On Comparative Literature

@ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com
ISSN No: 2456
International
Research
On Comparative Literature
Junior Lecturer in Odia (OES
Model Degree College, Malkangiri, Odisha, India
ABSTRACT
Comparison is a common technique we go through in
our everyday life. It is rather a human psychology.
Even each animal looks with this vision. But more
specifically, human being is much more developed
cerebrally than others. CL actually exists upon the
two traditions, called Little tradition and Great
Tradition. It is such a tool by virtue of which we can
enrich our National Literature and hence this kind of
literature is named as Universal literature, Global
Literature or Welt literature. Intellectuals lik
name this Visva Sahitya with a greater goal. Attempts
have been made to bring out the methods, doctrines
and perspectives of American, British, French,
German, Japanese and other countries across the
globe. What is Comparative literature, what are
objectives and the modus operandi- all these things
are well discussed here.
Keywords: Comparative Literature (CL), Great and
Little Tradition, National Literature, Welt Literature,
Visva Sahitya, Universal Literature.
“Comparison and analysis are the chief tools of the
Critic.” -Thomas Stearns Eliot
1. INTRODUCTION
COMPARISON is a natural human psychology. It is
an as usual process a person looks, thinks analyses
and comments. In this world, there are only two kinds
of things, i.e. either same (similar) or different. To
know this, when we see contemporaneously we
compare mentally. Either to distinguish or to equalize
we need to compare. This is the only common
process in both the cases. This world has a great
many kinds of things around us. How could we know
@ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 1 | Issue – 6 | Sep - Oct 2017
ISSN No: 2456 - 6470 | www.ijtsrd.com | Volume
International Journal of Trend in Scientific
Research and Development (IJTSRD)
International Open Access Journal
On Comparative Literature
Santosh Kumar Nayak
Junior Lecturer in Odia (OES-II)
Model Degree College, Malkangiri, Odisha, India
Comparison is a common technique we go through in
our everyday life. It is rather a human psychology.
Even each animal looks with this vision. But more
specifically, human being is much more developed
cerebrally than others. CL actually exists upon the
traditions, called Little tradition and Great
Tradition. It is such a tool by virtue of which we can
enrich our National Literature and hence this kind of
literature is named as Universal literature, Global
Literature or Welt literature. Intellectuals like Tagore
name this Visva Sahitya with a greater goal. Attempts
have been made to bring out the methods, doctrines
and perspectives of American, British, French,
German, Japanese and other countries across the
globe. What is Comparative literature, what are its
all these things
: Comparative Literature (CL), Great and
Little Tradition, National Literature, Welt Literature,
chief tools of the
COMPARISON is a natural human psychology. It is
an as usual process a person looks, thinks analyses
and comments. In this world, there are only two kinds
same (similar) or different. To
know this, when we see contemporaneously we
Either to distinguish or to equalize
we need to compare. This is the only common
This world has a great
How could we know
this? ‘X’ is different to that of ‘O’, ‘B’ is similar to
‘8’, ‘W’ is similar to ‘M’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘G’ are similar to
‘O’ similarly ‘L’, ‘I’, ‘T’ are similar to each other
etcetera. All these things came to mind due to the
natural and instantaneous process called
‘Comparison’. The final decision or the conclusion
came only and only due to ‘Comparison’. It is
obvious that human beings are expert than other
animals of this earth in comparison and finding the
conclusion. The concept of diversity
even if the concepts like specialty, uniqueness, best,
better, worse, worst, and all the adjectives come
under this technology called Comparison. But the
question is that whether doing comparison is CL. No,
not at all. Technically and
Comparative Literature (CL) is not at all the simple
comparison between the literatures (i.e.
Technically, the glossary of CL goes against this
philosophy in general. It is also not that to compare
the two literatures in order to
and to say one of them better than the other. To
advocate for the literature of the mother tongue and
to criticize others’ is not a healthy practice at all
which had been a so called trend of Indian criticism
one day. Some were there who told it CL but it is not
at all true and it has been disproved by the other
weapons of criticism later. Now
specialized discipline of literature having a great
responsibility on its shoulder.
2. UNDERSTANDING THE DISCIPLINE AND
ITS ROOT
Comparative study is one of the wonderful gifts of
anthropology to each and every discipline of the
Oct 2017 Page: 349
6470 | www.ijtsrd.com | Volume - 1 | Issue – 6
Scientific
(IJTSRD)
International Open Access Journal
this? ‘X’ is different to that of ‘O’, ‘B’ is similar to
‘8’, ‘W’ is similar to ‘M’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘G’ are similar to
‘O’ similarly ‘L’, ‘I’, ‘T’ are similar to each other
etcetera. All these things came to mind due to the
taneous process called
‘Comparison’. The final decision or the conclusion
came only and only due to ‘Comparison’. It is
obvious that human beings are expert than other
animals of this earth in comparison and finding the
conclusion. The concept of diversity and again unity,
even if the concepts like specialty, uniqueness, best,
better, worse, worst, and all the adjectives come
under this technology called Comparison. But the
her doing comparison is CL. No,
not at all. Technically and gloss logically,
Comparative Literature (CL) is not at all the simple
comparison between the literatures (i.e. L1
and L2
).
Technically, the glossary of CL goes against this
philosophy in general. It is also not that to compare
the two literatures in order to prove one’s excellence
and to say one of them better than the other. To
advocate for the literature of the mother tongue and
to criticize others’ is not a healthy practice at all
which had been a so called trend of Indian criticism
e who told it CL but it is not
at all true and it has been disproved by the other
weapons of criticism later. Now-a-days, CL is a
specialized discipline of literature having a great
responsibility on its shoulder.
2. UNDERSTANDING THE DISCIPLINE AND
Comparative study is one of the wonderful gifts of
anthropology to each and every discipline of the

