Comparative Literature

Session II
The interliterary Theory
 Interliterary Theory
1. Durisin’s Interliterary theory explains the (inter)literary process
between national and world literature poles through intermediate
categories.
2. It critiques the conception of influence in comparative literature.
3. Influence means that a writer mechanically reproduces an element
from a previous work in a passive and one-sided way.
4. For Durišin, influence should be reimagined as reception, both
individually (for a writer creatively rewrites elements from previous
works) and systemically (for a writer’s attraction to specific works
from other literatures reveals something about the systemic status,
which is not a value issue, of both the sending and the receiving
systems).
 Interliterary Theory
1. Durisin's theory is a binary model of literary relationships.

2. This model consists of either genetic contact or typological

affinities which are the two paths of the interliterary process.

3. Durisin's specific contribution is twofold:

(i) a detailed classification of the similarities
(ii) an identification of sub-kinds according to the media or contexts
that explain such similarities
 Genetic Relationships
Genetic relationships name similarities that are due to a factual
contact between two works of distinct literatures. This contact may
be either external or internal:

1. External genetic relationships include references to literary works,

literary histories, and critical studies.

2. Internal contacts name the inclusion of an element (topic,

character, style, form, situation, etc.) from a work in another, either
“native” or “foreign.”
 Interliterary Theory
Direct internal contacts take place when the
writer reads the work in its original language,
whereas mediated internal contacts take
place through translation, interartistic
adaptation, or any other variety.
 Interliterary Reception
Durišin distinguishes two forms of interliterary
reception:
1. “integrating,” when identification of the
target-work with the source-element prevails.

2. “differentiating,” when the aim is to stress

distinction between the target-work and the
source-element.
 Integrational Reception
There are six kinds of integrational reception:
1. “Allusion” is a simple evocation of the source-work usually
“associated with well-known authoritative figures of world
literature”, ranging from direct quotation and paratextual mottoes
to paraphrase.
2. “Borrowing” is the inclusion of a topic, image, artistic device, etc.

1. “Imitation” has a deeper structural role, for the aim is to

introduce affinities with the source-work or genre so as to
promote the evolution of the literary system in a specific
direction.
 Integrational Reception
4. “Filiation” indicates borrowing or imitation in which ethnic
or other kinds of kinship also play a role.

5. “Plagiarism” implies that the interest lies almost exclusively

in the received phenomenon, which acquires a dominant role
in the process of reception.

6. “Adaptation” covers interlingual and intermedial

translation.
 Types of Differentiating Reception
As for differentiating reception, Durišin distinguishes three
kinds:

(i) literary controversy

(ii) parody
(iii) travesty

These three categories as strategies of differentiation, from a

lower to a higher degree, in relation to the source-work.
 Typological Affinities
Durišin distinguishes three categories:
1. Socio-typological affinities name similarities that are the
result of similar social situations.

2. Literary-typological affinities are literary similarities that

are not attributable to any kind of external influence.
3.
4. Psychological-typological affinities include literary
similarities that are due to similar authorial personalities.
 Interliterary Model
For Durišin, the interliterary process starts
with national literatures and proceeds from
them to world literature through a series of
intermediate stages
 The stages of the interliterary process
A. National literatures:
1. Oral literature of tribal society 2. City-state literature 3. Medieval ethnic literature
4. National literature 5. Modern ethnic literature

B. Interliterary stage :
• Interliterary communities: 1. Specific interliterary community 2. Standard
interliterary community
• Interliterary centrisms : 1. Central-European centrism 2. Northern European centrism
3.Southern European centrism

C. World literature:
1. Additive approach 2. Selective approach 3. Historical-literary approach
 National Literatures
Stages of Formation:

•Oral literature of tribal society

•City-state literature
•Medieval ethnic literature
•National literature
•Modern ethnic literature
 National Literature
1. National literatures as the minimal units of the interliterary process

2. National literatures are systemic self-descriptions, self-organizations

that discriminate what is systemic (“native”) from what is extra-systemic
(“foreign”). They assemble repertoires and works according to a specific
plan so that there may exist different plans that compete as to how a set
of works should qualify as national.

3. The word literature, meaning national literature, is a lexical-ideological

loan that expanded through the world in parallel to the nation-state. For
instance, the Arabic term adab was resemanticized with the Western
meaning of literature during the nineteenth century Nahda (Cultural
Renaissance)
 Intermediate Stage
Levels of Interliterary stage :

A. Interliterary communities:
1. Specific interliterary community 2. Standard interliterary
community

B. Interliterary centrisms :
1. Central-European centrism 2. Northern European centrism
3.Southern European centrism
 Intermediate Stage
Classes of Interliterary Community:

A . “Specific interliterary community” refers to the coexistence of

several literary systems whose level of integration is close to that of
national literatures.

B. “Standard interliterary community” refers to the coexistence of

national literatures whose interaction is the result of several factors,
such as ethnicity, geography ideology, or religion, but the outcome of
which is not a literary unity as homogeneous as that of a national
literature.
 Intermediate Stage
The second intermediate level is “literary centrisms,” which Durišin
defines:
1. Either as regional bodies larger than communities.

2. Or as communities that play a large-scale integrative role

Example: as may be observed in the “active centrisms within literary

life in Africa, Latin America and Asia, for instance”. The integration of
individual European communities within a higher body (European
literature) is a representative example of what Durišin would call
“European centrism.”
 World Literature
1. World literature is defined as the structured system of literary
phenomena that are either genetically or typologically related.
2. It is a changing phenomenon, for it changes from one period to
another, from one literature to another, and from one reader to
another.
3. The Three Approaches to World Literature:
A. The historical-literary
B. The additive approach, which defines world literature as the mere
sum of all literatures in the world.
C. The selective approach, which defines world literature as a set of
canonical masterpieces.