Is Horace no great poet? Is Juvenal no great poet? Are Ovid, Tibullus, Catullus, no great poets? I have already said, and I must repeat again, his Eloisa stands as much above the elegies of Catullus, 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 was 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 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 concerned; that all who went before, in this line, never reached, and all who come after, probably never will reach, this excellence; that he will still remain unrivalled, for "the correctness and delicacy of his taste, as well as the vigor of his judgment," that in " poetical expression" and versification (with some abatements in the latter), be will be superior, as long as poetical expression and exquisite versification 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!

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 part of this vindication, with a degree of earnestness which might appear incompatible with the occasion, the candid reader will remember the gross injustice 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 substantiated; and, as a general summing up of all that has been ad

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,” imputed to me, have not been proved, and I disclaim them.

That, be the motives what they may, the charge that I have "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 exaggerations.

on

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, "nature within four walls," could not be, for that very reason, the same file with Milton and Dante," the region of whose imagination was not bounded by the magnificence or beauty of the visible world, and who, in the execution of far more transcendently sublime and terrible subjects (Milton at least), was equal in skill, design, colors of expression, &c. with him who so successfully employed all these points of execution in a department less intrinsically poetical.

That none of the arguments advanced in the Invariable Principles of Poetry, as laid down in a letter to Campbell, were answered, or attempted to be; but a mere "mock-triumph," to use Mr. D'Israeli's expressions, gained for a moment by the writer affecting to misunderstand arguments that were clear, or purposely and evasively confusing them; or, totally passing them over with flippant 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, however, if this appeal should be noticed by the Quarterly Review, that these plain positions 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 language used in this vindication, considering the manner in which I have been treated, deserve. And I have only to add, that I end all I had to say of the criticism in the Quarterly Review, with feelings, such as, I hope, would not prevent any future kindness and better understanding between the critic and myself. NO. XXXV.

VOL. XVIII. Pam.

Q

SEQUEL,

Addressed to OCTAVIUS GILCHRIST, 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!"

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 bestow 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 "invention of attempt at Rape!" I have resolved therefore, again, reluctantly 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 "presuming too far," and a "step beyond decorum," I 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 presumed too far, and was repulsed, "Therefore, &c." he ATTEMPTED to COMMIT a Rape !!!

What an insult is this conclusion, not to me, but to common decency 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. Gilchrist 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 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 that this was the precise moment when a RUDE BURST OF LAUGHTER awoke him from the PARADISE OF FOOLS!" Quart. Rev.

66

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 affects 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 wordwho caught every syllable with anxious admiration; Pope, thus caressed and idolized, without one circumstance that could interfere 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 panegyrist, not an honest and conscientious biographer.-Pope must be represented as he appeared; and under all circumstances, and in every

point of view. If the biographer was convinced by bringing the character as much as possible into a general view, that it exhibited 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 unamiable. It was not amiable to be "possessed with an Erotic Fever" for another man's wife! It was not "amiable" in a sly manner to talk of congeniality of souls, if "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 "vindictive malice against the woman he loved," under any provo

cation.

Having premised these things generally, I shall now speak more particularly of that reasoning, and those proofs, which Mr. Gilchrist has brought against the vindication in the Pamphleteer, and shall address them, by way of more direct reply, and under separate 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 not for a moment to be admitted, without other testimony than that of the Walpoles!

Now, one writer concludes upon this, that "I have aspersed Pope for taking bribes to suppress satires! and the other, that, let me say what I will, my object was apparent that I 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 have 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 be 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 Warburton, two years after Pope's death; but I 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, Pope, admitting the character of Atossa for insertion, published