Ecologies of translation in East and South East Asia, 1600–1900

origins of the minor as a concept through the relationships between Czech, German and Jewish, representing the “triple ghetto” concept. Revisiting these relationships allows us to trace aspects that are overlooked in the original definition of the minor by Deleuze and Guattari. The perception that the relationship between literatures transcends the positioning between the binary categories of minor and major, which is evaluated throughout the collection, is highlighted with particular quality in both essays. Overall, the term ultraminor and its application as a frame of reference are particularly enabling – it allows us to go beyond inherited ideas. It is an invitation to perceive different expressions of literature, language, and culture as a closely interconnected system rather than isolated units. The explorations of the collection’s authors prove the suggestion that Moberg and Damrosch bring up in the introduction – the more traditional binary understanding of major and minor is no longer sufficient to contain the complexity of world literature. Their discussions exceed the literary plane, demonstrating the ability of the ultraminor to influence various political and social spheres. This goes beyond individual cases, offering a universal frame of study that can be applied to studies of other languages and encouraging the development of this compelling discussion in a variety of linguistic and cultural contexts. Offering an impressive scope, both with respect to its objects of study and a linguistic variety ranging from Malayalam to Nahuatl, the essays in this collection contribute their own share to enriching the understanding of ultraminor category both as a significant part of world literature and as an effective means to complicate this very concept.