198:— by Percy Bysshe Shelley: Summary, Meaning & Analysis
This piece is a prose note that Shelley included with his long poem *Queen Mab*.
The poem
Necessity! thou mother of the world! He who asserts the doctrine of Necessity means that, contemplating the events which compose the moral and material universe, he beholds only an immense and uninterrupted chain of causes and effects, no one of which could occupy any other place than it does occupy, or act in any other place than it does act. The idea of necessity is obtained by our experience of the connection between objects, the uniformity of the operations of nature, the constant conjunction of similar events, and the consequent inference of one from the other. Mankind are therefore agreed in the admission of necessity, if they admit that these two circumstances take place in voluntary action. Motive is to voluntary action in the human mind what cause is to effect in the material universe. The word liberty, as applied to mind, is analogous to the word chance as applied to matter: they spring from an ignorance of the certainty of the conjunction of antecedents and consequents. Every human being is irresistibly impelled to act precisely as he does act: in the eternity which preceded his birth a chain of causes was generated, which, operating under the name of motives, make it impossible that any thought of his mind, or any action of his life, should be otherwise than it is. Were the doctrine of Necessity false, the human mind would no longer be a legitimate object of science; from like causes it would be in vain that we should expect like effects; the strongest motive would no longer be paramount over the conduct; all knowledge would be vague and undeterminate; we could not predict with any certainty that we might not meet as an enemy to-morrow him with whom we have parted in friendship to-night; the most probable inducements and the clearest reasonings would lose the invariable influence they possess. The contrary of this is demonstrably the fact. Similar circumstances produce the same unvariable effects. The precise character and motives of any man on any occasion being given, the moral philosopher could predict his actions with as much certainty as the natural philosopher could predict the effects of the mixture of any particular chemical substances. Why is the aged husbandman more experienced than the young beginner? Because there is a uniform, undeniable necessity in the operations of the material universe. Why is the old statesman more skilful than the raw politician) Because, relying on the necessary conjunction of motive and action, he proceeds to produce moral effects, by the application of those moral causes which experience has shown to be effectual. Some actions may be found to which we can attach no motives, but these are the effects of causes with which we are unacquainted. Hence the relation which motive bears to voluntary action is that of cause to effect; nor, placed in this point of view, is it, or ever has it been, the subject of popular or philosophical dispute. None but the few fanatics who are engaged in the herculean task of reconciling the justice of their God with the misery of man, will longer outrage common sense by the supposition of an event without a cause, a voluntary action without a motive. History, politics, morals, criticism, all grounds of reasonings, all principles of science, alike assume the truth of the doctrine of Necessity. No farmer carrying his corn to market doubts the sale of it at the market price. The master of a manufactory no more doubts that he can purchase the human labour necessary for his purposes than that his machinery will act as they have been accustomed to act. But, whilst none have scrupled to admit necessity as influencing matter, many have disputed its dominion over mind. Independently of its militating with the received ideas of the justice of God, it is by no means obvious to a superficial inquiry. When the mind observes its own operations, it feels no connection of motive and action: but as we know ‘nothing more of causation than the constant conjunction of objects and the consequent inference of one from the other, as we find that these two circumstances are universally allowed to have place in voluntary action, we may be easily led to own that they are subjected to the necessity common to all causes.’ The actions of the will have a regular conjunction with circumstances and characters; motive is to voluntary action what cause is to effect. But the only idea we can form of causation is a constant conjunction of similar objects, and the consequent inference of one from the other: wherever this is the case necessity is clearly established. The idea of liberty, applied metaphorically to the will, has sprung from a misconception of the meaning of the word power. What is power?—id quod potest, that which can produce any given effect. To deny power is to say that nothing can or has the power to be or act. In the only true sense of the word power, it applies with equal force to the lodestone as to the human will. Do you think these motives, which I shall present, are powerful enough to rouse him? is a question just as common as, Do you think this lever has the power of raising this weight? The advocates of free-will assert that the will has the power of refusing to be determined by the strongest motive; but the strongest motive is that which, overcoming all others, ultimately prevails; this assertion therefore amounts to a denial of the will being ultimately determined by that motive which does determine it, which is absurd. But it is equally certain that a man cannot resist the strongest motive as that he cannot overcome a physical impossibility. The doctrine of Necessity tends to introduce a great change into the established notions of morality, and utterly to destroy religion. Reward and punishment must be considered, by the Necessarian, merely as motives which he would employ in order to procure the adoption or abandonment of any given line of conduct. Desert, in the present sense of the word, would no longer have any meaning; and he who should inflict pain upon another for no better reason than that he deserved it, would only gratify his revenge under pretence of satisfying justice? It is not enough, says the advocate of free-will, that a criminal should be prevented from a repetition of his crime: he should feel pain, and his torments, when justly inflicted, ought precisely to be proportioned to his fault. But utility is morality; that which is incapable of producing happiness is useless; and though the crime of Damiens must be condemned, yet the frightful torments which revenge, under the name of justice, inflicted on this unhappy man cannot be supposed to have augmented, even at the long run, the stock of pleasurable sensation in the world. At the same time, the doctrine of Necessity does not in the least diminish our disapprobation of vice. The conviction which all feel that a viper is a poisonous animal, and that a tiger is constrained, by the inevitable condition of his existence, to devour men, does not induce us to avoid them less sedulously, or, even more, to hesitate in destroying them: but he would surely be of a hard heart who, meeting with a serpent on a desert island, or in a situation where it was incapable of injury, should wantonly deprive it of existence. A Necessarian is inconsequent to his own principles if he indulges in hatred or contempt; the compassion which he feels for the criminal is unmixed with a desire of injuring him: he looks with an elevated and dreadless composure upon the links of the universal chain as they pass before his eyes; whilst cowardice, curiosity, and inconsistency only assail him in proportion to the feebleness and indistinctness with which he has perceived and rejected the delusions of free-will. Religion is the perception of the relation in which we stand to the principle of the universe. But if the principle of the universe be not an organic being, the model and prototype of man, the relation between it and human beings is absolutely none. Without some insight into its will respecting our actions religion is nugatory and vain. But will is only a mode of animal mind; moral qualities also are such as only a human being can possess; to attribute them to the principle of the universe is to annex to it properties incompatible with any possible definition of its nature. It is probable that the word God was originally only an expression denoting the unknown cause of the known events which men perceived in the universe. By the vulgar mistake of a metaphor for a real being, of a word for a thing, it became a man, endowed with human qualities and governing the universe as an earthly monarch governs his kingdom. Their addresses to this imaginary being, indeed, are much in the same style as those of subjects to a king. They acknowledge his benevolence, deprecate his anger, and supplicate his favour. But the doctrine of Necessity teaches us that in no case could any event have happened otherwise than it did happen, and that, if God is the author of good, He is also the author of evil; that, if He is entitled to our gratitude for the one, He is entitled to our hatred for the other; that, admitting the existence of this hypothetic being, He is also subjected to the dominion of an immutable necessity. It is plain that the same arguments which prove that God is the author of food, light, and life, prove Him also to be the author of poison, darkness, and death. The wide-wasting earthquake, the storm, the battle, and the tyranny, are attributable to this hypothetic being in the same degree as the fairest forms of nature, sunshine, liberty, and peace. But we are taught, by the doctrine of Necessity, that there is neither good nor evil in the universe, otherwise than as the events to which we apply these epithets have relation to our own peculiar mode of being. Still less than with the hypothesis of a God will the doctrine of Necessity accord with the belief of a future state of punishment. God made man such as he is, and than damned him for being so: for to say that God was the author of all good, and man the author of all evil, is to say that one man made a straight line and a crooked one, and another man made the incongruity. A Mahometan story, much to the present purpose, is recorded, wherein Adam and Moses are introduced disputing before God in the following manner. Thou, says Moses, art Adam, whom God created, and animated with the breath of life, and caused to be worshipped by the angels, and placed in Paradise, from whence mankind have been expelled for thy fault. Whereto Adam answered, Thou art Moses, whom God chose for His apostle, and entrusted with His word, by giving thee the tables of the law, and whom He vouchsafed to admit to discourse with Himself. How many years dost thou find the law was written before I was created? Says Moses, Forty. And dost thou not find, replied Adam, these words therein, And Adam rebelled against his Lord and transgressed? Which Moses confessing, Dost thou therefore blame me, continued he, for doing that which God wrote of me that I should do, forty years before I was created, nay, for what was decreed concerning me fifty thousand years before the creation of heaven and earth?—Sale’s “Prelim. Disc. to the Koran”, page 164.
This piece is a prose note that Shelley included with his long poem *Queen Mab*. In it, he presents the philosophical argument for Necessity—the notion that every event, thought, and action in the universe results inevitably from prior causes, which means there's no space for free will. Shelley contends that if you accept this view, you must abandon traditional concepts of punishment, merit, and a personal God who rewards or punishes individuals. He wraps up his argument with a story from Islamic tradition, where Adam tells Moses that God had inscribed his "sin" into the law forty years before Adam was created—serving as a compelling illustration of his point.
Line-by-line
Necessity! thou mother of the world!
He who asserts the doctrine of Necessity means that, contemplating the events which compose the moral and material universe...
Every human being is irresistibly impelled to act precisely as he does act...
But, whilst none have scrupled to admit necessity as influencing matter, many have disputed its dominion over mind.
The idea of liberty, applied metaphorically to the will, has sprung from a misconception of the meaning of the word power.
The doctrine of Necessity tends to introduce a great change into the established notions of morality, and utterly to destroy religion.
Religion is the perception of the relation in which we stand to the principle of the universe.
But we are taught, by the doctrine of Necessity, that there is neither good nor evil in the universe, otherwise than as the events to which we apply these epithets have relation to our own peculiar mode of being.
A Mahometan story, much to the present purpose, is recorded, wherein Adam and Moses are introduced disputing before God...
Tone & mood
The tone is both combative and clear. Shelley writes with the confidence of someone who has thoroughly considered his views and shows impatience for those who haven't. There's genuine intensity beneath the surface—particularly when discussing punishment and religion—but his writing remains measured and logical instead of becoming a rant. The only moment of lyrical expression comes with the opening exclamation, "Necessity! thou mother of the world!" After that, it's all about argument. The overall impression is of a young man wielding a philosophical tool, ready to apply it to every target he encounters: free will, retributive justice, and organized religion all receive the same treatment.
Symbols & metaphors
- The chain of causes — The central image of the entire note. The "immense and uninterrupted chain of causes and effects" symbolizes the complete interconnectedness of the universe — nothing exists in isolation, and nothing happens by chance. This reflects Shelley's perspective on both free will and divine providence.
- The viper and the tiger — Shelley uses these dangerous animals to show that we can label something as harmful without despising it or assigning it moral blame. We steer clear of a viper because it poses a threat, not because it is evil — and a Necessarian should view criminals in the same light.
- The aged husbandman and the old statesman — These two figures illustrate practical wisdom grounded in the concept of Necessity. The farmer and the politician are more skilled than novices simply because the world operates in a reliable, causal manner. In Shelley's view, their expertise serves as everyday evidence that Necessity exists.
- Adam's transgression written before creation — The closing story from the Koran symbolizes the concept of preordained fate. According to Shelley, Adam's sin was recorded in the law fifty thousand years before the world came to be, which makes the notions of blame and punishment seem absurd. This suggests that a religious tradition's own text subtly affirms the doctrine of Necessity.
- The monarch and his subjects — Shelley likens how people speak to God to how subjects speak to a king — through flattery, fear, and requests. This comparison diminishes the spiritual dignity of religious devotion, revealing it instead as a political dynamic imposed on the universe.
Historical context
Shelley wrote this prose note to accompany *Queen Mab* (1813), a radical political poem he had printed privately at the age of twenty. The note heavily references William Godwin's *Political Justice* (1793) and David Hume's *Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding* (1748), both of which advocate for determinism while challenging conventional morality and religion. By this time, Shelley was already an atheist and had been expelled from Oxford in 1811 for co-authoring *The Necessity of Atheism*. *Queen Mab* circulated underground for years—Shelley never published it officially—and it was later used against him in a custody battle for his children. The note on Necessity is part of a broader critique of monarchy, war, commerce, and organized religion that permeates the poem's framework. Robert d'Amiens (Damiens), who is mentioned in the note, was executed in 1757 for attempting to assassinate Louis XV; his torture became one of the most infamous examples of judicial cruelty in 18th-century Europe and a key reference for Enlightenment reformers.
FAQ
It’s the view that every event, including all human thoughts and actions, results from prior causes. Nothing could have unfolded differently. Nowadays, we refer to this as hard determinism. Shelley’s interpretation relies on Hume’s ideas about causation and Godwin’s political philosophy.
It’s a prose note linked to Shelley's lengthy poem *Queen Mab*. The line 'Necessity! thou mother of the world!' serves as the poetic epigraph, while the rest delves into a philosophical argument. Shelley included detailed prose notes to explore concepts that the verse only hinted at.
Because if every event results from prior causes, then God — if He exists — is responsible for evil as much as for good. You can't thank Him for sunshine and excuse Him from earthquakes. A God who condemns people for sins they were destined to commit, because He created them that way, is inherently unjust. Shelley argues that Necessity undermines any notion of a personal, moral God.
He believes retributive punishment — inflicting harm on someone because they 'deserve' it — is pointless under Necessity, as the criminal had no choice in their actions. The only valid reason for responding to crime is its utility: does it prevent future harm? He points to the torture of Damiens as an example of punishment that had no practical benefit and merely fulfilled a desire for revenge.
Robert-François Damiens attempted to assassinate King Louis XV of France in 1757 and faced a horrific public execution, one of the most brutal of the 18th century. Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire pointed to his case as evidence that judicial cruelty is both barbaric and ineffective. Shelley references this incident to argue that harsh punishment contributes nothing to human happiness and is, therefore, unjustifiable.
Shelley draws from George Sale's translation of the Koran. Adam claims that his sin was inscribed in divine law forty years before his creation, making it unreasonable to blame him for it. Shelley uses this argument to illustrate that even within a religious framework, the idea of pre-ordained fate — essentially Necessity — renders moral blame nonsensical.
He argues that the sense of freedom we experience is simply a lack of awareness of the influences acting upon us. Since we don't perceive the chain of motives that drive our choices, we mistakenly equate the absence of obvious pressure with true freedom. However, Hume's argument remains valid: when we refer to 'cause,' we essentially mean constant conjunction, and motives are linked to actions just as physical causes are linked to physical effects.
No. He is careful to say that a Necessarian still disapproves of harmful behavior and acts to prevent it—just as we avoid a viper without hating it. The difference is that the Necessarian feels compassion instead of contempt for wrongdoers and evaluates responses to crime based on their ability to reduce future harm rather than on whether they fulfill a desire for revenge.