Mr.Browning goes on to say that we need the recorded life in order quite to determine to which class of inspiration a given work belongs;and though he regards the work of Shelley as carrying its warrant within itself,his position leaves ample room for a withdrawal of faith,a reversal of judgment,if the ascertained facts of the poet's life should at any future time bear decided witness against him.
He is also careful to avoid drawing too hard and fast a line between the two opposite kinds of poet.He admits that a pure instance of either is seldom to be found;he sees no reason why 'these two modes of poetic faculty may not issue hereafter from the same poet in successive perfect works....
A mere running-in of the one faculty upon the other'being,meanwhile,'the ordinary circumstance.'
I venture,however,to think,that in his various and necessary concessions,he lets slip the main point;and for the simple reason that it is untenable.
The terms 'subjective'and 'objective'denote a real and very important difference on the ground of judgment,but one which tends more and more to efface itself in the sphere of the higher creative imagination.
Mr.Browning might as briefly,and I think more fully,have expressed the salient quality of his poet,even while he could describe it in these emphatic words:
'I pass at once,therefore,from Shelley's minor excellencies to his noblest and predominating characteristic.
'This I call his simultaneous perception of Power and Love in the absolute,and of Beauty and Good in the concrete,while he throws,from his poet's station between both,swifter,subtler,and more numerous films for the connexion of each with each,than have been thrown by any modern artificer of whom I have knowledge ...
I would rather consider Shelley's poetry as a sublime fragmentary essay towards a presentment of the correspondency of the universe to Deity,of the natural to the spiritual,and of the actual to the ideal than ...'
This essay has,in common with the poems of the preceding years,the one quality of a largely religious and,in a certain sense,Christian spirit,and in this respect it falls naturally into the general series of its author's works.The assertion of Platonic ideas suggests,however,a mood of spiritual thought for which the reference in 'Pauline'has been our only,and a scarcely sufficient preparation;nor could the most definite theism to be extracted from Platonic beliefs ever satisfy the human aspirations which,in a nature like that of Robert Browning,culminate in the idea of God.
The metaphysical aspect of the poet's genius here distinctly reappears for the first time since 'Sordello',and also for the last.
It becomes merged in the simpler forms of the religious imagination.
The justification of the man Shelley,to which great part of the Essay is devoted,contains little that would seem new to his more recent apologists;little also which to the writer's later judgments continued to recommend itself as true.It was as a great poetic artist,not as a great poet,that the author of 'Prometheus'and 'The Cenci',of 'Julian and Maddalo',and 'Epipsychidion'was finally to rank in Mr.Browning's mind.The whole remains nevertheless a memorial of a very touching affection;and whatever intrinsic value the Essay may possess,its main interest must always be biographical.
Its motive and inspiration are set forth in the closing lines:
'It is because I have long held these opinions in assurance and gratitude,that I catch at the opportunity offered to me of expressing them here;knowing that the alacrity to fulfil an humble office conveys more love than the acceptance of the honour of a higher one,and that better,therefore,than the signal service it was the dream of my boyhood to render to his fame and memory,may be the saying of a few,inadequate words upon these scarcely more important supplementary letters of SHELLEY.'
If Mr.Browning had seen reason to doubt the genuineness of the letters in question,his Introduction could not have been written.
That,while receiving them as genuine,he thought them unimportant,gave it,as he justly discerned,its full significance.
Mr.and Mrs.Browning returned to London for the summer of 1852,and we have a glimpse of them there in a letter from Mr.Fox to his daughter.
July 16,'52.
'...I had a charming hour with the Brownings yesterday;more fascinated with her than ever.She talked lots of George Sand,and so beautifully.Moreover she silver-electroplated Louis Napoleon!!
They are lodging at 58Welbeck Street;the house has a queer name on the door,and belongs to some Belgian family.
'They came in late one night,and R.B.says that in the morning twilight he saw three portraits on the bedroom wall,and speculated who they might be.
Light gradually showed the first,Beatrice Cenci,"Good!"said he;"in a poetic region."More light:the second,Lord Byron!
Who can the third be?And what think you it was,but your sketch (engraved chalk portrait)of me?He made quite a poem and picture of the affair.
'She seems much better;did not put her hand before her mouth,which I took as a compliment:and the young Florentine was gracious ...'
It need hardly be said that this valued friend was one of the first whom Mr.Browning introduced to his wife,and that she responded with ready warmth to his claims on her gratitude and regard.
More than one joint letter from herself and her husband commemorates this new phase of the intimacy;one especially interesting was written from Florence in 1858,in answer to the announcement by Mr.Fox of his election for Oldham;and Mr.Browning's contribution,which is very characteristic,will appear in due course.
Either this or the preceding summer brought Mr.Browning for the first time into personal contact with an early lover of his works:Mr.D.G.Rossetti.
