Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Erich Auerbach: Historical Typology in the era of post-history
https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2023-3-13-35
Abstract
Following the Russian publication of a comprehensive commented collection of Auerbach’s works entitled Historical Topology [Istoricheskaya topologiya] (2022), the article discusses the problems of the German philologist’s legacy both in retrospect and with a look into the future. The choice of the angle comes from the fact that Soviet scholars were cut off from the wealth of the scholarly-humanitarian, historical-cultural, and philosophical traditions and factors that (especially those typical of Germany) largely defined Auerbach’s historical-philological thinking and, by the same token, that a certain inaccessibility of his books and articles has long frustrated contemporary Russian philologists and other scholars in the humanities. Given the renewed interest in Auerbach’s theory and method in the West in the last decades (upon the end of the modern era in the last century), the author concludes that his practical reconsideration of the traditional meaning of historicism and historicity and especially his understanding of what falls under the modern term of interdisciplinarity indicates considerable research and learning potential for humanities scholars.
About the Author
V. L. Makhlin
Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences
of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vitaly L. Makhlin, Candidate of Philology, Doctor of Philosophy
117418
51/21 Nakhimovsky Av.
Moscow
References
1. Averintsev, S. (1972). Philology. In: A. Surkov, ed., A brief literary encyclopae dia (9 vols). Vol. 7. Moscow: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya, pp. 973-979. (In Russ.)
2. Auerbach, E. (1921). Zur Technik der Frührenaissancenovelle in Italien und Frankreich: Dissertation. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung. (In German).
3. Auerbach, E. (1976). Mimesis: The representation of reality in Western literature. Translated by А. Mikhaylov and Y. Arkhipov. Foreword by G. Fridlender. Moscow: Progress. (In Russ.)
4. Auerbach, E. (2004). The philology of world literature. Translated by Y. Ivanova, P. Leshchenko, A. Lyzlov and V. Makhlin. Voprosy Literatury, 5, pp. 123-139. (In Russ.)
5. Auerbach, E. (2007a). Romantik und Reаlismus. In: K. Barck and M. Treml, eds., Erich Auerbach: Geschichte und Aktualität eines europäischen Philologen. Berlin: Kadmos, pp. 427-0438. (In German).
6. Auerbach, E. (2007b). Über die ernste Nachahmung des Alltäglichen. In: K. Barck and M. Treml, eds., Erich Auerbach: Geschichte und Aktualität eines europäischen Philologen. Berlin: Kadmos, pp. 439-465. (In German).
7. Auerbach, E. (2016). Dante: Poet of the secular world. Translated by G. Vdovina. Moscow, St. Petersburg: Tsentr gumanitarnykh initsiativ. (In Russ.)
8. Auerbach, E. (2022). Historical topology. Translated by D. Kolchigin. Ed. by F. Uspensky. Moscow: Dom YASK. (In Russ.)
9. Bakhtin, M. (2000). Freudianism. The formal method in literary criticism. Marxism and the philosophy of language. Articles. Moscow: Labirint. (In Russ.)
10. Bocharov, S. and Kozhinov, V., eds. (2012). The collected works of M. Bakhtin (7 vols). Vol. 3. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kultur. (In Russ.)
11. Bode, E. (1995). Mimesis. In: R. G. Renner and E. Habekost, eds., Lexikon literaturtheoretischer Werke. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner, pp. 238-240. (In German).
12. Fleischman, S. (1996). Medieval vernacular and the myth of monoglossia: A conspiracy of linguistics and philology. In: S. Lerer, ed., Literary history and the challenge of philology: The legacy of Erich Auerbach. Stanford: Stanford U. P., pp. 92-104.
13. Gadamer, H.-G. (1991). The relevance of the beautiful. Translated by А. Mikhaylov, V. Malakhov, V. Bibikhin et al. Moscow: Iskusstvo. (In Russ.)
