One thing that attracts me to Shelley’s “The Sensitive Plant”
is the theme of time vs. timelessness within the poem’s structure and overall
meaning/concluding sentiments. As this poem progresses linearly from spring to
winter within its three sections and alternates between day and night, the
reader is invited to find significance in the presence and influence of time;
however, the last stanza clearly asserts, “there is no death nor change…”
(309). This final notion of timelessness, or the idea that the universe is
fixed along with all of the natural life cycles within it, renders the chronological
structure of this poem and the majority of its content (regarding the gradual
withering of plants as seasons change) an illusion. To be honest, I’m not sure
how I feel about it—that is, I don’t know how effectual it is to write such a
long poem that consistently gives the reader one impression until the very end
(the concluding section, but namely the last stanza), when Shelley basically
says “BUT don’t be so quick to think that time aging and death have anything to
do with what I’m saying, because none of these concepts exist.”
Then again, this tactic does succeed in making me want to
reread the poem immediately after I finished it to find possibly overlooked
hints of the concluding perspective throughout the poem’s initial segments,
which kind of supports the whole “death does not exist” notion—as the poem
ends, it throws an entirely new thought at you that makes the conclusion less
final (okay, that might be a stretch). I’m also interested in the multiple comparisons
of the flowers/plants to the stars in the sky: “…a ruling Grace / which to the flowers, did they waken or dream, / was as God is to the starry schheme” (116-118), "... the flowers of the garden fair, / like stars when the moon is awakened... (175-176), etc. The similes throughout the poem meld the garden with the heavens as Shelley plays with the image of turning the universe upside down and toys with the readers' perspective so that they can see the cosmic/celestial nature of both stars and plants- they might as well be the same thing. Would it be fair to say that this somehow ties in with his conclusion that death and change do not exist? It at least emphasizes the significance that one's perspective is fickle/malleable, and perhaps it is that which changes rather than the physical existence of plants or stars.
Thank you for clarifying the themes that this piece covers. I was so overwhelmed when reading it that I became lost and struggled to find the meaning. I agree with your idea about Shelley's comparison of stars and plants. I feel like the comparison is saying something about humans thinking that there is all of this change around us, but really change is connected its observer. Like you said, it toys with your perspective.
ReplyDeleteSo, for some reason I've yet to figure out, I have to write and "publish" twice for it to actually work? Sorry if this idea I'm trying to convey seems rushed. So in Shelley's poem I agree time is competing with timelessness, but not under just those standards. I would argue that the poem is priming the reader for this by bringing the cosmos and the garden together through the flower's personification. So, I think you are right in short. This is why dreams are used by Shelley to mark many of the flowers' growth. Human's construct what is natural in terms like beauty, violence, growth, death, and so on, but Shelley insists that these are constants. I would say the form of the poem reinforces these ideas. Which is why an entire life cycle that spans the cosmos and the roots plants is stuffed into a rigid poem comprised of aabb quatrains (with some exceptions)
ReplyDelete:-)