Some Thoughts on Romanticism. . . .

I am always on the lookout for early uses of the term Romanticism in English. The term Romantic as applied to literature was commonplace even in the 18th century but it usually referred things such as gothic novels or overtly pastoral material, and was often used in the pejorative sense.  Romanticism identified as a literary movement associated with the work of such poets as Coleridge, Wordsworth, Shelley, Byron, and others did not come into general until later in the 19th century. This is not to say that it then had, or even has today, a clear and straightforward connotation. Today, Romanticism as a literary term has basically lost credibility from an academic point of view. There are far too many conflicting interests and ideas within the work of those authors normally deemed to be leading Romanticists for it to be a rigorously useful notion. But then most terms in Art and Literary history are really just terms of convenience which we should only use loosely for the sake of historical and biographical ease. Thus, if I were teaching a group of highschool or young university students I would use the term Romanticism for the sake of creating a useful picture of historical movement, all the while making sure to stress that such terms are historically convenient rather than philosophically rigorous. I think what is important for young students to understand is that there were major social and economic changes taking place toward the end of the 18th century and that these changes had a significant correlate in the arts.

Anyway, getting back to my point about the use of the word Romanticism, I found an early use of the term yesterday in a 1829 edition of the London Magazine. It is found in an article entitled "Modern French Poetry" which is particularly concerned with the work of Victor Hugo who was still a young man and had not produced his important work. The passage also contains an interesting use of the word "ultraism" now usually associated with a Spanish literary movement of the early 20th century. The sentence in which the word is used is as follows - "For, in France, romanticism and ultraism (strange as the supposed union may appear) are considered, in a writer, consequent on, and inseparable from, each other; - whilst an undeviating, scrupulous attachment to the authors of the age of Louis XIV, (for, after all, the French idea of classic is nearly confined to them,) - a supercilious contempt for literature of other countries - a dread of change or innovation, in language, rhythm, or general costume - classicism, in short, as it is understood, is considered as equivalent to liberalism, though it is, in fact ultrasim in literature."

Now, I have a fair degree of knowledge of this subject and over twenty years of experience and I cannot honestly say that this sentence makes complete sense to me. The author (who, by the way remains anonymous) seems to be contradicting himself, saying that both romanticism and classicism are forms of ultraism. It also seems to strangely suggest that classicism is associated with liberalism - an idea that seems in direct contradiction to the conventional wisdom. I welcome comments by any of my five or six readers on how they read this sentence.

Despite the turgid obscurity of this sentence, it is an early use of the term Romanticism, and is therefore interesting. However, what is arguably more interesting is the paragraph that follows this passage and, by certain interpretations, it could be seen as shedding light on the previous sentence.

"These unions between parties in politics, and parties in poetry, really exist in France, as we have described them. The fact presents an evident anomaly, and not one of the least curious of our days. For, according to our general notion of things, the parties certainly should be differently assorted. The romantic, or the bold, the innovating, the irregular, in poetry, would ally itself with the speculative, the reforming, the experimental, in politics. On the other side, a scrupulous observance of ancient ordonnances in belles lettres, an exclusive reverence for the works of the great monarchy, for set forms, for the unities, for the dictionary of the Academy, (who determined, in their wisdom, some century and a half ago, that they had fixed the language of their country, which was thenceforth to know neither change nor augmentation) - in short, a devotion to every thing settled, regular, and legitimate, and an abhorrence of novelties and exotics - classicism, in a word, would take refuge in the faubourg St. Germain, the head-quarters of ultraism."

(The Faubourg Saint-Germain, for those who don't know, was the richest, most aristocratic district in Paris)

This sentence does two things. First, it eliminates once an for all the notion that obfuscating prose is a product only of the "post-modern" philosophical mind. Second, it clears up somewhat the previous sentence. The writer is suggesting that while one would expect the Romantics to be associated with radical politics and Classicists to be associated with more conservative political efforts, this is not what in fact prevails in France in the early part of the 19th century. Now, 19th century French literature is certainly not my area of expertise and I am not sure that I am qualified to make a properly informed decision on this issue. (By the way, the editor of the magazine (which at this particular point may have been either John Taylor or Thomas Hood) puts a footnote at this point in the text to suggest that he, in fact, disagrees with the writer). I suspect that this may be a misinterpretation of the events by the writer, but I will leave it to my own readers to decide for themselves.

What I do know is that in England, the ideas of Romanticism are clearly more associated (at least in peoples' minds) with radical politics. The first generation of Romantic authors began as serious radicals and reformers. And as they grew more conservative in outlook, it is almost universally acknowledged that their work declined significantly in quality and interest. The younger generation of Romantics, such as Shelley and Byron, were outspoken political radicals. Other, lesser known writers who bridged the generations and some of whom lived well into the Victorian age such as Leigh Hunt, Thomas Hood, Charles Lamb, Mary Mitford, John Hamilton Reynolds, Allan Cunningham,  were all committed reformers.

Again, since Romanticism is not a very rigorous concept, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to make a consistent argument that the values of Romanticism are necessarily radical in any political sense. However, I do know one thing for certain. Almost all of the writers that I really love are political radicals, and that is how I think it should be. Art, by its nature, should look toward the ideal, toward utopia, and it should believe, at some basic level, that the ideal is worth striving for. If an artist cannot strive toward utopia in the 'real' world, then she will not know how to strive for it in the aesthetic one.

We'll change henceforth the old tradition. . . . .

From Shelley's Mask of Anarchy -

Stand ye calm and resolute,
Like a forest close and mute,
With folded arms and looks which are
Weapons of unvanquished war.

And if then the tyrants dare,
Let them ride among you there,
Slash, and stab, and maim, and yew,
What they like, that let them do.

With folded arms and steady eyes,
And little fear, and less surprise
Look upon them as they slay
Til their rage has died away.

Then they will return with shame
To the place from which they came,
And the blood thus shed will speak
In hot blushes on their cheek.

Rise like lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you  -
Ye are many, they are few!

Partisanship past and future....

The degree of partisanship in Canadian politics continues to amaze me. And this partisanship is increasingly coming from the Liberals directed at the NDP. And I am not talking about genuine political discourse here, I am referring to sophomoric, offensive, personal abuse as one recent relatively high-profile blogger making remarks about the size of Jack Layton’s penis. Of course, not everyone is engaging in such effrontery but it is becoming disturbingly common, and sadly widespread from a party that has, in recent years, seen the political atmosphere poisoned by the ultra-partisan Harper government. And even when the more rabid partisans are not making ridiculous criticisms of Layton, or some other NDP Member of Parliament, I find it amazing that so many Liberals are continuing to belittle the NDP as a party of crazy left-wing quacks. This really is getting wearisome, particularly in light of recent global events.

First of all, the NDP is not really very left-wing: Oh that it were! Second of all, how much more evidence do we need that Western Capitalism is not, in its present model, anywhere near as effective as its adherents would have us believe?  Most members of NDP are actually pretty middle of the road social democrats who just believe that a regulated market economy can be fairly effective in various ways but that so-called market forces are not effective and don’t belong in certain other areas such as healthcare and education. Many NDP supporters also understand that there is a pretty strong, hardly secretive, coalition of banks, big-business, arms manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies etc, who have for a long time now and continue to promote a certain ideology in their interests and continually attempt to undermine the promotion of social solutions, as they are at present in the US debate over healthcare. Now, given the fact that Capitalism has demonstrated its feet of clay so spectacularly in recent years, many of the policies of the NDP have never been so relevant and important. It is very amusing that so many of the social policies that most people find essential to our society were promoted by parties like the NDP but people continue to berate such policies when they are perceived as new ideas. The vast majority of the Canadians today support a universal medical system, universal  basic education, the right to collective bargaining, legislation to ensure safe working conditions, etc etc. Yet there was a time not that long ago when all of these policies were berated by many as crazy left-wing ideas that were communistic in nature and not practical.

