PERSPECTIVES ON COMPARATIVE LITERATUREA ThesisSubmitted to the Graduate Faculty of theLouisiana State Universityand Agricultural and Mechanical Collegein partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree ofMaster of ArtsinThe Interdepartmental Programin Comparative LiteraturebyAlexandru BoldorB.A., Babes-Bolyai University, ClujMay 2003iiTable of ContentsAbstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiArgument....................... 1Objectives...................... 7Preliminary Concepts................. 9The Subject Matter................. 9Historical Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Chronological Overview: The Evolution of the Concept . 21Antiquity and the Middle Age: Early Precursors . . . 21The Renaissance: First Occurrences of a NewWorldview ..................... 23Pre-modern Approaches: The Enlightenment,Romanticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24The Modern Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Towards a Status of Academic Autonomy . . . . . . . 35Early Twentieth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Significant Institutions and Publications . . . . . 50Post-War Era: Expansion and Crises . . . . . . . . . 51Present Status and Possible Perspectives . . . . . . . 62Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Vita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67iiiAbstractThe main objective of this dissertation was to provideresearchers interested in the history and evolution of“comparative literature” with a collection of referencesdelineating the evolution of the concept and thedevelopment of academic departments dedicated to its study.The paper includes a first section describing the mainissues contributing to the “identity crisis” with whichstudies and departments defining themselves as“comparative” were consistently confronted ever since theterm was coined.The “preliminary concepts” section offers an overviewof the elements that usually confer a “comparative” qualityto a literary study, such as interdisciplinarity andmulticulturalism, together with a few relevant definitions

(in chronological order) describing the commonly acceptedmeaning of the term at a particular point in time.The next chapter, “chronological overview”, continuesthe analysis with additional details, references andcomments also in chronological order, dividing the matterin sub-chapters dedicated to as many historical periods,from the Antiquity until the mid-20th century. A separatesection, offers a review of the most important institutionsivand publications contributing to the development of thecomparative field.The last chapter is a sketch of the current status ofthe concept and of the institutions dedicated to its study.The research for the present dissertation focusedprimarily on facts and documents from the European andNorth American continents. Its main purpose is not toarbitrate the multitude of trends and opinions trying toassociate the term with a singular meaning. It merelyattempts to provide the reader with a systematicperspective of the subject matter.1ArgumentThe term comparative literature generally provokesemotion. The dilettante greets it effusively. A study withso ample a descriptive title will provide him, he expects,with a short and easy road to an appreciative understandingof all the important modern literatures. The scholar islikely to regard the term with severe disapproval. Hesuspects that the profession of an interest in comparativeliterature is a form of intellectual presumption; and hebelieves the peculiar virtues claimed for its methods andits aims to be identical with those inherent in allscientific studies of literature.The above lines could find easily their place in anyrecent article published – for instance - in The Yearbookof Comparative Literature, reflecting the current status ofwhat is maybe the most “embattled approach and disciplineof the study of literature.1” Yet, they were written at amuch earlier date, in 1926, when this emerging domain wasseeking not only a framework of its own (a process still inaction today) but also general recognition. Their author,1Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek, in the Introduction to “ComparativeLiterature Now: Theories and Practice” Paris: Honoré Champion, editor,1999.2

Oscar James Campbell, was among the firsts to establish along succession of scholars who attempted to answer aquestion remaining the brainteaser for many a researcher incontemporary literary studies: “What is ComparativeLiterature?” At the time, the concept evoked a traditionintroduced by a series of writings dating back to thebeginning of the nineteenth century, opening theperspective of a vast, unexplored area where “The harvesttruly was plenteous, but the laborers were yet few.2” Like

every other branch of human knowledge, ComparativeLiterature underwent continual shifts and changes duringits development from its early stages to its present form,in concordance with the knowledge and cultural norms of thetimes. However, the discipline always seemed to beconfronted with “identity crises” leading its prospects inblind alleys in a larger number of occasions, if comparedwith the related, “traditional” areas. At the turn of thecentury, scholars like Posnett or Texte warned theirlecturers about the necessity of a well-definedmethodological frame to validate comparatist studies. Theresponse to this demand materialized in a plethora of2Hutchenson Macaulay Posnett, in Comparative Literature, NewYork: D. Appleton and company, 1886, p. VII.3

articles trying to offer possible solutions to the problem.However, they lacked unity, and analysts like Paul vanTieghem were complaining a few decades later about “theoverwhelming variety of the publications claiming theirbelonging to the field.” Post-war overviews started tospeak about “crises” because of similar reasons, and mostof the contemporary studies agree about the need of acomprehensive reconsideration and re-definition of thefundamental principles underlying what is called today“comparative literature.”This peculiar and unfortunate status quo seems to beemerging from several causes, but the most important isprobably the extraordinary versatility of the domain.Conceived as an interdisciplinary field since its verybeginnings, “comparative literature” evolved from aninitial philological and historicist enterprise involvingvast bibliographical knowledge to an omnium-gatherum forevery study expanding outside the limits of a statutoryhumanities program - becoming eventually a placeaccommodating everything unfit for one of the “classic”areas of study: history, national literature, philosophy,etc.Various trends and scholarly organizations whosemarginal status prevented them from being included in the4mainstream of a national literature and/or a traditionalhumanities program persistently reclaimed it – to a greateror lesser benefit for them and for the discipline. It isnot uncommon for a “CompLit” course to be offered under theauspices of a program in theatrical studies or listed as arequirement for a degree in social sciences – and this kindof “identity displacement” concerns only the rather mundaneaspect of academic administration, leaving aside anydiscussion of general theoretical principles. On theideological level, domains as “women's and gender studies”or “cultural studies” constantly challenge and/or appendthe “classic” acceptation of the subject: the concomitantstudy of works belonging to two or more nationalliteratures. As a general rule, the area of study isaffiliated either with the department of English, either

with one or more foreign language departments, and theprofessors teaching courses in comparative literature areoften “borrowed” from the respective chairs. Naturally, theapproaches and the references used in those courses areessentially tributary to the traditions and methodsparticular to one culture or another. Recurring attemptstried to circumscribe a proprietary “subject matter” and to5implement some of the “lacking methodology3” specific to ourfield of study. However, not even scholars “officially”specialized in comparative approaches are always willing toagree on these points. The debate remains open anddifferent views allowing the domain for instance, toexpand, its subject matter beyond purely “literary” objectsof study or to focus on the same objects as products of anational spirit depends mostly on academic traditions wellidentifiable with a time, a place, and very often with aname.In the meantime, despite its controversial nature, thephenomenon continues to evolve. As Robert J. Clementsremarks, “It is a fact of life that the often maligned term“comparative literature” is here to stay and we must livewith it. Indeed it has achieved a rank of distinction inmany quarters – in the titles of many important literaryjournals and books, a plethora of articles on everycontinent, and most college catalogs.4” The multitude of3Prerequisites for an acceptable “study” mentioned by Rene Wellekin The Crisis of Comparative Literature, (Concepts of Criticism, NewHaven and London: Yale University Press, 1963.)4Robert J. Clements, in Comparative Literature as AcademicDiscipline. New York: The modern Language Association of America, 1978,p. 11.6publications and texts grouped under the genericdenomination of “comparative literature” has definitelyreached a point where it cannot be ignored, and if itscomplete, theoretical, and methodological systematizationseems to be impossible yet, its sheer magnitude alone –leaving all the other arguments aside – demands at least anobjective description.7ObjectivesThe present research is an attempt to provide anobjective, factual perspective upon the discipline (asnoted above) through a synthetic, comprehensive overview ofits historical evolution as an academic field, withparticular focus on the European and North Americancontinents. Another objective of this work is to accountfor some of the most significant premises contributing tothe actual form and status of comparatist theories. Itsmain purpose is not to arbitrate the multitude of trends

and opinions trying to associate the term with a singularauthoritative meaning and/or educational purpose, butrather to allow the reader a systematic perspective of thetopic.This study will need therefore to take into accountseveral major features of the problem, which althoughintimately interrelated are as many distinct elementscontributing to the devising and evolution of the term“comparative literature.” A first prerequisite would be a“working definition,” which would conciliate the variety ofperspectives adopted by scholars of significant stature inthe field. Another important aspect is the historical one:While in itself it might not concern directly the essence8of the matter (comparatist theories, literary studies) thehistorical perspective is nevertheless necessary for thecorrect understanding of today’s theoretical andadministrative issues. It may also prove useful in thesolving of some problems concerning the curricularorganization of dedicated departments, their possiblesolutions, and their consequences.9Preliminary ConceptsThe Subject Matter“Comparative literature” can be (and often is) anextremely confusing term. Its constituents alone are proneto many controversies concerning their meaning. We will noteven attempt to touch upon the possible understandings of“literary” – due to reasons all to easy to understand. Forthe sake of convenience, we will understand by “literary”manly texts deliberately written for an artistic purpose.However, the other element of the term deserves at least abrief examination, as is the possible cause for mostcontroversies and critiques of our discipline. Essentially,“to compare” is the act of putting together two or moreobjects and revealing their resemblances and differences.On the other hand, any literary analysis is essentially thesame. An analysis will necessarily attempt to define thesubject of its inquiry, according to a randomly chosen setof criteria. Whether it is a description, critique orpraise, the literary study will inherently state: this(novel, poem, play, article, movie, etc.) is something(good, bad, similar to, revolutionary). Accepting theevidence, we will have to identify any literary study with10some sort of definition. Yet how exactly does a definitionwork? By making use of a genus proximus and a specificdifference. Thus, the conclusion: every literary study isnecessarily “comparatist” to some extent, and any“comparatist approach” is actually no different from a“mere,” “simply literary” study.The only specific area where comparative literaturecould claim originality is limited thus to the domain ofthe subjects studied. The criteria organizing thosesubjects will be, however, more or less arbitrary. Assuming

(partly) the classical fundamentation of something called“comparative literature” upon concept as “nation” and“period” we could safely assume that the domain is in factnothing more than the study of various instances ofrhetoric, determined in time and space.Historical PrerequisitesIf we accept as “comparatist” any study entailingsimultaneously aspects of philosophy, literature, visualarts and sociology (and the list could go on), the historyof this specialty would have to begin with Aristotle’sworks; he and many of his followers added to the timehonored European literary theory many a concept traceable11in contemporary studies. On the “administrative” side, thetradition dating back to the Middle Ages of teachingliterature as part of the trivium, and the conjunction ofthe latter with the quadrivium also favored a global,“comparatist” perspective of literary works. Also, manycritical texts, dating from before the nineteenth century(the generic period accepted for the birth of the concept)up until present days may be consistent with one or morecriteria qualifying them as “comparatist.” However, as thediscipline in its present form is relatively recent, thepresent study will thus focus mainly on texts expresslyconceived as contributions to the development of“comparative literature” - whatever the particular meaningassigned by their author to the term. Historically, “thename of the game seemed to have been formed on the model ofother nineteenth-century usages such as “comparativeanatomy” or comparative linguistics,” in a kind ofpseudoscientific claim [italics mine] that there was acomparative method that could be universally applied, tothe production of acceptable results.5” However, theapproach that established the discipline as an acknowledged5Peter Brooks, “Must We Apologize?” in Comparative Literature inthe Age of Multiculturalism, Baltimore: The John Hopkins UniversityPress, 1995.12

academic branch was eventually challenged in the secondhalf of the twentieth century. René Wellek and otherinfluential scholars following his example labeled it as“artificial and mechanistic.”Ideological aspects as those mentioned above bringforward another topic of this study, the theoretical one.The rationales behind a form or another of “ComparativeCriticism” are very diverse. From a “comparatist” vision ofuniversal literature as a response to the canonical“Eurocentric” perspective to a means to contrast oneminority’s particularities with the “mainstream”ideologies, the field proved to be a generous allencompassing shelter to many a theory. A brief review ofsome of the most significant contributors to this diversityis not only useful but also necessary for a comprehensiveoverview. While the inherent act of comparison remained

unchanged in almost two centuries, its ideologicalmotivation, and the way in which it was accomplished hasundergone several changes. These changes raise a set ofquestions for any researcher. Are the initial norms andmethods completely obsolete or is the domain facing only a“cosmetic” rearrangement? Is there more than one way tocompare two (or more) elements of a relationship? Or can be“comparison” replaced by something else? While not trying13to solve these questions itself, our study will try to findout if there are any answers on the contemporarycomparatist scene. Finally, yet importantly, the practicaleducational purposes of Comparative Literature departmentscontributed to a significant degree to the “redefinition”or “reshaping” of the specialty during its history. A briefpreview of the norms and regulations in existence withintoday’s academic environments could also be an informativefactor for an accurate perspective upon the matter.Finally, the (narrow) limits of this survey need to befurther defined in order to fit its actual dimensions andpurposes. Contemporary comparative studies require aperspective as objective and exhaustive as possible.Ideally, a “history” or an overview of the discipline wouldimply the extensive analysis of literary periods beginningat least with the ancient times, and including aconsiderable number of “exotic” cultures from all over thefive continents (Indian, Islamic, and far East literaturesin particular). The present examination tries to follow theevolution of “comparative literature” essentially as a termoriginated and developed by the European intellectualcommunity from the Middle Ages until the modern period,inherited and brought to its actual form by scholars onboth the Old and the New Continents.14DefinitionsComparative Literature is inherently a difficult termto define. The difficulty arises from the vast anduncertain territory the discipline is covering and from thealready controversial nature of the two words constitutingits name. The two (or more) elements of a comparison can becontained exclusively within the realm of literature, butsome of them (not all) can also be part of another field ofstudy. Moreover, each scholar has his own understanding of“literary” and “comparison,” determining the final meaningof the concept. Our discipline never had a really unique,“standard” characterization. The most commonly accepteddefinitions evolved through time in function of theperiod’s norms and practices, generally following theoutline recommended by one of the most influential figuresin the field. Here are, in chronological order, a few ofthese definitions as postulated by some of the mostinfluential scholars in this domain:Joseph Texte, 1898:L’étude comparative des littératures. Relations

des diverses littératures entre elles, actions etréactions simultanées ou successives, influences15sociales, esthétiques ou morales qui dérivent ducroisement des races et du libre échange des idées…Oscar James Campbell, 1926:Comparative literature … endeavors, in the firstplace, to discover general laws which transcend anyone literature, such as the development of types andforms under the progressive relationships of differentliteratures. In the second place, it seeks to revealrelations of affinity within two or more literatures.Finally, through the discovery of similarities anddifferences by means of comparison, it endeavors toexplain the inception and growth of individual works.That is, like all scientific studies of literature,our methods are primarily investigations of theprocesses by which a work has come into being andappraisals of the forces which produced this result.In other words, the methods of comparative literaturedo not seek to produce or enhance aesthetic delight,but rather to create new models of understanding.René Wellek and Austin Warren, 1942:Comparison is a method used by all criticism andsciences, and does not, in any way, adequatelydescribe the specific procedures of literary study.The formal comparison between literatures – or evenmovements, figures and works – is rarely a central16theme in literary history […] in practice, the term“comparative” literature has covered and still coversrather distinct fields of study and groups ofproblems. It may mean, first, the study of oralliterature, especially of folk-tale themes and theirmigration […] Another sense of “comparative”literature confines it to the study of relationshipsbetween two or more literatures. […] A thirdconception… identifies comparative literature with thestudy of literature in its totality, with “worldliterature,” with “general” or “universal” literature.Paul Van Tieghem, 1946:L’objet de la littérature comparée … estessentiellement d’étudier les œuvres des diverseslittératures dans leurs rapports les unes avec lesautres. […] le caractère de la vraie littératurecomparée, comme celui de toute science historique, estd’embrasser le plus grand nombre possible de faitsdifférents d’origine, pour mieux expliquer chacund’eux; d’élargir les bases de la connaissance a fin detrouver les causes du plus grand nombre possibled’effets. Bref, le mot comparé doit être vidé de toutevaleur esthétique et recevoir une valeur historique ;et la constatation des analogies et des différencesqu’offrent deux ou plusieurs livres, scènes, sujets oupages de langue diverses, n’est que le point de départ17

nécessaire qui permet de découvrir une influence, unemprunt, etc., et par suite d’expliquer partiellementune œuvre par une autre.Henry Remak, 1971:Comparative Literature is the study of literaturebeyond the confines of one particular country, and thestudy of the relationships between literature on onehand and other areas of knowledge and belief, such asthe arts (e.g. painting, sculpture, architecture,music), philosophy, history, the social sciences,(e.g. politics, economics, sociology), the sciences,religion, etc., on the other. In brief it is thecomparison of one literature with another or others,and the comparison of literature with other spheres ofhuman expression.Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek, 1999:In principle, the discipline of ComparativeLiterature is in toto a method in the study ofliterature in at least two ways. First, ComparativeLiteratures means the knowledge of more than onenational language and literature, and/or it means theknowledge and application of other disciplines in andfor the study of literature and second, ComparativeLiterature has an ideology of inclusion of the Other,be that a marginal literature in its several meanings18of marginality, a genre, various text types, etc. […]Comparative Literature has intrinsically a content andform, which facilitate the cross-cultural andinterdisciplinary study of literature and it has ahistory that substantiated this content and form.Predicated on the borrowing of methods from otherdisciplines and on the application of the appropriatedmethod to areas of study single-language literarystudy more often than tends to neglect, the disciplineis difficult to define because thus it is fragmentedand pluralistic.As the preceding paragraphs demonstrate, the concepthas undergone a few ideological mutations from itsbeginnings until present times. Also, it becomes evidentthat no definition has managed to cover in a satisfactorymanner all the aspects and theoretical details of thiscomplex field called “comparative literature”. As Robert J.Clements states in his Comparative Literature as anAcademic Discipline: “there is little that anyone at thislate date can contribute to the realm of definition” [ofthis term, n. n.] Nevertheless, they are abundant, andwhile a few general principles appear to be ubiquitous, asingular, universally accepted explanation of the conceptremains yet to be established.19A brief summary of the above definitions would have topoint out several common elements as well as the essentialdifferences between their perspectives. First, they all

envision the relating of a limited literary domain(national literature, genres or trends) to a literary ornon-literary factor, each of them including in some mannerthe ideas of its predecessor. The definition introduced byTexte conceives comparative literature as limited to thestudy of a factual/historical relationship between twonational literatures, as caused by various social norms.Oscar J. Clements introduces another formal criteria ofclassification (innately related to comparison), that of“type” and “form.” Paul Van Tieghem stresses thehistoricist approach, “le mot comparé doit être vidé detoute valeur esthétique et recevoir une valeur historique,”the very factor challenged by Wellek, who shifts the weightof the investigation from content towards method for theprofit of literariness, which should supersede“scientifism” in the discipline: “Comparison is a methodused by all criticism and sciences, and does not, in anyway, adequately describe the specific procedures ofliterary study.” Henry Remak tries to update the conceptincluding features imposed to comparative studies by theprogress of modern knowledge, including in his definition20“other spheres of human expression.” Finally, Tötösyintroduces the much more general term “the other,” in hisattempt to re-establish the discipline upon newepistemological grounds. While it seems impossible at thistime to find an exclusive, exhaustive definitionconciliating all the principles previewed so far, thepresent study will adopt as a “working variant” the onesuggested by Claude Pichois and André Rousseau:La littérature comparée est l’art méthodique, par larecherche de liens d’analogie, de parenté et d’influence,de rapprocher la littérature des autres domainesd’expression ou de la connaissance ou bien les faits et lestextes littéraires entre eux, distants ou non dans le tempsou dans l’espace, pourvu qu’ils appartiennent à plusieurslangues ou plusieurs cultures, fissent-elles partie d’unemême tradition, afin de mieux les décrire, les comprendreet les goûter.21Chronological Overview: The Evolution of the ConceptAntiquity and the Middle Age: Early PrecursorsThe act of comparing national literatures originatedlong before it was established as an academic domain,individual theoretical works and considerations emerging inseveral national literatures before “comparativeliterature” became an “institutionalized” discipline.Influential cultures as the Ancient Greek already imposedthe comparison of their features on the artisticinstitutions of other civilizations. Early scholars wroteabout Hellenistic and Babylonian literature (Berossos) orHellenistic and Phoenician literature (Philon of Byblos).These early works may look closer to what we call todayethnographical research, rather than literary studies,

according to contemporary standards. The resemblancebetween some comparative analyses and ethnographies remainsmanifest to our days, the “cultural” being the first of thethree functions assigned to the term “comparativeliterature” by René Wellek and Austin Warren6. The6René Wellek, Austin Warren: Theory of Literature, New York:Harcourt, Brace and company, 1942. Chapter V, “General, Comparative andNational Literature,” p. 38.22

phenomenon is easily justified: the essential constitutiveelements of early literatures were mainly myths, andsimilar themes are to be encountered under various formsthroughout the known ancient world. Consequently, “Sargonbreeds Moses, Moses breeds Karna, Karna makes Oedipuspossible, and so on through the concatenation that OttoRank established for us. Perseus and Andromeda evolve intoSaint George and his rescued maiden. Horace, ‘the Greeklittle pig,’ bade Roman writers to leaf through Greekmanuscripts by day and by night, urging those who likedVergil to compare him to Homer, those who liked Plautus tomeasure him against Aristophanes7.” Macrobius and AulusGellius were early comparatists, evaluating Roman poetswith their Greek prototypes and analogues8. These writingswere already a form of “comparative study,” although theauthors may have not deliberately sought to confer themsuch a quality, nor to establish a specific scholasticmethod.Many Middle Age authors continued the traditioninaugurated by their Greek and Roman predecessors. Classicworks like those of Homer or Cicero were copied, imitated,7Robert J. Clements, in Comparative Literature as an AcademicDiscipline, published by MLAA, 1978, pp. 2-3.8To look for: Frank Chandler, in Yearbook of Comp. Lit. (66)23

annotated, or interpreted, and the new writings allowedtheir comparison to the originals. However, at this timestill, the various occurrences of comparative studies wererather accidental, than an established principle. It wasnot until the Renaissance period that this kind of workgained a proper form.The Renaissance: First Occurrences of a New WorldviewOne of the firsts to introduce a form of “comparativephilology” in a work of academic consequence was Dante. HisDe Vulgari Eloquentia (c.1304-06) is a pioneering inquiryof linguistics and style pleading for the use of thevernacular in serious works of literature and for combininga number of Italian dialects to create a new nationallanguage. The comparative nature of the work is implicit,as are the subjects of several chapters: the description ofseveral languages and their distinctive elements, based onmorphologic criteria (book I, particularly chapter X); adefense of the poetry in vernacular, making use of

references gathered from several literatures (book II). Theimminent rises of scientific inquiry, of the individual and24national consciences9were to bring forth as well thediscovery of the “other,” the category of things extraneousto these consciences.Pre-modern Approaches: the Enlightenment, RomanticismThis opposition between national and universal wasalso familiar to another historical movement continuing theprogressive tradition of the Renaissance. The Enlightenmentallowed the expression of considerations as the following,through the pen of one of its most influential figures,Voltaire, who practiced an empirical form of comparatism insome of his works (i.e. Lettres philosophiques, revealingthe English literature to a rather isolated French publicof the time), acknowledging that: “Presque tout estimitation… il en est des livres comme du feu de nos foyers;on va prendre ce feu chez son voisin, on l’allume chez soi,on le communique à d’autres et il appartient à tous.” Thecosmopolitism of the movement opened a new “relativist”perspective upon the world’s literatures and cultures,reflected in nearly all the writings of its adepts and9The essential traits of the Renaissance, according to Micheletand Burckhardt25

followers. Lessing’s literary and social perspectivesillustrated in Briefe die neueste Litteratur betreffend orThe Freethinker, or works as The Persian Letters ofMontesquieu materialized this perspective in the realm ofliterature. The Sturm und Drang movement and its successor,Romanticism, inherited it and refined it in a systematicform. Friedrich von Schlegel’s thought is crucial to theevolution of modern aesthetics, illustrated in studiesranged from classical antiquity to Asian studies and thephilosophy of history and religion. Writings as Geschichteder Poesie der Griechen und Römer (History of the Poetry ofthe Greeks and Romans, 1798), Über die Sprache und Weisheitder Inder (On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians,1808), or Lectures on History and Literature (1815) are asmany landmarks in the evolution of (comparative) literaryhistory, and implicitly, comparative literature. Hisbrother, August Wilhelm, is also recognized as a mostinfluential author and theoretician in the field, eitherdirectly, through his published lectures: Vorlesungen überschöne Kunst und Literatur (Lectures on the Fine Arts andLiterature) and Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, oras an authority actively involved in the Europeanintellectual scene. Within the domain of linguistics, usingapproaches complying with, if not defining the modern26scholarly standards, the comparative studies of IndoEuropean languages pioneered by the Grimm brothers foundednorms still in use today. Herder, who is seen by somescholars as “the father of comparative literature,10” wrotein Reflections on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind:

“Every man who didn’t learn to understand the world otherthan in the marketplace, the café or for the most part inThe Hamburg Correspondent, is appalled in Paris by thearrival of an Indian prince, or when he opens a storybookand finds out that the climate, the region, the nationalitychange. He takes any foreign nation’s customs as a lunacy,and why? Because they have a different manner of thinkingthan his respectable mother, his commendable wet nurse orhis venerable comrades.” Faithful to the principles ofrelativity and tolerance, his writings reflected criticaland historical approaches open to new perceptions of theworld. He wrote (or intended to write) a “History of songthrough the times” a “General history of poetry” or “Aparallel between English and German poetry.” Joseph Texteidentifies his work as the cornerstone of the forthcomingdiscipline:.“Il posait en un mot, et du même coup, il10 Described as such or acknowledged as very influential byPosnett, Texte, Van Tieghem, Wellek, and others.27éclairait de toute la puissance de la philosophie, lesprincipes de la littérature comparée. Il la constituait àl’état d’étude distincte, ambitieuse peut-être, difficileassurément, mais combien supérieure à la critique étroiteet purement dogmatique d’un Voltaire ou même d’unDiderot !11” Another imposing figure of his time, Goethe,spoke about “Weltliteratur” as the result and thecollection of national literatures, a universal entity tobe considered in order to avoid nationalism and otherprejudices.The Modern PeriodAlthough all the writings mentioned so far were ofsignificant importance for the historical advance of oursubject matter, one of the most vital and interestingperiods of modern history was really the era leading tochanges of prevalent importance for its evolution: thenineteenth century. This historic stage has specialinterest as the formative period from which many modernliterary conditions and tendencies derived. Under the11 Joseph Texte, in Études de Littérature européenne Paris: ArmandColin, editor, 1898, p. 19.28

impact of the unprecedented technical development, Westernsociety underwent profound transformations reflected alsoin the realms of philosophy and literature, being the idealmoment to confirm comparative literature as a substantialelement on the academic scene.At the beginning of the nineteenth century, apassionate Dutch traveler named Wilhelm de Clercq waspublishing comparative literary studies issued by thecultural observations made during his journeys. In France,a scholar named François Noel published in 1816 a coursebook juxtaposing studies of French writing to Italian,Latin, or English counterparts, gathered under the name“Cours de littérature comparée.”However, it was Abel-François Villemain, professor at

Sorbonne, who was the first to offer an academic course offull academic stature bearing the same title in the summerof 1828. Its declared purpose was to demonstrate “through acomparative panorama the things gathered by the Frenchspirit from foreign literatures, and those it offered inreturn.” The course was continued in 1829 and publishedthereafter. The subject matter of the several studiescontained concern mainly the reciprocal impact betweenFrench and English literatures, as well as the Frenchinfluence upon Italian writings during the 18th century. The29author disregarded German literature, mostly because he wasunable to access directly its writings (he could not speakGerman), confining himself to mentioning the contributionsof Mme de Staël on the subject as an adequate complement tohis own. Although the opening towards foreign cultures anda universal perspective upon the development of literaryhistory is a significant ideological evolution in thedomain of literary criticism, “universal” is more oftenthan not identified with “European,” and even this conceptwas meant to include only a few “major” literatures - anassumption which would remain unchanged until much later.Within this frame, the “Editor’s Foreword” opening thesecond volume notes that the eighteenth century trendsfavored “this comparative study of literatures, which isthe philosophy of literary critique,” perhaps the firsttheoretical motivation for such an approach. Villemaincontinued his courses and their publishing until 1838-1840.In 1830, Jean-Jacques Ampère (the son of the renownedphysicist) presented at Marseille a dissertation aboutNordic Poetry, from the Eddas to Shakespeare. This was theresult of an older, ambitious project of his to study “thecomparative literature of all poetry” dating from 1826, andlater materialized in “De l’histoire de la poésie,” (1830)a text displaying a prominent influence of the30“scientificism” of the period. Ampère was perhaps the firstto trace an analogy between the comparative method innatural sciences and literature: “We have to establishhere, among the objects we classify, just like in botanicor zoology, not arbitrary divisions, but natural series andfamilies.12” His coursework was conducted under theprinciple that if literature is a science, it has to belongto history and philosophy, because it is yet premature tofocus on a philosophy of literature and arts studying thenature of beauty. Consequently, “The philosophy of the Artsand Literature has to be issued from their comparativehistory.” The success of the inquiry brought its author tothe Sorbonne, where he continued to advocate the necessityfor the objectivity of literary studies in a manner muchinfluenced by his liberal principles:. “Literary historywould be incomplete without the comparative studies; and ifduring these studies we shall find that a foreignliterature was influential upon ours, we shall admit it,

equitably proclaiming this benefit; we are too plentiful inglory to need that of others, and to proud to be unjust.”12 Jean-Jacques Ampère, in his inaugural discourse at theMarseille Athenaeum in 1830, cited by Simon Jeune, in LittératureGénérale et Littérature Comparée, Paris: Minard, 1968, p. 34.31The effects of Ampère’s works found an echo in theFrench literary world. Sainte-Beuve credits him as the solefounder of “comparative literary history” in his articlespublished in the Revue des Deux Mondes13. However, thesearticles ignore not only the already mentioned efforts ofVillemain, but also those of Philarète Chasles, anotherrenowned French philologist, (according to the nomenclatureof the time) whose works focused either specifically or ingeneral terms on comparative studies. Many of his titleswere pioneering works in the field Études sur l'antiquité,précédées d'un essai sur les phases de l'histoirelittéraire et sur les influences intellectuelles des races;Études sur W. Shakespeare, Marie Stuart, et L'Arétin; ledrame, les mœurs et la religion au XVIe siècle, and mostremarkably, his coursework at the Collège de France,entitled “Questions du temps et problèmes d'autrefois.Pensées sur l'histoire, la vie sociale, la littérature.14”13 The first in the edition of February 15, 1840, followed byanother, almost three decades later, in September 1868.14 Other titles denoting his comparatist (and unusually modern andobjective, for its time) perspective are: Études sur la littérature etles mœurs de l'Angleterre au XIXe siècle, Études sur l'Allemagne,ancienne et moderne, Études sur les hommes et les mœurs au XIXe siècle,Un examen historique des biographes et historiens d'Olivier Cromwell,32

All these works were founded on Chasle’s belief thatliterature, philosophy and society evolve in a closeinterdependence during their history, aiming to construct ageneral image of the human thought where all the nationsreciprocally influence each other on a global scale.If the French literary scene was understandablyprolific, due to the effervescence of cultural life at thatperiod, other European nations were also making rapidprogress, even though on a smaller scale. In Switzerland,Joseph Hornung presented a course in Comparative Literatureat the Academy of Lausanne in 1850. In Geneva, a similarcourse was offered beginning in 1858 by Albert Richard,within the chair of modern literature. Eventually thecourse generated a chair of its own, called “moderncomparative literature,” which survived until 1895. Germanycontinued the tradition of “cosmopolite” literary studiesinaugurated by Schlegel, Herder, and Goethe and in 1854,Moriz Carrière published “Das wesen und die Formen derPoesie,” where the first occurrence of the coinage“Vergleichende Literaturgeschichte” (the Germanetc. He was also one of the firsts to show interest for the thenrelatively ignored American culture (Études sur la littérature et lesmoeurs des Anglo-Américains au XIXe siècle).33denomination for Comparative Literature) is to be found15.Carrière’s main intention was to integrate comparative

literature and the history of civilization within a singlefield of study, an idea illustrated in his later work andin the courses he gave at the University of Munich. He wasnot the only German scholar preoccupied by suchundertakings. Another notable work dating from the sameperiod belongs to Theodor Süpfle, whose Geschichte desdeutschen Kultureinflusses auf Frankreich mit besondererBerücksichtigung der litterarischen Einwirkung wasconsidered a reference work in the field16. The large domainof inquiry allowed by “comparative literature” suited wellthe exploration of various literary themes and motifspreferred by German literates under the appellation“stoffgeschichte.”In England, at the middle of the century, MatthewArnold was aware of the comparatist perspectives cultivatedon the French literary setting. He embraced some of theirideas, and was the first to translate the term “littérature15 Cf. Baldensperger, cited by René Wellek and Austin Warren, inTheory of Literature, chapter V, “General, Comparative and NationalLiterature”, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1942, p. 38.16 Cf. Claude Pichois, La Littérature Comparée, Paris : ArmandColin, éditeur, 1967, p.20.34

comparée” into English, according to his belief that “theEnglish literary critic must know literatures other thanhis own and be in touch with European standards.” Theforeign influences were to be noticeable in his latercritical work, guided by the principle that moderncriticism should be "a disinterested endeavour to learn andpropagate the best that is known and thought in the world,and thus to establish a current of fresh and true ideas.17"The modern critical spirit was to consider not solely"literature" as an independent object of study buttheology, history, art, science, sociology, and politics aswell, in order "to see the object as in itself it reallyis." Another remarkable work preparing the background forthe studies to come is Henry Hallam’s Introduction to theLiterature of Europe in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries.At this stage, and for a considerable amount of time lateron, “comparative literature” was still conceived as abranch of or closely related to “comparative literaryhistory.”The other European countries were also trying to keepthe pace with a transforming world of literature. In Italy,17 Matthew Arnold, in "The Function of Criticism at the PresentTime," Essays in Criticism (First Series, London, Cambridge, Macmillanand co., 1865.)35Francesco de Sanctis also presented a course in comparativeliterature in Naples. The exceptional cultural diversity ofCentral Europe was also a profitable ground for thedevelopment of humanistic (social, historical, literary)comparative studies of any kind. Professor Hugo Meltzlfounded in collaboration with Samuel Brassai in 1877 aJournal of Comparative Literature at the university ofKlausenburg (Kolozsvàr, Cluj,) published in six, then tenlanguages, and replaced in 1882 until 1888 by Acta

comparationis litterarum universarum. By this time, thedomain was already gaining recognition in the academicworld. It only needed to define its standards in order toacquire universal acceptance.Towards a Status of Academic AutonomyThe year 1886 was to bring about two events consideredas crucial for the history of comparative literature: thepublication of the German Zeitschrift für VergleichendeLiteraturgeschichte under the direction of Max Koch, whichincluded in its first number a foreword-manifesto trying todelineate a number of principles of study. Mostimportantly, the same year witnessed the publication of a36book named “Comparative Literature18” by Hutchenson MacaulayPosnett, considered today by many scholars as thefoundational work for the studies gathered under the samename during the following century.The tome is published as “Volume LIV of TheInternational Scientific Series,” among other titles suchas “The History of the Conflict Between Religion andScience”, “The Life and Growth of the Language”, “Myth andScience” or “The Common Sense of the Exact Sciences”. Suchtitles illustrate the influence of the unprecedentedprogress in all the areas of the human thought (whether ornot claiming a scientific status) upon their respectiveacademic domains at the end of the century. Consequently,an essential feature of Posnett’s enterprise is “To assumea position on the border-lands of Science and literature”trying to conciliate two traditionally opposedperspectives. The author intends his volume to be acontribution to the “rational study of Literature” in “aneffort … to treat Literature as something of higher importto man than elegant dilettantism…” The book makes thereforeuse of a technical tone and of the structure of a manual.18 “Comparative Literature” by Hutcheson Macaulay Posnett (authorof “The Historical Method”); New York: D. Appleton and Company, 188637The subject matter is defined in the manner of a scientificapproach, the following chapters describing and analyzingas separate entities “Clan literature,” “The citycommonwealth,” the “World” and “National” literatures. Theclaimed “scientific” approach is strongly associated (ifnot identified) with “the historical approach,” the authorpleading for a definition of “Comparative Literature” as a“Comparative Literary History,” closely related or evenencompassed within the academic domain of history. “Nothingbut historical reflection can restore the real order ofdevelopment out of this chaos; [of non-scientificallyorganized literary matter] and historical reflection, as awork of science [italics mine] is only the tardy product ofthe present century.”At the same time, the work introduces terms and ideasthat anticipate the comparative study of literatureaccording to the norms in use today. The definition of the

subject matter is attempted at a universal scale. Posnettsees “Literature” as a constantly evolving phenomenonintimately related to the social dimension of the humanexistence from Ancient Greece to Chinese literature to theFrench and English literatures of the nineteenth century.He notes the fact that attempts to compare Homer to Vergilor Demosthenes to Cicero are hardly new within the literary38realm. The ancient scholars have studied the influence ofGreek sources upon the Latin authors since the RomanEmpire, and such texts re-occurred in all literatures untilthe present day. The novelty in his kind of approach is thesystematization of the comparison raised to the status ofscientific norm, which is to become the fundamentalconstitutive element of the “science” he tried to define.Also, using principles admirably ahead of his time (1886)such as “objectivity,” “decentralization,” “relativity [ofopposing perspectives],” etc. which were commonly adoptedby his fellow comparatists only much later in the twentiethcentury, he dedicates entire chapters to the study of“World Literature in India and China” or to the “Relativityof Literature.” Probably the main significance of thismomentous publication consists not as much in thebibliographical contribution it brings, but in theinnovative perspectives it opened within the discipline.Another scholar whose work was to be influential forgenerations of (French) comparatists to come was the editorof the celebrated Revue des Deux Mondes, FerdinandBrunetière, who “dedicated his combative ardour to theproliferation of ideas favouring the cause of comparative39literature19” in his articles and particularly in thecourses he held at the École Normale. The main attribute ofcomparative literature, was according to his vision “Beingan instrument to constantly relate the five greatliteratures of modern Europe.” He instituted a traditionhonored and continued by the most distinguished Frenchcomparatists: Joseph Texte, Louis-Paul Betz, FerdinandBaldensperger and others, the chronological list continuinguntil (but not ending with) Paul Van Tieghem.The first among the most important of Brunetière’ssuccessors was Joseph Texte, author of another referencetext quoted in almost all studies of Comparative Literaturehistory, namely “Études de Littérature Européenne.” Thevolume was (and still is today) considered as a main sourcefor research within the field. However, the tackling of thesubject matter and the attitude of the author during thisprocess does not necessarily progress from Posnett’s work.The latter’s objective, universal perspective upon therealm of literature is (re) replaced by a stronglyEurocentric view. The matter of the book (except perhapsfor the introduction) confines itself to the study of19 Paul Van Tieghem, in La Littérature Comparée, Paris: ArmandColin, editor, 1946, p. 34.40

various instances of literary influence between French,English, German and Italian authors. The respectiveanalyses do not attempt to surpass this limited condition,nor does the author intend to extend his inquiries on auniversal scale. This attitude is understandableconsidering the European academic environment at the time,especially within a discipline, which was yet trying todefine its limits and objectives. The questions concerningthe “major” works and literatures, commonly known at thetime, had to be answered before any attempt to includedetails concerning either “exotic” elements (i.e. Asianpoetry) or countries whose productions still awaiteduniversal recognition (such as Norway, Poland, or manyothers).Similarly to Posnett’s publication, this book israther remarkable due to several “firsts” in themethodology of the critique, which remained either aspoints of future reference or even principles inherited bycontemporary scholars. Perhaps the best known of these“firsts” is the deliberate attempt to define “ComparativeLiterature” as a scientific field by analogy with (amongothers) the natural sciences. Although Posnett already madethis association, Texte’s explanation is thorough,systematic and most of all, meticulously documented. The41following argument describes the motivation leading to thedenomination of the discipline, cited in every studyincluding the two words in its title:“Si les littératures peuvent se comparer, dans unecertaine mesure, aux espèces animales par la nature de leurévolution, il faut donc les étudier par une méthodeappropriée, assez délicate et assez pénétrante pourexpliquer la complexité des faits auxquels on l’applique.Et cette méthode ne peut être, comme toute méthode vraimentscientifique, que la méthode comparative, celle-là même quiconstitue le lien commun entre les sciences aussi éloignéesque l’anatomie et la grammaire, la zoologie et lalinguistique, la paléontologie et la science desreligions.20” The principle was “borrowed” from biology,based on the consideration that a literature or a nation isdeveloping similarly to an animal organism, in a strictinterrelation with the other organisms, that is to say, theneighboring countries and civilizations. And since thestudy of a live animal is mostly the study of the relationsit develops between itself and the environment “like aninvisible network”, every literature, and possibly every20 Joseph Texte, in Études de Littérature Européenne, Paris:Armand Colin, editor, 1898, pp. 17-1842

writer has a history reaching beyond the borders of itscountry. The acceptance of such a setting would lead to thenecessity of a comparative study of every literature. Thesetheoretical considerations are also supported by practicaldetails and examples, another “first” of this work beingthe postulation of a few principles concerning the required

abilities of a comparatist (namely, the knowledge ofseveral languages, a vast knowledge of the literatureswhose works are analyzed, and the necessity of thediscipline to keep the pace with the ever-evolvingscientific theories. Texte’s groundbreaking contributionissues expectedly the recognition later scholars such asVan Tieghem gave him:.“On voit que Texte peut êtreconsidéré à juste titre comme le premier en France, et l’undes premiers en Europe, qui se soit fait un spécialisteattitré de cette discipline.”Another successor of Brunetière was Louis-Paul Betz,(a close friend and collaborator of Texte, whose fateseemed to be bound to the study of the culturalinteractions: born in New York from German parents, studentand later professor at Zürich.) He gathered his domainrelated work in a collection named “La LittératureComparée” and published in 1902. The most importantcontribution to the developing field was the attempt to43organize and document materials contributing to its growth,compiling and organizing the resources and articlespublished up-to-date in a “Bibliographical Essay” printedin 1897. The work was setting the grounds for abibliography which was to be developed later byBaldensperger (among others), including materials from themost various sources: books printed in numerous languagesand countries, articles contained in periodicals more orless well-known by the general public, or even publicationshard if not impossible to find by the possibly interestedresearcher21.The last among the works that need to be mentionedfrom the same period - the turn of the twentieth century,which brought significant changes and innovations to thediscipline - is yet another reference recurring in most ofthe studies concerning the history of comparativeliterature: Frédéric Loliée’s “A Short History ofComparative Literature from the Earliest Times to thePresent Day.” While chronologically it was published afterthe other books presented here, it is the most distant fromthe contemporary meaning of “comparative literature.” The21 Louis-Paul Betz, La Littérature Comparée. Essaibibliographique. F. Baldensperger, editor, Strasbourg: Trübner, 1904.44book is really an impressive academic effort within therealm of literature, but its comparative side derivesrather from its exhaustive dimensions than from the ideasbehind it. It is essentially a history of literature(mostly European), which by the sheer amount of coveredinformation becomes “comparative literature.” The author’sunderstanding of the notion and of the task he isundertaking is that of a historiography encompassing allthe available knowledge of that time about the world’scultures, their social settings and literary productions.

The motivation for this work (and also the ideology behindit) is presented in its preface: “Can we grasp the notionof a world-wide civilization, founded on the mutual respectof different nations, and on the diffusion of those ideasand feelings which are at once its consequences, itsconsecration, and its guarantee?22” The book is above all anultimate instrument for the general study of worldliterature.While the discipline was evolving ever faster at theturn of the century, some countries were alreadyestablishing a tradition in the study of comparative22 M. Gréard, in the preface to “A Short History of ComparativeLiterature,” Kennikat Press: Port Washington, 197045literature (Baldensperger was to continue the Betz’sunfinished bibliography, Studien zur VergleichendeLiteraturgeschichte followed the Zeitschrift with the sametitle), other countries were taking their own academicinitiative within the field: In Russia, one of the firstcomparatists was Alexander Veslovski, who in an effortforegoing perhaps the formalist movement (he was also afolklorist) tried to organize the comparative literarystudies in a rigorously organized science, synthesizinggeneral rules based on particular observations.The United States became early aware of theintellectual concerns of the old continent and readilyadopted the new discipline. A first chair of ComparativeLiterature was created at Columbia University in 1899,followed by another at Harvard, five years later, and yetanother at Dartmouth in 1908. Also at Columbia a collectionwas inaugurated called first “The Comparative LiteratureLibrary” and renamed after 1912 “Studies in English andComparative Literature.” George Woodberry founded at thesame university the first Journal of ComparativeLiterature, although short-lived. Nevertheless, the conceptwas gaining ground as a fertile and pragmatic approach,determined by the same “scientific” approach called upon bynineteenth century scholars. William Morton Payne was46pleading in the favor of the comparative approach with anargument differing from the one used by Texte only by theexamples used: “The study of literature in the evolutionarysense tends more and more to become a comparative study.Just as the geological series of deposits, confused orabruptly broken off in one country, may be continuedelsewhere, so some line of development among the genres ofliterature, clear up to a certain point in the product ofone nation, may from that point on be better traced bytransferring the scrutiny to some other field.” Americanliterary scholars adopted the new discipline with anenthusiasm that was to bring its status and acknowledgementbeyond the simple acceptance it witnessed on the oldcontinent. Perhaps due to its relatively detached position,the intellectuality of the new world found the call for a

“universal” and objective perspective more suitable for theneeds of a world about to suffer a profound shift from itstraditional Eurocentric organization. ComparativeLiterature was ready by this time to become a universalissue.One of the most prominent figures that contributed tothe success of the discipline in gaining such a status wasFerdinand Baldensperger. He continued the pioneering worksof both Texte and Betz, filling the position of professor47at the chair of Comparative Literature in Lyon left vacantby the first and continuing the bibliography leftunfinished by the other. The latter enterprise materializedin an influential reference work still used by today’sscholars. His Études d’histoire Littéraire (1907-1939) arean example of meticulous comparative work about Europeanliterary influences. The chair at Sorbonne where heprofessed since 1910 became perhaps the most importantcenter of research and academic initiative within the fieldduring his lifetime. The publications and series he founded(partly in collaboration with Paul Hazard): Revue delittérature comparée and its Bibliothèque, or Études delittérature étrangère et comparée collected and illustratedthe majority of the works, ideas and researches of thediscipline. In the same category of notable publication isyet another collection of essays he edited, Mélangesd’histoire littéraire et comparée, mentioned by Van Tieghemas “historical,” and “the first publication dedicatedexclusively to Comparative Literature studies.23” Similarlyto Baldensperger, most of the scholars beginning theircomparatist activity during the first decades of the23 Paul Van Tieghem, op. cit., p. 49.48

twentieth century extended their work and influence untilthe present times.Apart from the cultural events related to one (ormore) of the personalities mentioned above, the academicfield continued the progress (although at an inconsistentpace) brought by the new century. In France, the alreadyexisting chairs of Comparative Literature (at Sorbonne andat Lyon) were followed by others at Strasbourg (1919), atthe Collège de France (1925) and at Lille (1930). A RevueLatine / Journal de littérature comparée appeared under thedirection of Émile Faguet between 1902 and 1908. In theUnited States, other new departments were created afterthose of Columbia and Harvard: in North Carolina (1923),and California (1925) as a result of the enthusiastic workof the same Baldensperger, and in Wisconsin in 1927.Early Twentieth CenturyIn 1926, Oscar James Campbell tried to find an answerto the question “What is Comparative Literature?24” for thestudents of the newly created departments, based on the24 Oscar James Campbell, “What is Comparative Literature?” InEssays in Memory of Barrett Wendell, Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1926, pp. 23-40.49

premises launched by Posnett and Texte. It was also

introducing new perspectives inherent to American culture,with a methodology more detached from Texte’s Eurocentricthinking and Posnett’s historiographic inquiry, adapted tothe needs of the academic life on the New Continent. Hisinnovative approach materialized in the equal considerationof all the national cultural factors contributing to theglobal image of literary history (unlike the works of Texteand his colleagues, stressing a primordially the Frenchculture and influence), and one of the first attempts tointegrate American writings and theories in the elements ofcomparison constituting the subject matter. (Among the mostcommonly mentioned names are those of George Kittredge andFrancis Gummere). Other scholars, like Irving Babbitt, werealso taking part in the effort to establish the grounds ofthe discipline with referential works such as “Masters ofFrench Criticism” (1913), “Rousseau and Romanticism” (1919)or Spanish Character and other essays (1940). Theseinstances were to be only the precursors of an importantand influential afflux of studies from this country, whichfollowed in the second half of the century.50Significant Institutions and PublicationsThe international academic community became soon awareof the recent progresses made, and of the need for anorganism keeping account of the multitude of articles,researches and other publications contributing to thegrowth of the field. Under the initiative and supervisionof Paul Van Tieghem, such an institution was created in1928, in Oslo, during the works of the Congress ofHistorical Sciences. This early precursor of the ICLA wasstill tributary to the historicist perspective defining thedomain. It was called “The International Committee ofModern Literary History.” The rather short-livedorganization held congresses at Budapest, Lyon andAmsterdam between 1931 and 1939, but most importantlyengendered another reference publication, The ChronologicalRepertoire of Modern Literatures. During the first half ofthe century, the phenomenon was gaining on a global scalemore and more the status of an academic discipline, insteadof a secondary, almost incidental matter. It had most (ifnot all) of the instruments and resources required for sucha status: synchronic and diachronic critical accounts ofnational and international literary exchanges, ofinteractions and influences, a functional (although ever51unstable) framework of definitions, methods and categories,important centers of activity, publications, and sufficientpersonalities of imposing academic stature to sustain itscause. However, the major changes the Second World War wasto bring in the existence of humanity equally affected thedomain of comparative literature, which was to suffersignificant adjustments caused by the social, cultural andeven political shifts in the post-war world.Post-War Era: Expansion and Crises

These shifts were materialized in what Claude Pichoiscalled “the extraordinary expansion of the field followingits rather slow maturation25” The multitude of worksillustrating this expansion were a natural continuation ofthe premises and ideas developed during the first half ofthe century, most of them (at least during the post-warperiod) being the creations of scholars whose activitiesoriginated from the same period. The writings of Paul VanTieghem, René Wellek or Werner Friederich published in theforties, fifties and even early sixties were in fact thecoronation of a sustained work whose origins can be traced25 Claude Pichois, op. cit., p. 25.52

as early as the first decades of the century. While thediscipline was becoming increasingly popular on a globalscale, its expansion followed different patterns in eachcountry, according to the various factors of influencementioned above. Countries that had little or no interestin comparative studies before the Second World War began totake an active part in the development of the discipline.Two of the most representative of such cases are Japan andthe Netherlands. The first founded its National Society ofComparative Literature in 1948, followed by the Institutefor Comparative Literature (at Tokyo university) in 1953.The latter followed a similar pattern, inaugurating in 1948at Utrecht the “Institute for Comparative LiterarySciences” and an Institute of General Literature in 1962.The efforts of both these nations produced some of the mostacknowledged research centers within their discipline andgeographical area.The cultures with an already established tradition inthe study of general and comparative literature continuedto build on the foundations provided by the pioneers of thefield, although the term gained slightly differentconnotations in each particular instance. The Europeanacademic scene continued to conceive comparative literatureas an interdisciplinary (or even “over” disciplinary) means53for the study of literature from a global perspective,probably best described by André Rousseau and ClaudePichois as “a vast and diverse reflection of theinquisitive spirit, of the taste for synthesis and openingtowards any kind of literary phenomenon, no matter its timeor place of occurrence.” However, while the very generalframe of the definition is open towards the new tendenciesand ideas occurring in the modern literate world, it is notreally an alteration of the “classic,” historical conceptof the comparative method. This definition falls short fromsetting the grounds of a modern discipline where all themodern incidences of “comparative literature” would findtheir proper place (literature and film, literature andmusic, etc.) [The European scholarly studies remainfaithfully within the old domain of philology, regardlesstheir updated denomination.]The United States academic environment had a somewhat

different conception about the discipline, issued partlyfrom its relative detachment from its European counterpart,and partly from the concerns of pragmatic natureencountered by the universities and chairs having a programin comparative literature. The initial motivations andgoals of these departments, acknowledged as “the commoninheritance of American comparatists” by Thomas Greene54were: “… a new internationalism … broader perspectives onworks and authors, a European grasp of historicalmovements, larger contexts in the tracking of motifs,themes and types as well as larger understandings of genresand modes … the clarification of the great theoreticalissues of literary criticism from a cosmopolitan vantagepoint. […] Beyond even these boundaries, the ComparativeLiterature movement wanted to explore the relationships ofliterature with the other arts and humanities: withphilosophy, history, history of ideas, linguistics, music,art, and folklore among others.26”The common element behind all these goals andprinciples was “the urgent need […] before our subject goesto thinly spread […] for a set of minimal standards27”organizing the extremely vast amount of matters encompassedin such a discipline. The task was (and remained) extremelydifficult, requiring, as Paul Van Tieghem observed, “a26 The “Report on Standards to the American Comparative LiteratureAssociation,” 1975 (the Greene report) in Comparative Literature in theAge of Multiculturalism, Charles Bernheimer, editor. Baltimore: TheJohn Hopkins University Press, 1995.27 Harry Levin in the “Report on Standards to the AmericanComparative Literature Association,” 1975, cited in the same source asabove.55

sizeable and precise erudition … encountered only in greatscholars.” One such scholar was the one who is consideredby many to be the real and undisputed “father” of moderncomparative studies, René Wellek. Its fundamental work,written in collaboration with Austin Warren, the Theory ofLiterature is among the first defining ComparativeLiterature in its versatile, contemporary context, as wellas one of the first studies signaling and trying to answerthe problems arising in the systematization of thediscipline28. The most important among these was issued bythe old, “classic” acceptation of the term based on thenineteenth century “comparative-scientific” approach“confining comparative literature to the study ofrelationships between two or more literatures.” Hisconclusion, further explained in “The Crisis of ComparativeLiterature” was that “No distinct system can, it seems,emerge from the accumulation of such studies.29” Ironically,although this major flaw of the discipline was the first to28 René Wellek and Austin Warren: Theory of Literature, New York:Harcourt, Brace and company, 1942. Chapter V, “General, Comparative andNational Literature” – probably the first attempt to define“Comparative Literature” in concordance with contemporary facts andnorms within the domain of literary studies.29 Op. cit, p. 40.56

be unveiled, it remained its most important unansweredmethodological question until present days. Some scholars

tried to solve the riddle with more or less success, whileothers ignored it altogether, continuing to producecomparative studies (many of special quality and interest)being less concerned about the exact boundaries or possiblelimitations of their inquiries.The European post-war setting was marked during thesame period by the publication of another two influentialbooks. The first, continuing the spirit and traditioninaugurated by Betz and Baldensperger was Paul VanTieghem’s La Littérature comparée, an erudite writingcompiling a complete preview of the discipline’s historicalevolution, achievements and methods, with some of its mostimportant issues at the time. However, the author’sapproach and the matters covered by his work were to provesoon insufficient to keep the pace with the evolution ofthe field. The second book, published in 1951 by MariusFrançois Guyard tried to overcome this problem, the bookcalled also “La Littérature comparée” being conceived as“initiation source” for those interested by the subject –apparently an ever increasing public, constituted not onlyby a little group of highly specialized researchers, but bymore and more students at both undergraduate and graduate57levels. By the mid-sixties, their numbers were alreadyconsiderable. In France, fifteen thousand students wereauditing during the 1967 academic year one form or anotherof Comparative Literature course. The United States hadduring the same period eighty departments enlisted as oroffering courses in “Comparative Literature.” This“explosion” was also reflected in the number of congresses[and publications] dedicated to the speciality: The ICLA(International Comparative Literature Association)inaugurated in 1955 in Venice its existence as well as itsfirst congress. Others will follow regularly every threeyears. A French Association of Comparative Literature wasfounded in 1954, followed by its American counterpart in1960. Most of the European countries followed theirexample.Considering the matters of mainly pragmatic naturementioned above (programmatic and curriculum issues,administrative and organizational problems) the Americanacademic environment focused its efforts on thestandardization of the various programs functioning underthe general denomination of “comparative literature.” TheACLA mandated its members to submit a “Report on Standards”for every decade of its activities, beginning with 1965.These reports, known largely by the names of the chairman58of its redactional committee (Levin, Greene, Bernheimer)were reference documents reflecting each the status of thediscipline, its concerns and perspectives at the time. Theaspects covered were various: from theoretical issues (themethodology, the subject matter and its relations withother domains) to - most importantly - educational and

administrative aspects. The influence of these reports onstandards was crucial, most of the Comp Lit departments inthe United States structuring their program and curriculumbased on their indications, until present times. Among themost significant contributions of these reports to thedevelopment of our discipline there two deserving aparticular highlight. The first regards the opening of anew perspective on what was until recently considered apurely “literary” domain: the interaction of literaturewith other art forms: “We need to consider here therelevance of other than literary disciplines: notablylinguistics, folklore, art, music, history, philosophy, andpossibly psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Our rigorin defining our own position should help us to clarify ourinterdisciplinary relationships.30” The second ground-30 The “Report on Standards to the American Comparative LiteratureAssociation,” 1965 (the Levin report) in Comparative Literature in the59

breaking contribution was the particular attention accordedto most of the administrative problems affecting theexistence and functionality of the academic chairs. Thereports were among the first documents trying to offerrealistic solutions to the structure and number of thecourses indispensable for a comparative literaturedepartment or the selection and training of the students.The European institutions were facing similarproblems, reflected in the documents presented atinternational conferences (Utrecht, 1961; Fribourg, 1964,Beograd, 1967). However, an aspect conferring a particulardistinction to the comparatist community during that periodwas generated by a new factor influencing nearly allaspects of social life on the continent: politics, namelythe ideological issues generated by the Cold War. Thisinteraction between academic research and political dogmasis illustrated by the documents of the InternationalCongress of Comparative Literature held at Budapest in1962, and in René Etiemble’s publication, Comparaison n’estpas raison, based on his own lecture held at the samecongress. The dispute was generated by the communist theoryAge of Multiculturalism, Charles Bernheimer, editor. Baltimore: TheJohn Hopkins University Press, 1995.60identifying “comparatism” with “cosmopolitanism,” anessential trait of bourgeois society, a term incompatiblewith the isolationism professed by communist ideology. Aparadoxical situation was reached, where this arbitrarylimitation of a domain essentially linked to the concept ofuniversality had to be rejected (by René Étiemble) with thearguments of the very patron of the socialist dogma, KarlMarx.These ephemeral frictions were soon surpassed,however, and the scholars re-focused their attention onmore founded subjects of inquiry. The late sixties and theseventies was the period witnessing the creation of themajority of the important contributions to the development

of the discipline. Virtually all of them try to solve thedifficult problem of defining the subject-matter of adomain interdisciplinary par excellence. René Étiemble,Comparaison n’est pas raison, 1963; Claude Pichois, Lalittérature comparée, 1967; Ulrich Weisstein, Einführung indie Verglechende Litteraturwissenschaft, 1968; OwenAldridge, Comparative Literature: Matter and Method, 1969.The list could go on, the works of authors as Guillen,Corstius, Remak or Block being as many necessary referencepoints in any comparative literature bibliography. However,none of them succeeded in imposing a unique framework for61this very controversial field, and no publication did soup-to-date.The American academia seemed to be the most productiveregarding the number of studies concerning the domain,either in form of books or periodicals. The phenomenon wasevident during the eighties, consequently to thepublication to the second Report on Standards of the ACLA.However, as stated in the third such Report, the studiesseemed to reach a crisis point, due to the lack of unity inthe theoretical principles underlying them. The previousacceptation of the term as innately and strictly confinedto literary theory was being challenged by perspectivesborrowed from other domains: sociology, anthropology,ethnic studies. The departments and programs begun to beseen as “accessories” to “classic,” national languages andliteratures chairs. The discipline was less and lessregarded as significant, due to the lack of theoretical,scientifically founded principles.62Present Status and Possible PerspectivesThe decaying status quo of the domain during the lasttwo decades was synthesized by Susan Bassnett, in herComparative Literature: A Critical Introduction: "Today,comparative literature in one sense is dead". ComparativeLiterature in the traditional centres -- France, Germany,the United States -- is undergoing both intellectual andinstitutional changes and a certain loss of position owingto factors such as the takeover of theory by English, theimpact of cultural studies, the diminishing number ofComparative Literature professorships, etc., this loss ofpresence is occurring in the centres of the discipline andwith regard to its own natural context of Eurocentrism andEuro-American centre.This decline of the discipline could be explained byits shifting from an organized, particular method ofstudying literature (and related fields) operating in awell-defined framework and having all the benefits of ahighly regarded academic subject towards the status of aphenomenon more like a syndrome, whose instances can beoccasionally grouped under the same denomination, ifneeded, but without a set of well-determined criteriaprerequisite for a “serious” classification. In a situation63

similar to the one experienced during the nineteenthcentury, comparative literature needed to redefine itselfas an approach emulating (if not assuming) thecharacteristics of a science. However, learning fromprevious mistakes, this new approach had to extend beyondthe mere “accumulation of facts” criticized by Wellek, andadd to its fundament a set of operative principles andmethods withstanding a confrontation with theoreticalinterrogations. Such an attempt to solving this challengewas undertaken by Steven Totosy, a Hungarian-Canadianscholar who initiated in 1995 a series of publications andactivities dedicated to the revival of “ComparativeLiterature,” through its redefinition upon a completely newset of rationale. In order to re-confer comparativeliterature its lost “scientific” status, this distinguishedprofessor tries to found the principles of the disciplineon a completely new set of theories, based on “The TenPrinciples of Comparative Literature” and “The Scientificand Methodological Approach.” His theories offer thetempting alternative of redefining the field on acompletely independent theoretical basis, structured uponnew principles. While the trend seems to offer the mostinteresting and viable alternative to every contemporary64theory, it will have to prove its vitality with a yethesitant and disappointed public.65BibliographyAldridge, A. Owen, editor: Comparative Literature: Matterand Method. Urbana: University of Illinois (at Urbana)Press, 1969.Bassnett, Susan. Comparative Literature: A CriticalIntroduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.Bernheimer, Charles, editor: Comparative Literature in theAge of Multiculturalism. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1995.Block, Haskell M. Nouvelles tendances en littératurecomparée. Paris: Nizet, 1974.Brunel, Pierre, and Yves Chevrel. Précis de littératurecomparée. Paris: PU de France, 1989.Brunel, Pierre, Claude Pichois, and André-Michel Rousseau.Qu'est-ce que la littérature comparée? Paris: ArmandColin, 1983.Clements, Robert. J. Comparative Literature as AcademicDiscipline: A Statement of Principles, Praxis,Standards. New York: Modern Language Association ofAmerica, 1978.Corstius, Jan Brandt. Introduction to the Comparative Studyof Literature. New York: Random House, 1968.Didier, Béatrice, editor: Précis de littérature européenne.Paris: PU de France, 1998.Etiemble, René. Ouverture(s) sur un comparatismeplanetaire. Paris: Bourgeois, 1988.Guillén, Claudio. The Challenge of Comparative Literature.

Trans. Cola Franzen. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1993.Guyard, Marius-François. La Littérature comparée. 1951.Paris: PU de France, 1978.Jeune, Simon. Littérature générale et littérature comparée.Essai d'orientation. Paris: Minard, 1968.66Jost, François. Introduction to Comparative Literature.Indianapolis: Pegasus, 1974.Kirby, Kohn T., editor: The Comparative Reader: A Handlistof Basic Reading in Comparative Literature. New Haven:Chancery P, 1998.Koelb, Clayton, and Susan Noakes, editors: The ComparativePerspective on Literature: Approaches to Theory andPractice. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1988.Kürtösi, Katalin, and József Pál, eds. CelebratingComparativism. Szeged: József Attila University, 1994.Leersen, Joseph, and Karl Ulrich Syndram, eds. Europaprovincia mundi: Essays in Comparative Literature andEuropean Studies. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1992.Levin, Harry. Grounds for Comparison. Cambridge: HarvardUP, 1972.Marino, Adrian. Comparatisme et théorie de la littérature.Paris: PU de France, 1988.Miner, Earl. Comparative Poetics: An Intercultural Essay onTheories of Literature. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1990.Pageaux, D.-H. La Littérature générale et comparée. Paris:Armand Colin, 1994.Pichois, Claude et André-Marie Rousseau. La Littératurecomparée. Paris: Armand Colin, 1967.Prawer, S.S. Comparative Literary Studies: An Introduction.London: Duckworth, 1973.Stallknecht, Newton P., and Horst Frenz, editors:Comparative Literature: Method and Perspective.Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1961. Rpt. 1974.Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. Comparative Literature: Theory,Method, Application. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi,1998.Weisstein, Ulrich. Comparative Literature and LiteraryTheory: Survey and Introduction. Trans. WilliamRiggan. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1973.67VitaAlexandru Boldor was born in 1969 in Carei, Satu-Mare,Romania. He completed his primary education in hishometown, and his secondary education in the cities ofSatu-Mare and Carei.In 1990 he began his studies in linguistics andliterature at the Philology College of the Babes-BolyaiUniversity in Cluj-Napoca.He was awarded a degree in philology in 1996, with amajor in Romanian linguistics and literature and a minor inFrench linguistics and literature.Between 1996 and 1998 he taught Romanian and universal

literature at the high school level.In 1998 he began his studies with the Program inC