, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 207–226 | Cite as

The single vs. the comparative: A German conflict

  • Manfred S. Fischer


There is no reason why history should always be the history of a nation and nothing else. Only in literary studies one meets with this notion (...); in political or economic history, history of art or of science no such circumscription is conceivable. And people stick to it merely on account of linguistic difficulty. As the literary historian cannot be conversant with all the provinces of European literature, he turns his limitations to advantage, substitutes an objective demarcation for a subjective one and represents literary history as the history of a national literature instead of keeping his eye on the larger whole. (Werner Milch,Europäische Literaturgeschichte, 1949)


Literary Study Comparative Literature Economic History Literary Historian National Literature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    In the first chapter of hisEuropean Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (tr. W. R. Trask; New York, 1953), Curtius, too, uses the word “phantom” when referring to “modernLiteraturwissenschaft” (p. 12).Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Werner Milch,Europäische Literaturgeschichte. Ein Arbeitsprogramm. Schriftenreihe der Europäischen Akademie vol. 4. (Wiesbaden, 1949), p. 39.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Claus Träger, “Zum Gegenstand und Integrationsbereich der Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft”.Weimarer Beiträge 15,1 (1969), 90.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Cf. Curtius, op. cit. In the first chapter of hisEuropean Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (tr. W. R. Trask; New York, 1953), Curtius, too, uses the word “phantom” when referring to “modernLiteraturwissenschaft” (p. 12). (footnote 2): “Now, turning to this subject [i.e. European literature, M.S.F.], we shall understand Europe not in the geographical, but in the historical sense” (p. 9). — On the estimation of European literature as “an ‘intelligible unit’, which disappears from view when it is cut into pieces”, cf. ibid. p. 14, also for an assessment of the aims and methods of the European critic (pp. 13–5).Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Cf., for instance, a recent, highly polemical and ill-informed letter to the editor of theFrankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, by one Herbert Jaumann (printed in the issue of 26 May 1982). This letter was written in reply to Jürgen von Stackelberg's article “Dichtung ohne Grenzen. Die Aufwertung vergleichender Literaturwissenschaft ist fällig”,Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 4 May 1982 (Nr. 102), p. 25.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Cf. for instance: György M. Vajda; “Rapport relatif au projet d'une histoire de la littérature européenne”.Actes du Ve Congrès de l'AILC (Amsterdam 1969) pp. 775–92; Henry H. H. Remak, “A Comparative History of Literatures in European Languages: Progress and Problems”.Synthesis 3 (1976) 11–23. Five volumes of this project have appeared to date:Expressionism as an International Literary Phenomenon, ed. Ulrich Weisstein (Budapest and Paris, 1973);The Symbolist Movement in the Literature of European Languages (ed. Anna Balakian) Budapest, 1982;Le tournant du siècle des lumières 1760–1820. Les genres en vers des lumières au romantisme (ed. György M. Vajda) Budapest, 1982;Les avantgardes littéraires au XXe siècle (2 vols: ed. Jean Weisgerber Budapest, 1984).Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Eberhard Lämmert, “Germanistik, eine deutsche Wissenschaft”. In:Nationalismus in Germanistik und Dichtung. Dokumente des Germanistentages in München vom 17.–22. Okt. 1966. (Berlin, 1967) pp. 15–36.,Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Cf. Friedrich H. Otto Weddigen,Über die Notwendigkeit einer Professur für Neuere Literatur an den deutschen Hochschülen. Essen and Leipzig, 1880; pp. 10–14; Sigmund von Lempicki, “Vergleichende Literaturgeschichte”. In:Reallexikon der Deutschen Literaturgeschichte (eds. Paul Merker and Wolfgang Stammler. Vol. 3: Berlin, 1928–9) pp. 440–2.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Friedrich H. Otto Weddigen, op. cit.Über die Notwendigkeit einer Professur für Neure Literatur an den deutschen Hochschülen. Essen and Leipzig, 1880 (footnote 9) pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Ernst Elster, “L. P. Betz, Heine in Frankreich”.Euphorion 5 (1896), 336.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Ernst Elster, “Weltlitteratur und Litteraturvergleichung”.Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Litteraturen 107 (1901), 41.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Hans Daffis, “Litteratur und Universität”.Das litterarische Echo 3 (1901), 810.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    —Ibid., p. 809.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Julius Petersen, “Nationale oder vegleichende Literaturgeschichte?”.Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 6 (1928), 46.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Thus, Erich Schmidt, in his “Wege und Ziele der deutschen Litteraturgeschichte. Eine Antrittsvorlesung” (In: Id.Charakteristiken [1st series] Berlin, 1886, p. 491) writes: “Literary history should form part of the history of the nation's spiritual development, with comparative excursions into the field of other national literatures”. Again, Ed. König's essay on “The comparative method and its dangers” (“Die vergleichende Forschungsmethode und ihre Gefahren”),Die Geisteswissenschaften 4 (1913) 94: “Yet another danger of the comparative method seems to me to lie in its tendency to distract from thecentral importance of a cultural tradition's basic individuality” (my italics). To end on a more positive note, let me quote Eugen Wolff who, in an obvious parallel to Wilhelm Scherer'sPoetik, pleads for a “systematic investigation of world literature in the service of an inductive poetics” (p. 31), and who at a very early date (1890!) proclaimed the independence of “comparative history of literature” as an academic discipline: this proclamation based itself on the presupposition of a change of paradigm, from a genetically and contact-oriented study of influence towards a typological study of relations capable of focusing on such cross-national literary phenomena as elude historically observable contacts: “Repeated excursions into world literature will serve the essential purpose of relating mutually independent similarities in the literary process of various periods and nations back to unified theorems; furthermore, they will raise the question, which are the dispositions, situations and events that determine observable differences. Thus one can arrive at a precise definition of the amplitude of all conceptual divergences. I think that such a task would provide Comparative Literary History, which hitherto has concentrated mostly on the registration of single instances of direct influence, with alarger and, what is more, with aunified goal: no longer the obliging handmaiden of the national literary disciplines, it can become a ruler whose direction will assign to each individual literature its proper place in the empire of letters.” (Prolegomena der litterar-evolutionistischen Poetik. Kiel and Leipzig, 1890, p. 29) Although nowadays one must be wary of the tendency to regard comparatism as an all-transcending, all-embracing super-subject, Wolff's views strike one as surprisingly modern: they contain the germ (albeit in a different context and subject to different intentions) of models like Paul Van Tieghem'slittérature générale and Dionýz Ďurišin's study of typological correlations; and Wolff also uses the termEinzelliteratur (“single literature”) much in the same sense in which Dyserinck was to propose it as a preferable alternative to the termNationalliteratur (“national literature”) in 1977.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Cf. Susanne Schröter,Deutsche Komparatistik im Wilhelminischen Zeitalter 1871–1918. Aachener Beiträge zur Komparatistik, vol. 4. Bonn. 1979 pp. 157, 164, 166, 169et passim.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Max Koch, “Zur Einführung”.Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte 1 (1887) 12. My italics.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Ulrich Weisstein,Comparative Literature and Literary Theory. Survey and Introduction (Bloomington, Ind. and London, 1973), p. 29.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Erwin Koppen, “Die Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft als akademisches Fach”.Mainzer Komparatistische Hefte 2 (1978) 35. Cf. id. “Hat die Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft eine eigene Theorie? Ein Exempel: Der literarische Einfluß”. In:Zur Theorie der Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft (ed. Horst Rüdiger; Komparatistische Studien, vol. 1: Berlin and New York, 1971) pp. 41–64, esp. 62.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Hugo Dyserinck,Komparatistik. Eine Einführung. Aachener Beiträge zur Komparatistik, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1977), p. 97.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Cf. Alexandru Duţu, “Die Imagologie und die Entdeckung der Alterität”. In:Kulturbeziehungen in Mittel- und Osteuropa im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. (Festschrift for Heinz Ischreyt, edited by Wolfgang Kessler et al.; being vol. 9 of Studien zur Geschichte der Kulturbeziehungen in Mittel- und Osteuropa: Berlin, 1982), p. 257.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Cf. Zoran Konstantinović, “Der Rousseau der Deutschen. Zum Perspektivenunterschied zwischen Germanistik und Komparatistik”. In:Akten des VI. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses, Basel 1980 (part 3, eds. Heinz Rupp and Hans-Gert Roloff; being vol. 8 in Reihe A —Kongreßberichte of theJahrbuch für Internationale Germanistik: Bern etc. 1980), pp. 40–45, esp. 41–2.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    Claus Träger,—op. cit. (footnote 4) “, p. 91.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    Cf. Rudolf Grosse, “Über die völkerverbindenden Aufgaben der Germanistik”.Zeitschrift für Germanistik 3, 2 (1982), 140–1.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    —Ibid., p. 141.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    Claus Träger,—op. cit. (footnote 4), “ p. 92.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    H. R. (i.e. Horst Rüdiger), “Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft,-geschichte (Komparatistik)”. InKleines literarisches Lexikon (eds. Horst Rüdiger and Erwin Koppen. Fourth ed.: Bern and München, 1966) vol. 3 (Sachbegriffe), p. 435.Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    Albert Guérard, “Comparative Literature?”.Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature 7 (1958) 1–6, esp. p. 4.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    Claus Träger, “Weltgeschichte — Nationalliteratur, National-geschichte — Weltliteratur”.Weimarer Beiträge 20, 8 (1974), pp. 18–9.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    Horst Rüdiger, op. cit. (footnote 28), “Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft,-geschichte (Komparatistik)”. InKleines literatisches Lexikon (eds. Horst Rüdiger and Erwin Koppen. Fourth ed.: Bern and München, 1966) vol. 3 (Sachbegriffe), p. 435.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred S. Fischer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations