What do you think?
Rate this book
Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature
More than half a century after its translation into English, Erich Auerbach's Mimesis remains a masterpiece of 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. This Princeton Classics edition includes a substantial introduction by Edward Said as well as an essay in which Auerbach responds to his critics.
579 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1942
About the author
Erich Auerbach
67 books140 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 241 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 — 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 alanında temel eserlerden biri. bugün için güncelliğini koruyor, hiçbir zaman da eskimeyecek muhtemelen. bu nitelikleriyle birlikte, ikinci dünya savaşı sürerken yazılmış olmasıyla, istanbul'da yazılmış olmasıyla ve yazılma biçimiyle de edebiyat tarihinin efsanelerinden biri.
auerbach'ı mimesis çalışmasının başlangıcında düşünelim. 1942 olsa gerek. malum sebeplerle ülkesinden ayrılmak zorunda kalmış, davet üzerine türkiye'ye yerleşmiş, 1936'dan beri istanbul üniversitesi'nde görev yapıyor. ülkesinin, dünyanın, insanlığın durumu vahim. belki uzaklaşmak için belki tam tersine şartlar böyle olduğu için, başyapıtını yazmak, tamamlamak istiyor. tam anlamıyla başyapıt olacak bir kitap. iddialı, çok iddialı: edebiyatın 3000 yılını konu edinecek, 3000 yılı edebiyat eserleri üzerinden anlatacak. bir ömrün birikimiyle, emeğiyle yazma aşamasına gelmiş artık. ama istanbul'da kütüphane yok, araştırma imkanı yok, eserini tamamlaması için gerekli kitapların neredeyse hiçbiri yok.
mimesis'in kapsamının 3000 yıl olması temel eser vasfını açıklarken, imkansızlıklar içinde yazılması da efsane diyebileceğimiz, mucize diyebileceğimiz şeyler çağrıştırıyor. normal şartlarda böyle iddialı bir çalışmanın başarılı olma şansı bir tarafa, bu çabaya girişilmesi bile cesaret, çalışmanın hiç bitmemesi söz konusu zira. kitabında bizzat auerbach söylüyor bunu. peki hal böyleyken imkansızlıklar içinde nasıl tamamlanıyor ve bu denli başarılı oluyor bu çalışma? klişe tabirle söylemek gerekirse, imkansızlığın gücünü kullanarak.
auerbach "batı edebiyatında gerçekiliğin tasviri" gibi sonsuz sınırsız genişleyebilecek başlığını sınırlandıryor öncelikle. gerçekliğin tasvirini, temsili demek kesinlikle daha doğru geliyor, hangi ölçütlerle inceleyeceğini belirliyor ve kitabın başından sonuna bu ölçütlerin dışına hiç çıkmıyor, konu asla dağılmıyor. sonra yöntem meselesine geliyor, burada bilgi, birikim, deha her şey var artık. auerbach her bölüm için dönemini temsil gücü yüksek bir eser seçiyor. eserden alıntılar yapıyor, alıntıladığı metni sınırlandırdığı ölçütleri üzerinden inceliyor. eseri dönemindeki ya da başka dönemlerdeki eserlerle karşılaştırıyor. böylece içerik zenginleşiyor, çok katmanlı hale geliyor ve kronolojik olarak açıklıkla izlenebiliyor.
auerbach'ın analizlerinde neler var: eserin zamanına, arka planına dair bilgiler, dönemin anlatı kuralları-kalıpları, yazarın bu kalıplara ne kadar bağlı kaldığı ne kadar zorladığı. yazarın toplumsal konumu, eserine konu olan kişilerin sosyal konumu. konunun sınırlandırılmış hali bu, evet. somutlaşırmak gerekirse, homeros'la başlayıp virginia woolf'la tamamlanıyor kitap. bu da eşittir: ayrıcalıklı kişilerin ve büyük olayların anlatısı olarak başlayan edebiyatın, sıradan kişilerin iç dünyalarının anlatısına dönüşümü.
mimesis'in güncel kalmasının, eskimeyecek olmasının da açık bir sebebi var: auerbach eser incelemelerini sadece metin üzerinden yapıyor. cümlelerden, tek tek kelime seçimlerimden bile çıkarımlar, hem de harika çıkarımlar yapıyor ama metnin dışına çıkmıyor. kurama hiç ama hiç girmiyor. akımlar, dönem ayrımları, kavramlaştırmalar, meselenin özünden koparacak hiçbir şeyle ilgilenmiyor.
mimesis'i okumayı düşünenlere bir fikir verebildiğimi umuyorum buraya kadar. kitap elbette su gibi akmıyor ancak çok zor bir okuma değil kesinlikle. zorluk-kolaylıktan ziyade ayrılacak zamana, verilecek çabaya göre maksimum fayda veren bir kitap mimesis: edebiyatın tüm yolculuğu, 3000 yıl!..özellikle roman okurlarını, belli başlı eserleri-yazarları okumuş olan herkesi hem bilgi hem bakış açısı hem de okuduğu-okuyacağı kitapların analizi konusunda zenginleştirecektir kesinlikle.
bunları belirttikten sonra 1946 yılına dönmek istiyorum. mimesis'in türkiye hikayesi kadar mimesis özelinde bir türkiye hikayesi de var çünkü. değinmesem olmayacak. mimesis 1946 yılında yayımlanıyor ilk kez. zamanla değeri anlaşılıyor, tüm avrupa dillerine çevriliyor, avrupayı aşıyor sonra, çin'e kadar gidiyor. her dilde, her ülkede, türkiye'de yazıldığı vurgusuyla yayımlanıyor. bu vurgunun zor şartlara, imkansızlıklara yönelik tarafını anlatmaya çalıştım. bunun dışında bizim için başka anlamları da olsa gerek. türkiye, imkansızlıkları kadar imkanı da bu kitabın çünkü. 1936 yılında auerbach'ı ülkeye davet eden, uzun yıllar çalışmasını sağlayan türkiye. mimesis'e değil, auerbach'a değil kendi geçmişine, geçmişteki vizyonuna bir saygısı olur diye düşünüyor insan. ama yok. türkiye'de yazılan bu değerli, anlamlı kitabı 73 yıl türkçeye çevirmemenin başka nasıl bir açıklaması olabilir?
bilinmemesi imkanız bir kitap, çevrilmesinin, basılmasının, okunmasının önünde engel yok. umursamamaktan başka bir sebep, bahane bulmak zor. belki böyle temel eserlere ihtiyacımız yok artık. temelimizi çoktan kaybettik. bilmiyorum. ithaki yayınları 2019'da türkiye'de herkes bu kitabı bekliyormuş gibi bir hava yarattı, sonra kitabı basıp dağıttıktan sonra hatalı baskı yaptığı ortaya çıktı, hatalı baskıyı toplatıp yeniden yayınladı. sonrası sessizlik. büyük sessizlik. kitap bir tarafa, her şey bir tarafa, insan 1936'nın umuduna, bugünün umutsuzluğuna bakıp üzülüyor. bu son cümlenin ardından iyimser bir cümle yazarak bitirmek için çok düşündüm.
auerbach'ı mimesis çalışmasının başlangıcında düşünelim. 1942 olsa gerek. malum sebeplerle ülkesinden ayrılmak zorunda kalmış, davet üzerine türkiye'ye yerleşmiş, 1936'dan beri istanbul üniversitesi'nde görev yapıyor. ülkesinin, dünyanın, insanlığın durumu vahim. belki uzaklaşmak için belki tam tersine şartlar böyle olduğu için, başyapıtını yazmak, tamamlamak istiyor. tam anlamıyla başyapıt olacak bir kitap. iddialı, çok iddialı: edebiyatın 3000 yılını konu edinecek, 3000 yılı edebiyat eserleri üzerinden anlatacak. bir ömrün birikimiyle, emeğiyle yazma aşamasına gelmiş artık. ama istanbul'da kütüphane yok, araştırma imkanı yok, eserini tamamlaması için gerekli kitapların neredeyse hiçbiri yok.
