Most of my students are writing about how both Ozy and Shelley thought
they would live forever, and both of them were destroyed by nature. I
feel like they should also include the contrast that Shelley's works
remain, whereas Ozy's don't. What do you think? How many points
should I take off if they don't include that? 8 or 2?
Rena
Not sure if this will help Rena decide how many points to take off... but
here goes.
Ozymandias is the Greek name for Ramses II of Egypt, aka "the Great
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II>", 13c BC. Certainly his name and
character have survived, "stamped on these lifeless things". Let's see how
well Shelley (or any of us sleepyheads) is remembered 3300 years after our
death before we decide whose works remain. If this is not living "forever",
it is quite a long time.
Shelley's life can be seen not only as unconventional, but also as having a
self-destructive streak. For example, he was warned against setting out on
his last voyage in face of the expected storm. He didn't seem to expect to
live forever in the literal sense.
But the bridging exercise can be more fruitfully done by connecting it to
the poem, noting how the unconventionality of the two not only led them to
boast of their ever-lasting relevance, but to do so in writing. Had they
not written, we should not have been interested in them or even known about
them, no matter how unconventional they were. Our interest in Shelley's
life, after all, exists only because of his writing.
In the poem, both Ozymandias and Shelley survive through writing and art:
the ironic inscription keeps Ozymandias's memory alive, a mock monument in
the "lone and level sands", and Shelley's poem, by quoting it, is part of
what keeps it alive. At the same time the poem depends on the writing on
the pedestal and the contrast with the dismal surroundings for its
inspiration.
It may seem that none of Ozymandias's works have survived, and that his
name survives only because Shelley uses it (or alternately that Shelley had
to cannibalize a dead Pharaoh's name and malign his character only in order
to sell a poem); but making this contrast misses the point: the interaction
between the king's inscription and the poet's use of it is a model of how
art works (certainly Romantic poetry) -- by consciously using and reusing
former materials.
The poem stresses this, by tracing the whole series of reworkings that the
"information" about the king undergoes, from Ozymandias to the sculptor,
from him to the statue, to the inscription on the pedestal, to the "antique
land", then to the traveller, before it is "met" by Shelley ("mette" in
Middle English means "dreamt" -- another possible reworking?).
This means that art can provide victories over nature and time, by being
"re-viewed": remembered, reworked and reimagined, though the individual
artist will die. Shelley remains through Ozymandias, as Ozymandias does
through Shelley. It also means that there can be no rivalry between
Ozymandias and Shelley over their importance or staying power. Both have
lasted, and will remain, as Shakespeare says in a similar context, "so long
as men can breathe or eyes can see".
Doron
Dr. Doron Narkiss
Department of English
Kaye College
[image: cid:image001.jpg@01D06AF9.2A479680]
×"ר ××ר×× × ×¨×§×ס
×××× ××× ×××ת
×שר×: 08-6402749 פקס: 08-6413020 ס×××ר×: 054-4850961
ר×â ×¢×ר××× × ××¦× × 6, תâ× 4301 ××ר-ש××¢, 8414201
www.kaye.ac.il