“Inspiration’s darling child”: The Romantic Ode

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).