An appraisal of the contemporary view of Shelley's poetry.

258 Pages·2014·12.99 MB·English

AN APPRAISAL OF THE OONTWORARY VIEW 0 . SHELLEY S
POETRY.
by
AXEL _iSik3E B.A. (Hons)•Dip.Edo
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Arts.
The University of Tasmania,
gobart.
December, 1964,
(i)
To the best of my know1ed4je and belief, the thesis
contains no copy or paraphrase of material previously published
or written by another person, except when duo reference is
made in the text of the thesis*
(ii)
SUMMARY,
The contemporary attitude to ShelleY may be considered as a
combination of two sharply opposed points of view: a tradition
of disapproval and a tradition of extravagant ,admiration.
Disapproval of Shelley has been greatly influenced by the
early criticism of T.S. Eliot, The claim is that Shelley is a
heretic whose work suffers from emotionalism and incoherence.
F.R.Leavis adds to this tradition the argument that faults in
Shelley ts style reflect faults in character and morality. He
argues that Shelley is an unimportant Romantic poet.
Shelley is intensely emotional, his theories are net profound,
and his style suffers from obscurity and unstable rhetorical'
devices.
• However, in the early poems, despite his immaturity, he
experiments with radical versions of Romantic forms, illastor
is an attempt to, create elaborate allegorical ambiguity. lAnnt
Blanc is a radical version of the Romantic nature poem.. In
particular, Shelley is concerned with Mimesis, even mimetic
obscurity. Those variations upon traditional methods are linked
with elaborate, if inconclusive, philosophising about mysticism,
magic, moniam and scepticism. His attitude to visionary
inspiration is often governed by a dilemma, conflicting ideas
about idealism and illusion.
F.R.Leavis, William Empson, and even Yvor Winters, tend to be.
influenced by the mimetic fallacy in their attitude to Shelley,
(iii)
Shelley was confused about the nature of poetry. But the demand
for precision in poetry should not obscure his perverse
complexity and the brilliance of his immaturity.
The tradition of admiration may be referred to Yeats:
the tendency is to praise Shelley as a Platonist (or magician,
or apocalyptic visionary). The second tradition offers a more
obvious and extreme version of the mimetic fallacy. It
misunderstands Shelley's complex attitude to inspiration and'
obscures the qualifications he. adds to his celebration of
ecstacy. Both Platonism and myth are important in the poems.
However, Shelley's sense of dilemma is greater in Prometheus
11nbound, although his tentative and intense religious idealism
.
is also more clear. His symbolism is neither primitive nor
concerned merely with visionary apocalypse.
The Freudian and Jungian criticism of the 1930's finds
apocalypse (or apocalyptic Platonism) and myth. Herbert Read
claims that homosexuality' is the main meaning of the poems; in
contrast, on the whole, the subject is linked with contrived
implications about monism and Love. The other critics confuse
Shelley's tentative speculations and their own extravagant
theories.
Two American critics of'thea930's, Carl Grab° and Benjamin
Kurtz, show clearer understanding of Shelley's equivocal
attitude to reform and Platonism. However, they obscure his
uncertainty about inspiration.
Etanattaurz_iiniunua combines propaganda about Romantic
(iv).
idealism, analysis of despair, and a Dionysian version of a
tragic dilemma. Contemporary American criticism contains
profound interpretation of one level of Shelley's attitude to
vision. But it tends to continue the claim that Shelley was an
inspired prophet, The result is confusion about the methods and
content of apmethoua Unbound., and false praise.
( v )
-CONTENTS-
Page. No.
CHAPTER I. THE TRADITION OP DISSENT.
PART I.: T.S. ELIOT ALASTOR
A REFUTATION OF DEISM
(1) Introduction 1
(2) T.S. Eliot
(3)AlaziaL: the vision 8
(4)A Refutation of Isetam 16
(5)Aiastor: the invocation:
the vision. 29
(6) Conclusion 43
PART II.: F.R. LEAVIS MONT BLANC 46
(I) F.R.Leavis 46
• (2) Yont Blano 51
• (3) Conclusion 63
PART III.: WILLIAM EJiPSON MONT BLANC 65
(1) William Empson 65
(2) Mont Blanc. 68
(3) Conclusion 76
PART IV.: YVOR WINTERS ALASTOR. 79
(1) Yvor Winters 79
(2)A1aLi2L: the forest 90
(3) Conclusion 103
(vi)
-CONTENTS(CONTD.) -
page Ng.
CHAPTER I. LIST OF REFERENCES 105
THE TRADITION OF MYTH AND MAGIC.
PART I. THE SHORTEA POEiab.
(1) Introduction 113
(2) The Shorter poems' 113
PART II. W.B. YEATS: PROMk;THEUS UNBOUND
THE PRE&ACE ACT I.
(1) W.B. Yeats 123
(2) EIMMLIbLUZ_linILQuaa: the
preface 132
(3)2romethFlps Unbound_Act I 135
.PART .III. THE .JUNGIAN AND'FREUDIAN
CRITICS PRO2ETHEUS UNBOUND '
ACT II.
(1) The critics 145
(2) Xvometileals. IT401412d Act II 155
-(3) Conclusion: EallaYQUAiDa1
Zar.....tiatch of Atlaet . 172
PART IV. BENJAMIN KURTZ CARL GRAB°
PRUMETHE1J8 UNBOW,D ACT III.
(1) The critics 184
(2) amometheuR Unbound.. Act III 194
(3) Conclusion
).TT (
•-• 3 ■'( T,sf I 7 T .r q
7b20-17151**
OHVIVIT II Y71.77-ETn77TTITTTETFOT---.7i7mIfopoflmIl
dWIT A°: NH37TV .vrTgT-rov 3HITL3I87
dH0DEVIglfS 11119011V VOI IA°
)T( TO 01.T.IToG g08
)g( saom@ptong rfarT0YTICPT V0.1 lA gig
)2( oouotnoTou g20
dYlP AI°: 00VOTVISI0q g2g
OA FMMYEMDaS gOV

,
gIgIrOOHT711(RX
CHAPTER I.
PART I.
(1) •
The obvious starting point for an appraisal of the
contemporary view of Shelley is the attitude of distrust and
dislike which T.S. Eliot explained in the 1920's and 1930's.
Eliot's attitude has become the orthodox one in moat of the
criticism written in England, although it has not been as
important in America. The critics who accept it disagree about
points of general theory and the emphasis which should be
placed upon particular characteristics of Shelley's poetry.
Even between the earlier critics, Eliot, P.R. Leavis and William
Empson, there are important differences of opinion. Nevertheless
the general attitude and much of the emphasis in interpretation
tend to remain the same. Even critics who in recent years have
rejected Eliot's general theories about poetry seam disinclined
to change the general attitude to Shelley. Graham Hough has
helped to define and develop the recent dissatisfaction with
Eliot's general theories) also believes that Shelley
was the solitary intellectual among the early Romantic poets.
But his general attitude to Shelley is the same as Eliot's: -
he believes that the poetry is "a strange gaseous force", the
result of uncontrolled subjectivity and emotionalism. (2)
(2)
•
Eliot's most important comments about Shelley appear in
2.
The Use of Poetry and the Use ofi.Criticism. (3) Eliot stresses
the continuity and development of ideas in the nineteenth
century. He says that for Wordsworth the poet was a prophet who
was to teach through pleasure; and he explains Romanticism as a
spiritual revival which passed to Newman, Ruskin and Arnold.
Thus he prepared the way for the later critics such as Graham
Hough and Frank Kermode who have discussed his own poetry and
criticism as part of the tradition which was formed in the
nineteenth centuL--y. (4) His comments about Shelley are best
understood within this context0
does not provide
a complete general theory of poetry. It shows that Eliot the
critic is an "arbiter of taste" rather than a thinker concerned
(5)
with abstract speculation It combines a lively sceptical
awareness of the need to examine all sides of any argument and the
idea that poetry has mysterious value. (We should keep in mind
Eliot's enthusiasm for symbolism and his insistence upon a
sceptical and analytical attitude in matters of belief). His
main concern is to combine two ideas: firstly, that there is a
special (or artistic) intuition; secondly, that the rational
content of a poem must be taken into account in evaluation.
The comments about Shelley arise as part of a discussion of
belief in poetry in relation to Wordsworth, Shelley and Keats.
The main points are Wordsworth's assumption of religious
value for poetry and the relevance of his opinions to his