This blog is a response to a task assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. The syllabus of the Department of English, MKBU includes paper no.- 208 Comparative Literature and Translation studies which includes around 9 articles. We (students) are assigned a task of classroom presentation of assigned articles in a pair. In this blog we are supposed to write abstract, key points / arguments and concluding remarks on all three articles of Unit 1 of paper Comparative Literatures and Translation Studies. It also includes the recording of class presentations presented by respective students. Blogger and her partner have made a presentation on the third article, presentation and a video of a particular article is embedded (as per the task).
ARTICLE 1
Why Comparative Indian Literature?
Sisir Kumar Das
Detailed concept of article:
Article begins with an idea of attempt of finding unity is literature of India, the beginning of the century a group of scholars have been trying to project the idea of Indian literature emphasizing the underlying unity of themes and forms and attitudes among the various literature produced in different Indian languages to discover the essential threads of unity in our multilingual and multi religious country. It is commendable but these attempts in discovering the basic unity of the Indian creative mind are made at the risk of ignoring the plurality of expressions in our creative minds.
Recently a group of scholars is talking of ‘Comparative Indian Literature’ to add a new dimension to our literary studies. However one wonders, Whether it is being used to lend some respectability to the study of Indian language by linking up with comparative literature, a western discipline or indeed to indicate the proper framework within which Indian literature can be studied. The goal of a newly emerged discipline, comparative literature, is to visualize the total itinerary activities of man as a single universe.
Goethe spoke about Weltliteratur instead of European literature in 1827, perhaps attempting to bring together the literature of different civilizations; he was the first man in history to speak of Weltliteratur . Goethe in a conversation with Eckermann on 31st January 1827 said, “National literature is now rather an unmeaningful term, the epoch of world literature is at hand, and everyone must strive to Hasten its approach.” He did not tell us how to hasten the approach of world literature but we assume that by world literature he meant the memorable works in all languages of the world, rather than the assemblage of all literature.
The goal of comparatist is also world literature but not in the sense that Goethe or R. Tagore had used it but in the sense of literary traditions. The comparatist knows that comparative literature is a method of investigation while world literature, as Goethe meant, is a body of valuable literary works. Comparative literature differs from the study of single literature not in method but in matter, attitude and perspective. it can go on extending its area of operation- its ultimate limit is the literatures of the whole world. Its strength and its weakness lie in its cosmopolitanism (the concept that all of humanity could (and should) belong to a single community.)
Yet from the last hundred years Western comparatist has kept itself restricted to Western literature. If one goes through the enormous corpus of western work produced by them one would wonder about their awareness of the existence of any literature other than their. How is it that the votary of Cosmopolitanism is literary study is a pathetic victim of parochialism (narrow- mindedness)? The contact between West and East Literature began early in history.
- Europe came to know of Hebrew Literature the day it accepted Christianity.
- The ‘Panchtantra’ reached Europe through its Arabian and Syrian version before The Renaissance.
- Cordova in Spain in the eleventh century was the center for Arabic literature.
- By the end of the 18th century, Europe discovered Sanskrit, which brought about a revolution in linguistics.
- When comparative literature was established in the universities of Europe and America translation of many works in Chinese and Japanese and of course in Arabic and Persian were available in European languages
Francois Jost admits that “Western criticism… is still reluctant to integrate into the Corpus literature, the literature of so-called Exotic continents for no reason other than ignorance of Exotic civilizations and languages.
Das says- But it cannot be only because of ignorance; it is more because of indifference, if not because of prejudice against these exotic civilisations to some extent. to plead ignorance of eastern literature made a euphemism for Macauleyean arrogance; The result is that comparative literature in the West began as compared to Western literature and it remains so even today.
Das is ready to admit that the charge of Eurocentrism against the western comparatist is unfair and that his choice of European literatures as the main area of investigation has been prompted more by pragmatism than by prejudice against oriental literatures. Ulrich Weinsstein expressed his hesitation to extend ‘the study of parallels of phenomena pertaining to two different civilizations’, reacting to Henry Remak’s definition of comparative literature which embraces a very wide field and Etiemble’s call for widening the scope of comparative literature. The academic justification for excluding Oriental literatures from comparative literature in the West comes from the necessity ‘to avoid all ahistorical parallels based solely on speculation’. Although there is no reason why such studies will necessarily be based on speculation, one considers the necessity of delimiting the area of comparative literature on the basis of certain principles. If the criteria of Civilization be accepted as a sound one, the European comparatist is within his rights to make Western literature a sole area of his investigation. If they prefer to remain ignorant about other literatures; our comparative literature comprising the study of Indian literature will be as valid as comparative literature in the West.
One can also argue that comparative Western literature is the study of different National literature, while comparative Indian literature is the study of literature of one Nation. Is not Comparative Indian Literature a retrograde step so far as the basic premise of Comparative literature is concerned?
When Europe defined Comparative Literature in terms of national literatures, it only thought of European Nation-states which are monolingual. Today when we talk about India, a nation- state or Soviet Union it consists of several nationalities with different languages, and is multilingual. Neither language or political boundary nor culture can be the sole criteria of Comparative literature. Comparative Literature has to be both Inter Linguistic and Intra Linguistic. If we agree to make language a sole Criterion of for the identification of literatures, we will certainly gain one kind of homogeneity, perhaps a tangible one but the idea of cultural homogeneity on which Western comparative literature rests will fall apart. Even if the exponents of comparative literature insist on the study of the relationship between different National literatures rather than other literatures of any group of people then they have to come to terms with nations which have a lot of literature or with National literature within many languages. e.g. India
Das talks about Comparative Indian Literature as a valid area in comparative literature not because Comparative literature in the West is exclusively a study of western literature. we should try to resist all parochialism in literary studies. Whatever be the goal of comparative literature it must be Terra Firma- a solid ground. Literature deals with the concrete, not with abstractions. It is born of language and yet it goes beyond language; it is nourished by a culture. Any attempt towards a literary belief that cosmopolitanism neglects the literature or literatures that are components of a cultural history is bound to turn into dilettantism. The lesson we must learn from the Western comparatist is the lesson of vigilance against dilettantism. Our comparative literature must be comparative Indian literature because nothing else can be the basis for our literary study. This is not chauvinism, but only an affirmation of the relation between literature and people. We cannot study literature as a body of impersonal knowledge without any relation to the people or to the time to which we belong.
Another argument: Will not the study of Indian literature alone breed a kind of literature Patriotism or a critical parochialism which must be avoided?
Multilingualism is a fact of Indian society and Indian literature. Indian not only have different languages interacted with each other but also gave the rise to new literary style such as manipravala but have also given birth to the new language and literature, example Urdu;
not only have writers used two languages simultaneously but also who have switched from one language to another;
not only do we have text which has been claimed as their own by different linguistic Groups (Charya songs, Mirabai songs) but text has been written in more than one languages e.g. Sanskrit plays.
There is hardly any society where we see that the languages belonging to so many families have been operated side by side and have interacted with each other for so many centuries
Inherent nature of Indian literature, or of Indian literature demands a wide literary perspective and there is no reason why the Indian comparatist should confine himself to his own literature. Comparative Indian literature not only justifies the need for a literary study but it provides the comparative study of literature with new range and vision. A text like Meghnavadham Kavya, unique in the history of literary relations involving two different Civilizations or the emergence of implied tragedy and the novel in India was a challenge to the Indian comparative to study Indian literature in relation to ancient Greek and modern European literature respectively. Indian literature is not merely Indian.
Video recording of this article's presentation, presented by my classmates Divya Sheta and Aamena Rangwala
Presentation of the article by Divya Parmar and Mayuri Pandya
Conclusion:
In a recent article, ‘Towards comparative Indian literature’, Amiya Dev said, ‘Comparison is the right reason for us because, one, we are multilingual and two, we are third world.’ The effect of multilingualism is more or less appreciated by Indians scholars. The third world situation that lends Indian comparative literature of greater validity may need further comments. He points out that the tools of Western comparison are hardly adequate to deal with our literary situation. For example, the categories ‘influence’ and ‘imitation’ and ‘reception’ and ‘survival’ need serious modification to suit the third world literary situation. The third world situation has imposed certain psychological restrictions on us. Our idea of comparative literature will emerge only when we take into account the historical situation in which we are placed. Our journey is not from comparative literature to comparative Indian literature but from comparative Indian literature to comparative literature
It is common to find it challenging to read original articles and summarize them. As a result, I have simplified this article through my understanding and with the help of ChatGPT. Simplifying articles is helpful in achieving a better and clearer understanding of the concept, which will make reading the original article easier. The main aim is to help students or readers understand the concept so that they can read the original article with ease. CLICK HERE FOR A LAYMANISED ARTICLE.
I hope this blog is useful.
[words- 1640]
No comments:
Post a Comment