Neohelicon (2014) 41:445–455

DOI 10.1007/s11059-014-0254-9

Earl Miner: from comparative literature

to comparative world literature

Yingjian Guo

Published online: 27 July 2014

Ó Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Abstract This essay is divided into two parts. The first one intends to make a
summary of Earl Miner’s cross-cultural comparative poetics. The author asserts that
Earl Miner, as a distinguished scholar in comparative literature studies, has made
innovative contribution in three aspects: his proactive global vision, his pioneering
research methods, and his insightful academic thoughts. The second part, starting
from Miner’s pioneering work and his theory in comparative literature, focuses on
the comparative studies in China. The author argues that comparative literature
studies in China has generally ignored its uniqueness in discipline status and aca-
demic community, mainly on ‘‘the positioning of discipline’’ and the Chinese
comparatists. Under the circumstances of Chinese comparative literature studies,
moving toward a conscientious construction of world poetics, the author is com-
mitted to the idea of ‘‘comparative world literature’’ with the great help of trans-
lation. Such ‘‘a study of foreign literatures in translation’’ will enable scholars to
conduct researches on literary relations, cultural studies and/or interdisciplinary
studies.

Keywords Earl Miner
Comparative literature
Comparative world literature

China

Earl Miner is undoubtedly one of the pioneers in the field of comparative literature
Studies, especially in East-West comparative studies of literatures and theories. His
monograph, Comparative Poetics: an Intercultural Essay on Theories of Literature,
a seminal work in this field, takes into consideration the poetics of the world

Y. Guo (&)
School of Foreign Studies, Minzu University of China, Beijing 100081, People’s Republic of China
e-mail: yjguo2006@gmail.com

123
446 Y. Guo

civilization, starting from the genre comparison, and tries to discover the necessity
and significance of cross-cultural study of comparative literature from both insights
and blind spots. So far, a quarter century has elapsed since the publication of
Comparative Poetics in 1990. In the past 25 years, considerable changes have taken
place in comparative literature studies. If we examine the thematic evolution of
annual conferences of American Comparative Literature Association (ACLA) over
the years since 19901, we can not only comprehend the hotspots and highlights of
comparative literature in general, but also gain certain aspects about the dramatic
changes which have occurred in this field.
As far as my understanding is concerned, there are at least 5 points which reflect
the changes taking place in comparative literature. Firstly, a global perspective.
1990 was the year of the publication of Comparative Poetics, an account of theories
of literature from an intercultural standpoint, and just in that year, the theme of
ACLA was ‘‘Literature in Global Perspective: Interactions and Refractions.’’ What a
coincidence! It might be safe to conclude that from this period onward, the horizon
of international comparative literature studies has been raised to a global
perspective. In 1994, the study was pushed further and deeper, and began to focus
on the relative issues of ‘‘Borders, Exiles, and Diasporas.’’ In 2004, 10 years later, it
went a step further and explored ‘‘Global Ethnic Networks - Old and New.’’ Another
decade passed when the theme was becoming ‘‘Global Positioning Systems’’ in
2013. Very clearly, the development of the global perspective has been advanced
further and further. Secondly, the relation between comparative literature and
culture, which then rises to the relation between comparative literature and cultural
studies. If the theme of 1992’s ACLA, that is ‘‘Literature and Culture: 1492–1992,’’
was general and vague in nature, then in 1996 it directly targeted at cultural studies,
‘‘Literature Between Philosophy and Cultural Studies.’’ In 1999, the theme was
‘‘Comparative Literature and Cultural Transnationalisms: Past and Future.’’ In
2005, ACLA discussed issues of imperialism (‘‘Imperialisms—Temporal, Spatial,
Formal’’). In 2007 and 2010, its themes were ‘‘Trans, Pan, Intel: Cultures in
Contact’’ and ‘‘Creoles, Diasporas, Cosmopolitanisms’’ respectively. The forth-
coming annual conference will be held in March in 2014 at New York University,
and its theme will be ‘‘Capitals,’’ which still pertains to cultural studies. Thirdly,
interdisciplinary studies. In 1995, the theme of ACLA was ‘‘Literature & Science:
Historical and Global Perspectives,’’ which interposed literature and science
together for a comparative study. Five years later, in 2000, the discussion focused
on ‘‘Interdisciplinary Studies: In the Middle, Across, or In Between?’’ In 2006, the
theme was ‘‘The Human and Its Others.’’ Fourthly, the issue of language and
translation. In 1998, the theme, ‘‘Literary and Cultural Translation and Exchange,’’
was set with a purpose to commemorate the internationally well-known translation
theorist André Lefevere as well as to highlight the importance of translation studies
in comparative literature. In 2009, the theme was ‘‘Global Languages, Local
Cultures.’’ Lastly, comparative literature and world literature. In 2011, the theme of
ACLA was ‘‘World Literature/Comparative Literature.’’ Here, it is quite meaningful
to foreground ‘‘World Literature,’’ and intentionally use a split line (/). This

