19th Century Showdown: The Romantics and the Realists

19th Century Showdown: The Romantics and the Realists
(The subtitle was going to be "Romantics, Realists, Renaissance Writers, and Revolutionaries," but I thought that would be overkill to include in the blog...)

The 19th C. (1800-1900) in Europe marks an important shift in the development of 20th C. Western society, and what we now take for granted in the 21st Century. Before we delve into the debate between these two camps, we need to recall the significance of the Renaissance on the 19th C.

Yes, Shakespeare is largely to blame for most of what transpired in Europe in the 1900s! Think back to our lesson on Renaissance sonnets: we distinguished between the Petrachan idea--romantic, melodramatic, intensely feeling. Petrach likely would be considered "emo" (the sensitive kind, not the goth kind) if he were alive today. Think Romeo--he was the quintessential Petrarchan lover. He was ready to light himself on fire and throw himself into on-coming traffic (carriages, that is) over a girl who didn't even know he existed, whom he promptly forgot about after seeing Juliet for the first time; oh, and he marries this 13-year old girl less than 12 hours later. Insert emo stereotypes here.

Shakespeare, quite eloquently and respectfully, gave his view of love to contrast Petrarch. Think of the sonnet we read which begins, "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun." He goes on to describe what seems to be a quite unattractive woman whom he's nonetheless in love with. He was the more mature, more modern lover of the time. His teenage lover was the kid who'd been held back, who knew the ropes; the literary high school cougar-hunter. He gave a more "realistic" ideal of love to contrast Petrarch's, which was no doubt influenced by the Renaissance emphasis on chivalry and courtly love. Note, that they both dealt with the same topics--love, time, nature, regret--but approached them somewhat differently. Both seem to reach the conclusion of carpe diem--that life (and love) is fleeting, and that we should enjoy it while we can.

Enter the 19th Century writers. They took their cues from Petrarch and Shakespeare. They found themselves in the arena of two distinct but intertwined revolutions: the Industrial Revolution, and the political revolutions of the Americas, England, France, and darn near every other Western European country. They saw their world changing around them, and the glory of the Renaissance man became the agony of the urban man; cities developed, and so did slums. Nature became more and more distant to people who were forced to work and labor in unfit conditions to survive. The widening gap between rich and poor was bridged by a rising middle class who was increasingly unhappy with government. Artists became activists, and began using their art and literature to strive for change in society. Let's look at the different approaches of the two.

The Romantics
In this corner is the 19th C.'s version of a hippie: the Romantic writers wanted to break away from rules and established order, get back in touch with their feelings, and reconnect to nature. They valued simplicity and individuality, and sought spirituality in an increasingly secular world. They did not reject reason, but lobbied for the elevation of the imagination, and revolted against the restrictions imposed by classical aristocratic ideas. You can just see them barefoot in the woods, reading poetry to each other from recycled books while driving Prius's (or free-range horse-drawn buggies made from organic trees, or whatever). 

The Realists
In this corner is 19th C.'s version of the fist-pumping activist: the Realist writers sought to tether their experience by describing it in raw, factual detail, and hopefully therefore reforming it. They also had a great deal of concern over social institutions, but, of course, couldn't break away to their cabin in the woods because of their 12-hour days at the factory, six days a week. Rather than break away from the rules, they sought to to break the rules and the established order. They wrote mostly stories, novels and plays like Les Miserables, War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, and even Frankenstein to warn of the dangers of unbridled industrialization and unchecked political power. You can just see them drinking their black coffee and smoking their cigarettes and hating it, listening to underground radio, scoffing at the Romantics, and planning on overthrowing the government.

You'll notice that I've not ever mentioned that the Romantics and the Realists were against each other--this is not "Romantics vs. Realists," this is "Romantics and Realists." They both were looking at the same metaphorical coin, just from different proverbial sides. They both realized the negative affects of industrialism and the impact civil and political uprisings were having on their society; they just went about dealing with that reality in somewhat different ways. They were not very different at all, and indeed many authors of the period could be classified as both romantic and realist. What they did succeed in doing, though, was ushering a new typed of "hero" in the Western world (aha, yes, you knew we'd come back to that idea, right?). Heroes are no longer warriors or knights, nor just gentlemen (or noble ladies), explorers, or captains of industry. The "pen is mightier than the sword" idea had caught on. (Think American Revolution; though many of those who had a hand in it did fight, just as many contributed simply by writing and voicing their ideas.) Although, history is somewhat cyclical; the 20th century would see the return of the idea of "might makes right" with several international conflicts, which changed indelibly the idea of and perhaps the belief in the concept of "hero"...

*     *     *
QUESTION TO CONSIDER
*Note: You may NOT use this question as a "Blog Response" for your oral presentation, but you may respond to it for 1pt in the extra credit category.


Do you consider yourself more "romantic" or more "realist"? (Be aware that I've oversimplified the definitions in my entry, and be aware that, although I do not like hippies, I am a romantic at heart.) Do you see yourself as a lover or a fighter? In your response, try to define what you think of as "romantic" or "realist," and explain why you think you fit that definition.