A REPLY 
 
 I 
 
 TO AN 
 
 REVIEWER OF SPENCE'S ANECDOTES" 
 
 Quarterly Review for October 1820 ; 
 
 OTHER WISE TO TUB 
 
 LONGINTJS OF "IN-DOOR" NATURE. 
 
 BY 
 
 Om of the Family of the BOWLESES !!" 
 
 Come, let me flap this bug ! POPE. 
 
 If " NAWRE," as the Reviewer asserts, be a Term which the " Family of the 
 BOWLESES" have been TWO THOUSAND YEARS EXPLAINING; "the mole-eyed 
 * Family' of THE CRITICAL FUDGRS" have been as long sl-cttinj their eyes to 
 that which is as clear as the SUN .AT NODS-JAY ! Reply. 
 
 BATH: 
 
 Printed by Richard Cruttwell, St. James" s-street ; 
 
 AND SOLB BY 
 
 LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME, AND BROWN, AND BALDWIN, 
 CRADOCK, AND JOY, PATERNOSTER-ROW ; WARREN, OLD BOND- 
 STREET J AND COLBURN, CONDUIT-STREET, LONDON. 
 
 1820. Price Is. 6d. 
 
C I3H A 
 
 
 
 To prevent the possibility of its being conceived, that the writer had, or 
 <Mu)dhave, the slightest disrespect, in alluding to any particular branch of honest 
 and respectable employment, he begs most solemnly to declare, that such intention 
 Was most remote from his heart. If allusions of the kind occur, they are only made 
 in good-natured raillery, as illustrative of what the Quarterly Critic has advanced 
 about " la-door Nature! !" If he should take them to himself, he will be reminded 
 how little right he has to object to the application, who has not scrupled to attri- 
 bute (in a most popular publication) to a literary clergyman, living chiefly in the 
 country, and who nevei offended him, such a kind of DISTEMPERED HVPOCHON- 
 poi&cisx as that which made Lord Monboddo believe in the existence of human 
 tails ! ! 
 
 BrUlington, Oct. 28, 1820. 
 
 
ADVER TISEMENT. 
 
 THE following pages were hastily 
 written, on the perusal of the fifth article in the 
 Quarterly Review for October. Their subject, 
 I have reason to believe, will be noticed more at 
 large by the Editor of Pope, in the next number 
 of the " Pamphleteer;" in the mean time I think 
 1 have proved how futile some of the critic's ob- 
 servations are, how disingenuous is his mode of 
 reasoning, and how little pretension such a writer 
 has to accuse Mr. Bowles of want of candour, 
 who has himself shewn so little ! 
 
 380.173 
 
. . . . 
 . 
 
DEDICATION. 
 
 To the NOBLEMEN and GENTLEMEN 
 
 who are in the habit of frequenting the Read- 
 ing-Room of the Publisher of the Quarterly 
 Review, in Albemark-Street* 
 
 MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN, 
 
 the morning when the Quarterly Review 
 comes out, the new volume, in shining 
 covers, of the fairest whity-brown paper, is placed 
 before you, on a large table covered with neat 
 green baize. The polished ivory cutter lies on the 
 baize, ready to your hand : methinks I see you 
 put on your spectacles, and prepare to partake 
 the long-expected treat. I will say nothing of the 
 complacent looks of Mr. MURRAY, who on this 
 day appears more courteous than usual. You have 
 taken your chairs ; and having cut open some of 
 the leaves, and reading as you go, you will come to 
 an article entitled <c SPENCE'S Anecdotes." You 
 will there find many unfounded charges made, and 
 much railing and raying uttered, against a late 
 Editor of the Works of POPE. 
 
r e ] 
 
 I wish you to think he now appears before you, 
 and calls on you as his JURY. Mr, MURRAY has, 
 perhaps, his Life of POPE : will you do him the 
 favour to look over it ? 
 
 Mr. MURRAY also, who I believe ,is kind ss 
 courteous, would procure you, or perhaps you would 
 not object to paying half-a-crown to get, a Letter 
 written by this Editor to Mr. CAMPBEJLL^ and 
 published by Messrs. LONGMAN and REES. 
 
 When you have read the Quarterly Review, for 
 October, containing an account of these two 
 publications, and are prepared to believe that 
 " the Life of POPE is the essence of calumny and 
 w spleen;" that the " ravings, "there are those of 
 " an hypocondriacal Recluse ;" that the writer's 
 only object was to " vilify ;*' and " to sur- 
 < mise away every amiable characteristic of the 
 " man;"* when you are, moreover, prepared to 
 believe, that in the Letter to CAMPBEU,, concern- 
 ing the "Invariable Principles of Poetry^*' what he 
 has said of the " SUBJECT*' of a poem, and the 
 'EXECUTION" of it, is as " nebulous as the dreams 
 I* of a Muggletonian or Sweedenbourg :*' after 
 your minds have been thus excited ; in the spirit 
 of justice or of truth, I would beg you to cast 
 your eyes over the said writings. I would, on the 
 part of Mr. BOWLES, constitute you, in the very 
 headquarter ', if I may say so, of that Journal 
 
 * See Quarterly Review. 
 
f 7 3 
 
 as fulmjbgted its report, his fair, his honest, 
 his honourable, and his IMPARTIAL JURY ! 
 
 In the mean time I solicit your attention on the 
 part of the said editor of POPE'S Works, and writer 
 of the Letter on tijje Principles of Poetry, to the 
 following remarks on the criticism in the Quarterly ; 
 begging your pardon, if the mode of treatment should 
 have wrung from any " one of the family" of the 
 BOWLESES a single expression you might think coarse. 
 
 But I trust this language, and even the name of 
 " grocer," (which I have used without the least 
 disrespect to any honest man in that line of busi- 
 ness,) will not be thought applied impertinently ; 
 forasmuch as a " shop," that beautiful specimen 
 of " in-door nature," is an object more pleasant to 
 contemplate than a mad-house!!* 
 
 In his " shop," then, let this Reviewer, this lover 
 of the " sublime and beautiful" of in-door nature, 
 indulge his own poetical and romantic reveries, till 
 the pipe in his own mouth becomes, in his glowing 
 imagination, that of THEOCRITUS; the old ledger- 
 book, the Georgicks of VIRGIL ; a grove of green 
 canisters, a grove of green trees ; the dingy shop- 
 boy, a shepherd of Arcadia ; and a lake of brown 
 treacle, in half-a-hogshead by the window, more 
 enchanting to the view than the lakes of Cumber- 
 land, with their mountains and woods shining to the 
 
 * See what is said of a " provincial" editor, whose imagination 
 is diseased, and intellect crazed, by living in the country ! 
 
t 8 ] 
 
 glorious sun-set 1 Let him enjoy all these delightful 
 landscapes pf " in-door nature;" but let him not 
 affect insolently to talk of " OUR EXPLAINING, FOR 
 TWO THOUSAND YEARS," beauties of another 
 nature, which he and his purblind family have 
 neither " the eye to see," nor " the heart to feel." 
 
 * One of the Family of the BOWLESES." 
 
REPLY, &e, 
 
 fll HE first impression which the criticism on 
 -- " SPENCE'S Anecdotes," in the Quarterly 
 Review for October, excited in my mind was 
 regret that such an article, so false in its charges, 
 so flippant in its style, so destitute of argument, 
 and so abhorrent from the liberal feelings of an 
 educated gentleman, should have been admitted 
 in so respectable a publication. When what 
 affected my relation Mr. BOWLES more im- 
 mediately, was taken into consideration, I felt 
 greater regret that such a coarse, but I hope to 
 prove, futile attack should have passed the eye of 
 an editor, so distinguished by acuteness as well as 
 candour as Mr. GIFFARD. 
 
 Though this criticism is ostensibly on SPENCE'S 
 Anecdotes of POPE, as the last editor of the 
 
r 10 i 
 
 works of that illustrious Poet receives his full share 
 of notice, and as the observations which are par- 
 ticularly directed to him in that character, appear 
 neither fair nor well supported, I, as " one of the 
 " Family," shall endeavour to make some reply : 
 and before I have done, I have little doubt but 
 that I shall convince every dispassionate reader how 
 ill this critic has performed his task. I hope I 
 shall be excused, if, in repelling sneers and sar- 
 casms, I use a somewhat coarser manner in reply, 
 than is either consonant to the habits or disposi- 
 tions of our Family. 
 
 The Letter to CAMPBELL is that pf a gentleman 
 to a gentleman. Mr. CAMPBELL had written, I 
 do not fear to say, great as his talents are, igno- 
 raatly on the question, as far as Mr. B.'s opinion 
 of Pope was concerned. He had mis-stated his 
 he had supported his own by proofs 
 turned against himself ; and he had attri- 
 jnited to Mr. BOWLES conduct, with respect to t^e 
 treatment of POKE'S moral character, which, I 
 am satisfied, he now thinks Mr. B. did not deserve. 
 Writing to him was writing to a generous .oppo- 
 nent ; and Mr. BOWLES could only feel anxious 
 ' * 
 
 not to say more than was absolutely necessary in 
 self-defence, or than the liberal courtesy ,of a 
 scholar would justify. But what can I say to this 
 '* monstruminforme, ingens, cut lumen ademptum" 
 who now so swaggeringly advances under covert 
 
i ii D 
 
 $f ; $e. formidable Quarterly Review? The weapons 
 we have been used to, here drop from. the hands. 
 
 A, " sentimental sort of critic," too, is ill-adapted 
 fjor such an encounter; and therefore I, with some* 
 what ruder weapons, advance to meet this foe in a 
 visor, undismayed. 
 
 he like a rough Hircanian boar," 
 
 t>he bristling self-importance .of a 
 Quarterly Reviewer, yielding such weapons as a 
 " homely sort of a critic" may use against one who 
 af>.pea?$ to have as little " SENTIMENT" as sense, I 
 p mistaken, if I may not gain the advantage, 
 and say, ' There lies, ki his own kennel, this 
 
 <' LONGINUS of ' IN-DOOIl' NATURE^ 
 
 I .must now beg the reader's attention, whilst 
 I give some reasons which induce me to belie YC 
 that this critic in the Quarteily Review rs no Jess a 
 personage thanacertai^ Mr. OCTAVIUS GILCHRJST ; 
 who, if I am not mistaken, is the same critic who 
 figured, also, in the same Review last month upon 
 certain ppaduotians of a ** Poet of nature.'* If sq, 
 his praise or blame may be held in equal contempt. 
 
 I may here, al&o, previously to my entering 
 on a .more attentive survey of \vhat is brought 
 against Mr. B. give some other reasons which 
 induce me to think he is indebted for this last 
 favour to the same critic, who, in a number of the 
 London Magazine, reviewed this identical work, 
 and made it a vehicle of gross and most intemperate 
 
t 12 ] 
 
 abuse. The same tone of flippancy ; the same false 
 charges ; the same affectation ; the same critic- 
 air and slang ; the same cry of want of " candour,** 
 whilst the writer violates both that and Christian 
 chanty in every word he utters, appear in that 
 article as much as in this ; whilst all his spite is 
 directed to the editor of Pope for saying what a 
 strict regard to truth alone compelled him to say 
 with regard to POPE'S character. 
 
 But this is not all : with those feelings of 
 delicacy, and that urbanity which distinguishes 
 this ornament of " In-door nature,"* he accused 
 Mr. B,, in language we shall not repeat, (because he 
 spoke of the connexion between POPE and MARTHA 
 BLOUNT,) of placing his " nose to the ground" &c. 
 When a writer in that Magazine replied to such a 
 charge, " that ill-nature was as far from his heart 
 " as pruriency from his pen," a vapouring article 
 comes out in the next Magazine, with a braggadocio 
 swagger, ofadsum quifeci. OCTAVIUS GILCHRIST 
 proudly proclaims his name, and threatens to make 
 good on the Editor's head most of the charges that 
 are now brought forward in this Review. I am 
 therefore, compelled, to believe, as the London 
 Magazine has been silent, where the attack was 
 expected, he has carried over his leading arguments 
 from that Magazine to the more imposing and bulky 
 
 * " Mr. POPE preferred in-door nature ! !" Quarterly Review. 
 
t 13 ] 
 
 battery of the Quarterly. Here, however, he 
 comes, and with every advantage of secresy. But 
 whether he be here or there, we equally disdain him. 
 
 It is beneath me to notice the vapouring decla- 
 mation with his name, that appears in the London 
 Magazine. The. editor wrote a most obliging 
 letter himself to Mr. BOWLES, lest it might be 
 thought such a piece of criticism came from his 
 more forcible and elegant pen. He also publicly 
 expressed his opinion. This will shew .that the 
 Editor of the very Magazine which was selected 
 for this man's coarse attack, had a very different 
 opinion from that entertained by Mr. GILCHRIST. 
 I need not add that such a writer as Mr. SCOTT 
 would weigh down ten hundred such "swaggering 
 "buffers" as this Drawcansir of vulgar criticism. 
 
 These are some of the reasons why I think the 
 original reviewer of SPENCE'S Anecdotes in the 
 London Magazine, and the author of a letter ad- 
 joined, attempts to make good his promise in the 
 Quarterly. 
 
 I now come to the task of seeing what sort of 
 reply such a " sort of critic'* as myself can 
 make to such a " sort of critic" as he is. 
 
 Unused to the " sort" of language which he 
 employs, I may appear, in contending with him, 
 as writing (MILTON uses this expression) with my 
 left hand! But I adventure on this encounter 
 unappalled. The writer says, " It had been 
 
[ 14 3 
 
 "better, if Mr. BALE'S had declined ; being ffre 
 " editor of POPE, with his views of his Character 
 " arid poetry." In return, it would have been 
 better, if, in a matter of literary discussion, fo. 
 GIFFARD had pruned some of the exuberances of 
 this coarse atid : insulting critic's sarcastic spfeeh; 
 for the sake of his generally excellent Review. 
 As he hs not, I must meet such a commen- 
 tator with all his sophistical jargon. And I shall 
 leave the 'reader to judge, when I have examined 
 his own obscure language, and his paltry "argu- 
 mentation, which is most " nebulous," or is most 
 entitled to the character of a " mystic Muggleto- 
 " nian," Mr. B. or himself. 
 
