After some deliberation I decided to give this little work on Shelley the narrative rather than the essay form, impelled thereto by one commanding reason.  Shelley’s life and his poetry are indissolubly connected.  He acted what he thought and felt, with a directness rare among his brethren of the poet’s craft; while his verse, with the exception of “The Cenci”, expressed little but the animating thoughts and aspirations of his life.  That life, moreover, was “a miracle of thirty years,” so crowded with striking incident and varied experience that, as he said himself, he had already lived longer than his father, and ought to be reckoned with the men of ninety.  Through all vicissitudes he preserved his youth inviolate, and died, like one whom the gods love, or like a hero of Hellenic story, young, despite grey hairs and suffering.  His life has, therefore, to be told, in order that his life-work may be rightly valued:  for, great as that was, he, the man, was somehow greater; and noble as it truly is, the memory of him is nobler.

To the world he presented the rare spectacle of a man passionate for truth, and unreservedly obedient to the right as he discerned it.  The anomaly which made his practical career a failure, lay just here.  The right he followed was too often the antithesis of ordinary morality:  in his desire to cast away the false and grasp the true, he overshot the mark of prudence.  The blending in him of a pure and earnest purpose with moral and social theories that could not but have proved pernicious to mankind at large, produced at times an almost grotesque mixture in his actions no less than in his verse.  We cannot, therefore, wonder that society, while he lived, felt the necessity of asserting itself against him.  But now that he has passed into the company of the great dead, and time has softened down the asperities of popular judgment, we are able to learn the real lesson of his life and writings.  That is not to be sought in any of his doctrines, but rather in his fearless bearing, his resolute loyalty to an unselfish and in the simplest sense benevolent ideal.  It is this which constitutes his supreme importance for us English at the present time.  Ours is an age in which ideals are rare, and we belong to a race in which men who follow them so single-heartedly are not common.

As a poet, Shelley contributed a new quality to English literature ­a quality of ideality, freedom, and spiritual audacity, which severe critics of other nations think we lack.  Byron’s daring is in a different region:  his elemental worldliness and pungent satire do not liberate our energies, or cheer us with new hopes and splendid vistas.  Wordsworth, the very antithesis to Shelley in his reverent accord with institutions, suits our meditative mood, sustains us with a sound philosophy, and braces us by healthy contact with the Nature he so dearly loved.  But in Wordsworth there is none of Shelley’s magnetism. $What remains of permanent value in Coleridge’s poetry ­such work as “Christabel”, the “Ancient Mariner”, or “Kubla Khan” ­is a product of pure artistic fancy, tempered by the author’s mysticism.  Keats, true and sacred poet as he was, loved Nature with a somewhat sensuous devotion.  She was for him a mistress rather than a Diotima; nor did he share the prophetic fire which burns in Shelley’s verse, quite apart from the direct enunciation of his favourite tenets.  In none of Shelley’s greatest contemporaries was the lyrical faculty so paramount; and whether we consider his minor songs, his odes, or his more complicated choral dramas, we acknowledge that he was the loftiest and the most spontaneous singer of our language.  In range of power he was also conspicuous above the rest.  Not only did he write the best lyrics, but the best tragedy, the best translations, and the best familiar poems of his century.  As a satirist and humourist, I cannot place him so high as some of his admirers do; and the purely polemical portions of his poems, those in which he puts forth his antagonism to tyrants and religions and custom in all its myriad forms, seem to me to degenerate at intervals into poor rhetoric.

While his genius was so varied and its flight so unapproached in swiftness, it would be vain to deny that Shelley, as an artist, had faults from which the men with whom I have compared him were more free.  The most prominent of these are haste, incoherence, verbal carelessness, incompleteness, a want of narrative force, and a weak hold on objective realities.  Even his warmest admirers, if they are sincere critics, will concede that his verse, taken altogether, is marked by inequality.  In his eager self-abandonment to inspiration, he produced much that is unsatisfying simply because it is not ripe.  There was no defect of power in him, but a defect of patience; and the final word to be pronounced in estimating the larger bulk of his poetry is the word immature.  Not only was the poet young; but the fruit of his young mind had been plucked before it had been duly mellowed by reflection.  Again, he did not care enough for common things to present them with artistic fulness.  He was intolerant of detail, and thus failed to model with the roundness that we find in Goethe’s work.  He flew at the grand, the spacious, the sublime; and did not always succeed in realizing for his readers what he had imagined.  A certain want of faith in his own powers, fostered by the extraordinary discouragement under which he had to write, prevented him from finishing what he began, or from giving that ultimate form of perfection to his longer works which we admire in shorter pieces like the “Ode to the West Wind”.  When a poem was ready, he had it hastily printed, and passed on to fresh creative efforts.  If anything occurred to interrupt his energy, he flung the sketch aside.  Some of these defects, if we may use this word at all to indicate our sense that Shelley might by care have been made equal to his highest self, were in a great measure the correlative of his chief quality ­the ideality, of which I have already spoken.  He composed with all his faculties, mental, emotional, and physical, at the utmost strain, at a white heat of intense fervour, striving to attain one object, the truest and most passionate investiture for the thoughts which had inflamed his ever-quick imagination.  The result is that his finest work has more the stamp of something natural and elemental ­the wind, the sea, the depth of air ­than of a mere artistic product.  Plato would have said:  the Muses filled this man with sacred madness, and, when he wrote, he was no longer in his own control.  There was, moreover, ever-present in his nature an effort, an aspiration after a better than the best this world can show, which prompted him to blend the choicest products of his thought and fancy with the fairest images borrowed from the earth on which he lived.  He never willingly composed except under the impulse to body forth a vision of the love and light and life which was the spirit of the power he worshipped.  This persistent upward striving, this earnestness, this passionate intensity, this piety of soul and purity of inspiration, give a quite unique spirituality to his poems.  But it cannot be expected that the colder perfections of Academic art should always be found in them.  They have something of the waywardness and negligence of nature, something of the asymmetreia we admire in the earlier creations of Greek architecture.  That Shelley, acute critic and profound student as he was, could conform himself to rule and show himself an artist in the stricter sense, is, however, abundantly proved by “The Cenci” and by “Adonais”.  The reason why he did not always observe this method will be understood by those who have studied his “Defence of Poetry”, and learned to sympathize with his impassioned theory of art.

Working on this small scale, it is difficult to do barest justice to Shelley’s life or poetry.  The materials for the former are almost overwhelmingly copious and strangely discordant.  Those who ought to meet in love over his grave, have spent their time in quarrelling about him, and baffling the most eager seeker for the truth. (See Lady Shelley v.  Hogg; Trelawny v. the Shelley family; Peacock v.  Lady Shelley; Garnett v.  Peacock; Garnett v.  Trelawny; McCarthy v.  Hogg, etc., etc.) Through the turbid atmosphere of their recriminations it is impossible to discern the whole personality of the man.  By careful comparison and refined manipulation of the biographical treasures at our disposal, a fair portrait of Shelley might still be set before the reader with the accuracy of a finished picture.  That labour of exquisite art and of devoted love still remains to be accomplished, though in the meantime Mr. W.M.  Rossetti’s Memoir is a most valuable instalment.  Shelley in his lifetime bound those who knew him with a chain of loyal affection, impressing observers so essentially different as Hogg, Byron, Peacock, Leigh Hunt, Trelawny, Medwin, Williams, with the conviction that he was the gentlest, purest, bravest, and most spiritual being they had ever met.  The same conviction is forced upon his biographer.  During his four last years this most loveable of men was becoming gradually riper, wiser, truer to his highest instincts.  The imperfections of his youth were being rapidly absorbed.  His self-knowledge was expanding, his character mellowing, and his genius growing daily stronger.  Without losing the fire that burned in him, he had been lessoned by experience into tempering its fervour; and when he reached the age of twenty-nine, he stood upon the height of his most glorious achievement, ready to unfold his wings for a yet sublimer flight.  At that moment, when life at last seemed about to offer him rest, unimpeded activity, and happiness, death robbed the world of his maturity.  Posterity has but the product of his cruder years, the assurance that he had already outlived them into something nobler, and the tragedy of his untimely end.

If a final word were needed to utter the unutterable sense of waste excited in us by Shelley’s premature absorption into the mystery of the unknown, we might find it in the last lines of his own “Alastor": ­

    Art and eloquence,
    And all the shows o’ the world, are frail and vain
    To weep a loss that turns their light to shade. 
    It is a woe “too deep for tears,” when all
    Is reft at once, when some surpassing spirit,
    Whose light adorned the world around it, leaves
    Those who remain behind nor sobs nor groans,
    The passionate tumult of a clinging hope;
    But pale despair and cold tranquillity,
    Nature’s vast frame, the web of human things,
    Birth and the grave, that are not as they were.