我们把文学研究分为理论、历史和评论。现在,我们将采用另外一种划分标准,试图对比较文学、总体文学和国别文学下一个系统的定义。“比较文学”这个名称带来不少麻烦,而且,毫无疑问,这也是这个重要的文学研究方式没有取得预期的学术成就的原因之一。马修·阿诺德转用了安倍使用的“比较历史”,他显然是第一个在英语中使用这个名称的人(1848年)。法国人比较喜欢维尔曼在更早的时候用过的名称。1829年,维尔曼模仿居维埃在1800年用过的“比较解剖学”这个名称,提到“比较文学”。德国人则称之为“比较文学史”。但是,这两个不同形式的形容词都不能充分说明问题,因为,比较是所有的评论和科学都使用的方 We divide literary studies into theories, history and commentary. Now we will adopt another division standard, trying to define the next system of comparative literature, general literature and country literature. The name “comparative literature” brings with it a lot of trouble, and, no doubt, one of the reasons why this important literary approach has failed to produce the desired academic achievement. Matthew Arnold switched to Abe’s “comparative history,” apparently the first to use the name in English (1848). French people prefer the name Wilmer used earlier. In 1829, Wurmman mimicked the name “Comparative Anatomy” used by Couviere in 1800 and referred to “comparative literature.” Germans call it the “history of comparative literature.” However, neither of these two different forms of adjectives adequately address the problem, as the comparison is the one used by all commentary and science