Image credit: "World literature: what’s in a name?" by Walter Cohen
Rajnandini Shaw
December 29, 2020
‘Masterpiece’ in World Literature
‘Masterpiece’, the word, is critical to world literary studies. It is crucial for the status and acceptance of certain texts into world literature, although there is no one world literature (“Worlding Literatures between Dialogue and Hegemony” 2). World literature constitutes masterpieces of texts from around the world. They are closely linked to other critical qualifiers such as the ‘canon’, the ‘classic’, the national literatures and the geo-politics, political economy and politics of translation that they come to be in the process of their “worlding” (Kadir) into world literary studies. The ‘masterpiece’ approach has emerged, evolved, and shrunken in the West, especially the United States of America, having developed from the Goethean weltliteratur and the increasing inter- and trans-national exchange between and among the nation-States; while the relative East has not developed a world literary-self, except China, most notably, it has not evolved, to whatever extent, on the ‘masterpiece’ model, therein, although its translations are part of the imagined ‘masterpiece’ community, therefore, the world literary consciousness in the relative West. The exclusion entailed with ‘masterpiece’, the qualifier as the best of world literature, is therefore, extraneous to the text per se, but not independent of the text, its culture and country of origin, circulation of such texts, its translated avatar in and among the target audience/s, cultures and readers. While the ‘masterpiece’ has come to be more of an “approach” in decline (“World Literature in a Postcanonical, Hypercanonical Age” 51) in the relative West, in tandem with the ‘canon’ and the ‘classic’, this essay looks into ‘masterpiece’ as a critical concept in world literary studies, in order to understand its relevance in world literature/s, its future, and the aftermath.
The word ‘masterpiece’ refers to a work of outstanding artistry or skill, specially the greatest work of a particular artist, writer, etc.; a consummate example of some skill or other kind of excellence; a piece of work produced by a craftsman in order to be admitted to a guild as an acknowledged master. In early use the word is often applied to man as the ‘masterpiece’ of God or Nature (OED). In this sense, ‘masterpiece’ is the exemplary œuvre of the creator’s activities of a certain kind. It is specific to a particular activity’s or a set of activities’, thus, product; therefore, ‘masterpiece’ refers to a creation, rather than the creative process or the creator. The ‘masterpiece’ in world literary studies, in this sense, thus, refers to the best of a world’s or nation’s or author’s/s’ works. The evolution of the ‘masterpiece’ in world literature, is therefore, a selective, transmission and generative process in-the-making, because ‘masterpiece’s come to be after its wide acceptance as one. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s lines to his apprentice, Johann Peter Eckermann, on January 31, 1827, founds world literature over national literature, which has come to be the basis of world literature in the relative West- European primarily (Damrosch 13):
National literature is now a rather unmeaning term; the epoch of world literature is at hand, and everyone must strive to hasten its approach. But, while we thus value what is foreign, we must not bind ourselves to some particular thing, and regard it as a model (“Conversations of Goethe: 1827”).
In “Literary Theory, Criticism and History”, Austin Warren and René Wellek, have related world literature with comparative literature in terms of ‘masterpieces’. While pointing out the superficiality of comparative literature’s preoccupation, and predicament of eventual decline, they accuse comparative literature of merely involving the translation and migrations of masterpieces of national literatures, that had been, thus far, compared on the basis their origin, influence and fame, they had come to bear. Another way of looking at comparative literature, as Warren and Wellek suggest, is to see comparative literature as ‘world literature’, as the ‘study of literature in its totality’. Goethean concept of Weltliteratur, was needlessly broad and unnecessarily blown up, for, as Warren and Wellek suggest, that although Goethe’s concept of world literature suggested that literature around the world would become one as world literature, which was not possible, for no nation would have liked to lose their one-ness in the broader conglomeration of world literature. In a ‘third-sense’ World literature can be understood as the “great-treasure house of the classics” such as Homer, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Dante, and Goethe, which have come to form the ‘masterpiece’ (“General, Comparative and National Literature” 49). This approach to world literature constituting the ‘masterpieces’ generates the masterpiece as distinct national literatures, where none loses its identity and uniqueness, fearing ‘universality’ in comparative literature. Therefore, the masterpiece in world literature has become a bridge between the nation and the world.
