Talk:Romanticism

Byron
Johnbod, I have just read, among other works, all 500 pages of Professor Andrew Rutherford's Byron: The Critical Heritage, which establishes pretty clearly that, controversial though he was, Byron was still the most popular poet in Europe of his day and long afterward. His satires are an important part of English Romanticism, whether you personally like them or not. I agree with the general statement about satire being looked down upon, but there were a few major exceptions—Thomas Love Peacock was another, though lesser, one—and I can't see how my edit is not perfectly valid. Byron is considered to be a giant of the Romantic period—even Goethe thought he was the best of his peers—as well as a master of satire. --Alan W (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And Pushkin to an extent, and others. But in an introductory section to such a vast subject one simply can't go noting exceptions to every generalization made (and clearly phrased as such), or the whole thing would clog up. Please don't make the mistake that this is about my personal views, or yours.  It was not of course Byron's satire that was the main driver of his popularity, especially abroad. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right about this not being about your personal view—or mine. I should not have expressed myself in a way as to suggest that. Let me make myself clearer. Your example of Pushkin is a good one, showing that Byron was not the only exception. But it also shows that when there are exceptions of such stature and influence, they have to be taken into account. If a description of the essence of Romanticism ignores the major productions of some of its major figures, it is to that extent inadequate. I agree that in a summary account like this, we cannot give endless examples. That is why I introduced only Byron, who may well be the major exception. Byron's satire was an integral part of his best work, and that work, especially Don Juan, was immensely popular and influential. So I don't think that even in this summary account Byron can be ignored entirely, or else we beg the question of what Romanticism really is. I think we can come to a reasonable compromise. I will revise my edit in a way that I think will emphasize that satire was indeed atypical of Romanticism, although occasionally it did appear in major Romantic literature. --Alan W (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's worse, if only because longer. Was Don Juan "immensely popular and influential" in fact? Influential on which other Romantics, apart from Pushkin? It was the earlier stuff, now hardly read, that was massively popular and recycled into paintings, plays & operas. The EngLit take of course now concentrates on Don Juan, but that's a different thing. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Don Juan was immensely popular and influential, even while many condemned it as obscene and blasphemous. "When Don Juan Cantos III, IV and V were published, we are told [by Samuel Smiles, writing in 1891], the street outside Murray's premises was filled with booksellers' messengers, while 'parcels of books were given out of the window in answer to their obstreperous demands.'" (Rutherford, p. 10.) "His powers grew to the last: the two last cantos of Don Juan ... were perhaps the best written of any of that poem." (Sir Samuel Egerton Brydges writing in 1824, just after Byron's death.) And Egerton Brydges again: "There are parts in [Don Juan] which are among the most brilliant proofs of his genius; and, what is even yet better, there are parts which throw a blaze of light upon the knowledge of human life...." Swinburne, himself a poet of no mean accomplishments, writing in 1866: "It would be a waste of words and time to enlarge at all upon the excellence of the pure comedy of Don Juan.... [Though some critics saw a falling off in the last cantos,] these cries were only raised because in these latter cantos a certain due amount of satire fell upon the false and corrupt parts of English character.... [Don Juan was] his masterpiece..." Ruskin, in 1880, commends the satire on war in Canto III, showing that of all Romantic poets, Byron was "the widest-hearted." So, no, it is not just the "EngLit take" that now "concentrates on Don Juan." It enjoyed its own popularity, and it had its influence on other literary figures of note.


 * Yes, the early stuff was what "was recycled into paintings, plays & operas"—but is this article on Romanticism only about the influence of the literature on paintings, plays & operas? Perhaps the satire's influence was mostly on other poets. But that doesn't exclude it from being a strain of Romanticism that made its impression in its age. It may be only a minor strain (and yet an integral part of some of the greatest of English Romantic poetry), but I contend we cannot claim that satire is not some part, if only a subordinate part on occasion, of Romanticism when we are defining it. And I wouldn't dismiss influence on Pushkin so quickly, since Pushkin is often considered to be Russia's greatest poet. In light of all this, not only do I not think my modification is not too long, it might not be long enough, except that this is not the place to expand the idea at length.


 * By introducing Byron as I do, in such a qualified manner, I think I strengthen the contention that satire was in general not considered worthy of serious attention, since this demonstrates that this was the case despite a major example of a Romantic satirist. Further, the statement about satire as given before I edited it is far too simple; it seems to contradict what is in fact asserted earlier in this article: "Unsurprisingly, given its rejection on principle of rules, Romanticism is not easily defined, and the period typically called Romantic varies greatly between different countries and different artistic media or areas of thought." That there should be a major satirist among the great Romantics actually demonstrates the complexity of Romanticism, and helps to show why it is not so easily defined. --Alan W (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that most of your quotes come from well after the Romantic period proper, & I repeat "Influential on which other Romantics, apart from Pushkin?". You were the one who raised "immensely popular and influential". Samuel Smiles is not entirely a WP:RS, and was at school in Scotland at the time. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Smiles might not be a reliable source as a critic of the poetry, but he was just reporting a fact. This is accepted by Andrew Rutherford, who is a reliable source. Byron's influence stretched over many years, so of course it wasn't confined to his contemporaries. But both Shelley and Leigh Hunt immensely admired the poem, along with much else in his writing. If no one wrote anything quite like Don Juan, perhaps that is because it is unique, almost impossible to imitate successfully. But it was still widely read, and admired (if also vilified), and a product of Romanticism.


