Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ozymandias was written in 1817 during a friendly competition with Horace Smith (English financier, poet and novelist). A classic poem which has been studied and dissected countless times by piers and student of English literature and language since its publication. Leigh Hunts Examiner published it in 1818. He was inspired by the arrival of the statue of younger Memnon Ramses II in Britain. According to Virgil Time passes irrevocably. Shelley is alluring to the prospect that the past doesnt change the future or the present. The theme of the poem is the transience of power and the ephemeral nature of materialism, it highlights past memories of magnificence and todays laden ruins of the kings statue. Although ozys shortsighted pride seems amusing, we must realize that all of the lessons are applicable to today. This sonnet shows that all of mankinds works, including our social structures, will eventually become part of history. The central theme is a mans hubris (excessive pride), a Greek term used as the noun for the cause of the antagonists downfall in Greek plays. In the first 7 lines the narrator passes on an interesting story to a traveler describing the vast and trunk less legs of an otherwise collapsed statue. Near the feet and legs is a shattered visage (the statues shattered head). The lips tell of a martial figure cold and sneering. From there, a third figure enters the sonnet. First is the I of the sonnet, second is the traveler, and third is the sculptor who must have read those passions well. There is an interesting juxtaposition in Shelleys use of the word survive, to live and remain alive and lifeless things past and dead. What does Shelley mean? These lines makes sense if Shelley means that those passions survive in our own day they yet survive those same passions that are stamped on these lifeless things. That makes perfect sense to me, especially since Shelley had a strong political ideology for his time. Some of his most scathing poems are critical of the aristocracy.Shelley knows full well that the tyrannical and cruel passions of Ozymandias live on in others. His sonnet seems to serve as a warning to those who think theres any future or immortality in such politics. In line 8 there is a remarkable twist . Since its the shattered face that the traveler has been describing, the hand must be the artists, rather than Ozymandias. This is important because it expresses the ambiguity of the earlier lines. If the arrogance and
cruelty of Ozymandias survive on those lifeless things, it is because of the heart and hand of the artist. Art has given them life, not the arrogance or pride of Ozymandias. It is the art that has survived and it continues to communicate this to the traveler and to the I of the sonnet. Or another interpretation is that the artists hand mocked the tyrants pretenses, which his heart (his artistic passions) fed through his stonework. Ozy comes from the Greek oziumwhich means air and mandius comes from mandate which means to rule so Ozymandias is the ruler of air, or the ruler of nothing. In the Apologeticus, Tertilius says brilliant words which have a lot in common with the theme of this poem:Hominem te esse memento! Memento mori!" (Remember that you are a man! Remember that you'll die!").King of kings could represent nature itself because nature never disappears and it shows an immortality not shown by kings or kingdoms. The final is fairly straightforward but the genius is in the irony. Ozymandias mighty words, rather than attesting to Ozymandias immortal splendor, affirm the very opposite of his intentions. The arrogance of man is impermanent. The accouterments of Ozymandias power and wealth have crumbled into a desolate ruin. By way of comparison, Smiths sonnet from my point of view is better. His reference to the hunter holding the wolf in chase was a fatalistic view that one day a king or military leader would be roaming the world and waging war (chasing the wolf), and find the ruins of London. Shelley carefully focuses the readers attention, avoiding superfluous information (which includes personification), Smith doesnt. His mention of Babylon, already rich with associations, further dilutes the centrality of Ozymandias ruins. In comparing Ozymandias ruined city to Babylon, Smith is factual and names the city Babylon, not in Ozymandias where Shelley retains a certain anonymity. In Shelleys sonnet, Ozymandias ruins stand alone and incomparable. Im not a great fan of Shelley in general, this is not like Shelleys usual topics that deals with expression, beauty, love or imagination.I continue to find the second quatrain to sound stilted; its meaning, moreover, remains much too obscure for my taste however his sonnet is written to express to the speaker that possessions don't mean immortality . All the great rulers in history tried to perpetuate their memories by building mammoth statues. Their pride and arrogance knew no bounds as they erect these huge statues and vainly inscribed bombastic claims about the superiority of the kingdoms which they were ruling. According to Ludwig Borne Nothing is lasting but change; nothing perpetual but death. they did this without realizing that they are only ordinary mortals who had to return to dust along with all their endeavors.
I also think it is a strong critic for a time where Empires ruled over the five continents and a way for Shelley also to express his political ideologies of his times. My name .and despair no matter how much Shelley was always in opposition to despotic rule and often hailed and commended the French revolution. In the sonnet and through our own knowledge and experience there is a strong sense that history repeats itself. To conclude I feel that Smiths sonnet shows more realism whilst Shelley retains poetic justice.
Bibliography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2010/jan/28/percybysshe-shelley-poetry http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=9362 http://njbrepository.blogspot.ro/2013/06/ozymandias-by-percy-byssheshelley.html Cameron Kenneth Neil, Percy Bysshe Shelley: Selected Poetry and Prose, (pg. 497)