136 ANALYSIS AND CRITICISM 



is an hypothesis to be verified by reference to aesthetic theory and 

 the practice of critics, and merely provides a framework for objective 

 analysis; the latter involves a fundamental metaphysical position 

 which, Taine thought, provides a basis for judgments of aesthetic 

 value. 



That 'master faculties' or 'elementary moral states' are impor- 

 tant, probably central, factors to be considered in analyses of 

 works of art and our experiences of them, does not necessarily 

 imply that they are ^universal and permanent causes\^'^ Thus, for 

 Emile Boutroux, the only truly 'necessary relation' is analytic and 

 a priori: 'To sum up, the criterion of the necessity of a relation is 

 the possibility of reducing it analytically to a subjectively and 

 objectively necessary synthesis. The principle of the necessary 

 conjunction of things, the magnetic stone whose virtue is trans- 

 mitted to every link, can only be the a priori causal synthesis. '"^^ 

 In every other case, he claims, an element of contingency 

 remains. 



The idea of a permanent Master Faculty presents difficulties, 

 especially if we realize, from Taine's own analysis, that psychology 

 is being treated both as effect and as cause. "^^ Jt jg hard to see in 

 what sense any faculty (such as, for example, 'the English charac- 

 ter', however it may be characterized) is permanent, unless it is 

 taken to be rigidly determined by hereditj). If it is not already 

 present at birth, then at what point is it fully formed: in childhood, 

 adolescence, or maturity? What if a member of 'the English 

 Race' is transported to America soon after birth: will the 'per- 

 manent' cause of Race still be efficacious? 



Or perhaps it is unique conjunctions of Race-Environment- 

 Time which create 'primitive dispositions' in groups, i.e., entire 

 nations, rather than individuals, 'since the accidents which thwart 

 them, being limited and partial, end by yielding to the dull and 

 incessant repetition of their efforts . . .?'50 Then at what point in 

 time was 'the English character' permanently formed: before, 

 during, or after the Norman conquest? Unless we conceive of 

 such faculties as having been themselves caused, and having 

 developed over a period of years, we seem to have thrown the 

 essence of history out of our analysis and invoked a kind of 

 'unmoved mover'. 



Similar doubts assail us when we consider the 'universality' 

 of causes which are said to be 'present at every moment and in 

 every case\ With Professor Guerard, 'We agree that there is a 



