OzymandiasPoem

Analysis of Text (pp. 37-40): Shelly’s “Ozymandias” and Opposing Views of Revolution

“I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear: `My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!' Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away.” -Percy Bysshe Shelley

Shelley’s “Ozymandias” is placed in Fugard’s play as a catalyst to spark the discussion of two opposing philosophies of rebellion. The poem itself is meant to highlight the ephemeral nature of tyranny, and show that even those people who live their lives to cruelly control and impact those of others are forgotten in time. Only the things that cannot by influenced by human hands are eternal. However, the impact that it has on the two children who recite it and their teacher is entirely subjective. Thami’s first question is regarding the manner in which this cruel king was deposed, and how his statue fell. When Isabel responds that she believes his ruin is the effect of time, and not due to any active revolution on the part of his people, Thami still wishes to believe that he was brought down by violent means, seeing a correlation between the statue of Ozymandias and some statues in his own country that could be brought down. Yet Mr. M is insistent that the most effective way to triumph over tyranny is to work constructively, and to build statues of one’s own. This conflict between the violent revolutionary and those who choose more peaceful means and try to revolt within the system is seen not only throughout this play, but also as a common theme in much of African literature, including novels such as Sembène Ousmane’s //God’s Bits of Wood//, and Bessie Head’s //When Rain Clouds Gather//. Ousmane’s characters lay out the conflict quite clearly: while the leader of the Dakar-Niger railroad strike wishes to defeat and to humiliate his European oppressers, he is advised by his father that any victory won at the expense of one’s enemy will be pyrrhic, and true equality and peace will never be gained until one can conduct oneself such that “you will never again be forced to bow down before anyone, but also so that no one will be forced to bow down before you” (Ousmane, 240). Mr. M believes this as well, and in his efforts to bring Isabel and Thami together is attempting to conquer hatred through cooperation. It is this “old-fashioned” ideal that eventually leads to his death, for he is so sure that violence is the wrong course he would rather side with the white oppressers than support such a brutal insurrection. Thami, on the other hand, in his comparatively shorter life, like Bakayoko and Makhaya, the revolutionaries of and //God’s Bits of Wood// and //When Rain Clouds Gather//, cannot believe that this sort of prolonged and silent uprising can have any effect. If the Ozymandias’ are allowed to survive they will continue to subjugate those they believe inferior regardless of any proof of equality, therefore there is no path to freedom that does not fully defeat those who have defeated the Africans for so many years. The sort of social change that Mr. M champions can have no immediate effect, and its seemingly submissive nature is infuriating to the mutinous rebels. This fundamental difference in philosophies of freedom is exemplified in the different meanings Mr. M and Thami take out of Shelley’s “Ozymandias,” and it is this divergence of views that leads them down very different paths with nearly opposing ends.

Back to Study Guide