20 - «Los que en otro tiempo desobedecieron, cuando una vez esperaba la pa- pa-ciencia de Dios en los días de Noé, mientras se preparaba el arca

O utdated though it may seem to us today, it is worthwhile to recall the old argum ent th at gave rise to the idea of littérature générale, and not simply because it still surfaces from time to rime. The question is interesting for two reasons. First, the special tension existing between comparative litera­ ture and general literature helps us learn about the internal structure of an intellectual discipline— its polarities, resistances, and lines of force. What grades of theoretical abstraction are tolerated by this or that discipline? A very similar feeling of unease exists am ong comparatists today in connec­ tion with the flowering of literary theory. Second, we will soon find it nec­ essary to distinguish between supranational categories that imply interna- rionality and those that go, o r tend to go, beyond international relarions. The history of a problem often helps to place it and to bring subsequent questions into sharper focus.

The old distinction, characteristic of I’entre-deux-guerres, was formu­ lated by Paul Van Tieghem in the following manner: Comparative literature w ould denote the study of relations between two or more literatures; binary contacts— between w ork and w ork, work and author, author and author— w ould assure these connections. However, a series of books about Schiller in France and Rousseau in Germany and Byron in Russia do not constitute a history of the Rom antic movement. And thus an opening appears for

littérature générale, a concept that, in a further attem pt at synthesis, con­

cerns itself with “ les faits commun à plusieurs littératures,” matters that are 63

64 The Emergence of Comparative Literature

common to several literatures. Genres, schools, styles, periods, and move­ ments are all based on similar matters. “ O f the domain of general litera­ ture,” Van Tieghem concluded, “are m atters of a literary nature that belong to several literatures at the same time.” 1 As an example, Van Tieghem pro­ posed three distinct contexts necessary for an understanding of La nouvelle

Héloïse: first, th at of national literature, that is, the place of lui nouvelle Héloïse in the Frcnch novel o f the eighteenth century; second, that of com­

parative literature, or the influence of Richardson on Rousseau; and third, that of general literature, or the sentimental novel in Europe influenced by Richardson and Rousseau.2

This strict tripartite division does not hold up on analysis, however, and turns out to be indefensible. The three classes of investigation are inter­ linked and interdependent. N o single class can really be isolated and con­ sidered independently. O n the other hand, saying that something cannot be isolated or stand alone does not cause it to disappear. I am not implying that there is absolutely no difference between a study of influences or sources and a study of literary genres such as the eclogue, the entremés (theatrical interlude o r short farce), o r the sentimental novel. The experi­ ences of critics o r readers are varied, successive, and encompass different moments: the m oment, for instance, when I am perhaps fascinated by the influence of Scott over a certain novel of Balzac; o r the debt Cervantes owes to the irony of Erasmus, to Renaissance dialogue, to the poetics of Tasso. As a m omentary experience, any separate thing can be isolated. Then, if our objective is not a criticism fragmented by infinite atomizing bur one that is integrated into the complexes th at make up literary history itself, each sol­ itary com ponent must become a part of an intelligible field o f study. And then we realize once more that the past itself, literary history in m otion, in

illo tempore, has always consisted in a constant interlacing of international

relations (Balzac reader of Scott, Cervantes reader of Erasmus) with com­ plexes and classes of a collective dimension: Renaissance irony and dia­ logue, neo-Aristotelian poetics, and so on. Going back to Van Tieghem’s example, we need only read Rousseau’s Confessions to verify th at th at great spirit lived and was acquainted with the most diverse texts and models. To project the narrow concept of French national literature over the complex and vast culture that he breathed is to perform an absurd surgical opera­ tion. One cannot analyze the relationship of Richardson to Rousseau w ith­ out taking into account the earlier and later trajectory of the novel, o r the character of subgenres such as the epistolary novel or the sentimental novel. Wellek untangled this confusion with masterly skill in his Theory o f Liter­

ature and in “The Crisis of Com parative Literature.” The example cited on

Littérarure Générale and Literary Theory 65 influence th at cannot be separated from the itinerary of the historical novel in general: “ O ne cannot make a valid distinction between the influence of Walter Scott abroad and the international vogue of the historical novel. ‘Com parative’ and ‘general’ literature merge inevitably.” '

Some com paratists have been slow to recognize the inevitability of this convergence. For exam ple, the reader of the well-known manual of Claude Pichois and A ndré-M arie Rousseau (1967) stumbles on a histoire littéraire

générale isolated from the échanges littéraires internationaux, and not much

broader in its conception than the idea put forward by Van Tieghem; but despite its am bitious label, the idea that follows littérature universelle is reduced to the least interesting aspect of the Weltliteratur originating with G oethe— that is, to the catalogue of successes, the Who's W ho of the most illustrious authors. N o t so G erhard Kaiser in his Einführung in die Verglei­

chende Literaturwissenschaft (1980; Introduction to Comparative Litera­

ture), which stresses the indivisibility of comparative literature and general literature: the fact th at Jcan-Paul and E. T. A. Hoffmann were assimilated with French Romanticism cannot be understood w ithout the necessary ref­ erences to styles, themes, and genres cultivated at that time by French and German literatures.4 N ow adays, generally speaking, the term comparative

literature is a conventional label encompassing both littérature comparée

and littérature générale. The label is no doubt imperfect and antiquated, but precisely because it is so traditional it has the advantage of continuing to suggest the dialectic of unity and multiplicity more than the term literature alone or more grandiose ones such as universal literature. Without that dialectic, it would be difficult to understand or even conceive of the creation of poetry o r its history, nor could a real idea of literature be developed.

I have already said th at a discipline can learn much from the structures of its ow n history. We might ask ourselves now: W hat was the function of the opposition between littérature comparée and littérature générale in its day? W hen Van Tieghem published his manual, why did he specify littéra­

ture générale? 1 suggest tw o reasons. First, let us note that in the term he

chose, the adjective, générale, yanks the noun, littérature, vigorously in its wake, signifying m otion tow ard the supranational and the universal. As we saw earlier, com parative studies throughout the nineteenth century had ca­ pitulated to the prevailing concept of national culture or national literature. There was nothing halfway about it. N ational phenomena had assumed a very clear priority. But a muddying of values took place, and a bland, tepid, ineffective adoption of the Romantic ideals of synthesis and cosmopolitan­ ism occurred. Van Tieghem sensed this weakness and tried to rectify it with his proposal of a littérature générale. And since he considered that the two fields were truly unequal (and keep in mind that the not-national or ultra-

66 The Emergence of Com parative Literature

national inclination is the authentic differentia of the com paratist), his call, though moving and lucid, implied its own dialectical autonegation, over­ whelming littérature comparée by its own m om entum . And he confessed:

One would like to accept wholeheartedly the international point of view. Many works of comparative literature invite us there, but that’s all: they show us the Promised Land, without guiding us to it, and even without pointing out the road. In order to enter, one has fix on other aims, employ other methods, and the point of view of comparative literature must be left behind.’

Second, the role of littérature générale was similar to the role o f the theory of literature today; th at is, it implicitly carried within itself a significant grade of “theoreticity.” The path that must be followed to go from a study of R ichardson’s influence to the sentimental novel, o r from the impact of Sir Walter Scott to the definition of the problem of the historical novel, presupposed a considerable effort of conceptualization. It is curious that those comparatistes were unaw are of th at fact. Remember th at the meaning o f “ theory” or “ theoretical” changes with the times, most particularly as a result of underlying epistemological premises.

The conception of knowledge of the comparatistes was a form of empir­ icism, based on a tranquil confidence in the objectivity of the declared lit­ erary critics. Conceived in such a way, comparative literature assembled and organized “ facts.” The influence of Richardson on La nouvelle Héloïse was simply a “ fact." A national literature was not a selective framework of knowledge, guided by previous interests, but also a fact (as Simon Jeune put it: “A littérature générale does not exist in the sense in which one speaks of diverse national literatures” ).6 In accordance with this image of the com­ paratist as collector o r assembler of collections, as faithful receiver and mir­ ror of things as they are, the larger dimensions spanned by littérature gén­

érale differ only in a quantitative sense from the different categories of facts

at the com paratist’s disposal.

According to W. V. Q uine, there are various grades o f theoreticity that respond to the different distances between observer and observable facts; accordingly, the different grades make possible individuation and other lev­ els of interpretation.7 For the reader of a w ork of verbal art, I do not believe that a zero grade of theoreticity— a totally innocent perception of interpre­ tation— exists. But even if it did exist, an immense distance would separate such a perception from general constructions such as literary genres, themes, periods, o r styles. This is w hat N orthrop Frye explained for an entire generation of American students in his A natom y o f Criticism (1957):

Littérature Générale and Literary Theory 67 It occurs to nie that literary criticism is now in such a state of naive induc­ tion as we find in a primitive science. Its materials, the masterpieces of literature, are not yet regarded as phenomena to be explained in terms of a conceptual framework which criticism alone possesses. They are still re­ garded as somehow constituting the framework or structure of criticism as well. I suggest that it is time for criticism to leap to a new ground from which it can discover what the organizing or containing forms of its con­ ceptual framework are.‘

Today these w ords no longer need any elaboration. The genres, periods, and other terms of littérature générale constitute precisely w hat Frye called the “conceptual fram ew ork” of a reader’s or critic’s perception of basic observable facts. A few pages of Lope de Rueda or Luis Quiñones de Be- navente can be read from the point of view of the concept of the entremés, or of the figure of the jeune premier, o r of the Baroque style, whenever these tools o f investigation seem to be adequate and sufficient; for an original investigation will call them to account o r will replace them by others; that is, it will confront the conceptual framework consciously and construc­ tively.

Today we understand very clearly th at the definition of a literary genre such as the picaresque novel does not proceed from an inductive approach to a certain corpus o f narrations— since the number of narrations consid­ ered picaresque depends on the earlier definition. It comes rather from the selection o f certain general qualities capable of leading to particular results; or from erecting certain hypothetical models of description that we can continue to use in reference to all empirical situations or observable facts of interest to us. As for the com ponents of literary history, such as periods or m ovem ents— the Baroque, Romanticism, expressionism, and so on, they are clearly not finished o r prefabricated constructions. Comparative litera­ ture heightens o u r awareness of the high grade of theoreticity required by the history of literature.

For alm ost thirty years, literary theory has obviously enjoyed an aston­ ishing boom — uncom fortable and disturbing for many. This is nor the place to discuss the phenom enon. I will only say in passing that it is important no t to mix up the property of the term theory with the occasions that arise to use the adjective theoretical. Today we need the adjective much more than we need the noun. T hat is, the profusion of theoretical writings that we read— writings that contain an intense theoretical charge, like so many electrified objects— is inversely proportional to the actually quite small num ber of produced o r developed theories. W hat is striking is the enormous quantity of essays, articles, and books of a primarily theoretical character

68 The Emergence of Com parative Literature

now appearing th at propose no complete and coherent theories and do nothing to clarify a body of basic principles and fundamental criteria, w ith­ o u t which there can be no such thing as poetics. They are theoretical pre­ cisely because they do not propose any theory whatsoever in a satisfactory fashion. We are dealing with a reactive activity. Today’s theoretical disquiet comes out o f a profound dissatisfaction. M any believe that the conceptual frameworks th at the history and criticism of literature have at their disposal turn out to be precarious, deficient, hackneyed— in need of the most vigor­ ous renovation.

With his usual perspicacity, Jonathan Culler has reflected on the relation­ ship between literary theory and comparative literature, indicating th at the new theoretical writings have transform ed concepts such as influence into concepts basic to com parativism , attributing to them a way of operating applicable to any field o f literary study:

Rezeptionsästhetik and intertextuality are options in the study of any na­

tional literature, and as national literature departments have become less committed to the chronological study of a nation’s literature— largely in response to new developments in literary theory— they have often gone further in their theoretical explorations than has Comparative Literature.4 There is little doubt that com paratists learn a great deal from noncompar- atists. Certainly quite a few com paratists have maintained a conservative stance, and the m ost recent theoretical ideas usually come from other fields. But conservative o r conform ist, it would be rash to adopt and reflect im­ mediately the actual status quo, no m atter how innovative it might be. In addition, this hasty adoption puts us in a position of incoherence, in a chaos of perspectives, in an out-and-out marginal state. With a few im portant exceptions, such as H ans Robert Jauss, innovative explorations do not rep­ resent more than approaches to the singular text. Culler makes an effort to classify and reconcile the theoretical responses of the present day. But, re­ sponses to w hat questions? W hat system can a Scholastic of the present, today’s historian of criticism, rely on? At the very minimum a prior and necessary condition of such a system would be the existence or continuity of some com m on problems. Com parativism at least knows the problems it faces. In confronting them , it is imperative th at present-day com paratists adm it th at the theory of literature is a challenge for them at least as funda­ mental and necessary as general literature was for their predecessors. In sum, then, the internal structure of o u r discipline is the tension or polarity that exists between grades of theoreticity.