Elizabeth Brennan's Canonball

John Keats’s collection of Odes is one of the most significant bodies of work written during the Romantic period. The themes of this collection personify many concerns of Romantic writers, such as the mortality of human life, the beauty of nature, and also the relationship between nature and the imagination. “Ode to a Nightingale,” “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” “Ode on Melancholy,” and “To Autumn” are all influential poems that portray these various Romantic themes well. However, it is Keats’s “Ode on Indolence” that interacts with all of the Odes, providing a well rounded preface to the works read in class. “Ode on Indolence” depicts a narrator torn between Romantic ideals and his own indolence; by illustrating this conflict between apathy and the pursuit of Love, Ambition, and Poetry, “Ode on Indolence” establishes the ultimate confrontation between man and his call to the exploration of Romanticism.

“Ode on Indolence” primarily provides a preface to the rest of Keats’s Odes. This is perhaps the most relevant reason it should be included in the canon; it sets up the context of discussion and in turn, provides a better understanding of Keats on a whole. In “Ode to a Nightingale,” the speaker longs to fade into numbness, wishing for alcohol to alleviate his pain. This notion appeals to the apathy introduced in “Ode on Indolence.” Furthermore, the speaker wishes to be more connected to the nightingale and sights poetry as the possibility for doing so, embracing what the speaker in “Ode on Indolence” decides to reject. Finally, “Ode to a Nightingale” questions the mortality of human life; the speaker compares the nightingale’s immortality to his own prophesized death. A broader version of this theme appears in “Ode on Indolence,” thus establishing a meaningful segue into “Ode to a Nightingale.”

In the first stanza of “Ode on Indolence” there is an allusion to “Ode on a Grecian Urn.” When talking about the three figures, the speaker describes their movement as passing “like figures on a marble urn” (5). In this “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” the question of passing time in relation to mortality is studied more in depth, as is the nature of love. The narrators are similar as well, in that both are at first driven to understand the themes of love and mortality through an innocent curiosity. The most significant parallel between the two poems is the narrator’s assessments of limitations. In “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” the speaker comes to terms with the limitations of the urn to progress and change through time. Similarly, the speaker in “Ode on Indolence” assesses and ultimately rejects the limitations of Love, Ambition, and Poesy.

In “Ode on Melancholy,” the narrator does not shy away from emotion. He decides that the knowledge of temporary qualities is what drives his enjoyment of them now in the present. “Ode on Melancholy” poses the ultimate contrast with the numbness of the narrator illustrated in “Ode on Indolence.” This provides a meaningful development within Keats’s work that would benefit from discussion. Looking at narrator growth alone, he has reached new pinnacles within each ode. “Ode to Indolence” establishes this preface to such development well.

Lastly, “To Autumn” particularly pairs well with “Ode on Indolence” because it shows the development of the speaker as a whole. It comes to the conclusion that accepting fleeting beauty does not make beauty any less meaningful. This is significant because it is greatly different from the narrator’s perspective in “Ode on Indolence,” who decides Love, Ambition, and Poesy are not worth seeking because of their all too temporary nature. “To Autumn” seemingly makes the argument that enjoying fleeting existence is better than experiencing none at all. This acceptance of mortality is a key component to the development of Keats’s body of work as a whole.

Throughout small group discussion, it was sometimes tough to see the parallels between the narrators and various themes within the Odes. “Ode to Indolence,” however, would alleviate this problem by developing the story further, thus enabling the poems to interact with each other in a broader sense. It is more possible to understand the development of a supposed single narrator and simply connects the poems to each other more in a more cohesive, chronological story.

“Ode on Indolence” is also significant because it establishes an integral conflict between man and Romanticism. This is particularly valuable to class discussion because the syllabus lacks the possible confrontation between the common man and this call to enlightenment. Simply, “Ode to Indolence” perhaps better illustrates the feelings of the common man. Rather than overzealously admire nature and the imagination like poets of the time, “Ode on Indolence” realistically juxtaposes the desire to seek Romantic understanding with the simple pleasures of remaining indolent. The contrast between the narrator’s intrigue of the personified Love, Ambition, and Poetry with his own desire to remain indolent is what drives the poem forward. In the first two stanzas, the speaker does not recognize what these white robed figures represent and as they circle him, questions why they are present in front of him, possibly attempting to “steal away” his “idle days” (14-15). This presents the first notion of internal conflict; the narrator is torn between being frustrated with his own ignorance and being disturbed from peace to follow the robed figures.

In the fourth stanza, after identifying the figures as Love, Ambition, and Poesy, the narrator ultimately combats his curiosity with reasons that demerit each figure. He decides Love is not worth pursuing because it may not be possible to find, indicating “What is Love? and where is it?” (32). Ambition is deemed quite useless as well, because of its temporary nature. He is intrigued further by poetry, claiming he “loves it more” (28) and because of this names it a “demon” (30). However, while Poesy is the most tempting, it ultimately offers little in comparison to “evenings steep’d in honied indolence” (37). This appeals to the conflict at large; the narrator, though invested and intrigued by the values of each figure, ultimately convinces himself of their unimportance. Though he just spent a significant portion of time being torn between following and remaining in numb idleness, he resolves at the end of the poem that he was never intrigued and the figures should never return again. The ending of “Ode on Indolence” indicates that the narrator chose indolence over the pursuit of Romantic ideals; however, Keats’s body of work proves he himself may have ultimately chosen otherwise.

John Keats’s Odes in combination are a unique group of poems that depicts the interaction of man with Romantic ideals in several different facets. “Ode on Indolence” is an important work to include in the canon primarily because of its ability to interact with the other Odes. It has the potential to frame insight on the other works as well as establish a unique perspective on Keats himself, since the speakers of his poems all reach different variations of the same discoveries. “Ode on Indolence” is essential to fully understanding and recognizing the significance of Keats’s work. Furthermore, “Ode on Indolence” appeals to a sense of the common man during the Romantic period by portraying a contrast between pursuing Romantic ideals and remaining comfortably indifferent. It is these unique depictions with which “Ode on Indolence” would benefit the canon.

1220 words