ress upon the subject of Bowles's edition of Pope's Works. Mr.
Bowles says, that "Lord Byron _knows_ he does _not_ deserve this
character." I know no such thing. I have met Mr. Bowles occasionally,
in the best society in London; he appeared to me an amiable,
well-informed, and extremely able man. I desire nothing better than
to dine in company with such a mannered man every day in the week:
but of "his character" I know nothing personally; I can only speak to
his manners, and these have my warmest approbation. But I never judge
from manners, for I once had my pocket picked by the civilest
gentleman I ever met with; and one of the mildest persons I ever saw
was All Pacha. Of Mr. Bowles's "_character_" I will not do him the
_injustice_ to judge from the edition of Pope, if he prepared it
heedlessly; nor the _justice,_ should it be otherwise, because I
would neither become a literary executioner nor a personal one. Mr.
Bowles the individual, and Mr. Bowles the editor, appear the two most
opposite things imaginable.

"And he himself one--antithesis."

I won't say "vile," because it is harsh; nor "mistaken," because it
has two syllables too many: but every one must fill up the blank as
he pleases.

What I saw of Mr. Bowles increased my surprise and regret that he
should ever have lent his talents to such a task. If he had been a
fool, there would have been some excuse for him; if he had been a
needy or a bad man, his conduct would have been intelligible: but he
is the opposite of all these; and thinking and feeling as I do of
Pope, to me the whole thing is unaccountable. However, I must call
things by their right names. I cannot call his edition of Pope a
"candid" work; and I still think that there is an affectation of that
quality not only in those volumes, but in the pamphlets lately
published.

"Why _yet_ he doth _deny_ his prisoners."

Mr. Bowles says, that "he has seen passages in his letters to Martha
Blount which were never published by me, and I _hope never will_ be
by others; which are so _gross_ as to imply the _grossest_
licentiousness." Is this fair play? It may, or it may not be that
such passages exist; and that Pope, who was not a monk, although a
Catholic, may have occasionally sinned in word and deed with woman in
his youth: but is this a sufficient ground for such a sweeping
denunciation? Where is the unmarried Englishman of a certain rank of
life, who (provided he has not taken orders) has not t