New-York tribune., 1886-08-22
THE WIFE OF SHELLEY.

MARY woLI.sToNECRAFT SHELLEY. BY HELEN
MOORE. 16mO. PIP. SAG. j. IL. Lppincott Com
The preface to this book gives good reason why
no separate biography of Shelley's wife has
hitherto been attempted her life was nothing
apart from his. But it gives no good reason why
the task should be undertaken now, at least in the
manner which the present author has thought
suti icient She does not profess TO have brought
any new facts to light or to have pushed her re-
searches beyond well-known sources of informa-
ton. She has put together the accounts aud letters
of Mrs. Shelley dispersed through various printed
books, and where these fail she is silent. OF her
heroines widowhood of nearly thirty years she
tells us practically nothing aud the sketch of her
character is extremely meagre. Something might
have been made of study of Mary Shclley's
Influence upon the poets work. but for this task
our biOgrapher shows no 6tness She states several
times that powerful influence of that kind was
excrted. but she now here attempts to su stantate
the statement or to show in what particulars and
in what periods the spiritual stimulation can be
traced. One cannot help suspectng that she has
neither q familiar knowledge of Shelley's genius
and intellectual life nor any genuine realization OF
the personality of his companion. Her powers of
literary criticism may be judged from the remark
able statement in the opening of her seventh
chapter that the published books of an author
bear necessary relation to his literary work.
still less are they gauge of his intellectual life"
What nchOate meaning may be struggling for
expression through this absurdity We cannot dis
cover; and the puzzle is not solved by the next
sentences: 1The faculty for literary production Is
something apart. often possessed by those who
have little worth producing, denied to those no
de-as galeons sink carrying their golden wealth
with them. OF no one is this true than of Mrs.
Shelley" Of no one IS what more truef Mrs.
Shelley not denied the faculty of literary pro-
duction. for she published six romances besides
some respectable miscellaneous work and that one
az least of her books" Frankenstein "-was worth
producing the author of this biography wOnld be
the last TO deny. Undoubtedly thsre are scho lars
who absorb much and give out little. poets whose
fancy Is active whilo their pen is idle; but the
books Of an author not only bear necessary re-
iation to his literary work." they are his literary
work. Miss lor is it Mrs.O Moore seems to imagine
that an authors literary work is not what he pro-
duccs but what he would produce if he had the
productive faculty Mrs. Sheley's six romances
do furnish fair measure of her intel
lectual powers. They do not represent tho
whole of her intellectual life for the
best part OF that was absorbed in Shelley's
which is perhaps what the bographer has been
trying 70 say. In contemplating this union of
affection. sympathies and tastes the admirers of
Mary Shelley are inclined to credit her with mucL
TOO large share of the intellectual product. The
partnership was not ideal connection nor
always happy One Toward the last Mrs Shelley
grew jealous exacting. irritable unreasonable
"The only atmosphere in which Mary Shelley
could be happy and make the happiness of those
about her was in that perfect and instant COM
munion. Of spirit that had first drawn her and
Shelley together. Something had Interrupted
that-satiety. that awful Nemesis of love, per-
chance. The friendship. the afectiOnate co opsdera
tion the unselish thoughts. the gentle reasonabl
ness OF Sheileys love. still were hers: but the
ardor. the esprit. the essence had died away" The
biosrapher is Jispleased with Trelawny's estimate
OF Mary Shelley. but she confirms rather than
corrects II.
The question of Shelleys domestic relations and
their many branches is difficult one to handle
but our biographer approaches it without en-
barrassment Marys ajulterous union with
Shelley while he had a wife living. ain its
personal and ethical aspect" she says. concerns
US not This is somewhat bold assumption bur
she Is not satisfied even with waving the subject
aside. 1t s justly urged in extenuation of Mary.
offence that site acted upon the principles tsugh.
aud practised by her father ana mother. I'm.
fortunately the bloerapher does not stop with this
plea. She treats the marriage tie as one of the
" trammels OF convention" which Mary shoved
heroic courage in casting aside. She nowhere
speaks OF marriage as anythiag more than an
arbitrary social CUSTOM at best q civil oblipa-
tion y; and she Is evidently disgusted with Marys
father, William Godwin because he sacrificed bis
theory for the benefit of his expected offspr!ug by
a wedding ceremony with Mary Wollstouecraft
five months before Mary SIeley's birth 10 break
the social convention" upon which rests tbe
family together with the whole structure of Chris
tan society. to he in our authors eyes nm act
OF Independence great and beautiful as wearing
a loose waist and dining In the middle of tine dav
Not only has IL no ethical quality as it concerns
Mary aud Shelley but it has ethical quality in
Itself When Shelley drst loved Mary ho had not
yet deserted his fret wife, Harriet Westbrook.