Frames for World Literature – Detailed Study Notes

NOT simply all literature ever written; Damrosch insists on more specific criteria.
Minimum requirement: a work lives an effective life outside its country of origin.
- Most works never achieve this; therefore world literature is selective.
Boundaries cannot be drawn “on a single plane.” Multiple overlapping scales are needed.
Canon is selective even in “expansive times such as the present.”

Defining feature: thrives in translation.
- Examples:
- Vergil read centuries in Latin across Europe.
- Paul Auster in $\approx 30$ languages; possibly sells more in translation than English originals.
- Orhan Pamuk translated into $\approx 50$ languages; foreign sales >> domestic sales.
Translation produces
- Losses: stylistic nuance, linguistic play (e.g., “Finnegans Wake” becomes nearly unreadable in most languages).
- Gains: larger audience, fresh interpretive angles, cultural dialogue.
Works hostile or resistant to translation remain provincial (specialist interest only).

Historically, major powers dominate world-lit canon (Western Europe, later North America).
- Early comparatists often Euro-centric (Brandes, Guyard, Rüdiger).
- Institutional analogy: “Literary Security Council” mirroring the U.N.’s great-power structure.
1950–70s anthologies:
- 1956 Norton World Masterpieces: $73$ Western authors, $0$ women.
- 1976 edition adds only Sappho (≈ $2$ pages).
Critical voices
- Sukehiro Hirakawa: Western comparative literature = “Greater West European Co-Prosperity Sphere.”
- Werner Friederich: should rename programs “NATO Literatures.”
- Rey Chow (1995): swapping India/China/Japan for England/France/Germany still reproduces great-power model—smaller cultures (Korea, Tibet, etc.) get erased.
Positive shifts since 1990s:
- Modern anthologies (Longman, Bedford, Norton) feature $\sim 500$ authors, dozens of languages (Akkadian to Zulu).
- Expansion within Europe too: Welsh, Norse, Polish voices added.

Damrosch traces oscillation among:
1. Classics – foundational, often elite/imperial, traditionally Greek–Latin; vertical historical authority.
2. Masterpieces – aesthetically exceptional, can be modern; recognized quickly, travel fast (e.g., Goethe’s own works).
3. Windows on the World – texts chosen for cultural insight, not necessarily canonical at home (includes oral literature, marginal voices, women authors).
Most curricula blend all three.
- Example: Columbia “Lit Hum” = fall (Classics/Window into antiquity) + spring (European Masterworks).

Harvard Classics (1910): $50$ vols, classicist orientation.
Norton World Masterpieces (1956): focuses Western, male canon.
HarperCollins World Reader (1994): explicit global/window strategy—emphasizes “marginal as well as mainstream,” features oral African & Amerindian sections.
The World’s Great Classics (1901): early attempt at inclusivity—61 vols incl. Turkish, Armenian, “Moorish” texts but filtered through colonial attitudes (Epiphanius Wilson praises Ottoman poetry yet describes Turkish character as apathetic).

Goethe’s orig. concept of Weltliteratur (1820s):
- A response to Germany’s lack of political unity; literature could secure cultural prestige.
- Advocated mutual refreshment: “Every literature finally becomes ennuyé if not renewed by foreign participation.”
- Even then, Goethe read Chinese novels & Serbian poetry—already global, regional, and national layers interacting.
Modern theory:
- Franco Moretti: uses World-Systems + Darwinian models; promotes “distant reading,” tracks genre diffusion (e.g., the realist novel’s global migration).
- Pascale Casanova: “World Republic of Letters” – competitive global marketplace; Paris historically a central node; nationalism + anti-nationalism tension.
- Gayatri Spivak: calls for planetary outlook (“Death of a Discipline”).

Old 2-tier model (major/minor) replaced by 3 tiers:
1. Hypercanon – classic majors strengthened (Shakespeare, Joyce, etc.).
2. Counter-canon – subaltern, postcolonial, minority, small-language authors (Rushdie, Achebe, Walcott).
3. Shadow canon – formerly taught minors now fading (Kleist, Hazlitt, Robert Southey, etc.).
Postcolonial studies replicate hypercanonical bias: handful of celebrities dominate scholarship; many others remain scarcely studied (Fadwa Tuqan, Premchand, Ghalib now rarely cited).

Reading foreign works creates an elliptical space between source culture & reader’s home culture.
- Expectation shaped by previous knowledge of both literatures.
- Translation & paratext (preface, cover) guide reading.
Two translation strategies:
- Assimilative/domesticating – reshapes text to host norms.
- Foreignizing/exoticizing – highlights difference; risks distancing or fetishizing.
Scholar-teacher’s job: scramble assumptions, expose cultural difference, but also show newly emergent meanings abroad.

Risk of neo-colonial “token inclusion.” Need to avoid:
- Re-centring great-power authority under guise of diversity.
- Reducing cultures to anthropological specimens (“window” without context).
Importance of balanced curricula: include multiple voices within each culture, recognize power asymmetries, yet maintain rigorous aesthetic engagement.
Temporal dimension reminds us canons are dynamic; ongoing revision required.

Relates to earlier discussions on canon formation, translation theory (Venuti), world-systems theory (Wallerstein), and reader-response criticism (Iser).
Expands on prior lecture themes: globalization of culture, postcolonial critique, comparative methodology.

When encountering a new “world” text:
1. Identify which of the $5$ frames is most prominent in its movement.
2. Note whether translation is domesticating or foreignizing.
3. Situate author in hyper-, counter-, or shadow canon to gauge scholarly context.
4. Cross-reference with regional & global historical moments (colonial period, Cold-War cultural politics, etc.).
Use anthologies critically: ask who is included/excluded & why.