Monday, March 18, 2013

“Love’s Philosophy” - Katelyn Jarrell


In this brief lyrical poem from the English Romantic era, Shelley personifies natural phenomena to exhibit the passion and inevitability of love.  First he points out that it is the law of nature that “nothing in the world is single,” and follows it by drawing amorous relationships between many aspects of nature to argue his point, including the sea, the flowers, the sun, and the moon to argue his point.  To end it all, the speaker asks, “What is all this sweet work worth if thou kiss not me?” 
        With that closing line, the work seems to be unveiled as a highly romantic look into the breath before a kiss, a sweet monologue to convince a lover of their purpose together.  The title, however, serves as a reminder that this poem is not a gentle plea with a lover, but rather a philosophy.  Shelley was a noted arguer of his time, well-known for his writings promoting atheism and other small societal rebellions; so it is no surprise that this poem gracefully sets up an argument to serve his cause: to convince a woman that it is right to be with him. He achieves this by intertwining this poem as not only the result of the speaker’s desire for his lover, but also as a deep thinker’s conclusion as to why love can and should occur between two people.  This dreamy argument exhibits unity with another person as a force of nature that a man cannot pretend to deny. It both tugs at the heart and draws out the deep question of whether man can help but fall in love as long as he’s following the course of nature: “All things by a law divine in one spirit meet and mingle.  Why not I with thine?” Shelley seems to say that if nature can completely commune as one, it would follow that two people, as a part of nature, will comply to that standard and become one with one another.  In that light, it only makes sense to fall in love. 
         On another level, while this poem asserts the inevitability of romantic love, it also serves as a prod in the right direction, as if conformity to this rule does not come so naturally to man, or at least to the lady the poem is directed toward.  He guides her to follow the example of the “waves,” which “clasp one another,” and the “moonbeams,” which “kiss the sea.”  By closing the poem with that question, “What is all this sweet work worth?” Shelley implies that the whole earth is setting the example, and if the lover resists her call, she has wasted nature’s purpose. 

10 comments:

  1. Interesting that Shelley would write a poem about things naturally going together when he is such an advocate of rebellion and nothingness. Granted the argument that love is as natural as nature itself is interesting; I wouldn't call this a love poem though in my opinion, more of an analysis of what love is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shelley does a fantastic job in using imagery of nature to enhance his point that unity is a natural occurrence. Along with acting as an ode to a romantic interest, Shelley uses this poem as an explanation for the simplicity of love. He is stating a case that love is simple; nature does it without thinking, so people should have no complications with it either. Nothing in nature is alone, therefore, it is only natural to be unified with someone. I agree with the idea that his questions allude to the waste of nature's purpose. If she does not take part in this simple act that is a natural state, she has failed to comply with nature's purpose.

    Great post! :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it's beautiful that Shelley uses his most effective form of persuasion to show the love of his life that being with him is the right thing to do. His viewpoints of unity and love are so different from his views of other aspects of the world. It just goes to show that love can change you in a way that you never thought possible. This is simply a beautiful declaration of love and the natural form of unity. The fact that this work comes from Shelley makes it even more meaningful. This is absolutely outstanding.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting poem about love. As love's philosophy, Shelley uses emotions, rather than logic, to build his argument. The lover sees the world colored by his emotions, seeing only good and ignoring everything that goes against his idealized thoughts about love. I thought it was beautifully written, but definitely out of the ordinary for Shelley.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I must say that I like this poem a lot. I always enjoy poetry that teaches one to live in the moment. This reminds me of "To My Coy Mistress" but this is far more tame. I also like the imagery show in the work. It creates a beautiful picture in the mind and is very sweet to me. I find the idea of "romantic love being inevitable," as you put it, to be very sweet as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love the diction that you use; words like ‘gracefully,’ ‘amorous,’ and ‘inevitability.’ These words by themselves are appealing anyway but you place them in lovely places in your writing that enables the reader to essentially understand the message you are conveying. Great job! I enjoyed reading your analysis. There is an inconsistency with the structure of your essay; the last paragraph is significantly shorter than the preceding paragraph and it consists of additional, hasty analysis as well as the conclusion. I like how you pointed out to the reader that though to speaker is speaking to his love and asks for a kiss, that he is making an argument more than a profession and then you supported the reason for this by providing an explaining as to the tendencies of the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As a true romantic at heart, I can't help but agree with your interpretation of this poem. I believe that Shelley personally lived by this philosophy because he left his first wife for Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein. His passion for her can be construed as natural through this poem, if we believe his philosophy. While I do not condone his behavior, I do like the premise of this poem and hope that everyone believes that love is natural, as Shelley portrays in this poem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Huh. I think this poem is strange because the content basically simplifying love (maybe over-simplifying it, even) as a simple, easy part of nature; yet, his choice of punctuation throws me. He goes really heavy on the rhetorical questions. I feel like the personality of a question mark is very open-ended and thoughtful. It's almost as if his writing style and his message don't match.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This work sounds beautiful. I always find it mindboggling to think about all the things that must occur for two strangers to meet. It's all so curious to play with. I actually want to go to graduate school and study philosophy further, so I am particularly taken with those philosophers that take use of their poetic license. (And vice versa with poets that take use of their philosophic license.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I definitely feel that the author of this poem was basing the plot around pathos, or the emotional appeal. The emotion of love is one that is present in most works of literature. I think Katelyn was absolutely right in saying that Shelley focused on the natural side of love. Most of what is love once started out as fate and coincidence.
    - Emily Alves

    ReplyDelete