 He thus begins. " Listen to Mr. Bowies, a 
 11 sort of sentimental critic!? 9 
 
 4 I tremble for 4 every character, when I hear any 
 ' thing of SPENCE'S Anecdotes; neither friend ndr 
 1 foe are spared ; he seems to have opened his 
 mouth and his ears to every thing POPE told him ; 
 1 it makes the heart sick to think how often P#P 
 has altered his tone!!' I have no doubt, Mr. 
 BOWLES wrote the above as" he felt, when'HtJaiis, 
 whom POPE had spoken of so highly in some part of 
 his writings, was spoken so contemptuously of "in the 
 book said to be SPENCE'S. < JoStfstifc ha3 produced si- 
 milat examples, pfttt'iculaWy regarding AARON^ HtLL. 
 It appears, Mr. BdWfiss could not have seen 
 SPENCERS Anecdotes himself. But SPENCE was 
 
C i* 1 
 
 quoted, and the commentator spoke with 
 lent warmth. 
 
 He would now, I am confident, thank this critic 
 for giving him an opportunity of expressing regret 
 that these hasty expressions escapedhim. He neither 
 had, nor could have, any feelings of unkindness 
 against POPE or any other man ! I would say more ; 
 but for the abuse he has received, we could not have 
 believed the existence of such feelings in any breast, 
 as have been attributed to him ! 
 
 I have no doubt he would as readily acknow- 
 ledge every error he may have been Ml into, if 
 &ffier errors are fairly pointed out. Let Popiibe 
 flfet&htlSd,' he would rejoice as much as his warriie'st 
 friends. But why not defend POPE, without 
 sarcastic and spiteful reflections, such as those 
 dx)ut ** hypocondriacal madness." 
 
 SPENCE believes, and so do many others, that 
 POPE was friendly, open, charitable, and gener"6us x - 
 heartfcd. With exception of " open,*' I believe 
 so too. Nor does Dr. JOHNSON, any more than 
 Mr: BOWLES, think that what is called " openness," 
 was a part of POPE'S character. With great, and 
 most friendly, and most estimable traits of character, 
 who can believe him 
 
 " A faultless monster, that the world ne'er saw?" 
 
 Which sortie of his friends seem not ebntSftlecl 
 'iMless they can make him. 
 
 " Praise undeserved is satire in disguise."- i*o PR. 
 
C 16 ] 
 
 Generally entitled to -the highest moral respect j 
 to gentleness, peculiarly so to those he loved ; with 
 claims the most undisputed to tenderness, beyond 
 all praise, with regard to his aged mother, and to 
 those who never offended him ; he appears to have 
 been disingenuous ; vain; sensibly alive to every 
 thing he conceived detractive of his high merits ; 
 jealous, in this respect, to feverish irritation j and 
 always, in his letters, in company, in solitude, 
 having, if I may say so, his own darling portrait 
 before him ! 
 
 Constantly filled with the idea of his own ex- 
 cellence, he professed, and perhaps believed 
 what he professed; but those professions were 
 often directly contrary to facts, as, when he 
 constantly declares his letters are artless effusions; 
 whilst this critic himself will not deny, they are* 
 for the most part, elaborate, elegant, and assidu- 
 ously polished writings. 
 
 In addition to these failings he was, (as the 
 Miscellanies published jointly by himself and SWIFT 
 will amply prove,) to say nothing of numerous pas- 
 sages in his professed works, in the highest degree* 
 indelicate. 
 
 His editor says, " he seemed to have indulged a 
 " libertine kind of love, which his moral feelings 
 " restrained." Who can deny this, who reads his 
 letters to Lady MONTAGUE ? These failings are 
 admitted by many other biographers, who never 
 
[ 17 ] 
 
 were suspected of unkindness; and the Letters 
 printed by CURLL, compared with the originals, 
 prove that he was, where self-love was concerned, 
 never free from a mixture of duplicity and art. 
 
 These things Mr. BOWLES has said. I have 
 read the arguments in the Review ; and, I repeat, 
 I think the same now as I did before. 
 
 If Mr. B. has said, " the heart is sick," &c. I 
 will add, at the risk of being thought a " sentimental 
 " critic," the heart is SICK, to hear these charges 
 so often repelled, and so often repeated!! 
 
 Let me, however, hope it will be the last time ; 
 and I therefore proceed further with my unwilling 
 task. The Critic acknowledges Mr. BOWLES has 
 " the appearance, undoubtedly not the reality, of 
 "personal hostility 1" We thank him for this ac- 
 knowledgment ; but how such an acknowledgment 
 is consistent with the tone he afterwards assumes, 
 I can hardly conceive. 
 
 Perhaps, as he tells us, Mr. B. had " better never 
 " have engaged" in an edition of POPE, I may be 
 excused if I here say what I have heard on that sub- 
 ject. He was written to by the booksellers, Messrs. 
 CADELL and DAVIES. He repeatedly declined such 
 an office. Being pressed and encouraged by others, 
 and trusting to common good sense and considerable 
 various reading of the kind, and a determined 
 adherence to truth, he undertook that reluctantly, 
 which he would not undertake again, I believe, 
 
 B 
 
[ 18 J 
 
 even if he wanted bread. We believe thisis the fact j 
 but can he plead guilty to the charge of " attempt- 
 " ing" to spread among new generations of readers 
 the most " wyust" impressions of the poet and 
 of the man? 
 
 No ! the charge is foul and false. Nor has he 
 endeavoured, nor did I suppose it ever could be 
 thought, nor do I believe now it can be so thought 
 by any dispassionate judge, that in his Life of POPE 
 he has sought to " surmise away every amiable 
 " quality of the man." 
 
 What gratification could he have in " attempting 
 " to depreciate excellence in art, or to VILIFY one 
 " whose works were of no ordinary sort:" He 
 might conscientiously and proudly say, To my 
 knowledge, this I have never done ! And I join, as 
 seriously as this Critic, in hoping the world has not 
 reached yet that "point of degradation ;" though 
 the deliberate charges brought against him almost 
 tempt me to fear that the world may not stand so 
 clear of reaching this point at present, at least whilst 
 such a critic WRITES IN THE QUARTERLYREVIBW! ! 
 
 He has not " calumniated" POPE, Sir, but you 
 have " calumniated him." As to what he has said 
 of POPE'S character, Dr. JOHNSON kas surely 
 said as much concerning his duplicity, his turn 
 for stratagem, and his indelicacy. 
 
 We now enter on the subject of his POETICAL 
 
 CHARACTER. 
 
[ 19 ] 
 
 What was said in the Letter to CAMPBELL, satis- 
 fied, I believe, all impartial judges. The testimony 
 which I know Mr. BOWLES received, both public 
 and private, induces me to think this. 
 
 Mr. CAMPBELL will not deny he misrepresented 
 him ; and more than one classical and eminent writer 
 affirmed, after the Letter to CAMPBELL, he would 
 " hear no more of the subject." I am tempted 
 on this occasion to produce one testimony from a 
 Poet of the very highest rank in his art, and also 
 a friend of Mr. CAMPBELL'S, which has been 
 shewn to me. The note is short, but charac- 
 teristic ; and I leave it for you to make such 
 comments as you have done with the plain fact 
 about Lord BYRON. 
 
 " You have hit the nail in the head, and **** 
 " on the head also. 
 
 " I remain your's affectionately, ****." 
 
 How, then, must the Editor have been disap- 
 pointed to find, that not only what WARTON has 
 said so repeatedly, has been said so repeatedly in 
 vain, but that the arguments in the " Letter to 
 " CAMPBELL," whilst their Introduction is cau- 
 tiously avoided, are sarcastically treated in this ar- 
 ticle, as if they had never been advanced. 
 
 For the hundred and ninetieth time, Dr JOHN- 
 SON'S words are quoted. " If POPE is not a great 
 " poet, where is a great poet to be found?" 
 
[ 20 ] 
 
 For the hundred and ninety-ninth time I answer, 
 " no one ever denied POPE to be a poet, and a great 
 " poet ; but he is not in the GREATEST class." 
 
 Now again to encounter your flippancy. " Do 
 " you understand my meaning, Sir?" No one 
 excluded, or attempted to exclude, POPE from 
 being " a poet, and a great one ;" but he is not a 
 poet in the same high order as MILTON is. " Do 
 " you understand my meaning;" or are you prepared 
 to say, that, in the highest flight of poetical imagi- 
 nation, POPE is of the same wing with MILTON? 
 Why then all this clutter? 
 
 Let us hear the critic again. " The Rev. 
 " WM. L. BOWLES has distinguished himself in 
 " this idle controversy;" answer, the Rev. WM. 
 L. BOWLES was " idly misrepresented." The 
 controversy was not, therefore, " idle" on his part, 
 but necessary in self-defence. The opponent, how- 
 ever, was Mr. CAMPBELL, and writing to such an 
 opponent was as pleasing as this toil is irksome to me. 
 
 But we must " on." 
 
 Mr. B. had laid down a position, that " works of 
 " Nature are, per se, more poetical than, works of 
 "art/' What says Mr. CAMPBELL? "The 
 " exquisite description of artificial manners and 
 " habits is NOT LESS characteristic of genius than 
 " the description of simple physical appearances." 
 Upon this, which is undoubtedly true, the critic 
 builds all his sophistry in p. 410 of the Review. 
 
[ 21 J 
 
 But this is not the question. The question plainly 
 put by Mr. BOWLES was, " whether works of art 
 " are not less poetical, per se, than works of 
 " NATURE." Mr. BOWLES'S arguments to prove 
 this, the Muggletonian cautiously keeps out of sight. 
 Mr. CAMPBELL spoke of a ship. Mr. BOWLES 
 proved it was " less" poetical as a work of art, for 
 it was indebted, for all that makes it chiefly 
 " poetical," to NATURE ; to its picturesque asso- 
 ciations, to its connexion with the sea, the air, &c. 
 
 Answer this argument fairly, Sir. You very 
 wisely keep these illustrations completely out of 
 sight, and speak of Mr. CAMPBELL'S " masterly vin- 
 " dication of POPE." I repeat, Mr. CAMPBELL'S 
 own arguments are turned against him j and as you 
 will not quote these passages, I shall set before you 
 the following, which I again tell you you cannot 
 answer, nor attempt to do it, without " mystic 
 '* nebulosity." Here is one. 
 
 " It is remarked, by CAMPBELL, asif the argument 
 " was at once decisive, that MILTON is full of imagery 
 " derived* FROM ART;' * Satan's spear, 'for example, 
 f< is compared to the ' MAST OF SOME GREAT AMMI- 
 " ' RAL!' Supposing it is, do you really think that 
 '' such a comparison makes the description of 
 " Satan's spear a whit more poetical; I think much 
 M less so. But MILTON was not so unpoetical as 
 " you imagine, though I think his simile does not 
 " greatly add to our poetical ideas of Satan's 
 
" spear! The ' mast of the great admiral* might 
 " have been left out ; but remark, in this image 
 " MILTON DOES NOT compare Satan's spear 
 " ' with the mast of some great admiral 9 as you 
 " assert. The passage is, 
 
 " * His spear, to equal which the TALLEST PINK 
 " 'HEWN ON NORWEGIAN HILLS to be the mast 
 " * Of some great admiral, were but a wand ! !' 
 
 " You leave out the chief, I might say the only, 
 " circumstance, which reconciles the ' mast* to 
 " us ; and having detruncated MILTON'S image, 
 " triumphantly say, ' MILTON is full of imagery 
 " ' derived from art ! !' You come on, * dextrdque 
 " ( sinistrdque" and say, not only Satan's spear is 
 " compared to an * admiral's mast* but ' his 
 " ' shield to the moon seen through a telescope!" 
 
 " My dear Sir, consider a little. You forget 
 " the passage; or have purposely left out more 
 " than half of its essential poetical beauty. What 
 <c reason have I to complain, when you use 
 " MILTON thus ? I beseech you recollect MIL- 
 " TON'S image. 
 
 " ' His pond'rous shield, 
 
 " * Hung on his shoulders like the moon, whose orb 
 " ' Through optic glass the Tuscan artist views 
 
 "' At EVENING, FJIOM THE TOP OF FfiSOLE, 
 
 " ' Or in VALDARNO, to DESCRY NEW LANDS, 
 
 " ' RIVERS, or MOUNTAINS, IN HER SPOTTY GLOBE.' 
 
 " Who does not perceive the art of the poet in 
 " introducing, besides the telescope, as if conscious 
 
[ 23 ] 
 
 " how unpoetical it was in itself, all the circum- 
 " stances from NATURE, external nature. The 
 " erening the top of Fesole the scenes of Val- 
 " darno, and the LANDS, MOUNTAINS, and RIVERS, 
 " in the moon's orb? It is these which make the 
 " passage poetical, and not the * telescope// 9 
 
 " I will not press the inevitable inference on 
 " you. I adduce your own illustration against 
 " you; not so much for the sake of shewing- how 
 " desirable it were for a distinguished author, when 
 " writing against another person's opinions, to 
 " examine what those opinions were, but that we 
 " might both the more admire the consummate 
 " arty and the knowledge of his art exhibited by 
 " the great master of whom you speak, 'who has so 
 " admirably brought forward these adjuncts from 
 " NATURE herself, which make the admiral's mast, 
 " and the artist's telescope, poetical." Letter 
 to Campbell. 
 
 Now, Sir, I appeal to the jury, not to you ; for 
 you are not a fair opponent. You conceal what 
 suits your purpose, and make up your criticism 
 with vague generalities. I appeal to every candid 
 judge 5 I appeal to Mr. GIFPARD, $ie editor; 
 I appeal to Mr. MURRAY, the publisher; and 
 I appeal to every gentleman of sense in Mr. 
 MURRAY'S reading-room. 
 
 Why, Sir, was you guilty of the disingenuous- 
 ness of suppressing an argument so clear? I put 
 
this one before you ; and I defy you, and all your 
 admirers, to answer it. 
 
 You add, " Mr. BOWLES has adopted a system 
 " which terminates in the exclusion of a great 
 " poet from the HIGHEST ORDER." 
 
 Could Mr. GIFFARD have read this sentence, 
 before it went to press? Does he remember that 
 Ode, "NoN si PRIORES MCEONIUS TENET?" 
 At all events, I acknowledge, " his system does ter- 
 " minate in the exclusion of a great poet from being 
 " therefore in the HIGHEST ORDER OF POETS!"* 
 
 I say more. You must be far cleverer than I 
 think you, to prove, that, because a man is a 
 GREAT poet, he may therefore be the GREATEST, 
 whilst he confines himself to an humbler walk! 
 I say, for reasons given, which you cautiously avoid, 
 MILTON and SHAKESPEARE are in the HIGHEST 
 order, but NOT POPE, great as he is ; and I bring 
 Q. E. D. (which signifies that " which is demon- 
 " trated,") by quoting another passage, which 
 you take care also not to quote yourself. 
 
 " And can I help pointing out, not with triumph, 
 " but with regrel, that you not only agree with me 
 " in some points, but that where we differ your 
 " criticism conflictingly labours against your own 
 " argument ; for when, nearly in the last sentence, 
 " you say, * he, POPE, glows with passion in the 
 
 * As long as he keeps to " IN-DOOR" NATURE and MANNERS, 
 not PASSIONS! 
 
< ' Eloisa, and displays a LOFTY feeling, much 
 44 4 ABOVE that of the SATIRIST and man of the 
 " 4 world, in his Prologue to Cato, and his Epistle 
 44 4 to Lord OXFORD ;' what is that but to say, that 
 44 ' glowing passions and lofty feelings are much 
 44 4 ABOVE those which distinguish the SATIRIST 
 44 4 and man of the world ! !" ' Q. E. D. 
 
 If, therefore, I am wrong, I have at least 
 some authority for my critical opinions the au* 
 thority of Mr. CAMPBELL himself j and he says 
 nothing more than what every man of common 
 understanding says : he says, 44 POPE GLOWS with 
 44 PASSION in Eloisa, and displays a lofty feeling, 
 44 far ABOVE that of a SATIRIST, and man of the 
 44 world, in his Prologue to Cato, and his Epistle 
 44 to Lord OXFORD :'' " glowing passions and 
 44 lofty feelings are ABOVE those which distinguish 
 44 the satirist!!" Q. E. D., Mr. OCTAVIUS 
 GILCHRIST, however you may dislike those initials. 
 
 I think it hard that you attack Mr. BOWLES, with- 
 out letting the reader judge for himself ; therefore 
 I have called his attention to two passages only 
 in the publication on the 44 Principles of Poetry." 
 
 But we have not done. You have not been very 
 delicate or sparing in making charges; I must 
 therefore turn on you, and assert, you have not 
 met one argument in the publication FAIRLY. 
 
 You purposely throw a mist about you ; you 
 occasionally bounce and swagger like ANCIENT 
 
[ 26 ] 
 
 PISTOL, whilst every one is ready to exclaim, "I 
 
 " cannot endure such a FUSTIAN . Quoit him 
 
 " down, BARDOLPH, like a shove-groat shilling: 
 " if he do nothing but speak nothing, he shall be 
 "nothing here!!" 
 
 If ever you touch on a single argument, you con- 
 trive to split it like your own figs, on purpose that 
 the connection should not be seen ; your criticism 
 is made up of vapouring verbiage ; and I assert, that 
 so far from the "mystic Muggletonianism" of words, 
 which you bring against Mr. BOWLES, being just, 
 you have not brought, and you are not able to bring, 
 one passage, the meaning of which every man of 
 common understanding will not readily perceive. 
 
 I fear a little partiality to your own style in- 
 voluntarily dictated these words: " There i a 
 " kind of MYSTICISM in the language of his criti- 
 " cism, nebulous as the dreams of a Muggletonian 
 " or Sweedenbourgian !"* 
 
 I would, at least, defy any reader to guess how 
 the critic proves this wonderful " mystic nebulo- 
 " sity." Now then we shall hear : 
 
 Mr. BOWLES had been speaking of the " SUB- 
 JECT" of a poem, and its "execution" He 
 said, the subject, i. e. of a poem, and the execution, 
 i. e. of that subject, are to be taken into considera- 
 
 * " If Mr. BOWLES triumphs," says this dark illuminator, " it 
 " is the history of the past, or the history of the future, should 
 " good sense and good taste return to POPE." What does the 
 Mugglctonlan mcau? 
 
I 27 J 
 
 tion. With regard to the first, POPE cannot be 
 placed among the " HIGHEST ORDER OF POETS!" 
 But many of his subjects are eminently poetical. 
 How poetical is the machinery of the Sylphs! 
 How transcendantly pathetic, and therefore highly 
 poetical, is the painting of the passions in the 
 Epistle of Eloisa, &c. 
 
 But, reader, keep your eye fixed, I beseech you 
 upon the great proof of this " dreamy mysticism" 
 of Mr. B., the obscure verbiage which this Theban 
 cannot see through. It is this the words " SUB- 
 " JECT" of a poem, and " EXECUTION," are used. 
 Mr. BOWLES says, by " execution I mean the 
 " colours of expression," " the design," " the 
 " contrast of light " and shade," &c. 
 
 This is too mystic, too hazy for Mr. GIL- 
 CHRIST'S optics. But, seriously Sir, do you not 
 not understand what is meant by the subject of a 
 poem, and its execution, &c. ? Then, I will ven- 
 ture to say, there is not a man in his Majesty's 
 dominions so unfit for the office of a critic as you 
 are. Nay, there is not a man or woman, or boy 
 in the lowest form at Westminster, who would 
 not instantly understand it, saving and except the 
 " bearded" oracle of the Quarterly Review. 
 
 According to this " bearded" oracle, the terms, 
 " subject of a poem, and execution," remain still 
 a mystery as secret as any in Algebra ! There 
 then they must remain, till his understanding is a 
 
[ 28 ] 
 
 little less nebulous; and as he understands " relief, 
 <* interest, and animation," as little as " subject 
 and execution," it must be in vain further to talk 
 with him. 
 
 I would here most willingly drop the contro- 
 versial pen, but I must hold up (irksome as the 
 task is) this "mirror of criticism" a little longer, 
 however hateful the drudgery. 
 
 This miracle of criticism next exclaims, " But 
 " what are we told of NATURE? what chimes 
 " and changes has not the delighted critic rung on 
 " nature, on general nature, external nature, 
 " moral nature." These terms, then, are as 
 " mystic" to the critic in the Quarterly as "subject;" 
 and " execution." 
 
 But neither " general nature," nor " external 
 " nature," nor " moral nature," are Mr. BOWLES'S 
 " changes and chimes" exclusively: they occur in 
 almost every work of criticism ; and their meaning 
 is sufficiently obvious to common understandings. 
 But " NATURE is a particular term which the 
 " BOWLESES have been explaining for two thousand 
 " years " 
 
 Answer. The BOWLESES had no need to explain 
 it. Every one who has a heart to contemplate the 
 rich romantic landscape, the vast ocean, the glow* 
 ing sun, the solemn mountain, in external nature ; 
 the passions and emotions of the heart, such as they 
 are exhibited in the dramas of SOPHOCLES and 
 
[ 29 ] 
 
 URIPIDES, or the mighty magic of SHAKESPEARE, 
 or the glowing touches of LordBYKON; feels what 
 nature is moral and external. The BOWLESES 
 have no reason to be ashamed of this devotion to 
 nature when there are so many of higher minds 
 than tho^e of the BOWLESES or the GILCHRISTS 
 to keep them company.* 
 
 Nor it is true, that the original position laid 
 down, which you have brought nothing to dis- 
 prove, is a "part of egotism and stratagem of 
 "self-love." It is, to use a common expression, 
 AS OLD AS THE HILLS.! And all that is picturesque 
 and beautiful in external nature, which makes the 
 descriptive poet attentive, like THOMSON, COWPER, 
 or WORDSWORTH, to every circumstance in her 
 wildest and most secluded haunts, will be poetry, 
 in spite of the "Fudge Family" of critics, as 
 long as the world endures ! 
 
 It happens, however, according- to this critic, 
 POPE preferred IN-DOOR nature! You have ob- 
 
 *Remark and REMEMBER, THOU MUGGLETONIAN dreamer, 
 that the progress from these to all that is pathetic, sublime, or 
 terrible in HUMAN PASSIONS, and the gradation from those 
 highest objects of poetry, to works of ART, which are rendered 
 more highly poetical from moral associations, like the pyramids, 
 ,&c. and from these to exquisite descriptions of art in general, 
 and to "all the varities of existing 7t/e,cfaaracters, and manners, 
 jender the province of poetry, according to Mr. B.'s views, 
 "NOT CONFINED/' but unlimited, for though the highest ob- 
 jects of poetry remain eternal, none of the rest are EXCLUDED, 
 and all this you would have admitted, if you did not 'wilfully 
 misstate Mr. BOWLES'S propositions, thcu WOESE than 
 
[ so ] 
 
 jected to <: general nature," c moral nature," 
 "external nature." Pray Mr. Critic, what 
 is "in-door nature ?" I think that expression 
 as new, at least, as external or general nature. 
 Is in-door nature a chair, a table, or, peradven- 
 ture, a FRYING-PAN, or GRIDIRON? 
 
 I leave this specimen of the Critic's in-door 
 lucubration to the contempt it deserves. 
 
 Oh! but " now listen" not to Mr. BOWLES, 
 but to the triumphant crow of this Cockney- 
 coxcomb! What should "RURAL editors and 
 "writers" know of taste or poetry, who always have 
 lived out of the "suburban stink," which MIL- 
 TON so finely contrasts with a summer morn- 
 ing in the country, amidst the pastoral images 
 of rural life? Is it possible I can have mistaken 
 the name of the author of these criticisms? Does 
 not this admirer of "in-door" nature live in 
 the rural town of Stamford or Grantham? Well, 
 if I have mistaken him, the reader having omit- 
 ted all that has been said of the "in-door" nature 
 of a grocer's back parlour, may apply the other 
 observations, as it likes him, to some critic 
 of the true land of Cockney. 
 
 But no ! none but himself can be his own parallel. 
 Neither London, nor Europe ever produced 
 two such EXQUISITE ocTAVius's. 1 verily believe 
 there is not one Critic beside himself, who would, 
 not disdain such nonsense and chicanery. 
 
 To produce another Octavius must be the 
 ''TRIUMPH of the FUTURE." 
 
 In the mean time, what is a Parson, who is noi 
 "bemused in beer, to do?" to feed his fat pigs, like 
 
[ 31 ] 
 
 Parson Truiliber ? How could a Clergyman living 
 in the country, presume to give an Edition of Pop j 
 ."which cannot properly be prepared but i;i a City." 
 
 Alas! for " provincial ' Editors! they are ''liable 
 ^to a sort oj Literary hypcchondriacismi" is this, after all, 
 the cause of Mr. B.'s hostility to Pope? 
 
 " Llless ilty FIVE ivns TOM'S a cold." LEAK. 
 
 "Provincial Authors are liable to a sort of Literary 
 "-hypcchcndriaciwi where they see nothing but the 
 "creation of a morbid fancy, a phantom in a dark 
 "room I to this we owe the wild speculations of 
 "Monbodo, on the original state of human nature 
 *'&c.*--And we ourselves were acquainted with an 
 "honest Curate^ living at thu extremity of a Moor in 
 "Devonshire, &c. &c/' 
 
 "It is only on this principle we can account for 
 " the injury inflicted on Pope by the last Editor, 
 " who having probably possessed himself of allthc 
 "ravings of all the Dunces on their arch enemy, dwelt 
 "on them 'till their sinister influence operated on 
 "his imagination, &c." Review. 
 
 After this comes a wonderful discovery indeed! 
 Solitary attention strangely magnifies by its 
 intensity: had he rather of end the window, fresh air, 
 "and rural sights, might have thrown over object?, 
 "the hue of truth and nature !" 
 
 *As to "the Literary sort of hyjDochondriacism" which led 
 Lord Monbodo into the "wild speculation on the original 
 "state of human nature" I wonder it never occur'd to this 
 Critic amongst his other unjust charges to attribute to the 
 Editor of Pope's works, the opinion that Pope was "born with 
 "a Tail!" 
 
 -{-The "honest Curate" poor Tasker, we knew. Is this 
 passage an interpolation by a Devonshire Writer? Sure 
 but no ! it cannot be. 
 
 (4 
 
 cc 
 
[ 32 ] 
 
 The first thing observable in this charitable 
 passage, is the predominance of the same feeling 
 with regard to ^in-door nature" which still seems 
 "to operate" with "sinister influence" on the writer's 
 "imagination"- For the &i frovincidl'' Editor tho' li- 
 ving in the Country in the very midst ot^rural sights 
 "and sounds" must be supposed scarce ever to enjoy 
 them, but to be pent up in a back Room where, 
 he can see nothing of Creation but phantoms, which 
 his own distemper'd fancy has created. r ' f "0pen the 
 'window." Give the pale recluse a ''little fresh airl" 
 So then, this Critic after all recommends a peep 
 at external nature, but only a peep "from the win- 
 <( dow." Was this written in the closest alley of 
 LITTLE BRITAIN with a dirty sprig of rosemary in 
 a broken Tea-pot before the window? 
 
 How must the Cockney Clitic stare to be told, 
 that the Editor instead of "opening the window for a 
 rural sight" .has an animal called a Horse, 
 to take the air and enjoy the beauties of "exter- 
 nal nature" whenever he pleases; Is a resident, 
 part of the year in London, lives among the 
 Literary and most respectable classes of cultivated 
 society; and never in his whole Life read the 
 * { RAVI<NG" OF ANY DUNCE HALF so ABSURD AS 
 
 THE RAVINGS OF THIS ARCH DUNCE OF THE QUAR- 
 TERLY REVIEW! ! 
 
 'Tho related to "a Sentimental Critic" I think, I 
 have now thrown this doughty assailant on his 
 Back; and throwing away the weapon I have 
 t>een compelled to use; 1 shall only add 
 "LIE THERE, THOU LUMINARY OF 
 TH-E SUBLIME AND BEAUTIFUL OF 
 'IN-DOOR NATURES" 
 
POSTSCRIPT, 
 
 I think it very material to add, that the 
 account of the quarrel between ADDISON and POPE, 
 which the critic as usual suppresses, is taken from 
 POPE'S most partial admirer, AIRS ; therefore it 
 remains as it was, from the statement of his own 
 friend, more against POPE than ADDISON. The 
 disgusting attack* in couplets too indecent to repeat, 
 on Sappho, was at the time understood to be applied 
 to Lady MARY, because Lord PETERBOROUGH was 
 sent to POPE to beg the suppression, and POPE'S 
 evasion was as paltry as the attack was unmanly. 
 
 I do not know any indecent note of Mr. BOWLES : 
 if there be one, and the critic had pointed it out, 
 I have no doubt regret would have been expressed. 
 I believe there is none ; and that this assertion, 
 like many others, is a gratis dictum. At all events, 
 to find fault with Mr. BOWLES on this score, and 
 to shut the eye to the grosser offences of POPE, is 
 indeed " to strain at gnats, and swallow camels." 
 
 What might he not have called him, if, in draw- 
 ing the character of POPE, he had introduced lines 
 from some of the professed satires written against 
 him, as this babbler about candour has done 
 against Mr. BOWLES ? If Mr. B. had acted so ; if 
 he had kept in the back ground every argument 
 that he could not answer ; if he had dealt as 
 
[ 34 ] 
 
 largely in " insinuations and sneers," as this 
 writer, it might have well have called forth in- 
 dignation. 
 
 Many other passages, than those here marked, 
 deserve to excite the indignation of every ingenu- 
 ous and candid mind; but perhaps Mr. BOWLES 
 will enter himself into a complete vindication. I 
 hope he will pardon my thus hastily taking up the 
 cudgel in his defence ; and I hope I have said at 
 least enough to prove, that, if " NATURE be a term 
 " which the Family of the BOWLESES have been 
 " two thousand years explaining; the mok-eyed 
 " Family of FUDGE- CRITICS have as long been 
 " shutting their eyes to that which is as clear as 
 " the SUN AT NOON-DAY I" 
 
 Note. Having thus dispatched, as briefly as we might, this 
 wretched sophistical declaimer, who has disgraced the pages of 
 the Quarterly Review, we may as well add one note respecting 
 the quotation, on this subject, from that truly great and wise 
 man, Dr. JOHNSON. The Reviewer says, "JOSEPH WARTON 
 " had the merit of first declaring of POPE, that he did not think 
 " him at the head of his profession, and that Az> species of poetry 
 " was not the most excellent of the ART!" Many years after, 
 Dr. JOHNSON, interrogating this critic, enquired, " If POPE was 
 " not a poet, where is poetry to be found ? To circumscribe 
 " poetry, he added, by a definition, will only shew the narrowness 
 " of the definer." Now, not to point out the utter variance of the 
 first proposition with this answer ; begging the Doctor's pardon, 
 he might as well have said to a remark, " that Vesuvius was 
 " not so great a mountain as ./Etna ;" " to circumscribe inoun- 
 " tains by a definition, will only shew the narrowness of the 
 " definer: if Vesuvius be NOT a mountain, where is a MOUNTAIN 
 "to be found?" 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Here follows Mr. O. G.'s Letter, from which I am in- 
 duced to beheve him the Author of the Criticism in 
 the Quarterly Review. 
 
 THE CHARACTER OF POPE. 
 
 To the Editor of the London Magazine. 
 MR. EDITOR, After an interval of five months, 
 tantum post intervallum, the Editor of POPE, 
 or his friend, has mustered up sufficient courage 
 to impeach the remarks of the Reviewer of SPENCE'S 
 Anecdotes in The London, on the conduct of the 
 Rev. WILLIAM LISLE BOWLES in his edition of 
 that poet ; and, with that prudence and discretion 
 so becoming your office, you, Sir, have consigned 
 to a correspondent the article which does him 
 such suspicious honour, and have ascribed to Mr. 
 BOWLES those gentlemanly feelings which no one 
 more than the reviewer of SPENCE admires. It 
 well if gentlemanly manners towards his contem- 
 poraries were synonymous with justice towards 
 his predecessors in this case, though 
 
 " The labour we delight in physics pain/' 
 
 I should be spared some trouble, and Mr. 
 BOWLES some perplexity, past, present, and to 
 come. Mr. BOWLES'S friend does not argue very 
 
C 36 ] 
 
 acutely, nor quote very correctly, even from his 
 friend's or his own pamphlet j I am, nevertheless, 
 thankful for parts of his letter. He tells us, that 
 Mr. BOWLES'S Answer has been acknowledged by 
 Mr ? CAMPBELL himself to be a perfect vindication 
 of his friend from the charges that were hastily 
 made against him; which I should not have 
 credited without so indisputable an assurance ; and 
 he recommends me to see Mr. BOWLES'S letter 
 to CAMPBELL, as conclusive on the subject. Upon 
 his recommendation, " seen it I have," and I think 
 it the narrowest and feeblest defence " that e'er 
 " my vagrant reading coped withal," on the point 
 at issue between the Rev. LISLE BOWLES and the 
 Reviewer of SPENCE ; coming as it does from the 
 former, who seized the opportunity " as the last 
 " that might offer" (it will not be quite the last) 
 of defending himself against his opponents. Mr. 
 CAMPBELL says of his editor, that " he has kept 
 t* in the shade POPE'S good qualities, and exagge- 
 " rated his bad;" Lord BYRON goes further, and 
 asserts, that with candour on his tongue he had 
 gall at his heart: "bitter words these, gossip!" 
 Now how does Mr. BOWLES reply to Mr. CAMP- 
 BBLL? He tells us that HORACE WALPOLE had 
 declared that POPE received a thousand pounds 
 of the Duchess of MARLBOROUGH, on condition 
 of suppressing the character of Atossa, and that 
 paving pocketed the money, he published the satire. 
 
t 37 3 
 
 '* A story so base," says Mr. BOWLES, " ought 
 " not for a moment to be admitted solely on the 
 " testimony of WALPOLE. POPE certainly was not 
 " a favourite (on account of political differences) with 
 " the WALPOLES, though he received civilities 
 " from Sir ROBERT ; and till there is other proof, 
 " besides the exparte evidence and sole assertion 
 *' of WALPOLE, the same candour which made us 
 " regret what, upon no better foundation, was said 
 " of ADDISON, ought to make us reject, with equal 
 " readiness, the belief of a circumstance so deroga- 
 " tory to the character of POPE." 
 
 All this seems candid, and even lofty, except- 
 ing the insinuation of civilities received by POPE 
 from Sir ROBERT WALPOLE: but why all the 
 vacillating and doubt about the fact, between 
 WALPOLE'S assertion, and the salvo in ADDISON'S 
 favour, when Mr. BOWLES knew that the charge 
 must be false, and Mr. BOWLES must have been 
 aware of the falsehood even from WARTON'S 
 pages ; since the character of Atossa, for whoever 
 designed, was not printed till years after POPE 
 was gathered to the grave of his fathers. Why 
 was this kept out of sight in BOWLES'S Life of 
 POPE ; why, with so unequivocal an evidence of 
 WALPOLE'S untruth, was the tale repeated at all ! 
 This head and front of Mr. BOWLES'S defence 
 offers a sorry example of " candour;" the rest is 
 all begging Qf the question, or taking for granted. 
 
[ 38 1 
 
 In saying this I allude to the connection of POPE'S 
 name with CURLL, and ADDISON and Lady MARY 
 WORTLEY MONTAGUE. Your correspondent says, 
 " Mr. BOWLES has advanced some facts relating 
 " to POPE'S life which have not been attempted to 
 "be disproved: he has drawn inferences from 
 " these, not in the spirit of spleen or sarcasm, but 
 " with the full admission of the virtues of the great 
 " poet." The friendship of your correspondent 
 has, I fear, beguiled his judgment j and his deduc- 
 tion has, I suspect, been made without examination. 
 It is my deliberate opinion, not hastily formed, 
 that Mr. BOWLES has not contributed one indis- 
 putable fact to the life of POPE 5 and when I assert 
 that he has charged the poet with meanness, evasion, 
 hypocrisy, and falsehood, I am persuaded, that 
 more facts than we are at present in the possession 
 of are necessary to warrant such imputations. 
 
 It is not without reason that CAMPBELL, Lord 
 BYRON, and, as Mr. BOWLES complains, many 
 others, have resented the aspersions cast on POPE'S 
 moral character : they have many of the disgusting 
 features of the war that was once waged against 
 BEN JOHNSON, and against MILTON, on account of 
 his politics, and are, I persuade myself, like those, 
 capable of satisfactory solution. Your pages may 
 be more profitably employed than in controversy, 
 of which no one can anticipate the termination ; 
 but to announce my determination of entering 
 
I. 39 1 
 
 upon the nany controvertible points in POPE'S 
 life and character is the object of this communica- 
 tion. How far the enquiry may carry me, or how 
 I shall succeed in my purpose, I will not venture 
 to anticipate, but I shall enter upon the under- 
 taking, as the Apostle has it, " nothing doubting;" 
 nor shall I be deterred by the terror of great 
 names from examining those doubtful points of the 
 letters printed by CURLL, POPE'S dispute with 
 ADDISON, nor his quarrel with that " piece of 
 " virtue"~as CORIOLANUS lays the Lady MARY 
 WORTLEY MONTAGUE. 
 
 The authority of ' so respectable a name as Mr. 
 " CAMPBELL'S" seems to have great weight with 
 your correspondent?, and well it may ; and, if it 
 were ''my cue to speak," I, as you well know, 
 Mr. Editor, could speak to Mr. CAMPBELL'S per- 
 sonal kindnesses to myself, under very peculiar cir- 
 cumstances, as well as to his deserved reputation. 
 But the merit of the enquiry I propose to myself to 
 institute, must be decided by s6mething more sub- 
 stantial than a name ; at the same time, that your 
 correspondent may not suppose that I intend to 
 shrink from the responsibility of what is done, or 
 what I hope to do, I shall to the latter, as well as 
 to what is now before you, Mr. Editor, affix the 
 signature of 
 
 OCTAVIUS GlLCHRIST. 
 
Mr. Ocf AVitrs GILCHRIST'S unique letter is here' 
 given to the public, to shew why the article in the 
 Quarterly is attributed to him. First, because I 
 think any one who compares the style, the mode of 
 argument, and the subject laid down, will exclaim^ 
 "Aut OCTAVIUS, aut DIABOLUS." And secondly, 
 because I believe " moral nature," "a I'outrance," 
 never produced, or could produce, two such critics 
 in one age. 
 
 Mr. POPE, as a set-off to the opinion of those 
 who abused him, produced, placing the various 
 passages, pro and con, in columns parallel to each 
 other, the testimonia autorum in his favour. 
 
 My relation, in opposition to GILCHRIST, his 
 solitary slanderer, could shew a list of names equally 
 high and honourable in the literary world. He has 
 allowed me to copy one, in the course of this letter ^ 
 and I am permitted to add a few more, as follow: 
 
 Mr. BOWLES has distin- Not such is the opinion of 
 guished himself, in this idle the author of " Lalla Rook." 
 controversy, by his observa- Not such is the opinion of 
 tibns on the character of the author of the " Last of 
 POPE, and his recent pam- " the Goths." 
 phlet on " The invariable 
 " Principles of Poetry." 
 Quarterly Review. 
 
I 41 J 
 
 It is not for the logic which 
 he deems so conclusive in 
 demonstrating POPE to have 
 been no great poet t that we 
 quarrel with Mr. BOWLES, 
 but for a kind of" mysticism" 
 in the language of his criti- 
 cism, nebulous as the dreams 
 of a Muggletonian. Quar- 
 terly Review. 
 
 It is only on this principle 
 we can account for the injury 
 inflicted upon POPE, by the 
 strange proceedings of his last 
 editor, who, having probably 
 possessed himself of all the 
 ravings of all the Dunces on 
 their arch-enemy, dwelt on 
 them till their sinister in- 
 fluence operated on his ima- 
 gination, and prompted him 
 to surmise away every amia- 
 ble characteristic of the poet! 
 Quarterly Review. 
 
 " I thank you for your 
 " Letter to CAMPBELL. I 
 " had seen in a newspaper 
 " the'passage which provoked 
 " it, but I had no suspicion 
 " that it was founded on so 
 " gross a mis-statement as 
 " thatwhichyouhaveproved. 
 " It is needless to add, I agree 
 " with you entirely on the 
 " ' Invariable Principles of 
 " * Poetry/ Mr.SouTHEY, 
 one of the very ablest and 
 most eloquent writers in the 
 Quarterly Review. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, the author of 
 " Paris Revisited," and 
 Editor of the London Ma- 
 gazine, says, in that very 
 Magazine, " Mr. BOWLES 
 " has convicted Mr. CAMP- 
 " BELL of ignorance." 
 
 Speaking of what is said, 
 in the Letter, of works of 
 nature and art, the Editor 
 of BLACKWOOD'S Magazine 
 says, " All this is so very 
 " judicious, rational, and 
 " true, that neither Mr. 
 " CAMPBELL, nor any other 
 lt person, can have a single 
 " word to say against it." 
 
My relation could produce many other testimo- 
 nies; but I hope Mr. CAMPBELL will not be dis- 
 pleased, if I produce one line from himself : 
 
 " Whatever I may have to fear from the intrinsic force 
 " of your animadversions, I have, from the refinement 
 " of your character, the most perfect confidence of being 
 " used by you in a gentlemanlike manner." Campbell 
 
L 43 ] 
 To the Editor of the London Magazine. 
 
 Mr. BOWLES has to apologize to the Editors 
 of the London Magazine, for troubling them on 
 the subject of the letter relative to himself, which 
 appeared in their last number; and he would re- 
 quest them to publish this note in their next. 
 
 Passing by any expressions in that letter, which 
 Mr. BOWLES thinks he does not deserve, he begs 
 solemnly to say, that, when he justified POPE, he 
 did it gladly, and in the sincerity of his heart. 
 He begs to say, moreover, that if Mr. GILCHRIST, 
 or any other writer, shall prove that POPE'S arti- 
 fice and disingenuousness were not such as they 
 appeared to be to Mr. BOWLES when he wrote, 
 with regard to the publication of his letters, or the 
 quarrel with ADDISON, no one will MORE sincerely 
 REJOICE than himself. And he will not only think 
 it a justice due to the memory of a great poet, 
 PUBLICLY TO DECLARE this, but to acknowledge 
 that the thanks of every friend to literature will be 
 due to Mr. GILCHRIST. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 Printed by Richard Cruttwell, 
 Bath Chronicle Office, St. James's-Street, 
 

 
 
 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 .THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 5O CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 DEC 12 
 
 DEC 8 1947 
 
 . 
 
 3 119 
 
 NOV3-1966 9 
 REC'D LD 
 
 '67 -11 AM 
 
 LD21-50m-8,'32 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY