* on august 4, 1892, the centenary of shelley's birth was

celebrated at horsham, where it is intended to found a

shelley library, if not a shelley museum. the celebrants

were a motley collection. they were all concealing the

poet's principles and paying honor to a bogus shelley. a

more honest celebration took place in the evening at the

hall of science, old-street, london, e.c. six or seven

hundred people were addressed by dr. furnivall, gr. b. shaw,

and g. w. foote; and every pointed reference to shelley's

religious, social, and political heresy was enthusiastically

applauded.

charles darwin, the newton of biology, was an agnostic—which is only a respectable synonym for an atheist. the more he looked for god the less he could find him. yet the corpse of this great "infidel" lies in westminster abbey, we need not wonder, therefore, that christians and even parsons are on the shelley centenary committee, or that mr. edmund gosse was chosen to officiate as high pontiff at the horsham celebration. mr. gosse is a young man with a promising past—to borrow a witticism from heine. in the old examiner days he hung about the army of revolt. since then he has become a bit of a philistine, though he still affects a superior air, and retains a pretty way of turning a sentence. the selection of such a man to pronounce the eulogy on shelley was in keeping with the whole proceedings at horsham, where everybody was lauding a "bogus shelley," as mr. shaw remarked at the hall of science celebration.

mr. gosse was good enough to tell the horsham celebrants that "it was not the poet who was attacked" in shelley's case, but "the revolutionist, the enemy of kings and priests, the extravagant and paradoxical humanitarian." mr. gosse generously called this an "intelligent aversion," and in another sense than his it undoubtedly was so. the classes, interests, and abuses that were threatened by shelley's principles, acted with the intelligence of self-preservation. they gave him an ill name and would gladly have hung him. yes, it was, beyond all doubt, an "intelligent aversion." byron only dallied with the false and foolish beliefs of his age, but shelley meant mischief. this accounts for the hatred shown towards him by orthodoxy and privilege.

mr. gosse himself appears to have an "intelligent aversion" to shelley's principles. he professes a great admiration for shelley's poetry; but he regards it as a sort of beautiful landscape, which has no other purpose than gratifying the aesthetic taste of the spectator. for the poet's teaching he feels or affects a lofty contempt. shelley the singer was a marvel of delicacy and power; but shelley the thinker was at best a callow enthusiast. had he lived as long as mr. gosse, and moved in the same dignified society, he would have acquired an "intelligent aversion" to the indiscretions of his youthful passion for reforming the world; but fate decided otherwise, and he is unfortunate enough to be the subject of mr. gosse's admonitions.

shelley lived like a spartan; a hunk of bread and a jug of water, dashed perhaps with milk, served him as a dinner. his income was spent on the poor, on struggling men of genius, and on necessitous friends. now as the world goes, this is simply asinine; and mr. gosse plays to the philistine gallery by sneering at shelley's vegetarianism, and playfully describing him as an "eater of buns and raisins." it was also lamented by mr. gosse that shelley, as a "hater of kings," had an attraction for "revolutionists," a set of persons with whom mr. gosse would have no sort of dealings except through the policeman. "social anarchists," likewise, gathered "around the husband of godwin's daughter"—a pregnant denunciation, though it leaves us in doubt whether shelley, godwin, or mary was the anarch, or all three of them together; while the "husband" seems to imply that getting married was one of the gravest of shelley's offences.

but the worst of all is to come: "those to whom the restraints of religion were hateful marshalled themselves under the banner of the youth who had rashly styled himself as an atheist, forgetful of the fact that all his best writings attest that, whatever name he might call himself, he, more than any other poet of the age, saw god in everything."

we beg to tell mr. gosse that he is libellous and impertinent. he knows little or nothing of atheists if he thinks they are only repelled by the "restraints of religion." they have restraints of their own, quite as numerous and imperative as those of any religionist who fears his god. what is more, they have incentives which religion weakens. mr. gosse is perhaps in a state of ignorance on this matter. he probably speaks of the moral condition of atheists as a famous american humorist proposed to lecture on science, with an imagination untrammeled by the least acquaintance with the subject.

