Uroš Petrović on Hippolyte Taine

Authors

  • Vesna Elez Faculty of Philology University of Belgrade

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18485/kis.2024.56.184.2

Keywords:

Uroš Petrović, Hippolyte Taine, Racine, Lanson, Literary history

Abstract

Despite the formal requirements of a doctoral thesis, Uroš Petrović’s dissertation Hippolyte Taine: Literary Historian of the Seventeenth Century [Ipolit Ten – književni istoričar XVII veka] (1907) reveals the astute mind of a young Serbian critic and writer, who unfortunately lost his life prematurely in the First World War.
In memory of his contribution to Serbian literary studies at the beginning of the 20th century, we would like to draw attention to his original insight into the lesser-known critical work of Taine. Petrović, who studied at the Sorbonne under the strong influence of Gustave Lanson’s new scientific method and the brand new discipline of literary history, maintained objectivity and scepticism in his unbiased analysis of Taine’s assumptions. By analysing his account of Taine’s essays on French classicism (especially Racine), we acknowledge Petrović’s own critical method.
Although he criticises Taine’s determinism (race, milieu and moment), his systematic search for causes, and his psychology, in our opinion, Petrović shows remarks that are not necessarily aligned with Lansonism. His arguments were rather well thought out objections of a young, attentive critic who was fully aware of the major drawbacks of positivism. Our main concern, however, was to show that Petrović, who knew Taine’s extensive work well, recognised Taine’s complexity, and his central role in shaping the trends in literary studies, despite the shortcomings of his method. Our aim was to highlight the main influences of the intellectual climate in France at the turn of the century. More importantly, Petrović’s objections speak to his deep knowledge of Taine’s overall method, considering its philosophical background and its evolution. The fact that Petrović’s remarks pay tribute to some of Taine’s finest intuitive choices and finest conclusions, advances our argument that Petrović, by not adhering to a predictable form of criticising Taine’s synthesis, partly heralds a major revision of Taine’s critical and historical legacy. This was to be undertaken in the second half of the last century. 

References

Brunètiere, Ferdinand. L’Évolution des genres dans l’histoire de la littérature. Introduction: L’Évolution de la critique depuis la Renaissance jusqu’à nos jours. Paris: Hachette, 1922.

Charlton, Donald Geoffrey. Positivist Thought in France during the Second Empire 1852–1870. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959.

Compagnon, Antoine. «Brunètiere». Peter France (ed.). The New Oxford Companion to Literature in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. 121.

Compagnon, Antoine. «Lanson». Peter France (ed.). The New Oxford Companion to Literature in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. 439.

Compagnon, Antoine. Connaissez-vous Brunetière? Enquête sur un antidreyfusard et ses amis. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1997. https://doi.org/10.14375/NP.9782020300520

Compagnon, Antoine. La Troisième République des lettres, de Flaubert à Proust, Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1983.

Evans, Colin. “Taine and His Fate”. Nineteenth-Century French Studies 6 (1978): 118–128.

Gay, Peter. “Rhetoric and Politics in the French Revolution”. The American Historical Review 66.3 (1961): 664‒676. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/66.3.664

Jovanović, Slobodan. „Uroš Petrović“ (predgovor). Za svaki dan. Uroš Petrović. Priredio Aleksandar Marušić. Beograd: Društvo za privrednu istoriju; Institut za evropske studije, 2019. 9–16.

Lanson, Gustave. Méthodes de l’Histoire Littéraire. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1925.

Peković, Slobodanka. „Uroš Petrović – kritičar i moralist“. Uroš Petrović. Odabrani spisi. Priredio Aleksandar Marušić. Gornji Milanovac: Biblioteka „Braća Nastasijević“, 2012. 189–204.

Taine, Hippolyte. Studije i eseji / Hippolyte Taine ; prev. Bogdan Popović, Miodrag Dragutinović ; predgovor Zoran Gavrilović. Beograd: Kultura, 1954a.

Vaillant, Alain. L’Histoire littéraire, 2e édition, revue et augmentée. Paris: Armand Colin, 2017.

Wellek, René. “Gustave Lanson”. A History of Modern Criticism 1750–1950. Volume 4. The Later Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. 71–79.

Published

2025-03-28

Issue

Section

Readings of tradition

How to Cite

Uroš Petrović on Hippolyte Taine. (2025). Literary History — Journal of Literary Studies, 56(184), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.18485/kis.2024.56.184.2