'The Ineffectual Angel’: Arnold's Misrepresentation of Shelley

Abstract

Writing on Shelley's posthumous reputation, Newman Ivey White noted the 'general acclaim' which marked the poet's critical reception in the mid- and late Victorian period. Inevitably there were eminent detractors who, to the extent that they reacted against an idealization of Shelley, may well have usefully offset elements of an unwholesome semi-religious cult, particularly that surrounding Jane, Lady Shelley (who, together with her husband, Sir Percy Florence - the poet's son - guarded with tenacity the poet's reputation, and most surviving manuscripts). But, as White reminds us, admiration for Shelley was grounded in genuine scholarship and literary interest. In the period in question, 'students of Shelley produced more than a dozen biographies, scores of editions, and hundreds of critical essays, many of them from the most distinguished critics of the age'. None could deny the serious interest in Shelley, unless they chose to ignore it. White went on to observe that Arnold, Bagehot, and Stephen were among those who, owing to their stature, gave credence to a motley of critical voices in the opposition camp. They did so 'in some of the most important and fully considered critical essays of the age'. Arnold's assessment of Shelley mainly appeared in two essays, one on Byron and the second on Shelley, published successively in his Essays in Criticism, Second Series (1888).