In the last century, there has been many respectable discussions of Keats as a thinker. While nineteenth century critics did acknowledge the seriousness in some of his works, Victorians were more inclined to find other qualities in Keats than they did with the philosophic Wordsworth (Evert 3-5). There were no Victorian poets who remained untouched by Keats, but they had studied him for his tone and technique. On the other hand, the public readers responded directly and mostly to his evocative power (Ford 1821). This paper looks closely at the critical analysis and critics of “Endymion” while arguing if his work is inspired from personal life or adopted from other authors and Greek Mythology. His work has been analysis for more than hundred years now but different critics have different opinions about it.
Mathew Arnold said that Keats had flint and iron in him, that he had character; that he was as his brother George says, ‘as much like the Holy Ghost as “Johnny Keats” as that imagined weakling, the delight of the literary circles of Hampstead. There is nothing more remarkable in Keats than his clear-sightedness, his lucidity; and lucidity is akin to character and to high and severe work. In spite, therefore, of his overpowering feeling for beauty, despite his sensuousness, despite his facility, despite his gift of expression. He has made himself remembered, and remembered as no merely sensuous poet could be; and has done it by having loved the principle of beauty in all things (Arnold 13-15)
There has been unavoidable disagreement as to Keats’s intellectual kind and competence. Nonetheless, the rare serious students of the poet in present time thinks of him predominantly as simplistic word-smith or celebrant of sensuous delight. But this does not mean that Keats is being read as a homiletic poet, or there is any reduction of interest or response to the magic of his utterance. In other words, he is recognized as a poet in the full sense of the world which ends to him being taken for granted that what he conveys to us is shaped as equally by his heart and mind (Evert 4). There is always an ambiguity in the matter of how he created his poetry. He did systemize his perceptions and he was governed by that system he created, for most of his poetic career. It was, however predominantly, a system rooted in analogy, and while it pretended to a specific consecutiveness at its upper levels, its logic was built upon analogies among data not properly comparable (Forman 25-26). It does not simplify a critics approach to his poetry by any matter but his letter can help so from time to time.