Rousseau and Romanticism — Jean-Jacques Rousseau — John Shaqi
Rousseau and Romanticism
Jean-Jacques Rousseau · en
“One of the services that he [La Harpe] should render nowadays
is to fortify young people against vain and gothic doctrines
which would reduce the fine arts to childhood if they could
ever gain credit in the land of Racine and Voltaire. La Harpe
uttered a warning against these doctrines when he discovered
the first germs of them in the books of Diderot, Mercier and
some other innovators. Yet these writers were far from having
professed fully the barbaric or childish system which has been
taught and developed among us for a few years past; it is of
foreign origin; it had no name in our language and the name
that has been given to it is susceptible in fact of no precise
meaning. Romanticism, for thus it is called, was imported
into our midst along with Kantism, with mysticism and other
doctrines of the same stamp which collectively might be named
obscurantism. These are words which La Harpe was happy enough
not to hear. He was accustomed to too much clearness in his
ideas and expression to use such words or even to understand
them. He did not distinguish two literatures. The literature
that nature and society have created for us and which for three
thousand years past has been established and preserved and
reproduced by masterpieces appeared to him alone worthy of a
Frenchman of the eighteenth century. He did not foresee that it
would be reduced some day to being only a particular kind of
literature, tolerated or reproved under the name of classic,
and that its noblest productions would be put on the same level
as the formless sketches of uncultivated genius and untried
talents. Yet more than once decadence has thus been taken for
an advance, and a retrograde movement for progress. Art is so
difficult. It is quicker to abandon it and to owe everything to
your genius. … Because perfection calls for austere toil you
maintain that it is contrary to nature. This is a system that
suits at once indolence and vanity. Is anything more needed to
make it popular, especially when it has as auxiliary an obscure
philosophy which is termed transcendent or transcendental? That
is just the way sound literature fell into decline beginning
with the end of the first century of the Christian era. It
became extinct only to revive after a long period of darkness
and barbarism; and that is how it will fall into decline again
if great examples and sage lessons should ever lose their
authority.”
The general public in England became at least vaguely aware of the new
movement with the translation of Madame de Staël’s “Germany” (1813)
and A. W. Schlegel’s “Dramatic Art and Literature” (1815). Byron wrote
in his reply to Bowles (1821): “Schlegel and Madame de Staël have
endeavored to reduce poetry to _two_ systems, classical and romantic.
The effect is only beginning.”