PREFACE xi 



thing, was added. And the previous two decades, beginning with 

 the Essay on the Fables of La Fontaine (1853) and continuing 

 through the pubhcation of his important psychological work On 

 Intelligence in 1870, present us with a body of critical writing of 

 rare quality and remarkable unity of plan and execution. As we 

 shall see. On Intelligence was the logical culmination and expression 

 of doctrines already contained in the History of English Literature 

 (1863) and Lectures on Art (i 865-1 869), and, with the completion 

 of that work, the essential story had been told: philosophically, 

 what followed was anti-climax. 



The critical exposition of Taine's theory of criticism is accom- 

 pHshed chiefly in Part Two: Analysis and Criticism, and in 

 Chapter XII ('From Analysis to Judgment'). The reader who 

 lacks an interest in metaphysical and logical issues may prefer to 

 read Chapter II last. Discussion of the more general problem of 

 the relations between science and aesthetic judgment has required 

 consideration of the issues raised by the so-called 'new criticism* 

 (Chapter X) and of the philosophic issues involved in 'type 

 analysis' (Chapter XI) ; many readers will prefer to begin with 

 these chapters. We have found that, despite Taine's limitations 

 as a person, scientist, and philosopher, study of his critical writings 

 provides an excellent introduction to most of the central problems 

 of historical and comparative methods in the study of literature 

 and art. 



For guidance in the preparation of this study, I am especially 

 indebted, among my teachers at Columbia University, to Professor 

 Irwin Edman, whose courses in the Philosophy of Art and 

 Criticism first suggested the topic; to Professor John H. Randall, 

 Jr., in whose teaching I have found an example of clear and 

 historically grounded thmking; to Professor James Gutmann, for 

 his suggestions and unfailing personal encouragement; and to 

 Professor Wilbur M. Frohock, Department of Romance Lan- 

 guages, whose knowledge of French literary criticism was put so 

 generously at my disposal. I am conscious of having profited, at 

 various stages in the writing, from suggestions and criticisms by 

 the following: Professors Ernest Nagel, Susanne K. Langer, 

 Horace L. Friess, Charles Frankel, and John R. Everett, Depart- 

 ment of Philosophy; Professor Emery Neff, Department of 

 English; and Professor Jean-Albert Bede, Department of Romance 

 Languages — at Columbia University; and to Dr. Ben-Ami 

 Scharfstein, and Messrs. David Zesmer, Ralph Cohen, Alfred J. 



