A The letter already has historical importance for founding the innovative foundations of the Institute of Language Studies (IEL) at Unicamp. Its dimension becomes even greater when you know that it was written and signed by the professor, essayist and literary critic Antonio Candido de Mello e Souza.

In the document, dated November 30, 1976 and today a treasure of the “Alexandre Eulálio” Cultural Documentation Center (Cedae/IEL), Antonio Candido suggests to the then rector and founder of the University, Zeferino Vaz, the creation of an institute that would be different from other humanities faculties in the country. The author and his work, in the broadest sense, met again, exactly 30 years later, last Thursday, in the auditorium of the same IEL of which Candido was the founder, first director and teacher for two and a half years.

“Antonio Candido’s presence at IEL was the result of a very interesting conjunction”, said professor and linguist Charlotte Galves. The professor, who leaves the direction of the institute next January, went further when opening the solemn session of the last meeting of the Congregation of her administration: she said that being there, alongside the dean of IEL, was “an immense honor and a great luck". Mallarmé's famous poem says that “a roll of the dice will never abolish chance”. As fate would have it, the calendar worked in favor of history this November 30th. The luck mentioned by the IEL director was cast with style. Students, staff, teachers and witnesses to the birth of the Institute filled the auditorium to welcome the master and dean of the unit.

Candido took the floor with his usual modesty. He immediately tried to put the audience at ease by mentioning, in a blague tone, the novel “Twenty years later”, by Alexandre Dumas, changing the “twenty” to “thirty”. From there, he began, didactically, to “translate” the content of the document sent to Zeferino. Unpretentiously, and always making a point of highlighting the collective nature of the proposed creation of the institute, Candido told the story of the beginnings of the unit, highlighting that “whoever sees the beginning and sees today this extraordinary flowering of Unicamp, can only be proud of having given some contribution, no matter how small.”

The essayist revealed that, despite Zeferino's advances, he systematically refused to take over the direction of the institute. He was dissuaded from the idea when he learned, through Carlos Vogt, then head of the Department of Linguistics at the Institute of Philosophy and Human Sciences (IFCH), that the founder of Unicamp, “losing patience”, had created a faculty of letters along traditional lines. .

“Vogt told me: 'look, what you think is wrong is being done in Campinas. So, if you come across it, maybe we can undo it.' I agreed and Zeferino, with his extraordinary decision-making capacity, in 15 days dismissed the director and got the governor to annul the decree and make another one”, said Candido, recalling that he was then appointed president of the commission formed to implement the IEL.

The first basic point of the conception that guided the creation of the institute, revealed Candido, was to work towards the construction of a model that privileged growth from the inside out. The first director of IEL recalled that, at the time, the predominant model was that of the faculty of philosophy, science and letters, “which started in mathematics and ended in letters”. In Candido’s opinion, this structure mimicked what he called “the mania for organizational charts, which are created and then filled out”.

“Our point of view was the opposite. We used the available elements to make a minimal core, which could grow according to your own initiative. It was then proposed to create an institute that would have general studies”, revealed Candido, remembering that, in addition to the Department of Linguistics already working alongside the IFCH, there was the group of letters, “which was reduced to the most general in the study of letters, which is the theory of literature”. From then on, stated the essayist, a nucleus of literary theory was created, alongside an already existing nucleus of linguistics. “This would be the seed of IEL.”

The idea, continued Candido, was that, from this seed, the institute would evolve. Parallel to growth, an attempt was made to favor a democratic conception of the university. “Instead of imposing a model, we bring together a group. The proposal was for this group to evolve and then expand the institute. That is what happened. An initial group, once formed, developed the extensions it deemed necessary.” To show how democratic this environment was, Candido recalled that, before leaving the management, he suggested “a certain extension”, but it was not met, and his proposal was defeated. “The group did what it wanted, and that was our intention.”

Election — “The institute grew from a general group, to later create the particularities that seemed opportune, through internal maturity that ensured the most democratic conception possible of the management of this nucleus”, stated the first director of IEL. Candido recalled that this option for free choice prevailed in his succession. Shortly before leaving office, the professor asked Zeferino to hold an election to choose his replacement, instead of nominating him, as was common in those times. “Professor Zeferino Vaz responded and Professor Carlos Franchi was elected”.

Candido also recalled that the name of IEL itself was much debated. Professor Vera Chalmers, for example, fought for the unit not to be named the Institute of Language Sciences. “Institute of Language Studies gave a humanistic, more flexible touch, and allowed us to move away from the possibly somewhat pedantic conceptions of the study of the humanities”, stated the critic, famous for his aversion to elaborate formulas.

Antonio Candido noted that it was an “extraordinary pleasure” to carry out his tasks during the period in which he was head of the Institute. “I often say that my two and a half year stay at Unicamp was a moment of great happiness in my life, especially because I left at a time when peace still reigned. I was used to living, at my university, in a permanent state of war and, here, in these two and a half years, there was great cooperation and great understanding”.

To conclude, Antonio Candido highlighted the role of Zeferino Vaz and the speed with which he assimilated ideas that were not within his field of knowledge, remembering that the creator of Unicamp knew exactly the moment and how to make the appropriate decision. “We count on this support from Professor Zeferino Vaz, who immediately understood our purpose. Then I close by going back to the beginning: he removed the director and dissolved the institute to adopt a formula that seemed to him to be the best.” Candido received a standing ovation at the end of his speech.

When taking the microphone, professor Carlos Vogt – former dean of Unicamp, former director of IEL and one of those responsible for Candido's arrival at the University – stated that the meeting served to fill in the details of the events, remembering that the teacher's relations with IEL went back to the very creation of the IFCH Linguistics Department. “It is no coincidence that this relationship established by Professor Antonio Candido and Professor Zeferino was fundamental for these bold measures to have the consequences they did for the creation of the Institute, at a time when the Master Plan advocated the creation of a Faculty of Arts traditional".

The current president of Fapesp recalled that, at the time of the institute's implementation, his objective and that of other colleagues was to try to attract professor Antonio Candido to something that “he had not done, did not want to do and would hardly have done were it not for the circumstances he encountered, which was to take on an administrative position as he did. I think that the uniqueness of Professor Antonio Candido's time as director of IEL, since its creation and during the two and a half years of his management, is linked to the fact that this was perhaps his only activity in a management position”.

Vogt also recalled that all the teachers who formed the Department of Linguistics, the IEL and the Department of Literary Theory were students of Candido. “Our relationship is not just a fortuitous meeting at the intersections of institutional and administrative life. I and many colleagues who are here today discussed Professor Antonio Candido’s coming to Campinas”.
“I digress a little in the sentimental journey registration to say that this is an auspicious moment because IEL has this unique history and a universe of intellectual and affective references that are very important. With this ceremony, we are redoing the founding ritual of IEL. The arrival of Professor Candido gives us this moment in which we meet emotionally, intellectually and existentially”, concluded Vogt.

 

'It was a unique experience'

After the ceremony ended, Antonio Candido went to the room where, for two and a half years, he gave the coordinates of the then newly established Institute of Language Studies (IEL) at Unicamp, to give the interview that follows. In less than 10 minutes of conversation, with his usual objectivity and lucidity, Antonio Candido spoke about the beginnings of IEL, his relationship with Zeferino Vaz and gave his opinion on the direction of literary criticism.

Jornal da Unicamp – You are at the origin of IEL by structuring its bases. How do you remember the beginning of this story?
Antonio Candido – The start was very good. A linguistics group had already been formed by professor Fausto Castilho. I formed the literary theory group with experts who had previously been my students. I only wanted masters and doctors who specialized in literary theory, so I was working at home. It's a rare thing for us to be able to work with a team that, in a certain way, is your team. That, for me, was a unique experience.

JU – In your opinion, is there anything that differentiates Unicamp’s IEL from other literature and language schools in the country?
Antonio Candido – I think there is a lot of difference. IEL has been designed in a new way. The old faculties and institutes of humanities presupposed a linear juxtaposition of varied languages ​​and literatures, whereas IEL was conceived in a completely different way, starting only with general, not specific, subjects. From then on, the group formed created different particularities, according to their study of the situation and their conception of the possibilities.

