Ode to a Greek urn

Pause copy of the engraving of the Sosibios vase made by Keats

Ode on a Grecian Urn (German: Ode to a Greek urn ) is a poem by the English romantic John Keats from May 1819, which was published anonymously in January 1820. It appeared in the 15th issue of the art magazine Annals of the Fine Arts .

The poem is one of the so-called Great Odes of 1819 , which also include the Ode on Indolence , Ode on Melancholy , Ode to a Nightingale and Ode to Psyche . Keats found other traditional forms of poetry unsatisfactory and his collection also represents a further development of the classical ode form. He began writing the poem after reading two articles by the English artist and writer Benjamin Haydon . Keats was familiar with many of the Greek Classical works of art and had firsthand access to the Elgin Marbles . His knowledge strengthened his belief that Greek classical music was idealistic and represented the virtues of Greece. This view is also the basis of the poem.

It consists of five ten-line stanzas. The content is the discourse of the lyrical ego about the visual design of a Greek urn. Two scenes stand out: an eternal chase of a lover who finds no fulfillment, and a festival of sacrifices in a city where the population gathers. The closing lines explain that beauty and truth are equal and that this realization is the only thing one can and must know. Some critics have denied the literary value of these lines, others have placed the role of the lyric self, the relationship between reality and imagination and the paradoxes of the poem at the center of their interpretations.

The contemporary criticism took a rather negative attitude. Only in the middle of the 19th century did a change in values ​​begin. Today, Keats' ode is considered one of the greatest poems in the English language. In the 20th century, controversies over the meaning of the closing lines were in the foreground. Despite various points of criticism regarding the balance and coherence of the work, there was agreement on the aesthetic quality of the poem.

Emergence

John Keats 1819, painting by his friend Joseph Severn

In the spring of 1819 Keats had given up his employment as an assistant surgeon at Guy's Hospital in Southwark, London, in order to devote himself entirely to poetry. Money problems plagued the 23-year-old, who shared the accommodation with his friend Charles Brown. Then there were the letters of appeal from his brother George, who needed financial support. These problems caused Keats to reconsider his further preoccupation with poetry; Nevertheless he managed to complete five odes: Ode to a Nightingale, Ode to Psyche, Ode on Melancholy, Ode on Indolence and Ode on a Grecian Urn . The poems were written by Brown, who later made these copies available to the publisher Richard Woodhouse. The exact date of writing is unknown. Keats dated all odes to May 1819. The order of the odes is also unknown.

In his odes, Keats reflects the relationship between soul, nature, art and eternity. The Greek starting point for his idea of ​​using classical Greek art metaphorically were two articles by Haydon in the Examiner of May 2 and May 9, 1819. In the first article Haydon describes sacrificial rites and the worship service, in the second he compares Raphael and Michelangelo in the context of a discussion about medieval sculptures. Keats also had access to printed images of Greek urns, he made a copy of the engraving of the "Sosibios vase", a neo-Attic snail crater in marble, which is signed by Sosibios. He found this illustration in Henry Moses' A Collection of Antique Vases, Altars, Paterae .

Keats' inspiration drew from other sources, possibly his memories of the Elgin Marbles , whose influence he had already illustrated in his sonnet On Seeing the Elgin Marbles . He was also familiar with the vases from Townley, Borghese and Holland House and the classical treatment of the subject in Robert Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy . Many commentators shared Keats 'view that Greek classical art was an expression of a specific idealism and of the Greeks' concept of virtue. Accordingly, in his poem Keats was less concerned with the exact description of a special vase than with the representation of an art form that he considered typical of ancient Greece.

The Ode was completed in May 1819 and published in January 1820 along with the Ode to a Nightingale in the Annals of Fine Art . This art magazine promoted ideas similar to those advocated by Keats. The Examiner later published Keats Ode along with Haydon's earlier articles. Keats included the ode in his later collection: Lamia, Isabella, The Eve of St Agnes, and Other Poems .

construction

In 1819, Keats tried to write sonnets, but found them unsatisfactory because the meter did not match the tonal image he had in mind. The usual Pindarian form of the ode, which John Dryden and other poets had used, seemed to him unsuitable for conveying philosophical ideas. Keats found his personal tone in the Ode to Psyche . This ode preceded the Ode on a Grecian Urn and other odes he wrote in 1819. This new poetic style was further modified in the Ode to a Nightingale and the Ode on a Grecian Urn by introducing a second voice, creating a dialogue. The technique he uses is that of ekphrasis , the rendering of a painting or sculpture in language. The traditional form of ekphrasis in Theocritus ' Idyll , a poem that describes the design of a cup, was not adopted by Keats: Theocritus translated stationary images in motion and interpreted the motives of the actors, while Keats in the Ode on a Grecian Urn only events suggests through questions and focuses on the external appearance of the characters.

The Ode on a Grecian Urn consists of stanzas of 10 lines each. They start with the rhyme scheme ABAB and end with a Miltonian sextet (1st and 5th stanza CDEDCE, 2nd stanza CDECED, 3rd and 4th stanza CDECDE). This pattern can also be found in the Ode on Indolence , the Ode on Melancholy and the Ode to a Nightingale (the foot of the verse in the sextet is changeable), this gives the poem formal and thematic unity. "Ode" is a word of Greek origin and means "sung". While ancient authors followed strict patterns for stanza , antistrophe and epode , the ode had already been heavily modified in Keats' time, so that it was more of a style than a fixed technique for writing a poem. In his odes, Keats seeks a “classic balance” between two extremes, and in the ode about a Greek urn these extremes are the symmetrical structure of antiquity and the asymmetry of the romantic art form. The use of the ABAB structure at the beginning of each stanza is an example of the clear structures of classical antiquity, the other six lines seem to break out of this pattern.

Keats's meter indicates a conscious development of his style. There is only a single inversion (the anaclasis of an iambus in the middle of a line of verse), which was common in his earlier works. Keats, however, incorporates spondes in 37 of the 250 feet of verse . Caesas are never placed before the fourth syllable of a verse. The choice of words is more characterized by short Germanic words than by the Romance-Latin plysillabic words. In the second stanza, words with “p”, “b”, and “v” are highlighted. The assonances are as complex as in only a few other English poems: "Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear'd": Here the "e" connects "sensual" with "endear'd" and the "ea" in " ear ”corresponds to the same diphthong in“ endear'd ”. "Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard": Here "ea", "o" and "u" connect the meaningful words.

text

First known copy of the "Ode on a Grecian Urn", made by George Keats in 1820

The poem begins by addressing the lyrical self ( apostrophes ) to the urn personified in this way , it emphasizes its relation to silent self-disclosure by depicting it metaphorically and again personifying and feminine "unfree bride of calm" and "foster child of silence" and the Calls the slowness of historical time that has outlasted it. This address and the characterization of the speechlessness allows him to speak for it instead of the urn in order to wrest it from the speechlessness, in which on the one hand she was able to keep her riddle, but also remained unrecognized.

Thou still unravish'd bride of quietness!
Thou foster-child of silence and slow time
---
You bride of rest, not yet free!
You foster child of silence and slowness. (Lines 1-2)

This representation refers to the silent material and the speechless working hand of the artist who created the vase. The stone as a material makes it clear that time has little effect on the vase. It is a work for eternity. Therefore, it can gain and convey meaning for a long time after its creation, a quality because of which the poet calls it "sylvan historian" (historian of the forest), who tells its story through its beauty:

Sylvan historian, who canst thus express
A flow'ry tale more sweetly than our rhyme:
What leaf-fring'd legend haunts about thy shape
Of deities or mortals, or of both,
In Tempe or the dales of Arcady?
What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?
What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?
What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?
---
From the forest you sing your long-forgotten saga,
narrator of fairy tales full of flowers, sweeter than the rhyme
What fable conjures your leaf-entwined form
from gods or people or both
In Tempe or in Arcadia's valleys?
What kind of beings are they? Rejected by girls?
What crazy hunt? What fight to escape?
Which tambourine and timpani? What wild romp? (Lines 3–10)

The questions asked here are too ambiguous for the reader to imagine exactly what the pictures of the urn represent in context. only a few picture elements become clear: It is a chase with a strong sexual component. The music that accompanies these processes is presented in the second stanza:

Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear'd,
Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone:
---
Well-known melodies are sweet, but sweet ones are still
unheard ones; so keep on sounding, gentle flutes;
Not to the outer ear, even more flattering,
The soul sing little songs without any sound: (lines 11-14)

The paradox of a desire that follows enjoyment and a desire of the soul for music without sound refers to a stasis that prevents the characters depicted on the urn from ever reaching the goal of their desires:

Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,
Though winning near the goal - yet, do not grieve;
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!
---
Despite your boldness you will never kiss her,
Fat has already achieved the goal - but don't worry;
Even without your bliss it can never perish,
you will love forever, and it will remain beautiful! (Lines 17-20)

In the third stanza the lyrical I apostrophizes a tree that will always keep its leaves and never say goodbye to spring. The antinomy of life and lifelessness points here beyond the lover and the beloved. The temporal dimension becomes clearer in the threefold use of the expression "forever". The song never heard does not age and the flutes keep playing forever, which brings the lovers, nature and everyone involved to the following result:

For ever panting, and for ever young;
All breathing human passion far above,
That leaves a heart high-sorrowful and cloyed,
A burning forehead, and a parching tongue.
---
Breathing hard always and forever young;
The passions breathing on high,
which leave only the heart in sadness and disgust,
the forehead searing and the tongue full of fire. (Lines 27-30)

Raphaels The sacrifice at Lystra

However, the immortal lovers experience a live death. To overcome this paradox, the poem shifts to a new perspective. The fourth verse begins with the sacrifice of a virgin cow, to picture that appeared in the Elgin Marbles, Claude Lorrain's sacrifice for Apollo and Raphael's The Sacrifice at Lystra

Who are these coming to the sacrifice?
To what green altar, O mysterious priest,
Lead'st thou that heifer lowing at the skies,
And all her silken flanks with garlands drest?
What little town by river or sea shore,
Or mountain-built with peaceful citadel,
Is emptied of its folk, this pious morn?
And, little town, thy streets for evermore
Will silent be; and not a soul to tell
Why thou art desolate, can e'er return.
---
Who are they who are getting closer to the victim?
To what green altar, O mysterious priest,
Are you leading the heifer that bleats to the sky
The silk flanks in garland dress?
What does the small town near this coast mean,
Or on the mountains with a peace castle,
So deserted on this pious morning?
And, little town, forever your streets will
stand in silence; and no soul to return
to herald why you are desolate. (Lines 31-40)

The only sure thing is a procession of individual people, everything else is guesswork. Nobody can ever answer the questions because the places and events are not real. The last stanza reminds us that the urn is a work of art for eternity:

O Attic shape! Fair attitude! with brede
Of marble men and maidens overwrought,
with forest branches and the trodden weed;
Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold pastoral!
---
O your Attic figure! The beautiful attitude!
Marble
weave, overloaded by men and girls, With branches of the forest and trampled grass;
You, silent form, you take away the reason of thinking
Just like eternity does it: you cold shepherd game! (Lines 41-45)

The representations of the urn are cold and passionate at the same time. They leave the reader, like the lyric self, confused and at a loss. The message concludes:

When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou sayst,
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
---
If age wastes this gender,
you should remain in the midst of other worries than
our friend of the person to whom you say
"Beauty is true, and truth is beautiful" - only
you know on earth and you do not need greater knowledge . (Lines 46-50)

Subject

Keats listens to a nightingale singing, Landscape of Hampstead Heath, painting by Joseph Severn

The Ode on a Grecian Urn discusses art and the art audience. From the orientation towards the music of nature in the ode to the nightingale , he now turns more towards the performing arts. the image of an urn can already be found in the Ode on Indolence , there it bears the image of three figures depicting love, ambition and poetry. Of these three, love and poetry are included in the new ode. It emphasizes how the urn as a work of art is able to convey the idea of ​​truth. These are depictions of common actions, attempts at advertising, making music and a religious ritual. The representation is taken as realistic. The poem is not about the lyrical ego, but implies an observer trying to decipher the meaning of the images. It is an interaction with the artwork similar to that of a literary critic with the poem. This leads to ambiguity in the last lines. The lack of an identifiable voice leaves open who is speaking these words, who they are being spoken to, and what they mean. This encourages the reader to approach the poem as questioningly as the lyrical I approaches the urn.

Contemporary reception

The first tangible reaction to the poem can be found in an anonymous review in the July 1820 edition of the Monthly Review : “Mr Keats displays no great nicety in his selection of images. According to the tenets of that school of poetry to which he belongs, he thinks that any thing or object in nature is a fit material on which the poet may work ... Can there be a more pointed concetto than this address to the Piping Shepherds on a Grecian Urn? "Another also anonymous review followed on July 29 in the Literary Chronicle and Weekly Review: " Among the minor poems, many of which possess considerable merit, the following appears to be the best ". Josiah Conder argued in the September 1820 issue of the Eclectic Review :

“Mr Keats, seemingly, can think or write of scarcely any thing else than the 'happy pieties' of Paganism. A Grecian Urn throws him into an ecstasy: its 'silent form,' he says, 'doth tease us out of thought as doth Eternity,' - a very happy description of the bewildering effect which such subjects have at least had upon his own mind ; and his fancy having thus got the better of his reason, we are the less surprised at the oracle which the Urn is made to utter:

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' '- that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

That is, all that Mr Keats knows or cares to know. — But till he knows much more than this, he will never write verses fit to live. "

George Gilfillan ranked the poem among the best of the author's little pieces in his 1845 Keats essay, noting: “In originality, Keats has seldom been surpassed. His works 'rise like an exhalation.' His language has been formed on a false system; but, ere he died, what clarifying itself from its more glaring faults, and becoming copious clear, and select. He seems to have been averse to all speculative thought, and his only creed, we fear, was expressed in the words— Beauty is truth, —truth beauty “. The 1857 Encyclopaedia Britannica contained an evaluation of poetic achievement in a Keats article by Alexander Smith: “Perhaps the most exquisite specimen of Keats' poetry is the 'Ode to the Grecian Urn'; it breathes the very spirit of antiquity, eternal beauty and eternal repose. " Matthew Arnold claimed that the description of the small town in the poem was" Greek, as Greek as something from Homer or Theocritus; It is created with one eye on the object, adding gloss and bright clarity. "

Controversy over beauty and truth

In the 20th century the dispute over the meaning of the last lines came to the fore.

Robert Bridges sparked the controversy with the following lines:

“The thought as enounced in the first stanza is the supremacy of ideal art over nature, because of its unchanging expression of perfect; and this is true and beautiful; but its amplification in the poem is unprogressive, monotonous, and scattered […] which gives an effect of poverty in the spite of the beauty. The last stanza enters stumbling upon a pun, but its concluding lines are very fine, and make a sort of recovery with their forcible directness. "

Bridges believed the last few lines gave the poem a literary value that it otherwise lacks in any way. an otherwise bad poem. Arthur Quiller-Couch took the opposite point of view: The lines are an “unclear observation - for anyone who has been taught by life to face the facts and define their conditions, it is actually an uneducated conclusion, but very forgivable with such a young and ardent person. ”In 1929 IA Richards took the lines of poetry as an opportunity to discuss“ pseudo-statements ”in poetry in general:

“On the one hand there are very many people who, if they read any poetry at all, try to take all its statements seriously - and find them silly […] This may seem an absurd mistake but, alas! it is none of the less common. On the other hand there are those who succeed too well, who swallow 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty […],' as the quintessence of an aesthetic philosophy, not as the expression of a certain blend of feelings, and proceed into a complete stalemate of muddle-mindedness as a result of their linguistic naivety. "

TS Eliot replied to Richards in his 1929 Dante essay:

“I am at first inclined to agree […] But on re-reading the whole Ode, this line strikes me as a serious blemish on a beautiful poem, and the reason must be either that I fail to understand it, or that it is a statement which is untrue. And I suppose that Keats meant something by it, however remote his truth and his beauty may have been from these words in ordinary use. And I am sure that he would have repudiated any explanation of the line which called it a pseudo-statement [...] The statement of Keats seems to me meaningless: or perhaps the fact that it is grammatically meaningless conceals another meaning from me. "

In 1930 John Middleton Murry put these different answers together, “to show the astonishing variety of opinion which exists at this day concerning the culmination of a poem whose beauty has been acknowledged for many years. Whether such another cause, and such another example, of critical diversity exists, I cannot say; if it does, it is unknown to me. My own opinion concerning the value of those two lines in the context of the poem itself is not very different from Mr. Eliot's. "

Cleanth Brooks defended Keats in 1947:

“We shall not feel that the generalization, unqualified and to be taken literally, is meant to march out of its context to compete with the scientific and philosophical generalizations which dominate our world. 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty' has precisely the same status, and the same justification as Shakespeare's 'Ripeness is all.' It is a speech 'in character' and supported by a dramatic context. To conclude thus may seem to weight the principle of dramatic propriety with more than it can bear. This would not be fair to the complexity of the problem of truth in art nor fair to Keats's little parable. Granted; and yet the principle of dramatic propriety may take us further than would first appear. Respect for it may at least insure our dealing with the problem of truth at the level on which it is really relevant to literature. "

MH Abrams replied to Brooks in 1957:

“I entirely agree, then, with Professor Brooks in his explication of the Ode , that 'Beauty is truth' […] is to be considered as a speech 'in character' and 'dramatically appropriate' to the Urn. I am uneasy, however, about his final reference to 'the world-view […]' For the poem as a whole is equally an utterance by a dramatically presented speaker, and none of its statements is proffered for our endorsement as a philosophical generalization of unlimited scope. They are all, therefore, to be apprehended as histrionic elements which are 'in character' and 'dramatically appropriate,' for their inherent interest as stages in the evolution of an artistically ordered […] experience of a credible human being. ”

In 1953, Earl Wassermann continued the discussion, claiming:

“The more we tug at the final lines of the ode, the more the noose of their meaning strangles our comprehension of the poem […] The aphorism is all the more beguiling because it appears near the end of the poem, for its apparently climactic position has generally led to the assumption that it is the abstract summation of the poem […] But the ode is not an abstract statement or an excursion into philosophy. It is a poem about things. "

Walter Evert justified Keats in 1965, stating:

“The poem, then, accepts the urn for the immediate meditative imaginative pleasure that it can give, but it firmly defines the limits of artistic truth. In this it is wholly consistent with all the great poetry of Keats's last creative period. "

Hugh Kenner stated in 1971 that Keats "interrogates an urn, and answers for it, and its last answer, about Beauty and Truth, may seem almost intolerably enigmatic." For connoisseurs, the problem arises from the reader's inability to distinguish between the poet, his reflections on the urn and possible statements of the urn. He concluded that Keats provided the lyrical self with too little salary so that he could not speak for the urn. Charles Rzepka presented in 1986: "The truth-beauty equation at the end of the 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' offers solace but is finally no more convincing than the experience it describes is durable." Rick Rylance took up the dispute again in 1990, stating that language analysis did not make sense. This posed a problem for the followers of the New Criticizm , who wanted to discover the meaning of a text through careful study of the text.

