The Theory of Comparative Literature
Dr. J. PARTHASARATHI
Director,
The title “theory” of comparative literature
may appear somewhat mystifying. “Theory” here is a term now popularised by
American usage for the older one of “principles.” Theory and practice go
hand-in-hand and derive mutual reinforcement in any branch of knowledge–the
sciences or the humanities.
Comparative literature studies have become a
respectable academic discipline today; courses are offered in European,
American and Indian universities as well, based on literatures of two languages
in original and other texts in translation. There is also a spurt of research
dissertations with a comparative orientation in our universities. To name a few
at random: Walt Whitman and Subramania Bharati, Shelley and Bharatidasan,
Dostoevsky and Conrad, Ramayana and Paradise Lost, the tragic
vision of Ilango and Shakespeare, Valluvar and Kabir, Riti literature in Hindi
and Sangam literature in Tamil, Meera and Andal, etc. It will be seen that the
comparisons extend over distant parts of the world or areas of the Indian
sub-continent. The questions that we may now, ask are: what is the background
of this new upsurge of interest in this field and what is the nature of the
studies undertaken?
The comparative study of literature begins
with the birth of literature itself. We may go further and note that the very
process of extending knowledge involves comparison by way of identifying a new
thing as similar or related to something older–process technically called “apperception.”
There is an implied comparison with previous
specimens when a new drama or poem or novel is recognised as belonging to a
particular variety. There are
more explicit comparisons like those between one author’s early or later works
or styles. Such comparisons within the confines of a single literature, go
under the rubric of literary criticism. It is only when comparisons cross the boundaries
of one literature and enlarge themselves, they are held to become part of
“comparative literature” studies. The concept of “comparative literature” has
been changing from the nineteenth century. 1
Comparative literature as a modern academic
discipline owes its origin to the general revolution of approaches to the study
of the humanities that took place after the Second World War. World societies were moving closer to one another.
Spectacular advances of knowledge in the natural and physical sciences were
taking place. Humanists took to the application of new methodologies
popularised by science in their own expanding fields of endeavour. As a result,
branches of the humanities – economics, anthropology, history sociology,
psychology, linguistics and the like – have developed methods
of statistical quantification and vigorous formulation and testing of
hypotheses, in tune with their new name of the “social sciences.” New
conceptual tools have been used for precision and objectivity of analysis of
data, like “form”, “function” and “distribution” in
linguistics and anthropology. Also the new approaches of the social sciences
proceed on inter-disciplinary lines, giving rise to mixed disciplines like
mathematical economics, cultural anthropology psycho-linguistics and so on,
reminding us of chemical physics, physical chemistry, molecular biology, etc. A
special application of this inter-disciplinary technique in the social
sciences is the integrated economic, anthropological, sociological,
cultural-linguistic study of chosen areas, called “area studies.”
The study of literature, one of the human
arts, was naturally greatly affected by the revolutionary approaches of the
post-second World War era. Literature which was regarded for ages as inseparable
from the languages in which it was expressed, came to be recognised as a
separate study in the abstract, divested of associated media of expression. (In
recent years a similar feature may be noticed in the development of comparative
religion.) This development is similar to the abstract study of the nature of
languages called “linguistics”, pursued independently without proficiency in
the skills of using them. If the linguistician–votary of linguistics – pursuing
the science of linguistics need not be a speaker of the respective languages he
is analyzing, the comparativist –
votary of comparative literature
– pursuing the study of literature in the abstract across various
literatures need not have mastered the respective languages in which the
literatures are expressed. Just as the science of linguistics is developed by
analysis of individual languages in the medium of one language called
“meta-language” – the science of literature in the abstract is developed by
studying literatures (through translations) in one medium. Such an abstract
study facilitates the “confrontation” of the date pertaining to several
literatures, the isolation of different and similar features in them and the
formulation of conclusions about the over-all human activity of literature
governing the data covered.
Along with the comparative study of
literatures in the abstract against one another, the use of techniques of other
humanistic disciplines like sociology, anthropology and linguistics in
analysing the literatures (e. g., social background of novels, cultural
syncretism of writers, etc.) may add to the inter-disciplinary dimension of the
study. Modern comparative literature studies are thus marked off from their
earlier stages by establishing literature in the abstract as a discipline like
economics, anthropology and history and pursuing it on inter-disciplinary
lines.
It is a charge usually levelled by critics of
comparative literature that comparisons of two literatures merely indicate
literary features or facts already obtaining and do not arrive at any new
contribution to knowledge worth the name. It is true that in the absence of a
governing motivation or a frame-work which integrates statements made,
comparisons are not meaningful. Therefore comparative literary studies are
organised round certain categories that can provide motivation for
inter-literature analyses and function in the manner of frameworks for critical observation. These are: literary
themes, types or genres tendencies or influences or movements or
periods, styles of expression and literary theories. In the list of university
dissertations cited earlier, we find comparisons of authors which may involve
themes, types, tendencies and styles as well. To cite more specific examples, a
study of the “Song of Songs” in the Bible against the Gita Govinda 2
of Jayadeva may compare variations in setting out erotic love themes
between the two lyrics and their styles of expression of the erotic sentiment.
A study of the poetry of the heroic age 3 may bring together heroic
poetry of different Western as well as Eastern cultures and show the common
“period” characteristics of such poetry across literatures all the world over.
Along with the “period” characteristics or Zeitgeist, there may be a comparison
of the literary type known as the “oral” lyric as practiced in the heroic ages
of different people. A consideration of theories about the epic in Western
literature and the Mahakavya in Indian literature will be an
illustration of literary criticism in a comparative context.
Comparative literature studies may be pursued
between literary products of distant cultures (as in the Iliad and the Ramayana
or Gita Govinda and Song of Songs cited above) or regional
outputs, nearer each other. We therefore have levels ranging from comparative
world literature through comparative European/Asian literature and such like
continental units to further level below. The intermediate levels of coverage
between world literature and lowest level literatures admit of expansion
according to the units taken up.
Comparative world literature studies bring
together for a detailed
examination typologically similar genres, themes,
movements, or periods and
theories, irrespective of geographical location. (This is similar to the
treatment of structural topologies of languages in linguistics where the most
distant languages are brought together on the sole criterion of observed
similarities of structural behaviour.) Such studies pursued in an integrated
framework of enquiry have to be classed with comparative world religion, world
history, sociology, and similar humanistic subjects as an independent
discipline.
The Inter-disciplinary study of literature in
the abstract finds a special application, as already stated, in “area studies.”
Regions like those of Europe or India display bundles of common cultural and
literary features–similar to isoglosses–as they have been welded together into
larger entities by historical and geopolitical factors. T. S. Eliot (the most
influential poet of the first half of this century) speaks of the European
literary tradition “as a simultaneous order” in the following oft-quoted
passage. 4 –“The historical sense compels a man to write not merely
with his own generation in his bones but with a feeling that the whole of the
literature of Europe from Homer and within it, the whole of the literature of
his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous whole.”
It is worthy of note here that the concept of comparative literature arose in
nineteenth century Europe and concerned itself mainly with comparisons based on
literatures of European language areas.
If, as Eliot points out, European tradition
is a single inheritance displaying the continuity of the European mind, Indian
tradition from the Rigveda and the Sangam classics is equally a
continuous heritage bearing the imprint of the Indian mind as it has unfolded
itself over two millennia. However varied the constituent elements in Sanskrit,
Pali, Prakrit, Modern Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Sino-Tibetan languages may
appear, they all form part of the totality of a tradition, characteristically
Indian. S. H. Vatsyayan, the famous Hindi poet and novelist, recently declared
that Indian literature is one though written in many languages. Bharati, our
inspired Tamil bard of this century, hails “Bharatmata” as a lady with eighteen
tongues. 5
The main thrust of Indian comparative
literature studies–which may also be called Indian literature studies–is to
work towards a broad critical framework that takes in its massive sweep all the facts–past, present (and even
future anticipations) of the
Indian literary situation. The overall pattern of the total Indian tradition
that sits at the heart of its infinitely varied manifestations, can be
uncovered only by sustained efforts over the years, by scholars who are endowed
with discriminating judgment as well as an abundantly sympathetic imagination.
Gaps have to be filled in, facts interpreted and ordered with insight into a
sequence that escapes grasp at first sight.
Comparative studies of Indian literatures,
bringing output in various language-areas together are the best means of highlighting
their common as well as different backgrounds. The genius and achievement of a
particular literature will be shown in relief, if considered against its
background of shared common features. The profile of the distinctive movements,
themes, genres and
theories that blended into the mighty literary tradition of India in the past and continue to blend in
the present and are likely to blend in future can emerge in all its wealth of
detail only by such studies.
Indian literature in its older stages is
built around certain common themes, movements, and forms which run like a warp
through it, the woof being regional, social, political and economic influences
that start new forces and cause variations on the common elements. What Rene
and Wellek say about European literature fits in exactly with Indian
literature:
“A pervading European convention is modified
in each country. There are also centres of radiation in the individual
countries and eccentric and individually great figures who set off one national
tradition from another. To be able to describe the exact share of the one and
the other would amount to knowing much that is worth knowing in the whole of
literary history”.6
We may appropriately substitute “Indian” for
“European” “region” for “country” and
“regional” for “national” and see the parallel conditions of the two
continental literatures.
Many Indian literatures start with
adaptations and translations of the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and
the Bhagavata which introduce variations as well on the original themes
of these works in Sanskrit. These are perennial sources of investigation,
enabling us, for example, to appreciate the excellence of Valmiki or Kamban or
Tulsidas or Ranganatha or Krittivasa relative to each other. The Bhagavata
religion and the Bhakti movement starting under the imperial Guptas goes
underground in North India while we find a Renaissance of the movement later
with the Azhvars and Nayanmars in South India which travels
westward to Maharashtra and flows into the Hindi-speaking Indo-Gangetic plain
and sways eastwards to Bengal as welt as westwards to Gujarat. The names of the
great Bhakti singers–the saint integrators of India who, being prophets, were
makers of literature as well–are familiar to us all–Nammazlwar,
Manikkavacalcar, Tulsidas, Chaitanya Deva and Narsi Mehta, to name only the most prominent. The
literatures that have emerged around these holy men are all similar in sharing
god-experience but the experience itself is of variegated hues. R. D. Ranade’s books on “Pathway to God” in Hindi/Marathi/Kannada literatures give us an idea of the
integrated study of this Bhakti literature.
Forms of our literature like the mahakavya,
khandakavya, muktaka, types of drama, etc., as well as theories on these
invite comparative study across all our literatures. For example, Sanskrit “alankarasastra-works”
as compared with their Hindi counterparts of the Rid period (18th century)
show subtle differences which add to the wealth of our literary speculations.
The Tamil theory of poetry arising from Sangam literature invites comparison
with the tradition of alankarasastra with which it gets allied in later
centuries. Vedic concepts, values and ideals as they manifest themselves in
different literatures in common and modified forms, invite comparative study,
e. g., Tolkappiyam and Tirukkural in relation to Vedic religion.
Coming to the modern
period of our Indian literatures, we have specially rich material for
comparative studies in various forms–the lyric, the short story, the novel, and
the dramatic –play all of which have arisen from the impact of Western
literature and developed in distinct ways of their own, notwithstanding their
common origin and moulds. The older forms of literature mahakavya, traditional
drama, prose romance, etc.,–have also been affected by the Western, notably
English, literary models and these invite inter-literature comparisons. The
literature of revolt in the modern age has to be seen in the context of the old
themes (against which revolt is proclaimed) as treated in earlier literature.
Literary products of movements like Gandhism, socialism, humanism,
progressivism, communism, experimentalism, existentiahsm, and simple
protestation have to be brought into over-all frameworks across literatures.
The support that Indian literature studies
can give to our sense of national integration is obvious. With comparisons and
analyses, the studies work their way towards ever-increasing understanding of
the unity-in-diversity of Indian culture, strengthening the idea of the Indian
federation as a unit with regional variations.
I wish to mention briefly some noteworthy
points about the demands that comparative literature study, as conceived today,
make on its practitioner. As I had pointed out at the outset, haphazard comparisons
lead nowhere though there may be flashes of perception in them. One swallow
does not make a summer. We have to institute comparisons against a tentative
framework or hypothesis which enables co-ordinated collection of data and
testing of the correctness of the assumptions implied or otherwise. The areas
of comparative study which have been relatively popular are–studies of any
literary work against its original (e. g., Shakespeare’s dramas against their
sources, Vyasa and his variations, like Panchali Sapatham as treated by
Vyasa and Bharati) or as product of certain tendencies (T. S. Eliot’s poetry
and French Symbolism); and comparisons of themes (called thematology). The
development of modern stylistics has in recent years, brought into the area of
comparative literature, studies of styles of different authors or periods
against certain norms.
As literature is a social art and criticism
has to penetrate into all types of manifestations of this art, the
comparativist has to guard himself against likes and dislikes that make their
insidious appearance and vitiate proper vision and understanding. An academy of
comparative literature recently formed at Madras states that one of its aims is
“to make known the glory and grandeur of our literatures to the world through
comparative study.” Such an attitude of exaltation of one’s literature is bound
to mislead the enquirer and is certainly far from the spirit of objective
scientific enquiry that modern social disciplines require. Observations arising
from comparing literatures have to be stated on factual lines without
insinuations or suggestions of superiorhy and inferiority or national slant,
for that matter.
As the number of languages in which a person
can attain all-round competence is limited, the comparativist has to work with
translations. It is noteworthy that comparative studies of Russian, French,
German and English writers are carried on with competent translations in
English (e. g., Tolstoy, Dostoevsky translated by Constance Garnett which never
make the reader feel that he is reading a translation). Critical enquiries on
themes, genres, tendencies and theories may be based on translations,
but comparisons of a writer’s manner of expression or stylistic nuances would
demand intimate personal knowledge of the languages concerned. Translations
which aid comparative literature studies may themselves be analysed as
comparisons between the original work in one language and its version, in
another; some speak of “transcreations” in place of “translations.” Eliot calls
intuitive flashes of translation as “translucencies.”
The practice of comparative literature studies has gained a new
dimension with the use of inter-disciplinary techniques like assemblage of
statistical data on any point discussed, psycho-analytic points of view,
bringing in sociological enquiry methods in discussing backgrounds of literary
artifacts, co-ordination of mouis in the theme-studies with concepts from folkloristics and investigation of the experimental content of a writer by
critical analysis of his imagery integrating it with the historical and other
influences moulding his
environment. These techniques are mentioned only illustratively to give an Idea
of the variety, subtlety and depth that the studies are developing. Inter-disciplinary
techniques may also involve the application of concepts of literary
criticism to other allied disciplines.
Why did I mention all these points about practice? Practice wins new conquests for theory and it is to practice that we look for sharpening our theoretical concepts. Every significant research effort adds to or alters, our theories. Comparative literature as an academic study has to be periodically, rewriting its theory or details of its theory in relation to its various levels in response to additions to knowledge being made continually.
Just as comparative Indian literature may be
viewed as Indian literature in its totality, comparative world literature is
identifiable simply with “world literature” or “universal literature.” Comparative
literature, in the ultimate analysis, becomes just literature as “comparative”
and “general” literature merge inevitably. Studies of comparative literature or
literature as such, lead us to think of literature as a totality whose
constituents interact at all points of time regardless of national barriers and
to trace the growth and development of literature as such without regard to
linguistic distinctions. To quote Rene and Wellek:
“Literary history as a synthesis, literary
history on a super-national scale, will have to be written, again. The study of
comparative literature in this sense will make high demands on the linguistic
proficiencies of our scholars. It asks for a widening of perspectives, a
suppression of local and provincial sentiments, not easy to achieve. Yet
literature is one, as art and humanity are one…7
But there is also another aspect which cannot
be ignored particularly in modern nations with a resurgent sense of separate
identity. As Wellek puts it:
“Comparative literature surely wants to
overcome national prejudices and provincialisms but does not therefore ignore
or minimise the existence and vitality of different national traditions. We
must beware of false and unnecessary choices: We need both national and general
(world) literature, we need both literary history and criticism and we need the
wide perspective that comparative literature alone can give”. 8
World literature studies confront one
national sensibility against another and pool them into a more complex and
total sensibility. A total Indian sensibility developed from the pursuit of
Indian literature may lead on, or interact with higher levels of sensibility
gained from intimacy with the masterpieces of the world. Such an enriched
sensibility may be seen already at work in the English language where literary
artists endowed with vision, great critics as well in their own right, like
Eliot, Pound, Yeats and Joyce have stepped outside Europe to Indian, Japanese
and Chinese inspiration for their art. Henry Gifford has suggested that
possibly American literature or rather the common literature of all people
writing in the English language will provide one approximation to world
literature.
1 The term “Comparative literature” has been taken
to refer to areas of endeavour like (i) the study of oral literature,
especially folk-tale themes and their migration, pursued in Germany and
Scandinavian countries (ii) assessment of the “image” of one author in another
country, as judged by reviews, periodicals, salons, travellers and “other
factors of transmission” mainly practised in France, and (iii) tracing, under
the Inspiration of Herbert Spencer’s theory of biological evolution, the
origins and development of literature into various forms of the epic, drama and lyric. Besides these approaches,
now only of historical interest, “Comparative Literature” may be loosely used
for world literature in its
totality, and for the masterpieces of the world as well. (Wellek and Warren, Theory
of Literature, Penguin, Books. 1980. Chapter 5, Pp. 46-50)
2 For such a study vide J. B. Alphonso-Karkala,
“Comparative World Literature”, Nirmala-Sadanand Publishers, Bombay - 34. 1974.
Chapter III, pp. 33-51.
3 H. M. and N. K. Chadwick: “The Growth of
Literature”, 3 Volumes. (Vol-I
deals with the Heroic Age “period”, characteristics;) Cambridge University
Press. 1936.
4 “Tradition and Individual Talent.” Collected
in T. S. Eliot’s “Selected Essays”. New York. 1932. p. 4.
5 Ceppu mozhi patinettutaiyaal In “enkal taay” (Baaratiyar Kavitaikal) Sakti Karyalayam. 1957. p. 12.
6 Wellek and Warren, op. cit. Chapter 5, p.
7 Ibid, p. 50.
8 Wellek, “Name and Nature of Comparative
Literature” Included in “Discriminations”, Vikas Publications. 1970. p. 36.