Percy Bysshe Shelley's "A Defence of Poetry"



Part I of Percy Bysshe Shelley's "A Defence of Poetry"

Percy Shelley begins his "A Defence of Poetry", by describing reason and imagination and how they differ. According to Shelley, reason in limited and can only refer to things that have already been discussed, but imagination is different from reason, in that it creates new topics to discuss and allows distiction and comparision between reason. According to Shelley, "Reason in to imagination as the instrument to the agent," Reason is a tool used by imagination to discuss that which has not been discussed. Shelley continues his argument stating that Poetry is, "the expression of the imagination". According to Shelley, poetry is the way in which men express unthought ideas and in which they compare reasoning. Then Shelley continues, by stating that, just as a child expresses its amazement toward simple objects, so poetry expresses similar expression toward better objects. Shelley continues his agrument by expanding his analogy and including savages. Shelley states that just as children express their amazement, through their actions, so do savages express their emotions, through their actions. The actions of the savage soon create meaning and become a representation for the objects that the feelings of the savage for that object. Shelley finishes his analogy by stating that as long as two people exist, "the future is contained within the present, as the plant within the seed". Mankind can only grow from where it is, and man's future is determined by what men do to create it. Shelley continues his argument by against stating how men work to imitate the world around them and their reactions to it. Shelley continues stating that all actions have a degree of their success in their methods, by the pleasure of its viewers. Shelley concludes this idea of a degree of success by stating that some methods are better forms of art than others, but poetry is the greatest and grants pleasure to all people who see it. Shelley also states that because poetry is metaphorical it creates reason about that with has not yet been compared or reasoned over. Shelley finishes this point by stating that poets should continue to challenge and redefine thought, because if they do not, they will allow language to "die". Shelley again continues to shift his argument by stating that language in its beginning contains many poets who define the language and lead the language into a larger sense of poetry. Shelley expands this idea by stating that poets not only build the language and art of a society but also its knowledge and its civil society. According to Shelley, poets create all of society. Then Shelley states that poets are both legislatures and prophets, in the idea that they both sustian the present society and also show the future through the present. He actually goes far enough to say that poetry always looks to the future and always has "an attribute of prophecy". Shelley continues this idea of poets looking to the future by stating that the best forms of art are the ones that can always be understood with the same meanings throughout all time, from the time it was written to eternity. Shelley finally concludes his argument by stating that because language is the greatest method for representing actions poetry therefore is the greatest form of art, because it can withstand all time and be understood by all people at all times, with the greatest effectiveness.

Aristotle and Shelley seem to both want art to preform the same purpose. Just as Aristotle writes that art is valued by its ability to refer to the future, so does Shelley write that art should act as imagination and refer to things undescribed, and unreasoned, and should work to show the future through its present. Aristotle mainly talks about how drama in particular should create events that inspire thought and refer to the future of that same drama. Shelley takes this concept a step further stating that poetry should force people to think more deeply, and force them to reason and compare things that have not yet been discovered. "Dare to Know", as Enlightenment writer Immanuel Kant would put it.

In response to Percy Bysshe Shelley's "A Defence of Poetry", one could ask: What would be the act of poetry about something that was previously written? Would not this poetry look to the past instead of the future?

Such poetry does look upon th past but it also will emphasize certain parts of the previous writing and will inherently create new comparisions and ideas which will inspire expansion of future thought. All writing cannnot help but look forward as it will always emphasize and bring into view different ideas to those who wrote them.

Aristotle's The Poetics

Parts IX-XIV and XXV-XXVI of Aristotle's The Poetics

In sections IX-XIV and XXV-XXVI of The Poetics, Aristotle gives agruments and reasons for what he believes to be the way to construct the greatest form of what he calls "poetry" but perhaps now would be called a drama. In section IX, Aristotle states that a poetic is greater than a historian because: a historian uses writing to refer to the past, which has finite reasoning (these events happened), but a poet uses writing to refer the reader to what could happen through what Aristotle calls, "the law of probability or necessity" (if something is likely or needs to happen it most likely will). Continuing this section, Aristotle gives reasoning for why tragedy is the best form of "poetry". Comedies form plots based upon the "law of probability" but give unrealistic names, but Tragedies use real names and only that which could happen, will happen in the story. Aristotle finishes secton IX, by talking about how to make the best plot and also by stating the greatest effect of tragedies. According to Aristotle, a plot should contain a series of events with a "probable or necessary sequence". Each event has to have a good chance of happening and should cause a future event to have a probability of happening. Aristotle concludes by stating that tragedies are great not only because they cause their audiences to feel fear or pity, but also because they cause fear/pity among their audiences, through the cleverness of their cause and effect plots. In section X, Aristotle defines good and bad plot systems: a bad one he calls, "Simple," which does not contains any "Reversal of the Situation" or "Recognition", and a good one he calls, "Complex," which contains "Reversal of the Situation" or "Recognition", or both. These terms of "Reversal of the Situation" and "Recognition", Aristotle defines in section XI. "Reversal of the Situation" he defines as a complete change of circumstance, in which a main character acheives a situation opposite to his previous situation, and "Recognition" he defines as the name implies, coming to a new understanding. Aristotle finishes section XI by stating that the best tragedy will use good forms of both of the previously mentioned events as well as a third part which he calls the "Scene of Suffering", which involves some extremely harsh action (usually death). In section XII, Aristotle defines the parts of a good tragedy, such as: the Prologue (the part before the first chorus song), an Episode (a part between chorus songs), the Exode (the part after the final chorus song), and the chorus songs. Aristotle continues his conversation about the formation of a plot, in section XIII, where he states that a good plot, uses a "complex plan", in which the audience is forced to feel pity or fear because of the undeserved misfortune of a man. The change must happen not by the fault of any person but only by an inherent error that causes it. The change finally should be from good to bad. Aristotle continues his idea of inspiring the greatest forms of audience fear and pity, in section XIV. He then states that in order to inspire the greatest fear a friend has to kill the hero, not an enemy, because an enemy has more reason to kill the hero. These events therefore msut occur by an act of prophesy or ignorance of identity. Aristotle begins section XXV, by stating that poets are artists and as such should imitate the world either: as it is, as it is said to be, or as it should be. The poet's method of expressing their vision would therefore be language, and like other forms of art, it can be incorrectly presented for a variety of reasons. Aristotle separates these fallacies into two categorys: essence and accidental. Accidental fallacies are causes of either ignorance or mistake and are always bad. Essence fallacies Aristotle describes as metaphors and sometimes are justified due to the ability of poetics to make strange comparisions, but these fallacies should be used as little as possible. In Aristotle's final section (XVI), Aristotle give reasoning for why tragedies are better than Epics. Aristotle first states that tragedies only fail due to bad actors not due to an inherently bad style. The main point however that Aristotle claims is that tragedies produce that same amount of audience impression in a lesser amount of time than Epics.

Aristotle's idea of a poet seems to be similar to and may have inspired John Berger's idea of an artist. According to Berger, an artist is suppose to paint what they see, and in this same manner, poets, who are also artists, should write their story from their view of the world (as it is, as it is said, or as it should be). Aristotle's The Poetics also seems to influence William Shakespeare in his writing of Romeo and Juliet. In this tragedy, Romeo and Juliet, by fortune and by a cuase of events fall in love with each other (this is an undeserved and probable fortune). This fortune how ever turns into a negative chain of events, as Romeo is kicked out on the city and Juliet is forced to marry someone else. Juliet then fakes her death so that see may run away with Romeo, but Romeo hears of her death and poisons himself as an act of love. Juliet then awakes to see Romeo dead (by misfortune) as follows Romeo's actions and kills herself as well. Both of their deaths occured by misfortune and were preformed by themselves not by foes.

After reading Aristotle's The Poetics one could ask the question: Aristotle claims to have stated enough about the structure of the plot of tragedies, and also states that in the plot there should have one change in fortune from good to bad, but also states that a good tragedy uses a form of a change in the situation. Therefore could a good tragedy include a situation where a man starts from a bad situation then go to a better one and finallydrop to a worse situation?

