Comparative Literature Throughout Time: A Sketch of History and Basic Tenets

来源 :Journal of Literature and Art Studies | 被引量 : 0次 | 上传用户:java_xz
下载到本地 , 更方便阅读
声明 : 本文档内容版权归属内容提供方 , 如果您对本文有版权争议 , 可与客服联系进行内容授权或下架
论文部分内容阅读
  This paper sketches out a brief discussion of comparative literature, making references to a number of prominent comparatists in different periods of the evolution of the field. The discussion mainly falls into two sections dealing with the history and basic tenets of comparative literature. The various trends of comparative studies are aimed at a condensed survey in three successive phases dominated by French school, American school, and the new voices since the last two decades of the 20th century advocating cultural, postcolonial, and translation studies. Surviving through various literary periods of diverse social and aesthetic context, comparative literature has proved its viability as a discipline capable of framing a vast range of literary studies and critical analyses.
  Keywords: comparative literature, American school, French school, cultural studies, taxonomy
   Introduction
  Due to its own vibrant and flexible nature, comparative literature has always been a debated field. Across different literary periods, the controversies have shifted from issue to issue, highlighting or minimizing the role of the discipline in literary studies. Social concerns such as international peace, national identity, and globalization have unremittingly affected the nature and significance of comparative literary studies. Accordingly, the field has been defined and redefined several times throughout a two-century life span, a proof of its vigor and adaptability. In this regard, the present paper is devoted to a condensed review of the history of comparative literature with a focus on basic tenets at different stages of its history.
   Review of History
  Comparative literary studies can be roughly categorized into three different phases. The first longer phase has to do with the dominance of the so-called French school. Originating in France, the term first appeared in a series of French anthologies entitled Cours de Litérature Comparée published in 1816 (Bassnett, 1993, p. 139). Later in the final decades of the 19th century, the field distinguished itself academically at French and American universities. Comparative literature as such, set by the strict definitions and guidelines of the French school, held the floor well into the world wars period. Due to the power struggle in Europe in the 19th century, which was then followed by the two world wars of the first half of the 20th century, comparative literature paralleled and rivalled national literatures in an urgent need and desire for peace and unity in the continent (Bassnett, 1993, p. 21). An air of stability and oneness was to be created through comparative literature, which could be culturally transmitted so as to encompass other areas of social life. Extended over half a century, French school mainly considered comparative literature as a study of sources and influences restricted to literature itself.
  Mid-20th century witnessed the French criteria losing its grip in the face of new voices in the United States. The allure of New Criticism at the core of literary theories of the time, the immigration of prominent Eastern European figures to the States, and the publication of an essay by Henry Remak openly attacking French school in 1961, all culminated in the inauguration of American comparative school. The new school, which advocated comparative literature interdisciplinary potential and put internationalism at the top of its agenda, ruled the discipline and played the dominant role in comparative studies for nearly three decades of the second phase.
  Late in 1980s, in a collection of essays published under the title The Comparative Perspective on Literature: Approaches to Theory and Practice (1988), Koelb and Noakes set forth articles claiming shifts of attitudes and interests in the area of comparative literature. In their editorial introduction, they announced that the new trends in comparative literature tended to focus less on the practice of comparing literary texts at a cross-cultural or interdisciplinary level and more on “literary activity as involved in a complex web of cultural relations” (Koelb & Noakes, 1988, p. 13). In a more drastic manner, Bassnett’s Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction(1993) viewed the field to be at an end as a discipline and bestowed it a “subsidiary” role as a tool serving various areas of literary theory and practice namely translation, postcolonial, gender, and cultural studies (p. 161).
  However, Guillén’s The Challenge of Comparative Literature (1985), the English translation of which appeared in 1993, still managed to offer a remarkable discussion concentrating on both historical review and areas of investigation in spite of the growing interest in definitions rather than the actual practice. Reviewing the history of comparative literature, he provided worthwhile distinction over the much debated American and French school, dealt with in the next section. Regarding the taxonomy of comparative studies, Guillén (1993, pp. 94-104) reviewed the classifications of areas of investigation as proposed by Paul Van Tieghem, Ulrich Weisstein, Owen Aldridge, Renato Poggioli, and Fran?ois Jost. Elaborating on taxonomy, he also made his own contribution covering the second part of the book. Furthermore, he (1993, pp. 69-70) suggested three categories for comparative studies referred to by him as models of supranationality.
  The issue of cultural studies and its relevance to comparative literature was openly announced in the 1993 Bernheimer report to ACLA (American Association of Comparative Literature), later published in the book entitled Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism (1995). Accordingly, since 1990s the struggle of French and American school over interdisciplinarity of the field shifted to a battle over the subordination of comparative literature to cultural studies or vice versa. As Brooks (1995) amusingly put forward in the same volume, the issue seemed “to be whether comparative literature ingests cultural studies or rather gets swallowed by it” (p. 103).
