No description available.

More than any other English Romantic poet, with the possible exception of Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley has been attacked by critics who argue that in both his personal life and in his poetry and prose writings, he was immoral. Regardless of what may be said against Shelley's personal life, as a writer he is profoundly moralistic in almost all of his literary works. This thesis shows, using several of his longer poetic works, selected religious and philosophical essays, and various letters, that Shelley deliberately used the theme of vengeance against tyrannical oppression as an agent for presenting his moral principles. The first chapter introduces Shelley's didactic moral code concerning revenge against tyrannical despotism as revealed in certain philosophical and religious essays, Prometheus Unbound, The Cenci, and The Mask of Anarchy. Chapter II examines the following three philosophical and religious essays by Shelley which illustrate his moral concept of vengeance as this concept relates to tyrannical oppression: "Essay on Christianity," An Address to the Irish People, and A Philosophical View of Reform. The third chapter discusses the moral precepts involved in Prometheus Unbound as they relate to revenge and despotic domination. Chapter IV explains how Shelley, even though sympathizing with Beatrice Cenci, criticized her for not persevering in love, forgiveness, and forbearance as she avenged the incestuous assault committed against her by her tyrannical father. Chapter V explores the moral principles found in The Mask of Anarchy as they relate to revenge and tyrannical oppression. The conclusion reemphasizes Shelley's use of vengeance against tyrannical oppression as a means of presenting his moral principles. / Master of Arts

Magister Artium - MA / This thesis will examine the representation of the figure of Percy Shelley in the text of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818). My hypothesis is that Percy Shelley represents to Mary Shelley a figure who embodies the contrasting and more startling aspects of both the Romantic Movement and the Enlightenment era. This I will demonstrate through a close examination of the text of Frankenstein and through an exploration of the figure of Percy Shelley as he is represented in the novel. The representation of Shelley is most marked in the figures of Victor and the Creature, but is not exclusively confined to them. The thesis will attempt to show that Victor and the Creature can be read as figures for the Enlightenment and the Romantic movements respectively. As several critics have noted, these fictional protagonists also represent the divergent elements of Percy Shelley’s own divided personality, as he was both a dedicated man of science and a radical Romantic poet. He is a figure who exemplifies the contrasting notions of the archetypal Enlightenment man, while simultaneously embodying the Romantic resistance to some aspects of that zeitgeist. Lately, there has been a resurgence of interest in the novel by contemporary authors, biographers and playwrights, who have responded to it in a range of literary forms. I will pay particular attention to Peter Ackroyd’s, The Casebook of Victor Frankenstein (2011), which shows that the questions Frankenstein poses to the reader are still with us today. I suggest that this is one of the main impulses behind this recent resurgence of interest in Mary Shelley’s novel. In particular, my thesis will explore the idea that the question of knowledge itself, and the scientific and moral limits which may apply to it, has a renewed urgency in early 21st century literature. In Frankenstein this is a central theme and is related to the figure of the “modern Prometheus”, which was the subtitle of Frankenstein, and which points to the ambitious figure who wishes to advance his own knowledge at all costs. I will consider this point by exploring the ways in which the tensions embodied by Percy Shelley and raised by the original novel are addressed in these contemporary texts. The renewed interest in these questions suggests that they remain pressing in our time, and continue to haunt us in our current society, not unlike the Creature in the novel.

L’époque romantique marque un tournant décisif dans les relations entre création littéraire et connaissance scientifique. Le discours scientifique se dote progressivement d’un langage et d’une méthode spécifiques, rompant avec la philosophie naturelle, qui conjuguait jusqu’alors considérations physiques et métaphysiques, observation et célébration de la nature. À l’heure où William Wordsworth lance l’aphorisme « we murder to dissect », déclaration d’indépendance de la parole poétique vis-à-vis du discours scientifique, Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822) étudie avec assiduité les sciences à Eton puis à Oxford, avant d’entreprendre une formation médicale au Saint Bartholomew’s Hospital de Londres. Cette thèse met en évidence la transfiguration poétique des concepts et théories scientifiques dont Shelley avait pris connaissance à travers ses lectures et sa formation, ainsi que le saut imaginatif qui subvertit ces représentations en les intégrant aux réseaux des métaphores que le texte tisse selon ses propres lois. En une métamorphose féconde, Shelley déploie les soubassements mythiques et imaginaires, ainsi que les prolongements éthiques et métaphysiques des écrits scientifiques sur lesquels il se pencha. Cette étude se situe à la rencontre de deux ambitions heuristiques, de deux exigences formelles. Science et poésie sont à la recherche des harmonies cachées qui sous-tendent le monde des apparences. Soumettre l’absolu à la mesure, soumettre la beauté à la métrique poétique, soumettre la complexité infinie du monde naturel au calcul mathématique : telles sont les entreprises parallèles de la poésie de Shelley et de la science de son temps. / The Romantic era was a time of tremendous change in the relationship between literary creation and scientific knowledge. Scientists framed a specific language and distinctive methods as they moved away from natural philosophy, which had thus far combined physics with metaphysics and united the observation of nature with its celebration. While William Wordsworth stated that « we murder to dissect », thus declaring the secession of poetic writing from scientific discourse, Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822) was steadily studying science at Eton and then at Oxford, before embarking on a medical training at Saint Bartholomew’s Hospital in London. This thesis explores the poetic transfiguration of the scientific theories and concepts that Shelley came across in his readings and during his studies. It focuses on the way science is subverted by the poet’s imagination, as scientific representations undergo a fruitful metamorphosis, and become pa! rt of the webs of metaphors woven by the text according to its own laws. Shelley recreates the mythical and imaginary foundations as well as the ethical and metaphysical implications which lie dormant in the scientific writings he looks into. This study examines the encounter of two heuristic endeavours, of two highly formalised ways of writing. Science and poetry are in search of the hidden harmonies which underlie appearances. Measuring the measureless, encompassing absolute beauty within poetic metrics, subsuming the infinite richness of the natural world within the rules of mathematical calculation, such are the parallel endeavours of Shelley’s poetry and the science of his age.

