Lovejoy - On The Discrimination of Romanticisms

On the Discrimination of Romanticisms
Author(s): Arthur O. Lovejoy

Source: PMLA, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Jun., 1924), pp. 229-253
Published by: Modern Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/457184
Accessed: 11-03-2015 12:10 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:10:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PUBLICATIONS
OF THE
Modern Language Association

of America
VOL. XXXIX, 2 JUNE, 1924
XI. ON THE DISCRIMINATION OF

ROMANTICISMS'
I
We approach a centenarynot, perhaps,whollyundeserving
ofnoticeon the partofthislearnedcompany. It was apparently
in 1824 that those respectedcitizensof La-Ferte-sous-Jouarre,
MM. Dupuis and Cotonet,began an enterprisewhichwas to
cause them,as is recorded,"twelveyearsof suffering," and to
end in disillusionment-theenterpriseof discoveringwhat
Romanticismis, by collectingdefinitions and characterizations
of it given by eminentauthorities. I conjecture,therefore,
that one of the purposesof the Committeein invitingme to
speak on this subject was perhaps to promotea Dupuis and
Cotonet CentennialExhibition,in whichthe later varietiesof
definitionsof Romanticism,the fruit of a hundred years'
industryon thepart ofliterarycriticsand professors of modern
literature,mightbe at least in part displayed. Certainlythere
is no lack of material; the contemporarycollectorof such
articles,while payingtributeto theassiduityand thesufferings
of those worthypioneersof a centuryago, will chieflyfeel an
envious sense of the relativesimplicityof theirtask. He will
find,also, that the apparentincongruity of the sensesin which
the termis employedhas fairiykeptpace withtheirincreasein
number;and that the singularpotencywhichthe subject has
fromthe firstpossessedto excitecontroversy and breeddivisions
has in no degreediminishedwiththe lapse of years.
1 An addressdeliveredby invitationat the fortieth
Annual Meeting of the
Modem Language Associationof America,December 27, 1923.
229
230 ARTHUR 0. LOVEJOY
For if some Dupuis of to-daywere to gather,first,merelya

fewof the morerecentaccountsof theoriginand age ofRoman-
ticism,he would learnfromM. Lasserre2and manyothersthat
Rousseau was the fatherof it; from Mr. Russell3and Mr.
Santayana4that the honor of paternitymightplausibly be
claimed by Immanuel Kant; from M. Seilli're that its grand-
parents were Fenelon and Madame Guyon;5fromProfessor
Babbitt that its earliestwell-identified forebearwas Francis
Bacon;6fromMr. Gosse that it originatedin the bosom of the
ReverendJosephWarton;7 fromthe late ProfessorKer that it
had "its beginningsin the seventeenth-century" or a little
earlier,in such books as "the Arcadia or the GrandCyrus"8;
fromMr. J. E. G. de Montmorencythat it "was born in the
eleventh century,and sprang fromthat sense of aspiration
whichruns through the Anglo-French, or rather,the Anglo-
Norman Renaissance"9; from Professor Grierson that St.
Paul's "irruption into Greek religious thought and Greek
prose" was an essential example of "a romanticmovement,"
though the "firstgreat romantic"was Plato;iO and fromMr.
Charles Whibleythat the Odyssey is romanticin its "very
textureand essence" but that,withits rival,Romanticismwas
"born in the Gardenof Eden" and that "the Serpentwas the
firstromantic.""ilThe inquirerwould, at the same time,find
thatmany of theseoriginators ofRomanticism-including both
the firstand last mentioned,whom,indeed,somecontemporaries
are unable to distinguish-figure on otherlists as initiatorsor
representativesof tendenciesof preciselythe contrarysort.
These differing versionsof theage and lineageofRomanticism
are matched by a corresponding diversityin the descriptions
offeredby thoseof our timewho have givenspecial care to the
1919,p.
2Le Romantismefranpais, 141andpassim.
Jour.ofPhilosophy,XIX (1922),645.
4 Egotismin GermanPhilosophy, pp. 11-20,54-64.
5 Mme Gziyon etFenelonprecurseurs de Rousseau, 1918.
6 "Schiller and Romanticism"; Mod. Lang. Notes, XXXVII, 267, n. 28.
' Proc. Brit. Acad., 1915-16,pp. 146-7.
8 The Art ofPoetry,1923,pp. 79-80.
9Contemporary Review,April,1919,p. 473.

Classical and Romantic,1923,pp. 32,31.
1 Editor'sIntroduction to Essays in RomanticLiteratureby GeorgeWynd-
ham,1919,p. xxxiii.
THE DISCRIMINATION OF ROMANTICISMS 231
observationof it. For ProfessorKer Romanticismwas "the

fairyway ofwriting,"'2 and forMr. Gosse it is inconsistentwith
"keeping to the facts";'3 but for Mr. F. Y. Eccles'4 (following
M. Pellissier) "the romanticsystem of ideas" is the direct
sourceof "the realisticerror,"of the tendencyto conceiveof
psychologyas "the dry notationof purelyphysiologicalphe-
nomena" and consequentlyto reducethe novel and the drama
to the descriptionof "the automaton-likegesturesof la bate
humaine." To Professor Ker, again, "romantic" implied
"reminiscence": "the romanticschoolshave always depended
moreor less on the past."'5 SimilarlyMr. Geoffrey Scott finds
"its most typicalform"to be "the cult of the extinct."'6 But
ProfessorSchellingtellsus that "the classic temperstudiesthe
past, the romantic temper neglects it; .... . it leads us
forwardand createsnew precedents."'17 Mr. Paul More defines
Romanticismas "the illusionof beholdingthe infinitewithin
thestreamofnatureitself,insteadofapartfromthatstream"-
in short,as an apotheosis of the cosmic flux;'8but a special
student of German Romanticismcites as typical Romantic
utterancesFriedrichSchlegel's "alles Sichtbare hat nur die
Wahrheiteiner Allegorie,"and Goethe's "alles Vergangliche
ist nur ein Gleichnis."'l9 From M. Seilliere'smost celebrated
workit appears that the Romantic mind tends to be affected
with an inferiority-complex, "une impressiond'incompletude,
de solitudemorale,et presqued'angoisse";20 fromotherpassages
of the same writerwe learnthat Romanticismis the "imperial-
istic" mood,whetherin individualsor nations-a too confident
assertionof the will-to-power, arisingfrom"the mysticfeeling
that one's activities have the advantages of a celestiaLal-
liance."'" The functionof the human mind which is to be
12 The ArtofPoetry,p. 79.

13 Aspectsand Impressions,1922,p. 5.
14 La Liquidationdu
Romantisme, 1199,pp. 14 f.
u The ArtofPoetry,p. 50.
16 The
Architectureof Humanism,1914,p. 39.
17 P. M. L. A., XIII, 222.
18 The DriftofRomanticism, 1913,pp. xiii,247.

