions, 
 
 ALL HE HAD TO Say. 
 
 My answers are all found in the same book ; and I 
 took the field, with all Roscoe's lumber on my back, for 
 no other reason than that he should have the very 
 fairest play. 
 
 But " the arguments and replies are too far separate" 
 for " indolent" readers ! ! Who cares about " indolent" 
 readers? The question was on important subjects of 
 discussion; and my Appeal was to considerate, not 
 " indolent," readers ! ! " Indolent readers" may be very 
 convenient for the Quarterly Review, and for such 
 articles on literature as will not bear the slightest exa- 
 mination of a man of sense, very convenient for articles 
 in which flippancies, " insinuations," and sneers, impose 
 on "indolent" readers. 
 
 My answers immediately followed Mr. Roscoe's argu- 
 ments; and the reader must be as "indolent" as the 
 Quarterly ought to wish, if, having read one part, he 
 could not turn over a few leaves to compare the other. 
 
 What then must be my disadvantage, now? even 
 with this disadvantage I could beat " out of the ring" fifty 
 such Reviewers ! but what must be my disadvantage, 
 who get, perhaps, one reader, where the Quarterly gets a 
 
74 
 
 hundred! This very answer, by whomsoever read, 
 will be read long afterwards, when nothing but the 
 heartless and pitiful " insinuations" of the Reviewer 
 are remembered. 
 
 But, I believe, one man will read this answer, whom 
 it most concerns ; and he will not go out of the room 
 quite so blithe in self-conceit as before he took up 
 the pen, to cut up " Bowles in particular /" I have 
 only to add, I do not want "indolent" readers; for 
 the more considerate, the more impartial, the more truly 
 liberal and dispassionate, the better for me, and the 
 worse for Pope's miserable defenders ! 
 
 It were to be wished that a fair, just, liberal, and dis- 
 passionate review of this whole contest should be given 
 in some popular periodical work : not a mere ex parte 
 business, like this in the Quarterly. This "sieve,?* 
 indeed, retains only dirt; and yet this same dirt I 
 believe I shall, without much eifort, take from the same 
 " sieve," and fling in the face of such a " clumsy,*' 
 though cunning, sifter ! 
 
 How insidious, how truly in character with Pope 
 himself, are the observations on my rejecting, with 
 scorn, the obscene Imitation of Horace ! ! 
 
 " It was never denied," says Mr. Bowles ! As 
 " if Pope denied a thousandth part of the ribaldry im- 
 "puted to him !" says the Reviewer ! ! What, does the 
 writer, then, pretend to dispute the author of the Imitation 
 of Horace? this Imitation, which Mr. Roscoe admits to be 
 Pope's, solely on account of its wit ? But Mr. Bowles 
 assumes a " merit," on account of his omission of it ! 
 No, Sir : Mr. Bowles only says, that he ought not to be 
 indiscriminately condemned^ for he rejected it with scorn 1 
 
75 
 
 And yet Mr. Bowles, who rejected this blasphemous 
 and profane filth, is brought in front of the offenders, fof 
 " searching into corners" for what was disgraceful. 
 
 Mark, how a plain tale shall put you down ! 
 
 All the objectionable writings were published in 
 Warton's edition. Mr. Bowles left out the worst- 
 made the apology of illness for another (the " Six Weeks 
 " after Marriage") having been admitted. The " Double 
 " Mistress" was published by Pope himself; and yet 
 Mr. Bowles is the most painful searcher after these 
 latent indecencies ! MR. BOWLES, in PARTICULAR, has 
 INDUSTRIOUSLY sought out these dregs ! 
 
 The words quoted by Warburton from " HONEST 
 " VALERIAN" may here be employed advantageously by 
 myself, " mentiris iinpudentissime /" 
 
 The Reviewer's " sieve" is very convenient indeed ! 
 besides my greater sins, I have, in ten volumes, (the 
 "Final Appeal" included,) been guilty of four inadver- 
 tencies, and three or four hasty notes ! I know not how 
 many others there may be ; but I believe they would, 
 with equal triumph, have been dragged forth, if they 
 could, after the most anxious scrutiny, have been found, 
 though these notes are called a wasp's nest! 
 
 Besides expunging the infamous Imitation, the most 
 indecent stanza in another poem, admitted by Warton, 
 I expunged, as will be seen by comparing the editions. 
 And this hypocritical outcry is made in defence of him 
 who published the Imitation of Chaucer, &c. and such 
 indecencies to married and unmarried ladies, as Rochester, 
 or Don Juan himself, would not have done ! ! Let 
 the hypocrites ask whether I have made this ethic, pure, 
 and injured bard half as impure as he made himself I 
 
76 
 
 As to "inadvertencies," such cavillers ought to be 
 thankful; for sure I am, they cannot look any substantial 
 argument (if I may say so) full in the face. They direct 
 their puny efforts to some trivial error beside the ques- 
 tion ; or substitute infamous exaggerations to gain an 
 apparent triumph among " INDOLENT READERS ;" and by 
 insinuation, and with that quality described so well by 
 Churchill, 
 
 "which supplies, 
 " And amply too, the place of being wise;" 
 
 And the " Parnassian sneers" of flippant -tongued 
 and brazen-faced IGNORANCE, constitute themselves the 
 " Drawcansirs" not the BUFOS, of the " whole CAS.TA- 
 "LI AN STATE ! !" 
 
 But, NOW TO OUR TASK ! 
 
 ON THE CHARACTER OF BUFO. 
 
 An Enquiry whether t/ie Character of BuFO, in Pope's 
 Prologue to tfie Satires, be. LOUD HALIFAX? 
 
 The more important charges which are brought, with 
 " cumulative" proofs, against " Bowles in particular," 
 may be arranged under three heads: 
 
 First ; That I have professed the belief, in which I 
 have all the world, as well as Doctor Johnson, on my 
 side, that Timon was the Duke of Chandos ; Sappho, 
 
77 
 
 Lady Mary ; and Bufo, Lord Halifax ; winch last appli- 
 cation the Reviewer "collects" all his "might" to 
 disprove, with the aid of the " well-observing*' Roscoe ! 
 how successfully we shall see. 
 
 Secondly; That Pope was privy to the clandestine 
 publication of his own letters. 
 
 And, thirdly; That I have thrown out scandalous 
 insinuations against his purity ! which " insinuations" 
 are " a wasp's nest !"* 
 
 To pass over " insinuations," which are indeed " a 
 " wasp's nest" against myself, we shall examine these 
 three great points, which Scriblerus has " collected" all 
 his " might" to overturn ! 
 
 First. It is argued that Lord Halifax could " NOT 
 " POSSIBLY" be intended by the character of Bufo, 
 he, as Mr. Roscoe "well observes," dying in 1715, 
 and this epistle being published in 1734 ! 
 Second. That my opinion, relating to Pope's being 
 privy to the clandestine publication of his letters 
 in 1735, is an injustice to that artless Poet. 
 Third. That I have thrown out, by " insinuations" 
 most scandalous and unfounded reflections on his 
 purity with regard to ladies. 
 
 We shall begin our defence, against the " collected 
 " migh?' of this coadjutor of Mr. Roscoe, by examining 
 the proofs he gives, why "Bufo," as Mr. Roscoe 
 " well observes," could not possibly be meant for Lord 
 Halifax ! ! And if we can prove, to the satisfaction of 
 every thinking and dispassionate judge, that great critics 
 may err ; why then, I think, we may be inclined still to 
 admit, notwithstanding the proofs to the contrary of 
 * I am afraid our Scriblerus lias been a little " stung!" 
 
73 
 
 snch infallible oracles, that " Timon was the Duke of 
 " Chandos, Sappho, Lady Mary." 
 
 And now to examine the proofs that the " well 
 observing" Mr. Roscoe has brought so triumphantly to 
 establish the fact, that the character of BUFO could not 
 " possibly" be INTENDED FOR LORD HALIFAX ! ! ! 
 
 The opinion of this Reviewing- Sage is, indeed, worthy 
 the profound Roscoe himself ! Doctor Johnson was a 
 fool, and Doctor Warton more so ; but Bowles bears the 
 blame, for believing the character of Bufo, "fad with soft 
 " dedications," was intended for Halifax, to whom most 
 of the poets of the time offered their " soft dedications /" 
 And what is the reason that Pope, publishing this satire 
 in 1735, could not possibly have intended Bufo for Lord 
 Halifax? because Lord Halifax died in 1715; as if the 
 lines might not have been written long before they 
 were published, and as if Pope did not say himself, that 
 this poem " was begun many years ago /" By parity of 
 reasoning, the well-known lines on Addison could not 
 
 possibly be intended for him, because they were 
 lished in 1727, and Addison died 1719 I ! 
 
 It will save some trouble, if we set the AUGUST PER- 
 SONAGE exhibited by Pope before us, marking with 
 italics those lines in the features which especially will 
 require attention, not of the " indolent," but reflectingj 
 reader \ 
 
 The curtain draws up. THERE HE SITS IN STATE ! 
 WHO is HE? Stop a moment: 
 
 When a rustic urchin, with intense admiration, was 
 looking through the small window of a peep-show, the 
 " master of the magic show," pulling a string, cried, 
 " There you see the DUKE OF WELLINGTON as large 
 
79 
 
 *'as life ; and there, the King of Prussia ! !" " Which 
 " is the Duke of Wellington ?" inquired the eager, and 
 almost breathless, young Somerset rustic ! " WHICH 
 " YOU PLEASE !" said the man at the string, without 
 moving a muscle ! i 
 
 But when the curtain draws up, displaying the GREAT 
 BUFO, I say, it is not which you please ; for, I say, the 
 picture was intended for Lord Halifax, notwithstanding 
 the " well observing" Roscoe pronounces it " not pos- 
 "sible," as, WHOEVER HE WAS, he "MUST HAVE 
 "BEEN LIVING" when this satire was published, 1734!" 
 Notwithstanding this, and the no less positive assurance 
 of the equally " well observing" Scriblerus of the Quar- 
 terly, I, William Lisle Bowles, in defiance of both, 
 do assert, and will prove, the picture was intended 
 to represent Lord Halifax, in the days of King 
 William, Queen Anne, and George the First, and 
 
 COULD MEAN NO OTHER ! 
 
 " See here he is f" as some books, which I would re- 
 commend to Mr. Roscoe, " have it !" 
 " See, here he is" 
 
 " Proud as Apollo, on his forked hill, 
 
 " Sat full-blown Bufo, puflTd by every quill,- 
 
 " Fed with soft dedications all day long, 
 
 " Horace and Ac went hand in hand in song. 
 
 " His library (where busts of poets dead, 
 
 " And a true Pindar stood without a head,) 
 
 " Received of wits an undistinguish'd race, 
 
 " Who first his judgment ask'd, and then & place,- 
 
 " Much they cxtoll'd his pictures, much his seat, 
 
 " And flatter 1 d every day, and some days eat; 
 
 " Till, grown more frugal in his riper days, 
 
 " He paid some bards with port, and some with praise ; 
 
 " To some a dry rehearsal was assign'd, 
 
 M And others, harder still, he paid in kind. 
 
80 
 
 " DRYDEN alone, (WHAT WONDER!) came not nigh;, 
 
 " DRYDEN ALONE escap'd his judging eye ; 
 
 " But still the great have kindness in reserve 
 
 " He help'd to bury whom he help'd to starve!" 
 
 This personage, thus minutely pourtrayed, " ruled the 
 " whole Castalian state" in Dryden's days, and if the 
 *' well observing" Roscoe be right, must have been 
 living, and was contemporary with Pope in 1734 ! 
 
 I shall beg the reader to observe attentively the 
 words in italic! The said personage must be, 1st, a 
 poet himself; 2d, " puff 'd by every quill;" 3d, "fed 
 with soft dedications ;" 4>th, go " hand in hand" with 
 Horace, as the soft dedications no doubt assured him ; 
 5th, have a fine seat, and library open to the whole 
 race of wits except one ; 6th, he must be " grown more 
 "frugal in his riper days;" he must have discarded 
 claret and more costly wines for humble port, while to* 
 some poor bards he could not give any thing \ Vth, he 
 must have been able, before his " riper age," to give a 
 place to hungry expectancy: and having places to give, 
 must have been, in those days, not only "full-blown" 
 with honours himself, but be well known ! ! 
 
 Let us apply all these singular circumstances I 
 If there be a man in whom they do not unite, that 
 cannot be the man; if all these things unite, and apply 
 to one man, and can apply to no other of the period, 
 Qvrog exeivcs \ \ This is THE MAN ! notwithstanding 
 Mr. Roscoe's IMPOSSIBILITIES, " for that Lord Halifax 
 " died in 1715, and was not living in the year when 
 "this satire was published, 1734; and the person in- 
 " tended for Bufo WAS ! !" 
 
 The public may be tired of such discussion; but surely 
 those who are interested in the works of Pope are not. 
 
81 
 
 NoW, "well observing" Roscoe, and thou not less 
 " well-observing" Reviewer, attend ! 
 
 First, for " dedications" Sir Richard Steele, in the 
 fourth volume of the Guardian, puffeth thus : " The 
 " capacities which have rendered you the GREATEST 
 " POET OF THE AGE," &c. In another place : " All the 
 " bright images which the wits of past ages have left 
 " behind them in their writings, the noble plans which 
 " the greatest statesmen have laid down for the admi- 
 " nistration of affairs, are equally the object of your 
 " knowledge." 
 
 Such a " POET," then, and a poet so " familiar" with 
 " all the bright images" of the wits of former past ages, 
 might well be considered as going " hand in hand with 
 " Horace ;" as Mr. Roscoe, the Reviewer, and Octavius 
 Gilchrist go " hand in hand" in criticism ! ! 
 
 Thus, in " soft dedication" poureth out his grateful 
 feelings Nicholas Rowe, esquire, tragedian : " Your 
 " Lordship's patronage is a new, and will be a lasting, 
 "obligation upon me." (Dedication of Royal Convert.) 
 
 But, we must be yet more particular. After much 
 "soft dedication" of this kind, the aforesaid Nicholas 
 thus concludes : " When I have told them what men 
 " have equally adorned it, and been adorned by it, 
 " (poetry,) I might not unfitly apply to them what 
 " HORACE said to the Pisos 
 
 " Ne forte pudori 
 " Sit tibi Musa lyrse solers, et CANTOR APOLLO ! !" 
 
 This last quotation from one of the innumerable 
 dedications, with which Lord Halifax, in his days of 
 power, patronage, and poetry, was " fed," I apprehend 
 may be thought to kill (as I have done before in regard 
 
 G 2 
 
82 
 
 to Mr. Roscoe) two birds with one shot accounting both 
 for the designation of " Proud as Apollo" and the " soft' 
 idea, that as Horace went hand in hand in song with 
 thef Pisos, so he might go "hand in hand 9 ' with a 
 nobleman, no less illustrious, and no less distinguished 
 for love of the lyre, and devotion to " CANTOR APOLLO !" 
 " Proud as APOLLO !" 
 
 I have thus, not only, I believe, found out the origin 
 of Pope's " PROUD APOLLO,' but, at the first set-to, have 
 gone a little way towards knocking down poor Roscoe 
 and his bottle-holder ! and (I think I shall "prove") they 
 never made so bad a hit, as when they found out it was 
 " not possible" that Bufo could be Lord Halifax, that 
 Noble 1 Lord dying in 1715!! 
 
 We have seen Bufo, as patron, as poet, going " hand 
 " in hand" with Horace ; as Apollo himself ! Let us 
 examine the portrait again ! 
 
 Not having had the honour of being admitted to 
 Lord Halifax, among the " undistinguished wits," as, 
 I have no doubt, Roscoe would have been, and that at 
 his levee, had he been living, Octavius would have made 
 his best bow, I can say nothing about the library, or 
 Pindar " without a head ;" but* if I might judge by 
 
 CERTAIN CRITICISMS ON POETRY, LIVING CRITICS as 
 
 well as dead poets might be considered " sometimes 
 " without a head !" 
 
 Before I proceed to the detail of other circum- 
 stances, let us attentively weigh the arguments, 
 worthy of Roscoe himself, adduced by Scriblerus, 
 in favour of Roscoe's reasonings, with regard to 
 the " impossibility " of Bufo's being intended for 
 Halifax ! ! 
 
83 
 
 " The passage itself PROVES, (quoth he,) as Mr. Roscoe 
 " lias well observed, that to whomsoever the character of 
 " Bufo may be supposed to refer, IT CANNOT BE to Lord 
 "Halifax, who died in 1715, when Pope was a very 
 " young man, and before he had published his Homer ; 
 "whereas the person alluded to MUST HAVE BEEN 
 " LIVING in Pope's more advanced years, when he had 
 " been ' BE-RHYMED so long/ and was * grown sick of 
 " fops, and poetry, and prate.' " 
 
 Euge! "well-observing" Critic! Aye, but what 
 renders it so conclusive that Bufo could not possibly 
 be Lord Halifax ? Why, Pope wrote this satire, and 
 introduced the name, when he describes himself, as 
 ** be-rhym'd so long" and, 
 
 " Sick of fops, and poetry, and prate, 
 
 41 To Bufo left the whole Castalian state !"* 
 
 Festina lente! says the proverb. We shall examine 
 this point presently; but, first, vos animcB, Concordes, 
 " well observing" Mr. Roscoe, and " well observing" 
 Reviewer on Roscoe's " well-observed" observations, 
 you who are so accurate as to the time when Halifax 
 died, and who bring such decisive proofs that Pope, 
 writing in 1735, could not mean him, Pray, when did 
 DRYDEN die? 
 
 Now, let us see the " two Kings of Brentford" putting 
 their heads together, and whispering ! ! 
 
 Perhaps you yourself, you " IN PARTICULAR, Mr. 
 Reviewer," may be " twadvertent" sometimes ; that is, 
 in the haste of abusing Bowles, may forget a little 
 as to dates!/ 
 
 * I would request the reader to turn to Pope's Prologue to the 
 Satires. 
 
84 
 
 Therefore we will, if you please, take down Doctor 
 Johnson ! ! Page 325, Lives of the Poets, small edition: 
 Life of Dryden. It is best, "sometimes" not to be 
 " inadvertent," though, in a little bit of ingenious raillery, 
 you prove " my inadvertence" in my letting " GREATER 
 "BLOCKHEAD" remain, instead of correcting it into 
 "great blockhead;" but it is lucky I did not, as it gave 
 you an opportunity of saying so witty a thing as that 
 I made myself a " greater blockhead" than Pope ! 
 
 Now I think I shall shew to the public two as 
 "inadvertent* and "greater" blockheads than myself I 
 But attend to JOHNSON ! ! 
 
 " The time was now at hand, which was to put an 
 " end to all his schemes and labours : on the first of 
 
 "May, SEVENTEEN HUNDRED AND ONE,"* (1701, for 
 
 fear I should make a mistake in the date 1701, the 
 first of May,) "he having been a long time a cripple 
 " in his limbs, he (John Dryden) died in Gerrard* 
 * street!!!" 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, have the goodness to turn to the 
 satire, in which stands the character of Bufo, and which, 
 as Mr. Roscoe "well observes" could not possibly be 
 meant for Lord Halifax, who was dead, and tell us how 
 many years intervened between Dry den's death and the 
 publication of this satire ! Thirty-three ! according to 
 Gibber, thirty-four; for Gibber says, Dryden died in 
 1700! 
 
 Then Bufo " ruled the whole Castalian state" from 
 Dryden's death, thirty-three or thirty-four years a 
 pretty long space for so illustrious a personage to rule 
 INCOG. ! taking the period only from Dryden's death ! 
 
 To proceed: Pray, Gentlemen, do you remember 
 
8,5 
 
 these lines, which stand as part of the character of Bufo, 
 in the Prologue to the Satires, line 245 : 
 
 " DRYDEN ALONE, (WHAT WONDER?) came not nigh; 
 
 " DRYDEN alone escap'd his JUDGING eye ! 
 
 " But still the great have kindness in reserve 
 
 " He HELP'D TO BURY whom HE help'd to starve !'* 
 
 " Facts," geod Gentlemen, "are stubborn things !" 
 You will be safer in sticking to indefinite " insinuations," 
 with as many heartless sneers as you can muster up ! 
 That this " Bufo," this great POET PEER, this ARCH- 
 PATRON of all poets, EXCEPT DRYDEN, whom he " help'd 
 i{ to STARVE," MUST HAVE BEEN living in the year 1735, 
 however " well observed," requires some strong proof! 
 
 Next observe, this " Bufo," who " help'd to bury" 
 Dryden in 1701, must also have been surrounded during 
 Dryden's life by Dryden's cotemporaries, and have 
 helped to "starve" him; and this period we may set 
 down as ten years before his death ! This makes 
 forty-four years ! ! 
 
 But we are told that " this satire was written at an age 
 66 when Pope was sick of poetry and prate !" Indeed! 
 Look back a little, look at the poem, and ask, at what 
 age he was most " sick" of the " prate" of Gildon, 
 Dennis,* &c. ; and then ask, which of the two is more 
 credible ? that the circumstances, which agree in sucli 
 minute particulars, should be relied on; or Mr. Roscoe's 
 " impossibilities," even if the " well observing" Roscoe 
 understood a little of English grammar! But of this 
 I shall say more by and bye. 
 
