Dear Romanticists,
First, my apologies for the late posting; if you do not get a chance to upload your post before class, no worries.
In the 1819 letter assigned for Tuesday, Keats challenges the popular Christian notion of the world as a “vale of tears,” or a place in which people ceaselessly suffer until removed to Heaven by a merciful god (1459-60, Napoleonic edition). This is not to say that Keats denies the pain of existence—how could he?—but rather he believes that pain is a vital and even salutary element of human life:
In the 1819 letter assigned for Tuesday, Keats challenges the popular Christian notion of the world as a “vale of tears,” or a place in which people ceaselessly suffer until removed to Heaven by a merciful god (1459-60, Napoleonic edition). This is not to say that Keats denies the pain of existence—how could he?—but rather he believes that pain is a vital and even salutary element of human life:
“Do you not see how necessary a world of pains and troubles
is to school an intelligence and make it a soul, a place where the heart must
feel and suffer in a thousand diverse ways?” (1459).
Forms of suffering develop our souls; they refine our
senses, shape our identities, and teach us to feel for others. Our poems for Tuesday explore how, precisely,
pain is connected to these larger phenomena.
In “Ode on Melancholy” Keats joins the discussion Wordsworth and
Coleridge developed in their earlier odes on psychic pain. “La Belle Dame Sans Merci” returns to the
ballad form that has largely faded from our notice since the first half of the
course. Echoing both the encounter
structure and the supernatural interest of Coleridge and Wordsworth, it tells
the story of romantic betrayal. Finally,
as a sonnet grappling with devotion and mortality, “Bright Star” might remind
you of Wordsworth’s “Surprised by Joy.”
As you read, consider the ways in which Keats expands or departs from
these models of melancholic poetics.
Happy reading,
Prof. M.
Happy reading,
Prof. M.
I interpreted the part of Keats' letter about suffering forming people's souls as simply saying that souls are not sent into the world fully formed, but are changed by circumstances and how people react to them. This goes against the Christian idea of predestination, or that some people are naturally evil and some are naturally good. I find it interesting that Keats' letter is unnecessarily convoluted or extended; for example, the conclusion is a progressive list or something: "...man was formed by circumstances--and what are circumstances? but touchstones of his heart? [...] and what are provings of his heart but fortifiers or alterers of his nature? and what is his altered nature but his Soul? and what was his Soul before it came into the world and had these provings and alterations and perfectionings?. . ."
ReplyDeleteI shortened it because it's too long. This letter style is different than Keats' poetry since it is more direct and doesn't rely on allusions or symbolism, like a "Bright Star," but it's not like Keats is speaking (as I write in these blog comments). These letters are more like essays, besides for the daily news bits. I wonder if the recipients really read Keats' philosophic musings or simply skimmed for the life updates. Keats incorporated poems in his letters, too, which are easier to read in a letter than dense logical discussions. Keats did not expect, probably, that the public would enjoy reading his private letters but I think it can be assumed he thought his brother would appreciate his theoretical reasonings.
The letter extracts are super entertaining. In the first, through style alone, he cuts Coleridge in half. Content quickly slips away, and dash after dash after endless dash you feel the old “alderman" incessant babbling on. All punctuation goes to hell, and you are falling asleep, going crazy together with Keats. It all devolves into a sort of mess of high-falutin, nonsensical terms. It’s pretty hysterical, especially considering the totally different accounting Coleridge offers of the same meeting. Poor guy. Coleridge gives three sentences and one of them is his egotistical, unlikely quote of Keats’s desperate goodbye. Coleridge, as always, really wants to be a connector - and a rock star, and a prophet [supposedly divining then that Keats was about to kick]. I’m probably biased to the Keats version because, well, I read it first. But, Coleridge’s version seems really implausible.
ReplyDeleteThe second extract gives a circuitous, long-winded, but ultimately logical, conclusive explanation of…life. Does a nice job of describing what he thinks the soul is in quite a short space. Interesting, though, that Keats does not mention Judaism in his list of religions that he has just “figured out.” Maybe this gives Keats too much credit, but his choice not to include Judaism works because his philosophy totally falls apart in the face of Jewish kabbalistic thought. He says, essentially, that the heart imprints character on the soul, dictating personality, behavior and all to it. Jewish thought explains that humans are specifically built so that mind governs heart. The soul - that piece of God that Keats mentioned - gets cloaked by the barrage of the world. In Jewish mysticism, already in that soul there is character, personality, disposition. Interesting disparity.