Global Translation: The Invention of Comparative Literature, Istanbul, 1933

30 Pages·2016·0.22 MB·English

by  Apter Emily.

Global Translatio: The “Invention” of Comparative Literature, Istanbul, 1933
Author(s): Emily Apter
Source: Critical Inquiry, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Winter 2003), pp. 253-281
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/374027 .
Accessed: 10/03/2011 12:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Critical
Inquiry.
http://www.jstor.org
Global Translatio: The “Invention” of
Comparative Literature, Istanbul, 1933
Emily Apter
Anylanguageishumanpriortobeingnational:Turkish,French,andGerman
languagesfirstbelongtohumanityandthentoTurkish,French,andGermanpeoples.
—LeoSpitzer,“LearningTurkish”(1934)
In many ways, the rush to globalize the literary canon in recent years
maybeviewedasthe“comp-lit-ization”ofnationalliteraturesthroughout
thehumanities.Comparativeliteraturewasinprincipleglobalfromitsin-
ception, even if its institutional establishment in the postwar period as-
signed Europe the lion’s share of critical attention and shortchanged
non-Westernliteratures.Asmanyhavepointedout,thefoundationalfig-
uresofcomparativeliterature—LeoSpitzer,ErichAuerbach—cameasex-
iles and emigres from war-torn Europe with a shared suspicion of
nationalism.Goethe’sidealofWeltliteratur,associatedwithacommitment
to expansive cultural secularism, became a disciplinary premiss that has
endured,resonatingtodayin,say,FrancoMoretti’sessay“Conjectureson
WorldLiterature,”inwhichhearguesthatantinationalismisreallytheonly
raisond’eˆtreforriskyforaysinto“distantreading.”“Thepoint,”heasserts,
“isthatthereisnootherjustificationforthestudyofworldliterature(and
fortheexistenceofdepartmentsofcomparativeliterature)butthis:tobe
a thorn in the side, a permanent intellectual challenge tonationallitera-
ThisessaygrewoutofdialoguewithAamirMufti,whoseownessay“AuerbachinIstanbul”
providedcrucialinspiration.Ialsoacknowledgewithprofoundgratitudethecontributionof
Tu¨layAtak,whosediscoveryandtranslationofSpitzer’s“LearningTurkish”articleproved
indispensable.TheinterviewwithSu¨yehlaBayravwasarrangedbyTulayandherfriends.Thanks
arealsoduetoFredricJameson,whoputmeintouchwithSibelIrzˇıkandhercolleaguesatthe
BosporosUniversity.GayatriChakravortySpivak,AndreasHuyssen,andDavidDamroschoffered
invaluablesuggestionswhenaversionofthisessaywaspresentedatColumbiaUniversity.Hans
UlrichGumbrechtwaskindenoughtosharehismanuscript“LeoSpitzer’sStyle,”arichsourceof
literaryhistoryforthisperiod.
CriticalInquiry29(Winter2003)
(cid:1)2003byTheUniversityofChicago.0093–1896/03/2902–0003$10.00.Allrightsreserved.
253
254 EmilyApter / The“Invention”ofComparativeLiterature
tures—especially the local literature. If comparative literatureisnotthis,
it’snothing.”1
AnyonewhohasworkedincomparativeliteraturecanappreciateMor-
etti’semphasisonantinationalism.Thedoxaofnationallanguagedepart-
mentstendtobemoreapparenttothoseaccustomedtoworkingacrossor
outsidethem,whilecriticaltendenciesandschoolsappearmoreobviously
asextensionsofnationalliteraturestothosecommittedself-consciouslyto
combiningortraducingthem.Nationalcharacterghoststheoriesandap-
proachesevenin anera ofculturalantiessentialism.Englishdepartments
areidentifiedwithaheritageofpragmatism,frompracticalcriticismtothe
New Historicism. Reception and discourse theory are naturalizedwithin
German studies. French is associated with deconstruction even after de-
construction’s migration elsewhere. Slavic languages retain morphology
anddialogismastheirtheoreticalcallingcards.Thirdworldallegorylingers
asanappellationcontroˆl´eeinclassifyingthirdworldliteratures,andsoon.
Lackingaspecificcountry,orsinglenationalidentity,complitnecessarily
works toward a nonnationally defined disciplinary locus, placing high
stakesonsuccessfullynegotiatingthepitfallsofWeltliteratur,especiallyin
anincreasinglyglobalizedeconomygovernedbytransnationalexchanges.
But,aswehaveseen,themoretalktherehasbeenof“worlding”thecanon
alonglinesestablishedbyEdwardSaid,thelessconsensusthereisonhow
toaccomplishthetask.AsMorettiputsit:“theliteraturearoundusisnow
unmistakablyaplanetarysystem.Thequestionisnotreallywhatweshould
do—the question is how. What does it mean, studying world literature?
How do we do it? I work on West European narrative between 1790and
1930,andalreadyfeellikeacharlatanoutsideofBritainorFrance.World
literature?”(“CWL,”pp.54–55).
Anumberofrubricshaveemergedinresponsetothishow-toquestion
eveniftheyhardlyqualifyasfull-fledgedparadigms:globallit(inflectedby
FredricJamesonandMasaoMiyoshi),cosmopolitanism(givenitsimpri-
maturbyBruceRobbinsandTimothyBrennan),worldlit(revivedbyDavid
DamroschandFrancoMoretti),literarytransnationalism(indebtedtothe
work of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak), and comparative postcolonialand
1. FrancoMoretti,“ConjecturesonWorldLiterature,”NewLeftReview,n.s.,1(Jan.–Feb.
2000):68;hereafterabbreviated“CWL.”
EmilyApterisaprofessorofFrenchatNewYorkUniversity.Sheistheauthor
ofContinentalDrift(1999),FeminizingtheFetish(1987),andcoeditorwithWilliam
PietzofFetishismasCulturalDiscourse(1991).AbooknearcompletionistitledThe
TranslationZone:LanguageWarsandLiteraryPolitics.
CriticalInquiry / Winter2003 255
diasporastudies(indeliblymarkedbyEdwardSaid,HomiBhabha,Fran-
c¸oise Lionnet, and Rey Chow, among others). While promising vitalen-
gagement with non-Western traditions, these categories offer few
methodologicalsolutionstothepragmaticissueofhowtomakecredible
comparisonsamongradicallydifferentlanguagesandliteratures.Moretti,
onceagain,articulatesthemattersuccinctly:“Worldliteratureisnotanob-
ject,it’saproblem,andaproblemthatasksforanewcriticalmethod;and
no one has ever foundamethodbyjustreadingmore texts”(“CWL,”p.
55).Doeshehimselfproposeamethod?Well,yesandno.Heintroducesthe
promisingideaofdistantreadingasthefoundationofanewepistemology
(echoingBenedictAnderson’snotionofdistantore-nationalism),butitis
anideathatpotentiallyrisksfounderinginacityofbits,wheremicroand
macroliteraryunitsareawashinaglobalsystemwithnoobvioussorting
device.Distance,Morettipronounces,“isaconditionofknowledge:itallows
youtofocusonunitsthataremuchsmallerormuchlargerthanthetext:
devices,themes,tropes—orgenresandsystems.Andif,betweenthevery
small and the very large, the text itself disappears, well,it isone ofthose
caseswhenonecanjustifiablysay,Lessismore”(“CWL,”p.57).
If,inthisformulation,distantreadingseemsscarcelydistinctfromthe
emphasisonoldtropes,themes,andgenresfromcomparativeliteratureof
yesteryear,Moretti,togivehimhisdue,isproselytizingforsomethingmore
radical.Franklyadmittingthatinhisownareaofexpertisehehasdealtonly
with literature’s “canonical fraction,” Moretti advocates a kind of lit crit
heresythatdispenseswithclosereading,reliesunabashedlyonsecondhand
material,andsubordinatesintellectualenergiestotheachievementofa“day
ofsynthesis.”FollowingImmanuelWallerstein,thechampionofworld-sys-
tems theory, Moretti sets his hopes on the synthetic flash of insight that
producesashape-shiftingparadigmofglobalrelevance.Hisexamplesem-
phasizeasociallyvestedformalism—“formsasabstractsofsocialrelation-
ships”—rangingfromRobertoSchwarz’sformalreadingofforeigndebtin
the Brazilian novel, to Henry Zhao’s conceptof“the uneasynarrator”as
thecongealedexpressionofEast-West“interpretivediversification,”toAto
Quayson’suseofgenre—Nigerianpostrealism—asthenarrativeguiseas-
sumedbyimperialinterference(“CWL,”pp.64,63).
