Literary history and the concept of literature
I
From the 1970s onwards, much has been said about the writing of history and literary history
that has cast doubt on its intellectual credibility. For example, Hayden White’s Metahistory
(1973) included an influential analysis of the metaphorical foundations of 19th century history
writing. In 1979, Jean-François Lyotard criticized grand narratives in La Condition
postmoderne (The Postmodern Condition), and in 1992 David Perkins presented a whole
array of sceptical epistemological and methodological arguments directed against literary
history in Is Literary History Possible?.1
The questioning of literary history has not however resulted in the abandonment of largescale literary-historical projects, rather it has inspired attempts to base such ventures on better
designs and better foundations. Not least, many new ideas about the field have been put
forward in connection with the preparation of two major works of literary history sponsored
by the ICLA. It is also natural to point to two theoretical publications from 2002: the
collection of essays, Rethinking Literary History, edited by Linda Hutcheon and Mario J.
Valdés, and Marcel Cornis-Pope and John Neubauer’s brief presentation of the ideas behind a
history of literary cultures in East-Central Europe.2
The Swedish project “Literature and Literary History in Global Contexts”, which was
started in 1998 and will terminate in 2004, focuses specifically on some theoretical problems
associated with the writing of literary history. We who participate come, mostly, from various
fields within oriental studies or from comparative literature. Since the project is sponsored by
the Swedish Research Council we all work, or once worked, at various Swedish universities.
One of the special features of the project is the interest devoted to world histories of literature,
2
a genre where the general problems of literary history become especially visible and acute. (I
shall return to this perhaps unfamiliar genre in a moment.)
Three important cruces in connection with world histories of literature have been singled
out for special discussion within the project: (i) the understanding of the notion of literature,
(ii) the understanding of genres, and (iii) the understanding of interactions between literary
cultures. These three sets of issues will be made the subject of four volumes of literaryhistorical studies and theoretical reflections, and these volumes will represent the main
concrete outcome of the project.
In this paper, I shall concentrate on the first of the questions, about the notion of literature.
I shall say a few words about the concept of literature itself, point out some of the difficulties
that it occasions in a world history of literature, and conclude with a brief discussion of how
such problems may be approached and dealt with.
II
In a sense, of course, there are very many concepts of literature: if every nuance is taken into
account, it may well be the case that each person has their own. Yet if, conversely, one looks
at the situation very broadly, one can say that there is an everyday concept of literature in
Western culture which is widely shared. That concept came into being in the course of the
18th century. Before that, no exact counterpart to our present concept of literature existed
either in Western culture or elsewhere, and the distinction between imaginative literature and
non-fiction was not of primary importance in the classification of texts.
Wilt Idema and Lloyd Haft have given a concise and clarifying account of how earlier
cultures thought about texts and their basic divisions.
3
As long as no more than a few written works are in circulation in a given society, all
texts are more or less equally important and valuable. If there is a dramatic increase in
the number of writings, with a corresponding differentiation in their content and
character, the texts are likely to be subdivided into the categories of “high” literature,
professional literature, and popular literature. “Literature” (or high literature) is then the
term for texts which are felt to be of general educational value and which are,
accordingly, regarded as part of the necessary intellectual baggage of every cultured
person…. Works which contain useful knowledge but remain limited to one specific
area, such as medicine or military science, are classified as professional literature.
Works intended only to amuse, and which have (or are considered to have) no
educational value, fall outside the scope of “literature”…. We may call these more or
less despised writings “trivial literature”.3
In the kind of intellectual culture described in this quotation, the fundamental distinction
among texts is the one between culturally important texts and culturally less significant ones.
In most such cultures – classical antiquity, classical Chinese culture, classical Sanskrit culture,
and so forth – the class of culturally important texts would comprise most of what we call
poetry, history writing, and philosophy, and normally also other kinds of texts – some
administrative texts, some texts concerning magic, some letters, et cetera. Oral vernacular
texts, or relatively unadorned fictional narratives, what we call fictional prose, would
normally form part of popular or trivial literature.
For complex social, economic, and cultural reasons, this way of classifying texts came to
undergo great though gradual transformations in Western Europe from the late 17th to the
early 19th centuries. One of the very many crucial factors behind the process must have been
the growing importance of a new, more rigorous conception of empirical truth, associated
4
with the natural sciences. High literature, in the special sense described by Idema and Haft,
had always aspired to truth in the sense of great human significance. As the distinction
between empirical truth and empirical non-truth became more rigid and more significant –
and as many other, more or less related developments were taking place – new groupings
began to emerge in the textual universe. Poetry became dissociated from scientific writings,
and successively also from history, philosophy, oratory, and letters. On the other hand,
fictional prose, especially in the guise of the increasingly appreciated novel, came to be
regarded as one of the genres of poetry.4 With this, our modern notion of literature had
effectively taken shape, and the term “literature” (whose main meaning in the 17th and 18th
centuries had been something like “education” or “culture”) successively developed into
today’s normal designation of the concept.5
III
The late 18th and early 19th centuries saw the beginning of the writing of literary history – of
the history of national European literatures, of the history of European literature as a whole
and, at least from the 1830s onwards, of the world history of literature.6
World histories of literature thus comprise a genre which has existed for around 170 years.
Among its modern instances are such impressive works as the German twenty-five volume
Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft (New Handbook of Literary Studies), published
between 1972 and 2002, and the Russian Istorija vsemirnoj literatury v devjati tomach
(History of World Literature in Nine Volumes) from 1983-94.7 However in the Englishspeaking world the genre is more or less extinct, and its very existence appears to be
overlooked in the contemporary international discussion about the globalization of literary
studies.8 These debates are primarily inspired by the widespread interest in colonial and
5
postcolonial studies and place the last few centuries at the centre of attention, while the
traditional world histories of literature are, in principle, universal in scope, and are meant to
cover all times and cultures.
In many respects, it seems a good idea to have a world history of literature to fall back on.
Such works can relate the various literary cultures of the world to one another and put them
into perspective. Thus they may create a much needed overview, much as a map of the world
helps us to comprehend certain fundamental geographical realities. To some extent, works
like the Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft and the Istorija vsemirnoj literatury do
just that, and of course they also contain a wealth of information and intelligent discussion.
Yet, despite their often remarkable qualities, world histories of literature are typically
profoundly problematic for a number of reasons.
Two major problems have their roots in the very concept of literature. First, the concept is,
in itself, an everyday notion. If employed without additional explications or stipulations, it is
too imprecise and inconsistent to form the basis of a reasonable classification. Second, the
concept of literature is a relatively recent Western invention. Its application to other times and
cultures will easily lead to anachronistic and ethnocentric distortions.
On the whole, world histories of literature are content to sweep such problems under the
carpet. They typically prefer to rely on the everyday notion of literature and to include the
resulting contradictions in the bargain. For instance, the concept of literature is traditionally
used in such a manner that the criteria for a work to be classified as literature vary depending
on the time and the culture one is speaking of. Modern literature is most often seen as
consisting of just fictional prose, poetry, and drama. When there is talk of older periods, the
concept of literature is however used very inclusively. 9 For example, ancient Roman
philosophy, history, and oratory are not excluded as being non-fiction; instead, such writers as
Lucrece, Caesar, and Cicero are considered part of the European literary heritage. The same
6
duality appears in the treatment of other literary cultures. Thus, for instance, the sacred Vedic
texts (circa 1200 – circa 500 B.C.?) form part of Indian Sanskrit literature, while classical
Chinese literature includes writings such as the more than 2 500-years-old work of history
Shujing (or Book of Documents).10
This inconsistency is a traditional and, in principle, well-known aspect of literary history
writing. Nevertheless, it appears difficult to find a rational defence for it. It is a little as if a
geographical map of the world were to employ different scales and symbols for different parts
of the globe.
IV
In what way, then, can our Swedish project offer new insights and new approaches?
The volume with the preliminary title “Notions of literature across times and cultures” will
mainly consist of eight literary-historical essays. They will be written by philologists or area
specialists and deal with various aspects of the understanding of what we might now be
inclined to call “literature” in Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Arabic, and West and East African
literary cultures.11 There is no ambition to cover all periods and civilizations, but the essays
will give a concrete idea of the thinking about “literature” in cultures outside the Western
sphere. They are intended to demonstrate the complexity of the literary-historical situation,
and also to provide a corrective to the view that the current Western notion of literature is
natural or even inevitable.
The volume will also contain a theoretical introduction, for which I myself am responsible.
In the introduction, I will discuss the concept of literature as such and some of the problems
associated with its use in world histories of literature. I will also reflect on possible ways of
employing the concept in a history of this kind, and that is the point on which I want to focus
7
for the rest of my paper here. In the present context, time does not really allow me to argue for
the standpoints that I am going to present, but I shall nevertheless mention a couple of key
ideas.
As I stated earlier, it is my opinion that the concept of literature can profitably be
understood as being, in itself, an everyday notion. Like most such concepts, it is vague and
usefully versatile. If we want to let it play more demanding roles and carry more structural
and theoretical weight, we will have to add, ourselves, the extra precision that will be needed,
and do so essentially by means of stipulation.
This may sound obvious enough, but in fact the idea runs counter to most prevalent
thinking about the matter. The normal strategy in world histories of literature is, I repeat, to
rely on the everyday concept of literature and to write the history of that which is thus
literature in the traditional, everyday sense. The ensuing vagueness and inconsistency – for
example, the use of different criteria for defining literature depending on the time and culture
under consideration – are simply accepted, explicitly or implicitly. If, instead, the everyday
concept of literature is seen as requiring some modification if it is to do the work expected of
it in an academic context, the question of purpose comes to the forefront. If the concept is a
kind of tool, a kind of intellectual instrument, it must be adequately designed for the task that
it is asked to perform. The nature of the task will then, naturally, determine how the concept
should be shaped.
It should be evident that thinking along these lines creates an importantly different
perspective on literary history. Literature does not, as before, appear as a more or less given
aggregation of texts: that which is literature in the traditional, everyday sense. In writing
world histories of literature, we are free to define “literature“ in a manner influenced by what,
more precisely, we wish to know or understand about the world of writings and utterances.
8
As I see it, deeper reflection on the concept of literature and its role in literary-historical
contexts can never lead to the creation of a definitive or binding definition of “literature”.
What it can do, is make us see the fundamental importance of the purpose in the writing of
literary history. The purpose of the literary-history work should co-determine not only the
choice of methods, but the very delimitation of the subject-matter. The concept of literature is
a human construct, and if we want to use a concept of literature, we should simply be sure to
design it in as productive a fashion as possible.
It is important to observe, in this connection, that the description of a text or utterance as
being literary, or non-literary, is not the most fundamental characterization available. One can
describe texts, even literary texts, without using the literary/non-literary distinction. They may
be analysed in terms taken from linguistic pragmatics, for instance, or in formal terms. This
makes it possible to describe the texts and utterances associated with a given culture at a
given time in relatively basic formal and functional terms and then, if one wishes, draw a
boundary line between literary and non-literary texts in the way that may seem preferable in
view of the nature of the investigation that one intends to pursue.
If I had had the space, I would now have gone on to discuss how specific academic
purposes, specific investigative frames, could naturally be combined with specific designs of
the concept of literature. As it is, I have to content myself with having pointed to some
problems with the concept of literature in the writing of world histories of literature and
suggesting what kind of reasoning it would take to overcome them.
The literature volume in our Swedish project, “Notions of literature across times and
cultures“, is meant to supply knowledge and viewpoints that would be of use in such
reasoning. The volume should familiarize the reader with the thinking about texts, including
texts that we would call literary, in various cultures in various periods, and also provide
nuanced understanding of the concept of literature itself. Correspondingly, its companion
9
volumes – about which you will hear more presently – are intended to enrich our
understanding of genres from an intercultural perspective and of interactions between literary
cultures.
V
At this point, it might be asked: “Why bother? Why attempt to apply some sort of positivistic
rationality to literary history, a pursuit which is, by its very nature, full of imprecision and
open to an endless variety of cultural and individual perspectives? Isn’t there, behind this
research programme, even a wish to establish a hegemonic view of all times and cultures?“
My answer to both questions is that I have, in reality, been speaking about problems that
will have to be faced by everyone who wishes to adopt any perspective whatsoever on any
section of literary history. As soon as one makes use of a concept – in this case, “literature“ –
in one’s own discourse, one will have to fill it with a meaning, or else the things one says will
be, in that part, meaningless. We may of course choose not to employ the concept of
literature, to find other ways of expressing what we wish to communicate. But this will
simply shift the burden of definition to those other modes of expression. We cannot rid
ourselves of accountability for the meaning we give to the words we use. For that reason, I
can see nothing quixotic or overly rationalist in asking what we could profitably mean by
“literature“ in our literary-historical expositions.
I am also convinced that how we answer such questions makes a difference. I believe that
all students of literature have a large and strategically important stock of common beliefs
about literary history stored in their minds. For instance, they tend to think, almost invariably,
that literature has existed in all times and cultures, that literature did not however become
fully autonomous until in 18th and 19th century Europe (having earlier normally been
10
associated with practical communal purposes or with the service of the religious or worldly
power structures of a society), but that literature was, on the other hand, of much more social
importance in earlier times than it is in our own.12 Yet, if one begins to question what is meant
by “literature“ in these various cases, all this received wisdom will either dissolve or start to
undergo important transformations.
That is an assertion which I cannot find the time to substantiate here, and still it is the note
on which I should like to conclude. Quite general ideas about what literature is, and about its
history, are certainly of great significance in the professional thinking of students of literature.
1
Hayden White, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe
(Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973); Jean-François Lyotard, The
Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (1979), trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian
Massumi, foreword by Fredric Jameson (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984);
David Perkins, Is Literary History Possible? (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins Press,
1992).
2
Marcel Cornis-Pope and John Neubauer, Towards a History of the Literary Cultures in East-
Central Europe: Theoretical Reflections, American Council of Learned Societies, Occasional
Paper no. 52 (New York: American Council of Learned Societies, 2002); Linda Hutcheon and
Mario J. Valdés, eds., Rethinking Literary History: A Dialogue on Theory (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002)
3
Wilt Idema and Lloyd Haft, A Guide to Chinese Literature (Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese
Studies, University of Michigan, 1997), p. 9.
4
In The Invention of Art (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 2001), Larry
Shiner describes and analyzes the slow emergence of our modern conception of the arts,
literature included, in considerable detail. (The strong emphasis on the role of the conception
of empirical truth is however mainly my own.) Siegfried J. Schmidt’s Die Selbstorganisation
11
des Sozialsystems Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1989) is an
extensive study of the development of a literary “system” in the 18th century.
5
There are several interesting accounts of the terminological development. See, e.g., Robert
Escarpit, “La Définition du terme ‘littérature’”, in Le Littéraire et le social: éléments pour une
sociologie de la littérature, ed. by Robert Escarpit and others (Paris: Flammarion, 1970), pp.
259-72; René Wellek, “What Is Literature?”, in What Is Literature?, ed. by Paul Hernadi
(Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1978), pp. 16-23; Peter Widdowson,
Literature (London and New York: Routledge, 1999), chap. 2.
6
I am thinking of such works as Thomas Warton’s history of English literature – The History
of English Poetry, from the Close of the Eleventh to the Commencement of the Eighteenth
Century [---], 3 vols. (London: J. Dodssley a.o.; Oxford: Fletcher, 1774-81), Friedrich
Schlegel’s history of European literature – Geschichte der alten und neuen Literatur, 2 vols.
(Wien: bey Karl Schaumburg und Compagnie, 1815), and Karl Rosenkranz’s history of world
literature, Handbuch einer allgemeinen Geschichte der Poesie, 3 vols. (Halle: Eduard Anton,
1832-33). (The information about the original editions of Warton’s and Schlegel’s works is
taken from secondary sources.)
7
Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft, ed. in chief Klaus von See, 25 vols.
(Wiesbaden: AULA-Verlag, 1972-2002); Istorija vsemirnoj literatury v devjati tomach, eds.
in chief G.P. Berdnikov (vols. 1-5) and Ju.B. Vipper (vols. 6-8), 8 vols. (Moscow:
Izdatel’stvo Nauka, 1983-94).
8
See, for instance, the January 2001 issue of PMLA, “Globalizing Literary Studies”, and the
Fall 2001 issue of Comparative Literature, “Globalization and the Humanities”.
9
In the Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft, e.g., the many contributors seem to have
been given more or less complete freedom to choose methods and concepts according to their
own preferences. See Klaus von See, “Vorwort”, in Neues Handbuch der
12
Literaturwissenschaft, vol. 6 (1985), pp. 1-3 (esp. p. 1). The Istorija vsemirnoj literatury was
meticulously planned and is uncharacteristically explicit for a work in this genre; however I
find the reflections about the concept of literature difficult to accept. N.I. Konrad argues that
world literature formed a unified object from the very beginning, and that the traditional use
of a wide concept of literature for earlier periods and a narrower one for later epochs is
entirely justified, since literature actually was a wider concept in ancient times than it is today.
He does not however tell us what he sees as constituting the unity of the phenomenon of
literature or of the concept of literature over time – after all, neither the word nor the concept
in its present shape existed before the 18th century, so he cannot even be relying on the selfunderstanding of earlier cultures in his defence of the traditional conceptions. N.I. Konrad,
“Mesto pervogo toma v ‘Istorii vsemirnoj literatury’”, in Istorija vsemirnoj literatury, vol. 1
(1983), pp. 14-20 (esp. pp. 14-15 and 19-20).
10
See, e.g., Gerhard Ehlers, “Die vedische Literatur”, in Neues Handbuch, vol. 24 (2002), pp.
1-24; Rolf Trauzettel, “Die chinesische Geschichtsschreibung”, in Neues Handbuch, vol. 23
(1984), pp. 77-78.
11
Martin Svensson Ekström, Göran Sommardal, and Marja Kaikkonen will be writing about
China, Gunilla Lindberg-Wada (the director of the project “Literature and Literary History in
Global Contexts) about Japan, Gunilla Gren-Eklund about India, Bo Holmberg about Arabic
culture, and Tord Olsson and Leif Lorentzon about West and East African oral literary
cultures.
12
See,e.g., Patrick Colm Hogan, ”Literary Universals”, Poetics Today 18 (1997), p. 230
(literature as a universal); Abraham Rosman and Paula G. Rubel, The Tapestry of Culture: An
Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, 5th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995), p. 230 (the
autonomy of art as a Western phenomenon); Douwe Fokkema and Elrud Ibsch, Knowledge
and Commitment: A Problem-Oriented Approach to Literary Studies (Amsterdam and
13
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000), p. 35 (the diminished social role
of literature).