Abstract
In the 1830s, the theorist Matija Čop (1797–1835) and the poet France Prešeren were transferring German nationalist universalism to the Habsburg land Carniola. Adopting Schlegelian cosmopolitanism, they attempted to cultivate Slovenian literary language and overcome literary backwardness. Poetic discourse, saturated by European aesthetic resources, represented to them a shortcut by which Slovenians—lacking a public sphere and institutions of their own—could catch up with developed European nations. Čop’s networking, library, and expertise were in line with Goethe’s envisioning of world literature. The same applies to Prešeren’s poetics, which cast individualized discourse and national commitment into universal aesthetic patterns of world literature from Antiquity to the present. Prešeren’s Romantic classic thus represents the founding inscription of world literature in the national literary ecology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
A telling example is the shared history of Graeco-Latin legacy in the Post-Classical Europe. In the Middle Ages and Modernity, the canon of the Antiquity continued to be recalled as a quasi-universal treasury of motifs, themes, and linguistic-structural patterns that individual vernaculars intertextually absorbed in their efforts to achieve the status of a cultivated literary language (see Sapiro 2011: 231–232). Even though the classical tradition began to lose its impact during the nineteenth-century nationalization of literature and the concomitant formation of the literary world-system , it remained at the heart of the translation repertoire and the universal hyper-canon. More on this below.
- 2.
As a matter of fact, even though the concept of nation-state habitually underlies the humanities and social sciences including disciplines of literary studies, nation-states were not common globally before the end of WWII (Osterhammel 2003: 444).
- 3.
- 4.
Moreover, the delayed and aesthetically reduced reception of foreign influences that was regarded as Slovenian idiosyncrasy is but an actualization of Even-Zohar’s principle of structural simplification of the interferences of core literatures typical of dependent, smaller literary systems (Even-Zohar 1990: 21–22, 71).
- 5.
As it will be explained below, Goethe materialized his conception of world literature through citationality and intertextual transformation of multilingual sources of the world.
- 6.
- 7.
See also the interpretation of Prešeren’s poem “Glosa” in Chap. 4.
- 8.
“Die Poesie ist eine republikanische Rede; eine Rede, die ihr eignes Gesetz un ihrere eigner Zweck ist, wo alle Teile freie Bürger sind, und mitstimmen dürfen” (Schlegel 1972: 15).
- 9.
“Die ganze Geschichte der modernen Poesie ist ein fortlaufender Kommentar zu dem kurzen Text der Philosophie: Alle Kunst soll Wissenschaft, und alle Wissenshaft soll Kunst werden; Poesie und Philosophie sollen vereinigt sein” (Schlegel 1972: 22).
- 10.
“Alle Kunst soll Wissenschaft, und alle Wissenschaft soll Kunst werden; Poesie und Philosophie sollen vereinigt sein (Schlegel 1972: 22) … Die romantische Poesie ist eine progressive Universalpoesie. Ihre Bestimmung ist nicht bloß, alle getrennte Gattungen der Poesie wieder zu vereinigen, und die Poesie mit der Philosophie und Rhetorik in Berührung zu setzen … (Schlegel 1972: 37). Je mehr die Poesie Wissenschaft wird, je mehr wird sie auch Kunst. Soll die Poesie Kunst werden, soll der Künstler von seinen Mitteln und seinen Zwecken (ihren Hindernissen und ihren Gegenständen gründliche Einsicht und Wissenschaft haben,) so muß der Dichter über seine Kunst philosophieren …” (Schlegel 1972: 54).
- 11.
See Chap. 4.
- 12.
Werner’s terms hybridize the intellectual world of humanist cosmopolitanism with the capitalist market, what foretells Goethe’s famous economic metaphors deciphered by Marx and Engels (1998: 39).
- 13.
- 14.
Verse
Verse With force far-flung the Orient rose, And passed the Midland Sea! Alone For him who Hafiz loves and knows Ring right the songs of Calderon. (Translated by Edward Dowden; Goethe 1914: 87)
- 15.
According to Pizer, the transnational concept of Weltliteratur emerged from Goethe’s perception of his position in a “subnational,” “liminal,” and fragmented state of German collective identity; albeit a citizen of the word, Goethe considered himself a representative of German belles-lettres (Pizer 2006: 7, 33). At the end of the eighteenth century, the inferiority complex of German writers who compared themselves with their English or French colleagues was quite common; it also underlies Friedrich Schlegel’s first book (Die Griechen und Romer) of 1797, in which he remarks that the overall crisis of modern literature (which may be cured by modeling after the Ancient Greeks) is more pronounced in a weak literature—that of Germany (Endres et al. 2017: 84).
- 16.
Curiously foretelling the world-system vocabulary, Strich uses and paraphrases the expression kleine Weltsysteme Goethe proposed in 1794 to designate the intellectual circles influencing cultural life.
- 17.
More on this below.
- 18.
In opposition to the French Enlightenment and revolutionary universalism, the German post-revolutionary variety of cosmopolitanism implied an ethnonationalist perspective rendered in cultural terms. Similar to Bouterwek’s culturalist musing about the Europe of nations, Friedrich Schlegel’s more politically pronounced essay on republicanism of 1796 treats nations as the fundamental agencies entitled to build the envisioned cosmopolitan community; the author opts for a democratic world republic composed of numerous self-aware national republics (Albrecht 2005: 311).
- 19.
For the European and cosmopolitan dimensions of A. W. Schlegel’s polymath life and work in the context of the Romantic cultural transfer see Mix and Strobel 2010. In the introduction to the volume, the editors declare him the most important and self-reflected translator among the German Romantics (see his Shakespeare- and Cervantes translations), an internationally influential historian of European and world literature (Vorlesungen über schöne Literatur und Kunst of 1801–1804 and Über dramatische Kunst und Literatur of 1808), and forerunner of comparative literature. During his “transculturally productive years in the circle of Germaine de Staël ,” August Wilhelm opened up the German literary space, he persistently mediated between poetry, aesthetics, and historical knowledge, founded the studies of Indian literature and translated from it, put the Romantic movement in a historical and theoretical perspective, improved philological techniques of critical editions, compiled an influential anthology of the classics of Romance lyrical poetry (Blumensträusse italienischer, spanischer und portugiesischer Poesie of 1804), and devised literary theory and literary aesthetics. During his long career, August Wilhelm changed from an early Romantic hybridizer of theory and literature into a late Romantic adherent of academic disciplinary knowledge (Mix and Strobel 2010: 1–6). The editors highlight his paramount role of intercultural mediator and protagonist of cultural transfer in the period of Romanticism.
- 20.
“Universalität, Kosmopolitismus ist die wahre deutsche Eigentümlichkeit … Es ist daher wohl keine zu sanguinische Hoffnung, anzunehmen, daß der Zeitpunkt nicht so gar entfernt ist, wo das Deutsche allgemeines Organ der Mitteilung für die gebildeten Nationen sein wird.”
- 21.
Through the difference between the French territory and German landscapes impregnated by historical mnemotopes, Friedrich Schlegel evokes the Rhine river as a symbolic center of the world (Endres et al. 2017: 247)—lacking a metropole comparable to Paris, the banks of Rhine are presented as an ideal meeting point of a restored premodern community of nations.
- 22.
On Schlegel’s approach to world literary history see Pizer 2006: 12–13, 41–43.
- 23.
In his article “Über das Studium der Griechischen Poesie” (On the Study of Greek Poetry, 1795–1797), in which he began to distance from the revolutionary understanding of cosmopolitanism, he interprets Europe as a “whole” (ein Ganzes) that emerges from the “mutual imitation” (Wechselnachahmnug) of “national poetries of the greatest and most cultivated European peoples” (Albrecht 2005: 314). The premise of Friedrich Schlegel’s 1803–1804 private lectures Geschichte der Europäischen Literatur (The History of European Literature)—the basis of his 1812 Vienna public course on old and new literatures—is that “European literature forms a coherent whole, where all branches are intimately interwoven, one based on the other, explained and supplemented by them” (quoted in Endres et al. 2017: 233). On his Geschichte der alten und neuen Literatur see Endres et al. 2017: 225–232.
- 24.
“Am besten zeigt sich die Würde und die Wichtigkeit aller jener in der Rede und der Schrift wirkenden und darstellenden Wissenschaften und Künste, wenn wir ihren großen Einfluß auf den Wert und das Schicksal der Nationen in der Weltgeschichte betrachten. Hier zeigt sich die Literatur, als der Inbegriff aller intellektuellen Fähigkeiten und Hervorbringungen einer Nation, erst in ihrem wahren Umfange” (Schlegel 1961: 15).
