Shelley's Human Spirits of Language / by John Whatley
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SHELLEY'S HUMAN SPIRITS OF LANGUAGE John Whatley B.A. Chapman College California, 1969 M.A. Simon Fraser University, 1979 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of English John Whatley 1990 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY ' All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL NAME: John Whatley DEGREE: Doctcx of Pllilosophy (Eng'M) TITLE OF THESIS: Shelley's Human Spirits of Language - Paul Delany , Senfor SupeIviwr Professor of English . - ~{fry~as~ove Associate Professor of English Ian ~yiic Assistant Professor of History - -,.--- -&en ~uguid - Internal External Examiner Director, Extension Credit Programs Continuing Saxdies Tilottama ~ajd External Examiner Professor of English University of Wisconsin -Madison Date Approved: April 9, 1990 PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis, project or extended essay (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational Institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood Ohat copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Title of Thes i s/Project/Extended Essay She1 1 ey 's Human Spirits of Language ~~th~~:John What1 ey (signature) I ABSTRACT For romantic criticism since the Victorian age, the symbolism of Shelley's poetry has often been an object of reverence; Shelley's symbols enact, incorporate or invoke rather than simply signify and, for some, they can constitute a world. Modern theorists who have supported such ideas, (Wasserman, Bloom, Perkins) are, today, very much on the defensive, and one of their most fervent critics is Paul de Man. My dissertation argues that de Man's criticism of Shelley, based in Saussurian linguistics, Derridean notions of textuality, and Sartrean philosophy, seems able to deal with the symbolic forms and modes of Shelley's poetry only through a complete erasure. I argue, further, that this erasure, an ultimate form of reductionism, ignores Shelley's own ideas about symbolism and their philosophi- cal influences. My thesis approaches the semiotics of Shelley's symbolism through its chronology. The developmental perspective shows that de Man's criticism replaces a very complex series of influences with the singular name of Rousseau. Rousseau is an influential figure, but, as I hope to show, Godwin is more important when it comes to Shelley's understandings of the basic categories and dynamics of language. iii In Shelley, I argue, we are dealing with a poet who is very conscious of the theoretical side of language and who, , throughout this career, varies his use of signs along a number of dimensions. If we are to capture some of the richness of this experimentation, we cannot narrow our approach to de Man's dualism in which the two perspectives of symbol and sign work themselves out in ambiguities of dominance, a struggle in which sign eventually wins. In the thesis I argue that a semiotic criticism based in Godwin's theory of opinion is the more accurate, compelling and productive notion with which to explain Shelley's symbolism. TABLE OF CONTENTS APPROVAL PAGE .............................................ii ABSTRACT ..................................................iii I . SHELLEY CRITICISM AND THE POST-STRUCTURALIST CRITIQUE Linguistic Reference and the New Critics ..............3 David Perkins: Shelley as Symbolist ...................6 Earl Wasserman: Shelley and Constitutive Syntax ......11 De Man and Symbolism .................................20 De Man. Cratylism and Paronamasis ....................26 De Man and Shelley's "The Triumph of Life" ...........32 De Man and Social Reference ..........................37 De Man and the Chronology of Shelley's Poetry ........43 Notes ................................................47 EXPERIMENTS WITH THE SYMBOL IN SHELLEY'S GOTHIC NOVELS ZASTROZZI ............................................55 Zastrozzi as anti-Symbolist: The Sign as Lie .........56 True Symbol. True Gesture and Desire in Zastrozzi ....66 Atheism and Gesture: Matilda's Blandishments ........73 The Semiotics of Shelley's Zastrozzi................. 78 ST IRVYNE; OR. THE ROSICRUCIAN .......................81 Gesture and its Doubles: Ginotti and Wolfstein .......83 Ginotti as Symbol ....................................91 Ginotti and the Potential Unities of Mind ............99 The Semiotics of Ginotti as Symbol ..................103 Notes ...............................................107 I11 . THEORY OF OPINION IN "QUEEN MAB" AND "ALASTOR" Queen Mab and the General Principles of Allegory,,.ll7 Queen Mab and Godwin's Perfectability of Man.. .....124 Queen Mab: Religion As An Allegory of the Lie .....129 Queen Mab: The Paradoxical Symbol .................136 "Alastor": Discourse and Silence.................. 141 Alastor's Symbolism ................................153 Notes ..............................................160 IV. THEORY OF OPINION IN "MONT BLANC" Mont Blanc: Discourse versus Symbol ................167 Stanza I: Theory of Language ....................... 173 Stanza 11: First Application of the Theory .........174 Stanza 111: Counter Voice ..........................185 Stanza IV: Defeat and Pessimism ....................190 Stanza V: Reassertion of The Vocative ..............193 Variations of Godwints Opinion in Some Later Poems.196 Notes ..............................................204 V . DE MAN. ROUSSEAU AND GODWIN IN "THE TRIUMPH OF LIFE" The Structure of "The Triumph of Life" ..............207 The Plane of the Ideal ..............................210 The Car and Social Autism ...........................215 Rousseau as Topos ...................................225 Rousseau. Discourse and A Shape All Light ...........230 Notes ...............................................246 CONCLUSION ...............................................250 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................256 CHAPTER I I SHELLEY CRITICISM AND THE POST-STRUCTURALIST CRITIQUE In recent years, a number of critical works have applied deconstructionist and semiotic ideas to Shelley's poetry: William Keach's -Shelley's Style (1984), Tilottama Rajan's chapter on Shelley in her Dark Interpreter: -The Discourse- -of ---Romanticism (1980), Frances Ferguson's "Shel- ley's Mont Blanc: What the Mountain Said" (1984) and Angela Leighton's "Deconstruction Criticism and Shelley's Adonais" (1983). are examples.' These readings of Shelley have a common thread: they are all, in varying degrees and orienta- tions, responses to a new, critical view of Romanticism. The basis for this re-evaluation has been a fertile blending of structuralist linguistics with disciplines like philoso- phy, theories of history, psychoanalysis and rhetoric and is ~ the product of such seminal thinkers as Derrida, Lacan, Barthes, and Foucault. The first, definitive application of deconstructionist ideas to Shelley appeared in an article by Paul de Man called "Shelley Disfigured1' (1979). In it de Man concludes that in his last major poem, The Triumph --of Life (1822), Shelley has become so enmeshed in his own procedure of disruption as to disrupt his own progressive faiths and belief in the privileged nature of poetry. De Man discovers a deconstructionist consciousness in the poem which goes far beyond the degree and range of skepticism usually allowed Shelley and which achieves a progressive 'erasure' of faith, certainty and symbolism as the poem's chariot progresses through its various stages. This undoing culminates in the aporias of the "shape all light" which de Man sees as a figure for 'the figurality of all signification' and an ultimate instance of the illusoriness of romantic symbolism. The essay, a brilliant and provocative --tour de foyce, has set the tone of the current debate about Shelley's language. To show what I think is at stake in this critique, I will, first, relate de Man's view of Shelley to earlier critical work on Shelley's imagery. Seen from the perspective of this previous criticism, we can begin to find the limits, and the basic critical values, of de Man's theory. As my thesis will counter many of these values, we need first to see them clearly. I hope to show that De Man's provocative analysis is limited to a certain aspect of Shelley's poetry and is thus less compelling than might at first be supposed. The criticism of Shelley that appeared just before literary structuralism made its debut often includes a type of language analysis. Harold Bloom's Shelley's Mythmaking-- (1959), David Perkins' -The Quest -for ---Permanence (1959) and especially Earl Wasserman's The Subtler Language (1959) are well known works which devote a lot of attention to the problem of Shelley's orientation to words as such. They were given us by a critical generation that saw its task as the defense of Shelley's meaning in the face of the New Critics' negative judgements. These first attempts to ground Shelley criticism in a wider theory of signs argued that Shelley's poetry, like Blake's work, rearranged the basic referential category of words and that this, in turn,