CHAPTER-I

THE NATURE OF COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LITERATURE

 CHAPTER-I

1.1 INTRODUCTION :

The present research work is designed to cover a

comparative study of the treatment of Nature in the

selected Nature poems composed by T.B. Thombare alias

Balkavi and P.B. Shelley# the well-renowned Nature poets in

Marathi and English romantic poetry respectively. The main

purpose of this research work is to point out the

simi l arities and parallels of the treatment of Nature in

these selected poems. In this research work comparative

method has been used for the purpose of the study. It is,

therefore, essential to know the theory of comparative

literature. In the present chapter, I propose to work on

the nature, scope and motives of the comparative study of

literature.

1.2 NATURE OF COMPARATIVE LITERATURE :

The present century is pre-eminently suitable for

studies in comparative literature. The purpose of such

study is to discover common areas shared by the writers in

different literatures. For instance, a deep and passionate

love of Nature is the characteristic feature of romantic

poetry composed by the English romantic poets, such as

Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Keats and Shelley. However,

this feature is found not only in the English romantic

poetry but in the Marathi romantic poetry#too. The Marathi

romantic poets like Keshavsut, Rev. Tilak, Balkavi etc.
have expressed their deep and passionate love of Nature in

their poetry. Comparative literature discovers such common

areas shared by the various writers in different literatures,

and points out certain resemblances in some respect between

them. So comparative literature is considered as a link

between the writers in different literatures. In fact, the

process of comparison is the natural function of reason.

Even in our everyday life comparison is implicit in our

response and behaviour. It, thus, seems to be a normal

and inevitable mental process. Hence, the study of

appreciation of literature in a sense is always comparative.

In order to get a clear view of the term 'comparative

literature', it is better to go through some of the

well-known definitions of it.. In the words of Rene Wellek,

" the term 'comparative literature' has given rise to so

much discussion, has been interpreted so differently and
misinterpreted so frequently, that it might be so useful to

examine its history and to attempt to distinguish its

meaning in the main languages. Only then can We hope to

define its exact scope and content. In the book

Discriminations: Further concepts of Criticism Rene

Wellek gives us the history of the term 'Comparative

literature'. His starting, point to the concept of the term

is lexicography. While giving the history of the word

'Comparative' he says, ^'Comparative* occurs in Middle
English, obiviously derived from Latin 'Comparativus'. It is

used by Shakespeare, as when F AStaff denounces prince Hal as

•the most comparative, rascalliest, sweet young prince.'

Francis Meres, as early as 15S8, uses the term in the caption
«
of 'A Comparative Discourse of our English Poets With the
2 -r
Greek, Latin and Italian poets." if we think of the history

of the word 'Comparative' occurs in the title of the several

books composed by seventeenth and eighteenth century writers.

Kene Wellek has quoted the titles of some? of these bocks, such

as William Fultecke's A Comparative Discourse of the Laws, John

Gregory's A Comparative Anatomy of Brute Animals etc.
However, we do not get the reference cf the combination
'Comparative literature' ir these books. So Rene Wellek points

out, "here the main idfea. is fully formulated, but the

combination ’Comparative literature' itself seems t.o occur for

the first time only in a letter L>y Matthew Arnond in 184 8,

where he says: 'How plain it is new, though an attention to the

eomparativie literatures, for the last fifty years might have

instructed anyone of it, that England is in a certain sense far

behind the Continent.’ But this was a private letter not

published till 1895, and 'comparative' means here hardly more

tli .r. 'comparable'. In English the decisive use was that of

Hutcheson Macaulay Posrett. Posnett, in an article "The

science of comparative literature, claimed to have first stated

and illustrated the method and principles of the

new science, and to have? been the first to do so not only in
 1
British Empire but in the world''. Obviously this is
preposterous# even if we limit 'comparative literature* to
«
the specific meaning PoSnett gave to the specific meaning

Posnett gave to it. The English term cannot be discussed

3
in isolation from analogous terms in France and Germany." .

The term 'comparative literature5has been defined by

various writers and scholars in different ways. Rene

Wellek has quoted the following definitions of 'comparative

literatures' of some of these writers and scholars. At

first he quotes the definition of Van Tieghem# a French

critic. It is as followsl "The object of comparative

literature is essentially the study of diverse literatures

4
in their relations with one another." Secondly# he
quotes Guyard and J.M. Carre as "Guyard in his handbook,

which follows Van Tieghem closely in doctrine and contents,

calls comparative literature succinctly 'the history of

international literary relations' and J.M. Carre in his

preface to Guyard, calls it " a branch of literary history,

of
it is the studyc/ spiritual international relations, of
factual contacts which took place between Byron and

Pushkin, Goethe and Carlyle, Walter Scott and Vigny,

between the works, the inspirations and even the lives of

writers belonging to several literatures."^ Then Wellek

speaks of A.S. Revignas. While quoting the definition of

A.s. Revignas, he says, "similar formulations can be found

elsewhere: e.g. in the v|olume of comparative literature cr

Momigliano's series "Problemi ed Orientamenti" (1948) where

Anna Saitta Revlgnas speaks of comparative literature as

*a modern science which centt¥s on research into the

problems connected with the influences exercised
reciprocally by various literatures."^

In addition to the definitions mentioned above there

are other attempts to define the nature and scope of

comparative literature by adding something specific to the

narrow definition. Reucs Wellek quotes one of such
definition/ and says, "Less arbitrary;«n»l more ambitious is

the recent attempt by H.H.H. Remak to expand the definition

of comparative lieterature. He calls it 'the study of

literature beyond the confines of ono particular country,

and the study of relationships between the literature on

one hand and other areas of knowledge and belief, such as

the arts, philosophy, history, the social sciences, the

sciences, religion etc. .on the other hand."^

In the words of Wellek himself we can understand

clearly the nature of the term 'Comparative literature'.

He says, "finally, the view has been propounded that

comparative literature can best be defended and defined by

its perspective and spirit, rather than by any circumscribed

partition within literature. It will study all literature

from an international perspective, with a consciousness of

the unit of all literary creation and experience. In this

conception comparative literature is identical with the

study of literature independent of linguistic, ethnic, and

political boundaries. It cannot be confined to a single

method* description# characterization# interpretation,

narration, explanation# evaluation are used^lts discourse

just as much«m5 comparison. Nor can comparison be confined

to actual historical contacts. There may be as the

experience of recent linguistics should teach literary

scholars, as much value in comparing Phenomena such as

languages or genres historically unrelated as in studying

influences discoverable from evidence of reading or

parallels.®

The above definitions and discussion of the term

'Comparative literature' illustrate that comparative

literature implies the study of literature which uses

comparison as its main instrument. It would be the

comparison of two or more similar or even dissimilar areas

or forms or trends within literature. It would be the

comparison of two or more works in two or more languages

within the same country. It would also cut across the
national boundaries and the similarities and
parallels regarding the forms or trends in the works of the

writers of two different countries. It would also compare

the skill of the author in handling a certain literary form

in different languages of the world to discover the

underlying element of unity in diversity for getting a

global view of literature. However# the term 'comparative

i

literature' can be strictly used when taken into

considerations items from two pr more , literatures representing
a separate language and different national tradition.

In the book Theory j&t Literature’ Wellek and Warren

have discussed the nature and scope of the comparative study
of literature. According to them," In practice, the term
'comparative' literature have covered and still covers rather

distinct fields of study and groups of problems. It may mean

first, the study of oral literature, especially of folk-tale

themes and their migration; of fm when they have entered

'higher', 'artistic' literature. This type of problem can be

relegated to folklore, an important branch of learning which

is only in part occupied with aesthetic facts, since it

studies the total civilization of a 'folk', its costumes and

customs, superstitions and tools, as well as its arts. We

must however, endorse the view that the study of oral

literature is an integral part of literary scholarship, for

it cannot be divorced from the study of written works, and

there has been and still is continuous interaction between

g
oral and written literature". However, finally they point

out that 'comparatve literature' is hardly the term by which

to designate the study of oral literature.

They furt! ar argue, "Another sense of 'comparative'

literature coniines it to the study of relationships between

two or more literatures. This is the use established by the

I
flourishing school of French 'coraparistes' headed by the late
 Fernard Baldensperger and gathered around the 'Revue de

literature to comparee'. The school has especially given

attention/ sometimes mechanically but sometimes with

considerable finesse to such question as the reputation and

penetration, the influences and fame, of Goethe in France and

England, of Ossian and Carlyle and Schiller in France. It has

developed a methodology which, going beyond the information

of concerning reviews, translation, and influences, considers

carefully the image, the concept of a particular author at a

particular time, such diverse factors as transmission,

translators, salons, and travellers, and the receiving factor

the special atmosphere and literary situation into which the

foreign author is imported. In total much evidence for the

close unity, especially of the Western European literatures,

has been accumulated; and our knowledge of the 'foreign

trade' of literatures has been immeasurably increased."'*'0

"But this concept of 'comparative literature' say Wellek &

Warren," has also, one recognizes, its peculiar difficulties.

No distinct system can, it seems, emerge from the accumulation
of such studies. There is no methodological distinction between

a study of 'Shakespeare in France & a study of 'Shakespeare'

in eighteenth century England, or between a study of Poe's

influence on Bandelcdre & one of Dryden's influence on Pope.

Comparisons between literatures# if isolated from concern

with the total national literatures} tend to restrict

themselves to external problems of sources and influences,

reputation and fame. Such studies do not permit us to

analyse and judge an individual work of art, or even to

e.
consider the complicated whole of its genteis; instead, they

are mainly devoted either to such echos of masterpiece as

translations and imitations, frequently/^econd-rate authors,

or to the prehistory of a masterpiece, the migrations and

the spread of its themes and forms. The emphasis of

'comparative literature' thus conceived is on externals; and

the decline of this type of 'comparative literature' in

recent decades reflects the general turning away from stress,

on mere 'facts1, on sources and influences"^.

In fact, the study of sources and influences has

importance in comparative literature. It implies the study

of analogy and tradition which can be defined as resemblance

in style and structure, mood and idea between works. In the

words of Wellek and Warren "the most obvious relationships

between works of art - sources and influences—have been

treated most frequently and constitute a staple of traditio­

nal scholarship. The establishment of literary relationships

betv/een authors is obviously a most important preparation

for the writing of literary history. If, for instance, we

want to write the history of English poetry in the eighteenth

century, it would be necessary to know the exact relationships

of the eighteenth-!^antury poets to spenfier, Milton and Dryden

A book like Raymond Haven*s,Miltons influence on English

Poetry# a centrally literary study# accumulates impressive

evidence Jfor the influence of Milton# not only assembling

the opinions of Milton held by eighteenth century poets but
studying the texts and analysing the similarities and
12
parallels" . So Wellek and Warren note# "Whatever the

abuses of the method, however# it is a legitimate method and

cannot be rejected 'in toto1. By a judicious study of

91
sources it is possible to establish literary relationships.

They further point out " the relationships between two or

more works of literature can be discussed profitably only

when we see them in their proper place within the scheme of

literary development. Relationships between works of art

present a critical problem of comparing two wholes, two

configurations not to be broken into isolated components

except for preliminary study." 14

Literary generes# movements and periods are equally

important fields of comparative study of literature. In the

case of literary genres Wellek and Warren say, "Theory of

genre is a principle of order; it classifies literature and

literary history not by time or place (period or national

language) but by specifically literary types of organization

»15
or structure. The theory involves the supposition that

every work belongs to a particular kind# such as epic,

drama, lyric and prose. It is also used for the different

categories, of the particular kinds mentioned above. In the

literary history of modern period genre theory is clearly

description. It dosen't limit the number of possible kinds

and dosent prescribe rules to authors. It supposes that

traditional kinds may be mixed and produced a new kind (like

tragi-comedy). The comparative study tries to find out the

similarities and parallels between the genre theory laid

down by Aristotle or traditional genre theory and Modern

genre theory and establishes the relations betw«n them. it

also establishes the relationshipss between the various kinds

of literary forms irt different languages.

In the book Theory of Literature Wellek and Warren

point out, "The history of literary generes and types offers

another group of problems. But the problems are not

insoluble; and, despite Croce's attempts to discredit the

whole conception, we have many studies preparatory to such a

theory and themselves suggesting the theoretical insight

necessary for the tracing of a clear history. The dilemma

of genre history is the dilemma of all history; i.e. in

order to discover the scheme of reference (in this case, the

genre) we must study the history; but we cannot study the

history without having in mind some scheme of selection.

Our logical circle is, however, not insurmountable in

practice. There are some cases, like the sonnet, where some
t

obvious external scheme of classification (the fourteen-line

poem rhymed according to a definite pattern) provides the

necessary starting-point? in other cases, like the elegy or

the ode, one may legitimately doubt whether more than a

common linguistic label holds together the history of the

genre. There seems little overlap between Ben Jonson's Ode

to Himself; Collin's Ode to Evening', and wordworth's

Intimations of Immortality', but a sharper eye will see the

common ancestory in Horatian and Pindaric ode, and will be

able to establish the connecting link, the continuity

between apparently dfispfrate traditions and ages. The

history of genres is indubitably one of the most promising

of
areas for the study'/literary history."

MOTIVES OF COMPARATIVE LITERATURE

The motives of the study of comparative literature can

be various. However, it is done with a view to use it as

the most useful technique of analysing work of art. One can

recognise the qualities of a work more, effectively by

comparing it to other works in different languages. In fact,

comparative literature examines literary texts in more than

one language through an investigation of contrasts, analogy,

prominence or influence and points out literary relations arid

communications between two or more groups that speak

different languages Second1y, one can take a balanced view

of literary Merit. Thirdly, literature cannot be studied as

a separate entity and it must be studied in relation to

other literatures.

Comparative literature aims at studying different

national traditions. A set of characteristics of national

traditions constitutes national character or spirit. The

group of characteristics may not be found in single

individual but in a whole community in a country. In the

study of comparative literature common and different aspects

of that community can be considered in comparison with the

common and different aspects in another country. Thus an

attempt can be made to define the spirit of nation leflected

in the language and literature.

In different languages at different times, natural

human phenomen^have been the subject of literary work. In

spite of the common personage and or situation, each work

can be an independent work of art. The comparative literary

study considers the impact of translation. But it is hardly

possible to point out the impact of the work of art upon

another work of art. In this sense Rene Wellek points out

that a work of art is never caused by another work of art.

However, the stud/ of impact or influence implies the study

of analogy and tradition. Here analogy can be defined as

*res«ifblanpe in style and structure, mood and idea betwen

works.

The comparative study seeks to find out the relations

between genre, movements, periods, themes, or aesthetic

elements in different literatures. it also leads to

discovery and revaluation of great literary figures of both

countries. It takes note of particular social problems,

philosophical convictions, political movements etc, because

these aspects undoubtedly influence literature.

Of course, the basis of the comparative study of

literature is nationalism. In comparative study one can

draw similarities and parallels between the works of art in

different languages. But it is very difficult to show that

a particular work of art is caused by another work of art.

It is pointed out by Rene Wellek that the whole concept of

comparative study is very often vitiated by narrow

nationalism. It is his opinion. "Comparative literature

surely wants to overcome national prejudices and

provincialisms but does net, therefore, ignore or minimise

the existance and vitality of the different national

traditions. We must beware of false and unnecessary choices:

we need both national and general literature# we need both

literary history and criticism# and we need

wid«sthe
’ 1?
perspective which only comparative literature can give." '

In short comparative literary study is pwrsued in a spirit

of intellectual curiosity.
 REFERENCES

1) Rene Wellek : Diacriminations : Further concepts of

Criticism. (1970) P.l*

2) Ibid.

3) Ibid., PP.2-3.

4) Ibid., P.15.

5) Ibid., PP. 15-16.

6) Ibid., P.16.

7) Ibid., P.18.

8) Ibid., P.19.

9) Wellek and WarrensTheory of Literature. (1956), PP.46-47*

10) Ibid., PP.47-48*

11) Ibid., P.48*

12) Ibid PP. 257-258*

13) Ibid., P.258-

14) Ibid.

15) Ibid., P.226*

16) Ibid.,PP.260-261'

17) Rene Wellek ; Discriminations t Further concepts of

Criticism.(1970) P.36*