the highest order of poetry than any works of art; and further, if it were true that passions, including all that is sublime in sentiment, or affecting in pathos, were more poetical than manners of life; provided always, that in estimating the rank of the respective poets, regard should be had to the subject and execution. Then the poet who had conceived and executed an epic like Paradise Lost, or dramas, like Lear, Macbeth, Othello, Tempest, Midsummer Night's Dream, As You Like It, would be placed higher in the rank of his art than he could be who had written

any satires, moral epistles, one the most pathetic and beautiful in this style of poetry, one heroi-comical poem, unrivalled in the world, with whatever consummate felicity of execution all or any of these poems might be finished.

This, to the best of my understanding is a fair and impartial state of the question.

In order to ascertain this more decidedly, I laid down two propositions; the first, indeed, only introductory to the second.

The first proposition, which I took for granted would be admitted, was this, - that IMAGES drawn from what is sublime or beautiful in nature were more adapted to poetry than any images drawn from art.

If this were so; in like manner, PASSIONS were more adapted to POETRY than artificial manners; the one being inherent in NATURE through all ages, the other that of the day. But I took especial care, in framing these propositions, to make one obvious distinction, that is, if a poem of the nature of Paradise Lost were not executed with talents equal to the subject, that then a more perfect execution of an inferior subject would entitle the successful poet of the humbler province in his art to a far higher rank than could be given to him, who, like BLACKMORE, undertook a great subject without adequate powers of execution. This is the whole question. Mr. CAMPBELL omitted any mention of the main proposition, and considered me as confining my ideas of poetry to minute painting from external nature; whereas the whole gist of my argument was laid on Passions. This was doing me injustice, on the part of Mr. CAMPBELL, from inadvertence : I would not hear his enemies say otherwise. But

“ he has not misrepresented me;" and therefore, having stated the fact, I shall say no more till I hear his reply; but with deference to him, the point seems to resolve itself into yes or

Did he, or did he not, speak of me as confining my ideas of poetry to inanimate descriptions? The reader will see with what justice, when he reads my second and main proposition, that passions are more poetical than manners : And I should think there could not be a doubt, by any one who reads the propositions, that I consider passions far more essential to poetry than mere description ; which,

he says,

indeed, through every part of my edition of Pope, I placed as the least and lowest department in poetry.

Mr. CAMPBELL, confining himself to the first proposition, instanced, as it was natural he should, the effect of a ship first launched on the ocean, to prove that works of art are not less adapted to poetry than what is beautiful and magnificent in nature. This example is discussed in the letter first addressed to him ; and his objection, that I confined my ideas of poetry to external nature, is, I think, satisfactorily answered ; at least I shall think so, till I hear more satisfactory answers than Lord Byron has yet produced.

With respect to a misrepresentation, suppose I had published an account of his own excellent and eloquent Lectures on Poetry, and stated, that he had confined all his ideas to descriptions of external nature, and introduced nothing concerning passions ; suppose I had written an essay to prove that SHAKESPEARE and SOPHOCLES, according to his ideas, must have been excluded ; if I had done so from inadvertence, should I not have instantly acknowledged it? should I have said I had not misrepresented him ? Mr. CAMPBELL, of course, must judge for himself. I have never spoken a disrespectful word of him, though I felt it my duty, in justice to myself, when his triumph over me had been proclaimed in almost all the periodical publications, to shew, at least, that I could not have X ] 7 been so very stupid, as in my definition of poetry to confine it to inanimate representations of external nature. If I had not answered myself, should I have put forward as arguments, what I must in my heart have disdained, the petty chicanery against verbal inaccuracies; or adopted what I must known to have been gross falsifications of statements ? Should I have lauded such absurdities, such nefariousness? In my opinion, such conduct, more than any thing else, proves the utter imbecility of

strong

his cause.

A writer in the Quarterly Review, since known to be Mr. D'ISRAELI, in an elaborate, but very indiscriminating article,—with flippancies that neither were becoming him, nor the publication in which they appeared, nor, I hope, applicable to my general character,-attempted to shew, that habits and manners of life, being exquisitely de. scribed as they are by POPE, ought to entitle him to the same rank in poetry with SHAKESPEARE and Mitton!

It was really difficult to cope with those whose true "no meaning puzzles more than wit.” The very sarcastic tone in which this writer indulged, towards a person who had never given him offence; who had stated his opinions fairly, and certainly not contemptuously towards any one; and who was not conscious of an attempt (he would be the first to scorn himself, if he had done so) to depre.

ciate Pope's character as a poet or a man; I trust, will excuse the “retribution" which needless provocation has excited. A criticism on the poetry of the Critic will be found subjoined to the reply to the Quarterly. As I had no other motive than to shew that aggressive criticism may be fairly met by defensive criticism, whenever he is convinced he first went beyond the fair line of critical discussion, I shall be ready to hold out the hand of entire forgetfulness.

I will not pay such disrespect to my readers as to suppose that they could have been for a moment convinced by Mr. D’Israeli's argumentations, that manners were as poetical as passions, and Pope of equal rank with Milton.

The insults I only could have felt; and feeling them as undeserved, I mention these as an excuse for my criticisms on him in return.

Lord Byron, resolved, according to what he says in his letter, that, his name being introduced, the

fray should not be without him," comes forward next, for I pass over a disgraceful creature of mere vulgarity and scurrility.

Lord BYRON comes next, and with imposing brilliancy supports the paradox, that works of art selecting of course the most perfect in the world, are equal, if not superior, to any works of nature; making this mistake in limine, that I had spoken of bare un-selected nature, which I never did.