mimesis'in kapsamının 3000 yıl olması temel eser vasfını açıklarken, imkansızlıklar içinde yazılması da efsane diyebileceğimiz, mucize diyebileceğimiz şeyler çağrıştırıyor. normal şartlarda böyle iddialı bir çalışmanın başarılı olma şansı bir tarafa, bu çabaya girişilmesi bile cesaret, çalışmanın hiç bitmemesi söz konusu zira. kitabında bizzat auerbach söylüyor bunu. peki hal böyleyken imkansızlıklar içinde nasıl tamamlanıyor ve bu denli başarılı oluyor bu çalışma? klişe tabirle söylemek gerekirse, imkansızlığın gücünü kullanarak.
auerbach "batı edebiyatında gerçekiliğin tasviri" gibi sonsuz sınırsız genişleyebilecek başlığını sınırlandıryor öncelikle. gerçekliğin tasvirini, temsili demek kesinlikle daha doğru geliyor, hangi ölçütlerle inceleyeceğini belirliyor ve kitabın başından sonuna bu ölçütlerin dışına hiç çıkmıyor, konu asla dağılmıyor. sonra yöntem meselesine geliyor, burada bilgi, birikim, deha her şey var artık. auerbach her bölüm için dönemini temsil gücü yüksek bir eser seçiyor. eserden alıntılar yapıyor, alıntıladığı metni sınırlandırdığı ölçütleri üzerinden inceliyor. eseri dönemindeki ya da başka dönemlerdeki eserlerle karşılaştırıyor. böylece içerik zenginleşiyor, çok katmanlı hale geliyor ve kronolojik olarak açıklıkla izlenebiliyor.
auerbach'ın analizlerinde neler var: eserin zamanına, arka planına dair bilgiler, dönemin anlatı kuralları-kalıpları, yazarın bu kalıplara ne kadar bağlı kaldığı ne kadar zorladığı. yazarın toplumsal konumu, eserine konu olan kişilerin sosyal konumu. konunun sınırlandırılmış hali bu, evet. somutlaşırmak gerekirse, homeros'la başlayıp virginia woolf'la tamamlanıyor kitap. bu da eşittir: ayrıcalıklı kişilerin ve büyük olayların anlatısı olarak başlayan edebiyatın, sıradan kişilerin iç dünyalarının anlatısına dönüşümü.
mimesis'in güncel kalmasının, eskimeyecek olmasının da açık bir sebebi var: auerbach eser incelemelerini sadece metin üzerinden yapıyor. cümlelerden, tek tek kelime seçimlerimden bile çıkarımlar, hem de harika çıkarımlar yapıyor ama metnin dışına çıkmıyor. kurama hiç ama hiç girmiyor. akımlar, dönem ayrımları, kavramlaştırmalar, meselenin özünden koparacak hiçbir şeyle ilgilenmiyor.
mimesis'i okumayı düşünenlere bir fikir verebildiğimi umuyorum buraya kadar. kitap elbette su gibi akmıyor ancak çok zor bir okuma değil kesinlikle. zorluk-kolaylıktan ziyade ayrılacak zamana, verilecek çabaya göre maksimum fayda veren bir kitap mimesis: edebiyatın tüm yolculuğu, 3000 yıl!..özellikle roman okurlarını, belli başlı eserleri-yazarları okumuş olan herkesi hem bilgi hem bakış açısı hem de okuduğu-okuyacağı kitapların analizi konusunda zenginleştirecektir kesinlikle.
bunları belirttikten sonra 1946 yılına dönmek istiyorum. mimesis'in türkiye hikayesi kadar mimesis özelinde bir türkiye hikayesi de var çünkü. değinmesem olmayacak. mimesis 1946 yılında yayımlanıyor ilk kez. zamanla değeri anlaşılıyor, tüm avrupa dillerine çevriliyor, avrupayı aşıyor sonra, çin'e kadar gidiyor. her dilde, her ülkede, türkiye'de yazıldığı vurgusuyla yayımlanıyor. bu vurgunun zor şartlara, imkansızlıklara yönelik tarafını anlatmaya çalıştım. bunun dışında bizim için başka anlamları da olsa gerek. türkiye, imkansızlıkları kadar imkanı da bu kitabın çünkü. 1936 yılında auerbach'ı ülkeye davet eden, uzun yıllar çalışmasını sağlayan türkiye. mimesis'e değil, auerbach'a değil kendi geçmişine, geçmişteki vizyonuna bir saygısı olur diye düşünüyor insan. ama yok. türkiye'de yazılan bu değerli, anlamlı kitabı 73 yıl türkçeye çevirmemenin başka nasıl bir açıklaması olabilir?
bilinmemesi imkanız bir kitap, çevrilmesinin, basılmasının, okunmasının önünde engel yok. umursamamaktan başka bir sebep, bahane bulmak zor. belki böyle temel eserlere ihtiyacımız yok artık. temelimizi çoktan kaybettik. bilmiyorum. ithaki yayınları 2019'da türkiye'de herkes bu kitabı bekliyormuş gibi bir hava yarattı, sonra kitabı basıp dağıttıktan sonra hatalı baskı yaptığı ortaya çıktı, hatalı baskıyı toplatıp yeniden yayınladı. sonrası sessizlik. büyük sessizlik. kitap bir tarafa, her şey bir tarafa, insan 1936'nın umuduna, bugünün umutsuzluğuna bakıp üzülüyor. bu son cümlenin ardından iyimser bir cümle yazarak bitirmek için çok düşündüm.
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 merakı olanlara hitap eden çok özel bir çalışma. 3,000 yıllık bir tarihi kapsayan dönemde Homeros’tan Virginia Woolf’a uzanan bir spektrumda Batı edebiyatında gerçekliğin temsilinin, seçilen metinler temelinde analizi yapılıyor. Edebiyat eserlerine bakış açınıza ciddi katkılar sağlayabilecek bir eser özetle. İncelemeye alınan bazı yazarların en azından benim için marjinal/bilinmez veya eskimiş olması, bazı bölümlerde fazla teknik detaya girilmesi kitabın eksileri. Öte yandan, özellikle antik dönemden fazla bilinmeyen ilginç yazarların incelenmesi ise artılarından.
İthaki Yayınevi, 1942-45 döneminde İstanbul’da çok sınırlı koşullarda kaleme alınan (Auerbach 1930’larda Nazi zulmünden kaçıp Türkiye’de çalışma imkanı bulan Yahudi kökenli Alman akademisyenlerden) ve Almanca özgün metni 1946’da basılan kitabı, ancak 2019’da dilimize çevrilip basılmasını sağladığı için takdiri hak ediyor.
Ancak ilk basımdaki bazı hatalardan ötürü bu çevirinin toplatılıp tekrar basıldığı söyleniyor. Bu hatalar şimdi değineceğim şeyler mi bilmiyorum ama benim okuduğum çeviride okumayı, anlamayı zorlaştıran çok ciddi bir eksiklik var. 329. sayfaya kadar kitapta özgün diliyle (Latince, İtalyanca, Fransızca… vs) yer verilen alıntıların çevirisi yapılmamış, nedense kitabın yarısında bu alıntılar çevrilmeye başlanmış ve son kısma eklenmiş! Ayrıca bu görece uzun alıntılar dışında 640 sayfalık kitabın tamamında yer alan çok kısa alıntılar da sadece özgün dilleriyle konulmuş! Yani bu dilleri bilmiyorsanız alıntılara “fransız” kalıyorsunuz! Bu bence yayınevi bakımından muazzam bir özensizlik, umursamazlık…
İthaki Yayınevi, 1942-45 döneminde İstanbul’da çok sınırlı koşullarda kaleme alınan (Auerbach 1930’larda Nazi zulmünden kaçıp Türkiye’de çalışma imkanı bulan Yahudi kökenli Alman akademisyenlerden) ve Almanca özgün metni 1946’da basılan kitabı, ancak 2019’da dilimize çevrilip basılmasını sağladığı için takdiri hak ediyor.
Ancak ilk basımdaki bazı hatalardan ötürü bu çevirinin toplatılıp tekrar basıldığı söyleniyor. Bu hatalar şimdi değineceğim şeyler mi bilmiyorum ama benim okuduğum çeviride okumayı, anlamayı zorlaştıran çok ciddi bir eksiklik var. 329. sayfaya kadar kitapta özgün diliyle (Latince, İtalyanca, Fransızca… vs) yer verilen alıntıların çevirisi yapılmamış, nedense kitabın yarısında bu alıntılar çevrilmeye başlanmış ve son kısma eklenmiş! Ayrıca bu görece uzun alıntılar dışında 640 sayfalık kitabın tamamında yer alan çok kısa alıntılar da sadece özgün dilleriyle konulmuş! Yani bu dilleri bilmiyorsanız alıntılara “fransız” kalıyorsunuz! Bu bence yayınevi bakımından muazzam bir özensizlik, umursamazlık…
May 29, 2025
Mut der eigenen Geschichtsschreibung: Suche nach dem Erhabenen im Alltag.
Eines der berühmtesten Werke der modernen Literaturwissenschaft, zusammen mit Hans Robert Jauss‘ Literaturgeschichte als Provokation oder, neben anderen, Roland Barthes S/Z:Essay. Auerbach verkörpert eher eine klassische Rezeptionsform, verwandt mit mit Wolfgang Kayser Das sprachliche Kunstwerk . Was jedoch Auerbachs Mimesis auszeichnet, erweist sich in der mutigen Geste, die ganze literaturhistorische Kulturgeschichte gegen den Strich zu bürsten, und zwar unter dem Aspekt, inwieweit der Alltag Eingang in die Beschreibung des Tragischen und Erhabenen erhält, die Differenz zwischen Dichtung und Sage:
Indem Stendhal und Balzac beliebige Personen des täglichen Lebens in ihrer Bedingtheit von den zeitgeschichtlichen Umständen zu Gegenständen ernster, problematischer, ja sogar tragischer Darstellung machten, zerbrachen sie die klassische Regel von der Unterscheidung der Höhenlagen, nach welcher das alltägliche und praktisch Wirkliche nur im Rahmen einer niederen oder mittleren Stilart, das heißt entweder als grotesk komisch oder als angenehme, leichte, bunte und elegante Unterhaltung seinen Platz in der Literatur haben dürfe. Sie […] bahnten den Weg für den modernen Realismus, der sich seither in immer reicheren Formen entfaltet hat, entsprechend der ständig sich verändernden und verbreiternden Wirklichkeit unseres Lebens.
Vor allem exerziert Auerbach also vor, wie eine Fragestellung dazu hinreichen kann, so sie nur abstrakt-kategorial, interessant genug gewählt wird, das gesamte, in Frage stehende Feld, hier die Literatur, neu aufzurollen und unter just diesem einen Aspekt, als Differenz, neu zu beleben. Seine Fragestellung „Tauchen triviale Dinge in hohem Stil auf?“ führt zu einer Dreiteilung der Darstellungsweisen, hoher, mittlere, niedriger Stil, ohne dass sie nun genauer bestimmt werden könnten. Es spielt auch keine Rolle, denn als Differenz gilt das Lustspiel, das barocken, derb, obszön ausschweifend vulgarisiert, gegen das höfisch-erhaben Tragische, in welchem unberührt von alltäglichen Nöten, die Figuren der Mesalliance einer problematisch gewordenen Existenz vor einem bestimmten Gott nachgehen. Höhepunkt hier bleibt Dantes Die göttliche Komödie, wie sie Geschichte mit Sage verbindet:
Allein nie zuvor ist dieser so weit getrieben worden; nie ist so viel Kunst und Ausdruckskraft verwendet worden, selbst in der Antike kaum, um die irdische Form der menschlichen Gestalt bis zu einer fast schmerzhaft eindringlichen Anschauung zu bringen. Gerade die christliche Unzerstörbarkeit des ganzen Menschen gestattete [Dante] dies; und gerade dadurch, daß er es mit solcher Gewalt und mit so viel Wirklichkeit ausführte, brach er der Neigung des irdischen Wesens zur Autonomie Bahn; er schuf mitten im Jenseits eine Welt der irdischen Gestalten und Leidenschaften, die in ihrer Wirkung aus dem Rahmen heraustritt und selbständig wird; die Figur übertrifft die Erfüllung, oder noch eigentlicher: die Erfüllung dient dazu, die Figur noch wirkungsvoller hervortreten zu lassen.
Die Kodierung der Welt der Literatur in drei Bereiche, die Untersuchung des stofflichen Mischverhältnis, inwieweit Alltäglichkeit präsent wird, ergibt ein interessantes Auf und Ab durch die Literaturgeschichte bis hin zur Gegenwart. Wie weit geht die Alltäglichkeit? Bezieht sie den Bau von Straßen ein? Den Asphalt, den Mörtel, die Schürfwunden beim Plätten vom Bitumen? Alle Straßen der Literaturwissenschaft führen irgendwann zu Auerbach. Er glänzt in der Freiheit der Anschauung, in der ziselierten Abtönung des Beschriebenen, in der kategoriellen Abgrenzung von Stilformen – aber so, dass Definitionen gänzlich überflüssig erscheinen. Mit anderen Worten: Er belebt das Gespräch über und von Literatur.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Details – ab hier Spoilergefahr (zur Erinnerung für mich):
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Inhalt:
● I) Die Narbe des Odysseus: Differenz Homer vs. Elohist, Odyssee vs. Bibel. Die Bibel setzt, belehrt; die Odyssee glättet die Wirklichkeit unter einem Fokus hin. Homer spielt nur in der Oberschicht, die Bibel nicht. Ausgangsfrage: Inwieweit werden diese Extreme im Laufe der Literaturgeschichte gemischt? Also im Grunde sehr Nietzscheanisch: Gegenspiel von Apollinisch und Dionysisch.
● II) Fortunata: Petronius, Satyricon: Differenz subjektives Bild, objektive Wirklichkeit. Erste Spuren eines perspektivischen Verfahrens. Populär-philosophische Sentenzenliteratur. Vorläufer des Realismus durch Lokalkolorit.
● III) Die Verhaftung des Petrus Valvomeres: Ammian Marcellinius. Dominanz des sinnlich Magischen. Die Welt der Herrschenden zwischen Furcht und Beuterausch. Verselbständigung des Stils. Präfigurationen ziehen Zeitabstände ein. Entdramatisierung. Parataxe als Stilverlust.
●IV) Sicharius und Chramnesindus: Erschlaffung der Kausalpartikel. Fehlende Hypotaxenstruktur, fehlender Weitblick. Dramatisches Erzählen gleitet ins Präsens. Aus Erzählung werden Szenen: direkte Rede, wie in der Bibel. Erste Ansetze eines Realismus entgegen des diokletanischen-konstantinischen Reformstils.
● V) Rolands Ernennung zum Führer der Nachhut des fränkischen Heeres: parataktische Schärfe, lineare Zeitentwicklung, Situationen werden gedoppelt, Schleifenstruktur, Größe durch Kürze und Reihung, parzelliertes Schreiben. Große Anzahl handelnder Figuren.
● VI) Der Auszug des höfischen Ritters: Chretien de Troy, Iwein. Reime als Ordnungsstrukturen für Inhalte. Höflichkeit als individual-absoluter Sinnzusammenhang entsteht. Handeln als Selbstzweck. Ritter kümmern sich nur um Liebe und Waffentaten. Zu eng als Topos.
● VII) Adam und Eva: Vulgärsprachstück. Christlicher weltgeschichtlicher Rahmen. Automatische Einbettung von Sinnansprüchen. Franz von Assisi, der das Höchste mit dem Niedersten verbindet.
● VIII) Farinata und Cavalcante. Dante. Syntaktische Verbindungsmittel in vulgärsprachlichen Texten eher schwach. Verbindung des Alltäglichen mit dem Erhabenen durch christliche Sinngebung. Komödie: Bitterer Anfang, glückliches Ende. Tragödie: edler Anfang, schreckliches Ende. Triangulierung des Diesseits durchs Jenseits.
● IX) Frate Alberto. Boccaccio. Decamerone. Episodenhaft. Stilbewusstsein wird durch mündliches Erzählen erweitert. Vereinigung von Idylle und Realistik. Entgrenzen des Alltagssprachlichen. Umwertung der höfischen Minne. Keine Einheit, nur noch Sinnlichkeit.
● X) Madame du Chastel: Antoine de la Saale. Unklare Satzverknüpfungen. Lange vorbereitende Adverbialsätze, wie Präambel vor dem Inhalt. Chronikstil. Naivität. Unausgewogene Hinrichtungsszene. Entwertung der irdischen Ordnung – Francois Villon.
● XI) Die Welt in Pantagruels Mund. Rabelais. Übertragung der Franziskanischen Predigten auf die Literatur. Starke Kontraste. Sinnenentriegelung. Sokratische Hässlichkeit.
● XII) L’humaine condition. Montaigne. Fehlende syntaktische Verklammerungen. Kolloquial. Vorwegnahme des honnete homme, des Hofedelmannes. Vollumfängliche Prolematisierung des Seins.
● XIII) Der müde Prinz. Shakespeare. Hamlet. Tragik bleibt dem Adel vorbehalten. Dynamisierung durch Technologie und Kirchenspaltung. Verschwenderische Fülle. Materieller Holismus. Shakespeare=Dante ohne Rahmung. Calderon volkstümlicher.
● XIV) Die verzauberte Dulcinea. Cervantes. Don Quijote. Umkehrung der Illusion. Fortsetzung der epischen Tradition. Keine Psychologisierung. Keine Tragik. Kritikfreie heitere Darstellung.
● XV) Der Scheinheilige. Moliere. La Bruyere. Lächerlichkeit im Charakter, nicht in der Rolle. Strikte Trennung von Adel vom Volk. Das Reine, Erhabene bei Racine. Äußerste Stiltrennung.
● XVI) Das unterbrochene Abendessen. Manon Lescaut. Abbe Prevost. Tränen beginnen eine Rolle zu spielen. Erotisierung der Jugend Scheinwerfertechnik. Rhetorik bei Voltaire. Profane Dreistigkeit. Memoiren. Saint-Simon. Unharmonisch. Kreatürliche Beschreibungen.
● XVII) Musikus Miller. Schiller. Stilmischung. Gemütvoll bürgerlicher Realismus. Historismus. Sinn für Detail und soziale Systeme. Goethes Ignoranz des Politischen. Starre Welt, Individualismus.
● XVIII) Im Hôtel de La Mole. Stendhal. Phänomene der allgemeinen Langeweile. Sachlicher Ernst bei Flaubert.
● XIX) Germinie Lacerteux. Goncourt. Roman als soziale Forschung. Stilmischung. Publikumsbeschimpfung. Kunst als Ersatzreligion. Höhepunkt Zola, als Realist. Dagegen deutscher Provinzialismus.
● XX) Der braune Strumpf. Virginia Woolf. Leuchtturm. Personal unauktoriales Erzählen. Bewusstseinprozesse. Neuplatonische Vorstellung eines Urbildes der Kunst. Im Detail treffen sich alle Schichten, Kulturen. Multiperspektivismus. Auflösungsprozess erschließt Chancen der Verständigung.
Eines der berühmtesten Werke der modernen Literaturwissenschaft, zusammen mit Hans Robert Jauss‘ Literaturgeschichte als Provokation oder, neben anderen, Roland Barthes S/Z:Essay. Auerbach verkörpert eher eine klassische Rezeptionsform, verwandt mit mit Wolfgang Kayser Das sprachliche Kunstwerk . Was jedoch Auerbachs Mimesis auszeichnet, erweist sich in der mutigen Geste, die ganze literaturhistorische Kulturgeschichte gegen den Strich zu bürsten, und zwar unter dem Aspekt, inwieweit der Alltag Eingang in die Beschreibung des Tragischen und Erhabenen erhält, die Differenz zwischen Dichtung und Sage:
Indem Stendhal und Balzac beliebige Personen des täglichen Lebens in ihrer Bedingtheit von den zeitgeschichtlichen Umständen zu Gegenständen ernster, problematischer, ja sogar tragischer Darstellung machten, zerbrachen sie die klassische Regel von der Unterscheidung der Höhenlagen, nach welcher das alltägliche und praktisch Wirkliche nur im Rahmen einer niederen oder mittleren Stilart, das heißt entweder als grotesk komisch oder als angenehme, leichte, bunte und elegante Unterhaltung seinen Platz in der Literatur haben dürfe. Sie […] bahnten den Weg für den modernen Realismus, der sich seither in immer reicheren Formen entfaltet hat, entsprechend der ständig sich verändernden und verbreiternden Wirklichkeit unseres Lebens.
Vor allem exerziert Auerbach also vor, wie eine Fragestellung dazu hinreichen kann, so sie nur abstrakt-kategorial, interessant genug gewählt wird, das gesamte, in Frage stehende Feld, hier die Literatur, neu aufzurollen und unter just diesem einen Aspekt, als Differenz, neu zu beleben. Seine Fragestellung „Tauchen triviale Dinge in hohem Stil auf?“ führt zu einer Dreiteilung der Darstellungsweisen, hoher, mittlere, niedriger Stil, ohne dass sie nun genauer bestimmt werden könnten. Es spielt auch keine Rolle, denn als Differenz gilt das Lustspiel, das barocken, derb, obszön ausschweifend vulgarisiert, gegen das höfisch-erhaben Tragische, in welchem unberührt von alltäglichen Nöten, die Figuren der Mesalliance einer problematisch gewordenen Existenz vor einem bestimmten Gott nachgehen. Höhepunkt hier bleibt Dantes Die göttliche Komödie, wie sie Geschichte mit Sage verbindet:
Allein nie zuvor ist dieser so weit getrieben worden; nie ist so viel Kunst und Ausdruckskraft verwendet worden, selbst in der Antike kaum, um die irdische Form der menschlichen Gestalt bis zu einer fast schmerzhaft eindringlichen Anschauung zu bringen. Gerade die christliche Unzerstörbarkeit des ganzen Menschen gestattete [Dante] dies; und gerade dadurch, daß er es mit solcher Gewalt und mit so viel Wirklichkeit ausführte, brach er der Neigung des irdischen Wesens zur Autonomie Bahn; er schuf mitten im Jenseits eine Welt der irdischen Gestalten und Leidenschaften, die in ihrer Wirkung aus dem Rahmen heraustritt und selbständig wird; die Figur übertrifft die Erfüllung, oder noch eigentlicher: die Erfüllung dient dazu, die Figur noch wirkungsvoller hervortreten zu lassen.
Die Kodierung der Welt der Literatur in drei Bereiche, die Untersuchung des stofflichen Mischverhältnis, inwieweit Alltäglichkeit präsent wird, ergibt ein interessantes Auf und Ab durch die Literaturgeschichte bis hin zur Gegenwart. Wie weit geht die Alltäglichkeit? Bezieht sie den Bau von Straßen ein? Den Asphalt, den Mörtel, die Schürfwunden beim Plätten vom Bitumen? Alle Straßen der Literaturwissenschaft führen irgendwann zu Auerbach. Er glänzt in der Freiheit der Anschauung, in der ziselierten Abtönung des Beschriebenen, in der kategoriellen Abgrenzung von Stilformen – aber so, dass Definitionen gänzlich überflüssig erscheinen. Mit anderen Worten: Er belebt das Gespräch über und von Literatur.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Details – ab hier Spoilergefahr (zur Erinnerung für mich):
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Inhalt:
● I) Die Narbe des Odysseus: Differenz Homer vs. Elohist, Odyssee vs. Bibel. Die Bibel setzt, belehrt; die Odyssee glättet die Wirklichkeit unter einem Fokus hin. Homer spielt nur in der Oberschicht, die Bibel nicht. Ausgangsfrage: Inwieweit werden diese Extreme im Laufe der Literaturgeschichte gemischt? Also im Grunde sehr Nietzscheanisch: Gegenspiel von Apollinisch und Dionysisch.
● II) Fortunata: Petronius, Satyricon: Differenz subjektives Bild, objektive Wirklichkeit. Erste Spuren eines perspektivischen Verfahrens. Populär-philosophische Sentenzenliteratur. Vorläufer des Realismus durch Lokalkolorit.
