Taine's Formula of Literary Evolution

 Welcome Readers,

TAINE'S FORMULA OF LITERARY EVOLUTION

William Henry Hudson

Introduction:

            This is an explanation of Taine's Formula of Literary Evolution, based on Hudson’s commentary from "An Introduction to the Study of English Literature."

1. Taine's Formula:

           Taine's literary theory rests on the formula of "race, milieu, and moment" as the three primary factors determining literature's development:

   - Race refers to the hereditary traits and dispositions of a people, the collective temperament passed down through generations.

   - Milieu encompasses the totality of environmental factors like climate, political institutions, and social conditions that shape an individual and society.

   - Moment is the specific spirit or essence of the time, reflecting the stage of development a nation or society has reached at any given period.

   

       Taine’s theory presents literature as the product of these impersonal forces, suggesting that every author and their works are molded by the combination of these three elements. This places literature squarely within the framework of historical and societal influences, reducing the individual’s role to an expression of collective tendencies.

2. Criticism of the Formula:

 

       While Taine’s formula is compelling, Hudson criticizes it for neglecting a crucial aspect of great literature: individual personality. Taine views an author as merely a product of race, milieu, and moment, which overlooks the personal genius that differentiates major literary figures. Hudson argues that literature, particularly that of great writers, is shaped as much by individual gifts as by societal forces. In other words, while lesser writers may reflect their age more faithfully, true geniuses like Shakespeare often transcend these limitations, combining national temperament with unique personal qualities.

           Hudson further critiques the formula by noting that personality as an originating force is ignored. Taine focuses solely on how an age shapes an author but fails to consider how an author, in turn, influences the age. Great writers like Dickens, Ruskin, or Carlyle not only reflect the societal forces of their time but actively shape and contribute to those forces. Hence, the relationship between literature and life is not one-directional but reciprocal.

3. Overlooking the Individual Genius:

            One of the major flaws in Taine’s formula, according to Hudson, is its failure to account for the role of the individual genius. In his analysis, Taine diminishes the value of personal variation, reducing authors to mere products of their age. Hudson emphasizes that the more significant the author, the more pronounced their personal genius will be, making them distinct from their contemporaries. The formula, by failing to acknowledge this element, breaks down when applied to the works of great literary figures.

           Hudson illustrates this point by referencing Shakespeare, noting that while Shakespeare was fundamentally English, his flexibility of spirit was uniquely his own, and not a general English trait. It is this individual quality that separates Shakespeare from his contemporaries and makes his genius incommunicable through any formula.

4. Interest in Literature on the Sociological Side:

           Despite his criticism, Hudson acknowledges the value of examining literature from a sociological perspective. While some may argue that relating literature to its historical context diminishes its life, Hudson refutes this by suggesting that it broadens the reader’s understanding. Literature becomes a record of human life across time, linking personal expressions of art to broader cultural and historical movements.

           By placing literature within its historical and social context, readers can uncover fresh meanings, even in works that may initially appear dull or irrelevant to modern sensibilities. Sociological study breathes new life into old texts by helping us understand the conditions that shaped them, allowing us to appreciate them not only as artistic expressions but also as reflections of societal values, challenges, and aspirations.

5. The Limitations of Scientific Treatment:

       Hudson concludes that Taine's attempt to treat literature scientifically by using a rigid formula is inherently limited and ultimately disappointing for those studying literature. While scientific methods may work in analyzing sociological phenomena, literature requires an appreciation of both the impersonal societal influences and the personal genius that contributes to its creation. The complexity and originality of literature, particularly from great authors, cannot be fully captured by reducing it to a simple set of external influences.

               Therefore, while Taine's formula offers valuable insights into the relationship between literature and society, it is not sufficient to explain the full scope of literary creation. Hudson advocates for a balanced approach, acknowledging the dual influence of society on literature and literature on society, while also recognizing the indispensable role of personal creativity in shaping literary works.

Conclusion

            In summary, while Taine’s theory of literary evolution offers a useful framework for understanding how external forces shape literature, it overlooks the critical factor of individual genius and the reciprocal relationship between literature and society. Hudson suggests that a more nuanced approach, which considers both sociological and personal factors, is essential for a deeper appreciation of literature.

Reference: 

Hudson, William Henry. An introduction to the study of literature. Harrap, 1919.