1825.] 
nion, would inevitably come; an opi- 
nion, by the way, unsupported by even 
one solitary example—an opinion, I am 
bold to. say, unfounded, untrue, and 
unjust. 
Really, Sir, after such a poet as 
Bowles has been before the public 
more than thirty years, it is truly as- 
tonishing, that such unjust, such un- 
candid criticism can be now entertained. 
But this anonymous writer has, I sup- 
pose, been reading Lord Byron’s opi- 
nion, as handed to us by Mr. Medwin 
if he has, ‘and adopts it, I pity him. 
Lord Byron gives, occasionally, very 
brilliant light—but it is dangerous to 
follow him in all his bye-paths. His 
Lordship asks, according to Mr. Med- 
win, “ what could Coleridge mean by 
praising Bowles’s poetry as he does?” 
I answer for a numerous'class of: read- 
ers, as well as myself, “ the same as the 
public mean, that can relish tenderness, 
truth and feeling ;”? and notwithstand- 
ing Lord Byron’s opinion, and the 
opinion of your anonymous corres- 
‘pondent to boot, many of Bowles’s 
Sonnets, thosein particular To Poverty, 
At Dover Cliffs, July 20, .1787, At a 
Convent, To Time, Sonnets xv, xxi, 
and xxii, will be found, I hesitate not 
to assert, full of genuine poetry, and 
“ excite some of our best feelings. Of 
his other Poems, the Verses on reading 
Howard’s Description of Prisons, the 
Monody written at Matlock, Lines on 
teaving a Place of Residence, and Hope, 
an Allegorical Sketch, may.be particu- 
larly mentioned, and will descend to 
posterity, and be long read after such 
unhandsome attempts as Lord Byron’s 
and those of your anonymous corres- 
pondent are forgotten. I leave, there- 
fore, your anonymous correspondent 
in possession of his tasteless opinion, 
merely requesting the favour of your 
permitting the twenty-first Sonnet of 
Bowles to appear below, as a proof 
of the power which he. possesses 
of exciting the feelings, by genuine 
poetry; very different, indeed, from 
the “ cream and water,” so unceremo- 
niously bespattered over all this-geatle- 
man’s writings. 
But the sneers of Lord Byron must not 
be thus passed over; they do no credit 
to his judgment, and would rather 
induce us to suspect that he had not 
even read the poetry of the amiable 
poet whom he has so unmercifully 
censured: for, if he had, obtuse must 
be the feeling, and dull the apprehension, 
that could prompt. him to. say or write 
what he i$ reported to have said, and 
Jennings on Bowles. 
231 
what we know-he has written, concern- 
ing Bowles. ' 
Lord Byron, while I- render due re- 
spect. to his transcendant genius, ap- 
pears to me to have been one. of those 
spirits (I wish there were not so many 
amongst us) who too often write for 
effect, and for effect merely, and to excite 
the public attention. He was one, too, 
-of those who presume that they- have 
a right to say all they think, how crude 
soever their thoughts may be, or how 
injurious soever they may be to the fair 
fame, or to the feelings of other persons. 
They doubtless occasionally say, by such 
a headlong course, some very. smart 
and piquant things; but they invariably 
produce by-such sayings, in the more 
dispassionate portion of the. public— 
that portion whose opinion is of most 
value—a feeling of disgust, which, when 
the recent effervescence subsides, has 
more weight in apportioning literary 
honours than has been commonly sup- 
posed. The absurdity of his Lord- 
ship’s opinion, that the first fortnight 
decides the public opinion of a new book, 
is not less apparent than 'the silliness 
of the question, “ What poets had we 
in 1795 2???—This question reminds me 
of some observations made by Voltaire, 
in his introduction to the History of 
Charles the Twelfth: we have only to 
change the persons and subjects, and we 
shall see the world in which Lord 
Byron moved ! 
“Tls regardent la cour ot ils ont 
vécu comme la plus belle qui ait jamais 
été, le roi qu’ils ont vu comme le plus 
grande monarque, les affaires dont ils 
se sont mélés comme ce qui a jamais été 
de plus important dans le monde: iis 
simaginent que la postérité verra tout 
cela avec les mémes yeux.—Echauffés 
par la vivacité de ces événemens présentes, 
ils pensent étre dans Vépoque la plus- 
singuliére depuis la création.’ But the 
philosopher, the dispassionate observer, 
sees present objects with very different 
eyes. When Lord Byron, therefore, 
asks “ what poets had we in 1795?” as 
his Lordship was too young to have 
any distinct literary recollections of 
that period, it may be useful to observe 
here, that we had a few who could: 
warble tolerably even then. | There 
were Mason, Home, Cowper, Beattie | 
and Burns, all enjoying therich and well- | 
earned fame: to. which their writings» 
had. entitled them. There were also,’ 
Bowles and Southey, and Coleridge 
himself, just rising into notice; there: 
was also Darwin, whose Botanic. Gar- 
dens excited no ordinary interest; and 
ther 
6 
