In this essay I will explore the
broad definition of what it means for poetry to be “Romantic.” We will move
from broad definitions to brief exploration of the political, economic, and philosophic
undercurrents in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, and how
these apply to contemporaneous evaluations of the form from practitioners.
Periodization as a definitional proposition
can be hard to do. The easiest thing to do is look at the calendar and draw some
sort of dividing line. There are handy transitions that we can take advantage
of. Centuries change to nice round numbers. Monarchs die. Thus, we can call
Marlow and Shakespeare, along with Spenser Elizabethans, even though the latter
two poets outlived Elizabeth. This has an equally difficult corollary in that
sometimes the monarchs won’t die. Victoria lived seemingly forever, as has the
current Elizabeth. A more fruitful way of looking at the differences between one
set of texts and another and finding commonalities and differences.
What makes a text “Romantic”?
There is no one simple definition. Looking for guidance in the Penguin dictionary
of Literary terms, the editors cite A. O. Lovejoy, who noted that ‘romantic’
has been so broadly applied that “it means nothing at all” (767). The entry further brings to light Fredrich
Schlegel’s first definition of the ‘romantisch’ as “that which depicts”
emotional matter in an imaginative form (768). It is this imaginative turn, the
retrospective turn inward that from our perspective is what truly separates the
Romantics from their forebears. M. H. Abrams famously called this the divide
between the mirror and the lamp, where prior poetry was focused on the mimetic
function but the romantic turn is the inward exploration of the self, but as Zaiter
notes, it still drew inspiration from Renaissance and earlier Middle Age work
(34). But defining a genre is not entirely about influences and the direction they
are looking. There are several aspects of the poetic subject that we can think of
when we think of the ‘romantics’. As we turn to the dictionary again, we can
see highlighted the focus on nature and wild scenery, along with how they are
effected with the subjective turn in how these natural scenes are evaluated by
the self – the poet as narrator or stand-in for the nominal speaker (Cuddon
769-70). For me, the ultimate expression
of Romanticism can be seen in the Prelude, as Wordsworth elevates what is a
long walk in the mountains becomes this sublime, cathartic moment as he experiences
Mount Blanc:
. . . That day we first
Beheld the summit of Mont Blanc,
and griev'd
To have a soulless image on the
eye
Which had usurp'd upon a living
thought
That never more could be: (Vl
452-6)
The
romantic poet is not just walking in the woods but experiencing nature as if
they are the first to have ever encountered the snow-capped peaks. And in the subjective
way, they are – the art of representation in painting or even in words being
limited, there is nothing like being there in the moment and even having crossed
the Alps:
Imagination!
lifting up itself
Before the eye and progress of my Song
Like an unfather'd vapour; here that Power,
In all the might of its endowments, came
Athwart me; (Vl 525-9)
“This is nature!” The poet says, and points around him and
within him as he collapses in wonderment. That is the move to romanticism, the
detailing of that journey both in physical space, but also in terms of the
inner journey.
If we
can define stylistic and subjective characteristics that outline what the
Romantic move was and what a good representation of the form is, the question next
task would be to examine what it is that is driving the turn inwards. We can
see Romanticism as a reaction not just to the neoclassical immediate forebears stylistically,
but also as a reaction to the larger economic and political framework that
defines the ground and atmosphere in which these poets are writing. For me, there are two main drivers of what
created these reactions.
The
first larger issue to look at is the rise of capitalism. Adam Smith published
the Wealth of Nations in 1776, and
even by then he as able to observe the growing capitalist classes as they took
advantage of displaced peasants claimed that the English genius was in the
division of labor. He famously examined a “pin factory” near his hometown to
see how the new economic system was able to be much more productive and make
more goods for the markets of the world. The ultimate effect of that greater division
of labor and the continued enclosure acts meant that there was greater
concentration of workers in the cities, pulled both from the English and Scottish
countryside as well as the near abroad like Ireland. This concentrate of people
created the conditions we see in Friedrich Engels’s examination of the
Manchester of 1842, where he notes that the life is hard, where the
working-class lives in “enfeebled conditions” that cause people to “age
prematurely and die early” (116). In his work, he sees that conditions were
such that there is a mortality rate for children of the working classes where
57 percent of their children die before they turn five. This is opposed to the
upper classes, where a still frighteningly high 20 percent of children will die
(120). Added to the privations of the living conditions, many children are put
to work, so that a child of nine is sent to work in the mill for six and a half
hours daily, increasing to twelve-hour days when they become what we would call
teenagers (160). Children, in their masses, were forced to become adults in
terms of entering the workforce because of need in their families for another
worker and the lack of formal education options for most lower-class children,
while the adults die young and all the workers live close upon each other, in
the cold and damp, often in sewage and trash as there was little organized collection
of refuse. And though the Manchester of Engels postdates our period some, there
is a direct line between the pin factory and humans living in their filth as
food for the beast of capital. This romantic turn against the city and into the
countryside is best illustrated by Blake’s crossing of the two in his 1810 poem
“Jerusalem” where the new Jerusalem is troubled to be built near the “dark
Satanic Mills” but instead these should be swept from the earth to build anew “In
Englands green & pleasant Land”.
