Introduction: “Literary History, Literary Theory And Comparative Literature” by Amiya Dev
“Literary History, Literary Theory And Comparative Literature” by Amiya Dev first appeared in Neohelicon XX/2, published by Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, and John Benjamins B.V., Amsterdam. In this seminal essay, Dev explores the intricate relationships between literary history, literary theory, and comparative literature, arguing that comparative literature is not simply positioned between the two but is deeply intertwined with both. He challenges the perception of comparative literature as being trapped between the “murderous claims” of literary history and literary theory, instead proposing that comparative literature acts as a bridge—a dynamic space that navigates between historical positivism and theoretical abstraction. Dev draws from both Western and Eastern European perspectives, engaging with thinkers like Goethe, Marx, Engels, and Dionýz Ďurišin, to highlight the evolution of comparative literature from its historical roots to its growing theoretical inclinations. He critiques the rigid structuralist and historicist methodologies of the past while acknowledging that comparative literature remains fundamentally historical in its origins. The article also addresses the comparatist’s challenge of balancing national and world literature, emphasizing that the two should be seen as complementary rather than antithetical. Ultimately, Dev posits that comparative literature is not merely a passive mediator but an active epistemological framework that continuously redefines its position in relation to literary history and theory. His work is crucial in shaping modern comparative literary studies by advocating for a fluid, process-driven approach rather than a rigid, hierarchical division among the three disciplines.
Summary of “Literary History, Literary Theory And Comparative Literature” by Amiya Dev
- Interconnected Nature of the Three Disciplines
Amiya Dev argues that literary history, literary theory, and comparative literature are not isolated fields but are deeply interconnected. Comparative literature, in particular, does not stand between literary history and literary theory as a mere mediator but actively engages with both, shaping and being shaped by them (Dev, p. 24). - The Role of the “And” in the Title
The conjunction “and” in the title is not merely additive but subversive, placing comparative literature dynamically between literary history and literary theory. Dev suggests that this creates a “Scylla and Charybdis” situation, where comparative literature must navigate between the dangers of being overwhelmed by historical positivism on one side and excessive theoretical abstraction on the other (Dev, p. 25). - Comparative Literature as a Balancing Act
Comparative literature is depicted as Odysseus, steering between national literature and world literature. If it becomes too focused on national literature, it loses its credibility; if it leans too much toward world literature, it risks losing specificity. The discipline must therefore maintain a balance, engaging with both without being consumed by either (Dev, p. 26). - Western vs. East European Perspectives
Dev contrasts the French school of comparative literature, which emphasizes historical positivism and rapports de fait, with East European approaches, particularly the work of Dionýz Ďurišin, who emphasizes a dynamic relationship between national and world literature. He suggests that instead of viewing national and world literature as oppositional, they should be seen as complementary parts of a larger literary process (Dev, p. 27). - Evolution from Literary History to Literary Theory
Historically, comparative literature originated as a branch of literary history, closely tied to 19th-century historicism. However, by the mid-20th century, comparative literature began to align more with literary theory, particularly influenced by Russian Formalism and Czech Structuralism. This shift reflects a broader transformation in literary studies, where theoretical concerns have increasingly replaced historical methodologies (Dev, p. 28). - Critique of the Decline of Literary History
Dev notes that literary history has lost its former prestige, often reduced to “routine ruminations,” while literary theory has gained dominance. He critiques Hans Robert Jauss’s attempt to rehabilitate literary history, arguing that it remains “theory-prone” rather than truly reinvigorated (Dev, p. 29). - The Current Theoretical Pull in Comparative Literature
Modern comparative literature is increasingly drawn toward literary theory. Dev describes this as a conscious choice rather than a matter of prestige. He warns, however, against extreme cases where comparatists abandon their discipline entirely in favor of theoretical studies, turning literary theory into their ultimate goal rather than an analytical tool (Dev, p. 30). - Reaffirming the Role of Comparative Literature
