《摹仿論：西方文學中現實的再現》Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature

這本德文原著的英譯本The Representation of Reality in Western Literature的漢譯，據齊邦媛先生說80年代即有國立編譯館的版本，不過我沒見過。中國的第一次從德文翻譯過來的，是2002年。今年2014是以修正版。


《摹仿論 .西方文學中所描繪的現實.》作者／奧爾巴赫.出版社／天津：百花文藝出版社， 2002

《摹仿論：西方文學中現實的再現》，北京商務印書館，2014

內容簡介 · · · · · ·


《摹仿論:西方文學中所描繪的現實(50週年版)》是德德國著名學者埃利里希·奧爾巴赫的代表作，被翻譯成多種文字，在歐美學界產生了廣泛而深遠的影響。原著是用德文寫成，1946年在瑞士出版。英譯本初版於1953年由美國普林斯頓大學出版社出版。2003年，為了紀念英譯本出版50週年，美國著名學者薩義德（Edward W.Said）為此書撰寫了長篇評述。

《摹仿論》是公認的20世紀西方批評經典與學術名作，它從西方文學的源頭《荷馬史詩》開始，至20世紀的伍爾芙與普魯斯特收篇，分析了但丁、拉伯雷、塞萬提斯、莎士比亞、蒙田、巴爾扎克、斯湯達、歌德、席勒、左拉登眾多西方經典作家以及幾十部具有里程碑意義的作品。作者 : [德]奧爾巴赫（Erich Auerbach）
出版社:上海外語教育出版社副標題:西方文學中所描繪的現實（50週年版）原作名: Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature 譯者 : Willard R. Trask出版年: 2009-9 頁數: 578 定價: 76.00元叢書: 外教社西方文論叢書ISBN: 9787544614702

Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (German: Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen Literatur) is a book of literary criticism by Erich Auerbach, and his most well known work. Written while Auerbach was teaching in Istanbul, Turkey, where he fled after being ousted from his professorship in Romance Philology at the University of Marburg by the Nazis in 1935,^[1] it was first published in 1946 by A. Francke Verlag.

Mimesis famously opens with a comparison between the way the world is represented in Homer’s Odyssey and the way it appears in the Bible. From these two seminal Western texts, Auerbach builds the foundation for a unified theory of representation that spans the entire history of Western literature, including even the Modernist novelists writing at the time Auerbach began his study.

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1 Overview
  • 1.1 Chapters
• 2 Position and evaluation of rhetoric
• 3 Critical reception
• 4 References
• 5 Bibliography

Overview[edit]

Mimesis gives an account of the way in which everyday life in its seriousness has been represented by many Western writers, from ancient Greek and Roman writers such as Petronius and Tacitus, early Christian writers such as Augustine, Medieval writers such asChretien de Troyes and Dante, Renaissance writers such as Boccaccio, Montaigne, Rabelais, Shakespeare and Cervantes, seventeenth-century writers such as Molière and Racine, Enlightenment writers such as Voltaire, nineteenth-century writers such asStendhal, Balzac, Flaubert, and Zola, all the way up to twentieth-century writers such as Proust, and Woolf. Despite his treatment of the many major works, Auerbach apparently did not think he was comprehensive enough, and apologized in the original publication in 1946 explaining that he had access only to the 'insufficient' resources available in the library at Istanbul University where he worked.^[2]Many scholars consider this relegation to primary texts a happy accident of history, since in their view one of the great strengths of Auerbach’s book is its focus on fine-grained close reading of the original texts rather than an evaluation of critical works.

The mode of literary criticism in which Mimesis operates is often referred to among contemporary critics as historicism, since Auerbach largely regarded the way reality was represented in the literature of various periods to be intimately bound up with social and intellectual conventions of the time in which they were written. Auerbach considered himself a historical perspectivist in the German tradition (he mentioned Hegel in this respect) exploring specific features of style, grammar, syntax, and diction claims about much broader cultural and historical questions. Of Mimesis, Auerbach wrote that his "purpose is always to write history."

He is in the same German tradition of philology as Ernst Curtius, Leo Spitzer, and Karl Vossler, having a mastery of many languages and epochs and all-inclusive in its approach, incorporating just about any intellectual endeavor into the discipline of literary criticism.

Auerbach was a Romance language specialist, which explains his admitted bias towards treating texts from French compared to other languages. Chaucer and Wordsworth are not mentioned even in passing though Shakespeare and Virginia Woolf are given full chapters and Dickens and Henry Fielding make appearances.

Chapters[edit]

#	Chapter title	Main works discussed
1	Odysseus' Scar	Odyssey by Homer and Genesis 22:1
2	Fortunata	Satyricon by Petronius, Annals Book 1 by Tacitus and Mark ch. 14
3	The Arrest of Peter Valvomeres	Res Gestae by Ammianus Marcellinus
4	Sicharius and Chramnesindus	History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours
5	Roland Against Ganelon	Chanson de Roland
6	The Knight Sets Forth	Yvain by Chrétien de Troyes
7	Adam and Eve	The medieval mystery play Mystère d'Adam; St. Bernard of Clairvaux; St. Francis of Assisi
8	Farinata and Cavalcante	Inferno, The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri
9	Frate Alberto	The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio
10	Madame Du Chastel	Le Réconfort de Madame du Fresne by Antoine de la Sale
11	The World in Pantagruel's Mouth	Gargantua and Pantagruel by François Rabelais
12	L'Humaine Condition	Essays by Michel de Montaigne
13	The Weary Prince	Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2 by William Shakespeare
14	The Enchanted Dulcinea	Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes
15	The Faux Dévot	Tartuffe by Molière
16	The Interrupted Supper	Manon Lescaut by Abbé Prévost; Candide by Voltaire; Mémoires byLouis_de_Rouvroy,_duc_de_Saint-Simon
17	Miller the Musician	Luise Miller by Friedrich Schiller
18	In the Hôtel de la Mole	The Red and the Black by Stendhal and Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
19	Germinie Lacerteux	Germinie Lacerteux by Edmond and Jules de Goncourt and Germinal by Émile Zola
20	The Brown Stocking	To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf and In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust

Position and evaluation of rhetoric[edit]

To the consternation of his colleague, Ernst Curtius, Auerbach's work is marked by an openly anti-rhetorical position. Classical writers such as Homer, Tacitus and Petronius, as well as Medieval theologians (except St. Augustine) and writers of the seventeenth century like Racine are criticized for adherence to the rhetorical doctrine of "styles" with their corresponding subject matters: the low style's association with the comedic and the popular classes, and the elevated style's association with the tragic, the historic and the heroic. Auerbach sees the Bible as opposing this rhetorical doctrine in its serious and poignant portrayals of common folk and their encounter with the divine. As Auerbach notes in chapter two when discussing the New Testament:

But the spirit of rhetoric—a spirit which classified subjects in genera and invested every subject with a specific form of style as one garment becoming it in virtue of its nature [i.e. lower classes with the farcical low-style, upper classes with the tragic, the historic and the sublime elevated-style]--could not extend its dominion to them [the Bible writers] for the simple reason that their subject would not fit into any of the known genres. A scene like Peter's denial fits into no antique genre. It is too serious for comedy, too contemporary and everyday for tragedy, politically too insignificant for history—and the form which was given it is one of such immediacy that its like does not exist in the literature of antiquity.^[3]

The Bible will ultimately be responsible for the "mixed style" of Christian rhetoric, a style that is described by Auerbach in chapter seven as the "antithetical fusion" or "merging" of the high and low style. The model is Christ's Incarnation as both sublimitas andhumilitas. This mixture ultimately leads to a "popular realism" seen in the religious plays and sermons of the 12th Century. Auerbach also discusses the development of an intermediate or middle style due to Medieval influences from the Bible and Courtly Love (see chapters nine and fifteen on Boccaccio and Molière). This development of an intermediate and then ultimately another "mixed style" (Shakespeare, Hugo) leads to what Auerbach calls the "modern realism" of the nineteenth-century (see chapter nineteen on Flaubert).

Auerbach champions writers during periods under the sway of rhetorical forms of writing like Gregory of Tours and St. Francis of Assisi, whose Latin was poor and whose rhetorical education was minimal, but who were still able to convey vivid expression and feeling. He also champions the diarist Saint-Simon who wrote about the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century French court. Completely free of the absolute constraints of style found in Racine or the superficial use of reality found in Prévost or Voltaire, Saint-Simon's portraits of court life are considered by Auerbach, somewhat surprisingly, to be the precursor of Proust (an admirer of Saint-Simon) and Zola.

Critical reception[edit]

Mimesis is almost universally respected for its penetrating insights on the particular works it addresses but is frequently criticized for what is sometimes regarded as its lack of a single overarching claim. For this reason, individual chapters of the book are often read independently. This is unfortunate since Auerbach is clearly trying to present the tensions and pull of these two "styles" (the rhetorical and the Biblical/realist) during various periods under discussion, ultimately resulting in the rise of "modern realism." Most critics praise his sprawling approach for its reveling in the complexities of each work and epoch without resorting to generalities and reductionism. However, a work of this complexity comes with problems of its own. Auerbach has the habit sometimes of using a minor work as a representation of an era, such as upholding the obscure Antoine de la Sale as representative of the inferiority of Medieval prose literature while ignoring monuments like the Prose Lancelot or Prose Tristan.

By far the most frequently reprinted chapter is chapter one, "Odysseus' Scar" in which Auerbach compares the scene in book 19 ofHomer’s Odyssey, when Odysseus finally returns home from his two decades of warring and journeying, to Genesis 22:1, the story ofThe Binding of Isaac. Highlighting the rhetorically determined simplicity of characters in the Odyssey (what he calls the "external") against what he regards as the psychological depth of the figures in the Old Testament, Auerbach suggests that the Old Testament gives a more powerful and historical impression than the Odyssey, which he classifies as closer to "legend" in which all details are leisurely fleshed out and all actions occur in a simple present – indeed even flashbacks are narrated in the present tense.

Auerbach summarizes his comparison of the texts as follows:

The two styles, in their opposition, represent basic types: on the one hand [The Odyssey 's] fully externalized description, uniform illustration, uninterrupted connection, free expression, all events in the foreground, displaying unmistakable meanings, few elements of historical development and of psychological perspective; on the other hand [in the Old Testament], certain parts brought into high relief, others left obscure, abruptness, suggestive influence of the unexpressed, "background" quality, multiplicity of meanings and the need for interpretation, universal-historical claims, development of the concept of the historically becoming, and preoccupation with the problematic.

Auerbach concludes by arguing that the "full development" of these two styles, the rhetorical tradition with its constraints on representing reality and the Biblical or "realist" tradition with its engagement of everyday experience, exercised a "determining influence upon the representation of reality in European literature."

It is in the context of this comparison between the Biblical and the Homeric that Auerbach draws his famous conclusion that the Bible’s claim to truth is "tyrannical," since

What he [the writer of the Old Testament] produced then, was not primarily oriented towards "realism" (if he succeeded in being realistic, it was merely a means, not an end): it was oriented to truth.

However, by the time Auerbach treats the work of Flaubert we have come full circle. Like the Biblical writers whose faith in the so-called "tyrannical" truth of God produces an authentic expression of reality, Flaubert's "faith in the truth of language" (ch. 18) likewise represents "an entire human experience."

References[edit]

1. Jump up^ Auerbach, Erich (2007). "Rev. of Scholarship in Times of Extremes: Letters of Erich Auerbach (1933–46), on the Fiftieth Anniversary of His Death". PMLA (Modern Language Association) 122 (3): 742–62. doi:10.1632/pmla.2007.122.3.742. ISSN 0030-8129.
2. Jump up^ Auerbach, Erich; Willard R. Trask, trans. (1953). Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Princeton: Princeton UP. ISBN 0-691-01269-5. 557.
3. Jump up^ Auerbach, Erich; Willard R. Trask, trans. (1953). Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Princeton: Princeton UP. ISBN 0-691-01269-5. 45.

Bibliography[edit]

• Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Fiftieth Anniversary Edition. Trans. Willard Trask. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.
• Bakker, Egbert. "Mimesis as Performance: Rereading Auerbach’s First Chapter." Poetics Today 20.1 (1999): 11-26.
• Baldick, Chris. “Realism.” Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. 184.
• Bremmer, Jan. "Erich Auerbach and His Mimesis." Poetics Today 20.1 (1999): 3-10.
• Calin, William. "Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis – ’Tis Fifty Years Since: A Reassessment." Style 33.3 (1999): 463-474.
• Doran, Robert. "Literary History and the Sublime in Erich Auerbach´s Mimesis." New Literary History 38.2 (2007): 353-369.
• Green, Geoffrey. "Erich Auerbach." Literary Criticism & the Structures of History: Erich Auerbach & Leo Spitzer. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1982.
• Holmes, Jonathan, and Streete, Adrian, eds. Refiguring Mimesis: Representation in Early Modern Literature. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2005.
• Holquist, Michael. “Erich Auerbach and the Fate of Philology Today.” Poetics Today 20.1 (1999): 77-91.
• Landauer, Carl. "Mimesis and Erich Auerbach’s Self-Mythologizing." German Studies Review 11.1 (1988): 83-96.
• Lerer, Seth. Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996.
• Nuttall, A. D.. "New Impressions V: Auerbach’s Mimesis." Essays in Criticism 54.1 (2004): 60-74.