Abercrombie sets up by stating some of the disagreements over what Romanticism is, some saying that it is ªthe spirit of freedom, and the return to nature,ºor ªthe revolt against nature, ... delight in the supernatural,ºwhile still others say it is ªunprejudiced technical sincerity,ºor ªit is nothing but the reflection of social instability.º It is interesting to note that one of the ways Abercrombie distinguishes his definition of Romanticism from others is that he does not believe Wordsworth is a romantic poet. He then says, however, that all this dispute ªcan only be due to the immense variety of shapes the subject can appear in.º
He then does a very brief etymological trace of the word Romanticism, and the `original' definition he settles upon for a romantic landscape, the ªsetting or mood of a story which put imagination very noticeably above actual possibility.º Abercrombie also has something to say about the `Romantic Movement', which he considers to be wrongly named, because not everything in it was Romantic. (He again mentions Wordsworth as being not a romantic, just ªthe loftiest talent that happened to occur in an age remarkable, amongst other things, for romantic tendencies.º)
One of the major points of Abercrombie's lecture is that, ªEveryone nowadays agrees that to trace the origins of the nineteenth-century Romantic Movement takes us far back into the eighteenth century. But it takes us right past the eighteenth century.º He considers Chatterson, Macpherson, and even Pope to have Romantic elements in their work. After giving several examples of these, he mentions also that Aeschylus, Plato, and Homer, to name just a few.
Abercrombie makes the rather interesting (and possibly unfair) statement that ªthere can hardly be such a thing as a great poet without some tinge of romanticism: to those I have mentioned, I may add Dante, Milton and Goethe. But the mere presence of romantic quality does not carry with it the title of romantic poet.º The only romantic poets, he constantly emphasizes, are those who have Romanticism as the ªgoverning element in their idiosyncrasy.º He compares one of Coleridge's stanzas (clearly Romantic, of course) to a stanza by G. Masters in 1747, noting a number of similarities, and asks if both are therefore Romantic.
His next major point is that Romanticism and Classicism are not opposites, but merely two different things altogether. He compares Romanticism to the Aristolean element of earth, in that many [quite different] things are earthy, but they may all be called earth. Romanticism is ªan element of art, contributing to the whole a characteristic state of things, which can hardly be found altogether separate from other states, but which may nevertheless be found predominating.º Classicism, however, is ªnot an element at all, but a mode of combining the elements.º (This would seem to imply that such a thing as Classic Romanticism is possible.) After this, he tries to find in other works specific parts of Romanticism, such as nature, hope, or ªa tendency away from actuality.º
__________________________________________________________________
Jesse D. Hurlbut--Last Updated November 15, 1993