Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Perspective and Language in Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty
Author: Matthew Cowles,
Faculty Mentor: Dahlia Porter, Ph.D., Department of English, College of Arts and Sciences
College and Department Affiliation: Department of English, College of Arts and Sciences;
Honors College
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 2
Bio:
Matthew Cowles is a senior Honors College student at the University of North Texas with a
major in English and a minor in philosophy. In the spring 2014, Matthew received the
Undergraduate Scholarly Writing Award for his essay “Perspective and Language in Percy
Shelley’s Signification of Liberty,” which he wrote under the mentorship of Dr. Dahlia Porter.
His primary interests are in rhetorical theory and analysis, especially concerning Romantic
Literature and environmental discourse. Matthew plans to attend graduate school to study writing
and rhetoric.
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 3
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 4
Abstract:
Percy Shelley’s “Ode to Liberty” ends in an unraveling of both the poet’s signification of liberty
and of his portrayal of the Spanish Revolution of 1820, an event that illustrates liberty at the
outset of the poem. The reasons for this unraveling can be found largely within the poet’s
appropriations of language used by John Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
The textual proximity of these appropriations to the poet’s own self-portrayed failure to signify
liberty marks the empiricist tradition as a target of Shelley’s moral and rhetorical criticisms. To
demonstrate this point, I first examine the textual fluidity of variant manuscripts of “Ode to
Liberty.” I then examine, in historical context, varied terminology, both within and outside the
Ode. Overall, I offer a reading of “Ode to Liberty” that demonstrates ways in which general,
moral terminology (implied, for example by the word “liberty”) occasionally serves contrary
political ends.
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 5
Introduction
Many of Percy Shelley’s poems explore issues of origin. In “Ode to Liberty,” Shelley
complicates this issue by situating himself on the bookended stanzas of his own nineteen-stanza
poem. In the first stanza, Shelley evokes the Spanish Revolution of 1820 as his influence for the
creation of the historical narrative of the poem’s inner stanzas. In those, Shelley tracks liberty’s
manifestations in Europe. Thus, as far as conceptual origins of liberty are concerned, the inner
stanzas point to the outer stanzas, whereas the outer stanzas reference the Spanish Revolution of
1820 as both an event illustrative of liberty and as the poet’s source of inspiration. However, in
spite of this grounding, the inner narrative’s culmination in the final two stanzas results in a
breakdown of Shelley’s ideal of Liberty, along with an exhaustion of his poetic inspiration.
Because this abrupt turn lacks any explicitly stated cause, readers question whether this failure
portrays the “despair” and “darkness” of Shelley’s own failed political idealism (Hitt 68). In “A
Sword of Lightning,” Christopher Hitt upholds this view, which differs from those of Desmond
King-Hele and Patricia Hodgart. They regard the ode as a celebration of the victory of European
liberty over tyrannical government and religious organization. In contrast, Hitt argues that
Shelley’s “Ode” conveys the violent limitations of “an event inspired solely by revolutionary
zeal,” thus undermining the Spanish Revolution as the poem’s inspirational foundation and, in
turn, the very poem itself (Hitt 70). Although I agree with Hitt’s assessment of the ode as a text
that eventually unravels, attention to the ode’s manuscripts, as well as to many of the
philosophical texts read and written by Shelley, provides a reoriented historical context in which
perceptual and linguistic concerns take precedence over the literal violence of revolutionary
events.
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 6
This focus resonates with the assumptions of Shelley’s “A Defense of Poetry,” published
less than a year after the ode’s composition. In this essay, Shelley states that “the great
instrument of moral good is the imagination” and that “poetry administers to the effect by acting
upon the cause” (682), the cause being “integral” human thought itself. Language, as the poet’s
artistic medium, would play a primary role in this imaginative process, especially given its
assignment by Shelley as a “direct representation of the actions and passions of our internal
being,” and as having “relation to thoughts alone” (678). In opposition to the imaginative faculty
is the rationalism of such Enlightenment thinkers as John Locke and David Hume, whom Shelley
criticizes for their attempt to “exalt over the direct expression of the inventive and creative
faculty itself.” However, Shelley also admits that without the societal influence of these
philosophers, “we might not at this moment have been congratulating each other on the abolition
of the Inquisition in Spain” (695). The causal connection posited between the Spanish
Revolution and the public reading of empiricist philosophy complicates “Ode to Liberty,” given
the revolution’s inspiration in Shelley’s poetry and its political influence. In effect, I will argue
that the inner narrative’s collapse accompanies an appropriated empirical outlook, along with
Shelley’s use of language congruent with John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human
Understanding, which Shelley read both in his early years at Oxford and again between 1815 and
1817 (Milnes 6). This appropriation of Lockean language reveals the ode’s substantial
involvement in the empirical tradition, an involvement that portrays the Spanish Revolution not
only as a political revolution, but as a philosophical revolution. The ode’s conflict between
perception and expression portrays Shelley’s exploration of the relation between political events
and the philosophical tenets that seem to underwrite them.
