11Erich Auerbach

7/29/2019 11Erich Auerbach

1/31

Erich Auerbach (1892-1957)

German philologist, educator, critic, and literary historian. Auerbach's famous account ofthe genesis of the novel,Mimesis (1946), has been since its appearance one the most

widely read scholarly works on literary history and criticism. Ren Wellek, Auerbach'scolleague at Yale University, wrote: "The work is a strikingly successful combination ofphilology, stylistics, history of ideas and sociology, of meticulous learning and artistictaste, of historical imagination and awareness of our own age." (fromA History of ModernCriticism 1970-1950, Volume 7, 1991)

"He who represents the course of a human life, or a sequence of events extending over

a prolonged period of time, and represents it from beginning to end, must prune and

isolate arbitrary. Life has always long since begun, and it is always still going on. And

the people whose story the author is telling experience much more than he can ever

hope to tell. But the things that happen to a few individuals in the course of a fewminutes, hours, possibly even days - these one can hope to report with reasonable

completeness." (Auerbach inMimesis)

Erich Auerbach was born in Berlin into a upper-middle class Jewish family. He studied atthe universities of Berlin, Freiburg, and Munich. In 1913 Auerbach received a Doctor ofLaw degree from the University of Heidelberg. During World War I he served in in theGerman army. After the war Auerbach changed disciplines and earned his doctorate inRomance philology from the University of Greifswald in 1921. His dissertation was

entitledZur Technik der Frhrenaissancenovelle in Italien und Frankreich. Between theyears 1923 and 1929 Auerbach served as a librarian of the Prussian State Library in Berlin.After that he was professor of Romance philology at the University of Marburg.

In Marburg Auerbach gained recognition with his workDante, Poet of the Secular World(1929). After Hitler was elected chancellor of German in 1933, a law was passed whichwould make impossible for Jews to hold official positions. Aurbach was dismissed by the

Nazis in 1935 and he went to Istanbul where he taught at the Istanbul State University.During his years in Turkey Auerbach wrote his famous work,Mimesis, which was first

published in German in 1946 and seven years later in English. In Istanbul Auerbach did nothave access to all the literature he needed and the libraries were not well equipped forEuropean studies. "On the other hand it is quite possible that the book owes its existence to

just this lack of a rich and specialized library. It had been possible for me to acquaintmyself with all the work that has been done on so many subjects, I might never havereached the point of writing." Two smaller studies dating from this period appeared inFinland in the journalNeuphilologische Mitteilungen. In 1947 Auerbach moved to theUnited States. He was a teacher at Pennsylvania State University and a member of theInstitute for Advanced Study at Princeton in 1949-50 before he was appointed Professor ofRomance philology at Yale University. Auerbach died in Wallingford, Connecticut, on

October 13, 1957.


2/31

InMimesis Auerbach examined changing conceptions of reality as they are reflected inliterary works. The word "mimesis" has almost the same meaning as "mime," but is

broadly translated as "imitation." Auerbach starts from Homer and continues throught thetexts of Dante, Shakespeare, Cervantes, etc. ending with such writers as Marcel Proust and

Virginia Woolf. Often he first focuses on stylistic analysis and interpretations of meaning,and from these comments he moves to broader observations on social history and culture.Although Auerbach analyzes writers' attitudes toward reality, he does not rush to give thereader his own definition of the concept "realism." Auerbach's idea is to approach thesubject from different points of view, through writers and a selection of excerpts from widevariety of texts, mostly from France and Italy. From Scandinavian writers Ibsen is settledwith a few sentences and about Russian realism Auerbach writes: "...remembering it cameinto its own only during the nineteenth century and indeed only during the second half ofit, we cannot escape the observation that it is based on a Christian and traditionally

patriarchal concept of the creatural dignity of every human being regardless of social rankand position, and hence that it is fundamentally related to old-Christian than to modernoccidental realism. The enlightened, active bourgeoisie, with its assumption of economicand intellectual leadership, which everywhere else underlay modern culture in general andmodern realism in particular, seems to have scarcely existed in Russia."

According to Auerbach, Stendhal and Balzac broke the rigid separation of stylistic levels,dating from classical antiquity, in which the low, comic mode was reserved for thedescription of ordinary, everyday reality, and tragic, the problematic, the serious withineveryday life was depicted in the high style. But before these French writers, who did not

separate the serious and the realistic, the unification of styles was seen in Dante'sCommedia. Christ's passion, in which the low and the sublime were combined, broke downthe hierarchical rules of literary depiction for the first time. Modern realistic view of theworld was fully developed in the character of Julien Sorel from Stendhal's novel The Redand the Black(1830) - Sorel's tragic life is deeply connected with the historical, social, and

political conditions of the period.

Ren Wellek has criticized that Auerbach's concept of realism is contradictory: "... theearly examples of the uses of realism are quite different from those he uses in the later

sections on Stendhal, Balzac, and the Goncourts. He uses the term realism in the book inthe most diverse manner, yet still always referring to the "represented reality." (fromAHistory of Modern Criticism 1970-1950, Volume 7) Also the concept of mimesis has beendefined in many ways in contemporary aesthetics, referring sometimes to the inner worldof consciousness. Against the view of the novel as a realistic representation of humanexperience, structuralists and deconstructionists have emphasized the self-referentiality ofall literature.

For further reading:Literary History and the Challenge of Philology, edited by SethLerer (1996); A History of Modern Criticism 1750-1950: Volume 7, by Ren Wellek
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/stendhal.htmhttp://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/balzac.htmhttp://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/stendhal.htmhttp://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/balzac.htm


3/31

(1991); Literary Criticism and the Structures of Historyby G. Green (1982) - For furtherinformation: Erich Auerbach's Mimesis by William Calin -

Selected works:

Zur Technik der Frhrenaissancenovelle in Italien und Frankreich, 1921 introduction and translation: Giambattista Vico: Die neue Wissenschaft,1924 Dante als Dichter der iridischen Welt, 1929 - Dante, Poet of the SecularWorld (trans. by Ralph Mannheim) Vico und Herder, 1932 Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abenlndischen Literatur, 1946 -Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. by Willard R. Trask) Introducion aux tudes de philologie romane, 1949 - Introduction to

Romance Languages and Literature Vier Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der franzsischen Bildung, 1951 Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Sptantike und imMittelalter, 1958 - Literary Language and Its Public in Late Antiquity and in the MiddleAges (trans. by Ralph Manheim) Scenes from the Drama of European Literature, 1959 Gesammelte Aufstze zur romanischen Philologie, 1962

Erich Auerbach's Mimesis'Tis Fifty Years Since: A Reassessment - Critical Essay

Style, Fall, 1999 by William Calin

Recent conferences at Stanford and at Groningen commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of

Erich Auerbach's Mimesis (1946). [1] 'Tis fifty years since--now more than fifty--when

appeared the first German edition of a scholarly volume that was recognized immediately

to be one of the great books of criticism in our century. [2] Charles Muscatine reviewed the

English translation as "one of those rare books that speak to everyone in the literate world"

(448); and Ren[acute{e}] Wellek, who had reservations about Mimesis, nonetheless

characterized it in 1991 as "a book of such scope and breadth, ranging as it does from

Homer to Proust, combining so many methods so skillfully, raising so many questions of

theory, history, and criticism, displaying so much erudition, insight and wisdom, that it was

hailed as the most important and brilliant book in the field of aesthetics and literary history

that had been published in the last fifty years" (113).

Fifty years later, at the end of our century, Auerbach's masterwork has lost little of itsluster or even its immediacy. Whatever the criteria--translations of books into English,
http://www.findarticles.com/m2342/3_33/62828824/p1/article.jhtmlhttp://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342/is_3_33http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qt=%22William+Calin%22http://www.findarticles.com/m2342/3_33/62828824/p1/article.jhtmlhttp://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342/is_3_33http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qt=%22William+Calin%22


4/31

books in print, paperback editions readily available, sales, symposia, or conference

sessions devoted to him, books and articles written about him--it would appear that, in

America, as a foreign-language critic Auerbach stands second only to Roland Barthes in

terms of continuing presence (Ziolkowski, Lindenberger). Whatever the evolution of ourprofession in methodology or in the acquisition of knowledge, students and their mentors

turn to Auerbach with much the same enthusiasm and sense of discovery or of recovery as

in the past. Many of us would say that Mimesis remains the most important single work of

criticism in the modern age and, therefore, that Auerbach deserves a place among the

handful of supreme literary scholars and critics

Auerbach, together with Leo Spitzer, Ernst Robert Curtius, Karl Vossler, and Helmut

Hatzfeld, form a circle or current of German-language academic criticism--humanist

critics--the finest in their day. [3] These German and Austrian scholars combined vast

scholarship and historical knowledge with a rare literary sensitivity and imagination; they

specialized in all three major romance literatures, from the Middle Ages to the twentieth

century; and they authored a rich, extensive corpus of original critical scholarship. Yet

whatever their similarities--and there were many--they were scholars grounded in the

tradition of classical German-university philology and literary history: each arrived at his

own way of writing philology and literary history, i.e., at his own approach.

The method, in Mimesis as in Literary Language and Its Public (1958), is to submit a

number of brief excerpts from longer texts to a close reading--stylistic analysis concerning

features of grammar, syntax, and diction--that then leads to the consideration of broader

questions of culture and society in their historical dimension and that then leads to or

includes one of Auerbach's central concerns--the literary public and its social response to

texts. Somewhat like Spitzer, Auerbach proceeds, back and forth, from the individualpassage in a work of art to the style typical of the age, from the particular text or the page

to universal principles. Ultimately, however, Auerbach's version of "the philological circle"

transcends Stilforschung [stylistic study] or, rather, juxtaposes and fuses Stilforschung with

what Wellek calls "historical sociology," hence Spitzer's complaint ("Development" 446),

citing Aurelio Roncaglia, that his colleague was not a stylistician. [4] Because of his work

in the historical socio logy of literature, in what W. Wolfgang Holdheim calls historical

understanding, Auerbach, unlike Spitzer, is himself aware and makes his readers aware ofhistorical process and change.


5/31

Auerbach's mastery of stylistic analysis on the page, as well as of the broader social and

historical context, enabled him to appeal to philologists, historians of literature, formalists,

and Marxists--pretty much at the same time. The close reading and the exaltation of a

tradition of great books explain why the impact of Mimesis in the United States did notwane over the decades of New Criticism, structuralism, and deconstruction; whereas the

history of literary publics explains why, when the book was finally translated into French

(in 1977), it was hailed in Paris as Marxist sociocritique.

Auerbach has always been a favorite of medievalists. This is true for a number of reasons.

First of all, as stated earlier, like Spitzer, Curtius, Vossler, and Hatzfeld, he was a

medievalist and a modernist; he was both, throughout his career. Secondly, influenced by

Vico and the founders of German historicism, Auerbach committed himself totally to what

he calls historical perspectivism. Historical perspectivism holds that each epoch and

civilization has its own possibilities of aesthetic perfection. The universally human is to be

perceived in the finest works of each epoch, manifest in a form or style unique to it. It is

his credo, as a child of historicism, to appreciate the culture of all periods as part of a

universal human condition. Thus he stands at the farthest possible distance from what Lee

Patterson designates as Whig literary history, whose adepts, for example, praised Dante

and Chaucer for being nonmedieval, that is, for allegedly anticipating our modern

psychological portrayal of character and our modern social democracy.

Assuming that we are allowed to count Gregory of Tours as medieval, seven of the original

nineteen chapters of Mimesis (it later became seven of twenty; the Cervantes chapter was

written for and first published in the Spanish edition [1950]) are devoted to the Middle

Ages. The medieval centuries, their varying styles, publics, and mental attitudes, as variety

and multiplicity, not a single, simple medievalness, are offered maximum scrutiny thattreats Western culture as a whole, one in which the Middle Ages occupies a place of honor.

In addition, like Spitzer, Auerbach was committed to a single methodology--his own--

which he applied to the medieval and the modern equally, and which produced similar

results across the centuries.

Perhaps still more significant is the fact that, instead of the usual approach, that is,

applying modern insights to medieval texts (what most of us, who think of ourselves astheoretically progressive, do all the time), Auerbach does the opposite. He defines our


6/31

human conscious and unconscious apprehension of reality, our attitude toward the world,

and our artistic expression of that attitude as shaped by two cultural phenomena that date

from the Middle Ages and from classical antiquity. Auerbach concentrates on figura and

on the hierarchy of styles--these are examples of his Ansatzph[ddot{a}]nomen [point ofdeparture]. The classical triad of high, middle, arid low styles in Antiquity, when it breaks

down due to the impact of Christianity, gives rise to a mixed style; and the figural Christian

vision of history (today, under the influence of D. W. Robertson, we call it allegorical or

typological [5]) allows for random events in the present or the past to prefigure or

postfigure momentous events in history. Thus emerged the possibility of writing in the

vernacular where the low can be treated with high seriousness. In Dante human existence is

fulfilled in its ultimate destiny; the individual in his earthly existence and the individual ineternity both are concretely real. In Dante we find a mixture of styles in which the seeming

sermo humilis (low register--for Dante, vernacular Italian) is transformed into a new

sublime style embracing historical existence and the cosmos, just what the authors of the

New Testament did with and for demotic Greek. [6]

This powerful, concrete representation of reality in Dante was then, because of figura andbecause of a second collapse of the hierarchy of styles re-established by French classicism,

to fuel a tradition of realism in the modern centuries culminating in Balzac, Stendhal,Flaubert, and Zola. Modern realism allows for the lower classes and their social concernsto be depicted as and in historical reality, in the dynamic concreteness of history, theirunique historical peculiarity, and also allows that they be treated not as comedy but withdepth and the problematic seriousness of tragedy, the tragic seriousness heretofore reservedto Virgil's Aeneas and Racine's Nero. Now, the French novelists' achievement in endowingthe humble and the quotidian with the dynamic concreteness of history, that is, withhistorical significance and with high tragic seriousness, occurs as a modern secularreplication of Dante and as a cultural phenomenon that could occur only in the West

because of Christian figura and because of the (now broken) hierarchy of styles. Thus, themedieval is not depicted simply as a precursor of or introduction to the modern. Instead,with two summits-Dante and the nineteenth-century French novel--the two periods exist ina structure of dynamic tension wherein the modern is shaped by the medieval and is adirect outgrowth of it. Hayden White has even proposed that this structure is figural, asecular, aesthetic figural pattern of the history of literature according to which the medievalforeshadows the modern, which then fulfills the medieval.

Auerbach made major contributions to the criticism of early literature and of the modern.

His starting points--the three styles and figura--became genuine methodologies in theirown right (rhetorical criticism, typological criticism), exploited now by two generations of


7/31

scholars. His readings of the Song of Roland, of Chr[acute{e}]tien, of fifteenth-century

prose, and, of course, of Dante continue to have an impact. They are still regularly cited

today. The same is true for the Old and New Testaments. The same is true for the essay on

Don Quixote, which launched a revisionist current in Cervantes studies, emphasizing thecomic in reaction to the then dominant quasi-existential high seriousness of the Unamuno

school; and for the essay on Zola, which was one of the first examples of sociocritique to

counter the orthodox Marxist belittlement of Zola compared to Balzac. In terms of

influence, to cite but one example (my own), I profited from the idea of typology as a way

into Renaissance and Baroque French epic and into Catholic writers of the twentieth

century (Muse, chs. 7-10, 18). [7] And Auerbach's Schiller chapter, with its insights into a

sentimental ideology of rural or burgher virtue, where the concerns of little people aregranted dignity and treated with seriousness, helped me to explore the phenomenon of

Biedermeier in a European context, in writers as disparate as Lamartine (Muse, ch. 13),

Aubanel, and Stephen Phillips.

Finally, it should not be overlooked that Erich Auerbach is not just the author of Mimesis.Just as prior to 1946 he penned a dissertation on the fifteenth-century nouvelle (ZurTechnik), an abridged translation of Vico's Scienza Nuova, and the Dante book, so too,after 1946, he continued to produce. Medievalists are familiar with his Introduction aux[acute{e}]tudes de philologie romane, and with the essays contained in Literary Languageand Its Public, which make a statement on Latin prose during the so-called Dark Ages andon the language and publics of early French romance and Dante. Of equal importance arethe essays--brilliantly innovative--on Pascal ("Triumph"), Rousseau ("[ddot{U}]ber denhistorischen"), and Baudelaire ("Esthetic"), as well as on Vico. [8] The fact that, at the endof his life, Auerbach made such a commitment to French literature, from the Eneas toBaudelaire, gives the lie to the assertion, heard now and then, that the master's primaryconcern was always for things Italian. On the c ontrary, Auerbach was a genuine romance

philologist; his field was Romanistik. While lacking some of the range of Curtius and

Spitzer, he nonetheless gave major, continuing attention to French, Italian, and Latin, eachover a period of centuries. Despite the cavil from susceptible teachers of English such asRobert Gorham Davis and, for that matter, Wellek (114-15), Mimesis offers a legitimateand fair reading of the central tradition in the literature of our civilization.

Were one to criticize Mimesis, half a century later, it would not be for Auerbach's overall

vision of literature or his approach(es). They hold up. Nor would it be for his commitment

to a tradition of great books and the high culture that they nourish (see below). One can

express, however, some reservations about the reading of individual texts. [9] Brilliant,


8/31

provocative, and partial as they are and would have to be, Auerbach's readings can be, or

over the past five decades actually have been, nuanced and enriched by those who come

after. To cite some medieval examples, today most of us would deem the Song of Roland,

Yvain, and the fabliaux deeper, more complex, and more problematic, according toAuerbach's own criteria for the representation of reality, than he recognized them to be in

1946. In addition, we could propose other texts from roughly the same time frame and

genre or mode--Raoul de Cambrai or Girart de Roussillon, Beroul's Tristan, Thomas's

Tristan, or the Prose Lancelot, and the Roman de Renart . These manifest significantly

greater historicity, density, and concreteness. More importantly, they also are grounded in

immediate political and social issues; all but the beast epic radiate tragic seriousness of one

kind or another, and they are composed in a genuine mixture of styles [grave{a}] la Danteand a juxtaposition of voices [grave{a}] la Dostoevsky (as read by Mikhail Bakhtin).

These observations on the early medieval are applicable also to the books of Antiquity and

the books of post-medieval modernity.

Thus, today we have a more complete and problematic picture of Homer or

Chr[acute{e}]tien de Troyes or the century of Voltaire and Rousseau than Auerbach did.

This picture is due in part to the torrent of criticism devoted to all the major writers since

the 1950s. Our discipline is progressive. Literary criticism resembles the sciences in that

we build upon the discoveries of our predecessors just as our successors will build upon

ours. Given that, in some sense of the term, we see further than Boileau, Sainte-Beuve, and

Arnold, so also we see further than F.O. Matthiessen and Auerbach. The medieval

clich[acute{e}] is apt in this context: we are dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants.

A second explanation lies in the nature of what it means to write literary history. Here we

should recall Auerbach's commitment to Vichian historical perspectivism and to history assuch. As much as any of the great critics of our century, he was sensitive to historical

process and evolution. He said: "My purpose is always to write history" (Literary

Language 10).

In a book of seminal importance, Is Literary History Possible?, David Perkins argues that

such literary history must be structured by and according to an implied narrative. The

implied narrative proceeds from a beginning to an end, almost always underscoring thecomplexity of the evolution to the summit (the end) and oversimplifying the origins (the


9/31

beginning), from which the evolution is derived. The narrative itself determines, more or

less arbitrarily, which texts will be chosen and how they will be read. I should add, given

that most scholars favor their own field of research while remaining to some extent

uninformed about other fields, most monographs devoted to a century, a movement, or acurrent will attribute "good" qualities to that century, movement, or current and

significantly fewer good qualities to the preceding one from which it arose. Whig literary

history also applies here, Thus medievalists have a right to bewail the number of studies on

the Renaissance that proclaim any number of "modern-" seeming traits in the sixteenth

century--subjectivity, individual psychology, political and social concerns--set off against

the Middle Ages, the latter (Christian, unproblematic, uniform) depicted in terms two

generations out of date. Medievalists should take heart, however, from the fact thatspecialists on Neoclassicism or the Baroque will do to the Renaissance what the

seizi[acute{e}]mistes did to the Middle Ages. The phenomenon continues, unabated, to the

present where a number of studies on the postmodern attribute uninformed clich[acute{e}]-

traits to the masters of modernism: Yeats, Joyce, Pound, Eliot, and Faulkner. [10]

Of all men, Erich Auerbach avoids this kind of provincialism. Of all men, Auerbach avoids

Whig literary history, Nonetheless, he is not compiling a series of essays or an

encyclopedia. He writes literary history.. Therefore, despite the historical perspectivism,

despite the particular, unique beauty of each time and place, given the narrative of figural

realism, Dante and the nineteenth-century French novel embody or fulfil the representation

of reality in ways that other authors and genres do not. Those works that lead up to

(precede) Dante or that lead up to (precede) Balzac will inevitably be faulted, in one sense

or another, for not (yet) being Dante or Balzac. Perhaps for this reason and this reason

alone Auerbach's readings of single texts do not hold up as well as Spitzer's, for Spitzer

never published a book of literary history but, instead, collections of discrete critical and

linguistic essays, I think Perkins would say that to write a book of literary history you have

to be willing to pay the pric e. [11] The relative distortion of certain books, easily

correctable, is a small price to pay for Auerbach' s masterwork and the master narrative

that it structures.

As much as Spitzer and more than any critic writing in French or Italian, and without ever

having read the likes of F. R. Leavis and Matthiessen, Auerbach made a contribution toAmerican critical modernism. [12] For this reason, Mimesis has recently been studied as an


10/31

historical phenomenon in its own right. Especially prevalent in the Stanford proceedings

(Lerer) is this wish to "historicize" Auerbach and, as some have said, to make him timely

rather than timeless. In today's climate of politically charged scholarship, however, it

should surprise no one that analyzing Mimesis as history can lead to the analyst displacinghis own ideology onto Auerbach or criticizing Auerbach's ideology in favor of his own In

my opinion, such would be the case for Geoffrey Green's thesis that Mimesis embodies a

specifically Jewish protest against the Third Reich or Paul Bov[acute{e}]'s thesis that we

find in Auerbach evidence for and a confession of the cultural exhaustion of bourgeois

humanism, Historicizing Auerbach also al lows distinguished critics whom I admire (Terry

Eagleton and Herbert Lindenberger) to portray him as a dated phenomenon, in some sense

of the term obsolete, and of diminished relevance to us today.

In Literary Criticism and the Structures of History, Green proposes that Spitzer and

Auerbach were historically oriented whereas Vossler and Curtius partook more of

formalism, indeed that while Spitzer and Auerbach became attuned to history as a result of

their experience of exile, Vossler and Curtius, remaining at home, turned to the ideal of

literature as timeless. Green's thesis is to distinguish, in intellectual terms, those who left

the Reich from those who stayed and, at least implicitly, Jews from non-Jews.

I do not agree. First of all, Auerbach and Spitzer differed enormously as to their own

critical practice and conception of literature vis-[acute{a}]-vis history. Of the great

German-language critics, Vossler and Auerbach were probably the most historical, and

Spitzer and Hatzfeld the least. Second, Spitzer's and Auerbach's visions of literature and of

criticism form two unities, from their earliest writings to their last. If anything, it is Vossler

and Curtius who changed their critical approach and their field in response to and in protest

against the F[ddot{u}]hrer (Calin, "Ernst Robert Curtius" 220-21, 224-25). To the extentthat personal testimony can contribute to such discussion, I remember Auerbach's telling

me that, like Goethe, he had the idea for all of his books, in his head, at age twenty-five.

[13] He never indulged in Germany-bashing. On the contrary, on another occasion he

volunteered to me that he never truly felt at home as a professor in America. He would

have accepted the offer of Curtius' s chair at Bonn and returned to Germany but for the fact

that his son, Clemens, was a scientist established in America, not far from New Haven.

Finally, although it is certain that figural typology reasserts the link between the Old andNew Testaments and between Judaism and Christianity, and also offers the reminder (alas,


11/31

that the reminder is needed) that it is impossible, indeed a flat contradiction in terms, for a

genuine Christian to be antisemitic, nevertheless, figura is a complex, problematic notion.

Northrop Frye discovered this with the negative reviews of his studies on the Bible and

literature, The Great Code and Words with Power, that denounced his version of Biblicaltypology as insensitive to or insulting of Judaism.

Bov[acute{e}] finds two or three passages in Auerbach that bring grist to his mill--the

tragic consciousness of the end, failure, exhaustion, or defeat of Western bourgeois

humanist culture. He analyzes them in depth with brio. Auerbach, however, was scarcely

unique in this domain. Most of the great exiles despaired at one moment or another as they

envisaged the New Order in Europe--the F[ddot{u}]hrer and his thugs dominating the

continent of high culture and their homelands for what appeared to be the foreseeable

future. Similar passages can be found in Bernanos, Mann, and St.-John Perse, to name

three of the most eminent. Stefan Zweig committed suicide. Yet the others did not commit

suicide. They arose from their own ashes to reclaim the heritage of Western civilization,

their own. Auerbach's Lebensdenken can be distilled from his work, all his work; this work

is not and never was an admission of defeat.

I have more sympathy, therefore, with those--Wellek (122), Jan Ziolkowski (xxii-xxiii),Paul Zumthor--who assert that Auerbach cannot be limited to ideology or to being a

symptom of the history of his time. [14] Or, at least, I propose that grounding him

historically in his age has to be done in a more subtle, complex, and problematic manner.

In any case, we would argue that Auerbach never repudiated scholarly or creative

humanism and that he never spread a pall of gloom about him. He maintained to the end

his faith in "the inner history of the last thousand years [which] is the history of mankind

achieving self-expression" and in the capacity of the literary scholar, including the youngwho emerge, to recover that history and make it live ("Philology" 5). In contrast to the

"high civilization" of Western culture, he did observe and deplore what he called

"levelling," "standardization," and "imposed uniformity" (2). He was alluding not only to

the Soviet Union but also to the United States, with its then so vaunted American Way of

Life. I see him as having anticipated, with brilliant prescience, among other things, today's

phenomenon--the spread over the entire world of American pop culture, though he could

not have foreseen the academic adulation of the spread, what Irving Howe called "gloriousinfatuation with trash."


12/31

Throughout the history of Western culture, from Homer to Proust and beyond, there have

always been Greeks and there have always been barbarians. The tension between them

constitutes one of the more exciting chapters in that history. One legacy of Auerbach is

showing that mankind always has a choice, and that the result is three thousand years ofculture--a culture which, thanks to the historicism that he so honored, now not only is but

also is known.

William Calin ([email protected]) is graduate research professor at the University of

Florida. His research focuses on medieval French, Anglo-French literary relations, French

poetry from the Renaissance onwards, and French minority literatures. His most recent

book (his ninth) is The French Tradition and the Literature of Medieval England (U of

Toronto P, 1994). He has recently completed Minority Literatures and Modernism: Scots,

Breton, and Occitan, 1920-1990. In the works is a volume of essays on modern humanist

critics, from Leo Spitzer to Northrop Frye.

Notes

1.) The proceedings of the Stanford conference (Lerer) are a tribute to Auerbach and a

touchstone for critical opinion in this our "postmodern" age.

(2.) My term, "'Tis fifty years since," alludes, of course, to the subtitle of Scott's Waverley;

or, 'Tis Sixty Years Since, a novel which commemorates a time of transition in the history

of Scotland no less momentous than the post-Second World War period for us.

(3.) I discuss them, with reference to Auerbach, in "Makers" and "Ernst Robert Curtius."

See also Evans, "Ernst Robert Curtius," and Green, Literary Criticism.

(4.) Spitzer "places" Auerbach in "Development of a Method" (the original was published

in Italian as "Sviluppo di un metodo") and in "Les [acute{e}]tudes de style."

(5.) Although the change of fashion in English studies has proved to be so rapid that,

nowadays, Robertson is neglected, his impact was enormous and, in the long run,

beneficial.


13/31

(6.) On Dante, the reader should consult, in addition to Mimesis, Auerbach's Dante als

Dichter der irdischen Welt and the articles, translated into Italian and collected in Studi su

Dante.

(7.) Pierre Emmanuel informed me that, although he had never heard of figural typology,

my reading of him was accurate; he said he must have picked up figura indirectly, from his

immersion in a particular, quasi-underground tradition of Catholicism that surfaced in Bloy

and Bernanos. He also was a passionate defender of D'Aubign[acute{e}].

8.) The original German versions of the Pascal and Baudelaire articles plus six essays on

Vico are also to be found in the Gesammelte Aufs[ddot{a}]tze.

(9.) This was already Hatzfeld's response as far back as the late 1940s.

(10.) Shoddy scholarship in this domain is demystified by Astradur Eysteinsson and by

Joseph Frank, among others.

(11.) He himself wrote an outstanding piece of literary history: A History of Modern

Poetry.

(12.) In Lerer, Literary History, Auerbach is deemed to be modernist in the opinion of

Green, Landauer, and White.

(13.) I was Auerbach's last student and, during the year 1956-1957, his research assistant.

(14.) I consider Ziolkowski's essay, along with one by Evans, to be especially insightful

readings of Auerbach. Evans also wrote one of the best studies on Curtius.

Works Cited

Auerbach, Erich. Dante als Dichter der irdischen Welt. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1929. Trans.

Ralph Manheim: Dante, Poet of the Secular World. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1961.

___. "The Esthetic Dignity of the Fleurs du Mal." Hopkins Review 4 (1950): 29-45. Rpt.

Scenes 201-26, 246-49.

___. Gesammelte Aufs[ddot{a}tze zur romanischen Philologie. Bern: Francke, 1967.


14/31

___. Introduction aux [acute{e}]tudes de philologie romane. Frankfurt am Main:

Klostermann, 1949. Trans. (abr.) Guy Daniels: Introduction to Romance Languages and

Literature. New York: Capricorn, 1961.

___. Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Sp[ddot{a}]tantike und im

Mittelalter. Bern: Francke, 1958. Trans. Ralph Manheim: Literary Language and Its Public

in Late Latin Antiquity and in the Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1993.

___. Mimesis: dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendl[ddot{a}]ndischen Literatur, Bern:

Francke, 1946. Trans. Willard R. Trask: Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in

Western Literature. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1953.

___. Mimesis: La representaci[acute{o}]n de la realidad en la literatura occidental. Trans.

I. Villanueva and E. Imaz, M[acute{e}]xico and Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura

Econ[acute{o}]mica, 1950.

___. "Philology and Weltliteratur." Trans. Edward and Maire Said. Centennial Review 13

(1969): 1-17.

___. Scenes from the Drama of European Literature. New York: Meridian, 1959. Rpt.Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984.

___. Studi su Dante. Milano: Feltrinelli, 1963.

___. "The Triumph of Evil in Pascal." Trans, Ralph Manheim. Hudson Review 4 (1951):

58-79. Rpt. Scenes 101-29, 238-39 ("On the Political Theory of Pascal").

___. "[ddot{U}]ber den historischen Ort Rousseaus." Gesammelte Aufs[ddot{a}]tze 291-95.

___. Zur Technik der Fr[ddot{u}]hrenaissancenovelle in Italien und Frankreich.

Heidelberg: Winter, 1921.

___, trans. Die neue Wissenschaft [ddot{u}]ber die gemeinschaftliche Natur der

V[ddot{o}]lker. By Giambattista Vico. M[ddot{u}]nchen: Allegemeine Verlagsanstalt,

1924.


15/31

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. Trans. Caryl Emerson.

Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984. Orig. pub. 1924; rev. ed. 1963.

Bov[acute{e}], Paul, Intellectuals in Power: A Genealogy of Critical Humanism. New

York: Columbia UP, 1986.

Calin, William. "Aubanel's Mi[acute{o}]ugrano and the Romantic Persona: A Modern

Reading." Tenso 3 (1987-1988): 43-57.

___. "Dante on the Edwardian Stage: Stephen Phillips's Paolo and Francesca."

Medievalism in the Modern World. Ed. Richard Utz and Tom Shippey. Turnhout: Brepols,

1998. 255-61.

___. "Ernst Robert Curtius: The Achievement of a Humanist." Studies in Medievalism 9

(1997): 218-27.

___. "Makers of the Middle Ages: Leo Spitzer." Journal of Medieval and Early Modern

Studies 27 (1997): 495-506.

___. A Muse for Heroes: Nine Centuries of the Epic in France. Toronto: U of Toronto P,1983.

Davis, Robert Gorham. "The Imitation of Life." Partisan Review 21(1954): 321-26.

Eagleton, Terry. Review of Green, Literary Criticism. Modern Language Review 79

(1984): 385-86.

Evans, Arthur R. Jr. "Erich Auerbach as European Critic." Romance Philology 25 (1971-1972) 193-215.

___. "Ernst Robert Curtius." On Four Modern Humanists: Hofmannsthal, Gundolf Curtius,

Kantorowicz. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1970. 85-145.

Eysteinsson, Astradur. The Concept of Modernism. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1990.

Frank, Joseph, The Idea of Spatial Form. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1991.


16/31

Frye, Northrop. The Great Code: The Bible and Literature. Toronto: Academic Press

Canada, 1981.

___. Words with Power: Being a Second Study of "The Bible and Literature." New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990.

Green, Geoffrey. "Erich Auerbach and the 'Inner Dream' of Transcendence." Lerer 214-26.

___. Literary Criticism and the Structures of History: Erich Auerbach and Leo Spitzer.

Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1982.

Hatzfeld, Helmut A. Rev, of Mimesis by Erich Auerbach, Romance Philology 2 (1948-

1949): 333-38.

Holdheim, W. Wolfgang. "Auerbach's Mimesis: Aesthetics as Historical Understanding."

CLIO 10 (1980-81): 143-54.

Landauer, Carl. "Auerbach's Performance and the American Academy, or How New

Haven Stole the Idea of Mimesis," Lerer 179-94.

Lerer, Seth, ed. Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich

Auerbach. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1996.

Lindenberger, Herbert. "On the Reception of Mimesis." Lerer 195-213.

Muscatine, Charles. Rev. of Mimesis by Erich Auerbach, Romance Philology 9 (1955-

1956): 448-57.

Patterson, Lee. Negotiating the Past: The Historical Understanding of Medieval Literature,

Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1987.

Perkins, David. A History of Modern Poetry. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP,

1976-1987.

___. Is Literary History Possible? Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1992.


17/31

Robertson, D. W. Jr. A Preface to Chaucer: Studies in Medieval Perspectives, Princeton:

Princeton UP, 1962.

Spitzer, Leo. "Development of a Method," Leo Spitzer: Representative Essays. Ed. Alban

K. Forcione et al. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1988, 425-48.

___. "Les [acute{e}]tudes de style et les diff[acute{e}]rents pays." Langue et

litt[acute{e}]rature: Actes du VIIIe Congr[grave{e}]s de la F[acute{e}]d[acute{e}]ration

Internationale des Langues et Litt[acute{e}]ratures Modernes. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1961.

23-39.

___. "Sviluppo di un metodo." Cultura Neolatina 20 (1960): 109-28.

Wellek, Ren[acute{e}]. A History of Modern Criticism: 1750-1950. Vol. 7: German,

Russian and Eastern European Criticism, 1900-1950, New Haven: Yale UP, 1991. 113-34.

White, Hayden. "Auerbach's Literary History: Figural Causation and Modernist

Historicism." Lerer 124-39.

Ziolkowski, Jan M. "Foreword." Auerbach, Literary Language ix-xxxix.

Zumthor, Paul. "Erich Auerbach ou l'[acute{e}]loge de la philologie." Litt[acute{e}]rature

5 (1972): 107-16.

COPYRIGHT 1999 Northern Illinois University

COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group

AUERBACH, Erich, * 9.11. 1892 in Berlin, 13.10. 1957 in Wallingford, Connecticut,USA. Romanist, Jurist und Bibliothekar. 1. Promotion (Jura) 1913 in Heidelberg. 2.Promotion (Romanistik) 1921 in Greifswald. Von 1923 bis 1929 Bibliothekar an derPreuischen Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. 1929 Professor der Romanistik in Marburg.Lehrttigkeit als Professor an der Staatsuniversitt Istanbul (1936-1947), dannPennsylvania State University (1947-1949) und am Institute of Advanced Studies inPrinceton (1949-50). 1950 Professor der Romanistik an der Yale University. 1956 SterlingProfessor of Romance Languages an der Yale University. - Erich Auerbach kam am 9.

November 1892 in Berlin zur Welt. Nach dem Besuch des Franzsischen Gymnasiumsnahm A. das Jurastudium in Berlin, Freiburg und Mnchen auf und erhielt 1913 von der

Universitt Heidelberg den Doktortitel. Im Ersten Weltkrieg diente A. als Soldat undbeschlo nach seiner Heimkehr sich dem Studium der romanischen Sprachen zu widmen.


18/31

Fr seine Dissertation "Zur Technik der Frhrenaissancenovelle in Italien und Frankreich"wurde A. 1921 der Doktorgrad von der Universitt Greifswald verliehen. Von 1923 bis1929 war A. als Bibliothekar an der Preuischen Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin ttig. Wahrenddieser Zeit bersetzte er Giambattista Vicos "Scienzia Nuova" ins Deutsche (1924) und

verffentlichte sein erstes einschlgiges Werk, "Dante als Dichter der irdischen Welt"(1929). Letzteres wahr ausschlaggebend fr seine Berufung auf die Professur derRomanistik in Marburg, welche noch im selben Jahr erfolgte. In "Dante als Dichter derirdischen Welt" erarbeitete A. bereits viele seiner einflureichen Thesen zum Realismus inder westlichen Literatur, die er spter in "Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in derabendlndischen Literatur" vertiefte. Aufgrund seiner jdischen Herkunft fiel A. dennationalsozialistischen Verfolgungen zum Opfer und wurde 1935 seines Lehrstuhls

beraubt. Einige Monate spter nahm er die Einladung romanistische Literaturwissenschaftan der Staatsuniversitt in Istanbul zu lehren an. A. blieb bis 1947 in Istanbul und trugwesentlich zur Entwicklung seines Faches in der Trkei bei. Dort schuf und beendete erauch sein berhmtestes Werk, "Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlndischenLiteratur", welches er 1946 in Bern verffentlichte. Eine spanische bersetzung folgte

bereits 1950, dann, u.a., weitere ins Englische (1953), Italienische (1956), Polnische (1964)und Franzsische (1977). "Mimesis" galt schon kurz nach der Verffentlichung als einerder entscheidenden Beitrge zur Literatur- und Kulturkritik des 20. Jahrhunderts. ImGegensatz zu den rein philologischen Anstzen Leo Spitzers oder den thematischenAnalysen von Ernst Robert Curtius, zog A. eine Vorgehensweise vor, die denkulturgeschichtlichen Wandel mittels der Erforschung von literarischen Stilen zu

bestimmen versuchte. Sowohl in "Mimesis" als auch in seinem Lebenswerk unternimmt A.

eine im Studium der Religionsgeschichte verwurzelte Historiographie der in der westlichenLiteratur vorhandenen und sie bestimmenden Wirklichkeitskonstruktionen. - In seinemLiteraturdenken sah sich A. hauptschlich von Giambattista Vico und von Hegelsromantischen Denken beeinflut. A.s zweifellos grter Beitrag zur Literatur- undKulturkritik des letzten Jahrhunderts liegt in der Erschlieung und Bestimmunggrundlegender Mechanismen und Stilmittel zur Transformation von Motiven in derabendlndischen Literatur. Den Beginn dieser Theorie schuf A. bereits 1938 mit seinemEssay "Figura" dessen Grundidee sich durch zahlreiche Schriften A.s ziehen sollte. Unterdiesem Begriff versteht A. das zunchst patristische und spter allgemeinchristliche

typologische Prinzip bei welchem eine historische Gestalt oder ein frheres Ereignis einspteres symbolisiert. Dabei werden beide chronologische Punkte klar als geschichtlichvoneinander getrennt betrachtet, und obwohl es keiner kausalen Verbindung bedarf,

besteht laut christlicher Hermeneutik eine wirkliche und wirksame Beziehung zwischenihnen. Diese grundstzlich anachronistische Auslegung von historischen Faktoren ist

bestimmend, laut A., fr das Realittsverstndnis des abendlndischen Christentums. Einweiteres Schlsselelement in A.s Literaturtheorie ist der stilistische Ausdruck christlicherFrmmigkeit mit welcher seit dem Hl. Augustinus christliche Homiletiker und Verfassersich von klassischen Stilen abzugrenzen versucht haben. A. nennt diese von Einfachheit

gekennzeichnete Schreib- und Erzhlform "Sermo humilis". - Im stilgeschichtlichenKontext sieht A. daher die Entwicklung von den neutestamentlichen Bchern bis zu den


19/31

Texten der Moderne als ein stndiges Aneinanderrcken von Frmmigkeit undSpiritualitt. A.s auerordentliches Talent als Literaturtheoretiker blieben nicht lngerunerkannt, und er zog 1947 in die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und nahm seineLehrttigkeit an der Pennsylvania State University auf. Bereits zwei Jahre spter war A.

Mitglied des hchst angesehenen Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton bevor er in1950 als Professor der Romanistik an die Yale University berufen wurde. DieserLebensabschnitt war durch weitere publizistische Ttigkeiten gekennzeichnet, die nicht nurdazu beitrugen, da A. schon zu Lebzeiten als einer der bedeutendsten Literaturkritiker und-theoretiker anerkannt wurde, sondern sie inspirierten eine ganze Generation voneinflureichen amerikanischen Akademikern wie Edward Said oder Seth Lerer. A. starbam 13. Oktober im Gaylord Sanatorium in Wallingford, Connecticut, wahrscheinlich anden Folgen eines leichten Schlaganfalls, den er im Sommer des gleichen Jahres inDeutschland erlitt. Bis zu seinem Lebensende hatte A. gehofft, eines Tages die Rckkehrnach Deutschland wagen zu knnen, und sah sich, wie er bereits 1921 in einem Briefschrieb, "als ein Preue jdischen Glaubens." Sein Werk, allem voran "Mimesis", hat dieGeisteswissenschaften weit ber die Grenzen der Romanistik und Literaturwissenschaftverndert, und der Einflu von A.s Theorien und Beobachtungen ist weiterhin in solchverwandten Disziplinen wie der Religionswissenschaft, Geschichte oder Soziologie zuspren.

