Anyway! This isn't a blog about my blatant hatred for this new-fangled, typey-wipey corkboard, this is a blog about Percy Bysshe Shelley's "England in 1819."
So as starters I had no idea what was happening in 1819 that made this poet so pissed about the government. Sure, I guess I could tell that kings and queens were being inattentive to their subjects, and that said subjects were "in the dregs," but why? What happened that spurred such a lively response?
Well, after the poem had been completed there was a little thing called the "Peterloo Massacre."
See? It's totally a thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre
Still not convinced? Okay, so it is wikipedia, I guess I can understand, professor. http://www.peterloomassacre.org/history.html AHA! A sanctioned, official site! Now this event is totally a thing.
Looking into the poems structure (and after looking up the different types of rhyme schemes for sonnets) I found that this poem followed a ABABABCDCDCCDD rhyme. This particular rhyme scheme doesn't seem to follow any kind of traditional sonnet form, and in fact it works against other accepted forms as it breaks it's scheme at strange areas.
What's perhaps more interesting, the poem seems to present its subjects opposite of the traditional presentation. In most poems the poet ends their work with what is seen as the most majestic subject. A punch-at-the-end, if you will. However, this poem begins with a king, and progresses into the dying people, and then finally a phantom.
Such backwards writing seems to mirror the message of the poem itself: that everything is backwards, and that kings are truly lowlier than the poor, and the poor are lowlier than the dead.
Percy Shelley is known for his works on nature, to find a poem based on his own society really speaks to how important the state of his suffering nation is to him. Political poems tend to ask for change, and the positive note he leaves us on speaks directly against the negativity from earlier in his poem: "a glorious Phantom may/ Burst, to illumine our tempestous day." (13, 14)
I guess it's pretty cool that Shelley still had hope for England, and that he believed in its people so much that he could see a break in their misfortunes.
For some reason the post decided it wanted to be highlighted in white for the last half... If you highlight it yourself, though, you can still read it. Sorry about that!
ReplyDeleteNo worries--I figured out the highlighting. To let you in on a secret, I use Wikipedia, too. It's fairly reliable for overviews of historic events and people. At the least, it's a good starting point.
ReplyDeleteI like your analysis of the poem. In general, I don't say a whole lot about what's happening politically when I teach Romanticism because the poets aren't all that concerned with it, but this poem is an exception. Once we shift to the Victorians next week, we'll see more concern for social issues (and a lot less worship of the natural world).
Very interesting blog post! I was also unaware of all the political stuff going on at the time, and the poem seemed unintelligible for looking it up (Thanks for the link)! I liked your analysis, especially how you pointed out the "backwards" nature of the poem. It's interesting how a lot of this poetry we've read is focusing on melancholy, death, suffering... and yet the poets seem to keep hope in the end.
ReplyDelete