This paper presents analysis of Grecian Urn before we move on to the “Grecian Urn”, we must assess that this particular ode is in dedication to a material artifact. It’s a symphony vividly orchestrated that it talks with the projections on the urn. The poet communicates with the urn and sees how the realities of life are sometimes indicated on such mortal, material things. The persons on this urn never need to manage changes in their reality. Their reality is for all time solidified in a solitary minute. The ode differentiates the immortal universe of the urn with the upside-down hourglass that is human life. The urn relates with an honest world, unaffected by the affliction and hardship that accompany change. The trees never need to adjust with losing their leaves; the urn itself is “unadulterated. Before the end of the ode, the speaker starts to think about whether what he took for purity may really be a type of icy separation and distance.
However, how are these two poems similar? The answer can be found if we analyze their themes. In both the Odes, we will see that “Time” is a major component. In Ode to a Nightingale, the poet extends his longing for perfection onto an image, which takes part in both time and endlessness. Consequently, the strain between the universe of being and the universe of flux is discussed. The image of the converging of the two opposing “states” is the bird which from one perspective is a subjective and mortal fledgling and which then again because of its singing – which can be appreciated freely of a solitary flying creature – is utilized as an image of the immortal request of the world. The same subject is discussed in Ode on a Grecian Urn. The antique bit of artisanship symbolizes time everlasting, which then contained the remains of a dead individual. The utilization of an article as an image is something that was expressed in poetry of that time as well, in the form of the excited depiction of a composition or a figure. The individual bit of artisanship, for this situation the urn; can be viewed as a perpetual indication of flawless magnificence. Thus, the urn does stand for endlessness and Art as well as for Nature and Love, for perfect magnificence relies on Nature itself, as believed by Keats and the Romantics Greats.
According to Keats, the main thing that can stand the test of time is the artisanship whether it is an urn or a tune, while Man is connected to his inescapable destiny, demise. Besides, we have the capacity to watch that Keats, if we consider him as the narrator of both odes, is acknowledging that he will die sometime together with his era, as it is happened to the people before.
To sum it, while the structure of the two poems might not be similar, the underlying idea that they convey bundles them up into a pair. Both the poems examine mortality and how a living person cannot remain forever yet something that was forged by that person is destined to last an eternity. The poet seeks rebirth, something to make him immortal. He desires the immortality of the Nightingale’s songs, the permanent existence of the Urn’s projections. Little did he know that his works would cement his place into the hall of fame, with the other greats? This paradigm of life, coupled with the poet’s own hardships, materialized into the beautiful poems we know today.
Smith, Philip. 100 Best-Loved Poems (Dover Thrift Editions).p.43-45., 1995. Web. 21 May 2015.