What do you think?
Rate this book
Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature
A half-century after its translation into English, Erich Auerbach's "Mimesis" still stands as a monumental achievement in literary criticism. A brilliant display of erudition, wit, and wisdom, his exploration of how great European writers from Homer to Virginia Woolf depicted reality has taught generations how to read Western literature. This new expanded edition includes a substantial essay in introduction by Edward Said as well as an essay, never before translated into English, in which Auerbach responds to his critics.
A German Jew, Auerbach was forced out of his professorship at the University of Marburg in 1935. He left for Turkey, where he taught at the state university in Istanbul. There he wrote "Mimesis," publishing it in German after the end of the war. Displaced as he was, Auerbach produced a work of great erudition that contains no footnotes, basing his arguments instead on searching, illuminating readings of key passages from his primary texts. His aim was to show how from antiquity to the twentieth century literature progressed toward ever more naturalistic and democratic forms of representation. This essentially optimistic view of European history now appears as a defensive--and impassioned--response to the inhumanity he saw in the Third Reich. Ranging over works in Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, German, and English, Auerbach used his remarkable skills in philology and comparative literature to refute any narrow form of nationalism or chauvinism, in his own day and ours.
For many readers, both inside and outside the academy, "Mimesis" is among the finest works of literary criticism ever written.
A German Jew, Auerbach was forced out of his professorship at the University of Marburg in 1935. He left for Turkey, where he taught at the state university in Istanbul. There he wrote "Mimesis," publishing it in German after the end of the war. Displaced as he was, Auerbach produced a work of great erudition that contains no footnotes, basing his arguments instead on searching, illuminating readings of key passages from his primary texts. His aim was to show how from antiquity to the twentieth century literature progressed toward ever more naturalistic and democratic forms of representation. This essentially optimistic view of European history now appears as a defensive--and impassioned--response to the inhumanity he saw in the Third Reich. Ranging over works in Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, German, and English, Auerbach used his remarkable skills in philology and comparative literature to refute any narrow form of nationalism or chauvinism, in his own day and ours.
For many readers, both inside and outside the academy, "Mimesis" is among the finest works of literary criticism ever written.
616 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1942
535 people are currently reading
10.9k people want to read
About the author
Erich Auerbach
62听books123听followersGerman philologist Erich Auerbach served as professor of Romance philology at Marburg University (1929-35), taught at the Turkish State University in Istanbul (1936-47), and became professor of French and Romance philology at Yale University in 1950. He published several books and many papers on Dante, Medieval Latin literature, methods of historical criticism, and the influence of Christian symbolism on literature. He is best known for
Mimesis
, a volume on literary criticism written in Turkey, first published in Berne, Switzerland in 1946, and subsequently widely translated.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 210 reviews
July 14, 2007
Maybe the most impressive work of literary criticism ever written, not least because of the circumstances under which it was composed: Auerbach, a German philologist fired by the Nazis for being a Jew, in exile in an Istanbul library as European civilization destroyed itself 鈥� re-imagining the literature that had given it birth. The book's insights are inexhaustible. I've returned to it again and again for 30 years.
November 14, 2020
mimesis alan谋nda temel eserlerden biri. bug眉n i莽in g眉ncelli臒ini koruyor, hi莽bir zaman da eskimeyecek muhtemelen. bu nitelikleriyle birlikte, ikinci d眉nya sava艧谋 s眉rerken yaz谋lm谋艧 olmas谋yla, istanbul'da yaz谋lm谋艧 olmas谋yla ve yaz谋lma bi莽imiyle de edebiyat tarihinin efsanelerinden biri.
auerbach'谋 mimesis 莽al谋艧mas谋n谋n ba艧lang谋c谋nda d眉艧眉nelim. 1942 olsa gerek. malum sebeplerle 眉lkesinden ayr谋lmak zorunda kalm谋艧, davet 眉zerine t眉rkiye'ye yerle艧mi艧, 1936'dan beri istanbul 眉niversitesi'nde g枚rev yap谋yor. 眉lkesinin, d眉nyan谋n, insanl谋臒谋n durumu vahim. belki uzakla艧mak i莽in belki tam tersine 艧artlar b枚yle oldu臒u i莽in, ba艧yap谋t谋n谋 yazmak, tamamlamak istiyor. tam anlam谋yla ba艧yap谋t olacak bir kitap. iddial谋, 莽ok iddial谋: edebiyat谋n 3000 y谋l谋n谋 konu edinecek, 3000 y谋l谋 edebiyat eserleri 眉zerinden anlatacak. bir 枚mr眉n birikimiyle, eme臒iyle yazma a艧amas谋na gelmi艧 art谋k. ama istanbul'da k眉t眉phane yok, ara艧t谋rma imkan谋 yok, eserini tamamlamas谋 i莽in gerekli kitaplar谋n neredeyse hi莽biri yok.
mimesis'in kapsam谋n谋n 3000 y谋l olmas谋 temel eser vasf谋n谋 a莽谋klarken, imkans谋zl谋klar i莽inde yaz谋lmas谋 da efsane diyebilece臒imiz, mucize diyebilece臒imiz 艧eyler 莽a臒r谋艧t谋r谋yor. normal 艧artlarda b枚yle iddial谋 bir 莽al谋艧man谋n ba艧ar谋l谋 olma 艧ans谋 bir tarafa, bu 莽abaya giri艧ilmesi bile cesaret, 莽al谋艧man谋n hi莽 bitmemesi s枚z konusu zira. kitab谋nda bizzat auerbach s枚yl眉yor bunu. peki hal b枚yleyken imkans谋zl谋klar i莽inde nas谋l tamamlan谋yor ve bu denli ba艧ar谋l谋 oluyor bu 莽al谋艧ma? kli艧e tabirle s枚ylemek gerekirse, imkans谋zl谋臒谋n g眉c眉n眉 kullanarak.
auerbach "bat谋 edebiyat谋nda ger莽ekili臒in tasviri" gibi sonsuz s谋n谋rs谋z geni艧leyebilecek ba艧l谋臒谋n谋 s谋n谋rland谋ryor 枚ncelikle. ger莽ekli臒in tasvirini, temsili demek kesinlikle daha do臒ru geliyor, hangi 枚l莽眉tlerle inceleyece臒ini belirliyor ve kitab谋n ba艧谋ndan sonuna bu 枚l莽眉tlerin d谋艧谋na hi莽 莽谋km谋yor, konu asla da臒谋lm谋yor. sonra y枚ntem meselesine geliyor, burada bilgi, birikim, deha her 艧ey var art谋k. auerbach her b枚l眉m i莽in d枚nemini temsil g眉c眉 y眉ksek bir eser se莽iyor. eserden al谋nt谋lar yap谋yor, al谋nt谋lad谋臒谋 metni s谋n谋rland谋rd谋臒谋 枚l莽眉tleri 眉zerinden inceliyor. eseri d枚nemindeki ya da ba艧ka d枚nemlerdeki eserlerle kar艧谋la艧t谋r谋yor. b枚ylece i莽erik zenginle艧iyor, 莽ok katmanl谋 hale geliyor ve kronolojik olarak a莽谋kl谋kla izlenebiliyor.
auerbach'谋n analizlerinde neler var: eserin zaman谋na, arka plan谋na dair bilgiler, d枚nemin anlat谋 kurallar谋-kal谋plar谋, yazar谋n bu kal谋plara ne kadar ba臒l谋 kald谋臒谋 ne kadar zorlad谋臒谋. yazar谋n toplumsal konumu, eserine konu olan ki艧ilerin sosyal konumu. konunun s谋n谋rland谋r谋lm谋艧 hali bu, evet. somutla艧谋rmak gerekirse, homeros'la ba艧lay谋p virginia woolf'la tamamlan谋yor kitap. bu da e艧ittir: ayr谋cal谋kl谋 ki艧ilerin ve b眉y眉k olaylar谋n anlat谋s谋 olarak ba艧layan edebiyat谋n, s谋radan ki艧ilerin i莽 d眉nyalar谋n谋n anlat谋s谋na d枚n眉艧眉m眉.
mimesis'in g眉ncel kalmas谋n谋n, eskimeyecek olmas谋n谋n da a莽谋k bir sebebi var: auerbach eser incelemelerini sadece metin 眉zerinden yap谋yor. c眉mlelerden, tek tek kelime se莽imlerimden bile 莽谋kar谋mlar, hem de harika 莽谋kar谋mlar yap谋yor ama metnin d谋艧谋na 莽谋km谋yor. kurama hi莽 ama hi莽 girmiyor. ak谋mlar, d枚nem ayr谋mlar谋, kavramla艧t谋rmalar, meselenin 枚z眉nden koparacak hi莽bir 艧eyle ilgilenmiyor.
mimesis'i okumay谋 d眉艧眉nenlere bir fikir verebildi臒imi umuyorum buraya kadar. kitap elbette su gibi akm谋yor ancak 莽ok zor bir okuma de臒il kesinlikle. zorluk-kolayl谋ktan ziyade ayr谋lacak zamana, verilecek 莽abaya g枚re maksimum fayda veren bir kitap mimesis: edebiyat谋n t眉m yolculu臒u, 3000 y谋l!..枚zellikle roman okurlar谋n谋, belli ba艧l谋 eserleri-yazarlar谋 okumu艧 olan herkesi hem bilgi hem bak谋艧 a莽谋s谋 hem de okudu臒u-okuyaca臒谋 kitaplar谋n analizi konusunda zenginle艧tirecektir kesinlikle.
bunlar谋 belirttikten sonra 1946 y谋l谋na d枚nmek istiyorum. mimesis'in t眉rkiye hikayesi kadar mimesis 枚zelinde bir t眉rkiye hikayesi de var 莽眉nk眉. de臒inmesem olmayacak. mimesis 1946 y谋l谋nda yay谋mlan谋yor ilk kez. zamanla de臒eri anla艧谋l谋yor, t眉m avrupa dillerine 莽evriliyor, avrupay谋 a艧谋yor sonra, 莽in'e kadar gidiyor. her dilde, her 眉lkede, t眉rkiye'de yaz谋ld谋臒谋 vurgusuyla yay谋mlan谋yor. bu vurgunun zor 艧artlara, imkans谋zl谋klara y枚nelik taraf谋n谋 anlatmaya 莽al谋艧t谋m. bunun d谋艧谋nda bizim i莽in ba艧ka anlamlar谋 da olsa gerek. t眉rkiye, imkans谋zl谋klar谋 kadar imkan谋 da bu kitab谋n 莽眉nk眉. 1936 y谋l谋nda auerbach'谋 眉lkeye davet eden, uzun y谋llar 莽al谋艧mas谋n谋 sa臒layan t眉rkiye. mimesis'e de臒il, auerbach'a de臒il kendi ge莽mi艧ine, ge莽mi艧teki vizyonuna bir sayg谋s谋 olur diye d眉艧眉n眉yor insan. ama yok. t眉rkiye'de yaz谋lan bu de臒erli, anlaml谋 kitab谋 73 y谋l t眉rk莽eye 莽evirmemenin ba艧ka nas谋l bir a莽谋klamas谋 olabilir?
bilinmemesi imkan谋z bir kitap, 莽evrilmesinin, bas谋lmas谋n谋n, okunmas谋n谋n 枚n眉nde engel yok. umursamamaktan ba艧ka bir sebep, bahane bulmak zor. belki b枚yle temel eserlere ihtiyac谋m谋z yok art谋k. temelimizi 莽oktan kaybettik. bilmiyorum. ithaki yay谋nlar谋 2019'da t眉rkiye'de herkes bu kitab谋 bekliyormu艧 gibi bir hava yaratt谋, sonra kitab谋 bas谋p da臒谋tt谋ktan sonra hatal谋 bask谋 yapt谋臒谋 ortaya 莽谋kt谋, hatal谋 bask谋y谋 toplat谋p yeniden yay谋nlad谋. sonras谋 sessizlik. b眉y眉k sessizlik. kitap bir tarafa, her 艧ey bir tarafa, insan 1936'n谋n umuduna, bug眉n眉n umutsuzlu臒una bak谋p 眉z眉l眉yor. bu son c眉mlenin ard谋ndan iyimser bir c眉mle yazarak bitirmek i莽in 莽ok d眉艧眉nd眉m.
auerbach'谋 mimesis 莽al谋艧mas谋n谋n ba艧lang谋c谋nda d眉艧眉nelim. 1942 olsa gerek. malum sebeplerle 眉lkesinden ayr谋lmak zorunda kalm谋艧, davet 眉zerine t眉rkiye'ye yerle艧mi艧, 1936'dan beri istanbul 眉niversitesi'nde g枚rev yap谋yor. 眉lkesinin, d眉nyan谋n, insanl谋臒谋n durumu vahim. belki uzakla艧mak i莽in belki tam tersine 艧artlar b枚yle oldu臒u i莽in, ba艧yap谋t谋n谋 yazmak, tamamlamak istiyor. tam anlam谋yla ba艧yap谋t olacak bir kitap. iddial谋, 莽ok iddial谋: edebiyat谋n 3000 y谋l谋n谋 konu edinecek, 3000 y谋l谋 edebiyat eserleri 眉zerinden anlatacak. bir 枚mr眉n birikimiyle, eme臒iyle yazma a艧amas谋na gelmi艧 art谋k. ama istanbul'da k眉t眉phane yok, ara艧t谋rma imkan谋 yok, eserini tamamlamas谋 i莽in gerekli kitaplar谋n neredeyse hi莽biri yok.
mimesis'in kapsam谋n谋n 3000 y谋l olmas谋 temel eser vasf谋n谋 a莽谋klarken, imkans谋zl谋klar i莽inde yaz谋lmas谋 da efsane diyebilece臒imiz, mucize diyebilece臒imiz 艧eyler 莽a臒r谋艧t谋r谋yor. normal 艧artlarda b枚yle iddial谋 bir 莽al谋艧man谋n ba艧ar谋l谋 olma 艧ans谋 bir tarafa, bu 莽abaya giri艧ilmesi bile cesaret, 莽al谋艧man谋n hi莽 bitmemesi s枚z konusu zira. kitab谋nda bizzat auerbach s枚yl眉yor bunu. peki hal b枚yleyken imkans谋zl谋klar i莽inde nas谋l tamamlan谋yor ve bu denli ba艧ar谋l谋 oluyor bu 莽al谋艧ma? kli艧e tabirle s枚ylemek gerekirse, imkans谋zl谋臒谋n g眉c眉n眉 kullanarak.
auerbach "bat谋 edebiyat谋nda ger莽ekili臒in tasviri" gibi sonsuz s谋n谋rs谋z geni艧leyebilecek ba艧l谋臒谋n谋 s谋n谋rland谋ryor 枚ncelikle. ger莽ekli臒in tasvirini, temsili demek kesinlikle daha do臒ru geliyor, hangi 枚l莽眉tlerle inceleyece臒ini belirliyor ve kitab谋n ba艧谋ndan sonuna bu 枚l莽眉tlerin d谋艧谋na hi莽 莽谋km谋yor, konu asla da臒谋lm谋yor. sonra y枚ntem meselesine geliyor, burada bilgi, birikim, deha her 艧ey var art谋k. auerbach her b枚l眉m i莽in d枚nemini temsil g眉c眉 y眉ksek bir eser se莽iyor. eserden al谋nt谋lar yap谋yor, al谋nt谋lad谋臒谋 metni s谋n谋rland谋rd谋臒谋 枚l莽眉tleri 眉zerinden inceliyor. eseri d枚nemindeki ya da ba艧ka d枚nemlerdeki eserlerle kar艧谋la艧t谋r谋yor. b枚ylece i莽erik zenginle艧iyor, 莽ok katmanl谋 hale geliyor ve kronolojik olarak a莽谋kl谋kla izlenebiliyor.
auerbach'谋n analizlerinde neler var: eserin zaman谋na, arka plan谋na dair bilgiler, d枚nemin anlat谋 kurallar谋-kal谋plar谋, yazar谋n bu kal谋plara ne kadar ba臒l谋 kald谋臒谋 ne kadar zorlad谋臒谋. yazar谋n toplumsal konumu, eserine konu olan ki艧ilerin sosyal konumu. konunun s谋n谋rland谋r谋lm谋艧 hali bu, evet. somutla艧谋rmak gerekirse, homeros'la ba艧lay谋p virginia woolf'la tamamlan谋yor kitap. bu da e艧ittir: ayr谋cal谋kl谋 ki艧ilerin ve b眉y眉k olaylar谋n anlat谋s谋 olarak ba艧layan edebiyat谋n, s谋radan ki艧ilerin i莽 d眉nyalar谋n谋n anlat谋s谋na d枚n眉艧眉m眉.
mimesis'in g眉ncel kalmas谋n谋n, eskimeyecek olmas谋n谋n da a莽谋k bir sebebi var: auerbach eser incelemelerini sadece metin 眉zerinden yap谋yor. c眉mlelerden, tek tek kelime se莽imlerimden bile 莽谋kar谋mlar, hem de harika 莽谋kar谋mlar yap谋yor ama metnin d谋艧谋na 莽谋km谋yor. kurama hi莽 ama hi莽 girmiyor. ak谋mlar, d枚nem ayr谋mlar谋, kavramla艧t谋rmalar, meselenin 枚z眉nden koparacak hi莽bir 艧eyle ilgilenmiyor.
mimesis'i okumay谋 d眉艧眉nenlere bir fikir verebildi臒imi umuyorum buraya kadar. kitap elbette su gibi akm谋yor ancak 莽ok zor bir okuma de臒il kesinlikle. zorluk-kolayl谋ktan ziyade ayr谋lacak zamana, verilecek 莽abaya g枚re maksimum fayda veren bir kitap mimesis: edebiyat谋n t眉m yolculu臒u, 3000 y谋l!..枚zellikle roman okurlar谋n谋, belli ba艧l谋 eserleri-yazarlar谋 okumu艧 olan herkesi hem bilgi hem bak谋艧 a莽谋s谋 hem de okudu臒u-okuyaca臒谋 kitaplar谋n analizi konusunda zenginle艧tirecektir kesinlikle.
bunlar谋 belirttikten sonra 1946 y谋l谋na d枚nmek istiyorum. mimesis'in t眉rkiye hikayesi kadar mimesis 枚zelinde bir t眉rkiye hikayesi de var 莽眉nk眉. de臒inmesem olmayacak. mimesis 1946 y谋l谋nda yay谋mlan谋yor ilk kez. zamanla de臒eri anla艧谋l谋yor, t眉m avrupa dillerine 莽evriliyor, avrupay谋 a艧谋yor sonra, 莽in'e kadar gidiyor. her dilde, her 眉lkede, t眉rkiye'de yaz谋ld谋臒谋 vurgusuyla yay谋mlan谋yor. bu vurgunun zor 艧artlara, imkans谋zl谋klara y枚nelik taraf谋n谋 anlatmaya 莽al谋艧t谋m. bunun d谋艧谋nda bizim i莽in ba艧ka anlamlar谋 da olsa gerek. t眉rkiye, imkans谋zl谋klar谋 kadar imkan谋 da bu kitab谋n 莽眉nk眉. 1936 y谋l谋nda auerbach'谋 眉lkeye davet eden, uzun y谋llar 莽al谋艧mas谋n谋 sa臒layan t眉rkiye. mimesis'e de臒il, auerbach'a de臒il kendi ge莽mi艧ine, ge莽mi艧teki vizyonuna bir sayg谋s谋 olur diye d眉艧眉n眉yor insan. ama yok. t眉rkiye'de yaz谋lan bu de臒erli, anlaml谋 kitab谋 73 y谋l t眉rk莽eye 莽evirmemenin ba艧ka nas谋l bir a莽谋klamas谋 olabilir?
bilinmemesi imkan谋z bir kitap, 莽evrilmesinin, bas谋lmas谋n谋n, okunmas谋n谋n 枚n眉nde engel yok. umursamamaktan ba艧ka bir sebep, bahane bulmak zor. belki b枚yle temel eserlere ihtiyac谋m谋z yok art谋k. temelimizi 莽oktan kaybettik. bilmiyorum. ithaki yay谋nlar谋 2019'da t眉rkiye'de herkes bu kitab谋 bekliyormu艧 gibi bir hava yaratt谋, sonra kitab谋 bas谋p da臒谋tt谋ktan sonra hatal谋 bask谋 yapt谋臒谋 ortaya 莽谋kt谋, hatal谋 bask谋y谋 toplat谋p yeniden yay谋nlad谋. sonras谋 sessizlik. b眉y眉k sessizlik. kitap bir tarafa, her 艧ey bir tarafa, insan 1936'n谋n umuduna, bug眉n眉n umutsuzlu臒una bak谋p 眉z眉l眉yor. bu son c眉mlenin ard谋ndan iyimser bir c眉mle yazarak bitirmek i莽in 莽ok d眉艧眉nd眉m.
November 8, 2019
If Borges, writer of reflections, labyrinths and expanses can be called master of the infinite, then Auerbach must be that of the finite. For Mimesis is a work which not only takes the limitations of literary representation for its subject, but is selfsame spawned from finitude, tragic and wholly contingent. Exiled into a foreign library, with but a ramshackle supply of scholarship to consult, Auerbach ventures quixotically to trace from sheer erudition the development of historical consciousness through the ages. We learn of the epochal struggles to delimit an autonomous realm for the aesthetic; the unfathomability of depicting the phenomenal excess of everyday reality up until the modernist present.
Speaking of his contemporary literary condition, Auerbach details the new temporal aesthetic of the novel. In the masterpieces of Flaubert, then Woolf, Proust and Joyce, time thickens, becomes congealed, such that exterior events turn into stations of repose for a multi-perspectival subjectivity; the quiet, dignified sublime of the quotidian moment once and for all abolishes the ancient hierarchies of literary expression, and in this movement, claims Auerbach, lies the potential for an trans-linguistic, post-national aesthetic. An optimistic prediction, to be sure, especially in light of the postmodern "crisis of representation" still to come, with its splintering of totalities into so many local idioms. Inevitably Auerbach's great work, as the author himself confesses in an elegiac closing passage, is circumscribed, as all before and after, by the course of time.
Speaking of his contemporary literary condition, Auerbach details the new temporal aesthetic of the novel. In the masterpieces of Flaubert, then Woolf, Proust and Joyce, time thickens, becomes congealed, such that exterior events turn into stations of repose for a multi-perspectival subjectivity; the quiet, dignified sublime of the quotidian moment once and for all abolishes the ancient hierarchies of literary expression, and in this movement, claims Auerbach, lies the potential for an trans-linguistic, post-national aesthetic. An optimistic prediction, to be sure, especially in light of the postmodern "crisis of representation" still to come, with its splintering of totalities into so many local idioms. Inevitably Auerbach's great work, as the author himself confesses in an elegiac closing passage, is circumscribed, as all before and after, by the course of time.
July 15, 2023
Edebiyata derinlemesine merak谋 olanlara hitap eden 莽ok 枚zel bir 莽al谋艧ma. 3,000 y谋ll谋k bir tarihi kapsayan d枚nemde Homeros鈥檛an Virginia Woolf鈥檃 uzanan bir spektrumda Bat谋 edebiyat谋nda ger莽ekli臒in temsilinin, se莽ilen metinler temelinde analizi yap谋l谋yor. Edebiyat eserlerine bak谋艧 a莽谋n谋za ciddi katk谋lar sa臒layabilecek bir eser 枚zetle. 陌ncelemeye al谋nan baz谋 yazarlar谋n en az谋ndan benim i莽in marjinal/bilinmez veya eskimi艧 olmas谋, baz谋 b枚l眉mlerde fazla teknik detaya girilmesi kitab谋n eksileri. 脰te yandan, 枚zellikle antik d枚nemden fazla bilinmeyen ilgin莽 yazarlar谋n incelenmesi ise art谋lar谋ndan.
陌thaki Yay谋nevi, 1942-45 d枚neminde 陌stanbul鈥檇a 莽ok s谋n谋rl谋 ko艧ullarda kaleme al谋nan (Auerbach 1930鈥檒arda Nazi zulm眉nden ka莽谋p T眉rkiye鈥檇e 莽al谋艧ma imkan谋 bulan Yahudi k枚kenli Alman akademisyenlerden) ve Almanca 枚zg眉n metni 1946鈥檇a bas谋lan kitab谋, ancak 2019鈥檇a dilimize 莽evrilip bas谋lmas谋n谋 sa臒lad谋臒谋 i莽in takdiri hak ediyor.
Ancak ilk bas谋mdaki baz谋 hatalardan 枚t眉r眉 bu 莽evirinin toplat谋l谋p tekrar bas谋ld谋臒谋 s枚yleniyor. Bu hatalar 艧imdi de臒inece臒im 艧eyler mi bilmiyorum ama benim okudu臒um 莽eviride okumay谋, anlamay谋 zorla艧t谋ran 莽ok ciddi bir eksiklik var. 329. sayfaya kadar kitapta 枚zg眉n diliyle (Latince, 陌talyanca, Frans谋zca鈥� vs) yer verilen al谋nt谋lar谋n 莽evirisi yap谋lmam谋艧, nedense kitab谋n yar谋s谋nda bu al谋nt谋lar 莽evrilmeye ba艧lanm谋艧 ve son k谋sma eklenmi艧! Ayr谋ca bu g枚rece uzun al谋nt谋lar d谋艧谋nda 640 sayfal谋k kitab谋n tamam谋nda yer alan 莽ok k谋sa al谋nt谋lar da sadece 枚zg眉n dilleriyle konulmu艧! Yani bu dilleri bilmiyorsan谋z al谋nt谋lara 鈥渇rans谋z鈥� kal谋yorsunuz! Bu bence yay谋nevi bak谋m谋ndan muazzam bir 枚zensizlik, umursamazl谋k鈥�
陌thaki Yay谋nevi, 1942-45 d枚neminde 陌stanbul鈥檇a 莽ok s谋n谋rl谋 ko艧ullarda kaleme al谋nan (Auerbach 1930鈥檒arda Nazi zulm眉nden ka莽谋p T眉rkiye鈥檇e 莽al谋艧ma imkan谋 bulan Yahudi k枚kenli Alman akademisyenlerden) ve Almanca 枚zg眉n metni 1946鈥檇a bas谋lan kitab谋, ancak 2019鈥檇a dilimize 莽evrilip bas谋lmas谋n谋 sa臒lad谋臒谋 i莽in takdiri hak ediyor.
Ancak ilk bas谋mdaki baz谋 hatalardan 枚t眉r眉 bu 莽evirinin toplat谋l谋p tekrar bas谋ld谋臒谋 s枚yleniyor. Bu hatalar 艧imdi de臒inece臒im 艧eyler mi bilmiyorum ama benim okudu臒um 莽eviride okumay谋, anlamay谋 zorla艧t谋ran 莽ok ciddi bir eksiklik var. 329. sayfaya kadar kitapta 枚zg眉n diliyle (Latince, 陌talyanca, Frans谋zca鈥� vs) yer verilen al谋nt谋lar谋n 莽evirisi yap谋lmam谋艧, nedense kitab谋n yar谋s谋nda bu al谋nt谋lar 莽evrilmeye ba艧lanm谋艧 ve son k谋sma eklenmi艧! Ayr谋ca bu g枚rece uzun al谋nt谋lar d谋艧谋nda 640 sayfal谋k kitab谋n tamam谋nda yer alan 莽ok k谋sa al谋nt谋lar da sadece 枚zg眉n dilleriyle konulmu艧! Yani bu dilleri bilmiyorsan谋z al谋nt谋lara 鈥渇rans谋z鈥� kal谋yorsunuz! Bu bence yay谋nevi bak谋m谋ndan muazzam bir 枚zensizlik, umursamazl谋k鈥�
January 21, 2024
Nema u "Mimesisu" onog odvi拧e diskurzivnog obna啪ivanja u predgovoru, jer predgovora, uostalom, nema. Problem se zato jasno o膷itava u podnaslovu - "Prikazivanje stvarnosti u zapadnoevropskoj knjizevnosti" - koji u neku ruku predstavlja sabijeni predgovor. Auerbah je, reklo bi se, u saglasju sa onim Hristi膰evim stavom prema kome teorijski tekst treba da bude zavodljiv u postupnom razotkrivanju, poput dobre proze. Mo啪da me zato ona druga teorijska literatura glavnicom odbija, jer se tamo sve 拧to je bilo va啪no dokazati, iznosi unapred [Prosti, Bahtine, u "Stvarala拧tvu Fransoa Rablea...", ti si to uradio!], tako da je preostalo jo拧 samo da se minuciozno razla啪e. Ili razglaba.
U za膷etku svakog (narednog) poglavlja, Auerbah nudi insert narativa koji 膰e potom zajedno promatrati s 膷itaocem. To povla膷i interpretativno udru啪ivanje (Joj, 拧ta li 膰emo prona膰i na malom uzorku!) ili samostalno interpretativno ogledanje (膶ek, 膷ek da probam ne拧to da uvidim i sam, pre nego 拧to prepustim caru carevo!), to jest ako se nestrpljivost uspe suzbiti. Prou膷avani ise膷ak podrazumeva lekovitu konkretnost, na petoparcu. Stoga, iako je svrsishodno poznavati 膷itavo delo o kome je re膷 - tek smo tu 膷a拧膰avani - nije postidno ni 拧to (u)poznajemo samo datu komade拧ku. Izli拧no je govoriti o tome da onde gde nema primera, sve mo啪e otklizati do膽avola, u praznoslovlje. Teorija kopa rupu u koju 膰e sama da se uru拧i.
Svest o celini (knjige i knji啪evnosti) iskrsava u hodu, tokom ispisivanja. 膶italac, recimo, s ushi膰enjem pamti skokove u protospektivne analogije ili, s druge strane, ne otpo膷ne li redom, rado 膰e istupati ka retrospektivnim uputnicama. Ako li se u knjigu ulazi tumbe ili fragmentarno, dobijaju se podsetnice/smernice, pa se "Mimesis" neumitno konstitui拧e. Na ovaj ili onaj na膷in, sinhronijski i(li) dijahronijski, zaokru啪uje se total.
Auerbahov komparativni talenat, onaj od najizvrsnije sorte kakav nikada ne be啪i od vrednovanja - in your face Studijama kulture - vidljiv je svuda: unutar aktuelnog poglavlja, u linearnom doticaju poglavlj芒, u udaljenim poglavljima. [Primer? Hint: Koji postupak povezuje Petronija i Prusta! Za拧to Dante a ne Boka膷o?] Primamljivi izazov "Mimesisa"jeste to 拧to saputni拧tvo traje sa sveukupno拧膰u onoga 拧to se ovde, pomalo neprecizno - zna to Auerbah naravno, kao 拧to zna i 拧ta sve izostavlja ili simplifikuje*, pa se stoga i izvinjava** - naziva zapadnoevropskom knji啪evno拧膰u: u lancu od "Odiseje" i "Starog Zaveta", do Prusta, D啪ojsa i Vird啪inije Vulf.
Ukoliko se knjiga 膷ita sukcesivno - svesrdno preporu膷ujem! - lepota i te啪ina su u otkrivaju膰em totalitetu, u (samo)razumljivosti i samoosve拧膰ivanju procesa. Slede膰i auerbahovski akt priznanja, beskrajno mi je krivo 拧to sam "Mimesis", poput svakog prose膷nog studenta knjizevnosti, saznavao samo u parcijalu. Znate ve膰 ono: "Odisejev o啪iljak", "Farinata", "Fra Alberto", "Svet u Pantagruelovim ustima", "U ku膰i De La Mol", "Za膷arana Dulsineja"... U vezi s ovom poslednjom: podsticajan je Erih 膷ak i onda kada proma拧i, mada, naknadno upoznat s idejom-vodiljom, uvi膽am ispravnost tog proma拧aja. Jer "Mimesis" se, ponad svega, vrhuni u nespoznatim o膷iglednostima. 膶im se truizam ovaploti, on to namah prestaje da bude, postav拧i otkri膰e - recimo: 拧ta za knji啪evnost prakti膷no zna膷i prelazak s latinskog (crkvenog) na narodni jezik - kao 拧to se i pronicljivost teorijskog nauma, vrhuni u svojoj jednostavnosti: Kada, kako i za拧to ono nisko, svakida拧nje i obi膷no postaje mogu膰no prikazati bez ismejavanja, s (tragi膷kom) ozbiljno拧膰u?
U svakom slu膷aju, 膷itava ova tiradna slavopojka mogla se etiketirati:
Knji啪evno-teorijska Biblija.
*Citat koji do啪ivljam pritajeno autoironi膷no-referentnim:"Pisanje istorije je toliko te拧ko da je ve膰ina istori膷ara prisiljena da 膷ini ustupke tehnici legende." a legenda, re膰i 膰e se, ne trpi trenje i sve ono 拧to joj se protivstavlja.
**Auerbah ise膷ke analizira uglavnom na njihovom izvornom jeziku. Umalo nisam pao sa stolice u trenutku kada se Auerbah uz izvinjenje ogra膽uje od toga 拧to ne secira dela ruske knji啪evnosti, budu膰i da ne barata ruskim i da to onda ne bi bilo po拧teno, a sve nakon 拧to je pedantno lingvo-stilisti膷ki analizirao segmente na latinskom, italijanskom, francuskom, 拧panskom, engleskom, delimice i starogr膷kom, i napokon nema膷kom. A 拧ta tek re膰i o osobenom kontekstu u kome "Mimesis" nastaje: Istanbul, tokom II sv. rata, kada mu kao izbeglici ve膰ina neophodne literature nije bila dostupna. Puna jedra humanizma!
U za膷etku svakog (narednog) poglavlja, Auerbah nudi insert narativa koji 膰e potom zajedno promatrati s 膷itaocem. To povla膷i interpretativno udru啪ivanje (Joj, 拧ta li 膰emo prona膰i na malom uzorku!) ili samostalno interpretativno ogledanje (膶ek, 膷ek da probam ne拧to da uvidim i sam, pre nego 拧to prepustim caru carevo!), to jest ako se nestrpljivost uspe suzbiti. Prou膷avani ise膷ak podrazumeva lekovitu konkretnost, na petoparcu. Stoga, iako je svrsishodno poznavati 膷itavo delo o kome je re膷 - tek smo tu 膷a拧膰avani - nije postidno ni 拧to (u)poznajemo samo datu komade拧ku. Izli拧no je govoriti o tome da onde gde nema primera, sve mo啪e otklizati do膽avola, u praznoslovlje. Teorija kopa rupu u koju 膰e sama da se uru拧i.
Svest o celini (knjige i knji啪evnosti) iskrsava u hodu, tokom ispisivanja. 膶italac, recimo, s ushi膰enjem pamti skokove u protospektivne analogije ili, s druge strane, ne otpo膷ne li redom, rado 膰e istupati ka retrospektivnim uputnicama. Ako li se u knjigu ulazi tumbe ili fragmentarno, dobijaju se podsetnice/smernice, pa se "Mimesis" neumitno konstitui拧e. Na ovaj ili onaj na膷in, sinhronijski i(li) dijahronijski, zaokru啪uje se total.
Auerbahov komparativni talenat, onaj od najizvrsnije sorte kakav nikada ne be啪i od vrednovanja - in your face Studijama kulture - vidljiv je svuda: unutar aktuelnog poglavlja, u linearnom doticaju poglavlj芒, u udaljenim poglavljima. [Primer? Hint: Koji postupak povezuje Petronija i Prusta! Za拧to Dante a ne Boka膷o?] Primamljivi izazov "Mimesisa"jeste to 拧to saputni拧tvo traje sa sveukupno拧膰u onoga 拧to se ovde, pomalo neprecizno - zna to Auerbah naravno, kao 拧to zna i 拧ta sve izostavlja ili simplifikuje*, pa se stoga i izvinjava** - naziva zapadnoevropskom knji啪evno拧膰u: u lancu od "Odiseje" i "Starog Zaveta", do Prusta, D啪ojsa i Vird啪inije Vulf.
Ukoliko se knjiga 膷ita sukcesivno - svesrdno preporu膷ujem! - lepota i te啪ina su u otkrivaju膰em totalitetu, u (samo)razumljivosti i samoosve拧膰ivanju procesa. Slede膰i auerbahovski akt priznanja, beskrajno mi je krivo 拧to sam "Mimesis", poput svakog prose膷nog studenta knjizevnosti, saznavao samo u parcijalu. Znate ve膰 ono: "Odisejev o啪iljak", "Farinata", "Fra Alberto", "Svet u Pantagruelovim ustima", "U ku膰i De La Mol", "Za膷arana Dulsineja"... U vezi s ovom poslednjom: podsticajan je Erih 膷ak i onda kada proma拧i, mada, naknadno upoznat s idejom-vodiljom, uvi膽am ispravnost tog proma拧aja. Jer "Mimesis" se, ponad svega, vrhuni u nespoznatim o膷iglednostima. 膶im se truizam ovaploti, on to namah prestaje da bude, postav拧i otkri膰e - recimo: 拧ta za knji啪evnost prakti膷no zna膷i prelazak s latinskog (crkvenog) na narodni jezik - kao 拧to se i pronicljivost teorijskog nauma, vrhuni u svojoj jednostavnosti: Kada, kako i za拧to ono nisko, svakida拧nje i obi膷no postaje mogu膰no prikazati bez ismejavanja, s (tragi膷kom) ozbiljno拧膰u?
U svakom slu膷aju, 膷itava ova tiradna slavopojka mogla se etiketirati:
Knji啪evno-teorijska Biblija.
*Citat koji do啪ivljam pritajeno autoironi膷no-referentnim:"Pisanje istorije je toliko te拧ko da je ve膰ina istori膷ara prisiljena da 膷ini ustupke tehnici legende." a legenda, re膰i 膰e se, ne trpi trenje i sve ono 拧to joj se protivstavlja.
**Auerbah ise膷ke analizira uglavnom na njihovom izvornom jeziku. Umalo nisam pao sa stolice u trenutku kada se Auerbah uz izvinjenje ogra膽uje od toga 拧to ne secira dela ruske knji啪evnosti, budu膰i da ne barata ruskim i da to onda ne bi bilo po拧teno, a sve nakon 拧to je pedantno lingvo-stilisti膷ki analizirao segmente na latinskom, italijanskom, francuskom, 拧panskom, engleskom, delimice i starogr膷kom, i napokon nema膷kom. A 拧ta tek re膰i o osobenom kontekstu u kome "Mimesis" nastaje: Istanbul, tokom II sv. rata, kada mu kao izbeglici ve膰ina neophodne literature nije bila dostupna. Puna jedra humanizma!
June 2, 2019
Mimesis
By Erich Auerbach (1892-1957)
Auerbach was a German philologue, literature critic and author of the German Romantic tradition.
鈥楳imesis鈥� or by the subtitle 鈥業mitation of Reality in Western Literature鈥� is a work of Philological analysis of selected chapters of outstanding works of literature since the beginning of records.
Instead of providing a definition to explain his aim, the author takes the reader to comparisons of historical and linguistic aspects.
-By Homer in the Odyssey; the return of Ulysses to Penelope
-The Old Testament by early Hebraic authors; God鈥檚 test of Abraham鈥檚 faith.
-Petronius鈥檚 Satyricon.
-Ammianus Marcellinus鈥� report of the arrestation of Petrus Volvomeres.
-Gr茅goire de Tours' Histoire des Francs.
-Rolands Song; how he was appointed to lead the rearguard of the French army.
-Chretien de Troyes鈥� Yvain, the story of one of King Arthurs knights.
-Adam, a mystery Christmas play of the 12th century, by anonymous.
-Dante Alighieri鈥檚 Devine Comedy, Farinata and Cavalcante.
-Boccaccio鈥檚 Decameron, Frate Alberto.
-Antoine de la Sale鈥檚 Madame du Chastel.
-Rabelais鈥� Pantagruel.
-Montaigne's鈥� Essais, the Human condition.
-Shakespeare's Henry IV., the tired Prince.
-Cervantes Don Quijote; Dulcinea bewitched.
-La Bruyere鈥檚 Caracteres; The Hypocrite.
-Abb茅 Prevost's Manon Lescaut.
-Schiller's drama Luise Millerin.
-Stendhal鈥檚 Rouge et Noire; Hotel de la Mole.
-Brothers Goncourt鈥檚 Germinie Lacerteux.
-Virginia Woolf鈥檚 To the Lighthouse;
We can see that the author's selection of literature covers almost three thousand years.
His proposed chapters are presented in its original language.
It is, therefore, an advantage for the reader to be multilingual for easy reading and understanding.
This book is for me the first purely Philological work with a wealth of culture revealed in each chapter.
I would highly recommend it to all readers of classics and lovers of literature per se.
September 21, 2008
This thing blew my mind.
January 4, 2013
This book is encompassing and mind-bending in that specifically unique way that will make some people revere it like a religious text and will drive other people absolutely nuts.
As you can see from all the stars I threw at it in my rating, I lean more towards the former camp. I can very much understand why/how someone would wind up disagreeing with Auerbach's thesis (and even more so with his methodology in getting there), but at the same time this book has such an open, ambitious, and kind of lovely approach to literature that I couldn't help but falling in love with it a little. And I honestly do believe that reading it will make you a better reader and a better writer.
Auerbach's main theme is the issue of how reality is represented in literature, particularly how a relatively strict separation of styles and classes gave way in slips and bursts towards a more modern sense of realism in which everyday accidentals could be imbued with tragic weight. He traces the main impetus behind this trend to Christianity, particularly the manner in which the story of Christ broke down traditional literary barriers by allotting tragic weight and grand importance to people who were frequently from the lowest classes of society. This, however, did not immediately lead to a modern sense of realistic representation, predominantly because Christianity also brought with it the concept of figuralism - the idea that every little detail to be represented stands not only for itself, but something in the future and the past, all the better to tie together universal history in a Christian framework. Dante's Comedy is particularly key for Auerbach in this argument. Modern realism takes longer to get going, needing to proceed through a labyrinth of expressions from Shakespeare's limited mixing of styles to neo-classicism in the 18th century, and leading to the birth of modern realism in the Romantic movement.
That's a summary that really doesn't do justice to the work, which is just bursting at the seams with ideas and observations. Auerbach clearly knows loads of stuff about loads of things, and he brings all of it to work for him here - the work covers a solid 3,000 years of literary history but never feels too diffuse. I think a lot of that is because Auerbach grounds all of his chapters in specific, concrete texts. That opens him up to accusations that he simply cherry-picked unrepresentative examples to suit his case, and that's a fair point (and one that Auerbach is explicitly acknowledges). But I think on the whole he makes a compelling case, and this work deserves 5 stars if only for its sheer breadth of ambition and imagination.
PS: It's an undeniably dense book, but one that can be understood even if you're not familiar with literary theory (I'm definitely not) and even if you haven't read all the works he spotlights. I'd love to hear how a modern literary scholar would view this work.
As you can see from all the stars I threw at it in my rating, I lean more towards the former camp. I can very much understand why/how someone would wind up disagreeing with Auerbach's thesis (and even more so with his methodology in getting there), but at the same time this book has such an open, ambitious, and kind of lovely approach to literature that I couldn't help but falling in love with it a little. And I honestly do believe that reading it will make you a better reader and a better writer.
Auerbach's main theme is the issue of how reality is represented in literature, particularly how a relatively strict separation of styles and classes gave way in slips and bursts towards a more modern sense of realism in which everyday accidentals could be imbued with tragic weight. He traces the main impetus behind this trend to Christianity, particularly the manner in which the story of Christ broke down traditional literary barriers by allotting tragic weight and grand importance to people who were frequently from the lowest classes of society. This, however, did not immediately lead to a modern sense of realistic representation, predominantly because Christianity also brought with it the concept of figuralism - the idea that every little detail to be represented stands not only for itself, but something in the future and the past, all the better to tie together universal history in a Christian framework. Dante's Comedy is particularly key for Auerbach in this argument. Modern realism takes longer to get going, needing to proceed through a labyrinth of expressions from Shakespeare's limited mixing of styles to neo-classicism in the 18th century, and leading to the birth of modern realism in the Romantic movement.
That's a summary that really doesn't do justice to the work, which is just bursting at the seams with ideas and observations. Auerbach clearly knows loads of stuff about loads of things, and he brings all of it to work for him here - the work covers a solid 3,000 years of literary history but never feels too diffuse. I think a lot of that is because Auerbach grounds all of his chapters in specific, concrete texts. That opens him up to accusations that he simply cherry-picked unrepresentative examples to suit his case, and that's a fair point (and one that Auerbach is explicitly acknowledges). But I think on the whole he makes a compelling case, and this work deserves 5 stars if only for its sheer breadth of ambition and imagination.
PS: It's an undeniably dense book, but one that can be understood even if you're not familiar with literary theory (I'm definitely not) and even if you haven't read all the works he spotlights. I'd love to hear how a modern literary scholar would view this work.
September 28, 2021
Raccolta di saggi imprescindibile.
June 4, 2019
Mimesis
By Erich Auerbach (1892-1957)
Auerbach was a German philologue, literature critic and author of the German Romantic tradition.
鈥楳imesis鈥� or by the subtitle 鈥業mitation of Reality in Western Literature鈥� is a work of Philological analysis of selected chapters of outstanding works of literature since the beginning of records.
Instead of providing a definition to explain his aim, the author takes the reader to comparisons of historical and linguistic aspects.
-By Homer in the Odyssey; the return of Ulysses to Penelope
-The Old Testament by early Hebraic authors; God鈥檚 test of Abraham鈥檚 faith.
-Petronius鈥檚 Satyricon.
-Ammianus Marcellinus鈥� report of the arrestation of Petrus Volvomeres.
-Gr茅goire de Tours' Histoire des Francs.
-Rolands Song; how he was appointed to lead the rearguard of the French army.
-Chretien de Troyes鈥� Yvain, the story of one of King Arthurs knights.
-Adam, a mystery Christmas play of the 12th century, by anonymous.
-Dante Alighieri鈥檚 Devine Comedy, Farinata and Cavalcante.
-Boccaccio鈥檚 Decameron, Frate Alberto.
-Antoine de la Sale鈥檚 Madame du Chastel.
-Rabelais鈥� Pantagruel.
-Montaigne's鈥� Essais, the Human condition.
-Shakespeare's Henry IV., the tired Prince.
-Cervantes Don Quijote; Dulcinea bewitched.
-La Bruyere鈥檚 Caracteres; The Hypocrite.
-Abb茅 Prevost's Manon Lescaut.
-Schiller's drama Luise Millerin.
-Stendhal鈥檚 Rouge et Noire; Hotel de la Mole.
-Brothers Goncourt鈥檚 Germinie Lacerteux.
-Virginia Woolf鈥檚 To the Lighthouse;
We can see that the author's selection of literature covers almost three thousand years.
His proposed chapters are presented in its original language.
It is, therefore, an advantage for the reader to be multilingual for easy reading and understanding.
This book is for me the first purely Philological work with a wealth of culture revealed in each chapter.
I would highly recommend it to all readers of classics and lovers of literature per se.
By Erich Auerbach (1892-1957)
Auerbach was a German philologue, literature critic and author of the German Romantic tradition.
鈥楳imesis鈥� or by the subtitle 鈥業mitation of Reality in Western Literature鈥� is a work of Philological analysis of selected chapters of outstanding works of literature since the beginning of records.
Instead of providing a definition to explain his aim, the author takes the reader to comparisons of historical and linguistic aspects.
-By Homer in the Odyssey; the return of Ulysses to Penelope
-The Old Testament by early Hebraic authors; God鈥檚 test of Abraham鈥檚 faith.
-Petronius鈥檚 Satyricon.
-Ammianus Marcellinus鈥� report of the arrestation of Petrus Volvomeres.
-Gr茅goire de Tours' Histoire des Francs.
-Rolands Song; how he was appointed to lead the rearguard of the French army.
-Chretien de Troyes鈥� Yvain, the story of one of King Arthurs knights.
-Adam, a mystery Christmas play of the 12th century, by anonymous.
-Dante Alighieri鈥檚 Devine Comedy, Farinata and Cavalcante.
-Boccaccio鈥檚 Decameron, Frate Alberto.
-Antoine de la Sale鈥檚 Madame du Chastel.
-Rabelais鈥� Pantagruel.
-Montaigne's鈥� Essais, the Human condition.
-Shakespeare's Henry IV., the tired Prince.
-Cervantes Don Quijote; Dulcinea bewitched.
-La Bruyere鈥檚 Caracteres; The Hypocrite.
-Abb茅 Prevost's Manon Lescaut.
-Schiller's drama Luise Millerin.
-Stendhal鈥檚 Rouge et Noire; Hotel de la Mole.
-Brothers Goncourt鈥檚 Germinie Lacerteux.
-Virginia Woolf鈥檚 To the Lighthouse;
We can see that the author's selection of literature covers almost three thousand years.
His proposed chapters are presented in its original language.
It is, therefore, an advantage for the reader to be multilingual for easy reading and understanding.
This book is for me the first purely Philological work with a wealth of culture revealed in each chapter.
I would highly recommend it to all readers of classics and lovers of literature per se.
May 15, 2015
I read this in a reading/discussion group with Dr. Richard Stivers, Dr. James Van Der Laan, Rochelle Stivers, and Brian Simpson while in Normal at ISU and finished 18 months after moving to Urbana.
We read a chapter a month (basically) and also read whichever book went along with that chapter. I am not sure when we started but it took us a couple of years. Before reading the final chapter and Woolf's To the Lighthouse we read several other books from around that time frame that were not covered by Auerbach.
I would love to do this again some day with other intelligent, well read, interested, and interesting people.
We read a chapter a month (basically) and also read whichever book went along with that chapter. I am not sure when we started but it took us a couple of years. Before reading the final chapter and Woolf's To the Lighthouse we read several other books from around that time frame that were not covered by Auerbach.
I would love to do this again some day with other intelligent, well read, interested, and interesting people.
January 27, 2023
Just staggering. Leaving aside the erudition required to assimilate so many texts in so many different languages, Auerbach writes with such piercing clarity, stripped of excess, penetrating directly into the the given text. I thought his study on Dante was magnificent, and it's frankly astonishing that he could write that well not just about Dante but, as it turns out, about the whole of European literature.
January 16, 2019
I will not to attempt to review a book of this scope. I will briefly say that Auerbach's intention was to show how literature through the ages interpret reality. He starts with Ancient Greek saga and compares it with Bible epics and shows the different intentions in each.
He moves on to the lore of the middle ages and the impact Christianity had on that literature. He also analyzes the enlightenment and gives one of the most piercing and scathing observations about Voltaire's work. I must say I enjoyed Auerbach reinforcing what I had always thought about Voltaire, namely that the author creates fantasy worlds to prove his enlightenment points. Voltaire loved stretching reality out of proportion and depicting people as buffoons as if this really showed how things were and why his personal philosophy held water.
Another observation he makes about several authors from Voltaire's time to the 20th century is how the Bourgeoisie become the universal scapegoats as to what is wrong with the world. And who is condemning and holding them in contempt? Author and artists from the elite wealthy class who consider it immoral that the middle class should work hard for the material comforts that they, the elite were born into.
His final essay is about Virginia Woolf and really all I learned is that I do not find her a particularly interesting writer. He quotes great swathes of her "To The Lighthouse" which seems bogged down in trivial minutia.
This is a valuable read, but also a weighty one and I am sure someone more intelligent than me could do better justice in reviewing it.
He moves on to the lore of the middle ages and the impact Christianity had on that literature. He also analyzes the enlightenment and gives one of the most piercing and scathing observations about Voltaire's work. I must say I enjoyed Auerbach reinforcing what I had always thought about Voltaire, namely that the author creates fantasy worlds to prove his enlightenment points. Voltaire loved stretching reality out of proportion and depicting people as buffoons as if this really showed how things were and why his personal philosophy held water.
Another observation he makes about several authors from Voltaire's time to the 20th century is how the Bourgeoisie become the universal scapegoats as to what is wrong with the world. And who is condemning and holding them in contempt? Author and artists from the elite wealthy class who consider it immoral that the middle class should work hard for the material comforts that they, the elite were born into.
His final essay is about Virginia Woolf and really all I learned is that I do not find her a particularly interesting writer. He quotes great swathes of her "To The Lighthouse" which seems bogged down in trivial minutia.
This is a valuable read, but also a weighty one and I am sure someone more intelligent than me could do better justice in reviewing it.
March 19, 2021
I鈥檓 a terrible guitarist. I can strum some Beatles songs, pluck along occasionally with a Modest Mouse tune...so why do I still play? Because it is the best way I鈥檝e found to enhance my appreciation for all those wonderful musicians who can play.
In the same vein I read books like this which is above my skill level but still great at enhancing my enjoyment and appreciation of great literature. I could follow along the French parts fairly well but this is a challenging book with the various languages used and the scholarly level of the critical interpretation but as a microcosmic history of literary realism it鈥檚 fantastic, and that鈥檚 really what I was looking for.
In the same vein I read books like this which is above my skill level but still great at enhancing my enjoyment and appreciation of great literature. I could follow along the French parts fairly well but this is a challenging book with the various languages used and the scholarly level of the critical interpretation but as a microcosmic history of literary realism it鈥檚 fantastic, and that鈥檚 really what I was looking for.
July 14, 2021
Among literary criticism this book is a giant.
Strong meat indeed.
Strong meat indeed.
May 9, 2019
Mimesis is the kind of book that reminded me to be thankful for being literate. I've been reading so much, in such a habitual fashion, in many directions and to no particular end, I'd lost awareness of the giddy vastness of the literary expanse.
Anyone who wants to read seriously reads within Auerbach's chronology of Western literary evolution to some extent. It is extremely limited, as Auerbach admits, by his resources and ability. It only covers these works:
1. Odysseus' Scar -- Odyssey by Homer and Genesis 22
2. Fortunata -- Satyricon by Petronius, Annals Book 1 by Tacitus and Mark ch. 14
3. The Arrest of Peter Valvomeres -- Res Gestae by Ammianus Marcellinus
4. Sicharius and Chramnesindus -- History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours
5. Roland Against Ganelon -- Chanson de Roland
6. The Knight Sets Forth -- Yvain by Chr茅tien de Troyes
7. Adam and Eve -- The medieval mystery play Myst猫re d'Adam; St. Bernard of Clairvaux; St. Francis of Assisi
8. Farinata and Cavalcante -- Inferno, The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri
9. Frate Alberto -- The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio
10. Madame Du Chastel -- Le R茅confort de Madame du Fresne by Antoine de la Sale
11. The World in Pantagruel's Mouth -- Gargantua and Pantagruel by Fran莽ois Rabelais
12. L'Humaine Condition -- Essays by Michel de Montaigne
13. The Weary Prince -- Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2 by William Shakespeare
14. The Enchanted Dulcinea -- Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes
15. The Faux D茅vot -- Tartuffe by Moli猫re
16. The Interrupted Supper -- Manon Lescaut by Abb茅 Pr茅vost; Candide by Voltaire; M茅moires by Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon
17. Miller the Musician -- Luise Miller by Friedrich Schiller
18. In the H么tel de la Mole -- The Red and the Black by Stendhal and Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
19. Germinie Lacerteux -- Germinie Lacerteux by Edmond and Jules de Goncourt and Germinal by 脡mile Zola
20. The Brown Stocking -- To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf and In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust
A pretty paltry list, considering what is left out and, to a lesser extent, what is worthy of study since the time of publication. If Auerbach were immortal, I'm sure he would've used his time to write thousands pages more on the literature of the rest of the world, starting from Russia and steadily moving east. We must be reluctantly satisfied with the work of a mortal man.
I read Mimesis quite quickly, as I was always excited about what period of literary history Auerbach would jump into next, whether or not it was an author I knew of, or perhaps had even read, or if it was something I was entirely ignorant of. To the particularly neurotic character of a person with a 欧宝娱乐 account, he is brilliant, because he gives one a reading list that might take a decade to work through, while also offering lucid, compelling explorations into the styles of the texts and how they function. Perhaps if he was a little more boring, I would've been more compelled to take my time and take notes!
