Page images


images illustrative of the poetry of this said "in-door nature; which images, though introduced, not ill-taturedly, nor in a manner so reprehensible as that of the criticism in the Quarterly Review, alluding to what might be considered as almost mental derangement, yet, being connected withi Mr. Gilchrist's situation in life, no provocation should have operated a moment on the writer's nind to publish.

But, in extenuation, not only tlie great provocation should be remembered, but it ought to be said, that orders were sent to the London booksellers, that the most direct personal passages (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 I think it right to declare publicly. 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 " imate 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 character are called an answer."

113? This pamphlet is indeed a " mud-cart !" and even, whilst the scavenger is emptying it, I am recommended by Him to learn, in controversy, the language of Hooker and Lowth! boi ,

No personal provocation was thought of, or could have been given, when Mr. Gilchrist wrote the criticism in the London Magazine, 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 espect smiles and courtesies in return? Shall he fling dirt, and receive rose-water? Mr. Gilchrist's character of me, whom he never saw,


s 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

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


deny that a libeller's vengeance is unjustifiable from man to woman, 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 hin which he would have thought 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:

V* 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 or
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 seems
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 ; før it is impossible that any article could be so
perfectly in unison with his feelings and taste, and mode of rea.
soning i

Without applying the quotation which he has applied with so much adroitness, " Arcades ambo !" we may consider the writer in 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 introduced, 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.iwo, kings, entering on the stage, and withdrawing, smelling to “ONE 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, aud be equally just; it would then run thus : bavi. We find, Pope aspersed, for a sordid, money-getting passion ;

This quotation, with the addition of Ok! Juvenes!" in his fippant tirađe, in the London Magazine, is applied, with IRONICAL derision, to the deprivations of old age, with equal manliness, humanity, and taste !

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


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 ATTEMPÍ TO COMMIT À RAPE!!”

Thus the sentence in the Quarterly would be complete ; and the joint labors of such concordes anima, be equally conspicuous for climax aud truth!

I can produce more reasons, than I have yet given, to show why I attributed the critique in the Quarterly, to Octavius Gilchrist. I did not suppose there could exist a man in the kingdom, so impudent as to pretend he did not know the meaning of subject and execution” of a poem; except Octavius Gilchrist, Esq., F.S.A.

I did not think there was one man in the kingdom, who would pretend ignorance of the meaning of " disposition," "relief,” &c.

' except Octavius Gilchrist. I did not conceive that one máy in the kingdom would utter such stupid Aippancy, about “squaring the circle," except a man of the identical taste and sense of Octavius Gilchrist. I did not think there was one man in the kingdom, who, if he did not understand the 'coninion terms of “ external nature, “moral vature," &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 perfect in Mr. Gilchrist's “Old Lunes," as daringiy to assert, I had been prompted to surmise away EVERY AMIABLE CHARACTERISTIC of the poet (Pope) except Octavius Gilchrist; I did not believe any one would or could be so unfeelivgly pert as to talk, as he has done, of the hypochondriasm of “provincial authors, except Octavius Gilchrist; I did not think the mean mind of any one in the kingdom could be gratified by a quotation from a professed satire, seriously imputing “Gall” and Hate, to the editor of

“” t. Pope's Works, except the mean mind of Octavius Gilchrist. didid not believe that any man in the kingdom could assert, that because ! I used the words « mixture of gallantry and licentiousness," I aspersed 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 Á RAPE;" which effrontery could only disa 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 author also 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.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


For I believed there is no man in England that could fraudulently leave out ihe “ 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 inay 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, when 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 !" If I speak of what appear to me as palpable faults, my motives are Hate, &c. If I profess disbelief, Mr. Gilchrist knows my secret wishes! Aş to duplicity,

"Εχθρός γάρ μοι κείνος, όμως άΐδας πύλησιν,

ος χ έτερον μέν κεύθει ένι φρεσιν, άλλο δε βάζει. in the translation, (I quote from memory) ** sof old 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 facts---clear, positive facts-justified this belief. His disingenuousness and his " duplicity," were the objects of my dislike, and these I aseribed, to the circumstances of his physical infirmities and education, but I could not, I would not, pass them over, in a Life I am called to write, without reprobation, when I think facts prove them. Nor I think they ought to be passed over, much less consecrated, bea 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 “Dances,"

~ coinbined against him--but, from my own conscientious consideration, were untrue; then, I say, I shall rejoice as much as you, Mr. Gilchrist, and make “ the amplest recompence" I cam The

دو ہز ار ، وله

[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

“ Eloisa,” alone, is sufficient to convict him of licentiousness, gros licentiousness. Let me now point out to you the difference between 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 justify. On this account, I have received from you, at least, not one twentieth part of the candor I have shown! I have 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 clergyman," you have brought no passage to prove; and you did right, for it would confound you! 'The traducer, then, falsifiés," ex

aggerates, and invents.

1 acquit you of equivocation, for you are exempted from it by that which exempted Chartres from 'HYPOCRISY, namely, by “ matchless impudence." And I would wish you, before you talk of '“ innate vulgaritybeing 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 coscomb, is not incompatible with that of a “bully, that lifts its head, and —-!" Whether you will admit, as Mrs. Malaprop says, this "soft empeachment,I know not; I speak what I can prove. And 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, may be, supposing you may mean my understanding, I am quite indifferent, I am, I believe, a match for you, at least! in every thing, except “innate vulgarity;" and the "Thersites” of the vine teenth century cannot excite much alarm. There is a comparison, in your own bard, which might suit you better :

“Destroy his Fib, or sophistry in vain,

The creature's at his dirty work again!" 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 explanation.

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 pas tronage, which a poet in poverty and obscurity, has obtained.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »