Arising in no way from deficiency of materials, which, save in respect to one or two matters, are superabundant for the biographer's purpose, the chief difficulty in describing Shelley's course at Eton is the difficulty of discriminating between the trustworthy and delusive materials, and especially of separating the threads of pure fact from the threads of pure fiction used in about equal proportion in the manufacture of statements that, without the exercise of cautious and nice discernment, might be accepted as wholly true or altogether devoid of evidential value. For instance, in dealing with the statements by Mr. Packe, touching Shelley's career at Eton--statements to which Lady Shelley accords her unqualified credence and conclusive 'imprimatur'--it is by no means easy to separate the threads of truth from the threads of fable.
'Among my latest recollections of Shelley's life at Eton,' says Mr. Packe, at the end of his letter, 'is the publication of _Zastrozzi_, for which, I think, he received 40_l._ With part of the proceeds he gave a most magnificent banquet to eight of his friends, among whom I was included.'
In these few words there are three mis-statements. As Shelley left Eton in the later part of 1809, and _Zastrozzi_ was not published before the 5th of June (or, at the earliest, before the end of May), 1810, it is certain that the publication of the novel was no incident of Shelley's life at the school. It being certain that Shelley received never a farthing of publisher's money for the absurd performance, Mr. Packe must have been wrong in saying the author was paid 40_l._ for it. [Mr. Packe's words, 'for which, I think, he received 40_l._,' are, of course, to be read 'for which he received, I think, 40_l._'--_i.e._ as the statement of a witness, certain that a considerable sum was paid, though uncertain whether 40_l._ was the precise sum.] As the author received no money for the book, he cannot have given 'with part of the proceeds' (_i.e._ part of nothing) 'a most magnificent banquet to eight of his friends.' But though he gives three pieces of delusive evidence in three lines of type, it does not follow that the lines are of no evidential value. An honest person, writing in good faith, Mr. Packe may be fairly regarded as a person, remembering something about _Zastrozzi_ in connexion with Eton (where the novel, or some part of it, was certainly written); with remembering something, also, of Shelley's farewell feast to a party of friends at Eton; with remembering, moreover (or, at least, believing that he remembered), that Shelley was said to have been paid 40_l._, more or less, for the literary production. These recollections (albeit the recollections of a very mistaken and very much misinformed witness) are not to be rejected as altogether valueless, but kept in reserve as honest statements and possibly veritable recollections, unfit to be used as testimony by themselves, but quite fit to be used in confirmation of similar recollections by other people. Could it be shown in like way that each of the other guests, either at the time of the banquet or some time afterwards, was under the impression that the feast was paid for with publisher's money, no person competent to sift and weigh evidence would hesitate in coming to the conclusion that the banquet was given by Shelley as a thing bought with money he had received from a publisher,--that the common impression of the eight independent witnesses was the result of representations made by the giver of the feast.