01/05/2016 TerryEagletonreviewsMimesisbyErichAuerbachLRB23October2003

Backtoarticlepage

PorkChopsandPineapples
TerryEagleton

Mimesis:TheRepresentationofRealityinWesternLiteraturebyErichAuerbach
Princeton,579pp,13.95,May2003,ISBN069111336X

Realismisoneofthemostelusiveofartisticterms.Unrealistic,forexample,isnotnecessarily
thesameasnonrealist.Youcanhaveaworkofartwhichisnonrealistinthesenseofbeing
nonrepresentational,yetwhichpaintsaconvincingpictureoftheworld.Conversely,Jeffrey
Archersnovelsarerepresentationalbutunconvincing.JaneAustensnovelsarerealist,but
youcouldclaimthatthespookyGothicfictionshedislikedsomuchreflectsmoreofthe
anxietyandagitationofanAgeofRevolutionthanMansfieldParkdoes.Lifecanbeagood
dealmoresurrealthanAndrBreton.WalterBenjaminconsideredthatBaudelairespoetry
reflectedtheurbanmassesofParis,eventhoughthosemassesarenowhereactuallypresent
inhiswork.

BertoltBrechtthoughtthatrealismwasamatterofaworkseffects,notofwhetheritrecalled
somethingfamiliar.Accordingtothistheory,realismisarelationshipbetweentheartwork
anditsaudience,inwhichcaseyourplaycanberealisticonMondaybutnotonThursday.
Onepersonsrealismisanothersfantasy.Realismisasrealismdoes.Verisimilitudeshowing
adockyardonstage,sayisnotnecessarilyrealisticinapoliticallyandartisticallyevaluative
senseoftheword.Realism,inthisview,isamatterofwhattheaudienceorreadersgetoutof
thething,notwhatyouputintoit.Ifonewantedanaesthetic,Brechtwrites,onecouldfind
onehere.

Ifrealismistakentomeanrepresentstheworldasitactuallyis,thenthereisplentyofroom
forwranglingoverwhatcountsinthisrespect.Youcannotdecidewhetheraworkisrealist
simplybyinspectingit.Supposewediscoveredapieceofwritingfromsomelongvanished
civilisationwhichweknewwasinsomesensefictional,andwhichpaidinordinateattention
tothelengthofmensnoses.Wemightcategorisetheworkasnonrealist,untilfurther
archaeologicalresearchrevealedthatthecivilisationinquestionregardednosesizeasan
importantindexofmalefertility.Inwhichcasethetextmightshiftintothecategoryof
realism.LiterarycriticsinthedistantfuturewouldnotbeabletotellthatEndgamewasnon
realistunless,forexample,theyhadhistoricalevidencethatputtingoldpeopleindustbins
wasnotstandardgeriatricpracticeinthemid20thcentury.

Artisticrealism,then,cannotmeanrepresentstheworldasitis,butratherrepresentsitin
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n20/terryeagleton/porkchopsandpineapples 1/7
01/05/2016 TerryEagletonreviewsMimesisbyErichAuerbachLRB23October2003

accordancewithconventionalreallifemodesofrepresentingit.Butthereareavarietyof
suchmodesinanyculture,andinaccordancewithconcealsamultitudeofproblems.We
cannotcompareanartisticrepresentationwithhowtheworldis,sincehowtheworldisis
itselfamatterofrepresentation.Wecanonlycompareartisticrepresentationswithnon
artisticones,adistinctionwhichcanitselfbealittleshaky.

Besides,representationalismhasitslimits.Ifthesourceofrepresentingistheself,itis
doubtfulwhethertheselfcanbecapturedwithinitsownviewoftheworld,anymorethan
theeyecanbeanobjectinitsownfieldofvision.Inpicturingtheworld,theselfrisksfalling
outsidetheframeofitsownrepresentations.Itisthedynamicpowerbehindthewhole
process,butonewhichitishardtofigurethere.Thehumansubjectbecomestheblindspotat
thecentreofthepicture,theabsentcauseoftheworldscomingtopresence.Forthe
Modernists,thisisaproblemwhichisresolvableonlybyironybyrepresentingandpointing
tothelimitsofyourrepresentationinthesamegesture.

What,inanycase,issopreciousaboutanartwhichportrayslifeasitis?Whydowetake
delightinanimageofaporkchopwhichlooksexactlylikeaporkchop?Nodoubtweadmire
theskillwhichisneededforsuchactsofmimesis,butitishardtofeelthatthisisthewhole
story.NorisiteasytoseewhyZolaandtheNaturaliststhoughtthattellingitlikeitwas,
takingthelidoffthesocialunderworldandexposingitssqualor,wassomehowinherently
subversive.Behindthismaylietheassumptionthatpeopleintheoverworldareas
conservativeastheyareonlybecausetheydontknowaboutthesordidliveswhichothersare
forcedtolead,whichisfartoocharitableaviewofthem.

Isntitbadenoughthateverydayexistenceisboundedbylawsandconventions,withoutart
feelingthatithastofollowsuit?Isntpartofthepointofarttogivethosetiresomerestrictions
theslip,creatingthingssuchastheGorgon,oragrinwithoutacat,whichdonotexistin
nature?Realismismeanttobearipostetomagicandmystery,butitmaywellbeaprime
exampleofthem.Perhapstherootsofouradmirationforresemblance,mirroringand
doublinglieinsomeveryearlyceremonyofcorrespondencebetweenhumanbeingsandtheir
recalcitrantsurroundings.Inthatcase,whatErichAuerbachtakesinhisgreatstudyMimesis
tobethemostmatureformofartmayactuallybethemostregressive.

Todescribesomethingasrealististoacknowledgethatitisnottherealthing.Wecallfalse
teethrealistic,butnottheForeignOffice.Ifarepresentationweretobewhollyatonewith
whatitdepicts,itwouldceasetobearepresentation.Apoetwhomanagedtomakehisorher
wordsbecomethefruittheydescribewouldbeagreengrocer.Norepresentation,onemight
say,withoutseparation.Wordsarecertainlyasrealaspineapples,butthisispreciselythe
reasontheycannotbepineapples.ThemosttheycandoiscreatewhatHenryJamescalled
theairofrealityofpineapples.Inthissense,allrealistartisakindofcontrickafactthat
ismostobviouswhentheartistincludesdetailsthatareredundanttothenarrative(the
precisetintandcurveofamoustache,letussay)simplytosignal:Thisisrealism.Insuch
art,nowaistcoatiscolourless,nowayofwalkingiswithoutitsidiosyncrasy,novisagewithout
itsmemorablefeatures.Realismiscalculatedcontingency.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n20/terryeagleton/porkchopsandpineapples 2/7
01/05/2016 TerryEagletonreviewsMimesisbyErichAuerbachLRB23October2003

Realitychanges,Brechtremarked,andinordertorepresentit,modesofrepresentation
mustalsochange.Inthissense,alotofPostmodernartisasrealistinitsownwayas
StendhalorTolstoy.Itisfaithfultoaworldofsurfaces,randomsensationsandschizoid
humansubjects.Postmodernismtakesoffwhenwecometorealisethatrealityitselfisnowa
kindoffiction,amatterofimage,virtualwealth,fabricatedpersonalities,mediadriven
events,politicalspectacularsandthespindoctorasartist.Insteadofartreflectinglife,life
hasaligneditselfwithart.Inportrayingitself,then,artendsupmimingreality.

Likenatureandculture,realismisatermwhichhoversbetweenfactandvalue,the
descriptiveandthenormative.Itcanbeeitheraneutralcommentoraglowing
commendation.GeorgLukcsbelievedthatitwasbothatonce:forhim,aworkofartwhich
wasrealistinadescriptivesensewasalsoaestheticallysuperior.RealisminthisLukcsianor
Hegeliansensemeansmorethansimplerepresentation,aswellasmorethanactually
effective.Itmeansanartwhichpenetratesthroughtheappearancesofsociallifetograsp
theirinnerdynamicsanddialecticalinterrelations.Itisthustheequivalentintheartistic
realmofphilosophicalrealism,forwhichtrueknowledgeisknowledgeoftheunderlying
mechanismofthings.

