the sale of the book: it keeps up controversy, and prevents it being forgotten. Besides, the first men of all ages have had their share, nor do the humblest escape;-so I bear it like a philosopher. It is odd two opposite critiques came out on the same day, and out of five pages of abuse, my censor only quotes two lines from different poems, in support of his opinion. Now, the proper way to cut up, is to quote long passages, and make them appear absurd, because simple allegation is no proof. On the other hand, there are seven pages of praise, and more than my modesty will allow said on the subject.

(1807, October 26. Letter 81, to Elizabeth. Bridget Pigot, Vol. I., p. 147.)

I am of so much importance that a most violent attack is preparing for me in the next number of the Edinburgh Review. This I had from the authority of a friend who has seen the proof and manuscript of the critique. You know the system of the Edinburgh gentlemen is universal attack. They praise none; and neither the public nor the author expects praise from them. It is, however, something to be noticed, as they profess to pass judgment only on works requiring the public attention. You will see this when it comes out;-it is, I understand, of the most unmerciful description; but I am aware of it, and hope you will not be hurt by its severity. Tell M" Byron not to be out of humour with them, and to prepare her mind for the greatest hostility on their part. It will do no injury whatever, and I trust her mind will not be ruffled. They defeat their object by indiscriminate abuse, and they never praise except

THE EDINBURGH'S ATTACK ON BYRON 153

the partisans of Lord Holland and Co. It is nothing to be abused when Southey, Moore, Lauderdale, Strangford, and Payne Knight, share the same fate.

(1808, February 26. Letter 94, to the Rev. John Becher, Vol. I., p. 183.)

As an author, I am cut to atoms by the E Review; it is just out, and has completely demolished my little fabric of fame. This is rather scurvy treatment for a Whig Review; but politics and poetry are different things, and I am no adept in either. I therefore submit in silence.

(1808, February 27. Letter to John Cam Hobhouse, Vol. I., p. 183, note.)

You have seen the Edinburgh Review, of course. I regret that Mrs Byron is so much annoyed. For my own part, these "paper bullets of the brain" have only taught me to stand fire; my repose and appetite are not discomposed. Pratt, the gleaner, author, poet, etc., etc., addressed a long rhyming epistle to me on the subject, by way of consolation; but it was not well done, so I do not send it, though the name of the man might make it go down. The E. R have not performed their task well; at least the literati tell me this; and I think I could write a more sarcastic critique on myself than any yet published. For instance, instead of the remark,-ill-natured enough, but not keen,-about Macpherson, I (quoad reviewers) could have said, "Alas, this imitation only proves the assertion of Dr Johnson, that many men,

women, and children, could write such poetry as Ossian's.'

(1808, March 28. Letter 95, to the Rev. John Becher, Vol. I., p. 186.)

Has Murray shown the work [i.e. Childe Harold] to any one? He may-but I will have no traps for applause. . . . After all, I fear he will be in a scrape with the orthodox; but I cannot help it, though I wish him well through it. As for me, "I have supped full of criticism," and I don't think that the "most dismal treatise" will stir and rouse my "fell of hair" till "Birnam wood do come to Dunsinane."

(1811, August 21. Letter 167, to R. C. Dallas, Vol. I., p. 335.)

I think the Rejected Addresses by far the best thing of the kind since the Rolliad, and wish you had published them. Tell the author "I forgive him, were he twenty times our satirist;" and think his imitations not at all inferior to the famous ones of Hawkins Browne. He must be a man of very lively wit, and much less scurrilous than Wits often are: altogether, I very much admire the performance, and wish it all success. The Satrist has taken a new tone as you will see: we have now, I think, finished with C. H.'s critics. The Editor of the Satirist almost ought to be thanked for his revocation; it is done handsomely, after five years' warfare.

(1812, October 19. Letter 266, to John

Murray, Vol. II., p. 177.)

PRINCIPLES OF DEFENCE AND OF ATTACK 155

You say I never attempt to justify myself. You are right. At times I can't and occasionally I won't defend by explanation; life is not worth having on such terms. The only attempt I ever made at defence was in a poetical point of view-and what did it end in? not an exculpation of me, but an attack on all other persons whatsoever. I should make a pretty scene indeed if I went on defendingbesides, by proving myself (supposing it possible) a good sort of quiet country gentleman, to how many people should I give more pain than pleasure? Do you think accusers like one the better for being confuted? (1813, September 26. Correspondence with Miss Milbanke. Letter 3, Vol. III., p. 401.)

There have been some epigrams on M W[ard]: one I see to-day. The first I did not see, but heard yesterday. I only hope that Mr W. does not believe that I had any connection with either. The Regent is the only person on whom I ever expectorated an epigram, or ever should; and even if I were disposed that way, I like and value M' W. too well to allow my politics to contract into spleen, or to admire any thing intended to annoy him or his. I have said this much about the epigrams, because I live so much in the opposite camp, and, from my post as an Engineer, might be suspected as the flinger of these hand Grenadoes; but with a worthy foe I am all for open war, and not this bush-fighting, and have [not] had, nor will have, any thing to do with it. I do not know the author. (1813, November 29. Letter 362, to John Murray, Vol. II., p. 291.)

I send you a scratch or two, the which heal. The Christian Observer is very savage [on The Giaour], but certainly uncommonly well written and quite uncomfortable at the naughtiness of book and author. I rather suspect you won't much like the present to be more moral, if it is to share also the usual fate of your virtuous volumes.

(1813, December 3. Letter 368, to John Murray, Vol. II., p. 297.)

Some editor of some magazine has announced to Murray his intention of abusing the thing "without reading it." So much the better; if he redde it first, he would abuse it more.

(1813, December 13. "Journal, 1813-1814," Vol. II., p. 375.)

Of myself you speak only too highly, and you must think me strangely spoiled, or perversely peevish, even to suspect that any remarks of yours, in the spirit of candid criticism, could possibly prove unpalatable. Had they been harsh, instead of being written as they are in the indelible ink of friendly admonition, had they been the harshest-as I knew and know that you are above any personal bias, at least against your fellow-bards, believe me they could not have caused a remembrance, nor a moment of rankling on my part.

(1814, February 9. Letter 403, to Leigh Hunt, Vol. III., p. 28.)

The first thing a young writer must expect, and yet can least of all suffer, is criticism. I did not bear