Much to ponder; many excellent examples. As a former English major, this started some long-idled cogs turning again. A question and an example of my own. First: We may often consider something like Romanticism as part of a descent or downward trend, as in this sort of bad thing led to an even worse bad thing and so on. Are there examples of people who have encountered Romanticism and were then drawn upward to a "better" view or even to the Faith? Regarding the landscape as the Romantic playground: I very much like the films of Terence Malick and his "The Tree of Life" had a hand in my conversion to Catholicism. In all his films I've seen there is a loving sweep of the camera over some wind-caressed field of grass or grain (like "Days of Heaven"). He clearly sets out the natural world as beautiful. But...and here I think is where he deviates from a potentially Romantic view, he then clearly presents us with Man, not as Rousseau would, but as Man THE SINNER, caught between nature (stern, paternal) and grace (merciful and maternal). The recognition of sin seems to be the hard boundary between Romanticism and something else.
Your interpretation of Cole's famous quartet of paintings is certainly well-argued, but last year I read a fine book that offered a Catholic spiritual reading of the allegory, and I found it insightful and compelling:
That must explain the allure of the paintings for me! I've had them on my walls for almost as long as I can remember. I can't wait to check out that book. That being said, I do believe that these paintings bear the mark of the Romantic movement. But not all that is Romantic is bad.
It is highly significant that a "Catholic spiritual reading" has been provided for Cole's paintings. In fact, some of the key Romantic authors were Catholics (including some converts). It is true that the "Luciferian-Faustian" spirit was also a temptation for some of them. In any case, an honest Catholic interpretation is possible—and, I believe, desirable.
An excellent presentation of Thomas Cole! Congratulations! As for the approach to what is generally called "Romanticism," great caution is needed. Textbooks and anthologies contain a highly eclectic collection of authors. Surprisingly, some of them have been lifelong Catholics, others are converts, and others are genuinely open to the religious. In some cases (Novalis, Eminescu etc.), the sin of omission is present: they have not done their homework properly, having not read the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church, relying too much on their own intuitions and insights. Sometimes these intuitions are good, even revelatory; other times, they are deceptive and very risky.
I would completely oppose the inclusion of Rousseau among them. I hope you won’t be offended if I say that this is a grave mistake. While his cheap sentimentality and return to nature may seem to have something in common with Romanticism, in reality, they do not. He cannot, in any way, be considered a Romantic, but at best, a problematic precursor of some Romantic ideas.
In any case, authors classified under Romanticism must be treated individually, one by one, and the generic, superficial label must be replaced with a much more precise analysis. By the way, Tolkien belongs—according to some serious scholars—to a Romantic mindset. And I believe he cannot be accused of any of the faults mentioned in the article. Moreover, the differences between authors like Lord Byron and Karl Wilhelm Salice-Contessa or Joseph Freiherr von Eichendorff are absolutely significant. So, what I suggest is that we should not follow the easy path of labels and hasty classifications. I strongly recommend reading an exceptional, highly erudite, and precise monograph by Julian Eilmann, titled J.R.R. Tolkien – Romanticist and Poet. It could be of great help.
For instance you say: „The man never labors or seems to be working out his salvation. He experiences life as a sort of tourist, alienated from it. His skiff simply floats along. This is characteristic of Romantic sentiment.” Indeed, sometimes it is so. But why? Is it because they understand that one cannot reach the Infinite—God—through one’s own initiative? That one can do nothing to be mystical in a voluntarist-activist sense? That one cannot change their condition from that of a (still) fallen being, gravely affected by concupiscence and sin, into that of a being with a "heavenly body," as Saint Paul says?
Clearly, from this arises the Faustian Romantic spirit—the attempt to achieve the impossible at any cost, here and now. And sometimes, without the proper means of holiness. Yes, SOME have erred in this way. But, as I have already said, they must be discussed individually, one by one.
