The Case of Shelley (1952)

Abstract

The commonly held view that as a poet Shelley was ignored in his lifetime does not correspond to the facts; neither does the view that the first able and careful critics to depreciate his poetry appeared in our own day. It is abundantly clear that in his own brief lifetime Shelley was not ignored by the critics; he was regarded as a poet of great but misguided powers.¹ This attitude did not give way to one of complete approval, but continued to characterise much of the most respected criticism of the century down almost to its end. The classic statement of the position is perhaps that of Wordsworth, made only five years after Shelley’s death: ‘Shelley is one of the best artists of us all: I mean in workmanship of style.’² This is high praise from a man whose praise in such matters counts, but it is far from being unmixed praise. By saying artist rather than poet, and by emphasising the word, Wordsworth meant to qualify: Shelley, he is saying, was a very able craftsman, but he chose to write about the wrong things. Matthew Arnold and Leslie Stephen disagreed about the nature of Wordsworth’s virtues, but they were essentially in agreement as to the nature of Shelley’s defects. Those defects, they said, were unreality and unsubstantiality.

Proof of how rapidly Shelley’s reputation fluctuates is in the fact that Professor Pottle felt the need to revise some of his comments in this essay when it was reprinted in M. H. Abrams’ anthology, English Romantic Poetry (1960). Considered now, one would need to modify still further the conclusion, and even the type of approach. From this very changing position, however, there does emerge the peculiar way in which Shelley is crucial for understanding the range of English poetry, and how his poetry constantly challenges any critical orthodoxy. Such a survey as this insists on the need to confront certain key questions, and realise that to dismiss them, and Shelley, out of hand is simply to evade the issues that they pose.