The concept of Romanticism is a central and defining notion for the remainder of this course and could use some introduction.

Origins

English Romanticism grows out of a conglomeration of powerful forces that came together with profound consequences over the second half of the eighteenth century:

  • Democratic ideals
  • Capitalistic ambitions
  • Industrial growth, etc.

While I have always held Wordsworth as the "father" of English Romanticism (I am fully cognizant of the problems and questions of such a position, but this is not the place for that discussion), the concept of the Romantic Self derives from the French writer Jean Jacques Rousseau, most notably from his Confessions (published posthumously in 1781). Wordsworth is, in my opinion, the most noteworthy practitioner of the concept (although strong cases could be made for Coleridge, who played a large part in making Wordsworth Wordsworth, and certainly for Byron as well) among the English Romantics, while Whitman and Emerson are the most notable of the Americans.

What is Romanticism?

This is a tough one. There have been thousands of "good" definitions or characterizations of what "Romantic" means in literature, etc., but none of them really covers it exhaustively or convincingly.

There are always works or authors who are generally considered "Romantic" who don't fit a particular model. The best (or most fitting) definition I am aware of is by René Wellek, who said essentially that everyone knows and agrees what it is; they just can't agree on terms and schemes. Other critics have posited that we can only talk about Romanticisms.

However, for our purposes, my sense is that Romanticism is what a very famous set of six English Poets who wrote between about 1790 and 1825 did, and is anything that does similar things. Those six poets are

  • William Blake
  • William Wordsworth
  • Samuel Taylor Coleridge
  • Lord Byron
  • Percy Bysshe Shelley
  • John Keats

Of course, that doesn't really say anything.

"Romantic" usually means that an author or work privileges concepts such as

  • The imagination
  • The infinite
  • The universal
  • The transcendental
  • The self
  • The special place and role of the poet.

These last two are a bit complicated, especially when we consider someone like Walt Whitman.

The Self


2

Selfhood, around 1800, was, strangely, a relatively new concept, only evolving into our present understanding over the preceding 300 or so years, beginning with Columbus and Martin Luther instigating the rise of capitalism and Protestantism respectively, with the former granting (at least in perception anyway) individual autonomy in the social sphere and the latter granting individual, first-hand access to salvation and ultimately to God Himself. Feudalism and Catholicism didn't allow for either of these, so really for the first time in Western history, the average Joe individual gained agency in society, or in fancy philosophical terms (or grammatical terms), he became a subject.

Age of Revolution

All of this came to a head in the late 18th century, when the American and French Revolutions presented the new promise of democracy and self-determination (which I would say has more to do with the "Protestant" side of things) and the Industrial Revolution was happening in England (on the capitalism side).


3

The Industrial Revolution was, of course, a two-edged sword. It gave the promise of infinite human progress and immediately improved living conditions for some of the population, while also presenting the (illusory?) promise of economic independence; however, on the other hand, it created a new and incredible concentration of people in cities, which, along with the paltry wages for industrial laborers, led to abject poverty and economic desperation for a huge segment of the population.

At the same time, the English government cracked down very harshly on the democratic aspirations of the English people, making for a messy and contradictory set of circumstances.

It is not coincident that all of the "Big Six" were very active in what might be called the democratic movement, most of them to a degree that might be (and actually was in a few cases) considered treasonous.

A New Definition of Romanticism

So what does all of the historical background have to do with literature? Good question. I formulated my own definition or model of Romanticism several years ago that makes use of this particular construction of context and is predicated on Marx's concepts of alienation and reification (literally "thing"-ification).

I should probably make a disclaimer here: Marx is relevant because he interprets early 19th-century England/capitalism in much the same way that most of the Romantics did: I'm not pulling a move typical to Marxist critics and trying to make the Romantics Marxist, rather I'm making Marx a Romantic, for what that's worth.

