Distant-Reading Communities: Monolingualisation in Fin-de-Siècle European Literary Historiography

Abstract
A return to earlier forms of distant reading multilingual corpora allows us to reflect on the monolingual authorial position that manages and mediates the language diversity and linguistic specificity (literariness) of multilingual corpora with the objective of fostering supranational (imagined) communities of readers (Anderson, 1983). Revisiting the distant-reading practices of fin-de-siècle Britain can help us identify historiographical focal points and priorities, provide an understanding of the scope and circumference of the corpus, and reveal the conceptions of gain and loss perceived as integral to distant reading. The tension between enrichment and dispossession inherent in the practice of literary historiography is acute when it comes to multilingual corpora, compiled to facilitate a crossing and re-weaving of the boundaries of language, understanding, and community. In the 12-volume series Periods of European Literature, edited and, in part, written by the journalist, literary historian, and Chair of Rhetoric and English Literature at Edinburgh University, George Saintsbury (1845–1933), Anglophone comparatists represent the multilingual corpora of exemplar works, gauging the necessity for, or dispensability of, translation, and managing the “great unread”, which, in this case, equates the “great unreadable”. In their desire to build imagined communities of readers of European literature, Saintsbury and his contributors tend to operate in a monolingual supralinguistic sphere in which languages, authors, and works are named, passages are occasionally quoted, but in which no reading of literature, neither on the side of the comparatist, nor of the reader, takes place. Literary language is thus only tangentially part of literary historiography.