of the formidable Quarterly Review? The weapons we have been used to, here drop from the hands.

A "sentimental sort of critic," too, is ill-adapted for such an encounter; and therefore I, with somewhat ruder weapons, advance to meet this foe in a visor undismayed.

66

Approach he like a rough Hircanian boar,"

even, with the bristling self-importance of a Quarterly Reviewer, wielding such weapons as a "homely sort of a critic" may use against one who appears to have as little "SENTIMENT" as sense, I am mistaken, if I may not gain the advantage, and say, "There lies, in his own kennel, this "LONGINUS. of IN-DOOR' NATURE!!"

I must now beg the reader's attention, whilst I give some reasons which induce me to believe that this critic in the Quarterly Review is no less a personage than a certain Mr. OCTAVIUS GILCHRIST; who, if I am not mistaken, is the same critic who figured, also, in the same Review last month upon certain productions of a "Poet of nature." If so, his praise or blame may be held in equal contempt.

༣

I may here, also, previously to my entering on a more attentive survey of what is brought against Mr. B. give some other reasons which induce me to think he is indebted for this last favour to the same critic, who, in a number of the London Magazine, reviewed this identical work, and made it a vehicle of gross and most intemperate

abuse. The same tone of flippancy; the same false charges; the same affectation; the same criticair and slang; the same cry of want of "candour," whilst the writer violates both that and Christian charity in every word he utters, appear in that article as much as in this; whilst all his spite is directed to the editor of Pope for saying what a strict regard to truth alone compelled him to say with regard to POPE's character.

But this is not all with those feelings of delicacy, and that urbanity which distinguishes this ornament of "In-door nature," he accused Mr. B., in language we shall not repeat, (because he spoke of the connexion between POPE and MARTHA BLOUNT,) of placing his "nose to the ground" &c. When a writer in that Magazine replied to such a charge, "that ill-nature was as far from his heart "as pruriency from his pen," a vapouring article comes out in the next Magazine, with a braggadocio swagger, of adsum qui feci. OCTAVIUS GILCHRIST proudly proclaims his name, and threatens to make good on the Editor's head most of the charges that are now brought forward in this Review. I am therefore, compelled, to believe, as the London Magazine has been silent, where the attack was expected, he has carried over his leading arguments from that Magazine to the more imposing and bulky

**

Mr. POPE preferred in-door nature!!"-Quarterly Review.

battery of the Quarterly. Here, however, he comes, and with every advantage of secresy. But whether he be here or there, we equally disdain him.

It is beneath me to notice the vapouring declamation with his name, that appears in the London Magazine. The editor wrote a most obliging letter himself to Mr. BowLES, lest it might be thought such a piece of criticism came from his more forcible and elegant pen. He also publicly expressed his opinion. This will shew that the Editor of the very Magazine which was selected for this man's coarse attack, had a very different opinion from that entertained by Mr. GILCHRIST. I need not add that such a writer as Mr. SCOTT would weigh down ten hundred such "swaggering "huffers" as this Drawcansir of vulgar criticism.

These are some of the reasons why I think the original reviewer of SPENCE's Anecdotes in the London Magazine, and the author of a letter adjoined, attempts to make good his promise in the Quarterly.

I now come to the task of seeing what sort of reply such a "sort of critic" as myself can make to such a "sort of critic" as he is.

Unused to the "sort" of language which he employs, I may appear, in contending with him, as writing (MILTON uses this expression) with my left hand! But I adventure on this encounter

unappalled. The writer says, "It had been

"better, if Mr. BOWLES had declined being the "editor of POPE, with his views of his character " and "poetry." In return, it would have been better, if, in a matter of literary discussion, Mr. GIFFARD had pruned some of the exuberances of this coarse and insulting critic's sarcastic spleen, for the sake of his generally excellent Review. As he has not, I must meet such a commentator with all his sophistical jargon. And I shall leave the reader to judge, when I have examined his own obscure language, and his paltry argumentation, which is most "nebulous," or is most entitled to the character of a "mystic Muggleto"nian," Mr. B. or himself.

He thus begins.

1

"Listen to Mr. BowLES, a

"sort of sentimental critic!!"""

• I tremble for every character, when I hear any thing of SPENCE's Anecdotes; neither friend nor foe are spared; he seems to have opened his 'mouth and his ears to every thing POPE told him; it makes the heart sick to think how often POPE ' has altered his tone!!" I have no doubt, Mr. BOWLES wrote the above as he felt, when HUGHES, whom POPE had spoken of so highly in some part of his writings, was spoken so contemptuously of in the book said to be SPENCE'S. JOHNSON has produced similar examples, particularly regarding AARON HILL. It appears, Mr. BowLES could not have seen SPENCE'S Anecdotes himself. But SPENCE was

quoted, and the commentator spoke with benevólent, warmth.

He would now, I am confident, thank this critic for giving him an opportunity of expressing regret that these hasty expressions escaped him. He neither had, nor could have, any feelings of unkindness against POPE or any other man! I would say more; but for the abuse he has received, we could not have believed the existence of such feelings in any breast, as have been attributed to him!

I have no doubt he would as readily acknowledge every error he may have been led into, if other errors are fairly pointed out. Let POPE be defended, he would rejoice as much as his warmest friends. But why not defend POPE, without sarcastic and spiteful reflections, such as those about "hypocondriacal madness."!

SPENCE believes, and so do many others, that POPE was friendly, open, charitable, and generouse hearted. With exception of" open," I believe so too. Nor does Dr. JOHNSON, any more than Mr. BowLES, think that what is called "openness," was a part of POPE's character. With great, and most friendly, and most estimable traits of character,» who can believe him

"A faultless monster, that the world ne'er saw?" which some of his friends seem not contented unless they can make him.

"Praise undeserved is satire in disguise."-Pore.