 * See Dr. Johnson's Life of Pope, for specimens of Dennis's " prate" 
 OH the " Essay on Criticism !" 
 
86 
 
 Nor need I place reliance on the story related by Dr, 
 Johnson, (whether the whole story might be true or not,) 
 that " Lord Halifax sent to Lady Howard (Dryden's 
 " widow) to say, that if she and her son would give 
 " him leave to BURY Mr. Dryden, he would BURY him 
 "with a gentleman's private funeral, and afterwards 
 ** bestow five hundred pounds on a monument in the 
 " Abbey ; which, as they had no reason to refuse, they 
 " accepted." 
 
 But as far as I have gone I let plain and singular 
 facts speak for themselves, leaving out all " insinuations" 
 respecting Pope's art and practised concealments ; and 
 can only say, if I were a blockhead, it is some comfort to 
 have the company of Dr. Johnson ! Solamen miseris, &c. 
 
 To proceed: no one, then, but Lord Halifax, pecu- 
 liarly " fed by soft dedications," could be said to " rule 
 " the whole Castalian state," before and after Dry den's 
 death! And Bufo, the patron of all poets, EXCEPT 
 Dryden, in Dryden's days, must then also have " ruled 
 " the whole Castalian state !" And yet this ruler of the 
 " whole Castalian state" from Dry den's clays to 1734 
 must be still living in Pope's advancing age, and yet 
 nobody ever heard from that day to this who this 
 " GREAT UNKNOWN" was ! ! " Well observed," indeed, 
 Roscoe !* 
 
 And now to examine the " well observed" obser- 
 vations as to the time, when Pope was SICK of " poetry 
 " and prate !" As I recommended a Latin grammar and 
 
 * How inexcusible must Dr. Johnson have been, for he was twenty- 
 five years old himself when Pope published the Prologue to the Satires, 
 and, of course, contemporary with this illustrious INCOG, if Roscoe be 
 right ! and yet he is so ignorant and obstinate as to fix on HALIFAX ! 
 
87 
 
 dictionary to Roscoe, I might now recommend to his 
 friend an English grammar, before he pretends to write 
 pert and contumelious criticisms. 
 
 The reader, if not " indolent," I am sure, is nearly 
 satisfied already. So far from its being true, that Pope 
 speaks of the existence of Bufo in his own decline of 
 life, every name, every circumstance, every allusion in 
 the satire, as I shall further prove, (from line 125 to 
 Bufo's appearance,) is confined to the period before 
 Halifax died! But it may be as well, in confirmation 
 of what has been before said, to adduce Pope's own 
 words concerning this satire" It was BEGUN MANY 
 " YEARS SINCE, and continued by snaches ! !" 
 
 And let us, at the same time, keep in remembrance 
 what Johnson has said: " Addison began to praise 
 " him early ; and was accompanied by other poets, 
 "perhaps by ALMOST ALL, except Swift and Pope, 
 " who forbore to flatter him in his life, and after- 
 " wards spoke of him, --Swift with slight censure, and 
 " Pope, IN THE CHARACTER OF BUFO, with acrimonious 
 "contempt. He was, as Pope says, 'fed with softdedi- 
 *' cations,' and Tlckel affirms that no dedication was 
 " unrewarded." 
 
 A poem* which was " begun MANY YEARS AGO," 
 might well be considered to have been " begun" about 
 the time of some of these " soft dedications*' to Halifax ; 
 and if Roscoe and Scriblerus had common sense, and 
 knew any thing of grammar, instead of so " well obserr- 
 " ing" that " Bufo must be alive in Pope's more advanced 
 
 * In my note in loco, (Bowles's edition,) I should have said, "published" 
 after Halifax's death. 
 
88 
 
 " years, when 9 (a pretty substitute for "now") he " was 
 " sick of poetry and prate," they would have " observed" 
 that the whole connection in this satire, from Pope's 
 early friends to Addison and Bufo, 1715, is as plain as 
 the road to Liverpool from London. Before we have 
 done, I believe I shall cause both these " observers," like 
 the two kings before alluded to, to whisper again, shake 
 their heads, and grumble, This " pestilent Parson is 
 " too much for us after all !" 
 
 The reader's attention, not that of an "indolent" 
 one, is now farther requested. After the well-known 
 lines on Addison, Pope says, 
 
 " I sought no homage from the race that write ; 
 
 " I kept, like Asian monarchs, from their sight ;* 
 
 " Poems I Jieeded (now be-rhym'd so long !) 
 
 " No more than thou, great George, a birth-day song ! 
 
 " I ne'er with wits or witlings pass'd my days, 
 
 " To spread about the itch of verse or praise ; 
 
 " Nor like a puppy, dangled through the town, 
 
 " To fetch and carry sing-song up and down j 
 
 " Nor at REHEARSALS," &c. 
 
 Can the eighth and ninth line be said to relate to a 
 person in age ? At this time, Pope's poetical character 
 was fully established; and now, " remote from witlings," 
 he "fe/fc the whole Castalian state" to Bufo !f Then 
 comes the description of Bufo, in the time of Dryden, 
 continued to this a3ra of Pope's poetical fame, and thus 
 
 * When did Pope keep " out of sight" from the " race that write?" 
 When he left Button's, the general resort of the wits, having been per- 
 sonally offended with Phillips, who, it is said. " hung up a rod" for him, 
 long before the death of Halifax ! 
 
 f He had published his PASTORALS, WINDSOR FOREST, TEMPLE or 
 FAME, ELOISA, the RAPE OF THE LOCK, &c. The first volume of 
 Homer was published in the year in which Halifax died. 
 
89 
 
 this part of the satire has its coherence and regular 
 connection. 
 
 I shall not yet dismiss the " well observing" and simple 
 Roscoe, and his " well observing" and sage friend ; I 
 
 shall not yet say 
 
 " DEMETRI, teque TIGELLI, 
 " Discipularum inter jubeo plorare cathedras." 
 
 As I have given " the Member of the Delia Crusca 
 " Society" a lesson in Horace, I will now endeavour to 
 set him right in English. 
 
 We have seen how profound is his observation, to 
 which our blithe Critic responds so happily ! The 
 " nucleus" of what he has so " well observed" is this, 
 that Pope, now advanced in years, and writing this satire, 
 when he had been " be-rhym f d so long," and leaving the 
 whole " CASTALIAN STATE" to Bufo, Bufo MUST have 
 been his cotemporary at this period; notwithstanding 
 Bufo's plenitude of patronage, in the state of Gastalia, 
 was in Dryden's days ! 
 
 Now, as I construed Horace to Mr. Roscoe, let me 
 construe to him this very sentence, on which he trusts 
 so much, while the Reviewer claps him on his back, 
 "manibus plaudentibus ! !" 
 
 The poet had spoken of his early poems, then of 
 critics, which bring him to Addison! He "sought no 
 " homage from the race that write,*' and though " now" 
 at this period of life " be-rhymed so long" he then 
 at that time " heeded' 1 poems no more than George 
 does now a birth-day song ! * 
 
 " Poems I HEEDED (now be-rhym'd so long !) 
 
 " No more than thou, great George, a birth-day song !" 
 
 * I sliall observe afterwards on the ninth and tenth lines : " Nor at 
 " rehearsals," &c. 
 
90 
 
 There can be no other, even grammatical, construc- 
 tion of the passage, than this: I " heeded'* referring to 
 time past, and "now" to the present! Leaving the 
 " well observing" Roscoe to ponder a little, we return to 
 this arch-poet, patron, and statesman ! In 1698, Halifax 
 was made First Commissioner of the Treasury, and 
 appointed one of the Regency in the King's absence ; in 
 the next year (1699), Auditor of the Exchequer; and in 
 1700, Baron Halifax. During this period he, like Bufo, 
 
 " Receiv'd of wits an undistinguished race, 
 
 " Who first his JUDGMENT ask'd, and then a PLACE !" 
 
 In the reign of Queen Anne 9 and in "his riper 
 " age" he was out of employment; and therefore growing 
 frugal^ he repaid some bards with " a dry rehearsal," 
 and some " in kind," just like Bufo ! He was in his 
 " riper days," and unable to treat with better wine than 
 " port," when he was not only out of place, but even quite 
 out of favour, like Bufo, during the last four years of 
 Queen Anne, at whose death he was at the " ripe age" 
 of 53. And now for the time when Pope was most espe- 
 cially " sick!" After the death of Queen Anne he was as 
 " SICK*' of the Whigs, as he had been before of Gildon, 
 Dennis, Blackmore,* Phillips, &c.f ; and Halifax, like 
 Bufo, was now, indeed, " full-blown, " when he received 
 the last and highest honours, being created Earl of Halifax 
 by George I.f by whose accession Pope's friends were 
 
 * Blackmore is alluded to in the following line : 
 
 " Whose fustians, so sublimely bad !" &c. 
 
 Prologue to the Satires. 
 
 f- Oldmixon, after the accession of George the First, expressed a 
 wonder that " such libellers as Swift, &c. wore not punished." 
 
 J Installed KNIGHT oy THE GARTER, and made Lord Lieutenant of 
 the county of Surrey. 
 
91 
 
 scattered: when Swift was disappointed in Ireland; 
 Oxford retired to Herefordshire ; and when all Bolin- 
 broke's schemes of ambition were destroyed. About this 
 time the quarrel with Addison began, and thus Bufo and 
 he are placed together in the same satire ! 
 
 Now, can any man in his senses, I will not ask 
 "poor" Roscoe, but whatever readers I may get, 
 believe there could be anot/ter Lord, whom every thing 
 in this description would suit, besides Lord Halifax ! 
 
 What does Mr. Roscoe, gaping at his wonderful dis- 
 covery, imagine that there were two patrons, such as 
 Halifax, in Dry den's days ? two> " fed by dedica- 
 " tions ?" two, who patronised all the poets* except 
 Dryden ? We know he seemed to think Shakespeares 
 as plenty as blackberries, and such patrons, perhaps, as 
 plentiful also ! But I am afraid, taking all things into 
 consideration, Bufo will be Halifax, notwithstanding all 
 Mr. Roscoe has so "well observed! /" his observations 
 being equally remote from probability, the coherence 
 of the satire, the chronology of the period, and the 
 grammatical structure of the passage ! ! 
 
 Perhaps the reader may begin to think that these are 
 somewhat singular coincidences, 
 
 " Season your admiration for a while !" ( Hamlet. ) 
 
 The strongest fact is to come ! Now, Scriblerus, as in 
 your affected jargon you talked of " cumulative proofs, 
 you shall have them in sufficient " cumulation" to over- 
 whelm yourself, and the " well observing" Roscoe ! 
 Let us examine a little closer one line : 
 
 " Dryden alone, 'NO WONDER,' came not near !" 
 Why should there be so specific an expression that 
 
92 
 
 Dryden did not come near, and that there was " nb 
 " wonder!" It would have been " A WONDER" if he had ! 
 Why ? Because, should Bufo be Halifax after all, not- 
 withstanding it could " not be possible" as Mr. Roscoe and 
 his critic so " well observe,'* Halifax had written a little 
 poem in ridicule of this Dryden ; and it would have been 
 a " wonder," if after this he had " come nigh! T When 
 was this satire written, and what was its name ? It was 
 written in the year before that in which Alexander 
 Pope came into "this breathing world;'* it was called, 
 hear, Reviewer, and thou exquisite " observer, " Ros- 
 coe ! it was called, "The CITY MOUSE and COUNTRY 
 " MOUSE,*' the cockney and provincial mouse ! This 
 satire was written in conjunction with Matthew Prior, 
 to ridicule Dryden's Hind and Panther, in 1 687. 
 
 This is pretty strong evidence ! The reader will say, 
 "WHAT WONDER" Dryden "came not NIGH!" and think 
 it not the least "WONDER," that two such "well ob- 
 " serving" Foodies should adorn one age, and Write 
 criticisms on Pope ! I shall now say a word about the 
 name of Bufo! 
 
 Perhaps, Octavius Gilchrist, who, after such parade 
 of what he would do to vindicate " calumniated worth," 
 did nothing but abuse Bowles, might inform us, as 
 he did of Sappho, that " chance alone" directed Pope to 
 the name of Bufo ! Perhaps not ! Perhaps an asso- 
 ciation (but this is all " conjecture") of ideas with 
 a little animal called a mouse might have suggested 
 the thought of another little animal, (both adapted to 
 the higher order of poetry,) called frog! And who 
 knows, (this is only "conjecture!'*) the frog might 
 have suggested the name of another little animal, the 
 
93 
 
 Latin of which is Euro, a toad;* a name, at least, well 
 applied, when it appears there were so many " toad- 
 " eating" puffers of this " proud Apollo !" I would not 
 " insinuate," that if Mr. Roscoe, (like Prior and Mon- 
 tague,) in conjunction with Octavius Gilchrist, were to 
 write criticisms, such criticisms might not unaptly be 
 termed the prolusions of toad and frog ! ! 
 
 I have dwelt somewhat longer on this part, be- 
 cause the two " well observing" sages seem to cackle 
 out EvgyKct, together, on the happiness of the dis- 
 covery that Bufo " could not possibly be* Halifax ; 
 on which the Reviewer might farther hitch that 
 kind of comment, which in general, and in the case 
 of Bowles so "particularly," adorns the comments of 
 a mind uniting the obtusity of a blockhead, and the pert- 
 ness of a witling ! 
 
 Sage as such united sapience may now look, I have 
 not done with the subject. In my answer to Roscoe, 
 I contrived, I believe, as was visible to every reader 
 but himself, to " kill two birds with one stone," that 
 stone being from the sling, which, together with the 
 stone, he kindly and "inadvertently" put into my hands. 
 
 I think I can again do something of the same kind 
 before I finish what I have to say on this Evpyxa of the 
 " well observing" Noodle and Foodie of " the Casta- 
 " Kan state" in 1825 ? ! 
 
 An " insinuation" is thrown out, in observations as 
 liberal as they are ingenious, on the letters of my friend 
 
 * The late Editor of the Quarterly Review compared a critic to this 
 reptile in a garden. But Mr. Gifford never received the provocation and 
 insult which were heaped upon me by one man, whom Mr. Hoscoe, and 
 ot myself, has again brought forward. 
 
94 
 
 at Bath, who furnished the extracts from Roscoe, that 
 " clumsy" as was this expedient, it answered some pur- 
 poses ; particularly that when " I could not answer Mr. 
 " Roscoe's arguments," the excuse might be that they 
 were not sent to me ! Now, in answer, I say plainly, 
 
 First; This his ingenious discovery and proof that 
 Bufo could not be Lord Halifax, was not sent me! I 
 knew not of its existence. I never read a word of 
 Roscoe's Pope, except to compare the extracts ; being 
 satisfied, from specimens of his criticisms, of his profun- 
 dity, and fitness for the task ! ! ! 
 
 Now, Sir, do you think that I, as cunning as Pope, 
 but more " clumsy," took care my friend should not 
 send this delectable discovery, because I could not 
 answer it? You see I have pretty well answered it, 
 though you thought I cunningly omitted it, as being 
 
 UNANSWERABLE ! 
 
 " WE/* in the jargon of criticism, have thus submitted 
 to the reader these " cumulative proofs" which point 
 to Halifax, and to Halifax alone, as " ruling the Casta- 
 "lian state" in Dryden's days, and till the death of 
 Halifax! Now, as far as we have gone, let us sum up 
 the detail: 
 
 1st. This Bufo must have written poems himself! So 
 did Halifax! 
 
 2d. He must have been the great patron of the 
 literary world, " the whole Castalian state !" So was 
 Halifax! 
 
 3d. He must have been " fed with soft dedications!" 
 So was Halifax ! The dedicators to Halifax were Rowe, 
 Steele, Addison, Tickel, Dennis, Hughes, Stepney, 
 Motteux, Ozell, Congreve, &c. 
 
95 
 
 4/A. Bufo's peculiarly splendid library is specified by 
 Pope! Addison speaks of the splendid " library" of 
 Halifax ! 
 
 5th. He must have had emoluments and places to 
 give away; in short, have been a minister of state I So 
 was Halifax! 
 
 6th. In his " riper age," having lost his places, his 
 power of patronage must have been diminished ! This 
 was the case with Halifax in the reign of Queen Anne. 
 
 7th. Of the wits and poets whom Bufo patronised, 
 Dry den was the only one who " came not nigh !" 
 Dryden alone came " not nigh" Halifax ! 
 
 8th. Pope tells us, it was " NO WONDER" Dryden 
 came " not nigh" Bufo; and it was " no wonder" Dryden 
 came " not nigh" Halifax ! 
 
 9th. That this patron, to whom all poets had access, 
 SAVE DRYDEN, the reason for which is so peculiar, was 
 among the subscribers to his funeral, cannot be doubted ! 
 He helped to " starve" Dryden, because he did every 
 thing in his power to injure his reputation during his life !* 
 
 10th. Bufo was "full-blown!" So was Halifax, 
 when every cumulated honour had been conferred on 
 hin by George I. 
 
 Now, that all these peculiar circumstances should meet 
 together in one person, living in 1734, and then ruling 
 the whole state of Castalia, and that person entirely 
 unknown, I pronounce IMPOSSIBLE ! 
 
 But I have not yet done with all the " cumulative 
 " proofs'* indicative of Halifax, and of him alone! 
 
 * " In his poems," he sdys, " Dryden had no heart!" Pope asked 
 his "JUDGMENT" on the first books of Homer, and "a p/ace" was in- 
 directly promised ! ! 
 
 H 
 
96 
 
 We have seen the probable cause for the name,- 
 for the munificent personage being placed on the " two- 
 " fork'd hill," " proud as Apollo," and for going, like 
 the wealthy Pisos, " hand in hand" with Horace ! 
 
 All these things are so peculiar so specific so clearly 
 traced in one man, and so impossible to be found in 
 another, that I believe the reader will begin to wonder at 
 that hebetude of understanding, which either could not 
 trace, or would not acknowledge, these coincidences; 
 and yet could so rashly affirm, it was " not possible 19 
 that Bufo could be intended for Halifax, because Hali- 
 fax died in 17 15, and this personage "must be alive" 
 in 1734! 
 
 This is a " sieve, and swallow" too, beyond my com- 
 prehension ! ! But what must we think of a CRITIC, 
 professing knowledge of such things an editor of a 
 most popular literary journal, revising and correcting 
 this article of this critic Mr. DOODLE, Mr. FOODLE, 
 and Mr. NOODLE, F. R. S. " associate of the first class 
 " of the Royal Society of Literature" all three laying 
 their heads together, and agreeing how " well it 
 " was observed," by brother " Noodle," that Bufo could 
 not "possibly" be Halifax, because this Bufo must 
 have been alive in Pope's advancing years ; though, to 
 the knowledge of any human being, he this patron, 
 tiiis poet, this statesman, this nobleman, whom all the wits 
 of the day came near EXCEPT DRYDEN was as un- 
 known as PRESTER JOHN ! ! 
 
 Here leaving these "well observing" gentlemen, 
 Noodle and Foodie, in amaze at those " cumulative 
 " proofs," I think the reader will be fully satisfied that 
 " Mr. Bowles in particular" did not affix the character of 
 
97 
 
 Bufo on Halifax, from " mere conjectural interpreta- 
 tion ! !" I shall just add, that this Halifax sitting 
 like Apollo among contemporaries, critics, and wits, and 
 poets did not patronise John Dryden ! But there was 
 another John who did come nigh, and who was also 
 especially patronised; and who also, rough as he was to 
 others, became " a soft dedicator" also, and this was 
 JOHN DENNIS, Pope's most inveterate enemy ! ! 
 
 Least a doubt should remain, I shall now more mi- 
 nutely examine the point, as to the period when the 
 poet left " the whole Castalian state" to Bufo. It was 
 at that period of life when some of his contemporaries 
 " sweat at rehearsals," &c. 
 
 In this very " Prologue to his Satires," Pope enume- 
 rates those of whom he was "sick:" Burnet, Old- 
 mixon, Cook, " Slashing Bentley," and " Piddling 
 " Tibbalds."* Burnet attacked his friends Bolingbroke 
 and Oxford in a letter dedicated to the same Noble- 
 man. The year Halifax died, 1715, he published 
 Hamerides, on the projected translation of Homer ! 
 Cook and Oldmixonf attacked him afterwards; but 
 Oldmixon was an old man at this time, and the pre- 
 sumption is, that having been mentioned at the same 
 time with Burnet, they had committed some offence. 
 Bentley, Pope himself informs us, projected dedicating 
 his edition of Horace to Halifax ! 
 
 These critics and poets lead the satirist to Addison, 
 whom he praised in the Dunciad, and satirized in 
 the Prologue to the Satires. The arch Warburton 
 
 * More will be said of these names further 01*. 
 
 f Oldmixon attacked Swift in 1715. 
 H 2 
 
9S 
 
 tells us, in the notes to the Dunciad, on the praise of 
 Addison, " nothing is MORE REMARKABLE than OUR 
 " AUTHOR'S love of PRAISING GOOD writers ! !" To 
 which another Editor begs to add, " nothing is more 1 
 " remarkable in our autfior, than praising at one time 
 " those whom he satirizes at another !" 
 
 Among the critics who annoyed Pope at this period of 
 his life, for afterwards, instead of being " sick" he 
 cared infinitely less about them, may be mentioned, 
 besides Dennis and Gildon Ducket, Welsted, Cent- 
 livre, &c. To these may be added, " Bedlam and the 
 Mint ! !" 
 
 So annoyed had he been, that, the very year after 
 Halifax's death, we find him writing his complaints of 
 what a " poet militant" suffers ; and the same year, 
 Swift, speaking of the number of Pope's enemies, says, 
 " Who are all these enemies you hint at ?" 
 
 Such were the critics, of whose prate Pope was, and 
 well might be, " sick ;" and at a time when he must 
 have felt the annoyance most, while they fluttered like 
 magpies round an eagle ! 
 
 But of what " poetry" was he " sick?" "Sick" as who 
 would not be, of the Bucolicks of his rival Arcadian, 
 PHILLIPS, spoken of also, in this " Prologue to the 
 " Satires !" How " sick" Pope was of his " poetry" is 
 obrious, from the elaborate caricature of Phillips's Pasto- 
 rals written for the " Guardian," at this period; and by the 
 delight he expressed when Gay, his " divine Bucolick," 
 ridiculed his rival Arcadian so successfully in his 
 " Shepherd's Week ! !" 
 
 Besides these pastoral strains, was he " sick" of no 
 other poetry ? What does the reader think of that great 
 
99 
 
 heroic poet, who sung " so loudly and so long? Black^ 
 more ? whose works 
 
 never will be half read ; 
 
 " Who first sung Arthur,' then King Alfred'. 
 " Undid Creation at -A jerk" &c. 
 
 How " sick" he was of such heroics, as well as the 
 softer strains of PhiHips, is apparent all through his 
 works : he might be said to have made Blackmore thj3 
 first and last subject of his song, as Horace says, 
 
 " Prima dicte mihi, summa dicende, Cumoena !" 
 
 So lie was at this period as " sick" of Blackmore's 
 " keroicks" as of Ambrose Phillip's Bucolicks ! and 
 perhaps he was more " sick" still of the " prate" at But- 
 ton's, and the rival Arcadian's rod hung up there ! 
 
 What argument is opposed to all this evidence? 
 Pope spoke with respect of Halifax, in the Epilogue to 
 the Satires ! Did he not speak with respect of Addison 
 in the Dunciad? 
 
 I have thought this detail necessary. I am sure every 
 thing I have said will be corroborated by only turning 
 to this satire ! I have said, also, that the " well observ- 
 " ing" Roscoe, to make it out that it is " impossible 3ufp 
 "should be Halifax," must confound times as well as 
 tenses ; for it is obvious, if Pope were now in his " riper 
 " age" and Bufo was now alive, and, like the Quarterly 
 Reviewer, INCOG. why then, I think all grammarians^ 
 except some at Liverpool, must think that Pope would 
 have written not I " left," but 
 
 " Sick of fops, and poetry, and prate, 
 
 " To Bufo leave the whole Castalian state !" 
 
 As in PrcBsenti perfectum format in avi, Master Rps- 
 
100 
 
 coe ! and, therefore, I leave " the whole Castalian state" 
 to judge of the " well observing" sapience of the first 
 goose y and the no less critical acumen of the ARCH GOOSE 
 in the Quarterly Review, who comes twaddling, and 
 waddling, and cackling after ! ! 
 
 I shall here beg leave to add one monosyllable, not 
 that of which all geese, it is said, have an instinctive 
 dread " BO ;"* but that of which such geese as these 
 have a kind of instinctive dread " ir"f 
 
 " And IF I had them upon Sarum plain, 
 
 " I'd drive them cackling home to ' Murray's Rooms !' " 
 
 Shakespeare, 
 
 I have already spoken of the general tenor and order 
 of this poem. Should the reader be not quite so " indo- 
 " lent" as it might be wished for such critical directors 
 
 * M. S. Alii legunt pro " Bo" Bow ! at nonnuUi, BOWLES ! sic lege 
 nieo periculo!! (Bentleius.) 
 
 f I must here give the reader some information respecting the mono- 
 iyllable " IF !" I really thought this silly cuckoo-cry had been over ; 
 and I thought also, that there could not possibly be two persons in his 
 Majesty's dominions, who would not think all that has been said about 
 it beneath contempt ! The fact is this : Mr. Bowles said, that a parti- 
 cular story was most disgraceful to Pope, ' IF TRUE ; but it ought not 
 " to be believed for a moment on the word of an adversary ! !" Again: 
 Mr. Bowles, speaking of the imputed crime in another place, said nearly 
 the same! But Dr. Warton having called "this a blemish, if true!" 
 Mr. Bowles said, " call it a blemish ! if true, it was most atrocious ! !" 
 And now, forsooth, Mr. Bowles is " ashamed," at last, into the admission 
 of that which he constantly, willingly, and warmly proclaimed ! But the 
 little bit of afoot-note, upon Walton's notes, stands between the positive 
 assurances of disbelief ! Therefore Mr. Bowles has on either side &fort 
 to Hy to ! ! Even Roscoe is a STAGYRITE to this Doctor! I may well 
 disdain to reply; but as I shall have occasion, perhaps, to recur to 
 this " IF," I thought it best to explain the occasion. 
 
 The whole vocabulary of the English language does not supply me 
 with a word sufficiently expressive of my scorn ; and therefore I content 
 myself with \ simply saying " WHAT AN ASS!!" 
 
101 
 
 of taste and truth, let him .spare a few minutes to look 
 back at the course and order of this " Prologue to the 
 " Satires." It was published in 1 734,* when the patron of 
 all the poets, EXCEPT DRYDEN, according to the " well 
 " observing" Roscoe, was still alive and merry. 
 
 "Shut, shut the door," exclaims the languid bard; 
 and John Searle is described as endeavouring to keep 
 back the crowd pressing into the room, some to 
 "solicit" a prologue and " ten pounds" and some roaring 
 aloud " Subscribe subscribe !" 
 
 At line 127, when he is released from the crowd, he 
 begins the retrospect of his poetical life, 
 
 " As yet a child, nor yet a fool to feme, 
 " I lisp'd in numbers!" 
 
 But his friend in the Dialogue enquires, " Why then 
 " publish ?" Why ! answereth the bard ; because 
 Granville, and Walsh, and Garth, and Congreve, and 
 Swift, and Talbot, &c. persuaded him he could write, 
 and approved his poems ! These were all his earliest 
 friends. Thus he is persuaded to publish (line 147) : 
 " Soft were his numbers," (his pastorals,) " who could take offence?" 
 
 Yet then 
 
 " Did GiJdon draw his venom'd quill ;" 
 And then did 
 
 ' Dennis also RAVE in FURIOUS pet !" 
 
 But he did not of course reply to 
 "Bedlam and the Mint!" 
 
 * In Bowles's edition, 1733. Pope was a "very young man!" say 
 the sages ! ! So young, as to be seven and twenty ; and to have written 
 all the poems which entitle him to him highest rank in his art, ELOISA, 
 RAPE or THE LOCK, &c.!! 
 
102 
 
 From Gildon, and Dennis, and " Bedlam and the, 
 " Mint," lie proceeds to more " sober" critics, and 
 some, verbal cavillers 
 
 " The ' word-catchers/ that live on syllables !" 
 
 Then he enumerates poets of the same period, 
 Phillips, his rival Arcadian, 
 
 " Whom pilfered pastorals renown '" 
 
 And adds the " no-meaning," and " fustian poet,"* till he 
 pomes to the illustrious Addison ! Thus all in the 
 satire is consistent, and in due chronological order. 
 
 Now, reader, again attend ! Pope, at this time, 
 never " sweat at rehearsals;" never had a play acted, as 
 Phillips had, whose " Distressed Mother," had been 
 lately performed with applause ! 
 
 Pope had never written plays, nor ever 
 
 " at REHEARSALS sweat and cried, 
 " With handkerchief and orange at his side !" 
 
 Pope had not ! No ! but who had ? Addison, whom 
 h.e had just described, just described, as " giving his 
 "little senate laws," like CATO ! And " Cato" was 
 the most successful play in its time that ever appeared, 
 and was now in its meridian glory and popularity, being 
 first acted in 1713 !f 
 
 - Blackmore. 
 
 f Let it be remembered that I am not speaking of the time when 
 this part of the satire was written ; but of the times to which it evidently 
 alludes. This part was probably written on the quarrel with Addison, 
 and patron and poet were placed together. This is the reason that the 
 portraits of Addison and Halifax are brought together in this satire, as 
 Addison was mseparably connected with Haliiax as long as he lived. 
 
103 
 
 Pope nerer " sweat at rehearsals, with handkerchief arid 
 " orange !" But, as I asked before, who did ? The 
 Author of CATO ! for, in the Life of Addison, (John- 
 son's Life,) this singular circumstance appears: 
 
 " The play, supported thus by the emulation of fac^ 
 " tious praise, was acted night after night, for a longer 
 " time than the public, I believe, had allowed to any 
 *' DRAMA before; and the 'Author,' (who, like Cato, 
 "gave 'his little senate laws,') as Mrs. Porter (the 
 " chief actress) long afterwards related, ' WANDERED 
 
 " ' THROUGH the WHOLE EXHIBITION, BEHIND the 
 
 " ' scenes, with RESTLESS and UNAPPEASABLE solicitude !'" 
 This coincidence is casual, nor is it wanted; but how 
 illustrative of the person, and time, of which Pope speaks ! 
 I affirm, moreover, in the face of these " well 
 " observing" critics, that from the line 135, in which 
 Pope speaks of his early poems, not one name is 
 introduced previously to the portraits of Addison and 
 Bufo, not one name is introduced, except the names 
 of those who were cotemporaiies, and authors, before 
 the death of Halifax! 
 
 His elegant Epistle from Italy to his friend is the best of his poetical 
 productions. It should not be forgotten, that in the dedication prefixed 
 to his Latin poems, Addison speaks of the " Turba Poetarum !" 
 
 Such an accumulation of evidence never could be conceived without 
 examination. But what must a literary man be, who could tliink of 
 editing Pope, without taking one of these proofs into consideration, 
 saying, it was " impossible" that Halifax was Bufo ! And who could 
 have been that one man in all reading and writing England, who, totally 
 blind to such evidence, could shut his eyes, as the Cock in the Fable, 
 and, talking of my " swallow !" open his mouth as wide as the Dragon 
 pf Wantley to swallow Roscoe's " impossible" that Bvfo could be 
 jlalifax! I should have thought, in respect to Roscoe, 
 " None but himself could be his parallel!" 
 
 ^ 
 
104. 
 
 The poet retrospectively enumerates, first, his early 
 friends, Walsh, Garth, Granville, Congreve, &c. I 
 have already spoken of Burnet, Oldmixon, and Cook, 
 his antagonists. He speaks especially of him, 
 
 " Whom pilfered pastorals renown!" 
 
 Tate* died in the Mint, the year after Halifax died; 
 for even " Bedlam and the Mint" were classed as Pope's 
 opponents at this time ! 
 
 As to " slashing Bentley, "f and " piddling Tibbalds," 
 or Theobald, the epithet "slashing" was applied to 
 Bentley on account of his HORACE, and not his MILTON, 
 (published in 1732,) as must be obvious from " Virgilius 
 " Restauratus,"J in direct ridicule of the "slashing" 
 corrector of Horace ! As to Theobald, the initials Th: 
 occur among the names of Pope's opponents in 1711. I 
 may further observe, that there is a critical journal 
 of the nineteenth century, which most happily unites 
 the "slashing" and the " piddling," the slashing of 
 brazen-faced and desperate ignorance, and the piddling 
 of verbal cavils and petty-fogging maliciousness ! ! 
 
 Tibbald, or Theobald, published, it is true, his 
 " Shakespeare Restored" in 1726 ! But Theobald 
 had offended Pope before, in Mist's Journal, and the 
 words "piddling Theobald," with the other lines on 
 verbal critics, might have been added afterwards, as the 
 satire, Pope informs us, was written " by snatches!" 
 
 Such, reader, are my " cumulative proofs," that Bufo 
 must be Halifax ! I brought no " cumulative proofs'* 
 
 * " And own that nine such poets make a Tate .'" 
 f " From slashing Bentley down to piddling Tibbalds !'* 
 | Bentley's celebrated Horace came out in 1711. 
 
105 
 
 before, because I thought it absolutely impossible there 
 could be two Noodles in his Majesty's dominions, who 
 could doubt, much less deny, it ! and I have adduced, 
 now, this cumulation of proofs, not so much to shew that 
 Bufo was Halifax, but to expose the ignorance and 
 impudence of two solemn blockheads, sitting in judg- 
 ment on Dr. Johnson and Dr. Warton ! Mr. Bowles 
 is happily more "alive" than Bufo was in 1734, to 
 vindicate himself from the anathemas of such an inqui- 
 sition of drivellers ! 
 
 One observation here occurs, which, I believe, will 
 be as good as any " observation" of these wonderful 
 observers ; and my observation is this, When I bade 
 adieu, in my Final Appeal, to " blockJieads" I did not 
 suspect there could "possibly" be not one, but TWO 
 such arrant blockheads in the kingdom ; but if there had 
 been so many, I could not conceive there could be 
 another such a blockhead, in the " Castalian state" of 
 1825, as the editor of a work so popular as the Quar- 
 terly Review, who could have suffered such ignorant 
 impudence to "prate about Pope and poetry," and 
 blazon its petty maliciousness, and downright stupidity, 
 in FRONT of that Corinthian Journal ! 
 
 Mr. Lockhart, one of the most intelligent men, and 
 powerful writers, in the kingdom, ought to have got into 
 the mail-coach from Edinburgh, or put on his league 
 boots, instantly, and taken the reins out of the hands 
 of Dan Coleridge, and given him a reprimand at 
 least! May such an article so crude, so ignorant, 
 yet so like a " wasp's nest" never disgrace that mis- 
 cellany again. I am sure it will not, if Mr. Lockhart 
 conducts it ! 
 
106 
 
 How it came to pass that such an article was admitted, 
 t quo suadente, quibus consiliis, I ask not. I AM ALIVE, 
 but still wondering, that, of " all the birds in the air 
 "and fishes in the sea," such a blockhead should 
 think himself qualified to " prate about Pope and his 
 " times P' and that there should be no man of common 
 intelligence among the conductors of the Quarterly 
 Jleview, tq prevent such an exhibition! 
 
 Having brought now, for the first time, my " cumu- 
 " lative proofs," that Bufo was Halifax, and could be 
 no one else, it is but fair to examine what the Reviewer 
 relies on so much, per contra! 
 
 What then are " ALL these proofs," which the " welj 
 V qbserving" Roscoe, echoed by the " WELL OBSERVING" 
 Quarterly, produces tq persuade that obstinate Bowles ! 
 Hear, reader, I beseech you ! THE PROOFS are three! 
 First: That Halifax died in 1715, and could not "pos-r 
 "sibly" be Bufo, who was alive when Pope published 
 the satire ! Second: What is their triumphant evi- 
 dence ? their own ignorance even of tenses and gram- 
 mar ! And next : That of this same Bufq, Pope after^- 
 wards spoke with gratitude and respect, when, in THIS 
 VERY Prologue to t/ie Satires, close to the personage repre- 
 sented as Bufo, stands the shade of the ILLUSTRIOUS AND 
 INJURED Addison; et magnet testatur voce, that this 
 grateful and consistent poet had done the very same 
 thing to himself, speaking of whom, only six years 
 before, in his Preface to the Miscellanies, he publicly 
 professes regret for having written those very lines, which 
 remain for ever a monument of his vindictiveness ! ! 
 
 Is there no common sense are there no honest 
 and honourable feelings in this " enlightened age' 1 o.f 
 
107 
 
 1825 that such iron-faced ignorance should be placed 
 in the very front of such a periodical publication, as 
 the Quarterly Review! 
 
 Why do not the friends of Pope "tie up" these 
 defenders, who injure Pope, and give such triumph to 
 Bowles ! 
 
 " AH these testimonies!" What testimonies? That 
 Pope, when he said he was "sick of prate," was in 
 advancing age! (Which he was not!) That Bufo 
 was alive in 1734! (Which he was not!) And that 
 the same Pope spoke of Lord Halifax with respect and 
 gratitude in one poem, and, therefore, could " not pos- 
 " sibly" satirise him in another ! ! " All these testi- 
 
 " monies could not PERSUADE MR. BOWLES !" that 
 
 two and two make nine!!* No, indeed, they COULD 
 NOT; for if they had, he must have been a greater goose, 
 if possible, than the " wett observing" Roscoe, or this 
 doubly " WELL OBSERVING" QUARTERLY SCRIBLERUS ! ! ! 
 
 " ALL THESE TESTIMONIES !" (lackaday, for the ob- 
 stinate "pertinacity" of some people !) " ALL THESE 
 
 " TESTIMONIES," 
 
 (" List ! list ! oh, list ! 
 " If thou didst ever love thy grandmama !" Hamlet.) 
 
 " All these UNIFORM TESTIMONIES," sighs out the eru- 
 dite and amiable Reviewer, "of RESPECT and GRATI- 
 " TUDE, expressed in the plainest language, and con- 
 " tinned through a period of three and twenty years, 
 " Mr. Bowles, by one conjectural interpretation) converts 
 
 " And own that nine such poets make a Tate!" fPope.J 
 And ovvn that nine such critics make a Goose!!* 
 
 * Sartoris anser / Bentley ! Anglice Tailor's goose ! 
 
108 
 
 " at once into proofs of ingratitude and hypocrisy !" 
 Oh ! wicked Mr. Bowles ! ! 
 
 It has been seen, by something more than " one con- 
 jectural interpretation," that Mr. Bowles had reasons 
 for thinking Bufo was Halifax; and the same Mr. 
 Bowles asserts the same thing now, and leaves the public 
 to judge of Pope's ingratitude and hypocrisy! Mr. 
 Bowles leaves the public, also, to judge of the " uni- 
 " form testimony" to this Reviewer's, and brother Ros- 
 coe's absurdity ; according to whom, " the passage itself 
 "proves," what Mr. Roscoe and this sagacious Reviewer 
 have so " well observed," that "the tiring" is not LEFT 
 to " CONJECTURE," for that " the character of BUFO 
 
 " CANNOT BE LORD HALIFAX ! wllO DIED when Pope 
 
 " was a very YOUNG man ! whereas the person alluded 
 
 " tO MUST HAVE BEEN LIVING in Pope's MORE ADVANCED 
 
 " YEARS, when he Jiad been ' be-rhymed so long 1* " 
 (Quarterly Review for 1825 !) 
 
 Notwithstanding the "uniform testimony" adduced 
 by these sages, I am afraid it must follow, by much more 
 " UNIFORM TESTIMONY," that Bufo was Halifax, and 
 could be no other !! Q. E. D. 
 
 Pope informs us, that to some bards Bufo only granted 
 a " dry rehearsal!" Let us suppose a little scene from 
 such a play, on this occasion, which I shall " engraft" 
 merely by way of enlivening the subject a little: 
 
 Bayes, Bowles, and the two Kings of Brentford 
 performed by Noodle and Doodle. 
 
 Bowles. Why, Mr. Bayes, this GREAT MAN of yours 
 must have been arch-patron, and poet, upwards of forty 
 
109 
 
 years, if he helped to starve Dryden, and helped to 
 bury him, and was alive and lusty in 1734! 
 
 Bayes. True, Sir; but have the goodness to attend 
 to the performers ! 
 
 (Noodle and Doodle whisper, and shake their heads. 
 
 Bowles. I observe your two kings whispering and 
 shaking their heads again ! ! 
 
 Bayes. Aye, Sir, to be sure ; that is as much as to 
 say, It is a GREAT SECRET ! 
 
 Bowles. A great secret, Mr. Bayes ! What could a 
 person, so distinguished as this patron must have been* 
 who ruled " all Castalia*' between forty and fifty years; 
 who patronised all the poets, except Dryden ; who was 
 in power and place, and wrote poetry himself; could 
 such a person be living in 1734, forty years afterwards, 
 and quite INCOG. ! ! 
 
 Bayes. Why, Mr. Bowles, I vow and declare, you 
 are so particular, I I in short, Sir, you are very 
 "pertinacious" in asking so many questions, you had 
 better attend to my performers ! 
 
 (Noodle and Doodle s/iake their fieads, and whisper 
 again. 
 
 Bowles. Mr. Bayes, I see your performers still shake 
 their heads, and whisper ! 
 
 Bayes. Yes, to be sure ; how can they better imform 
 you, that the great man, concerning whom they have 
 been whispering, was, in 1734 NOBODY! I should 
 rather say, SOMEBODY that NOBODY knew ! ! 
 
 Bowles. Pray, Mr. Bayes, was not Dr. Johnson alive 
 at this time, and twenty-five years old ? He was some- 
 times as " ivell-observing" as others, who shall be name- 
 less. Did HE, I wonder, never find out, or " conjecture" 
 
110 
 
 &t least, who this GREAT UNKNOWN could be, how living 
 when poor Johnson wanted a patron so much, just setting 
 otlt in life, and drudging for booksellers ! 
 
