This is an excellent essay, on a topic that is not sufficiently discussed. Romanticism is probably the most ambivalent cultural movement in Christian history—there seems to be so much good hopelessly entangled with so much bad that one hardly knows what to think about it in the end. Even for secular scholars just trying to understand Romanticism from a philosophical or aesthetic standpoint, contradictions abound. A hundred years ago, the philosopher Arthur Lovejoy gave an influential lecture in which he basically said that no one can really make sense of Romanticism: “The word ‘romantic’ has come to mean so many things that, by itself, it means nothing. It has ceased to perform the function of a verbal sign. When a man is asked, as I have had the honor of being asked, to discuss Romanticism, it is impossible to know what ideas or tendencies he is to talk about.” He offers this (somewhat exaggerated) conclusion with a note of despair, since “philosophers, in spite of a popular belief to the contrary, are persons who suffer from a morbid solicitude to know precisely what they are talking about.”
In any case, I really like the way you’ve attempted to parse out the nature and implications of the movement from a traditional Christian perspective. This needs to be done because the influence of Romanticism, sometimes beneficial and sometimes baleful, is still with us. But to end on a positive note, we must thank the Romantics for defending the imagination—or what might be more accurately termed, in their case, the “fullness of the interior life”—from the onslaught of rationalism and empiricism. Keats captures it memorably in “Lamia,” where by “philosophy” he means something closer to what we call “science”:
Thank you, Robert, that means a lot. I have spent many hours wrestling with Romanticism and especially it’s relationship to the Christian imagination. I’ll be curious to know what you think about the third post.
This made me chuckle: “decoupaging of human life and reality,” but I can't quite grasp the image. I am aware of decoupaging because my wife does some for her craft projects, but I can’t figure out how to apply that to the Enlightenment. [I deleted much of my original comment because I am clearly out of my depth with the underlying philosophy.]
"Decoupaging life and reality" - the Enlightenment rationalists attempting to dissect reality the way that natural scientists isolate variables in order to postulate a theory or conclusion. This rationalism led to a "disenchantment" with life--it is all simply matter in motion. The Romantics attempted to give us, once again, an organic whole that includes the spiritual dimension and restores man to his place within a whole. Unfortunately, the Romantics were missing the (hugely important) element of traditional Christianity, thus their imaginings flung off into the sentimental-emotional stratosphere.
Thank you for this thorough walk-through of the eternal cultural extremes found in imagination and reason. I look forward to Part 3. I am a believer in the need for an active imagination – there is a world beyond the senses and to experience it, it takes imagination to part the veil. I think where imagination goes wrong is where imaginary creations violate the moral imagination you mention. It is with great sorrow to acknowledge that many Romantics refuse to see nothing behind the veil but a nameless force they assume to be divine.
I believe it was Einstein who said that 'Imagination is more important than knowledge.'
This is an excellent essay, on a topic that is not sufficiently discussed. Romanticism is probably the most ambivalent cultural movement in Christian history—there seems to be so much good hopelessly entangled with so much bad that one hardly knows what to think about it in the end. Even for secular scholars just trying to understand Romanticism from a philosophical or aesthetic standpoint, contradictions abound. A hundred years ago, the philosopher Arthur Lovejoy gave an influential lecture in which he basically said that no one can really make sense of Romanticism: “The word ‘romantic’ has come to mean so many things that, by itself, it means nothing. It has ceased to perform the function of a verbal sign. When a man is asked, as I have had the honor of being asked, to discuss Romanticism, it is impossible to know what ideas or tendencies he is to talk about.” He offers this (somewhat exaggerated) conclusion with a note of despair, since “philosophers, in spite of a popular belief to the contrary, are persons who suffer from a morbid solicitude to know precisely what they are talking about.”
In any case, I really like the way you’ve attempted to parse out the nature and implications of the movement from a traditional Christian perspective. This needs to be done because the influence of Romanticism, sometimes beneficial and sometimes baleful, is still with us. But to end on a positive note, we must thank the Romantics for defending the imagination—or what might be more accurately termed, in their case, the “fullness of the interior life”—from the onslaught of rationalism and empiricism. Keats captures it memorably in “Lamia,” where by “philosophy” he means something closer to what we call “science”:
...Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel’s wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine—
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person’d Lamia melt into a shade.
Thank you, Robert, that means a lot. I have spent many hours wrestling with Romanticism and especially it’s relationship to the Christian imagination. I’ll be curious to know what you think about the third post.
This made me chuckle: “decoupaging of human life and reality,” but I can't quite grasp the image. I am aware of decoupaging because my wife does some for her craft projects, but I can’t figure out how to apply that to the Enlightenment. [I deleted much of my original comment because I am clearly out of my depth with the underlying philosophy.]
"Decoupaging life and reality" - the Enlightenment rationalists attempting to dissect reality the way that natural scientists isolate variables in order to postulate a theory or conclusion. This rationalism led to a "disenchantment" with life--it is all simply matter in motion. The Romantics attempted to give us, once again, an organic whole that includes the spiritual dimension and restores man to his place within a whole. Unfortunately, the Romantics were missing the (hugely important) element of traditional Christianity, thus their imaginings flung off into the sentimental-emotional stratosphere.
Thanks. That helps.
Thank you for this thorough walk-through of the eternal cultural extremes found in imagination and reason. I look forward to Part 3. I am a believer in the need for an active imagination – there is a world beyond the senses and to experience it, it takes imagination to part the veil. I think where imagination goes wrong is where imaginary creations violate the moral imagination you mention. It is with great sorrow to acknowledge that many Romantics refuse to see nothing behind the veil but a nameless force they assume to be divine.
I think that's exactly it - imagination is needed to part the veil. Well said.
And thank you for your note. I put a great deal of time into each of these posts!