151
“INSPIRATION’S DARLING CHILD”: THE ROMANTIC ODE
Paul Hamil on
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.14712/2571452X.2024.68.10
Abs ac : The ode is usually an explici ly public u e ance, bu one which e ises public
expec a ions o i s subjec -ma e , hus d awing a en ion o he indi idual o iginali y o
i s au ho . I is simul aneously a highly o malised gen e and one undamen ally
aspi a ional in i s ambi ions. Pinda ic, Ho a ian and Anac eon ic models help shape
many odes w i en in he Roman ic pe iod, bu he aspi a ional idiom ends o
p edomina e, making he poems equen ly abou hei own license, ypically Roman ic
exe cises in poe ic e lexi i y. My discussion looks a poems by Wo dswo h, Cole idge,
Moo e, Hölde lin and Leopa di o compa e he o ical ac ics by which Roman ic odes
isibly ake on he con lic ed ask o o mally explo ing a esponse o hei subjec
exceeding ecei ed expec a ions. Thei pu sui o he exo bi an is he e a gued o be
ano he example o pos -Kan ian exploi a ion o he philosophic legi imacy Kan g an ed
he aes he ic o exp ess wha we migh eel abou hings beyond ou powe o
concep ualise hem. Poe s conside ed he e use odes o en isage eedoms hey desi e –
na ional, poli ical and pe sonal. In Roman ic poe y, hough, he ealiza ion o hese
isions becomes conspicuously li e a y, in ol ing a shi om he subjec desc ibed o
he medium claiming o ea i wi h such o iginali y. While he ode’s all-encompassing
w i ing u nishes poli ical encou agemen , i can also, as in Hölde lin’s case, wo yingly
p oduce aes he ic excellence a he expense o pe sonal cohe ence.
Keywo ds: odes, Roman icism, e lexi i y, poe y, na ionalism, libe y, madness
Odes, mo e han compa ably e usi e hymns, elegies, songs and ly ics, ha e
de ining o mal cha ac e is ics: a sequence cons uc ed ou o s ophes, an i-
s ophes and epodes, o s ic ly numbe ed Alcaic me es. Bu hei p ojec is
his o ically in es ed in a kind o en husiasm publicly expec ed o b eak he limi s
se by o mal p esc ip ion. I wan o look a he way in which his combina ion o
de ini ion and ansg ession o de ini ion allows odes, in he peculia ly sel -
conscious w i ing o he Roman ic pe iod, o al e wha is expec ed o poe y
wi hin a pa icula discu si e epoch. In p i a ely exceeding i s public occasion he
Paul Hamil on
152
ode e ashions public expec a ions. P o essional, p osodic c eden ials and he
licence ypical o poe ic o iginali y a e b ough simul aneously in o ocus by odes.
While sa i e and pa ody, i ony and imi a ion expose he an icipa ed o m and
con en o gen es o en in a c i ical manne , i is he ode ha , om he s a , bids
o ou do poe y’s ecei ed con en ions o he managemen o i s own a la us. In
his exchange, as Da id Du has pu i , a “b inkmanship” may be in play.1
The ode combines celeb a ion wi h in en ion. The ode’s adema k apos ophes
un ie hemsel es om hei add essee. Ma y Robinson’s ode o Cole idge’s baby
son, De wen , “swee baby boy,” in a a ian on Cole idge’s own “F os a
Midnigh ,” s ikingly un ealises De wen when i inally g ee s him as “Inspi a ion’s
da ling child” – he ode’s baby, no Cole idge’s!2 The ode’s appa en su plus o
poe ic equi emen s, b eaking i s con ac wi h i s subjec , is publicized as wha i
is abou . Bu in an age when poe y, a e Kan , is licensed o supplemen
philosophical discou se, he ode a icula es he p essu es on i o say ha i is
abou wha canno be said. I will look a poems by Wo dswo h, Cole idge, Moo e,
Hölde lin and Leopa di o compa e he o ical ac ics by which Roman ic odes ake
on hei impossible ask.
Odes, hough, a e o many di e en kinds and sub-se s. A i ula “ o a” is o en
su icien signal ha an ode is o come. Bu each kind o ode places a sel -de ining
emphasis on he dis ance be ween his o ical, adi ional p ac ice and a kind o
numinous quali y o which, equally his o ically, he ode appea s pe mi ed o
s i e. Da id Du in his s udy o he Roman ic uses o gen e enume a es many
a ian s – Anac eon ic, cho al, Pinda ic, Pe e Pinda ic, Ho a ian, oyal, and a kind
o “u -gen e” o , ollowing He de , “ he oun ain-head o poe ic a .”3 In e es in
he o igina y quali y o he ode, i s claim o inaugu a e an unp eceden ed a o m
and dic ion, i s he sel -image o much Roman ic-pe iod w i ing.
Mil on’s “Ode on he Mo ning o Ch is ’s Na i i y,” a majo p ecu so o he
ode’s Roman ic apo heosis (in English a leas ), s ikes o acles dumb as i ad ances
in o a language p ope o he o iginali y o he Ch is ian e ela ion isible agains
he classical egis e i su passes. The e is a new p op ie y in Mil on’s exceeding
o he o iginali y o his classical p ecu so s making his claim o poe ic o iginali y
insepa able om Ch is ian sup emacy. Once achie ed, hough, he ode’s eligious
pu pose ende s i s song “ edious”:
1 Da id Du , “The Roman ic Ode and he A o B inkmanship,” É udes Anglaises 73, no. 2
(2020): 137-59.
2 Ma y Robinson, “Ode Insc ibed o he In an Son o S. T. Cole idge, Esq.,” l. 72, in The
Poe ical Wo ks o he La e M s Robinson, 3 ols. (London: Richa d Phillips, 1806), 1:221-25.
3 Da id Du , Roman icism and he Uses o Gen e (Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2009),
173-74.
“Inspi a ion’s da ling child”
153
Bu see, he Vi gin bles
Ha h laid he Babe o es :
Time is ou edious song should he e ha e ending.
Hea ’n’s younges - eemed s a ,
Ha h ix’d he polish’d ca ,
He sleeping Lo d wi h handmaid lamp a ending;
And all abou he cou ly s able,
B igh -ha ness’d Angels si in o de se iceable.
(ll. 237-44)4
The “o de se iceable” o s a and angels now akes p ide o place – in a s a ling
an icipa ion o he Roman ic idea o he in insically me apho ic powe o poe y
o anspose i sel in o ano he , mo e imely discou se, when app op ia e.
Wha , oughly, we e he classical sou ces o all his o e - eaching? Pinda ic
odes ha e a mo e me aphysical esonance han hei successo s. Pinda ’s odes
combined me ical egula i y wi h a su ende o en husiasm ha could o e - ide
syn ac ical o hodoxy o g ea e o lesse deg ees. They we e conduci e o mo e
gene al e lexions on inspi a ion and ambi ion, expansions de eloped by
Roman ic p ac ice. Ho a ian odes became mo e e sa ile, inco po a ing p i a e
medi a ion and encou aging he eade ’s a en ion owa ds he ambigui ies o he
language used.
A guably he e was, as Ralph Cohen asse s, a “ e u n” o he ode in he
eigh een h cen u y, a homecoming ha could engage wi h he cu en s a e o
poe y, as does Thomas G ay’s Pinda ic ode, “The P og ess o Poe y.”5 Fo
Ab aham Cowley, echoing Ho ace, “Pinda is imi able by none; / The Phoenix
Pinda is a as species alone.”6 G ay’s ode does e i e in i s own way he
immeasu able (Ho ace’s “immensusque ui p o undo”) quali y o he ode’s i ue:7
He ack, whe e’e he goddess o es,
Glo y pu sue, and gene ous Shame,
Th’ unconque able Mind, and F eedom’s holy lame.8
4 John Mil on, Comple e Sho e Poems, ed. John Ca ey (London: Longman, 1971), 113.
5 Ralph Cohen, “The Re u n o he Ode,” in The Camb idge Companion o Eigh een h-Cen u y
Poe y, ed. John Si e (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2001), 203-24.
6 Ab aham Cowley, “The P aise o Pinda ,” ll. 1-2, in Pinda ique Odes, W i en in Imi a ion
o he S ile and Manne o Pinda (London: Humph ey Moseley, 1656), 18-20. Cowley
echoes Ho ace’s p aise o Pinda in Odes 4.2.
7 See The Odes o Ho ace, ans. James Michie (Ha mondswo h: Penguin, 1964), 212-13.
8 Thomas G ay, “The P og ess o Poesy. A Pinda ic Ode,” l. 65, in The Poems o G ay, Collins
and Goldsmi h, ed. Roge Lonsdale (London: Longman, 1969), 170.
Paul Hamil on
154
The an icipa ion o he conclusion o Wo dswo h’s 1803 sonne “To Toussain
L’Ou e u e” – “man’s unconque able mind”9 – does no p o ide he conclusion,
hough, o G ay’s ode, which ends a he in a momen o Ho a ian mode a ion
wi h claims o a s ylis ic ascendancy, which, i no qui e ha o “ he Theban
eagle” (Pinda ), ne e heless soa s “ a abo e he g ea ” (l. 123). Simila ly, G ay’s
ba d o he ode o ha name s a s as a Welsh poli ical animal, bu his Welshness
mu a es in o a a al web o “ une ul a ” and inally he u ges again he in e es s o
his poe y:
The e se ado n again
Fie ce Wa , and ai h ul Lo e,
And T u h se e e, by ai y Fic ion d es .10
This is no aes he icism by any means, bu i is an exe cise in es ing he possibili ies
o poe ic o m a a pa icula s age in English li e a y his o y. The skill and lea ning
a e he e o be judged by he su plus o con en ional expec a ion hey migh c ea e
in he highly educa ed eade o poe y.
The di e ence be ween G ay’s he o ic and ha o he Roman ic composi ions
I wan o look a is ha , while he eedoms o G ay’s and Cowley’s odes a e
“me agene ic,” o use Da id Du ’s e m, hey a e no me a-poe ic in a philosophical
sense.11 The ca ego y o he me a-poe ic only becomes a ailable when poe y is
di e en ia ed wi hin a ield o o he ela ed discou ses. I may ha e inhe i ed a ixed
posi ion in ela ion o science, his o y, and poli ics and o he ields, bu o he pos -
Kan ian way o hinking, i s cons an emaking o i sel could p oduce a poe y o
science, his o y o poli ics, and so on.
As well as o ms o add ess cons uc ed ou o Pinda ’s en husiasm and
Ho ace’s u banely a iega ed desc ip ion we ha e he e en ea lie Anac eon’s
in i a ion o ano he kind o apos ophe al oge he . In he use o Anac eon by he
young Thomas Moo e, unde he name o “Thomas Li le,” ligh ness, speed and
luency o indi idual image y con ibu e o a poe ical e ec which now looks o
be in he se ice o his na ionalism. De o ion o wine and lo e jus i ies Anac eon’s
choice o he o m o he “ode.” He engages di ec ly wi h inspi a ion, which, i no
di ine o concep ually ambi ious and o e eaching, does blu he de ail in pu sui
9 “To Toussain L’Ou e u e,” l. 14, in William Wo dswo h, The Ox o d Au ho s, ed. S ephen
Gill (Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1984), 282.
10 Thomas G ay, “The Ba d: A Pinda ic Ode,” ll. 125-27, in The Poems o G ay, Collins and
Goldsmi h, 198.
11 Du , Roman icism and he Uses o Gen e, 19, 205.
“Inspi a ion’s da ling child”
155
o an o e all e ec o being possessed. Moo e seized on he way ha Anac eon’s
manne migh gi e he lead no so much o philosophy as o poli ics. His
Anac eon ic odes do his by making i oli y o de ail ans e a en ion o he
whole as he sou ce o he poem’s meaning. In he same way he wan ed English
enjoymen o I ish sen imen ali y o be ecognized as ac ually aming English
sensibili y, making he I ish manne o exp ession une English eeling o an I ish
melody. The ode’s abili y o con i e a uni y which sa es he supe icial o
de alued o disappea ed and makes hem ele an and ma e ial o some la ge
pu pose mus ha e esona ed poli ically wi h he eno mously popula Moo e.
“Anac eon Moo e” was a i le gi en him on he s eng h o ansla ions and
imi a ions o Anac eon’s odes w i en close o he ime he was disc ee ly in ol ed
wi h he Uni ed I ishmen. “One li le hou o joy o me / Is wo h a dull e e ni y.”12
I i is I ish le i y which sa es he English om hei habi ual dullness, ecompense
o a subjuga ed and b u alized I eland is pe haps due?