19Marie Joachimi,Die Weltanschauung derRomantik,1905,p. 52.
20 Le mal
romantique, 1908,p. vii.
21 Cf. R.
Gillouin,Une nouvellephilosophiede l'histoiremi-oderne
etfranpaise,
1921,pp. 6 ff;SeiliUre,Le pdrilmystique, etc. pp. 2-6.
regardedas peculiarly"romantic" is for some "the heart as

opposed to the head,"22forothers,"the Imagination,as con-
trastedwithReason and the Sense of Fact"23-whichI take to
be ways of expressinga by no means synonymouspair of
psychologicalantitheses.Typicalmanifestations ofthe-spiritual
essenceof Romanticismhave been variouslyconceivedto be a
passion formoonlight,forred waistcoats,forGothicchurches,
for futuristpaintings;24 for talking exclusivelyabout oneself,
forhero-worship, forlosingoneselfin an ecstaticcontemplation
of nature.
The offspring with which Romanticismis credited are as
strangelyassortedas its attributesand its ancestors. It is by
differenthistorians-sometimes by the same historians-
supposed to have begotten the French Revolution and the
OxfordMovement;the Returnto Rome and the Returnto the
State of Nature; the philosophyof Hegel, the philosophyof
Schopenhauer,and the philosophyof Nietzsche-than which
few other three philosophiesmore nearly exhaust the rich
possibilitiesof philosophicdisagreement;the revival of neo-
Platonicmysticismin a Coleridgeor an Alcott,the Emersonian
transcendentalism,and scientificmaterialism; Wordsworth
and Wilde; Newman and Huxley; the Waverley novels, the
Com&dieHumaine, and Les Rougon-Macquart. M. Seillibre
and Professor Babbitt have been especiallyactive in tracingthe
progenyof Romanticismin thepast century;the extraordinary
numberand stillmoreextraordinary diversityofthedescendants
of it discoveredby theirresearchesare knownto all here,and it
therefore suffices
to referto theirworksforfurtherexamples.
All this is a mere hint,a suggestionby means of random
samples, of the richness of the collection which might be
broughttogetherfor our CentennialExposition. The result
is a confusionof terms,and of ideas, beside whichthat of a
hundredyears ago-mind-shakingthoughit was to the honest
inquirersof La-Ferte-sous-Jouarre-seems pure lucidity. The
word "romantic"has come to mean so many thingsthat, by
itself,it meansnothing. It has ceased to performthe function
ofa verbalsign. Whena man is asked,as I have had thehonor
" Wernaer,Romanticismand theRomanticSchoolin Germany, p. 3.
23Neilson,EssentialsofPoetry,1912,ch. III.
24For the last mentioned,cf. Gosse in Proc. Brit. Acad., 1915-16,p. 151.
of being asked, to discuss Romanticism,it is impossibleto

know what ideas or tendencieshe is to talk about, whenthey
are supposedto have flourished, or in whomtheyare supposed
to be chieflyexemplified.Perhaps thereare some who think
the rich ambiguityof the word not regrettable. In 1824, as
Victor Hugo then testified,therewere those who preferred to
leave a ce mot de romantiqueun certainvaguefantastiqueet
indefinissable qui en redoublel'lorreur;and it may be that the
taste is not extinct. But forone of the philosopher'strade,at
least,thesituationis embarrassing and exasperating;forphiloso-
phers,in spite of a popular beliefto the contrary,are persons
who sufferfroma morbidsolicitudeto know preciselywhat
theyare talkingabout.
Least of all does it seem possible,while the presentuncer-
taintyconcerningthenatureand locusofRomanticismprevails,
to take sides in the controversywhichstillgoes on so briskly
withrespectto its merits,the characterof its generalinfluence
upon art and life. To do so wouldbe too muchlike consenting
to sit on a jury to trya criminalnot yet identified, fora series
of apparentlyincompatiblecrimes,beforea bench of learned
judges engagedin accusingone anotherof beingaccessoriesto
whatevermischiefhas been done. It is to be observed,for
example, that Messrs. Lasserre, Seilliere,Babbitt and More
(to mentionno others) are agreed in holdingthat something
called Romanticismis the chief cause of the spiritualevils
fromwhichthe nineteenthcenturyand our own have suffered;
but that theyrepresentat least threedifferent opinionsas to
what theseevilsare and how theyare to be remedied. M. Las-
serre,identifying Romanticismwith the essentialspiritof the
French Revolution,findsthe chiefcause of our woes in that
movement'sbreachwiththepast,in its discardingoftheancient
traditionsof European civilization;and he consequentlyseeks
the cure in a returnto an olderfaithand an olderpoliticaland
social order,and in an abandonmentof the optimisticfatalism
generatedby the idea ofprogress. M. Seilliere,however,holds
that "the spiritof the Revolutionin thatin whichit is rational,
Stoic,Cartesian,classical . . . . is justified,enduring,assured
of makingits way in the world more and more";25 and that,
'6 Le mal rmnantique,p. xli.
consequently,the ill name of Romanticismshould be applied

to the revolutionarymovementonly where it has deviated
from its true course, in "the social mysticism,the com-
munisticsocialismofthepresenttime." He therefore intimates
that the schoolof opinionwhichM. Lasserreably representsis
itselfa varietyof Romanticism.26But it is equallycertainthat
M. Seilliere'sown philosophyis one of the varietiesof Roman-
ticismdefinedby Mr. Babbitt and Mr. More; while Mr. Bab-
bitt,in turn,has been declaredby morethan one of the critics
of his last brilliantbook, and would necessarilybe held by
M. Seilliere, to set forth therein an essentially Romantic
philosophy. Thus ProfessorHerford days of it (justly or
otherwise)that its "temperis not that cf a 'positivist'of any
school, but of a mystic,"and that "it is as foreignto Homer
and Sophocles,the exemplarsof true classicismif any are, as
it is to Aristotle."27
What, then,can be done to clear up, or to diminish,this
confusionofterminology and ofthoughtwhichhas fora century
been the scandal of literaryhistoryand criticism,and is still,
as it would not be difficult to show, copiouslyproductiveof
historicalerrorsand of dangerouslyundiscriminating diagnoses
of the moraland aestheticmaladiesof our age? The one really
radical remedy-namely,thatwe shouldall cease talkingabout
Romanticism-is, I fear,certainnot to be adopted. It would
probablybe equally futileto attemptto prevailupon scholars
and criticsto restricttheiruse ofthetermto a singleand reason-
ably well-definedsense. Such a proposal would only be the
starting-pointof a new controversy. Men, and especially
philologists,will doubtlessgo on usingwordsas theylike,how-
ever much annoyance they may cause philosophersby this
unchartered freedom. There are, however, two possible
historicalinquirieswhich,if carriedout more thoroughlyand
carefullythan has yet been done, would,I think,do much to
rectifythepresentmuddle,and wouldat thesame timepromote
a clearerunderstanding of the generalmovementof ideas, the
26
"I1 y a m6mebeaucoup de romantiquedans la fagondont le combattent
certainstraditionalistes
imprudents,dont M. Lasserreparait avoir quelquefois
kcout6les suggestionsdangereuses"(loc. cit.).
27 Essays and Studies by Membersof theEnglish Association,VIII (1923),
113.
logical and psychologicalrelationsbetweenthe chiefepisodes

