Taine's writing on the Revolution has remained popular in France. While admired by liberals like
Anatole France, it has served to inform the conservative view of the Revolution, since Taine rejected its principles as well as the
French Constitution of 1793, on account of their being dishonestly presented to the people. He argued that the
Jacobins had responded to the centralisation of the ancien régime with even greater centralisation and favoured the individualism of his concepts of regionalism and nation. Taine's alternative to
rationalist liberalism influenced the social policies of the
Third Republic. On the other hand, Taine has likewise received criticism from across the political spectrum, his politics being
idiosyncratic, complex, and difficult to define. Among others, attacks came from the Marxist historian
George Rudé, a specialist in the French Revolution and in '
history from below', on account of Taine's view of the crowd; and from the Freudian
Peter Gay who described Taine's reaction to the Jacobins as stigmatisation. Yet,
Alfred Cobban, who advocated a revisionist view of the French Revolution in opposition to the orthodox Marxist school, considered Taine's account of the French Revolution "a brilliant polemic". Taine's vision of the Revolution stands in contrast to the Marxist interpretations that gained prominence in the 20th century, as in the works of
Albert Mathiez,
Georges Lefebvre, and
Albert Soboul, before the revisionist accounts of
Alfred Cobban and
François Furet. Notwithstanding academic politics, when
Alphonse Aulard, a historian of the French Revolution, analysed Taine's text, he showed that the numerous facts and examples presented by Taine to support his account proved substantially correct; few errors were found by Aulard—fewer than in his own texts, as reported by
Augustin Cochin. In his other writings Taine is known for his attempt to provide a scientific account of literature, a project that has linked him to sociological positivists, although there were important differences. In his view, the work of literature was the product of the author's environment, and an analysis of that environment could yield a perfect understanding of that work; this stands in contrast with the view that the work of literature is the spontaneous creation of genius. Taine based his analysis on categories such as "nation", "environment" or "situation", and "time". Armin Koller has written that in this Taine drew heavily from the philosopher
Johann Gottfried Herder, although this has been insufficiently recognised, while the Spanish writer
Emilia Pardo Bazán has suggested that a crucial predecessor to Taine's idea was
Germaine de Staël's work on the relationship between art and society. Nationalist literary movements and post-modern critics alike have made use of Taine's concepts, the former to argue for their unique and distinct place in literature and the latter to deconstruct the texts with regards to the relationship between literature and social history. Taine was criticised, including by Émile Zola who owed a great deal to him, for not taking sufficiently into account the individuality of the artist. Zola argued that an artist's temperament could lead him to make unique artistic choices distinct from the environment that shaped him, and gave
Édouard Manet as a principal example.
Gustave Lanson argued that Taine's environmental determinism could not account for his genius. ==Influence==