VINDICATION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE LATE EDITOR OF POPE'S WORKS, 
 
 FROM SOME 
 
 CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST HIM, 
 
 BY A WRITER IN THE 
 
 tuatterl? iftetrieto, 
 
 FOR OCTOBER, 1820 : 
 
 WITH 
 
 FURTHER OBSERVATIONS 
 
 ON 
 
 THE INVARIABLE PRINCIPLES OF POETRY ;" 
 
 AND 
 
 A FULL EXPOSURE OF THE MODE OF CRITICISING ADOPTED 
 BY OCTAVIUS GILCHRIST, ESQ. F. A.S. 
 
 BY THE REV. W. L. BOWLES, 
 
 AUTHOR OF A LETTER TO MR. CAM! BELL ON " THE INVARIABLE PRINCIPLES 
 
 OF POETRY/' &C. 
 
 Pudet haec opprobria nobis 
 Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli. 
 
 Printed in Nos. XXXIII. XXX IV. and XXXV. of the 
 PAMPHLETEER. 
 
 SECOND EDITION, CORRECTED: 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed by A. J. Valpy, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street. 
 
 SOLD BY CADELL, STRAND ; COLBURN, CONDUIT-STREET ; AND 
 WARREN, OLD BOND STREET. 
 
 1821. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 I THINK it incumbent on me to state, that, if some ex- 
 pressions and reflections appeared in the last Number of the 
 Pamphleteer more harsh than the question seemed to warrant, 
 they were solely occasioned by the conviction that the ARTI- 
 CLE ON SPENCE's ANECDOTES, in the Quarterly 
 Review, was written by Mr. Gilchrist. 
 
 I have been mistaken, and therefore am bdund, as far as he is 
 concerned, to omit the passages which contained those reflections ; 
 and more particularly to express regret on account of some allu* 
 sions in a pamphlet which appeared soon after the review in ques- 
 tion, for which pamphlet, though published anonymously, I am 
 answerable. 
 
 At the same time, it should be taken into consideration, that this 
 offence would not have been given had not Mr; Gilchrist com- 
 menced an attack, so insolent and personally insulting, as I believe 
 the annals of modern criticism never witnessed. 
 
 Respecting the original provocation by Mr. Gilchrist, I believe 
 no reader of sense and candor will think, that any thing I have said 
 in the life of Pope, concerning his physical infirmities, or his con- 
 nexion with Martha Blount, could justify such expressions, so 
 grossly indecent in themselves, and so personally insulting to me, 
 as Mr. Giiclirist, in that criticism which he explicitly avows, has 
 used. 
 
 & 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 A*, A {t\t 
 
 Were I a father, I should not have the smallest objection to the 
 most strictly-educated daughter perusing the Life of Pope, into 
 whose hands 1 should be sorry to place some of the most exquisite, 
 but most pernicious productions of Pope himself. 
 
 Of this, however, the public will judge* The whole case is now 
 before them. 
 
 With regard to any expressions that might appear coarse and 
 harsh, in the present publication, 1 have only to request the reader 
 to remember, that if in this or any one instance, I may have violated 
 the rules of controversial civility, no one has less right to object than 
 Mr. Gilchrist, who has violated, in regard to myself, not only 
 courtesy, but Christian charity and truth. 
 
 If he differed from me, toto calo, in regard to tne charac- 
 ter of Pope, why could he not have entered on the discussiofi in 
 a manner less insulting and offensive ? I have never written in 
 such a way as to warrant this mode of treatment ; for the truth of 
 "which, I can appeal to Mr. Brougham, Mr. Campbell, and all 
 with whom I have been engaged in any kind of literary dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 The pamphlet which contained any personal allusions would 
 have been withdrawn, had I not since received such coarse and 
 personal abuse. I feel assured that the public, comparing Mr. 
 Gilchrist's original criticism in the London Magazine with the 
 passages from my Life of Pope to which it relates, will think he 
 has done me great injustice ; but the slightest acknowledgment, 
 that this criticism was written too hastily, would be sufficient to 
 make me forget it for ever, and to apologise for any expressions 
 I may have used towards him in consequence ; but I cannot tame- 
 ly suffer myself to be trampled on, either by Him, or a Quarterly 
 Reviewer. 
 
 W. L. BOWLES. 
 Bremhill, Jan. 25, 1821. 
 
DEDICATION. 
 
 TO WILLIAM GIFFORD, ESQ. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 IN a most obliging note which I received from you, in London, 
 in May last, with some compliments on a composition which you 
 said did " equal honor to my head and hearty" you added, that 
 as far as "you could discern it, you always pursued the straight 
 line of criticism." An article having appeared in the Review, of 
 which you are the Editor and responsible Conductor, totally at va- 
 riance, in my opinion, .with what you yourself kindly expressed to- 
 wards me, and still more at variance, I believe, in the opinion of every 
 impartial judge, with what you have termed the " straight line of 
 criticism ;" I feel compelled to enter into a public vindication of 
 myself, from some of those charges in your Review, which appear 
 to me not only thus at variance with your own candidly expressed 
 .opinions, but equally remote from sense, justice, liberality, or 
 
 TRUTH. 
 
 The article is every thing but a fair or scholar-like discussion of 
 critical opinions. The parts, however, of those critical opinions 
 in which I am brought under notice, relate to what I have said of 
 Pope's moral character, in the Life prefixed to his works in ten 
 volumes ; T to the propositions I had laid down, as necessary to 
 be kept in mind, in order to judge rightly of the characteristics of 
 what is most intrinsically poetical; and, to the " principles of 
 j>oetry" as farther explained in a Letter to Campbell. 
 
 As you have allowed the article to appear, which I am about to 
 examine, if you will do me the favor of reading dispassionately the 
 following pages, J am convinced you will admit I have been charged 
 
 1 Mr. Southey, the most able and eloquent writer in this very Review, 
 wrote to me the warmest and kindest letter on the occasion. 
 
DEDICATION,:- V : / 3 
 
 WRONGFULLY. In a subsequent investigation,.! ha vejiu?e doubt I 
 shall be able to prove to you, should 1 be so happy as to draw your 
 further attention, that I have been charged " FOOLISHLY ;" and if 
 so, I leave it to your sense of equity to pronounce, whether, in ad- 
 milting an article, as intemperate as it is unjust and foolish, you 
 have consulted the interest of the valuable work you superintend. 
 
 1 trust and believe the appeal which I am compelled to make, will 
 convince every dispassionate and fair-judging mind; and there is 
 certainly no one whom I should more anxiously wish to convince 
 than yourself, because 1 am firmly persuaded you would not have 
 admitted the accusing article, unless you conscientiously conceived 
 the accusations to be just. Begging, therefore, your candid atten- 
 tion to what follows, / 
 
 I remain, dear Sir, 
 Your very sincere and faithful servant, 
 
 W. L. BOWLES. 
 
 Bremhill, Oct. 25, 1820. 
 
A REPLY, 
 
 &c. &c. 
 
 charges are brought, of no light weight, mingled with 
 expressions of spleen and sarcasm, in a distinguished popular 
 journal, and under the eye, and, I might add, with the sanction, of 
 such a character as Mr. Gifford, the charges ought to be deeply 
 weighed by any one who has a regard to his own moral or literary 
 character. 
 
 If he is convinced, upon consideration, that the charges have not 
 been made out, it is a duty he owes to himself and the public, to 
 give his reasons for so thinking. If he has been affected by the 
 expressions of ill-deserved sarcasm, he will show his sense of it, as 
 far as possible, by disdaining, where its bitterest tone might in re- 
 turn be assuredly justified, to use language so unwarrantable, even 
 in self-defence, his motives being solely those of truth and justice. 
 
 Considering, then, what is said in the Review of Spence's Anec- 
 dotes, in the last number of the Quarterly, as far as regards myself, 
 to be both unfair and unjust; I shall bring forward, as I am 
 peremptorily called upon to do, some observations which may 
 tend to divest the arguments there used, of their force, and the sar- 
 casm, needlessly employed, of its sting ! 
 
 I trust it will not be necessary to say, that I have advanced 
 no opinion which I did not conscientiously believe : I may have 
 believed it, upon mistaken grounds ; I may have been led into the 
 belief too hastily ; I may, unknown to myself, have been betrayed 
 by latent prejudices, the progress of which I had not watched with 
 sufficient care : these feelings may have silently operated upon my 
 better judgment, when 1 was scarce conscious that they operated 
 
Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply, $c. 5 
 
 on it at all ; but, that 1 ever said, willingly, or with pleasure, one 
 syllable, publicly or privately, on characters, living or dead, de- 
 tractive of their fair fame, 1 peremptorily deny. 
 
 And I must here instantly do the writer of the article in the Re- 
 view the justice to say, that, in the outset (for which I thank him) 
 of his animadversions, he admits this ; for he says, " It is with 
 pain we have witnessed the attacks on the moral and poetical cha- 
 racter of this great poet (Pope) by the last two editors. Warton, 
 who first entered the list, though not unwilling to wound, exhibits 
 occasionally some of the courtesy of ancient chivalry ; but his suc- 
 cessor, the Rev. Mr. Bowles, possesses the contest d Voutrance, 
 with the appearance) though assuredly not with the reality } of per- 
 sonal hostility." Review. 
 
 I now proceed to inquire whether, if this character, given by 
 himself, be just, the spleen which is evinced afterwards is 
 warranted ; and, above all, whether the arguments advanced re- 
 specting what I have said of the Life of Pope, be sound and con- 
 vincing. 
 
 Three publications of mine are here brought under notice : the 
 first, the Life of Pope; secondly, the Observations en his Poetical 
 Character ; and, thirdly, the Letter to Mr. Campbell, on the " IN- 
 VARIABLE PRINCIPLES of POETRY," lately published. 
 
 I shall first advert to the accusations brought against me, as the 
 detractor of Pope's merits as a man, and the exaggerator of his 
 failings ; " aggravating infirmities into viciousness." These accusa- 
 tions may be comprised in the following list, given by this 
 writer : 
 
 " We find Pope aspersed for ( a sordid money-getting passion*- 
 for taking bribes to suppress satires for the most rankling envy of 
 Addison for the worst of tempers for duplicity, and fickleness of 
 opinion for the GROSSEST LICENTIOUSNESS!' ' 
 
 First, 1 confidently reply, I have never " aspersed" Pope " for a 
 sordid money-getting passion!" No particular passage is pointed 
 out, and I say confidently, 1 have never used any such expres- 
 sions. ' From Ms correspondence with the Blounts it appears, that 
 he took upon himself the direction of much of their pecuniary af- 
 fairs ; and was anxious to put them in the best way of making the 
 most interest of their money. However friendly and generous he 
 might have been, and I have never denied this, he certainly took 
 some solicitous care of their incomes and his own. That he was 
 thus attentive to his pecuniary affairs, surely facts sufficiently 
 show. Martha Blount, whose authority the writer quotes, in 
 the same breath, says, " The reason of Mr. Pope's not being 
 
 1 My words are "None was more prudent;" but I censured only his 
 affectation, not his prudence. 
 
6 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 richer may be easily accounted for ; he never had any love for 
 money! If he was extravagant in any thing it was in his grotto." * 
 What does this imply but that he was at least prudent? and 1 have 
 spoken of his prudence, not of his " sordidness." 
 
 But whether saving or expending were a part of his character, 
 what " aspersion " is there in mentioning the fact, if 1 thought it 
 true ? Oh! but I have said, " his professions were directly at va- 
 riance with his practice!" So they were in many things: no one 
 can deny they were so when lie spoke of his letters as tf artless 
 effusions," which were as elaborately polished as his poems. 
 Having seen how much he was consulted by his friends, in mo- 
 ney matters, I might have been led to believe (though I cannot now 
 recollect all the circumstances that induced me to believe so, at the 
 time) that when he spoke of his "carelessness" about money concerns, 
 he spoke, after the manner in which he used to speak, of the f< art- 
 less effusions" of ins correspondence. Of a " sordid money-getting 
 passion' I have never accused him; and if I had ever done so, I 
 should be glad to find any testimony that might show he was 
 not so. 
 
 Of the most {< rankling envy" of Addison 1 have never accused 
 him. Where ? and on what occasion ? and how is such Ian*. 
 gtiage consistent with the candor, refused on one s/V/p, as loudly 
 as it is demanded on the other? Nor is it consistent with this 
 candor thus to exaggerate what I said, when I spoke of Pope's 
 pecuniary prudence. The critic asserts 1 accused him of " base 
 sordid passions ;' aud here he heightens the word jealousy into the 
 most rankling envy. When I spoke of the memorable quarrel be- 
 tween Pope and Addison, I adduced the narrative of the circum- 
 stances, from Pope's most ardent admirer; 1 say, that from that 
 very account, of that very admirer, in my opinion, the circum- 
 stances press more against Pope than against Addison. Why was 
 this account omitted ? In weighing characters I have neither con- 
 sidered the adulation of friends, or the rancour of enemies ; but 
 comparing together, from all sides, all the facts I could col- 
 lect, Jt-hae_formecl my opinion. Whereas, this Instructor in the new 
 ode of candot, when lie speaks of Addison, iterates what is said 
 by his enemies ; and when he speaks of Pope, pins his rail!) as 
 firmly on what is said by Pope's friends. 
 
 One would suppose, from these representations, that 1 had the 
 same feelings towards Pope, as Lander hud towards Milton. I 
 think, all circumstances put together, Addition's character was the 
 most lucidjjind that in the narrative of their meeting not according 
 tothe account of Addisou's friends, but of Pope's own Pope was 
 
 1 Probably she thought he did not -save enough for her as legatee. 
 
relative to Popes Works. 7 
 
 most to blame. I have seen no opinions, well founded, that should 
 induce me at present to alter this opinion, and it being such, when 
 I wrote the Lite, and such now, even after all that this writer has 
 adduced, I see no reason why I should hesitate to declare it. 
 
 Of " duplicity," the artful publication of his letters is a positive 
 and lasting proof. 
 
 Into the idea of u fickleness of opinion," (no great matter) I 
 was led by the extracts from S pence's Anecdotes. I had not then 
 myself seen them, and J now confess, if I had, I should not have 
 said, what I did from unguarded feelings, " that neither friend or 
 foe were spared." 
 
 But 1 have charged Pope with the " GROSSEST LICENTIOUS- 
 NESS!" 1 have said he had a libertine sort of love, v. hich was in 
 a great degree suppressed by his sense of moral duty. 1 might 
 say, that i have seen passages in his letters to Martha Blount, 
 which never were published by me, and I hope never will be by 
 others; which are so gross as indeed to imply the " grossest licen- 
 tiousness ;" but, not 10 speak of " licentiousness" on- account of 
 letters which were never published, can any one acquit him of 
 " licentiousness," as far as we may judge from language and ideas, 
 when we recollect his correspondence with Cromwell, his translation 
 of the Epistle of Horace, which I expunged from Warton's edi- 
 tion, and which was never denied to be his ; his share in the Mis- 
 cellanies, published jointly by himself and Swift: and if the critic 
 takes the testimony of Addison's enemies against Addison, why 
 might not 1 take that of Cibber against him ? But 1 scorn it ; I 
 scorn to advert to those pieces which, though not acknowledged 
 by himself, no one denies were written by him;, but 1 think there 
 is enough in his published letters and acknowledged writings to con- 
 vict him of " licentiousness." '* Grossest,'* is a word the writer 
 has added himself, on purpose to make my uncharitableness appear 
 the more heinous. 
 
 The writer says, triumphantly, " Will our readers now believe 
 (\vliatis really the case) that Pope was kind from his nature; that 
 his heart was open at all times to his humble friends; that he was 
 adored by his intimates f" Aye, marry, will they, and so will I too ; 
 nor have 1 ever denied that he was all this. That he could have no 
 invidious feelings I deny. He envied Phillips, for the success of 
 his Pastorals ; and he surely showed the gratification of a con- 
 tracted mind, when Gay so successfully ridiculed them, in his 
 Shepherd's Week ; and his paper in the Guardian, is a lasting proof 
 of invidious feelings, in this respect, as it is of the insidious mode 
 he took to gratify them. 
 
 Finally, he was no " lover of money," not sordidly so, certainly -. 
 
8 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 and I confidently repeat I have never used an expression that might 
 imply such " sordidness." 
 
 If, as in the case of the letters, so in money concerns, for 
 which I have before given my reasons, I thought his language was 
 often at variance with hig feelings, I spoke as I thought; and if 
 this be " THE BLACK ART OF CRITICISM/' the " reading the 
 LORD'S PRAYER BACKWARDS/' 1 wish the present critic may 
 never show the a BLACK ART OF CRITICISM" in a worse manner, 
 nor so read the Lord's Prayer "BACKWARDS." On the contrary, 
 when he is disposed to mark so severely crimes, of which he is in 
 this very article far more guilty than I have ever been, or hope 
 ever could be, I would remind him of a few plain words by the 
 Divine Author of that Prayer, of which he so flippantly speaks, 
 et Why beholdest thou the mote in thy brother's eye, but con- 
 siderest not the beam that is in thine own eye? First, cast out the 
 BEAM out of thine own eye, and then thou shall see clearly to cast 
 out the MOTE out of thy brother's eye." 
 
 1 had overlooked, that I had also charged Pope, among his other 
 " infirmities," aggravated into " viciousness," with having the 
 "WORST of TEMPERS!" I have never said so ; I have never 
 implied it. " Irritable temper," this very writer attributes to him, 
 and this irritable temper is turned into the "WORST of TEMPERS," 
 and then 1 am charged with being the calumniator. Is this fair ? 
 Is it honest? The whole article is written purposely in this 
 manner, and it proves, at least, that the charges against me, of " ex- 
 aggerating" all his failings, stripping him of EVERY amiable qua- 
 lity, are as foul as they are false, when those who make these 
 charges are first obliged to exaggerate, and having so exaggerated, 
 call on the public to remark, not what I really have said, but such 
 exaggerations, for which their falsehood is answerable, not my 
 want of candor. 
 
 Allow him to be " irritable," but not of the " WORST of TEM- 
 PERS," and we so far agree, and cordially, and ex animo, do I 
 admit all that can be said in his favor. Whether he was, as to 
 money, saving or profuse, his noble generosity to the outcast, Ri- 
 chard Savage, and other instances of a compassionate and generous 
 heart, are undoubted. I should have spoken of them as cheerfully 
 as I now admit them, had they occurred to my recollection when 
 I wrote. 
 
 After these exaggerated statements and false colors, the over- 
 whelming question is then asked, "Do COMMENTATORS ever 
 blush?" 
 
 I will answer this question by another, " Do CRITICS ever 
 BLUSH?" 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 9 
 
 I should indeed blush to bring any charges upon such palpable 
 exaggerations, magnified by my own spleen. Yes, and I should do 
 more than blush; I should think the hand that wrote, and the 
 heart that dictated, ought to wither, before I could coolly sit down 
 to impute motives to a commentator or poet^ from a professed 
 satire, us this unblushing critic has done to me. I should do 
 more than blush, if I had repeated so often, what I knew to be 
 false; for it is as false to say i had endeavoured to rob Pope of 
 his virtues, as it is to say 1 asserted he was " no GREAT POET." 
 Why do I give myself this trouble ? It will be all in vain. The 
 next critic, as ingenuous and honorable as this, will assert the same 
 falsehood, which has been so often refuted, that I and my kind- 
 hearted master, now beyond the reach of this paltry untruth, have 
 denied that Pope was " a Great Poet/' when we have only denied 
 he was the GREATEST! 
 
 Of this we shall speak more by-and-by; but whether I were 
 critic or commentator, I should indeed 
 
 " Hang my head, 
 
 " And BLUSH to think myself a man," 
 
 if, knowing my charges would be read by thousands, to whom the 
 vindication would never come, I had described a commentator so 
 malignant as to charge the poet, whose life he was writing, with 
 " taking a BRIBE to suppress a satire," when I knew, and could 
 not but know, that that commentator had expressed (besides his 
 indignation that such a charge should be made, which sentiment has 
 been grossly perverted) his utter disbelief of it, to prove which 1 
 call the reader's attention to the passage quoted in my answer to 
 Campbell, which in other respects this writer has read with suffi- 
 cient acuteness. 
 
 How dare such an " unblushing calumniator" not only pervert 
 the honest expressions of my feelings, but attribute to me, that I 
 had charged Pope with " taking a bribe to suppress a satire," who 
 have recorded in vain, in two publications, my disbelief! 
 
 " One ciVcumstance is mentioned by Horace Walpole, which, if 
 true, was indeed flagitious : Walpole informs Gray, that the cha- 
 racter of ATOSSA was shown to the Duchess of Buckingham and 
 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 publish- 
 ed it !" 
 
 1 had already expressed warmly what I felt at the baseness of 
 such transaction, IF TRUE ; not at all implying that I believed it 
 true. My " Life "contains the following remarks on it, and these 
 
10 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 remarks are republished in the letter to Campbell ; and here is a 
 man, who has read those remarks, and having first perverted my 
 obvious meaning, tells me I charge Pope with " taking a bribe to 
 suppress a satire, and then publishing it." 
 
 Here then, again, I must quote my own words : 
 
 <e A story so base ought not for a moment to be admitted, solely 
 on the testimony of Walpole ; till there is other proof, besides the 
 assertion of Walpole, the same candor 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 
 (charge) has no other foundation than the ' ipse dixit ' of an ad- 
 versary is entitled to NO REGARD." Note on Pope. 
 
 Let me now ask, how could any one, with the honorable feel- 
 ings of an honest heart, keep in the dark, purposely \ this testimony 
 in Pope's favor : 1 say purposely, for the book was before him, 
 out of which, 
 
 " With all th' invidious malice of a shrew," (CowpER.) 
 
 he has picked every thing that he thought would make me appear 
 prejudiced, and studiously omitted whatever was contrary to his own 
 unjust and exasperated prejudice? How could any one, I repeat, 
 without feelings of "deep, deep" shame without being lost 
 and dead to every sense of candid or generous feelings hold up and 
 emblazon to the broad day, with colors furnished from his own 
 distempering and distorting " spleen," every thing a sacred regard 
 to truth made me say, which might appear derogatory to Pope's 
 amiable character, and yet shut his eyes, on purpose, to those pas- 
 sages where I have denied the charges brought unjustly against 
 him, or spoken of his virtues ? I should indeed have "BLUSHED " 
 to have acted in this manner. 
 
 The distich on Sappho, which this very writer calls too " indeli- 
 cate to transcribe," I leave for him to reconcile to Pope's purity, 
 which I have " aspersed ;" and observe, reader, because I had 
 spoken of his unmanly conduct to a lady whom he once idolised, 
 how this same writer descants ! 
 
 " Mr. Bowles has unsparingly attacked Pope, on the score of 
 his quarrel with Lady Mary." Mr. Bowies spoke with indignation, 
 and ever will, of this cowardly attack, in lines which this purist 
 " cannot transcribe" against Sappho ; and I say that Pope knew 
 the couplet was universally applied to Lady Mary, and to her 
 alone. Pope received from Lord Peterborough the most pressing 
 remonstrance, as from a friend and gallant Cavalier, not to let the 
 disgraceful couplet remain ; and this fact alone, in opposition to 
 
relative to Popes Works. 1 1 
 
 all advanced by the Reviewer, is sufficient in the eyes of common 
 sense, to fix the application of the couplet, riot on the first 
 Sappho, " Mrs. Thomas," for she was DEAD! and beyond the reach 
 of satire ; but on the living, the accomplished Sappho, who had 
 rejected Pope's preposterous addresses. 
 
 And here I assert, " unwarrantably " as I may have " at- 
 tacked " Pope, for his conduct to Lady Mary, I have said nothing 
 against him half so depreciating as this critic's own representation: 
 
 " In his letters to her Ladyship, the stages of his erotic fever may 
 be noted by the statements of the patient himself; perhaps it was at 
 its height, when, speaking of ' the congeniality of their minds/ 
 the tormented poet put his case to her hypothetically, ' if she can 
 overlook a wretched body ! ' 
 
 " We conjecture this was the precise moment when a rude 
 burst of laughter awoke him from the PARADISE OF FOOLS." 
 As I had no doubt of the fact thus stated, I have shown this was my 
 opinion ; but 1 have not touched on it in a manner half so dispa- 
 raging to Pope ! 
 
 And now we enter on the famous quarrel with Addison. 
 
 When we look with regret on the numerous "macula" on Pope's 
 page, who can avoid repeating, 
 
 " Excuse some courtly stains, 
 
 " No whiter page than Addison's remains." 
 
 When we turn to his works, when we remember the virtuous im- 
 pression generally excited by his name, and find his character in 
 accordance with his page; when we remember he filled a high 
 post in public life, and yet was venerated and beloved by those 
 who were publicly opposed to him ; when his generous conduct to 
 Swift, in Ireland, is remembered, the silence of political adversaries, 
 and the warmth of so many endeared friends ; and whilst glowing 
 with these feelings, when we are carried to his death-bed, in that 
 mansion, now inhabited by an accomplished, amiable, classical 
 nobleman, and repeat with Tickel, 
 
 " He taught us HOW TO LIVE; and oh, bow high 
 
 " The price of knowledge, TAUGHT us HOW TO DIE " 
 
 with these feelings some predilection may be allowed to the re- 
 collection of the pure, and kind, and accomplished, and Christian, 
 ATTIC us. 
 
 Now, as I have said, the best way to estimate the character of 
 those, whose tale of days is ended, would be to compare what is 
 said of them by friend or foe ! But it really appears to me, that 
 the mode in which departed worth is estimated by this writer, is to 
 take for granted what is said by enemies, against those we wish to 
 
12 Rev. W, L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 depress, and listen to the idolising plaudits only, of the most partial 
 friends of those we choose to exalt. 
 
 Thus the man takes a few sayings of those who were the least 
 friendly, and says, " How like is Pope's character of Atticus !" 
 
 Pope's verses to Addison, on Medals, with the elegant adulation 
 of his friend Craggs, may be brought as a proof of his disinter- 
 ested praise. But it must, at the same time, be remembered, how 
 warmly does Addison in the Spectator speak of Pope's early produc- 
 tions, He was, moreover, eminent in the political as well as the lite- 
 rary world. In such a situation, and with such a character, to 
 whom would a young man offer sooner, the elegant testimony of 
 classical encomium ? But in speaking of Pope's meeting, after 
 the quarrel with Addison, 1 set plainly before the reader the ac- 
 count which is left us. And this account, 1 repeat, is not left by 
 Addison, or any of his friends, but by the admirer and idolizer of 
 Pope. 
 
 I say, again, let any unbiassed man, read only the account of this 
 memorable meeting, by Pope's partial friend, and then declare 
 whether he thinks I ought to be condemned, for judging according 
 to. that very document, which Pope's own friend furnished, and 
 on which my opinion was founded. 
 
 Surely 1 have the same right to express my opinion as this writer 
 has to express his. 1 have added nothing; I have concealed no- 
 thing. He has done both : he has added exaggerations, and he has 
 wilfully concealed what suited his purpose to conceal ; and when 
 he charges me with "SURMISING AWAY EVERY AMIABLE 
 CHARACTERISTIC" of Pope, I charge him, and I think he stands 
 convicted, of wilfully aggravating every charge against me. 
 
 I will now candidly lay before the public, to whom I am forced 
 to make this appeal, the real reason of that exclamation, which has 
 excited such a tone of sarcastic reproof, when this critic says " Lis- 
 ten to Mr. Bowles a sort of sentimental critic ! ' I tremble 
 for every character when I hear any thing of Spence's Anecdotes.'" 
 
 Now listen to Mr. BOWLES AGAIN, and he will ingenuously 
 tell this " unsentimental sort of a critic " what moved him to make 
 this exclamation. 
 
 In looking over Addison's and Pope's Lives, whenever any anec- 
 dotes, particularly detractive, were told of characters we have been 
 in habits of esteeming, on looking to the foot of the page, I in- 
 variably found "SPENCE! SPENCE! SPENCE!" 
 
 Addison, in consonancy with his character, " engaged," says 
 Johnson, in a nobler work a Defence of the Christian Re- 
 ligion/' 
 
 This, and another pious composition, Pope imputed to a SELF- 
 ISH MOTIVE ! He says he believed this, " on the credit of Ton- 
 
relative to Popes Works. 13 
 
 son," who having quarrelled with Addison, said, " he intended to 
 TAKE ORDERS and OBTAIN A BisHOPRiCK; and this v \vas the 
 reason of Addison's writing in Defence of the CHRISTIAN RE- 
 LIGION ! for Tonson always believed him a PRIEST IN HIS 
 HEART!" Look at the bottom of the page and you see SPENCE! 
 
 " Prior is only fit to make verses." SPENCE ! 
 
 " The woman with whom he cohabited was a despicable drab 
 of the lowest species." SPENCE! 
 
 " Phillips," says Pope, " seemed to have been encouraged to 
 abuse me, in coffee-houses and conversations." SPENCE ! 
 
 t( Addison and Steele, to echo him, used to DEPRECIATE 
 DRYDEN." SPENCE! 
 
 " When Gay, by request, attended Addison on his death-bed, 
 Addison told him he HAD INJURED HIM ! He did not explain 
 what the injury was ; but Gay supposed that some preferment, in- 
 tended for him, was, by ADDISON'S INTERVENTION, with- 
 held !" SPENCE ! 
 
 The story of Addison's ungenerous treatment of Steele, is not 
 told in Spence, but, in a late edition, is traced to Pope ; and I 
 know no other authority for it 
 
 It was told to Johnson by a person whose name is not given- 
 to this nameless person it was told by Lady Primrose ; Steele told 
 it to her with tears in his eyes ; it was confirmed to the anony- 
 mous author of a note in Johnson's Lives, by Dr. Stenton, who 
 said he had it from Hooke, who had it FROM POPE. 
 
 Had I been disposed to attack Pope, as I am described, "a Vou- 
 trance" I think I could have brought more proofs than I have 
 done, of something that looks more like disingenuous carping 
 at Addison's fame, than appears from Addison towards him. I 
 am sure, if I had sat down, not with a sacred regard to truth, 
 but on purpose to aggravate his faults, and to (f surmise away 
 every amiable quality," 1 could not have been more abused, by those 
 whose rancour can be only accounted for by supposing they share 
 all Pope's unamiable qualities, without his virtues or his genius. 
 
 I have thought it necessary to say so much, to show the nature 
 of my feelings when 1 hastily spoke of Spence's Anecdotes, 
 and the critic is welcome to his splenetic jocularity. Having 
 declared I did not believe the charge against Pope, which was in- 
 deed " infamous, if true," I may, I hope, be allowed to say, I do 
 not believe one syllable of all that is charged against Addison or 
 Prior, the authority being only one, and, in the case of Addison, 
 that of an enemy ; but Spence's Anecdotes, where these and other 
 accusations are heaped against eminent men, seen, as they 
 were, without any accompanying or enlivening circumstances, 
 such as now appear, when the amusing gossip is read as a whole 
 
14 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 induced me to speak with unguarded warmth. I hope this is not a 
 crime. 
 
 Jgnoscenda quidem, scirent si ignoscere CRITICS. 
 
 On the occasion when I used the expression " the heart is 
 sick/' &c. (which seems to have an effect upon this gentleman like 
 that of the words of Cato upon John Dennis, in Pope's disingenu- 
 ous account of his poisoning,) I trust the reader will remember, that 
 the passage which excited this expression, though it was not in 
 Spence, as now appears to be the case, was quoted as coming from 
 the same store-house of gossip, which contained similar reflections on 
 various other characters. He will remember I had not seen Spence's 
 Anecdotes, and could not have seen them ; and I could only write 
 from the authority before me ; and if Hughes, of whom Pope had 
 spoken so cordially and kindly before, was stated in the same book, 
 to have shared the common obloquy with others equally respectable, 
 and that the language of such disrespect came from Pope himself, 
 wearied with seeing, and seeing nothing else than these contradic- 
 tions, and all given under the authority of Spence, 1 might natu- 
 rally enough exclaim " Neither friend or foe are spared !" 
 
 1 rejoice to rind I was mistaken ; and having now read Spence's 
 Anecdotes entire, that which seemed so revolting when all the little 
 scandal was, if I may so say, compounded in the unfavorable 
 extracts, and no " relief" (does the critic understand this word?) 
 of lively and good-natured anecdote afforded, such as now appears 
 when the book is taken all together, I confess ingenuously the hasty 
 warmth with which I spoke. 
 
 He has made the most of it, and so let him. Having spoken 
 of Spence, perhaps I may give a momentary " relief" to the irk- 
 somene&s of self-defence, by mentioning a few circumstances relating 
 to him, which even this writer may not know. He says, very justly, 
 that there was a " moral loveliness in the character and life of 
 Spence." The Bishop of London (Louth), the Rev, Mr. Rolle, 
 rector of Berwick, Wilts, near Shaftesbury, Ridley, the author of the 
 Tales of the Genii, and a relation, of whom I have spoken in the 
 Vindiciae Wykehamica?, were all school-fellows at Winchester to- 
 gether, and kept up the most friendly intercourse as long as the}' 
 lived. The Rev. Win. Bowles, the rector of Lower Donhead, 
 lived within three miles of Rolle, who had a college-living, now in 
 the possession of the Rev. P. Bingham. The mild countenance, 
 and encouraging, playful, but gentle manners of Rolle, 1 yet re- 
 member, having often seen him when a child at my father's house. 
 Spence, the critic observes, is described in the Tales of the Genii as 
 " the Dervise of the Groves." Perhaps he might not be aware, that 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 15 
 
 the name " Phesoi Ecneps," the name of the Dervise, is that of JO- 
 SEPH SPENCE spelt backward; EL LOR, in the same tale, is " Rolle," 
 being also his name spelt backward. Spence was very often a resi- 
 dent at the parsonage-house of Berwick, where his school-fellow 
 Rolle died, without any other preferment, the sole survivor of this 
 knot of friends, some in retired life, some of them illustrious charac- 
 ters, but all marked by the same virtues, the same gentle manners 
 the retired clergyman, the learned prelate, the elegant and classical 
 scholar, and the author of those Tales of rich Eastern imagery, which 
 are so popular at this day. I would request those who are hos- 
 tile to our public schools, to contemplate this groupe, not as ac- 
 complished scholars, merely, but as virtuous and amiable men, in 
 different stations of life, bound together by the most affectionate 
 intercourse, which began "when they were nursed upon the self-same 
 hill !" A straight walk of brick was made for Spence near the house, 
 in the garden at Berwick, where he might walk backwards and for- 
 wards WITHOUT SOILINGHIS SHOES. The old parsonage is taken 
 down, but this walkj sacred by such remembrances, yet remains, 
 and I hope will long remain, as one memorial on the spot, of such 
 friends, now gone to their last rest together. 
 
 My father being executor to the relation 1 have mentioned, his 
 papers, of course, came into the executor's possession, and at a time 
 when I little thought of standing at the bar, as I may call it, of 
 the public. I had often, in early life, amused myself in looking 
 into some old entertaining letters, which were the correspondence 
 of Spence in his younger days, with his school-fellow. The letters 
 related to familiar circumstances, with anecdotes of careless college- 
 life, and were more interesting to me when I considered them as 
 written by the author of the superb Polymetis, in my father's li- 
 brary. All those letters, which I should now be glad to tind, are 
 lost or destroyed. 
 
 Whilst I am writing this, I almost feel as if I had had a kind 
 of friendly truce with my critical antagonist at all events, he may 
 accept the addition as endeavouring to show him what is the mean- 
 ing of " relief," an expression which may be as dark to him, as 
 " the dreams of a Muggletonian ! !" 
 
 This sort of episode, I can truly affirm, has been some "relief 
 to me," but we must u buckle on our harness," and again to the 
 dusty field. 
 
 Having spoken of these examples of the virtues and talents de- 
 rived from a public school ; having set before him this "knot" of 
 academical friends, I think this a proper place to ask the Critic 
 what he means by talking of my " EXULTING OVER THE POET 
 who had not the happiness of an ACADEMICAL LIFE? Mr. Bowles 
 
16 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 seems to have indulged in a SORT of SPLENETIC PLEASURE!!" 
 Have I EXULTED? indulged in a sort of SPLENETIC PLEA- 
 SURE ? 
 
 What can I do, how can I guard myself? Now, so far from 
 " EXULTING" over Pope's want of a more liberal education, I 
 introduced the circumstance of an education so confined as his, to 
 show that whatever was faulty in his character, as to irritable tem- 
 per, or self-love, was owing to unavoidable moral causes ; that his 
 heart was not to blame, as under the same disadvantages,-^)!:!' the 
 inevitable operation oQbe^ same causes, the_.bst-...o--characters 
 by nature would have been subject to the same infirmities. 
 
 So "that when I meant to praise," he says, u i bite!!" A 
 sincere and upright heart could never draw such an opinion from 
 words which, 1 verily believe, can be only so understood by wilful 
 perverseness. Here they are in his face ! 
 
 " If these and other parts of his character appear less amiable, let 
 the reader constantly keep in mind the physical and moral causes, 
 which operated on a mind like his. Let him remember his life, 
 'one long diverse' his CONFINED education, entrusted chiefly to 
 those who were themselves narrow-minded his being used to listen 
 to the voice, from his cradle, of tenderness, almost maternal, in all 
 who contemplated his weakness and incipient talents. When he has 
 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 vir- 
 tues, lament the imperfections of our common nature, and leave the 
 judgment to Him, who knoweth ' whereof we are made ! ! ' ; 
 
 Reader, is this EXULTING over Pope's confined education? 
 Speak honestly, Mr. Giflford, the man comes under your auspices. 
 Do you think this is the language of "exultation ?'" and rather is 
 not the daring and deliberate false accusation coupled with every 
 passage in Pope's favor studiously omitted a proof that there 
 are those who shut one eye and see things distorted with the other ? 
 
 Have I not reason to complain of this Critic, who " will not un- 
 derstand me ?" for as there is no one so B LIN D as those who WILL 
 NOT see, so none are so obtuse to understand, as those who from 
 their prejudices WILL NOT ! 
 
 " I complain " again, probably as ineffectually as before. One 
 eminent poet, when I sometimes spoke of these things, " and par- 
 ticularly of the letter to Campbell,'* constantly answered," IT WILL 
 ALL COME RIGHT." A prosing Dorsetshire 'Squire, speaking to a 
 neighbour, said, "Pray, Mr. , do you MEAN so and so?" and on 
 the other's answering, " Oh no, quite the contrary;" replied, " Nay, 
 Sir, you MUST MEAN this, if YOU MEAN ANY THING I" So I 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 17 
 
 may say, " two and two make four," till my heart aches, if thus the 
 plainest expressions are insultingly turned against me, and it is 
 pronounced that I must mean, " two and two make five ! !" 
 
 Thus, when 1 admitted that much, if not all, that was faulty 
 in Pope's temper, arose from physical and moral causes, I am 
 represented as " exulting !" I only thank the writer's candor for 
 not adding that " 1 EXULTED " because the person of Pope was di- 
 minutive, and his HEALTH WEAK ! ! I wonder how much more I 
 should have "exulted" if he had been born " with a tail!" 1 
 But even his "innocent years" cannot disarm my critic's hostility. 
 
 " Mr. Bowles has fixed on these innocent years as the ground- 
 work of an HYPOTHESIS as ungenerous as unjust!" Euge! what 
 a detestable monster must Mr. Bowles be. " An hypothesis as un- 
 generous as unjust?" Mr. Bowles is " mainly ignorant" what this 
 unjust and ungenerous hypothesis is. 
 
 Now we shall hear ! 
 
 On the well-known incident of Pope's father encouraging his 
 boy's rhimes, and these rhimes finding afterwards other friends 
 more skilful critics than the retired merchant, he thus declaims : 
 
 " Pope being tenderly brought up, was, through life, impatient of 
 contradiction, scarcely brooking a dissenting voice, and having been 
 fostered by early patronage, lived afterwards in the sunshine of flat- 
 tery. The same disposition that made him vain, would in other 
 circumstances have caused depression ! ! " 
 
 Such, it is added, is the discovery of Mr. Bowles ! and this 
 marvellous discovery, and this " hypothesis," are pronounced 
 UNGENEROUS and UNJUST! I have read this passage over ten 
 times ; I profess, in sincere simplicity of heart, I cannot understand, 
 how what I have said is " any hypothesis ;" why it should be 
 " a discovery " and still less how this " hypothesis and disco- 
 very," can be thought " ungenerous or unjust ! " 
 
 It was a common observation founded on my own views of life 
 and character. Generally speaking, I think, a young person brought 
 up as Pope was, would be impatient of contradiction, scarcely 
 brooking a dissenting voice ; and I think also, without any 
 ideas of discovery or hypothesis, that if such a young person in 
 early life met great encouragement in the world, he would become 
 vain ; if he had, from his earliest years, received great encourage- 
 ment at home, and received from the world, into which he ad- 
 vanced, every thing the contrary, 1 think the same mind would 
 naturally tali into DESPONDENCE !! " Provincial and moral" as 
 this gentleman imagines me, and as much a prey to forlorn 
 
 1 It is wonderful, as tiding a prey to such "hypochondriacism" as made Lord 
 Monboddo believe in human tails, the critic had not said I had "SURMISED" 
 one to Pope. 
 
 B 
 
18 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply, $c. 
 
 reveries, as Lord Monboddo, who believed men had originally 
 " tails/' or poor " parson " Tasker, in the wildest parts of 
 Devonshire, I have seen enough of life, to have often witnessed 
 this example. 
 
 1 confess, I think Pope <l was impatient of contradiction 
 through life/' i confess I think he scarcely could brook a dissenting 
 voice, and I know " he lived in the sunshine of jlattery :" I 
 know also, " he was vain" or he must have been a prodigy, if with 
 so many indulgences, and so brought up, he had been otherwise. 
 And this general sentiment, which is exalted into an " hypothesis ; " 
 which was adduced more to account for some - -parte- of Pope's 
 character, than to arraign them, comes out to be u an hypothesis as 
 ungenerous as unjust," which falls upon Pope's " infant and 
 innocent" years. 
 
 Now, I repeat (NOT WITH " exultation ") that, if Pope had 
 had a more liberal education, he would have been more free from that 
 vanity, which so often accompanies a confined one. 
 
 As to his being " impatient of contradiction " and " scarcely 
 brooking a dissenting voice/' 1 have before spoken of the circum- 
 stance of his resentment at the high praise given in the " Guardian " 
 to Phillips's Pastorals ; can the Critic deny this ? or the stratagem 
 employed to introduce into the " Guardian," his ironical decision 
 in favor of Phillips r Dennis also had not injured him, but Den- 
 nis, at that time considered no indifferent critic, among so many 
 voices that hailed the young Pastoral Poet, was silent. Some 
 cause of this sort, urged him to introduce the " Reddening Ap- 
 pius " into the Essay on Criticism, or else the attack was as un- 
 kind as it was unprovoked. Upon this subject I must revert to 
 Addison. The Reviewer says, 
 
 " If jealousy, the infirmity of genius, existed between the par- 
 ties, it could not be on the side of Pope. Addison's true fame 
 rests on his Spectator, and Pope never for one instant could 
 contemplate a rival in the verse of Addison ! !" 
 
 Suppose he could not, what of that? could he not, " scarcely 
 brooking a dissenting voice," feel it like a wound, when Addison, 
 so eminent in literature, did not appear to applaud as he expected, 
 his happiest invention in the Rape of the Lock. Addison might be 
 as sincere, when he objected to the proposed machinery of the 
 Sylphs, as Pope was when he recommended Cato as fit for the 
 closet and not the stage. Be it as it may, because Addison did 
 not approve the introduction of the " machinery " to the Rape of 
 the Lock, calling it " Merum Sal," without it, Pope attributed the 
 cause instantly to jealousy ! For Warburton says, t( he was 
 shocked for his friend, and THEN BEGAN FIRST to OPEN HIS 
 EYES to his (Addison's) character." 
 
relative to Popes Works. 1 9 
 
 i 
 
 What is this but jealousy, not of Addison's fame as a Poet, but 
 because he was disappointed, and was therefore the "first to at- 
 tribute to Addison, feelings, which there are no substantial facts to 
 prove that Addison ever possessed." 
 
 These circumstances alone, I think, will be sufficient to justify 
 me in what 1 said, (" WITHOUT ANY HYPOTHESIS ") of Pope's 
 early years, and from having been used to flattery, not brooking a 
 dissenting voice. I add, that, if I " pour out MY INVENTION 
 on old facts," I drew these inferences from " old facts " which, it 
 appeared to me justice and truth demanded. 
 
 I thought truth and justice (weak advocate as I might be) de- 
 manded this for Addison. 
 
 If the words (" Pope's character as opposed to Addison " was 
 as " Tortuosity opposed to Rectitude,") might be thought too 
 strong, let the following " OLD FACTS," be taken into further 
 consideration. 
 
 That not only was Addison's page pure from the spots of any 
 licentious word or image, but that not one word of ill nature or 
 spleen is to be found in all his writings. Nor in all his writings 
 is one word to be found derogatory of Pope, or of any one. 
 
 " If" IT BE TRUE " that he slyly wrote, or encouraged Tickel 
 to write, from mean jealousy, a translation of Homer, in narrow 
 jealousy of Pope's fame," then I say, " as 1 said before of Pope," it 
 was l( a dereliction of every honest and manly principle ! " and I 
 apprehend, having said this, the writer in the Quarterly will not 
 conclude " that the consequence follows, as he has asserted in the 
 ease of Pope," that Addison was guilty of the " dereliction of all 
 that was honest and manly," or that I thought so. I imagined the 
 translation could not be Addison's, because the verses were more 
 terse and harmonious. In almost all Addison's couplets every 
 line runs with most wearying uniformity of pause. I leave 
 the writer to the enjoyment of his most sagacious and satisfac- 
 tory conclusion, that <( because a man of taste and judgment may 
 suggest improvement, or add corrections to a Poem, therefore 
 he must be able to write it." Spence criticised judiciously, 
 suggested some improvements in Pope's Odyssey, but what would 
 he have made of a translation himself? 
 
 Let it be supposed that the whole of this transaction yet 
 " sub judice est ; " at least these circumstances will always 
 speak for Addison ; his page unspotted with licentiousness, 
 unmarked with one touch of ill-nature, the general tenor of his 
 life, public and private, his defence of Christianity, and his Chris- 
 tian death. Let us consider that of HIM, " no detractive, no 
 ill-natured word, is recorded" and then let us ask what weight to- 
 prove the contrary is due, to what Dean Lockier, an EXQUI- 
 
20 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 SITE judge, an OBSERVER OF HIS OWN times TOLD Spence ; 
 or to what Steele, (of which confession there is no other account) 
 confirmed in SOME DEGREE to Mr. Chute, who observes from 
 what Sir Richard dropt in various conversations, it SEEMS to 
 have been " too true," or of what Dr. Leigh told Spence (of) a 
 fact which his friend had witnessed ! ! ! 
 
 I must not yet lay down the pen; I have taken it up reluctantly, 
 and upon subjects that have almost faded from my recollection, 
 whilst my antagonist is just fresh in the field, advancing with looks 
 of peculiar spleen, and with the vaunting language of sarcastic con- 
 tumely. 
 
 But I bate not a " jot of heart or hope." I am supported 
 by that which has supported wiser and better men, a heart uncon- 
 scious that 1 have deserved either such a tone of critical insult ; 
 or such severe and aggravated charges. My weapon is plain truth 
 against weak arguments, positive assertions, unfair deductions, 
 palpable exaggerations, and gross mis-representations. 
 
 This part of my defence I should now wish to close, but must 
 take notice of one indefinite accusation brought against me, by 
 which, this " asperser," as with a coup de grace, seems to have 
 collected his remaining force. 
 
 He says, " I have exceeded any just limits which I can 
 assign to the defence of our great Poet" (why did he not say 
 greatest /) " but much remains to be said, for without following 
 Mr. Bowles, step by step, how can the sly insinuation, the obscure 
 hint, the damning fact, anxiously recorded, (What excess of can- 
 dor!) with a faint admission that it might not be true, be rebutted ? 
 It did not become a man whose personal virtues are acknow- 
 ledged, to aggravate common infirmities into vicioumess, and to 
 tear away the veil from the sanctities of domestic life." Then 
 follows (excess of candor !) " We should be grieved to incur the 
 displeasure of Mr. Bowles, but we cannot at once sacrifice 
 truth and Pope, and the commentator ought to thank us for our 
 delicacy, of not dwelling on the indecency of some of his notes." 
 
 The commentator has followed with much pain, but " no dis- 
 pleasure " the critic " step by step," and he leaves the public, 
 at whose bar they both stand, to pronounce whether he is guilty 
 or not guilty of the charges brought against him. He has not much 
 doubt of the verdict, now he has been so far heard in his defence ; 
 but the last charge, into which the critic has compressed so much, 
 is more difficult plainly to rebut. The " obscure hint, the sly insi- 
 nuation, the damning fact, anxiously recorded, but (excess of 
 candor) with a faint admission that it may NOT BE TRUE!" if 
 those are not specified, neither can they be rebutted. 
 
 Infirmities I have spoken of, but I think I have proved that the 
 
relative to Popes Works. 21 
 
 critic, not the commentator having aggravated into viciousness, 
 what I was called upon from conscientious belief, to state, has more 
 than aggravated every thing 1 have said into VICIOUSNESS, when 
 he says, I did for Hate what Mallet did for Hire !"' 
 
 The fi sneer," the " insinuation," I retort on himself ! The 
 damning fact, I have not recorded " anxiously" but the fact, if it 
 be " damning," 1 have not concealed, that Pope received hospita- 
 lities and kindness from Chandos, and then held him up to eternal 
 ridicule ; the fact I have spoken of, and proved that he used the 
 stratagem, such as every ingenuous mind would disdain, of artfully 
 contriving that his own letters should be published, whilst he 
 affected to express indignation at the publication. Other facts, 
 which 1 should have thought a dereliction of truth to conceal, I 
 have also spoken of, but 1 have spoken of them, God is my 
 Judge! without "setting down aught in malice;" so far from 
 " anxiously recording " them, so far from *' exulting" I have spo- 
 ken of them, as de luced from moral and physical circumstances 
 operating on the mind ! i have spoken of them, as spots, amidst 
 many and lucid virtues, as defects arising from personal weak- 
 ness, or deficient education. 
 
 As to the atrocious charge of " tearing away the SANCTITIES 
 of domestic life !" I am utterly ignorant of his meaning ! Does he 
 mean that i have spoken of Pope's attachment to Teresa Blount, 
 before his affections were finally fixed on Martha? What " SANC- 
 TITY" of domestic life is torn away ? Where is the crime impu- 
 ted? What SANCTITY was there to " tear away ?" 
 
 The connection between Martha Blount and Pope is well 
 known to all they were, for the last years of his existence and 
 till his eye-lids closed, generally speaking, inseparable; what SANC- 
 TITY is violated in narrating the circumstance, that his first 
 tender feelings, without the slightest shade of imputed guilt, were 
 turned to Teresa, and afterwards transferred to Martha ? If there 
 was any thing improper in the later connection, the connection at 
 least was not concealed ; and to say that a young man, in his green 
 age, looked with partiality on another, ill deserves the aggravated 
 accusation " of tearing away the SANCTITIES from domestic life," 
 when there were no " SANCTITIES " to tear away ! 
 
 If, by this serious accusation, the critic means to allude to what 
 I have said of Pope's attachment to Lady Mary the expressions 
 of his " erotic fever !" convey a stronger idea of the nature of his 
 attachment, than any words I have used ; and the " rude burst of 
 laughter," which he has " recorded," when Pope spoke of his 
 " wretched body," but " congenial mind, 91 might have taught him, 
 not to strain at (f gnats when he was swallowing camels." 
 
 1 Lord Byron's "English Bards," &c. 
 
2-2 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 I am not blaming him for recording this " rude laughter " at 
 this preposterous lover ; but surely he had no right to charge me 
 with a crime so great as " tearing away the sanctities of domestic 
 life," when I spoke in less offensive terms than that of " Erotic 
 fever " of Pope's known youthful attachment to Lady Mary, or 
 earlier attachment to Teresa Blount. 
 
 Of these things I have spoken, without the consciousness of the 
 slightest EXAGGERATION. Nor did I, nor do I think, that speaking 
 as I have done of them, was in the least degree indelicately offen- 
 sive, or criminally violating any (t sanctities ;" and if it be, let him 
 share this criminality with me ! 
 
 But whilst I deny that I have wilfully concealed any one of 
 Pope's virtues (so far from " surmising EVERY ONE away,") I will 
 never compromise my opinions, or give up my right to express 
 them, when " baseness " appears ; and base shall that conduct 
 always be fearlessly called by me, which stoops, from disappointed 
 passion, to direct indelicate and envenomed satire against an ob- 
 ject once beloved ; and I affirm, if you say that Lady Mary 1 was 
 not intended, by Sappho, which 1 do not believe, and which you 
 cannot prove : then, I say, to use a name which HE KNEW WAS 
 applied by herself, and by all the world, to that one person 
 alone, was as base as his evasions were pitiful. And if my bitter 
 commentator has not the heart to feel this, let him stigmatise me 
 as much and as rancorously as he pleases. The " infirmity " is 
 not aggravated into " viciousness," for no aggravation can make 
 it worse. 
 
 We are now drawing to a conclusion, at least, of the charges 
 brought against me, as the " vilitier " of Pope's character. If the 
 reader has followed me so far, with attention, I am thankful ; still 
 more if he should feel convinced, as I have little doubt, that in 
 point of " aggravation," I have been far more " sinned against 
 than SINNING!" 
 
 The critic's last accusation is mixed with an *' affectation " of 
 tenderness towards me, in not exposing the indecency of some of 
 my notes ! 
 
 1 " It is by no means certain the distich applies to Lady Mary, for we can 
 prove he had applied the name of Sappho to Airs. Thomas." Mrs. Thomas, 
 good Sir, was dead, when this distich was written. Pope, in his evasion, 
 does not mention her name, but the names of Mrs. Manley, Behn, Cent* 
 livre, &c. But none of these had written libels on him; and, therefore, the 
 line will not suit one of them. Lady Mary was the only Sappho who had 
 " libelled him," as he himself says, in lines afterwards suppressed: 
 
 " He wrote no libels; but my Lady did !" 
 And in this very passage he had applied the name " Sappho ;" 
 " Sappho can tell," &c. 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 23 
 
 et The commentator ought to thank us, for our delicacy, for 
 not dwelling on the indecency of some of his notes !"' 
 
 What! has so much " aggravation " been employed to make 
 Pope's commentator think there is any " delicacy," for which 
 he ought to " THANK" this critic, or to induce him to believe 
 that he would not have exposed " the indecency of the notes " 
 if HE COULD ! 
 
 The commentator indignantly rejects his proffered " delicacy!" 
 If a single " indecent note " could be pointed out, he should indeed 
 be sorry to express this is all he can do ; but as the critic has not 
 spared the commentator in any instance where he thought he cou-ld 
 bring a charge against him, so he sincerely believes he delibe- 
 rately intended to imply a charge where he knew he could not 
 bring one. 
 
 I have just before said, his <( sneers " and his insinuations I re- 
 tort on himself! 
 
 The <e sneer " that follows is despicable indeed. 
 
 Lord Byron had published, in his animated satire on " English 
 Bards and Scotch Reviewers," a laughable passage, and ascribed 
 this passage to me ! 
 
 No construction of my language could possibly bear him 
 out, in such a representation. However, it was read, and be- 
 lieved, and laughed at ! Lord Byron * was of too noble a mind to 
 misrepresent me deliberately ; and on showing him the misstate- 
 ment, he frankly acknowledged he had unintentionally done me 
 wrong, and he had the generous magnanimity to say he would 
 explain the circumstance, had he not given orders that the book 
 should be suppressed! 
 
 I narrated the circumstance just as it happened, which af- 
 fords this critic such amusement! It is said "I spoke in a 
 tone of seriousness, but with perfect good humour." I did so. 
 
 1 Now, with that "naivete" which you have attributed to me, will I de- 
 clare why the expression, " perfectly good-humoured," was used on this oc- 
 casion, which seems to make you so merry. It was used for no other 
 reason than to show I could speak of the criticisms on any thing I had 
 written, without lt ill-humour," as some such critic as you might have in- 
 ferred. Whether I was, on this occasion, or on any other, where criticism 
 is concerned, perfectly good-humoured, those who were present, and Lord 
 Byron himself, if he remembers the circumstance, will witness. Whether 
 you will feel in as "perfect good-humour," when I have a little farther 
 probed your criticism, as I felt when Lord Byron probed my poetry, I know 
 not : sure I am, there are some touches which must make you " wince," if you 
 have any sensibility, in finding baseness and falsehood laid bare to the 
 sinews; for there is this difference between my poetry and your prose 
 Lord Byron imagined a sore place in the one, but the other is putrid from 
 head to foot, as to what concerns myself in this article. I have no doubt 
 two hands were concerned, because, where prejudice does not interfere, it is 
 entertaining and sensible. 
 
24 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 1 should have thought it a serious" tiling deliberately to publish 
 and hold up ' to public ridicule," a passage, as written by another, 
 which he never wrote. Whether to have spoken of aood 
 humour was w.se, 1 will not now affirm; but I said no more 
 than what many witnesses can affirm to be true. 
 
 'ness circumstance thus awakens our blithe annotator's faceti- 
 
 " Mr Bowles has more than once complained that his critics 
 understand him (certainly where they, as this critic 
 has done, insidiously leave out half he has said); however 
 Lord Byron quoted a passage in Mr. Bowles's poems, not as 
 Mr Bowles wrote, but as critics said he wrote it. Thus, Mr 
 Bowles had reason to complain that he was " not understood " 
 and more so when that very mis-quotation was the cause of sar- 
 casm. Mr. Bowles therefore, related a circumstance that passed 
 between himself and Lord Byron, on this subject, not concealing 
 the manner m which he spoke to Lord Byron." 
 
 Euge ! cries the critic, this is an anecdote of admirable naiveti ' 
 t is characteristic ! " Th e plot teas well laid and the scene not til 
 got up ! 
 
 This man who thinks there is nothing serious " in attributing 
 to another that which he knows he did not deserve, is welcome to 
 this merriment. In his own case, this very critic has said delibe- 
 rately that of another which the person so charged does not de- 
 serve, and which he knew he did not deserve! He is guilty of 
 uttering a calumny, knowing it is a calumny! 
 
 This I am sentimental" enough to think an infamous crime 
 and the mention of Lord Byron gives him an opportunity not only 
 )f a flippant remark and heartless sneer ;" but the opportunity is 
 oo tempting for baser passions to let slip, for, as if unwilling to 
 take leave of the subject, without indulging his malignity," as 
 vyeli as his merriment,. he thus held up the commentator : 
 y k l( J( . 
 
 -^iRi^ v " ose ^kHl^Dd_ejniu^fn)m the first, 
 
 y Affect a candour which thou can'st not feel, 
 
 Clothe ENVY in the garb of honest zeal; 
 Write, as if St. John's soul could still inspire, 
 -And do from HATE what Mallet did for hire." 
 
 Lord Byron knows I do not deserve this character: he knows I 
 
 affected a candour I did not feel ;" and he is too generous 
 
 to apply to me that character which I DO NOT DESERVE, though 
 
 being totally ,gno,ant of me, and looking on Pope with a warmth 
 
 of a sacred predilection, which could not bear the thought of his 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 25 
 
 failings he might thus have drawn such a portrait. Lord By- 
 rofkUws (I g hope I may now. say so) I. do not ^ ^ 
 representation; and my critic himself knows I do not deserve 
 it, or he has told a falsehood ; for he says, it .11 became a person 
 "whose amiable disposition is ACKNOWLEDGED, 
 gravate" such infirmities into viciousness ! 
 
 He therefore states, if he be sincere in what he here says, that 1 
 do not deserve that which this quotation imputes to me. lUtti 
 he or I, then, must be most atrocious. 1, if indeed, in wru 
 
 Pope's Life, 
 
 I did for " Hate" what Mallet did for pay ; 
 or he, if he advanced this, believing IT WAS NOT TKTJE !'' 
 
 Whether it were true or false, if I had quoted, m the Life of 
 Pope, the satiric lines of Lord Hervey or Lady Montagu to 
 prove that his " heart was as hard" as his birth obscure, 
 should deserve this censure, and much more; and I leave every 
 impartial and equitable judge, to pronounce whom THE CAP 
 MOST FITS:" me, whom this critic has acquitted of intentional 
 hostility; or himself, who, so thinking has brought a professe 
 atire, to prove my "envy, and hate," which himself do 
 
 ^HaTing thus, step by step," attended the critic through this 
 intemperate discussion ; having shown his aggravation of oftences, 
 his petulant sneers," and his affected sarcasms ; h,s appeal 
 professed SATIKE, to establish charges of which himself acquits me, 
 having, I trust, also, vindicated myself from the accusation 
 brought against me, that I had aggravated" Pope's tnfirfvtu, 
 
 understanding, that I have been, in point aggra 
 
 " more sinn'd against than sinning," I now come to the consic 
 ration of a more serious part of this inconsiderate and mtempe- 
 rate piece of criticism. ,, 
 
 After what is said of the " wild speculations of Lord ^ Mon- 
 boddo, and the honest curate in the wilds of Devonshire, 
 words occur: , . . 
 
 " It is only on this principle that we can account for the injury 
 inflicted on Pope, by the strange proceedings of his last Kditor, 
 who having possessed himself of the ravings of all the dunces on 
 their arch-enemy, dwelled on them till their sinister influence ope- 
 rated on his imagination, and prompted him to hesitate, and suggest, 
 and surmise away every amiable characteristic o/ the Poet ; nd, 
 
 INCREDIBLE AS IT MAY APPEAR, tO aCCUSC him of 
 
 TBARY DISPOSITIONS!" / . 
 
 Thus, then, I have not only aggravated" all infirmities into 
 vkiousness," but, "INCREDIBLE AS IT MUST AP BAB, 
 having " surmised away EVERY AMIABLE CHARACTERISTIC, 
 have accused Pope of the CONTRARY DISPOSITIONS ! 
 
26 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 to say, I have turned his friendships into hatreds, his affectionate 
 duty and tender love for his aged mother into cold-hearted ingra- 
 titude, his general benevolence into feelings of malevolence. 
 
 To show whether or not / deserve it, I place before the public 
 those extracts which were before the eyes of this man when he 
 wrote : 
 
 " This year he (Pope) lost his aged mother, who had gradually 
 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/ &c. Whatever irritation he might sometimes have expe- 
 rienced, he no sooner turned his eyes on those he loved, but his 
 passions seemed to subside, 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' 9 Life of Pope, page 9 C 2. 
 
 " No poet, perhaps, ever left the world with greater general tes- 
 timonies to his virtues and his genius" Page 118. 
 
 " Whatever might have been his defects, he could not have had 
 many bad qualities, who never lost a friend, and whom Arbuthnot, 
 Gay, Bathurst, Lyttleton, Fortescue, and Murray, esteemed and 
 loved through life !" Page 131. 
 
 " That he was a most dutiful and affectionate son, a kind master^ 
 a sincere friend, and, generally speaking, a benevolent man, is un- 
 doubted."Page 120. 
 
 Now, Sir, whoever you are, 1 take you on your word. Either 
 you have said, what, if true, ought indeed to make me (f hang my 
 head, and blush to think myself a man :" or if what you asserted 
 is false, and you knew it to be false, which you must have done, 
 you, if you have the heart of a man I will not say.of a Christian 
 ought to " blush." We stand not before the public only, but 
 before Him who " made us." It must turn out, " by hint," " sug- 
 gestion," or " surmise/' if what you have laid to my charge be 
 true, that he was " a most tiff-dutiful, ww-affectionate son, a false 
 friend," &c. &c. 
 
 There you stand, Sir, exposed ; and no sophistry, no vaporing 
 declamation, will help you out. There you stand, and if not 
 " blushing" for your atrocious calumny, I must believe your Editor 
 will blush" for you. 
 
 1 now hasten to the conclusion of this part of my defence. 
 
 But before I finish, i must advert for a moment to the last part 
 of this criticism. 
 
 After a long intermission, in which my name seems almost for- 
 gotten, and even when the critic, with singular complacency, had 
 just exclaimed : 
 
 " Singula dum taciti circumvectemur amore" 
 
 in the Elysium of his delighted imagination, my unfortunate name 
 again coraes across his imagination, when I was in hopes, amidst 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 27 
 
 his delicious reveries, he had forgotten me ; and before he can 
 finally dismiss the subject, yea ! before he " limps away" (which 
 expression I have taken from himself,) though he cannot " bite" 
 he turns to have a last growl ; for thus he growleth at the con- 
 clusion : 
 
 " The last Editor of Churchill informs us, that this poet once 
 designed a systematic attack on Pope's personal and poetical cha- 
 racter, which, that nothing so desirable should be lost, has been 
 FULLY reserved for the skill and care of Mr. BOWLES." 
 
 As this " systematic attack" was fully reserved for the skill and 
 care of Mr. Bowles, 1 would just beg the reader to compare what 
 has been said of the prominent defects of Pope's character by 
 Dr. Johnson. 
 
 Let us see what Johnson, upon the same subject of Pope's fail- 
 ings, has said ; for one would suppose, by the systematic attack be- 
 ing FULLY RESERVED for the " skill and care of Mr. Bowles ; J> 
 no one had, before Mr. Bowles, spoken of the infirmities of his 
 character, much less in language more strong than I have done : 
 and, be it remembered, it was hardly necessary to describe me as a 
 morbid hypochondriac, on whose imagination, with " sinister in- 
 fluence," all the " dunces" operated, when there was enough 
 found in one, WHO WAS " NO DUNCE," to justify more than 
 I have ever said. 
 
 As Johnson was certainly "NO DUNCE," nor had his imagina- 
 tion warped by brooding, till he was half mad, over dunces, let us 
 ask, what "sinister influence operated" on his mind, when he thus 
 writes of POPE'S MEANNESS and duplicity ^ 
 
 " Aaron Hill expostulated with Pope in a mariner so much 
 superior to all mean solicitation, that Pope was induced to SNEAK 
 and SHUFFLE, sometimes to deny, and sometimes to apologise ; 
 he first endeavours to ward, and then is afraid to own that he meant 
 a blow." Johnson's Life of Pope. 
 
 Ingratitude and dissimulation. 
 
 " From the reproach which the attack on a character so ami- 
 able brought on him (Chandos), he tried all means of escaping. 
 Cleland was again employed in an apology, by which no one was 
 satisfied, and he was at last obliged to shelter his temerity under dis- 
 simulation." Johnson's Life of Pope. 
 
 Love of flattery. 
 
 " Pope had been flattered till he thought himself one of the 
 moving powers of the system of life." Johnson's Life of Pope. 
 
 Professions at variance with his feelings. 
 
 " Cibber replied to the Dunciad with another pamphlet, which 
 Pope said would be as good as a dose of hartshorn to him ; but 
 HIS TONGUE and HIS HEART were at VARIANCE !" 
 
 When one of Gibber's pamphlets came into the hands of Pope, 
 he said, " These things are my diversion" They sat by whilst he 
 was reading, and saw his features writhe with anguish. 
 
28 Rev. W. L. Bowles 1 Reply 
 
 I might mention what Johnson says of his parsimony, &,c. ; 
 but I forbear, as I only wish the reader to perceive that, if I have 
 ,taken a false view of Pope's character, 1 ought not to bear the blame 
 alone. In truth, I have softened the most glaring lines of character 
 rather than heightened them ; for what I have called " prudence," 
 Dr. Johnson calls " parsimony ;" what I have called 1 " evasion," 
 he has called " SNEAKING and SHUFFLING :" nor has he ever 
 sought to trace to their origin, as an excuse for those less amiable 
 parts of Pope's character, and those infirmities, which appeared to 
 me, and which I have so stated, to have sprung from that u self- 
 love," which grew unavoidably out of moral causes and physical 
 infirmities. 
 
 If I have cleared myself, in any degree, to tne satisfaction of the 
 wise and good, the impartial and unprejudiced, I would wish to 
 part friends even with my anonymous critic : I owe him no ill- 
 will. The charges which are advanced now would probably have 
 been advanced some other time, when there would be none to 
 answer them. 
 
 I shall have a much pleasanter path to pursue when I take a 
 more extended survey of Pope's poetical character, which I have 
 never denied to be the " greatest in his order," although his order 
 was not the greatest in poetry. If the path be pleasanter, I have 
 Ho doubt the grounds F shall give for my unshaken belief in the in- 
 variable principles of poetry will be satisfactory. In taking leave 
 of the critic, whose course 1 thought myself bound thus far to pur- 
 sue, I must confess that 1 can hardly believe mysejf entirely free 
 from blame, when others have read my Life with some of these im- 
 pressions. A warmth of feeling against every thing connected with 
 disingenuousness or duplicity, induced me to use, though 1 was not 
 conscious of this, expressions too warm for the occasion, and have 
 given reason to imagine, that, when I conceived I spoke what truth 
 required, I was actuated by different feelings. 
 
 In conclusion, I beg to assure my severe annotator, I feel as 
 little ill-will towards him, as I ever felt towards the great poet 
 whose life and poetry he defends ; and if he has a particle of that 
 charity and candor, for the want of which, in the Life of Pope, he 
 arraigns me, the hope may not be in vain, that if we never agree in 
 the Invariable Principles of Poetry, we may agree in that which 
 is of more consequence CHRISTIAN forbearance; having both 
 of us derived some improvement from the investigation of each 
 other's faults. 
 
 1 The word " hypocrisy" I have only applied in one instance, relating to 
 the art, with which, as it appears incontrovertible to me, he got his letters to 
 be published. 
 
OBSERVATIONS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 POETICAL CHARACTER OF POPE; 
 
 FURTHER ELUCIDATING 
 
 THE 
 
 INVARIABLE PRINCIPLES OF POETRY," &c. 
 
 WITH 
 
 A SEQUEL, 
 
 IN REPLY TO OCTAVIUS GILCHRIST. 
 
OBSERVATIONS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 POETICAL CHARACTER OF POPE, 
 
 JLN entering upon the remaining part of my vindication, the de? 
 fence of Poetical Criticism, J am conscious that, as far as this 
 point is concerned, I need not, nor should I, have made any reply. 
 The criticism, except where the critic " unblushingly" asserted, I 
 thought Pope " no great poet," only called in question my taste 
 in poetry. 
 
 My principles of judging the relative characteristics of diffe- 
 rent species of poetry, are laid down, in the Estimate of Pope's 
 Poetical Character, and in the Letter to Mr. Campbell ; nor 
 should I have thought it incumbent on me to have said one 
 word in reply, to the nonsense of <( in-door nature/- or the ab- 
 surdity of a critic pretending ignorance of the commonest terms of 
 criticism, had not that " malus animus*' appeared in the article, 
 which, whilst it professedly acquitted me of dishonorable motives, 
 ** in reality," treated me as if I had been actuated by the basest. 
 
 It was on this account, and on this only, that I felt it my 
 duty to appeal to all fair and liberal minds ; at the same 
 time, having entered on the subject, I thought I might be justified, 
 in exposing the futility of the remarks, which the same article fur- 
 nishes, against what the author is pleased to call my " THEORY/' 
 by advancing some further arguments in support of it, if a THEORY 
 it be, and snowing the fallacy of his own arguments. 
 
 I shall here make one general observation; that, IF AN Y CIR^- 
 
 CUMSTANOE MORE THAN ANOTHER, COULD WEIGH WITH 
 
 ME IN CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION, that what I said of 
 
34 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 the moral part of Pope's character, was (generally speaking,) true; 
 and that the principles of poetical criticism, which I had laid down, 
 were "invariable" and invulnerable, it would be THE FACT, that 
 the opponent of my statements and 'principles, is obliged scan- 
 dalously to exaggerate, in the first instance, and wilfully to con- 
 fuse the plainest reasonings in the other. Before 1 proceed I 
 shall take this opportunity of saying a few words concerning the cir- 
 cumstance of my having, in the last number of the PAMPHLETEER, 
 attributed the criticism in the Quarterly Review to Mr. Gilchrist, 
 and in noticing the attack he has published, in consequence of an 
 anonymous pamphlet, which appeared soon after the criticism in 
 the Quarterly. 
 
 As the greatest personal abuse is heaped upon me, in the peculiar 
 slang of this gentleman, it will be necessary to go back to some cir- 
 cumstances materially connected with this discussion. 
 
 I shall not enter into a particular examination of the pamphlet, 
 which, by a mis-nomer, is called " GILCHRIST'S ANSWER TO 
 IjpWLEs," when it should have been called "GILCHRIST'S ABUSE 
 OF BOWLES ;" but as he derides my peculiar "sensitiveness to cri- 
 ticism ;" before I show how destitute of truth is this representa- 
 tion, I will here explicitly declare the only grounds upon which I 
 have thought it at all necessary to reply to any criticism, and the only 
 grounds upon which I think any writer has a right to reply to pub- 
 lic criticisms, on public works. The grounds, then, are these, 
 and by these I am willing to abide the decision of the literary 
 world, whether I am not justified in replying to the criticism in the 
 Quarterly Review. 
 
 An author is justified in appealing to every UPRIGHT AND 
 HONORABLE MIND in the kingdom when his sentiments are 
 artfully misrepresented, when base motives are assigned, and when 
 exaggerations are deliberately advanced, the tendency of which 
 must be to excite injurious impressions of his honorable conduct 
 or moral character. 
 
 These are the grounds on which I thought it necessary to reply 
 to the article in question, and I shall now plainly set before the 
 literary public, all the circumstances that have led to my name 
 and Mr. Gilchrist's being brought together on this occasion ; and 
 what I have to say on this point, i would particularly address to 
 the consideration of those most respectable characters, who have 
 the direction and management of the Periodical Critical Press. 
 
 1 concluded my observations in the last Pamphleteer, with feel- 
 ings not unkind towards Mr. Gilchrist, or to the author of the 
 Review of Spence, be he whom he might. I was in hopes, as I 
 have been always ready to admit any errors I might have been 
 led into, or prejudices I might have entertained; that even Mr. 
 
relative to Popes Works. 35 
 
 Gilchrist might be disposed to a more amicable mode of discus- 
 sing what 1 had advanced in regard to Pope's moral character. 
 
 But I have since read a publication by him, containing such 
 vulgar slander, affecting my private life and character, (which are 
 beyond his mulice to injure) that I am obliged to set before the 
 public the mode of Christian criticism, of which I believe he 
 has set the first example, in Europe. I trust, therefore, some se- 
 verer tone of castigation will be pardoned, in regard to such an 
 infamous mode of literary discussion, and such infamous " arguing 
 from perversions/' 
 
 In the London Magazine for February, 1820, appeared, in a 
 ^Review of SPENCE'S ANECDOTES, the following sentence: 
 
 " These testimonies to the worth and virtue of the poet, not 
 consorting with the PURPOSE of Mr. Bowles, he has preferred the 
 representations of his enemies ; and having, with an obliquity un- 
 exampled iu an editor, RESOLVED to ASPERSE the moral reputa- 
 tion of his author, it was necessary that he should AFFECT to 
 sneer at the friendly representations of a chronicler, actuated by 
 feelings so unlike his own ! The general defamation of Pope's 
 character, Mr. Bowles shares with Curl, Gildon, &c.; but the 
 INQUISITION which he has instituted into the poet's attachment 
 to Martha Blount, is eminently his own; though the PRURIEN- 
 CY WITH WHICH HIS NOSE IS LAID TO THE GROUND, to 
 
 SCENT SOME TAINT in their connection, and the ANATOMI- 
 CAL MINUTENESS with which he EXAMINES and deter- 
 mines on the physical constitution of Pope, might, in charity, be 
 deemed only unseemly in a layman, and occasional critic ; in an 
 Editor, and a CLERGYMAN, such conduct appears to us INDE- 
 CENT and INSUFFERABLY DISGUSTING!!" 
 
 How deeply offensive to every sense of decency ought those pas- 
 sages to be, which could call for such a disgusting description. If 
 I had written any thing in the Life of Pope, which might fairly be 
 thought to merit such a representation, I should deserve the re- 
 probation of every pure and every honorable mind ; but if no idea, 
 that could justify such a coarse caricature, ever entered irfy head ; 
 if having looked through all the volumes of the last edition of Pope, 
 to find a passage which could justify such monstrous exaggera- 
 , lions, I have looked in vain ; then I think the literary public 
 will pronounce the writer of it to be the most " barefaced" dealer 
 in vulgarity, indecency, and slander, that cotemporary criticism 
 can show. 
 
 The writer of this sentence, extracted from the London Maga- 
 zine, is OCTAVIUS GILCHRIST ! 1 do not say this unadvisedly, 
 for he has himself explicitly admitted it, calling it "my castiga- 
 tion !" 
 
3B fiev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 I shall now extract, from the Life of Pope, in the last edition^ 
 the only passage which 1 can suppose he must have had in big 
 eye when he penned the " indecent; vulgar ribaldry," I have 
 quoted :-^ 
 
 " Many fdcts tend to prove the peculiar susceptibility of his 
 passions, nor can we implicitly believe, that the connexion be- 
 tween him and Martha Blount, was of a nature " so pure and in- 
 nocent" as his panegyrist, Ruffhead, would make us believe. But 
 whatever there might be of criminality in the connexion, it did not 
 take place till the heyday of youth was over; that is, after the 
 death of her brother, (1726); when he was 38, and she 35. Teresa 
 was of the same age with Pope, being born at Paris, 1688 ; Mar- 
 tha, three years younger; was born at Mapledurham, 1691 : con- 
 sequently she was thirty-five when the connexion between her and 
 Pope became more avowed and explicit. At this time of life 
 there was perhaps no great danger of a t( false step." Certainly 
 she became by degrees more indifferent to the opinion of the 
 world. At no time could she have regarded Pope personally with 
 attachment ; and when other views were past, she might have 
 acquiesced in her situation, rather than have been gratified by any 
 reciprocities of kindness or affectiott. But the most extraordinary 
 circumstance; in regard to his connexion with female society, was 
 the strange mixture of indecent and sometimes profane levity, 
 which his conduct and language often exhibited. The cause of 
 this particularity may be sought, perhaps, in his consciousness of 
 physical defect, which made him affect a character uncongenial, 
 and a language opposite to the truth." Life of Pope. 
 
 If what is here extracted does, or can excite in the mind, (I will 
 not say of any " Layman," of any Christian, but) of any Hainan 
 being, such disgusting images as have sprung up under Mr. Gil- 
 Christ's " nose," and which he has drawn with " minuteness" truly 
 anatomical, and with congenial " pruriency ;" then 1 confess, 
 with sorrow, my couduct deserves the severest animadversions. 
 
 But, on the contrary, if, as I verily believe, the passage in my 
 Life of Pope, that speaks of his connection with Martha Blount, 
 &c. does not, and cannot excite these filthy ideas and images (here 
 " minutely" specified), except in the brain of Mr. Gilchrist, I ask, 
 whether, in attributing an article, full of exaggerations', on the same 
 subject, in the Quarterly Review, to this critic, or, in introducing 
 his name, I had any reason for distinguishing him with that cour- 
 tesy which I had hitherto always endeavoured to show, from prin- 
 ciple as well as disposition, in literary controversy? 
 
 1 am now peremptorily called upon to speak of a circumstance 
 which gives me the greatest pain ; the mention of a letter I re^ 
 ceived from the Editor of t^e JUmdon Magazine; 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 37 
 
 It is now too late for me to recede, however I may la- 
 ment that the name of the editor was introduced on the occa- 
 sion ; but the fact has been, by Mr. Gilchrist, positively denied. 
 I am defied to prove this circumstance, and I must consider my 
 own veracity as now called in question. I therefore assert, in 
 my own name, and I dare Mr. Gilchrist to contradict me, that 
 the editor of the Magazine, which contained Mr. Gilchrist's filthy 
 caricature, did write to me, to say that in the case of S pence's 
 Anecdotes, as the correspondent spoke in the style of editor, the 
 article CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN admitted, 
 had not the editor, at the time, been dangerously ill, and incapable 
 of attending to the Magazine i 
 
 It will be observed that no honor or secresy was .violated ; and, 
 for myself, I do not fear to declare, that no responsible editor 
 could, upon any principles of justice, to say nothing of the ribaldry 
 of expression, have admitted that criticism, unless he had first seen 
 the specific passages to which it alluded, and was convinced that 
 they contained indecent expressions and disgusting matter, such as 
 could only justify this representation. 
 
 It is necessary, absolutely and PAINFULLY necessary, further to 
 state, respecting the indelicacy of bringing before the public any 
 allusions to private correspondence, that PERMISSION so to do 
 was PREVIOUSLY asked ! As no answer was returned till nearly 
 a month had elapsed, it was not conceived that any honorable feel- 
 ings could be violated by publicly mentioning the circumstance of 
 having received such a communication, to such a purport, when, if 
 the most distant intimation of objection had been dropped, during 
 this time, no consideration in the world would, or could, have in- 
 duced the writer to have made any allusion whatever to senti- 
 ments privately expressed. 
 
 Mr. Southey's permission was asked, and promptly given, with- 
 out any restriction, though 1 shall ever lament that any thing oc- 
 curred contrary to the feelings of the editor of the London Maga- 
 zine. It was (rashly indeed) concluded, that if there had been any 
 particular objection, some notice of it would have been given du- 
 ring the previous three weeks. 
 
 I must here also beg to correct another mistake into which I 
 have fallen, in hastily writing the article for the Pamphleteer. I al- 
 lude to the word " stranger," as applied to the editor. Some mis- 
 understanding may have arisen from the sentence as it stands, 
 for the construction should have been,. " the editor, though nearly 
 a stranger" &c. A revise of the proof-sheet not being returned, 
 the word " nearly" was omitted. 
 
 The editor ought not to have been called a " stranger," as I had 
 been introduced to him by Mr. Moore; yet, it must be added, I 
 
3# Rev. W. L. Bowles Reply 
 
 never saw I him but that once : the expression, therefore, of 
 " stranger" was used, though the loss is mine that he should be so. 
 
 I admit, also, most willingly, that the letter i received from him, 
 was after Mr. Gilchrist's avowal of his being the writer of the 
 criticism on S pence's Anecdotes, in the London. 
 
 The criticism appeared in the Magazine for February ; the letter 
 was received in September, and it was occasioned by a letter from 
 rae to the unknown editor of the work ; NOT (I beg the reader 
 to remark,) complaining, or even saying a word about the criticism, 
 but communicating a wish that the letter which appears with my 
 name in the Magazine should be inserted. 
 
 I never mentioned, to the best of my recollection, one word 
 about the criticism ; and nothing is said of it in the letter pub- 
 lished with my name. 
 
 The letter that occasioned any reference to the subject, in a pre- 
 vious number, was not mine. It is signed with the initials of the 
 name of the person who wrote it. 
 
 Having explicitly stated these things, to the best of my know- 
 ledge, I now hope to drop the subject for ever. It will be a mat- 
 ter of continual regret with me, that any misunderstanding should 
 have arisen, by my fault, with a gentleman, whose character, public 
 and private, I so much esteem. If he had written one word ex- 
 pressive of his feelings, when the permission of taking a sentence 
 from his letter was asked, nothing unpleasant could have occurred ; 
 and I only lament now, that under any circumstances, a name 
 should have been introduced without express consent. 
 
 No person, who has written like Mr. Gilchrist, has a right to 
 object to the style of the anonymous pamphlet. I shall there- 
 fore set before the reader another specimen of this gentleman's 
 ars maledicendi in criticism, from the pamphlet, which he calls 
 " An Answer to Bowles." This sentence there appears : 
 
 " With the exception of the passage in which, with the MOST 
 UNBLUSHING EFFRONTERY, you suggest that Pope 
 MADE AN ATTEMPT on Lady Mary's person, and was 
 REPULSED, you have not urged one reason for our believing 
 that Pope was the aggressor, &c. ; and yet, without any argument 
 besides YOUR OWN GROSS INVENTION of AT- 
 TEMPT at RAPE ! you persist in repeating, terque quaterque, 
 Pope was the aggressor." 
 
 Would any man have the tf MOST UNBLUSHING EFFRONT- 
 ERY," in the face of day, in a Christian country, to assert such a fact, 
 of an editor having invented a tale of ATTEMPT AT RAPE, 
 \vithout direct proofs ? The writer gives no authority, any more 
 than he did in the former instance, of his disgusting obloquy. I am 
 certain that such an idea as that of which he speaks never entered 
 
relative to Popes Works. 39 
 
 into my head, though, somehow or other, it has entered into his, as 
 the other indecent images did. 
 
 The only passage I can find, to which I suppose he must allude, 
 is the following : 
 
 " Lady Montague was at this time at Constantinople. Pope 
 has here suppressed part of the letter, which may be seen in Dal- 
 loway's edition. The grossness of it will sufficiently explain Pope's 
 meaning ; and I have little doubt, but that the lady, disdaining the 
 stiff and formal mode of female manners at that time prevalent, 
 made the lover believe he might proceed a step farther than decorum 
 would allow." Edition of Pope, Vol. 7th. 
 
 Christian reader ! such are the " beauties" of Gilchristian cri- 
 ticism. This is a specimen of a Gilchrist's heart. I am certain, no 
 words of mine will be necessary to excite disdain and abhorrence 
 of such unblushing effrontery. " A STEP BEYOND DECORUM," 
 in this man's repertory of pure conceptions, is " AN ATTEMPT 
 TO COMMIT A RAPE !" 
 
 And this critic is to undertake a review of the " controverted 
 points in Pope's writings." He takes a sentence, puts a con- 
 struction on it that would enter into the head of no human being 
 but his own, and imputes the filthy genderings of depraved imagi- 
 nation, and the distorting suggestions of malignant spleen, to the 
 editor whom he thus impudently ** asperses," and then accuses him 
 of " UNTRUTHS," which, forsooth, must call forth " HIS casti- 
 gation." 
 
 And this is the critic, (risum teneatis) to school me for 
 innate vulgarity .'! to tell me that I exemplify the " ars male- 
 dicendi :" that my associates in professional labors will recollect 
 how Hooker, Hall, and Lowth,. conducted their controversies ; and 
 sigh inwardly for Mr. Bowles's want of " MODERATION, MO- 
 DESTY, and GOOD MANNERS!" 
 
 Why did he not consult these writers himself before he com- 
 menced the gross attack in the .London Magazine ? 
 
 Under the immediate impression that Mr. Bowles was indebted 
 for the criticism in the Quarterly, to the same hand which wrote 
 the criticism in the London, a hasty pamphlet was suffered to 
 appear, in which some personalities respecting Mr. Gilchrist 
 were admitted. 
 
 The coarse and illiberal remarks of the Quarterly Review, in 
 which a clergyman, residing chiefly in the country, is described as 
 a distempered hypochondriac ; and this remark being associated in 
 the mind, not only with the specimen I have given of Gilchristian 
 criticism, but with what is said in the Quarterly Review about 
 " in-door" NATURE, induced the writer hastily to seize on some 
 
40 Rev. W. L. Bowles 5 Reply 
 
 images illustrative of the poetry of this said " in-door" nature ; 
 which images, though introduced, not ill-naturedly, nor in a man- 
 ner so reprehensible as that of the criticism in the Quarterly Re- 
 view, alluding to what might be considered as almost mental de~ 
 rangement, yet, being connected with Mr. Gilchrist's situation in 
 life^ no provocation should have operated a moment on the writer's 
 mind to publish. 
 
 But, in extenuation, not only the great provocation should be 
 remembered, but it ought to be said, that orders were sent 
 to the London booksellers, that the most direct personal passa- 
 ges | should be omitted entirely ; nor did I know that any copy 
 of that publication, except with the leaves cancelled, had been 
 sent out for general sale. This 1 think it right to declare pub- 
 licly. For the rest, Mr. Gilchrist has no right to object, as the 
 reader will see, by what has been fairly set before him. 
 
 Mr. Gilchrist has had ample revenge ; for, in his " answer," 
 (as he calls it) I am represented as wrapped up in self-love, and 
 paying attention only to the rich and great sneering on the obscure 
 and humble possessor of talents, only because he is poor sensitive, 
 in a peculiar manner, to all criticism, and complaining unless it 
 " chants my praise" having the affectation of " gentylness," a 
 super-stratum to " innate vulgarity," being a " priest in drink," 
 &c. &c. And this abuse is heaped on me, and these personal, and 
 these foul and false representations of my private life and cha- 
 racter are called " an answer. 7 ' 
 
 This pamphlet is indeed a " mud-cart !" and even, whilst the 
 scavenger is emptying it, 1 am recommended by him to learn, in 
 controversy, the language of Hooker and Lowth ! 
 
 No personal provocation was thought of, or could have been 
 given, when Mr. Gilchrist wrote the criticism in the London Ma- 
 gazine, which is an equal outrage on common courtesy as well as 
 truth. Is he to come with a " mud-cart," and never expect a 
 " splash" in return ? Shall he be licensed to outrage feelings and 
 character, and demand himself to be treated as a gentleman? 
 Shall he insult with the foulest ribaldry of critical slang, and ex- 
 pect smiles and courtesies in return ? Shall he fling dirt, and re- 
 ceive rose-water ? 
 
 Mr. Gilchrist's character of me, whom he never saw, wants very 
 little to make me like Crispinus of old, 
 
 nulla virtute redemptum ; 
 
 and the character would be certainly complete, if he had added 
 a few shades from another portrait, by giving me bitterness and 
 disingenuous malice, and a spirit so manly and generous as to 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 41 
 
 deny that a libeller's vengeance is unjustifiable from man to wo- 
 man, and to a woman once beloved, under any provocation ! ! 
 
 As to the Quarterly Review, if I have done so much wrong as 
 to attribute an article to him which he would have thouuhjt an honor 
 to have written ; or if, under this impression, I may have used any 
 expressions more than the occasion would justify ; or if, combining 
 together the idea of his first criticism with the untruths of this, I 
 had applied to him observations that may be thought too coarsely 
 direct, his ardent " genius" is resolved to 
 
 " SIN 17 1* TO MY SONG ! " POPE. 
 
 He wrote the criticism in the London Magazine, and he now, 
 with " the most unblushing effrontery," directly charges me 
 with the " invention of Pope's attempt to COMMIT a RAPE on 
 the person of LADY MARY WORTLEY MONTAGUE." Whose 
 ** invention" this thought is, the reader will determine. 
 
 Though he did not write the article in the Quarterly, he seemi 
 scarce able to restrain his delight in contemplating its triumph, 
 With applauding sympathy he seems to exclaim, 
 
 " Oh ! let MY little bark attendant sail, 
 
 " Pursue the triumph, and partake the gale." 
 
 And no wonder ; for it is impossible that any article could b s<s 
 perfectly in unison with his feelings and taste, and mode of rea* 
 soiling. 
 
 Without applying the quotation which he has applied with so 
 much adroitness, " Arcades ambo I" 1 we may consider the writer m 
 the Quarterly Review and himself " both Arcadians," " in-door" 
 Arcadians indeed ! 
 
 Or we might rather figure the two critics as the " two Kings 
 of Brentford" in the Rehearsal, and as these two kings are intro- 
 duced, " smelling to ONE NOSEGAY ;" and moreover, as Pope was 
 known to visit his female friends frequently with such a .personal 
 decoration, it would make the comparison more complete, by 
 imagining these two critics, like the aforesaid two kings, enter- 
 ing on the stage, and withdrawing, smelling to " ON E NOSEGAY/* 
 and that the perennial nosegay of their favorite and injured bard. 
 
 And further, as the passage, in which Pope is said to have been 
 " aspersed" for the GROSSEST licentiousness, does not seem quite 
 complete, I would suggest Mr. Gilchrist's addition, which will 
 make the whole sentence of his favorite critic more eloquent, and 
 be equally just; it would then run thus : 
 
 " We find Pope aspersed, for a sordid, money-getting passion ; 
 
 1 This quotation, with the addition of "Oh ! Juveties !" in his flippant 
 tirade, in the London Magazine, is applied, with IRONICAL derision, to the 
 deprivations of old age, with equal manliness, humanity, and taste I 
 
42 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 for taking bribes to suppress satires ; for the most rankling envy / 
 for the WORST of tempers ; for duplicity, and fickleness of 
 opinion ; for the grossest licentiousness ; for AN ATTEMPT 
 TO COMMIT A RAPE!!" 
 
 Thus the sentence in the Quarterly would be complete ; and the 
 joint labors uf such Concordes anim<z, be equally conspicuous for 
 climax and truth ! 
 
 1 can produce more reasons, than 1 have yet given, to show 
 why 1 attributed the critique in the Quarterly, to Octavius Gilchrist. 
 I did not suppose there could exist a man in the kingdom, so im- 
 pudent as to pretend he did not know the meaning of " subject and 
 execution" of a poem ; except Octavius Gilchrist, Esq., F. S. A. 
 
 1 did not till 1 1 It there was one man in the kingdom, who would 
 pretend ignorance of the meaning of " disposition,'' "relief," &c. 
 except Octavius Gilchrist. I did not canceive that one man in 
 the kingdom would utter such stupid flippancy, about " squaring 
 the ciiclt-/' except a man of the identical taste and sense of Octa- 
 Yius (jilchrist. 1 did not think there was one man in the kingdom, 
 who, if he did not understand the common terms of " external na- 
 ture," tl moral nature," &,c. would so entirely show his ignorance, 
 combined with conceit, in confessing it, except Octavius Gilchrist. 
 
 I did not believe there was a man in the kingdom so per- 
 fect in Mr. Giichrist's " Old Lunes," as daringly to assert, 1 had 
 been prompted 10 surmise away EVERY AMIABLE CHARACTER- 
 ISTIC of the poet (Pope) except Octavius Gilchrist; 1 did not be- 
 lieve any one would or could be so unfeelingly pert as to talk, as he 
 has done, of the hypochondriasm of" provincial authors/' except Oc- 
 tavius ( liiclnist; 1 did not think the mean mind of any one in the 
 kingdom could be gratified by a quotation from a professed 
 satire, seriously imputing t( Gall'* and Hate, to the editor of 
 Pope's VV 01 ks, except the mean mind of Octavius Gilchrist. I did 
 not believe that any man in the kingdom could assert, that because 
 I used the words " mixture of gallantry and licentiousness," I as- 
 persed Pope, as guilty of " the grossest licentiousness," except that 
 one man, who, because I said " Pope might have gone a step be- 
 yond decorum" said, I had the " effrontery" to accuse him of 
 ATTEMPTING A RAPE;" which effrontery could only dis- 
 tinguish one man in the kingdom, and no other, and this man was 
 the modest Octavius Gilchrist, Esq., F.S.A. 
 
 There are some more reasons, that justified me in supposing 
 the author of the offensive ribaldry in the London, was the au- 
 thor al.so of the notable criticism in the Quarterly. Whoever the 
 author is, (and he is now not unknown) in some respects, though 
 not in " provincial" conceit and insolence, he might claim kindred 
 with the gentleman who has been so often mentioned. 
 
relative to Popes Works. 45 
 
 For I believed there is no man in England that could fraudulently 
 leave out the " explanation" of a sentence, and then say, Mr. 
 Bowles wanted explaining himself, unless he were akin, in point of 
 reasoning at least, with Octavius Gilchrist, Esq., F. A.S. 
 
 Now, Sir, as you have given me some advice, have the goodness 
 to listen a few minutes to me. I shall not detain you long; and as 
 I may not condescend to reply any further, to a person of your 
 manners and taste, I take this opportunity of making a reply to 
 some observations which you have personally addressed to me. 
 
 I am as ignorant as the dead, of what your meaning is, uhen 
 you speak of my being conscious of some " duplicity" myself, in 
 regard to the publication of Pope's Letters. I am conscious of no 
 " duplicity" I have not the most distant idea of what you mean. 
 The detestation of " duplicity" in any man's character, has ex- 
 posed me to such acrimonious revilings although, when I spoke 
 in the sincerity of my heart, you candidly tell me that what I 
 said, was " HYPOCRITICAL and DESIGNING !" 
 
 Jf I speak of what appear to me as palpable faults, my motives 
 are Hate, &c. If I profess disbelief, Mr. Gilchrist knows my se- 
 cret wishes ! 
 
 As to duplicity, 
 
 yap jxoi xsTvo^, o/xwf a?ao 
 O$ % srsgov jttgy xew0ei ev 
 
 in the translation, (I quote from memory) 
 
 " Who dares think one thing and another tell, 
 My heart detests him, as the gates of hell." 
 
 But Pope's duplicity, not Pope, were the objects of my 
 dislike, and I firmly believed, and do believe him, guilty of it ; 
 and that/acfc clear, positive facts justified this belief. His dis- 
 ingenuousness and his " duplicity/' were the objects of my dis- 
 like, and these I ascribed, to the circumstances of his physical in- 
 firmities and education ; but I could not, I would not, pass 
 them over, in a Life I am called to write, without repro- 
 bation, when 1 think facts prove them. Nor can I ever 
 think they ought to be passed over, much less consecrated, be- 
 cause they formed some parts of the " unamiable" qualities of a 
 great poet. 
 
 If any one can prove that these circumstances, admitted, not on 
 the authority of Johnson or Warton, or any of the " Dunces/' 
 combined against him but, from my own conscientious conside- 
 ration, were untrue ; then, 1 say, 1 shall rejoice as much as you, 
 Mr. Gilchrist, and make " the amplest recompence" 1 can. The 
 
44 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 " Eloisa," alone, is sufficient to convict him of licentiousness, gross 
 licentiousness. Let me now point out to you the difference be- 
 tween a traducer, and him who sincerely states what he sincerely 
 believes. 
 
 The " traducer" writes that deliberately, which he knows is 
 NOT TRUE ; the traducer draws pictures from his own ima- 
 gination, and affirms that, which he is conscious he cannot jus- 
 tify. On this account, I have received from you, at least, not 
 one twentieth part of the candor I have shown ! I have set before 
 the public the passage which you wickedly twist into " attempt 
 at a rape." My " pruriency" and the "anatomical" process, on 
 Pope's "physical infirmities," "so indecent and disgusting in a cler- 
 gyman," you have brought no passage to prove ; and you did right, 
 for it would confound you ! The traducer, then, * ( falsifies" ex- 
 aggerates, and invents. 
 
 1 acquit you of equivocation^ for you are exempted from it bj 
 that which exempted Chartres from HYPOCRISY, namely, by 
 t matchless impudence/' And I would wish you, before you 
 talk of (f innate vulgarity" being a superstratum of affected 
 " gentylness," not to forget that " innate vulgarity," with other 
 qualities I shall not name, may exist, without its superstratum of 
 gentylness, real or affected, and that the character of a conceited cox- 
 comb, is not incompatible with that of a " bully, that lifts its head, 
 and !" Whether you will admit, as Mrs. Malaprop says, this "soft 
 fmpeachment" I know not ; I speak what 1 can prove. An<J 
 be assured, I feel equally indifferent, Mr. Gilchrist, for what your 
 malice can invent, or your impudence utter. 
 
 Whatever your opinion of my calibre, as you quaintly call it, 
 niay be, supposing you may mean my understanding, I am quite in- 
 different I am, I believe, a match for you, at least ! in every 
 thing, except "innate vulgarity ;" and the "Thersites" of the nine- 
 teenth century cannot excite much alarm. There is a compari- 
 son, in your own bard, which might suit you better : 
 
 " Destroy his FIB, or sophistry in vain, 
 The creature's at his dirty work again I" 
 
 but rest assured, I regard with equal contempt, your sophistry or 
 falsehood, " your cob-web, or your poison !" 
 
 One thing has given me concern. I take this opportunity of ex- 
 planation. 
 
 In the small pamphlet to which your's is called an answer, there 
 occurs a passage which might seem to reflect on the patronage a 
 young man has received. 
 
 Nothing could be farther from the writer's thoughts, than any 
 thing that might look like a wish to throw coldness on the pa- 
 tronage, which a poet in poverty and obscurity, has obtained. 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 45 
 
 The observation related, not to the poet, but the critic, whose 
 pompous and pedantic criticism rather injured than promoted the 
 cause of him it was intended to serve. 
 
 I only wish that the hand of patronage could be further ex*- 
 tended. There are many men of genius and talents, whose daily 
 bread is steep'd in tears. Let me here mention the name of Pennie, 
 who has written a sublime poem, on a sacred subject. The name 
 of the poem is the " Royal Minstrel." 
 
 I might here also mention a poor Somersetshire weaver, with a 
 wife and three children, who has written many far from indif- 
 ferent poems, and whose affecting music is heard in half the 
 parish churches, and half the dissenting places of worship, in Eng- 
 land. His name is Shoel, and I was enabled some years ago to 
 get a large subscription for him. Your insinuation, Mr. Gil- 
 christ, that my attentions are directed to the great and affluent, is 
 3 heartless as it is unjust. There are some persons who know us 
 both, who would tell you, that the poor man's cottage, is to him., 
 whom you call the wealthy rector, as welcome as the rich 
 man's palace. 
 
 Your insinuation, and, indeed, direct charge, that because 1 
 think it a public duty to expose your falsehood and injustice, in 
 criticism, 1 am so sensitive a plant, as to criticism in general, that 
 nothing " can content me," is equally untrue; as is your assertion, 
 that it was on account of criticism I once addressed a letter to the 
 Editor of the Champion. 
 
 Mark, how a plain tale shall put you down. I have been a 
 writer occasionally, upwards of thirty years. Whatever criticisms my 
 writings may have encountered, and they have encountered se- 
 verity as well as they have received praise, I never wrote one word 
 in reply in my life, to criticisms, merely as criticisms. 
 
 The letter 1 wrote to the editor of the newspaper, was not on 
 the account of the criticism you allude to. It was indifferent to 
 roe, whether I was represented as going to the fountain of Aga- 
 nippe, or mistaking any other stream for it, as long as it was not 
 the muddy pool at Stamford. As you, Mr. Gilchrist, have brought 
 the story forward, when it had been so long forgotten, with the 
 friendly feelings of showing my " sensitiveness" to criticism, I must 
 set you right. 
 
