CHAPTER XII

THE AGE OF JOHNSON (1740-1780)

FROM a consideration of the literary achievement of the Age of Dryden and the Age of Pope, it ought to be sufficiently clear that Classicism was a living movement, arising naturally by reaction from an exhausted Romanticism, finding a proper place in the development of English life and thought, fulfilling a great mission and leaving behind it great results. The hopes and expectations of its promoters were high and sanguine, and they were in fair measure realized, although its literary product has not quite maintained the right to stand in the highest rank. Dryden and Pope were its great poets, and a company of great prosewriters helped to swell the large sum of its achievements. Yet Classicism ran but a comparatively brief career. Much as it really accomplished for English literature, it was by the very nature of the English character and genius destined to inferiority, sure sooner or later to be challenged and overthrown by other forces. The time for the challenge had now come, but not quite yet the time for the overthrow. Romanticism had prevailed in one form or another from the Norman Conquest to the Age of Dryden; and after the Age of Pope, it was soon to make itself felt again. Even before the death of Pope, this and other new tendencies had begun to dispute with the old for the literary mastery. Yet the battle was not to be easily won. The influence of Classicism did not Continuance cease in a moment; and for at least another of Classicism generation we must note the continuance of classical

tendencies. Indeed, it was not until near the close of the eighteenth century that the conflict can be said to have been fully decided. Nowhere in the literature have we better illustration of the fact that literary periods overlap each other, that old influences persist with gradually diminishing force, while newer tendencies are gathering the strength and momentum that are finally to make them prevail. In this case, the period of transition was a comparatively long one, and the struggle between the old and the new was unusually severe. In view of the fact that the classical type of literature survived throughout the period now under survey, it seems proper to speak of the period as a classical one and to designate it by the name of Samuel Johnson, the great classical figure of the age. In more precise terms, it was a period of transition and of conflict during which Classicism asserted itself with ever decreasing power against the newer movements.

It probably did not yet appear to the men of that generation what were really the tendencies by which they were being swept onward. Some things they saw clearly enough; and still others are apparent to us as we study their work to-day, although it is not yet certain that we have reached a final interpretation of the age. It is clear that there was a definite, emphatic, and conagainst Clas- scious revolt against the authority of Classicism sicism -a revolt continually growing in force and effectiveness. This, however, is merely negative; and it is more important to ask what was the nature of the new impulses which reënforced the revolt against Classicism and which brought a fresh and more original spirit into literature.

Revolt

It has been common to call the new movement a revival of Romanticism and to attribute the various phenomena of literature to a romantic reaction struggling to make headway against classical tradition. That there was a roman

Romanticism.

tic movement is beyond question. It was probably more striking and more productive than any other; and we shall see its influence manifested in many ways. The chief doubt is whether this interpretation is sufficiently deep and comprehensive to account for all the tendencies that literature presents to us in the age. Incidentally, the question may be raised whether the romantic movement is properly to be called a mere "revival." No doubt there was much imitation of Elizabethan poets, much drawing of water from the wells of medieval romance. The new Romanticism, however, was in spirit something very dif- The New ferent from that of the Age of Shakespeare or from that of the Middle Ages. The Romanticism of Shakespeare's day, for instance, had its sources in the spirit of wonder and enthusiasm created by the Renaissance. In that great awakening of the human mind, imagination was aroused to a tremendous activity, and men felt that the wildest dreams were justified by the boundless possibilities opening up before the human race. The eighteenth century was no such age of divine illusions, and its Romanticism is not to be accounted for in any such way. Other and original forces were at work; and any imitation of the past that may have characterized the writers of this later time was but a temporary expedient until the new spirit should have found its own way and wrought out its own modes of utterance. Moreover, even when the outward form was an imitation, the inward spirit was often something quite new and original. It does not seem sufficient, therefore, simply to say that there was a romantic movement, much less a romantic "revival." We must go deeper, and inquire what causes were then existing which had power to create the type of Romanticism peculiar to the eighteenth century, as the Renaissance had created the type of Romanticism peculiar to the sixteenth century.