 (Noodle and Doodle shake their heads, and whisper. 
 
 Bayes. Mr. Bowles, you are so " particular" a 
 gentleman, I will inform you, my two performers know 
 very well who the great person was, whom Pope de- 
 scribed; but they wish it to be kept, for very good 
 reasons, a most PROFOUND SECRET! 
 
 Bowles. Might I ask, what these very good reasons 
 are? 
 
 Bayes. I will tell you ill private. These gentlemen 
 wish to keep the circumstance a most profound SECRET, 
 because, in one thousand eight hundred and twenty^ 
 five, some descendants of theirs are destined to write 
 notes on Pope. One to give a " liberal and enlightened" 
 edition of his works, and the other to review it ! in a 
 work to be called the Quarterly Review ! ! And these 
 gentlemen intend to keep the name of this illustrious 
 patron of literature a PROFOUND SECRET, the discovery 
 of which will be reserved for their " enlightened" de- 
 scendants in 1825 ! ! 
 
 Bowles. Well; but Mr, Bayes, though we cannot 
 but admire their discretion, suppose, when the time 
 comes, the descendants of these whispering and head- 
 shaking gentlemen should whisper and shake their heads 
 too, having forgotten the name of this great MR. SOME- 
 BODY whom NOBODY knew ! 
 
 Bayes. Egad, that is very true; I did not think of 
 this. All I can say is, that the world must be content 
 to remain in darkness, if they have no one to enlighten it* 
 but the race of the original Noodle and Doodle ! the 
 
Ill 
 
 Oiie may Write criticisms in the Quarterly, as Incog, as 
 Bufo himself, and the other be " Member of the Delia 
 " Crusca Society of Florence, and F. R. S. and 
 F. R. S. L.ll" 
 
 Some hyper^-cntic, of the school of a "particular 
 "editor 19 of Pope, might be absurd enough to assert, 
 that it was "impossible 1 ' such a dialogue ever took 
 place, as Bowles could "not possibly" have been 
 " alive" in the seventeenth century; but such an objection 
 must be thought the height of folly, for he might have 
 been alive, like Bufo, incog, and afterwards have pub- 
 lished his " Sentimental Sonnets !" 
 
 If Dr. Dee, the celebrated astrologer, " were alive/' 
 he would prove, by some unforeseen conjunction of 
 planets, that these kindred spirits, Roscoe and Scriblerus, 
 lucida sidera, of this " enlightened age," were born for 1 
 each other ! That the last editor of Pope was " ova 
 "prognatus eodem" with the critic ; for if there were one 
 man who could suppose, and write, and print, and pub- 
 lish, that it was " impossible" Bufo could be Halifax, it 
 must require an almost miraculous planetary influence 
 to suppose that, in the same auspicious sera, there could 
 be another GOOSE, ovo prognatus eodem, to " SWALLOW 
 " IT!" If it might be supposed that, in my "Final 
 " Appeal," it was illiberal to think of classing the 
 " great merchants of the muses" with blockheads, I think 
 I might be justified, when it is considered they were 
 blockheads enough to pay an editor very handsomely 
 for such discoveries, and give, probably, a bonus to the 
 Reviewer, who, having first " swallowed" the observa- 
 tions of the " well observing" Roscoe, was required to 
 
112 
 
 make the gentlemen of this enlightened age " SWALLOW" 
 them also ! ! 
 
 But after all, we may be completely deceived. Mr. 
 Roscoe may really know more about the matter than 
 
 " We have dream'd of in our philosophy //" 
 
 as he pronounces, so decidedly, that " Bufo," who ever 
 he was, MUST BE LIVING in Pope's "riper age," and 
 he was not more than forty-five or six, when this poem 
 was published, who knows but that Lord Halifax was 
 not Lord Halifax in reality, but that he appeared in that 
 character by some mysterious supernatural agency ! 
 
 We are led into this idea by the mention of Dr. Dee ; 
 and might it not be supposed, without greater improba- 
 bility, than that " Bufo," the " GREAT UNKNOWN," was 
 living in Pope's "riper age," that some "Doctors" now 
 living somewhere in the north of England, among their 
 other secrets, were possessed of the celebrated Philo- 
 sopher's STONE, as well as the "Elixir Vitse" of him 
 at Gilead Hall; and that, by means of this elixir, through 
 whose virtue the life of man may be so prolonged that 
 he need not die till it suits himself, Halifax was a mere 
 eifitoXov ; and that " Bufo" is yet alive somewhere in 
 Lancashire ; and that only three persons in the kingdom 
 are in possession of the secret, Dr. Solomon, the 
 annotator on the syphilis; Dr. Solomon, of Gilead- 
 Hall ; and this Solomon, the Reviewer ! 
 
 At least, 1 am quite sure, till we can " swallow" this, 
 we cannot " swallow" half that Roscoe and his brother 
 observer have so " well observed!" If so, (there i 
 another if for you,) if so, by virtue of this elixir, the 
 two Doctors Solomon of Liverpool, and the Quarterly 
 
113 
 
 Reviewer, are the only persons in the three kingdoms 
 who know any thing about the matter ! 
 
 All this is, however, left to the judgment of the 
 reader ! For myself, I do not entirely believe it, 
 though these sages, because I have put an " IF" to it, 
 may say they have "shamed me" out of the belief! 
 It must be then as they please ; and I leave it to the 
 " conjecture" of the reader ! ! 
 
 If this should not be thought plausible, there is ano- 
 ther solution of Mr. Roscoe's wonderful discovery, 
 which his delight, in so elaborately dwelling on the 
 picture of a "fiend,* 1 suggests ! 
 
 The celebrated Archdeacon of St. David's has related 
 some curious circumstances with respect to certain hob- 
 goblins, who assumed characters, and for many years filled 
 respectable stations like Lord Halifax ! One of these 
 goblins, Giraldus gravely tells us, was for many years 
 a most respectable and " venerable Archdeacon !" Every 
 one sought his acquaintance ; and when he spoke of the 
 " olden times" centuries passed away, he spoke in such 
 a manner, that it might almost be conceived he had lived 
 and acted in the times of which he spoke ! He was one 
 day in the presence of the Bishop and Clergy at a 
 Visitation, relating what passed centuries before, when 
 he inadvertently said, "That, in the times when the 
 " Wandering Jew first set out on his travels, the 
 " * FIENDS' then upon earth, afraid of an impending 
 "judgment, hid themselves, and for his part, he got into 
 " a WELL ! !" Instantly all was discovered : the Arch- 
 deacon vanished ; and, at the same hour, was seen by 
 certain travellers, (the fact being ascertained afterwards,) 
 crossing the Alps in a shovel hat! 
 
 i 2 
 
114 
 
 Now I know what that arch-wag Roscoe will do, 
 tell me I am the " fiend" in a shovel hat myself ! But, 
 I believe, it will not be thought much more improbable 
 that Bufo should be alive in Pope's riper age, and never 
 heard of, than that a fiend should personate Halifax 
 in 1715!! 
 
 I shall add a few general observations. 
 
 Such thinkers and writers as these, are to be listened 
 to by the " friends of social order," and the higher and 
 more cultivated classes of society ! ! Such " Geese" 
 
 " are to 
 " Save the state by cackling to the Tories!!" 
 
 Dunciad. 
 
 Well might Mr. Brougham say, "that the higher 
 " orders wanted a SPUR" from the toes of their inferiors !! 
 Talk of the Mechanics' Institution, when in the face 
 of day, before the British public, before all the highest 
 and best educated classes such miserable twaddlers 
 shew their face in the front of the Quarterly Review! 
 
 What will the educated classes think of such accom- 
 plished scholars, when a country " parson," 
 
 (Come Doctor, the king, 
 'Tis a scandalous thing 
 
 Such a subject should be but a uzccr/) 
 
 a " resident clergyman," whose chief care is taken up 
 with the concerns of his parish, can so easily put them 
 to shame, if shame, they can feel equally exposing 
 
their "fooling," tlieir flippancy, their chicanery, their 
 ignorance, their clumsy waggery, and their malice ! ! 
 
 It is time the " lower orders" should kick such edu- 
 cated superiors from their throne ! 
 
 " Proceed blest days, till knowledge fly the shore, 
 " When birch shall blush with noble blood no more !" 
 
 Pope. 
 
 What, can such men, and such writers, as Mr. 
 Southey, Mr. Milman, Mr. Croker, Mr. Barrow, think? 
 and pray what might you think, Mr. JOHN MURRAY? 
 Come, I shall not be sorry to have your opinion, as a 
 sensible man ; but (me icord in your ear let Bowles 
 alone! as many Reviews on " monkies," as you 
 please ; but depend upon it, as it was said in a rival 
 Review, " THIS WON'T DO ! ! !" 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 It ha been said (page 91) that Oxford, after Queen Anne's death, 
 retired into Herefordshire. This is a mistake: he was sent to the 
 Tower in 1716. 
 
 (Note, page 104.) In my Life of Pope, I attributed the first mis- 
 understanding with Bentley, as arising from the opinion he expressed of 
 Pope's translation of Homer; but the " Virgilius Restauratus" is a 
 proof he had offended Pope, or his party, earlier. It is not likely that a 
 ridicule on any English book should be written in Latin I I had applied 
 " slashing" to Bentley's Milton, but it applies as much to his Horace. 
 
116 
 
 A WORD ON THE CHARACTER OF 
 
 SAPPHO, AS APPLIED TO LADY 
 
 M. W. MONTAGUE. 
 
 Having now dispatched Bufo, and shewn that he WAS 
 HALIFAX, and could be no other, and that mine was not 
 a mere " conjectural interpretation," (notwithstanding 
 what is so "well observed" by Roscoe and Scriblerus,) 
 I should leave the plain understanding of all men of com- 
 mon sense to form their opinion of TIMON and SAPPHO, 
 but I must say a word or two in regard to Sappho! 
 
 " Chance ALONE directed the poet to the adoption of 
 " the name of Sappho!" sayeth Gilchrist, the " defender 
 " of calumniated worth!" Well done ! this is a " con- 
 jecture" indeed ! My affirmation is as good as his, 
 or any one's ; and therefore I say, " chance did not 
 " direct him :" but having written afterwards a line, 
 concerning a lady 
 
 " With linen worthy Lady Mary !" 
 
 Epilogue to the Satires. 
 
 he thought he might afterwards turn Flavia, with her 
 " dirty smock," into Sappho ! ! This is my assertion, 
 not "conjecture;" for assertion is as good as assertion 
 at any time, and I am sure mine has far more probability. 
 I moreover say, he who could swallow the first assertion, 
 could swallow any thing ! 
 
 Warburton has let the "cat out of the bag, that 
 Timon was Chandos, by a note in the first edition ! 
 
117 
 
 And Pope has let the "cat out of the bag" about Lord 
 Hervey and Sappho ! Let the reader judge : to Swift 
 he uses these remarkable words, " I will take care 
 " they (the satires) shall be such, that no one can be 
 " angry with them, but the PERSONS I WOULD have 
 " ANGRY !" Only two persons were angry, therefore 
 Lady Mary and Lord Hervey are the two ! 
 
 Again, " You are sensible with what decency and 
 "justice I paid homage to the Royal Family* and at the 
 " same time I SATIRIZED" (you did, then ! satirized 
 whom ?) -" false COURTIERS and spies !" 
 
 No other courtier took those words to himself, except 
 Lord Hervey, and therefore Pope satirized him ; and 
 his denial, as in the case of Chandos, was the most 
 dastardly "equivocation!" 
 
 His " fooling" (as it is most "foolisldy" called) with 
 Lady Mary, is admitted ! Was it " fooling," coolly to 
 brand with eternal infamy the woman whom he lov,ed ? 
 because he could not make her as "great a fool" as 
 himself? 
 
 In the judgment of every honourable, manly mind, 
 this is an eternal brand on his own heart, far worse than 
 any of Scriblerus's fooling ; for which foolery, as I 
 " conjecture," and firmly believe, he was " repulsed" at 
 last, as he ought to have been, with disdain ! and that 
 this was the cause of such unmanly, and ungenerous, 
 and unappeasable vindictiveness ! 
 
 I do not think it necessary at this time of day to go 
 into all the various proofs, which could be easily ad- 
 duced, that Sappho was Lady Mary, and could be no 
 other! If any thinking human being can be induced to 
 believe, by such acute " observers" as Roscoe and the 
 
118 
 
 Quarterly Reviewer, that Bufo could " not possibly" be 
 Halifax, he may believe that Sappho could " not 
 "possibly" be Lady Mary ! 
 
 I shall here add some general reflections. 
 
 My memory, in regard to Pope's failings and virtues, 
 has been compared to "a sieve" when such "a sieve? 
 as this of Scrlblerus, in regard to me, was never seen ! 
 
 That my notes should be compared to a " wasp's nest?' 
 Is not very extraordinary, as Scriblenis may, perhaps, 
 remember having been a little stung ; but that I should 
 be compared to a " busk fighter" is extraordinary indeed, 
 and somewhat " inadvertent!" 
 
 I am a "bush-fighter!" A "bush-fighter" am I? 
 If I had written an article under covert, without a 
 name, in a Review, and picked out, with elaborate 
 scrutiny, every word which might be thought objection-r 
 able, taking it without the context; if, shrouded in such 
 a covert, I had directed my missiles of lurking malice ; 
 if, equally regardless of justice, equity, candour, or 
 truth, I had made this a rule that, what is done 
 '* meanly" should be done safely too ! If being under 
 such a covert, I had shewn such anxious solicitude not to 
 be discovered, that, when every writer of every article, 
 but the article on " Bowles in particular," should be 
 well known, the author of this should be shrouded 
 in double secrecy, either from shame, or from cowardice 
 from shame that the writer of such an article, as stupid 
 and ignorant as malignant, should be known; or from 
 cowardice, lest the writer of " Sentimental Sonnets*' 
 should beat him back, with conscious discomfiture, 
 as he has done Roscoe, then let me be called a 
 66 busfi fighter !" In the mean time, I believe, this 
 
119 
 
 "bush fighter" will slink back to his bush like a fox to 
 the covert, after this mobbing, as fast as he can ; and if 
 he is deterre, he will be more ashamed, with his draggled 
 tail, than ever I was " ashamed'' of an " if !'' 
 
 I never wrote one word, to which I am ashamed to put 
 my name ! But let me, having put my name in front 
 of what I write, and having never written any thing to 
 be afraid or ashamed of, at least be exempted from the 
 charge of " bush-fighting," till I say any thing as 
 dark, as secret, as ignorant, and as cowardly, as the 
 article " on Bowles in particular," in the front of the 
 Quarterly Review for October, 1825 ! 
 
 I will give Scriblerus all advantage of that "bush 
 "fighting" and tell him, if HE, or Coleridge, or Murray, 
 will give me three pages in the same Review in which I 
 am attacked in this " biish-fighting" way, I will never 
 ask his name I will meet him ; and if I do not over- 
 whelm him, in the face of the public, may I have " been 
 " born," and die, with the head and heart of this half- 
 doltish, half chicaning, and utterly unprincipled Quar- 
 terly Reviewer ! 
 
 By way of diverting the scent, where the most studi- 
 ous concealment is resorted to, it has been given out, 
 I am credibly informed, that the writer of this 
 41 enlightened" article does not reside in London! is a 
 new hand from the country, and this is his maiden 
 essay ! Cockney, for a ducat ! 
 
 I am sure of one thing, that no writer of common 
 intelligence no one, possessing any regard to truth 
 is concerned in its writing, or introducing it among the 
 intelligent, enlightened, arid splendid articles of the 
 Quarterly Review ! 
 
120 
 
 " Such things, we know, are neither rich nor rare; 
 " But wonder how the devil they came there !" 
 
 Pope. 
 
 But in fact, notwithstanding all this mysterious con- 
 cealment, I pretty well guess who may be the author 
 of this notable piece of criticism. 
 
 My " conjecture" is this, that it is not the critical 
 Doctor Solomon, of Liverpool; but the real, the iden- 
 tical, the original Doctor Solomon, descending, like the 
 God of his own art, to decide this contest in this new 
 Iliad, (Nee deus inter sit, nisi dignus vindice nodus ! ) in 
 defence of the tottering Priam, and his tottering cause ! 
 seeing his brother Doctor's Frogs and Mice dispersed, 
 and the Wooden Achilles not having afoot to stand upon, 
 the great Doctor, from his Olympus of Gilead Hall, 
 descends into the contest in person, " concealed in night," 
 VUKTI toiKtog, to decide the strife, 
 
 Avrov KMtOeiros' o S* we NYKTI EOIKH2' ...... 
 
 AEINH AE KAAITH TENET APTTPEOIO BIOIO! ! 
 
 Iliad, book 1st. 
 
 The classical reader will not fail to observe the 
 sublimity of this GREAT APOLLO in the Quarterly, 
 descending VUKTI eotuus, like night itself ! Whether 
 this part of the description relate to the obscurity of 
 his personage, involved in night, or the darkness of 
 ideas, one circumstance cannot fail to strike him as re- 
 markably appropriate 
 
 " Dreadful was the sound of his pewter squirt!" 
 
The effect of which "formidable" instrument of attack 
 is obvious through the whole article ! 
 
 This is, as Mr. Roscoe would observe, " a FORMIDA- 
 66 BLE ATTACK," indeed ! more " FORMIDABLE" than 
 Pope's attack on Lady Mary ! But Bowles is not much 
 dismayed, seeing he has done, aver one Doctor, and given 
 this dark deity in the Quarterly as Diomed wounded 
 Mars a pretty good hit already ! 
 
 As the passage, which we have adduced from Homer, 
 may not be understood by ladies, and some country 
 gentlemen, we subjoin a translation from Pope himself? 
 
 " The favouring power attends, 
 " And from Olympus' lofty top descends, 
 " Breathing revenge, a SUDDEN NIGHT he spread, 
 " And GLARING DARKNESS roll'd around his head 
 " The fleet in view, he twang'd his deadly bow !" 
 
 The latter line, I deem, would read better 
 
 He twang'd his vengeful squirt, 
 And Bowles lay floundering in the Doctor's dirt I 
 
 Sic corrige, meo periculo ! Bentley. 
 
 I shall say no more here, as I am engaged in an 
 heroic poem on the subject, which will be published 
 shortly, with notes arid illustrations, and dedicated to 
 William Roscoe, esq. F. R. S. and R. S. L. and Member 
 of the Delia Crusca Society of Florence ! 
 
ON THE CLANDESTINE PUBLICATION 
 OF POPE'S LETTERS. 
 
 I intended, at large, to have shewn the certainty of 
 Pope's privity to the clandestine publication of his let- 
 ters ; but I think I need net occupy the reader's time, 
 except by only cross-examining a little Counsellor Bo- 
 therum, who, arguing from the premises, that certain 
 letters were " stolen," comes to the conclusion that all 
 his arguments must be irrefragable, "IF they WERE 
 " STOLEN ! P' who assumes the impossibility, that A 
 could have any dealings with B; and yet is not able to 
 disavow the whole of fi*s publication ( Why, the 
 " Wittols of Nuremburgh, who ne'er hang a thief- till 
 " they catch him/' are Stagirites to this transcendental 
 wittoll!* 
 
 There is, however, one observation which I deem it 
 necessary, most especially, to answer, as without atn 
 explanation I shall appear guilty of those very arts of 
 disingenuousness which I have constantly reprobated 
 in others. 
 
 I allude to the passage, in which, having quoted from 
 
 * For the arguments, which have never been answered, upon this 
 question, I must refer to my " Final Appeal." It must be as clear as the 
 sun to all but this cloudy chicaner, that " whoever is NOT ABLE to DISAVOW 
 " the WHOLE" of some publication, must have SOME SHARE in it ! 
 
 " Out of thy own mouth will I condemn thec, thou wicked scribbler !" 
 
 Pope. 
 
123 
 
 Pope's Preface to tlie authentic edition of his Letters, 
 the words " I did not go to amend them," I omitted 
 the concluding paragraph of the sentence ! ! This was 
 not done from " inadvertence" but from an entire con- 
 viction, as the reader will perceive, that the part omitted 
 was absolutely and totally irrelevant to the point in dis- 
 cussion ! The point in discussion was respecting 
 " amendments" for I had proved that the letters were 
 carefully amended, both in slight expressions, and some 
 even re-manufactured! But after Pope had said lie 
 would not go about to " amend them," what does he 
 add, " except by omissions" &c. ! 
 
 The question was not about omissions, but " amend- 
 " ments," deliberate corrections, substitutions chiefly,- 
 the omissions were a minor consideration. Had Pope 
 said, " he would not go about to amend them," except 
 by altering some expressions, or adding such AMEND- 
 MENTS, as a careful perusal suggested; had he said this, 
 or any thing like it, I would not have omitted one sylla- 
 ble, for ten thousand times the sum the publisher of 
 the Quarterly ever got by all his poets, critics, and 
 Quarterly Review into the bargain ! ! 
 
 I omitted the words, because they had not the slightest 
 reference to " amendments;" and I must again turn here 
 to my glib adversary, and tell him, he has insidiously 
 omitted to state what I now tell him, and what must be 
 obvious to every one who reads the sentence ! I tell 
 him, also; from this very passage, first, That Pope did 
 "go about to amend them" (the letters), when he said he 
 did not ! and that, even with respect to omissions, lie did 
 not speak truth ; for, secondly, The greatest part of 
 what he " omitted" in his letters was not on account 
 
of their being improper, or, at least, immaterial " to the 
 *' public," but on account, as we have seen, of their 
 WANT OF DECENCY! !* 
 
 On the subject of Pope's privity to the publication of 
 his letters, our Reviewer tells us, " Our THEORY is, that 
 " if Pope wished to have his letters published, he could 
 " not have had so good an opportunity as when the 
 " letters to Cromwell, &c, were published ! !" 
 
 To which I answer, " OUR theory" is, that YOUR 
 THEORY is a very silly one ; for had he done this, we 
 should not have had some of his most interesting, and, 
 I will add, his most affecting, letters ! 
 
 And " OUR THEORY," moreover, is that the whole 
 business is " FUDGE and HUMBUG" from the beginning 
 to the end ! And " OUR THEORY" is, further that the 
 letter, signed P. T. published in my seventh volume, 
 was written by A. P. which is, Alexander Pope, esq ; 
 and that the mysterious R. S. his companion, who 
 quarrelled with P. T. was A. P. again, the quarrel be- 
 tween these being invented by A. P., to shew how he 
 came possessed of the whole correspondence of Curll ! 
 And this is " OUR THEORY," notwithstanding Mr. Roscoe 
 may, perhaps, think that the letter in my seventh volume, 
 signed P. T. was written by W. L. B. and "substituted ! !" 
 
 The reader need only read attentively the two letters, 
 one of which I published in the seventh volume, signed 
 P. T., and the other letter, since printed in my " Final 
 *' Appeal," signed R. S., to be convinced that both were 
 written by Pope himself! Pope might well offer a 
 reward, by advertisement, for the discovery of those 
 thieves, whom nobody could discover but himself ! 
 
 * Roscoe omitted, insidiously, the very words on which my defence rests. 
 
This is " our tfaory ;" and " our theory" is, further, 
 that the " advertisement" of A. P. was as great a fudge 
 as the whole history ! that the " Narrative" which Pope 
 Withdrew, (a precious " explanatory document,") was 
 withdrawn because it would not bear the light, and 
 " proved a fraud and falsehood" in its front ! 
 
 And " OUR THEORY" is, that " IF the letters were 
 " stolen" (this sentence is the Reviewer's, not mine! 
 nor is it my " IF,") " IF the letters were stolen," it 
 being a felony, any active police officer might soon have 
 found out those lurking and Latitat sharks, P. T. and R. S. 
 and A. P. together, and brought them to justice ; arid I 
 would bet more than I shall ever get by my writing, 
 that " IF" this important "explanatory document' 2 which 
 I am now writing " were stolen," out of my study, the 
 constable at Calne would find out the thief in two days, 
 provided I was in earnest! 
 
 And " OUR THEORY" is, finally, that no two persona 
 in the kingdom could be " humbugged" by this history, 
 except one Member of the Delia Crusca Society of 
 Florence, and his advocate, Counsellor Botherum, of 
 the Quarterly Review, WHOEVER HE MAY BE ! And 
 with this, " OUR THEORY," I shall conclude what I 
 intended saying much more at large ! 
 
 But let us not forget a little bit of cross-examination ! 
 
 You say, Mr. Botherum, "from this it is obvious" 
 that Curlts copy, " IF STOLEN !" (Hear, hear ! 
 stay, stay, (as poor old Baron Thomson used to say,) 
 " stay, stay,")" IF stolen !" 
 
 Then after all, Mr. Botherum, you have some doubt? 
 Not at all ! 
 
 Not at all? That is singular, when you say, "IF 
 " stolen!" having before concluded they were stolen! 
 
 L 
 
 or 
 
 9 
 
120 
 
 "If," with us means always a direct belief! par- 
 ticularly IF it is said that we do not believe ! (Hear$ 
 hear stay, stay silence, silence !) 
 
 By the Court : Whatever may be your opinion of 
 the import of the monosyllable " IF," Brother Botherum, 
 every man of common sense, I believe, will think 
 otherwise. 
 
 Let us ask you another question. You say, that 
 Alexander Pope could not deny the WHOLE of Edmund 
 Cuiil's publication ! 
 
 Do you know Edmund Curll ? By report. 
 Was he ever in the pillory ? Yes. 
 For what crime? For OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS! 
 Did you ever read a certain Imitation of Horace, by 
 Alexander Pope? Yes. 
 
 Could any publication of Curll's be more profligate 
 and obscene than this? (Hear hear! BotJierum is 
 silent!) 
 
 Was Alexander Pope ever in pillory? (Hear, hear 
 stay, stay silence!) No ! ! He was a very virtuous 
 poet! 
 
 He was a censor of bad morals? Yes! 
 Washer^? Yes! 
 Was Curll rich? No! 
 
 By the Court : Then Pope had less excuse and temp- 
 tation, and was the greater hypocrite ! 
 
 WTiat was this moral and rich poet's opinion of Curll? 
 That he was a profligate scoundrel, particularly with 
 regard to procuring clandestine copies of letters ! 
 
 And yet Alexander Pope could not disavow the 
 WHOLE of his publications. You may sit down. 
 
 {Exit poor R0scoe t who had been listening with 
 his "drafts^ 
 
127 
 
 As I am told that I " collected all my might* to hang 
 Mr. Roscoe on a " dilemma," from which his advocate 
 has not " got him off" I will collect my might for another 
 dilemma! on one horn of which to hang the Member 
 of the Delia Crusca Society, and on the other Coun- 
 sellor Botherum ! ! And my dilemma is this:- If Pope's 
 letters, to several ladies and gentlemen, were all, as 
 Botherum thinks, artless, unstudied effusions, (ag the 
 writer declares himself!) then what becomes of Roscoe's 
 "drafts!!" On the other hand, if these letters were 
 transcribed, carefully, with emendations, corrections, and 
 "omissions" from drafts, then what becomes of Bo- 
 therum's specimens of " unaffected penmanship," all 
 poured out under the feelings of the moment ! And 
 here I hang both these sages, like the " swan with tivo 
 " necks" or rather the split-crow, for a sign in Albemarle- 
 street, London ! 
 
 I have a better opinion of Mr. Murray, then to suppose 
 that, after consideration, he would not regret that in any 
 work, which bears his name as publisher, such a monu- 
 ment of twaddling stultification should be pointed at, and 
 stand, moreover, like that other monument sung by 
 Pope, which, 
 
 " Like a TALL BULLY, lifts its head, and LIES!" 
 
 I now proceed to that which is more important to 
 myself ! 
 
ON MY "INSINUATIONS" AGAINST POPE'S 
 
 MORAL CHARACTER, WITH RESPECT 
 
 TO HIS FEMALE CONNECTIONS. 
 
 I have little doubt but that it will be acknowledged, 
 by those who have attentively read the foregoing, that 
 the missiles aimed at my head have been returned, and 
 broken, with scorn, before the faces of my impotent 
 assailants ; but a more deadly blow, by the " collected 
 "migM" of elaborate insinuation, and livid malicious- 
 ness, is directed to my heart ! 
 
 " .___ Certandum est de vita et sanguine !" 
 
 Virgil 
 
 On their heads, then, let the condemnation fall, if, 
 being thus insidiously traduced and pointed to as the 
 scape-goat of Pope's impurities, the blow aimed at my 
 heart recoils with double force against that " calumniated 
 " worth," which their own fruitless and palsied pertina- 
 city will wound far more than I have done, or ever 
 sought to do. The irritated scorpion stings itself ! 
 
 Let me first observe, that this sneaking scribe could 
 not possibly have done me a greater service, than by 
 setting before me Warburton's happy quotation from 
 old " honest Valerian !" I might reply to almost all his 
 exaggerated and dishonest charges in the same lan- 
 guage, MENTIRIS, IMPUDENTISSIME ! ! 
 
" Mr. Bowles in particular" has sought after the dregs 
 of impurity ! MENTIRIS, IMPUDENTISSIME ! 
 
 How far I deserve this charge the reader has already 
 seen. I shall here only add, that with the exception 
 of the stupid " Three Weeks after Marriage," which 
 was admitted solely in consequence of my being ren- 
 dered incapable (from illness at the time) of examining 
 it not one composition has been admitted into my 
 edition calculated to injure Pope's fame !* Without the 
 " Double Mistress," the Memoirs of Martin would 
 have been incomplete ; and with respect to any injury to 
 morals, dirty as it is, it is far more witty than the Imi- 
 tation, of which so much has been said; nor is it so 
 pernicious, by ten thousand times ten thousand, as one 
 Epistle of Eloisa ! 
 
 The obscene Imitation of Horace has already been 
 spoken of. I bore the blame with Warton for admitting 
 it ! I answered, I rejected it with scorn ; nay, I wrote 
 to Mr. Davies, the bookseller, with whom I corresponded, 
 to say, that nothing should induce me to have any con- 
 cern with a work in which it should appear ! ! 
 
 Now, mark the proof of the manly, liberal, and gen- 
 tlemanly candour of such opponents ! 
 
 I am condemned, with Warton, for doing that which 
 I should disdain myself for doing; and when I say, as I 
 do now, mentiris, impudentissime ! the hypocrite replies, 
 Aye, now you take " A MERIT" to yourself in not 
 doing it ! ! 
 
 * I said, in my " Appeal," that no poem was admitted into my edi- 
 tion more objectionable than what Pope admitted himself; but, in fact 
 nothing half so objectionable is admitted^ 
 
 K 2 
 
130 
 
 So, were I accused of robbery and murder, and in 
 answer to such an accusation, should I say, disdainfully, 
 mentiris, impudentissime ! the answer would be, " True, 
 " you have not committed robbery or murder, but you 
 " might as well have done it, for now you assume 
 " A MERIT in not doing so !" Was there ever such 
 impudent stultification? 
 
 But this liberal and amiable scribbler pretends that I 
 had no right to impute such a flagitious insult to all 
 decency, religion, and morals, as this Imitation, to the 
 great moral poet, Pope ! I said, "it was never denied!" 
 It is shouted triumphantly, " as if Pope denied a hun- 
 ec dredth part" (I forget the exact words) of the ribal- 
 dry imputed to him ! 
 
 Come, I can set this to rights very shortly ! You, 
 Scriblerus, affect not to know who the author was, 
 though Roscoe " swallows" the obscenity, delighted only 
 with the " wit" of this specimen of purity and morals ! 
 Pray, Sir, what do you think of the authority of Pope's 
 " GUIDE, PHILOSOPHER, and FRIEND," Bolingbroke ! 
 Do you think HE KNEW ? 
 
 To put it, then, beyond a doubt of future hypocritical 
 defenders of " calumniated worth/' I transcribe this 
 passage from a letter of Bolingbroke, written not long 
 after this " SOBER ADVICE" this " sermon," as the 
 author impiously calls it was published ! ! 
 
 Bolingbroke, his "philosopher and guide," thus 
 writes to Swift, in a letter, dated 1734, " It is im- 
 " possible to talk so much of ' PHILOSOPHY/ and forget 
 " to speak of Pope," &c. 
 
 " The * D^MON of Verse/ (Daemon of Verse, in- 
 " deed !) The Daemon of Verse' sticks to him I He 
 
131 
 
 " has been imitating the Satire of Horace, which begins 
 " Ambubaiarum collegia Pharmacopeias !'" 
 
 Botingbroke to Swift. 
 
 And this poem mark, Scriblerus is called " Sober 
 " ADVICE from Horace, from his second SERMON ! !" 
 
 What says this " Philosopher" further! " He (Pope) 
 "has chosen rather to weaken the IMAGES, than hurt 
 "CHASTE EARS OVERMUCH!!" 
 
 What Bolingbroke's ideas of hurting " chaste ears 
 " overmuch" might be, I do not enquire. It will be 
 enough for me now to have PROVED by whom this infa- 
 mous piece of profligacy was written and published. I 
 could always have proved, that this " Sermon" was pub- 
 lished by Pope ! But, in my Life of Pope, I made not 
 so much as one observation even on its existence ; and 
 in the notes I only slightly mentioned the supposition, 
 without seeking to bring it home to him irrefragably ! 
 and yet " my memory," like " a sieve," retains every 
 thing against Pope, and nothing for him ! 
 
 W r ith " honest Valerian's" permission, T repeat again 
 MENTIRIS, IMPUDENTISSIME ! And I shall add, that so 
 little do I deserve the character so infamously attributed 
 tome, I have "remembered," and never omitted to 
 speak of, in every place where the " remembrance" 
 could be with propriety introduced, throughout the 
 whole edition, Pope's most exemplary and dutiful affec- 
 tion to his aged mother his undeviating tenderness of 
 heart and fidelity to his friends ! As to retaining in my 
 partial remembrance every particle that could be collected 
 against him, I say, I did not " remember" I did not 
 cfwose to remember one fiftieth part of the meannesses^ 
 
the instances of duplicity, vindictiveness, and hypocrisy, 
 which I could have proved against him ! 
 
 If I did not specify his kindness to Savage, I spoke 
 willingly of his general benevolence; but I omitted, 
 purposely, to speak of his cold neglect of Jortin, who 
 was employed on the notes to Homer, of his engaging 
 with Broome in the Odyssey, and holding him up to 
 ridicule in the Bathos, of his speaking with regret of 
 having published the satire on Addison in the Miscel- 
 lanies, and publishing it again where it would remain for 
 ver ! Meannesses without number I have avoided to 
 record, and such are the thanks I have received ; I there- 
 fore repeat again, mentiris, impudentissime f 
 
 The lines on " leaving London" were retained, be- 
 cause, some stanzas excepted, it was a beautiful compo- 
 sition. I spoke of this before ; but I did not say, that, 
 in leaving out what was objectionable, I took care not 
 to say a syllable even of the existence of indecencies. 
 ,1 expunged the most offensive passages, and retained 
 the rest : the stanzas on Gay and Halifax were beau- 
 tiful, particularly that on Halifax, whom he satirized at 
 the same time ! Therefore again, mentiris, impudentissime! 
 There is only one composition among the poems 
 admitted, that might be objected to, the ballad to 
 the " fair ladies," Lepell and Belleriden ! It was re- 
 tained, as being an elegant and characteristic trifle : 
 there is one, and only one expression- hand castis auribus 
 dignum ! Of this I was utterly unconscious at the time, 
 Bnd I believe it may be read, innocently, by half the world 
 among mankind, and by all the world among women, 
 except some " very curious ladies," instructed by such 
 a man, if there ever was or will be such again, as Pope ! ! 
 
133 
 
 There is no poem, with eVen an objectionable expres- 
 sion, admitted, beside these, in my edition; and not one 
 pernicious to morals, as many are which are given in 
 every edition. The lines on Lady Mary are as affect- 
 ing and pathetic as any lines Pope ever wrote,; the 
 " FRAGMENT OF THE SATIRE," of most curious interest ; 
 and Gay's " WELCOME FROM GREECE," most exquisite ! 
 Now, who must not feel the manliest disdain for those 
 who make such a clutter about one poet's being made decent 
 for company, who took no care to make himself so ! ! 
 
 Before I proceed, I must earnestly beg the reader to 
 make a distinction between what, in my Life of Pope,, 
 I did say, and what, having been insulted, and traduced f 
 and goaded) I now feel compelled to say. 
 
 When I wrote the Life of Pope, I considered . s his 
 character entrusted to me; and though truth obliged 
 me not to conceal his manifest faults, visible through all 
 his publis/ied writings, yet I thought it equally my 
 duty, instead of exaggerating them, to seek on every 
 side for grounds of extenuation ! 
 
 To prove this, with respect to his indecencies in 
 correspondence with ladies, I attributed the cause to the . 
 manners of the age in which he lived, so remote from 
 the delicacy of the present. 
 
 When I found an obscene copy of verses in a post- 
 script to a letter, addressed to the lovely Teresa Blount, 
 I expressly said, " I was willing to believe this post- 
 " script was not sent to the young lady ; but kept for . 
 " the * secretiora consilia' " (Life of Pope) of that 
 libertine, old Beau Cromwell, Pope's early confidant 
 and associate ! Having spoken of his defects, I pleaded, 
 in excuse, his imperfect education, his helpless infancy, 
 
134 
 
 his idolised youth, and his life, a long disease ! But 
 the case is widely different, when now Pope is to stand 
 clear, and pollution is boldly and lyingly attributed to 
 the "filth of my fancy I" 
 
 As obscenity could not be entirely denied, let us 
 here pause a moment to remark how this canting 
 Sophister, by inverting his moral tube, can turn mole- 
 hills into mountains on one side, and mountains into 
 mole-hills on the other ! How he can turn against 
 me " a mixture of gallantry, friendship, and licen-* 
 " tiousness," a connection " not so pure and innocent as 
 " Iluffltmd imagined" a connection, at an age in which 
 there WAS " NO GREAT DANGER OF A FALSE STEP," into 
 
 "a LIFE of SYSTEMATICAL LICENTIOUSNESS," while a 
 
 thousand indecencies to ladies, from youth to age, 
 while the most licentious poem that ever insulted mora^ 
 lity and decency, by a man calling himself an ethic 
 poet, published when he was between forty and fifty 
 years old, are turned " into a FEW loose THINGS," 
 which young Master Pope, after the example of the wits 
 of Charles II., being of very " precocious talents, SOME- 
 
 " TIMES LET FALL I" 
 
 " Pope himself has truly said," (quoth this able and 
 amiable defender,) " a few loose things sometimes fell from 
 " men of wit, by which censorious fools judge as ill of 
 " them as they possibly can, for their own comfort!" 
 
 What comfort "onyfooF can have, in "judging ill" 
 of these things, I know not ; but I know, every man of 
 virtue, or of sense, must judge " ill of them ;" and if 
 fools judge ill of them, also, they are not suchfooh, as, 
 for their comfort, other " censorious fools" would try to 
 make them appear ! 
 
135 
 
 " To be sure," as the Reviewer ingenuously confesses, 
 " some of the moral poet's writings are licentious !" 
 ("a FEW LOOSE THINGS" did some how or other 
 " SOMETIMES FALL from him ! v ) " It is the misfortune," 
 so waileth the moral critic, over the infirmities of our 
 nature, 
 
 ("Ah! sinful man, 
 
 " Ah ! sinful man, do all he can !") 
 
 " It is the misfortune of precocious talent to be urged 
 " into action during the ebullition of youthful passions, 
 " and Pope's youth was passed in an age which was not 
 " refined from the vices of Charles II.'s court !" 
 
 Good lack ! but Addison lived nearer these licentious 
 times, and where is there a stain in all his writings; and 
 Cowley nearer still, whose warmest descriptions, on such 
 a subject as " the Mistress," contain no licentiousness 
 like that which, " sometimes" the great wit and moral 
 castigator of the age " let fall" for the comfort of 
 " censorious fools ! "* And Waller, the celebrator of the 
 most beautiful and accomplished females of the age, is 
 equally remote from such grossness, though much 
 nearer the times of the "second CharlesT' Nor did 
 Swift, gross as he was, ever write obscenity to the 
 woman he loved, or any woman ! ! 
 
 As for the " ebullition of youthful passions," one 
 " ebullition of youthful passion" was published, as I have 
 said before, when the author was between forty and fifty 
 years of age ; and the Double Mistress, which I, "in 
 "particular," have been so wicked as to rake up from 
 
 * Cowley lived seven years after Charles II, was restored, when the 
 kingdom was drunk with dissipation. 
 
136 
 
 oblivion, was published in the year 1740, either by Pope 
 or Warburton, five years before this "precocious youth's" 
 death ! ! 
 
 Mr. Bowles thinks, at all events, he has done this 
 "precocious" moralist no wrong. Mr. Bowles is con- 
 scious of no disingenuous arts ; but if he was, he should 
 yield the palm to such a defender of "precocious" 
 licentiousness ! 
 
 I now come to my uncharitable " insinuations" respect- 
 ing Pope's conduct to the Misses Blount, &c. I 
 
 Speaking of Pope's letters to the two sisters, it is 
 sighingly said, "EVEN MR. BOWLES will hardly sug- 
 ** gest the depravity of two sisters carrying on an intrigue 
 " with the same man, at the same time ! !" 
 
 This is exactly a la rape! When did Mr. Bowles 
 suggest any thing about the " depravity of two sisters 
 ft carrying on an intrigue with one man at the same 
 " time ! !*' Certainly, " even Mr. Bowles will not 
 ** suggest" this, though the "foul fancy" of this insulter 
 of common sense and decency seems ready enough to 
 suggest it for him ! 
 