Alienation is the idea that man (pardon the "sexist" lingo, but given the historical context and the constraint of space, I'm going to take the easy way out) has become alienated from himself because of the social relations of industrial capitalism, a system in which, according to Marx, Wordsworth, Blake, Shelley, Emerson, and Whitman at least, the objects of production (commodities) become the agents (subjects) of the society (this, I believe, is a fair characterization of the "almighty market"), and the members of the society are reduced to things (objects).

It is worth noting here that when I was pursuing my doctorate in English, my dissertation was going to be an examination of this conception of Romanticism in the context of the urbanization in the wake of the Industrial Revolution, looking primarily at Wordsworth and Blake, but other English and American writers as well, while also considering Romanticism in the resulting social, cultural, and ideological shift from the country to the city.


1

Given all of this, I believe that a lot of the literature considered "Romantic" takes on as its mission to foresee (if not achieve, especially in Blake, Shelley, Emerson and Whitman) a state of humanity that has overcome this alienation and reification, a world in which man is redeemed or reconciled, or in other words, reunited with himself.

The privileged task of the Poet is to show the way. Whitman is the boldest and most outrageous in his acceptation of this task, but Blake and Wordsworth are not far behind.

This "definition," especially in this brief form, is by no means exhaustive and certainly doesn't account for all that is or might be considered Romantic, but it does cover anything that I would call "very Romantic," for what that's worth.

Posted by RG on January 3, 2008
Tags: Uncategorized

Total comments on this page: 9

How to read/write comments

Comments on specific paragraphs:

Click the icon to the right of a paragraph

  • If there are no prior comments there, a comment entry form will appear automatically
  • If there are already comments, you will see them and the form will be at the bottom of the thread

Comments on the page as a whole:

Click the icon to the right of the page title (works the same as paragraphs)

Comments

No comments yet.

Susan on paragraph 24:

I’d say Blake was rather more bold and surely more outrageous, given that he “showed the way” both literally and visually

January 3, 2008 3:10 pm
Mary on paragraph 13:

Selfhood, of course, was obviously concerned here with Joe, not Jodette. At least until Aphra Behn came along.

January 3, 2008 3:20 pm
admin :

Excellent observation! However, your argument might have more force if you had simply used ‘Jo’ or ‘Josephine’…

January 3, 2008 3:50 pm
Rini on whole page :

A large-ish quibble with par. 13 - While it is true that feudalism did suppress individuality and personal autonomy, it is not synonymous with Catholicism as this paragragh implies. And while, admittedly, Catholicism could be decidedly repressive, so could all of the variants of Protestantism. In the realm of religion, so much depended upon politics then. Sound familiar?

Also, individual, first-hand access to salvation has always been a tenet of Catholicism. Sadly, though, it has also been buried under the code of conformity - Conform or we won’t know you are one of us. (Rather Republican, wouldn’t you say? Or maybe Democratic - hard to tell.) Anyway, at large part of what was going on with the Feudals and the Catholics was the politics of control. Consider, for example, Teresa of Avila. She was a 16th century Catholic mystic - very much an individual - and later a canonized saint of the Church. Hmm - could it be all in the timing??

January 3, 2008 8:09 pm
admin :

I must admit that I’m not Catholic (I’m Episcopalian, also known as “Catholic Lite”), but my understanding has always been that personal contact with God must be mediated, typically through a priest. It is also my understanding that “salvation” in the Catholic Church comes from belonging to the Church–i.e., it happens at baptism, not in an epiphany of being “born again,” as many Protestant churches contend. Finally, I believe the paragraph states (or at least implies) that feudalism and Catholicism are parallel in this regard, not synonymous.

