Conclusion

I set out to provide a richer account of Romantic literature on two levels: the level of form and the level of subjectivity. In this chapter I conclude my investigation. I make the case that the concept of ‘representation’ can provide a suitable ‘architectonic’ for the study of Romantic form. In Romantic literature, the challenge of representation has two moments: (1) Romantic writers held that the self was a subject, which made its representation by an object problematic; (2) some writers doubted the wholeness or unity of the subject, which would make its representation by a single object impossible. I have shown that the challenge of representation can be met in three ways. If the subject is unified, then the self is necessary and can be represented by an object in the text. If some part of the subject exceeds its unity, then the self and its portrayal are monstrous. If the parts of the self fail to cohere at all, then the self and its portrayal are multiple. I propose that this more capacious understanding of Romantic selfhood and Romantic form provide tools for understanding a wider range of Romantic texts. The forms I identify are not confined to the representation of subjectivity: representation, monstrosity and multiplicity can in principle be ‘thematised’ in infinite ways. It is no surprise that scholars have been especially drawn to monstrous and multiple varieties of Romantic writing in recent decades, as individualism has ceased to be a compelling ideology in academic settings.