Gilchrist might be disposed to a more amicable mode of discussing what I had advanced in regard to Pope's moral character.

But I have since read a publication by him, containing such vulgar slander, affecting my private life and character, (which are beyond his malice to injure) that I am obliged to set before the public the mode of Christian criticism, of which I believe he has set the first example, in Europe. I trust, therefore, some severer tone of castigation will be pardoned, in regard to such an infamous mode of literary discussion, and such infamous " arguing from perversions."

In the London Magazine for February, 1820, appeared, in a Review of SPENCE'S ANECDOTES, the following sentence:

"These testimonies to the worth and virtue of the poet, not consorting with the PURPOSE of Mr. Bowles, he has preferred the representations of his enemies; and having, with an obliquity unexampled in an editor, RESOLVED to ASPERSE the moral reputation of his author, it was necessary that he should AFFECT to sneer at the friendly representations of a chronicler, actuated by feelings so unlike his own! The general defamation of Pope's character, Mr. Bowles shares with Curl, Gildon, &c.; but the INQUISITION which he has instituted into the poet's attachment to Martha Blount, is eminently his own; though the PRURIENCY WITH WHICH HIS NOSE IS LAID TO THE GROUND, to SCENT SOME TAINT in their connection, and the ANATOMICAL MINUTENESS with which he EXAMINES and determines on the physical constitution of Pope, might, in charity, be deemed only unseemly in a layman, and occasional critic ;-in an Editor, and a CLERGYMAN, such conduct appears to us INDECENT and INSUFFERABLY DISGUSTING!!"

pas

How deeply offensive to every sense of decency ought those sages to be, which could call for such a disgusting description. If I had written any thing in the Life of Pope, which might fairly be thought to merit such a representation, I should deserve the reprobation of every pure and every honorable mind; but if no idea, that could justify such a coarse caricature, ever entered my head; if having looked through all the volumes of the last edition of Pope, to find a passage which could justify such monstrous exaggerations, I have looked in vain; then I think the literary public will pronounce the writer of it to be the most "barefaced" dealer in vulgarity, indecency, and slander, that cotemporary criticisin can show.

The writer of this sentence, extracted from the London Magazine, is OCTAVIUS GILCHRIST! I do not say this unadvisedly, for he has himself explicitly admitted it, calling it "my castigation !"

the moral part of Pope's character, was (generally speaking,) true; and that the principles of poetical criticism, which I had laid down, were "invariable" and invulnerable, it would be THE FACT, that the opponent of my statements and principles, is obliged scandalously to exaggerate, in the first instance, and wilfully to confuse the plainest reasonings in the other. Before I proceed I shall take this opportunity of saying a few words concerning the circumstance of my having, in the last number of the PAMPHLETEER, attributed the criticism in the Quarterly Review to Mr. Gilchrist, and in noticing the attack he has published, in consequence of an anonymous pamphlet, which appeared soon after the criticism in the Quarterly.

As the greatest personal abuse is heaped upon me, in the peculiar slang of this gentleman, it will be necessary to go back to some circumstances materially connected with this discussion.

I shall not enter into a particular examination of the pamphlet, which, by a mis-nomer, is called "GILCHRIST'S ANSWER TO BOWLES," when it should have been called "GILCHRIST'S ABUSE OF BOWLES;"-but as he derides my peculiar "sensitiveness to criticism;" before I show how destitute of truth is this representation, I will here explicitly declare the only grounds upon which I have thought it at all necessary to reply to any criticism, and the only grounds upon which I think any writer has a right to reply to public criticisms, on public works. The grounds, then, are these, and by these I am willing to abide the decision of the literary world, whether I am not justified in replying to the criticism in the Quarterly Review.

An author is justified in appealing to every UPRIGHT AND HONORABLE MIND in the kingdom when his sentiments are artfully misrepresented, when base motives are assigned, and when exaggerations are deliberately advanced, the tendency of which must be to excite injurious impressions of his honorable conduct or moral character.

These are the grounds on which I thought it necessary to reply to the article in question, and I shall now plainly set before the literary public, all the circumstances that have led to my name and Mr. Gilchrist's being brought together on this occasion; and what I have to say on this point, I would particularly address to the consideration of those most respectable characters, who have the direction and management of the Periodical Critical Press.

I concluded my observations in the last Pamphleteer, with feelings not unkind towards Mr. Gilchrist, or to the author of the Review of Spence, be he whom he might. I was in hopes, as I have been always ready to admit any errors. I might have been led into, or prejudices I might have entertained, that even Mr.

Gilchrist might be disposed to a more amicable mode of discussing what I had advanced in regard to Pope's moral character.

But I have since read a publication by him, containing such vulgar slander, affecting my private life and character, (which are beyond his malice to injure) that I am obliged to set before the public the mode of Christian criticism, of which I believe he has set the first example, in Europe. I trust, therefore, some severer tone of castigation will be pardoned, in regard to such an infamous mode of literary discussion, and such infamous " arguing from perversions."

In the London Magazine for February, 1820, appeared, in a Review of SPENCE'S ANECDOTES, the following sentence:

"These testimonies to the worth and virtue of the poet, not consorting with the PURPOSE of Mr. Bowles, he has preferred the representations of his enemies; and having, with an obliquity unexampled in an editor, RESOLVED to ASPERSE the moral reputation of his author, it was necessary that he should AFFECT to sneer at the friendly representations of a chronicler, actuated by feelings so unlike his own! The general defamation of Pope's character, Mr. Bowles shares with Curl, Gildon, &c.; but the INQUISITION which he has instituted into the poet's attachment to Martha Blount, is eminently his own; though the PRURIENCY WITH WHICH HIS NOSE IS LAID TO THE GROUND, to SCENT SOME TAINT in their connection, and the ANATOMICAL MINUTENESS with which he EXAMINES and determines on the physical constitution of Pope, might, in charity, be deemed only unseemly in a layman, and occasional critic ;-in an Editor, and a CLERGYMAN, such conduct appears to us INDECENT and INSUFFERABLY DISGUSTING!!"

How deeply offensive to every sense of decency ought those passages to be, which could call for such a disgusting description. If I had written any thing in the Life of Pope, which might fairly be thought to merit such a representation, I should deserve the reprobation of every pure and every honorable mind; but if no idea, that could justify such a coarse caricature, ever entered my head; if having looked through all the volumes of the last edition of Pope, to find a passage which could justify such monstrous exaggerations, I have looked in vain; then I think the literary public will pronounce the writer of it to be the most "barefaced" dealer in vulgarity, indecency, and slander, that cotemporary criticisin can show.

The writer of this sentence, extracted from the London Magazine, is OCTAVIUS GILCHRIST! I do not say this unadvisedly, for he has himself explicitly admitted it, calling it " my castigation !"

I shall now extract, from the Life of Pope, in the last edition, the only passage which I can suppose he must have had in his eye when he penned the "indecent, vulgar, ribaldry,” I have quoted :

66

Many facts tend to prove, the peculiar susceptibility of his passions, nor can we implicitly believe, that the connexion between him and Martha Blount, was of a nature" so pure and innocent" as his panegyrist, Ruffhead, would make us believe. But whatever there might be of criminality in the connexion, it did not take place till the heyday of youth was over; that is, after the death of her brother, (1726); when he was 58, and she 35. Teresa was of the same age with Pope, being born at Paris, 1688; Martha, three years younger, was born at Mapledurham, 1691: consequently she was thirty-five when the connexion between her and Pope became more avowed and explicit. At this time of life there was perhaps no great danger of a false step." Certainly she became by degrees more indifferent to the opinion of the world. At no time could she have regarded Pope personally with attachment; and when other views were past, she might have acquiesced in her situation, rather than have been gratified by any reciprocities of kindness or affection. But the most extraordinary circumstance, in regard to his connexion, with female society, was the strange, mixture of indecent and sometimes profane levity, which his conduct and language often exhibited. The cause of this particularity may be sought, perhaps, in his consciousness of physical defect, which made him affect a character uncongenial, and a language opposite to the truth."-Life of Popescu si

If what is bere extracted does, or can excite in the mind, I will not say of, any "Layman," of any Christian, but) of any human being, such disgusting images as have sprung up under Mr. Gilchrist's nose, and which he has drawn with "minuteness" truly anatomical, and with congenial" pruriency;" then I confess, with sorrow, my couduct deserves, the severest animadversions.

66

"

But, on the contrary, if, as I verily believe, the passage in my Life of Pope, that speaks of his connection with Martba Blount, &c. does not, and cannot excite these filthy ideas and images (here minutely" specified), except in the brain of Mr. Gilchrist, I ask, whether, in attributing an article, full of exaggerations, on the same subject, in the Quarterly Review, to this critic, or, in introducing his name, I had any reason for distinguishing him with that courtesy which I had hitherto always endeavoured to show, from prin ciple, as well as disposition, in literary controversy?

I am now peremptorily called upon to speak of a circumstance which gives me the greatest pain; the mention of a letter I received from the Editor of the London Magazine.

"

4

may

t

la

It is now too late for me to recede, however I ment that the name of the editor was introduced on the occasion; but the fact has been, by Mr. Gilchrist, positively denied. I am defied to prove this circumstance, and I must consider my own veracity as now called in question. I therefore assert, in my own name, and I dare Mr. Gilchrist to contradict me, that the editor of the Magazine, which contamed Mr. Gilchrist's filthy caricature, did write to me, to say that in the case of Spence's Anecdotes, as the correspondent spoke in the style of editor, the article CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN admitted, had not the editor, at the time, been dangerously ill, and incapable of attending to the Magazine! att du

1

1

It will be observed that no honor or secresy was violated'; and, for myself, I do not fear to declare, that no responsible editor could, upon any principles of justice, to say nothing of the ribaldry of expression, have admitted that criticism, unless he had first seen the specific passages to which it alluded, and was convinced that they contained indecent expressions and disgusting matter, such as could only justify this representation.

It is necessary, absolutely and PAINFULLY necessary, further to state, respecting the indelicacy of bringing before the public any allusions to private correspondence, that PERMISSION so to do Was PREVIOUSLY asked! As no answer was returned till nearly a month had elapsed, it was not conceived that any honorable feelings could be violated by publicly mentioning the circumstance of having received such a communication, to such a purport, when, if the most distant intimation of objection had been dropped, during this time, no consideration in the world would, or could, have induced the writer to have made any allusion whatever to sentiments privately expressed.

Mr. Southey's permission was asked, and promptly given, without any restriction, though I shall ever lament that any thing occurred contrary to the feelings of the editor of the London Magazine. It was (rashly indeed) concluded, that if there had been any particular objection, some notice of it would have been given during the previous three weeks.

AI must here also beg to correct another mistake into which I have fallen, in hastily writing the article for the Pamphleteer. I alJude to the word "stranger," as applied to the editor. Some misunderstanding may have arisen from the sentence as it stands, for the construction should have been," the editor, though nearly a stranger," &c. A revise of the proof-sheet not being returned, the word "nearly" was omitted.

The editor ought not to have been called a "stranger," as I had been introduced to him by Mr. Moore; yet, it must be added, I