Lukcsssenseofrealism,then,iscognitiveandevaluativetogether.Themoreaworkofart
succeedsinlayingbarethehiddenforcesofhistory,thefineritwillbe.Infact,thereisasense
inwhichthiskindofartismorerealthanrealityitself,sincebybringingoutitsinner
structureitrevealswhatismostessentialaboutit.Reality,beingamessy,imperfectsortof
affair,quiteoftenfailstoliveuptoourexpectationsofit,aswhenitallowedRobertMaxwell
toslipquietlyintotheoceanratherthanendingupinthedock.AustenorDickenswould
neverhavetoleratedsuchabotchedfinale.FortheLukcsiancaseaboutrealism,techniqueis
anoptionalextra,likehavingastereoorasunroofinyourcar.Itishisorherpositionin
historywhichallowsawritertoseeintotheheartofthings,nottalentorawaywithwords.
ThisfailstoaccountforthefactthatBalzacisarealist,butnoteveryrealistisBalzac.Italso
failstoaccountforthewriterwhohasanexcellentgraspofhistoricaldynamics,nosenseof
verbalrhythmandavocabularyofonlytwohundredwords.

Lukcsneverdoubtsthatrealisminthisdeepsensegoeshandinhandwithrealismas
representation.Butthereisnoreasontoassumealogicallinkbetweenthetwo,asBrecht,the
FuturistsandtheSurrealistsrecognised.Whycannotmontageorautomaticwritingorthe
alienationeffectachievethesamecognitiveend?Anyway,isartreallyjustsecondhand
cognition?Marxismisphilosophicallyspeakingarealism,butitdoesnotfollowfromthisthat
itsaestheticshavetoberealisttoo,eitherintheLukcsianortherepresentationalsenseofthe
word.ForthevariousModernistandavantgardeMarxistartistsoftheearly20thcentury,
thewholepointwastooverthrowexistingrepresentations,complicitastheywerewiththe
dominantpoliticalpower.Indeed,theywantedtooverthrowtheactofrepresentationitself,
partlybecauseitwasnotclearhowyoucouldrepresentarealitywhichwaschangingand
contradictorywithoutstrikingitdeadintheprocess.Howdoyoutakeasnapshotofa
contradiction?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n20/terryeagleton/porkchopsandpineapples 3/7
01/05/2016 TerryEagletonreviewsMimesisbyErichAuerbachLRB23October2003

TheavantgardeLeftistsalsofoundsomethingsinisterlyconsolinginrepresentational
realism,whichreassuresuswithimagesofaworldwefeelathomewith.BernardShaws
playsmayberadicalintheircontent,buttheirstagedirectionsportrayaworldsosolid,
familiarandwellupholstered,allthewaydowntothelevelofthewhiskyinthedecanteron
thesideboard,thatitishardtoimagineeverbeingabletochangeit.Inthissense,therealist
formusurpstheradicalcontent.Besides,representationalartisfromoneviewpointtheleast
realistofall,sinceitisstrictlyspeakingimpossible.Nobodycantellitlikeitiswithoutediting
andanglingastheygoalong.Otherwisethebookorpaintingwouldsimplymergeintothe
world.NosoonerhadtheEnglishnovelembarkedonitscelebratedriseinthe18thcentury
thanLaurenceSterneremindedhisliterarycolleaguesofthecrazedhubrisoftherealist
project.Determinednottocheatthereaderbyleavinganythingout,TristramShandy
representssomuchmaterialsopainstakinglythatitsnarrativecollapses.Indeed,thenovel
formitselfisanimpossiblecontradiction,sinceitiscommittedatoncetorepresentationand
formaldesign,twoendswhich,inoursocietyatleast,areultimatelyincompatible.You
cannotmarryeveryonehappilyoffinthelasttenpagesandclaimthatthisishowlifeis.

Realism,then,canbeatechnical,formal,epistemologicalorontologicalaffair.Itcanalsobe
ahistoricalterm,describingthemostenduringartisticmodeofthemodernage.Itisthekind
ofartmostcongenialtotheascendantbourgeoisie,withitsrelishforthesensuouslymaterial,
itsimpatiencewiththeformalandceremonial,itsinsatiablecuriosityabouttheselfand
robustfaithinhistoricalprogress.Perhapsitisimpossibleforusnowtorecreatethe
alarmingorexhilaratingeffectofafewpagesofDanielDefoeonan18thcenturyreader
rearedonaliterarydietofepic,pastoralandelegy.Theideathateverydaylifeisdramatically
enthralling,thatitisfascinatingsimplyinitsboundlesshumdrumdetail,isoneofthegreat
revolutionaryconceptionsinhumanhistory,whichCharlesTaylorinSourcesoftheSelf
claimsasChristianininspiration.ThemodernequivalentofMollFlandersinthisrespectis
EastEnders.

AuerbachsMimesis,oneofthegreatworksofliteraryscholarship,waswrittenbetween1942
and1945inIstanbul,whereAuerbach,aBerlinJew,hadtakenrefugefromtheNazis.The
bookwaspublishedin1946,andthisnewedition,withanintroductionbyEdwardSaid,
marksthe50thanniversaryofitsfirstappearanceintheUnitedStates.Auerbachranges
throughsomeofthemightymonumentsofWesternliterature,fromHomer,medieval
romance,DanteandRabelaistoMontaigne,Cervantes,Goethe,Stendhalandagoodmany
authorsbesides,scanningtheirworkforsymptomsofrealism.Hiscriterionforselection,
however,ismorepoliticalthanformalorepistemological.Thequestioniswhetherwecan
findsecretedinthelanguageofaparticulartextthebustling,workadaylifeofthecommon
people.ForAuerbachasforMikhailBakhtin,whowaswritinghisclassicworkonRabelais
andrealismatmuchthesametimethatAuerbachwasholedupalmostbereftofbooksin
Istanbul,realismisinthebroadestsenseamatterofthevernacular.Itistheartisticwordfor
awarmheartedpopulisthumanism.ItisthusanantiFascistpoetics,ratherasforBakhtinit
wasanantiStalinistone.Mimesisisamongotherthingsitsauthorsresponsetothosewho
drovehimintoexile,eveniftheywereunlikelytohaveheardofFarinataandCavalcanteor

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n20/terryeagleton/porkchopsandpineapples 4/7
01/05/2016 TerryEagletonreviewsMimesisbyErichAuerbachLRB23October2003

FrateAlberto.

Forallitsformidableerudition,then,thereisafairlysimpleoppositionatworkinMimesis,
onemoreclassbasedandmilitantthantheuniversalrespectpaidtoAuerbachby
conservativescholarswouldintimate.Realismistheartisticformthattakesthelifeofthe
commonpeoplewithsupremeseriousness,incontrasttoanancientorneoclassicalartwhich
isstatic,hierarchical,dehistoricised,elevated,idealistandsociallyexclusive.InWalter
Benjaminsterms,itisanartwhichdestroystheaura.Thereisanimpliedcontinuityinthis
respectbetweenHomericepicandtheThirdReich,withitsheroicmyths,tragicposturing
andspurioussublimity.IfallthishadbeenarguedbyaTrotskyistEnglishlecturerata
redbrickEnglishuniversity,ratherthanbyoneofthe20thcenturysmosteminentRomance
philologists,itwouldalmostcertainlyhaveprovokedaclutchofdyspepticreviewsinthe
learnedjournals.Ifyoucanmakesuchclaimsinadozenorsodifferentlanguages,however,
asAuerbachdoubtlesscould,andiflikehimyouknowyourFrenchheroicepicfromyour
MiddleHighGermanone,youarelikelytowinamoresympathetichearing.