January 4, 2008 7:42 am
Derek :

Commenting on the comment first: Being Catholic, I have to inject that the relationship between the individual and God is very personal and doesn’t necessitate a priest at all. Jesus tells us that ´Where two or more are gathered together in my name, there am I´, the other doesn’t need to be a priest.
Salvation doesn’t come from simply belonging to the Church. One must be an active member of the Church, take part in the communion, and act in the ways set out by the Church laws in order to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. There is a misconception that a Catholic can sin all week long and then be forgiven on Sunday. I believe the same misconception is similar that Protestants can spend their life in sin and then be Born Again and have all their sins erased.
In different ways most Christian branches teach us that temptation is there for all of us on a daily basis and our task is to try to resist, but when we fail and still return to our Father for forgiveness, He is there to give it to us. Catholics are baptized as near to birth as possible, but then have to renew their faith at 9 years of age and then again after 15. This is the age that the Church considers us to be adult and able to make the decision to be a Christian/Catholic. (Also see Quinceanera)

Having put that discussion aside let me move on to the topic of the comment:
Yes Feudalism and the Catholicism (in the Middle Ages) were parallel. Indeed, the Church of the time reflected the need of the people of the time. After the High Classical Age and the Fall of the Roman Empire, the people of Medieval Europe were left without direction. All the institutions and ideas of the Greeks and Romans had been destroyed by the Barbarians, the Visigoths and so on. What was left was chaos and a vacuum into which the Church was to rebuild society. That society was feudal, more for the protection of the people than anything else. After the Crusades and the Black Death, the time was ripe for the Renaissance which gave way to the Age of Discovery.
After the ages of mere survival came an opportunity to look outside the basic needs of the self and explore the world around (the European World).
Finally, after engaging in exploration and discovery we were once again able to reflect on ’self-hood’.
Interestingly enough, the term romanticism stems from the word romance which refers to the heroic prose and poetry of the medieval period.
Do you see any connection between the term Romance and the Romance languages? By this I mean, the romance languages coming out of Eastern Europe and based on a meeting between Latin and Greek culture and philosophy. How far did the modern romantics move from the Classical philosophers?
IMHO.

January 6, 2008 10:19 am
Kevin Windham on paragraph 16:

The a/effects of the (first) Industrial Revolution gave rise to the “social question” (i.e. how to deal and solve–if possible–those effects). Each of these writer-thinkers (dare I say philosophers?) were contributing thoughts on the dilemma. I am wondering who–in your opinion–offers the most powerful opinions on the Social Question? Also, was their writing a way to take readers away from the horrors of factory work and miserable living conditions? How wide-spread was their work read among the working class? If their writing wasn’t an escape provided to the proletariat…was it their (the writers’) own escape from the world in which they lived in–from the lives their bodies possessed? This a problematic question: how much of the seedy underbelly of the Industrial Revolution touched these writers? The years of the first IR are difficult to understand: it was an age where the early-modern world was thrust into the modern age through the idealism of democracy and capitalism yet these were accompanied by the excesses of the French Revolution and the forces it unleashed across Europe (e.g. Nationalism). Are the ideals these writers touched still alive today? Are the issues they addressed still a plague on humanity? And are their answers still as illusive today as they were 200 years ago?

January 5, 2008 3:37 pm
admin :

Kevin, one of the big issues with most radical discourses aimed at helping the working classes is that they tend to be privileged discourses. Perhaps the best case-in-point is how Marx is almost unreadable to most educated people and would therefore seem to be unintelligible to the working classes. It does raise a question about who are any of these people writing to. My first thought would be to presume that they are writing to potential leaders of transformation (i.e., those who might rally the proletariat), but I say that fully aware of the potential contradictions inherent in that assumption.

January 7, 2008 11:17 am
Rick Laub :

Perhaps the writers’ audience is themselves - working out the contradictions of the industrial revolution “out loud” in their writing.

Certainly “The Jungle” was not addressed to those working in slaughterhouses, but to those who benefited from the economy of scale the slaughterhouses provided them, but had not considered the mechanisms that were at work to provide this commodity to their dinner table.

It seems unlikely that the target audience for the themes of the Romantics - those conscripted into the machinery of the IR - would have had access to their writings - or even to a secondary reporting of their writings in the literary press. And those that benefited from the IR in England who might have been exposed to the Romantics works, would view these themes at arm’s length, just as most of us do today.

January 14, 2008 11:25 am

Comments are by invitation only.