Woodlief's reading notes on
the pre-Romantics
To
class discussions
Washington Irving.
Irving loved to write about "exotic" subjects, and the midwestern prairies and Indians (which his eastern readers would not have seen) certainly qualified. What strikes me is that he is rather down-to-earth here, showing the Indians as human, but also different and perhaps to some degree more noble than men like the Count (who is, in fact, acting like a buffoon!) His description of the prairie is not sentimental; in fact, it's rather utilitarian, as he tries to describe why it's so hard to kill a buffalo.As a contemporary reader, I am struck by the wastefulness which he takes for granted. The buffalo is killed for sport and for its tongue, not for meat (and that was the case), some "fine" reason for almost exterminating a species! They destroy the bee hive not to harvest the honey, but more because it's sporting. Granted, these are my modern sensibilities kicking in and it wouldn't be fair to judge Irving by them--or those around him with the attitudes he describes. At least he's sorry he killed the buffalo, and realizes that it was only the thrill of the sport that spurred him--and seems a little ashamed. Somehow I doubt if that feeling was shared by his "comrades," though it may have been by his more romantic readers (who regret that they will never see a buffalo).
Is he a romantic here? In the sense that he is describing scenes and people that were vanishing even as he wrote about them (and he knew that), perhaps he is. The treasures of Nature were most recognized as they were being diminished, and the Romantics were right there to point out to people the values of nature which they were taking for granted and were, as an urbanizing society, losing touch with.
However, it was Bryant who really
puts the romantic turn on the prairie landscape. Unlike Irving, Bryant's
"heart swells, while the dilate sight / Takes in the encircling vastness."
He doesn't gallop along after buffalo, but he says, "As o'er the verdant
waste I guide my steed" and is reminded constantly of "A race, that long
has passed away." The Indians he describes are long dead and the prairies
are filled with mounds of their bones. "The red man, too,/ Has left the
blooming wilds he ranged so long" and "In these plains/ The bison feeds
no more." Even the bee is here, who "Fills the savannas with his murmurings,/
And hides his sweets, as in the golden age,/ Within the hollow oak." Bryant
sees much more as lost than Irving does, and he alternately is thrilled
by the solitude and thought of death and nostalgic about it. He also looks
forward to "The sound of that advancing multitude / Which soon shall fill
these deserts." (He can't imagine the noises of Kansas City though!) There's
much description, but the description is really the base for a poem about
solitude and the passing of time. Now that's romanticism! It's also sentimentality,
and the trick is to distinguish between the two sometimes. The footnote
says that Bryant actually visited the prairie in Illinois in 1811. Clearly
his visit was quite different from Irving's. His language is also quite
different: lots of vague adjectives and poetic diction.
Student
reading responses
Bryant. {Biographical Note}
These poems seem to be talking about two different concepts of God, but both are rather pantheistic (and thus romantic), identifying God with nature. The "Power" in "To a Waterfowl" is a kind of guiding design (instinct?) for the lone bird heading south and, by comparison, for the poet who desperately hopes that there is a design guiding him so he will "step aright." Not exactly "my hand in yours, God" situation! Here he is arguing from "natural law," a very 18th century argument; what makes it more romantic is the way he takes this "natural law" very personally and stresses that both he and the bird are very alone.One other poem is "To Cole, the Painter, Departing for Europe." Are you familiar with the wonderful landscapes of Thomas Cole (of the Hudson River Valley school?) He put into pictures much of the emotion (and the lone figure in the romantic wilderness) you find in Bryant. Note that how he fears that Cole may lose his greatest artistic inspiration if he forgets the "earlier, wilder image" of the American landscape as he gazes on landscapes corrupted by "the trace of man." Though the romantic wants to be "in nature" and says that everyone should have that uplifting experience (as Bryant says repeatedly), the experience seems to demand solitude, and is corrupted if people are there. Don't you see a bit of a paradox there? Everyone should be alone, but if everyone is there.... Alas, you need to look no further than our own efforts to "preserve wilderness" with national parks to see the same impossible paradox!
So how is Bryant romantic? He's concerned
with death (and its connection with life), the past (and its connection
with the present), freedom, the American landscape as a source of meaning
(aesthetic, personal, and spiritual). He emphasizes individual feeling
and imagination and feels uncomfortable with "crowds." He represents in
words what his friends in the Hudson River Valley School were expressing
in art: emphasizing concepts of harmony in nature; the use of vast panoramas
to show immensity of nature and puniness of man Like them he takes a distant
and elevant perspective, viewing the scene; he uses much light and darkness
and contrasts diverse aspects of nature to show the unity in variety (with
man diminished).
Student
Reading Responses
Woodlief's notes on romantic elements in pre-romantics:
Irving:
--Belief in power of imagination, a world of truth beyond fact, an inner and emotional reality. Plays with fantasy (well qualified), superstition-- sees its appeal, charm as opposed to cold world of reality; sleep as entry into a more "alive" world.--Interest in archetypal themes.
--Nature as wilderness but not frightening (except in a delightful sort of way), as it rejuvenates and excites.
--Allure of nature; strong sense of place, its role in human affairs.
--The motif of freedom, adventure.
--use of narrator with personality
-- awareness that there is a reader shapes his responses (these romantics are always playing to the reader somehow--maybe a holdover from the Puritan sermon days?)
--interest in art of writing, not its practical effects, moral; no Bryant-like morals here!
Loitering style--in no hurry to make a point.
Stories are an experiment in genre (American "embroidery").
Bryant:
Blends emerging romanticism with remnants of Puritanism and neoclassicism.Puritanism: believes that force of nature are expressions of divine power (God's providences)Neoclassicism: belief in stoicism, harmony of nature, and that literature should aim at moral perfection of its audience (seen most in "Thanatopsis")
Romanticism:
--Use of primitive American natural scene to show philosophical ideas. Is aware of vanishing wilderness, wants to capture it in words and art quickly. Problems in relation between nature and man--seems unspoiled, away from mankind,but paradoxically must be seen by man and thus is spoiled.--Has faith in the perfectability of human nature
--Emphasizes individual feeling and imagination
--Concerned with death, the past, freedom
--Experiments with free verse to some degree (breaks 18th century aesthetic rules)
Parallels in Hudson River School of Art
Both emphasize concepts of harmony in nature; use of vast panoramas to show immensity of nature and puniness of man.Similar pictorial devices in Bryant: he takes a distant and elevant perspective, viewing the scene; uses much light and darkness; contrasts diverse aspects of nature to show the unity in variety (man diminished).
Consider the differences between sentimentality and romanticism
Hawthorne said that Bryant "fails to stir one's blood." Why?