Analysis of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s "A Defence of Poetry"

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. 7^th 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.