and transitions, in modernthoughtand taste.
One of these measureswould be somewhatanalogous to the
procedure of contemporarypsychopathologists in the treat-
mentof certaintypesof disorder. It has been foundthat some
mental disturbancescan be cured or alleviatedby makingthe
patient explicitlyaware of the genesis of his troublesome
"complex," i.e., by enablinghim to reconstruct thoseprocesses
of association of ideas throughwhich it was formed. The
result of such analysisis sometimesa disassociationof a very
benignsort. Similarlyin thepresentcase, I think,it wouldbe
useful to trace the associative processes throughwhich the
word "romantic" has attained its presentamazing diversity,
and consequentuncertainty, of connotationand denotation;in
otherwords,to carryout an adequate semasiologicalstudyof
theterm. For one ofthefewthingscertainabout Romanticism
is that the name of it offersone of the mostcomplicated,fas-
cinating,and instructiveof all problemsin semantics. It is, in
short, a part of the task of the historianof ideas, when he
applies himselfto thestudyofthethingor thingscalledRoman-
ticism,to renderit, if possible,psychologicallyintelligiblehow
such manifoldand discrepantphenomenahave all come to
receive one name. Such an analysis would,I am convinced,
show us a large mass of purelyverbal confusionsoperativeas
actual factorsin the movementof thoughtin the past century
and a quarter; and it would, by making these confusions
explicit,make it easierto avoid them.
But this inquiry would in practice,for the most part, be
inseparablefroma second,whichis the remedythat I wish,
on this occasion, especiallyto recommend. The firststep in
thissecondmode of treatmentof the disorderis thatwe should
learn to use the word "Romanticism"in the plural. This, of
course, is already the practise of the more cautious and ob-
servantliteraryhistorians,in so faras theyrecognizethat the
"Romanticism"ofone countrymayhave littlein commonwith
that of another,and at all events ought to be definedin dis-
tinctiveterms. But the discrimination of the Romanticisms
whichI have in mind is not solely or chieflya divisionupon
lines of nationalityor language. What is needed is that any
study of the subject should begin with a recognition of a
primafaciepluralityof Romanticisms, ofpossiblyquite distinct

thought-complexes, a number of which may appear in one
country. There is no hope of clear thinkingon thepart of the
studentof modernliterature,if-as, alas! has been repeatedly
done by eminentwriters--hevaguely hypostatizesthe term,
and starts with the presumptionthat "Romanticism"is the
heaven-appointed designationof somesinglereal entity,ortype
of entities,to be foundin nature. He must set out fromthe
simpleand obviousfactthat thereare varioushistoricepisodes
or movementsto whichdifferent historiansof our own or other
periodshave, forone reasonor another,giventhename. There
is a movementwhich began in Germanyin the seventeen-
nineties-the only one which has an indisputabletitle to be
called Romanticism,since it invented the term for its own
use. Thereis anothermovementwhichbeganprettydefinitelyv
in England in the seventeen-forties.There is a movement
whichbegan in France in 1801. There is anothermovement
whichbegan in France in the second decade of the century,is
linkedwiththe Germanmovement,and took over the German
name. There is the richand incongruouscollectionof ideas to
be found in Rousseau. There are numerous other things
called Romanticismby various writerswhom I cited at the
outset. The fact that the same name has been given by
different scholarsto all of these episodes is no evidence,and
scarcelyeven establishesa presumption, that theyare identical
in essentials. There may be some least commondenominator
of themall; but if so, it has neveryet been clearlyexhibited,
arLdits presenceis not to be assumed a priori. In any case,
each of these so-called Romanticismswas a highlycomplex
and usually an exceedinglyunstable intellectualcompound;
each, in otherwords,was made up of variousunit-ideaslinked
together,forthe most part, not by any indissolublebonds of
logical necessity,but by alogical associativeprocesses,greatly
facilitatedand partlycaused, in the case of the Romanticisms
whichgrewup afterthe appellation'Romantic' was invented,
by the congenitaland acquired ambiguitiesof the word. And
when certainof these Romanticismshave in truthsignificant
elementsin common,theyare not necessarilythesame elements
in any two cases. RomanticismA may have one characteristic
presupposition or impulse,X, whichit shareswithRomanticism
B, another characteristic,Y, which it shares with Roman-

ticismC, to whichX is whollyforeign. In the case, moreover,
of those movementsor schoolsto whichthe label was applied
in their own time, the contentsunder the label sometimes
changedradicallyand rapidly. At the end of a decade or two
you had the same men and the same party appellation,but
profoundly ideas. As everyoneknows,thisis precisely
different
what happened in the case of what is called French Roman-
ticism. It may or may not be truethat,as M. A. Viatte has
recentlysoughtto show,28 at thebeginning ofthisprocessoftrans-
formationsome subtleleaven was alreadyat workwhichmade
the finaloutcomeinevitable;the fact remainsthat in most of
itspracticallysignificantsympathiesand affiliations ofa literary,
ethical,political,and religioussort,the French"Romanticism"
oftheeighteen-thirties was theantithesisofthatofthebeginning
of the century.
But the essentialof the second remedyis that each of these
Romanticisms-afterthey are firstthusroughlydiscriminated
withrespectto theirrepresentatives or theirdates-should be
resolved,by a more thoroughand discerninganalysis than is
yet customary,into its elements-into the several ideas and
aestheticsusceptibilitiesof whichit is composed. Only after
thesefundamentalthought-factors in it are clearlydiscriminated
and fairlyexhaustivelyenumerated,shall we be in a positionto
judge of the degree of its affinitywith other complexes to
whichthe same name has been applied, to see preciselywhat
tacit preconceptionsor controllingmotivesor explicitconten-
tionswere commonto any two or moreof them,and wherein
theymanifesteddistinctand divergenttendencies.
II
Of the needfulnessof such analytic comparisonand dis-
criminationof the Romanticismslet me attemptthreeillustra-
tions.
1. In an interestinglecturebeforethe BritishAcademya
fewyearssince,Mr. Gosse describedJosephWarton'syouthful
poem, TheEnthusiast, writtenin 1740,as thefirstclearmanifest-
ation of "the greatromanticmovement,such as it has enlarged
and dwindleddown to our day . . . . Here forthe firsttime
28 chezles Romantiques,1922.
Le Catholicisme
we find unwaveringlyemphasized and repeated what was

entirelynew in literature,the essence of romantichysteria.
The Enthusiastis the earliest expressionof complete revolt
against the classical attitudewhichhad been sovereignin all
European literaturefor nearly a century. So completelyis
this expressedby JosephWartonthat it is extremelydifficult
to realizethat he could not have come underthe fascinationof
Rousseau, .... who was not to writeanythingcharacteristic
until ten years later."29 Let us, then,comparethe ideas dis-
tinctiveof thispoem withthe conceptionof romantische Poesie
formulatedby FriedrichSchlegeland his fellow-Romanticists
in Germanyafter1796. The two have plainlycertaincommon
elements. Both are formsof revolt against the neo-classical
aesthetics;bothare partlyinspiredby an ardentadmirationfor
Shakespeare;both proclaimthe creativeartist'sindependence
of "rules." It mightat firstappear, therefore,that these two
Romanticisms,in spiteofnaturaldifferences ofphraseology, are
identicalin essence-are separateoutcroppings ofthesame vein
of metal,preciousor base, accordingto yourtaste.
But a morecarefulscrutinyshowsa contrastbetweenthem
not less important-indeed,as it seemsto me, moreimportant
-than their resemblance. The general theme of Joseph
Warton'spoem (of which,it will be remembered, the sub-title
is "The Lover of Nature") is one whichhad been a common-
place fortwo centuries: the superiorityof "nature" to "art."
It is a themewhichgoes back to Rabelais's contrastof Physis
and Antiphysie. It had been the inspirationof some of the
most famous passages of Montaigne. Pope's Essay on Man
had been fullofit. The "natural" in contrastwiththeartificial
meant, firstof all, that which is not man-made;and within
man's life,it was supposed to consistin those expressionsof
human nature which are most spontaneous,unpremeditated,
untouchedby reflection or design,and freefromthe bondageof
social convention. "Ce n'est pas raison," cried Montaigne,
"que l'art gagne le point d'honneursur notregrande et puis-
sante m6re Nature. Nous avons tant rechargela beaut6 et
richessede ses ouvragespar nos inventions,que nous l'avons
tout a fait etouffee." There follows,the locus classicus of
primitivismin modernliterature,the famous passage on the
29
"Two Pioneers of Romanticism,"Proc. Brit. Acad., 1915, pp. 146-8.
superiorityof wild fruitsand savage men over those that have

been "bastardized" by art.30
Warton,then,presentsthis ancientthemein variousaspects.
He prefersto all the beautiesof the gardensof Versailles
Somepine-topt
precipice
Abruptandshaggy;
he rhetorically
inquires:
Can KentdesignlikeNature?
He laments
Thatluxuryandpomp . . .
Shouldproudly
banishNature'ssimplecharms.
He inquireswhy "mistakenman" shoulddeemit nobler
To dwellin palacesand high-roof'd
halls
Thanin God'sforests,architect
supreme.
All this,if I may be permittedthe expression,was old stuff.
The principal thing that was originaland significantin the
poem was that Warton boldly applied the doctrineof the
superiorityof "nature" over conscious art to the theoryof
poetry:
Whatare thelaysofartful
Addison,
to Shakespeare's
Coldlycorrect, wild?
warblings
That Nature herselfwas wild,untamed,was notorious,almost
tautological; and it was Shakespeare'ssupposed "wildness,"
his non-conformity to the conventionalrules,the spontaneous
freedomof his imaginationand his expression,thatprovedhim
Nature's true pupil.
Now this aestheticinferencehad not,duringtheneo-classical
period,ordinarilybeen drawnfromthe currentassumptionof
the superiorityof nature to art. The principleof "following
nature"had in aestheticsusually been taken in another,or in
morethan one other,of the severaldozen sensesof the sacred
word.31 Yet in otherprovincesof thoughtan analogous in-
ferencehad long sinceand repeatedlybeensuggested. Fromthe
30Essais,I, 31. Thereisa certain

irony inthefactthatthesortofnaturalism
hereexpressed byMontaigne wasto be thebasisofa Shakespeare-revival
inthe
eighteenthcentury.For Shakespeare's ownextreme antipathy
to thepassage
is shownby thefactthathe wrotetworepliesto it-a humorous onein The
Tempest,a seriousandprofound onein TheWinter's Tate.
firstthefashionofconceivingof "nature" (in the sense in which

it was antitheticto "art") as normhad made forantinomianism,
in some degreeor other-fora depreciationof restraint,for the
ideal of"lettingyourself go." Thereseemsto be an idea current
thatan antinomiantemperwas, at sometimein the eighteenth
century,introducedinto aesthetictheoryand artistic practise
by some Romanticist,and that it thence speedily spread to
moral feelingand social conduct.32The historicsequence is
preciselythe opposite. It was Montaigneagain-not usually
classifiedas a Romanticist-who wrote:
J'ai pris bien simplementet crement ce pr6cepte ancien: 'que nous ne
saurionsfailliri suivreNature' . . . Je n'ai pas corrig6,commeSocrate,par
la forcede la raison,mes complexionsnaturelles,je n'ai aucunementtroubl6,
par art, mon inclination;je me laisse aller commeje suis venu; je ne combats
rien.33
It was Pope who asked:
Can that offendgreatNature's God
WhichNature's selfinspires?
and who spoke of
Wild Nature's vigorworkingat the root
as the source of thepassionsin whichall the originaland vital

energiesof menare contained.
Aside froma certainheighteningof theemotionaltone,then,
the chiefnoveltyof Warton's poem lay in its suggestingthe
applicationof theseideas to a fieldfromwhichthey had been
curiouslyand inconsistently excluded,in its introductionof
antinomianism,of a rathermild sort,into the conceptionof
poetic excellence.34But this extensionwas obviouslyimplicit
31 This is not rhetoricalexaggeration;at least sixty differentsenses or
applicationsof the notion of "nature" as norm can be clearly distinguished.
12 So apparentlyMr. Gosse: "When the historyof the [Romantic]school
comes to be written,there will be a piquancy in tracingan antinomianism
down fromthe blamelessWarton to the hedonistessays of Oscar Wilde and
the frenziedanarchismof the futurists"(op. cit.,p. 15).
8t Essais,III. 12.
J4The title of the poem and some elementsof its thoughtand feeling-
especiallyits note of religious"enthusiasm"for "Nature" in the sense of the
visible universe-are akin to, and probably derivative from,Shaftesbury's
Moralists. But in Shaftesburythere is no oppositionof "nature" to "art"
and no antinomianstrain, either ethical or aesthetic; "decorum," "order,"
"balance," and "proportion"are amonghis favoritewords.
fromthe outsetin thelogic of thatprotean"naturalism"which

had been the most characteristicand potent forcein modern
thoughtsince the late Renaissance; it was bound to be made
by somebody sooner or later. Nor was Warton's the first
aestheticapplicationoftheprinciple;it had alreadybeenapplied
to an art in the theoryand practice of which eighteenth-
centuryEnglishmenwere keenlyinterested-theart of land-
scape design. The firstgreat revolt against the neo-classical
aesthetics was not in literatureat all, but in gardening;the
second, I think,was in architecturaltaste; and all threewere
inspiredby the same ideas. Since, the "artfulAddison" had
observed, "artificialworks receive a greateradvantage from
their resemblanceof such as are natural," and since Nature is
distinguishedby her "rough,carelessstrokes,"the layer-outof
gardensshouldaim at "an artificialrudenessmuchmorecharm-
ing than that neatnessand elegancyusuallymetwith."35 This
horticulturalRomanticismhad been preachedlikewiseby Sir
William Temple, Pope, Horace Walpole, Batty Langley, and
others,and ostensiblyexemplified in the workof Kent, Brown,
and Bridgeman. Warton in the poem in question describes
Kent as at least doing his best to imitatein his gardensthe
wildness of Nature:
He, by rulesunfettered,boldlyscorns
Formalityand method;roundand square
Disdaining,plans irregularly
great.
It was no far cryfromthis to the rejectionof the rulesin the

drama, to a revulsionagainst the strait-lacedregularityand
symmetryof the heroiccouplet,to a generalturningfromcon-
vention,formality, method,artifice,in all thearts.
There had, however,fromthe firstbeen a curiousdualityof
meaningin the antithesisof "nature" and "art"-one of the
most pregnantof the long successionof confusionsof ideas
whichmake up muchof the historyof humanthought. While
the "natural" was, on the one hand,conceivedas the wild and
spontaneousand "irregular,"it was also conceivedas thesimple,
the naif, the unsophisticated.No twowordsweremorefixedly
associated in the mindof the sixteenth,seventeenthand early
eighteenth centuries than "Nature" and "simple." Con-
1*Spectator,No. 144.
sequently the idea of preferring nature to customand to art

usually carriedwithit the suggestionofa programofsimplifica-
tion, of reformby elimination;in other words, it implied
primitivism. The "natural"was a thingyou reachedby going
back and by leaving out. And this association of ideas-
already obvious in Montaigne,in Pope, and scores of other
extollersof "Nature"--is still conspicuousin Warton'spoem
It was the "bards of old" who were "fair Nature's friends."
The poet envies
The firstof men,ere yet confined
In smokycities.
le yearnsto dwellin some

Isles of innocencefrommortalview
Deeply retiredbeneatha plantane'sshade,
WhereHappiness and Quiet sit enthroned,
With simpleIndian swains.
For one termof the comparison,then, I limit myself,for

brevity'ssake, to thispoem to whichMr. Gossehas assignedso
importanta place in literaryhistory. There were,of course,
even in the writingsof the elder Warton,and still more in
other phenomenafrequentlycalled "Romantic," betweenthe
1740's and the 1790's,furtherelementswhich cannot be con-
sidered here. There is observable,forexample,in what it has
become the fashionto classifyas the earlyphases of English
Romanticism,the enmergence of what may be called gothicism,
and the curious fact of its partial and temporaryfusionwith
naturalism. It is one oftheinteresting problemsoftheanalytic
historyofideas to see just how and whynaturalismand gothic-
ism became allied in theeighteenthcenturyin England,though
little,ifat all, in France. But forthepresentpurposeit suffices
to take The Enthusiastas typical,in one especiallyimportant
way, of a great deal of the so-called Romanticismbeforethe
seventeen-nineties-a Romanticism,namely,which,whatever
further characteristicsit may have had, was based upon
naturalism(in the sense of the word whichI have indicated)
and was associated withprimitivism of some mode or degree.
2. For in thisfundamentalpoint this earlier"Romanticism"
differedessentiallyfromthat of the Germanaesthetictheorists
and poets who chose the term"Romanticpoetry"as the most
suiitabledesignationfortheirown literaryideals and program.

The latter"Romanticism"is in its veryessencea denial of the
older naturalisticpresuppositions,which Warton's poem had
manifestedin a specialand somewhatnovelway. The German
movementreceivedits immediateand decisive impetusfrom
Schiller's essay On Naive and Sentimental Poetry;and what it
derived from that confused work was the convictionthat
"harmonywith natlure,"in any sensewhichimpliedan opposi-
tion to "culture," to "art," to reflectionand self-conscious
effort, was neitherpossiblenordesirableforthe modernman or
the modernartist.36The Friihromantiker learnedfromSchiller
the idea of an art whichshouldlook back no moreto theprimi-
tive than to the classical-the notionsof which,incidentally,
Schillerhad curiouslyfused-for its modelsand ideals; which
should be the appropriateexpression,not of a natiirliche
but of
a kiinstliche Bildung;which,so farfromdesiringsimplification,
so farfromaimingat the sortof harmonyin art and lifewhich
is to be attained by the methodof leaving out, should seek
firstfullnessofcontent,shouldhaveforitsprogramtheadequate
expressionof the entirerange of human experienceand the
entirereach ofthehumanimagination. For man,theartificial,
Friedrich Schlegel observed,is "natural." "Die Abstraktion
ist ein kiinstlicher
Zustand. Dies istkeinGrundgegensie,denn
es ist dem Menschen gewiss natiirlich,sich dann und wann
auch in kiinstlicheZustandezu versetzen." And again: "Eine
nur im Gegensatzder Kunst und Bildungnatuirliche Denkart
soll es gar nichtgeben." To be unsophisticated,to revertto
the mentalstate of "simpleIndian swains,"was theleast of the
ambitionsof a GermanRomantic-though,sincethe unsophis-
ticated is one typeof humancharacter,his art was not,at least
in theory,indifferent even to that. The Shakespearewhomhe
admired was no giftedchild of natureaddicted to "warblings
wild." Shakespeare,said A. W. Schlegel,is not "ein blindes
wildlaufendesGenie;" he had "a systemin his artisticpractise
and an astonishinglyprofoundand deeply meditated one."
The same criticstemsto be consciouslyattackingeitherJoseph
Warton's or Gray's famouslines about Shakespearewhen he
writes: "Those poets whom it is customaryto representas
36 Cf. the
writer's"Schillerand the Genesis of Romanticism,"Mod. Lang.
Notes,XXXV. 1-9, 136-146.
carefreenurslirngs of nature,withoutart and withoutschooling,

if they produce worksof genuineexcellence,give evidenceof
exceptional cultivation (Kultur) of their mental powers, of
practisedart, of ripelyponderedand just designs." The great-
ness of Shakespeare,in the eyes of theseRomantics,lay in his
Universalitat,his sophisticatedinsightinto humannatureand
the many-sidedness of his portrayalof character;it was this,
as FriedrichSchlegelsaid, that made him "wie der Mittelpunkt
der romantischenKunst." It may be added that another
traitofthe Romanticismfoundby Mr. Gossein JosephWarton,
namely,the feelingthat didacticpoetryis not poetic,was also
repudiated by early German Romanticism: "How," asked
F. Schlegelagain, "can it be said that ethics(die Moral) belongs
merelyto philosophy,whenthe greatestpart of poetryrelates
to the art of livingand to the knowledgeof human nature?"37
The difference,then, I suggest,is more significant,more
pregnant,than the likenessbetweenthese two Romanticisms.
Between the assertionof the superiority of "nature" over con-
scious "art" and that of the superiorityof consciousart over
mere"nature"; betweena way ofthinking ofwhichprimitivism
is of the essence and one of whichthe idea of perpetualself-
transcendenceis of the essence; betweena fundamentalpre-
ferenceforsimplicity-eventhougha "wild" simplicity-anda
fundamentalpreferencefordiversityand complexity;between
the sort of ingenuousnaivete characteristicof The Enthusiast
and the sophisticatedsubtletyof the conceptionof romantic
irony: betweenthese the antithesisis one of the most radical
that modernthoughtand taste have to show. I don't deny
anyone's right to call both these thingsRomanticism,if he
likes; but I cannotbut observethat the fashionof givingboth
thesame namehas led to a good deal ofunconsciousfalsification
of the historyof ideas. The elementsof the one Romanticism
tendto be read intothe other;thenatureand profundity of the
oppositions between them tend to be overlooked; and the
relativeimportanceof the different changesof preconceptions
in modernthought,and of susceptibilitiesin modern taste,
37 Quotations in this paragraphfromF. Schlegel are fromAthenaeum, II,

1, p. 29; III, 1, p. 12; I, 2, p. 68; III, 1, p. 19. Those fromA. W. Schlegelhave
alreadybeencitedby Marie Joachimi,Weltanschauung der Romantik,pp. 179-
183.
tendsto be wronglyestimated. I shall not attemptto cite here

what seem to me examples of such historicalerrors;but the
sum of themis, I think,farfromnegligible.
Between the "Romanticism" which is but a special and
belated manifestationof the naturalismthat dates fromthe
Renaissance,and the"Romanticism"whichbegan at theend of
the eighteenthcenturyin Germany(as well as that whichap-
peareda littlelaterin France) thereis anotherdifference
notless
significant. This is due to the identificationof the meaning
of "Romantic" in the later movementwith "Christian"-and
mainlywiththe medievalimplicationsof the latter term. This
was not the centralidea in the originalnotion of "Romantic
poetry"as conceivedby FriedrichSchlegel. Primarily, as I have
elsewheretriedto show,3"the adjective meantforhim and the
entire school "das eigentiimlichModerne" in contrastwith
"das eigentiimlichAntike." But it early occurred to him
that the historiccause of the supposed radical differentiation
of modernfromclassical art could lie only in the influenceof
Christianity. He wrotein 1796, beforehis own conversionto
what he had already definedas the "romantic,"i.e., modern,
point of view:
So lacherlichund geschmacklossichdiesesTrachtennach dem Reich Gottes
in der christlichen
Poesie offenbarenmochte;so wirdes demGeschichtsforscher
doch eine sehr merkwilrdigeErscheinung,wenn er gewahr wird, dass eben
dieses Streben, das absolut Vollkommneund Unendlichezu realisiren, eine
unterdemunaufhorlichen WechselderZeitenund bei dergr6sstenVerschieden-
heit der Vo1kerbleibende Eigenschaftdessen ist, was man mit dem besten
Rechte modernnennen darf.39
When,afterreadingSchiller'sessay, Schlegelhimselfbecame
a devotee of those aesthetic ideals which he had previously
denounced,he wrote(1797):
Nachdem die vollendetenatiirlicheBildungderAltenentschiedengesunken,
und ohne Rettung ausgeartet war, ward durch den Verlust der endlichen
Realitdt und die ZerruittungvollendeterForm ein Strebennach unendlicher
RealitIt veranlasst, welches bald allgemeinerTon des Zeitalters wurde.40
"Romantic" art thus came to mean-for one thing-an art
inspiredby or expressiveof some idea or some ethical temper
a8 "The Meaning of Romantic," etc. Mod. Lang. Notes,XXXI. 385-396;
XXXII. 65-77.
39 Review of Herder's Humanitdtsbriefe;
in Minor, Fr. Schlegel,1794-1802.
'0 Vorredeto Die Griechen
und Roiner,in Minor,op. cit.,I. 82.
supposed to be essential in Christianity. "Ursprung und

CharakterderganzenneuernPoesie lasst sich so leichtaus dem
Christentumeableiten,dass man die romantischeeben so gut
die christlichenennenk6nnte,"41 said Richterin 1804,repeating
what had by that time become a commonplace. But the
nature of the essentiallyChristian,and thereforeessentially
Romantic,spiritwas variouslyconceived. Upon one charac-
teristicofit therewas, indeed,rathergeneralagreementamong
the German Romanticists:the habit of mind introducedby
Christianitywas distinguishedby a certain insatiability;it
aimed at infiniteobjectives and was incapable of lasting
satisfactionwith any goods actually reached. It became a
favoriteplatitude to say that the Greeks and Romans set
themselveslimitedends to attain,wereable to attainthem,and
were thus capable of self-satisfaction and finality;and that
modernor "romantic"art differedfromthis mostfundament-
ally, by reason of its Christianorigin,in being,as Schillerhad
said, a Kunst des Unendlichen."Absolute Abstraktion,Vern-
ichtungdes Jetzigen,Apotheoseder Zukunft,diesereigentlich
bessernWelt!; dies ist der Kernder Geheissedes Christentums,"
declared Novalis. In its application to artisticpractise this
"apotheosis of the future"meantthe ideal of endlessprogress,
of "eine progressiveUniversalpoesie" in the words of Fr.
Schlegel's familiardefinition;it impliedthe demand that art
shall always go on bringingnew provincesof life withinits
domain and achieving ever freshand original effects. But
anythingwhich was, or was supposedto be, especiallycharac-
teristicof the ChristianWeltanschauung tended to become a
part of the currentconnotationof 'Romantic',and also a part
of the actual ideals of the school. Preoccupationwith super-
sensible realities and a feelingof the illusorinessof ordinary
existencewas thusoftenheldto be a distinctivetraitof Roman-
tic art, on the ground that Christianityis an otherworldly
religion:"in der christlichenAnsicht,"said A. W. Schlegel,"die
Anschauungdes Unendlichenhat das Endlichevernichtet;das
Leben ist zur Schattenweltund zur Nacht geworden."42An-
other recognizedcharacteristic of Christianity,
and thereforeof
41
Vorsclhule
derAesthelik,I, ProgrammV, ? 23.
' Vorlesungeniuberdramatische
Kunst und Literatur,1809-11, in Werke,
1846,V. 16. Cf. also Novalis's Hymnenan die Nacht.
the "Romantic," was ethical dualism,a convictionthat there

are in man's constitutiontwo naturesceaselesslyat war. The
Greek ideal, in the elder Schlegel'swords,was "volkommene
Eintracht und Ebenmass aller Krafte, natuirlicheHarmonie.
Die Neueren hingegen sind zum Bewusstsein der inneren
Entzweiung gekommen,welche ein solches Ideal unmoglich
macht."43 Directly related to this, it was perceived, was
the "inwardness" of Christianity,its preoccupation with
"the heart" as distinguished fromtheoutwardact, its tendency
to introspection;and hence, as Mme de Stael and others
observed, "modern" or "Romantic" art has discovered,and
has for its peculiarprovince,theinexhaustible
realmoftheinner
life of man:
Les anciens avaient, pour ainsi dire, une ime corporelle,dont tous les
mouvernents etaient forts,directs,et cons6quents;il n'en est pas de memedu
cceurhumain d6velopp6par le christianisme:les modernesont puis6 dans le
repentirchr6tienl'habitude de se replier continuellementsur eux-m6mes.
Mais, pour manifestercette existencetout int6rieure,il faut qu'une grande
variWtd dans les faitspr6sentesous toutes les formesles nuancesinfiniesde ce
qui se passe dans I'Ame.44
It is one of the manyparadoxesof the historyof the word,
and of thecontroversies centeringabout it,thatseveraleminent
literaryhistoriansand criticsof our time have conceivedthe
moral essence of Romanticismas consistingin a kindof "this-
worldliness"and a negationof what one of themhas termed
"the Christian and classical dualism." Its most deplorable
and dangerous error, in the judgmentof these critics,is its
deficientrealization of the "civil war in the cave" of man's
soul, its beliefin the "naturalgoodness" of man. They thus
define" Romanticism" in termspreciselyoppositeto those in
whichit was oftendefinedby the writerswho firstcalled their
own ideals Romantic;and this fashion,I can't but think,has
done a good deal to obscurethepalpable and importanthistor-
ical fact that the one Romanticismwhichhas thus (as I have
said) an unequivocaltitleto the name was-among otherand
oftenincongruousthings-a rediscovery and revival,forbetter
or worse, of what these critics,at least, regard as charac-
teristicallyChristianmodes of thoughtand feeling-of a mys-
tical and otherworldlytype of religionand a sense of the inner
' Op. cit.,V, 17.
44De l'Allemagne, Pt. II, chap. XI.
moral struggleas the distinctivefact in human experience-

suchas had been fora centuryalien to thedominanttendencies
in 'polite' literature. The new movementwas, almostfromthe
first,a revolt against what was conceivedto be paganismin
religion and ethics as definitelyas against classicismin art.
The earliest importantformulationof its implicationsfor
religiousphilosophywas Schleiermacher's famousReden(1799)
addressed"to thecultivatedcontemners ofreligion,"a workpro-
foundly-sometimes,indeed,morbidly--dualistic in its ethical
temper. Christianity,declares Schleiermacher, is durchund
durchpolemisch;it knowsno trucein thewarfareofthespiritual
withthe natural man, it findsno end in the task of innerself-
discipline.4"And the Reden,it must be remembered, were (in
the words of a German literaryhistorian)"greeted by the
votariesof Romanticismas a gospel."46
Now it is not untrueto describethe ethicaltendencyof the
"Romanticism" which had its rootsin naturalism-thatis, in
the assumptionof the sole excellenceof whatin man is native,
primitive,"wild," attainablewithoutotherstrugglethan that
required for emancipationfromsocial conventionsand arti-
ficialities-as anti-dualisticand essentiallynon-moral. This
aspect of it can be seen even in the poem of the "blameless
Warton," when he describesthe lifeof the state of naturefor
41 Cf. FiinfteRede: "Nirgendsis die Religionso vollkommen idealisiertals
in Christentumund durch die urspriinglicheVoraussetzungdesselben; und
eben damit ist immerwahrendes Streitengegenalles Wirklichein der Religion
als eine Aufgabehingestellt, der nie volligGeniugegeleistetwerdenkann,Eben
weil iuberalldas Ungottlicheist und wirkt,und weilalles Wirklichezugleichals
unheiligerscheint,ist eine unendlicheHeiligkeitdas Ziel des Christentums.
Nie zufriedenmitdem Erlangten,suchtes auch in seinenreinstenErzeugnissen,
auch in seinenheiligstenGefuhlennoch die Spurendes Irreligi6senund der der
Einheitdes Ganzen entgegengesetzten und von ihmabgewandtenTendenz alles
Endlichen."
46Typical is the review of the book in the Athenaeum,II, 299: "Fiir
mich ist das Christentumund die Art wie es eingeleitetund das; was eNig
bleibensoll in ihm,gesetztwird,mit das Gr6ssteim ganzen Werk." Cf. also
Schlegel'sdefenseof Fichte against the charge of having "attacked religion":
"Wenn das InteresseamnUebersinnlichendas Wesen der Religion ist, so ist
seineganze Lehre Religionin Form der Philosophie." There are, undeniably,
also occasional manifestationsof a conflictingstrain in the Fruikrornantiker,
especiallyin Novalis; but these are not the usual, dominant,innovatingand
characteristic thingsin the body ofideas of theschool; theyare rathervestigial
structures,such as are to be foundremainingin all new developments.
whichhe yearns. But as a consequenceoftheprevalentneglect

to discriminatethe Romanticisms,the very movementwhich
was the beginningof a deliberateand vigorousinsurrection
against the naturalisticassumptionsthat had been potent,
and usually dominant,in modernthoughtformorethan three
centuries,is actuallytreatedas ifit werea continuationof that
tendency. Thesis and antithesishave, partlythroughaccidents
of language,and partly througha lack of carefulobservation
on the part of historiansof literature,been called by the same
name, and consequentlyhave frequentlybeen assumed to be
the same thing. An ideal of ceaseless strivingtowardsgoals
too vast or too exactingever to be whollyattained has been
confusedwitha nostalgiaforthe untroubled,because unaspir-
ing, indolent,and unselfconscious, life of the man of nature.
Thus one of the widestand deepest-reaching lines of cleavage
in modernthoughthas been moreor less effectually concealed
by a word.
3. This cleavage betweennaturalisticand anti-naturalistic
"Romanticism"crossesnationallines;and it manifestly cuts,so
to say, directlythroughthe personof one great writercom-
monlyclassed amongthe initiatorsof the Romanticmovement
in France. The authorof the Essai sur les revolutions and of
the earlier-written parts of Ataia may perhaps properlybe
called a Romantic; the authorof the later-written parts of the
latter work and of the Genie du Christianismemay perhaps
properlybe called a Romantic;but it is obvious that the word
has, in most importantrespects, not merely differentbut
antitheticsenses in these two applicationsof it to the same
person. Chateaubriandbefore1799 representedin some sort
the culminationof the naturalisticand primitivisticRoman-
ticismofwhichMr. Gossesees thebeginning in JosephWarton;47
47There are, forexample,passages in the penultimatesectionof theEssai
sur les revolutionswhich presenta close parallel to some in The Enthusiast;
d'etrehommeI
e.g.: "O hommede la nature,c'est toi seul qui me faisme glorifier
Ton coeurne connaltpointla dependance;tu ne sais ce que c'est que de ramper
dans une cour ou de caresserun tigrepopulaire. Que t'importentnos arts,
notreluxe, nos villes? As-tu besoin de spectacle,tu te rendsau templede la
nature,A la religieuseforet . . . Mais il n'y a donc point de gouvernement,
point de liberte? De liberte?si: une d6licieuse,une celeste,celle de la nature.
Et quele est-elle,cette libert6?. . . Qu'on viennepasser une nuit avec moi
chez les sauvages du Canada, peut-6trealors parviendrai-jeA donnerquelque
idWede cette esp6ce de libert6."
250 ARTHUR 0. LOVTEJOY
he had not onlyfeltintenselybut had even gratifiedthe yearn-

ing to live "with simple Indian swains." That the Chateau-
briand of 1801 representsjust as clearlya revoltagainst this
entiretendencyis sufficiently evidentfromthe repudiationof
primitivism in the firstprefaceto Atala:
Je ne suis point,commeM. Rousseau, un enthousiastedes sauvages;
je ne croispoint que la pure naturesoit la plus belle chose du monde. Je I'ai
toujourstrouv6efortlaide partoutoi j'ai eu occasionde la voir . . . Avec ce
mot de natureon a tout perdu.48
Thus the magic wordupon whichthe wholeschemeof ideas of

the earlier writinghad dependedis now plainly characterized
as the fruitfulsourceof errorand confusionthat it was. And
in his views about the drama the Chateaubriandof 1801 was
opposed bothto the movementrepresentedby The Enthusiast
and to the GermanRomanticismofhis own time. Shakespeare
was (thoughmainly,as we have seen,fordiffering reasons)the
idol of both; but Chateaubriandin his Essai sur la litterature
anglaise49writesof Shakespearein the vein, and partlyin the
words,of Voltaire and Pope. In point of natural genius,he
grants,the English dramatistwas withouta peer in his own
age, and perhaps in any age: "je ne sais si jamais hommea
jete des regardsplus profondssur la nature humaine." But
Shakespeare knew almost nothingof the requirementsof the
dramaas an art:
I1 faut se persuaderd'abord qu' 6crireest un art; que cet art a n6cessaire-
mentses genres,et que chaque genrea ses regles.Et qu'on ne dise pas que les
genreset les regles sont arbitraires;ils sont nes de la nature m6me; l'art a
seulementsepar6ce que la naturea confondu. . . On peut dire que Racine,
dans toutel'excellencede son art, est plus naturelque Shakespeare.
Chateaubriandhere,to be sure,still findsthe standardof art

in "nature"; but it is "nature" in the sense of the neo-classical
critics,a sense in whichit is not opposed,but equivalent,to an
art that rigorouslyconformsto fixedrules. And the "great
literaryparadox of the partisansof Shakespeare,"he observes,
is that theirargumentsimply that "there are no rules of the
drama," which is equivalent to asserting"that an art is not
48 On thetwostrainsin Atala,cf.Chinard,L'Exotisne amnricain
dans l'oeuvre
de Chateaubriand,1918,ch. ix.
49The section on Shakespeare was published in April, 1801 (Mlanges
politiquesetlitt&raires,
1854,pp. 390ff.).
THE DISCRIMINATIONT OF ROMANTICISMS 251
an art." Voltairerightlyfeltthat "by banishingall rulesand