 I wrote to the editor of the paper where the criticism appeared, 
 because the newspaper which contained it, with ingenious refine- 
 ment, lest I or my friends should be ignorant of the contempt in 
 which I was held, was sent down by a frank,directed to Mrs. Bowles!!! 
 I thought this mode of giving pain to those, whom it would hurt, 
 far more than it did me, was unmanly and ungenerous. As you 
 seem to know so much about a circumstance so trivial, I may 
 
46 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 at last have found out the generous disposition who suggested this 
 little piece of spite. 
 
 It was, on this account, thinking the writer might be the editor 
 of the paper in which it appeared, I wrote to that editor, not on 
 account of the criticism, though I took the opportunity, then, un- 
 doubtedly, to refer, having been treated with such disdain, to the 
 editions of my poems. 
 
 The editor of the paper, of whom I then knew nothing, will tell 
 you the same. ] do, not recollect whether my letter to him was 
 intended to be published. 
 
 ~~ *The other instance, in which I controverted mistake, was in 
 the case of Mr. Campbell. I Jiad been held up by so popular a 
 writer, as having confined all my ideas of poetry to the descrip- 
 tion of external nature ; if you will, to out of door nature. Mr. 
 Campbell believed this on the authority of the Edinburgh Review, 
 as Lord Byron> on the same authority, 1 quoted a line in a perverted 
 sense. 1 never replied to the Edinburgh. I never replied to the 
 Quarterly, where I have before been spoken of harshly. 
 
 It would grieve your heart were I to extract a sentence front 
 Mr. Southey's letter, on the article so often spoken of. 
 
 In one instance, I confess, you have the greatest advantage 
 over me, as the critic in the Quarterly has also ; it is in turning 
 against me, by your quotations, the strength of Lord Byron. 
 
 Your name is not in the English Bards and Scotch Re- 
 viewers, but, perhaps, this, in the lucid language of your coadju- 
 tor, may be "The Triumph OF THE FUTURE!" 
 
 In the mean time I riiust succumb; for, with Lord Byron turned 
 against me, 1 have no chance. How blithly do you and your 
 brother ring the "changes and chimes" " on the MOUTH OF CAN- 
 DOR, AND THE HEART OF GALL ;" On him, 
 
 "who 
 
 Did for hate what Mallet did for hire !" 
 
 on the very wolves being directed to be silent, because, v 
 
 " Bowles to Cynthia howls, 
 " Making night hideous ; answer him, YE OWLS !" 
 
 Now, though I never attempted being at all " too gentyl" to 
 " smack the Satiric thong," I am obliged to do what I can, in this 
 way, and though " beginning late/' I am sure I cannot possibly have 
 a fairer subject. I therefore hereby promise, that, for every twenty- 
 four lines, quoted by you or your friend, from Lord Byron, 1 will 
 greet you with as many from my unpublished poem of the "Gilchri- 
 siad." I cannot call my poem a " Rowland for an Oliver ;" yet, you 
 
 ' The reader will see the reason why the anecdote of Lord Byron was in- 
 troduced. Some incidental remarks were made on the letter to Sir J. 
 Mackintosh. 
 
relative to Popes Works. 47 
 
 will accept it as a first offering of my muse, in this line, of "in-door 
 nature! My "gentyl" verses, it seems, are little to your taste, 
 and therefore, " Sicilides Musae, paulo majora canamus !" we 
 must " begin, and somewhat loudly strike the string !" Listen, . 
 then, Oh Gilchrist ! and let the " owls" of Stamford, or the Quar- 
 terly Review, some of whom have unaccountably roosted there, 
 " answer !" 
 
 What ! shall the dark reviler cry, "oh shame," 
 If one vile slanderer is held up by name! 
 Shall the rank, loathsome miscreant of the age, 
 Sit, like a night-mare, grinning on a page, 
 Turn round his murky orbs, that roll in spite, 
 And clench his fiendish claws, in grim delight; 
 And shall not an indignant flash of day 
 Scare the voracious vampire from his prey ? 
 
 Ye dark inquisitors, a monk-like band, 
 Who, o'er some shrinking victim-author stand, 
 A solemn, secret, and vindictive brood, 
 Only terrific in your cowl and hood ; 
 Yes ! BYRON once more sternly shall arise, 
 Snatch from your grasp the panting sacrifice, 
 Dash in your face the code of bloody law, 
 And lash you with your own red scourges raw ! 
 
 But chiefly THEE, whose MANLY, GENEROUS mind, 
 
 So nobly-valiant, against woman-kind, 
 
 Thinks that the man of satire, unreprov'd, 
 
 Might stab the heart of Her he fondly lov'd, 
 
 And thus, malignantly as mean, apply, 
 
 The ASSASSIN'S vengeance, and the COWARD'S lye ;' 
 
 THEE, whose coarse fustian, strip'd with tinsel phrase, 
 
 Is ek'd with tawdry scraps, and tags of PLAYS; 
 
 Whose pye-bald character so aptly suit 
 
 The two extremes of BANTAM and of BRUTE ;* 
 
 Compound grotesque of sullenness and show, 
 
 The chattering magpie, and the croaking crow ; 
 
 Who, with sagacious nose, and leering eye, 
 Dost " scent the TAINT" of distant "pruriency," 
 
 See observations on Pope's detestable lines about Lady Mary. 
 
 9 See criticism and letter in his own name, ;n the London Magazine. 
 
 D 
 
48 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply. 
 
 Turn every object to one loathsome shape, 
 Hear but " a laugh," and cry, " a RAPE, a RAPE !" 
 Whose heart contends with thy Saturnian head, 
 A root of hemlock, and a lump of lead ; 
 Swelling vain Folly's self-applauding horn,' 
 Shall the indignant muse hold forth to scorn. 
 
 GILCHRIST, proceed, to other hearts impute, 
 
 The feelings that thy own foul spirit suit: 
 
 Round thy cold brain, let loathsome demons swarm, 
 
 Its native dulness into life to warm, 
 
 Then with a visage half-grimace, half-spite, 
 
 Run howling, " Pope, Pope, Pope," howling, bite. 
 
 Reckless, thy hideous rancor I defy, 
 
 All which thy brain can brood, thy rage apply, 
 
 And thus stand forth spite of thy venom'd foam, 
 
 To give thee BITE for BITE, or lash thee limping home. 
 
 The quotations given in the pamphlet which has called forth 
 your particular spleen, were not introduced to gratify any feelings 
 of vanity, but to " grieve the heart" of the " solitary slanderer/' 
 by showing, from unequivocal documents, how much wiser judges 
 and better men differed from him. Virgil may be appealed to, when 
 the " bug Pantilius" decries. 
 
 Mr. Campbell was no " slanderer/' Sir. He misrepresented my 
 sentiments as to poetry, ignorantly ; but he wrote with the courtesy 
 of a gentleman and a scholar. He will confess that he misunderstood 
 my sentiments. Of his other opinions, I can only say, that be they 
 what they may, he will admit that, in the examples produced by 
 him, as far as the poetical criticism was concerned, he did me IN- 
 JUSTICE, as 1 am sure he will acquit me of base motives. 
 
 You misconceived what I said of Mr. Campbell. If he were to 
 enter into a critical examination of every thing I may have a,d- 
 vanced in the Life of Pope, or in the notes to his writings, I 
 should hail the information. I would not attempt to defend 
 what justice should think indefensible. " I would retrace 
 my steps ;" with sorrow, that I had written one word that might 
 be thought derogatory of the fair fame of a man of talents and vir- 
 tues. I would evince my sincerity, by doing Pope " ample" if 
 tardy justice. I would examine, as I profess I have done, but 
 with new application and honorable ardor, the grounds of John- 
 son's and Warton's assertions, and if one single accusation shall 
 be found not tenable, I would blot it out with much more readi- 
 ness than I ever admitted it. 
 
 .Nay, Sir, I would even discuss every point with you, had you 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 49 
 
 evinced a nobler disposition, and less prejudice and rancour than you 
 have shown ; even now if, omitting personal insults, gross exagge- 
 rations, undeserved aspersions, you would bring to the task as much 
 acuteness as you please, but no bitterness, no turning, a step 
 beyond decorum, into- attempts to COMMIT A RAPE, 1 would 
 meet you. 
 
 That a word has appeared, from which you might suppose I 
 alluded with disrespect to your situation in life, I regret indicium 
 id volo but allusions to the private life of a retired clergyman, 
 in which he is held out almost as a crazy hypochondriac, is not cri- 
 ticism, but " railling." Your manner of speaking on the subject of 
 personal allusions is manly; and, as you are not the writer of the ar- 
 ticle in the Quarterly, which many besides myself think, in two or 
 three passages, to look like both " railing and raving," and perso- 
 nally insulting, I assure you, that the passage in the Pamphleteer, 
 which will be thought objectionable, particularly if your first 
 aggression is not considered, shall be left out when the copies of my 
 defence are printed separately. And, if you could as readily be brought 
 to admit that many reflections on me have been far from just, that 
 some representations were not warranted, some language personally 
 irritating, hardly reconcileable with the acknowledged courtesies of 
 literary discussion or fair criticism, then the hope might not be in 
 vain, that whatever I have advanced concerning Pope might be dis- 
 cussed without acrimony, of which, though I have replied to you, 
 in it manner, I think, you deserve. I can confidently affirm I have 
 none ; you would find my acknowledgment of any fault com- 
 mitted, either to the living or the dead, would be as " AMPLE,'* 
 and I should regret it was ever occasioned. And so, I bid you 
 farewell for the present, till I speak of your other answer! 
 
 I shall take a glance at that when these sheets are print- 
 ed. In the mean time, I turn to my original task of discuss- 
 ing the article in the Quarterly Review. Thus then we com- 
 mence : 
 
 Dr. Warton had declared, or, according to the phraseology of 
 this critic, Joseph Warton had the " MERIT of first declaring of 
 Pope, that he did not think him at the head of his profession, and 
 that his species of poetry was not the most excellent one of 
 the art." ' 
 
 Nothing can be more clearly expressed. This is Warton's 
 opinion, and this is mine; and this opinion I have supported 
 in the Principles of Poetry ; and this opinion I think I can easily 
 defend (though I believe that so defined it will be generally ad- 
 mitted) against Doctor Johnson, Mr. Campbell, and this critic. 
 But first, as to what Dr., or, (if the writer pleases,) " Samuel" 
 Johnson, has to say against it : 
 
50 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 * "Johnson, interrogating this critic," that is, Samuel Johnson inter- 
 rogating Joseph Warton, inquired, " If Pope BE NOT A POET, 
 where is POETRY to be found ?" Reader, mark the logical con- 
 sequence. 
 
 " To circumscribe poetry by a definition will only show the 
 narrowness of the definer." " If Pope be not a poet, where is 
 poetry to be found ?" Now, suppose Dr. Warton had said, " the 
 song of the lark is riot the most excellent ; for, melodious as it is, 
 it yields in variety, and compass, and richness, to the song of the 
 nightingale !" would any one, of common sense, think it an answer, 
 to be told, that " if the LARK be not a singing bird, where is a sing- 
 ing bird to be found," when its song was admitted to be only in- 
 ferior to that of the nightingale ? 
 
 Such is the Doctor's logic ! just as decisive of the point at issue, 
 and just as much to the purpose ! 
 
 " -Aye ! but such a definer," adds the critic, " arose in the dis- 
 ciple of Warton, the Rev. W. L. Bowles, \iho has distinguished 
 himself in this IDLE controversy." Now, such a definer did not 
 arise in W. L. B. He was not so absurd as to attempt " circum- 
 scribing" poetry, to ONE species, and to that ONE SPECIES 
 ALONE ! He never thought, and never implied he thought, that 
 Pope was riot a poet, or that any definition would exclude him 
 from a most high order ; but, when vague claims were made, as 
 they now are, respecting his absolute supremacy in the art not his 
 line of art the Rev, W. L. Bowles thought, and does think, with 
 his master, not that Pope was not a poet, a poet the most finished 
 and most excellent in his order, but that his order was not the 
 highest in poetry. 
 
 I must here also observe, that I did not enter into this) " idle 
 controversy" voluntarily, but was forced into it, in the first place, by 
 Mr. Campbell's totally misrepresenting my statements. 
 
 I proceed to consider the other authority which this critic ad- 
 vances, namely, that of Mr. Campbell, for whose opinions on any 
 subject, none has greater respect than myself. The sentence in 
 which the authority of his name is produced is this : 
 
 " Mr. Bowles opens his observations on the poetic character of 
 Pope, with two regular propositions: that IMAGES drawn from 
 what is SUBLIME or BEAUTIFUL in Nature are MORE poetical, 
 (PER SE, in the original, that is, ABSTRACTEDLY) than images 
 drawn from art, and that passions are more adapted to poetry than 
 ARTIFICIAL manners." 
 
 This is my proposition, which I think unanswerable, and I am 
 obliged to the writer for being so far fair, in this one instance, as 
 not to leave out the latter part of the sentence. This is my po- 
 sition, and I think it unanswered and unanswerable. 
 
r dative to Popes Works. 51 
 
 Far the sake of clearness, I shall restate the grounds of my 
 opinions. 
 
 " All images drawn from what is BEAUTIFUL or SUBLIME in 
 the WORKS of NATURE, are more beautiful and sublime than-Xiy 
 images drawn from art, 1 and they are therefore, PER SE, (abstract- 
 edly) more poetical! In like manner, those PASSIONS of the 
 human heart, which belong to NATURE in general, are 'per se' 
 more adapted to the higher species of poetry than those derived 
 from INCIDENTAL and transient manners 1" 
 
 I have not Mr. Campbell's Specimens at hand, and as I am now 
 answering the critic in the Quarterly Review who brings the pas- 
 sage against me, I must take the words before me. 
 
 " Mr. Campbell judges, that the exquisite description of arti- 
 ficial objects and manners is NOT LESS (than what ? not LESS 
 POETICA.L than exquisite descriptions of nature ! No such thing;) 
 EXQUISITE DESCRIPTIONS of artificial objects are not less 
 CHARACTERISTIC of GENIUS than the description of simple 
 physical appearances ! ! " 
 
 In the first place, Campbell never knew I had spoken of ft pas- 
 sions," as the most essential part of the higher order of poetry : 
 he took his opinions at second-hand, from the Edinburgh Review. 
 The critic here confines himself to the first part of my proposition. 
 Instead of answering even this part, he says, the " exquisite descrip- 
 tion" of works of art is not less characteristic of genius than de- 
 scriptions of simple PHYSICAL APPEARANCES ! Doubtless ! 
 but one half, and that the most essential, of my proposition, is en- 
 tirely omitted, and the other half mistaken. Why all this veering 
 in the critic of the Quarterly ? Why not take the plain words of 
 the proposition, and answer " negatur f" 
 
 Without talking of " exquisite description" of arts, as " charac- 
 teristic of genius," will any one deny, that " images, drawn from 
 what is SUBLIME or BEAUTIFUL in the WORKS of NATURE, 
 are MORE beautiful and sublime than any images drawn from art, 
 and therefore, per se, abstractedly, MORE POETICAL ?" Will this 
 critic deny this ? Then, why confound the proposition, by talking 
 of " characteristics of genius ?" 
 
 I used the words per se, designedly, to show that, let works of 
 art be as sublime or beautiful as they might, images drawn from 
 what is SUBLIME or BEAUTIFUL in NATURE, that is, from .the 
 great and beautiful works of the .Almighty, are MORE so, and 
 therefore more poetical. 
 
 What would be the most exquisite description of Mr. Camp- 
 bell'* ship, abstractedly, as a poetical object, in comparison 
 
 1 This is an axiom, not a " theory." 
 
52 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 with the description of the same ship, in conjunction with the 
 elements of nature ? This I have shown ; nor have 1 said any 
 thing as to the point whether the " exquisite description' 9 of this 
 otykiet or of that, is " most characteristic of genius !" I spoke of 
 the invariable principles of poetry. An " exquisite" painting on a 
 snuff-box may be, for aught I have said to the contrary, as charac- 
 teristic of genius, so far as exquisite skill goes, in that line ; but the 
 most exquisite skill in that line cannot make a painter so eminent 
 in all that relates to the higher orders of his art, as the cartoons con- 
 ceived by the genius, and EXECUTED by the hand of a Raphael ! 
 
 1 turn from Dr. Johnson and Mr. Campbell to my critic. I will 
 show more fairness to him than he has shown to me, by tran- 
 scribing, word for word, not " splitting sentences," the whole lu- 
 minous passage in which he displays so triumphantly his consum- 
 mate analytical powers of philosophy and criticism. Let us put on 
 our spectacles. 
 
 " It is clear to us that a theory, which frequently admitting every 
 " thing the votary of Pope could desire, to substantiate the high ge- 
 " niusof his master, yet terminates in excluding the poet from ' the 
 highest order of poets/ must involve some fallacy ; and this we 
 presume we have discovered in the absurd attempt to raise ' a cri- 
 terion of poetical talents.' Such an artificial test is repugnant to 
 the man of taste who can take enlarged views, and to the experi- 
 ence of the true critic. In the contrast of human tempers and 
 habits, in the changes of circumstances in society, and the conse- 
 quent mutations of tastes, the objects of poetry may be different 
 indifferent periods; pre-eminent genius obtains its purpose by its 
 adaptation to this eternal variety ; and on this principle, if we 
 " would justly appreciate the creative faculty, we cannot see why 
 " Pope should not class, at least in file, with Dante, or Milton. It 
 " is probable that Pope could not have produced an ' Inferno/ or 
 " a ' Paradise Lost/ for his invention was elsewhere : but it is 
 " equally probable that Dante and Milton, with their cast of mind, 
 * ( could not have so exquisitely touched the retined gaiety of ' the 
 "Rape of the Lock." 
 
 " It has frequently been attempted to raise up such arbitrary 
 " standards and such narrowing theories of art ; and these ' crite- 
 " rions' and * invariable principles' have usually been drawn from 
 " the habitual practices and individual tastes of the framers ; they 
 " are a sort of concealed egotism, a stratagem of self-love. When 
 " Mr. Bowles informs us that one of the essential qualities of a 
 f( poet ' is to have an eye attentive to and familiar with, (for so 
 " lie strengthens his canons of criticism) ' every external appearance 
 f( of nature, every change of season, every variation of light and 
 tf shade, every rock, every tree, every leaf, every diversity of hue, 
 
relative to Popes Works. 53 
 
 *Mfcc.;' we all know who the poet is that Mr. Bowles so fondly de- 
 " scribes. 1 ' Here, Pope/ he adds, ' from infirmities and from phy- 
 " sical causes was particularly deficient.' In artificial life, ' he per- / 
 " fectly succeeded ;' how minute in his description when he describes 
 " wliatKe* is master of! for instance, the game of ombre in the 
 " Rape of the Lock. Jf he had been gifted with the same powers 
 " of observing outward nature, I have no doubt he would have 
 " exhibited as much accuracy in describing the appropriate beauties 
 " of the forest where he lived, as he was able to describe in a man- 
 " ner so novel and with colors so vivid a game of cards/ It hap- 
 " pened, however, that Pope preferred in-door to out-door nature ; 
 " but did this require inferior skill or less of the creative faculty than 
 " Mr. Bowles's Nature ? IqJPope's artificial life we; discover a 
 " great deal of nature ; and injRuvBowIes's nature, or poetry, we 
 " find much that is artificial. On this absurd principle of definition 
 " and criterion, Mr. Wordsworth, who is often by genius so true a 
 tc poet, is by his theory so mistaken a one. Darwin too ascertained 
 " that ' the invariable principle of poetry/ or, in his own words, 
 " ' the essence of poetry, was picture/ This was a convenient prin- 
 " ciple for one whose solitary talent lay in the minute pencillings 
 (( of his descriptions ; and the idea was instantly adopted as being 
 " so consonant to nature, and to Alderman Boydell, that our author- 
 t( painters now asserted that if the excellence of a poem consisted 
 " in forming a picture, the more perfect poetry would be painting 
 " itself: in consequence of this ' invariable principle of poetry/ 
 " Mr. Shee, in his brilliant ' Rhymes on Art' declared that ' the 
 <e narrative of an action is not comparable to the ' action itself be- 
 " fore the eyes/ and Barry ardently exclaimed, that ' painting is 
 tf poetry realised !' To detract from what itself is excellent, by 
 t( parallels with another species of excellence, or by trying it by 
 " some arbitrary criterion, will ever terminate, as here, in false cri- 
 " ticism and absurd depreciation." Quarterly Review. 
 
 I beg the reader attentively to peruse this passage, which is so 
 luminous, in comparison of my " mystic dreams," and which exhibits 
 such powers of logical and accurate discrimination. I might say, as 
 Chillingworth did, when he heard that Knox, the Jesuit, was en- 
 gaged in controversy against him, 
 
 Si Pergama dextra 
 Defendi possent, etiam hac defensa videbo ! 
 
 Having let my lucid annotator speak for himself, I proceed to 
 set before the reader the whole of my positions, which he has gar- 
 bled so dishonorably. 
 
 I 1 had in view only descriptive poets, and of these, particularly, Thomson 
 and Cowper ! so that there was no " concealed egotism" in the matter. 
 
54 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 " I presume it will readily be granted that ( all images drawn 
 " from what is beautiful or sublime in the works of nature, are 
 f< MORE BEAUTIFUL and SUBLIME than any images drawn from 
 " art/ and that they are therefore, per se, MORK poetical. In like 
 " manner, those passions of the human heart, which belong to nature 
 " in general, are, per se, more adapted to the HIGHER * p KG i us of 
 " POETRY, than those which are derived from incidental and tran- 
 " sient manners. A description of a forest is more poetical than a 
 " description of a cultivated garden ; and the- PASSIONS which are 
 (e pourtrayed in the epistle of an Eloisa, render such a poem more 
 " poetical, (whatever might be the difference of merit in point of 
 " execution) intrinsically more poetical than a poem founded on the 
 " characters, incidents, and modes of artificial life ; for instance, the 
 " Rape of the Lock. If this be admitted, the rule by which we 
 <c would estimate Pope's general poetical character would be ob- 
 ({ vious. Let me not, however, be considered as thinking that the 
 " subject alone constitutes poetical excellency : the execution is to 
 te be taken into consideration at the same time ; for, with Lord 
 tc Hervey, we might fall asleep over the ' Creation* of Blackmore, 
 <( but be alive to the touches of animated satire in Boileau. The 
 " ' subject* and the ' execution* (of that subject) therefore, are 
 " equally to be considered ; the one respecting the poetry, the other 
 " the art and powers of the poet. 1 The poetical subject, and the art 
 " and talents of the poet, should always be kept in mind ; and I 
 " imagine it is the want of observing this rule that so much has 
 <e been said, and so little understood, of the real ground of Pope's 
 " character as a poet." 
 
 The second proposition, that is, " passions," &c. follow the first, 
 which I have called " consecutive" because it follows, and does not 
 go before ! and I used the word u illustration," because I thought 
 it best, (lest it should be misunderstood) to show the distinction to 
 be kept in view between " subject and execution," by Blackmore 's 
 epic and Boileau's satire ; and this I called the illustration. And 
 now, let us turn our attention to the " illustration" which this writer 
 throws on the subject ! to whom " consecutive," " illustration," 
 " subject," and " execution," are expressions " so mysterious." 
 
 And first, I would ask any one, who compares my general passage 
 with that in the Quarterly, to say, bonajide, which he thinks the most 
 obscure the most like a " Muggletonian dream?" Any one, in 
 half a moment, could perceive that, in speaking of the " execution" 
 of a poem, I spoke figuratively, having taken the expressions " sub- 
 ject" and " execution" metaphorically, from the art of painting. 
 
 1 It will be observed I have spoken of the skill and talents of the poet, 
 but only as far as regards " execution.'*. 
 
relative to Popes Works. 65 
 
 I will not insult the reader's understanding by supposing he is igno- 
 rant of the meaning of the terms employed to define " execution/' 
 The wprds are familiar to every artist and almost every common 
 reader. Need I say what is the execution of a poem ? The whole 
 performance. The disposition is the distribution of the several 
 parts. The contrast of light and shade, the effect produced by 
 opposing one part to another, as the gloom and u darkness visible" 
 of the infernal abyss is contrasted with the heavenly light, in 
 Milton. Relief, light and shade, contrast, colors of expression, 
 animation, &c. are all taken figuratively from one and ' tlie same 
 art,' painting, and are common expressions of criticism. See John- 
 son, Pope, &c. 
 
 It is really almost an insult to the commonest understanding, to 
 explain these phrases ; nor would so ingenuous an opponent hare 
 dared to have talked such nonsense, if, with " duplicity," worthy his 
 favorite poet, he had not cut off the connecting links of the pro- 
 position. 
 
 Any dictionary would tell him " execution" meant the " per- 
 formance" of any thing ; and we can scarcely believe our senses 
 when, in a book like the Quarterly Review, we read " what Mr. 
 Bowles says of the execution of a poem, is as dark to us as a 
 problem of algebra/' 
 
 " it is not his logic we quarrel with," &c. 
 
 It is left to the reader's judgment to determine, which of the pat- 
 sages quoted is the most like " problems in algebra." For myself, 
 I -liave repeatedly applied my opticks to the endeavouring, if 
 possible, to extract a little light from the " darkness visible** 
 of the critic's definitions, which seems to me, " confusion worse 
 confounded/' It seems also doubtful, whether artful sophis- 
 try, and wilfully perplexed and perplexing chicanery, had not 
 created this " confusion ;" " now to sense, and now to nonsense 
 leaning ;" but 1 am almost persuaded that nothing but sheer, ab- 
 solute muddiness of intellect could have caused it. 
 
