the vilest, most degrading nature, in his Eloise; we know of no other production where he is even animated. Pathetic he never is, though he is often angry. The elegy on an unfortunate young lady is pensive, delicate, and harmonious; but it has no pathos. His mock-heroic deserves all the praise even Lord Byron can give it and his translation, though not perfect, is excellent. In satire, he ranks below Juvenal, Horace, and, in his own country, Dryden: and to this moment it is a matter of doubt, whether his vaunted system of ethics was his own, or gathered from the lips of Bolingbroke.

From vindicating the genius, Lord Byron turns to defend the character of his favorite poet; and he does defend him with an honourable zeal. But whatever Mr. Bowles may have asserted against Pope, there can be no excuse for Lord Byron's wanton attack upon Cowper: we do not allude to his remarks on the poetical fame of Cowper, but to those on his private life. Surely, if there be any thing sacred-if there be a subject from which sneering malice would turn, which even hatred would respect-it is the aberrations of a powerful mind. Though Cowper's piety bordered on superstition, and his melancholy was tinctured with madness-are these themes for ridicule or blame? In all Bowles' "Strictures" there is not so unfeeling a remark, as this of Byron's. Pope and Cowper are both dead; but they were not both unhappy. The one descended to the grave, rich in fame, in friends, and fortune. The other had to contend with a scanty fortune, the frowns of the world, and worse than all, that worst visitation of God-the struggles of a troubled and bewildered mind. Better, far better to jeer at the illustrious dead, than to scorn the ruins of what once was noble, or sneer over its degradation.

Does

'But there is something a little more serious in Mr. Bowles' declaration, that he "would have spoken" of his "noble generosity to the outcast, Richard Savage," and other instances of a compassionate and generous heart, "had they occurred to his recollection when he wrote." What is it come to this? Does Mr. Bowles sit down to write a minute and laboured life and edition of a great poet? he anatomize his character, moral and poetical? Does he present us with his faults and with his foibles? Does he sneer at his feelings, and doubt of his sincerity? Does he unfold his vanity and duplicity? and then omit the good qualities which might, in part, have " ed this multitude of sins?" and then plead that "they did not occur to his recollection?" Is this the frame of mind and of memory with which the illustrious dead are to be approached? If Mr. Bowles, who must have had access to all the means of refreshing his memory, did not recollect these facts, he is.unfit for his task; but if he did recollect, and omit them, I know not what he is fit for-but I know what would be fit for him.'

cover

Lord Byron's reception of the censure of critics is very amusing, and reminds us of the old joke of the eels, who did not

mind being flayed because they were used to it: if indeed a quarterly impaling for three years could diminish a poet's irritability, the noble author has been fairly subjected to the experiment.

I have been reviewed in the Quarterly almost as often as Mr. Bowles, and have had as pleasant things said, and some as unpleasant, as could well be pronounced. In the review of "The Fall of Jerusalem" it is stated, that I have devoted "my powers, &c. to the worst parts of Manicheism," which being interpreted, means, that I worship the devil. Now, I have neither written a reply, nor complained to Gifford.'

Mr. Bowles is, it seems, very angry with the Quarterly Review, and one Mr. Octavius Gilchrist; but what most nettles him is some insinuation about country clergymen and hypochondria. So distant from the field of battle, we cannot know the minutiæ of the combat, but if we may judge of the stroke by the rebound, the reverend gentleman must have received some hard hits. Lord Byron, at the close of his letter, addresses a word to Campbell, whom he thinks he has detected in a plagiarism or imitation, and borrowing his lordship's style: we may inquire if the following lines from Goethe's Wilhelm Meister did not suggest the beautiful opening of the Bride of Abydos? It is the song of Mignon to her lover; we quote from memory.

• Kennst du das land wo die citronen blühn,

Und unter dunklem laub die gold orangen glühn,

Wo still die myrtle und hock die pappel steht,
En sanfter wind vom blauen Himmel weht,
Kennst du es wahl?

Dahm, dahm, mächt uh mit dir,

O mein gelieber zichen !'*

We might also suggest, that the original of the fine simile of the mirror, which occurs in the notes of one of his poems, may be found in Rosseau's Eloise; and that the celebrated passage in which Greece is compared to a corse, inanimate, but still wearing the tints of life, is taken from Mrs. Radcliffe. Any of these instances is quite as strong as that produced against Campbell.

We perceive, since the publication of Lord Byron's letter, that Mr. Bowles has come out with an answer, and has taken for his motto, (every one has mottoes now,) "He who plays at bowles' with the sun and the moon' may expect rubbers." It is a bad omen to begin with a boast, and Mr. Bowles might recollect that these same "rubbers" are things which are

Knowest thou the land where the citrons bloom,
Where under dark leaves the gold oranges glow,
Where the silent myrtle and high poplar stand,
And the soft wind from the blue Heaven blows,
Knowest thou it well?

Thither, thither, would I with thee,

O my beloved go.'

VOL. III.

14

easier to promise than to give. But our readers will be weary of Messrs. Bowles and Gilchrist, and, worse than all, of the reviewer.

ART. VIII.-ANSWER TO THE QUERIES OF D. F., IN OUR THIRD NUMBER, ADDRESSED TO THE REVIEWER OF WILKINSON'S MEMOIRS.

'AN Inquirer after Truth' is always entitled to respect, and not having any reason to doubt the genuineness of the character assumed by D. F. we hasten to redeem the pledge given for us, in No. 3, of the Repository. As our answers to the queries of this correspondent will be full and frank-" nothing extenuating, nor setting down aught in malice," we cannot but hope that they will also be satisfactory.