 Mr. Bowles will not " suggest" any thing about two 
 sisters carrying on an intrigue ,- but Mr. Bowles will do 
 more than " suggest (being thus insulted and defied) 
 he will assert that " one man,'* at " the same time," 
 wrote such indecencies to two sisters, as no one man, in the 
 most depraved period of history, in the court of Charles, 
 
137 
 
 would have written to a professed and abandoned pros- 
 titute ! Mr. Bowles does not " suggest" this ; but, 
 insulted and defied, affirms it boldly and fearlessly; and 
 he does not hesitate to say, that any " one man" in the 
 whole world, capable of such contamination of young 
 and unsuspecting females, in a family where he was 
 admitted as an honourable inmate, ought to be shunned 
 as a pest ! 
 
 This is what Mr. Bowles does not " insinuate," but 
 assert fearlessly ; and he, moreover, thinks he does that 
 one man, capable of thus acting to two sisters at once, 
 no injustice, if he might " almost suspect him of a little 
 " gallantry*' to any young female, of any family into 
 which he is admitted: particularly as in the case of 
 Elizabeth Digby, whom he says, he " had almost robbed 
 ** of her good name !" Further, Mr. Bowles thinks that 
 any " one man" in the world, capable of writing inde- 
 cently to two sisters, at one and the same time, may be 
 *' almost suspected of a little gallantry," without much 
 injury, even if the brother was ill! But it happens, in 
 this case, the brother was alive and well ! It was THREE 
 YEARS afterwards, the sister wrote to Pope on his illness 1 
 The " foul fancies" of such Reviewers turn " gal- 
 w lantry" into sensuality ; and this is followed up by a 
 liberal comment, founded on a DARING falsehood!* 
 
 And now let us observe on the Reviewer's colourings 
 of this " one man's" professing love to " two sisters" at 
 once ! A prettier piece of Jesuistical sophistry than the 
 following, I think was never seen : *' In such an inter- 
 
 * As if, when I "almost suspected the bard of a little gallantry,"- it was 
 at the time when the brother was dying ! How villanous .' 
 
138 
 
 " course," (professing love for two sisters at once, and 
 writing obscenity to both, which can be proved, and, there- 
 fore, is no " insinuation,"} " it is reasonable to suppose" 
 (very reasonable !) " that his affection for one or the other 
 " sister would preponderate, as either for a time might 
 "seem less engaged by otJier ties, or more attached, or 
 " more congenial, to him !" So argues this licentious 
 driveller. 
 
 I should like, though no craniologist, to analyze the 
 pericranium of him who could pen this delicious piece 
 of chicanery. Let us try to analyse it a little ! 
 
 Here is a man of morals, caressed in the bosom of an 
 interesting and amiable and unsuspecting family, writing 
 amorously, and sometimes most obscenely, to two " hand- 
 " some" and " amiable" young ladies ! (writing " ob- 
 " scenelyf I should hope without the " sanction" of 
 "brotlier" or "mother!") This intimacy, which, we are 
 told, was " sanctioned" by the approbation of mother 
 and brother, (quere, whether the obscenities were sanc- 
 tioned ?) was of the " most interesting and affectionate 
 " kind!" that is, that loving one, he should veer about to 
 the other, and then to the first again, and then to the 
 other, like the weather-cock on Madam Blount's house ! 
 
 Teresa was his first love, and to her Pope wrote his 
 verses on a " young lady leaving town," with a conclu- 
 sion too infamous for publication ! and such language to a 
 " handsome, amiable, arid accomplished young woman," 
 we are to suppose had the mother's approbation!* 
 
 This amiable and handsome young lady was not to 
 
 * "Fon! cries Madam Teresa!" says Pope, in one of his letters to 
 Martha; and "FOH!" might the indignant reader reply to such despi- 
 cable casuistry \ 
 
139 
 
 be caught with chaff! .It appears from many passages 
 that site Itad been offtuded. I will not " conjecture" 
 the cause, as " proof" " proof" would be demanded ; 
 but there is proof enough she " was offended," and I am 
 sure she had reason ! 
 
 Now this affectionate intercourse between Martba 
 and Teresa runs in an united stream ; now it diverges 
 entirely to Martha, because one James Moore, Teresa's 
 Alexis, " cut him out," as they say, in Somersetshire, 
 and Martha was more complacent! 
 
 Thus, indeed, " it is reasonable to suppose," as these 
 sapient sages, Roscoe and Co., conjecture, " that his 
 "affection for one or the otfier sister" (such affection, I 
 believe, was never heard of) "would preponderate, as 
 " either, for a time, might seem" (I like that " seemT) 
 " less engaged by other ties ! or more attached, or more 
 " congenial, to him !" 
 
 Was ever such worse than foolery heard of before, 
 and this in front of the Quarterly Review ! 
 
 I shall make no further comment on the nature of so 
 Jesuistical a colouring of this " affectionate intercourse," 
 which had the approbation of mamma, according to this 
 doltish hypocrite ! But I shall take leave to add another 
 "if!" " If" mamma had any regard for her daughter's 
 happiness or morals, " if" mamma, good old lady, had 
 read some of the notes or verses, which are " not in the 
 "British Museum /" "if" mamma had the high and 
 noble feelings of an English religious matron, she 
 would not have trusted this "affectionate" young gen- 
 tleman with her "handsome and amiable" daughters 
 for the world ! But I rather think there was no mother 
 in the way, as Pope speaks of Teresa going into the 
 
140 
 
 country to " old-fashioned aunts /" After tlie battle of 
 Preston Pans, the brother was in exile, on account of 
 his politics ! ! 
 
 Now, Sir, I leave your artful Jesuistical colouring to 
 the comment of every mother, whose honest simplicity 
 may have been imposed upon by an obscene hypocrite ! 
 
 I hope you will think I have spoken plainly now; 
 and I think, on a review of this man's life, and comments 
 on his character, I was only too candid, instead of desert 
 ing to be arraigned for want of candour ! 
 
 Let any man, with the heart of a man* look at the 
 countenance of Teresa Blount, in the 7th volume of 
 my edition, and then think of him who could offer a 
 word of contamination to such loveliness ! I 
 
 THREE NOTES are especially selected, with tlie 
 amiable purpose of exciting an impression against me, 
 that whatever obscenity or licentious feelings might be 
 imputed to Pope, such imputations had their rise in my 
 imagination, rather than in any thing which could be 
 adduced to justify them ! The three notes selected, 
 I have no doubt with some care and delighted feelings, 
 are, first, that, having said, " it has been observed,'* 
 that a note from Teresa and Martha Blount " was short 
 " but much to the purpose 1" it is triumphantly asked, by 
 whom was it ever "observed" except myself? That 
 I intended to convey an idea of a criminal correspon- 
 dence between the ladies and the bard, when I said 
 "it lias been observed that the note was short, but 
 *' to the purpose," which note conveys a declaration, 
 " on the part of the ladies, that they would retire with 
 " him, in case of company, to any other room," I ex- 
 plicitly deny ! At nearly twenty years distance I can- 
 
141 
 
 not exactly say wlio made the observation ; but I can 
 say the observation implies nothing " to the purpose" to 
 which the active imagination of the Reviewer would 
 wrest it, and would be unworthy notice, but for this 
 " insinuation!" 
 
 Had the observation been my own, I should not hesi- 
 tate to avow it; and had the observation been made 
 with the intention of exciting a particular impression, I 
 should have published an answer to a short note from 
 the same ladies, " NOT IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM/' but 
 which is extant, which many have seen besides me, and 
 which would shew at least, the feelings of one of the 
 parties!* This one note, therefore, I must leave to the 
 reader's candour ! I have spoken of the note on Eliza- 
 beth Digby. The third regards " a very curious lady /" 
 
 " A very curious" lady is spoken of by Pope, as wishing 
 to ask Swift some particular questions, relative to some- 
 thing in a late publication by him ! I thought as the 
 fifth volume of Miscellanies just before this time came 
 out at Dublin, which contained the Lady's Dressing- 
 Room, &c. that " this VERY CURIOUS LADY, might 
 u have wished to ask some questions about these parti- 
 " cular poems !" This " is the Jilth of my own fancy* 
 lam told!! 
 
 My answer will be " to the purpose" I hope ! My 
 answer is this: first, I should not have thought it of 
 any " lady in the whok word" except of one domesti- 
 cating with this pure bard, and fully instructed by him, 
 and whom he calls "VERY CURIOUS ! !" 
 
 The "filth of my own fancy!" These are hard 
 words applied to " a resident clergyman," to a writer of 
 * I shall speak more particularly of this note at the end. 
 
sermons, and in the disdainful phraseology of a " liberal" 
 critic a writer, also, of "sentimental sonnets !" These 
 are somewhat hard 'words to be applied, before the public, 
 to any gentleman of respectability; and particularly to 
 one, who, as an author, through a long period, from 
 youth to (I hope I may add, not unhonoured) age, never 
 wrote one word in prose or verse, which " dying, he 
 " would wish to blot!" These are, indeed, hard words, 
 when it is further considered, as I hope it will be by 
 the virtuous, impartial, and just, and charitable, that 
 they are attempted to be flung in my face, in defence 
 of one, who, by the writer's own shewing, felt a 
 coward's qualm when death stared him in the face, and 
 not before, for the talents he had so often employed in 
 scattering impurities, and exciting voluptuous and de- 
 praved passions till the last days of his life ! But, I 
 trust, the spirit which directed this foul blow will be 
 appreciated as it deserves ! 
 
 In defence of myself, for having admitted this appa- 
 rently uncharitable comment on the " curious lady," I 
 shall say now, as I thought then, that the comment was 
 deserved! When it was written, I was much younger ; it 
 was written from the conviction of its justice. Whether 
 on a revisal I should now retain it, I do not say. But I 
 will say, that I am as much convinced of its justice now, 
 as I was when I wrote it ! 
 
 But Scriblerus, and his foiled junto, will triumphantly 
 retort, that no mind, except a mind so prejudiced as 
 mine against Pope, would have entertained a thought 
 so derogatory of female purity, and of the female purity 
 " in particular" of such " a very curious lady" as do- 
 mesticated with so very pure a bard ! 
 
us 
 
 Do not be too hasty ! Whatever " filth" may pecu- 
 liarly belong to " my fancy," I may at least have some 
 to bear me company, as I had the solamen miseris of 
 companionship in folly with Dr. Johnson. 
 
 Let the reader reflect on the highest character that 
 now sheds its glory on the living world of literature. 
 Let him reflect not, on here and there a spot of loveli- 
 ness in the creations of poetry, but the exuberance and 
 richness of a thousand beautiful creations, second only 
 to those illumined by the magic touch of Shakespeare. 
 
 Let him think of the forms of female character, 
 as lovely, and yet as separately distinguished, as Ophelia, 
 Desdemona, Imogen, and Miranda ! Let him reflect 
 on the following lines, so truly affecting, lines which 
 shew, indeed, the human heart in its purest and tenderest 
 character. Let him think of a father ; let him think 
 of a child, whose lucid soul no stain of human impurity 
 ever sullied ! Let him repeat, 
 
 " Oh ! if there be a human tear, 
 
 " From passion's dregs refined and clear ; 
 
 " A tear so limpid and so meek, 
 
 " It would not stain an ANGEL'S CHEEK, 
 
 " 'Tis that, which pious fathers shed 
 
 " Upon a duteous daughter's head! !" 
 
 When the reader has reflected on this affecting 
 picture, let him reflect on whom " the filth of fancy," if 
 I deserve such distinction for my comment on the " very 
 " curious Lady" may also be thrown ! on SIR WALTER 
 SCOTT ! ! Yes, Sir Walter Scott ! Sir Walter Scott, 
 no doubt from deliberate conviction of its probable truth, 
 has admitted, into his notes on Swift, not only the opinion 
 of Pope's artful fabrication of his letter-scheme, but this 
 
144 
 
 VERY NOTE, this identical comment, on tliis " very curious 
 " Lady," in Bowles's own words, on which the critic has 
 thought, with " collected might," to fling the filth of 
 his own foul fancy on Bowles alone ! 
 
 Bowles, therefore, does not think this "filth" will 
 stick long on him, however delighted the pettyfogging 
 mind must be, that gratified its malignity by flinging 
 it, when Bowles shares the " filth" of such obloquy in 
 common with a Critic, the most intelligent, and judicious, 
 and candid, of the age ; with a Poet, of the most rich 
 and exquisite fancy; with a Gentleman, of the most 
 engaging manners and morals ; and with a Man, of the 
 purest and most virtuous heart ! 
 
 In the buoyancy of life and spirits, a young man of 
 genius in the cockney jargon of Scriblerus, of "pre- 
 ** cocity" of talents may, without pleading the example 
 of the reign of Charles II., have described, too far, 
 
 " The thoughts that breathe, 
 " In words that burn;" 
 
 But who would remember this with too harsh censure, 
 (however we might lament the effects,) when a life of 
 conjugal and parental tenderness succeeds of which we 
 have one living example ? 
 
 Let any one read what Mr. Moore has said on this 
 subject, in his Life of Sheridan; and if he visit a young 
 and unguarded poet with harsh censure, and unfeeling 
 asperity, why, then, he must have far LESS candour than 
 Bowles ! 
 
 I am no censor, no hypocrite, no severe judge of the 
 errors of early life, no inspector, or puritanical inqui- 
 sitor, of consciences; but I declare on being thus pressed, 
 
145 
 
 and scrutinized, and insulted that, with every allowance 
 for human frailty, it is my firm conviction that the ex- 
 ample of him, whose " calumniated worth" a hopeless 
 attempt has been made to bolster up, in one respect, 
 stands alone, isolated, anomalous, and sui generis, in 
 the history of the corruption and depravities of the 
 human heart ; for I do not believe, however the best may 
 acknowledge infirmities, indiscretions, or offences, that 
 there ever existed any other person in the world so 
 depraved and polluted, as, in cold blood, to address rank 
 obscenities to a woman, the object of his professed 
 affection and respect, and to two sisters " at the same 
 "time!" 
 
 I have now given a plain answer to the three most 
 insidious and malignant observations in this article. I 
 have only to add, " wait a little, Gentlemen," some 
 few years, and I shall be out of hearing ! You may, 
 such of you as are younger, bespatter and abuse Bowles, 
 then, as much as you please. I shall not be able to 
 answer; but I " bate not a jot of heart," for I firmly 
 believe, when I am no more, some generous manly mind 
 will be found to do me justice ; and that I shall have 
 every amiable and uncorrupted female in the kingdom 
 (who has any knowledge of the subject) on my side, 
 since, whatever feelings in writing this man's life I could 
 not entirely suppress, of which I am not conscious, 
 they arose from the circumstance, that, to young and 
 virtuous women, he only, of all the men in the world, 
 was capable of using language that 
 
 " took the roie 
 
 " From the fair forehead of a virtuous love, 
 " And left a blister there ! !" 
 
 L 2 
 
146 
 
 He only, of all created men upon earth, witli cruel and 
 unmanly vindictiveness, could cast aspersions on the 
 fame of the female whom he once adored, leaving an 
 everlasting record of his own shame in the couplet, 
 that is remembered, whenever the name of Mary Wort- 
 ley Montague is mentioned. He only, of all mankind, 
 and he professing loftier morals, was capable of writing 
 obscenity to two uncorruptecl amiable young women at 
 the same time ! And instead of retracting one word 
 of what I said, in the spirit of sincere charity, I think 
 I ought to ask pardon of God and man for not branding 
 the hypocrite as he deserved, as I thus brand his sophis* 
 tical, drivelling, hypocritical, defenders! 
 
 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY. 
 
 I have now, I trust it will be thought, effectually 
 vindicated myself from the charges which have been so 
 often advanced, and as often repelled. 
 
 My present assailant has taken his position on some 
 new grounds, but I have fairly met him on all. 
 
 My " cumulative proofs," in his conceited jargon, will 
 not be easily overturned, that Bufo was Halifax, and 
 could be no other, though " Halifax died in 1715 V 9 
 
 It will have been observed, that in looking at the 
 portrait of Bufo, as drawn by Pope, and applied to Ha- 
 
147 
 
 lifax, every line, and almost every word in every li 
 has been accounted for, as applicable to Halifax, and to 
 him only. 
 
 But, I verily believe, taking the lines and every single 
 expression from the beginning to the end of the descrip- 
 tion, I could even now double the proofs ! 
 
 First, "puff"d by every quill." It might be said, 
 that, except Swift and Pope, EVERY contemporary bard 
 offered some praise of some sort. " PuJjTd" because 
 the dedications were not of a common strain, but the 
 most high-flown and fulsome flattery, as may be seen 
 by the specimens we have given ! 
 
 "Fed with soft dedications all day long," 
 
 The second line in the Town and Country Mouse is, 
 
 Fed on soft cheese," &c. 
 
 As Halifax was called Mouse-M.ontQ.gue on account of 
 this poem, who knows but that Roscoe may one day be 
 called Frog- Roscoe, on account of his poetical criticism ! 
 
 " And a true Pindar stood without a head," 
 Alluding in particular to that ode of Halifax, on the 
 marriage of the Princess Anne. Addison thus laudeth 
 its irregular or Pindaric numbers, 
 
 " How negligently graceful he unreins 
 " His verse." 
 
 " Who first his judgment ask'd, and then & place;" 
 
 Pope read the first books of his Homer to Halifax. He 
 found fault with some expressions ; Pope mentioned it 
 to Garth : " Tell him," says Garth, " you have altered 
 " the lines according to his suggestion !" The lines 
 were not altered; but again shewn to Halifax, as if 
 they had been altered, when he expressed himself 
 
148 
 
 delighted with the improvement? there cannot be a 
 stronger proof of his desire to have his "judgment asked*" 
 and afterwards he absolutely wrote to Pope, to say he 
 intended to give him "a place!" See Pope's letter to 
 him, and Johnson's observations on the subject. 
 
 "Dry rehearsal!" The speakers in the Two Mice 
 are those in " the Rehearsal" Bayes, Johnson, and 
 Smith ; and it is written in the same style ! " DRY 
 " REHEARSAL !" because a copy of this " REHEARSAL" 
 was given, unaccompanied by other good things ! 
 
 This circumstance alone is enough to fix the character. 
 
 " Paid in kind!" with his own verses ! The two Mice, 
 This dialogue, in the manner of the " Rehearsal," with 
 the very same persons, was written conjointly by Halifax 
 and Prior!* 
 
 " Help'd to starve!" This could not be said of any 
 one in the age except Halifax. Halifax's patronage 
 was, as we have seen, of the most extensive description, 
 but it was not merely denied to Dryden. In his own 
 poems Lord Halifax expressly excludes Dryden, from 
 the task and office of celebrating a great public event, 
 among all the poets, because " he Jiad no heart !" 
 
 This portrait of Bufo was drawn by Pope, probably, 
 at that period, when, publicly and privately, he felt the 
 greatest mortification. When the quarrel with Ad- 
 dison, Montague's particular friend, was exasperated; 
 when Halifax was " full-blown," by being installed 
 Knight of the Order of the Garter, and when Wind- 
 sor became, according to this loyal bard's description, 
 
 * I never read the City and Country Mouse, till it was procured for 
 me by Mr. Upham, of Bath, the most courtepus of Bibliopoli, and one 
 of the most excellent of men. 
 
149 
 
 the " sink and coUuvies of human greatness" by the resi- 
 dence of George I. in the year when Halifax died, 1715 ! 
 
 Perhaps Roscoe might exult in saying he never 
 asserted, totidem verbis, that Bufo was " alive when this 
 " satire was published," but " living in Pope's riper 
 "age !" So Curll said, he was never tossed in a blan- 
 ket, but in a rug ! However, it is quite enough for me, 
 that he has so " well observed" (to which " observation" 
 Doodle so blithely responds) that " Bufo was living in 
 " Pope's riper age," when Pope had been " be-rhym'd 
 "so long!!" This must have been when this satire 
 was published ! * 
 
 " At rehearsals sweat /" We have better authority 
 than that of Mrs. Porter, the actress, that the lines in 
 the Prologue to the Satires,-]- " at rehearsals sweat," 
 alluded to Addison, for Pope himself, in a letter to 
 Trumbull, says, when Cato \vas acted, 1713, Addison 
 " sweated:' behind the scenes ! 
 
 That Tim on was intended for Chandos, I believe 
 there is not, and never will be among sensible men, a 
 doubt : but it was not necessary to go into the examina- 
 tion minutely as upon this point. Mr. Roscoe might as 
 well assert for he has brought no proofs that the 
 squint-eyed gentleman with the cap of liberty, in Ho- 
 garth's caricature, was not intended for Johnny Wilkes, 
 as that TIMON was not intended for CHANDOS ! 
 
 * He was now not more than forty-five or forty-six at farthest. 
 
 f Pope spoke with respect of Blackmore in 1714; but it does uot 
 follpw that he did not satirize him with Phillips, placing the simple and 
 fustian poet together in this prologue. He had written three epic poems, 
 before the death of Halifax* 
 
150 
 
 The musical establishment at the chapel, where Handel 
 presided, the arable land turned into parterres, and 
 many other minute circumstances, could be applied only 
 to Chandos, and to no other nobleman living in the same 
 style of ostentatious hospitality ! 
 