 And now to apply to the logic before us : 
 
 " It is CLEAB to us, that a theory, which frequently admitting 
 
 " every other votary of Pope, could desire to substantiate the high 
 
 " genius of his master, yet terminates in excluding the poet from 
 
 " ' the highest order of poets,' must involve some fallacy /(^which 
 
 /^commencement seems to imply, that if a poet is admitted to be 
 
 " of a very high order, he must therefore necessarily be also of the 
 
 ^"HIGHEST ORDER !' But the logician^ sagacity is not long be- 
 
 " fore it begins to perceive the 'fallacy !j and this we presume we 
 
 (( have DISCOVERED in the absurd attempt to RAISE A CRi- 
 
 "' TER10N OF POETICAL TALENTS/' 
 
 As 1 have never said any thing aboul *' criteriou," farther than 
 
56 Rev. W. L. Bowles* Reply 
 
 concerned the " execution" of a poem, I presume, the critic is not 
 a jot nearer discovering the fallacy, if fallacy there be, than he was 
 before ! 
 
 From the " fallacy," which the critic presumes he has discover- 
 ed, he goes on rapidly. " Such an artificial test is repugnant 
 t( to the man of taste, who can take ENLARGED views, as to the ex- 
 " perience of the TRUE CRITIC !" Quarterly Review. 
 
 The " theory," of which this "TRUE CRITIC" has found the 
 , fallacy next becomes an " artificial test ;" and now the " fallacy" 
 and " artificial test" are thus summarily and satisfactorily proved, 
 by those who have " such enlarged views!" 
 
 Reader, 
 
 Attentis auribus adsta! 
 
 tc In the contrast of human tempers and habits, in the changes of 
 circumstances in society, and the consequent MUTATION OF 
 TASTES, the OBJECTS of poetry MAY BE DIFFERENT in diffe- 
 rent periods !!" Indeed ! 
 
 /^ I marvel then, what could have made Homer the ETERNAL 
 / FATHER OF POETRY, amidst all contrast of human tempers and 
 habits, in all changes of society, in all mutations of taste. But 
 we must not interrupt the now rapidly running stream of this 
 frothy and shallow sophistry. 
 
 Contrast of t( tempers and habits, changes of circumstances in 
 society, mutation of tastes !" These, not passions, imaginations, 
 affections, are the most sublime and beautiful objects of poetry, 
 and these are all changeable, as changes of, society, and mutation 
 of et taste" operate] There are, at least, some objects of poetry, 
 which are not different in different periods ! What does the TRUE 
 CRITIC think of the SUN and MOON ? of the te MORNING STARS," 
 that shouted together at the birth-day of the world, and glow 
 in their watches, from that hour to this ? 
 
 But tame objects as these are, and so often seen, and by 
 so many generations, and magnificent as are all the mighty 
 works of God, on the earth and in the heavens, these are 
 nothing to the love of variety, which fills this in-door critic's 
 exalted views ! " Pre-eminent genius, we are told, attains its pur- 
 pose by its adaptation to this eternal variety ; (the eternal variety 
 of habits, tastes, 8tc.) and now for u quod erat demonstrandum;" 
 thus, my "fallacy" being overturned, the opposite principles 
 being readily granted that the objects of poetry are mutable, not 
 eternal, as mutable as " habits and fashions" then we jump to 
 the conclusion, which thus instantaneously follows ! " On this 
 "principle, if we would JUSTLY APPRECIATE the creative fa- 
 
relative to Popes Works. 57 
 
 " culty, WE CANN OT see why Pope should not class, at least in file, 
 " with Dante and Milton !" Quarterly Review. 
 . '^"Wtrtfe'enT this matter well made oul, J> said 'John the Saint/ 
 to 'Mat/ in Prior's witty fable of 'Erie Robert's Mice !' and if our 
 readers think it as well " made out" by such "fallacies" as these, 
 such vague declamation, and such baseless arguments, a la bonne 
 heure ! 
 
 In the mean time, not to impede the career of this "true" cri- 
 tic's triumph, let us see what follows. 
 
 " It is PROBABLE Pope could not have produced an Infer- 
 no, or Paradise Lost." (Probably not :) " for his invention lay else- 
 where :" (undoubtedly, and among subjects less poetical ; but) it 
 " is equally probable that MILTON and DANTE could not have 
 "so exquisitely touched the refined gaiety of the Rape of the 
 " Lock !" Probably not ; but Dii boni, what a discovery ! who 
 would have surmised, that Milton and Dante, WITH THEIR CAST 
 of MIND, could not so exquisitely have touched the refined gaiety 
 of the " Rape of the Lock!" Therefore, is Pope of " \he same Jile 
 with Milton and Dante!" 
 
 Even for this last thought, the writer is indebted to one, whose 
 criticism he holds so cheap ; though I should never have thought of 
 applying the observation as is here done, that because Milton 
 could not write the Rape of the Lock, and Pope could not write 
 Paradise Lost, one poet was in the same file with the other ! 
 
 Merely to show that some great critics may borrow of those 
 " whose principles" they affect to despise, 1 extract a note to 
 Pope's Rape of the Lock, from the last edition. 
 
 " This poem is founded, however, upon local manners, and of all 
 " poems of that kind, it is undoubtedly far the best ; whether we 
 " consider the exquisite tone of raillery, the musical sweet- 
 " ness, &c. of the versification, the management of the story, 
 " or the kind of fancy and airiness given to the whole : but 
 " what entitles it to its high claim of peculiar poetic excellencies ? 
 "The powers of imagination, and the felicity of invention, dis- 
 " played in adopting, and most artfully conducting, a machinery 
 " so fanciful, so appropriate, so novel, and so poetical. The 
 " introduction of Discord, &c. as machinery in the Lutrin, is 
 " not to be mentioned at the same time. Such a being as Discord 
 " will suit a hundred subjects ; but the elegant, the airy sylph, 
 
 ' Loose to the wind, whose airy garments flew, 
 Thin glittering textures of the filmy dew, 
 Dipt in the richest tincture of the skies, 
 Where light disports, in ever mingling dyes;' 
 
 " Such a being as this is suited alone to the identical and peculiar 
 
58 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 " poem in which it is employed. I will now go a step farther in 
 " appreciating the elegance and beauty of this poem ; and I would 
 " ask the question: Let any other poet, Dryden, Waller, Cowley, 
 " or Gray, be assigned this subject, and this machinery : could 
 " they have produced a work altogether so correct and beautiful t 
 " from the same given materials ? Let us, however, still remem- 
 ] *' ber, that this poem is founded on local manners, and the em- 
 " ployment of the sylphs is in artificial life; for this reason the 
 tl poem must have a secondary rank, when considered strictly and 
 */ <c truly with regard to its poetry. Whether Pope would have 
 '"" excelled as much in loftier subjects, of a general nature, in the 
 " high mood of Lycidas, the rich colorings of Comus, and the 
 st magnificent descriptions and sublime images of Paradise Lost; 
 " or in painting the characters and employments of aerial beings, 
 
 ' That tread the ouse of the salt deep, 
 Or run upon the sharp wind of the north/ 
 
 " is another question. He has not attempted it ; I have no doubt 
 " he would have failed ; but to have produced a poem infinitely 
 t the highest of its kind, and which no other poet could perhaps 
 i " altogether have done so well, is surely very high praise. The 
 \ " excellence is 
 *' understood 
 
 "'Sumite, materiem, &c."' BOWLES'S POPE. 
 
 I give this extract for you to ponder on ; in the mean time, 1 must 
 ask, why do you say I have pronounced the " subjects" of Pope's 
 poetry not poetical ! Why, in the language of that entertaining 
 book, the " Quarrels of Authors," " perplex controversy by a 
 SUBTLE change of a word?" This art you have studied with 
 the greatest success, as you have so well and so admirably illus- 
 trated it, (in another place of this identical criticism, which will 
 be hereafter spoken of,) " by breaking up of a sentence,'* or 
 contriving some ABSURDITY in the shape of inference, to get rid 
 of it in a " MOCK TRIUMPH ! I" 1 
 
 Now if, in this illustration of the " subtle arts," by which " con- 
 troversy is perplexed," you had not left out, subtile/y, one small 
 
 An example of all these arts is shown in this very criticism of the 
 
 i -.-, . i *.* i i 11 ^_1 _!',/"_ 
 
 \\ t excellence is Pope's own, the inferiority is in the subject ; no one 
 
 vcvi'^vi v/fv/v- 1.17 ju L/f-'U' w \j\AS9V) vrvv Vfvm \*9 /v * L */ "^ *"* 't/^ 
 
 understood better that excellent rule of Horace, 
 
 ig "explained 
 
 sentence which explains him is entirely left put; and this is done, by 
 " contriving some absurdity, in the shape of an inference, to get rid of it by 
 a mock triumph //" Who that observes these arts, does not instantly ex- 
 claim, These little weapons, against the laws of war, are insidiously practised 
 in THIS WAR OF WORD* !! QUARRELS OP AUTHORS, page 99. 
 
:*SH ^OfT 
 
 relative to Pope's Works. 59 
 
 word, consisting of two letters "(so)," my meaning would not have 
 been " perplexed," nor would such disingenuous modes of meeting 
 a question have assumed for a moment the appearance of a?/' mock 
 triumph!" Have the goodness to insert the little word "so," 
 which you thus subtilely left out, and you will not do injustice to 
 me or the public ; for my meaning will then be (to which I ad- 
 here, notwithstanding all such profound arguments aV~you have 
 brought against it) that the "subjects" of satires are not "so POE- 
 TICAL" as those subjects which appeal to the imagination and 
 passions. 
 
 And if this be admitted, it would follow, that a poem might 
 be in its " execution" (a word which, together with " subject," 
 though so " dark" to this logician, I have taken from POPE'S 
 POSTSCRIPT to the Odyssey!) complete, as to design, plan, 
 contrast of light and shade, relief, animation, &c. and yet not 
 be so poetical as a GREATER "subject," treated with powers 
 of " execution," in every respect equal to the " subject ?" 
 
 Then, it would follow that the " Rape of the Lock," though, 
 in point of its peculiar fancy and consummate " execution," it 
 be the most perfect work of the kind in any language, might yet, 
 in point of poetry, remain for ever inferior to such a poem as 
 the Paradise Lost, as much as tfie beautiful " Belinda," sur- 
 rounded by white-gloved beaux, on the bosom of the silver Thames, 
 in the summer sunshine, and whilst the sails are fanned by the wings 
 of sylphs, is a picture, though delightful and poetical, far less poetical 
 than that, when 
 
 " The planets in their stations listening stood, 
 AS THE BRIGHT POMP ASCENDED JUBILANT." 
 
 PARADISE LOST. 
 
 Now, hear me ! You say, " we presume, we have found the 
 'fallacy' of Mr. Bowles's theory /" Without presuming at all, I 
 will point out the fallacy of your's in two minutes. It is in con- 
 fining the invariable principles of poetry to the " criterion 1 ' of 
 talents, and in supposing I ever conceived that " manners," &c. 
 might not be poetical, when all I said was, that PASSIONS were 
 MORE so. 
 
 No criterion of talents, as talents, were spoken of or intended. 
 I confined myself to the " Principles of POETRY," reckoning the 
 more serious as the more sublime, pathetic, or beautiful ; and there- 
 fore, the most accordant to the higher class of poetry. But, in this 
 article, no discrimination is made, either from ignorance or coir=" 
 fusion of ideas, between the province of epic poetry and that of 
 tragedy or comedy, between poems or novels, I might almost say, 
 between verse and prose; for, " if talents were to be made a cri- 
 terion;" they would apply as much, undoubtedly, to the description 
 
60 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 of manners, as to the pourtraying of passions. Nay, to produce 
 such a poem as Hudibras, or such a history as Don Quixote, 
 would evince certainly as much talents as to produce the Fairy- 
 Queen. But, in which would you look for the most essential 
 poetry ? Whom would you call the greatest poet ? 
 
 But the very argument dereats itself. For, if " fluctuating 
 manners and habits 1 ' are subjects as poetical as works of the imagina- 
 tion and passions, the representation of these manners and habits 
 can never be perfectly understood, or the propriety of the repre- 
 sentation felt, except during the period in which they prevail. 
 As such manners and habits fluctuate, the representation of them, 
 however interesting at the time, must lose the greatest part of its 
 charm. Is this the case with Homer, or Sophocles, or Euripides, 
 where the axa^arov TrDp never expires ? Is this the case with Theo- 
 critus, whose xaAa rl^ea, &c. are at this moment as beautiful and 
 fresh as when they were first transcribed from living nature ? These 
 poets remain, and these will remain, whatever " habits" or " man- 
 ners" may prevail at different periods, and whatever generations 
 may rise or pass away on the face of the globe. 
 
 " By the consent of the critics, (says Dr. Johnson) the FIRST 
 praise of genius is due to the writer of an epic poem, as it requires 
 an assemblage of all the powers which are singly sufficient for any 
 other compositions." 
 
 Now, the Doctor did not take into consideration the "exe- 
 cution," or performance, of the said epic ; and therefore, according 
 to his general consent, Black more must be a greater poet than 
 Pope ! But this I deny ; and must refer the reader (and 1 would 
 also refer the critic, if he could understand it) to what I before had 
 written, concerning the subject and execution of a " poem." 
 Whatever Dr. Johnson might have thought of the " universal 
 consent of the critics" had he lived to see certain criticisms in the 
 Review we speak of, he would have found some radicals in 
 their profession, who cared not a jot for this " universal consent ;" 
 who confounded epic, tragic, tragi-comical, comic, elegiac, " IN- 
 DOOR and out-of-door" nature, the province of morals, novels, and 
 farces ; and asserted that, to the writer of moral epistles and satires, 
 the first praise of genius is due, quoad poetry, as much as to the 
 writer of the epic, and that, therefore, Pope may be, notwithstand- 
 ing his avowed preference of in-door nature, of the " SAME FILE" 
 WITH MILTON AND DANTE !! I 1 
 
 1 This definition, I think, (pace dixerim) is not quite accurate; for, in my 
 opinion, it would have been more just to have said, " the highest praise of 
 poetry is due to the successful writer of an epic poem." 
 
 Dr. Johnson speaks with accurate distinction, and with his usual sense and 
 eloquence, when he says, tf Paradise Lost is a poem, with respect to design, 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 61 
 
 " To laugh were want of decency and grace, 
 But to be grave exceeds all power of face !" 
 
 According to this " discovery," all the critics before this super- 
 lative one may as well hide their diminished heads, ancient and 
 modern ; but this indeed in your own clear and explicit phrase will 
 ''BE THE TRIUMPH OF THE FUTURE!" In the meantime, 
 Homer will remain on his " throne of ADAMANT;" for it must be 
 indeed the triumph of the future that would place on the same 
 throne the most poetical writer of moral essays or satires the 
 world ever produced. 
 
 The principles of poetry, in this sense, are INVARIABLE and 
 
 ETERNAL. 
 
 If the higher principles of poetry be thus eternal, it follows that 
 he who exerts his talents on the highest poetical subject ; he who 
 sustains a flight equal to that subject ; who, in pursuing it, executes 
 the high conception that " speaks with an everlasting voice ;" he 
 who thus conceives and executes a great and transcendental sub- 
 ject, will stand superior to him who may have displayed as much 
 judgment and powers of execution on r. gayer and more evanescent 
 subject ; and therefore Milton, and Dante, and Homer, and Shak- 
 speare, must stand in the intrinsic excellence of their art, superior 
 to Pope, though they could not have described as well the subject 
 he has treated so exquisitely. 
 
 As the critic cannot see why Pope may not be classed in the 
 same file with Milton and Dante, we can only wonder, whilst he 
 was so animated with his subject, that he had not also put 
 him in the same file with Homer and Sophocles, for he might 
 with as much propriety have done one as the other. 
 
 And now, Sir, one more word about " principles of poetry." 
 Do you think that there is any art which is not founded on 
 (< some invariable principles l " There are " invariable princi- 
 ples of painting, invariable principles of poetry, and let me whisper 
 to you, in every honest mind, " invariable principles of criticism," 
 two of which are, not to deal dishonestly and fraudulently with the 
 arguments of the writer whose opinion you controvert ; not to cut 
 the sentences in halves, and think to te reply" to them 
 
 " By a fool-born jest." 
 There is another " invariable principle 1 ' of criticism, which ought 
 
 which may claim the FIRST place, and with respect to performance, the 
 second, among the productions of the human mind. His * subject' is the 
 fate of worlds, and the revolutions of heaven and earth ! 
 
 ject arid execution," I may ju 
 
 GREAT work there are vicissitudes of luminous and opaque" parts." LIFE OP 
 
 MILTON. ' 
 
62 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 to be constantly kept in mind. It is this, " not to write on a sub- 
 ject, till you know a little about it !" 
 
 As to my own " principles of poetry/' suffer me to try once 
 more to set you a little right. Darwin's principle of trying poetry 
 universally by painting, is limited and confined indeed ; for, by 
 such a criterion, the highest part of poetry, which relates to the 
 imagination and passions, must be excluded. But, with respect to 
 the principles you combat, being limited and confined, nothing was 
 ever so remote from the truth. 
 
 The eye of the poet may be truly said to glance from 
 
 " Earth to heaven, 
 From heaven to earth." 
 
 The ideal and visible world are his province. In the ideal, 
 beings of imagination, connected with images of terror, power, 
 glory, beauty ; such as " ride the storm/' or " play in the plighted 
 clouds," wake at his bidding. In the visible world, objects and 
 pictures, the most magnificent, or the most lovely in the works of 
 God, are before him, all passions, and affections, and emotions, 
 and sympathies of the neart, are the great poet's peculiar objects. 
 The principles, then, I have built on, when closely examined, will 
 be found^To"T5eThose of Longinus and Horace ; which are derived 
 primarily from ETERN AL NATURE, But works of art, which can 
 only belong to the " visible diurnal sphere/' are not excluded; 
 these, however, become poetical, as they associate more or less 
 with ideas of power, magnificence, beauty, all of which have their 
 origin in NATURE. Thus " the aqueducts, temples, obelisks, of 
 which Milton has made so fine a use, become more poetical, as 
 combined with moral associations or picturesque effect. 
 
 To these succeed high moral satire, habits and manners, and 
 characters of artificial life, which may be in the master's work, 
 mixed and combined, almost ad infinitum. 
 
 But as poetry approaches this province, it necessarily assumes 
 more the character of wit. And to show that this opinion will not 
 be the " TRIUMPH OF THE FUTURE/' as this writer affectedly 
 calls it, I will quote only one passage from* that critic, who was the 
 great sublime he drew, and who was, at least, as true a critic as 
 himself : 
 
 " I have digressed thus far, for the sake of showing, as 1 observed 
 before, that a decrease of the pathetic in great orators and poets 
 often ends in the MORAL KIND OF WRITING. Thus the Odys- 
 ey, furnishing us with rules of morality, drawn from that course 
 of life, which the SUITORS lead in THE PALACE OF ULYSSES, 
 has in some degree the air of a COMEDY, where the various 
 MANNERS of men are INGENIOUSLY and FAITHFULLY DE- 
 SCRIBED/' Longinus. 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 63 
 
 < The reader will see from the sketch I have drawn, that the 
 works of art and manners of men are not they were never thought 
 of being excluded from the province of poetry ; but be they as poe- 
 tical as they may, the greater passions are^twore so, and I only con- 
 tend for this. As to my definition being limited, I would request to 
 know whose definitions of poetry are most limited, those which are 
 bound by the yastness of heaven, or those wjiich are confined 
 to four walls ? 
 
 Now, I repeat, nothing was said by me about " a criterion of 
 talents !" It is probably as difficult to write a good comedy ag 
 a fine tragedy to paint a Falstaff as a Lear. Pope found it more 
 difficult to translate those parts of Homer which were least poe- 
 tical ; but it is not these that placed Homer on his eternal throne. 
 It may require, for aught I know, as much talents to describe in 
 the Odyssey the (i habits and manners of the suitors/' and their 
 " in-door nature " but where does the poetry (in the last books) 
 lie?~Every one will instantly exclaim, in the half-famished dog 
 that recognises his old master, and dies, having seen him ; in the 
 affectionate wife, bending over the bow of her long-lost husband ; 
 in that husbapd, after so long an absence, a forlorn stranger in 
 his own hall, essaying and bending it ; in the cottage of Eumaeus, 
 &c~ These are scenes, upon which the feelings rest. By my 
 tf theory/' as the critic calls it, which is only common sense, no- 
 thing is excluded. Pictures, passions, characters, manners, habits, 
 morals, have all their places. But the characteristic difference as 
 far as poetry is concerned, is pointed out. 
 
 As I have mentioned the Odyssey, and 'what Longinus has so 
 justly said, I may here make some observations on this subject, as 
 they connect themselves with what has been before laid down. 
 
 The Odyssey, indeed, as Pope truly says, is not to be compared 
 with the Iliad. " The poems are totally different, but both are mas- 
 ter-pieces in their kind." Nor is the Rape of the Lock to be com- 
 pared with the Paradise Lost; but when uncertain claims are made, 
 these works are to be taken into consideration, whether epic, tragic, 
 dramatic, moral, or pathetic, which plage the poet HIGHEST in, 
 his art.* 
 
 ' We may hsre observe a remark of Pope on this passage, in his po-t- 
 sc.ript to the Odyssey. Of Longinus he says, " that in his own parti- 
 cular taste, and with respect to the SUBLIME, he (Longinus) preferred the 
 Iliad,"&c. 
 
 But Pope adds this particular distortion, <f that Horace gives the prefe- 
 rence rather to the Odyssey, in the Epistle to Lollius, and in the Art of 
 Poetry!" 
 
 It appears tome that Pope seemed to feel that the criticism of Longinus, 
 pn the sgbjime in poetry ? and what he said of the inferiority' of manners ty 
 
 E 
 
<54 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 Associations of Nature may be varied, combined, mixed, almost 
 to infinitude, yet the basis be the same, as to poetical principles, 
 which are referred through all, to the source of what is sublime, 
 beautiful, and pathetic; and thus, the eternal line of poetic excel- 
 lence will NOT " be defined by some arbitrary criterion" nor will 
 the inquiry terminate "in false criticism and absurd depreciation," 
 but by unvarying principles of " JUST CRITICISM and FAIR AP- 
 
 PRECIATION." 
 
 Having thus examined in return this critic's " Theory," 
 let me be indulged in comparing what he calls " Mr. Bowles's 
 
 \ 
 
 passions, touched his own character as a poet, who certainly was more dis- 
 tinguished for painting " manners than reaching the great sublime of his 
 art ; and therefore he covertly brings in Horace's opinion, which he thinks is 
 in favor of a poem, considerable part of which is-founded on manners. 
 
 But Horace, in what he said of the Odyssey, either in the Epistle to Lol- 
 lius, or in the Art of Poetry, had not in view poetry, but morals only. In the 
 Epistle to Lollius, who appears from the text to be a young 'man likely to be 
 led away by his passions, he especially points out the example of virtue and 
 wisdom: how Ulysses a. oided the cup of Circe, and turned from the song of 
 the Syrens ! Then h'j proceeds to speak of the intemperance of the suitors, 
 &c. Morals and nee poetry were the objects of this epistle, addressed to a 
 young man, who chus might learn from his own early studies, not so much 
 the lessons of ta^te, but what he more needed, regulation of conduct. In the 
 Arc of Poetry, Tfhen Horace speaks particularly of the unassuming introduc- 
 tion of the Odyssey, in opposition to the, bombast style which he reproves, 
 *he fixes the imagination directly on the poetical parts of the Odyssey, aris- 
 ing from an humble beginning, like fire rising from smoke, and expressly 
 says of Homer, that from hence he draws 
 
 " speciosa miracula, 
 Antiphaten, Scyllam, et cum Cyclope Charybdin.'' 
 
 And Horace has not left unrecorded his precise definition of poetry, 
 when he says so distinctly, 
 
 " Neque, si quis scribat, uti nos, 
 Sermoni propiora, PUTES hunc esse Poetam. 
 Ingenium cui sit, cui rnens divinior, atque os 
 Magna sonaturum, des NOMINIS HUJUS HONOREM.'' 
 
 And he brings an example more particular still, that there might never be 
 a misunderstanding of his meaning in appreciating the high rank of the 
 Father of Poetry: 
 
 " Non, si priores Masonius tenet 
 Sedes Homerus, Pindaricae latent, 
 Ceaeque et Alceei minaces, 
 
 Stesichorique graves Camcenae. 
 
 Nee, si quid olim lusit Anacreon, 
 
 Delevit atas; spirat adhuc amor, 
 
 Vivuntque commissi calores 
 
 ^Eolise fidibus puelliE." 
 
 Now, would any one think, that because Horace gave the first place 
 to Homer, he "depreciates," or sought to depreciate, the exquisite beauty of 
 Sappho? 
 
relative to Popes Works. 65 
 
 Nature," and what 1 may surely call his IN-DOOR NA- 
 TURE. 
 
 " Nature," he profoundly observes, " is a critical term which the 
 Bowles's have been two thousand years EXPLAINING !" 
 
 Who and what the Bowles's are, I know as little as this 
 philosopher, when he " sits down to square trn circle," knows 
 of Nature ; but this I am sure, the family of the Bowles's are 
 honored by the remark, in as much as they may be considered 
 lovers of the great prototype of all that is sublime or beautiful in 
 art. 
 
