Hippolyte Taine

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Hippolyte Taine was born on the 21st of April 1828 in Vouziers, a small town in the Ardennes, and he would grow up to reshape how an entire civilization understood its own literature, history, and revolution. Maurice Baring, writing in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, put it plainly: "the tone which pervades the works of Zola, Bourget and Maupassant can be immediately attributed to the influence we call Taine's." Friedrich Nietzsche, a man not given to easy praise, later called Taine "the first of living historians."

  What drove a young scholar from the Ardennes to build an entirely new framework for reading literature as a product of its environment? How did the trauma of a lost war and a burning Paris turn him toward a six-volume reckoning with the French Revolution? And why, more than a century after his death on the 5th of March 1893, do historians and critics across the political spectrum still argue over his legacy? This documentary sets out to answer those questions.

• 2. From Vouziers to the Ecole Normale

  ›

  In 1841, Taine was thirteen years old when his father, a lawyer, died. He was sent to a boarding school in Paris, at the Institution Mathé, whose classes were held at the Collège Bourbon in the Batignolles district. The loss did nothing to blunt his drive. By 1847, he had earned two Baccalauréat degrees, one in Science and one in Philosophy, and taken the honorary prize of the concours.

  In November 1848, he was admitted to the letters section of the École Normale Supérieure, placing first in the entrance examination. Among his twenty-four classmates in that section were Franciscie Sarcey, who later sketched a portrait of young Hippolyte in his memoir Souvenirs de jeunesse, and Edmond About. But the institution's intellectual climate chafed. The reigning philosophy of the day was embodied by Victor Cousin, and Taine's stubborn independence from those fashionable ideas put him on a collision course with the establishment.

  In 1851, he failed the national Concours d'Agrégation in philosophy. His essay on sensation was rejected outright. He left Paris and took teaching posts in Nevers and Poitiers, continuing to read and write through those years of provincial exile. The setback did not break him; it redirected him toward literature and history, the twin engines of everything he would later build.

• 3. The Positivist Method

  ›

  In 1853, Taine defended his doctorate at the Sorbonne. His thesis was an essay on La Fontaine's fables, later published in revised form in 1861. The following year, his essay on Livy won a prize from the Académie Française. Both works were early demonstrations of what would become his signature approach: reading a literary work not as the spontaneous product of individual genius, but as something grown from soil, climate, and history.

  Taine organized that approach around three master categories: nation, environment or situation, and time. A poem, a novel, a painting were each, in his view, the necessary outcome of the conditions that produced their maker. Armin Koller has noted that Taine drew heavily from the philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder in developing this framework, though that debt has been insufficiently recognized. The Spanish writer Emilia Pardo Bazán pointed to another precursor: Germaine de Staël's earlier work on the relationship between art and society.

  After his doctorate, he refused a forced posting to Besançon, settled briefly in Paris, and enrolled in medical school. A medical cure took him to the Pyrénées in 1855, and the journey produced his celebrated Voyage aux Pyrénées. He began contributing philosophical, literary, and historical articles to two major publications of the day, the Revue des deux Mondes and the Journal des débats. Then he spent six weeks in England, and in 1863 published his History of English Literature in five volumes.

• 4. Enemies at the Académie

  ›

  Bishop Félix Dupanloup had made it his life's work to keep agnostic intellectuals out of the Académie Française, and Taine was a natural target. When the Académie considered awarding Taine a prize for his History of English Literature, Dupanloup intervened to block it. The two men represented an old fault line in French intellectual life: one side defending a Catholic, clerically anchored culture, the other pushing toward secular, scientific inquiry.

  Taine did not give up on the institution. In 1878, he was elected to the Académie Française by twenty out of twenty-six voters. By then his reputation was already international. His success had allowed him to live entirely by his writing and to hold appointments as professor of the History of Art and Aesthetics at the Ecole des Beaux Arts and as professor of history and German at the École spéciale militaire de Saint-Cyr. He also taught at Oxford in 1871, where he held a doctorate in law.

  In 1868, he had married Thérèse Denuelle, daughter of Alexandre-Dominique Denuelle. They had two children: Geneviève, who married Louis Paul-Dubois, and Émile. The domestic and the institutional converged in a life that was, by the 1870s, fully established, and about to be shaken to its foundations.

• 5. The Revolution Reconsidered

  ›

  The defeat of France in 1870 and the violent convulsions of the Paris Commune left Taine deeply shaken. He turned that shock into a project that would consume the final two decades of his life: The Origins of Contemporary France, a six-volume analysis of the French Revolution begun in 1875 and still unfinished when he died in 1893.

  Taine's central argument was that the revolution's political constructions were dangerously artificial. The abstract, rationalist ideas of Robespierre and the Jacobins, in his view, violated the natural and slow growth of state institutions. He argued that the Jacobins had responded to the centralization of the ancien régime not by dismantling it, but by intensifying it. Against that model he set his own concepts of regionalism and individualism.

  Peter Kropotkin, the anarchist philosopher, read Taine and concluded that he truly understood the revolution, because Taine had studied the movements that preceded July 14. Kropotkin quoted Taine directly: "I know of three hundred outbreaks before July 14."

  The historian Alphonse Aulard, himself a specialist in the revolution, subjected Taine's text to careful scrutiny and found the numerous facts and examples Taine cited were substantially correct. Aulard found fewer errors in Taine than in his own work, as Augustin Cochin later reported. Whether admired or condemned, Taine's account stood as a serious empirical effort. Alfred Cobban, who challenged the orthodox Marxist reading of the revolution, called it "a brilliant polemic."

• 6. A Legacy Disputed

  ›

  The scholar Emile Zola owed Taine a profound debt and still found reason to criticize him. Zola's objection was precise: Taine's environmental determinism could not account for the individual temperament of the artist. As his example, Zola named Édouard Manet, whose painterly choices he saw as irreducibly personal, shaped but not determined by environment. The critic Philip Walker described Taine's imprint on Zola's prose in granular terms, arguing that page after page of Zola's most memorable writing enacts a mimesis of the interplay between sensation and imagination that Taine had theorized.

  The Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno was fascinated by both Zola and Taine in his early years, though he eventually concluded that Taine's influence on literature had been negative. The French fiction writers Paul Bourget and Guy de Maupassant showed his influence without ambivalence. Stefan Zweig chose Taine as the subject of his doctoral thesis, titled "The Philosophy of Hippolyte Taine." Friedrich Nietzsche cited him by name in Beyond Good and Evil.

  The Marxist historian George Rudé attacked Taine's treatment of crowd behavior. The Freudian critic Peter Gay described Taine's reaction to the Jacobins as stigmatization. Yet nationalist literary movements and post-modern critics found uses for his analytical categories, the former to assert distinct national literary traditions, the latter to read texts against their social and historical conditions. Gustave Lanson, for his part, argued that Taine's own genius was precisely what his environmental determinism could never explain.

  In 1885, Taine attended a session at the Hospital de la Salpêtrière, where he and the philosopher Joseph Delboeuf watched Jean-Martin Charcot induce blistering on a patient through hypnotic suggestion alone. The episode points to Taine's restless curiosity about the boundary between mind and body, a curiosity that had begun with that rejected essay on sensation decades earlier.