In both poems Keats is speaking about life and the best emotional moments in it being held in a state of suspended animation where love, desire, youth, beauty, passion, piety, and various forms of perfection may last forever.
In the Ode, Keats is concentrating on a work of art. In "Bright Star" he is looking upon a work of nature. In both cases, however, he is IMAGINING the experience of an everlasting moment in time. The star is only knowable through the imagination, as are the "spirit ditties of no tone" in the Ode. He is having trouble entering the world he imagines. In "Bright Star" Keats uses a telescoped vision, a trick of perspective to imagine the star in that position he wants to be, at his beloved's bosom. He uses a trick of detail to try to put himself in the desired position within the world of the urn, looking ever more closely at various details, such as the leaves and the heiffer's coat.
But, very typically of Keats, the very trick he uses to try to enter the world he imagines is the thing that defeats him: he notices too much detail. He is almost at the point of becoming part of that everlasting ecstasy when he realizes something that puts him back into sad reality: the town is empty--all the people have gone out of it for the procession he is watching. There is a negative for every positive. With that he realizes that he cannot enter that world, that "pastoral" world that was probably never the idealized image on the urn.
If that perfect moment of being on the verge of ecstasy lasts forever, Keats realizes, then no one in that cold imaginary world of the art object can ever be satisfied. The lovers on the urn are not enjoying the moment, only Keats as poet can appreciate that "Forever wilt thou love and she be fair."
The lesson, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," is about KNOWING, not experiencing. And that is all a work of art has to tell us: "all ye know and all ye need to know." Of course, it isn't all we need to know--that is not true, and we should follow our natural responses to that pronouncement, which are almost always dissatisfaction. The fact that it is not all we need to know, and therefore not true brings the whole meaning of art and the purpose of poetry into question for Keats.
We can IMAGINE the perfect moment, even REPRESENT it in art and trick ourselves into seeing it in nature, but we can never live it, for we cannot live without knowing that the moment must always come to an end, and the stars we wish on are only touchable in our minds. Every moment, every poem and every work of art must ultimately fail. The question is, can we make that failure beautiful in a poem?
At the beginning of the Romantic movement, the poets Wordsworth and Coleridge set out to re-imagine and perfect the experience of the world through poetry. Wordsworth believed that it was possible to make the failure of perfection beautiful. Keats and Shelley, sometimes thought of as the second generation of Romantic poets (along with Byron), felt that the project of Wordsworth and Coleridge had failed, and Keats' two great odes are about that failure.
2007-03-26 22:48:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
the grecian urn is beautiful ...n its beauty will never have 2 face death ...also that its engraving tells a story of pursuit of love .this is what keats desires, undying love n eternal beauty.
2007-03-27 03:06:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by vulcan_m 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I had to reread that one. Keats is one of my favorite romantic poets.
What I get from it is:
The urn is an ancient relic that has surpassed ages (when old age shall this generation waste / thou shalt remain. . .), but even to this day, it represents youthfulness ( .. .that cannot shed / Your leaves, nor ever bid the Spring adieu).
The very start of it (THOU still unravish'd bride of quietness), to me, represents its purity and serenity.
He compares the urn to many different things through out, but those are the initial impressions I got of what qualities were desireable. Hope that helps.
2007-03-26 21:24:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by ppaper.wingss 3
·
0⤊
1⤋