 Pope says himself on another occasion, " he did not 
 <{ lie,, but equivocated pretty genteelly /" and " pretty 
 " genteelly" did he equivocate about this circumstance. 
 Nevertheless, in the face of all these " genteel equivoca- 
 " tions" Warburton, his confidential editor, with the 
 utmost naivete, assures us, in a note on " Timon's Villa," 
 * 6 if the poet had lived three years longer, he would have 
 "seen what he had prophesied exactly come to pass!" 
 To explain this, I must refer to Pope's works. Speaking 
 of the arable land, at Timon's villa, having been turned 
 into " parterres," he says, (the description, in its 
 poetical dress, being turned into plain prose,} "after a 
 few years, the parterres shall be turned into corn lands 
 again !"- 
 
 " Deep harvests bury all his pride had plann'd, 
 " And LAUGHING CERES re-assume the land !" 
 
 And lo ! Warburton, like the "unfortunate Archdeacon," 
 wrapt in the contemplation that his friend's prophecy 
 literally took place, cries out " Aye, just so it happened, 
 " three years after, at Cannons," the " parterres" were 
 turned into arable again, thus betraying his friend, 
 as completely as the hobgoblin Archdeacon betrayed 
 himself! ! 
 
 So I will say of Timon, though a very few persons, 
 not much conversant with Pope's character and works, 
 may be persuaded, as long as Roscoe's edition is in the 
 
151 
 
 market, that Pope, innocent satirist, never contemplated 
 in Timon's villa, or in Timon, Cannons and Chandos, 
 a very few years will undeceive them ; another editor, 
 as well informed as Sir Walter Scott, &c. will set all 
 to rights again ! 
 
 Such stuff sliall vanish in another age, 
 
 And "LAUGHING CHANDOS RE- ASSUME THE PAGE!" 
 
 Respecting the clandestine publication of Pope's 
 letters, with Pope's privity, not one argument in my 
 " Final Appeal" has been met. Not one argument has 
 been advanced to disprove the fact, except Roscoe's 
 " drafts " may be called arguments, which are too 
 absurd for the Reviewer to defend ! This question, 
 also, after what has been said, may be left to the plain 
 understanding of all readers, except very " indolent?' 
 ones indeed ! 
 
 The poetical question is no longer disputed.* As to 
 the moral character, the wonder with me is, that those 
 who thus vainly labour to white-wash the inherent stains 
 of his mind, do not describe Pope in person as " a mar- 
 <e vellous proper man/* a Sergeant Kite, or like one 
 
 * The reader will observe, at the passage in the letter to Mr. Roscoe, 
 relating to a "resident Clergyman," the words " more degrading," printed 
 as a quotation, with inverted commas. It is so printed, not because 
 Mr. Roscoe had spoken of a " Resident Clergyman" as "degraded,'* 
 but the inverted commas were used merely in reference to his having said 
 I had " degraded" the poetical character of Pope : I have as much de. 
 graded one, as he has the other ! In poetical criticism, Mr. Hoscoe could 
 see plainly enough that one poet could write better on a, green cheese than 
 another could on the moon ; but beyond this he could not see or perceive 
 that Homer, or Shakespeare, could have done nothing towards achieving 
 their eternal rank in poetry without adequate subjects, which are eternal 
 nature, and passions of the heart. 
 
IS* 
 
 of the King of Prussia's dragoons ! The one picture 
 is not more preposterous than the other.* 
 
 The three particular notes brought forward, with a 
 kind of chuckling malignity, I am most glad of an 
 opportunity of explaining, and for this I thank my enemies! 
 
 I have before spoken of these notes, as written 
 unguardedly ! 
 
 BUT I HERE RETRACT THIS PLEA ; and so far from 
 expunging them, if I had the power, (except, perhaps, 
 the one of which I cannot now recollect the origin,) I 
 heartily wish every sentence in every comment of mine 
 were " sifted" as much as these have been. I confine 
 myself to those notes, which are supposed to bear 
 hardest on Pope's character, to the other criticisms, 
 even this adversary bears reluctant testimony ! 
 
 An explanation may be necessary respecting what J 
 said about the Letters. I allude to a quotation from 
 the Quarterly Review, in which Pope is spoken of as 
 "not being able to disavow the WHOLE of Curll's 
 " publication ! " 
 
 Stupidity, and low chicanery, contend for mastery in 
 this precious composition ! The strict meaning of the 
 Reviewer's sentence being taken, the conclusion must be 
 
 * The following anecdote is told of the "wits," as they called them- 
 selves. In order to prove the vanity of Sir Godfrey Kneller, they 
 agreed to ask him, whether be did not think he could have made the 
 world rather better than it is, had he been the maker of it. The story 
 has been recorded by themselves, that he replied, without hesitation, 
 that he thought " he could have made, it better!!!" So the story has 
 been told by the wits,- but the real fact, so far from proving Sir Godfrey's 
 inordinate vanity, proved that he was the greater " WIT" of the party. 
 Pope was to ask the question. Sir Godfrey, surveying the interrogator 
 from head to foot, immediately answered, " Fore gad, I think dat dare 
 " ar some leattle tings in the world / could have made better!" 
 
that which I have drawn f If, by a ready quibble, it is 
 pretended that the contents of a publication, not the pub- 
 lication itself, were intended, then Pope was not ABLE TO 
 DISAVOW any part of the PUBLICATION, except one or 
 two letters, inserted in CurlPs edition, and not in 
 Pope's own !* 
 
 The same low chicanery runs through the whole 
 article. Pope's letters must have been obtained honour- 
 ably, or furnished privily, or stolen, there is no middle 
 ground; and yet Pope dares not say so, openly, in his 
 authentic preface; and where the Reviewer's whole 
 argument is grounded on it, he slides off with the 
 sneaking "if stolen !"f 
 
 * Though a few unappeasable dunces, in reviews and magazines, 
 fling the " filth of their own fancies," I am satisfied the sober sense and 
 unbiassed feelings of the great, and sensible majority of English readers 
 are on my side. That which appears so " UNACCOUNTABLE" to this ma- 
 licious driveller, might easily be accounted for, if he had consulted two 
 things an honest heart, and a plain understanding; the first would 
 have made him sensible of those defects which are visible in Pope's cha- 
 racter, through every part of his published writings; and the second 
 would have saved him from this exposure of his Jesuitical comments, 
 at the expense of him whom he defends ; and a little of both would 
 have saved himself from " that comfort which Pope gives, not to fools 
 " only, but knaves," and equally saved me from the trouble of making 
 his folly recoil on himself, 
 
 f I disdained to argue on to the tenth-repeated nonsense of the charge 
 brought against me, for using the words " if true." The reader may see 
 the very same words, if he thinks it worth while to look, used in the 
 very same sense, in Kippis's Defence of Addison ! ! Kippis is the 
 warmest advocate of Addison ; yet he says, such a story, IF true, was 
 atrocious, without any guard at all ; whereas I guarded mine twice out 
 of three times ; and this sensitive chicaner thinks it was intended to make 
 an impression against Pope, though the reader had only to turn over a 
 few pages, and before he could put down the poem, must see the antidote ! 
 What super-human stultification! 
 
1 regret that I have been obliged to be harder on 
 Mr, Roscoe, than I could have wished. Much has been 
 expunged, as the Printer knows, rather than give him 
 unnecessary pain, though he so churlishly replied to my 
 expressions of respect before. 
 
 The LESSON he has now received, he has gratuitously 
 drawn on himself. I believe, sincerely, his object was 
 to defend what he conceived " calumniated worth ;" and 
 he undertook the task, warm from his studies of Gilchrist ; 
 and formed an equally erroneous opinion both of my 
 understanding and disposition, and I hope, also, forgot 
 for a moment his own. 
 
 The few years I may have to live, I trust at last 
 may be passed peaceably, as I am sure it will be cha- 
 ritably, towards him and all men. Nor shall I reply 
 again, unless my moral character be assailed! With 
 friends, such as fall to the lot of few to possess, cultiva- 
 ting literature as an amusement, not pursuit, occupied 
 in professional studies, and the concerns of a large 
 parish, engaged in the more active services of a county 
 magistrate, warned, moreover, by stealing time, which 
 every day gives that lesson double force, " seek peace, 
 " and ensue it;" I have little leisure for these eludings, 
 and less inclination ; but being assailed, I trust I know 
 how to bear myself towards generous adversaries ; to give 
 a proper " lesson in criticism" to a testy but tasteless old 
 
 gentleman; and how to spurn a cowardly, " bush-fighting 
 tt cur {* 
 
 * What I have written, I have been obliged to write hastily, and 
 therefore some verbal errors may be excused. Nor, having repelled the 
 charges that affect me most, shall I waste my time, and that of my readers, 
 on minor points, such as, whether Pope was a Jacobite or not, &c. 
 
155 
 
 Among those who have distinguished themselves iii 
 this warfare, our Scriblerus lias mentioned the names 
 of Byron, Campbell, and, of all men in the world, Mr. 
 Southey ! ! 
 
 Roscoe had joined together tigrem, ovibus Lord 
 Byron, Mr. Campbell, and Octavius Gilchrist But how 
 Mr. Southey and Lord Byron became placed together 
 on the same stage, as distinguished in this contest, and, 
 I suppose, in opposition to me, is astonishing indeed ! 
 Whether we regard his school of poetry, ^Milton, 
 Spencer, and Nature, his purity of heart, and dignity 
 of morals, if ever there was one man more removed 
 from the school of Pope than another, it is Mr. Southey ! 
 
 With respect to his school of poetry, I should think 
 there might have been some little debate at head- 
 quarters about an article, written, it is understood, by 
 Mr. Southey, in direct opposition to some of their arch- 
 cockney sentiments ! * I have also some reason for be- 
 lieving, that, when he spoke with respect and kindness of 
 myself, the pen was drawn over part of the sentence. 
 
 * Neither Mr. Coleridge, nor any educated man, could have been 
 concerned in this article. Coleridge, probably, is in the back ground, 
 contented with "eating his pudding, and holding his tongue:" he may 
 not know even the writer's name, but, JOHN MURIIAY does! 
 " WE," this Corinthian scribe informs us, "WE" have borne testimony 
 to the poets of the age ! ! Bless us ! " We" have borne testimony to 
 the facetious " wags" of Monomopata, published by John Murray ; but 
 I guess (as Jonathan say;)) " WE" should not have borne testimony to 
 these marvellous wags, if this important work had been published by 
 Longman and Co. ; and " we" have expatiated on the genius and lofty 
 poetry of the " Paradise of Coquets," and some other poetical works, 
 of as lofty a character, for which I believe WE have paid ! ! It is quite 
 enough for such humbler versifiers as ourselves to escape insult ! but 
 how many living poets of distinguished genius are there, whose names 
 have never been heard of in the pages of the Quarterly ! 
 
156 
 
 Mr. Southey Las told us of the "Satanic school of 
 " poetry ;" I think I have exposed some specimens of 
 the satanic school of criticism, if the most atrocious 
 falsehoods and wilful distortions may be so called. Of 
 the Noodleisms and Doodleisms I say nothing; but as 
 an insidious and malicious attempt has been made to 
 injure me in the opinion of every honourable mind, I 
 conclude all I have here said with the last quotation 
 of " HONEST FATHER VALERIAN," which my enemy 
 has kindly set before me : 
 
 " To MY AUTHORSHIP THEY ARE HEARTILY WEL- 
 " COME. BUT, IF ANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN SO 
 66 ABANDONED BY TRUTH, AS TO ATTACK MY MORAL 
 " CHARACTER, IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER, TO ALL 
 
 " AND EVERY ONE OF THESE, I GIVE THE LIE 
 " IN FORM, AND IN THE WORDS OF HONEST FATHER 
 " VALERIAN MENTIRIS, IMPUDENTISSIME ! ! !" 
 
 (Quarterly Review, page 273.) 
 
15? 
 
 HAVING now finished my labours, and, I believe, 
 floored both Roscoe and his " bush-fighting" bottle-holder, I 
 would say, with Bayes, 
 
 " And now let us have a dance." 
 
 A little fiddling after fighting, at least, may be allowed, to 
 put us in good humour; for, in the words of Mr. Brougham, 
 I think I might add, also, 
 
 ' We can afford to be good-humoured. 1 ' 
 
 I shall not play " Tweed-side," or " Maggie Lauder," 
 though I shall wish, on this occasion, to get in that quarter 
 " A HEARING," and I would even lilt, 
 
 " 'T\vaa within a mile of Edinboro' town," 
 
 If I could get bonnie Lockhart to come out to hear such 
 soft strains and " sentimental sonnets" however and even 
 that sonnet, 
 
 " Oh Tweed, a stranger" &c. 
 
 sung in my younger days; or that other sonnet, which, 
 before my friend Christopher had existence, began with 
 
 " O NOETH, as thy romantic views I leave ;" 
 
 all these I leave for a smack of the satiric kind; that the next 
 pamphlet Roscoe writes, which I shall never read, he might 
 add to my title of " writer of sentimental sonnets," writer 
 of a bit of satire. 
 
 The reader has seen some specimens of this kind. I shall 
 here give him, into the bargain, for Us money laid out in the 
 
 OF THfc 
 
 V 
 
158 
 
 purchase of these LESSONS ON CRITICISM, a few lines from 
 the beginning of my great Heroic Poem, to be called " Critics, 
 " Bards, Booksellers, and Blockheads, of this enlightened 
 " sera, the Critico-Poetico-Bibliopolo-Blochheado Spirits 
 "of the Age! !" a Poem, by W. L. B. 
 
 BARD AND FRIEND. 
 
 B. My poem finish'd, many a night and day, 
 Retouch'd, and polished, why should I delay 
 To publish it. 
 
 F. To publish it? but how? 
 
 B. Take it to Murray. 
 
 F. Murray, Sir, will bow, 
 And tell you, with a simper, and a shrug, 
 That poetry, just now, is quite a drug! 
 
 B. For poetry, like MINE, he would afford 
 
 F. Yes, if you were a doctor, or a lord! 
 
 Why, man, a BISHOP'S note he scarce would squint on, 
 
 And mutter'd, " Who the devil is J. WINTON ?"* 
 
 Friend, burn your epic if you would succeed, 
 
 Take some choice hero of the monkey breed, -|* 
 
 Tell how with grave grimace, and winking glee, 
 
 He fairly kick'd his wife into the sea! 
 
 The simp'ring publisher, WHO PAID YOU MONEY, 
 
 Shall read " OUR QUARTERLY," and cry, " how funny /" 
 
 While epic, ode, and sonnet, all give place, 
 
 To Monomopata's/acefr'ows race. 
 
 Or if for gain or favour you would hope, 
 
 Pen a sharp article on BOWLES'S POPE ; 
 
 * A note came to Mr. Murray, on dit, signed " J. Winton." Who is this 
 J. Winton, of Chelsea? said the lofty Bibliopole. It was the Bishop of Win- 
 chester, to e'ngage the publisher of the Quarterly to be the publisher of the Life 
 of Pitt. 
 
 t See a Review of " Anecdotes of Monkeys," &c, published by John Murray. 
 
Bring charges, heedless whether false or true, 
 Whilst Doodle crows to Noodle, " THIS WILL DO!" 
 
 Then " well-observing" Doodle shall confess 
 How " well observeth" NOODLE F. R. S. 
 Then pug shall scratch his blither brother pug, 
 " Enlighten d HUM" extol " enlighten d BUG." 
 In taste, in sentiment, in style agree, 
 And, both* together chatter, " WE, WE, WE!" 
 
 \_* Hum-bug. 
 
 Then both advancing with " collected might,"* 
 'Gainst BOWLES their " formidable" force unite, 
 Whilst luinb'ring dulness is spurrdon by spite! 
 
 \ 
 
 Let either SoLOMON,f and each a host, 
 Their pestles shake, and call on GILCHRIST'S ghost; 
 Till that vile priest cry " Craven" is the dirt, 
 While Solomon J aloft twangs his triumphant squirt ! 
 B. But pause awhile, my friend ! for aught you know, 
 BOWLES may get up, and give them blow for blow ! 
 Seize Solomon's brass pestle in a trice, 
 And make the DOCTORS scamper off like mice! 
 The Gods || at length shall cry, " Well done !" and Doodle 
 Shake his belabour'd head at brother Noodle ; 
 Whilst ev'n JOHN MURRAY, looking somewhat blue, 
 
 To whispers, " This won't do ! !" 
 
 [Exeunt Noodle, Doodle, and Foodie, severally 
 shaking their heads.] 
 
 * " Mr. Bowles collects all HIS MIGHT." Quarterly. 
 
 f Critic and quack- doctor Duo fulmina belli ! 
 
 \ Solomon the critic, having received this instrument from the quack ! 
 This is an humble imitation of a lofty passage in Homer, quoted by Longinua. 
 
 || Gods, " Jupiter Tonans, Apollo, and Mercurius, and the rest," conductors 
 of the periodical press, who, I hope, will think I have fought well, at least, with 
 such odds I 
 
160 
 
 In. the mean time, I must say to the critics " aboon the 
 " Tweed," Tory and Whig, a few parting words. Christ- 
 opher has generally given me a good word, when I have 
 been put upon unfairly: he said, I " beat Byron hollow out 
 "of the ring!" He has partaken the humble symposiacks 
 of my parsonage ; and who knows but he may drink my 
 health among the lads at Ambrose's, or, perhaps, he may 
 " turn to the right about!" 
 
 Well, I must stand my chance! He cannot help Noodle, 
 I am sure! But what can I an English ecclesiatic, bred 
 at Oxford, educated at a public school say to him of the 
 Edinburgh Review! Shall I deprecate his ire against our 
 patrician establishments, in Latin verse? 
 
 " Oh ! tandem faveas summo, FRANCESCE, labor! ! 
 " Te Rhedicyna* tremit !" 
 
 And, 
 
 " WINTON shakes through all her sons!" (Pope.} 
 
 But this will not do ! in the most classical strains, it seems, 
 canimus surdis, to all of sister Peg's^ establishments ; though 
 I think, old John Bull is not far behind them in other 
 accomplishments besides writing Latin verses, if we may 
 judge from the splendid talents in either House of Parlia- 
 ment !J Shall I place over the door of my parsonage a 
 sonnet, as Milton did? 
 
 " Captain, or Colonel, or Knight, in arms !" 
 
 * Oxford. 
 f See Swift's History of John Bull. 
 
 \ Mr. Canning, Marquis of Wellesley, Lord Grenville, Lord Colchester, Lord 
 Chief Justice Abbott, gained the prize for Latin verses at Oxford ! I do not 
 think such early studies would have done Mr. Brougham any great harm : 
 who, that has read his Inaugural Discourse, does not say, 
 "Taliscum sis utinara NOSTER esses?" 
 
161 
 
 I am afraid none of these things will do ; so I will finish 
 with an Impromptu, on the circumstance which happened 
 the only time I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Jeffrey, for 
 I have dined with that Tory, North ; and have breakfasted 
 with the Whig editor of the Edinburgh, and his publisher! 
 
 The circumstance to which I allude is this, I left the 
 critic, wearing his hat on my head (I dare say he rememhers 
 it), and he went away with that of the " writer of sentimental 
 " sonnets !" Lord Byron concluded his grand exhibition of 
 the Temples of Athens, with the chapter on the sensitive 
 Doctor's Hat, on board ship ! I therefore conclude with thit 
 
 IMPROMPTU, 
 
 On wearing away the Hat of Hie Editor of tli& 
 Edinburgh Review. 
 
 Hypocrates saith, " Let us be covered ! In what chapter ? 
 " The chapter of hats /" Mvliere. 
 
 TALKING of critics, poets, and all that, 
 
 I trudg'd away with the SCOTCH CRITIC'S HAT! 
 
 He arguing with an Oxenford divine, 
 
 A man of dactyls trotted off with mine! 
 
 Contagious was the fact, for since that time, 
 
 For critic lore, I left congenial rhyme; 
 
 And if, from the same cause, we might expect 
 
 In critic craniums the like effect, 
 
 When next we meet, he'll say, " Depend upon it 
 
 " Write what they please Bowles, THAT'S a famous sonnet!* 
 
 " And though I'm ' sick' enough of * Pope and prate,' 
 
 " And all OUR LABOURS are for CHURCH and STATE; 
 
 " Though ' ART and NATURE' be a worn-out STORY! 
 
 " Bring my OLD CRAB, I'll THRASH that LYING TORY!!" 
 
 * Sonnet on Tweed, by the author. 
 M 2 
 
162 
 
 And here, " COSSTUS ARTEMQUE REPONO," I lay down 
 " the coestus," the fiddle, &c., and, I hope, ill-will to all ; 
 wishing even Mr. Roscoe a happy new-year, though he 
 should not call me " a fiend." 
 
 \JExeunt Omnes. 
 
A LITTLE scheme will shew us better than any 
 words the mode universally adopted by such opponents : 
 
 BOWLES. 
 
 " Step beyond decorum." 
 
 Ditto. 
 
 Ditto. 
 
 Prudence. 
 
 Warm friend, affectionate son, } 
 
 benevolent man. } 
 
 Connection took place 
 
 THERE WAS NO GREAT DAN 
 GER OF A FALSE STEP ! 
 
 when^ 
 
 DAN- V 
 ! 3 
 
 POPE-DEFENDERS. 
 
 Attempt to commit a " rape.' 
 
 " Formidable attack." 
 
 " Attack." 
 
 Sordidness. 
 
