PRESENT PROBLEMS OF BELLES-LETTRES 549 



asserts the reform of a character in the twinkling of an eye just be- 

 fore the final fall of the curtain. It will lead to a renunciation of the 

 feeble and summary psychology which permits a man of indurated 

 habits of weakness or of wickedness to transform himself by a single 

 and sudden effort of will. And on the other hand, it may tempt cer- 

 tain students of life, subtler than their fellow craftsmen and more 

 inquisitive, to dwell unduly on the mere machinery of human motive 

 and to aim not at a rich portrayal of the actions of men and women, 

 but at an arid analysis of the mechanism of their impulses. More 

 than one novelist of the twentieth century has already yielded to 

 this tendency. No doubt, it is only the negative defect accompany- 

 ing a positive quality; yet it indicates an imperfect appreciation of 

 the artist's duty. "In every art," so Taine reminded us, "it is neces- 

 sary to linger long over the true in order to attain the beautiful. The 

 eye, fixing itself on an object, begins by noting details with an excess 

 of precision and fullness; it is only later, when the inventory is com- 

 plete, that the mind, master of its wealth, rises higher, in order to 

 take or to neglect what suits it." 



The attitude of the literary critic will be modified by the constant 

 use of the scientific method, quite as much as the attitude of the 

 literary creator. He will seek to relate a work of art, whether it is an 

 epic or a tragedy, a novel or a play, to its environment, weighing all 

 the circumstances of its creation. He will strive to estimate it as it 

 is, of course, but also as a contribution to the evolution of its species 

 made by a given people at a given period. He will endeavor to keep 

 himself free from lip-service and from ancestor-worship, holding 

 himself derelict to his duty if he should fail to admit frankly that 

 in every masterpiece of the past, however transcendent its merits, 

 there must needs be much that is temporary, admixed with more 

 that is permanent, many things which pleased its author's coun- 

 trymen in his own time and which do not appeal to us, even though 

 we can perceive also what is eternal and universal, even though we 

 read into every masterpiece much that the author's contemporaries 

 had not our eyes to perceive. All the works of Shakespeare and of 

 Molicre are not of equal value; and even the finest of them is not 

 impeccable; and a literary critic who has a scientific sincerity will 

 not gloss over the minor defects, whatever his desire to concentrate 

 attention on the nobler qualities by which Shakespeare and Moliere 

 achieved their mighty fame. Indeed, the scientific spirit will make 

 it plain that an unwavering admiration for all the works of a great 

 writer, unequal as these must lie of necessity, is proof in itself of an 

 obvious inability to perceive wherein lies his real greatness. 



Whatever the service the scientific spirit is likely to render in the 

 future, we need to be on our guard against the obsession of science 

 itself. There is danger that an exclusive devotion to science mav 