While comparative literature has shifted towards theory, Dev emphasizes that it remains rooted in literary history. He advocates for an organic understanding of comparative literature as a discipline that begins in literary history and moves toward literary theory without being wholly absorbed by it (Dev, p. 31). - No Need for an “Odyssean” Role
Dev ultimately rejects the idea that comparative literature is caught in a struggle between opposing forces. Instead, he envisions it as the hyphen or “and” that connects literary history and literary theory, ensuring their dialogue and mutual evolution (Dev, p. 32).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literary History, Literary Theory And Comparative Literature” by Amiya Dev
| Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Reference from the Article |
| Comparative Literature | The study of literature across cultures, languages, and historical periods, positioned between literary history and literary theory. | “Comparative literature flanked by ‘literary history’ and ‘literary theory’ be our signified order” (Dev, p. 24). |
| Literary History | The study of literature within its historical and cultural contexts, traditionally rooted in historical positivism. | “Comparative literature evolved as a branch of literary history and at a time when literary history was itself being established in Europe” (Dev, p. 27). |
| Literary Theory | The analytical and interpretative frameworks used to study literature, increasingly dominant in comparative literature. | “Comparative literature today has little declaration to make for literary history… it is more and more drawn to literary theory” (Dev, p. 30). |
| Scylla and Charybdis Metaphor | A metaphor borrowed from Greek mythology to describe the challenge of balancing between the extremes of literary history and literary theory without being overwhelmed by either. | “That entails a further signification, that of a perilous journey between the murderous claims of literary history and literary theory” (Dev, p. 25). |
| National vs. World Literature | The challenge of comparative literature in navigating between the particular (national) and the universal (world literature). | “Neither is national literature Scylla to him of a perilous proximity nor world literature Charybdis of an ominous whirlpool” (Dev, p. 26). |
| “Rapports de Fait” | A term from the French school of comparative literature referring to historically ascertainable relationships between literary works. | “Comparative literature’s affiliation to nineteenth-century historicism was particularly expressed in the ‘de fait'” (Dev, p. 27). |
| East European School | A theoretical perspective emphasizing the dynamic relationship between national and world literature, as seen in the work of Dionýz Ďurišin. | “The Czech theorist Dionýz Ďurišin… assigned a dynamic place to world literature” (Dev, p. 27). |
| Weltliteratur | Goethe’s idea of “world literature,” later endorsed by Marx and Engels, which envisions literature as an interconnected global phenomenon. | “Goethe’s prophetic utterance on Weltliteratur and Marx and Engels’ scientific endorsement” (Dev, p. 25). |
| Historicism | The belief that literary meaning is determined by historical context, which dominated early comparative literature studies. | “Comparative literature’s affiliation to nineteenth-century historicism was particularly expressed in the ‘de fait'” (Dev, p. 27). |
| Russian Formalism & Czech Structuralism | Theoretical movements that influenced comparative literature’s shift from history to theory, emphasizing form and structure over historical context. | “The East European school emerging in the sixties and the seventies had its prime inspiration from Russian Formalism and Czech Structuralism” (Dev, p. 28). |
| Jauss’s “Literaturgeschichte als Provokation” | Hans Robert Jauss’s challenge to literary history, suggesting its revival through reader-response and reception theory. | “Who would ever forget the provocation intended in the celebrated essay of Hans Robert Jauss’s ‘Literaturgeschichte als Provokation’?” (Dev, p. 29). |
| Hyphen/Comma Metaphor | Comparative literature is not just between literary history and literary theory but acts as a “hyphen” or “comma” that connects them organically. | “The comparatist is that hyphen. He is the comma, if you want, of my title and he is the ‘and'” (Dev, p. 32). |
Contribution of “Literary History, Literary Theory And Comparative Literature” by Amiya Dev to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Contribution to Comparative Literature Theory
- Redefinition of Comparative Literature’s Role: Dev moves beyond the traditional view of comparative literature as a passive intermediary between literary history and literary theory. Instead, he positions it as an active and dynamic field that navigates between these domains.
- Reference: “Comparative literature flanked by ‘literary history’ and ‘literary theory’ be our signified order” (Dev, p. 24).
- Balancing National and World Literature: He critiques the binary opposition between national and world literature and proposes an integrated approach.
- Reference: “Instead of being antinomous, national and world literature would be complementary and part of the same process” (Dev, p. 26).
- Critique of the French School’s Historical Positivism: Dev challenges the French school’s rigid emphasis on “rapports de fait,” advocating for a more dynamic and intertextual approach.
- Reference: “Comparative literature’s affiliation to nineteenth-century historicism was particularly expressed in the ‘de fait'” (Dev, p. 27).
2. Contribution to World Literature Theory
- Extension of Goethe’s Weltliteratur Concept: Dev builds upon Goethe’s and Marx-Engels’ Weltliteratur, arguing that world literature should not be seen as a static body of texts but as an evolving process.
- Reference: “Goethe’s prophetic utterance on Weltliteratur and Marx and Engels’ scientific endorsement of that were at one level a question of this conspectus” (Dev, p. 25).
- Integration of East European Perspectives: He introduces the East European approach, particularly Dionýz Ďurišin’s theory, which sees world literature as a dynamic field rather than an amorphous entity.
- Reference: “The Czech theorist Dionýz Ďurišin… has not only authenticated national literature but assigned a dynamic place to world literature” (Dev, p. 27).
3. Contribution to Literary Historicism
- Critique of Traditional Literary History: Dev argues that literary history has lost its former prestige and has been overtaken by literary theory, yet it remains foundational to comparative literature.
- Reference: “Literary history had lost its nineteenth-century eminence and been pushed to routine ruminations” (Dev, p. 28).
- Re-evaluating Hans Robert Jauss’s Approach: While acknowledging Jauss’s Literaturgeschichte als Provokation, he critiques the lack of a concrete theoretical challenge to literary history.
- Reference: “Certainly the kind of literary history that Jauss advances is simple and smacks of theorization by proxy” (Dev, p. 29).
4. Contribution to Structuralism and Formalism
- Influence of Russian Formalism and Czech Structuralism: Dev highlights how comparative literature, after detaching from literary history, has been influenced by Russian Formalism and Czech Structuralism, which emphasize textual structures and formal analysis.
- Reference: “The East European school emerging in the sixties and the seventies had its prime inspiration from Russian Formalism and Czech Structuralism” (Dev, p. 28).
- Bridging Historical Positivism and Structuralist Analysis: He suggests that comparative literature should incorporate both historical and formalist methodologies instead of being confined to either.
- Reference: “The comparatist’s task is no longer to show brinkmanship and be unscathed by both national and world literature, but exercise full concern and involvement with them” (Dev, p. 26).
5. Contribution to Poststructuralism and Deconstruction
- Subversion of Traditional Binaries: Dev challenges the idea that literary history and literary theory are opposing forces, suggesting that comparative literature dissolves rigid distinctions between the two.
- Reference: “There are only literary history and literary theory and a hyphen between them. The comparatist is that hyphen” (Dev, p. 32).
- The Power of the “And” (A Derridean Perspective): Dev’s interpretation of the and in his title aligns with poststructuralist thought, where seemingly neutral linguistic elements carry subversive meanings.
- Reference: “The ‘and’ in my title is not a simple-minded conjunction… It may in fact be quite subversive” (Dev, p. 24).
6. Contribution to Reception Theory and Reader-Response Criticism
- Comparative Literature as a Reader-Oriented Field: Dev implies that comparative literature is shaped not just by historical and theoretical contexts but also by how readers and scholars engage with texts. This aligns with Jauss’s reception theory.
- Reference: “Comparative literature to them is the portals but theory the shrine” (Dev, p. 30).
Examples of Critiques Through “Literary History, Literary Theory And Comparative Literature” by Amiya Dev
| Literary Work | Critique Through Literary History | Critique Through Literary Theory | Critique Through Comparative Literature |
| Goethe’s Faust | Viewed historically, Faust reflects 19th-century Romanticism, exploring human ambition, knowledge, and the limits of reason (Dev, p. 27). | Poststructuralist analysis sees Faust as destabilizing meaning, particularly through Mephistopheles’ ironic discourse (Dev, p. 30). | Faust aligns with Weltliteratur, illustrating Goethe’s vision of a global literary dialogue (Dev, p. 25). |
| Marx & Engels’ The Communist Manifesto | The text is historically significant as a political-literary document influencing socialist realism (Dev, p. 27). | Theoretical critiques, including Althusser’s Marxist structuralism, reveal ideology as a textual construct within The Communist Manifesto (Dev, p. 28). | It exemplifies transnational thought, influencing socialist literature across cultures (Dev, p. 25). |
| T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land | Rooted in post-World War I modernist history, reflecting cultural fragmentation (Dev, p. 28). | Draws on intertextuality, aligning with Russian Formalist and structuralist approaches to meaning-making (Dev, p. 28). | Comparative lens places it alongside Hindu, European, and classical texts, demonstrating cross-cultural literary evolution (Dev, p. 26). |
| Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude | A historical novel reflecting Latin American magical realism, merging myth and history (Dev, p. 27). | Postmodernist theory interprets its narrative non-linearity and metafictional elements as destabilizing historical truth (Dev, p. 30). | Explores national vs. world literature, balancing Latin American identity with universal themes of exile and destiny (Dev, p. 26). |
Criticism Against “Literary History, Literary Theory And Comparative Literature” by Amiya Dev
1. Overemphasis on the Metaphor of Scylla and Charybdis
- Dev’s use of the Scylla and Charybdis metaphor to describe the position of comparative literature between literary history and literary theory is evocative but arguably reductive.
- This framing suggests an unnecessary struggle when, in reality, disciplines can coexist without inherent peril (Dev, p. 25).
2. Ambiguity in the Role of Comparative Literature
- While Dev rejects the idea of comparative literature as merely navigating between literary history and literary theory, he does not clearly define its independent methodological framework.
- His conclusion that comparative literature is the “hyphen” between literary history and literary theory leaves room for ambiguity rather than a concrete theoretical position (Dev, p. 32).
3. Inconsistency in the Treatment of Literary History
- Dev acknowledges the decline of literary history’s prominence but simultaneously argues that it remains fundamental to comparative literature.
- This dual stance creates an inconsistency—if literary history has lost its intellectual authority, why must comparative literature remain rooted in it? (Dev, p. 28-29).
4. Eurocentric Focus Despite Acknowledgment of East European Thought
- Although Dev highlights the contributions of East European scholars like Dionýz Ďurišin, his primary theoretical engagements remain within Western literary frameworks (French historicism, Russian Formalism, Jauss’s reception theory).
- The essay lacks engagement with non-European perspectives, such as postcolonial literary history or comparative frameworks outside the Western canon (Dev, p. 27).
5. Limited Engagement with Postcolonial and Global South Perspectives
- Dev does not sufficiently address how comparative literature functions in postcolonial studies, where national and world literatures interact in ways beyond the European model.
- He does not explore how his theory applies to literatures from Africa, South Asia, or Latin America, which challenge traditional historical and theoretical narratives (Dev, p. 26).
6. Lack of Concrete Methodology for Comparative Literature
- Dev argues that comparative literature should move organically between literary history and literary theory but does not provide a clear methodological framework for this process.
- How should a comparatist engage with texts without falling into the binaries he critiques? The essay does not answer this sufficiently (Dev, p. 30).
7. Underestimation of the Autonomy of Literary Theory
- Dev suggests that literary theory has overshadowed literary history in modern scholarship, but he does not fully acknowledge that literary theory itself has become a distinct and legitimate field, independent of historical frameworks (Dev, p. 29-30).
- He treats literary theory as a force “pulling” comparative literature rather than recognizing its evolving role in shaping literary studies.
8. Insufficient Addressing of Digital Humanities and Contemporary Literary Studies
- The essay does not account for the rise of digital humanities and computational literary analysis, which challenge both traditional literary history and established theoretical frameworks.
- Newer methodologies, such as corpus-based literary studies and network theory, complicate Dev’s tripartite model but are left unaddressed (Dev, p. 32).
Representative Quotations from “Literary History, Literary Theory And Comparative Literature” by Amiya Dev with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “The ‘and’ in my title is not a simple-minded conjunction… It may in fact be quite subversive.” (Dev, p. 24) | Dev suggests that “and” in the title disrupts the rigid division between literary history, literary theory, and comparative literature. It challenges traditional academic compartmentalization, emphasizing their interconnectedness. |
| “Comparative literature flanked by ‘literary history’ and ‘literary theory’ be our signified order, then we have also to admit a Scylla and Charybdis situation here.” (Dev, p. 24) | Using a Greek mythology metaphor, Dev argues that comparative literature must navigate between the “dangers” of literary history (excessive historicism) and literary theory (abstract formalism). |
| “A more immediate Scylla and Charybdis situation is often recognized for comparative literature, that of national and world literature.” (Dev, p. 26) | Dev highlights another dilemma: comparative literature’s struggle between focusing on national literature and embracing world literature without losing its disciplinary identity. |
| “Instead of being antinomous, national and world literature would be complementary and part of the same process.” (Dev, p. 26) | He rejects the binary opposition between national and world literature, advocating for an integrated literary framework that bridges both. |
| “Comparative literature evolved as a branch of literary history and at a time when literary history was itself being established in Europe.” (Dev, p. 27) | Dev traces the historical development of comparative literature, showing its roots in 19th-century European literary history. |
| “Comparative literature’s affiliation to nineteenth-century historicism was particularly expressed in the ‘de fait’, for the ‘rapports’ were the bare given without which comparative literature would not be.” (Dev, p. 27) | He critiques the French school of comparative literature, which relied on historical positivism (rapports de fait), emphasizing textual connections over theoretical frameworks. |
| “Who would ever forget the provocation intended in the celebrated essay of Hans Robert Jauss’s ‘Literaturgeschichte als Provokation’?” (Dev, p. 29) | Dev references Hans Robert Jauss, a major figure in reception theory, who argued that literary history should be provocative and actively engage with readers. |
| “Comparative literature today has little declaration to make for literary history… it is being more and more drawn to literary theory.” (Dev, p. 30) | He observes a shift in comparative literature, where it increasingly aligns with literary theory rather than its historical roots. |
| “The comparatist is that hyphen. He is the comma, if you want, of my title and he is the ‘and’.” (Dev, p. 32) | Dev metaphorically defines the role of the comparatist as a bridge that connects literary history and theory rather than being limited by either. |
| “There are no Scylla and Charybdis. There are only literary history and literary theory and a hyphen between them.” (Dev, p. 32) | He ultimately dismisses the idea of conflict, proposing that literary history and theory should be seen as complementary rather than antagonistic forces in literary studies. |
Suggested Readings: “Literary History, Literary Theory And Comparative Literature” by Amiya Dev
- Dev, Amiya. “Literary History, Literary Theory, and Comparative Literature.” Literature East and West: Essays Presented to RK Dasgupta. Allied Publishers, 1995.
- Harris, Wendell V. “What Is Literary ‘History’?” College English, vol. 56, no. 4, 1994, pp. 434–51. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/378337. Accessed 8 Feb. 2025.
- Pelc, Jerzy. “Some Methodological Problems in Literary History.” New Literary History, vol. 7, no. 1, 1975, pp. 89–96. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468280. Accessed 8 Feb. 2025.
- Searle, John R. “Literary Theory and Its Discontents.” New Literary History, vol. 25, no. 3, 1994, pp. 637–67. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/469470. Accessed 8 Feb. 2025.