Skip Navigation

Literature and Theology 2003 17(4):361-373; doi:10.1093/litthe/17.4.361
© 2003 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grovier, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Keats and the Holocaust: Notes Towards A Post-Temporalism

Kelly Grovier

Christ Church, Oxford OX1 1DP kellygrovier@hotmail.com

This article begins by asking what it means for meaning to exist in literature. As an answer to this question, it is suggested that meaning is never wholly present, never immanent, but is endlessly emergent—always, as it were, imminent. In the light of this proposition, it is argued that critical preoccupation either with deliberate literary allusion on the one hand, or with unintentional historical elision on the other, as the basis for establishing existing meaning within a text, is misguided. Our determination to locate allusions and elisions is based on the supposition that meaning is principally to be traced back to events, enunciations, and anxieties occurring in the past. But after summoning and modifying emphases of Meister Eckhart, Percy Bysshe Shelley, and T.S. Eliot, it is suggested that the meaning of a given work may be as significantly shaped by the introduction into the tradition of subsequent texts as by the excavation of earlier ones. As illustration, the article considers the unexpectedly impressionable nature of John Keats's ode ‘To Autumn’ when read in the presence of the powerful elegy that Geoffrey Hill composed nearly a century and a half later, ‘September Song’.

What is by now evident and clear is that neither future nor past exists, and it is inexact language to speak of three timespast, present, and future. Perhaps it would be exact to say: there are three times, a present of things past, a present of things present, and a present of things to come.

St Augustine1


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.