The Sun.
London, England, 1870-02-07 00:00:00

SHELLEY'S FIRST AND SECOND WIFE•

We do not quite see reason for depreciating Shelley's file
wife, Harriet Westbrook, to the length Mr. Rossetti gees'
Two wrongs cannot make a right, and nothing oil
justify Shelley's desertion of his wife and cobs.
bitation with Mary Godwin. Doubtless ShelleY°
marriage with Harriet was imprudent; it is easy t°
be wise after the fact and pronounce judgment accordingly'
but the whole of Shelley's early life was a series of 03-
prudences—or worse, lawlessnesses. The warmest of 13i5
partisans must admit this, though excusing it on tile,
score of his marvellous genius. But there is sufficieny
evidence to show that Shelley's marriage with Hamlet
Westbrook was not so " imprudent," as the result rah"
seem to indicate. On the 28th of January, 1312:
Shelley wrote "my wife is the partner of my though,"
and feelings ; " on the 27th December in the same
year he wrote, " Harriet, is as happy as we
are, and I am very happy;" and on the 7th of February'
1813, he wrote, "When I come home to Harriet, I gel
the happiest of the happy." About this time, when he ha'
been nearly two years married, he completed" Queen gab',
and wrote the beautiful dedication to his wife. Unfortu-
nately his regard for her diminished—doubtless consider;
ably inconsequence of the numerous depreciatory letters sell"
by candid friends, and probably he would, like many other
men the ardency of whose affection for their wives has sunk
into matter-of-fact respect, have lived comfortably enough
with Harriet, had he not seen and conceived " a violent,
irresistible, uncontrollable passion" for Mary Godwin,'
This occurred in May 1814, and then he disco.ered and
put on record that the partner of his life should " be
one who can feel poetry and understand philosophy'
Harriet is a noble animal ; but she can do neither." Ile
acted on his convenient doctrines respecting the marriage
tie, separated from Harriet, and in forty days left
London with Mary Godwin, a woman who inherited much
of her celebrated mother's powerful intellect, and many of
her opinions. She, by force of her own strong will, heart.
felt devotion, constancy, and literary sympathies, retained
Shelley's love till his death.
Shelley was married to Harriet in 1811, 84
1
cording to the Scotch custom, in Edinburgh; but
that no doubt might exist as to the validity e'
that marriage, they were remarried at St. George's,
Hanover-square, on the 14th March, 1814—only threef
months before he left her, and therefore affording pre°
that he then had not become so indifferent to her as to desire
separation. It is said that Mr. John Forster possesses deco'
ments throwing light on the whole affair ; and it would be
an act of simple justice to the dead to make these papers
public. Shelley unquestionably won the affections of Harriet
Westbrook—so far, it is said, as to induce her to risk, fer
his sake, what is most dear to a woman, and for that veil
reason she had the greater claim on his love and forbear.
ance ; consequently, if we are to accept his own theories'
he is not entitled to the paean in which he is termed "noble,
and his conduct compared to the too frequent faithlessness
of "faultlessly Christian young heirs of opulent baronets,
written by Mr. Rossetti. The sooner the notion that it is
on the one hand discreditable or " foolish," and on the
other superlatively " noble," " honourable," or " generous
to marry a woman who has given the strongest possible
proof of her love, ceases to prevail, and it is recognised
as a simple duty, the better. There is no evidence
to shew that Shelley thought it otherwise. That
he should have carried to their logical consequences
his socially subversive principles respecting matrimony
will always be an indelible stain on his character. It le,
now alleged, on the authority of Mr. Thornton Hunt, that
Harriet Shelley's suicide was caused by her being desertec,
"by a man in a very humble grade of life." We are net
told who this man was, nor are we given any particulars.
So grave a charge against her memory should surely have
been more explicitly made. The accusation is intended to
relieve Shelley from the onus of her miserable end; but
with us it has the contrary effect. He is made responsible
not only for the terrible closing act of her life, but for her
she was guilty of it. The revelation
is not surprising. Mr. Hunt allows, with all other
biographers, that her conjugal life before separation W 35
irreproachable; but it is admitted that from having been
educated a Methodist she came to share in many of her
husband's views. A strong-minded person could not have
Ilived three years in the closest possible intimacy with such
a man as Shelley, without, to a certain extent, becoming
imbued with his dangerous doctrines. Harriet was the
converse of strong-minded, and her husband's teachingS
both as regards the inviolability of the marriage-tie an ,
man's absolute control over his own life, had its natural
effect—bore bitter fruit: a fearful commentary on Iris
neologian ,
neologian anarchical dogmas. To ignore or palliate .1
Shelley's conduct what was palpably wrong, is to do Wel
injustice, inasmuch as it casts doubt on the justness of the
expressions of profound admiration due to his nunaereto
~,
I high qualities, to his after life, and to his genius.— Irestew
Morning Yews.