Rhyme and Rebellion by Stefan Schweitzer

This paper will be concerned with the influence of the historical background on a poet’s life. Examples will be taken from the works of Percy Bysshe Shelley in context with living conditions in contemporary Britain. After that, I will try to compare Shelley’s life and work with that of Heinrich Heine. The question to be discussed: Is the rebellious attitude of the two poets connected to their social background? If yes, where is it visible in their works? Also, their attitudes towards government and religion will be taken into account. The biographies do not claim to be complete; the focus is on those events that can be traced back to in the poems. Conclusively, the similarities (and differences) found will be summed up as an answer to the questions.

I beg the reader to understand that the references to the biographies are fragmentary; complete biographies, though undoubtedly interesting, would go beyond the limits of this paper.

This text is related to the “proseminar” British and American Verse in the era of industrialization which took place in the winter semester 2004 / 2005 at the University of Kassel and was tutored by Ms. Hinz-Bode.

1. Percy Byshhe Shelley [back to contents]

1.1. Shelley’s biography

The following parts of Shelley’s biography are taken from the Norton Anthology of English Literature (Vol. 2, ⁶1993):

The first experience to leave a strong impression on Shelley’s attitude might have been his expulsion from the Oxford University in 1811. This had been caused by Shelley’s refusal to reject The Necessity of Atheism, a pamphlet he had written together with Thomas Jefferson Hogg a year earlier. His time as a university student had lasted only half a year and “this event opened a breach between Shelley and his father that widened over the years (Norton Anthology, 1993 p. 644).”

Shelley then went to Dublin with his young bride Harriet Westbrook to help the oppressed and poor people there. In spring 1813, Shelley found a new love in Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin and left England for the first time, going to France; but not without taking with him his first wife and the second’s stepsister. After the suicide of Harriet and the denial of their two children’s custody, Shelley married Mary Godwin and left England forever in 1818, en route to Italy.

1.1.1. Shelley’s Status [back to contents]

After Shelley came back from France, he found that “the general public, his family, and most of his friends regarded him not only as an atheist and revolutionary, but also as a gross immoralist (Norton 1993, p. 645).”

1.1.2. Shelley’s Health [back to contents]

Shelley’s health is described as being “usually bad” (Norton 1993, p. 645. This is of particular interest if you compare it to Heine’s physical condition.

1.1.3. Shelley’s Family [back to contents]

As I already said, the expulsion from Oxford caused a breach between Shelley and his father.

The two children of Mary and Percy Shelley, Clara and William, died within nine months (1818 – 1819), this tragedy threw their mother into a depression that was not even entirely alleviated by the birth of another son, Percy Florence.

1.2. Contemporary Britain [back to contents]

1.2.1. Living conditions of the working class

Felix Silverio writes on the topic of the living conditions of the working class:

“An example for the conditions of the working class is Manchester, a typical industrial town. There, people would work from 6 am to 9 pm every day. This meant that many parents would leave their children unattended – this contributed to the death of half the children before they reached the age of five.

The homes of these families were generally located on crowded and unpaved streets, lacked an adequate septic system, were draughty and in general disrepair. Outbreaks of disease were frequent in these neighbourhoods.

Even in the 18^th century, some English people were aware of the effects of unregulated factory labour. On January 15^thof 1796, one Dr Percival presented a report to the Manchester board of health on the conditions of mill workers. He remarked that all the workers, especially children, were prone to sickness and in constant danger of being maimed or killed by machinery (Silverio 1999).”

What would a young man like Shelley feel, living under these conditions? Sympathy for the government does not seem likely.

1.2.2. The Peterloo massacre [back to contents]

For Shelley, the Peterloo massacre was an awakening signal. He got news of it while staying in Italy.

A large, well-organised demonstration had been held on the St. Peter’s Field near Manchester. There, just like anywhere else in the country, people demanded reforms; the equal right to vote. Also lower bread prices, for what is the use of political influence when you are starving?

The protest movement had become so strong that the government decided it was time for a warning, being frightened after the terror of the French Revolution. The fast-growing protest was caused by the crisis after the end of the Napoleonic wars. Victorious Britain had been seized by an economy crisis. The ranks of the jobless and hungry were swelled by hundred thousands of dismissed soldiers. To suppress unrest which endangered society, mounted police was raised. They were called “yeomanry” and had their shameful first taste of battle now.

“Peterloo,” colored engraving by George Cruikshank, 1819

The entirely unprovoked attack of the cavalry on the peaceful demonstration was delivered with an unbelievable brutality and did not spare women or children. The first one to die was a four-year-old child.[2] The cavalry slew the fleeing randomly with the sabre, never meeting resistance. They murdered and injured men, women and children.

A cry of horror and outrage went through the whole country. The national fame of Waterloo found a horrible counterpart in Peterloo, the butchery of kinsmen.

1.3. Attitudes expressed in Shelley’s poetry [back to contents]

1.3.1. England in 1819

(Please see Appendix for the entire poem)

The terrible incidents of Peterloo soon found their echo in Shelley’s poetry. In “England in 1819”, he pictures government as it was then; being in decay, violent and unjust, being ruled by “an old, mad blind, despised and dying king” (l. 1). This poem and the following were written in the time shortly after the Napoleonic battles.

The army itself is called the murderer of freedom (l. 8, “liberticide”), the very same army that was supposed to have freed Europe from the Napoleonic threat.

Shelley describes his countryman as “a people starved and stabbed in th’ untilled field” (l. 7), a direct reference to the Peterloo massacre, where peaceful protest led to a catastrophe.

1.3.2. A Song: “Men of England” [back to contents]

This poem shows Shelley’s anger at the living conditions of the working class even clearer than “England in 1819”, perhaps even a direct call for revolution, comparable to Heine’s “Song of the Weavers”.

Throughout the entire poem, Shelley doubts the sense of obedience, stating that its main purpose is the exploit of the already poor.

Here, the government and gentry are “ungrateful drones” (2^nd verse), yet without defense against the might of the united working class, for the drones are also “stingless” (3^rd verse).

Shelley shows the futility of labor if the reward is taken away; he practically commands the workers to keep the fruit of their toil (6^th verse), to hold on to what is theirs by rights.

In our time, the demands seem simple, but you have to keep in mind that during the years that followed the Napoleonic wars, people were starving simply because bread was too expensive. Shelley naturally allied with those who suffered just like he did.

Another poet with much the same aim was Heinrich Heine; I will compare his life and work to Shelley’s in the following chapters.

2. Heinrich Heine [back to contents]

2.1. Heine’s biography (compared with Shelley’s)

Heinrich (former Harry) Heine lived from 1797 to 1856. The following summary of his biography is a translation of the entry on Heine in the “dtv atlas Deutsche Literatur”:[3]

„Kaum einer hat die Romantik so >>begriffen<< wie er, kaum einer hat die Bewußtseinsbrüche der Romantiker so scharfsinnig erkannt und gestaltet. >>Zerrissenheit<< hat man ihm attestiert, eine Klassifikation, die auf viele Zeitgenossen zutrifft, bei Heine aber auch ihre biographisch konkreten Vorraussetzungen hat: Sohn eines jüd. Kaufmanns, katholisch erzogen, eifriges Mitglied des Berliner >Vereins für Kultur und Wissenschaft der Juden<, Übertritt zum Protestantismus, Napoleonverehrer und Tyrannenhasser, gelernter Bankkaufmann und Bankrotteur[…].

Hardly anyone ‘understood’ romanticism like he did, hardly anyone recognized and worked on the romantic poets’ breaches of consciousness like Heine. He was allegedly ‘torn’, a classification that fits many of his contemporaries, yet has its definite biographical preconditions visible in Heine’s life.

Son of a Jewish merchant, catholically raised, enthusiastic member of the ‘Society of Jewish Culture and Science’, conversion to Protestantism, admirer of Napoleon and hater of tyrants, learned bank accountant and bankrupt […].

Schlosser continues with saying that the center of Heine’s works was the criticism of time and culture (Schlosser, 2002 p. 191). He describes Heine as being “obligated to poetry”.

2.1.1. Heine’s Status [back to contents]

The following facts are a summary of Lew Kopelew’s biography of Heinrich Heine.

To cut it short: Heine was an outcast. His flaming poetry forced him to leave Germany for good, seeking refuge in France. Heine constantly suffered from poverty and a very poor health, yet – just like Shelley – he never lost his belief in humanity nor did he ever cease to write.

Understanding and sympathy made Heine the target of everyone; conservatives called him traitor and revolutionary, while radicals viewed his position as still too soft and philanthropic.

What inspires men like Shelley and Heine? What gives them creative power, makes them spend time on their art instead of worrying how to make a living?

2.1.2. Heine’s Health [back to contents]

Never being in good health and frequently suffering from various ailments, Heine was bed-bound by a disease of the spine in 1848. The pain was so intense that Heine had to be narcotized with morphine applied on wounds on his back which were artificially kept open. This is merely the top of the iceberg; his entire life was marked by constant suffering. In part, it might be attributed to the stress he had in dealing with his family (see next chapter).

2.1.3 Heine’s Family [back to contents]

Like Shelley, Heine’s relationship with his family can optimistically be called “strained”. His wealthy uncle, Salomon Heine, never forgave him his conversion to Christianity, albeit it was a rather forced decision, as Heine would never have found work as a jurist while still being a Jew.

As it was, Heine’s uncle refused to support him financially. Heine did not accept this, and the many discussions and rows that followed taxed his already frail health even more.

2.2. Contemporary Germany [back to contents]

2.2.1. The French Revolution

Heine’s living in Paris enabled him to witness the aftermath of the revolution directly. However, he was disappointed by the Jacobeans; he experienced them as living in the past, having no idea how to deal with the future (Kopelew 1981)[4].

2.2.2. Insurgence of the weavers [back to contents]

Another rebellion Heine witnessed was the weavers’ insurgence in Silesia. Already mistreated by too-low wages, the introduction of the new mechanical loom chair brought the weavers on the edge of ruin. In their despair, they destroyed the houses of their employers and the material storages.

The Prussian army took hard measures against this rebellion; two villages that had been controlled by the weavers were attacked, unarmed civilians – men, women and children – shot, injured or killed (compare to the Peterloo massacre). The brutality of this act led to a wave of protest throughout Germany and inspired Heine to write one of his most famous poems; “the Silesian Weavers”.

2.3. Heine's position visible in his works [back to contents]

2.3.1. Maria Antoinette

This is a fairly direct mockery of royalty in France; the queen continues holding court, never noticing that she has been decapitated. Heine says that it does not make much of a difference; if there is not a head to smile with, the ladies of the court make do with their buttock (stanza 15).

In this poem, Heine makes royalty a laughingstock, a purposeless affair lost in ritual.

2.3.2. “Die schlesischen Weber” (The SilesianWeavers)

[back to contents]

While Maria Antoinette features a humorous tone, this poems diction is aggressive and threatening. The weavers state that they are weaving Germany’s shroud, cursing god, king and fatherland for their unjust treatment.

It comes as a small wonder that this poem made alarm bells go off at the authorities’; like Shelley’s “Men of England”, this poem constitutes a direct call for civil disobedience and revolution, a scandal in strict and orderly Prussia.

3. Points in common [back to contents]

Despite the fact that there are some differences in the biographies of the two poets – e.g. living in different countries and societies, the similarities found in the biographies are numerous and remarkable:

- Both Shelley and Heine were nonconformists, expressing ideas that were rather radical for their time.

- They were both expelled from university because of their sense of honor, which other people may have viewed as stubbornness.

- Another point in common was the attraction to women, in both cases used for numerous affairs.

- Both of them spent a large part of their life in exile.

- They also shared a poor health and tragic experiences in their lives, yet never lost their belief in humanity.

- Finally, both poets were misunderstood during their lifetime while appreciated and celebrated later.

My assumption is that those similarities led to a common cause, the fight for the rights of man. The suffering they shared did not throw them into despair, but made them fight for a better world.

3.1. Rebellious Poetry [back to contents]

The poetry of the two must be called revolutionary, sometimes rather aggressive in tone and theme. Both poets fought for the rights of the working class and mocked the state and the government. In verse, both men dedicated their existence to fight against oppression.

3.2. Shared Atheism? Age and Religion [back to contents]

During a time, both poets shared their disbelief and a certain anger against the god who allowed such terrible suffering. However, this changed when Heine became older; his worsening sickness and the feeling of approaching death led him to return to god. He himself compared his belief to a nourishing broth (Heine, 1851)[5] that may strengthen the frail.

One may think that Shelley might have made a similar return to belief, if only he had lived longer. As it was, youthful high spirits and the bright flame of rebellion burned away the need for religious solace.

4. Conclusion [back to contents]

Life itself leaves its marks on us. Poetry was the means for Shelley and Heine to share their impressions, often causing offence - sometimes on purpose, sometimes because of misunderstandings.

In spite of having to endure physical and mental hardships, both never lost their belief in the human race, nor their inspiration. During their lifetime, they lacked success and popularity, which they received post mortem; thus, one could say that it does not take ideal preconditions in life to make a humans name and works immortal.

Shelley and Heine are both examples of how suffering may be canalized into colorful poetry, and they give hope to anyone who thinks that fate has treated him badly. One could sum up their message in the simple words “never give up”.

5. Sources [back to contents]

Printed sources:

Heine, Heinrich: Romanzero. Stuttgart: Reclam. (1997)

Kopelew, Lew: Ein Dichter kam vom Rhein. Heinrich Heines Leben und Leiden. Berlin, Darmstadt: Severin und Siedler. (1981)

Norton Anthology of English Literature, Vol. 2, 6^th ed. (1993)

Pirie, David B.: Shelley. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. (1988)

Schlosser, Horst-Dieter: dtv atlas Deutsche Literatur. Munich: 9^thed. (2002)

Online sources:

Silverio, Felix: Conditions of the Working Classes and Child Labor

URL: www.gober.net/victorian/reports/work.html State 28/11/04

Die schlesischen Weber: http://www.wispor.de/w-g-hein.htm#weber State 28/03/05

Pictures:

Portrait Shelley: http://todayinliterature.com/biography/percy.bysshe.shelley.asp

State: 27/11/2004

Portrait Heine: http://www.literaturwelt.com/autoren/heine.jpg

State: 15/03/05

“Peterloo”: http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/rgnclfil.html State 27/11/2004

6. Appendix [back to contents]

I.) England in 1819[6]

England in 1819 (Shelley, 1819)

An old, mad, blind, despised, and dying King;

Princes, the dregs of their dull race, who flow

Through public scorn, - mud from a muddy spring;

Rulers who neither see nor feel nor know,

But leechlike to their fainting country cling

‘Till they drop, blind in blood, without a blow.

A people starved and stabbed in th’ untilled field;

An army, whom liberticide and prey

Makes a two-edged sword to all who wield;

Golden and sanguine laws which tempt and slay;

Religion Christless, Godless – a book sealed;

A senate, Time’s worst statue, unrepealed –

Are graves from which a glorious Phantom may

Burst, to illumine our tempestuous day.

II.) A Song: “Men of England”[7] [back to contents]

A Song: “Men of England (Shelley, 1819)”

Men of England, wherefore plough

For the lords who lay ye low?

Wherefore weave with toil and care

The rich robes that your tyrants wear?

Wherefore weave and clothe and save

From the cradle to the grave

Those ungrateful drones who would

Drain your sweat – nay, drink your blood?

Wherefore, Bees of England, forge

Many a weapon, chain and scourge

That these stingless drones may spoil

The forced produce of your toil?

Have ye leisure, comfort calm,

Shelter, food, love’s gentle balm?

Or what is it ye buy so dear

With your pain and with your fear?

The seed ye sow, another reaps;

The wealth ye find, another keeps;

The robes ye weave, another wears;

The arms ye forge, another bears.

Sow seed – but let no tyrant reap:

Find wealth – let no impostor heap:

Weave robes – let not the idle wear:

Forge arms – in your defence to bear.

Shrink to your cellars, holes, and cells –

In halls ye deck another dwells.

Why shake the chains ye wrought? Ye see

The steel ye tempered glance on thee.

With plough and spade and hoe and loom

Trace your grave and build your tomb

And weave your winding-sheet – till fair

England be your Sepulchre.

III.) Maria Antoinette[8] [back to contents]

Maria Antoinette (Heine, ~ 1845 – 1848)

Wie heiter im Tuilerienschloß

Blinken die Spiegelfenster

Und dennoch dort am hellen Tag

Gehn um die alten Gespenster.

Es spukt im Pavillon de Flor

Maria Antoinette

Sie hält dort morgens ihr Lever

Mit strenger Etikette.

Geputzte Hofdamen. Die meisten stehen,

Auf Tabourets andere sitzen;

Die Kleider von Atlas und Goldbrokat

Behängt mit Juwelen und Spitzen.

Die Taille ist schmal, der Reifrock bauscht,

Darunter lauschen die netten

Hochhackigen Füßchen so klug hervor –

Ach, wenn sie nur Köpfe hätten!

Sie haben alle keinen Kopf

Der Königin selbst manquieret

Der Kopf, und Ihro Majestät

Ist deshalb nicht frisieret.

Ja, sie, die mit turmhohem Toupet

So stolz sich konnte gebaren

Die Tochter Maria Theresias,

die Enkelin deutscher Cäsaren,

Sie muß jetzt spuken ohne Frisur

Und ohne Kopf, im Kreise

Von unfrisierten Edelfraun,

Die kopflos gleicherweise.

Das sind die Folgen der Revolution

Und ihrer fatalen Doktrine;

An allem ist schuld Jean Jaques Rousseau,

Voltaire und die Guillotine.

Doch sonderbar! Es dünkt mich schier

Als hätten die armen Geschöpfe

Gar nicht bemerkt wie tot sie sind

Und dass sie verloren die Köpfe.

Ein leeres Gespreize, ganz wie sonst,

Ein abgeschmacktes Scherwenzen –

Possierlich sind und schauderhaft

Die kopflosen Reverenzen.

Es knickst die erste Dame d’atour

Und bringt ein Hemd von Linnen;

Die zweite reicht es der Königin

Und beide knicksen von hinnen.

Die dritte Dam und die vierte Dam

Knicksen und niederknien

Vor Ihrer Majestät, um Ihr

Die Strümpfe anzuziehen.

Ein Ehrenfräulein kommt und knickst

Und bringt das Morgenjäckchen;

Ein andres Fräulein knickst und bringt

Der Königin Unterröckchen.

Die Oberhofmeisterin steht dabei,

Sie fächert die Brust, die weiße,

Und in Ermanglung eines Kopfs

Lächelt sie mit dem Steiße.

Wohl durch die verhängten Fenster wirft

Die Sonne neugierige Blicke,

Doch wie sie gewahrt den alten Spuk,

Prallt sie erschrocken zurücke.

IV.) Die schlesischen Weber[9] [back to contents]

Die schlesischen Weber (Heine, ~ 1844)

Im düstern Auge keine Träne
Sie sitzen am Webstuhl und fletschen die Zähne:
Deutschland, wir weben dein Leichentuch,
Wir weben hinein den dreifachen Fluch -
Wir weben, wir weben!

Ein Fluch dem Gotte, zu dem wir gebeten
In Winterskälte und Hungersnöten;
Wir haben vergebens gehofft und geharrt,
Er hat uns geäfft und gefoppt und genarrt -
Wir weben, wir weben!

Ein Fluch dem König, dem König der Reichen,
Den unser Elend nicht konnte erweichen
Der den letzten Groschen von uns erpreßt
Und uns wie Hunde erschießen läßt -
Wir weben, wir weben!

Ein Fluch dem falschen Vaterlande,
Wo nur gedeihen Schmach und Schande,
Wo jede Blume früh geknickt,
Wo Fäulnis und Moder den Wurm erquickt -
Wir weben, wir weben!

Das Schiffchen fliegt, der Webstuhl kracht,
Wir weben emsig Tag und Nacht -
Altdeutschland, wir weben dein Leichentuch,
Wir weben hinein den dreifachen Fluch,
Wir weben, wir weben!

[1] Elements that are underlined and blue represent hyperlinks in the electronic version of this text.

[3]

Schlosser, Horst-Dieter: dtv atlas Deutsche Literatur. Munich: dtv ⁹2002 (p.191.).

[7] Also taken from the Norton Anthology, p. 673