apology for Pope's share in the transaction. In whatever light his conduct is viewed, it is impossible to acquit him of equivocation and double-dealing amounting to perfidy. It seems, however, more reasonable to adopt a hypothesis on which the circumstances of the case can be explained, in a manner consistent with his known character, than to hold him guilty of the gross and palpable treachery with which he has been charged, and which is imputed to him by the malice of a concealed enemy, unsupported by any body of satisfactory independent evidence.

It may be assumed that the characters of Atossa and of Philomede, the young Duchess of Marlborough, who had made herself conspicuous after the death of Congreve, were written before February 16, 1733. Whether the character of Chloe was composed when Pope announced to Swift the completion of the Epistle on Women, seems more doubtful. He had certainly repeatedly defended Lady Suffolk against the insinuations of Swift, and the latter says in his letter to that lady of 21st Nov., 1730: “Mr. Pope hath been always an advocate of your sincerity; and even in the character I gave of yourself allowed you as much of that virtue as could be expected in a lady, a courtier, and a favourite." 'Want of heart,' however, the great deficiency in Chloe's character, is not absolutely incompatible with sincerity up to a certain point, and it may be that the feeling roused in the poet's mind by the death of Gay (which occurred about two months before Pope wrote to Swift, on the 16th February, 1733), had caused him to attribute the poor success of Lady Suffolk's efforts in Gay's behalf-contrasting as they did with the impulsive kindness of the Duchess of Queensberry-to lack of zeal.

With the exception of the characters of Atossa, Philomede, and Chloe, none of which were published, as part of this Epistle, during Pope's lifetime, there is nothing in the composition to discredit the statement made by the poet, in the Advertisement to the first edition, that no one character is drawn from the life.' The pictures of women it contains are evidently studied after the manner of the Aurelias and Leonoras of the 'Spectator,' that is to say partly from observation, partly from anecdote, partly from books. There is a sufficient element of fact in them to produce verisimilitude; many touches and traits are borrowed from real life; but the general treatment is ideal.

Johnson says justly, that Pope has surpassed Boileau in his treatment of the same subject; but this is not very high praise. The Sixth Satire of Boileau is by no means a favourable example of the French poet's excellence; it reads like an expurgated version of Juvenal's Sixth Satire, almost all the details being rather slavishly imitated from that tremendous composition, but toned down to suit the tame regularity of modern society. Pope's design on the other

hand was completely original; the leading principles of the Essay, that most women have no character at all,' and that the ruling passions of the sex are the love of pleasure and the love of sway,' are deductions from his own philosophical system; while the particular instances are admirably worked up to illustrate the general idea. It may indeed be objected to the poem, that the general idea is philosophically false, or at least incomplete, inasmuch as it entirely leaves out of sight the heroic and self-sacrificing side of female character, of which history affords so many examples. But to this objection the answer is obvious: Pope wrote as a satiric not as a romantic poet; he sought for his materials in the social life about him, and the loftier characters of martyrs and heroines, of women like Imogen or the Countess of Derby, lay outside his survey. His philosophical principles were always made subservient to his sense of poetical effect, and from this point of view it can hardly be disputed that the Essay is as felicitous in design as it is in execution. Perhaps many readers will be inclined to agree with Bolingbroke in thinking it the chef-d'œuvre among the Moral Essays.

The original Epistle was registered at Stationers' Hall, Feb. 1734-5, under the title " Of the Characters of Women. An Epistle to a Lady. By Mr. Pope," the owner of the copyright being Lawton Gilliver.

EPISTLE II.

TO A LADY.'

THE CHARACTERS OF WOMEN.

NOTHING SO true as what you once let fall:
"Most women have no characters at all."
Matter too soft a lasting mark to bear,
And best distinguished by black, brown, or fair.
How many pictures of one nymph we view,
All how unlike each other, all how true!

Arcadia's Countess, here in ermined pride,
Is there, Pastora by a fountain side.'
Here Fannia, leering on her own good man,
And there, a naked Leda with a swan.
Let then the fair one beautifully cry
In Magdalen's loose hair and lifted eye,

Or dressed in smiles of sweet Cecilia shine,

With simpering angels, palms, and harps divine;2
Whether the charmer sinner it, or saint it,
If folly grow romantic, I must paint it."

s'ils en ont, c'est celui de n'en avoir
aucun qui est suivi, qui si ne démente
point, et où ils soient reconnaissables."
-De l'Homme.

In the early editions, "There Pastorella."

"Arcadia's Countess" was Lady Winchelsea. Some complimentary verses from her were prefixed to the first edition of Pope's works, but were afterwards omitted, and she is here and elsewhere sneered at. died, 5th Aug. 1720.-CROKER.

She

2 Attitudes in which several ladies affected to be drawn, and sometimes one lady in them all. The poet's politeness and complaisance to the sex is observable in this instance, amongst others, that whereas in the Characters of Men he has sometimes made use of real names, in the Characters of Women always fictitious.-POPE.

This apology betrays the falsehood of the Advertisement, for if the characters were wholly fictitious there would have been no merit in not giving names as he had done to the men.-CROKER.

It must, however, be remembered that this note did not appear in the folio edition of the poem to which the Advertisement was prefixed. Johnson says: "This poem, which was laboured with great diligence, and in the author's opinion with great success, was neglected at its first publication,

10

15

as the commentator supposes, because the public was informed, by an advertisement, that it contained No character drawn from the life; an assertion which Pope probably did not expect or wish to have been believed, and which he soon gave his readers sufficient reason to distrust by telling them in a note, that the work was imperfect, because part of his subject was vice too high to be yet exposed." It does not follow that the first edition contained a character of any particular person drawn from the life. The Advertisement may have been originally written in good faith, and the note to ver. 14, together with the one to which Johnson refers, may have been added to pique the public curiosity, when the poet found that the Epistle was coldly received.

The general idea in lines 5-16, appears to have been suggested by the allegorical style of portrait-painting introduced by Lely.

3 In earlier editions, "We must paint it." The meaning of this paragraph seems to be, As the painter shows his insight into character by portraying the same lady in various attitudes and disguises, so I too must endeavour to reflect in verse the chameleon changes of woman's mind.'

Come, then, the colours and the ground prepare! Dip in the rainbow, trick her off in air;

Choose a firm cloud, before it fall, and in it

Catch, ere she change, the Cynthia of this minute.' Rufa, whose eye quick glancing o'er the park,' Attracts each light gay meteor of a spark,

Agrees as ill with Rufa studying Locke,'

As Sappho's diamonds with her dirty smock;
Or Sappho at her toilet's greasy task,
With Sappho fragrant at an evening mask :