6

1st. Why was General Hampton permitted to escape, without a trial and without arrestation?"

To this question we reply, that it takes for granted premises not entirely correct: General Hampton was not permitted to escape without arrestation-for he was arrested, by a letter from the Secretary of War, of the 19th January, 1814. From this letter, we make the following extract: Major General Wilkin'son having exhibited charges against you, and having demand'ed your arrestation, it is not for the executive authority to 'take upon itself the responsibility of judging the case, or of refusing to this demand of the general, a court of inquiry, 'which shall decide whether your conduct, during the last campaign, has, or has not, been censurable. The court will be 'instituted, as soon as may be practicable.'

But the main question recurs;-why, after having arrested General Hampton, was he not brought to trial? Was this step in advance, a mere signal for retrograde movements? Did it make part of the grand tactics of that era? Was there a connexion between the general and any department of the government, rendering necessary, or useful, both conciliation and concealment? Had he been made to understand, that every evil has its corresponding good, and that the invasion of Canada might be defeated, without producing any great national calamity? And lastly, was the escape from justice, of which we now speak, the reward, at once, of his silence and his crimes? these suggestions it is not our intention, at present, to speak positively they have been often made, and, so far as we know, have never been refuted; but our immediate use for them is merely to illustrate the following facts, which neither can, nor will be contradicted. The letter of arrestation, quoted above,

On

found the general at the Bowling-Green, (Virginia,) whither he had been permitted to go, for the recovery of his health. Instead of concluding, that this act of the government imposed upon him any new or increased injunction to remain where he was, he considered it as conferring the liberty of going where he pleased; and accordingly, without giving any answer to the Secretary, or any notice to the department of his intended movements, he made his way to South Carolina. From this "vantage ground," the theatre at once of his wealth and his influence, he opened a negociation with the government, and in a few days, through the urgency of colonel Taylor of the Senate, and the mediation of the Secretary of State, obtained an order that the War Department should tread back its steps, discontinue the prosecution, and accept the general's resignation.*

6

2d. Why was the private letter of General Wilkinson to Geneal Lewis opened and read at the War Office?"

If the former query was founded on premises not entirely correct, this is still more so-for though the letter in question was read, it was not opened in the sense of the querist; which, at least, appears to have taken for granted some unworthy practice --some violation of trust-some outrage committed on the wax, or the wafer, which held it together. Such, however, was not the fact the letter was an open one, altogether unsealed-put up with others, addressed to the Secretary, and received at the War Office, in the absence of that functionary. Like all other packets, so addressed, and having an official stamp, this was opened, and the despatches it contained read by the first clerk, general Parker, who supposing (we think very reasonably) that an unsealed letter to a Major General of the army, and accompanied by others on public business, was, like those, intended for the perusal of the Secretary, went on to read this also. Finding the contents (as he thought) of very equivocal character, and such as might have been expected from the Fat Knight to Ancient Pistol-he despatched it by express to the Secretary; who, in his turn, communicated it to the President, with the following question :-whether a superior officer, sending such a letter to one of subordinate rank, ought to be continued in com

* An application was made to the Secretary of War on this subject, with a view of engaging him in the measure, and perhaps of making him responsible for it; but he declined taking part in it, unless ordered to do so by the president.

† It appears by General Lewis's testimopy, page 131, vol. 3, of the Memoirs, that the letter, according to the recollection of the Secretary and of General Parker, contained a sentiment, "advising him not to expose his person in battle, and representing that generals, who were choice spirits, ought not to be exposed to the same hazards, as younger officers."

mand? The President's reply was not exactly such as Frederick or Napoleon would have made :-"The letter," said he, "is prima facie highly improper; but as it is quite improbable that General Lewis will suffer it to influence his conduct, it may be sealed and forwarded, and passed over without farther noticeand with the less objection, as after all it may be but a ruse of Wilkinson, to prevent Lewis from undertaking any thing of eclat, until he (W.) shall have arrived at the army." This opinion was adopted and followed: nor would the letter have attracted farther notice, but for the remarkable coincidence between its supposed doctrines and the conduct of the General throughout the campaign.

3d. Why is the history given by General Wilkinson, of the causes of the capture of Washington, passed over in silence? Was it because his story is unanswerable?"

This question is free from the defects of those we have discussed, but has others peculiar to itself: it wants both judgment and delicacy;-judgment, because a strict and logical answer to it would explain nothing, and might even be given in a monosyllable; and delicacy, because our personal motives for pass. ing over the general's history of what he has facetiously called the Bladensburgh Races, and of many other incidents of the war, have been already assigned, and ought, we think, to have satisfied every honest inquirer. Still, as the subject is important, and may be as little understood by others as by our querist, we have no scruple to enter upon it, and have even some hopes of being able to present it under new and interesting aspects. By this engagement, however, we are not to be understood as binding ourselves to follow the general, paragraph by paragraph, through the bulky and ill-arranged matter he has spread before us-for to do this would require the patience of Job and the age of Methuselah;-but, what will better promote the progress of truth, we will carefully assemble the causes which, in his opinion, were most efficient in producing the capture of Washington; and give to each that degree of examination which may be necessary either to refute, or to establish it. The result will probably satisfy D. F. that our past silence has not arisen from a conviction that the general's story is, in all its parts, unanswerable.

According to our historian, the capture of Washington is ascribable to want of foresight, in not perceiving that the Capitol would be the object of the enemy's attack; to want of diligence, in not preparing sufficiently against this attack, after the intention of the enemy had become apparent; to want of judgment and skill, in not properly employing the means of defence actually possessed; to certain ministerial interferences with the legitimate authority and arrangements of the commanding Ge