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.Originally Posted by tn2743
Art is art.
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 sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew.
I'm not sure why he has mentioned purple here.
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.
Art is art.
"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.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.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
"In rime sparse il suono/ di quei sospiri ond' io nudriva 'l core/ in sul mio primo giovenile errore"~ Francesco Petrarca
"Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can."~ Jane Austen
Thanks Petrarch.
Petratch, man, your information is a bliss. I was also wondering the same thing...
I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew.
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.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
Not to distract, but to add. Heavy on people's minds must have been the following, and Liberty Bell.
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.
Art is art.
Hi,
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.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?
Last edited by Petrarch's Love; 04-22-2006 at 12:36 PM.
"In rime sparse il suono/ di quei sospiri ond' io nudriva 'l core/ in sul mio primo giovenile errore"~ Francesco Petrarca
"Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can."~ Jane Austen
Ok, I don't want to belabor this point. But here's one last attempt.
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.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
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: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.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.All in all, I think we all agree that Keats political sentiments are superficial.
"In rime sparse il suono/ di quei sospiri ond' io nudriva 'l core/ in sul mio primo giovenile errore"~ Francesco Petrarca
"Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can."~ Jane Austen
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.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
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'.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'.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.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?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.
Last edited by jackyyyy; 04-22-2006 at 05:57 PM.
Art is art.
Posting Permissions
