Introduction
The author Gerard Manley Hopkins who I already deal with on my first paper, I introduced him again in this second paper to make a summary of what was his life and work were, and then I am going to show some examples of his most important poems, which were ublished after almost thirty years of his death, thanks to his friend Robert Bridges.
I will begin to place this author in the historical context of the Victorian era, begun in 1819, a time when Britain was becoming the first world power and is characterized by the industrial revolution and social transofrmaciones, which was when the writers take positions on the issues at the moment. The forms of expression were the most immediate of Romanticism, which were extended during this period and which were developed in other movements such as Realism, Imagism, and the Neo-Romanticism, which moves this author, Gerard Manley Hopkins, to  develop his work since his poetry, although he respected the canons of the time, did innovative poetic techniques, from old models and become the models for the subsequent movements.
As poetry, painting, and politics have shown, the Victorians employed both biblical typology and various unorthodox extensions of it. Many of their derivations, manipulations, and extensions take the form of abstracting one of typology’s defining elements, such as its emphasis upon the literal truth of both type and antitype, and then applying it to a secular matter. For instance, drawing upon typology’s capacity to produce the entire Gospel scheme from a single image, authors will use types to create a defining moral context for political discourse or fictional narrative. Hopkins creates a powerful form of typological allusion by abstracting the essence — the defining conceit, idea, or structure — from individual scriptural types. Hopkins can develop the same basic structure of ideas in poems about earthly beauty, conversion, spiritual agony, martyrdom, and biblical events, because he obviously believes that it contains the essence of Christian truth.
We hace to notice about his concepts about the terms “Inscape” and “Instress”, which related them with the philosopher Ruskin. He used the terms, “inscape” and “instress,” which employed to describe, the former as the unified complex of characteristics that give each thing its uniqueness and that differentiate it from other things, and by the later he means either the force of being which holds the inscape together or the impulse from the inscape which carries it whole into the mind of the beholder. As well he developed the Sprung Rhythm, which is Hopkins’ term for a complex and very technically involved system of metrics which he derived partly from his knowledge of Welsh poetry. It is opposed specifically to “running” or “common” rhythm, and provides for feet of lengths varying from one syllable to four, with either “rising” or “falling” rhythm. And as with “inscape,” sprung rhythm is the theoretical expression of a concern which had obssessed every nineteenth-century poet. From our late twentieth-century perspective, it may seem like Hopkins was re-inventing the wheel: almost none of what he argued for was actually new in English poetry.