In “Introduction: Goethe Coins a Phrase”, David Damrosch mentions the three ways world literature has come to be understood: “as an established body of classics, as an evolving canon of masterpieces, or as multiple windows on the world.” (15). The classic, Damrosch specifies, is a “work of transcendent, even foundational value, often identified with Greek and Roman literature (still taught today in departments of Classics) and often closely associated with imperial values, as Frank Kermode has shown in his book The Classic.” (“Introduction: Goethe Coins a Phrase” 15). The classic’s, therefore, sustained reputation over a period of time, and import in its originary, as well as transported culture makes it distinct from other œuvres. It triumphs over time, as a “classic”, becoming a timeless text. The ‘masterpiece’ however, is not timeless, according to Damrosch: “The “masterpiece”, on the other hand, can be an ancient or a modern work and need not have had any foundational cultural force.” (“Introduction: Goethe Coins a Phrase” 15). The “masterpiece” need not be originary in world literature, in the sense that it interacts in the target culture in a way that adapts itself to changes in translations, circulations, meaning-making and reparations. The ‘masterpiece’ is also not a text of sustained repute. Its rapport in world literature, among other masterpieces is fluctuating: it adapts to the changing audience engagement. While they are distinct in their nature of manifestation in the literary consciousness of the readership, Damrosch equivocates them at the expense of Goethe’s unclear stance on the masterpiece:
Goethe clearly considers his own best works, and those of his friends, to be modern masterpieces. The ‘masterpiece;’ indeed, came into prominence in the nineteenth century as literary studies began to deemphasize the dominant Greco-Roman classics, elevating the modern masterpiece to a level of near equality with the long-established classics. (“Introduction: Goethe Coins a Phrase” 15)
Hence, the ‘masterpiece’, a corollary to the ‘classic’ is more flexible and fluid in permeation, than the “classic”, and a relatively new concept in world literary studies, as a rubric of determining the constituents of the general debates (“Introduction: Goethe Coins a Phrase” 15) on world literature. On the difference between the classic and the masterpiece, Raveendran observes, further, the cultural connotations in Damrosch’s third “way” of understanding world literature:
This (the classic) is different from masterpieces, which, though embedded in the literary studies paradigm, are modern and need not, as Damrosch too recognizes, have the force of the classics. The expression “multiple windows on the world”, on the other hand, would imply a shift away from these two approaches towards the polyphonic ethos of cultural studies. (“Literature as Supermarket: Mapping World Literature Today” 53)
In their massive open online course, David Damrosch and Martin Puchner’s, Masterpieces of World Literature considers: as ‘masterpieces of world literature’ with national literature as the pivot of transcendence for becoming world literature, they begin with the classics and conclude with cultural polyphony. “Seminal works” have also come to denote the “masterpiece”:
Tagore does not have a single masterpiece like The Divine Comedy or Faust. But he does have a number of seminal works that together do the job of a masterpiece. If his Gitanjali followed by Gitimalya and Gitali is one such seminal work, then Raja or The King of the Dark Chamber is another. (“Tagore as World Literature” 111)
Longxi Zhang’s “canon” equates to the Damroschian “masterpiece”, a much older and wider concept than the latter. Zhang pursues a “canon of world literatures” that precludes scholars from different literary traditions, particularly the non-Western, and the insufficiently read minor texts (“Canon and World Literature” 119) in world literary studies (“Canon and World Literature” 119). Tracing the etymological origin of the “canon” to the Greek for “a straight rod”, “a ruler”, and thus the “standard”, Zhang’s “canon” roots the pedagogical practices of the “canon” that not only sustain, but perpetuate the “canon”. The canon, Zhang argues is flexible, therefore, expandable:
Expansion, however, is not everything, and literary works cannot become canonical simply because they have been overlooked or neglected in the past. Canon tends to be severely selective and stable, and before a literary work can be accepted as canonical, it needs the work of critics and scholars to convince people of its literary value and its significance in every other aspect. Canon formation is an important issue in the discussion of world literature, and the formation of a world literary canon must be the result of literary scholarship that explain how a particular work may appeal to readers in very different social, political, cultural, and historical conditions beyond its national origin. (“Canon and World Literature” 121)
The explanation of a “canon” in world literature- how and why a text come to become a “canon”, in Zhang’s scheme of the best of world literature, as in the best of national literatures that come to be “masterpieces of world literature” are due for a thorough inquiry into the world literary “canon” (“Canon and World Literature” 119), the “masterpiece” frame or approach in the Damroschian scheme of world literature, which has declined already, or theory, as this paper aims to look into.
The Goethean “national literature” as the best of a country’s totality of literatures, forming that country’s world literature is also at stake:
Weltliteratur, conceived as a composition of national literatures, was instrumental in establishing the international profile and self-esteem of individual European national literatures, primarily those that started their worlding from a peripheral or semi-peripheral position. (“Introduction”, Worlding a Peripheral Literature, 6)
The earlier neglected national literatures become world literature, moving from the peripheral “national” to the central “world literary”. While the “masterpiece” in world literature is dynamic in its movement, reach and audience, the “national literature” is especially either a conglomeration of national literatures, as Juvan points out, or “refraction of world literatures” (Damrosch 281). Damrosch defends such nationalistic base of world literature along pedagogy, Europe as his instance: “The European Parliament in Brussels is unlikely to supplant Europe's national governments during our lifetimes, and in an academic context the very great majority of teachers and scholars of literature continue to be located in nationally based departments.” (Damrosch 283) While “national literature” is regional in its connotations, the “masterpiece” suggests a trans-cultural, trans-national terrain of literary engagement, crossing over the national, regional, or even continental. Theo D’hean suggests: “The recent prominence of world literature on the world literary scene…fits the process of re-positioning a number of national literatures, or perhaps even the very notion of “national” literature, are or is undergoing in a changing global context” (“Why World Literature Now?” 3). A trajectory of world literature as an off-shoot of national literatures is in planetary systems (“Conjectures on World Literature”), as distinct from world literature.
Doing world literature in translation, however, encompasses the “masterpiece”, in that it is received and appreciated in the target culture, among the readers, in translation. While another approach to world literature is “national literature”, Küpper suggests: “One way is to deal with the texts by way of translations and so-called “world literature readers.” (“Preface” 7) Chaudhuri discusses the importance of translation of modern Indian texts, highlighting them in the creation of world literature as a “category” (“Translation and World Literature” 593-598).
The ethical question of the “masterpiece”, Lawall argues, has been part of the pedagogic dilemmas: “Readers are impelled to position themselves vis-à-vis the text as members of society…Abstract qualities like greatness usually fare worse, because they lack documentation and can easily be shown to reflect the speaker's own cultural bias.” (“Canons, Contexts, and Pedagogy” 42) The anthologies of world literature have a role to play in shifting the world literary “canon” (“Canons, Contexts, and Pedagogy” 46), “national literatures” and “masterpieces” destabilizing the existing regime of texts, in transforming “world” literature to “global” literature (“Canons, Contexts, and Pedagogy” 46).
Whether “masterpiece” in world literature equates itself to a new manifestation in the changing world literary discourse, remains uninquired in this essay. The “world” literary studies, in metamorphizing itself as “global” and “planetary” literature that has been posed in “(q)uestions pertaining to the political economy of the international readership of world literature have been foregrounded.9 So have questions concerning the global politics of translation.10”, noted in Fisk (2018) and Venuti (1998) by Parvulescu (“The World of World Literature and World-Systems Analysis” 376). Sarah Brouillette has noted the political economy’s role in “book hunger” among the under-developed countries (“Book Hunger” 77-98), which draws the question of circulation of books, especially “masterpieces”, in translation, as “canon” coming from the “classics” in the form of “national literatures”?
“What to do with the mucked-up masterpiece” (“Oil and World Literature” 8), if the “masterpiece” is a “Great Book”, as T S Eliot suggests in “an ideal order of masterworks (“Canons, Contexts, and Pedagogy” 42), from an oil sacrosanct country (“Oil and World Literature” 7)?
Works Cited
“Masterpiece”, Oxford English Dictionary (OED). Oxford UP, 2020.
Brouillette, Sarah. “Book Hunger”. UNESCO and the Fate of the Literary. Stanford UP, Stanford, California, 2019. pp. 77-98.
Chaudhuri, Supriya. “Translation and World Literature.” Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 21 Sept. 2012, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lic3.12003.
D’hean, Theo. “Why World Literature Now?”. University of Bucharest Review XIII (vol. I – new series): 1 (2011). pp. 29-39.
Damrosch, David. “Introduction: Goethe Coins a Phrase”, “Conclusion: World Eough and Time”. What is World Literature? David Damrosch, editor. Princeton UP. 2003, pp. 1-36; 281-303.
Damrosch, David. “World Literature in a Postcanonical, Hypercanonical Age.” Haun Saussy, ed., Comparative Literature in an Age of Globalization. Johns Hopkins UP, 2006. pp. 43-53.
Dev, Amiya. “Tagore as World Literature”. Interdisciplinary Alternatives in Comparative Literature. E. V. Ramakrishnan, Harish Trivedi and Chandra Mohan, editors. SAGE, 2013. pp. 107-116.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, Johann Peter Eckermann and Frédéric Jacob Soret. “Conversations of Goethe: 1827”. Conversations of Goethe with Eckermann and Soret. Volume I. London, Smith Elder & Co. 1850. pp. 313-444.
Kadir, Djelal. "To World, to Globalize: Comparative Literature's Crossroads." Comparative Literature Studies 41.1. 2004, pp. 1-9.
Küpper, Joachim. “Preface: Approaches to World Literature”. Approaches to World Literature. Joachim Küpper, editor. Akademie Verlag GmbH, Germany, 2013. pp. 7-12.
Lawall, Sarah. "Canons, Contexts, and Pedagogy: The Place of World Literature." The Comparatist, vol. 24, 2000. pp. 39-56. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/com.2000.0006.
Macdonald, Graeme. “Oil and World Literature”. American Book Review, vol. 33 no. 3, 2012. pp. 7-31. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/abr.2012.0079.
Marko Juvan. "Worlding Literatures between Dialogue and Hegemony". CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 15.5 (2013) <http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb/vol15/iss5/10> Special Issue World Literatures from the Nineteenth to the Twenty-first Century. Ed. Marko Juvan. pp. 2-10.
Marko Juvan. “Introduction”. Worlding a Peripheral Literature. Springer, 2019. pp. 1-34.
Moretti, Franco. “Conjectures on World Literature”. New Left Review 1. Jan-Feb 2000. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii1/articles/franco-moretti-conjectures-on-world-literature.
Parvulescu, Anca. "The World of World Literature and World-Systems Analysis." symploke, vol. 28 no. 1, 2020, p. 375-383. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/773860.
Raveendran, P. P. “Literature as Supermarket: Mapping World Literature Today”. Interdisciplinary Alternatives in Comparative Literature. E. V. Ramakrishnan, Harish Trivedi and Chandra Mohan, editors. SAGE, 2013. pp. 52-62.
Warren, Austin, and René Wellek. “Literary Theory, Criticism and History”, “General, Comparative and National Literature”. Theory of Literature. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. 1956, pp. 38-45; 46-53.
Zhang, Longxi. “Canon and World Literature”. Journal of World Literature 1 (2016). Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden. 2016. pp. 119-127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/24056480-00101012
Acknowledgement
This paper owes its beginnings to Udaya Kumar, Professor, Centre for English Studies, School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, India, who taught the course 'Texts of Criticism and Literary Discourse Theories' during my second semester at the Master of Arts program in English at JNU; David Damrosch's and Martin Puchner's, Professors at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, discussions on World Literature in 'Masterpieces of World Literature' on edX; and last, but most importantly to Anushka Poddar, a Biotechnology post-graduate student at Monash University, New Zealand, at the time of contributing to this paper, for kindly sharing her access to the Oxford English Dictionary by sending its entries on 'masterpiece', among others. Thank you all.
July 2, 2021
Kolkata, India
"... il était écrit: << L'être humain est un Chef-d'oeuvre de Dieu>>"
from Neige by Orhan Pamuk and translated by Jean-François Pérouse