In Keats’ “How Many Bards Gild the Lapses of Time,” he is reflecting on the influence of earlier poets on him while he is writing. They serve as an inspiration for him as he writes, but how they are never a distraction. He also compares them to a “pleasing chime” and “the songs of birds-the
whisp’ring of the leaves-/The voice of waters-the great bell that heaves…” He has a respect for the genius that came before him and strives to write poetry that will live up to their standards. This made me think of the “Four Ages of Poetry” we discussed previously in class and how Peacock criticizes the poetry that was coming out during his present-day. I think that Keats has a much more optimistic view of the poetry he creates, yet there is an unassuming tone by which he writes. I am wondering how Peacock would respond to this poem and what he would think of Keats continuing to write poetry.
I agree, Keats definitely has an optimistic tone toward the past writers and creative minds that he draws from and admires. I like your idea that "they are never a distraction." I feel like true originality is found when people rebel against their predecessors and reach out for something new, but Keats does not have that in mind at all. He is perfectly comfortable being in the company of past poetical voices.
ReplyDeleteI have to just throw in another idea. In the first line the speaker says "how many bards...", but then says that only a "few" have ever given him fancy. It is almost like there has been a huge spectrum of poetry produces, but only some has built the background for what Keats is building off of. In addition, I do not know if Keats is trying to live up to the standard as much as he is producing better, more outstanding poetry. He compares the poetry of the past the background noise that goes unnoticed unless given extreme attention (leaves, water, etc.). I got the feeling that this poetry is like his background music, while he is going to produce the lead vocals.
ReplyDeleteAfter talking about the dashes in class, it further underlines your point that he is reflecting on the past. There is so much thought that goes on in those two lines, otherwise there wouldn't have been all the double and triple meanings at the end.
ReplyDelete