The answer, according to Aristotle, would be no because the plot line changes too much and would mainly appease the lesser minds. The early events in such a plot line also would not easily point to the eventual "Scene of Suffering". Finally such a change in events is not quite probable enough to happen and as such would be less relatable to the audience.

Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America

Alexis de Toueville's Democracy in America

Alexis de Toqueville seems to be giving a critique of America in his Democracy in America. The first  major point that Alexis talks about, is the corruption of the American Democracy. Alexis describes this coruptiong talking first about how America claims to be democratic but actually acts like as an aristocratic society. Alexis continues, stating also how America has such a love of money, that it does not care about its individuals. The next problem with this democracy is a strive for equality not that it brings the weaker up to the level of the stronger but actually does the opposite, and through aims of "equality" the weaker bring the stronger down to their level. Alexis continues his criticism stating the improper use of the term, "the will of the nation" with instead is used by deceitful men to trick other Americans. Alexis's next major point is the problem that Americans has little independence of mind. Alexis starts this point by discussing the problem of the free press. According to Alexis the free press is inherently evil and stops men from thinking independently. Alexis continues stating that no other country has such little intellectual independence and freedom of discussion as America. Alexis continues criticizing America by discussing its religous problem and how Americans inherently fuse religion and politics in their minds but actually state that they want religion and politics to be separate. Alexis goes on to criticize how America claims that all men are created equally, but actually practices that Europeans are supreme to all other races. Alexis continues this point by stating how the current problem in America is slavery, and by saing that even when the slaves are set free they can never be treated equally to Europeans and will always remain an outcast in the eyes of the Europeans. Alexis finishes this point of slavery, by stating that when the slaves become free, they will fully recognize the oppression of the Europeans and will rebel against them. Alexis finishes the first volume of Democracy in America, by stating the problem that Americans cannot commit to their lives and continually play a game of chance, in which they will build up a life and then leave it soon afterwards.
Alexis de Toqueville begins the second volume of Democracy in America by again discussing the probelm of American thought. The problem now comes from the fact that Americans create a number of opinions which any individual can adopt, without the need to forming their own. The problem also comes from the oppressive nature of religions who wish to control their people. Alexis however gives a positive criticism of democracies in that they create new words and ideas and force Americans to use their reason, but continues criticizing it by stating that discussion is still vague and confusing. Alexis continues by criticizing American women and how they give up their freedom of independence to be bound in marriage. Alexis follows the discussion of women, by stating that no matter how hard America works to make all people equal there will still be a push by citizens to become better than everyone else. Each person wishes to better himself and his comfort while also each race to better the standing of their people. Alexis concludes the arguement by discussing the problem of the mob mentality and the problem of little intellectual independence.

Democracy in America seems to refer back to Kant's idea of "Enlightenment". As ignorant people force "self-incured tutelage" upon themselves, so do Americans throw bondage upon themselves, bondage which Americans do not understand and cannot fight because of their ignorance to such bondage. Also just as ignorant people can relieve themselves of their "tutelage" through reason so must Americans remove their bondages of the mob mentality and must think individually. The opinion of Americans cannot be accepted without reason and therefore should be rejudged and reconcidered by Americans so that Americans might think independently of others. Americans need to discuss and reason with each other because if they do not they fall into another bondage of ignorance.

In response to such a passage as Democracy in America, one could ask: Why is it a problem that Americans unify their opinions? Would not this unification of opinion bring a stronger unity and a stronger sense of nationality?
As unification of such opinions would bring unity to Americans it would not benefit Americans and would leave the least represented and least spoken people to face the greatest oppression. Such unification would be worse for America as a whole.

Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence

In his Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson gives reasoning for the separation of the Colonies from Britian. Jefferson begins his argument by stating a number of different "truths". The first f these "truths" is that "all men are created equal", which is followed by the idea that all men also have  "unalienanble rights" of which the government cannot interfere with but can only protect. Jefferson expands his idea of government by stating that all power from the government comes directly from the people. The government is only as powerful as its people allow it to be, and as such the people are the ones who actually have the power, not the leaders. Jefferson then merges these two ideas, of the power of the people and "unalienable rights", and states that when a government begins to prevent or act against a people's rights then the people not only have the power but also the obligation to overthrow that government. Next, Jefferson begins to talk about suffering and how the Colonies suffered under the rule of the king. Jefferson compares the king of Britian to a Tyrant and follows his claim with a list of "proof" of his tyranny. The contents of this list mainly deal with a list of complaints against King George for: working to crush proper government and representation efforts (silencing the voice of the people), housing a strong and oppressive military force in America without need or consent, established an ineffective jury system (for the colonies), forcing oppressive government and taxation (without consent or representation), and finally for (intigating and) preforming acts of war against the colonies. After this list Jefferson continues to try to show that he has the just side, by saying that throughout all of Britian's offences America continually asked and petitioned for her to stop but Britian refused. Therefore because of such troubles, Jefferson states that America had no choice but to finally separate from Britian and declare its independence. Jefferson concludes his Declaration of Independence by declaring the United States to be independent of Britian and also by declaring the union of each of the signers and the states they represent. The United States are after this point free and independent of foreign powers but also united in fate.

Much of Kant's and Paine's ideas are seen in the Declaration if Independence. Kant's ideas of Enlightenment and "self-incured tutelage" can be seen by Jefferson's idea of how the people have power. Again Kant's idea of "self-incurred tutelage" states that men bind themselves intellectually through ignorance and laziness. According to Kant men have the power and the obligation to free them selves of their bondage and to move toward "Enlightenment". These ideas of "self-incured tutelage" and "Enlightenment" are similar to Jefferson's idea of the power of the people. According to Jefferson, government only has as much power as its people will give to it. Government is a tool used for the benefit of people and when it becomes oppressive then the people have not only the power but also the obligation to overthrow the government and then to re-establish it in a better form. Finally, Thomas Paine's argument of Common Sense compares with Jefferson's justification for separation. Paine writes about the problems and oppressions that Britian continues to use against America with. For these oppressions, Paine writes that it is entirely obvious that America should separate from Britian, and anyone who disagrees either is ignorant or dishonest. Jefferson uses much of the same reasoning, comparing the king to a tyrant, and stating that his acts of oppression were unstandable. The final and additional reason Jefferson claims for separating with Britian was the fact that throughout all of the oppression American colonists tried to warn King George to stop his tyranny, but he refused. Therefore because of the British oppression and refusal to listen to reason, it is the obligation of America to separate from Britian in order to establish a better government.

In response to reading Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, one could ask the question: If it is the right of men to remove bad government, then what can they do if they government they can establish is equally bad should they still work to remove the first government?

Thomas Paine's Common Sense "III"

"III. Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs" from Thomas Paine's Common Sense

In this article Thomas Paine gives his argument and reasoning for why America should separate from England. He even goes far enough to say that it is so obvious that America should separate that it is common sense, and that anyone who disaggrees, either is ignorant of or refuses to use this common sense. Paine justifies his claim of common sense by stating that Britain abuses and causes the colonies more harm than good. Paine then continues the much of the rest of his argument stating "false aids" of Britain and showing how these aids are actually harming America. The first of these statements begins the idea that because America has thrived under Britian, it does not need to change rule. Paine states this as false saying that American economy is independent from British rule and American economy will thrive as long as it has a European market. Paine continues with his next point on the idea of British protection. Paine argues against British protection saying that the British protected America from its enemies, for its own interest and not for the interest of the colonies. Paine continues this point talking about how Britian pulled America into its conflicts, and forced Americans into fighting people whom they had no conflicts with. Paine continues talking about the idea that Britian is the "parent country" of America. He soon disproves the idea that Britian is the "parent country" by stating the fact that most Americans came from Europe as a whole and not just England. By this logic of where Americans came from, Europe is America's "parent country" and not just England. Paine continues disproving the advantage of England's "parent status," by discussing that the reason most people came to America was to run away from the fears of Europe. Colonists came to America to get away from the oppression of Europe, not to aid and support Europe. Paine finishes his argument against England's "parenthood" by stating that even if America was a perfect descendent country of England than it has as much loyalty to England and England does to France, because England was conquered by France some time ago where the majority of Englishmen are now decended from. Paine continues his argument by discussing the direct "injuries" Britian had caused Boston which he described the inhabitants as being forced into oppression. Paine describes their oppression as inescapable and without hope. Paine concludes this section of his argument by describing how priviledged the colonists are and by passing judgement on both the colonists who have not had much trouble (whom he says has no reason to judge those who have have these troubles) and those who have faced troubles and still continued in buisness with the same "dishonest" men as before (he claims these people to be dishonorable and unworthy of being named anything respectable).

