Percy
Bysshe Shelley wrote his essay A Defence
of Poetry as a response to Thomas Love Peacock’s The Four Ages of Poetry, as well as to the views of the Utilitarian
philosophers and the material-minded public. Although Peacock’s satirical tone
was recognized by Shelley, the tone harmonized well with peoples’ belief that
poetry had no true function in society. What was intended to be a trilogy of
essays written in defense of poetry’s social importance by Percy Shelley was
never completed; the final two essays were never written. The portion of A Defence of Poetry that does remain was
not even published until nearly twenty years after Shelley’s death—unable to
truly dialogue with Peacock’s work (Shelley 789).
Encountering
the contents of Shelley’s A Defence of
Poetry can prove to be a cumbersome process. Within his work, Shelley lays
little ground work for what would constitute a typical defense of something. As
a matter of fact, instead of even narrowing down a particular poem or two,
Shelley defends an entire genre of art. To complicate the matters even further,
Shelley’s broad definition of poetry and poets creates a denser atmosphere of
abstract contemplation. Defence
contains minimal amounts of useful analysis of successful literary work, no
history of poetry, and no insight to deeper understanding of the rules of
composition. Instead Shelley offers a philosophical analysis of the role of the
poet as a unique individual, one who sees harmony within the world. Shelley
stresses the connection between all forms of art and poetry proposing that, no
matter the content, they all come from the same source: Imagination.
Being
a Romantic himself, Shelley shared a belief in the creative and destructive
powers of nature as well as the belief that the natural world was able to
maintain a stronghold on one’s imagination. However, as displayed in his work A Defence of Poetry, Shelley seems to be
standing high above the other Romantics when measuring the limits to his
unwavering connection between beauty and goodness. He was also a strong
advocate for the belief that arts can improve society. This is a position that
he greatly presses his audience in A
Defence of Poetry to accept as well. Shelley, though a Romantic, was
different from his contemporaries in his approach to poetry. He was more
philosophical in his assessments as his words paralleled Plato’s thoughts that,
in order to regenerate man, they must fall in love with goodness and beauty.
Strangely enough though, contrary to aspects of his Defence, Shelley also follows themes such as political liberty, and
political unrest.
In
A Defence of Poetry Shelley’s
emphasis is on the universal and permanent qualities, truths, and values. Shelley’s
definition of a poet is far-reaching beyond the scope of the literal meaning.
Poets are those who have creative minds that transcend their time and place, as
well as see eternal and general forms of value. A few of the noted “poets” that
Shelley recognizes are: Lord Bacon (philosopher), Shakespeare (dramatist), and
Jesus (prophet/Son of God). Shelley says that poets are “those who imagine and
express [the] indestructible order” of truth and beauty (Shelley 792). It is
Shelley’s thesis to push the concept of literature as a universal experience by
challenging what it is and what it does. Defence
is a “claim for the indispensability of the visionary and creative imagination
in all the great human concerns” (Shelley 789). Literature was still coming
into the notion that we have today. Shelley understands Literature to be
writings expanding. Its scope is expanding. He believes literature to be: creative,
non-imitative, universal, beautifying, and expressive of eternal truths.
There
is a sense of egoism in Shelley’s writing when he states: “Of no other epoch in
the history of our species have we records and fragments stamped so visibly
with the image of the divinity of man. But it is poetry alone, in form, in
action, or in language, which has rendered this epoch memorable above all
others…” (Shelley 796). In this way it is easy to observe the hierarchical view
that Shelley reserves. The divinity of man is granted wisdom and understanding
of the eternal truths of God. With this knowledge in their heads, they create a
work, which is translated through their genius. This work is handed down to the
public, who must elevate their minds to comprehend and decipher the meanings.
Needless to say, Shelley does not share the same sentiments as Wordsworth in
using the language of common man. For Shelley, he seems to understand it as:
Geniuses are writers for literature.
Another
aspect that is challenged in Defence
is the difference between stories and poems. Shelley gives little credit to
stories, calling them partial catalogues of detached facts that distort beauty.
Poems, on the other hand, are universal creations based on eternal truths which
beautify. In the battle between story and poem, readers can see that Shelley is
making a case for why literature should be studied and why it is more useful
than history: “Poetry allows imagination and gives flesh and blood to the
detached facts of history” (Shelley 800). Likewise, Shelley rebuts the idea
that poetry is immoral. Poetry expands and nurtures the imagination,
imagination enables sympathy, and sympathy (understanding another’s situation)
is the basis of moral behavior (Shelley 796).
Looking
into this connection between beauty and goodness within other works by Shelley,
there is little evidence of the passionate argument he presents in Defence. In “Ozymandias,” arguably
Shelley’s most famous poem, barely touches on the notion of beauty, love or
imagination. It also has little to do with historical events. Similarly, his
sonnet “England in 1819” is very politically based and does not speak about
beauty or goodness. The only aspect that connects these two poems with Percy
Shelley’s ideas are that they are shroud in imagination, which is the
“mind-acting” to create “universal substance” (Shelley 790). But where is
connection between beauty and goodness? As opposed to being shroud in reason,
which is merely “mind-contemplating” over longwinded “shadows” of analysis (Shelley
790). However, in his version of “Mount Blanc,” readers are able to get a sense
of how Shelley perceives beauty and nature.
The
range of influence that Percy Shelley’s words have on the word has changed in
the 160 years since the publication of A
Defence of Poetry. In a postmodern society, there are no eternal or
universal truths. The world has become overtaken by the rule of
subjectivity—everything depends on something that depends on something else,
etc. The high pedestal that writers sat on in Shelley’s epoch has since been
brought down to the point where everyone is a writer. In his book, entitled So Many Books, Gabriel Zaid states that
“the human race publishes a book every thirty seconds” (21). On top of that
fact, it seems that poetry is being read less and less. Poets, as Shelley would
understand them, seem to be a dying breed—drowned out by the excessive amounts
of “literature” that is flooding the market. Shelley says that “poets are the
unacknowledged legislators of the World” (Shelley 802). But is that a statement
that is still true today? Or, in the midst of postmodernism, have poets become
irrelevant? It is a shame that the world was never given the other two parts of
A Defence of Poetry. Perhaps that way
we would be able to truly discover how to apply the principles of poetry, as
Shelley understands them, and maybe we would still be able to work towards the
moral improvement of man, or any improvement at all.
Works
Cited
Shelley,
Percy Bysshe. “A Defence of Poetry.” The
Norton Anthology of English Literature: Volume 2. 7th ed. Ed. M.
H. Abrams and Jack Stillinger. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000.
789-802. Print.
Zaid,
Gabriel. So Many Books: Reading and
Publishing in the Age of Abundance. Trans. Natasha Wimmer. London: Paul Dry
Books, Inc., 2004. Print.
