европейската

The first question pertinent to the subject of this study is: Did Auerbach and the other great Romance philologists work with a European consciousness and presuppose a common European horizon for their literary and linguistic studies from the very beginning? Or was this European consciousness formed gradually as a result of personal and social cataclysms? I was led to the conclusion that in addition to the First World War, the threat of another military conflict in the 1920s, mostly between France and Germany, also influenced the way part of the German Romance philologists rethought their academic pursuits. My purpose here is to find the main motive why Auerbach chose to use the non-disciplinary term "European philologists" and what he meant by that. I argue that Auerbach's European consciousness as a historical entity was formed in the 1920s, but his exile turned this consciousness into a standpoint. The second question is about the symbolic geography of European culture in the works of Auerbach. The synonymous use of Europe and Abendland distinctly reveals Auerbach's dual, both unifying and divisive, understanding of the identity and symbolic geography of European culture. If we accept the opinion that Europeans have been represented by Romance literatures for centuries, then the tasks of Romance philology as a European philology will become clearer and the cultural geography of Europe narrower. The cultural and historical identification of Europe and Abendland after the Second World War solidified the already existing division of Europe into two blocs. Literary history and philology divided Europe the relevant political doctrines did. The humanities also contributed significantly to the creation of values and attitudes, and an study of the former from this perspective gives us additional reason to assume that the agreement on the division of Europe after the Allied victory was not based solely on strategic interests.