Ecological Consciousness in the Poetry of William Wordsworth and Percy Bysshe Shelley: An Ecocritical Reading through Ayah and Tawhid

Authors

  • Nasim Sekh Department of Civilizational Studies, Darul Huda Islamic University, Kerala, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63954/wajss.v5i3.508

Keywords:

Ecocriticism, Romanticism, William Wordsworth, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Comparative Literature

Abstract

This study examines the ecological consciousness embedded in the poetry of William Wordsworth and Percy Bysshe Shelley through an ecocritical framework enriched by the comparative concepts of Ayah (sign) and Tawhid (unity). While ecocriticism has traditionally developed within Western literary theory, this research demonstrates how selected concepts from Islamic intellectual thought can broaden ecological interpretation without implying historical influence or textual dependence. Employing qualitative textual analysis and close reading, the study examines Tintern Abbey, The Tables Turned, The World Is Too Much with Us, The Prelude, Ode to the West Wind, and Mont Blanc. The analysis argues that Wordsworth presents nature as a moral educator and a source of spiritual reflection, whereas Shelley imagines nature as a dynamic system of energy, transformation, and universal interconnectedness. Interpreting these poetic visions through the comparative frameworks of Ayah and Tawhid reveals significant conceptual affinities concerning ecological ethics, environmental responsibility, and the intrinsic value of the natural world. The study concludes that Romantic poetry provides enduring ecological insights that remain highly relevant to contemporary environmental crises and contributes to the development of comparative ecocriticism by establishing a dialogue between British Romantic literature and Islamic environmental thought.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-30

How to Cite

Nasim Sekh. (2026). Ecological Consciousness in the Poetry of William Wordsworth and Percy Bysshe Shelley: An Ecocritical Reading through Ayah and Tawhid. Wah Academia Journal of Social Sciences, 5(3), 112–139. https://doi.org/10.63954/wajss.v5i3.508