Department of Literary Studies

During the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, acts of extreme violence were committed against women. This book presents a critical study of Rwandan women’s published testimonies, seeking to understand how Rwandan women genocide survivors respond to and communicate such experiences. Drawing on trauma theory, Holocaust studies and critical approaches to testimony, From Surviving to Living examines the ways in which the genocide is remembered in both individual and collective memory and the challenges Rwandan women face in the ongoing process of surviving trauma. Through close analysis of women’s testimonies written predominantly in French, and a smaller number in English, this book underlines the necessity of developing new ways of listening to the diversity of Rwandan women’s voices, in order not only to gain greater insight into how traumatised individuals remember, but also to hear the challenge they pose to conventional Western modes of responding to trauma.

This article examines the testimonial literature of Rwandan women genocide survivors living in the diaspora, focusing in particular on the testimonies of Esther Mujawayo. Taking as its starting point Madelaine Hron’s Translating Pain (2009), which analyses the sociocultural dimensions of pain in narratives of immigrant suffering, this article explores the ways Rwandan women seek to negotiate a space within which to tell their stories in their host communities and the process of “cultural translation” that this inevitably entails. It considers the strategies Rwandan women adopt to translate their experiences of trauma and displacement, as well as their role as public witnesses in the host society. As authors, educators and activists, these women are mobilising memory about the genocide, raising awareness for the continuing plight of survivors in Rwanda, and acting in solidarity with victims of other forms of violence and suffering, which I suggest points to an “altruism born of suffering” among Rwandans in the diaspora.

In order to reach a European public, the ‘father of Danish literature’ Ludvig Holberg published his Nicolai Klimii iter subterraneum (1741) in Latin. At that time, Latin was an unusual choice for social satires and imaginary voyages, which were mainly written in vernacular. The Iter became immensely popular throughout Europe because of its many and quick translations in vernacular languages, facilitated by the Latin original. Latin was thus a ‘lingua franca’ of intellectual Europe, but also a language that asked for translations. Holberg was very aware of this paradoxical nature of Latin and thematized it in the Iter in various ways.

In the story, the status of a ‘lingua franca’ or a universal language Holberg strictly reserves for Potu, the utopian society of the subterranean world. Furthermore, the hero Klim constantly learns subterranean languages and needs to be assisted by translators as Latin proves to be totally useless in the underground world.

In the second edition of the Iter in 1745, Holberg makes Klim’s text a Latin translation of an originally Danish manuscript. The countless references to classical literature in the Iter then could be attributed to the fictitious translator Abeline who persists in writing Latin. Holberg hereby satirizes the antiquarian academic world, personified by Abeline.

By analysing these textual instances, I will show that Holberg was a European-minded author who, notwithstanding his deliberate choice to write the Iter in Latin, was well aware of the problematic place of Latin and the growing importance of translations and vernacular in the European literary landscape of the 18th century. The choice for Latin and the many quotations of classical authors were not a way to stubbornly hold on to the past, but rather exemplifies Holberg’s modern and renewed look on the classical tradition.

The satirical novel Niels Klim of the Dano-Norwegian author Ludvig Holberg has long been seen either as a classicist masterpiece of Neo-Latin literature (Ijsewijn, Kragelund, Peters) or as an odd one out in the modern genre of imaginary voyages (Gove). In order to rhyme these two traditions in Niels Klim one cannot avoid the question of why a mostly Danish-writing author chose Latin as a medium to communicate his moral system.

By choosing Latin, Peters has argued, Holberg wanted to ensure that he would reach those readers in Europe who would understand intertextual references to classical literature. The use of these references in both prose and verses is, according to Peters, a main feature of Menippean satire. This purely functional reason is, however, in sharp contrast with Holberg’s general sense of irony and biting satire, also towards Latin and the scholastic tradition. The increasingly failing function of Latin in European society and academics is a common theme in Holberg’s comedies and other fictional writings. Niels Klim is no exception in giving a problematic image of Latin. Focusing on the text itself, I demonstrate how reflections on language and particularly on Latin can be read on a metalevel as reflections on the use and usefulness of Latin in contemporary Europe.

The language question in Niels Klim becomes even more problematic as the novel can hardly be seen apart from the tendency in vernacular literature to narrate imaginary voyages, traditionally exemplified by Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1727). To tackle this issue, this paper suggests there is need for a broader view on Menippean satire in the context of Niels Klim.
This double approach to Niels Klim aims to both deepen and problematize the functional reasons behind Holberg’s unusual choice to write Niels Klim in Latin, and to do justice to the ironical, protean and cosmopolitan nature of its author.