body, but the mind.* Yet Pope appears to have "felt that this passage was too equivocal for the 66 eye of a lady, and therefore omitted it in the "letter actually sent. It is, however, on such 66 grounds as these that Mr. Bowles has not only "founded his charge against Pope, but has endea"voured to demonstrate that he corrected his letters "for Curll's surreptitious edition.-See the Cor 66 respondence between Pope and Lady M., vol. ix. "pp. 8, 11, 25, in notes.' At page 11, vol. ix. in the notes to Pope's third letter to Lady M., in observation upon Mr. Bowles's note to the same, Mr. Roscoe remarks, "On the "above note it must be observed, that Lady M. was "not at Constantinople when this letter was written; "she had only just left England, and this was the first letter addressed to her by Pope after her 66 departure. Pope has not suppressed any thing in "this passage; as may be seen by comparing the "two letters now given. What could be the "motive of Mr. Bowles for making so unfounded "an assertion, it is for him to explain. This "comparisont will also shew that there are no * A disgusting equivoque, of which he was conscious. W. L. B. + Viz. Of the copy of the letter as given by the Editors of Pope, from Pope's original draught, and the copy of Mr. Dallaway's edition from the letter actually sent to Lady M. 66 passages in the letter, as published by Mr. Dal'laway, more gross than those in the other copy; "whence it appears, that Pope did not 'proceed a step further than decorum would allow,' and, 66 66 consequently, that the gross imputation thrown "out by Mr. Bowles on Lady M., that she had "made the lover believe he might do so, is as "unfounded as it is injurious." In another note to the Life, p. 227, in reference to Lady M. W. Montague and Mr. Pope, in which both Mr. Bowles and Mr. Gilchrist are quoted, Mr. Roscoe observes, "It must, indeed, "be acknowledged, that the various publications "of Mr. Bowles, in defence of his sentiments and “conduct, as editor of Pope, have only served still "more to discover the prejudice and dislike with "which he regards his memory. Even in the 66 66 66 66 66 sequel to his Vindication, Mr. B. is so far from having substantially disavowed his injurious imputations, that he has confirmed them in the strongest language. I beg to be understood," says he, that that though I did not, as editor of Pope, accuse him of the GROSSEST licentiousness, "but a mixture of licentiousness; I now, without "fear, accuse him of the GROSSEST.'-(Vindica❝tion, page 82.) Nor is the expression of his animosity confined to prose. In the same pub"lication we find some verses, addressed to his opponent, which thus commence : པ་ "What, shall the dark reviler cry, 'O shame!' "Scare the voracious vampire from his prey?"* "Are we to suppose that the vile slanderer, "the loathsome miscreant of the age,' is intended "to allude to Pope? and that the indignant flash σε of day' was the publication of Mr. Bowles's "edition of his works?" I have not yet inspected all the volumes of this new edition of Pope; but the quotations which I now send are the strongest passages, as bearing upon yourself, that I have hitherto found. I fancy they will require some notice from your ready pen. "Haud tanto cessabis cardine rerum." Believe me to be, My dear Sir, Your's most truly, * Mr. Roscoe says nothing of the provocation for these lines. They were not intended for Pope, but for him who called proceeding "a step beyond decorum," " an attempt "to commit a rape!" who defended the vindictive and unmanly couplet, alluding to a woman Pope once loved; and who, in coarse abuse, outraged all the courtesies of literature towards myself. LETTER II. MY DEAR SIR, Bremhill, Sept. 12, 1824. ACCORDING to Mr. Roscoe, I find, alas, I am "unjust," not only to Pope, but to poor Lady Mary, the lady of whom the vindictive poet wrote, "From furious Sappho, scarce a milder fate, 66 by her love, and libell'd by her hate!” Dii boni! this is a WICKEDNESS I hardly expected to be charged with by those who might think such verses not at all unjust or unmanly!! 2d. I have charged Pope with writing a gross passage, which is not found in the letter to which the reader was directed! Habes confitentem! the cause will be explained. 3d. I have written personally satirical lines, (which Pope of course never did!) and which this naif new editor, who smells treason in every thing of mine to the king of his idolatry, applies to Pope!! But it becomes us to hold up our hands, and plead under such weighty charges. And first of Pope's quarrel with his heart's early idol. When I spoke of the origin of this quarrel, I offered my ideas merely as conjecture, (“This, however, must be all conjecture."-Vol. viii. page 426, Bowles's Pope.) Whatever, then, the origin might have been, my ideas of it were given merely as "conjecture." I alluded to his general indecent language in his letters to Lady Mary when abroad; and I merely conjectured, that, after her return, this accomplished lady's manners being less formal than those of the prudes of the day, might have induced him to believe that he was a particularly favoured admirer; and that under this belief he might have presumed, during the "mollia tempora fandi," to have solicited that mark of female favour, to which Lord Byron says,* “ I made the woods of Madeira tremble !"-in plain language, a kiss; and that the lady might have "repulsed" the disappointed Bard, on his nearer approach, with some symptoms of resentment!! This is all the "conjecture" that entered into my simple pericranium; which was afterwards turned into "an attempt to commit a rape!” 4 I have thus stated the plain fact; but the offence, to a mind constituted like that of Pope, might have been not the less inexpiable. And, moreover, so far from accusing either "unjustly,” (if such a circumstance be an accusation,) I expressly English Bards and Scotch Reviewers. |