"Take away the 'pyramids,' and what is the 'desert?" Take away Stonehenge from Salisbury Plain, and it is nothing more than Hounslow Heath, or any other uninclosed down."-Byron.

I will tell you, my Lord, why a desert is poetical without a pyramid: because it convey ideas of immeasurable extent, of profound silence, of solitude. What is Salisbury Plain without Stonehenge? Stonehenge is poetical from its traditions, and uncertain origin. (See WARTON's fine sonnet.) But Hounslow Heath conveys to the mind chiefly ideas of "artificial" life,-turnpike-roads, stage-coaches in all directions, raree-showmen, whose shows "thousands" would look at, who do not look at the sun!! carts and caravans, and butcher boys scampering on horseback with one spur, and my Lord in his coach, with the "poetical LIVERY MEN" behind!

Therefore, HOUNSLOW HEATH is not so poetical as "the Desert," connected with the idea of solitude, of extent, of sands moving in the vast wilderness; of Arabs telling their wild stories by moonlight, &c.-these make the "desert" more poetical than Hounslow Heath, with or without a pyramid.

But we must be more particular, now we are

come to

SALISBURY PLAIN.

We have been taking a delightful excursion, from Venice to Constantinople, from Athens and the shore of Greece to the deserts and the Pyramids of Egypt, as on ROGERO's horse, from the py-. ramids and deserts of Egypt, having placed me,

"Ut magus, modo Thebis, modo ATHENIS,"

you have brought me back safely to Salisbury Plain, within thirty miles of my own door.

And here it is almost time (for which I am sorry) to part, for the excursion has been pleasant; and if we have not quite agreed on the road, I hope we shall part in as good humour as we met. But before I take my leave, suffer me to recall to your recollection the first words of your sentence about the pyramids.

The reader has seen, that you have admitted they are not so poetical without the desert and its associations as with them. Now I have quoted my original positions four or five times, placed them before Mr. CAMPBELL, the Quarterly Review, and your Lordship, and I beg and entreat you again to remember, I never said that WORKS OF ART were not poctical,

(I must have been an idiot so to have said,) I only said the sublime and beautiful works of NATURE were, per se, abstractedly, MORE SO! Has the AIR of Italy, Milan, &c. affected your Lordship's recollection? "Works of nature are, per se, in what "is beautiful or sublime, more poetical than any "works of art."

"PASSIONS are more poetical than the manners " and habits of artificial life."

If you had read what I distinctly laid down, or, having read the first propositions, remembered them, your book would not have been so pleasant, but I cannot concede that any instance you have advanced, has affected my original positions.

Your gods and goddesses; your statues, busts, temples; your arms, shields, and spears, (not forgetting Mrs. UNWIN's needle and CowPER's smallclothes ;) your prospects of cities by sea, Venice, Constantinople, &c.; your pyramids and pigsties; your slop-basins and "other vessels," your liveryman; the desert, Hounslow Heath, (why not Bagshot? it is most poetical of the two,) Salisbury Plain, the poulterer, the rabbits, "white, black, "and grey," vanish at the waving of the wand of truth; and the grotesque assembly becomes

"Like the baseless shadow of a vision.”

However, as we are got safe upon Salisbury Plain at last, it is time to make my bow; and I can assure you, my Lord, I look back on many of the

beautiful pictures you have painted with unfeigned delight, though still thinking my principles of poetical criticism not a jot the less "INVARIABLE," in consequence of any arguments you have brought against them.

There are one or two personal passages in your pamphlet, which it is possible, upon second thoughts, you would have omitted. Whether you would do so or not, I shall pass them over sub silentio; and hoping, in the course of this discussion, I may not have said a word to give the least personal offence to your Lordship,

I remain, &c. &c.

Bremhill, near Calne,
April 14, 1821.

W. L. BOWLES.

POST SCRIPTUM.

I forgot to speak of a ship in a tempest as a poetical object; and this, probably, your Lordship, may turn against me. A ship in a tempest undoubtedly is both sublime and terrible; but what makes it so? It is the intense sympathy with the terror and distress, that causes the sublimity and do you sympathize with the people in the ship, or the ship? the men, or the boards? then your sympathy is derived from nature. If If you knew a ship had no men in it, the terror, and those feelings which cause sublimity, would be lost. Let the ship appear in the tempest, and far greater sublimity and terror will, on this account, be given when she appears no longer.

CRABBE and COLERIDGE have both taken such a moment of terror, which gives an indescribable sublimity; because, an image from nature is called up, which shews you those miserable people in despair and agony one moment; in the next, the