Among Monsters. III. Isabella: The Decaying Romance. IV. The Dream Realized on The Eve of St. Agnes. V. Concluding Remarks

Thе thеmе оf thе cоursе pаpеr is about The relationship between emotion and reality in John Keats’s poems “Isabella” and “Lamia”.
Thе аim оf thе cоursе pаpеr is tо an exploration of John Keats’s life and work.
Thе tаsks оf thе invеstigаtiоn includе:

• 
  Tо givе infоrmаtiоn аbоut English literature.
  
• 
  Tо dеtеrminе rоlе оf literature in English life;
  
• 
  To give information about poet John Keats;
  

Thе оbjеct оf thе cоursе pаpеr is tо Exploring the life and writings of John Keats’s.
Thе subjеct оf thе cоursе pаpеr is tо cоnduct rеsеаrch аbоut оnе оf C John Keats’s fаmоus bооks.
Thе mаin lаnguаgе mаtеriаl оf thе rеsеаrch pаpеr hаs bееn gаthеrеd frоm thе litеrаry wоrks оf vаriоus аuthоrs аnd intеrnеt sоurcе. Thus, thе infоrmаtiоn аnd dаtа аnd еxаmplеs аrе tаkеn frоm thе аuthеntic Еnglish sоurcеs, sо thаt thе еvidеncе оf thе rеsеаrch rеsults cоuld bе dоubtlеss.
Thе cоursе pаpеr includеs: intrоductiоn, 3 parts, cоnclusiоn аnd references.

• 
  I part Intrоductiоn givеs infоrmаtiоn аbоut thе mаin аims оf оur cоursе pаpеr, оbjеcts аnd subjеct mаttеrs оf thе givеn cоursе pаpеr.
  
• 
  II part: includеs infоrmаtiоn аbоut Lamia: The Monster among Monsters;
  
• 
  III part аlsо includеs Isabella: The Decaying Romance;
  
• 
  IV part аlsо includеs The Dream Realized on The Eve of St. Agnes.
  
• 
  cоnclusiоn will еnd thе cоursе pаpеr by giving gеnеrаl, privаtе оpiniоn rеgаrding thе prоcеss оf prеpаring cоursе pаpеr.
  
• 
  list оf usеd litеrаturе includеs thе nаmеs оf thе bооks аnd mаgаzinеs thаt I utilizеd during thе rеsеаrch.
  

II. Lamia: The Monster among Monsters.
Keats’s most complex and open-ended romance, which was written in 1820 but is placed first in the trilogy, is about the love story between Lamia and Lycius. Lamia is a name that bears all the connotations that allude to the mythological half serpent and half woman creature. In this case however, Keats humanizes Lamia by attributing to her human traits and passions. As it was observed earlier, Keats uses the mythological element in his “new Romance” “in order to deny its relevance as a paradigm of human desire” (Wolfson 275). For this purpose he manipulates Lamia’s desire to turn into “a real woman” as a paradigm for the mortality of human desire. He also uses the short vignette at the beginning of the poem, in which the ancient Greek god Hermes seeks after a nymph he has fallen in love with. Hermes’ success in fulfilling his romantic desire for the nymph comes opposite the romance between Lamia and Lycius which inevitably fails. Keats warns his readers from the beginning that:
Real are the dreams of Gods, and smoothly pass

Their pleasures in a long immortal dream (lines 126-127)

In contrast to the mythological and the divine, romance between mortals equals hardships that ought to be endured and surpassed by the lovers, who are never completely autonomous but linked to human societies that influence the course of their romance. An illusory, dreamy reality cannot exist in a romantic relationship between mortals. Jack Stillinger argues that Lamia represents the mortal investment to illusion (59). Keats denies the invincible nature of illusory love in the “old Romance” and replaces it with a mortal type of love, prone to human errors and misfortune.

Lamia is a creature of “a gordian shape” (line 47), much like Keats’s complex emotions for women. The ambivalence and duplicity pervading Lamia’s identity ties in with
the poet’s own ambiguous approach of identity as something fluid and changeable, according to his theory of the chameleon poet. Despite the multidimensional nature of her identity and especially her questionable divinity, I propose that we perceive Lamia as a woman who strives to see herself through the eyes of others, and thus aims to form and transform her identity in a way that fits the social standards of femininity. Lamia is a woman that does not feel comfortable in her own skin, both literally and metaphorically, being half serpent and half woman and unable to fit in. The “monstrous” side of Lamia can be seen as a metaphor for socially constructed “ugliness”, which she wants to change into what is socially perceived as feminine “beauty”, in order to win the heart of her beloved Lycius. Much like most young ladies throughout centuries, Lamia undergoes a painful transformation in order to become beautiful:

Left to herself, the serpent now began

To change; her elfin blood in madness ran,

Her mouth foam’d, and the grass, therewith besprent,

Wither’d at dew so sweet and virulent;

Her eyes in torture fix’d, and anguish drear,

Hot, glaz’d, and wide, with lid-lashes all sear,

Flash’d phosphor and sharp sparks, without one cooling tear.

The colours all inflam’d throughout her train,

She writh’d about, convuls’d with scarlet pain: (146-154)

The image of transformation in the poem is a vivid description of the deep and painful change that Lamia went through for the sake of beauty. Lamia and many other young women that fall prey to social pressure opt for an abandonment of their true self in order to be accepted and loved. According to Denise Gigante, monstrosity is an extension of the living principle (435), just like beauty, and can be seen as deviation from uniformity. Therefore, Lamia sustains her uniqueness by changing her appearance, but she is not her true self any more. She “will not be contained by the formal telos of the beautiful” (Gigante 444). Her deviation from “feminine” uniformity implies also a kind of gender ambivalence expressed through the questionable aspect of conventional beauty and “monstrosity”. After all, Lamia’s frustration with her appearance hints to Keats’s own perplexed thoughts and problems that arose because of his “fair form” that did not match the social standards of masculinity.

Lamia’s desire to turn into a conventionally beautiful woman is perfectly understood as a means of attracting the romantic affection of Lycius, but not without suspicion that it is a choice that comes with severe consequences. Transformation and change are the axons around which the plot of the romance unfolds. Reiman argues that “anything of human construct is susceptible to change”; thus, if we perceive gods as products of human construct, their spells are an extension of that and therefore changeable (659). The suspicion that Lamia’s appearance is still susceptible to change after her transformation into a beautiful woman,remains on the reader’s mind. The key notion behind Lamia’s mutability is that she forms and re-forms according to the intention of the reader (Sitterson 309), but of the characters of the poem as well. The reader sympathizes with Lamia and almost never perceives her as “ugly”.
On the other hand, Lycius, who is often identified as a “lazy poet”, has no intention of actually seeing Lamia’s complexity of character, but chooses to see her on a superficial level as a “trophy wife”. Keats creates a story in which indeed “every mental pursuit takes its reality and worth from the ardour of its pursuer” (Forman 111). Lamia’s worth and reality as character is determined by the effort that others put into understanding her complexity.
I would like to argue that Lycius can be seen as a “lazy” representative of a parochial society. He can only appreciate Lamia’s external and illusory beauty, which is confirmed by his desire for a wedding that will provoke envy to all his acquaintances:

“Let my foes choke, and my friends shout afar,

“While through the thronged streets your bridal car “Wheels round its dazzling spokes.”— ( 62-64)