literature

• MH Abrams : Ode on a Grecian Urn. In: Jack Stillinger (Ed.): Twentieth Century Interpretations of Keats's Odes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1968, OCLC 190950 .
• Matthew Arnold , R. H Super, Thomas Marion Hoctor: Lectures and Essays in Criticism. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor 1962, OCLC 3487294 .
• Walter Jackson Bate: John Keats. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 1963, OCLC 291522 .
• Walter Jackson Bate: The Stylistic Development of Keats. Humanities Press, New York 1962, OCLC 276912 (first edition 1945).
• FW Bateson: Ode on a Grecian Urn. In: Jack Stillinger (Ed.): Twentieth Century Interpretations of Keats's Odes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1968, OCLC 190950 .
• Andrew Bennett: Keats, Narrative, and Audience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1994, ISBN 0-521-44565-5 .
• Harold Bloom : The Visionary Company. Cornell University Press, Ithaca 1993, ISBN 0-8014-0622-6 .
• Edmund Blunden : Leigh Hunt's "Examiner" Examined. Archon Books, Hamden 1967 OCLC 334927 (first edition: 1928).
• Cleanth Brooks: The Well-Wrought Urn. Studies in the Structure of Poetry. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York 1947, OCLC 645754468 .
• Douglas Bush: Introduction. In: Douglas Bush (Ed.): John Keats, Selected Poems and Letters. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 1959, ISBN 0395051401 .
• Douglas Bush: Mythology and the Romantic Tradition in English Poetry (= Library of literary history and criticism. ) Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1937, OCLC 961522500 .
• JW Comyns Carr: The Artistic Spirit in Modern Poetry. In: OJF Crawfurd, Francis Hueffer (Eds.): New Quarterly Magazine. Volume 5, 1876, pp. 146-165.
• Sidney Colvin : John Keats. 3. Edition. Macmillan, London 1920, OCLC 4750763 (first edition: 1917).
• TS Eliot : Dante. In: Selected Essays. Faber & Faber, London 1932, pp. 199 ff. OCLC 563049820 ( books.google.de Restricted preview).
• Walter H. Evert: Aesthetics and Myth in the Poetry of Keats. Princeton University Press, Princeton 1965, OCLC 291999 .
• Robert Gittings: John Keats. Heinemann, London 1968, OCLC 295596 .
• Matthew Gumpert: Keats's 'To Haydon, With a Sonnet on Seeing the Elgin Marbles' and 'On Seeing the Elgin Marbles'. In: The Explicator. Volume 58, No. 1, 1999, pp. 19-22. doi: 10.1080 / 00144949909596992 .
• Klaus Hofmann: 'Keats's Ode to a Grecian Urn.' In: Studies in Romanticism. 45, 2 (summer 2006), pp. 251-284.
• John Jones: John Keats's Dream of Truth. Barnes and Noble, London 1969, ISBN 0-389-01002-2 .
• Theresa Kelley: Keats and 'Ekphrasis'. In: Susan Wolfston (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to John Keats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001, ISBN 0-521-65839-X .
• Hugh Kenner: The Pound Era. University of California Press, 1971, ISBN 0-520-01860-5 .
• JR MacGillivray: Ode on a Grecian Urn. In: Times Literary Supplement. July 9, 1938, pp. 465-466.
• Paul Magunson: Reading Public Romanticism. Princeton University Press, Princeton 1998, ISBN 0-691-05794-X .
• GM Matthews: John Keats: The Critical Heritage. Barnes & Noble Publishers, New York 1971, ISBN 0-389-04440-7 .
• Ayumi Mizukoshi: Keats, Hunt and the Aesthetics of Pleasure. Palgrave, New York 2001, ISBN 0-333-92958-6 .
• Andrew Motion : Keats. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1999, ISBN 0-226-54240-8 .
• John Middleton Murry: Keats. Noonday Press, New York 1955, OCLC 360836 .
• Charles Patterson: Passion and Permanence in Keats's “Ode on a Grecian Urn”. In: Jack Stillinger (Ed.): Twentieth Century Interpretations of Keats's Odes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1968, OCLC 190950 .
• David Perkins: The Ode on a Nightingale. In: Walter Jackson Bate (Ed.): Keats: A Collection of Critical Essays (= A Spectrum Book. = Twentieth Century Views. ) Prentice-Hall, Englewood, NJ 1964, OCLC 750833240 , pp. 103-112.
• IA Richards : Practical Criticism. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, London 1929, OCLC 2034011 .
• Maurice Ridley: Keats' Craftsmanship. A study in poetic development. Clarendon, Oxford 1933, OCLC 1842818 .
• Rick Rylance: The New Criticism. In: Martin Cole et al. (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Literature and Criticism. Routledge, London 1990, ISBN 0-8103-8331-4 , pp. 730-731.
• Charles Rzepka: The Self as Mind. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1986, ISBN 0-674-80085-0 .
• Ronald Sharp: Keats, Skepticism, and the Religion of Beauty. University of Georgia Press, Athens 1979, ISBN 0-8203-0470-0 .
• Paul Sheats: Keats and the Ode. In: Susan Wolfston (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to John Keats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001, ISBN 0-521-65839-X .
• Erin Sheley: Re-Imagining Olympus: Keats and the Mythology of Individual Consciousness. Harvard University. Reprinted in: Romanticism on the Net. No. 45, November 2007 ( erudit.org ). Retrieved December 6, 2008.
• Sonia Sikka: On The Truth of Beauty: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Keats. In: The Heythrop Journal. Volume 39, No. 3, 1998, doi: 10.1111 / 1468-2265.00076 , pp. 243-263. ( Calvin.edu PDF). Retrieved June 30, 2011.
• Roy Arthur Swanson: Form and Content in Keatss 'Ode on a Grecian Urn'. In: College English. Volume 23, No. 4, January 1962, JSTOR 373074 , pp. 302-305.
• Helen Vendler: The Odes of John Keats. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 1983, ISBN 0-674-63075-0 .
• Earl R. Wasserman: The Finer Tone. Keats' major poems (= Johns Hopkins paperbacks edition. ) Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1967, OCLC 1398162 .
• Daniel Watkins: Keats's Poetry and the Politics of the Imagination. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Rutherford 1989, ISBN 0-8386-3358-7 .
• Jacob Wigod: Keats's ideal in the “Ode on a Grecian Urn”. In: Jack Stillinger (Ed.): Twentieth Century Interpretations of Keats's Odes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1968, OCLC 190950 .

Web links

• John Keats: Poems by John Keats. gutenberg.spiegel.de, accessed on November 7, 2016 (German text of the poem). 

Remarks

1. ↑ The Raphael picture is one of the Raphael cartoons in Hampton Court Palace . The Claude painting.

Individual evidence

1. ^ Paul Sheats: Keats and the Ode. 2001, p. 86.
2. ↑ Walter Jackson Bate: John Keats. 1963, pp. 487-527.
3. ^ ^{A b} Robert Gittings: John Keats. 1968, p. 311.
4. ^ Robert Gittings: John Keats. 1968, pp. 305-319.
5. ^ Louvre Museum: volute crater “Sosibios”. ( Memento of June 15, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Retrieved April 15, 2010.
6. ^ Andrew Motion: Keats. 1999, p. 391.
7. ^ Edmund Blunden: Leigh Hunt's "Examiner" Examined. 1967 p. 103.
8. ↑ Paul Magunson: Reading Public Romanticism. 1998, p. 208.
9. ^ Robert Gittings: John Keats. 1968, p. 319.
10. ^ Matthew Gumpert: Keats's 'To Haydon, With a Sonnet on Seeing the Elgin Marbles' and 'On Seeing the Elgin Marbles'. 1999.
11. ^ Andrew Motion: Keats. 1999, pp. 390-391.
12. ^ Andrew Motion: Keats. 1999, p. 390.
13. ↑ JR MacGillivray: Ode on a Grecian Urn. 1938, pp. 465-466.
14. ^ GM Matthews: John Keats: The Critical Heritage. 1971, pp. 149, 159, 162.
15. ^ Robert Gittings: John Keats. 1968, pp. 310-311.
16. ↑ Walter Jackson Bate: John Keats. 1963, pp. 498-500.
17. ^ Theresa Kelley: Keats and 'Ekphrasis'. 2001, pp. 172-173.
18. ^ Roy Arthur Swanson: Form and Content in Keatss 'Ode on a Grecian Urn'. 1962, pp. 302-305.
19. ^ Walter Jackson Bate: The Stylistic Development of Keats. 1962, pp. 133-135, 137-140, 58-60.
20. ↑ Erin Sheley: Re-Imagining Olympus: Keats and the Mythology of Individual Consciousness. 2007.
21. ^ Harold Bloom: The Visionary Company. 1993, p. 416.
22. ^ Harold Bloom: The Visionary Company. 1993, pp. 416-417.
23. ^ ^{A b c} Harold Bloom: The Visionary Company. 1993, p. 417.
24. ^ ^{A b} Harold Bloom: The Visionary Company. 1993, p. 418.
25. ↑ Douglas Bush: John Keats. Selected Poems and Letters. 1959, p. 349.
26. ^ Harold Bloom: The Visionary Company. 1993, pp. 418-419.
27. ^ Harold Bloom: The Visionary Company. 1993, p. 419.
28. ^ Helen Vendler: The Odes of John Keats. 1983, pp. 116-117.
29. ↑ Walter Jackson Bate: John Keats. 1963, pp. 510-511.
30. ↑ Andrew Bennett: Keats, Narrative, and Audience. 1994, pp. 128-134.
31. ^ GM Matthews: John Keats: The Critical Heritage. 1971, p. 162
32. ^ GM Matthews: John Keats: The Critical Heritage. 1971, pp. 163-164.
33. ^ GM Matthews: John Keats: The Critical Heritage. 1971, p. 237.
34. ^ GM Matthews: John Keats: The Critical Heritage. 1971, p. 306.
35. ^ GM Matthews: John Keats: The Critical Heritage. 1971, p. 367.
36. ^ Matthew Arnold, R.H. Super, Thomas Marion Hoctor: Lectures and Essays in Criticism. 1962, p. 378.
37. ^ ^{A b} John Middleton Murry: Keats. 1955, p. 210.
38. ^ IA Richards: Practical Criticism. 1929, pp. 186-187.
39. ^ TS Eliot: Dante. 1932, pp. 230-231.
40. ↑ John Middleton Murry: Keats. 1955, p. 212.
41. ^ Cleanth Brooks: The Well-Wrought Urn: Studies in the Structure of Poetry. 1947, p. 165.
42. ↑ MH Abrams: Ode on a Grecian Urn. 1968, p. 111.
43. ↑ Earl Wasserman: The Finer Tone. 1967, pp. 13-14.
44. ^ Walter Evert: Aesthetics and Myth in the Poetry of Keats. 1965, p. 319.
45. ^ ^{A b} Hugh Kenner: The Pound Era. 1971, p. 26.
46. ^ Charles Rzepka: The Self as Mind. 1986, p. 177.
47. ↑ Rick Rylance: The New Criticism. 1990, pp. 730-733.