Talk:Ode on a Grecian Urn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Ode on a Grecian Urn is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 29, 2010.
WikiProject Poetry (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The real Grecian urn?[edit]

I once saw a sketching Keats did of a Grecian urn, though I'm not sure if it's the one he wrote about. Then again, why else would he sketch an urn? So the part about how it's not modeled after a real urn needs some attention.

-The poem portrays symbolism. It is not necessary for it to be modeled after a specific urn. The meaning behind the poem is what's important.-

-The poem is inspired by urns, but does not have to be focused on a particular one.-

So I have taken the liberty to add the picture of the urn drawn by Keats himself. While I agree that the urn of the poem is ficticious, I do think it might help to have some sort of representation of a generic Grecian urn to help those visitors who have been denied the ability to look at the Sosibios urn (or any like it) for themselves. The fact that Keats drew this one seems to add to its status as a viable representation of what Keats pictured a Grecian urn to look like. Perhaps I am off base, but let us not take wiki too seriously:)Mrathel (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Haha, I don't know how you found it, but thats great. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

'Glossary' section not really encyclopedic in content[edit]

The 'Glossary' is not really something which belong in an encyclopedia article; perhaps it would be useful on the back pages of a book on Keats' odes. It is deficient in any case; 'brede' is the word I would wish to see defined. Writtenright 06:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

Oh, it has been done! Thank you, Glossarian.Writtenright 06:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Writtenright
Much of the article fails to meet the standards of an encyclopedia article. I am going to cut out the sentence that starts "It is now believed" because 1. the statement is simply not true, and 2. No one can say what is believed or not believed about a poem. If it is a direct quote, you can say "Stillinger suggests that..." or "Stambosky states that the narrator...", but it can not be universal knowledge that the narrator criticizes the urn. Given the literary quality of this work, I find it hard to believe that we can't do a much better job. Mrathel (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sentence[edit]

(Sectioned) "[Instead] the speaker reveals in this mystery, [as he does in the final couplet (mentioned below))], [?which does not make immediate, ascertainable sense but continues to have poetic significance nonetheless]?."

I'm tired and may not be right, but it seems that 'reveals in this mystery' doesn't work. Revels maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.151.240 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

new edits[edit]

Ladies and gents, I have done a bit of reworking on the article to improve the quality. I have a couple of points I would like to make, and if any of you would like to add, please feel free.

1.I like the idea of having an actual picture of an urn on the page. It will provide a visual image of what is being discussed, and I don't really see how it can hurt or detract from the article as a whole.
2. I think there needs to be a better description of the poem, especially if we are going to remove the text itself, as I have been told that it fails to meet with WP standards (which I think we can sneer at for a bit, since we are already rated about the lowest on their scale).
3. There needs to be a real criticism section at the bottom with a discussion among literary critics from Eliot to Bloom. A ton of criticism has been written on this poem, and I think it will add a bit of insight into what Keats was doing with the work.

Please feel free to write here or on my talk page if you have any questions, and don't hesitate to fix my grammar. If you have anything to add on any section please feel free... I dont mean to be an anus by doing so much at once, I just had a bunch of free time today.Mrathel (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I put a list of problems down below. Bloom is definitely not the last say. But yeah, check some of the other pages I have worked on to see how the poem is summarized, but not contained wholesale. Normally they have critical interpretation of the plot along with snippets. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems[edit]

There are some problems with the page. Structure and Style should be connected as one. There is no background section on the creation. There is too much weight to an Ode as a genre, without any regard to how he performed it. Plus, there is a minor author used to cite his style, while there are many works by many major critics which are not in here. Plus, there are dozens of books that deal with he themes and they are lacking here. The poem does not actually capture "Negative Capability", as he moved beyond that concept by the time the poem was written. There is nothing about the March of Intellect. Many of the major critics have no mention on the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and double yes... but no. I don't think structure and style should be connected, just as I don't think that the physics and atomic theory pages deserve to be rolled into the "Cold War" section. If you want major sources to cite his style, then I can point you in the right direction as far as critics, and I can tell you than any source beats the hell out of what was there before I got startee(0).I have no idea what "Negative Capibility" is, but if you want it gone, then work with me. I like hard work and will work to make the page better. If you want to help, I thank you. Even if Keats is no Johnson.Mrathel (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Mrathel, Keats is within my literary specialty. Trust me, I have more than enough works. I have every work listed on this list plus many more that deal with the Odes in particular. And Keats is no Johnson, Keats knew how words sounded and not just what they meant (Bate said that, so no one has the right to criticize me :D) . Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
hahaha, well I think you for your help. I think the article looks far better than it did a week ago, and I look forward to helping you fill in a few of the sections.Mrathel (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure of the difference between the "Notes" and "References" sections. Are both supposed to exist with one containing the other, or is there a prefered method of documentation?Mrathel (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
What happens is that the mixture of full citations and short citations (i.e. having the same book sourced multiple times) causes a lot of problems, so most literature pages separate them. There references used are just a slim amount of those out there, and the page needs to be expanded some. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I readded, mostly out of ignorance, the paradoxes described by Lilia Melani to the themes section. I do understand why we should not have a minor source in the themes section, and I promise to remove it as soon as I find an viable replacement:)Mrathel (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ode on a Grecian Urn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. I'll be reviewing soon. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good. :) I should be around for discussion, fixes, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Awesome.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    There are a few confusing sentences and the lead seems a little short
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Maybe change "First Known Copy of "Ode on a Grecian Urn" transcribed..." to "First known copy of "Ode on a Grecian Urn" transcribed..."
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  • What is going on with the last part of "Sheley, Erin. Re-Imagining Olympus: Keats and the Mythology of Individual Consciousness. Harvard University. Reprinted on Romanticism on the NetNo. 45 Nov. 2007. [1]accessed Dec. 6, 2008"?
  • The lead seems a little short. Maybe add more about the critical consideration? Or interpretations of the poem? Or themes?
  • In the lead, "Its inspiration is partly considered to be a visit by Keats to the exhibition of the Elgin Marbles at the British Museum, and partly to the aesthetic theories of his friend, the painter Benjamin Haydon and Haydon's print collection of Grecian artworks." is confusing. So, Keats was inspired by a visit to the exhibition of the Elgin Marbles at the British Museum, and also by the aesthetic theories of his friend?
  • Source for "The ode is an ancient form originally written for musical accompaniment. In general, the ode of the Romantic genre is a poem of 30 to 200 lines that meditates progressively upon or directly addresses a single object or condition. Ode on a Grecian Urn follows a strict structural pattern with each stanza containing 10 lines with ten syllables. The complex rhyme scheme of the poem shows a high level of complexity common among odes of Keats’ time."
  • "because it is born from stone and made by the hand of an artist who does not communicate through words."

Will finish up review soon. Kaguya-chan (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Not sure what is going on with the punctuation in "In order to overcome this merged life and death paradox, the poem shifts to a new scene with a new perspective:[18]."
  • In Themes, "Likewise, he points to another paradox that arises when the narrator finds immortality on the side of an urn meant to carry the ashes of the dead." is missing a ref. "This reading of the text suggests levels of both jealousy and disdain as the narrator admires the simplicity of the world depicted by the urn but finds it incapable of providing deeper meaning." too.
  • For the first half of the article "Ode on a Grecian Urn" is used and from Themes and beyond Ode on a Grecian Urn is used. Which is it?
This is a really interesting article that a lot of research went into. :) I'm putting it on hold to give some time for the above to be sorted out. Kaguya-chan (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In order: 1. Fixed the link along with some other reference fixes. 2. Expanded the lead by approximately 4 lines. 3. Split the sentence into two and hopefully clarified. 4. Dropped the paragraph and added a new paragraph that should hopefully add more context. 5. I rewrote that part. 6. Apparently, the section was rewritten and the quote was given a new section. There was a period after the ref, but I fixed it by moving it forward. 7. It appears on my screen with [25]. I am unsure about what may have happened. I've removed the second sentence as I haven't a clue if it is just interpretation of the previous or what. 8. I switched them all over to quotation marks. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Since all the comments were addressed, I will now pass the article. Great job! Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition in poem section[edit]

This was added to the poem section. I am worried about it because the section is supposed to be a close reading of the poem. This is in the references, which seems to disrupt the size of the references. How do people feel about this? I would prefer if all non-direct poem discussion is completely dropped. As a compromise - all of these references to other works could be added to a "note" section as found in The Lucy poems. What does everyone think? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Stick it all in the notes if you like, but in an FA candidate you should not just drop these names in without further information. The Raphael should be linked, as we have an article on its series. Alternatively, they could be added elsewhere, as the article is light on the visual arts background of this very visual poem, as commented at the FAC. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. What is wrong with saying that such a scene is similar to another scene without having to explain the time, the place, etc? I can point to dozens of FAs that contain just these very things without anyone ever complaining. If anything, I've seen many complaints that there was too much off topic information. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If you mention something it is not "off-topic" to link to an article that we have on it, to use the correct modern name, and to enable it to be identified properly. If you are talking about things that are supposed to have influenced people, some hints as to how they might have been aware of it are relevant. For example, with the 3 named vases earlier in the article, Keats almost certainly saw one in the original, cannot possibly have seen another in the original, and might have seen the third. At least in the notes, some distinctions would be desirable, as seeing a 6 foot high sculpture is very different from seeing a print of it. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The name I used came directly from the source. I don't really think it is fair to criticize someone for not knowing what is beyond the source to identify where its page is, nor do I think it is fair to some how claim it does not mean it is at FA level. Regardless, the sources don't distinguish if he saw the urns in person or not, so I don't know how we can begin to do so. I would like to hear other people's opinions on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not criticising you. This is not about you. But now the information is in the article by links, it should not be removed, as you seem to be suggesting. What would you like to see on these points? I suggest you add a version here. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
As I've stated above - a poem section should only have direct close reading. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If you are suggesting going back to the original form with no links, and nothing in the notes, I certainly can't support that. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Does the information help one understand what Keats was intended to do in the line when there are no critics that explain Keats's intention in the line or those who say that Keats was consciously thinking about them in the line? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava has asked me to weigh in here. To me, it seems like the note consists of two types of information - links to the images mentioned in the article (which I see no problem with) and a bit of information "Works_owned_by_Beckfordthe most famous and expensive paintings of the day". This last bit I'm a bit more concerned with. Why is this relevant to the article? Have Keats scholars mentioned these fact alongside the poem and this paintings? If they have, cite them. If not, let's leave this editorial comment out. Does that seem like a workable solution? Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly there are three bits of information: correct identification of the works (much the most important), links to our articles, or section, on the images mentioned in the article, & a bit of information. The fact is we don't really know whether "Keats scholars mentioned these fact alongside the poem and this paintings" because of the list of works recommended by Rosalind Hill on her article (available online) to the visual arts background to the poem only Andrew Motion has been consulted for the article so far - see the FAC. In any case I am rather resistant to the closed garden mentality that only "Keats scholars" comments are relevant. Johnbod (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think only Keats scholars' views are important (I never implied such a thing), but they are certainly the most relevant. Clearly, scholars who study Romantic poetry and painting would have interesting things to say as well (to give examples). The more important point is that there is no effort made at citation here - right now, the bit of info I quoted looks like original research. Show me it isn't and I will be happy to endorse including it. Awadewit (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It is all refed at the other article, but I can copy it over, & easily find other refs. Johnbod (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Done, & I have tidied the Beckford link, & linked the Raphael in the text, with rest in the notes. Johnbod (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "closed garden mentality" applies too often in literature, but unless sources from the contemporary period have real proof or newly-discovered insight into the mind of Keats that did not exist in the 19th Century, they are merely speculating. This is the problem with attempting to add inspirations to a work where there is no direct implication as to the real source of inspiration. The urn is not specified in the text, thus the further you get from the source, the less accurate the information will be. Keats scholars study Keats and his contemporaries, other scholars study Keats scholars, and the further you move down the line, the less likely you are to have keen insight. Mrathel (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here; what I am saying is that the books on Keats found most relevant to the visual arts background to the poem by Hill have not (except for Motion), been consulted so far. Johnbod (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Very well, I am just suggesting that the "visual arts" emphasis is of minor concern to a poem about a fictitious urn. I care little to argue on the subject and welcome a good discussion on the urn, but rather I am simply stating a cocnern that beyond Keats there are few sources able to truly discuss what "visual" aspects the poem contains. Mrathel (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The same can be said of any other "emphasis" in this or any other poem, which doesn't seem to restrain the proliferation of criticism in the slightest. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The most important and famous works on "Ode on a Grecian Urn" have been included in the page. Most of them have made it clear that there is no visual background as it was an ideal, and that tying it to any particular source would destroy what the poem intends. And lets say there was a similar scene in Raphael - a heifer is sacrificed in thousands of myths so the idea would be so generic that it could join be coincidence that they use the same concept. I just checked Bate and there are three references to Raphael, and none of them are Keats viewing any works by Raphael. What Bate says about Keats on Claude Lorrain: "Thus Claude Lorrain's landscapes, though 'perfect abstractions of the visible images of things,' lack 'gusto': 'They do not interpret one sense by another . . . That is, his eyes wanted imagination; it did not strongly sympathise with his other faculties. He saw the atmosophere, but he did not feel it.'" (p. 244) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Critics[edit]

  • Mizukoshi, Ayumi. Keats, Hunt and the Aesthetics of Pleasure. New York: Palgrave, 2001. ISBN 0333929586

Ayumi Mizukoshi, in 2001, claims that early audiences did not support "Ode to Psyche" because it "turned out to be too reflexive and internalised to be enjoyed as a mythological picture. For the same reason, the 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' drew neither attention nor admiration. Although the poet is gazing round the surface of the urn in each stanza, the poem cannot readily be consumed as a series of 'idylls'."[1]

  • Ridley, M. R. Keats' Craftsmanship. Oxford: Clarendon, 1933.

M. R. Ridley, in 1933, describes the poem as a "tense ethereal beauty" with a "touch of didacticism that weakens the urgency" of the statements.[2]

  • Sharp, Ronald. Keats, Skepticism, and the Religion of Beauty. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1979.

Ronald Sharp, in 1979, claims that the theme of "the relationship between life and art [...] receives its most famous, and also its most enigmatic and controversial, treatment" within the poem.[3]

  • Rzepka, Charles. The Self as Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986.

Charles Rzepka, in 1986, argues that "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."[4]

  • Colvin, Sidney. John Keats. London: Macmillan, 1920. OCLC 257603790

Sidney Colvin, in 1920, explains that "while imagery drawn from the sculptures on Greek vases was still floating through his mind, he was able to rouse himself to a stronger effort and produce a true masterpiece in his famous Ode on a Grecian Urn. It is no single or actually existing specimen of Attic handicraft that he celebrates in this ode, but a composite conjured up instinctively in his mind out of several such known to him in reality or from engravings."[5]

I will be adding more shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Parking deck[edit]

  • Let me just park this link here--it contains some discussion of the final lines, and has a few things to say on the quotation marks. Came across this by accident through this search, providing an incredible number of hits in Google Books for "beauty is truth." Note to self: what about the canonical status of the poem? Since when does every schoolchild read this? Was it in the first NAEL? Was it standard giftbook fare? Drmies (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What about Kenneth Burke's "body is turd, turd body"? Does this deserve any mention at all, possibly in the final paragraph of the structure section? BTW, I do believe that that section ought to be structure and style, and there is a lot to be said about style--consider, for instance, Vendler's discussion of a binary structure which dictates (for Keats and the reader) binary images (in diction, syntax). (The Odes of John Keats 312-13.) Drmies (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Themes[edit]

Other potential paragraphs:

In his 1969 analysis of Keats's poetry, John Jones described a sexual dimension within the poem when he compared the relationship between "the Eve Adam dreamed of and who was there when he woke up" and the "bridal urn" of "Ode on a Grecian Urn".[6] Helen Vendler expanded on the idea, in her 1984 analysis of Keats's odes, when she claimed "the complex mind writing the Urn connects stillness and quietness to ravishment and a bride".[7] In the second stanza, Keats "voices the generating motive of the poem – the necessary self-exhaustion and self-perpetuation of sexual appetite."[8] To Vendler, desire and longing could be the source of artistic creativity but the urn contained two contradicting expressions of sexuality on the urn: a lover chasing after a beloved and a lover with his beloved. This contradiction revealed Keats's belief that such love was unattainable and that "The true opponent to the urn-experience of love is not satisfaction but extinction."[9] In 1990, Daniel Watkins continued with an emphasis on the sexual dimensions but claimed that they represent Keats accepting the oppression of women by society. To Watkins, the lovers represented a masculine victory with the females forever "'frozen' as objects of masculine desire".[10] Even in the next scene with the town and the sacrifice, the poem expresses a patriarchal dominance in the form of a priest and a debasing of what is feminine in the killing of the heifer. Although the urn is a bride that is unravished and pure, but it is committed to the patriarchal standard in society as it quietly revealed the masculine defeat of the feminine.[11]

- Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


The narrator's meditation on the urn connected various images of time and place when it merged scenery with possible stories. The narration represented a desire for inclusiveness, where all things positive or negative are brought together, to make the art true to experience.[12] However, the story on the urn is not urn's only function. According to Tilottama Rajan, in a 1980 analysis of Romanticism and its relationship with history, the urn would likely be used to hold ashes of the dead. Keats ignored the urn's actual function and the ambiguity it would cause in relationship to the story because "To search beneath the surface, by seeking the historical Greece underlying the Arcadian fiction, would be to ask what becomes of the abstractions of idealism when they are incarnated in the real world [...] In the fourth stanza Keats almost does this. But at the crucial moment he draws back from excavating too deeply in the archaeology of the idealizing consciousness, fearing a complete dissolution of the surface."[13] Although the urn would remind Keats of a dead civilization, Watkins claimed that history itself is not dead and there would not have to be a disconnection between Keats's imagination and history. Instead, he believed that the figures on the urn are just as connected to history as the urn's actual use.[14]

- Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment, FWIW, I think the first half of the first of these worth adding, though summarizing very complex criticism is always tricky. Watkins in the second half seems a tad silly to me - is he a big name like Jones? Rajan seems to make assumptions about the type of vase envisaged (or whatever it is), which may be the wrong approach anyway, and (my OR view) the decoration of the vase as described sounds more like a massive Hellenistic or Roman period sculpted stone vase, which were decorative objects not likely to be used for burials. Only some of the earlier painted Attic vases were used to hold ashes anyway. But I'd welcome more analysis of the connection between the poem & the visual arts, & have given pointers at the FAC. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see Watkins or Rajan as very credible on the matter. However, Ling.Nut wanted more diverse views thrown into the page. I would prefer for all of it the above not to be included. Vendler only discusses the romantic aspect simply to talk about imagination and creation in a line by line analysis, which is discussed in other paragraphs already. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I think that the first part is able to be added without too much disruption, but the second might lead down a path we don't want to travel. If anywhere, they would probably fit better in the criticism section since they talk more about the poem's relationship to life than they do about the actual text. Of course, I will freely admit that I like most spiders more than post-structuralist arguments.:) Mrathel (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea about literary criticism, but I thought that Watkins was making some heroic leaps, reading into the text exactly what he wanted to see. That is to say, I doubt that any thoughts along those lines would have occurred to Keats as he was writing, nor do I think he would have agreed that those aspects were present or even potential readings of the poem, had someone voiced to them to him at that time... So you see, throwing in the kitchen sink is unhelpful. My point was not that everything should be thrown in. No, far from it. I think that focusing on the major names is obviously the way to go. However, I also think that a balance exists somewhere between the free-for-all of "let's quote every damn critic" and the over-certainty of "The second stanza means A; the third stanza means B." I think giving mention to the various aspects of sexuality etc., as is done in the first section above forex, is good. Even more, however, I guess I want a very slightly more hedging tone throughout, but I am open to discussion from others who may disagree... • Ling.Nut 04:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, the "Poem" section should be read as more of a summary that is agreed (literal) with themes those that are discussed in general and how they connect to general ideas by the poet (hence the emphasis on Nightingale). The sexuality part would be complicated. If people want the first part of the paragraph, it would give a lot of weight to Vendler and also have a short paragraph. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I took parts of the general opinion and I created a fourth paragraph in the themes section. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

He has said more than he mean[edit]

The first paragraph of Ode on a Grecian Urn#Later responses says "... he has said more than he mean ..." Does the off-line source really say that? If it weren't a quote, I would routinely change "mean" to "means". Art LaPella (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Square brackets in quote[edit]

This edit altered the meaning of the quote, as it is now unclear which ellipses are in the original quote. Wikipedia:MOS#Ellipses says:

"Square brackets, however, may optionally be used for precision, to make it clear that the ellipsis is not itself quoted; this is usually only necessary if the quoted passage also uses three periods in it to indicate a pause or suspension."

I would change it myself, but I am unfamiliar with the subject, and not very active on Wikipedia in general. Dendodge T\C 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I re-emphasize that the Manual of Style instruction says "this is usually only necessary if the quoted passage also uses three periods in it to indicate a pause or suspension." Before my edit, there were two unbracketed ellipses in the entire article, and 16 bracketed ellipses. All 16 bracketed ellipses couldn't have been there to distinguish from ellipses in the original – unless one takes the position that bracketing is always needed just in case someone might confuse it with an ellipsis in the original, which would remove the reason for the Manual of Style instruction altogether. Readding the brackets in the neighborhood of the previously unbracketed ellipses is an arguable interpretation of that rule, but not all 16. Art LaPella (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter much to me, as long as they are in the "and more true. The trouble is that it is a little too true. Truth to his main theme has taken Keats rather farther than he meant to go .... This pure cold art makes, in fact, a less appeal to Keats than the Ode as a whole would pretend; and when, in the lines that follow these lines, he indulges the jarring apostraphe 'Cold Pastoral' [...] he has said more than he mean—or wished to mean." quote. However, I feel that consistency can only be a good thing, and that it may be better to use square brackets for all quotes. Dendodge T\C 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
That change has been made by Ling Nut. Once again, if we use square brackets for all ellipses for consistency, then we should remove the Manual of Style's qualification "... this is usually only necessary if the quoted passage also uses three periods in it to indicate a pause or suspension." Art LaPella (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • ^ Ayumi 2001 p. 170
    • ^ p. 281
    • ^ p. 151
    • ^ Rzepka 1986 p. 177
    • ^ Colvin pp. 415–416
    • ^ Jones 1969 p. 176
    • ^ Vendler 1984 p. 140
    • ^ Vendler 1984 p. 141
    • ^ Vendler 1984 pp. 141–142
    • ^ Watkins p. 248
    • ^ Watkins pp. 248–249
    • ^ Vendler 1984 pp. 140 141
    • ^ Rajan 1980 p. 135
    • ^ Watkins pp. 242–243