These Memorabilia would be incomplete, if I did not, in execution of my
duty as a biographer, draw up, however imperfect, a summary of Shelley’s character, both as a man and a poet, for which I am partly
indebted to some of his contemporaries. I will begin with the last.
“Shelley’s poetry is
invested with a dazzling and subtle radiance, which blinds the common observer with
excess of light. Piercing through this, we discover that the characteristics of his
poetic writings are an excessive sympathy with the whole universe, material and
intellectual—an
ardent desire to benefit his species, and
an impatience of the tyrannies and superstitions that hold them bound. In all his works
there is a wonderfully sustained sensibility, and a language lofty and fit for it. His
ear was of the finest, and his command of language unrivalled. His mastery of words was
so complete, and his majestic and happy combinations so frequent, that the richness is
often obscured by the profusion.” Again: “he has the art of using
the stateliest words, and the most learned idioms, without incurring the charge of
pedantry, so that passages of more splendid and sonorous writing, are not to be
selected from any writer since the time of
Milton; and yet when he descends from his ideal world, and comes home
to us in our humble bowers and our yearnings after love and affection, he attunes the
most natural feelings to a style so proportionate, and withal to a modulation so truly
musical, that there is nothing to surpass it in the lyrics of
Beaumont and
Fletcher.”
“His is the poetry of intellect, not that of the
Lakers—his theme is the high one of intellectual nature and
lofty feeling, not of waggoners and idiot children. Like
Milton, he does not love to contemplate clowns and vices, but the
loftiest forms of excellence which his fancy can paint. His morality has also reference
to the virtues which he admires, and not to the vices of which he is either
unconscious, or ashamed. He looks upwards with passionate veneration, and seldom
downwards with self-control.”
“The view of external objects suggests ideas and reflections, as
if the parting soul had awakened from a slumber, and saw, through a long vista,
glimpses of a communion held with them in a distant past. It is like the first awaking
of Adam, and the indolent expression of his
emotions. Nature is like a musical instrument, whose tones again are keys to higher
things in him,—the morning light causing the statue of Memnon to sound: the shadow of some unseen power of intellectual
beauty, deriving much of its interest from its invisibility, floats,
though unseen, among his verses, resembling everything unreal and
fantastic—the tones and harmonies of evening—the memory of music fled,
Or aught that for its grace may be Dear, and yet dearer to the memory. |
Hear what Gutzkow says of
him,—“He had a soul like Ariel’s, and of the same character was his poetry—bright
and sylph-like, it flutters like a golden fly over the face of the waters. His thoughts
trembled as the flame of light trembles. He was like his own lark, and mounts higher
and higher as he sings. He drew forth poetry from all things which lay in his way, that
others pass by unheeded and unobserved. His transparent imagination was lit up by
thought. Contemplation, reflection lent him the words that he called into his service.
All that he wrote sprung from high and noble ideas. Above all others, he knew how to
unlock and develope the nature and perfections of his poetry. He
could draw out a life from flowers, and even stones—from all that he saw, he
discovered pictures for his poetry,—the loveliest similes stream from him in
luxuriant fulness. In these his pictures, he could be as lovely as sublime. It is as
though we saw the burning Africa of a
Humboldt,
going over the ice of the Alps. His forms of life raised themselves so high, that we
could not follow him: but as a balloon by degrees is lost to the eye, though we cannot
see it, we know that it is there.” It has been objected by a
Scotch philosopher, that Shelley had
a passion for reforming the world. To this he replies,—“I acknowledge that I
have. But it is a mistake to suppose that I dedicate my poetical compositions
solely to the direct enforcement of reform, or that I consider
them in any degree as containing a reasoned system of the theory of human life.
“My purpose has hitherto been simply to familiarize the highly
refined imagination of the more select classes of poetical readers, with
beautiful idealisms of moral excellence, aware, that until the
mind can love and admire, and trust and hope and endure, reasoned principles of moral
conduct are seeds cast upon the highway of life, which the unconscious passenger
tramples into dust, although they would bear the harvest of his happiness.”
It has been related by an able writer, from whom we have already quoted,
that a man can only be understood by his peers, and his peers are few. The great man is
also necessarily a reformer in some shape or other. Every reformer has to combat with
existing prejudices and deep-rooted passions. To cut his own path, he must displace the
rubbish that encumbers it. He is therefore in opposition to his fellow men, and attacks
their interests. Blinded by prejudice, by passion, and by interest, they cannot see the
excellence of him they oppose, and hence it is, as Heine has admirably
said,—“Everywhere that a great soul gives utterance to his thoughts,
there is Golgotha.”
It is not to his general system of Æsthetics to which I would extend my
remarks, so much as to his theory of Intellectual Beauty and Universal Love, a theory which
he interweaves in the woof of his poetry, and that indeed forms the ground-work of the web.
Schiller’s Kantism was too cold and
obscure—Shelley’s Platonism too
mystic and ethereal; it admitted of no demonstration, was too profound and visionary to be
reduced to reason, was only to be seized by the spirit, only a glimpse of it to be caught
by contemplation and abstraction. Schiller wrote a long treatise, to
make intelligible his philosophy, embodied in his Ideal and Actual, of which I subjoin a version—a
poem which I never met with more than one German who pretended to explain.
Shelley did not condescend to enlighten his readers. Having
committed a grave error in penning his Notes to Queen Mab, he never ventured on a second experiment. His great master,
Plato, searching after truth in the greatest
heights and lowest depths, often but partially
seized it, being
defeated by its very vastness; ambitious to reveal it to mankind, he hesitated not to
exhibit it in the form, and with the completeness he best could. It was necessary
therefore, that what he but half knew himself, should be imperfect and darkly stated, and
dimly comprehended by others. For this reason, his writings are obscure. They will always
be obscure, in spite of the labours of the commentators; for a commentary can make them
plain only by substituting the reveries of the critic, for the inconsequent reasoning of
the original. But Plato did not aim at darkness, any more than
Shelley. If any one understood Plato, it was
Shelley, and that which appears a wordy mist glowing in rainbow
clouds, was to his own mind as clear and palpable as the sublimity of such contemplations
was capable of being made. But how few can appreciate or comprehend him,—how
inadequate and imperfect is all language, to express the subtilty and volatility of such
conceptions of the Deity! To the generality of
readers, his
Metaphysics are so overlaid and buried beneath a poetic phraseology, that the mind, while
it is undoubtedly excited, is left in a pleasing and half bewildered state, with visions of
beautiful divine truth floating before it, which it is a vain attempt to arrest and convert
to reality.
The fault of his system as the ground-work of life, is, that it requires
intellects on a par with his own to revive it.
Platonism, as a poetic medium, as I have already observed, and must be
excused for here repeating—very early captivated Shelley. It contains nothing common-place—nothing that has been worn
threadbare by others; indeed it was an untried field for poetry, a menstruum from which he hoped to work out pure ore,
but the sediment of mortality was left in the crucible. It would in the palmy days of
Greece, have pleased a sect—have delighted Plato
himself; but even at the period when Athens was in her glory, and the spectators at the
theatre could
enjoy the Chorusses of
Sophocles, it would, with all its high qualities, have had, if many
admirers, no general popularity. But how speak of Deity and not be lost in the attempt to
arrest the slightest shadow of that “Unseen Power,” that Spirit of Love? How
can beings, the
Infusoria of creation, and
inhabiting a world which is in the immensity of space but a grain of sand on an horizonless
sea-shore, lift their thoughts to the great Author and Ruler of the universe of suns and
stars, much less venture, “plumed with strong desire,” to float above
this dull earth, and clothe in words themselves too material,—
That light whose smile kindles the universe; That beauty in which all things work and move; That sustaining love, Which through the web of being, blindly wove By man and beast, and earth and air and sea, Burns bright or dim, as each are mirrors of The fire for which all thirst. |
The very vagueness therefore, in which Shelley’s imagination revelled, and for which he is
wrongly blamed, is more the fault of language, than his
own—ever the fate of the Finite when speaking of the Infinite. It was a sense of the
impossibility, and what he deemed the sacrilege of attempts to materialize God, that made
him substitute for the popular representation of a God in the form of man, a pervading
principle,—not as
Mr. Moore calls it,
“some abstract
nonentity of love and beauty, as a
substitute for Deity,” but as an attribute of Deity itself, resolving with
Berkley, the whole of creation into spirit. For
this reason he has been called an Atheist. It is true that in a moment of thoughtless and
foolish levity, he in the Album of the Montanvert, wrote under his name a Greek line, which
I have forgotten, ending with Αθεοστς, and which
Southey, during his excursion in Switzerland,—he might have been
better employed,—treasured up and reproached him with ten years after; but such
evidence weighs nothing in comparison with the serious and recorded opinions laid down in
his works, and to which momentary foolish freak
the purity of his
life gave the lie. And speaking of what has been called Atheism,
Lord Bacon, no mean authority, says of it in this sense,
adopting the words of
Plutarch,—“Atheism
leaves to man reason, philosophy, natural piety, laws, reputation, and everything that
can serve to conduct him to virtue, but
superstition destroys
all these, and erects itself into a tyranny over the understandings of men.”
I will also quote a passage from
Leigh Hunt, on the
subject. He says of
Spinosa,
Giardano Bruno, and other spirits of undoubted genius and
integrity, who have been accused of the same opinion,—“that the Atheism of
such men is but a vivid sense of the universe about them, trying to distinguish the
mystery of its operations from the ordinary, and as they think pernicious
Anthropomorphism, in which our egotism envelopes it;” and speaking of
Cenci, he adds, “that the Atheism of such men is the only
real Atheism; that is to say, it is the only real disbelief in any great and good
thing, physical and
moral. For the same reason, there is more
Atheism to all intents and purposes of virtuous and useful belief, in some bad
religions, however devout, than in some supposed absence of religion; for the good they
purpose to themselves does not rise above the level of the world they live in, except
in power like a Roman emperor; so that there is nothing to them really outside the
world at last. One act of kindness,” he adds, “one impulse of
universal benevolence as recommended by the true spirit of Jesus,
is more grand and godlike than all the degrading ideas of the Supreme Being, which fear
and slavery have tried to build up to heaven. It is a greater going out of ourselves, a
higher and wider resemblance to the all-embracing placidity of the universe.”
But whatever might be Shelley’s speculations on the Nature of the Deity, no one was more
fully convinced—and how many who affirm and confess, can question their hearts and
say the same?—of the existence of a future state. Byron
writing to
Mr. Moore, says, (I
have not the passage before me, but I give it with sufficient
fidelity,)—“You,” (meaning Moore,
Murray,
Hobhouse, &c.,) “were mistaken about
Shelley; he
does believe in an
Immortality.” What does Shelley himself say, just before
his death, in that sincerity of soul that
shines through all his
writings?—“Perhaps all discontent with the
less,
(to use a Platonic sophism,) supposes the sense of a just claim to the
greater, and we admirers of Faust are in the right road to Paradise. Such a supposition is not more
absurd, and is certainly less demoniacal, than that of
Wordsworth, where he says,—
This earth, Which is the world of all of us, and where We find our happiness, or not at all. |
As if after sixty years suffering here, we were to be roasted alive for sixty
millions in Hell, or
charitably annihilated.”
Shelley once said to me, that a man was never a
Materialist long. That he was much in-
clined to the opinions of the
French school of philosophy, will appear by his life at Oxford, as given by
Mr. Hogg; but he was soon dissatisfied (these are his own
words,) with such a view of things—with such desolating doctrines, and I regret that
Mrs. Shelley should have given publicity to that
paper “
On a Future State,”
written, I doubt not, at a very early period, and before reason and judgment had tended to
mature his mind, and led him to the study of Plato, and a firm belief in a blessed
futurity. “The cold, ungenial, foggy atmosphere of northern metaphysics, was
totally unsuited to the ardent temperature of his soul, that soon expanded in the warm,
bright, vivifying climate of the southern and eastern philosophy.” A
sufficient answer to the eloquent, but specious reasoning of
Mirabeau, the Materialism of the “
Système de la Nature,” so unanswerable to the
mere matter-of-fact mind, is given in Shelley’s
Prometheus Unbound. It is the best
practical refutation of the maxim, that “there is nothing in the intellect, that
was
not first in the senses,” and of all the sorrowful
deductions therefrom; and when we read Shelley’s apocalyptic
Triumph of Life, and the
Epipsychidion, we are almost
inclined to
Plato’s belief, that all knowledge is
but a remembrance of a first existence, revealed to us by the concord of poetry, the
original form of the soul.
“That fantastic spirit, which would bind all existence in the
visionary chain of intellectual beauty, became in Shelley the centre in which his whole intellectual and sensitive powers
were united for its formation and embellishment; and although in painting the romance,
the conceits and diversities, the workings and meanderings of a heart penetrated with
such an ideal passion, drawing less upon our individual sympathies than on those of
social life, he may be liable to a charge of a certain mannerism; there is not the less
evident, the delicacy, elasticity, and concentration of a gentle and noble mind, a deep
scorn of all that is vulgar and base, and a lofty enthusiasm for liberty and the glory
of his
country, for science and for letters; and finally, an
insatiable longing after an eternal and incorruptible being, which opposed to his
persuasion of the misery and nullity of this world, feeds and maintains that tension or
struggle, that fire at the core, which is the inheritance of all privileged geniuses,
the promoters of their age. Hence that restlessness coupled with the disdain of worldly
things, that retirement and misanthropy joined to benevolence, and the yearning after
love and affection, the pursuit of fame, and the intolerance of contemporary criticism,
in conjunction with real and unaffected modesty; and in fine, that contrast of virtue
and weakness, which is the inheritance of flesh, so requisite seemingly to level the
more sublime capacity with its fellow-creatures, and to inculcate the religious bond of
union which Christian charity ought to inspire.”
The author of these remarks, who I suspect to have been
Carlisle, has thus admirably reconciled the
seeming contrarities of Shelley’s character.
But in looking back through the long vista of his
life,—long I may well say, crowded as it was with so many romantic, so many
strange events,—I can call to mind no one of them in which his heart was to
blame, though his head might have erred. Three events stand prominently above the rest: his
expulsion from Oxford—his disappointment in his first love, and his first unfortunate
marriage—a τριχνμια, or triple surf of ills; and from these flowed and ramified all
the bitter streams that swelled his onward course of life. I shall not trace them
back,—they, like
Dante’s inscription, are
marked—“colore oscuro,” in these Memorabilia.
There remains little more to add.
I think it will appear to all unprejudiced minds, that the following
portrait of Shelley, by no means the first I have
drawn, though all would be imperfect, will not be either over-coloured or over-varnished.
It is to be lamented, as I have already done,
that
no good resemblance of
Shelley exists. His features
were small—the upper part of his face not strictly regular—the eyes unusually
prominent, too much so for beauty. His mouth was moulded after the finest modelling of
Greek art, and wore an habitual expression of benevolence, and when he smiled, his smile
irradiated his whole countenance. His hands were thin, and expressed feeling to the
fingers’ ends, being such as
Vandyke would
have loved to paint; his hair profuse, silken, and naturally curling, was at a very early
period interspersed with grey. His frame was but a tenement for spirit, and in every
gesture and lineament showed that he was a portion of that intellectual beauty, which he
endeavoured to deify. He did not look so tall as he was, being nearly five feet eleven, for
his shoulders were a little bent by study and ill-health, owing to his being near-sighted,
and leaning over his books; and which increased the narrownesss of his chest. He had,
however, though a delicate, a naturally good constitution, which he
had impaired at one period of his life by an excessive use of opium, and a Pythagorean
diet, which greatly emaciated his system and weakened his digestion. He was twenty-nine
when he died, and might have been taken for nineteen, for there was in him a spirit that
seemed to defy time and suffering and misfortune. But if life is to be measured by events
and activity, he had arrived at a very advanced age. He often said “that he had
lived to a hundred,” and singularly enough, remarks in one of his
books,—“The life of a man of talent who should die in his
thirtieth year, is, with regard to his own feelings, longer than
that of a miserable priest-ridden slave, who dreams out a century of dulness. The one
has perpetually cultivated his mental faculties, has rendered himself master of his
thoughts, can abstract and generalise amid the lethargy of every-day business; the
other can slumber over the brightest moments of his being, and is unable to remember
the happiest hour of his life. Perhaps the perishing ephemeron
enjoys a longer life than the tortoise.”
Schiller, in his “Apportionment of the
World,” a poem taken in a ludicrous sense by
Sir
Edward Bulwer Litton, shews that this world was not made for a poet. If he
has, however young, accomplished the task for which he was born,—if he has outworn
his earthly clay, and entered into a new state of being here below, then is he ready and
fit to depart; and it is best for him—better far than to endure the hollowness, the
barrenness, the cold realities of every-day existence. To the poet one day is a thousand
years; this little world, of which he himself and his fairy dreams are the sole
inhabitants, circles round a sun of his own, brilliant beyond ordinary conceptions, and in
an atmosphere to which that of our brightest day here, is but a dim and heavy mist. As he
whirls with inconceivable rapidity through immeasurable space, spiritual mysteries are
revealed to his view—myriads of spirit-peopled worlds, invisible to others, float far
and near in this his own heaven. This Shelley means when he
says,—
As from a centre dart thy spirit’s might, Beyond all worlds—until its spacious might Satiate the vast circumference—then shrink, Even as a point within our day and night. |
But what succeeds to this unnatural excitement? a prostration, an
exhaustion, physical and psychical, like that of one after the paroxysm of a burning fever.
It is like the withered bouquet on the bosom of beauty after a ball, or more poetically
speaking, in the words of one of the German writers, may be compared, as he compares
himself when descending to the realities of life, to a skylark, who when he touches the
ground, “grovels in silence and clay.”
Shelley had a glorious imagination, but the fire of
his genius burned not peacefully and with a steady flame. It was a glaring and irregular
flame, for the branches that it fed it with, were not branches from the tree of life, but
from another tree that grew in Paradise. What must he have felt who wrote “The Invocation to Misery?”
Well then might Shelley say that
thirty years were a long life to a poet—thirty of such years as had summed up in the
course of his.
Like Socrates, he united the
gentleness of the lamb with the wisdom of the serpent—the playfulness of the boy with
the profoundness of the philosopher.
In common with Bacon, whom he
greatly admired and studied, he was endowed with a raciness of wit and a keen perception of
the ridiculous, that shewed itself not in what we call humour, that produces a rude and
boisterous mirth, but begat a smile of intellectual enjoyment, much more delightful and
refined.
In argument—and he loved to indulge in that exercise, that wrestling
of the mind—he was irresistible. His voice was low or loud, his utterance slow or
hurried, corresponding with the variety in which his thoughts clothed the subject.
Byron was so sensible of his inability to cope with
him, that he always avoided coming to a trial of their strength in controversy, which he
generally cut off with a joke or pun; for
Shelley was what Byron could not be,
a close, logical, and subtle reasoner, much of which he owed to his early habit of
disputation at Oxford, and to his constant study of
Plato, whose system of getting his adversary into admissions, and thus
entangling him in his own web, he followed. He also owed to Plato the
simplicity and lucidity of his style, which he used to call a model for prose. In no
individual perhaps was the moral sense ever more completely developed than in
Shelley,—in no being was the perception of right and wrong
more acute.
His friend Mr. H. says,
“The biographer,” to repeat the words in my preface, “who
would take upon himself the pleasing and instructive, but delicate task of composing a
faithful history of his whole life, will frequently be compelled to discuss the
important question, whether his conduct at certain periods was altogether such as ought
to be proposed for imitation; whether he was ever misled by a glowing temperament,
something of hastiness in choice, and a certain constitutional
impatience; whether, like less gifted mortals, he ever shared in the common feature of
mortality—repentance; and to what extent.” I think I have in the phases
of his history, sufficiently discussed these questions, have shewn how grievously he
repented his first hasty marriage—how severely he taxed himself for its melancholy
termination—and how much it cankered and festered the wounds which his sensitive
spirit received from the shafts of invidious critics and the persecution of the world.
If any human being was possessed of what I have heard Phrenologists say is
so rarely found developed in the human head, consciensciousness, it was Shelley; by which is meant, not doing to others as one
would be dealt by—not a mere strict regard to right and justice; but where no such
claims existed, the exercise, to his own detriment, of an active and unwearied benevolence.
He was unselfish, unworldly, disinterested in the highest degree—he despised the
universal idol at
which all bow down—gold; he looked upon it as
dross, and often and often suffered privations without regret, from his inability to resist
appeals to his purse. Indeed he carried his beneficence so far, that
Mrs. Shelley says in other but stronger words, that he
damaged by it his fortune, and frequently reduced himself to the greatest pecuniary
straits. With a generous regard to the interests of his friends, he not only relieved their
necessities, but looked to their future interests. He was, it is true, no very
clear-sighted politician, for he says to his friend
Mr.
Gisborne,—“I wish your money out of the Funds; the middle course
you speak of [what that was is unexplained] and which will probably take place, will
amount, not to your losing all your income, or retaining all, but having the half taken
away!” And again: “What gives me
considerable anxiety,
is the continuance of your property in the British Funds at this crisis of approaching
” What Shelley means regarding his own
affairs is ambiguous. “The best thing we can do, is to
save
money, and if things take a decided turn, which I am convinced they will at last, but
not perhaps for
two or
three years, it
will be time for me to assert my rights and preserve my
annuity.”
All this was written in 1819 and 1820. But there is a passage in one of
the last letters he ever wrote, which might have been penned at the present
moment.—“England appears,” he says, “to be in a
desperate condition—Ireland still worse; and no class of those who subsist on the
public labour, will be persuaded that their claims on it must be
diminished. But the government must content itself with less taxes, the landowner must submit to receive less rent, and the fund-holder a diminished
interest, or they will get nothing;” and he
adds,—“I see little public virtue, and foresee that the contest will be one of
blood and gold!”
The sincerity of Shelley’s
speculative opinions was proved by the willingness with which he submitted unflinchingly to
obloquy and reproach
in order to inculcate them. “Firmness
and gentleness united in him without destroying each other,” and he would
have undergone the martyrdom he depicts in
Laon
and Cythna, rather than have renounced one tittle of his faith. He attributed
“the vice and misery of mankind to the degradation of the many for the benefit
of the few—to an unnatural state of society—to a general misgovernment in
its rulers,—to the superstition and bigotry of a mercenary and insincere
priesthood.” With a poet’s eye he foresaw a millennium, the perfection
of the human race, when man would be happy, free, and majestical. Loving virtue for its own
sake, and not from fear, he thought with
Schiller,
no other ties were necessary than the restraint imposed by a consciousness of right and
wrong implanted in our natures, and could not, or would not see that in the present
condition of the world, and in the default of education, such a system was fallacious. His
tenets therefore should have been looked upon as those of
Owen
of Lanark with us, of
St.
Simon in France, of
Paulus and
Strauss in Germany, as the aspirations of the
philanthropist; and the critic might have said with Byron,
instead of calumniating the man, and attributing to his harmless speculations,
(harmless from their being beyond the capacities of the Οιπολλοι) the desire of corrupting
youth, which could with as little justice have been said of him, as it was untrue of
Socrates.
He was an advocate for the abolition of the punishment of death, and has
left us a short treatise on that subject that is of great value; his principal argument is,
the bad effect of public executions, the putting to torture for the amusement of those who
may or may not have been injured, the criminal; and he contends that “as a measure
of punishment strictly so considered, and as an exhibition, which by its known effects
on the susceptibility of the sufferer
is intended to intimidate
the spectators from incurring a similar liability, it is singularly inadequate, and
confirms all the unsocial impulses of men;” and he adds, “that those
nations among whom the penal code has been particularly mild, have been distinguished
from all others by the rarity of crime, and that governments that derive their
institutions from the existence of circumstances of barbarism and violence, with some
exceptions, perhaps, are bloody in proportion as they are despotic, and form the
manners of their subjects to a sympathy with their own spirit.”
Disheartened as he was by his constant failures, and the disappointment of
his efforts for the amelioration of the social condition of the working classes, he did not
despond or despair. There was an energy in him that rose with oppression, and his last as
well as his first aspiration was for the good of his species.
Unsoured by the ingratitude of the world, he
carried
into his solitude no misanthropy, against his persecutors he never breathed a word of
resentment or hostility. His critics he despised not, rather he pitied, and said to one,
“Grass may grow in wintry weather, as soon as hate in me.”
Suffering at times from tortures the most excruciating, from a complaint
that would ultimately have proved fatal, during his worst spasms he never shewed himself
peevish, or out of humour.
So good and great, beneficent and wise On his high throne, How meekly has he borne his faculties, How finely shewn A model to the irritable race, Of generous kindness, courtesy and love. |
He was an enemy to all sensuality. The pleasures of the table, that form
the summum bonum of the herd, were not his
pleasures. His diet was that of a hermit, his drink water, and his principal and favourite
food, bread. His
converse was as chaste as his morals—all
grossness he abominated.
De Quincey on Gilfillan, says, that “of the darkest beings
we are told they believe and tremble, but that Shelley believed and hated. Never was there a more unjust aspersion. He
was of all men the most sincere, and nothing ever seduced him into falsehood or
dissimulation. He disbelieved, and hated not—not Christ
himself, or his doctrines, but Christianity as established in the world, i.e. its
teachers. It is also asserted in that review, that when the subject of Christianity was
started, Shelley’s total nature was altered and darkened,
and transfiguration fell upon him; that he who was so gentle became savage, he that
breathed by the very lungs of Christianity, that was so merciful, so full of tenderness
and pity of humanity, and love and forgiveness, then raved and screamed like an
idiot.” Such might have occurred immediately after his expulsion, when in
Cumberland, and when stung to the quick by what he deemed his
cruel
wrongs, and when writing the Notes to
Queen
Mab, but when I saw him in 1820 and 1821, I can vouch for his betraying no
midsummer madness—such exaggerated and frantic paroxysms of rage.
I cannot help thinking, not to speak of his want of religious education at
home, that Shelley’s cruel expulsion by the
teachers of that gospel which proclaims toleration, and forgiveness of others, produced in
a great measure his scepticism, which became more inveterate by the decree of the Court of
Chancery, which he calls a “priestly pest;” a decree which severed the
dearest tie of humanity—made him childless; that the bitter and merciless review of his Revolt of Islam by a divine,
and the persecution of his brethren, including Dr.
Nott, who left no stone unturned to malign and vilify and blacken his
character, hardened him still more in his unbelief; nor can it be denied, that he blindly
attributed the auto da fés, the “Sicilian
Vespers,” the “Massacre of St. Bartholemew,” the cruelties inflicted on
the
Hugonots, not to mention the horrors committed by Catholics
against Protestants, and Protestants against Catholics in our own country, under the name
of Christianity,—to Christianity itself. Living for so many years in Italy, did not
tend to change his creed. He says in his Preface to the
Cenci, that “in the mind of an Italian, the
Catholic religion is adoration, faith, submission, penitence, blind adoration, not a
rule for moral conduct, and has no necessary connection with any one virtue;”
and adds,—“that intensely pervading the whole frame of society, it is,
according to the temper of the mind it inhabits, a passion, a persuasion, an excuse,
never a check;” on which
Leigh Hunt
remarks,—“that such religions, in furnishing men with excuses and
absolution, do but behave with something like decent kindness, for they are bound to do
what they can for the vices they produce;” and concludes with, “we
can say it with gravity too,—Forgiveness will make its way somehow everywhere,
and it is lucky that
it will do so. But it would be luckier if
systems made less to forgive!”
To such a length did Shelley’s hostility to what he calls the popular religion carry him,
that he said, “he had rather be damned with Plato
and Lord Bacon, than saved with Paley and Malthus.”* But Shelley by no means stood alone among
poets in his principles or infidelity. Milton was
engaged with a party in the destruction of the Church and the Monarchy. Schiller introduced on the stage, as we exhibit the
priests and incense of the Gods of Greece, the most sacred rite of the church. His æsthetic
philosophy was anything but Christian. Göthe never
made a mystery of his unbelief. Almost all the great thinkers of Germany are, with the last
object of their idolatry, Pantheists. But it was allowed to the poets and painters of
Greece and Rome, to dare anything, and shall we in the
* Errare, rehercle, malo cum Platone, quam cum istis
sentire.—Cicero. |
nineteenth century not be ashamed of intolerance? Is
Milton’s Arianism, the Titanic language of his Satan, a reason for our not reading the
Paradise Lost? Are Schiller and
Göthe less esteemed, are their works less popular, on account of
their persuasions? Has there ever been a finger raised against them in their own or any
other country? Are not
Joan
d’Arc,
Marie Stuart, and
Faust, still represented on the
German stage? Has not the latter drama been translated repeatedly into English in spite of
the daring Prologue in Heaven, and the mockery of all things sacred contained in that
surprising effort of genius? And shall Shelley be less read because
when a boy (what did
Moore and
Southey write in their youth?) he wrote
Queen Mab? What was
Byron? Are not
Cain and
Don Juan in every library? and shall we
ostracise from ours, on account of passages which do not square with our own views, the
noblest, the sublimest, and sweetest effusions of genius? Let us not stand alone among the
nations, or be marked with the
finger of scorn by the Americans and
Germans, for refusing our tribute to his genius.
“In my fathers house,” says our Saviour, “are
many mansions,” which, though the commentators differ in the interpretation
of the text, obviously means, that there are many quiet resting places in heaven, for those
differing in opinion on religion, and there it may be hoped with confidence, that Shelley has found “an abode, where the Eternal
are.” How sublime are his own words,—
Death is the veil which those who live, call life, They sleep—and it is lifted. |
In having thus summed up my own sentiments on Shelley, if there should be any one who thinks I have taken a too poetical
view of his character, let him read, and inwardly digest the following passage of one of the most elegant of the American writers, and who has well studied the human
heart. It is worthy of being inscribed in letters of gold.
“Let us tread lightly on the Poet’s grave! For my part I
confess that I have not the heart to take him from the general crowd of erring, sinful
men, and judge him harshly. The little I have seen of the world, and know of the
history of mankind, teaches me to look upon the errors of others in sorrow, and not in
anger. When I take the history of one poor heart that has sinned and suffered, and
represent to myself the struggles and temptations it has passed, the brief pulsations
of joy, the feverish inquietude of hope and fear, the tears of regret, the feebleness
of purpose, the pressure of want, the desertion of friends, the scorn of a world that
has little charity, the desolation of the soul’s sanctuary, and threatening
voices within,—health gone, happiness gone, even hope that stays the longest with
us, gone; I would fain leave the erring soul of my fellow man with Him from whose hands
it came.”
FINIS.