Talk:Percy Bysshe Shelley

Ireland and Shelley's views on political violence

Aemilius Adolphin undid revision 1028403717 by ManfredHugh "Excessive detail on very tangental aspects of Shelley's politics and work. Article is about Shelley, not Irish politics."

Yes too much detail and of course this is not about "Irish politics". But it is (in this section) about Shelley's views on political violence, and to that can we dismiss his references to Ireland and to rebels against his own king, like Emmet, as "tangential"? -- or at least, as more tangential than his noted support for the Spanish rebellion of 1820 and for Greek war of independence?

Politics in general may be tangential to how most people appreciate Shelley, but it would be hard to argue that Shelley regarded politics, including the politics of Ireland, as tangential. It seems unfortunate, and potentially misleading, to reference his Address to the Irish People as if it were merely a plea for quiescence.

However I have reduced the references to his regard for Finnerty and Emmet to the barest minimum. ManfredHugh (talk)

I have again deleted the references to Peter Finnerty and Robert Emmet because they don't add anything significant to the information about Shelley's views on nonviolence. The article already states: "In Ireland, Shelley wrote, published and distributed three political tracts: An Address, to the Irish People; Proposals for an Association of Philanthropists; and Declaration of Rights. He also delivered a speech at a meeting of O’Connell’s Catholic Committee in which he called for Catholic emancipation, repeal of the Act of Union and an end to the oppression of the Irish poor. Reports of Shelley’s subversive activities were sent to the Home Secretary." So I think Shelley's early political adventures in ireland as a callow youth are well covered. This particular section is about Shelley's views on non-violence and I don't think your references to particular Irish political figures add much to our understanding of his views on non violence. You seem to be more interested in Finnerty and Emmet than in Shelley, but they seem pretty marginal to Shelley's life and work. There's plenty more that could be said about Shelley's interest in Irish politics. For example, after returning from Ireland he wrote to Godwin that the Irish were: "of scarcely greater elevation in the scale of intellectual being than the oyster," and that he had "wilfully vulgarized the language of this pamphlet, in order to reduce the remarks it contains to the taste and comprehension of the Irish peasantry." But I think the article as it stands gives about the right amount of space to Shelley and Ireland.--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, but I believe we are missing the point. Again the issue is Shelley's stance with regard to political violence, NOT the importance to him personally of Emmet or Finnerty, still less his assessment of the "taste and comprehension" of peasants (Irish or otherwise)

The section on non-violence acknowledges Shelley's ambivalence on the question of political violence. His references to Finnerty and to Emmet illustrate that point precisely.

Given the suggestion that his rejection of violence was not absolute, and if Shelley's Address to the Irish People is to be mentioned at all, it seems perverse to refer to only for his plea for acceptance what cannot be changed "without violence" and not acknowledge that in the same Address he sees fit to ascribe to a known rebel sympathiser "the fair name of truth and honour".

Even if we entirely discount his defence of Finnerty, how can we justify, in this context, the seeming contradiction posed by his eulogies (not condemnations) of Emmet, who in 1803 mounted an insurrection against Shelley's own king and parliament? Why is that to be considered irrelevant, a small matter, not to be set alongside his support for insurrectionists in Spain and Greece?

Or is our position to be that the Irish, with "scarcely greater elevation in the scale of intellectual being than the oyster", are by definition "tangential" to any discussion of the greater writer?

I don't believe we have a case for reverting these three lines, perfectly illustrative of Shelley's ambivalence on the justification for violence. RegardsManfredHugh (talk)

I have edited your edits so they are more relevant and more accurately reflect Shelley's position on political violence in Ireland. If readers wish to find out more about Finnerty and Emmet they can follow the links to the wikipedia articles on these two which are very good, thanks to your efforts in expanding them.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. Because biographers agree that it was itself an extraordinary episode, illustrative of the idealistic exuberance and conceit of the young Shelley, I only add that in 1812 Shelley personally distributed his Address on the streets of Dublin.ManfredHugh (talk)

Shelley's campaign in Dublin

Aemilius Adolphin could you please explain the criteria by why you deem "excessive" the merest allusion (a one line reference) to the fact that Shelley, with his new-wed wife, journeyed to Dublin, had at his own expense 1,500 copies printed of a 22-page pamphlet (however naïve and immature, a first major statement of political views) and then, not only went around Dublin handing them out, but was persuaded on the strength of the reaction (or lack of it) to compose a 32-point Declaration of Rights of be pasted about the city?

All this might well be considered "excessive" (extraordinary behaviour by any measure), but how "excessive" to a biographic article that, among other arresting details, reports that as a child he blew up a paling fence with gunpowder?

Keeping things in perspective, we are talking here of just half a sentence. RegardsManfredHugh (talk)

Because it unnecessarily repeats information already in the article and which is irrelevant to Shelley's views on non-violence. viz: "In Ireland, Shelley wrote, published and personally distributed three political tracts: An Address, to the Irish People; Proposals for an Association of Philanthropists; and Declaration of Rights. He also delivered a speech at a meeting of O’Connell’s Catholic Committee in which he called for Catholic emancipation, repeal of the Act of Union and an end to the oppression of the Irish poor. Reports of Shelley’s subversive activities were sent to the Home Secretary." Please read the entire article before you add information.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

We see that yesterday you added the qualifier "personally" to the earlier line about Shelley distributing tracts in Dublin. As this appeared in the edit history as →‎Marriage to Harriet Westbrook: added word "personally" we had not picked up on it. So yes, we agree no need to repeat this revealing fact again. Thanks and all the best, ManfredHugh (talk)

Mentioning "every person Shelley ever met"

Aemilius Adolphin undid revision 1030652169 arguing: "once again you are cluttering the article with unnecessary detail. No one is interested in who recommended Shelley see a doctor or who Shelley was with when he read some books which possibly inspired one theme in one of his poems. This is not a full length biography of Shelley nor an excuse to mention every person Shelley ever met."

An excuse is being sought "to mention every person Shelley ever met"--come on!. But let's just accept that Shelly's meeting the harpist and singer Sophia Stacey is a "necessary" detail and that mention of the Shelleys's friendship with the writer Margaret King (Lady Mountchashell) (about whom Shelly wrote in praise) is superfluous.

Even if treated with caution, what should not be as likely dismissed is Timothy Morton's observation in the Oxford Companion to the Romantic Age and Shelley and the Revolution in Taste that King and William Tighe "inspired Shelley with a new found sense of radicalism". Regardless of what influence is to be found in what Shelley was still to write in the year remaining to him (Morton does see an element Tighe both in the Philosophical View of Reform and Ode to Liberty) it is worth at least ONE SENTENCE to note that, at a difficult time when he had much else to distract him, at Tighe's prompting Shelley threw himself into a study of the agricultural chemistry of Davy and of the political economy of Malthus (including Godwin's answer to Malthus).

If nothing else it is a mark of Shelley's undimmed intellectual curiosity and breath--worth at least a sentence. ManfredHugh (talk)

I tend to agree. Both Margaret King and George William Tighe are notable in their own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

You've convinced me. I've expanded the information on Mrs Mason and Tighe, although the most direct poetical influence is on "The Sensitive Plant" which Shelley states was inspired by Mrs Mason. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and that reads better than my attempted revision.ManfredHugh (talk)

Field Place

Here is a source about Field Place. As the map shows, it's not really near Warnham, it's near Clemsfold. But that's a redlink, so "near Rudgwick" might be better? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem with putting just "Field Place, Warnham" is that it's more than 4 miles from Warnham and is much nearer Rudgwick. The existing source Holmes (2005) here (from page 1 onwards), does not seem to be very specific. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

How about just Field Place, West Sussex? The problem I have with Rudgwick is that it's a rather obscure village which has no relevance to the life of Shelley. Is the intention to help contemporary readers find his place of birth or to record the current official address (which is Field Place, City of Warnham, West Sussex)? Or to record the address at the time Shelley was born (which I understand was Field Place, Parish of Warnham?) A guest editor who lives locally said a few months back that it is definitely in the current boundaries of Warnham (which perhaps are larger than the village?). "Field Place, near Warnham" is how his birthplace is described in Holmes'biography. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The problem with " Field Place, West Sussex" is that it makes it sound like it's a town or a village. It is (or was) just a single property/estate. I can assure you it's not a city, lol. I have obviously missed that recent dialogue. The parish of Warnham is very likely to be bigger than the village. I guess I should consult an OS map. "Field Place, near Warnham" looks fine to me. A redlink for Field Place itself may not really be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, happy with that. The source you posted gives the address as "City of Warnham" (in the Location box, just below the map). So maybe "city" has a special meaning locally? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Warnham is a village and civil parish in the Horsham district of West Sussex, England." I think "city" is probably a mistake in the design of that webpage. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Page 2 of this document shows the parish boundary for Warnham. This historicengland.org source says that Field Place is on Byfleets Lane. So I have to conclude that the map at parksandgardens.org is incorrect! So yes, it's in Warnham parish. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC) p.s. I have now added a piped link to Field Place.

Huh?

The introduction states that Shelley's "The Necessity of Atheism" [was] written alongside his friend T. J. Hogg. What does that mean? Surely not that Hogg was sitting at Shelley's side as Shelley wrote it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I should have looked at The Necessity of Atheism before writing the above, because it says that Hogg may have been co-author of the piece. I'll edit Percy Bysshe Shelley accordingly. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)