The article “The Arrogance of Keats’s ‘Grecian Urn,'” by George R. Levine argues that Keats used the inspiration drawn from ancient Greek vase inscriptions in crafting his poem, “Ode on a Grecian Urn.” It begins with a drawing that is inscribed to be the hand of Keats, who serves as a representation of a Greek vase. Speculation starts from the drawing regarding what could have been an influence of Greek art speculation and the tradition of speaking urns on the imagination of Keats. Levine contends,” His use, however, of the device of the speaking um in the great “Ode” suggests a more than casual connection to that same ancient convention that prompted Sosibios to inscribe his vase as he did” (Levine 39). The author accuses Keats’s work of having a direct link with the Greek Vase inscriptions that may have added credibility to his work to make the urn speak directly to the viewer in a way that it is claimed to address its viewers in the first person. Levine further speculates that Keats was acquainted with the British Museum’s collections, notably of vases and inscriptions, in relation to the poem’s composition. This speculation is evident in the statement, “We know, for example, that there was ample opportunity for Keats to have examined innumerable vases and urns at the British Museum, particularly once his imagination had been stimulated by the Elgin Marbles,” (Levine 40)
Furthermore, Levine focuses on the attitude that Keats would evolve for the urn throughout the poem. At first, Keats treats the urn as a human nature thing, typical for the human being. However, starting to suffer over his imaginative power, he strives against that urn, which maintains desolation in its rigor. Levine traces an evolution according to which “At the opening of the poem, the urn is both a ‘bride,’ a ‘foster-child,’ and later realizes his own inadequacy of imagination and sees that the urn serves to keep desolation alive” (Levine 41-42). This evolution of thought mirrors Keats’s deepened engagement with what the urn means and how he develops his sense of the nature of beauty and truth.
One point that seems interesting to me is that of Levine’s reading of the urn’s response when it changes into a “harshly realistic” mood in the last stanza of the poem (Levine 43). This would only mean that Keats, in full consciousness, makes the response of the urn turn into its negative disapproval of everything idealized up to this point, which gives it its multifaceted meaning. The implication that the urn’s reply could be taken as arrogant directly threatens conventional conceptions of the urn’s status within the poem, and, relatedly, the reader is directed to reassess the relevance of art to truth and human quest.This interpretation illuminates the text by noting the tension that exists between the beauty represented on the urn and the desolation of the urn’s response, as well as elaborating more upon what it is that Keats tries to explore thematically.
The passage that I found most difficult to understand was Levine’s discussion of how Keats’s attitude toward the urn changes throughout the poem – how it preserves desolation (Levine 41-42). Well, at least I received the general idea, but in light of Keats’ ever-changing view, I could not bring out the real nuances of his perspective and its importance for the overall poem.
To understand it better, I read some of Keats’s letters and related critical considerations of his works, including “Selection from Keats’s Letters” by John Keats. As I wrote this response and read more of Keats’s letters and other critics writing about his work, I found much that helped me appreciate how profoundly involved he was with issues of beauty, truth, and the transience of human life.
Works Cited
Keats, John. “Selections from Keats’s Letters by John Keats.” Poetry Foundation, 2 Mar. 2024, www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69384/selections-from-keatss-letters#:~:text=In%20the%20letters%2C%20he%20writes. Accessed 3 Mar. 2024.
Levine, George R. The Arrogance of Keats’s Grecian Urn.
write