Realism and the Romantic Spirit

Author(s): Houghton W. Taylor

Source: The Sewanee Review , Jul., 1927, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Jul., 1927), pp. 336-351
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27534180

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Sewanee Review

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 REALISM AND THE ROMANTIC SPIRIT

The only excuse for writing at present on the relationship of

modern realism and modern Romanticism in literature is to
present a view of that subject which, for all that has been said,
is not, I think, commonly enough held. The usual position with
regard to realism and romanticism is that they are essentially
opposing movements; or, if some relation other than that of con
trast is considered, it is the historical connection of the artistic
technique of realistic fiction with that developed in the Roman
tic movement. The point most in need of emphasis, however,
is not the differences, though they are significant, nor the his
torical continuity; it is the inner resemblance, the sameness of
the two things in fundamental attitude and in final effect. Realism
is the complement, not the opposite, of Romanticism. It is a
change in method, but not, after all, a change of spiritual
essence. This position, though not entirely new, is as yet too
little known; it is not what it should be, the generally recog
nized formula to express the ground facts about realism.
The formula used most often in the past, that realistic and
romantic are opposing terms, could not be effectively disposed
of without infinitely more argument than this paper offers room
for. My criticism of it is, consequently, a bare outline, subor
dinated of necessity to the main point, the cause and nature of
the romanticism of modern realistic literature, The obvious
way of stating the antithesis is this: realism deals with com
monplace events and persons, such as actually exist and could
be observed by us in the original, whereas romanticism carries
us away to places remote and partly or entirely fanciful. As a
corollary to the above, it is often added that realism tends to be
commonplace like the scenes it describes, whereas romanticism
wears a hectic flush. Even in the bald statement I have given
it, this view will be seen to have weight. In the first place, the
general aim of those who have called themselves realists or the
equivalent has been to present the commonplace; this has been
taken to be the meaning of realism, as opposed to any other
meaning it might be given by literary critics. And in the sec

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Realism and the Romantic Spirit 337
ond place, these presentations have not usually escaped giving
us something of the everyday and as we say, unromantic, air
which the things presented would have had in real life. And
this fact does certainly stamp a realistic work with a well
defined character which romantic works do not possess. How
ever, when we call that character unromantic, we have in mind
the subject-matter of realistic literature, not the sort of signifi
cance it reveals. And here we make our mistake. For the
commonplace nature we assign to the subject-matter is not,
properly speaking, the nature it has in the work of'art at all;
indeed, all that has positive, determinate character in art is the
completed work itself. Hence we must look at a realistic work
as a whole, if we would know its actual character; and here our
opinions about its commonplaceness would suffer a check, for
art, by virtue of its being outside the practical sphere of mental
activity, is not, whatever else it may be, commonplace in the
above sense of the term.
More detailed support for this view will be in evidence later,
when realism has been defined. But meanwhile, what help do
we get from the past in this matter of definition ? Efforts thus*
far to explain realism divide into two parts. For one, de
fined in terms of the naturalistic philosophy of the nineteenth
century, it has been charged with interpreting life in terms of
pure animality, or pure mechanism, to the exclusion of any
ideal elements. Nothing need be said about this sort of non
sense; we have all heard it. But the other class of definitions
offers difficulties not so easy to surmount. This class defines
realism as the depiction of things "as they are". The formula
at once falls foul of certain verbal criticisms. If "as they
are" means merely that the subject-matter of realism is the
scenes and affairs of actual life, then the phrase tells us
next to nothing. If it means that the realistic artist sup
presses his personality, his feelings, his biases, his tempera
ment, or what you will, then an attempt at a fundamental
definition has been made, which, however, is founded on an
unsupportable notion of psychology. Freedom from tempera
mental bias cannot be used to measure realism, because a
man who did not possess any temperamental bias could not be
22

