Love’s Philosophy by Percy Bysshe Shelley Analysis

Love’s Philosophy by Percy Bysshe Shelley Analysis

This is a small analysis of the poem Love’s Philosophy by Percy Bysshe Shelley.

Love’s Philosophy Analysis

The speaker in this film is writing about how natural it is for humans to have a physical relationship, as well as the spiritual and emotional one. The speaker was trying to convince the person they love to kiss them.

Look this information about Shelley Shelley is a Romantic poet, which means that he was writing roughly in the same time period as poets like Wordsworth, Keats, Byron and William Blake.

He writes about the natural world and he celebrates its and you can see that evident in this poem. Shelley was born in Sussex in Horsham, and he attended Eton College.

He later attended Oxford University, but he was expelled for writing and publishing atheist pamphlets.

His father, who convinced the university to allow him to continue his studies fell out with Shelly, he refused to retract his comments.

At the age of 19, Shelley married his first wife how it Westbrook, but the relationship didn’t last long. And the sister of Harriet was particularly trying to Shelly and they didn’t get on at all.

Five years later, he fell in love with Mary Godwin, she was just 16 at the time, he was 24.

And three weeks after Harriet Westbrook committed suicide, he married Mary.

She went on to write Frankenstein, the first stanza them, and the fountains mingle with the river and the rivers with the ocean.

This whole poem is full of natural and religious imagery, which is designed to naturalize the situation of love, and convince whoever he’s speaking to in this poem, that love and physical love, are natural, and are normal, and are healthy.

You’ve got a rhetorical question which is repeated at the end of this stanza, but also at the end of the poem, asking the question, why shouldn’t I be with you?

Why shouldn’t I physically be with you in a way that everything else in the world is, he really emphasizes that nothing in the world is single.

And there’s a real divine possibility and divine reasoning behind everything in the world going together.

The imagery in the first three lines, in particular, flows, it’s the springs going into the river, the river is running into the ocean, it’s this idea of freedom, free-flowing nature, and the winds as well. The idea of mingling, mingle being an important word meaning to mix together, and completely.

And all these words of joining and union are used frequently throughout the poem.

Then the second stanza, it begins with an imperative, he’s commanding whoever he’s speaking to, and the reader becomes that person in his innocence.

He’s commanding them to see the mountains kiss high heaven, on the ways class one another.

These are passionate terms. Rather than simply wanting to join together, they want to grab together and not let go. No sister flower will be forgiven if it disdained its brother steam is to cast off or to reject.

So it’s possibly a poem about unrequited love.

Although there might not be anything else to suggest that, and the sunlight plus the arts, again, you’ve got the repetition of the clasp, like we had the repetition of mingling in the previous stanza.

You’ve got the repetition of the kiss or kissing in the political term of kissing, you’ve got like four times in this poem. And he usually continues to use natural imagery.

And one of the effects of this is that it makes the love scene eternal and consistent.

The fountains will always mingle with the rivers, the rivers will always mingle with the oceans, the sunlight will always be there, the moonbeams will always be there, makes the love seem eternal, consistent, and normal. And that’s a repeat. And that’s not repeated.

That is, is emphasized with the use of enough for the repeated and at the beginning of the two lines, and this stanza, and the listing of everything that should go together.

The repetition of kiss, clasp and mingle reinforces the desire of the speaker and the way that I really want to be with the other person.

In terms of form and structure. It’s a very simple A, B, A, B, C, D, C, D, for both stanzas.

It’s a regular rhythm, but the last line stands out with shorter syllables. And that’s because really, that’s a central message of why can’t he be with this person? or Why can’t he kiss the person that he would like to kiss?

A short analysis today, but thank you very much reading Love’s Philosophy Analysis.

Leave a Comment