Comparisons vs. 1.2 Metastatements concerning comparisons

Having singled out the utterances having to do with comparison, it seems natural to tell the actual comparative utterances (X in relation n to Y is Z)²²from the

second-20 William Twining,The Great Juristic Bazaar: Jurists’ Texts and Lawyers Stories, London 2017, 182.

21 Daniel-Henri Pageaux, Littérature comparée et comparaisons, in:Revue de Littérature com-parée72 (3/1998), 285-307, see 289.

22 In this model of comparative utterance, I deliberately abstain from the misleading transla-tion of verbal relatransla-tional terms into logical symbols.

order statementsaboutthem (“X in relation n to Y is Z” is a peculiar statement). Log-ically, metastatements antecede their objects—first-order utterances.²³However, cultural memory can turn this order backward. For example, the word combination

“comparing apples and pears” is mostly known to the speakers of German as an al-legory of ill-conceived appraisal. In the modern discursive field, it rarely descends from its homey metalevel and not infrequently climbs to the meta-metalevel, as in the following passage in which strongly suggesting the incomparability of both fruits is said to be “based upon a popular prejudice”:

(1.2).“Wer im Brustton der Überzeugung äußert, Äpfel und Birnen solle man nicht ver-gleichen, beruft sich auf ein verbreitetes Vorurteil.”²⁴

1.2.1 Metastatements concerning comparisons in general

vs. 1.2.2 Metastatements concerning comparability of specific comparata in particular

Metastatements could be subdivided into references to comparison as a universal practice (Comparisons are N) and allusions to specific kinds or even cases of compar-ison (The comparcompar-ison [type of comparcompar-isons] X is N). A good example of the first variety is a dictionary entry, which is normally supposed to provide a general overview of the notion in question. Wilhelm Krug’s definition stands out as one of the very few second-order statements about comparisons that allow for the existence of more than two comparata:

(1.2.1).“Comparation […] ist Vergleichung, d. h. Gegeneinanderhaltungzweier oder meh-rer Dinge, um sich ihmeh-rer Einerleiheit (Gleichheit, Parität) oder Verschiedenheit (Ungleich-heit, Imparität) bewusst zu werden.“²⁵

In the second category, the variations of scope and modality are so enormous that each illustration would be more or less accidental. Bearing that in mind, it might make sense to use examples combining reference to various kinds and levels of comparisons in a single utterance: William James, for instance, constructs a com-parison of metacomcom-parisons: Grading simultaneous and successive comcom-parisons in nearly every area of perception (from hearing to touch) on the scale between “easy”

23 Cf. Paul F. Strawson,Introduction to Logical Theory(Routledge Revivals [1952]), London 2012, 15.

24 Horst Wenzel, Initialen in der Manuskriptkultur und im digitalen Medium, in: Helga Lutz/Jan-Friedrich Missfelder/Tilo Renz (eds.),Äpfel und Birnen. Illegitimes Vergleichen in den Kulturwissenschaften, Bielefeld 2006, 41-56, see 175.

25 Wilhelm T. Krug,Allgemeines Handwörterbuch der philosophischen Wissenschaften, Band 1, A bis E, Leipzig 1832, 499. I am grateful to Olga Sabelfeld for sharing this quotation with me.

and “impossible,” he goes on to compare data not only within, but also between perceptual categories:

(1.2.2). “It is easier to compare successive than simultaneous sounds, easier to compare two weights or two temperatures by testing one after the other with the same hand, than by using both hands and comparing both at once. […] in the case of smell and taste it is well-nigh impossible to compare simultaneous impressions at all.”²⁶

1.1.1 Equations vs. 1.1.2 Differentiations

In the sample of definitions of comparison presented in the note 1, both similar-ity and dissimilarsimilar-ity of comparata feature prominently. Hence, the breakdown of comparative utterances into equations and differentiations, stressing respectively likeness and unlikeness of comparata in relation to specific tertia, comes as no surprise. So, in John Locke’s identification between the unity of consciousness and human identity, the differences are overshadowed by similarities:

(1.1.1). “As far as this consciousness can be extended backwards to any past action or thought, so far reaches the identity of that person; it is the same self now it was then.”²⁸

