Negative Capability came to John Keats during a lively conversation in December 1817 with his friends Charles Dilke and Benjamin Robert Haydon.
After discussing literature—especially what made William Shakespeare so extraordinary—Keats suddenly felt he had identified the key quality of artistic greatness.
In a letter to his brothers (28 December 1817), he wrote that it “struck” him that Shakespeare possessed the ability to remain “in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.”
So the idea emerged spontaneously from reflection and conversation: Keats was trying to understand why some writers could dwell comfortably in ambiguity, while others (he mentions Samuel Taylor Coleridge) seemed compelled to explain or rationalize mystery away.
the letter of 28 December 1817
Hampstead, December 28, 1817
My dear Brothers,
I have not one word to say about the manner in which we spent our time together — I mean in the domestic sense — for I think you must have perceived that I was in a sort of temper indolent and supremely careless: I speak of myself only; but I must say, though I am convinced that I did not behave so well as I might have done, I shall never cease to look back upon that period as one of the most pleasant in my life. The thought of leaving it and the knowledge of my own indolence were the only things that prevented my enjoying it as much as I could have done.
The critique is in to-day’s Champion, which I send you, with the Examiner, in which you will find very proper lamentation on the obsoletion of Christmas gambols and pastimes; but it was mixed up with so much egotism of that drivelling nature that pleasure is entirely lost. Hone, the publisher’s trial, you must find very amusing, and, as Englishmen, very encouraging — his Not Guilty is a thing, which not to have been would have dulled still more Liberty’s emblazoning — Lord Ellenborough has been paid in his own coin — Wooler and Hone have done us an essential service.
I have had two very pleasant evenings with Dilke, yesterday and to-day, and am at this moment just come from him, and feel in the humour to go on. I spent Friday evening with Wells, and went next morning to see Death on the Pale Horse. It is a wonderful picture, when West’s age is considered; but there is nothing to be intense upon; no woman one feels mad to kiss, no face swelling into reality — the excellence of every art is its intensity, capable of making all disagreeables evaporate, from their being in close relationship with Beauty and Truth.
I dined with Haydon the Sunday after you left, and had a very pleasant day; I dined too (for I have been out too much lately) with Horace Smith, and met his two brothers, with Hill and Kingston, and one Du Bois. They only served to convince me how superior humour is to wit in respect to enjoyment — these men say things which make one start, without making one feel; they are all alike; their manners are alike; they all know fashionables; they have a mannerism in their eating and drinking, in their mere handling a decanter — they talked of Kean and his low company — Would I were with that company instead of yours, said I to myself! I know such like acquaintance will never do for me; and yet I am going to Reynolds on Wednesday.
Brown and Dilke walked with me and back from the Christmas pantomime. I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke upon various subjects; several things dovetailed in my mind, and at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement especially in Literature and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously — I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason — Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. This pursued through volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration, or rather obliterates all consideration.
Shelley’s poem is out, and there are words about its being objected to as much as Queen Mab was. Poor Shelley, I think he has his quota of good qualities, in sooth, la!
Write soon to your most sincere friend and affectionate brother,
John.
other letters in which Negative Capability is mentioned
Here are the key passages in other letters where John Keats develops ideas closely related to Negative Capability (even when he does not use the exact phrase). These are the most important contextual statements.
1. Letter to Benjamin Bailey — 22 November 1817
(Written just weeks before the Negative Capability letter)
I am certain of nothing but of the holiness of the Heart’s affections and the truth of Imagination — What the imagination seizes as Beauty must be truth — whether it existed before or not — for I have the same idea of all our Passions as of Love they are all in their sublime, creative of essential Beauty…
O for a Life of Sensations rather than of Thoughts!
Why it matters:
Here Keats rejects rigid reasoning in favor of imagination and sensation — a foundation for Negative Capability.
2. Letter to John Hamilton Reynolds — 3 May 1818
(“Mansion of Many Apartments” letter)
We are in a Mist — We are now in that state — We feel the ‘burden of the Mystery.’
Why it matters:
Keats describes intellectual growth as entering a space of uncertainty and moral ambiguity. This acceptance of “Mystery” echoes Negative Capability directly.
3. Letter to John Hamilton Reynolds — 27 October 1818
(“Poetical Character” letter)
As to the poetical Character itself… it is not itself — it has no self — it is everything and nothing — It has no character — it enjoys light and shade; it lives in gusto, be it foul or fair…
It has as much delight in conceiving an Iago as an Imogen.
Why it matters:
This is perhaps the strongest expansion of Negative Capability. The poet dissolves the ego and inhabits all perspectives without judgment — pure imaginative openness.
4. Letter to Richard Woodhouse — 27 October 1818
(Written the same day as the Reynolds letter)
A Poet is the most unpoetical of any thing in existence; because he has no Identity — he is continually in for — and filling some other Body.
Why it matters:
Keats reinforces the idea that the great poet lacks a fixed self — he exists in uncertainty and multiplicity.
Here are fuller details on the “Poetical Character” letter of 27 October 1818 by John Keats.
The Letter Itself
Date: 27 October 1818
Recipient: Richard Woodhouse (though closely related ideas appear the same day in a letter to John Hamilton Reynolds)
This letter is one of the clearest expansions of the idea first expressed in the 1817 Negative Capability letter.
