Personally, I think that attempting to analyse poetry in the way we go about it in class is absolutely horrid. In my opinion, if poetry was writing merely to get a point across, there would be no point in writing it in verses, and it might as well be prose. Poetry is written to inspire emotions, as well as to send a message in the case of some poems. The way we pick it apart in class is torturous and unethical (add extra stress on the unethical). We look at all the little pieces and try to figure out what they are saying, but do we really look down into what they mean? When we discussed Flower-de-Luce by Longfellow we looked at everything meant in each of the stanzas, but did any of us take the time to understand the grief the poet was trying to express? Of course not.
Autumn is all about Longfellow's feelings at the coming of that season. He writes about things one might see with the approach of a grand king of old, proceded by tempests, and accompanied by banners and golden bridges and most of all that feeling of grandeur that little else can inspire. He sees all of the good things ready for harvest and depicts autumn as the wonderful spirit that blesses all of this and makes it so. To put it concisely, the author loves autumn.
The poem had many characteristics of Romanticism writing. It had the exotic element in the form of ancient kings and Asian silk. It was all about nature and its beauty, which is a definite sign of Romanticism. It also used a lot of really lovely imagry, which is very common in Romantic literature. He write that the sheaves were like flames on an alter, which is a rather dazzeling image. Though that does bring up my notices that Romanticism writers were not very fond of religion, considering he put the image of a burning alter in his poem.