Oblivious Happiness

In Stanza I of "Ode to a Nightingale" there is a separation between the speaker and the bird. The colon at the end of the fourth line sets it apart from the rest of the stanza. The first four lines are set a part from the rest as well with a sense of obvious melancholy. The speaker’s heart aches and there is a drowsy numbness that pains his senses. The speaker seems to be set apart from the bird in a way that allows for analysis or interpretation of the bird. This can be seen through the use of the word “thy” in line 5, the speaker is talking to the bird as he observes the bird’s “happy lot”. The phrase “melodious plot” in line 8 brings up an image of a gravesite. This is a place where oblivious happiness could cause the sort of sadness that the speaker is experiencing. The bird is unable to note the sadness that the speaker seems to be consumed with. It seems as though the bird is too happy. Drinking from the river Lethe in Hades causes a sort of oblivion, there’s a reference to this river in line 4. For the speaker the oblivion has sunk, and he is fully aware of a sadness that the bird seems unconscious of. 

Green Eyed for the Nightingale

In the first stanza of "Ode to a Nightingale," Keats establishes a strange, almost childish mood. He talks about his "drowsy numbness," which seems to either be caused by drugs, his own emotions, or both. However, the childish attitude shows through in his jealousy for the nightingale. He says that it is not envy that drives him, but rather, he just cannot understand how the nightingale can be so happy. This rejection of jealousy serves more to prove Keats' jealousy, rather than defy it, because he does seem to envy the nightingale's happiness. The nightingale sings about summer, something it misses, with the same happiness as if it were summer then. There should be a feeling of longing from the nightingale, a feeling Keats cannot rid himself of, and this is driving him mad. Keats wants to be as happy as this nightingale, who rather than feeling intense longing after a loss, feels happy just thinking about what was lost.

Stanza 7 of Ode to a Nightingale

In stanza 7 of Ode to a Nightingale, Keats displays his longing to be remembered after his death. This longing is displayed through his description of the nightingale and its song.  The nightingale is an "immortal bird," not merely "born for death." No "hungry generations" can silence the nightingale.  Unlike the nightingale, Keats was quite aware of his own mortality. This poem was written a mere two years before his death, and his health was already failing.  Reflecting on that mortality, and hearing the nightingale's song, Keats ruminates that "this voice i hear this passing night" was the same song heard by emperors, clowns, and even biblical figures such as Ruth. The song is an equalizer and a uniter. The song was present in the two main pillars of western civilization, namely the Roman Empire and the Bible.  The nightingale and its song soar above mortality and time. Keats longs for his words to do the same. While humanity is united by its hearing of the song, Keats is divided from the bird by his mortality. But the Nightingale is more than simple longing. Indeed, while most of stanza 7 has an external focus, the last three lines have a distinctly internal focus. The song that echoes through history also inspires the poet and transcends the material world. It has "charm'd magic casement, opening on the foam." The song unlocks magical realms of inspiration to Keats. It transports him to "faery lands forlorn." In this way, Keats is, in a way, united with the bird. What it unlocks and and inspires in him is the ability to reach outside of mortality, into the realm of creativity and creation. The "nightingale-as-muse" connects the song to the poet, and the poet to eternity.

Stanza 5 in "Ode to a Nightingale"

Stanza 5

Keates shows a relationship through the poet speaking through the bird and expressing his love of Spring. Both the poet and the bird are dealing with the progression of time and change. Keats is expressing some change in his life and the poem is experiencing that through the changing of seasons. The bird and the poet are connected because the poet is seeing everything through the bird's eyes. The bird experiences everything so vividly and vibrantly and Keats envies the bird's passion for Spring and the colors and aromas it brings. The poet sees Spring in a different way through the bird. It makes him long to experience nature like a bird can and envious of the bird's connection to nature. He longs for the connection the bird experiences because of his own disconnection and health issues. Keats has not been able to experience nature in the way he hopes.

Big picture

We as human beings are one small part in the big picture of nature and the world. Keats understood how fragile nature and life are because of his own understanding of mortality. Nature provokes this realization because it shows how quickly things can perish and yet how resilient nature can be at the same time.

Keats and La Belle Dame

I just read some background biography on Keats (Wikipedia) and wow, if you read the time periods in parallel with the context of the poem, you can see many similarities.  Supposedly Keats had a relationship with a fellow poet Isabella Jones in the winter 1818-19 where he "frequented her room often".  She was a successful, attractive, and well-known poet and may have looked upon her for motivation and material for some of his works. 

Around spring 1819, Keats begin seeing Fanny Brawne regularly since she and her widow mother moved in next to him.  He desired to marry her but his lack of financial gains and reputation prevented him from achieving his own standards and slowly sunk into depression and eventually disease (tuberculosis).  He wrote this to her 13. Oct. 1819...
"My love has made me selfish. I cannot exist without you – I am forgetful of every thing but seeing you again – my Life seems to stop there – I see no further. You have absorb'd me. I have a sensation at the present moment as though I was dissolving – I should be exquisitely miserable without the hope of soon seeing you ... I have been astonished that Men could die Martyrs for religion – I have shudder'd at it – I shudder no more – I could be martyr'd for my Religion – Love is my religion – I could die for that – I could die for you."

My intuition tells me that La Belle Dame sans Merci is a trope to Keats life because of the similarities of distress and darkness.  Keats died 2 years later so his age was, in a way, old like the Knight.  Just an interesting thing saw that you guys might like.  Check out the full story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keats

-Luke

 

Stanza 3 of Keats “Ode to a Nightingale”; Death and Disjunction

This particular stanza very clearly depicts a disjunction between the nightingale (nature and life) and the speaker, presumably Keats himself. In fact, the bird isn’t physically present at all in this stanza- it has ‘faded’ away at the end of the previous stanza, into “the forest dim” (line 20). Keats expresses his desire to fade away with the bird before going into detail as to why he is separate from and yet longs for this connection to the bird, and why it isn’t present within this part of the poem. The only physicality present in this stanza is mortality and death, as represented in “the weariness”, “the fever”, and “palsy shakes”- all of which reflect Keats own personal experience with death, both as a former medical student as well as his experience with death of his family members. Here, in this reality, “Beauty” and “Love” become irrelevant and temporary, superseded instead by only sorrow and despairs. In fact, Keats clearly states that “to think is to be full of despair” (line 27), indicating that what he longs for is the nightingale’s ignorance of death and mortality. He desires to “quite forget/What thou among the leaves has never known” (lines 21-22). Merely existing, and thinking about existence, is what Keats dreads and sees as something sorrowful. To “fade far away, dissolve” (line 21) is essentially Keats call to Death as a reprieve from the sorrows, pains, and losses of life. The bird, in its absence from this stanza, reflects Keats distance from life and a desire to live. 

Questions for "Ode to a Nightingale"

Below you will find the questions I posed in class today for the group work on Keats' "Ode to a Nightingale." If you are assigned to post for this week, you can use the group discussion as a jumping off point for your post. If we get posts from each group, this week's blog post will amount to an eco-critical reading of the whole poem. (If no one in your group was assigned to post this week, I will give extra credit to anyone who posts.) You can also apply the "big picture" questions to Keats' "To Autumn" or Shelley's "Ode to the West Wind."

The big questions:

How does the poem suggest we understand the relationship between human beings and the natural world? What does external nature help us understand about the conditions of our existence, and more specifically, our mortality? How and why does nature provoke this realization?

You can approach this question by analyzing individual stanzas of "Ode to a Nightingale": 

1. What relationship does Keats posit between the bird and the poet in this section of the poem? (be specific: which words are important? Why?)

2. Does Keats feel connected to or divided from the bird? Why?

3. What does the poet want from the bird or see in the bird in this stanza? What does it make him long for, imagine, or realize? 

Why French?

I find it interesting that Keats's poem "La Belle Dame sans Merci" is an English poem, yet the title is in French. Instead of making the title be "The Beautiful Woman without Pity" he decides to use the title from Alain Chartier's poem, "La Belle Dame sans Merci."  It's an allusion to Chartier's work. His poem features elements of  medieval romance such as knights, fairies, fair ladies and so on. Instantly by reading the title, as a reader we are aware that this poem will include at least some of these medieval romantic characteristics. Not only is Keats calling up these chivalric notions, he is also making it apparent that the knight is going to die. This may suggest that the chivalric ways are dead or dying out.

Side note, but did anyone else think that it was funny that Keats's brother, George had a wife named Georgiana?

Therefore It Is

I was drawn into Keat's description of the serpent-lady. I expected something grotesque, but along with the writing style, the serpent-lady was painted in such a way that I could only describe it as beautiful.

"Eyed like a peacock, and all crimson barr’d;	50
And full of silver moons, that, as she breathed,
Dissolv’d, or brighter shone, or interwreathed
Their lustres with the gloomier tapestries—
So rainbow-sided, touch’d with miseries,"

The similes simply flow from one to another using words that exhibit color, "eyes like a peacock...full of silver moons...dissolv'd, or brighter shone..." This all drew me in and enticed me even though she was but a demon.

"Her throat was serpent, but the words she spake
Came, as through bubbling honey, for Love’s sake,	65
And thus; while Hermes on his pinions lay,
Like a stoop’d falcon ere he takes his prey."

Even after he reveals her anatomy, her words that "came, as through bubbling honey" creates a film over her true identity, making her seem even more lovely than she is intended to be. Perhaps this is done in an effort to draw his own audience in to realize that even the perceived notion of something that is unpleasant could be beautiful.

Religion in Christabel

There are small hints throughout the poem leading the reader to believe Geraldine is an evil creature because she constantly deflects any prayer or thanks given to religious figures. For example "[Christabel] 'Praise we the Virgin all Divine,/Who hath rescued thee from thy distress!'/'Alas, alas!' said Geraldine,/ 'I cannot speak for weariness" (halfway through part 1). Geraldine holds conversation with Christabel throughout their encounter and her rescue, however anytime a religious figure is made known by Christabel, Geraldine makes an excuse as to why she will not join in praise or prayer. This may be because (as we discussed in class) the lamia is a Greek mythology creature, not a creature created by the Christian God. However, it could also be a message of warning. Geraldine may be the embodiment of the French Revolution- a passionate, and beautiful idea of bringing power to the people; however, a ruthless and utterly disguising the process is below the surface, far from that of Christian ideas of love. Geraldine masks the good intention and trustfulness of Christabel (who can be viewed as England)  with the passions she is capable of stirring within the powerful figures of Christabel's life, perhaps making the story a warning to the people to keep morals above passions.

The Innocent and The Temptress

Cristabel is initially described as a helpless, innocent, girl who needs a man's protection and guidance.  There is no such pretence in Lamia.  She is automatically described as the seductress that even Nymphs and Satyrs cannot resist.  Hermes swears his allegiance to her and is bound to her.  She and Geraldine are in a way sisters.  They both have an unnatural and supernatural command over men. I think Lamia's power is greater than Geraldine's because mythical creatures and Gods are held to a higher standard than a mere mortal. The fact that Lamia can bewitch them so easily is proof of her greater power.

Lamia archetype in Coleridge and Keats

In Keats' "Lamia" references to ancient Greek mythology/theology is used frequently such as with " She was a gordian shape of dazzling hue"(50) which compares Lamia to the gordian knot which is snakelike in various ways. On the one hand, the gordian knot is a trick and feeds the Lamia archetype as deceptive and seductive; also, the physical shape of the gordian is snakelike. A similar approach is used in Coleridge's "Christabel" which also describes Cristabel as the snake both physically and metaphorically. In Keats' "Lamia", Lamia is trying to avoid Lycius by transforming into the snake whcih seems to vindicate that Lamia is not a sinister character and that Lycius is at fault and is responsible for entering into a world of sin. It presents sort of a paradox, the capacity Lamia possesses over man and thus the Lamia archetype is materialized in the man's own lust and inability to forbear impulses. Overall, it appears that Keats is more sympathetic to the Lamia.

Difference in Lamia

-->

Keats Lamia is described as something beautiful that has turned into something dark, sinister and miserable, but still holds a bit of the former beauty. Like line 55 and 56 where is says she seemed “some penanced lady elf, some demon’s mistress”. This is different from Geraldine because Geraldine has two looks. She can look like a damsel or the serpent. There is no in between. She had shrunken serpent’s eyes when not the damsel, that were dull and full of malice and dread. Keats description of Lamia makes me feel sad about the tragic beauty the being has that makes them so good at tricking their targets. While Coleridge’s description of the serpent woman make me feel distrustful of her and wary. Something about her seems off and the hissing does not help. What stands out about the descriptions is the different feel you get from reading them. They impress upon me different warnings, Keats dangerous beauty while Coleridge trickery and  not always believing what you see and hear.

Known and Unknown Monsters

When we are introduced to Lamia she is described as a serpentine monster with some redeeming human features. Only after receiving aid from Hermes does Lamia become a beautiful woman. Geraldine seems to be normal throughout “Christabel,” aside from several hints: needing help over the threshold in line 131, the growling dog in line 148, and the mark on her chest in line 252. Yet even though Lamia is the more physically monstrous, Geraldine strikes me as more evil. Lamia is motivated by her desire to be with Lycius. Geraldine is never given any motivation but the reader is still led to believe she has some ill intention. The mystery surrounding Geraldine makes her appear sinister. In reality there is not much to indicate that Geraldine is evil but Coleridge sets the reader up to believe that she is. Keats describes a monster but gives her motivation that is somewhat innocent. Geraldine, to me, is more frightening than Lamia because she is entirely mysterious.

Lamia and Geraldine and Their Differences

In literature, snakes tend to symbolize evil, deceit and even temptation and when combined with a female, it becomes unnatural, making it apart of the Gothic ways. It provokes a pleasurable fear derived from the woman's beauty and the snakes terrifying nature. In "Christabel," Coleridge presents Geraldine as a supernatural woman possessing qualities likes a snake. Keats use's Coleridge's idea of the snake woman in "Lamia." However, both authors present these women differently. Coleridge depicts Geraldine as evil. There are many instances in the poem that establish that Geraldine is not good. When the women walk past the dog, it growls, showing a sign that something is not right. Later Geraldine damages the relationship Christabel and her father have. Coleridge applies the idea that Geraldine is pleasurably terrifying and is made to be only evil and full of deceit. Keats on the other hand represents Lamia as something a little different. Though in the description of Lamia appears to look and be evil, from within ,she wishes to escape from her snake like form. Keats paints an entirely different picture, making Liam a sympathetic creature who isn't completely evil like Geraldine.  

Suggested horror vs. the horror in the details.

I found the differences between the two transformation scenes quite interesting. In Christabel, Coleridge does not describe what is under Geraldine’s robe. Lines 252-254 say, “Behold! Her bosom, and half her side – A sight to dream of, not to tell! O shield her! shield sweet Christabel.” It is as if the horror underneath those robes is too much to bear for Christabel, so the reader is put into that same position of turning away from it. Coleridge leaves it to the reader to imagine what horrifying things are under that robe. 

In contrast, Keats description of Lamia is very detailed with multiple colors, stripes, spots and peacock eyes. For this reason, Lamia doesn’t come across as scary as Geraldine does. With Geraldine, there is a fear of the unknown, but with Lamia, especially with the description of lines 47-67, there is no fear because you are too busy trying to imagine what this creature with a snake’s head, but a woman’s mouth looks like. There is more revulsion than fear. 

That continues when you get to witness the transformation of Lamia in lines 146-170. You would think the transformation of a serpent-like creature into a woman would be a magical experience, but Keats is very specific about what goes on. It’s almost like a chemical reaction with the way she foams at the mouth and the release of phosphorus and sparks. Keats uses volcanic imagery so there is this feeling of burning away her old form to create the new one. Before this, Lamia seems a bit devious because of the way she bargains with Hermes to get herself turned into a woman, but I found myself more sympathetic towards her after this description of her painful transformation.

Lamia and Geraldine: Damsels in Distress

I thought it was interesting while reading the two poems to compare Lamia and Geraldine in terms of their relationships with hero-like figures.  Hermes and Christabel have interactions with Lamia/Geraldine that are similar in some ways.

Lamia is trapped as a serpent (which in Greek culture is pretty low on the animal totem pole), and Hermes removes the illusion.  Through the retelling of her story, Geraldine is 'trapped' as a damsel in distress, but by having Christabel hear her story, the reader realizes that this is an illusion to.  The story is not sound.  "Five warriors" took her, yes...but where are they?  What was a plausible purpose for their leaving, and more importantly, what is her purpose for staying?  There is something Geraldine is not willing to tell Christabel.  Geraldine's flawed story suggests the absence of an important detail, or at the very least, that Geradline is not what she seems (which is reinforced later on with the "bad omens" upon Geraldine's arrival).

There are some other slight differences here.  Hermes only helps Lamia after she helps him by giving him his water nymph.  Geraldine, on the other hand, does not really give Christabel anything of value, except maybe the opportunity to feel like a moral person by helping her.  Whereas Hermes helps Lamia as a reward for her actions, Christabel takes in Geraldine as an act of kindness.

Lamia is portrayed in more of a submissive role.  She immediately wants Lycius and ultimately does not get him; she's punished towards the end of the poem.  It is a male figure that gives her her human form (Hermes) and a male figure that ruins her (Apollonius).  She has a very reactionary existence.

Gerladine is more conniving.  She holds more cards than Christabel (or the reader) is aware of.  Both characters play the part of a damsel in distress, but while Lamia goes along with whatever happens to her, Geraldine seems to have an ulterior motive, something that the reader can only approximate since the poem itself was never completed.

Lamia and Geraldine

I found it odd how Geraldine was described as being a "perfect" woman and decided to look up the mythology of Lamia and found out that Lamia was a mistress of Zeus and made to either kill/consume her children by Hera. The mark of snake skin on her body a way of reminding Lamia of her sin of adultery. The fact that Geraldine is a Lamia figure and her interest in Christabel makes me wonder about whether or not Geraldine was getting friendly in order to eat her and satisfy her savage instincts. This idea is that Christabel and Geraldine are doppelgangers and why Geraldine is suppoused to represent everything that women are suppoused to strive to be her vicious behavior in her sensuality and how she seems to use that in the second act recasts her as something to be reviled and disgusted with.

Difference in Descriptions

Keats describes Lamia with contradictions. She is not just one color but variations of colors. She has characteristics of a zebra but also that of a leopard. The moons are dissolv’d or shine bright. In line 53 lustres contradicts the connotation given in the word gloomier. In lines 55 and 56 she is a lady elf, as wells as a demon’s mistress or a demon’s self. Keats description prepares for the idea that Lamia is not what she seems and although she appears in a certain state and manner it is a deception. The description makes the reader wary of this deception. Coleridge, however, describes Geraldine in correlating terms. She is a damsel bright in white silken robes. She is stately and glitters with gems in her hair. Geraldine is surprising because of her exceeding beauty. In lines 146-170 Lamia is somewhat exposed. She is described in negative words that bring about the typical image of a serpent. The mixed colors and animal images from before are replaced here with the picture of pain scarlet, yellow, and hot.