ested to me by friends, on whose opinions I
set a high value,[c]--that in this fictitious character, "Childe
Harold," I may incur the suspicion of having intended some real
personage: this I beg leave, once for all, to disclaim--Harold is the
child of imagination, for the purpose I have stated.

In some very trivial particulars, and those merely local, there might
be grounds for such a notion;[d] but in the main points, I should hope,
none whatever.[e]

It is almost superfluous to mention that the appellation "Childe,"[2] as
"Childe Waters," "Childe Childers," etc., is used as more consonant with
the old structure of versification which I have adopted. The "Good
Night" in the beginning of the first Canto, was suggested by Lord
Maxwell's "Good Night"[3] in the _Border Minstrelsy_, edited by Mr.
Scott.

With the different poems[4] which have been published on Spanish
subjects, there may be found some slight coincidence[f] in the first
part, which treats of the Peninsula, but it can only be casual; as, with
the exception of a few concluding stanzas, the whole of the poem was
written in the Levant.

The stanza of Spenser, according to one of our most successful poets,
admits of every variety. Dr. Beattie makes the following observation:--

"Not long ago I began a poem in the style and stanza of Spenser, in
which I propose to give full scope to my inclination, and be either
droll or pathetic, descriptive or sentimental, tender or satirical, as
the humour strikes me; for, if I mistake not, the measure which I have
adopted admits equally of all these kinds of composition."[5]
Strengthened in my opinion by such authority, and by the example of some
in the highest order of Italian poets, I shall make no apology for
attempts at similar variations in the following composition;[g]
satisfied that, if they are unsuccessful, their failure must be in the
execution, rather than in the design sanctioned by the practice of
Ariosto, Thomson, and Beattie.

London, February, 1812.

ADDITION TO THE PREFACE.

I have now waited till almost all our periodical journals have
distributed their usual portion of criticism. To the justice of the
generality of their criticisms I have nothing to object; it would ill
become me to quarrel with their very slight degree of censure, when,
perhaps, if they had been less kind they had been more candid.
Returning, therefore, to all and each my best thanks for their
libera