Negative Capability (2 of 2)

The letter itself is a progression of ideas which form in a spontaneous and organic way.  In the first paragraph, he describes going to see a painting, Death on the Pale Horse, which was, for the time, equivalent to seeing the new movie out in theaters, we’ll say.   He described it, saying, “There is nothing to be intense upon; no woman one feels mad to kiss, no face swelling into reality-The excellency of every art is its intensity, capable of making all disagreeablse evaporate, from their being in close relationship with beauty and truth.  The idea of needing a point we can fix upon, while also dealing with uncertainty also suggests a sort of intelligence which is also capable of respecting multitudes and multiplicity.  (Continue below the fold…)

From here, we go into Shakespeare.  Of course.  Particularly in his plays, Shakespeare did something revolutionary for his time.  When other characters were representations of good and evil, or morality and immorality, or good versus bad, so on, Shakespeare’s characters were not.  Was King Lear a bad person?  You can’t say, in any way that is universal.  Did he make the best possible choices? Probably not.  But, he was not, inherently a bad guy, in the same way.  As the characters moved on and off the stage, the world view shifted back and forth between these shades of grey figures, which meant the plays needed the ability to accept multiple world views, without ascribing rightness or wrongness to any.

The second paragraph begins with his social life, with Haydon, Du Bois, Hill and King.  He says, “They only served to convince me, how superior humour is to wit in respect to enjoyment-These men say things which make one start, without making one feel.”  The word humour is of particular importance, as it serves a dual purpose.  Humour, an emotional state, provides the sense of feeling and connectedness which is lacking in wit, a merely intellectual response.  There is also the physical aspect of humour, that is, the bile, blood, urine and whatever that fourth aspect was, which constituted the physical humour of a man.  In this sense, it either consciously or instinctually shows that physical bodies were on Keats’ mind as he wrote the letter, tying back into his illness.  Keats pushed away surface without intensity (wit lacked the intensity of humour, the human connection).  Thomas Sayers Ellis, the other day, used the phrase physical intelligence when describing what a poem needs, that is, it needs something more than a mental aspect.”

Because there is no way I can paraphrase or describe the most important part of the letter, I am going to type it, and leave all commentary in the comment section, including my response.  It reads:

I had not a dispute but a disquisition, with Dilke on various subjects; several things dove-tailed in my mind, and at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously – I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason – Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge.  This pursued through volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration, or rather obliterates all consideration.

It is important to note particular points, as follows:

1) The language of the first few clauses, as emphasized are so specific, so precise and wonderful.
2) The reference, again, to Shakespeare.
3) When he spells out Negative Capability for his brothers, it is doubly so a definition for
himself, who, to this point, is struggling with a concept new not just to himself, but to many.
This letter progresses, developing this concept as it goes along, but it is important to note that
it was not intended for public consumption, but rather, a private letter.  The lasting implication
was never a conscious intent.
4)  He lashes into Coleridge at the end of the first sentence.  It is also important to note that the
whole paragraph is two sentences, and in the second, he begins to take a step back from his
harsh criticism.
5)  I mean, come on, beautiful language, “would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught
from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-
knowledge.”

There are a few other things, for another time, to discuss.  The abridged version of these things follows:

•The idea of a project (or, ultimately, intent) is a bureaucratic word.  Such a thought is,
apparently, a paraphrase of something said by Tomaz Salamun, at some point.
•”He didn’t have the benefit of reading Ode on a Grecian Urn, he had to write it.”
•The Fall of Hyperion: A Dream consisted of two cantos, the first of which was over 450 lines.
The language was elaborate, at least compared to the second canto, which was a mere 61 lines.
The final line reads, “And made their dove wings tremble. On he flared.”
He had a plan for many cantos, presumably equal in length to the first, however he reached the
second canto and stopped.  There was no more to write. Not because he was lazy, not because
he couldn’t write any more, but because he reached the point where he was done.  The idea of
this project was so contrary to the idea of Negative Capability, and his being done was the
most logical conclusion.

I want to finish with a short, but important note.  Talking about what a poet is writing “about” is along the same lines as describing what visual art “looks like.”  It is unsophisticated.  Just as a sculpture or a painting doesn’t look like something, but is something, a poem is not about a thing, but rather is a thing, in some sense.  That is probably not the most articulate expression of the notion, however, it should suffice