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) ISSN: 2456-6470
@ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 1 | Issue – 6 | Sep - Oct 2017 Page: 350
Whole
Individual Individual
world. The main source of this discipline comes from
anthropology and further it has been entered into the
domain of literature. Due to chemistry with the
various sub-disciplines of literature CL has now taken
such a shape which is quite different from the early
one or the original one and has a quite unique
identity.
The culture of CL or the philosophy of CL is nothing
but to shape the self. It is something which means to
enlarge the sight and chest of self for the sake of
others. Because, CL needs a greater thoracic cavity to
keep others’ tradition, culture, language and
literature. We need to come out from the narrowness
of our own sight and should see the self in a greater
whole. We can see the ‘proper self’ if and only if we
can see ourselves in a greater sightedness beyond the
narrow thinking of ‘yours’ and ‘mine’. We need to
know more and more. We, for this only, should know
the religion, language, literature, tradition, culture,
race, social doctrines, societal values and ethics, their
morality and modalities and all such things. Then
only we can enter into the domain and range of CL.
Instead, if we will know a little and will only know
ourselves, then we can’t recognize ourselves
properly. The result we find at that time about us may
be partially true due to our limited knowledge. The
‘self’ is inside the ‘universe’. Though individuals
make a whole but after the formation of the whole,
the individuals lose their identity (like a water droplet
and the ocean). Hence, the knowledge of the whole or
universe we can properly recognize the self
(individual). This is the scope where we can know the
self better and much closer than ever. Anthropology
defines the same thing with the illustration of two
things: Great Tradition (GT) and Little Tradition
(LT). Here, it has been illustrated that we can know
the LT by virtue of the GT.
[ Fig. 1.1 – Model showing the technique to know the LL/RL/Self through the CL Technology ]
To know and recognize the literatures of across the
world with respect and reference to their culture and
tradition which are related to our literature is said to
be the real goal of CL. To know the literature of
ourselves inside a greater circle is the original task of
CL. We can take for an instance of Odia Literature.
Whenever we read and recognize the same, we just
measure it with reference to the culture, tradition,
language and other literary works of the same
geographical territory, language and literature made
earlier. But it is not the right process to measure the
same by the tools of CL. In another words, with the
help of Slide Caliper and the Screw Gauge of CL we
need to measure the intellectual and artistic height
and width of the work with reference to the other
peripheral literatures, traditions and environments. In
case of Odia literature, we need to go into the Bengali
literature, Assamese, Marathi, Malayalam, Telugu,
Tamil, Gujrati, Konkani and other states’ literatures
and their cultures. Again, we have to measure and
perceive the same literature with respect to the world
literatures. English, French, Germany, Greek,
Canadian and other literatures should also be gone
through. After all these things we can have a look of
that CL. Then only we can know ourselves truly and
we can know us the best. This is how CL could be
explained and tasted the best.

3. OBJECTIVES AND FORMS OF CL
CL is the means to build a healthy and wealthy
National Literature (NL). NL of a nation can be
enriched only and only by its perspectives not by
increasing the number of creations or books etcetera.
Literally, to enrich and enlarge a national literature,
we need to go beyond the little and limited
surrounding of self and synchronously we have to
know the vast world (i.e. to know and recognize and
to make out and accept the language, literature,
culture, tradition, customs, socio-economic status etc.
of the different sects of the whole world) with a
global approach, which will enable us to see and
measure ourselves relatively in a better way. In this
way, CL has a pivotal and significant role in making
the NL rich and time-worthy. The background of CL
is very important in order to sustain the literature of
the self, i.e. the Local Literature (LL) as well as to
sustain the NL or RL. Behind all these things, as a
background we have one thing at our hand and that is
the way we see the world. This determines the
standard of the LL, RL and even of the NL.
Here, LC is equally important to that of the NC. The
consciousness of the both must be there within us.
For this only, some of the cerebral critics of the world
sketch the pattern of whole literature of the world as
CL versus WL or LL versus NL etcetera. NL
represents the voice and existence of a nation. It has
that much of potency to narrate a nation, its internal
heart and soul. One thing is very clear from this
episode that each and every literature has its birth as a
LL or RL. But the comparative perspectives make it
enable to be classic literature, to which we say WL or
Welt Literature.
The intellectual expedition from the self to whole,
from the lightlessness to light even from the local to
global is termed as renaissance. It is same in all way
from Europe to Odisha. In case of the European and
Odishan renaissance we find the very same thing.
This is the mother source of the philosophy of CL.
Comparison is an art itself which is as old as
humanity. This has been a serious discipline and a
momentous technique today since it has a prominent
and paramount part to play in the modern world.
Today, comparison has been honoured as a branded
technique in each and every sphere of life. In simple
words, it has become a trend, fashion or even a dire
necessity today. We need to find out the link of CL
from the great philosophy of Renaissance. The diction
or the technical term ‘Comparative Literature’ was
used (or came to the limelight) in English for the first
time by Mathew Arnold in 1848, when he was
translating the French writer’s words, ‘Historie
Camparative’. In his Inaugural Lecture at Oxford in
1857, he said:
“Everywhere there is connection,
everywhere there is illustration. No
single event, no single literature is
adequately comprehended except in
relation to other literature.” 1
In fact, no literature is free from the other. The
reasons are: (a)The source(s) of the literature(s) L1
,
L2
, L3
, and LN
. (b) The human knowledge. An author
will write on the basis of his acquired knowledge and
self vision. Every writer is present in his every work
and s/he speaks something in it compulsorily. But
each of them could not be a master piece or a
literature from within the world/global literature (GL).
This is only because of the vision. The immortal and
global vision of an author can make his literature
enable to live long even forever being a part of the GL
or WL. In spite of the great difference of Languages,
cultures, traditions and individual talents the reader
can recognize the open and global resonance of the
particular piece of literature. When the reader reads
such great works of the writers, all the differences
vanish and the art of the artist works as a bridge
between two or more different socio-geographical
lands. The work and the artistic vision soon becomes a
tool for the unity across the world. In, this way CL is a
bridge-like network which connects the whole world.
Hence, the German Poet Goethe, once told this
literature ‘Welt Literature’ where Arnold told this
‘Comparative Literature’. The World-Poet
Rabindranath Tagore had named it ‘Visva-Sahitya’
which also means the same whereas Van Tieghem
prefers to use the alternate term ‘Synthetic Literature’.
H. H. Remak says ‘Universal Literature’ to this CL in
his way to which I accept and believe as a GLOBAL
LITERATURE. This is beyond the narrowness of the
regional and personal degrees and doctrines. Here, it
could also be concluded that nothing is tagged as good
or bad literature, nothing is branded like RL or GL.
Rather every literature takes its birth as a RL and it
gets converted to GL on the basis of its potency. The
potency of the literature though remains from the very
first day, still it takes the honour of GL when and only
when it is deemed and criticized by some one and
brought to the limelight as a universally accepted
piece. Here, the RL becomes the WL or GL.

