In the modern world, literary education is faced with the task of educating a spiritually rich personality, developing artistic thinking, and the ability to independently comprehend the meaning of works of art. Modern education is becoming more and more student-oriented, it is aimed at developing the individual capabilities inherent in the child, activating his creative abilities. Many of these tasks are solved through the introduction to works of art of the word.

Reading, analysis and interpretation of a literary text is in the center of attention of modern methodologists and practicing teachers. The most effective ways of analysis and methods of penetration into the world of artistic phenomena are being searched. At the same time, a comparative analysis of a literary text still opens up great opportunities.

The problem of comparative analysis was reflected in the works of literary critics (I.G. Neupokoeva, V.E. Khalizev, L.G. Kaida, V.G. Zinchenko, V.I. Tyupa, etc.). The methodology of teaching literature covers the theoretical and practical aspects of this problem (the works of M.A. Rybnikova, V.V. Golubkov, N.I. Kudryasheva, T.F. Kurdyumova, V.G. Marantsman, S.A. Zinin and others).

Literary science has accumulated rich experience in the comparative historical study of literature (works by M.P.Alekseev, Yu.A.Andreev, M.M.Bakh-tin, A.S. Bushmin, Yu.M. Lotman, M.B. Khrapchenko, etc.). Comparative histo-rical literary criticism, according to the definition of the Great Encyclopedia, is a section of the history of literature that studies international literary connections and relations, similarities and differences between literary and artistic phenomena in different countries. The similarity of literary facts can be based, on the one hand, on the similarity in the social and cultural development of peoples, on the other hand, on cultural and literary contacts between them; respectively differ: typological analogies of the literary process and literary connections and influences. Usually both interact, which, however, does not justify their mixing [3, 42].

Comparative-historical school in literary criticism of the 19th century was formed at a time when integration processes were intensifying, and not only in the economy and politics, but also in the spiritual field. In the history of science, the issue of the prerequisites for the formation in the second half of the 19th century has been studied quite deeply. A new scientific direction, called "comparativism" or comparative historical literary criticism.

By this time, other methods for analyzing literary facts had already been developed, and there were a number of global scientific hypotheses that claimed to explain the genesis, essence, and evolution of poetry: the mythological school; anthropological theory (“the theory of spontaneous generation”, ethnographic school) by E. Taylor; the cultural-historical school (I. Taine and his followers in different countries), in addition to the genetic approach of all three varieties of the mythological direction, substantiated and emphasized the primary role of the historical principle of the analysis of literary phenomena. She put forward the thesis about the inseparable connection between the development of literature and the development of society, introduced the principles of systemicity and determinism into the study of literature, substantiated the concept of literary evolution as an objective, natural-historical process.

On this basis, a large-scale study of the history of national literatures and the creation of the first fundamental "Histories" of many literatures of European countries began, including the four-volume "History of Russian Literature" by A.N.Pypin. The methodology of comparative historical literary criticism has developed on the basis of a critical rethinking and synthesis of the earlier results of comparative studies of mythology, folklore and literature. The largest representative was Academician A. N. Veselovsky (1838-1906), in whose works comparative historical literary criticism turned from a particular problem of influences into a methodological concept of general literary criticism (“On the Methods and Tasks of the History of Literature as a Science”, 1870). In line with comparative historical literary criticism, the activities of his brother, A.N. Veselovsky (1843-1918), author of the book Western Influences in New Russian Literature (1883).

The comparative method was applied by A.I. Kirpichnikov in the dissertation "Experience of a comparative study of the Western and Russian epic poems of the Lombard cycle" (1873). In the Soviet period, the most significant works in the field of comparative historical literary criticism belong to M.P. Alekseev, A.I. Beletsky, N.K. Gudziya, V.M.Zhirmunsky, N.I.Konrad, V.F.Shishmarev [6, 76].

I.G. Neupokoeva noted that comparative analysis had a strong influence on the development of linguistics, ethnography, and the historical study of myths and beliefs. The limitation was revealed in the fact that he did not allow to move from the fact of the external similarity of cultural and ideological forms to the disclosure of those material social relations that determine them.

In modern scientific research, comparative analysis is used in combination with other methods. Comparative typology - a section of scientific methodology that studies phenomena in comparison with each other in order to establish similarities and differences between them [4, 34].

V.G. Zinchenko pointed out that the compared objects can be both individual objects and systems of objects [1, 18]. A portable attribute can be the presence or absence of a property or relationship. Comparative analysis allows not only to analyze already recorded phenomena, but also to assume the existence of such specific objects that are not yet known to science. Thus, a comparative analysis allows us to explore the entire set of single-order phenomena as a kind of integrity, considered as a closed system [5, 28].

V.E.Khalizev notes that the comparative analysis procedure consists in identifying and formulating a certain number of features of the objects under study (differential variables). The greater their number, the lower the level of the created typology and the more specific the types constructed by the researcher are. This means that the comparative typology is always hierarchical.

In this regard, one of the most important problems in the application of comparative analysis is the determination of the relative importance of differential variables, as well as the identification of the leading level in their hierarchy, which corresponds to the main model (type in the narrow sense of the word; models of a higher level are usually denoted as groups of types, lower - as subtypes, etc.). In terms of its procedure and goals, comparative analysis is closely related to the comparative historical method [5, 51].

The comparative historical method, according to A.B. Esin, uses the following basic techniques: 1) comparison of significant facts or phenomena; 2) proof of their genetic identity; 3) identification of approximate historical relationships between the compared elements (the method of relative chronology) [7, 13].

For our article, it is important to take into account research on the problem of intertextuality. Intertextuality in a narrow sense is interpreted as a relationship of dialogic interaction between two or more texts (quoting, reminiscences, allusions, plagiarism, etc.); in a broad sense - as all sorts of relationships between texts, previous and subsequent, as well as the correlation of texts with all areas of activity and communication, including non-verbal texts, works of other types of art.

Researchers talk about intertextuality in several meanings: 1) as a principle of poetics; 2) as a literary device, deliberately used by postmodern writers; 3) as a philosophical concept.

As a principle of poetics, intertextuality involves the dissolution of the text in quotations, which are the building material for the work (and the term "quote" in postmodernism has the widest possible meaning: films, previously written literary works, ideological cliches, slogans, stereotypes of behavior, thinking can be included in a work of art). As a literary device, intertextuality involves playing with quotations and cultural associations, their parody and irony. The philosophical concept of intertextuality arose in the course of critical reflection on the widespread artistic practice of recent years, and is understood as a factor of a kind of collective unconscious that determines the artist's activity, regardless of his will and desire.

The definition of the French structuralist R. Barthes is widely known: “Every text is an intertext; other texts are present in it at various levels in more or less recognizable forms: texts of the previous culture and texts of the surrounding culture. Each text is a new fabric woven from old quotations” [4, 70].

The French scholar J. Genette in his book Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree (1982) proposed a classification of different types of interaction between texts in a postmodern work:

• intertextuality as co-presence in one text of two or more texts (citation, allusion, plagiarism, etc.);
• paratextuality as the relation of a text to its title, afterword, epigraph, etc.;
• metatextuality as a commentary and often critical reference to its pretext;
• hypertextuality as mockery and parody by one text of another;
• architextuality, understood as a genre connection of texts.

Comparative analysis of works on an ideological, thematic and genre basis was widely used in the practice of language teachers in the 19th century. (V.Ya. Stoyunina, V.I.Vodovozov, V.P.Ostro-gorsky and others).

Well-known methodologist M.A. Rybnikova also attached great importance to the use of comparison in the literature course. In the book “Studying Literature at Secondary School”, she wrote: “The more connections, associations, mutually intersecting comparisons, the better each of the works encountered in the course is perceived.” M.A. Rybnikova believed that comparison is one of the surest methods of comprehending a work of art [6, 43].

In the methodology of teaching literature of the twentieth century. Deeply developed theoretical and aspects of the problem of comparative analysis in the works of V.V.Golubkova, N.I.Kudrya-sheva, T.F.Kurdyumova, V.G.Marants-man, S.A.Zinina and others. Researchers have proved that the use of various types of comparison in the process of teaching literature contributes to the combination of synthetic and analytical approaches to the text, reveals the material being studied in a new way, helps to get acquainted with the literary process, study theoretical material, and identify the links between a work and life. A variety of tasks facing students in the process of comparative analysis contribute to the emergence of interest in the text, the creation of positive motivation.

The purpose of comparative analysis is to identify the originality of literary texts, the specifics of the author's vision, the features of the construction of the language of works, and the identification of genre features. The choice of comparative analysis as a methodological technique for studying works should have some basis - the presence of common starting points for the studied texts [7, 445].

The foundations will be new each time, but only the presence of commonality gives the right to compare and search for originality. For example, comparisons of author's and folk tales similar in plot will make it possible to clarify exactly what changes the writer made, to reflect on the meaning of these changes, to penetrate deeper into the meaning of both folk and author's tales.

Comparison of fairy tales of different peoples on one plot will help to identify national specifics, see the reflection in the text of customs, everyday details, turns of speech characteristic of each people, and at the same time will focus children's attention on universal human values. Comparison of a work of art and a cognitive text that are close in subject matter will show the specifics of the artistic and scientific perception of the world, dictating the choice of purpose, structure, and speech design of the text.

N.I.Kudryashev in his work “The Relationship of Teaching Methods in Literature Lessons” noted that comparative analysis is a method of studying and explaining various phenomena, in which, on the basis of establishing the similarity of these phenomena in form, a conclusion is made about their genetic relationship, that is, about their common origin. Despite the development of this method in practice, it is sometimes episodic and does not rely on the age characteristics of students' thinking, the logic of text perception. This leads, according to the methodologist, to the fact that he does not achieve the result that could be obtained by purposefully including him in the system of work in the lesson [8, 24].

The problem of analysis, including comparative analysis, occupies a special place in the methodological system of V.G. Marantsman. The scientist correlates literary and school analysis: “School analysis is always based on the literary concept. However, the movement towards it, the way it is comprehended, the level of thought in school analysis is in many respects different from that in scientific research. When transforming literary analysis into a school one, it is impossible to translate a work into a plan alien to the author's thought. The incompleteness of school analysis in comparison with literary criticism is inevitable. But the discoveries of the study of the work must necessarily advance the student in the direction of the author's tendency [9, 541].

The methodology should take into account the achievements of literary criticism not only at the level of commentary, but at the level of the concept of a work of art. Literary analysis largely determines the content of school analysis, becoming for students the basis of a scientific worldview, at the same time, the goal of school analysis cannot be reduced to adapting scientific analysis, to adapting it to the level of children's perception. School analysis differs from literary analysis in terms of tasks, scope, and methods of studying verbal art. The task of school analysis is not scientific research, but the reader's practical assimilation of a work of art.

The purpose of school analysis V.G.Maranman sees it in creating a reader's interpretation of the work and correlating it with the scientific study of the text, correcting the reader's subjective ideas with the objective meaning of the work, revealed by literary criticism [7, 157].

V.G.Marantsman developed a typology of techniques for analyzing a literary work. He singled out two groups of techniques: 1) techniques for comprehending the author's position (literary studies, i.e. taken from the arsenal of literary criticism) and 2) techniques for activating the reader's co-creation (specifically school techniques for working on a literary text, techniques for "translating" the text by students). Among the techniques, a significant place is given to comparative ones. For example: among the methods of comprehending the author's position, aimed at the conceptual development of the text, bringing the reader closer to the author's thought in the unity of its figurative and logical principles, we find: a comparison of a work of art with its real basis, a hero with a prototype; comparison of different editions, variants of the text; comparison of this work with other works of the writer; comparison of works of different writers or individual elements of literary texts.

Techniques for activating students' co-creation (specific school methods of work or methods for translating literary works into other types of art) that allow expressing the reader's position also include a comparison technique: comparing a literary text with works of another art form [2, 96]. According to the fair remark of V.G.Marantsman, “comparison of the works of different writers or individual elements of literary texts (landscape, portrait, etc.) in the middle classes is usually carried out to emphasize the commonality of moral conflict, the artistic situation, the similarity of the heroes of the work and, as Gukovsky said, “types of consciousness of writers” [3, 5]. The method of comparative analysis became the subject of the dissertation research by S.A. Zinina. The methodologist writes: “With the help of comparison, one can draw a conclusion about the quantitative or, even better, qualitative characteristics of literary texts. The student is not left alone with an object of study that is incomprehensible to him, because he can name the first visible differences or note similarities. This self-knowledge and sense of success enhances student motivation. As a result of comparison, the common thing that is inherent in two or more works is established, and the identification of a common, repeating one is a step on the way to understanding the laws of art” [10, 24]. S.A. Zinin proposed a classification of comparisons:

Intratext comparisons: a) comparison of characters' images; b) comparison of the elements of the composition; c) the ratio of the epigraph and the ideological sound of the work; d) stylistic comparisons.

Intertextual comparisons: a) comparison of works of one or different authors according to genre, problematic and other features; b) draft and final versions of the work or its constituent elements; c) artistic image and biographical sources of its prototype; d) comparison of different genre variants of one author's plot.

Interpretive comparisons: a) various critical interpretations of the work; b) comparison of reader's assessments of the work; c) historical and functional aspects of its reading, interpretation; d) comparison of biographies of writers in relation to the problem of author's positions.

This version of the classification of types of comparison in school analysis takes into account, from the point of view of the author, both its general orientation (the text as an object of analysis) and specific embodiments. The latter are associated with the general didactic basis of the technique, which requires special attention [10, 56]. This classification, according to the scientist, allows us to consider the method of comparison in its application to a literary text, displaying different levels of intrasubject communications and ways of their practical, “instrumental” implementation. The author notes that the final state control includes topics of a comparative nature, which involve various types of comparisons, figurative, plot-compositional, problem-thematic, which indicates the importance of the formation of comparative-analytical skills in students.

S.A.Zinin’s dissertation “Methodo-logy of problem-comparative analysis and its role in improving the study of the course of literature in the 11th grade” states that the method of comparison “penetrates the entire structure of school analysis, being a necessary means of synthesis in understanding literary material, a means of generalizing it. However, in the theory of methodology, this technique occupies a modest place: in textbooks and manuals on the methodology of teaching literature, it is not displayed in a separate section, but is present as an "accompanying" element within the framework of one or another teaching method. Not enough attention is paid to the comparison in the methodology of working on the written speech of students, and meanwhile working and exam essays often have a comparative character” [10, 69]. The use of various types of comparison in the process of teaching literature forms the ability to see objects and phenomena from different angles, in all connections and relationships, to reach a certain level of generalization. This is possible only with systematic work, during which the skills of a comparative analysis of a literary text are formed.

The researcher determined that a comparative analysis is logically appropriate when talking about the poet's creative evolution, when identifying the attitude of different authors to philosophical and moral categories: freedom, patriotism. In the process of comparison, students' perception of one work changes under the influence of another compared with it. Thus, such an understanding of both texts is achieved, which is impossible when studying them separately. The systematic use of comparative analysis in the process of studying works of art ensures the comprehension and perception of a literary text in its semantic integrity and compositional unity, contributes to the formation of a creative personality, ready for independent comprehension of works of art.

The methodologist proved that a comparative analysis allows you to more fully, more clearly reveal the main topics, the appeal to which develops in students both a culture of reading and creative abilities. Especially effective is the appeal to cross-cutting topics and motives, as they allow not only to save time, but also to update previous knowledge at a new level: what was previously learned in the lessons does not lie dead in the memory of students, but is in demand in the lesson. According to S.A. Zinin, in the senior class, the use of multidimensional comparison becomes the primary need for analysis, dictated both by the complexity of the literary material itself and by the intellectual needs of students [9, 199].

The methodology of school comparative analysis is based on the principles, which, in particular, are indicated by N.A. Sobolev:

• purposefulness of the analysis,
• comparability of objects and phenomena,
• consideration and similarity,
• adherence to a single basis for comparison,
• highlighting essential features
• logical sequence,
• parallel presentation of the material,
• summary, conclusions.

Analyzing the principles put forward, S.A.Zinin writes that comparative analysis, like other types of analysis, requires (especially in institute) strict adherence to the principle of scientific character: the compared phenomena and facts must correspond to the tasks of analysis, they cannot be distorted in favor of the result of comparison, artificially “fitted” to a certain scheme [10,112]. S.A.Zinin proposed a system of questions in designing a lesson on comparative analysis: What is the plot and compositional basis of each of the stories? What is the general background of their narrative? Compare the portraits of the heroes. By what means are they created? What is the inner sound of these images? What brings them closer? What problem-aesthetic problem does the author seek to solve in both stories? [7, 59].

Methodists see the advantages of comparative analysis not only in that it activates the student's mental activity, helps the reader to see how the word transforms the meaning, develops the imagination. It is also important that comparative analysis makes it possible to actualize the primary experience: when studying new material, one turns to previously studied material, and repeats what students have already learned in literature lessons. A student-centered approach to learning is being implemented: students are offered advanced tasks, the ability to choose tasks that are different in form, content and complexity, individual and group work, various forms of communication, and the use of various sources of information. This contributes to the immersion of children not only in the world of a literary hero, but also in their own.

T.E. writes about the possibilities of comparative analysis. Zyl: “The comparative historical method is usually defined as a set of techniques and procedures for the historical genetic study of language groups and families, as well as individual languages, in order to establish historical patterns in the development of languages. The essence of the method is to compare the state of the same linguistic fact or their combination in different periods of time, to identify the changes that have occurred during this time period. Specific techniques and procedures for comparison are in determining the genetic affiliation of the linguistic facts under consideration, in establishing a system of correspondences and anomalies at different levels in the compared languages, in modeling the original language forms that are not recorded in written monuments, in the chronological and spatial localization of linguistic phenomena and states" [6, 39].

Many methods of analysis are based on the operation of comparison, since comparison always provides material for observation, awakens thought, focuses attention on details that go unnoticed outside of comparison with another object, phenomenon. Any comparison involves highlighting common and distinctive features, as well as searching for the causes and meaning of these differences. Teacher M.P. Voyushina in the manual “Methodological Foundations of Literary Development” notes: “The purpose of comparative analysis is to identify the originality of literary texts, the specifics of the author’s vision, the features of the construction and language of works, and the identification of genre features. The choice of comparative analysis as a methodological technique for studying works should have some basis - the presence of common and similar points in the studied texts. The foundations will be new each time, but only the presence of commonality gives the right to compare and search for originality” [5, 51]. Any comparison implies a distinction between distinctive and common features, a search for the meaning of these differences and causes.

I.V.Kholodov, revealing the possibilities of using comparative analysis in the study of lyrics, writes about the deepening of students' ideas about the originality of themes and motives in the work of poets when comparing translations with the originals: "The clash of completely different authorial positions can arouse interest in the topic and cause a lively reaction of students"[6, 46].

Thus, the problem of comparative analysis has been developed aspect by aspect in the modern theory and practice of teaching literature at institute. One of the topical issues in the methodology of teaching literature at institute is a comparative analysis of classical and modern works. The task of literature lessons is the formation and development of students' analytical skills, enriching their perception of works of art, gaining experience in comparative analysis in literature classes and transferring the acquired knowledge, skills and abilities into independent reading activity. Comparative analysis will allow a deeper study of works, and will also teach schoolchildren to search, think, see an object from different angles, and identify essential features.