LikeLukcs,then,Auerbachusesrealismasavalueterm.LikeLukcs,too,heisaHegelian
historicistforwhomtheartthatmattersisoneflushedwiththedynamicforcesofitsage.
NeithercriticcanfindmuchvalueinModernism:MimesisendsbyrappingVirginiaWoolf
sternlyovertheknuckles,whileLukcscanseelittlebutdecadenceinMusilandJoyce.The
upbeathumanismofbothmenisaffrontedbythedownbeatoutlookoftheModernists.Both
aredoctrinallifeaffirmers,highEuropeanhumanistsdismayedbytheflaccidmelancholiaof
thelatebourgeoisworld.UnliketheausterelydisembodiedHungarian,however,Auerbachis
aradicalpopulistwhocelebratesthefleshlyandmundane,amanforwhomauthenticart
hasitsrootsinthedepthsoftheworkadayworldanditsmenandwomen.Ifrealismis
bourgeoisforLukcs,itisplebeianforAuerbach.Inthisrespect,Auerbachisacuriouscross
betweenLukcsandBakhtin,blendingthehistoricismoftheformerwiththeiconoclasmof
thelatter.

AuthorsscorehighmarksinMimesisforbeingvulgar,vigorous,dynamic,grotesque,demotic
andhistorical,andaretickedoffforportrayingcharactersasstylised,idealised,nonevolving,
psychologicallystereotypedandfreeofcontext.Thebookscelebratedopeningchapter,
OdysseusScar,oneofthegreatsetpiecesofliterarycriticism,contrastswhatAuerbachsees
asHomersexternalisedpresentationofthings,whichfixestheminspaceandtimeand
knowsonlyforeground,withtheOldTestamentsmoreconcrete,commonplace,historical,
sociallymixedviewoftheworld.Therecanbenoserioustreatmentofthecommonpeoplein
thecultureofantiquity,whereastheNewTestamentgrantsafishermanlikePeter
psychologicallycomplex,potentiallytragicstatus.Antiquity,unlikemodernrealism,hasno
conceptionofhistoricalforces.

SimilarcontrastscanbefoundintheliteratureoftheMiddleAges.TheFrenchheroicepicis
rigid,narrowandsimplified,whereasmedievalreligiousdramaisredolentoftheeveryday
andthereal.TheacmeofworldrealismarriveswiththeDivineComedy,whoseelevatedstyle
canintegratethevulgar,humdrum,grotesqueandrepulsiveinalanguagewhichAuerbach,

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n20/terryeagleton/porkchopsandpineapples 5/7
01/05/2016 TerryEagletonreviewsMimesisbyErichAuerbachLRB23October2003

aDantescholarofgreatdistinction,regardsasawellnighincomprehensiblemiracle.Dante
transportsanearthlyhistoricityintohisheavenandhell,inanidiomwhichisbothsublime
andsublunary.Shakespeareinterweaveshighandlowwithequaladroitness,thoughmarks
aredeductedfromhisworkforfailingtotakethecommonpeopleseriouslyenough.(English
literatureingeneraltakesabackseatinAuerbachsworkstrangely,giventhedemotic
flavourofmuchofitsmajorrealism.)AsforCervantes,hisgaietyintheportrayalofeveryday
realityhasneverbeenequalled.Goetheswork,bycontrast,failstorepresenttheinner
dynamicsofarevolutionaryage,retreatinginsteadintoanaristocracyofthespirit.

BehindthisrealistminglingofstylesliestheinfluenceofChristianity.ItisintheChristian
gospel,forwhichGodincarnateshimselfinthehumbleanddestitute,thattheaffinity
betweenwhatStBernardcallssublimitasandhumilitasisfirstestablished.Christianity,
withitsparodyofaMessiahandcarnivalesquereversalsofrichandpoor,shattersthe
classicalequipoisebetweenhighandlow.WhatliesbehindrealismisRevelation.Auerbach
mighthavequotedMatthew25here,whichhastheSonofMancomingagaintojudgethe
livingandthedead,depictedinsomeoffthepegOldTestamentimageryofangelsand
cloudsofglory.Buttheeffectiscalculatedlybathetic,sinceitturnsoutthatwhatsavesor
condemnsyouissuchembarrassinglyquotidianmattersaswhetheryoufedthehungryand
visitedthesick.Salvation,fortheJudaeoChristiantradition,isanethicalandpoliticalaffair,
notaculticone.

Mimesisturnsononeofthemostmomentousculturaleventsofhumanhistory:themorally
andartisticallyseriousrepresentationofunvarnishedeverydaylife,asthecommonpeople
entertheliteraryarenalongbeforetheymaketheircollectiveappearanceonthepolitical
stage.RatherasRolandBarthesoncespeculatedthatonecouldwriteahistoryoftextuality,
showinghowtheselfconsciousplayofthesignifierthreadsitswaythroughthehistoryof
writing,soAuerbachchartsthesurfacingandsubmergingofpopularrealismfromHomerto
Woolf.Preciselybecauseofthiscomingandgoing,thereisnounbrokenteleologyatwork
here,butthereiscertainlyapresumptionthatanartwhichsmacksofthecommonpeopleis
ethicallyandaestheticallysuperiortoonewhichdoesnot.

Rigidlyinterpreted,thiswouldelevateATasteofHoneyoverPhdre.Thereisnoreasonto
assumethatanartattunedtothecommonlifewillbepoliticallyradical,anymorethanthe
commonpeoplethemselvesarespontaneouslyradical.WilliamEmpsonrevealedthe
progressivepossibilitiesofaswellbredagenreaspastoral.Neitherisittrue,asromantic
populistslikeAuerbachandBakhtintendtobelieve,thateverydaylifeissomehowmorereal
thancourtsandcountryhouses.Cucumbersandwichesarenolessontologicallysolidthan
pieandbeans.Noristhereanythinginherentlyvaluableaboutdynamismandmutability,as
Auerbachseemstoassume.Capitalismisthemostdynamicsocialsystemhistoryhasever
witnessed,andatouchofstasiswoulddoitnoharmatall.Minglingstylesissometimes
subversiveandsometimesnot.Thereisnomoreenthusiasticminglerthanthemarket.

AuerbachschampioningofrealismoverantiquityalsoinvolvesbackingitagainstModernism.
Thoseforwhomallvalidliterarycharactersarewellrounded,psychologicallycomplex

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n20/terryeagleton/porkchopsandpineapples 6/7
01/05/2016 TerryEagletonreviewsMimesisbyErichAuerbachLRB23October2003

creaturesareunlikelytobeimpressedbythewastedprotagonistsofSamuelBeckett.Indeed,
theprejudiceagainststereotypesandinfavourofsubtle,plausible,fullbloodedcharactersis
oneofthemostentrenchedinourcurrentliteraryorthodoxy,whichisnodoubtonereason
themostfavouredformofliterarynarrativeinBritainisbiography.Itisaremarkablynarrow
viewofliterature,excludinganenormousnumberofintriguingfictionalfigures,from
AeschylusAgamemnon,thewitchesinMacbethandMiltonsGodtoSwiftsGulliverand
DickenssFagin.Someliterarycharactersaremeanttobefreaks,caricatures,emblemsorplot
functions,whateverthedogmatichumanistsmayconsider.

Whereasaliteraryscholartodaymighttake,say,1830to1900ashisorherspecialistperiod,
Auerbachsperiodstretchesforalmostthreethousandyears.AngloSaxonscholars
sometimesliketoconsolethemselvesfortheirpoorshowinginthisrespectbyclaimingthat
highEuropeanhumanistslikeAuerbachdealinoraculargeneralities,whereasthey
themselvesgrapplewiththematerialdetailofatext.Mimesisisadiscomfortingworkfor
suchselfapologists.ForAuerbachsmethod,likethatofhisgreatphilologicalcolleagueLeo
Spitzer,istofastenwithfastidioussensitivityonsomestrayphraseorpassageinorderto
unpackfromitawealthofhistoricalinsight.Itishiscombinationofscholarlyeruditionand
criticalastutenesswhichismostremarkable,notleastinanagewhenthosewhoknowall
aboutbooksarerarelythesharpestanalystsofthem,andviceversa.

Vol.25No.2023October2003TerryEagletonPorkChopsandPineapples
pages1719|3690words

ISSN02609592CopyrightLRBLimited2016 ^Top

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n20/terryeagleton/porkchopsandpineapples 7/7