Odysseus' scar (Auerbach)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Odysseus' Scar" is the first chapter of Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, an anthology of essays by German-Jewish philologist Erich Auerbach. It examines the differences between the two types of realism embodied by Homer's Odyssey and the Old Testament.
Contents |
[edit] "Two Basic Types"
According to Auerbach, the Old Testament and the Odyssey are “in their opposition...basic types” of ancient epic literature. While the former can be various and arbitrary, multilayered in its characterization of people and events, the latter is the epitome of detailed, organized, and logical storytelling.
Although he acknowledged that both works exercised an enormous influence over subsequent Western literature, Auerbach held that the true motivation behind the representations of reality in both the Bible and the Odyssey lay outside aesthetic considerations. For Homer, it lay in the desire of the poet to "represent phenomena in a fully externalized form, visible and papable in all their parts." For the Elohist, it was belief in a religion, and the desire - not to mimic reality - but to convey truth. Furthermore, the two works were written for very different purposes; the Odyssey, as a piece of entertainment, aims only to "make us forget our own reality for a few hours," while the Bible, as religious doctrine, tyranically seeks to "make us fit our own life into its world."
[edit] Content
In the essay, Auerbach begins with a close reading of brief excerpts from both the works, beginning with the scene from Homer in which, upon Odysseus’ homecoming, Euryclea recognizes the hero by the scar on his foot. Auerbach notes here the clarity and orderliness of Homer's verse, as well as the tidy comparative, causal, and temporal relationships articulated by Homer's precise syntactical constructions. As an example, he also points out how, with the careful insertion of a flashback "retarding element" (term coined by Goethe and Schiller) into the middle of the story, Homer creates a relaxing excursion to defer suspense. By keeping the focus always on the present narrative, the "procession of phenomena" Homer presents always remains illuminated in the foreground, even as the story itself jumps back and forth between times and locations.
In contrast, Auerbach's next close reading, the story of Abraham’s sacrifice from the Book of Genesis, reveals a style of realism that is "fraught with background" and full of omissions. Unlike Homer's style, in which everything is illuminated, the Elohist leaves unsaid any detail that does not pertain to the story's purpose. Conversely, what is said is thereby always loaded with meaning, creating an effect of accumulating suspense. Auerbach contrasts this with the realism style of the Odyssey, one in which "even when the most terrible things are occurring...details prevent the reader from concentrating exclusively on a present crisis."
In the latter half of the essay, Auerbach switches to a point-by-point comparison of the two works:
The tyranny of truth: Truth has no bearing on the relevance of Homer's stories, because the stories are "realistic" enough to be self-sufficient in their own copy of reality. On the other hand, whether or not the Bible is used for its original purpose has everything to do with its perceived relation to truth. Looking at it from another point of view, the Odyssey is a story very limited in the scope of its consequences, it is consequently not difficult to resolve one's personal truth with the truth of the Odyssey. The Bible, whereas, lays a "tyrannical" claim on all truth from Creation to the Last Days, and as a result is very difficult to reconcile with one's sense of truth. In fact, Auerbach believes this to be one reason why interpretation of the Bible has had become so abstract.
Representation of heroes: The Odyssey's heroes seem to change very little both inwardly and outwardly, even under duress. Like "Achilles' actions by his courage and his pride, and Odysseus' by his versatility and foresightedness," they can be always summed up with a few apt epithets. On the other hand, characters of the Bible like Jacob and Job are irrevocably changed by the trials they undergo.
History versus legend: The Odyssey is told like a legend--it is a little too convenient, too streamlined a story, and its characters are all "clearly outlined" men with "few and simple motives." In the Bible, reality is represented more like history--filled with ambiguity, confusion, and contradictory motives.
[edit] Criticism
Several common critical objections to Auerbach’s essay have been that the passages he chose for close reading were not sufficiently representative of the two texts. Some scholars maintain, instead, that the poetry (rather than the prose) of the Old Testament would be more appropriate for comparison to Homer's verse.
Unsurprisingly, much of the criticism of this essay has come from classicists, many of them finding Auerbach's reading of The Odyssey overly simplistic. Another argument is that Auerbach failed to take into account that the Odyssey is the written record of an orally told work, and that therefore the reality it represents is not the story of Odysseus, but rather a telling of the story of Odysseus. Such an interpretation would perhaps partly account for the work’s thoroughly-articulated and background-less style.
Although Auerbach explicitly states in his essay that he chose the particular texts of the Odyssey and the Old Testament because of their subsequent influence on Western literature, some scholars have questioned whether he may also have had political motivations for writing a piece comparing a sacred Jewish text to the Odyssey, perhaps by using it as an analogy for the conflict between Judeo-Christian tradition and the Aryan Nazism flourishing in Europe at the time of Mimesis’ writing.
[edit] Bibliography and further reading
[edit] Journal articles
- Ankersmit, Frank R. "Why Realism? Auerbach and the Representation of Reality." Poetics Today, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Spring, 1999), pp. 53-75.
- Bakker, Egbert J. "Mimesis as Performance: Rereading Auerbach's First Chapter" Poetics Today Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 11-26
- Breslin, Charles. "Philosophy or Philology: Auerbach and Aesthetic Historicism" Journal of the History of Ideas > Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jul., 1961), pp. 369-381
- Damrosch, David "Auerbach in Exile" Comparative Literature Vol. 47, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), pp. 97-117
- Fleischmann, Wolfgang Bernard. "Erich Auerbach's Critical Theory and Practice: An Assessment" MLN, Vol. 81, No. 5, General Issue. (Dec., 1966), pp. 535-541.
- Landauer, Carl. "Mimesis" and Erich Auerbach's Self-Mythologizing" German Studies Review > Vol. 11, No. 1 (Feb., 1988), pp. 83-96
- Whallom, William. "Old Testament Poetry and Homeric Epic." Comparative Literature Vol. 18, No. 2 (Spring, 1966), pp. 113-131
[edit] Books
- Bloom, Harold. Homer. New York: Chelsea House Publications
- Green, Geoffrey. Literary Criticism and the Structures of History: Erich Auerbach and Leo Spitzer. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1983.
- Lerer, Seth. Literary history and the challenge of philology : the legacy of Erich Auerbach. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996.
[edit] Copy of the essay
- "Odysseus' Scar"[1], Willard R. Trask's translation from the 1953 first edition of Mimesis