● III) Die Verhaftung des Petrus Valvomeres: Ammian Marcellinius. Dominanz des sinnlich Magischen. Die Welt der Herrschenden zwischen Furcht und Beuterausch. Verselbständigung des Stils. Präfigurationen ziehen Zeitabstände ein. Entdramatisierung. Parataxe als Stilverlust.
●IV) Sicharius und Chramnesindus: Erschlaffung der Kausalpartikel. Fehlende Hypotaxenstruktur, fehlender Weitblick. Dramatisches Erzählen gleitet ins Präsens. Aus Erzählung werden Szenen: direkte Rede, wie in der Bibel. Erste Ansetze eines Realismus entgegen des diokletanischen-konstantinischen Reformstils.
● V) Rolands Ernennung zum Führer der Nachhut des fränkischen Heeres: parataktische Schärfe, lineare Zeitentwicklung, Situationen werden gedoppelt, Schleifenstruktur, Größe durch Kürze und Reihung, parzelliertes Schreiben. Große Anzahl handelnder Figuren.
● VI) Der Auszug des höfischen Ritters: Chretien de Troy, Iwein. Reime als Ordnungsstrukturen für Inhalte. Höflichkeit als individual-absoluter Sinnzusammenhang entsteht. Handeln als Selbstzweck. Ritter kümmern sich nur um Liebe und Waffentaten. Zu eng als Topos.
● VII) Adam und Eva: Vulgärsprachstück. Christlicher weltgeschichtlicher Rahmen. Automatische Einbettung von Sinnansprüchen. Franz von Assisi, der das Höchste mit dem Niedersten verbindet.
● VIII) Farinata und Cavalcante. Dante. Syntaktische Verbindungsmittel in vulgärsprachlichen Texten eher schwach. Verbindung des Alltäglichen mit dem Erhabenen durch christliche Sinngebung. Komödie: Bitterer Anfang, glückliches Ende. Tragödie: edler Anfang, schreckliches Ende. Triangulierung des Diesseits durchs Jenseits.
● IX) Frate Alberto. Boccaccio. Decamerone. Episodenhaft. Stilbewusstsein wird durch mündliches Erzählen erweitert. Vereinigung von Idylle und Realistik. Entgrenzen des Alltagssprachlichen. Umwertung der höfischen Minne. Keine Einheit, nur noch Sinnlichkeit.
● X) Madame du Chastel: Antoine de la Saale. Unklare Satzverknüpfungen. Lange vorbereitende Adverbialsätze, wie Präambel vor dem Inhalt. Chronikstil. Naivität. Unausgewogene Hinrichtungsszene. Entwertung der irdischen Ordnung – Francois Villon.
● XI) Die Welt in Pantagruels Mund. Rabelais. Übertragung der Franziskanischen Predigten auf die Literatur. Starke Kontraste. Sinnenentriegelung. Sokratische Hässlichkeit.
● XII) L’humaine condition. Montaigne. Fehlende syntaktische Verklammerungen. Kolloquial. Vorwegnahme des honnete homme, des Hofedelmannes. Vollumfängliche Prolematisierung des Seins.
● XIII) Der müde Prinz. Shakespeare. Hamlet. Tragik bleibt dem Adel vorbehalten. Dynamisierung durch Technologie und Kirchenspaltung. Verschwenderische Fülle. Materieller Holismus. Shakespeare=Dante ohne Rahmung. Calderon volkstümlicher.
● XIV) Die verzauberte Dulcinea. Cervantes. Don Quijote. Umkehrung der Illusion. Fortsetzung der epischen Tradition. Keine Psychologisierung. Keine Tragik. Kritikfreie heitere Darstellung.
● XV) Der Scheinheilige. Moliere. La Bruyere. Lächerlichkeit im Charakter, nicht in der Rolle. Strikte Trennung von Adel vom Volk. Das Reine, Erhabene bei Racine. Äußerste Stiltrennung.
● XVI) Das unterbrochene Abendessen. Manon Lescaut. Abbe Prevost. Tränen beginnen eine Rolle zu spielen. Erotisierung der Jugend Scheinwerfertechnik. Rhetorik bei Voltaire. Profane Dreistigkeit. Memoiren. Saint-Simon. Unharmonisch. Kreatürliche Beschreibungen.
● XVII) Musikus Miller. Schiller. Stilmischung. Gemütvoll bürgerlicher Realismus. Historismus. Sinn für Detail und soziale Systeme. Goethes Ignoranz des Politischen. Starre Welt, Individualismus.
● XVIII) Im Hôtel de La Mole. Stendhal. Phänomene der allgemeinen Langeweile. Sachlicher Ernst bei Flaubert.
● XIX) Germinie Lacerteux. Goncourt. Roman als soziale Forschung. Stilmischung. Publikumsbeschimpfung. Kunst als Ersatzreligion. Höhepunkt Zola, als Realist. Dagegen deutscher Provinzialismus.
● XX) Der braune Strumpf. Virginia Woolf. Leuchtturm. Personal unauktoriales Erzählen. Bewusstseinprozesse. Neuplatonische Vorstellung eines Urbildes der Kunst. Im Detail treffen sich alle Schichten, Kulturen. Multiperspektivismus. Auflösungsprozess erschließt Chancen der Verständigung.
October 17, 2025
Nema u "Mimesisu" onog odviše diskurzivnog obnaživanja u predgovoru, jer predgovora, uostalom, nema. Problem se zato jasno očitava u podnaslovu - "Prikazivanje stvarnosti u zapadnoevropskoj knjizevnosti" - koji u neku ruku predstavlja sabijeni predgovor. Auerbah je, reklo bi se, u saglasju sa onim Hristićevim stavom prema kome teorijski tekst treba da bude zavodljiv u postupnom razotkrivanju, poput dobre proze. Možda me zato ona druga teorijska literatura glavnicom odbija, jer se tamo sve što je bilo važno dokazati, iznosi unapred [Prosti, Bahtine, u "Stvaralaštvu Fransoa Rablea...", ti si to uradio!], tako da je preostalo još samo da se minuciozno razlaže. Ili razglaba.
U začetku svakog (narednog) poglavlja, Auerbah nudi insert narativa koji će potom zajedno promatrati s čitaocem. To povlači interpretativno udruživanje (Joj, šta li ćemo pronaći na malom uzorku!) ili samostalno interpretativno ogledanje (Ček, ček da probam nešto da uvidim i sam, pre nego što prepustim caru carevo!), to jest ako se nestrpljivost uspe suzbiti. Proučavani isečak podrazumeva lekovitu konkretnost, na petoparcu. Stoga, iako je svrsishodno poznavati čitavo delo o kome je reč - tek smo tu čašćavani - nije postidno ni što (u)poznajemo samo datu komadešku. Izlišno je govoriti o tome da onde gde nema primera, sve može otklizati dođavola, u praznoslovlje. Teorija kopa rupu u koju će sama da se uruši.
Svest o celini (knjige i književnosti) iskrsava u hodu, tokom ispisivanja. Čitalac, recimo, s ushićenjem pamti skokove u protospektivne analogije ili, s druge strane, ne otpočne li redom, rado će istupati ka retrospektivnim uputnicama. Ako li se u knjigu ulazi tumbe ili fragmentarno, dobijaju se posetnice/smernice, pa se "Mimesis" neumitno konstituiše. Na ovaj ili onaj način, sinhronijski i(li) dijahronijski, zaokružuje se total.
Auerbahov komparativni talenat, onaj od najizvrsnije sorte kakav nikada ne beži od vrednovanja - in your face Studijama kulture - vidljiv je svuda: unutar aktuelnog poglavlja, u linearnom doticaju poglavljâ, u udaljenim poglavljima. [Primer? Hint: Koji postupak povezuje Petronija i Prusta! Zašto Dante a ne Bokačo?] Primamljivi izazov "Mimesisa"jeste to što saputništvo traje sa sveukupnošću onoga što se ovde, pomalo neprecizno - zna to Auerbah naravno, kao što zna i šta sve izostavlja ili simplifikuje*, pa se stoga i izvinjava** - naziva zapadnoevropskom književnošću: u lancu od "Odiseje" i "Starog Zaveta", do Prusta, Džojsa i Virdžinije Vulf.
Ukoliko se knjiga čita sukcesivno - svesrdno preporučujem! - lepota i težina su u otkrivajućem totalitetu, u (samo)razumljivosti i samoosvešćivanju procesa. Sledeći auerbahovski akt priznanja, beskrajno mi je krivo što sam "Mimesis", poput svakog prosečnog studenta knjizevnosti, saznavao samo u parcijalu. Znate već ono: "Odisejev ožiljak", "Farinata", "Fra Alberto", "Svet u Pantagruelovim ustima", "U kući De La Mol", "Začarana Dulsineja"... U vezi s ovom poslednjom: podsticajan je Erih čak i onda kada promaši, mada, naknadno upoznat s idejom-vodiljom, uviđam ispravnost tog promašaja. Jer "Mimesis" se, ponad svega, vrhuni u nespoznatim očiglednostima. Čim se truizam ovaploti, on to namah prestaje da bude, postavši otkriće - recimo: šta za književnost praktično znači prelazak s latinskog (crkvenog) na narodni jezik - kao što se i pronicljivost teorijskog nauma, vrhuni u svojoj jednostavnosti: Kada, kako i zašto ono nisko, svakidašnje i obično postaje mogućno prikazati bez ismejavanja, s (tragičkom) ozbiljnošću?
U svakom slučaju, čitava ova tiradna slavopojka mogla se etiketirati:
Književno-teorijska Biblija.
*Citat koji doživljam pritajeno autoironično-referentnim:"Pisanje istorije je toliko teško da je većina istoričara prisiljena da čini ustupke tehnici legende." a legenda, reći će se, ne trpi trenje i sve ono što joj se protivstavlja.
**Auerbah isečke analizira uglavnom na njihovom izvornom jeziku. Umalo nisam pao sa stolice u trenutku kada se Auerbah uz izvinjenje ograđuje od toga što ne secira dela ruske književnosti, budući da ne barata ruskim i da to onda ne bi bilo pošteno, a sve nakon što je pedantno lingvo-stilistički analizirao segmente na latinskom, italijanskom, francuskom, španskom, engleskom, delimice i starogrčkom, i napokon nemačkom. A šta tek reći o osobenom kontekstu u kome "Mimesis" nastaje: Istanbul, tokom II sv. rata, kada mu kao izbeglici većina neophodne literature nije bila dostupna. Puna jedra humanizma!
U začetku svakog (narednog) poglavlja, Auerbah nudi insert narativa koji će potom zajedno promatrati s čitaocem. To povlači interpretativno udruživanje (Joj, šta li ćemo pronaći na malom uzorku!) ili samostalno interpretativno ogledanje (Ček, ček da probam nešto da uvidim i sam, pre nego što prepustim caru carevo!), to jest ako se nestrpljivost uspe suzbiti. Proučavani isečak podrazumeva lekovitu konkretnost, na petoparcu. Stoga, iako je svrsishodno poznavati čitavo delo o kome je reč - tek smo tu čašćavani - nije postidno ni što (u)poznajemo samo datu komadešku. Izlišno je govoriti o tome da onde gde nema primera, sve može otklizati dođavola, u praznoslovlje. Teorija kopa rupu u koju će sama da se uruši.
Svest o celini (knjige i književnosti) iskrsava u hodu, tokom ispisivanja. Čitalac, recimo, s ushićenjem pamti skokove u protospektivne analogije ili, s druge strane, ne otpočne li redom, rado će istupati ka retrospektivnim uputnicama. Ako li se u knjigu ulazi tumbe ili fragmentarno, dobijaju se posetnice/smernice, pa se "Mimesis" neumitno konstituiše. Na ovaj ili onaj način, sinhronijski i(li) dijahronijski, zaokružuje se total.
Auerbahov komparativni talenat, onaj od najizvrsnije sorte kakav nikada ne beži od vrednovanja - in your face Studijama kulture - vidljiv je svuda: unutar aktuelnog poglavlja, u linearnom doticaju poglavljâ, u udaljenim poglavljima. [Primer? Hint: Koji postupak povezuje Petronija i Prusta! Zašto Dante a ne Bokačo?] Primamljivi izazov "Mimesisa"jeste to što saputništvo traje sa sveukupnošću onoga što se ovde, pomalo neprecizno - zna to Auerbah naravno, kao što zna i šta sve izostavlja ili simplifikuje*, pa se stoga i izvinjava** - naziva zapadnoevropskom književnošću: u lancu od "Odiseje" i "Starog Zaveta", do Prusta, Džojsa i Virdžinije Vulf.
Ukoliko se knjiga čita sukcesivno - svesrdno preporučujem! - lepota i težina su u otkrivajućem totalitetu, u (samo)razumljivosti i samoosvešćivanju procesa. Sledeći auerbahovski akt priznanja, beskrajno mi je krivo što sam "Mimesis", poput svakog prosečnog studenta knjizevnosti, saznavao samo u parcijalu. Znate već ono: "Odisejev ožiljak", "Farinata", "Fra Alberto", "Svet u Pantagruelovim ustima", "U kući De La Mol", "Začarana Dulsineja"... U vezi s ovom poslednjom: podsticajan je Erih čak i onda kada promaši, mada, naknadno upoznat s idejom-vodiljom, uviđam ispravnost tog promašaja. Jer "Mimesis" se, ponad svega, vrhuni u nespoznatim očiglednostima. Čim se truizam ovaploti, on to namah prestaje da bude, postavši otkriće - recimo: šta za književnost praktično znači prelazak s latinskog (crkvenog) na narodni jezik - kao što se i pronicljivost teorijskog nauma, vrhuni u svojoj jednostavnosti: Kada, kako i zašto ono nisko, svakidašnje i obično postaje mogućno prikazati bez ismejavanja, s (tragičkom) ozbiljnošću?
U svakom slučaju, čitava ova tiradna slavopojka mogla se etiketirati:
Književno-teorijska Biblija.
*Citat koji doživljam pritajeno autoironično-referentnim:"Pisanje istorije je toliko teško da je većina istoričara prisiljena da čini ustupke tehnici legende." a legenda, reći će se, ne trpi trenje i sve ono što joj se protivstavlja.
**Auerbah isečke analizira uglavnom na njihovom izvornom jeziku. Umalo nisam pao sa stolice u trenutku kada se Auerbah uz izvinjenje ograđuje od toga što ne secira dela ruske književnosti, budući da ne barata ruskim i da to onda ne bi bilo pošteno, a sve nakon što je pedantno lingvo-stilistički analizirao segmente na latinskom, italijanskom, francuskom, španskom, engleskom, delimice i starogrčkom, i napokon nemačkom. A šta tek reći o osobenom kontekstu u kome "Mimesis" nastaje: Istanbul, tokom II sv. rata, kada mu kao izbeglici većina neophodne literature nije bila dostupna. Puna jedra humanizma!
February 26, 2026
Геніальна книга геніального футфетишиста. Детальніша мега-рецензія буде пізніше.
June 2, 2019
Mimesis
By Erich Auerbach (1892-1957)
Auerbach was a German philologue, literature critic and author of the German Romantic tradition.
‘Mimesis’ or by the subtitle ‘Imitation of Reality in Western Literature’ 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’s test of Abraham’s faith.
-Petronius’s Satyricon.
-Ammianus Marcellinus’ report of the arrestation of Petrus Volvomeres.
-Grégoire de Tours' Histoire des Francs.
-Rolands Song; how he was appointed to lead the rearguard of the French army.
-Chretien de Troyes’ Yvain, the story of one of King Arthurs knights.
-Adam, a mystery Christmas play of the 12th century, by anonymous.
-Dante Alighieri’s Devine Comedy, Farinata and Cavalcante.
-Boccaccio’s Decameron, Frate Alberto.
-Antoine de la Sale’s Madame du Chastel.
-Rabelais’ Pantagruel.
-Montaigne's’ Essais, the Human condition.
-Shakespeare's Henry IV., the tired Prince.
-Cervantes Don Quijote; Dulcinea bewitched.
-La Bruyere’s Caracteres; The Hypocrite.
-Abbé Prevost's Manon Lescaut.
-Schiller's drama Luise Millerin.
-Stendhal’s Rouge et Noire; Hotel de la Mole.
-Brothers Goncourt’s Germinie Lacerteux.
-Virginia Woolf’s 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.
‘Mimesis’ or by the subtitle ‘Imitation of Reality in Western Literature’ 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’s test of Abraham’s faith.
-Petronius’s Satyricon.
-Ammianus Marcellinus’ report of the arrestation of Petrus Volvomeres.
-Grégoire de Tours' Histoire des Francs.
-Rolands Song; how he was appointed to lead the rearguard of the French army.
-Chretien de Troyes’ Yvain, the story of one of King Arthurs knights.
-Adam, a mystery Christmas play of the 12th century, by anonymous.
-Dante Alighieri’s Devine Comedy, Farinata and Cavalcante.
-Boccaccio’s Decameron, Frate Alberto.
-Antoine de la Sale’s Madame du Chastel.
-Rabelais’ Pantagruel.
-Montaigne's’ Essais, the Human condition.
-Shakespeare's Henry IV., the tired Prince.
-Cervantes Don Quijote; Dulcinea bewitched.
-La Bruyere’s Caracteres; The Hypocrite.
-Abbé Prevost's Manon Lescaut.
-Schiller's drama Luise Millerin.
-Stendhal’s Rouge et Noire; Hotel de la Mole.
-Brothers Goncourt’s Germinie Lacerteux.
-Virginia Woolf’s 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.
‘Mimesis’ or by the subtitle ‘Imitation of Reality in Western Literature’ 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’s test of Abraham’s faith.
-Petronius’s Satyricon.
-Ammianus Marcellinus’ report of the arrestation of Petrus Volvomeres.
-Grégoire de Tours' Histoire des Francs.
-Rolands Song; how he was appointed to lead the rearguard of the French army.
-Chretien de Troyes’ Yvain, the story of one of King Arthurs knights.
-Adam, a mystery Christmas play of the 12th century, by anonymous.
-Dante Alighieri’s Devine Comedy, Farinata and Cavalcante.
-Boccaccio’s Decameron, Frate Alberto.
-Antoine de la Sale’s Madame du Chastel.
-Rabelais’ Pantagruel.
-Montaigne's’ Essais, the Human condition.
-Shakespeare's Henry IV., the tired Prince.
-Cervantes Don Quijote; Dulcinea bewitched.
-La Bruyere’s Caracteres; The Hypocrite.
-Abbé Prevost's Manon Lescaut.
-Schiller's drama Luise Millerin.
-Stendhal’s Rouge et Noire; Hotel de la Mole.
-Brothers Goncourt’s Germinie Lacerteux.
-Virginia Woolf’s 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.
May 22, 2026
Getting Real in Literature (and in Film)
Realism in Western Literature... that's the subject of Auerbach's big work. The mimesis, or 'imitation', of reality to be more exact. It is a big question, one which Auerbach admits can not be covered in totality in a single work, especially seeing that he was limited to a small-ish library and difficulty in communication during the War. So, he limited his work to specifically answer the question, "To what degree and in what manner are realistic subjects treated seriously, problematically, or tragically?" To answer that question, Auerbach selected a wide variety of texts that spanned three thousand years.
Within each of the twenty chapters, he discussed a unique passage. He provided a copy of the passage in the original language, followed by the passage in English translation. Within that chapter discussion, he often brought up another well-known work to compare or contrast his key point for that work. That means that somewhere between thirty and forty works are discussed in detail. It is a colossal project and one that is meaningful for anyone who enjoys literature. He chose works from Latin, Italian, French, German, and English Literature. I enjoyed that aspect of it tremendously, getting a chance to use some of the languages I am not as proficient in. But, keep in mind that it is entirely unnecessary to have any familiarity with languages other than English to read the book, because he provides the translations. And, the passages are usually less than two to three pages from the book being studied.
Instead of listing all the works he covers, I will give an example of three specific chapters. But, keep in mind that I read the Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, and the chapters have been reworked in different editions over the many decades since original printing.
The author says that he came to understand that modern realism in the form it reached in France in the early nineteenth century is characterized by a 'complete emancipation' from the doctrine of the ancients regarding the different levels of literary representation. And, that emancipation is more complete and more significant than just the mixture of the sublime and the grotesque. There is so much here that you could spend a lot of time with each work.
To summarize, the work shows literature as a historical trajectory of the passage from the separation of styles in classical antiquity, to their mingling in the New Testament and in Dante's Divine Comedy, and their ultimate apotheosis in the French realism authors of the nineteenth century; including Stendhal, Balzac, Flaubert, and then Proust.
Now, I want to provide some application level material to leave just a bit more understanding of the importance of this work in more than just literature. I have compiled a list of five movies that show a similar progression of the representation of reality in film. All are unique and groundbreaking in their own way. These are followed by a similar list of animated movies. I hope this helps see the connection and relevancy between the subject of the book, and today's varied media forms, whether you agree with my movie picks or not.
Progression of Realism at the Movies:
1. Citizen Kane (1941)
2. Vertigo (1958)
3. Jaws (1975)
4. My Dinner with Andre (1981)
5. The Class (2008)
Progression of Realism in Animation:
1. The Lion King (1994)
2. Toy Story (1995)
3. Up (2009)
4. Zootopia (2016)
5. Encanto (2021)
Realism in Western Literature... that's the subject of Auerbach's big work. The mimesis, or 'imitation', of reality to be more exact. It is a big question, one which Auerbach admits can not be covered in totality in a single work, especially seeing that he was limited to a small-ish library and difficulty in communication during the War. So, he limited his work to specifically answer the question, "To what degree and in what manner are realistic subjects treated seriously, problematically, or tragically?" To answer that question, Auerbach selected a wide variety of texts that spanned three thousand years.
Within each of the twenty chapters, he discussed a unique passage. He provided a copy of the passage in the original language, followed by the passage in English translation. Within that chapter discussion, he often brought up another well-known work to compare or contrast his key point for that work. That means that somewhere between thirty and forty works are discussed in detail. It is a colossal project and one that is meaningful for anyone who enjoys literature. He chose works from Latin, Italian, French, German, and English Literature. I enjoyed that aspect of it tremendously, getting a chance to use some of the languages I am not as proficient in. But, keep in mind that it is entirely unnecessary to have any familiarity with languages other than English to read the book, because he provides the translations. And, the passages are usually less than two to three pages from the book being studied.
Instead of listing all the works he covers, I will give an example of three specific chapters. But, keep in mind that I read the Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, and the chapters have been reworked in different editions over the many decades since original printing.
Chapter 1: Odysseus' Scar
The scene where Odysseus' scar is seen is discussed as an example of how Homer foregrounds his perspective of events throughout the Odyssey. Auerbach then gives the passage of the Sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis from the King James Bible and begins a discussion of how that is presented in a totally different perspective, with differing levels of disclosure and mystery.
Chapter 7: Adam and Eve
The Medieval Christmas Play, called simply the
Mystere d' Adam, is compared to The Victorines by Bernard of Clairvaux. This was an important point where the author shows that within Christianity, the two styles of the high style/sublime and the humble/low style were merged in Christ's Incarnation and Passion, and therefore both present in the literature. This was an innovation from previous literature, where common people were only written about in works of comedy. Tragedy was reserved for the upper class, people who mattered. And, the two were never mixed. But, within Christianity, people began to write about the tragedy in the lives of common people, and about the mixture of the tragic and the comic in our lives.
Chapter 18: In the Hotel de la Mole
This is a pivotal chapter as well in which a passage of Stendhal's Le Rouge et le Noir (The Red and the Black) is discussed, and then compared to Balzac's La Pere Goriot (Father Goriot) and Flaubert's Madame Bovary. He shows how Stendhal's novel would be almost incomprehensible without a most accurate and detailed knowledge of the political situation, the social stratification, and the economic circumstances of the definite historical moment in which France found itself just before the July Revolution in 1830. In other words, novels had progressed to the point of real-world treatment where politics and economics were treated as part of the story.