Manuscript Variants
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 7
The ode’s first stanza and its manuscript variants introduce the word/idea dichotomy as
essential to Shelley’s political thought and as fundamental to his relationship to Locke’s
philosophy. The poem begins with an allusion to the Spanish Revolution: “A glorious people
vibrated again / The lightning of the nations” (1-2). The enigmatic imagery of vibrations and
“lightning” are illuminated by reference to the differences between the wording of Shelley’s
manuscript and that of the published ode. In the manuscript, the word watchword is situated in
place of lightning, and upheld takes the place of vibrated. However, both of these original words
are crossed out and replaced by the wording of the published text. Furthermore, the phrase “thy
name” pervades the edges of the manuscript page, seeking an entrance into the first stanza, but
remains absent in the published ode (Shelley 296). These cancelations and absences can be
viewed as “the visible sign of altered intentions,” or less rhetorically, as the poet’s attempts to
more closely “approximate” his words to represent his “thoughts” (Bryant 1, 12). In this case, the
changes signal a different view of the Spanish Revolution and of the forces that elicited its
occurrence. The former expression conveys the word liberty as a commonplace “watchword”
that inspired revolution among Spain’s populace. Such is one example of a uniform conception
of words as figuring significantly in revolution.
In contrast, the natural imagery of Shelley’s substitution—“vibrated” and “lightning”—
mark a more enigmatic approach to the causes of revolution. The poetry of Lord Byron (a close
friend of Shelley’s) is a case in point. In particular, Byron’s use of the word “lightning” in the
third canto of “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage” calls for a more expanded conception of the realm of
words and ideas. Byron here expresses his wish to use “lightning” as the “one word” (910-11)
which might “unbosom now / That which is most within me” (906-7), including “soul, heart,
mind, passions, feelings, strong or weak” (908), as well as “all that I would have sought, and all I
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 8
seek, / Bear, know, feel, and yet breathe” (909-10). Just as the word “lightning” would serve
Lord Byron to express the totality of his own personal experience and self, so Shelley’s
appropriation of the word seems to express the totality of the influences, both conceptual and
reactionary, which elicited the Spanish Revolution. Therefore, in the ode, the word “lightning”
elicits these causes and qualities. However, Byron realizes the impossibility that this single-word
expression will communicate any substantial meaning: “But as it is, I live and die unheard, /
With a most voiceless thought, sheathing it as a sword” (912-3). These lines express an
inevitable loss in the conveyance of the poet’s thoughts during and after the signification
process, an analogy of word to sheath and thought to sword. The word “lightning” similarly
expresses the inability for Shelley’s written verse to account for the totality of causes of the
Spanish Revolution. Overall, in the textual fluidity of these changes, we see Shelley’s increasing
doubt in the ability for language to elicit uniform thought, as well as uniform political action.
Light as a Revolutionary Metaphor for Liberty
Despite this doubt, Shelley continues to use light as a metaphor for liberty in the
succeeding lines of the first stanza:
Liberty
From heart to heart, from tower to tower, o’er Spain,
Scattering contagious fire into the sky,
Gleamed (2-5).
The metaphor used in these lines is ambiguous in its positioning insofar as “liberty” is said to
have “gleamed” both “from heart to heart, from tower to tower,” as well as “o’er Spain, /
Scattering contagious fire into the sky.” The latter portrayal seems suggestive of the sun in its
position “o’er” and outside of Spain, whereas the prior portrayal situates liberty within the hearts
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 9
and towers of Spain’s people. This prior portrayal simulates the reactionary and light-based
imagery of the poem’s first sentence, given liberty’s portrayal as a “contagious fire” whose
revolutionary manifestations spread among the “hearts” of Spain’s people. However, liberty’s
simultaneous portrayal as the sun calls into question the possibility of a further foundation for
liberty, one that would encapsulate all of the conceptual and emotional phenomena that elicit and
constitute its manifestation as a political event. As Jacques Derrida states, the Western
philosophical tradition has commonly used the sun as a metaphor for what “is natural in
philosophical language” (251).Shelley likely employs this metaphor in a similar way, given his
acquaintance with this tradition. In this instance, Shelley uses the sun as a metaphor to posit an
external foundation for liberty as a complex idea. Thus, liberty’s metaphorical portrayal as the
sun introduces naturalness as a prominent concern of the poem.
Shelley’s self-portrayed reaction to the Spanish Revolution further conveys his attempt to
establish liberty as natural. His reaction follows:
My soul spurned the chains of its dismay,
And, in the rapid plumes of song,
Clothed itself, sublime and strong;
As a young eagle soars the morning clouds among,
Hovering in verse o’er its accustomed prey. (5-9)
The fifth line conveys the intensity of Shelley’s own reaction to the Spanish Revolution, as
shown by his soul’s spurning of “dismay.” However, despite this initial focus on the poet’s own
emotional reactivity, the shift in pronouns from “my” to “its” and “itself” signals a split in the
poet’s identity. Furthermore, Shelley’s subsequent description of his soul as “hovering in verse”
(9) establishes a connection between the art forms of “song,” which “clothed” Shelley’s
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 10
separated soul, and poetical verse. The primary characteristic that separates song and verse is a
possible lack of semantic content in the former. Thus, the separation of Shelley’s “soul” from his
self during the act of “song” implies his inability to communicate his own personal meaning of
liberty to an audience. However, the poet’s function, as the “the spirit of the age,” necessitates
this kind of split insofar as he must engage with his culture even at the costs of his own thought’s
direct expression (“A Defense of Poetry” 701).
Although this communicative anxiety resonates with Byron’s own anxiety as expressed
in “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage,” the transformative simile of lines 8 and 9 marks a departure
from Byron’s more definitely stated inexpressibility. While the description of Shelley as an
“eagle” “hovering in verse” signals the beginning of the poet’s writing process, the words “in
verse” also serve as a pun when combined to form the word “inverse.” This understanding
suggests an inversion of Shelley’s “accustomed prey.” If the youth of this eagle represents the
earlier youth of the poet, Shelley’s “accustomed prey” would consist of monarchical government
and religious organization. Direct criticisms of these social structures constitute much of the
prose work of Shelley’s early youth (Bruhn 373). In “Ode to Liberty” an inversion from this
usual prey would turn the eagle toward the sun and away from the political and religious
circumstances of the earth, given the eagle’s placement among “morning clouds.” The sun itself,
as a metaphor for what humans perceive as natural, becomes Shelley’s prey in his recasting of
the solar metaphor beyond its prior contexts. By using this metaphor to establish the naturalness
of liberty as a moral ideal, Shelley portrays its manifestation as always realizable, regardless of
the particular political and religious circumstances of any specific time period. This use resonates
with “Defense of Poetry,” where Shelley focuses his argumentative energy on the perceptual
influence of accidental circumstances more than on “the dogmatical Truth of organized religion”
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 11
(Milnes 22). One of Shelley’s targets seems to be John Locke, who argues against the innateness
of any foundation for complex modes like liberty. Rather, Locke argues that the foundation for
these kinds of moral ideas never extends beyond the cultural circumstances of the thinking
subject (Locke 399). Therefore, Shelley’s portrayal of his split self (or written work) as a
predatory animal signals less his literal participation in revolutionary violence than it does his
appropriation of philosophical language for his own rhetorical ends (Hitt 70). The violence of
this appropriation lies in the trope’s split from its original context and thereby in the
diminishment of communicative energy of other writers’ texts.
Appropriations of Lockean Language
The historical narrative of the inner stanzas illustrates how Shelley appropriates
philosophical language for his own purposes. Still, recourse to Shelley’s July 12, 1820 letter to
Thomas Peacock directs our attention to a particular segment in this narrative:
I enclose two additional poems, to be added to those printed at the end of “Prometheus”
[including “Ode to Liberty”]: and I send them to you, for fear Ollier might not know what
to do in case he objected to some expressions in the fifteenth and sixteenth stanzas; and
that you would do me the favor to insert an asterisk or asterisks, with as little expense of
the sense as may be. (Letters 213)
This excerpt points to stanzas 15 and 16 as a kind of rhetorical hotspot within the inner narrative,
given Shelley’s insistence that their “sense” remain unchanged. Shelley even prefers words
hidden by “asterisks” to words completely altered by editorial revision, as if a future reader’s
contextualization of his poetry could serve to remedy such absences and rehabilitate
communication. This kind of defensive position makes sense, given these stanzas’ criticism of
monarchical government and religion. However, a more implicit critique of empirical reason lies
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 12
in the appropriation of Lockean language and metaphor within these particular stanzas and in the
way Locke figures in the ode’s final collapse. Furthermore, given Peacock’s adherence to the
tenets of enlightenment reason, Shelley’s choice to send his “Ode” to Peacock, along with
Shelly’s directing Peacock’s attention toward these specific stanzas, further suggests that the
ode’s primary target is empirical reason. Peacock’s beliefs caused tension between the two
authors, as shown by “A Defense of Poetry,” an explicit rebuttal of the empirical bent of
Peacock’s “Four Stages of Poetry” less than a year later.
Further, parallels in wording link the above-mentioned stanzas to stanza two, which
chronicles the beginning of the perceivable universe. By contrast, these two sections of the
historical narrative explore the foundations for what in “A Defense of Poetry” Shelley calls “the
good which exists in the relation, subsisting, first between existence and perception, and
secondly between perception and expression” (677). As Mark Bruhn states, these relations most
adequately serve as the moral foundations that Shelley wished to locate within the analogical
process of the human psyche itself (382). It would direct human communication toward
“equality, diversity, unity, contrast” and “mutual dependence” as “the motives according to
which the will of a social being is determined to action” (“A Defense of Poetry” 675). In turn,
the ode’s inner narrative allows Shelley to represent the link between these forces by the
presence or absence of one moral and political value: liberty. In the remainder of this essay, I
will examine the relationships between these stanzas, with the goal of illuminating Shelley’s
relationship to Lockean philosophy and the relation of this philosophy to European politics.
To remain faithful to the chronology of Shelley’s historical narrative, I will begin with
stanza 2. This stanza commences with the sudden appearance of the sun and moon at the origin
of perceptual existence. The alliteration of this stanza illustrates the poet’s initial ability to
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 13
transcend the hierarchical nature of dualistic representation. The stanza begins: “The Sun and the
Serenest Moon sprang forth” (16). The s alliteration between the words “Sun,” “Serenest,” and
“sprang” serves to tie the sun and moon together in a relationship of mutual dependence. Many
formal factors determine this relationship. First, the verb “sprang” at once connotes origins and a
change of location. The former nuance implies that the figures depend on one another for their
initial existence in the poet’s perception. The latter sense of the word would have Shelley
representing these figures as active, independent agents. This autonomy accords with Shelley’s
ideal of liberty as applicable to events or representations that avoid or reduce hierarchical
relations.
The consonance of line 16 also establishes a dependence between the moon’s status as
“serenest” and the presence of the “sun” (16). Given its subject, the adjective “serene” seems to
connote clarity and tranquility. Thus, the sun allows the poet the clearest possible perception of
the moon. This reading accords with the scientific theories of Shelley’s time. For example, David
Walker, a professor of photosynthesis of the early nineteenth century, claimed that the
appearance of color depended on chemical reactions elicited in objects by sunlight. Shelley
attended many of Walker’s lectures and was likely inspired by Walker’s scientific theory of
sunlight. Shelley extended the applicability of this theory to analogize perception and sunlight
(Underwood 310). If the sun is analogous to perception and the moon is analogous to a unified
perceptual object, then a dual representation of these two figures represents one being completely
unaffected by any hierarchical divisions. Furthermore, liberty’s original adherence in the sun—as
a metaphor for naturalness—casts this image as the total presence of liberty.
The subsequent lines of stanza 2 demonstrate an increase in the complexity of the poet’s
perception and an adaptation to this complexity at the cost of the initial representation of liberty.
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 14
Following the appearance of the sun and moon, the poet notes: “The burning stars of the abyss
were hurled / Into the depths of Heaven” (17-8). Concerning Shelley’s knowledge of stars, Ted
Underwood claims: “Shelley would have known… that the fixed stars were bodies like our sun,
producing light by the same (unknown, but probably chemical) processes” (311). In effect, the
sun and moon lose their status as active agents because they “were hurled.” Also lost is the dual
representation of liberty, attributable to the poet’s perceptual limitations as he begins to signify
objects. In turn, the poet’s language reflects these limitations insofar as his “grammatical
predication provides a proportional means of expressing the perceptual or phenomenological
‘diversity’ or ‘inequality’ of agents and objects” (Bruhn 394). Thus, the poet’s status as a
perceiver ensures his own failure to represent a non-hierarchical conception of liberty. In
response to these newly perceived relations, the poet states: “But this divinest universe / Was yet
a chaos and a curse, / For thou wert not” (21-3). The words “was yet” demonstrate the poet’s
forgetfulness that the initial representation mirrored his conception of liberty. Given this
forgetfulness, the poet views the “chaos” of the “divinest universe” as a “curse.” Paul De Man
comments on this process of forgetting and its role in Shelley’s poetry thus: “what is forgotten is
absent in the mode of a possible delusion, which is another way of saying that it does not fit
within a symmetrical structure of presence and absence” (105). This statement applies to each
linguistic representation of phenomena in this poem’s historical narrative, even the first
concerning the initial dual figure of sun and moon. Still, the consonance of the dual figure’s
linguistic representation and the poet’s prior conception of liberty, as formulated in stanza 1,
differentiates it from the imagery of stanzas 15 and 16.
Stanzas 15 and 16 also represent a process of forgetting, except that Shelley here portrays
the poet as not only forgetting prior sections of the poem, but also the context of the texts whose
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 15
philosophical and metaphorical language he appropriates. At this point in the narrative,
communication with others even further complicates liberty’s identification. This is most
noticeable by comparison of the ode to John Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding. For example, in stanza 15, Shelley declares that the free should “lift the victory-
flashing sword, / and cut the snaky knots of this foul Gordian word [KING]” (217-8). In many
ways, this declaration closely follows Locke’s own analogy of word and knot. Concerning the
mind’s formation of complex ideas, Locke states that although “it be the mind that makes the
collection [of simple ideas], it is the name which is as it were the knot that ties them fast
together” (Locke 360; emphasis added). In this case, Shelley’s use of this metaphor remains
faithful to its original context, given Locke’s condemnation of men who purposefully obscure
language to obtain positions of power (Locke 414). This adherence to Locke’s political argument
soon lapses into a momentary commitment to Locke’s philosophy. Similar to stanza 1, the
“victory-flashing sword” appropriates Byronic language. As mentioned, Byron analogizes
“sword” and “thought,” with words acting as a sheath, or an obscuration of a writer’s thought
and feeling (912). Here, Shelley’s declaration calls for a heightened correspondence between
inner understanding and word usage, which illustrates the poet’s own propagation of the Lockean
word/idea dichotomy.
However, stanza 16 marks a simultaneous increase in Shelley’ appropriation of Lockean
metaphor and in Shelly’s guardedness concerning many of Locke’s philosophical tenets. The
stanza begins with the declaration,
O that the wise from their bright minds would kindle
Such lamps within the dome of this dim world,
That the pale name of PRIEST might shrink and dwindle
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 16
Into the hell from which it first was hurled. (226-9)
The metaphor of “bright minds” and their use in the regulation of language accords with Locke’s
own recurring metaphor, “the light of reason” (Locke 39). Locke generally employs this
metaphor to signify the mind’s ability to assemble simple ideas under one word, signifying the
thinker’s own complex ideas. Although this metaphor—with its attention to light—posits a
natural foundation for complex ideas, Locke ultimately asserts the existence of a Christian-like
deity as the ultimate provider of this “light of reason” (409). Furthermore, through the study of
the Bible, Locke claims that this “light of reason” can help humans establish a proper knowledge
of complex moral ideas. Shelley of course omits this deified foundation in his appropriation of
Lockean language. This aspect of Locke’s Essay would work contrary to Shelley’s glorification
of the Spanish Revolution in its abolition of the Spanish Inquisition. Recourse to Locke would
also minimize Shelley’s criticism of words that signify religious, authoritative power, such as the
“name of PRIEST,” whose “pale” quality signifies its deviance from any standard found in
nature. Given this omission, the “bright minds” of the wise remain as the foundation for a word’s
mental content. Thus, it is in this stanza that Shelley deals with the relation between perception
and expression and the possible morality therein.
In the above lines, a lack of any external foundation for word signification (such as an
actual sun) begins to gesture toward an undoing of the initial conditions that occasioned
Shelley’s writing of verse in stanza 1. Only artificial “lamps” remain (227), rather than the kind
of “contagious fire” (4) that symbolized the heightened reactivity that spread among Spain’s
people, in stanza 1, as a kind of collective foundation for liberty. In comparison to stanza 1, the
light imagery of stanza 16 seems far less extensive and powerful. This comparison portrays the
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 17
moral fault of Locke’s Essay as rhetorical in nature and as unable adequately to rouse the
European public’s moral fervor.
The parallels between the wording of stanza 16 and of stanza 2 further illuminate the
reasons for morality’s breakdown in the relation between perception and expression. In
particular, Shelley’s assertion that the “pale name of PRIEST” “first was hurled” from “hell”
(228-9) mirrors the passage from stanza 1 where stars “were hurled / Into the depths of Heaven”
(17-8). This hurling act establishes the passivity of both stars and the word priest in the face of a
rapid multiplication. In stanza 1, the stars appear passive to the increasing complexity of the
poet’s perception. Contrarily, the passivity of the word priest lies in a multiplication of the ideas
and signified objects underling this word’s expression throughout society and within the minds
of different people. Shelley espouses this kind of linguistic and conceptual passivity in “A
Philosophical View of Reform,” where he states:
Sacred names borrowed from the life and opinions of Jesus Christ were employed as
symbols of domination and imposture; and a system of liberty and equality, for such was
the system preached by that great reformer, was perverted to support oppression—Not his
doctrines, for they are too simple and direct to be susceptible of such perversion—but the
mere names. (637)
When “borrowed” from its original context, written words and “names” become the passive
object of other writers and speakers. Words come to serve different rhetorical ends by their
recombination with other words in the mind’s formation of complex ideas. The “hell” from
which the word priest “first was hurled” therefore is ultimately unknown, given the word’s
absence in the biblical accounts of Christ, just as the source of stars in stanza 1 is left unknown
as they enter “the depths of Heaven.” Overall, Shelley portrays a search for an ultimate origin for
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 18
either ideas or words as dubious, at least from the empiricist viewpoint appropriated in stanzas
15 and 16.
Shelley soon expands upon the reasons for the inability of the enlightened man to locate
an empirical foundation for moral ideas such as liberty. Growing more desperate in his search for
the foundation of complex ideas, the enlightened man exclaims,
O that the words which make the thoughts obscure
From which they spring…………………………..
…………………………………………………….
Were stripped of their thin masks and various hue
And frowns and smiles and splendours not their own (234-8).
In this exclamation, the poet portrays “thoughts” as analogous to the dual figures of sun and
moon in stanza 2: both spring. If the sun and moon signify liberty in this act, then the poet
portrays “words” as antagonistic to his search for an origin of thought (including the concept of
liberty). A comparative analysis of the above stanza with stanza 2 reveals the futility of a search
for the origins of complex ideas. The word “the” pervades stanza 2—e. g. “the Sun,” “the
serenest Moon” (16), “the burning stars” (17), and “The daedal earth” (18). This pervasion
further implies the passive status of the perceiver, as well as his basis of signification on the
simple ideas arising from his perception of objects. However, even these representations do not
provide a foundation for thought. What De Man claims concerning light in “The Triumph of
Life” can just as easily apply to the representation of these objects in stanza 2 of “Ode to
Liberty.” De Man claims that the appearance of light “is not a natural event resulting from the
mediated interaction of several powers, but a single, and therefore violent, act of power achieved
by the positional power of language considered by and in itself” (116). Therefore, the “positional
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 19
power” of the perceiver determines his word signification rather than any of the perceiver’s
deliberate thoughts as traceable to a prime origin within his own cognition, at least as far as
simple ideas of substance are concerned. The sun and moon are not phenomena in which the
thought of liberty inheres. Rather, liberty inheres within the perceiver’s non-hierarchical
representation of these phenomena. Given the passivity of both the perceiver and object in stanza
2, its language conveys the moral possibilities, or lack thereof, that inhere in the relation between
“existence and perception” (677).
Contrarily, repetition of the word “and” in stanza 16 suggests the highly analogous nature
of language, perhaps lending meaning to expressions that concern complex ideas. We see this in
the poet’s wish to strip words “of their thin masks and various hue / And frowns and smiles and
splendors not their own” (237-8, my emphasis). By repeated use of the word “and,” the poet
portrays the associative nature of language, which the enlightened man seeks to reduce to simple
ideas that correspond with original thoughts regarding perceptual objects. Specifically, the
enlightened man emphasizes a distrust of emotional connotation, represented as the “smiles” and
“frowns” of words. This distrust resonates with An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, in
which Locke states that “all the artificial and figurative application of words eloquence has
invented, are for nothing but to insinuate wrong ideas, move the passions, and thereby mislead
the judgment” (425). An appropriation of this kind of distrust of emotional connotation
introduces considerable problems for the poet at this point in the narrative, since his influence for
writing “Ode to Liberty” stems from an emotional reaction to the Spanish revolution.
The Unraveling of Liberty’s Signification
In reaction to this appropriated outlook, in stanza 18 the poet’s historical narrative comes
to an abrupt end, representing a complete undoing of the poet’s emotionally driven signification
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 20
of liberty in stanza 1. Near its end, the poet asks whether “Blind Love, and equal Justice” are
“disjoined” from the “name” of “liberty” (264-6). Given the poet’s perception of these listed
qualities as inherent within the events of the Spanish revolution, this question, lacking a definite
answer, undoes the signification of liberty on which the poem’s meaning rests. Like the
questions that pervade “The Triumph of Life,” the above question never receives a clear answer
(De Man 98). The poet never provides his audience with a final signification of liberty, or even
of Shelley’s personal conception of liberty. Instead, he renders an account of his own emotional
reaction to an event that he initially considers as constitutive of liberty, but which his
appropriated empiricist outlook calls into question.
In stanza 19, Shelley indirectly questions the nature of liberty’s portrayal as the sun. The
sun appears analogous to liberty in stanza 1, whereas in stanza 19, the poet’s communicative
strength fails even at “dawn” (274), and amidst an “aerial golden light” (275). Here the sun no
longer symbolizes liberty and the events that influenced the poet’s writing of “Ode to Liberty.”
De Man discusses the potential effects of the sun’s effacement when he claims, “It (the sun)
represents the very possibility of cognition….[T]o efface it would be to take away the sun which,
if it were to happen to this text (“The Triumph of Life”), for example, would leave little else”
(111). Accordingly, the initial symbolic meaning of the sun (as a natural foundation for liberty)
is effaced by the questions that disjoin liberty from the qualities of the Spanish revolution. Given
the probable function of these qualities as elicitors of Shelley’s prior emotional reaction to the
revolution, the sun now represents only the poet’s own isolated self and his own external
projections.
This isolation may stem from Shelley’s appropriation of Lockean language, which forces
him to identify the individual mind and its conceptual content as the only foundation for liberty’s
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 21
signification as a complex idea. The sun imagery that Shelley uses to symbolize the beginning of
the Enlightenment era illustrates both the limits and benefits of such a narrow foundation.
Shelley states that this beginning was “like Heaven’s sun girt by the exhalation of its own
glorious light, thou [liberty] didst arise” (158-9). The circular image portrayed by the verb “girt”
conveys a disruption of the natural solar cycle. It portrays an attempt to delay the sun’s
“exhalation” as it sets in the west, “as if day had cloven the skies / At dreaming midnight o’er the
western wave” (162-3). Thus, the naturalness of liberty (as conveyed by the sun metaphor) takes
on a status of full and natural presence only by a paradoxical bypass of the natural cycle of the
phenomenal world. The “bright minds” of the “wise” therefore serve as the means of maintaining
this full presence even in the absence of a cycling sun.