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 338 The Sezvanee Review

an artist at all. The impersonal attitude is a myth. The "na

ture" of any object, as a realistic artist perceives it, is the
effect of the outer appearance of the object on his emotional
system. However closely he may seem to have followed the
actual outline of the object, his never-quite-conscious aesthetic
sense has guided his hand in subtle alterations which take away
from it not its mundane identity but its mundane effect. It is
no longer the object which the artist saw; it has been trans
formed by his intuition. A slant here, a coloration there, are
the result of the inevitable operation of the artist's mind on
what he sees. However, the phrase "things as they are" is not
without its virtues, although those virtues are not obvious until
the true basis of the realistic idea has been exposited.
That basis lies in romanticism; and therefore we need to
remind ourselves of what view has been taken of romanticism
that has made realism seem a thing apart from it. The view is,
of course, familiar. We may find it well put by Faguet, in his
study of Flaubert:1
The basis of Romanticism is a horror of realism and an
ardent desire to escape from it. Romanticism is essenti
ally romantic; it does away with observation, which means
submission to the real object, and with Reason, which
merely starts from reality and then patiently deduces clear
ideas still resembling reality in that they are clear, and
showing in the concatenation given them by reason some
thing of the monotony of real things. ... To free oneself
from the real by means of the imagination, and also by retir
ing into the lonely sanctuary of personal sensitiveness?
here lies the real basis of Romanticism for all time.

This expresses perfectly the feeling common in the critical

mind of the immense difference between the airy, sentimental
introspection that prevailed when the Romantic movement was
at its climax, and the clear, uncolored objectivity of Flaubert's
practice. But the definition is, at bottom, unfair. Romanti
cism, all in all, is not an escape from reality?not even when
reality means daily circumstance. And realism, all in all, is
not an escape from personal sensitiveness. The best, hence

1 ?mile Faguet: Flaubert, p. 31, Engiish tr., 1914.

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Realism and the Romantic Spirit 339

the most significant, examples of both reveal observation of

reality adequate to the subject, and at the same time, a personal
sensitiveness amounting often to idiosyncrasy. On the one
hand, there is no lack of solidity in the poetic imagination of
Shelley; and on the other, nothing could be more clearly the
result of personal sensitiveness than the way in which Flaubert
holds himself aloof from all the unrestraint in human feeling
and all the excesses of ugliness in circumstances, softening them
and rendering them less pungent by his attitude of cold-blooded
calm. We need, then, a broader definition of romanticism
than Faguet's; one which does not take for the essence what is
a frequent but by no means inevitable result of the same. This
essence will be found a highly abstract conception, yet not too
difficult to see and pin down.
For most of us the earliest associations of the word romantic
are certain narratives packed with adventure, mystery, thrills,
and characters possessed of idealized mental processes. Later,
when we are more sophisticated, we apply the term to Words
worth, to Carlyle, to the Rub?iy?t, to the modern French "sym
bolists", and so on. A little after this, we make the observa
tion that such philosophers as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche
were, after all, romantic poets in disguise. What is the common
element in these types of men and things, which makes us put
them all under the same label ? We can see that at the end of
the list we have wandered rather far from the adventurous sto
ries which embodied our first notions of the romantic. Yet in
another sense, we feel, we have not wandered so far, after all.
There is not so much difference between Sir Walter Scott and
Friedrich Nietzsche as to overpower a certain feeling which
they both impart to us of romance, even in our common notion
of the term. Just what does romance consist in?
What it consists in, may be roughly defined, in a word, as
mystery.2 But it is more than simply the presence of a little
understood object, or the occurrence of a little understood event.
It is such a presence or occurrence plus a special interest in the
fact that it is little understood. We find, whether in life or in

2Cf. Walter Pater: "Postscript", from Appreciations, p. 246, 1915 ed.

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
340 The Sewanee Review

art, that any object of attention always escapes complete analy

sis. Actuated by a universal desire for intelligibility, we try
to put our experiences into as large and coherent a system of
concepts as possible. The instinct of self-preservation impels
us to be as clear as we can about the nature of things and our
relations to them. And clearness here means, in the last analy
sis, conceptual pigeonholing. What we cannot give any name
to, we know nothing about. However, our definition and classi
fication of an object is always incomplete, and always relative
to some particular limited aim; we are always confronted by a
residue of something unintelligible and mysterious, which never
fails to remind us of its mystery. When we are in our ordinary
frame of mind, we attend mainly to the understood and con
ceptualized aspect of things, first, because only these aspects
have practical value, and second, because from a practical view
point we get nothing but discomfort from regarding a mystery.
It is when we take a contemplative and disinterested attitude
that we find unintelligibility good to attend to. Curiosity then
overcomes fear; we find in the unknown a source of interest.
But more specifically, we may, if we choose, find a source of
interest in the very fact of the unknown's being unknown.
The possibilities of such a viewpoint for sentimentalism are
fairly obvious. Indeed, it is just these possibilities that have
furnished points of attack for critics like Faguet. But the
attacks are generally unfair to romanticism as a whole. The
romanticist has not necessarily lost his desire to understand
things; he has not necessarily forsaken rational thinking, or
turned aside from the universal search for order and clearness
in the world. All he has necessarily done is, to recognize the
existence of some sort of reality which shows him that the
search is to be in some way unsuccessful, a reality which over
shadows and makes small his notions of the nice balance of the
elements of life. In this recognition lies the essence of roman
ticism.
Romanticism as a literary tendency, however, always shows
this essence not pure but in a complicated form attached to
specific objects of interest. For the essence considered apart
from that which contains it is a pale abstraction. We are

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Realism and the Romantic Spirit 341
interested, rather, in romantic things. It will be necessary,
then, to consider what were the things in which modern roman
ticism interested itself?or more specifically, what were the lead
ing ideas to which the romantic sensibilities of people attached
themselves. But I intend no exhaustive analysis; it will be
enough to start conventionally by alluding to the two main cur
rents generally recognized?on the one hand, the interest in
the past, in things remote and strange; on the other, a reawak
ening of sympathy with the many complexities of nature and
human nature which pseudo-classicism had ignored. But atten
tion must now be paid to the second of these, for there it is
that the artistic philosophy arose which, as I see it, lies at the
root of modern realism.
The "back to nature" tendency, although its development
into realistic literature came late, was one of the very first fea
tures of the romantic revolt. It shows itself most obviously,
perhaps, in English poetry. The early English romantic poets,
in defiance of Pope, announced their intention of observing and
recording physical nature, not in the light of pseudo-classic con
ventions, but in its own real beauty. Scenic description was not
taboo to the classicists, but in it nature was subjected to the
modes of thought and feeling acceptable to the classic mind,
centered as it was on the idea of man in a well-regulated system
known as society, and quite unaware how complicated, how
puzzling, how ill regulated, after all, society really is. Pope's
delineation of natural scenery shows little evidence of his having
gone out into the country with an unbiased mind and let the
scenes he beheld mean what they would to him. But it was
just this unbiased attitude that the romantic poets insisted on
taking. The first consequence, of course, was an awakening of
interest in the strange and remote. As has been remarked,
the scenery of the early romantic poets is largely twilight
scenery. For their revolt against the precise orderliness of
classicism could not help being also a revolt against its mun
dane everydayness. But what they sought was not the strange
and remote, but expansion. Classicism had made man's world
small; Romanticism aimed to expand it indefinitely. But the
most obvious means of expansion was to yield freely to the sense

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
342 The Sezvanee Review

of the infinite; or, changing the figure, to let the infinite with
all its variety of meaning infiltrate into one's sensibilities.
This means looking at things, not with the bias of a precon
ceived notion of how they ought to be, or what they ought to
mean, but in an impartial frame of mind in which the impres
sions of things may be noted as they actually come from with
out, studied on their own account, and thus made to reveal a
significance which could properly be considered as coming from
the things themselves. This viewpoint might be described as
objective, in a sense that it posits a world of objects outside of
man, the meaning of which he does not control within his inner
consciousness, but rather, to which he must turn if he would
understand what his very inner consciousness signifies. Objec
tivism, in this sense, the Romanticist regarded as the proper
artistic attitude for man to take toward his universe, whatever
metaphysical speculation might have to say on the point. Said
he, we must keep our eyes on the things we are studying; we
must see their nature as it really is, not as some bias of conven
tion tells us it is.
But this objectivity in Romanticism was essentially romantic
in the sense in which I have previously defined that term. It
was an interest in twilight aspects, not merely of landscapes,
but of all experience. And this was not due merely to the reac
tion from the artificial glare of classicism, but proceeded also
from the nature of the objective viewpoint. An object looked
by itself, as a thing, an individual in space, is always shrouded
in mystery. It is isolated, and this fact of isolation makes the
thing, in the last analysis, unintelligible. Understanding,
whether for the everyday man, the artist, or the philosopher,
means putting a thing into a system of relations large enough
to cover the problems raised in connection with the thing, and
seeing the thing in its place in that system. Hence, phenomena
viewed as such have to the reflective consciousness an air of
mystery about them. Of course, the mystery is not complete;
a phenomenon, to be an object of attention at all, is already to
some extent systematized. But if its individuality is to a cer
tain person the important thing about it, then to that person it
is framed by the darkness of unintelligibility. In short, objec

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Realism and the Romantic Spirit 343
tivism was an adventure?a perilous voyage on a sea of phen
omena perplexing in their endless variety and confusion, in
their elusive shades of meaning and half-meaning.
What I am trying to show here is the really close spiritual
connection between the most obviously romantic parts of Roman
ticism and those less obviously so. Objectivism was the main
notion, after all, to which the specific bits of romanticism
attached themselves, even those bits which are usually called
subjective rather than objective. The sentimental sensitiveness
of Romanticism in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth cen
turies was objective in the sense that it treated mental states as
phenomena isolated from an orderly system?it was interested
basically in individual feelings for their own sake. But the
important point for this study is not that the romantic writers
were objective, but that the objective writers were, even when
they seemed otherwise, really romantic in an acceptable, though
not perhaps usual, sense of that term. I mean to say that
Romanticism does not include only grandiose sentimentality,
personal sensitiveness, excitement over the weird and exotic, or
the mystical view of physical nature. So that instead of set
ting up romantic and realistic as mutually exclusive terms, we
should see in the latter an extention and altered application of
the elements of the former.
We are all willing, I think, to let Flaubert be the model real
ist?not because there are no other ways than Flaubert's of
writing a realistic novel, but because there are no ways of
becoming more completely saturated with the moody objectiv
ism which is the common element of modern realists. We
may pass over the usual verbal criticisms of Flaubert's theories.
What is important about those theories is, that they show that
Flaubert realized what an artist may know of life if he lets its
ordinary affairs appear to him in their own actual shapes, and
speak to him in their own language. His method has been
called plastic realism; and if his method was such, it was
because his aesthetic sensibility was plastic too?because it
accommodated itself to the shapes of things?because the rapt
contemplation of these shapes absorbed all its energy. The
result of this absorption is a very clear impression which seems

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 344 The Sezvanee Review

to stand in midair. The intellectual clarity of Flaubert's nar

ration leads to nothing intellectual at all. It gives us a reaction
to the externals of the scene; but when we try to formulate a
significance for these externals, we find ourselves balked by an
obscurity which defies penetration. This is not to say that the
story lacks point, nor that it is so told that it cannot be oriented
to our ordinary ethical and practical judgments. Indeed, in
Madame Bovary, nothing is clearer than Flaubert's opinion of
his heroine. Yet that opinion is nowhere obtrusive; moreover,
it is more like a rule of-thumb discovered somewhat by accident
than a conclusion from deep-founded universal principles.
Flaubert does not want us to reflect on the location of the hid
den springs of conduct. To do this would be the objectionable
"interpretation". It would render our minds less plastic, less
able to recognize and feel. The hidden springs may exist, but
that is irrelevant. Our interest is to be in following the curves
of the surface streams, pondering their unsymmetricality, their
capriciousness, realizing them as facts, but being neither able
nor anxious to make them "mean" anything.
This extremism of Flaubert's is, of course, not entirely the
the logical issue of the principle of objectivism, but, like any
other artistic method, a matter partly of individual tempera
ment. There are as many varieties of realism as there are real
ists. What we need to understand is their basic point of agree
ment, the objective way of looking at things which is the foun
dation of the artistic fabric.
The grand point of realism is that "things as they are", the
plain facts of actual existence, can be seen, when reflected
in the artist's mind, to possess the very deepest of aesthetic
meaning. These "plain" facts are so described by us because
we, as average persons, are wont to consider them in a practi
cal light. We usually think of them in respect to their bio
logical, economic, and moral relations to us; in fact, we scarcely
notice them at all unless they affect us in one of these relations.
To be sure, there are exceptional moments. When the New
Yorker reflects upon his city and pronounces it a masterwork of
civilization, he is not thinking merely of how much wealth it
has, how well its skyscrapers are built, what conveniences it

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Realism and the Romantic Spirit 345

holds for comfortable living; he is also impressed with a

vague feeling that here is something significant, not just in
an abstract way expressible by some concept, but in a way that
touches his whole stock of feelings and volitions?a signifi
cance which he cannot explain, but which is there all the same.
But such impressions are for most of us haphazard and obscure,
and we make little of them. It remains for the realistic artist
to discover how much they may be made to show, if only
regarded in the right way. To him, the objects and events of
daily life are transparent; beneath their temporal nature he sees
what they fundamentally mean to the intuition. What the
realist does is to reveal that meaning to us by giving us the
actual with a certain slant. His method is concrete, more so
than that of non-realistic artists, because he keeps together in
his expression the whole of existence. It is precisely the con
nection between life as it is reflected on in the inner conscious
ness and life as it is actually lived, that he is most aware of and
that he wishes to keep intact. The inner truth is revealed in
outer semblance; but more than that, it inheres in outer sem
blance. And by portraying that semblance, as aforesaid, with
a certain slant, the realist aims to give us a view of existence
from top to bottom.
It might be objected here that to realize the aesthetic signifi
cance of everyday things is not the peculiar function of the
realist, but is rather a characteristic of all artists. Anyone, no
matter what his artistic purpose may be, must learn of life in
the same way?namely, through reflection on actual experience.
Artistic truth does not emerge spontaneously from a mystic
void in the artist's inner consciousness; it comes only after a
contemplation of the things about him, and the significance of
the aesthetic vision cannot avoid being linked with these things.
Hence it is only of minor importance whether the artist chooses
to present the informing details as they really exist, or to trans
form them into an imaginative world of his own. This objec
tion needs considering, because it has been widely used, in one
form or another, by critics who prefer to slight the distinctions
between types in art in favor of the similarities. Three an
swers may be given. First, it is not at all obvious that every

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
34^ The Sewanee Review

artist past or present has appreciated the conditions of his

aesthetic knowledge as described above. It has often been held
that art was the effloresence of some quite internal part
of the artist's mind. Second, artists in general have not
subscribed to the belief that all experience has potential
aesthetic meaning. Third?and most important for the pur
poses of this study?the objection assumes that the differ
ence between realistic and non-realistic art is one of pre
sentation?of "mere" presentation, some of the objectors
would say. But this in turn assumes that some thing is pre
sented in one way which might be presented in another. Here
we have the notion of a content, which is necessarily abstract,
being moulded into a form?a notion which modern aesthetics
has little use for. An artist does not take an abstract something
and put it into a concrete form; his material is a mass of in
tuitions, and his activity amounts to the same thing. Hence, it
does make a difference whether the artist has realism or non
realism in view, for if his initial intuitions develop in the one
direction rather than in the other, the resulting art work, looked
at as a whole, is a quite different object from what it would
have been in the other case, hence conveys a quite different
aesthetic fact. The distinction, then, is more than one of
"mere" presentation. My previous statement that to the real
ist the objects and events of daily life are transparent, is pos
sibly misleading?it is, at any rate, if it suggests that those
objects and events have no importance for the artist. I should
say, rather, translucent; for even if we regard inner truth as
shining through, we must recognize that it does not emerge in
a pure state, but is greatly modified in the passage.
The manner of this modification might, for lack of a better
term, be called a kind of symbolism. In the realistic artist's
mind, events in concrete experience have a certain intuited
meaning; they are outward signs of the basic forces at work in
life. But they are signs essentially with reference, not to life
as analyzed and turned into abstractions through philosophy,
but to existence as a concrete whole. Hence their meanings are
not concepts, or anything that can be framed in words, but
rather, intuitions?revelations through intellect, feeling, and

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Realism and the Romantic Spirit 347

volition all together of a reality which by virtue of its concrete

ness is not comprehensible to intellect alone. Such a reality we
often speak of as underlying experience; but if it is to justify
its description, it must be not underneath, but inherent in, the
actual. As I explained previously, our ordinary practical atti
tude toward the things about us prevents us from getting that
intuition of them which is for us their significance and their
reality; it lets us see in things only a significance which is
abstract and aesthetically lifeless. It is the reflective conscious
ness to which is apparent the sense of something vital, some
thing in which the vague and obscure trends of feeling and
desire are clarified?a sense not reducible to concept, and
expressible only as beauty?which sense is the revelation of con
crete reality. But this revelation is not rigidly bound to the
actual. To be sure, it comes from contemplation thereof; but
once received, it may be applied in the construction of objects
and incidents of pure fancy. All artists create dream worlds of
their own, the realist no less than the Arcadian lyricist; and
the fact of remoteness from the actual does not involve a falling
off in the sense of concrete reality. The world of Shakespeare
is no less "real" than the world of Ibsen. The difference between
them is this: in Shakespeare, the high degree of transformation
of actuality into fancy removes the dream world a long way from
everyday existence, and in so doing prevents feelings of com
monplaceness from entering into the scheme, and results in the
impression that the artist has got rid of mere surface aspects of
nature, and has discovered its essences; whereas in Ibsen, these
same surface aspects obtrude themselves to such an extent as to
seem like a veil over the inner truth which he is supposed to
reveal. A world of fancy always seems to us to be "inside";
hence, treating the figure as fact, we suppose it to be close to
the "inner" truth of things. Realism, then, is indirect in its
message. In fact, its message depends upon our seeing the
inner truth through and in the outer semblance. We must take
the commonplace, in all its commonplaceness, which does not es
cape us even in contemplation, and see it to be representative of
something fundamental. The objects about us become symbols
in realistic art; they stand for things quite basic in existence.

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
348 The Sezvanee Reviezv

This realistic symbolism differs from symbolism in the usual

sense in two essential respects. The first is obvious. By sym
bol we usually mean a thing to which a significance is arbi
trarily attached, and which, when used in a certain arbitrary
manner, delivers that significance to a percipient. The thing
and the significance are separate; the latter is tacked on, and
does not belong to the intrinsic nature of the thing?does not
arise out of the appearance of the thing itself. Hence, the
significance is not understood unless it is explained beforehand,
or unless the thing is put into circumstances such that the
meaning is somehow implied. But in realistic symbolism thing
and significance are not external to one another. The signifi
cance is got by looking straight at the thing, by regarding it as
an individual object which by virtue of its being such has
character, or meaning. The symbol and what it means are the
same thing. The only justification for the use of the word
"symbol" is, that there is a disjunction between the objects of
ordinary experience considered as ordinary and as concrete
realizations of the meaning of the world, and that these objects
taken in the first consideration are not in our minds identical,
or even immediately connected, with that meaning, so that an
object considered as ordinary may be regarded as symbolic of
something which underlies it and is different from it.
The second of the differences between realistic symbolism
and true symbolism is, that in the latter the meaning of the
symbol is a general concept or a system of concepts, whereas in
the former no concept can cover the whole meaning of the sym
bol. A fable argues a moral proposition; the characters there
in stand for types, or for abstract forces in society. The inci
dents of the story stand for something else. Both characters
and incidents can be reduced to general terms, and their essen
tial significance thus explained. But in a realistic narrative,
while some element may justly be considered to represent a
general notion, and may, indeed, be frankly allegorical, the
essential meaning, the real function of the element in the narra
tive, is not to be found in any concept, but in the maze of intui
tion from which concepts spring. Thus, a character in a mod
ern novel may be interpreted as an emblem of a peculiarity of

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Realism and the Romantic Spirit 349

human nature; but though the character is thereby explained as a

piece of symbolism, this explanation does not show what he is as
a piece of realism. The meaning of a realistic symhol is a true
aesthetic intuition, a compound of concept, feeling, volition?
something far too concrete to be made explicit in the abstract
framework of a medium, therefore revealed only by suggestion.
The romanticism, then, of these symbols is unescapable. In
true symbolism we focus our attention on the thing the symbol
stands for, hence that thing is of reasonable size, and the sym
bol is insignificant by contrast. But in realism our attention is
on the symbol itself, so that the contrast between the symbol
and what it represents makes the latter an overwhelming bulk
beyond the power of reason to encompass. We see the symbol
clearly; but if we ask what it means, the only answer available
is a response of feeling, definite at first, but becoming less
tangible the more completely we try to grasp it. So what seems
a very ordinary object in experience turns out, when we try to
realize it as part of a cosmos, to be a most absorbing puzzle.
It is necessary to distinguish between realistic romanticism
and the other, more commonly recognized, kind, which might
be called pure romanticism. They are the same fundamentally,
but that sameness, however basic, does not prevent the things
in their concrete entirety from being of very different tone.
Superficially, the difference may be called one of subject-mat
ter. Pure romanticism gives us things remote from our own
experience, and such things, by reason of their remoteness,
carry no suggestions of the commonplace and practical, hence
readily induce our disinterested imaginations to operate on
them. But in a realistic work the material is something near
home, something which, if we have not seen it ourselves, we
could see if we wished, and which consequently reminds us of
its commonplaceness even in the moments when its deeper sig
nificance if most clearly seen. Pure romanticism takes us
out of actuality; realistic romanticism takes us through it.
Where the pure romanticist takes the direct and obvious
route to the unknown, the realist follows a roundabout path
which gives him in the end a different view of the destina
tion. The two may exist side by side in the same work, and
indeed are often so found in the works of writers not as rigorous

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
350 The Sezvanee Review

as Flaubert in their philosophy of fiction. Joseph Conrad, for

example, is a realist (excepting for obvious romances like The
Arrow of Gold)) his characters exist, they are real persons,
drawn without falsification of psychology, and moreover, with
an objectivity as clear-cut as Flaubert's. But in his background
making he takes, as he chooses, the liberty of insinuating a
subdued metaphysics which, without impairing the sense of
actuality in his character drawing, adds a fantastic color to the
whole design. The sea is Conrad's chorus. In it and in places
about it he sees the inscrutability of life revealed; and his
descriptions are penetrated with symbolism. To take another
example: the later dramas of Ibsen are essentially realistic in
execution; but, whereas in Ghosts the effect of the unreal
weirdness at the close is actually the outcome of the intensity
of the realism, in Ros mers holm Ibsen finds it convenient to use
a piece of pure romanticism?the White Horse?to add color,
by means of the fantastic, to a subject otherwise slightly dull.
We all admit the romantic touch in the second instance; but
we should discover it also in the first.
Realism is romantic through a sort of double process. First,
the incident of ordinary life, in the artist's imagination, becomes
a thing of mystery, and then, the contrast between the incident
as we see it ordinarily and as it is interpreted by the artist is
a puzzling affair. In a realistic work we see the actual and
familiar as we should see it in life; but around it is a haze
which alters its aspect so as to make it seem full of a hith
erto unguessed meaning, and yet strange and not quite intel
ligible. It is like dreams we sometimes have, where we
meet people we know very well, and find them acting and
talking in a way curiously out of keeping with what we had
supposed their natures to be. Such dream incidents startle
ns because we contrast our knowledge of our friends in
waking life with their astonishing performance in the dream.
Just so do we contrast the familiarity of the incident in
realistic art with the surprising character of its revealed
meaning; and the incident has a quality not unlike the unintel
ligibility of a dream, because its meaning and its familiarity
persist side by side in an opposition that is never resolved.
If, then, the realist chooses to deal with things as they
are, it is :not from a desire merely to create a picture, but

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Realism and the Romantic Spirit 351
rather because after a long time of looking at things as
they are he has discovered some significance, perhaps de
finable only as an impression, which he feels that he can
not set forth without loss unless he reveals it through the
scene in which it had its origin. But more than this, the
scene must never lose its feeling of actuality; for the char
acter of the aesthetic impressions of realism depends on the
percipient's conviction that he is looking on things that
are, not on things that are fancied. Success in this matter
is only relative. When we read a novel we see, obviously,
not real life but an imitation in the true Aristotelian sense.
The material of the book cannot but be transformed in the
writer's mind, and the feeling of actuality is owing to the writ
er's having restored, after the transformation, such elements as
suited his purpose. No ultimate realism is possible. What we
call by that name is a comparatively close approach to the
ultimate, actuated by the intent to be as objective as is
consistent with the needs of art. But the objectivity is
not impersonal, and it does not lead to the same result with
everyone who uses it. Flaubert's delicate reserve is as unlike
Dostoevsky's startling exposures of human feelings as anything
could be. Yet both are undeniably realists. And in both,
objectivity leads finally to the dark void before which all pro
found romanticists find themselves pausing. With Flaubert,
the void is seen as a nicely modulated agnosticism; with Doc
toevsky, it is an emotional background intense and somewhat
chaotic, often, as in The Brothers Karamazov, taking on the
weirdness of a nightmare. To be realistic, then, is not simply
to be romantic; it is to be romantic in a certain roundabout
way, which way is a negation of the methods of the romanti
cism of the capital R which dominated literature a century ago.
The romanticism which retires into Faguet's "lonely sanctuary
of personal sensitiveness" was tabu to the realists, not because
personal sensitiveness was absent, but because it had had
enough, for the time, of lonely sanctuaries, and wanted a new
discipline.
HouGHTON W. Taylor.
Austin, Texas.

This content downloaded from

43.231.54.92 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:01:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms