Erich Auerbach and His Mimesis Jan N. Bremmer Poetics Today, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Spring, 1999), pp. 3-10. Stable URL hitp:/flinks.jstor-org/siisici=0333-5372% 28199921% 292% 3A 1%3C3%3 AEA AHM% 3 0%3B2-8 Poetics Today is currently published by Duke University Press, Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup:/www,jstororglabout/terms.hml. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hutp:/www jstor.org/journals/duke.htm]. ch copy of any part of'a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ Wed Mar 8 05:36:01 2006Erich Auerbach and His Mimesis Jan N. Bremmer Theology, Groningen Erich Auerbach’s Mimess: Dargestllte Winklihkeit in der abendlndischenLiter- atur was first published in 1946 by A. Francke Verlag, Bern, Switzerland. An American edition entitled Mimess: The Representation of Reality in Western Literatu translated by Willard R. Trask and published by Princeton Uni- versity Press, appeared in 1953. Translations into other languages soon fol- lowed. Since then both the German and the American versions have gone through numerous printings; both are still on the stock lists of their re spective publishers. Auerbach’s Minesisis, without a doubt, one of the few genuine classics of literary scholarship from the second half ofthis century. But who was the author of Mimess? It is striking that only in recent years, have there appeared good biographical essays about Auerbach and his ‘works, in general, and about the circumstances in which Mimesis was com> posed, in particular: Immediately after his death in 1957, the journal Roma: nische Forschungen published a short in memoriam by Fritz Schalk (1902-80), which provides a concise sketch of Auerbach’s work and ends with, “Von 1929-36 lehrte er an der Universitat Marburg, 1936-1946 an der Universi- tat Istanbul” (Schalk 1957). Not a word is said about this remarkable career “This is he slightly revised opening addres ofthe Groningen conference “MIMESIS men sioned ater in the ext of my contibation, I would like ro thank Bernard Scholz, the onfer- ence organizer, for several suggestions, Tom MeCreight fora copy ofthe Spite interview (tga, and Hlenry Remak for an laminating conversation an May 35,1998 1. Formy biographical sketch Iam much indebted to 1. Auerbach 1gy: 6263 vith wef mention of Auerbach’s ara in the Statsarchiv Marburg; Pere 1977; Chrstmann 1989; Ziolkowski 993; Gumbreche 1996; and Maas 1996: 172-75. Nelson igBo and Cover 108 262-64 are less useful than thei les would suggest Pacis Teas 20:1 (Spring 1999. Copyright © sgg9 by the Porter Insitute for Poetics and Semiotics4 Poetics Today 20:1 ‘move to the University of Istanbul, not a word about the difficul circum stances under which Mimesis was written. Similarly, Schalk only hints at the circumstances of Mimess's composition in the preface to Auerbach’s collected studies on Romance philology (Auerbach 1967), which he co- edited? The entry in the Encylopedia Britannia is even less helpful: “From 1929-1946 Auerbach taught in Marburg and Istanbul.” Its therefore not surprising that the most detailed biographical lemmata can be found in dictionaries specifically concerned with Jewish authors and scholars. Except for these specific studies, virtually none of the shorter biographi- cal notices I consulted bothers to mention that Auerbach was of Jewish origin and that he would never have written Mimesis without this back- ground. They might also have mentioned that Auerbach’s scholarly life hhad not really been that easy. He was born in Berlin on November 9, 1892 into a well-to-do family of merchants. After graduating from the presti- gious Franzisisches Gymnasium he went on to study law at the universities of Berlin, Freiburg, Munich, and Heidelberg (1910-13); in Berlin he was strongly affected by the best student ever of classical prove style, Eduard Norden (Ziolkowski 1993: xiv) After earning his doctorate in law at Hei- delberg, in 1913 with a dissertation entitled “Die ‘Teilnahme in den Vorar- beiten 2u einem neuen Strafgesetzbuch,” he joined the German army December 1914 for the duration of the Great War. He spent four years on the western front where, in April 1918, he suffered a leg wound that would trouble him for the rest of his life. Having decided before the war not to pursue a legal career, he obtained a Greifswald doctorate in Romance philology in 1gax with the dissertation “Zur Technik der Fruhrenaissance- novelle in Italien und Frankreich.” In 1g2q he became Bibliatheksrat at the Prussian State Library in Ber- lin, where he first published on three figures who would interest him for the rest of his life: Dante, Vico,’ and Croce (Candela 1996). In 1929 he was transferred to the University Library at Marburg, then recommended for Habilitation on the basis of his Dante als Dichter der indischen Welt (1929). In 130 he was appointed chairman of the Department of Romance Phi- lology at Marburg, where he succeeded another great Jewish scholar, Leo Spitzer (1887-1960) who had taken a chairmanship in Cologne. Here he 2 Schalk was a declared opponent ofthe Nazi, butt reflects hi ack of interest in Auer bach’ fate that, s Hausmann (igo: 46) notes, his prewar correspondence with Hugo Friedrich contains “kau cin Wort des Mei oder Interese far di Vertriebenen.” 4. See the lemma “Averbach" in Caplan and Rosenblatt 1983; Heuer 1992, 4} This not mentioned by the stades on Norden (1868-19) in Kyaer et al. 1994, 5. Auerbach probably caved hisinterestin Vico to Ernst Trorksch (Della Tera 987. 53-54) &, Fors comparison of Auerbach and Spitzer, see Gronau 1979: 18-91. Gronau has been reviewed in Knoke 1981‘Beemer « Erich Auerbach and His Mimess 5 could work undisturbed for a relatively short time. Although not immedi- ately affected after 1933, he was dismissed in 1935 after the abolition of the law that protected the veterans of the Great War. Fortunately, Kemal Ata- tark, having decided to modernize the Turkish educational system, was inviting German professors to Istanbul, including many Jews. Auerbach made use of this happy circumstance and in 1936 once again succeeded Spitzer as chairman of a department of romance philology (Spitzer having migrated to the United States)’ the title notwithstanding, however, Auer bach was faced with teaching all of Western European literature (see Bark 1988). The Jewish professors were left in relative peace by the German consulate general in Istanbul until 1938, when they received question- naires requiring information about their racial origin; afew years later the German citizenship of all these emigrants was revoked (Neumark 1980: 18283; Eckert 1985: 228-29) Auerbach had managed to take along the notes and references of his work in progress, and during the first years in Istanbul he could still work from what he had brought with him, Having completed the work begun in Germany, including his famous essay “Figura,” he subsequently wrote the brief Introduction to Romance Languages and Literature" But he was no longer able to do what he thought he could do best, highly detailed philological ‘work, as Istanbul lacked most Western books and journals—this despite his having received special permission from the Vatican apostolic delegate {sho would become Pope John XXII) to use the library of the Dominican monastery, San Pietro di Galata, When Spitzer had complained about this situation to the dean he had received the severe answer that books were not significant since they were so easily combustible (see Spitzer 1952: 19~ a1, 26-2 It was these circumstances, and the need to remember and inscribe them, that led Auerbach to record the dates of composition—May 1942~April 1945—on the verso of Mimesir’s ttle page. This context is also clear from the contents, which indirectly reflect his experience of the Nazis: from the first chapter with its glorification of the Old Testament over Homer, through the depictions of barbarian rulers in Gregory of Tours and of a revolt of the lower classes in Ammianus Marcellinus, o the last chapters where the pessimistic views of modern novelists are criticized because they ‘would weaken our resolve in standing up to negative ideologies? 7. Widmann 1973: 197-9, 255; Neumark 2980: g2~03 (on Auerbach’s succession of Spitzer, ‘otherese not informative on Auerbach) 8. The fist edition was in French (1943). For subsequent translations and reviews se Ste- Fenel 98:95 19 Therelevance of these chapters to Auerbach's own experiences was noted at a conference6 Poetics Today 20:1 Auerbach’s book, then, is a typical product of a specific moment in time." Drawing on concepts developed from his philological research, he presented a study of reality as represented in literature from antiquity to the present. His presentation would show the variety of these depic- tions but be infused with the general human quality, “and that human quality would transcend and encompass the historically particular.” His task would be “to provide humanity with an alternative conception to the fone that was threatening the world... , an ideal powerful enough to grapple with its enemies and emerge supreme” (Green 1982: 37, 68) For this depiction Auerbach chose the Greek term mimesis In retrospect fone may question whether this was a truly fortunate choice. In a way it fixes the depiction in a certain, historically determined, manner, whereas ‘Aucrbach’s crities had not failed to notice that he nowhere clearly defines “reality.” For the Greeks, mimesis is not only imitation, as one might be initially inclined to think. In various cases it can indeed be an attempt at realism in its most trivial form, pure copying; but its also often more than that, In fact, in many passages mimesis is best translated as “representa- tion”: even Plato realized that artists sometimes represent things that have ro counterpart in real life." ‘Auerbach’s book was an immediate success.” Reviewers hailed its “truly ‘monumental greatness” (Theophil Spoerri) and praised Auerbach for his “umfassende{s] und vielsctige(s] Wissen” (Otto Regenbogen). Ar the same time, specialists also complained about his definition of realism, the omi sion of texts dear to their hearts, or errors in their fields. Auerbach ad- dressed at least one of these complaints in 1949 by adding a chapter on Virginia Woolf and in 1953, by supplementing the American edition with a chapter on Don Quixote. However, in “Epilegomena zu Mimesis” he vig- ‘orously defended his views, in particular against the complaints of Ernst Robert Curtius (1886-1956) about his separation of styles, declaring his ‘unwavering adherence to German historicism (Auerbach 1953) ‘The success of Mimesis enabled Auerbach to move to America in 1947, where he became visiting professor at Pennsylvania State University but failed to get tenure due to medical reasons (a serious cardiovascular ail- ‘ment; in any case, shy and refined as he was, he did not enjoy the campus's ‘on Auerbach in Marburg, CE dhe report in the FanfoterAlemeine Zeitung, November 196, fo other possible echoes see Damrosch 1995. to. This also shows in the lack ofan dnmelanguppora, which should have been mentioned in Grafton 097 1. See, most recently, Muay 196 5-6 vith relevant bibliography) 12. Lindenberger 1996 provides a nearly exhaustive ist of reviews ofthe first German ei tion and its American translation, well as an excellene analyse sce albo Enainger 1050 and Caret 3957Bremmer + Erich Auerbach and His Mimesis 7 boisterous atmosphere. In 1949 he joined the Princeton Institute of Ad~ vanced Studies, where he inaugurated the Princeton Seminars in Literary Criticism (Fitzgerald 1985). Eventually he became professor of medieval literature at Yale (1950), which named him Sterling Professor of Romance Philology in 1956. The years in America were relatively happy ones, but Auerbach remained the true European he was: Unlike Spitzer, he never ‘wrote about aspects of American life and strongly disliked its leveling char- acteristics In his work Auerbach now seems “to have paid renewed and expanded attention to the question of audience” (Ziolkowski 1993: xxv). He had already dated the preface to his last book, Literary Language and Its Pub- lic, when, at the height of his powers, he unexpectedly died in Germany fon October 13, 1957. According to a notable description, Auerbach was “slight and dark, gentle to the point of diffidence, yet lively and engaging in conversation{,}... looking not unlike one of those kindly ferrets in the illustrations of children’s books” (Levin 1969: 463). fall his works, which focus heavily on Dante and Vico, Mimesishas be- ‘come the most popular. Ibis therefore understandable that the Department of Comparative Literature of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen would org nize a conference titled “MIMESIS: Fifty Years afier Auerbach's Mimi: ‘The Representation of Reality in Literature,” from May 29-31, 1996. Dur- ing this gathering more than one hundred scholars from twelve countries discussed Auerbach’s interpretive achievement and possible advances in the study ofthe representation of reality in literature in the intervening fifty years, an eloquent testimony tothe stature of Auerbach’s work. Having left iy first copy many years ago on a train between Uwecht and Amsterdam, I was prompted by the Groningen conference, at which the papers selected for this issue of Potics Tiday were read, to buy a new one, the American translation, which proved to be the tenth printing of the 991 edition. Is this continual reprinting deserved and, ifso, what does it teach us? Few will contest its desirability: The book is still “an excellent read” ‘and it would be hard to find another work that presents Western literature in such an instructive and fascinating way. At the same time, one is left wondering who, today, would be equipped to write such a book. Hasn't the age of specialization robbed us of the requisite scope and erudition? Who would feel competent to write about authors as diverse as Homer and Virginia Woolf, or Vico and Ammianus Marcellinus? Moreover, with the increasing pressure on universities and the continuous call for perfor ‘mance assessment, what scholar would be able to master the philological skills that Auerbach possessed to such a large degree and which we also {ind in some of his illustrious contemporaries, such as Spitzer and Curtius?8 Poetics Today 20:1 As such, Auerbach’s Mimesis remains a standard we should keep trying to equal. On the other hand, some of us may wonder about the work's ideologi- cal background. In its final sentence Auerbach expresses the wish that ‘Minesis might “contribute to bringing together again those whose love for our western history has serenely persevered.” Given the time and cir cumstances, this desire is understandable and justified. But could a future -Mimesisin the contemporary “global village” still limit itself to the Western tradition? And which authors would it select? Europe is not yet torn by the battles over the canon that rage in America, but in a shrinking world that problem will sooner or later reach us, too. It would be characteristic of the Western tradition at its best, I think, if we discussed the selection outside our by now quite musty trenches of race and gender. An open confronta~ tion with other highlights of the representation of human existence, and with other forms of “realism,” would not betray Auerbach’s work.” References Auerbach, Esch 161 [2920] Dan, Pat of the Soar Wil, wanted by Ralph Manheim and edited by Theodore Siverti (Chicago: Chicago Univesiy Pres). Originally published s Dont Dir dren Wat Bern an Leip: Walter de Grier so3"Epilegomena 20 Mines,” Romans orshng 61-8 1901 Intdationt Ramance Lange and Ltt (New York Capricorn} 1967 Guam afte cer rman Pile, eed by Frit Schalk and Gustav Kon rad (Bern, Switaertands A. France) so [6] Litre Lanne and Ts Pac in Late atin Anti and i the ie Ags, ‘rasa by Ralph Manheim (Princeton, NJ Princeton University Pres Avebach, Inge 1971 Calg Prin Acdece Mabe vol. (Maung, Germany: ver) Bar, Ka Heine 198 Brice . Auerbach und W. Benjamins” in Zi. Geass vol. 9. French was Into in Ler Te moderne 49994) 53-62 Candela, Giseppe 196 "Aspect of Reali in Auerbach and Croce,” Canadian Revie of Compara Liter are 2 485-90 Caplan, Hana and Belinda Rowena, eds {ol rio Boga! Disonay of Ctl Eampean Emig, 33-1945, v0 2 PL) (Munich: KG, Sou. Caet C 1957 Review of Auerbach, Mei Stud Ubi (Chonan, Hane Hee {9g "Auerbach, Erich, ProfDrjur. et pil," in Dat wd aterciiscke Romane al fit de Netto, edited by ans Helmut Chystmann and Frank Rger Haustann (Tubingen, Germany Stafenborg) 206, 1, There isa complete bibliography of Auerbach in Auerbach 1967; more selective ones ‘can be found in Christmann ro; Hever 1992; Auerbach 1993Bremmer » ich Auerbach and His Mimesis 9 Coser, Lewis A 1g Refagee Scala in America (New Haven, CT: Yale University Pres) Damrosch, David 1 “Auerbach in Exile” Compara Literature 47(): 07-17 Dells Terra, Dante voll Da Vienna « Baimom: La diaspora del italia expe neg Stasi Uni America Rome: Riva) Ecker, Brita 19s Die jidche Emigration aus Declan 1933-1941 Die Gakic ner Astin Frank fart aM: Buchharndle-Vrrinigung). Enzinger, M 1950 Review of Auerbach, Minein,dnzrige fr die Arturia 9: 168-71, Fiagerld, Rober 1085 Enlarging the Changes The Prinston Sominar in Litany Criicom,soyg-apst (Boston University Press) 1997 The Folate (Catnbridge: Harvaed University Press). Green, Geotrey 182 Litoary Citic and the Stace of Misty: Brch Aurbach and Leo Spite (Lincoln ‘University of Nebraska Pres) Gronau, Klaus 19 Literaricke Form and geelichalice Enticing: Frick Auerbach Brg ext Thi nd ‘Mahalo de Liteatechiche(Konigstein, Germany: Porum Academicu). Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich 1996 “Pathos ofthe Earthly Progress Erich Auerbach’ Everydays" in Literary Hitory andthe Challeng of Pilg: The Legacy of Erich ucrbach, edited by Seth Lese (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Pres), Hassmann, Frank Rutger 1989" Die nationalsorialnnche Hochschulpoitk und ihre Auswirkungen aie deutsche ‘Romanistk von 1933 bis 1945,” in Dewtcke und dxteeihsche Romanisten as verte des Natnascialmas, edited by Plans Helmut Chrstmann and Frank Rutger Hausmann (Tubingen, Germany: Staffenburg. Heuer, Renate, ed. 1992 Lexin decker Autre, ol 1 {Munich: Sau Knoke, Ulrich 198 *"Literaursciologie gestern und heute,” Lendemain 24: 99-107. Kyler, Bernhard, Kurt Rudolph, and Jorg Rape, eds 1994 Bard. Norden (1868-19) (Stattgar: Franz Seine) Levin, Harry 196i) “Two Romanistn in America: Spitace and Auerbach,” in The Inllatal Eigatin, ceed by Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailys (Cambridge: Harvard University Pres) Lindenberget, Herbert 1g "On the Reception of msi" in Literary History andthe Change of Philly: The Lega) of Brick cach, eived by Seth Lever Stanford, CA: Stanford University Pes) Nelson, Lowry, J 1980 "Erich Auerbach: Memoir of Scholar” Dale Review 69: 312-20 Maas, Uz 1gG6 Vela und cuando detchpacier Spraifrher 1933-1945, vol.» (Osa ic, Germany: Seco), Murray, Penelope 1996 Plat on Petry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres) ‘Newmark, Fritz 19a ict am Bosporus: Dewtche Gels, Politr und Kiser in der Eniation, 1935-1953 (Frankfurt aM Knecho,10 Poetics Today 20:1 eye, Hens 1977 "Erich Auerbach (1892-1957) / Romanis,” in Marbuner ele in de esten Half des 20. Jahrhunderts, edited by Ingeborg Schnack (Marburg, Germany: Ewer Schall, Fic Erich Averbach (@.X1s8g2 Besin, d. 10.3957 New Haven.” Romaniche Fi sohangen 69: 126-28, Spitzer, Leo 1952 “Leo Spitzer." inerview, Jos Hopkins Magoin, Api, 19-26. Stfenel, Aron gig "Ein Werk aus dem Eail Eich AuerbachsInteduton au tr de pili oman,” in Deatiche and otereciche Romaniten ls eet des Natnalicalimas, edited by Hans Helmut Christman and Frank Rutger Hausmann (Tubingen, Germany: Stauffen- rg) Widmann, Horst 1073 Ei and Bildung: Die deathsprachigeakademiche Emigration in de Tht nach 933: Mit eine Bio-Bbnrepie der eirienten Hechler Ang (Bern, Stern, and Frankfurt a.M.: Lang). iolkowai, Jan 195 [155] Foreword to Erich Anerbach, Liar Language ands Public Lae Latin An- iuity ond in he Mid Ags, wanslted by Ralph Manheim (Princeton, Nf: Princeton University Pres)