In Natural Supernaturalism, M. H. Abrams explains that he does not include a discussion of Lord Byron in his celebrated and influential book on the secular visionaries of the Romantic age because Byron’s greatest work “speaks with an ironic counter-voice and deliberately opens a satiric perspective on the vatic stance of his contemporaries.” Recent criticism on the Romantic period complicates this view in two ways. First, the “satiric perspective” that Abrams deemed marginal to the Romantic age is now seen as central to Romantic literary culture, thanks to more inclusive studies of authors of the period. Second, Byron’s ironization of his contemporaries’ pieties is now appreciated as a particularly astute approach to the linguistic and political structures of his day. Rather than accept the ideas or categories of the Romantic imagination and literary integrity on its own “vatic” terms, critics from Jerome J. McGann to Susan Wolfson turn to Byron as a congenial exponent of the instability and fragility of Romantic selfhood and imagination. In this chapter, I take that argument a step further. Byron, I suggest, does not simply overturn the literary codes of his day. His satirical stance criticizes the production of normative aesthetic and political values while carving out an inclusive yet rigorously refined discourse that connects the satiric persona to his audience.