nna Baillie, seem to have taken strong exception to
the paper, and Miss Baillie wrote to Scott at some
length on the matter, even animadverting upon the purely
literary criticism of the reviewer. Much of the
correspondence which ensued, including a characteristic
letter from Lady Byron, can be found in the _Familiar
Letters_ (vol. i. pp. 413-422).

Of the review, Byron writes to Murray (March 3, 1817):--

... "It seems to me (as far as the subject of it may be
permitted to judge) to be _very well_ written as a
composition, and ... even those who may condemn its
partiality, must praise its generosity. The temptations
to take another and less favorable view of the question
have been so great and numerous, that, what with public
opinion, politics, etc., he must be a gallant as well as
a good man, who has ventured in that place and at this
time to write such an article even anonymously. Such
things, however, are their own reward; and I even
flatter myself that the writer, whoever he may be (and I
have no guess), will not regret that the perusal of this
has given me as much gratification as any composition of
that nature could give, and more than any other has ever
given,--and I have had a good many in my time of one
kind or the other. It is not the mere praise, but there
is a tact and a delicacy throughout, not only with
regard to me, but to others, which, as it has not been
observed elsewhere, I had till now doubted, whether it
could be observed anywhere." He writes a few weeks
later, on learning that Scott wrote the article: ... "It
cannot add to my good opinion of him, but it adds to
that of myself."--_Letters and Journals of Lord Byron_
(1900), vol. iv. pp. 63, 85.]]

{p.128} Mr. Murray, gladly embracing this offer of an article for his
journal on the Tales of my Landlord, begged Scott to take a wider
scope, and dropping all respect for the idea of a divided parentage,
to place together any materials he might have for the illustration of
the Waverley Novels in general; he suggested in particu