ishop Wake. She died some years before her husband, and left no
family. Bowles himself expired at Salisbury, after a gradual decay of
the vital powers, April 7, 1850, aged eighty-eight years. His life is
about to be written at large by his kinsman, Dr J. Bowles, assisted by
Mr Alaric Watts, to whom the publisher is indebted for the means of
supplying a complete copyright edition of the poet's works.

Bowles was a diligent pastor, an eloquent preacher, an active justice,
and in every way an estimable man. Even Byron, who met him at Mr
Rogers', in London, speaks of him as a "pleasant, gentlemanly man--a
good fellow for a parson." Moore, in his Diary, speaks with delight of
his mixture of talent and simplicity. In his introduction to "Scenes
and Shadows," Bowles gives some interesting particulars of his early
life. In _Blackwood_, for August 1828, there is a very entertaining
account of Bremhill Parsonage.

As an author, he appears in three aspects--as a writer on typography, as
an editor and controversialist, and as a poet. In 1828, he produced a
volume entitled "The Parochial History of Bremhill," and shortly
afterwards, his "History of Lacock Abbey," containing much interesting
antiquarian lore. To this succeeded a still more ingenious and recondite
work, entitled "Hermes Britannicus," besides some less important
writings of a similar kind. His "Life of Bishop Ken," which appeared in
1830 and 1831, might be considered as belonging to the same category of
learned antiquarian lucubrations.

In 1807, he published an edition of Pope, in ten volumes, for which he
received L300. The life prefixed to this edition led to the celebrated
controversy between Bowles, on the one hand, and Campbell, Byron,
Roscoe, Octavius Gilchrist, and the _Quarterly Review_, on the other. In
our life of Pope, we hope to devote a few pages to the principal
questions which were mooted in this controversy. We may simply say, at
present, that we think Bowles was, in the main, right, although he laid
himself open to retort at many points, and displayed an _animus_ against
Pope, both as a man and a poet, which he in vain sought to disclaim, and
which somewhat detracted from the value of his criticisms. He gained,
however, the three objects at which he aimed:--he proved that Pope was
only at the head of the _second_ rank of poets--that, as a man, he was
guilty of many meannesses, and had a prurient imagination and pen--and
that the objects of artificia