The Dating of Shelley's Fragment, "The Moral Teaching of Jesus Christ"Author(s): James A. NotopoulosSource: The Modern Language Review, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1940), pp. 215-216Published by: Modern Humanities Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3717332 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 12:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Modern Language Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:01:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Miscellaneous Notes

THE DATING OF SHELLEY'S FRAGMENT, 'THE MORAL TEACHING OF

JESUS CHRIST'

Shelley's prose fragment The Moral Teaching of Jesus Christ was found

among the Shelley manuscripts in the possession of Sir John C. E.

Shelley-Rolls, Bart., and first published in the Julian Edition of Shelley's Complete Works.' The editor is of the opinion that the fragment seems to be connected with the Essay on Christianity which Mr Rossetti dates

'approximately in 1815, but Mr Koszul shows that there are evidences in the manuscript book to show that it was in use in the year 1817, and later, when Shelley's prejudices against Christianity had been re-aroused over the Chancery proceedings'.2

The evidence for the dating and the occasion for its composition make it unlikely that it belongs to the Essay on Christianity, though a late date of composition may not exclude the possibility that it was intended to be included in an essay of similar sentiments, the greater portion of which was written earlier. That the fragment was not written in England but in Italy is evident from the manuscript itself. 'The original', says the editor, 'is written in Shelley's hand, without a title on a sheet of

foolscap paper, apparently of Italian or foreign make.'3 Within the fragment itself we get a definite clue to its approximate date. The closing sentence of the fragment runs as follows: 'The idea of forgiveness of

injuries, the error of revenge, and the immorality and inutility of punish- ment considered as punishment, (for these <are) correlative doctrines) are stated by Plato in the first book of the Republic.' The reference to the first book of the Republic finds a parallel in Shelley's 'Fragments from the Republic of Plato'. In Fragment vnI Shelley says, 'Plato's doctrine of punishment as laid down, p. 146, is refuted by his previous reasonings-P. 26.'4 The reference in the fragment The Moral Teaching of Jesus Christ therefore points to a date when Shelley had been reading and translating from the Republic, and commenting on those portions of it which deal with Plato's view on punishment. Since the date of his

1 R. Ingpen and W. E. Peck, The Complete Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley (London, New York, 1929), vi, pp. 255-6. This fragment was also published in Verse and Prose, edited by Sir John C. E. Shelley-Rolls, Bart., and Roger Ingpen (London, 1934), pp. 110-1. The quotation from the fragment in this note is from the latter edition.

2 R. Ingpen and W. E. Peck, op. cit., vi, 364. 3 Ibid., p. 369. 4 Ibid., vii, 259. The edition to which these page references refer is E. Massey, Platonis

de Republica (Cambridge, 1713). P. 146 in this edition =379 d6-380 c3 in Burnet's Oxford text edition of the Republic, and p. 26=335 al-335 dll. According to Shelley Plato's doctrine, that punishment is remedial (380), is contradicted by Plato's reasonings in 335, where Socrates proves by analogy to the other arts that to hurt a human being is to make him worse in respect of human excellence.

215

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:01:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

216 216 Miscellaneous Notes Miscellaneous Notes

reading and translating the fragments from the early books of the

Republic has been shown bythe writer to be probably October or November

18191, it is likely that the fragment on The Moral Teaching of Jesus Christ was composed during or after this period.

The composition of the fragment was likely to have been prompted by the trial of Richard Carlile, a publisher, who was tried in October 1819 and sentenced t tthree years' imprisonment besides a fine for publishing such free-thought books as Paine's Age of Reason and Palmer's Principles of Nature. Upon Carlile's conviction Shelley wrote a letter to Leigh Hunt from Florence on 3 November 18192 expressing feelings about the divinity of Jesus similar to those found in the fragment. It is probable therefore that this fragment was written in November 1819.

JAMES A. NOTOPOULOS. HARTFORD, CONN.

A NOTE ON CORNEILLE'S 'POLYEUCTE'

Lanson defines Corneille's conception of love thus:3 'L'amour est le desir du bien, donc regle sur la connaissance du bien. Une idee de la raison, donc, va gouverner l'amour. Ce que l'on aime, on l'aime pour la

perfection qu'on y voit.' From this definition Lanson deduces two

things: (1) that the famous Cornelian conflict between love and duty does not exist, since love itself demands that the hero do his duty; (2) that with greater enlightenment love may transfer itself from one

object to another more worthy of it: Si le bien qu'on aimait est connu pour faux, ou si on re9oit la notion d'un bien

sup6rieur, l'ame d6placera son amour du moins parfait au plus parfait. C'est toute la psychologie de Polyeucte. Polyeucte aime Pauline des le debut 'cent fois plus que lui-meme'; pres du martyre, il l'aimera

Beaucoup moins que (son) Dieu, mais bien plus que (lui) meme. Ce nouveau terme de comparaison explique toute la transformation de son ame. Lorsqu'il connaissait mal Dieu, Pauline 6tait tout pour lui: l'ceuvre de la grace achevee, son amour est tout a Dieu, et ne retombe sur la creature que renvoye sous forme de charit6 par l'amour meme de Dieu.

Meme aventure arrive a Pauline: Severe longtemps a ete tout ce qu'elle connaissait de meilleur; elle l'aimait done plus que tout. Mais Polyeucte, converti, rebelle, martyr, lui revele un heroisme superieur, tandis que la situation accuse les parties vulgaires de l'amour de S6vere: l'amour de Pauline se transportera donc a Polyeucte, d'oti il s'elancera jusqu'a la souveraine perfection, jusqu'a Dieu. Tout le mecanisme moral de la tragedie se d6duit de la definition cart6sienne et corn6lienne de l'amour.

Lanson is, of course, right in saying that Cornelian tragedy is based on the optimistic belief that 'man needs must love the highest...', that

1 J. A. Notopoulos, 'The Dating of Shelley's Notes and Translations from Plato', Modern Language Review, xxxrv (1939), 246. The date in this note for the entry in Mary's Journal should read 28 October 1819 instead of 1817.

1 R. Ingpen, The Letters of Percy Bysshe Sheley (London, 1914), ii, pp. 736-44. 3 Histoire de la Littrature franfaise (14th ed., 1920, p. 435).

reading and translating the fragments from the early books of the

Republic has been shown bythe writer to be probably October or November

18191, it is likely that the fragment on The Moral Teaching of Jesus Christ was composed during or after this period.

The composition of the fragment was likely to have been prompted by the trial of Richard Carlile, a publisher, who was tried in October 1819 and sentenced t tthree years' imprisonment besides a fine for publishing such free-thought books as Paine's Age of Reason and Palmer's Principles of Nature. Upon Carlile's conviction Shelley wrote a letter to Leigh Hunt from Florence on 3 November 18192 expressing feelings about the divinity of Jesus similar to those found in the fragment. It is probable therefore that this fragment was written in November 1819.

JAMES A. NOTOPOULOS. HARTFORD, CONN.

A NOTE ON CORNEILLE'S 'POLYEUCTE'

Lanson defines Corneille's conception of love thus:3 'L'amour est le desir du bien, donc regle sur la connaissance du bien. Une idee de la raison, donc, va gouverner l'amour. Ce que l'on aime, on l'aime pour la

perfection qu'on y voit.' From this definition Lanson deduces two

things: (1) that the famous Cornelian conflict between love and duty does not exist, since love itself demands that the hero do his duty; (2) that with greater enlightenment love may transfer itself from one

object to another more worthy of it: Si le bien qu'on aimait est connu pour faux, ou si on re9oit la notion d'un bien

sup6rieur, l'ame d6placera son amour du moins parfait au plus parfait. C'est toute la psychologie de Polyeucte. Polyeucte aime Pauline des le debut 'cent fois plus que lui-meme'; pres du martyre, il l'aimera

Beaucoup moins que (son) Dieu, mais bien plus que (lui) meme. Ce nouveau terme de comparaison explique toute la transformation de son ame. Lorsqu'il connaissait mal Dieu, Pauline 6tait tout pour lui: l'ceuvre de la grace achevee, son amour est tout a Dieu, et ne retombe sur la creature que renvoye sous forme de charit6 par l'amour meme de Dieu.

Meme aventure arrive a Pauline: Severe longtemps a ete tout ce qu'elle connaissait de meilleur; elle l'aimait done plus que tout. Mais Polyeucte, converti, rebelle, martyr, lui revele un heroisme superieur, tandis que la situation accuse les parties vulgaires de l'amour de S6vere: l'amour de Pauline se transportera donc a Polyeucte, d'oti il s'elancera jusqu'a la souveraine perfection, jusqu'a Dieu. Tout le mecanisme moral de la tragedie se d6duit de la definition cart6sienne et corn6lienne de l'amour.

Lanson is, of course, right in saying that Cornelian tragedy is based on the optimistic belief that 'man needs must love the highest...', that

1 J. A. Notopoulos, 'The Dating of Shelley's Notes and Translations from Plato', Modern Language Review, xxxrv (1939), 246. The date in this note for the entry in Mary's Journal should read 28 October 1819 instead of 1817.

1 R. Ingpen, The Letters of Percy Bysshe Sheley (London, 1914), ii, pp. 736-44. 3 Histoire de la Littrature franfaise (14th ed., 1920, p. 435).

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:01:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions