Search for other papers by Matthew Nelson in
Current site
Google Scholar
Literature written in Sanskrit after the onset of British colonialism is sorely neglected. Modern Sanskrit, as it is often called, suffers from the bad image of being written in a dead language. Many of its writers would disagree with that image, but they would know that they are disagreeing. That defensiveness has come to shape their writing, a fact which I argue arises in response to the status of their work as an ultraminor literature, a status which was born with the formation of the “world literature” field and its elevation/absorption of classical Sanskrit at the expense of the latter’s perceived potential for contemporaneity.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
13
Rapson had already made the point by 1904.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 445 | 80 | 28 |
| Full Text Views | 364 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 136 | 7 | 0 |
Search for other papers by Matthew Nelson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Literature written in Sanskrit after the onset of British colonialism is sorely neglected. Modern Sanskrit, as it is often called, suffers from the bad image of being written in a dead language. Many of its writers would disagree with that image, but they would know that they are disagreeing. That defensiveness has come to shape their writing, a fact which I argue arises in response to the status of their work as an ultraminor literature, a status which was born with the formation of the “world literature” field and its elevation/absorption of classical Sanskrit at the expense of the latter’s perceived potential for contemporaneity.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 445 | 80 | 28 |
| Full Text Views | 364 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 136 | 7 | 0 |