The subject of this First Book has been Literary Morphology: varieties of literary form and their underlying principles. These varieties of form, we have just seen, are a leading factor in interpretation. The traditional treatment of the subject has often conceived these literary forms to be static: as if the dead hand of a classical past had fixed once for all certain types, to which subsequent writers must conform. This is the Fallacy of Kinds, which again and again has emerged in the history of criticism, and has again and again been overthrown. Form in literature is a thing of evolution: as literature progresses new forms unfold, and older forms modify themselves. The six elements of form-epic, lyric, drama, history, philosophy, oratory are not so many classes of literature, mutually exclusive, to which particular works are to be referred; like the elements of chemistry they can combine in particular works, and the fusion of these elements becomes a source of literary effect. The attitude of a reader to what he reads is that of an interpreter. He must first, in the light of the literature before him and of literature in general, seek to interpret the underlying form. He will then find that the form helps to interpret the meaning.

BOOK II

THE FIELD AND SCOPE OF LITERARY STUDY

CHAPTER IV: THE UNITY OF THE LITERARY FIELD AND THE CONCEPTION OF WORLD LITERATURE

CHAPTER V: THE OUTER AND THE INNER STUDY OF LITERATURE

CHAPTER IV

THE UNITY OF THE LITERARY FIELD AND THE CONCEPTION OF WORLD LITERATURE

The subject of this work is, not precisely Literature, but the Study of Literature. We cannot proceed beyond the elements of literary form without being confronted with important considerations as to the field and scope of literary study.

I

The existing tradition of the study-as Chart V on page 78 suggests follows the departmental form taken by the Humanity studies in our universities and schools, and in the private reading which is affected by this. What we find is that one set of students, in one department, is occupied with oriental literatures, in connection with oriental languages, oriental history, oriental philosophy, and oriental art. Another set of students, in another department, is occupied with Greek literature, in connection with Greek language and history and philosophy and art. Similarly, in separate departments, Latin, Romance, Germanic, English literatures are taken, always in association with the respective languages, histories, philosophies, arts. Now, whatever may be the advantages of this arrangement on other grounds, such a state of things cannot possibly be called a study of literature. It is a study of nationalities: each separate nationality being observed from the points of view of language, literature, history, philosophy, and art. And yet, except so far as literature is concerned, the study of the Humanities has long since emancipated itself from departmental narrowing. If we treat Chart V as if it were a sum in algebra, we may add up the first column, and see how the separate languages have grown together into the great study of

philology. Similarly, the separate histories have coalesced, the separate philosophies and arts, into independent studies of history, philosophy, art. It is strange that there should be so

CHART V

Departmental Tradition of Literary Study

Oriental Languages + Literatures + History + Philosophy + Art + etc. Greek Language Literature + History + Philosophy + Art + etc. Latin Language + Literature + History + Philosophy + Art + etc. Romance Languages + Literatures + History + Philosophy +Art+ etc. Germanic Languages Literatures + History + Philosophy + Art + etc. English Language + Literature + History + Philosophy +Art+ etc.

long a delay before we can see the particular literatures transcending departmental limitations and rising into a study of literature.

At this point care must be taken to avoid a misunderstanding into which it is easy to fall.

Distinguish

Aggregation of literatures-Universal Literature

Unity of Literature-World Literature.

It is not a mere aggregation of separate literatures, but the unity of literature, that is the essential point. To have read separately works of philosophy in Greek, German, English, and other languages, would not be sufficient to make philosophy. Histories of various countries, if taken separately without their mutual connection, would make a poor study of history. Naywere such a thing within the bounds of human faculties—a man