By Mattias Schmidt
University of Wisconsin–Madison
What is Romanticism? This is a question that many people believe they are more than capable of answering. In truth, though, Romanticism is not an easily defined literary movement. It comprises layers upon layers of concepts and ideas, and some are even so complex that the human mind has difficulty encompassing them within an easily explicable framework. In Hans Christian Andersen’s tale “The Philosopher’s Stone,” the protagonist’s goal is to locate and unify the Romantic themes of beauty, truth, and goodness, thus making a jewel that shines so brightly that stars are pale in comparison. In an attempt to shed light upon the rather overwhelming concept that is Romanticism, I will focus my discussion on the secondary concepts of beauty, truth, and goodness, which can be found extensively in “The Philosopher’s Stone” and how they contribute to defining the Romantic Movement. These three aforementioned concepts are at the heart of the Romantic Movement, forming a bridge from civilization to nature and the divine.
Romanticism became popular in literary culture around the second half of the 18th century. Writers and poets like Hans Christian Andersen, who was first published in 1827, thrived during this time, writing books and tales that were heavily imbued with Romantic elements. The writer Vissarion Belinsky offers a definition of Romanticism, saying that:
the soil of [it] is not history, not real life, not nature and not the external world but the mysterious laboratory in the human heart where all sensations and feelings grow unseen, where questions ceaselessly arise about the world and eternity, about death and immortality, about the fate of the individual, about the secret of love and bliss and suffering. ((Richard Freeborn, “Belinskii, Romanticism and Reality,” The Slavonic and East European Review 77, no. 2 (1999): 269–279, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4212837.))
These unanswerable questions—“about the world and eternity,” “about death and immortality,” the meaning of life, etc.—are embraced and rationalized by the divine aspect of Romanticism. We humans do not know the answers, and we probably never will, but God knows and merely chooses not to reveal His secrets to us. In Andersen’s tale, the wise man is disappointed in finding that he cannot read about “Life after Death.” This is because he is not meant to know, just as no one is. It is God’s knowledge and God’s alone. The divine and nature are inextricably linked together as pantheism places God everywhere at all times. God is a part of everything that is natural; from the smallest rock on a mossy green plain to the tallest mountain, God has gifted all things in nature with His spirit. Therefore, being in touch with nature means being in touch with the divine, making “nature’s child” an ethically and morally upright person. Hence, the Romantics worship a God who shows Himself to mankind in every aspect of nature. He encourages the dual mentality of man both being solidly grounded and at the same time reaching for the sky —in our case the wise man and his children, who are humble and wise beyond their years, yet still strive for more—and favors the individuals who unabashedly reveal their closeness to their natural surroundings. The sensations and feelings Belinsky is depicting are all born and bred inside each and every person in “the mysterious laboratory in the human heart,” which means that the seed and core of Romanticism lie within the individual. The human heart, then, becomes more important than the head as, in essence, the individual must ‘think’ with his heart rather than his head. In this sense, rational thoughts about mundane matters are being replaced by intuitive feelings of rightness or goodness pertaining to a more divine sphere.
These intuitive feelings, rather than rational thoughts, prove to be much more valuable when attempting to realize concepts such as beauty, truth, and goodness within Romanticism. The tale written by Hans Christian Andersen, “The Philosopher’s Stone,” focuses on the question of where beauty, truth, and goodness really come from. But before the reader can even begin to look for them, metaphorically speaking, he or she must first reach some degree of understanding concerning his or her nature. To understand these concepts, a certain amount of imagination is required. They necessitate that the reader ceases to think about ‘things’ in the traditionally logical and rational sense. One must devote oneself entirely to discovering them, never faltering from the true path that God has laid down in front of each of them to follow. It is important to note, however, how the three are related. James M. Jacobs, a professor of philosophy at Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans, Louisiana, believes that they are all dependent on the freedom they are given. For example, if one were to give beauty full freedom, anything could be considered beautiful. It would then be measured in the eye of the beholder, allowing everyone to choose what is beautiful for him or herself. Similarly, truth would lose its objectivity, depriving it of all meaningfulness. And the good, if allowed to be chosen by anyone and everyone, would cease to be a “standard for evaluating human behavior,” losing all meaningfulness. Succinctly put, beauty, truth, and goodness are all relative, dependent on the degrees of freedom they are given.((Hans Christian Andersen, The Complete Fairy Tales and Stories, trans. Erik Christian Haugaard (New York: Anchor Books, 1983), 503.))
When individuals recognize something as being beautiful, it is for one of two reasons. Either they find this object to be aesthetically pleasing, which means it sounds good, feels good, or looks good, or this object appeals to their intellect, imagination, or emotions. These two objective theories of the recognition of beauty are labeled formalistic and idealistic, respectively, and they are supposedly not mutually reconcilable.((Freeborn, “Belinskii.”)) However, I disagree, in that I believe they are inevitably linked, constructing a path that runs between civilization and nature. This path is, by necessity, defined by the observer’s point of observation, but the two theories become very apparently juxtaposed when the dichotomy of nature vs. civilization is addressed. Society focuses primarily on the aesthetic aspect of beauty, especially in today’s media-driven world. Models are praised and paid for their looks, not their inner qualities, fast food is appreciated for its taste, not its nutritional values, and politicians are, arguably, admired more for what they say they will do, and not their level of integrity or honesty. Conversely, nature is considered beautiful when it instills in the observer a sense of contentment and contemplative calm. Nature will grab hold of a person’s intellectual curiosity and provide it with enough philosophical puzzling to keep the mind going for hours. It touches upon emotions and sensations, and it brings happiness and humility to everyone who is able and willing to be touched by it. It is natural and simple, yet still infinitely inspiring. In this sense, the immediate difference between beauty in civilization and beauty in nature is the lack of societal influence on nature’s beauty and the effects that it has on one’s thoughts and feelings. When you see a beautiful model on TV, you might think, “Hm, she is a very attractive woman,” and that is where your thoughts about her come to a dead end. No intellectual peak is reached by thoughts of her beauty; instead, the observer will possess a very simplistic thought that, at the most, will only cause some sort of emotionless arousal. On the other hand, when staring down into the Grand Canyon you notice the immensity, the beauty, and the natural chaos of time’s effects on rock. You start to wonder, “How could a river cause all of this? And how long could it have taken? What will it look like in one-hundred years’ time?” and so forth. Beyond the countless questions it raises, it leaves the observer speechless and in awe, merely standing on the precipice of a mile-deep cliff, staring across it, thinking and saying nothing, appreciating something that humans have had no hand in creating. This is where the link between nature and civilization forms. Beauty is not just one or the other, formalistic or idealistic; it is both. Only by using all five of our senses can we truly perceive beauty. Only by understanding beauty both corporeally and mentally can we fully comprehend and absorb it.
In the tale, beauty is found in a lonely rose out in the wilderness. The poet, for a reason unknown to us, feels a connection to this particular rose. He finds this rose to be so beautiful that he writes a poem about it, sharing its beauty with the rest of the world. This means that he finds this rose to be beautiful on a different level from everything surrounding it. Not only is it aesthetically pleasing to him, but he also has some kind of emotional response deep down inside of him that is awakened when he sees the rose unfold its leaves, baring its pretty petals for all to see. The poem that he writes is a manifestation of his feelings toward the rose that are inspired and motivated by his visual interpretation of what is happening, making it obvious that his view of beauty in this case is both formalistic and idealistic. Thus, again, both are needed to fully comprehend true beauty.
Romanticism’s truth is defined as slightly different from what is deemed truth in today’s world. The Romantic truth is corporeally felt by the individual to be a rock-solid truth. This is different from the generally accepted truths of modern society, because today it appears that truths are primarily coming from outside sources, such as parents, teachers, textbooks, newspapers, or TV stations. Mathematical equations, for example, are presented as unquestionable truths although they may seem difficult to comprehend for the normal human brain. Rather than feeling in one’s innermost soul that e equals mc squared, one must accept this as a truth if one wants to progress in college. The Romantic truth, on the other hand, is an individually comprehended idea and impression that is felt deep down inside to be right.((Herbert Schueller, “Romanticism Reconsidered,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 20, no. 4, (1962): 359-68, http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/stable/pdfplus/427898.pdf.5. Paul Jorgenson (retired soldier) in discussion with the author, 2011.)) Truth in modern civilization, then, is what the society as a whole believes, or what it wants its members to believe, whether it is “universally” true or not. The truth to the citizens of North Korea is that if they pick up an American pamphlet from a pamphlet bomb, their hands will disintegrate.((Paul Jorgenson (retired soldier) in discussion with the author, 2011.)) The truth to a five-year-old child in America is that Santa Claus will refrain from giving out presents if the child is too naughty. And, of course, through the media we are allowed to hear and see what our governments, in collaboration with the media, want us to hear and see. The recent Wikileaks incident is an excellent example of this limited perspective, which may be exploded by previously inaccessible information suddenly made accessible. In this sense, it is more correct to claim that the so-called truth in civilization is a belief embraced by individuals who find it palatable and reassuring. Whatever the individual chooses to believe at the moment is his or her truth. It is not substantiated; it is only in the mind. It is not a universal, God-sent epiphany or inspiration filtered through nature which makes it concrete and rock-solid as long as the individual can recognize it within his or her soul. The distinction, then, between the modern and Romantic truth, is straightforward. The modern truth is what one mentally perceives to believe at the moment, a temporary, always changing concept of truth, depending on media, mood-swings, and economic crises. This is a truth for the group of people belonging to a shared sphere. Conversely, the romantic truth is an individual knowledge of a soul-deep truth, chosen and embraced by the individual in harmony with nature. Hence, it is up to the individual to find and accept his or her own truth, a personal truth that, though largely consistent from person to person, does indeed change from one individual to the next. These two seemingly different ways of discovering truths actually have one very important aspect in common. The idea of belief is found in nature’s truth as well as in that of society. Truth, whether modern or Romantic, is just a very strong faith. In “The Philosopher’s Stone,” truth is found in The Book of Truth, which is the only truth not based on faith, because it was sent from God. Because it is a book sent from God, its answers are the absolute truth, the natural truth, and it cannot be disputed. The Book of Truth holds the answers to every question imaginable, if only one can actually read it. However, in real life, something like The Book of Truth, arguably, does not exist. Instead, we are required to determine our own truths, Romantic and modern, based on what we believe and feel.
In civilization, good is a matter of following ethical and moral codes. These morals have over the years, been greatly influenced by religion. Therefore, through religion, it is God’s will that we be pious, honorable, and devout. In “Nietzsche and Early Romanticism,” the author quotes Friedrich Schlegel saying, “Every good human being is always progressively becoming God. To become God, to be human, to cultivate oneself are all expressions that mean the same thing.”((Judith Norman, “Nietzsche and Early Romanticism,” Journal of the History of Ideas 63, no. 3, (2002): 501-519, http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_ideas/v063/63.3norman.html.)) From this, we can assume that only through religion can one be truly good. Goodness in civilization requires a great deal of devotion to your fellow humans and everything else you share the earth with. In nature, goodness is a matter of being in unison with all that surrounds you. In this way, nature and civilization are very similar in their interpretations of what is good; the goodness is just seen in a different framework. In the “The Philosopher’s Stone,” the daughter represents all that is good. She does not care for herself, only her brothers’ wellbeing and her father’s desire to acquire the philosopher’s stone. She is in harmony with everyone and everything that surrounds her, and she spreads this harmony to everything around her. Devotion is what drives her. It is a feeling that all will be right in the end, that God will look out for her, and that her unfaltering belief that she will unify the beautiful, the good, and the true will guide her to her desired destination. She is the example for all others to follow.
The tale concludes on a happy note, with all loose ends being tied and harmony being restored to the family. The daughter’s devotion and purity of heart forms the philosopher’s stone out of the beauty, truth, and goodness naturally found in all human beings. In this sense, the daughter is a true Romantic. She achieves a oneness with both nature and civilization that allows her to succeed where others fail. Andersen’s conclusion makes us realize that beauty, truth, and goodness are concepts at the heart of the Romantic Movement that, although intangible, may yet be depicted in the representation of the inner qualities of his characters. As a result, a cognitively visible thread is woven between nature and civilization with respect to the three concepts. True beauty is perceived both physically and mentally. Whether looking at a piece of man-made artwork, or a range of snow-capped mountains, the observer will be inspired and nurtured by true beauty. Beauty, truth, and goodness are found in the individual’s relationship with both society and nature as they are all manifestations of individual faith, whether it be in man-made concepts or in the demonstration of God’s absolute reign. Therefore, these three concepts build a bridge of harmony between all humans and their natural, surrounding environment as expressed towards the end of the tale when Andersen writes, “The four brothers had returned; they had felt a longing for their home when the leaves from the tree fell on their chests…”((Andersen, The Complete Fairy Tales and Stories, 514.)) And Andersen sums up the argument when he writes in the final line that “From the word ‘faith’ begins the bridge of hope that leads to the All-loving, to eternity.”((Ibid., 515.)) The message is strong and clear. With faith, it is possible to find truth, beauty, and goodness, and, more importantly, to understand its importance and incorporate it into one’s life on earth.
Bibliography
Andersen, Hans Christian. The Complete Fairy Tales and Stories. Translated by Erik Christian Haugaard. New York: Anchor Books, 1983.
Freeborn, Richard. “Belinskii, Romanticism and Reality.” The Slavonic and East European Review 77, no. 2 (1999): 269–279. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4212837.
Jacobs, James M. “The Inherent Limitations on Human Freedom.” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 13, no. 1, (2010): 107–131.
Moore, Jared S. “Beauty as Harmony.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 2, no. 7, (1942- 43): 40–50.
Norman, Judith. “Nietzsche and Early Romanticism.” Journal of the History of Ideas 63, no. 3, (2002): 501–519. http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_ideas/v063/63.3norman.html.
Schueller, Herbert. “Romanticism Reconsidered.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 20, no. 4, (1962): 359–68. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/stable/pdfplus/427898.pdf.