There's no real reason to read this book cover-to-cover unless you want to set yourself on a particular scholarly path through every text Auerbach mentions, but if you've read any of these books - you're missing out if you don't at least intend to read a few - Auerbach provides a new sense of appreciation in their aesthetic sensibility and significance. He writes without secondary sources because he didn't have access to any. If you've tried to write essays, that feat is worth exploration in and of itself.
Anyone who wants to read seriously reads within Auerbach's chronology of Western literary evolution to some extent. It is extremely limited, as Auerbach admits, by his resources and ability. It only covers these works:
1. Odysseus' Scar -- Odyssey by Homer and Genesis 22
2. Fortunata -- Satyricon by Petronius, Annals Book 1 by Tacitus and Mark ch. 14
3. The Arrest of Peter Valvomeres -- Res Gestae by Ammianus Marcellinus
4. Sicharius and Chramnesindus -- History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours
5. Roland Against Ganelon -- Chanson de Roland
6. The Knight Sets Forth -- Yvain by Chr茅tien de Troyes
7. Adam and Eve -- The medieval mystery play Myst猫re d'Adam; St. Bernard of Clairvaux; St. Francis of Assisi
8. Farinata and Cavalcante -- Inferno, The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri
9. Frate Alberto -- The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio
10. Madame Du Chastel -- Le R茅confort de Madame du Fresne by Antoine de la Sale
11. The World in Pantagruel's Mouth -- Gargantua and Pantagruel by Fran莽ois Rabelais
12. L'Humaine Condition -- Essays by Michel de Montaigne
13. The Weary Prince -- Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2 by William Shakespeare
14. The Enchanted Dulcinea -- Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes
15. The Faux D茅vot -- Tartuffe by Moli猫re
16. The Interrupted Supper -- Manon Lescaut by Abb茅 Pr茅vost; Candide by Voltaire; M茅moires by Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon
17. Miller the Musician -- Luise Miller by Friedrich Schiller
18. In the H么tel de la Mole -- The Red and the Black by Stendhal and Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
19. Germinie Lacerteux -- Germinie Lacerteux by Edmond and Jules de Goncourt and Germinal by 脡mile Zola
20. The Brown Stocking -- To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf and In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust
A pretty paltry list, considering what is left out and, to a lesser extent, what is worthy of study since the time of publication. If Auerbach were immortal, I'm sure he would've used his time to write thousands pages more on the literature of the rest of the world, starting from Russia and steadily moving east. We must be reluctantly satisfied with the work of a mortal man.
I read Mimesis quite quickly, as I was always excited about what period of literary history Auerbach would jump into next, whether or not it was an author I knew of, or perhaps had even read, or if it was something I was entirely ignorant of. To the particularly neurotic character of a person with a 欧宝娱乐 account, he is brilliant, because he gives one a reading list that might take a decade to work through, while also offering lucid, compelling explorations into the styles of the texts and how they function. Perhaps if he was a little more boring, I would've been more compelled to take my time and take notes!
There's no real reason to read this book cover-to-cover unless you want to set yourself on a particular scholarly path through every text Auerbach mentions, but if you've read any of these books - you're missing out if you don't at least intend to read a few - Auerbach provides a new sense of appreciation in their aesthetic sensibility and significance. He writes without secondary sources because he didn't have access to any. If you've tried to write essays, that feat is worth exploration in and of itself.
Read
December 19, 2010Studying the progressive combination of tragic seriousness with the everyday.
Odysseus' Scar: We are ever foregrounded in the present. No such thing as flashbacks in the characters' minds; the narrator leaves aside the present narrative to tell a past narrative. It is not therefore a multi-layered telling (as is common in modern fiction) but a simple movement on a linear surface line.
... progressive awareness of social strata, the backgrounded figural meaning, etc...
... Farinate and Cavalcante: With Dante comes the vernacular. A mediation between elevated epic language and dialogic voices whose individual personalities/lives exist in preserved vividness even in the afterlife.
Frate Alberto: With Boccaccio comes the exaggeration of that visceral individuality, the primacy of sensory experience and depiction.
... The World in Pantagruel's Mouth: Rabelais' reflection of our world provided by the depiction and commentary of a superior world, which is functionally identical except for the fact that it is aware of ours while ours is ignorant of it.
L'Humaine Condition: Montaigne's conflation/unity of author and book. Idiosyncrasy justified by a changing self reacting to a changing reality. The human condition is contained within the lowest human being and not abstracted into an Everyman.
The Weary Prince: Though Shakespeare has aristocratic tendencies in making only the most socially noble characters tragic, he is the Cosmic Poet because of the interrelatedness of this world he creates and which renews itself with each character. No shyness to name low things amidst high tragedy; all depictions are vividly validated. Even Osric is given individuality despite his being only a plot device. Shakespearean tragedy is distinct from Greek tragedy on two counts: 1) the chronotopic possibility of a story is expanded to any time and place since society now has a sense of history, and 2) tragic events stem from the heart of individual characters rather than from puppet personages.
The Enchanted Dulcinea: The equanimity of Don Quixote's illusion forgoes all questions of value and tragic/comic strata. Everybody exists rightly where they are, including the remarkably intelligent Don Quixote except when his madness strikes him. "The theme of the mad country gentleman who undertakes to revive knight-errantry gave Cervantes an opportunity to present the world as play in that spirit of multiple, perspective, non-judging, and even non-questioning neutrality which is a brave form of wisdom." (357)
...
... The Brown Stocking: Woolf, Joyce, Proust... narrative contingent on consciousness's unpredictability, external events divested of hegemony, the small and ordinary given primacy. "In this unprejudiced and exploratory type of representation we cannot but see to what an extent--below the surface conflicts--the differences between men's ways of life and forms of thought have already lessened. The strata of societies and there different ways of life have become inextricably mingled. There are no longer even exotic peoples. ... Beneath the conflicts, and also through them, an economic and cultural leveling process is taking place. It is still a long way to a common life of mankind on earth, but the goal begins to be visible. And it is most concretely visible now in the unprejudiced, precise, interior and exterior representation of the random moment in the lives of different people." (552)
Odysseus' Scar: We are ever foregrounded in the present. No such thing as flashbacks in the characters' minds; the narrator leaves aside the present narrative to tell a past narrative. It is not therefore a multi-layered telling (as is common in modern fiction) but a simple movement on a linear surface line.
... progressive awareness of social strata, the backgrounded figural meaning, etc...
... Farinate and Cavalcante: With Dante comes the vernacular. A mediation between elevated epic language and dialogic voices whose individual personalities/lives exist in preserved vividness even in the afterlife.
Frate Alberto: With Boccaccio comes the exaggeration of that visceral individuality, the primacy of sensory experience and depiction.
... The World in Pantagruel's Mouth: Rabelais' reflection of our world provided by the depiction and commentary of a superior world, which is functionally identical except for the fact that it is aware of ours while ours is ignorant of it.
L'Humaine Condition: Montaigne's conflation/unity of author and book. Idiosyncrasy justified by a changing self reacting to a changing reality. The human condition is contained within the lowest human being and not abstracted into an Everyman.
The Weary Prince: Though Shakespeare has aristocratic tendencies in making only the most socially noble characters tragic, he is the Cosmic Poet because of the interrelatedness of this world he creates and which renews itself with each character. No shyness to name low things amidst high tragedy; all depictions are vividly validated. Even Osric is given individuality despite his being only a plot device. Shakespearean tragedy is distinct from Greek tragedy on two counts: 1) the chronotopic possibility of a story is expanded to any time and place since society now has a sense of history, and 2) tragic events stem from the heart of individual characters rather than from puppet personages.
The Enchanted Dulcinea: The equanimity of Don Quixote's illusion forgoes all questions of value and tragic/comic strata. Everybody exists rightly where they are, including the remarkably intelligent Don Quixote except when his madness strikes him. "The theme of the mad country gentleman who undertakes to revive knight-errantry gave Cervantes an opportunity to present the world as play in that spirit of multiple, perspective, non-judging, and even non-questioning neutrality which is a brave form of wisdom." (357)
...
... The Brown Stocking: Woolf, Joyce, Proust... narrative contingent on consciousness's unpredictability, external events divested of hegemony, the small and ordinary given primacy. "In this unprejudiced and exploratory type of representation we cannot but see to what an extent--below the surface conflicts--the differences between men's ways of life and forms of thought have already lessened. The strata of societies and there different ways of life have become inextricably mingled. There are no longer even exotic peoples. ... Beneath the conflicts, and also through them, an economic and cultural leveling process is taking place. It is still a long way to a common life of mankind on earth, but the goal begins to be visible. And it is most concretely visible now in the unprejudiced, precise, interior and exterior representation of the random moment in the lives of different people." (552)
September 9, 2024
Sendo um livro enciclop茅dico que percorre milhares de anos da hist贸ria da literatura foi uma leitura lenta que me levou a consider谩veis aprendizagens. O destaque vai especial para o cap铆tulo sobre Homero. E pela proximidade os dois 煤ltimos cap铆tulos sobre o romance realista e o modernismo.
Um livro a que voltarei com certeza.
Um livro a que voltarei com certeza.
April 12, 2018
Autore: tedesco (1892-1957). Saggio critica letteraria. Edizione PBE del 1975.
E鈥� uno di quei testi che annullano il concetto di tempo relativo.
Dimostra che certi scritti sono legati solo al tempo 鈥済iovane鈥�. Il tempo 鈥渕aturo鈥� ha pi霉 riferimenti, informazioni, ma perde in elasticit脿 e concentrazione.
E non dipende dal punto di vista in cui mi colloco. L鈥檕ggettivit脿 猫 una fregatura.
Ogni tanto (ogni tanto) ravano un po鈥� sugli scaffali. Lo chiamo togliere la polvere o riordino, cos矛 mi capitano tra le mani libri che dovrei rileggere (senso di colpa), altri di cui non ricordo quasi nulla (senso di frustrazione), e quelli che a rileggerli dovrei tornare sulle frasi almeno due volte (senso di inadeguatezza).
Polvere sui libri? magico potere del riordino?
Chissenefrega.
9.12.2017
E鈥� uno di quei testi che annullano il concetto di tempo relativo.
Dimostra che certi scritti sono legati solo al tempo 鈥済iovane鈥�. Il tempo 鈥渕aturo鈥� ha pi霉 riferimenti, informazioni, ma perde in elasticit脿 e concentrazione.
E non dipende dal punto di vista in cui mi colloco. L鈥檕ggettivit脿 猫 una fregatura.
Ogni tanto (ogni tanto) ravano un po鈥� sugli scaffali. Lo chiamo togliere la polvere o riordino, cos矛 mi capitano tra le mani libri che dovrei rileggere (senso di colpa), altri di cui non ricordo quasi nulla (senso di frustrazione), e quelli che a rileggerli dovrei tornare sulle frasi almeno due volte (senso di inadeguatezza).
Polvere sui libri? magico potere del riordino?
Chissenefrega.
9.12.2017
January 1, 2018
Auerbach is the dreamguide in literature.
January 25, 2018
Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature
by Erich Auerbach 1946 - 573 p For many readers, both inside and outside the academy, Mimesis is among the finest works of literary criticism ever written.
.A half-century after its translation into English, Erich Auerbach's Mimesis still stands as a monumental achievement in literary criticism. A brilliant display of erudition, wit, and wisdom, his exploration of how great European writers from Homer to Virginia Woolf depicted reality has taught generations how to read Western literature. This new expanded edition includes a substantial essay in introduction by Edward Said as well as an essay, never before translated into English, in which Auerbach responds to his critics.
A German Jew, Auerbach was forced out of his professorship at the University of Marburg in 1935. He left for Turkey, where he taught at the state university in Istanbul. There he wrote Mimesis, publishing it in German after the end of the war. Displaced as he was, Auerbach produced a work of great erudition that contains no footnotes, basing his arguments instead on searching, illuminating readings of key passages from his primary texts. His aim was to show how from antiquity to the twentieth century literature progressed toward ever more naturalistic and democratic forms of representation. This essentially optimistic view of European history now appears as a defensive--and impassioned--response to the inhumanity he saw in the Third Reich. Ranging over works in Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, German, and English, Auerbach used his remarkable skills in philology and comparative literature to refute any narrow form of nationalism or chauvinism, in his own day and ours.
by Erich Auerbach 1946 - 573 p For many readers, both inside and outside the academy, Mimesis is among the finest works of literary criticism ever written.
.A half-century after its translation into English, Erich Auerbach's Mimesis still stands as a monumental achievement in literary criticism. A brilliant display of erudition, wit, and wisdom, his exploration of how great European writers from Homer to Virginia Woolf depicted reality has taught generations how to read Western literature. This new expanded edition includes a substantial essay in introduction by Edward Said as well as an essay, never before translated into English, in which Auerbach responds to his critics.
A German Jew, Auerbach was forced out of his professorship at the University of Marburg in 1935. He left for Turkey, where he taught at the state university in Istanbul. There he wrote Mimesis, publishing it in German after the end of the war. Displaced as he was, Auerbach produced a work of great erudition that contains no footnotes, basing his arguments instead on searching, illuminating readings of key passages from his primary texts. His aim was to show how from antiquity to the twentieth century literature progressed toward ever more naturalistic and democratic forms of representation. This essentially optimistic view of European history now appears as a defensive--and impassioned--response to the inhumanity he saw in the Third Reich. Ranging over works in Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, German, and English, Auerbach used his remarkable skills in philology and comparative literature to refute any narrow form of nationalism or chauvinism, in his own day and ours.
February 22, 2015
one of the great works of philology/literary criticism in world history. opens with a famous reading of homer and the hebrew scripture, and builds it episodically through history, culminating in , which is perhaps as it should be.
Written while on the run from the NSDAP and without his library (though not without a library, as folk history has it), has as its purpose tracing the "complete emancipation" from the doctrine of the ancients regarding literary representation, one which is "more complete, and more significant for later literary forms of the imitation of life, than the mixture of le sublime and le grotesque proclaimed by the contemporary romanticists" (554). that is to say, for "modern realism" (id.).
anyway, very slick local readings of numerous texts here.
