comparative literature methodology

• Skip to content

Comparing the Literatures: Contemporary Perspectives — Introduction

Comparative literature — besides being the name of an academic discipline, field of research, and study program in institutions of higher education — stands for a great tradition of the humanities. Since its beginning around 1800, it serves as a ground for significant enterprises of literary studies in academic frameworks in Europe, North and South America, the Near and the Far East. This field involves classical philology and esthetics, critical theory, semiotics and narratology, translation studies, post-colonial theory, exile and migration studies, gender and queer theories, the visual arts, and eco-poetics, to name a few. It also reflects core questions regarding the experience (and the representation) of the world. Comparative literature serves also as a cultural paradigm, associated with multilingualism and cultural diversity, yet not free from blind spots — Western universalism, Eurocentrism, orientalist views, heteronormative assumptions. Its “death” as a discipline was announced a while ago — its “rebirth,” too. The very idea of comparison — the association of different case studies from the literatures of the world — continues, however, to challenge our research and teaching. Following David Damrosch’s book, “Comparing the Literatures: Literary Studies in a Global Age,” we (Amir Eshel, Galili Shahar, and Vered Shemtov) invited colleagues and graduate students from our programs of comparative literature at Stanford University and at Tel Aviv University to reflect on the core issues of our field: its origins and histories, current questions, multi-perspectives and methods, and its contemporary implications in our institutions in North America and in Israel/Palestine. The essays thus reflect not just “case studies” in comparative literature but also the effort of saving the local — in a global age.

This effort, too, was associated with Damrosch’s book. Reflecting, however, on its origins, Damrosch recounts a dazzling trick. In one of his previous books, Meetings of the Mind , Damrosch invented three interlocutors: the Israeli semiotician Dov Midrash, the multilingual aesthete Vic d’Ohr Addams, and the feminist film theorist Marsha Doddvic. All three are anagrams of Damrosch’s own name. Each one presents opposing positions he considers and partly accepts. All of them mock “the blandly liberal Damrosch, who thinks he can persuade all the warring parties to get along together.”

Blending the kind of irony we encounter at the turn of the nineteenth century in the work of the German romantics with his panoramic familiarity with the history and practice of comparative literature, Damrosch urges us to do two things at the same time: to acknowledge and respect the infinite diversity of literary production across cultures and locations while we simultaneously strive to discover similarities and moments of formal and thematic conversion. The spirit of Damrosch’s move to both refract any stable notion of comparative literature and to work toward productive engagement and exchange accompanies all contributions to this collection. Any attempt to suggest that all contributors share a single vision of what comparative literature is or should be is bound to dissolve, just as Damrosch discovered, in his own name, his own position, and at least three others captured in the names of Midrash, Addams, and Doddvic. The essays gathered in this special double issue can be addressed as another way of revealing and naming the challenges, contradictions, critiques, and ironies of comparative literature as represented in his book.

Turning to one of the first moments in the history of comparative literature, Nir Evron’s “Herder on Shakespeare, Nominalism, and Obsolescence” revisits Johann Gottfried Herder’s 1773 essay on Shakespeare. Herder’s critical essay is essential for our notion of comparative literature as a discipline, Evron argues, since it both recognizes the consequences of adopting a “culturalist and historicist self-image that it promotes” and models “the nominalist and culturalist outlook” which has been crucial in its history. Herder’s meditation on cultural finitude in Shakespeare, Evron argues, originates in his “insistence that human beings are social and historical creatures” — an insight with far-reaching implications for comparative literature and all other humanistic fields of study.

Casting his gaze at an earlier point of departure for a comparative perspective, Iyad Malouf, in “Medieval Othering: Western Monsters and Eastern Maskhs ,” offers a manifold reading of “medieval Othering” while focusing on the figures of monster and maskh . While monsters had an integral role in defining the non-Christian Other in the West, maskhs , Malouf argues, played a similar role in what came to be known as “the East.” Examining the meaning, function, and interaction of monsters and maskhs in the Middle Ages, the article shows, may contribute to a more nuanced understanding of “medieval Othering,” a practice and a prejudice still operative today in cultural and political discourse across the globe.

Practices of distancing and exclusion are also at the center of Uri S. Cohen and Manar H. Makhoul’s “Political Animals in Palestine-Israel.” Employing the conceptual shift at work in ecocriticism and animal studies regarding “ecology” as a trope of “coexistence,” they examine narratives which touch on the milestone year 1948 in the history of the modern Middle East. The animals of Palestine as they emerge in these narratives, they argue, offer us a glimpse into literature’s capacity to examine the idea of equality: “the equal value of all life, human and animal.” Animals emerge here as a powerful trope in the striving to lend an ear to untold or ignored aspects of 1948 as a historical trauma, to get closer to “the secrets of Palestine and its destruction.” Comparing literary works as they give voice to the language of animals may transcend our pure emotional reaction to the pain of the single sentient creature and open possibilities of genuine listening among the two parties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The question of nationalism and national conflict is similarly driving Victoria Zurita’s “Remedios in Valinor: Magical Realism, Transnationalisms, and the Historicity of Literary Value.” Zurita confronts here two forms of “transnationalism” — regionalism and cosmopolitanism — as they appear in Damrosch’s Comparing the Literatures . Assessing Damrosch’s arguments on the comparability of magical realism and examining their implications for his book’s larger aims, Zurita probes the assumption of some of the major voices in the “transnational turn,” especially in the field of global modernisms, in their attempt to transcend the specificities of the literary works in question.

Sarah Stoll’s “Kafka’s ‘Gehilfen’ — The Castle in between Nature Theater and Yiddish Theater” turns to one of the major scenes of European modernism, Prague, and to one of this movement’s canonic representatives, Franz Kafka. Focusing on Kafka’s The Castle , Stoll suggests that we read the posthumously published novel as “a theater play in which the protagonist is trying to achieve a role that was never made for him.” K.’s attempt to create his own reality is in Stoll’s reading “the allegory of a minor, that means a revolutionary, writing.” Relating to both world theater and to the Yiddish theater of its time, The Castle reveals itself here as a site of personal and communal struggle with cultural prejudice. Kafka’s diary entries on the Yiddish theater lend Stoll’s comparative interpretation further weight. She displays how prose, drama, and personal narrative grapple with and test the national creed.

Whereas linguistic marginalization characterizes the view of Yiddish in early twentieth century Prague, Michèle Bokobza Kahan’s “The Female Novelists of the Emigration of the French Revolution: Presentation of a Literary Scene” draws our attention to gender as a site of conflict and literary production. Presenting novels of emigration during the French Revolution written by such women as Stéphanie de Genlis, Adélaïde de Souza, Isabelle de Charrière, and Claire de Duras, Kahan focuses on the notion of hospitality. Highlighting the link between emigration and hospitality, she suggests that the writers in question mobilized their literature to pursue professional recognition — to validate and bring about a recognition of their writing choices and practices. Employing Judith Schlanger’s term “literary scene,” Kahan presents the writers and works at the center of her article as helping us to negotiate an interpretative perspective which exceeds the binary of the “local” and the “global.”

Comparative literature’s capacity to examine narrative across geographic location, genre, and even discipline guides Haiyan Lee in “Apples and Oranges? An Idiosyncratic Comparison of Literature and Anthropology.” From her standpoint as a specialist in Chinese literature, she considers the kind of knowledge literary studies produces. Moving between the personal and the theoretical, she suggests that anthropology can provide useful tools in making sense of politically and culturally distant texts in the age of world literature. She illustrates this provocative point by turning to flat characters in traditional Chinese fiction in light of new research in the anthropology of mind. Literary studies, she urges us to consider, should move toward the “new humanities” in order to become relevant to broader constituencies.

The biases of Western thought regarding genre take center stage in Teddy Fassberg’s “Languages of Gods and the Structures of Human Literatures: An Essay in Comparative Poetics.” Fassberg challenges the conventional, reductive notion of literature as comprised of merely two complementary, comprehensive categories: poetry and prose. Probing the validity of this restrictive view as it emerges as early as ancient Greek and Roman thought, Fassberg then demonstrates that the “poetry” versus “prose” dichotomy is nowhere to be found in the neighboring ancient literary cultures of biblical Hebrew and early Islam. Fassberg then proceeds to argue that the manufactured difference between the two genres correlates to Greek and Roman concepts of divinity, specifically the language of their gods. Fassberg furthermore ties his theoretical move to Erich Auerbach’s argument in Mimesis regarding the separation and mixture of styles in antiquity.

In “Rethinking the Dictionary: Holocaust Dictionaries in Global Perspective,” Hannah Pollin-Galay and Betzalel Strauss challenge another restrictive view: the relegation of the dictionary outside of the literary field. Questioning this practice, they urge us in their article to discover in the dictionary a rich locus of literature and of comparative cultural interpretation.

Centering on Holocaust-Yiddish dictionaries, they reveal — in the succinctness of the dictionary entry and in the capaciousness of the dictionary as a cultural endeavor — “ethical, emotional, and even spiritual potency.” Exemplifying the methods of comparative literature, they include in their discussion a broad array of sources, such as the Oxford English Dictionary , an interwar lexicon of Yiddish jargon, the Chinese Erya, and the Hebrew-Arabic Ha-Egron . Their examination leads then to the discovery of a productive tension within the genre: while the dictionary promises to organize and categorize language, it often reveals that which is unknowable in speech and in experience.

The notion of experience also guides Tal Yehezkely in “Airing Literature: Reading with the Sense of Smell.” While comparative literature thus far centers on language in its various iterations, the article urges us to explores forms of reading inspired by “both the sense of smell, and the phenomenon of smell.” The article begins by laying out its theoretical foundation. It formulates a comparative model deriving from the conceptual history of smell and from its attributes as a physical phenomenon. Yehezkely then proceeds to examine the peculiar materiality of smell as part of an atmosphere and the possible implications it might have when we examine what links or separates “literature” and “life.”

Literature’s ability to touch on “life” as a tangible, corporal category guides J. Rafael Balling in “Between Times: The Case of Yiddish Transness.” Balling here examines literature as it challenges normative concepts of gender. His article traces the literary undermining of any stable sense of time and place. Turning to Isaac Bashevis Singer’s short story, “Yentl the Yeshiva Boy” [“Yentl der Yeshive Bokher”], Balling uncovers the narrative’s capacity to suspend medical categorizations of transness. Bashevis Singer’s work is exemplary in this regard, Balling shows, since it mobilizes such rich and diverse sources as Yiddish demons, rabbinic writings, and early-twentieth century sexological accounts of gender variance. “Yentl” emerges in Balling’s reading as a powerful opportunity to overcome prejudice in regard to gender variance. The work invites us to imagine the possibility of accepting the productive intersections of temporal, linguistic, and geographical migrations.

The capacity of literature to imagine realities which far exceed normative modes of individual and communal life informs Adi Molad’s “The Circus Comes to Town: Reading Gershon Shofman’s Hebrew Literature in the Ring.” Through the lens of Gershon Shofman’s work, Molad examines the circus as a liminal space in which corporal, subjective, and communal norms solidify and refract. Since the trope of the traveling circus as a lush amalgamation of the eclectic and the unique is a metaphor for transcending domesticity and nationality, it lends itself to examine this work of Hebrew literature as pursuing “a supranational theme that expresses the worldly in literature.” Focusing on three circus stories by Shofman, Molad shows that physical power does not necessarily translate into national domination or political subjugation. The circus becomes in this article a powerful lens through which we can see how the literary imagination and our attempts to interpret the literary far exceed any limitation of a single national language or a single national creed.

This double issue ends with an essay by Dharshani Lakmali Jayasinghe entitled “When Translating Ultra Minor Literatures is Not Enough to Counter Epistemicide.” Lakmali’s annotated translation of a selection of quatrains by Thotagamuwe Sri Rahula Therato was published previously in Dibur’s Curated magazine. The essay explores “some of the challenges that scholars working on what David Damrosch calls ‘ultra Minor’ literatures from the Global South must contend with, particularly the politics of organizing and compiling bibliographies.”

Stanford strives to post only content for which we have licensed permission or that is otherwise permitted by copyright law. If you have a concern that your copyrighted material is posted here without your permission, please contact us and we will work with you to resolve your concern.

© 2019 Arcade bloggers retain copyright of their own posts, which are made available to the public under a Creative Commons license, unless stated otherwise. If any Arcade blogger elects a different license, the blogger's license takes precedence.

Arcade: A Digital Salon by  http://arcade.stanford.edu  is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License . Based on a work at  arcade.stanford.edu .

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

2 (page 15) p. 15 Practices and principles

• Published: March 2018
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

‘Practice and principles’ asks what it means to ‘do’ comparative literature. A number of basic principles can be identified as constitutive of comparative literature’s disciplinary practice and they can be considered as conceptual pairs: topics versus methods; periods versus regions; close versus distant reading; the canon versus the counter-canon; genres versus styles; and writers versus readers. When considering the practices and principles of comparative literature, it is important to consider them from the perspective of both creators and critics. This double perspective is emerging as a focal point for the discipline. Readers cannot compare without writers, and writers cannot compare without reading.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Comparative Literature: Theory, Method, Application

Series:  textxet: studies in comparative literature , volume: 18.

Prices from (excl. shipping):

• Availability Alert
• View PDF Flyer

Table of contents

Share link with colleague or librarian, product details.

• Criticism & Theory
• Comparative Studies & World Literature
• Cultural Studies

Related Content

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice   |  Copyright © 2016-2024

Copyright © 2016-2024

• [66.249.64.20|185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Character limit 500 /500

• Department of Comparative Literature >

What is Comparative Literature?

Comparative Literature is traditionally known as the study of two or more literatures in comparison (English and German, for example) and their multi-dimensional components which may encompass aspects such as the historical, gender, economic, cultural, social, philosophical, religious, and linguistic factors of the distinct cultures being analyzed.

Non-traditional study may include other forms of readable expression such as film, gender studies, ethnicity, politics, graffiti or television. 

Student Testimonials

"Comparative Literature to me isn't really just about literature. It's about paying attention to the ways in which we read, understand, and engage with the world and with meaning-making."

- Bess Rose, Program Alumna (MA, 2001)

"Comp Lit was interdisciplinary before interdisciplinarity became a trend."

- Program Alumnus

"For me comparative literature is simply an education in critical consciousness."

- Heidi Bohn, Program Alumna (PhD, 2010)

"To me Comparative Literature is a chance pursue interdisciplinary work and a way to challenge canonized approaches to theory and literature. It calls for constant dialogue between languages and fields both within and outside of academia."

-Mairéad Farinacci, MA Student 

"As a discipline, I believe Comparative Literature sets itself apart in methodology and praxis. Unlike other Humanities departments, Comparative Literature lends itself to a more experimental, cross cultural, and critical approach to knowledge and its production."

-Hunter Capps, PhD Student

"Comparative Literature offers a unique opportunity within contemporary academic practices to explore texts and ideas across barriers of language, temporality and discipline. While doing this, this program also allows us to reflect more deeply upon the nature of those barriers and how they gain their validation. "

-Rachit Anand, PhD Student

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Search form

Comparative Literature: History, Theory and Method

This course will introduce students to the disciplinary formation of comparative literature, its theories, and history. It will consider the following topics: origins in crisis; new critical practices; multilingualism, vernaculars and translations; the future of (comparative) literature

Ansari, M.T., ed. Multilingualism and Literary Cultures of India. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2019.

Apter, Emily. The Translation Zone: A New Comparative Literature. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2005

Bassnett, Susan. Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

Behdad, Ali and Dominic Thomas, eds. A Companion to Comparative Literature. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Bernheimer, Charles, ed. Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1995.

