ABSTRACT

The problematic relationship of 'romantic' to 'classical' and to 'realistic' is a corollary of the difficulty in defining these terms. Since there is so little agreement about the meaning of 'romantic', it is natural that there should also be varying views as to its true antithesis. Both 'classical' and 'realistic' figure in literary and art criticism as the opposite of 'romantic'. If the relationship to 'classical' looks backwards to the Romantic movement's antecedents, the contrast with 'realistic' is mainly concerned with its successors. Realism - both as a facet of human temperament and in the literary sense - implies a primary interest in res, the thing as it is. In the arts realism purports to observe and depict all aspects of life as faithfully and factually as possible. Although the Romantic movement as such had lost most of its original impetus, its ideas and styles were by no means extinct.