Written while on the run from the NSDAP and without his library (though not without a library, as folk history has it), has as its purpose tracing the "complete emancipation" from the doctrine of the ancients regarding literary representation, one which is "more complete, and more significant for later literary forms of the imitation of life, than the mixture of le sublime and le grotesque proclaimed by the contemporary romanticists" (554). that is to say, for "modern realism" (id.).
anyway, very slick local readings of numerous texts here.
March 10, 2017
Esse livro 茅 simplesmente maravilhoso. Se voc锚 茅 "de humanas" mas por algum motivo tem um problema com "os cl谩ssicos", acho que 茅 uma boa entrada, t茫o empolgante 茅 a an谩lise. Quando algo que n茫o tinha lido era discutido, me dava vontade de ler; quando j谩 conhecia o material, era muito gratificante. 脡 testemunho da qualidade art铆stica do pr贸prio livro que ele 茅 uma tentativa de propor e demonstrar algumas teses sobre o que vem a ser a representa莽茫o da realidade na literatura ocidental, mas o texto 茅 t茫o absorvente que isso muitas vezes n茫o passa de um detalhe.
February 9, 2022
Don't let this book intimidate you, the writing flows really nicely.
February 8, 2024
Erich Auerbach鈥檚 monumental work seeks to map out the development of Western realism from antiquity to the early 20th century. He is particularly fascinated about this development from the point of view of the modern depictions of reality, which for him is represented by the serious and problematic portrayal of the world in all its historical mutability, and especially of the lower classes and workaday items and instances. Thus, he does not simply describe how realism has developed, but he often contrasts earlier examples with the modern ones.
The modern realism, as moulded by giants like Joyce, Proust and Woolf, marks the end of completeness of the scenes and includes the element of randomness within the design. Using a similar method, Auerbach seeks to find out different characteristics of various realisms in randomly selected bits of text from the realistic works of Western literature. His thesis is that these characteristics must be discoverable in all excerpts鈥攎uch like modernist writers can find general significances in the most mundane concatenation of events. This naturally means that the definition of realism is a foregone conclusion, but Auerbach does acknowledge this: Mimesis is not a work that defines the term once and for all, but rather it traces a development. I will attempt to state this development in as succinctly as I can (trying to keep my own opinions in check).
Back in antiquity, the separation of styles obtained: it was condemnable to mix the low style with the high style, and the styles had strict objects which they could depict. The low style was for comedy, which depicts everyday things and the lower classes, while the high style was for tragic portrayals of important personages. The epic style was also considered high in status, even if it differs from the tragic.
The classical authors were highly aware of this standard and respected it. However, the separation was not really adhered to in Christian works. In the Bible, the humble mixes with the sublime, and the lowly carpenter鈥檚 son comes to overturn the entire world order. Not to mention the maverick genius of St. Augustine, who would portray his everyday vices with considerable interest and pathos.
The literature of antiquity could touch upon the lower classes and the environs, but it would never treat them seriously or problematically鈥攖heir viewpoint was moral. The social order was left unscathed in even vicious satires, only the individuals are to blame. This trend obtained even as the Empire crumbled, even if the changes did change the tone of the narratives into something more grotesque and distorted. Meanwhile, and onto the Middle Ages, the so-called 鈥渃reatural realism鈥� held sway: Christianity would continue to emphasise the misery of the lives of humble folk and their worries, the transitoriness of all earthly things.
This creatural realism was what Auerbach termed 鈥渇igural鈥�. It retained the historical aspect, the present significance of the things it portrayed, but they simultaneously stood for something transcendental: the perfected things in the world beyond. Thus, the people and things were not described for their own sake or for the sake of social reform, but from the perspective of the greatest tragedy Christianity could know: the Passion of Christ. And also from the point of view of the Last Judgement.
During the Renaissance, when new lands were discovered and many domains underwent upheaval, Man needed to re-orientate himself in the new world. This is the first time proper social critique emerged (in the form of utopian settings), and the elation brought on by scientific breakthroughs and bourgeoning humanism was palpable in the texts of the time. The creatural realism and figuralism took a more secular turn or were entirely abandoned, which can be seen from the buoyant hodgepodge of Rabelais or from the philosophical egoism of Montaigne. Now, bodily matters were no longer emblems of suffering, and humble things were worth serious notice. While the new world had less fixed points of support, the re-orientated people still did not enter the realm of tragic in their descriptions.
Already back in the 14th century, the 鈥減atrician bourgeois鈥� had begun to emerge as a class, and now the middle class had become more solidified, and its needs simultaneously. Also, the rise of the 鈥渆ducated class鈥�, who sought general knowledge, was witnessed. The so-called 鈥渋ntermediate style鈥�, mixing both the low and the tragic into an entertaining amalgam, was created already by Boccaccio, but there was more demand for it now. The proper tragedy was brought into contact with the humble by Shakespeare, whose tragedies always had something of the low style in them. The works of the Elizabethan era on the whole focused more on the heroes鈥� individual characteristics as the driving force of the plays: no longer were they simply pawns of fate. However, the serious portrayal of the lower classes was still not witnessed. Even if Don Quixote takes a step towards the portrayal of the humble folk, yet for Auerbach, it is done more in the spirit of comedy than for actual realistic depiction.
During the 17th and 18th centuries in France, the focus is put on general knowledge and general vocabulary (for specialisation was seen as vulgar), and the characters, especially in tragedies, were of a princely standing. Sensual love and the erotic became worthy of tragic treatment (as opposed to the intermediate style), yet the settings of tragedy take a mighty stride away from anything that is not upper class.
After the French Revolution and its aftereffects, literature began to smack more of modern realism. Artists such as Stendhal, Balzac, the Goncourts and especially Flaubert were more keenly aware of the social reality and its 鈥渕inor鈥� things, and the Sturm und Drang and the Age of Goethe brought in what is termed as 鈥渉istorism鈥�, the acknowledgement of historical forces at play in human societies. However, the first author whom we can truly call modern in their realism is Zola: he mixes styles and raises the question of social reform with works like Germinal.
From Zola, through the vaguely stated influence of Russian literature, we reach the end point: Woolf, Proust and Joyce. Their depictions sunder the ties between external and internal time, bring in various perspectives to everyday phenomena, and call to question the idea of the objective authority of the author. There is an air of freedom and randomness in the narratives, and the voices can attain confusing polyphony at times, poignantly emphasising the fleeting nature of our reality.
That鈥檚 the story. During the course of his research, Auerbach gives us close interpretations on many renowned and less known literary figures, yet he can鈥檛 but omit a great deal, and he can鈥檛 but gloss over certain aspects quite unceremoniously. He barely treats idyllic literature or the works of Ovid, does not mention Sappho once, brusquely thrusts Dickens and Ibsen aside and gives a wide berth to the social commentary of Engels (which preceded Zola鈥檚 by several decades). I also couldn鈥檛 help thinking that Auerbach could have received plenty of insights from English poetry, especially the world-weary cynicism of Sir Walter Raleigh, or the rustic power of Robert Burns.
But the whole project was an unfathomably vast undertaking, and Auerbach acknowledged this. In fact, he pointed out that had he not been in exile in Istanbul, thus having access to a wider selection of literature and especially contemporary periodicals of literary studies, Mimesis might not have come about at all due to its scope. And this would have been a calamity.
For Mimesis is an invaluable work. It has been written by a polyglot, whose ability to read and relish literature is shockingly beautiful. Furthermore, his views and insights, especially given his background and the then-current events in the world, are inspiringly multifaceted and mature. When such a figure relates you the beauty of the styles of St. Francis, St. Jerome, Chanson de Roland or Dante, you hear the genuine tremble in his voice and can see the ecstatic tears trickling. No matter how pointless or amateurish the excerpts may appear to you at first sight, it is likely that the calm charisma of Auerbach will make you change your mind and enlighten you.
We need such works, because they teach us what a wealth of nuances there are in works of literature, and how easy it is to overlook them. Most people probably are inundated with text, and thus it becomes even more difficult to really wind down and take in the words and effects the works of fine literature have to offer to their readership. Auerbach shows us the effects the use of parataxis (such as 鈥渁nd鈥�) and hypotaxis (such as 鈥渂ecause鈥�) can have, and what kind of things affect the tempo of narration. More importantly, his contagious enthusiasm allows us to view works of antiquity, Middle Ages, Renaissance and Restoration more seriously and to withhold crass judgement before their apparent deficiencies. By putting things into a historical perspective, Mimesis creates multiple contexts that broaden our understanding and help us understand, sympathise and enjoy.
Due to the torrents of inspiring data, I sometimes lost the track of the actual thesis of the book and just zoomed in on the individual aspects of the works under scrutiny. For example, I couldn鈥檛 quite understand why Voltaire, a satirist, was included here, but I loved the way Auerbach shed light on his propagandist techniques: searchlight way of obscuring the 鈥渢ruth鈥� and a rapid tempo and graceful language. Neither was I entirely sold on what was said on Saint-Simon, but the way Auerbach contextualised his apparently randomly collated character portraits against the backdrop of French classicism and post-classicism made my eyes dilate. In addition, the subject of love was of particular interest, since it is all too easy to regard it as a ubiquitous topic that has barely developed across millennia鈥攚hat a foolish statement that would be!
I loved most chapters and gleaned copious insights from them, but above all I revere the chapters on the Odyssey, the Bible, Dante and Shakespeare. My understanding of Homer鈥檚 crystal immediacy was broadened; my appreciation for the reticence and imperiousness of the Bible was deepened; my distant reverence towards Dante鈥檚 secular side and his portrayal of humans was imbued with heartfelt adoration; and my realisation of the significance of Shakespeare solidified, while the vastness of his creation gained an extra dimension.
A monument, a monument! It provided a great framework for future research, but it also gifted its readers the silent solemnity of a temple, under whose tranquil influence we may more deeply appreciate the works of mankind.
The modern realism, as moulded by giants like Joyce, Proust and Woolf, marks the end of completeness of the scenes and includes the element of randomness within the design. Using a similar method, Auerbach seeks to find out different characteristics of various realisms in randomly selected bits of text from the realistic works of Western literature. His thesis is that these characteristics must be discoverable in all excerpts鈥攎uch like modernist writers can find general significances in the most mundane concatenation of events. This naturally means that the definition of realism is a foregone conclusion, but Auerbach does acknowledge this: Mimesis is not a work that defines the term once and for all, but rather it traces a development. I will attempt to state this development in as succinctly as I can (trying to keep my own opinions in check).
Back in antiquity, the separation of styles obtained: it was condemnable to mix the low style with the high style, and the styles had strict objects which they could depict. The low style was for comedy, which depicts everyday things and the lower classes, while the high style was for tragic portrayals of important personages. The epic style was also considered high in status, even if it differs from the tragic.
The classical authors were highly aware of this standard and respected it. However, the separation was not really adhered to in Christian works. In the Bible, the humble mixes with the sublime, and the lowly carpenter鈥檚 son comes to overturn the entire world order. Not to mention the maverick genius of St. Augustine, who would portray his everyday vices with considerable interest and pathos.
The literature of antiquity could touch upon the lower classes and the environs, but it would never treat them seriously or problematically鈥攖heir viewpoint was moral. The social order was left unscathed in even vicious satires, only the individuals are to blame. This trend obtained even as the Empire crumbled, even if the changes did change the tone of the narratives into something more grotesque and distorted. Meanwhile, and onto the Middle Ages, the so-called 鈥渃reatural realism鈥� held sway: Christianity would continue to emphasise the misery of the lives of humble folk and their worries, the transitoriness of all earthly things.
This creatural realism was what Auerbach termed 鈥渇igural鈥�. It retained the historical aspect, the present significance of the things it portrayed, but they simultaneously stood for something transcendental: the perfected things in the world beyond. Thus, the people and things were not described for their own sake or for the sake of social reform, but from the perspective of the greatest tragedy Christianity could know: the Passion of Christ. And also from the point of view of the Last Judgement.
During the Renaissance, when new lands were discovered and many domains underwent upheaval, Man needed to re-orientate himself in the new world. This is the first time proper social critique emerged (in the form of utopian settings), and the elation brought on by scientific breakthroughs and bourgeoning humanism was palpable in the texts of the time. The creatural realism and figuralism took a more secular turn or were entirely abandoned, which can be seen from the buoyant hodgepodge of Rabelais or from the philosophical egoism of Montaigne. Now, bodily matters were no longer emblems of suffering, and humble things were worth serious notice. While the new world had less fixed points of support, the re-orientated people still did not enter the realm of tragic in their descriptions.
Already back in the 14th century, the 鈥減atrician bourgeois鈥� had begun to emerge as a class, and now the middle class had become more solidified, and its needs simultaneously. Also, the rise of the 鈥渆ducated class鈥�, who sought general knowledge, was witnessed. The so-called 鈥渋ntermediate style鈥�, mixing both the low and the tragic into an entertaining amalgam, was created already by Boccaccio, but there was more demand for it now. The proper tragedy was brought into contact with the humble by Shakespeare, whose tragedies always had something of the low style in them. The works of the Elizabethan era on the whole focused more on the heroes鈥� individual characteristics as the driving force of the plays: no longer were they simply pawns of fate. However, the serious portrayal of the lower classes was still not witnessed. Even if Don Quixote takes a step towards the portrayal of the humble folk, yet for Auerbach, it is done more in the spirit of comedy than for actual realistic depiction.
During the 17th and 18th centuries in France, the focus is put on general knowledge and general vocabulary (for specialisation was seen as vulgar), and the characters, especially in tragedies, were of a princely standing. Sensual love and the erotic became worthy of tragic treatment (as opposed to the intermediate style), yet the settings of tragedy take a mighty stride away from anything that is not upper class.
After the French Revolution and its aftereffects, literature began to smack more of modern realism. Artists such as Stendhal, Balzac, the Goncourts and especially Flaubert were more keenly aware of the social reality and its 鈥渕inor鈥� things, and the Sturm und Drang and the Age of Goethe brought in what is termed as 鈥渉istorism鈥�, the acknowledgement of historical forces at play in human societies. However, the first author whom we can truly call modern in their realism is Zola: he mixes styles and raises the question of social reform with works like Germinal.
From Zola, through the vaguely stated influence of Russian literature, we reach the end point: Woolf, Proust and Joyce. Their depictions sunder the ties between external and internal time, bring in various perspectives to everyday phenomena, and call to question the idea of the objective authority of the author. There is an air of freedom and randomness in the narratives, and the voices can attain confusing polyphony at times, poignantly emphasising the fleeting nature of our reality.
That鈥檚 the story. During the course of his research, Auerbach gives us close interpretations on many renowned and less known literary figures, yet he can鈥檛 but omit a great deal, and he can鈥檛 but gloss over certain aspects quite unceremoniously. He barely treats idyllic literature or the works of Ovid, does not mention Sappho once, brusquely thrusts Dickens and Ibsen aside and gives a wide berth to the social commentary of Engels (which preceded Zola鈥檚 by several decades). I also couldn鈥檛 help thinking that Auerbach could have received plenty of insights from English poetry, especially the world-weary cynicism of Sir Walter Raleigh, or the rustic power of Robert Burns.
But the whole project was an unfathomably vast undertaking, and Auerbach acknowledged this. In fact, he pointed out that had he not been in exile in Istanbul, thus having access to a wider selection of literature and especially contemporary periodicals of literary studies, Mimesis might not have come about at all due to its scope. And this would have been a calamity.
For Mimesis is an invaluable work. It has been written by a polyglot, whose ability to read and relish literature is shockingly beautiful. Furthermore, his views and insights, especially given his background and the then-current events in the world, are inspiringly multifaceted and mature. When such a figure relates you the beauty of the styles of St. Francis, St. Jerome, Chanson de Roland or Dante, you hear the genuine tremble in his voice and can see the ecstatic tears trickling. No matter how pointless or amateurish the excerpts may appear to you at first sight, it is likely that the calm charisma of Auerbach will make you change your mind and enlighten you.
We need such works, because they teach us what a wealth of nuances there are in works of literature, and how easy it is to overlook them. Most people probably are inundated with text, and thus it becomes even more difficult to really wind down and take in the words and effects the works of fine literature have to offer to their readership. Auerbach shows us the effects the use of parataxis (such as 鈥渁nd鈥�) and hypotaxis (such as 鈥渂ecause鈥�) can have, and what kind of things affect the tempo of narration. More importantly, his contagious enthusiasm allows us to view works of antiquity, Middle Ages, Renaissance and Restoration more seriously and to withhold crass judgement before their apparent deficiencies. By putting things into a historical perspective, Mimesis creates multiple contexts that broaden our understanding and help us understand, sympathise and enjoy.
Due to the torrents of inspiring data, I sometimes lost the track of the actual thesis of the book and just zoomed in on the individual aspects of the works under scrutiny. For example, I couldn鈥檛 quite understand why Voltaire, a satirist, was included here, but I loved the way Auerbach shed light on his propagandist techniques: searchlight way of obscuring the 鈥渢ruth鈥� and a rapid tempo and graceful language. Neither was I entirely sold on what was said on Saint-Simon, but the way Auerbach contextualised his apparently randomly collated character portraits against the backdrop of French classicism and post-classicism made my eyes dilate. In addition, the subject of love was of particular interest, since it is all too easy to regard it as a ubiquitous topic that has barely developed across millennia鈥攚hat a foolish statement that would be!
I loved most chapters and gleaned copious insights from them, but above all I revere the chapters on the Odyssey, the Bible, Dante and Shakespeare. My understanding of Homer鈥檚 crystal immediacy was broadened; my appreciation for the reticence and imperiousness of the Bible was deepened; my distant reverence towards Dante鈥檚 secular side and his portrayal of humans was imbued with heartfelt adoration; and my realisation of the significance of Shakespeare solidified, while the vastness of his creation gained an extra dimension.
A monument, a monument! It provided a great framework for future research, but it also gifted its readers the silent solemnity of a temple, under whose tranquil influence we may more deeply appreciate the works of mankind.
January 27, 2025
Ten stars. Twenty stars? This is what literature is for. Any bounty I could have reaped from becoming a dermatologist instead of studying books has been won back tenfold by getting to read this. It鈥檚 dense and technical, but so alive, lit from within by the author鈥檚 erudition and care. Sending all love & admiration to Auerbach, who I imagine sipping espresso with Dante in heaven.
January 27, 2021
I read the Introduction and Epilogue, as well as the following chapters: 1, 2, 8, 12, 14, & 20. For anyone even remotely interested in literary criticism, I highly recommend this book. Auerbach writes with such genuine love for the material, is heartfelt in his treatment of the texts, his reflections contain such substance and grit, that I found myself at times moved, at times pensive, and even laughing aloud (his section on Don Quixote is great) while reading this, experiences I rarely associate with literary criticism. I think this is partly due to his treatment of the text itself without reliance on much outside material: there are no notes, no bibliography, very few references to other scholars. Rather, this book is Auerbach's raw (though well thought-out) reflections on how reality is portrayed and aesthetically constructed in the great works of Western Literature. In my opinion, this is what literary criticism is supposed to be, or at least the type of criticism I would like to read and create.
February 25, 2017
Not only a monument of literary criticism, but one of the most thrilling adventures of the mind, ever-- EA traces the development of the "representation of reality" from Homer and the Old Testament to twentieth century writers. Two chapters were particularly illuminating, the one on Dante which deals with the Farinata/Cavalcante Episode and the initial chapter which is a comparative study of mimetic techniques in Homer and the Book of Genesis. Edward Said's introduction is also very good; he places EA and his work in context and discusses the immense influence this book has had.
May 30, 2020
Auerbach's overall project in this outrageously ambitious book鈥攎apping the development of the 鈥渞epresentation of reality鈥� over the course of Western literature from Homer to Virginia Woolf鈥攊s a little perplexing, and at times incoherent. It鈥檚 never exactly clear what Auerbach means by 鈥渞eality鈥�; the definition seems to shift through the book; and it鈥檚 also not clear why he chose to focus on realism as the sine qua non of literary merit or success, as opposed to any number of other aspects of literature.
In the Epilogue, Auerbach acknowledges that 鈥淸n]ot even the term 鈥榬ealistic鈥� is unambiguous,鈥� as he uses it throughout the book. And he even hints that though mapping the career of realism in Western literature was his project, the 鈥渟pecific purpose鈥� that 鈥済uided鈥� his 鈥渋nterpretations鈥� of the various texts he took up 鈥渁ssumed form only as [he] went along, playing as it were with [his] texts, and for long stretches of [the] way, [he was] guided only by the texts themselves,鈥� which he acknowledges were largely 鈥渃hosen at random, on the basis of accidental acquaintance and personal preference rather than in view of a definite purpose.鈥� (Epilogue.)
It does sound like Auerbach is quietly backing away from making any sweeping judgments or conclusions about the career of realism in literature, and is instead noting that he took a random path, guided by an aleatory assortment of texts, and wandered where the texts took him; and that鈥檚 what a lot of this book feels like. There鈥檚 certainly great pleasure in watching Auerbach carry out his meticulous close readings of various texts and provide a historical context of the development of literature he maps. But one shouldn鈥檛 expect, as Auerbach acknowledges, some grand overarching theory or conclusion to emerge.
* * * * *
To take one example, the chapter on Montaigne's Essays felt out of place, coming after many chapters on fictional forms of literary representation. What did Montaigne's writing have to do with fictional forms of representation? I get that Auerbach likely selected Montaigne because of his uninhibited range of topics鈥攆rom literature to farting. But this valorization of the mixture of styles, of the ability to deftly incorporate high and low, the sublime and the grotesque (or 鈥渃reatural鈥�), and to provide concrete, realistic representations of reality, seems a little overemphasized by Auerbach. Or, perhaps, it just feels like that emphasis doesn't bear the weight that's put on it by him, and also feels like not all that overwhelming a point. Montaigne helps him show a successful mixture of styles, but so what?
Auerbach comes back, again and again through the book, to the significance of the Christ story shattering old barriers between high and low styles: The Christ story placed a focus on the poor, the non-aristocratic for the first time, in a way that was not comic or boorish, but serious and tragic; and Western literature bobbed in the wake of that seminal event for a while. But, again, this argument feels a little tendentious to me. Is Auerbach trying to map a progression or development in Western Lit鈥攁s one might try to map the development and steady improvement of, say, techniques of perspective in painting, or lifelike qualities and structural freedom in sculpture? Because that project seems fundamentally wrong-headed (though that's probably too strong a word for it).
But there鈥檚 something odd about Auerbach鈥檚 insistent focus on reality (and therefore successful literary representation) being the presentation of the 鈥渉uman beings in the midst of their everyday environment, with their background, multifarious relations, their possessions, every particle of their bodies, their gestures, every nuance of their speech, their hopes, and their fears,鈥� expressing both 鈥減hysical [creatural?] and . . . spiritual factors,鈥� with 鈥渁bsolute precision, scorning nothing.鈥� (Ch. 16.)
What Auerbach describes here sounds a lot like how an art historian might describe Dutch or Flemish realism, the work of Vermeer, Van Eyck, Bruegel, et al. (Indeed, he makes a direct comparison between the coarse literary realism of Zola and Dutch and Flemish painterly realism in Chapter 19.) Thought of in terms of varying historical styles, Auerbach鈥檚 project seems all the stranger. Why fixate and elevate this type of precise, concrete, everyday realism above other styles? Above impressionism, abstraction, the fantastic, etc.? And does it make any sense to focus on the representation of 鈥渞eality鈥� when analyzing, say, The Inferno?
Auerbach seems to set up a running contrast between the brittle, stiff, pleonastic, turgid, pompous, conventional鈥攖he lifeless, or 鈥渦nrealistic鈥濃€攖exts of and medieval writers versus the vernacular, demotic, multiplex, whole, broad, human, vivid, robust鈥攖he alive, or 鈥渞ealistic鈥濃€攖exts of more successful writers, those who more successfully represented 鈥渞eality.鈥� The adjectives I鈥檝e listed here seem to get deployed again and again through the book by Auerbach in creating the faint outlines of his division between the 鈥渞ealistic鈥� and the 鈥渦nrealistic.鈥�
But it鈥檚 not quite enough in his view that the representation be alive and concrete and depicting everyday life. As he says about Dante and Montaigne, the author must also be in command of both high and low styles, must depict the everyday from a perspective of learning and wisdom. As he says about Zola,
(Ch. 19.)
Perhaps this is a form of complexity鈥攁 kind of deeply granular photorealism in representation鈥攖hat he values, and that he calls 鈥渞ealism.鈥� To capture reality, in his view, an author must faithfully and seriously capture high and low. To me, these evaluations of whether a text was succesfully 鈥渞ealistic鈥� simply began to sound like an appraisal of whether a text was successful, with 鈥渞ealistic鈥� becoming a stand in for 鈥渟uccessful.鈥�
Because whether a text is successful, whether it has power and a hold over us鈥攖hat鈥檚 very difficult to articulate or explain with any kind of precision. I wonder if Auerbach was trying here to figure out a way to talk about the frustrating ideas of appreciation鈥攚hy we like some writing more than others鈥攊n a more concrete and systematic way, and settled on 鈥渞ealism,鈥� a project that was never going to work, as it was a stand-in for whether a work was successful, a hopelessly complex question?
Sidenote: A 2012 article in The New Yorker on Mimesis made the following observation re Auerbach's holding up of the common man's experience as the ultimate goal of representation:
It鈥檚 a fair point, and there are times, especially near the end, where Auerbach鈥檚 meandering takes on 鈥渞ealism鈥� begin to feel like a gesture toward a Marxism-lite, without actually pushing on toward an actual Marxist critique.
* * * * *
As to the teleology of literary development Auerbach attempts to map, modernism in Virginia Woolf and Proust and Co., his final destination, is surely not some apotheosis of literary evolution. That鈥檚 not how the history of art (or literature) works? Always higher and better? Literary evolution is probably more like actual evolution: Sometimes things devolve into simpler forms. Sometimes they evolve into "higher" forms. But there's not necessarily a teleology of upwards and better toward the angels and pure light, etc.?
Auerbach seems to recognize this to some degree, as he notes that even after the crisis of the Christ story, Western Lit struggled with the conflict between stiff, turgid medieval forms, and more "lifelike," concrete, vivid forms of representation of reality.
* * * * *
All of that said, the book somehow manages to remain interesting and weirdly compelling despite the patent flaws with the project and the overall thesis. It's the industriousness with which Auerbach dives into each text he's selected that's compelling. His precision and acute attention to minutiae are kind of thrilling, in the weird mania of it all. I've found that, after spending time with this book, I come away a bit more hyper-attuned to the syntax and form of the things I'm reading, and the things I might be writing.
That is to say, the book isn鈥檛 all that compelling in presenting an overarching argument about the history of Western literature, but it is compelling in how Auerbach goes about offering a close reading (I think I'm using that term correctly here) of each text he chooses, and a historical context for the text, analyzing how each text works, etc. My interest was maintained by the variety of each new chapter: I was curious to see what he had to say about Shakespeare or Cervantes or Montaigne, and how he would apply his techniques of dissection to them. Watching him at work is the pleasure, not so much the grand theory that one comes away with.
As a further aside, going backward in the history of literary criticism to Mimesis could itself be seen as a recognition that literary criticism, like literature itself, does not necessarily constantly evolve to higher and better forms. There are swings, trends, and corrections. It's interesting to note that the technique of close reading, which was much emphasized by the school of New Criticism, and which went out of style for its generally detached, clinical, ahistorical, and apolitical approach, appears to be making tentative steps back towards relevance. (Auerbach's approach doesn't seem to fit into the box of New Criticism, as its purpose is to provide a historical context for texts, and suggest a historical trend, based on insights gleaned from close readings of texts seemingly chosen at random--like an analysis of broken pottery at archaeological sites or fossilized femurs.)
That the techniques of close reading may be having a new moment makes sense. What is it English majors actually do? Yes, they can deconstruct or apply psychoanalysis to texts, often, in the process, reducing, ignoring, and simplifying in the way structuralists did before them, to successfully achieve the ends of their deconstructive or psychoanalytic projects. But after the project is completed, the text remains, mocking the successful deconstruction or psychoanalysis: It's still a thing of pleasure, beauty, power. What is that? How does that work? What school of analysis or method do we have for understanding that? And here, maybe, is where close reading still has a role to play. Trying to actually figure out how language works in literature, how it achieves the effects that it does, etc. Is this going backwards? Maybe? Maybe it's a synthesis of techniques and approaches over time? I don鈥檛 know, but there鈥檚 much to be gained in an engagement with Auerbach and his somewhat Quixotic project. It鈥檚 worth taking a look back at the brand of serious, meticulous close reading, attention to context and the history of literature, and broad erudition that Auerbach offers here.
In the Epilogue, Auerbach acknowledges that 鈥淸n]ot even the term 鈥榬ealistic鈥� is unambiguous,鈥� as he uses it throughout the book. And he even hints that though mapping the career of realism in Western literature was his project, the 鈥渟pecific purpose鈥� that 鈥済uided鈥� his 鈥渋nterpretations鈥� of the various texts he took up 鈥渁ssumed form only as [he] went along, playing as it were with [his] texts, and for long stretches of [the] way, [he was] guided only by the texts themselves,鈥� which he acknowledges were largely 鈥渃hosen at random, on the basis of accidental acquaintance and personal preference rather than in view of a definite purpose.鈥� (Epilogue.)
It does sound like Auerbach is quietly backing away from making any sweeping judgments or conclusions about the career of realism in literature, and is instead noting that he took a random path, guided by an aleatory assortment of texts, and wandered where the texts took him; and that鈥檚 what a lot of this book feels like. There鈥檚 certainly great pleasure in watching Auerbach carry out his meticulous close readings of various texts and provide a historical context of the development of literature he maps. But one shouldn鈥檛 expect, as Auerbach acknowledges, some grand overarching theory or conclusion to emerge.
* * * * *
To take one example, the chapter on Montaigne's Essays felt out of place, coming after many chapters on fictional forms of literary representation. What did Montaigne's writing have to do with fictional forms of representation? I get that Auerbach likely selected Montaigne because of his uninhibited range of topics鈥攆rom literature to farting. But this valorization of the mixture of styles, of the ability to deftly incorporate high and low, the sublime and the grotesque (or 鈥渃reatural鈥�), and to provide concrete, realistic representations of reality, seems a little overemphasized by Auerbach. Or, perhaps, it just feels like that emphasis doesn't bear the weight that's put on it by him, and also feels like not all that overwhelming a point. Montaigne helps him show a successful mixture of styles, but so what?
Auerbach comes back, again and again through the book, to the significance of the Christ story shattering old barriers between high and low styles: The Christ story placed a focus on the poor, the non-aristocratic for the first time, in a way that was not comic or boorish, but serious and tragic; and Western literature bobbed in the wake of that seminal event for a while. But, again, this argument feels a little tendentious to me. Is Auerbach trying to map a progression or development in Western Lit鈥攁s one might try to map the development and steady improvement of, say, techniques of perspective in painting, or lifelike qualities and structural freedom in sculpture? Because that project seems fundamentally wrong-headed (though that's probably too strong a word for it).
But there鈥檚 something odd about Auerbach鈥檚 insistent focus on reality (and therefore successful literary representation) being the presentation of the 鈥渉uman beings in the midst of their everyday environment, with their background, multifarious relations, their possessions, every particle of their bodies, their gestures, every nuance of their speech, their hopes, and their fears,鈥� expressing both 鈥減hysical [creatural?] and . . . spiritual factors,鈥� with 鈥渁bsolute precision, scorning nothing.鈥� (Ch. 16.)
What Auerbach describes here sounds a lot like how an art historian might describe Dutch or Flemish realism, the work of Vermeer, Van Eyck, Bruegel, et al. (Indeed, he makes a direct comparison between the coarse literary realism of Zola and Dutch and Flemish painterly realism in Chapter 19.) Thought of in terms of varying historical styles, Auerbach鈥檚 project seems all the stranger. Why fixate and elevate this type of precise, concrete, everyday realism above other styles? Above impressionism, abstraction, the fantastic, etc.? And does it make any sense to focus on the representation of 鈥渞eality鈥� when analyzing, say, The Inferno?
Auerbach seems to set up a running contrast between the brittle, stiff, pleonastic, turgid, pompous, conventional鈥攖he lifeless, or 鈥渦nrealistic鈥濃€攖exts of and medieval writers versus the vernacular, demotic, multiplex, whole, broad, human, vivid, robust鈥攖he alive, or 鈥渞ealistic鈥濃€攖exts of more successful writers, those who more successfully represented 鈥渞eality.鈥� The adjectives I鈥檝e listed here seem to get deployed again and again through the book by Auerbach in creating the faint outlines of his division between the 鈥渞ealistic鈥� and the 鈥渦nrealistic.鈥�
But it鈥檚 not quite enough in his view that the representation be alive and concrete and depicting everyday life. As he says about Dante and Montaigne, the author must also be in command of both high and low styles, must depict the everyday from a perspective of learning and wisdom. As he says about Zola,
[He] knows how these [industrial workers] thought and talked. He also knows every detail of the technical side of mining; he knows the psychology of the various classes of workers and of the administration, the functioning of the central management, the competition between the capitalist groups, the cooperation of the interests in capital, with the government, the army. But he did not confine himself to writing about industrial workers. His purpose was to comprise . . . the whole life of the period . . . : the people of Paris, the rural population, the theater, the department stores, the stock exchange, and very much more besides. He made himself an expert in all fields; everywhere he penetrated into social structure and technology.
(Ch. 19.)
Perhaps this is a form of complexity鈥攁 kind of deeply granular photorealism in representation鈥攖hat he values, and that he calls 鈥渞ealism.鈥� To capture reality, in his view, an author must faithfully and seriously capture high and low. To me, these evaluations of whether a text was succesfully 鈥渞ealistic鈥� simply began to sound like an appraisal of whether a text was successful, with 鈥渞ealistic鈥� becoming a stand in for 鈥渟uccessful.鈥�
Because whether a text is successful, whether it has power and a hold over us鈥攖hat鈥檚 very difficult to articulate or explain with any kind of precision. I wonder if Auerbach was trying here to figure out a way to talk about the frustrating ideas of appreciation鈥攚hy we like some writing more than others鈥攊n a more concrete and systematic way, and settled on 鈥渞ealism,鈥� a project that was never going to work, as it was a stand-in for whether a work was successful, a hopelessly complex question?
Sidenote: A 2012 article in The New Yorker on Mimesis made the following observation re Auerbach's holding up of the common man's experience as the ultimate goal of representation:
[Auerbach鈥檚] characterization of realism as the unvarnished re毛nactment of the common man鈥檚 sojourn on earth is oddly restrictive. As [Terry] Eagleton pointed out [in critiquing Mimesis], ordinary life is no more real than "courts and country houses," and "cucumber sandwiches are no less ontologically solid than pie and beans."
It鈥檚 a fair point, and there are times, especially near the end, where Auerbach鈥檚 meandering takes on 鈥渞ealism鈥� begin to feel like a gesture toward a Marxism-lite, without actually pushing on toward an actual Marxist critique.
* * * * *
As to the teleology of literary development Auerbach attempts to map, modernism in Virginia Woolf and Proust and Co., his final destination, is surely not some apotheosis of literary evolution. That鈥檚 not how the history of art (or literature) works? Always higher and better? Literary evolution is probably more like actual evolution: Sometimes things devolve into simpler forms. Sometimes they evolve into "higher" forms. But there's not necessarily a teleology of upwards and better toward the angels and pure light, etc.?
Auerbach seems to recognize this to some degree, as he notes that even after the crisis of the Christ story, Western Lit struggled with the conflict between stiff, turgid medieval forms, and more "lifelike," concrete, vivid forms of representation of reality.
* * * * *
All of that said, the book somehow manages to remain interesting and weirdly compelling despite the patent flaws with the project and the overall thesis. It's the industriousness with which Auerbach dives into each text he's selected that's compelling. His precision and acute attention to minutiae are kind of thrilling, in the weird mania of it all. I've found that, after spending time with this book, I come away a bit more hyper-attuned to the syntax and form of the things I'm reading, and the things I might be writing.
That is to say, the book isn鈥檛 all that compelling in presenting an overarching argument about the history of Western literature, but it is compelling in how Auerbach goes about offering a close reading (I think I'm using that term correctly here) of each text he chooses, and a historical context for the text, analyzing how each text works, etc. My interest was maintained by the variety of each new chapter: I was curious to see what he had to say about Shakespeare or Cervantes or Montaigne, and how he would apply his techniques of dissection to them. Watching him at work is the pleasure, not so much the grand theory that one comes away with.
As a further aside, going backward in the history of literary criticism to Mimesis could itself be seen as a recognition that literary criticism, like literature itself, does not necessarily constantly evolve to higher and better forms. There are swings, trends, and corrections. It's interesting to note that the technique of close reading, which was much emphasized by the school of New Criticism, and which went out of style for its generally detached, clinical, ahistorical, and apolitical approach, appears to be making tentative steps back towards relevance. (Auerbach's approach doesn't seem to fit into the box of New Criticism, as its purpose is to provide a historical context for texts, and suggest a historical trend, based on insights gleaned from close readings of texts seemingly chosen at random--like an analysis of broken pottery at archaeological sites or fossilized femurs.)
That the techniques of close reading may be having a new moment makes sense. What is it English majors actually do? Yes, they can deconstruct or apply psychoanalysis to texts, often, in the process, reducing, ignoring, and simplifying in the way structuralists did before them, to successfully achieve the ends of their deconstructive or psychoanalytic projects. But after the project is completed, the text remains, mocking the successful deconstruction or psychoanalysis: It's still a thing of pleasure, beauty, power. What is that? How does that work? What school of analysis or method do we have for understanding that? And here, maybe, is where close reading still has a role to play. Trying to actually figure out how language works in literature, how it achieves the effects that it does, etc. Is this going backwards? Maybe? Maybe it's a synthesis of techniques and approaches over time? I don鈥檛 know, but there鈥檚 much to be gained in an engagement with Auerbach and his somewhat Quixotic project. It鈥檚 worth taking a look back at the brand of serious, meticulous close reading, attention to context and the history of literature, and broad erudition that Auerbach offers here.
November 15, 2024
I found this to be an incredibly frustrating read, both methodologically and stylistically.
Methodologically (and part of the frustration is that Auerbach doesn't explain his approach until the "Epilogue"), the book charts a series of "motifs" gleaned through a lifetime of reading 鈥� in particular, the classical separation of styles (high and low, tragedy and comedy) versus the modern realist portrayal of the everyday (in authors such as Balzac and Woolf). Auerbach takes these motifs and, over the course of 550+ pages, applies them to a hodgepodge of Western texts spanning thousands of years, from Augustine to Zola, "the majority" of which, Auerbach tells us, "were chosen at random."
Each chapter proceeds in much the same fashion. Auerbach reproduces a lengthy passage in its native language, followed by, in Princeton Classics edition, an English translation. Subsequent quotations, annoyingly, are left untranslated. Auerbach then restates the text in his own words 鈥� sometimes it鈥檚 a sentence-by-sentence retelling 鈥� framed in such a way as to lend credence to his thesis. The effect for the reader is not unlike hearing a lecture on literature by an erudite but not especially prepared professor, who seeks to impress more so with the breadth of his knowledge than with the clarity of his analysis.
Suffice to say, the project is as ambitious as it is haphazard. And perhaps that wouldn't be a problem were Mimesis not written (or translated) in such dry, unduly technical mid-century academic prose. (Take, for instance, the discussion on Montaigne, which Auerbach needlessly complicates by invoking 鈥� in a rather loose fashion 鈥� the language of syllogistic logic; the fact that he misapplies the logical concepts he cites in no way detracts from his main points, but it does put up a veil between the reader and his analysis.) Here鈥檚 something else that would鈥檝e improved the book鈥檚 readability: the occasional paragraph break.
At the end of the day, speaking as someone familiar with at least some (but in no way all) of the primary texts discussed in this book, I found that Mimesis commits that cardinal sin of criticism: by approaching these texts through the (sometimes forced) lens of high-level motifs, it often fails to meet them on their own terms and ends up being less perceptive, less creative and less engaging than much of its source material.
Methodologically (and part of the frustration is that Auerbach doesn't explain his approach until the "Epilogue"), the book charts a series of "motifs" gleaned through a lifetime of reading 鈥� in particular, the classical separation of styles (high and low, tragedy and comedy) versus the modern realist portrayal of the everyday (in authors such as Balzac and Woolf). Auerbach takes these motifs and, over the course of 550+ pages, applies them to a hodgepodge of Western texts spanning thousands of years, from Augustine to Zola, "the majority" of which, Auerbach tells us, "were chosen at random."
Each chapter proceeds in much the same fashion. Auerbach reproduces a lengthy passage in its native language, followed by, in Princeton Classics edition, an English translation. Subsequent quotations, annoyingly, are left untranslated. Auerbach then restates the text in his own words 鈥� sometimes it鈥檚 a sentence-by-sentence retelling 鈥� framed in such a way as to lend credence to his thesis. The effect for the reader is not unlike hearing a lecture on literature by an erudite but not especially prepared professor, who seeks to impress more so with the breadth of his knowledge than with the clarity of his analysis.
Suffice to say, the project is as ambitious as it is haphazard. And perhaps that wouldn't be a problem were Mimesis not written (or translated) in such dry, unduly technical mid-century academic prose. (Take, for instance, the discussion on Montaigne, which Auerbach needlessly complicates by invoking 鈥� in a rather loose fashion 鈥� the language of syllogistic logic; the fact that he misapplies the logical concepts he cites in no way detracts from his main points, but it does put up a veil between the reader and his analysis.) Here鈥檚 something else that would鈥檝e improved the book鈥檚 readability: the occasional paragraph break.
At the end of the day, speaking as someone familiar with at least some (but in no way all) of the primary texts discussed in this book, I found that Mimesis commits that cardinal sin of criticism: by approaching these texts through the (sometimes forced) lens of high-level motifs, it often fails to meet them on their own terms and ends up being less perceptive, less creative and less engaging than much of its source material.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 210 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.