The author says that he came to understand that modern realism in the form it reached in France in the early nineteenth century is characterized by a 'complete emancipation' from the doctrine of the ancients regarding the different levels of literary representation. And, that emancipation is more complete and more significant than just the mixture of the sublime and the grotesque. There is so much here that you could spend a lot of time with each work.
To summarize, the work shows literature as a historical trajectory of the passage from the separation of styles in classical antiquity, to their mingling in the New Testament and in Dante's Divine Comedy, and their ultimate apotheosis in the French realism authors of the nineteenth century; including Stendhal, Balzac, Flaubert, and then Proust.
Now, I want to provide some application level material to leave just a bit more understanding of the importance of this work in more than just literature. I have compiled a list of five movies that show a similar progression of the representation of reality in film. All are unique and groundbreaking in their own way. These are followed by a similar list of animated movies. I hope this helps see the connection and relevancy between the subject of the book, and today's varied media forms, whether you agree with my movie picks or not.
Progression of Realism at the Movies:
1. Citizen Kane (1941)
2. Vertigo (1958)
3. Jaws (1975)
4. My Dinner with Andre (1981)
5. The Class (2008)
Progression of Realism in Animation:
1. The Lion King (1994)
2. Toy Story (1995)
3. Up (2009)
4. Zootopia (2016)
5. Encanto (2021)
March 19, 2021
I’m 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’ve 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’s fantastic, and that’s 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’s fantastic, and that’s really what I was looking for.
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.
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 Chrétien de Troyes
7. Adam and Eve -- The medieval mystery play Mystère 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 Réconfort de Madame du Fresne by Antoine de la Sale
11. The World in Pantagruel's Mouth -- Gargantua and Pantagruel by François 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 Dévot -- Tartuffe by Molière
16. The Interrupted Supper -- Manon Lescaut by Abbé Prévost; Candide by Voltaire; Mémoires by Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon
17. Miller the Musician -- Luise Miller by Friedrich Schiller
18. In the Hôtel 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 Émile 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 Goodreads 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 Chrétien de Troyes
7. Adam and Eve -- The medieval mystery play Mystère 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 Réconfort de Madame du Fresne by Antoine de la Sale
11. The World in Pantagruel's Mouth -- Gargantua and Pantagruel by François 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 Dévot -- Tartuffe by Molière
16. The Interrupted Supper -- Manon Lescaut by Abbé Prévost; Candide by Voltaire; Mémoires by Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon
17. Miller the Musician -- Luise Miller by Friedrich Schiller
18. In the Hôtel 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 Émile 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 Goodreads 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)
January 11, 2026
"I may also mention that the book was written during the war and at Istanbul, where the libraries are not well equipped for European studies" - ik ga deze uitvlucht ook eens proberen voor mijn thesis
September 9, 2024
Sendo um livro enciclopédico que percorre milhares de anos da história da literatura foi uma leitura lenta que me levou a consideráveis aprendizagens. O destaque vai especial para o capítulo sobre Homero. E pela proximidade os dois últimos capítulos 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’ uno di quei testi che annullano il concetto di tempo relativo.
Dimostra che certi scritti sono legati solo al tempo “giovane”. Il tempo “maturo” ha più riferimenti, informazioni, ma perde in elasticità e concentrazione.
E non dipende dal punto di vista in cui mi colloco. L’oggettività è una fregatura.
Ogni tanto (ogni tanto) ravano un po’ sugli scaffali. Lo chiamo togliere la polvere o riordino, così 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’ uno di quei testi che annullano il concetto di tempo relativo.
Dimostra che certi scritti sono legati solo al tempo “giovane”. Il tempo “maturo” ha più riferimenti, informazioni, ma perde in elasticità e concentrazione.
E non dipende dal punto di vista in cui mi colloco. L’oggettività è una fregatura.
Ogni tanto (ogni tanto) ravano un po’ sugli scaffali. Lo chiamo togliere la polvere o riordino, così 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.
Want to Read
May 1, 2024English Literature Critisim Recommended Reading List at Oxford According to Benjamin McEvoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Q2J...
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.
September 26, 2024
Авербах застосовує платонівський мімезис до контексту літературознавчого, пропонуючи пізнання текстів через їхнє порівняння і протиставлення. Буває, Авербах ставить поряд тексти, між якими — тисячі років різниці у написанні, як от розділ з Одіссеєю і Новим Завітом.
Найперше автору ідеться дослідити трансформацію античного вчення про високий і низький стилі і його подальший відхід. Авербах висновує, що злам у ієрархічному розрізненні стилів за їхньою «висотою» відбувся вже за часів епохи сучасного реалізму (Стендаль, Ґете, Бальзак) — обʼєктами серйозного і навіть трагічного зображення стають будь-які фігури з повсякдення у контексті історичних обставин своєї епохи.
Втім, потім зауважує, що певний реалізм, у тому його розумінні, у якому бачить Авербах, вже існував у Відродження, ба — навіть у Середньовіччя.
Автор головно досліджує літературні памʼятки за принципом їхньої взаємоповʼязаності і впливу: будь-яка подія «тут і зараз» означає не тільки її, а й одночасно іншу подію, яку вона передрікає чи, її повторенням, утверджує. Звʼязок між подіями бачиться Авербахом насамперед не у часових чи причинних звʼязках між ними, але у єдності так званого божого замислу, відображенням якого, мовляв, є усі події. Дуже християнська оптика, погодьтеся.
З Авербахом, як і з його методом та підходами до вибору текстів, можна довго сперечатися, багато з чим не погоджуватися і багатогодинно дискутувати. Проте це геть не означає, що такий його погляд не має права на існування або що Авербаха, отже, не треба, мовляв, читати.
Навпаки, про мене, показником важливості праці є сама потенція її палкого обговорення.
Все ще мрію, що колись перечитаю його українською, а поки — якось так.
Найперше автору ідеться дослідити трансформацію античного вчення про високий і низький стилі і його подальший відхід. Авербах висновує, що злам у ієрархічному розрізненні стилів за їхньою «висотою» відбувся вже за часів епохи сучасного реалізму (Стендаль, Ґете, Бальзак) — обʼєктами серйозного і навіть трагічного зображення стають будь-які фігури з повсякдення у контексті історичних обставин своєї епохи.
Втім, потім зауважує, що певний реалізм, у тому його розумінні, у якому бачить Авербах, вже існував у Відродження, ба — навіть у Середньовіччя.
Автор головно досліджує літературні памʼятки за принципом їхньої взаємоповʼязаності і впливу: будь-яка подія «тут і зараз» означає не тільки її, а й одночасно іншу подію, яку вона передрікає чи, її повторенням, утверджує. Звʼязок між подіями бачиться Авербахом насамперед не у часових чи причинних звʼязках між ними, але у єдності так званого божого замислу, відображенням якого, мовляв, є усі події. Дуже християнська оптика, погодьтеся.
З Авербахом, як і з його методом та підходами до вибору текстів, можна довго сперечатися, багато з чим не погоджуватися і багатогодинно дискутувати. Проте це геть не означає, що такий його погляд не має права на існування або що Авербаха, отже, не треба, мовляв, читати.
Навпаки, про мене, показником важливості праці є сама потенція її палкого обговорення.
Все ще мрію, що колись перечитаю його українською, а поки — якось так.
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 To the Lighthouse, 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 é simplesmente maravilhoso. Se você é "de humanas" mas por algum motivo tem um problema com "os clássicos", acho que é uma boa entrada, tão empolgante é a análise. Quando algo que não tinha lido era discutido, me dava vontade de ler; quando já conhecia o material, era muito gratificante. É testemunho da qualidade artística do próprio livro que ele é uma tentativa de propor e demonstrar algumas teses sobre o que vem a ser a representação da realidade na literatura ocidental, mas o texto é tão absorvente que isso muitas vezes não passa de um detalhe.
February 9, 2022
Don't let this book intimidate you, the writing flows really nicely.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 241 reviews