How did George Eliot’s realism differ from Romanticism?

George Eliot’s realism represented a distinct departure from the idealism and subjectivity of Romanticism. While Romanticism often emphasized the individual, the visionary, and a belief in divine benevolence within nature, Eliot’s approach focused on the faithful representation of commonplace life and the stark realities of the human condition.123

Key differences include:

• Nature and Reality: Where Romantic poets like William Wordsworth often viewed nature as a source of divine benevolence, Eliot’s realism depicted the harsher, "red in tooth and claw" aspects of the natural world.2
• Moral Framework: Unlike the Romantic focus on the exceptional hero or the transcendental, Eliot’s work was grounded in rigorous moral judgment and deep human sympathy. She rejected notions of Divine Providence, instead emphasizing that characters possess free will and are responsible for their choices.2
• Subject Matter: Eliot moved away from the "softer" qualities of Romanticism—such as chivalric passion or dreamlike idealism—to provide a truthful, minute observation of everyday life, including the squalor and penury of rural settings.23

Ultimately, Eliot transformed the novel into a highly intellectual form of art, prioritizing psychological subtlety and the complex, often unhistoric lives of ordinary people over the exotic or mysterious preoccupations of the Romantic era.23