a'

SHELLEY AND LORD BEACONSFIELD.

.4 Lectur e deli v er ed to t/ze SHELLEY SOCIe ,o n I/Vea

’

n esday , October 12th

1887, by DR . R.

”g

o

A RNETT.

SHELLEY un do ubtedly po sse ssed every qual i ty n ecessaryto con stitute a perfect hero o f roman ce, and i t i s a matterof some surprise that writers of fiction have n o t hithertom ad e more use o f him . I t is far from improbable thathe wil l sti l l figure in many wo rks o f imagination

,but if so ,

i t wi l l pro bably be as the cen tre of ideal gro ups widelyd ifferen t from the actual enviro nmen t o f his l ife. The t imewhen his real h isto ry co u ld be made the subj ect of a n ovelhas go n e by, the real in ciden ts of his l i fe are to o wellkn own for the roman cer to tamper with

,even i f

,which

i s n o t the case—he co u ld ho pe by so do ing to ren derthem mo re roman t ic . There was a t ime of twi l ight

,

when they were so obscure or v ariously related as toinvest a t rue h istory with some o f the prerogatives offictio n . I t was then that a m an of gen ius

,whose own

career,i f less adven tu rous than Shel ley’s

,was even more

e xceptio nal,essayed to shadow the po et forth to the publ ic

thro ugh the medium of a roman ce. This was n o less aperso n than Lord Beaco n sfie ld and i t i s a matter of co ns ide rable in terest to ascertain how he perfo rmed his task

,

and what qualifi cation s he possessed in the shape ofspecial sympathy or Special in fo rmat io n . A further inquiry worth making is how far his study of Shel leyreacted upo n this remarkable m an himsel f, and whattraces, i f any ,

i t has left in his writings .I t must at fi rst s ight seem a visio nary en deavo ur to

e stablish any so rt of affin ity between Shel ley and LordBeaco n sfie ld. The di fferen ces between the characterso f the two m e n are so rea l and palpable that theycast the actual though partial resemblan ce en tirely

SHELLE y AND L0131) BEA CONSFIELD. 103

in to the shade. The dissimi larity of their respectivecareers i s so great that i t appears usele ss to lo o k forany l iken ess . W e do n o t sufficien tly remember thatShel ley’s was merely the begin n ing of a career

, and that ,though n o th ing

,

co u ld have preven ted Lord Beaco n sfie ldfrom being a d istingu ished m an

,the particu lar kin d of d is

tin ct ion he attain ed might have been metamo rphosed bycircumstan ces . I f the elder Disrael i had n o t fo rsakenthe faith of h is fathers

,the yo unger Disrael i wou ld n o t

have en tered Parl iamen t un ti l far advanced m midd le l ife,

‘

when the Corn Law question had been so lved , and therewou ld have been n o leap to power fo r him from the prostrate body of S ir Robert Peel

,as the fo x sprang out o f

the wel l o n the goat ’s shou lders. Debarred from pract ica lpol i t ics , Disrael i might have g iven free course to tho serevolution ary tenden cies of his n ature wh i ch the n e ce ss it ies o f pol itical l i fe suppressed , and been famous as thekeen , steady, and ruthless assai lan t of many things which ,as matters turn ed out

,his destiny en l isted him to defen d .

Shel ley,o n his part, wou ld very pro bably have en tered

Parl iamen t i f he had lived to the period of the Reform Bil l,

and though he co uld.n o more have been a great'

parl iamen tary tacti cian than Disrael i cou ld have been a greatpoet

,he wou ld have been equal ly emin en t as an orator,

his parl iamen tary career wo u ld have been d istingu ishedby j ust that persisten t in domitable resol ution which,

madeD israel i what it would n ever have made Shelley. I f theideals of the two m e n seem at fi rst sight almost an tago n ist ic

,there is o n e very impo rtan t po in t in which they

co in cide . Which of the hero in es o f modern fiction wouldShel ley have most admired ' We learn from Peacockthat his favourite among the hero in es he d id kn ow wasBro ckden Brown ’s Co n stan tia Dudley'and the same qual it ies which fixed

,his preferen ce o n her wo uld have gu idedh im to the Theo do ra o f Disrael i

’s Lo tkaz’

r . She is in trutho n e of the n oblest creat io n s of mo dern n ovel ists 'she .

imperson ates al l the traits which Shel ley special ly valuedin women 'she 13 a maturer Cythna, a Cy thna o fflesh andbloo d . What 1s equal ly to the poin t, she 18 her creato r

