Since then, literature (including history and philosophy), filled the historic role of conservation of man (of human pre-ciencias in a certain way the cheerful knowledge of modern times). Almost never ask: how it happens that after having done to the classical Humanities is enshrined then to anthropology and Linguistics?. Understand that the one thing that I want in life is the answer to this question: what is a man (with lowercase)? Literature gave me the first answers, then I got fanatic than it is, since high antiquity, the first true science of man (to the extent that we think that the same man is the language), namely grammar named linguistics in the era in which he taught Linguistics, which should consequently take me to anthropology. They see that there is a perfect consistency in my intellectual itinerary. Close parenthesis and return to my affairs. They now understand that when someone tells them he taught French literature (from Rabelais to Sartre), becomes a full float (is good for the Museum) and, above all, how they want to put all those works on the same shelf? It’s absurd! On the other hand, there to see the texts that we continue calling literary are collected a mass of determinism.

It is what accuse you teachers of literature of my era, rather than break down texts, taking it globally (this was the famous explanation of text), while should be different specialists who had been treated with different methods: in fact, there is one in the text of literary work for the sociologist, psychoanalyst, historian, linguist, etc. In a literary text, whatever it is, there is in what devote an entire year that would be more instructive than the exam, more or less intuitive, a series of collected pieces. But it is true that such knowledge required, the French part of the Professor of literature, a sum of notions and a power of synthesis too strange! You can believe me, is what I have tried to practice during my studies (superior, is true).