Ardith Hinton:
AH> Stephen Leacock wrote:
SL>> ...A high authority said:
SL>>
SL>>   Walking in the nobler sense is a measured progress
SL>>   inspired of the woods and hills, by rivers and the
SL>>   flowers of the field, a serene partaking of the
SL>>   enduring sources of joy.
SL>>
AH> Once I'd typed out enough of the citation Google located
AH> an article published in the July 1962 edition of the
AH> ROTARIAN magazine which seems to be the one you are
AH> referring to.  This version says "inspired *by* the
AH> woods and hills"

They hay surely smelleth of that weed, for the parallel
phrase that follows does have "by".

Yet "inpired of" is not ungrammatical, and the bible, for
example, is often said to be inspired of God, but how
different it is from being "inspired by God" is not a simple
matter.  When I thought so hard that the ridges of my brain
rubbed and my skull creaked, I have come to the conclusion
that "of" implies a passive source of inspiration, whereas
"by" refers to an active agency.  Do you agree?

---