 Mr. Bowles has wiled away 
 EVERY VIRTUE! 
 
 "A LIFE OF SYSTEMATICAL 
 " DEPRAVITY ! ! !' : 
 
 Well may such daring distorters say, that " in words" 
 I am not to be convicted ; but who could stand the test, 
 whilst such an infamous mode of interpretation is re- 
 sorted to, in direct contradiction to my words, both in 
 meaning and spirit, by those who 
 
 " Read but with a lust to misapply, 
 " As all seems yellow to the jaundic'd eye ?" Pop*. 
 
164 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM ADVERTISEMENT, 
 AND LIFE OF POPE. 
 
 I HAVE thought it best to subjoin a few extracts 
 from the Life of Pope, that those, who have not my 
 edition, may compare its general spirit with the truth 
 and candour of this elaborate and unprincipled misre- 
 presentation: 
 
 BOWLES. 
 
 < The notes by Warton have been revised, and much 
 " which he had admitted has been rejected ; though it is 
 " hoped that all which is truly valuable has been retained. 
 " The offensive epistle is excluded ; and if the chapter of 
 " the * Double Mistress,' AFTER SOME HESITATION, has found 
 " a place, it has been on account of its exquisite humour, and 
 " because, though offensive to delicacy, it is riot seductive or 
 " dangerous to principles." 
 
 " Some original papers have been, for OBVIOUS REASONS, 
 " OMITTED. Those which have been published I do not think 
 " can detract from the MORAL CHARACTER OF THE WRITER. 
 " What man, indeed, if ah 1 the errors of his youth were severely 
 " scanned, could escape censure ? In other respects, the 
 " letters are natural, interesting, and creditable to his (Pope's) 
 " feelings. Among the omissions I NOW SINCERELY WISH I 
 " had included the farce of < Three Hours after Marriage ;' 
 " but it was printed when I was afflicted with illness, and 
 
165 
 
 " was scarcely able to judge for myself. I think it right to 
 " express my sorrow, though too late : the rest I leave te 
 " the candour of the public." 
 
 LIFE OF POPE. 
 
 " If he (Mr. Bowles) forbears, unnecessarily and waji- 
 " tonly, to obtrude any thing which might INJURE ANOTHER'S 
 " FAME, except where a regard TO TRUTH extorts it, or 
 " where, as in the case of ADDISON, ifc is demanded by 
 "justice, to those whose fame has suffered ; if he be con- 
 " scious of being actuated solely by these feelings; he will not 
 "fear, though he approaches the task with diffidence, to 
 " represent, as faithfully as he is able, the leading facts and 
 " traits in the history and character of a person, estimable 
 u indeed for many virtues, but those blended, as all human 
 " excellence must be, with shades of infirmity ; distinguished 
 " for superior poetical talents, and pre-eminently adorning 
 " the literature of his age, but memorable for merits and 
 " defects, for attachments and animosities." 
 
 " His son's (Pope's) poetical attempts served at Once to 
 " amuse the leisure, and to natter the vanity of the parent: 
 " but we should not have had the NAME OF POPE, as one 
 
 " Of the GREATEST ORNAMENTS OF THE AGE." 
 
 " Dr. Warton says, that from his profession * he had soen 
 " * compositions of youths of sixteen years old, far beyond 
 " * the Pastorals in point of genius and imagination, though 
 " ' not of correctness.' But I fear not to assert, that he 
 " never could have seen any compositions of boys of that 
 " age so perfect in versification, so copious, yet so nice, m 
 " expression, so eorrect, so spirited, and so finished, as these 
 " alterations and translations." 
 
166 
 
 " In the Rape of the Lock, to the mellifluence which dis- 
 " tinguished his pastorals, to the ' carminis artem,' (the most 
 " consummate skill of versification in its kind,) he added 
 " what might before have been denied to him, the powers of 
 " the happiest INVENTION : here were no images and senti- 
 " ments borrowed and diluted, if I may so say, from Virgil : 
 " ALL WAS NEW AND FANCIFUL. He stood upon his own 
 " ground ; and whilst he placed at an IMMENSE DISTANCE 
 " those who had before succeeded in the Mock-Heroic, 
 " (Boileau and Garth,) claimed the highest praise the most 
 " successful poet could boast : for the machinery (it matters 
 " not from what source taken) was so appropriate, so beau- 
 " tifully interwoven, and so poetical, that the shafts of Den- 
 " nis, when he afterwards attacked it, severe and acute as 
 " he was, dropt impotent." (Is this degradation ?) 
 
 " But the most extraordinary circumstance relating to thi s 
 " epistle in verse, and which evinces the GROSSNESS OF THE 
 " TIMES, or the licentiousness of the man, was the conclu- 
 " sion of it, now suppressed, so coarse and indecent, that it 
 " almost surpasses belief it could have been sent to any 
 " woman, (much less one for whom he professed esteem,) 
 " if the lines in his own hand- writing were not extant.* 
 
 " Whatever may be said of the vices of the present age, 
 " in many respects, it is so superior to the last, that a pro- 
 " fessed woman of the town would now feel insulted at re- 
 " ceiving what was then written to a woman of character. 
 " I am willing to believe that two copies were written, one, 
 " which he sent the lady, and another, which he kept for the 
 " ' consilia secretiora' of Cromwell, and his other friends of 
 " the same character. At this time, indeed, he absurdly 
 " affected a levity of dissipation. In his verses * On leaving 
 " ' Town,' he calls himself 
 
 " ' The gayest valetudinaire, 
 " 'Most thinking rake alive.* 
 
 * Unfortunately, the post-marks were on all the letters, but this I concealed ! 
 
1C? 
 
 " Doncastle, in a letter .extant, written long afterwards, 
 " says, * I am glad yon are tnrn'd such a bon vivant.' This 
 " affectation was occasioned by vanity and the intercourse 
 " of gay companions, but WAS NEITHER CONGENIAL TO HIS 
 " DISPOSITION, nor LONG CONTINUED." 
 
 " He died," (his father,) " with the feelings so beautifully 
 and pathetically described by Dr. Morel: 
 
 " ' Tears such as tender fathers shed, 
 
 " ' Warm from iny aged eyes descend, 
 
 " J For joy to think, when I am dead, 
 
 " ' My son shall have MANKIND HIS FRIEND."' 
 
 "In 1721, he published the collection of Parnel's poems, 
 " with those verses, next to Eloisa, the sweetest he ever 
 " wrote, addressed to Lord Oxford, and which do as much 
 " honour to him as a man, as they do credit to him as a 
 " poet. There is no lover of poetry, upon-their mention, 
 " who does not almost involuntarily repeat with tenderness, 
 
 " Such were the notes,' &c." 
 
 " A FRIENDLY but indefinite connexion, a strange MIX- 
 " TiniE of passion, gallantry, licentiousness, and kindness, had 
 " long taken place between himself and the Miss Blounts !" 
 
 N.B. Reader, observe : In the critic's " SIEVE," every 
 word of this sentence is omitted, except " licentiousness!" 
 
 " On the death of their brother, his intimate friend and 
 " correspondent, he seems to speak more openly* his undis- 
 " guised sentiments to Martha, who from this time became 
 " his confidant, having admitted a connexion which subjected 
 
 * Letter to Martha, in tenth volume, persuading her to leave her friends, 
 and domesticate with him. 
 
168 
 
 " her to some ridicule, but which ended only with his life. 
 " Pope was now in his 38th year. He was never indiffe- 
 " rent to female society, and though his good sense pre- 
 " vented him, conscious of so many personal infirmities,* 
 " from marrying, yet he felt the want of that sort of reci- 
 " procal tenderness and confidence in a female, to whom he 
 " might freely communicate his thoughts, and on whom, in 
 " sickness and infirmity, he could rely. All this Martha 
 " Blount became to him : by degrees she became identified 
 " with his existence. She partook of his disappointments, 
 " his vexations, and his comforts. Wherever he went, his 
 " correspondence with her was never remitted; and when 
 " the warmth of gallantry was over, the cherished idea of 
 " kindness and regard remained." 
 
 " All things considered, in the first instance, no great 
 <c blam& can surely attach to Pope : his subject was public, 
 " and the imperial fopperies of the Duke of Ohandos were 
 " public. The ' False Taste' (under which title the Epistle 
 " first appeared) was, as far as taste could be concerned, a 
 " public evil; the correction of it, a public good." 
 
 " This year, 1733, he lost his aged mother, who had gra- 
 " dually sunk before his eyes into the extremest imbecility 
 " of age, and whose ' cradle of parting repose' he had so 
 " long rocked with solicitude and affection. The most beau- 
 " tiful monument in his garden, an obelisk erected to her 
 " memory in a small circus of dark evergreens, yew, &c. still 
 " appears uninjured, with an inscription perfectly visible on 
 " the four sides : 
 
 *'Ah EDITHA, 
 
 " Mulierum optima, 
 
 " Matrum amantissima, 
 
 " Vale. 
 
 * See additional letters, in which he hims-elf implies this circumstance as a 
 reason for not thinking of marriage. 
 
169 
 
 " By the death of Gay and his mother he lost not only 
 " much of that which sweetened life, hut much which ope- 
 " rated, on the various occasions of disgust with the world, 
 " as the balm to his wounded feelings. Whatever irritation 
 " he might sometimes have experienced, he no sooner turned 
 " his eye on those he loved, but his passions seemed to sub- 
 " side, and his spirit became gentle. Hence, in his severest 
 " denunciations of satirical indignation, he so often and so 
 " delightfully interests us by unexpected touches of domestic 
 " tenderness." 
 
 " After the death of his friend Gay, and of his mother, 
 " all that was tender in the heart of Pope now rested on 
 " one whom he had loved with more or less ardour from 
 " 1712; with passions sometimes wavering this way, and 
 " sometimes, as in the case of Lady Mary, determined ano- 
 " ther. Martha Blount had now the sole ascendancy : he 
 " was also to her, in some degree, if not from choice, yet 
 " from circumstances, almost necessary. She had seen her 
 " youth fade, and all hopes of a suitable settlement in life wear 
 " out; whilst she had incurred alternately censure or pity, for 
 " a mysterious connexion with one whom she could not 
 " acknowledge as a husband. She had melancholy leisure 
 " to sum up what she had gained, and her vanity might at 
 41 times magnify the idea of what she had lost. Charmed at 
 " first with the thought of possessing the exclusive attentions 
 " and flattery of so distinguished a poet, she insensibly was 
 " led on to a SENTIMENTAL and UNDEFINED union." 
 
 N.B. Reader, this is turned into " a LIFE OF SYSTEMA- 
 " TICAL licentiousness !" 
 
 " It was now, however, too late to recede; the connexion 
 " had become habitual: they had long corresponded: she had 
 "been the depositary of his secrets and his cares; and he 
 " was disappointed if, wherever he was an inmate, she was 
 " not admitted also." Life of Pope, Bowles s edition. 
 
iyo 
 
 I now come to speak of the portentous " if true," by 
 which 1 endeavoured to excite so strong an impression 
 against Pope ! 
 
 LIFE OF POPE. 
 
 " One circumstance is mentioned by H. Walpole, which, 
 " if true, was indeed flagitious. Walpole informs Gray, 
 " that the character of Atossa was shewn to the Duchess of 
 "Buckingham, and to the Duchess of Marlborough; that 
 " Pope received a thousand pounds from the Duchess of 
 " Marlborough, promising on these terms to suppress it ; 
 '\that he took the money, and then published it! 
 
 " It must be owned, from the most solemn assertion made 
 " use of, it might seem that Pope thought the assertion alone 
 " sufficient to prove his adherence to the engagement; but a 
 
 " STORY SO BASE, I think, OUGHT NOT FOR A MOMENT TO BE 
 
 " ADMITTED SOLELY ON the testimony of Walpole. 
 
 " Pope certainly was not a favourite (on account of poli- 
 " tical differences) with the Walpoles, though he received 
 " civilities from Sir Robert ; and till there is other proof 
 " besides the ex parte evidence and sole assertion of Walpole, 
 " the SAME CANDOUR which made us reject what, upon no 
 " better foundation, was said OF ADDISON, ought to make us 
 " reject, with equal readiness, the belief of a circumstance so 
 
 " DEROGATORY TO THE CHARACTER OF POPE. Whatever 
 
 " can be proved ought not to be rejected : whatever has no 
 " other foundation but the ipse dixit of an adversary, is en- 
 " titled to no regard, particularly when the first essential of 
 " character is m question." 
 
 " The anger of Swift was general ; the spleen of Pope 
 " particular : one was disgusted with the nature of man; the 
 " oilier piqued and offended by individuals, confining his 
 
171 
 
 / 
 
 " animosity to the small circle of those who offended him. 
 " Swift, politically speaking, was disappointed that the high 
 " post in society, to which, from his talents, he thought hira- 
 " self entitled to aspire, was early wrested from the grasp of 
 " his ambition. Pope, attaining a situation, though a pri- 
 " vate one, much higher than he could have expected, chiefly 
 " felt offended when his intellectual superiority was disputed. 
 " Neither had reason to complain ; but the acrimony of 
 " Swift was directed against man and society ; t^e spfcefe of 
 " Pope against the individuals, Phillips, and Dennis, Lord 
 " Fanny, and Lady Alary, &c. c." 
 
 " The letters he wrote to Martha Blount, at this time, 
 " are peculiarly interesting. All his levity was gone, and a 
 
 " SINCERE AND SETTLED FRIENDSHIP SEEMED ONLY TO 
 " REMAIN." 
 
 N.B. I shall leave the comment on this malignant scrib- 
 bler's black perversions to every honest heart in the kingdom. 
 
 " His friends had long since sunk round him. Gay, Ar- 
 " buthnot, Atterbury, were no more. He felt himself more 
 *' alone and sad in the world, and unequal to finish a work 
 " he had meditated, which, judging from the specimen, (the 
 " fourth book of the Dunciad,) I think, would have beon 
 " the noblest and most legitimate satire he ever wrote." 
 
 " His mind was now intent on collecting his works, which, 
 " before he left the world, he endeavoured very laudably to 
 " render such as might be bequeathed to posterity. 
 
 " During this state, in which infirmities and sorrows were 
 " gathering fast, it is said, he was neglected by one, whose 
 " consolation and kindness he most needed; by her who had 
 " so long been the depositary of his hopes and anxieties, Ids 
 
172 
 
 "joys and sorrows; the friend and favourite of his heart, 
 " Martha Blount." 
 
 " That he was a most dutiful and affectionate son, a kind 
 " master, a sincere friend, and, generally speaking, a bene- 
 " volent man, is undoubted. 
 
 " In speaking of other parts of his character, I would ad- 
 " vance no opinion but that which I think can be directly 
 " proved; and, at the same time, I trust I should never for- 
 " get the sentiment that ' 1 would so judge as I would wish 
 " to be judged." 
 
 " If he had received a more enlarged education, whether 
 " he would have been so great a poet I know not; but I do 
 " not fear to say, he would have been a more estimable 
 " member of society; a more complacent, and a more happy 
 " man. He would have known the exact point which his 
 " abilities reached : he would have excelled without vanity, 
 " and viewed competitors for fame without alarm." 
 
 " If he sometimes contradicted himself, particularly in 
 " speaking at one time disrespectfully of those whom he had 
 " at other times exalted, it ought in charity to be attributed 
 " more to the acuteness of feeling at the time, than to way- 
 " ward and unmanly caprice." 
 
 " If any thing should have been advanced, which, upon 
 " farther consideration, may appear groundless or hasty, I 
 " shall be more happy to retract it, 
 
 (" to mark the passage into a blot, 
 
 "And hate the line where candour was forgot,") 
 
 " than any of his most sanguine admirers." 
 
173 
 
 "Many fai-ts tend to prove the peculiar susceptibility of 
 " his passions ; nor can we implicitly believe that the con- 
 " nexion between him and Martha Blount was of a nature 
 " * so pure and innocent,' as his panegyrist Ruffhead would 
 " make us believe. But whatever there might be of crimi- 
 " nality in the connexion, it did not take place till the ' hey- 
 " ' day' of youth was over; that is, after the death of her 
 " brother (1726), when he was thirty-eight, and she thirty- 
 " six. Teresa was of the same age with Pope, being born 
 " at Paris, 1688. Martha three years younger, was born at 
 " Maple-Durham 1691 : consequently she was thirty-six, 
 " when the connexion between her and Pope became nutre 
 " avowed and explicit. At this time of life there was per- 
 " haps no great danger of a " FALSE STEP."* 
 
 " But the most extraordinary circumstance, in regard to 
 " his connexion witli female society, was the STRANGE mix- 
 " ture of indecent, and sometimes profane levity, which his 
 " conduct and language often exhibited." 
 
 " This LEVITY, to call it by its slightest name, I wish to 
 " consider, though it is no palliation, as palpable and gross 
 " affectation, from which he was in no instance free. 
 
 " It may seem strange that such language could be en- 
 '* dured; but we must consider the character of the times." 
 
 " In many instances he appears to have felt a sort of 
 " libertine love, which his passions continually prompted 
 " him to declare ; but which the consciousness of his infir- 
 " mities, and we ought to add his MORAL FEELINGS, COR- 
 
 " RECTED AND RESTRAINED. 
 
 * Not "so pure and innocent," as Ruffhead imagined, alludes to his letters. 
 No great danger of a FALSE STEP," to his Life. 
 
I7-* 
 
 " If these and o,ther parts of his character appear less 
 " amiable, let the reader constantly keep in mind the physi- 
 " cal and moral causes which operated on a mind like his: 
 " let him remember his life, ' one long disease,' the natural 
 " passions, which he must have felt in common with all the 
 " world, disappointed : his tenderness thrown back on his 
 " heart, only to gather there with more force, and more 
 " ineffectual wishes : his confined education, intrusted chiefly 
 " to those who were themselves narrow-minded : his being 
 " used from the cradle to listen only to the voice of partial 
 " indulgence ; of tenderness, almost maternal, in all who 
 " contemplated his weakness and his incipient talents.* 
 " When he has duly weighed these things, and attended to 
 " every alleviating circumstance that his knowledge of the 
 " world, or his charity, may suggest, then let him not hastily 
 " condemn what truth compels me to state ; but let him 
 " rather, without presuming on his own virtues, lament the 
 " imperfection of our common nature, and leave the judg- 
 "ment to HIM, 'who knoweth whereof we are made, who 
 " ' remembereth we are but dust/ " Life of Pope. 
 
 * Whatever might have been his defects, he could not be said to have many 
 " bad qualities, who never lost a friend, and whom Arbuthnot, Gay, Bathurst, 
 " Lyttleton, Fortescue, and Murray, esteemed and loved through life." 
 
175 
 
 I shall merely add the Character of Pope's Letters, 
 and Cowper's, as given by me in my edition. 
 
 " The letters of Cowper, also a poet, form a perfect con- 
 " trast to Pope's. In them (Pope's) I see a mind striving to be 
 " great, and affecting to be unaffected; in the other, we con- 
 " template, not the studious loftiness, but the playfulness, of 
 " a mind naturally lofty, throwing, at random, a ray of 
 " sweetness, cheerfulness, and tenderness, upon whatever 
 " subject occurs, mixed occasionally with severer touches 
 " of wisdom, and a mournful, but seldom angry, survey of 
 " the follies of mankind. We see the playful humour min- 
 " gled with melancholy, and the melancholy mingled with 
 " kindness, sound feelings, sincerity, and tenderness." 
 
 On the note of mine, " it has been observed," &c. 
 
 Now, I know what will be retorted, if I say a word 
 about " memory !" I therefore will not assert it, but I 
 will say, that it is my sincere conviction, on a most 
 anxious recollection, that the words, " your letter is 
 "short, but much to the purpose," were the words of 
 POPE HIMSELF. I did not specify from whence this 
 observation, so " much to the purpose," came, lest I 
 might appear to imply more than I wished to do ; but 
 the latter part of the note from Pope was too gross and 
 infamous to be printed ! I never so much as alluded to 
 it, and took his observation on myself ! ! 
 
 FINIS. 
 
CORRIGENDA. 
 
 Page viii. line 21 (Dedication) : for "prayer of," read, prayers for. 
 
 - iii. 14 (Prefatory part) : ready "who was the most intemperate. " 
 
 68, 24 (Letters, &c.) : for " passes this without a word of acknow- 
 
 ledgment," read, passes through this "sieve" without a 
 
 word of acknowledgment. 
 - 80, 21 : for " not only 'full-blown' with honours himself, but be 
 
 "wett known," read, if not yet t( full-blown,' ' at least well 
 
 known. 
 82, 14: for "1735," read 1734. 
 
 85, 12 : for " 1735," read 1734. 
 
 - 110, last line, last word : for " the," read though. 
 
 - 114, line 4 : for " and never heard of," read, and his name never heard of. 
 
 Dryden, according to his monument, certainly died in 1700. 
 
 
 PRINTED BY RICHARD CRUTTWELL, 
 ST. JAMES' S-STREET, BATH. 
 

 or 
 
 
 -JAN-3 - W67 if" 
 
 T,T) 2lA-60m-7,'66 
 L (G4427slO)476B 
 
U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 ^149570 
 
 ?<#;