|
Comment 5 of 5, added on May 15th, 2008 at 7:10 PM.
Good site
teeny
teeny from Namibia
Comment 4 of 5, added on July 26th, 2006 at 7:39 PM.
I've looked it up in my text book and there it does say wretched wight. This gives the whole poem a different meaning, for a knight is a noble man and wretched wight could be anyone. This version doesn't seem to reliable for Keats was quite aware of his aristochratic heritage.
Bozkurt from Germany
Comment 3 of 5, added on April 28th, 2006 at 5:00 PM.
The version here was the one that was edited by Keats' publisher. The fifth and six stanzas should be the other way round, among other things.
Harry from United Kingdom
Comment 2 of 5, added on November 7th, 2005 at 6:28 PM.
I completely agree with the last post. I was reviewing this poem from my text book, and the first line of the poem from my text book says: "o what can ail thee, knight-at-arms" It says nothing about the wretched wight.
Lisa from United States
Comment 1 of 5, added on March 1st, 2005 at 12:33 PM.
instead of 'wretched wight', there should be 'knight-at-arms'!! This detail is important because this poem can be taken as a reference to courtly love (the knight battles evil for his lady, his secret love) which Keats was so fascinated about.
George J. Camilleri from Malta
|
Copyright © 2003-2008 Gunnar Bengtsson, Poetry Connection. All Rights Reserved.
teeny
teeny from Namibia