so much (it is quite enough) for the libel; and now for the impertinence. mr. gosse pretends to know shelley's mind better than he knew it himself. shelley called himself an atheist; that is indisputable; but he did so "rashly." he was mistaken about his own opinions; he knew a great many things, but he was ignorant of himself. but the omniscient mr. gosse was born (or was he born?) to rectify the poet's blunder, and assure the world that he was a theist without knowing it—in fact, a really god-intoxicated person.

what wonder is it that mr. gosse became intoxicated in turn, and soared in a rapture of panegyric over a shelley of his own construction? "the period of prejudice is over," he exclaimed, "and we are gathered here to-day under the auspices of the greatest poet our language has produced since shelley died, encouraged by universal public opinion and by dignitaries of all the professions—yea, even by prelates of our national church." here the preacher's intoxication became maudlin, and there should have been an interval for soda-water.

curiously enough, the very last page of trelawny's records of shelley and byron contains a conversation between that gallant friend of the two poets and a "prelate of our national church."

"some years ago, one of the most learned of the english bishops questioned me regarding shelley; he expressed both admiration and astonishment at his learning and writings. i said to the bishop, 'you know he was an atheist.' he said, 'yes.' i answered: 'it is the key and the distinguishing quality of all he wrote. now that people are beginning to distinguish men by their works, and not creeds, the critics, to bring him into vogue, are trying to make out that shelley was not an atheist, that he was rather a religious man. would it be right in me, or anyone who knew him, to aid or sanction such a fraud?' the bishop said: 'certainly not, there is nothing righteous but truth.' and there our conversation ended."

trelawny's bishop was willing (outside church, and in private conversation) to deprecate prejudice and acknowledge the supremacy of truth; and perhaps for that reason he allowed that shelley was an atheist. mr. gosse's bishops will soon be converting him into a pillar of the church.

trelawny knew shelley a great deal better than mr. gosse. he enjoyed an intimate friendship with the poet, not in his callow days, but during the last year or two of his life, when his intellect was mature, and his genius was pouring forth the great works that secure his immortality. during that time shelley professed the opinions he enunciated in queen mab. he said that the matter of that poem was good; it was only the treatment that was immature. again and again he told trelawny that he was content to know nothing of the origin of the universe; that religion was chiefly a means of deceiving and robbing the people; that it fomented hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness; and that it also fettered the intellect, deterring men from solving the problems of individual and social life, as well as the problems of nature, out of regard for the supposed oracles of omniscience, which were after all the teachings of bigoted and designing priests. shelley called himself an atheist; he wrote "atheist" after his name on a famous occasion; and trelawny says "he never regretted having done this."

"the principal fault i have to find," wrote trelawny, "is that the shelleyan writers, being christians themselves, seem to think that a man of genius cannot be an atheist, and so they strain their own faculties to disprove what shelley asserted from the earliest stage of his career to the last day of his life. he ignored all religions as superstitions."

on another occasion shelley said to trelawny—"the knaves are the cleverest; they profess to know everything; the fools believe them, and so they govern the world." which is a most sagacious observation. he said that "atheist!" in the mouth of orthodoxy was "a word of abuse to stop discussion, a painted devil to frighten the foolish, a threat to intimidate the wise and good."

mr. gosse may reply that shelley's conversations with trelawny are not absolute evidence; that they were written down long afterwards, and that we cannot be sure of shelley's using the precise words attributed to him. very well then; be it so. mr. gosse has appealed to shelley's "writings," and to shelley's writings we will go. true, the epithet "best" is inserted by mr. gosse as a saving qualification; but we shall disregard it, partly because "best" is a disputable adjective, but more because all shelley's writings attest his atheism.

