/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18253172]

What triggered Romanticism? This fascinates me.

It's almost as if humans collectively decided to become human at a single point in history. Nearly all of literature before Thomas Gray's Elegy is completely devoid of a soul to me. Is this because people refused to acknowledge their place in the universe? Or do we just have our own biased modern conception of what it means to be human?
What are some great books on this subject?

[Anonymous No.18253177]

Goethe, Schiller and the immediate reaction to Kant

[Anonymous No.18253184]

>>18253172
are you retarded? it was obviously a backlash against the rationalist demystification of the world

[Anonymous No.18253196]

>>18253172
>Nearly all of literature before Thomas Gray's Elegy is completely devoid of a soul to me
You haven't read much literature.

[Anonymous No.18253210]

>>18253184
>>18253196
I'm trying to start a civil thread. Can we just have one thread that isn't destroyed by autism

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.18253240]

ROMANTICISM IS A DIRECT CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRISM: SAME NATURALISTIC, GODLESS WORLDVIEW, BUT MAWKISHLY SENTIMENTAL, AND PSYCHOLOGISTIC, INSTEAD OF CALLOUSLY EMPIRICAL, AND MECHANICISTIC.

HUMANS? IN THE MIDDLE OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY, WITH ILLUSTRISM, HUMANS DIED, AND HUMANITY WAS BORN; ROMANTICISM IS THE CASKET.

[Anonymous No.18253268]

>>18253240
Kys namefag

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.18253312]

>>18253268


DID YOU NOT WANT TO HAVE A «CIVIL THREAD»? IF SO, WHY DO YOU ATTEMPT TO INSULT ME?

MAYBE WHAT YOU REALLY WANT IS TO HAVE YOUR OPINION VALIDATED, IN WHICH CASE «REDDIT» IS THE PLACE FOR YOU.

[Anonymous No.18253330]

>>18253240
>>18253312
Cringe.
I could answer your question op but I don't participate in threads with namefags.

[Anonymous No.18253333]

>>18253312
Kys pedo

[Anonymous No.18253344]

>>18253312
based

[Anonymous No.18253359]

>>18253172
For me it seems Fichte was in error when we wrote of ego to not then to higher ego (the God head). The spirit of truth is with him, but rather it seems inverted. Ego dissolves in a social body, and reveal s the God head. This is where the Marxist seem to fail. Right in there rejection of Christianity. As Nietzsche points out it is a resentful life denying ideology. Yet however still a peace of the dialectical puzzle is missing. The spirit. For me Marx's blunder is in the rejection of spirit all together, rather than replacing Christianity with a more inline and dialectic spiritual thought of Taoism. He a man of his time and place can not be blamed for this however. For in that age of the world and the geography, he may never even heard of a distant Chinese alchemy. Though that is not the Taoism I speak of either. Marx is right as a left Hegelian, and his theory of Historical Materialism. Such as when he says "The ruling ideas of the day are those of the ruling class." We can see Plato's canonization (although there are other justifications for his canonization as well) and defense of slavery and horror at the concept of land distribution and tax erasure. It is no accident that Plato is rediscovered in the early days of Romanticism. Where the bourgeois class begins it's accent to power.

[Anonymous No.18253363]

>>18253240
>>18253312
>namefag
>all caps
filtered

[Anonymous No.18253490]

>>18253172
Romanticism is a naive, purely human, subjective and profane projection of sentimentality onto the natural world. No doubt there is some beauty and significance particularly in some of the earliest works which were still informed consciously or not, by a more traditional framework of objective standards finally allowed to be expressed by the liberated individuality of great souls. However, as the old system dies out and the foundations of the new enlightened philosophies are exposed as vacuous, this 'new' subjective and sentimental expression quite easily gives way to the nihilstic, relativistic, pessimistic art of recent times.
There is a balance to be had between mind and spirit, perhaps some romanticist works hit close to that equilibrium as Europe transitioned from one extreme, that of the spirit, to the other, that of the mind. Classical Greek civilization, still to this day hit closest to a perfect harmonious balance of mind and spirit.

[Anonymous No.18253501]

>>18253240
Pure nonsense, firstly, a great amount of the romantics were christians: think about coleridge, young, de quincey, blake, wordsworth chateubriand, victor hugo - who, in the famous preface to Cromwell (do read it), argues very forcefully that Romanticism is nothing but Christianity applied to literature
think about lyrical ballads - a revolt against the mannered and stately classicism, poetry about common people, using common language, introspective, spiritual: is this not analogous to the victory of christianity over paganism? and does not it accord perfectly with christian morality?
in fact everything about romanticism seems intensely christian, the idea that it is somehow naturalistic or godless is an incredibly strange and unorthodox one

[Anonymous No.18253516]

>>18253172
Reaction against the autistic and neurotic rationalism of the enlightenment

[Anonymous No.18253517]

>>18253501
based, but you forget Romanticism is not only christian, but specifically also Catholic, most german romanticists (Novalis, Eichendorff, Arnim etc.) converted to Catholicism.

Wasn't that tripfag a catholic too?

[Anonymous No.18253580]

>>18253172
also the OP question is indirectly answered in >>18253501, it was the work of christianity
>>18253517
tripfag is a papist as was Chateaubriand, even lord Byron was pro-catholic

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.18253654]

>>18253501
>Pure nonsense...

NOT REALLY.


>… firstly, a great amount of the romantics were christians: think about coleridge...

«PROTESTANT», NOT CHRISTIAN.

>… young...

WHO?


>… de quincey...

«PROTESTANT», NOT CHRISTIAN.


>… blake...

«PROTESTANT», NOT CHRISTIAN.


>… wordsworth...

«PROTESTANT», NOT CHRISTIAN.


>… chateubriand...

APOSTATE.


>… victor hugo...

APOSTATE.


>think about lyrical ballads - a revolt against...

HAHA.


>…[THE BREAKING DOWN OF] the mannered and stately classicism, poetry about common people, using common language...

ALL THAT WAS DONE, AND PERFECTED, BY (HISPANICAL) BAROQUISM; WHAT ROMANTICISM DID WAS KITSCHY IMITATION.


>… introspective...

MORE LIKE MORBIDLY SUBJECTIVISTIC, AND PATHOLOGICALLY PSYCHOLOGISTIC.


>…spiritual:

MORE LIKE GODLESSLY LOST, AND AGNOSTICALLY GRASPING AT GHOSTS.


>… is this not analogous to the victory of christianity over paganism?

ROMANTICISM WAS A PHLEGMATIC SYMPTOM OF THE DECAY OF CHRISTIANITY, WHICH STARTED WITH ILLUSTRISM; ILLUSTRISM REVIVED PAGANISM, AND ROMANTICISM REFASHIONED IT.


>…and does not it accord perfectly with christian morality?

NO; CONTRARILY: IT DISCORDS WITH IT.


>in fact everything about romanticism seems intensely christian...

EVERYTHING ABOUT ROMANTICISM IS AGNOSTICAL.


>… the idea that it is somehow naturalistic or godless is an incredibly strange and unorthodox one

NOT REALLY; YOU ARE, EITHER: IGNORANT, OR INTELLECTUALLY DEFICIENT.

[Anonymous No.18253668]

It's not even controversial that the French Revolution did.

[Anonymous No.18253895]

>>18253654
I grant that there are similarities between the spanish baroque and romanticism, but does this not rather stress the connection between the old christian ideals and the new romantic ideals? I think the argument might be very well made that the spaniards would have initiated romanticism (with e.g. El Greco and Calderon whose works have obvious similarities) if not for the political ascendancy of the French and their literary theorists. To recognize the value of romanticism is not necessarily injurious to Spain or biased towards the English
But come now, what is pagan about romanticism? the pagans were never subjective or psychological; their gods were bodies, not spirits; they had a firm belief in gradations of rank. all this is rejected by the romantics
Lastly, you said that the values of the romantics conflict with christian morality - can you tell me why?

[Anonymous No.18253903]

>>18253668
I think it is wrong, you can already find romantic characteristics in pre-revolution writers like Rousseau and Young and Gray: better to say that it was the natural evolution of christian civilization - an opinion also followed by the romantics themselves

[Anonymous No.18253939]

>>18253903
You can find romantic characteristics in any era. The French Revolution turned the history page and brought everyone together into a new cultural sphere. Lyrical Ballads mentioned above was directly influenced by the French Revolution.

The "natural evolution of Christian civilization" is applied to everything, and Christianity can be argued to be the "natural evolution of Greek thought".

[Anonymous No.18254018]

>>18253654
whos that qt

[Anonymous No.18254460]

>>18253939
You can, perhaps, find characteristics outwardly similar to romanticism in every age, but every age does not have characteristics which were born just before romanticism, influenced romantic authors, and continued to exist in the romantic period. But the age of Rousseau, Young, and Gray provide just these characteristics.
>The "natural evolution of Christian civilization" is applied to everything
No. It is true that history does not admit the same accuracy as the sciences, but you cannot apply this statement to everything. You cannot apply it to 17th-18th century classicism: it was not Christian because it follows the declarations of pagan authors to fulfil aesthetic criteria devised by pagan authors; it was not the natural evolution of our civilization because it failed, and its influence has ceased to be - unlike that of Romanticism, which continues to this day.

[Anonymous No.18254512]

>>18253654
why do you type in all caps? It's harder to read

[Anonymous No.18254518]

>>18254018
she looks like a goblin. get some taste.

[Anonymous No.18254528]

>>18254460
You provided no arguments so far. Just because you really want it to be so, it doesn't make it so.

[Anonymous No.18254604]

>>18253172

[Anonymous No.18254729]

>>18254528
I make my case here >>18253501
There is some difficulty in arguing the idea because I don't think it is very controversial or unorthodox: even the romantics themselves, as I said, shared it

[Anonymous No.18254888]

>>18254729
>many romantics were Christian
Many people were Christian, so there's nothing special about this.
>rest of the post
Most of it is as representative of Christianity as it is of Eastern mysticism

[Anonymous No.18255475]

>>18254888
>Many people were Christian
They were more Christian than enlightenment writers
>Most of it is as representative of Christianity as it is of Eastern mysticism
Eastern mysticism was not part of their culture or their knowledge as Christianity was

[Anonymous No.18255557]

>>18253172
Read Mario Praz. He identified four Romantic movements in history:

>The Dionysiac movement of 6th century BC
A revolt of worldly ideals against the solar divinities of the Dorians of mystical and chthonic nature.

>The tragedies of Euripides, dialogues of Plato and religious revolution of Paul
A revolt of worldly ideals against the Dionysiac movement into a moral ascetic.

>The chivalric romances of the High Middle Ages
A revolt of worldly ideals against the ascetic and spiritual ideals of the former movement into a rational enlightenment.

>The modern Romantic movement
A revolt of worldly ideals against the enlightenment and rationalism of the former movement, which has become associated with the magical and the supernatural.

Romanticism with Praz, evidently, is any revolution of worldly ideals against a former movement that has become "classical" (a Romantic movement can eventually become classical, in other words), an interruption of an established equilibrium. We wrongly call the latest Romantic movement as the only appearance of Romanticism in history and we wrongly associate the modern Romantic movement with disorderly imagination because it is new.

[Anonymous No.18255614]

tripcoder is right. highest point of human culture seems to have been the baroque movement. everything else is some form of materialism

[Anonymous No.18255635]

Diderot and Rousseau

[Anonymous No.18255649]

>>18253312
based

[Anonymous No.18255670]

>>18253654
>APOSTATE
cope

[Anonymous No.18256393]

>>18255557
Thanks anon. This is the best response so far.

[Anonymous No.18256448]

Industrial revolution

[Anonymous No.18256459]

>>18253210
But he's >>18253184 right though
Also civil threads tend to die quick, or the jannies delete them

[Anonymous No.18256477]

A good starting place might be Isaiah Berlin's Roots of Romanticism. It's also available in the original lecture format, on Youtube. Blanning's Romantic Revolution is short and good too. So is Beiser's Romantic Imperative.

What you note is exactly what's interesting about it. It seems like a subterranean eruption of some kind, with the concrete romantic poetry and philosophy we have being only its aftereffects. There are esoteric readings of the romantic revolution, like Colin Wilson's, that it was essentially the beginnings of a total transformation in human consciousness (and one that fizzled out and was smothered in some ways, leading to our present state of collective neurosis). You don't have to buy these theories completely to understand why people are driven to them. It's hard to explain otherwise what the hell was going on, why it all happened at once. It was like a new axial age.

Barfield has interesting speculations on it too, mirroring anthroposophy. Northrop Frye is also interesting, although his main major work on the subject is focused on Blake.

[Anonymous No.18256486]

>>18256477
Also adding to this, reading Berlin's Counter-Enlightenment is a good idea if you enjoy his Roots of Romanticism lectures/book. He has some interesting ideal typology of the romantic age, like his expressionism idea.

[Anonymous No.18256682]

>>18255614
kek shut the fuck up pseud

[Anonymous No.18256694]

>>18256486
>>18256477
Berlin is a retard, don't read

[Anonymous No.18256698]

>>18256682
what's pseud about what i said? baroque was a well integrated mix of worldviews, romanticism was within the modern worldview

[Anonymous No.18256837]

>>18253172
>It's almost as if humans collectively decided to become human at a single point in history. Nearly all of literature before Thomas Gray's Elegy is completely devoid of a soul to me. Is this because people refused to acknowledge their place in the universe? Or do we just have our own biased modern conception of what it means to be human?
Read more ancient sources.
Humans were exactly the same as they were when writing was developed.
All of this humans being invented it pure shit and anyone who has read history sources from the ancient past knows it.

[Anonymous No.18257115]

>>18256837
>All of this humans being invented it pure shit and anyone who has read history sources from the ancient past knows it.
Didn't you know that humans were invented by Shakespeare??

[Anonymous No.18257122]

>>18257115
So harold bloom claims but the idea is retarded and he's retarded for saying it, he doesn't even really justify it properly.

[Anonymous No.18258366]

I have nothing to add, but I don't want this thread to die.

[Anonymous No.18258376]

>>18258366
lol, I know that feeling.

[Anonymous No.18258384]

>>18253654
>>18253312
>>18253240
Pretty based for a tripfag

[Anonymous No.18258523]

>>18253654
It's not even your dimwitted takes, more that anybody with a shtick as obnoxious as yours needs to fuck off permanently from this board. It's bad enough here already, tripfag.

[.࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ KNDY/Ar.i(...) No.18258562]

>>18253240
I'M TRANS BTW