’sideal al so. Disrael i usual ly deals with h is characters withan easy famil iari ty and

,except when he is depicting a

personal en emy, W i th amiable in dulgen ce. He sees'thei r

104 SHELLEY AND LORD BEA CON SFIELD.

foibles, n evertheless, and takes care that these sha l l n o tescape the reader. In Theo dora alon e there is n othingof this . She has captivated her creator, as Galatea captiv ated Pygmal ion . There is n o t a single touch o f sat irein the po rtrai t i t plain ly represen ts the art ist ’s 'highe st

co n ceptio n of woman , which proves to be essen tial ly thesame as Shel ley ’s.More might be said o n the poin ts o f con tact between

the po et and the statesman ,but time is short and

criticism lo n g. We must con fin e ‘ou rselves to factscapable of po sit ive verification

,and con sider

( 1) The extern al eviden ce of Disrael i’s acquain tan ce

with Shel ley.

(2) Disrael i’s estimate o f Shel ley as deduced from the

portrai t o f the latter which he has given in Ven ez‘z’

a.

(3) Traces of Shel ley’s influen ce o n Disrael i swritings.There is o n e gre at con temporary poet whom Lord

Beaco n sfie ld undoubtedly admired with en thusiasm . Iti s kn own with what eagern ess he exerted himsel f in hislatte r days to promote the erectio n of a mon umen t toByron . In so do ing he bo th expressed a con victio n and

d ischarged a debt. Byron had prompted Con tar z’

m’

Flem ing, a h igher and purer ideal than Vz'

v z'

an Gr ey .

Byron had seen much in his Eastern wan derings , andby his Heér ew Melodies had co n st ituted h imsel f insome sort the laureate o f Disrael i’s own race. Who everi s in terested in Byron , is ‘

in te re sted in Shel ley, i f on ly asa member of the former’s circle 'and although Disrael i

’skn owledge of the real relation s o f the two poets was n o

do ub tzde fe ct iv e , he kn ew en ough to be aware that theyco n so rted as in tel lectual peers. But in truth b e hadSpecial . mean s of in fo rmation . Readers o f Shel ley’sletters wi l l remember his accoun t o f Byron ’s valet

,Tita

Falcie r i , a fin e fel low,with a prodigious black beard

,

who has stabbed twp or three people,and is th e most

good-n atured lo o king fellow I ever saw.

”'Thi s person

age had actual ly come in to the servi ce of the elderDisrael i . He had r emain ed with Byron un ti l h i sm aster

’

s death , had then been taken in to service byH o bhouse, and successively passed in to the hou seholdso f both the Di srael is, clo sing his l i fe in the enj oymen t of

afi

SHELLE Y A ND LORD BEA CONSFIELD.

otz'

zun own dzlgn z'

m te as mes‘sen’

ger at the In d ia O ffi ce.He was with Shel ley at Lerici

, fo r a t ime, and i s recordedto have had man y an ecdotes o f him andwe m ay be surethat his last master wo u ld n o t n eglect . such a so urce o f

in fo rmat ion when writing the remarkable n ovel o f whichwe are to speak immed iately

, in which Byron and

Shel ley are in troduced . On e o ther Shel leyan influen ceo n Disrael i must n o t be omitted . This is Bu lwer Lytton ,

most in timately con n ected with Disrael i fo r several yearsa fter the latter’s retu rn from the East. Bulwer’s estimate of Shel ley

,though too far in advan ce of the period

to be termed conven t ion al , was sti l l shal low and in

adequate. ' Yo u eviden tly admire h im as a poet,” he

wrote to Jefferson Hogg, far more than I thin k crit icismwarran ts us in doin g. He is great in parts 'but, theCen oz

'

excepted , does n o t , in my o pin ion,effect a great

whole .” A s editor of the N ewMon thly ,however, Bulwerwas the mean s of giving Hogg’s remin iscen ces t o thewo1 ld ' he was also o n very frien dly terms with Mrs.Shel ley , and he can n ot have fai led to stimu late thecuriosity which his frien d and con tributor had alreadybegun to en tertain o n the subj ect.To these sources of in formation may be added an other,of which it wi l l be mo re con ven ien t to speak further o n .

