data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f6ff0/f6ff0ece1765b5d800b9b70aebd91dc29bfa9fdb" alt=""
To a Skylark
by Percy Bysshe Shelley
Hail to thee, blithe spirit! Bird thou never wert — That from heaven or near it Pourest thy full heart In profuse strains of unpremeditated art. Higher still and higher From the earth thou springest, Like a cloud of fire; The blue deep thou wingest, And singing still dost soar, and soaring ever singest. In the golden light’ning Of the sunken sun, O’er which clouds are bright’ning, Thou dost float and run, Like an unbodied joy whose race is just begun. The pale purple even Melts around thy flight; Like a star of heaven, In the broad daylight Thou art unseen, but yet I hear thy shrill delight— Keen as are the arrows Of that silver sphere Whose intense lamp narrows In the white dawn clear, Until we hardly see, we feel that it is there. All the earth and air With thy voice is loud, As, when night is bare, From one lonely cloud The moon rains out her beams, and heaven is overflow’d. What thou art we know not; What is most like thee? From rainbow clouds there flow not Drops so bright to see, As from thy presence showers a rain of melody: — Like a poet hidden In the light of thought, Singing hymns unbidden, Till the world is wrought To sympathy with hopes and fears it heeded not: Like a high-born maiden In a palace tower, Soothing her love-laden Soul in secret hour With music sweet as love, which overflows her bower: Like a glow-worm golden In a dell of dew, Scattering unbeholden Its aërial hue Among the flowers and grass which screen it from the view: Like a rose embower’d In its own green leaves, By warm winds deflower’d, Till the scent it gives Makes faint with too much sweet these heavy-wingèd thieves Sound of vernal showers On the twinkling grass, Rain-awaken’d flowers— All that ever was Joyous and clear and fresh—thy music doth surpass. Teach us, sprite or bird, What sweet thoughts are thine: I have never heard Praise of love or wine That panted forth a flood of rapture so divine. Chorus hymeneal, Or triumphal chant, Match’d with thine would be all But an empty vaunt — A thing wherein we feel there is some hidden want. What objects are the fountains Of thy happy strain? What fields, or waves, or mountains? What shapes of sky or plain? What love of thine own kind? what ignorance of pain? With thy clear keen joyance Languor cannot be: Shadow of annoyance Never came near thee: Thou lovest, but ne’er knew love’s sad satiety. Waking or asleep, Thou of death must deem Things more true and deep Than we mortals dream, Or how could thy notes flow in such a crystal stream? We look before and after, And pine for what is not: Our sincerest laughter With some pain is fraught; Our sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest thought. Yet, if we could scorn Hate and pride and fear, If we were things born Not to shed a tear, I know not how thy joy we ever should come near. Better than all measures Of delightful sound, Better than all treasures That in books are found, Thy skill to poet were, thou scorner of the ground! Teach me half the gladness That thy brain must know; Such harmonious madness From my lips would flow, The world should listen then, as I am listening now. ═══════════════════════
Today’s Poem, by Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822), appeared in 1820, the same year as the poet’s major work, Prometheus Unbound: A Lyrical Drama in Four Acts. The 28-year-old Shelley, having run away to the Continent with the 16-year-old Mary Godwin six years earlier (abandoning Harriet Westbrook, also 16 when Shelley eloped with her to Scotland in 1811), was settled in Italy, though not as happily as, perhaps, a neo-Promethean figure loosed from repressive social bonds might have anticipated.
His establishment with Mary, their children, and their various lovers, had long operated on a principle of evasion — of creditors, chiefly, but also of disapproving relatives and friends. On Harriet’s suicide in 1816 he had attempted to gain custody of their two children, but had failed on grounds of his atheism and adultery, and the children had been remanded into foster care. Three of his four children with Mary were dead: a premature daughter born and buried in 1815, the year-old Clara Evelina in 1818, and a son, William, aged 3, in 1819.
The Prometheus — meant as a “closet drama,” to be performed not on a stage but in the reader’s imagination — is Shelley’s answer to and completion of Aeschylus, the Greek tragedian whose Prometheus Bound is the lone survivor of a trilogy of plays on the mythic figure. According to myth, Prometheus gives fire to mankind and is sentenced by the gods to be lashed to a crag, where birds eat his liver daily. But Shelley’s Prometheus is also a perfected type of Milton’s Satan, from Paradise Lost, whom Shelley considered to be heroic in his rebellion but marred by malice, envy, and the desire for vengeance.
“Prometheus,” Shelley wrote in his preface to the work,
is, in my judgment, a more poetical character than Satan, because, in addition to courage, and majesty, and firm and patient opposition to omnipotent force, he is susceptible of being described as exempt from the taints of ambition, envy, revenge, and a desire for personal aggrandizement, which, in the hero of Paradise Lost, interfere with the interest. The character of Satan engenders in the mind a pernicious casuistry which leads us to weigh his faults with his wrongs, and to excuse the former because the latter exceed all measure. In the minds of those who consider that magnificent fiction with a religious feeling it engenders something worse. But Prometheus is, as it were, the type of the highest perfection of moral and intellectual nature impelled by the purest and the truest motives to the best and noblest ends.
That Shelley viewed himself as a Prometheus — Milton’s Satan, but without the corruption — he makes clear in the same preface. “Let this opportunity be conceded to me of acknowledging that I have what a Scotch philosopher characteristically terms a ‘passion for reforming the world.’ . . . I had rather be damned with Plato and Lord Bacon than go to Heaven with Paley and Malthus.” One means of reform, and perhaps the only one not imperiled by the prospect of unintended consequences, is to bring the fire of poetry to a mankind struggling in a dark, tyrannical world.
We may judge Shelley’s declared principle of radical human freedom by its real-life outcomes, particularly the grief of the women who attached themselves to him. Of all the Romantics, it’s Shelley who may most exasperate us and most elude, on a personal level, the reach of our natural sympathy.
And yet. And yet. “To a Skylark” strikes like a new fire in the dark of February. “Hail to thee, blithe spirit” is as exhilarating an opening as “Sing, Muse” — not a declaration so much as an invocation, pointing to a wellspring of inspiration outside, though overlapping, the speaker’s own personality. The I that in other Shelley poems of the same period, notably “Ode to the West Wind,” calls attention to itself as it falls upon the thorns of life and bleeds, here assumes a stance of listening humility, as the bird pours out its rapturous call.
It’s difficult not to think of Thomas Hardy’s “The Darkling Thrush,” written eighty years later, in light of this poem of Shelley’s. In the later poem, the speaker’s mood has lost the Romantic burnish of belief that human beings may access, in observed joy, the source of that joy. Hardy’s thrush itself is “aged,” “frail, gaunt and small,” a last gasp of transcendence in the growing night. Its song is an act of hope, but that hope is lost on him.
By contrast, the thrush’s progenitor, Shelley’s lark, is wholly a bird of the springtime, and more: “sprite or bird.” Its song, like moonlight, expands to suffuse the entire cosmos. The poem’s form, trimeter abab stanzas that resolve on a fifth hexameter b-rhyme line, echoes the contracting and swelling of that song of desire, and of the listener’s soul that admits the song into itself, an elixir of desire and creative fecundity that seems to breathe the world into fresh being.
This speaker is the Prometheus Shelley aspired to be and, in life, failed to be. In this poem we find, to borrow Kurt Vonnegut’s words, “the goodness [the man] could find when ransacking himself.” He has loosed his bonds and reconciled himself to the order of a creation that provided him with fire in the first place. The birds no longer devour, but inspire, instruct, and impart life. “The world should listen then, as I am listening now.”
I was brought up in a generation still enough influenced by New Criticism to say artists are incidental to judgments about art, and so my tendency is toward agreeing we should not judge artworks by the possibility that, say, Villon was a murderous thief or Swinburne a neurotic who liked to hire women to beat him.
Then, too, I have lived through (am living still within, to some degree) an era that claimed elements of race and gender determine the goodness of art — and my distaste for that line of criticism adds to my strong championing of Art for Art's Sake.
But…ah, but. When I think about Shelley and his whole sick crew, I grow a little itchy. "Books are responsible for their authors; in a kind of child labor, they carry their fathers on their backs," as I once wrote — trying to thread the needle and say, in the real life of reading, we can't park what we know about the author entirely outside our readings of their work. And Shelley in particular has always annoyed me, intruding on my reading of his work.
All of which is a long-way-round-the-barn way of saying that, in the division of labor here at Poems Ancient and Modern, Sally has shouldered the burden of Shelley — sparing me, as friends do, from having to face up to my inconsistent feeling about the man and his art.
I got interested in what I might describe as Shelley's "casual" way with rhyming:
wert/heart/art
even/heaven
sphere/clear/there
loud/cloud/overflow'd
leaves/gives/thieves
etc.
I wondered if this was commonly accepted among poets of his time, or something Shelley is especially noted for. The poem reminds me that some poets of past ages were not necessarily strict "formalists."