 If any " explanation" were necessary, the Bowles's need not be 
 consulted, when even in criticism, the expressive language was at 
 hand, from authority that will not be doubted : 
 
 " &* 
 
 " First, follow NATURE, and your judgment frame 
 
 By her just standard, WHICH is STILL the same. Q^jfi**^ 
 UNERRING NATURE, still divinely bright, /j / 
 
 One clear, unchanged, and universal light, vjHP-*-,$ 
 
 Life, force, and beauty, must to all impart, 
 At once the SOURCE, and END, and TEST, of 4 ART ! !" 
 
 Essay on Criticism. 
 
 This general opinion, thus admirably and elegantly expressed, 
 will be quite sufficient to justify me in what I have laid down, 
 even if it should not be so clear as I wish to make it, to this critic ; 
 and if the BOWLES'S have been for twx> thousand years ringing 
 chimes and changes on the term " Nature," they may well imagine 
 the " Gilchrists," and perhaps some few others, may indeed hope 
 to succeed in their "favorite studies of squaring the circle" be- 
 fore they can comprehend it certainly they must look beyond that 
 <l Nature' 9 which is bounded by " four walls !" and which, blind 
 to the magnificence of Nature all around them, they facetiously de- 
 signate as " In-door" Nature, and think a poet, who preferred this 
 Nature, to be in the same FILE with Homer, and Shakspeare, and 
 Milton, and Dante ! 
 
 At all events, my meaning having been so grossly, and I believe 
 wilfully, perverted, I would here address some explanatory obser- 
 vations 'to the reader. .Any attempt to illustrate these principles, 
 which I thought every one would instantly admit, must be foolish 
 to a person who declares that subject, and execution, of a poem, 
 are dark as mystic dreams I therefore take this opportunity of 
 making a few more general observations on this subject : 
 
 Mr. Campbell made an unfortunate appeal to Milton, with re- 
 spect to his having, in his sublimest parts of Paradise Lost, drawn 
 imagesfrom art. I hope to be excused, if, in speaking on this point, 
 I examine somewhat more closely Milton's examples in general. 
 
 There are some passages which, without considering the cause, 
 strike almost every reader with a kind of instinctive and involun- 
 
66 Rev. W. L. Bowles* Reply 
 
 tary dislike. Some of these passages will perhaps instantly occur. 
 Who does not draw back with peculiar distaste, from those passa- 
 ges, where the Satanic army bring their great guns charged with the 
 gunpowder ! Why is this ? Because an image from art is brought 
 too close, and too immediately and distinctly to our view ! The 
 same may be said, when the Creator applies the " golden com- 
 passes" to mark the orb of the world ! The image is taken 
 from art, and brought too distinctly into our view! The same may 
 be said, when Death and Sin build a "bridge" from Hell to this 
 world ! 
 
 These images from art are all too manifestly and too minute- 
 ly in sight. But this is not the case in general, where Milton 
 introduces images from art. They are placed before us, if 1 may 
 say so, by a single evanescent touch you are not left to dwell on 
 them and most commonly some epithet is added to generalise 
 them w r ith higher imagery. 
 
 Thus, if the trumpet is mentioned, an indistinct grandeur is 
 given to it by the epithet "the ARCHANGEL trumpet." The 
 wheels of the brazen chariot are alive " The madding wheels 
 of brazen chariots raged." 
 
 If Satan lifts his shield, it is the " rocky orb of vast circum- 
 ference." The " swords" are fier>" the shields" " two 
 
 BRIGHT SUNS, THAT BLAZE Opposite." 
 
 The adjunct, generally from some magnificent object in Nature, 
 thrown in, subdues what has a too mechanical appearance, and 
 this tends to exalt the image as well as to prevent the imagination 
 dwelling too minutely on it. 
 
 I cannot expect to make myself understood by the critic ; but 1 
 think the general reader will clearly perceive the justice of my re- 
 mark. Gold the most precious stones, are often added as epi- 
 thets, where the naked image from art wants exalting in other 
 cases, a word is joined for the sake of taking off and shadowing, if I 
 may say so, the too distinctive glare of an artificial image. 
 
 It is for want of attending to this nice propriety, (which in Mil- 
 ton, with the exception of some passages, appears instinctive,) that 
 Cowley is generally so absurd in his imagery, as when he makes 
 Art and Nature coachman and postilion, &c. 
 
 If Cowley had used the image of the angel unfurling Satan's 
 standard from the " staff" he would, probably, have so minutely 
 described it as to have revolted us. Milton scarce touches the image ; 
 but how does he instantly exalt it, by associating it with the most 
 striking and awful image from Nature ; 
 
 " a Cherub tall, 
 
 Who, forthwith, from the glittering staff unfurl'd 
 The Imperial ensign, which, full-high advanced, 
 - Shone, like a meteor, streaming to the wind,"' 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 67 
 
 The building of Pandaemonium is associated with ideas of super* 
 earthly POWER. When it rises 
 
 " LIKE AN EXHALATION, to the sound 
 Of dulcet symphonies," 
 
 every thing accords with the ideas of immense size and grandeur. 
 
 Is not this in some measure destroyed, when Milton speaks 
 more minutely of pilasters, and Doric pillars, and architraves, and 
 cornice, and frieze ? And how repulsive is the image (it is to me) 
 of Belial himself digging out the gold, pounding the ore, and scum- 
 ming the dross ; and the simile of the " sound-board," and row 
 of pipes of the organ ! 
 
 One image is peculiar, and very sublime, in the use of an image 
 drawn from art^ where Satan 
 
 " above the rest, 
 
 In shape and gesture proudly eminent, 
 Stood, LIKE V A TOW'K." 
 
 Here is an instant image of immoveable strength : but if the 
 "" tower" had been particularised, by one stroke introducing bat- 
 tlements, pinnacles, corbels, &c. the image would have lost so 
 much grandeur ; but the " stood, like a tower," at once conveys a 
 distinct idea of stately and immoveable strength, by one word; and 
 it may here be observed, having spoken of the " sounding-board'' 
 of an organ, that almost all musical instruments, as sounding, (not 
 otherwise,) are poetical. Why ? Because the sound instantly assi- 
 milates itself with some kindred feeling or passion- as the flute with 
 tenderness, the viol with sprightliness, the trumpet with heroic ani- 
 mation. Scott, of Amvvell, has made a fine and original use of 
 the drum by the association of sadness and pity 
 
 " I hate that drum's discordant sound, 
 Parading round, and round, and round." 
 
 The late Mrs. Sheridan has given to the sound " of the violin" 
 a poetical feeling, which is as new as beautiful and affecting, where 
 she speaks of her brother, bringing forth those tones that live be- 
 yond the touch ! x 
 
 " Ah ! who, like him, can teach the liquid notes 
 
 So soft, so sweet, so eloquently clear, 
 To LIVE BEYOND THE TOUCH, and gently float 
 
 In dying modulations on the ear?" 
 
 I throw out N these ideas, more as hints than critical exa- 
 minations " At some still time, when there may be no chiding," 
 1 may pursue the subject at large, and with reference to all arts ; 
 'but it will be sufficient just to have touched 611 this subject here. 
 But let us look a little farther abroad. 
 
 Take any work of art, how little, abstractedly 'considered as 
 
68 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 a work of art, can you make it POETICAL, without adjuncts 
 from Nature ? 
 
 Take useful or decorative architecture, statuary, pictures, 
 carvings, music, bridges, aqueducts, canals, &c. 
 
 Take an elegant mansion, or an old abbey : It would be ridi- 
 culous to aay which, as an object, is most poetical. Undoubt- 
 edly that which is rendered more interesting by various moral 
 associations and picturesque beauty. Time, that leans on the 
 reft battlements, brings with it a thousand associations of sub- 
 limity and melancholy. These are most poetically affecting ! Even 
 external adventitious circumstances of Nature make the picture 
 more peculiarly and intensely interesting : 
 
 " Scarce a sickly straggling flower 
 
 Decks the rough castle's rifted tower." WAKTOK. 
 
 " He, who would see Melrose aright, 
 
 Must see it by the pale moonlight." SCOTT. 
 
 But, one of the finest pictures of modern poetry, where Nature 
 makes the works of art so much more effectually poetical, is to 
 be found in the Gladiator dyin^ in the Coliseum, who remembers, 
 as he dies, t( the scenes of his infancy, the hut of his mother, 
 on the banks of the Danube." 
 
 " I see before me the gladiator lie : 
 
 He leans upon his hand his manly brow ; 
 
 Consents to death, but conquers agony, 
 
 And his droop'd head sinks gradually low : 
 
 And from his side the last drops, ebbing slow 
 
 From the sad gash, fall heavy, one by one, 
 
 Like the first of a thunder shower; and now 
 
 The arena swims around him. He is gone 
 
 Ere ceased the inhuman sound which hail'd the wretch who won. 
 
 " He heard it, but he heeded not. His eyes 
 
 Were with his heart, and that was far away : 
 
 He reck'd not of the life he lost, nor prize ; 
 
 But where his rude hut by the Danube lay, 
 
 There were his young barbarians all at play, 
 
 There was their Dacian mother. He, their sire, 
 
 Butcher' d to make a Roman holiday ! 
 
 All this rush'd with his blood. Shall he expire, 
 
 And unaveng'd ? Arise, ye Goths, and glut your ire !" 
 
 In the " Faithful Shepherdess" of Beaumont and Fletcher are 
 two similes, immediately succeeding each other, which I mention, 
 because one is from a beautiful image in nature, the other from a 
 common one of human art 
 
 " Holy virgin, I will dance 
 Round about these woods as quick 
 
 AS THE BREAKING LIGHT, and prick 
 
 Down the lawns, and down the vales, 
 Faster than the WIND-MILL SAILS I" 
 
relative to Popes Works. 69 
 
 It is the " sails careering in the wind" that gives such poetical 
 effect to the last image. How exquisite is a picture from the 
 finest poem of the present age 
 
 " It was the hour 
 
 Of vespers, but no vesper-bell was heard, 
 Nor other SOUND, than of the passing stream, 
 Or stork, who, flapping with wide wing the air, 
 Sought her broad nest upon the SILENT tower." SOUTHET. 
 
 A clock, as a work of art abstractedly, is not very poetical ; but 
 its sound at night is poetical in the highest degree: more so 
 when associated with the moral feelings of nature the time 
 past the time perpetually going ou Why is this ? Because we 
 hear the sound 
 
 " As if an angel spoke." 
 
 A striking circumstance of this kind is to be found in 
 Wilson's City of the Plague. The clock is motionless ! There 
 is no poetry in this circumstance, abstractedly; but how deeply, 
 how affectingly, is it rendered poetry, when the circumstance that 
 has caused it to cease is taken into consideration, and is felt 
 to be the strongest proof of the death and silence of a multitu- 
 dinous city almost devastated ! 
 
 This point is so certain, so clear, that I feel almost lessened in 
 self-estimation, that it should appear necessary to bring any proof 
 of what ninety-nine men in a hundred, of common sense and taste, 
 acknowledge and feel. 
 
 No exquisite description can make a water-mill as poetical as a 
 water-fall ; but when the pencil of nature works with it, how de- 
 lightfully is it touched ! 
 
 " Not so, where, scornful of a check, it leaps 
 The mill-dam, dashes on the restless wheel, 
 And see, where it has hung the embroider'd banks 
 With forms so various, that no powers of art, 
 The pencil, or the pen, may trace the scene." 
 
 Even a lady working a pattern is made poetical, when 
 
 " the well-depicted flow'r, 
 Wrought patiently, into the snowy lawn 
 Unfolds its bosom : buds, and leaves, and sprigs, 
 And curling tendrils, gracefully disposed, 
 Follow the nimble finger of a fair, 
 A wreath that cannot fade," &c. &c. 
 
 The two greatest works of art that are introduced in ancient 
 poetry ;are the carved cup in Theocritus, and the shield of 
 Achilles in Homer. But how is the description of these works of 
 art rendered more peculiarly poetical, by animating them, by 
 
70 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 making the objects represented in them live, and become as if a 
 part of Nature ! The dead carving is not remembered when we 
 see the old fisher, with his swelling muscles, near the gray rock, 
 not on the cup, but as in the very landscapes of Nature. It is the 
 same in the shield : the creation, the sun, the moon, the concourse 
 of citizens, the shepherds, &,c. all are represented, not as in dead 
 art, but as living and jnoving. And it is this necessity of losing as 
 much as possible the idea of the work of art, and fixing the eye and 
 thought on the works of Natiire herself, which give the only inte- 
 resting and most poetical charm. 
 
 It is a curious fact, that this positiofi has been disputed, and only 
 in those two literary journals in which we have been taught to look 
 for the principles of criiical investigation. 
 
 The first, the Edinburgh Review, now admits what it at first did 
 not. At least, in the review of Campbell's Specimens, it is said, 
 
 u They incline to my opinion !" I have no doubt, the more 
 they think of, or the more Mr. Jeffrey thinks of it, the more he 
 will be inclined to admit it. I have the same opinion of the most 
 intelligent writers of the Quarterly Review, and indeed of every 
 one, except that " unfortunate wight" who was permitted to " fret 
 bis hour upon the stage," to talk such strange nonsense about 
 " In-door Nature ! !" 
 
 Having thus written to those who know more than himself, I 
 shall now point out, by way of apology for representations that may 
 be to him as Muggletonian dreams, some images both from Art and 
 Nature, which himself may estimate. 
 
 Cowley calls Nature a. postilion, and Art a coachman: 
 
 " Let the postilion, NATURE, mount, and let 
 The coachman, ART, be set " 
 
 Co wJey, Vv hose " language of the heart" we still love, notwith- 
 standing these vagaries, seems very fond of images drawn from the 
 in-door nature. So he says, speaking of the l< blue sky," which 
 would make an admirable waistcoat for an arch-angel : 
 
 " He cuts out a silk mantle from the skies, 
 
 Where the most sprightly azure pleas'd the eyes." 
 
 A rainbow also forms a most elegant scarf, adapted and fitted, 
 from the same pattern, with the same scissars of art: 
 
 " Of a new rainbow, ere it fret and fade, 
 The choicest piece CUT OUT, a scarf is made." 
 
 Horace says, 
 
 " NATURAM expellas furca, tamen usque redibit," 
 
 and even here, in spite of Cowley's bad taste, which I have no 
 doubt the critic will approve, NATURE steps in, and comes with 
 
relative to Popes Works. 71 
 
 the beautiful image, amidst all this wretched verbiage of " the. 
 rainbow, ere it fret and fade!" 
 
 To turn from the poet to the critic. I have no doubt some of 
 the images from art here brought together, have been much more 
 clear to you, and much more satisfactory, than the " dreams," of 
 which our extracts from works of poetry were before filled. 
 
 Thus, Art, the postilion, and Nature, the coachman, and the 
 angel in a new cloak of SKY-BLUE, must have been images pro- 
 bably congenial to your heart ; and who can leave the subject with- 
 out endeavouring to impress on your imagination, that perhaps the 
 znost sublime image of all the works of " in-door nature," is that 
 " king of shreds and patches" who once, for a sight of " rural 
 nature," went as far as BRENTFORD ! and as this heroic per- 
 sonage is doubtless, of all images of " in-door," the most sublime* 
 so the " bird" which attends him, though not so sublime, as " mi- 
 nistrum fulminis alitem" must be admitted, of all images of in-door 
 Nature, to be the most beautiful. 
 
 This bird, that in poetical beauty tf arches its head" more than 
 Milton's swan, is vulgarly called a goose; and if the terrible be 
 thought as necessary for this poetical assemblage, " Hell" yawns 
 from beneath, 
 
 Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo ! 
 
 As 1 would have the critical admirer of the SUBLIME and BEAU- 
 TIFUL and TERRIBLE of " in-door" nature, to be like the Lon- 
 ginus of Pope, 
 
 " The great sublime he draws," 
 
 I know not how I could better please him, than by comparing him 
 with that emblem of <( in-door" beauty attendant on its triumphant 
 master, and generally described " as hot as heavy," the GOOSE !! 
 
 Begging the reader to pardon this involuntary association, I must 
 proceed to expose, not criticism, but that which is worse than ab- 
 surdity > the utter destitution of all feelings fair and honorable as a 
 controversialist. I must expose a species of duplicity, which has 
 no example in the character of him whom this writer defends, 
 and whom, I fear, from the soreness which he evinces, when some 
 obvious parts of his character are touched, he more nearly re- 
 sembles. 
 
 Reader, in the " Invariable Principles of Poetry/' this passage 
 occurs : 
 
 " Now I would put to you a few plain questions ; and I would 
 beseech you not to ask whether 1 mean this or that, for I think you. 
 must now understand what I do mean. 1 would beseech you also 
 not to write beside the question, but answer simply and plainly 
 whether you think that the sylph of Pope, " trembling over the 
 
72 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 froth of a coffee-cup," be an image as poetical as the delicate and 
 quaint Ariel, who singe 
 
 " Where the bee sucks, there lurk I," 
 or the elves of Shakspeare 
 
 " Spirits of another sort, 
 That with the morning light make sport." 
 
 " Whether you think the description of a game of cards be as 
 ppeticalj supposing the execution in the artists equal, as a descrip- 
 tion of a walk in a forest ? Whether an age of refinement be as 
 conducive to pictures of poetry, as a period less refined ? Whether 
 passions, affections, &c., of the human heart, be not a higher source 
 of what is pathetic or sublime in poetry, than manners and habits, 
 or manners that apply only to artificial life ? 
 
 " If you agree with me, it is all I meant to say ; if not, we dif- 
 fer, and always shall, on the principles of poetical criticism" 
 
 1 believe most sincerely that every reader, without exception, 
 will understand my meaning in the passage, when taken to- 
 gether. 
 
 But the critic in the Quarterly Review takes the first sentence, no 
 more then makes a poor and affected banter, that tf Mr. Bowles 
 wants explaining, himself ;" when, but for this his dishonest and 
 dishonorable stratagem, no one would or could have doubted his 
 meaning ! 
 
 This is the perfect exemplification of what Mr. D'Israeli calls 
 " breaking up a sentence," for the base purpose of securing a mo- 
 mentary " mock-triumph." Are such " arts" of criticism, well as 
 they seem to be understood by Mr. D'Israeli, worthy a scholar a 
 gentleman ? worthy a publication as distinguished as the Quarterly 
 Review ? 
 
 If this be criticism, how easy it is to be a critic ! But we must 
 add, how unprincipled must a critic be also ! And well might this 
 same writer say, " We suspect Mr. Bowles does not like cri- 
 ticism !" 
 
 Such criticism, connected with such mean stratagems and disho- 
 nest arts, he " DOES NOT LIKE," and trusts he never shall; when, 
 to be a critic, in this sense, all feelings of honor must be sacrificed 
 to a kind of vaporing professional jargon, and what argument can- 
 not effect, personal insults may ! 
 
 What this " TRUE CRITIC, of ENLARGED views," calls 
 " FASHIONABLE CRITICISM," is, in general, equally abhorrent 
 from the principles of every upright man ; and, distinguished as 
 are some of the masterly and eloquent articles in the Quarterly 
 Review^ as far/ as poetry and works of taste are concerned, the 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 73 
 
 writers have at least evinced their sincerity in one respect, that is, 
 to have " NO PRINCIPLES** at all ! either in poetry or criticism. 
 
 " Others for plots and underplots may call, 
 
 Here's the best system, have ntf plot at all." CHURCHILL. 
 
 An " harmony" of the poetical criticisms in the Quarterly Re- 
 view Would, indeed, form the most amusing illustration; that it 
 would be best to have " no principles" at all of poetical criticism, 
 much less " invariable principles," for which such disdain is ex- 
 pressed. 
 
 I am at least sure, that, from the harmonious criticisms on 
 poetry, in this Review, a most admirable comment might have been 
 produced on Horace's Humano capiti cervicem eguinam. 
 
 Most true, Mr. Bowles does not love criticism, and still less, 
 Such as this. But perhaps, as he has at last, in self-defence, set 
 about trying his hand at a satire, it might not be too late, seeing 
 how much he is pressed, and what opponents he has to deal with, 
 to try. his hand at criticism ! He need not go far for an example 
 in the art, to learn, at least, a first lesson. 
 
 From page 109 of this Review, he might learn how to " mis- 
 take," how to " omit," how to " pretend not to understand/' how 
 to deal in the language of insulting flippancy ! From page 110, 
 he might learn " sophistry and chicanery." From page 111, he 
 might learn that peculiar charm of personal insult which consists, 
 either in having tried to exhibit him as a knave or a fool, or in show- 
 ing him to be merely " half-crazy !" 
 
 Having thus replied to what appears most essential in the Quar- 
 terly criticism, I would willingly part with my Reviewer, but a few 
 words-more may be added on his concluding observations respecting 
 the poetical character of him whose life and writings have caused 
 these animadversions. 
 
 It is said, " In vain would our populace of poets estrange them-|tX r 
 selves from Pope, because 
 
 " He stoop'd to truth, and moralised his song." 
 
 Answer. W here b<e stoog'd toj^ulji^ and moralised his song ! his 
 province is no longer that of imagination and passion ; it is, and it 
 must be, (< truth and morals," and not " imagination and passion," 
 the highest sources of poetry of the terrible, sublime, pathetic, 
 and picturesque. But who, " among the populace of poets" would 
 " estrange" themselves from Pope, I know not. Hejbas attained 
 an unquestioned, unrivalled place, in his own line of poetry, from 
 which, I should pity any one who could wish or attempt to remove 
 
 him.. His excellence in his art is unrivalled, and 1, for one, have 
 
 admitted that he stands before every poet in his line of art, ancient 
 or modern, before Juvenal or Horace, as a satirist. 
 
M Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 Is Horace no great poet ? Is Juvenal no great poet ? Are Ovid, 
 Tibullus, Catullus, no great poets ? 1 have already said, and I must 
 repeat again, his Eloisa stands as much above the elegies of Ca- 
 tullus, Tibullus, and Ovid, as his Satires are above those of Juvenal 
 and Horace. Will the reader believe I have said this distinctly and 
 unreservedly before ? 
 
 If, in looking over what is remarked specifically of the Satires, 
 I have dwelt too much on his bitter tone of personal invective, it 
 \vas not for want of feeling his beauties, that I did not say more, 
 but because I thought, on these points, any thing I could say would 
 be superfluous, as it was excellence that all admitted. " Estranged" 
 themselves ! I have endeavoured to show upon what principles 
 his line of poetry could not be pronounced the most excellent, 
 whilst Homer, and Shakspeare, and Sophocles, and Euripides, 
 live ; and to prevent that confusion, which often arises when we 
 pronounce that this poet, or that painter, is at the head of his art! 
 The " estrangement" never has, and never will take place. 
 
 Not only among the " populace of poets," but among all who 
 have any discriminating sense and taste ; who, whilst they know what 
 distinguishes Milton and Dante, know also what distinguishes Pope; 
 who read him, and recur to him, as much- v as they do who think he 
 Is " disparaged ;" who have admitted, and cheerfully admit, " that 
 he carried his art, as far as poetry is an art, to the highest point of 
 excellence," as far as his own excellence, in his own line, was con- 
 cerned j that all who went before, in this line, never reached, and all 
 who come after, probably never will reach, this excellence ; thatjie. 
 will still remain unrivalled, for "the correctness and delicacy of his 
 taste, as well as the vigor of his judgment," that in " poetical ex- 
 pression" and versification (with some abatements in the latter), he 
 will be superior, as long as poetical expression and exquisite versi- 
 fication distinguish his species of excellence ; but that, nevertheless, 
 " nature," not manners, passion and imagination, not " truth," 
 or morals, will afford the highest specimens of the works of a 
 great poet, in spite of Quarterly Reviewers and all the family of 
 Gilchrists 1 
 
 I have now gone through all the most material points, which I 
 had to urge, against charges advanced in the most popular literary 
 journal in the kingdom. If I have spoken, in the first pait of this 
 vindication, with a degree of earnestness which might appear in- 
 compatible with the occasion, the candid reader will remember the 
 gross injustice I had before received from the supposed author, 
 and the impression under which the defence was written. The 
 points of the vindication, I think and believe, will be found sub- 
 stantiated ; and, as a general summing up of all that has been ad- 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 75 
 
 vanced, I here wish to leave on the reader's mind the following 
 short statement of the leading circumstances : 
 
 Respecting his moral character. That motives of " hate/' im- 
 puted to me, have not been proved, and / disclaim them. 
 
 That, be the motives what they may, the charge that I have 
 <s been prompted to surmise away EVERY AMIABLE CHARAC- 
 TERISTIC of the poet/' is FALSE ; as is the particular charge of 
 my " aspersing" Pope, for " taking bribes to suppress satires !" 
 
 That, the charges of " SORDID money-getting PASSION, the 
 WORST OF TEMPERS, the most rankling envy," &c. are exag- 
 gerations. 
 
 Respecting Pope's poetical character Whether I were right or 
 wrong in my positions, as to external Nature, or moral associations, 
 connected with physical appearances, or imagination, or passions, 
 as higher sources of poetry than ethics, habits, or manners, that 
 the poet who preferred " in-door" nature, or, in other words, " na- 
 ture within four walls" could not be, for that very reason, " on 
 the same file with Milton and Dante/' the region of whose ima- 
 gination was not bounded by the magnificence or beauty of the 
 visible world, and who, in the execution of far more transcend- 
 ently sublime and terrible subjects (Milton at least), was eqijal in 
 skill, design, colors of expression, &c. with him who so success- 
 fully employed all these points of execution in a department less 
 intrinsically poetical. 
 