When therefo re,about the midd le o f 1836 , Disrael i

sat down to write Ven etz'

a,he was n o t i l l prepared to

speak of Shel ley in so far as kn owledge o f his h istoryand character wen t'and, as wi l l be shown by and by, hepossessed n o in con siderable acquain tan ce with his writings . In drawing Shelley’s portrait, however, he resortedto a device which may almo st be said to have beenhabitual with h im. He d id n o t wish his person ages toappear mere servi le tran scripts of real ity, and as in v e nt ion was by n o mean s h is forte , and he actual ly wasin debted for the p ith and marrow of h i s n ovels to theobservation of l i fe, he was accustomed to avoid thisimputation by fusing two characters in to o n e , or ratherby borrowing trai ts from o n e person age which be somewhat inart ificially j oin ed o n to an other. Thus inEndym ion ,

o n e of the leadin g characters is compoundedof Cobden and Bright, certain ly in un equa l propo rtion s.Having , therefore, in Venetz

'

a to in troduce Byron as Lord

106 SHELLEY AND LORD BEA CONSFHELDL

Cadurc is, and Shel ley as Marmion ' Herbert, he cutsByron ’s relation s with Lady Byro n and A da, so ledaughter of my ho use and heart,

”o ff from the character

of Cadurcis, and superimposes them upon Herbert,leaving the rest un altered . The vo ice i s the voice ofjaco b, but the han ds are the hands of Esau the situation i s Byron i c, but the characte r is Shel leyan . Lookingat the character apart from the situation , we find thatHerbert is d rawn in co n fo rmity with the most o rthodoxShel leyan tradition ,

precisely as Mrs . Shel ley and Trelawn y and Hogg and Medwin have agreed to represen tthe poet. No t on ly i s Shel ley thus d el in eated w ithsubstan tial accuracy , but the developmen t o f his min dand the history o f his writings are fo l lowed with a closen ess which shows that Disrael i had taken pain s to masterthe biograph ical in formatio n access ible to him . Thepicture of Herbert ’s perso n al appearan ce is Shelley’s

,

with a few pictu resque to uches superadded , and re

presen ting him at a more advan ced age than he actuallyreached . His stature was much above the middleheight

,tho ugh his figure, which was remarkably slen der,

was bowed n o t by years,certain ly

,fo r his co un ten an ce

,

tho ugh singularly pal l id,sti l l retain ed traces o f youth .

His hai r,which he wo re very lo ng

,descen ded over his

sho ulders , and must origin al ly have been o f a l ightauburn colo ur, but was n ow severely touched with grey.

His co un ten an ce was very pal l id , so colo urless, in deed ,that its aspect was almo st un earthly ' but his largeblue eyes sti l l gl ittered with fire .” In an other passage

,

Herbert is said to have ' lo oked l ike a go ldenphan tom

,—a phrase which seems very likely to have

been ado pted from some o n e who had actual ly seenShel ley.

Herbert, in his en tran ce upon l i fe, i s thus delin eatedYo u ng, i rresist ibly prepossessing in h is appearan ce

,

with great eloquen ce,crude but co n siderable kn owledge

,

an arden t imagin atio n , and a gen ero us and passio n atesoul.” Like Shel ley , Herbert go es to Eton and Oxford

,

where ' his co l lege l ife passed in ceaseless co n troversywith his tutor.” He is n o t expel led the un iversity

,which

would have in terfered with the plo t of the n o vel but ashe is supposed to have quitted it in his n in eteen th year

,

he can hard ly have taken a degree. Like the Shel ley ofHogg’s remin i scen ces , he 13 described as ' a pro fic1e n t 1nthose scien t ific pursu its which were then rare

,

’’

and afterleav m g the un ivers i ty secludes himsel f ln his laborato ryandh is d issect ing ro om as wel l as his study.

'While thusengaged , he occasion ally flattered himself that he might

'

d iscover the great secret which had perplexed gen erat ion s ,

”an eviden t al lusion to Franken szezn . He thus

con fi rms himself in al l the heresies which his Oxfordtutor supposed h imsel f to have shaken

, and becomesmoreover a stren uous an tagon ist o f marriage

,which he

taught h imself to esteem,n o t on ly as an un n atural t ie

,

but as emin en tly unjust towards that softer sex who hadso long been the vi ctims of m an . But , as in Shel ley

’scase

,poetry gets the upper han d of phi losophy. The

youthfu l poem attributed to Herbert is a fusion of two ofShel ley’s works. When we read that ' he cal led in tocreat ion that society of immaculate purity and un boun deden j oymen t which he bel ieved was the natu ral in heritan ceo f un shackled m an ,

we are reminded of Queen Mab ,

but ' the stan z as, gl ittering with refin ed images, and

reson an t with subtle symphon y,

” are a description,and

a very good description ,of the Rev olt of I slam . With

this poem also correspon ds the further trait I n the herohe pictu red a phi losopher, young and gi fted as himsel fin the heroin e, his idea of a perfect woman .

