Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:11 am
by jediace90
You know, I hardly consider Neptune or Pan lesser gods. Neptune is the god of the sea and Pan is the god of nature. Both are themes/motifs heavily used, and therefore admired, by Keats.

Feel free to prove me wrong on this, it's just what I think. I mean Neptune controls like a third of the earth and Pan is the god of nature..nature...Keats=nature haha

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:14 am
by Scrib
well...Keats looked up to Shakespeare right?...so let's say Jove is Shakespeare..."greatest writer...or Lord of the Poets" so to speak...Pan and Neptune would be all other writers, and even though the tent is "spumy" and the forest is "hive" these things are still nature, and are considered beautiful no matter what adjectives describe it...so these adjectives could just support how Neptune and Pan are still great...and still create and rule beauty...however the beauty is not viewed nearly as beautiful as Jove's creation...

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:20 pm
by Kaki
acrosstheuniverse64 wrote:I agree with your logic, jediace90, and definately like the idea of being able to see both the good and the bad to have truly divine vision, but still, does that answer why Keats would have chosen for the two lesser gods to partake in these negative connotations? I fell that there must be some significance in this, as if they are harboring anger toward Homer.

And in response to your responce (haha) Kaki, I have to say I disagree. Why then, for example, would Keats choose to use the term "forest hive" instead of a more euphonic word to describe Pan's enchanting instrument? Wouldn't this still incorporate sound?


I meant it was a gift from the gods to be able to sense and appreciate these things through a different perspective and to expand upon them through imagination, it wouldn't make sense to use Pan's pipe because he isn't hearing Pan, he's hearing the forest itself to its fullest potential. Besides I don't see hive as something negative, it's busy and noisy, full of life. That isn't negative at all. As for how the word sounds when you speak it... I've never been very good at looking at that, it's not something I normaly pick up on, but I see your point.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:05 am
by Saturn
Oh and Neptune/Poseidon was one of the 12 most important Olympian gods of the Greek and Roman Pantheon.

Along with his brother Jupiter/Zeus and Pluto/Hades they divided the world into three.

Jupiter took the heavens, Neptune the sea and Pluto the underworld.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:19 am
by acrosstheuniverse64
jediace90- I'm sorry- I suppose the term "lesser gods" was not the correct term to use. By lesser gods, I meant in comparison to Zeus. And Pan was still a "lesser god" either way, as he is not one of the twelve.

Scrib- interesting imterpretation! Sort of like the other gods are the "guardians" of Zeus' creation. The only thing I was wondering there is whether or not Keats really revered Shakespeare as being such a god-like figure- not sure about the background on that, but it would be interesting to know.

Kaki- Okay thank you for explaining that, sorry I misinterpreted. That's a really cool thought about the "hive", but what about spumy? Do you view that as being a negative or positive connotation?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:42 am
by Saturn
I think spumy was used more for its sound, its onomatopoeic qualities, than its actual meaning.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:26 pm
by Kaki
acrosstheuniverse64 wrote:Kaki- Okay thank you for explaining that, sorry I misinterpreted. That's a really cool thought about the "hive", but what about spumy? Do you view that as being a negative or positive connotation?

Positive, think about sea foam for a minute, not think about not how it looks, because you can't physically see it, but how it feels... Bubbly right?

How could bubbles ever be negative.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:28 pm
by Malia
Now spumy is a word Keats would have *loved* :) It definitely has that bubbly, even slimy feel to it. It adds a lot in terms of tatctile touch.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:45 am
by dks
Malia wrote:Now spumy is a word Keats would have *loved* :) It definitely has that bubbly, even slimy feel to it. It adds a lot in terms of tatctile touch.



Yes...I agree--plus, it's got that (ee) sound to it...

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:00 pm
by Saturn
Its also the kind of word Hunt would have used and Keats as we know in his early work was very influenced by Hunt.