The continual attack by many Liberals on the NDP portraying them as a bunch of wing-nuts who have no idea about realistic politics just make the Liberals look more like the self-righteous, bullying,  hyper-partisan Conservatives. And the funniest part of the whole thing is that where the NDP now stands on the political spectrum is very close to where the Liberals stood 35 years ago. So when the Liberals criticism the NDP of today they are, in a very real sense, insulting the former generation of Liberals. Now don’t get me wrong, the NDP continue themselves to be far too partisan for my tastes. It is remarkable that during this weekend’s convention the NDP has talked a lot about the need to build on the political strategies of Obama. Yet many of them don’t seem to understand that Obama’s primary strength is that he almost never sounds partisan, even when he is pushing a partisan agenda. Jack Layton, on the other hand, sounds partisan almost every time he opens his mouth.

In the early 19^th century Percy Shelley laid out what was at the time considered a dangerously radical agenda. He called for universal suffrage (including women), the elimination of hereditary privilege, the right for people to form trade unions, a just and fair legal system, etc. Today almost everything Shelley fought for is considered to be essential to a modern democracy. But in his day Shelley was berated as a crazy radical who was evil and dangerous. So it goes.

Rise like Lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you-

Ye are many they are few.

                                                                Shelley

 

Thank you Shelley! We vow to continue your struggle and pass it on to our children! And we will never abandon our future to the petty, little soulless people who seek to enchain the human spirit and reduce our lives to nothing but money and profit. 

Shelley, poor sailor, great poet

Percy Shelley, one of the greatest poets of the English language, was plagued by problems regardin water. He was entirely incapable of swimming yet, like so many of his contemporary poets, he had a romantic attraction to water and spent much of his time finding enjoyment and recreation in its mysteries. When he was young he loved to make paper boats and watch them float on rivers and lakes. He would even rip pages out of books if no other paper was at hand to make his folded watercraft. There is one story of him making a boat out of a five-pound note because he could find nothing else to use.

There was one occasion which is often recounted in which Shelley was watching Byron and Trelawney swimming and he so longed to join them in their recreation that he simply dove in the water without even removing his clothing. Being unable to swim and apparently having no natural buoyancy, Shelley simply sunk like a stone to the bottom of the pond without even struggling. His two friends looked on for some moments utterly shocked at what Shelley had just done and waiting for him to bob up to the surface. When he didn’t move from the bottom Trelawney jumped in and rescued him. Shelley simply remarked that if his friends had left him for a few more moments he could have decided on the question of the after-life.

When he moved to Italy Shelley began to take up boating as a serious hobby. His first dangerous experience was with a small canal boat which capsized and Shelley was only saved by his friend Edward Williams. Then when Shelley and his family moved to Lerici he purchased a small coracle which was extremely unstable, causing his wife and friends to constantly worry that he was going to drown at any moment.

Of course, Shelley did eventually drown after he purchased a small, hardly sea-worthy,  sloop. When Leigh Hunt came to Italy on Shelley’s recommendation he sailed his sloop from the Gulf of Spezia to Livorno where he disembarked and spent a couple of days with Byron and Hunt in Piza. Despite the poor weather and warnings from other, more experienced, sailors Shelley set sail for home with his friend Williams and a young Italian sailing mate. Trelawney watched as they sailed into the distance, never to be seen again.

Sometimes I feel like Shelley was lucky. He had produced great poetry, he had loved, been loved, known great writers, seen amazing things. And despite carrying a heavy emotional burden in his outlook on life, it didn’t drag out too long. He didn’t have to contemplate death for a long time, he just sunk beneath the waves and was gone. It was painful and terrible for those he left behind for certain. But for him this difficult experience was over.  

Negative Ads, Percy Shelley and Bloodsucking Conservatives

Ok, I am only going to make one more post about these negative ads because it is getting boring. But since I have had a few people on the internet observe that they doubt that these ads are bigoted I just need to clear this up. The easy way to know that these ads have an undercurrent of bigotry is with a small conceptual exercise. Imagine for a moment that Michael Ignatieff happened to be a person of color. In this Case it is clear that the even the Conservative Party would not have run the ads because the implications would be very clear to everyone. Or if the ReformaTories did run these ads under such condition the outcry would have been so overwhelming that they would have pulled them. As it is the ran another ad that I am sure they have pulled (at least in this area of the country) which showed various events over the past thirty-five years and said that "these were the events that shaped my Canada . . . and Ignatieff missed them all." The bigoted, dare I say racist, implications of this ad were much more clear and that is the reason, I venture to say, that I have not seen it again.

Tell every ReformaTory you can that these ads do not constitute political discourse and they bilittle us all and slowly destroy the core of our 'democracy.' Oh yea, I forgot, the destruction of democracy seems to be the actual goal of the ReformaTories. They cut off funding for court challenges, they have destroyed the freedom of Cabinet Ministers (and Caucus members) to speak, they have take almost all funding from adult literacy programs, they destroyed de facto freedom of information, they fired watchdogs who do their jobs, they have ignored court orders, they have ignored actual bills passed by the majority of the House (failing to implement the will o the people), they have created handbooks on how to shut down parliamentary committees, they have prorogued parliament to avoid a confidence vote, and though they created the office of the Parlliamentary Budget officer, they cut his powers after he did his job and have consistency refused to cooperate with him because he doesn't say what they want to hear. The destruction of democracy and the 'coronation' of their leader into absolute power is clearly their goal.

But you know, the only thing I don't understand about it is why average Conservative MPs are putting up with this. Surely they got elected to have some say in how government works and if you read Garth Turner's recent book Sheeples it is clear that they MPs have no say at all. And watching the Government self-destruct means many of them will lose their seats so why don't they just speak up?

I met murder on the way-
He had a mask like Castlereagh -
Very smooth he looked, yet grim;
Seven blood-hounds followed him;

All were fat; and well they might
Be in admirable plight,
For one by one, and two by two,
He tossed them human hearts to chew
Which from his wide cloak he drew.


Shelley (from The Mask of Anarchy)

Now imagine Harper as Castlereagh and the seven fat blood suckers as John Baird, Jay Hill, Jason Kenney, Peter Van Loan, Jim Flahety, Gerry Ritz, and Rona Ambrose.

What has become of radicalism?

“The poor are set to labour – for what? Not the food for which they famish; not the blankets for want of which their babes are frozen by the cold of their miserable hovels; not those comforts of civilization without which civilized man is far more miserable than the meanest savage – no: for the pride of power, for the miserable isolation of pride, for the false pleasures of one hundredth part of society.  -Shelley

 

It is remarkable that radicals like Shelley who wrote nearly two hundred years ago, still sound radical today. The vulnerable are still everywhere the victims of the powerful, the majority continue to labor under atrocious conditions for little money while the rich and powerful work less under better conditions for a great deal more money. Political debates rage but the primary political parties differ little in their basic paradigm and few are ready to make any genuine changes that will raise average people up to a tolerable level. The great radicals of the late 18^th and early 19^th century, like Paine, Godwin, Thelwall, Holcroft, William Blake, etc., are even radical by today’s standards. How little progress we have made.

 

Shelley and the Beliefs of politics

“Belief and disbelief are utterly distinct from and unconnected with volition. They are the apprehension of the agreement or disagreement of the ideas which compose any proposition. Belief is an involuntary operation of the mind, and like other passions, its intensity is precisely proportionate to the degrees of excitement.”  So wrote Percy Shelley in his early prose piece entitled A Letter to Lord Ellenborough, a remarkably eloquent statement from the pen of an eighteen year old boy. And while this passage is a very small part of a fairly long text that deals with the persecution of deists in England, I quote it here because I find it at once interesting and a little scary. I find it daunting because it seems true but its truth has problematic implications for politics. This is because belief doesn’t just form the foundation of religion but people’s politics also seem to be founded on some basic beliefs about what can or should be, what the goals of society should entail etc, etc. We have all experienced this firsthand. Someone has a particularly noxious political belief which they attempt to justify with an elaborate rational discourse which is really just a sophistic defense of some core beliefs. I have argued so many times with people about politics only to find, after a long process, that they have some outrageous belief about people that is not based on any rational discourse but is just a frightening bigotry. (I recently saw this in action when someone was speaking with utter derision of the Tamil protestors that were on Parliament Hill here in Ottawa for nearly a week – disrupting traffic and trying to gain attention for their cause. Instead of addressing the important issues that the Tamil’s were attempting to raise about the bigotry and brutality that the Tamil people have suffered, this person just waved them off as ‘stupid trouble makers.’ ) This is, for me, particularly disturbing in right-wing ideology which is so often rooted in an underlying belief that certain people are simply more worthy of prosperity and power than others. In action we can see this in their continual and nauseating attack on the most vulnerable people in society. This is not to imply that the political positions of left-winger’s are not rooted in certain beliefs; they are indeed. However, I simply find the beliefs of the left, for the most part, more attractive and beneficial than others. They are, I think, rooted in compassion, equity, and a society that not only the strong or connected enjoy prosperity.

Yet, all of this still leaves us with a difficult quandary; how do we engage in political struggle when at the heart of these struggles are beliefs which are not necessarily subject to rational discourse? 

Shelley strikes again....

I was looking through Shelley's The Revolt of Islam yesterday and in the Preface, written by himself, Shelley was talking about the effect of the French Revolution in his own time. Not only are his words pertinent to what I have been posting lately concerning the Romantics and the events in France, but, if you just change the proper nouns, it is very reminiscent of what we are experiencing today. (Some of us more cynical people may wonder a little at the last little spot of optimism at the end but otherwise Shelley's words still inform today)

“But, on the first reverses of hope in the progress of French liberty, the sanguine eagerness for good overleaped the solution of these questions, and for a time extinguished itself in the unexpectedness of their result. Thus, many of the most ardent and tender-hearted of the worshippers of public good have been morally ruined by what a partial flimpse of the events they deplored  appeared to show as the melancholy desolation of all their cherished hopes. Hence gloom and misanthropy have become the characteristics of the age in which we live, the solace of a disappointment that unconsciously finds relief only in the wilful exaggeration of its own despair. This influence has tainted the literature of the age with the hopelessness, of the minds from which it flows. Metaphysics, and inquires into moral and political science, have become little else than vain attempts to revive exploded superstitions, or sophisms like those of Mr. Malthus, calculated to lull the oppressors of mankind into a security everlasting triumph. Our works of fiction and poetry have been overshadowed by the same infectious gloom. But mankind appear to me to be emerging from their trance. I am aware, methinks, of a slow, gradual, silent change.” 

Very interesting would you agree?

Passion, Romanticism, and the Imagination

The conservative ideology that came up against Romanticism, and the revolutions that accompanied it, was in part inspired by the fear that the ‘people’ were going to becomes slaves to their passions. Men like Edmund Burke were terrified that the “swinish multitude” (as he refered to the people)  were inherently less civilized and if given the opportunity to release their passions then society would regress into chaos. Conservative ideologists believed that the events of France confirmed their worst fears as the terror shattered the country and thousands fell victim to the dreaded guillotine.  As a result of a conservative backlash, radicalism largely died out in Britain during the course of the 1790s as even the Romantics began to fear an expansionist France. Some radicals, like John Thelwall and William Hazlitt went to great lengths to point out that the Revolution was pushed into its terrible excesses by the pressure put on it by other European powers, and there is certainly some merit in this position. And of course, the conservative forces overlooked the fact that the so-called ‘civilized’ classes had always been and continued to be brutal and blood-thirsty, and their power was not based on the fact that they were civilized and controlled their passions but was founded in their sadism and selfishness. A Romantic might argue that it was the repressed and perverted passions of the ruling class that had always been the problem, and at some level I think this is true. I believe that a central core of Romanticism is the idea that if we are properly in touch with our passions we will be enriched and empowered rather than turned into slaves. If we can embrace our positive passions in the context of genuinely ethical and loving behavior,  we will enrich ourselves beyond our sometimes prosaic imaginations. Meanwhile, the conservative ideology continues to operate in the realm of egoism in which the positive passions are repressed and their exuberant energy is given over to destructive partisanship and  self-aggrandizement.

To thirst and find no fill - to wail and wander

With short unsteady steps - to pause and ponder - 

To feel the blood run through the veins and tingle

Where busy thought and blind sensation mingle;

To nurse the image of unfelt caresses

Till dim imagination just possesses

The half-created shadow.

-Shelley  

Poetic Relief

By way of relief from my last posting and from the general state of things which has been less than ideal, I return to the world of poetry. And let's face it, we could all use a little (or a lot) more poetry in our lives. 

My dad was born in tenement buildings in Errol Street in central London. The buildings were sponsored by George Peabody, a philanthropist who had buildings constructed all over London for the working poor. The other day I was using Google street view and I could look at the actual building where my dad was born. And as I was virtually driving around my dad's neighbourhood in London, I went by Bunhill Fields grave yard which you can just see a small portion of on Google. Then it occurred to me that this is the site where William Blake is buried. It is not known for certain the location of his grave but there is a marker that was put in later to honor this great poet. And a perfect place to see it is one of my favorite web sites called Poet's Graves. http://www.poetsgraves.co.uk/index.html This is a great site that I recommend

because you can find all sorts of interesting facts and photos. It seems morbid at first 

thought but it really is kind of comforting to see that there are others out there who

also honor the great voices of poetic language. Its nice to know one is not entirely alone

in a rather harsh world. Take a quick look at the grave of your favorite poet and

remember the great power of language and love.

Hail to thee, blithe spirit!

Bird thou never wert -

That from heaven or near it

Pourest thy full heart

In profuse strains of unpremeditated art

-Shelley

Shelley's political language

One of Percy Shelley’s greatest poems was the Masque of Anarchy written as an attack on the brutality of the British government of the 2nd Earl of Liverpool who was Prime Minister from 1812-1827. Liverpool surrounded himself with such distasteful men as Viscount Castlereagh and Viscount Sidmouth. Shelley’s attack on these brutal and cruel men was visceral and passionate. For those who don’t realize that even a Romantic poet can use provocative political language, here are a few verses from the Masque of Anarchy.

I met Murder on the way--

He had a mask like Castlereagh--

Very smooth he look'd yet grim;

Seven bloodhounds followed him:

All were fat; and well they might

Be in admirable plight,

For one by one, and two by two,

He tossed them humanhearts to chew,

Which from his wide cloak he drew.

Next came Fraud, and he had on,

Like Lord E--, an ermined gown;

His big tears, for he wept well,

Turned to mill-stones as they fell;

And the little children, who

Round his feet played to and fro,

Thinking every tear a gem,

Had their brains knockedout by, them.

Shelley on Love

For your entertainment, a letter written by Percy Shelley to his friend T.J. Hogg June 2nd 1811.

“What is Passion? The very word implies an incapacity for action, otherwise than in unison with its dictates, What is reason? It is a thing independent, inflexible; it adapts thoughts and actions to the varying circumstances, which for ever change – adapts them so as to produce the greatest overbalance of happiness. And to whom do you now give happiness? Not to others, for you associate with but few: those few regard you with the highest feelings of admiration and friendship; but perhaps there is but one; - and here is self again – not to yourself; for the truth of this I choose yourself, as a testimony against you. I think; reason; listen; cast off prejudice; hear the dictates of plain common sense – surely is it not evident? I loved a being an idea in my mind, which had no real existence. I concreted this abstract of perfection, I annexed this fictitious quality to the idea presented by a name; the being, whom that name signified, was by no means worthy of this. This is the truth; Unless I am determinedly blind – unless I am resolved causelessly and selfishly to seek destruction, I must see it. Plain! Is it not plain! I loved a being; the being, whom I loved, is not what she was; she exists no longer. I regret when I find that she never existed, but in my mind yet does it not border on willful deception, deliberate, intentional self-deceit, to continue to love the body, when the soul is no more? As well might I court the worms which the soulless body of a beloved being generates – be lost to myself, and to those who love me for what is really amiable in me – in the damp, unintelligent vaults of a charnel-house. Surely, when it is carried to the dung-heap as a mass of putrefaction, the loveliness of the flower ceases to charm. Surely it would be irrational to annex to this inertness the properties which the flower in its state of beauty possessed, which now cease to exist, and then did mearly exist, because adjoined to it. Yet you will call this cold reasoning? No; you will not! This would be the exclamation of the uninformed Weter, not of my noble friend. But, indeed, it is not cold reasoning, if you saw me at this moment. I wish I could reason coldly, I should then stand more chance of success. But let me consider it myself – exert my own reasoning powers; let me entreat myself to awake.”