enchman, his day after the
battle of Sheriff-Muir, when he was found watching his chief's body.
He was asked, "who that was?" he replied--"it was a man yesterday."
And in this capacity, "in or out of the kingdom," I must own that I
participate in many of the objections urged by Mr. Gilchrist. I
participate in his love of Pope, and in his not understanding, and
occasionally finding fault with, the last editor of our last truly
great poet.

One of the reproaches against Mr. Gilchrist is, that he is (it is
sneeringly said) an F. S. _A_. If it will give Mr. Bowles any
pleasure, I am not an F. S. A. but a Fellow of the Royal Society at
his service, in case there should be any thing in that association
also which may point a paragraph.

"There are some other reasons," but "the author is now _not_
unknown." Mr. Bowles has so totally exhausted himself upon Octavius
Gilchrist, that he has not a word left for the real quarterer of his
edition, although now "deterre."

The following page refers to a mysterious charge of "duplicity, in
regard to the publication of Pope's letters." Till this charge is
made in proper form, we have nothing to do with it: Mr. Gilchrist
hints it--Mr. Bowles denies it; there it rests for the present. Mr.
Bowles professes his dislike to "Pope's duplicity, _not_ to Pope"--a
distinction apparently without a difference. However, I believe that
I understand him. We have a great dislike to Mr. Bowles's edition of
Pope, but _not_ to Mr. Bowles; nevertheless, he takes up the subject
as warmly as if it was personal. With regard to the fact of "Pope's
duplicity," it remains to be proved--like Mr. Bowles's benevolence
towards his memory.

In page 14. we have a large assertion, that "the 'Eloisa' alone is
sufficient to convict him of _gross licentiousness_." Thus, out it
comes at last. Mr. Bowles _does_ accuse Pope of "_gross_
licentiousness," and grounds the charge upon a poem. The
_licentiousness_ is a "grand peut-etre," according to the turn of the
times being. The grossness I deny. On the contrary, I do believe that
such a subject never was, nor ever could be, treated by any poet with
so much delicacy, mingled with, at the same time, such true and
intense passion. Is the "Atys" of Catullus _licentious_? No, nor even
gross; and yet Catullus is often a coarse writer. The subject is
nearly the same, except that Atys was the suicide of his manhood, and
Abelard the victim.

The "licentiousness" of the story w