Passing Notes and Shelley. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2651, 4 January 1905, Page 27

Passing Notes and Shelley. TO THE EDITOR.

Sib, — I see that another correspondent haa ably defended Thomas Paine against "Chris's" contemptuous reference to him contained in "Passing Notes," for December 21. Let me defend Shelley, -whom "Civis" subjects to similar injustice. People, who are not thrilled by his poetry as I xa, and wixo do not know, or cannot sympathise with all that was lovable in his character, may, if they please, set him down as a "crank. " But have not all reformers been- thus stigmatised? Shelley certainlj exhibited the want of balance and sound judgment frequently, though by no means always, found in company with imaginative genius — not, unfortunately, confined to persons of genius. Yet we shoirio 1 remember that the eccentricities and faults referred to by "Civis" were those of a mere boy — that Shelley died when barely '30, .and that his character was ripening and 'sobering and his poetry gaining in depth and moral beauty as he advanced in life-. Shelley's reigning passion was the vehement love of liberty. He was consistent in this, not claiming liberty merely for himself and tyrannising over others, but seeking th« happiness and freedom of eve^y living thing. His moral hopes are explained by this worship of liberty. I do not defend them, but let him who is without sin cast a stone at Shelley. In his youthful ardour he was carried away by the idea- that the Soermas of religion and the conventions of society were merely engines of {he spirit of tyranny that he hated, and from which he had himself suffered. Marriage should, he thought, be dependent on mutual love, and should terminate when this no longer existed. For his rebellion against religion and society he had much excuse in the conventionality and hypocrisy so commonly associated with 'religious profession in his day ; also in the- excitement of a revolutionary epoch. Apart, from his desertion of his first wife, to whom he secured -adequate maintenance, and his unsanctioned union with Mary Godwin, nothing can be urged against the purity of his life. Throughout his career hr showed himself unworldly, unselfish, humbleminded, and actuated by true benevolence and love of justice. Can as much be said of half of our ohurch members, and have not many who have escaped social odium wronged women more deeply than did Shelley? To say that "Shelley's life on the moral side is a sorry example of what Atheism can do for a man," shows unreasoning prejudice unworthy of a writer such as "Civis." A recent paper contains an account _of a grave moral lapse on the part of a New Zealand clergyman. Is this an. example of what Christianity can do for a man? "Civis" tells us that the Atheist is as extinct as the dodo. However this may be, Agnosticism is general, and the plain man may be pardoned for seeing little practical difference between Agnosticism and Atheism. But morality has not decreased with the decrease of definite theological belief, and the Agnostic is often the truest follower of Christ's teaching, though he denies Christ's divinity. Many of the loftiest and purest lives, from' ancient times, till now, have been those of Agnostics 01 "infidels." John Stuart Mill, than whom no nobler or purer soul has adorned .humanity, was as much of an Atheist as Shelley. He was educated in atheism by. his father, also a man of lofty morality, though not distinguished by the more loveable qualities of his son. The cause of religion is not served by ridiculing and vilifying those who reject revelation. Let us remember the words of the Apostle James, "Pure religion before God and the Father is this : to visit the fatherless and! widows in their affliction, and to keen liimseli unspotted from the world." — I am, etc.. Her.en?ber 30. LONGWOOB.