In the rich tapestry of Victorian literature, where the tensions between industrial progress and the yearning for unspoiled wonder often defined artistic expression, Robert Louis Stevenson's poem "Romance" stands as a luminous gem, a testament to the enduring power of poetic imagination to craft sanctuaries of the heart. This work, with its vivid evocation of shared joys forged from the raw materials of the natural world, invites readers into a realm where love transcends the mundane, weaving personal devotion with the eternal rhythms of earth and sky. Stevenson, the Scottish storyteller whose adventurous spirit infused everything from swashbuckling tales to introspective verses, brings to this piece a profound enthusiasm for life's fleeting beauties, one that resonates deeply even in our own era of digital distractions and environmental disconnection. As we delve into its layers, we discover not merely a declaration of affection but a multifaceted exploration of human connection, memory, and the restorative potential of the wild. Poetry like this reminds us why verse matters: it captures the ineffable, stirs the soul, and affirms our capacity for wonder amid life's complexities.

To appreciate "Romance" fully, one must situate it within the historical and cultural milieu of late nineteenth-century Britain. Stevenson wrote during the Victorian age, a period marked by rapid industrialization, imperial expansion, and a growing nostalgia for pre-modern simplicities. The smoke-belching factories of Manchester and the expanding railway networks symbolized progress, yet they also provoked a counter-current of Romantic revival, often termed neo-Romanticism. Writers sought refuge in the imagination, in tales of adventure and idealized landscapes, pushing back against the mechanistic worldview ushered in by Darwinian science and utilitarian philosophy. Stevenson, born in 1850 in Edinburgh, embodied this tension. The son of a lighthouse engineer from a family steeped in Presbyterian rigor and scientific pragmatism, he grappled with frail health from childhood—chronic lung issues that would eventually lead him across continents in search of healing climates. His life became a peripatetic quest, mirroring the wanderlust that infuses much of his oeuvre. Yet "Romance," with its promise of intimate, crafted delights, reflects a domestic counterpoint to that restlessness, composed during a phase when personal love offered a stabilizing anchor.

Culturally, the poem engages with the era's evolving notions of courtship and gender roles. Victorian society prized propriety and moral uplift, yet beneath the surface simmered desires for authentic passion and equality in partnership. Stevenson's own biography illuminates this. His courtship and marriage to Fanny Van de Grift Osbourne, an American divorcee ten years his senior with children from a previous union, defied conventions. Their relationship, forged amid his travels in France and America, was passionate and collaborative; she became not only his wife but his intellectual companion and editor. In "Romance," the speaker's vows to create "brooches and toys" and a "palace" from natural elements suggest a love that is egalitarian and creative, where the beloved shares in the construction of their world rather than merely receiving it. This echoes broader cultural shifts toward companionate marriage, influenced by Romantic predecessors like Shelley and Byron, who celebrated emotional reciprocity over rigid hierarchy. Yet Stevenson's vision tempers Romantic excess with a grounded Scottish sensibility—practical in its domestic imagery of kitchens and laundered linen, yet transcendent in its fusion with the cosmos.

Biographically, the poem gains added poignancy from Stevenson's lifelong battles with illness and mortality. Confined often to sickbeds as a child, he found solace in imaginary realms, much like the "green days in forests and blue days at sea" he conjures here. His later voyages to the South Seas, where he settled in Samoa, represented both escape and immersion in vibrant cultures far removed from Edinburgh's gray winters. "Romance" can be read as an early articulation of his philosophy of living fully despite frailty: love as a bulwark against entropy. Philosophical perspectives from thinkers like Schopenhauer, whose ideas on will and representation circulated in intellectual circles Stevenson frequented, find subtle echoes. The poem posits desire—not as futile striving but as generative force—shaping reality through memory and shared song. It aligns with a humanistic optimism, celebrating the individual's power to mythologize everyday existence, a theme that anticipates existentialist emphases on authentic creation in the face of absurdity. Stevenson himself, in essays on the art of writing and romance, championed stories that awaken the "nameless, unclassified emotions" of youth, viewing literature as a vital counter to Victorian didacticism.

Turning to the poem's literary devices, one is struck by the opulent sensory imagery that forms its backbone. The opening lines pledge "brooches and toys for your delight / Of bird-song at morning and star-shine at night," immediately immersing the reader in a synesthetic feast. Sound, light, and tactility intermingle: the auditory delight of birdsong merges with the visual splendor of stars, evoking a jewel-like craftsmanship. This is no passive gift but an active making, with the speaker as artisan of the sublime. Nature here is anthropomorphized and domesticated—forests yield "green days," seas "blue days"—transforming the vast into the intimate. Alliteration and assonance enhance this musicality without overt artifice; the soft consonants in "bird-song" and "star-shine" mimic gentle natural cadences, drawing the ear into the scene. Metaphor abounds, most strikingly in the "palace fit for you and me," an Edenic structure built not of stone but of temporal joys, suggesting that true luxury resides in experiential richness rather than material wealth. Such devices root the poem in the Romantic tradition of Wordsworth and Coleridge, who found divinity in the commonplace, yet Stevenson's touch is lighter, more playful, infused with the storyteller's knack for vivid vignette.

The theme of love as collaborative creation permeates every stanza. The speaker envisions a shared household where roles blur harmoniously: "I will make my kitchen, and you shall keep your room." This reciprocity challenges Victorian domestic stereotypes, portraying partnership as mutual stewardship of beauty. The river's "white" flow and the broom's "bright" blow symbolize purity and vitality, while the beloved's maintenance of bodily whiteness in "rainfall at morning and dewfall at night" evokes ritualistic renewal, almost baptismal. Water imagery recurs, suggesting fluidity, cleansing, and the life-giving essence of their bond. Emotionally, this fosters a profound sense of security and adventure intertwined—love not as confinement but as a portable paradise. Readers feel the enthusiasm Stevenson brings to this vision: poetry's capacity to eternalize fleeting moments, to make the transient permanent through recollection. The emotional impact lies in its accessibility; one does not need scholarly exegesis to sense the tender promise, yet deeper engagement reveals layers of vulnerability. The speaker offers not certainty but intention, a hopeful projection against life's uncertainties, mirroring Stevenson's own nomadic existence.

Memory and exclusivity emerge as central themes, particularly in the closing movement. The "fine song for singing, the rare song to hear" that "only I remember, that only you admire" elevates personal history to mythic status. This private lore, tied to "the broad road that stretches and the roadside fire," conjures the vagabond life Stevenson knew well—the open path of travel, the warmth of temporary hearths. It philosophically engages with Plato's ideas of ideal forms or the Romantic sublime, where the particular (a roadside fire) gestures toward universal longing. Comparatively, one might draw parallels to Keats's odes, where sensuous beauty consoles against mortality, or to Tennyson's domestic idylls, though Stevenson's is less ornate, more elemental. Unlike Keats's nightingale, forever elusive, Stevenson's song is shared, reciprocal, grounding ecstasy in human connection. This comparative lens highlights Stevenson's neo-Romantic innovation: blending adventure's thrill with hearthside intimacy, refusing the dichotomy between wandering and belonging.

The poem's emotional resonance deepens through its understated sensuality and optimism. There is joy in the physicality—the washing of linen, the keeping of body "white"—which humanizes the divine. It celebrates eros not as torment but as harmonious play, a refreshing antidote to the era's repressed passions or the Gothic shadows in Stevenson's own Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Enthusiasm for poetry swells here; verse becomes the medium through which lovers co-author their reality, much as Stevenson and Fanny collaborated on literary works. Philosophically, it echoes Emersonian self-reliance fused with relational interdependence, positing that true fulfillment arises from weaving personal narratives with another's. In an age of ecological crisis, the poem's reliance on natural "materials"—birdsong, star-shine, forests, seas—carries renewed urgency, urging reconnection with the living world as source of delight. Its impact lingers as quiet defiance: against modernity's alienation, it affirms love's power to sanctify the ordinary.

Expanding further, "Romance" invites reflection on Stevenson's broader corpus. In A Child's Garden of Verses, he similarly transforms the mundane into magical, drawing from childhood reveries. Yet here, the lens is adult, eroticized by commitment. His travel writings, such as Travels with a Donkey in the Cévennes, reveal the "broad road" motif as literal experience, where campfire tales forge bonds. Comparatively, Wordsworth's "Tintern Abbey" meditates on nature's restorative memory, but Stevenson's is more immediate, less solitary. Where Wordsworth seeks transcendence alone, Stevenson insists on shared admiration. This relational focus aligns with feminist readings of Victorian literature, valuing the domestic as site of profound meaning, though Stevenson avoids sentimentality through precise, unsentimental diction. The broom plant, for instance, evokes Scottish landscapes—hardy, golden—tying personal romance to cultural heritage. Emotionally, the poem evokes nostalgia not for lost innocence but for potential futures, a forward-looking hope that stirs the reader's own aspirations.

Philosophically, the work engages Stoic or Epicurean ideals of simple pleasures. The "kitchen" and "room" suggest Epicurean ataraxia—tranquility amid nature's bounty—while the roadside fire hints at Stoic resilience on life's journey. Stevenson's Calvinist upbringing, tempered by bohemian adventures, yields a synthesis: joy seized despite predestined frailty. This resonates today, as readers navigate uncertainty; the poem models imaginative resilience. Its literary devices, including rhythmic parallelism in the repeated "I will make" and "you shall," build incantatory momentum, mimicking vows or spells. Imagery of light and flow—star-shine, rainfall, dewfall—contrasts potential darkness, symbolizing love's illumination. The "rare song" motif underscores poetry's meta-role: verse itself as the enduring artifact of romance, surviving the singers. Enthusiasm for such resonance is infectious; one cannot encounter these lines without feeling the pulse of possibility, the invitation to craft one's own palace from available wonders.

In cultural context, "Romance" subtly critiques imperial materialism. Stevenson's later Pacific writings exposed colonial exploitations, favoring authentic local ways. Here, the rejection of conventional luxuries for natural ones prefigures that ethical stance, valuing sustainability and locality. Biographically, his Samoan life among indigenous peoples reinforced appreciation for oral traditions—the "song" passed between intimates. Comparatively, it dialogues with Browning's dramatic monologues in psychological intimacy, yet Stevenson's is purer lyricism, unmarred by irony. The emotional impact culminates in universality: whether in bustling cities or remote wilds, humans crave this tailored Eden. Poetry's magic lies in this portability; the verses travel with us, as Stevenson did, offering comfort and inspiration.

Delving deeper into themes of time and eternity, the poem compresses vast temporal scales—"green days," "blue days"—into intimate units, suggesting love's alchemy transmutes chronology into quality. This philosophical compression echoes Bergson's durée, lived time versus clock time, a concept emerging around Stevenson's era. The kitchen and room scenes ground eternity in routine, affirming the sacred in repetition. Emotionally, this fosters security amid flux, a balm for Stevenson's tubercular awareness of impermanence. His enthusiasm for life's pageant shines through, encouraging readers to notice bird-song and star-shine anew. Literary analysis reveals careful modulation: from grand promises (palace) to humble acts (washing linen), building to private climax (the song). This arc mirrors narrative romance structures in his novels, where adventure yields to reflective bonding.

The poem's accessibility belies its sophistication. It requires no esoteric knowledge yet rewards scholarly unpacking. In comparative terms, alongside Christina Rossetti's devotional lyrics, it secularizes spiritual longing into earthly communion. Philosophically, it affirms phenomenology: experience as co-constituted by lover and beloved. Culturally, it bridges Romantic individualism with Victorian communal ideals. Its emotional power derives from sincerity—Stevenson writes not to dazzle but to connect, evoking the thrill of mutual discovery. Poetry enthusiasts find here validation of verse as life's enhancer, capable of forging "toys for your delight" from intangible essences. As one lingers on the broad road and fireside, the imagination kindles, proving literature's timeless gift: transporting us to realms of heightened feeling and insight.

Ultimately, "Romance" exemplifies why Stevenson's voice endures. In a world often cynical about grand gestures, it rekindles faith in deliberate, imaginative loving. Historical contexts of Victorian doubt and neo-Romantic revival enrich its meanings, while literary craft—imagery, metaphor, parallelism—delivers them with grace. Themes of collaborative joy, memory's sanctity, and nature's bounty converge in emotional crescendo, leaving readers invigorated. Biographical threads of adventure and devotion add authenticity, philosophical undertones depth. This poem does not merely describe romance; it enacts it, inviting participation. Enthusiasm for poetry swells in such encounters, as words bridge souls across time, affirming humanity's profound capacity for beauty and connection. Stevenson's legacy, through lines like these, continues to inspire, reminding us that in crafting shared worlds from the elements around us, we touch something eternal. The resonance is palpable, a quiet triumph of the human spirit that poetry alone can so eloquently voice.

Eugene Field’s “Gold and Love for Dearie” transforms a compact domestic lyric into a meditation on labor, desire, childhood, and the competing values by which human life is sustained. On its surface, the poem offers a simple contrast: beneath or beyond a town, a father works through the night in search of gold, while at home a mother rocks a child and offers love. Yet Field gives this contrast the imaginative density of folklore. The father’s labor is not represented in ordinary social-realist terms; it is refracted through a nocturnal world of trolls, elves, caverns, mist, moonlight, and “hill-folk.” The mother’s care, meanwhile, is not merely sentimentalized as an opposite to work. It becomes an alternative kind of song, a counter-melody to the subterranean chant of acquisition. The poem’s emotional force arises from the way it permits both impulses to be understood: the father’s yearning for gold is not greed in any crude sense, because it is directed toward “dearie,” presumably the beloved child; nevertheless, the mother’s “nothing but love” ultimately seems to name a more immediate and spiritually sufficient form of wealth.

Field, a late nineteenth-century American writer celebrated especially for children’s verse and gently whimsical domestic poems, frequently drew power from his ability to mingle the playful, the tender, and the faintly melancholy. His literary persona often appears genial and accessible, but beneath that accessibility lies a keen interest in the vulnerability of childhood and the emotional structures of family life. “Gold and Love for Dearie” belongs to a broad nineteenth-century tradition in which the child becomes a figure of innocence, moral clarity, and imaginative possibility. Such writing can sometimes seem excessively idealized to modern readers, but Field’s poem earns much of its pathos by refusing to treat parental love as uncomplicated. The father is absent, working “all night long”; the mother is present, but her presence is shadowed by the father’s dangerous or exhausting toil. The child is cared for at the center of the poem, yet is also the occasion for two very different forms of sacrifice.

The historical background of the poem helps clarify the significance of gold. In nineteenth-century American culture, gold carried an unusually vivid set of associations. It evoked the dreams of sudden prosperity associated with mining booms, westward expansion, and the mythology of frontier opportunity. Gold promised mobility: a family might rise out of poverty through fortune, endurance, or lucky discovery. At the same time, it was inseparable from risk, extraction, isolation, and disappointment. Mining culture was often imagined as masculine, mobile, and remote from domestic life; it drew men away from homes and into harsh landscapes or hazardous underground spaces. Field condenses this social reality into the father who “delves” deep within the hill. The word is archaic and evocative: it suggests digging, but also labor undertaken with solemn persistence. He is not merely earning wages; he is entering a mythic underworld in pursuit of material security for the child.

That underworld is populated by trolls and elves, figures borrowed from European fairy tale and folklore rather than from a specifically American mining tradition. Their presence gives the opening movement an air of enchantment, but it is not an entirely comforting enchantment. The trolls travel over the mountain at night, carrying packs, singing, and moving with repetitive, almost mechanical purpose. Their world is communal but furtive, industrious but eerie. The “misty moon” and the “dolorous tune” create an atmosphere in which the pursuit of gold resembles an ancient compulsion. Field’s supernatural beings are not simply decorative. They externalize the psychological power of wealth: gold seems to command its seekers, drawing them into a nocturnal procession where labor becomes ritual and desire becomes chant.

The poem’s use of folklore also establishes a contrast between the child’s world and the adult world. Fairy-tale creatures might ordinarily belong to childhood imagination, but here they are associated with the father’s inaccessible labor. The child, addressed as “thy” and “dearie,” remains in the domestic sphere, perhaps too young to understand what occurs “out on the mountain” or “deep in the hill.” The fantastical realm is therefore not a child’s playground but an imaginative translation of parental absence. What might the child make of a father away through the night? Field offers an answer in myth: he is among strange beings, in hidden places, pursuing shining treasure. The poem converts an economic fact—the parent who works away from home—into a story that can be felt emotionally rather than explained practically.

