The Romantics

[rebness]

I just caught an excellent programme on the birth of Romanticism and how it affected, and was affected by, changing European society, and it’s only thanks to the squeeing of the David Tennant communities on LJ that I knew it was on. The basics of Romanticism, the documentary argued, were laid down at first by the writings of the French philosopher Diderot. He argued that freedom could not exist, nor progress be made, while Europe centred on a regime controlled by kings who insisted their authority was a divine authority. “Man can never be free until the last priest has been strangled with the entrails of the last king.” The king responded by throwing him in gaol.

The Romantics continued their assault on tradition, finding that the sentiments and wishes for freedom from the old regimes of Europe crystallised by Rousseau and Diderot found their place in a Brave New World. Literally; those Europeans who settled in America seemed to carry with them the hopes of the old world for equality, but the freedom to realise that away from oppressive European society. Their ideas apparently found root, culminating in the Declaration of Independence. This in turn was said to have inspired Blake, the libertarian who uttered, “The King of England, looking Westwards, trembles at the vision… Our Empire is no more.” Romanticism and the sentiments inspired by the perceived freedom of the Americans changed history forever—resentment built up in Europe against the old regimes courtesy of Blake and Diderot, spilling over into bloodshed with the French Revolution. Even the poet Wordsworth, for whom I had a heretofore rational irrational hatred for, got in on the act, travelling to Paris to soak up this Brave New World and falling in love with the city and a peasant woman.

Of course, there’s a different line to take with this—I’ve always taken it that the Romantics eventually tried to turn away from the tumultuous new Europe brought about by the French revolution, and it’s not hard to see how conflicted Wordsworth was when the ideals of this new world resulted in the slaughter of the priests during the Terror, slaughter Diderot had eulogised about but never expected to pass. He fled France for his life, and presumably turned to those bleedin’ daffodils to rid his mind of the sight of the guillotine—but not before giving revolution a human face and turning the bloodshed of the Terror into enduring art, not least by inspiring Coleridge to write the pertinent Rime of the Ancient Mariner.

It was a great programme, handsomely shot and always interesting. David Tennant gave life to Rousseau’s words about the corruption of society on the individual while gazing about the boulevards of Paris; the Statue of Liberty gleamed while Blake’s words were read out and the Berlin wall fell hundreds of years later. It was a visually stunning programme, giving new vigour to the Romantics.

I have but one criticism, and that was the choosing of a man whose delivery was eerily reminiscent of Elmer Fudd. “Thousands of ships had cawwied immigwants to its shaws,” he said with as much gravitas as he could muster, “it was called amewica.” Very off-putting.

Comments

[kiraelf.livejournal.com]

I taped this to watch later. I could be cultured and say it was because I covered this stuff in my sociology course I took a few years ago and it fascinates me. Or I could just say Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee and I taped it because David Tennant was in it! Either way I'll tell you what I think after I watch it!

[rebness.livejournal.com]

LMAO! I love you. >:)

If I'm honest, Tennant may have been a huge incentive to catch this programme. He was gorgeous as Rousseau! But yes, do let me know what you think of it.

[saffronlie.livejournal.com]

ENOUGH WITH THOSE ICONS.

I'm sick of the Romantics.

[rebness.livejournal.com]

PLS TO GIVE ME ROMANTICS INPUT NOW.

Lizzie thinks it's disgraceful, a woman walking off into the woods like that. And Lizzie has a better rack, anyway.

[saffronlie.livejournal.com]

We are not going to play "My Jane Austen heroine is better than yours". Grow up. I demand that you grow up! Now.

[rebness.livejournal.com]

If this ends in my being thrown in a dungeon, you'll come to regret it when the sans-culottes come storming at your door. >:

I'm crying now. Crying!

[saffronlie.livejournal.com]

I doubt it will come to that, you melodramatic cow.

[rebness.livejournal.com]

I need more melodramatic icons.

[ozfille]

I always had the impression that both Revolutions - French and American were more a result of the Enlightenment or at least the way of thinking promoted by Enlightenment thinkers rather than the Romantics.

[rebness.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah. That's what I meant. I always thought Romanticism was a turning away from the reality of revolution, which had been kick-started itself by the writings of Voltaire and co during the Englightenment. I think the documentary argued that this still stands, but that Romanticism played a huge part in the revolutionising of Europe that it hadn't been credited with beforehand.

[ozfille]

I suppose so. Sober logical may be used to justify and initiate revolution but it would not be sufficient by itself to keep the fires burning or spread them. It needs the accelerant of raw emotion to spread its message and enthuse the participants. The Romantics were the agent by which the virus of Revolution spread. I suppose that explains the resulting Terror in France when the hotheads took over. There was nothing of what I perceive Enlightenment thought in those particular activities.

[ozfille]

*g* That should be sober, logical thought.

[rebness.livejournal.com]

Karen, I swear-- that's exactly it. I think that's what they were trying to get across in the programme, and you've just summed it up in a paragraph! LOL!

The Romantics-- particularly Blake and Diderot-- seemed to favour pure emotion over any real reason, at least before the Terror. Voltaire could argue the wrongs of the oppressive state as much as he liked; it got people talking, but not acting. When the little periodicals and poems and essays of the Romantics described the queen in vulgar terms, and Blake proclaimed that the Americans would be free in a way we never could be, it set off a chain of thought favouring the individual over the state. I think that's it-- Romanticism makes the individual seem unique, a person in a state rather than part of a state, and it changed peoples' perceptions forever.

Rousseau remarked that society needed to change, or even to fall, because nature does not betray; society does. And when the individual feels himself separate from state and that he no longer believes in the "rights" of a king, or of a priest, over any other living thing, then why should he obey those old laws?

I think you're right. The Englightenment sowed the seeds of revolution, but the Romantics nutured those seeds and saw them explode in the face of all that had gone before.

And here I had thought Romanticism was just really pretty. ;)

[rebness.livejournal.com]

And that sounds a little clumsy. Of course Diderot believed in reason-- he reasoned away the existence of a God, but strangling priests was red-blooded talk rather than Voltaire's line of thinking. ;)

[ozfille]

Romanticism can be as pretty as Louis de Pointe du Lac in a flouncy white shirt wielding a scythe and a firebrand and equally destructive. *g*

[rebness.livejournal.com]

Ha! Good analogy!

Of course, Louis was a child of the Englightenment, wasn't he? No wonder he had to wait a few years before sparking up...

[jaffacakequeen.livejournal.com]

i saw the last half hour, and i thought it was very interesting but why did Wordworth not take his wife with him? or go to some other country? I am sorry i dont know about his poetry (a poetry-ignorant) but i want to know what happened to his missus? did she die? were they reconciled? someone tell me? that was the bit i was interested in not the poetry but his actual life?

[rebness.livejournal.com]

Well, according to the programme, it became dangerous for an English person to be in France, or a French person to be in England at that time because of the paranoia and bloodshed created by the Terror. Wordsworth had to flee France for his life, but he was not allowed to bring Annette to England because her life would be in danger as the Empire was against the revolution.

Annette continued to write to Wordsworth, updating him on how their child was growing, and how she missed him. The letters never reached him-- they were seized by the French authorities and I think, but I can't be sure, that Wordsworth had to forget his wife and child and try to start anew. At least during the Terror.

[verastar99.livejournal.com]

that post made me orgasm.


>:)

[rebness.livejournal.com]

Wicked woman! What would Byron say?

(Hmm. He'd probably join in...)

[kiraelf.livejournal.com]

Finally I watched it! I don't have much to add to what you've already said, I suppose he who made this was just looking at the romantacism angle and ignoring anything else. Like the encyclepdia (I know the French word is slightly different at the end but I can't remember how it goes!) was a huge part of the Enlightenment and the turning towards a more secular society where faith has no place and science and reason take over. But that was covered in a few sentences! I loved seeing Paris with a bloody red sky!

My thoughts on the narrator are the same as yours. If your job is speaking, surely to qualify for this job you should be able to speak correctly? If I was crap at my job I would be fired!