Comparative Literature Studies publishes comparative critical essays that range across the rich traditions of Africa, Asia, Europe, and North and South America, and that examine the literary relations between East and West, North and South. Articles may also explore movements, themes, forms, the history of ideas, relations between authors, the foundations of criticism and theory, and issues of language and translation. Each issue of CLS also contains numerous book reviews of the most important comparative literature monographs and essay collections.
Part of the Pennsylvania State University and a division of the Penn State University Libraries and Scholarly Communications, Penn State University Press serves the University community, the citizens of Pennsylvania, and scholars worldwide by advancing scholarly communication in the core liberal arts disciplines of the humanities and social sciences. The Press unites with alumni, friends, faculty, and staff to chronicle the University's life and history. And as part of a land-grant and state-supported institution, the Press develops both scholarly and popular publications about Pennsylvania, all designed to foster a better understanding of the state's history, culture, and environment.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Comparative Literature Studies
© 1987 Penn State University Press
Request Permissions