” I t is added ,n o t unj ustly as regards even the R ev olt of I slam , but

w i th sti l l closer appl ication to P r om etnen s Unooa’

na'

These pecul iar doctr in es o f Herbert, which, un d isguised

,must have in cited so much odium

,were more or

less develo ped and in culcated in th is work n everthelessthey were n ecessari ly so vei led by the highly spiri tua land metaphorical language of the poet that i t requiredsome previous acquain tan ce with the system en fo rced tobe able to disco ver and recogn ise the eso teric spi ri t o fh is Muse. The fate

,therefo re, of Herbert

’s earlywritings is represen ted as d ifferen t from Shel ley ’s

,but

n o t whol ly un l ike what Shel ley’s might have been i f hehad n o t begun with Queen Mao.

' The publ i c,

” i t i ssaid

,

' read o n ly the h istory of an ideal world and o f

creatures o f exquis ite beauty, told in language that alikedaz z led their fan cy and

'

captivated thei r car . They were

lost in a de l icious maze of metaphor and music, and

were proud to ackn owledge an addit ion to the gloriouscatalogue of thei r po ets in a yo un g and in terestingmember of thei r aristocracy.

”

A fter, however, Herbert’s

r upture with h is wife, the particulars o f which , as al readyin t imated , ar e bo rrowed from the history of Byron ,

hiswo rks were l itt le read and un iversal ly decried . The

gen eral impress ion of the Engl ish publ i c was thatHerbert was an aban do n ed being of pro fl igate habits 'and as scarcely any o n e but a sympathetic spiri t everr ead a l in e he wrote, fo r , in deed, the very sight 0

works was pol lution,i t i s n o t very wonderfu l that this

o pin ion was so gen eral ly prevalen t . A calm in qu irermight perhaps have suspected that aban don ed pro fi igacyis n o t very compatible with severe study, and mighthave been of opin io n that a so l i tary sage m ay be thean tagon ist of a priesthood without denying the existenceof a God. But there n ever are calm in quirers.”

This passage , as wel l as the gen eral character of theportrait

,en t itles, I th in k , Lord Beaco n sfie ld to a place

among the hon ourable l ist of those who have defen dedShelley when the un favourable estimate of his characterwas by far the prepon deratin g o n e . In fact, hard ly anyexceptio n can be taken to h is portrai t, except its de fect iv e n e ss in po in ts w i th which it was hardly possib le thathe sho u ld have been acquain ted . His l iterary estimateis less sou n d

,yet even i ts in completen ess i s in a sen se

welcome as proving that h is j udgmen t o f the m an wasn o t d isabled by his admiration o f the poet. ' Thereis

,

” he makes Herbert say, a radical fau l t in my poet icm in d

,

'

and I am co n scious of it . I am n o t altogethervo id of the creativ e facu lty, but min e is a fragmen tarymind . I pro duce n o who l e . Un less you do th is yo ucan n o t last 'at least you can n o t materia l ly affect yo urspecies.” This

,i t wil l be n o t iced

,i s an echo of Bu lwer ’s

remark in his le tte r .to Ho gg already quoted,and wo uld

seem to in dicate that the qual i ty o f Shel ley’s gen i us hadfo rmed the subj ect of d iscuss io n between Disrael i andhis frien d . The very co nversation

,however

,between

Herbert and Cadurcis, from which these o bservatio n s wast aken , shows that i f Disrael i was n o t a d isciple o f She11eyor an adequate appraiser. of h is gen iu s, he was yet a

SHELLE Y A ND LORD BEACONSFIELD. 109

studen t of his writ ings,for the most striking passag es

with a freedom which wo u ld j ustly have subjected Dib

srae lito the imputat ion of plagiari sm i f he had n o t put themin to the mouth of Shel ley himsel f—ar e taken out of o n eof the least kn own o f his works . 'A nd yet

,

” says Cadurcis,

' the age of Peri cles has passed away. Solve me thepro blem why so un para l leled a pro gress was made du rin gthat period in l i teratu re and the arts

, and why thatprogress , so rapid and so sustain ed

,so soon received a

check an d became retrograde '” ' I t is a problem leftto the won der and conj ecture o f posterity

,

” said Herbert.

