[1] Statements equally emphatic on this subject may be found in a
passage quoted by Mrs. Shelley in a footnote to Shelley's letter to
John Gisborne, Nov. 16, 1819 (Letter XXX. in Mrs. Shelley's edition).
Cf. also Letter XXXIII. to Leigh Hunt, Nov. 1819.
[2] I cannot find the passage or passages to which I referred in
making this statement, and therefore I do not vouch for its accuracy.
Cf. from the fragment _Fiordispina_,
The ardours of a vision which obscure
The very idol of its portraiture.
[3] Cf. from the Preface to the _Cenci_: 'I entirely agree with those
modern critics who assert that, in order to move men to true
sympathy, we must use the familiar language of men.... But it must be
the real language of men in general, and not that of any particular
class to whose society the writer happens to belong.'
[4] Preface to _Prometheus Unbound_.
[5] I do not discuss the adequacy of Shelley's position, or assert
that he held it quite clearly or consistently. In support of my
interpretation, of it I may refer to the Preface to the _Cenci_.
There he repudiates the idea of making the dramatic exhibition of the
story 'subservient to what is vulgarly called a moral purpose,' and,
as the context shows, he identifies such a treatment of the story
with the 'enforcement' of a 'dogma.'
This passage has a further interest. The dogma which Shelley would
not enforce in his tragedy was that 'no person can truly be
dishonoured by the act of another, and the fit return to make to the
most enormous injuries is kindness and forbearance, and a resolution
to convert the injurer from his dark passions by peace and love'; and
accordingly he held that 'if Beatrice had thought in this manner, she
would have been wiser and better.' How inexcusable then is the not
uncommon criticism on the _Cenci_ that he represents Beatrice as a
perfect character and justifies her murder of 'the injurer.'
Shelley's position in the _Defence_, it may be added, is in total
disagreement with his youthful doctrine and practice. In 1811 he
wrote to Miss Hitchener, 'My opinion is that all poetical beauty
ought to be subordinate to the inculcated moral,' and a large part of
_Queen Mab_ is frankly didactic. Even there, however, he reserved
most of the formal instruction for the Notes, perceiving that 'a poem
very didactic is ... very stupid.'
[6] 'I consider poetry very subordinate to moral and political
science,' he says in a letter to Peacock, Jan. 1819.
[7] And, I may add, the more it does this, so long as it does it
imaginatively, the more does it satisfy imagination, and the greater
is its _poetic_ value.