Comparative Literature 3
Comparative Literature 3
Comparative Literature 3
The founding father of this school, which appeared in the second half of
the twentieth century, Henry Remak, states that "comparative literature should
not be regarded as a discipline on its own but rather as a connecting link
between subjects or 'subject areas.' A comparison thus can be made between two
or more different literatures and between literature and other fields of cognition
(music, painting, sculpture, architecture, philosophy, sociology, psychology,
religion, chemistry, mathematics, physics, etc)." (46) In this Remak leaves it all to
the comparatist to lay the grounds for his or her study, which should not be
involved in the problem of 'nationalism.' It is the 'depoliticization' of
comparative study then which makes the American perspective on comparative
literature different from the French one.
Putting aside all the distinctions used by the French School, the American
comparatists fastened their attention on constructing a model of an
'interdisciplinary work.' The sole aim beyond this model is to do away with
chauvinistic nationalism, mainly brought about by considering literature in the
light of linguistic or 'political boundaries.' Despite difference in language and
culture, all nations have certain things in common. Hence, as Bassnett sums it
up, "the American perspective on comparative literature was based from the
start on ideas of interdisciplinarity and universalism."(48) Furthermore, this
perspective threw over another basic principle of the French School, namely
binary study, in regarding that the study of affinities and differences between
two international literatures was just one angle of the subject, and that, as
Gayley proposed, "the study of a single literature may be just as scientifically
comparative literature if it seeks the reason and law of the literature in the
psychology of the race or of humanity." (49)
The attitude of early scholars towards comparative literature was
quintessentially humanistic. Posnett, Galey's contemporary, linked the subject to
"the social evolution, individual evolution, and the influence of the environment
on the social and individual life of man." (50) In this way, the influences between
international literatures are ignored and an emphasis is placed on humanity's
collective achievements through time and place and across disciplinary lines - a
view which seems to break down the barriers drawn by the French School
between the interrelated elements of one single subject, which is literature.
Arthur Richmond Marsh's definition of the subject was distinctive in relating it
to pure literary criticism rather than to history.(51)
The ways of reading or interpreting the literary text expand the province
of 'intertextuality': each critic or individual reader takes a certain position, which
is of course associated with his or her culture, language and experience, from
the text. Since literary forms and human experience are known for their
recurring change throughout history, the text then becomes susceptible to
various interpretations or readings. This is stressed in Antony Easthope's view
that "the text has an identity, but that identity is always relational." (64) In one
sense, the text is traversed again and again by various readers or critics across
time and place. Evidence of this is the innumerable different approaches to
Shakespeare's Hamlet, from the moment it appeared till now.