Denna uppsats ämnar med hjälp av av teorier från ekokritik och posthumanism besvara frågorna hur Mary Shelley i sin roman skildrar relationen mellan natur och människa, samt hur man med utgångspunkt i Frankensteins monster (i uppsatsen refererad till som Skapelsen) kan diskutera begreppet människa. Med ekokritik menas här att studera det mänskliga jämfört med det ickemänskliga samt att också diskutera detta mänskliga, vilket är en av huvudpoängerna inom posthumanism. Den vetenskapssyn och natursyn som var gällande på Mary Shelleys tid var antropocentrisk, en världsåskådning som alltid utgår ifrån människan, och som oftast ger människan högre status än allt annat. I romanen skildras detta genom Kapten Waltons syn på sitt upptäcktsresande, och Victor Frankensteins önskan att besegra döden, eller naturen, genom att skapa en ny varelse, för vilket han får plikta med sitt liv, då han inte klarar det hårda klimatet vid Nordpolen. Det blir alltså naturen som dödar honom. I detta kan ses Mary Shelleys kritik mot ett oansvarigt utforskande av naturen och dess processer. Vid försök att diskutera konceptet människa kan upptäckas att en definition lätt motarbetas genom att inte alla människor passar in på denna definition, och att det också kan finnas andra varelser som helt eller delvis gör det. Saken kompliceras dessutom av att en maskin, en robot, eller en artificiell intelligens, numera kan fungera mycket likt en hjärna, och att den mänskliga hjärnan beskrivs som en serie elektrokemiska impulser. Vi leds att acceptera Derridas tanke att människa inte är något som går att definiera. Även denna diskussion kan ses som antropocentrisk, vilket är en av svårigheterna; att bortse från sin egen kulturs världsåskådning. / The main focus of this essay is to attempt to answer the questions of how Mary Shelley, in her novel Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus, portrays the relationship between man and nature, and how Frankensteins creature can serve as a starting point in a discussion of the term human. The theories of ecocriticism - here described as the study of the relationship between human and nonhuman - and poshumanism, which contains the premisses for discussing this human, reveal many interesting things about the novel. The scientific approach to the world, and by extension, nature, can in Shelleys novel be considered anthropocentric, which is portrayed as a damaging world-view. Attempts to discuss the concept of human reveals that any definition can be met with resistence and objections. Not all humans meet the criteria of a certain definition, and there may be other creatures that do. The conclusion here may be that the human simply cannot be defined properly.

Issued also as Thesis (Ph. D.), Columbia University. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 94-97).

In both Prometheus Unbound and Hellas Shelley used the drama of Aeschylus as the model for composition. Accordingly, the plays' subtitle "Lyrical Drama" refers to the two major components of Aeschylean drama: the lyrics recited by the chorus and the drama of character dialogue. In taking up this specific literary genre, the poet also inherited a complex model of the socio-political system of ancient Greece, with which the dramatists had been able to explore contemporary issues. Through various means, Shelley adapted Aeschylean drama to his own language and style, using the genre's inherent capacity for social critique to examine the concerns of his time.

Thesis (D. Phil.)--University of Oxford, 2008. / Supervisors: Dr Fiona Stafford, Dr Jo McDonagh. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 324-352).

An unaltered and unabridged republication of the author's thesis, Yale University. / Includes bibliographical references.

An unaltered and unabridged republication of the author's thesis, Yale University. / Includes bibliographical references.