2. Field of Study and Topics for Inves There is no reason why any literary problem within any field should not be treated in a comparative spirit, but it seems reasonable to limit the term °Comparative to investigations which do not merely introduce parallels and analogies occasionally, but make them their chief end and object. It will not be difficult, within these boundaries, to set aside certain topics and problems as belonging pri marily to the domain of Comparative Literature. The following list may serve this purpose. From the inexhaustible supply of books and articles only a few are quoted in each case to furnish illustrations. (a) Authors (compari sons for the purpose of analogy or contrast; for studies in literary influence see under d) : Stendhal, et Shakespeare' (Paris 1823) ; Stapfer, P., (Moli&e et (Paris 1890) ; Bekk, A., und Homer) (Leipzig 1885) ; Wiehr, J., 'Hebbel und Ibsen) (Stuttgart 1908) ; Raveggi, P., poeti della visione celeste: Dante, Milton, Klop stock) (Firenze 1903) ; Betz, L., (Heine und Musset) (Zurich 1897). (h) Literary Produc tions (comparisons, not including studies of in fluence): Bauer, Was Bitch Hiob und Dante's Gottliche (Gotha 1904) ; Meinck, 'Hebbels und Wagner's Nibelungen (Leipzig 1905) ; Moguel, A., 'Calderon's Magi cien prodigieux et Goethe's Faust' (Paris 1883). (c) Literary Themes, Legends, Types, Motifs: Paris, G., (Histoire poetique de Charlemagne) (Paris 1865) ; Castle, E., 'Die Isolierten Varie taten eines literarischen Types) (Berlin 1899) ; Mallinger, L., Etude de litterature comparee' (Paris 1897) ; Simone-Brouwer, (Don Giovanni nella poesia e nell' arte musi cale) (Napoli 1894) ; Berg, L., Ueber mensch in der neueren Literatur) (Leipzig 1897). (d) International Relations, Imitations, Sources and Influences: Comparetti, D., (Vir gam nel Medio Evo> (1896) ; Reinhardstiittner, C. von, (Plautus in der Weltliteratur) (Leipzig 1896) ; Rossel, V., (Histoire des relations lit teraires entre la France et l'Allemagne> (Paris 1897) ; Schmidt, E., Rousseau und Goethe> (Jena 1875) ; Oelsner, H., of Dante on modern thought) (London 1895) ; Baldensperger, en Franc& (Paris 1904). (e) Literary Currents and Tendencies: Egger, E., (L'Hellenisme en France) (Paris 1869) ; Texte, J., 'Rousseau et les origines du cosmopolitisme (Paris 1895) ; Brandes, G., Currents in Nineteenth Century (New York 1905) ; Hamann, R., (Impressionismus in Leben und Kunst) (Cologne 1907). (f) Literary Forms, History of Genre: Btidier, 'Les (Paris 1893) ; Rajna, origini dell'epopea francese) (Firenze 1884) ; Greg, W., 'Pastoral Poetry and Pastoral Drama) (London 1906) ; Fiirst, R., (Vorlaufer der modernen (Halle 1897) ; Bovet, E., (Lyrisme, epopee, dram& (Paris 1911). (g) jEsthetic Emotions: De Laprade, du Sentiment de la Nature) (Paris 1883) ; Biese, 'Entwicklung des Naturgefiihls) (Leipzig 1888) ; Kawczynski, M., 'Essai comparatif sur l'origine et l'histoire des Rythmes> (Paris 1889) ; Volkelt, (iEsthe tik des Tragischen) (Munchen 1897). (h) Liter ature as Determined by Intellectual or Emo tional Currents, Social or Political Institutions, Physiographic Conditions, Racial Factors; Cor relation of Literature and Art, etc.: Posnett, H. M., (London 1886) ; Carriere, Poesie, ihr Wesen und ihre Formen) (Leipzig 1884) ; Letourneau, C., litteraire dans les diverses races (Paris 1894) ; Mackenzie, A. S., Evolution of (New York 1911) ; Maigron, (Le Romantisme et les Moeurs> (Paris 1910) ; Stephens, 'English Literature and Society) (London 1903) ; Grosse, E., Beginnings of Art) (New York 1897) ; Hos kins F. P., Analogy in Literary Criticism) Modern Philology (April 1909).
There is no reason why the comparative and international point of view should not be ap plied to narrower fields within national or even provincial boundaries. Scherer for instance in
his (History of German is very fond of comparing or contrasting writers for pur poses of to use his favorite term. Schiller's famous essay on and Sentimental may be cited as one of the few cases in which two widely re mote epochs of human thought are con trasted.
3. Principles of Comparative Criticism.— These may be reduced to three: evolution, uation and causation. The .principle of tion covers problems stated under (h), (f) and (c) : literary history, forms and themes. In how far biological laws may be safely applied to literary problems is a question that might arouse scepticism. Works of art, the organiza tion of the human mind and the whole process of intellectual transmission are such complex phenomena that biological facts or theories could furnish only very crude analogies. Soci ological theories have been applied by Posnett in his book on Literature) in which literary evolution is traced through the four stages of clan life, city, commonwealth, national life and cosmopolitan humanity. The ethnographical point of view dominates in Grosse's der Kunst) and Mackenzie's of Literature) Very illuminating are books in which certain phases and currents of literature are correlated with a particular social milieu or with corresponding movements in Art and Culture, as in Stephen's Literature and Society) or in Taine's 'Philoso phic de l'Art.> The principle of literary valua tion involves questions as to the absolute or relative validity of esthetic standards and offers splendid opportunities for the student of com parative literature. The natural reaction in esthetic questions is the naive expression of likes and dislikes or the judicial attitude, whereas continued training and reading in a comparative spirit is bound to develop a sense of relativity of literary and esthetic values and thus to save us from 'the tyranny of one-sided, absolute norms of taste. The literary move ments of the last four centuries from the mani festo of the French Pleiade down to the claims of the Naturalistic school, took in most cases the form of revolts against esthetic or intellec tual absolutism of some description, and while they often ended by enthroning a new dogma in place of the discarded one, yet they helped im mensely to widen the horizon and to foster the spirit of tolerance. Among modern critics the Dane, Georg Brandes, leads by far with regard to breadth of taste and fairness of judgment. He has a marvelous ability to project himself into literary characters and productions of all kinds, countries and ages, and yet to establish a definite centre of interest and an illuminating principle of interpretation. A third group of problems fall under the head of the law of causation, such as literary sources, borrowings, influences, adaptations, etc. If carried to an extreme this method develops the type of the philological antiquarian or fanatic source hunter who is not happy until he has traced every effect back to an external cause. The mistake made in so many cases is to assume influences or definite relations, where it would be safer to speak of parallels or analogies, in other words to work with the principle of cau sation instead of correlation. The comparative study of literature ought to encourage critics and scholars to have more faith in the sponta neity of literary growth and originality of the human mind, instead of looking always for de rived inspiration. The Marivaux-Richardson controversy illustrates the various possibilities of interpreting a literary parallel as conscious imitation, as a play of chance or as an analogy due to similar literary impulses in England and France. A collection of literary analogies which could definitely be proved to fall outside of the principle of causation would be one of the most grateful tasks for comparative analy.