The translation of foreign literature into Chinese has been a powerful force in shaping 20th-century Chinese literature, among which the translation and reception of Western classical literature in China deserves attention, and its value needs to be reassessed. First of all, different from the cognitive tendency of that time in China that focused on and evaluated highly of Western modern literature, Chinese translation of Western classics deepens Chinese understanding of the core of Western civilization, and constructs a relatively complete and flexible cross-cultural cognitive framework covering ancient and modern times. Second, the centennial history of the Chinese translation of ancient Greek tragedy, which has been one of the most influential literary forms, reveals the historical opportunities for conscious selection, acceptance, and transformation by Chinese translators since the May Fourth Movement. The interaction and integration of the East and the West brought about by Greek tragedy’s eastward journey has gradually deepened over the century. Third, translation is the bridge of cross-cultural communication between civilizations, the studies of which can promote the mutual learning among civilizations, such as the philosophical basis of civilization exchanges theory, the humanistic core of the humanistic spirit, the construction of a dual and multi-directional civilization mutual learning model, and the pursuit of cultural diversity as an effect and goal.

A consideration of the meaning(s) of cosmopolitanism has become a constructive way to illuminate different perspectives on literature, if these were oriented toward global and local points of view. The fact that cultural flows facilitated by new technologies have challenged the idea of local and/or national literatures cannot be disputed. However, neither can the often unintended consequences of reading literatures from global points of few, in that such approaches often relate texts and traditions to normative, a-historical paradigms. From a hermeneutic vantage point, it seems as if global approaches sometimes can be even more limited in scope when considering what can be achieved from a more local perspective.

These issues become even more pertinent when literature is noted for its significant contribution towards the dynamics of memory cultures. If a specific literary tradition assumes the function of historical archive within a particular memory culture, it opens up questions as to how precisely one should then navigate cosmopolitan approaches to it. Cosmopolitanism itself has become an important and contentious topic within the field of memory studies, as questions are asked about the ethics of creating collective memory discourses in the age of globalisation. As is the case with literature, modern technologies enable the flow of information to activate and establish memories in real time. But the question remains as to what extent cultural memories can be abstracted to form part of a global or cosmopolitan discourse. It seems as if the issue of cosmopolitanism can be used not only within the disciplines of literary studies and memory studies, but also as a way to consider the entanglement of these fields.

This paper will use these issues as informative background in order to introduce a research project in which Afrikaans literary discourse of the 1990s and early 2000s is examined in order to assess its navigation of the difficult South African past. As the time in question was characterised by significant sociopolitical and cultural changes it also triggered a readjustment of the ways in which the past and its meaning(s) were aligned and reconciled with the present. Not only were these changes examined in the literary works themselves, but it also became evident in the ways in which these selfsame works were read by readers, critics and scholars, many of whom emphasised the extent of how these texts engaged with history. But the Afrikaans literary system does not only form part of a larger South African memory culture, it is also embedded within transnational mnemonic practices which plays its part in how the general trajectory of memory cultures can be understood. Cosmopolitanism becomes the crucial issue here as it becomes a conceptual tool to examine oscillations between the local specificity of memory, language, and literature on the one hand, and the global reach of transnational memory and world literatures on the other.

“Synthesis” is a key strategy in Yuan Kejia’s poetics of “Modernizing Chinese New Poetry” in 1940s. Regarding the Western origins of “synthesis”, researchers acknowledge the inspiration of T.S. Eliot and I.A. Richards, but ignore the important influence from Stephen Spender. Firstly, Yuan Kejia described the characteristics of modern British poetry as “from analysis to synthesis” (“from self-deprecating mockery to pity”), in which “synthesis” and “pity” could both be traced back to Spender’s theory. Secondly, different from Eliot and Richards, who cut off the relationship between art and life, Spender’s theory of “fusing” ideas, experience and objective reality into a single line or image, inspired Yuan Kejia to include “reality” as an important part of “synthesis”. Finally, translations of contemporaries stimulated Yuan Kejia to translate Spender’s theory of modernity in 1940s, which was revitalized in 1980s through Calinescu’s theory. Yuan Kejia’s acceptance from the left-wing Spender’s poetics reflects his literary adjustment and perseverance in the Beijing intellectual circle during the wartime.