14. Gadamer, H.-G. (1998). Erinnerungen an Erich Auerbach. In: G. Pickerodt and W. Busch, eds., Wahrnehmen. Lesen. Deuten: Erich Auerbachs Lektüre der Moderne. Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann, pp. 13-14. (In German).
15. Link-Heer, U. (2007). ‘Die sich vollziehende Standardisierung der Erdkultur’ — Auerbachs Prognose. In: K. Barck and M. Treml, eds., Erich Auerbach: Geschichte und Aktualität eines europäischen Philologen. Berlin: Kadmos, pp. 307-322. (In German).
16. Medvedev, P. (1928). The formal method in literary criticism. Leningrad: Priboy. (In Russ.)
17. Mikhaylov, A. (2006). Selected works: Historical poetics and hermeneutics. St. Petersburg: SPGU. (In Russ.)
18. Mikhaylov, A. (2018). Topical issues of modern literary theory. In: A. Mikhaylov, Articles on literary theory. Moscow: Dmitry Sechin, pp. 462-476. (In Russ.)
19. Nichols, S. G. (1996). Philology in Auerbach’s drama of (literary) history. In: S. Lerer, ed., Literary history and the challenge of philology: The legacy of Erich Auerbach. Stanford: Stanford U. P., pp. 63-77.
20. Plotnikov, N. (2000). Life and history. Wilhelm Dilthey’s philosophic programme. Moscow: Dom intellektualnoy knigi. (In Russ.)
21. Porter, J. I., ed. (2014). Time, history, and literature. Selected essays of Erich Auerbach. Translated by J. O. Newman. Princeton: Princeton U. P. Pumpyansky, L. (2000). On the history of Russian Classicism. In: L. Pumpyansky, The classical tradition. Collected works on the history of Russian literature. Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kultury, pp. 30-157. (In Russ.)
22. Sazonov, N. and Hennig, A., eds. (2021). Synthesis of modernity: Ruins of GAKhN and postdisciplinarity. Moscow: Izd. Instituta Gaydara. (In Russ.)
23. Shaytanov, I. (2011). A story with missing chapters: Bakhtin and Pinsky in the context of Soviet literary studies. Voprosy Literatury, 3, pp. 233-274. (In Russ.)
24. Stierle, K. (1979). Altertumswissenschaftliche Hermeneutik und die Entstehung der Neuphilologie. In: A. Horstmann, H. Flashar and K. Gründer, eds., Philologie und Hermeneutik im 19. Jahrhundert. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, pp. 260-288. (In German).
25. Vinogradov, V. (1963). Stylistics, theory of poetic speech, poetics. Moscow: AN SSSR. (In Russ.)
26. Weizbort, L. (2007). Erich Auerbach im Kontext der Historismusdebatte. In: K. Barck and M. Treml, eds., Erich Auerbach: Geschichte und Aktualität eines europäischen Philologen. Berlin: Kadmos, pp. 281-296. (In German).
27. Wellek, R. and Warren, A. (1978). Theory of literature. Translated by А. Zverev, V. Kharitonov and I. Ilyin. Moscow: Progress. (In Russ.)
28. Zamyatin, E. (1999). On the present and the modern. In: E. Zamyatin, I’m afraid: Literary criticism. Journalism. Reminiscences. Moscow: Nasledie, pp. 101-112. (In Russ.)
29. Zhirmunsky, V., ed. (1928). Problems of the literary form: Collected papers by O. Walzel, W. Dibelius, K. Fossler, L. Spitzer. Translated by V. Zhirmunsky. Leningrad: Academia. (In Russ.)
30. Zhirmunsky, V. (1981). The latest trends of historical and literary thought in Germany. In: V. Zhirmunsky, From the history of Western European literatures. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 106-124. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Makhlin V.L. Erich Auerbach: Historical Typology in the era of post-history. Voprosy literatury. 2023;(3):13-35. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2023-3-13-35
Views:
262
Email this article 
