Printable View
tn2743--Yes, "fair" is a noun, as in "fair maiden." He seems to be referring to some sort of unrequited love. I suppose "cruel parents" could be getting in the way of that love, or maybe they're just cruel on general principles because parents tell nineteen year old aspiring poets they should be in medical school etc. ;) (Keats did attend Med. school for a time before he dropped that profession to dedicate himself to writing). I frankly think it's a rather akward, contrived sounding line.
Your explanation of the line was quite good, but you made me smile with the sentence I quote you. Isn't "fair" in "fair maiden" an adjective, not a noun. :nod: I know I can slip on the finer points of grammer, but that one I think I know. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
Virg.--Thanks for pointing us to "Ode to Psyche." A more developed Keats poem with pinions in it. ;) I think you're right that he's acheived there a lot of what he's working out here. For one thing, the longer, less structured stanzas allow for much more musical activity. My copy, unlike the one here on Lit. Net has the poem divided into four rather than five stanzas, with no break between "A brooklet, scarce espied:" and "'Mid hushed, cool-rooted flowers, fragrant-eyed." Not only does the four stanza version make more sense (I mean, why break at the colon?), but it also means that each of the first three stanzas begin with the vocative "O"--"O Godess!," "O latest born and loveliest vision," "O brightest!" This very subtle anaphora demonstrates a way he's found to introduce repetition or refrain into his poetry without having to be so blatant as to hit the reader over the head with silver pinions. Also, just as you say, the laudatory nature of the poem doesn't neccessarily tell a story, but he finds more to tell, and in more interesting ways from stanza to stanza so that the reader has a feeling of having moved forward in the course of the poem.
Petrarch, are you a conductor or a musician? How cool!!! I was recently given some directions into listening and understanding classical music by a conductor friend (I'm almost blind and deaf musically) - it is just as hard as understanding poetry. But I find that music and poetry are similar in many ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
I was surprised to see the bits about nation's honour and liberty. I thought that the first 5 stanzas are also beautiful poetry, talking about something very deeply painful in a personal way. The fifth stanza seems almost like an ending of this personal comtemplation, when he asks himself whether it is in vain to throw poetry into the air. It feels like a deep 'sign', a deep breath to finally rest his worries. But then the next two stanzas suddenly come back to describe much more abtract problems (and, as you said, something he has not invested in emotionally). They kind of broke the progression down for me. It seems like he was not sure whether he has finished 'unloading' all of his worries onto the page, not sure what bothers him. Although, it is possible that this lack of progession can be delibrate. Wha ya think? :)
:lol: You're quite right. I was unconsciously quoting where the use of "fair" as a noun seems to most frequently arise from. I've seen writers start off referring to the "fair maid" and subsequently just shortening it to "fair." So I suppose I meant it not as an example of how the word is used as a noun, but what it is that "fair" is replacing. The "fair maiden" becomes the "fair". Thanks for keeping me on my toes. ;)Quote:
Your explanation of the line was quite good, but you made me smile with the sentence I quote you. Isn't "fair" in "fair maiden" an adjective, not a noun. I know I can slip on the finer points of grammer, but that one I think I know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tn2743
I was surprised too to see the political brought up here too. I guess it is understandable on a poem about hope and the national fear that Napoleon brought.
At some point we should discuss the closing couplets to each stanza and why he does what he does with them. I've certainly not come to any understanding.
No, I'm not a professional musician, though it would be wonderful to be that talented. I'm just a lit. scholar who plays the piano on a pretty amateur level and have a deep interest in and appreciation of classical music. :)Quote:
Petrarch, are you a conductor or a musician? How cool!!! I was recently given some directions into listening and understanding classical music by a conductor friend (I'm almost blind and deaf musically) - it is just as hard as understanding poetry. But I find that music and poetry are similar in many ways.
Like you guys, I also feel like the political is out of place here. I feel as though he was trying to cover every situation that came to his mind as possibly troubling and depressing--politics often fits that bill. ;) I think it's a good idea to take a closer look at each stanza Virg., but I'm going to leave that until later, since I've got miles to read before I sleep. :as-sleep:Quote:
I was surprised too to see the political brought up here too. I guess it is understandable on a poem about hope and the national fear that Napoleon brought.
At some point we should discuss the closing couplets to each stanza and why he does what he does with them. I've certainly not come to any understanding.
I have only noticed that he uses the rhyme "shed" and "head" many times, though not in a clear pattern. But every time he uses this rhyme, it is to conclude the stanza with a feeling that he is passive and is waiting for protection or blessing from Hope or a greater power. Perhaps he is stressing that he is not doing enough himself to help the situation, that he is helpless: "O let me think it is not quite in vain/ To sigh out sonnets to the midnight air!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
There's another kind of hope; one you can help by participating in in the proccess of obtaining the result to be hoped for. He could be fighting in the war, or be in the court protecting lady Liberty. Maybe he is cursing his lack of action and his "morbid fancy" that he could probably escape himself?
Other than that, I can't see anything either. I don't understand the radomness in which this particular rhyme appears.
That's really cool too. The piano is my favourite instrument. I love listening to Arthur Rubinstein, though I can't articulate 'why' intellectually... just seems calmer and deeper. I'm a grade one piano, btw :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
Anyway, back to poetry...
I do not sense quite 'helplessness', instead 'acceptance', and then he adds 'hope'. In regard to progression, I am finding the early stanzas discuss 'personal love and hope' and the later, 'love and hope of country (duty)'. I am not suggesting he is making a comparison, because I cannot see where he provokes that (yet), but I will suggest its a progression.Quote:
Originally Posted by tn2743
Another point about those times, duty was pressganged.
Interestingly, and I do not mean to fester this thread with my meanderings, but many poems have evolved into modern songs.
An interesting thought I just had. The political does show the differences between Keats and the other Romantics. The other Romantics had a subversive element to their thoughts and politics. One could never imagine Shelley writing the following: "Let me not see our country's honour fade: / O let me see our land retain her soul" I can't recall any element in Keats' opus that was politically subversive.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackyyyy
I think Shelley and Yeats would have been more precise. I put this down to Keats being either less skilled or less confident at the time. I am comparing a lot with the recent Yeats piece, after the comparisons other people made, which wandered around in discussion for other reasons, not these same. Honour can be at a high price, and just maybe in Keat's situation (war times), at the price of personal love, health and other things. So, if I take that notion further it gives again the progression from personal love to love of country/duty. The 'hope' is calling for 'silver pinions' to arrive, and victory - an end to suffering. I sense resignation (I called it acceptance before), but different to Yeats (he was 19, should be full of life), and wonder if its a tough and reluctant resignation as a young man might resent. Also, being 19, and not being a military man, he would use 'refrain' in politeness.
The history fascinates me as much as the actual message itself. When I combine the times, personal biography and circumstances, I see a picture underneath the words. And here, I wonder if he was being a politer Shelley.
badnet....
I didn't quite understan why you have made this replacement. I don't think that 'acceptance' or 'resignation' would accompany 'Hope' as well as 'helplessness' or perhaps a better word that I can't quite think of; since the word 'resignation' itself somewhat implies lack or absence of 'Hope'. Doesn't it? Besides, if you were on the same page as me, I was talking about the final couplets of the stanzas. Where did he add Hope, if this 'resignation' was suggested in the final couplets of each stanza? I am not denying that there might be a progression that I cannot see, but maybe not in the direction of resignation. Wouldn't that contradict with the title too much?Quote:
Originally Posted by jackyyyy
Has anyone thought more about this question? I think Virgil asked a good question here. I also thought that Petrarch were right in saying that we should look at each stanza individually in order to find a progression, since there seem to be no obvious pattern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I think we've digested the fact there are eight stanzas, there is a lot here, and but you are right, each sentence could be given a lot of attention. 'Helpless' didn't quite do it for me. In stanza after stanza, he writes, 'When.., Should.., And as..'. Acceptance/resignation that life may/should/would be sad, ...there are despondent times, and then hope for silver pinions to arrive. I am suggesting resignation to the earthly things does not preclude unearthly things. I think the other word you mentioned, 'passive' is how I would describe his character, but not mood. Sometimes he goes '!'.Quote:
Originally Posted by tn2743
I see what you mean about how "when..., should..., And as..." can be a sign of acceptance. They do give a feeling of submission or simply of being 'fed up'. But that is why in the last couplet of each stanza, the hope that he asks for seems so passive and helpless; but as long as he is wishing for things, he can't have given up. I think you would agree that...Quote:
Originally Posted by jackyyyy
"Sweet Hope, ethereal balm upon me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o'er my head"
...does not constitute a resignation.
He is wishing for something. Though even this wish is not as lively as can be. He could wish for the strength to get through whatever misfortune; he could wish for a chance to undo whatever mistake. But instead he asks to be protected or cheered up. He just wants to be blessed and offers nothing in return but verses.
Sorry Jackyyyy, could you explain a little more about how 'passive' is his "character" but not "mood"? How have you separated them from each other through the message given by the poem? I see an expression of self - it can be either the mood or the character; but how does it express both separately and differently?Quote:
Originally Posted by jackyyyy
Are you saying that the mood is positive or negative? '!' represents determination or desperation, no? How does that defy the passive 'mood'? Unless it's a positive mood and he is determined, then that wouldn't fit your 'resgination' theory anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackyyyy
Perhaps neither "resignation" nor "helplessness" quite covers his view of despair in the world. I think it's a matter of "recognition." In the first portion of each stanza he recognizes something that either is bad or has the potential to become bad in his life. Perhaps there are some ways in which he goes so far as acceptance of certain things that happen in life over which he has no control, but I don't think it ever goes so far as resignation, and, as Jackyyyy says, accepting earthly hardships does not preclude hope in some heavenly good (not that I think hope is relegated to the next world here--there seem to be plenty of points for hope on this earth).
The final lines of each stanza are more like a repeated prayer than anything else. They are requests that "Hope" will act to fight against and sheild him from despair. This externalization and personification of Hope does give the impression of the speaker being in a passive, plaintive position. At the same time, however, the struggle is actually an internal one. Hope is something within the poet. He is calling upon something within himself, appealing to the better instincts of his own personality.
No, the 'When/Should/And as' refers to subjunctive mood. I am suggesting 'acceptance/resignation' that life can be sad. I don't think submissive/fed up/helpless are the same as acceptance/resignation.Quote:
Originally Posted by tn2743
I agree, this is hope. The resignation(s) I am referring to are prior in those stanzas.Quote:
"Sweet Hope, ethereal balm upon me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o'er my head"
...does not constitute a resignation.
Agreed, he is not revolting/fighting, instead wishing/hoping, which makes his character somewhat 'passive'. He states an example then calls on silver pinions and hope to arrive.Quote:
He is wishing for something. Though even this wish is not as lively as can be. He could wish for the strength to get through whatever misfortune; he could wish for a chance to undo whatever mistake. But instead he asks to be protected or cheered up. He just wants to be blessed and offers nothing in return but verses. Sorry Jackyyyy, could you explain a little more about how 'passive' is his "character" but not "mood"? How have you separated them from each other through the message given by the poem? I see an expression of self - it can be either the mood or the character; but how does it express both separately and differently?
Overall positive '!'. Resignation to the facts of life (cases he mentions) does not mean the end. The word 'helpless' does not work for me because I believe he could revolt, and therefore he is not helpless.Quote:
Are you saying that the mood is positive or negative? '!' represents determination or desperation, no? How does that defy the passive 'mood'? Unless it's a positive mood and he is determined, then that wouldn't fit your 'resgination' theory anymore.
Agreed, it is a recognition in that he recognizes it to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
Here again, he is not helpless. He can call on something to help. I use the word 'resignation' as acceptance, not termination. A repeated prayer, yes. I am not sure about calling upon something within himself. I need to read it with that view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
I'm afraid you're not making any sense and haven't explained yourself any clearer to me. So he resigns to the fact that life is sad, but he doesn't terminate the hope that it might not be? A slight contradiction don't you think? How else do you suggest we should percieve this statement? And you haven't explained the character v mood theory that you proposed either.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackyyyy
I agree with you. I think that you have found the middle ground here, or have made the arguments clearer to me anyway. I like the idea of the repeated prayers; maybe it's not as complicated as I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
No, I wrote, resigned to the fact that life 'can' be sad. I wrote, I use the word resignation as acceptance, 'not' termination. My point was, the word 'helpless' does not fit, and your word 'passive' is closer to how I would describe hiim. I do not think it valuable to put more energy into explaining his character, the 'hymn' idea has stuck, and I like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by tn2743
Oh, I think that if only Keats wouldn't have repeated the lines: "And wave thy silver pinions over my head" poem would have been better but it is still good, in my opinion.
Quoting Petratch Lover: "Hope is something within the poet. He is calling upon something within himself, appealing to the better instincts of his own personality"
I agree with you and I think that we have no right to say that he was in a bad mood or in a good mood. All we are talking about is the poem which includes poet but not hismoods. He wrote this poem but all draw backs of it, they will remain as they were whether he was in a good mood or a bad one.
I'm not sure why he has mentioned purple here. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive
I go to court in England all the time, and the only purple I see is the purple on the Judge's robe. So base on this risky observation (that it is about the purple of the robe that he writes), I'll ask another question: does he mean that the judges oppress Liberty?
There were arguments during the Enlightenment (and even now) that the English retrospective legal system based on common law, which claims to serve the interest of the people better than continental laws, was putting too much legislative power in the hands of the judges (when, according to popular belief, legislative power belongs to the people). Maybe this could be what he talks about. Then, once again, I find this stanza strange and lacking in "emotional investment".
Unless, of course, I have misunderstood the purple completely.
Well.. I have no idea either, but here is something...... 'Great liberty, 1790. riots... the Great Liberty Virginians, Lady Liberty and Liberty Bell, late 1700s, purple - flower of freedom.
"Purple" is a common shorthand way of poetically refering to a monarch or royalty, or things associated with royalty. Since Roman times it has been considered the color of the royal and the elite, since purple dye was, for a long time, both rare and expensive. This is how I had read the line.Quote:
I'm not sure why he has mentioned purple here.
As people have been remarking, Keats is not generally as political a poet as say, Shelley or others of the romantic circle, but he shared similar liberal views in favor of a strong democracy, freedom of the press, etc. One of his few other political poems is a brief poem written in the same year as this one, 1815, in response to the celebrations held in Briton in that year in honor of the anniversary of the restoration of Charles II (the king who was restored to the throne in the 17th century, ending the period of the protectorate in England--mostly under Cromwell--that resulted after the English civil wars). These 1815 celebrations were made in conjunction with the forced exile of the "rightful" French King, Louis XVIII to London because of Napoleon's escape from Elba. Evidently all this celebration of monarchy made Keats and others uneasy. I assume the "purple" in the "Hope" poem alludes to similar concerns about a threat to democracy in England. The court would be the king's court to which liberty--i.e. republicanism or democracy--would be forced to bow (though the choice of the word court may also have a secondary allusion to justice--I'd be interested if anyone else could make more with that). The poem criticising the Restoration celebrations is brief enough that I'll quote it here:
The Sidney, Russell, and Vane mentioned, were republicans executed as traitors after the restoration in 1660.Quote:
Lines Written on 29 May
The anniversary of the Restoration of Charles II
Infatuate Britons, will you still proclaim
His memory, your direst, foulest shame?
Nor patriots revere?
Ah! when I hear each traitorous lying bell,
'Tis gallant Sidney's, Russell's, Vane's sad knell,
That pains my wounded ear
--Keats, 1815
Thanks Petrarch. :)
Petratch, man, your information is a bliss. I was also wondering the same thing...
But doesn't this show how different Keats' politics (if he really had any, remember he was still only 19) was from the other Romantics? By Keats' day the republican protestant gov't was the long established rule. There's 150 years between the Restoration and Keats' day. The politics of the Restoration (I'm treading here on ground I'm not all that learned in) had a lot to do with Catholic versus Protestant understandings of Kingship. It had all been decided by Keats' day, and the new dichotomy of Keats' time was freedom, ala the American and French revolutions and the aristocracy (albeit limited) of England. Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Blake all supported the French Revolution, and while Shelley and Byron were too young at the time, but certainly their world views were in synch with this new order. Keats' as I can tell seems not to be. But again I'm not all that familiar with the politics of 1815. Remember, by then the french revolution had soured and become dispicable, and then Napoleon was on the rise. Wordsworth ultimately came to reject the french revolution model. The point of all this is, either Keats' was just superficially taking up the local political sentiments of his day or he was quite uncharacteristically "conservative" compared to the other Romantics. I tend to believe it was mostly superficial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
Not to distract, but to add. Heavy on people's minds must have been the following, and Liberty Bell.
Quote:
Jackson’s energy got results, and timely reinforcements from Kentucky and Tennessee brought his available forces to a little over 5,000. After several minor attacks in December, the British launched their grand assault at dawn of January 8, 1815. It was a foolhardy attempt-an attack in close columns against earthworks defended by artillery and riflemen whose aim was known to be deadly. The assault ended in terrible defeat for the British. The British lost their three highest-ranking officers, some 2,000 other casualties, and the city of New Orleans. Jackson’s losses were just thirteen killed.
Hi,Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
So the 'court' in "the base purple of the court oppress'd" is not a court of law but the court of royal rule?
If the case is that of the latter, then I will agree with Virgil here. It doesn't seem like Keats has had much time to think about politics before writing this stanza. It seems quite superficial and too brief.
Ok, first off I think you're probably right to a certain extent in that, as I said in my earlier post, I don't think Keats is really a political poet, and I don't think he is giving very rigorous attention to the fine points of politics in his poem. That said, I don't see any problem with drawing parallels between the English civil wars of the seventeenth century and the issues in Keats day (Keats certainly didn't). To begin with it isn't strictly true that the 17th century conflict was over Catholic and Protestant views. England was a Protestant country at that point so the issue was with the Puritans on Cromwell's side who took issue with Charles I's support of more "high church" (but still protestant) practices. It is true that some feared that Charles might be inclining toward turning England back to Catholicism, but he hadn't in fact so, though religion was definately a factor, it was a more complex thing than a simple Catholic/Protestant dichotomy.Quote:
But doesn't this show how different Keats' politics (if he really had any, remember he was still only 19) was from the other Romantics? By Keats' day the republican protestant gov't was the long established rule. There's 150 years between the Restoration and Keats' day. The politics of the Restoration (I'm treading here on ground I'm not all that learned in) had a lot to do with Catholic versus Protestant understandings of Kingship. It had all been decided by Keats' day, and the new dichotomy of Keats' time was freedom, ala the American and French revolutions and the aristocracy (albeit limited) of England. Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Blake all supported the French Revolution, and while Shelley and Byron were too young at the time, but certainly their world views were in synch with this new order. Keats' as I can tell seems not to be. But again I'm not all that familiar with the politics of 1815. Remember, by then the french revolution had soured and become dispicable, and then Napoleon was on the rise. Wordsworth ultimately came to reject the french revolution model. The point of all this is, either Keats' was just superficially taking up the local political sentiments of his day or he was quite uncharacteristically "conservative" compared to the other Romantics. I tend to believe it was mostly superficial.
The big issue in the civil wars, setting the religion aside for a moment, was really a matter of parliamentary rights and dissatisfaction with Charles I's rule. There were a number of financial issues at stake and a desire for a stronger role for parliament. We're talking about a group that beheaded the king and started a decade long interregnum without a monarchy. While it can be debated how successful they were, and how much Cromwell came to resemble a monarch himself, the idea behind the interregnum was that they were establishing a republican commonwealth. The restoration of the monarchy in 1660 would be the end of this republican experiment. In other words, the issues between the royalists and the roundheads in the 17th century were very much related to a conflict similar to that between "freedom and the aristocracy" that you applied to the romantic period. Someone who would support the types of republican ideals of the French and American revolutions in Keats' day could quite logically refer back to this earlier (albeit failed) attempt at a republican model of government. I thought his allusion back to a sympathy with the republicans of the civil wars made his stance in favor of the new ideals of "freedom" in his own day pretty clear. From all I've read about him I gather that Keats' views were, if anything, liberally inclined. Again, I do think his treatment of politics is somewhat "superficial" as you say--that's why I find his political moments pretty dull--but I'm not seeing the evidence that he's coming across as much different than or more conservative than the other romantic poets we've been mentioning. Maybe I'm just missing something you're picking up on?
Ok, I don't want to belabor this point. But here's one last attempt. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
The way Keats is expressing himself politically (in both the poem at hand and the bit that you quote) strikes me as different than when Shelley and Byron express themselves politically. I'm no expert of the times, so bear with me. Shelley and Byron (and I believe they both left England for somewhat political reasons) strike me as being subversive to their gov'ts, similar to the Beat generation poets of recent years. Keats' sentiment is definitely not subversivce, in fact supportive. The Restoration was 150 years prior to Keats. That's a long time. Just consider us expressing opinions of a political issue of 1856. Especially given the issues at hand of the French Revolution and the rise and threat of Napoleon. I don't know. All in all, I think we all agree that Keats political sentiments are superficial.
I guess we're just reading the poem very differently. I didn't think Keats was really being supportive of his current government. Supportive of his country, yes, but not perhaps of its current policies. In these lines for example:Quote:
The way Keats is expressing himself politically (in both the poem at hand and the bit that you quote) strikes me as different than when Shelley and Byron express themselves politically. I'm no expert of the times, so bear with me. Shelley and Byron (and I believe they both left England for somewhat political reasons) strike me as being subversive to their gov'ts, similar to the Beat generation poets of recent years. Keats' sentiment is definitely not subversivce, in fact supportive.
"O let me see our land retain her soul,
Her pride, her freedom; and not freedom's shade."
He is concerned that England will no longer be able to retain "her soul," but that this true freedom will be replaced by a mere "shade," an imitation of freedom. This looked to me like a critique of overly conservative tendencies that he was afraid were endangering the existing freedoms he valued in his country. He may not be as boldly spoken as say, Shelley, but I think his tendencies are more in that direction than not.
As for, the matter of his referring back to the civil wars, the point is that he wasn't making a political statement about an event 150 years ago. He was using the resonance of an allusion to this historical event that he assumed most of his readers would associate with a certain kind of conflict between republican freedom and monarchy in order to saterize the attitudes of his own period. We still do this with our own history. If someone wrote a piece alluding to the nazi movement or about Benedict Arnold, we would instantly grasp that they aren't really concerned with the specific issues of sixty or even two-hundred years ago, but are drawing a parallel between those times and our own to make a statement about corrupt government or treachery.Quote:
The Restoration was 150 years prior to Keats. That's a long time. Just consider us expressing opinions of a political issue of 1856. Especially given the issues at hand of the French Revolution and the rise and threat of Napoleon.
Yes, I think we do. I don't really want to belabor the point either, just interested that we seem to have read it so very differently. :)Quote:
All in all, I think we all agree that Keats political sentiments are superficial.
OK, you're probably rght, Petrarch. I think you convinced me. Keats' words are vague enough for multiple readings, and his appeal to national honor seemed different than what Shelley or Byron might say. But perhaps that's just my personal impression of Byron and Shelley.
If I read the poem with the mindview of a Loyalist, then the beginning and the end nolonger appear disjointed. The fought over freedoms that Keats understood were, a century and more later, fighting the freedom fighters of the rest of the World. Trafalgar was 1805, and the French and Spanish were still powerful enemies. New Orleans was 1815, and news would have hit England just prior to his writing the poem. Great Liberty was the cry of the French Republic, and the people of 'plain attire'.Quote:
Let me not see our country's honour fade:
O let me see our land retain her soul,
Her pride, her freedom; and not freedom's shade.
He writes, 'retain' these things, but NOT, 'freedom's shade'. I think here it means, 'a lesser Freedom'.Quote:
not freedom's shade.
Keats is not decrying the regime, subversive, instead appears saddened/worried by its potential loss forever. This is why the word 'passive' seems to fit here. He does not appear 'threatened' or outspoken on the issue. Rather, he explains some emotional stuff, his feelings. He starts the poem with talk of despondency and hope, love and 'freedoms'. I take these early lines as examples of freedom of soul. Then finally, he states it:Patriot versus patriot, he does not want to see the patriot's death, the hard earn't Liberty now 'great in plain attire'. Which patriot is he talking about, and why 'base' purple.. a dirtied purple? I wonder if he was actually the political opposite of Shelley and Byron, or and probably an undecided 19 year old.Quote:
Let me not see the patriot's high bequest,
Great Liberty! how great in plain attire!
With the base purple of a court oppress'd,
Bowing her head, and ready to expire:
He seems unsure here?Quote:
Sweet Hope, celestial influence round me shed,
I know my take on it depends on a few things, but it makes most sense to me right now. Those were desperate years, and being loyal was at a high price and sacrifice. It was an ideal. Events forced Keats to look again at his values, with Shelley and others would have been pulling, swaying him. When I read the opening stanzas, and what he held dear and fair, then consider what actually transpired, did celestial influence bear on Keats and those, and finally us? Its a powerful poem in many ways, and I think its unfortunate that we have such a problem finding its absolute context, but I would like that.
I don't know if I shall say something, being old and new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I read with great interest all your comments. I noticed that at each reading of the poem I reached a different opinion.
First, to answer Virgils question: in one of the learned books of my husband's (Brodie's Notes) it is said, Yeats speaks of Ireland in the first stroph.
Then, in my understanding of the poem, he wants to turn his back on this country where 'all neglect Monuments of unageing intellect', (he's not humble) and there too much life going on for an old man. So he sails to B. and pleads to the emblems of permanence, to allow him to enter eternity - and here the key word - 'sick with desire'. He knows he's human (dying animal) and he knows: eternity is just an idea, a dream, a desire, an illusion. He accepts that. The sages in the gold mosaic, who are eternal, shall be his singing master, as he is a poet.
Beginning of stroph IV stresses not a truth (maybe denial of rebirth) but ('But') the wish to be that poet who works and hammers at the material that lasts (the words). And he is conscious that that object is without any practical use in the world, we are the drowsy Emperors, eyes half closed we listen to a bird sing 'Of what is past, or passing, or to come' (the sensual music of life) and then go back to real living.
This poem is the sigh which is in all of us.
Melanie
I think your reading seems to fit as I read it too. I take it you liked the poem?
Every Monday, one of us selects a new poem for the week to discuss. Since it is near nightfall on Sunday for you, why don't you post a poem you would like discussed? I think we've pretty much completed the Keats poem.
Hi Melanie. Good to meet you. You're right, seems we already know something of a work or start from scratch, and each read and each post brings a new impression. Quite amazing how the picture (almost a book, if I may) unfolds each time. You brought some very interesting comments with you. "shall be his singing master, as he is a poet" gives me another piece in the puzzle and I did not know this about him and Ireland. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by MelanieD
One thing I forgot to mention on "Sailing to Byzantim." There is a great rendition of it set to music by Paul Hillier in a CD called "Bitter Ballads". Hillier is an early (medevil and renaissance) music conductor and arranger, and this CD is poetry (Swift, Blake, Yeats, Stein, etc.) arranged around early music form. You can check the CD out here, and even listen to little clips: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...=glance&n=5174
Early music has become a fascination for me, and coupled with poetry, I was overwhelmed. I can't say that everything on the CD works perfectly, but everything is at least interesting. You can read about Paul Hillier here:http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Hillier-Paul.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hillier
I also would love to hear other classic poems set to music. I have not been too succesful in finding some. If anyone is aware of classic poetry set to music, please inform me of it.
Virgil, I don't know if you like folk at all but I love this guy, Greg Brown. He dedicates an entire album to William Blake.
Greg Brown, and Songs of Innocence and Experience