1
See: http://www.acla.org/annualmeeting.html#pastannuals.

123
Comparative literature to comparative world literature 447

highlights the inseparable relationship between the two in a crystal clear manner, or
indicates that they are equals in some sense.
If we take a closer look at Comparative Poetics, it is not difficult to find that as
early as in 1990, this book covers almost all aspects of issues which the future
development of comparative literature in the next 25 years was to face. This fully
shows Miner’s foresight and sagacity as a distinguished scholar. Miner’s academic
innovation lies in the following three aspects: his proactive global vision, his
pioneering research methods, and his insightful academic thoughts.
As stated, Miner’s Comparative Poetics was published in 1990. Its academic idea
and vision conformed to the theme of ACLA in the same year, presenting a global
perspective. Although he humbly regarded his pioneering writing as an ‘‘essay,’’ the
book established a system of cross-cultural comparative poetics. Miner took the
oriental civilization as a frame of reference, and reexamined the western concept of
comparative literature, which distinctly demonstrates a global perspective. Just as
Miner mentioned that studying poetics should not be confined to a single culture
system, ‘‘to consider the other varieties of poetics is by definition to inquire into the
full heterocosmic range, the full argument from design, of literature. And to do so
comparatively is to establish the principles and the relations of those many poetic
worlds.’’2 This kind of global perspective was to inspect the long-standing world
literatures and world cultures as an entity. Since the 1990s, globalization has swiftly
developed and the network era has eliminated the distance between us. As a result,
the thought with a global perspective has profoundly affected the later comparative
literature studies. The impact was also revolutionary.
Validity or effectiveness should be in first place if comparison is involved. As a
realistic comparatist, Miner stated, ‘‘my sole alternative is to return to what has
proved useful not only to me but what seems to have worked in the comparisons
made by others.’’3 Yes, Comparative Poetics adopts the cross-cultural or
intercultural approach to study comparative literature. Without doubt, comparative
study is to focus on heterogeneous cultures, but its difficulty consists in finding out
the entrance of comparison and thereby manifesting fundamental issues on
comparative poetics. Starting from genres of western poetics and based on his
profound understandings of oriental literatures, Miner proposed that Chinese
poetics, as an ‘‘affective-expressive’’ form, actually stemmed from lyrics, which
will deepen our understanding of Chinese poetic systems from the perspective of
our own culture. Premised on acknowledging the structural differences between the
western and eastern poetics, the division of genres means to stand between the two
on comparative study instead of starting from either side. Thus from a cross-cultural
perspective, this approach allows rigorous comparison and discussion on original
poetics, and provides a more extensive space for comparative poetics to develop an
integrated theoretical form. Miner’s study on genres is not only metaphysical, but
has also been turned into specific and effective studies. It is operational, thus making
other scholars grasp an overall picture of the comparative field. On account of this,

2
Miner (1990), p. 7.
3
Miner (1990), p. 233.

123
448 Y. Guo

Miner solved some long-standing problems in the comparative literature circles and
his study on genres became a major contribution to comparative literature.
Comparison is undoubtedly an effective weapon for Miner to tackle problems.
However, it should be noteworthy that Miner’s comparison is seeking common
ground while distinguishing the differences. Meanwhile, he developed the approach
into an integrated and theoretical concept. Therefore, his comparison is not only a
comparative method, but also a comparative thought pattern and theory. Miner took
authentic concepts as preconditions to compare western and eastern poetics. The
theoretical basis of his comparative literature system is based on three foundational
genres, i.e. drama, lyric and narrative. He thereby obtained an access to the context
of a heterogonous culture and probed into the shared and different meanings of
those basic genres in different cultures. Miner especially valued the originality of
different cultures in the three basic genres, which extended the cognition and
interpretation of poetic origins in Western, Japanese and Chinese cultures.
Comparative poetics deals with heterogeneous objects, but not merely literary
comparison. It is significant that this concept distinguishes ‘‘the comparison of
literature’’ in the same culture or the same conceptual world with that in different
cultures or different conceptual worlds. The former ‘‘comparison of literature’’ is
merely an approach, while the latter is the discipline of comparative literature that
regards comparison as the essential characteristics and the fundamental approach. In
other words, the objective of comparison in comparative literature is to generate
new meanings in two or more different conceptual worlds rather than in a single
conceptual one. A deeper illustration is that the cognitive value of comparison is to
realize the ultimate goal of comparing and contrasting in cross-cultural comparative
study from probing into heterogeneous objects.
Referring to comparison, comparability needs to be stressed. Miner thought that
the concept of ‘‘comparative’’ in comparative literature has its deficiency and
limitations. The major problem is that the progress of further study is denied.
Accordingly, René Wellek anxiously pointed out that it must be failed if
comparative literature is taken out of general literature,4 on which Miner correctly
indicated that ‘‘true study of comparative literature and of poetics requires a larger
reach of our imaginations than we have been accustomed to require of ourselves,’’5
and ‘‘it is clear that the major problem is assurance of sufficient resemblance
between or among the things compared.’’6 Miner directed the studying objective to
an easily ignored aspect in comparative literature studies in the past, i.e. ‘‘the
distinctive nature’’ of poetics. As all the original poetics inherit and promote the
certainty factors in some sort of uncertainty, this constitutes an issue that must be
paid close attention to in comparative literature studies, and Miner was perspica-
cious on this point.
It is well-known that the significance of Miner’s Comparative Poetics is
embodied in two keywords, ‘‘cross-cultural’’ and ‘‘comparison,’’ which have hence
introduced comparative literature into the realm of world literature and even world
4
Cf. Wellek (1963 [1958]), p. 290.
5
Miner (1990), p. 11.
6
Miner (1990), p. 21.

123
Comparative literature to comparative world literature 449

culture in the context of globalization. Therefore, the entire book can be regarded as
an inspection of world literature in the context of globalization. For certain,
comparative literature in the age of globalization should not develop ‘‘boundlessly’’,
no matter how many changes it has brought about and how many sub-disciplines
have sprung up from it. We will need to bear in mind at any moment the following
two facts: first, the starting point of comparative literature should always be
literature, but not others; second, the concepts of ‘‘literariness’’ and ‘‘poeticalness’’
should always be attached great importance to so that we may avoid the
phenomenon of ‘‘absence of literature’’ in our literary study. This is a crucial
standpoint from which we understand Miner’s concepts of comparative literature. It
is also what we should not forget when rereading Miner’s work today.
Taking eastern poetics as reference, western scholars like Miner inspect
traditional western poetics with an open attitude. Similarly, Chinese scholars
should dismiss the enclosing thinking pattern in the past and reflect on traditional
Chinese poetics with a more open attitude. Taking western poetics as reference, we
will strive to break the barrier between China and the world. The objective of
carrying out comparative studies is to seek commonality between our national
poetics and poetics of other nations, and also look for literary value of universal
significance that includes all the characteristics of poetics.

II

In the past twenty-five years, comparatists in the world have sought to rethink and
discuss a wide variety of issues like the concepts and borders of the discipline of
comparative literature, thus enhancing its fast development. In this part, drawing
upon Miner’s theory in comparative literature, I will argue that comparative
literature studies in China, vis-à-vis the current status of its counterpart in the West,
has generally ignored its uniqueness in discipline status and academic community,
mainly on ‘‘the positioning of discipline’’ and the Chinese comparatists. I will
thereby rethink what sort of special contributions that comparative literature
community with Chinese specialties might possibly make to the discipline across
the world.
The years after the publication of Miner’s Comparative Poetics in 1990 have
witnessed radical changes of comparative literature studies around the globe. This
could be clearly discerned from the ten-year ACLA Reports of the discipline. Along
with other scholarly articles, the ACLA Report in 1993 entitled Comparative
Literature at the Turn of the Century was published in 1995 by Johns Hopkins
University Press as Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism.7 The
same press also published the 2004 Report in 2006 entitled Comparative Literature
in an Age of Globalization.8 Such key words as ‘‘at the turn of the century’’ or ‘‘in
the age of multiculturalism/globalization’’ demonstrate that, on the one hand, the
turn-of-the-century comparative literature was faced with multi-cultural challenges,

7
Cf. Bernheimer (1995).
8
Cf. Saussy (2006).

123
450 Y. Guo

and on the other, in the early twenty-first century, the discipline is entering into an
age of globalization in a new social, historical and cultural context. Nevertheless,
both new trends are in accordance with the two basic principles for contemporary
comparative literature studies: first, studying multi-ethnic and multi-national
literatures from the global vantage point; second, analyzing and redefining the
age and the world through literature. More significantly, the turn from the
multiculturalism in 1993 to the globalization in 2004 generally represents the recent
development of this discipline in its past twenty-five years, an age loaded with
contradictions between multiculturalism and globalization when the social and
cultural change outside literature echoes with dramatic transformation within
literature. It is then not hard to imagine why comparative literature has had to
confront endless doubts and challenges over its significance as an independent
discipline from time to time. Luckily, it is under such a historical background that
comparative literature in China has made rapid progress in its own right.
It is true that Chinese comparative literature boasts an honorable history starting in
ancient times; yet, viewed in the past century, comparative literature in China rose
truly in the 1980s when the then Reform and Opening Up policy promoted its ever-
increasing academic exchanges with the West through introducing and promulgating
avalanches of new methods and researches of the discipline throughout the nation.
Since the 1990s, comparative literature studies in China, so to speak, has achieved its
course of development on a par with the Western counterpart even as the introduction
of overseas research findings still plays a major role in the scenario.
Be that as it may, two distinct problems, if not totally ignored, have yet to grab
enough attention for the comparatist community as regards the history of Chinese
comparative literature: its unique discipline positioning which is different from the
West, and its singular community of scholars and researchers.
In the West, say, the United States, comparative literature, among other
disciplines of the humanities, delimits its own definite orientation, acting as an
independent discipline or co-existing with World Literature as one discipline, with
its own BA, MA and PhD programs in an independent department or major (as
occasionally incorporated into the English Department). For its part, comparative
literature in China is another story. First, it is on a same level with world literature in
the academic sense, thus called ‘‘Comparative Literature and World Literature.’’ It
is hence quite rare in China to study comparative literature without involving world
literature unless the former has been considered independently just a research
object, but not as a discipline. Second, discipline classification concerning language
and literature in Chinese colleges and universities includes merely two first-tier
disciplines, ‘‘Chinese Language and Literature’’ and ‘‘Foreign Languages and
Literature.’’ The former mainly includes Linguistics and Applied Linguistics,
Ancient Chinese Literature, Modern and Contemporary Chinese Literature, and
Comparative Literature and World Literature. It follows that such a variety of
second-tier disciplines, all incorporated into the Department of Chinese Language
and Literature or simply Department of Chinese, must involve the study of domestic
or national language and literature in China. In contrast, ‘‘Foreign Languages and
Literature’’ discipline includes those second-tier ones that must concern non-
Chinese national languages and literatures, namely, English Language and

123
Comparative literature to comparative world literature 451

Literature, French Language and Literature, or Japanese Language and Literature,

etc.. Take English as an example, its discipline is embodied in the Department of
English Language and Literature, or simply Department of English. In other words,
in China, ‘‘Comparative Literature and World Literature’’ does not fall within the
range of foreign languages and literatures, but within the Chinese ones. Third,
almost no undergraduate program in the sense of major or concentration is available
for this discipline in most of Chinese colleges and universities. Although recently
some universities, such as the Capital Normal University in Beijing, have listed
‘‘Comparative Literature’’ as a dependent sub-program under the undergraduate
program of ‘‘Chinese Language and Literature,’’ it still falls short of the status as a
major or even a minor. The good news, however, is that master and doctoral
programs for ‘‘Comparative Literature and World Literature’’ as a second-tier
discipline have enjoyed a long history in educating generations of literary
comparatists and scholars for China.
As previously mentioned, in China, the discipline of ‘‘Comparative Literature
and World Literature’’ ranks under the upper discipline of ‘‘Chinese Language and
Literature,’’ that is to say, the scholars who engage in research in this field are
mainly composed of a body of researchers who are well-versed in the Chinese
language and literature, rather than by scholars from the Department of English or
other foreign languages who are proficient in the English language and literature or
other different languages and literatures. Therefore, although many comparative
literature scholars are excellent in foreign languages such as English—some of
whom graduated from the English Department, there remain some language barriers
to those scholars engaging in comparative literature Studies. This phenomenon has
failed to raise enough attention by the Chinese academia in this circle, even if it
cannot be said to have been neglected for a long time.
As we all know, in the circle of international comparative literature, foreign
languages have been a demanding prerequisite for comparatist researchers, who in
general should not only perfect themselves in two or three foreign languages, but
should at the same time be capable of reading in two or three other foreign
languages. Courses are provided for majors of comparative literature in the US
universities and colleges, so as to help them enhance their foreign language
competence and reading capability. For undergraduates in colleges or universities
majoring in Chinese Language and Literature in China, although they are also
provided courses to improve their proficiency in foreign languages, especially in
reading, at the end of the day, their so-called foreign languages are narrowed down
to nothing but merely one language, English, alongside their mother tongue. As part
of the professional requirements for majors in Foreign Languages and Literature
(e.g. in English Language and Literature), besides a solid foundation in both
Chinese and their major English, a broad perspective of culture, and capability in
reading foreign research references, they are required to acquire a second foreign
language, for example French, apart from their major foreign language—English.
The above requirements differ a great deal from those in the international circle of
comparative literature, particularly the US circle. One of the direct consequences of
these requirements is that the main force of comparative literature researchers in
China are teachers and/or researchers from the Chinese Department, rather than

123
452 Y. Guo

from the English Department. Despite the fact some of the researchers graduated as
foreign language majors, and the fact that a growing number of these scholars and
researchers have gone abroad for a degree or as visiting scholars, there is no denying
that some of them—even a great majority of them, I am afraid—lack the foreign
language capacity which allows them to pursue their studies in the field, insofar as
their language proficiency is concerned. The same story is basically true of a great
part of the faculty in the English Department. Although they all engage in both
English teaching and research, and have acquired a second or even a third foreign
language, they likewise also fail to equip themselves with a foreign language
capacity which allows them to pursue their studies in the field. It becomes obvious
that foreign languages which should supposedly become the mighty weapon for
studies in comparative literature have now turned into a handicap for most
researchers in China. This unavoidably leads to another issue: how comparative
literature studies are carried out in China? It is done by means of translations into
Chinese—no matter it is William Shakespeare, Honore de Balzac, Leo Tolstoy, or
Mark Twain, it is all with the Chinese translations of their works.
This phenomenon gives rise to a serious question: Can comparative literature
studies be accomplished by reading translations? As known to all, Paul Van
Tieghem9 defines three terms—national literature, comparative literature, and
general literature, addressing the study of literature, respectively, within one nation,
between two nations, and across the globe. Scholars like van Tieghem thus focused
mainly upon locale of literature, only to block further development of comparative
literature. It is Miner who goes beyond such a limit of scope by stressing cross-
cultural comparison in terms of methodology. He argues that the comparative study
of various national literatures, based upon close readings of primary texts in their
own languages, can achieve significant analyses by comparing history in order to
bring the reader a multi-dimensional way of thinking in the cross-cultural context.
Therefore, the rub here is also language and translation.
A literary comparatist, more often than not, is ready to lapse into the monolingual
logos trap because they are inclined to believe one cannot understand the culture if
he or she can not understand the language. In this analysis, those who cannot
familiarize themselves with the language and culture of the target nation or
language must fail to figure out its differences from one’s own culture, not to
mention comparative work in inter-cultural research or communication.
I am not so pessimistic in this issue, for I strongly believe the role of translation
in comparative studies. Actually, crucial as it is, language is not the only way of
human communication with an alien culture. The power of human responses arising
from basic instinct and aesthetic reception cannot be overrated in the present era of
graphical reading and visual arts. Different from graphic or visual reading as it is,
literary reading or comparison can rely on, at least partially due to its dependence on
translation quality, a translation text with basic faithfulness to render the
information of an alien culture, much more effectively than graphic or visual texts,
to the reader, whose initiatives in reading responses with dynamic thinking have not
been fully recognized. In this sense, I suggest that comparative literature based on

9
Cf. van Tieghem (2010).

123
Comparative literature to comparative world literature 453

language proficiency could now be replaced by a ‘‘comparative world literature’’

with the great help of translation. Such ‘‘a study of foreign literatures in translation’’
will further enable scholars to do researches on literary relations, cultural studies
and/or interdisciplinary studies.
Now comes the relevant question: Can innovative work be expected to be
implemented with this textual reading in translation? Absolutely yes. The nub is
how to understand a foreign literature/culture in terms of the nature of literature,
literariness and translation. As Miner has developed national/ethnic literature to the
scope of world literature, so, to a greater extent, it is possible to reread Miner in the
sense of a general world literary theory in a multi-perspective way in that his cross-
cultural comparative poetic system truly helps generate a revolutionary rethinking
of literature, literariness and literary function. A broader scope of world literature
rather than merely the East-West comparison in literature thus comes into
foreground. It follows that we need to think or rethink how to judge multicultur-
alism in literary studies and the universality of literary theory. Multiculturalism
involves tolerance, justice and thoroughness in any consideration as no method or
perspective could be perfect. All this means that ideas, notions and concepts of a
culture can be translated and rendered to scholars of another culture by overcoming
the difficulty of language. Ultimately, the study of foreign literatures in translation
will enable an earnest and diligent literary comparatist to discover new modes of
thinking as well as new convergences of culture in his or her literary study.
Whereas the various waves and factors have affected Western comparative
literature since 1990s, the impact on Chinese comparative literature is mainly from
two forces. The first one is from the dominant ‘‘Cultural Studies.’’ Cultural Studies
is mainly combined with sociology, literary theory, the study of media and cultural
anthropology to study various cultural phenomena in modern industrial society, and
later it develops to extremely concern with popular culture studies. The second one
is from ‘‘Translation Studies’’ or ‘‘Translatology.’’ ‘‘Translation Studies’’ rose from
1970s, and gradually evolved from comparative literature studies. The first scholars
who conduct ‘‘Translation Studies’’ were in fact comparatists. But afterwards not
only many translation studies scholars announced the death of ‘‘Comparative
Literature,’’ advocating the status of ‘‘Translation Studies’’ as an independent
discipline, but also regarded that ‘‘Comparative Literature’’ should be subordinate to
‘‘Translation Studies.’’ Under the influence of the two forces above, either as a
discipline or a literary theory or approach, comparative literature is worth for us to
rethink its boundary, the concept and new tasks.
When cultural studies comes, people only feel and notice the crisis of
comparative literature, but ignore the other side of the coin. Cultural studies brings
a significant change, the rise of gender studies, post-colonial studies, etc., a change
that overturns the whole picture of the study of literature. These phenomena prompt
us to face and answer some fundamental questions like: How do we continue to
carry out comparative literature studies? Can those crossing the border of traditional
comparative literature studies be called comparative literature again? Moreover, due
to the prosperous cultural studies, comparative literature has developed a lot of sub-
disciplines, such as interdisciplinary study, cross-cultural study, comparative

123
454 Y. Guo

poetics, thematology, genre, imagology, and even international sinology, which

manifest the new vitality of comparative literature.
The same is true of the relationship between comparative literature and
translation studies. Susan Bassnett pointed out that in her 1993 monograph,
Comparative Literature: a Critical Introduction, comparative literature as a
discipline has had its day.10 She even further advocated that Translation Studies
should be treated as a major discipline into which comparative literature should in
return included as a valuable component.11 In 2003, Gayatri C. Spivak explicitly
declared the death of comparative literature in her Death of a Discipline.
Meanwhile, Translation Studies has made rapid progress as an independent
discipline, with outstanding researchers and achievements, which has brought great
impact and influence upon comparative literature. China has seen the same trend. As
far as I am concerned, translation can be studied as an objective subject; but if seen
from the perspective of literary translation or literature-relatedness, Translation
Studies ends up as a general means which serves a certain literary relation or
cultural communication—however independent or sacred it may seem. Therefore, it
is impossible for it to take the place of comparative literature Studies, just as any
other discipline which springs out of a discipline not for the purpose to replace but
to co-exist with each other. To take this point a step further, I believe that we should
encourage the two disciplines to reciprocate each other. We have seen quite a lot of
researchers cross the border of comparative literature and engage themselves in the
discipline of Translation Studies. We should also welcome Translation Studies
researchers to step into the field of comparative literature with fresh theories and
methodologies for the benefit of overall achievements in this field.
When it comes to the topic of the positioning and significance of comparative
literature as a discipline, I am of the opinion that it ought to develop into the
‘‘comparative world literature’’ in which translation will make more and more
contributions. In the meantime, considering the reality and mechanism of
contemporary China, I propose that comparative literature, the discipline, should
be given a place not only in the category of Chinese Language and Literature, but
also in the category of Foreign Languages and Literature as well, especially in
English Language and Literature. On this issue maybe we can find some inspiration
from the history of the evolution of comparative literature in Taiwan, where
comparative literature was initially coordinated by both the Department of Foreign
Languages and the Department of Chinese jointly. It is now primarily hosted in the
Department of Foreign Languages, especially in the Department of English.12
Among the reviews and comments on Comparative Poetics, the most popular one
seems to agree that Miner established the status of Comparative Poetics as an
independent discipline methodologically. To me, Miner’s contribution lies not
merely in his use of comparison as a method, but more significantly in its essential
features in distinguishing comparative literature from a specific national literature,
history of literature, and literary theory. Miner examines world literature as an
10
Cf. Bassnett (1993), p.161.
11
Cf. Bassnett (1993), p.161.
12
Cf. Shan (2010), p. 4.

123
Comparative literature to comparative world literature 455

integrated whole; only in this way could the literature of a different language of the
world be better comprehended, could the poetic paradigm built upon the theories of
one culture or literature be rectified. And only in this way can we advance a poetics
which possesses genuine general significance to all literatures of the world. It is here
that lies the essence of ‘‘cross-cultural’’ and ‘‘comparative’’ studies. And this is the
road map of the development from comparative literature to comparative world
literature I hereby propose. I feel confident that the discipline of comparative
literature will build itself upon the studies of world literature, and throw light on the
peculiar charms of different national literatures by comparing and verifying one’s
own national literature with those of other nations, so as to enable us to understand
the general rule of how world literature develops.

References

Bassnett, S. (1993). Comparative literature: A critical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bernheimer, C. (Ed.). (1995). Comparative literature in the age of multiculturalism. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Miner, E. (1990). Comparative poetics: An intercultural essay on theories of literature. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Saussy, H. (Ed.). (2006). Comparative literature in an age of globalization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Shan, T.-h. (2010). ‘‘Xu: Xueke de Lvxing yu Fanyi’’ [‘‘Preface: Travelling of the discipline and
translation’’]. in Zhang Xu’s Kuayue Bianjie: Cong Bijiao Wenxue dao Wenxue Fanyi [Crossing the
border: From comparative literature to translation studies] (pp. 1-4). Beijing: Beijing University
Press.
Van Tieghem, P. (2010). Bijiao Wenxue Lun [Theory of comparative literature] (Dai Wangshu, Trans.).
Changchun: Jilin Publishing Group.
Wellek, R. (1963 [1958]). The crisis of comparative literature. In R. Wellek (Ed.), Concepts of criticism.
New Heaven: Yale University Press.

123