Aside
from the economic context of the growing, the other trigger for this interior
move was the American and French Revolutions and the political and philosophical
environment that helped lead to the revolution as well as the intellectual
reaction to the overturning of the prior order. It was not as if the English
did not have their own experience in overthrowing kings, but Charles lost his head
but after a Cromwellian interlude, the monarchy was re-established, so the
world order did not change. The French revolution, on the other hand, was one
where as Marx notes “abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeoise property”
(Manifesto 25), where you can point to the same sort of motivation in the
American Revolution as many of the key figures revered as founding fathers were
wealthy landowners. During the eighteenth century, there was a noted move from
an acceptance of the Hobbesian state where any government is good as it is the
intervention in the overwhelming war of all against all. The move to a more Lockean
acceptance of the natural rights of man and his “Life, Liberty, and Property”
being paralleled in the US declaration of independence as “Life, Liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness”. (“Rousseau”). These natural rights stem from a
centering of the self that begins with Descartes’s famous “cogito ergo sum” and
run through to Kant and Rousseau. In his essay “The Mirror, the Lamp, and the
Lens,” reframing Abrams’s dichotomy, Garrett Green centers Kant as the
philosopher of choice in describing the Romantic’s move against the
neoclassicals and their forebears: “ Kant breaks with the long tradition going
back to Plato, according to which the imagination is mimetic, in the unoriginal
business of re-presenting something `original.' Accordingly, for Kant the
imagination takes on an active, as opposed to a merely passive, role; it is no
longer simply dependent on a prior original but assumes an ‘originating' role
of its own” (77). What we see is that
the Romantic subject and poet did not spring forth out of nothing. There were important
political, economic, and philosophic precursors that helped give rise to the Romantic
poets, their form, and structure. Without all the various revolutions going on
around these writers, their crafts and subject matters were an extension of the
self that was created and nurtured at a social level, especially for well-off
men and women who had seen the current order shift under their feet and massive
change that people in our time are used to, but which was only beginning to
accelerate as the centuries turned from the eighteenth to the nineteenth.
Of course, it can feel like a
big hand-wave to say that what Romanticism is was just a reaction to the enlightenment,
the industrial revolution and the French and American political revolutions. It
suggests the Carl Sagan aphorism that to first make a pie from scratch, you must
first create the universe. Those events would have happened and there would have
been some artistic response, there is no Teleology that leads directly to
Romanticism. There was even a worry that the freedom represented in the ideals
of the French Revolutions’ “Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité” were in danger of
regressing in the English Monarchy, as Cook notes in his introduction to
Hazlitt’s work, “The subsequent reversal of a historical process which seemed
to guarantee liberty was accompanied by the collapse of a more patriotic confidence
that Britain was tending toward a state which guaranteed the freedom and equality
of its subjects (“Introduction” xiv). Thankfully for our analysis we do not have to
take these top-down approaches and try to sus out meaning from style and focus,
with the Romantic’s inward subjectivity drawing our attention. The poets and critics
were discussing these issues asking what is poetry and why is it important and
how do we differentiate from poetry and prose? This was more an ongoing conversation,
and less about the creation of a school, as “Romantics did not know that was
what they were.” It was the business of the critics of our age, who have
categorized the romantics into lake
School’ (Wordsworth, Coleridge
and Southey), the
‘Demonic School’ (most notoriously, Byron), the ‘Cockney School’ (Leigh
Hunt and Keats)” (Perry qtd in Zaiter 34). In the last
section of this essay, we will explore these conversations through published
work focusing on Wordsworth and Shelley.
The first thing in looking at works
such as Wordsworth’s “Preface to Lyrical
Ballads” or Shelley’s “Defence of Poetry” is that they act as a sort of ars poetica of the self, and as a larger
defense of the form in general. What we have to avoid as critics is the
intentional fallacy, knowing that the poetic texts these authors write may be reflective
of the intentions, but the work themselves are not fully explained by the
essays. How much their intentions are reflected in an Ozymandias or the
quivering at Mount Blanc in the prelude are outside the scope of this essay,
instead the desire is to look at what they were trying to do – to understand romanticism
through the eyes of the poets themselves as they understood their project.
In his Preface, Wordsworth notes
the same difficulty in a formal introduction and defense as we looked at
earlier, knowing all of the social forces behind his poetry:
For, to treat the subject with
the clearness and coherence of which it is susceptible, it would be necessary
to give a full account of the present state of the public taste in this
country, and to determine how far this taste is healthy or depraved; which,
again, could not be determined, without pointing out in what manner language
and the human mind act and re-act on each other, and without retracing the
revolutions, not of literature alone, but likewise of society itself. (645-6)
But he
does make an effort at showing that his main purpose in writing the poems in
the Lyrical ballads as an attempt to show what is the common life, with
language as “really used by men” (646). What Wordsworth claims to do is to use the
rustic life as the subject matter, because of the rustic life’s greater simplicity,
with a language that is at it most pure as the people living in rustic life are
less influenced by “social vanity” and have less pretentions (647). By writing
with this language and this subject, then the poetry can gain the high explosion
of what makes good poetry to Wordsworth, the “spontaneous overflow of powerful
feelings”(648). He juxtaposes the rustic with the city life, which dumbs people
down, as we saw in many ways with the industrial revolution, “the increasing
accumulation of men in cities, where the uniformity of their occupations
produces a craving for extraordinary incident” (649). For Wordsworth this lowered
diction is important in his task, as he wants to keep it “near the language of
men” (650) and is hammered home at several points in the essay. The author then
turns from looking at the poetic subject and the poetic language to looking at the
role of the poet. For Wordsworth, the poet is one who speaking to man, but with
greater sensitivity: “he has acquired a greater readiness and power in
expressing what he thinks and feels, and especially those thoughts and feelings
which, by his own choice, or from the structure of his own mind, arise in him
without immediate external excitement.” (652). From this rustic language,
telling man the story of man the Poet synthesizes all, “He considers man and
nature as essentially adapted to each other, and the mind of man as naturally
the mirror of the fairest and most interesting properties of nature” (654).The
poet and the poet’s work weaves together all of human society so that everything
is contained in poetry and “Poetry is the first and last of all knowledge”
(655). It becomes a large claim. From looking at the language and events of the
rustic man, to the overflowing feelings to encircling the whole of human knowledge,
if true, it is a heavy burden to carry.
As it is with Woodsworth, so it
is with Shelley. Shelley was writing in
response to Thomas Love Peacock’s “The Four Ages of Poetry,” where Peacock
argue that the Poetic genre more or less begins in golden ages and then
declines down to the age of brass, a retrograde slide to barbarism, a return to
nature, and a “second childhood of poetry” (689). Shelley famously ends his
essay “A Defence of Poetry” with the line “Poets are the unacknowledged legislators
of the world” (717) which ties nicely into the strong claim that Wordsworth makes
for the poets. Shelley’s essay is more wide ranging, making a strong case for a
broader definition of poetry than even Wordsworth allows, to the point of
perhaps being overly broad, as John Ross Baker notes, “What does poetry not
include? Toward the end of the Defence appears the culmination of what has been
implicit all along: there are hardly any limits to "poetry," for
"It is at once the centre and circumference of knowledge" (438). Once
you start to dig, the reader does find other parallels with Wordsworth, as “Man
in society, with all his passions and his pleasures, next becomes the object of
the passions and pleasures of man,” as Shelly tracks man through the mimetic
function of poetry, and there are those can experience the beautiful “in excess
are poets, in the most universal sense of the word; and the pleasure resulting
from the manner in which they express the influence of society or nature upon
their own minds.” This function turns though, through poetry. Where for Woodsworth,
Man was the mirror, for Shelley “poetry is a mirror which makes beautiful that
which is distorted,” it is the revealer of hidden truth and beauty, that which “makes
familiar objects be ass if they were not familiar.” Further, it “communicates
all the pleasure which men are capable of receiving.” Shelly follows Wordsworth
down the path where the poet and poetry are not just the distorted reflection
of the world, but the creators of new knowledge. The port “creates new
materials of knowledge, and power, and pleasure; by the other it engenders in
the mind a desire to reproduce and arrange them according to a certain rhythm and
order which may be called the beautiful and the good.” Also the poets are in parallel
in that the poetic act is spontaneous and cannot be willed, as Shelly says, “A
man cannot say, ‘I will create poetry,’” the overflowing of emotion is not
under control of the active mind but when the poet does “he is the author of
the highest wisdom, pleasure, virtue, and glory”.
What
we see with Woodsworth as well as with Shelly is that an examination of the
poetic form takes the poet from the savage and rustic until the poet is the one
who is inscribing all of the world’s knowledge. Circling back around as we look
at the texts, and try to think of the relationships that is formed between the political
and social milieu and the texts laying out their supposed program, what we find
is an optimism in Shelley and Wordsworth that is not there in the work of
Peacock (depending on how tongue-in-cheek you evaluate his work). By approaching
man at the individual level there remit of the poet grows to encompassing all knowledge.
In another turn the growth of capitalism created a different form of man as the
individual, one who exists as a commoditized worker, so we can see the tension
in the different forms of selves created. The critic can ask again, “What is Romanticism”
and through looking at the texts of Shelley and Wordsworth, we can answer – it
is everything possible between the dirt and the sky but you must start in the
dirt. The problem with that answer is that it does not fit nicely in the
dictionary of literary terms under the proper heading.
Bibliography
Abrams, M H. The Mirror and the
Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1953. Print.
Baker, John Ross. “Poetry and
Language in Shelley's Defence of Poetry.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism, vol. 39, no. 4, 1981, pp. 437–449. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/430243.
Blake, William. “Jerusalem [‘And
Did Those Feet in Ancient Time’] by William Blake.” Poetry Foundation, Poetry
Foundation,
www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/54684/jerusalem-and-did-those-feet-in-ancient-time.
Cuddon, John A., and C. E. Preston.
The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. Penguin Books, 1999.
Eagleton, Terry, and Drew Milne.
Marxist Literary Theory: a Reader. Blackwell Publishers, 2006.
Engels, Friedrich, and David
McLellan. The Condition of the Working Class in England. Oxford University
Press, 2009.
Ford, Thomas H. "The
Romantic Political Economy of Reading: Or, Why Wordsworth Thought Adam Smith
was the Worst Critic Ever." ELH, vol. 80 no. 2, 2013, pp. 575-595. Project
MUSE, doi:10.1353/elh.2013.0023
Garrett Green (2002) The Mirror,
the Lamp, and the Lens, Ars Disputandi, 2:1,119-130, DOI:
10.1080/15665399.2002.10819743
Hazlitt, William, and Jon Cook.
William Hazlitt: Selected Writings. Oxford University Press, 1998.
Marx, Karl, et al. The Communist
Manifesto. Monthly Review Press, 1998.
McEathron, Scott. “Wordsworth,
Lyrical Ballads, and the Problem of Peasant Poetry.” Nineteenth-Century
Literature, vol. 54, no. 1, 1999, pp. 1–26. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2902995.
Peacock, Thomas Love. “The Four
Ages of Poetry”. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 8th ed. Eds.
Vincent B. Leitch et al. Vol A. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.,
2001. 684-694. Print.
‘Rousseau.’ Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/rousseau/.
Smith, Adam. The Wealth of
Nations. Bantam Books, 2003.
Whalley, George. "Preface
to Lyrical Ballads: A Portent." University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 25
no. 4, 1956, pp. 467-483. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/557958.
Wordsworth, William. “Preface to
Lyrical Ballads, with Pastoral and Other Poems.”
The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 8th ed. Eds. Vincent B. Leitch et
al. Vol A. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001. 645-667. Print.
Wordsworth, William. “The
Prelude”. 1805. Ed. Ernest de Selincourt. Oxford University Press 1970
Zaiter, Walid A. “Romanticism in
Context: Shelley’s and Keats’s Verse and Prose: Keats’s Letters and Ode to a
Nightingale, Shelley’s Defense of Poetry and Skylark”. International Journal of
Comparative Literature & Translation Studies; Footscray Vol. 6, Iss. 3, (2018):
34-38. DOI: 10.7575/aiac.ijclts. v.6n.3p.34