Maneka 1

Bakhtawar Maneka 17020513

ENGL 3510: Literary Theory: From Plato to Postmodernism
Saeed Ghazi
29 April 2016
Deconstruction of Ode on a Grecian Urn
Barbara Johnson provides a concise definition of Jacque Derridas Deconstructive
literary theory when saying that deconstruction, Is a careful teasing out of the conflicting
forces of signification that are at work within the text itselfit is first and foremost a way of
paying attention to what a text is doing-how it means and not just what it means.
Deconstruction is a poststructuralist theory, based largely on the writings of the Paris-based
Jacques Derrida. It initiates its premise from de Saussures concepts of difference and
binary opposition and extends them to differance to recognise the indefinite, ambiguous
and intertextual nature of a text that leads to postponement of signification. A
deconstructionist believes that a writer is never fully capable of expressing what he ideally
desires to through his writing.The writer therefore leaves a trace and a critic has to engage
himself thoroughly with the text to extract the intended meaning. Deconstruction also
launches an attack on structuralism, The deconstruction, rather, annihilates the ground on
which the building stands by showing that the text has already annihilated that ground,
knowingly or unknowingly. Deconstruction is not dismantling of the structure but a
demonstration that it has already dismantled itself" (Theory Now and Then 126)
Structuralism argued that individual thought was shaped by linguistic structures. It denied or
at least severely deemphasised the relative autonomy of subjects in determining cultural
meanings. It seemed virtually to dissolve the subject into the larger forces of culture.

Maneka 2
Deconstruction attacked the assumption that these structures of meaning were stable,
universal, or ahistorical. (Balkin 1)
Deconstruction begins with an attack logocentricism with logos being the pure,
uncontaminated source that exists somewhere out there and is the validator of all meaning.
Derrida opposed the metaphysics of presence, . . . the claim in literature or philosophy that
we can find some full, rich meaning outside of or prior to language itself, through his attack
on the notion of binaries. Binaries are primordial and it is imprinted in our collective
unconscious hence all logocentrics think in terms of binaries. Derrida asserts that binaries are
not pure. The first term in a binary is granted privilege as it is considered to share affinities
with the pure or the logos whilst the second term is removed from the source of pure
meaning. An illustration of this is provided by Derrida in which privileges speech over
writing. The word is therefore the logos itself, the word of god. The act of writing is a
contamination of the word Of God and thus is associated with Christian guilt. Derrida attacks
the creation of this binary and brings down the tradition by first stating that the unprivileged
term is manifest in the privileged term. By flipping the binaries around, Derrida aims not a
reverse operation but to show that binaries are inherently unstable and cannot be held up and
that the text has already deconstructed itself from the inside. One instance of collapsing the
structures is Derridas coining of the word differance, a term that itself plays upon the
distinction between the audible and the written.What differentiates differance and difference
is inaudible, and this means that distinguishing between them actually requires the written.
This problematises efforts like Saussure's, which as well as attempting to keep speech and
writing apart, also suggest that writing is an almost unnecessary addition to speech. In
response to such a claim, Derrida can simply point out that there is often, and perhaps even
always, this type of ambiguity in the spoken word - difference as compared to differance -

Maneka 3
that demands reference to the written. For Derrida, when you use a word it is first of all a
palimpsest and contain sediments of previous uses, including contradictory meanings. The
meanings that are embedded in the word are suppressed and it is through the act of
suppression that we continue to use these words. The other meanings, their absences invade
the self and the meaning of a word is never stable because of these absences. Central to
Deconstruction is Derridas attack on the notion of western metaphysics that language can
lead to something, out there,. Offering a radical critique, he asserted that whenever one
makes an utterance, meaning can never be fully accessed because of the absences or
suppressed meanings. This heralds the arrival of the post structuralist moment, a full meaning
or understanding of the text cannot be reached for the signified is simply a chain of signifiers.
This approach has been critiqued as nihilistic, however what it has managed to do is open up
the text. If there is no guarantor of meaning, then there is a proliferations of meaning, the
richness, multitudinous, vastness and playfulness of the text is brought to the forefront. There
is a license to explore the text without the notions of structure and centre, by positing a centre
one marks the boundaries within which interpretations have to take place. Derrida makes
these boundaries collapse and what is left is a rich destination of meaning and playfulness in
the absence of structure.
This essay will now attempt to deconstruct John Keatss Ode on a Grecian Urn
(1820) by exposing and destabilising the binaries so that a proliferation of meaning may be
explored in the poem. The annihilation of self, anti-egoistic stand, skeptical attitude towards
things and the conflicting moods towards different aspects of themes provide a fine
deconstructive reading of Keats odes. (Mishra 49) From a close reading of Keats letters and
poems it can be argued that Keats possessed a deconstructive mindset. Keats odes are the
exemplification of his oscillating moods towards paradoxical treatment of his theme (Mishra

Maneka 4
49) Ode on a Grecian Urn lends itself easily to deconstructive criticism. It is a poem made
up of primarily paradoxes and opposites which entails that binaries are already established.
The binaries identified in the poem include, the disparity between the urn with its frozen
images and the potent life depicted on the urn, the mortal and temporary versus the immortal
and permanent, participation versus observation and life versus art. What Deconstructive
criticism will do is destabilise these binaries, flip them around and expose that there is a
multitude of meanings within the poem. Keats constantly compares and contrasts the Greek
world illustrated on the urn to the world of nature. However in doing so Keats which world it
is that he prefers. Instead the poem presents a series of binaries, a set of parameters
establishing which elevates one world over the other on the basis of what each world lacks.
In Ode to a Grecian Urn, a deconstructive reading begs to explore the element of
uncertainness with respect to the simultaneous depiction of the idealisation and limitations of
the two opposite worlds of nature and art and suspending the judgement endlessly without
favouring any one and attempting reconciliation. The world of the urn is representative of the
world of art and it is this world that Keats initially favours, thou still unravishd bride of
quietness,/ thou foster-child of Silence and slow Time,/ Sylvan historian, who canst thus
express/ A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme Whilst the poet is rejoices in the
unmovable nature of art, this celebration is thrown into question in the second half on the
stanza. He asks, What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?/ What mad pursuit? What
struggle to escape?/ What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?. The questions remain
unanswered and this automatically subverts the beauty the poet originally points towards. The
poem thus presents a conflict between immortality of art represented by the world of the urn
and the lack of constancy in nature. The two divergent worlds that of art and of nature are
have been given both strengths and weaknesses in the poem. While the world of art is eternal,

Maneka 5
it is also marked by being frozen and stagnant thus flipping the binary on its head. Moreover,
in the world of nature, though one finds it to be gifted with human compassion however it is
mans transitory nature on earth that is cursed by.
The most obvious binary in the poem is that of the world of art and of the world of
nature. However, the poem itself is deconstructive in nature and does not privilege one binary
over the other, it constantly destabilises this primary binary firstly juxtaposing both the world
within the poem but also by making sure that the opposition between the two worlds remains
unsettled and inconclusive so that no single world triumphs over the other. While Keats
romanticises notions about the world of art and its the immortality of art forms that are
portrayed on the urn, at the same time he deprecates the world of art of lacking human
compassion and vitality. What this simultaneous championing and undermining of the worlds
of art and nature does is create a level of uncertainty and ambiguity in the poem, which
follows the deconstructive criticism that there is no one meaning of the text and that there is
an absence of meaning because of which one can never arrive to what it is the poet attended.
Hence the reader too remains unsure about which world the poet is privileging.
Keats idealises the world of the urn and also criticises it for its limitations. It is this
simultaneous presence of opposite attitudes which results in an aphoria or waylessness.
(Rajnath 2004) The opposing forces in the text constantly pull the reader in different
directions. It is not that the either binary is allowed to loom large but more so the fact that the
text repeatedly offers the reader contrasting perspectives hence they are unable to decide
whether to idealise art or nature. It is not that the idealisation of art is triumphs over that of
nature of vice versa but rather, what is made obsolete is that notion of idealisation itself.
Warring implications within the text do not unite at a higher level, but only pull it in opposite
directions (Rajnath 2004) The urn, in the first stanza is said to be able to narrate the history of

Maneka 6
the old Greek days more effectively than poetry: thou still unravishd bride of quietness,thou
foster-child of silence and slow time, Sylvan historian, who canst thus express A flowery tale
more sweetly than our rhyme.However the binary is flipped when the poem contradicts itself
and asserts that the urn is unable to provide satisfactory or complete narration, a claim that
can be supported by observing the series of questions that the poet poses in the first stanza.
These inquiries which remain unanswered help create ambiguity and open-endedness in the
poem.
Moreover the series of questions around the urn disallow the reader coming to any
one conclusion about the poem. The questions in the first stanza: What men or gods are
these? What maidens loth? What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape? What pipes and
timbrels? What wild ecstasy?According to Perkins: Owing to the silence of the urn, all the
uncertainties implied in the poem remain mysterious,shrouded in ambiguity and enigma.
One perplexity, for example, resolves about the identity of the figure on the urn. Are they
deities or mortals are they both or are they rather, as the last stanza suggests, mere
marble men and maidens creatures having no genuine identity?(Perkins 235). The constant
question and evasion of answers allows the poet to navigate through the poem without
providing concrete resolutions about the mystery of the text as opposed to providing resolute
solutions. Moreover binaries that do exist are followed by the lack of assurance of the poet as
to whom to privilege. He is bewildered by the carvings on the urn that seem to be a bigger
mystery than nature however he remains undecided whether the figures carved on the urn are
men or gods or of both The poet similarly provides choices in the poem so to prevent
himself in reaching finality.

Maneka 7
Keats writes in the first stanza: What leaf-fringd legend haunts about thy shape Of
deities or mortals, or of both, in tempe or the dales of Arcady? What men or gods are these?
What maidens loth? What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape? What pipes and timbrels?
What wild ecstasy? the binary oppositions within the stanza are apparent and what they do is
then perform the deconstructive function of creating conflicts and contradictions which
prevent the reader from reaching towards the truth or meaning of the poem. In the poem,
Keats presents a conflict between the world of art and the world of nature by using the word
but to create a paradox to destabilise binaries. In the second stanza here write, heard
melodies are sweet, but those unheard Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on; not to
the sensual ear, but, more endeard, Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone: Rajnath when
applying deconstructive theory to the poem, asserts the following, In 'Ode on a Grecian Urn
the conflict is between art and nature.That the work of art is superior to nature is forcefully
admitted in heard melodies are sweet but those unheard are sweeter but the undercurrent of
emphasis on nature undercuts this glorification of art. At the end, the idealisation of art on the
one hand, and of nature on the other makes it difficult for the reader to decide whether Keats
intends the former or the latter (Rajnath 24).
The paradoxes and reversal of binaries is persistent throughout the text. Whilst Keats
valorises the world of art by referring to the urn as the still unravished bride and a foster
child of silence and slow time and further when he says, heard melodies are sweet but
those unheard are sweeter in the lines that follow , he refers to the limitations of the world of
art by referring to its frozenness, immovability, sterility and lack of vitality and human
emotions. Keats strikes his note of indirection, indecision, precision and long debate all at

Maneka 8
the same time. neither we disagree that the fair youth would remain young for ever nor we
disapprove his coming to terms with this world (Parhi 2002, p.33). Also worth noting is Keats
repeated use of negative words such as never,' nor,' not to foreground the limitations
arising out of the frozenness and unchanging nature of the world of art. (Mishra 54) In the
second stanza he writes: Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave thy song, nor ever
can those trees be bare; Bold lover, never, never canst thou kiss though winning near the goal
yet, do not grieve;She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss, For ever wilt thou love, and
she be fair! Keats uses negative terms to repeatedly destroy the creation of structures or the
upholding of one particular binary. The negative subvert his preceding views and create a
paradox. The words not,' never and nor prevent the poets assertions from becoming close
ended and the opposing views create mystery in the poem.In the above mentioned stanza
Keats realises that in the stationary world of art lovers will be forced to exist within the status
and quo and that this world will not allow lovers to consummate their love in marriage.
Middleton Murry asserts that, He envies the felicity of the participants who are immune
from mortality and decay. But they are human still. Mortality and decay have slipped from
them, like a garment; but that is all. they are mortals as we are; who have wandered unawares
into an enchanted land, whence they can never return. this felicity has its tinge of sorrow, the
poet who began by envying, ends almost by pitying. they are, as it were, lost to humanity
(Murry 221).
Drawing further upon the negative and positive aspects of the world of nature and the
world of art, Keats creates yet another paradox and dismantles more binaries through the
figure of the Pipers. Although these Pipers by being engraved are gifted eternity by Art and
can go on piping without getting tired however they are not awarded the ability to rest like
human beings. Similarly the trees on the urn will not be able to drop their leaves whereas the

Maneka 9
real beauty of nature lies in the change in seasons. The opposition between the two continues
in the third stanza, where the poet describes the boughs,' the melodist and the lovers
engraved on the urn as happy as they are remain preserved from the adversarial affects of
humanistic elements of grief and decay that is synonymous with nature. However, even
though the lovers on the urn will retain their youth they will be devoid of human passions and
suffer the agony of separation. The figures carved on the urn seem to have been gifted with
eternity by the world of art however, if one flips the binary then from the vantage point of the
world of nature they lack elements essential to human happiness such as emotion and the
opportunity to constantly move forward.
Destabilised binaries lead to opposing forces in the text and an unsure tone, which has
already been established. This continues in the fourth stanza which shows the ability of art to
stir the imagination, so that the viewer can see beyond what is depicted. The poet imagines
the village from which the people on the urn came. In this stanza, the poet begins to withdraw
from his emotional participation in and identification with life on the urn and focuses on
communal life. The poet sees persons on the urn moving in a procession to sacrifice a heifer
decorated with garlands on both sides. The procession is led by a priest who is described by
the poet as an ambiguity since he represents the world of nature nor art. The heifer depicted
on the urn fortunate as it will be saved from its fate due to the immortality given to it by the
world of nature. Moreover the community presented by the urn will remain barren as it lacks
members who possess mortality and movement, a dynamism afforded to human beings so
they cannot return to fill it. Constantly Keats deliberates over the positive and negative
aspects of the worlds of art and nature whilst simultaneously treating both with the opposing
force provided by binary oppositions. He also manages to reserve his judgement on whether
art is superior to nature and vice versa, the entire text is then shrouded in mystery. And the
poem is a tension between the two worlds of life and art. The idealisation of sculpted lovers

Maneka 10
about to kiss is weighed against the desolate looking town without the hope for anybody to
return. So art piles up the materials of life, its discordant, asymmetric, chaotic stuff which in
turn may lend to total nothingness (Parhi 32).
The last stanza opens up with Keats contemplating once again, the insentient features
of the urn by recalling frozen and stationary imagery such as it cold pastoral and silent
form,' this is juxtaposed with the first stanza where he calls it unravished bride of quietness
and foster-child of silence and slow time. Keats successfully creates the impression that the
urn, being a product of art is far removed from man and from humanity. He invokes paradox
again however when he calls the urn a friend to man to whom it has a lesson to convey.
Thus two contrasting views of the urn have been offered throughout the poem, one is of its
unresponsiveness and of being stationary as one expects an art form to be and secondly as
being an entity that is bestowed with human tendencies. Both states exist in tension with one
another, without there being an heir of finality between them is an illustration of this. O Attic
shape! Fair attitude! With brede Of marble men and maidens overwrought, With forest
branches and the trodden weed: thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought PastoralAs
doth eternity : Cold Pastoral! When old age shall this generation waste,thou shalt remain, in
midst of other woe than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou sayst,Beauty is truth, truth
beauty, that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. The urn is straining with
depictions of its community of marble men and women, forest branches and the trodden weed
which are all inanimate and lacking human qualities. Rajnath sums it up by saying, The urn
is as puzzling and enigmatic as eternity, and one is unable to tease out all its implications.
The word tease has connotations of Barbara Johnsons definition of deconstruction

Maneka 11
mentioned in the beginning. The text when viewed by the deconstructionist is like the urn
which defies attempts at coming to grips with its meaning: the text irritates the reader as does
the urn (Rajnath 26)
For Keats, the urn serves to elevate human imagination and reinforces its positive role
for it is the beautiful world of art engraved on it that triggers his imagination therefore
making it possible for him to be an impartial participant the battle ground of binary
oppositions and paradoxes without privileging one binary over the other to reach a fulfilment
of meaning. The last two lines of the last stanza act as summation of the urns message,
Beauty is truth, truth Beauty,that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. By
examining these lines within the context of the poem and Keatss letter to Bailey, I am
certain of nothing but the holiness of the hearts affections and the truth of imagination. What
the imagination seizes Beauty must be truth whether it existed before or not( Keats in
Gittings 36-37) provides the reader with clues to interpret them from the perspective of
Deconstruction. For Keats, beauty and truth are one and they are made accessible by the
imagination and not by metaphysics or a logocentric approach. Conclusively, for
deconstructive critics, a mind that is preoccupied with privileging binaries and is logocentric
in nature cannot fully be receptacle to reaching the ultimate truth.This constant juxtaposition
and battle between the world of art and nature reaches a climax in the last stanza. Though
there is contempt for the urns message and consequently of art, it is accompanied throughout
the poem by similar disdain for the arbitrariness of nature. Keats does not fully reconcile the
world of nature and or art not does he favour one over the other. Instead, in this
deconstructive reading, he uses both to point towards and to subvert each other.

Maneka 12

Works Cited
Murry, J.M. (1930). Keats. London: Jonathan Cape.
Parhi, A. R. (2002). John Keats: Romantic versus post structuralist. Journal of English and
Foreign Languages. Vol. 30, 31-36.
Perkins, D. (1965). The quest for permanence. Cambridge: harward University Press.
Rajnath. (2004). John Keats and deconstruction: the example of Ode on a Grecian Urn.
Journal of Literary Criticism. Vol. X. no.1, 14-30.
Mishra, Prashant. "A Deconstructive Stylistic Reading of Keats' Ode on a Grecian Urn." The
Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 17.2 (2016): 49-58. Web.
Leggo, Carl. "Open(ing) Texts: Deconstruction and Responding to Poetry." Theory Into
Practice 37.3 (1998): 186-92. Web.
Balkin, Jack M. "Deconstruction." Yale Law Journal (1995): n. pag. Web.