Moretti’sattempttoassignrenewedimportancetoplot,character,voice,
andgenreasload-bearingunitsofgloballithasmuchtorecommendit,as
doeshispoliticalformalismintheexpandedfieldofworld-systemstheory,
whichbluntlyrecognizestheunevenplayingfieldofglobalsymboliccapital.
LiketheworkofPerryAndersonandotheraffiliatesoftheNewLeftReview,
his macro approach is clearly indebted to Jameson’s Marxism and Form.
Butitisanapproachthatignorestheextenttowhichhightheory,withits
256 EmilyApter / The“Invention”ofComparativeLiterature
internationalistcirculation,alreadyfunctionedasaformofdistantreading.
It also favors narrative over linguisticengagement,andthis,Iwouldsur-
mise,isultimatelythedanglingparticipleofMoretti’srevampedWeltliter-
atur.
The problem left unresolved by Moretti—the need for a full-throttle
globalism that would valorize textualclosenesswhilerefusingtosacrifice
distance—wasconfrontedearlierinliteraryhistorybyLeoSpitzerwhenhe
waschargedbytheTurkishgovernmenttodeviseaphilologicalcurriculum
inIstanbulin1933.InlookingnotjustatwhatSpitzerpreached—auniversal
Eurocentrism—but more at what he practiced—a staged cacophony of
multilingualencounters—onefindsanexampleofcomparatismthatsus-
tainsatonceglobalreachandtextualcloseness.
SpitzerinIstanbul
Itisbynowsomethingofacommonplaceinthehistoryofcomparative
literarystudiestociteErichAuerbach’smelancholypostscriptinMimesis
inwhichhedescribesthecircumstancesofthebook’spreparationduring
theperiodofhisexileinTurkeyfrom1933to1945:
Imayalsomentionthatthebookwaswrittenduringthewarandat
Istanbul,wherethelibrariesarenotwellequippedforEuropeanstud-
ies.Internationalcommunicationswereimpeded;Ihadtodispense
withalmostallperiodicals,withalmostallthemorerecentinvestiga-
tions,andinsomecaseswithreliablecriticaleditionsofmytexts.
HenceitispossibleandevenprobablethatIoverlookedthingswhichI
oughttohaveconsidered....Ontheotherhanditisquitepossible
thatthebookowesitsexistencetojustthislackofarichandspecial-
izedlibrary.Ifithadbeenpossibleformetoacquaintmyselfwithall
theworkthathasbeendoneonsomanysubjects,Imightneverhave
reachedthepointofwriting.2
EquallyfamousistheuseEdwardSaidmadeofthispassage,makingit
notjustthecornerstoneofacritiqueoftheOrientalistwormgnawingthe
internalorgansofEurocentricliterarycriticismbutalsothefoundationof
hisownparticularbrandofexilichumanism:“Thebookoweditsexistence
to the very fact of Oriental, non-Occidental exile and homelessness,”he
wouldwriteinTheWorld,theTextandtheCritic.3Auerbach,asmanyhave
remarked,remainedaconsistentpointderep`ereforSaid,startingwithhis
2. ErichAuerbach,Mimesis:TheRepresentationofRealityinWesternLiterature,trans.Willard
R.Trask(Princeton,N.J.,1953),p.557.
3. EdwardSaid,TheWorld,theTextandtheCritic(Cambridge,Mass.,1983),p.8.
CriticalInquiry / Winter2003 257
translation(withMaireSaid)ofAuerbach’sseminalessay“Philologyand
Weltliteratur”attheoutsetofhiscareerin1969andcontinuingthroughto
his1999MLApresidentialcolumntitled“Humanism?”wherehechastises
Auerbachforbeing“mystified”bythe“explosion”of“new”languagesafter
WorldWarII.But,eveninthiscriticalsally,SaidrecuperatestheAuerba-
chian project in his vision of humanism: “In any case,” he concludes,“I
don’tbelievethathumanismasasubjectforuscanbeevaded.”4
Inhisastuteessay“AuerbachinIstanbul:EdwardSaid,SecularCriticism,
andtheQuestionofMinorityCulture,”AamirMuftiusestheAuerbachian
Saidasapointofdepartureforrethinkingcomparativeliteratureinapost-
colonial world by firmly grounding it in the experience of the minority.
WhereSaid,accordingtoMufti,tooktheconditionofAuerbach’sexileas
agoadto“questioningreceivednotionsof‘nation,home,communityand
belonging,’”Muftiproposesmovingfromthepoliticsof“un-homing,”to
the politics of statelessness, with all that that implies: the loss of human
dignity,the strippingofrights,andthereductionofanethnicidentityto
thefacelesscategoryoftheminority(MuftiisborrowingherefromHannah
Arendt’sanalysisoftheJewsasparadigmaticminorityinherTheOriginsof
Totalitarianism).5
Said’sinsistenceonthecriticalimperativeofthesecularcanappear
elitistandhenceparadoxicalonlyifwefailtorecognizethisminority
andexilicthrustinhiswork,ifweforgetthehauntingfigureofAuer-
bachinTurkishexilethatherepeatedlyevokes.Itisinthissensethat
wemustreadSaidwhenhehimselfspeaksofexilenotas“privilege”
butaspermanentcritiqueof“themassinstitutionsthatdominate
modernlife.”Saidiansecularcriticismpointsinsistentlytothedilem-
masandtheterrors,butalso,aboveall,totheethicalpossibilities,of
minorityexistenceinmodernity.[“AI,”p.107]
Arguing against Ahjaz Ahmad, according to whom, Mufti maintains,
Auerbachisshorthandforahighhumanist,“‘Tory’orientations”lockedin
permanentbattlewithFoucauldianantihumanism,Muftiunderscorespar-
allels between Auerbach’s “synthetic” criticalpracticeandtheholisticas-
pects of Saidian Orientalism (“AI,” pp. 99, 100). He discerns, in the
Auerbach of Said’s invention, an ethics of coexistence: an ethicalidealof
Weltliteraturthatacknowledgesthefragilityofworldlinessandrefusestobe
4. Said,“Humanism?”MLANewsletter31(Fall1999):4.
5. AamirMufti,“AuerbachinIstanbul:EdwardSaid,SecularCriticism,andtheQuestionof
MinorityCulture,”CriticalInquiry25(Autumn1998):103;hereafterabbreviated“AI.”
258 EmilyApter / The“Invention”ofComparativeLiterature
threatenedbythespecterofotherlanguagescrowdingthefloorofEuropean
languagesandliteratures.
Butwhathappenstothisethicalparadigmofglobalcomparatismifwe
are compelled to revise the foundation myth of exile? Does the picture
change,doesthewaywereadAuerbach’smelancholypostscriptandself-
describedintellectualisolationshift,whenwereckonfullywiththefactthat
SpitzerhadalreadybeeninIstanbulforseveralyearsbythetimeAuerbach
gotthere?TherearefewtracesoftheIstanbulchapterofliteraryhistoryin
theannalsofearlycomparativeliterature;therearescantreferencestothe
intellectualcollaborationsamongemigrecolleaguesandTurkishteaching
assistantsattheUniversityofIstanbulinthe1930s,andtherearereallyno
fullaccountsofwhathappenedtoEuropeanphilologicalpedagogywhenit
wastransplantedtoTurkey.6IwouldliketosuggestthatthefactthatSpitzer
hadestablishedalivelyphilologicalschoolinIstanbul—andlearnedTurk-
ishalongtheway—mighthavesignificantbearingonattemptstoredefine
complittodayasa“worlded”minoritariancomparatism.Mypointisthat
inglobalizingliterarystudiesthereisaselectiveforgettingofwaysinwhich
earlycomplitwasalwaysandalreadyglobalized.SpitzerinIstanbul,before
Auerbach,tellsthestorynotjustofexilichumanismbutofworldlylinguistic
exchanges containing the seeds of a transnational humanism or global
translatio.AsthestatusofEuropeantraditionswithinpostcolonialstudies
continuestobenegotiated,thistransnationalhumanismmaybeconstrued
as a critical practice that reckons with the uncertain status of European
thoughtinthefutureglobalmarketplaceofculture.Itquestionsthedefault
toEuropeanmodelsinhermeneuticpracticesandyetrecognizes,asSaidso
clearlydoes,thatthelegacyofphilologicalhumanismisnotandneverwas
aWesternversusnon-Westernproblematic;itwas,andremains,ahistory
ofintellectualimportandexportinwhichtheprovenancelabelshavebeen
tornoff.Rene´ Etiembleclearlyintuitedthislegacywhen,in1966,hecalled
forrecastingcomparativeliteraturetoaccommodatefuturedemographics:
6. ThemostcompleteaccountofSpitzerandAuerbach’sIstanbulcareersmaybeGeoffrey
Green’sLiteraryCriticismandtheStructuresofHistory:ErichAuerbachandLeoSpitzer(Lincoln,
Nebr.,1982).GreenmaintainsthatIstanbulwasnotaplaceofhardshipforSpitzer.Whilethere,he
maintains,Spitzer“concentratedupon‘theinnerform’:withthe‘brazenconfidence’thatcomes
fromplacingone’sfaithinProvidence,heviewedhissurroundings—despitetheir
shortcomings—asbeingvitalizedbyadivinespirit”(p.105).ThomasR.Hartisoneofthefewto
credittheinfluenceofIstanbulandTurkishalphabetizationonAuerbach’soeuvre.SeeThomasR.
