A new edition of Auerbach’s masterpiece Mimesis, originally published in 1942, is a cause for celebration. This is arguably the most influential book on comparative literature ever written. It combines two qualities that are rare in isolation and almost non-existent in combination: an astonishing attention to minute detail in its close readings, on the one hand, and a broad, coherent, and systematic vision of literary history, on the other. It is also one of those rare books that may be more enjoyable to read than many of the works it analyzes. The first chapter, on Homer and the Book of Genesis, is probably the most widely known. Auerbach famously writes: “Ich nannte […] den homerischen Stil vordergründig, weil er trotz vielen Vor- und Zurückspringens doch stets das jeweils Erzählte als alleinige Gegenwart unvermischt und ohne Perspektive wirken läßt” (18). In the English translation by W. R. Trask: “I said […] that the Homeric style was ‘of the foreground’ because, despite much going back and forth, it yet causes what is momentarily being narrated to give the impression that it is the only present, pure and without perspective” (12).
While this insight is not entirely new—it aligns with the long-standing discussion of “epic objectivity”—Auerbach presents it in a fresh and compelling way by comparing it to the strikingly different narrative technique of the Old Testament. To be sure, many of Auerbach’s claims have been challenged. Irene de Jong, for example, has demonstrated beyond doubt that Homer employs a highly nuanced narrative perspective, while scholars like Antonios Rengakos have shown that the Homeric text often creates more than just the impression that “what is momentarily being narrated […] is the only present.”[1] Yet possibly no one has been as clear as Auerbach about the implications of Homer’s tendency toward a relative lack of perspective and the predominance of fore-grounding present-time narration—a technique that would be radically transformed by later authors, where lively actions in the background may become the norm.
Classicists will find particular interest in chapter 1 (on Homer), chapter 2 (on Petronius and Tacitus), and chapter 3 (on Ammianus Marcellinus and St. Jerome, with a brief discussion of Apuleius). Students of Late Ancient and medieval Latin literature will appreciate chapter 4 (on Gregory of Tours). Here as elsewhere, Auerbach’s merits are well known and beyond doubt—so too are his potential shortcomings.[2] The objective of this review is not to assess them, but to present what distinguishes this new edition from the previous ones.
First, it includes two new contributions. One of them, “Zum Textstand von Mimesis: Editorische Notiz von Olaf Müller” (pp. 581–586), focuses on textual issues in Mimesis. The other, “Zur Ideengeschichte von Mimesis: Überlegungen von Matthias Bormuth” (pp. 549–580), is perhaps the most insightful recent introduction to Auerbach’s life and scholarship. Bormuth provides a vivid account of Auerbach’s forced emigration to Istanbul, his correspondence with Walter Benjamin, and the gradual emergence of the key ideas, passio and figura in particular, that shaped his magnum opus: “Figuraldeutung und Passionsmotiv werden die geschichtsphilosophischen und literaturhistorischen Erkundungen von Mimesis prägen” (556). He further notes: “Die akute Bedrohung, die bis Ende 1942 mit der möglichen Okkupation der vorderen Türkei durch deutsche Truppen entstanden war, sorgt lebensgeschichtlich dafür, dass Erich Auerbach sich in diesem Jahr entschloss, eine jüdisch-christlich orientierte Literaturgeschichte zu schreiben” (556). The urgency behind Mimesis becomes palpable in Bormuth’s skillful interweaving of biography, historical context, intellectual influences, and Auerbach’s attempt to map a groundbreaking cultural system. Without considering these elements, the true origins of Mimesis might remain obscured.
Some observations appear to be repeated across the two contributions, albeit with different emphases. For instance, Bormuth writes: “In the quiet corners of European Stambul, the Apostolic Legate (der Apostolische Legat) Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII, granted Auerbach access to the library of the Church Fathers and Latin authors of the Middle Ages” (555). Meanwhile, Müller notes: “Auerbach made no secret of the fact that Giuseppe Roncalli, the Apostolic Nuncio (der […] apostolische Nuntius) in Istanbul and later Pope John XXIII, gave him access to the Dominican library, which contained Migne’s Patrologia” (583). A cross-reference might have sufficed to avoid this redundancy. It might also have avoided terminological confusion.
Müller draws attention to several problematic textual choices made by Auerbach. Probably the most striking one is about “der strenge römische Stadtpräfekt bei Ammianus Marcellinus”, who “in der von Auerbach benutzten Fassung überraschenderweise ‘inclinatior ad amandum’ ist – ‘allzu geneigt zu sinnlicher Liebe’, wie Auerbach an der Stelle übersetzen muss (S. 60) –, und nicht ‘inclinatior damnandum’ – ‘zu schnell bereit […], jemand zu verurteilen’” (584). True, damnandum is more defensible than amandum, but the preposition ad is indispensable. The actual reading must be inclinatior ad damnandum (not inclinatior damnandum).
Müller highlights that just as important as the question which editions Auerbach used is the difficulty posed to modern readers by the many untranslated passages found throughout Mimesis (584). Müller’s final remarks outline what is new in this edition. I provide a translation: “The present edition offers a fully revised text of Mimesis, which had remained unchanged since the second edition of 1949, when the Don Quixote chapter was added. The layout has been modernized and made more reader-friendly compared to the earlier, highly compact typesetting that was used up to the eleventh edition. This marks a first step toward a scholarly edition (Studienausgabe), which will include translations of all previously untranslated passages and is planned for release in 2027, the seventieth anniversary of Erich Auerbach’s death” (585). In short: the text has been revised, which possibly means that a number of errata have been corrected, and the typesetting is new.
Specialists as well as general readers will eagerly anticipate this Studienausgabe to appear in 2027, hoping it will include at least a few notes indicating how Auerbach’s formidable insights have been received, revised, or found wanting in subsequent scholarship.
Notes
[1] I. J. F. de Jong, Narrators and Focalizers. The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad, Amsterdam: 1987; A. Rengakos, “Zeit und Gleichzeitigkeit in den homerischen Epen,” Antike und Abendland 41 (1995), 1-33.
[2] I would like to name only two of the defects I perceive in this masterpiece: the lack of explicit problematization of what “reality” (Wirklichkeit) is, and the tendency to present the history of literature teleologically, its telos being, precisely, a more perfect “representation of reality.” In this framework, Zola appears as more intrinsically “realist” than Petronius or Shakespeare, while writers such as Joyce or Kafka are treated only en passant or not at all. Among the more obvious shortcomings, the most evident should be noted: because he could not read them in the original, Auerbach did not study the great Russian writers.