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, I disbelieve he took a bribe to suppress, and shall disbelieve it till there is other testimony than Walpole's, still saying, "if true," it was MOST ATROCIOUS, as I said of Addison, that the translation of the first book of the Iliad, in clandestine opposition to Pope, "IF TRUE," was most dishonorable and unmanly. 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 bis uncharitable and presumptuous aspersions?

But "why say any thing at all about it? Why not suppress all mention of the story?" I 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 repeated on this very account.'

Surmise away EVERY amiable characteristic. If I had "surmised 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 amiable CHARACTERISTIC," and the falsehood remains, concerning which I spoke earnestly not angrily, and of which I speak earnestly 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 polite expressions, and therefore I return them to you in this manner. -A SHOP-KEEPER sometimes EQUIVOCATES as well as the Devil! and though I have hitherto acquitted you 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 Life and those in my defence in the Pamphleteer." You may believe what I say, or not.

'My words are,

"it ought not to be admitted for a moment

גין

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 inserted 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 contains my sentiments as you have quoted the passage.

1

"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 particular 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 dutiful affection to his mother must turn out to be undutiful; his sincerity to his friends, insincere; his kindness to domestics, unkind; his benevolence, malevolence!!" I said this, as I well might, most earnestly.

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; "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 declamation can or cannot help the deliberate calumniator out. But first I 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 magnanimous, 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.!

As you will not believe this, I may refer you to the Printer,-to the barrister's servant who took the MS. to London, and to Mr. Gifford himself.

Never mind I take what is before me, and to whomsoever wrote the criticism in the Quarterly, repeat, there you STAND EXPOSED, and no frothy declaination 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 consequentia !)

"He was an undutiful son, an unkind master, an insincere friend, and a malevolent man!!"

I said, Sir, uo 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 impudence, can help you out.

The same might be said of your other proof, but I think this is quite enough. TRY AGAIN!

"Lauder was disclaimed by the booksellers; was he ?" you pertly ask. I 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 equivocation, by the Devil, or shop-keeper, could HELP HIM out.

When I am thus detected, and stand exposed, may I be disclaimed, 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 served, 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. He set down gravely, &c. "Like all professors, what he says he often says in direct oppo "sition to what he feels; at least when he says, these trifles "disturb me not.-I write just what comes into my head! I pour out my heart!" (Preface to Pope's Letters.)

I abide by every thing I have said in the Preface to Pope's Letters, though I cannot say the same respecting many notes, particularly that which you have pointed out: but I have little fears for the poetical criticisms. I think also you will never prove, that the mind of Pope was not disingenuous; and his conduct often ungenerous. I do not believe you can successfully defend him, with respect to Addison, or Lady Mary, and the consummate art

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 animosity to Addison, 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, notwithstanding what he had said, there to remain for ever, a monument of his unappeased and unappeasable resentment. And I beg to be understood, 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.

1

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 accepted; I had never written any thing of the kind before, and as I have said, I 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, I 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. I am well acquainted with many of those Noblemen, Clergy, and Gentlemen, who are in the habit of frequenting the apartments in Albemarle-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, I had made out a clear case against its gross exaggerations 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 acuteness of vision, must he have! Sometimes he cannot see, according to the vulgar expression and HIS OWN vocabulary, an inch be

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 metamorphosed, through the morbid vision of his "prurient" splenetic imagination; 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, I will not suppose, 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, or cat, generally looks, and measures distances, before it springs.

You have told me what you do "not believe," and I will tell you what I do not believe.—I do not believe any impartial person 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 admitted 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 do not believe you, if you assert your own disbelief 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's and Lord Hervey's libel printed in my edition.-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 I say, that I admitted 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, not spleen, but curiosity. Was Dr. Johnson actuated by malice when he published Extracts from Dennis's criticism on 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