It will be observed, that in Lord BYRON's argument little was said respecting the character of POPE as a Poet; it was a mere literary discussion, evidently in part badinage, by Lord BYRON, to prove, in the disdainful loftiness of genius, that he could make black white. It would hardly have required an answer, had not so many unreflecting people deemed it conclusive. In the criticism of the Writer in the Quarterly Review, all is serious and elaborate; and it is so far more difficult to answer, as

"Your true no-meaning puzzles more than wit.”

The substance of the Answer, as far as poetical criticism is concerned, I have here added, that the reader may form his opinion.

AN

ANSWER, &c.

DR. WARTON had declared, or, according to the Quarterly Reviewer, 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."

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 admitted) against Dr. JOHNSON, Mr. CAMPBELL, and the Quarterly Reviewer. But first for Dr. JOHNSON. What says the Doctor? "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?"

He might as well have said, "If the LARK be not "a singing bird, where is a singing bird to be "found?" Such is the Doctor's logic!

66

Aye! but such a definer," adds the critic, "arose in the disciple of WARTON, the Rev. W. "L. BOWLES, who 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 "circumscribing" poetry to ONE species, and to that ONE SPECIES ALONE! He never thought, and never implied he thought, that POPE was not 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, 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, whilst HOMER, and SHAKESPEARE, and MILTON remain.

And he must here also observe, that he did not enter into this" idle controversy" voluntarily, but was forced into it by total misrepresentation.

I proceed to consider the other authority which this critic advances, namely, that of Mr. Campbell.

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 than images drawn from art; and that passions are more adapted to poetry than manners."

This is my proposition, which I think substantially unanswerable. I had said I was obliged to the writer for being so far fair, in this one instance, as not to leave out the latter part of the sentence!! But the writer did not do so; he falsified the passage on purpose, leaving out artificial!" Hæ tibi erunt artes! Nevertheless, I take it as it is. This is my position, and I think it unanswered and unanswerable.

For the sake of clearness, I shall re-state 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 any images drawn from art,* and they are, therefore, per se, (abstractedly,) 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 INCIDENTAL and transient manners!"

I have not Mr. CAMPBELL's Specimens at hand, and as I am now answering the critic in the Quar

* This is an axiom, not a theory,"

terly Review who brings the passage against me, I must take the words before me.

"Mr. CAMPBELL judges, that the exquisite description of artificial objects and manners is NOT LESS CHARACTERISTIC of GENIUS than the description of simple physical appearances !”

In the first place, CAMPBELL overlooked entirely what I had made the chief principle of poetry, taking 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 de66 scription" of works of art is not less characteristic of genius than descriptions of simple PHYSICAL APPEARANCES! Doubtless! but one half, and that the most essential, of my proposition is entirely omitted, and the other half mistaken. Why not take the plain words of the two propositions, and answer "negatur ?"

Without talking of "exquisite description" of art as "characteristic 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

it ? Then, why confound the proposition, by talking of "characteristics of genius," and that