Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion - Book Report/Review Example

Comparison of “Hyperion” and “Fall of Hyperion” Although ically trained as a surgeon, John Keats quickly abandoned this profession in favor of his heart’s calling, the lure of poetry. He had received fairly harsh criticism of his early poetry, yet took up the challenge of a lyric epic in the form of “Hyperion” in 1818. The poem focused on the changing of the Gods as the Titans were forced to give way to Olympus, told from a narrative point of view with a considerable degree of dialogue and description. Keats was forced to interrupt the writing of this poem upon his brother’s death. When he took up the project again in 1819, he elected to begin again, rephrasing his tale regarding the fall of the Titans into a new story of the poet’s journey in the attempt to understand the world of the Gods. The two poems, written so close together in the span of time, resemble each other in many ways. They share several key structural devices and thematic preoccupations, such as the difficulty of relating the language of the Gods to the language of mere mortals and the fall of the Titans. However, each poem stands as distinct from each other as well in terms of specific stylistic and thematic approaches. These thematic and stylistic differences can be most traced through the shift in focus within each poem, the method used to address the issue of translating the language of the Gods to the language of mortals and the relationship of each poem to reflect a more Miltonian or more Dantesque structural format. In comparing the two poems, one can easily distinguish a vast difference in the voice and focus of each from the beginning stanza. In “Hyperion”, Keats leads off with a medium dark, sorrowful description of the place in which Saturn mourns his recent loss of power. This place is described from the bodiless form of the poet as being “Deep in the shady sadness of a vale / Far sunken from the healthy breath of morn / Far from the fiery noon, and eve’s one star” (I, 1-3). Although this same scene is included within the “Fall of Hyperion,” it occurs much later in the poem, after the initial tone and perspective have been established. Instead of the death-like scene we are presented with at the beginning of “Hyperion,” we are immediately drawn into the more conversational and relational tone of “The Fall of Hyperion” with a small apologetic justification for the written words of the poet, who is likewise physically present within the form of the poem: Fanatics have their dreams, wherewith they weave A paradise for a sect; the savage too From forth the loftiest fashion of his sleep Guesses at Heaven; pity these have not Trac’d upon vellum or wild Indian leaf The shadows of melodious utterance. With these lines, Keats mourns the words that have been lost to the ages due to nothing more than a lack of written language and indicating that even the most unrefined words would have meaning in the frame of such an absence of voice. The narrator of “Hyperion” remains separated and disembodied from the subjects of its attention, relating the beautifully descriptive and yet still cheerless actions of the Titans as they meet to discuss their options, as Saturn enters the vale “at which some groan’d; / Some started on their feet; some also shouted; / Some wept, some wail’d, all bow’d with reverence” (II, 110-112). However, the narrator of “The Fall of Hyperion” remains inextricably entangled in the scene described as he describes the vale in which Saturn was seen at the opening of “Hyperion”: “Upon an eagle’s watch, that I might see, / And seeing ne’er forget. No stir of life / Was in this shrouded vale.” (I. 309-311). The transition between telling what was there as opposed to telling what was observed and discussed creates a quite different perspective from one poem to the next, changing its focus from that of the immediate to that of the reflective. In the first poem, the action is happening as we are seeing it, in the second, Keats is telling of a dream he had where he was permitted to observe the last remaining temple of Saturn and discuss the nature of art with Mnemosyne. Because of this difference in perspective, from the immediate to the observational, Keats finds it necessary to justify the relation of the language of the Gods into something understandable by mortals in differing ways between the two poems. In “Hyperion”, the Gods are reduced to human speech because of their tremendous shock and the nature of their fall, they have digressed to speech we can understand. The concept that their native tongue may not be the one in which we are made to understand their interactions is indicated early on as Thea leans down to speak with Saturn as he lies sleeping in the vale: She laid, and to the level of his ear Leaning with parted lips, some words she spake In solemn tenor and deep organ tone: Some mourning words, which in our feeble tongue Would come in these accents” (46-50). Likewise, his voice when he speaks with the other Gods is brought to human language by the heaviness of despair that has fallen upon him within the grotto where they have gathered and the voice of Oceanus spoke “In murmurs, which his first-endeavouring tongue / Caught infant-like from the far-foamed sands” (II, 71-72). While the voices of the Gods are described in terms of the incomprehensible sounds of nature until they are overcome by despair and brought to human speech, the language of the Gods is mediated in a much different form to the poet observing the action within “The Fall of Hyperion.” As he comes to speak with Moneta at the top of the stairway from the altar, the poet finds he can understand her without difficulty, thanks to her own efforts: “Mortal, that thou may’st understand aright, I humanize my sayings to thine ear, Making comparisons of earthly things; Or thou might’st better listen to the wind, Whose language is to thee a barren noise, Though it blows legend laden through the trees.” (II, 1-6). In other words, it is through Moneta’s own conscious will that the poet is able to see and hear correctly what he is about to witness as it is up to him to take this story further, recording it down for future mankind to understand. While “Hyperion” separates us from divine speech through the broken spirits of the Titans, “Fall of Hyperion” removes us twice from this same speech. To begin with, Moneta humanizes her speech for the poet of the poem and secondly, the poet’s senses grow stronger when in her company and more capable of receiving the message she’s trying to impart. While “Hyperion” depends on the fall of the Gods to bring their language into one that can be understood by humans, Moneta provides the necessary growth and translation for the audience within “The Fall of Hyperion.” The preparation to understand this speech in “The Fall of Hyperion” further represents a switch from the Miltonian structural style seen in “Hyperion” to its more Dantesque form of the latter poem. Supernatural language in “Hyperion” is treated in a similar fashion to Dante’s Infernal cacophony, but the intertextual reference is easier seen in “Fall of Hyperion” in that the hero must successfully pass purgatorial rites before gaining access to his enlightening journey complete with maternal prophetess. Starting from two very different points in the story, Keats illustrates the difference between Milton’s and Dante’s approaches to these subjects. “Hyperion” starts, like Milton, in the shaded vale, observing the fallen, unresponsive God in his deepest despair while “Fall of Hyperion” starts in a welcoming glade, assuring our poet of a fine meal, a quenched thirst and a deep sleep prior to his exhausting journey. From here, he must struggle to reach the safety of the stairs before his strength is drained away and then reach the top before the offering is burnt away before he is able to witness and understand the story to come. This testing of his worthiness is further emphasized within the description of the language involved. Through this change in structure, Keats is able to change the central theme of the poem without greatly changing the events occurring within it. Thus, “Hyperion” seems to center more on the complex interaction between knowledge and suffering and knowledge and language which is quite different from “Fall of Hyperion” in which Keats focuses more on the quest for the poet’s mission towards humanity as well as his own sense of identity and worth. Like Milton, Keats omits much of the atmospheric interactions that might take place within his story, muting them as if they, too, mourn the loss of the Titans as Gods: No stir of air was there, Not so much life as on a summer’s day Robs not one light seed from the feather’d grass, But where the dead leaf fell, there did it rest. A stream went voiceless by, still deadened more By reason of his fallen divinity Spreading a shade: the Naiad ‘mid her reeds Press’d her cold finger closer to her lips (I, 7-14). However, the atmosphere is re-inserted into “The Fall of Hyperion”, providing a greater return to reality for the poet and the reader even when it does not exist, in much the same way it might have been had Dante been the author rather than Keats as flowers scent the air, vines sway in the breeze and the soft texture of a mossy mound can almost be felt underfoot. The poet is allowed to wake within the stone sanctuary “with roof august, / Builded so high, it seem’d that filmed clouds / Might spread beneath” (I. 61-63). This shift between language and description as well as voice and perspective brings the “Fall of Hyperion” into a sharper focus on the input of the poet in bringing forward information for the benefit of mankind, giving the poem a greater and more apparent purpose than what is expressed in “Hyperion.” Rather than expressing his thoughts in the voice of the all-powerful and world-changing new god Apollo as in “Hyperion,” the beginning poet/narrator presented in “Fall of Hyperion” brings the level of the poem down to the human level, providing a means of serving his fellow humankind in a very material way. This more refined way of viewing the world, mankind and the role of poet within it is clearly expressed in the various ways in which Keats changes his approach from “Hyperion” to “The Fall of Hyperion.” These changes present a story that is both more humanistic and relational as well as more philosophical and more meditative as compared to the earlier work which presents an almost exclusively emotional reaction. References Keats, John. Read More