Comparative Literature in the Age of Digital Humanities: On Possible Futures for a Discipline Todd Presner

 

ARTICLE 5

Comparative Literature in the Age of Digital Humanities:

On Possible Futures for a Discipline

Todd Presner

Historical Context and Transformation

The chapter positions our current technological moment as a watershed comparable to the invention of the printing press, which transformed society by creating conditions for the Reformation, Enlightenment, and Age of Humanism. Similarly, we are experiencing a fundamental shift as our cultural legacy migrates to digital formats. This transformation requires historicizing technologies from seafaring voyages to the Internet and real-time social networking.

An important observation is the "dialectical underbelly" of every technology—each innovation simultaneously facilitates democratization of information while enabling new forms of control and potential violence. As Nicholas Negroponte notes, digital technologies can enhance education and communication but may also be used to perpetrate harm, similar to how radio and railways were used in the past century. Paul Gilroy connects this to historical patterns of conquest and enslavement, emphasizing that discussions of technology cannot be separated from analyses of power formations.

The Changing Nature of Humanities Scholarship

N. Katherine Hayles challenges scholars to rouse from the "somnolence of five hundred years of print" and reconceptualize materiality as "the interplay between a text's physical characteristics and its signifying practices." This perspective allows us to consider texts as "embodied entities" while still foregrounding interpretative practices.

The transformation of the literary in relation to Digital Humanities necessitates fundamental rethinking of knowledge creation:

What knowledge looks (or sounds, feels, tastes) like

Who creates knowledge

When knowledge is "done" or published

How knowledge is authorized and disseminated

How it involves and becomes accessible to broader, potentially global audiences

The humanities of the twenty-first century have unprecedented potential to generate, legitimate, and disseminate knowledge in radically new ways, involving technologies and communities rarely engaged in global knowledge-creation enterprises previously.

Defining Digital Humanities

Digital Humanities represents an interdisciplinary practice for creating, applying, interpreting, interrogating, and hacking both new and old information technologies. It is presented as an expansion of traditional humanities rather than a replacement or rejection of humanistic inquiry.

Jeffrey Schnapp's "Digital Humanities Manifesto" argues that humanists must assert themselves in twenty-first-century cultural wars currently dominated by corporate interests. This raises critical questions: If new technologies are controlled by corporate and entertainment interests, how will our cultural legacy be rendered in new media formats? By whom and for whom?

The Challenge of Data Volume

Robert Darnton positions us in the fifth decade of the fourth information age in human history. Though the Internet is barely forty years old and the World Wide Web only two decades old, the volume of data already produced is staggering. Humanity is producing, sharing, consuming, and archiving exponentially more cultural material than ever before, bringing into stark relief the limited canon of print artifacts with which comparative literature currently engages.

Following Franco Moretti, comparative literature is framed as a "problem" requiring "a new critical method" to analyze both the print world in the digital age and the digital world in the post-print age. The discipline must take seriously the range of new authoring, annotation, and sharing platforms transforming global cultural production.

A central issue is the material difference between print and digital artifacts in terms of:

Material composition

Authorship

Meaning-making

Circulation

Reading practices

Viewing habits

Navigation features

Embodiment

Interactivity

Expressivity

The author insists on the multiplicity of media and varied processes of mediation in forming cultural knowledge. Rather than merely studying technologies and their impact, humanists must actively engage with, design, create, critique, and hack the environments facilitating research and producing knowledge about human experience.

N. Katherine Hayles highlights the limitations of traditional reading methods: even reading a book daily throughout adulthood would yield only about 25,000 books read, not accounting for digital forms of cultural material. This necessitates new approaches to analyze the "unfathomably large deluge of data" of the digital age.

Presner's point, following Franco Moretti’s provocation, is to consider Comparative Literature as a “ problem ” that “ asks for a new critical method ” to analyze both the print world in the digital age and the digital world in the post-print age. The “ problem ” of Comparative Literature is to figure out how to take seriously the range of new authoring, annotation, and sharing platforms that have transformed global cultural production.

Three Futures for Comparative Literature

1. Comparative Media Studies

Digital media are characterized as "always already hypermedia and hypertextual," terms coined by Theodor Nelson in 1965. Nelson defined hypertext as written or pictorial material interconnected in ways too complex to present on paper, capable of growing indefinitely to include more of the world's knowledge.

For Nelson, hypertext is a:

Body of written or pictorial material interconnected in such a 

complex way that it could not conveniently be presented or 

represented on paper [ ... ] Such a system could grow 

indefinitely, gradually including more and more of the world ’ s 

written knowledge.

Hypertextual or hypermedia documents deploy multiple media forms in systems allowing:

Annotation

Indefinite growth

Mutability

Non-linear navigation

Comparative media studies investigate all media as information and knowledge systems connected to histories of power, institutions, and regulatory bodies that legitimize certain utterances while dismissing others. The scholarly "work" in this approach might not be uni-medial or even textual, drawing attention to the design and interrelationship of every unit of argument. This enables returning to fundamental questions with new urgency: Who is an author? What is work? What constitutes a text, especially when any text can be both read and written by potentially anyone?

2. Comparative Data Studies

Building on work by Lev Manovich and Noah Wardrip-Fruin, "cultural analytics" brings computational analysis and data visualization to large-scale cultural datasets. This approach enhances literary scholarship by creating models, visualizations, maps, and semantic webs of data too large for unaided human comprehension, performing both "close" and "distant" analyses while broadening the canon of cultural material.

Jerome McGann's concept of "radiant textuality" illustrates how electronic versions of texts (like the Oxford English Dictionary) function as "meta books" that reorganize content at a higher level, adding value through indexing, search mechanisms, hyperlinks, and annotation tools. The "data" of Comparative Data Studies constantly expands in volume, type, platform, and analytic strategy.

As Jerome McGann argues with elegant analysis of “radiant textuality, ” the differences between the codex and the electronic versions of the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, illustrate that the electronic OED is “ a meta book [that has] consumed everything that the code OED provides and reorganized it at a higher level ” adding value through new indexing and search mechanisms, hyperlinks, editing and annotation tools, and even reading strategies.

The “ data ” of Comparative Data Studies is constantly expanding in terms of volume, data type, production and reception platform, and analytic strategy.

3. Comparative Authorship and Platform Studies

Digital environments have transformed passive "browsing" into active engagement in the production, annotation, and evaluation of digital media, facilitated by the open-source movement. The chapter argues that the real danger isn't unauthorized file sharing but "failed to share" due to restrictions placed on the creative commons.

Knowledge platforms cannot be solely managed by technicians, publishers, and librarians—the curation of knowledge through multimedia constellations is rightfully the domain of literary scholars. While preserving peer review authority, publication platforms should foreground collaborative authorship and public feedback through discussion forums and annotation features.

Wikipedia as Revolutionary Model

Presner believes-

“Wikipedia represents a truly innovative, global, multilingual, collaborative knowledge - generating community and platform for authoring, editing, distributing, and versioning knowledge.” With millions of content pages, hundreds of millions of edits, millions of registered users, and articles in dozens of languages, it represents an unprecedented achievement in participatory knowledge production.

The author suggests Wikipedia offers a model for rethinking collaborative research and knowledge dissemination in humanities and higher education, which often fixate on individual training, discrete disciplines, and isolated achievement. At this moment, Wikipedia stands as "the most comprehensive, representative, and pervasive participatory platform for knowledge production ever created by humankind," warranting serious scholarly consideration in future iterations of comparative literature.

Conclusion: 

The emergence of Digital Humanities represents a paradigm shift for Comparative Literature and the Humanities at large, comparable to the transformation brought by the printing press five centuries ago. As our cultural legacy increasingly migrates to digital formats, this transition challenges fundamental assumptions about knowledge creation, dissemination, and analysis.

The future of Comparative Literature in the digital age appears to be moving in three interconnected directions:

Comparative Media Studies examines the hypertextual and hypermedia qualities of digital texts, questioning traditional notions of authorship and textuality while exploring new forms of scholarly output beyond conventional text.

Comparative Data Studies employs computational tools to analyze vast cultural datasets, enabling both "distant reading" of patterns across massive collections and "close reading" of individual texts, expanding the canon of cultural materials deserving scholarly attention.

Comparative Authorship and Platform Studies investigates collaborative knowledge production and sharing platforms, challenging the traditional model of isolated scholarly achievement in favor of more participatory approaches.

Wikipedia stands as a powerful example of this transformation—a global, multilingual platform that has revolutionized knowledge production through collaborative authorship. It offers a model for rethinking scholarly research in humanities, moving beyond individual disciplines toward more collaborative and accessible knowledge creation.

The critical role of humanists in this digital transformation cannot be overstated. Rather than ceding control of knowledge platforms to technicians, publishers, or corporate interests, humanities scholars must actively engage in designing, creating, and critiquing the digital environments that increasingly shape our cultural understanding. This engagement is essential not only for preserving our cultural heritage but also for ensuring that digital technologies serve democratic rather than exclusionary purposes.

The "crisis" in Comparative Literature may thus find resolution in embracing these new digital methodologies and platforms, allowing the field to evolve beyond debates about its disciplinary status into a vibrant participant in the global, digital knowledge enterprise of the twenty-first century.

Key Points From Article:

Historical Context

We are experiencing a watershed moment comparable to the invention of the printing press

Technologies have always had a "dialectical underbelly" - potential for both democratization and control

We're currently in the "fourth information age" (Robert Darnton), with the internet only 40 years old

Digital Transformation of Humanities

Print culture is being enhanced and displaced by natively digital culture

N. Katherine Hayles calls for "rousing ourselves from the somnolence of five hundred years of print"

Digital Humanities represents an expansion of traditional humanities, not a replacement

The role of humanists is more critical than ever as our cultural legacy migrates to digital formats

Data Volume and Analysis Challenges

We're producing, sharing, and archiving exponentially more cultural material than ever before

Traditional reading methods are insufficient - even reading a book a day, one could only read about 25,000 books in a lifetime

Franco Moretti's "distant reading" offers one approach to analyze larger patterns across massive datasets

New tools are needed to sift through, analyze, map, and evaluate the "unfathomably large deluge of data"

Three Futures for Comparative Literature

1. Comparative Media Studies

Digital media are "always already hypermedia and hypertextual" (terms coined by Theodor Nelson in 1965)

Hypertextual documents deploy multiple media forms allowing annotation, growth, mutability, and non-linear navigation

Scholarly output might not be text-based at all, challenging fundamental questions: Who is an author? What is a work?

2. Comparative Data Studies

Uses computational tools for analysis and visualization of large-scale cultural datasets

Allows both "close" and "distant" analyses of data volumes impossible for unaided human comprehension

Electronic texts function as "meta books" that reorganize content at a higher level (Jerome McGann's "radiant textuality")

3. Comparative Authorship and Platform Studies

We now actively produce, annotate, and evaluate digital media rather than passively consuming content

The real danger is "failed to share" due to restrictions on the creative commons, not unauthorized sharing

Knowledge curation through multimedia should be the domain of literary scholars, not just technicians

The Wikipedia Example

Represents an innovative, global, collaborative knowledge-generating platform

Contains millions of content pages and articles in dozens of languages

Offers a model for rethinking collaborative research and knowledge dissemination

Currently "the most comprehensive, representative, and pervasive participatory platform for knowledge production ever created"

Central Questions for the Field

How will our cultural legacy be rendered in new media formats? By whom and for whom?

How can we take seriously the new platforms that have transformed global cultural production?

What are the specific qua

lities of digital media compared to other formats?

How do we analyze and support new architectures of participation and power?

What is Comparative Literature today? by Susan Basnett

ARTICLE 4

Introduction: What is Comparative Literature today?

Susan Basnett

Susan Bassnett's Perspective on Comparative Literature: A Detailed Summary

Susan Bassnett's introduction to her 1993 book "Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction" offers a comprehensive examination of comparative literature as a field of study, tracing its evolution, debates, and changing significance across different cultural contexts. The chapter begins by defining comparative literature in its simplest form as "the study of texts across cultures" - an interdisciplinary approach concerned with patterns of connection in literature across time and space.

Bassnett frames comparative literature as a journey that begins with the desire to transcend the boundaries of a single subject area, drawing on Matthew Arnold's 1857 Oxford lecture which emphasized that "everywhere there is connection, everywhere there is illustration." While this perspective might suggest comparative literature is merely common sense facilitated by translations, Bassnett reveals a complex history of debate dating back to the early nineteenth century that continues to this day. This ongoing discourse raises fundamental questions about the object of study in comparative literature, the methodology of comparison, the nature of a comparative canon, and whether comparative literature constitutes a discipline or simply a field of study.

The chapter acknowledges what René Wellek defined as "the crisis of comparative literature" since the 1950s - a crisis particularly evident in Western academia. Interestingly, Bassnett notes that while comparative literature appears to be declining in the West, it is simultaneously flourishing in Eastern and postcolonial countries, often in connection with the rise of national consciousness. This dichotomy reflects the field's complex relationship with nationalism since its inception.

Bassnett explores contrasting historical perspectives on comparative literature. While Benedetto Croce dismissed the term as obfuscatory in 1903, Charles Mills Gayley proclaimed it a "common institutional expression of humanity" that transcended racial, historical, and linguistic differences. Francis Jost elevated comparative literature to "a literary Weltanschauung" and "instrument of universal harmony," while Wellek and Warren viewed it as demanding "a widening of perspectives" and "suppression of local and provincial sentiments."

The chapter traces how comparative literature's status has shifted within academia. Once considered a radical, transgressive subject in Western academia during the 1950s and early 1960s, it was largely abandoned by the late 1970s in favor of newer fields like Literary Theory, Women's Studies, and Cultural Studies. However, during this same period, comparative literature gained prominence in postcolonial countries - not based on universalism but precisely on the specificity of national literatures that Western comparatists had often rejected.

Bassnett highlights how scholars from postcolonial contexts have reshaped comparative approaches. Swapan Majumdar and Ganesh Devy connect comparative literature in India directly to the rise of modern Indian nationalism. Homi Bhabha emphasizes "cross-cutting across sites of social significance" rather than simple cross-referencing, while African critics like Wole Soyinka have challenged Eurocentric perspectives that diminished African culture and history.

Swapan Majumdar says-

‘It is because of this predilection for National Literature - much

deplored by the Anglo-American critics as a

methodology - that Comparative Literature has struck

roots in the Third World nations and in India in particular.’

Ganesh Devy also suggests that comparative literature in India is directly linked to the rise of modern Indian Nationalism.

Homi Bhabha sums up the new emphasis in an essay discussing the ambivalence of post- colonial culture, suggesting that:

‘Instead of cross-referencing there is an effective,

productive cross- cutting across sites of

social significance, that erases the dialectical, disciplinary

sense of 'Cultural' reference and relevance’.

Wole Soyinka and a whole range of African critics have exposed the pervasive influence of Hegel, who argued that African culture was 'weak' in contrast to what he claimed were higher, more developed cultures, and who effectively denied African history.

The chapter examines how comparative literature offers solutions to postcolonial educational challenges, using the example of studying Shakespeare in India. Indian students must contend with Shakespeare as both a European literary figure and a representative of colonial values - a tension that comparative approaches can help navigate by studying Shakespeare's reception in Indian cultural life and comparing his work with Indian writers.

Bassnett also addresses the relationship between comparative literature and translation studies. While comparative literature has traditionally claimed translation as a subcategory, this assumption is increasingly questioned as translation studies establishes itself as a rigorous discipline focused on intercultural study. Itamar Even-Zohar's observation that extensive translation activity occurs during periods of cultural transition, expansion, and renewal provides insight into the changing status of translation across different cultural contexts and time periods.

Evan-Zohar says that a lot of translation happens when a culture is changing: when it's growing, needs new ideas, or is about to undergo major changes. During these times, translation becomes really important. But when a culture feels strong and dominant, like it doesn't need outside influence, translation becomes less valued.

For example, when English became the main language for international relations and business in the 1900s, there wasn't much need to translate foreign works into English. That's why there were fewer translations into English compared to other languages. When translation isn't seen as necessary, it becomes poorly respected, badly paid, and overlooked.

Comparative literature has always included translation as one of its parts. But now that translation studies has developed into its own field focused on studying interactions between cultures, with solid methods for both theory and practice, comparative literature looks less like a separate discipline and more like just one branch of a larger field. Looking at it this way helps us understand the "crisis" in comparative literature and might finally end the ongoing argument about whether comparative literature should be considered its own separate discipline.

The chapter concludes by suggesting that as translation studies continue to develop as a discipline with methodological rigor, comparative literature may need to reposition itself. Bassnett implies that resolving comparative literature's relationship to translation studies could help address the field's long-standing "crisis" and finally settle the debate about whether comparative literature constitutes a discipline in its own right.

COMPARATIVE LITERATURE IN INDIA: An Overview of its History Subha Chakraborty Dasgupta

 ARTICLE 3

COMPARATIVE LITERATURE IN INDIA: 

An Overview of its History

Subha Chakraborty Dasgupta

Abstract 

Comparative Literature in India has an interesting origin story that centers around two major universities. It all started at Jadavpur University, which established the first department of Comparative Literature in the country. The department was built on the foundation of Rabindranath Tagore's influential speech about "World Literature" - where he talked about how different literatures of the world connect and interact. The department was founded by Buddhadeva Bose, who was both a modern poet and a translator. His background was perfect for this role because he understood how different literary traditions could speak to each other across languages and cultures. Later, the field grew in a new direction when the Department of Modern Indian Languages and Literary Studies was established at Delhi University. While Jadavpur had focused on connecting Indian literature with world literature, Delhi University took a different approach. They concentrated on studying the relationships between different Indian languages and their literary traditions. This was important because India has many languages and rich literary traditions in each of them. Together, these two universities shaped how Comparative Literature developed in India - Jadavpur looking outward to world literature, and Delhi looking inward at India's diverse literary landscape. This combination helped create a unique approach to studying literature that could bridge both Indian and global literary traditions.

The Early Phase:

When Comparative Literature began in India, it was heavily influenced by British approaches to studying literature, which was natural given India's colonial history. However, even in these early years, scholars were quietly working to break free from colonial perspectives and develop their own ways of studying literature. They particularly focused on encouraging creative thinking and new approaches.

The Shift in Focus:

Over time, there was a major change in what was being studied. Indian literature started getting more attention, and scholars began looking at literature from other countries in the Global South (like Africa, Latin America, and Asia). This was an important shift away from just studying Western literature.

Changes in Approach:

The way scholars studied literature also changed significantly:

- They moved away from just looking at how one literature influenced another

- Instead of just finding similarities between different literatures

- They began studying how different cultures interact through literature

- They focused on how different societies receive and transform literary works

Recent Developments:

In recent years, Comparative Literature has broadened even further:

- It now engages with various aspects of culture and knowledge

- There's special attention given to marginalized voices and communities

- Scholars are working to discover literary connections that don't follow traditional hierarchies

- This means looking at relationships between literatures as equal partnerships rather than one being more important than another

This evolution shows how Indian Comparative Literature has grown from its colonial roots into a field that celebrates diversity and equality in literary studies, while giving voice to previously overlooked literary traditions.

The Beginnings

The concept of world literature gained momentum towards the end of the nineteenth century. In Bengal, for instance, translation activities were undertaken on a large scale, and poets sought connections with global literary traditions to foster what the eminent poet-translator Satyendranath Dutta described in 1904 as "relationships of joy."

Rabindranath Tagore's lecture, Visvasahitya (meaning "world literature"), delivered at the National Council of Education in 1907, laid the foundation for the establishment of the Department of Comparative Literature at Jadavpur University in 1956—the same year the university began operations. A group of intellectuals sought to develop an indigenous education system distinct from the prevailing British model, one that catered to the needs of the people.

The idea of visvasahitya was complex, embodying a sense of a global artistic community collectively constructing the edifice of world literature. Literature, in this vision, was deeply rooted in human relationships, with aesthetics closely tied to human experience. However, Buddhadeva Bose, a leading figure in modern Bengali poetry, did not entirely embrace Tagore's idealist vision. He believed that breaking away from Tagore’s influence was essential for engaging with modernity.

Bose’s translation of Les Fleurs du Mal signaled his intent to shift focus towards French poetry and away from British literature, which represented the colonial masters. He also played a crucial role in bringing the significant modern poet Sudhindranath Dutta—renowned for his translation of Mallarmé and his deep knowledge of both Indian and Western literary traditions—to teach in the Department of Comparative Literature.

Despite efforts to move towards decolonization, the colonial framework remained evident in the pedagogical structure, with English literature occupying a significant place. The curriculum was organized around major European literary periods, such as the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Romanticism, and Modernism. At the same time, substantial attention was given to Sanskrit and Bengali literature. It was within this structure that the epistemology of comparison emerged.

While this project did not create an entirely new subject of knowledge, as Radhakrishnan (458) pointed out, it laid the groundwork for an ongoing engagement with the dynamics of self and other. This approach led to an evolving discourse on comparative relationships, culminating in the launch of The Jadavpur Journal of Comparative Literature in 1961, which became a significant publication in the field of literary studies in India.

 Indian Literature as Comparative Literature

During the 1970s, new pedagogical perspectives began shaping Comparative Literature studies at Jadavpur University. Indian literature gained a more prominent place in the syllabus, not as an assertion of national identity, but as a natural progression in the study of texts within interconnected networks of relations. The focus extended beyond canonical texts to include histories shared across contiguous spaces, highlighting differences as well as commonalities.

The Department of Modern Indian Languages at Delhi University, established in 1962, introduced a post-MA course titled Comparative Indian Literature in 1974. This shift in focus led to a questioning of universalist canons, which had been a part of comparative studies in India from the outset. The inclusion of Indian literature—and, more broadly, literatures from the Global South—marked a move away from rigid canonical frameworks.

This new approach led to a broader definition of Indian literature, moving beyond the traditional emphasis on Sanskrit and a few canonical texts. Oral and performative traditions, which had often been overlooked, began receiving scholarly attention. Comparatists took on the challenge, as articulated by Aijaz Ahmad, of tracing the "dialectic of unity and difference"—through systematic periodization of linguistic interactions, historical material conditions, ideological struggles, class and community conceptions, gender discourses, and the interplay of oral and written traditions.

The study of Indian literary systems also acknowledged the diverse inter-cultural relations between Indian communities and their counterparts beyond national borders. 

Reconfiguring Areas of Comparison

The syllabus expanded to include texts such as Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude and works from Latin American and African literatures. These additions reflected a growing interest in questions of solidarity, resistance to oppression, and epistemological shifts resulting from colonial histories.

Area Studies courses covering African, Latin American, Canadian, and Bangladeshi literatures were introduced. While Canadian Studies gained initial prominence due to a research grant, the focus gradually expanded to include oral traditions within the broader framework of comparative studies.

With the introduction of the semester system, course structures were revised. General courses such as Cross-cultural Literary Transactions included comparisons like Rudyard Kipling’s Kim and Rabindranath Tagore’s Gora. Other courses, titled Literary Transactions, examined traditions of reason and rationalism in European and Indian literatures of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Research Directions

Several books and translations emerged from these projects. The Department of English and Comparative Literary Studies at Saurashtra University, Rajkot, explored themes of the Indian Renaissance, translating significant Indian authors into English, studying early travelogues from Western India to England, and publishing collections of theoretical discourse from the nineteenth century.

The Department of Assamese at Dibrugarh University received grants to publish translations, collect rare texts, and document folk traditions.

The Department of Comparative Literature at Jadavpur University also received support to advance research in four key areas: East-West Literary Relations, Indian Literature, Translation Studies, and Third World Literature. In 2005, the department was elevated to the status of Centre for Advanced Studies, shifting research focus significantly towards oral traditions and methodologies for engaging with them.

A second major research area at the Centre for Advanced Studies involved literary relations between India and its neighboring countries—an area previously unexplored beyond well-known points of contact.

Interface with Translation Studies and Cultural Studies

By the 21st century, Comparative Literature in India began intersecting with two related fields: Translation Studies and Cultural Studies. Many Comparative Literature programs incorporated courses on Translation Studies, acknowledging its role in interliterary studies. The histories of translation were used to map literary relations, while analysis of translation processes provided insight into both source and target literary and cultural systems.

Comparative Cultural Studies juxtaposed key global texts with related Indian texts. Additionally, new Comparative Literature centers in recently established universities incorporated diaspora studies as an area of focus. Despite a growing interdisciplinary approach, literature remained central to the discipline, with an increasing integration of intermedial studies.

Non-Hierarchical Connectivity

Comparative Literature in India today pursues diverse goals aligned with historical needs at both local and global levels. The discipline fosters civilizational exchanges against divisive forces that undermine human potential.

New links and non-hierarchical networks of literary connectivity, as Kumkum Sangari describes as “co-construction,” are anchored in “subtle and complex histories of translation, circulation, and extraction.”

While much remains to be done, the discipline continues to evolve, focusing on the construction of literary histories based on regional and global literary relations. The foundational aim of early pioneers—to nurture and foster creativity—remains a driving force beneath these scholarly endeavors.

Conclusion

Comparative Literature has embraced new perspectives, engaging with marginalized cultural spaces while fostering non-hierarchical literary relations. The discipline continues to evolve, integrating new areas of inquiry while maintaining its commitment to literary studies.

Major points:

The Beginnings

The concept of world literature gained prominence in the late 19th century, particularly in Bengal, where translation activities flourished. Rabindranath Tagore’s 1907 lecture Visvasahitya laid the foundation for Comparative Literature studies in India.

Jadavpur University established the Department of Comparative Literature in 1956 to develop an indigenous education system distinct from British colonial influence. The idea of visvasahitya emphasized a global literary community, but Buddhadeva Bose advocated a break from Tagore’s idealism to engage with modernity. Despite decolonization efforts, English literature and European literary periods remained central to the curriculum. The Jadavpur Journal of Comparative Literature (1961) became a key publication in Indian literary studies.

Indian Literature as Comparative Literature

The 1970s saw Indian literature integrated into the syllabus, focusing on shared histories and interrelations rather than national identity. Delhi University’s Department of Modern Indian Languages introduced Comparative Indian Literature in 1974. Traditional definitions of Indian literature, centered on Sanskrit and canonical texts, expanded to include oral and performative traditions. Aijaz Ahmad emphasized studying literature through historical material conditions, ideological struggles, and linguistic overlaps.

Research Directions

Universities like Saurashtra and Dibrugarh engaged in translation projects, documentation of folk forms, and studies of early travelogues. Jadavpur University’s Comparative Literature department received support for research in East-West Literary Relations, Indian Literature, Translation Studies, and Third World Literature. In 2005, the department was designated a Centre for Advanced Studies, shifting focus toward oral traditions and India’s literary relations with neighboring countries.

Interface with Translation Studies and Cultural Studies

Translation Studies became integral to Comparative Literature, mapping literary relations and analyzing translation processes. Comparative Cultural Studies juxtaposed global texts with Indian counterparts. New Comparative Literature centers in Indian universities introduced diaspora studies while maintaining literature as the core focus.