What do you think?
Rate this book
Romantics, Rebels and Reactionaries: English Literature and its Background, 1760 - 1830
This study of the Romantics; Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Austen, Scott, Byron, Shelley, and Keats; places these richly varied writers into their proper historical setting. Butler relates the French and American Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the expansion of agriculture, trade, and industry, and growing economic and social pressures to the cultural forces which shaped their work. She reveals the common factors which engaged the separate efforts of so many individual creative minds, and the fierce personal and artistic politics of an age in the midst of profound change. Demonstrating that the literature produced during this dynamic, restless time is not as homogenous as is generally assumed, Butler illuminates the ways in which these various experimental works reflected radically new sensibilities and aspirations.
222 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
7 people are currently reading
186 people want to read
About the author
Marilyn Butler
79 books8 followersMarilyn Butler, Lady Butler, FRSL FRSA FBA was a British literary critic. She was Rector of Exeter College, Oxford, from 1993 to 2004, and was King Edward VII Professor of English Literature at the University of Cambridge from 1986 to 1993.
She was educated at Wimbledon High School and St Hilda's College, Oxford.
Her published works include Romantics, Rebels and Reactionaries and Jane Austen and the War of Ideas.
Much of her work has been devoted to the career of the Anglo-Irish novelist Maria Edgeworth, including a classic literary biography of Maria Edgeworth and an important collected edition of Edgeworth's works for Pickering & Chatto.
She was married to David Butler; the couple had three sons. In June 2003 she was awarded an honorary degree from the Open University as Doctor of the University. Butler was a Fellow of the British Academy.
She was educated at Wimbledon High School and St Hilda's College, Oxford.
Her published works include Romantics, Rebels and Reactionaries and Jane Austen and the War of Ideas.
Much of her work has been devoted to the career of the Anglo-Irish novelist Maria Edgeworth, including a classic literary biography of Maria Edgeworth and an important collected edition of Edgeworth's works for Pickering & Chatto.
She was married to David Butler; the couple had three sons. In June 2003 she was awarded an honorary degree from the Open University as Doctor of the University. Butler was a Fellow of the British Academy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
Read
November 23, 2018It has been so long since I read this that I had might as well sit down and read it again before attempting to review and no doubt that'd be no bad thing.
A few years ago I noticed that I had been a damn'd fool. The uncharitable and easily inclined to laughter would correctly point out that I have grounds to do this most days, but this particular example sticks out at me and that is that I never gate-crashed a first year lecture course in English Literature while I was at university, let alone the second year lectures. Who would have noticed and who complained of another set of ears. Another auditor would hardly have diminished the experience for the others or forced the lecturer to strain their throat, at least not beyond the normal tolerances.
Marilyn Butler's book reminds me of my folly and all I might have missed out on this is the book that sets out English Literature between 1760 and 1830 in its political and social context! Take cover all you uncritical fans of Jane Austen, of William Blake, and Wordsworth. Learn how all history is politics and how battles more fierce than Waterloo raged within, between, around books and their authors while never making as much as a tea cup shake. And there is something wonderfully exciting in seeing many separate books I've read over the years like puzzle pieces fall together under Butler's guidance into an overall picture.
My initial thought was that leaving the mainland of Europe to one side in a discussion of of literature and Romanticism would be a problem but Butler I felt brought in enough of the politics, though probably not enough of the literary influences, to illuminate the generally implicit politics of much of the writing between 1760 and 1830. I felt that Butler cut into E.P. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class and that Linda Colley in her Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837 had plainly read Butler (or somebody who had read Butler), and since I found myself in sympathy with much of what she said, I assumed that her work demonstrated the fruits of a mature intellect and a lifetime of worthwhile study.
The strength of her basic idea of a division in British literary society between metropolitan and non London voices, between those coming from a dissenting background sympathetic to the Enlightenment and those from an Anglican background increasingly unsympathetic, as well as anti-intellectual and conservative was also its weakness, as she acknowledged - one can appreciate such broad currents but you have to recognise the complexities and changes of any single particular writer .
Politically the conservative reaction in Britain against the Enlightenment - which was perceived as ending inevitably in bloody revolution - was plainly going to end in problems. One could retreat into an ideal of an Anglican community but this wasn't going to be sufficient to govern a state that was also made up of Baptists, Quakers, Catholics, Jews, and Swedenborgians among others, even if they were all denied access to the professions and political life. Unsurprisingly the issue of Catholic emancipation was to cause a crisis in the Conservative party. For writers like Walter Scott for whom despite his conservativism, throwing out the Enlightenment with the bathwater was a step too far, it is not a surprise that reconciliation, and adaptation to a changing world became a theme in several of his novels. For others, like Austen writing during the Napoleonic wars, there was to be no such shilly-shallying, no-quarter was to be offered to characters who either failed in their duty to be properly conservative in fulfilling their social duty to be a good Christian neighbour, or anyone who in their debonair manner hints at self-assertion - a character trait a bare two steps away from developing into Jacobinism sans-culottes.
There are many mini-portraits, even in this short book. Whether you have been reading Coleridge, Blake or De Quincey, Edgeworth, Wollstonecraft or Radcliffe, there is insight and illumination to be had from Butler's book. Here I will end, not because there is no more to say, but because to write more would require a reread, and not just of this book but of a good long shelf of novels with new eyes.
A few years ago I noticed that I had been a damn'd fool. The uncharitable and easily inclined to laughter would correctly point out that I have grounds to do this most days, but this particular example sticks out at me and that is that I never gate-crashed a first year lecture course in English Literature while I was at university, let alone the second year lectures. Who would have noticed and who complained of another set of ears. Another auditor would hardly have diminished the experience for the others or forced the lecturer to strain their throat, at least not beyond the normal tolerances.
Marilyn Butler's book reminds me of my folly and all I might have missed out on this is the book that sets out English Literature between 1760 and 1830 in its political and social context! Take cover all you uncritical fans of Jane Austen, of William Blake, and Wordsworth. Learn how all history is politics and how battles more fierce than Waterloo raged within, between, around books and their authors while never making as much as a tea cup shake. And there is something wonderfully exciting in seeing many separate books I've read over the years like puzzle pieces fall together under Butler's guidance into an overall picture.
My initial thought was that leaving the mainland of Europe to one side in a discussion of of literature and Romanticism would be a problem but Butler I felt brought in enough of the politics, though probably not enough of the literary influences, to illuminate the generally implicit politics of much of the writing between 1760 and 1830. I felt that Butler cut into E.P. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class and that Linda Colley in her Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837 had plainly read Butler (or somebody who had read Butler), and since I found myself in sympathy with much of what she said, I assumed that her work demonstrated the fruits of a mature intellect and a lifetime of worthwhile study.
The strength of her basic idea of a division in British literary society between metropolitan and non London voices, between those coming from a dissenting background sympathetic to the Enlightenment and those from an Anglican background increasingly unsympathetic, as well as anti-intellectual and conservative was also its weakness, as she acknowledged - one can appreciate such broad currents but you have to recognise the complexities and changes of any single particular writer .
Politically the conservative reaction in Britain against the Enlightenment - which was perceived as ending inevitably in bloody revolution - was plainly going to end in problems. One could retreat into an ideal of an Anglican community but this wasn't going to be sufficient to govern a state that was also made up of Baptists, Quakers, Catholics, Jews, and Swedenborgians among others, even if they were all denied access to the professions and political life. Unsurprisingly the issue of Catholic emancipation was to cause a crisis in the Conservative party. For writers like Walter Scott for whom despite his conservativism, throwing out the Enlightenment with the bathwater was a step too far, it is not a surprise that reconciliation, and adaptation to a changing world became a theme in several of his novels. For others, like Austen writing during the Napoleonic wars, there was to be no such shilly-shallying, no-quarter was to be offered to characters who either failed in their duty to be properly conservative in fulfilling their social duty to be a good Christian neighbour, or anyone who in their debonair manner hints at self-assertion - a character trait a bare two steps away from developing into Jacobinism sans-culottes.
There are many mini-portraits, even in this short book. Whether you have been reading Coleridge, Blake or De Quincey, Edgeworth, Wollstonecraft or Radcliffe, there is insight and illumination to be had from Butler's book. Here I will end, not because there is no more to say, but because to write more would require a reread, and not just of this book but of a good long shelf of novels with new eyes.
July 18, 2019
Part of my ongoing research in preparation for my graduate thesis.
I mostly focused on the section dealing with Jane Austen and her work, regardless, I really have no idea what this author’s point was supposed to be.
I noticed slight anger in her writing, unnecessary social and even personal criticism and more than a few times I found the author judging Jane and her literary choices based on modern times and practices.
Almost every time the author began a new point it was built up to encourage literary discussion, maybe even a closer look into the literary criticism that it is supposed to address only to end in obscure judgement that turns in on itself.
Overall, I have to admit I did take notes, but I’m not quite sure why, since I don’t think I will be using any of them. I am giving this one a hard pass.
ElliotScribbles
I mostly focused on the section dealing with Jane Austen and her work, regardless, I really have no idea what this author’s point was supposed to be.
I noticed slight anger in her writing, unnecessary social and even personal criticism and more than a few times I found the author judging Jane and her literary choices based on modern times and practices.
Almost every time the author began a new point it was built up to encourage literary discussion, maybe even a closer look into the literary criticism that it is supposed to address only to end in obscure judgement that turns in on itself.
Overall, I have to admit I did take notes, but I’m not quite sure why, since I don’t think I will be using any of them. I am giving this one a hard pass.
ElliotScribbles
April 27, 2013
For those who studied Romanticism pre-mid-1980's, Butler's work is more likely to feel earthshaking. By historicizing the period with an eye on both politics, class, and developments on the Continent, Butler overturns many held notions about who are the radicals and who the revolutionaries. The whole romanticization of the Romantic imagination takes a major hit as Butler fills in the political dynamics that make such an inward turn the safe and even sane choice for working artists in the British Isles. This is my attempt to historicize Butler's work. For current readers, this book may well seem less disruptive because it has itself become canonical and forms part of the baseline fabric for how the period is viewed and taught. I suppose I date myself when I say each time I return to this work it feels revolutionary to me.
February 1, 2011
Although Romanticism is indisputably one the most remarkable periods of British literature, it's exact definition (chronological, literary, etc.) is difficult to achieve, even if we restrict ourselves to the six great "classics" (Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Shelley, Keats). Professor Butler's book is not an introduction to the period, so those looking for a "dummies guide to Romanticism" should look elsewhere. A minimum knowledge about the period, the authors and the works discussed will certainly help, as the book hardly discusses the actual literary value or contribution of any given work. And perhaps that's the only major flaw of a book that, otherwise, provides a comprehensive and (at least at the time it was published) incisive exploration of the main themes and background of British Romanticism, with examples from the better known authors, as well as the more obscure, but nevertheless significant writers (poets, novelists, essayists, journalists, etc.). A must read for students of Romanticism who are looking for a historic view of the period.
February 11, 2024
“‘Romanticism’ is inchoate because it is not a single intellectual movement but a complex of responses to certain conditions which Western society has experienced and continued to experience since the middle of the eighteenth century.” I imagine most movements are remembered and understood in reductive terms, and it seems the Romantic writers and poets of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century are no different. And in Romantics, Rebels & Reactionaries, Marilyn Butler does an admirable job complicating the basic assumptions about these affective and nature-inspired visionaries even if sometimes her main arguments get lost in a tangle of details and poetic recountings.
The traditional literary tale is that writers of the Enlightenment sought out to describe the world as they saw it in an effort to proclaim universal values for the vast bulk of mankind. Eventually, in reaction to these overtly rational works, the Romantics came along with writings that were imaginative, subjective, and prophetic to inspire progress. Most of the time, this new breed of rebellious poet made himself into a larger-than-life figure, both in his poetry and in the newspaper headlines.
However, as Butler argues, in many cases Romantic writing was more of an extension of neoclassical beliefs than an outright rejection of them. For instance, both styles came to eschew the frivolous trappings of modernity while sharing a penchant for the essential aspects of life, often embodied in visions of a primal past or in a hero from an outsider culture. Similarly, they both attempted to reflect Nature in its true form. For the neoclassical writer, this often meant writing that was formal and orderly, as it was built on the notion that the universe was a harmonious one. For the Romantic, this meant showcasing elemental aspects of existence: “love, family, feeling, pity, fear.” These emotions were heightened to their extreme in the sentimental and gothic novels of the period.
In addition to addressing the ostensible schism between the rational Enlightenment and its subjective aftermath, Butler also parses out the distinctions between the reactionary tendencies of the first generation of Romantic poets–spearheaded by Southey, Wordsworth, and Coleridge–and the atheism and hedonism of the second generation–the most notable of which are Shelley, Keats, and Byron. And while there are clear distinctions between the groups, such as the latter’s preference for traditional forms of writing over the former’s quietly reflective autobiographical works, there is much that overlaps. Even if there were arguments over what the individualistic poet should encourage–a sturdy world built on Christian morals or an unconventional one spent challenging those morals–there was still agreement that it was the lone poet’s job to be the one to encourage those morals (or lack thereof).
There are other fascinating sections of the book. One concerns the role poetry should play in the world more broadly. Should it be satiric, moralistic, polemical, or should revolutionary ideas be submerged within mythology? Butler’s answers depend on which poet she is analyzing at the time, but it seems to me the most obvious answer is all of the above.
The traditional literary tale is that writers of the Enlightenment sought out to describe the world as they saw it in an effort to proclaim universal values for the vast bulk of mankind. Eventually, in reaction to these overtly rational works, the Romantics came along with writings that were imaginative, subjective, and prophetic to inspire progress. Most of the time, this new breed of rebellious poet made himself into a larger-than-life figure, both in his poetry and in the newspaper headlines.
However, as Butler argues, in many cases Romantic writing was more of an extension of neoclassical beliefs than an outright rejection of them. For instance, both styles came to eschew the frivolous trappings of modernity while sharing a penchant for the essential aspects of life, often embodied in visions of a primal past or in a hero from an outsider culture. Similarly, they both attempted to reflect Nature in its true form. For the neoclassical writer, this often meant writing that was formal and orderly, as it was built on the notion that the universe was a harmonious one. For the Romantic, this meant showcasing elemental aspects of existence: “love, family, feeling, pity, fear.” These emotions were heightened to their extreme in the sentimental and gothic novels of the period.
In addition to addressing the ostensible schism between the rational Enlightenment and its subjective aftermath, Butler also parses out the distinctions between the reactionary tendencies of the first generation of Romantic poets–spearheaded by Southey, Wordsworth, and Coleridge–and the atheism and hedonism of the second generation–the most notable of which are Shelley, Keats, and Byron. And while there are clear distinctions between the groups, such as the latter’s preference for traditional forms of writing over the former’s quietly reflective autobiographical works, there is much that overlaps. Even if there were arguments over what the individualistic poet should encourage–a sturdy world built on Christian morals or an unconventional one spent challenging those morals–there was still agreement that it was the lone poet’s job to be the one to encourage those morals (or lack thereof).
There are other fascinating sections of the book. One concerns the role poetry should play in the world more broadly. Should it be satiric, moralistic, polemical, or should revolutionary ideas be submerged within mythology? Butler’s answers depend on which poet she is analyzing at the time, but it seems to me the most obvious answer is all of the above.
June 14, 2025
I’m on a book-buying ban, so currently hitting up my bookshelves to revisit things I already own - I’ve looked at this before, probably for a uni course, but never read it cover to cover. It does demand prior knowledge of those poets and writers considered the British ‘Romantics’ and their peripheries (like, I was glad I’d already read Peacock’s Nightmare Abbey, etc) but delves well into the surrounding political and literary context of the era, as well as how poets as markedly different as Wordsworth and Coleridge and Byron and Shelley all later got lumped in together as one.
It also brought in some prose writers, e.g. Jane Austen, and helped answer the question for me about how she was writing at the same time in the early 1800s as the Shelleys etc and yet comes out with work that is so far removed from the ~radical Romantics and some of the restless political context of the time. (Butler positions her as a writer firmly “of the gentry” in class, and more in keeping with the ~Christian-minded set.) All in all, I learned a lot about the changing landscape of poetry and more nuances in the opposing views of poets even within the umbrella of ‘Romanticism’; there was a lot of stuff about German/continental traditions; and Butler does a great cut-down of people reducing Romanticism to a revolution against ‘classicism’ and actually puts the neoclassical bent to their (esp Byron and Shelley’s) work into better context, and the mythological allusiveness as an instrument of political radicalism.
Anyway, I had a good time thinking about the nebulous idea of ‘Romanticism’ in its context. Yes, this IS what I do for fun.
It also brought in some prose writers, e.g. Jane Austen, and helped answer the question for me about how she was writing at the same time in the early 1800s as the Shelleys etc and yet comes out with work that is so far removed from the ~radical Romantics and some of the restless political context of the time. (Butler positions her as a writer firmly “of the gentry” in class, and more in keeping with the ~Christian-minded set.) All in all, I learned a lot about the changing landscape of poetry and more nuances in the opposing views of poets even within the umbrella of ‘Romanticism’; there was a lot of stuff about German/continental traditions; and Butler does a great cut-down of people reducing Romanticism to a revolution against ‘classicism’ and actually puts the neoclassical bent to their (esp Byron and Shelley’s) work into better context, and the mythological allusiveness as an instrument of political radicalism.
Anyway, I had a good time thinking about the nebulous idea of ‘Romanticism’ in its context. Yes, this IS what I do for fun.
August 2, 2018
Interesting historical study of Enlightenment and Romantic literature
July 21, 2024
Really helpful information on the Romantic Literature period. I didn’t agree with her view of Austen as a conservative conformer.
December 31, 2019
Great overview and analysis for romantic literature in England and its international connections
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews