Tweet

It is strange that it must be pointed out, but personal nudity is unnecessary to understanding Ode on a Grecian Urn by John Keats. However, this seemingly obvious truth was not know by former Naval Academy English professor Bruce Fleming who sent out a semi-nude photo of himself to his students, possibly to emphasize the fleeting nature of the human body.

As The Capital, the local newspaper of the region where the Naval Academy is located, reported, Fleming sent a picture of himself wearing only skimpy underwear to his students as “part of an email following-up on an poetry reading.” The paper goes on to say that “The photo — along with shirtless photos of Rafael Nadal and Mark Wahlberg — was part of a lecture on John Keats’ ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’.”

Regardless of Fleming’s clear boundary issues, his excuse lacks merit, because Keats’s poem does not actually depict physical aspects of the human body, especially not aspects of an unclothed human body. Instead, the poem is broken into three parts that discuss man’s role within human society: how art captures the potential (but not satisfaction) of physical pursuits; how art reveals the effects of spirituality on social commerce; and a comment on the relationship between truth and beauty.

While the latter two parts provide no comment on the human form, the first part could be said to deal with physicality in general with a particular emphasis on youth. However, closer analysis verifies that there is no connection that can be drawn between showing semi-nude images of current individuals with the imagery Keats describes as belonging to the urn’s surface.

The first part spans half of the poem and is broken into three further parts that each have their own stanza: the first stanza provides an introduction to the urn and to the urn’s relationship with nature; the second depicts two individuals who are captured mid-pursuit; and the third discusses passions as a whole.

The poem begins with a discussion of how an urn is able to tell a story, and it is not until the end of the first stanza that we have any hints of physical characters being described:

What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?

What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?

What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?

We do not know the nature (either men or gods) of the pursuers, but we do know that there is a pursuit and a struggle. It is likely that the scene refers to some of the many tales of Ovid and the other Classic mythographers that depicts immortals who try to force themselves upon mortals. The object of their individual desires is most likely female (maidens), and there is implied romantic or sexual activity (wild ecstasy).

However, we have no description of clothing or even of the physical aspects of those involved. They could all be wearing robes that are 4 inch thick, because the poem does not seem to think their physical description even matters. We only know that they are most likely humanoid due to the confusion between if they are “men or gods.”

The second stanza provides some more details regarding a particular set of individuals depicted upon the urn, but it does not focus on their appearance beyond what can be obtained through general inference:

Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave

Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;

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!

We have a “fair youth,” but we do not know the gender of this individual. Keats only uses the pronouns “thou” and “thy,” which creates great ambiguity. We can assume that the “fair youth” is male due to what we know of both Keats and of myth, but we are left without any certainty. What is key is that the youth is a “Bold Lover” that “canst thou kiss.” The object of the youth is a “she” who “cannot fade” and “for ever… be fair.”

At no time is there any nudity discussed in this scene, let alone can it be determined with any certainty that there would be male nudity. Instead, it depicts a moment where an image of a youth is trying to kiss a female but both are trapped within the stasis of art. This is not the “wild ecstasy” of before, and it is quite modest in comparison to the first stanza.

The third stanza begins with what seems to be a depiction of a “song” similar to which the first line of the second stanza alludes:

Ah, happy, happy boughs! that cannot shed

Your leaves, nor ever bid the Spring adieu;

And, happy melodist, unwearied,

For ever piping songs for ever new;

Again, there is no hint of any depiction of the human form within this passage. Instead, the lines discuss the emotional nature of the trees (a type of pathetic fallacy) and the stasis of a “melodist,” who may or may not the youth of the second stanza. The emphasis, instead, is on the immortal nature of individuals who seem to exist outside of time itself, neither growing nor decaying.

The second half of the third stanza continues this emphasis:

More happy love! more happy, happy love!

For ever warm and still to be enjoy’d,

For ever panting, and for ever young;

All breathing human passion far above,

That leaves a heart high-sorrowful and cloy’d,

A burning forehead, and a parching tongue.

We do not know what the “happy love” is, but one can infer that the line connects back to the youth of the second stanza. However, it is also possible that the line also connects back to the “wild ecstasy” of the first stanza, expanding the idea of “love” to physical passion. Those involved are “panting,” which provides a physicality to the “love,” and it implies, at least, a romantic act if it is not an allusion to sexual relations.

Yet once again, we do not have any emphasis on the appearance of the human body. The “love” is “warm” and “enjoy’d,” and it affects the heart, the forehead, and the tongue. There is no depiction of the shape or structure of the body, and we know nothing about the individuals involved beyond that they appear to be “young.”

It seems obvious that Fleming did not provide his students with a solid understanding Keats’s great ode. It is likely that he showed pictures of semi-nude men to his students (which he claimed were all male) to discuss the fleeting nature of the human body. While that could be understandable in a loose sense, the poem is not about the fleeting nature of appearances.

Instead, the poem is constantly emphasizing emotions and the pursuit of emotional pleasures. The descriptions within each line are either of actions or the reaction to actions. There are pursuits and desires, and a stasis that prevents the individuals on the urn from ever obtaining satisfaction.

The point of the first half of the urn is that art is immortality comes at a cost. There are no relationships because the characters are never able to obtain their pursuits, and it is unlikely that the “wild ecstasies” would ever lead to an honest understanding of another individual. Instead, art can make passion seem wonderful, but it can never provide fulfillment.

In a similar way, the other side of the urn depicts a group of people who may (or may not) have left a local community empty in their desire to fulfill a religious obligation. The society is empty, abandoned, and there is no commerce or related activity that allows for life to continue. Like the lovers, these religious individuals are forever divided from something important. This is not a condemnation of religion, but it is a warning that there are ramifications of devoting oneself to spiritual matters exclusive to social matters.

Once the second half of the urn is provided, the urn itself seems to speak of the relationship between truth and beauty:

Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all

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

We can connect the “beauty” to the first part of the ode, and the pursuit of pleasure appears to be a poor facsimile of beauty. Similarly, we can connect the “truth” to the second part of the ode, and the pursuit of exclusionary spirituality appears to be a poor facsimile of truth. With that in mind, we can interpret the poem as showing the danger of those who seek to pursue either extreme with the additional knowledge that we are not immortal and cannot hold onto the positive aspect of those fulfilling scenes.

While the poem does say the urn speaks to us when “old age shall this generation waste,” it is already too late for us to be warned against an emphasis on youth. Instead, the urn calls us to devote ourselves to humanity by balancing our need for emotional and spiritual fulfillment with a dedication to obtaining a true relationship with all of humanity. The urn is described “a friend to man” because it warns us away from destructive activities and not a limited “time is fleeting” concept.

To focus on the fleeting nature of the human body is to ignore the point of the urn’s declaration just as it is seems to emphasize a personal viewpoint that Keats was most likely not concerned with when he wrote the poem. It should make one wonder why Fleming did not use Andrew Marvell’s “To His Coy Mistress” instead, but it is possible that the emphasis on the decaying nature of the female form would make it more difficult to justify him sending out pictures of his own naked torso.

The irony is that Fleming once decried how English professors are unable to connect general audiences with the classics while he was providing misleading information that spreads a false understanding of the classics. Those like Keats are great writers because they spoke important truths, and all students should be given the opportunity to experience and interact with these texts. It seems that Fleming not only missed Keats’s point but he missed the whole point of teaching.