a spectacle which might have silenced malice and
satisfied envy!"

To these just appreciations formed by some of Lord Byron's biographers
we might add many more; but the limits we have assigned to this work not
admitting of it, we will only add, as a last testimony, the most severe
of all; him of whom Moore said, "that, if one wished to speak against
Lord Byron, one had only to apply to him," that is, to Lord Byron
himself.

In 1820, when Lord Byron was at Ravenna, an article from "Blackwood's
Magazine," entitled "Observations on Don Juan," was sent him.

It contained such unfounded strictures on his matrimonial conduct, that,
for once, Lord Byron infringed his rule and could not help answering it.
The extracts from his defense, "_if defense it can be called_," says
Moore, "_where there has never yet been any definite charge, will be
read with the liveliest interest._" Here, then, is a part of these
extracts:--

"It is in vain, says my learned brother, that Lord Byron attempts in any
way to justify his own behavior with regard to Lady Byron.

"And now that he has so openly and audaciously invited inquiry and
reproach, we do not see any good reason why he should not be plainly
told so by the voice of his countrymen."

"How far the openness of an anonymous poem, and the audacity of an
imaginary character, which the writer supposes to be meant for Lady
Byron, may be deemed to merit this formidable denunciation from their
most sweet voices, I neither know nor care; but when he tells me that I
can not 'in any way justify my own behavior in that affair,' I
acquiesce, because no man can justify himself until he knows of what he
is accused; and I have never had--and, God knows, my whole desire has
ever been to obtain it--any specific charge, in a tangible shape,
submitted to me by the adversary, nor by others, unless the atrocities
of public rumor and the mysterious silence of the lady's legal advisers
may be deemed such.

"But is not the writer content with what has been already said and done?
Has not the general voice of his countrymen long ago pronounced upon the
subject sentence without trial, and condemnation without a charge? Have
I not been exiled by ostracism, except that the shells which proscribed
me were anonymous? Is the writer ignorant of the public opinion and the
public conduct upon that occasion? If he is, I am not: the public will
forget both long before I shall cease to remember either.

"The man wh