- 25.
“In den nachfolgen Vorträgen ist es meine Absicht, ein Bild im ganzen von der Entwicklung und dem Geiste der Literatur bei den vornehmsten Nationen des Altertums und der neueren Zeit zu entwerfen; vor allem aber die Literatur in ihrem Einflüsse auf das wirkliche Leben, auf das Schicksal der Nationen und den Gang der Zeiten darzustellen” (Schlegel 1961: 9).
- 26.
Schlegel’s history is, according to Endres et al. (2017: 226–227), a “contribution to performative nation-building in the medium of literary history in German,” whereas its “object of representation is decidedly European and adjusted to the horizon of world history.”
- 27.
That Friedrich Schlegel’s historical synthesis resulted from his “Catholic-patriotic turn” of 1808 was evident already to Heinrich Heine who made a much quoted point that “the higher standpoint” from which Schlegel overlooked the entire literature was “always a belfry of a Catholic church” (Endres et al. 2017: 225).
- 28.
On the nineteenth-century and later histories of world literature (Hermann, Hettner, Scherr, Stern, etc.) see D’haen 2012: 16–25.
- 29.
Schlegel’s section “Epochs of Literature” from his Dialogue on Poetry (F. Schlegel 1968: 60–80) appears as a proleptic summary of the historical narrative of his History of Old and New Literature; it also reminds of the notion of development as proposed by de Staël’s On Literature in the Light of Its Relationships with Social Institutions. De Staël, who prepared her D’Allemagne in Weimar, in the company of Wieland, Schiller, and Goethe, get acquainted with August Wilhelm Schlegel in 1804 on Goethe’s recommendation and invited him to her Swiss residence in Coppet to become her collaborator and educator of her children; Friedrich joined his brother in autumn 1804 and gave to de Staël private lectures on German philosophy. In 1807, Friedrich followed Germaine de Staël to Vienna, where he started to lecture on the dramatic art and literature in 1808 (Peter 1978: 60; Endres et al. 2017: 16).
- 30.
On Goethe’s notion of reflecting national literature in the ethnic and cultural otherness of foreign literatures see Strich 1949: 18–19.
- 31.
To a certain extent, one can agree with Biti’s claim that “the modern idea of literature was actually deeply involved in its [democracy’s, M. J.] shaping, contrary to the entrenched opinions that oppose it to the world of economy and politics by highlighting literature’s autonomy. Its democratic circuit of ideas was inextricably intertwined with the free circulation of money, commodities, and people, i.e. with the processes of unbounded market exchange” (Biti 2016: 21). However, as known, the liberal principle of the free circulation of ideas through literature was seriously impeded not only by censorship but also by inequality of participants in the world literary market.
- 32.
The argument that justified this ambition consisted in the presumption of German merits in the cultural realm such as the inborn cosmopolitanism of Germans, their philosophical profundity, philological and historical erudition, translation mastery, and perfection of the German language.
- 33.
According to Biti, the trauma narrative is a kind of consolatory fiction that attempts imaginatively to heal traumatic experiences (feelings of a lack and inferiority or the exposure to violence, exploitation, and repression): in the nineteenth-century German case, the trauma narratives were also invented to compensate for the sense of being deprived of the position among the powerful great nations: “Turning the long-term inferiority into the present and especially future superiority—no other turn-around can better epitomize the plot of what Jeffrey Alexander has termed ‘trauma narrative’” (Biti 2016: 2–3, 64, 95, 148).
- 34.
“So zeigt sich nun jetzt der hohe Geist der Deutschen in einer edlen Rastlosigkeit und Tätigkeit, die gleich unermüdet ist, neue Quellen der Wahrheit und der Schönheit zu entdecken und zu ergänzen, und auch die, welches schon in alten Zeiten bei andern Nationen sich ergossen haben, von neuen zu beleben und auf die vaterländischen Fluren zu leiten. Die deutsche Literatur wird, nach dem gegenwärtigen Anfange zu urteilen, in nicht gar langer Zeit, alle andren älteren Literaturen verbannt, sich einverleibt und in sich aufgenommen habe.”
- 35.
“Die neuere Literatur beginnt, wie gesagt, mit der christlisch-lateinischen; dann folgt die altfranzösiche, die Quelle der italienischen und spanisch-portugiesischen, die nordische als Mittelquelle aller dieser Literaturen, die englische und endlich die deutsche, die alle diese Literaturen umfasst, sie alle verschlungen hat; die einzige die noch in freiester lebendiger Kraft fortblüht und von der allein eine bedeutende fruchtbare Epoche zu erwarten ist.”
- 36.
Originally published in 1956, Slodnjak’s article rejects Avgust Žigon’s 1914 thesis that Schlegel’s Dialogue on Poetry represented “the literary-artistic program of Čop’s academy and thus also of France Prešeren’s poetry” by claiming that Čop, albeit connoisseur of Schlegel’s work, was not only “independent thinker” but differed from Schlegel in his aesthetic views (e.g., higher estimation of Byron) and more progressive ideological orientation, not hostile to the Enlightenment. According to Slodnjak, Čop’s “aesthetic thought rather followed the line of literary articles in Goethe’s journal Über Kunst und Altertum and the contemporaneous poetry of Western Europe” (Slodnjak 1984: 156, 161).
- 37.
For a rather free English translation see Schlegel 1818/I: 11–12.
- 38.
“Eine jede bedeutende und selbstständige Nation hat, wenn man so sagen darf, ein Recht darauf, eine eigne und eigentümliche Literatur zu besitzen, und die ärgste Barbarei ist diejenige, welche die Sprache eines Volkes und Landes unterdrücken, oder sie von aller höhern Geistesbildung ausschließen will. Auch ist es nur ein Vorurteil, wenn man vernachlässigte, oder unbekanntere Sprachen sehr häufig einer höhern Vervollkommnung für unfähig hält” (Schlegel 1961: 229).
- 39.
“Eine jede selbstständige und bedeutende Nation, hat … das Recht, eine eigentümliche Literatur, d. h. eine eigne Sprachbildung zu besitzen, ohne welche auch die Geistesbildung nie eine eigne, allgemein wirkende, und nationale sein kann, sondern in einer ausländischen Sprache erlernt und fortgeübt, immer etwas Barbarisches behalten muß. Töricht würde es freilich sein, die Liebe zu der vaterländischen Sprache bloß dadurch zu beweisen, daß man die fremden nicht lernt, oder ihre Vorzüge nicht erkennt. Selbst für allgemeine Geistesbildung sind außer den alten Sprachen, auch mehrere der neuern, nach dem besondern Zweck eines jeden die eine oder die andere, mehr oder minder durchaus unentbehrlich …. Der Gebrauch einer ausländischen Sprache für die Gesetzgebung und die bürgerlichen Rechtsgeschäfte ist allemal höchst bedrückend, ja man kann sagen, schlechthin ungerecht; der Gebrauch einer ausländischen Sprache für die Staatsgeschäfte und was damit zusammenhängt, auch für das höhere gesellschaftliche Leben, kann nicht ohne nachteiligen Einfluß bleiben für die einheimische Sprache. … Hier ist es nun die Sache der Gebildeten, und überhaupt der höhern Klasse, ins Mittel zu treten, und den rechten Weg zwischen beiden Extremen, durch ihren Einfluß, allmählig zu dem allgemeinen zu machen; der Notwendigkeit zu geben, was sie fordert, ohne doch die Pflicht gegen das Vaterland zu vergessen. Denn, als eine recht eigentliche und unerläßliche Pflicht, betrachte ich allerdings die Sorge für die eigne Sprache, besonders von Seiten der höhern Klasse. Jeder Gebildete sollte dahin streben, seine Sprache rein und richtig, ja so viel als möglich vollkommen und vortrefflich zu reden; er sollte sich, wie von der Geschichte seines Volkes, so auch von ihrer Sprache und Literatur, eine allgemeine, aber doch nicht gar zu oberflächliche Kenntnis verschaffen. … Eine Nation, deren Sprache verwildert oder in einem rohen Zustande erhalten wird, muß selbst barbarisch und roh werden. Eine Nation, die sich ihre Sprache rauben läßt, verliert den letzten Halt ihrer geistigen, innern Selbstständigkeit, und hört eigentlich auf zu existieren” (Schlegel 1961: 237–238).
- 40.
In his manuscript literary history of Slovenian literature (Literatur der Winden) written in 1831 as a contribution to Šafárik’s Geschichte der südslawischen Literatur, Čop applied the same measure to the developments of Slovenian language and letters (see Juvan 1987: 280, 282–285).
- 41.
See their critical essays, philosophical fragments, and lectures with aesthetic and literary-historical content (Friedrich’s Gespräch über die Poesie and Geschichte der alten und neuen Literatur, August Wilhelm’s Vorlesungen über schöne Literatur und Kunst and Vorlesungen über dramatische Kunst und Literatur); translations and publication of foreign literatures from Dante, Petrarch, Cervantes, Camões, and Shakespeare to the classics of Indian literature (August Wilhelm’s collection Blumensträuße italienischer, spanischer und portugiesischer Poesie, the journal Indische Bibliothek) and August Wilhelm’s original poems written in Romance forms—similar to Friedrich’s early writings, August Wilhelm understood his multiple roles (poet, literary historian, critic, aesthetician, editor, and translator) as partaking in intertwining discourses that follow the same principle of poiesis; through them and his cosmopolitan network, he attempted to mediate between Germany and other national literatures in order to build Europe as a cultural whole with Germany at its center (see Strobel 2010: 160–161). As aesthetically ingenious, philologically accurate, and hermeneutically self-reflected translator, the most influential among the German Romantics, he significantly broadened and opened up the national literary field, providing an example of cultural transfer aimed also at establishing a kind of world society (Mix and Strobel 2010: 1, 5).
- 42.
See Čop’s letters to Pavel Josef Šafárik (24 June 1831, 27 June 1831), Jernej Kopitar (January 1828, 16 May 1830, 28 April 1833, 2 May 1833, 12 May 1833, 17 June 1833), František L. Čelakovsky (14 March 1833), and in particular his polemical-programmatic essay Nuovo discacciamento di lettere inutile from 1833 (Čop 1983: 47–85); Prešeren, on the other hand, evoked similar diagnosis in his poetic language, for example, in the poems Nova pisarija and Glosa (see my discussion above).
- 43.
Čop was arguably the first in Carniola to use the argument “from outside” for “internal” needs (similar to what Goethe was doing in Germany; see Strich 1949: 21). The favorable review of Prešeren and the Carniolan poetic almanac in a larger and more developed literature such as the Czech figured as a crucial evidence of their universal aesthetic value which the home environment was still not able to perceive. For more on this, see Chap. 7.
- 44.
See Chap. 7 on Čelakovský’s review of Krajnska čbelica and his sample translations of Prešeren; his presentation of Carniolan literature was published in the journal Časopis Českého museum, one of the typical media which fostered the international circulation of literatures through translations, news, reviews, and essays. On Kopitar’s initiative, Šafárik invited Čop to contribute in 1831 his extensive information about the history of Slovenian literature for Šafárik’s history of South Slavic literature (Geschichte der südslawischen Literatur I), which was published posthumously only in 1864.
- 45.
See the discussions of “Glosa,” “Nova pisarija” (New Writing), and “Sonetni venec” (Wreath of Sonnets) in Chap. 4.
- 46.
Considering his reputation and wealth, Goethe’s personal library was not that much bigger than Čop’s: it consisted of about 5000 volumes of German, Greek, Latin, French, Italian, English, Oriental, Eastern European, Spanish, and Portuguese, and Nordic literary traditions (Mani 2017: 53–54).
- 47.
Interestingly, only the works of Byron and Thomas Moore represented Romanticism in Prešeren’s personal library; the classics of the Antiquity, Middle Ages, and Modernity were less few in number (see Kos 1970: 33–35). This might also be the reason why the Romanticism of Prešeren appears to be so “classical.”
- 48.
In terms of its content (among others, it published the works of Goethe and August Wilhelm Schlegel), this quarterly was arguably Austria’s most cosmopolitan journal, despite Metternich’s patronage and its conservative orientation.
Works Cited
Albrecht, Andrea. 2005. Kosmopolitismus: Weltbürgerdiskurse in Literatur, Philosophie und Publizistik um 1800. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
Beck, Ulrich. 1997. Was ist Globalisierung? Irrtümer des Globalismus – Antworten auf Globalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
———. 2006. The Cosmopolitan Vision. Trans. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: Polity.
Birus, Hendrik. 2003. The Goethean Concept of World Literature and Comparative Literature. In Comparative Literature and Comparative Cultural Studies, ed. Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek, 11–22. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Biti, Vladimir. 2016. Tracing Global Democracy: Literature, Theory, and the Politics of Trauma. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter.
Bloom, Harold. 1997. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. 2nd ed. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Buescu, Helena. 2012. The Republic of Letters and the World Republic of Letters. In The Routledge Companion to World Literature, ed. Theo D’haen, David Damrosch, and Djelal Kadir, 126–135. London: Routledge.
Casanova, Pascale. 1999. La République mondiale des Lettres. Paris: Ed. du Seuil.
Cohen, Deborah, and Maura O’Connor, eds. 2004a. Comparison and History: Europe in Cross-National Perspective. New York and London: Routledge.
———. 2004b. Introduction: Comparative History, Cross-National History, Transnational History – Definitions. In Comparison and History: Europe in Cross-National Perspective, ed. Deborah Cohen and Maura O’Connor, ix–xxiv. New York in London: Routledge.
Conrad, Sebastian. 2004. La constitution de l’histoire japonaise: Histoire comparée, transferts, interaction transnationales. In De la comparaison à l’histoire croisée, ed. Michael Werner and Bénédicte Zimmermann, 53–72. Paris: Seuil.
Čop, Matija. 1833. Nuovo discacciamento di lettere inutili, Das ist: Slowenischer ABC-Krieg. Eine Beilage zum Illyr. Blatt. Laibach: Kleinmayr.
———. 1983. Pisma in spisi. Ed. Janko Kos and Trans. Janko Moder. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga.
———. 1986. Pisma Matija Čopa. Vol. 2, Eds. Anton Slodnjak and Janko Kos. Ljubljana: SAZU.
D’haen, Theo. 2012. The Routledge Concise History of World Literature. London and New York: Routledge.
Damrosch, David. 2003. What Is World Literature? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ďurišin, Dionýz. 1984. Theory of Literary Comparatistics. Bratislava: Veda.
Eckermann, Johann Peter. 1998. Conversations of Goethe with Johann Peter Eckermann. Trans. John Oxenford. Cambridge: Da Capo Press.
Endres, Johannes, et al. 2017. Friedrich Schlegel-Handbuch: Leben – Werk – Wirkung. Ed. Johanness Endres. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
Espagne, Michel. 2003. Transferanalyse statt Vergleich. Interkulturalität in der sächsischen Regionalgeschichte. In Vergleich und Transfer: Komparatistik in den Sozial-, Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften, ed. Hartmut Kaelble and Jürgen Schriewer, 419–438. Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem Studies = Poetics Today 11 (1).
Frassinelli, Pier Paolo, and David Watson. 2011. World Literature: A Receding Horizon. In Traversing Transnationalism: The Horizons of Literary and Cultural Studies, ed. Pier Paolo Frassinelli, Ronit Frenkel, and David Watson, 191–207. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. 1914. West-Eastern Divan in Twelve Books. Trans. Edward Dowden. London and Toronto: J.M. Dent.
———. 1917. Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship. Trans. Thomas Carlyle and Ed. William Allan Neilson. New York: P.F. Collier.
———. 1963. Schriften zur Kunst. Schriften zur Literatur. Maximen und Reflexionen. 5th ed. Eds. Herbert von Einem, Hans Joachim Schrimpf, and Werner Weber. Hamburg: Ch. Wegner (Goethes Werke: Hamburger Ausgabe; Bd. 12).
———. 1974. Goethes Werke in Zwölf Bänden. Vol. 11: Schriften zu Kunst und Literatur. Berlin in Weimar: Aufbau-Verlag.
———. 1999. Sämtliche Werke. Briefe, Tagebücher und Gespräche. Band 22: Ästhetische Schriften 1824–1832; Über Kunst und Altertum V–VI, ed. Anne Bohnenkamp. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Goßens, Peter. 2011. Weltliteratur: Modelle transnationaler Literaturwahrnehmung im 19. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart and Weimar: J. B. Metzler.
Haupt, Heinz-Gerhard, and Jürgen Kocka. 2004. Comparative History: Methods, Aims, Problems. In Comparison and History: Europe in Cross-National Perspective, ed. Deborah Cohen and Maura O’Connor, 23–39. New York and London: Routledge.
Hermannsthal, Franz Hermann von. 1835. Dem Andenken des […] Mathias Zhóp. Illyrisches Blatt 18 (June): 113.
Hroch, Miroslav. 1993. From National Movement to the Fully-formed Nation. New Left Review 198: 3–20.
Juvan, Marko. 1987. Poganjki literarnozgodovinske metode v Čopovi Literaturi Slovencev. Slavistična revija 35 (3): 277–290.
———. 2008. History and Poetics of Intertextuality. Trans. Timothy Pogačar. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
———. 2011. Literary Studies in Reconstruction: An Introduction to Literature. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
———. 2017. Hibridni žanri: študije o križancih izkustva, mišljenja in literature. Ljubljana: Literarno-umetniško društvo Literatura.
Kaelble, Hartmut, and Jürgen Schriewer, eds. 2003. Vergleich und Transfer: Komparatistik in den Sozial-, Geschicts- und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag.
Kidrič, France. 1938. Prešéren: 1800–1838: življenje pesnika in pesmi. Ljubljana: Tiskovna zadruga.
———. 1978. Matija Čop [1925]. In Izbrani spisi, ed. France Kidrič, vol. 2, 147–164. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.
Koch, Manfred. 2002. Weimaraner Weltbewohner: Zur Genese von Goethes Begriff ‘Weltliteratur’. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Kos, Janko. 1970. Prešeren in evropska romantika. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije.
———. 1979. Matija Čop. Ljubljana: Partizanska knjiga.
———. 1986. Uvod. Opombe. In Pisma Matija Čopa, ed. Anton Slodnjak and Janko Kos, vol. 1, 9–29, 299–351. Ljubljana: SAZU.
Kristeva, Julia. 1969. Sémeiótiké: recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Seuil.
Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe, and Jean-Luc Nancy. 1988. The Literary Absolute: The Theory of Literature in German Romanticism. Translated with an Introduction and Additional Notes by Philip Barnard and Cheryl Lester. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Leerssen, Joep. 2006a. National Thought in Europe: A Cultural History. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
———. 2006b. Nationalism and the Cultivation of Culture. Nations and Nationalism 12 (4): 559–578.
Mani, Bala Venkat. 2017. Recoding World Literature: Libraries, Print Culture, and Germany’s Pact with Books. New York: Fordham University Press.
Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. 1998. The Communist Manifesto. Trans. Samuel Moore in cooperation with Frederick Engels. London: Verso.
Middell, Matthias. 2000. European History and Cultural Transfer. Diogenes 48 (189): 23–30.
Millán-Zaibert, Elizabeth. 2007. Friedrich Schlegel and the Emergence of Romantic Philosophy. Albany: SUNY Press.
Mix, York-Gothart, and Jochen Strobel, eds. 2010. Der Europäer August Wilhelm Schlegel: Romantischer Kulturtransfer – romantische Wissenswelten. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
Moretti, Franco. 2000. Conjectures on World Literature. New Left Review 1: 54–68.
———. 2013. Distant Reading. London and New York: Verso.
Nethersole, Reingard. 2012. World Literature and the Library. In The Routledge Companion to World Literature, ed. Theo D’haen, David Damrosch, and Djelal Kadir, 307–315. London and New York: Routledge.
Ocvirk, Anton. 1936. Teorija primerjalne literarne zgodovine. Ljubljana: Znanstveno društvo.
Osterhammel, Jürgen. 2003. Transferanalyse und Vergleich im Fernverhältnis. In Vergleich und Transfer: Komparatistik in den Sozial-, Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften, ed. Hartmut Kaelble and Jürgen Schriewer, 439–466. Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag.
Paternu, Boris. 1976. France Prešeren in njegovo pesniško delo. Vol. 1. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga.
———. 1994. France Prešeren: 1800–1849. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete.
Peter, Klaus. 1978. Friedrich Schlegel. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Pizer, John. 2000. Goethe’s ‘World Literature’ Paradigm and Contemporary Cultural Globalization. Comparative Literature 52 (3): 213–227.
———. 2006. The Idea of World Literature: History and Pedagogical Practice. Baton Rouge: Louisiana University Press.
Prešeren, France. 1966. Zbrano delo. 2. Ed. Janko Kos. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije.
Sapiro, Gisèle. 2011. Comparativism, Transfers, Entangled History: Sociological Perspectives on Literature. In A Companion to Comparative Literature, ed. Ali Behdad and Dominic Thomas, 225–236. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Schlegel, Friedrich von. 1818. Lectures on the History of Literature, Ancient and Modern. 2 vols. Trans. J.G. Lockhart. Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson and Son. https://archive.org/details/lecturesonhistor02schl.
———. 1958. Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe. Vol. 11 (Wissenschaft der europäischen Literatur: Vorlesungen, Aufsätze und Fragmente aus der Zeit von 1795–1804). Ed. Ernst Behler. München: Ferdinand Schöningh.
———. 1961. Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe. Vol. 6/1 (Geschichte der alten und neuen Literatur). Ed. Ernst Behler. München: Ferdinand Schöningh.
———. 1966. Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe. Vol. 7/1 (Studien zur Geschichte und Politik). Ed. Ernst Behler. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.
———. 1968. Dialogue on Poetry and Literary Aphorisms. Eds. and Trans. Ernst Behler and Roman Struc. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
———. 1972. Schriften zur Literatur. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag.
———. 1975. Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe 3: Charakteristiken und Kritiken 2.: (1802–1829). Eds. Ernst Behler, Jean-Jacques Anstett, and Hans Eichner. München: Schöningh.
———. 1991. Philosophical Fragments. Trans. Peter Firchow. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Schmidt, Siegfried J. 1980. Grundriss der empirischen Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 1. Braunschweig and Wiesbaden: Vieweg.
Schriewer, Jürgen. 2003. Problemdimensionen sozialwissenschaftlicher Komparatistik. In Vergleich und Transfer: Komparatistik in den Sozial-, Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften, ed. Hartmut Kaelble and Jürgen Schriewer, 9–52. Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag.
Škulj, Jola. 2003. Comparative Literature and Cultural Identity. In Comparative Literature and Comparative Cultural Studies, ed. Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek, 142–151. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
———. 2013. Interculturality and World Literary System(s). CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 15 (5). https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.2337.
Slodnjak, Anton. 1984. France Prešeren. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica.
Sluga, Glenda. 2004. The Nation and the Comparative Imagination. In Comparison and History: Europe in Cross-National Perspective, ed. Deborah Cohen and Maura O’Connor, 103–114. New York and London: Routledge.
Štefan, Rozka. 1985. Matija Čop v lvovskih Rozmaitościh. Slavistična revija 33 (4): 407–418.
Strich, Fritz. 1949. Goethe and World Literature. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Strobel, Jochen. 2010. Blumensträusse für die Deutschen: August Wilhelm Schlegels produktive Rezeption der romanischen Poesie als Übersetzer und Literarurhistoriker. In Der Europäer August Wilhelm Schlegel: Romantischer Kulturtransfer – romantische Wissenswelten, ed. York-Gothart Mix and Jochen Strobel, 159–184. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
Strosetzki, Christoph. 2010. August Wilhelm Schlegels Rezeption spanischer Literatur. In Der Europäer August Wilhelm Schlegel: Romantischer Kulturtransfer – romantische Wissenswelten, ed. York-Gothart Mix and Jochen Strobel, 143–159. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
Tilly, Charles. 2005. Introduction to Part II: Invention, Diffusion, and Transformation of the Social Movement Repertoire. European Review of History 12 (2): 307–320.
te Velde, Henk. 2005. Political Transfer: An Introduction. European Review of History 12 (2): 205–221.
Vojvodić, Jasmina, ed. 2012. Transfer: Zbornik radova o transferima u kulturi. Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada.
Weber, Max. 2001. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Trans. Talcott Parsons. London and New York: Routledge.
Werner, Michael, and Bénédicte Zimmermann. 2004. Penser l’histoire croisée: entre empirie et réflexivité. In De la comparaison à l’histoire croisée, ed. Michael Werner and Bénédicte Zimmermann, 15–49. Paris: Seuil.
Žigon, Avgust. 1914. Francè Prešéren: poet in umetnik. Celovec: Družba sv. Mohorja.
———. 1917. Čopova biblioteka. Ljubljana: D. Hribar.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Juvan, M. (2019). World Literature in Carniola. In: Worlding a Peripheral Literature. Canon and World Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9405-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9405-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-32-9404-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-32-9405-9
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)