ere appears also
to have been some slight personal provocation. Mr. Gilchrist, with a
chivalrous disdain of the fury of an incensed poet, put his name to a
letter avowing the production of a former essay in defence of Pope,
and consequently of an attack upon Mr. Bowles. Mr. Bowles appears to
be angry with Mr. Gilchrist for four reasons:--firstly, because he
wrote an article in "The London Magazine;" secondly, because he
afterwards avowed it; thirdly, because he was the author of a still
more extended article in "The Quarterly Review;" and, fourthly,
because he was NOT the author of the said Quarterly article, and had
the audacity to disown it--for no earthly reason but because he had
NOT written it.

Mr. Bowles declares, that "he will not enter into a particular
examination of the pamphlet," which by a _misnomer_ is called
"Gilchrist's Answer to Bowles," when it should have been called
"Gilchrist's Abuse of Bowles." On this error in the baptism of Mr.
Gilchrist's pamphlet, it may be observed, that an answer may be
abusive and yet no less an answer, though indisputably a temperate
one might be the better of the two: but if _abuse_ is to cancel all
pretensions to reply, what becomes of Mr. Bowles's answers to Mr.
Gilchrist?

Mr. Bowles continues:--"But as Mr. Gilchrist derides my _peculiar
sensitiveness to criticism_, before I show how _destitute of truth is
this representation_, I will here explicitly declare the only
grounds," &c. &c. &c.--Mr. Bowles's sensibility in denying his
"sensitiveness to criticism" proves, perhaps, too much. But if he has
been so charged, and truly--what then? There is no moral turpitude in
such acuteness of feeling: it has been, and may be, combined with
many good and great qualities. Is Mr. Bowles a poet, or is he not? If
he be, he must, from his very essence, be sensitive to criticism; and
even if he be not, he need not be ashamed of the common repugnance to
being attacked. All that is to be wished is, that he had considered
how disagreeable a thing it is, before he assailed the greatest moral
poet of any age, or in any language.

Pope himself "sleeps well,"--nothing can touch him further; but those
who love the honour of their country, the perfection of her
literature, the glory of her language--are not to be expected to
permit an atom of his dust to be stirred in his tomb, or a leaf to be
stripped from the laurel which grows over it.

Mr. Bowles assigns several reasons why and when "