The French School

The founding fathers of this school define

'comparative literature' as a branch of literary study which traces the mutual
relations between two or more internationally and linguistically different
literatures or texts. (5) Insofar as relations between nations have some historical
roots, literary comparative studies are linked to history. It is on this basis that
Jean Marie Carré comes to propose in his foreword to Marius Francois Guyard's
book La Litterature Comparée that "comparative literature is a branch of
literary history, for it tackles the international spiritual affinities." (6) As these
perspectives place a strong emphasis on geographical and linguistic boundaries
in the comparison, they (elusively, however, by the use of 'international' as a
keyword) show a national propensity.

Inasmuch as it is colored by the 'études binaires' (binary studies), this

approach complicates matters by stating that comparative literary study should
take place between specific 'individuals.' (7) It means that 'anonymous', 'folkloric'
and 'collective' works, even if well-known and accepted, are excluded from the
province of comparative literature, for no other reason than their being oral and
'impersonal.' (8)

If the French approach lacks in determination of method, the French

theorists themselves are to blame for not being able to reach an idealistic
methodology of comparative literature. It is Tieghem who makes a rigid sharp
distinction between so-called 'general literature' (to him, all research underlying
the common properties of a number of literatures, be it reciprocal relation or
congruency) and 'comparative literature' (the study of two entities: two books or
writers, two groups of books or writers, or two complete literatures). (9) His
attempt to have this concept of 'general literature' circulated in Europe came to
naught. Not to mention its illegitimacy and erroneousness, the concept, as seen
by H. Remak, makes the already indistinct definition of 'comparative literature'
much more blurred. Remak maintains that 'general' and 'comparative' literature
are inseparable, for the two (as defined by Tieghem) rely on one method. Even
Guyard, a notable founder of the French School, comes to agree with the
American critic Remak that Tieghem's 'general' and 'comparative' literature fall
into the same category of meaning. Remak agrees that
Tieghem's concept gives wider scope to 'general literature' than 'national' and
'comparative' literature: instead of confining themselves to two European
literatures (French and English or German), the devotees of the French School
are invited to bring more literatures from inside and outside Europe into the
zone of their comparative studies. (10)

Despite its post-war popularity in most parts of the world, the French
School, to borrow M. Shafiq's phrase, "has come to an impasse" for many
reasons. (11) First of all, the French theorists have failed clearly to define the
terminology and methodology of 'comparative literature.' These theorists have
busied themselves with outside impacts on the literary work such as the
'causality' of relations between literary works, while ignoring the internal
aspects of the texts in question. Hence, 'comparative literature' (defined by M.
Wahba and several others as a 'branch of literary study') (12) is tied to nineteenth-
century 'positivism' ("A system of philosophy elaborated by Auguste Comte
[1798-1857], holding that man can have no knowledge of anything but actual
phenomena and facts and their interrelations, rejecting all speculations
concerning ultimate origins or causes"). (13) This makes 'comparative literature'
lose touch with other critical or aesthetic approaches. Another good reason is
that no credit can be given to a comparative study based upon linguistic
differences only, leaving out the factor of culture, though language and culture
are intermingled. (14) It is more accurate, therefore, that a comparison should take
place between literatures in a single language, inasmuch as they are products of
different cultural contexts – a hypothesis which the American scholars have
adopted as one of the bases of their so-called 'American School of comparative
literature,' which will be discussed below, after an examination of the French
School's most common fields of study.

The Concept of Influence:

There is general agreement that the 'influence' study (basic for the French
School of comparative literature) is a very knotty question, for it takes various
forms which comparatists sometimes misuse due to a failure to distinguish
between one form and another. There are many arguments surrounding the term
'influence', but one can define it simply as the movement (in a conscious or
unconscious way) of an idea, a theme, an image, a literary tradition or even a
tone from a literary text into another. But scholars do not stop here; rather, they
classify influence into distinct types as follows.

(a) 'Literary' and 'Non-literary' Influence:

The concept of 'literary influence' originated in the type of comparative

study that seeks to trace the mutual relation between two or more literary works.
This sort of study is the touchstone of the French comparative literature. Hence,
a comparative study between B. Shaw's Pygmalion and that of Tawfiq Al-
Hakeem, or between Arabic and Persian poetry, for example, is a good example
of 'literary influence'; while a comparative study between Rifa'at Al-Tahtawi
and French culture is based on the principle of 'non-literary influence,' even
though culture is related at some level to literature. The latter is ignored by the
French School on the ground that the influenced writer ('receiver') does not
absorb certain constituents of a literary work into his or her own work but rather
some primary material which he or she
dexterously reshapes into a literary work. (15)

(b) 'Direct' and 'Indirect' Influence:

A 'direct influence' between two literatures, beyond the boundaries of

place and language, is marked when there is an actual contact between writers.
More specifically, a literary text can have no existence before its writer's reading
of another writer's 'original' text or having direct contact with him or her. It is
difficult, not to say impossible, however, to prove this relation, resting basically
on a clear-cut causality, between nationally different writers; (16) especially,
when some writers do not mention (deliberately or unconsciously) their debt, if
such exists, to certain foreign writers or texts. Shakespeare's plays, for example,
are derived from a number of older texts (history, biographies of notable persons
or folkloric tales), but it would be inaccurate to suggest that such materials are
behind his peculiar genius, because they were only the raw material that he
reshaped into new forms with his genius. Shakespeare's drawing upon any
preceding sources is thus irrelevant to the concept of 'direct influence,' but
closely pertains to the concept of 'creativity' in the Middle Ages in Europe,
which was gauged by a writer's utilization of certain literary devices (rhetorical
or stylistical modes) to create out of an overworked subject a new literary source
that appeals to the reading public. (17)
 The comparatists interested in emphasizing the direct influence between
different writers are in this way obliged to obtain documentary information
verifying an actual relation between them, such as personal contacts or letters.
Though their job is difficult, these comparatists do not enrich their national
literatures with new literary models (patterns of thought, technique or types of
personae... etc.) as much as they accelerate a tendency towards a blind
chauvinistic 'national-ism,' where each critic makes a statistical list of the works
manifesting the superiority of his national literatures to foreign ones.

In many cases influence can exist between two different writers, without
there being any direct relation between them because of the language barrier,
but rather through specific intermediaries such as individuals, journals or
periodicals of literary criticism, saloons or societies of literature, and
translations. If there is any influence of this sort, the French comparatists take it
to be 'indirect.' Some individuals happen to visit and stay temporarily in foreign
countries and become conversant with some of their literary works, which they
propagate at home after coming back. An example is Mme de Stael's De
L'Allemagne (1810, and was published in Britain in 1813), a book about
Germany she wrote while staying there, which acquainted the French people
with the German literature of the time. (18) Translation plays a no less effective
role in importing information to peoples of the world about each other's
literature.

It is noteworthy, however, that translation is often referred to as a

complicated and deceptive process: inasmuch as it may provide national
literatures with fresh themes or techniques, it may also distort the original texts.
Owing to the deep influence of national matrices of language, culture and
politics, many scholars fail to give, consciously or unconsciously, accurate
translations of foreign texts. This results in the danger of the appearance of
entirely different texts from the originals, which consequently leads to what
critics describe as 'a false influence,' as the writer influenced by such translated
works is misguided. (19) In many cases the translated texts can put people off the
originals. Charles Pierre Baudelaire's translation of Poe's stories into French and
several other English translations are clear examples. (20) A 'false influence' can
be uncovered when a writer is influenced by another from his own country,
whom he believes to be influenced by foreign texts; whereas if this writer went
to the source he might find quite different elements. An example to examine is
the influence on Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov of Alexander Pushkin's Byronic
poetic narratives, but as he came to consult Lord Byron's original texts he could
absorb from them many valuable artistic aspects, which Pushkin could not, into
his own works – aspects which contributed to the
development of Russian literature. (21)

'Influence study' now seems a difficult task, as it requires comparatists to

be well versed in different languages, cultures and literary histories in order to
come up with sound conclusions. It is rendered more complex by the insistence
of the French comparatists on processes such as 'borrowing', 'imitation' and
'reception.' Both Tieghem and Guyard concur that the study of a writer's impact
on a foreign country cannot be divorced from studying the 'reception' of this
writer's works in that country to a degree at which it becomes impossible to
distinguish between 'reception' and 'influence.' (22) J. M. Carré also maintains that
'influence' study stresses the need to examine the reception of foreign works in a
national country. Hence, he takes 'reception' to be a synonym for 'influence.' (23)
And as the reception of a work in a foreign country subjects certain parts of it to
'borrowing' and 'imitation' on the part of some national writers, which are clear
signs that 'influence' takes place, it seems that the three processes are bound
together. But many critics see that the 'influence' process must not be mixed
with the other processes, as is shown below.

The Concept of Reception:

There is a sharp line of demarcation between the process of 'influence'

and 'reception', though the two are not unrelated: no influence can take place
between foreign writers without the reception of a literary work outside its
national borders. That is, 'reception' can be taken as a step on the road to
'influence.' But the reception of a foreign work in a nation does not necessarily
mean that it is a good sign of 'positive influence': this would require proof that
the foreign work helped develop in another country a foreign work within its
national literature. In some cases a country's reception of foreign works helps
only in letting its people know more about other cultures, as reflected in such
works. This is why Zhirmunsky, along with other Russian scholars, sees that the
process of 'reception' is not coincidental or mechanical but rather systematic, as
it takes place only when the foreign works bring in cultural and ideological
modes that accord with or help evolve those of a nation. (24) To give but one
example, Fitzgerald's English translation of Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyat would
not be given so much attention in the west unless it fulfilled a need for
Khayyam's new trends of pessimism and mysticism. (25) On the contrary, the
Arabic translations of certain Greek works during the Renaissance were not
celebrated much in the Oriental world, containing as they did social and
religious concepts that were inconsistent with its Islamic and Christian culture.

The Concept of 'Imitation' and 'Borrowing':

Ulrich Veisstein recognizes that though 'influence' and 'imitation' or

'borrowing' are related, they are drastically divergent in meaning. 'Influence'
goes beyond the process of adopting certain aspects of a foreign literary work,
and can manifest itself in a writer's imitation of this work in a way which suits
the taste of his countrymen and proves his creative ability. The latter, Veisstein
maintains, should not necessarily be seen as a refurbishing of specific foreign
forms or themes, but as a creation of new concepts and contents originating
from the foreign ones. (26) It seems then that aspects of foreign influence are
embedded within the text, and to analyze them one must analyze carefully the
whole text and consider the process of influence (starting with the literal
translation of the foreign text through the imitation and borrowing processes).
But pure 'imitation' in itself is a conscious process of adopting certain parts of a
foreign work through which the imitator gives no room for the presentation of
his creative ability in his text.

The 'borrowing' process is a ramification of 'imitation', in its broad sense,

which ranges from the refashioning of the best parts of a foreign work in a way
that fits well the national public taste to the adoption of a particular foreign style
or technique. Pushkin's adaptation of Byron's elegy to the Russian style, and
Pound's reshaping of the Russian old models of poetry are good illustrative
examples. (27) There is a marked difference, however, between 'imitation' and
'borrowing': in the case of borrowing (especially from a work written in a
foreign language) the writer, like the translator, is bound by the original text,
whereas in the case of imitation he is not.

Still, there is a thin line of demarcation that should not be broken between
imitation and borrowing as forms of artistic creativity (which adds new literary
and technical modes to the influenced literature) and as 'plagiarism' (which is
the borrowing from foreign works without referring to the sources or areas of
citation). This last process, of course, has always been disapproved of
(28).

'Positive' and 'Passive' Influence:

A national writer's use of specific foreign literary sources in creating

successful works of his own simply means that these sources have a 'positive'
influence upon him. In other words, according to Aldridge, the existence of
something in a writer's work is contingent upon his reading of another writer's
work. (29) Examples of this sort of influence have been mentioned so far in
discussing the complex process of reception. Some foreign works may have a
'passive' influence upon a national writer, in that he may feel compelled to write
in a reaction to an affront to highly revered national figures in foreign literature.
For example, S. Daniel's Cleopatra (1594), Shakespeare's Anthony and
Cleopatra (1606-7), La Chapelle's La Mort de Cléopâtre (1680, A. Sommet's
Cleopatra (1824), Mme de Gérardin's Cléopâtre (1847), Shaw's Caesar and
Cleopatra (1912) and other plays, all belittled the Oriental mentality through
portraying Cleopatra, an ancient Egyptian queen, as a two-faced siren who won
victory for her country by seducing Anthony and other western military leaders.
Conversely, Ahmed Shawqi's portrayal of Cleopatra manifested her as a striking
example of loyalty and self-sacrifice for the sake of her country's welfare and
dignity. (30)

No literature can stand alone on its own nation's cultural and literary
heritage; rather, it must transcend geographical and linguistic borders to give
and take (a technique, a theme, an idea or a human model) from different
literatures of the world. This inevitable mutual sharing between international
literatures is another essential area of study in French 'comparative literature.' Its
fields of study are the following:

(1) Literary Schools and Genres:

From the 18th century until now, the world has witnessed the emergence
of various literary schools or movements (Classicism, Romanticism, Realism,
Naturalism, Symbolism, Expressionism, Surrealism, Modernism, Post-
modernism) and genres (epic, novel and drama). It is hardly a coincidence that
such literary forms and schools are found, in one way or another, in the
literatures of different parts of the world: there must have been a connection
between them. Romanticism, for example, was brought to Germany through
Schiller, to England through Shelley, to France through Hugo, and to Russia
through Pushkin within the 19th century; but it appeared in the Arab world
through a group of poets in the first half of the twentieth century. (31) Like animal
geneses, these schools and genres (as shown by Brunetiére's L'évolution des
Genres, based on Darwin's theory) have undergone basic changes and
evolutions; and some of them have decayed. There is no place in today's
literature for classicism, with its rigid artistic formulae, as is the case with the
historical novel (which inundated Europe till the middle of the late century);
when they first appeared, epic and drama were confined to using verse, but in
time they tended to use both verse and prose, and then prose only.

Accordingly, comparatists interested in this field of study should base

their studies on raising and answering a number of questions such as: what are
the similitudes and dissimilitudes between two international literatures in using
a specific school or genre? Where and when did this school or genre first
appear? And how did it find its way into other literatures? What was behind its
change or evolution? Did the boundaries of language, place and time have to do
with this? Besides, many other questions can be put forth and answered.

Despite its large scope, this area of study in comparative study has not
been scrutinized. J. W. Goethe's West Östlicher Divan (1819); L.R. Furst's
Romanticism in Perspective: A Comparative Study of the Romantic Movements
in England, France and Germany (1960); and Islamic and Arab Contribution to
the European Renaissance (1977) by the National Commission For UNESCO in
Egypt, are among the most significant studies on the history and development of
various literary schools and genres in Western and Oriental countries.

(2) Ideological Echoes

According to Tieghem, the ideological history of a nation is generally

formed by the history of philosophy, religion, ethics, culture and politics. This
ideological history cannot be divorced from literary history, as the spread of any
ideology outside national borders depends upon the artistic method of
expressing it, as represented in the works of such French philosophical writers
as Montesquieu (1689-1778), Voltaire (1694-78) and Rousseau (1712-78). :
These philosophical writers and many others are proper candidates for
comparative literature studies.

Literature harbors all kinds of ideas, which are viewed differently by

different writers. Religious ideas in, for example, French literature are treated in
various ways: some writers defend religion or certain doctrines, while others
question them. Cálvin, Pascal, Rousseau, Montaigne, Fénelon and
Chateaubriand are among the theological writers whose distinguished works
have found their wide echoes outside the frontiers of France.

As for philosophical ideas, not all of them are reflected in literature, but
the ones that can be taken as seeds for ethical, social or literary concepts. A
great deal of the philosophy of Hegel and Locke have found their way into
many of the European literary works. Still, philosophical ideas are not the same
in various literary forms, but are modified in a way that serves the writer's
literary goal. German Existentialism, for instance, would not have gained
popularity in France, if Sartre had not prepared the French public's taste with his
novels and plays. Similarly, Al-Gähiz and Ibn El-Muqaffa must have exerted a
strenuous effort in assimilating some of the foreign philosophical ideas (as of
India, Persia and Greece) and introducing them into Arab culture in some
works. (32)

Much more attention has been directed by comparatists towards ethical

ideas in literature than to theological or philosophical ideas, in that they are
closely related to literature (with all its forms, substance and essence). Ethical
ideas embrace the writer's view of man (his nature and destiny in this world or
the other) and the critical views which evaluate his actions and dictate how he
should behave within definite social and ethical norms. These theoretical and
practical rules of the writer are bound together in their literary expression.

It is hardly difficult to notice that ethical ideas have been the raw material
for the masterpieces of world writers such as Addison, Shakespeare, Marlowe,
Pope, Voltaire, Pushkin, Petrarch and Byron. The mutual influence between
these writers, and many others, has been considered by a number of
comparatists, like J. Texte (1865-1900) and Paul Hazard (1878-1944). Still, the
works of Texte and Hazard are not regarded as 'comparative literature' but
'general literature' studies, inasmuch as they pursue the literary and ideological
history of all European countries within a century or two, whereas the French
School is characterized by binary study. Hence, Voltaire's imitation of Pope's
view of man's dual nature, or mysticism in Arabic and Persian literature, or
'existentialism' in German and French literature, for example, all are proper
provinces for comparative literature studies. (33)

Any treatise on 'comparative literature' may come to effective conclusions

if it examines the role of other ideas (say, political, scientific or aesthetic) in the
growth of literature – ideas which, of course, are echoed in most world
literatures. Many of the theories of natural and social sciences are reflected in
certain works by Zola; the 19th century literary decadents (a group of French and
English writers who adopted the theory of 'art for art's sake) can be traced back
to the multifarious analyses of psychotherapy; and even the most recent
scientific discoveries are represented at length in modern literature. The political
ideas in the masterpieces of Plato, Bacon, Vico, Hegel and Marx have been
imitated by countless European writers, who must have affected many writers
outside Europe. As for aesthetic ideas, they have been already referred to in
discussing literary schools and genres, whose use in modern literature is
attributed to Aristotle. (34) It seems now that the comparatist's job of studying the
history of ideas and their participation in laying the bases of many literary texts
is very complicated - a job which should shed some light on the history of two
different cultures and the reasons behind their mutual literary contact.

(3) Image Echoes:

The treatise on 'image' in comparative literature has two main points of

departure. First, a country's image in a foreign writer's work (e.g., Twain's
portrayal of Egypt, along with some other Arab countries, in The Innocents
Abroad or Voltaire's image of the English people) or literature (Spain in Arabic
literature or Germany in French literature). Second, the image of a certain type
of common character or of an object (woman in Arabic and Persian literature, or
nature in English and French literature).

The image of a country in foreign literatures, in travel books or literary

texts through using 'foreign' personae or local colour, is widespread in both
national and comparative literature. Pierre Reboul's Le Mythe Anglais dans la
Litterature Francaise sous la Restauration (The English Myth in French
Literature: The Restoration Period) outlines English characters in French
literature between 1815 and 1830, who seem to be characterized by independent
thinking, duality, love of freedom and a commanding temperament. But this
image underwent basic changes in later writings. In 1813 Mme de Stael
introduced the French people to a picture of a deteriorating Germany (displaying
a dull romantic spirit and a sharp division into principalities, kingdoms and
Duchies). Owing to the social evolution of Germany in the late 19 th century,
Wagner depicted it as a united republic and a luminous center of knowledge and
culture. On the contrary, Bismark saw it as martial and dictatorial. These
inconsistent views, however, could not sweep from the French mind the picture
of Germany as a home of the erudite physician, the romantic poet and the
favored musician. The Mercure de France (a French journal published in 1924)
presented an ideal picture of the Roman citizen (known for his generosity, love
of nature and deep reverence for the past). The accounts of some French
travellers and translated Roman works into French were primary sources for this
view. However, this idealistic picture later underwent a change: some French
writers looked upon the Roman ideal as foolhardy, opulent and showy.
Inasmuch as this last view contradicted the Roman identity as shown throughout
Roman history, it was regarded as inaccurate.

With an equal degree of interest, several scholars pursued the depiction of

France in other European literatures (of England, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.), as
appeared in Revue de Psychologie des Peuples. Some
Munich University professors also drew an analogy between the image of
France in German literature and that of Germany in French literature. (35)

It is obvious now that a country's image in a foreign literature rests upon

different, often contradictory, points of view. Depending on sources irrelevant to
literature (journals, periodicals or newspapers) and viewing a people through
stereotypes may lie behind such contradictory views. In order to ensure accurate
and authentic images of countries, the comparatist is required to examine all the
literary works portraying a country and the writers' biographies, so as to make
sure whether or not they visited this country. It is preferable, though difficult,
that the comparatist himself visit the country and get acquainted with its people
and culture to be able to compare its literary image with its reality. Good
judgment is an essential prerequisite, to detect truth or falsification of literary
images of a place. This sort of study, after all, becomes most difficult when the
lines of distinction between mythical and real are broken and when it becomes
impossible to trace the sources of a country's image printed in the minds of a
foreign people. (36)

As for the second dimension of 'image' (which is the representation of a

type of character or an object in more than one literature), it demands of the
comparatist to base his study on two things. In the first place, he or she needs to
look for the cultural, social or political communication between two different
nations some of whose literary works focus on a certain type of character or an
object. In the second place, the role of geographical, linguistic and cultural
boundaries in modeling the same type of character or object in a similar or
different manner should not be ignored.

As a figure of speech (like the symbol of nature as divine power or as a

kind mother who gives solace to her children during sorrow and distress times),
'image' has crept into all poetry, drama and novel (as is the case with the French
and English romantic poets). It is most significant if the comparatist can
determine the origin of an image or a group of images in the works of a writer
and their imitation by others. Since foreign images are assimilated by writers
into their national languages and cultures, the comparatist is bound to refer to
this process. The transmission of Arabic poetry, with all its images, through
'intricate historical circumstances' to Spain, Sicily and south-west France during
the Renaissance period may be a prolific province for comparative literature
studies.
(37)

(4) Verbal Echoes:

Subsequent comparative studies have been fastened on the 'give' and 'take'
between languages, with regard to the various channels of connection between
nations. These studies reached contradictory conclusions as to the words and
idioms which crept from the borders of one language into the other's. But what
matters most is the discovery that foreign words go beyond being mere sources
of enrichment for the legacy of the receiving language that has received them;
they become indicative of definite social and cultural values with many
connotations. It is reasonable to suggest that languages, despite their variation,
are the cornerstones of cultural and social reciprocity between nations.
 Mackenzie, an English researcher, has thoroughly examined the relations
between England and France in the light of the words each one borrowed from
the other's linguistic legacy. Most fruitful is the role of the Orientalists in
revealing the impact of foreign languages on Arabic, and vice-versa - an impact
which throws light upon various ancient relations (historical, political,
commercial, scientific, literary, etc.). Some examples of the many comparative
studies made in this field: Siegmond Fidenkel, Die Aramaischen Fremdworder
im
Arabischen, Leiden, 1886 (Aramaic Words in the Arabic Language); Lyde,
Glossaire des mots Espagnols, Portugais Dérivés de l' Arabie, 1869 (A
Glossary of Spanish and Portuguese Words Derived from the Arabic Language);
Heinrich Leroy, Die Semitischen Fremdworder im Griech-ichen, Berlin, 1895
(Semitic Words in the Greek Language).(38)

Much more light has been thrown on the role of the Arabic words
borrowed by other languages in widening international relations in the fields of
mathematics, natural sciences, history, geography, oceanology, botany and
medicine. For instance, The Canon of Avicena, a literary medical book ("ranking
with the works of Aristotle, Euclid and Ptolemy") has always been a primary
source for 'practitioners' of medicine in different parts of the world, and of
which many of the terms have been adopted by various foreign languages.
Countless Arabic astronomical terms have also found their way, with just a little
change, in Western navigation books, such as: 'Achenar' (Akhir El-Nahr),
'Alkaid' (Al-Qa'id), 'Altair' (Al-Ta'ir), 'betelguese' (Bit Al-Gawza'), 'Centaurus'
(centaurs), 'Mirfak' (Mirfaq), 'Famalhut' (Fam ElHoot), 'Regal' (Regal)... etc. (39)
In music, too, some of the names of musical instruments (such as ud for the
English word 'lute') are still in common use all over the world.

Such studies may open new horizons for other ones which may come up
with fresh ideas or concepts, so as to add to our knowledge of international
relations across time and history. Still, it is not easy to achieve this, for verbal
echoes study demands, besides vast knowledge of different international
cultures, traditions, politics and histories, a great ability of testing these within
certain linguistic contexts in two or more international literary texts, with a view
to deciding the kind of historical relations between them. Such study can be
easily drawn towards the orbit of both sociology and anthropology; the
comparatist should not let the outside sources of the linguistic contexts seduce
him away from the examination of the literary work itself.
(5) Human Models and Heroes:

That certain characters and heroes are used in eastern and western
literatures (especially epic arts) is commonplace. There are characters attributed
to ancient myths such as: Pygmalion (as in Shaw's Pygmalion, Ovid's Les
Metamorphosis and John Marston's The Metamorphoses of Pygmalion's Image)
and Prometheus (as in Geothe's unfinished play Prometheus, Shelley's
Prometheus Unbound and A. Gide's Promethée Mal
Enchaine). Religion has provided all literatures with such figures as: Noah,
Youssif (or Joseph), Moses, Solomon, the prophet Mohammed, Christ, Cain,
Abel and the devil. The latter is depicted, for just one example, in "Paradise
Lost", Hugo's Fall of the Devil, M. Lermontov's dramatic poem "The Devil,"
Byron's Cain and in some works of Baudelaire and Arab writers. (40) Some of the
characters, are, it is suggested, taken from popular myths, namely: Ala Edin and
Shahrazad in The Arabian Nights; Faust in Marlowe's Dr. Faustus and several
dramatic and poetic works of the Middle-Ages in Europe; and Don Juan in Tirso
de Molina's play El-Bortador de Sevilla y Convidada de Piedra, Otto Renk's
Don Juan and in some works of Baudelaire, Moliere, Byron, Goldoni, Mozart
and Hoffmann. Other characters (like Alexander, Cleopatra, Arthur, Julius
Caesar, etc.) are adopted by western and eastern writers from history. However,
certain common types (say, the miser or the gambler) are ascribed to no definite
originals but to daily life in general, therefore they are not focused upon in
comparative literature. Instead, the focus has been on the worker, the inventor,
the doctor, the naive girl, the harlot and many other common characters.

It is noteworthy that all the aforementioned types of characters vary from

one literary text to the other. The imitators may have an excuse in Aristotle's
definition of tragedy, which is the imitation of men in a way which makes them
look better than we do; this is the method of painters, whose drawing of an
original model results in producing a much more beautiful one, though the two
may look identical. Like the painter, the poet creates out of bad or vicious
people very idealistic human models. (41) For example, Moliere's Don Juan is
made to be a social satirist and a benevolent man altogether; Byron assigns Don
Juan to convey his own philosophy: namely, detesting the haughtiness of
society, its rigid and arbitrary traditions and calling for free love - a sacred love.
In this Don Juan appears as a social victim and rebel. Some of the characters,
however, do not deviate from their original outlines. Shahrazad, for example,
figures in Arabic and western literatures as a symbol of the heart's triumph over
mind.

The comparatists who want to work on this field of study in comparative

literature are bound to trace how certain characters are sketched by two different
literatures and the reasons beyond their consistency with, or deviation from, the
original models. Still, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to come to clear-cut
and accurate conclusions, when it is argued at length that the sources of specific
characters are found in myth or folklore, or even created out of imagination and
are made by writers to look real.

To conclude, the French comparatists have not restricted comparative

literature study to the above fields: it has been of paramount importance for
them to work on the popularity and influence of a writer or group of writers on
the writings of foreign countries - a sort of study which Tieghem calls
'dexologia' (a Greek word for 'fame'). (42) Countless positive studies have been
centered on the contribution of the French writers (Rabelais, Ronsard,
Montaigne, Moliere, Boileau, Fénelon, Flaubert, Baudelaire, Rousseau,
Maupassant, Zola, etc.) in developing other European literatures, and the impact
of the latter (like Richardson, Ossian, Byron, Shaw, Valery, Goethe, Herder,
Schiller, Dante, Le Tasso, Pirandello, Goldoni, Lope de Vega, Dostoievski and
Tolstoi) on French literature. Outside Europe, comparative studies have focused
on the mutual influences between Arabic literature and European literatures. (43)

Despite its circulation inside and outside Europe within the early years of
the twentieth century, the French School of comparative literature could not
avoid criticism because of certain drawbacks. Tieghem, along with his
followers, is impeached for drawing comparative literature away from its
primary focus by involving it with problematic, though irrelevant, issues. To
inquire thoroughly into 'rapports de fait' or outside circumstances affecting two
or more literary texts makes the comparatist concentrate not on the texts but on
extraneous factors. (44) In this way the subject remains bound by the old
historical and 'positivistic methods of investigation. Another serious mistake is
the confinement of comparison to the boundary of language and place between
the texts, which draws us into Eurocentric view. Tieghem's differentiation
between 'comparative' and 'general' literat-ure has caused the comparatists to
differ often over, for example, "whether a study on the impact of Ibsen on
modernist drama can be properly traced to 'comparative' or 'general' literature."
(45)

Inasmuch as these principles separate the external and internal

constituents of a literary work, they come to contrast sharply with the new
theories of literary criticism which flourished in the second half of the twentieth
century and which are known for their consideration of the work of art as one
integral whole. All these drawbacks must have given birth to the so-called
American School of comparative literature.