 * Byron was unquestionably a Romantic. He also succeeded in incorporating satire into some of his best works. Harold Bloom writes that even when attempting to write a traditional satire in the manner of Pope, he bore "the burden of a Romantic Imagination he could neither trust nor eradicate." This alone should give us reason to avoid making such a blanket assertion as that of saying that "Romanticism tended to regard satire as something unworthy of serious attention...." This needs qualification when one of the greatest Romantics successfully wrote satire. It was satire done his own way, freed of Augustan rules (and this article also notes freedom from rules as a characteristic of Romanticism).


 * Also, you have not addressed a major point I made. This article rightly notes the complexity of Romanticism and the difficulty of defining it. All the more reason to note at least in brief that there were exceptions to Romanticism's general rejection of satire, including one exception so important that it cannot be ignored.


 * All right, I have thought of another solution. I still firmly believe that we cannot entirely write satire out of the account of Romanticism. But since you seem to think that what I have added is too prominent, or something like that, in that place in the article, I will further revise the passage so that my point is added to the footnote. --Alan W (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. No one is denying Byron was a Romantic, which is why he is mentioned so often below. Johnbod (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then we have come to an agreement. You know, there are a lot of good things in this article. I see that it was nominated for promotion to GA status, and it might not be far from that level. Yet much work remains to be done. This is an immense and formidable topic. The question of satire and other forms and aspects of literature not usually considered Romantic has led me to muse further on all of this. I'm glad that the article mentions Lovejoy's seminal essay, which I have just reread. Lovejoy offers a sobering reminder of how many different kinds of things have been shoehorned into what has been termed "Romantic" over the years, some of them not very compatible. He reminds us too of how complex the literature is (and then there are the subtopics of music and the visual arts, the criticism and history of which I am much less familiar with). So many works we think of as Romantic, though they are to an extent, also incorporate elements of what are typically thought of as belonging to other "schools." Scott, for example, was a Romantic, but his novels also contain elements of "Realism" and "Rationalism." There are also some statements here that make me uncomfortable. Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter a "melodrama"? I don't think so. From Henry James onward, the book has been praised for its psychological depth, not very consistent with what one usually thinks of as melodrama. I may return to work on some of these things eventually, though I don't have the time now. There are a few little tweaks, however, that I might make sooner. An article of this importance deserves to look a lot cleaner from an editorial standpoint. --Alan W (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sub-topics?? I bridle at that I must say. The article used to be just awful early 2012 version (& it gets about 10k views a day), & with others I did the introductory sections, art, English (not American much), French & German lit, & a few other bits & touches like "Romanticism outside the arts", while Jerome Kohl did music. I know nothing about the Italian, Spanish & Portuguese lit sections, & did little on the American, so these are mostly the old versions. The article is of necessity very summary (and art really needs more) but there is plenty of room for improvement in many areas, though the tendency to sprawl needs to be watched carefully. No doubt smaller literatures need somethings said too - Polish, Scandinavian etc. Many of the articles linked to are also very poor, as usual, but extended expansion should go there. We don't cover periods or "topics" at all well in Humanities articles.  Actually Lermontov may be another influenced by Don Juan, but I wouldn't know. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"even if they had to make do with Wales as a setting" ?
This seem rather opinionated, as well as derogatory to Wales. MFlet1 (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really - British paintings of the period are full of attempts to ramp Welsh hills or mountains up as the Alps or Apennines, with "fearful gulphs" and the like, but as we know they aren't like that, even in Snowdonia. This for example. For long periods until 1815 continental travel was difficult or impossible. There is more detail in Welsh art.  Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it can be rewritten in the manner Johnbod suggests. Even if they had to make do.... can be construed as pointy, though it is rather humorous. JNW (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

American literature
The section on American literary Romanticism is inadequate. For example, Bryant is only present in a throw-away line. If expanding it would overburden the article, then 'tis time for a separate article. Kdammers (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed in Introduction was removed because a cite to the link of Romanticism and nationalism is later provided in the Context section of article. I never understand why people want to load up an introduction with cites when in most cases the introduction is summarizing work that will be extensively detailed and footnoted later. But then, I made an addition to the Introduction and I footnoted it, so what do I know. AB

Tvbarn (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Transvaluation
In a recent edit summary, User:Johnbod asked "Transvaluation? What's that?" I agree with the deletion of the sentence carrying the phrase transvaluation of values, but it is a legitimate phrase (Umwertung aller Werte) originating with Friedrich Nietzsche. Removal of the sentence is justified by the fact that it did not have sufficient context, as the phrase was being used by a later writer who evidently was assuming his readers to have considerable familiarity with Nietzsche.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, ok thanks. I never got very far with Nietsche. In English it carries a rather inelegant repetition &, as you say, needs context. There's already a lot of Berlin in the article, added by me, some might say too much.  Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well, with Nietzsche most people are doing well if they can just spell his name correctly ;-) Translated philosophical terms are often very awkward in ordinary English prose, and must always be given ample context. Perhaps the most egregious example is "sublation", where even the German original word, "Aufhebung" is to some degree a self-contradiction. Worse, different philosophers often use the same word in different senses, requiring that different translations be used depending on who the author is. If that phrase had been used in a section that had already amply explained what Nietzsche intended by the word, or was being directed to an audience of professional philosophers, then it might have been an acceptable usage, but not as it stood.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

More needed on Italy
I'm Italian,so I noticed this page has a worth of information about Italian Romanticism,that was also important like English,France and German Romanticism.Authors like Foscolo,Leopardi,the discussion between Madame de stael and Biblioteca Italiana,the period of Risorgimento and so on aren't mentioned,but they had a great influence in the European culture.Please,I'm not so good at English so I can't write more information for you,but these is really a big hole for your page or not so please do somthing about this im very cross or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.28.188.169 (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, the Italians never entirely took to Romanticism, and were late to the party. No doubt more could be added, but in European terms I suspect their main influence was via opera librettos. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To be fair to Italian opera, not only the librettists were important to the Romantic movement. The article presently mentions Giuseppe Verdi as the only important Italian composer of the Romantic school. (Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but how far back in his dust is the name who takes second place?) Also to be fair to the article, Foscolo (as a foreerunner), Leopardi, and Madame de Stael are already mentioned, as are Ludovico di Breme, Pietro Borsieri and Giovanni Berchet. The hole is not as large as 87.28.188.169|[[87.28.188.169|87.28.188.169 suggests, but perhaps there are still lacunae. Who else deserves mention?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant "main literary influence", since that seems to be what he's talking about. Johnbod (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. Still, if 87.28.188.169 has got further suggestions to offer, I think we should listen to them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Length
Isn't this article beyond any manageable length? There's plenty of room to splitting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laidita (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

True enough. What sub-articles do you propose? Dimadick (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's always good to see new editors, but I don't really think so. There is rather a lot on Poland and Scotland (and probably too little on some other areas) but it is a large, complex and important subject that is inevitably going to to have a long article. More on philosophy would be justified. It gets over 2 million pageviews a year, and while there are plenty of comments on this page complaining that things are not covered enough, I can't remember one complaining about excessive length. You don't have to read it all, and I'm sure few do. The page is rather well-"managed" in my view. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Yeah, the article should cover a large subject and there's a lot to write, but how many of those viewers came here to look into Portuguese literature or the polish nationalism? Maybe the article should cover more on the broad subject and leave the nuances and specificities to the others. Well, just me 2 cents. Laidita (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can bet the Portuguese and Poles do! see sections above. We have an international audience. I'm sure most readers just use the TOC to skip to bits they want to read. There is a big chunk on the "broad subject" at the start, but the sections on literature inevitably are broken down by language. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagged section for splitting into Romanticism (visual arts).--Z oupan 18:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is a great article as is...Modernist (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Modernist. Readers uniterested in a subtopic can simply skip it. Rjensen (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Length alone should not be reason to subdivide. Let it alone, or . . ... add more to it. Carptrash (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 118,586 bytes says otherwise.--Z oupan 04:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

In what sense is James MacPherson really describable as a "Poet"? His medium is prose.Delahays (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

UK vs US English
I have just reverted a recent edit that changed a UK spelling variant to its US counterpart. This judg(e)ment was based largely on the consistent use of "theatre" vs. "theater" in the article, but there are some inconsistencies. Words ending in the variants -ize vs -ise are almost exactly balanced, and there is one occurrence each of "color" and "colour(ful)". Perhaps it is time to decide which national variety of English should be used here. What arguments can be brought forward in support of one or the other?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Given Oxford spelling, which for example I use, -ize vs -ise means nothing (many erroneous judgements on WP are based on Americans not knowing about this). The first "significant contribution" seems ENGVAR neutral to me (Using Oxford "ize") - and looks rather like a copyvio fwiw. If all we have to go on is "theatre", then so be it. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am more aware of the differences between Oxford English and what I am inclined to call "Guardian English" than most Americans, and indeed more aware than many Brits seem to be. I did not wish to spin that particular coin to begin with, so thank you for introducing it now. Are there other factors that have not been noticed so far?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Romanticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ww2.jhu.edu/foundations/?p=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Jane Austen?
She is in the section “Romantic authors”. That she most certainly was not, she argued and rejected romanticism in favor of the old more classical style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceplm (talk • contribs) 19:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism
Clearly this page has been vandalized:

98.224.245.223 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Romanticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9083836
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050412013028/http://www.poetseers.org/the_romantics to http://www.poetseers.org/the_romantics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

French Romantic Music
What about Vierne, Widor, Franck ? If Finale isn't about as gloriously overwrought Romantic as anything on the planet, what is ? 116.231.75.71 (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The section on Romantic music is very much still-in-progress. I broke off work on it over a year ago now, when I had reached the difficult point of following recent musicological thinking on the issue of music after 1850. While programme annotators and writers of CD booklet notes continue to follow Alfred Einstein's views (taught them by the venerable music-history textbook by Donald Jay Grout) that the Romantic style continues up until roughly the time of the First World War, another increasingly prominent trend of argument, dissatisfied with the entire traditional definition what constitutes Romantic music, tries to square the history of music with that of the other arts. According to this view, Vierne and Widor certainly, and Franck arguably, belong to a Post-Romantic or Neo-Romantic era, or indeed something else entirely (the expression "gloriously overwrought" seems more appropriate to a period of mannerist decadence than the kind of Romanticism envisioned by E.T.A. Hoffmann). This argument was already made by Guido Adler, was continued by Carl Dahlhaus, and since the 1980s has been one of the cornerstones of the New Musicology. According to an opposite line of thought (Friedrich Blume was the standard-bearer of this view), the Romantic period in music continues until at least the end of the 1930s, therefore encompassing the works of composers such as Stravinsky, Bartok, and Schoenberg. This divide in opinion on periodization is already mentioned in the article as it stands, but the consequences are difficult to deal with. I left the discussion with the issue unresolved. If you have got some helpful recent sources arguing against the decline over the last four decades of the Einstein/Grout view, or more decisively in favor of one of the other two competing strands, I would be grateful to hear of them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Definition first
Almost all important Wiki articles put the definition first, then other info, such as history, related issues etc. This is not the case here. The definition is on the second long-sentence, missing on the previews from other articles. I changed the sequence, so that the definition would be first, without other changes to the text, but a user reverted it, disagreeing that "not seeing the improvement". If others, "authorized", agree, please revert it. Otherwise it will remain previewing that "romanticism was an artistic, literary, musical and intellectual movement that originated in Europe...". What a definition! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.161.69 (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles about cultural eras, movements, and artistic styles customarily start off with dates and context (see for example Gothic art, Renaissance, Mannerism, School of Fontainebleau, Baroque, Biedermeier, German idealism, Georgian architecture, Fauvism, Expressionism, Return to order, Screwball comedy film, Rockabilly, British Invasion, Pop art, or other cultural topics of your choice). When you find an exception it's often because the subject is not exclusive to, or strongly identified with, a particular era (e.g., Classicism, Rationalism, Fugue). This is not the case here; as our article states, Romanticism is also known as the Romantic era. Ewulp (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. May i note that while in half of them, Baroque, Fauvism, Expressionism, return to order, Screwball, Rockabilly, British Invasion, Pop Art, i do get an idea in the preview, there is some hint about their content, in the rest i do not take any idea about their content. But.. however you prefer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.156.115 (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Few dates for the start of Romanticism "earlier than 1770" in an article that not only mentions but DATES Macpherson's Fingal as 1762? Some clarification needed, surely?Delahays (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The "Period" section explains that different dates have been proposed, that the time frame "varies greatly between different countries and different artistic media or areas of thought", and that in English literature, starting dates of 1789, 1798, or 1780 can be cited, so the reader is forewarned that scholars differ. Macpherson, along with Walpole and Chatterton, are mentioned in a paragraph about the precursors of Romanticism in English poetry, so no problem there. The statement that "Thomas Chatterton is generally considered the first Romantic poet in English", though sourced, is questionable. Ewulp (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Questioning "Romantic" rather than "first" I suppose. I think it is still right (I think I put it in). The Prologue of what is presumably the most recent bio certainly sees him as a Romantic. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Qualifying Chatterton as the first Romantic poet in English seems undue emphasis, granting him a Neil Armstrong status that doesn't seem to be widely acknowledged by reliable sources. For comparison, "English literature" in Britannica Library, Encyclopædia Britannica, doesn't mention his name at all; nor does their "Romanticism" article, where the publication of the Lyrical Ballads is said to mark the start of Romanticism in English literature. Their article on Chatterton terms him "chief poet of the 18th-century “Gothic” literary revival ... and precursor of the Romantic Movement." It seems that Chatterton's reputation is on the rise lately, and maybe that should be mentioned, but for now I think precursor is a sounder description in the context of our article. Ewulp (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

England / Scotland
I'm confused why the 'Great Britain' section is split into England and Scotland - then the England section goes on at length about Walter Scott, a Scottish writer writing largely about Scotland. Someone who knows this topic needs to either merge the sections or move Scott out of the England section (please!) --Taras (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - the Scottish section was added later, after the main article on that was written. For now, i've removed the "England" header, so we have "Great Britain" and a sub-section on more local Scottish stuff. I don't feel like disentangling Scott myself. We could have an Irish section too. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

66K of new text
User:BubbleBabis has added 66k (raw bytes) of text in the last couple of weeks. It is pretty much all about Marxist-Leninist reactions to R, R economics, and German R. It seems well-written, I hope contains no copyvio, but is rather wordy, and with many over-long quotes. Something will have to be done, as the article was already at the limits of acceptable length. I suggest forking some to Romanticism in Germany, Marxist-Leninist views on Romanticism, and perhaps Romanticism and Economics. What do others think (how I wish User:Jerome Kohl was still with us!)? Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with Johnbod. The new text is an academic essay, not a Wikipedia article, is packed with opinions rather than verifiable facts, and needs to be shortened and reshaped. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree; most of the new content could be spun off into a more specialized article as Johnbod suggests. Ewulp (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree; I was wondering as to the relevance to the article...A more specific article or articles makes sense...Modernist (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The literature section desperately needs its own article; agree that the new stuff does as well, but the literature split seems more pertinent. Aza24 (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be more cautious. 1. It seems they are adding extracts from a PHD. 2. There is an essay-iness POV reminiscing of 2004 FAs, which is not how we do things anymore given crackdowns on SYNT, 3. we need to engage User:BubbleBabis (ping), but going point-by-point on such technical stuff is way above my pay grade. Ceoil (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it can't stay where it is, & I think needs to shunted off to quieter locations for consideration. Now 96 k raw bytes added, btw. Any volunteers?  Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I've started. I don't really agree that "The literature section desperately needs its own article" as literature is the central artform of the movement. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already found at least two phrases that were copy-pasted from an article dating back to the 1970s, without a citation. I was waiting for the user to finish before reverting back to the stable 14 June 2021‎ version. Coldcreation (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * BubbleBabis copy-pasted this text: "Romantic anti-capitalism was a wide spectrum of opposition to capitalism, ultimately tracing its roots back to the Romantic movement of the early 19th century, but acquiring a new impetus in the latter part of the 19th century" from here. Coldcreation (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering the three unquoted and unsourced copyright violations found so far, I have reverted back to revision as of 13:08, 14 June 2021 by Mcguy15. Coldcreation (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an impression only, but most of what had been added is all quotes, with precious little contextualising. I'm inclined to support the revert, in tandem with Johnbod's spinning out; at least with spin outs each chuck can be easier judged on its merits: eg re Marxist-Leninist views on Romanticism would cut everything post the 2nd para. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW I support the revert. I almost reverted the material myself a few days ago...Modernist (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of long attributed quotes. Without knowing much about these areas, I thought much of the other stuff looked quite good (as copyvios often will be). I support the reversion, & will leave the new sub-articles for people to do what they think best. Thanks all! Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We might have a mixed blessing here. Anyho, welcome back from holidays! Hope it was somewhere nice. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Split?
This article is now at 142,063 bytes WP:SIZERULE. I suggest splitting off Literature, which would then allow room for that to be further expanded -or not. Manannan67 (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the crude bytes - what's the prose size? That's what WP:SIZERULE goes on. One would expect this article to be at the upper limits. I would rather trim than split, especially I'd rather NOT split off the literature, which is the main aspect of R. But some of the national sections are too long - eg the Portuguese one should be floated off, with a summary kept. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If literature is the main aspect of Romanticism (and there are probably some who might disagree) then it's worth its own article. There are a number of developments, variations, and sub-categories that simply won't fit here as it's presently organized. Manannan67 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a raft of "own articles" already - look at the category. Your last sentence is true, but no argument for splitting this. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

German romanticism
A much clearer distinction between the characteristics of German Sturm und Drang and specifically German Romanticism would be desirable. Motifs such as "romantische Ironie", "progressive Universalpoesie" and "Mischung der Gattungen" and "Sehnsucht" (all at least rudimentary featured in the German article "Romantik") and others are essential to understand German Romanticism, especially in contrast to Sturm und Drang but also in contrast to romantic movements in other countries. 2A02:3035:0:8758:614A:EE84:9F16:DE7C (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Etymology probably wrong
The etymology in this article completely ignores the obvious that any french student is taught from an early age. "Romantic" comes from "Rome Antique" which literally means "Ancient Rome". The author(s) also wrongly assume that the movement refered to medieval beauty and culture exclusively and not at all to the classical era. Well it leaned heavily on ruins from ancient Rome for its aesthetics, at the very least. I suggest some research be made on the French reference book on styles in literature for exemple, namely "Lagarde et Michard" for further reference. I find it disturbing that people might refer to this page and its enclosed information as an accurate depiction/definition of romanticism... Cheers and keep up the good work nonetheless 😊 37.173.158.114 (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just not true that "Romantic" comes from "Rome Antique" which literally means "Ancient Rome". Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good lord. Not true in this universe. French romantique is derived from obsolete romant (romance), from Old French romanz. Carlstak (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Missed Composers
I think there could be a few more composers in the music section such as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Ect. There could also be more mention of some of the more famous pieces by them Ex. Musical Moments No. 4 (Rachmaninoff) Isle of the Dead (Rachmaninoff) Etude in D# Minor (Scriabin) Etude in C# Minor (Scriabin) Waltz of the Flowers (Tchaikovsky) Ect. more unknown pieces would also be great though. Hoberspelicea (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The first para & the one two above the gallery explain why, but I agree they are odd omissions. The musicologist who wrote this section has very sadly died. User:Aza24, any chance of adding a couple of lines on the "modern school" nationalists? I don't think we want to get into works though - that is for the bios. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I can certainly put it on my list. Would agree the Russians are omissions, and something brief about programmatic music, and both philosophy and nationalism in music is probably needed. The section in general perhaps spends a bit too much time talking about the historiography of the concept, which might be more fitting for the Romantic music page.  Aza24  (talk)   04:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Feminine section
It really needs a section of feminine aspects of Romanticism.  scope_creep Talk  15:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Paganism and Medievalism?
A line in the opening paragraph emphasizes the ‘Pagan’ elements of Romanticism, while immediately in the next sentence also it’s medievalism - I’m not so well versed, but to a layman like me that seems like a contradiction in terms. Wouldn’t ‘Classicism’ be a better term, seeing as that would be referring to the cultural aspect of Pagan cultures? 141.179.103.140 (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, nonsense had crept in there - now removed. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be very wonderful if an expert could add something describing what "medievalism" means.
It's used quite a lot, but it's meaning is not clear. The linked article also does not say.

There's clearly an epistemic quality to it, as it's compared with enlightenment and rationalism, but it's very strange what it's referring to other than "being emotional" which does not seem obviously "medieval" at all.

The suggestion could be that the romantics were opposed to science? But that sounds very odd, and googling it gives the first result challenging that very odd idea. CrickedBack (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 102 Section 6
— Assignment last updated by DoctorBeee (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Mass revert
@Johnbod I have already had several edits thanked and also positive talkpage messages by a WP:AFC patroller, no one before the WP:MASSR has taken issue.

A few things regarding WP:SPLIT:


 * There are now 2 editors outspoken in favor of WP:SPLIT for Romantic literature, and also just split in general. Split is warranted under WP:SIZE and WP:SS.


 * You argued WP:N, which is justification under WP:GNG. @Manannan67's point is correct: this argument is in favor of split. Insisting on no split when it's requested and justified goes against WP:CON.


 * I'm not aware of anything in WP:PG that says that too many subarticles on a topic means splitting needs to be halted. Category bloat is a moot issue now anyway, because Category:Romanticism contains 17 subcategories and 11 articles at the time of writing.

Romanticism is WP:VA3, and WP:FA's that I've seen are always based on solid WP:SS principles when the topic is that broad. Making Romanticism § Literature long makes it harder to digest in the broader article. A lot is missing to approach WP:FA: Postromanticism, the sublime, debates about industrialization to name a few.

Overarching discussion of the movement is what Romanticism should be in my opinion, every element needs to be "quick, and move on" for the article to be effective. Too much detail on any single subtopic will crowd the rest out. Erroramong (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you seem to be referring to discussions I'm not aware of. Where was "You argued WP:N", or "I'm not aware of anything in WP:PG that says that too many subarticles on a topic means splitting needs to be halted", or "There are now 2 editors outspoken in favor of WP:SPLIT for Romantic literature, and also just split in general..". The only relevant section I can see on this page is where I successfully argued for the removal of large WP:UNDUE additions some years ago - I think that turned out to be a sockpuppet. Plus a very short one 4 years ago. I'm not against reductions and new sub-articles, but they must be done competently, and with consensus. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You argued WP:N in Talk:Romanticism § Split?:
 * You also made a bad argument against splitting in Talk:Romanticism § Split?:
 * There are 2 editors in favor of WP:SPLIT, those editors are @Manannan67 and me. Consensus is not required for me to initiate a bold split. My edits are WP:GF, and the burden is on the reverter to WP:PARTR. WP:MASSR with no WP:REVEXP is against WP:CON.
 * I'll address the assessment of my competence in response to @Triptothecottage. The info about the Portuguese poet was cut-paste from "Romanticism § Literature § Portugal" that remains in the current revision that you reinstated. Erroramong (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There were 4 editors against splitting in this older section above. I made no "claim that you added info about a Portuguese poet" at all. In fact I have cut that section as off-topic - see the next section; my point below was thart you had kept this dubiously relevant para, while chucking out core content. For someone with an edit history stretching back only a matter of days, you know an awful lot of policy shortcuts - is there something we should be told?  As for "Consensus is *not* required for me to initiate a split" - no, nor for me to revert it. You see WP:BOLD, & don't moan about it. Now we should proceed by discussion and consensus. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWSTART. § Length is old, but admittedly so is § Split?... on to § Proposals on size. Erroramong (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW the article I patrolled was Romantic literature. Clearly independently notable; met basic standards for NPP; I did some cleanup and attribution and asked @Erroramong to do so in future.
 * I don’t think the accusation of a lack of competence was reasonable in your edit summary. Considering there has been previous consensus to split this page at similar sizes I think Erroramong acted reasonably in performing a bold split. This is not a content area I edit in so don’t have a strong opinion now it has come to a discussion. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All his edits are riddled with issues, where he isn't just cutting and pasting. The 2 introductory sections he added to his split-off Romantic art are just terrible from every point of view. These were largely the same as the entire section he left for Romantic art in his version. No refs, no names, just a few paras of vague homework padding, plus a dubious para on an obscure Portuguese Renaissance poet. He didn't take over the most frequently used ref (Novotny) to his new version. I haven't looked at what he's done, and left behind, for literature. Plus eg he can't even get my username right (above), & obviously didn't check his edit over. If you edit boldly, you should not be surprised to be reverted. Notability is not an issue - I never mentioned it, & can't understand why he is going on about it above. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Responses:
 * Yes the summary sections for the splits are temporary placeholders. I was getting to it.
 * The paragraph on the Portuguese poet is copy-paste.
 * I apologize for getting your name wrong, was not intentional. That mistake is not a condemnation of my competence though.
 * I was planning on cleaning refs, now that's on hold because of content forks.
 * Yes but I do not expect hours and days of work to be undone with mass revert. Romanticism § Literature was converted to WP:SUMMARY April 18, with two weeks of WP:SILENCE before further work.
 * I haven't been adding, it was all cut-paste moves to unite interleaved content under new h3s. You say it's bad content, fine but step 1 in my opinion is to split to manage size, step 2 is to reorganize content (even bad content) under the same headings. Then we are in better position to assess each subtopic individually and see what needs to be trimmed. Erroramong (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See above on several of these points. Before planning massive changes, you should always propose on talk. If you don't, your time may indeed be wasted. I was abroad on holiday on 18 April - you can't expect everyone to work to your timetable. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See above on several of these points. Before planning massive changes, you should always propose on talk. If you don't, your time may indeed be wasted. I was abroad on holiday on 18 April - you can't expect everyone to work to your timetable. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Isabella di Morra
I've cut "Some authors cite 16th-century poet Isabella di Morra as an early precursor of Romantic literature. Her lyrics covering themes of isolation and loneliness, which reflected the tragic events of her life, are considered "an impressive prefigurement of Romanticism", differing from the Petrarchist fashion of the time based on the philosophy of love."

It is clear from her article that she was forgotten until 1901, & while she may have been one of various people who can be considered "precursors" of a Romantic sensibility, she had no real influence during the Romantic period. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposals on size
Thoughts:
 * reduce "Romantic nationalism", which has a long-established sub article with the same name; much of the content seems identical - eg the long Polish bit.
 * Split off up the long lists of writers & maybe scholars
 * Reduce the see-alsos
 * Consider retaining (but improving) the split-off Romantic literature but with proper sections here.

Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * How about definition list with hatnotes for individual countries. This trims length and TOC, but granularity by country is still there. Keep each summary to max 150 words (preferably 100). Current rev is only a starting point to convey the idea, not meant to be final. Erroramong (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you mean here; it doesn't sound like wp's usual style. But I think I would rather trim by moving material to direct to national (by language) articles ("Foo literature") than set up an intermediate Romantic literature. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How about change article name of Romance (prose fiction) to Romantic fiction for naming consistency, then merge current literature content with Romantic fiction and Romantic poetry? Erroramong (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't work - they are 3 different things! Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble following — literature consists of fiction, prose, and drama. So dividing Romantic literature into Romantic fiction and Romantic poetry would be a way to restore Romantic literature to redirect, as I currently do not see any coverage of theatre drama.
 * If you are alluding to the fact that Romance (Prose fiction) also covers Romance novels, this is actually problematic because Romanticism is unrelated to the genre of the Romance novel. So the article is relating two topics that should not be grouped together. Erroramong (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article Romance (prose fiction) doesn't cover Romance novels, it covers a different genre. It is not synonymous with literature of the Romantic movement, just as Chivalric romance predates the Romantic movement even though it has the word 'romance' in the name. MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So you're referring to a genre that only encompasses Chivalric romance, Scientific romance etc.? If that concept unrelated to both Romance novels and Romanticism, would you agree that the Romantic/Romance novel content should be moved or removed from Romance (prose fiction)? Erroramong (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am referring to what is described at Romance (prose fiction). Have you read that article thoroughly? MrOllie (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or at least, what was there before you deleted some of it for poorly explained reasons. MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The following is not meant to be accusatory in any way. You said:
 * Here is from Romance novel (first sentence):
 * "A romance novel or romantic novel is a genre fiction novel that primary [SIC] focuses on the relationship and romantic love between two people"
 * "A romance novel or romantic novel is a genre fiction novel that primary [SIC] focuses on the relationship and romantic love between two people"


 * And from Romance (prose fiction) (second paragraph first sentence):
 * "There is [SIC] second type of romance where the primary focus is on "romance", in the sense of love and marriage."


 * How am I supposed to reconcile your claim with the content of the articles? Is "relationship and romantic love" distinct from "love and marriage"?
 * Romance (prose fiction) also mentions Jane Austen (second paragraph second sentence):
 * "Jane Austen wrote this type of romance."
 * Austen wasn't a romantic relationship writer, she was a literary realist who wrote social commentary that included secondary elements of love and relationships. This is common, widespread misinformation that has been debunked.
 * I'll let this go as it's a distraction from consensus on Romanticism. My edits are WP:GF, I've been punched in the face with revert notes a couple times now. I'm not perfect, I try to be easy to get along with. Erroramong (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Romance novels are (arguably) a subtype of Romances (in the Walter Scott sense). These things are related, but are not a 1-to-1 match. You should not remove the parts of these commonly confused articles that attempt to explain how these overlapping but not identical concepts relate to each other. Similarly, Romance (prose fiction) might overlap a bit with prose written during the Romantic era, but not entirely, so a merge or rename should not be done. (MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What is in this article here is "Romantic lit" with "Romantic" essentially as a period marker, not a genre marker as in the others. Of course there is overlap, but not enough for merging. If you think this is confusing (which it is), at least English doesn't use a word with the same root for "novel", as many other languages do. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I understand now, see new lead at Romance (prose fiction). Please consider additions to body independent of lead rewrite. Erroramong (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How about: move Romantic literature to "Romantic literary fiction" for the time being, refine "Romantic literary fiction" to distinguish and compare with Romantic poetry and theatre. Eventually create a "Romantic theatre" page when the content is there.
 * Under this proposed arrangement, the article space will have two unique breakdowns of literature. The individual countries are a "vertical slice" and the individual literature forms are a "horizontal slice". Erroramong (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We have to hew to what sources tell us rather than move pages around for some other reason. Romantic literature is the literature of the Romantic period. Romantic fiction is what it says - fiction about romantic situations - sometimes quite spicy as they say - and is published right now in 2024, whereas Romantic literature is the definition of literature written during a specific period. Victoria (tk) 19:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * see revision (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just realized that Romantic literature has been split from this article without consensus. We can't do that, there are incoming links for one thing, and Copying within Wikipedia needs to be adhered to. Most importantly, a split needs talk page discussion and consensus. My suggestion would be to put it all back to the version reverted to. Then, rather than back (which is basically edit warring) and hollowing out the article, discuss as BRD tells us to. If and when a decision is made to split, then a decision re how to name literature article should be made. Victoria (tk) 21:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a straight back revision, it was a new edit that incorporated @Johnbod's concerns related to indexing by country. @Johnbod did a WP:MASSR, which not only undid the Romantic literature split from two weeks ago but also all of the other edits. Erroramong (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I reverted all the changes to this article, but not the undiscussed split-offs of Romantic art and Romantic literature (were there others?), which I left. So we now have masses of duplicated text, which can't be a permanent solution. I've yet to be convinced that either split is a good idea, which is why I'm proposing trims to this main article instead. But the question remains live, as far as I'm concerned. You shouldn't be doing further massive cuts at this stage. I missed your latest huge one, but you need to get consensus before removing 73k bytes. It's in the history now, so people can see it, but I've reverted it. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the rationale for massive cuts here? The article is not so long as to be unnavigable; many articles longer than this one are not only tolerated but promoted to FA (e.g. Han Dynasty, Tyrannosaurus, Madagascar, Joan of Arc, Charles Darwin, Cleopatra, Vincent van Gogh, Amphetamine, many more). Ewulp (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I support at least significant trimming, as the article has accumulated barnacle text over the years, but the case remains to be made for just cutting major aspects to leave stubby summaries. Can anyone work out what the "usable prose size" is (or whatever the term is). The article has remained largely the same since an expansion over ten years ago, and still gets approaching 4,000 views a day. So we must be doing something right.  Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Current version is 12,300ish words. Before last nights re-revert, this version was 3100ish words. 3000 is too short for a high level article like this. 12,000 is longish but judicious trimming could easily get it in the 8000-9000 range. I'm not in favor of wholesale hollowing out and/or removing sections to new articles. Romantic art should be converted to a redirect for now. Victoria (tk) 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for those! Sounds like a plan. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about capitalization of "romanticism"
Why are all instances of "romanticism" and "romantic" capitalized in this article? In other similar articles (most notably, realism), this doesn't occur. I just want to know what the exception is so I know how to treat other articles covering artistic movements. For context, the Wikipedia style guide for capital letters states: "Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines use lower case unless the name derives from a proper name (capitalism versus Marxism) or has become a proper name (republican, a system of political thought; Republican, a political party)".Thanks! Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)