let us first go to shelley's prose, not because it is his "best" work (though some parts of it are exquisitely beautiful, often very powerful, and always chaste), but because prose is less open than verse to false conception and interpretation. in the fine fragment "on life" he acutely observes that "mind, as far as we have any experience of its properties, and beyond that experience how vain is argument! cannot create, it can only perceive." and he concludes "it is infinitely improbable that the cause of mind, that is, of existence, is similar to mind." be it observed, however, that shelley does not dogmatise. he simply cannot conceive that mind is the basis of all things. the cause of life is still obscure. "all recorded generations of mankind," shelley says, "have wearily-busied themselves in inventing answers to this question; and the result has been—religion."

shelley's essay "on a future state" follows the same line of reasoning as his essay "on life." he considers it highly probable that thought is "no more than the relation between certain parts of that infinitely varied mass, of which the rest of the universe is composed, and which ceases to exist as soon as those parts change their positions with regard to each other." his conclusion is that "the desire to be for ever as we are, the reluctance to a violent and unexperienced change," which is common to man and other living beings, is the "secret persuasion which has given birth to the opinions of a future state."

if we turn to shelley's published letters we shall find abundant expressions of hostility to and contempt for religion. those letters may deserve the praise of matthew arnold or the censure of mr. swinburne; but, in either case, they may be taken as honest documents, written to all sorts of private friends, and never intended for publication. byron's letters were passed about freely, and largely written for effect; shelley's were written under ordinary conditions, and he unbosomed himself with freedom and sincerity.

from one of his early letters we find that he contemplated a translation of the system of nature, which is frequently quoted in the notes to queen mob. he couples jehovah and mammon together as fit for the worship of "those who delight in wickedness and slavery." in a letter to henry reveley he pictures god as delighted with his creation of the earth, and seeing it spin round the sun; and imagines him taking out "patents to supply all the suns in space with the same manufacture." when the poet was informed by oilier that a certain gentleman (it was archdeacon hare) hoped he would humble his soul and "receive the spirit into him," shelley replied: "if you know him personally, pray ask him from me what he means by receiving the spirit into me; and (if really it is any good) how one is to get at it." he goes on to say: "i was immeasurably amused by the quotation from schlegel about the way in which the popular faith is destroyed—first the devil, then the holy ghost, then god the father. i had written a lucianic essay to prove the same thing." in the very year of his death, writing to john gisborne, he girds at the popular faith in god, and with reference to one of its most abhorrent doctrines he exclaims—"as if, after sixty years' suffering here, we were to be roasted alive for sixty million more in hell, or charitably annihilated by a coup de grace of the bungler who brought us into existence at first."—a dozen other quotations from shelley's letters might be given, all to pretty much the same effect, but the foregoing must suffice.

a thorough analysis of shelley's poetry, showing the essential atheism which runs through it from beginning to end, would require more space than we have at our command. we shall therefore simply point out, by means of instances, how indignantly or contemptuously he always refers to religion as the great despot and impostor of mankind.

the revolt of islam stigmatises "faith" as "an obscene worm." the sonnet on the fall of bonaparte concludes with a reference to "bloody faith, the foulest birth of time." shelley frequently conceives faith as serpentine and disgusting. in rosalind and helen he writes—

grey power was seated

safely on her ancestral throne;

and faith, the python, undefeated,

even to its blood-stained steps dragged on

her foul and wounded train.

in the great and splendid ode to liberty the image undergoes a miltonic sublimation.

like one fierce cloud over a waste of waves

hung tyranny; beneath, sat deified

the sister-pest, congregator of slaves.

invariably does the poet class religion and oppression together—"religion veils her eyes: oppression shrinks aghast."—"destruction's sceptred slaves, and folly's mitred brood."—"and laughter fills the fane, and curses shake the throne."

mr. herbert spencer writes with learning and eloquence about the power of the universe and the unknowable. shelley pricked this bubble of speculation in the following passage:

what is that power?

some moonstruck sophist stood

watching the shade from his own soul upthrown

fill heaven and darken earth, and in such mood

the form he saw and worshipped was his own,

his likeness in the world's vast mirror shown.

in one verse of the ode to liberty the poet exclaims:

o that the free would stamp the impious name

of ——— into the dust or write it there.

what is the omitted word? mr. swinburne says the only possible word is—god. we agree with him. anything else would be a ridiculous anti-climax, and quite inconsistent with the powerful description of—

this foul gordian word,

which, weak itself as stubble, yet can bind

into a mass, irrefragably firm,

the axes and the rods that awe mankind.

"pope" and "christ" are alike impossible. with respect to "mankind" they are but local designations. the word must be universal. it is god.

the glorious speech of the spirit of the hour, which terminates the third act of prometheus unbound—that superb drama of emancipate humanity—lumps together "thrones, altars, judgment seats, and prisons," as parts of one gigantic system of spiritual and temporal misrule. man, when redeemed from falsehood and evil, rejects his books "of reasoned wrong, glozed on by ignorance"; and the veil is torn aside from all "believed and hoped." and what is the result? let the spirit of the hour answer.

the loathsome mask has fallen, the man remains

sceptreless, free, uncircumscribed, but man

equal, unclassed, tribeless, and nationless,

exempt from awe, worship, degree, the king

over himself; just, gentle, wise; but man

passionless? no, yet free from guilt or pain,

which were, for his will made or suffered them;

nor yet exempt, though ruling them like slaves,

from chance, and death, and mutability,

the clogs of that which else might oversoar

the loftiest star of unascended heaven,

pinnacled dim in the intense inane.

what a triumphant flight! the poet springs from earth and is speedily away beyond sight—almost beyond conception—like an elemental thing. but his starting-point is definite enough. man is exempt from awe and worship; from spiritual as well as political and social slavery; king over himself, ruling the anarchy of his own passions. and the same idea is sung by demogorgon at the close of the fifth act. the "earth-born's spell yawns for heaven's despotism," and "conquest is dragged captive through the deep."

love, from its awful throne of patient power

in the wise heart, from the last giddy hour

of dread endurance, from the slippery steep,

and narrow verge of crag-like agony, springs

and folds over the world its healing wings.

gentleness, virtue, wisdom, and endurance,

these are the seals of that most firm assurance

which bars the pit over destruction's strength;

and if, with infirm hand, eternity,

mother of many acts and hours, should free

the serpent that would clasp her with his length,

these are the spells by which to re-assume

an empire o'er the disentangled doom.

to suffer woes which hope thinks infinite;

to forgive wrongs darker than death or night;

to defy power, which seems omnipotent;

to love, and bear; to hope till hope creates

from its own wreck the thing it contemplates;

neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;

this, like thy glory, titan! is to be

good, great and joyous, beautiful and free;

this is alone life, joy, empire, and victory!

this is the atheism of shelley. man is to conquer, by love and hope and thought and endurance, his birthright of happiness and dignity. humanity is to take the place of god.

it has been argued that if shelley had lived he would have repented the "indiscretions of his youth," and gravitated towards a more "respectable" philosophy. well, it is easy to prophesy; and just as easy, and no less effectual, to meet the prophet with a flat contradiction. "might have been" is no better than "might not have been." was it not declared that charles bradlaugh would have become a christian if he had lived long enough? was not the same asserted of john stuart mill? one was nearly sixty, the other nearly seventy; and we have to wonder what is the real age of intellectual maturity. only a few weeks before his death, shelley wrote of christianity that "no man of sense could think it true." that was his deliberate and final judgment. had he lived long enough to lose his sense; had he fallen a victim to some nervous malady, or softening of the brain; had he lingered on to a more than ripe (a rotten) old age, in which senility may unsay the virile words of manhood; it is conceivable that shelley might have become a devotee of the faith he had despised. but none of these things did happen. what shelley was is the only object of sane discussion. and what he was we know—an atheist, a lover of humanity.