Damrosch, David, Natalie Melas, and Mbongiseni Buthelezi, eds. The Princeton Sourcebook in Comparative Literature. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2009.

Heise, Ursula et al, eds. Futures of Comparative Literature: ACLA State of the Discipline Report. NY: Routledge, 2017.

Raj, Rizio Yohannan, ed. Quest of a Discipline: New Academic Directions for Comparative Literature. New Delhi: Foundation Books, 2012.

Ramakrishnan, E.V., Harish Trivedi, and Chandra Mohan, eds. Interdisciplinary Alter-natives in Comparative Literature. New Delhi: Sage, 2013.

Satyanarayana & Tharu, eds. No Alphabet in Sight: New Dalit Writing from South India. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2011.

Saussy, Haun. Comparative Literature in the Age of Globalization. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 2006.

Shankar, S. Flesh and Fish Blood: Postcolonialism, Translation and the Vernacular. Berkeley and LA: California UP, 2012.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. Death of a Discipline. NY: Columbia UP, 2005.

Navaneetha Mokkil and Shefali Jha. Thinking Women: A Feminist Reader. New Delhi: Stree Samya, 2018.

Zepetnek, Steven Tötösy de, and Tutun Mukherjee, eds. Companion to Comparative Literature, World Literatures and Comparative Cultural Studies. New Delhi: Foundation Books, 2013.

Limbale, Sharankumar. Towards an Aesthetics of Dalit Literature, Trans. Alok Mukherjee. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan, 2004.

• Follow us on social media

Copyright © Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi. All rights Reserved.

• Disciplines
• Publications

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.

• Comparative Literature Studies

About this Journal

Founded in 1963, Comparative Literature Studies publishes critical comparative essays on literature, cultural production, the relationship between aesthetics and political thought, and histories and philosophies of form across the world. Articles may also address the transregional and transhistorical circulation of genres and movements across different languages, time periods, and media. CLS welcomes a wide range of approaches to comparative literature, including those that draw on philosophy, history, area studies, Indigenous, race, and ethnic studies, gender and sexuality studies, media studies, and emerging critical projects and methods in the humanities. Each issue of CLS also includes book reviews of significant monographs and collections of scholarship in comparative literature. For more information, please visit also the journal's website at https://cl-studies.la.psu.edu/.

published by

Available issues, table of contents, volume 61, 2024.

• Volume 61, Number 1, 2024

Volume 60, 2023

• Volume 60, Number 4, 2023
• Volume 60, Number 3, 2023
• Volume 60, Number 2, 2023
• Volume 60, Number 1, 2023

Volume 59, 2022

• Volume 59, Number 4, 2022
• Volume 59, Number 3, 2022
• Volume 59, Number 2, 2022
• Volume 59, Number 1, 2022

Volume 58, 2021

• Volume 58, Number 4, 2021
• Volume 58, Number 3, 2021
• Volume 58, Number 2, 2021
• Volume 58, Number 1, 2021

Volume 57, 2020

• Volume 57, Number 4, 2020
• Volume 57, Number 3, 2020
• Volume 57, Number 2, 2020
• Volume 57, Number 1, 2020

Volume 56, 2019

• Volume 56, Number 4, 2019
• Volume 56, Number 3, 2019
• Volume 56, Number 2, 2019
• Volume 56, Number 1, 2019

Volume 55, 2018

• Volume 55, Number 4, 2018
• Volume 55, Number 3, 2018
• Volume 55, Number 2, 2018
• Volume 55, Number 1, 2018

Volume 54, 2017

• Volume 54, Number 4, 2017
• Volume 54, Number 3, 2017
• Volume 54, Number 2, 2017
• Volume 54, Number 1, 2017

Volume 53, 2016

• Volume 53, Number 4, 2016
• Volume 53, Number 3, 2016
• Volume 53, Number 2, 2016
• Volume 53, Number 1, 2016

Volume 52, 2015

• Volume 52, Number 4, 2015
• Volume 52, Number 3, 2015
• Volume 52, Number 2, 2015
• Volume 52, Number 1, 2015

Volume 51, 2014

• Volume 51, Number 4, 2014
• Volume 51, Number 3, 2014
• Volume 51, Number 2, 2014
• Volume 51, Number 1, 2014

Volume 50, 2013

• Volume 50, Number 4, 2013
• Volume 50, Number 3, 2013
• Volume 50, Number 2, 2013
• Volume 50, Number 1, 2013

Volume 49, 2012

• Volume 49, Number 4, 2012
• Volume 49, Number 3, 2012
• Volume 49, Number 2, 2012
• Volume 49, Number 1, 2012

Volume 48, 2011

• Volume 48, Number 4, 2011
• Volume 48, Number 3, 2011
• Volume 48, Number 2, 2011
• Volume 48, Number 1, 2011

Volume 47, 2010

• Volume 47, Number 4, 2010
• Volume 47, Number 3, 2010
• Volume 47, Number 2, 2010
• Volume 47, Number 1, 2010

Volume 46, 2009

• Volume 46, Number 4, 2009
• Volume 46, Number 3, 2009
• Volume 46, Number 2, 2009
• Volume 46, Number 1, 2009

Volume 45, 2008

• Volume 45, Number 4, 2008
• Volume 45, Number 3, 2008
• Volume 45, Number 2, 2008
• Volume 45, Number 1, 2008

Volume 44, 2007

• Volume 44, Number 4, 2007
• Volume 44, Number 3, 2007
• Volume 44, Number 1-2, 2007

Volume 43, 2006

• Volume 43, Number 4, 2006
• Volume 43, Number 3, 2006
• Volume 43, Number 1-2, 2006

Volume 42, 2005

• Volume 42, Number 4, 2005
• Volume 42, Number 3, 2005
• Volume 42, Number 2, 2005
• Volume 42, Number 1, 2005

Volume 41, 2004

• Volume 41, Number 4, 2004
• Volume 41, Number 3, 2004
• Volume 41, Number 2, 2004
• Volume 41, Number 1, 2004

Volume 40, 2003

• Volume 40, Number 4, 2003
• Volume 40, Number 3, 2003
• Volume 40, Number 2, 2003
• Volume 40, Number 1, 2003

Volume 39, 2002

• Volume 39, Number 4, 2002
• Volume 39, Number 3, 2002
• Volume 39, Number 2, 2002
• Volume 39, Number 1, 2002

Volume 38, 2001

• Volume 38, Number 4, 2001
• Volume 38, Number 3, 2001
• Volume 38, Number 2, 2001
• Volume 38, Number 1, 2001

Volume 37, 2000

• Volume 37, Number 4, 2000
• Volume 37, Number 3, 2000
• Volume 37, Number 2, 2000
• Volume 37, Number 1, 2000

Volume 36, 1999

Additional information, additional materials.

• Indexing/Abstracting

Additional Issue Materials

• Editorial Board -- Volume 57, Number 1, 2020
• Editorial Board -- Volume 56, Number 4, 2019
• Editorial Board -- Volume 56, Number 3, 2019
• Editorial Board -- Volume 56, Number 2, 2019
• Editorial Board -- Volume 56, Number 1, 2019
• Editorial Board -- Volume 55, Number 4, 2018
• Editorial Board -- Volume 55, Number 3, 2018
• Editorial Board -- Volume 55, Number 2, 2018
• Editorial Board -- Volume 55, Number 1, 2018
• Editorial Board -- Volume 54, Number 4, 2017
• Editorial Board -- Volume 54, Number 3, 2017
• Editorial Board -- Volume 54, Number 2, 2017
• Editorial Board -- Volume 54, Number 1, 2017
• Editorial Board -- Volume 53, Number 4, 2016
• Editorial Board -- Volume 53, Number 3, 2016
• Editorial Board -- Volume 53, Number 2, 2016
• Editorial Board -- Volume 53, Number 1, 2016
• Editorial Board -- Volume 52, Number 4, 2015
• Editorial Board -- Volume 52, Number 3, 2015
• Editorial Board -- Volume 52, Number 2, 2015
• Editorial Board -- Volume 52, Number 1, 2015
• Editorial Board -- Volume 51, Number 4, 2014
• Editorial Board -- Volume 51, Number 3, 2014
• Editorial Board -- Volume 51, Number 2, 2014
• Editorial Board -- Volume 51, Number 1, 2014
• Editorial Board -- Volume 50, Number 4, 2013
• Editorial Board -- Volume 50, Number 3, 2013
• Editorial Board -- Volume 50, Number 2, 2013
• Editorial Board -- Volume 50, Number 1, 2013
• Editorial Board -- Volume 49, Number 4, 2012
• Editorial Board -- Volume 49, Number 3, 2012
• Editorial Board -- Volume 49, Number 2, 2012
• Editorial Board -- Volume 49, Number 1, 2012
• Editorial Board -- Volume 48, Number 4, 2011
• Editorial Board -- Volume 48, Number 3, 2011
• Editorial Board -- Volume 48, Number 2, 2011
• Editorial Board -- Volume 48, Number 1, 2011
• Editorial Board -- Volume 47, Number 4, 2010
• Editorial Board -- Volume 47, Number 3, 2010
• Editorial Board -- Volume 47, Number 2, 2010
• Editorial Board -- Volume 47, Number 1, 2010
• Editorial Board -- Volume 46, Number 4, 2009
• Editorial Board -- Volume 46, Number 3, 2009
• Editorial Board -- Volume 44, Number 4, 2007
• Editorial Board -- Volume 44, Number 3, 2007
• Editorial Board -- Volume 44, Number 1-2, 2007
• Editorial Board -- Volume 43, Number 4, 2006
• Editorial Board -- Volume 43, Number 3, 2006
• Editorial Board -- Volume 43, Number 1-2, 2006
• Editorial Board -- Volume 42, Number 4, 2005
• Editorial Board -- Volume 42, Number 3, 2005
• Editorial Board -- Volume 42, Number 2, 2005
• Editorial Board -- Volume 42, Number 1, 2005
• Editorial Board -- Volume 41, Number 4, 2004
• Editorial Board -- Volume 41, Number 3, 2004
• Editorial Board -- Volume 41, Number 2, 2004
• Editorial Board -- Volume 41, Number 1, 2004
• Editorial Board -- Volume 40, Number 4, 2003
• Editorial Board -- Volume 40, Number 3, 2003
• Editorial Board -- Volume 40, Number 2, 2003
• Editorial Board -- Volume 40, Number 1, 2003
• Editorial Board -- Volume 39, Number 4, 2002
• Editorial Board -- Volume 39, Number 3, 2002
• Editorial Board -- Volume 39, Number 2, 2002
• Editorial Board -- Volume 39, Number 1, 2002
• Editorial Board -- Volume 38, Number 4, 2001
• Editorial Board -- Volume 38, Number 3, 2001
• Editorial Board -- Volume 38, Number 2, 2001
• Editorial Board -- Volume 38, Number 1, 2001
• Editorial Board -- Volume 37, Number 4, 2000
• Editorial Board -- Volume 37, Number 3, 2000
• Editorial Board -- Volume 37, Number 2, 2000
• Editorial Board -- Volume 37, Number 1, 2000
• Editorial Board -- Volume 36, Number 3, 1999

Project MUSE Mission

Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

+1 (410) 516-6989 [email protected]

©2024 Project MUSE. Produced by Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Sheridan Libraries.

Now and Always, The Trusted Content Your Research Requires

Built on the Johns Hopkins University Campus

What Is "Comparative Literature"?

SOME ten years ago, I made bold to publish a plea for the formation of a Society of Comparative Literature ; and to call attention to the fact that the work which such a society might perform had not been undertaken by any English or American organization, or by any periodical or series of publications in the English language. I was then of the opinion, which I still hold, that the principles of literature and of criticism are not to be discovered in æsthetic theory alone, but in a theory which both impels and is corrected by scientific inquiry. No individual can gather from our many literatures the materials necessary for an induction to the characteristic of even one literary type; but an association, each member of which should devote himself to the study of a given type, species, movement, or theme, with which he was specially and at first hand familiar, might with some degree of adequacy prosecute a comparative investigation into the nature of literature, part by part. Thus, gradually, wherever the type or movement had existed, its quality and history might be observed. And in time, by systematization of results, scholarship might attain to the common, and probably some of the essential, characteristics of classified phenomena, to some of the laws actually governing the origin, growth, and differentiation of one and another Of the component literary factors and kinds. A basis would correspondingly be laid for criticism not in the practice of one nationality or school, nor in æsthetics of sporadic theory, otherwise interesting and profitable enough, but in the common qualities of literature, scientifically determined. To adopt, as universal, canons of criticism constructed upon particular premises, —by Boileau or Vida, Puttenham, Sidney, or Corneille, or even Lessing and Aristotle, and to apply them to types, or varieties of type, movement, or theme, with which these masters were unacquainted, is illogical, and therefore unhistorical. And still, that is precisely what the world of literary dictators persists in doing. Alle Theorie ist grau . The principles of the drama cannot be derived from a consideration of the Greek drama alone, nor of European drama, but of all drama, wherever found, European, Peruvian, Chinese ; among aboriginal as well as among civilized peoples ; and in all stages of its history. From such comparative formulation of results proceed the only trustworthy canons for that kind of composition ; some of them general, some dependent upon conditions historically differenced. So also with the nature and laws of other types, movements or moods, forms or themes, and ultimately of literature as a unit. Our current æsthetic canons of judgment, based upon psychological and speculative premises that sometimes by accident fit the case, but more frequently upon historical inexperience, might thus be renovated and widened with the process of scientific knowledge.

That dream seems now in a fair way to be realized. The society is yet to be founded ; but the periodical is on its feet. And it was in prospect of its first appearance that I asked myself some months ago, what this term “ Comparative Literature ” might now mean to me ; and answered it in the manner that follows. 1 Imperfect as the answer may be, it is possibly of interest, if for no other reason, that it makes a different approach to a subject which since then Professor Woodberry has discussed in the Journal of Comparative Literature. To his significant and poetic utterance, I shall accordingly in due season recur.

What, then, is “ Comparative Literature ” ? Of the name itself, I must say that I know of no occurrence in English earlier than 1886, when we find it used for the comparative study of literature, in the title of an interesting and suggestive volume by Professor H. M. Posnett. The designation had apparently been coined in emulation of such nomenclature as the vergleichende Grammatik of Bopp, or Comparative Anatomy, Comparative Physiology, Comparative Politics. If it had been so constructed as to convey the idea of a discipline or method, there would have been no fault to find.

Before Posnett’s book appeared, Carriere and others in Germany had spoken properly enough of vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte ; and the French and Italians, not only of the comparative method or discipline, l’histoire comparative , but also of the materials compared, l’histoire comparée des littératures , la storia comparata, or, from the literary avenue of approach, la littérature comparée, let teratura comparata . At Turin and Genoa, the study had been listed under such captions long before the English misnomer was coined. Misnomer it, of course, is ; for to speak of a comparative object is absurd. But since the name has some show of asserting itself, we may as well postpone consideration of a better, till we have more fully determined what the study involved, no matter how called, is ordinarily understood to be.

It is, in the first place, understood of a field of investigation, — the literary relations existing between distinct nationalities : the study of international borrowings, imitations, adaptations. And to recognize such relations as incidental to national growth is of the utmost importance — social as well as literary. “ C’est prouver sa jeunesse et sa force,” says Gaston Paris, “ c’est s’assurer an avenir de renouvellement et d’action au dehors, que de faire connaître tout ce qui se fait de grand, de beau, de neuf en dehors de ses frontières, de s’en servir, sans l’imiter, de 1’assimiler, de le transformer suivant sa nature propre, de conserver sa personnalité en l’élargissant et d’être ainsi toujours la même et toujours changeante, toujours nationale et toujours européenne.” Such is also the thought of M. Texte, when he writes in his introduction to Betz’s Litérature comparée of “ the great law which regulates the literary development of every nation : that of growth by successive stages of concentration and expansion . . . the law of the moral development of nations, as of individuals.” And M. Texte is but echoing Matthew Arnold’s “ Epochs of concentration cannot well endure forever; epochs of expansion in the due course of things follow them.” Arnold was writing in 1865, but earlier still, Goethe had called attention to the limitations of a literature exclusively national: “ Eine jede Literatur ennuyirt sich zuletzt in sich selbst, wenn sie nicht durch fremde Theilnahme wieder aufgefrischt ist.” Whether this “ periodicity ” of digesting what one has, and acquiring what one has not, is the only law of moral development, is not for us now to answer. International dependence is a fact. Literary reciprocity is natural, even if not necessary. Nor was Goethe the first to announce the principle.

This attention to literary relations is, of course, the consequent of the study of literatures as national: first the history of each literature ; then the historic relations between literatures. That in turn is naturally followed by the synthesis in literature as a unit. “ The nineteenth century,” says M. Texte, “ has seen the national history of literatures develop and establish itself : the task of the twentieth century will undoubtedly be to write the comparative history of those literatures.” Likewise, Professor Brandes is conducted from the study of individual literatures to that of reciprocal movements, and so to the comparative view. In his Hauptströmungen, written about 1870, he takes for the central subject of his work the reaction in the first decades of the nineteenth century against the literature of the eighteenth, and the overcoming of that reaction. “ This historic incident,” he says, “ is of European interest, and can only be understood by a comparative study of European literature. Such a study I purpose attempting by simultaneously tracing the course of the most important movements in French, German, and English literature. The comparative view possesses the double advantage of bringing foreign literature so near to us that we can assimilate it and of removing our own until we are enabled to see it in its true perspective.” It will undoubtedly have been remarked that while Brandes regards the comparative study of literature from the point of view of international relations, he also passes beyond the strictly objective realm of research. For, in his esteem, the comparative view has the advantage of “ removing our own literature until we are enabled to see it in its true perspective. We neither see what is too near the eye nor what is too far away from it.” This is to add to the proper function of historical research an appraisement of one’s own literature after impartial comparison with the literatures of other nations. “ The scientific view of literature,” proceeds Brandes, “ provides us with a telescope of which the one end magnifies, and the other diminishes ; it must be so focused as to remedy the illusions of unassisted eyesight. The different nations have hitherto held themselves so distinct, as far as literature is concerned, that each has only to a very limited extent been able to benefit by the productions of the rest.” Here, again, the way had been marked out by Arnold, when he advocated the comparison of literary classics in one language, or in many, with a view to determining their relative excellence, that is, to displacing personal or judicial criticism by a method more scientific. I am aware that this conception of the study concerns its method and purpose rather than its field. But I mention it here because it implies a more comprehensive and deeper conception underlying all these statements of the material of comparative study : the solidarity of literature. Not, by any means, what Goethe projected in his dream of a cosmopolitan literature to which the best of all national efforts should contribute. “ Everywhere,” wrote the poet, “ one hears and reads of the progress of the human race, and of broader views of relationships, natural and human. How this may in general come about, it does not fall to me to inquire or to determine. I will, however, of my own accord, call the attention of my friends to one fact: I am persuaded that there is a Weltlitteratur in process of construction, in which is reserved for us Germans an honorable rôle.” But under this prophetic cosmopolitanism of ideal and art — this millennial Bible — lay that same belief in an essential, historical oneness of literature. And that is the working premise of the student of Comparative Literature to-day: literature as a distinct and integral medium of thought, a common institutional expression of humanity; differentiated, to be sure, by the social conditions of the individual, by racial, historical, cultural, and linguistic influences, opportunities, and restrictions, but, irrespective of age or guise, prompted by the common needs and aspirations of man, sprung from common faculties, psychological and physiological, and obeying common laws of material and mode, of the individual, and of social humanity. Writing in 1896, Professor Marsh put it thus : “ To examine the phenomena of literature as a whole, to compare them, to inquire into the causes of them, this is the true task of Comparative Literature.” Posnett’s statement, ten years before, implied the same “ solidarity ” of the subject matter; and so, again, Matthew Arnold’s, ten years earlier still: “ The criticism [and criticism covers historical as well as logical comparison] I am really concerned with — the criticism which alone can much help us for the future — is a criticism which regards Europe as being, for intellectual and spiritual purposes, one great confederation, bound to a joint action, and working to a common result; and whose members have, for their proper outfit, a knowledge of Greek, Roman, and Eastern antiquity, and of one another.”

From this conception of the material as a unit, scholars naturally advance to the consideration of its development, the construction of a theory. If a unity, and an existence approximately contemporaneous with that of society, why not a life, a growth ? “ We no longer have to examine solely the relations of one nation with another,” says one, “ but to unfold the simultaneous development of all literatures, or, at least, of an important group of literatures.” It is the task of Comparative Literature, according to another, to find whether the same laws of literary development prevail among all peoples or not. The internal and external aspects of literary growth, Mr. Posnett announces to be the objects of comparative inquiry ; and, accepting as the principle of literary growth the progressive deepening and widening of personality,—in other words, the contraction and expansion of Arnold and Texte, — with the development of the social unit in which the individual is placed, this author finds a corresponding differentiation of the literary medium from the primitive homogeneity of communal art, a gradual individualizing of the literary occasion and an evolution of literary forms. While, as I have said, he recognizes the importance of the comparative study of external sources of national development and the resulting social and literary reaction upon the literature in question, he devotes himself, preferably, to the “ comparative study of the internal sources of national development, social or physical, and of the effects of different phases of this development on literature ; ” and in pursuance of this method he adopts, whether right or wrong, “ the gradual expansion of social life, from clan to city, from city to nation, from both of these to cosmopolitan humanity, as the proper order of studies in Comparative Literature.” Mr. Posnett’s method is perhaps impaired by the fact that he regards the relation of literary history to the political rather than to the broader social development of a people, but he certainly elaborates a theory ; and it is the more instructive because he does not treat literature as organic, developing by reason of a life within itself to a determined end, but as secondary and still developing with the evolution of the organism from which it springs. In this theory of institutional growth result also the methods of Buckle and Ernst Grosse, which may be termed physiological and physiographical; and the physio - psychological of Schiller, Spencer, and Karl Groos ; and the method of Irjö Hirn, which combines the social and psychological in the inquiry into the art impulse and its history ; and that of Schlegel and Carriere, who, emphasizing one side of Hegel’s theory, rest literary development largely upon the development of religious thought. In M. Brunetière, on the other hand, we have one who boldly announces his intention to trace the evolution of literary species, — not as dependent upon the life of an organism such as society, but in themselves. He frankly proposes to discover the laws of literary development by applying the theory of evolution to the study of literature. The question of the growth of literary types, he says in the first volume of his Evolution des genres dans l’histoire de la littérature, resolves into five subsidiary questions : the reality and independence of types, their differentiation, their stability, the influences modifying them, and the process of their transformation. When he asserts that the differences of types correspond to differences in the means and ends of different arts and to diversities in families of minds, and that the principle of differentiation is the same that operates in nature from homogeneity to heterogeneity, most of us concur ; but when he details the signs of youth, maturity, and decay which the type may exhibit, and the transformation of one type into another — as, for instance, the French pulpit oration into the ode — according to principles analogous in their operation to the Darwinian struggle for existence, survival of the fittest, and natural selection, we become apprehensive lest the parallel be overworked. If Brunetière would only complete the national portion of his history, or, at least, try to substantiate his theory, we should be grateful. He has, however, enunciated one of the problems with which Comparative Literature must grapple, and is grappling. Does the biological principle apply to literature ? If not, in how far may the parallel be scientifically drawn ?

That leads us to still a third conception of the term under consideration. Comparative Literature, say some, is not a subject-matter nor a theory but a method of study. With the ancients it was the habit of roughly matching authors — Virgil with Homer, Terence with Menander, or Terence with Plautus — with a view to determining relative excellence, the habit of which we cherish a vivid reminiscence from our undergraduate struggles with Quintilian and the Ars Poetica. The method has existed ever since there were two pieces of literature known to the same man, it has persisted through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and it is alive to-day. Its merits and defects are those of the man who uses it. To others the comparative method means the attempt to obtain by induction from a sufficient variety of specimens the characteristics, distinguishing marks, principles, even laws of the form, movement, type or literature under discussion. For instance, Carriere’s comparative study of the drama in various periods and literatures; or portions of Freytag’s inquiry into the technique of tragedy, irrespective of the nationality producing it; or even Aristotle’s Poetics, for it is based upon an induction from all dramas and epics, even though only Greek, that were known to him. And here we are reminded that in the discipline under consideration historical sequence is just as important as comparison by cross sections. The science is called “ comparative literary history ” rather than “ literature compared ” by French, German, and Italian scholars, not for nothing. The historian who searches for origins or stages of development in a single literature may employ the comparative method as much as he who zigzags from literature to literature; and so the student whose aim is to establish relations between literary movement and literary movement, between author and author, period and period, type and type, movement and movement, theme and theme, contemporaneous or successive in any language, nationality, clime, or time. To repeat, the comparison is not alone between diverse national literatures, but between any elements involved in the history of literature, or any stages in the history of any element. There have been, within my own knowledge, those who would confine the word literature to the written productions of civilized peoples, and consequently would exclude from consideration aboriginal attempts at verbal art. But students nowadays increasingly recognize that the cradle of literary science is anthropology. The comparative method therefore sets civilized literatures side by side with the popular, traces folklore to folklore, and these so far as possible to the matrix in the undifferentiated art of human expression. Such is “ Comparative Literature ” when used of the work of the Grimms, Steinthal, Comparetti, Donovan, Talvj or Ernst Grosse. The term is also properly used of the method of Taine, which in turn derives from that recommended by Hegel in the first volume of his Æsthetik (the appraisement of the literary work in relation to Zeit, Volk , und Umgebung ), and of the method of Brunetière so far as he has applied it, for it is in theory the same, save that it purports to emphasize the consideration of the element of individuality. But that the method is susceptible of widely varying interpretations is illustrated by the practice of still another advocate thereof, Professor Wetz, who, in his Shakespeare from the Point of View of Comparative Literary History, of 1890, and in his essay on the history of literature, insists that Comparative Literature is neither the literary history of one people, nor investigations in international literary history; neither the study of literary beginnings, nor even the attempt to obtain by induction the characteristics of Weltlitteratur, its movements and types. While he accepts the analytical critical method of Taine in combination with the historical and psychological of Herder, Goethe, and Schiller, he insists that the function of Comparative Literature is to determine the peculiarities of an author by comparison with those of some other author sufficiently analogous. To flood the peculiarities of Shakespeare, for instance, with the light of the personality of Corneille, that is Comparative Literature, according to Wetz! And there its work ends and the work of literary history and æsthetic criticism begins.

This, then, would seem to be the view of Comparative Literature, its field, theory, and method, that one might obtain from perusal of the more evident contributions to the exposition of the subject.

I remember that some twelve years ago Colonel Higginson pointed out in the Century Magazine the desirability of studying literature from the general rather than from the national or provincial point of view, and expressed surprise that no University in this country supported a chair of what I think he called WorldLiterature. In reply a student of the University of Michigan described a course in the comparative study of literary types which had been given there as early I think as 1887. It goes without saying that courses in literary history and inductive poetics not called comparative but comparative in fact had been given by professors of languages, ancient or modern, many times before. Such, for instance, were the courses of Professor Child at Harvard. At the present day courses of comparative study are pursued in all larger universities. Most of the graduate work in philology would fall within the purview of Comparative Literature.

Courses in the nature and history of literary types and movements in general, and in the theory and history of criticism, have been given, sometimes under some special designation, at others under that of Comparative Literature, at California since 1889. A chair for the study was established at Harvard in the early nineties. At Columbia the study of literature “ at large,” as Professor Matthews calls it, “ that is, the tracing of the evolution of literary form and of the development of criticism as masterpieces ” was recognized by courses as early as 1892, though the department was not organized under the title Comparative Literature until 1899. At Yale and Princeton the history of literary types and movements, national and general, and the comparative study of poetics have been growing in importance during the same period. An examination of the courses offered in American universities distinctively under the title of Comparative Literature shows that effort is at present chiefly directed to the study of international borrowings, commonly called “ source-hunting ” or of the larger influences or movements involving various literatures. Next in order of cultivation come courses in the theory of literature in general, and the history and theory of types such as lyric or drama. In general, however, teachers of Comparative Literature seem to regard European letters as a totality unrelated and self-explanatory. With the exception of a course or two such as Woodberry’s Oriental Element in European Literature, no provision has been made for the investigation of the wider unit which alone can afford a basis for scientific processes and results. Of European universities, the Italian have longest and most effectually cultivated the study under consideration. Turin, for instance, has offered the course of which I have already spoken in the comparative history of the neo-Latin literatures since 1876; and the same curriculum seems to obtain at the other Universities of Italy. Genoa, Padua, Bologna, and Rome as well as Turin announce their literary courses always as follows : Letteratura italiana , latina , greca, storia comparata delle literature e lingue neo-latine . Of these the last is, so far as it goes, genuinely a course in Comparative Literature, bounded to be sure by natural affinities, but not by limits of modern history. As to literary courses in German Universities, those listed as neuere Philologie are confined usually by the boundaries of nationality. When vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte is specifically announced international relationships are of course investigated, but the European unit of literary solidarity does not appear as yet to have been in any considerable degree exceeded, at any rate by workers in modern philology. Inter-European influences have been treated by Koch and Kölbing at Breslau, by Schultze at Halle, by Brandl and Geiger at Berlin, and in many other universities. Courses like that offered by Meyer at Berlin on the method and function of the comparative history of literature, and dissertations such as Grosse’s on the aim and method of literary science, Ten Brink’s on the function of literary history with Wetz’s reply to it, and Elster’s Antrittsrede at Leipsic on the same subject indicate the steady development of the conception from the empirical and particular to the inductive and systematic stage. The work of Klein in the broad field of the drama, and of Brandes of Copenhagen in literary movements, mark epochs in the application of the science. And still, so far as may be gathered from systems of study, the palm must be given, not to Italy, Germany, or Denmark, but to Switzerland, —to Geneva, where the courses of research are international in the widest sense. Lyons, indeed, at one time promised to eclipse the rest, but it was unfortunately deprived of Professor Joseph Texte by his death when he had served but two years.

Judging from the articles and books reviewed in the Zeitschrift für vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte und Renaissance Litteratur, and making allowance for such material as belongs exclusively to the latter category and is not comparative, we may say that the editors classify under Comparative Literature international literary history, researches into sources of individual works, literary æsthetics, the history of types, and minor elements of literary form and material, and finally folklore. The term Comparative Literature seems to be used vaguely but with especial regard to international relativity; still any article treating of poetry or of its antecedent conditions scientifically and with some show of comparative method seems eligible to their pages.

This survey might be extended to the practice of our American philological journals and associations. The academic conception will, however, be found to be as I have stated it: Comparative Literature works in the history of national as well as of international conditions, it employs, more or less prominently, the comparative method, logical and historical, it presupposes, and results in, a conception of literature as a solidarity, and it seeks to formulate and substantiate a theory of literary development whether by evolution or permutation, in movements, types, and themes. With these main considerations it is but natural that scholars should associate the attempt to verify and systematize the characteristics common to literature in its various manifestations wherever found; to come by induction, for instance, at the eidographic or generic qualities of poetry, — the characteristics of the drama, epic, or lyric ; at the dynamic qualities, those which characterize and differentiate the main literary movements, such as the classical and romantic ; and at the thematic, the causes of persistence and modification in the history of vital subjects, situations, and plots. As to the growth, or development, of literature our survey shows that two distinct doctrines contend for acceptance: one, by evolution, which is an attempt to interpret literary processes in accordance with biological laws ; the other, by what I prefer to call permutation. Since literature like its material, language, is not an organism, but a resultant medium, both product and expression of the society whence it springs, the former theory must be still in doubt. It can certainly not be available otherwise than metaphorically unless it be substantiated by just such methods — comparative and scientific — as those of which we have spoken.

How much of this is new, of the nineteenth century, for instance? Very little in theory ; much, and that important, in discipline and fact. The solidarity of literature was long ago announced by Bacon, who in his Advancement of Learning says, “ As the proficience of learning consisteth much in the orders and institutions of universities in the same states and kingdoms, so it would be yet more advanced if there were more intelligence mutual between the universities of Europe than there now is. . . . And surely as nature createth brotherhoods in families, and arts mechanical contract brotherhoods in communities, and the anointment of God superinduceth a brotherhood in kings and bishops, so in like manner there cannot but be a fraternity in learning and illumination, relating to that paternity which is attributed to God who is called the Father of illuminations or lights.” Bacon was the founder, in England, of that species of literary history which, as soon as national literatures were placed in comparison, could not but result in the conception of literary unity. He was our first distinguished advocate of the genetic method of critical research : the procedure by cause and effect to movement, influence, relation, change, decay, revival ; and he emphasized the elasticity of literary forms and types, — ideas all essential to the understanding of literature as a growth. But he was not the only forerunner of the present movement. In one way or another the solidarity of literature, the theories of permutation or of evolution, sometimes crudely, sometimes with keen scientific insight, were anticipated by Englishmen, Germans, Frenchmen, Italians of note all the way from Dante, Scaliger, and Sidney down. In England, Webbe, Puttenham, and Meres, Ben Jonson, Edmund Bolton, prepared for Bacon ; and Bacon was well followed by the Earl of Stirling (whose Anacrisis furnishes hints by the score for the comparative method of literary research), by Davenant in his Preface to Gondibert, by Cowley (a fine advocate of the analytical and historical methods); and by our prince of criticism, the perspicacious Dryden, who in his Heads of an Answer to Rymer insists upon a standard of literary judgment at once historical and logical, upon the recognition of development in literary types, the principles of milieu and national variety, and the adoption accordingly of criteria that shall allow for the diversity and gradual modification of literary conditions. Most worthy, too, of recognition which, I think, he has never fully obtained, is John Dennis ; for in his Remarks upon Blackmore’s Prince Arthur and in his Advancement and Reformation of Modern Poetry he more clearly than any predecessor foreshadows the theories of the early and middle nineteenth century concerning the influence of religious ideals in the permutations of literature. Shaftesbury, Bentley, Swift, the Wartons, Hurd, Addison, Hallam, Carlyle, and De Quincey, — it was not necessary that any of these should defer his birth till 1900 to appreciate what the comparative study of literature, in one or more of its phases, meant.

In Germany, Herder and Schiller may have been the first, as Professor Wetz has said, to give the science a comprehensive foundation. They, however, owed not a little to Bodmer and Breitinger and others of the Swiss school of 1740, to the Æsthetica of Baumgarten of 1750, and to Winckelmann’s application of the historical method to the study of fine art. When we come down the line and add the contributions of Goethe, Richter, the Schlegels to literary science, and then of Gervinus, Boeckh, Paul, and Elze, we begin to wonder what there is left of system for the student of Comparative Literature to devise.

In France, likewise, there have been approaches to one or another side of the idea and discipline from the Défense of Joachim du Bellay, 1549, and the Poetics of Scaliger (one of the greatest comparers of literary history) down. The Recueil of Claude Fauchet, 1581, Pasquier’s Treatise on the Pléiade, Mairet’s Preface to Sylvanire, the early battles of Corneille with the Academy and Chapelain, all illustrate phases of this slowly maturing method of study. Rapin’s Poëtes Anciens et Modernes, of 1674, aims not only to adapt Aristotle’s Poetics to modern practice, but to teach the moderns that certain qualities of poetry, no matter what the conditions of the age, endure. And the age felt Rapin, especially the England of the age, — Dryden and his school. The scientific importance of literary history and the advantages of the comparative method in criticism were clearly apprehended by Saint-Évremond as early as by Rapin. Desmarets de Saint Sorlin had advanced to a conception of poetry as an institutional mouthpiece for society and religion as far back as 1657, — but nine years after Davenant’s famous Preface on the same theory, and fully two hundred before its more distinguished elaboration by Carriere. That Perrault, Fontenelle, the Daciers, La Fontaine, Fénelon, indeed, and the younger heroes of the Battle of the Books, should by some be supposed to be the founders of the comparative method is extremely odd : they were anticipated not only by several whom I have mentioned and by the Pléiade in France, but by the Areopagus in England as well. Why multiply examples ? I believe that without difficulty one could indicate a forerunner earlier than 1830 for every doctrine or ideal comprised to-day under the term Comparative Literature, except the theory of evolution on the Darwinian principle, — and for much of the method. Dubos, Batteux, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, La Harpe, Madame de Staël, Chateaubriand, Ginguené, Baour-Lormian, Stendhal, Hugo, Villemain, — a host of prophets before the immortal Sainte-Beuve and those Monday chats that gathered up in method and ideal all that was worth gathering and gave the impetus to most of the theory and method current to-day !

This cloud of witnesses is not produced, however, to discredit, but to confirm the scope and hope of the so-called Comparative Literature of to-day. They testify to the need of a science in the nature of things. They perform their service by anticipations in detail of a discipline that could not be designated a science until the sciences propædeutic thereto had been developed. The experimental stage of literary theory has by its antiquity, its persistence, and its faith, given proof of the naturalness and worth of the science that was to follow when experience should be ripe. Experimental efforts accomplished this much at least: they marked out the field, — the relativity of literature ; they shadowed the substance and significance of the ideal of literary solidarity, and they foreshadowed that of spiritual community ; they apprehended a comparative method of procedure, and applied it to some few objects of investigation, to the history of sources, for instance, and of themes ; and to artistic and literary analogies with a view to inductive canons of criticism. But, on the other hand, the method as conceived was, in the nature of the case, but imperfectly scientific ; and the objects of its application, the determination of literary types, their reality and characteristics, and the study of literary conditions antecedent and environing, were but vaguely comprehended. The facts were insufficient. As to a growth of literature, our earlier scholars utterly failed to elaborate a theory, failed generally to surmise ; and that being so, a study of movements, national or international, and the moods that underlie them, was incapable of prosecution. How could they build a science the social and psychological foundations of which were not yet established ?

Advances in historical method, in psychological, sociological, linguistic, and ethnological research have, now, furnished the discipline with an instrument unknown to its forbears in critical procedure ; and with fresh and rich materials for illumination from without. The conception of literature as a unit is no longer hypothetical; the comparison of national histories has proved it. The idea of a process by evolution may be unproved; but that some process, as by permutation, must obtain is recognized. We no longer look upon the poet as inspired. Literature develops with the entity which produces it, — the common social need and faculty of expression ; and it varies according to differentiœ of racial, physiographic, and social conditions, and of the inherited or acquired characteristics of which the individual author is constituted. The science of its production must analyze its component factors and determine the laws by which they operate. By a constant factor are fixed the only possible moulds or channels of expression, and, therefore, the integral and primary types, as, for instance, within the realm of poetry, the lyric, narrative, and dramatic. By the presence of other factors, both inconstant, these types are themselves liable to modification. I refer, of course, to environment, that is to say, to the antecedent and contemporary condition of thought, social tendency, and artistic fashion ; and to the associational congeries called the author. So far as physiological and psychological modes of expression may be submitted to objective and historical analysis, so far as the surrounding conditions which directly or indirectly affect the art in which the author works, and the work of the author in that art, may be inductively studied, and their nature interpreted and registered in relation to other products of society, such as language, religion, and government, so far is the discipline of which we speak legitimately scientific. And as rapidly as experimental psychology, anthropology, ethnology, or the history of art in general, prove their right to scientific recognition, they become instruments for the comparative investigation of the social phenomenon called literature. It is thus that the literary science, just now called Comparative Literature, improves upon the efforts of the former stylistic or poetics, largely traditional or speculative, and displaces the capricious matching of authors, the static or provincial view of history, and the appraisement lacking atmosphere.

While this science must exclude from the object under consideration the purely subjective element, and the speculative or so-called “ judicial ” (me judice) method from criticism and history, it need not ignore or disregard the unexplained quantity, — the imaginative. Its aim will be to explore the hitherto unexplained in the light of historical sequence and scientific cause and effect, physical, biological, psychological, or anthropological, to reduce the apparently unreasonable or magical element, and so to leave continually less to be treated in the old-fashioned inspirational or ecstatic manner. We shall simply cease to confound the science with the art. We no longer refer history to Clio, law to the tables of the Mount, or medicine to the Apollo-born sage of Epidaurus; but while we acknowledge the science, we none the less respect the genius, — the Herodotus, or Marshall, or Lorenz. Not only does literary science take up into itself the best methods that literary history has so far devised, — the analytical-critical of Dryden and Hegel and Taine, the psychological and cultural of Schiller, as expressed in his matchless essay on poetry naïve and sentimental, and of Goethe in his Deutsche Baukunst and his Wahrheit und Dichtung, and the efforts at a comparative discipline exerted by SainteBeuve and Arnold, — it avails itself, as I have said, of the results, and so far as possible of the methods, of the sciences that most directly contribute to the comprehension of man the producer ; it partly bases and partly patterns its procedure upon those other records of human consciousness, the histories of ethics and religion and society ; it gathers hints from theories not yet scientific, but historically on the way, — theories of art in general, æsthetic, physiological, and psychological, or even speculative, if, as in the case of Winckelmann, the speculation be founded upon induction from facts historically considered. The more immediate advantages of the prosecution of literary research in such a way as this are an ever increasing knowledge of the factors that enter into world-literature and determine its growth, — its reasons, conditions, movements, and tendencies, in short, its laws ; and a poetics capable not only of detecting the historical but of appreciating the social accent in what is foreign and too often despised, or contemporary and too often overpraised if not ignored. The new science of literature will in turn throw light upon that which gave it birth; it will prove an index to the evolution of soul in the individual and in society ; it will interpret that sphinx, national consciousness or the spirit of the race, or, mayhap, destroy it. It will in one case and in all assist a science of comparative ethics.

This is what Comparative Literature means to me. Before I attempt to show what the science should be called, let us see what it means to the editors of the new periodical. In his scholarly and poetic editorial in the first number of the Journal of Comparative Literature, Professor Woodberry, treating of what the subject already is, announces the method, the field, the theory of literary community substantially as we have already conceived them; save that under the objects of comparative investigation he does not explicitly include literary movements, and that in the category of forms he appears to assimilate the fundamental and generic modes of expression, lyric, drama, etc., with the extrinsic and more or less conventional and interchangeable, trappings such as alliteration and rhyme. He fails consequently to attach to a particular phase, the comparative study of literary types or modes, the significance which, in my opinion, it possesses. That, however, matters little. His forecast of the course of the science is inspiring. “ The study of forms,” he says, “ should result in a canon of criticism, which would mean a new and greater classicism ; . . . the study of themes should reveal temperamentally, as form does structurally, the nature of the soul.” “ It is in temperament,” he continues, 舠 in moods, that romanticism, which is the life of all literature, has its dwellingplace. To disclose the necessary forms, the vital moods of the beautiful soul, is the far goal of our effort, — to help in this, in the bringing of those spiritual unities in which human destiny is accomplished.” With this the genuine student of literary science must agree. And yet it may strike him as peculiar, that in the outlook over literary theory the possibility of growth appears to be ignored. The omission can hardly be accidental. I take it to indicate non-acceptance of a theory of evolution such as Brunetière’s, however, rather than rejection of all theory of development. Movements are the corollaries of the “ vital moods in which is the life of literature ; ” and the life of literature changes with the gradual deepening and widening of the “ beautiful soul ” individual, racial, or integrally human. I find, therefore, a testimony to our theory of literary permutation in Professor Woodberry’s reticence. I rejoice also to note his insistence upon a matter of method apparently minor but of importance to our comprehension of the discipline, namely, that the study of international relations and influences is but one of the objects of Comparative Literature : the study of a single literature may be just as scientifically comparative if it seek the reason and law of the literature in the psychology of the race or of humanity.

Now what shall this science be called, since the name which it has is malformed and misleading ? If it were not for traditional prejudice, the term stylistic should be recognized as of scientific quality, and it should cover the history as well as the theory of all kinds of writing. According to the older nomenclature, the individuality and the purpose of the author, the quality of his thought and the objective characteristics of literary species and form, are, all of them, factors of style . Elze, Boeckh, Maas, and others arrange the matter thus: Style is the form and method of expression in language. Stylistic is the general theory of style, and this general theory divides itself naturally into the theory of prose style or rhetoric and the theory of poetic style or poetics. I am not going to propose “ stylistic.” The old stylistic is limited by tradition, by its speculative quality, and by that well-worn and slippery dictum of Buffon, — style is of the individual. What is called Comparative Literature has, on the other hand, brought to the study of all kinds of writing a scientific objectivity and the historical method. It has taken up into itself what is objective and historical of the older stylistic : it aims to reject or confirm former theories but on purely scientific grounds. It is the transition from stylistic to a science of literature which shall still find room for æsthetics, but for æsthetics properly so called, developed, checked, and corrected by scientific procedure and by history.

Without our modern psychology, anthropology, linguistics, and the comparative sciences of society, religion, and art, literature could be studied neither in relation to its antecedents nor to its components. Otherwise our study would long ago have been known as comparative philology, a name improperly usurped by a younger branch of the philological discipline. Such indeed is the name by which Professor Whitney would have called the comparative study of the literatures of different countries had the discipline been prosecuted as a science when he wrote. Comparative Literature is a reaffirmation of that aspect of philology— the literary — which, both because it was eclipsed by, and dependent upon, the development of linguistics, has long ceased to be regarded as philology at all ; save in Germany, where philological seminars have dealt not only with the phonology and history of language as they asserted themselves, but also as of old with whatever concerns the literary side of language as an expression of the national, or more broadly human spirit. Since all study of origins and growth, whether of one phenomenon or more than one, must be comparative if scientifically conducted, it is not necessary to characterize the literary science, of which we speak, by that particular adjective. More methods than the comparative enter into it, and it is more than a method; it is a theory of relativity and of growth ; and its material is vertically as well as horizontally disposed. The Comparative Literature of to-day, based upon the sciences of which I have spoken and conducted in the scientific method, is literary philology, — nothing more nor less ; it stands over against linguistic philology or glottology, and it deals genetically, historically, and comparatively with literature as a solidarity and as a product of the social individual, whether the point of view be national or universal. We welcome academic departments and journals, devoted to its interests, but literary philology is not and cannot be measured by the scope and effort of a distinct academic department, or of a specific journal, however excellent the latter, like this to which we wish Godspeed, may be. The new discipline is already the property and method of all scientific research in all literatures, ancient or modern, not only in their common but in their individual relations to the social spirit in which they live and move and have their being. The more we develop what now is called Comparative Literature, the more rapidly will each literature in turn seek its explanation in Literary Philology.

Charles Mills Gayley .

• American Philological Association, President’s Address before the Pacific Coast Division, December 29, 1902. ↩