Lycius’ motives are not pure, and therefore the readers hold his love for Lamia into question. Lycius “is a flawed lover” (Cox 59) lost in the world of illusions, being “a youth of Corinth” (line 119), a place associated with passions and sensuality in ancient Greece. His passion for Lamia and his selfish passion for a public display of his beautiful lover appear to be the only reasons for his imminent demand for a luxurious, public marriage in such haste. In a way we observe a situation where marriage kills romance, both metaphorically and literally. Keats seems to implicitly criticize two problems with romance here. The first is that passionate romance that is not founded on deep and genuine emotions of love is frequently a reason for eventually haste and unsuccessful marriages. The second is that the conservative society of the early nineteenth century viewed institutionalized marriage as a prerequisite for public display of affection and romance, which was valued more than actually healthy romantic relationships based on mutual love and respect. “Appearances”, ceremonial formalities and conventions are more easily accepted and appreciated by society than the happiness of
individuals. Keats implicitly criticizes these “flaws” in contemporary romances through the flawed romance between Lamia and Lycius.
Lycius’s surrender to his senses and failure to see Lamia’s true nature are proof of his “lazy” character. In the early nineteenth century idleness was associated with the female sex. By attributing this quality to the male lover, Keats reaches a blending of traditional gender roles. Susan Wolfson argues that “[w]ith a chameleon poet a little too adept at filling the fair form it courts, what Keats’s [romance] concedes, without making it its theme, is its poet’s difference from the socially validated figure of manhood.”(230). Lycius’s idleness therefore
represents this “difference from the socially validated figure of manhood”. However, he exhibits an obsessive attitude towards institutionalized marriage and standard beauty, which means that he is greatly influenced by social conventions. He reminds us that love has to “face limits imposed by social context” (Cox 59), which if not surpassed will bring about a tragic end for romance. For Keats, romance cannot survive being placed within social constrictions and thus has to fail.
The tragic end of the tale is not only Lycius’s but Lamia’s fault as well. On the day of their wedding philosopher Apollonius, who is the only one that can see and expose Lamia’s true appearance, turns up uninvited. After he reveals the truth, Lamia vanishes and Lycius dies. Lamia falls prey to social conventions herself when she decides to alter her appearance in order to possess feminine beauty as a “weapon” that could help her win over Lycius. This is another element of gender ambivalence, as Lamia is in this case at the privileged position of power which is traditionally occupied by the male. Possessing both the “feminine weapon” of conventional beauty and the traditionally “male weapon” of knowledge, regarding the truth about her identity, she is another paradigm of gender fluidity in Keats’s poetry. She remains on the superficial level of romance though, because she chooses to deceive her beloved instead of revealing her true form to him. She had the chance to come clean any time throughout the poem, but she is not willing to do so. Not even when she prepares to get married to Lycius, which is yet another act of submission to his will that occurs after Lamia has begged him to reconsider rushing into marriage:
Arose and knelt before him, wept a rain Of sorrows at his words; at last with pain
Beseeching him, the while his hand she wrung,
To change his purpose. He thereat was stung, Perverse, with stronger fancy to reclaim
Her wild and timid nature to his aim: (67-71)

Despite Lamia’s imploring and tears, Lycius does not change his mind and insists on having a wedding ceremony soon. Lamia, of course, was more than capable to decline, but “[s]he burnt, she lov’d the tyranny, /And subdued, consented to the hour/ When to the bridal he should lead his paramour.” (81-83). Lamia consents not only to a marriage founded on lies and deception, but also to a life where her identity and needs are compromised to feed the illusory reality that Lycius wants to live in.

