I feel uneasy about the way in which the question is formulated. Why transfer in such a direct manner the absolutely not univocally defined concepts of cultural history to the field of social evolution and maybe politics? Doesn't such transfer introduce more ambiguities in all spheres concerned? Moreover, it seems to me that the opposition, classic in itself, between these two cultural/artistic currents or modes of expression is here ideologically distorted, unbalanced, a positive, freedom loving adventurous Romanticism contrasting with a conservative (oppressive?) Classicism, a dull and static imitation of masters. Historically, neither one was monolithic, there were reactionary Romantics and very liberal Classicists (take Voltaire for one example).

In Archaists and Innovators (1929), the Russian formalist critic Yuri Tynyanov demonstrated how in XIX century Russia some poets who were to become revolutionaries turned to traditional models from the past whereas their much more conservative opponents proved to pioneer new forms.

If so, wouldn't it be more precise to speak simply about an eternal social and political conflict between conservatists and liberals, a conflict that can be and frequently was reflected in literature & arts, and not vice versa?

Historically, romanticism in Britain in effect succeeded a major period of classicism, when the first romantics emerged around 1800. Their vigour is perhaps the most striking feature, as well as their strong way of distancing themselves from the classicist society from which they emerged. Their emphasis was very much on individualism, emotion, and freedom, and their influence proved lasting, in that classicism never again experienced the force it had had in its quest for stability, absolute and predictable order, and a firmly organised society. Even in the late 19th century, when there was some return to stability and bourgeois values, romantics were still well and truly present. At heart, there has been friction between the two worldviews since, as they tend to be hostile to each other.

Victor Hugo Broke to the rule in Preface to Cromwell.

Romanticism has been used by various philosophers of psychoanalysis to depict the mental conditions of an individual. Classicism depicts, regarding this matter, Cartesian nature of the beings. This cartesian formula can be seen as escapism of Romanticism. Yes, they are linked. They bring a change by challenging the social normativity and normalising in postmodern and posthuman context.

I feel uneasy about the way in which the question is formulated. Why transfer in such a direct manner the absolutely not univocally defined concepts of cultural history to the field of social evolution and maybe politics? Doesn't such transfer introduce more ambiguities in all spheres concerned? Moreover, it seems to me that the opposition, classic in itself, between these two cultural/artistic currents or modes of expression is here ideologically distorted, unbalanced, a positive, freedom loving adventurous Romanticism contrasting with a conservative (oppressive?) Classicism, a dull and static imitation of masters. Historically, neither one was monolithic, there were reactionary Romantics and very liberal Classicists (take Voltaire for one example).

In Archaists and Innovators (1929), the Russian formalist critic Yuri Tynyanov demonstrated how in XIX century Russia some poets who were to become revolutionaries turned to traditional models from the past whereas their much more conservative opponents proved to pioneer new forms.

If so, wouldn't it be more precise to speak simply about an eternal social and political conflict between conservatists and liberals, a conflict that can be and frequently was reflected in literature & arts, and not vice versa?

My observation is that the romantics of today become the classics of tomorrow in future. Every generation prevents a new generation to enjoy what was enjoyed in the past. The French Romantics were against the Classics for their rigidity. But people fail to identify the fact that even the Romantics were latter attacked by the Realists. This makes the Romantics grow classical while the realists become Neo-romantics.

Many years ago, my old American Lit professor (as we were discussing Walt Whitman's poetry) said, "No one is more conservative than a liberal who's got his or her way." This is not always true, of course, and numerous counter-examples can be cited, but I've found it to be a useful characterization of social change.

I am no expert in the questioned contrast, but have a couple of observations and questions. First, William Blake seems to me a poet and painter beyond such classifications, though he is often drscribed as a Romantic. Secondly, Christina Rossetti, about whom I have written extensively, and posted that writing on ResearchGate, was highly innovative and freeing, yet she radically opposed many of the unexamined attitudes of her brother and his Romantic colleagues. In some important ways she bridged between classicists and romantics and contrivertrd the masculinist idealization of women is remote angels.

I agree with almost all observations having been expressed here; especially those which point out the paradoxical character of seemingly monolithic positions of Romanticists and Classicists. I'd just like to stress the fact that the cultural and/or artistic opposition between «individualism»/quest for freedom and «collectivism»/ideal of general order, between «liberal» and «conservative», this opposition has roots which go far beyond the Romantics' fight against the Classicism. Only one example: were not the Renaissance humanists in search of a free thought, of a free individual? Didn't they represent a sort of liberal thrust against the medieval "dark ages" (so called) conservatism? The tool they used, as everybody knows, was classical heritage. Let's not be abused by "labels".