A Few Thoughts on Romanticism

Neoclassicism was based on faith in Reason, i.e. there is a rational explanation for everything in life and art. During the 18th Century, faith in reason was supplanted by faith in natural instinct. Beethoven's Glory of God in Nature was a well-ordered consequence of this prevalent attitude. The Enlightenment treated Nature as something to be researched not just with scientific objectivity but also our powers of "appreciation." James Thomson rhapsodizes in The Seasons (1726-30):

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) adds to this view of nature the notion of the "Happy Savage" as the true ideal of Nature: only by stripping away the veneer of Society can man achieve a true purity and equality. "The heart of man is always right..."

With the rise of the middle class came a re-evaluation by Hume, Hegel, etc. of social and political theories that had supported a body politic dominated by "nobility."

Primitive Society came to be regarded by many as the ideal political model, because man was presumed to be free to follow the dictates of his own conscience without political or economic restraints or social structures. Fraternité, Liberté, Egalité! The American and French Revolutions were both consequences of this line of thought--with very different outcomes. Tastes began to change from a desire to see "refinement" to what has become a currently chic desire to see "gansta rappers" behaving badly and "keeping it 'real.'"

Belief in "norms" was supplanted by the notion that truth can only be discovered in the infinite variety of creation. After all, "God created the universe our of himself in order ot more easily contemplate Himself." Ergo, everything in existence is a part of everything else because of their common origins in God. To know the truth one must include as much of creation as possible. Therefore to arrive at "norms" one must include not eliminate detail. This leads directly to Hegel's dialectic since truth must constantly be revised as we examine more and more examples of pieces of creation.

Since all creation has this common origin in God, a thorough examination of any part will provide insight into the whole. Hence the romantic preoccupation with mountains, landscapes--nature at its most primitive and beautiful. In painting, this is perhaps best illustrated by the Hudson River School which lavished great care on astonishingly detailed, albeit idealized portraits of "untouched" wilderness regions around the Hudson River Valley. As Nature reflects God, and by implication Man which was created in His image, so Man reflects Nature; the more unspoiled a thing is, the more suitable it is as an object for examination. This train of thought gave rise to dramas about primitive man rebelling against societal restraints, a preoccupation that is still with us. It also led, ironically, to the "death of God": "I don't see God under this rock with the maggots, because God must be everywhere and He must be beautiful, therefore there can't be a God..."

Since creation is infinite, the human mind cannot totally comprehend it. (A fallacy that mathemeticians will gladly dispel. Mere infinity is easily comprehensible, even manipulatible--mind-boggling, perhaps, to the unimaginative, but comprehensible--it's there for all to contemplate. But I digress.) Anyway, even though creation is infinite and therefore incomprehensible (ahem), there are certain individuals we'll call "geniuses" who can comprehend more of Truth than can ordinary men. Genius (for the Romantic) involves the capacity intuitively to grasp the complexity and immensity of Nature. But because of his special insights, the genius may appear strange, or even dangerous, and so is often treated as an outcast. Being an outcast, thus, became a trait associated with genius and a characteristic to be prized if not revered. Is there any wonder we have built a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame on the shores of beautiful Lake Erie?

The Neoclassicists implied that you could write a "good" play if you followed the rules. This, of course, didn't pan out in practice and the need for a special quality--taste, at first; later, genius--was perceived. Eventually it was generally believed that genius must be free of any and all restrictions; free to make its own laws. Apart from the danger of fostering hybris in the budding genius, the real problem with this concept of "genius" is: who decides? Of course, such a concept is necessarily subjective, so one man's genius may well be another man's kook. Establishing objective criteria for genius is beside the point.

While Romantics believed a "genius" need not follow norms or precepts dictated by others, but merely had to express his own perceptions of truth and reality, Shakespeare's plays became the ideal models. (A norm by any other name...) But, with Lessing leading the way, the Romantics saw in Shakespeare's plays fidelity to Nature and, most important, freedom from restraint. Thus Romantic plays are characterized by a generally loose structure in which the unities of time, place and action (yes, even action) were consciously ignored and even slavishly avoided. Truth, you see, was not something to be examined, but something to be got at intuitively. The conflict between empiricism and revelation was re-engaged and the dialectic coughed up the intuition of genius.

Practicalities of the stage were likewise rejected, so many works imagined for the stage were never produced.

The Neoclassic notion of verisimilitude was firmly rejected. Emphasis shifted from "real life" happenings to the supernatural and the mysterious which were, after all, parts of the totality of existence. Ghosts, witches, prophecies, curses, coincidence and Providence became basic elements. Classical sources were supplanted by medieval tales, national and local legends, folk heroes, tales of rebellion, etc. Themes centered on an individual's (and by extension man's) quest to find the secret of all being, or peace of mind, or to achieve freedom of ideals or behavior.