to manners of a refined age, which I called arti. ficial; and which you have artificially slurred over with irrelevant expressions, that prove nothing. Artificial manners are human, but “ human mans ners" ARE NOT SO ADAPTED TO POETRY OF THE

HIGHEST KIND AS HUMAN PASSIONS.

I beg further to say, that there is not one passage, concerning the poetical beauties of which you have so justly spoken, which I have not expressly pointed out myself, as the reader may find in turning to the passages; particularly let him remember what I have said respecting the PATHOS, and the PICTURES, and the SOLEMN and SWEET HARMONIES, in the Epistle of Eloisa. And can I help pointing out, not with triumph, but with regret, that you only agree with me in some points, and that where we differ, your criticism conflictingly labours against your own argument; for when, nearly in the last sentence, you say, "he, POPE, glows with passion “ in the Eloisa, and displays a LOFTY feeling, much “ ABOVE that of the SATIRIST and man of the world, " in his Prologue to Cato, and his Epistle to Lord OXFORD;" what is that but to say,

,
that

glowing passions and lofty feelings are much ABOVE those “ which distinguish the SATIRIST and man of the 66 world!!" Q. E. D.

AN

A D DRESS

TO

THOMAS CAMPBELL, ESQ.

Editor of the New Monthly Magazine,

In Consequence of an Article in that Publication.

*

words,“

2d. It being admitted that I had spoken of

passions,” and that you had represented me as omitting them, I am very willing that your representation of my sentiments shall not be called misrepresentation, if there be any other term.*

Whether the sentence in which“ passions” are spoken of as “ derived from "

“

manners, be verbally accurate or not, the main drift of the argument is not affected by it ; which is, whether art or nature, passions or manners, are more sus. ceptible of the highest poetical effects, or, in other

are more adapted to the highest orders of poetry,” which is my proposition.

A third edition of the Letters to Lord BYRON being about to appear, I shall have an opportunity of making some further remarks respecting the sentiments which come under the sanction of Mr. CAMPBELL.

As to the writer reviewed in the New Monthly Magazine, to pass over the eternal quibbles, “ split

ting hairs" about words; his writing “about

it, Goddess, and about it;" to pass over his “ proving" what I never denied, and assuming what ( never asserted; his reasonings appear to me ne plus ultra absurdities in any man who can read and write.

TOTHOMAS CAMPBELL, Esq.

Bremhill, March 11, 1822,

a

DEAR SIR,

I Assure you it was only yesterday that I accidentally saw, in the Magazine, of which you are the Editor, an article professedly reviewing a pamphlet, in which a late controversy is spoken of, The article in the Magazine, if not written, which I can hardly suppose, by the Editor, has, at least, his sanction, and therefore is entitled to some notice.

1st. I am happy it is admitted that I spoke of passions” in my definition of poetry.

66

Est quodam prodire tenus si non datur ultra.

No misunderstanding could have taken place, between me and yourself, if this had been originally admitted ; because I could not have been repre

l sented as confining my views of poetry to Dutch pictures and inanimate landscapes.