This use of the sun metaphor represents the solution offered by John Locke in in his
attempt to solve the problem of the indeterminacy of moral words. Locke’s conclusion follows:
“A definition is the only way whereby the precise meaning of moral words can be known; and a
way whereby their meaning may be known certainly, and without leaving any room for any
contest about it” (433). Furthermore, Locke asserts that the formation of these complex ideas
depends upon the mind alone as the “light of reason” (409). However, Shelley portrays the
dubious nature of this foundation through his representation of the public reaction to the dawning
of the Enlightenment Era: “Men started, staggering with a glad surprise, / Under the lightnings of
thine unfamiliar eyes” (164-5). The return of lightning as a metaphor recalls again the primary
role of emotional reactivity in the public reaction to liberty, or rather in reaction to the usage of
the word “liberty” to describe events such as the Enlightenment reformation and the Spanish
Revolution. However, this emotional reaction threatens a Lockean viewpoint, in which emotional
connotation is viewed as obstructive to language’s transparency.
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 22
Conclusion
Overall, Shelley’s appropriation of Lockean language leaves the poet with a complete
absence of any foundation for liberty, either in terms of an external God or in terms of a shared
human psyche to guide the political conduct of society. A wish for this latter foundation pervades
“A Defense of Poetry,” and Shelley’s appropriation of Lockean language signals the inability for
Locke’s system to unite society under a similar moral purpose. However, the level in which
Shelley’s thought deviates from the empiricist philosophy of Locke is questionable. Both
thinkers focus on and posit foundations for moral action that exist only within the human mind,
or in Shelley’s case, in the relations among human minds (although this difference is notable).
What differentiates Shelley is his self-portrayed involvement in the rhetorical role of reactivity
and emotional connotation in the occurrences of political events. Regardless of the poet’s
ultimate position, “Ode to Liberty” provides readers with an account of the relationship between
a public appropriation of philosophical tenets and the occurrence of political events.
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 23
Works Cited
Bruhn, Mark J. "Shelley's Theory of Mind: From Radical Empiricism to Cognitive
Romanticism." Poetics Today 30.3: 373-422. Web. 1 Aug. 2014. doi: 10.1215/03335372-
2009-001.
Bryant, John. "Introduction." The Fluid Text: A Theory of Revision and Editing for Book and
Screen / John Bryant. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2002. 1-16. Print.
Byron, George Gordon Byron. "Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, Canto III." Lord Byron: The Major
Works. Ed. Jerome J. McGann. Oxford; New York: Oxford UP, 2000. 104-39. Print.
De, Man Paul. "Shelley Disfigured." The Rhetoric of Romanticism. New York: Columbia UP,
1984. 93-123. Print.
Derrida, Jacques. "White Mythology." Margins of Philosophy. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1972. 209-71. Print.
Hitt, Christopher. "‘A Sword of Lightning’: Shelley's ‘Ode to Liberty’ and the Politics of
Despair." The Keats-Shelley Review 15.1 (2001): 64-85. Print.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/ksr.2001.15.1.64
Locke, John. An Essay concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Alexander Campbell Fraser. New
York: Barnes & Noble, 2004. Print.
Milnes, Tim. "Centre and Circumference: Shelley's Defense of Philosophy." European Romantic
Review 15.1 (2004): 3-22. Print. doi:10.1080/1050958042000180674
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. The Bodleian Shelley Manuscripts Vol. 5. Ed. Carlene A. Adamson. New
York, NY: Garland, 1992. Print.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. The Letters of Percy Bysshe Shelley. Ed. Frederick L. Jones. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1964. Print.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. "A Defense of Poetry." Percy Bysshe Shelley: The Major Works. Ed.
Zachary Leader and Michael O’Neill. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. 674-701. Print.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. "A Philosophical View of Reform.” Percy Bysshe Shelley: The Major
Works. Ed. Zachary Leader and Michael O’Neill. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. 646-74.
Print.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. "Ode to Liberty." Percy Bysshe Shelley: The Major Works. Ed. Zachary
Leader and Michael O’Neill. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. 466-74. Print.
Percy Shelley’s Signification of Liberty 24
Underwood, T. "The Science in Shelley's Theory of Poetry." Modern Language Quarterly 58.3
(1997): 299-321. Web. 1 Aug. 2014.
http://mlq.dukejournals.org/content/58/3/299.full.pdf.