Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bassnett S. Comparative Literature. A Critical Introduction
Bassnett S. Comparative Literature. A Critical Introduction
.'1
l.,
-.
...
~-'.'
-<
1
,~~~-~~~~.~-~_._-.,,_._---
:::m::::;:;:~
Introduction
represents more than an aeademic discipline. Ir is an overall view oE
literature, of the world of leners, a humanistie ecology, a literary
Weltanschauung, a vision of the cultural universe, inclusive and
comprehensive7
/
~
~!
i'i
.""
Such c1aims go far beyond the methodological and shed sorne light
on quite why the debate on comparative literature should have been
so bitter. For Jost, like Gayley and others before him, are proposing
comparative literature as sorne kind of world rcligion. The underlying suggestion is thar all culmral differences disappear when
readers take up great works; an is seen as an instrumentof universal
harmony and the comparatist is one who facilitates the spread oi
that harmony. Moreover, the comparatist-musfpOssess speClal
skills; Wellek and Warren in their Theory of Literature, a book that
was enormously significant in comparative literature when ir first
appeared in 1949, suggest rhat:
Comparative Lrerature ... will make high demands on the
linguistic proficiencies of our seholars. Ir asks for a widening of
perspectives, a suppression oE local and provincial sentments , nor
easy te achieve. 8
,
\,
,'1"
........
fi"
.,
~
r"'------
'
~i
.-'.
...,.
'
provides the oasis for essays such as Zhang Long..'\[i's 'The Myrh of
the Other: China in me Eyes oE me Wesr' ~ in which ir is argued thar
'for the Wesr, China as a land in the Far East becomes traditionally
the image oE the ultimate Orher' Y The challenge posed by nonEuropean critics to the colonizing nations' systematic process of
'inventing' orher cultures has put ideology firmly back on the agenda
ofliterary studies.
A European or Nonh American literature syllabus could, umil
faidy recendy,.concern itself primarily with an established canon of
great writers. Bur a sylIabus devised in a non-European culture,
particularly in one which underwent a period of colonization by a
Wesrern power, has ro rackle completely different ssues. Hence the
vexed question of Shakespeare in India, for example, a cano ni cal
writer hailed in the nineteemh century as the epitome of English
greatness. lndian studems have the problem rherefore of dealing
wim Shakespeare nor only as a great figure in European literature,
but also as a representative of colonial values: two Shakespeares, in
effect, and in conflict with one anorher. One way of tackling this
problem is ro treat Shakespeare comparatively, to srudl' the advent
of Shakespeare in lndian culturallife and to compare his work with
thar of lodilln writers .
The growth of national consciousness and awareness of the need
to move bel'ond the coloillal legacy has led significamly ro the
! development of comparative literature in many parts of the world,
even as thesubjecremers a periodofcrisis and decay in the West. The
, way in which comparative literature is used, in places such as China,
Brazil, India or many African nations, is constructive in thar ir is
employed toexplore both indigenous traditions and imported (01'
imposed) traditions, throwing open the whole;'$~S;~::Rroblem oi the" .
canon. There is no sense of crisis in this form of comparative
literature, no quibbling abour the terms froro which ro start comparing, beca use those terms are aIready laid down. What is being
studied is the way in which national culture has been affected by
importation, and rhe focus is that national culture. Ganesh Devy's
argument that compararive literarme in India coincides with the
rise of modern lndian nationalism is important, because it serves
. to remind us of the origins of rhe terrn 'Comparative Literature' in
Europe, a term thar first appeared in an age of national struggles,
when new boundaries were being erected and the whole quesrion
of national culture and national identity was under discussion
~~~~.-
--_---==-.::-.=o:=-o------=----
r'.""'~."""'.".'.'.'.''''.''
, h . , , ' ..M
.,~-
,., ....,
""
. . ,
(subtitled: Theory andPractice n Post-Colonial Literarures) inelude rhe following phrases: 'the rerm "post-colonial" ... ismost
appropriate as thecerm far the new cross-cultural criticism which
has merged in recent years and for-the diseourse through -which
rhis is consrituted.'l1lWhat is this butcomparatiyeliterarul'e under
another name?
Another 'J.'apidly,expanding, development in"lkerarysrudies,tld
one whiehhas profound implieations far the future ofcamparative
literature, is 'transIaton srudies'. Since the ear!y -usage of this term
inthe';mid~'19qOs,the'sub}ect 'has,tieveloped-'to "'sucrr'211"'eXtent
(through publishing, conferences, the establishment of. Chairs in
universities, :research programmes, etc.)that rbere aremany now
who consider it robe a discipline in ies own righr. What-dlstinguishes
translatan studies fram translarian as'traditionaliyrhought of,is its
derivaton from rhe polysystems theory developed by ltamar EyanZohar and later by Gideon Toury inTel Aviv. 19 Translaton studies
wiH bediscussedm rnoredetaillarer' inrh1S book;'but essentiallythe
key ro its rapid expansion and suecessful entry into literary studies
lies in its emphasis an lirerature as a differentiated and dynamic
'conglomerare of systems', characterized by,internal oppositions
and dynamic:.shifrs. This norion of literature asa polysystemsees
individuaIliterary syscems as pan oE a mult~faceted whole, thereby
changing rhe terms of rhe debates a'bout 'majority' and :minority'
cultures,' a bOll t:grea t' literaturesand ,'margin<ll',: litera tures:Moreover, rransIaron studies derives from work in Iinguistics,literafo/
study, history, anthropology, psychology,sociolagy ancl ethnblogy
among others, and posits the rad.cal proposition rhar transIatiol1cis
not a marginal activitybut has been and continues to be a major
shaping force for change in the historyof culture. Comparative
literature hastradirionally claimed translation as a sub-category,
buuhis,assumption, is: now being quesrioned ..Jheworkofscholars
such as Toury, Lefeyere,Hermans, Lambert and rnaqyorher-s has
shown rhar transIaron 'is especial1y significanr ,ar mpmenrs of
gres t ,cultur>ulchange. Ev:an 7Z0 har argues; ha t,extensi v:e;tr,anslarian actvity takes place when a culture 1S in a periad of rransition: when ir is expanding, when ir needs'renewal, ""hentt is in a
pre-revolurionary phase, chen rranslation 'pla,ys a vital, parto In
contrasr, when a culture is solidly esrabIished, when ir is in an
imperialisr: stage, when it believes itself robe dominant, ,then
transl.arion isless important. .Thisview,:explains 'why, ,in simple
f:
1
How Comparative Literature Carne
into Being
!
'"
/'
Whar Byron couid see, of course, was thedoserelationship between national identity and cultural inheritance,and he was
shrewd enough to recognize rhar a nation( or series of srnall states,
as Italy then was) engaged in struggles for independence }ealousLy
guarded its literar)" heritage against all corners. Thenne line-between influence perceived as borrow~ng and influence;perceived as
apPl'oprirttlon-ortheftwas very muh a m:Htero'E'perspectlve.
In an essay discussingthe role played by translated literature in
che Czech literary- revival of the first halE of the nineteenth century,
V!adimr Macuta-Stresses'the politicsoftranSlation,_-snce'trartsladon has always-played such a key role in patterns ofinfluen~e.5-He
cites Josef Jungmann, revolutionary scholar and patriot, who daimed
in 1846 thar 'in the language is Our nationality'. Jungrnann saw
transIaton as a -significant part o'f tne development of the mew Czech
literarure, and argued thar the point of origin of aren was less
importanr than whar happened ro rhat textinthe process oE
cransl-ation.-In ]ungmannls viSTan, 'transkItion- rntb':Czehwas;a
process o enhancemenr, a means of extendi-ng the range oE the
language and of the emergem lirerature. Clearly for 11 cultut;e
searching for its roors or for a culture struggling-for its independence
from forelgn occuparion, che question of influences was a heavilycharged one and by no means innocent.
In general rerms, ir is possible ro see the-late eighteenth and early
",nineteenth"centuriesasa tlmeor mrnense,iliterary'turmo-throughout Europe, asissues oE nationality increasingly-appeared liriRed to
cultural developmems. Nations engaged in a struggle for independence were also el1gaged JO a srrug-glefor cultural1:oot~, for a national
culrure and for a ,past_ The need to establish antecedents~-becarne
viral; emergent nations had to establish a tradition and a canon, and
probably the most extraordinary example of the searchfor roots-is
'1:he.case-of the,- feH:gt:d mediawll,:man uscripts'discovered \-byNacla v
Hanka. In 1817-18, Hanka and" his col1eagues announced their
discovery of unique manuscripts in Old Czech from rhe ninth, teneh
andthirteenth .cenruries, e:videl1ce thar pcoved -aondusivdy char
there had been agolden age of C;z;ech poetry ata time when the rest
Qf Europe was still srrugg1ing with the deca-yed epic formo Later, it
was revealed rhar rhe-manuscriprs were fraud_ulenr, but by then suh
a powerfulimpulse had beengiven to Czech literature that ,this
exposure barely mattered. AIrer centunes of repression, Czech had
been seenro be'a maiorEuropeanlanguage, with:acpresent;attd"a
J'
:l!
me
---------~.-~------
~------"
,j
,
\
,;;.,
~.
7'
\\
fe-
.1
'.
'.,
~!,
.j
'H
'1,
,t
The rerro 'comparative literature' appeared in an age of transirion. In Europe, as nations struggled for independenee - from
the Otroman Empire, from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, from
Franee, from Russia - and new nation sta res carne imo being,
narional identiry (wharever rhar was) was inextricably bound up
with national culture (however that was defined). Later comparatists
may have chosen to ignore rhe heared political context in whch rhe
first staternenrs about eompararive literature were made, but ir is
striking to note rhar even whilsr ideas of universalliterary roots were
being discussed, aJong with ideas a bout rhe spirit or sou] oE a narion,
comparisons were being made that involved evaluating one culture
higher than another. 'France is the most sensitiveof allcountries ...
what Europe is to the world, F!ance is ro Europe./.saidPhilarere
Chasles in his 1835 speech to the Athne,addingalso that he had
'complete contempt fornarrow-mindedandblind patriorism',u
This double vision enabled hini tomake daims for the unbiased
narure of comparative literature, whilst simultaneousJy proclaiming
French superiority.
Lord Macaulay's attitude when he consigned Indian and Arabian
literatures to the scrapheap was not unlike Chasles', for he too had
an absolute be1ief in the superioriry of his own culture. Both were
products of the Europe oftheir time, recognizing the inter-relatedness
of European literary systems and what Chasles termed 'the part of
other nations in the grand civilizing movernent', bur perceiving that
"'ti,
... ..:...,.,
~"'~-
~~
:'~
j"
mld-nineteenrh century onwards should ha ve been almost obsessively concerned with defining their subject. Ulrieh Weisstein says
that eirher Jean-Jacques Ampere, author of Histoire de la littrature
franr;aiseau moyen age compare:aux littratures trangeres (1841)
or AbelFran<;ois Villemain, author oE Tableau de 'la littrature au
moyen age en France, en Italie, en Espagne -et-en Angleterre(2
vols, 1830) 'mustbe.regardedas rhe trueJatheroJasysten.atically
eonceived Comparative Literature.in France - or anywhere, forthat
matter'.13 Coneeiving sysr:ematieallysomeihing that ~ad comeinto
. beingso, looselY'wasnoeasyc matter .WhatVillemain ande Am pere
did was to write what could be describedas histories of literatures,
showing patterns of eonneetion and irifluence.lt was, not un!ll
lacer in the eentury that Chairs oE Compararive literature were
esrablished, andthe 'subjeet acquired .academic status. The flFst
Chair was set up in Lyonin 1897and subsequently other Cha-irs
appeared in Franee. French comparativeliterature dominated rhe
fidd"wlth other.European c0umries'ffiuch slower:in'<establishing
Chairs. In the Umted Scates, however, Charles Chauncey ShackweU
taught a course In ~general or comparativeliterature' at CorneE
from 1871 onwards, and Charles Mills Gayley taughr compararive lirerary ccicism ar che UniversltTof Michigan from 1887, while
che flrsr Chairin the subject \Vas established at Harvardin 1890.
Indeed, It is nche last two decades of rhe nineceenrh century thar
'Comparan ve' Literacure began to be esrabEshed internationaUy"for
in addition co che subject being taughe in institutions 6f higher
educaran in Europe and che Unted Staces"Hutcheson -Maaley
POSflett, Professor of Classics and ,Eng1ish Literature~t Universit-y
College, Auckland, New-~ealand, published a full-Iength srudy of
the subjet, entided Comparative Liter~turein 1886, andtwo
journals were founded in Europe. The.first, sec upin 1879by,Hugo
.Meltzl.de.,Lomnir-z,:il.,German,speakingscholar:fromCluj.in.,w.hat
is now Rumania, was a multilingualpublication, entitled Acta
comparationislittera7'um u.niversar.um. This -w.asfullowed by. two
,periodicals .edited by: ,che GermanscholrMax'iKch, Zeitschrift
frvergleichende L.iteraturgeschichte (1-887-.1910) and Studienzur
vergleichenden Literaturgesch.ich'te (1901-1909).
Throughoutthe,nineteenrh century; use of che rerm 'compararive
Licerature' wasflexble. SelE-s;y!ed comparatists followed theprinciple outlined by.Humpty Dumpty, who pointsout co Alice thar
'when;heuses.aword;!ir:meansjusr'whaflchoose,ino''ffieanneirher
:
"".
_'Jt"
~~~
=="--,,-,,,,,c=..~~
__ , ."._., __.._
more nor less', though they certainly did 'not foilow his secon
p-rinciple, whieh was that whenever he useda word a lot he alway
paid it e:x:tra. The .rerm 'comparative literarure' drifted into use i
.severaHanguages, meaning wbarever anyone chose itto mean.
Early-French studies, such.as che warks-by Ampereand Villemai
noted bove, focused ol). ~the MiddJe Ages, on that,'moment in -th
"deve16pment'fEutopean -cuLtural systems when linguistic bound
aries w-ere 'only looselydrawn and national 'boundaries were no
_,deflned aul1; wli'en rhere was free traffic-between scholarsand poet
'Dante/hailed<as fatherof the Italan language,did, fter aH, prais
the'Proven<;al pet Arnaut Daniel as as his master, granting him m
supremehonour of allowing him to -speak in his native language i
-Canto XXIV of Purgatorio, and thereby demonstratngthat poetr
asheeonceived it wasnot'tied to native language or culture. Th
Middle A,ges offered a rieh neld of study for compar:atists, beca us
wben they turned toa period of European histQry that was s
,eomplet"ely:diiferenr, they couldset asideche vexed questions oE :he
own day, the bitteranmosities that sooften-led to-the shedding,o
blood and which were caused by the drawing oHrontiers a-ccordin
to poltical rather than geographical orethnographical critera. Y
later French comparatisrs questioned the legtimacy of studYlng th
Middle Ages, arguing that only post-medieval literatme was th
proper.provinceof eomparative-enquiry. The influential crid~ Pau
Van Tieghem pwdaimed in 1931 ,that:
.::.:.
::
~-
~;-
Attempts at Definition
-----iItI---------
This (the fair)'-tale, myth, legend etc.) i5 folklore and nor literary
history; for the latter is the hisrory of the human mind viewed
through the an of writing. In rhis subdivision of rhemarology, however, one considers onl)' the subjecr matter, its passage from one
counrry tO another, and its modifications. AH plays no pan
in these anonymous tradltions wnose narure itis ro remain
impersonal. 17
l'
.-
',i
B
'
'0'';''
.. \
. . ~:i~
~
'<l
.:;
'\'1
\~
Ren Wellek was writing over a quarrer of a century ago, but his
essay can be read tOda)' as prophetic. When he accused Van Tieghem
and the French group of restricting the scope of comparative
llterarure, of fosrenng a blmkered approach thar led nowhere
except !ilW a series of blind alleys, each bearing rhe names of rwo
possibly obscure writers working in two differenr languages, he
pOlnred out thar such an approach could have obvious consequences. In facr, what happened was thar subsequent generatlons
of younger scholars rurned away from a subjecr rhar appeared to be
antJquate and lrrelevant, and, as has already been suggested in the
Inrroductlon, [he number of iterary theorencians has expanded
whilsr [he number of comparatists has contracted. There is no place
in the post-modermsr world for a subject rhar continues ro quibble
abom whether Yeats should be considered Irish or English and
wherher a srudy on the impact of Ibsen on modernist drama can be
properly termed 'comparative' or 'general' literature.
The rime has come, as Ren Wellek and Harry Levin were saying
long ago, to abandon rhe old, unnecessary disrinctions and ro see
them for whar they were, as the products of a particular age and a
particular cultural conrext. In rhe next chaprer, we shall consider
an alrernanve perspectlve on compararive literature, a1so nor
withour )ts failmgs, but which can at Jeast be conrrasted wirh
rhe binary approach - rhe developmenr of comparative iterarure
ourside Europe.
1\ """",~j
_,o ~ ~~o.~~~. __ __ ~ ... ~ =~"-=-:~.-:"-::;~_=.
__~~_~.~~_~~_-_=-=~.=~'6~