returningto pure nature,nothingwas easier than to equal the
chefs-d'oeuvre of the Englishstage;" and he was well advisedin
recantinghis earliertoo enthusiasticutterancesabout Shake-
speare,sincehe saw that"en relevantles beautesdes barbares,il
avait seduit des hommesqui, commelui, ne sauraientseparer
l'alliage de l'or." Chateaubriand regretsthat "the Cato of
Addisonis no longerplayed" and that consequently"on ne se
d6lasse au the'tre anglais des monstruositesde Shakespeare
que par les horreursd'Otway." ".Comment,"he exclaims,
"ne pas gemir de voir une nation eclairee,et qui compte
parmi ses critiquesles Pope et les Addison,de la voir s'extasier
sur le portraitde l'apothicairedans Romeoet Juliette. C'est le
burlesque le plus hideux et le plus degoutant." The entire
passage mightalmost have been writtenwith Warton'spoem
in mind,so completelyand methodically doesthislater"Roman-
ticist" controvert the aesthetic principles and deride the
enthusiamsof the English"Romanticist"of 1740. It is worth
noting, also, that Chateaubriandat this timethinksalmostas
ill of Gothic architectureas of Shakespeareand of la pure
nature:
Une beaut6 dans Shakespeare n'excuse pas ses innombrablesd6fauts:
un monumentgothiquepeut plaire par son obscurit6et la difformitem#mede
ses proportions,mais personnene songe a batir un palais sur son modeIle.'0
We have,then,observedand compared-veryfarfromexhaus-
tively,of course,yet in some of theirmost fundamentaland
determinativeideas-three "Romanticisms." In the firstand
second we have found certain common elements,but still
more significantoppositions;in the second and third we have
found certainother commonelements,but likewisesignificant
oppositions. But between the firstand third the common
elementsare very scanty;such as thereare, it could, I think,
be shown,are not the same as thosesubsistingbetweeneither
thefirstand secondor the secondand third;and in theirethical
preconceptionsand implicationsand the crucialarticlesoftheir
60 It is somewhatdifficult
to reconcilethiswiththe eloquentpassage on the
Gothic churchin the Geniedu Christian.isme (V, Ch. 8); yet even there,while
ascribingto theGothicstyle"une beaut6qui lui estparticuli6re,"Chateaubriand
also refersto its "proportionsbarbares."
literarycreeds,theoppositionbetweenthemis almostabsolute.
All threeof these historicepisodes,it is true,are far more
complex than I have time to show. I am attemptingonly to
illustratethe nature of a certain procedurein the study of
what is called Romanticism,to suggestits importance,and to
presentone or two specificresultsof the use of it. A complete
analysis would qualify,withoutinvalidating,these results,in
severalways. It would (forone thing)bringout certainimport-
ant connectionsbetween the revolt against the neo-classical
aesthetics(commonto twooftheepisodesmentioned)and other
aspects of eighteenth-century thought."' It would, again,
exhibitfullycertaininternaloppositionsin at least two of the
Romanticismsconsidered. For example,in GermanRoman-
ticismbetween1797 and 1800 theregrewup, and mainlyfrom
a singleroot,bothan "apotheosisof thefuture"and a tendency
to retrospection-aretrospection directed,not,indeed,towards
classical antiquityor towardsthe primitive,but towardsthe
medieval. A beliefin progressand a spiritof reactionwere,
paradoxically,twin offspring of the same idea, and were nur-
turedfora timein thesame minds. But it is just theseinternal
incongruities whichmake it mostof all evident,as it seems to
me, that any attemptat a generalappraisal even of a single
chronologically determinate Romanticism-still more, of
"Romanticism" as a whole-is a fatuity. When a Roman-
ticismhas been analyzed into the distinct"strains" or ideas
whichcomposeit, the truephilosophicaffinities and the event-
ual practicalinfluencein lifeand art oftheseseveralstrainswill
usually be found to be exceedinglydiverse and often con-
flicting. It will, no doubt, remainabstractlypossible to raise
thequestionwhetherthepreponderant effect,moraloraesthetic,
of one or anotherlarge movementwhich has been called by
thename was good or bad. But that ambitiousinquirycannot
even be legitimatelybegun until a priortask of analysis and
detailed comparison-of the sort thatI have attemptedhereto
indicate-has been accomplished. And when this has been
done, I doubt whetherthe largerquestion will seem to have
much importanceor meaning. What will then appear histor-
ically significantand philosophicallyinstructivewill be the
51 With this topic,upon whichthereis a good deal to be said, the writeris
dealingelsewhere.
way in whicheach of these distinguishablestrainshas worked

itselfout, what its elective affinitiesfor otherideas, and its
historic consequences,have shown themselvesto be. The
categorieswhich it has becomecustomaryto use in distinguish-
ing and classifying"movements"in literatureor philosophy
and in describingthenatureof the significant transitionswhich
have taken place in tasteand in opinion,arefartoo rough,crude,
undiscriminating-andnone of them so hopelesslyso as the
category "Romantic." It is not any large complexesof ideas,
suchas that termhas almostalwaysbeenemployedto designate,
but rather certainsimpler,diverselycombinable,intellectual
and emotionalcomponentsof such complexes,that are the true
elemental and dynamicfactorsin the historyof thoughtand
of art; and it is withthe genesis,the vicissitudes,the manifold
and often dramaticinteractionsof these,that it is the task of
the historianof ideas in literatureto become acquainted.
ARTHUR 0. LOVEJOY

Lovejoy - On The Discrimination of Romanticisms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lovejoy - On The Discrimination of Romanticisms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On the Discrimination of Romanticisms

Author(s): Arthur O. Lovejoy

Modern Language Association

XI. ON THE DISCRIMINATION OF

For if some Dupuis of to-daywere to gather,first,merelya

9Contemporary Review,April,1919,p. 473.

observationof it. For ProfessorKer Romanticismwas "the

12 The ArtofPoetry,p. 79.

18 The DriftofRomanticism, 1913,pp. xiii,247.

regardedas peculiarly"romantic" is for some "the heart as

of being asked, to discuss Romanticism,it is impossibleto

'6 Le mal rmnantique,p. xli.

consequently,the ill name of Romanticismshould be applied

logical and psychologicalrelationsbetweenthe chiefepisodes

primafaciepluralityof Romanticisms, ofpossiblyquite distinct

B, another characteristic,Y, which it shares with Roman-

we find unwaveringlyemphasized and repeated what was

superiorityof wild fruitsand savage men over those that have

30Essais,I, 31. Thereisa certain

firstthefashionofconceivingof "nature" (in the sense in which

as the source of thepassionsin whichall the originaland vital

fromthe outsetin thelogic of thatprotean"naturalism"which

It was no far cryfromthis to the rejectionof the rulesin the

sequently the idea of preferring nature to customand to art

le yearnsto dwellin some

For one termof the comparison,then, I limit myself,for

suiitabledesignationfortheirown literaryideals and program.

carefreenurslirngs of nature,withoutart and withoutschooling,

37 Quotations in this paragraphfromF. Schlegel are fromAthenaeum, II,

tendsto be wronglyestimated. I shall not attemptto cite here

supposed to be essential in Christianity. "Ursprung und

the "Romantic," was ethical dualism,a convictionthat there

moral struggleas the distinctivefact in human experience-

whichhe yearns. But as a consequenceoftheprevalentneglect

he had not onlyfeltintenselybut had even gratifiedthe yearn-

Thus the magic wordupon whichthe wholeschemeof ideas of

Chateaubriandhere,to be sure,still findsthe standardof art

an art." Voltairerightlyfeltthat "by banishingall rulesand

way in whicheach of these distinguishablestrainshas worked

You might also like