The Transnational-Based Approach to Literature. Idealized Canon and Monocultural Identity in Italy, in: STUDI COMPARATISTICI. - ISSN 1974-157X. - 20-2017:2 (2019), pp. 293-308.

ESTRATTO TIRÉ À PART SEPARATELY PRINTED Studi comparatistici STUDI COMPARATISTICI 20 LUGLIO-DICEMBRE 2017 – ANNO X – FASCICOLO II STUDI COMPARATISTICI Organo ufficiale della Società Italiana di Comparatistica Letteraria Semestrale Le opinioni espresse negli scritti pubblicati impegnano soltanto la responsabilità dei singoli autori, così come errori non corretti nei giri di bozze redazione@sicl-italia.it ISSN 1974-157X © Edizioni del C.I.R.V.I. Str. Revigliasco, 6 10024 MONCALIERI (TO) fax 011.644355 - e-mail cirvi@cirvi.it ROC 11009 PRIMA PARTE Articoli Aspetti della migrazione The Transnational-based Approach to Literature: Idealized Canon and Monocultural Identity in Italy* This article – mostly dealing with the Italian cultural context – should begin with a comparative remark that refers to a better known multicultural context, that is, the North-American one, where academic scholars have long developed an elaborate reflection on the limits of the idea of a national literature, thanks to a long history of essays on national identity and on the concept of “Trans-national America”, that runs throughout the Twentieth Century 1. We all know that these theoretical stances could not ward off the persistence of a certain hostility towards an American society that was unfolding as characterized by the mixing and interaction of elements belonging to different linguistic-cultural communities, so that trans-na_______________ (*) The article reworks and updates my unpublished presentation at the 7th biennial Congress of the European Network for Comparative Literary Studies / Réseau Européen d’Études Littéraires Comparées, held in Helsinki, Finland, on August 23-26, 2017. It also benefits from some reflections matured on the occasion of the international conference “Democracies on the Move: Citizenships, Languages and Migrations across Italy, Europe, and the Americas” (University of Macerata, Italy, May 8-10, 2017). 293 294 F. Sinopoli tionality would not come about as a “mosaic”, as Randolph Bourne hypothesized in 1916 (opposing the idea of an Anglo-Saxonizing “melting pot”), but as a “hybrid”, so that it can only be read and understood now through a non-purist and non-deterministic idea of identity. Such a never-ending process of composition of cultural and linguistic differences in the North-American context should also be read as the attempt to somewhat defeat the fear of meeting with otherness and the unpredictable consequences that such a meeting entails2. The American example, which is still a useful comparative parameter, teaches us that the assimilationist model can betray the existence of a racist presupposition, according to which minority cultures cannot and should not affect the values of the dominant culture, thus rejecting any hypothesis of intercultural interaction. And yet such an interaction must unavoidably occur, as proved not only by American history, but by the evolution of European cultures and societies, as shown by the longer European history and again in the second half of the Twentieth Century, especially with the proclamation of the European Union in 1993, that has become a powerful magnet for migratory processes and people looking for a better economic future. If the comparison with the American case can be useful when focusing on similar assimilationist attitudes and models found in each European national context – that is, moving on a bilateral comparative axis – it cannot of course be mechanically translated to the European continental level considered in its entirety. From a continental point of view, trans-nationality must be seen on different levels of interaction, that is, from the level of reciprocal relations between EU nations and those between EU nations and countries bordering on the EU but not part of it, to the level of internal transformations The Transnational-based Approach to Literature 295 in national contexts, where there are different ways of reading ethnic plurality, based on the different integration policies that have been enforced. Particularly in the second half of the Twentieth Century, in different European national contexts different solutions have been devised in order to cope with repeated migratory processes, with multiple consequences in different countries, e.g. when it comes to issues related with widening or limiting citizenship rights. Thus we find analogous diversities on the cultural level, where the fact that national artistic-literary production and its symbolic capital or “canon” are “infiltrated” by subjects having a different cultural background brings about different reactions, be they characterized by openness or refusal/parochialism/insularity. The so-called translingual writers or migrant writers receive a different treatment when it comes to being acknowledged as “authors”, that is, when it comes to belonging or not belonging to the national literary field. This is also due to the fact that European nations have produced different models of representation of their culture and artistic-literary canon through the institutions that are in charge of transmitting the national cultural tradition. American cultural history also gives an example of how the question of the hegemony and exclusion principles on which the establishment of a literary canon is based cannot be solved only in terms of widening the canon itself, that is, including present and past voices and texts that are not homogeneous to the dominant aesthetic model; the real issue is to make visible the presuppositions and the criteria that found the canon, so that they may be discussed and completed by other criteria. These criteria that found the canon and ensure its persistence, on the other hand, have repeatedly undergone a deconstructing 296 F. Sinopoli and contextualizing examination that underscored their nature of cultural products tied to historical circumstances and specific ideologies. Late Twentieth Century Europe, beginning with decolonization processes, faced persistent and periodic migrations coming from other continents as well as contiguous contexts plagued by wars and economic underdevelopment. Hence it would have been unthinkable that a progressive hybridization of expressive elements of the aesthetic field, and a reconfiguration of the symbolic capital they convey, would not occur. “Transnationality” may be useful for this aim, but we should also take into account the concept of “transculturation” proposed by Wolfgang Welsch, who maintains it is more suitable to a representation of contemporary culture than the concepts of “interculturality” and “multiculturality”. I refer to his 1999 article: Transculturality – the Puzzling Form of Cultures today3 . On the macrocultural level of analysis we see that: The old homogenizing and separatist idea of cultures has furthermore been surpassed through cultures’ external networking. Cultures today are extremely interconnected and entangled with each other. Lifestyles no longer end at the borders of national cultures, but go beyond these, are found in the same way in other cultures. The way of life for an economist, an academic or a journalist is no longer German or French, but rather European or global in tone. The new forms of entanglement are a consequence of migratory processes, as well as of worldwide material and immaterial communications systems and economic interdependencies and dependencies. It is here, of course, that questions of power come in. […] And regarding the transcultural formation of individuals: The Transnational-based Approach to Literature 297 Transculturality is gaining ground moreover not only on the macrocultural level, but also on the individual’s micro-level. For most of us, multiple cultural connexions are decisive in terms of our cultural formation. We are cultural hybrids. Today’s writers, for example, emphasize that they’re shaped not by a single homeland, but by differing reference countries, by Russian, German, South and North American or Japanese literature. Their cultural formation is transcultural (think, for example, of Naipaul or Rushdie) – that of subsequent generations will be even more so4. When it comes to Italy, its radical transformation from a country of emigrants to one of immigration, at least since the 1970s5, brought about a recovery of territories of literary writing that had been traditionally marginalized in the canon of Italian literature. This is true for both sides of the migratory experience (outgoing and incoming): we have witnessed a growing interest in authors and works of Italian authors who emigrated to the American continent and second or third-generation writers, just think of the so-called “Italian American Studies” (IAS)6. Born in North-American universities and then recently (and shyly) introduced in Italian graduate education, these studies are re-configuring in a trans-national fashion the concept of “italianità”. The same may be said for those authors living in Italy but having a non-Italian linguistic and cultural background, who have contributed since the 1990s with their works to contemporary Italian-language literature, with a convergence of different imaginations and ideas of literature as pointed out recently by Teresa Fiore: […] the contemporary history of Italian civilization cannot be understood without a rigorous reconsideration of the influence of its outbound and inbound 298 F. Sinopoli migrations as well as its colonial and imperial experience, all of which I view as phenomena that are not marginal with respect to the country’s national formation, but that rather are congenital to its complicated birth and development.7 The duplicity of this phenomenon allows us to formulate and spread a “transnational” model of Italian literature, which may foster interest in those literary works originated from migratory processes from/towards Italy in the Twentieth Century; such a “transnational” model may allow us to override the oppositional and dualistic centreperiphery or canon-frontier paradigm, especially with reference to the Twentieth Century – a paradigm which is so pervasive in literary studies that it is often understated8. It is quite evident that such a change of perspective introduces quite a few problems, last but not least the difficulty to identify the meaning that a literary heritage written in Italian or other languages by subjects emigrated from Italy may have for Twentieth-Century Italian culture, inasmuch as this heritage is pivoted upon the idea of “italianità”. On the other hand we have the question of how to include works by authors coming from other countries and living in Italy in the contemporary Italian canon, inasmuch as these authors – consciously translingual or bilingual on the literary level – use the Italian language as a language of choice. The canon has excluded these authors because of its extreme selectivity, a feature that it preserves as one of its dominant traits, without ever interrogating the composite meaning of such a “selectivity”, which does not only have to do with an aesthetic or linguistic model we may or may not agree with, but also involves historically determined cultural and ideological factors that are seen as “natural” and un- The Transnational-based Approach to Literature 299 changeable, such as the idea – which may be said to have solidified during the process of national unification in the Nineteenth Century – that only the works of Italian-born authors (i.e. native speakers and writers) are legitimated. Hence the so-called “migrant” or “translingual” writers («Much translingual writing […] is the literature of immigration»9), cannot find a place in the canon because their different linguistic and cultural past fractures any rooted and uniform idea of “canonical” literature that still dominates the Italian ambit10. A sign of change is the spate of conferences, in Italy and abroad, focusing on the redefinition of the categories used to cope with the vast literary and cultural phenomenology that generally bears relation to Italian emigration and/or immigration 11 as in the recent research project “Transnationalizing Modern Languages”12. Such concepts as “mobility”, “diaspora”, “migration” “post-migration”, “transnationalism” reveal themselves as indispensable if one aims at placing old and new migratory experiences on the cultural map, but also at reconfiguring the literary corpus stemming from those experiences, inasmuch as they belong to different linguistic-cultural contexts, thus going beyond those historiographic classifications which are more or less overtly inspired by the centre-periphery paradigm, based on what Italian-American historian Donna R. Gabaccia envisions as expression of a tyranny of the national13, or better (I would like to add) of a certain idea of nation. European comparative literature studies focusing on cultural and literary transnationalism have recently produced interesting reflections on the policies of inclusion and exclusion that have played a role in the construction and the transmission of a literary canon (on both a national and a continental level), in particular offering starting 300 F. Sinopoli points for a discussion of the meaning of the terms “transnational” and “canon” vis-à-vis the contemporary literary production of authors having a multicultural and plurilingual background. I will quote as an example Mads Rosendahl Thomsen’s 2008 monograph Mapping World Literature. International Canonization and Transnational Literatures, which devoted an entire chapter to «Migrant writers and cosmopolitan culture», particularly with regard to their impact «in making transnational literature visible as field to be taken seriously in its own right»14. In the sociological field, Steven Vertovec 15 hints at the necessity to take into account the spaces of human activity that have not been explored in a trans-national perspective in his 2009 monograph Transnationalism, after having described constants and variants of “migrant transnationalism” and tackled the main critical objections to the use of the very concept of transnationalism. There are different levels of transnational activity that must be pinpointed and analysed. Vertovec’s essentially sociological perspective does not include cultural phenomena of an aesthetic kind, such as literature, yet he hints at the cultural effects of migrants’ transnationalism in this specific space. The difficulties in understanding and accepting the trans-national subject can only be overcome thanks to the diffusion of an open mentality, which is willing to conceive the existence of subjects that are evidently not rooted, or not only rooted, in a single language, culture, national milieu, etc. One of the most positive consequences of such a change of mentality would be to see clearly that the unease vis-à-vis the fact that trans-national subjects do not belong to a single place, culture, or language is not the symptom of these subjects’ deficiency, but rather the effect of a perspectival artifice: it consists in the fear of The Transnational-based Approach to Literature 301 otherness felt by those who understand the idea of belonging to a place only in a monocultural and monolinguistic sense (as in the Nineteenth Century concept of nation), which is projected on the transnational subject. All in all, the unconscious fear that is born when facing the otherness of a culturally hybrid subject is translated into the attribution of an insuperable otherness to this subject, or worse into his/her marginalization, inasmuch as he/she cannot be classified in a univocal fashion. What is important is the opportunity to focus on the new possibilities of meaning of the term “transnational”, beyond the post-colonial link between former colonies and European nations. Likewise, the search for “new canons” is just as relevant in order to re-design a more detailed representation of contemporary European literature, hence also including the Italian milieu. For example, it is fundamental to avoid reducing transnational literature to a sub-system or “niche” within a national literature, taking instead into account the possibility of a national literature that is also crossed by a trans-national dimension, which is actualized in the literary products stemming from the many stories of exiles and diasporas from/towards Italy: Yet the Italian case is, perhaps, at once peculiarly transnational and trans-nationally peculiar: historically a space characterized by both internal and external transit and movement, Italy itself can be imagined as a hyphenated, in-between space created by the multiple crossings that etch its geographical surfaces and cultural depths. To emphasize the impact of mobility on the ‘national’ space itself is, surely, of particular importance in formulating a productive definition of the trans-national, since the breaching of physical borders can also work to place existing critical boundaries and categories into question. 16 302 F. Sinopoli Literary trans-nationality is in fact a complex field of relations that cannot be limited to the post-colonial condition, or to its nationalistic and monolingual meaning, which de facto privileges a bilateral relationship between some European countries and their former colonies. This is evident if we talk about transnationalism in the Italian context, where most writers coming from abroad, who wrote their works in Italian, arrive from countries with no direct relation to the Italian colonial past. The critical aspects to be taken into account are rather the very wide terminological issues through which we can discuss the different names given to this literature in Europe, starting from the diverse concepts coming from different areas of allophony, which cannot only be defined as “post-colonial”, unless we want to use this term to mean the effects on a world-wide scale of the diverse historical forms of colonialism; hence, to the historical “post-colonial” context of Europe since the second half of the Twentieth Century17. In addition to the presence of a real terminological plurality (e.g. with reference to the international lexicon to be found in this field of study, the use and diffusion of such terms as hybridity, métissage, creolisation, nomadism, migration, diaspora, cosmopolitanism, exile, displacement, mobility, interculturalism, transculturalism, globalism, etc.), what should be examined are the textual strategies and thematic trends, the plurilinguism, the translinguism, self-translation, the modalities of reception and placement of these texts with respect to the traditional literary canon, the role played by trans-national writers in contemporary culture (e.g. their active or passive participation in the cultural policies of the country they live in), the translations of their works abroad, the impact of these translations on different national contexts and with refer- The Transnational-based Approach to Literature 303 ence to their institutional canons. The issue of “cultural policy” could actually result in an interrogation of what forms of access to the literary field are available to the trans-national writer, inasmuch as this field is delimited and often – as it is the case in Italy – strongly regulated by the existing institutions. In this case a difference must be made between countries like Italy or Germany, which present us – even if we only focus on the first generations of translingual writers – a diversified production from the point of view of authors’ cultural and linguistic memory, and countries like the United Kingdom, Spain or France, where there is a higher percentage of so-called “postcolonial” writers who do not have to operate a code-switching once they want to publish their works in the arriving country because they already speak its language. But generalizations are risky even in this case. For example, few authors coming from former Italian colonies can speak and write in Italian; if they can, it is because one of their parents is Italian or they learned the language in their adulthood, since the presence of the Italian language in the Italian colonies in Eastern Africa was short, discontinuous, neither systematic nor pervasive, due to the inefficient and discriminatory linguistic-cultural policy adopted by Italy in her colonies during the Fascist era, according to whom colonized peoples were not allowed to learn Italian beyond an elementary level18. All this should provide an example of the difficulty to generalize when we operate in a European perspective. In fact in such a perspective one has to notice that transnational writers benefit from different levels of legitimacy in terms of linguistic and literary creativity, acknowledged by the literary fields in which they operate. This is also due to the fact that such labels as “migration literature”, 304 F. Sinopoli “translingual literature” and “postcolonial literature” do not exactly cover the same kind of authors in different national contexts19. Cultural policies also determine the specific weight the transnational author can acquire within the “representation” of national literature conveyed by educational institutions, the publishing market and the mass media (TV, radio, the web). Quite a few sparks about this can be found in a document concerning the European cultural policy, “Culture and Audiovisual. Celebrating Europe’s Cultural Diversity” 20, published by the European Commission in June 2013 (2017, newer edition); among its priorities there is the promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue, with the institution of the European Union Prize for Literature (EUPL) since 2009. Authors from countries that take part in the EU cultural program “Creative Europe” – also involving some non-EU countries – participate in this contest, managed by a consortium made up by the European writers’, booksellers’ and publishers’ associations; 36 European countries joined it, including the 28 EU member nations. Every year the national boards of about twelve participating countries award the EUPL (with one winner chosen by each selected national board), so that all countries are represented in a three-year cycle. Such an opportunity might be seized, for example, to go beyond the typically Italian tradition of “ghetto-awards” for non-Italian authors, which started in the 1990s, thus accepting the idea that Italy may well be represented on a European level by one of our translingual authors, acknowledging them as Italian writers. In fact the EUPL aspires «to promote cross-border mobility of those working in the cultural sector; to encourage the transnational circulation of cultural and artistic output; and to foster intercultural dialogue» 21. Such a The Transnational-based Approach to Literature 305 different approach could be adopted by a national board that is sensitive to the changing geography of the Italian literary and cultural landscape, since the candidates to the EUPL are chosen by the national boards, whose nominations are then collected on a European level. A comparison of the candidacies proposed by each national board for the European prize is also interesting, as it reveals different cultural policies and approaches to the relation between publishing powers and culture. Last but not least, another aspect should be taken into account when dealing with cultural policies, that is, the academic reception of trans-national literature: a noteworthy development occurred in the last decades, leading to an increase of specific studies and bibliographies 22 . A very interesting implication of such a trend is the study of how migration literature theories themselves “migrated” from a given European context to another, above all between countries sharing the same language (such as Germany and Austria, or France and Belgium), or arguably culturally contiguous (such as Italy and France). In such a process, the nation whose reception of translingual literature is more recent begins by relying on the critical analysis and theoretical definition models previously produced in a linguistically and culturally kindred context, with all the problems of misunderstanding and ideological conditioning that such loans of theoretical-critical paradigms may entail, before the borrowing context can free itself from the dominant theoretical model and manage to produce reading tools that are more suitable for its own cultural context. Emma Bond argues against this view, maintaining that Italian Studies have brought innovative ideas to postcolonial theory and migration studies in light of the peculiar transnational status of the country. As a consequence, are the Italian Studies “borrowing” or 306 F. Sinopoli “drawing from” and producing new critical theory? In any case, an excessive borrowing of interpretive paradigms coming from other contexts, such as post-colonial theory, could hide the fear of not being able to recognize and interpret the onset of transnational literary phenomena from within one’s own culture, always bearing in mind that the postcolonial factor is surely important, but it is definitely not the only key to interpret such phenomena. Franca SINOPOLI NOTES (!) Marc SHELL, Werner, SOLLORS (eds), Multilingual Anthology of American Literature, New York and London, New York University Press, 2000; Mary Jo BONA , Irma M AINI (ed. by), Multiethnica Literature and Canon Debates, New York, State University of New York Press, 2006. (2) Randolph BOURNE originated the concept of “Transnational” America, with his article Trans-national America, published on «Atlantic Monthly», July 2016. See: Christopher McKnight NICHOLS, Rethinking Randolph Bourne’s Trans-National America: How World War I Created an Isolationist Antiwar Pluralism, in: «The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era», Vol. 8, No. 2, 2009, pp. 217–257. (3) In: Spaces of Culture: City, Nation, World, ed. by Mike Featherstone and Scott Lash, London, Sage 1999, pp. 194-213. A more recent version of Welsch’s transculturality theory can be found in an article Transculturality: The Changing Forms of Cultures Today, published on «Filozofski Vestnik», Vol. XXII, No. 2, 2001, pp. 59-86. (4) Wolfgang WELSCH, cit., https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/filozofski-vestnik/article/viewFile/3602/3295 (5) Russel KING, Jacqueline ANDALL, The Geography and Economic Sociology of Recent Immigration to Italy, in: «Modern Italy», Vol. 4, No. 2, 1999, pp. 135-158. (6) Mark PIETRALUNGA, Italian American Studies in Italy, in: Teaching Italian American Literature, Film, and Popular Culture, edited by Edvige GIUNTA, and Kathleen ZAMBONI MCCORMICK, New York, The Modern Language Association of America, 2010, pp. 70-78; Jerome KRASE, ed., The Status of Interpretation in Italian American Studies, New York, Forum Italicum Publishing, The Transnational-based Approach to Literature 307 2011; Peter CARRAVETTA, After Identity. Migration, Critique, Italian American Culture, New York, Bordighera Press, 2017. (7) Teresa FIORE, Preoccupied Spaces. Remapping Italy’s Transnational Migrations and Colonial Legacies, New York, Fordham University Press, 2017, p. 4. In addition to the recent publications, quoted by Fiore, which use a combined lens to address emigration/immigration processes of Italian culture and identity (see note 17, p. 11), I would remind the reader of my Deterritorializing the Nation-Based Approach to Literature or the Transnational Dimension of Italian Literature, in: Luigi GIULIANI, Leonarda TRAPASSI, Javier MARTOS (eds.), Far Away Is Here. Lejos es aqui´. Writing and Migrations, Berlin, Frank & Timme, 2013, pp. 9-22. (8) The adjective “transnational” is used in the volume Shifting and Shaping a National Identity: Transnational Writers and Pluriculturalism in Italy Today, ed. by Grace RUSSO BULLARO and Elena BENELLI, Leicester (England), Troubador, 2014. (9) Steven G. KELLMAN, The Translingual Imagination, Lincoln and London, University of Nebraska Press, 2000, p. 17. (10) Nora MOLL, L’infinito sotto casa. Letteratura e transculturalità nell’Italia contemporanea, Bologna, Pàtron, 2015. (11) Luigi BONAFFINI, Joseph PERRICONE (ed. by), La letteratura italiana nel mondo. Nuove prospettive, Isernia, Cosmo Iannone, 2015; Maddalena TIRABASSI (ed. by), Itinera. Paradigmi delle migrazioni italiane, Torino, Edizioni della Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli, 2005; Franca SINOPOLI, Silvia TATTI (ed. by), I Confini della scrittura. Il dispatrio nei testi letterari, Isernia, Cosmo Iannone 2005; Jennifer BURNS, Loredana POLEZZI (ed. by), Borderlines. Migrazioni e identità nel Novecento, Isernia, Cosmo Iannone, 2003. (12) http://www.transnationalmodernlanguages.ac.uk (13) See Donna R. G ABACCIA , Diaspore, discipline e migrazioni di massa dall’Italia, in: Maddalena TIRABASSI (ed. by) Itinera, Paradigmi delle migrazioni italiane, cit., pp. 141-172, and her monograph Italy’s many Diasporas, Seattle, University of Washington Press, 2000. (14) Mads ROSENDAHL THOMSEN, Mapping World Literature. International Canonization and Transnational Literatures, London, Continuum, 2008, p. 61. (15) Steven VERTOVEC, Transnationalism. London and New York, Routledge, 2009. (16) Emma BOND, Towards a Trans-national Turn in Italian Studies?, in: «Italian Studies», Vol. 69 No. 3, November 2014, p. 421. (17) In the case of Italy, a major contribution to the understanding of the Italian postcolonial condition is the volume edited by Cristina LOMBARDI-DIOP and Caterina ROMEO, Postcolonial Italy. Challenging National Homogeneity, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. (18) Laura RICCI , La lingua dell’impero, Roma, Carocci, 2005, pp. 2-23 e 174. (19) But in some case they do, see i.e. Jennifer BURNS Migrant Im- 308 F. Sinopoli maginaries: Figures in Italian Migration Literature, Oxford, Peter Lang, 2013, and Simone BRIONI, The Somali Within, Cambridge, Legenda, 2015. (20) See: European Commission, Culture and Audiovisual. Celebrating Europe’s Cultural Diversity https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/82d0abbc-4fec-44f6-92a5-be8381e558a0/language-en (21) See: http://www.euprizeliterature.eu/what-eupl (22) A good starting point is the volume Migrant Cartographies: New Cultural and New Literary Spaces in Postcolonial Europe, ed. by Sandra PONZANESI and Daniela MEROLLA, Lanham, Lexington Books, 2005; a more recent survey is Contemporary Developments in Emergent Literatures and the New Europe, ed. by César DOMINGUEZ and Manus O’DWYER, Santiago de Compostela, USC Editora clave, 2014. INDICE DELL'ANNO X 457 19 - Gennaio-giugno 2017 Articoli Giuseppina DI GREGORIO, «Il punto di vista inglese»: considerazioni di natura economico-politica e culturale ne «Il Marzocco» 11 Carminella SIPALA, «Les accoucher de leurs possibilités». La ricerca di un’estetica della contaminazione nelle riviste degli Anni Venti 41 Biagio D’ANGELO, La presenza delle arti plastiche nella rivista «Klaxon» (Brasile, 1922-1923) 67 Giovanni Davide LOCICERO, «Minotaure» (1933-1939): l’ombra della “sociologie sacrée” sul labirinto surrealista 83 Alberto DESTRO, «Der Ruf» 1946-1947, rivista di politica (e anche di letteratura) 101 Testi Rosita TORDI, Letteratura e politica nella cultura delle riviste dell’immediato primo dopoguerra. «La Vraie Italie» 125 Confronti Thanh-van TON-THAT, De l’écriture journalistique à la 459 Recherche: les métamorphoses de l’écriture romanesque autour du motif du parricide et de la profanation 159 Giulia BASELICA, Il paradosso di Proteo 175 Gabriele GUERRA, Gli elfi e il Cancelliere 181 Rassegna bibliografica Pierre BRUNEL, Mythocritique. Théorie et parcours, Grenoble, ELLUG, 2016, pp. 248 (Pino MENZIO) Sandro M. MORALDO, Komparatistik in Italien- heute, in Moser, Christian; Simonis, Linda (a cura di), Komparatistik. Jahrbuch der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Allgemeine und Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft 2016, Aisthesis Verlag, Bielefeld, 2017, pp. 15-27 (Margherita CODURELLI) André STANGUENNEC, Mallarmé. Un théâtre de l’esprit, Paris, Champion, 2017, pp. 332 (Pino MENZIO) Christoph KÖNIG, “O komm und geh”. Skeptische Lektüren der “Sonette an Orpheus” von Rilke, Wallstein-Verlag, Göttingen, 2014, 379 p. (Alberto DESTRO) Libri ricevuti Riviste in cambio 193 195 197 200 203 207 20 - Luglio-dicembre 2017 Articoli Cettina RIZZO, La concezione dei Musei a Parigi nel XIX secolo: il primo nucleo di ‘Primitifs italiens’ da Vivant Denon a Théophile Gautier 237 Paolo BUGLIANI, Dalla South Sea House alla Rua dos Douradores. Un’ipotesi di filiazione paradossale tra Charles Lamb e Fernando Pessoa 251 Aspetti della migrazione Franca SINOPOLI, The Transnational-Based Approach to Literature: Idealized Canon and Monocultural Identity in Italy 293 Angelo PAGLIARDINI, La poetica dell’«addizione» linguistico-culturale fra Gerhard Kofler, Carmine Abate, Gabriella Kuruvilla ed Edouard Glissant 309 Susanne KLEINERT, Aspetti ibridi nell’attuale letteratura postcoloniale e di migrazione in Italia 337 Sandro M. MORALDO, Die Ichsetzung als Effekt des Dritten. Feridun Zaimoèlus Plädoyer für kulturelle Differenz 357 461 Testi Rita SEVERI, Wallis Wilde-Menozzi, Writing on Migration and Literature 377 Wallis WILDE-MENOZZI, Recombinations and New Language in Cross-Cultural Writing 379 Confronti Francesca VALENTINI, Del mondo, fuori Alessandro SCARSELLA, Trasparenza nella profondità Margherita CODURELLI, E.T.A. Hoffmann. Vita e Opera 401 407 413 Rassegna bibliografica Michele COMETA, Perché le storie ci aiutano a vivere. La letteratura necessaria, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano, 2017, 427 pp. (Alberto DESTRO) Carmina Indica. Figure dell’India in Occidente dal Settecento a oggi, a cura di Luca CLERICI, Marcello MELI, Paola MURA, Padova University Press, 2015, 338 pp. (Alessandro VESCOVI) Horst-Jürgen GERIGK, Lesendes Bewusstsein. Untersuchungen zur philosophischen Grundlage der Literaturwissenschaft, Berlin-Boston, de Gruyter Akademie Forschung, 2016, XV, 214 pp. (Sandro M. MORALDO) Eric J. HOBSBAWM, La fine della cultura. Saggio su un secolo in crisi di identità. Milano, Rizzoli, 2013, pp. 314 (Marco MARCHETTI) Silvana BARTOLI, La felicità di una donna. Émilie du Châtelet tra Voltaire e Newton. Firenze, Olschki. MMXVII (Biblioteca dell’«Archivum Romanicum» Serie I: Storia, Letteratura, Paleografia n. 479) pp. 238 (Annalisa BOTTACIN) Claudio Guillén en el recuerdo, editado por Antonio 425 426 431 433 434 MONEGAL, Enric BOU, Montserrat COTS, Venezia, Edizioni Ca’ Foscari, 2017 (Biblioteca di Rassegna Iberistica 6), pp. 135 (Francesca VALENTINI) Libri ricevuti Riviste in cambio 437 443 447 Finito di stampare nel mese di maggio dell'anno 2019 in Moncalieri, con i tipi del 464