Nothin g of the A then ian s remain s ex cept thei r gen i usbut they fu lfi l led thei r pu rpose. The wre cks and fragmen ts of thei r subtle and pro foun d min ds obscurelysuggest to us the gran deur and perfection of the whole.The conversat io n i s pu rsued for some time in the samestra in ,

and, l ike the above passage,is d erived n early

verbatim from Shel ley ’s Discourse on tne Man n e rs oftne A n cien ts, which was n o t‘ publ ished in an authorisedshape fo r th ree years after the appearan ce o f Ven et ia.

But a fragmen t , in c ludin g these sen ten ces, had, in 183 3 ,been given to the wo rld by Medwi n in the Shel leyPapers, and Disrael i must n o t on ly have stud ied thisl i tt le ephemeral bo o k with some care

,but have had i t in

his po ssess ion when he wrote Ven et ia. A sti l l morestriking quo tatio n comes from the same so urce . Thereader of Shel ley who remembers that the Defen ce ofP oetry was n o t published un ti l 1840 ,

m ay wel l start whenhe com es upo n o n e of its mo st memorable d icta in themiddle o f Ven et ia ' ' Po ets are the unackn owledgedlegislators of the wo rld . He m ay be thri l led, as Berthain Tieck ’s won derfu l tale i s thri l led when the kn ight

,to

whom she has been recoun ting her h istory, startles herw ith the name of the l ittle do g , S tr o/zm ian , which shehas n ever told

,fo r she has herself fo rgo tten i t. But

the explan at io n i s s imple . The remark which clo sesShel ley’s Def en ce of P oetry i s o n e which he frequen tlymade in con versat ion ,

and Medwin , who often heard i tfro m him ,

has repeated it in the Shel ley Papers . Ye t

an o ther citatio n from an un publ ished wo rk is also tobe traced to Medwin ’s Shel ley Papers. A fter deplo ring the fragmen tary character of h is own production s,

n o SHELLE Y A ND LORD BEACONSFIELD.

as already men tion ed , Herbert says , 'What I admire in

yo u,Cadurcis , is that, with all the faults of you th , of

which you wi l l free yoursel f, yo ur creative power isvigo rous

,prol ific

, and complete 'yo ur creatio n s ri se fastand fai r, l ike perfect worlds .

” This i s fro m the S on n etto By ron ,

o riginal ly publ ished in an imperfect fo rm byMedwin in the Shel ley Papers , where Shel ley speaks(to use Medwin ’s imperfec t text, the on ly o n e accessibleto Disrael i)o f

My soul , which , as a wo rm m ay haply showA po rt io n o f the Unappro achable ,Marks his creatio n s r i se as fast and fairA s pe r fect wo r lds at the Cr eato r ’s W i l l .”

I t was probably abo ut the same time that th is waswritten (Jan uary 1822)that Shel ley wrote to G i sborn e o fByron 's latest composition s ' 'What thin k you of Lo rdByro n n ow' Space won dered less at the swi ft and fai rcreatio n s o f Go d when He grew weary of vacan cy ,

thanI at this Spiri t o f an an gel in the mo rtal paradise o f adecaying body. So 1 th in k , le t the world envy while i tadmires

,as i t m ay .

” Disrael i ’s represen tation of Herbert,

then,admiring without en vy the more po pular pro

duct io n s o f h is frien d Cadurcis, and award ing him an

unmerited superio rity o f gen iu s , as well as the preemin en ce in con temporary reputat io n , is perfect ly in

accordan ce with fact. Was there any so urce from whichhe co uld have derived i t bes ides the con fused and n o t

always rel iable in d icatio n s of Medwin ' I thin k therem ay have been . There was a m an

,then promin en t in

Lo n do n soc iety, who had kn own Byro n and Shel ley

equal ly wel l , and had a perfect kn owledge of the sen t imen ts they respectively en tertain ed for each other. Ihave been but o n ce in the late M r. Tr e lawny

’

s company,bu t that s ingle o ccasion was en ough to co nvin ce me o f

the in exhaust ibi l ity o fhis sto res of Byron ic and Shel leyanan ecdo te, and o f the gen eral trustworth in ess of his viewsof Shelley. I am n o t sure that as much co u ld be sai dof his est imate of Byro n

,or o f the members o f the Pisa

c i rcle in gen eral. Bu t in Shel ley’s case n o sp leen o rdi sappoin tmen t or fan cied sl ight had marred theorigin al clearn ess o f his view

,and I feel as sure that hi s

I I I

report of Shel ley’s fee l ings towards Byron wou ld be

main ly co rrect , as that D israel i, deeply in terested in bothpoets as he was, must have tu rn ed T re lawny

’

s acquain tan ce to acco un t. Trelawny was in timate with Disrael i ’sfrien ds, Lady Blessington and Coun t D’

O rsay, and thatDisrael i kn ew him about the time that he was writingVen et ia

'

,appears from a letter in his correspon den ce,

dated Ju ly, 1836, in tro ducing an excel len t oon - in ot ofJames Smith

’s 'What do you thin k of Spain 'Trelawny , who is a repub l ican , i s in raptures . ‘ TheSpan iards,

’ he says,

‘ are in advan ce of al l coun tries 'they have got thei r con st itution of Says JamesSmith

,

‘ I wish I had got min e.’

The catastrophe of Ven et ia i s the catastrophe ofShel ley

,in which Byron i s also invo lved. The scen e i s

laid at Lerici 'the detai ls are perfectly accurate, and

m ain ly‘

de r iv ed from T re lawny’

s accoun t in Leigh Hun t’sBy r on andHis Con temporar ies, supplemen ted , I imagin e ,with particulars glean ed in con versation . Byron playsthe part of Wil liams . Lord Cadurcis was a fin e

swimmer,an d had eviden tly made stro ng effo rts for

his l i fe, for he was partly un dressed . While CaptainC adurcis l ean t over the body , chafin g the extremities ina hurried fren z y and gaz in g in ten tly o n the co un ten an ce,a sho ut was heard from o n e of the stragglers who hadrecen tly arrived . The sea had washed o n the beachan o ther co rpse, the fo rm of Marmion Herbert . I t wo uldappear that he had made n o struggle to save himself

,fo r

his han d was locked in his waistco at,where

,at the

m omen t,he had thrust the Pnoea’o , showing that he

had been reading to the last, and was med itating o n

immortal i ty when he d ied .

I t must, I fear, be admitted that Ven et ia i s a lmost theweakest of Lord Beaco n sfie ld

’

s n ovels as a wo rk o f

fiction,and that such in terest as it possesses is main ly

b iographical . I t i s so clo se a co py of real ity that thestructure seems loose and inar tificial, and the sequen ceo f even ts capricious. The real ly artistic n ovel ist i san e clectic artist who cho oses out of l i fe the even tssusceptible of treatmen t in fiction

, and. imparts to themthe logical con caten atio n which the ord inary l itt len esseso f l ife in terrupt or obscure. Disrael i has S imply copied

,

112 SHELLEY AND LORD BEACONSFIELD.

and,except by the rather cl umsy device of fixing a piece

of Byro n upon Shelley , has made hard ly an en deavourto combin e o r divers ify. The domestic bereavemen t ofLord Lyn dhurst , t o whom the bo ok IS dedicated , has , hesays, restrain ed him from offerin g any acco un t of ' theprin ciples which had gu ided me in i ts co m po sit 1o n .

”

This must have been a meagre catalo gue at best 'but thebiographer redeems the n o velist, and he 13 right ln claimin g credi t for the en deavo ur

' to shadow forth , though butin a glass darkly

,two o f the most ren own ed and refin ed

spi rits that have ado rn ed these our latter days.”

There is but o n e of Lo rd Beaconsfield’

s works inwhich i t would be reason able to seek for any co n .

s ide rable trace of the in fluen ce of Shel ley, and in thiswe find i t. Disrael i’s Rev olutionaiy Epic cou ld hard lyhave been produced without some in spiratio n from thepo et who had written the true revo l ut ion ary epic o f theag e in m e R ev olt of Islam . Disrael i’s epic bears itso bl igations to Shel ley blaz o n ed upo n i ts fro n t. Demogorgon

,in Milton an an arch old , had been promoted by

Shel ley to the ran k of a Deity,the u ltimate gro un d

,in

fact,o f d ivin e existen ce. Disrael i adopts the idea . His

Demo gorgon i s the al l-wise Spirit befo re whom Magro sand Lyr ido n ,

the con ten d ing gen i i o f the mediaeval andthe mo dern order

,Faith and Freedom , appear to plead

t heir respective causes . The an tago n i sm o f these gen i ii s c learly derived from the Eagle and Serpen t o f I li e

