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 CHARACTERISTIC 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.

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, " on 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.

VOL. XVIII.

Pam.

NO. XXXV.

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 а 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.

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 wonian he loved," under any provocation.

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

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 his 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!"