Skip Navigation

Literature and Theology 2001 15(2):159-173; doi:10.1093/litthe/15.2.159
© 2001 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Abroon, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


Articles

‘MONT BLANC’: TRANSCENDENCE IN SHELLEY'S RELATIONAL SYSTEM

Fazel Abroon

Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences, Teacher Training University Tehran, Iran

Transcendence in its Platonic form in the works of Shelley is much discussed by students of the poet Lillian Winstanley's article ‘Platonism in Shelley’ (1913) represents one of the early attempts in this field Carl Grabo's The Magic Plant The Growth of Shelley's Thought (1936) represents an example of a Neoplatonic approach to Shelley's thought and philosophy. Carlos Baker in his Shelley's Major Poetry (1948) discusses Shelley's Platonism and empiricism James A Notopoulos's The Platonism of Shelley (1949) presents the most thorough research on the subject Notopoulos traces three kinds of Platonism in Shelley's thought natural, direct, and indirect Shelley's natural Platonism, he observes, comprises those Platonic elements that exist due to the operation of the poet's mind, untouched by the Platonic tradition The direct Platonism of Shelley is the result of his reading of Plato. And finally, Shelley's indirect Platonism is affected by his encyclopaedic reading of literature influenced by the Platonic tradition.

However, Shelley, I assume, differs from Plato in that he neither gives an ontological priority to the archetyes nor reduces the phenomenal beings to insubstantial shadows of the fixed entities Although he believes in trancendence and the existence of an ontological being, he considers both the world of archetypes, or the immanent Power, and the phenomenal as interdependent, dynamic and relational rather than ontological. Nevertheless his belief in the relational and interdependent existence does not bring him closer to the deconstructionists as he also assumes the existence of an ontological, imperceptible and transcendent being.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.