  Nonetheless, the book volume of 2004 report, Comparative Literature in an Age of Globalization did not basically centre on a discussion regarding the issue of comparative literature and cultural studies. Culler, whose viewpoint was included in both book volumes of 1993 and 2004 ACLA reports, mentioned that the 2004 report did not discuss much about the role of literature in comparative studies. According to him (2007, p. 259), the advocates of cultural studies won the battle, but it did not exclude the centrality of literature from the studies. Culler (2007) quoted Haun Saussy, who seemed to confirm the same point by referring to comparative studies as capable of focusing on a wide range of diverse sources on the basis of “reading literarily” (Culler, 2007, p. 260; Saussy, 2006, p. 23).
  As the third phase is finding its way into the 21st century, the debate is still open to further discussions. As Greene (1995) once posited, “Each generation has the obligation to rethink comparative literature from its standpoint” (p. 151). In a sense, this could be taken as normal given the nature of the discipline itself. Accordingly, Rorty (2006) admired “the mutability and fashion-proneness” of comparative literature, which render the flows of ideas and attitudes unpredictable (p. 66). In this relation, it could be stated that long ignored topics such as literary history, literariness, literary aesthetics, and world literature have come to be reconsidered in new lights. Probably, instead of taking comparative literature to be in a state of constant crisis, theorists and practitioners are eventually noticing an innate tolerance in the discipline which can accommodate a wider range of outlooks.
   Discussion of Basic Tenets
  Regarding the three dominant phases of comparative literary practice and theorization, it must be expressed that the terms “French” and “American” schools are to some extent erroneous. Discussing the issue, Guillén tactfully stipulated that such attributions can be improper since no French or American school ever existed. Instead, he recommended a concentration on time spans which he referred to as French and American “hour”:
  Historically, there was no French “school” (an inappropriate term for the 20th century), and of course no American“school” either. I prefer to speak of the French hour: a period of time—from the end of the 19th century to shortly after the Second World War—during which the example of the French comparatists predominated and was imitated by scholars of various stripes, all following certain orientations that can be reduced to a simplified conceptual model. (Guillén, 1993, p. 47)
  In line with Guillén’s postulate, this review paper sketches out comparative literary studies within a frame of three phases with respect to time spans and prevalent tenets. A rough schematic presentation of the basic tenets within the approximate ranges of time is accordingly illustrated in the Appendix. Based on the points highlighted in the chart, this section is an elaboration of the specifications regarding each phase.
  The French Hour
  The period from the last decade of the 19th century to the end of the Second World War was that of the French hour. The main trend in the actual practice of comparison over this period was mostly associated with the study of sources and influences. Such studies basically focused on extra literary evidence related to influences and intermediaries. Although Paul Van Tieghem, one of the leading figures, included genres, themes, and styles in his taxonomy, it seemed that the study of influences was most stressed upon (Guillén, 1993, pp. 46, 94).
  One restriction imposed by the French criteria was the borderline set between general, comparative, and world literature. In this regard, comparative literature had to do with the study of two literatures whereas the general and world literatures respectively investigated one and several literatures. Among other features of the French comparative literature, the emphasis on original languages for the purpose of comparison must be taken into account. Criticizing this strict framework, Bassnett (1993, p. 139) noted that translation was denied not only as a discipline but also a practice. This could be associated with the strong sense of nationalism, which was later attacked by the American school in its enthusiasm for the universality of literature. Interestingly, the American practice of comparative literature also acknowledged the mastery of several languages as one of the requirements for a comparatist to meet so that the study of different literatures in original languages was facilitated.
  Prior to the more or less simultaneous practice of Russian formalism, British practical criticism, and American new criticism; literary criticism was mostly a study of extra literary facts such as historical and biographical background or the context rather than the text itself. Given this fact, the French hour with its interest in the study of sources and influences was naturally rooted in the major concern with literary history or the historical approach to literature.
  The American Hour
  In “The Crisis of Comparative Literature” in Concepts of Criticism (1963), Wellek proposed that a reconciliation of comparative studies with all the three major tasks of literary scholarship; literary history, theory, and criticism had to substitute the overt insistence of the French school on the study of literary history, factualism, and influences (1963, p. 292). The American challenge of the French hour could be depicted with respect to New Criticism on the one hand and the lack of national prejudice and old history on the other. In relation to the first point, Bassnett (1993, pp. 32, 35) asserted that American comparative studies was highly affected with what came to literary scene as New Criticism, a product of American critical theories itself inspired by Russian Formalism as well as Practical Criticism of the British I. A. Richards and his followers. Regarding the second point, Wellek (1963) stipulated that American comparative practice was less prone to symptoms of national literature elevation through comparative studies due to its lack of interest in cultural politics as well as its younger history, which left the nation with “less to boast about” (p. 289).
  Apart from advocating literary theory and internationalism, the American hour persuaded interdisciplinarity in the field and discouraged the French classifications of general, comparative, and world literature. In a 1961 collection of essays edited by Newton Stallknecht and Horst Frenz, Remak (1961, p. 13) set new standards for comparative literature rejecting most of the criteria of the French school in its classification of general and comparative studies. Such rejection was rationalized by Remak and other American comparatists on the ground that the categorization was more misleading than illuminating. Remak also introduced the notion of comparative study as being interdisciplinary in essence, which in turn allowed the comparison of literary works with other fields of art, science, and social science. He believed that it was not only by comparing literatures but also by its comparison with other artistic and ideological fields that “a better, more comprehensive understanding of literature as a whole” could be rejoiced (Remak, 1961, p. 8).
  Late in the 1980s and well through 1990s, the allure of the second phase began fading away in the face of new voices ardently questioning the dominance of canonical Western European literature. Despite the enthusiasm of the American school for the universality and internationalism of comparative studies, it appeared that the focus still remained fixed within a limited scope mainly ignoring African, Asian, and Latin American as well as East-European literatures.
  Studies Since Early 1990s
  As already mentioned, Koelb and Noakes included some articles in The Comparative Perspective on Literature: Approaches to Theory and Practice (1988), which particularly introduced new attitudes towards comparative studies. Two of the articles could be specifically taken as welcoming the new outlooks for comparative literature. In his contribution to the volume, Warnke (1988) emphasized the need for the inclusion of non-canonical and non-Western works in comparative studies. “The Comparatist Canon: Some Observations”introduced the problem of major Western literature being so centralized in comparative studies that “smaller”Western and non-Western cultures and literatures were almost totally taken for granted. Warnke (1988) discussed marginalization in relation to various causes such as the relative ignorance of most comparatists in other languages or the already established authority of certain celebrated writers as national canons, “intensely expressive of that culture” (p. 51). The solution, as he (1988) proposed it, was the “correction and expansion” of the canon of literary studies to take notice of the neglected national literatures and to include “the good, and the great figures from generally ignored smaller lit” (p. 55). In a rather similar vein, Wald Godzich took the cause of what he called Emergent Literature, referring to the literature of racial and ethnic minorities not fitting into“hegemonic” view of literature. In “Emergent Literature and the Field of Comparative Literature” (1988), he expressed that the inauguration of emergent literature rendered new practices more smoothly handled. In a need to break away from Euro-centred analyses in comparative studies, emergent literature was proposed as a potential point of departure towards reconsiderations of comparative theory, methodology, and practice(Godzich, 1988, p. 35).
  Since the last decade of the 20th century onwards critics such as Susan Bassnett and Emily Apter, among others, began giving strong credit to postcolonial and translation studies with respect to comparative literature. To Bassnett (1993), what brings comparative literature and postcolonial studies together is a common concern about “the problematic of language and national identity” (p. 76). She articulated that the sense of national identity of European—mainly French—comparatists, which was once challenged by American approach with universality and ahistoricism at the top of agenda, has again entered comparative studies through a very different perspective. It is now non-European nations who are enthusiastic for establishing a national identity through their literature, long kept at the bay by European theoreticians as “inferior” works. She (1993, p. 155) also ascribed the growing recognition of translation studies to the rise of postcolonialism.
  The Translation Zone: A New Comparative Literature (2006) by Apter mainly dealt with comparative studies through translation and postcolonial studies. Apter (2006) elaborated on her standpoint that “Translation theory and Comparative Literature have traditionally supported each other in arguing for enhanced conduits of linguistic and cultural exchange” (p. 86). The 2006 book publication of hers actually expanded “Comparative Exile: Competing Margins in the History of Comparative Literature” (1995), appearing a decade earlier in Bernheimer volume. In this paper, as well, she considered comparative literature as having its roots in the marginalized “other” and being indebted to postcolonial studies, which it seems to resist in its current white American status. She did not find it sufficient for comparative literature to move towards cultural studies in order to include the third world literatures.
  It therefore seems to be the ultimate act of bad faith on the part of traditional comparatists to resist Third World literature and postcolonial theory by pejoratively “othering” it as a “cultural studies” that pays no attention to literature in the original languages. (Apter, 1995, p. 87)
  The non-Western literature, however, has not been inclined to be solely transmitted and directed through postcolonial channels in more recent years. In the book volume of 2004 ACLA report, certain views did not observe the inclusion of non-Western literature in comparative studies to be necessarily reinforced under the auspices of postcolonial studies. In the editorial introduction, Saussy (2006) described Roland Greene’s article as one which conceived comparative study of “non-Western” literature to be illuminated through “colonial histories”, but studied “not on the basis of their ‘otherness’ to Europe” (p. xii).
  In the same book, ZHANG (2006) provided a uniquely Eastern viewpoint by making a noticeable argument in this relation. He asserted that comparative literature is still euro-centric in spite of good-hearted attempts of many comparatists. Even postcolonial studies, the way it is practiced, actually scrutinize the relation between the colonizer and the previous colonies. To ZHANG, there are still many good works of literature of the non-Western world which await analysis in terms of comparative studies. He cast doubt on the “exhaustion” of such sources by rhetorically asking: “Have the major works of literary traditions outside the West become as familiar to comparatists in Europe and North America as the old and new canonized writers in the West?” (ZHANG, 2006, p. 232).
   A Final Word
  Given the varying definitions and concerns throughout a two-century life span of comparative literature(better described currently as comparative critical studies stemming from literary roots), it may be recommendable not to expect a fixed theoretical frame as a discipline. Nowadays, comparative literature can be associated with any critique involving cross-cultural perspectives of extra literary (social, political, psychological, etc.) dimensions but hopefully with the centrality of literature, as once noted by Culler (2007).
   References
  Apter, S. E. (1995). Comparative exile: Competing margins in the history of comparative literature. In C. Bernheimer (Ed.), Comparative literature in the age of multiculturalism. Baltimore & London: The John Hopkins University Press.
  Apter, S. E. (2006). The translation zone: A new comparative literature. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  Bassnett, S. (1993). Comparative literature: A critical introduction. Oxford & Cambridge: Blackwell.
  Bernheimer, C. (1995). Comparative literature in the age of multiculturalism. Baltimore & London: The John Hopkins University Press.
  Brooks, P. (1995). Must we apologize?. In C. Bernheimer (Ed.), Comparative literature in the age of multiculturalism. Baltimore & London: The John Hopkins University Press.
  Culler, J. D. (2007). Comparative literature, at last. In J. D. Culler, The literary in theory. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
  Godzich, W. (1988). Emergent literature and the field of comparative literature. In C. Koelb & S. Noakes (Eds.), The comparative perspective on literature: Approaches to theory and practice. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.
  Greene, R. (1995). Their generation. In C. Bernheimer (Ed.), Comparative literature in the age of multiculturalism. Baltimore & London: The John Hopkins University Press.
  Guillén, C. (1993). The challenge of comparative literature. (C. Franzen Trans.). Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London Harvard University Press.
  Koelb, C., & Noakes, S. (1988). The comparative perspective on literature: Approaches to theory and practice. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.
  Remak, H. H. H. (1961). Comparative literature: Its definition and function. In P. Newton & H. F. Stallknechet (Eds.), Comparative literature: Method and perspective. Carbondale: Illinois University Press.
  Rorty, R. (2006). Looking back at “Literary theory”. In H. Saussy (Ed.), Comparative literarture in an age of globalization. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
  Saussy, H. (2006). Comparative literature in an age of globalization. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
  Warnke, F. J. (1988). The comparatist canon: Some observations. In C. Koelb & S. Noakes (Eds.), The comparative perspective on literature: Approaches to theory and practice. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.
  Wellek, R. (1963). Concepts of criticism. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
  ZHANG, L. X. (2006). Penser d’un dehors: Notes on the 2004 ACLA report. In H. Saussy (Ed.), Comparative literature in an age of globalization. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
  

其他文献
Enhanced Electrochemical and Physical Properties of Ag/AgCI Planar Reference Electrodesin Potentiometric Sensors by Graphite Oxide Layer
期刊
Synthesis of Core-Shell Nanoparticles of Cu-Ag for Application in Electrohydrodynamic Printing Technique
期刊
TiAIN/TiMoN Coatings as Hydrogen Barriers
期刊
Experiment of Removing Traces of Phosphorus in Water Using Bottom Sludge of lse-Bay
期刊
Phosphorus Recovery from Incinerated Ash of Sewage Sludge by Heat Treatment
期刊
The Development of a Fluorine Removal Agent Using Incinerated Ash
期刊
Synthesis of Amine Terminated Pegylated lron Oxide Nanoparticles for Prospective Astrocytoma Resection Grade Improvement
期刊
Cultural Characteristics of ldiomatic Expressions and Their Approaches of Translation
期刊
The Influence of Greek Literature and Culture in the Naim Frasheri's Poem“O Eros"
期刊
Applied Analysis of Social Criticism Theory on the Base of Russian Literary Works
期刊