I have to say that I do not like Shelley as much as I like Emerson in the way of style and content. I would have to agree with modernist poets like T.S. Eliot and Allen Tate when they claimed he was too dreamy and self-absorbed. I also think he is even more long-winded than Emerson and his allusions, though intelligent, lose me in their density. I was able to see the similarities in his thought to the romanticism of Emerson, but Shelley also presented a different view of poetry and beauty as well.
Shelley also believed that poetry was divine. Does every poet think this? And is that because they are certainly biased, being poets themselves? How would these essays turn out differently if, say, Emerson was a merchant or Shelley was a shoemaker? Would these essays exist at all? I keep trying to convince myself that these men werent just stuffy old intellectuals sitting around in their houses, smoking cigars, completely cut off from the "common folk." They seem to have a lot to say about society and what is right or moral or purposeful living, so I hope a wide variety of people have been touched by their writing if they are, in fact, meaningful writers. I want to know if only college students, professors, and other intellectuals are the only ones reading this stuff, or if it could reach people on the streets of innercity Harrisburg or maybe the ex-cons I work with at a halfway house. Does this stuff really matter to society at large, or only the intellectuals of the world, whoever they may be.
But anyway, I digress. So Shelley believes that poetry is divine like the other poets, but he seems to be different from Emerson in that he doesnt place so much emphasis on one sole poet figure-- though he does talk about a poet or group of poets in the end of his essay. His emphasis seems to be on the political and social moral good or everyone, a utilitarian kind of approach. He says that poetry kindles the imagination to the degree that we can "locate ourselves in the place of another." This then unites individuals by breaking down the differences among them. He writes on pg. 700 that "poetry strengthens the moral nature of man" so it seems that poetry serves as an equalizing, practical medium for change.
But then Shelley goes back to the figures of the set-apart poets and says on pg. 714 that "poetry is the record of the best and happiest moments of the happiest and best minds." This statement stuck out to me as a fluffy, simplistic assertion. I dont know why, but I just think Shelley's use of the word "happy" is so trivial when he could have used "joy" or "signficant" or "rich." It's like, Who cares that the poets are happy? Why does that matter?
Another thing....I'm confused by Shelley's emphasis on Drama. Is he talking about performed plays and how they exhibit poetry in the most authentic way. He writes at length about drama, particularly Athenian drama, and I wondered why drama would be a better representation of poetry than real life. I mean, maybe acting stimulates the imagination more than living day-to-day, but what about writing in other forms? Why drama?
Also, I tried to understand Shelley's view of religion, taking into account his biography as an atheist and non-conformist to societal institutions like marriage. I get the impression that he believes Christian doctrines have become evil through human manipulation in the form of "despotism and superstition" pg. 707 but he still believes in the "sacred and moral truths" as preached through Jesus Christ. I think he believes poetry can be found in religion, yet he ties social issues like personal slavery and freedom of women to that religion. His emphasis seems to be on social and moral good as the purpose of poetry, not the praise of the God he always rejected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hey Emily. I kind of felt the same way about Shelley as you do. I appreciated the quality of his language, but I thought his comment that he "thought it most favourable to the cause of truth to set down these remarks according to the order in which they were suggested to [his] mind by a consideration of the subject itself, instead of following that of the treatise" (716) was just a poor excuse for the fact that a lot of his essay really lacked structure and purpose, in my opinion.
I also was interested in your question about whether or not these sort of assertions, especially the way they are presented, could reach people outside of the English community. And I think the answer is probably no. I really love studying literature and writing, so much so that I can't understand how anyone else could not love it or find satisfaction in any other sort of study. But even though I could never personally find as much satisfaction in any other form of work or expression, that doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who can be complete without writing or reading literature. I think it's really important that people read, of course. But I don't know about Shelley's assertion that poets are the happiest people; I think maybe they are just the best at expressing their happiness. I don't think it's inconceivable that someone out there finds the sort of satisfaction and closeness to ultimate truth that Emerson and Shelley talk about through figuring out mathematical formulas rather than through writing poetry. Probably a lot of people, if they are doing their best at what they love the best, are complete human beings; Englis-y types are just the best at communicating it.
Hi Emily!
I also agree with your view of Shelley- I was a little put off by his dreamy, verbose, and seemingly arrogant views on Poetry. He definitely does have some Romanticism things in common with Emerson, but their styles of writing are completely different.
Where you questioned whether every poet thinks poetry is divine, I have to say I wondered the same thing. Shelley tells us, in this essay, why he thinks poetry is divine, but I don't think he tells us why poetry is so much better than everything else. What I mean is, what about the musical prodigy, or the mathematical genius? Are they not divine, as well? I understand the idea that poetry sparks the imagination, and imagination is the basis of ethics (like we talked about in class yesterday), but is poetry really so much more divine than everything else? I'm just rambling on here, so I'm sorry for that :-) What you said in your post just sparked those thoughts in my head.
About the "stuffy old intellectuals"- I thought that too. In Lit and the Environment, we are reading Thoreau, and at the beginning I thought he was really inspiring, telling us to "live simply", bla bla bla, and I really liked it, but at the point I'm at now in Walden, I am starting to think that he, too, was a stuffy intellectual that thought he was better than the "common folk". You bring up a really good point about the question of who is actually reading this and comprehending it- if this is trying to convince people that poetry is divine, and necessary for the world, and that EVERYONE should enjoy poetry, then why is it worded so intellectually? It seems like a common person in this time, who isn't literate, would never get this message. It does seem like it's just aimed at Shelley's fellow academics, like he's trying to prove something.
OK, I've talked enough....I really enjoyed reading your post, and it really raised some interesting questions in my mind. :-)
Post a Comment