Introduction:
Matthew Arnold, an advocate of the neo - classical school, found it rather difficult to really appreciate the Romantics. He could never appreciate Shelley. But his estimate of Keats seems to be free from such prejudices. His essay on Keats is comparative, sympathetic, though it has some of characteristic of Matthew Arnold. Arnold starts with Milton's oft - quoted saying that poetry should be simple, sensuous, impassioned. He sets out to judge the poetry of Keats with respect to these qualities. He starts with the sensuous quality of the poetry of Keats. Matthew Arnold correctly contends that Keats is enchantingly and abundantly sensuous. Arnold praises Keats for the fact that he knew that to see things in their beauty is to see things in their truth.
Keats’ Sensuousness:
No doubt there is much in the life of Keats which seems to show that he was entirely under domination of senses, that he desired nothing more than sensuous pleasure. In one of his letters he writes, “O for a life of sensation rather than of thought,” and in another letter, he expresses the view that with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration. His friend Haydon has narrated how once he covered his tongue and throat with red pepper in order to enjoy the coldness of claret in all its glory. Sensuousness is also revealed by such lines from his poetry as the following ones:
“Light feet, dark violet eyes, and parted hair
Soft dimpled hands, white neck, and creamy breast.”
Recreation of Sensuous Beauty:
The most living thing in Keats’ poetry has been the recreation of sensuous beauty, first as a source of delight for its own sake, than as a symbol of the life of the mind and the emotions. The truth is that Keats’ yearning passion for the beautiful was not the passion of the sensuous or sentimental man, nor of the sensuous or sentiment poet. It was an intellectual and spiritual passion. This is borne out both by his prose and poetry. He once wrote that he loved the mighty abstract idea of Beauty in all things. In other words, he could discover beauty in things which are generally regarded ugly and unpleasant. On another occasion, he remarked that he loved the principle of beauty in all things. This shows that his passion for the beautiful was not merely a sensuous passion. It was much more and much higher than that. It was also a spiritual and intellectual passion. It is this love of spiritual Beauty which has made his poetry immortal. Keats saw things in their Beauty and he also realised that Beauty is intimately connected with the truth. Once he wrote , “What the imagination seizes as Beauty must be truth,” and in his famous Ode to the Grecian Urn he reaches the same conclusion:
“Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
Keats also realised that joy also goes with Beauty, and therefore, he could write:
“A thing of Beauty is a joy forever.”
Platonic Approach of Beauty:
Matthew Arnold says that Keats’ approach to beauty was Platonic. He derived the Platonic concept of beauty through Spenser. Like Spenser he establishes an indissoluble relationship between Beauty, Truth and Joy. They make the eternal Trinity. In his last days Keats wrote, “If I should die, I have left no immortal work behind me nothing to make my friends proud of my memory, but I have loved the principle of beauty in all things, and if I had time I would have made myself remembered.” Arnold believes that Keats has indeed made himself remembered by virtue of this creed of Beauty.
Matthew Arnold pays a great tribute to Keats for establishing this great Trinity of Beauty, Truth and Joy. He says that it is no small thing to have so loved the principle of beauty as to perceive the necessary relation of beauty with truth, and of both with joy.
Keats, a Supreme Master of Grand Style:
No other poet, with the only exception of Shakespeare, rises to Keats’ poetic eloquence, melody and movement. Keats once said, “The tongue of Kean must seem to have robbed the Hybla bees and left them honeyless.” In the faculty of naturalistic interpretation, in natural magic, Keats ranks with Shakespeare. By natural magic Arnold means that felicity of expression which distinguishes Shakespeare, which Keats also has, and which none else has in the whole range of English poetry. Keats ranks with Shakespeare in his rounded perfection, loveliness and felicity of expression. Keats’ poems which have been included in Ward's Selection clearly show this.
Want of the Power of Moral Interpretation and Construction:
Arnold finds lacking in the other two qualities. Keats does not have the power of moral interpretation which Shakespeare had. His poetry does not provide that criticism of life which we get in Shakespeare: He died too young and immature for such high seriousness. Secondly, he is lacking in the power of construction which marks the evolution of such great works of art as King Lear and Agamemnon. From this point of view, both Endymion and the Hyperion are failures. But he is perfect in his shorter pieces where the matured power of moral interpretation and architectonics not required.
An Evaluation of Keats’ Greatness:
While evaluating Keats’ greatness as a poet, Arnold says that Keats is, by his promise, at any rate, if not fully by his performance, one of the very greatest of English poets. Keats once humbly said, “I shall be among the English poets after my death.” Arnold assures him that he is one of them; he is with Shakespeare. Keats’ poetry is Shakespearean, not imitative, indeed, of Shakespeare, but Shakespearean, because its expression has that rounded perfection and felicity of loveliness of which Shakespeare is the great master. Arnold continues to say that by virtue of his feeling for beauty and of his perception of the vital connection of beauty with truth. Keats accomplished so much in poetry, that in one of the two great modes by which poetry interprets, in the faculty of naturalistic interpretation, in what we call natural magic, he ranks with Shakespeare.
Finally, according to Arnold, it can be observed that Keats was a great poet. He stood unrivalled as a poet of love, beauty and sensuous splendour. He perceived the connection between beauty and truth. Had he lived longer, he would have been a much better and greater poet.
