In The Passion of the Western Mind (1996), Richard Tarnas elucidates that two distinct cultural streams emerged from the Renaissance. One stream emerged from the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, which emphasized reason and secularism. The other stream, represented by Romanticism, focused on sensuality, spirituality, the supernatural, and non-rational forms of knowledge. However, it is overly simplistic to view the relationship between Romanticism and science as purely oppositional.

It is essential to recognize that the Romantic poets and other writers of the era were not consciously engaged in what we now label as the Romantic Movement, a term coined during the Victorian age. This understanding carries significant implications for any discussion regarding the perspectives and trajectories of the Romantic Movement. When we reference the Romantic poets or the Romantic age, we interpret literary history through a lens that may not fully align with their contemporary context. Thus, caution is warranted when generalizing about the Romantic poets' attitudes toward science. They did not belong to an organized movement that uniformly addressed specific issues. Similarly, we must avoid blanket statements about science, as it was not a static field but a complex, evolving phenomenon with distinctly social elements.

In the 19th century and earlier, poetry held a status comparable to, if not superior to, rational discourse, serving as a medium for critiquing philosophical and scientific endeavors. Conversely, the arts, history, and humanities were considered relevant to discussions about science. In contrast, contemporary discourse rarely incorporates poetry or historical exploration as core components of scientific texts. Such an inclusion was, however, essential in the 19th century for a scientific work to gain credibility. Additionally, Romantic poets might not have perceived their critiques of figures like Newton as oppositional to science; rather, they sought to present an alternative and more holistic vision of existence.

Modern categorizations, including the divide between science and the humanities, are more arbitrary and contemporary than often acknowledged. Paul Johnson notes that during the 19th century, many artists and poets were captivated by scientific advancements, while many accomplished engineers and scientists were also skilled in the arts. This inter-disciplinary nature stemmed from the absence of the rigid distinctions we recognize today. Consequently, educated individuals of that time were often naturally renaissance figures.

As our collective understanding has expanded, the complexity of various fields necessitates specialization, often at the cost of expertise in other areas. This specialization has led to the compartmentalization of knowledge, resulting in increasing isolation among different domains to the extent that they are perceived as incompatible. This has created a significant divide between science and the arts, whereas a liberal education in the past encompassed a broad spectrum of knowledge.

Stephen Prickett highlights the difficulties faced by 21st-century readers when engaging with 19th-century texts, noting the relative lack of boundaries and the prevalence of alternative narratives in those works. He observes that secular and biblical narratives were often interpreted similarly. The modern reader, steeped in the academic divisions between literary and biblical studies, struggles to recapture the mindset of a time when such distinctions were not yet established.

It is a common tendency to read 19th-century texts as if their meanings can be directly applied to our contemporary context, which is a misconception. The challenge, as Prickett indicates, lies not in the categorization of 19th-century texts but in recognizing that the categories of our time do not apply to them. The 19th-century worldview possessed its own taxonomies and narratives, which differ significantly from ours. Engaging with 19th-century literature requires contextualizing it within its original framework rather than attempting to translate it into a modern perspective.

The fluid relationship between the arts and sciences in the 19th century is exemplified in Sir Humphry Davy’s Elements of Chemical Philosophy (1812), which serves as both a modern exposition of chemistry and a noteworthy literary work. Davy emphasizes the role of analogy in determining "scientific truth," highlighting the integral connection of language arts to science. Following a brief overview of scientific methodology, he presents an engaging historical narrative tracing the evolution of science from ancient times to his own era, reflecting a profound education in both scientific and humanistic disciplines.

Davy serves as an archetype for examining the interplay between Romanticism and science; he was not only a respected scientist but also associated with prominent Romantic figures like Sir Walter Scott, Wordsworth, and Coleridge. He collaborated with Wordsworth on the second edition of Lyrical Ballads (1801), ventured into the mountains with Scott and Wordsworth in 1805, and encouraged Coleridge to lecture at the Royal Institution, as he himself had done. Both Mary and Percy Bysshe Shelley engaged with Davy’s Elements of Chemical Philosophy while Mary was in the early stages of writing Frankenstein.

In the Preface to Lyrical Ballads (1802), Wordsworth articulates his understanding of the relationship between the poet and the man of science:

> "The knowledge both of the Poet and the Man of science is pleasure; but the knowledge of the one cleaves to us as a necessary part of our existence, our natural and unalienable inheritance; the other is a personal and individual acquisition, slow to come to us, and by no habitual and direct sympathy connecting us with our fellow-beings..."

Wordsworth’s perspective positions poetry as a vital companion to scientific inquiry, suggesting that while the man of science seeks truth as an abstract benefactor, the poet rejoices in the tangible presence of truth as a companion.

Interestingly, where Wordsworth critiques science as inferior to poetry, Davy critiques ancient proto-scientific texts as being "vague speculations, rather poetical than philosophical." This illustrates the diverse views held by educated individuals in the 19th century, emphasizing that not everyone shared a homogeneous perspective. The social fabric of the time allowed for friendships to endure despite differing opinions.

Percy Bysshe Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry (1821), written in response to Thomas Love Peacock’s The Four Ages of Poetry (1820), demonstrates a similar amicable divergence of opinion. Peacock argues that the significance of poetry is being overshadowed by scientific advancements. However, it is crucial to avoid generalizing about the 19th-century worldview based on specific texts. Peacock, known for his satire, may have been engaging in a clever discussion rather than asserting a genuine belief that science was usurping poetry.

This dynamic reveals an often-overlooked aspect of Romanticism and 19th-century life: the humanity of its prominent writers. We tend to view these figures through the narrow lens of their literary contributions, forgetting their capacity for humor and enjoyment. Charles Lamb (1775–1834), with his essays and letters, offers a glimpse into the personal lives of Romantic writers, reminding us of their shared experiences and relationships.

While Romantic writers often opposed the empirical nature of early scientific thought, they were nonetheless captivated by contemporary developments in chemistry, electricity, and magnetism that evoked a sense of mystery and wonder. The Romantic perspective rejected the reductionist view of natural phenomena as mere mechanical elements, advocating instead for a holistic understanding of existence that transcends empirical observations.

Shelley, like Wordsworth, placed poetry at the forefront of scientific and intellectual pursuits, enabling him to critique aspects of the scientific enterprise he viewed as problematic. His poem, Alastor, or, The Spirit of Solitude (1815), narrates the journey of a youth whose insatiable quest for knowledge leads to isolation and ultimately tragedy. Shelley’s preface to the poem reinforces this theme:

> "The Poet’s self-centred seclusion was avenged by the furies of an irresistible passion pursuing him to speedy ruin..."

The parallels between Alastor and Frankenstein are evident, as both explore the consequences of knowledge pursued at the expense of human connection. This recurring theme within Romanticism underscores the value of poetry in fostering relationships between humanity and the natural world.

Poetry has historically served as a connective tissue in society, providing comfort during tumultuous times such as the Industrial Revolution. The allusions to ancient history and classical culture in Romantic texts evoke a sense of continuity amid societal upheaval. In contrast, science was perceived as cold and rational, often stripping away the mystery and wonder that poetry preserved. The artistic realm was seen as a communal space, while scientific pursuits were often solitary, reinforcing the notion that poetry's humanizing influence was essential.

The late 18th and early 19th centuries were marked by significant social upheaval in Britain, with industrialization leading to widespread unemployment and unrest. Government suppression of protests and dissent highlighted the challenges faced by individuals during this period. Harold Bloom theorizes that this tension fostered a spiritual and literary revolution, epitomized by Romanticism.

Romanticism may offer a model of creative resistance relevant to contemporary struggles. Radu Vancu, a Romanian poet involved in protests against governmental policies, likens the collective action of protests to a grand poem, illustrating the power of art and community in enacting change.

In his Preface to Lyrical Ballads, Wordsworth envisions poetry as a remedy for the societal malaise brought about by the Industrial Revolution. He identifies poetry as a force capable of addressing the alienation and mechanization resulting from rapid technological advancement, viewing it as a means of reanimating and humanizing the scientific enterprise.

However, Wordsworth distinguishes his poetry from the popular literature of the time, which he felt merely conformed to societal trends. He posits that true poetry should evoke personal feelings and reflections, emphasizing the exercise of will and reason over mere emotional response. This conception challenges many assumptions about the nature of Romanticism and its relationship with science.

[1] Tarnas, Richard, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the ideas that have shaped our worldview, Pimlico, London, 1996, p 366 [2] Gilmour, Ian, The Making of the Poets: Byron and Shelley in Their Time, Pimilico, London, 2003, p 1 [3] Haynes, Roslynn D., From Faust to Strangelove: Representations of the Scientist in Western Literature, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1994, pp 75–76 [4] Johnson, Paul, The Birth of the Modern: World Society 1815–1830, Phoenix Giant, London, 1991, p 14 [5] Prickett, Stephen, Narrative, Religion and Science: Fundamentalism versus Irony, 1700–1999, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, p 158 [6] Davy, Sir Humphry, Elements of Chemical Philosophy, Bradford and Inskeep, New York, 1812 [7] Davy, pp 1–2 [8] Gill, Stephen, William Wordsworth: A Life, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989, p 186 [9] Gill, p 245 [10] Gill, p 252 [11] Shelley, Mary, and Shelley, Percy Bysshe (Ed. by Paula R. Feldman and Diana Scott-Kilvert), The Journals of Mary Shelley, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1995, pp 142–144 [12] Leitch, Vincent B (Ed.), The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (Second Edition), WW Norton & Company, New York, 2010, pp 568, footnote 2 [13] Holmes, Richard, The Age of Wonder: How the Romantic Generation discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science, Harper Press, London, 2008, pp 235, 241–244 [14] Wordsworth, William, ‘Preface to Lyrical Ballads’ (1802) in Leitch, Vincent B (Ed.), The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (Second Edition), WW Norton & Company, New York, 2010, pp 569–570 [15] Davy, Sir Humphry, Elements of Chemical Philosophy, Bradford and Inskeep, New York, 1812, p 2 [16] Shelley, Percy Bysshe, The Major Works, Oxford World’s Classics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003, pp 674–701 [17] Peacock, Thomas Love, ‘The Four Ages of Poetry’ in Brett-Smith, H. F. B. (ed.) The Four Ages of Poetry etc. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1953) [18] Lamb, Charles, The Complete Works and Letters of Charles Lamb, The Modern Library, New York, 1935 [19] Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, Poems, Everyman, J M Dent, London, 1993, pp 148–150 [20] Haynes, Roslynn D., From Faust to Strangelove: Representations of the Scientist in Western Literature, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1994, pp 75–76 [21] Shelley, Percy Bysshe, The Complete Poetical Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley, Hutchinson, Thomas (Ed.), (Edited and annotated by Mary Shelley), Oxford University Press, London, 1932, pp 14–31 [22] As per note 21, p 14 [23] As per note 21, pp 14–15 [24] As per note 21, p 16 [25] Shelley, Mary, Frankenstein, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980, pp 51–52 [26] Bloom, Harold, The Visionary Company: A Reading of English Romantic Poetry, Cornell University Press, Ithaca & London, 1971, pp xiv — xvi [27] Skurtu, Tara, ‘The Poetry of International Resistance: Radu Vancu on the Romanian Protests’, The Huffington Post, 15 February, 2017. [28] Wordsworth, William, ‘Preface to Lyrical Ballads’ (1802) in Leitch, Vincent B (Ed.), The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (Second Edition), WW Norton & Company, New York, 2010, p 563