In Conciones ad Populum, one of Coleridge’s most politically charged commentaries, he remarks on his disapproval of the French Revolution, an opinion that would have likely been supported by many, therefore not remotely radical or offensive in content (MM 684-686). In light of the failure of the French Revolution, it is perhaps through Coleridge’s writings that Shelley decided to take his stance regarding the effectiveness of passive resistance, as he describes in The Masque of Anarchy.
In 1792, Thomas Paine, a revolutionist pamphleteer, was convicted of seditious libel because of his justifications of revolution in The Rights of Man. It was at this point that S.T. Coleridge, Wordsworth and Shelley realized exactly how paranoid and corrupt Great Britain had become. The authors’ preoccupation with the hardships of war in France placed them in the mainstream of contemporary protest (Roe 125).
Now, taking into consideration Shelley’s predecessors and their meek and usually unoriginal rhetoric, one might understand why any proposal of a solution might seem radical. The following is a brief synopsis of Prometheus Unbound, Shelley’s great epic drama. Prometheus is imprisoned, chained to a rock by a curse set upon him by Jupiter. When Prometheus stops hating Jupiter, he is able to gain the aide of Demogorgon, a Virgil type figure who helps him revoke his curse and hence unbound himself. Prometheus, the protagonist falls from grace before the story has begun, and during drama, we see the slow process of restoring grace through love. As in Dante’s “Comedy,” there is an archetypal figure, Asia, representing love. The disturbing point in the drama is that Demogorgon ascends from his cavernous hell to violently expel Jupiter, the king of the gods—the ruler who had sentenced Prometheus. (Padgett)
Although Prometheus frees himself through love and passivity, Shelley’s critics chose to focus on the events related to Jupiter’s violent removal from his throne. In reading such a resolution, the critics might have worried that Shelley’s ideas would contaminate society, somehow precipitating the destruction of religion and government. In the preface to his lyrical drama, he states: “I have… a passion for reforming the world” (Wheatley 110). This seems to contradict his statement in the same paragraph that states: “Didactic poetry is my abhorrence”(Wheatley 110) He proceeds by justifying these seemingly contradictory statements:
My purpose has…been…to familiarize the highly
refined imagination of the more select classes of poetical
readers with beautiful ideas of moral excellence.
(Wheatley 127)
Shelley quickly became aware that reviewers were responding negatively to his poem, which suggested uncanny contradictions. Prometheus renounced Jupiter’s curse, what William Blake would have called the removal of self-imposed “mind-forged manacles,” originally brought about by mere hate and unwillingness to forgive. This event would seem to empower the individual and promote passivity, yet Jupiter’s violent removal from his throne by Demogorgon encourages something radically different. Critics wondered if Shelley dared man to challenge institutions. Either way, Shelley does not provide a sound solution for reform or revolution. (Wheatley 113)
In a letter to an editor named Leigh Hunt, Shelley defends Prometheus Unbound, saying, “It is written only for the elect” (Wheatley 110). By proclaiming that his drama was meant for the elect classes, Shelley might have meant to diffuse possible objections to the radical content of his poem, since the morally elite thought themselves to be incorruptible.
In the midst of critics focusing on Jupiter’s violent overthrow, Shelley still chose to focus on and defend his Prometheus, insisting that his was “a more poetical character than” Milton’s Satan, because of his “patient opposition” to Jupiter, the king of all gods on Mt. Olympus and antagonist. He infers that Milton’s Satan, in contrast, is vengeful, overly ambitious and blinded by hate. (Wheatley 734)
Clearly, Shelley wrote for the masses but with the reviewer in mind. On one hand, he hoped to spark reform, while convincing the socially elite reviewer that the “Champion and Opressor of mankind are reconciled” by the mere negation of evil by good. He describes Prometheus as an ideal, “the type of highest perfection of moral and intellectual nature” (Wheatley 117)
In The Revolt of Islam, Shelly further tries to relieve himself of accountability from any unintentionally implied radical ideas. In this work, he states that:
There must be a resemblance…between all the writers
of any particular age. They cannot escape from subjection
to a common influence which arises out of an infinite
combination of circumstances belonging to the time in
which they live; though each is in a degree the author
of the very influence by which his being is thus pervaded.
(Wheatley 117)
Herein, Shelley claims that it is impossible to escape the influences of his environment and the times of which he is a product. He claims to merely mirror the circumstances that surround him. He seems aware of his rhetoric and unsuccessfully makes excuses for it.
The Literary Gazette and Lonsdale—two literary magazines, which commonly reviewed Shelley’s works, were commonly resistant to the notion of social change in any form, especially in spite of the French Revolution. On the other hand, two other literary magazines—Baldwin’s and Gold’s reacted positively to Shelly’s notions. They quoted him as having noted: “Poets…are, in one sense, the creators, and, in another, the creations of their age.” He meant to share responsibility with the reader, while he simultaneously addresses the paranoid opposition, which was concerned with his possible effect on readers. (Wheatley 120)
In defense of Shelley’s radical notions, Gold’s London Magazine stated that Shelley’s drama merely alluded to “idealisms of moral excellence” which could never truly be realized. Perhaps, this statement was meant to encourage readership and reduce paranoia, or possibly, Shelley’s intent was never more than—as they remarked—to express that mankind is not yet prepared to act upon this idea of “moral excellence” or that it is in fact impossible to attain. (Wheatley 121)
One of the most paranoid interpretations of Prometheus… was by a critic of Lonsdale Magazine. He stated that “the coexistence of subversive ness and beauty” made the work particularly threatening. This critic thought that Shelley was insane and meant to ensnare “the soul by its melodious richness,” later inferring that this trance would increase the likelihood of misleading the feeble-minded, “the indifferent of being surprised, and the innocent of being seduced.” (Wheatley 127) Hence, even this Lonsdale critic praised Shelley’s dreamy language. Other critics slanderously repudiated his language as unintelligible, probably to discourage readers who might potentially become infected by the disturbing notions implied by Jupiter’s overthrow.
Based on Shelley’s Defence of Poetry, It seems impossible to deny his belief that poetry is inherently didactic. He defines a great poem as “a great fountain for ever flowing with the waters of wisdom and delight” (MM 1173). This contradicts his statement in the preface to his epic drama: “Didactic poetry is my abhorrence” (Wheatley 110) Perhaps the most interesting statement in his “Defence of Poetry is his reminder that poets were once called “legislators and prophets.” It seems that he means to empower himself and continue this tradition of societal obligation through his own works.
The last consideration I make is perhaps one that most spited and thumbed at his critics, causing them to slander him more than they would have otherwise. Shelley begins his preface to “Prometheus…” by stating that his predecessors, “The Greek tragic writers” were able to select any topic, employ history or mythology and “by no means conceived themselves bound to adhere to…or to imitate…their rivals or predecessors.” Hence, Shelley means to dispel any preconceived criticisms of his subject matter. He implies that the writer has a lineage and the critic does not, hence the critic possesses a self-proclaimed title that carries no historical integrity.
In conclusion, late 18th century Britain’s unprecedented influx of innovation made it possible for an increased number of authors to publish literary works for mass consumption. They were suddenly faced with having to choose and write for a specific audience. Also, the author was now to be held accountable by literary critics with respect to content. Unlike most of his contemporaries, Percy Shelley expressed problematic and potentially explosive ideas that caused him to be bombarded by slanderous criticism. With regard to Prometheus Bound, he had anticipated the literary critic’s narrow-mindedness and was prepared—with his preface, to denounce any legitimacy to their claims (MM 1407-1409). Today, critics realize that “Prometheus…” was meant to address both the socially elite reviewer and the public simultaneously.
Works Cited
Abrams, M.H., ed. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Vol. 2. New York: Norton, 2000. 163-192
Dawson, P.M.S. The Unacknowledged Legislator: Shelley and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. 211-214
Mellor and Matlak. British Literature 1780-1830. “Prometheus Unbound.” New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1996. 1102-1138
Padgett, John B. 1995. “Shelley, Dante and Romantic Irony.”
http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/thesis/chapter 2.html
Roe, Nicholas. Wordsworth and Coleridge: The Radical Years. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. 125-211
Wheatley, Kim. Shelley and His Readers: Beyond Paranoid Politics. Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 1999. 9-127
Ward, A.W. and Waller, A.R. 2000. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature “Beginnings of Mysticism; Songs of Innocence and Thel.” Vol 11. Bartleby.com. http://www.bartleby.com/221/0904.html