Any new theory or concept is needed to be defined, debated and argued and comparative literature,

newly sprung term by which literature is called comparative. Instead of the word literature, do we
need to recognize first word comparative? During defining it, do we require its history and how it
came into being? Where is to give opinions is it full of arguments and questions, regarding the term
comparative literature. These questions are thrown more light on itself in Sussan Bessnet’s two
important essays about the definition of comparative literature and its history.

What American comparative literature association accents on is the study of texts across the
cultures. They deem literature as a study of interdisciplinary that is delimited across the universal
literature. S. Bessnet quotes them,

“…it is concerned with patterns of

connection in literature across both

time and space.”

Giving more clarification to this, different literatures contain variations in their time and space. Then
even literatures contain a kind of connection. It can be found by not contrasting but by bringing
something common and finding similarities among them. Now the question is aroused about authors
or poets, should comparatist compare author? Because they are different by their writing, using
structures, natures, attitudes and so many things. So what I am an opinion that authors are the
representatives of the ages. So they use different features in reflecting the literary tendencies of the
eras. But how they apply these is to be compared. Connections lie in them also, what Matthew
Arnold views in his inaugural lecture in Oxford is 1857,

“Everywhere there is connection, everywhere

there is illustration. No single event, no single

literature is adequately comprehended except

in relation to other events, to other literatures.”

Right from Chaucer to the age of 21th century there is a law of connectivity. When read sonnets of
Spenser, Shakespeare or Wyatt and Surrey why do we remind the sonnets of Petrarch? Why does an
image of Gandhiji come in our faculty of mind when we read the novels of R.K. Narayan? Why do we
associate Dr. Faustus by Christopher Marlowe with Frankenstein by Marrey Shelley though there is a
difference in using form of the novel and drama? Tendency of relating one phenomenon to another
one is a crucial feature of human being and perchance it might have given momentum to the rise of
Comparative Literature. Goethe gave the term Weltliterature (world literature) with an important
say by,
“It is becoming more and more obvious to

me, that poetry is becoming common

property of all mankind."

So becoming a common to all is real meaning of comparative literature. Translation becomes an

inevitable part of common sense of comparative literature; this is what S. Bessnet stresses on.
Comparative literature requires the parameters, purposes and relation of texts, Rene Wellek defines
these in The Crisis Of Comparative Literature in 1963.

Benedetto Croce argues that comparative study is not a subject, contemptuously dismissing the
suggestion that means a separate entity from other phenomena. He considers comparative
literature as a exploration of the vicissitudes, alterations, developments and reciprocal differences.
By saying this he means comparative studies stands for differentiating texts across the cultures as
well as religion, society, etc. He limits comparative studies as only researches but not beyond it.
Instead of saying comparative literature as a study of different texts or other arts, he emphasizes on
comparative literature as a study of literary history. Not only that but also as a obfuscatory means
something less clear and much harder. While founder of North American Comparative Literature,
Charles Mills Gayley does not believe in what Croce believes in. he argues,

“Literature as a distinct and integral medium

of thought, a common institutional expression

of humanity….”

At the same time, Francois Jost considers ‘national literature cannot constitute an intelligible field of
study because of its arbitrarily limited perspective’, he emphatically stresses on comparative
literature as an academic discipline and overall view of literature, a vision of the cultural universe,
inclusive and comprehensive. To simplify this comparative literature, one leads to believe that more
than one literature juxtaposes and it removes cultural differences and becomes one culture. It
becomes an instrument of universal harmony.

Later on, Sussan Bessnet mentions about Wellek and Warren and their collaborated culmination in
literature. They write on Theory Of Literature in 1949 in which they favor special skills, they
emphatically say about linguistic proficiencies. According to them literature is one. They always put
literature with art, culture, society, psychology, biography and so on and so forth. Interestingly Harry
Levin in 1929 is of an opinion that comparative literature should be more practical and not to go for
theory. He gives more positive idea regarding practical comparison and argues,
“We spend for too much of our energy

talking…..about comparative literature

and not enough of comparing the

literature.”

But gradually, his idea was out of date because of new arrival of women’s studies, semiotics, film
and media studies and cultural studies. Further, Sussan Bessnet mentions Ganesh Devy’s opinion
regarding comparative studies in India and finds that comparative literature is directly linked to the
rise of modern Indian Nationalism, noting that comparative literature has been ‘used to assert the
national cultural identity; different states of India become one nation and one identity . Sussan
Bessnet, eventually, comes to another point how western literature and Indian literature are looked.
West thinks in ‘terms of great literature’ whereas Indian perspective is startling one. Homi Bhabha
says about her effective cross-cutting across sites of social significance.

Evidently idea of comparative literature changes according to where it is taking place. American
school of comparative literature may not think what Indian school of comparative literature thinks.
African, Indian, Caribbean critics question western literary criticism. Terry Eagleton, considers
comparative literature as an ideology with reference to English academies because he believes that
establishment of comparative literature is having a purpose of clear political implication. What to
include and exclude from English syllabus was the problem. Because the time was the First World
War. Edward Said, pioneer of the notion ‘Orientalism’ gives new way in the panorama of
comparative literature. He means by orient as association, a wide field of meaning and connotation
or the field surrounding the world.

The growth of national consciousness and awareness of the need similarly reminds W.A. Cuddon, a
critic in literary terms and literary theories, he comments,

Comparative literature means, “the examination and

analysis of the relationship and similarities of

the literature of different peoples and nations.

Cuddon’s opinion about relationship has connectivity with what Matthew Arnold says about
‘connection’ that ultimately difference does not remain difference but it becomes a similarity
between two nations. It breaks the different canons of national literature and leads us to think over
growth of national consciousness. Comparatist does not remain bound by limited canons of judging
literature but he goes beyond national and international literature. It breaks colonial legacy and
enters the world literature. Ganesh Devy’s argument about modern Indian nationalism reminds its
origin in Europe, an age of national struggle. The term employed to explore both indigenous
traditions and imported tradition, throwing open the whole vexed problem of the canon. This
awareness of the need to move beyond the colonial legacy can be considered as a new dimension in
comparative literature to compare the literature of the universe. This can be said a fresh step to
develop and grow the roots of comparative literature. ‘Translation studies’ was a profound spark in
rapidly expanding development in comparative studies. This was developed by Evan-Zohar and later
by Gieon Teury. Translation studies, with the bases of linguistics, literary study,, history,
anthropology, psychology, sociology and anthology.

Translation is always in fluctuation because it is continues to be a major shaping force for changing
the history of culture. Now the question is arising in deeming translation as a sub-category by Toury,
Lambert, etc. Evan-Zohar stresses on the process of translation with the process of development of
the age. He says,

“Extensive translation;when it is expanding,

when a culture is in a period of transition,

when it is expanding, when it needs renewal

when it is in a pre-revolutionary phase, then

a translation plays vital part.”

So the question may be aroused, does translation define comparative literature or vice versa? But a
culture is solidly established when it is an imperialist stage and when it looks like dominant then
when is valued more culture or translation or comparative literature. On other side, ‘translation
studies’ is a subject based in inter-cultural studies that observes not culture but cultures. One can
doubt that translation itself requires comparison. Translation does not translate only text but
compare also. At the same time comparatist does not compare texts but he translates the idea with
reference to other. If he wants to compare one English novel and other Latin novel, he has to read
and study the translation of Latin novel in English. So the idea of sub-category may not be rendered.
Translation, comparison and cultural studies can be applied only when nation, culture and literature
are in flux.

Sussan Bessnet’s essay is on the history of comparative literature. For that he gives importance to
the word ‘influence’ in growth of comparative literature in ‘Course De Literature Compare’ in 1816.
Czech Macura stresses on the politics of Translation. It always influences the progress of
comparative literature. Josef Jungmann supports him. He says, ‘Language is our nationality’. In the
development of Czech literature he found out that the origin of a text was less important than what
happened to that text in process of translation. What School Of American Comparative Studies on
process of translation. He was of opinion that translator translates one text into another language
and by doing this; he enchants and extends the range of the language and of the emergence
literature.
Europe became an age of immense literary turmoil because of the issue of nationality. It was linked
to cultural development. Independence was an ultimate goal-literature was to be canonized and
established new tradition. Hanka and his colleagues came with the discovery of unique manuscript in
old Crech and considered it as a golden age of Crech poetry but later on, it was rendered as
fraudulent but again it became a major European language.

The publication of ‘History Of Bohemia’, three volumes of Slavonic National Songs English Poetry in
1765 by Hohannes Ewald, the great Danish poet, published a significant collection based on ancient
sages and medieval ballads in 1771, ‘Fairy Tales’ appeared in 1812-13 by Wilhelm Grimm developed
literary history, philosophy, archeology and political history. Rousseau talked about the collective
personality of nationhood. These were the steps toward the existence of comparative literature.

The impact of Ossian, a Goelic epic by the ancient Irish bard, was a source of ‘Fingal’ (a translation).
He went on to ‘translate’ other epic. Frederic lolliee described Ossian later, in ‘A Short History Of
Comparative From The Eariest Times To The Present Day(1906). Translation of Ossian by
Mecpherson became a standpoint for discussion and it became best and popular in literary history.

Cultural Colonialism was also a form of comparative literature. But it was evaluated negatively in
comparison. The term ‘comparative literature’ appeared in an age of transition. ‘France is the most
sensitive of all countries….what Europe is to the world, France is to Europe’, said Philarete Chaslels in
his 1835 speech to the Athenee. ‘Comparative’ literature carried with a sense of transcendence of
the narrowly nationalistic. It was used for peace in Europe and for harmony between nations. It
turns out to be an antidote to nationalism.

The very first time, Able Francois Villemain, author of ‘Tableau De La Literature Aumoyen Age An
France, An Italie, En Espagne Et En Angleterre’ can be regarded as the true father of a systematically
conceived comparative literature in France, Charlse Chauncey Shockwell taught a course in ‘general
or comparative literature’ at Cornell from 1871 onwards. Hutcheson Macauley Posnett, Professor of
classics and English literature at university college, Auckland, New Zealand, published a full length of
the subject, entitled ‘Comparative Literature.’

Humpty Dumpty looks comparative literature as flexible by saying, ‘I mean just what I choose it to
mean neither more nor less’. Comparative literature was taken by all in several languages, meaning
whatever anyone chose it to go on. Dante, hailed as father of the Italian language. Now till Middle
Age comparative literature was being shaped and modified then defined.

France and German School of comparative studies became as the twin giant. The France’s
perspective was to study of cultural transfer whereas Germany was striving towards a political
centre and in search of Ferdinand Brunetiere was,
“…we establish ourselves only in opposing: we

Are defined only by comparing ourselves to

other, and we do not know oourselves when

we know ourselves.”

This can be looked in literature’s perspective one text is known b another. If it is not, then it cannot
be called text but just a book. Opposing and comparing are two bonds between literatures. Common
comparatist were not interested in exploring the literature but in fining ‘roots’ and ‘spirit’ of a
nation. They were less comparatists what Brunetiere says.

In an opposite direction De Lomnitz was concerned for multilingualism. He gave voice to minority
languages and literature. But he could not make impact fully an development of comparative
literature. But the same time his argument regarding a revolution of literary history, translation as an
art, and political or philology. He attacked on Chauvinism of comparative literature. He says,

“It can be denied that the so-called world literature

is generally misunderstood. For today, every nation

demands its own ‘world literature’ without quite

knowing what is meant by it.”

Last effort can be of Paul Van Tieghem who endeavored to solve the problem of the term by setting
up distinction between ‘comparative literature’, ’general literature’ and ‘world literature’.
Comparative literature should involve the study of two elements; general literature should involve
the study of several literatures. At the same time, world literature should involve the study of the
text across the culture what Sussan writes in the definition of comparative literature.

The history of comparative literature is so deep that the more we dig it out, the more it goes deep
down. The present of comparative literature is so complex that the more we clarify it, the more it
becomes like a cob-web. Sussan Bessnet has given the outline if comparative literature and its
development in literature.

“Comparative Literature”, this is extremely confused word, because different critics have their
various views regarding this word. Many writers have defined this term by giving their own views. In
simple words, we can say that comparative Literature involves the study of texts across cultures,
that it is interdisciplinary. We can take one text to compare with another one. By doing that, we can
get the idea which is the best text or unique text? We set particular parameters to know which text
is unique. That is called comparative Literature. It is an area of exploration from where we can get a
lot of information about the different literatures.
          Susan Bassnett says that most of the people do not start with comparative literature but they
end up with it in some way or other. Generally, we, first start reading the text and then we arrive at
comparison. I mean to say, we start comparing that text with another that has similarities and
dissimilarities. Comparative Literature emerged in 19 th century. Comparative Literature is different
from national literature, general literature and world literature. It was begun as “Literature
Compare” in 1860 in Germany. And Comparative literature got recognition as a study in 1897. In
1848, Matthew Arnold had used this term “Comparative Literature “for the first time in English. He
defines this term. He says...

“Everywhere there is connection. Everywhere there is illustration. No single event, no single

literature is adequately comprehended except in relation to other events, to other literatures.”

          Generally, when we, come across a new text, by reading that text, we always try to relate or to
compare with another one. That is human nature. We compare both texts’ ideas with each other.
That’s why Arnold has written in the beginning of the definition of Comparative literature that
“Everywhere there is connection.” The Comparatists always tries to find that similar connection
between two texts, cultures, literatures etc.

          Goethe gave the term “World Literature (Weltliteratur) to Comparative literature because by
comparing the, the comparatists compare one literature to another one. In a way, comparative
literature removes the all borders and brings nearer to all literatures and spread harmony. What is
common in different literature? That is the main function of the comparative literature.

          What is the object of study in comparative literature? How can comparison be the object of
anything? If individual literatures have a canon what might a comparative canon be? How does the
comparative select what to compare? Is comparative literature a discipline? Or is it simply a field of
study? All these questions can be raised. Rene Wellek defined as “the crisis of comparative
literature.”

          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 difference” of themes and literary ideas across literatures, and concluded that ‘there is no
study more arise than research of this sort. This kind of work, Croce maintained, is to be classified, in
the category of erudition purely and simply. Instead of something called comparative literature, he
suggested that the proper object of study should be literary history:

“ the comparative history of literature is history understood in its true sense a s    complete
explanation of the literary work, encompassed in all its relationships, disposed in the composite
whole of universal literary history (where else could it ever be placed ?), seen in those connections
and preparations that are its raison d’être.”
           Croce’s argument was that the term “Comparative Literature” was obfuscator, disguising the
obvious, that is, the fact that the true object of study was literary history. Here, we can see Croce’s
different views regarding comparative literature that he is against towards the concept of
comparative literature. This shows various comparative literatures. All cultural differences disappear
when readers take up great works; art is seen as an instrument of universal harmony and the
comparatists is one who facilitates the spread of that harmony. Moreover, the corporatist must
possess special skills; Wellek and Warren in their “Theory of Literature “ a book that was enormously
significant in Comparative literature when it first appeared in 1949, suggest that:

“Comparative Literature... will make high demands on type linguistic proficiencies of our scholars.
It asks for a widening of perspectives, a suppression of local and provincial sentiments, not easy to
achieve.”

           In other words, if we say what qualities the comparatists should have, we can say that first, he
should be polyglot. He should have a literary taste. He should also be good reader and critic. He
should have the sense of present and past-along with historical background. He should have the
knowledge of different cultures. He should have the special skills to grasp the idea about
comparison. By doing the comparison, he should spread harmony.

          When Western comparatists had sought to deny: the specificity of national literatures, Swapan
Majumdar puts it:

“It is because of this prediction for National Literature- much developed by the Anglo-American
critics as a methodology- that comparative Literature has struck roots in the Third World nations
and in India in particular.”

           India is a Third World country and also multi-lingual, multi-communal, multi-racial, multi-
religion, multi-historical, multi-cultural and multi-literary phenomenon, so in India, comparative
literature has large scope. I India, different states have their various languages and literatures so by
comparison, comparatists can explore lots of literatures in India. This is all about the views of
different critics regarding comparative literature.

Now, “Translation Studies” this prominent has raised the confusion that a translation study is a part
of comparative literature or comparative literature is a part of translation studies. This thing still
confuses the critics. Comparative literature has traditionally claimed translations as a sub-category,
but this assumption is now being questioned. The works of scholars such as Toury, Lefeverre,
Hermans, Lambert and many others have shown that translation is especially significant at moments
of great cultural change. Evn Zohar argues that extensive translation activity takes place when a
culture is in a period of transition: when it is expanding, when it needs renewal, when it is in a pre-
revolutionary phase, then translation plays a vital part. In contrast, when a culture is solidly
established, when it is in an imperialist stage, when it believes itself to be dominant then translation
is less important. Here, we can see that translation in positive and Negative light in the words of
Evan Zohar. As English became the little need to translate, hence the relative poverty of twentieth-
century translation into English compared with the proliferation of translation in many other
languages.

            Translation studies became necessary for linguistics to rethink its relationship with semiotics,
so the time is approaching for comparative literature to rethink its relationship with Translation
studies semiotics was at first regarded as a sub-category of linguistic, and only later did it become
clear that the reverse was the case, and linguistics was in effect a brand of the wider discipline,
semiotics. Comparative literature has always claimed translation as a sub-category, but as
translation studies established itself firmly as a subject based in inter-cultural study and offering a
methodology of some vigor, both in terms of theoretical and descriptive work, so, comparative
literature appears less like a branch of something else. This is how the translation studies connect
with the comparative literature.

          Now, let us see, how comparative literature came into being. If we talk about its origin, there is
general agreement that comparative literature acquired its name from a serious of technique of
literature, published in 1816 and entitled “Cours de litterature Comparee”. In an essay discussing the
origins of the title was ‘unused and unexplained but he also show how the term seems to have crept
into use through the 1820s and 1830s in France. He suggests that the German version of the term,
vergleichende Literature geschichte, first appeared in a book by Moriz Carriere in 1854, as we saw
abed that the earliest English usage is attributed to Matthew Arnold, who referred to “Comparative
literatures” in the plural in a letter of 1848. Byron could see the close relationship between national
identity and cultural inheritance. In general terms, it is possible to see the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries as a time of immense literary turmoil throughout Europe, as issues of
nationality increasingly appeared linked to cultural developments. Nations engaged in a struggle for
independence were also engaged in a struggle for cultural roots, for a national culture and for a past.

          Literary developments in the New World reflected a new order. In complete contrast is the
attitude of a colonial power to the literature produced by people under its domination, and probably
the most extreme example of this philistine vision is the (in) famous comment by Macaulay, who, in
1835, stated that:

“I have never found one among them (orientalists) who could deny that a single shelf of a good
European library was worth the whole native late of India and Arabia. I have certainly never met
with any orientalist who ventured to maintain that the Arabic and Sanskrit poetry could be
compared to that of the great European nations.”

          Before being as a study, comparative literature had to pass through many debates and
controversy. But as we saw ahead comparative literature got recognition as a study in 1897.