Repetition is among the poem’s most important formal devices. The repeated phrase “All night long, all night long” serves as more than a musical refrain. It conveys duration, fatigue, and separation. Night is the time of sleep, vulnerability, and dreams; in the poem, however, it is also the time of relentless adult activity. The trolls march through it, the father mines through it, and the mother rocks the child through it. Each section is bound to the same temporal condition, which creates a powerful sense that these apparently separate scenes unfold simultaneously. While the child rests—or is being soothed toward rest—the family’s life continues in several emotional registers at once. The father performs economic labor in darkness; the mother performs care work in darkness; the trolls embody the impersonal, almost legendary labor of the world beyond the nursery.

Field develops this simultaneity through parallel structure. The three sections begin with a setting, return to the phrase “all night long,” and culminate in a song. This recurring architecture makes the poem feel like a set of variations on a single theme. The first song is sung by the hill-folk, the second by the father, and the third by the mother. In this progression, the father initially seems to join the larger chorus of gold-seekers. His voice is indistinguishable in content from the trolls’ collective desire: “Gold, gold! ever more gold— / Bright red gold for dearie!” The repetition suggests that the father has absorbed the world’s acquisitive song. Yet the phrase “for dearie” changes its moral coloring. He does not seek gold merely for himself. His desire is familial and sacrificial, though it remains tied to an external, material solution.

The phrase “bright red gold” is especially striking. Gold is conventionally yellow, so Field’s description introduces a symbolic disturbance. “Red” may suggest the glow of metal in darkness, the flare of firelight, or the warm richness commonly associated with precious objects. But it may also imply blood, bodily labor, danger, and the cost of extraction. The father’s gold is not a clean abstraction. It is colored by exertion and perhaps by the human price paid to obtain it. In the context of mining, red gold may evoke earth stained by mineral dust, hands injured by tools, or the heat of the subterranean forge. The phrase is rich precisely because it remains slightly unnatural: Field makes gold gleam, but he also makes it strange.

The father himself receives a sympathetic portrayal. He is “stanch and bold,” terms that emphasize loyalty and courage. His song is merry, and the cavern rings with the sound of his pick. This merriment could be read as an expression of hopeful industry: he works gladly because he imagines the child’s future. Yet Field’s repeated use of “merrily ever” has a faintly insistent quality. It may be heard as genuine cheer, but it also risks becoming a self-persuading refrain, a song sung against darkness and danger. The father must make the cavern ring with joy because the cavern is otherwise silent, enclosed, and potentially frightening. His happiness is real, but it is also labor’s necessary imaginative defense against hardship.

The poem’s central opposition between “gold” and “love” should not be reduced to a simplistic moral lesson that money is bad and affection is good. Field is subtler than that. The father seeks gold “for dearie,” which means that wealth is imagined as an instrument of love. He works because love has created responsibility. The mother’s song, however, suggests that love is not merely the motive behind future provision; it is itself a present gift. She can offer what the father’s gold promises but cannot immediately provide: warmth, touch, lullaby, attention, and protection. The phrase “Mother’s love for dearie” identifies love as something embodied and enacted. It is not an abstract emotion but a practice of holding a hand, smoothing curls, and rocking a bed.

This distinction resonates with nineteenth-century ideals of domesticity, particularly the cultural division between the male breadwinner and the female guardian of the home. Such ideals were deeply influential, even when lived experience often complicated them. Men were conventionally associated with public work, risk, economic provision, and the wider social world; women were associated with the private realm, nurturance, moral instruction, and emotional stability. Field’s poem draws heavily on this division, but it also illuminates its costs. The father’s role requires absence. The mother’s role requires wakefulness and constant attentiveness. Both parents serve the child, but they do so from positions that seem almost unable to meet. The poem’s emotional world is therefore organized around separation as much as around devotion.

The mother’s song is carefully defined by negation before it is defined positively. It is “not of the hill-folk dwarfed and old,” and it is not the father’s song of gold. This rhetorical movement matters. Before the mother can articulate her own value, she must distinguish it from the noisy, collective, subterranean economy represented by the hill-folk. Her song does not belong to the mountain, the mine, or the masculine world of dangerous acquisition. It belongs to the nursery, a humble setting marked by the phrase “thy lowly bed.” “Lowly” may indicate material modesty, reminding readers that this is not a family already secure in wealth. But the word also has moral resonance: the bed’s humility becomes the condition in which another kind of richness can be recognized.

