Comment[edit]

Wow, all poets, and not one for romantic literature. Stbalbach 13:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adding the third member of the French triumvirate to this template: Hugo, Delacroix, and Berlioz.

In the list of musicians, I strongly question the inclusion of Grieg and Puccini versus the omission of Mendelssohn, Brahms, Bruckner, and possibly Mahler, but I won't make these substitutions without first observing any debate on the subject here. In terms of 19th century music history: to make a gross generalisation, romanticism was characterised by two groups - we might call Mendelssohn, Schumann and Brahms the conservatives, who wrote new music but preserved old forms, and on the other hand the progressives such as Berlioz, Wagner, and Liszt wanted to widen or invent new musical forms for their music. This did not prevent members of one camp admiring those in the other (in contrast to the frequently alleged Brahms-Wagner controversy, which was pushed more by those carrying banners for their composers than the individuals themselves). Philip Legge phi1ip@netscape·net 02:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added Ossian to Culture section[edit]

The "Ossian" phenomenon was an important influence on Romanticism in general (despite being completely invented), so I have added a link to the Culture sub-section. Perhaps Macpherson himself should go in the Poetry section? Even though he was a fraud he exerted a huge influence over the Romantic movement; besides which the poems themselves are not without literary merit. 90.205.92.103 (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further additions/amendments[edit]

The Five[edit]

If no one minds, I'm going to split the mighty handful into their own names: many of the "uninitiated" would not think to look for any one of them under that general banner.

Telos (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Musicians[edit]

Would those editing this template please note that it is about 'Romanticism' not about 'Romantic music'. It should not therefore include anyone whose music mas largely related to the period after 1848 or so. By all means set up another template for 'Romantic music' (if anyone wants to) but don't confuse the two - the two WP articles do their best to explain the differences. --Smerus (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconded. --Kleinzach 07:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This template is being IP raided again and again. Maybe we should get it protected? --Kleinzach 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not the one editing the template, but I think that whoever is had a point. Romanticism in music continued long after its influence waned in the other arts. To say that, for example, Tchaikovsky, was not a manifestation of the Romantic tradition is outright wrong, as confirmed by both his page and the page on Romantic music. This is merely an attempt to conflate different art forms into a precise historic period when in reality, the dates don't overlap perfectly. So what if Sibelius wrote after 1848 if he did it in the Romantic spirit? It's also completely unfair to call these recent edits vandalism because they are unmistakable in good faith: someone probably thought they were making a useful contribution by adding a composer that had been overlooked. Why should your narrow view of what Romanticism includes prevail over a broader one? There needs to be actual debate here before this template is protected. Telos (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine. We can debate, but please argue your own case and don't attribute views to those you disagree with. Tell us which composers were part of the Romantic movement (i.e. Romanticism) and why. Smerus is one of the leading editors on this period and I'm sure he will be interested in your views. P.S. Please note that I edit in a Romantic spirit but I am not part of the Romantic Movement. --Kleinzach 05:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would just point out again that Wikipedia has two existing articles, (neither of them written by me), Romanticism and Romantic music. They clearly set out criteria for their topics. The template is related to the article Romanticism. The IP editor who added his favourite names was therefore a vandal, in that he clearly hadn't read the article (or this discussion) and was adding misleading information - viz., names who were not involved with the movement of Romanticism. If anyone seeks to include in the template composers who fall outside the remit of the present Romanticism article, s/he should logically proceed by first editing the Romanticism article so that its criteria include the composers that they wish to admit to the fold. One could for example propose that 'Romanticism' and 'Romantic music' be merged - indeed that would be a good way of testing the water as to how Wikipedians feel. (I give advance warning that I would strongly oppose it!).(P. S. In the spirit of Kleinzach, I would add that I am something of a cynic, but I don't live in ancient Greece). --Smerus (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would question the logic above. It's not to say that it's wrong, just that I'm not convinced. I don't find the two articles (Romanticism and Romantic music) making a very good case of separating the two. In fact, they appear to do the opposite as in the first article (Romanticism), the heading "Romanticism and Music" directs to "Romantic music" as its main article. At present, the only difference made in the articles is thus that one concerns only music, one concerns Romanticism as a whole. As for the composers in the template, would anyone care to explain why, say, Grieg is included and Sibelius excluded? I'm not particularly interested in either of these two, it's the criteria for whom to include and whom to exclude I'm interested in. JdeJ (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grieg is not included. Is this a misunderstanding - or was it included recently? (There have been numerous attempts by IPs to include every composer down to Rachmaninov.) --Kleinzach 00:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must admit to be confused when I first examined this navbar, and immediately wondered why some of the great Romantic-era composers weren't represented on it. So I read the article about Romanticism, which mentions some dates that the musical aspect of the movement covers (but only indirectly for the other disciplines). It might be clearer to editors uninformed on the differences between Romanticism and the Romantic musical era if dates were in the template header (and/or the discipline headers, if the date ranges covering them vary widely enough). The article on Romanticism would probably benefit from a more explicit indication of dates as applied to the various disciplines. Doing these things might somewhat reduce the sort of edit warring at issue here. (Yes, I know dates for these sorts of things are necessarily fuzzy or somewhat arbitrary. The article can properly qualify that, though.) Magic♪piano 14:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem of 'musical romanticism' goes through several articles not just this navbox. Romantic music (which I once tried to get renamed as '19th century music') refers to the period of 1850-1910 as the 'Late Romantic Era' and has a section on 'Romanticism in the 20th century'. Overall this article overemphasizes romanticism - the word appears in almost every section and paragraph. --Kleinzach 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't Clara Schumann be included? Hertz1888 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes certainly - she is now.--Smerus 05:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Hertz1888 (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about Brahms?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.95.31 (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
too late - musical romantic but not romanticism.--Smerus (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about including Louis Spohr in this template? He was considered one of the leading romantic composers in his own lifetime. Urbandweller (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, thanks.--Smerus (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writers[edit]

Where are Manzoni, Foscolo? Manzoni is a great writer, he should be inserted in the template. Foscolo maybe is more preromantic than romantic, but also Blake (inserted in the template) is preromantic, therefore Foscolo should be inserted in the template. Schopenhauer lived in the romantic period, therefore he should be inserted in the template though he was an anti-idealist (he hated Hegel, Fichte and Schelling). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.67.204 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emerson[edit]

I just added Ralph Waldo Emerson. Honestly I can't believe the father of romanticism wasn't on there before.--Ashershow1talk•contribs 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whilst I don't at all disagree with him being listed in the template - the 'father of romanticism'? I don't think so - unless perhaps you insert the word 'American'. And I would also point out that the WP article on Emerson doesn't include the word 'romanticism ' anywhere in its text. Honestly I can't believe it, to coin a phrase.--Smerus (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does, however, say that he was the leader of the transcendentalist movement, which was a romantic movement. You are right though about him being solely an American romantic leader. --Ashershow1talk•contribs 18:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modest proposal[edit]

Coming to this template to add a link for Scottish Enlightenment, I was a bit surprised to find that there is no section for national movements. We could just add a section for national based articles, but it also strikes me that this template is pretty unusual (although definitely not unique), in largely listing the names of individuals. There are a lot of these and navigation is pretty difficult (imagine that you know nothing about the German Romanticism, picking out German sounding names in a large series of surnames is not very useful). There could also be a lot more names added of people of similar stature and debates about which figures should be included are probably inevitable with this format. My suggestion is that we should consider going over to wider themes, national or subject based and think about reducing or abandoning the names lists.--SabreBD (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are certain problems here. For example the article Scottish Enlightenment nowhere, as far as I can see, even mentions the word 'romanticism', and the only contact between it and the template is that they both feature Sir Walter Scott. I don't see that this gives sufficient justification for representing the article on the template. Your very radical proposal, which would transform the template completely, comes out of the blue without any complaints or comments having been received so far about the navigability or relevance of the template. There are presently six or seven movements on the template (under 'Culture') - what exactly would you propose to add to these? Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My error. It should have said Romanticism in Scotland. There are also national articles on German Romanticism, Romanticism in Poland and Romanticism in Spanish literature, all not on the template at the moment and any change might consider incorporating them and probably some others I haven't found yet. What I was suggesting was that the sub-sections are more like the one for Culture, with themes rather than Literature with all the names. This might involve combining some, like say Art and Architecture. This also might involve creating list articles for things like all the literary figures, so that there is a place that this information can still easily be accessed and perhaps a bit more detail (for example, nationality) could be given, which is what is used on Template:Renaissance navbox. Incidentally saying something is a "modest proposal" actually means it is radical and I wasn't trying to hide that fact. I can see there have been no previous complaints, but sometimes it is worth trying to look at something with fresh eyes.--SabreBD (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
don't worry, I have read my Jonathan Swift!!--Smerus (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Always good to know, and if I had the seen the picture of you standing next to Bentham first I would just have assumed that. Here are a few more articles that cover Romanticism in a national cultural (as opposed to political) way (not necessarily well or directly of course), for:
If we were going with this, it would probably also be worth pointing to the relevant sections in other articles for France and England, since there are no separate articles for those countries at this time. Just to make it clear, this is a two part proposal. Part one is whether it might be useful to add a section on Romanticism in particular national/cultures and part 2 is whether articles on individuals are the best way of this being navigated, or whether to this information elsewhere and link to it indirectly.--SabreBD (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am open about part1: I think the Danish and Swedish articles cut the mustard for the existing template (and I have already added the Scotland article), but the others are either essentially empty (USA) or rather too late for Romanticism. Frankly as the template seems to serve a purpose as it is, I am against moving away from its present scope.--Smerus (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can leave part 2 to one side and see what other editors say, if anything. On Part 1, that would give us Denmark, [England?], [France?], Germany, Poland, Scotland, Spain and Norway (not sure England and France were included as valid). That looks to me as if it is worth a line in the nav box. Of course it would be better if there were articles for countries elsewhere, but that cannot be helped for now.--SabreBD (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK I have taken on your part 1 and adapted the template accordingly. Let's see what (if anything) others say.--Smerus (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is great and the literature in brackets is a good move. Is there a reason that Germany and Poland didn't make the cut that I missed?--SabreBD (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done. --Smerus (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related movements[edit]

The Decadent movement is a late 19th century literary movement that bridges Romanticism with Modernism; it belongs in the template as contextual, related information...Modernist (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Hudson River School is a related 19th century Romantic movement centered in North America...Modernist (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am removing your heading. You added the heading in May with no consensus. You have serious ownership issues - see WP:OWN...Modernist (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a serious problem here. The template is about Romanticism. Do read the heading to the template -

Yes, there is a serious problem here with your interpretation of Romanticism. Not your exclusive property...Modernist (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

!-- PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE BEFORE ADDING NAMES. In particular, this template is about figures important in the Age of Romanticism, which ended around 1848. Artists, writers and composers active only in the latter half of the 19th century do not belong here. --

Editors, including myself, have gone to some length to limit it to the period. If you allow Decadent movement as part of the template as 'bridging Romanticism with Modernism' (which would appear to be an unsubstantiated piece of unsubtantiated WP:OR on your part at present), then there is no bar to including any of those associated with the decadent movement, or any post romantic movements and/or their adherents ( the post-Romanticism composers, etc., etc.) The template then becomes meaningless. If you think it vital to include a reference I suggest you could add another class 'see also' - but at the moment you are suggesting to the uninformed reader that the decadent movement is part of Romanticism - which it wasn't; this risks misleading readers, and thereby undermining the principles of WP. I have once more reverted the Decadent Movement entry and suggest that we (and others who may be interested) engage in a discussion here before proceeding further. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you read WP:OWN and REMOVE what looks like YOUR PERSONAL DISCLAIMER - you don't own the template in fact others made the template and others besides YOU can use and contribute to the template...Modernist (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also suggest you read the article Romanticism and since you mentioned undermining wikipedia - where did you find 1848 as the cutoff date for Romanticism, can you verify that?..Modernist (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The entire music section in the Romanticism article had to be re-written recently by User:Jerome Kohl and the only edits by you that I've seen in the article are unreferenced additions to that section...Modernist (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the article : 'Romanticism (or the Romantic era/Period) was an artistic, literary, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe toward the end of the 18th century and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1840.' Please explain why editing the main article to any or no extent impedes the rights of editors of the template; I am somewhat mystified by this. It's not my own disclaimer btw - it was there long bewfore I started looking at the template. I have no problems with removing the disclaimer as it is if you think it inappropriate, but you should at least replace it with some guidelines for future editors to avoid future problems. Thanks.--Smerus (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The earliest and first disclaimer was added by you here: [1]. As to why edits to the article matter - we are building an encyclopedia, not guarding a template. I will re-add the disclaimer sans 1848...Modernist (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. If you feel it qualifies me by the way, I have contributed extensively to many of the articles on musicians in the template......but you don't want to spend your life reading edit histories, surely.......--Smerus (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do a good job here, keep at it - but adding referenced material to articles is appreciated...Modernist (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020[edit]

Please add Jorge Isaacs to the list of Romantic writers Aramose3696 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done @Aramose3696. Seagull123 Φ 21:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leigh Hunt a Philosopher[edit]

@Trakking: I don't want to engage in an edit war, so I'll start this talk-page discussion. You recently reverted my removal of Leigh Hunt from Philosophers in the Romanticism template. Just being an "intellectual" does not qualify someone as a philosopher. He certainly had no notability whatever as a philosopher. His article says absolutely nothing about Leigh Hunt's being a philosopher. I consider myself to be an intellectual. Does that mean if I had lived in the Romantic age I could be listed as a philosopher? I don't think so. Anyone else have any thoughts about this? --Alan W (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I admit the categorisation is a bit awkward (although in older times it was easier to qualify as a philosopher). I did not name it and I have only added a few names to it, but I think we may rename it to the more neutral description ’Intellectuals’ or ’Thinkers’. Thanks for the notification. Trakking (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would wait to see what others think before changing the category. "Intellectuals" and "Thinkers" are much too vague, in my opinion. Then almost any well-known figure who expressed rational thoughts could be added. For example, Wordsworth's Preface to Lyrical Ballads is sometimes considered literary theory and thus the product of an intellectual. But as one who has studied the Romantics for many, many years, and in fact taught in that area, I have to say that the idea of Wordsworth as a "philosopher" seems very odd. Yes, he sometimes wrote what he considered philosophic poems; but no one even then classed Wordsworth as a "philosopher", which would put him alongside Fichte, Hegel, his own friend Coleridge, et al. I would suggest that we keep "Philosophers" and add a figure to the category if the article on that person says he or she was a philosopher. That guarantees notability, which would have had to be established in the article. Again, I hope others will weigh in, so we can get some kind of consensus. --Alan W (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alan W: Fully agreed. Leigh Hunt was not a philosopher. Sadkσ (words are wind) 01:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Sadko. Let's eee if anyone else weighs in. I do think that Hunt should be removed from that category. --Alan W (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I say 'intellectual' is an excellent, all-encompassing classification for philosophers and critics alike. We ought to rename its category, not remove its constituents. Trakking (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. "Intellectual" is much too vague. We don't want to be so all-encompassing that anyone who expressed coherent thoughts in writing could be included. Say, how about this: add the category "Critics". Hunt and a few others could be moved there. I also say that it should be pretty easy to decide who gets into some of these categories (with a few exceptions). For example, the mentioning of Coleridge and Emerson as "philosophers" in the articles on them establishes notability for that category. Hunt is one who definitely does not belong there on that basis, since his article nowhere mentions that he was a philosopher. It doesn't matter whether you or I think he was a philosopher. As elsewhere in Wikipedia, notability in a particular way has to be established by citing reliable sources, which is what the articles do. --Alan W (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The definition for 'intellectual', given by Wikipedia, is "a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about the reality of society, and who proposes solutions for the normative problems of society". There's a lot more to it than just expressing coherent thoughts: notice the critical aspect [Hunt was a critic], the societal aspect [he was a radical], the normative aspect [he ran a journal]. Trakking (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Hunt was an intellectual. no argument there, but not all intellectuals are philosophers, whose thinking is more systematic and theoretical. Of course there is a great deal of overlap. I think, anyway, we need to limit inclusion of a figure as a philosopher only to those whose article states as much. If we add a category "Critics", then, certainly, Hunt should be there. --Alan W (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Critics would be much better than intellectuals to my mind, since less anachronistic: the standard story about 'intellectual' as a category is that it's a C20th rather than C19th label, getting going after the Dreyfus affair. Dsp13 (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carlyle[edit]

I propose his removal, as he came to prominence with The French Revolution in 1837, the year of Victoria's ascension, and died in 1881. His only relationship to Romanticism was the early German influence on him, particularly Goethe who was a Classicist, and which Carlyle largely discarded by the 1840s. Seeing as how Ruskin is not included in the template, I don't see why Carlyle should be either, as their philosophies are nearly identical in their approach to their respective fields. Nor is William Morris included, for whom Carlyle and Ruskin were both equally decisive influences.

Carlyle's relationship to Romanticism is contentious, to say the least. Sinopecynic (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have come across several sources that identify Carlyle as a Romantic. His philosophy was Romantic, his style was Romantic, his personality was Romantic. Trakking (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gender skew[edit]

This template lists 249 (96%) men and 11 (4%) women. That seems disproportionate, and disregards the academic interest shown in women and romanticism over the last few decades. Here are some suggestions for possible additions:

What do others think? Dsp13 (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that more women could be added to this template. I just added Ann Radcliffe. --Alan W (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023[edit]

Add Alexander Pushkin to Writers, Russian Jkrick77 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories