LITS2002 EXAM ADVICE, 2009-2010

LITS2002 POETRY II: ROMANTICS AND VICTORIANS

EXAM ADVICE 2009-2010

1. The exam has SIX questions in all and is divided into TWO sections, A and B. Here are the instructions as they appear on the Exam Paper:

Answer TWO questions, each from a different section.
In Section A, you may refer to any poets studied in this course but Section B is limited to those studied in Module Two.
In each answer, you should refer closely to at least TWO relevant works studied.
Do not repeat substantially the same material in both answers.

2. There are THREE questions in Section A which seek to test your understanding of Romanticism and Romantic poetry as a whole.

3. There are THREE questions in Section B, each of which addresses a particular poet studied in Module Two: Shelley, Keats and Hopkins.

4. In the course of this semester, we addressed the following issues (in some cases, in fact, we returned to these issues time and again):

What does the term 'Romantic' mean? Which poets may be classified under this rubric? What are the chief characteristics or hallmarks of this poetry? (Technically, this is the topic which scholars refer to as Literary History -- the study of the history of literature):
- What distinguishes Romantic poetry both from the phase which preceded it (the so-called 'Neoclassicism' of Pope and co.) and that which succeeded it (so-called 'Victorian' poetry)? On the other hand, what are the similarities which link these various phases of poetry? To put this another way, are there discontinuities separating these various periods? Are there also continuities linking them? If so, are these formal in nature? Thematic? In other words, is the boundary separating one phase of literary history from another merely an arbitrary and, thus, questionable one?
- Is 'Romanticism' a single, united phenomenon or a multiplicitous, diverse one? Might it be better to think in terms of many 'Romanticisms' or several phases thereof?
- Does Romanticism refer to a particular historical phase of poetry or to an impulse (a model of poetry, a world view) present in poetry written at different times and in different places? For example, is it possible to speak (as the Martiniquan René Ménil does) of the existence of a 'Caribbean Romanticism'? Might it be possible, accordingly, to group the poets studied in ways other than chronological, with the result that it might be possible to reclassify as 'Romantic' some poets (e.g. Hopkins) conventionally categorised by other labels (in this instance 'Victorian'), and vice versa? Alternatively, might it be possible altogether to replace such labels as 'Romantic' and 'Victorian' with other, non-chronological ones?
What did the Romantics write about?
- Many scholars have noted the philosophical pretensions of the Romantics. The Romantics are sometimes characterised as 'wannabe philosophers' who were either (as in the case of Coleridge) very well read in and thus au fait with the latest philosophical discourses emanating from Germany especially (not least the work of so-called 'German Idealists' like Schelling and Hegel) or at least prone (e.g. in the case of Keats) by circumstances (in Keats' case, his impending death) to speculate on deep philosophical issues such as 'Is there a purpose to life?' or 'Is there life after death?' or 'Is there more to me than merely flesh and blood?' or 'Is there a part of me that will survive the death of my body?' and so on. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that where some Romantics like Coleridge were quite dogmatic in the way they refused to entertain many, if any, doubts about the philosophies with which they identified, others like Shelley were torn between belief and skepticism. Two crucial questions arise: what is philosophy? And, how is a philosophical sensibility accordingly expressed in the poetry of the Romantics? Philosophy is derived from two Greek words meaning 'love [philos] of wisdom [sophos].' The famous ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle once said that 'philosophy begins in wonder,' that is, the asking of important, unavoidable questions is the force driving philosophers in their quest for wisdom. This is certainly true of the Romantic philosopher-poets whom we have studied this semester who address many Metaphysical/Epistemological/Linguistic/Religious issues, such as the following:
  - Being (Reality): what truth-claims, explicit or implicit, do any of these poets make about the fundamental nature of reality?
    - Is the material world all there is or is there also a spiritual, non-material dimension to existence?
    - what is the nature of the relationship binding the material and spiritual spheres of existence?
  - Human Being (the Self): what truth-claims, explicit or implicit, do any of the poets make about the nature of human beings?
    - Are we merely physical bodies or is there another 'spiritual' or non-material dimension (a so-called 'soul' or 'mind' or 'consciousness') to us? If so, how should we understand the nature of the mind or consciousness?
    - What is the nature of the relationship between the body and the mind? Are they distinct? Derived from or dependent on each other?
  - Knowledge / Language: do these poems ever discuss the nature of and limits, if any, to human knowledge, that is, to the particular truth-claims which humans make about any or all topics?
    - Is it possible for a human being to know the truth about reality? Are there any impediments to such knowledge?
    - Is it possible for a human being to know the truth about him/herself? Are there any impediments to such knowledge?
    - Can knowledge be objective or must it be subjective, that is, relative to the person making the claim and the circumstances in which it is made?
    - What roles do language and, in particular, poetry play in the production of knowledge?
  - Religion:
    - Is there a God? If so, what form does he take? What is the nature of his relationship to his creation? Can one discern his presence in his handiwork (nature)? What is our relationship to God?
    - What is the precise nature of our relationship to God? Are we distinct from God? Are we his servants? Are we part of God?
    - which contemporaneous intellectual developments (the rise to prominence of the natural sciences, Darwinism, the emergence of Existentialism, etc.) conspired to undermine at this time Europeans' faith in religion and a meaningful universe?
  - Metaphilosophy: how is the philosophical poetry of the Romantics different from pure, i.e. non-poetic philosophy? In other words, if philosophy takes the form of poetry, how is this form of philosophical discourse different from regular philosophising where there is an emphasis on the use of logic and the avoidance of literary techniques (e.g. figurative language), except in so far as these help to clarify the argument proposed?
- Another topic explored by scholars is whether the Romantics address Socio-Political issues. Relevant questions in this regard include:
  - What claims do the Romantics make about the society in which they live, the ways in which it is structured (e.g. the class-structure), and how it is governed or ought to be governed?
  - Is it fair to accuse the Romantics of 'escapism'? In other words, do they ever abandon abstract philosophical musings in order to address more worldly (i.e. economic/social/political) concerns such as poverty, injustice, oppression?
  - Marx once said that the point is not merely to interpret the world, as philosophers do, but to change it. Are Romantic poets content with the status quo? Do they ever see the need for change and, if so, what tools do they employ (direct criticism, satire, etc.)? Is there, in short, a Utopian impulse to Romantic poetry?
What form did the poetry of the Romantics take?
- Many scholars have argued that the Romantics' style of writing is quite different from that of their Neo-Classical precursors. Indeed, many speak of a 'Romantic revolution' in this regard. Many questions arise, including:
  - What distinguishes the form or structure (its use of figurative language, its development, etc.) of Romantic poetry from that of precursors like the Neoclassicists and successors such as the Victorians and the Modernists?
  - Is it possible to identify a common form or structure to any / all Romantic poems and which makes them identifiably 'Romantic'?
  - what are the principal genres (the sonnet? the ode? etc.) which the Romantics make use of? What are the precise features of these genres? Do they change the genres which they inherit in any ways?
  - What is the relationship between the form of a Romantic poem and its content or subject-matter?
It is clear that the Romantics were not just poets -- they were also literary theorists. That is, they did not merely write poetry, they wrote about poetry, seeking to grasp its nature, pondering its source, probing its effect, etc. They were, in this sense, extremely self-conscious poets, very aware of the dominant views of poetry inherited from their predecessors and the distinctness of what they were attempting to do in turn.
- How exactly, then, did the Romantics conceptualise the poetry which they produced? How is their model of poetry similar to and/or different from that of Neo-classical poets (as expressed, for example, in Pope's Essay on Criticism)? How do any of their poems exemplify or illustrate their theories of literature? To answer these questions, consider the following sub-topics:
  - The Author: under this rubric, literary theorists explore the nature of the relationship which exists between a literary work and its author (what M. H. Abrams terms the 'expressive pole' of literary criticism). Many scholars have pointed out that the Romantics' emphasis on poetry as a form of self-expression (i.e. poetry as a very personal, even autobiographical mode of literature) distinguished their view of literature from that of the Neoclassicists like Pope;
  - Literary Form and Genre (Abrams' 'objective pole'): literary theorists explore under this rubric the form or structure of literature. The question is, what formal innovations do the Romantics contribute? (See also the discussion earlier);
  - Literary History: this concerns the study of the historical development of literature. Many scholars argue that it is not without significance that history emerges as an important field of study during the Romantic period: the Romantics are the first period of literary history in which writers and scholars became aware in a significant way of the historicity of literature, that is, of the fact that literature is subject to the forces of change and that each work is a product of a specific socio-historical context, i.e. place and time. The question is, how do the Romantics conceive of the principle which is responsible for historical change? Is change due to some transcendent principle? Or is it due to material factors? (See also the discussion above);
  - The Reader (the 'pragmatic pole'): here, the concern is with the impact which literature has on the reader. The question is, how do the Romantics conceptualise this impact? What precise form does it take? How is their conception of this impact different from that of the Neoclassicists like Pope?
  - Representation (the 'mimetic pole'): here the concern is with the content of literature, rather than the form, that is, what literature is about or, in other words, the claims which literature makes about the world. The question is, do the Romantics believe that literature merely and passively mirrors the world? Or are they of the view that literature 'constructs' or offers a subjective interpretation of the world that stems from the particular perspective and world view of the poet?