Hart,“LiteratureasLanguage:Auerbach,Spitzer,Jakobson,”inLiteraryHistoryandtheChallenge
ofPhilology:TheLegacyofErichAuerbach,ed.SethLerer(Stanford,Calif.,1996),esp.pp.227–30.
Azade´Seyhaniscurrentlycompletingheressay“GermanAcademicExilesinIstanbul.”Itcontains
manypointsofintersectionwithmyowncriticalaccountofIstanbul’sforgottenplaceinliterary
historyandtheory.SeyhanisespeciallystrongonlinksbetweentheworkofIstanbulexilesandthe
Frankfurtschoolemigres.ShealsoelucidatesTurkishlanguagepoliticsastheypertaintothe
politicsoftranslation.
CriticalInquiry / Winter2003 259
OneortwobillionChinesewhowillclaimtobeofthefirstrank
amongthegreatpowers;Moslemsinhundredsofmillionswho,after
havingassertedtheirwilltoindependence,willre-assert(asindeed
theyarealreadydoing)theirreligiousimperialism;anIndiawhere
hundredsofmillionswillspeak,someTamil,othersHindi,stillothers
Bengali,othersMarathi,etc.;inLatinAmericatensofmillionsofIndi-
answhowillclamorfortherighttobecomemenagain,andmenwith
fullrights;atleastonehundredandtwentymillionJapanese,besides
thetwopresentgreatpowers,RussiaandtheUnitedStates,whoper-
hapswillhavebecomealliesinordertocounterbalancenewambi-
tions;ahugeBrazil,aLatinAmericaperhapsatlonglastridofUnited
Statesimperialism;aBlackAfricaexaltingordisputingn´egritude,etc.
AsforusFrenchmen,wearequitewillingtocreateanAgr´egationof
ModernLetters,provided,however,thatitdoesnotincludeChinaor
theArabWorld.7
Etiemble’sprescientvisionofcontemporaryliterarypoliticsextendsto
hisdisciplinaryreformationofcomparativeliteratureintheyear2050.The
topicshecameupwith—“ContactsbetweenJews,Christians,andMoslems
inAndalusia;WesterninfluencesduringtheMeijiera;Roleofthediscovery
ofJapanontheformationofliberalideasinthecenturyoftheEnlighten-
ment; Evolution of racist ideas in Europe since the discoveryofAmerica
andBlackAfrica;...Bilingualismincolonizedcountries;Theinfluenceof
bilingualism on literatures,” and so on—are profoundly in step with the
kind of work being done today in transnationalandpostcolonialliterary
studies.8IfEtiemblefashionedafuturisticglobalcomparatismforthe1960s
relevant to the year 2003, heinheritedavisionthathadalreadybeenput
intopedagogicalpracticeinthe1930sbyLeoSpitzer.ThestoryofSpitzer’s
Istanbulseminar,andthemodelofglobaltranslatiothatitaffords,thushas
specialbearingoncomparativeliteraturetoday.
MostfamousintheUnitedStatesforagroupofessaysonstylisticspub-
lished in 1967 under the title of the leading essay, LinguisticsandLiterary
History,LeoSpitzerwasrivaledonlybyAuerbachinhisbreadthoferudition
androleintheacademyastheteacherofmultiplegenerationsofcompar-
atists.PauldeManplacedhimsquarelyinan“outstandinggroupofRo-
manic scholars of German origin” that included Hugo Friedrich, Karl
Vossler,ErnstRobertCurtius,andAuerbach.9
7. Rene´Etiemble,TheCrisisinComparativeLiterature,trans.HerbertWeisingerandGeorges
Joyaux(EastLansing,Mich.,1966),p.56.
8. Ibid.,p.57.
9. PauldeMan,BlindnessandInsight:EssaysintheRhetoricofContemporaryCriticism
(Minneapolis,1971),p.171.SeveralrecentpublicationsattesttorenewedinterestintheRomance
260 EmilyApter / The“Invention”ofComparativeLiterature
In his introduction to the collection Leo Spitzer:RepresentativeEssays,
Spitzer’sformerstudentatHopkins,JohnFreccero,acknowledgedSpitzer
as the premier forerunner of deconstruction.10 Spitzer preferred herme-
neuticaldemonstrationstobooksdevotedtosingleauthors.Hisoeuvrewas
sprawlingandunsystematic,unifiedprimarilybyhisconsistentattention
to heuristics, and by a preoccupation with select writers of the Spanish
Golden Age, the Italian Renaissance, the French Enlightenment, andthe
Decadents(Cervantes,Go´ngora,LopedeVega,Dante,Diderot,Baudelaire,
Charles-LouisPhilippe).
Spitzerwasprofoundlyunpreparedfortheinstitutionalizationofanti-
SemitismintheNaziyearsprecedingWorldWarII.LikeVictorKlemperer,
heassumedhewouldhaveimmunityfrompoliticalpersecutionasaresult
ofhisdistinguishedrecordofmilitaryserviceduringWorldWarI(hisex-
perienceasacensorofItalianprisoners’lettersformedthebasisofanearly
publicationonperiphrasisandthemultiple“wordsforhunger”).11Unlike
Klemperer, who stayedinDresden throughoutthewar—somehowman-
agingtosurviveandkeepinghimselffromsuicidaldespairwiththehelpof
a“philologist’snotebook”inwhichhedocumentedtheperversionofthe
GermanlanguagebyNaziusage—SpitzerfledtoIstanbulin1933.On2May
1933theMinistryofEducationapprovedhisreplacementattheUniversity
of Cologne by Ernst Robert Curtius, and in July of that year he was de-
nouncedalongwithotherJewishfacultymembersinareportsubmittedto
theuniversitypresidentauthoredbytheheadofaNational-Socialiststudent
group.12Withthewritingonthewall,Spitzerresignedshortlyafterreceiving
philologicaltraditionpriortoandduringWorldWarII.SeealsoHansUlrichGumbrecht,Vom
LebenundSterbendergrossenRomanisten:KarlVossler,ErnstRobertCurtius,LeoSpitzer,Erich
Auerbach,WernerKrauss(Munich,2002),andPeterJehle,WernerKraussunddieRomanistikim
NS-Staat(Hamburg,1996).ForafinereviewofJehle’sbook,emphasizingthetimelinessof
reexaminingthecareerofWernerKrauss,the“militanthumanist”andEnlightenmentscholar
whojoinedthepartyin1945andemigratedeasttobecomechairoftheRomanceInstituteat
Leipzig,seeDarkoSuvin,“Auerbach’sAssistant,”reviewofWernerKraussunddieRomanistikim
NS-Staat,byJehle,NewLeftReview15(May–June2002):157–64.
10. SeeJohnFreccero,forewordtoLeoSpitzer,LeoSpitzer:RepresentativeEssays(Stanford,
Calif.,1988),pp.xvi–xvii.
11. SeeSpitzer,DieUmschreibungendesBegriffes“Hunger”imItalienischen(Halle,1921).
12. Curtius’scareeristopportunismvis-a`-visSpitzer’svacatedposthasbeenreadasevidenceof
hiscompromisedpositionwithrespecttothebureaucracyofNationalSocialism.Thedebateis
stillonwithrespecttoCurtius’svisionofEuropeansascitizensofhumanity.EarlJeffreyRichards
framestheseconcernsintermsofaseriesofimportantquestions:WasCurtius’svisionofa
supranationalEurope,putforthinhis1948masterworkEuropeanLiteratureandtheLatinMiddle
Ages,adangerousrampartofferedtoHimmler’sideologyofFortressEuropeortotheNazivision
ofanewGermaniabuiltonromanticneomedievalism?WasCurtiuspoliticallynaivetoassume
thathisidealofEuropeanhumanismwouldremainuntaintedbyhistoricalcircumstances?Orwas
hesimplythescapegoatforalltheGermanRomanicscholarswhocontinuedtoworkunscathed
orwhoprofitedfromtheemigredeparturesundertheThirdReich?WasCurtiusunfairlymisread
givenhisconsistentand,somewouldsay,courageousrefutationofnationalcharactertheory?See
EarlJeffreyRichards,“LaConscienceeurope´ennechezCurtiusetchezsesde´tracteurs,”inErnst
RobertCurtiusetl’id´eed’Europe,ed.JeanneBemandAndre´Guyaux(Paris,1995),esp.pp.260–61.
CriticalInquiry / Winter2003 261
invitationstoteachattheUniversityofManchesterandtheUniversityof
Istanbul.AshesailedforTurkey,hisentourageincludedhiswife,hischil-
dren, and his teaching assistant Rosemarie Burkart. Burkart and Spitzer
enjoyedapassionateliaisoninIstanbul.13Byallaccountsagiftedphilologist
inherownrightand,judgingfromherphotograph,athoroughly“modern
woman,”withcroppedhairandapassionforsports,art,andmusic,Burkart
helpedalleviatethemelancholythatonewouldexpecttohaveaccompanied
Spitzer’s expulsion. It is perhapsnoaccidentthatinhisarticle“Learning
Turkish”heemployedthelanguageoflovewhendescribingwhatitfeltlike
tolearnaforeignlanguagelateinlife.
Spitzer’ssituationin1933wascomparabletothatofhundredsofJewish
academicsdismissedfromtheirpostsatthetime.ManyemigratedtoPal-
estine,othersfoundasyluminunoccupiedEuropeancapitals(thecaseof
arthistoriansFritzSaxl,NikolausPevsner,GertrudBing,andOttoPa¨cht
inLondon),andquiteafewlandedinLatinAmerica(especiallyBrazil,Peru,
andMexico).TheUnitedStateswasadestinationofchoice,butunlessthey
were internationally renowned scholars like Einstein or Panofsky, many
whofledtotheUnitedStatesdiscoveredlimitedemploymentopportunities
intheiradoptivecountry,largelybecauseofanti-SemitismintheAmerican
academy.AstherecentdocumentaryfilmFromSwastikatoJimCrow(2000;
prod. Steven Fischler and Joel Sucher) effectively demonstrates, it was
America’sblackcollegesintheSouththatoftenextendedahelpinghand,
creating a generation of black academics trained by Jewish emigres who
wouldlaterattesttoasenseofsharedhistoryaspersecutedminorities.One
oftheluckyfew,Spitzersecuredjobofferseasilyandspentthreeyears,1933–
1936,attheUniversityofIstanbulasthefirstprofessorofLatinlanguages
and literature in the faculty of literature and as director of the Schoolof
ForeignLanguages.ItwasatSpitzer’sinvitationthatAuerbachjoinedthe
departmentin1936,notquitetheisolationfromEuropeanpedagogicalcir-
clesthathewouldhaveusbelieveintheafterwordtoMimesis.Auerbach’s
jaundiceddepictionofhislonelinessinthewildernessreallyappearstobe
adistortedpictureofwhatitwasliketoliveandworkinIstanbul.14
WhenIinterviewedSu¨heylaBayrav,anemeritusprofessorofliterature
attheUniversityofIstanbulandamemberofSpitzer’sseminarin1933,it
becameclearthatafamilialatmosphereprevailed.15Turkishstudentsand
13. ThoughSpitzerreceivedanofferfromHarvardin1934,RosemarieBurkartwasunableto
obtainU.S.residencypapers,andtheystayedinTurkeyforanothertwoyears.
14. DespiteAuerbach’soft-repeatedcriticismofthebibliographicalshortcomingsofthe
Istanbullibrary,hemanagedtoeditaRomanologyseminarpublicationaround1944thatincluded
well-referencedessaysonShakespeare,Pe´guy,Shelley,Marlowe,Rilke,andJakobsonian
linguistics.
15. Theinterviewtookplaceinthesummerof2001.ItwasconductedinFrenchatSu¨heyla
Bayrav’shouse,locatedinasuburbontheAsiansideofIstanbul.