The Famous Passage
Keats writes:
“As to the Poetical Character itself (I mean that sort of which, if I am any thing, I am a member; that sort distinguished from the Wordsworthian or egotistical sublime; which is a thing per se and stands alone) it is not itself — it has no self — it is every thing and nothing — It has no character — it enjoys light and shade; it lives in gusto, be it foul or fair, high or low, rich or poor, mean or elevated — It has as much delight in conceiving an Iago as an Imogen. What shocks the virtuous philosopher delights the camelion Poet.”
And further:
“A Poet is the most unpoetical of any thing in existence; because he has no Identity — he is continually in for — and filling some other Body.”
What Keats Is Arguing
1. The Poet Has “No Self”
Keats contrasts himself with William Wordsworth, whom he associates with the “egotistical sublime” — poetry rooted in the poet’s own personality and moral presence.
Keats, however, argues that the true poet:
This is a radical claim. It means the poet’s greatness lies in self-erasure.
2. The Chameleon Poet
The metaphor of the “camelion Poet” is central.
Like a chameleon changing color, the poet:
-
Enters every character fully
-
Feels from inside the villain and the innocent alike
-
Does not judge or correct experience
This directly echoes the earlier praise of William Shakespeare for possessing Negative Capability.
3. Connection to Negative Capability
The 1817 definition was:
Being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.
The 1818 letter expands this psychologically:
-
The poet tolerates ambiguity
-
The poet does not cling to fixed moral identity
-
The poet embraces contradiction
-
The poet remains open to all experience
It is Negative Capability applied not just to thought, but to identity itself.
Why This Letter Matters
Scholars often treat the three letters as a conceptual trilogy:
-
Nov 1817 (Bailey): Imagination and Beauty as truth
-
Dec 1817 (Brothers): Negative Capability
-
Oct 1818 (Woodhouse/Reynolds): The Poetical Character
Together they form Keats’s mature poetic philosophy.
Philosophical Significance
This letter anticipates ideas later associated with:
It also provides a striking parallel to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s remark about holding opposed ideas while still functioning.
Where Fitzgerald describes intellectual strength, Keats describes imaginative identity.
Summary of Development
Across these letters (1817–1818), Keats moves toward a coherent philosophy:
-
Truth is grasped through imagination, not logical proof.
-
Growth involves entering mystery rather than escaping it.
-
The poet has no rigid ego or fixed doctrine.
-
Great art tolerates ambiguity instead of resolving it.
Together, these passages show that Negative Capability was not a stray remark, but part of a sustained meditation on imagination, identity, and artistic greatness.
Elenchus: I came to see, independently of Keats, but with the guidance of another, that an ability to embrace ambiguity is a mark of a "first-rate intelligence".
Keats' correlation with remarks by F. Scott Fitzgerald
reprinted from the 'clear thinking' page
F. Scott Fitzgerald explains it to us
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind, at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
Helping children to stand on their own, to face unafraid the ambiguities of clear thinking, is a requirement of a life well lived. While we wait for more data to offer crisper definitions of "the truth," we must purposefully endure any cognitive dissonance, courageously accept incomplete, tentative, or seemingly paradoxical answers.
we are cautioned against worshipping the idol of certainty
Those who do engage in such worship, like Peter Pan, remain perpetual children.
This is what Fitzgerald is warning about. People are frightened of living with uncertainty. We want solid and firm answers. We want to “believe” and proclaim that we’re “right.” And it’s this neurotic desire for immediate absolute knowledge that drives us into the cults, in various forms - totalitarian politics, materialistic science, 'infallible' religion, one-answer academia, the greed-led corporate world.
Elenchus: Is there any record of the origin of Fitzgerald’s view? I’m wondering if he knew of Keats’ Negative Capability. I imagine that he did.
ChatGPT: The “first-rate intelligence” line comes from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1936 essay The Crack-Up, first published in Esquire. In it he writes:
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”
Origin of Fitzgerald’s View
There is no direct documentary evidence (no letters, notebooks, or essays) in which Fitzgerald explicitly cites John Keats or refers to Negative Capability by name.
However:
-
Fitzgerald was a Princeton-educated writer steeped in English literature.
-
Keats’ letters—including the Negative Capability passage—were widely published by the early 20th century and were standard reading in literary culture.
-
The intellectual climate of the 1920s–30s (modernism, psychological theory, relativism) strongly emphasized paradox and ambiguity.
Similarities to Keats
Keats (1817) described greatness as the ability to remain “in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.”
Fitzgerald (1936) describes intelligence as holding “two opposed ideas” simultaneously while still functioning.
The parallels are striking:
-
Comfort with contradiction
-
Resistance to premature certainty
-
Psychological strength in ambiguity
Is There Proof of Influence?
There is no recorded proof that Fitzgerald consciously borrowed from Keats. Scholars generally treat the resemblance as:
-
Either indirect literary inheritance (very plausible), or
-
Independent convergence on a similar insight about maturity and intellect.
Given Fitzgerald’s education and literary sophistication, it would be surprising if he did not know Keats’ letters. But we do not have written confirmation that he was consciously echoing Negative Capability.
