There have been many people who have made claims that Romanticism was some kind of pathology or some kind of aberration. In fact Romanticism is a natural successor of rationalism, and for a very simple reason:

The rational mind has contempt for nature and feeling until it studies these things enough to find in them a logic more intricate than any that it has itself been able to devise. At which point the contempt turns into appreciation and even awe. And the lack of such appreciation is a mark of inadequate cognition and inadequate reasoning.

This bears descriptive value; it also bears predictive value. Any kind of rationalism will be followed by some kind of romanticism. And the Western history, in both 19th and 20th centuries, has certainly bore this out.

The human being can be said to have a natural aspect - its physical and emotional aspect - that is congruent with other forms of life. It also has an intellectual, volitional aspect, that sets action according to knowledge and choice. Both are inextricable parts of humanity. And while the first is congruent with nature, the second is congruent with civilization. Which means that a full human nature is attained through allowing people the benefit of both their natural and their volitional intellectual aspects - and by extension of both nature and civilization.

In addition, much of what is known as human world is a work of art and business, the first being the fulfilment of people's creative potential and the second of their productive potential. Both of the above have been responsible for much of what is known as civilization, and when the two work together - as they did say in 1920s - the result has been a legacy of embodied splendor.

Both rationalism and romanticism are therefore valid descriptions of different aspects of human beingness, and it is with them working together that true human benefit can actually be attained.