R ev olt of Islam . The man n er in wh ich they presen tthemselves, i t must be own ed , bears a somewhat burlesqueresemblan ce t o the con ten tio n of M ichael and Satan inByro n ’s Vis ion of j udg m en t. Which is M ichael andwhich is Satan i s hard to tel l 'n o r , perhaps, had theautho r ful ly sat isfied himsel f. Fo r it is a markedpeculiari ty of D israel i that to the revolutio n ary temperamen t which en abled him to write s uch audacious pers iflage as m e I nf er nal Mar r iag e and to draw suchcharacters as Theo dora

,he un ited a gen uin e reveren ce

for the beauty of the an cien t order— its chival ry,i ts

feudal i sm , its mon astic ism and i t i s to a great exten tthis do ublen ess of n ature which ren ders h is wo rks so

in teresting, an d earn s pardon fo r two o f the wo rst defectsan author can have— fl ippan cy and meretri ciousn ess.

SHELLE Y A ND LORD BEA CONSFIELD.

Magros and Lyr ido n plead their causes befo re Demogo rgon ’s thro n e w ith co n s iderable rheto rical force

,

tho ugh without much poetry , the en t i re s ituation presen ting a perfect analogy to that un fin ished P r olog ue toHellas , in wh i ch Chri st and Mahomet play the samepart of advo cates

,but which Disrael i can n ot have seen .

Demo gorgon i n forms the gen i i , in a lin e which but fori ts lack of melody might ha ve been borrowed fromShel ley

,

In m an alo n e the fate o f m an is placed,

and b ids them mark the career o f a mo rtal , in whom ,

i t i s h in ted , they wi l l fin d the i r respective aims recon ci led .

This i s n o other than Napoleon,the chi ld o f a Revol ution

yet the foun der of an Empire. Napoleo n i s acco rd inglyin trod uced

,lead in g the Fren ch from victo ry to victo ry

up to the gates of M ilan but here Disrael i ’s in spiratio n,

o r rather the ambition which had s imulated in sp iration ,

deserted h im . He publ ished what he had written in theapparen t ho pe that i t might y e t be revived by po pu larapplause , but prefaced his wo rk with a declarat ion whichfew v e rs ifie rs even wo u ld m ake

,and certain ly n o po ets '

' I am n o t o n e who fin ds con so latio n fo r the n eglect ofmy co n temporaries in the imaginary plaud its o f a moresympatheti c po sterity. The publ ic havin g decl in ed toin terest i tself in the R ev olutionary Epic, the autho rredeemed the pledge given in his preface , an d,

w i th orwitho ut a pan g

,hurled h is lyre to l imbo .

” 1 He was , intruth

,n o po et, and in attempting an en terprise which

Shel ley himself wo uld have foun d difficu lt, he had ab

surdly misco n ceived both the n ature an d the exten t o fh is powers . Ye t

,n otwithstan d ing frequen t bombast and

frequen t batho s, an d every possible in dicat ion o f an

essen tial ly pro sai c n atu re masqueradin g in the garb ofverse

,there i s a freedom an d largen ess o f treatmen t

abo ut the R ev olut ionary Epic which redeems it fromcon tempt and at a t ime when imitato rs o f Shel ley weregen eral ly copy ing h is styl e alon e, i t i s n o t un refreshingto find an o ther order of fo l lowers n eglecting the style

1 He says,howeve r, in the pre face to the se co n d editio n

,that in

1837 b e co rrected the po em w i th the in te n tio n o f com ple ting it, butwas preve n ted by his e lect ion to Par l iam e n t.

fl 14 SHELLEY AND LORD BEACONSFIELD.

to lay hold of the ideas. I t is due to Disrael i to observethat the style of his verse , i f much less individual thanthat of h is prose, i s sti ll d istin ctively his o wn , and thathe is but rarely fo un d del iberately imitating the d ictionof others . Though few close verbal paral lels can beadduced , there is , n evertheless , sufficien t gen eral resemblan ce in part icu lar passages to evin ce that Shel ley wasn o t un fami liar to him . Section 2 1 o f Bo o k I . i s c learlysuggested by Shel ley

’s descript ion of the Col iseum,which

Medwin had publ ished in the Shel ley Papers . A passagein Section 45 i s co pied , co n scio usly or un con sc iously,from a correspo n d ing passage in P r om et/zeus Un bound'and the comparison affo rds an in structive example o f

the d i fferen ce between false po etry and true poetry

DISRAELI .

