In this journal, “The Well Wrought Urn”, Cleanth Brooks, analyzes “Ode to a Grecian Urn” and the complexity of the statement “beauty is truth, truth beauty”. The central idea being presented in Brooks’ argument is whether or not Keats was able to highlight the relationship between truth and beauty in his choice of diction, and this poem itself. He believes that the last two lines are not essential to the poem’ meaning, rather, “it can be derived from the context of the “Ode” itself” (Brooks 151). Brooks makes it clear to the reader that he is not examining what the relationship is or its meaning, but instead focuses on how Keats comes to these concluding statements through the poem’s words.
The idea behind “beauty is truth, truth beauty” is that the lines are dramatically prepared for the speaker, not something to be deeply analyzed or contextualized. He believes that the paradoxes presented throughout the poem are able to justify this last statement to the poem. These lines are to be examined as, “a consciously riddling paradox, put in the mouth of a particular character, and modified by the total context of the poem” (Brooks 141-142). If we look at the poem itself, multiple paradoxes are presented, yet we have no clear answers. Brooks explains that this is the intention behind Keats work. If there is beauty in truth, then we must accept the unknown. One example is shown through the first stanza of the poem and how the sylvan historian asks questions about the location, people, gods, and setting of the urns’ story. Still, the answers to these questions are never revealed by the urn or Keats. This is one of the many paradoxes placed by Keats throughout the poem that then amplifies the purpose of the last two stanzas. The reasoning behind Brooks’ examination of the poem in this particular way is a method of solving “the mystery” behind those stanzas. Alone, they may seem out of place or unexplainable to the reader.
I found this interpretation to be extremely interesting because I myself was confused about the meaning of the last two stanzas. Also, a better understanding of what Keats was trying to say with contradicting uses of words throughout the poem. Upon my first readings, I found myself confused with the poem and the multiple layers of analysis we discussed in class. Brooks’ analysis was able to give me a deeper understanding and have an “aha” moment after working through his argument. It felt more laid out to be in a logical way where I can now read the poem with a general understanding of what Keats was trying to convey. Where I would take the analysis next is, why Keats chose these particular paradoxes to emphasize his main point? Also, what is the role of nature in this poem?
