1. See Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Conversations of Goethe with Johann Peter Eckermann, trans. John Oxenford (n. p.: Da Capo Press, 1998), 165–167; Thomas Babington Macaulay, “Minute Recorded in the General Department by Thomas Macaulay, Law Member of the Governor-General’s Council, Dated 2nd February 1835,” in The Great Indian Education Debate: Documents Relating to the Orientalist-Anglicist Controversy, 1781–1843, ed. Lynn Zastoupil and Martin Moir (Richmond, UK: Curzon, 1999), 161–173; Rabindranath Tagore, “World Literature,” in Selected Writings on Literature and Language, ed. Sisir Kumar Das and Sukanta Chaudhuri (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001), 150; Jorge Luis Borges, “The Library of Babel,” in Labyrinths: Selected Stories and Other Writings, ed. Donald A. Yates and James E. Irby, trans. James E. Irby (New York: New Directions, 1962), 51–58; Tayeb Salih, Season of Migration to the North, trans. Denis Johnson-Davies (London: Heinemann, 1985), 136–138; and Orhan Pamuk, “My Father’s Suitcase,” PMLA 122, no. 3 (2007): 788–796.
2. The now classic argument about the “derivative” nature of anticolonial nationalist discourse is of course Partha Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992).
3. B. Venkat Mani, “Borrowing Privileges: Libraries and the Institutionalization of World Literature,” Modern Language Quarterly 74, no. 2 (2013), 250. Also see, Reingard Nethersole, “World Literature and the Library,” in The Routledge Companion to World Literature, ed. Theo D’haen, David Damrosch, and Djelal Kadir (New York, 2012), 307–315.
4. See David Damrosch, What is World Literature? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003); and Franco Moretti, “Conjectures on World Literature,” New Left Review 1 (2000): 54–68. The latter essay and a number of other relevant ones have now been collected in Franco Moretti, Distant Reading (New York: Verso Books, 2013).
5. Michel Foucault, “Of Other Spaces,” Diacritics 16 (1986), 26.
6. See Mani, “Borrowing Privileges.”
7. See Kenichi Ohmae, The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy (New York: Harper Business, 1990).
8. A number of websites track the proliferation of these “people’s libraries” worldwide. See, for instance, http://peopleslibrary.wordpress.com and https://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Wall-Street-Library/215569408506718.
9. On the involvement of world literature discourse itself with notions about Westphalia, see Jane O. Newman, “Auerbach’s Dante: Poetical Theology as a Point of Departure for a Philology of World Literature,” in Approaches to World Literature, ed. Joachim Küpper (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2013), 39–58.
10. Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilsen, Border as Method, or, the Multiplication of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2013).
11. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” in Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of an Idea, ed. Rosalind Morris (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), 24.
12. Edward W. Said, The World, the Text, and the Critic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 16.
13. Miguel Tamen, review of On Literary Worlds, by Eric Hayot, Modern Philology 112, no. 1 (August 2014): E1–E4. My thanks to Paul Bové for bringing this review to my attention.
14. A useful (though highly selective) historical account of world literature discourse and practices is provided in Theo D’haen, The Routledge Concise History of World Literature (London: Routledge, 2012).
15. On the intertwined histories of world literature and comparative literature, see D’haen, The Routledge Concise History of World Literature, 18–21 and 47–73; and Sandra Berman, “World Literature and Comparative Literature,” in D’haen, Damrosch, and Kadir, The Routledge Companion to World Literature, 169–179.
16. Pheng Cheah, “World against Globe: Toward a Normative Conception of World Literature,” New Literary History 45 (2014), 303.
17. Frantz Fanon, Peau noire, masques blancs (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1952), 34, 36; and Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks (New York: Grove, 1967), 18, 21; emphasis added.
18. Frantz Fanon, Sociologie d’une révolution (L’an V de la revolution algérienne) (Paris: François Maspero, 1972), 75; and Frantz Fanon, A Dying Colonialism, trans. Haakon Chevalier (New York: Grove Press, 1967), 90 and 91.
19. Fanon, Peau noire, masques blancs, 34; Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, 18.
20. Erich Auerbach, “Philology and Weltliteratur” (1952), trans. Maire Said and Edward Said, Centennial Review 13, no. 1 (Winter 1969), 3. For the German original, see Erich Auerbach, “Philologie der Weltliteratur,” in Weltliteratur: Festgabe für Strich zum 70. Geburtstag (Bern: Francke Verlag, 1952), 39–50. All references to the German are to this edition.
21. On the Babel motif in modern theories of language, see Jacques Derrida, “Des Tours de Babel,” in Psyche, vol. 1 of Inventions of the Other (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007), 191–225. For a historical study of the philological preoccupation with the origins of language, see Maurice Olender, The Languages of Paradise: Race, Ethnicity, and Philology in the Nineteenth Century, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008).
22. David Crystal, English as a Global Language, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), xii.
23. See Ronald A. T. Judy, “On the Politics of Global Language, or Unfungible Local Value,” boundary 2 24 (Summer 1997): 101–143; and “Some Notes on the Status of Global English in Tunisia,” boundary 2 26 (Summer 1999): 3–29.
24. Emily Apter, “On Translation in a Global Market,” Public Culture 13 (2001), 3; Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Death of a Discipline (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), xii; and Jonathan Arac, “Anglo-Globalism?” New Left Review 16 (July–August, 2002): 35–45.
25. Considerations of the history of theory rarely confront this question. Even in an important volume dedicated to comparative literary studies and globalization, most contributions continue to focus on its emphasis on “difference” rather than its role in the production of “sameness” or standardization. See Haun Saussy, ed., Comparative Literature in an Age of Globalization (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006).
26. Theodor W. Adorno, “On the Question ‘What Is German?,’ ” in Critical Models: Interventions and Catchwords (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 213.
27. See Edward W. Said, Orientalism (1978; repr., New York: Vintage, 2003). Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text as O; and Karim Mattar, “The Middle Eastern Novel in English: Literary Transnationalism after Orientalism” (D.Phil. diss. University of Oxford, 2013).
28. For such a “genealogy” of the concept of criticism itself, for instance, see Talal Asad, “Free Speech, Blasphemy, and Secular Criticism,” in Is Critique Secular? Blasphemy, Injury, and Free Speech, by Talal Asad, Wendy Brown, Judith Butler, and Saba Mahmood (New York: Fordham University Press, 2013).
29. See Moretti, Distant Reading; Pascale Casanova, The World Republic of Letters, trans. M. B. DeBevoise (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004); and D’haen, The Routledge Concise History of World Literature. This is also true of other notable contributions in recent years, like John Pizer, The Idea of World Literature: History and Pedagogical Practice (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 2006) and Eric Hayot, On Literary Worlds (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
30. Bryan S. Turner, Marx and the End of Orientalism (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1978), 81, 10–11, 7.
31. Among the classic historical studies are Eric Stokes, The English Utilitarians and India (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1959); and David Kopf, British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance: The Dynamics of Indian Modernization, 1773–1835 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969). My argument here is influenced by Rajeswari Sunder Rajan, “After ‘Orientalism’: Colonialism and English Literary Studies in India,” Social Scientist 14, no. 7 (July 1986): 23–35.
32. I shall thus retain the term “Anglicism” for the project of Europeanization as conceived of in the Anglocentric British Empire.
33. See Gail Minault, “Alois Sprenger: German Orientalism’s ‘Gift’ to Delhi College,” South Asia Research 31, no. 7 (2011): 7–23, on such ambiguities in one important historical figure.
34. See Edward W. Said, “On Jean Genet’s Late Works,” Grand Street 36 (1990), 38. On Genet and this remarkable essay of Said’s, see Stathis Gourgouris, Does Literature Think? Literature as Theory for an Antimythical Era (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003), 249–291.
35. Even for colonial India, the range is a wide one. For a pioneering set of studies of these phenomena, see Carl A. Breckenridge and Peter Van Der Veer, eds., Orientalism and the Predicament of Culture (Delhi, India: Oxford University Press, 1994).
36. See Stathis Gourgouris, Dream Nation: Enlightenment, Colonization, and the Institution of Modern Greece (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996); and Gourgouris, “Derealizations of the Ideal: Walcott Encounters Seferis,” boundary 2 39, no. 2 (2012): 181–199.
37. Said’s source for this idea is M. H. Abrams, Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and Revolution in Romantic Literature (New York: Norton, 1973).
38. Said, World, the Text, and the Critic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 16. For a more detailed discussion of this, see Aamir R. Mufti, “Auerbach in Istanbul: The Jewish Question and the Crisis of Postcolonial Culture,” Critical Inquiry 25, no. 1 (1998): 95–125. On secular criticism and “detranscendentalization,” see Stathis Gourgouris, “Transformation, Not Transcendence,” boundary 2 31, no. 2 (2004): 55–79.
39. Said, World, the Text, and the Critic, 13.
40. See, for instance, Asad, “Free Speech, Blasphemy, and Secular Criticism.” For a close critical reading of the latter text, see Stathis Gourgouris, Lessons in Secular Criticism (New York: Fordham University Press, 2013).
41. Srinivas Aravamudan, Enlightenment Orientalism: Resisting the Rise of the Novel (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 3.
42. See Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), 33–35.
43. Karl Marx, “The Future Results of the British Rule in India,” in On Colonialism, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (Moscow: Progress, 1974), 82.
44. See Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, Decolonizing the Mind (New York: Heinemann Books, 1986).
45. Any number of the works of, for instance, Galin Tihanov and Karatani Kojin are relevant here, as is the collection Pour une littérature-monde, ed. Michel Le Bris and Jean Rouaud (Paris: Gallimard, 2007). Our understanding of the German context will no doubt be much enhanced and transformed by B. Venkat Mani’s forthcoming study.
46. For an enormously useful set of revisionist engagements with world-systems theory by scholars in the humanities, see David Palumbo-Liu, Bruce Robbins, and Nirvana Tanukhi, eds., Immanuel Wallerstein and the Problem of the World: System, Scale, Culture (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011).
47. On positivism in Moretti, see Tom Eyers, “The Perils of the ‘Digital Humanities’: New Positivisms and the Fate of Literary Theory,” Postmodern Culture 23, no. 2 (2013). https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/postmodern_culture/v023/23.2.eyers.html#f6-text. An early and still pertinent critique of Moretti’s use of evolutionary theory, which puts the literary market in the place of nature in physical science, is Christopher Prendergast, “Evolution and Literary History: A Response to Franco Moretti,” New Left Review 34 (2005): 40–62. On Casanova, See Christopher Prendergast, “Negotiating World Literature,” New Left Review 8 (2001): 100–121.
48. For a critique, with respect to the literatures of Latin America, of this assumption of correspondence and the attendant claim that literature in the peripheries is always a matter of compromises with metropolitan forms, see Efraín Kristal, “ ‘Considering Coldly …’: A Response to Franco Moretti,” New Left Review 15 (2002): 61–74.
49. See Cheah, “World against Globe.”
50. See Franco Moretti, ed., The Novel, 2 vols. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007).
51. Mariano Siskind, “The Globalization of the Novel and the Novelization of the Global: A Critique of World Literature,” Comparative Literature 62, no. 4 (2010): 342. I am citing this article, rather than the fuller chapter in Cosmopolitan Desires: Global Modernity and World Literature in Latin America (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2014), because aspects of the argument have been, it seems to me, made weaker in the book version, the phrase “world historical globalization of the European bourgeoisie” (338), for instance, being changed in the book to “the globalization of modernity” (28).
52. See Raymond Schwab, La renaissance orientale (Paris: Payot, 1950), translated as The Oriental Renaissance: Europe’s Rediscovery of India and the East, 1680–1880 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984).
53. See Michel Foucault, The Order of Things (New York: Vintage Books, 1973), 282–285.
54. See Auerbach, “Philology and Weltliteratur”; and Claude Lévi-Strauss, Tristes Tropiques (1955; repr., New York: Penguin Books, 1992).
55. Mani, “Borrowing Privileges,” 243.
56. These historical details have been gleaned from the official history of the British Library. See P. R. Harris, A History of the British Museum library, 1753–1973 (London: British Library, 1998).
57. British Library, “George III Collection: The King’s Library,” http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelprestype/prbooks/georgeiiicoll/george3kingslibrary.html.
58. Q. Mahmudul Haq and Salim Quraishi, Urdu Language Collections in the British Library (London: British Library Reference Division, 1984), 5.
59. Ibid., 5–6.
60. See, for instance, Parliamentary Papers: Accounts and Papers, vol. 12 (1860).
61. Richard H. Davis, Lives of Indian Images (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), 181; and Saloni Mathur, India by Design: Colonial History and Cultural Display (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 133–164.
62. See Davis, Lives of Indian Images, 180–181; and Helen Lawson, “The Koh-i-Noor Diamond Will Stay in Britain, Says Cameron as He Rules Out Returning Gem to India on Final Day of Visit,” Daily Mail, February 21, 2013, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282104/The-Koh-noor-diamond-stay-Britain-says-Cameron-rules-returning-gem-India-final-day-visit.html.
63. I cannot resist noting the rather delicious irony that Osama Bin Laden and his estranged family seem to have adopted opposite but equally iconoclastic positions in this regard.
64. See Americo Castro, The Spaniards: An Introduction to Their History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972).
65. Salman Rushdie, Shame (New York: Knopf, 1983), 91. I discuss these matters at length in Aamir R. Mufti, Enlightenment in the Colony: The Jewish Question and the Crisis of Postcolonial Culture (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), esp. chap. 3.
66. See Aziz Ahmed, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964); and Aitzaz Ahsan, The Indus Saga (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).
67. Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991), ix.
68. See, for instance, Kalpana Dasgupta, “How Learned Were the Mughals: Reflections on Muslim Libraries in India,” Journal of Library History 10, no. 3 (1975): 241–254.
69. The latest iteration of this idea takes the form of the play “Dara” by the Pakistani playwright Shahid Nadeem, staged at the National Theater in London in early 2015, which takes as its subject matter the trial of Dara by Aurangzeb, highlighting their different conceptions of religiosity, the mystical and the juridico-scriptural, respectively. Contemporary questions about the nature of (Islamic) religiosity in Pakistan and the subcontinent are mapped back onto this early eighteenth-century conflict. Nadeem told a reporter that the entire subsequent history of Hindu-Muslim conflict in the subcontinent, including the Partition of India, could be traced back to this historical event. See Riyaz Wani, “Seeds of Partition were Sown when Aurangzeb Triumphed over Dara Shikoh.” Tehelka 19, no. 12 (May 9, 2015). http://www.tehelka.com/2015/05/seeds-of-partition-were-sown-when-aurangzeb-triumphed-over-dara-shikoh/.
70. See Lord Teignmouth, Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Correspondence of Sir William Jones, 2 vols. (London: John W. Parker, 1835).
71. See The King of the World: The Padshahnama, an Imperial Mughal Manuscript from the Royal Library Windsor Castle (Azimuth, 1997); and the website of the Royal Collection Trust: https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/1005025/the-padshahnama.
72. For a superb ethnographic study of the neo-miniature practice at the NCA, see Virginia Whiles, Art and Polemic in Pakistan: Cultural Politics and Tradition in Contemporary Miniature Painting (London: I. B. Taurus, 2010).
1. See Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983), 80.
2. Pascale Casanova, The World Republic of Letters, trans. M. B. DeBevoise (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 48, 75.
3. See Suzanne Marchand, German Orientalism in the Age of Empire: Religion, Race, and Scholarship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 231.
4. See ibid., 38–52; Bradley L. Herling, The German Gitā: Hermeneutics and Discipline in the German Reception of Indian Thought, 1778–1831 (New York: Routledge, 2006); and Saverio Marchignoli, “Canonizing an Indian Text? A. W. Schlegel, W. von Humboldt, Hegel, and the Bhagavadgītā,” in Sanskrit and “Orientalism”: Indology and Comparative Linguistics in Germany, 1750–1958, ed. Douglas T. McGetchin, Peter K. J. Park and D. R. SarDesai (Delhi: Manohar, 2004), 248–251.
5. Johann Gottfried Herder, “On the Origin of Language,” in The Origin of Language, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Johann Gottfried Herder (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 125, 121.
6. On Herderian historicism in the formation of these two codifiers of twentieth-century anthropology, see Matti Bunzl, “Franz Boas and the Humboldtian Tradition: From Volksgeist and Nationalcharakter to an Anthropological Concept of Culture,” in Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tradition, ed. George Stocking (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998), 17–78; Julia E. Liss, “German Culture and German Science in the Bildung of Franz Boas,” in ibid., 155–184; Michael W. Young, Malinowski: Odyssey of an Anthropologist, 1884–1920 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004); and John H. Zammito, Kant, Herder, and the Birth of Anthropology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). Michael F. Brown has revisited the uniquely anthropological notion of cultural relativism in “Cultural Relativism 2.0,” Current Anthropology 39, no. 4 (2008): 363–383.
7. Johann Gottfried Herder, J. G. Herder on Social and Political Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 266. See Isaiah Berlin, “The Counter-Enlightenment,” in Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1982), 1–24; Berlin, Three Critics of the Enlightenment: Vico, Hamann, Herder (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000); and Berlin, The Roots of Romanticism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001).
8. See, for instance, Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), chap. 4.
9. Sarah Lawall, “Introduction: Reading World Literature,” in Reading World Literature: Theory, History, Practice, ed. Lawall (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994), 18.
10. See Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Addresses to the German Nation, ed. George Armstrong Kelly (New York: Harper Torchbooks1968) 53–58.
11. For an earlier and more extended discussion of nation-thinking, through readings of Fichte’s Addresses to the German Nation, Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe, and Heinrich Heine’s The Rabbi of Bacherach, see Aamir R. Mufti, Enlightenment in the Colony: The Jewish Question and the Crisis of Postcolonial Culture (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), chap. 1.
12. Johann Gottfried Herder, Another Philosophy of History and Selected Political Writings, trans. Ioannis D. Evrigenis and Daniel Pellerin (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2004), 5, 9. I have translated the title of this work of Herder’s as Yet Another Philosophy of History for the Education of Mankind. See Johann Gottfried Herder, Auch eine Philosophie der Geschichte zur Bildung der Menschheit, afterword by Hans-Georg Gadamer (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1967).
13. Ibid., 29.
14. Ibid., 45, 56, 58.
15. Ibid., 65, 51, 59.
16. See, for instance, Uday Singh Mehta, Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century British Liberal Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).
17. See Katie Trumpener, Bardic Nationalism: The Romantic Novel and the British Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997).
18. Johann Gottfried Herder, “Conclusions Drawn from the Comparison of the Poetry of Diverse Peoples of Ancient and Modern Times,” in Against Pure Reason: Writings on Religion, Language, and History, ed. Marcia Bunge (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 141, 142.
19. Marchand, German Orientalism, 44.
20. See M. H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (1953; repr., New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), 78.
21. See Herling, The German Gitā; and Marchignoli, “Canonizing an Indian Text?”
22. See William Jones, Poems, Consisting Chiefly of Translations from the Asiatick Languages (1772; repr., London: N. Conant, 1777).
23. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp, 87.
24. Jones, Poems, xiii–xiv.
25. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp, 87. I am grateful to Jennie Jackson for pointing out this passage in Abrams to me. See also Fatma Moussa-Mahmoud, Sir William Jones and the Romantics (Cairo: Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop, 1962).
26. Jones, Poems, 191, 192, 193, 197, 206, 203, 201–202, 201.
27. Ibid., 163, 170, 163, 166–167, 170, 171, 170, 168.
28. Ibid., 178, 179, 180, 178.
29. See Maryam Wasif Khan, “Translated Orientalisms: The Eighteenth-Century Oriental Tale, Colonial Pedagogies, and Muslim Reform” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2013).
30. See Yopie Prins, Victorian Sapho (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999); Virginia Jackson, Dickinson’s Misery: A Theory of Lyric Reading (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005); and Virginia Jackson and Yopie Prins, “General Introduction,” in The Lyric Theory Reader: A Critical Anthology (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013), 1–8.
31. See Thomas Bauer and Angelika Neuwirth, eds., Ghazal as World Literature I: Transformations of a Literary Genre (Beirut: Ergon Verlag, 2005).
32. See Muzaffar Alam, “The Culture and Politics of Persian in Precolonial Hindustan,” in Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia, ed. Sheldon Pollock (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003), 131–198.
33. Theodor W. Adorno, “On Lyric Poetry and Society,” in Notes to Literature, vol. 1, trans. Shierry Weber Nicholsen (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), 41.
34. Edward W. Said, Orientalism (1978; repr., New York: Vintage, 2003), 116–119.
35. See Casanova, World Republic of Letters, 40.
36. Ibid., 78.
37. Thomas Carlyle, “The State of German Literature,” in Critical and Miscellaneous Essays (New York: John B. Alden, 1885), 37. On the curricular use of this extract from Carlyle at one institution in colonial India in the nineteenth century, see Khan, “Translated Orientalisms,” 177.
38. Fritz Strich, Goethe and World Literature (1945; repr., London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1949), 31. See Theo D’haen, The Routledge Concise History of World Literature (London: Routledge, 2012), 27–37.
39. See Paul A. Bové, Intellectuals and Power: A Genealogy of Critical Humanism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).
40. Vinay Dharwadker, “Orientalism and the Study of Indian Literatures,” in Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives from South Asia, ed. Carol Breckenridge and Peter Van der Veer (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), 160.
41. See Stefan Hoesel Uhlig, “Changing Fields: The Directions of Goethe’s Weltliteratur,” in Debating World Literature, ed. Christopher Prendergast (London: Verso, 2004), 26–53. See Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Conversations of Goethe with Johann Peter Eckermann, trans. John Oxenford (Boston: Da Capo, 1998), 164–166. On Goethe’s reading in Orientalism and travel literature, see Walter Veit, “Goethe’s Fantasies about the Orient,” Eighteenth-Century Life 26, no. 3 (2002): 164–180; and Strich, Goethe and World Literature, chap. 9. On Goethe’s reading of Hafez and writing of the Divan, see Jeffrey Einboden, “The Genesis of Weltliteratur: Goethe’s West-Östlicher Divan and Kerygmatic Pluralism,” Literature and Theology 19, no. 3 (2005): 238–250.
42. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed., ed. and trans. Robert C. Tucker (New York: Norton, 1978), 476–477. I have replaced Tucker’s “what it calls civilisation” with “so-called civilisation” and corrected “nations and peasants” to “nations of peasants.”
43. Karl Marx, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, trans. Martin Nicolaus (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1993), 408.
44. Marx, Grundrisse, 540, 410.
45. Ranajit Guha, Dominance without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 15.
46. Marx, Grundrisse, 410.
47. Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, trans. Constance Farrington (New York: Grove, 1979), 40; and Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (New York: Vintage Books, 1997), 931–932.
48. Karl Marx, “The Future Results of the British Rule in India,” in On Colonialism, by Marx and Friedrich Engels (Moscow: Progress, 1974), 86.
49. See Said, Orientalism, 153–156; Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures (New York: Verso, 1993), chap. 6; and Gilbert Achcar, Marxism, Orientalism, Cosmopolitanism (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2013).
50. See Bryan S. Turner, Marx and the End of Orientalism (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1978).
51. See Achcar, Marxism, Orientalism, Cosmopolitanism, 73, 81.
52. Said, Orientalism, 332.
53. Karl Marx, “The British Rule in India,” in Marx and Engels, On Colonialism, 36.
54. Ibid., 40, 39, 37; emphasis added.
55. Marx, “Future Results,” 82.
56. Ibid., 84–85.
57. See John P. Haithcox, “The Roy-Lenin Debate on Colonial Policy: A New Interpretation,” Journal of Asian Studies 23, no. 1 (1963): 93–101.
58. The name is a reference to the first Congress of Afro-Asian States, held in 1955 in the Indonesian city of Bandung.
59. See Maxim Gorky, Karl Radek, Nikolai Bukharin, et al., Soviet Writers’ Congress 1934 (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1977).
60. I address the legacy of Bandung more fully in a work in progress, titled Edward Said in Jerusalem: Criticism, Secularism, Exile.
61. See Emily Apter, Against World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatability (London and New York: Verso, 2013); and Lawrence Venuti, “Hijacking Translation: How Comp Lit Continues to Suppress Translated Texts,” boundary 2 (forthcoming).
62. Apter, Against World Literature, 2, 3, 20. See Barbara Cassin, ed., Vocabulaire européen des philosophies: Dictionnaire des intraduisibles (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2004). This enormous compendium of the untranslatables of philosophy has itself now been translated; see Barbara Cassin, ed., Dictionary of Untranslatables: A Philosophical Lexicon, translation edited by Emily Apter, Jacques Lezra, and Michael Wood (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014).
63. See Jacques Derrida, Monolingualism of the Other; or, the Prosthesis of Origin, trans. Patrick Mensah (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998).
64. David Damrosch, What Is World Literature? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 4.
65. Franco Moretti, “Conjectures on World Literature,” New Left Review 1 (2000), 54, 55.
66. Mariano Siskind, “The Globalization of the Novel and the Novelization of the Global: A Critique of World Literature,” Comparative Literature 62, no. 4 (2010): 355.
67. Moretti, “Conjectures on World Literature”: 58, 65, 64, 61; emphasis in the original.
68. See Strich, Goethe and World Literature.
69. See the pioneering historical studies in Bernard Cohn, An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other Essays (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) and Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996); and Nicholas Dirks, Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001). On the teaching of literature in colonial India, see Gauri Visvanathan, Masks of Conquest: Literary Study and British Rule in India (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989).
1. See Raymond Schwab, La renaissance orientale (Paris: Payot, 1950), translated as The Oriental Renaissance: Europe’s Rediscovery of India and the East, 1680–1880 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984).
2. See Edward W. Said, “Raymond Schwab and the Romance of Ideas,” in The World, the Text, and the Critic (London: Faber and Faber, 1984), 252.
3. Recent exceptions include Siraj Ahmed, “Notes from Babel: Toward a Colonial History of Comparative Literature, Critical Inquiry 39, no. 2 (Winter 2013): 296–326. Ahmed argues not only that Jones’s philology was not the colonial practice that it has been taken to be since Edward Said’s brief treatment of him in Orientalism but that Jones’s understanding of and approach to language was far more humane and less imperialistic than that of Said’s. Padma Rangarajan’s study, Imperial Babel: Translation, Exoticism, and the Long Nineteenth Century (New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2014), which clearly has overlaps with the argument presented in this chapter, became available to me only after this book had undergone editing, and I regret that an engagement with it will have to await another occasion.
4. Said, “Raymond Schwab,” 250. This is a paraphrase of a sentence in Schwab. See Schwab, The Oriental Renaissance, 52–57.
5. See ibid., 57–64; and Garland Cannon, “Sir William Jones and the ‘Sakuntala,’ ” Journal of the American Oriental Society 73, no. 4 (1953): 198–202.
6. See Bradley L. Herling, The German Gītā: Hermeneutics and Discipline in the German Reception of Indian Thought, 1778–1831 (New York: Routledge, 2006), 92–93.
7. See ibid., 88–89, 97; and Willi Goetschel, Spinoza’s Modernity: Mendelssohn, Lessing, and Heine (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004).
8. See ibid., 15.
9. Dorothy Matilda Figueira, Translating the Orient: The Reception of Śākuntala in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 12. I follow Figueira in transliterating the conventional shortened title of the play as Śākuntala and the name of the main female character in it as Śakuntalā.
10. On Anquetil Duperron’s importance for Herder, see Herling, The German Gītā, 59.
11. Tejaswini Niranjana, “Translation, Colonialism, and the Rise of English,” in Rethinking English: Essays in Literature, Language, History, ed. Svati Joshi (Delhi: Trianka, 1991), 127, 125.
12. See David Kopf, British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance: The Dynamics of Indian Modernization, 1773–1835 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969). The earliest articulation of this notion that I can identify is in a letter of Jones’s, written during the process of mastering the Sanskrit text in 1787. See William Jones, The Letters of Sir William Jones, vol. 2, ed. Garland Cannon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 682; and Garland Cannon, The Life and Mind of Oriental Jones: Sir William Jones, the Father of Modern Linguistics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 274–275.
13. See Rabindranath Tagore, “World Literature,” in Selected Writings on Literature and Language, ed. Sukanta Chaudhuri, Sisir Kumar Das, and Sankha Ghosh (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 138–150; and Bhavya Tiwari, “Rabindranath Tagore’s Comparative World Literature,” in The Routledge Companion to World Literature, ed. Theo D’haen, David Damrosch, and Djelal Kadir (New York: Routledge, 2012), 41–48. On Tagore and Orientalism, see Amit Ray, Negotiating the Modern: Orientalism and Indianness in the Anglophone World (New York: Routledge, 2007), chap. 4.
14. See Tagore, “Shakuntala,” in Selected Writings, 237.
15. Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India (New York: John Day, 1946), 317. Also see Cannon, Life and Mind, xv–xvii; Kopf, British Orientalism, 275; pretty much all of Thomas R. Trautmann, The Aryans and British India (New Delhi: Yoda, 2004); and Nirad Chaudhuri, Scholar Extraordinary: The Life of Professor the Rt. Hon. Friedrich Max Müller, P.C. (London: Chatto and Windus, 1974). For an early attempt to analyze this trope in responses to Said’s Orientalism, see Rajeswari Sunder Rajan, “After ‘Orientalism’: Colonialism and English Literary Studies in India,” Social Scientist 14, no. 7 (1986): 23–35.
16. See Trautmann, Aryans, 21–22. For Said’s anticipation and refutation of such arguments, precisely with reference to Germany’s nonimperial relationship to India, see Edward W. Said, Orientalism (1978; repr., New York: Vintage, 2003), 18–19. For the history of German Indology, see Douglas T. McGetchin, Peter K. J. Park, and D. R. SarDesai, eds., Sanskrit and “Orientalism”: Indology and Comparative Linguistics in Germany, 1750–1958 (Delhi: Manohar, 2004); and Suzanne Marchand, German Orientalism in the Age of Empire: Religion, Race, and Scholarship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
17. See Bernard S. Cohn, “The Command of Language and the Language of Command,” in Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), 16–56.
18. See Ranajit Guha, A Rule of Property for Bengal: An Essay on the Idea of Permanent Settlement (1963; repr., Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996). It is a remarkable but hardly noted fact that this book, written at least fifteen years before the publication of Said’s Orientalism, anticipates elements of its argument in rather uncanny ways. So far as I know, Said was not familiar with the existence of Guha’s study when he wrote his own book in the 1970s, which had largely disappeared even from Indian debates after its initial publication by Mouton in 1963, though of course in Culture and Imperialism (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), it provides one of the main instances of the latest phase of the global anticolonial “culture of resistance,” the phase Said refers to as “the voyage in” (239–261).
19. Amit Ray provides a fine narrative of these scholarly-administrative developments in Calcutta under the tutelage of Hastings. See Negotiating the Modern, 29–53. It is one of the smaller ironies of this historical moment that one of the sources Edmund Burke relied on for the ideas about Indian legal reform that made their way into Charles James Fox’s ill-fated East India Bill in 1783, which proved to be only the first salvo in the attack on the practices of the East India Company that was to culminate in the trial of Hastings, was none other than Jones, who may well have been the author of the early drafts of some of the sections of the bill that are attributed to Burke. See Garland H. Cannon, “Sir William Jones and Edmund Burke,” Modern Philology 54, no. 3 (1957): 165–186. On the Hastings trial and Burke’s role in it, see Sara Suleri, The Rhetoric of English India (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992); and Nicholas B. Dirks, The Scandal of Empire: India and the Creation of Imperial Britain (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006).
20. See, for instance, Cannon, Life and Mind, 229–230; and Nehru, Discovery of India, 317.
21. See Trautmann, Aryans, 28; and Cannon, Life and Mind, 231.
22. On Jones hearing rumors, before his discovery of Śākuntala, of the existence of a form of writing called nāṭaka, see Cannon, Life and Mind, 273–274.
23. On knowledge systems in precolonial India, see “Forms of Knowledge in Early Modern South Asia,” a special issue of Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 24, no. 2 (2004), edited by Sheldon Pollock.
24. Cannon, Life and Mind, 137, 142.
25. Sir William Jones, “The Third Anniversary Discourse, on the Hindus, delivered 2d of February, 1786” in The Works of Sir William Jones, in Six Volumes, vol. 1 (London: G. G. and J. Robinson, 1799), 21–22.
26. See Canon, Life and Mind, 197–198.
27. See Thomas R. Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). For a collection of studies of the Aryan thesis into our own times, when it has become entangled in the politics of right-wing Hindu nationalism, see Thomas R. Trautmann, ed., The Aryan Debate (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005). Unfortunately, and in marked contrast with such historians of ancient India as Romila Thapar, Trautmann remains apologetic and equivocal in face of Hindutva’s travesty of historical and archeological evidence and claims. For a more forceful approach, see Romila Thapar, The Aryan: Recasting Constructs (Gurgaon, India: Three Essays Collective, 2008).
28. Suleri, Rhetoric of English India, 33, 30, 31.
29. For a nuanced historical examination of some of these elements in Jones, see Maryam Wasif Khan, “Translated Orientalisms: The Eighteenth-Century Oriental Tale, Colonial Pedagogies, and Muslim Reform” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2013), esp. chap. 2.
30. Michel Foucault, The Order of Things (New York: Vintage Books, 1973), 283.
31. Friedrich von Schlegel, “On the Language and Philosophy of the Indians,” in The Aesthetic and Miscellaneous Works of Friedrich von Schlegel, trans. E. J. Millington (London: George Bell and Sons, 1900), 456.
32. See Rosane Rocher, “Alexander Hamilton, 1876–1924,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, first published 2004, online ed. January 2008, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12044.
33. See Partha Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993); Tapan Raychaudhuri, Europe Reconsidered (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1988); Brian K. Pennington, Was Hinduism Invented? Britons, Indians, and the Colonial Construction of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Srinivas Aravamudan, Guru English: South Asian Religion in a Cosmopolitan Language (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005); Ray, Negotiating the Modern, chap. 3; and Anustup Basu, “Hindutva and Informatic Modernization,” boundary 2 35 (2008): 239–250.
34. See, among numerous other works, Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought; Sudipta Kaviraj, The Unhappy Consciousness (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995); Nirad C. Chaudhuri, The Autobiography of an Unknown Indian (London: Macmillan, 1951); Chaudhuri, Scholar Extraordinary; Raychaudhuri, Europe Reconsidered; and Kopf, British Orientalism.
35. This idea of authenticity is indebted to Aziz al-Azmeh, Islams and Modernities, 3rd ed. (London: Verso, 2009), 97–116.
36. Muhammad Iqbal, Kulliyāt-e Iqbāl Fārsī (Lahore, Pakistan: Sheikh Ghulam Ali and Sons, 1990), 181. On Goethe and Hafez, see Jeffrey Einboden, “The Genesis of Weltliteratur: Goethe’s West-Östlicher Divan and Kerygmatic Pluralism,” Literature and Theology 19, no. 3 (2005): 238–250.
37. See Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought, chap. 3.
38. Henry Derozio, “Thermopylae,” in Early Indian Poetry in English: An Anthology: 1829–1947, ed. Eunice de Souza (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005), 7, 5. For a fascinating historical study of the presence of the European classics in India during the colonial period, see Phiroze Vasunia, The Classics and Colonial India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
39. Derozio, “To India—My Native Land,” in Early Indian Poetry in English, 6. On early editions of Jones’s verse, see V. de Sola Pinto, “Sir William Jones and English Literature,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 11, no. 4 (1946): 686.
40. See Rosinka Chaudhuri, Gentlemen Poets in Colonial Bengal: Emergent Nationalism and the Orientalist Project (Calcutta: Seagull, 2002).
41. See Pennington, Was Hinduism Invented?
42. See Vasudha Dalmia, The Nationalization of Hindu Traditions: Bhāratendu Hariśchandra and Nineteenth-Century Banaras (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997).
43. See ibid., 200–201; and Alok Rai, Hindi Nationalism (2001; repr., Hyderabad, India: Orient Longman, 2002), 56–57, 63. I have discussed the grammar of Hindi-Urdu polemics in the late nineteenth century in more detail in chapter 3 of Enlightenment in the Colony: The Jewish Question and the Crisis of Postcolonial Culture (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007) and the role of gendered and sexualized figures in the history of the conflict at some length in chapter 4 of that book.
44. See ibid., chap. 3.
45. Ranajit Guha, Dominance without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 132.
46. See Katie Trumpener, Bardic Nationalism: The Romantic Novel and the British Empire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).
47. For a characteristic argument about Urdu as an allegedly conscious rejection of the indigenous, see Amrit Rai, A House Divided: The Origins and Development of Hindi-Urdu (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1984).
48. See Sheldon Pollock, “The Cosmopolitan Vernacular,” Journal of Asian Studies 57, no. 1 (1998): 6–37.
49. G. N. Devy, After Amnesia: Tradition and Change in Indian Literary Criticism (Hyderabad, India: Orient Longman, 1995), 59. See Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, Indo-Aryan and Hindi (1942; repr., Calcutta: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, 1960), esp. chap. 3.
50. The relevant historical literature is an extensive one and exists in several languages, both European and Indian. But see, for instance, Kopf, British Orientalism; Sisir Kumar Das, Sahibs and Munshis: An Account of the College of Fort William (Calcutta: Orion, 1978); and Muzaffar Alam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam, “The Making of a Munshi,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 24, no. 2 (2004): 61–72.
51. See Cohn, “The Command of Language”; and Sadiqur Rahman Kidwai, Gilchrist and the “Language of Hindoostan” (New Delhi: Rachna Prakashan, 1972). Gilchrist was a member of the Asiatic Society—he arrived in Calcutta in 1783, a little before Jones’s arrival and founding of the society, and he is listed as a member of the society in the first volume of Asiatick Researches. See Asiatick Researches 1 (1788): 437. Also see John Gilchrist, The Oriental Linguist: An Easy and Familiar Introduction to the Popular Language of Hindoostan (Calcutta: Ferris and Greenway, 1798).
52. Alok Rai, Hindi Nationalism, 24.
53. An important step has been taken in this direction in Khan, “Translated Orientalisms.”
54. Hindi-Urdu words with standard English spellings—like “Hindi” and “Urdu” themselves—are rendered here as English words; others are italicized and transliterated more precisely.
55. See, for instance, Vijayendra Sanatak, Hindī adab kī tarīḳh, trans. Khursheed Alam (Delhi: Sahitya Academy, 1999), 214.
56. See Amrit Rai, House Divided. On Rai’s polemical use of Insha, see David Lelyveld, “Zubaan-e Urdu-e Mu’alla and the Idol of Linguistic Origins,” Annual of Urdu Studies 9 (1994): 57–67.
57. Syed Inshallah Khan Insha, Kahānī Rānī Kētakī aur Kuñvar Uday Bhān kī, ed. Maulvi Abdul Haq (Aligarh, India: Educational Book House, n.d.), 11–12.
58. On the status of Braj in precolonial North Indian culture, see Allison Busch, The Poetry of Kings: The Classical Hindi Literature of Mughal India (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
59. I owe this latter point to Rashmi Bhatnagar’s superb presentation at MLA 2008 and to our subsequent conversations.
60. This story is told by Christopher King, in One Language, Two Scripts: The Hindi Movement in Nineteenth Century North India (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 90–91; Alok Rai, Hindi Nationalism, 65–66; and Dalmia, Nationalization of Hindu Traditions. On performativity in the vernacular in precolonial times, see Sumit Guha, “Transitions and Translations: Regional Power and Vernacular Identity in the Dakhan, 1500–1800,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 24, no. 2 (2004): 24–31.
61. On Shukla, see Milind Wakankar, “The Moment of Criticism in Indian Nationalist Thought: Ramchandra Shukla and the Poetics of a Hindi Responsibility,” South Atlantic Quarterly 101, no. 4 (2002): 987–1014.
62. See Mufti, Enlightenment in the Colony, chap. 4.
63. Ranajit Guha, “A Colonial City and Its Time(s),” Indian Economic and Social History Review 45, no. 3 (2008): 329, 330, 344, 343, 349, 330.
64. Ibid., 350, 334.
65. See Farman Fatehpuri, Urdū śu‘arā kē tazkirē aur tazkira-nigārī (Karachi: Anjuman Taraqqi-e Urdu, 1998), 15–19; Muzaffar Alam, “The Culture and Politics of Persian in Precolonial Hindustan,” in Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia, ed. Sheldon Pollock (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003), 131–198; and Frances Pritchett, “A Long History of Urdu Literary Culture, part 2,” in Pollock, Literary Cultures, 864–911.
66. See Kamil Zvelbil, “Tamil Literature,” in Jan Gonda, ed., A History of Indian Literature, vol. 10, facs. 1 (Wiesbaden, 1974); and Cohn, “The Command of Language,” 56.
67. See Mehr Afshan Faruqi, Urdu Literary Culture: Vernacular Modernity in the Writing of Muhammad Hasan Askari (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); and Mufti, Enlightenment in the Colony, 14–21. On the wide dissemination of perennialist ideas in the early twentieth century, see Mark Sedgwick, Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
68. See Sayida Surriya Hussain, Garcin de Tassy: Biographie et étude critique de ses oeuvres (Pondichery, India: Institut Francais d’indologie, 1962).
69. The authorship of this work has been put in question in recent decades. See Indra Mukhopadhyay, “Imperial Ellipses: France, India, and the Critical Imagination” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2008), chapter 2.
70. See Margrit Pernau, ed., The Delhi College: Traditional Elites, the Colonial State, and Education before 1857 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006); and Khan, “Translated Orientalisms.”
71. Hussain, Garcin de Tassy, 28–31. A caustic contemporary review of this “translation” had already catalogued the many liberties it took with the French original. See “M. de Tassy and Maulawí Karímu-d-dín,” The Benares Magazine 28 (August 1851): 716–726.
72. See Frances W. Pritchett, “A Long History of Urdu Literary Culture, Part 2,” in Pollock, Literary Cultures, 864–911.
73. See Muhammad Husain Azad, Āb-e ḥayāt, trans. Frances Pritchett and Shamsur Rahman Faruqi (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001), 367; Azad, Āb-e ḥayāt (Lucknow, India: Uttar Pradesh Urdu Academy, 2003), 451; and Pritchett, “Everybody Knows This Much … ,” 2–5.
74. Pritchett, “Everybody Knows This Much … ,” 16, 13, 14.
75. Shamsur Rahman Faruqi, “Constructing a Literary History, a Canon, and a Theory of Poetry,” 19.
76. Agha Shahid Ali, The Veiled Suite: The Collected Poems (New York: Norton, 2009), 325.
77. Azad, Āb-e ḥayāt, 103/77.
78. Azad, Āb-e ḥayāt, 57/6.
79. Azad, Āb-e ḥayāt, 81/49, 88/56.
80. See Mufti, Enlightenment in the Colony, 230–232.
81. See Jeffry Sacks, “Latinity,” CR: The New Centennial Review 19, no. 3 (2010): 251–286.
1. Rashmi Sadana, English Heart, Hindi Heartland: The Political Life of Literature in India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012), xiv.
2. On literary Republican Turkish and the vicissitudes of the novel form in the language, see Jale Parla, “The Wounded Tongue: Turkey’s Language Reform and the Canonicity of the Novel,” PMLA 123, no. 1 (2008): 27–40. For a broader historical analysis of the language reforms and their implications for literature, see Nergis Ertürk, Grammatology and Literary Modernity in Turkey (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); and Emrah Efe Khayyat, “Muslim Literature, World Literature, Tanpınar” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 2014).
3. Erich Auerbach to Walter Benjamin, January 1, 1937, in “Scholarship in Times of Extremes: Letters of Erich Auerbach (1936–1942), on the Fiftieth Anniversary of His Death,” PMLA 122, no. 3 (2007): 751.
4. See Christopher Ferard, “Turkish Language Reform: The Scottish Connection,” Eurozine, January 20, 2009, http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2009-01-20-ferrard-en.html.
5. See Vasudha Dalmia, The Nationalization of Hindu Traditions: Bhāratendu Hariśchandra and Nineteenth-Century Banaras (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997); Alok Rai, Hindi Nationalism (2001; repr., Hyderabad, India: Orient Longman, 2002); and Francesca Orsini, The Hindi Public Sphere, 1920–1940: Language and Literature in the Age of Nationalism (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002).
6. See, for instance, Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, and Cecil L. Nelson, eds., The Handbook of World Englishes (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2006).
7. I am using the following editions here: Al-Tayyib Salih, Mawsem al-hijra ’ila al-śamāl (Cairo: Dar al-Hilal, 1969); and Tayeb Salih, Season of Migration to the North, trans. Denys Johnson-Davies (London: Heinemann, 1985). I have altered the Johnson-Davies translation as I felt necessary.
8. Johnson-Davies transliterates the last name as Sa’eed. I am using the more familiar English spelling.
9. Salih, Mawsem al-hijra, 112; Salih, Season of Migration to the North, 136.
10. Salih, Mawsem al-hijra, 113–114; Salih, Season of Migration to the North, 136–138.
11. Abdallah Laroui, L’idéologie arabe contemporaine: Essai critique (Paris: François Maspero, 1967), 4–5.
12. Ibid., 66, 68.
13. Edward W. Said, Orientalism (1978; repr., New York: Vintage, 2003), 25, 24.
14. Laroui, L’idéologie arabe contemporaine, 68.
15. Salman Rushdie, introduction in Mirrorwork: Fifty Years of Indian Writing, 1947–1997, ed. Rushdie and Elizabeth West (New York: Holt, 1997), viii; emphasis in the original.
16. Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, “Minute Recorded in the General Department by Thomas Babington Macaulay, Law Member of the Governor-General’s Council, Dated 2 February 1835,” in The Great Indian Education Debate: Documents Relating to the Orientalist-Anglicist Controversy, 1781–1843, ed. Lynn Zastoupil and Martin Moir (Richmond, UK: Curzon, 1999), 165.
17. Ranajit Guha, Dominance without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 165.
18. See Gauri Viswanathan, Masks of Conquest: Literary Study and British Rule in India (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989).
19. The secondary literature on English in the countries of South Asia is of course enormous. For India, see, for instance, Sadana, English Heart; and Rita Kothari, Translating India: The Cultural Politics of English, rev. ed. (New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 2005). The set of contributions to the debate on English literary education that are contained in The Lie of the Land: English Literary Studies in India, ed. Rajeswari Sunder Rajan (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993), are still fresh and pertinent. See also Svati Joshi, ed., Rethinking English: Essays in Literature, Language, History (Delhi: Triyanka, 1991). For Pakistan, see Tariq Rahman, Language and Politics in Pakistan (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1996).
20. For a whole generation of writers linked to St. Stephen’s, for instance, see Aditya Bhattacharjea and Lola Chatterji, eds., The Fiction of St. Stephen’s (New Delhi: Ravi Dayal, 2000); and Jon Mee, “After Midnight: The Novel in the 1980s and 1990s,” in A History of Indian Literature in English, ed. Arvind Krishna Mehrotra (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), 318–336.
21. For an analysis of some of these asymmetries, see Francesca Orsini, “India in the Mirror of World Fiction,” in Debating World Literature, ed. Christopher Prendergast (London: Verso, 2004), 319–333.
22. See Bishnupriya Ghosh, When Borne Across: Literary Cosmopolitics in the Contemporary Indian Novel (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2004).
23. On Progressive aesthetics in Urdu, see Aamir R. Mufti, Enlightenment in the Colony: The Jewish Question and the Crisis of Postcolonial Culture (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), chaps. 4 and 5; and Priyamvada Gopal, Literary Radicalism in India: Gender, Nation and the Transition to Independence (New York: Routledge, 2005). On Anand’s extensive contribution to the discourse on the visual arts and architecture in India, see Annapurna Garimella, ed., Mulk Raj Anand: Shaping the Indian Modern (Mumbai: Marg, 2005).
24. See Meenakshi Mukherjee, “The Beginnings of the Indian Novel,” in Mehrotra, History of Indian Literature, 92–102. For a study of the transition from the reading of English-language novels in colonial India to their original composition, see Priya Joshi, In Another Country: Colonialism, Culture, and the English Novel in India (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002).
25. See Leela Gandhi, “Novelists of the 1930s and 1940s,” in Mehrotra, History of Indian Literature, 175.
26. Virginia Woolf, Mrs. Dalloway (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1953), 26, 274. On Anand’s relationship to Virginia and Leonard Woolf, see Anna Snaith, “The Hogarth Press and Networks of Anti-Colonialism,” in Leonard and Virginia Woolf: The Hogarth Press and the Networks of Modernism, ed. Helen Southworth (Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University, 2010), 103–127.
27. Mulk Raj Anand, “On the Progressive Writers’ Movement,” in Marxist Cultural Movement in India: Chronicles and Documents, 2nd ed., ed. Sudhi Pradhan (Calcutta: Santi Pradhan, 1985), 5. Anand’s recollections of life as a student in London are contained in Mulk Raj Anand, Conversations in Bloomsbury (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995).
28. Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), 272.
29. This was again the case in a newspaper article about the making of the film version of Midnight’s Children. See Reed Johnson, “Salman Rushdie Bequeaths ‘Midnight’s Children’ to Film,” Los Angeles Times, May 5, 2013, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/05/entertainment/la-et-mn-salman-rushdie-midnights-children-movie-20130505.
30. Bakhtin, Dialogic Imagination, 332.
31. Salman Rushdie, Midnight’s Children (New York: Penguin Books, 1991), 21–22.
32. Sadana, English Heart, 9.
33. Johnson, “Salman Rushdie.”
34. I recognize that in making this judgment, I have come somewhat closer to the views of early critics of Rushdie’s with whom I had disagreed at the time, in particular Aijaz Ahmed, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures (London: Verso, 1992); and Timothy Brennan, Salman Rushdie and the Third World: Myths of the Nation (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1989).
35. The classic study of this problem, by one of Urdu’s preeminent poets and novelists, is Fahmida Riaz, Pakistan: Literature and Society (New Delhi: Patriot, 1986).
36. See Amit Chaudhuri, ed., Picador Book of Modern Indian Literature (London: Picador, 2001).
37. Special correspondent, “Salman Rushdie Hits Back at Jnanpith Winner Bhalchandra Nemade,” Hindu, February 8, 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/stung-salman-rushdie-lashes-out-at-jnanpith-winner-bhalchandra-nemade/article6871171.ece.
38. See David Scott, Conscripts of Modernity: The Tragedy of Colonial Enlightenment (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004).
39. This line of argument is much indebted to a late-night conversation in Ann Arbor, Michigan, with the great Kannada-language novelist, poet, and critic U. R. Ananthamurthy, who passed away in 2014.
40. See Riaz, Pakistan; and Tariq Rahman, A History of Pakistani Literature in English (Karachi: Vanguard Books, 1991).
41. For a more detailed treatment of this question, see Mufti, Enlightenment in the Colony, chaps. 4 and 5.
42. Salman Rushdie, Shame (New York: Knopf, 1983), 91.
43. Along with the theoretical essays collected in Distant Reading, the relevant works include Franco Moretti, Atlas of the European Novel, 1800–1900 (London: Verso, 1999); Moretti, The Modern Epic: The World System from Goethe to García Márquez (London: Verso, 1996); and of course, Moretti, ed., The Novel, 2 vols. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006).
44. Mariano Siskind, “The Globalization of the Novel and the Novelization of the Global: A Critique of World Literature,” Comparative Literature 62, no. 4 (2010): 337, 338.
45. Faiz Ahmed Faiz, The Rebel’s Silhouette, trans. Agha Shahid Ali (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995), 8–9.
46. See Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel, ed. Kurt H. Wolff (New York: Free Press, 1964), 118–169.
47. Abir Bashir Bazaz, personal communication, February 2, 2013. Recent scholarship on the Kashmir conflict and its history and sociology includes Chitralekha Zutshi, Languages of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity, and the Making of Kashmir (New York: Oxford University press, 2004); Mridu Rai, Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects: Islam, Rights, and the History of Kashmir (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004); and Cabeiri Robinson, Body of Victim, Body of Warrior: Refugee Families and the Making of Kashmiri Jihadists (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2013). See also Basharat Peer, Curfiewed Night: A Frontline Memoir of Life, Love, and War in Kashmir (London, UK: HarperPress, 2011)
48. See Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Nusḳhahā-e vafā (Lahore, Pakistan: Kārvāñ, 1989).
49. Faiz, Rebel’s Silhouette, xxiii.
50. Ibid., xxii. On Shahid and Faiz, see Christi Ann Merrill, “The Lyricism of Violence: Translating Faith in Revolution,” boundary 2 38, no. 3 (2011): 119–145.
51. For a detailed reading of this poem, see Mufti, Enlightenment in the Colony, 213–215.
52. Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, trans. Constance Farrington (New York: Grove, 1979), 163.
53. I can only note here Nilima Sheikh’s stunning engagement with Shahid’s work in a series of painted “banners,” and that work’s interpretation by Kumkum Sangari in a remarkable monograph that serves as a catalogue essay, an adequate treatment of which must await another occasion. See Kumkum Sangari, Trace Retrace: Paintings, Nilima Sheikh (Delhi: Tulika Books, 2013).
54. Agha Shahid Ali, “The Blesséd Word: A Prologue,” in The Veiled Suite: The Collected Poems (New York: Norton, 2009), 171.
55. See Stathis Gourgouris, Dream Nation: Enlightenment, Colonization, and the Institution of Modern Greece (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996).
56. Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1979), 290.
57. Arundhati Roy, “Walking with the Comrades,” Outlook India, March 29, 2010, http://www.outlookindia.com/article/walking-with-the-comrades/264738. The actual title of the poem is a line from chapter 55 (al-Raḥmān), verse 27, of the Quran: “wa yabqā wajhu rabbik”—“And constant is the face of thy Lord.” Roy is referring to the title under which the poem has become popularly known in song form.
58. Shahid, “Homage to Faiz Ahmed Faiz” in Veiled Suite, 57–58.
59. Shahid, “In Memory of Begum Akhtar, ” in Veiled Suite, 53.
60. For a thoroughly revisionist analysis of the erotics of the traditional Urdu poetic tradition, see Shad Naved, “The Erotic Conceit: History, Sexuality and the Urdu Ghazal” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2012).
61. Shahid, “Tonight,” in Veiled Suite, 374–375.
62. Shahid, “Beyond English,” in Veiled Suite, 361–362.
63. Shahid, “In Arabic,” in Veiled Suite, 372–373.
64. Etienne Balibar, We, the People of Europe?: Reflections on Transnational Citizenship (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 109.
65. Sandro Mezzadra, “The Proliferation of Borders,” presentation at the Summer Institute on Belonging Differently, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Banff, August 2012. See also Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilson, Border as Method, or, the Multiplication of Labor (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013). My formulation, “partition as method,” is of course indebted to this work.
66. See Chris Parsons, “Whose bright idea was that? Border between India and Pakistan is so brightly lit it can be seen from space,” Daily Mirror September 6, 2011, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033886/India-Pakistan-border-visible-space.html#ixzz3hkILl3Za.
67. Edward W. Said, The World, the Text and the Critic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 16.
68. See Aamir R. Mufti, “The Missing Homeland of Edward Said,” in Conflicting Humanities, ed. Rosi Braidotti and Paul Gilroy (London, UK: Bloomsbury, 2016).
69. Roy, “Walking with the Comrades.”
1. Seth Lerer, introduction to Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach, ed. Lerer (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996), 2.
2. See Erich Auerbach, “Philology and Weltliteratur,” trans. Maire Said and Edward Said, Centennial Review 13, no. 1 (Winter 1969): 1–17; hereafter cited parenthetically in the text as PWL. Because I am interested here in the transmission of the idea of Weltliteratur from Auerbach to Said, I shall use the Said translation of this essay throughout this chapter and also refer to the original where necessary (Auerbach, “Philologie der Weltliteratur,” in Weltliteratur: Festgabe für Strich zum 70. Geburtstag [Bern: Francke Verlag, 1952], 39–50). For all other essays of Auerbach’s, I shall refer to the Jane Newman translations in Erich Auerbach, Time, History, and Literature: Selected Essays of Erich Auerbach, ed. James I. Porter (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014).
3. Lerer, introduction to Literary History, 2.
4. See “Two Romanisten in America: Spitzer and Auerbach,” in Grounds for Comparison (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), 110–130. Levin was of course the Ph.D. supervisor of Said. Emily Apter has contrasted Spritzer and Auerbach’s respective approaches to their Turkish environment, the former, unlike the latter, immersing himself in the host society, by making the effort to learn Turkish, for instance. See The Translation Zone: A New Comparative Literature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), chap. 3. But the same distinction perhaps applies to their American years as well. While Spitzer became a strident proponent of the development of the humanities in America, Auerbach, as Levin notes, “was content to go his own way, leaving the paperback edition of Mimesis to play an exemplary role before an ever-widening audience” (130).
5. Damrosch has written elsewhere about Auerbach; but the emphasis there as well is on Mimesis, rather than on Auerbach’s essay on Weltliteratur. See, for example, Damrosch, “Auerbach in Exile,” Comparative Literature 47, no. 2 (1995): 97–117. I must mention, though, that I first read Auerbach—Mimesis and the later essay on Vico—in a lecture course of Damrosch’s at Columbia in the early 1990s, which remains an enduring debt.
6. See James I. Porter, introduction to Auerbach, Time, History, and Literature; and Porter, “Erich Auerbach and the Judaizing of Philology,” Critical Inquiry 35, no. 1 (Autumn 2008): 115–147.
7. Edward W. Said, The World, the Text, and the Critic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), 7.
8. See Said, The World, the Text, and the Critic, 1–30; and Paul A. Bové, Intellectuals in Power: The Genealogy of Critical Humanism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), chaps. 3 and 4.
9. See Herbert Lindenberger, “Appropriating Auerbach: From Said to Postcolonialism,” Journal of Commonwealth and Postcolonial Studies 11, nos. 1–2 (2004): 46–47.
10. See Theodor W. Adorno, “The Essay as Form,” in Notes to Literature, vol. 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), 3–23.
11. See R. Radhakrishnan, “In Memoriam,” Politics and Culture, August 10, 2010, http://politicsandculture.org/2010/08/10/in-memoriam-r-radhakrishnan-2/.
12. See Aamir R. Mufti, “Auerbach in Istanbul: Edward Said and the Question of Minority Culture,” Critical Inquiry 25, no. 1 (1998): 95–125. A much expanded and revised version of this essay is now at the core of a book manuscript, titled Edward Said in Jerusalem: Secularism, Criticism, Exile.
13. For a detailed account of the institutional vicissitudes of Auerbach’s career in Germany and especially his dealings with German authorities after the rise of the Nazis to power, see Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, “ ‘Pathos of the Earthly Progress’: Erich Auerbach’s Everydays,” in Lerer, Literary History, 14–35. Gumbrecht argues that Auerbach had developed a “distanced view of European culture” (31) well before his departure from Germany.
14. For a full-scale elaboration of this concept of minority, see Aamir R. Mufti, Enlightenment in the Colony: The Jewish Question and the Crisis of Postcolonial Culture (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007).
15. Claude Lévi-Strauss, Tristes Tropiques, trans. John and Doreen Weightman (London: Penguin Books, 1973), 38.
16. Lévi-Strauss, Tristes Tropiques, 43.
17. This phrase is of course from James Clifford, The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).
18. The Said translation retains the German term Weltliteratur, and I shall follow the same practice in order to highlight the distinctness of Auerbach’s conception from the “world literature” of recent U.S.-based discussion.
19. Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 552; hereafter cited parenthetically in the text as M.
20. Erich Auerbach to Walter Benjamin, December 12, 1936, in “Scholarship in Times of Extremes: Letters of Erich Auerbach (1936–1942), on the Fiftieth Anniversary of His Death,” PMLA 122, no. 3 (2007): 749.
21. Auerbach to Benjamin, January 3, 1937, in “Scholarship in Times of Extremes,” 751.
22. See Mürat Belge, Militarist Modernleșme: Almanya, Japonya ve Türkiye (Istanbul: Iletisim Yayincilik, 2011).
23. See Kader Konuk, East West Mimesis: Auerbach in Turkey (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010).
24. See Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (New York: Routledge, 1994).
25. Auerbach to Benjamin, January 3, 1937, in “Scholarship in Times of Extremes,” 750.
26. Auerbach, Time, History, and Literature, 6.
27. Ibid., 37–38, 5.
28. Ibid., 38, 36, 38; emphasis added.
29. Theodor W. Adorno, “Words from Abroad,” in Notes to Literature, vol. 1, 187, 189, 191.
30. See Paul A. Bové, Poetry against Torture: Criticism, History, and the Human (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2008), 39; and Konuk, East West Mimesis, 26.
31. Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), 335.
32. See Hugh of St. Victor, The Didascalicon of Hugh of St. Victor, trans. Jerome Taylor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), 101. Although Said cites the Taylor translation in the passage of Culture and Imperialism cited here, he has altered the text in small ways.
33. Said, The World, the Text, and the Critic, 6.
34. Edward W. Said, “Introduction to the Fiftieth-Anniversary Edition,” in Auerbach, Mimesis, xvii.
35. Said, The World, the Text, and the Critic, 8.
36. Ibid., 6; emphasis added.
37. Vassilis Lambropoulos, The Rise of Eurocentrism: Anatomy of Interpretation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 9.
38. See Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy and Other Writings, ed. Stefan Collini (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
39. Ibid., 12, 9, 10, 11.
40. See Porter, “Erich Auerbach and the Judaizing of Philology.”
41. See Stathis Gourgouris, Dream Nation: Enlightenment, Colonization, and the Institution of Modern Greece (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996).
42. I have discussed these matters in much greater detail in chapter 1 of Mufti, Enlightenment in the Colony. From the vast secondary literature on the ideal of Bildung in the history of Jewish emancipation, see, for instance, George L. Mosse, “Jewish Emancipation: Between Bildung and Respectability,” in Confronting the Nation: Jewish and Western Nationalism (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1993), 131–145; and David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780–1840 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
43. For a significantly different understanding of the relationship of Mimesis to the Holocaust, see Malachi Haim Hacohen, “Typology and the Holocaust: Erich Auerbach and Judeo-Christian Europe,” Religions 3 (2012): 600–645.
44. Bové, Intellectuals in Power, xi.
45. Ibid., 208.
46. Said, Culture and Imperialism, 45.
47. Bové, Intellectuals in Power, 208.
48. See Said, The World, the Text, and the Critic, chaps. 7–9.
49. See Jérôme David, Spectres de Goethe: Les métamorphoses de la “littérature mondiale” (Paris: Les Prairies Ordinaires, 2012).
50. See Said, Culture and Imperialism.
51. See Edward W. Said, Humanism and Democratic Criticism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004).
52. Adorno, “Words from Abroad,” 192.
53. For a more severe criticism than mine along these lines, see Pheng Cheah, “World Against Globe: Toward a Normative Conception of World Literature,” New Literary History 45, no. 3 (2014): 303–329. Tom Eyers has offered a compelling assessment of the digital and neo-positivistic turn in the literary humanities for its reliance on an impoverished model of the scientific method in “The Perils of the ‘Digital Humanities’: New Positivisms and the Fate of Literary Theory,” Postmodern Culture 23, no. 2 (2013). https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/postmodern_culture/v023/23.2.eyers.html#f6-text.
1. See Pradeep Chibber, Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital (New York: Verso, 2013). The list of responses to this book is already quite lengthy. One of the best is Timothy Brennan, “Subaltern Stakes,” New Left Review 89 (2014): 67–87. See also Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, review of Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital, by Pradeep Chibber, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 27, no. 1 (2014): 184–203.
2. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), xv–xvi.
3. Edward W. Said, Orientalism (1978; repr., New York: Vintage, 2003), 25.
4. Hardt and Negri, Empire, 85–86.
5. The work that is cited is Arif Dirlik, The Postcolonial Aura (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997).
6. Hardt and Negri, Empire, 137–159.
7. Stathis Gourgouris, “Derealizations of the Ideal: Walcott Encounters Seferis,” boundary 2 39, no. 2 (2012): 182. The fuller version of this argument is presented in Gourgouris, Dream Nation: Enlightenment, Colonization, and the Institution of Modern Greece (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996).
8. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Werke, vol. 1 (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1981), 344.