Printer Friendly

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

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 its luster or even its immediacy. Whatever the criteria--translations of books into English, 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 our profession 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 individual passage 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 of historical process and change.

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 not wane 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 that treats 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 as theoretically progressive, do all the time), Auerbach does the opposite. He defines our 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 of departure]. 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 in eternity 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 and because 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 concerns to be depicted as and in historical reality, in the dynamic concreteness of history, their unique historical peculiarity, and also allows that they be treated not as comedy but with depth and the problematic seriousness of tragedy, the tragic seriousness heretofore reserved to Virgil's Aeneas and Racine's Nero. Now, the French novelists' achievement in endowing the humble and the quotidian with the dynamic concreteness of history, that is, with historical significance and with high tragic seriousness, occurs as a modern secular replication 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, the medieval 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 in a structure of dynamic tension wherein the modern is shaped by the medieval and is a direct outgrowth of it. Hayden White has even proposed that this structure is figural, a secular, aesthetic figural pattern of the history of literature according to which the medieval foreshadows 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 their own right (rhetorical criticism, typological criticism), exploited now by two generations of 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 the comic 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 are granted 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 (Zur Technik), 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 Language and Its Public, which make a statement on Latin prose during the so-called Dark Ages and on the language and publics of early French romance and Dante. Of equal importance are the essays--brilliantly innovative--on Pascal ("Triumph"), Rousseau ("[ddot{U}]ber den historischen"), and Baudelaire ("Esthetic"), as well as on Vico. [8] The fact that, at the end of his life, Auerbach made such a commitment to French literature, from the Eneas to Baudelaire, gives the lie to the assertion, heard now and then, that the master's primary concern 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, each over a period of centuries. Despite the cavil from susceptible teachers of English such as Robert Gorham Davis and, for that matter, Wellek (114-15), Mimesis offers a legitimate and 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, 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 to Auerbach'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 Dante and 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 as such. 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 the complexity of the evolution to the summit (the end) and oversimplifying the origins (the 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 a current 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 that specialists 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 to American critical modernism. [12] For this reason, Mimesis has recently been studied as an 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 displacing his 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 extent that 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 and New Testaments and between Judaism and Christianity, and also offers the reminder (alas, 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 Biblical typology 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 young who 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 "glorious infatuation with trash."

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 of culture--a culture which, thanks to the historicism that he so honored, now not only is but also is known.

William Calin (wcalin@rll.ufl.edu) 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.

(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.

___. 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.

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.

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.

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
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1999 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Calin, William
Publication:Style
Article Type:Critical Essay
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Sep 22, 1999
Words:5160
Previous Article:Flying High and Flying Low: Travel, Sabbaticals, and Privilege in Academic Life.
Next Article:Paul Val[acute{e}]ry: Literature as Such.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |