The “Goethean” Discourses on <i>Weltliteratur</i> and the Origins of Comparative Literature: The Cases of Hugo Meltzl and Hutcheson Macaulay Posnett
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the influence of Goethe’s ideas about Weltliteratur upon the early disciplinary history of comparative literature. By examining Goethe’s various statements concerning Weltliteratur, as well as by contrasting them with his attempts to develop a method of comparative literary analysis in his Noten to the West-östlicher Divan, it is argued that Goethe’s ideas about Weltliteratur and about literary comparison raise important issues which are still live in the discipline today. Foremost among these is the question of using European aesthetic models to evaluate non-European literatures, and the related issue of how translations may elide the cultural particularity of literary works. It is proposed that Goethe’s ideas about Weltliteratur do not constitute a coherent or systematic theory, but rather offer up a series of discourses that were open to deployment by later scholars who had differing agendas. In the disciplinary history of comparative literature, two of the most important activators of these Goethean discourses were Hugo von Meltzl (1846–1908)—the founding editor of Acta Comparationis Litterarum Universarum (1877–1888), the world’s first academic journal devoted to comparative literature—and Hutcheson Macaulay Posnett (1855–1927), the author of the first Anglophone academic monograph on Comparative Literature (1886). Whereas Meltzl regarded Goethe’s ideas about Weltliteratur with some skepticism, fearing that they may surreptitiously extend German cultural hegemony in Europe, Posnett deployed Goethe’s concept of Weltliteratur to enhance the prestige his social-evolutionist model of global literary development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".