 That none of the arguments advanced in the Invariable Prin- 
 ciples of Poetry, as laid down in a letter to Campbell, were an- 
 swered, or attempted to be ; but a mere " mock-triumph," to use 
 Mr.D'Israeii's expressions, gained for a moment by the writer affect- 
 ing to misunderstand arguments that were clear, or purposely and 
 evasively confusing them ; or, totally passing them over with flip- 
 pant contumely, equally unmanly in the writer to resort to, as it 
 was ill in union with the high character of the journal in which 
 they appear. 
 
 These are the main points of my defence. 
 
 Upon these I confidently rest, hoping, ho\Vever, if this appeal 
 should be noticed by the Quarterly Review, that these plain posi- 
 tions will be plainly answered, before I am attempted to be 
 borne down by sarcasms and affected irony, which prove nothing, 
 and which I think, and hope, neither my character, nor any lan- 
 guage used in this vindication, considering the manner in which I 
 have been treated, deserve. And I have only to add, that I end all 
 1 had to say of the criticism in the Quarterly Review, with feelings, 
 such as, [ hope, would not prevent any future kindness and better 
 Understanding between the critic and myself. 
 
SEQUEL, 
 
 Addressed to OCTAVIUS GILCHKIST, ESQ. F.A.S. 
 
 I WOULD here willingly have concluded every thing I had to say, 
 but the reptile which first defiled the London Magazine, is HERE 
 again ! 
 
 " Ecce ITERUM CRISPINUS r 
 
 I shall not go on with the other part of the quotation, nor will his 
 ravings probably be noticed further by me. I therefore here be- 
 stow ten minutes* attention to his second <( Answer to Bowles," 
 merely to show, how impotent his malice is, and how easily I 
 could put my foot, not in anger, but disdain, upon his head, as 
 " old Noll HAS IT!!" 
 
 Having given a lash, as I felt compelled to do, to a rabid and 
 slaver'd barker, I should have turned from him in disdain, but this 
 liberal opponent has now pointed out the particular passage, which 
 he ought to have done before, upon which he builds the " inven- 
 tion of attempt at Rape !" 1 have resolved therefore, again, re- 
 luctantly indeed, to meet him. 
 
 He is to thank himself, if I attributed the last daring charge 
 to the words a " step beyond decorum/' as he is cautious, in these 
 things at least, of comparing his charges with the proof and I 
 must say, having weighed the two passages tf presuming too far," 
 and a *' step beyond decorum," 1 thought the latter passage would 
 appear the most direct of the two. He now produces the proof 
 of this " invention" of mine. The proof is, that I had said, "he 
 might have presumed too far, and was repulsed. Pope then pre- 
 sumed too far, and was repulsed, " Therefore, &c." he ATTEMPT- 
 ED to COMMIT a Rape !! ! 
 
Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply, Sfc. 77 
 
 What an insult is this conclusion, not to me, but to common de- 
 cency and common sense ! This worse than " whimsey of the 
 brain" could not have entered into the thoughts of one human 
 being, I verily believe, save that of a Gilchrist ! Well might he 
 say, " more is meant than meets the EAR !" Among the various 
 ways by which a man may be thought to have " presumed too far, 
 and been repulsed/' besides that alone, which suits Mr. Gil- 
 christ to imagine, I shall select one instance from testimony to 
 which he will not object, to show that something short of the 
 " worse than whimsey," that has entered into his brain, may 
 have entered the thoughts of others. The following passage is 
 extracted from the Quarterly Review : 
 
 " In his letters to her Ladyship, the stages of his EROTIC FE- 
 VER may be noted by the statements of the patient himself: per- 
 haps it was AT ITS HEIGHT when, speaking of the congeniality of 
 their minds, the TORMENTED POET put his case to her hypotheti- 
 cally, " if she can overlook a wretched body." We conjecture that 
 this was the precise moment when a " RUDE BURST OF LAUGH- 
 TER awoke him from the PARADISE OF FOOLS!" Quart. Rev. 
 
 Has Mr. Bowles written this the prejudiced, the uncharitable 
 Mr. Bowles has he spoken of this " EROTIC FEVER," AT ITS 
 HEIGHT, towards another man's wife? has he made Pope appear 
 thus absolutely ridiculous, thus contemptible? No It is the 
 friend, who afreets to accuse Mr. Bowles for " aspersing" Pope ; 
 and yet there is not the least thought of " a RAPE !" 
 
 Mr. Gilchrist's last pamphlet certainly requires some examination. 
 Previously, however, to calling the attention of the reader to this 
 wretched farrago of pretended arguments and other animadversions, 
 which he has made on my vindication in the last Pamphleteer, I 
 shall make a few general reflections. 
 
 If Spence's Pope be different from Bowles's, Spence's Pope is 
 different from D'israeli's ! (see Quarrels of Authors). Spence's 
 Pope, to be sure, is different from Bowles's Pope ! It would be 
 strange if it were not. Spence's Pope, was the partial exhibition of 
 the poet, all placidity and smiles, in his own parlour, or upon his 
 own lawn surrounded by those who hung upon every word 
 who caught every syllable with anxious admiration; Pope, thus 
 caressed and idolized, without one circumstance that could inter- 
 fere to irritate his temper, or excite his resentment, must be very 
 different from Pope mixed with the world, and viewed under all 
 the circumstances of life. But what is an impartial historian, or one 
 whose object is impartiality, to do ? Can he take the picture from 
 partial contemplation alone ? Then he would be a fulsome panegy- 
 rist, not an honest and conscientious biographer. Pope must be 
 represented as he appeared; arid under all circumstances, and in every 
 
78 Rev. W. L. Bowles 1 Reply 
 
 point of view. If the biographer \vas convinced by bringing the cha- 
 racter as much as possible into a general view, that it exhib r - 
 ed shades which could not be hid, he would neither magnify nor 
 seek to hide them, much less would he think that defects ought 
 to be consecrated, because they belonged to an eminent poet. Pope 
 had, doubtless, many amiable qualities, and some sufficiently una- 
 miable. It was not amiable to be " possessed with an Erotic Fe- 
 ver" for another man's wife ! It was not " amiable" in a sly man- 
 ner to talk of congeniality of souls, if a a crazy body could be 
 overlooked!" It was not amiable, by the confession of this "Erotic 
 fever," to " presume" so far, that a "loud laugh" awoke him from 
 the Paradise of Fools. It was not amiable to indulge his f< vin- 
 dictive malice against the woman he Joved," under any provo- 
 cation. 
 
 Having premised these things generally, I shall now speak more 
 particularly of that reasoning, and those proofs, which Mr. Gil- 
 christ has brought against the vindication in the Pamphleteer, and 
 shall address them, by way of more direct reply, and under sepa- 
 rate heads, to himself. 
 
 Taking bribes to suppress satires. I have said, speaking of 
 " taking bribes to suppress satires," that "IF TRUE/' it was most 
 atrocious, and it ought notybr (t moment to be admitted, without 
 other testimony than that of the Walpoles ! 
 
 Now, one writer concludes upon this, that " 1 have aspersed' 
 Pope for taking bribes to suppress satires! and the other, that, 
 let me say what I will, my object was apparent that 1 wished to 
 believe it ! that Mr. Gilchrist knows my heart better than I know 
 it myself. He has not convinced me, nor I hope any one, but the 
 most prejudiced of the family of the Gilchrists. The first charge 
 is false, that I aspersed Pope for taking bribes to suppress satires ; 
 and the other, I am content to leave to less infallible and more 
 tolerant judges. 
 
 But " I must haye known, the story could not be true ;" and 
 why revive it ? To be cross-examined by a person of the spirit of 
 Mr. Gilchrist, is not very agreeable, but I have no hesitation to 
 tell him - 
 
 I did not know that it could not \>e true, nor do I know it now. 
 
 Mr. Gilchrist has said it was published many years after Pope 
 was gathered to his fathers. (I speak from recollection.) I know 
 it was published in the complete edition by Warburtqn, two years 
 after Pope's death ; but 1 refer Mr. Gilchrist to the account of 
 that edition, by Warburton ; see preface to it. Pope in his last 
 moments superintended it ; every piece was admitted, or rejected, 
 under his own eyes ; and therefore, to all intents and purposes, 
 } 3 ope, admitting the character of Atossa for insertion, publishes* 
 
relative to Popes Works. 79 
 
 it, and this fact rather confirms than opposes Walpole's assertion. 
 ^Nevertheless, though it is a proof of Pope's ruling passion, 
 even in death, 1 disbelieve he took a bribe to suppress, and shall 
 disbelieve it till there is other testimony than Walpole's, still say- 
 ing, " if true," it was MOST ATROCIOUS, as I said of Addison, 
 that the translation of the first book of the Iliad, in clandestine op- 
 position to Pope, " IF TRUE," was most dishonorable and un- 
 manly. But is it therefore necessary I must believe it true ? 
 or that Mr. Gilchrist's knowledge of my wishes is to be taken as 
 proof, in contradiction to my own knowledge, to the testimony of 
 all who know me, to my positive and solemn contradiction of 
 his uncharitable and presumptuous aspersions ? 
 
 But " ivhy say arty thing at alt about it ? Why not suppress 
 all mention of the story r" 1 will tell him what actuated me, as 
 editor, and what would actuate me again that, such a story being 
 in print already, under the authority of a respectable name, 
 ought to be spoken of in an edition of the poet's works, to show 
 that credibility should not be attached to the story, when supported 
 only by the word of a political opponent, and it ought to be re- 
 peated on this very account. 1 
 
 Surmise away EVERY amiable characteristic. If 1 had " sur- 
 mised away EVERY AMIABLE CHARACTERISTIC," I must have 
 surmised away the poet's filial affection and tenderness ; his warm 
 attachment to Gay, &c. his kindness to his domestics, his general 
 benevolence. The test I proposed is plain. I have not surmised 
 away every amiable characteristic : the passages adduced do 
 not prove what they are brought to prove. They prove that I 
 spoke as I thought of his affectation, in some instances, not of 
 surmising away, or any thing like surmising away, "EVERY amia- 
 ble CHARACTERISTIC ;" and the falsehood remains, concerning 
 which I spoke earnestly not angrily, and of which 1 speak ear- 
 nestly now, as one falsely and unjustly accused. 
 
 You tell me, in language peculiarly your own, which shows 
 how well adapted you are to reprove me for coarseness, " the 
 Devil equivocates sometimes, as well as a shop-keeper." I hope it 
 will not be very indecorous to use your own well-weighed and po- 
 lite expressions, and therefore 1 return them to you in this manner. 
 A SHOP-KEEPER sometimes EQUIVOCATES as well as the De- 
 vil ! and though i have hitherto acquitted yon of this part of the 
 Devil's character, you here equivocate with your eyes open. 
 
 As to my equivocation, I will honestly tell you the reason why 
 there is a variation in the " words of my Lite and those in my 
 defence in the Pamphleteer" You may believe whati fcay, or not. 
 
 1 My words are, it ought not to be admitted POR A MOM EN i '" 
 
 F 
 
80 Rev. VV. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 He equivocates who does it by design, and knowingly, as you now 
 have done, and as your friend Pope did, when " he said he had 
 not lied, but equivocated, pretty genteelly !" But as I equally hate 
 equivocation, whether by " the Devil, or a shop-keeper" I tell you 
 how the variation happened, in the account of Pope's Life and 
 Vindication in the Pamphleteer. The passage happened to be in- 
 serted at Marlborough sessions ;* and not having the book with me, 
 and the Pamphleteer waiting for my copy, I trusted to memory, 
 and thus, and not by design, left out part of the sentence ; but as 
 my opinion is not altered, I now correct it, and state that it con- 
 tains my sentiments as you have quoted the passage. 
 
 " 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 infirmities, and we ought to add, 
 his moral feelings, corrected and restrained." Life of Pope. 
 
 And now for your equivocation. We must be a little more particu- 
 lar on this point, because I said peremptorily, "that if what the critic 
 had asserted was true namely, that I had turned EVERY AMIABLE 
 characteristic of the poet into the opposite qualities, then his duti- 
 ful affection to his mother must turn out to be undutiful; his since- 
 rity to his friends, insincere; his kindness to domestics, unkind; his 
 benevolence, malevolence!!" 1 said this, as I well might, most ear- 
 nestly. 
 
 Having placed one sentence before the reader, and shown how 
 it must be read, if what was alleged against me were true, and 
 shown that it could not be so read, I said, " there you stand 
 exposed, and no frothy declamation can help you out !! !" 
 
 My sentence was ; ft that he was a dutiful and affectionate son, a 
 kind master, a sincere friend, and generally a benevolent man, is 
 
 UNDOUBTED ! \" 
 
 And now, let us see plainly and positively, whether frothy de- 
 clamation can or cannot help the deliberate calumniator out. But 
 first 1 must observe, you alter entirely the proposition, by turning 
 " EVERY amiable characteristic" into " dispositions contrary to 
 the amiable ones he professed/* and then you advance to demolish, 
 not my position, but your own dishonest statement of it ; and you 
 take a sentence dislocated, from my preface to Pope's Letters, and 
 quote as follows : 
 
 " Pope set down gravely and solemnly to show himself magna- 
 nimous, warm-hearted, sincere, candid, humane, &c. Like all 
 professors, what he says he OFTEN says in direct opposition to 
 what he feels ;" and you take care to leave off here, omitting what 
 follows, "at least/' &c. ! 
 
 1 As you will not believe this, I may refer you to the Printer, to the bar- 
 rister's servant who took the MS. to London, and to Mr. Gifford himself. 
 
relative, to Pope's Works. 81 
 
 Never mind I take what is before me, and to whomsoever wrote 
 the criticism in the Quarterly, repeat, there you STAND EXPOST 
 ED, and no frothy declamation can help you out! 
 
 " Pope set himself down gravely and solemnly to show himself 
 magnanimous, warm-hearted, sincere, candid, humane, &c. Like 
 all PROFESSORS, what he says he "often says in direct opposition 
 to what he feels !" and therefore 
 
 {Valet consequential) 
 
 " He was an undutiful son, an unkind master, an insincere friend, 
 and a malevolent man ! !" 
 
 I said, Sir, no frothy declamation could help you out, and I am 
 sure that which frothy declamation could not effect, such logic as 
 yours cannot. You should have stayed at Oxford a little longer : 
 my position remains entire, unhurt, untouched ; and I say again, 
 neither frothy declamation, nor quibbling logic, nor unblushing im- 
 pudence, can help you out. 
 
 The same might be said of your other proof, but I think this is 
 quite enough. TRY AGAIN ! 
 
 "Lander was disclaimed by the booksellers; was he ?" you pert- 
 Jyask. f plainly answer, HE WAS. And it was because he stood 
 exposed in malicious falsehood from which no shallow sophistry, 
 or no empty logic, and no " unblushing effrontery," no equivoca- 
 tion, by the Devil, or shop-keeper, could HELP HIM out. 
 
 When I arn thus detected, and stand exposed, may I be dis- 
 claimed, not only by every honorable editor, by every respectable 
 bookseller, but by every honest man in the kingdom ! 
 
 I do not retract one word of what I said, in the preface to Pope's 
 Letters ; but, as to suit a purpose, which it has so ineffectually serv- 
 ed, you have drawn a false inference, I must quote the passage : 
 
 " They (Pope's Letters) want that charm, which no elegance of 
 " language can atone for Nature ! Cowper, therefore, very pro- 
 " perly designates him a maker of letters. H e set down gravely, &c. 
 " Like al| professors, what he says he often says in direct oppo- 
 <e sition to what he feels ; at least when he says, ' these trifles 
 " disturb me not. I write just what comes into my head ! I 
 <f pour out my heart I* " (Preface to Pope's Ltetters.) 
 
 I abide by every thing I have said in the Preface to Pope's 
 Letters, though 1 cannot say the same respecting many notes, 
 particularly that which you have pointed t>ut : but I have little fears 
 for the poetical criticisms, J. think also you will never prove, that 
 the mind of Pope was not disingenuous ; and his conduct often 
 ungenerous. 1 do riot believe you can successfully defend him, 
 with respect to Addison, or Lady Mary, and the consummate ajj 
 
82 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 with which he conducted the plot that led to the publication of 
 his own letters ; which, in my opinion, by comparison of the real 
 and amended letters, is now put beyond a doubt. His out-cry 
 against Mrs. Thomas, in her day of distress, for doing that which he 
 wanted to have done, and afterwards did himself, was as hypocritical 
 as his conduct to her was unforgiving. His grossness will live, as 
 long as the beautiful But seductive Eloisa, and his vindictive animo- 
 sity to Addisosi, by the damning fact, recorded, not by me, but by 
 himself, in the Miscellanies, "that he was sorry THESE VERSES were 
 admitted," which he afterwards transferred to his works, notwith- 
 standing what he had said, there to remain for ever, a monument of 
 his unappeased and unappeasable resentment. And I beg to be un- 
 derstood, that, though I did not, as editor, accuse him of the 
 GROSSEST licentiousness, but a mixture of licentiousness, I now, 
 without fear, accuse him of the GROSSEST. 
 
 And now let me say a word of the circumstances that led to 
 this edition of Pope. 
 
 When I undertook the work, it was on the express conditions 
 that I should speak as I thought. These conditions were accept- 
 ed ; I had never written any thing of the kind before, and as I 
 have said, 1 undertook the work reluctantly, but nothing in the 
 world should ever induce me to say what I did not think ; and so, 
 whether you believe me or not, 1 affirm I never purposely used 
 any expressions to convey more than I did mean. I never heard 
 any objections of the kind you mentioned before, and was as much 
 astonished, as I believe every candid and fair-judging man will be, 
 to find myself so judged. When you tell me, that the more 
 earnest I am, the less I am able to convince my readers of the 
 injustice that has been shown -me, I do not believe you. 1 am 
 well acquainted with many of those Noblemen, Clergy, and Gentle- 
 men, who are in the habit of frequenting the apartments in Albe- 
 marle-street, and I have heard many upright and able judges 
 declare, that the review was disgraceful ; and that even, as far as 
 I had gone, 1 had made out a clear case against its gross exagge- 
 rations and palpable untruths. 
 
 A person who can turn " presuming too much" and " being 
 repulsed," into the daring accusation of attempting a Rape, is not 
 to be convinced by any thing. I have not convinced Octavius 
 Gilchrist, nor probably any of the family of Gilchrist; but I write 
 to others. 
 
 After all, what a strangely constituted mind must that of Mr. 
 Gilchrist be ! What defect, and at the same time supernatural acute- 
 ness of vision, must he have ! Sometimes he cannot see, according 
 to the vulgar expression and HIS OWN vocabulary, .an inch be- 
 
relative to Pope's Works. 83 
 
 yond "HIS NOSE;" and sometimes quite distinctly through " A 
 BRICK WALL." He cannot perceive the least " licentiousness" in 
 Pope's unsullied page, but revolts at the offensive and disgusting 
 indecency in mine. Every thing becomes instantly metamorphos- 
 ed, through the morbid vision of his " prurient" splenetic imagina- 
 tion ; and this very circumstance shows his observations as far from 
 common sense as truth ; for " as powerful Fancy works," Pope, 
 described by me, is either completely imbecile, or so terrific a 
 Royster that he " attempts to commit a Rape on the person of 
 a married woman," of high rank, in her own house, probably, and 
 being sure of chastisement from an insulted and enraged husband ! 
 
 Pray, Mr. Gilchrist, think a moment ! I cannot, 1 will not sup- 
 pose, that you wilfully and deliberately thus expose yourself, from 
 a desire of injury to me ; but, that you mistake these workings of 
 your own imagination for serious truths. 
 
 Your very fierceness at least defeats your cunning. A tiger, oj* 
 cat, generally looks, and measures distances, before it springs. 
 
 You have told me what you do " not believe" and I will tell 
 you what 1 do not believe. 1 do not believe any impartial per- 
 son could write a Life of Pope to please you. If he spoke 
 of the connexion between Pope and Martha, you would cry 
 out " pruriency ;" if he said Pope might have presumed too far, and 
 was repulsed, you would cry out, " a Rape/' If he twice mentioned 
 a story of Walpole, and said it ought not, being so base, to be ad- 
 mitted for a moment, you and your kindred critic would call it a 
 "damning fact ;" and if he proclaimed his "utter unbelief," upon 
 such authority as it was given, you would tell him you knew better, 
 and that he "wished it to be true!" 
 
 I might say I dp not believe you, if you assert your own dis- 
 belief of the " damning fact*" I think I have greater grounds 
 for saying this than you have for asserting my wishes of its truth, 
 notwithstanding my positive assertions ; for I might believe no one 
 could feel so sore upon its bare mention, unless they thought the 
 " damning fact" had some foundation! 
 
 Part of Lady Mary' sand Lord Hervey's libel printed in my edi- 
 tion. I said I should blush to infer motives, from a professed satire ; 
 and my quoting part of the professed satire against Pope is thrown 
 in my teeth! Other people will believe me when 1 say, that I ad- 
 mitted that part, not from any feelings of doing Pope's character 
 an injury. The thought never entered into my head I inserted 
 some of the lines, merely because I thought they would gratify, noc 
 spleen, but curiosity. Was Dr. Johnson actuated by malice v^en 
 he published Extracts from Dennis's criticism ou Addison ? .Besides, 
 Sir, the parallel does not hold in the least. It would have held 
 " only" had I, as it has been done to me, imputed motives from 
 
84 Rev. W. L. Bowies' Reply 
 
 this LIBEL; had I vauntingly proclaimed ^ HIS HEART WAS 
 HARD," because this libel called it so. 
 
 My dab of verses, fyc.' I think at least my dab of verses as 
 good as your dabs of criticism ; if I may judge by the disgusting 
 specimen of ribaldry that defiles the London Magazine ! 
 
 The " dab," in the beginning of the second part of my Vindica- 
 tion, perhaps you may like better than the e< gentyller" sort. You 
 object to my prose , as well as verse. My prose certainly is not like 
 yours, tagged and laced with a fantastic frippery of old plays, variis 
 parmis assuitur ; your " prose" has a theatrical or rather punch- 
 like pert ness, sui generis; and I may add that your blows, which 
 you think so effective, are given with as much apparent heartiness, 
 but are full as wooden, as those which that irritable and obstrepe- 
 rous gentleman so sonorously bestows on 'the Queen of Sheba I 1 As 
 for my " unambitious prose" it will answer the purpose of over- 
 throwing the arguments of such writers as the Quarterly Re- 
 viewer, returning you, not in anger, but from justice, some of your 
 hardest knocks ; and this is all I care for. 
 
 One more observation will conclude what I have to say. You 
 hint at my trading criticisms being rejected! You are mistaken. 
 
 What you allude to is this : 1, who am so indifferent to 
 those of talents in obscurity, have never withdrawn my hand 
 from serving, to the best of my power, all I could 1 Among these 
 is a young Woman of genius, of unblemished reputation, yet endea- 
 vouring, in vain, to procure some comfortable and independent pro^ 
 vision for herself and mother, being the only daughter of a British 
 officer. She has written some beautiful and affecting verses. 1 
 wished to procure an occasional corner in some Magazine that 
 might perhaps bring her forward. I tried in vain. By 3vay of 
 serving her, not on account of wishing to trade in criticism, I took 
 the pains of trying my hand, in commencing a review of a large 
 \Vork. If it should procure any payment, I meant it for her. But 
 not one half was finished when I showed it to Mr Gifford. I had 
 not leisure to proceed with it, and left it with the person whom I 
 wished to serve ; and this was the composition which Mr. Gifford 
 repeated did as much honor to my head as heart. It never was 
 finished, and that was the reason it was not published. 
 
 This is the plain tale of my critical " trade," which your friend 
 will witness. 1 am sorry, not knowing this private friendship, I 
 said what I did. 
 
 The most unpleasant circumstance in these disputes has been 
 the misunderstanding with the editor of the London Magazine, 
 which I fear it has occasioned ; but as no one more respects his 
 
 1 Lady M.W. Montague. 
 
relative to Pops Works. 85 
 
 character and attainments, if he should not forgive me, I hope no- 
 thing that has passed will make him less friendly with you. 
 
 For myself, I most heartily forgive what I am willing to think an 
 eager but imprudent zeal has caused, and though prepared to repel 
 insolent aggression, I bear a disposition towards you, and all, as 
 remote from rancour and vindictiveness, as from being actuated at 
 any time by the base motives you have attributed to me ; and, with 
 these feelings, shall at all times be ready to offer you the right 
 hand of " forgiveness," and add, in consideration of any person- 
 alities harshly fallen into, from provocation of undeserved treat- 
 ment, 
 
 Hanc veniam petimus, damns ; 
 and so I bid you FAREWELL! 
 
 I assume, and have assumed no " airs." I am conscious of that 
 advantage which TRUTH ALONE gives me, and WOULD give, if 
 your abilities were more formidable. 
 
 W. L. BOWLES. 
 
 Bremhill,Feb. 17, 1821. 
 
 P. S. Before 1 lay down my pen, I might just hint to the writer 
 in the Quarterly Review, that in the Critical Review, for 1799, on 
 certain " Romances," the identical words " SUBJECT" and EXE- 
 CUTION" occur. Possibly, they may have appeared somewhat 
 " mystic" ever since. Nor, if the author of the " Romances" be 
 the writer in the Quarterly, was he at that time so ignorant of 
 " external nature/' if we may judge by the accuracy with which he 
 has described the " Erotic Fever of TWO SWANS 1" But this may 
 be a " right pleasaunte" subject hereafter : nunc manum de 
 tabuld. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 For Knox, the Jesuit, read Knott For Hughes, readRov/c. 
 Page 74, dele among, line 18; line 21, dele who; line 22, for who, read 
 they. 
 
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 SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 
 OVERDUE T $I ' N E SEVENTH DAY 
 
 Per 3ft 
 
 RECD LE 
 
 WN 21964 
 
 LD 21-100w-7,'40 (6936s) 
 
GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY