346 HISTORY OF LITERATURE 



a criticism to offer in the remarks upon comparative literature with 

 which this paper will conclude. 



To Brunetiere's insistence upon the individual element as con- 

 tributory to the creation of the literary organism, I have already 

 referred, showing that in Germany he was anticipated by Hegel. 

 But even in France the doctrine was enunciated with great clearness 

 before Brunetiere's statement of it. This was one of the services 

 performed for literary philology by Emile Hennequin, a follower 

 of Herbert Spencer, who in La Critique scientifique (1888) attempted 

 to put criticism upon a scientific basis. Hennequin's method, which 

 he terms Esthopsychologie, is in some respects similar to that of 

 Taine. It differs from Taine's in attaching less importance to the 

 race, and in throwing emphasis upon the individuality of the author 

 and his power to create an environment for himself. The purpose of 

 criticism, according to Hennequin, is not to evaluate the work of 

 art, nor yet to determine the means by which it is produced, but 

 to show the relation of the work to the social and psychological 

 characteristics of the artist whom it reveals. " His method of crit- 

 icism," remarked J. A. Symonds, "may be defined as the science of 

 the work of art regarded as a sign." 



Of the contributions to theoretical or applied poetics of a notable 

 host, I cannot here speak. Suffice it to acknowledge the manifold 

 genius of the critic, Edward Scherer ; the philological and historical 

 contributions of Gaston Paris, Darmesteter, Petit de Julleville; and 

 the excellent researches into literary movements and types con- 

 ducted by MM. Pellisier, Albert, Ampere, Desnoiresterres, Le"on 

 Gautier, Jeanroy, Faguet, Be*dier, Lenient, and Jusserand. At the 

 present moment, special attention is directed to the late Joseph 

 Texte's revival of the comparative or cosmopolitan ideal in literary 

 history advocated long ago by Rousseau and adopted by Mme. de 

 Stael, Villemain, and Sainte-Beuve; and to the social aesthetics of 

 Guyau. These will be mentioned when I come to speak of com- 

 parative literature. 



The reaction against romanticism in dramatic theory and practice 

 instituted by Emile Augier and Alexandre Dumas, I have unfor- 

 tunately no time to discuss. It is as realistic as that of the Parnassiens 

 is aesthetic. The minor French school of poetry, their creeds and 

 affectations, les decadents, les symbolistes , etc., will have no per- 

 manent effect. 



Of the development of literary studies in two or three other coun- 

 tries, especially Italy, Russia, and America, I had intended to treat, 

 but this discussion is already longer than it should have been. Let us 

 advance at once to the possibilities of literary study, as scientifically 

 conducted, to-day. 