Om en s direS truck co ld the hear t o f m an

,and m ade all gaz e

With si le n t spe ech upo n each o the r’s face,

Waitin g who fir st Should te l l the thought all feared.

S te eple s we re blasted by de scending fireA n ce stral tree s

,that se em ed the type s o f T im e

,

We re str icke n by stro n g w in ds,an d in an hour

The growth o f age s shive red from the ir baseFe l l r egal statue s

,foun tain s changed to blo od

,

A n d in the n ight, l ights strange and quive r in g scuddedA cr o ss the sky.

”

SHELLEY.

Then , see tho se m i l l io n wo r lds which burn and r o l lA ro un d us—the ir inhabitan ts behe ldMy sphe red light wan e in w ide Heaven the sea

W as l ifted by stran ge tem pe st,and n ew fire

From earthquake-r ifl edm oun tain s o f bright sn owSho ok its po rten tous hair ben eath Heaven ’

s frownLightn ing and In un dat io n vexed the plain sB lue thistle s blo om ed in ci t ie s fo o dle ss toadsWithin vo luptuo us cham be r s pan t ing crawledWhe n P lague had fallen o n m an

,an d beast

,and worm

,

A nd Fam in e and black blight o n he rb an d tre e .

”

These passages occur in the first d ivis ion of theR ev olut ionary Epic, where Magro s pleads befo re Demogorgon ’s thron e in the cause of estab l i shed in stituti on s.The speech of the revolution ary g en ius Lyr ido n i sn atu ral ly sti l l more Shelley-l ike , but the affi n i ty is diffi

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A lastor was then a scarce poem ,the fi rst edit io n being

exhausted, and the repri nt in the P ost/zum ous P oem s

having been withdrawn . It i s probab le that Disrael i read '

i t in the Galig nan i editio n , for we fin d proof of hi sacquain tan ce with an o ther po em of Shelley ’s in c l uded inthat edition

,but rare in Englan d. He says

'ings and Nat ionsGaz e o n each o ther w i th a blen ded glan ceOf awe an d doubt.”

This i s from II ellas

Obedien ce and Mutin yLike gian ts in co n te n tio n plan e t struckS tan d gaz in g at each o the r .

”

Imitatio n ,i t has been said

,i s the sin cerest flattery.

I t i s t o be remembered that this practical appreciat ion ofShelley’s wo rk was man i fested more than two years befo reD israel i began to write Ven et ia,

and that, accord ingly,we have every right to con sider the in troduction o fShel ley in to the n ovel a gen uin e te stimo ny o f the in terestwith which his character and gen iu s had in sp ired thewri ter

, and n o t the mere reso urce o f a n ovelist in questof a plot . So clear a del iveran ce from a person of LordBeaco n sfie ld

’

s emin en ce con sp i cuously marks a stage inthe histo ry of publ ic Op in io n respecting Shel ley. I f farfrom coming up to the claims j ustly advan ced o n

Shel ley’s behal f by the members of his own ci rcle,

o r the autho r of P aulin e , or the young en thusiastswho had taken him up at Cambridge

,i t i s as great

an advan ce o n the co n descen sio n of Moore as thatwas o n the verd ict of the Quar ter ly R ev iew . On thewho le, therefore, i t is an episode in Engl ish l i teraryhistory to be lo oked back upo n with sati s factio n . Theprin cipal gain er by it is, of course, Lord Beaco n sfie ldh imsel f, whose imitation o f Shel ley

’s poetry,i f n o t

always fel ic itous,at least in dicates d iscernmen t 'and

who se estimate o f his character pro ves that he had madehis way through prej udice and misrepresen tation to asubstan tial ly accurate con ception o f the actual m an .

Putting Lord Beaco n sfie ld’

s person al con tro vers ies aside,

his deal ings with m e n of letters as a m an of letters

S HELLEY AND LORD BEA CON SFIELD.

were almost invariably to h is honou r 'and this episodeis among the most hon ourable. Ye t i t makes fo r thehon our of Shel ley h imself that among the fi rst to exhibitsen sitiven ess to his in fluen ce and appreciatio n of hi scharacter, should have been a bri l l ian t and origin alperson who hard ly less than himsel f con tributed toredeem our age from the imputation of commonplace.

Gar n e t t , Ri char d

She l l ey an d Lo r d

Be aco n s f i e l d

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE

CARDS OR SLIPS FROMTHIS POC'ET

UNIVERSITY OFTORONTO LIBRARY