he sway of Newstead Abbey. Again
we say, let us be thankful; and, with honest Sancho, bid God bless
the giver, nor look the gift-horse in the mouth."

The criticism is ascribed to Mr Francis Jeffrey, an eloquent member
of the Scottish bar, and who was at that time supposed to be the
editor of the Edinburgh Review. That it was neither just nor fair is
sufficiently evident, by the degree of care and artificial point with
which it has been drawn up. Had the poetry been as insignificant as
the critic affected to consider it, it would have argued little for
the judgment of Mr Jeffrey, to take so much pains on a work which he
considered worthless. But the world has no cause to repine at the
severity of his strictures, for they unquestionably had the effect of
kindling the indignation of Byron, and of instigating him to that
retaliation which he so spiritedly inflicted in his satire of English
Bards and Scotch Reviewers.

It is amusing to compare the respective literary reputation of the
poet and the critic, as they are estimated by the public, now that
the one is dead, and the other dormant. The voice of all the age
acknowledges Byron to have been the greatest poetical genius of his
time. Mr Jeffrey, though still enjoying the renown of being a shrewd
and intelligent critic of the productions of others, has established
no right to the honour of being an original or eminent author.

At the time when Byron published the satire alluded to, he had
obtained no other distinction than the college reputation of being a
clever, careless, dissipated student. But his dissipation was not
intense, nor did it ever become habitual. He affected to be much
more so than he was: his pretensions were moderated by
constitutional incapacity. His health was not vigorous; and his
delicacy defeated his endeavours to show that he inherited the
recklessness of his father. He affected extravagance and
eccentricity of conduct, without yielding much to the one, or
practising a great deal of the other. He was seeking notoriety; and
his attempts to obtain it gave more method to his pranks and follies
than belonged to the results of natural impulse and passion. He
evinced occasional instances of the generous spirit of youth; but
there was in them more of ostentation than of that discrimination
which dignifies kindness, and makes prodigality munificence. Nor
were his attachments towards those with whom he preferred to
associate, characteris