The final declaration, “Love, love! nothing but love,” carries a beautiful ambiguity. On one level, it is an emphatic rejection of gold as the highest good. On another, it is a statement of necessity: the mother has no gold to offer, perhaps no material power at all, but she gives the fullness of what she possesses. “Nothing but love” can sound impoverished if heard from the perspective of economic need. Yet Field makes it sound abundant, even triumphant. The phrase turns supposed lack into spiritual plenitude. Love is “nothing but” in the sense that it excludes other gifts, but it is also everything that matters in the present moment. The child may eventually need food, shelter, education, and security—needs for which gold can stand—but the poem insists that the child’s earliest emotional world is formed through care rather than currency.

Field’s diction contributes significantly to the poem’s fairy-tale tenderness. Words such as “dearie,” “thy,” “’tis,” “stanch,” and “burthen” lend the lyric an old-fashioned intimacy. This language does not attempt historical realism; rather, it creates a timeless nursery atmosphere in which the family drama can seem archetypal. The child is not given a name, the parents are not individualized beyond their roles, and the town is unnamed. Such generality allows the poem to become a fable about countless households. At the same time, “dearie” is insistently particular in feeling. It is a pet name, not a grand abstraction. Its recurrence keeps the poem close to the sound of a parent addressing a child directly.

The soundscape of the poem is equally important. Field builds a world of songs: the hill-folk croon, the father sings, the mother sings. Sound travels across spaces that otherwise remain divided. The trolls’ song is heard on the mountain; the father’s song makes the cavern ring; the mother’s song accompanies intimate touch. The movement from public chant to solitary labor-song to lullaby narrows the poem’s auditory field. At first, many creatures sing together; then one father sings amid hidden labor; finally, one mother sings to one child. This narrowing is emotionally decisive. The poem moves away from the broad, impersonal appetite for “ever more gold” toward the singular relation between caregiver and child. Its deepest music is not the sound of accumulation but the quiet voice that answers a child’s need.

There is also a philosophical dimension to the contrast. Gold is durable, brilliant, and transferable; it can be stored, exchanged, inherited, and counted. Love, by contrast, is intangible, temporary in its gestures, and impossible to stockpile. A caress vanishes as an event even while its emotional effect may endure. The father seeks the stable symbolic object, the material guarantee against future uncertainty. The mother offers the fragile but immediate reality of affection. The poem does not deny the human wish for security; indeed, it honors that wish through the father’s courage. But it gently asks whether security without tenderness would be enough, or whether the desire to acquire can sometimes obscure the life for which acquisition is undertaken.

In this respect, “Gold and Love for Dearie” can be compared with the moral logic of many fairy tales, where treasure often proves less valuable than fidelity, mercy, or domestic reunion. Yet Field modifies the conventional fairy-tale lesson by making the gold-seeker neither villain nor fool. The father is not corrupted by riches; he labors for the child. The danger lies not in his intention but in the structure of the world that sends him underground. The poem recognizes a tragic paradox still familiar to modern readers: people may work long hours out of love for their families, yet the labor demanded by provision can deprive them of time with those they love. Field’s poem therefore reaches beyond its quaint surface into a durable social and emotional problem.

The poem’s final emotional impact depends on its refusal to erase the father. The mother’s song may seem to supersede his, but his devotion remains audible behind it. Her “nothing but love” is not a cruel condemnation of the man who mines; rather, it provides the domestic answer to his distant effort. The two parents are united by their orientation toward “dearie,” even as they articulate different visions of what the child needs. He offers hoped-for prosperity; she offers present consolation. He confronts the external world’s hardness; she shelters the child from it. The lyric is most moving when read not as a contest with a winner, but as a portrait of complementary sacrifices unequally valued by a culture preoccupied with gold.

Ultimately, Field achieves a remarkable compression of emotional and cultural material. Mountain and nursery, moonlit folklore and household tenderness, labor and lullaby, future provision and present intimacy all coexist within the poem’s small imaginative space. Its charm comes from the vividness of its fairy-tale imagery, but its lasting resonance comes from the ache beneath that charm. The child sleeps near a mother’s loving voice while a father works in the dark, and the world’s ancient song of “ever more gold” continues outside. Against that restless chorus, the mother’s refrain does not merely sound softer; it sounds more human. “Gold and Love for Dearie” celebrates love not because love abolishes material need, but because love reveals why all labor, all treasure, and all striving must finally matter. Its tenderness is therefore neither naïve nor slight. It is the poem’s deepest form of wisdom.