Rousseau's First Discourse and Keats' Ode on a Grecian Urn

Introduction: Two Romantics, One Theme

Rousseau's First Discourse and Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn" both focus on Beauty as the sole arbiter of Truth and the only guide through life that society really needs. Yet each work arrives at a different conclusion: Rousseau's treatise is a work of philosophical speculation that essentially rejects beauty and truth—justifying this rejection by referencing the words of Socrates—while Keats' poem is an affirmation of the power of Beauty and Truth as guideposts for mankind.

Rousseau spends much of the Discourse disabusing his contemporaries of the notion that the work of civilization—the arts and sciences—is in any way conducive to happiness, progress, or greatness. He literally extols "ignorance" (Rousseau 10) and essentially promotes the concept of the "noble savage": that man in his natural state is sublime, beautiful, and good, and that it is society with its codes and moral parameters—displayed through the arts and sciences—that keeps man enslaved and prevents him from achieving his perfect state of happiness. Rousseau thus rejected the moral and traditional codes, especially those of the Church, which taught that human nature was fallen and that man, suffering from the consequences of Original Sin, was in need of saving grace. Rousseau was for the Self.

Keats differs in that he sings of Beauty, adopts a more spiritual and less philosophical tone in his poem, and asserts that Beauty is indeed good for society—making him more in line with the traditional Western, religious creed. His work is not based on rejecting the teachings of the past so much as on accepting the limitations of the rational mind. Rousseau also rejects the "rational" to the extent that he embraces the primal mystery of feeling, but with Keats there is a sense of respect for the kind of Truth that the Old World philosophers, poets, and teachers would also have respected. This essay compares and contrasts the two works, showing how they are similar yet different in their approach to the theme of Beauty and what it means.

Historical and Cultural Contexts

In 1750, when Rousseau penned his First Discourse, France had not yet thrown off its Catholic hierarchy. The monarchy was still in existence and the Revolution was still some years away. The same could not be said for Keats' England, which had severed its attachment to the Catholic Church under Henry VIII a few centuries earlier. For Rousseau, the attack against civilization—against the arts and sciences—was more or less an attack on the Western Tradition, the faith of the Church, and a rebuke to the Rational Enlightenment that had assumed a Church-like authority across parts of the Continent. He was not interested in promoting more of the rationalistic dogmas that had already had their day. He was for promoting a self-centered theology—a philosophy of the Self—that supported a pre-Christian concept of Nature in which Sin and Fall had no place.

Keats, on the other hand, being part of a culture that had already thrown off its heritage and erected something new in its place, was not keen on rebuking his culture and society. He was instead reaching back to those old ways of looking at things that had originally given life meaning. Both writers appealed to the words of the ancients—particularly Socrates—yet drew different conclusions from that appeal. Rousseau was saying: even Socrates refused to hold up the One, the True, the Good, and the Beautiful as attainable ideals—so take that, Western Civilization. Keats was saying, contrarily, that Beauty is Truth, and that it can certainly be known, and that it is the only ideal one needs to live by.

Rousseau asserted that man was ignorant and should embrace his ignorance; Keats reminded man that he still had his senses, and that his senses could indeed inform him of Beauty and therefore of Truth. Rousseau appealed to Socrates in order to state: "So there you have the wisest of men in the judgment of the gods and the most knowledgeable Athenian in the opinion of all of Greece, Socrates, singing the praises of ignorance" (Rousseau 10). Keats appealed to Socrates as well—but not in defense of ignorance. The two men were interpreting the philosopher in two very different ways. Rousseau was taking the philosopher out of context, for Socrates never affirmed that it was impossible to know Truth or Beauty—only that many men claimed to know these ideals when, in fact, upon closer examination of their words and actions, they often revealed that they knew next to nothing of them. Keats appears to have understood Socrates' lesson in its larger context, which is why that lesson informs his poetry and its reminder that "'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,'—that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know" (Keats 49–50).

Rousseau's Critique of Arts, Sciences, and Civilization

Rousseau's central point was that the Self was the only truth that was needed. He called the sciences "vain" (Rousseau 10) and dismissed the efforts of the men of science and letters who meant to "educate" others by likening them to the sophists and orators dismissed by Socrates in the passage he cited. Rousseau goes on to ask: "If the progress of the sciences and the arts has added nothing to our true happiness, if it has corrupted our morality, and if that moral corruption has damaged purity of taste, what will we think of that crowd of simple writers who have removed from the temple of the Muses the difficulties which safeguarded access to it and which nature had set up there as a test of strength for those who would be tempted to learn?" (Rousseau 22).

He likens the Enlightenment thinkers and writers—as well as those who came before them—to men who had no business approaching the Muses with their writings. He calls them "simple" and implies that Western Civilization has surrendered its rule to such men, who have merely been passing themselves off as inspired writers and thinkers. He blasts them as frivolous and holds them responsible for the corruption of man. He identifies "nature" as working in concert with the Muses and as having an interest in safeguarding the "temple of the Muses" from "that crowd of simple writers." He blames the men of the arts and sciences of the Continent for defiling the temple and reducing its glories to cinders.

Rousseau laments that so many people of his time think themselves to be following in the footsteps of Bacon, Descartes, and Newton when in reality they possess none of the genius or energy required. Those earlier philosophers, he asserts, overcame obstacles and manifested their own genius by being true to themselves and allowing their own natures to correspond with the Muses sent to them. Men of his own day, he laments, do not attempt to overcome obstacles or advance the philosophies put forward by these giants; instead, they stagnate and destroy the discoveries—so that the arts and sciences were becoming obstacles in and of themselves that would have to be overcome. Rousseau himself, it is implied, was prepared to be the next great genius to overcome them.

Conclusion: Divergent Lessons from a Shared Tradition

Rousseau and Keats present works that both appeal to the same concepts yet take two very different lessons from them. Rousseau takes from Socrates the lesson that ignorance is the natural state of man and that true genius should be creative in how it works to overcome that ignorance—with himself cast as the solitary hero prepared to do so. Keats suggests that man is a seeker, and that the ideals of the one, the good, the true, and the beautiful can indeed be known; knowing them should be the aim of men of good will—the "friend to man" who continues to pass on eternal truths even in death.

Works Cited

Keats, John. "Ode on a Grecian Urn." Poetry Foundation. Web.

Rousseau, J. "First Discourse." Web.