For a bit of amusement, I will quote you with a passage from an excellent article ("The Liturgical Movement that is Needed: Part II") in which—I must confess—when I read it, I was convinced that I had detected a perfect congruence between your ideas and the ideas of Romanticism. Here is the quote (from you):
"The properly formed imagination, not reason, must provide the standards of conduct."
The key idea expressed here is not 100%, but 1000% "Romantic." Moreover, I would say it encapsulates the very essence of what can be called Romanticism.
Thank you for initiating one of the most interesting discussions possible! (I apologize for such a long comment, but I have a very special interest (thanks to Tolkien) in Romanticism.)
How much better and more useful are these comments than the comments of academic peer-reviewers?! Mr. Kmita, thanks for your thoughtful comment. We share much in common. I do take issue with the belief that Romantics must be addressed individually, though. Categories (for the most part) are useful fictions for understanding reality. We can recognize Romantic art, paintings, literature, and philosophy by its general tenor and direction, even if individuals differ greatly, with some at the heart of Romanticism and others at the periphery, and also varying tendencies and emphases among them. I began the article by mentioning that there are many currents and cross-currents within Romanticism. That being said, it is an identifiable movement with its own particular character. I don't think that it's possible to diagnose our cultural maladies without reference to the Romantic spirit. The next article is going to further elaborate on these points and illustrate what I take to be the overall moral-spiritual direction of Romanticism, which explains a great deal about modernity.
You are absolutely right, Mrs. Finley: I have read many inspiring articles here – but also substantial comments. Right now, I am writing a small article (which I will publish next Tuesday) as a first in-depth response to what you have said in this excellent article. And thanks to Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, I have also learned about the monograph dedicated to Thomas Cole, which I will definitely read! I must confess that I have a soft spot for romantic authors – I am glad that you have written something that has finally prompted me to publicly address this simultaneously difficult and important topic. Thank you very much!
It's interesting how much more fruitful the scholarly exchange is on Substack as opposed to in the academy. I wonder if peer reviewers would be more constructive (as opposed to destructive) if the process were not blind (single-blind - since they get to know who I am, but I do not get to know who they are).
I protest! A critique of reason in itself is not at all to be confused with a romantic spirit. Romanticism and reason are but two sides of the same coin and not diametrically opposed positions with one encapsulating the good and another evil. Should we run from the romantics to the deathly embrace of Descartes and Bacon? Surely not. The true way is a question of proportion. As Dr Finley points out, the romantics were right to critique Enlightenment rationalism. There is a reason so many thirsted for some corrective to this error. The point, however, is that the critique of rationalism, though necessary, can veer into dangerous territory when infused with romantic sentimentality. (Which I find to be a very useful category.) The veer into sentimentality is dependent upon the quality of one’s imagination which is in turn in relation to the strength of one’s will.
Honestly, I do not notice any disagreement between us. For instance, I fully agree with the distinction between "a critique of reason in itself" and a critique of "Enlightenment rationalism." Moreover, I accept that—inspired by the aforementioned critique—a Romantic sentimentality can be truly dangerous. However, that must be discussed specifically in relation to a particular Romantic, as there are truly significant differences between them.
This is an excellent comment (though I would quibble in de-categorizing Rousseau as Romantic -- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains" is just as much the essence of Romanticism as any other statement.) I used to be pretty dismissive of Romanticism also, and much of it is indeed pernicious. "Lines Composed a Few Miles About Tintern Abbey" for example, is maybe the most seductive ode to idolatry that's ever been written in the English language. But when Romantic thinkers and artists were able to hold fast to an orthodox faith and express those Romantic ideals through that lens, some truly remarkable and transcendent work resulted. I love the example of Tolkien you brought up, but Coleridge's work stands, in my opinion, as another example of this synthesis (see Malcolm Guite's wonderful biography, "Mariner," for a thorough study of the spiritual and theological significance of his work). Charlotte Mason is another faithful and orthodox believer whose writings are highly influenced by the Romantic concepts of her time.
I agree about Coleridge (I have his biography on my shelf that I've been meaning to get to), and also Tolkien. It's interesting that you bring up Charlotte Mason. She does indeed emphasize the role of imagination, and so for that reason she could be considered a Romantic of sorts. The next post that I am working on will try to define the "spirit of Romanticism" and the general moral-ethical direction of the movement, which I believe, on the whole, is not in the same vein as the Christian moral ethos of Tolkien or Mason. The Romantic movement rightly emphasized the epistemological significance of the imagination but neglects to distinguish between different qualities of imagination. The quality of the imagination of Rousseau (who, I do believe, is a quintessential Romantic) or Shelley or Lord Byron or Schelling, for example, is not of the same quality as Burke, Tolkien, or Mason, for example. Distinguishing between these two different qualities of imagination, I believe, is key to understanding the value of particular thinkers, whether Romantic or not.
Such issues must be discussed very carefully because there are Catholic Romantics with an ethos similar to Tolkien and neo-pagan (or neo-gnostic) Romantics who are very "luciferian-faustic" (so to speak). I will not mention names but will instead suggest three excellent, classical, and essential books about Romanticism that are very helpful: 1) Ricarda Huch (2 vol.): "Blütezeit der Romantik" (1899) and "Ausbreitung und Verfall der Romantik" (1902) - unfortunately, I do not know if they are translated in English; 2.) Auguste Viatte, "Le Catholicisme chez les Romantiques" (1922) and, again, 3.) Auguste Viatte, "Les Sources occultes du romantisme" (1927 - this monograph has multiple editions and received some important prizes). All these books provide an excellent - and complete - frame on many Romantic authors - especially German and French, but also English. What is clear is that many perspectives and interpretations are possible, and there are also major differences between some of the authors usually labeled as "Romantics." In my opinion, however, the best solution to this difficulty is the one proposed by Dr. Julian Eilmann in the already mentioned (in a previous comment) monograph: "J.R.R. Tolkien – Romanticist and Poet" (2017). More concretely, your statement ("the general moral-ethical direction of the movement, which I believe, on the whole, is not in the same vein as the Christian moral ethos of Tolkien or Mason") also applies to some Romantic German or French authors themselves. There are major differences among them (not only between Tolkien, Mason and them). That is why it is so difficult to define "Romanticism" (just remember how Sir Isaiah Berlin himself, in "The Roots of Romanticism," was ultimately defeated precisely on this point; and he himself acknowledged, albeit indirectly, this defeat). (Please excuse my lengthy comments, but "Romanticism" is one of my favorite topics.)
Thank you, Scott! Of course, we can discuss each author individually, like Rousseau. But I'm truly glad that you have acknowledge the importance of mentioning them one by one. There's still something to be said about the best strategy for discussing both Romanticism and the Romanticists. I am preparing a post on this issue right now. Keep in touch!
Great work! Thanks for writing on this subject. Thomas Cole is a favorite of mine and I only loosely associate him with anything but American Romantic painting. If you enjoy the Journey of Man series, keep in mind his Course of Empire series, which would only be considered sentimental if one has those feelings for the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Cole did do the Grand Tour and modeled his approach on several European painters - compare his Romantic Landscape with Ruined Tower to John Constable’s Hadleigh Castle. For me, his painting The Titan’s Goblet is a remarkable image, which I wrote about in my first post last month when I started my Substack site, Image Pilgrim. Something tells me that Cole and JJ Rousseau would not get have much to say to each other at a party. However, French artist Theodore Rousseau is a very interesting painter whom I will likely write about sooner or later.
PS – Delacroix's painting is, ultimately, ironic (and, eventually, specific for French Romantics, but not for Germans and Italians): it depicts an event that was despised by some Romantics (who did not "adjust" at all to the spirit of the French Revolutions - the one from July 1830 included). If they speak of "Revolution," it is in the opposite sense: for if you truly desire a Medieval-style society, with kings, knights, and castles, one could say that you are a "revolutionary," right?
Much to ponder; many excellent examples. As a former English major, this started some long-idled cogs turning again. A question and an example of my own. First: We may often consider something like Romanticism as part of a descent or downward trend, as in this sort of bad thing led to an even worse bad thing and so on. Are there examples of people who have encountered Romanticism and were then drawn upward to a "better" view or even to the Faith? Regarding the landscape as the Romantic playground: I very much like the films of Terence Malick and his "The Tree of Life" had a hand in my conversion to Catholicism. In all his films I've seen there is a loving sweep of the camera over some wind-caressed field of grass or grain (like "Days of Heaven"). He clearly sets out the natural world as beautiful. But...and here I think is where he deviates from a potentially Romantic view, he then clearly presents us with Man, not as Rousseau would, but as Man THE SINNER, caught between nature (stern, paternal) and grace (merciful and maternal). The recognition of sin seems to be the hard boundary between Romanticism and something else.
Superb article.
Your interpretation of Cole's famous quartet of paintings is certainly well-argued, but last year I read a fine book that offered a Catholic spiritual reading of the allegory, and I found it insightful and compelling:
The Voyage of Life
The Sacred Vision of Thomas Cole
by Addison Hodges Hart
https://angelicopress.com/products/the-voyage-of-life
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/1621389154/
That must explain the allure of the paintings for me! I've had them on my walls for almost as long as I can remember. I can't wait to check out that book. That being said, I do believe that these paintings bear the mark of the Romantic movement. But not all that is Romantic is bad.
It is highly significant that a "Catholic spiritual reading" has been provided for Cole's paintings. In fact, some of the key Romantic authors were Catholics (including some converts). It is true that the "Luciferian-Faustian" spirit was also a temptation for some of them. In any case, an honest Catholic interpretation is possible—and, I believe, desirable.
An excellent presentation of Thomas Cole! Congratulations! As for the approach to what is generally called "Romanticism," great caution is needed. Textbooks and anthologies contain a highly eclectic collection of authors. Surprisingly, some of them have been lifelong Catholics, others are converts, and others are genuinely open to the religious. In some cases (Novalis, Eminescu etc.), the sin of omission is present: they have not done their homework properly, having not read the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church, relying too much on their own intuitions and insights. Sometimes these intuitions are good, even revelatory; other times, they are deceptive and very risky.
I would completely oppose the inclusion of Rousseau among them. I hope you won’t be offended if I say that this is a grave mistake. While his cheap sentimentality and return to nature may seem to have something in common with Romanticism, in reality, they do not. He cannot, in any way, be considered a Romantic, but at best, a problematic precursor of some Romantic ideas.
In any case, authors classified under Romanticism must be treated individually, one by one, and the generic, superficial label must be replaced with a much more precise analysis. By the way, Tolkien belongs—according to some serious scholars—to a Romantic mindset. And I believe he cannot be accused of any of the faults mentioned in the article. Moreover, the differences between authors like Lord Byron and Karl Wilhelm Salice-Contessa or Joseph Freiherr von Eichendorff are absolutely significant. So, what I suggest is that we should not follow the easy path of labels and hasty classifications. I strongly recommend reading an exceptional, highly erudite, and precise monograph by Julian Eilmann, titled J.R.R. Tolkien – Romanticist and Poet. It could be of great help.
For instance you say: „The man never labors or seems to be working out his salvation. He experiences life as a sort of tourist, alienated from it. His skiff simply floats along. This is characteristic of Romantic sentiment.” Indeed, sometimes it is so. But why? Is it because they understand that one cannot reach the Infinite—God—through one’s own initiative? That one can do nothing to be mystical in a voluntarist-activist sense? That one cannot change their condition from that of a (still) fallen being, gravely affected by concupiscence and sin, into that of a being with a "heavenly body," as Saint Paul says?
Clearly, from this arises the Faustian Romantic spirit—the attempt to achieve the impossible at any cost, here and now. And sometimes, without the proper means of holiness. Yes, SOME have erred in this way. But, as I have already said, they must be discussed individually, one by one.
For a bit of amusement, I will quote you with a passage from an excellent article ("The Liturgical Movement that is Needed: Part II") in which—I must confess—when I read it, I was convinced that I had detected a perfect congruence between your ideas and the ideas of Romanticism. Here is the quote (from you):
"The properly formed imagination, not reason, must provide the standards of conduct."
The key idea expressed here is not 100%, but 1000% "Romantic." Moreover, I would say it encapsulates the very essence of what can be called Romanticism.
Thank you for initiating one of the most interesting discussions possible! (I apologize for such a long comment, but I have a very special interest (thanks to Tolkien) in Romanticism.)
How much better and more useful are these comments than the comments of academic peer-reviewers?! Mr. Kmita, thanks for your thoughtful comment. We share much in common. I do take issue with the belief that Romantics must be addressed individually, though. Categories (for the most part) are useful fictions for understanding reality. We can recognize Romantic art, paintings, literature, and philosophy by its general tenor and direction, even if individuals differ greatly, with some at the heart of Romanticism and others at the periphery, and also varying tendencies and emphases among them. I began the article by mentioning that there are many currents and cross-currents within Romanticism. That being said, it is an identifiable movement with its own particular character. I don't think that it's possible to diagnose our cultural maladies without reference to the Romantic spirit. The next article is going to further elaborate on these points and illustrate what I take to be the overall moral-spiritual direction of Romanticism, which explains a great deal about modernity.
You are absolutely right, Mrs. Finley: I have read many inspiring articles here – but also substantial comments. Right now, I am writing a small article (which I will publish next Tuesday) as a first in-depth response to what you have said in this excellent article. And thanks to Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, I have also learned about the monograph dedicated to Thomas Cole, which I will definitely read! I must confess that I have a soft spot for romantic authors – I am glad that you have written something that has finally prompted me to publicly address this simultaneously difficult and important topic. Thank you very much!
It's interesting how much more fruitful the scholarly exchange is on Substack as opposed to in the academy. I wonder if peer reviewers would be more constructive (as opposed to destructive) if the process were not blind (single-blind - since they get to know who I am, but I do not get to know who they are).
I protest! A critique of reason in itself is not at all to be confused with a romantic spirit. Romanticism and reason are but two sides of the same coin and not diametrically opposed positions with one encapsulating the good and another evil. Should we run from the romantics to the deathly embrace of Descartes and Bacon? Surely not. The true way is a question of proportion. As Dr Finley points out, the romantics were right to critique Enlightenment rationalism. There is a reason so many thirsted for some corrective to this error. The point, however, is that the critique of rationalism, though necessary, can veer into dangerous territory when infused with romantic sentimentality. (Which I find to be a very useful category.) The veer into sentimentality is dependent upon the quality of one’s imagination which is in turn in relation to the strength of one’s will.
Honestly, I do not notice any disagreement between us. For instance, I fully agree with the distinction between "a critique of reason in itself" and a critique of "Enlightenment rationalism." Moreover, I accept that—inspired by the aforementioned critique—a Romantic sentimentality can be truly dangerous. However, that must be discussed specifically in relation to a particular Romantic, as there are truly significant differences between them.
This is an excellent comment (though I would quibble in de-categorizing Rousseau as Romantic -- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains" is just as much the essence of Romanticism as any other statement.) I used to be pretty dismissive of Romanticism also, and much of it is indeed pernicious. "Lines Composed a Few Miles About Tintern Abbey" for example, is maybe the most seductive ode to idolatry that's ever been written in the English language. But when Romantic thinkers and artists were able to hold fast to an orthodox faith and express those Romantic ideals through that lens, some truly remarkable and transcendent work resulted. I love the example of Tolkien you brought up, but Coleridge's work stands, in my opinion, as another example of this synthesis (see Malcolm Guite's wonderful biography, "Mariner," for a thorough study of the spiritual and theological significance of his work). Charlotte Mason is another faithful and orthodox believer whose writings are highly influenced by the Romantic concepts of her time.
I agree about Coleridge (I have his biography on my shelf that I've been meaning to get to), and also Tolkien. It's interesting that you bring up Charlotte Mason. She does indeed emphasize the role of imagination, and so for that reason she could be considered a Romantic of sorts. The next post that I am working on will try to define the "spirit of Romanticism" and the general moral-ethical direction of the movement, which I believe, on the whole, is not in the same vein as the Christian moral ethos of Tolkien or Mason. The Romantic movement rightly emphasized the epistemological significance of the imagination but neglects to distinguish between different qualities of imagination. The quality of the imagination of Rousseau (who, I do believe, is a quintessential Romantic) or Shelley or Lord Byron or Schelling, for example, is not of the same quality as Burke, Tolkien, or Mason, for example. Distinguishing between these two different qualities of imagination, I believe, is key to understanding the value of particular thinkers, whether Romantic or not.
Such issues must be discussed very carefully because there are Catholic Romantics with an ethos similar to Tolkien and neo-pagan (or neo-gnostic) Romantics who are very "luciferian-faustic" (so to speak). I will not mention names but will instead suggest three excellent, classical, and essential books about Romanticism that are very helpful: 1) Ricarda Huch (2 vol.): "Blütezeit der Romantik" (1899) and "Ausbreitung und Verfall der Romantik" (1902) - unfortunately, I do not know if they are translated in English; 2.) Auguste Viatte, "Le Catholicisme chez les Romantiques" (1922) and, again, 3.) Auguste Viatte, "Les Sources occultes du romantisme" (1927 - this monograph has multiple editions and received some important prizes). All these books provide an excellent - and complete - frame on many Romantic authors - especially German and French, but also English. What is clear is that many perspectives and interpretations are possible, and there are also major differences between some of the authors usually labeled as "Romantics." In my opinion, however, the best solution to this difficulty is the one proposed by Dr. Julian Eilmann in the already mentioned (in a previous comment) monograph: "J.R.R. Tolkien – Romanticist and Poet" (2017). More concretely, your statement ("the general moral-ethical direction of the movement, which I believe, on the whole, is not in the same vein as the Christian moral ethos of Tolkien or Mason") also applies to some Romantic German or French authors themselves. There are major differences among them (not only between Tolkien, Mason and them). That is why it is so difficult to define "Romanticism" (just remember how Sir Isaiah Berlin himself, in "The Roots of Romanticism," was ultimately defeated precisely on this point; and he himself acknowledged, albeit indirectly, this defeat). (Please excuse my lengthy comments, but "Romanticism" is one of my favorite topics.)
Thank you, Scott! Of course, we can discuss each author individually, like Rousseau. But I'm truly glad that you have acknowledge the importance of mentioning them one by one. There's still something to be said about the best strategy for discussing both Romanticism and the Romanticists. I am preparing a post on this issue right now. Keep in touch!
Great work! Thanks for writing on this subject. Thomas Cole is a favorite of mine and I only loosely associate him with anything but American Romantic painting. If you enjoy the Journey of Man series, keep in mind his Course of Empire series, which would only be considered sentimental if one has those feelings for the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Cole did do the Grand Tour and modeled his approach on several European painters - compare his Romantic Landscape with Ruined Tower to John Constable’s Hadleigh Castle. For me, his painting The Titan’s Goblet is a remarkable image, which I wrote about in my first post last month when I started my Substack site, Image Pilgrim. Something tells me that Cole and JJ Rousseau would not get have much to say to each other at a party. However, French artist Theodore Rousseau is a very interesting painter whom I will likely write about sooner or later.
PS – Delacroix's painting is, ultimately, ironic (and, eventually, specific for French Romantics, but not for Germans and Italians): it depicts an event that was despised by some Romantics (who did not "adjust" at all to the spirit of the French Revolutions - the one from July 1830 included). If they speak of "Revolution," it is in the opposite sense: for if you truly desire a Medieval-style society, with kings, knights, and castles, one could say that you are a "revolutionary," right?