GL
[ Fig. 1.2 – Model showing the interlinks between WL, VS, UL, SL, CL & GL ]
R.N. Tagore had a greater thought in a greater
perspective. He took the philosophy of literature as
a whole. No philosophy is absolutely isolated
according to him. That means, when a piece of
literature, i.e. a poem/story/essay/drama/novel or
any creation takes its birth it has its link
automatically with other things. It is just like a
human baby and her/his link with the environment.
Hence, nothing is absolute. Nothing is isolated.
Everything is connected with each other. When
Tagore thought of this ‘VS’, CL was still in its infancy
in Europe and America as an academic discipline.
When scholars of CL tried to introduce it as an
academic discipline in several universities just like
other disciplines, it was vehemently opposed by
many scholars of eminence. They opposed it because
at that time CL had neither been accepted as a full-
fledged discipline nor as a different one than any
literature. Buddhadeva Bose, in his essay
“Comparative Literature in India”, has given a crystal-
clear idea which is reproduced right here in an
abridged summary below:
“If we want to understand man as revealed in
action, his motivation and his aims, then we
must pursue his intensions through the whole
of history. To take isolated instances, such as
the reign of Akbar or Queen Elizabeth, is
merely to satisfy curiosity. He who knows that
Akbar and Elizabeth are only pretexts or
occasions; the man, throughout the whole
of history incessantly at work to fulfill his
deepest purposes, and to unite himself with the
All-it is he, I say who will strive to see in
history not the local and the individual, but the
eternal and universal man. His pilgrimage will
not end in observing other pilgrims, for he will
behold the god whom all pilgrims are seeking.
What I am trying to say amounts to this. Just as
this earth is not the sum of patches of land
belonging to different people, and to know the
earth as such is sheer rusticity, so literature is
not the mere total of works composed by
different hands. Most of us, however, think of
literature in what I have called the manner of
the rustic. From this narrow provincialism we
must free ourselves; we must strive to see the
work off one another as a whole, that whole as
a part of man’s universal creativity, and that
universal spirit in its manifestations through
world literature. Now is the time to do so.”
(243- 44)
The tem CL was taken as a bogus one in its early
introduction days. It was the third decade of the
twentieth century when there was proposal to change
J.W.V. Goethe R.N Tagore
Welt literature VS
H.H. Remak Van Tieghem M. Arnold
UL CL SL

the name of the English department of Cornel
University, USA into Department of Comparative
Literature. But this was strongly opposed by the head
of the department Lane Cooper. Even he denied to be
the head of the further changed department as was
simply a bogus term for him. Rather he had a
suggestion. It should be ‘The Comparative Study of
Literature’ instead of ‘Comparative Literature’, said
Cooper. Still, a number of departments were opened
in this name. in some places ‘Department of English’
became ‘Department of English and Comparative
Literature’ and in some other places this term was
added with the departments of Germane, Slavic and
Romance etcetera. F.W. Chandler and J.E. Spungarn,
the professors of Columbia University, Harry Levin,
the professor of Harvard University, Rene Welleck
and Austin Warren, the professors of Yale University
are the eminent scholars of CL. The argument made
by Cooper was was not effective as he did not
focused on the evolutionary meaning of the term
‘literature’. Cooper thought only on the literal
meaning of ‘literature’ and made an argument for the
word ‘comparative’, which is an adjective, and its
use before ‘literature’. But from 200 AD to 300 AD
and from 18th
to 19th
century the term has gone
through a series of metamorphoses in meaning.
Hence, the professors and scholars of CL remained a
little flexible with the term ‘LITERATURE’ and its
meaning. Therefore, everybody accepted the term
‘Comparative Literature’ instead of ‘The
Comparative Study of Literature’. Now-a-days, as a
subject CL forms the part of the curricula of so
many universities of the world. In India it is popular
since last sixty two years. The first department of
CL in India came into existence in 1956, at the
Jadavpur University, Kolkata. In 1974, Delhi
University started a department for Masters Degree
named ‘Comparative Indian Literature’ with a view
to the modern Indian languages. Soon after the term
CL became popular in various universities of India.
The concept of ‘modern India’ and the rise of the
consciousness of ‘modern Indian nationalism’
functions as a strong back-ground of CL in India.
4. CL BEYOND NATIONS
Comparative study or comparison of any two or more
things in any field is a common and natural
phenomenon. Comparative Study of literatures is a
phase wise/ systematic reading of the ‘text’ and
‘context’ both. Comparative study in literature,
confines to the study of relationship between two or
more literatures (between L1
, L2
, L3
and LN
) along
with their socio-cultural back-grounds. It is the study
of literature beyond the confines of an anthropo-
geographical territory. One of the best critics of
CL, Susan Bassnett says,
“[…] Comparative literature involves the
study of texts across cultures, that it is
interdisciplinary and that it is concerned with
patterns of connection in literatures across
both time and space.” (1)
Bassnett at the same time bring forward the
arguments of Croce. He personally attacked and
opposed vehemently to the suggestion that CL should
be treated as a specific and allied discipline. Says
Bassnett, in a discursive form-
“Benedetto Croce argued that comparative
literature was a non-subject, contemptuously
dismissing the suggestion that it might be seen
as a separate discipline. He discussed the
definition of comparative literature as the
exploration of ‘the vicissitudes, alterations,
developments and reciprocal differences’ of
themes and literary ideas across literatures,
and concluded that ‘there is no study more
arid than researches of this sort’. This kind of
work, Croce maintained, is to be classified ‘in
the category of erudition purely and simply’.2
instead of something called comparative
literature, he suggested that the proper object
of study should be literary history.” ( 2-3)
He took the thing just as a comparative study of
different aspects i.e. various dimensions and angles
of the literary works. In the very same year Charles
Mills Gayley, one of the founders of North American
Comparative Literature (NACL), proclaimed like
Croce’s attacking voice that the working premise of
the student of CL was:
“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
social humanity.”3

The American and the French "schools" both accept
the opinion that CL lives beyond the national
territories. Says Remak, “[…] there are important
variations of relative stress in its practical
application.”(4) S.S. Prawer writes in the
Comparative Literary Studies, that comparative
literature implies a study of literature which uses
comparison as its main instrument. Of course a
comparative perspective or a comparative attitude
must be there when we are dealing with CL. Remak
defines the term broadly,
“Comparative literature is the study of
literature beyond the confines of one
particular country, and the study of the
relationships between literature on one hand
and other areas of knowledge and belief, such
as the arts (e.g. painting, sculpture,
architecture, music), philosophy, history, the
social sciences, (e.g. politics, economics,
sociology), the sciences, religion, etc., on the
other. In brief it is the comparison of one
literature with another or others, and the
comparison of literature with other spheres of
human-expression.” (3)
CL is a method of the study of literature, a special
discipline having its own objectives, perspectives,
methodologies, tools and techniques. There are at
least two ways to study with eyes of CL. He further
writes,
“First, Comparative literature means the
knowledge of more than one national
language and literature, and /or it means the
knowledge and application of other
disciplines in and for the study of literature
and second, Comparative literature has an
ideology of inclusion of the other, be that a
marginal literature in its several meanings of
marginality, a genre, various text types,
etc. Comparative literature has intrinsically a
content and form, which facilitates the cross-
cultural and interdisciplinary study of
literature and it has a history that substantiated
this content and form.” (1)
On the basis of above discussed decorum and criteria
a quality centric firm conclusion may be drawn that
CL is an intellectual discipline dealing with the
different literatures of two or more different
ethnic, linguistic, socio-cultural or national
groups. Comparative study of literature (CSL) may
also be performed on works of the same as well as
different languages, society, nations or cultures.
Some of the critics say that comparison is a method
used by all criticism as it a spontaneous process that
occurs in the head and heart of a critic even it happens
in case of every reader. Yes, of course it is silent
about a n y specific co n d u ct s or procedures of
literary study. H o w e v e r , CSL is the study of oral
(folk) literature, relationships between two or more
literatures and literature in its totality with respect to
the ‘world literature’.
CL could not be simply defined as an inevitable
stage in reading. It is not the internationalization of
a particular book or a piece of literature. It is not
even the wide availability of translation of a
masterpiece nor anything in that light. Yes, we can
rightly remember here the words of Goethe:
“It is becoming more and more obvious to me
that poetry is the common property of all
mankind.”4
Here, one thing must be very obvious and clear that
the poetic beauty, which is inherently attached with
aesthetics, is open to access for one and all.
Everybody can enter into the hive and suck the
honey if he has that much of ability. It means, this is
not confined to any particular geographical territory.
So it is a common property. One thing or the similar
thing could be thought at the same time by two
different persons of the different areas of the globe
without any influence. Similarly, one could be
affected by other and can write the similar thing
there-after. Says Bassnett,
“But if we shift perspective slightly and look
again at the term ‘Comparative Literature’
what we find instead of history of violent
debate that goes right back to the earliest
usage of the tem at the beginning of the
nineteenth century and continues still
today.”(2)
A comparative literature study does not mean at all
that it should have to be comparative on every page,
line by line nor even in every chapter, but the overall
intent, magnitude, motive, emphasis and execution
must be comparative. Says Remak,
“The assaying of intent, emphasis and
execution requires both objective and
subjective judgment. No rigid rules can and

should, therefore, be set down beyond these
criteria.”(15)
CL is a specific approach to the phylum of literature
with a special reference to the kingdom of culture and
the order of tradition associated with it. Again, it is
less critical and more analytical as well as suggestive
by nature. The approach which is made over here is
literally analytical, descriptive and synchronic, and
not historical and genetic. To be more particular, we
can designate this as the syndrome of CL that usually
we find. Here we will find the definitions and the
perspectives regarding the definition and the meaning
of CL. Leading scholars like Fernand Baldensperger,
Jean-Marie Carré, Paul Hazard, Paul Van Tieghem,
as well as Marcel Bataillon, Charles Dédéyan, Henri
Roddier, Basil Munteano, M.-F. Guyard, and others
have propounded the theory in this way. Van
Tieghem, Carré and Guyard have been held
responsible for the principal formulations of
contemporary French comparative theory and policy
(FCTP). Special care has been taken to concentrate in
this essay on problems with it in those portions
contrasting American with European trends of
Comparative Literature (AETCL). Because these two
schools have literally different trends, different
dogmas and belief. In each case the modus operandi
is important.
Many folklore studies are comparative par excellence
as during the examination of motifs the folklorists use
these techniques of CL. It is because there is a
possibility again of coincidence against the
probability of influence. In the theory of CL, we find
some wavering in the doctrines and modus operandi
particularly. Another research scholar of CL, Guyard
says that there has been a serious movement toward
the aesthetic appreciation of literature in these days.
He further concedes that influence studies and vast
syntheses are necessary for this discipline, and even
marks a place for "coincidence" studies. Van
Tieghem, while excluding "coincidental"
comparisons from CL, somewhat arbitrarily
welcomes them to "General Literature". Recently,
certain French scholars like Bémol, Etiemble etc.
have accosted the conventional grails of French
comparatism, both in writings as well as in the
debates of the First French Congress of Comparative
Literature (FFCCL) of Bordeaux, 1956 and of the
Second International Comparative Literature
Congress (SICLC), Chapel Hill, 1958. Moreover,
some influential and pre-eminent French spokesmen
at the latter meeting as Frappier, Roddier, Munteano,
Escarpit, etc., while defending the doctrines, stances,
various convictions and perspectives of French
Comparative Tradition (FCT), are cognizant of its
past and potential abuses and are suggesting some
new applications of their modus operandi that
incorporate some of the doctrines and canons of the
"American school." At the FFCCL held in Bordeaux
in March of 1956, Basil Munteano, one of the great
critic of the century, established the relationship
between literature and the other arts to "general
literature"( Littérature générale et Histoire des idées,
1957, p. 25). Again, if we will notice deeply, we will
see in America, too, theory and practice are not
identical. Majority of the American scholars,
including those in CL do their research along more or
less traditional historical lines. We cannot draw a firm
line any way to make out CL within a specific sphere.
More specifically, to the American comparatist, such a
‘lack of logical coherence’ would be more apparent
than real, for he would see a fundamental link
between the inclusion of ‘literature and the arts,’
‘literature and music,’ etc. in CL, and the ‘analogy
inside literature’ approach recognized by American
practitioners: in both cases, comparison brings out the
inherent or potential characteristics of literature.
The terms ‘international literature’ and ‘universal
literature’ are somehow synonymous with ‘world
literature’, but have not been able to establish
themselves yet.5
Werner P. Friederich suggests that
CL scholars might well restrict themselves to the
"French system" in teaching but could indulge in the
"American point of view" in their researches. 6
This is
in fact a very important perspective he has given.
Julius Petersen says that any treatment of a foreign
literature is, in a way, comparative by nature,
inasmuch as it utilizes, consciously or unconsciously,
criteria derived from the writer's own national
environment.7
This is somehow a true observation,
but it is very clear that the comparative angle of a
literary study must be more and more explicit rather
than implicit if we are going to have standards at all.
The Italian and English concepts of CL accept and
follow the French ideas quite closely. English
comparative perspectives seems somewhat less
restrictive than French in its greater attention to the
literature of the middle ages, although the original
French position which excluded antiquity and the
middle ages from CL has undergone a revision in the
last fifteen or twenty years. 8
Italian comparatists,
due to the influence of Croce, do not hesitate to
emphasize the aesthetic corner of literature despite

their general adherence to French models. The trend
in Germany, just as in the United States, is very
decidedly in the direction of literary criticism, i.e.
with a kind of critical perspective. Japan, long
beholden to the French tradition, is veering in the
American direction.9
In toto, there are only two kinds
of perspectives basically all over the world.
August Wilhelm von Schlegel's pioneering Lectures
on Dramatic Art and Literature (1808) are the basic
assets of CL. These belong to the terra firma of CL
not because they cover the literatures of Greece and
Rome in the first, and the literatures of Italy, France,
England, Spain and Germany in the second volume,
although, were they restricted to independent
discussions of these literatures, his essays would still
become the assets of study of CL. They are CL
because in his first lecture, he compares not only
Greek with Latin dramas but the classical with the
romantic dramas too, and brings in the Spanish,
Portuguese and German dramas there. Because he
constantly refers back to the classical literatures when
he treats the Italian and French literature and avails
himself of every opportunity to draw general
comparisons between the dramatic literatures of
England and Spain, of Spain and Portugal, of France
and Germany, etc. with consistently keeping the
general polarities of the drama in mind (i.e. tragic-
comic, poetical-theatrical, "Ernst und Scherz" etc.);
because, wherever possible, he directs attention to the
fine arts these lectures are included in CL by the so
called experts. It is the combination of these factors
which makes this work clearly comparative. In this
way, A. W. von Schlegel has established a very good
example of comparison which belongs to the terra
firma of CL.
5. CONCUSION
On the basis of above criteria and discussions we can
have a firm conclusion and idea regarding the
natures, forms, features, methods and perspectives of
Comparative Literature. CL is what it does. It is the
socio-cultural matrix that decides the nature of a
particular literature. CL just brings that into limelight
with reference to another one. The cultural aspects
underneath the texts, the societal and political
backgrounds or the settings beneath those texts are
important. These are the objectives of a comparatist
at one hand where as there factors are the subjects in
disguise of the texts at the other.
NOTES:
1 Matthew Arnold, On the Modern Element in
Literature, Inaugural Lecture delivered in the
University of Oxford, 14th November 1857.
2 Benedetto Croce, ‘Comparative Literature’, 1973,
215-23.
3 Charles Mills Gayley, ‘What is Comparative
Literature?’ Atlantic Monthly, 92 (1903),pp 56-68.
4 Johann W. Von Goethe, ‘Some Passages Pertaining
to the Concept of World Literature’, in Hans Joachim
Schultz and Philip H. Rhein (eds) Comparative
Literature: The Early Years, Chapel Hill, University
of North Carolina Press, 1973, pp 3-11.
5 The Dutch scholar J. C. Brandt Corstius gives, in
his De Muze in het Morgenlicht, Zeist, 1957) pp. 149-
70, an excellent account, both descriptive and
critical, of the evolution of the term "world literature"
from the threshold of history via Herder and Goethe
to the twentieth century.
6 ‘Zur Vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte in den
Vereinigten Staaten’ in Forschungsprobleme der
Vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte, II, eds. Fritz
Ernst and Kurt Wais, Tübingen, 1958, 186.
7 See Die Wissenschaft von der Dichtung, Berlin,
1939, I, 7.
8 See Jean Frappier, "Littératures médiévales et
littérature comparée: problèmes de recherche et de
méthode, in the Proceedings of the Second Congress
of the International Comparative Literature
Association, Chapel Hill, 1959, I, 25-35.
9 See the Yearbooks of Comparative and General
Literature, the Forschungsprobleme der
Vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte I and II, the
Revue de littérature comparée, JanuaryMarch, 1953,
and the Congress Proceedings to know the modus
operandi and perspectives of different countries of the
world regarding CL.
WORKS CITED
1). Bassnett, Susan, Comparative Literature-
A Critical Introduction, London: Blackwell
Publishers Ltd., 1993.
2). Bose, Buddhadeva, “Comparative Literature in
India”, Yearbook of Comparative and General

Literature, 8.1959; also included in Contributions
to Comparative Literature: Germany and India,
ed. Guha, Naresh, Jadavpur: 1979.
3). Prawer, S. S., Comparative Literary Studies, An
Introduction, London: Duckworth, 1973.
4). Remak, Henry H. H., “Comparative Literature, Its
Definition and Function”, Comparative Literature:
Method and Perspective. ed. Horst Frenz and
Newton P. Stallknecht Carbondale, IL.: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1961

On Comparative Literature

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to On Comparative Literature

Similar to On Comparative Literature (20)

More from ijtsrd

More from ijtsrd (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

On Comparative Literature