Werke: Zur Technik der Frhrenaissancenovelle in Italien und Frankreich, Diss.,Greifswald 1921; verff. Heidelberg 1921; Giambattista Vico: Die neue Wissenschaft(bersetzt und eingeleitet), Mnchen 1924; Paul-Louis Courier, in: Deutsche

Vierteljahrsschrift fr Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 4, 1926, 514-547(reprint. in: Vier Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der franzsischen Bildung, Bern 1951);Racine und die Leidenschaften, in: Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 14, 1926, 371-379; ber das Persnliche in der Wirkung des heiligen Franz von Assisi, in: DeutscheVierteljahrsschrift fr Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 5, 1927, 65-77; Danteals Dichter der irdischen Welt, Berlin 1929; Entdeckung Dantes in der Romantik, in:Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fr Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 7, 1929, 682-693; Der Schriftsteller Montaigne, in: Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 20, 1932,39-52; Vico und Herder, in: Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fr Literaturwissenschaft und

Geistesgeschichte 10, 1932, 671-503; Remarques sur le mot "passion", in:Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 38, 1937, 218-224; Sprachliche Beitrge zur Erklrung derScienza Nuova von G. B. Vico, in: Archivum romanicum: nuova rivista di filologiaromanza 21, 1937, 173-184; Figura, in: Archivum romanicum: nuova rivista di filologiaromanza 22, 1938, 436-489; Passio als Leidenschaft, in: Proceedings of the ModernLanguage Association of America (PMLA) 56, 1941, 1179-1196; Sacrae scripturae sermohumilis, in: Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 42, 1941, 57-67; St. Francis of Assisi inDante's Commedia, Italica 22, 1945, 166-179; Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in derabendlndischen Literatur, Bern 1946; Figurative Texts Illustrating Certain Passages of

Dante's Commedia, in: Speculum 21, 1946, 474-489; Essays in Historical SemanticsLinguistics and Literary History (Verf.: Leo Spitzer) (Buchbesprechung), in: Romanische


20/31

Forschungen 61, 1948, 393-403; Dante's prayer to the virgin ("Paradiso", XXXIII) andearlier eulogies, in: Romance Philology 3, 1949, 1-26; Introduction aux tudes de

philologie romane, Frankfurt a.M., 1949; Linguistics and Literary History. Essays inStylistics (Verf.: Leo Spitzer) (Buchbesprechung), in: Comparative Literature 1, 1949, 82-

84; Rising to Christ on the Cross (Paradiso, XI, 70-72), in: Modern Language Notes 64,1949, 166-168; Saul's Pride (Purg. XII, 40-42), in: Modern Language Notes 64, 1949, 267-269; The New Science of Giambattista Vico (Verf.: Thomas Goddard Bergin und MaxHarold Fisch) (Buchbesprechung), in: Modern Language Notes 64, 1949, 196-197; Vicoand Aesthetic Historism, in: Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 8, 1949, 110-118; AnEssay on the Vita Nuova (Verf.: Charles S. Singleton) (Buchbesprechung), in:Comparative Literature 2, 1950, 373-375; Europische Literatur und lateinischesMittelalter (Verf.: Ernst Robert Curtius) (Buchbesprechung), in: Modern Language Notes65, 1950, 348-351; Europische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter (Verf.: Ernst RobertCurtius) (Buchbesprechung), in: Romanische Forschungen 62, 1950, 237-245; The Scar ofUlysses, in: Partisan Review 17, 1950, 411-432; The Word in Pantagruel's Mouth, in:Partisan Review 17, 1950, 672-694; Minnesinger und Troubadours (Verf.: Theodor Frings)(Buchbesprechung), in: Romance Philology 4, 1950/1951, 65; Montaigne (Verf.: HugoFriedrich) (Buchbesprechung), in: Modern Language Notes 66, 1951, 562-564; In theHotel de la Mole, in: Partisan Review 18, 1951, 265-303; Nathan und JohannesChrysostomus, in: Zeitschrift fr romanische Philologie 67, 1951, 118-123; The Triumphof Evil in Pascal, in: Hudson Review 4, 1951, 58-79; Die verzauberte Dulcinea, in:Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fr Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 25, 1951,294-316; Vier Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der franzsischen Bildung, Bern 1951; Die

Dichtungsformen der Romanen (Verf.: Andreas Bauer und Karl Vossler)(Buchbesprechung), in: Modern Language Notes 67, 1952, 129-131; Initiation undWandlung. Zur Geschichte des altfranzsischen Romans im zwlften Jahrhundert vonChretien de Troyes zu Renaut de Beaujeu (Verf.: Antoinette Fierz-Monnier)(Buchbesprechung), in: Romanic Review 43, 1952, 208-209; Philologie der Weltliteratur,Bern 1952; Sermo humilis; in: Romanische Forschungen 64, 1952, 304-364 (Reprint:Filologia della Weltliteratur, in: Armando Gnisci (Hrsg.): La letteratura del mondo, Gaia:Collana di Studi di Letteratura Comparata 6, Rom 1991, 89-102); Typological Symbolismin Medieval Literature, in: Yale French Studies 9, 1952, 3-10; Epilegomena zu Mimesis,

in: Romanische Forschungen 65, 1953, 1-18; An Analysis of Pietro Alighieri'sCommentary on the Divine Comedy (Verf.: John Paul Bowden), in: Romance Philology 8,1954/1955, 167; Dante's addresses to the reader, in: Romance Philology 7, 1954, 268-278;Dante's Drama of the Mind. A Modern Reading of the Purgatorio (Verf.: FrancisFergusson) (Buchbesprechung), in: Romance Philology 8, 1954/1955, 237; L'Aventure deL'Humanisme Europeen au Moyen-Age (IVe-XIVe Siecle) (Verf.: Paul Renucci)(Buchbesprechung), in: Comparative Literature 6, 1954, 176-178; Lateinische Prosa des 9.und 10. Jahrhunderts ("Sermo humilis II"), in: Romanische Forschungen 66, 1955, 1-64; AHistory of Modern Criticism (Hrsg.: Ren Wellek) (Buchbesprechung), in: Romanische

Forschungen 67, 1956, 387-396; Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischenSptantike und im Mittelalter, Bern 1958; Avantgardisme 1864, in: Vindrosen 6, 1959,


21/31

352-362; Scenes from the Drama of European Literature, New York 1959; Farinata undCavalcante, in: Mark Musa, Hersg. Essays on Dante, Bloomington, Indiana, 1964, 110-144; Das franzsische Publikum des 17. Jahrhunderts, Mnchen 1965; GesammelteAufstze zur romanischen Philologie, Bern und Mnchen 1967; Studi Su Dante, Mailand

1963; Begriffsbestimmung des literarischen Realismus (Beitrag), Darmstadt 1969; S.Francesco, Dante, Vico, Bari 1970; Erich Auerbach: Le Culte des passions. Essais sur leXVII sicle francais. Inroduction et traduction de l'allemand par Diane Meur, Paris:Macula 1997; Erich Auerbach: Ecrits sur Dante. Introduction et traduction de l'allemand etde l'anglais par Diane Meur, Paris: Macula 1998; Vico et la philologie, in: Poesie 86, 1998,83-94; Om hensigt og metode, in: Kultur og Klasse. Kritik og Kulturanalyse, 92, 2001, 13-28.

Lit. (Auswahl): Eva Seifert, Zur Technik der Frhrenaissancenovelle in Italien undFrankreich (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Zeitschrift fr romanischePhilologie 42, 1922, 255; - Arthur Franz, Dante als Dichter der irdischen Welt (Verf.:Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Archiv fr das Studium der abendlndischenSprachen 161, 1932, 284-287; - F. Baldensberger, Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in derabendlndischen Literatur (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Revue delittrature compare 21, 1947, 679; - R. Nykl, Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in derabendlndischen Literatur (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Speculum 22,1947, 461; - Herbert Dieckmann, Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in derabendlndischen Literatur (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: RomanicReview 39, 1948, 331-334; - Norbert Fuerst, Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der

abendlndischen Literatur (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Journal ofEnglish and Germanic Philology 47, 1948, 289-290; - Walter Naumann, Mimesis:Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlndischen Literatur (Verf.: Erich Auerbach)(Buchbesprechung), in: Modern Philology 45, 1948, 211-212; - Helmut A. Hatzfeld,Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlndischen Literatur (Verf.: ErichAuerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Romance Philology 2, 1948/1949, 333; - Helen Adolf,Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlndischen Literatur (Verf.: ErichAuerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Modern Language Quarterly 10, 1949, 249; - UlrichLeo, Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlndischen Literatur (Verf.: Erich

Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Comparative Literature 1, 1949, 92-95; - E. Eberwein-Dabcovich, Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlndischen Literatur (Verf.: ErichAuerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Romanistisches Jahrbuch 3, 1950, 573; - StephenGilman, Mimesis; la realidad en la literatura (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung),in: Nueva revista de filologa hispnica 6, 1952, 83-90; - Joaquin Casalduero, Mimesis: Larepresentacion de la realidad en la literatura occidental (Verf.: Erich Auerbach)(Buchbesprechung), in: Hispanic Review 21, 1953, 343-346; - Robert Gorham Davis, TheImitation of Life, in: Partisan Review 21, 1954, 321-326; - Friedrich Gogarten, Dasabendlndische Geschichtsdenken. Bemerkungen zu dem Buch von Erich Auerbach

Mimesis, in: Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche 51, 1954, 270-359; - Arnold Isenberg,Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Verf.: Erich Auerbach)


22/31

(Buchbesprechung), in: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 12, 1954, 526-527; -Ants Oras, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Verf.: ErichAuerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Journal of English and Germanic Philology 53, 1954,444- 447; - Nathan A. Scott, Jr., The Realism of Erich Auerbach - An Article on Mimesis

by Erich Auerbach, in: Christian Scholar 37, 1954, 538-547; - Ren Wellek, Auerbach'sSpecial Realism: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Verf.: ErichAuerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: The Kenyon Review 16, 1954, 299-336; - HarryBergholz, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Verf.: ErichAuerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: The Modern Language Journal 39, 1955, 109; - AlbertJ. George, Mimesis. The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Verf.: ErichAuerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Symposium; a Journal Devoted to Modern ForeignLanguages and Literature 9, 1955, 152-153; - Charles Muscatine, Erich Auerbach,Mimesis, in: Romance Philology 9, 1955, 448-457 (reprint. Charles Muscatine (Hrsg.):Medieval Literature, Style, and Culture, Columbia, South Carolina, 1999, 205-216); -Mario Fubini, Mimesis. Il realismo nella letteratura occidentale. Con un saggio introduttivodi Aurelio Roncaglia (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Giornale storicodella letteratura italiana 133, 1956, 280-281; - Mario Marti, Mimesis. Il realismo nellaletteratura occidentale (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Rassegna dellaletteratura italiana, 7. Serie, 61, 1957, 88-90; - Erich Auerbach, in: Romance Philology 11,1957/1958, 162; - M. Messina, Farinata e Cavalcante (Verf.: Erich Auerbach)(Buchbesprechung), in: Studi danteschi 35, 1958, 281; - Rimpianto per Henri Bdarida e

per Erich Auerbach, Studi francesi 2, 1958, 175; - Aurelio Roncaglia, Necrologi: ErichAuerbach, in: Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 135, 1958, 678-681; - Fritz Schalk,

Erich Auerbach, Romanische Forschungen 69, 1958, 126-128; - Ren Wellek, ErichAuerbach (1892-1957), in: Comparative Literature 10, 1958, 93-95; - Annunzi a cura diRemo Ceserani, Fausto Ghisalberti, Giuseppe Vidossi, in: Giornale storico della letteraturaitaliana 136, 1959, 677-680; - M. Dardano, Literatursprache und Publikum in derlateinischen Sptantike und im Mittelalter (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in:Cultura neolatina 19, 1959, 279-283; - Ludwig Edelstein, Mimesis: DargestellteWirklichkeit in der abendlndischen Literatur (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung),in: Modern Language Notes 65, 1959, 426-431; - F. Schneider, Literatursprache undPublikum in der lateinischen Sptantike und im Mittelalter (Verf.: Erich Auerbach)

(Buchbesprechung), in: Deutsche Literaturzeitung 80, 1959, 499-502; - F.M. Wassermann,Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Sptantike und im Mittelalter (Verf.:Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Books Abroad 33, 1959, 153-154; - Wilson,Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Sptantike und im Mittelalter (Verf.:Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Erasmus 12, 1959, 172-173; - Edward CharlesWitke, Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Sptantike und im Mittelalter(Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Speculum 34, 1959, 440-443; - DieterBeyerle, Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Sptantike und im Mittelalter(Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Romanistisches Jahrbuch 11, 1960, 253-

256; - Y.M., Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Verf.: ErichAuerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Romance Philology 14, 1960, 106-110; - Alfredo


23/31

Schiaffini, Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Sptantike und im Mittelalter(Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Giornale storico della letteratura italiana137, 1960, 461-464; - Antonio Viscardi, Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischenSptantike und im Mittelalter (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Studi

medievali 1, 1960, 205-216; - W.T. Elwert, Erich Auerbach: Mimesis. Il realismo nellaletteratura occidentale. Trad. di Alberto Romagnoli e Hans Hinterhuser (Verf.: ErichAuerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Archiv fr das Studium der neueren Sprachen undKulturen 198, 1962, 419; - Jacques Fontaine, Literatursprache und Publikum in derlateinischen Sptantike und im Mittelalter (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in:Revue des tudes anciennes 64, 1962, 525-528; - Ralph Paul deGorog, Introduction toRomance Languages and Literature (Verf.: Erich Auerbach, Guy Daniels)(Buchbesprechung), in: The Modern Language Journal 46, 1962, 184-185; - Albert C. DeVeer, Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Sptantike und im Mittelalter(Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Revue tudes augustiniennes 8, 1962, 188-189; - Oscar Bdel, Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Sptantike und imMittelalter (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Romanische Forschungen 75,1963, 119-134; - Daniel J. Donno, Dante: Poet of the Secular World (Verf.: ErichAuerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Renaissance News 16, 1963, 114-115; - FrancisFergusson, Dante, Poet of the Secular World (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung),in: Modern Philology 60, 1963, 283-286; - Helmut Kuhn, Literaturgeschichte alsGeschichtsphilosophie (Erich Auerbach), in: Philosophische Rundschau 11, 1963, 222-248; - Dante Della Terza, Erich Auerbach, in: Belfagor 18, 1963, 306-323; - E. Scuderi,Studi su Dante (Verf.: Erich Auerbach, Dante Della Terza; Maria Luisa De Pieri Bonino)

(Buchbesprechung), in: Orpheus 11, 1964, 70-74; - Cesare Segre, Studi su Dante (Verf.:Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 141,1964, 438-440; - Alfredo Stussi, Introduction aux tudes de philologie romane (Verf.:Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: Studi medievali, 3. Serie, 4, 1964, 377-378; -John Freccero, Studi su Dante (Verf.: Erich Auerbach, Dante Della Terza; Maria Luisa DePieri Bonino) (Buchbesprechung), in: Modern Language Notes 80, 1965, 105-108; -Gwynfor T. Griffith, Dante: Poet of the Secular World (Verf.: Erich Auerbach)(Buchbesprechung), in: Modern Language Review 60, 1965, 630; - John Dennis Hurrell,The Figural Approach to Medieval Drama, in: College English 26, 1965, 598-604; - Ralph

Manheim, Bibliography of the Writings of Erich Auerbach, in: Erich Auerbach (Hrsg.):Literary Language and Its Public in Late Latin Antiquity and in the Middle Ages,Princeton, New Jersey, 1965, 397-406; - Peter Dronke, Style in Late Classical andMedieval Latin: A Review of Literary Language and Its Public in Late Latin Antiquity andin the Middle Ages (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: The Classical Review16, 1966, 362-364; - Wolfgang Bernard Fleischmann, Erich Auerbach's Critical Theoryand Practice: An Assessment, in: Modern Language Notes 81, 1966, 535-541; - M.Winterbottom, Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Sptantike und imMittelalter (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in: History 51, 1966, 68-69; - J.

Norton-Smith, Auerbach on Literary Language, in: Medium Aevum 36, 1967, 159-167; -Paul Zumthor, Gesammelte Aufstze zur romanischen Philologie (Verf.: Erich Auerbach)


24/31

(Buchbesprechung), in: Neophilologus 52, 1968, 314-315; - Claude de Grve, GesammelteAufstze zur romanischen Philologie (Verf.: Erich Auerbach) (Buchbesprechung), in:Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 47, 1969, 268-269; - Arnold G. Reichenberger,Gesammelte Aufstze zur romanischen Philologie (Verf.: Erich Auerbach)

(Buchbesprechung), in: Romanic Review, 61, 1970, 161-163; - Arthur R. Evans, Jr., ErichAuerbach as European Critic, in: Romance Philology 25, 1971, 193-215; - P.P., ErichAuerbach, in: Giornale critico della filosofia italiana, 4. Serie 2, 1971, 174-175; - PaulZumthor, Erich Auerbach, ou L'eloge de la philologie, in: Litterature 5, 1972, 107-16; -Brian Stock, The Middle Ages as Subject and Object: Romantic Attitudes and AcademicMedievalism, in: New Literary History: A Journal of Theory and Interpretation 5, 1974,527-547; - David Carroll, Mimesis Reconsidered: Literature, History, Ideology: A Reviewof Mimesis (Hrsg.: Erich Auerbach, Willard Trask) (Buchbesprechung), in: Diacritics 5,1975, 5-12; - Ulrich Knoke, Erich Auerbach: Eine erkenntnis- und methodenkritischeBetrachtung, in: LiLi: Zeitschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 17, 1975, 74-93;- John C. Jorgensen, Hvad er realisme? Realismen hos Erich Auerbach, George Lukacs ogVilh. Andersen, in: Meddelelser fra Dansklrerforeningen, 1977, 49-81; - Klaus Gronau,Literarische Form und gesellschaftliche Entwicklung: Erich Auerbachs Beitrag zur Theorieund Methodologie der Literaturgeschichte, Knigstein 1979; - Lowry Nelson, Jr., ErichAuerbach: Memoir of a Scholar, in: Yale Review 69, 1979, 312; - Thomas M. DePietro,Literary Criticism as History: The Example of Auerbach's Mimesis, in: Clio 8, 1979, 377-387; - Betsy Emerick, Auerbach and Gramsci on Dante: Criticism and Ideology, in: CarteItaliane: A Journal of Italian Studies 1, 1979-1980, 9-22; - Timothy Bahti, Vico, Auerbachand Literary History, in: Philological Quarterly 60, 1981, 239-255; - W. Wolfgang

Holdheim, Auerbach's Mimesis: Aesthetics as Historical Understanding, in: CLIO: AJournal of Literature, History, and the Philosophy of History 10, 1981, 143-154; - RenWellek, Auerbach and Vico, in: Giorgio Tagliacozzo (Hrsg.): Vico: Past and Present,Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, 1981, t. II, 85-96; - Ders., Vico, Auerbach, and LiteraryHistory, in: Giorgio Tagliacozzo (Hrsg.): Vico: Past and Present, Atlantic Highlands, NewJersey, 1981, Bd. 2, 97-114; - Geoffrey Green und Robert Scholes, Literary Criticism andthe Structures of History: Erich Auerbach and Leo Spitzer, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1982; -George Steiner, Literary criticism and the structures of history: Erich Auerbach and LeoSpitzer (Verf.: Geoffrey Green) (Buchbesprechung), in: Times Literary Supplement, 25

Mrz 1983, 186; - Regina Schwartz, Free Will and Character Autonomy in the Bible, in:Religion and Literature 15, 1983, 51-74; - Terry Eagleton, Literary criticism and thestructures of history: Erich Auerbach and Leo Spitzer (Verf.: Geoffrey Green)(Buchbesprechung), in: Modern Language Review 79, 1984, 385-386; - Yossi Gamzu, TheSemitic and the Hellenic Types of Narrative, in: Biblical Hebrew Studies, Semitics 9,Pretoria 1984, 58-85; - Karl Kohut, La hispanstica alemana entre la literatura comparada yliteratura nacional, in: Arbor: Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura 119, 1984, 39-45; - Albert J.Kuhn, Literary criticism and the structures of history: Erich Auerbach and Leo Spitzer(Verf.: Geoffrey Green) (Buchbesprechung), in: South Atlantic Quarterly 83, 1984, 467-

468; - Henri Peyre, Literary criticism and the structures of history: Erich Auerbach and LeoSpitzer (Verf.: Geoffrey Green) (Buchbesprechung), in: Yearbook of Comparative and


25/31

General Literature 33, 1984, 99-101; - Timothy Bahti, Auerbach's Mimesis: FiguralStructure and Historical Narrative, in: Gregory S. Jay und David L. Miller (Hrsg.): AfterStrange Texts: The Role of Theory in the Study of Literature, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 1985,124-145; - Arthur R. Evans, Jr., Literary Criticism and the Structures of History: Erich

Auerbach and Leo Spitzer (Verf.: Geoffrey Green) (Buchbesprechung), in: ComparativeLiterature 37, 1985, 90-94; - W. Wolfgang Holdheim, The Hermeneutic Significance ofAuerbach's Ansatz, in: New Literary History: A Journal of Theory and Interpretation 16,1985, 627-631; - Joseph A. Mazzeo, Medieval Hermeneutics: Dante's Poetic andHistoricity, Religion and Literature 17, 1985, 1-24; - Bruce Robbins, The Representationof Servants, in: Raritan: A Quarterly Review 4, 1985, 57-77; - Paul A. Bov, Intellectualsin Power: A Genealogy of Critical Humanism, New York 1986; - H. K. Riikonen,Aristoteleen varjon hajottajia: Erich Auerbach ja Mihail Bahtin, in: KirjallisuudentutkijainSeuran Vuosikirja 40, 1986, 123-138; - J.P. Stern, In praise of Erich Auerbach's"Mimesis", in: London German Studies 3, 1986, 194; - Margaret Drabble, Mimesis: TheRepresentation of Reality in the Post-War Novel, in: Mosaic: A Journal for theInterdisciplinary Study of Literature 20, 1987, 1-14; - Larry D. Bouchard, Depth andBackground in Four Digressions from the "Odyssey": A Demur to Erich Auerbach, in:Literature and Theology 2, 1988, 18-36; - Luiz Costa Lima, Erich Auerbach: History andMetahistory, in: New Literary History: A Journal of Theory and Interpretation 19, 1988,467-499; - Carl Lindauer, Mimesis and Erich Auerbach's Self-Mythologizing, in: GermanStudies Review 11, 1988, 83-96; - Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, La inquietud de Luiz CostaLima, in: Nuevo Texto Crt. 2, 1989, 5-8; - Hans-Jrg Neuschfer, Sermo humilis oder:Was wir mit Erich Auerbach vertrieben haben, in: H.H. Christmann u.a. (Hrsg.): Deutsche

und sterreichische Romanisten als Verfolgte des Nationalsozialismus, Tbingen 1989, 85-95; - William D. Paden, Tenebrism in the Song of Roland, in: Modern Philology: AJournal Devoted to Research in Medieval and Modern Literature 86, 1989, 339-356; -Ulrich Schulz-Buschhaus, Typen des Realismus und Typen der Gattungsmischung-einePostille zu Erich Auerbachs Mimesis, in: Sprachkunst: Beitrge zur Literaturwissenschaft20, 1989, 51-67; - William Walker, Typology and Paradise Lost: Books XI and XII, in:Milton Studies 25, 1989, 245-264; - Thomas Docherty, Anti-Mimesis: The Historicity ofRepresentation, in: Forum for Modern Language Studies 26, 1990, 272-281; - AlbertRussell Ascoli, Boccaccio's Auerbach: Holding the Mirror Up to Mimesis, in: Studi sul

Boccaccio 20, 1991-1992, 377-397; - Rolf Kloepfer, Fr eine Geschichte der Literatur alsKunst-Sympraxis am Beispiel Diderots, in: Michael Titzmann und Georg Jger (Hrsg.):Modelle des literarischen Strukturwandels, Studien und Texte zur Sozialgeschichte derLiteratur 33, Tbingen 1991, 247-274; - Ruth Rosenberg, The Ghost Story as Aggada:Cynthia Ozick's 'The Pagan Rabbi' and Sheindel's Scar, in: Lynnette Carpenter und WendyK. Kolmar (Hrsg.): Haunting the House of Fiction: Feminist Perspectives on Ghost Stories

by American Women, Knoxville, Tennessee, 1991, 215-228; - Ren Wellek, A History ofModern Criticism 1750-1950, Bd. 7, New Haven, Connecticut, 1991; - Karlheinz Barck,Walter Benjamin and Erich Auerbach: Fragments of a Correspondence, in: Diacritics: A

Review of Contemporary Criticism 22, 1992, 81-83; - Cynthia Rae Doell, Structures ofTemporality, Reflections on History: Twentieth Century Literature and Theory, Diss.


26/31

(Buffalo, New York) 1992; - Richard K. Emmerson, Figura and the Medieval TypologicalImagination, in: Hugh T. Keenan (Hrsg.): Typology and English Medieval Literature,Georgia State Literary Studies Series 7, New York 1992, 7-42; - Martin Vialon, EinMarburger Gelehrter im Exil am Bosporus. Zum 100. Geburtstag des Romanisten Erich

Auerbach, n: Marburger Universittszeitung 230, 1992, 5; - Otto Pggeler und SilviaCaianiello, Philologiam ad Philosophiae Principia Revocare: La recezione di Vico inAuerbach, in: Bollettino del Centro di Studi Vichiani (BCSV) 22-23, 1992-1993, 307-324;- Marguerite Mills Chiarenza, Dante's Lady Poverty, in: Dante Studies 111, 1993, 153-175;- Luiz Costa Lima, Auerbach e a Histria Literria, in: Colquio Letras 129-130, 1993, 19-37; - Michael Holquist, The Last European: Erich Auerbach as Precursor in the History ofCultural Criticism, in: Modern Language Quarterly: A Journal of Literary History 54,1993, 371-391; - Vassilis Lambropoulos, The Hebraic and Hellenic models in the westernliterary canon: the case of Erich Auerbach 4, 1993, 63-86; - Franceso Orlando and JeanneClegg, Topoi of Realism: The Metamorphosis of Colors, in: Werner Sollors (Hrsg.): TheReturn of Thematic Criticism, Harvard English Studies 18, Cambridge, Massachussetts,1993, 209-216; - Jan M. Ziolkowski, Vorwort, in: Erich Auerbach (Verf.): LiteraryLanguage and Its Public in Late Latin Antiquity and in the Middle Ages, Princeton, NewJersey, 1993, ix-xxxix; - Andrea Battistini, Limpide voci dello spirito europeo: Il Vico diCroce e il Vico di Auerbach, in: Tra storia e simbolo, Studi dedicati a Ezio Raimondi,Biblioteca di Lettere Italiane: Studi e Testi 46, Florenz 1994, 253-279; - Walter BrunoBerg, Figura - modelo para armar outra histria? (Reflexes acerca da la utilizao doconceito em Auerbach y Cortzar); in: Dirce Crtes Riedel, Joo Cezar de Castro Rocha,Johannes Kretschmer (Hrsg.): V Colquio UERJ. Erich Auerbach, Rio de Janeiro 1994,

15-26 (Reprint: Revista de Filosofa Latinoamericana y Ciencias Sociales 11, Buenos Aires1996, 27-40); - Marc Escola, Vrai caractre du faux dvot: Molire, La Bruyre etAuerbach, in: Potique: Revue de Theorie et d'Analyse Litteraires 25, 1994, 181-198; -Seth Lerer, Erich Auerbach, in: Michael Gordon und Martin Kreiswirth (Hrsg.): The JohnsHopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism, Baltimore und London 1994; - YakovMalkiel, Literary Language and Its Public in Late Latin Antiquity and in the Middle Ages(Verf.: Erich Auerbach), in: Romance Philology 48, 1994, 145-150; - Claire Sprague,Multipersonal and Dialogic Modes in Mrs. Dalloway and The Golden Notebook, in RuthSaxton und Jean Tobin (Hrsg.): Woolf and Lessing: Breaking the Mold, New York 1994,

3-14; - Martin Vialon, Erich Auerbach: Zu Leben und Werk des Marburger Romanisten inder Zeit des Faschismus, in: Lendemains. Etudes compares sur la France/VergleichendeFrankreichforschung. konomie. Politik. Geschichte. Kultur. Literatur. Medien. Sprache75/76, 1994, 135-155; - Ders., Erich Auerbach: Philologie der Weltliteratur. SechsVersuche ber Stil und Wirklichkeitswahrnehmung (Buchbesprechung), in: Zeitschrift frGermanistik 3, 1994, 699-703; - Ders., Die Vertreibung des Romanisten Erich Auerbachaus seinem Amt, in: Oberhessische Presse, 20. 1. 1994, 5; - David Damrosch, Auerbach inExile, in: Comparative Literature 47, 1995, 97-117; - Kevin Brownlee, The Ideology ofPeriodization: Mimesis 10 and the Late Medieval Aesthetic, in: Seth Lerer (Hrsg.):

Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach, Figurae:Reading Medieval Culture, Stanford, Kalifornien, 1996, 156-175; - Giuseppe Candela,


27/31

Aspects of Realism in Auerbach and Croce, in: Canadian Review of ComparativeLiterature/Revue Canadienne de Littrature Compare 23, 1996, 485-499; - Luiz CostaLima und Paulo Henriques Brito, Auerbach and Literary History, in: Seth Lerer (Hrsg.):Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach, Figurae:

Reading Medieval Culture, Stanford, Kalifornien, 1996, 50-60; - Suzanne Fleischman,Medieval Vernaculars and the Myth of Monoglossia: A Conspiracy of Linguistics andPhilology, in: Seth Lerer (Hrsg.): Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: TheLegacy of Erich Auerbach, Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture, Stanford, Kalifornien,1996, 92-104; - Jesse M. Gellrich, Figura, Allegory, and the Question of History, in: SethLerer (Hrsg.): Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of ErichAuerbach, Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture, Stanford, Kalifornien, 1996, 107-123; -Geoffrey Green, Erich Auerbach and the 'Inner Dream' of Transcendence, in: Seth Lerer(Hrsg.): Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach,Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture, Stanford, Kalifornien, 1996, 214-226; - Hans UlrichGumbrecht, Pathos of the Earthly Progress: Erich Auerbach's Everydays, in: Seth Lerer(Hrsg.): Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach,Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture, Stanford, Kalifornien, 1996, 13-35; - Thomas R. Hart,Literature as Language: Auerbach, Spitzer, Jakobson, in: Seth Lerer (Hrsg.): LiteraryHistory and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach, Figurae: ReadingMedieval Culture, Stanford, Kalifornien, 1996, 227-239; - Carl Landauer, Auerbach'sPerformance and the American Academy: Or, How New Haven Stole the Idea of Mimesis,in: Seth Lerer (Hrsg.): Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy ofErich Auerbach, Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture, Stanford, Kalifornien, 1996, 179-

194; - Seth Lerer (Hrsg.): Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy ofErich Auerbach, Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture, Stanford, Kalifornien, 1996; - Ders.,Making Mimesis: Erich Auerbach and the Institutions of Medieval Studies, in: Howard R.Bloch und Stephen G. Nichols (Hrsg.): Medievalism and the Modernist Temper,Baltimore, Maryland, 1996, 308-333; - Ders., Philology and Collaboration: The Case ofAdam and Eve, in: Seth Lerer (Hrsg.): Literary History and the Challenge of Philology:The Legacy of Erich Auerbach, Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture, Stanford, Kalifornien,1996, 78-91; - Herbert Lindenberger, On the Reception of Mimesis, in: Seth Lerer (Hrsg.):Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach, Figurae:

Reading Medieval Culture, Stanford, Kalifornien, 1996, 195-213; - Arne Melberg,Mimesis i tid: Auerbachs figura, in: Tidskrift fr Litteraturvetenskap 2, 1996, 69-79; -Stephen G. Nichols, Philology in Auerbach's Drama of (Literary) History, in: Seth Lerer(Hrsg.): Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach,Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture, Stanford, Kalifornien, 1996, 63-77; - Brian Stock,Literary Realism in the Later Ancient Period, in: Seth Lerer (Hrsg.): Literary History andthe Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach, Figurae: Reading MedievalCulture, Stanford, Kalifornien, 1996, 143-155; - Claus Uhlig, Auerbach's "Hidden"(?)Theory of History, in: Seth Lerer (Hrsg.): Literary History and the Challenge of Philology:

The Legacy of Erich Auerbach, Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture, Stanford, Kalifornien,1996, 36-49; - Martin Vialon, Erich Auerbach: Zu Leben und Werk des Marburger


28/31

Romanisten in der Zeit des Faschismus, in: Jrg Jochen Berns (Hrsg.): Marburg-Bilder.Eine Ansichtssache, Bd. 2, Marburg 1996, 383-408; - Ders., Walter Benjamin - ErichAuerbach: Persnliche Bekanntschaft und Ausarbeitung einer Theorie der menschlichenWahrnehmung fr die Kunstmedien Literatur und Film, in: Jrg Leinweber (Hrsg.): Walter

Benjamin-Sammlung J. Leinweber. Mit einem Vorwort von Iring Fetscher, Wrzburg1996, 121-126; - Hayden White, Auerbach's Literary History: Figural Causation andModernist Historicism, in: Seth Lerer (Hrsg.): Literary History and the Challenge ofPhilology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach, Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture, Stanford,Kalifornien, 1996, 124-139; - Marc Blanchard, Mimesis, Not Mimicry: A Review ofMimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature Mimesis Reconsidered:Literature, History, Ideology, Diacritics / Literary Criticism and the Structures of History:Erich Auerbach and Leo Spitzer / Literary History and the Challenges of Philology: TheLegacy of Erich Auerbach (Verf.: Erich Auerbach, Willard R. Trask, David Carroll,Geoffrey Green, Seth Lerer) (Buchbesprechung), in: Comparative Literature 49, 1997,176-190; - Nicholas Howe, The Figural Presence of Erich Auerbach, in: The Yale Review85, 1997, 136-144; - Hans-Jrg Neuschfer, Die verzauberte Dulcinea: ZurWirklichkeitsauffassung in Mimesis und im Don Quijote, in: Karl Hlz, Siegfried Jttner,Rainer Stillers, Christoph Strosetzki (Hrsg.): Sinn und Sinnverstndnis: Festschrift frLudwig Schrader zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 1997, 44-51; - Willis Goth Regier, LiteraryHistory and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach (Hrsg.: Seth Lerer)(Buchbesprechung), in: Modern Language Notes 112, 1997, 702-705; - Martin Vialon:Erich Auerbachs Briefe an Martin Hellweg (1939-1950). Edition und historisch-

philologischer Kommentar, Tbingen-Basel 1997; - Ders., 50 Jahre Mimesis. Wahrnehmen

- Lesen - Deuten. Erich Auerbachs Lektre der Moderne, in: Literatur um elf, Jahrbuch 14,1997, 181-184; - Giovanna Angeli, Le Dialogue nocturne conjugal: Entre "cadre" et topos,in: J. Claude Faucon, Alain Labb, Danielle Quruel (Hrsg.): Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 1-2, Mlanges offerts Philippe Mnard, Nouvelle Bibliothque du Moyen Age 46, Paris1998, 51-63; - Rob K. Baum, Utter Holiness: Sarah's Laughter and Judaic Performativity,in: Journal of Theatre and Drama 4, 1998, 37-53; - Magnus Bergh, Aftonlandet ellerfilologens triumf: Om Erich Auerbachs Mimesis, in: Bonniers Litterra Magasin 67, 1998,64-68; - Walter Busch und Gerhart Pickertodt, Wahrnehmen Lesen Deuten: ErichAuerbachs Lektre der Moderne, Analecta Romanica 58, Frankfurt a.M. 1998; - Peter F.

Dembowski, The Philological Legacy of Erich Auerbach, in: Romance philology 52, 1998,71-95; - Gottfried Gabriel: Fact, Fiction and Fictionalism. Erich Auerbach's Mimesis inPerspektive, in: Bernhard F. Scholz (Hrsg.): Mimesis. Studien zur literarischenReprsentation. Studies on Literary Representation, Tbingen, Basel 1998, 33-; - Aamir R.Mufti, Auerbach in Istanbul: Edward Said, Secular Criticism, and the Question of MinorityCulture, in: Critical Inquiry 25, 1998, 95-125; - Lowry Nelson, Erich Auerbach (1892-1957), in: Helen Damico (Hrsg.): Medieval Scholarship: Biographical Studies on theFormation of a Discipline, Bd. 2: Literature and Philology, New York, 1998, 395-403; -Salvatore Claudio Sgroi, Chi ha paura di Erich Auerbach? Ovvero la porta del piacer che

nessun diserra, in: Quaderni di Semantica: Rivista Internazionale di Semantica Teorica eApplicata /An International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Semantics 19, 1998, 123-


29/31

126; - Hans R. Runte, Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy ofErich Auerbach (Hrsg.: Seth Lerer) (Buchbesprechung), in: French Review 72, 1998, 120-121; - Jerry A. Varsava, Cultural Readings - the Cultural Politics of Erich Auerbach:Minesis Revisited, in: Canadian Review of Comparative Literature, Revue canadienne de

littrature compare 25, 1998, 158-174; - Jan M. Ziolkowski, Literary History and theChallenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach (Hrsg.: Seth Lerer)(Buchbesprechung), in: Speculum 73, 1998, 557-558; - Frank R. Ankersmith, WhyRealism? Auerbach on the Representation of Reality, in: Poetics Today 20, 1999, 53-75; -Egbert J. Bakker, Mimesis as Performance: Rereading Auerbach's First Chapter, in: PoeticsToday 20, 1999, 11-26; - Paul A. Bov, Literary History and the Challenge of Philology:The Legacy of Erich Auerbach (Hrsg.: Seth Lerer) (Buchbesprechung), in: ModernPhilology 96, 1999, 555-557; - Jan M. Bremmer, Erich Auerbach and His Mimesis, in:Poetics Today 20, 1999, 3-10; - William Calin, Erich Auerbach's Mimesis - 'tis fifty yearssince: a reassessment, in: Style 33, 1999, 463-474; - Giuseppe Candela, Casisticheideologiche tra politica e letteratura, New York 1999; - Martin Elsky, Church History andthe Cultural Geography of Erich Auerbach: Europe and Its Eastern Other, in: Peter C.Herman und Edward W. Tayler (Hrsg.): Opening the Borders: Inclusivity in Early ModernStudies, Newark, Delaware, und London 1999, 324-349; - Lazlo K. Gfin, Auerbach'sStendhal: Realism, Figurality, and Refiguration, in: Poetics Today 20, 1999, 27-40; - HansUlrich Gumbrecht, Ren Peters und Sabine Wolters, Pathos des irdischen Verlaufs: ErichAuerbachs Alltag, in: Frank Frbeth, Pierre Krgel, Ernst E. Metzner, Olaf Mller (Hrsg.):Zur Geschichte und Problematik der Nationalphilologien in Europa, 150 Jahre ErsteGermanistenversammlung in Frankfurt am Main (1846-1996), Tbingen 1999, 649-664; -

Michael Holquist, Erich Auerbach and the Fate of Philology Today, in: Poetics Today 20,1999, 77-91; - Peter Jehle, Erich Auerbach - ein europischer Philologe, in: Frank Frbeth,Pierre Krgel, Ernst E. Metzner, Olaf Mller (Hrsg.): Zur Geschichte und Problematik der

Nationalphilologien in Europa, 150 Jahre Erste Germanistenversammlung in Frankfurt amMain (1846-1996), Tbingen 1999, 985-997; - Barry Maine, Erich Auerbach's Mimesisand Nelson Goodman's Ways of Worldmaking: A Nominal(ist) Revision, in: Poetics Today20, 1999, 41-52; - Karin Nykvist, Mimetiska mnster i medeltida landskapslag, in: Edda:

Nordisk Tidsskrift for Litteraturforskning 3, 1999, 272-279; - William Whallon, AuerbachWas a Friend, but a Greater Friend Is "Truth", in: Comparative Literature Studies 36, 1999,

294-305; - Kathleen Biddick, Coming out of Exile: Dante on the Orient Express, in: JeffreyJerome (Hrsg.): The Postcolonial Middle Ages, New York 2000, 35-52; - Luiz Costa Lima,Figura as a Kernel of Auerbach's Literary History, in: Literary Research/RechercheLittraire: A Journal of the International Comparative Literature Association/Une Revue del'Association Internationale de Littrature Compare 17, 2000, 268-279; - J. AllanMitchell, The Middle English Pearl: figuring the unfigurable, in: Chaucer Review: AJournal of Medieval Studies and Literary Criticism 35, 2000, 86-111; - Aamir R. Mufti,Auerbach in Istanbul: Edward Said, Secular Criticism, and the Question of MinorityCulture, in: Paul A. Bov (Hrsg.): Edward Said and the Work of the Critic: Speaking Truth

to Power, Durham, North Carolina, 2000; 229-256; - Martin Vialon, ber Bilder, Mimesis,ein Gesprch ber den Roman und den Film - Erich Auerbach und Siegfried Kracauer, in:


30/31

Michael Ewert und Martin Vialon (Hrsg.): Konvergenzen. Studien zur deutschen undeuropischen Literatur. Festschrift fr E. Theodor Voss, Wrzburg 2000, 157-167; -Pamela L. Caughie, Returning to the Lighthouse: A Postmodern Approach, in: Beth RigelDaugherty und Mary Beth Pringle (Hrsg.): Approaches to Teaching Woolf's To the

Lighthouse, New York 2001, 47-53; - Martin Elsky, Introduction to Erich Auerbach,Passio as Passion [Passio als Leidenschaft], in: Criticism: A Quarterly for Literature andthe Arts 43, 2001, 285-308; - Georgia Frank, Macrina's Scar: Homeric Allusion and HeroicIdentity in Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Macrina, in: Journal of Early Christian Studies 8

11Erich Auerbach

Documents

Transcript of 11Erich Auerbach