Queen Mab: A Philosophical Poem

Fiction | Poem | Adult | Published in 1813

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Book Summaries & Analyses

Book I

Book II

Book III

Book IV

Book V

Book VI

Book VII

Book VIII

Book IX

Themes

Symbols & Motifs

Literary Devices

Background

Philosophical Context

Romantic poetry is typically contemptuous of civilization, idealizes nature, and advocates for experiences of the sublime, or being psychologically or emotionally overwhelmed by the external world. Shelley’s work is very much in line with these values; moreover, he was deeply influenced by the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a mid-18th century predecessor of Romanticism, and his father-in-law William Godwin, whose ideas he references in his poetry.

The idea of natural law that permeates “Queen Mab” comes directly from Rousseau’s concept of the natural state of man and his rejection of political power as the foundation of society. Shelley adds to Rousseau’s conclusions his ideal of freedom, arguing that what we call civilization is really a kind of enslavement. Like Rousseau, Shelley has an extremely favorable view of nature, strongly embracing the idea of harmony between humans, animals, and other living things—a view that is in direct conflict with the Christian dogma that God gave male humans power over the natural world.

“Queen Mab” provides an alternative eschatology to Christianity—it offers a vision of the final destiny of humanity that does away with the return of Jesus, the Last Judgment, and other apocalyptic myths. For his version of the coming utopia, Shelley depends on William Godwin’s concept of necessity: that history is driven by the human need to adapt to new natural challenges, and that humans advance society in a cycle of creation and destruction. Shelley adjusts this theory, giving the impetus of necessity to nature rather than humanity, and making this necessity an impersonal and impartial—and thus desirable—force for change. In Shelley’s take, nature needs to create freedom above all else—its eventual victory will destroy the bindings of wealth, social hierarchy, empire, and war.

Shelley’s philosophical stance that evil comes from the will to power and the desire to accumulate wealth would influence late 19th century anti-industrialist and anti-capitalist thinkers such as Karl Marx.

Historical Context

Shelley was writing 20 years after the French Revolution of 1789 and during Napoleon’s conquest of Europe. However, witnessing the destruction of the Reign of Terror—waves of extremist purges that followed the Revolution’s initial idealist zeal—influenced Shelley’s beliefs about how any revolution should be pursued. Although he espoused radical views—atheism and anti-monarchy sentiments—he ascribed to a gradualist view of progress. Queen Mab tells Ianthe’s spirit that movement toward utopia must be slow so that humans have time to adjust to using reason and abandoning harmful traditions.

Shelley is especially critical of the will to power he sees in institutions like the monarchy and the church, “twin-sisters” (Line 5.22) that bring about violence through hypocrisy and ignorance. “Queen Mab” draws a direct line from hereditary rule—in which heirs learn to dominate others in childhood and thus are irredeemably corrupted—to the destruction of happiness through wars and tyranny. Rulers seduce young people to follow them into war through propaganda that glamorizes combat. Shelley mourns rank and file humans enslaved to the ideas of power fed to them by society, worshipping the image of a king standing on a “dazzling pedestal [...] amid the horrors of a limb-strewn field” (Lines 5.100-101)—prizing the spoils of war instead of seeing its misery.

Shelley argues that organized religion undergirds this political reality, influencing the masses to support cruelty and evil by serving in wars for tyrants who wish to accrue more wealth. His rejection of organized religion was a direct response to Anglican England’s unified church and state power structure, in which the monarch was also the head of the church. However, the complexity of power structures at times made Shelley’s views seem self-contradictory. For instance, his support for Irish independence included the idea that Irish people should be free to practice Roman Catholicism—a view that ignored the pervasive and tyrannical power of that institution over that country.