JU – How do you evaluate your academic experience at Unicamp? How important was it to you?
Antonio Candido – It was of extraordinary importance. I was able to work with an absolutely exceptional dean, Professor Zeferino Vaz. He was a man endowed with a perception and a decision-making capacity that, when combined, produced something very rare in Brazil. It is no surprise that he organized the Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto [USP] and Unicamp. I, personally, was able to apply ideas that I had and that were shared by companions who were with me. This gave us great joy because we felt we were making an innovation.

JU – Unicamp turns 40 years old in 2006 after the laying of its foundation stone. How do you see the figure of founder Zeferino Vaz today? What were your relationships like with him?
Antonio Candido – Relations with Professor Zeferino Vaz were great. I had appointments with him once a week. I always went with Professor Carlos Franchi, who was deputy director of IEL. We were both impressed by the ease with which he assimilated ideas and notions from disciplines completely different from his own – he was an expert in parasitology; us literature teachers. When we presented our ideas and problems, he understood as if he were an expert. He always knew how to opt for the best solution. So, interacting with Professor Zeferino has always been a great learning experience and a great pleasure for me.

JU – Did he understand literature?
Antonio Candido – I don't know if he understood. The fact is, he acted like he understood.

JU – How do you evaluate Unicamp today?
Antonio Candido – Unicamp, 40 years later, is one of three or four universities that are truly of the highest level in Brazil. In a way, it is a daughter of USP and other universities outside of São Paulo, representing, let's say, the crowning of some generations of university efforts made in Brazil. And, as a crowning achievement, Unicamp honors its destiny.

JU – To conclude, a question more focused on literature. Is literary criticism in crisis in Brazil?
Antonio Candido – I do not think so. Brazil has always been a country of excellent literary criticism, since the time of Independence. Brazil has always had and continues to have good literary critics. I would say that creative literature may be in crisis in Brazil, but not criticism. It is flourishing and producing more and more, especially at university level, with very good results.

JU – Don’t you think she distanced herself from the public?
Antonio Candido – Literary criticism was not specifically made for the public. It was created to help those interested in literature. Maybe she moved away a little from the newspaper-reading public, but she didn't move away from the studious public.

JU – Is she confined to the gym?
Antonio Candido – I don't like that expression. If the person does not confine themselves, they do not produce. It's like the friars in the convent. The important thing is that the products from your confinement can be transformed into a collective good. And university criticism is achieving this through the thousands of literature and language teachers it trains.

(*) Álvaro Kassab collaborated

 

Campinas, November 30, 1976. Of. IFCH/DL 70/70 Magnificent Rector: I have the honor of passing into your hands the proposal for an Institute of Language Studies, a name that seemed more appropriate to a renewing conception than that of the Institute of Letters, previously envisaged, for reasons that Your Magnificence will see set out in the attached document. This comes from the activities of the committee elected by Linguistics and Literary Theory teachers in order to prepare it. As invited by Your Magnificence to coordinate the implementation of the new Institute in a timely manner, I responded to the call of my colleagues to preside over the work and, from the first half of October, we had weekly meetings, which resulted in some preparatory documents and notes, as well as extensive exchanges. of ideas. The text was then presented, for consideration and comment, to an assembly of teachers from those disciplines, who discussed it extensively and proposed modifications. The final draft, now forwarded for the high consideration of Your Magnificence and the competent bodies, thus represents the result of a process that ensured a high degree of consensual content. In this context, I am pleased to highlight the dedication of the members of the committee, to whose lucidity and university spirit this document is due, and who are the following colleagues: Aryon Dall'Igna Rodrigues, Ataliba Teixeira de Castilho, Carlos Alberto Vogt, Haquira Osakabe , Maria Lucia Dal Farra, Vera Maria Chalmers, Yara Frateschi Vieira. Please Your Magnificence accept the expression of my feelings of perfect esteem and real consideration. Antonio Candido de Mello e Souza To the Magnificent Rector Prof. Dr. Zeferino Vaz Campinas State University ACMS/ gsf *Letter from Antonio Candido de Mello e Souza to Zeferino Vaz forwarding structuring project for the Institute of Language Studies – IEL.