Moo e’s cunning es ain is e y di e en om he uncomp omising add ess
o Pe cy Shelley o his subjec when w i ing odes. In he 1819 “Ode o he Wes
Wind,” he whole o na u e is mobilized in o de o ex end a poli ically ac i e sel
beyond i s own mo ali y, as i i could ec ea e i sel in ime wi h he cyclical
enewal o he seasons. The “Ode o Naples” o he ollowing yea , by con as , is
ounded on numbe ed s ophes and an is ophes, a he han shee elemen al
en husiasm. Mo e con en ionally i expe imen ally Pinda ic, on one occasion
aking up Pinda ’s a hle ic idiom, he la e ode ex a agan ly anima es coun ies
and ci ies o join wi h Naples in he ba le wi h an in ading no he n ci iliza ion
o “Cel ic wol es” (Aus ia).13 Suppo ing his abs ac “Spi i ” o e ol a e
his o ical e e ences o speci ic pas and p esen s uggles, om he Ba le o
Philippi los by Roman epublicans o he con empo a y cons i u ional s uggle in
Spain. I akes on he p ophe ic ole he “Ode o he Wes Wind” desi es o he
poe , he powe o p edic , e en c ea e in he mind’s eye, he poli ical ou comes
he speake wan s. Those, howe e , emain igu a i e. Sligh ly ea lie han he
“Ode o Naples,” he “Ode o Libe y,” as Michael O’Neill no es, had been
conce ned mo e wi h “ he poe ’s ole” han wi h speaking o con empo a y e en s.14
12 Thomas Moo e, “Ode LXVII,” ll. 7-8, in The Poe ical Wo ks o Thomas Moo e, ed. A.C. Godley
(London: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1910), 32.
13 Pe cy Bysshe Shelley, “Ode o Naples,” l. 174, in The Poems o Shelley, Vol. 3: 1819-1820, ed.
Jack Dono an, Cian Du y, Kel in E e es and Michael Rossing on (London: Rou ledge,
2014), 645; o a hle ic image y see An is ophe 2B. Fo how Shelley migh be
“expe imen ing wi h a s ic Pinda ic o m,” see Michael O’Neill, “Sonne s and Odes,” in
The Ox o d Handbook o Pe cy Bysshe Shelley (Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2013), 339-40.
14 O’Neill, “Sonne s and Odes,” 339.

Paul Hamil on
156
Al hough i explici ly summons a con empo a y Eu ope o he ba o accoun o
i sel , i s manne becomes op a i e – “Oh, ha he […]” – and he o igin o i s
hopes and p edic ions o en occupies he in en i e ene gies o he poem mo e
han he de ail o he be e s a e o “Libe y” i en isions. Tha o igina ing “Spi i ”
ises and hen sinks in spec acula ashion, acked by he poe ’s e lexi e image y:
My song, i s pinions disa ayed o migh ,
D ooped; o’e i closed he echoes a away
O he g ea oice which did i s ligh sus ain,
As wa es which la ely pa ed his wa e y way
Hiss ound a d owne ’s head in hei empes uous play.
(“Ode o Libe y,” ll. 281-85)
The poem’s s yle, i s con adic o y expansions and con ac ions, gi e us a mo e
immedia e g asp o he meaning o eedom han any poli ical example. Shelley o
cou se knows his, and his Realpoe ik is calcula ed and knowing, making a poli ical
s a emen ou o he exigency in which p ope eedom can only be imagined no
demons a ed.
Giacomo Leopa di, like Moo e, was a na ionalis wo king by o mal means o
concei e plausible uni ies in unp omising si ua ions. Leopa di could w i e exal ed
poe y in he o m o he ode. In emula ion o Pinda , his e y ea ly canzone
“All’I alia” (1818) joins he conce ns o poe ic and poli ical uni y in he mos
ele a ed o ones. To imagine I aly in uni ied o m, his poem mus ange ac oss
his o y in o de o join up dispa a e pieces o he Roman and G eek pas in ways
ha make hem esona e wi h each o he . The ex ao dina y ea s o belonging,
which he ode can achie e in i s spec acula poe ic leaps and c osso e s, ha e o
be success ul, ha e o con ince in o de o Leopa di’s na ionalis poin o be
made. We e he o a ach hese o some an e io o ce he would sound like Shelley,
bu he is happie o le he pe suasi e cohe ence o his p osody do he wo k,
showing a he han elling. Poe ic and poli ical cohe ence a e closely bound up,
one wi h he o he .
Ye Leopa di’s poem also eads like a heo y o he Anac eon ic ode. The non-
exis en I aly o he p esen is e oked h ough he cha ac e is ic powe o he poem
o su i e his ailu e o a pa icula e e ence. The poem e okes a new I aly by
eminding eade s ha he mode n use o classical p eceden c ea es no a
commen a y bu a new poem. Jus as La in li e a u e made G eece i s own, so
mode n w i ing in I alian mus app op ia e he achie emen o La in li e a u e in
i s own dis inc i e o m. “All’I alia” e okes Home ic epic, he Aeneid, and hen,
signi ican ly, he celeb a ion by he G eek poe , Simonides, o he G eeks de ea ed
“Inspi a ion’s da ling child”
157
a The mopylae. The poin is ha G eek poe y was he benchma k o Roman
he oism, and Leopa di wan s o place mode n I aly in he same line o succession.
Poe ic con inui y is symme ical wi h edesc ibing de ea as ic o y. The poe ically
success ul o m is consubs an ial wi h i s agic con en . The poe ’s call o a ms,
“L’a mi, qua l’a mi,” is in ac a call o himsel as a poe o p oduce an I alian
ico so o he classics. Once mo e, analogously o his in-house success, only in
poe y can we encoun e The mopylae’s “in i e schie e / De’ co pi” (unconque ed
anks o bodies):
Io c edo che le pian e e i sassi e l’onda
E le mon agne os e al passegge e
Con indis in a oce
Na in siccome u a quella sponda
Cop i le in i e schie e
De’ co pi ch’alla G ecia e an de o i.
(“All’I alia,” ll. 68-73)
(I seems o me you ees and ocks,
you sea and moun ains
mu mu o he passing a ele
how he unde ea ed anks
co e ed he en i e sho e
wi h unde ea ed bodies swo n o G eece)15
To objec ha he bodies a e dead because de ea ed is o miss Leopa di’s
exclusi ely li e a y na ionalism. Thei ic ional li eliness signals he poem’s
li e a y eigning o a li ing, mode n I aly h ough he p esump ion o o m o e
con en . Once mo e, he ode is all.
The success o Leopa di’s poem, analogous, we shall see, o ha o Hölde lin’s
poe y, akes p ecedence o e i s absen subjec – a na ion in he case o Leopa di,
he sel in ha o Hölde lin. In so doing i bo h diagnoses he pa lous s a e o
p esen a ai s and o e s hope o some hing di e en . To wo k, he poem i sel
mus s and in o he non-exis en na ional uni y i canno depic . The in e change-
abili y o pas and p esen g ows mo e con incing he mo e i s success appea s
li e a y. Bu he e ec is o p o ide a c i icism o eali y o no playing along –
a he as Anac eon’s mo e bibulous inspi a ion chides eali y o no keeping up.
15 Giacomo Leopa di, “All’I alia,” in Can i, bilingual edi ion, ans. Jona han Galassi
(London: Penguin, 2010), 7.
Paul Hamil on
158
The same happens la e in ligh e s yle in he Pa nassian Lecon e de Lisle’s
Anac eon ic ode, “La Rose” (1862). The poem is innocen o poli ical ges u e,
al hough Lecon e de Lisle’s epublicanism was always do man , bu he same
echnique is he e o all o see. The conclusion o he poem is o ha e e oked a lowe
summoning and in eg a ing classicism by means o a new aes he ic ag eemen ,
Pa nassian bu sensuously immedia e:
Ruisselan e enco du lo pa e nel,
Quand de la me bleue Aph odi e éclose
É incela nue aux cla és du ciel,
La Te e jalouse en an a la ose ;
E l’Olympe en ie , d’amou anspo é,
Salua la leu a ec la Beau é!16
(D ipping om he a he ’s ide,
when Aph odi e ha ched om he blue sea,
spa kling naked wi h he sky’s illumina ion,
he jealous Ea h ga e bi h o he ose;
and all Olympus, anspo ed by lo e,
g ee ed he lowe wi h beau y.)
Wo dswo h, like o he Roman ics, appa en ly in en ed gen es – p eludes,
excu sions, ly ical ballads – bu hese called ou o be compa ed o ap
p edecesso s, and in ac ook hei shape om such compa isons. Ra he in he
manne o he “in e nalized ques omance” which Ha old Bloom used as an
e ec i e ca ch-all o Roman ic inno a ion,17 p eludes and excu sions we e
in e nalized epics, and “Lines composed a ew miles abo e Tin e n Abbey”
ho e ed be ween being an elegy on Wo dswo h’s you h ul sensibili y o a
monumen al ode o his own in e io i y. The momen whe e one maybe can
dis inguish he ode om elegiac e o is whe e he poem allows he ques ion: A e
we jus being gi en a monumen , o a e we wi nessing a cle e leap beyond he
no mal bounda ies o in ospec ion, some hing like Cha eaub iand’s ou ageous
idea o w i ing his memoi s om beyond he omb?
16 Lecon e de Lisle, “La Rose,” ll. 14-18, Odes Anc éon iques in Poèmes An iques (1850), in
Oeu es de Lecon e de Lisle, ed. Edga Pich, 4 ols. (Pa is: Socie é d’Édi ion “Les Belles
Le es,” 1977), 1:171-72. The au ho ’s ansla ion.
17 Ha old Bloom, “The In e naliza ion o Ques -Romance,” in Roman icism and Consciousness:
Essays in C i icism, ed. Ha old Bloom (New Yo k: No on, 1970), 3-24.
“Inspi a ion’s da ling child”
159
Kea s, in ensi ying he e lexi e u n o he Roman ics, e en w i es an ode
abou w i ing an ode o onesel . O he odes ica iously apos ophize himsel
h ough Kea s’s chosen subjec – Nigh ingale, G ecian U n, Melancholy – bu his
“Ode o Psyche” makes o ha e lexi i y i s subjec . Psyche may be he “la es
bo n” o he Olympians, bu o a Roman ic poe w i ing ypically sel - e lexi e
poe y she is con empo a y. He bela edness le s him “sing, by my own eyes
inspi ed.” She p o ides, like Cha eaub iand’s concei , a iewpoin om whe e he
can be ex e nal o himsel , his own p ies , a chi ec and ga dene . The poem
exhibi s “ he w ea hed ellis o a wo king b ain,” aking o i s subjec “ he w ea hed
ellis o a wo king b ain.” Sel -consciousness is su p ised in he ac .18
A e Kan and Schille , ly ic and elegy a e philosophically unde s ood as
encompassing o ms, huge con aine s o e e y hing else. Subsequen ly, we
mode ns ypically mou n a na u e los behind ou a emp s o unde s and i . We
can only elegise his wo ld lying o ei behind he ba ie o ou ideas o i . Since
i is los , he elegiac s ance demands a double in en ion om he poe : exp ession
o ou eeling o loss bu also c ea ion o he objec o egis e ing ou loss o i .19
Ly ic, inclusi e as elegy, can summon any use o language which eschews
desc ip ion and na a i e. Relinquishing he elici ies o depic ion and he diach onic
mapping o plo , he ly ical e usion esponds o a p omp ing beyond usual li e a y
compe ences. And in so doing, ly ic e okes a la ge sel , a subjec exceeding i s
sel -unde s anding. Lines like “Ou s is he wedding ga men , ou s he sh oud!”
in Cole idge’s “Dejec ion” Ode (l. 49) show he au ho mo ing in o wha James
Chandle called Wo dswo h’s “second na u e.”20 Since he unmedia ed wo ld
eludes ep esen a ion and s o y, he nea es we can ge o i is h ough he pleasu es
o indi ec ion. The sec e o ly ic is o alk abou na u e by alking abou ou sel es.
Mo e op imis ic han hese gen es, he ode does no mou n bu simula es he
eapp op ia ion o unmedia ed ision, “ oo deep o ea s.” This eigned
comple eness was wha wo ied Cole idge abou Wo dswo h’s “Immo ali y” Ode.
F ied ich Hölde lin, in odes and hymns, compa ably imagines a p imal on ological
18 The Poems o John Kea s, ed. Jack S illinge (London: Heinemann, 1978), 364-66. F ançois-
René de Cha eaub iand, Mémoi es d’ou e- ombe, ed. Mau ice Le aillan and Geo ges
Moulinie , 2 ols. (Pa is: Édi ion Gallima d, Biblio hèque de la Pléiade, 1957).
19 Wal e Benjamin says much on his, p incipally in U sp ung des deu schen T aue spiels
(1928; The O igin o Ge man T agic D ama, ans. John Osbo ne [London: New Le Books,
1977]). See also Anselm Ha e kamp, Lea es o Mou ning: Hölde lin’s La e Wo k, Wi h an Essay
on Kea s and Melancholy, ans. Ve non Chadwick (New Yo k: SUNY P ess, 1996).
20 Samuel Taylo Cole idge, Poems, ed. John Bee (London: J.M. Den , 1993), 353; James
Chandle , Wo dswo h’s Second Na u e: A S udy o he Poe y and Poli ics (Chicago, IL:
Uni e si y o Chicago P ess, 1984).