The story of Lamia is that of an all consuming love that takes over the lives of Lamia and Lycius, and this consumption eventually lead to their deaths. During the time that Keats is writing this poem he is betrothed to a woman named, Frances (Fanny) Brawne. They were only betrothed because Fanny’s mother wouldn’t allow the marriage, but as Keats was going to Italy to recover from Tuberculosis she gave them permission that they could marry once he returns. Keats’ didn’t return to England alive leaving their love to end without being officiated. The same can be said of Lamia’s and Lycius’ relationship, and it is here I would like to point out the similarities between the two couples.

Lamia, The Serpent Woman by Anna Lea Merritt

In the poem of Lamia, Keats’ uses fantastical and high register language to tell her story. There are gods, a talking serpent that is returned to her female form, and there is a wedding that is ruined by the only person who can see through the snake woman’s disguise. Needless to say there is a lot going on within this poem that is hard to keep up with. I’m going to summarize this poem as quickly as possible. As Hermes is trying to find a nymph that he wanted to be with he finds a serpent that is morning that she is stuck in that shape. She tells Hermes if he turns her back into a woman (“I was a woman, let me have once more/A woman’s shape…” lines 117-118) that she will allow him to see the invisible nymph that has evaded him so far. The snake, who we later find out is Lamia, gives Hermes the sight he needed and he returned her back to her form as a woman. After returning to her form she spirits herself away to find Lycius the man she wants to be with as noted in line 120, “place me where he is.” Lycius and Lamia reunite, I believe because of the words being used this appears to be a love long in the making, on the road to Corinth. The pair go off to a home where they live until they agree to marry. Lamia only agree to this union if the sage Apollonius is not invited to the wedding. Lycius agrees and goes to Corinth to gather his friends and family as Lamia stays to make their home ready for the party. They have a wonderful party, but Apollonius comes in uninvited and he keeps staring at Lamia. On seeing that this uninvited guest has arrived Lycius demands that the man at least leave his new bride alone. Apollonius agrees, but not until he let’s Lycius know that he is literally marrying a snake. At this moment Lamia disappears and Lycius dies.

Now that the insanity has been rudely pegged down, let’s dive into the relationship between Lycius and Lamia. In the general understanding of this type of story the man is marrying someone that he really doesn’t know, and this person will most likely kill him. Even though Lamia is a snake, and our culture normally associate that as being evil, she appears to be completely enamored with this man whom she appears to know really well. From the meeting of Lamia and Lycius it doesn’t appear that he knows about her until that meeting, so it can be inferred that Lamia knew about Lycius only by word of mouth.

Ambrotype of Fanny Brawne taken circa 1850

Their meeting on the road to Corinth reminded me of the meeting of Fanny Brawne and John Keats. It was while Brawne and her family were staying with Charles Wentworth Dilke, from whom she had heard many stories about the notorious Keats. They meet, but it wasn’t until the death of his brother that Keats came to appreciate Brawne. It was around this time that he really began to love her. This being called back from a daze of contemplation reminded me of Lamia calling out to Lycius after he passed right by her on the road: “‘Ah, Lycius bright,/And will you leave me on the hills alone? Lycius, look back!’” (lines 244-246). Brawne is still young around the time she meets Keats, and demanding to be paid attention to seems to be understandable and bold thing for a teenager to demand.

From these demands from Lamia and Brawne on Lycius and Keats are what is needed to make the men pay attention to them. From this attention they fall in love with the women. At the end of this poem, which is reminiscent of the end of Keats and Brawne’s relationship, the man dies and the woman disappears. From the death of Lycius it can be established that this poem shows the force that love has on those who experience it, and how it can take the life right out of someone who loses it. Though Keats didn’t lose his life because he lost his love, he knew that he wasn’t going to come back to England because he wasn’t going to recover from tuberculosis while in Italy. Not being able to marry the love of his life and know that he wouldn’t be able to see her again can be compared to Lycius falling dead after Lamia vanishes into thin air.

Works Cited:

Richardson, Joanna. Fanny Brawne: A Biography. Norwich: Jarrold and Sons, 1952. Print.

“The successful warrior becomes a chief; the successful chief becomes a king: his next want is an organ to disseminate the fame of his achievements and the extend of his possessions; and this organ he finds is a bard”. (Peacock 258)

Thomas Love Peacock’s The Four Ages of Poetry is a satirical essay describing how poetry has both progressed and regressed throughout the four ages which he has named the Iron, Gold, Silver, and Brass ages. While this essay does take a more satirical approach towards poets and poetry, there is a good bit of factual truth to be found. This truth being that Poets were indeed ‘organs’ of knowledge and history back during these times.

In the Iron Age, Peacock states that the origin of poetry are the bards who would sing songs that were “brief historical notices, in a strain of tumid hyperbole, of the exploits and possessions of a few pre-eminent individuals”, these individuals being the warriors or chiefs whom they worked for (Peacock 258).This means that according to Peacock the first notes of poetry were actually notes of history, poets being the first ‘historians’, so to speak, of the era.

Even things such as gods, goddesses, nymphs, genii, and daemons were all part of the songs and poems of these bards, who would often take the divinities of the neighborhood and find “no difficulty in tracing the genealogy of his chief to any of the deities in his neighborhood” (Peacock 259). The poets created the myths of this time from the religions of the area by singing their songs and poems comparing their heroes to the divinities or even making their heroes related to said divinities, according to Peacock.

This brings us to the Golden Age, or the Homer Age, of Poetry. Here Peacock mentions that Poetry takes a retrospective look back upon the Iron Age. Here poems look less upon their current selves, and more upon their ancestors as the people of this era who have acquired stability and form owe “their origin and first prosperity to the talents and courage of a single chief, magnify their founder through the mists of distance and tradition” by having this chief in their poems “achieving wonders with a god or goddess always at his elbow” (Peacock 260).

The Poets continue to be an organ here, an organ for the chiefs who needed them back in the iron age, by continuing to sing the praises of the old chieftains who wanted them. The purposes of this organ though have developed, as organs do as a body, this body being poetry, grows. Now this organ of fame has become an organ of history. Even if the accomplishments of these chieftains and heroes are heavily exaggerated, they are still accomplishments of their ancestors nonetheless. This shows how the poet has become an organ of history in the golden age, an organ that helps produce the knowledge and history of the past through stories and the traditions made of keeping these stories.

Poetry continues to be an organ in the Silver Age, but starts to be a failing organ in this age. The organ of these ages of poetry is starting to fail, starting to produce either poems that are just updated copies of the Silver age poems or perhaps poems that are trying to be original or funny, but are just really bad. Peacock considers this a failing organ as he considers all of the eloquence and every other aspect of the poetry of the Silver Age a “step towards its extinction” as if this has become a failing organ (Peacock 261). Civilization and its attempt to provide reason and everything else to its poems is like an injection of the booze that the bards of old so liked to this organ, something that causes it to slowly be destroyed.

Peacock continues to mention this organ in the Brass Age, and how it has both progressed past its near extinction of the silver age, but has also regressed. This is by the healing that going back to the Iron Age has done. By acquiring new superstitions of the biblical times and with the fall of the Roman Empire poetry has returned back to the Iron Age, when it was at its beginning and still very healthy. Like an organ, it has healed as we now have new heroes like King Arthur who are told about in new poems and stories.

With the ‘rebirth’ or ‘healing’ of this organ through the rebirth of poetry from the Brass Age back to the Iron Age we once again have this barbaric organ return to its barbaric roots and from there on will continue to go through the cycle and redevelop in a different manner once again as this organ will continue to produce new history and new knowledge that will be passed down as the ages progress through time.

–Jared Holewinski

“A poet in our times is a semi-barbarian in a civilized community. He lives in the days of the past.” 

The Four Ages of Poetry written by Thomas Love Peacock is a satirical essay that is as long-winded as the poetry he is making fun of.  Peacock believes that poetry is no position to be taken seriously.  The only real use of poetry derives from a place of pleasure and expression, leaving the beneficial nature of sciences and history to override its importance.  Peacock argues that in order to advance as a society, we have to collectively move away from this art form.  He does this by pointing out the different ages of poetry throughout history and what each one brought to the culture.

Starting with the Iron Age, Peacock alludes that this age is the reason poetry is even held in high regards in the first place.  Introducing this new practice, the poets of the time were seen as gifted.  However, Peacock cites their ‘gifts’ as only habits of the time.  Letter writing had not yet been introduced so people relied on poetry to convey messages.  Poetry also served useful to those who wanted to keep records of what was going on historically and culturally, in turn, lending a hand to the first records of historical content.  Peacock argues that this age was for the barbarians of civilization, those who had no advanced means of education but were interested in developing them.

Next comes the Golden Age, which Peacock describes as the age where “poetry has now attained perfection.”  This is where poetry becomes retrospective and civilizations learn how to establish kingdoms and social institutions.  Great focus is put on remembering ancestors and the times of the Iron Age, while at the same time deeming those of the current age worthy.  It was not enough for poets to simply praise those in power but to praise them through their ancestors.  Those who were in power needed their worthiness to be in direct correlation with the greats from the past, allowing a solid establishment of their own power.  Peacock points out that the Golden Age is the beginning of moving away from poetry as an art, stating, “…with the progress of reason and civilization, facts become more interesting than fiction.”  In this age poetry is still important, and will continue to be until it overstays its welcome once other literature, history, and sciences come along.

The Silver Age is the start of poetry’s extinction.  This is the poetry of civilized life with poems being divided into two categories: imitative and original.  Imitative is all about re-polishing the poetry of the Golden Age.  Original is comic or satirical poetry.  With the developments in now forthcoming sciences, there is a call for poetry to be perfect.  It is less about variety and more about refinement.  It is because of these requests and standards of this age that poetry is no longer the sole tool of knowledge. Poetry has become monotonous in its new form.  Although there are tireless efforts, poetry cannot keep up with following the straightforwardness of science and still being interesting to read. Peacock describes the need for change if poetry is going to survive, saying, “It is now evident that poetry must either cease to be cultivated, or strike into a new path.”

The Brass Age is the final era and an attempt for poetry to get back to the Golden Age, in what Peacock refers as, “the second childhood of poetry.”  Part of this new turn in direction was the changes happening in civilization.  With the Roman Empire being overrun, the days of barbarism were brought back. The nations emerging in Europe developed a spirit for adventure.  New superstitions and fables arose, playing a role in the poetry that came forth.  Different practices, such as the semi-deification of woman, made way for the romance of the middle ages and chivalry to be at the forefront of this kind of poetry.  Charlemagne and his Paladins along with Arthur and the Knights of the roundtable were held in the same regard of excitement as the heroes of poetry told in the Iron Age.  The poetry of the Brass Age was a mixing of originality that sprung in the Golden Age and rawness the Iron Age brought, producing unlimited range that allowed poets to explore their imaginations.

Peacock’s intentions with this essay was to point out the ridiculousness sometimes in poetry.  He was calling out all the poets who held their poetry in higher regards than Peacock deemed necessary.  He was not taking a stand for poetry’s complete end but more of an acknowledgment that the practice is mainly rooted in expression, so it should not be held as fact.

The short essay The Four Ages of Poetry by Peacock I found very compelling in the fact that this point of view that is most often ignored within the study of literature. Peacock completely obliterates the significance of poetry; he goes against what all other writers are saying in this time period. A common theme throughout late British romanticism is the idea that poetry can bring on change and revolution.  Peacock pulls this concept apart meticulously by using such severe irony it is almost difficult to recognize as irony. The only reason I did not take this reading literally is because the introduction warns about the indirect irony and wit that this essay is primarily held up by. This produces a completely different reading that is much different from anything else in  this era.

While Shelly is normally seen as the rebel Peacock takes this title away from him with his obvious disregard of the entire era of British Romanticism that ironically enough he takes part in. He finds poetry as something that should not hold as much significance as its founders attribute to it, because it is not based in knowledge or intelligence but rather in lack thereof. Beginning with the origin of poetry, he says that it lies in the fall of power rather than the rise, “The successful warrior becomes a chief; the successful chief becomes a king; his next want is an organ to disseminate the fame of his achievements and the extent of his possessions; and this organ he finds in a bard, who is always ready to celebrate the strength of his arm, being first duly inspired by that of liquor” (Peacock 258). Peacock lowers the art of poetry to something that one does when they are done accomplishing life, poetry only is created when someone wants to brag about his power and accomplishments after he is done. It exists solely to boast, and this is all poetry is- a pretentious medium in which to display ones greatness. Not only does he disrespect the origin of poetry but also its inspiration, he holds alcohol completely responsible as the most prominent muse for poetry. This reduces all poets to a drunkard who cannot accomplish anything himself, so he must write about the others.

Peacock points to poetry as something that requires no thought or intelligence to create or comprehend. In creation all ideas are taken from “the secret history of gods” and “the scenery in which he is surrounded”, arguing that the word create should not be a label for the making of poetry because it is not created it is simply assimilated with what is readily available to the poet. Peacock argues that because science is a discovery that requires much more knowledge and intelligence than poetry that this is what contributes to change. He says that poetry is under the guild of fighting for change but truly it is simply useless observations about the world that does nothing but entertain, “While the historian and the philosopher are advancing in, and accelerating the progress of knowledge, the poet is wallowing in the rubbish of departed ignorance, and raking up the ashes of dead savages to find gewgaws and rattles for the grown babies of the age . . .” (Peacock 265). He makes large generalizations about poetry that all in all are untrue, and I wonder if his extreme defiance and rebellion against poetry is rooted in the want to become an outlier, to be different then his colleagues and stand out the society and the one who told the truth about poetry regardless of weather or not it is the truth.

In regard to Peacock’s essay Percy Shelly, the king of Romantic poetry , replies in his essay A Defense of Poetry. Both sides of the argument, in my opinion, are extremely exaggerated and bias. While Peacock’s claims are outrageous they do have a tinge of factual evidence, Shelly’s are more reasonable but are supported with romantic notions and his passion for words which does not help his argument for poetry but does convey his point. Shelly takes on a large project when he attempts to defend the merit of poetry, he rebuttals every single one of Peacocks statements about the insignificance of poetry and successfully displays why it matters. If the two gentlemen were to dispute the importance of poetry I doubt there would ever be a winner or end to the argument because both men speak truths that resonate with logic, intelligence, fact, and passion. The fact that these two men spent such a tremendous amount of time and effort to dispute whether or not poetry matters as a catalyst in the progress of their nation is a big statement for poetry itself. There would not be controversy or disagreement on poetry if it did not hold some sort of power, if we are talking about poetry in this amount of depth and detail then it must hold some amount of importance.

In both Thomas Love Peacock’s “The Four Ages of Poetry” and Shelley’s response “A Defense of Poetry”, there is a great deal of attention given to the purpose of poetry and the necessary qualifications for being a poet. While “The Four Ages of Poetry” situates poetry in a historical context by means of explaining the logic by which it developed through time, “A Defense of Poetry” seeks to reestablish poetry as something altogether more transcendent.

Apart from creating a cyclical model of how poetry develops (and comparing it to the development of civilization and culture through time), Peacock writes under the implicit assumption that what he calls the “golden” age of poetry (which includes the canonical Greek poets) is the ultimate ideal of poetry – this attitude reflects a somewhat elitist view, since some (such as Keats) have not had the education necessary to appreciate these Greek writers. His piece definitely reflects a traditional academic view of literature which privileges classical works while holding new ones up to significantly greater criticism.

While Peacock holds up the Greek writers of the “golden” age up as the highest form of poetry, he seems to dismiss the poetry of his time outright. He says that a “small portion of our contemporary poetry…the most distinguished portion of it, consist[s] merely of querulous, egotistical rhapsodies, to express the writer’s high dissatisfaction with the world and everything in it.” (267) It is easy to see how he could easily be referring to the type of poetry which might have been written by someone like Shelley, and which was definitely written by Byron (for example). Peacock is clearly ranking contemporary poetry as significantly inferior to the canonical Greek writers which make up his “golden” age. Peacock continues to say that this contemporary poetry “confirm[s] the semi-barbarous character of poets, who…grow rabid, and out of their element, as [society] becomes polished and enlightened.” (267)

Peacock also refers to “sentiment” as “egotism in the mask of refined feeling” (267), to “passion” as “commotion of a weak and selfish mind” (267), to “pathos” as “the whining of an unmanly spirit” (267), and to “sublimity” as “the inflation of an empty head” (267). He essentially dismisses the main staples of romantic poetry, having decided that only some topics are suitable while the ones he lists are a waste of time.

It almost seems that Peacock believes that poetry, having reached its peak, may as well cease completely. He also does not seem to realize that what he experiences as contemporary poetry is also the product of a historical moment, and that the Greek writers of his “golden” age will not remain relevant forever. He also does not acknowledge personal bias or make any allowances for personal taste in his rigid system of classification. He has a decidedly essentialist view of poetry.

Although Shelley’s piece is called “A Defense of Poetry”, it is not immediately clear (to me) what specific accusation that Shelley is defending poetry from (although it is perfectly understandable why he would feel defensive). Most likely, he is responding to Peacock’s disparaging view of contemporary poetry. On a more basic level, it seems that he is responding to Peacock’s pragmatic classification system of poetry by trying to create an image of poetry as something more mysterious and unclassifiable, as well as attempting to portray all poetry as having value, simply because it is poetry.

In response to Peacock’s rather strict system of classification and his disparaging comments on contemporary poetry, Shelley’s response is effusive with such statements as “Poetry is ever accompanied with pleasure: all spirits on which it falls, open themselves to receive the wisdom which is mingled with its delight,” (861) “Poetry is indeed something divine,” (865) and “Poetry turns all things to loveliness.” (866) Apart from making many such flattering statements, he attributes a great deal of achievements to poetry’s influence. Among the things Shelley attributes to its influence are humanitarian progress and advancements in science. Although Shelley’s response claims to be a defense of poetry, he seems more focused on creating self-positive statements about poetry as a force for good in the world, but does not truly refute or undermine any of Peacock’s claims.

by Sofia Kravchenko

Works Cited:

Peacock, Thomas Love. The Four Ages of Poetry. Desire 2 Learn, 2014. Web.

Shelley, Percy Bysshe. “A Defense of Poetry”. Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Romantic Period. Ed. Stephen        Greenblatt. 2012. 856-869. Print.

In his “A Defense of Poetry,” Percy Shelley explains that poetry is the ultimate form of art. He says, “Poetry makes immortal all that is best and most beautiful in the world” (866). Considering his poem “Ozymandias” in relation to his essay provides further proof of Shelley’s argument that poetry will forever outlive any other form of expression.

Through both his poem and his essay on poetry, it is clear that Ozymandias is not immortal; he is merely a story that is being recounted by a passerby in Shelley’s poem. According to Shelley’s argument in “A Defense of Poetry,” poetry remains forever relevant because it is universal. He says, “A Poet participates in the eternal, the infinite, and the one; as far as relates to his conceptions, time and place and number are not (859). A story is only related to periods and places, therefore stories fade with time. Poetry is able to transcend this boundary and become eternal. The reasoning Shelley gives for this is that poetry allows for imagination, “the great instrument of moral good” (862). He says, “Poetry strengthens the faculty which is the organ of the moral nature of man in the same manner as exercise strengthens a limb” (863). Poetry, according to Shelley, should allow for various interpretations. One reader may interpret the poem in one way, while another reader may have a different opinion of the poem. This variation in ideas and observations allow for flowing, active thoughts. Because it accepts various interpretations, it does not allow for stagnant thoughts. It is this that allows poetry to be everlasting.

The inscription on the broken statue of Ozymandias declares “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: / Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” (10-11). Shelley argues that Ozymandias, and human beings in general, are insignificant and only fade into the past as time progresses. Shelley writes in his poem that the only thing that still remains of Ozymandias is the “frown, / and wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, / … / Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things” by the artist that sculpted the statue (4-7). The only thing that remains is the image of Ozymandias’ as sculpted by the sculptor. Ozymandias’ life and reign have ended, all of his work has faded into the past. There is no longer any reason to despair or fear him; his statue lays “boundless and bare” as nothing but “the lone and level sands stretch far away” (13-14).

The only thing remaining of Ozymandias’ power is a statue and the poem. As the poem “Ozymandias” and the essay “A Defense of Poetry” demonstrate, only art, namely poetry, is everlasting. Nothing else, no matter how powerful it may be, will ever survive history; time will destroy all else.

Thomas Love Peacock in The Four Ages of Poetry explains the growth of poetry leading up to the early 19th century. He classifies the growth in terms of ages starting with the “Iron Age”. This age was supposedly the beginning of poetry as an art and “bards” were the first true poets. Poetry consisted of the bards telling of various city-state king’s conquest and riches. The bards became the top entertainers of their societies due to their above-average knowledge stemming from their prized roles as writers of history. Peacock describes other arts such as music being primitive at the time and unable to captivate the masses like poetry was able to do.

The bards of the “iron age” reaped rewards such as popularity and riches. Though nowhere near as wealthy as the kings, bards lived much better than the common man. The kings relied on the bards to not only tell their story, but to tell their story grandly. The kings wanted to sound as closely possible to that of a god to future generations. Entertainer as a title for the bards fits perfectly because the bard did just that for the king and his subjects. He weaved embellishments of a king’s triumph in able to transform him, thereby transforming a whole city-state. Even if the subjects knew the true story, they still would buy into the bards tale hoping that the supposed king’s excellence would rub off on themselves. “The successful chief becomes a king: his next want is an organ to disseminate the fame of his achievements and the extent of his possessions; and this organ he finds in a bard, who is always ready to celebrate the strength of his arm.” (Peacock)

The “golden age” of poetry requires the poet to employ the art of embellishment rarely as the king requires praise through his ancestors rather than himself. Also man has evolved past extensive hyperbole, understanding that man as a whole is fragile and numerous. The poet lends himself still as a historian due to the growing population and the unification of city-states. One poet is not enough to comment on the large scale growth and must partake in knowledge from other poets, in turn sharing his own knowledge. Poets must in this time be educated as well and have an above-average handle on language. Poets numbers grow yet in order to join their ranks one must be highly educated. These poets still live today due to their initial understanding among mankind about man’s true worth. Understanding man as fickle brought understanding of nature as sublime and unpredictable. Kings wanted to be remembered but understood their importance as small compared to a large and growing world.

Poets worth spurned from the pride of man which led to men wanting to be remembered forever. If true humility existed in the time that the “iron age” was happening poets might have never existed. Peace between the warring city-states might have led to one unified society. The combined and cooperative knowledge stemming from the unified society could have defined modern arts faster. Music, sculpting, and painting could have gained the spot light if large scale peace existed during the “iron age”. The arts we have today could either be behind or ahead of where they are now due to the peace. Poetry as a art today seems to exist due to one of mankind’s biggest flaws. An evil art or one that began as such still inspires men today to inspire future generations.

Peacock in The Four Ages of Poetry deems poetry of the early 19th century behind where poetry should be. The art of embellishment transformed from the “iron age” into the art of appreciation in the “golden age”. Poetry stumbled downhill from the “golden age” eventually into the “brass age” of the early 19th century. Peacock considers poetry the first art and therefore must realize poetry as an ever evolving entity. As mankind grows so does poetry. Knowledge creates new material as man’s appreciation grows for new things accommodating the universe. Possibly Peacock saw the “golden age” of poetry too quickly in time and never considered the future. Peacock’s displeasure with mankind of the 19th century blinded him to appreciate new things. His displeasure blinded him to the future.

Works Cited:

1. Peacock, Thomas Love. The Four Ages of Poetry. Desire 2 Learn, 2014. Web.

“Prometheus Unbound” is Percy Shelley’s own interpretation of the Greek myth of Prometheus. Shelley’s play is an interesting mix of various myths and references, including Jesus Christ, the Norse legend of Ragnarok, and most importantly, Paradise Lost by John Milton. Shelley compares his Romantic interpretation of Prometheus to Milton’s version of Satan and Shelley claims that his Prometheus is a more poetical character than Satan for “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.” (p.795)

I have to stop and ask why is this better? This irks me. Why does Shelley claim that his character is superior on such subjective terms? Ironically, I would say in part it is Shelley’s own hubris speaking out and I disagree violently with his claim. In my opinion, Shelley’s characterization portrays Prometheus as a weak, passive character that lacks the drive necessary to be a full fleshed character.

Firstly, let us examine Prometheus’s predicament. Prometheus was the creator of humans as well as the Titan who gave the gift of fire to humanity, an act that infuriated Zeus. As punishment, Zeus had the Titan chained to a rock where an eagle would consume his liver each day. Painful to be sure, yet the titan in his earlier days was unbending in his own righteousness. Prometheus was proud and absolutely scathing to the cruelty and injustice of Zeus. “Fiend, I defy thee! With a calm, fixed mind, All that thou canst inflict I bid thee do;” (p.804) Such unbending resolution! Yet later on, Prometheus has a weak willed change of heart; he repents and says his words were in haste and that his torture should not be inflicted on anyone, not even Zeus. “I wish no living thing to suffer in pain.” (p.805) Where is Prometheus’s earlier resolve and his proud, noble character? Was his proud speech a mistake? Or was it all just a fickle heart, one that is easily marred by pain?

In addition to being aggravatingly capricious, Prometheus also commits the crime of passivity. Throughout the story, Prometheus is never the one to act, rather he is the one acted upon, In fact, Prometheus acts more like a minor character rather than a protagonist. Which is hilarious in hindsight since Zeus falls to Demogorgon and Prometheus is freed from his torture. And the Titan did absolutely nothing except spout rhetoric. These actions (or lack thereof) contradict absurdly with Shelley’s claim of Prometheus’s courage and majesty. Exempt from the taints of ambition, envy, and revenge? Might want to add aggressively dull to the list as well.

Which leads us to Shelley’s cardinal sin in his portrayal of Prometheus, the absolute loss of ambitious drive. Prometheus is uncannily similar in regards to Victor Frankenstein, as both of them set out with furthering the advancement of humanity. They both had humanities best interests at heart, with their ambitions driving them. Obviously, both of them failed, Victor because he didn’t go far enough in his ambition and Prometheus because of the ambivalent nature Shelley gave him. Prometheus’s gift of fire to mankind was a truly virtuous and altruistic act, one that is to be praised. Yet at the first sign of hardship, all of Prometheus’s ambition, his drive, deserts him. One has to question then, if Prometheus’s sudden lack of drive means that he may actually regret helping mankind. That loss of ambition is what makes Prometheus a pitiable, even tragic, hero.

If humanity is happy with their simple lot in life, nothing is gained. Growth stagnates and we as a people become complacent and decadent with what we have. We become dull, mindless and content in the ignorant statement that we are happy where we are. This loss of ambition is a dangerous trap to fall into, and one that Shelley and many of his Romantic peers embrace because of fear. Fear of the unknown and fear of being harmed by their own drive. Why fear it? They need only follow Prometheus’s earlier, nobler example: to simply shoulder on into unknown territory and defy their fear of divine retribution.

After all, nothing ventured, nothing gained.