The otherwise polyvalent opposition between “now” and “then” is used here merely to set two comparata apart (i.e., to manufacture a set of discrete human states out of the continuous memory flow). For the sake of the argument made by Locke, it could be replaced by nearly any other two-word marker ofdifférance. Inversely, in Claude d’Abbeville’s account of his missionary travel to Brazil, the corresponding spatial difference “here” versus “there” is intensified by a triple reiteration of dissim-ilarity between the animal worlds of continental France and the isle of Maranhão:

(1.1.2). “Nous ne voyons icy rien de toutes les especes d'animaux qu'ils ont là, comme aussi ils n'ont rien de semblable aux nostres, au moins qu'il ne soit de beaucoup differend.”²⁹

1.1.2.1. Nongrading comparisons vs. 1.1.2.2. Grading comparisons

The very concept oftertium comparationisseemingly calls for a scalar interpretation of differences between comparata: If there is a common groundnfor comparing X

26 William James,The Principles of Psychology[1907], New York 2007, 495.

27 On this opposition in general, see: Willibald Steinmetz, ‘Vergleich’, 88–89.

28 John Locke,An Essay Concerning Human Understanding[1689], Vol.1, New York 1894, 449.

29 Claude d’Abbeville,Histoire de la mission des pères Capucins en l’isle de Maragnan et terres circon-voisines, Paris 1614, 208.

30 On this contradistinction, see: Willibald Steinmetz. ‘Vergleich’, 88.

and Y, both comparata should somehow be graded on the scale in which the value ofnis expressed in some terms (numbers?) falling between 0 and ∞. However, not all tertia are gradable—one person can hardly be more vegan than another, and the language—under normal circumstances—cannot be “most” or “least English.”³¹ As with many other minimal pairs, the opposition between grading and nongrad-ing comparisons could be rather indifferent to the content of comparison: In other words, the same situation could be described in one or another way with minimal semantic variation. The case in point is Voltaire’s obsession with the so-called “Jew-ish self-alienation” depicted at various occasions as either the nongradable apart-ness:

(1.1.2.1).“Les Juifs, par leur religion et leur politique, étaient séparés du reste du monde”³² or the highest degree of self-imposed isolation:

(1.1.2.2). “La nation juive est la plus singulière qui jamais ait été dans le monde.”³³

1.1.2.2.1 Relative grading comparisons vs. 1.1.2.2.2 Absolute grading comparisons

Once the grounds of comparison allow for gradation, the choice between relative and absolute values of comparata is usually expressed by, respectively, compara-tive and superlacompara-tive adjeccompara-tives (“usually” does not mean “always”—see belowIII, 1.1.2.2.1/1.1.2.2.2). The first variety could be exemplified by one of the numerous excursions of the seventeenth-century French classicism to its Antique origins. In contrast to many of his contemporaries, though, François Blondel was not preoc-cupied with the cross-evaluation of the “new” and “old” classicism, but more in-terested in the internal hierarchy of the latter. In his opinion, Horace was beating Pindar on no less than nine counts (“knowledge,” “equality,” “tenderness,” “playfulness,”

“faultlessness,” “nobility of thought,” “precision,” “purity of language,” and, finally, “cheer-fulness”):

(1.1.2.2.1). “Mais pour Horace, il a bien plus d'étenduë de sçavoir et de connaissances que Pindare, plus d’égalité, plus de douceur & d’enjoüement & beaucoup moins de deffauts. Ses pensées ont aussi tres nobles, mais sa diction est bien plus correcte & plus épurée […], et souvent mesme beacoup plus heureux.”³⁴

31 Peter Klecha,Bridging the Divide: Scalarity and Modality, Chicago, IL 2014, 24.

32 Voltaire, [Review:] De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum Praelectiones Academicae, Oxonii Habitae, a Roberto Lowth, A. M. Poeticae Publico Praelectore, etc. [1764], in: André Versaille (ed.), Dic-tionnaire de la pensée de Voltaire par lui-même, Paris 1994, 677.

33 Voltaire, Des Juifs [1756], in: André Versaille (ed.),Dictionnaire de la pensée de Voltaire par lui-même, Paris 1994, 688.

34 François Blondel,Comparaison de Pindare et d’Horace, Amsterdam 1686, 77.

In its turn, the absolute grading comparison features prominently in Alfred Ten-nyson’s apologetic obituary to Arthur Wellesley, the famous longtime head of the British army:

(1.1.2.2.2). “Thine island loves thee well, thou famous man, // The greatest sailor since our world began”.³⁵