The Real Shelley. New Views of the Poet's Life. Vol. 1 (of 2)Jeaffreson, John Cordy
History
The Real Shelley. New Views of the Poet's Life. Vol. 1 (of 2)
Jeaffreson, John Cordy
Poets, English -- 19th century -- Biography; Shelley, Percy Bysshe, 1792-1822
In these few words there are three mis-statements. As Shelley left Eton in
the later part of 1809, and _Zastrozzi_ was not published before the 5th
of June (or, at the earliest, before the end of May), 1810, it is certain
that the publication of the novel was no incident of Shelley's life at the
school. It being certain that Shelley received never a farthing of
publisher's money for the absurd performance, Mr. Packe must have been
wrong in saying the author was paid 40_l._ for it. [Mr. Packe's words,
'for which, I think, he received 40_l._,' are, of course, to be read 'for
which he received, I think, 40_l._'--_i.e._ as the statement of a witness,
certain that a considerable sum was paid, though uncertain whether 40_l._
was the precise sum.] As the author received no money for the book, he
cannot have given 'with part of the proceeds' (_i.e._ part of nothing) 'a
most magnificent banquet to eight of his friends.' But though he gives
three pieces of delusive evidence in three lines of type, it does not
follow that the lines are of no evidential value. An honest person,
writing in good faith, Mr. Packe may be fairly regarded as a person,
remembering something about _Zastrozzi_ in connexion with Eton (where the
novel, or some part of it, was certainly written); with remembering
something, also, of Shelley's farewell feast to a party of friends at
Eton; with remembering, moreover (or, at least, believing that he
remembered), that Shelley was said to have been paid 40_l._, more or less,
for the literary production. These recollections (albeit the recollections
of a very mistaken and very much misinformed witness) are not to be
rejected as altogether valueless, but kept in reserve as honest statements
and possibly veritable recollections, unfit to be used as testimony by
themselves, but quite fit to be used in confirmation of similar
recollections by other people. Could it be shown in like way that each of
the other guests, either at the time of the banquet or some time
afterwards, was under the impression that the feast was paid for with
publisher's money, no person competent to sift and weigh evidence would
hesitate in coming to the conclusion that the banquet was given by
Shelley as a thing bought with money he had received from a
publisher,--that the common impression of the eight independent witnesses
was the result of representations made by the giver of the feast.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account