Lamia prefers to go on living in an illusion of love, rather than risk to be seen and judged for who she is. The quest of Keats’s lovers, however, is “for an erotic reality that fulfills even as one strips away the self’s illusions” (Cox 58). If the lovers fail to see beyond constructed illusions, their union fails. According to Keats’s famous line from his Ode on a Grecian Urn “Beauty is truth, truth beauty” (49). If we attempt to read Lamia’s story through this principle, we could deduce that since her true form is not appreciated as beauty, neither by herself nor Lycius, her fake appearance cannot be perceived as beauty either because it is devoid of truth, even if it is considered socially accepted beauty. This way Keats exposes the fragility and illusory nature of social conventions and constrictions as constructs of the human mind, which fail to connect with the physical world.
The complexity of the poem is further enhanced by the figure of Apollonius, Lycius’s mentor and philosopher, who is the only one that can see Lamia’s true form when he looks at her and exposes the truth which results in the lovers’ tragic end. Apollonius breaks the spell by looking at her when his “sophist’s eye/ Like a sharp spear, went through her utterly,Keen,cruel, perceant, stinging” (299-301). Wolfson observes that “[t]he skill in interpretation that differentiates us from the foolishness of Lycius now uncomfortably aligns us with the relentlessly busy brain of Apollonius.” (338). It is an uncomfortable alliance however, because we have also come to sympathize with Lamia throughout the poem and we are thus saddened to see her destruction. This is what also differentiates us from Apollonius though. As readers, we are driven to a position at which we are capable of combining our sympathetic feelings for the characters with a form of reason that formulates in relation to our perspective and emotions. In other words, our “reason” is not fixed on cold, scientific and calculated assumptions like that of Apollonius, but adapts and shifts to fit the circumstances. For Keats, a man of reason should not be someone that breaks reality down to facts with no emotional consideration. This is why Apollonius’ reason and “cold philosophy” cannot be endured by either Lamia or Lycius, who perish at the sight of his cold revelation of Lamia’s secret. This way Keats criticizes society’s absolutism when it comes to outright damnation and harsh criticism against anyone who seems to deviate from its dictated rules. He instigates a reconsideration of cold reason when the human factor is involved, implying that even reason can have a “chameleon” quality that shifts and adjusts in accordance to perspective. For example, the reasonable character of Apollonius could have used his knowledge of Lamia’s identity without “clip[ing] an Angel’s wings” through outright exposure if he combined
reason with sympathy for the characters. Instead he could have acted as a counseling presence for both lovers in an attempt to make them see the flaws in their romance and help them realize how they could be fixed. This is of course only one of a number of possible interpretations, as Keats leaves the poem open-ended, and allows different readings of it through constantly shifting perspectives.
Apollonius is another ambivalent figure that can either be viewed as a man of reason or as another superficial member of society that in contrast to Lycius focuses on the strictly “monstrous” side of Lamia. Lycius views her as a trophy wife because of her beauty, while Apollonius views her as a monster because of her true appearance, but they both stay on the superficial aspect of her as a woman. Appearance is the only thing they seem to judge.Lamia’s story is, in a way, a “Beauty and the Beast” tale in reverse. The characters fail to see beyond fixed external appearance and thus the romance fails. Even the man of reason, Apollonius, whom we would expect to be wiser, appears to resemble one of Keats’s acquaintances, Mr. Dilke, who according to Keats “was a Man who cannot feel he has a personal identity unless he has made up his Mind about every thing” (Forman 425). This observation is made by Keats in a letter to George and Georgiana Keats, written in September 1819, in which the poet makes a point of how important it is to have no fixed thoughts about anything. He writes that:
The only means of strengthening one’s intellect is to make up one’s mind about nothing- to let the mind be a thoroughfare of thoughts. Not a select party. The genus is not scarce in population. All the stubborn arguers you meet with are of the same brood. They never begin upon a subject they have not preresolved on. They want to hammer the nail into you and if you turn the point, still they think you wrong. (Forman 425-426)
This appears to be the point Keats makes in Lamia. The narrator of the poem attempts to inspire the readers to keep an open mind towards everything and let it be a “thoroughfare of thoughts”, by embracing the constantly shifting perspectives and ambivalent identities of characters. There is no space for fixed assumptions in the poem, and this is the reason the
romance between Lamia and Lycius fails. For “[p]oetic truth, precisely because it is glimpsed only intuitively, can never be seen and known with a clarity and accuracy sufficient to satisfy the exacting demand of the logical faculty;” (Bate 16). Apollonius attempts to approach
Lamia’s identity through accurate and precise logic, which results in destroying her.
For John Keats “the exacting demand of logical faculty” (Bate 16) is not a source of knowledge. For knowledge to occur it requires something deeper and more complex, because it can only exist in relation to something outside ourselves. It is a product of a “chameleon” attitude of the self to relate to something not termed as “self” but as “other”. Mellor explains that “a self that continually overflows itself, that melts into the “Other”, that becomes the Other, is associated with the female …” (175), according to the social standards of the early nineteenth century, because it is constructed based on the so-called “feminine” trait of
empathy. A more “effeminate” attitude towards poetry and truth is therefore prerequisite for the fluid concept of identity to become more concrete. The human heart or human capacity for empathy becomes the source of knowledge needed for the mind or intelligence to produce a more concrete sense of identity (Mellor 176), which cannot however be static. As readers of Lamia we are encouraged through the shifting perspectives in the poem to perceive Lamia’s identity through our capacity for empathy, which allows a more fluid “knowledge” of her self that forms and reforms according to each reader’s approach of her. The fluid perception of knowledge and identity encouraged in Keats’s poem alludes to a fluid perception of gender as a continuum that does not encompass standard features or performance. This results in the elimination of the term “Other”, which can be perceived as “same” when seen with empathy. What Lycius and Apollonius lack is exactly this empathetic attitude towards Lamia. This “flaw” in their characters results in their perception of Lamia as a flat character and denies her dynamic quality that can be perceived by the readers.
In Lamia everything is about ambivalence and change. Nothing is ever fixed, not even the characters’ roles and identities. Lamia is never completely satisfied with her new appearance but seems to be burdened by a “determined indeterminacy” of identity (Wolfson 338). She is afraid of being exposed by Apollonius, while at the same time she begins to realize the consequences that come with conforming to socially dictated standards of
femininity, because she sees that Lycius views her as a prize and revels in knowing that a beautiful woman like herself subdues to his will and wishes when she agrees to a public marriage. On the other hand, we pity Lycius for being kept in the dark, but after a while we see him as “lazy” individual who is part of the pretentious and superficial society that tyrannizes over Lamia. Stillinger feels also that “perhaps Lycius deserves his fate” because he turns out to be “a person highly susceptible to illusions” (56). However, both male characters have made up their mind about Lamia and do not appear willing to reconsider their assumptions. Apollonius’ fixed characterization is what causes Lamia to vanish:
“A Serpent!” echoed he; no sooner said

Than with a frightful scream she vanished: (305-306)

Lamia is a lot more than just a “serpent” or just a woman for those that do not seek after any absolute truth to discover. A serpent is, after all, a phallic symbol used in a way through which Keats descends to the level where female has taken over the sexual symbol of the male (Parsons 206). This way Keats further enhances his ambivalence and confusion towards standard performance of gender. He attributes to Lamia a mixture of fluid features and creates a multidimensional and shifting character that cannot endure standard social organization. By viewing her “serpent- self” as a male symbol we can also perceive Lamia as an individual quivering between masculinity and femininity.
Keats subtly criticizes the social preconceptions about gender, beauty and monstrosity, through the mystery and ambivalence weaved around Lamia’s character. Fixed social standards about external appearance are renegotiated in the poem. By bringing in the story a character who gives himself fully to the enjoyment of the senses, Lycius, and one that uses knowledge and reason in an absolutist way separated from sympathetic emotions, Apollonius, Keats presents us with two different approaches to Lamia’s character. What Lycius perceives Lamia as is based on sensory and illusory reception of her appearance, while Apollonius perceives her as a monster based on the knowledge he has about her appearance, again. For Keats, these appear to be both superficial perceptions of Lamia’s self because the male characters take into account only her looks. Lycius is killed when confronted with cold reason and knowledge, while Apollonius is the last man standing, but has actually killed Lamia and Lycius. Lamia is a tale that can be seen as an extension of Wollstonecraft’s ideas about publically promoted feminine virtues in the early nineteenth century and how destructive they can turn out to be for the lives of both men and women. All characters represent figures of society deeply affected by social customs and conventions, which constrain people on all levels, aesthetic and ideological. Keats implies through the story that unless they are fluid they can be destructive. The question we are actually presented with at the end of the poem is: who is the real monster? The answer is left open and debatable, of course. Keats’s denial of absolute and fixed truth implies his denial of fixed social standards and preconceptions. The evasive nature of Lamia’s identity which is expressed through her transformations and her destruction at the end could be seen as symbols for society’s intolerance when it comes to deviation from the norm. While according to Jane Chambers Lamia is a tale of what someone is capable of for “love’s sake” (599), it turns out to be a tale from which love, eventually, seems to be absent.