Aesthetics and Anthropology in the Early Years of Comparative Literature: The <i>Acta Comparationis Litterarum Universarum</i>

The focus of this article is a journal that may, in the words of Anca Parvulescu and Manuela Boatcă, allow us to see Transylvania as “the birthplace of comparative literature” (92). Originally entitled Összehasonlitó Irodalomtörténelmi Lapok in its founding year of 1877, from 1879 this journal replaced its Hungarian title with its better-known Latin moniker: Acta Comparationis Litterarum Universarum (hereafter ACLU).1 In recent debates in comparative literature, this journal has been celebrated on account of its seemingly radical and progressive polyglotism: its decision to publish articles in multiple languages and its apparently laudable aim to protect so-called “minor” and “endangered” languages and literatures. What this celebration has lacked, however, is a critical examination of the ACLU’s claims to polyglotism, along with a more differentiated picture of its early history and especially the aesthetic and epistemological debates that contributed to its formation.In Creolizing the Modern, Parvulescu and Boatcă write that if the “ACLU and its principle of polyglottism are to function as a foundation for a reimagined comparatism, they must be rehistoricized within the Austro-Hungarian situation in conversation with other Transylvanian figures” (113). While the work of Parvulescu and Boatcă, along with that of other contemporary scholars such as Levente T. Szabó and David Marno—to be discussed below—admirably undertakes that task of rehistoricization within the Transylvanian and Austro-Hungarian contexts, this article places the ACLU within a more western European prehistory of comparative literature, a prehistory to some extent dominated by German comparative philology and by German literary models and ideas, including that of Goethe’s Weltliteratur. This, I concede, is just one of many possible perspectives on a journal that is so multifarious in its cultural complexity, linguistic coverage, and range of research interests that a comprehensive account would exceed the range of any single comparatist. Yet reexamining the ACLU is not simply an exercise in intellectual history, since the issues that arise during the formation of an academic discipline can persist, either latently or on the surface, during later stages of its development. In short: the debates found in the ACLU about which languages and literatures deserve scholarly attention, and what kind of attention they should merit, still matter today.The nineteenth-century prehistory of comparative literature is still waiting to be written, both in terms of its own immanent methods as well as its later implications for today’s discipline. Since the appearance of Rens Bod’s A New History of the Humanities in English translation in 2013 and the launch of the new journal History of the Humanities in 2016, there has been an increased interest in the formation of humanities disciplines during the nineteenth century. James Turner’s Philology (2014), Michael Eggers’s Vergleichendes Erkennen (Comparative Knowing, 2016), and Siraj Ahmed’s Archaeology of Babel (2018) have pointed the way by demonstrating how comparative philology—a field rooted in notions of comparison taken from biology and what Goethe called morphology, while also being deeply embedded in colonial epistemologies—served as a guiding discipline for the early formation of academic literary studies. More recently still, Joep Leerssen’s Comparative Literature in Britain (2019) has further illuminated the imperial context in which early British progenitors of the discipline operated.In Leerssen’s account (19–52), comparative philology, originating in the insights of William Jones and championed in Britain by Indo-Europeanists such as Max Müller (see Müller, “Comparative”), formed the dominant tendency within nineteenth-century comparative methods. These philological approaches were supplemented by the emergence of comparative histories of civilizations by Henry Buckle (History of Civilisation in England, 1857–61), Henry Maine (Ancient Law, 1861), and John Lubbock (Prehistoric Times, 1865). Similar comparative methods were also increasingly used to the and being the of (Comparative and the of the History of a by and that stages from to with as or by Müller and the of a that and to from Goethe’s and from the of is that should be to models as the from to of I this that models of are to in the humanities were not to be found in Britain were also in western and the including in the field of literary see The to British the of which an on of literary (History of English that the task of literary in the a including the and context of the is the of a or an is just as and just as as the of a of or an of A to that of can be found in of the to which the and of a literary work are found in the and just as the of a can be by the on which of German literary a in which from in the see literature as the of the in which is to this is by which as being These stages of are by with the still being contemporary so-called or are by to the The of is not to aesthetic to the emergence of literary and to comparative methods that can The for new is not the of and as of the the comparative philology of and of literary in nineteenth-century and has been as the of the nineteenth Müller the early history of comparative Comparative Literature the in English to this to an academic within this later of the field as a (see in a work by is by of literary which in the and of the of is the of literary as well as of The of literature from so-called from the of found in and this to just of that the and of and from literary in the European that in the of or in the of have from the of found in the to that of also in the the of the nineteenth (see the early in the on comparative literature in the the the field with the comparative of a in in to “the of and see also In for of comparative literature” in an that the English and literature” with what a field that would the and of literature as well as to the in comparative literature in (see this new field as a of that is in its aim should be to “the of literature as a to to to to the of to the of in the of the new of Comparative Literature would for a see the emergence of the discipline to new and of the comparative to literature on a is that the field its to of by German its is to in the of the which to literary as a the of the of comparative literature the of the field as in the of the that have literature” and as has in a recent article in History of the during the to nineteenth the methods of comparative philology were to the of such as and that early to be critical of by the comparative in an in that the appearance of not to of to which has an that to the German and to that in cultural to that are to found are the of the must be and the be in of a of which have The of some cultural a in to the of the comparative which as been of is possible that the of the nineteenth-century comparative in the field of is one has from the history of comparative In for write that of early of the comparative the of the during the of the nineteenth to have from its dominant especially in the the of the a new field with its focus on European literatures and has seemingly to with the of or with the methods of comparative philology as both and have this of comparative nineteenth-century prehistory is a since the of are also to its including its and the of this article the that comparative nineteenth-century have not some of have while have in the new of literary literary and the of humanities as has been by work that has since article of In to the work of a account of is by David in the a from and to the its for the so-called comparative literature that in the from the of scholars such as and In an article as well as in the also by way of with the of this the Transylvanian ACLU (see ACLU the of scholars the Hungarian in in a and to as as comparative philology, and (see and also as and on which The what Levente T. Szabó has cultural as a of the of Transylvania also a Hungarian and in an in which and were also in the German of also as being a Hungarian a German in on to in and in the to a that have to interest in the of the of just to the of German the new in Parvulescu and Boatcă in Creolizing the Modern, as a in Transylvania during the nineteenth a to the history the of the and The and well as of While Transylvania Parvulescu and Boatcă the to a Transylvanian of the linguistic with the and imperial and its for the ACLU and its of were the that from history 1877, the ACLU’s founding Hungarian the of with and been to the other languages and of the and German were the and to linguistic and cultural a German in academic a of to a Hungarian in to be a and in not German is a of to the of the ACLU for the history of comparative literature has been by the that of the of its been English the title of of Comparative and in of in the history of the discipline. that translation of this title is of Comparative The history of this translation both the of translation and the of a academic literature dominated by and the for of entitled Comparative The they the of this which in issues of the the in and the in of see of translation of the ACLU’s have dominated its the of a progressive that critical of and that championed a radical by the that matter or are of A from of the as as the of a should be as and a if were to be is and for that as as the from the of comparative literature” is to how such from the journal as a and from the of the be as a about literatures and as so-called literatures in that apparently with some of the contemporary of field (see for the that the ACLU’s polyglotism, and especially its of a progressive the of by comparative such as Max Müller one to this the ACLU’s the of in of the one be for the early as later critical from of literature in to of literature as I to the ACLU a is not also to be in a differentiated way this of literary Parvulescu and Boatcă that in Transylvania be as and and as have the ACLU Hungarian literature for while also other languages within and to the Austro-Hungarian not especially for also and not to Parvulescu and Boatcă is possible that the of the to publish an in in a in to the of journal to new and were of this in a that a to the radical of to European languages The for the is the of literary a as and is in the as I is in the the have is the that has of the comparative literature and in recent has been in this with German that the of later on the histories of comparative and literature simply and of what is in a and the of the of the they not to and (see and and see also I this decision has to a history that one of the of the tendency to a range of as of a of the along with the of Comparative and its on Goethe’s of on the of Goethe’s for the in a not of the of the ACLU also of its and contemporary of this is to both in to the scholarly literature on the ACLU and in terms of that in the field of academic literary in the of the nineteenth century. While the focus is on the of the I also some other from the early of the ACLU to a of its early is that of the in to a by the ACLU in its early a that I to later so-called of comparative literature by such as and More I that the of the of the ACLU to this epistemological that the of comparative literature in early comparative literature with on the that the aesthetic of a literature can be by to literary from other In the of the the literature in Hungarian and the with which of is that in from this aesthetic for that many humanities disciplines during the of the nineteenth literary a the to the of its by the methods by the that from being just the progressive of so-called the ACLU in deeply by the of its an that not dominated the nineteenth-century comparative to the discipline of comparative literature (see of its and its European contexts, the ACLU has a scholarly is of the of how to the journal in terms of its and scholarly with to especially the dominated and should be as a of The of has for issues to with and linguistic since a of German been to an in more to the Hungarian linguistic of been of since the a by Levente T. Szabó as “the Hungarian of the of the on the history, since of that are as been by is an since in the the to to both the ACLU and to the of comparative literature as comparative literature” for that is the of and to the I as the of and a recent Levente T. Szabó has that the on the ACLU has been dominated by the that the the a tendency to the of the as a German or the to the and of and simply that the to the of the is possible that Szabó is to the German of the which in the of focus on The in is and the of Comparative which is an of on of comparative literature have to about and the later of the Yet many to that tendency in can be found in the articles by and of which are by scholars and to of the ACLU some literatures while also the interest in article on the in in also an to the on and on the of the as been and that the journal in that a by that within the ACLU during and have been to the about has to the ACLU’s history by the work by in the of translation and as see are one the ACLU’s and and translation (see In further Szabó what terms the of scholars of the are to have to the journal in terms of single from the of cultural Szabó that since Hungarian the of the would have to Hungarian literature in a way within the of Hungarian so dominant that would have been possible for and to have the as Parvulescu and Boatcă the of Hungarian be a to literature the the of the ACLU were to own cultural Hungarian on the one and own and of comparative literature, on the to the ACLU’s within the Hungarian literary since to to the ACLU to the cultural of Hungarian while being by the of the languages the Yet as Parvulescu and Boatcă this simply be to and and is to what they the that the languages in Transylvania the ACLU to literatures as being of in this to be a one that not and the in a and on and in way on the of by German models and and “the and the ACLU to Hungarian literature on the by including within a of western European the the journal also to the other languages of and to this possible by a of to which of this of a and that as the ACLU to literature within its a that been by more of Hungarian while also being by recent and contemporary of the and Boatcă also for the of literature, within an Parvulescu and Boatcă and literatures within the of colonial and imperial as well as the of work critical for the and other so-called on the one and literary with Goethe in on the The ACLU’s to this to what Szabó to as the new of the decision of the ACLU’s in in the of the to in focus to languages of literary be discussed Szabó the of this an literature, and and literary that be the of literature” Parvulescu and Boatcă this the of and literatures the literary of Transylvania a European the ACLU’s also the nineteenth-century of to a that is in European and of the to nineteenth (see and as have found its way Comparative Literature of I and have this from of one of the German of literary during the and recent of the ACLU in English can be found in David the is that not have to more research to the since is both and in terms of the of that Yet account of the on by and to the of the journal that can be from the of the that have been in to some account of the ACLU’s a of the in its early to of literature in with literary and a on and the of a of the a way to the field for not on the of the of the field for so-called literatures an on to the that the ACLU’s comparative also an one on from the German and the matter to of the literatures that have are as of Yet of account of the ACLU is that not any of of the in which this of is the that the of from the of Goethe and These aesthetic are by both and in to be were in the ACLU during the ACLU within an to which literatures of aesthetic also us to see the extent to which the from being just an apparently or from the also within the nineteenth-century of and is not to as that methods in Comparative Literature were to the of the ACLU I both a that is by an on methods and In both this is and being used for the of ACLU is such a so many languages and that a comprehensive philological account of the journal in its would exceed the of any In an of the 1879 and that the articles were in were in and the in an of western European languages dominated by and to a and that the other or title languages on in the ACLU’s history one is are used in of the journal I have in and linguistic range be within for some just the issues of the journal in the further philological by the for the which has been German from a (see would be to and the also the and German an in German on for a an in German on in within the range of a with the being that while scholars of the a comprehensive scholarly account be within the of a of is in of the that the of the journal to European languages of literary so with the that such an must be if comparative literature is to be a discipline with the of the ACLU are of journal being to both a and not is the of contemporary and are not so is the is a the of comparative literature especially is on the one and on the for the being have to be as the that the of comparative literature” this is that in recent for a humanities the since also for both and The however, as to how such a be in while the philological is for that claims that by which of can be with since can and with English or to that would be that what one by literature and since an of how would a of on the that just there are many so are there many and literatures (see to this would be to the for research in comparative literature, with that European should a of one to the still that comparative literature scholars in would have as to this would that a in a comparative literature and in to English or or a a of and and one comparative with would philological by in research of this in an an account of a with the linguistic range of the to can be The is to to a of this a is as a Goethe I of Levente T. that the of the ACLU has been within a to which an and is as to the of I that both and the of to the ACLU’s and on literary the Comparative of its from to literary studies. In short: in terms of the of its early formation with to literatures and the of comparative ACLU to German models in its of and of and of the are by well in if (see Parvulescu and Boatcă A more account is to the to a to in The this of the can be by way of which I to is that not of the and the that aim to a radical in In of the the of the ACLU an in the that journal in its to have been for a to the field of comparative philology a as James has (see well as a discipline in the of the nineteenth The of comparative literature in to is by the that is the of literature The of the ACLU is in the that comparative literature is a of the that to with so-called also have to other they and in as The that comparative literature is as a of the attention to and of as the in this context this of the is in a more this the ACLU’s would have been as or of Comparative examination of and translation also that is not a since some of the are from the English on an about (see the that is by which they to of the that what in the of is the that on a for of the These to an are of literary during this the being the of the which the of and the of as its for see The interest of the journal in of is found in early the Comparative of (see to be discussed the that an foundation for literary and the humanities in a of the is for in on the in which and as a of the on the of the early the of and must be the of for the of the of the ACLU’s for a new of literature on the comparative of is as the of and research the of German literary history as by These of are well In of (History of the Literature of the as a of cultural with that also German literature found its way the and a in the by Goethe and The of the ACLU see this of literary history as a which must be by the of in 1877, the of the a to its of as the ACLU’s has dominated the The by the in the ACLU’s which in of The new replaced by the Hungarian and the of the Hungarian (see the from a by to on In an the ACLU in a as the in 1879 see with the of the new of the journal the title of Acta in a new Latin is on the is a and to write for a this is to the a still for the of a what is the The see this as of literature, that Goethe of either as German literature in translation or as literatures German as a of the to of of translation is by a is more a of and The used to the that a literature of translation is a to a still The in is the to in since comparison is possible have the to be us in not the of translation in and the are to Goethe’s of to the of the of is the new of the that is a more of In the however, the that this principle can a within the of journal of work in the languages is by the that translation can an of literary that is of to polyglotism, is the to the that within the should be the that on a literature should be in that to an on should in this there an that its be to In to as a principle of the also interest in this the and not in and translation and in and German of what they is to that is of and that of of the of and of are and they can what is and to an this the that journal to protect the within has this field as so-called literature” are as the of comparative literature, being to laudable as this this comparison so-called and has of can be in with of the in which a of European literatures is and of its literatures the of the ACLU can be illuminated by way of a recent comparison is of for differentiated in which are as and as being in a a of comparison in an in which are not as from a in is comparison and in which of comparison are with colonial are one such be and in the way that to In any the of the ACLU with to so-called is an of what has the of in which in to a are still are as being are of and the of the ACLU that is the of comparative literature to literatures and the and of the the with the of a that both and in with one The of in the to what they as a literature, which must a to the can an which literature and should with as the the of translation and These in the they for the in on the of in the which an about the for a articles of a for the of translation and for so-called are the to and see also of which to the that literature can be a is with in of the in an a new of in the new principle of (see the ACLU’s new of the its terms to be The of terms are from and of the “the of and to the of literary the of is as the more of the a that also to the ACLU’s about a literature that is on to of the one to of The in in polyglotism, to which the ACLU would be to in any in is there for to be discussed The in this radical to the languages of while the that a comparative such as in principle for still literature, or literature that is still as from the the of one literature the of are they be to European or or so-called this is not a of is a of its a that the to “minor” literatures that that the journal still for articles in as is the literatures in of and the ACLU in publish articles in any in this be the for of and The that some of arise from the of which must be so that the principle of not and to European “the of this principle would to be if would to and which not within European an that is also to and literatures an the that must literatures to the of since in literature this is the as and European in in the of a on a the recent of a they the of In a later of the ACLU in in an article the of a and its to the of literature, the the recently of as the of which to the to Latin in to the new of the journal in 1879 (see the Latin title of Acta would have a for a Transylvanian since the of German and later Hungarian as the imperial and languages of the Latin been the of a still in the nineteenth and Boatcă The ACLU’s however, that a would not be a for comparative literature, which is both to the of literature and to protect languages and literatures a a that literary formation in the interests of especially with either or in in the new context of a comparative literature in from the of a is and multiple languages to an some languages are more for to of if are to in the context of the Latin of English of the would be to as must that to both European and literatures