begin page 106 | back to top


Steven E. Alford. Irony and the Logic of the Romantic Imagination. American University Studies, Series III: Comparative Literature, vol. 13. New York, Berne, Frankfort on the Main, Nancy: Peter Lang, 1984. 177 pp., paper, $19.45.

Steven Alford’s book is a comparative study of Blake and Friedrich Schlegel in which the German critic is read as providing the model of romantic irony necessary for the proper reading of Blake’s Marriage. The aims of the book, which is an unmodified doctoral dissertation, are modest. Schlegel’s early writings are expounded, and the essay On Incomprehensibility examined in some detail; Blake is represented in detail only by The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.

After unpromising beginnings, in which the author appears to want to take seriously the accusation that Romantic poetry is “flowery” in order to reassert the counterclaim that its aims were “noble and beautiful” (pp. 1, 3, 4)—the probable irony of Keats’s “flowery tale” might have been usefully recalled here—the major argument comes clear: that the Romantics moved toward an emphasis on the “rhetorical” over the “logical” as the essence of meaning (p. 6). The substantial vehicle of this shift is a move away from “understanding” to “imagination” by means of irony (p. 7).

Unfortunately for Blake specialists, the discussion of Schlegel is considerably more adventurous than that of Blake. Schlegel is argued to be recommending and embodying a move from logic to poetry as the proper model of the philosophical enterprise, which then becomes “performative” rather than deductive (p. 42). Suggesting convincingly that Schlegel was unwilling to accept the potentially tragic Kantian distinction between the phenomenal and the noumenal (p. 107)—an unwillingness shared by almost all of Kant’s self-styled followers—Alford demonstrates the case in Schlegel’s writings for a unification of the empirical and the absolute through the medium of romantic poetry (p. 55). In particular, romantic irony is the unity of the “cognitive and rhetorical” in which otherwise abstract philosophical problems are adjudicated in performance, in the actions and spiritual gestures of individual persons (pp. 64, 58).

As this model is carried over into a reading of the Marriage, it becomes somewhat platitudinous. Alford sees a parallel to Schlegelian irony in Blake’s “visionary form of language” (p. 123), whereby the irritable reaching after fact and reason (fixed allegories, stable speakers, simple ironies of inversion, etc.) is to be replaced by “the eternally active creative imagination” (p. 167). Alford is surely right to lead us away from simple readings of Blake—but even a moderately experienced reader is unlikely to perpetrate such readings in the terms he describes. He is right also to encourage the search for “functional analogy,” not simple definition, as the proper approach to Blake’s myth (p. 148). But I cannot see that anything that is not already habitual happens to our reading of the Marriage if we agree that “irony functions to suspend the understanding and to make way for an act of vision” (p. 13). If anything, such a conclusion is likely to contribute to the morass of relativism that surrounds the presence of Blake in print and in the classroom. Even if we accept that such readings are part of Blake’s purpose, at least two kinds of inquiry are called for: one into the composite identity of Blake’s art, ignored here, and a very specific incidence of “vision”; and another (not unrelated) into the narrative identity of the Marriage, if any. Forms of coherence obtained by the privileging of luminous aphorisms are no longer enough, even as there is a great deal in Blake’s writing to encourage such an approach.

The book’s somewhat military style—the naming of parts that is all too standard as a dissertation format—and the fact that long and important passages in German are not translated, is not likely to assist the author in finding a wide audience for his book. But he does demonstrate, once again, that Friedrich Schlegel is an important figure for the understanding of Romantic theories of meaning and communication.

Print Edition

  • Publisher
  • Department of English, University of New Mexico
  • Albuquerque, NM, USA
    • Editors
    • Morris Eaves
    • Morton D. Paley
    • Managing Editor
    • Robin Tawney
    • Bibliographer
    • Thomas L. Minnick
    • Review Editor
    • Nelson Hilton
    • Associate Editor for Great Britain
    • Frances A. Carey
    • Contributors
    • Dan Bell
    • G.E. Bentley, Jr.
    • Max Byrd
    • Robert N. Essick
    • Mary Lynn Johnson
    • Anne K. Mellor
    • Stuart Peterfreund
    • David Simpson
    • Allen Staley
    • David Wagenknecht
    • Nicholas Warner

    Digital Edition

    • Editors:
    • Morris Eaves, University of Rochester
    • Robert Essick, University of California, Riverside
    • Joseph Viscomi, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    • Project Manager
    • Joe Fletcher
    • Technical Editor
    • Michael Fox
    • Previous Project Manager and Technical Editor
    • William Shaw
    • Project Director
    • Adam McCune
    • Project Coordinator, UNC:
    • Natasha Smith, Carolina Digital Library and Archives
    • Project Coordinator, University of Rochester:
    • Sarah Jones
    • Scanning:
    • UNC Digital Production Center
    • XML Encoding:
    • Apex CoVantage
    • Additional Transcription:
    • Adam McCune
    • Jennifer Park
    • Emendations:
    • Rachael Isom
    • Mary Learner
    • Adam McCune
    • Ashley Reed
    • Jennifer Park
    • Scott Robinson
    • XSLT Development:
    • Adam McCune
    • Joseph Ryan
    • William Shaw
    • PHP and Solr Development:
    • Michael Fox
    • Adam McCune
    • Project Assistants:
    • Lauren Cameron,
    • Rachael Isom,
    • Mary Learner,
    • Jennifer Park,
    • Ashley Reed,
    • Adair Rispoli,
    • Scott Robinson
    • Sponsors
    • Funders
    • Blake/An Illustrated Quarterly
    • William Blake Archive
    • Carolina Digital Library and Archives
    • Use Restrictions
    • Copyright © 2015 Blake/An Illustrated Quarterly, all rights reserved. Items in this digital edition may be shared in accordance with the Fair Use provisions of U.S. copyright law. Redistribution or republication on other terms, in any medium, requires express written consent from the editors and advance notification of the publisher. Permission to reproduce the graphic images in this digital edition rests with the owning institutions.