Mimetic Representation of Human Reality in P. B. Shelley’s Ozymandias

Barsha Ghimire ‘7’

The Theory of Literary Criticism, Eng. 553

Prof. Markas Dangaura

7^th April, 2018

Mimetic Representation of Human Reality in P. B. Shelley’s Ozymandias

            The poem “Ozymandias” is a satiric poem intended to convey the message that power and pride are vain. This poem imitates the message the character and action of an ancient Egyptian emperor Ramesses II. Aristotle in his “Poetics” argues, “Art is an imitation of imitation.” Thus, how this poem embodies the imitative features of Aristotle becomes a researchable issue.

            Aristotle argues about the structure of plot required for a good poem. He argues, “Every mode of art differs from one another in three ways; either by their difference in means, by difference in the objects and in the manner of their imitation” (45). The narrator in the poem meets with a traveler from antique land and comes to know about the colossal wrecked statue of Ramesses II.  The narrator argues that the sculptor has exactly imitated the actions and emotional essence of the king. Moreover, the statue portrays the realistic lifestyle of the king. The narrator states, “Tell that its sculptor well those passions read” (6). The sculptor is able to read those passions of king. He vividly exposes the king’s attitudes, pride, anger and biography through the art.

            The realistic representation of the king’s actions and thoughts can be read in the statue. The narrator explains, “Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown/And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command” (4-5). The traveler describes the great work of the sculptor, who was able to capture the king’s passions and give meaningful expression to the stone. Aristotle argues, “Though the objects may be painful to see, we delight to view the most realistic representation of them in art” (47). Here, the words half sunk, shattered visage, frown and wrinkled lips, cold command” convey the idea that the majesty of the great king has been destroyed. The great ruler of once has nothing great in present except being buried in the vast stretches of sand with the course of time.

            The poem is an imitation of imitation because it has imitated the work of the sculptor who again has imitated the actions of the king. In the means of imitation, this poem has imitated the linguistic rhythm of Shakespearean iambic pentameter. The rhythm has five meters of unstressed syllable followed by stressed syllable.  “ I met a traveler from an antique land” (1). The verse has no stanza break. Neither it completely matches with Shakespearean sonnet nor Petrarchan sonnet. It has no octet and sestet stanza break. It’s rhyming pattern is ABAB, ACDC, ED, EFEF which can be structured in 4-4-2-4 pattern. Aristotle argues, “The means with which art imitates are rhythm, language and harmony are in single or combined form” (45). Here, the combined form of Shakespearean and Petrarchan sonnet can be noticed in the means of language. Similarly, rhythm is also imitated from pattern. But the harmony is not there as it has no proper rhyming pattern like Shakespeare.

            Similarly, in objects of imitation, this poem imitates the character and action of ancient Egyptian king Ramesses II. As argued by Aristotle, “The objects of the imitator represents are actions of agents who are necessarily either good men or bad” (46). Here, the sculptor has imitated the action of king, the great Egyptian emperor who is elevated character than him. His action are thoroughly encraved in the statue, “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings/Look on my works, ye mighty” (11-12). It describes boastfulness of king. The pride and tyranny of that king is justified through the boastful words. The words declare that he was a proud king, a bitter ruler placing himself above than all other kings. The word mighty refers to living legend and deed of then king.

            The ironic representation of human pride is expressed through such time. He mocks the “kings of kings” and how what was once great is now in shameful condition. The ironic pride which is followed by downfall is properly established. As argued by Aristotle, “The agent represented must be either above our own level of goodness or beneath us” (46). The poet here represents the agent who is above us. But it establishes the irony because none of the king’s achievement has actually survived.

            A third difference in the imitation of different arts is through manner. Aristotle argues that every art presents its ideas and thoughts through certain manner. That manner imitates dialogic or conversational and narrative or contemplative mode. He argues, “One may speak at one moment in narrative and at another in an assumed character” (47). Here, in this poem there is the combination of both narrative and dramatic form. So, it is in the dramatic monologue form. First, the narrator narrates the poem by stating “I met a traveler from an antique land” (1). Then, the poem mounts the dialogue between the narrator and the traveler. The manner of tone is quite ironic. Hence, it can be deducted that poem has dramatic irony in it. The words also play with the mocking tone of the poem. The “mocking hand” (8) is that of the sculptor, who had artistic ability to mock and imitate the passions of the king. The heart of the king arouses the sculptor’s passions and in turn sculptor sympathetically recaptures the king’s passion in the stone.

            Further, Aristotle argues the six essential elements of tragedy. He claims that plot is the basic element of tragedy. There can be tragedy without character but there can’t be one without plot. This poem is also tragic story of pride of a tyrant ruler. The stone and surrounding desert constitutes a metaphor for invented power in the face of natural power. By Shelley’s time, nothing remains but a shattered bust, eroded visage and trunkless legs surrounded with nothing but level sands that stretch far away. Shelley thus points human mortality and the fate of artificial things.

            Finally, Aristotle differentiates between the poet and the historian. He argues that poet has ability to convince people with fake events but historian has no ability to express facts in convincing way. He explicitly contends, “A likely impossibility is preferable to an unconvincing possibility” (50). In this poem, the poet has presented the history in very convincing way. That king Ozymandias might not be cruel at all but after reading the poem, we come to conclusion that he was one of the cruel rulers. The words played by the poet convince us to believe the king was an arrogant person.

Thus, we cannot miss the general comment on human vanity in the poem. It is not just the mighty who desire to withstand time. It is common for people to seek immortality and to resist death and decay. It ends with a note of inevitable complete decline of all leaders and of the empires they build, however mighty in their own time they might be.

Works Cited

Selden, Raman. “The Theory of Criticism: From Plato to the Pesent.” Longman, 1990, pp. 45-50.

A Course Packet of Primary Books for Literary Criticism. CDE, TU, 2017, p. 2.