as he was the most individual, accordingly reflect the moods of his own nature; those of Keats
, from sensitiveness of organization, the moods of his own taste and feeling; and those of Byron
, who was impressible chiefly through the understanding, the intellectual and moral wants of the time in which he lived.
has influenced most the ideas of succeeding poets; Keats
, their forms; and Byron
, interesting to men of imagination less for his writings than for what his writings indicate, reappears no more in poetry, but presents an ideal to youth made restless with vague desires not yet regulated by experience nor supplied with motives by the duties of life.
certainly had more of the penetrative and sympathetic imagination which belongs to the poet, of that imagination which identifies itself with the momentary object of its contemplation, than any man of these later days.
It is not merely that he has studied the Elizabethans and caught their turn of thought, but that he really sees things with their sovereign eye, and feels them with their electrified senses.
His imagination was his bliss and bane.
Was he cheerful, he ‘hops about the gravel with the sparrows’; was he morbid, he ‘would reject a Petrarcal coronation,—on account of my dying day, and because women have cancers.’
So impressible was he as to say that he ‘had no nature,’ meaning character.
But he knew what the faculty was worth, and says finely, ‘The imagination may be compared to Adam
's dream: he awoke and found it truth.’
He had an unerring instinct for the poetic uses of things, and for him they had no other use. We are apt to talk of the classic renaissance
as of a phenomenon long past, nor ever to be renewed, and to think the Greeks and Romans alone had the mighty magic to work such a miracle.
To me one of the most interesting aspects of