Thomas Paine's writings seem to reflect back on Immanuel Kant's idea of oppressors to Enlightenment. According to Paine, England desires America believe a set of lies so that it can bring about oppresion through these same lies. That is the reason for this section of Thomas Paine's Common Sense, not only to support America's revolution, but also to show Americans the fallacies that they have been deceived of. Paine's Common Sense shows Americans how Britian has deceived and oppressed it both by physical and intellectual manners. Just as Kant's writings call ignorant men into the action of Enlightenment, Paine calls ignorant Americans into action against the oppressive British Empire. To bring these sources into further connection, America is under oppression of which it is both unaware of and must free itself from. By its ignorance America continues in its bondage and must be brought to full knowledge of its bonds before it can free itself. Finally America will be a far greater and more "Enlightened" country once it removes its bonds and sets itself free.

One could ask this question in response: Thomas Paine writes that British wars are bad for America, but they win Americans land and wealth, so are they really bad?

The oppresion and means that resulted from the war outweight all wealth gained from these wars. Also, especially in the French and Indian War, the British withheld captured land and wealth from Americans.

Immanuel Kant's "What is Enlightenment?

Immanuel Kant's "What is Enlightenment?"

According to Immanuel Kant, all men are trapped in a state of intellectual bondage which he calls, "self-incured tutelage". This "self-incured tutelage" causes men to be unable to think for themselves, and forces the reason of one man to become dependent on that of another's. This "self-incured tutelage" is something that men do to themselves through fear and laziness of reason (men are afraid of being wrong and are lazy in their act of reasoning). Freement from this "self-incured bondage" Kant calls "Enlightenment". Immanuel Kant then in continues his argument by stating that there are people who oppress the reason of men, and then states examples of these people and how they suppress reason. According to Kant, these people suppress reason by saying the words, "Do not argue". According to Kant, the words "Do not argue" specifically ask the hearer to just obey the person without reason or justification. These words therefore also impede the growth of a man's enlightenment and reduces his reason. Kant concludes his argument saying that today (in 1784) the people live in an "age of enlightenment" where the people are not currently enlightened but are becoming enlightened.

Kant's idea of "self-incured tutelage" seems to very much resemble John Berger's idea of mystification. Berger's mystification comes from the problem of someone telling another person what a specific person means to say through their words or paintings. Both problems come from the issue of another person trying to explain something to another person. The only difference between these two, however, depends on the point of reference. Consider two men standing next to each other looking at a painting, and one man is explaining to the other what it means. This act is mystification, when viewing the man explaining to the other his perspective and forcing him to agree, but it is "self-incured tutelage" when viewing the man listening to the other's explaination if this same man does not use his own reason to explain or disprove his friend's explanation. According to Kant, the man explaining would be closer to enlightenment than the other man and also is forcing the other man into "self-incured tutelage" by his actions.

For further discussion one could ask this question: If the problem of "self-incured tutelage" is the fact that we depend upon others to explain things to us, then why should we listen to other people or even listen to writers as opposed to trying to figure the world out through our own reason?
Personally I would answer this question (from the perspective of an enlightened scholar) by saying that others always have information that we do not and through collective study men might gain a better understanding of the world. However, men should not rely upon others to have perfect information. Men should always continue to practice their own personal reason, even when obtaining information from others, so that they might more easily understand what is true and what is not true.